Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 7 Oct 2006 05:15 "Ken Smith" <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote in message news:eg73v0$a4m$9(a)blue.rahul.net... > In article <45227EA6.7BB99886(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> > [....] >>Another big issue in Iran is that it's becoming more modern by its own >>efforts. >>Did you know for example that 70% of all Iranian graduates are now women. > > Are you sure the real number isn't 69.372% or 71.054%? I never trust > round numbers. Especially one which implies a grossly disproportionate segment of the population are doing something. What are the women studying at university? What are their future employment prospects? Why aren't the men going? What are their future prospects? What percentate of the university age population are women in the first place (etc).
From: T Wake on 7 Oct 2006 05:19 "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message news:h1vdi2t5quk2uvbtcogbq0nburnajq4356(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 20:09:43 +0100, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> Gave us: > >> >>"JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message >>news:pabbi21hj1om31j3avpn3mm32vdur9mo0n(a)4ax.com... >>> On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 13:22:17 -0400, Keith <krw(a)att.bizzzz> Gave us: >>> >>>>You're in a fantasy land. ONE SENTENCE of the NIE report was >>>>leaked by the Democrats to try to discredit Bush. The four pages >>>>around that one sentence, later released, say exactly the opposite. >>>>Please get your "news" from someone other than Franken. >>> >>> Good one. >> >>Sycophant. >> > Agreeing with someone does NOT make me a sycophant, you Usenet total > retard. No, it doesn't. There are lots of people here I agree with. Because you cant see the different, it makes you an idiotic sycophant.
From: Robert Latest on 7 Oct 2006 05:19 On 2006-10-06, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On 6 Oct 2006 07:18:41 GMT, Robert Latest <boblatest(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>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. I don't know where that moral imperative would come from, but what the US are learning at the moment is that (military) power alone doesn't seem to be the right way to accomplish much in the way of spreading democracy. > 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. I agree, but that is only because democracy is all I know from a personal experience. >> >>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. OK. > "Run down by a bunch of religious goons" isn't very friendly, > either. That's indeed unfriendly, but is obviously directed against the current American government. If I were anti-american I should enjoy watching the US government doing such a poor job, shouldn't I? > Someone even mentioned "a great deal of the alienation the US > are experiencing at the moment" recently. Poor choice of words on my part. "Alienation" can indeed include hostility which is not what I meant. I meant it in the literal sense of "becoming a stranger to former friends". > 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. But how naive ist that? Europe always had strong and friendly ties to the US -- economically, and above all, culturally. Much of the US's population back then was (and still is today) of first- or second-generation European descent. Europeans, particularly Germans, were and still are great fans of American literature, film, and music. The US were seen as a powerful and morally integre friend that was doing a genuine and successful effort in helping to rebuild Germany. I myself can't quite understand how the Germans -- after the Kaiserreich, the not very successful and brief Weimar Republic and 12 years of fascist dictatorship -- could so quickly, eagerly and successfully build and adjust to one of the most advanced democratic systems. But they did because of their strong historical and genetic ties to the Western Allies. Trying to transplant that model on a country or region whose relationship to the US is based on mutual misunderstanding, language and cultural barriers, and indifference by starting (not getting dragged into) a war for doctored-up reasons can only fail. Which could have been foreseen (or understod in hindsight) by anybody with half a brain. Naive isn't a strong enough word for it. > 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. See above. The attempt was based on lies, which is something that people -- at least Europeans -- deeply resent, even if the cause itself is honourable. And given the long experience that Europeans have with wars, like you yourself have noted, they knew damn well that "C'mon, let's go spread some democracy for the camel jockeys" just isn't going to work. > 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. But wel all -- Europeans and Americans alike -- live so damn well with all the nice things we let the African people get cheated out of, don't you think? > 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*. The Europeans are anything but insular; in fact they are trying to solve global problems on a broad consensual basis. It's (among very vew others) the US that is actively thwarting those attempts. Th UN and Kyoto are but two examples. > Given the chaos of causality over time, it's impossible to say what > the longterm consequences of our actions, or inactions, may be. Indeed. And that's a very shaky basis on which to start wars, for example. robert
From: T Wake on 7 Oct 2006 05:22 "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message news:f7vdi2pcfgnpdem7c3d1auv1jujf9dmald(a)4ax.com... > 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. Well, maybe in SED but I bet you didn't in sci.physics. Also, I bet I used it before you did, more importantly I bet I used it in its proper context before you first did.
From: T Wake on 7 Oct 2006 05:23
"JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message news:l5vdi2lvneofr8ug993t476pbqc2c89jo9(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 20:20:54 +0100, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> Gave us: > >>What happened on the 9th of November? > > > You're an idiot. Is 9th November "you're an idiot day?" Wow. You must really love it. Do people buy you presents as well? |