Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: MooseFET on 28 Oct 2006 11:00 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > 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? No, it went way past that. Most people argued that it went much too far. > > > >(B) > >Conducted terrorism threat assessment of every federal facility. > > I don't believe that. From my recollection the embassies were > checked and then nothing was done to fix the security problems > in most of them; no funding was allowed. You say "I don't believe" and then you say "checked" which could also be called "assess". Which is what I said Clinton did. Remember that congress holds the purse strings. He would have have to get a Republican controlled congress to act to provide the funding. > >(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. That's spitting into a gale > force wind with expectations that you'll hit the sidewalk > a hundred miles away. What you call it doesn't really matter. It is what its true effect would have been. The wahhabis are much of the problem. If Clinton could have convinced the saudis to close their schools it would have been a major improvement. > > > The Saudi government > >had made a faustian bargain with the Wahhabiists and the US depended on > >Saudi oil so much that there was no leaverage point. > > None of these are actions that addresses the problems as Clinton's > stump speeches would have one believe. These are things that I knew of from the public record. I'm sure it isn't the complete list of what he did. > I'll ask again...if those plans were so good and so effective, why > didn't _Clinton_ use them instead of now blaming Bush for not > doing it? In at least on case, he had to wait for proof that it was OBL that did the Cole. He did many things. He admitted he failed in what he did. He had other things in the works as his term ended. Bush did nothing at all. > > Everybody swallows what this man says without any critical thinking. > I guess that's what JMF called charisma. No, all the republicans think he is the devil incarnate. He lied about fooling around on his wife so in the republican's mind everything else he says must be a lie. Never mind that there is documented proof for his claims.
From: T Wake on 28 Oct 2006 11:01 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ehvloo$8qk_005(a)s1270.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > 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. Still not the centre of world trade. There are more economically important buildings in New York, let alone globally. <snip>
From: T Wake on 28 Oct 2006 11:03 <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. Lynx. If you can read USENET you can read the web. Better still, get rid of Windows and install Linux.
From: Eeyore on 28 Oct 2006 11:03 lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > >>> What part of changing a mindset to Western economy and politics do > >>> you not understand? > >> > >>What part of " changing a mindset to Western economy and politics " do > >>you not realise can't be imposed by external force ? > > > > First you remove the elements that prevent this from happening > > and then you let the locals figure out how to organize and > > implement it and stay out of their way. > > Yeah, and how's that one working out? I watched a couple of episodes of Star Trek just now. It's been a while since it was last on BBC. It's amusing to see some of those modern 'morality tales' once again. It seems to me that the Bush administration ( and others ) could learn something from the famous Prime Directive - i.e don't interfer in the affairs of other cultures because of the risk of disaster if you do no matter how well meaning your interference may have been. Graham
From: MooseFET on 28 Oct 2006 11:14
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > 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 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. I'll take that as you haven't been listening to them very often up to now and will now change. I need to refer to that below so I'll call it "(A)" > > > > > >> I haven't heard Republicans say them and > >> Democrats always leave it off their list of items we have > >> to do to become less dependent on oil imports. > > > >Once again simply false. Try a bit of googling. > > > Anybody can edit any ASCII that's out there. I listen to > their speeches..you know those where they talk face to face > with their constiuencies? Even the Democrat rebuttals to > Bush's Saturday radio speeches never include building nuclear > reactors when they list the viable alternate energy sources > they claim to have in their platform plans. Back at "(A)", you admitted to not listening to Kuncinich. I know that there is not enough time to listen to them all. The timing of the speaches overlap and I'm fairly sur there are more than 24 hours worth of speaches in a day so it simply can't be done. What you have been listening to is a subset of the speaches and I'm fairly sure that it was the media not you nor the democrats that selected what subset you heard. One of the things Ted Kennedy has been attacked for was a bill that protected the nuclear power industry from law suits. I know you'll have to go back a fair ways to find it but I know there were a few protests about it that made it into the media. > They don't *say* it when it counts. There isn't a mention > in my state's politics about improving our power grid. Oh, what state is that? I know it isn't California. > And > we have tons of hot politics going on at the moment. No > Democrat and no Republican in this state is talking about > any of the real stuff. Perhaps the rest of the world doesn't agree with you about how to define "real stuff". Many people would suggest that "badly maintained roads" is far mor likely to kill you than terrorism. |