Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 28 Jan 2007 10:34 ���hw��f wrote: > The Demon Prince of Absurdity <absurd_number_of_nicks(a)hell.corn> > pinched out a steaming pile > of<pan.2007.01.28.13.34.41.98896(a)hell.corn>: > > >>On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 16:31:59 -0600, unsettled did the cha-cha, and > > screamed: > >>>>>Was Hopkins a zealot or simply a very evil man ? >>>> >>>>The two are not mutually exclusive. >>>> >>>>In my experience, most zealots err on the side of "inhumanity" and > > if > >>>>you use that a definition of evil, they are evil. > > (www.godhatesfags.com > >>>>- are they zealots or simply evil?) >>> >>>Most fags are zealots of a sort. >> >>So, what leads you to believe that dehumanising people for their >>sexuality is in any way rational? >> > > Try as you might; you cant fix stupid. > FYI > HTH > Q.E.D.
From: Eeyore on 28 Jan 2007 10:56 unsettled wrote: > The Secretary of HomIntern wrote > > > 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. Profiling is politically incorrect only to ppl who believe in political correctness. Graham
From: Eeyore on 28 Jan 2007 11:04 mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: > <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> writes: > >T Wake wrote: > >> "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message > >> > >>>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. It didn't happen that way though did it ? Nor in WW2 when they did conquer France. You underestimate the value of the Royal Navy and the English Channel. Graham
From: T Wake on 28 Jan 2007 11:06 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:epi7b6$8qk_004(a)s804.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <epfvtk$pn5$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>In article <epfiec$8qk_002(a)s788.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>In article <45BA08CD.A94D6585(a)hotmail.com>, >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >>>>> The only thing I've been discussing in this thread is about very >>>>> speicfic mess preventions. The US is trying to deal with preventing >>>>> these messes. >>>> >>>>But it's the USA that's responsible for the underlying scenarios that > causes >>>>these 'messes' in the first place. >>> >>>hmm....Thus, using your reasoning, if you get shot during a bank >>>robbery, it is your fault for being in the bank. >> >>No. If you go around opening the cage door on rabid pitbulls, you are >>responsible for people getting bitten. > > I'm glad you agree with me about keeping these types locked up. I am not sure I have seen _anyone_ say anything differently.
From: Eeyore on 28 Jan 2007 11:14
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > I'm trying to address a mistaken assumption these people are > making. Their idea of war is when two highly organized groups, > each funded and supplied by a single government, meet on > a field somewhere and shoot at each other That's pretty much it. > thus, conflicts of any other nature has to be treated as criminal and apply > a country's criminal law to each individual. And what precisely is mistaken about that ? Graham |