Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 5 Feb 2007 11:16 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eq77ia$8qk_008(a)s1004.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <45C4C5FA.D258272E(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>> > >>> >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? >> >>In baggage in the hold IIRC. >> >>What's your point ? > > Unbelievable. > No, seriously, what was your point?
From: unsettled on 5 Feb 2007 11:17 Stupid Phil Carmody lied when he wrote: > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: > >>"T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>> >>>>The heads of religion decide what people can eat, wear, use, >>>>and make. They have been in control from the start of Islam. >>> >>>Your two sentences are no more applicable to "Islam" than any other >>>religion. >> >>Christianity doesn't concern itself about eating nor sanitary habits. >>It doesn't establish a lifestyle nor daily habits as part of its >>catecism. > > > So Christianity has never concerned itself with fasting and > abstinence? Odd, as such things seems to crop up in the > decisions of the Council of Jerusalem, and in the synoptic > gospels. BAH Christianity doesn't concern itself Lying Phil Christianity has never concerned itself > And there's nothing to do with sanitary habits either. > Oh - except little things like the big J himself saying > "when thou fastest, anoint thine head, and wash thy face;" > > Food rituals and sanitary habits in one verse! > > Christ, you've shot holes in both feet simultaniously. > > Does being so ill-informed hurt? You're the expert, tell us.
From: T Wake on 5 Feb 2007 11:26 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eq78d6$8qk_001(a)s1004.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <_MSdnbOuSKCaQVjYnZ2dnUVZ8t-nnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:eq4jbn$8ss_004(a)s795.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <45C4C99E.5FE95E2D(a)hotmail.com>, >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >>>>> 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. >>>> >>>>And you do ? >>> >>> I'm learning. It became my high priority after 9/11. >> >>This carries the not quite hidden implication you think that your >>"learning" >>(and any subseqent discoveries) will change anything in the rest of the >>world. > > Why shouldn't it? Maybe I was too harsh. I am sure your learning and planning will change how you live your life. I would be interested to see how your discoveries can influence, for example, US foreign policy. You are strongly wedded to your political beliefs and you appear to have a version of that strange sense of nationalism which says "any criticism of any aspect of my country means you hate my country." As a result of this, I suspect nothing you learn will change your political beliefs, so you are not even likely to change who you vote for in an election. I *strongly* suspect your learning is done in such a manner it reinforces what you already think. >>You also have the (hardly hidden at all) implication in several posts that >>*you* are the only person who has learned anything and you are the only >>person who can come up with plans. > > I don't if I can produce a plan. I haven't gotten to that point yet. Eh? Did you miss out some words there? >>That your plans are nonsense, and when you try to demonstrate learning it >>is >>incorrect, fazes you not at all. > > So let me see if I understand you. The only way I can learn is to > never make a mistake. Thus, until I am sure I won't make a mistake, > I can't do anything. No wonder you don't realize what reality is. Nope. Re-read my post. Your last sentence highlights why I think you will never learn anything. You had a pre-conceived idea of what I wrote and built a reality out of it. Most people learn from their mistakes. When your "thinking" is demonstrated to be false you ignore all the information which disagrees with you and stick to your "thinking." Your plans are nonsense. Try to learn the real world. It seems the thing you are most reluctant to do, is the most important. You really do need to re-assess all the predetermined ideas about subjects you have. >>>>Do tell about your real-world experience of Muslims. >>> >>> My experience wouldn't have included people who eschewed >>> Western technology. In order to know how to fight and defend >>> from these people, I need to know my enemy. >> >>Eh? Do you know what eschewed means? > > Shun. To take great care to avoid. > >> I thought you said the threat was from >>Muslims who wanted to get rid of all the western stuff? > > Yes. What do you think eschew means? Ok, so your earlier paragraph was missing some vital words then. The conversation was about your real world experience of Muslims. You then say your experience would not have inclued the ones you consider your enemy and follow that up with saying you need to know this enemy so you can fight/defend. Can you see how flawed your line of thinking is? If you do not have experience of this enemy you say we need to know, how do you get to know them? >>I shouldn't be surprised, but this makes no sense here. > > I am quickly coming to the conclusion that you have > serious reading comprehension problems. Oh dear. That really is ironic as you rarely, if ever, read my posts and normally respond to whatever the voices in your head say my posts are. > I know I don't > write perfectly clearly (that takes months to hone a good > sentence) but my writing isn't that muddled. It may well be.
From: T Wake on 5 Feb 2007 11:36 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45C682ED.9CCF819D(a)hotmail.com... > > > unsettled wrote: > >> T Wake wrote: >> > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> > >> >>Western fashions come and go at the drop of a haute couteur >> >>hiccup. All through Islamic history, the clothes people wore >> >>were dictated. Some had political reasons like banning >> >>the styles that was dictated by your predecessor but others >> >>seems to keep the infidels' influcence away from the the pure >> >>Mulsim. That's control, serious control. >> >> >> >>And that's just textiles and shoes. >> > >> > >> > If I point to a webpage with a picture of an Islamic Arabic cleric >> > wearing >> > sandles which do not have two straps are you happy this falsifies your >> > claims? >> >> There are blasphemers in all religions. > > Blaspheming clerics ? > It also creates the situation (often used by theists to counter the argument that religion is cause of suffering), where the rules are open to interpretation by the individual. The argument says Islam is a religion of "serious control" and I am saying, if I can find a picture of an Arabic, Islamic, Cleric wearing sandals which do not have two straps doesn't it falsify that claim? The example of control BAH made was about shoes, unsettled modified that (as he often has to do when BAH starts talking nonsense) into sandals (not a major shift though) and I am now curious as to how this can actually be an example of "serious control" if I can find pictures of Islamic Arabic Clerics wearing footwear not in accordance with the extract from the Koran. Would it be better if the picture is from a Taliban-era Afghani cleric? Or are these claims un-falsifiable?
From: T Wake on 5 Feb 2007 11:39
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45C6AA1C.A402BE2E(a)hotmail.com... > > > MassiveProng wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: >> >MassiveProng wrote: >> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: >> >> >MassiveProng wrote: >> >> >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >> >> >> > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> >> >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> >I think you should read up about rationing during WW2. >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> I have. It is significant that England couldn't figure out how >> >> >> >>> to stop war rations until 3 decades after the warring stopped. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>3 decades ! Where on earth did you get that figure from ? What >> >> >> >>was being >> >> >> >>rationed in 1975 ? >> >> >> > >> >> >> >I found it. whew! >> >> >> > >> >> >> >Reference: _The Downing Street Years_; Margaret Thatcher, >> >> >> >Harper-Collins; >> >> >> >1993; page 44. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >"But I took greatest personal pleasure in the removal of exchange >> >> >> >controls -- that is the abolition of the elaborate statuatory >> >> >> >restrictions on the amount of foreign exchange British citizens >> >> >> >could acquire. These had been introduced as an 'emergency >> >> >> >measure' >> >> >> >at the start of the Second World War and maintained by successive >> >> >> >governments, largely in the hope of increasing industrial >> >> >> >investment in Britain and of resisting pressure on sterling." >> >> >> > >> >> >> >/BAH >> >> >> >> >> >> That's not "rationing", dingledorf. That's inflation control, >> >> >> and >> >> >> economic growth initiative. >> >> > >> >> >Interesting comment. >> >> > >> >> >In the following period we had skyrocketing inflation (under >> >> >Thatcher) and it >> >> >marked the time when outsourcing also started to take serious hold. >> >> >> >> >> >> Wasn't it already heading that way as she came in, and a lot of the >> >> damage already done though? >> > >> >Labour had been very protective of manufacturing industry whereas >> >Thatcher's >> >approach was to let 'the market' do its thing. She believed that 'the >> >market' was >> >the only important factor in the economy and distanced government from >> >any >> >long-term strategic thinking about industry. >> > >> >So, if it was cheaper to get stuff from abroad whether outsourced or >> >simply >> >imported from foreign suppliers, that was what went. >> > >> >Heck, we now even buy stuff like locomotives from the USA and ships from >> >Italy, >> >France and Germany, our own industry in those areas now being a minute >> >fraction of >> >what it once was. >> > >> >Thatcher also believed strongly in the service economy. As such, the UK >> >is now >> >regarded as being 'post-industrial'. >> >> >> So you are saying that her cutting these said controls was a bad >> thing for the value of british pounds sterling? >> >> Would it have been better to have retained it? > > I'm not sure what effect it would have had on the value of the pound. > > I'm confident that the loss of many key industries is bad for the UK > economy though. The value of the pound cuts both ways, thanks to BAH's heroine the UK is dependant on imports for many, many things and as a result fluctuations in the exchange rate have a massive impact. Prior to Thatcher, this was not as significant. I am not saying if this is a good or bad thing though. |