Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 3 Feb 2007 11:18 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eq21m2$8qk_009(a)s939.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <45C379D1.F60802F4(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>T Wake wrote: >> >>> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>> > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >> > >>> >> >> Pay attention to what happened in Boston yesterday; especially >>> >> >> follow what happens after this and what the critics are saying >>> >> >> and what these critics don't say. One thing you need to know >>> >> >> is that the mayor of Boston is the only politician here who >>> >> >> is taking the warnings of 9/11 seriously. >>> >> > >>> >> >Would you care to explain for us who don't live there >>> >> >what it is that happened in Boston ? >>> >> >>> >> It's too long to explain. Magic incantations are: gorilla >>> >> marketing, >>> >> Turner Broadcasting; the Cartoon channel and some movie about >>> >> hair (I haven't figured this one out yet); Boston temporarily >>> >> shut down. >>> > >>> > Completely failing as ever to say the word bomb and hoax. >>> > >>> > I've heard elsewhere about this now. The police in Boston acted > correctly. >>> > I hope whatever nitiwit thought this one up goes to jail. >>> >>> To be honest, I have no idea how this incident in Boston shows the Mayor >>> there is the "only politician [there] who is taking the warnings of [11 > Sep] >>> seriously." >> >>Several other cities also had the 'suspicious devices' planted yet no >>action > was >>taken about them. >>http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2007/01/31/mass_suspi > cious_devices_called_a_hoax/ > > That supports my statement that only a few politicians are > taking this threat seriously. Or one politician is over reacting. As with lots of things there are a multiple of viewpoints. Having said that, looking at the supposed "devices" I tend to lean towards the side which thinks it is an overreaction - but I wasn't there so I have no idea of the reality. For those who have computers built after 1990, the following links are entertaining: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/02/about_boston_again.php http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/02/nonterrorist_em.html http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/008619.html http://dererumnatura.us/archives/2007/01/mooninites_inva.html Now, unlike some of the views expressed in those links, I have no doubts that the police were acting in the manner they felt best to protect the public. It is sad, however, that the climate of fear is such that these reactions were necessary.
From: unsettled on 3 Feb 2007 11:18 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > In article <87veije0z8.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, > Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: >> >>>In article <87d54rfki2.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, >>> Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: >>>> >>>>>In article <87lkjggic8.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, >>>>> Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>>Saddam broke a long tradition which was Arab didn't attack Arab. >>>>>>>I think this is going to be viewed as a crucial point in world >>>>>>>history. >>>>>> >>>>>>Which event are you referring to here? Which particular Arabs >>>>>>did he attack and when? (It's not obvious from the context.) >>>>> >>>>>When Saddam tried to annex Kuwait. >>>> >>>>That's what I assumed. You do realise that you've just brought >>>>up another example that weakens your own argument from about >>>>half a dozen posts back? >>> >>>I'm sure all kinds of facts contradict each other in this case. >> >>Unfortunately, you're hoarding the lion's share. >> >> >>>It is a complicated issue and isn't going to be solved with a >>>STOP, RESET, RESTART procedure. It's also clear that this group, >>>who keep trying to prove me wrong, doesn't have any idea how >>>these Muslims live, think or believe. You are making conclusions >>>based on zero knowledge. >> >>In this thread, I do make conclusions from your posts. > > > Once in while, I wish you would make one before you negate > the contents of my words. > > /BAH Phil appears to have a number of personal agendas and some personality disorders. Appeals to logic, God forbid common sense, are going to continue to fall on deaf ears. I've tried to address these sorts of people, to no avail. Parry with him if you're having fun. I found him boring.
From: T Wake on 3 Feb 2007 11:23 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eq1v4t$8qk_001(a)s939.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <pO6dnetrRIU_8l7YnZ2dneKdnZypnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>news:45C36DC1.B1B9226E(a)hotmail.com... >>> >>> >>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> > >>>> >> Pay attention to what happened in Boston yesterday; especially >>>> >> follow what happens after this and what the critics are saying >>>> >> and what these critics don't say. One thing you need to know >>>> >> is that the mayor of Boston is the only politician here who >>>> >> is taking the warnings of 9/11 seriously. >>>> > >>>> >Would you care to explain for us who don't live there >>>> >what it is that happened in Boston ? >>>> >>>> It's too long to explain. Magic incantations are: gorilla marketing, >>>> Turner Broadcasting; the Cartoon channel and some movie about >>>> hair (I haven't figured this one out yet); Boston temporarily >>>> shut down. >>> >>> Completely failing as ever to say the word bomb and hoax. >>> >>> I've heard elsewhere about this now. The police in Boston acted >>> correctly. >>> I >>> hope whatever nitiwit thought this one up goes to jail. >> >>To be honest, I have no idea how this incident in Boston shows the Mayor >>there is the "only politician [there] who is taking the warnings of [11 >>Sep] >>seriously." > > Everybody, according to the mayor's report, worked together and got > to the disaster center on time. The bomb squad did their job well. > The mayor was on the radio every morning and evening keeping us > uptodate. The shutdown was done efficiently. The startup was > not a problem (other than the usual snarls). They must have > shut the city starting from the outside in. I didn't hear > many awful traffic reports. The mayor has done his homework > establishing an infrastructure for the times when messes will > happen. OK. Did all the other politicians make mistakes when they closed down the city? I am still not sure how this means he is the only one who too 11 Sep 01 seriously. > Note that he was accused of overreacting. Most of what I've read accuses the police department of overreacting. I am not sure of how the relationship between the mayor and police in the US is, but in most countries I have visited if the Police say to a local governor (or whatever) "there is a bomb there, do you want us to deal with it?" the answer is almost always "yes." > Also the news said > that the marketing firm told the guys setup those things to > not say anything. And? > It took over a half day for anybody on the Turner > side to call the mayor and tell him it was a publicity stunt. OK. I am still not sure how that means the Mayor is great. > Most politicians around here say the word "9/11" followed by a "but". > I don't get that at all, sorry.
From: Ken Smith on 3 Feb 2007 11:44 In article <868dd$45c35917$49ecf7f$11147(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Ken Smith wrote: [....] >>>They've been offered reactors. They refused them out of hand. >> >> >> They have been offered complete dependance on another nation in the >> process. > >We buy all sort of things from Pacific Rim nations. Is that >a form of complete dependence? If the US buys something it truly needs and has lost the ability to make it for its self, the US has become dependant. This is not a huge problem for the US because the US has many suppliers. The US does have caches of materials that it depends on that it keeps aside just in case of war. This can't be done, practically, with electrical power. >> The nuclear development is a barganing chip they may spend but >> it would have to be on something they see as a long term solution. > >Which is easier? Designing and building a nuclear power plant >or designing and building an atomic bomb? Given the political >situation coupled with the anti-Israeli pronouncements of >Iranian leadership which development project do you see most >likely? Right now, I see the power plant as the thing they will design and build. They don't need nearly as pure of material so the refining doesn't have to work so well and it will confound their enemies. [.....] >How many nations have the capability to provide/sell Iran a >nuclear power plant or several? I can't see that sort of >"dependence" as a critical feature in the modern economic >calculus. What they have been offered so far is contracts in which exactly one source of fuel is allowed for the reactor. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: T Wake on 3 Feb 2007 11:46
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eq225a$8qk_001(a)s939.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <a3f7a$45c48574$cdd08504$18440(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> In article <pO6dnetrRIU_8l7YnZ2dneKdnZypnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>> >>>>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>news:45C36DC1.B1B9226E(a)hotmail.com... >>>> >>>>> >>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Pay attention to what happened in Boston yesterday; especially >>>>>>>>follow what happens after this and what the critics are saying >>>>>>>>and what these critics don't say. One thing you need to know >>>>>>>>is that the mayor of Boston is the only politician here who >>>>>>>>is taking the warnings of 9/11 seriously. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Would you care to explain for us who don't live there >>>>>>>what it is that happened in Boston ? >>>>>> >>>>>>It's too long to explain. Magic incantations are: gorilla marketing, >>>>>>Turner Broadcasting; the Cartoon channel and some movie about >>>>>>hair (I haven't figured this one out yet); Boston temporarily >>>>>>shut down. >>>>> >>>>>Completely failing as ever to say the word bomb and hoax. >>>>> >>>>>I've heard elsewhere about this now. The police in Boston acted >>>>>correctly. >>>>>I >>>>>hope whatever nitiwit thought this one up goes to jail. >>>> >>>>To be honest, I have no idea how this incident in Boston shows the Mayor >>>>there is the "only politician [there] who is taking the warnings of [11 > Sep] >>>>seriously." >>> >>> >>> Everybody, according to the mayor's report, worked together and got >>> to the disaster center on time. The bomb squad did their job well. >>> The mayor was on the radio every morning and evening keeping us >>> uptodate. The shutdown was done efficiently. The startup was >>> not a problem (other than the usual snarls). They must have >>> shut the city starting from the outside in. I didn't hear >>> many awful traffic reports. The mayor has done his homework >>> establishing an infrastructure for the times when messes will >>> happen. >>> >>> Note that he was accused of overreacting. Also the news said >>> that the marketing firm told the guys setup those things to >>> not say anything. It took over a half day for anybody on the Turner >>> side to call the mayor and tell him it was a publicity stunt. >>> >>> >>> Most politicians around here say the word "9/11" followed by a "but". >> >>What is clear is that any improvised device showing >>batteries and wires is presently suspicious to the >>police. That's got the potential to shut down cities >>and airports. Leaving a large ghetto blaster at Logan >>Airport would probably shut down the building it was >>found in. > > Did the plane that fell on Scotland have a radio filled > with explosive? Do you mean Pan Am Flight 103? If so, yes, it is believed the explosives were inside a radio cassestte player. Catholic bombers in England had a tendency to hide explosive devices in side rubbish bins or underneath cars. The protestants weren't that sophisticated and tended to just go round and drill through people's knee caps. |