Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 13 Jan 2007 09:17 In article <206f4$45a79dcf$4fe7610$13166(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >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? Will you please note that they are saying that the United Nations (or whatever an organization of all countries is called) should do this. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 13 Jan 2007 09:23 In article <8015c$45a7f962$4fe75ac$15426(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >David Brown wrote: >> On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 08:26:08 +0000, Eeyore wrote: >> >> >>>MassiveProng wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: >>>> >>>>>MassiveProng wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> There is. It's called the Worldwide Struggle Against Terrorism, >>>>>>> >>>>>>>It isn't worldwide. It's certainly no longer called a 'war on terror' in the UK >>>>>>>for one thing. >>>>>> >>>>>> Tell that to the Somalians. Those in power there now are certainly >>>>>>on the "war against terror" bandwagon, and obviously countless other >>>>>>countries you are unaware of. You are unaware of so much... >>>>> >>>>>Have you forgotten already that there are always at least 2 sides in every dispute ? >>>>>One man's 'terrorist' is another's 'freedom fighter'. >>>> >>>> Are you trying to say that the invading Islamic factions that over >>>>ran Somalia deserved to be there as they were "fighting" for "their >>>>freedom"???? >>>> >>>> They were not fighting. They were raping and pillagin', son. >>> >>>I'm not familiar with the current situation there really. It's been a disaster area for >>>so long you just end up mentally 'giving up' over the place. I was making a more general >>>point. >>> >> >> >> Just to update you on Somalia - most of Somalia's population are at least >> nominally Muslim. Some of them got together and formed a series of >> Islamic courts across the country, which brought a certain amount of >> stability and justice to the anarchy in the country. They are aiming to >> turn the country into an Islamic republic - they see a strong religious >> force as the only way to get the country together again. > >"The capital's residents are still digesting how the Islamists, >who rose to power on a wave of public backing, succumbed so >meekly. The importance of clan loyalty over religion in Somalia >is one theory. Abdulkadir Khalif, a Mogadishu resident, had >another. "The Islamists created their own downfall," he said. >'Imagine closing down movie houses, restricting ladies' beauty >salons, ordering radios to refrain from musical programmes and >above all telling chewers of qat [a popular narcotic leaf] to >remain sober for days on end.'" > >http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1981021,00.html > >"I don't care what you do to the women, but don't mess with >my narcotics!" And they did something even more stupid and banned broadcasting those soccer matches. /BAH
From: unsettled on 13 Jan 2007 09:34 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > In article <8af1c$45a7b0e1$4fe7610$13591(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: snip >>How do you declare war on Hesbalah or al qaeda? If you >>win, who signs the surrender documents? > > > This won't have a signature ceremony. You are stuck in > this European mindset about what is a war. It is obvious you haven't followed this discussion let alone understood it. I would think if you're going to comment you should have done that. snip
From: jmfbahciv on 13 Jan 2007 09:30 In article <uKudnf7uj82CfTXYnZ2dnUVZ8qKvnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:eoal14$8ss_002(a)s914.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <eo87us$nji$3(a)blue.rahul.net>, >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>In article <eo85rh$8qk_007(a)s788.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>[...] >>>>Sheesh. The invention of ink didn't change the words used. >>> >>>Actually it did. The printing press did it even more so. How words were >>>spelled, the ones used and to some degree how they were pronounced were >>>all changed by the fact that the written word can be transported over long >>>distances. >> >> I said "the words used". > >Which, I would have though, was covered with the "spelled" phrase? No. Varients of spelling exist for each and every word over the centuries. I'm talking about the words used. For example, the meaning of the word apple didn't change just because printing was invented. If you told the kids to collect the apples, they didn't go out and collect skunks. And since Ken did his usual obfuscating of what was being talked about, the thread drift is a dead end. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 13 Jan 2007 09:32
In article <45A8DFAB.E15DE83E(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> >>>> 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. >> > >> >With broadband there is no "sound" to listen to. This is like trying to tune >> >in a digital television with analog methods. >> >> No one can hook up a speaker and listen? > >No indeed you can't. > >ADSL works on *radio* frequencies. You can monitor connection progress on your >router's status page of course. So the comm traffic on DSL can be monitored; data can be gathered. You can turn that into sound instead of numbers in pretty columns. /BAH |