Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 16 Jan 2007 23:15 MassiveProng wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > > >> Why do you think there was a conflict in Southeast Asia after > >> France left? > > > >You mean *before* France left actually. > > Give me the year the Vietnam "conflict" started. I'll bet that you > are wrong. 1946. The First Indochina War (also called the French Indochina War, the French War or the Franco-Vietnamese War) was fought in Indochina between 1946 and 1954 between the imperial forces of the French Republic and the H? Ch� Minh-led Vi?t Minh http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Indochina_War Graham
From: Eeyore on 16 Jan 2007 23:21 unsettled wrote: > Ken Smith wrote: > > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > > > >>Bush isn't very bright. > > > > > > Either that or his motives are extremely foul. > > I don't think he's clever enough for that. The cabal behind him is though. http://www.newamericancentury.org/ Graham
From: MassiveProng on 16 Jan 2007 23:34 On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 04:15:55 +0000, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: > > >MassiveProng wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> > >> >> Why do you think there was a conflict in Southeast Asia after >> >> France left? >> > >> >You mean *before* France left actually. >> >> Give me the year the Vietnam "conflict" started. I'll bet that you >> are wrong. > >1946. > >The First Indochina War (also called the French Indochina War, the French War or >the Franco-Vietnamese War) was fought in Indochina between 1946 and 1954 between >the imperial forces of the French Republic and the H? Ch? Minh-led Vi?t Minh > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Indochina_War > I didn't say "look it up and reiterate what you read", you dumbfuck. I said that YOU didn't know it, and I still contend that you didn't know it until you looked it up. At least you were able to cut and paste it correctly. Good job, ditz boy.
From: jmfbahciv on 17 Jan 2007 07:25 In article <eohe7e$rri$4(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <eofvhp$8qk_001(a)s960.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>In article <eodp0j$gus$3(a)blue.rahul.net>, >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >[....] >>If you can recall the event last month, a _Russian_ seemed to >>forget what his compatriots could and would do to people who >>make messes. If a Russian can forget how it was 20 years ago, >>why should I assume that people have not forgotten what happened >>60 years ago? > >I note your phrase "seemed to forget". Brave people will often carry on >with the course of action they have chosen in the face of fear. Do you >think that Washington forgot that the Brits would hang him? That guy, according to news reports, was making unwanted messes. > > >>> Today they can still kill >>>a lot of people but they no longer have the mindset that made them the >>>major threat. >> >>And look how long it took to appear that the Russian mindset >>has changed. We are now waiting for the progengy of both fUSSR >>and the Nazis to achieve a change in mindset. The difference is >>that there isn't any goal of maintaining the infrastructure; in >>fact, the goal is the opposite--to destroy the infrastructure. > >You say that often and yet I see very little evidence of it. Many houses >in the middle east have satelite dishes. And it will take time for those regular people to figure out that a side effect of "Islam winning" will cause them to lose technology produced by Western civilization. >[....] >>>The major risk in that area is that the world has taken the lesson that >>>you need them to be safe. It isn't a failing memory of how destructive >>>they are that will lead people to make new ones. It is the knowledge that >>>they are very destructive along with the idea that such ability is needed >>>that poses the greatest risk. It will cause lots of governments to try to >>>make them. In the past, they were considered mostly useless. >> >>Who considered atomic bombs useless? I know of nobody who did. > >Note I said "mostly useless". If you don't know people who thought the >nukes were mostly useless, you need to get out more. Consider why the US >didn't use them in Korea or Vietnam. In both cases, the risk of using >them was considered too great. I wouldn't call that consideration [risk too great] as thinking of the weapons as useless. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 17 Jan 2007 07:29
In article <a4e41$45ace5b0$49ecf70$27139(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> In article <7472a$45aba4b1$49ecfc6$17552(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >> >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>> >>>>In article <d8a21$45ab8ca9$4fe773b$16654(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>>> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>In article <45AB78A2.85C71A50(a)hotmail.com>, >>>>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>So what do you expect from this 20K more troops? It isn't enough extra >>>> >>>>to >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>make a difference so it must be symbolic or political. Please explain >>>> >>>>how >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>they make anything better. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I don't know if 20K more will do the job. I do know that the key >>>>>>>>is to get the Iraqi middle class back and working. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Working where ? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>C'mon, eeyore. It does not become you to pretend to be that >>>>>>stupid. >>>>> >>>>>He's not pretending. >>>> >>>> >>>>In this case, eeyore was trying be cute. >>> >>>Maternal instincts kicking in? LOL >> >> >> Every once in a while you get pathetic. > >So I've come up in the world of BAH then? No, I was disappointed. > >Thanks. > > > I'm learning from >> eeyore and what he says and what his unconscious assumptions >> are. > >Nice if you're studying stupidity. You had better study the kind of not-thinking because my latest estimate is that 95% of humans are unable to stop this particular kind of not-thinking. However, I'm now looking at that percentage and trying to figure out if this is true with all humans or a particular aspect of Western Civilization thinking. But I'm not sure how to find, and then look, at other kinds of thinking in a non-Western context that occured in the past. If you don't know what I meant, I can't do a rewrite; that's my best for this one ;-). /BAH |