Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 8 Oct 2006 14:13 John Fields wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >"Michael A. Terrell" wrote: > > > >> So, you don't carry anything else?........... > >> .........An insurance card so you don't die while waiting for > >> the hospital to make sure they will be paid for their services? > > > >You really don't know much about the UK do you ? > > > >Medical services are free. > > --- > Such as they are, I've heard. It's what most ppl rely on. The great teaching hospitals are NHS too fyi. Graham
From: Eeyore on 8 Oct 2006 14:15 Daniel Mandic wrote: > You are more stupid than the Moon is shining from its Dark Side. > (Mandic TM) Some of your phrases really crack me up ! Graham
From: Eeyore on 8 Oct 2006 14:30 jenalyn wrote: > "Homer J Simpson" <nobody(a)nowhere.com> wrote > > "Gordon" <gordonlr(a)DELETEswbell.net> wrote > > > >>>So you are saying they are NOT better Xtians than everyone else? > >>> > >> No, I'm saying that this war on terrorism started long before > >> President Bush and the present Republican administration was > >> involved in any way. > > > > But it isn't a war. It is a problem for a police force that requires > > international cooperation, something the US is notoriously unable or > > unwilling to be involved in. > > The international community does not want our cooperation. They want the > United States to act as their dumb guard dog, do their bidding. I'd rather the USA just went back home actually. > Many > leaders are generally unhappy with the fact that we finally stepped up to > take charge. France is unhappy they are no longer a world power. Muslims > are unhappy they are no longer a world power. No Islamic state was ever a world power. Graham
From: John Fields on 8 Oct 2006 14:30 On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 17:05:49 +0100, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message >news:u37ii25hvicshf5oncuffs4olfd576thp9(a)4ax.com... >> On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 15:08:27 +0100, "T Wake" >> <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >>>"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message >>>news:bgrhi2dri7ejkovr8e8ojll00s0ums6i86(a)4ax.com... >>>> 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. >>> >>>Was the ship in question unable to move or is this hypothetical? >> >> --- >> The speed at which a ship can move when confronted by a threat from >> an aircraft is so small as to effectively render the ship a sitting >> duck. > >In the context of an aircraft launched weapon system. Generally speaking >these are not mounted on passenger aircraft. --- And, generally, speaking, airliners don't stray miles away from their flight paths and do respond when contacted by the military. To not do so _is_ madness. --- >When it comes to bombs, ships are at difficult targets to hit. --- Why assume bombs will be the weapons? --- >The example used was of passenger aircraft being used a the weapon system >themselves. Crashing an airliner into a warship is not an easy matter. --- It's a no-brainer. Mechanically I can easily do it in MFS if I'm not geing shot at, But, why assume that's the plan? Issue warnings and if they're not obeyed... --- >The fact that the WTC counter-example is getting stretched further and >further makes me think it was, indeed, a very poor counter example. > >>>While a nation owes a duty of care to its service personell, in the West >>>we >>>have volunteer armed forces. People who take the job know that they are >>>more >>>at risk than civilians and either accept it or leave. >>> >>>The people in the WTC did not have that option and what happened to them >>>was >>>a terrible attrocity. >>> >>>The people in the Iran Air plane did not have that option and what >>>happened >>>to them was a terrible attrocity. >> >> --- >> In the case of 9/11, the actions against the WTC were premeditated >> by terrorists for no reason but to hurt America, were well planned >> over a long period of time, were well executed, and resulted in a >> terrible atrocity. >> >> In the case of the Vincennes, a threat was perceived, one or more >> warnings was issued, the warnings were apparently ignored, and the >> aircraft was destroyed in order to eliminate the perceived threat. >> A tragic accident, but not an atrocity. > >Really? I agree from the perspective I am a white anglosaxon male who lives >in the west. From my point of view it was indeed nothing but an accident. > >Did the commander of the warship issue a public apology? --- No, and it wasn't his job to. If there was any apology to be made it would probably have come from the State Department or the President. I believe no apology was issued (although statements of deep regret were made: http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/3/newsid_4678000/4678707.stm and reparations were made to the victims' survivors ) because none was necessary. The Vincennes' actions were all "by the book" and all that was needed for the tragedy to have been averted would have been for the airliner's pilot to change the airplane's course. Regardless, It was a tragedy and I regret that it happened. --- >From the point of view of the families of the people who died it was an act >of violence from a nation which seems to shoot first and ask questions >later. --- Well, the airline pilot _was_ warned, and sometimes if you don't shoot first you don't get to ask questions later. --- >>>>>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. >>> >>>What did it prevent? >> >> --- >> Ostensibly, an attack on the Vincennes. > >Well, it prevented the threat of an attack. --- No, that's not accurate. The threat was already there. Blowing up the airliner eliminated the threat, it didn't prevent it. --- >The problem is a country which is so hyped up about "rag heads" attacking >that non-threats are percieved as threats, elimintated and people think its >ok - 'cos there was a threat. > >It is (IMHO) madness. --- Nope, the problem is the "rag-heads" as you call them, and their penchant for airing their grievances by blowing people up. --- >> Do you think we blow up commercial airliners for the fun of it? > >I have no idea. I would hate to pretend to know what people I have never met >do for fun. I don't seem to recall even hinting this was an option in the >motivation. --- It was a rhetorical question. --- >Imagine the situation was reversed. If an Iranian military unit destroyed a >US Airliner, what actions do you think the US would take? If your family >were on board what actions would _you_ be demanding your country take? --- If the situation was exactly reversed and the pilot refused to change his course, or even to communicate with the Iranian military, then I think the US should do nothing except accept the regrets of the Iranian government. If my family was on that plane, I'd be filing a very big lawsuit against the airline for the pilot's irresponsibility being the reason members of my family were killed. --- >The problem is the US are th
From: Eeyore on 8 Oct 2006 14:41
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> >> >What exactly is it that you're afraid of ? > >> >> > >> >> Loss of enough knowledge of how to do things that it will > >> >> take another 1000 years to reinvent the wheel. > >> > > >> >Are you actually serious ? > >> > >> Yes. I'm working on a 1000 year scenario and trying to shortcut > >> the cold start so that it will only be 500 years. > > > >In 500 years Islam will have 'grown up'. > > They are at the age that Christianity was in the 1500s. > I've been studying that era. Assuming (this is a big > assumption) that religions follow similar growing paths, > take the same time for each growing pain, there is going > to be quite a bit of mess before things gets settled down. I expect that modern global communications / media and living in each others' cultures will speed up the growing process very considerably. Graham |