Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 9 Oct 2006 06:58 In article <452908D1.B1384AB1(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> >> 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. > >You're saying that "a site" threatened 3 million Americans ? > >How feeble minded are you ? I don't know how to deal with this kind of illogical thinking. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 9 Oct 2006 07:00 In article <Fn7Wg.3184$NE6.2374(a)newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > ><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". Curious. The fear is so deep-rooted that the only way you can read what I'm writing is to force my thoughts into the box that can only obey and ape one particular male that happens to be President at the moment. /BAH
From: T Wake on 9 Oct 2006 08:13 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:egd8no$8qk_005(a)s891.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <Afadne_3eO3dY7XYnZ2dnUVZ8tSdnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:egaj1m$8qk_002(a)s779.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <GtidnRHJ2eFoSbXYnZ2dnUVZ8qSdnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>> >>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>news:egafn9$8ss_004(a)s779.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>>> In article <eg5ts4$70s$15(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, >>>>> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>>>>>In article <eg58fu$8ss_015(a)s831.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>>>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>>>In article <ZQ8Vg.19638$Ij.7364(a)newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>, >>>>>>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>>> <snip> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> People start to lose perspective on what >>>>>>>>>>is happening and why. It really is a very powerful narcotic. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> People can also lose perspective if they assume that Bush >>>>>>>>> is always wrong and is the cause of all ills which is the >>>>>>>>> only thing you hear from his political opposition. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I don't. I evaluate critically. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This causes a lot of people to overlook the fact that these >>>>>>>>> same politicians do not intend to deal with the threat >>>>>>>>> to the nation. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Why do you assume that they "do not intend to deal with the threat"? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>They say so. Whenever asked for specifics, the Democrat leadership >>>>>>>replies with, "Trust me." >>>>>> >>>>>>Anything is better than "stay the course." >>>>> >>>>> So you are saying that conceding to the Islamic terrorists is >>>>> better? >>>> >>>>Are there only two options? >>> >>> From the p.o.v. of the extremists, yes. >> >>But the debate was not about their point of view.Your post implied that >>the >>choices were "stay the course" or concede to terrorists. >> >>From _your_ point of view are there only two options? > > If your grocery store carries only one kind of apple, it > doesn't matter how many other vareities you want if it > is the only store carrying apples. The only way you can > get him to carry the variety you want is to convince him. > This is called changing his mindset. Until you do that, > there is no other option available to you for getting > the apple you want. > > This analogy isn't going to work. No it isn't. I don't know why you tried it. Your line of logic is fantastical. Extremist Group A may have "Americans Must Convert or Die" as its only two options. Are you saying that they become the only two options? Pure nonsense. Your two options ("Stay the course" or "concede") are generated by _you_ not the Extremists (Grocery Store). There are more options - for example, try other courses. I am sure you will eventually realise this - you, yourself have presented alternate courses. So, the question can be slightly modified. From _your_ POV what are the two options available?
From: T Wake on 9 Oct 2006 08:17 <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:vniWg.14381$7I1.4626(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net... > > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message > news:rfGdnUpMeZCEmLTYnZ2dnUVZ8sudnZ2d(a)pipex.net... >> <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). > > In fact, I think the Christian extremists that are running the political > party that is currently in power in this coutry *are* threatening my way > of life. They're putting our country in danger by attacking countries > that are no threat, and are using Chicken Little tactics to try to > convince the American public that we are under such threat that we should > hand over our Constitutional rights without question. Terrorists have not > remotely threatened my way of life. My own government *has*. My biggest issue with the UK government at the moment stems on the way we are throwing away rights and freedoms I grew up to take for granted (possibly part of the problem). Some of it is done in the name of "National Security" which really does annoy me. Some of it is done in an insane move to appear to be "liberal" and "multicultural." Still, it isn't just the current government which is entirely to blame. All the political parties are close enough that nothing will change. >>> 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. > > Yeah, and I can come up with scenarios where little green men from Mars > come down to Earth and take away our toaster ovens. I suggest we bomb > Mars into oblivion just to make sure they don't. Oh, yes, and every > American will be subject to daily household searches just to make sure > they're not harboring one of these Martian Extremists, who hate us for our > toaster ovens, and want to destroy our society. > > >> 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. > > It's not just a bit weak. It is phenomenallly paranoid. > > >> Civilisations have been destroyed in the past - I cant think of any which >> have fallen as the result of insurgent / terrorist methods. > > No, but I can think of several that have fallen apart because their > government became corrupt and eroded peoples' rights all in the name of > keeping power when they should not have been able to. Pretty much the main cause of Empires collapsing. >> 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. > > Bingo, with Chicken Little's help. LOL.
From: T Wake on 9 Oct 2006 08:19
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45298456.94A0AFD6(a)hotmail.com... > > > T Wake wrote: > >> "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote >> >> > Why assume bombs will be the weapons? >> >> I didn't make that assumption. I was detailing the possible threat >> delivery >> systems which could have been in place. As you can see I also mentioned >> that >> ASMs are very efficient at hitting ships. >> >> Having said that, the aircraft was flying level which is generally a sign >> of >> a bombing run. > > Actually, the Vincennes thought they were diving IIRC. Yes, if they had waited long enough for visual observation it may have been different. If the missile launch really was the result of faulty equipment then all the more reason for the Ships Captain to be apologetic and reassure the families that the loss was an accident not a deliberate ploy on behalf of the "Enemy." The Citations the ships crew got were a bad sign as well. |