Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 6 Oct 2006 11:32 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eg5e55$8qk_007(a)s831.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <452633ED.B02A967A(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> > >>> >> another possibility is >>> >> the goal is to cede to these extremists >>> > >>> >Are you really that monumentally stupid ? >>> > >>> >Listening to their greivances isn't 'ceding' btw. >>> >>> Arafat used this tactic. He kept people at the table talking >>> about peace to give his side time to accumulate weapons. He >>> even got all these rich countries to fund his efforts. >> >>You're suggesting that because one person did this then we must never >>again listen ? That's a very blinkered view indeed. > > It is a tactic that worked. Is it? Has Israel ceased to exist now? > Don't you think others will try > the same thing if it succeeds in fooling all of the Democrats > all of the time? Logical fallacy. >>You can't change attitudes with bullets. > > My attitude changed. And the trigger was two little airplane > missles. > Yet, you think doing the same to the other side will change their attitude in a different manner? Ok, that makes sense.
From: T Wake on 6 Oct 2006 11:35 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eg56q0$8ss_006(a)s831.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <45253DEE.896AC21A(a)earthlink.net>, > "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>> Sure. That's local politics and wonderful to use as smoke and >>> mirrors to distract your attention from the real threats. >>> >>> /BAH >> >> >> Local? I guess you don't keep up with the news. > > All politics is local. The subject we were talking about > is national security. If the Democrats, who are campaigning > for office, talk about dirty words in emails when they meet > with their voters, they don't have to describe what they > are going to do about the national threat. What national threat? Do you mean the Islamic based terrorist who cause almost insignifcant loss of life when compared to (for example) obesity? > The one running > for governor here keeps harping about what our current governor > didn't do. However, when asked what would he have done, he > leaves the meeting. > > It's a tactic not to address the issue of the threats to our > national security. The counter tactic is to over exaggerate the threat from one sector to mask other problems.
From: John Larkin on 6 Oct 2006 11:36 On 6 Oct 2006 07:18:41 GMT, Robert Latest <boblatest(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 10:58:29 -0700, > John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote > in Msg. <gchai2ligb29uejo28rjrpi78fkdonglhp(a)4ax.com> > >> But I consider trerrorism to be attacking non-combattant populations >> for political/emotional/morale reasons, which both sides did in WWII >> and I don't think the US is doing deliberately at present. > >At present, no. Deliberately, no. It is in fact difficult to make out >what the US are doing at present, and why they insist on doing it. The theory is, I think, that the US has the power and the moral imperative to spread democracy throughout the world. You can argue that it's in our self-interest to do so, but I could reply that it's in everybody's self-interest. Whether the goal is being pursued intelligently or effectively is certainly open to debate. >That's what causes a great deal of the alienation the US are >experiencing at the moment. The uproar about slippery email exchanges >between a politican and teenagers isn't helping the US to get into a >situation where they can be taken serious, either. In any normal country >the guy would simply be kicked out of office, tars and feathers and all >and be done with it. It's political fodder for the upcoming elections. US party dynamics is very different for coalition-based governments. > >> The Cold War certainly helped hold western Europe together, and >> supressed the latent anti-Americanism until the Soviet empire >> collapsed and the Europeans felt they didn't need us any more. > >I really don't know where you see all that anti-Americansim. Um, this newsgroup? "Americans are fat idiots" sounds a bit anti to me. "Run down by a bunch of religious goons" isn't very friendly, either. Someone even mentioned "a great deal of the alienation the US are experiencing at the moment" recently. >The >dominant sentiment among Europeans (including myself) is a huge >disappointment with what America has grown into recently. For much of >the world, especially Europe, America used to be the very definition of >freedom - not the least because it saved Western Europe not so much from >Hitler as from Soviet domination. One could argue that the US is trying to do for the Middle East what it successfully did for Europe, and for the same reasons. What I don't understand is why so many Europeans are so upset that the attempt is being made. This, I think, turns out to be a deepish issue. >Now we have to witness how that great >country is being run down by a bunch of religious goons and their >industry buddies. The feeling is more like grief, not hate. There is some disappointment here that Europe, now free from the big bad bear, is not taking a more effective role in its former colonies in Africa, where people are unnecessarily dying by the millions. It looks almost as though Europe, in its criticism of US actions and the lack of action on its own part, has become uncaring and insular, saying "leave it to the UN" knowing full well that the UN does mostly nothing. And criticizing the US for *trying*. Given the chaos of causality over time, it's impossible to say what the longterm consequences of our actions, or inactions, may be. John
From: Michael A. Terrell on 6 Oct 2006 11:36 YD wrote: > > You obviously have way too much time on your hands to hang out on > usenet. Its where the trolls are, and well, you know, its always open season on trolls. No limit! ;-) You also seem to spend a lot of tme on usenet, as well. -- Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida
From: lucasea on 6 Oct 2006 11:36
"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message news:4525D7F9.458A1C6C(a)earthlink.net... > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >> >> "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message >> news:t1dbi2pob3u7ic3dp19guns746jria0n2e(a)4ax.com... >> > On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 18:29:00 GMT, "Homer J Simpson" >> > <nobody(a)nowhere.com> Gave us: >> > >> >> importing oil to feed its ridiculous fleet of >> >>inefficient cars >> > >> > I doubt that you even have any clue as to the model and make >> > distribution of cars in the US population. >> >> Over half are SUVs and pickup trucks, that all get less than about 17 >> mpg. >> I think that's all he really needs to know to make statements like he did >> about "ridiculous fleet of inefficient cars". > > Not around here. More small cars than anything else. Sure a lot of > people drive pickup trucks, but they have business names painted on > them. I drive a mini pickup with a four cylinder to do my volunteer > work, and because its all I have at the moment. Not nationally representative, but interesting. > It all changes when the Northerners come to winter here. Lots of > Caddies, Lincolns, and SUVs driving down the center of two lanes at 20 > miles an hour under the speed limit. Yeah, I hate Ohio drivers, too. Eric Lucas |