Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: lucasea on 28 Oct 2006 10:18 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ehvkot$8ss_002(a)s1270.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > 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. Yes, and exactly what has its loss done to world trade...actual, tangible effects, please, not your worst-case fantasies. >>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. Yeah, the USS Cole, the US Embassy, the London Underground...those are all well-known bastions of world 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. You could write exactly what effect it had (real effects, no hypotheticals) it had on actual world trade. Eric Lucas
From: jmfbahciv on 28 Oct 2006 09:17 In article <4543442A.FCBDD467(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote: >> >> >Currently the US imports a lot of oil to run cars and the like. You >> >can make automotive fuel from other things but the energy to do so is >> >more than you get back. In a market where energy cost money, you will >> >continue to use oil. >> > >> You people are not thinking! Scenario: oil imports stop. > >So who's going to be buying the oil instead of the USA ? Where did the oil go ? If production hasn't been stopped, China, India, and parts of Europe in exchange for capitulation. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 28 Oct 2006 09:23 In article <obidnWBJicNu_t7YRVnyhQ(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:ehvga6$8qk_008(a)s964.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <45433F9F.F6808F39(a)hotmail.com>, >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>>> "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> [Clinton] >>>> >(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. >>> >>>It's not *its brand of religion* at all ! >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahabbi >>> >>>> That's spitting into a gale >>>> force wind with expectations that you'll hit the sidewalk >>>> a hundred miles away. >>> >>>How would you deal with it then ? >> >> I'd establish a nation with a capitalistic, representative democracy >> with a secular education system mandatory for all residents >> smack dab in the middle of that mess. > >Invade a sovereign nation. Remove that nations current government system and >_force_ one upon the people. Force them to renounce their religious >practices. > >That sounds real decent and righteous. > > Wow. You should market your filter. I know a few politicians that would love to hand them out before every speech. /BAH
From: T Wake on 28 Oct 2006 10:28 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ehva9v$8qk_004(a)s964.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <Jr30h.23211$6S3.10520(a)newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>, > The primary purpose of the occupants was global trade. Certainly not all the occupants. > This is > the part of human society that keeps it functioning, growing, > thriving. Remove that and you have a dark ages. Do you know how many buildings the world over deal provide global trade services? To remove "global trade" you would pretty much have to eliminate 90% of all trade buildings.
From: jmfbahciv on 28 Oct 2006 09:25
In article <45435648.FD2B9A7(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: >> >> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >> >> >> >Your pompousness aside, so what? It was just a couple of buildings full >> >> >of people, mostly Americans. >> >> >> >> The primary purpose of the occupants was global trade. >> > >> >Not especially. It was just a catchy name for a big office block. >> >> Yes. That is how the mayor got the building filled up; by attracting >> businesses that dealt in world trade. > >Largely financial institutions as far as I know. That's not exclusively about >world trade. You overlooked the commodities and shipping businesses. <snip> /BAH |