Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 2 Oct 2006 16:46 "Michael A. Terrell" wrote: > T Wake wrote: > > > > Or "If we give you this money will you promise to use it to buy weapons and > > fight [Insert Disliked Government of the Day] and promise never to fight > > us - unless you really have to?" > > > > Can you [or anyone] remind me why the Irish Republican terrorist > > organisations received so much in the way of donations from concerned, > > caring, American private citizens? I've never been all that sure myself. > > I get of hearing this. They collected money in areas with high Irish > American population, and the average American heard nothing about it, > till the "TV news Expos?". If the average American had know about it > and had agreed with it, there would have been more than enough money > flowing into their coffers for them to have won. The ones who did > donate were people who came to the US to get away from the British, and > wanted to help those left behind, right or wrong. So you're happy to admit to a desire to sponsor terrorism ? Graham
From: Eeyore on 2 Oct 2006 16:52 John Fields wrote: > On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 17:05:11 +0100, Eeyore wrote: > >John Larkin wrote: > > > >> Graham has a pathological and mostly irrational hatred of America, > > > >Not at all. I am however intruiged how Americancs invariably bring out the hate word the very second >even the tiniest > criticism is voiced against them. > > > >It's not hate at all, more like despair at the crass stupidity of your governmemnt and the ppl who >elected them. > > > >> and makes up things to support that need. > > > >Simply no need ever to do that ! > > > >> So naturally he doesn't like to > >> be reminded about stuff like WWII or the Cold War. He believes that > >> the UK and Russia defeated Germany with little need for US assistance. > > > >The USA was around 3 years late to the party of course. I have little doubt that Russia would have >eventually defeated > Germany anyway. Germany could certainly never ever have defeated Russia, the >numbers simply aren't even > remotelycredible. > > --- > That's all Monday morning quarterbacking but, if as you say, had > Russia defeated Germany without the US being involved do you think > that you'd still be speaking English as a first language? Probably. Once Germany knew it was losing it's quite likely that's they'd have abondoned the war with Britain and asked for our help. History's quite clear on this point. Graham
From: John Fields on 2 Oct 2006 17:11 On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 17:26:53 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >T Wake wrote: > >> <mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message >> >> > There wasn't such thing as a coherent "Axis" in 1939-40. >> >> So what? WWII wasn't fought against a coherent Axis. > >Nor is there such a thing as a coherent Al Qaeda either. --- Nor, does it seem, that you've been able to master coherence. -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: mmeron on 2 Oct 2006 17:09 In article <efr7vg$sb7$2(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) writes: >In article <2p1Ug.16$45.152(a)news.uchicago.edu>, > <mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote: >[....] >>Well, here is at least one thing you can say for Al Queda. They are >>quite honest, no pretending. > > >Maybe, they are just more effective liars. If you haven't caught them in >a lie, it doesn't mean there weren't lies they got away with. > Oh, I'm sure there were some, but these are what is called "tactical lies". With regard to principal matters, i.e. their goals, they're quite forthcoming. Just as Hitler was. >The whole idea that they have anything to do with any form of Islam may >well be a lie. I wouldn't quite say so. The only operational answer to the question "what does a given religion say and command" is "what its adherents believe it says and commands". Given enough preachers stating "this is what the religion commands" and enough believers accepting it, "this" becomes the reality. And they do have a lot to do with Wahabism, which is the form of Islam common in the Saudi peninsula. > They can get lots of cannonfodder from the Muslim world >may be the reason they try to appear Islamist. It may really be about >power and control. One doesn't contradict the other one. People may be driven by the desire for power and control *and* to really, truly believe in what they're doing (to the point of willing to die for it), at the same time. In our "goody-goody" western upbringing we're conditioned to believe that only "good people" (where "good" means "good by our standards") are motivated by ideals while "bad" (again, by our standards) people are motivated solely by selfish desires, for wealth, power and the like. It ain't so. There is no doubt that many of the top Nazis truly believed in the righteousness of their cause. When the day of reckoning came, many of them preferred to kill themselves rather than live in a world where their ideals have been defeated. Goebbels and his wife poisoned themselves and all their kids as well. If that's not an act of a true believer, I don't know what is. So, disconcerting as the notion may be, the people "on the other side" may be just as commited to their ideals as we're to ours. Possibly more so. It'll be a grave error to underestimate them and assume that it is not so. Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, meron(a)cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
From: mmeron on 2 Oct 2006 17:10
In article <efr837$sb7$3(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) writes: >In article <c7WdncygLPPv3r3YRVnytQ(a)pipex.net>, >T Wake <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >[...] >>The western world bandies the term "war" around much too easily. (War on >>Terror, War on Drugs, War on Obesity etc.) > >It is time for a war on the improper use of the term "war on". > I'll second that:-) Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, meron(a)cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same" |