Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 8 Oct 2006 06:16 In article <Ke2dncVNEMkPSLXYRVnysw(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:egagl2$8ss_007(a)s779.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <5puVg.13906$7I1.7983(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, >> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>> >>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>news:eg5eir$8qk_010(a)s831.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>> In article <4526343A.24C8CC03(a)hotmail.com>, >>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> ISTR that Bin Laden's next goal is to kill 3 million people >>>>> >>>>>Cite ? >>>> >>>> I don't have one since I can't access the web. >>> >>>That's a copout. How about any recollection at all of where you saw it, >>>so >>>others can try to verify? >> >> The time was around 2004. It was a site that translates that >> news issued in Arabian. The essay counted 3,000,000 Arabs >> who had been killed by the US since 1500s and 3 million >> Americans would have to die to make things equal. > >I doubt this could be described as an authoritative news source, any more >than USENET can be described as an authoritative description of US >government policy. Why do I have to produce the person and the words at the time they were made but you can use any random sound extraction from any Democrat who is desperately trying to win the election in four weeks? /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 8 Oct 2006 06:31 In article <USOVg.9789$GR.1438(a)newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:eg7tss$8qk_007(a)s968.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> 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. > >Yes, but whenever you are going to take preemptive action like that, it is >based 100% on assumptions, I disagree with the 100%. You dismiss experience and others' handed down knowledge with that number. > mostly assumptions regarding what will happen and >why. If you're going to make global policy based on assumptions, you >absolutely *must* make sure your assumptions are 100% reliable. This would result in no action taking place which will cause a different chain of events. > I've seen >you make some extremely shaky assumptions that, in fact, are arguably wrong. >You need to reexamine your assumptions and make sure they are solid--and >this is something that, from your posts on this group, you don't seem to be >willing to do. You appear to filter everything through Bush's >fear-mongering rhetoric without question. You are wrong. The fact that you keep insisting that I allow other men to think for me tells me that you suffer from that malady. You are imposing your style of gaining infomation and decisions onto me. This is not my style. It never was and it never will be unless I'm hog-tied and in confinement. > That's an extremely dangerous >position from which to make assumptions that, were they to translate to >policy, would be extremely dangerous. One can never be 100% sure of one's facts. For you to insist that nothing be done until this is true is silly. I know you can't possibly believe this. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 8 Oct 2006 06:41 In article <hYSdnRmhgOqjdbrYRVny2Q(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:eg82da$8qk_005(a)s968.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <udydnWLuFcYHN7vYRVnytQ(a)pipex.net>, >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>> >>>Sorry, aren't you the person who advocated spending billions to get Usma >>>Bin >>>Laden because he _may_ kill more people as opposed to spending billions >>>solving the problems which _are_ killing people? >> >> If the mindset of the religious extremists are not changed and >> they become successful in destroying Western civilization, the >> problems that _are_ killing people today will no longer exist. >> I believe you mentioned those killed in automobile accidents. >> Those accidents won't happen because there won't be any autos >> on the roads. > >This is heading far out into the leftfield of logic. It is true there are >Islamic extremists who would like to create a Taliban like state out of the >western hemisphere. In a similar vein, there are Christian extremists who >would like to see an overturn of western decadence. So far, the Christian extremists are not a global threat..yet. But they are watching and learning what tactics and strategies are working. > >Only one Islamic nation was as even slightly as extreme as you describe - >the Taliban in Afghanistan. What evidence do you have this cannot be the political and economic standard? > The worst the current crop of exported >terrorists look for is the imposition of Sharia law (ala Iran). > >Can you remind me which Islamic nations don't have cars? Well, take a good look. How many manufacture their own goods. How many have an infrastructure not based on oil revenues? How many do their own work? Most import their workers. Without Western civilization to act as a contraint these workers would become slaves overnight. Even Europe is importing its workers. > >Your posts advocate through implication the killing of those you deem a >potential threat to the US. This is one of the most circular lines of >reasoning imaginable. > >Critically, the threat of Islamic extremists destroying Western civilisation >is farcical. How could they do it? It's very easy. I have a couple scenarios that can make an irrecoverable mess or a middle mess that would take a couple hundred years to clean up. I am not going to be specific here. I'm not as clever as other people are. If I can think of a couple, there has to be lots of opportunities. /BAH
From: John Fields on 8 Oct 2006 08:28 On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 10:46:58 +0100, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >"joseph2k" <quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >news:ceXVg.3010$NE6.540(a)newssvr11.news.prodigy.com... >> 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. --- Not when an aircraft poses a threat, perceived or real. That is, for all intents and purposes, a ship might as well be dead in the water when threatened by an aircraft. --- >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. --- Closer to "An ounce of prevention"... I'd think. -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: Eeyore on 8 Oct 2006 09:25
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >> > >> >Who is this they of which you speak? > >> > >> Islamic extremists. Bin Laden has declared it. Iran has > >> declared this goal. Clerics wish to remove all vestiges > >> of Western civilzation; this includes no freedom of the press, > >> TV and probably all computers (anything with a picture of a human > >> being), all women in chattel (this is 50% of the labor force), > >> public schools will shut down, private property will no longer > >> be allowed, banks will be closed so trade will have to revert > >> back to person-to-person bartering. > > > >This is simply untrue. > > > >Where did you get this idea ? > > I am able to think reasonably well. Where did you get this idea ? You're saying you imagined it ? That's a very feverish imagination you have. Graham |