Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Lloyd Parker on 6 Oct 2006 07:47 Then you haven't read the right-wing lies. Look at the NIE.
From: Lloyd Parker on 6 Oct 2006 07:31 In article <kurtullman-0481F2.19314905102006(a)customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx>, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >In article <452590E2.F828860(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >> >> > Lobbing missiles >> >> The targeting was quite precise actually. >> > Yep. He hit that aspirin factory dead on. Managed to put down the >chimney of the Chinese Embassy during Kosovo, too, Rip roaring accuracy. > >> >> > in the general direction (with a forewarning to >> > Pakistan) is not an "attempt to get OBL", just an attempt to show that >> > "something is being done". >> >> It's still 100% more than GWB ever did. >> > Yep GWB never did get around to clearing out the Taliban and Uh, the Taliban are still there and actually control more of Afghanistan than the "government." >exiling him to mountains at the border.
From: Lloyd Parker on 6 Oct 2006 07:46 In article <eg57l7$8ss_011(a)s831.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <P4Kdnb9ApIGR47jYRVnyrw(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message >>news:qkrai2hvpp43t4lpu1ttca9tpq8ueb94qr(a)4ax.com... >>> On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 15:03:17 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>> >>>>Which one would that be, the dangers of driving on the nation's highways? >>>>That's at least 3 orders of magnitude greater of a real threat to every >>>>person in the country than is terrorism. >>> >>> 3000 people died at the WTC. Three orders of magnitude from that is 3 >>> million. We kill about 40K people a year in car accidents. >>> >> >>3000 people (not all of whom were US citizens) have been killed by Islamic >>terrorist attacks on the Mainland US in (shall we say 80 years). How many >>have died in car accidents in that time? >> >>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? > So why aren't we devoting all our resources to getting him? >After the first choice, Bin Laden will be the least of >the world's problems. > >/BAH >
From: Lloyd Parker on 6 Oct 2006 07:43 In article <kurtullman-F4AABA.23350505102006(a)customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx>, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >In article <QziVg.11645$6S3.234(a)newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>, > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message >> news:t1dbi2pob3u7ic3dp19guns746jria0n2e(a)4ax.com... >> > On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 18:29:00 GMT, "Homer J Simpson" >> > <nobody(a)nowhere.com> Gave us: >> > >> >> importing oil to feed its ridiculous fleet of >> >>inefficient cars >> > >> > I doubt that you even have any clue as to the model and make >> > distribution of cars in the US population. >> >> Over half are SUVs and pickup trucks, that all get less than about 17 mpg. >> I think that's all he really needs to know to make statements like he did >> about "ridiculous fleet of inefficient cars". >> > The EPA stats indicate that at least at the 2004 model year, the >average mpg for the fleet (those acutally sold) was 21.5 mpg, up from >around 17 in '82 or so. The half sold was right. > >http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/CAFE/docs/Summary-Fuel-Economy-Pref-2004. Yes, but also note the mileage peaked a few years ago and has started going back down because of the mix of trucks.
From: Lloyd Parker on 6 Oct 2006 07:38
In article <tfhbi29cplhgpsm87rtvtddpq3sggh8cpm(a)4ax.com>, JoeBloe <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 20:20:14 GMT, "Homer J Simpson" ><nobody(a)nowhere.com> Gave us: > >> >><lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >>news:yecVg.8912$GR.1933(a)newssvr29.news.prodigy.net... >> >>> Oh, and there is also a Federal law that say in any recording of a phone >>> conversation, at least one of the parties to the conversation must be >>> aware of the recording. >> >>IIRC, Federal law makes it a crime to disclose illegally obtained material. >>So if you tap your calls to your married lover to get him to admit killing >>his wife that gets thrown out in an all party state - except in Modesto CA. >> > > People CAN record a phone call. Depends. In CA, you can only do so if both parties consent. >LEOs cannot. Except, as in time of >war, Which Congress has not declared. >we have situational rules which govern the behavior of our >country's national security agencies. Where in the constitution does it allow parts of itself to be ignored? > They have followed all such >rules, and are perfectly within their rights in the task of making >this country safe again. > Like Hitler did in 1930s Germany. > Tough luck, chucko, that you only kept the parts of the constitution >in mind that you liked. What parts allow other parts to be ignored? |