Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 28 Jan 2007 15:49 malscribe wrote: > unsettled shamelessly exposed this to the world: > > >>The problem is that they end up killing their children. >> > > > Why's that a problem? Unfortunate for us that you weren't that kid. LOL
From: unsettled on 28 Jan 2007 16:11 mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: > 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. Glad to note that there's more to you than the lab. I agree with your observations. The "peace treaties" at the end of WW1 assured that Austria could not become a powerhouse again in the foreseeable future just as surely as they tried to drive Germany back into an agrarian society. In the end both of those goals failed, though Austria has never regained the economic power she once had based on "empire" which was forever lost. There are some interesting discussions to be had about the Japanese expansionist program in the first half of the 20th century and its relationship to the world order at that time. There's always much in play than just the obvious politics most people tend to get worked up about and seem to be limited to seeing. (And very often not very well at all.)
From: T Wake on 28 Jan 2007 16:24 "Ken Smith" <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote in message news:epiodf$8h8$4(a)blue.rahul.net... > In article <TtudnWGN-8n7bSbYRVnyuAA(a)pipex.net>, > T Wake <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > [....] >>While this is purely anecdotal evidence (and I am fully aware of how >>valuable that makes it...), the research which says "watching violence >>makes >>you violent" is shaky at best. > > Some time back they did a study with children. IIRC they were about 10 > years old. They divided them into three groups and shown a video and then > allowed to play with an assortment of toys. > > Group 1: > These children were shown a video on some completely bland subject and > acted as a control group. Their selection of toys was used as the basis > for comparison. > > Group 2: > These children were told that they were watching a part of a TV drama and > that they may see some actors they know in it. These children selected > toys that were little different from group one's selections. > > Group 3: > These children were shown the exact same video as group 2. The > difference is that they were told that it was police footage of a real > situation. The group 3 children more often selected the guns and other > violent toys and engaged in violence related play. > > It seems that most children know the difference between real and imaginary > violence and react differently to the two. This may be part of why > studies on the effects of violence on TV are so hard to repeat. Interesting. The implication that watching "real" violence is more corrupting than media portrayal is not one I have read anything about so I can't comment. From my upbringing, boys were always expected to play with toy guns and pretend to kill each other. Does that imply that children from my generation should have grown up to be more violent? Personally, I find the conclusions you make here (children can tell the difference) is the most accurate assumption and the levels of violence my generation produced are no worse than any other. There is a reasonable amount of argument that the violence more recent generations are producing is based more on poor statistics than actually happening.
From: Eeyore on 28 Jan 2007 16:33 unsettled wrote: > 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. > > > It is your statement, so it is yours to prove, not for > me to disprove. That would require me to prove a negative which as I'm sure you're aware isn't possible. So, how about you show me an example outside the USA ? I'm not aware of any. Graham
From: T Wake on 28 Jan 2007 16:34
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45BCEC61.5E1C6C68(a)hotmail.com... > > > Ken Smith wrote: > >> T Wake <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> I said: >> >> 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. > > If they were exclusively harming themselves I'd agree but I've heard of > instances > ( one quite recently ) where parents sought to prevent doctors giving > life-saving > treatment to their child. I don't recall how that one turned out. > Generally the children die and often in pain. This same mindset encourages the spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa and prevents new lines of research being investigated. All on the whim of an invisible friend no one has really heard from in 2000 years. Sometimes my toaster gives me this sort of advice but I have learned to ignore it. |