Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 28 Jan 2007 15:10 Eeyore wrote: > > unsettled wrote: > > >>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? > > > It's plain enough to me in that case that you're an idiot who can't even see what's > in front of your nose. > > Graham > > That sort of value system is well suited to you.
From: unsettled on 28 Jan 2007 15:11 Ken Smith wrote: > In article <17ednWsKKpGEfibYnZ2dnUVZ8surnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, > T Wake <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > [.....] > >>>Some Christian cults won't even accept blood transfusions. How insane is >>>that if >>>you're condeming someone to die for a belief when life-saving treatment is >>>readily available ? >> >>I hope that if their god does actually exist, they are all sent to hell. > > > That is a completely repugnant suggestion. They believe something, they > may be wrong but the only person they harm as a result is themselves. The > fact that they had no evil intent makes them merely mistaken. The fact > that they harm themselves only with this belief should not mean a trip to > hell. > > > >> > > The problem is that they end up killing their children.
From: unsettled on 28 Jan 2007 15:13 Eeyore wrote: > > unsettled wrote: > > >>Eeyore wrote: >> >>>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. >> >>To use one of your favorite expressions, "Cite?: > > > How about you show me an example outside the USA ? I'm not aware of any. > > Graham > It is your statement, so it is yours to prove, not for me to disprove.
From: mmeron on 28 Jan 2007 15:39 In article <d74ef$45bcba07$4fe745f$4958(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> writes: >mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: > >> 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. > >I'm sure these observations are correct. > >Germany was coming into its own in big ways in a >time period when expansionism still had a good name. > Yes, at the tail end of this time perid, and that's where the problem was. Would Germany have come on its own couple centuries earlier (when there was lots of room for expansion) it would've just become one of the established great powers, like France, Britain, Austria and Russia. But, the timing being what it was, you had a huge power (Germany before WWI had much larger population than either France or Britain, industrial output equal to those two put together and the best scientific/technological establishment in the world) which was not a part of the established world order. In such situation disaster was nearly inevitable. No power structure can remain stable in the presence of a big player who is not part of the structure. Such player must be either crushed or coopted, else the whole structure goes to pieces. Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, meron(a)cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
From: unsettled on 28 Jan 2007 15:46
Ken Smith wrote: > In article <2b4$45b5f6db$4fe7715$21843(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >>Ken Smith wrote: >> >> >>>In article <zISdnY4yq_45cinYRVnyiQA(a)pipex.net>, >>>T Wake <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>[....] >>> >>> >>>>>We can only hold ourselves accountable for our actions, not >>>>>those of insurgents and terrorists. So what is it you're >>>>>actually trying to say here. I smell doublespeak. >>>> >>>>I thought he was referring to the treatment of Iraqi prisoners taken by the >>>>US forces, and the treatment of people at Guantanamo. I may be wrong. >>> >>> >>>Yes exactly. The US needs to hold to its standards in what it does. >> >>What the US does is what the de facto standard of US conduct is. > > > I guess this is unfortunately true. It does lead to the unfortunate > suggestion that there is nothing about the US worth fighting for. If each > time that US steps to a lower level, that becomes the standard, there is > no standard at all and thus nothing worth fighting for. > > That sort of value system is well suited to you. |