Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: John Larkin on 5 Oct 2006 15:25 On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 12:57:00 -0500, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > >England, the US, and every other country in the world that has had >to fight for its existence was founded on terrorism or caused to >come into existence because of terrorism. How was the US founded on terrorism? I've read that not a single civilian was executed in the US Revolutionary War. The only people that were shot at were British soldiers and their indian allies. There were certainly no bombs planted in mathetplaces. The important battles of the Rev War were fought between real armies. John
From: Kurt Ullman on 5 Oct 2006 15:26 In article <452559FA.7F68DA56(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Ken Smith wrote: > > > T Wake <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > > > > >A surprisingly small number of Islamic extremists are actually willing to > > >die for their cause you know? > > > > Their belief system encourages it with promices of virgins etc > > It's a *distorted* version of their 'belief system' that does that. Don't > blame Islam. > It is a "distorted" version of Islam. It is a perfect version of their belief system.
From: Kurt Ullman on 5 Oct 2006 15:27 In article <ujmai25qup9o2org7nuj0lua75hdd6soa4(a)4ax.com>, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)My-Web-Site.com> wrote: > On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 19:07:36 GMT, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman(a)yahoo.com> > wrote: > > >In article <M9cVg.51603$E67.40698(a)clgrps13>, > > "Homer J Simpson" <nobody(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > > > >> "Kurt Ullman" <kurtullman(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > >> news:kurtullman-25F347.08023505102006(a)customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.m > >> x.. > >> . > >> > >> >> And what percentage of Americans have ever been further than Canada or > >> >> Mexico? Or have even left their own state? > >> >> > >> >> Ever watch Jay Leno? > >> > > >> > Yep that certainly meets my criteria for a well-done population > >> > study.... > >> > >> Jay Leno: "Which two countries border the United States?" > >> > >> Girl on the Street: "Ummm, errr, ahhh, Europe and ummm, Paris?" > >> > >> Yep, that's an American all right. Like those who think Alaska is an > >> island. > > > > Yep I am impressed how one girl on the street can then be reliably > >used as an exemplar for 300 million or so people. When do you go to > >Norway? > > We're not expected to be at 300 million until next week ;-) > > ...Jim Thompson Thus the "or so". Anal retentives abound around here (g).
From: T Wake on 5 Oct 2006 15:28 "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:kce8i2l54rst8l51d8ekjq7iopiiq6530l(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 19:49:49 +0100, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >> >>"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message >>news:8ft5i211dol6qj0uqbuo75l7bsr01uf60v(a)4ax.com... > >>> --- >>> Sometimes a crude allegory serves admirably in making a point >>> quickly. >>> >> >>On both sides of the debate.... > > --- > Yes, but often the point made by the side with the crude allegory > overshadows the implicit admonition against political incorrectness > enjoyed, silently, by the other side. Fair one and (IMHO) neither are really valid debating styles. If people want to throw insults at each other, great. I have no problem with that. > That is, if that's what you had in mind. I am not sure what I had in mind. > If it isn't, and both sides revert to crude allegory, then the > psycholgy underlying the symbology can get very interesting. Yes, although it does imply that both sides of the debate are somewhat fixated with inserting things up their own backsides.......... Interesting symbology but, based on the mental picture I have of the "average" person on USENET, not pleasant....
From: T Wake on 5 Oct 2006 15:33
<lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:9O%Ug.9912$e66.5369(a)newssvr13.news.prodigy.com... > > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:45242CC2.DD3FAE5A(a)hotmail.com... >> >> >> Gordon wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 18:46:00 GMT, "Homer J Simpson" wrote: >>> >"Ken Smith" <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote in message >>> > >>> >>>Clinton was successful. >>> >>> >>> >>>Bush is a failure. >>> >> >>> >> Unless you assume some really bad things about his motives that is. >>> > >>> >9/11 was Bush's failure. >>> >>> How long had Bush been in office when 9/11 occurred? Who was in >>> office the 8 years before that? > > Well, if you're going to play that ridiculous game...what party was in > office for 12 years before that, and 20 of the past 24? Surely *they* > deserve a lot of the blame too, with such an extended stay in power.... An interesting sidenote, highlighted by this thread in places, but more obvious in the "mainstream media" is that when a BADTHING(tm) happens the first thing people do is find some one to blame. In the UK when a nutcase kills someone, the press hound social services ("How could you let this happen") and inevitably some poor functionary will get sacked as a scapegoat. However, the reality of the matter is the nutter was the bad person and the _only_ person to blame. People really are strange. |