Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 20 Oct 2006 06:49 In article <7buej255mvce4j69cljs4ohh20pikqcl9l(a)4ax.com>, George O. Bizzigotti <gbizzigo(a)mitretek.org> wrote: >On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 16:44:50 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >As someone who works in the area of chemical demilitarization and >counterproliferation, I thought I could add some perspective to this >thread. Thank you! I appreciated it. <snip description> /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 20 Oct 2006 07:18 In article <dibcj2tfi7bdp7nbh74tr3upfnku9as0de(a)4ax.com>, George O. Bizzigotti <gbizzigo(a)mitretek.org> wrote: >On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 03:20:23 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >>Maybe not the "Founding Fathers" as in Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, etc, >>but in fact, yes. The famous "shot heard round the world" was a British >>soldier firing on an angry mob, some of whom were throwing stones. > >I can't resist being pedantic, because I think this is a conflation of >the "Boston Massacre" on March 5, 1770, in which British soldiers >fired on an angry mob, some of whom were throwing stones, and the >Battle of Concord on April 19, 1775, which Longfellow immortalized as >the shot heard round the world. To make things even more confusing, >the "shot heard round the world" has become connected in popular >culture with the "first shot" of the Revolution earlier on April 19 in >Lexington; it's not known whether the first shot at Lexington was >fired by a British soldier or an American militiaman. In Longfellow's >poem, the shot is fired by the colonial side, "the embattled farmers," >at the Concord bridge. Yes. The history we (US kids) learned in elementary school seems to have been a lot of myth. What a waste of learning time. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 20 Oct 2006 07:23 In article <4536414B.11568EE5(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> David Bostwick wrote: >> >>> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >> >>> >> >>> >McVeigh was a part of the radical Christian right. The IRA was Catholic >> >>> >fighting Protestants (and Protestants fought back). >> >>> >> >>> And the guy who killed the Amish kids was what? >> >> >> >> Mad presumably. >> > >> >And just because not all bad acts are caused by religious radicals doesn't >> >mean that no bad acts are caused by religious radicals. >> > >> >Still, there is a far more important (non-violent) sense in which religious >> >(mostly Christian) radicals are a danger to the US. >> >> Then start choosing Democrats who are willing to deal with reality. > >Maybe you need to understand what reality means first ? I do know what it is. > >You're living in a fantasy world. No, I grew up and learned that "they lived happily ever after" is a fairy tale. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 20 Oct 2006 07:28 In article <MOudncmZRf69DKvYRVnyhQ(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:eh4va9$8ss_004(a)s847.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <OziZg.13931$GR.6652(a)newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>, >> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>> >>>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>news:453591FE.C2B3C58(a)hotmail.com... >>>> >>>> >>>> David Bostwick wrote: >>>> >>>>> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >McVeigh was a part of the radical Christian right. The IRA was >>>>> >Catholic >>>>> >fighting Protestants (and Protestants fought back). >>>>> >>>>> And the guy who killed the Amish kids was what? >>>> >>>> Mad presumably. >>> >>>And just because not all bad acts are caused by religious radicals doesn't >>>mean that no bad acts are caused by religious radicals. >>> >>>Still, there is a far more important (non-violent) sense in which >>>religious >>>(mostly Christian) radicals are a danger to the US. >> >> Then start choosing Democrats who are willing to deal with reality. > >Amazing line of reasoning. Your reality seems very different from everyone >else's. I realize that it seems like everybody else in the world sees it differently. Millions are afraid to speak because they will be immediately killed for heresy. There a lot of overly-educated people who put belonging to the politically correct clique above national security and personal safety. There are also those who have no idea how work is done and things are made. They believe that all things and all inconveniences should be made and solved by The Government. IOW, they won't get their hands dirty but expect others to do all that nasty work for them; this is called slavery. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 20 Oct 2006 07:31
In article <eh5eem$8b4$3(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >In article <eh3g0l$1fm$1(a)news-int.gatech.edu>, > david.bostwick(a)chemistry.gatech.edu (David Bostwick) wrote: >>In article <eh34ou$nc5$1(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) >wrote: >>>In article <eh30er$n6o$1(a)news-int.gatech.edu>, >>> david.bostwick(a)chemistry.gatech.edu (David Bostwick) wrote: >> >>[...] >> >>>>Are you also willing to include left-wing "fundamentalists" with every >>>>killer who is anti-religion or unreligious? >>> >>>By definition, left-wingers aren't fundamentalist anything. >> >>Of course they are. The term fundamentalist simply means anyone who believes >>the fundamentals of a belief system. > >But liberals believe in liberty (that's what the word "liberal" comes from) >and you take away liberty if you insist on fundamentalism. Which liberals are you talking about? The ones who call themselves Liberals in today's politics put absolute equality, eliminating liberty, as their number one goal. <snip> /BAH |