Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: JoeBloe on 15 Oct 2006 19:44 On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 23:57:05 +0100, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> Gave us: >How did you intend "Were it a face to face confrontation, I'd just crush >your pathetic twit throat with a single stroke." to be taken? That was my response to YOU talking about how a fight between us would turn out. You should see someone about that Alzheimer's problem you are sporting, sport.
From: John Fields on 15 Oct 2006 19:45 On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 19:20:23 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Fields wrote: > >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message >> >> >> 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. > >Always ? --- AFAIK. Can you cite an example where you asked for help and we denied you? -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: Eeyore on 15 Oct 2006 19:48 JoeBloe wrote: > On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 23:18:44 +0100, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: > > >and the USA would have been seen as liberating heroes. > > We were, you retarded fuckhead. Not by the Iraqis. At least not for long. Bush senior asked them [the Shias] to revolt against Saddam, they did, you lot scarpered and he quashed the revolt bloodily. Sheer genius. Graham
From: John Fields on 15 Oct 2006 19:52 On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 19:46:44 +0100, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >"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." --- Only when our interests _don't_ collide, no? -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: Eeyore on 15 Oct 2006 19:57
JoeBloe wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: > >John Fields wrote: > >>"T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >> > >> >No way of knowing. Prior to the US overt involvement in WWII the Germans had > >> >shelved their plans to invade the UK. > >> > >> --- > >> What is it you don't understand about world domination? The only > >> reason he left you alone for a while was because of your policy of > >> appeasement. In the end, Hitler's plan would have been to gobble > >> you up along with the rest of the world, and if you didn't resist, > >> so much the better for him, > > > >Simply not so. Hitler didn't want war with Britain in the first place. > > IS that why he hd submarines sinking ships? British ships... Might have been something to do with us being at war I suppose. I was going to say "read some history books" but you don't read do you ? Graham |