Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: John Larkin on 16 Oct 2006 23:20 On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 23:39:25 +0100, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >Sorry, I didn't realise any countries had upped and moved to the US lately. >You are talking about migrations of population which rarely (in modern times >at least) has anything to do with a love of the new country. > >Also, you are presenting a strawman based on the very unrepresentative >population samples. To make matters worse it largely supports the claim >because the people left behind in those countries will continue to dislike >the US and feed of each other even more. Excellent. We really only want the good ones. > >As I said, the majority of the countries in the world have a low opinion of >the America an entity. > Sorry, I didn't realize that countries could have opinions; I thought only people had opinions. John
From: MooseFET on 16 Oct 2006 23:25 mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: > In article <45205022.CCB68B6B(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> writes: > > [....] > >> It is a war. Refusing to recognize it as such will not make it go > >> away. > > > >It's not a meaningful war since the 'enemy' isn't an identifiable entity but a 'view'. > > > That just makes it a far worse and more dangerous war. > What we really need is a war on the incorrect use of the term "a war on". Right now people are talking of a "war on terror" as though somehow the emotion "terror" was an external threat. Once the "war on terror" is over, I expect they will start the "war on ennui" or "a war on limerence".
From: lucasea on 16 Oct 2006 23:39 "Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote in message news:hra8j25plmkagerobeimflqgo6p6q9j3cg(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 00:36:21 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell" > <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > >>Jonathan Kirwan wrote: >>> >>> The article I read pointed out that the soldiers explicitly were under >>> a Euro command and that if they were ordered _into_ their own country >>> for some reason, that they must have already sworn to uphold the Euro >>> command and not obey those in command in their own home country. >> >> What happens when they are ordered to attack their own country? > > How hard is it for you to imagine the case here in the US, for gosh > sake? > > Let's say, hypothetically speaking, that on May 17, 1954, the US > Supreme Court rules in some case called Brown v. Board of Education of > Topeka, Kansas, unanimously agreeing that segregation in public > schools is unconstitutional. Just hypothetically, of course, > overturning the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson ruling, sanctioning "separate > but equal" segregation of the races and now ruling that "separate > educational facilities are inherently unequal." > > Let's also say that, just hypothetically speaking, that in order to > comply with this Brown v. Board decision, a place called Central High > School in Little Rock, Arkansas made plans to integrate blacks around > the hypothetical time of September, 1957. Let's also say, just > hypothetically, that when nine black high school students arrived to > attend, that they were met by angry crowds and that the governor of > the great State of Arkansas, a hypothetically named Mr. Orval Faubus > in fact, just happened to order his own Arkansas National Guard to > keep the black students out of the school. > > Just hypothetically, you know. > > So let's say that faced with such defiance, a US President named -- > oh, let's just say named Dwight Eisenhower -- responded by sending > troops from the 101st Airborne to Little Rock with orders to protect > the nine students. > > Just hypothetically, you know. > > Now, suppose you happened to come from Arkansas and you were in the > 101st Airborne and ordered to disobey the Arkansas governor and to go > against the state's own Arkansas National Guard. > > What do you do? Just hypothetically, you know. > > Come off it, Mike. The US has already answered this question. Europe > can just look here for the problems and some answers. Nicely written. Ever heard of a dinky, crappy little liberal arts college called Kent State? Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 16 Oct 2006 23:41 "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:hmg8j2d5e66hed8b2afqgd8t6lstbflj99(a)4ax.com... > > On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 18:37:22 +0100, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >>"Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote in message >>news:jul5j2tkh6tg8nptqgn390urkanmgjbng9(a)4ax.com... >> >>> Actually, President Bush has explicitly kept the "nuclear option" on >>> the table -- particularly, their tactical use. >> >>Sad really, isn't it. I was hoping I would be able to see my great >>grandchildren. But it gets less likely. >> > Well, if you survive the next two years, you're over the hump. Good lord yes, let's hope saner minds take office in 2009. Eric Lucas
From: MooseFET on 16 Oct 2006 23:43
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > In article <bnPVg.11984$6S3.8593(a)newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>, > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > [....] > >Evidence, please. This is revisionist history, filtered through a desire to > >exalt Bush and excoriate Clinton. How about a little more balanced view of > >the facts, please. > > You have forgotten that 9/11 was the second attempt to destroy > the World Trade Towers? The Clinton admin rounded up many people charged them had trials and they are still in jail from then. |