Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 28 Oct 2006 10:55 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > >Certainly better than "stay the course". > > Bush's apparently stopped saying that because people don't understand > what he means. Bush's 'ideas' are menaingless stupidity. History will remeber him as the most incompetent and tyrannical American President. His fate is sealed. Graham
From: T Wake on 28 Oct 2006 10:56 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ehvlk3$8qk_004(a)s1270.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > 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: >>>> >>>>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. Ok, shall we do this in stages. 1 - you state " I'd establish a nation with a capitalistic, " How do you plan to do this without invading a sovereign nation which already exists? Is there a hidden island in the Persian Gulf just ripe for new-nationhood? 2 - you state "[with a]...representative democracy" Again, which government in the Middle East already has this? If they don't, you are forcing it upon them. 3 - you state "with a secular education system mandatory for all residents" How is this _not_ forcing them to renounce their religious practices? If their religion ties into education, how can you separate them? There are communities in the west where people go to religiously funded schools. It is called "choice." What choice are you giving the people of this nation you are establishing control over? Now, which bit did I misunderstand?
From: Eeyore on 28 Oct 2006 10:56 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > 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. LMAO !!! No-ones going to 'capitulate' you loony ! If production stops the Arabs die of starvation quite likely. Graham
From: Eeyore on 28 Oct 2006 10:57 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Wow. You should market your filter. I know a few politicians > that would love to hand them out before every speech. Do you have anything useful to contribute ? Graham
From: T Wake on 28 Oct 2006 11:00
<lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:lAJ0h.793$wX.663(a)newssvr12.news.prodigy.com... > > "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". Sadly true. I can do a very good line of security advice on how to design out the vehicle borne threat if you work for a company which still needs it :-) And my advice is very cost efficient :-) >>>>(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. Again, sadly true. >>> 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." Oddly, lots of /BAH's arguments are based on the double prong of "I dont know about that but it must be wrong" with support from "He did nothing and what he did was pointless." The logical confusion is impressive. |