Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 27 Jan 2007 22:31 unsettled wrote: > Eeyore wrote: > > unsettled wrote: > >>T Wake wrote: > >> > >>>Ok, if we accept that Stalin was head of a European nation, when did he ask > >>>for the US' help in the Korean war? > >> > >>When he instructed his ambassador to walk out of the Security Council. > > > > > > Surely this is some kind of joke ? > > If you understood anything about politics you > *might not* keep making these stupid statements. Let me get this right. You're suggesting that Uncle Joe Stalin *wanted* the USA to go to war against another communist country which was an ally of the USSR ? Graham
From: unsettled on 27 Jan 2007 23:25 The Secretary of HomIntern wrote: > On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 13:15:33 -0600, unsettled k'lamed: > > >>>>>I am intrigued as to the value of the question though. If I had said >>>>>"Yes" would that have made my comments *more* authorative >>>> >>>>Yes, because you would actually have a grounding on which to base what >>>>are, without being Muslim, merely another westerner's opinions. >>> >>>If I was a Muslim all you would get is merely another Muslims opinions. >>>There is no priveledged knowlege about the topic that can only be >>>gathered by being a member of a broad spectrum religion. >> >>When the initial premise is false, what grows out of it fares no better. > > > In that case, no non-Muslim's opinion about either Islam or Muslims is > worth a load of fetid dingoes' kidneys. Hence, your opinion of them is > equally worthless. Wake's opinions of Islam were being foisted off against the realities of recent history as though he has an insight he cannot possibly have. Of course I rely on history to predict the sorts of things fundie Muslims do, which Wake was contesting as incorrect. My opinion of them is just an opinion. However a statistical predictability based on historical performance is another matter. > Of course, that much is true anyway. With caveats. > One needn't be > Muslim to be a terrorist -- Mr. Wake can confirm that, I should think. > The IRA is still recent history... The amusing question is what are chances of being a terrorist if one is a Muslim. Profiling is politically incorrect only in western societies.
From: MassiveProng on 28 Jan 2007 03:05 On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 13:37:25 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> Gave us: >Did you graduate junior high? Your writing is at a level below >what one would expect from a junior high school kid. You're an idiot.
From: MassiveProng on 28 Jan 2007 03:22 On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 20:01:00 +0000, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: > > >krw wrote: > >> Metal cases are more expensive than plastic. QED. > >Depends on quantities. > Also depends on the maker. Over there, they facilities are geared toward mass production. In the US, most things of that nature are short run, short quantity customs. The same rules will typically apply, however. If I were over there, and I designed a case as was mentioned. They could build THAT case just as cheaply as those they build that are of poor electrical quality. The differences just simply are not even worth mentioning.
From: mmeron on 28 Jan 2007 03:30
In article <6896e$45bbfe26$4fe70dd$26560(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> writes: >T Wake wrote: > >> "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. >> >> >In an earthquake 15 seconds is forever. > >The US sent a LOT of people into battle. A year and a half >is a long time *if* Germany was on the verge of collapse as >Eeyore claims. A little technical detail worth mentioning. I've heard before the claims that, would Germany have managed to conquer France and the low countries, in world war I, it still would have been unable to conquer Britain. Well, even before the war Germany had larger (and mostly more adnvanced) industry than Britain had, its steel production was far larger, and it managed to pretty much match the rate of the British naval buildup, while maintaining far larger land forces. Would the western fron have collapsed, you would have Germany with pretty much all the industrial resources of Europe at its disposal, and without the need to maintain some 150 divisons in the field. It could've then easily outbuilt Britain (talking about naval buildup here) by a 3:1 or 4:1 margin and within few years Britain would not have stand a prayer. Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, meron(a)cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same" |