Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: lucasea on 5 Oct 2006 17:59 "Kurt Ullman" <kurtullman(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:kurtullman-1EB15B.17270805102006(a)customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx... > In article <452575FD.93302F82(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> Kurt Ullman wrote: >> >> > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> > >> > > And again, I'll ask, is there nothing in your worldview but "nuke 'em >> > > all" >> > > and "capitulate". Must really suck to live in such a black-and-white >> > > world. >> > > >> > You suggested that we stop giving them reasons to hate us. From their >> > own rhetoric and statements, the only way we are going to get that >> > subset that hates to stop is to capitulate. Period. >> >> No it isn't. > > Gee apparently the Argument Clinic Sketch has broken out.. (g). That would explain all the abuse.... <bg> >> Why do you think that ? >> > > Well the rhetoric of OBL and other Al_Queda honchoes. The writings and > rhetoric of radical sects in Saudi, the remnants of the Taliban the > pronouncements in public after the various attacks in Europe and Asia, > etc. I generally take people at their word when they say they will > continue to bomb until the US and the West are defeated and Islam rules > throughout the world. These are the guys that want to do is in and the > subset who hate us. But keep in mind that those are just the leaders--the *real* wackos, the ones 6sigma+ from the mean. In order to continue to convince people to face 100% certain death for a cause, the rhetoric of the leaders has to resonate with the beliefs and feelings of the masses, but it doesn't have to be the *same* as those feelings. Given these facts, and given the fact that, despite all the chest-beating bluster here, nobody in this group can for a second credibly claim to have the slightest clue what is going on in the heads of the masses that are feeding the extremists like ObL, I don't really think anyone here can claim to know what will cause them to stop their current destructive behavior. I do know one thing--we'll never know, if we're too certain of our own assumptions-from-a-distance, and too arrogant to at least *attempt* to reach out and understand. Eric Lucas
From: John Fields on 5 Oct 2006 17:59 On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 22:34:37 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Fields wrote: > >> On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 23:33:31 +0100, Eeyore wrote: >> >John Fields wrote: >> >> On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:05:58 +0100, Eeyore wrote: >> >> >> >The only violently inclined ppl in this thread >> >> >are yourself, Thompson and Terrell. Violent even to the point of making personal >> >> >threats. >> >> >> >> --- >> >> Show where I made a personal threat. >> > >> >Can you not read ? 'even to' doesn't have to include you. >> >> --- >> Nor then does it have to include Thompson or Terrell, so who were >> you leveling the accusation at, specifically? > >It would have to include at least one of them. --- Which one? --- >> Or are you going to try to backpedal your way out of this one, too? > >Don't be so utterly pathetic. --- LOL, I'm not the one one changing streams in mid-horse. -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: T Wake on 5 Oct 2006 18:01 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45257A97.2D371DD9(a)hotmail.com... > > > John Fields wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >John Fields wrote: >> >> 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... > > One what exactly ? > > >> >In any case they'd have to overthrow EU and UK law first. >> >> --- >> No big deal. You've never heard of martial law? > > Martial Law can only be imposed by a conquering army or whatever. Not true. Already in the UK the government have floated the idea of using soldiers to provide police (RMP) in Garrison towns. The surveillance team which assisted the shooting of the Brazillian were partly military. Soldiers and AFVs have deployed to Heathrow as security. Police deploy armed response teams with much greater regularity. (etc) Without over using the thin end of the wedge fallacy, there is always the risk that each little step is a step closer. > You think this is likely > ? How may brain cells do you have ? > > >> >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. > > It's so utterly insane that I'm inclined to find a way to campaign against > such crass > Republican stupidity. Are you not trying this already?
From: Eeyore on 5 Oct 2006 18:05 Homer J Simpson wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote > > >> Just for starters, there would have been no holocaust. > > > > The holocaust was actually set in motion not by Hitler but by his cronies. > > But who wrote Mein Kampf? I fail to see the direct connection. Graham
From: T Wake on 5 Oct 2006 18:06
"Homer J Simpson" <nobody(a)nowhere.com> wrote in message news:3IeVg.51653$E67.10593(a)clgrps13... > > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message > news:DO2dnQyL4Id38bjYRVnyuw(a)pipex.net... > >>> Just for starters, there would have been no holocaust. >>> >> >> Really? And you can prove that, how? > > Before Hitler - no holocaust. > > After Hitler - no holocaust. Wow. Before [Insert anyone who lived between 1930 - 1945] no holocaust. After [same person] no holocaust. Killing Hitler before he rose to power _may_ have altered the course of the war and even given this assumption (which is based on doubtful reasoning) it is unlikely to have prevented the war. Hitler was one person. For the atrocities to take place, lots of other people had to think in a similar manner. Remove Hitler after he got into power and one of his subordinates would have taken command. Holocaust would have continued, however now it is likely that the advice of astrologers and cats would be ignored and Panzers would have been properly positioned in Normandy, the troops in Russia would have been given sensible orders. Much harder war to win. Dont kill the madman. Leave him till the end then let him kill himself. > And that's despite the clear anti-Semitism in Germany - and much of the > Western world as well. Even in Poland which was arguably more anti-Semitic > than even the Krauts there was no holocaust. True Russia had its pogroms, > but they were somewhat less effective. Well, that is Germanic efficiency for you. |