Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Lloyd Parker on 16 Oct 2006 07:06 In article <egvkgp$8qk_001(a)s806.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <bt46j2til24mu2gik0oscj7ug4nb23s9vh(a)4ax.com>, > Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >>On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 21:06:29 -0700, John Larkin >><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >>>On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 01:09:39 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan >>><jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >>> >>>>On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 23:26:55 +0100, Eeyore >>>><rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>JoeBloe wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: >>>>>> >JoeBloe wrote: >>>>>> >>Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >More 'Christian' propaganda you willingly lapped up ? >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> You're an idiot. Now that you have been pegged, and proven to be a >>>>>> >> US hater, you try to switch it to Christian hater. >>>>>> > >>>>>> >I respect ppl's right to practice religion. I'm offended by any >religion >>>>>> >that inspires ignorance though lies whether that be Christian, Moslem >or >>>>>> >other. >>>>>> >>>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> I have a problem with that. Do you not have a problem with that? >>>>> >>>>>If it was true I would have a problem with it. It's simply not true >though. >>>>>Do you really believe that nonsense ? >>>>> >>>>>Graham >>>> >>>>Sometimes I don't think Europeans understand the religious atmosphere >>>>here in the US and probably no imagination for the extreme reaches of >>>>it or how it actually influences politics here. I have a hard time, >>>>too, so here is a page that paints one of the extreme but important >>>>influences: >>>> >>>> http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/10/12/105122/66 >>>> >>>>In the latter part of it you will see how "thinking" is blocked and >>>>dismantled. >>> >>>The Daily Kos is hardly a bastion of objective thinking either. >> >>The discussion there is an entirely personal story. It's decidedly >>_not_ objective. >> >>>>Imagine living in the middle of this. I do. >>> >>>Where do you live? I haven't encountered much religious extremism in >>>the US, at least nothing threatening. Mormons and Masons and >>>born-agains tend to be enthusiastic, but so are vegans and baseball >>>fans. Boring, mostly. >> >>I have. But I was directly involved with politics as well as teaching >>in schools here. So I saw it first hand playing a role. I have seen >>such people literally hiding in school closets in order to get the >>goods on the teachers in classes. I've seen principles fired and then >>new ones selected on boards mostly for their ability to act as go >>betweens because of their own religious beliefs, but moderated enough >>to make a workable combination. I also live just a couple of miles >>from such a similar group and meet such folks, from time to time here. >> >>They exist and they _do_ have an impact on politics in the US -- and >>particularly within the Republican party. If you haven't seen it, you >>aren't really actively involved in much that's political. > >Yup. Those types do exist. The fact that the Democrats refuse >to deal with the threat from Islamic extremism You are parrotting the right-wing's talking points. >forces me to >vote for people whose goal is to marry church and state because >those are the only ones who even talk about dealing with this >problem. Yeah, like you'd consider a party concerned about the environment, civil rights, and the common folk. > >Clinton's in this state (Mass>) today promoting the theme >that the only thing the Republicans are doing is creating >false scare tactics. Hey, the truth may hurt. >Not a breath about dealing with >the messes that those Muslims are going to make. So invade a country or two that had nothing to do with the problem. That your solution? >He doesn't >have any problems with lying, WMD? Greeted as liberators? Saddam tied to Al Qaida? >so why don't these people simply >lie and talk about their intent to deal with this problem? >I don't understand them since this would guarantee a sweep. > >And Kerry is back in New Hampshire, still in campaign mode, >giving the same speeches that lost him the election in 2004. >If it didn't work then, why keep using the same platform? > > >/BAH
From: T Wake on 16 Oct 2006 12:06 "Jamie" <jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_(a)charter.net> wrote in message news:zZzYg.36$3K6.8(a)newsfe02.lga... > Eeyore wrote: > >> >> T Wake wrote: >> >> >>>"JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message >>> >>>>Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> Gave us: >>>> >>>>>Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>JoeBloe wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>"T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> Gave us: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Why not? Are you banned from leaving your house? I will be in the US >>>>>>>>soon on business if you want to meet up. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It's called the law. And, no, I do not want to meet you, jackass. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I would surely end up in prison for removing your voluntary >>>>>>> capacity >>>>>>>to use oxygen. >>>>>> >>>>>>I'd watch it if I were you. >>>>>> >>>>>>That could be seen as a threat. >>>>> >>>>>Especially given that new law that applies in the US, about threats >>>>>made under pseudonyms, discussed elsewhere in sci.electronics. :) >>>> >>>> Since it isn't a threat to begin with, dipshit, it has no bearing. >>> >>>Really? >>> >>>"I would surely end up in prison for removing your voluntary capacity to >>>use >>>oxygen." >>> >>>Carries an implied threat.You can wax lyrical about how it's not a >>>"threat" >>>but the reality is, it was. >>> >>>That said, I find you about as frightening as a garden gnome so you >>>really >>>will have to try harder if you want to either impress or intimidate me. >>>If >>>you want to do neither, why do you keep pretending you can beat me in a >>>fight? >> >> >> Under the law it has merely to be perceived as a threat to come under its >> jurisdiction. After all, any thug can say "I didn't really mean it " ! >> >> Graham > > You're living proof!. Of what?
From: John Larkin on 16 Oct 2006 12:08 On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 21:45:22 +0100, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >Using force to make other nations act in the way America wants them to is, >and should always be, unacceptable. It doesn't matter if America has their >(other nation) best interests at heart. > That is the heart of the issue. If Idi Amin or Pol Pot decides to kill a few million of "their own" citizens, do they have the soverign right to do so? Is there any such thing as universal human rights? Does the government of China "own" Tibet or Taiwan? Do we stand aside from genocides and starvation because intervention is, for some reason, "unacceptable"? John
From: T Wake on 16 Oct 2006 12:09 "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message news:rsh5j25m4n4adb00is9jqmg5jgh7v47hae(a)4ax.com... > 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. Well, all I said was we could meet up - you were the first to claim you were going to "post edit my face." You then claim you will [insert various threat] and then back down. You are really funny.
From: Frank Bemelman on 16 Oct 2006 12:19
"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> schreef in bericht news:bc77j2911rjokocse2qt39dr9brbjktce6(a)4ax.com... > Just one more thing worth mentioning is that all those lost lives > are deliberately attributable to Saddam Hussein's refusal to accept > the UN's mandates and sanctions without question, which was part of > the deal he never intended to follow in the first place. And Bush didn't bother about the UN either, or the opinion of the UN inspectors. Seems he was all to scared about the outcome of the final report, which was due in weeks. > And you're defending that pig? Shame on you. The US are the swines in this case, and it is a shame that you defend your government. A bloody disgrace it is. Look at yourself. -- Thanks, Frank. (remove 'q' and '.invalid' when replying by email) |