Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 18 Jan 2007 08:49 In article <45AF75A8.5650D04F(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >> ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> >> > >> >> >When you eventually throw off your misguided "European" issues, you may be >> >> >able to learn some new things. For example, the articles of war which make >> >> >up the 1948 Geneva Accords (which the US signed, remember) also cover >> >> >civil wars (which are not nation against nation). >> >> >> >> And the enemy of Western Civilization hasn't signed any of those >> >> agreements. Perhaps you should consider that and spend at least >> >> three days considering that. >> > >> >Precisely which enemy ? A country or Al Qaeda ? >> >> There is no one entity. > >I'm glad you understand that at least. > > >> >Al Qaeda has no formal legal standing so even if 'it' or whoever they >> >designated as their representative did sign the Geneva Convention - it would >> >have no meaning in law. >> > >> >This is yet another problem with declaring war on entities that exist only in >> >some phantom way. >> >> Then you had better figure out how to deal with these phantoms, >> because they are deadly and intend to kill as many people as >> possible. > >We deal with it using the LAW ! And this enemy does not recognize your law. They consider your law illegal. So they will never obey it and are actively trying to destroy its infrastructure. /BAH
From: Eeyore on 18 Jan 2007 08:57 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > > > >> Why do you people keep forgetting Syria? None seem to think > >> about Egypt. > > > >No one forgets Syria and people do think of about Egypt. As I pointed out to > >you in a previous post both those nations are important. > > > >From a military point of view Syria is almost a joke, Israel pretty much > >ensures Syria is never going invade another country. Syria has no signs of > >developing nuclear weapons. > > You are being foolish. They don't have to develop them; all > they have to do is buy them or acquire them from a neighbor. Other than Pakistan who would that be ? Israel ! ? Graham
From: Eeyore on 18 Jan 2007 09:01 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > > >> Then you had better figure out how to deal with these phantoms, > >> because they are deadly and intend to kill as many people as > >> possible. > > > >We deal with it using the LAW ! > > And this enemy does not recognize your law. They consider > your law illegal. So they will never obey it and are actively > trying to destroy its infrastructure. Whether they respect our law is quite unimportant from the point of view of sending them to prison. They have no ability to undermine it. OTOH 'their' law is illegal here. Graham
From: jmfbahciv on 18 Jan 2007 08:57 In article <45AF76BD.DD7EB5F5(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> > >> >> I guess another thing I need to think about is why people >> >> cannot consider the notion that there is a civilization conflict. >> > >> >Try culture rather than civilisation. >> >> I didn't use culture because a culture is a subset of a >> civilization. > >It needn't be - at least when using the word civilisation properly. Sigh! So you don't like my use of the word civilization either. > >So how would you address this difference between our cultures ? Go back to the beginning of this thread and reread every post I've written. > > >> I determine civilization by the activity and infrastructures of trade. > >That's a very narrow and inadequate meaning of the word. A civilization is a fluid thing. I measure and identify it by watching the trade that goes on, the kind of trade that goes, and where this trade happens. The fall of the Roman Empire can be tracked by the health (and finally non-existence) of its trade. Note that a large part of trade is who does the work. > >This one I found seems to do the job better. >" a society in an advanced state of social development (e.g., with complex legal >and political and religious organizations) " Yes. Now note the word "organization". Underneath all of that is the arteries of trade routes. It is the blood of any collections of humans. If trade is working well, the areas thrive, create an infrastructure, then a middle class. As the essentials of surviving become part of how the groups of humans work, then more and more people have time and energy to acquire new knowledge. Over the years, and centuries, this living style becomes a civilization. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 18 Jan 2007 08:59
In article <45AF7BE0.13757F90(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> > >> >> Congress just passed a bill that cause all food processing to be >> >> moved to foreign lands. >> > >> >Does this bill have a name ? >> >> I can't remember its title. What it does is raise the minimum >> wage to $7.50/hour. > >That's not very much. It's less than in the UK in fact. > >Now, why do you think it will cause all food processing to be >moved to foreign lands ? Because it's too much money to spend on labor. If food processing can be done cheaper in other countries, the food processors will move their canneries to those countries. /BAH |