Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 6 Oct 2006 15:39 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> >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. Don't you think others will try > the same thing if it succeeds in fooling all of the Democrats > all of the time? So you're not going to listen to anyone you disagree with ? Graham
From: Eeyore on 6 Oct 2006 15:41 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> >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 ? > > Yes. I'm working on a 1000 year scenario and trying to shortcut > the cold start so that it will only be 500 years. In 500 years Islam will have 'grown up'. Graham
From: Michael A. Terrell on 6 Oct 2006 15:41 T Wake wrote: > > I feel like I am stuck in a time warp here. > > I went for a jog today and I carried no cashpoint card, no driving licence, > no membership card, no credit card. > > Each day (or when I can be bothered), I choose what I will carry with me. > > Being _forced_ to carry an ID card is a different matter. Do you see this? > > If compulsory ID cards were in force and I had been stopped out jogging, I > would have broken the law and been subject to arrest. That is not a choice > in _any_ dictionary I have ever come across. Do you have a different one? > > Now, back to the question which you so deftly ignored Can you explain to me > where _I_ have the problem understanding the word [choice] use? So, what happens if you are out jogging and the police have an APB for a suspect that matches your description? You chose not to carry some ID, so you are arrested and held because you have no proof you are not the man they are looking for. Some choice.! -- 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: Eeyore on 6 Oct 2006 15:41 JoeBloe wrote: > On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 11:54:29 +0100, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: > >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. > > All of Europe would have been toast without us... including you, > chump. Pure nonsense. Graham
From: T Wake on 6 Oct 2006 15:41
<lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:huvVg.13923$7I1.3872(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net... > > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message > news:Z9idnbtj5I7o67vYnZ2dnUVZ8tKdnZ2d(a)pipex.net... >> "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message >> news:4525CE02.456E30F6(a)earthlink.net... >>>T Wake wrote: >>>> >>>> I don't have to. Your country can intercept other nations to gather >>>> foreign >>>> intelligence. >>> >>> >>> Unless you are a terrorist, what are you worried about? >>> >> >> Interesting argument. > > And completely false. Sadly yes. It is the worst fear-mongering argument ever. (Worst as in "most wrong" :-)) > It's tantamount to "If you aren't a criminal, then why are you worried > about me searching your basement." The authors of the Constitution knew > that, at some point, some demagog would use this argument to violate > somebody's rights, so they put it in the constitution that, whether you're > a criminal/terrorist or not, you don't have to worry about somebody > invading your house to have a look around, just because they don't like > you. > > >> I work in corporate security and often work for governmental >> organisations, will you please surrender to me all your bank records so I >> can check what transactions take place. I also want you to record your >> movements and actions at all times. >> >> I am sure, that as you are not a terrorist, you will have no qualms >> against this. >> >> I await the data. > > Well put. I wouldn't hold your breath. > I wont.... It must mean he is a terrorist though. |