Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Michael A. Terrell on 10 Oct 2006 12:16 Lloyd Parker wrote: > > They were calling on frequencies the pilot probably wasn't even monitoring. How much do you know about commercial and military aircraft communications? -- Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida
From: lucasea on 10 Oct 2006 12:17 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:egfp39$8ss_001(a)s934.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <YtsWg.12731$6S3.12584(a)newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>, > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:egd9oe$8qk_008(a)s891.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>>>> >>>>>>So why aren't we devoting all our resources to getting him? >>>>> >>>>> Because this intent to destroy all traces of Western civilization >>>>> is not isolated to one human being. >>>> >>>>Where do you *get* these assumptions??? >>> >>> What assumptions? Islamic extremists wish to kill me and mine? >>> They've told me so. Furthermore, their statements were not >>> empty threats; they demonstrated their intent. >> >>No, they did nothing of the kind. They demonstrated their intent to >>destroy >>three or four buildings. It's a huge leap of faith (i.e., assumption) to >>extrapolate from this that they are "intent to destroy all traces of >>Western >>civilization." > > Which word do you have troubles with meaning: World, Trade, or Center? > > >> >>As I've said before, you don't even know what your assumptions are, and >>how >>ludicrous the premises on which you predicate them. > > Fine. I started with actual events, then learned the history > and made conclusions based on that learning and how people > act and think. And there's another crux to your fallacious assumptions. Are you willing to admit that people in a very different society from ours (Middle Eastern Islam--and this is a drastic oversimplification, for the sake of brevity) act and think in very different ways than you do? Eric Lucas
From: Michael A. Terrell on 10 Oct 2006 12:23 lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > > "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message > news:452B24D6.7B8C3149(a)earthlink.net... > > John Larkin wrote: > >> > >> On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 02:50:52 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell" > >> <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > >> > >> >John Larkin wrote: > >> >> > >> >> I studied the Jefferson-Hamilton debate in school, as most of us have, > >> >> and I'm not ignorant of it. Amendment 4, > >> >> > >> >> "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, > >> >> papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall > >> >> not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, > >> >> supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the > >> >> place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." > >> >> > >> >> doesn't address whether the people have a right to privacy when > >> >> engaged in public affairs, or when using a NASA-launched satellite to > >> >> send messages to another country. Censorship of international > >> >> correspondence in time of war would not have shocked the Founders. > >> >> > >> >> Your insertion of phrases like "of which you appear ignorant" is > >> >> silly. And I don't care what you consider to be "excusable" because > >> >> you have no means of enforcing your rules. So you might stick to > >> >> trying to make sense. > >> > > >> > > >> > Soldiers letters home were censored during WW II, I have seen > >> >pictures of letters with words or sentences cut out. I have a DVD with > >> >some WW II training films, including one about "Loose Lips Sink Ships", > >> >telling the military what they could, and could not write home about in > >> >any war related effort. > >> > >> There's always a compromise between liberty and safety. That's why we > >> have traffic lights. > > > > > > Yes, not to mention idiots on motorcycles who blow through red lights > > without slowing down. > > Darwin at work. Stupidity *should* be lethal. > > Eric Lucas Unfortunately, they cause wrecks they aren't involved in, and live to do it again. -- Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida
From: lucasea on 10 Oct 2006 12:24 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:452BA71F.FB6D6B40(a)hotmail.com... > > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> In article <YtsWg.12731$6S3.12584(a)newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>, >> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> > >> ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> >news:egd9oe$8qk_008(a)s891.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> >>>>> >> >>>>>So why aren't we devoting all our resources to getting him? >> >>>> >> >>>> Because this intent to destroy all traces of Western civilization >> >>>> is not isolated to one human being. >> >>> >> >>>Where do you *get* these assumptions??? >> >> >> >> What assumptions? Islamic extremists wish to kill me and mine? >> >> They've told me so. Furthermore, their statements were not >> >> empty threats; they demonstrated their intent. >> > >> >No, they did nothing of the kind. They demonstrated their intent to >> >destroy >> >three or four buildings. It's a huge leap of faith (i.e., assumption) >> >to >> >extrapolate from this that they are "intent to destroy all traces of >> >Western >> >civilization." >> >> Which word do you have troubles with meaning: World, Trade, or Center? > > Like he said. A few buildings. ....that just happened to be the highest buildings on the NYC skyline--i.e., the easiest to hit, and the most visible to destroy. I could build a building called The Restaurant at the End of the Universe, and that doesn't mean that a terrorist that knocks it down would be intent on destroying all restaurants and universes. They're just buildings with names. BAH's condescension aside, I am willing to concede that knocking down the two biggest World Trade Center buildings probably was symbolic of their dislike of Western society. However, it is a *huge* leap of faith (i.e., assumption) to go from knocking down two buildings as an act of dislike, to an "intent to destroy all traces of Western Civilization." It's exactly these giant leaps that the US public must not let the Bush Administration and his party get away with, in the name of using fear to hold onto control of the country. I will once again remind you that the US government has changed our lifestyle post 9/11 *far* more than the terrorists have. Eric Lucas
From: T Wake on 10 Oct 2006 12:56
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:egfp39$8ss_001(a)s934.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <YtsWg.12731$6S3.12584(a)newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>, > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:egd9oe$8qk_008(a)s891.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>>>> >>>>>>So why aren't we devoting all our resources to getting him? >>>>> >>>>> Because this intent to destroy all traces of Western civilization >>>>> is not isolated to one human being. >>>> >>>>Where do you *get* these assumptions??? >>> >>> What assumptions? Islamic extremists wish to kill me and mine? >>> They've told me so. Furthermore, their statements were not >>> empty threats; they demonstrated their intent. >> >>No, they did nothing of the kind. They demonstrated their intent to >>destroy >>three or four buildings. It's a huge leap of faith (i.e., assumption) to >>extrapolate from this that they are "intent to destroy all traces of >>Western >>civilization." > > Which word do you have troubles with meaning: World, Trade, or Center? Was it really the economic centre of the world? Or was it a grandiose name applied to some trade buildings? |