Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: lucasea on 2 Oct 2006 20:38 "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:4193i25jnfriiu1rskbtn7rdpdk6c38c8m(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 20:04:16 +0100, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > And you claim to be human. > > Which is the bigger stretch? > > John Fields > Professional Circuit Designer Given your repeatedly hurling insults at people, I think a far bigger stretch is you applying the adjective "Professional" to yourself. I've not seen such unprofessional behavior from somebody who goes out of their way to label themselves a "professional" in a long time. There's a big difference between having a healthy disagreement that leads to mature discussion and deeper understanding, and name-calling.
From: John Fields on 2 Oct 2006 20:45 On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 21:46:18 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >"Michael A. Terrell" wrote: > >> T Wake wrote: >> > >> > Or "If we give you this money will you promise to use it to buy weapons and >> > fight [Insert Disliked Government of the Day] and promise never to fight >> > us - unless you really have to?" >> > >> > Can you [or anyone] remind me why the Irish Republican terrorist >> > organisations received so much in the way of donations from concerned, >> > caring, American private citizens? I've never been all that sure myself. >> >> I get of hearing this. They collected money in areas with high Irish >> American population, and the average American heard nothing about it, >> till the "TV news Expos?". If the average American had know about it >> and had agreed with it, there would have been more than enough money >> flowing into their coffers for them to have won. The ones who did >> donate were people who came to the US to get away from the British, and >> wanted to help those left behind, right or wrong. > >So you're happy to admit to a desire to sponsor terrorism ? --- What's that all about? All he wrote, it seemed to me, was a narrative. -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: John Fields on 2 Oct 2006 20:53 On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 21:52:45 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Fields wrote: > >> On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 17:05:11 +0100, Eeyore wrote: >> >John Larkin wrote: >> > >> >> Graham has a pathological and mostly irrational hatred of America, >> > >> >Not at all. I am however intruiged how Americancs invariably bring out the hate word the very second >even the tiniest >> criticism is voiced against them. >> > >> >It's not hate at all, more like despair at the crass stupidity of your governmemnt and the ppl who >elected them. >> > >> >> and makes up things to support that need. >> > >> >Simply no need ever to do that ! >> > >> >> So naturally he doesn't like to >> >> be reminded about stuff like WWII or the Cold War. He believes that >> >> the UK and Russia defeated Germany with little need for US assistance. >> > >> >The USA was around 3 years late to the party of course. I have little doubt that Russia would have >eventually defeated >> Germany anyway. Germany could certainly never ever have defeated Russia, the >numbers simply aren't even >> remotelycredible. >> >> --- >> That's all Monday morning quarterbacking but, if as you say, had >> Russia defeated Germany without the US being involved do you think >> that you'd still be speaking English as a first language? > >Probably. Once Germany knew it was losing it's quite likely that's they'd have abondoned the war with Britain and asked for >our help. History's quite clear on this point. --- And if you'd have helped them, Russia would have wiped you both out because of Germany's double-crossing Russia and you'd be speaking Russian right now, if anything. If you'd elected not to help them, then Russia would have wiped them out and who's to say Stalin wouldn't have had his eye on a weak little island incapable of defending itself at that point? And for that matter, all of Europe. In which case, if he had his way with you, you'd be speaking Russian right now. In public, anyway. -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: Homer J Simpson on 2 Oct 2006 20:54 "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:o1a3i217rkdlk75f5c4qshb3d3te49m1cd(a)4ax.com... >>And yet the Israelis get what they need done in a far more competent >>manner >>with only a few errors. > What does that have to do with clandestine work to which you're not > privy? What do you have to do with intelligent discussion?
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 2 Oct 2006 20:58
Gordon wrote: > On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 00:47:08 +0100, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> John Fields wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 19:59:42 +0100, "T Wake" wrote: >>>> "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message >>>>> So what? With world domonation as its goal, one would expect it >>>>> would strike world-wide, as the opportunity arose. >>>> >>>> Whose goal? "It" isn't really appropriate to define the long term aims of a >>>> disparate group of organisations. Are "they" trying to dominate the world or >>>> destroy western society or convert every one or... >>> --- >>> "It" being radical Islam, the goal, in my opinion, would be to >>> convert everyone to Islam and have them be subject to control by >>> Muslim jurists, the goal being total world domination by Islam. >>> >>> Refusal to convert would result in death. >> Do you often conjure up such idiotic ideas out of thin air ? >> >> Graham >> > Graham, what John said is straight out of their Koran. Repeated > in many Surah, Ayah passages. For example; > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Surah 47, Ayah 4 When ye encounter the infidels, strike of their > heads till ye have made a great slaughter among them, and of the > rest make fast the fetters. > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > For the record, an infidel is anyone who is not a recognized > Muslim in good standing. A Muslim who turns away from the Muslim > religion is an infidel. Any person who belongs to and > acknowledges belonging to any other religion is an infidel. > > Gordon Then how do you account for Iran having the second highest Jewish population in the ME? According to your theory they should all be Muslims or dead by now. -- Dirk http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress - The UK's only occult talk show Presented by Dirk Bruere and Marc Power on ResonanceFM |