Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 28 Oct 2006 09:05 In article <454342E5.9F806C12(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> > >> >> Which word of the phrase "World Trade Center" >> >> do you not understand? >> > >> >In a much earlier post you suggested that Islam was anti-capitalist / >> business. >> >Maybe you'd like to take a look at this ? Or maybe you'd prefer to continue >> >living in ignorance of the facts ? >> > >> >http://www.bahrainwtc.com/ >> >> I don't webbit and it's too stormy to go to the library today. > >You're incapable of browsing the web from home ? Yes. > Just how blinkered are you ? 486, DOS 6.0, Windows 3.11, and about 18Kbyte of real memory left. > > >> However, it seems that you are making the assumption you accuse >> me of making; namely, that all Muslims deem capitalism as an unIslamic >> condition. > >They don't in any way. Where did you ever get such an insane idea ? The Gulf >States in particular tend to be very modern and forward looking. > > >> The threat comes from Muslims who believe that *all* >> Western civilization activities are bad. > >Muslims *love* trade. Barter trade. Not capitalism trade. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 28 Oct 2006 09:08 In article <45434375.F4DF501B(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >> >Groundhog post - the WTC was not the centre of world trade. It was named the >> >World Trade Center in the same manner that the World Series involves very >> >few nations. >> > >> >A name is a name. Its function was different from what you seem to imply >> >here. >> >> Are you talking about the restaurants and shops that provided >> services for the 50,000 (est.#) people who worked there? > >No. He's saying it was just a catchy name for a big office complex. Whose major business activities dealt with trade. > >There are 74 more World Trade Centers around the world including several in >Muslim countries. However you've shown in a recent post that you don't want to >see these. One down, 74 more to go. Take a look at the other targets. It has to do with trade. > >The NewYork WTC was *not* the centre of world trade ! You certainly cannot comprehend that the WTC was a world trade center. I don't know what else I can write other than I told you so after the next mess happens. /BAH
From: lucasea on 28 Oct 2006 10:13 "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message news:G_2dnZu2-8mV_t7YnZ2dnUVZ8smdnZ2d(a)pipex.net... > > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > news:ehv9me$8qk_001(a)s964.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <1161872944.979802.222000(a)k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, >> "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote: >>> >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>[....] >>>> Clinton's plans only dealt with Bin Laden? What about the other >>>> 99% of the extremists who intend to make mesess? >>> >>>This is simply false. >> >> Oh, you mean my comment about only Bin Laden. >>> >>>Things I can remember, off the top of my head, Clinton admin doing: >>> >>>(A) >>>The Counter-Terrorism Act of IIRC 1995 >> >> I don't remember that one. I'll check it out. Didn't that just >> provide some funding to put cement barriers around a few buildings? > > That is a very cost effective anti-terrorist measure. However it was more > than that. Yeah, but it reached its nadir of ridiculousness at my last place of employment, where the primary anti-terrorism measure was to place *plastic sawhorses* (I kid you not) blocking off the parking circle out front of our research building. *That's* sure to stop a truck bomb! To quote Dilbert, "a little bit of knowledge can be a ridiculous thing". >>>(C) >>>Pressed the Saudi government to reduce support for the Wahhabis. This >>>I remember because it was a near perfect failure. >> >> I don't call asking a government to reduce support for its brand >> of religion an effective action. > > You dont understand the Saudi situation then. That would be consistent with her *complete* lack of understanding of the entire Middle Eastern situation. >> That's spitting into a gale >> force wind with expectations that you'll hit the sidewalk >> a hundred miles away. > > So, despite you not fully understanding the regional politics (and the > effectiveness of separating the Saudis from the Wahhabis), you fell > justified in saying this was just spitting in the wind. In much the same way she admitted that she didn't know everything that Clinton had done about terrorism, but feels justified in continuing to say "he did nothing". And in much the same way that she admitted that she doesn't know everything the Democrats are saying about nuclear power *or* terrorism, and yet feels justified in continuing to say "they're not doing anything about either." In reference to the old joke....I think the pig is starting to like it. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 28 Oct 2006 10:15 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ehvki9$8ss_001(a)s1270.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <454342E5.9F806C12(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> > >>> >> Which word of the phrase "World Trade Center" >>> >> do you not understand? >>> > >>> >In a much earlier post you suggested that Islam was anti-capitalist / >>> business. >>> >Maybe you'd like to take a look at this ? Or maybe you'd prefer to > continue >>> >living in ignorance of the facts ? >>> > >>> >http://www.bahrainwtc.com/ >>> >>> I don't webbit and it's too stormy to go to the library today. >> >>You're incapable of browsing the web from home ? > > Yes. > >> Just how blinkered are you ? > > 486, DOS 6.0, Windows 3.11, and about 18Kbyte of real memory left. >> >> >>> However, it seems that you are making the assumption you accuse >>> me of making; namely, that all Muslims deem capitalism as an unIslamic >>> condition. >> >>They don't in any way. Where did you ever get such an insane idea ? The >>Gulf >>States in particular tend to be very modern and forward looking. >> >> >>> The threat comes from Muslims who believe that *all* >>> Western civilization activities are bad. >> >>Muslims *love* trade. > > Barter trade. Not capitalism trade. Uh....what's the difference? Oh yeah, I forgot, we don't have a World Barter Center. Eric Lucas
From: jmfbahciv on 28 Oct 2006 09:14
In article <9hJ0h.787$wX.77(a)newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:ehvb5g$8qk_007(a)s964.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <1161873433.497805.165040(a)m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, >> "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote: >>> >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> In article <1161700854.976916.304350(a)k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, >>>[....] >>>> >The nuclear power industry has a history of making false promices and >>>> >screwing up badly. As a result the idea of making a new power plant >>>> >isn't very popular. Strangley enough research into the theory that >>>> >makes them go is still fairly popular. This may be a good thing >>>> >because a "new generation of safe power plants" may just sell. >>>> >>>> The only person who is willing to say those "bad" words, nuclear >>>> power plant, is Bush. >>> >>>That is simply false. >>> >>>At least the these have talked about it at length: >>> >>>Dennis Kucinich, >>>Senator Domenici, >>>Sen. Stabenow >>> >>>I'm sure there are many more but I'm lazy. >> >> I'll make a point to listen to these people when they talk. > >You might add Sherrod Brown, Ken Strickland, and Mary Jo Kilroy. I usually >TIVO through the ads on TV, but I just happened to catch each of these three >in a row, and they're all talking specific plans to deal with terrorism. What I've heard so far is talk about making plans. It's too late to talk about making plans. Everybody should have been trained and had a job assigned to them when the next mess happens. >Certainly better than "stay the course". Bush's apparently stopped saying that because people don't understand what he means. >You're problem isn't that you >refuse to listen to what people say, it's worse than that....you listen >selectively, and then refuse to admit that they said something you didn't >want to hear. I'm not the one who is being selective; you are. <snip he said, she said> >IIRC, you mentioned you live in Massachusetts. When exactly was the last >time your states grid was insufficient? Not exactly a hotbed of blackouts >or brownouts. This past summer. Projections are not good for winter and worse for summer...again according to news reports. We've had problems since the early 80s. One of my jobs was to have a plan and then do it whenever I got a phone call to reduce power consumption. This meant shutting down mainframes that got extremely cranky if they were powered down. /BAH |