Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Ken Smith on 17 Jan 2007 09:35 In article <v6ednWqIeOKnuDPYRVnyiAA(a)pipex.net>, T Wake <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: [....] >Are you saying the US should be >"allowed" to do whatever it takes to "win" no matter what war crimes are >committed? The frightening thing is that I have heard such suggestions from people. I sometimes makes me wonder if, in their view, there really is anything worth saving beyond their own skin. The same people are usually also willing to abandon their rights. Perhaps they fear that if the Islamist extremists win, they won't be able to buy that nice shiny SUV theyive had their eye on. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: T Wake on 17 Jan 2007 09:35 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45AE2ACA.EFBAAD26(a)hotmail.com... > > > MassiveProng wrote: > >> 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 gave you a reference you fathead ! > > >> I said that YOU didn't know it, and I still contend that you didn't >> know it until you looked it up. > > The fact is that there was conflict with the original colonial power, the > French > before the USA ever got involved. And I've known that for decades btw. I should hope so, as that is how it is taught in the UK :-) We do not fixate on the American involvement being the pre-cursor to a war starting!
From: T Wake on 17 Jan 2007 09:37 "Ken Smith" <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote in message news:eolc79$r1j$2(a)blue.rahul.net... > In article <v6ednWqIeOKnuDPYRVnyiAA(a)pipex.net>, > T Wake <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > [....] >>Are you saying the US should be >>"allowed" to do whatever it takes to "win" no matter what war crimes are >>committed? > > The frightening thing is that I have heard such suggestions from people. > I sometimes makes me wonder if, in their view, there really is anything > worth saving beyond their own skin. The same people are usually also > willing to abandon their rights. Perhaps they fear that if the Islamist > extremists win, they won't be able to buy that nice shiny SUV theyive had > their eye on. It does amuse me that some people are so obsessed with staying alive for a bit longer will happily give up all the things which let them enjoy that life. Maybe, as is alluded to here, it is not "life" as such they want to defend but simply the consumerist lifestyle. All the rights (and associated responsibilities) are unimportant when it comes down to getting a new pair of Nikes....
From: Ken Smith on 17 Jan 2007 09:40 In article <45AE2C52.5FC660CF(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: [....] >That's how we've 'surrendered' to them - can't you see ? I see a swing the other direction coming. The cowards have had their day. Those with courage are starting to get up on their hind legs. The Neocons are uniformly chicken hawks who sat out Vietnam and now want to have their own war. They have for a while had the run of the republican party. It is a little late in the game but we see some republicans coming to their senses. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 17 Jan 2007 09:53
In article <eol4kn$8ss_002(a)s906.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <eohe7e$rri$4(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: [....] >>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. As far as a lot of people were concerned, he was. Not all of the "news reports" said this of him however. There were several presses printing "new" that favored him. [....] >>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. Are you suggesting that folks in the middle east are that thick. The dishes in Iran are moved to inside the roof of the house and otherwise disguised. This all happened as an indirect result of a comedy program produced in LA. A few years back there was a program on satellite TV that among its many features had its own mullah. This "mullah" would quote the statements of one of the Iranian mullahs. Instead of just reading the statement he would rant with exagerated anger, screeming and waving his arms for emphasis. The result was something that in the average Iranian's opinion was "fall down laughing" funny. The mullahs in Iran didn't like this and tried to get rid of the dishes that picked it up. They were only partly successful in this. People really wanted to see the program and went to great lengths to hide the dishes. [....] >>>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. If something can never be used, it is useless. If it can't be used in most situations where it seems like a thing you would use, it is mostly useless. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge |