Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: John Larkin on 15 Oct 2006 14:22 On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 13:54:43 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Larkin wrote: > >> "T Wake"<usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >> >"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote >> >> 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. > >Good Lord. > >In which case it must be due to WW1 too. > >Graham Yup. John
From: John Larkin on 15 Oct 2006 14:30 On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 13:44:49 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Larkin wrote: > >> 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? > >So WW2 is responsible for *everything* ???????? > >Graham Sure. It was responsible for the independence of India, the fall of European colonialism all over the world, the victory of the Communists in China, the partition of Europe and the creation of the Soviet satellites, the collapse of the Japanese empire, the Cold War, the UN, and the drafting of the US to be the world's cop. It's responsible for me being born, which is one good thing to come out of the mess. If German facism had somehow not risen to power, the world and almost everybody born since 1945 would be very, very different. You can't have a decent world war without its consequences rippling through human history forever. John
From: T Wake on 15 Oct 2006 14:41 "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message news:0jp4j2ljr5eor32o1i3ogak3liaf426ei9(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 16:38:22 +0100, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> Gave us: > >> >>Why not? Are you banned from leaving your house? I will be in the US soon >>on >>business if you want to meet up. > > > It's called the law. And, no, I do not want to meet you, jackass. So all you want to do is boast on USENET and pretend you are a tough guy. Well done. > I would surely end up in prison for removing your voluntary capacity > to use oxygen. I bet you wouldn't.
From: T Wake on 15 Oct 2006 14:41 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45326A74.1C80E667(a)hotmail.com... > > > JoeBloe wrote: > >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> Gave us: >> >> >Why not? Are you banned from leaving your house? I will be in the US >> >soon on >> >business if you want to meet up. >> >> It's called the law. And, no, I do not want to meet you, jackass. >> >> I would surely end up in prison for removing your voluntary capacity >> to use oxygen. > > I'd watch it if I were you. > > That could be seen as a threat. Pretty blatant one if you ask me.
From: T Wake on 15 Oct 2006 14:46
"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:r8u4j2hmpu3rasu0p0se9mked9nn6g0cjq(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 22:52:33 +0100, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >> >>"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message >>news:14oqi297a2fr8b4fgkpbkm0p3nnq61kq12(a)4ax.com... >>> You guys? >>> >>> You'd tremble at the prospect of it unless you had the US to back >>> you up, and you have the temerity to believe that we'd defend you if >>> you were wrong? >> >>Really? Is this an unspported assertion in order that you may score some >>points against Eeyore? >> >>I can certainly think of occasions where the UK has _not_ had US back up >>in >>military operations. That said, our military is about 1/10th the size of >>the >>US military so expecting the same is a fallacy all on its own. > > --- > Missed this the first time around, sorry... > > The fact is that the UK _always_ has US backup in any of her > military (ad)ventures, should she need it. Tacit, and she knows it. > Only when our interests collide. Which has not been the case for all our "wars." |