Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 2 Oct 2006 07:10 mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> writes: > >mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: > >> In article <4520D844.DCF01BAD(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore writes: > >> >mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: > >> >>Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> writes: > >> >> > >> >> >There is no such thing as a coherent 'Islamic terrorist' movement, much as the USA would like to >> >have > >> you believe it. Much Islamic terrorism isn't even targeted at the West. > >> >> > >> >> There wasn't such thing as a coherent "Axis" in 1939-40. There were > >> >> three separate nations, pursuing separate goals, often in > >> >> non-coordinated fashion, at times even in a way which was detrimental > >> >> to the other Axis members goals. > >> > > >> >Your fixation with the history of WW2 is idiotic. > >> > >> I'll take this for a tacit admition that you've no better answer. > > > >The history of WW2 has nothing useful to offer in the current context. In fact it's wholly misleading to > use it as > >any kind of template. > > Aha. And this is based on, well, on your say so. Well, since I > already determined to my satisfaction what you're, don't expect me to > put to much of a weight on you opinions. You seriously can't see the differences ? Graham
From: Eeyore on 2 Oct 2006 07:13 mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: > In article <efqje7$8ss_003(a)s821.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: > >In article <45206C37.EA6475DA(a)hotmail.com>, > > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: > >> > >>> Western Europe wasn't interested in getting much involved in the > >>> anshluss, because it wasn't the target of Nazi expansionism. > >> > >>All of which has zilch to do with this. > > > >Your comment is an example of why history has to repeat itself. > > > Yes, exactly. There is no exactly about it. It's just that the American fundamentalist Right has only scare tactics to resort to and nothing of substance whatever. Graham
From: Frithiof Andreas Jensen on 2 Oct 2006 07:28 "Homer J Simpson" <nobody(a)nowhere.com> wrote in message news:7_UTg.6718$N4.2442(a)clgrps12... > > "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message > news:enivh2llnec7iri7t0nd80qesmg32ca01o(a)4ax.com... > > > You idiots are representative of NOTHING except killing of civilians > > in the most cowardly way there is. You don't even have the spine to > > confront your enemies like real men. > > "... confront your enemies like real men" > > Bombing them with cruise missiles you mean???? Why not - a garage cruise missile would be a decent enough project. Make MAD more democratic ;-)
From: John Fields on 2 Oct 2006 10:09 On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 00:29:37 GMT, "Homer J Simpson" <nobody(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > >"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message >news:20l0i2pjb21a1uil7hfgkeqnt8m60cl52a(a)4ax.com... > >>>It's the Yanks that do that. They like the sound of it. They COULD have a >>>"War on Stupidity" but Bush (and Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice) would be SO >>>the >>>wrong persons to lead THAT. > >> Awww... You're just trying to discredit them because you're afraid >> that the first target would be you. > >True. In the land of the blind, the one eyed man must be killed first. --- You missed the point, which was that if there was a war on stupidity you'd be the first casualty. Probably because you'd be too stupid to realize that a war on stupidity was going on. Your analogy to the world of the blind is also stupid, because there's no way a sighted person in the land of the blind could be knocked off as sighted if he didn't want to be. It's also backwards because you're likening yourself to the one-eyed man in the land of the blind, when the truth is more like your a blind man in the land of one-eyed men. -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: Eeyore on 2 Oct 2006 10:10
John Fields wrote: > You missed the point, which was that if there was a war on stupidity > you'd be the first casualty. Bwahahahahahahahah Don't trip over your shoe laces as you leave will you ? And shut the door behind you. Graham |