Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 16 Oct 2006 15:25 T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > JoeBloe wrote: > > > >> Why don't we ask someone like Steven Biko... Oh... that's right... > >> we can't. You bastards murdered him. > > > > Absolutely *nothing* to do with Britain, the Empire or whatever. > > > > Have you never heard of the RSA ? Republic of South Africa. An independent > > country. > > Especially as it was an different European country which colonised most of > South Africa. You can blame Britain for the first Concentration Camps > though. They were somewhat different to the German variety though. Graham
From: T Wake on 16 Oct 2006 15:26 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4533BF4A.C0229FEA(a)hotmail.com... > > > T Wake wrote: > >> Quite scary really. Even in the UK, BBC polls show almost a third people >> have doubts about evolution and around a quarter think creationism is >> correct. > > Where did you get that from ? URL on BBC science news about 8-9 months ago. Will look and see if I can refind. Remember Faith Schools over here are on the upsurge and several have "opted out" of the national curriculum.
From: Eeyore on 16 Oct 2006 15:28 T Wake wrote: > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > > "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message. > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: > >>>JoeBloe wrote: > >>>>"T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> Gave us: > >>>> > >>>> >Really? I seem to recall the British Empire went on to become quite > >>>> >large and successfull while your nation was trying to expand. > >>>> > >>>> You mean "colonization"? Yeah... that is what resulted in slavery > >>>> here, as well as apartheid in S. Africa, as well as the need for a > >>>> person like Ghandi to take a stand. We won't even mention the opium > >>>> trade, or the dens that existed in London even right up into the last > >>>> century. > >>> > >>>Britain ended slavery about 100 years ( or more ? ) before the USA. > >>> > >> It was a british mindset that started it over here, dipshit. > > > > Your moral relativism is showing. It was the people who bought and used > > slaves that started the slave trade here. > > And slave trading had gone on for thousands of years before the British > Empire turned up. Not to mention that Britain was among the very first countries to abolish it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism#National_abolition_dates Graham
From: T Wake on 16 Oct 2006 15:29 "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:kif7j2habs5c8u3sh5h3ngb4r1rmk8gn89(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 23:59:34 +0100, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >> >>"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: > >>>>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. >> >>Looks like they are on the way to getting their wishes then. >> > --- > I don't think so. It's a pretty steep learning curve with no easy > answers it seems, and since we've never been attacked here before I > think we have tended to err on the side of caution in terms of > airports and allowing the government extraordinary powers. Yet this stems from fear and an odd approach to dealing with terrorism. Taking away liberties from the people is not saving the nation. > I do > notice, to our credit, that we don't have many suicide bombers doing > their dirty work over here. Neither does Denmark.
From: T Wake on 16 Oct 2006 15:31
"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:2di7j2lauthpa95f32ra72o1dcanql3dat(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 00:26:35 +0100, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >>John Fields wrote: >> >>> 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 you think that can be taken seriously ? > > --- > It's beyond me why you think that radical Islam isn't a threat and > can be ignored. It isn't a threat to "society." It is a threat to the lives of some people but it seems that a certain death toll is acceptable. >>> and the inability to deal with terrorism, >> >>Your efforts so far in that respect haven't acheived much for sure ! > > --- > Well, we haven't had any more buildings knocked down or any suicide > bombers on the streets, or any airplanes blown out of the sky, or > anything blown up over here, recently, so whatever we're doing seems > to be working. Weak argument. Prior to 2001 you could say the same, yet after the act it appears it was not the case. You are making a claim with no ability to say doing [insert other thing] wouldn't have caused the same effect. |