Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 27 Jan 2007 19:18 Eeyore wrote: > > unsettled wrote: > > >>T Wake wrote: >> >>>"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >> >>>>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. > > > It still doesn't mean you saved us though. > > By about 1916 IIRC it became clear that the German war machine was bogged down and > would make no further progress. > > Defeat was just a matter of time for Germany. Their best option was to hold out > and hope for decent terms of surrender. You really are stupid. The Russians didn't collapse till 1917 and a peace treaty with them wasn't concluded till 1918, which allowed Germany to move all her troops to the Western Front and against you lot. So it wasn't clear that Germany was down and ready to collapse in 1916 for any number of reasons. The US entered the war in April 1917 and the war didn't officially end till the Treaty of Versailles on June 28, 1919. Yes, we saved you both times. If Germany had been on the verge of collapse, the war would have been over much sooner after the entry of the US into the mess.
From: T Wake on 27 Jan 2007 19:22 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45BBE880.CA345F50(a)hotmail.com... > > > T Wake wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> > Phil Carmody wrote: >> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> writes: >> >> > It would in fact be a very serious mistake to underestimate the >> >> > Islamists by assuming they're insane. >> >> > >> >> > The way they've planned and executed attacks with minimal materials >> >> > to >> >> > hand shows a great deal of inventiveness/resourcefulness. >> >> >> >> Sociopathic? >> > >> > If we were Muslims living in the ME who felt threatened by the USA they >> > would seem like heroes / a resistance force. >> >> Only because we, being Muslims, would be insane [*]. >> >> -- >> [*] see previous posts about my ideas on who is and isn't insane > > This idea has legs I reckon ! ;~) IMHO anyone who kills / maims defenceless people should never be considered a hero. Thinking they are heroic is insane. There can be numerous arguments about who is and isn't a legitimate combatant, but (IMHO again) unarmed people (on either side) can not be considered legitimate targets.
From: T Wake on 27 Jan 2007 19:26 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:28b51$45bbebe7$4fe70dd$26119(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > Eeyore wrote: > >> >> unsettled wrote: >> >> >>>T Wake wrote: >>> >>>>"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >>> >>>>>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. >> >> >> It still doesn't mean you saved us though. >> >> By about 1916 IIRC it became clear that the German war machine was bogged >> down and >> would make no further progress. >> >> Defeat was just a matter of time for Germany. Their best option was to >> hold out >> and hope for decent terms of surrender. > > You really are stupid. > > The Russians didn't collapse till 1917 and a peace treaty > with them wasn't concluded till 1918, which allowed Germany > to move all her troops to the Western Front and against you > lot. > > So it wasn't clear that Germany was down and ready to collapse > in 1916 for any number of reasons. The US entered the war in > April 1917 and the war didn't officially end till the Treaty > of Versailles on June 28, 1919. > > Yes, we saved you both times. Hard to say you saved Britain in WWI. There chances are that a renewed German offensive would have allowed them to retake Europe but it is unlikely they would have made it across the channel (if that was even one of their aims in WWI) An armistice would have been reached. The difference would have been France and the low countries. > If Germany had been on the verge of collapse, the war would > have been over much sooner after the entry of the US into > the mess. A year isn't long.
From: unsettled on 27 Jan 2007 19:28 T Wake wrote: snip > All I can say is, it seems to me that religion is not genetically coded for. > If it is, which religion? Which parts of religion? Why are religions > different? etc. Might be, might not be, but it seems to me (and some others) that it is. There are also other references (I've spent too long on this today already so I'm not in the mood to go on another search) that some forms of extreme religiosity appear to be connected to frontal lobe epilepsy. I think we're (generic human) genetically coded to believe in things beyond our ability to perceive. Consider that without such a capacity much of modern physics would be impossible. And consider also that our study of physics grew originally out of our (generic human) need to explain things that don't intuitively make sense. We (generic human) originally used the tool called religion to explain those things, and actually there is a boundary realm remaining of things we don't yet understand that are given religious explanations. Of course religion also incorporates a bunch of stuff for which no explanation will ever be available, in the "why" genre which science doesn't address but that human (generic) beings seem to need answers for.
From: Phil Carmody on 27 Jan 2007 19:28
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> writes: > "Phil Carmody" <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message > news:878xfo14vu.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org... > > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> writes: > >> unsettled wrote: > >> > Where's the bright line distinguishing fundamentalist from sane? > >> > >> Islamist are not medically insane, > > > > Have you ever played 'tick the boxes' with DSM IV? > > > > They're insane in spades, according to that. > > 99% of usenet would be too, though. > > Only 99%. Phew.... But they post 100 times as much each as the sane ones. (Jai Maharaj used to once boast about how he had posted over one hundred thousand articles to Usenet, for example.) Phil -- "Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of /In God We Trust, Inc./. |