Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 27 Jan 2007 17:02 Ken Smith wrote: > T Wake <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > > >Which country has invaded the US? > > Pakistan. Didn't you hear about 7/11. :) > > Note to nonUSAians: Yes, that is a joke. 7/11 is a type of store and a > stereotype is that they are run by pakistanies. But Apu is Indian ! Graham
From: T Wake on 27 Jan 2007 17:06 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45BBC61A.51BF754C(a)hotmail.com... > > > Ken Smith wrote: > >> T Wake <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >> >I don't recall anyone saying fundamentalist Muslims were not insane. >> >> I did question what we mean by "insane". > > Both T Wake and I consider it crazy to believe in a 'God' or > divine/ultimate > being. > > Does that make all Christians, Muslims, Hindus etc insane ? If you ask me. Yes.
From: unsettled on 27 Jan 2007 17:09 T Wake wrote: > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message > news:86f93$45bbbd7e$4fe72dd$24906(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >>It does to me. Both sides were begging the US to enter on their >>side, right from the beginning. The US attempted to remain >>neutral, however munitions manufacturers illegally sold to >>the Brit side, eventually forcing the issue. > OK. I am I reading your post correctly here. Both sides were asking for help > but your country refused to help. When some people broke the law and helped > one side by selling munitions your government, the resulting attack by the > Germans (in 1915) made your Government change it's mind and join the war (in > 1917). > It might be me, but I dont read that as saying the country got involved > Europe asked for help. The UK asked from the beginning of hostilities and never withdrew their request for help. Our internal politics had the country divided, so we kept out of the war. The sinking of the Lusitania resolved the internal dissent and we entered the war to help the UK and her allies at her request. > My recollections from my school days may be a bit vague but I seem to recall > the US objected to the German submarine warfare, and when it was resumed in > 1917 (along with German attempts to get Mexico involved) that tipped the > balance. That's what solved the internal disputes in the US. You're not saying that your government didn't ant us to help, are you? >>No it isn't. Russia/SU was always European. Take a few minutes to look at a historical map from before the SU breakup. The part of the SU that's in Europe is tremendous. If I recall correctly, it is the largest European nation at the time. > > But refering to it as a European power in the context of BAH's statement is. > When she talks about Europe (and uses the term "you" towards the Europeans > posting in this thread), I doubt she includes Cold War USSR in that > category. > I may be wrong, and if she clarifies matters I will reconsider. See above. She has differentiated between "formerly free Europe" and the soviet block, but not distinguished the soviet block as not being part of Europe. >>>But even at the shocking use of Cold War USSR as being a European power, >>>when did Europe ask the US to get involved? >> >>Stalin insisted on the subdivision of Korea. What the hell >>did the US want with another Asian nation to look after? > BAH stated the US got involved in Korea when Europe asked for Help. What on > Earth does Stalin subdividing Korea show about a European nation asking for > help? Stalin was the head of a European nation. I won't argue on her behalf, but in this context of Stalin being an important part of Europe in that day I agree with her statement. >>>That was the claim. Your post talks about the background to the >>>separation, not the request for US/UN involvement. BAH claims the US got >>>involved when Europe asked for help. >> >>That's right. At the close of WW2. Did you read the Wikipedia >>article? > Yeah, but I think I missed that bit. I read the bit where Truman went to the > UN to get UNSC approval for the action. There are two strange aspects to that. The first is that the US didn't want to "go it alone" precisely because we were there as a consequence of one of the "unfinished WW2 messes" that BAH talks about. Even more strange is the fact that the SU, knowing that this request from the US was in the works, created an artificial row in the SC so that they could walk out and not participate when it came time to vote on the Korean matter. One might make the case that the Soviets couldn't openly approve of the US involvement in this "police action" however they approved of it by absenting themselves and purposely allowing the vote to favor the US proposed resolution. It wasn't long till it was the SU's turn to chair the SC, so at that time they returned to the SC, took the chair without comment, and continued as though nothing had happened. > It is a long document so I may have overlooked the European request for > help. Can you point it out to me please? Stalin got us into Korea in the first place. And then helped the Korean War happen, see above. snip
From: Eeyore on 27 Jan 2007 17:12 unsettled wrote: > T Wake wrote: > > > > So then the only Zealots who are insane are the ones advocating killing? > > Interesting definition and not one I subscribe to. > > Please do try to learn to read in context. I'll map it out > for you this time: > > 1) "I don't recall anyone saying fundamentalist Muslims > were not insane." > > 2) "No more so though than any religious zealot." > > My discussion addresses the second sentence in the pairing > above because the fundamentalist Muslims are clearly more > insane than other zealots who don't advocate destruction > and killing as part of their insanity. > > The bias this time is that of equating all religious zealots > having an equal level of insanity. > > What's crazier, the person counting how many angels can > dance on the head of a pin, or the one seeking out victims > they don't know personally so as to kill them for Allah > (as though an all powerful deity couldn't do it for > himself if he wanted to.) It's contextual. Graham
From: unsettled on 27 Jan 2007 17:13
Eeyore wrote: > > unsettled wrote: > > >>Eeyore wrote: >> >>>unsettled wrote: >>> >>>>T Wake wrote: >>>> >>>>>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>> >>>>>>T Wake wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>I don't recall anyone saying fundamentalist Muslims were not insane. >>>>>> >>>>>>No more so though than any religious zealot. >>>>> >>>>>Very true. >>>> >>>>Your bias rears up again. >>>> >>>>That depends on whether destruction and killing are part of >>>>the zealot's "thing" or not. It is very much the "thing" >>>>for Islamic fundamentalists, but I have yet to discover >>>>any other religion with zealots advocating those things. >>>> >>>>Even if there is another one, its hardly a universal case. >>> >>> >>>You're quite mad. History's full of such examples. >>> >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_inquisition >> >>You really are very very stupid. >> >>The Spanish Inquisition was a political tool used to try >>to eliminate converted Jews and Moors from Spain and to >>seize their assets. >> >>Read the section headed "Motives for instituting....." >>which tells about additional political advantages to the >>institution. > > > Are you truly that unaware of the wars between Protestants and Catholics > throughout Europe ? Political. > How about witch-hunts ? > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Hopkins > Was Hopkins a zealot or simply a very evil man ? You've found one crazy in in British history since the importation of Christianity to your Islands. Any more? |