Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: lucasea on 9 Oct 2006 16:23 "Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote in message news:8g6li21qr18633s78uns154g524tn70a6j(a)4ax.com... > his own wreckless course Very unfortunate typo. He was most decidedly not wreckless. He was, unfortunately, reckless. Eric Lucas
From: Eeyore on 9 Oct 2006 17:18 T Wake wrote: > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote > > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote > > >> The problems we have in the UK (IMHO obviously) are that we are heading > >> towards legislation which (for example) bans jokes made at the expense of > >> religions because it may cause offence. This strikes me as playing into > >> the hands of the fear mongers. > > > > Ah, I see now. I can't think of an instance of Political Correctness > > reaching the extent of legislation in the US yet, but I'm sure someone > > will point some out to me. However, I lay this more at the feet of > > people/groups that are too eager to take offense at what someone says. > > It's a hard issue, though, because I also feel that everybody has a > > responsibility to respect others' thoughts and actions and choices. I > > think the answer is that everybody needs to be just a tad more sensitive > > to the consequences of their own actions and words, including on other > > peoples' feelings, while at the same time being a tad less sensitive to > > the consequences of others's actions and words. A noble aim to strive > > for, at the least. > > Part of the problem is an apparent "desire" to be seen to be doing the right > thing, rather than actually doing it. The MP in question (in my example) > stated he felt he could not communicate properly with his constituents if > they wore a veil. A veil is not mandated dress in the Koran. If I went in > there with a bikers helmet on he would ask me to remove it and no one would > bat an eyelid. > > (As always IMHO) The problem is this fawning to over-sensitive people (they > have a choice - remove the veil or vote for some one else....), creates a > situation where idiotic rabble rousers (National Front et al) can easily > spin this to get the culturally-challenged sections of our society thinking > there is a "Muslim Threat." (This thread appears to support this!). > > I have no issues with external cultures integrating with the UK, but they > must integrate. Arriving and demanding the host culture subsume itself to > the arrived one is (IMHO) wrong. I agree wholeheartedly with our sentiments here. The PC apologisists are as responsible as those making unrealisitc demands. All they will acheive is to create more hostility. Graham
From: John Larkin on 9 Oct 2006 17:27 On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 19:29:18 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Larkin wrote: > >> If you don't have a morality, why would you object to anything the >> USA, or North Korea, or Sudan does? Why would it matter to you? This >> is a great mystery to me, why people who scoff at the concept of >> morality criticize the US for doing, well, anything we do. > >Because the USA does a lot of immoral things maybe ? > I don't think you actually object to the "immoral" things the US does, because I don't think you really care about Iraquis and such; your other posts show no sympathy for the Muslim masses. I think what pisses you off is that we *can* do the things we are doing. If you did have genuine moral concerns, your ire would be directed to where millions are being killed, not thousands. My point again: people who scoff at "morality" have no grounds for complaining about anyone's behavior. John
From: Eeyore on 9 Oct 2006 17:33 Jonathan Kirwan wrote: > On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 10:49:27 -0500, John Fields > <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > > ><snip> > >Ostensibly, an attack on the Vincennes. > > > >Do you think we blow up commercial airliners for the fun of it? > > No, we don't. At least, I sure hope not. > > However, Captain Rogers was well informed about this situation before > ordering the shoot-down. His exec, Commander Foster, testified later > that he had informed Rogers this was an A300 -- the ISAR would have > completely imaged the engines and profile quite easily -- especially > at close to 10 miles out, which is when the launch order was given. > The aircraft was in a climbing attitude, as well, not descending, and > was in the commercial flight path. It had never "squawked a military > transponder code" as was initially claimed by the Reagan admin. That > was determined objectively through an examination of the data files > from over 50 French aircraft flying in the area at the time, among > other things. This ship was an AEGIS cruiser and was completely in > the data loop of other aircraft, including the French planes. They > pretty much KNEW what they were doing when Rogers ordered the kill. > > Frankly, there was no good excuse. And this kind of event should not > ever happen. The bottom line is that the US, with the best people and > some of the best equipment on one of the more advanced surface vessels > (and AEGIS cruiser), with good information on the civilian flight > schedules at hand, with an aircraft that was close to "on time" and > flying along a proper corridor in a climbing attitude, was still shot > down. Certainly, no one should defend it. > > Rogers had been chasing around some gun boats and had invaded the 12 > mile limit around Iran. He had been warned at least twice (recorded > on tape) by an Omani vessel (friendly) to leave the area immediately. > He was an excessively aggressive Captain, pursuing his own wreckless > course, and was probably very much on edge at the time. He made a > very bad decision. It's now a standard chapter in a course of studies > about how such things can go very wrong. > > Personally, I have no question (I know, because I talked with some who > were on board at the time) that the electronics intelligence folks > knew this was an airliner and that this was reported through the exec > to Rogers fully two minutes before the order was given. Rogers should > not have been where he was, doing what he was doing. He knew he was > violating good policy and good judgment and the wreckless result was > disasterous and inexcusable. > > It's not something to defend in any way. Captain Rogers did NOT > exemplify proper behavior of a commanding officer in the US Navy. Begs the question why his exec didn't countermand the order to fire. Graham
From: Eeyore on 9 Oct 2006 17:39
John Fields wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >John Fields wrote: > >>"Daniel Mandic" <daniel_mandic(a)aon.at> wrote: > >> >John Fields wrote: > >> > > >> >> That doesn't mean he's wrong, though. > >> > > >> >;) He's not wrong and you are Right. Is this the tactic? > >> > >> --- > >> Go back and read it again. > >> > >> As I recall, instead of debating a poster's claims, Eeyore was > >> claiming the poster was insane in order to try to discredit the > >> poster and, thus, his claims. > >> > >> I merely pointed out that being insane doesn't automatically > >> preclude also being right. > > > >I think suggesting that Islam wants to destroy our bridges, roads, > >computers and manufacturing plants among other items suggested is a > >pretty reliable indicator of some kind of mental illness. > > --- > Perhaps it's a little harsh, but you might want to get a little > better educated in the matter by going to: > > http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22415 For Christ's sake John, get a grip on reality ! The Muslim Brotherhood *is not* ISLAM ffs ! Egyptian courts have even sentenced of their members to their deaths. > also, Googling for "Radical Islam western overthrow" yields some > interesting hits. Interesting to the paranoid maybe ? > As far as mental illness goes, I suggest that your rabid > pathological hatred for America and your unrelenting Ameriphobia > might be something you'd like to talk about with a psychiatrist. > Psychiatric care _is_ free under your system, isn't it? So what've > you got to lose except that chip on your shoulder and that ache in > your guts? As someone who can defend a US warship shooting down a civilian airliner without even as much as an apology, it seems to me that you're the one in need of psychiatric help actually. Graham |