Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 17 Oct 2006 18:33 "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:2flaj2d1canrc6lfvnap5dhpdot9bsr2of(a)4ax.com... > 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. You are quite correct in that blaming the soldiers directly for their actions is wrong. The blame rests squarely with the person who wants to use guns and soldiers against their own people.
From: Michael A. Terrell on 17 Oct 2006 18:42 lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > > "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? You mean Kent State in Ohio, where outside agitators stirred up the students and told them, "Your parents are rich! You can do anything you want, the soldiers won't shoot at you?!"? The one where someone is reported to have fired at the National Guard, and someone yelled "Fire" immediately afterwards? The one, where after numerous nasty incidents at US colleges all over the country where drunken idiots threw rocks at the National Guard troops, and local police while they burnt buildings and demanded their rights? I may have. It was on the local Cincinnati and Dayton TV stations for days, and discussed for months. You may also remember that it brought an almost immediate stop to the campus riots all over the country. The few groups that gathered and started trouble ran away as soon as it was announced that the guard was called in. The national Guard is made up of well trained soldiers who don't shoot for the fun of it. On the other hand, if the other side is shooting at them they are trained to defend themselves. The thing that surprised me was that the riots went on for so long before it happened. At least a year before Kent State I was telling people it was going to happen, and it would stop the riots, but no one believed me. -- 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: Michael A. Terrell on 17 Oct 2006 18:59 lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > > Not in churches, they're not. As a musician in a group that happens to play > for church services a lot, I've been to services of quite a few > denominations...and many of them preach politics from the pulpit, to the > extent of telling their congregation for whom they should vote. That is a > big problem, in my book. Then you are a hypocrite for performing at those churches if you know their views. If you don't know and perform there, you should tell them why you won't be back. -- 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: Michael A. Terrell on 17 Oct 2006 19:10 Jonathan Kirwan wrote: > > Particularly so when you factor in the charitable dollars involved, by > the way. > > Also, I've done a little research on the subject just recently. The > IRS gives 501(c)3 status to churches without their having to even > apply for it. It's an a priori assumption, by dint of just being a > church, at all. Also, churches, unlike other 501(c)3 orgs, do not > have to file Form 990s with the IRS describing their contributions. > There is _no_ requirement for passing along any of that information to > the government by churches. > > They _can_ file for 501(c)3. They _can_ file Form 990s. But they > don't have to do any of that. (In other words, they are a great way > to hide activities and launder money, if that is the way you are > bent.) > > More, I also did some research on how our own state's ability to > control land use changed after Clinton signed the RELIGIOUS LIBERTY > PROTECTION ACT in 2000. Turns out that churches now enjoy simply > unfettered construction. Our state no longer can require much of any > conformance. It is still permitted to require engineering sense, of > course, in construction plans. But it can no longer control land use > by churches. I assume this is the same circumstance pretty much > elsewhere in the US, now. > > The below link is _not_ an anti-religious link by any stretch -- it is > pro, in fact. But: > http://religiousbroadcasting.lib.virginia.edu/pro_orgs.html > "Religious broadcasting in the U.S. now exists on a vastly larger > scale than in any other nation. In fact, it exists on a scale beyond > the recognition of most Americans. Further, religious broadcasting > continues to experience a period of sustained growth." > > If you are interested in just how many dollars are involved here, last > time I looked at summaries, there was some 73 billion US dollars in > charitable contributions in 1993 to religious organizations throughout > the US. (This was about 66 billion US dollars in 1990. You can check > some of these numbers for yourself: > http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju59929.000/hju59929_0.HTM > ... and there are other sites to check more on this.) > > It turns out that much of that money is going into church construction > and other capital projects around the US, not into operational > expenses or "good works." The above link points this up. I worked as a broadcast engineer at a Christian TV station in 1987/1988. We had a full 5 MW EIRP signal on a 1749 foot tower. Our annual budget was 1.5 million dollars, vs 17 million dollars (and up) for the local commercial stations. Even on that meager budget, 10% of their income went to help others, via the "Prayer and Share" department. The last that I've heard, they were trying to build a high rise office building, keeping part of the space for their studios and offices. The plans are to rent out the extra space to reduce the money needed to run the station. They are in the Orlando area, and should have no trouble leasing every square inch, when its done. <http://www.wacxtv.com/wacxtv_green.asp?id=33> > Just keep it in mind when you consider what is going on here and the > magnitude of it. > > The effects are manifest. You would have to keep your head stuck in > the ground like an ostrich not to see it playing out. > > >>They are prohibited by law from engaging in politics, and > >> that's reasonably well enforced. > > > >Not in churches, they're not. As a musician in a group that happens to play > >for church services a lot, I've been to services of quite a few > >denominations...and many of them preach politics from the pulpit, to the > >extent of telling their congregation for whom they should vote. That is a > >big problem, in my book. > > Bingo. Sometimes, I think John really told the truth -- he just does > electronic design and little else. I'm not complaining -- more power > to him. But it also means he may also have his head in the sand, too. > Once in a while, it would do some good to take a look around. > > >> They are not prohibited from doing > >> good works, even governmant-funded good works. > > > >Agreed, nor should they be. > > Yup. > > Jon -- 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: Michael A. Terrell on 17 Oct 2006 19:19
John Larkin wrote: > > 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 Come on, John! Sure, their BBQ ribs are quite spicy, but eating it isn't suicide. -- 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 |