Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: John Larkin on 3 Oct 2006 11:31 On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 07:39:13 -0700, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 20:01:19 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 16:55:57 +0100, Eeyore >><rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>>John Larkin wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 10:13:41 +0100, Eeyore wrote: >>>> >mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >>>> >> In article <4520C734.BF44F5D0(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore writes: >>>> >> >>>> >> >There is no such thing as a coherent 'Islamic terrorist' movement, much as the USA would like to have >you >>>> >> believe it. Much Islamic terrorism isn't even targeted at the West. >>>> >> >>>> >> There wasn't such thing as a coherent "Axis" in 1939-40. There were >>>> >> three separate nations, pursuing separate goals, often in >>>> >> non-coordinated fashion, at times even in a way which was detrimental >>>> >> to the other Axis members goals. >>>> > >>>> >Your fixation with the history of WW2 is idiotic. >>>> >>>> Is ignorance better? >>> >>>It simply has zero relevance to the issue at hand. Mind you, just to put your fevered American minds at rest, >>>should European Islam be stupid enough to get 'nasty' expect another 'Kristallnacht' with Muslims being >>>progromised. >>> >> >>I bet you're looking forward to that, boxcars and death camps. Does >>"get nasty" include acquiring political power? >> >>John > >"progromised" ?? > >Eeyore is such an idiot ;-) > > ...Jim Thompson Well, people can't help being idiots. They can help being mean. John
From: Eeyore on 3 Oct 2006 11:31 Homer J Simpson wrote: > "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message > > >>The US believes that US law applies everywhere in the world, but US > >>constitutional rights don't apply to anyone who isn't the 'right sort of > >>person'. > > > Preposterous. > > But still true. Do these guys think there's no such thing as extraordinary rendition ? Astonishing ! The USA has its onw 'SS' now. Graham
From: Jamie on 3 Oct 2006 14:57 Eeyore wrote: > > Jim Thompson wrote: > > >>What is your street address? I have some buddies at Ohio State that >>are just drooling for the chance to "meet" you ;-) > > > Presumably a threat of physical violence again ? > > Do you Americans know nothing else ? > > Graham > sure, you want to go out side and play? :) -- Real Programmers Do things like this. http://webpages.charter.net/jamie_5
From: John Fields on 3 Oct 2006 11:40 On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 15:33:51 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Fields wrote: > >> On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 21:46:18 +0100, Eeyore wrote: >> >"Michael A. Terrell" wrote: >> >> T Wake wrote: >> >> > >> >> > Or "If we give you this money will you promise to use it to buy weapons and >> >> > fight [Insert Disliked Government of the Day] and promise never to fight >> >> > us - unless you really have to?" >> >> > >> >> > Can you [or anyone] remind me why the Irish Republican terrorist >> >> > organisations received so much in the way of donations from concerned, >> >> > caring, American private citizens? I've never been all that sure myself. >> >> >> >> I get of hearing this. They collected money in areas with high Irish >> >> American population, and the average American heard nothing about it, >> >> till the "TV news Expos?". If the average American had know about it >> >> and had agreed with it, there would have been more than enough money >> >> flowing into their coffers for them to have won. The ones who did >> >> donate were people who came to the US to get away from the British, and >> >> wanted to help those left behind, right or wrong. >> > >> >So you're happy to admit to a desire to sponsor terrorism ? >> >> --- >> What's that all about? >> >> All he wrote, it seemed to me, was a narrative. > >It was a clear acceptance that sponsoring terrorism may be acceptable. > >" If the average American........had agreed with it, there would have been more than >enough money > flowing into their coffers [the IRA] ". --- That's merely a statement of fact and has nothing to do with Michael's politics. What you're trying to do is set up a straw man so you can spend some more time on your soap box, but it's not going to work, you despicable slimeball. -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: Eeyore on 3 Oct 2006 11:47
Frithiof Andreas Jensen wrote: > <mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message > > > We did change the behavior of Germany and Japan, didn't we? > > At the cost of maybe 20% of the German population About 10% actually. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties > - which clearly noone is > willing to pay yet in the middle east; mainly because it would look really bad > on TeeVee. If one is not going to fight for real and destroy the opponents there > is really, really no point in sending soldiers. < snip > > I.M.O: If WW2 was conducted the same way, we would be still be busy knocking > over small groups of Waffen SS while talking about our "deep respect" for > Neo-German culture and the historic achievements of Hitler (all the while buying > German products to prop up the failing plundocracy)! There's no comparison since no Muslim country is actually at war with us, imagined or otherwise. Graham |