Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 25 Jan 2007 21:08 T Wake wrote: > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > news:epab2u$8qk_008(a)s795.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > >>In article <45B61DBC.34732159(a)hotmail.com>, >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>>T Wake wrote: >>> >>> >>>>"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >>>> >>>>>Time has no hold on bias. People are just as biased about >>>>>an event that happened 5 minutes ago as one that happened >>>>>36,500 days ago. Your persistent America bashing shows your >>>>>bias despite the internet and TV, so it isn't a communications >>>>>and information issue. >>>> >>>>It is a shame you think I am bashing America. I think America has a lot >>>>going for it and should be prepared to live up to the high standards. >>> >>>I agree. >> >>We will never live "up" to your standards because those standards >>are based in a political philosophy different from ours. > > > Until this thread, I would have thought you were wrong here. It seems that > this one time, you are quite correct. > > >>You keep >>insisting that we do everything perfectly while you all set back >>and watch us do the mess cleaning for you. > > > And there you go, back to being massively wrong again. I don't always agree with BAH, but there's a strong historical basis for her statement. >>>>Your comments seem to imply America is a barbaric nation, where >>>>suspected >>>>criminals are denied their rights and convicted prisoners are treated in >>>>an >>>>arbritrarily cruel manner. But I am the one bashing America. >>> >>>Curious isn't it. Americans actually seem to proud of their 'rougher >>>edges'. >> >>See? The thing you need from us you describe as inelegant and crude >>and not acceptable in polite society. Make up your mind. >> >>/BAH > > >
From: unsettled on 25 Jan 2007 21:14 mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: > 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. I guess that's one way for the English to acquire nice warm kilts. But where will they find the real men to fill them? :-)
From: mmeron on 25 Jan 2007 22:42 In article <a6f0d$45b96405$4fe73cc$1735(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> writes: >mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: > >> In article <c65c3$45b9471c$49ecf8f$1191(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> writes: >>> >>>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. > >I guess that's one way for the English to acquire >nice warm kilts. But where will they find the >real men to fill them? :-) > Will have to import them from ex-colonies, I guess:-) Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, meron(a)cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
From: Eeyore on 25 Jan 2007 22:54 unsettled wrote: > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > >>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >>>>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > >>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>>If you insist that these people be treated as criminals, then > >>>>>>you should be ready to cope with an interruption in your > >>>>>>life-style. > >>>>> > >>>>>It's been discussed here and voted on in the UK Parliament. The Police > >>>>>have powers to hold terrorist suspects for up to 30 days ( IIRC ) without > >>>>>charge subject to regular judicial review. After that time they must indeed > be > >>>>>released or charged. > >>>>> > >>>>>Any longer was rejected by Parliament. > >>>> > >>>>IMHO 30 days is too long, but I suspect I am in a minority there. > >>> > >>>These people take years to plan their attacks. And you think 30 days > >>>is too long?! > >> > >>Yes. You dont know what you are talking about here, you just felt the need > >>to throw in a soundbite. > >> > >>How long do *you* think a suspected criminal should be detained before he or > >>she is charged with a crime? > > > > I don't consider these people criminals. I consider them enemies. > > Wake writes these "questions" is a highly propagandized mode. What on earth are you going on about ? > The legitimate question would be "How long do you think a suspected > criminal may legitimately be detained....." By using the word > "should" he's altered the entire implication of his "question". What on earth are you going on about ? Graham
From: Eeyore on 25 Jan 2007 22:55
unsettled wrote: > The never have gotten over Ghandi and their guilt for > their wholesale mistrating of all their colonials for > centuries. There appears to be some British sense that > if they spoil their criminals the government will > finally be better loved around the world. LOL You're quite mad ! Graham |