Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: lucasea on 16 Oct 2006 00:34 "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:ged5j2h9n9pajnnp1hqgklgbceri0lucev(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 14:19:39 +0100, 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. Now *there's* a convenient excuse to avoid being held accountable for one's actions. Eric Lucas
From: JoeBloe on 16 Oct 2006 00:35 On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 04:08:51 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> Gave us: > >You have fantasies of anally raping men, and we should take your word for >it, exactly why? No, I do not. What I have is a unique way of telling some retard that calls me a girl that I am in no way a girl. Got clue? Why are you even in the thread if you are not up on the topic you expound on? It is a known fact that the quran includes such writings as those I spoke of. Do you deny this fact?
From: lucasea on 16 Oct 2006 00:37 "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:bnd5j29k8v1onkl299t2a9q6jegh87ilf3(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 14:22:34 +0100, 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 the inability to > deal with terrorism, then we'd be easy pickings. And the fear mongering of Bush, his cronies in the Republican party, and anyone else who parrots the party line (as are about half of the participants in this thread) are playing right into their hands.... And he accuses others of giving aid and comfort to the enemy? Well, then again, Bush ain't great on moral consistency. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 16 Oct 2006 00:37 "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message news:rcg5j29bpdd8kg9hf3jb7jdv7r2ivf77u8(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 22:37:45 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> Gave us: > >> >>And just keep in mind that we've been responsible for the killing of >>650,000 >>Iraqis since we afftronted their sovereignty. > > Total bullshit. Prove it. I find the people who did that study a *damnsight* more credible than you. Eric LUcas
From: Michael A. Terrell on 16 Oct 2006 00:40
John Larkin wrote: > > On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 01:00:18 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan > <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: > > >On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 00:03:54 +0100, "T Wake" > ><usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > > > >><snip> > >>> 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 agree. I cant see the US military being too happy at it. Forward staging > >>bases are pretty useful. > > > >Europeans are already beginning to work out the details of a European, > >as opposed to individual country, military with soldiers who swear > >allegiance to the united countries and not the country they come from. > >Yes? > > > >With the US behaving the way it is, I'd wonder if the Europeans would > >bite at the chance to field an independent force sufficiently funded > >to balance US behavior and provide the necessary 'encouragements' so > >the US negotiates no longer as an unopposed bully. > > But if it takes a multi-country concensus to act, they won't be > fielded in time to do much useful. You can't "balance US behavior" if > it takes a year of debating before deployment. > > John A year? If the UN is involved, it will be a decade after its over before they decide to send in their troops. -- Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida |