Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 8 Oct 2006 05:31 <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:kuZVg.9856$vJ2.2160(a)newssvr12.news.prodigy.com... > > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message > news:Y6GdnWmpKY3sibXYRVnyrw(a)pipex.net... >> >> "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message >> news:1a0gi2909f3ana1bebl8q7e0qabhm2t2vs(a)4ax.com... >> >> > blah, blah blah >> >> I am sure it is, although "it is well known" is normally the last defence >> of the crank who is talking nonsense. >> >> I am sure you can cite an example. > > What, of a crank talking nonsense? He has given examples of that in every > post he's written. :-) True. >> You'd have thought you would have learned after such a life of stupidity. > > T Wake, please do think a little more before you write things like that. Yes, sorry. It was a moment of madness on my behalf.
From: T Wake on 8 Oct 2006 05:35 "joseph2k" <quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:CYXVg.3026$NE6.2914(a)newssvr11.news.prodigy.com... > Michael A. Terrell wrote: > >> T Wake wrote: >>> >>> This is a logical fallacy. Everything you have said can be true and >>> still >>> it would not disprove anything YD has written. >>> >>> Insulting someone does not change the validity of their comments, nor >>> does eliciting sympathy for yourself. >> >> >> If I needed sympathy, I wouldn't visit the vast troll playground >> known as Usenet. ;-) >> >> > Top drawer reply Mr. Terrell. To paraphrase your comments to me, if you want to indulge in a group hug take it to Email.
From: T Wake on 8 Oct 2006 05:37 "Ken Smith" <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote in message news:eg9fi9$ba4$3(a)blue.rahul.net... > In article <sPGdnWhqqOyW7LrYRVnyrw(a)pipex.net>, > T Wake <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >>news:xfGVg.11941$6S3.9608(a)newssvr25.news.prodigy.net... >>> >>> "Ken Smith" <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote in message >>> news:eg72np$a4m$5(a)blue.rahul.net... >>>> In article <4525651A.5E36C356(a)hotmail.com>, > [....] >>>> in prison being a deterent. If a crime is detered, it doesn't happen >>>> and >>>> the jail isn't needed. >>> >>> >>> We've killed 200,000 Iraqis, and it hasn't deterred a damn thing. We're >>> going to have to imprison a helluva lot more than that, if we want to >>> convince anybody to do anything we want. So, now please go back and >>> answer the question. >> >>Doesn't that imply killing them is not a deterrent? The problem is we are >>killing Iraqis and the terrorist are Syrians. > > Even if the terrorists were Iraqis, the war has not selectively killed > them. It has killed Iraqis more or less at random. I agree. The flaws with a "war on terror," especially when fought against suicide bombers is you end up killing _lots_ of bystanders. >> If the Jihadists thought they >>would be jailed for life and have to suffer eighty years before they were >>martyred it would take a fair bit of steam out of their sails. (IMHO of >>course) > > I don't even think they can call it "martyred" if they die of old age. > :-)
From: T Wake on 8 Oct 2006 05:46 "joseph2k" <quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:ceXVg.3010$NE6.540(a)newssvr11.news.prodigy.com... >T Wake wrote: > >> >> "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message >> news:clcdi2h9nj7cvvrc3orerb8kdgu50fg0js(a)4ax.com... >>> On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 04:42:27 +0100, 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. > > I find that assessment odd in light of the ability of passenger planes to > damage buildings like the World Trade Center towers impacts demonstrated. > Equally to the point, when told to change course by any military, the > refusal does not demonstrate reasonable judgment. False analogy and lack of critical thinking has hindered your response. A warship is capable of manoeuvre which a building isn't. A warship which is threatened by a civilian airliner in a commercial air lane can move away. I wasn't aware the WTC buildings had wheels. Still, the "might is right" response is enlightening.
From: T Wake on 8 Oct 2006 05:54
<lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:xnZVg.9853$vJ2.2098(a)newssvr12.news.prodigy.com... > > "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. Still not all of them. :-) |