Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 1 Feb 2007 09:50 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: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>And how much did it cost you to have your anechoic chamber built? >>>>> >>>>>Why do you think he himself needs one ? >>>>> >>>>>You can rent them off test houses you know or indeed use an open field >>>>>site. >>>> >>>>If his company doesn't use production line assembling, then >>>>he is making them "by hand". Each one needs to be tested because >>>>a different "process" is used to make each individual system. >>> >>>You mean PCs ? >>> >>>All the component parts are compliant. The law assumes that any system made >>>of compliant parts will itself comply. >> >>I wouldn't assume that. > > > It's a perfectly reasonable method. > > > >>>Otherwise it *would* have been a nightmare ! >> >>Of course it is a nightmare. Why do you think we have the regs? > > > It's not a nightmare. I should know, I'm the one dealing with it in my work not > you. You *should* know.
From: Eeyore on 1 Feb 2007 09:50 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: > >Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>unsettled wrote: > >>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>> > >>> > Not dealing with Iran right now will let start an atomic war > >>> > in that area. > >>> > >>> At the very least, another nuclear race. > >> > >>Between whom ? > > > >Iran and the Saudis. "Race" could have the other meaning too. > > There are four who have vied for overall power. Egypt and > Turkey are the other two. So far, Turkey still has separation > of powers but conservatives in Turkey are working very hard > to change that. So you say. You're wrong. Graham
From: Eeyore on 1 Feb 2007 09:55 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: > > > >What part of "not having an atomic bomb for quite some years" do you not > >understand? > > The US started with no knowledge and built bombs within 3 years. No it didn't. It was not just the USA, it required the brains and skills of *all* the allies. > This included all of the infrastructure required. > The knowledge has been around for five decades so nobody > has to do that work. The important details are still secret. > Why does everybody assume that countries have to take longer to > assemble a bomb? Because they don't have the same resources that went into the manhattan project. Graham
From: Eeyore on 1 Feb 2007 09:57 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> 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? > > Anybody who can think. But you've shown you can't think clearly. > >> 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 ) > > Your assumption is 100% wrong. It will fatal to you. No it won't. > > but to deter attack from the warmongering USA. > > Even a two-year-olds know how to deter blame by > pointing their finger at somebody else. Much of the world is increasing seeing the USA as the most dangerous nation on the planet. Graham
From: Eeyore on 1 Feb 2007 09:59
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message > >>T Wake wrote: > >> > >>> Nah, you just change the guy sitting in the chair. Proper regime change > >>> would stop presidents talking about God for example. > >> > >> Come on now, they have to play to the electorate. > > > >That is why a real regime change would be a winner in my book :-) > > It is obvious to me that you would prefer them to use the word Allah. What a truly pathetic comment. Graham |