Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: mmeron on 25 Jan 2007 19:59 In article <c65c3$45b9471c$49ecf8f$1191(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> writes: >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> In article <45B7614D.A323D015(a)hotmail.com>, >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>> >>>> jasen <jasen(a)free.net.nz> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On 2007-01-20, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Please measure the miles between Israel and the Mediteranean. >>>>> >>>>>0 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Note the number of miles between Israel and the Suez Canal. >>>>> >>>>>about 120 at closest approach, 140 from Beersheba, 160 from Tel Aviv >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Now consider that Iran does its atomic bomb testing on >>>>>>Israel soil. How long do you think the Canal will be closed? >>>>>>You may assume that Iran doesn't "miss" and take out the >>>>>>core of Egyptian commerce with the same single attack. >>>>> >>>>>at that range? a couple of months. >>>> >>>>Possibly, if all political winds blow exactly the correct way. >>>>I can't even guess the effects of no oil tankers delivering >>>>oil for a couple of months. From Thatcher's book about her >>>>government and the coal miners' strikes, England had about >>>>3 months reserve. >>> >>>Of *COAL* ! >> >> >> Yes, child. If no oil is delivered, then your country >> will have to use its coal reserves. Right? > >Which they import. With no oil tankers, the coal suppliers >will not ship to UK because they'll need the coal in their >own countries. How long will it take to reopen the UK coal >mines? The Scotts will have to march southwards to keep from >freezing to death. > Hmm, we may have Bannockburn II. Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, meron(a)cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
From: unsettled on 25 Jan 2007 20:47 T Wake wrote: > I am intrigued as to the value of the question though. If I had said "Yes" > would that have made my comments *more* authorative Yes, because you would actually have a grounding on which to base what are, without being Muslim, merely another westerner's opinions. > (although I have spent > more time in the middle east than most Muslims I know). Career prison guards spend a lot more time in prisons than short term convicts. But they *never* experience or understand what that convict does. I've addressed what things look like from the outside. You've negated my opinions as though you had either God's wisdom behind yours, or intimate personal knowledge. I am quite certain now that you have neither. > By saying "No" does that falsify any of my comments? It converts them from an authentic source to speculative opinion. > Was it simple curiosity which led to the question (in which case the line of > reasoning above is somewhat contrived)? Your reasoning, more in this particular subthread, is more flawed than usual. > Maybe in todays generations of "British people" foriign cultures are > "totally alien" to them, but when I was growing up it certainly was not the > case. You can only guess. My personal history as a child immigrant to the US gives me a great deal of understanding about how little Americans understand of the immigrant cultures in their midst. From that I have been able to extrapolate a similar British understanding of the immigrants in your midst as well as people of the same cultures living in other parts of the world. >>>We have an announced presidential candidate, Obama, here in >>>the US who has been trying to cover his early childhood >>>upbringing as a Muslim. > >>Presumably because he's afraid of a bigoted response to it ? To be honest >>I've seen >>no evidence he's hiding it and it would be crazy to do so. > If he is hiding it, it is a shame. The US has had one Roman Catholic president. The rest have all been Christian Protestants of one stripe or another. IMO chances of electing a Muslim have to be so close to zero as to be indistinguishable from zero. > That the country seems to obsess about a presidential > candidate's religious orientation highlights a lack of > freedome of religion in that country. This is one of the most absurd and most anti-American statements to come from you so far. Because as a nation we elect people of Christian genre has no bearing whatever on freedom of religion in this country. Perhaps you're against free elections? Because that's how our president acquires office. > If you are trying to imply a similarity and that I am trying to hide my > Islamic upbringing, one side of my parents family are devout Catholics and > the other Protestants. Both sides claim to have been "Pure" for many > generations prior to my parents. Funny wording that. LOL "...I am trying to hide *my* Islamic upbringing....." That's one of the most highly provocative proactively positive negations I've ever seen.
From: MassiveProng on 25 Jan 2007 20:54 On Thu, 25 Jan 07 13:31:06 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >And you people are talking about the wrong decade. > >I was using VT05s in 1972; IIRC, Hastings was typing on his >breadboard in 1971. I'm still pissed off at him for not >asking me about the keyboard layout. > The FCC had emission regs on ALL radiators since the fifties.
From: unsettled on 25 Jan 2007 21:05 Phil Carmody wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> writes: > >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> >>>Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote:. >>>> >>>> >>>>>What if your judge has your opinion that there isn't any serious >>>>>threats by these terrorists? >>>> >>>>If the judge believes that, I'd be inclined to trust his opinion. >>>> >>>>You see in the UK there has to be a high standard of evidence before a charge >>>>is even brought in the first place. >>> >>>Exactly. Your chances of having a mess becomes more likely than >>>less likely. >> >>You're quite crazy. This country will not lock ppl up without any evidence. > > > It may not be prepared to lock up millions of muslims, > but it's prepared to shoot a brazillion! Don't forget the sympathizers. You're more than suspect LOL
From: unsettled on 25 Jan 2007 21:07
T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:45B7E675.870AE2BF(a)hotmail.com... > >> >>T Wake wrote: >> >> >>>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>> >>>>The Demon Prince of Absurdity wrote: >>>> >>>>>T Wake did the cha-cha, and screamed: >>>>> >>>>>>You claim the courts can not be used because judges may have an >>>>>>agenda, >>>>>>but secretive military systems are ok because there is no chance >>>>>>they >>>>>>will..... >>>>>> >>>>>>Can you see how crackpot this is? >>>>> >>>>>Why, what's so crackpot about complaining about judges with hidden >>>>>agendas and demanding that military judges who are accountable to no >>>>>one >>>>>outside the military try accused terrorists in secret? Apart from >>>>>apparently wanting to make it easier for conspiracies to form and >>>>>operate, that is. >>>> >>>>No such problems exist in the UK. >>>> >>>>You'd better put your own house in order I reckon. >>> >>>I suspect you have missed the element of sarcasm which runs through the >>>post. >> >>I've obviously spent too long talking to BAH ! > > > :-) > > Trust me, his "difficulties" happened long before he started with her. |