Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 15 Oct 2006 19:21 JoeBloe wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: > >JoeBloe wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: > >> > >> >It rewrites existing telephone harassment law to prohibit anyone from using the > >> >Internet "without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy." > >> > >> My intent is not to annoy. If you get annoyed, that's your problem. > > > >It's now your problem sunshine. > > > >You can fix that ( the federal offence ) by posting using your real name btw. > > > I do not have a problem, dipshit. > > Over here "offence" is not a word. That is aside from the fact that > no such violation has taken place. Maybe. Maybe not. You're in violation of your ISP's AUP though. Graham
From: Eeyore on 15 Oct 2006 19:22 John Fields wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >T Wake wrote: > >> "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote > >> > >> > It's hard to give up the cop > >> > business after doing it for so long. > >> > >> Police are accountable to the people they police, right or wrong. The US is > >> accountable to no one. It is not a global police force. > > > >Not even accountable to the International Court in fact. I wonder why that is ? > >Something to do with being held to account maybe ? > > --- > Nope, it's because we're so thoroughly disliked that if any of us > were ever brought into an international court, for any reason, it > would be impossible for us to get a fair trial. You think simple dislike would mean a fair trial is impossible ? Graham
From: Eeyore on 15 Oct 2006 19:26 John Fields wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote > >> > >> >> Why do you think that the first goal of the US is to be liked by everyone? > >> > > >> >That's a strawman. Our goal should be not to be hated by everyone. > >> > >> That is wrong. Our goal should be to know what is in the > >> best interest of the nation and its people. Reacting to > >> threats to national security with growls instead of swift > >> and lethal bites is a sign of weakness; this becomes an open > >> invitation to anybody who would like to take over the real > >> estate. > > > >You reckon that 'radical Islam' wants to invade the USA ? > > --- > No. They want us to fall apart because of fear And you think that can be taken seriously ? > and the inability to deal with terrorism, Your efforts so far in that respect haven't acheived much for sure ! > then we'd be easy pickings. Pickings ? What *do* you mean ? Graham
From: Eeyore on 15 Oct 2006 19:28 lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote > > > All of Islam (read the moslems) believe that all others that are not > > moslem are "infidels" and that killing them is not, nor should not be > > a crime. > > More right wing fear-mongering propaganda, the only legitimate purpose of > which was to keep Republicans in power, and that you have swallowed whole. > Do you *ever* think for yourself? I think you're question's slightly flawed. There is no evidence that JB thinks at all. He just believes what he's told to believe. Graham
From: Eeyore on 15 Oct 2006 19:31
John Larkin wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >John Fields wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > >> >> "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote > >> >> > >> >> > It's hard to give up the cop > >> >> > business after doing it for so long. > >> >> > >> >> Yep, therein lies the whole problem, along with the extremely fine > >> >> distinction between legitimately policing world security and bullying. > >> > > >> >Part of the problem I suspect is that the USA is now addicted to pushing > >> >foreigners around. > >> > >> --- > >> Actually, it's the other way around. > > > >Funny. JL agreed ! > > But I did express the opinion that the "cop" role was taken on > involuntarily, to save civilization as we (and you) defined it, and > that we'd give it up if any responsible world organization would make > it unnecessary. > > >Whilst I condemn any such action one can't help wonder why your forces are > >all over the world. > > Originally, to defend Europe, Japan, Korea, Taiwan. I think it's time > to pull out of the European bases and let them pay for their own > defense, now that they don't need much of it. I can't really argue with that, although I suspect they're of rather more us to you lot than they are to us. I assume you'll pull out of Diego Garcia too ? Graham |