Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 28 Jan 2007 12:15 unsettled wrote: > Eeyore pontificated: > > The Demon Prince of Absurdity wrote: > > > >>Xians who advocate the killing of gays or abortion doctors are precisely > >>as crazy as Muslims who advocate the killing of Westerners, and just as > >>dangerous to civilisation. < snip irrelevance > > > Arguably more so since they live in a society that has for the most part moved > > beyond using murder as a means of imposing its will. < snip further irrelevance > > Besides, Christians of all ilk live everywhere in the world, > so you're doubly wrong. Christian abortionist killers live exclusively in the USA. Are you saying that it's acceptable in the USA to use murder as a valid method of imposing one's will ? Graham
From: unsettled on 28 Jan 2007 12:17 T Wake wrote: > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > news:epi5ci$8ss_002(a)s804.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > > >>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; thus, conflicts of >>any other nature has to be treated as criminal and apply >>a country's criminal law to each individual. > > > Oh dear. The last two weeks of posts have vanished out of your memory now, > haven't they? You have to read her comment *very* carefully.
From: unsettled on 28 Jan 2007 12:26 Eeyore wrote: > > unsettled wrote: > > >>Eeyore wrote: >> >>>The Demon Prince of Absurdity wrote: >>> >>>>unsettled did the cha-cha, and screamed: >>>> >>>> >>>>>Most fags are zealots of a sort. >>>> >>>>So, what leads you to believe that dehumanising people for their >>>>sexuality is in any way rational? >>> >>>Who said "unsettled" was rational ? >>> >>>He/she seems to be full of bigotry and prejudice. >> >>That's one way to justify your stupidities. >> >>"Absurdity" wasn't clever enough to understand what I >>wrote. Clearly you're not either. That's fine, you're >>both still on the bell curve. >> >>Speaking about zealousness, read what you wrote in the >>context of being zealous regarding political correctness. > > > I have said nothing about politically correct zealots. You must have read some > meaning into what I wrote that wasn't actually there. You wrote nothing about politically correct zealots. The point I made, which you didn't understand, is that that you are one. Is that plain enough for you?
From: T Wake on 28 Jan 2007 12:27 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45BCC9A1.315FEE51(a)hotmail.com... > > > 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. I would be interested to read some supporting evidence for the Imperial Germans having either the intent or capability to have carried the war into the UK. The re-starting of unrestricted submarine warfare in 1917 was in an attempt to break the deadlock. The withdrawal of the Russians did release lots of Germans to fight on the Western Front, but there is no reason to believe that would have fully turned the balance enough to allow the Germans to roll over the rest of Europe. This whole line of debate has hit an impasse on several occasions as both camps are arguing about a historical event which never happened, so no one can ever know what would have happened. The information we do have from the era seems to suggest the Germans never planned to invade Britain, so assuming they would have without US intervention seems flawed to me. If the US had not got involved it is probable the war would have lasted a few years longer. It is also likely that it would have ended in an Armistice, just one which would have been less favourable for the French and more favourable for the Germans.
From: T Wake on 28 Jan 2007 12:29
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45BCC7A8.7710847(a)hotmail.com... > > > 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. Profiling based on religion is a flawed method more than anything else. Profiling based on racial characteristics is also flawed in this context. Not sure about the political correctness or lack thereof. |