Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 14 Oct 2006 16:34 "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message news:0jg2j2ls52jdfld7u8kk3r2pdveg54cqkn(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 17:08:59 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> Gave us: > >> We really should stop behaving in such a >>way that makes other countries forget the good that we do. >> > You have been listening to too much of the bullshit flying around > the world. You havent been listening to enough from outside your borders to make comments about world opinion.
From: T Wake on 14 Oct 2006 16:36 "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:brc2j2l8bi984mlcdti42ea7ve60s8gfq0(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 16:46:42 +0100, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >> >>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in >>message >>news:cg02j2p7s1csnaocvu26f8grj1qh6d75i8(a)4ax.com... >>> On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 05:21:31 +0100, Eeyore >>> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >>>>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >Its interesting that the other "non wins" you mention are from almost >>>>> >200 >>>>> >years ago. We have lost more recent wars as well. We can compare this >>>>> >to >>>>> >Vietnam, I suppose. >>>>> >>>>> Which was a French mess and a continuation of WWII. >>>> >>>>It had ZILCH to do with WW2. >>>> >>>>Graham >>> >>> How could *anything* that happened after WWII have zilch to do with >>> WWII? >> >>Arguing against a semantic mistake with another semantic mistake is not a >>good idea. >> >>Are you saying the US Invasion of Afghanistan was due to WWII? >> > > Certainly. Ok. I assume they are also due to the Boer War then. As long as the reasoning is consistent I can live with that.
From: JoeBloe on 14 Oct 2006 16:41 On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 21:24:02 +0100, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> Gave us: >I dont wear a hat. Oh Boy! The total twit pounces on a typo! Real mature, T Weak!
From: JoeBloe on 14 Oct 2006 16:42 On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 21:24:56 +0100, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> Gave us: > >Ok genius, what equipment is it related to? Let us have the specifics. Sorry, but I can only disclose that in person, and then I would have to terminate your pathetic existence.
From: T Wake on 14 Oct 2006 16:42
<lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:0v9Yg.11496$vJ2.5661(a)newssvr12.news.prodigy.com... > > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message > news:FaadnQaHsfrvnazYRVnyhA(a)pipex.net... >> >>> Your obsession with criticising the current US government is blinding >>> you to impending danger. >> >> Really? Are you still talking to me? When have I criticised the current >> US Government? >> >> I have criticised select actions the government has taken but that is a >> _very_ different thing. You are using a McCarthy-esque approach here. > > Bush's "if you're not with us, your against us" (or, better, "if y'ain't > wit us, yer agin us") is worse--it's the new McCarthyism. And it's worse, > because half of the braindead rednecks in this country agree with that > black-and-white view of foreign policy. For her background, BAH exhibits great difficulty at following who is holding which viewpoint. The default assumption has been you either agree with _everything_ we do or you _must_ agree with everything the [INSERT CURRENT ENEMY] thinks/does. JoeBloe and Terrell are too retarded to be able to add anything of value to even that low standard of debate and as such just troll. What reasonable counter arguments _for_ the conflict, threat perception and the like, existed in the early days of this debate have truly fallen by the wayside. >> You are trying to create a strawman to the effect that if I disagree with >> Policy X I must be criticising the government. I am sure this impresses >> sycophants like JoeBloe but it is poor form to say the least. >> >> If you have a legitimate debate, debate it legitimately. > > It's difficult to debate an extremist fear-mongering policy legitimately, > and the Republicans' blind supporters can't or don't understand subtle and > nuanced issues. No. It is telling that if you do assume the black and white view point which has been forced upon me the "Right Wing" has a _much_ greater base of idiots and insult bots on its side. Oddly, they have positioned me as anti-war and anti-US. Very, very different from my actual view point. Not so oddly, the people who have done this really are too stupid and consumed with their hatred of anything which disagrees with them to realise this. At least "they" [tint] have JoeBloe on _their_ side.... :-) |