Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: mmeron on 17 Oct 2006 01:08 In article <1161055552.800809.247610(a)m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> writes: > >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. Well, there is a threat, and it is external (to some places). But, you're right, terror is just a tool being used here, the proper should be "war on extremism". > Once the "war on >terror" is over, I expect they will start the "war on ennui" or "a war >on limerence". > Heck, we've "war on obesity" already:-) Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, meron(a)cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 17 Oct 2006 01:57 On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 20:14:47 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >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, I've never seen a list for liberals to vote towards. Not ever. Nor has anyone ever suggested one to me. Perhaps you might be the first for that. But I take it you haven't ever experienced these religious groups. If you had, you'd understand. This isn't a matter of choice for the flock. This is a matter of whether or not you go to Hell. Different thing. Much more serious. And you still haven't dealt with my little disseration on why politics and organized religion do not mix. They don't, by the way. Jon
From: jmfbahciv on 17 Oct 2006 06:59 In article <eh01t4$ape$6(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >In article <egt5d4$8u0_001(a)s995.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>In article <LQ8Yg.11488$vJ2.5165(a)newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>, >> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>> >>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>news:egqcsa$8qk_001(a)s961.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>> In article <45306AD8.B490EBFB(a)hotmail.com>, >>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>The rest of the world loathes the USA. They didn't used to. >>>> >>>> This is wrong. >>> >>>Yes, it absolutely *is* wrong for the rest of the world to hate the USA. We >>>do a lot of good for the world. We really should stop behaving in such a >>>way that makes other countries forget the good that we do. >>> >>> >>>>> You've had to work hard to >>>>>get to that position. >>>> >>>> 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. > >That's what Hitler thought too. Of course. The decision to be made then was it the world would be under a Germanic rule. There were a set of countries who disagreed and were willing to physically fight to the death to preserve their living style. The world is having a similar conflict now. It seems that you are willing to let others die to preserve your living style. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 17 Oct 2006 07:02 In article <J--dnVkzKZ7JR67YnZ2dnUVZ8sudnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:egvl52$8qk_005(a)s806.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <45322EC3.EA750F9A(a)hotmail.com>, >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >>> >>>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>> >>>> > You had an implication that they are not as dangerous with a crude >>>> > bomb than with a sophisticated bomb. >>>> >>>> Well, the fact is, they probably aren't. Their weapons are probably >>>> fairly >>>> crude, and their delivery systems are probably extremely crude and may >>>> have >>>> to rely on something decidedly low-tech, like sailing it into New York >>>> harbor on a 35' yacht out of Cuba or some small, under-the-radar >>>> Caribbean >>>> island. This would still be very dangerous, don't get me wrong. >>>> However, >>>> it's inarguably more dangerous to deliver a sophisticated >>>> fission-fusion-fission device by a ground-launched missile from their >>>> own >>>> country. >>> >>>You'd have to conceive of a situation where N Korea could benefit from >>>such >>>action for it to make sense though. >> >> Do you understand that the leader of N. Korea is also its Godhead? >> Demonstrating power is a natural act for this kind of thinking. > >A methodology not unlike that weilded by the President of the United States. You appear to be utterly, one hundred percent, completely ignorant about how the US governs itself. <snip> /BAH
From: Eeyore on 17 Oct 2006 08:25
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Of course. The decision to be made then was it the world would > be under a Germanic rule. There were a set of countries who > disagreed and were willing to physically fight to the death > to preserve their living style. The world is having a similar > conflict now. It seems that you are willing to let others > die to preserve your living style. You're barking mad. Graham |