Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Frithiof Andreas Jensen on 5 Oct 2006 08:40 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eg2paa$8qk_011(a)s829.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > The oddity of this, which I cannot find in past history, is that > the extremists are already doing this to themselves. > > /BAH Marvel in the quality of life brought by the "honour" mentality - the most toxic value system in the world! We see the evil combine of people reacting on the emotional level of a three-year-old running a full narcissistic fit when denied candy in the supermarket and real weaponry. PS: Never been drinking in small-town bars? On saturday the locals will go for a fight with any outsider; however; when no outsider is available they will fight amongst themselves. Difference is that those boys have the foresight not to bring real weapons to the saturday night fistfight and be drunk enough to miss most of the blows.
From: Ken Smith on 5 Oct 2006 09:18 In article <kurtullman-DF361C.08005005102006(a)customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx>, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >In article <yB%Ug.9910$e66.1023(a)newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>, > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> "Kurt Ullman" <kurtullman(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >> news:kurtullman-9EC767.19185804102006(a)customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx.. >> . >> > In article <lef8i2prust90bdlna6vmp1r0h9p7a7a95(a)4ax.com>, >> > Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >> > >> > >> >> Of course. But I can record and then hand over to the government, no >> >> sweat, no warrant, nada. >> >> >> > Plenty of sweat. Any half-way sentient defense attorney is going >> > to try and suggest you were acting as an agent of the cops in a rather >> > blatant attempt to circumvent the rights of my poor, misunderstood >> > client who killed those 25 people because he overdosed on twinkies. >> > Might actually make the case. Seen it happen often enough. >> >> What, overdosing on Twinkies? *That* can't be pretty. >> > There have been a coupla attorneys who tried that defense. Something >about a sugar jag leading to them killing or at seriously injuring >someone. Can't remember right off if it worked or not. Our defense >attorneys are nothin' if not creative. It is claimed that Dan White used the "twinkie defence" when he killed Harvy White and George Moscone by saying that they reduced his ability to tell right from wrong. This is how the term first came into being. The truth is that his lawyers used the eating of twinkies as evidence of insanity. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: lucasea on 5 Oct 2006 09:30 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4524C858.DC579E9F(a)hotmail.com... > > > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >> >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote >> >> > Keith wrote: >> >> >> rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... >> >> >> >> >> >> > And you think you can defeat 'radical Islam' with bombs and >> >> >> > bullets ? >> >> >> >> >> >> I know there is no choice. Perhaps you want to submit? >> >> > >> >> > There is no need to 'submit' >> >> > >> >> > You're living in a perversely stupid fantasy paranoid world. >> >> >> >> It comes from the constant bombardment by Bush's fear-mongering--it's >> >> his >> >> way of keeping power over people. People start to lose perspective on >> >> what is happening and why. It really is a very powerful narcotic. >> > >> > Have you seen this ? >> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/3755686.stm >> >> No, I hadn't. Interesting thesis. I do hope PBS or BBCAmerica picks up >> the >> program, I'd like to see it. > > It's available online. > > And would you believe I didn't bookmark it ! Sorry. Now that I know to look, I'm sure I can find it. I'm not a huge fan of streaming video like this, but if it's the only way I'll see it, I will. Thanks! Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 5 Oct 2006 09:31 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4524C92C.E9CFCE60(a)hotmail.com... > > > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> > Gordon wrote: >> >> On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 18:46:00 GMT, "Homer J Simpson" wrote: >> >> >"Ken Smith" <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote in message >> >> > >> >> >>>Clinton was successful. >> >> >>> >> >> >>>Bush is a failure. >> >> >> >> >> >> Unless you assume some really bad things about his motives that is. >> >> > >> >> >9/11 was Bush's failure. >> >> >> >> How long had Bush been in office when 9/11 occurred? Who was in >> >> office the 8 years before that? >> >> Well, if you're going to play that ridiculous game...what party was in >> office for 12 years before that, and 20 of the past 24? Surely *they* >> deserve a lot of the blame too, with such an extended stay in power.... >> >> The Republicans need to stop trying to blame everybody else. Condoleeza >> Rice said she was unable to recall having had a meeting with the longtime >> anti-terrorism "czar" (I can picture his face, but his name escapes me at >> the moment) in July 2001, when that meeting has actually been *verified* >> to >> have taken place, and has been *verified* to have included his plan for >> continued action to protect us from al Qaeda. She was so completely >> uninterested in terrorism, that she couldn't even remember having been >> briefed on the issue. Clinton may not have succeeded in taking out bin >> Laden, but it's quite clear that the current administration took their >> eye >> off the ball in a way that has proven to have been far more dangerous. >> To >> attempt to lay that entirely in the laps of the Clinton administration is >> just simply not tenable. >> >> Eric Lucas > > That's Gordon you should be addressing there not me btw. Yep, I was, sorry not to make that clear. The original post slipped by, and I wanted to address the issue. Note the jump from 3 to 1 >'s before my post. Eric Lucas
From: Ken Smith on 5 Oct 2006 09:48
In article <f%jUg.19041$Ij.8532(a)newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >"Ken Smith" <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote in message >news:efship$e0d$1(a)blue.rahul.net... >> In article <DkfUg.31$45.83(a)news.uchicago.edu>, >> <mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote: >>>In article <efr907$sb7$5(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken >>>Smith) writes: >>>>In article <XxYTg.5$45.149(a)news.uchicago.edu>, >>>> <mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote: >> [...] >>>>>Islamic terrorists aim at destruction of the western society and >>>>>you're not going to deter them because there is no deterring people >>>>>who already decided that they don't care whether they live or die. >>>> >>>>Actually that is not true. Deterring people is about placing a treat >>>>against what they value. You may be able to deter many of them with the >>>>threat that if there is another attack, we will nuke Meca. >>>> >>>This, in fact, may work. We didn't get to this stage yet, but we may. >>>But this level of deterrence is in the province of war, not police >>>action. >> >> I picked a very extreme example on purpose. > >What makes you think nuking Mecca would have anything but a very, very >negative effect on us? Note that I said "theat". I was suggesting that the threat would work so I don't need to respond to this. > Simply threatening to nuke Mecca would not work, the >Arab world is used to the usual propagandistic bluster from their own >leaders, and it would be easy to ignore as a bluff. So, basically you are saying that a lack of credibility of the treat is the problem. If the threat was believed it would be effective. To continue my extreme example, you may have to nuke something else first to make sure they take you at your word. >But you haven't yet made that point. I think the point is that there really >*isn't* anything we could do that would deter them. I strongly disagree. The second example of life in prison, I believe, would work on many of them. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge |