Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 30 Jan 2007 12:51 "Ken Smith" <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote in message news:epnjtj$df5$1(a)blue.rahul.net... > In article <45BF4AF7.6D3EA07(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> I don't expect them to do a damned thing about Iran's atomic >>> bombs. >> >>Iran has no atomic bombs. > > Maybe we should spread the rumor that they do along with everyone else. > If the neocons thought they had some, they wouldn't even think about > invading. LOL. Probably the only way :-)
From: Lloyd Parker on 30 Jan 2007 08:54 In article <9d81f$45bf6f6d$4fe7196$2020(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Lloyd Parker wrote: > >> In article <epne6r$8ss_002(a)s827.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>>In article <45BE0B7D.D6FA8748(a)hotmail.com>, >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>unsettled wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>Only losing nations and their executives ever face the >>>>>>>consequences. No nation or national executive engages >>>>>>>in war with the thought of losing. >>>>>> >>>>>>Hmmmm, well there's more than few in the UK who would like to see Tony >>> >>>Blair >>> >>>>>>prosecuted for war crimes. >>>>> >>>>>Under whose law? Islam's? >>>> >>>>Under British law you nitwit. Britain is a signatory to the Geneva >>> >>>Conventions >>> >>>>you know. >>> >>>So you want your political leaders to be punished for >>>trying to do their job. That kind of thinking must >>>give lots of encouragement to those who intend to >>>destroy your lifestyle. >>> >>>/BAH >> >> >> The sovereign being above the law went out in the US around 1776. I doubt it >> applies in the UK any longer either. > >Not completely. Judicial immunity and a few other features >arise out of sovereign immunity. This has been discussed in >SCOTUS opinions more than a few times. > But not sovereign immunity (or Nixon wouldn't have needed that pardon).
From: unsettled on 30 Jan 2007 14:37 Eeyore wrote: > > unsettled wrote: > > >>Eeyore wrote: >> >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>>>kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>> >>>>>Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>unsettled wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>Eeyore wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Attacking Iran would really let the genie out of the bottle. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Or contain it. >>>>>> >>>>>>It makes as much sense as attacking a wasp's nest with a heavy stick. In >>>>>>front of other wasps ! >>>>> >>>>>I'd say less. Iran will fall out of the hand of the extremists in the >>>>>next 20 or so years if left alone. With Bush's help, they will maintain >>>>>control for much longer than that. >>>> >>>>The West doesn't have 20 years. >>> >>>Says who apart from you? >>> >>> >>>>What part of "using an atom bomb in a few years" do you not understand? >>> >>>They don't have a bomb now nor will they have one in a 'few years'. >>> >>>Iran clearly wants one not for offensive use ( that would be insane ) but to >>>deter attack from the warmongering USA. >> >>You're the insane one. > > > How about you explain a sane example of the offensive use of nuclear weapons ? > > Graham > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki
From: T Wake on 30 Jan 2007 15:08 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:epnprj$8ss_011(a)s858.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <45BD19C7.5AA9DF4E(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>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=b2abf344-08e9-4ba6-8 > b5d-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. " > > Boy, do I smell a rat. They had sextuplets without the services > of a fertility clinic? They are Jehovah's Witnesses. There is a whole box of rats.
From: T Wake on 30 Jan 2007 15:09
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45BF7AF6.D38500D0(a)hotmail.com... > > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >I just came across this recent example. >> >http://www.canada.com/topics/bodyandhealth/story.html?id=b2abf344-08e9-4ba6-8 >> >b5d-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. " >> >> Boy, do I smell a rat. They had sextuplets without the services >> of a fertility clinic? > > " The brief text states that church members are allowed to receive any > modern > medical intervention, except blood transfusions. " > Nothing like defining your own standards of belief. |