Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 20 Oct 2006 07:35 In article <eh5ek8$8b4$4(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >In article <45355C57.28A8837D(a)earthlink.net>, > "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: <snip> >> 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, > >I suggest you read the report as to what happened. > > >>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. This is not true. It did not stop the sitins. It did stop the governors from calling in the National Guard every time there was a sitin or some demonstration. >> 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. >> > >I imagine the Nazis rounding up and shooting villagers if the resistance used >a village as a staging area put an end to villages allowing the resistance >there too. You should have the poster which campus instead of assuming he knew what happened in those days. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 20 Oct 2006 07:41 In article <y1tZg.20904$7I1.5229(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:eh51sb$8qk_001(a)s847.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <vku9j29bus4nvqo1b6qoiks95vt03f88e2(a)4ax.com>, >> John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>On Tue, 17 Oct 06 11:32:56 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>> >>>> >>>>I'm still trying to figure out how people keep track of >>>>all these kinds of details when they're having things >>>>we call summit meetings. >>>> >>> >>>And if the world were run by historians, would it work any better? >> >> I don't know. In my pre-9/11 days, I thought that businessmen >> would make the world work better. I had a rude awakening and >> was forced to examine thousands of assumptions I didn't even >> know I had. > >From unbelievably naive (I've been in industry for 15 years, This is why you don't understand what I said. You haven't been working long enough nor working in places that are production lines. >and I've never >had the delusion that "businessmen would make the world work better) to >paranoid delusional. If capitalism (which also implies businesses) has its own checks and balances built in, why wouldn't it have worked with global politics, as long as their economies had some form of capitalism? Each and every business has its home-grown brand of internal politics. > Here's a hint. You've only just begun to scratch the >surface on the assumptions you don't even know you have, and even I suspect >you've created some new assumptions that you aren't aware of. Here's a hint to you, hon. I've scratched off the ones that you have used to build a wall around you. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 20 Oct 2006 07:44 In article <453642C1.5D38F093(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> As for Europe, I'm not hearing much discussions about this >> either. What I do hear is capitulations so that they >> get their oil deliveries. > >Utter drivel. If your posts are an example of conclusions made from the news you get, I'm even more worried about Eurpoe ceding completely with one little oil tap turned off. > > >> Now this bais of the news may >> be due to media bias; I don't know but I'll find out. > >It could well be US media bias. That's possible so I listen to broadcasts from outside the US. > Why not start listening to and watching the BBC >? I have and I do. I now listen to the BBC to see which slant of surrendering to the Islamic extremists they are taking that day. /BAH
From: unsettled on 20 Oct 2006 08:56 T Wake wrote: > If the West changed to Islamic based societies life would > continue largely as normal. Normal in Islamic based societies is brothers killing brothers in religious fanaticism, thank you very much! Either all of history, or your rendition of an ideal world, is a lie. I've my thoughts on the matter and have no further need of yours.
From: Lloyd Parker on 20 Oct 2006 04:33
In article <ehab1j$8qk_001(a)s949.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <1161169073.347610.229970(a)b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, > >The people I've been talking to appear to believe that only >the US government knows how to make these things. >They >seem to believe that only the US government can OK >all chemical invoices. >Weapons? Yes. Certain chemicals? Yes again. >Our business and politics do not >work that way. I think a lot Europeans are confused by >this because their businesses are generally government >controlled. A total lie. Europe is very capitalistic. >and/or union controlled Aw, corporations give their workers a voice in how they're run. Gee, what a radical idea. Straight out of biblical-era communes and Pilgrim New England. >espeically in the >manufacturing and mining areas. > >In the US, the federal government isn't allowed to do anything. Except start wars. > This >is gradually getting destroyed; everytime you hear about >a Supremem Court ruling about the Constitution deals with whether >the states or feds have power. > >> >>Buying the bulk reagents from Western sources at high purity allowed >>them to concentrate on the hard part of industrial scale synthesis and >>improved yeilds. > >I understand that. However, that was convenience and it was possible. >What these Europeans (with whom I'm talking) are really saying is >that the US government should take control of all business and >make the decisions of what, who, what and where. IOW, they >want the US to become, not socialist, but communist. > You are a liar. Geez, the "red under every bed" paranoia went out with McCarthy! |