Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jenalyn on 6 Oct 2006 22:54 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4520C92A.1C38A945(a)hotmail.com... > > > "Michael A. Terrell" wrote: > >> Jim Thompson wrote: >> > >> > That's where we pretend we like the French ;-) >> >> Sorry, Jim, but I'm not THAT good at playing pretend. > > Don't worry. The French don't much like your kind of Americans either. > > Graham The French do like black American soldiers... well, the French ladies did during WWII. Jena
From: jenalyn on 6 Oct 2006 22:59 "Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:4oddn6Fe5g63U3(a)individual.net... > mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >> In article <efr7vg$sb7$2(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken >> Smith) writes: >>> In article <2p1Ug.16$45.152(a)news.uchicago.edu>, >>> <mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote: >>> [....] >>>> Well, here is at least one thing you can say for Al Queda. They are >>>> quite honest, no pretending. >>> >>> Maybe, they are just more effective liars. If you haven't caught them >>> in a lie, it doesn't mean there weren't lies they got away with. >>> >> Oh, I'm sure there were some, but these are what is called "tactical >> lies". With regard to principal matters, i.e. their goals, they're quite >> forthcoming. Just as Hitler was. >> >>> The whole idea that they have anything to do with any form of Islam may >>> well be a lie. >> >> I wouldn't quite say so. The only operational answer to the question >> "what does a given religion say and command" is "what its adherents >> believe it says and commands". Given enough preachers stating "this is >> what the religion commands" and enough believers accepting it, "this" >> becomes the reality. And they do have a lot to do with Wahabism, which >> is the form of Islam common in the Saudi peninsula. >> >>> They can get lots of cannonfodder from the Muslim world may be the >>> reason they try to appear Islamist. It may really be about power and >>> control. >> >> One doesn't contradict the other one. People may be driven by the desire >> for power and control *and* to really, truly believe in what they're >> doing (to the point of willing to die for it), at the same time. >> >> In our "goody-goody" western upbringing we're conditioned to believe that >> only "good people" (where "good" means "good by our standards") are >> motivated by ideals while "bad" (again, by our standards) people are >> motivated solely by selfish desires, for wealth, power and the like. It >> ain't so. There is no doubt that many of the top Nazis truly believed in >> the righteousness of their cause. When the day of reckoning came, many >> of them preferred to kill themselves rather than live in a world where >> their ideals have been defeated. Goebbels and his wife poisoned >> themselves and all their kids as well. If that's not an act of a true >> believer, I don't know what is. >> >> So, disconcerting as the notion may be, the people "on the other side" >> may be just as commited to their ideals as we're to ours. Possibly more >> so. It'll be a grave error to underestimate them and assume that it is >> not so. Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, >> meron(a)cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same" > > If Hitler had won there wouldn't be a Muslim problem. > Nor a Middle East one... > Makes one pine for 'the good old days' eh?... > > -- rofl. I will definitely have to remember this for the next left-wing fanatic professor I encounter or muslim radical student setting up a "kosher" hot dog fundraising stand on campus. Funny how the "strict" muslims I have met are all studying to become chemical engineers... the moderate/westernized are studying fornication, fashion, and liberal shopping habits. *shrug* Jena
From: mmeron on 7 Oct 2006 00:24 In article <eg712e$a4m$3(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) writes: >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 :> > Yeah, sure:-) > >>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. > This may be but it is not much of an excuse. Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, meron(a)cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
From: lucasea on 7 Oct 2006 00:42 "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message news:4esdi2lpi9c8dvn3rdhmu14d4n7ur1j6tk(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 06 Oct 06 11:38:20 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) Gave > us: > >>>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? > > > The parts governing wartime, and martial law. Well, since neither war nor martial law has been declared, that would be irrelevant, now wouldn't it? Do try to think things through before you say them. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 7 Oct 2006 00:42
"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:fifdi2tje6ctfev13v1msavhqj2dr37tnt(a)4ax.com... > I can't really make out much of Chaucer. Shakespeare is a bit > difficult but intelligable. Sir Walter Scott and Dickens and Jane > Austen look perfectly modern to me. So the half-life of English is > roughly 400 years. Sounds about right, from what I've seen. > I have a friend from El Salvador who says that Cervantes reads just > like modern Spanish, which has apparently evolved a lot slower than > English. Interesting. I also get the impression that Spanish from Spain is not noticeably different, give or take the accent, from Spanish spoken anywhere else in the world, excluding perhaps Mexico. However, I don't know Spanish, my primary 2nd language is French. Certainly Canadian French is noticeably different than French from France. Sounds like the Continental languages are much more conservative than English. For one thing, England kept getting itself invaded by various different groups, each of which "donated" its language (although I guess most of that happened before Chaucer, so it may be irrelevant.) For another, I know at least France is actively conservative of their language. I don't know if this is true of the Germans, Spanish, etc. Eric Lucas |