Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Phil Carmody on 29 Jan 2007 06:55 unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> writes: > Phil Carmody wrote: > > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> writes: > >>Eeyore wrote: [and to-ing and fro-ing] > >>>>>>>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. > >> > >>We don't know it is a negative till you can prove it. > >> > >>Care to rephrase the logically offensive statements? It only > >>requires the addition of three words. > >> > >> > >>>So, how about you show me an example outside the USA ? I'm not aware of any. > >> > >>Don't need to. > > Actually, to counter his point, rather than just get pathetically > > hissy, you do. > > Can you stop being an idiot for a few minutes and try to > follow the discussion? I've been told it is difficult > to keep up in the back. Is that hissy-ish for "Sorry, I can't provide an example, but let me just wiggle more, hopefully you'll forget"? Phil -- "Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of /In God We Trust, Inc./.
From: Phil Carmody on 29 Jan 2007 07:03 kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) writes: > In article <87ac02wtac.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, > Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) writes: > >> In article <pan.2007.01.28.13.38.31.131504(a)hell.corn>, > >> The Demon Prince of Absurdity <absurd_number_of_nicks(a)hell.corn> 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. > >> > >> No, they are more dangerous. They are more embedded within the > >> civilisation they are attempting to destroy. > > > >I don't know if their intent is to destroy civilisation, but > >you make a very interesting, and quite deep, point. > > > >(I think they probably just want to 'fix' civilisation.) > > The muslims also just want to "fix" it to fit their model of what it > should be. If you crush a car melt it down and make several bicycles out > of it, I would argue you have destroeyed the car to make bicycles. What if you just rip out the engine, and hitch up a couple of horses or oxen to the front? And remove the materialistic and immoral car radio, of course! Phil -- "Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of /In God We Trust, Inc./.
From: unsettled on 29 Jan 2007 07:12 Phil Carmody wrote: > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> writes: > >>Phil Carmody wrote: >> >>>unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> writes: >>> >>>>Eeyore wrote: > > [and to-ing and fro-ing] > >>>>>>>>>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. >>>> >>>>We don't know it is a negative till you can prove it. >>>> >>>>Care to rephrase the logically offensive statements? It only >>>>requires the addition of three words. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>So, how about you show me an example outside the USA ? I'm not aware of any. >>>> >>>>Don't need to. >>> >>>Actually, to counter his point, rather than just get pathetically >>>hissy, you do. >> >>Can you stop being an idiot for a few minutes and try to >>follow the discussion? I've been told it is difficult >>to keep up in the back. > > > Is that hissy-ish for "Sorry, I can't provide an example, but let me > just wiggle more, hopefully you'll forget"? So you cannot stop being an idiot even for a few minutes. Fair enough.
From: unsettled on 29 Jan 2007 07:16 mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: > 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. That's a very nice way to explain it.
From: jmfbahciv on 29 Jan 2007 07:13
In article <qb-dnfTtVrp1WCbYRVnyvAA(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >news:86f93$45bbbd7e$4fe72dd$24906(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... <snip> >>>> >>>>Note that while the SU spread far over two continents it was >>>>always essentially a very European power. >> >>> This is more intellectual dishonesty. >> >> No it isn't. Russia/SU was always European. > >But refering to it as a European power in the context of BAH's statement is. >When she talks about Europe (and uses the term "you" towards the Europeans >posting in this thread), I doubt she includes Cold War USSR in that >category. > >I may be wrong, and if she clarifies matters I will reconsider. The Cold War hadn't happened yet. > >>> But even at the shocking use of Cold War USSR as being a European power, >>> when did Europe ask the US to get involved? >> >> Stalin insisted on the subdivision of Korea. What the hell >> did the US want with another Asian nation to look after? > >BAH stated the US got involved in Korea when Europe asked for Help. What on >Earth does Stalin subdividing Korea show about a European nation asking for >help? Which European country took the responsibility of cleaning up the mess in Korea? [emoticon listens for answer and hears nothing at all] <snip> /BAH |