Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Lloyd Parker on 1 Feb 2007 04:34 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: >>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. > >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. For the >last two years, before the US' Novemeber elections, the >moderates started to talk against the violence. Then >the Democrats took majority in Congress. Now the moderates >will shut up and see if those Democrats will protect them. >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. > >/BAH The "real problem" is that by invading and occupying a Moslem country, we've created many, many Moslem terrorists.
From: Lloyd Parker on 1 Feb 2007 04:35 In article <epq6o6$8qk_005(a)s856.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <epo4a4$kra$2(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, > lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>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). > >Nixon didn't need the pardon; the United States of America >needed that pardon. Huh? If Nixon couldn't have been prosecuted, neither he nor the US would have gone through anything. >You may not remember the villification >Ford received because he took away all chances of getting >revenge. > >/BAH Sure do. But again, if there was no way to "get revenge", why the pardon?
From: Lloyd Parker on 1 Feb 2007 04:36 In article <epq6t0$8qk_006(a)s856.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >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. > >The news was reported that Iran started up their >centrifuges this week. > >Just out of curiosity, do you keep a stick of TNT from blowing >up by pulling the lit fuse when the fire is 1/4" away from >the stick or by storing the fuses and the sticks in separate >buildings? > >/BAH Do you call it a bomb if all the person has is some paper, cord, and sulfur?
From: Lloyd Parker on 1 Feb 2007 04:37 In article <43337$45c09f0f$4fe73f1$10111(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Eeyore wrote: > >> >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> >>>I'll talk about the fighting that happened under Truman after WWII. >>>AT that time, none of the European free countries were in any >>>position to wage the coming fights that were to be called the >>>Cold War. Yet these same countries did not want Communism to >>>spread. So the US was the only country who had enough resources >>>to lead and do most of the supplying. >> >> >> It was the USA who was most concerned about communism spreading and it wasn't >> happening in Europe either. > >Europe victimized some of her own by sacrificing a group >of countries to Stalin forming a buffer between themselves >and Communism. That's how frightened and concerned Europe >was of the spread of Communism. > Well, considering the Red Army was sitting in those countries, it wasn't like there was much of a choice. And the Sovs did pull out of Austria, remember. >An interesting facet of that sacrifice is the on going >diminution of those nations by western Europe as part of >the self-justification process. Quite similarly the >Baltic Nations were also sacrificed because they held >no value to western Europe. >
From: Lloyd Parker on 1 Feb 2007 04:39
In article <epqapu$lk3$4(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <5t-dna_xAOwBIiLYnZ2dnUVZ8taknZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >T Wake <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >[.....] >>> Come on now, they have to play to the electorate. >> >>That is why a real regime change would be a winner in my book :-) > >There could be a change for the worse. Not all regime change is for the >better. Case in point: When the US put the shah back into power, overthrowing an elected leader in Iran. Talk about a "butterfly effect"! >Right now the direction seems to be for the better. Bush only >has 2 more years. He can make a very big mess in that much time but given >a few hundred years the US should recover. > > >> >> > > |