Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: JoeBloe on 6 Oct 2006 21:04 On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 20:21:48 +0100, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> Gave us: > >"JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message >news:vgdci29a8p13kfhhs2i6rnm9b36duq7r72(a)4ax.com... >> On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 03:06:03 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> Gave us: >> >>> >>>"JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message >>>news:regbi2dpkrf103e4opion58ooto1lmft2c(a)4ax.com... >>> >>>> It is you, fuckhead, that is incredulous. >>> >>>Yes, I suspect it is he who is incredulous at your idiocy. I think the >>>word >>>you wanted is "incredible", as in "not credible". >>> >> >> No. It was said just fine. >> >> Nothing you say carries any credence either. > >Ooh, such a big word. Did you have to look it up? Bet you had a little lie >down afterwards, didn't you? > I'd bet that I used the word many more years ago than you ever did, and in these groups too.
From: Ken Smith on 6 Oct 2006 21:49 In article <HRBVg.66$45.199(a)news.uchicago.edu>, <mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote: >In article <eg5og7$hr$4(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken >Smith) writes: [....] >>It was a lot better than the risk of starting a war between two nations >>with nukes. The amount of warning would have only been enough if they had >>OBL on speed dial. >> >And what makes you think they didn't:-) They wouldn't for security reasons :> >Now, Tomahawks are subsonic. From the nearest possible launch point >to the intended target deep in Aghanistan they must've taken at least >half an hour. Ample time to make a call and ample time for the >intended target to get away. In fact, it appears he changed his plans before the phone call happened. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 6 Oct 2006 22:15 In article <FN9Vg.19673$Ij.18806(a)newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >"Ken Smith" <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote in message >news:eg32g6$okg$3(a)blue.rahul.net... >> In article <f%jUg.19041$Ij.8532(a)newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>, >> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>> >>>What makes you think nuking Mecca would have anything but a very, very >>>negative effect on us? >> >> Note that I said "theat". I was suggesting that the threat would work so >> I don't need to respond to this. > >Yes you do. Hollow threats are worthless. Note that I said "treat" not "Hollow threat" so, again I don't need to respond to this. [....] >They're crazy, not stupid. They know that *we* wouldn't be stupid enough to >nuke anything, because the threat is too diffuse. This argument doesn't work. They only need to be convinced that the US thinks it isn't a stupid idea. When you go to war against a country, you bomb its capital regardless of how large of a land mass the country covers. >> I strongly disagree. The second example of life in prison, I believe, >> would work on many of them. > >So how many prisons will we need to build, and what fraction of the GDP will >go into staffing/supporting/maintaining them, in order to imprison 100 >million people? You don't seem to have a good grasp on the term "deter". You don't have to lock them all up. You only have to lock up the few that try to break the law. >terrorist criminals. Oh, you say you want to hold them for life without a >trial? No, I never said without trial. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 6 Oct 2006 22:17 In article <4525651A.5E36C356(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > >> So how many prisons will we need to build, and what fraction of the GDP will >> go into staffing/supporting/maintaining them, in order to imprison 100 >> million people? > >That would most likely sap the entire GDP of the USA. No, not since it doesn't have to happen. I only spoke of the fear of life in prison being a deterent. If a crime is detered, it doesn't happen and the jail isn't needed. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 6 Oct 2006 22:20
In article <4oki2pFf53ldU1(a)individual.net>, Robert Latest <boblatest(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >["Followup-To:" header set to sci.electronics.design.] >On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 13:52:07 +0000 (UTC), > Ken Smith <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote > in Msg. <eg32m7$okg$4(a)blue.rahul.net> >>>A surprisingly small number of Islamic extremists are actually willing to >>>die for their cause you know? >> >> Their belief system encourages it with promices of virgins etc. > >The warped belief system of the deluded extremists does, yes. >Islam itself doesn't. The "their" in my post refers to those who would commit the terrorist acts not Islam at large. Eric Robert Rudolph would be a non-islamic version of the same sort of belief system. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge |