Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 9 Oct 2006 17:46 John Larkin wrote: > 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; What the heck would you know about it ? > 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. No, it worried me you you *do* do them ! > If you did have genuine moral concerns, your ire would be directed to > where millions are being killed, not thousands. What did you have in mind ? > My point again: people who scoff at "morality" have no grounds for > complaining about anyone's behavior. Is extraordinary rendition 'moral' ??? Graham
From: Ken Smith on 9 Oct 2006 17:48 In article <452A9428.92788704(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >Ken Smith wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >Anyone would think making nukes was easy the way the Republicans go >on about it >> >too. >> >> Actually it is fairly easy if you don't care about size or quality. The >> material doesn't have to be "weapons grade" either. For a given yeld, the >> bomb gets bigger as some very rapid function of impurity content but it >> isn't a step function. You could stop short of what the US or Russia used >> for material. >> >> To get a high yeld you need to get the reaction material together and to >> stay together for a longish time while the pressure is trying to push it >> apart. If you use a huge surplus of material its own interia will hold a >> portion of the material in. This gives a low yeld and very dirty bomb. > >It also makes for a very heavy bomb with attendant issues wrt launching it on a >missile ! That's why they make cargo ships. If you need to move something that is too big and heavy to send by air you can send it on a ship. It is harder to time exactly when the delivery will be because of weather etc but if you are thinking in a many year time frame it may not matter to you. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: John Larkin on 9 Oct 2006 17:49 On Mon, 09 Oct 06 12:40:18 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>>>>The problem is that the above kind of thought is now being branded as >>>>>traitorous >>>>>in the USA. >>>> >>>> --- >>>> Really? >>>> >>>> Can you cite some examples or is that just some more of your >>>> Ameriphobia? >>> >>>Bush. Rumsfeld. Need any more? >>> >> >>You are accusing people of saying things, without citations, and then >>wailing about how bad they are to say them. How clever of you. >> >>John >> >Bush: > >President Bush continued his attack on Democrats for "selectively" quoting an >intelligence report, claiming that their "argument buys into the enemy's >propaganda." > >Bush said of the Democratic leadership: "It sounds like they think the best >way to protect the American people is -- wait until we're attacked again." Did he say "treason"? John
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 9 Oct 2006 17:52 On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 20:23:23 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >"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. Thanks!! Jon
From: John Larkin on 9 Oct 2006 17:52
On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 16:55:02 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Larkin wrote: > >> <frithiof.jensen(a)die_spammer_die.ericsson.com> wrote: >> >"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message >> >> On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 20:29:08 GMT, Jan Panteltje >> >> <pNaonStpealmtje(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >Veil seeking missiles serve 2 things: >> >> >1) The fear for them will keep the veils away and preserve our society. >> >> >2) It will keep the veils away and preserve our society. >> >> > >> >> >> >> Do you really think that women wearing veils is a threat to your >> >> society? How fragile that sounds. >> > >> >In much the same way that skinheads wearing "hagen-kreutz" are - the wearers >> >boldly avertise that they are outsiders that want a different society where the >> >outsider-norms are the rule. >> >> Scairy, aren't they, people who have different opinions and haircuts >> from yours. >> >> This is fascinating. > >It seems to be the kind of thing that freaks some Americans too. > >Graham My older daughter went through a Sinead O'Conner phase, shaved head and wearing a thing sort of like a blanket with a hole in it. I think she gave it up when essentially nobody noticed. John |