Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 16 Oct 2006 05:49 In article <DuGdnR_IgIsP06_YnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:egt5lk$8u0_003(a)s995.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <b972j2hg5vph0kft82futt7v3sd8r5penb(a)4ax.com>, >> John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 05:43:04 +0100, Eeyore >>><rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> >>>>The rest of the world loathes the USA. They didn't used to. You've had to >> work hard to >>>>get to that position. >>> >>>From a eurocentric point of view, maybe so. But India and China and >>>Japan and Africa don't count, apparently. >> >> Nor the eastern countries of Europe. > >While I don't agree with the rest of the world loathes the US argument, it >is undeniable that most countries in the world have a low opinion of >"America" (as an entity) and it's actions on the world stage. Why do you equate a few European countries with most of the rest of world? /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 16 Oct 2006 05:53 In article <45322D41.6B0FA0F9(a)hotmail.com>, 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* ???????? > Did you think that a political climate that culiminated with WWII went away when people quit fighting? War endings are never like a FORTRAN program where the CALL to EXIT stops everything. /BAH
From: joseph2k on 16 Oct 2006 06:59 JoeBloe wrote: > On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 12:52:51 -0500, John Fields > <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> Gave us: > >>On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 15:22:12 +0100, Eeyore >><rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>>Unfortunately this would require that there were ppl of vision and >>>integrity in the White House. >> >> >>--- >>LOL, from your "performance" around here it appears you know the >>meaning of neither. > > > Much less, honor and character. If you had any of either you would not descend into vulgarity so frequently. -- JosephKK Gegen dummheit kampfen die Gotter Selbst, vergebens. --Schiller
From: jmfbahciv on 16 Oct 2006 05:58 In article <45322EC3.EA750F9A(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> >> > You had an implication that they are not as dangerous with a crude >> > bomb than with a sophisticated bomb. >> >> Well, the fact is, they probably aren't. Their weapons are probably fairly >> crude, and their delivery systems are probably extremely crude and may have >> to rely on something decidedly low-tech, like sailing it into New York >> harbor on a 35' yacht out of Cuba or some small, under-the-radar Caribbean >> island. This would still be very dangerous, don't get me wrong. However, >> it's inarguably more dangerous to deliver a sophisticated >> fission-fusion-fission device by a ground-launched missile from their own >> country. > >You'd have to conceive of a situation where N Korea could benefit from such >action for it to make sense though. Do you understand that the leader of N. Korea is also its Godhead? Demonstrating power is a natural act for this kind of thinking. > >Since the likely result would be 'wiping N Korea off the map' it really wouldn't >be very much in their interests to do this ! Why do you think this will happen? Haven't you been listening to the UN debates about what to do with the latest sin committed by N. Korea? /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 16 Oct 2006 06:03
In article <2925j2dlsd2jau4crqchld5e7filit9481(a)4ax.com>, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 13:51:15 +0100, Eeyore ><rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >>lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >> >>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>> >>> > You had an implication that they are not as dangerous with a crude >>> > bomb than with a sophisticated bomb. >>> >>> Well, the fact is, they probably aren't. Their weapons are probably fairly >>> crude, and their delivery systems are probably extremely crude and may have >>> to rely on something decidedly low-tech, like sailing it into New York >>> harbor on a 35' yacht out of Cuba or some small, under-the-radar Caribbean >>> island. This would still be very dangerous, don't get me wrong. However, >>> it's inarguably more dangerous to deliver a sophisticated >>> fission-fusion-fission device by a ground-launched missile from their own >>> country. >> >>You'd have to conceive of a situation where N Korea could benefit from such >>action for it to make sense though. >> >>Since the likely result would be 'wiping N Korea off the map' it really wouldn't >>be very much in their interests to do this ! >> > >If Kim is a crazy as Mao (and he's probably a lot crazier) I don't think Kim is crazy. I think he has to prove that he is as big a god as his father. Being on equal footing (IOW having and wielding nuclear bombs) with the rest of the world powers is necessary to keep his god image up. We are dealing with a different kind of religious fanaticsim, I think. > he may >consider a nuclear exchange acceptable, as Mao apparently did. Both >starved millions of their own people to suit their own purposes. Even >Deng was reportedly once told that a certain policy would cost a >million lives, and replied that a million wasn't all that many. Western civilization puts value on human life; this is one of the things that people, known as our enemies, want to change. /BAH |