Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: joseph2k on 7 Oct 2006 21:12 Jim Thompson wrote: > On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 22:12:27 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell" > <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > >>Jim Thompson wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 18:17:20 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell" >>> <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >>> >>> >Jim Thompson wrote: >>> >> >>> >> No one east of Missouri knows how to drive ;-) >>> > >>> > >>> > You would have trouble driving some of the roads I was on in Alaska. >>> >If you drove like you do in the desert, you would have killed yourself >>> >in a couple days, tops. >>> >>> Not hardly. You forget that I'm originally a West Virginia c'untry >>> boy. I can drive mountain roads fast enough to ensure that you dirty >>> your panties ;-) >> >> >> You haven't done it on those Alaska roads with over a foot of ice and >>going around a mountain with a drop on one side that seasoned drivers >>have gone over. High speed on that road was about 12 miles an hour. Any >>faster and you didn't make the turns. The military shuttle bus went over >>the side two weeks after I left Alaska, and that man had driven the road >>for over ten years. > > Yup. I've driven black ice on North Mountain (US33 from Harrisonburg, > VA to Franklin, WV)... you tip-toe, then you hit fog and you crawl ;-) > > ...Jim Thompson Black ice and fog is a bad combination. I have been in fog so bad that i could tell which lights i had on but could not see a foot beyond an window. Had to stop, could not see my buddy standing right in front of the lights/vehicle. -- JosephKK Gegen dummheit kampfen die Gotter Selbst, vergebens. --Schiller
From: Eeyore on 7 Oct 2006 22:04 T Wake wrote: > "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote > >Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > >>It's only when Americans get killed you get mad. > >> > >>You're quite happy for the USN to kill innocent foreigners by the > >>planeload and it > >>doesn't even 'register on your radar' does it ? > > > > --- > > Oh, the righteous indignation... > > > > The pilot of the airplane was told to change his course because he > > was an apparent threat to one of our assets and its crew. He chose > > not to. Kaboom. End of story. > > > > I am sure you are well aware of how wrong this is. > > A passenger plane is a threat to a US Warship? How the mighty have fallen. America is fucked ! Graham
From: joseph2k on 7 Oct 2006 22:11 John Larkin wrote: > On 6 Oct 2006 07:18:41 GMT, Robert Latest <boblatest(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 10:58:29 -0700, >> John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote >> in Msg. <gchai2ligb29uejo28rjrpi78fkdonglhp(a)4ax.com> >> >>> But I consider trerrorism to be attacking non-combattant populations >>> for political/emotional/morale reasons, which both sides did in WWII >>> and I don't think the US is doing deliberately at present. >> >>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. 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. Whether the goal is being pursued > intelligently or effectively is certainly open to debate. > <snip> > John Your pseudo-American moral-imperative nonsense is exactly what is wrong about how America is handling the issues. It is _MY_ nation (as well as millions of other's) and I have the obligation, as one of its sovereign citizens, to criticize it when it goes astray. -- JosephKK Gegen dummheit kampfen die Gotter Selbst, vergebens. --Schiller
From: mmeron on 7 Oct 2006 22:24 In article <eg9dpn$ba4$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) writes: >In article <VZFVg.68$45.187(a)news.uchicago.edu>, > <mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote: >>In article <eg712e$a4m$3(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken >>Smith) writes: >[... OBL ...] >>>In fact, it appears he changed his plans before the phone call happened. >>> >>This may be but it is not much of an excuse. > >It nicely rebuts the claim that the warning of Pakistan was the reason he >survived. That's not the claim (not mine, at least). Just that the warning of Pakistan is an indication of lack of seriousness about the whole affair. Not that it was very serious to begin with. Cruise missiles are fine for stationary targets. They may be used agains mobile targets (like a person) at times, when you've ground assetts capable of informing you that the target is at such and such location and will remain there for a while. Absent this, all you're making is a gesture and not a very convincing one at that. On a much deeper level, the lack of seriousness still persists in broad spheres, as evidenced by the fixation on OBL. About what is to be expected from a generation raised on James Bond movies. Standard plot, evil mastermind threatens the world, evil mastermind is dispatched and the world is at peace again. That's childishness. Muslim extremism is not a leader worship movement, it is motivated by ideology which is independent of any single specific person. This is not to say that we shouldn't go after the heads of the various organizations, as part of the overall strategy, but this alone is not the key part of the struggle on concentrating on this to the detriment of all else will be quite counterproductive. There are, at times, movements where a successful blow at the head may eliminate the whole organization. But not in this case. 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 22:28
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message news:a5-dnQ-NUaXtiLXYnZ2dnUVZ8s6dnZ2d(a)pipex.net... > > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:45280F9F.89B24BE1(a)hotmail.com... >> >> >> John Larkin wrote: >> >>> On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 20:13:25 +0100, Eeyore >>> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >>> > >>> >> I give up--I was wrong. You weren't sincere when you said you >>> >> examine your >>> >> assumptions. You don't even admit what assumptions you make, and >>> >> what >>> >> political filter you put information through. You're no worse than >>> >> the >>> >> other knee-jerk reactionaries on either side of this thread. If you >>> >> are the >>> >> future of the political process in this country, we are in real >>> >> trouble. >>> >> >>> >> Just a hint, though...you might want to try having conversations with >>> >> actual >>> >> mainstream Middle Eastern Muslims, rather than reading some >>> >> right-wing >>> >> claptrap written to justify the US's current bad behavior and >>> >> applying it to >>> >> all of Muslim society. >>> > >>> >The problem is that the above kind of thought is now being branded as >>> >traitorous >>> >in the USA. >>> >>> Absurd. American newspapers, public forums, political parties, and >>> public institutions are full of different opinions, vigorously and >>> publicly stated. A very few people call the opinions of other to be >>> traitorous, and that's allowed free speech, too. >>> >>> You say so much about the USA and you know so little. >> >> So why are the Republicans branding criticism as treasonous ? > > Not all Republicans. Nah, just the President, that's all. Nobody important. Eric Lucas |