Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 13 Jan 2007 12:44 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eoapml$8qk_002(a)s914.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > 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. Who is the "they" saying this?
From: Ken Smith on 13 Jan 2007 12:50 In article <45A8F404.F87D50D(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: [....] >I've heard it suggested that it was done for commercial reasons. The >Indians were >working on using thorium in reactors and the USA didn't like the idea they might >be energy independent in that sector. If they made a good one and patented it, they would just about have a lock on the industry. Thorium reactors have some attractive features. > >Graham > -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: T Wake on 13 Jan 2007 13:00 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eoanun$8qk_001(a)s914.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > > I've only been talking about one problem in this thread. I think > it's very stupid for people reading this thread to believe that I > trust Bush about everything just because I see him as the only > one in Washington who is dealing with this national security problem. > Every now and then it helps to re-assess opinions and ideas such as this. If you honestly think that Bush is the _only_ person in Washington dealing with the national security problem you have to wonder why no one else seems to be concerned about this and maybe, just maybe, it could be a misconception you have formed. Sometimes, when the majority of people disagree with you they are actually correct.
From: T Wake on 13 Jan 2007 13:02 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eoaohh$8qk_001(a)s914.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <8af1c$45a7b0e1$4fe7610$13591(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>T Wake wrote: >> <snips> >>> Did a legitimate, legally empowered authority in your government declare >>> war? Is your government able to declare war on behalf of a civilisation? >> >>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. You are misreading the posts. If you had spent a moment or two reading them or even trying to understand you would see what you are saying to "unsettled" here makes no sense. The rest of your post is nonsense.
From: MassiveProng on 13 Jan 2007 13:05
On 13 Jan 2007 19:38:54 +0200, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> Gave us: >MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> writes: >> On 12 Jan 2007 12:23:36 +0200, Phil Carmody >> <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> Gave us: >> >> >Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> writes: >> >> 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. >> > >> >Typically yes. My favourite rosso contains cashews. This proves >> >nothing. My second favourite doesn't contain any nuts, yet it's >> >still pesto rosso. >> >> Phil, The Guru of Great Fatness (and how to get there) has spoken. > >Everyone who knows me knows I enjoy my good, I don't ever try >to deny that. Some consider my weight to be a possible health >issue. However, I do not; so I don't mind hanging off the side >of the BMI bell curve. > >Live and let live; eat and let eat. > I was just toying around with yer nym. My line would make a great book title though! ;-] Don't forget my commission! |