Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: lucasea on 9 Oct 2006 10:37 "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message news:uOCdnaYSs6Z5oLfYRVnygg(a)pipex.net... > 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). I disagree--I think most Western nations view those rights as (to use a word from one of our founding documents), inalienable--as they should. Until recently, the Republicans liked to trumpet about how precious peoples' rights are, because there are millions of people who have fought and died for them. Then, along comes a President who makes a few major-league blunders, and decides the only way to distract from those blunders is to pull a Chicken Little stunt, and hope that people are so afraid that they will fall to their knees worshiping him and his cronies. All of a sudden, the government is demanding that people give up their rights, as part of the attempt to keep the "sky is falling" illusion. I just don't buy it. Either those rights are sacrosanct (I happen to believe they are) or they're not--in which case the government has no right, ever again, to ask people to die to preserve those rights. They can't have it both ways, and as a populace, we're fools to let them! > Some of it is done in the name of "National Security" which really does > annoy me. I agree. Thoughout human history, appealing to fear and anger has proven one of the most effective techniques for getting power over other people. >Some of it is done in an insane move to appear to be "liberal" and >"multicultural." I'm not sure I understand--can you give some examples? I tend to support this sort of thing more than fear-mongering. There is much more mixing of cultures in the world today than ever before. Plus, as was guaranteed to happen at some point, there is for the first time since the Industrial Revolution, a move toward levelling the vastly disparate standards of living across the globe. I think it's simply the way of the world in a highly technological society, and I think it's important to resist the urge to fight it. There will be some pain (maybe a lot of pain), but in the end, it will lead to a better, more peaceful world. > Still, it isn't just the current government which is entirely to blame. > All the political parties are close enough that nothing will change. And thus my comments about the broken political process. It would appear from the outside that the UK does have more of a multi-party system than the US, but how effective are the parties beyond the two major ones in fomenting honest debate rather than a two sided "yes, you did"-"no, I didn't" contest? >> 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. Yep, that's the thing we should *really* be afraid of and fighting against. Eric Lucas
From: John Larkin on 9 Oct 2006 10:39 On Mon, 09 Oct 06 10:36:40 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >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. Just go to another store! That's what I do. John
From: Eeyore on 9 Oct 2006 10:41 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > >> 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. I don't know how to deal with someone who feels threatened by a website ! Graham
From: Eeyore on 9 Oct 2006 10:54 T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > John Fields wrote: > > > >> And, generally, speaking, airliners don't stray miles away from > >> their flight paths > > > > What gave you the idea it had ? > > > >> and do respond when contacted by the military. > >> > >> To not do so _is_ madness. > > > > It did ! > > > > Reading a bit more..... > > > > " When Carlson [commanding officer of the USS Sides which was nearby] > > concluded that > > the Vincennes was referring to IR655 when making its warning to turn away > > or receive > > fire ( on a military frequency only - my comment ) he urgently warned > > IR655 on a > > civilian freqency that it was in danger, having been mistaken for a > > military craft and > > should turn away. IR655 immediately complied and changed course onto a > > trajectory away > > from the Vincennes. The Vincennes fired regardless. " > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655#Independent_sources > > I never noticed that. Makes things a bit gloomier. > > For me personally, the purpose of this branch of the debate is not to seek > closure on the incident but to highlight the "world image" problem that > America suffers from. Quite so and I find it truly amazing that seemingly well-educated engineers should still find no error with this kind of behaviour. Graham
From: Eeyore on 9 Oct 2006 11:00
lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > > > >>Really? The president of Iran has declared it is the intention of his > >>country to kill millions? Could you point me in the direction of an > >>example > >>of this please > > > > Where do you think their atomic bombs will be detonated? > > And yet more assumptions.... While this may be a slightly more sound > assumption than the rest of your paranoid fantasies, can you not see that it > is an assumption to say that Iran intends to make nuclear weapons, and it is > yet another assumption that they intend to use them offensively? It is > certainly plausible that Iran actually intends to build nuclear power > plants. After all, as you point out, they are significantly behind the west > in technology, and use of nuclear power could help them to catch up, and > actually put them on more solid ground technologically as the oil supply > begins to run out. > > However, let's suppose for a minute that you were a country that had just > been declared (wrongly, in your view) that you are on the Axis of Evil by > another country that has enough atomic weapons to destroy every lifeform on > the face of the planet (with the possible exception of the cockroaches), > several thousand times over. And let's say that that nation has just > attacked your neighbor who happens to have similar religious views as you, > in what you see as a crusade to destroy your religion. Wouldn't you want a > nuke or two as a deterrant to being vaporized for (in your view) no good > reason? > > While I certainly think it is *plausible* that Iran wants a nuke or two to > use offensively, it is an *assumption* to say without qualification that it > is true. And since the only actual support you have for it being true are > your assumptions about Islamic extremists and their goals, and about whether > or not Ahmadinejad is one of them, I'd say it's all a shaky house of cards > on the basis of which I'm not ready to start tossing my Constitutional > rights into a funeral pyre just yet. Anyone would think making nukes was easy the way the Republicans go on about it too. Graham |