Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 12 Jan 2007 09:10 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eo834m$8qk_002(a)s788.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <eo5kh2$gtn$3(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>In article <eo5c66$8qk_002(a)s814.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>[....] >>>They are not oblivious; these people are still thinking in >>>the old ways. >> >>No, they are simply unwilling to allow the wrong word to be applied to the >>situation. If you control the language, you control the debate. By >>calling something "a war", you are claiming certain things are true about >>it. If the thing being called "a war" doesn't really have those >>characteristics, using the term can lead to confusion. > > Then me a word to use that describes the fight to the death > between two civilizations. Why do you need a word which describes it any better than saying a "fight to the death between two civilizations?" (Which, incidentally is not what a "war" is). > I call this war. It is European-style > thinking that has limited the description between two countries. Nonsense. Did a legitimate, legally empowered authority in your government declare war? Is your government able to declare war on behalf of a civilisation? > Islam didn't have the notion of nationalism until recently and > they still don't quite use this heirarchy for classification of > people groups. Incorrect. > Until you understand this, I guess you will > continue to ignore that this war[or whatever] exists. It is > not a simple conflict. I agree, the conflict is far from simple. It is not a war either, therefore invoking "war powers" is dishonest.
From: jmfbahciv on 12 Jan 2007 09:26 In article <fJmdnb3Ot8NuEDrYnZ2dnUVZ8t-nnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:eo7uvq$8ss_001(a)s788.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <45A6D193.A694451(a)hotmail.com>, >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>>> You need to turn on your modem's sound. You'll hear all kinds of >>>> mating sounds. You can also tell if the ISP you're calling has >>>> a headache and will cause comm eruptions. >>> >>>I used to do that. >>> >>>With broadband it's not necessary. >> >> <shrug> I was in the biz; we used sound pattern differences for cues >> to prevent messes. > >Time and technology have developed significantly in the last few decades. > > But mess detection methods haven't changed much. Changes in sound patterns means changes in behaviour. If one then experiences problems, you can watch for the same sound patterns and see if they correlate to the same bug. Sheesh. The invention of ink didn't change the words used. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 12 Jan 2007 09:33 In article <45A78F67.DDC1560(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >MassiveProng wrote: >> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: >> >> > >> >> >You mean Iran ? Simply not proven. >> >> >> >> You see... there you go... and you had almost made it completely >> >> out of the retard barrel. >> >> >> >> I guess it's in your genes. You'll wash up on shore... Whale on the >> >> beach. >> > >> >You have some *PROOF* ? I do mean proof not conjecture. With regard to >> >conjecture I'd agree it's very likely they don't have an interest but they're >> >*way* off being able to do anything. >> >> So you are willing to wait until Iran bombs somebody before >> you will believe that 1. they have the bombs > >They don't have nukes. How do you know this? > > >> and 2. they will use them. > >They'd be mad to use them offensively. In your opinion, they will be mad. In their opinion, they will be good obedient Muslims. This is what the conflict is about. > > >> I suggest you write them a letter and volunteer >> to be their first target. I personally prefer mess prevention >> rather than cleaning it up. > >You could start with Israel and Pakistan in that case. Since you're supplying >nuclear material to India I don't suppose you fancy cleaning up that one ? When did I supply nuclear material to India? Be specific w.r.t. dates. /BAH
From: unsettled on 12 Jan 2007 09:40 T Wake wrote: > "MassiveProng" <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in > message news:13feq2h52uo2d5dp3rfur44s64skc9c4no(a)4ax.com... > >>On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 06:08:19 +0000, Eeyore >><rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: >> >> >>> >>>MassiveProng wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: >>>> >>>>>Armies are no good for this. >>>> >>>> You're an idiot. We are there to train them, and clean up the arms >>>>stockpiles. We'll be coming home soon enough. >>> >>>Armies are for fighting wars. Armies are not policemen. >> >> >> Peanut gallery mutterings don't get anything done about the problem >>either. Don't try to mutter that there isn't one either. There's a >>big problem. It is not like cleaning up a town with a biker problem. >> >> Those boys got big toys, and we have to counter that, and you need >>to get that past that 4 inches of bone, donkey skull. > > > Nothing you have said, ad hominems or otherwise, disagrees with anything > Eeyore said. Armies are for fighting wars. Police are very different. The > hard ware the enemy has is not relevant no matter how you try to include it. So what you and the dumb donkey are saying is that we now need to revitalize a police model based on the Gestapo?
From: jmfbahciv on 12 Jan 2007 09:34
In article <45A79048.A2D09EC3(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >Phil Carmody wrote: >> >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: >> >> > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> > >How about food in restaurants ? I've just disovered it may be in some >> >> > 'Indian' food for example but there's no way of knowing. >> >> > >> >> > You ask. There was a lady who went to eat a restaurant and >> >> > ordered pesto sauce because the waitress said there wasn't any >> >> > nuts. Pesto sauce is pesto sauce because of the nuts. >> >> >> >> Typical BAH bullshit. Pesto does not need to contain nuts. >> >> As long as you're crusing herbs, it's pesto (simply meaning >> >> 'crushed' nothing more). The best parts of the best pestos >> >> are the cheeses. >> > >> >Green pesto contains *pine* nuts. >> >> Yes. Thank you. Those are the nuts she was allergic to but >> she ordered the dish anyway and ate it. This one is still on my >> mysteries of life list. > >Did she come to any harm ? IIRC, she died. The restaurant was sued. /BAH |