Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: John Larkin on 17 Oct 2006 18:23 On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 21:37:11 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 13:05:07 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 20:07:41 +0100, "T Wake" >><usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >>>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message >>>news:0h7aj25ckalb1dr630lm9apu323h2hj3ah(a)4ax.com... >>>> On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 16:45:03 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan >>>> <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 08:50:18 -0700, John Larkin >>>>><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 15:38:17 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>"Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>news:i9n8j29atodlsous5hl3bpuk1avrj0s9a4(a)4ax.com... >>>>>>>> On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 03:39:16 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Nicely written. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Ever heard of a dinky, crappy little liberal arts college called Kent >>>>>>>>>State? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'm not sure how you intend that to be applied, of course, since you >>>>>>>> don't say what you are thinking here. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Sorry if that sounded snotty--no hidden agenda, just the obvious example >>>>>>>of >>>>>>>troops being ordered into a situation and attacking their own people. >>>>>> >>>>>>Somehow it never occurred to me to throw rocks at armed National Guard >>>>>>troops. >>>>> >>>>>And by that comment do you mean to justify the application of deadly >>>>>force and the taking of lives in this particular circumstance? Just >>>>>curious. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Of course not. But if you do really, really stupid things, you can get >>>> hurt, no different from poking a pit bull with a stick. >>> >>>It is sad that your national guard are pit bulls. Are stones really that >>>frightening for them? >>> >>>It is sad that people are pushed to the point at which they feel they need >>>to throw stones at Soldiers to get their voices heard. Isn't democracy >>>wonderful. >> >>How does hurling rocks get "their voices heard"? > >Wrong question, John. There were a lot of people there who did NOT >throw rocks. Only _some_ threw rocks. > >And a separate question, entirely, John. Do you imagine that only >those throwing the rocks are the ones who were injured or killed by >professional military action? The Guardsmen were mostly kids, about the same age as the college kids, but working-class, hardly "professional" military. They didn't like being there, but they were under orders, there to prevent violence. And the college kids assigned them the role of "authority" and stoned them. Of course the shooting was unjustified, but the college kids were incredibly clueless. Some similar, but milder, stuff happened on the Tulane campus while I was there, but nobody on either side gets too worked up over things in New Orleans; even the segregationists weren't very dedicated. But I stayed away from the violence part, and had the sense not to throw rocks at anyone with rifles. John
From: John Larkin on 17 Oct 2006 18:25 On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 22:37:54 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Larkin wrote: > >> On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 20:07:41 +0100, "T Wake" >> >> >It is sad that people are pushed to the point at which they feel they need >> >to throw stones at Soldiers to get their voices heard. Isn't democracy >> >wonderful. >> >> How does hurling rocks get "their voices heard"? > >Are you really being that obtuse ? > >Graham Apparently so. I can't see the connection between political discourse and flinging stones at people. Can you explain it to me? John
From: T Wake on 17 Oct 2006 18:31 "Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote in message news:1gjaj2hicjbnjbf0o6mvugrc29dgdumnnm(a)4ax.com... > <snip> In public, > it's just one man's opinion against another and the whole thing is > muddled -- which is a win for the ID team, because to them muddled is > better than clear, if clear means that science fact is taught, or > worst of all, understood and accepted as fact. In turn I apologise for the large snip, but there is nothing I could say to improve your post and I simply wanted to highlight this last bit with a "well said."
From: Michael A. Terrell on 17 Oct 2006 18:31 Jonathan Kirwan wrote: > > 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. > > Jon Is that the best you can do in damming the US? Ever hear of the Bonus Army? http://www.answers.com/topic/bonus-army Its still not the same as having someone order you to shoot at freinds and family members. -- Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida
From: T Wake on 17 Oct 2006 18:32
"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:bdlaj25b5kd4s7mbahpc7ac914gt0h5fjv(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 21:50:34 +0100, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > > >>> They threw rocks at people with guns? >> >>Figuratively speaking, yes. An act of defiance towards a superior, >>oppressive, organisation. Pretty much the same thing. >> > > only much, much stupider. The founding fathers of the US were stupid? |