Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 31 Jan 2007 13:06 "Ken Smith" <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote in message news:epqdem$lk3$14(a)blue.rahul.net... > In article <epq5uj$8qk_001(a)s856.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>In article <epl3ru$6ev$9(a)blue.rahul.net>, >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: > [.....] >>>>Those people really like our brand of capitalism. Do you think >>>>they want to go back to the "old ways"? >>> >>>Your arument seems to have turned on it heals here. >> >>Not at all. These people are very good at surviving no matter >>what the politics are. The way Muslims survive, when they >>are in the moderate category, is to keep their mouths shut >>and never say no to violent faction of their community. > > Oh good now you admit that there are moderates and exteremists. This is > real progress. Now if we can just get you to notice the moderates > arresting the extremists when they commit crimes, we can start to make > some serious headway. > >>Until these moderates believe that there is a country who >>will protect them with all its military might, they aren't >>going to dare to say no to the violent factions. > > They only need to believe that their own country can protect them for them > to act against the extremists. They also will give the extemists support > if it looks like that is their only option to protect their government > from an outside power. > > >> For the >>last two years, before the US' Novemeber elections, the >>moderates started to talk against the violence. > > No, you only started hearing about it then. There has been a lot of > talking that has not made it onto the US's news. > > >> Then >>the Democrats took majority in Congress. Now the moderates >>will shut up and see if those Democrats will protect them. > > You are completely off base here. The democrats are the ones that the > terrorist fear the most. Why do you think that every time there is a US > election they do something that reminds you of their existance. They knew > that the american voters, for some silly reason, voted republican when > frightened. > > >>It took Bush 6 years to get these moderates to voice their >>opinions. > > Bush did nothing of the kind. He caused the extremists to gain a great > deal of support. I think you must watch the Faux News channel. > On the subject of Fox (and religion, albeit obliquely) I read this blog post with a YouTube clip and it really creased me up: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/01/john_kasich_is_a_big_fat_idiot.php It REALLY is worth laughing at.
From: T Wake on 31 Jan 2007 13:08 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:epq5uj$8qk_001(a)s856.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <epl3ru$6ev$9(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>In article <epku7f$8qk_009(a)s957.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>In article <epgg4o$a46$5(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>>In article <M9GdnS-x7KLMOSbYnZ2dnUVZ8qugnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >>>>T Wake <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>>[....] >>>>>Which country has invaded the US? >>>> >>>>Pakistan. Didn't you hear about 7/11. :) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>Note to nonUSAians: Yes, that is a joke. 7/11 is a type of store and a >>>>stereotype is that they are run by pakistanies. >>>> >>>Those people really like our brand of capitalism. Do you think >>>they want to go back to the "old ways"? >> >>Your arument seems to have turned on it heals here. > > Not at all. These people are very good at surviving no matter > what the politics are. The way Muslims survive, when they > are in the moderate category, is to keep their mouths shut > and never say no to violent faction of their community. You talk about Muslims as if they were martians. > Until these moderates believe that there is a country who > will protect them with all its military might, they aren't > going to dare to say no to the violent factions. Far from the way the world is. In reality, since the co-alition led attacks on Islamic nations (where more moderates are getting killed) it is harder for moderates to be moderate. When the US gets involved people are often forced to polarise. > For the > last two years, before the US' Novemeber elections, the > moderates started to talk against the violence. A LOT longer than that. > Then > the Democrats took majority in Congress. Now the moderates > will shut up and see if those Democrats will protect them. Your news sources are very strange. > It took Bush 6 years to get these moderates to voice their > opinions. It took about 1 week for the Democrats to shut > them up. These moderates have to learn to talk back to > the Democrats who aren't dealing with the real problems. > It will take time for these moderates to figure that out > and take a chance. > > I don't think there is enough time for that to happen. > Nine excess words there.
From: T Wake on 31 Jan 2007 13:09 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:1ce64$45c0a4db$4fe73f1$10166(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > Eeyore wrote: > >> >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> >>>Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >>>>>Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>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. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Democracies create laws and enforce them to deal with such issues. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Those laws apply to the citizens of that country during peace time. >>>>>> >>>>>>And in wartime too. >>>>> >>>>>No. You need to learn about your country's war powers and how >>>>>much of your peacetime freedoms were suspended during WWII. >>>> >>>>Nonsense. >>>> >>>>How about an example ? >>> >>>Food coupons. >> >> >> In exactly what meaningful way is that a loss of 'freedom' ? >> >> Rationing continued after the war btw. > > We provided lots of Care Packages to "starving Europe." > I am sure you did. How is that a loss of a "freedom?" My cat eats mice.
From: T Wake on 31 Jan 2007 13:09 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:epq6e8$8qk_004(a)s856.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <45BE08F0.6B3D2800(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>> >> > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>> >> > >>> >> >>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. >>> >> > >>> >> >Democracies create laws and enforce them to deal with such issues. >>> >> >>> >> Those laws apply to the citizens of that country during peace time. >>> > >>> >And in wartime too. >>> >>> No. You need to learn about your country's war powers and how >>> much of your peacetime freedoms were suspended during WWII. >> >>Nonsense. >> >>How about an example ? > > Food coupons. I think you misread. You were talking about freedoms. Do you mean the freedom from Food coupons was suspended?
From: T Wake on 31 Jan 2007 13:17
"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:43337$45c09f0f$4fe73f1$10111(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > Eeyore wrote: > >> >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> >>>I'll talk about the fighting that happened under Truman after WWII. >>>AT that time, none of the European free countries were in any >>>position to wage the coming fights that were to be called the >>>Cold War. Yet these same countries did not want Communism to >>>spread. So the US was the only country who had enough resources >>>to lead and do most of the supplying. >> >> >> It was the USA who was most concerned about communism spreading and it >> wasn't >> happening in Europe either. > > Europe victimized some of her own by sacrificing a group > of countries to Stalin forming a buffer between themselves > and Communism. Interesting choice of words. I suppose instead of the (now US-led) allies establishing a peace with the Russians, they could have continued to fight until Latvia was free. Remembering the UK rarely sees itself as "European" in any meaningful sense, the Yalta Conference was hardly a case of Europe sacrificing bits of itself. The alternataive would have been going to war with Russia and fighting them out of each and every country. I also seem to recall there was some reasoning towards getting russia to side against Japan. I am not sure how allowing the USSR to occupy European countries creates a buffer between Communism and Europe - the Russians wanted a buffer between Europe and Russia, not the USSR. > That's how frightened and concerned Europe > was of the spread of Communism. Yeah, "not very" really. > An interesting facet of that sacrifice is the on going > diminution of those nations by western Europe as part of > the self-justification process. Quite similarly the > Baltic Nations were also sacrificed because they held > no value to western Europe. Some things never change. |