Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 16 Oct 2006 23:06 MooseFET wrote: > JoeBloe wrote: > > On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 08:05:58 -0300, YD <ydtechHAT(a)techie.com> Gave us: > > > > >And possibly due to domestic production currently being at a > > >stand-still due to a lack of infra-structure. > > > > The books I read in school were several years old. > > > > If they had books when we got there, they would still have them, > > idiot. > > Unless they got looted or destroyed that is. Or fell apart. School text books have a hard time. Graham
From: John Larkin on 16 Oct 2006 23:09 On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 18:43:41 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: > >And politically potent, right now. Keep that clearly in mind as you >see US Republican political platforms playing out. They need this >base, desperately. > With things as closely balanced as they are, each party needs every vote desperately. The Dems need the black vote and the urban liberal vote and the farm vote and the NRA vote. Watch Hilary triangulate. John
From: John Larkin on 16 Oct 2006 23:11 On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 17:38:14 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >Lloyd Parker wrote: > >> JoeBloe <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >> >> > 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. >> >> You are lying. > >I suspect it's what he learnt at Church. > >American Christian fundamentalists are as dangerous if not more so than their >Muslim counterparts. > Yeah, all those Southern Baptist suicide bombers. John
From: lucasea on 16 Oct 2006 23:13 "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:ov08j299338u1a8v6bvp4t4djj4u40csbs(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 21:28:58 +0100, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >>John Larkin wrote: >> >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >John Larkin wrote: >>> > >>> >> Ah, your concern is not about peace. It's not about democracy, or >>> >> human rights, or the health or nutrition or safety of the poorest >>> >> people in the world. >>> > >>> >And the USA'a *IS* ????? >>> > >>> >Graham >>> >>> I think the theory is that a democratic world, with free people and >>> free trade, will be better for everybody, us included. I've heard lots >>> worse theories. >>> >>> What's your version of utopia? >> >>Ceertainly one where you don't go to war to change ppls minds. >> > > Not to change Saddam's mind, when he wanted Kuwait? Not to change Pol > Pot's mind, to end the killing fields? > > But you addressed what you don't want the world to look like, or > rather what you're not willing to do to change the world. But what do > you want the world to be like? I mean aside from silly stuff, like "a > world without arrogant Americans"? OK, how about "a world where the US government wasn't so arrogant and oblivious to the negative effect that some of its actions have"? Eric Lucas
From: John Larkin on 16 Oct 2006 23:14
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 19:50:08 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >>American Christian fundamentalists are as dangerous if not more so than their >>Muslim counterparts. > >More so, because they (through political influence over the power of >US action) have so much greater power by which they can act. (They >are a very large, very well funded, and highly-catered minority here >and they often pass around internal lists of who to vote for, as >well.) > And you think the Mother Jones crowd doesn't have their own lists? You seem to imply that there's something wrong with political organizing among people you don't agree with. Stalin thought that, too. John |