Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 28 Jan 2007 20:22 Demon Lord of Confusion wrote: > Eeyore attempted to confuse the issue further by squeaking: > > 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. > > Wait, there's Canada, too. There's been the odd shooting here... There has ? I wasn't aware of that. Maybe I should change it from the USA to just N. America ? Graham
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 28 Jan 2007 21:08 The Demon Prince of Absurdity wrote: > On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 21:17:09 +0000, malscribe did the cha-cha, and > screamed: >> unsettled shamelessly exposed this to the world: >>> 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 >> So you don't think killing children is a problem. Then what was your >> point above? > > You're the exception that proves the rule. 'prove' as in 'test' So the correct modern saying is: "the exception that tests the rule" -- Dirk http://www.onetribe.me.uk - The UK's only occult talk show Presented by Dirk Bruere and Marc Power on ResonanceFM 104.4 http://www.resonancefm.com
From: Kadaitcha Man on 28 Jan 2007 21:14 Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> Thou peevish baggage. Thou balloon-headed, bird-brained mankind witch. Thou bondsman. Rogues, hence, avant vanish like hailstones go. Ye warbled and ye spat out: > The Demon Prince of Absurdity wrote: >> On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 21:17:09 +0000, malscribe did the cha-cha, and >> screamed: >>> unsettled shamelessly exposed this to the world: >>>> 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 >>> So you don't think killing children is a problem. Then what was >>> your point above? >> >> You're the exception that proves the rule. > > 'prove' as in 'test' > So the correct modern saying is: "the exception that tests the rule" Since when did modern man do away with the notion of proof, you flapping great nitwit? -- alt.usenet.kooks - Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker: September 2005 and April 2006 "K-Man's particular genius, however, lies not merely in his humour, but his ability to make posters who had previously seemed reasonably well-balanced turn into foaming, frothing, death threat-uttering maniacs" - Snarky, Demon Lord of Confusion "remember that th [sic] head toecutter has quarter million confirmed kadaitcha man kills ok" - the land surfer Fuckwitted alt.atheism atheist to Kadaitcha Man: "Imagine if I were to suggest "I have a prehensile tail". You would, naturally, ask for evidence." Kadaitcha Man in reply to fuckwitted alt.atheism atheist: "Not at all. I would unquestionably accept your admission to being a monkey." Thou drone. Your bum is the greatest thing about you, so that, in the beastliest sense, you are Pomey the Great.
From: mmeron on 28 Jan 2007 23:06 In article <4d980$45bd1194$49ed0c7$8273(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> writes: >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. Well, thank you. I always made it my business to keep my education broad. > >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, One wonders whether they ever stood a chance of success, in the long run. >though Austria has never regained the economic power she >once had based on "empire" which was forever lost. > And the remnants of this empire are still struggling to find a new stable arrangement, same as the remnants of the Ottoman Empire. When a big and long lived empire collapses, it take quite a while for the dust to settle. >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. > Yes, certainly so. I see a great similarity here to the German situation. Again, a new power, coming on its own in a world where all the "good bits" have been aleady taken. >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.) > Most people operate at the level of first time chess players, remembering the last move and hardly capable of thinking even one move ahead. When people like this observe a game played by experienced players they're quite lost, of course. Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, meron(a)cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
From: Eeyore on 28 Jan 2007 23:23
mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> writes: > > >though Austria has never regained the economic power she > >once had based on "empire" which was forever lost. > > > And the remnants of this empire are still struggling to find a new > stable arrangement, same as the remnants of the Ottoman Empire. They are ? Do please elaborate. Graham |