Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 29 Jan 2007 08:42 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:epkt2j$8qk_003(a)s957.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <k7idnXasJL5VbyDYRVnyiwA(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:epkodf$8ss_001(a)s957.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> 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. >> >>Do you include the USSR as a European country? > > Yes. I was taught that the continent extended beyond the > English Channel. Where were you taught it ended? >>>>>> 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] >>> >> >>Hang on, *you* said the US got involved in Korea because a European >>country >>asked for the US to help out. Unsettled went to great lengths to define >>the >>USSR as a European empire, and define Stalin's encouragement and support >>for >>the North to attempt re-unification as a request for help. >> >>Now, all of a sudden, you pull the rug out and ask which European country >>took the responsibility of cleaning up the mess. >> >>Amazing. >> >>This is such a warped line of logic is really is mind boggling. >> >>Are you *now* saying the US did not get involved in Korea because Europe >>asked for help, but they had to stay because no European country was >>willing >>to take responsibility for cleaning up the mess? (Who caused the mess?) > > You don't know how WWII and WWI got started? >> >>Do you have any intellectual moral standards? > > No. I try to reexamine my assumptions constantly; I try very > hard to not be stuck in a mindset when the mindset is a source > of the problems. So, please clarify what you meant when you said the US only got involved in Korea because Europe asked for Help. It wont take you long.
From: T Wake on 29 Jan 2007 08:42 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:epksp5$8qk_002(a)s957.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <45BCC692.522ADCC0(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>I'm curious as to who added the kook group. > > Wake did. He likes to make messes. > It is not a mess. You can ignore their posts, you can ignore their threads, you can trim your own posts.
From: jmfbahciv on 29 Jan 2007 08:39 In article <45BB5BCC.CA4B3110(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >> > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>>You [jmfbahciv] really do not want to live in a representative democracy do >> you? >> >> >> >>Even a representative democracy needs to have some way to deal >> >>with the people who go after little kids, and make other kinds >> >>of messes. A democracy does not, and never has, meant that >> >>all people can do anything they want without punishment. >> >> >> > >> >No, but it does mean they have the right to a trial before they're punished. >> >> You keep insisting that the people who want to destroy Western >> civilization are criminals. Under whose law? > >The relevant law of the land in question. Muslims don't honor any laws other than their own. So now, under whose law? > > >> When a military group from another country blows up bridges and trains and kills >> >> civilians, I call that a war, not a criminal act. > >When it's the military action of a country's armed forces >it would indeed be war . >In the case under discussion whre it's not the action >of a country's armed forces >it's terrorism. That's a crime pure and simple. When will you understand that Islam doesn't have a nationalist history? They haven't figured out what nationalism means. They are just beginning to figure out this stuff; conservatists think it is against the Koran. > >By calling it a war you only 'inflate' the supposed legitimacy of criminals by >letting them see themselves as 'soldiers in a cause'. This ploy has been used many >times in the past with various degrees of success - e.g. IRA ( Irish Republic Army >) RAF ( Red Army Faction ) etc... > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_Faction > >Far better to call them criminals as they really are. Your IRA had a tacit agreement that they were breaking your laws. These Muslims don't. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 29 Jan 2007 08:40 In article <epg0g5$pn5$3(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <45BB5BCC.CA4B3110(a)hotmail.com>, >Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >[.....] >>> You keep insisting that the people who want to destroy Western >>> civilization are criminals. Under whose law? >> >>The relevant law of the land in question. > >Also, I believe they violated German law too. Even when they did not act >in Germany. But they didn't violate their own. So, are you really that arrogant that you insist your country's criminal laws apply everywhere across the globe? If so, why are there such things as extradition treaties? /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 29 Jan 2007 08:44
In article <epg0dh$pn5$2(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <epfj3s$8qk_006(a)s788.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >[.....] >>You keep insisting that the people who want to destroy Western >>civilization are criminals. Under whose law? > >Those who acted in the US broke many US laws before 9/11. The ones in the >UK broke many law of the UK. The ones in Spain broke spanish law. Using your logic, when the Germans invaded France, they broke French law. The Germans didn't care about French law. They intended to enforce their German law onto all French citizens. And then the plans were to enforce German law on the rest of Europe; then the rest of the world. We are in a war no matter how mealy mouths try to pretend it's not there. > >> When a military >>group from another country blows up bridges and trains and kills >>civilians, I call that a war, not a criminal act. > >But that isn't what is happening so why to you bring it up? It is happening. Until a few decades ago, the only "nation" Muslims recognized was the Nation of Islam. /BAH |