Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 8 Oct 2006 09:37 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:egaj6a$8qk_003(a)s779.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > 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$8qk_010(a)s831.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>>> In article <4526343A.24C8CC03(a)hotmail.com>, >>>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> ISTR that Bin Laden's next goal is to kill 3 million people >>>>>> >>>>>>Cite ? >>>>> >>>>> I don't have one since I can't access the web. >>>> >>>>That's a copout. How about any recollection at all of where you saw it, >>>>so >>>>others can try to verify? >>> >>> The time was around 2004. It was a site that translates that >>> news issued in Arabian. The essay counted 3,000,000 Arabs >>> who had been killed by the US since 1500s and 3 million >>> Americans would have to die to make things equal. >> >>I doubt this could be described as an authoritative news source, any more >>than USENET can be described as an authoritative description of US >>government policy. > > Why do I have to produce the person and the words at the time > they were made You dont. I didn't ask you to. I simply pointed out there is an error in assuming all the posts made on websites by Jihadists represent a genuine mindset. If I come across a website with an essay from a Christian explaining how all Muslims should be killed to make the world safer, am I to assume that is an authorative viewpoint? > but you can use any random sound extraction > from any Democrat who is desperately trying to win the election > in four weeks? When have I done this? If I have it wasn't intentional and I apologise. Even if I have done this though, how does that invalidate what I said?
From: lucasea on 8 Oct 2006 09:42 "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message news:CoednSSD7Jd1W7XYnZ2dnUVZ8qednZ2d(a)pipex.net... > > "Ken Smith" <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote in message > news:eg9fi9$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$5(a)blue.rahul.net... >>>>> In article <4525651A.5E36C356(a)hotmail.com>, >> [....] >>>>> in prison being a deterent. If a crime is detered, it doesn't happen >>>>> and >>>>> the jail isn't needed. >>>> >>>> >>>> We've killed 200,000 Iraqis, and it hasn't deterred a damn thing. >>>> We're >>>> going to have to imprison a helluva lot more than that, if we want to >>>> convince anybody to do anything we want. So, now please go back and >>>> answer the question. >>> >>>Doesn't that imply killing them is not a deterrent? The problem is we are >>>killing Iraqis and the terrorist are Syrians. >> >> Even if the terrorists were Iraqis, the war has not selectively killed >> them. It has killed Iraqis more or less at random. > > I agree. The flaws with a "war on terror," especially when fought against > suicide bombers is you end up killing _lots_ of bystanders. It's actually worse than that. Of that 200,000 I refer to, over 100,000 were killed *directly by the US* in their bombing campaign and early ground war to get rid of Saddam Hussein. Exactly how many did Saddam kill, again??? That, after all, is the *only* remaining justification for us to attack a country that never did and never could have done us any harm--to rid them of an evil dictator. (Even setting aside all of the evil dictators that we have ignored, and even supported, in recent memory.) When we kill as many or more of his people than he did, it even starts to make the justification sound rather hollow. I find it just unfathomable that the Republican apologists can ignore the negative effect our foreign policy has on stability in the Middle East. I am becoming more and more disgusted by the tattered remains of my former party. Henry Kissinger, where oh where are you????? Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 8 Oct 2006 09:46 "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message news:7_CdnQZ8ebVLV7XYRVnyrQ(a)pipex.net... > > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > news:xnZVg.9853$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. :-) Damnation by faint praise. Touche. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 8 Oct 2006 09:51 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:egak0r$8qk_001(a)s779.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <aQPVg.14037$7I1.13536(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:eg81lv$8qk_001(a)s968.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> >> This party is 100% ignoring the problem. All I want is to >>> start thinking and talking out loud about it. Their national >>> chairman actually thinks that replying to questions about >>> this problem with a "Trust me" is a sufficient answer. >> >>I'm starting to doubt your ability to not filter everything through the >>Republican talking points, > > I don't listen to them. How many times do I have to pound that > into your ASCII eyesite? ....and you can't even be honest with yourself about what you're doing. As a middle-of-the-road independent, you are about the most extreme Republican apologist I've yet "met". Eric Lucas
From: T Wake on 8 Oct 2006 10:03
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:egakki$8qk_001(a)s779.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > 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. So from the mess prevention school of thinking we should kill them all now to prevent the future mess. It also the case that living in a Christian country, Christian extremists are not a threat to _your_ way of life yet. However, Muslims may think they are. (In fact non-Christians often do think they are). >> >>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? I didnt say it couldn't be the standard but the fact it only established itself in _one_ country is a sign it is not normal. Afghanistan has had a history of invasions and puppet governments. It is entirely possible that this cultural history is what allowed the insane Taliban the chance to get a foothold. In Iran which has a different history the Islamic revolution produced markedly different results. What reason do you have to think that this would not be the case in any Western nation which was converted to Islam (even assuming such a conversion was possible)? >> 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. Sorry, which country did you say didn't have cars? I seem to have missed it. If you look at Western countries you will see the same collection of ones which have manufacturing industries and ones which dont. Iran has an export market in the form of soft furnishings, or doesn't that count? It also has a fairly robust defence industry. All the Islamic countries have home grown manufacturing of local items. > How many have an infrastructure not based on oil revenues? Why is basing the infrastructure on oil revenue morally wrong? It is (IMHO) bad economic practice but that is for the market to decide not I. > How many do their own work? Most import their workers. Wow. This is heading into the realms of madness. How many westerners work in menial, manual labour tasks? Iran has an unemployment rate of about 11%, France has about 10%, Germany has about 12%. How many people in the west do their own work? How many countries rely on migrant labour to work as cleaners, maids etc. > Without Western civilization to act as a contraint these workers > would become slaves overnight. I have no idea where this comes from, how it is supported or what it is supposed to imply. > Even Europe is importing its workers. All countries do. Most western countries outsource lots of their work back to Asia. >>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. It isn't. > 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. I can think of 56 million reasons why an external source couldn't destroy the UK civilisation. Saying "I can think of ways but I am not going to be specific" is a bit weak really. Civilisations have been destroyed in the past - I cant think of any which have fallen as the result of insurgent / terrorist methods. The west appears to be busy dismantling the things which make Western Civilisation good. Seems our fears are making us do the work for the terrorists. |