Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: John Fields on 5 Oct 2006 16:01 On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 21:11:22 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Fields wrote: > >> On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 22:29:53 +0100, Eeyore >> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >Fine. So I'm never going to have the problem [forced conversion]. Hence it's moot. >> >> --- >> Your _assumption_ that you'll never have the problem because you'll >> have your head buried in the sand to avert it doesn't mean that the >> problem won't visit you. On the contrary, your refusal to recognize >> it as a possibility makes you much more vulnerable than you'd >> otherwise be. It might surprise you to hear this, but complacency >> is _not_ a virtue. > >There is no possibilty of me ever being asked to convert under threat of force simply >because there will never be enough Muslims here to be in a position to force me to do >anything ( even assuming they wanted to ) . --- All it takes is one... --- >In any case they'd have to overthrow EU and UK law first. --- No big deal. You've never heard of martial law? --- >The very concept is insanely stupid. --- Not at all. The implementation may be extremely difficult, but the concept is already causing terrorist acts to occur there. -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: Eeyore on 5 Oct 2006 16:03 lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > So how many prisons will we need to build, and what fraction of the GDP will > go into staffing/supporting/maintaining them, in order to imprison 100 > million people? That would most likely sap the entire GDP of the USA. Cheaper to kill those the USA disagrees with. Graham
From: Eeyore on 5 Oct 2006 16:05 Keith wrote: > rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > > I don't recall Starr being a newsman. > > Stoopid donkey, Starr never gave so much as an interview. LIAR. http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/11/25/starr.sawyer/ Graham
From: Eeyore on 5 Oct 2006 16:06 John Fields wrote: > Eeyore wrote > >lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > > >> Calling "criticism" "unacceptable" is not an opinion--it's an > >> argument-winning tactic that involves tacitly silencing anybody who > >> disagrees with you. > > > >Criticism was considered unacceptable in 1930s Germany too. > > --- > If the parallel is valid, expect to hear someone knocking on your > door because of your antics here. Thankfully, the UK isn't yet run by a bunch of crooks like the USA is. Graham
From: Eeyore on 5 Oct 2006 16:08
John Fields wrote: > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >"Homer J Simpson" <nobody(a)nowhere.com> wrote in message > >> "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote > >> > >>> Sounds like it. Wasn't there a recent suggestion that the Nazis and > >>> the Brits should have made a deal? > >> > >> The British were asked to help take out Hitler before WWII and refused. > >> Big mistake, since no heir would have been as bad. > > > >No way of knowing that for sure. Hitler's insanity contributed heavily to > >his forces defeats. If they had a competent, sane, commander in chief it may > >have gone differently. > > --- > It certainly _would_ have. > > Just for starters, there would have been no holocaust. The holocaust was actually set in motion not by Hitler but by his cronies. Graham |