Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Lloyd Parker on 16 Oct 2006 05:34 In article <td03j2truivot3b1ihjrqae8uo85991ebb(a)4ax.com>, JoeBloe <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 00:21:49 +0200, "Frank Bemelman" ><f.bemelmanq(a)xs4all.invalid.nl> Gave us: > >>Sure, simple casualties. Imagine piling them up in your back yard, 650.000 >>bodies. > > The number is off, and so was the claim as to the way they died as >well as the reason. I'll believe these researchers over Bush. What evidence do you have that the number is off? And the article makes no claim as to how they died.
From: Lloyd Parker on 16 Oct 2006 05:36 In article <egt5d4$8u0_001(a)s995.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <LQ8Yg.11488$vJ2.5165(a)newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>, > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:egqcsa$8qk_001(a)s961.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <45306AD8.B490EBFB(a)hotmail.com>, >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>The rest of the world loathes the USA. They didn't used to. >>> >>> This is wrong. >> >>Yes, it absolutely *is* wrong for the rest of the world to hate the USA. We >>do a lot of good for the world. We really should stop behaving in such a >>way that makes other countries forget the good that we do. >> >> >>>> You've had to work hard to >>>>get to that position. >>> >>> 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. That's what Hitler thought too. > 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. > > >> Do you >>even understand the difference in your black-and-white worldview? >> >>It's called diplomacy, and we used to be reasonably good at it-- > >No, we weren't. Europe always thought we were crude because >we got things done with no finesse. > >>getting what >>we want, while at the same time maintaining enough respect in other >>countries that we don't foment terrorism. > >No one nor no nation earns respect if they keep backing down >and shy away from doing the unlovable things. > >/BAH
From: John Fields on 16 Oct 2006 10:45 On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 22:38:12 +0100, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message >news:bs85j2pauvngavectctj1cco09m3jn8104(a)4ax.com... >> On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 14:11:33 +0100, Eeyore >> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>That and I also believe in ethical behavior. >> >> --- >> As long as you can define what's ethical and it doesn't apply to you? > >Isn't that the case for everyone? Doesn't everyone have to define their own >ethical compass? --- No. Many find that it's satisfactory to follow a map laid out by others whom they prefer to follow instead of doing their own exploration. BTW, I reconstructed the sentence above which you unethically snipped, thereby changing its meaning. ;) -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: John Fields on 16 Oct 2006 10:54 On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 22:40:03 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >Jonathan Kirwan wrote: > >> On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 13:17:57 -0700, JoeBloe >> <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >> >> ><snip> >> >I know my rights, and the law you twits keep spewing on about will >> >get shot down in the supreme court, whether by me or another. >> >> Actually, I hope you are right about the Supreme Court on this >> subject. > >You think ppl *should* be allowed to use the net to harass or threaten >other ppl ? --- Legislation regarding harassing and threatening has been on the books for some time, and the subject at hand is using the net to annoy. Your question, then, should be: "You think ppl *should* be allowed to use the net to annoy other ppl?" The answer, of course, is the question: "Do you think your using the net to annoy should be curtailed?" -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: Lloyd Parker on 16 Oct 2006 06:59
In article <roi5j210k0sd0nh9s4elqkb53a63efeka0(a)4ax.com>, JoeBloe <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 00:11:38 +0100, "T Wake" ><usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> Gave us: > >> >>"JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message >>news:c3f5j2di76enggbaabefl3js2mo5570n4f(a)4ax.com... >>> >>> 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. >> >>Really? Who by? >> > All of Kuwait, for one. > > I would also point to the day Saddam's statue was felled. Or do you >think all those Iraqis cheering were paid for? Or some other lame >baby bullshit like "they were afraid". And then they wanted us to leave. Do you think all those people killing Americans mistake explosives for flowers? |