Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 31 Jan 2007 13:23 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45C09B1C.DFE9736F(a)hotmail.com... > > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>>Right, so putting directed surveillance on who a person contacts means >> >>>you >> >>>cant watch where their cash flows? >> >> >> >> Not easily. >> > >> >This is nonsense. Watching electronic cash flows is irrelevant to >> >officers >> >following the suspect. Following the suspect means they can _also_ watch >> >for >> >real world cash transactions. >> >> You have been watching too much TV. > > It's a fact that criminals prefer cash. Because electronic transactions are too easy to trace. BAH thinks real world cash transactions are some kind of voodoo.
From: Phil Carmody on 31 Jan 2007 15:19 "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> writes: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Possibly. It's not clear since he talks like a tech. Most > >> in this working category don't know how the rest of the > >> company works. > > > > Good Lord ! > > > > You're startlingly ignorant of modern manufacturing. > > Three excess words there. I don't think anyone could ever call BAH startlingly modern. ;-) 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: T Wake on 31 Jan 2007 15:24 "Phil Carmody" <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:87ps8vne3z.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org... > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> writes: >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> Possibly. It's not clear since he talks like a tech. Most >> >> in this working category don't know how the rest of the >> >> company works. >> > >> > Good Lord ! >> > >> > You're startlingly ignorant of modern manufacturing. >> >> Three excess words there. > > I don't think anyone could ever call BAH startlingly modern. > > ;-) > LOL
From: unsettled on 31 Jan 2007 18:59 T Wake wrote: > "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. History shows otherwise. >>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. The Germans were begging the Allies to do just that. Latvia is only one of three Baltic states absorbed into the USSR. Strange you should have picked only one. Never a murmur from anyone against the three involuntary annexations. > Remembering the UK rarely sees itself as "European" in any meaningful sense, Definitely an ongoing British problem. > the Yalta Conference was hardly a case of Europe sacrificing bits of itself. Your opinion, not shared by everyone. Whether or not Britain prefers to see herself as European, you are European. Do you think if you deny Britain's Europeanness long enough and strongly enough it will actually cease to exist? It seems a very head-in-sand approach. > The alternataive would have been going to war with Russia and fighting them > out of each and every country. Untrue. Russia, the USSR in fact, was very low on manpower necessary to the military. It would have been quick had the western allies taken on that task. How about negotiations first, and simply saying *no* to Stalin. He didn't even whimper when he was forced to withdraw from Austria which was well underway to becoming another Soviet satellite like the rest. It was, for a long time, more a matter of backbone and willpower. Eventually Stalin's people were entrenched in the government and politics of the buffer nations and it was too late for the west to do anything about it. Till the self destruction of the USSR, they kept huge military bases near the western end of the buffer nations to thwart a never realized invasion from the west. Flights from Vienna to Belgrade had to fly zig-zag route to avoid flying over the huge Soviet military encampments in the buffer nations. > I also seem to recall there was some reasoning towards getting russia to > side against Japan. Japan attacked the US. The USSR had no option. The USSR and Japan were at odds from the WW1 period, a bother that has not yet been resolved. The SU occupied several islands the Japanese believe belong to them, and Russia still owns them. I have no idea where you got this idea. > 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. There is no difference from 1919 to 199? between USSR and Russia where political agendas are concerned. >>That's how frightened and concerned Europe >>was of the spread of Communism. > Yeah, "not very" really. Were you around? Were you around in the 1950's? You're echoing the false bravado of your parents. Why do you think NATO was formed and maintained? "In 1954 the Soviet Union suggested that it should join NATO to preserve peace in Europe. The NATO countries rejected this, seeing it as an attempt to subvert NATO from within." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO >>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. True, the Brits never understood nor cared much about any of Europe (and you still don't) unless they were interfering with attention better dedicated to "the Empire." Had Britain paid better attention to European problems at the end of WW1, WW2 never would have happened. The only thing that kept WW3 from being "yet another European World War" was the enlightened approach taken by the US under the Marshall Plan and the creation of NATO which, if you read the wikipedia page, brought the US in to the fold in order to counter the Soviet threat from the east. Now, today, you're headed into completely repeating the same dysfunctional attitudes with respect to the rest of the world, while arguing adamantly that yours is the only correct path to world peace. Feh.
From: MassiveProng on 31 Jan 2007 19:39
On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 05:11:08 +0000, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: > >Making stainless steel isn't *that* tricky ! > You ain't real bright. Trust me, they are being fed tons of both raw materials, and finished parts. Most of which IS exotic stainless steels and the like, and most of what they have now they did not male. |