Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Frithiof Andreas Jensen on 6 Oct 2006 04:38 <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:Va9Vg.19654$Ij.16215(a)newssvr14.news.prodigy.com... > > The oddity of this, which I cannot find in past history, is that > > the extremists are already doing this to themselves. > > Oh, the innumeracy. At the rate that they're doing that, it will take at > least an order of magnitude longer than all of recorded human history to > reach the stated endpoint. When Oil runs out - the rate will increase exponentially! > In the meantime, how about if we stop giving > them reasons to do so? Their "reason" is similar as for climbing mount everest: "because it is there" - i.e. "because you exist". The hive must destroy all that is not off the hive!
From: Frithiof Andreas Jensen on 6 Oct 2006 04:47 "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message news:7lbbi25muodhj7akomhefagj5bdfe4h61b(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 18:46:37 +0100, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: > > > > > > >JoeBloe wrote: > > > >> On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 16:57:03 GMT, Gordon <gordonlr(a)DELETEswbell.net> > >> Gave us: > >> > >> >Okay, I'm a little slow this morning. What's the second purpose? > >> >I can see where purpose # 1 is to get rid of the excess young > >> >men, by brainwashing them into being suicide bombers, so the > >> >ruthless leaders can have more of the young women to themselves, > >> >but what's purpose #2? > >> > >> From their POV or ours? We of course say there is no purpose, but > >> you readily see in the world what they think they are getting. There > >> are actually entire nations of ill informed societies that have > >> actually been duped into thinking these extreme bastards have a > >> righteous cause. > > > >What do you mean by 'duped' ? You think they imagine it ? > > The word for today is propaganda, dipshit. Go look it up. > > Taking Afghanistan as an example... they were allowed NO radios, no > tapes or tape players, no foreign newspapers. All they "knew" was what > was "fed" to them. .... And now "they" are achieving more of exactly the same with the aid of Western Technology - Google, Cisco and so on actively *helping* dictators and nut-case-countries to carve out the dissenting information from the Internet and clamping down on dissidents! > Maybe one day you'll get the clue that this is how all the "Islamic > Extremist" groups operate. This is how UN signatory nations mutate so > perversely as to raise their kids to hate their neighboring country > and teach them to suicide themselves for a purely propagandized > "cause". > > Maybe one day, you'll get a clue. Oh "we" Got It - Problem it that the people that make decisions for "us" all have their own agenda; which does not involve more freedom and a better life for "us". It does for "them", though.
From: Frithiof Andreas Jensen on 6 Oct 2006 04:49 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45256127.7BE53C0D(a)hotmail.com... > > > Keith wrote: > > > In article <45244E9E.D8DD822E(a)hotmail.com>, > > rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > > > > What do you think about the Vincennes shooting down an Iranian Airbus then ? > > > > Successful missile test? > > How about proof of American sailors being trigger happy dickheads ? > > The simple fact that you can make a joke out of the mass slaughter of innocent ppl > is one reason why the rest of the world looks at the USA in incredulity. > > Graham The simple act of generalising from one to millions show you as the bigot you really are! >
From: jmfbahciv on 6 Oct 2006 05:03 In article <kurtullman-1593BC.14174905102006(a)customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx>, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >In article <GObVg.51595$E67.42301(a)clgrps13>, > "Homer J Simpson" <nobody(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> news:eg2m1h$8qk_001(a)s829.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> >> > The Constitution already curtails powers of all three branches. >> > People do not mean control of Congress. For some strange reason, >> > people are using the human being named Bush as the reason for >> > all the world's ails. I keep tracing this bizarre thinking back >> > to the new Democrats who have not stopped campaigning for the 2004 >> > elections. One would think that the platform that lost them that >> > election would be examined and changed. >> >> Say what? The Democrats got way more real votes, but the Republicans had a >> better system for cheating. > > Interesting because all of the FL precincts that had troubles were in >Counties where the Dems had majorities on the election boards. Exactly. Yet, somehow, these anti-Bushers insist that Bush had power to control these Democrats and their decisions before he campaigned. > Also, >despite the demonizing of the Secretary of State, they only have >authority to okay machines when used. Which machines and how the ballots >are set-up is entirely in the hands of the locals. You must remember to repeat that those locals were Democrats. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 6 Oct 2006 05:08
In article <kurtullman-0F836F.10021405102006(a)customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx>, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >In article <w88Vg.9105$vJ2.869(a)newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>, > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> >> To consider those real issues but to call the abuse of minors by a >> Congressman "a smokescreen" is about as disingenuous as politics gets. >> > Define abuse, (seriously). I usually reserve that term for actual >physical contact (sexual, assaultive) and (so far at least) there is >nothing to indicate that either happened. Although I am the first to >suggest that the possibility it did happen is much more likely given >both the history of abuse and behaviors that got him into trouble. > Talkin' dirty is illegal, but I still say it is a couple orders of >magnitude below physical and sexual abuse. When did talking dirty become illegal? /BAH |