Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 28 Jan 2007 16:35 mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: > Would Germany have come on its own couple centuries earlier There wasn't a Germany centuries earlier. Graham
From: T Wake on 28 Jan 2007 16:42 "Ken Smith" <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote in message news:epir1e$8h8$12(a)blue.rahul.net... > In article <epi7b6$8qk_004(a)s804.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>In article <epfvtk$pn5$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: > [....] >>> >>>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 don't want to also lock up everyone else in the entire world while we do > it. That is our argument, not over the ones who are the actual threat. Quite succinctly said.
From: T Wake on 28 Jan 2007 16:43 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45BCE981.69D29AB(a)hotmail.com... > > > T Wake wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> > 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. > > If it did the job well, should we be worried about whether it's > politically > correct or not ? Surely if the job is done well it is politically correct?
From: T Wake on 28 Jan 2007 16:45 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:2a47b$45bd0bc5$49ed0c7$8050(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > 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. Quite an empty answer but it carries an implied compliement. >
From: Eeyore on 28 Jan 2007 16:46
T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > 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. I just came across this recent example. http://www.canada.com/topics/bodyandhealth/story.html?id=b2abf344-08e9-4ba6-8b5d-6d6da31ffeda " The combination of Jehovah's Witness parents and six tiny infants who may need blood transfusions could push the Vancouver sextuplets into the centre of an emotional religious dispute, one that might even end up in court, experts suggested yesterday. " Graham |