Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 7 Oct 2006 05:57 In article <6ruVg.13907$7I1.7585(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:eg5el9$8qk_011(a)s831.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <452634AB.3341D603(a)hotmail.com>, >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>>> 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? >>> >>>What makes you think any of the above are even remotely possible ? >> >> They >> were brought in a culture that admires killing; I wasn't. > >Again, evidence to justify this assumption? You have got to be kidding. > All the Muslims I know are very >much peace-loving people. Certainly much more so than any of the "kill 'em >all" Americans I see on this group. I haven't seen anybody (who is rational) demand that all Muslims be killed. I have seen extrapolations about what will have to be done if no mess prvention is done now. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 7 Oct 2006 05:59 In article <4526BF7C.6F4F23DC(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> >> >>> 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? >> >> >> >>What makes you think any of the above are even remotely possible ? >> > >> > They were brought in a culture that admires killing; I wasn't. >> >> Again, evidence to justify this assumption? All the Muslims I know are very >> much peace-loving people. Certainly much more so than any of the "kill 'em >> all" Americans I see on this group. > >Ironic isn't it ? Not at all. Your posts about no evidence is beyond belief. /BAH
From: T Wake on 7 Oct 2006 07:01 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eg7t54$8qk_003(a)s968.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <zuWdnToy_6qB6rvYRVnytA(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:eg5e55$8qk_007(a)s831.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <452633ED.B02A967A(a)hotmail.com>, >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >>>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> >> another possibility is >>>>> >> the goal is to cede to these extremists >>>>> > >>>>> >Are you really that monumentally stupid ? >>>>> > >>>>> >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. >> >>Is it? Has Israel ceased to exist now? > > Those people have not acquired an instant gratification addiction. > They think in terms of decades and centuries. So sying it "worked" is inappropriate, "working" is as much as you can assume. Even then it is tenuous as the working / not working argument has equal support. > Arafat got billions > of dollars by talking peace while actually doing the opposite. >> >>> Don't you think others will try >>> the same thing if it succeeds in fooling all of the Democrats >>> all of the time? >> >>Logical fallacy. > > Apparently. >> >>>>You can't change attitudes with bullets. >>> >>> My attitude changed. And the trigger was two little airplane >>> missles. >>> >> >>Yet, you think doing the same to the other side will change their attitude >>in a different manner? Ok, that makes sense. > > Not little missles. Clinton lobbed a couple of little missles and > it didn't stop them. These people do not care who nor how many > die. It is their stated goal to kill millions. Who is this they of which you speak?
From: jmfbahciv on 7 Oct 2006 06:01 In article <P6-dnSajh_Dt4LvYnZ2dnUVZ8qudnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:eg5el9$8qk_011(a)s831.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <452634AB.3341D603(a)hotmail.com>, >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >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? >>> >>>What makes you think any of the above are even remotely possible ? >> >> Because I can think of one that will kill a billion in less >> than 1/2 year. If I can think it, they certainly can. They >> were brought in a culture that admires killing; I wasn't. > >I can think about space aliens invading and making everyone die their hair >red. Doesn't mean it is going to happen. > >You can deal with things you _think_ will happen or deal with things which >are happening. > >I know which makes more sense to me. I understand what makes more sense to you. I was brought up to take action if I can see that a big mess is about to be made if nothing is done. I still think this is a difference between males and females. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 7 Oct 2006 06:03
In article <eg5tpm$70s$13(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >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? Because this intent to destroy all traces of Western civilization is not isolated to one human being. /BAH |