Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 16 Oct 2006 13:10 John Fields wrote: > And you're defending that pig? Shame on you. I'm criticising the USA. And the 650,000 deaths you've caused. Graham
From: Eeyore on 16 Oct 2006 13:12 John Larkin wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >John Larkin wrote: > > > >> It's the countries we saved, specifically France and Britain, that are > >> the most rabid critics. > > > >Nothing to do with the war. > > I disagree, When you owe someone a great debt, that you can't repay, > the easiest course of action is to disparage them. What debt ? > >We simply have the experience of world affairs to see the faults that need > >criticism. > > Oh please. A thousand years of warfare, brutal colonial empires Tell me about this brutality. Do please also tell me about how the native American indians were treated. Graham
From: Eeyore on 16 Oct 2006 13:13 John Larkin wrote: > 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"? So you'd support a war on Zimbabwe ? Graham
From: John Fields on 16 Oct 2006 13:12 On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 23:52:26 +0100, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message >news:rvc5j2dlfhbk4lpo0ec1324af8p2o2v9hi(a)4ax.com... >> On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 11:03:52 +0100, "T Wake" >> <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >>>You never responded to my question about your alignment with global >>>cartels. >>>As your attitude and posting signal you are indeed so aligned, I will >>>assume >>>your lack of response means yes. >> >> --- >> Not necessarily. > >Ok > >> I don't generally read your posts since you seem to be nominally >> sensible and reading _all_ the posts in this thread is tiresome. > >Fair one. > >> Also, sometimes I read a post and disagree with it, but just don't >> want to be bothered with answering it and starting another long >> harangue. > >Again, fair comment. > >The situation remains though. You asked a question which was nothing but a >logicall fallacy. > >> --- >> >>>>>You're utterly mad. >>>> >>>> --- >>>> From Gershwin's "They all laughed": >>>> >>>> >>>> ..."They all laughed at Christopher Columbus >>>> When he said the world was round >>>> They all laughed when Edison recorded sound >>>> They all laughed at Wilbur and his brother >>>> When they said that man could fly >>>> >>>> They told Marconi >>>> Wireless was a phony >>>> It's the same old cry"... >>> >>>Yet they also tell people who are mad they are mad. For every Wright >>>brother >>>there are millions of idiots and nutcases around the world. The odds are >>>stacked against genius. >> >> --- >> And yet... :-) > >And yet I have never seen a genius post on USENET. :-) > --- How would you know? ;) -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: T Wake on 16 Oct 2006 13:14
"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:cb17j298il06bdhhpe47dn117gn58mpl9i(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 22:20:43 +0100, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >>John Fields wrote: >> >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >John Fields wrote: >>> >>> >> You seem to forget one tiny little detail, and that's that we didn't >>> >> go after Saddam Hussein for the WTC, we went after him because of >>> >> his defiance of the UN, his refusal to comply with their sanctions >>> >> and inspections, and our belief that he was either developing, or in >>> >> possession of, WMD. >>> > >>> >You mean the fiction you invented. >>> >>> --- >>> So you think it was about the WTC even though UBL admitted >>> responsibility for that? >> >>The fiction about the supposed weapons. > > --- > The jury's still out on that one. Really? Based on the statements issued by the occupying powers it seems the WMD threat has been shelved. That is why the recent round of justifications cover other issues. If WMD are still on the cards, then the justification remains and there would be no need to head down other arguments. > We know for sure that he used chemical weapons on his own people, So twenty years later you get round to invading? > that he was trying to build that big gun before he got busted, Yeah, a big scary gun. > that > he was refusing unscheduled inspections, and that he was stealing > the humanitarian aid money which was meant for his people. I assume the US is about to invade lots of other countries then. > Sounds to me like grounds enough to take out his machine. Actually, I agree. Saddam should have been removed from office. It would have been better if it had been done with the support of the "international community" or if the Marsh Arabs had been supported. >>Saddam was nicely 'boxed up' prior to the recent war. > > --- > Yeah, right... And we knew where he was every second of the time? I never took it to mean that. I assumed it was a case of his ability to wage aggressive action outside his borders was almost non-existent. The north and south no-fly zones were effective. What real threat to the US, or the world, was Saddam? Talking about his internal nastiness is not relevant unless it is a case that the US has the right to change any government they don't agree with, using force as required. |