Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 27 Jan 2007 19:38 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:42d01$45bbeed0$4fe70dd$26171(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >T Wake wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:45BBE0A0.523C7A5D(a)hotmail.com... >> >>> >>>T Wake wrote: >>> >>> >>>>"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >>>> >>>>>T Wake wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>The insanity is the same, the actions carried out as a result of the >>>>>>insanity are different. Does that mean the insanity is different? >>>>> >>>>>Certainly. The ones who cause the most harm to themselves >>>>>or others are the most insane. >>>> >>>>Ok then I will modify my previous statement to saying fundamentalist >>>>Muslims >>>>are no more (or less) insane than any religious fundamentalist who >>>>advocates >>>>/ causes harm to others on the same scale. >>> >>>Which is one reason why the Palestine issue is destined to run and run. >> >> >> Yep. When you get two insane people arguing, will it ever end? (I present >> this thread as evidence the answer is no... :-)) > > Good Grief! A consensus. > We can't have that. I will have to disagree now. > >
From: Eeyore on 27 Jan 2007 19:39 unsettled wrote: > 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. Utter rubbish. > 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. The war on the western front was in stalemate. It was simply a case of whose side would be exhausted first. France and Britain had the upper hand with 2 empires to supply materiel and ( aside from submarine attacks ) virtual total control of the sea. Graham
From: Eeyore on 27 Jan 2007 19:42 T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote > > T Wake wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote > >> > 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. We tend to call such ppl terrorists but I wonder if a more suitable name should be used ? Murderers comes to mind. Graham
From: T Wake on 27 Jan 2007 19:46 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45BBF168.B3212288(a)hotmail.com... > > > T Wake wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote >> > T Wake wrote: >> >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote >> >> > 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. > > We tend to call such ppl terrorists but I wonder if a more suitable name > should > be used ? > > Murderers comes to mind. Maybe so. They mean the same thing to me.
From: Eeyore on 27 Jan 2007 19:47
Phil Carmody wrote: > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> writes: > > "Phil Carmody" <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote > > > 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.) Is that all ? Graham |