Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 27 Jan 2007 20:42 Eeyore wrote: > > 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. LOL, and German U Boats sinking shipping at will. Sure you did.
From: unsettled on 27 Jan 2007 20:43 Eeyore wrote: > > unsettled wrote: > > >>T Wake wrote >> >>>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>> >>>>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. > > > You see. If only you take time to listen to what the other guy has to say...... How many monkeys typing how long......
From: Eeyore on 27 Jan 2007 20:47 unsettled wrote: > Eeyore wrote: > > unsettled wrote: > > > >>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. > > LOL, and German U Boats sinking shipping at will. The U boat problem was vastly worse in WW2. > Sure you did. The German surface navy hardly ever even left port. Graham
From: The Secretary of HomIntern on 27 Jan 2007 20:54 The God of Odd Statements wrote: > On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 20:26:01 +0000, T Wake did most oddly state: >>>>>>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>>>> But, wait! He hasn't made any messes yet. So you can't arrest >>>>>>>> him. If your police do manage to arrest him, he can pay the bail >>>>>>>> and be free to continue his plans to make a mess. > > Someone who "hasn't made any messes yet" may continue to fail to do so. > Unless there is some kind of hard evidence proving a likelihood of an > intention to "make a mess", holding someone on vague suspicion is abuse > of power, and only likely to motivate a real mess-maker. It's always > easier to justify a terrorist attack when one is opposing genuine > tyranny. Saddam Hussein was always one to hold people based on vague > suspicions. > Return to the mental facility from whence you escaped, as$clown!
From: Jabriol on 27 Jan 2007 20:54
The God of Odd Statements wrote: > On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 12:20:31 +0000, jmfbahciv did most oddly state: > >>> What you are saying here is that because innocent people can not be >>> punished, there is more chance of something bad happening. >> You keep assuming that those who are planning to destroy your >> infrastructure are innocent. They are not. > > Presumed innocent until proven guilty. Any other way is abusive of a > person's rights. > Return to the mental facility from whence you escaped, as$clown! |