Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: lucasea on 5 Oct 2006 10:42 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eg2od9$8qk_004(a)s829.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <VAVUg.13310$7I1.3298(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>news:452415BE.DB0DBC1E(a)hotmail.com... >>> >>> >>> 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. > > I think you should start to listen to Bush instead of listening > to other people supposedly repeating what Bush said. I would > suggest you start with his January, 2006 TV speech. I do and I did. >> People start to lose perspective on what >>is happening and why. It really is a very powerful narcotic. > > People can also lose perspective if they assume that Bush > is always wrong and is the cause of all ills which is the > only thing you hear from his political opposition. I don't. I evaluate critically. > This causes a lot of people to overlook the fact that these > same politicians do not intend to deal with the threat > to the nation. Why do you assume that they "do not intend to deal with the threat"? You don't think that perhaps they have a *better* way to deal with it than is being used now? (Yeah, yeah, I know, we've gone full circle on the whole thread.) Eric Lucas
From: Kurt Ullman on 5 Oct 2006 10:52 In article <eg32hc$5l0$6(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: > In article > <kurtullman-8700B9.17512004102006(a)customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx>, > Kurt Ullman <kurtullman(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >In article <HLVUg.13315$7I1.5654(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, > > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > > > >> I don't care. If you're listening to a phone call to which the phone in > >> my > >> living room is party, then as a citizen of the US, I demand that your > >> listening be carried out according to my Constitutional rights. > > > > Probably is. Under a warrant for a phone anything that goes on over > >that phone is legally admissable, even if the other person's phone > >doesn't have a warrant on it. > > Bush didn't get warrants! Read the next para which is a nice, coherent and well thought out suggestion as to why one may not be needed. > > >It well settled that as long as one phone > >is legally tapped, any phone that calls it or is called by it is fair > >game. Since there are no restrictions on tapping a phone outside of the > >country, it would be legal tap. Thus anyone the phone calls or anyone > >who calls the phone could be listened to as noted. Would be a rather > >interesting case to make.
From: lucasea on 5 Oct 2006 11:05 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eg2paa$8qk_011(a)s829.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <PsRUg.57$45.150(a)news.uchicago.edu>, > mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >>In article <4523844C.CA22EFDF(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> writes: >>> >>> >>>mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >>> >>>> In article <4522F8DE.C46161BD(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore writes: >>>> >mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >>>> > >>>> >> You didn't read carefully. It is not "10% changing". It is that >>>> >> historical data indicates dramatic changes when about 10% of the >>>> >> population is *dead*. Does this make it clear? >>>> > >>>> >So, we only need to kill 100 million Muslims or so ? >>>> > >>>> I didn't say, at the moment, what we need (or need not) to do. I >>>> pointed what empirical data for past conflicts shows. Go argue with >>>> history if you don't like it. >>> >>>But you still mainatain we'd need to kill that many to have an effect ? >>> >>>Graham >>> >>Not that "we'd need" but that, as a worst case scenario, we may need. > > The oddity of this, which I cannot find in past history, is that > the extremists are already doing this to themselves. Oh, the innumeracy. At the rate that they're doing that, it will take at least an order of magnitude longer than all of recorded human history to reach the stated endpoint. In the meantime, how about if we stop giving them reasons to do so? Eric Lucas
From: Jim Thompson on 5 Oct 2006 11:12 On 05 Oct 2006 10:25:35 GMT, "Daniel Mandic" <daniel_mandic(a)aon.at> wrote: >John Larkin wrote: > >> Sounds strange to me. The people I know have traveled a lot, and many >> have lived in other countries. Americans are often fans and admirers >> of other countries and languages. As for not being very introspective, >> that is true of many Americans, and it's generally a virtue: jobs, >> hobbies, interests, causes, and family are a lot more interesting than >> narcissistic, neurotic self-absorption. Maybe you are mistaking >> politeness and open-mindedness for being gullible: they are different. >> >> Of course America is big, with beaches, glaciers, mountains, rivers, >> an enormous variety of geography and cultures. Not all Americans elect >> to fly overseas when we have 50 different states of our own to >> explore. Your thinking seems to be undisturbed by actual knowledge of >> the US. >> >> John > > > >We will see how it will look alike in some thousand years. > >You managed to stop many natural beings there in a few hundred years. >Not to mention the other catastrophes you managed to ge into. >You could not overlive the next Winter (f. Wind in his Hair), you >cannot even overlive the growy Summer (f. Daniel Redheart). Also in >Spain, there they already investi more energy for cooling than heating. >(I feel com-fart-ably at 30-40 degrees celsius ~100 fahrenheit, but not >in a betonized town, of course I can understand. You should green up >your towns a bit and not call them lapidar 'Big Apple' for example, like >it has been grown on a big healthy apple-tree -farce!) > > >Best regards, > >Daniel Mandic Sounds like you've never actually seen the US. Bye. ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | | | E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat | | http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
From: John Fields on 5 Oct 2006 11:18
On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 20:45:35 +0100, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message >news:9ag7i21j1pom75krl0ip9d40ta9tnoc9j8(a)4ax.com... >> On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 18:06:56 +0100, "T Wake" >> <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >>> >>>"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message >>>news:v673i2dusng3t5a82qt9hm7n8ve5p4t7ua(a)4ax.com... >> >>>> --- >>>> "It" being radical Islam, >>> >>>Radical Islam can't be described as having a "single unified goal." >> >> --- >> I disagree. I think the single, unified goal would be the >> acquisition of unlimited power. > >Really? "Radical Islam" covers a variety of branches of Islam - which are >often at war with each other - yet you also think they have a unified goal. >Interesting take. --- I don't believe that their being at war with each other periodically negates their collective desire to see the downfall of the west. --- >Which group would get the unlimited power and why would the others (Shi'a vs >Sunni for example) allow them to have it? --- In the end, as in any war, to the victor goes the spoils. --- >How can a groups of organisations which have no single unified command or >structure have a single unified goal? --- They all have the Koran, and the Koran advocates the vanquishing of infidels. That's the single common goal. The rest of it is petty in-squabbling for local acquisition of power. --- >>>Some radical Islamic groups which operate as Terrorist organisations in >>>Asia have >>>no interest in Global conversion. >> >> --- >> But they still want power. > >Which nation, religious group, company (etc) doesnt? --- They all do, and rightly so. The problem that arises, though, is when any entity seeks power beyond its needs. Consider the human body; when in balance, a system where everything in it is functioning for its own benefit as well as for the benefit of the rest of the "team". But if any part of it starts getting ideas about 'taking over', and puts those ideas into effect, then the whole thing gets out of whack and we get sick. At that point, it becomes the body's job to straighten out the offender and get everything back on track. If it can't, it'll die. --- >>>> the goal, in my opinion, would be to >>>> convert everyone to Islam and have them be subject to control by >>>> Muslim jurists, the goal being total world domination by Islam. >>>> >>>> Refusal to convert would result in death. >>> >>>Ok. This is just your opinion though. >> >> --- >> Well, no. The fate of infidels who fail to convert to Islam (not >> just radical Islam either) is spelled out in the Koran and is >> relegation to social insignificance, at best, for 'People of the >> Book', and death for the rest of humanity. > >Yet, as mentioned elsewhere, it is not as clear cut as this. Islamic nations >tolerate Hindus for example. --- Yes. It seems that nothing is ever really black and white. (Except, perhaps, the statement that it seems that nothing is ever really black and white. ;) ) --- >Christianity does not tolerate unbelievers either. Papal bulls in the tenth >century declared all non-Christians as subject to death on the whims of >their Christian lords. --- I think, "Christianity used to not tolerate unbelievers either" might be more accurate. --- >Just as with Christianity, there are differences in how people interpret >their "rulebook." --- Mostly true, I think, except for one branch of Cristianity, Roman Catholicism, where the buck stops at the pope's desk. --- >>>An equally valid opinion would be to >>>say the US has global world domination as it's goal. >>>It is after all only an opinion. >> >> --- >> I think the US's actions speak otherwise in that, clearly, we have >> no aspirations to Empire. Had we chosen to we could have kept >> Germany and Japan after we beat them, but we didn't. > >I think otherwise. The US has no aspirations to an empire in the form of the >Nineteenth century European ones, I agree. However the US wants to have as >many nations as possible under its sphere of influence. That is an Empire. --- What we want is an economically competitive planet with all nations at peace and capable of determining their own futures. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be everyone's goal. Fortunately, we're the cops. -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer |