Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 6 Oct 2006 06:49 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > > >That said, you are nitpicking in the same manner. More than ten times as > >many people die every year as died as a result of the 11 Sep 01 attack. That > >is TEN attacks of that scale (and that was a large scale attack by anyone's > >standards) every single year. Year in, year out and accepted as a normal > >risk in life. > > > >Amazing really. > > So much for mess prevention. So how many people does Bin Laden > have to kill before you deal with this problem? 300,000? > 3,000,000? 300,000,000? A billion? What makes you think any of the above are even remotely possible ? Graham
From: jmfbahciv on 6 Oct 2006 05:47 In article <Va9Vg.19654$Ij.16215(a)newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:eg2paa$8qk_011(a)s829.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <PsRUg.57$45.150(a)news.uchicago.edu>, >> mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >>>In article <4523844C.CA22EFDF(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore >> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> writes: >>>> >>>> >>>>mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >>>> >>>>> In article <4522F8DE.C46161BD(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore writes: >>>>> >mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> >> You didn't read carefully. It is not "10% changing". It is that >>>>> >> historical data indicates dramatic changes when about 10% of the >>>>> >> population is *dead*. Does this make it clear? >>>>> > >>>>> >So, we only need to kill 100 million Muslims or so ? >>>>> > >>>>> I didn't say, at the moment, what we need (or need not) to do. I >>>>> pointed what empirical data for past conflicts shows. Go argue with >>>>> history if you don't like it. >>>> >>>>But you still mainatain we'd need to kill that many to have an effect ? >>>> >>>>Graham >>>> >>>Not that "we'd need" but that, as a worst case scenario, we may need. >> >> 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. In the meantime, how about if we stop giving >them reasons to do so? If you had your way, everybody would convert to Islam. OK. Assume that. Since the factions are already killing each other, what makes you think that they will stop killing and murdering and destroying all infrastructure? The goal is to destroy Western infrastructure. This means bridges, roads, computers, any science results and their applications, white collar jobs, blue collar jobs, manufacturing plants, food processing plants, etc. Do I need to think of more to list? /BAH
From: Eeyore on 6 Oct 2006 06:50 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> >You can't accept that Islam isn't a threat to your lifestyle ? > >> > >> Not only is it a threat, but it has already begun to > >> alter my lifestyle. My goal is to ensure that it > >> alter 100% of my lifestyle, if I'm allowed to exist. > > > >Tell me more about this threat you perceive. > > > >What exactly is it that you're afraid of ? > > Loss of enough knowledge of how to do things that it will > take another 1000 years to reinvent the wheel. Are you actually serious ? That bogeyman really has got to be very big indeed. Graham
From: John Fields on 6 Oct 2006 06:52 On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 23:51:37 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Fields wrote: > >> On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 23:11:29 GMT, "Homer J Simpson" wrote: >> >"Gordon" <gordonlr(a)DELETEswbell.net> wrote >> > >> >> Where did the current terrorism financing and materials come >> >> from? >> > >> >From the USA (oil). Unlike most every other conflict, the US is paying for >> >both sides in this one. >> >> --- >> I've always thought it would be interesting to see what would happen >> if the US sent troops to, say, Honduras to protect them from >> Guatemala and to Nicaragua to protect them from Costa Rica, and then >> Honduras and Nicaragua decided to declare war on each other. > >All you ever think of is war. --- Wrong again. But, this thread seems to be devoted to it, so what's wrong with a little fantasy what-if? -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: Eeyore on 6 Oct 2006 06:54
John Fields wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >Homer J Simpson wrote: > >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message > >> > >> >> I'm saying that if someone threatens their fundamental freedoms, the > >> >> British public will defend them. > >> > > >> > Hopefully. > >> > > >> > I grow less and less sure of this as I watch public debate each day. > >> > >> A mistake Hitler made. He read reports of pacifist debates in the UK and > >> assumed they were a guide to the lack of response to be expected during an > >> attack on Britain. > >> > >> The British Air Force response showed him the error of his ways. > > > >The Royal Air Force to be entirely accurate but yes, we were certainly far > >from unready. In fact Britain's armaments industry had been working hard in > >the years preceding WW2 to make the planes ( and other stuff ) we knew we > >were going to need. > > --- > And yet, had we not come to your rescue, you'd be dog meat today. A ridiculous idea. We won the Battle of Britain and Germany knew it couldn't invade without air superiority. Graham |