Jihad needs scientists

[T Wake]

"Jamie" <jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote in message
news:cIAYg.1112$di5.603@newsfe06.lga...

Eeyore wrote:


Jamie wrote:


Eeyore wrote:

John Larkin wrote:


It's the countries we saved, specifically France and Britain, that are
the most rabid critics.

Nothing to do with the war.

We simply have the experience of world affairs to see the faults that
need
criticism.

You might stop to think which 2 European countries had most to do with
early N
America whilst your at it.

Graham


and what part did the UK play in this? was it something
to do with a Boston Tea party? and the red coats landing
on our shores?


Who do you think created Boston and why does it have the name of an
English town?

Graham

we were just being nice to you, so that we could make our big move!

Yeah, New York, Washington, New Jersey, New Bedford, Salisbury, Richmond,
Rockingham, Southport, Fairfax, York, Lancaster, Newark, Hempstead,
Southampton, Bristol, Hartford, Warwick, Worcester (etc) weren't enough. You
had to name Boston "Boston" as well...

 

[Frank Bemelman]

"David Brown" <david.brown@hesbynett.removethisbit.no> schreef in bericht
news:4533c56e$0$16503$8404b019@news.wineasy.se...

Anyway, there is a big difference between being evil, ruthless, sadistic,
or otherwise inhumane, and being crazy. I attribute a lot of the trouble
the USA has with dealing with terrorism and other unpleasant behaviour to
a tendency to assume that anyone who doesn't see the USA and the American
way of life as the pinnacle of civilisation as "crazy", rather than trying
to understand their point of view.

That is very very true.


--
Thanks, Frank.
(remove 'q' and '.invalid' when replying by email)

 

[T Wake]

<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:qZDYg.11107$TV3.7144@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:ged5j2h9n9pajnnp1hqgklgbceri0lucev@4ax.com...
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 14:19:39 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



T Wake wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote

It's hard to give up the cop
business after doing it for so long.

Police are accountable to the people they police, right or wrong. The
US is
accountable to no one. It is not a global police force.

Not even accountable to the International Court in fact. I wonder why
that is ?
Something to do with being held to account maybe ?

---
Nope, it's because we're so thoroughly disliked that if any of us
were ever brought into an international court, for any reason, it
would be impossible for us to get a fair trial.

Now *there's* a convenient excuse to avoid being held accountable for
one's actions.

Without addressing _why_ they are so disliked. There isn't even a "hawk[*]"
consensus on if America is actually disliked on a global scale.






[*] Yes, I know it is an inappropriate use of the term. I am using this to
block together the posters on this thread who advocate the US continue its
global conquests.

 

[T Wake]

"JoeBloe" <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
newsuo5j2thoe7r3n852b1ucgmdpf8e538oug@4ax.com...

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 01:00:16 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> Gave us:



Jamie wrote:

Eeyore wrote:


T Wake wrote:


"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote


It's hard to give up the cop
business after doing it for so long.

Police are accountable to the people they police, right or wrong. The
US is
accountable to no one. It is not a global police force.


Not even accountable to the International Court in fact. I wonder why
that is ?
Something to do with being held to account maybe ?

Graham

You mean "Held accountable" ?, there is so much bile coming
out that shit hole, you call a mouth. It's putting my lower intestine in
a twist.

My history isn't very good how ever, some where in the past, I seem
to
recall the USA helping the UK? if so, did we make a mistake on our
part?

We were *allies*. It wasn't the USA just helping the UK. And you were
late.

You're an idiot. We provided your war machine for years before we
provided men.

It's OK though because the UK helped the US at least get a draw in Korea.
When we didn't help in Vietnam, look what happened.

 

[T Wake]

"JoeBloe" <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:61p5j21rfv46ranbgle30sv58586v7ea3g@4ax.com...

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 01:02:21 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> Gave us:



Jamie wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
T Wake wrote:
"JoeBloe" <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> Gave us:
John Larkin wrote:

Didn't you see the pic I posted?

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2006/10/koreaREU121006_548x700.jpg

That's what this is all about

Bringing electricity to N Korea ?

They HAVE electricity, you retarded fuck! Also, having it has
nothing to do with developing WMDs.

Are you really that stupid?


Apparently Joe's not that familiar with N Korea ! Or electricity !

Graham

and, you are ?

I know something about it which he clearly doesn't.

Click on the link. Where are the lights ?
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2006/10/koreaREU121006_548x700.jpg


That's what happens, when, in one's communistic stubbornness, one
finds one's self 300 years behind the rest of the world.

Amazing. I never thought I would see you agree with Eeyore.

 

[T Wake]

"JoeBloe" <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:qjh5j2hmm4b3l0qqbgr4ul99sk06hom99l@4ax.com...

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 19:12:10 -0700, Jamie
jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> Gave us:

T Wake wrote:

"JoeBloe" <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:lhi4j2pv5503cucgbbudspav967o6jhe12@4ax.com...

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 14:07:01 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> Gave us:



John Larkin wrote:


Didn't you see the pic I posted?

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2006/10/koreaREU121006_548x700.jpg

That's what this is all about

Bringing electricity to N Korea ?


They HAVE electricity, you retarded fuck! Also, having it has
nothing to do with developing WMDs.


Are you really that stupid?

i find that, intelligence can only be recognized by those
that already have it.

do you qualify for this?

Perhaps more so than you will ever know.

I know you read your reply as trying to insult me, but oddly it is a
compliment. Thanks.

 

[T Wake]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:ic67j2dc6omkth4tf7f7n695vvr6uv4p5s@4ax.com...

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 22:38:12 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:


"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:bs85j2pauvngavectctj1cco09m3jn8104@4ax.com...
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 14:11:33 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

That and I also believe in ethical behavior.

---
As long as you can define what's ethical and it doesn't apply to you?

Isn't that the case for everyone? Doesn't everyone have to define their
own
ethical compass?

---
No. Many find that it's satisfactory to follow a map laid out by
others whom they prefer to follow instead of doing their own
exploration.

Even the most blind follower has to have their own interpretation of what
is, and what isn't ethical. Granted this may come into play only in very
narrow circumstances but it still happens. No one can predict every
situation, so no ethical mapping can dictate every action.

As soon as someone determines the detail of their actions, they have
modified their own ethical compass. They may think what they have done is
right or wrong but they now have a different map to some one else who was
not in that situation.

BTW, I reconstructed the sentence above which you unethically
snipped, thereby changing its meaning.

It's meaning wasn't relevant to my comment and, as it falls well within my
ethical map it wasn't unethical Saying "it doesn't apply to you" was
just part of the tit for tat exchange between you and Eeyore.

 

[T Wake]

"JoeBloe" <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:9mh5j2lii4196brlu0daol4c77it9v5gi5@4ax.com...

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 23:51:04 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> Gave us:

But some Islamic extremists from countries _you_ describe as
backwards are capable of destroying it.


I never said anything about them being able to destroy anything of
the sort.

I would go so far as to say "do harm".

Yet the actions taken do more "harm" to the Western Democracy than anything
the Islamist have done? All they have done is kill people, which as you seem
to demonstrate is no big deal. They cant take away your basic freedoms by
killing people. You have to let them.

 

[T Wake]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:2d27j2du12fjl3g2dp6996akgcroriqf6t@4ax.com...

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 22:22:09 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:


"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:vh45j2tlovkq8ttgl53r2v9ei9kvq16cj3@4ax.com...
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 13:46:46 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



John Larkin wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

When does Bush get impeached ?

Not worth the bother. His term expires in 2008.

When does the Republican Party get impeached ?

Sorry, there's no provision for impeaching a party.

But the real question is, why are you so obsessive about US politics?
We ignore your politics, so it's only fair that you ignore ours.

Given the effect the USA has on the world it'd be crazy not to be
concerned about it.

---
But there's nothing you can do about it, so you may as well give up
the concern. It's all about what you can change, what you can't,
knowing the difference between the two, and leading your life
accordingly.

While, in the main, I agree. For some people there is the moral imperative
to do what is "right" despite the futility and the personal cost.

In a democracy people are supposed to be able to affect things. I mean, it
is the effect on the west of a small group of Islamic extremists that has
got everyone's knickers in a twist here.

---
I agree. The tricky part is being able to tell the difference
between what you can change and what you can't, and learning to
adapt (change yourself) if what you can't change endangers you and
you consider your survival to be the ultimate morality.

No one lives for ever. If you have to sacrifice what you believe is right to
live another day, then (IMHO) you are eventually going to be disappointed.
If people are giving their lives to "bring freedom" to the oppressed and
defend our "way of life" it seems especially churlish to get all scared at
home and sacrifice our freedoms and modify our way of life just to stay
alive.

 

[T Wake]

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:egvldl$8qk_006@s806.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <2925j2dlsd2jau4crqchld5e7filit9481@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 13:51:15 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message

You had an implication that they are not as dangerous with a crude
bomb than with a sophisticated bomb.

Well, the fact is, they probably aren't. Their weapons are probably
fairly
crude, and their delivery systems are probably extremely crude and may
have
to rely on something decidedly low-tech, like sailing it into New York
harbor on a 35' yacht out of Cuba or some small, under-the-radar
Caribbean
island. This would still be very dangerous, don't get me wrong.
However,
it's inarguably more dangerous to deliver a sophisticated
fission-fusion-fission device by a ground-launched missile from their
own
country.

You'd have to conceive of a situation where N Korea could benefit from
such
action for it to make sense though.

Since the likely result would be 'wiping N Korea off the map' it really
wouldn't
be very much in their interests to do this !


If Kim is a crazy as Mao (and he's probably a lot crazier)

I don't think Kim is crazy. I think he has to prove that he
is as big a god as his father. Being on equal footing (IOW
having and wielding nuclear bombs) with the rest of the
world powers is necessary to keep his god image up. We
are dealing with a different kind of religious fanaticsim, I
think.


he may
consider a nuclear exchange acceptable, as Mao apparently did. Both
starved millions of their own people to suit their own purposes. Even
Deng was reportedly once told that a certain policy would cost a
million lives, and replied that a million wasn't all that many.

Western civilization puts value on human life; this is one
of the things that people, known as our enemies, want to change.

How many people are we willing to kill to stop them changing that? Is this
western civilisation which values life the same one which has allowed
thousands to die in Iraq?

 

[T Wake]

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:egvl52$8qk_005@s806.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <45322EC3.EA750F9A@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:


lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message

You had an implication that they are not as dangerous with a crude
bomb than with a sophisticated bomb.

Well, the fact is, they probably aren't. Their weapons are probably
fairly
crude, and their delivery systems are probably extremely crude and may
have
to rely on something decidedly low-tech, like sailing it into New York
harbor on a 35' yacht out of Cuba or some small, under-the-radar
Caribbean
island. This would still be very dangerous, don't get me wrong.
However,
it's inarguably more dangerous to deliver a sophisticated
fission-fusion-fission device by a ground-launched missile from their
own
country.

You'd have to conceive of a situation where N Korea could benefit from
such
action for it to make sense though.

Do you understand that the leader of N. Korea is also its Godhead?
Demonstrating power is a natural act for this kind of thinking.

A methodology not unlike that weilded by the President of the United States.

Since the likely result would be 'wiping N Korea off the map' it really
wouldn't
be very much in their interests to do this !

Why do you think this will happen? Haven't you been listening
to the UN debates about what to do with the latest sin committed
by N. Korea?

Yes. They will posture. They will pass resolutions. They will establish
sanctions. Pretty much as normal.

 

[T Wake]

<hill@rowland.org> wrote in message
news:1160958932.302841.324250@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

science_for_jihad@yahoo.com wrote:
Jihad needs competent scientists in the fields of nuclear physics,
chemistry and biology. Qualified scientists and engineers at the
Master/Ph.D. level and above are encouraged to apply. Readiness
to travel and to pass a preliminary examination is required.

Anyone interested should send his anonymous CV to the address
science_for_jihad@yahoo.com . The CV should contain information
reflecting the academic level reached by the candidate and his work
experience. The information however should not be so accurate as to
identify the candidate. An appropriately fantasious nickname and a
birth date corresponding to the approximate age of the candidate
should also be provided, together with a working email address.
Further instructions will follow.

4200 postings and still going strong. Amazing.

BTW, did the further instructions follow?

Sadly, no

 

[T Wake]

"Jamie" <jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote in message
news:irOYg.11$GM7.10@newsfe04.lga...

T Wake wrote:

"JoeBloe" <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:rsh5j25m4n4adb00is9jqmg5jgh7v47hae@4ax.com...

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 23:57:05 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> Gave us:


How did you intend "Were it a face to face confrontation, I'd just crush
your pathetic twit throat with a single stroke." to be taken?


That was my response to YOU talking about how a fight between us
would turn out. You should see someone about that Alzheimer's problem
you are sporting, sport.


Well, all I said was we could meet up - you were the first to claim you
were going to "post edit my face."

You then claim you will [insert various threat] and then back down.

You are really funny.
are you sure he backed down? may he just threw in some bate, and is
waiting for you to barry your self ?

I don't know what barry means in this context. Sorry.

What ever his plans are, I will still be in the US next month. If he wants
to "post edit my face" I will let him know where I am and he can try it.

If he is just all talk, well, the status quo will remain and he will
continue to sound off like he is born again hard.

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
JoeBloe wrote:

Why don't we ask someone like Steven Biko... Oh... that's right...
we can't. You bastards murdered him.

Absolutely *nothing* to do with Britain, the Empire or whatever.

Have you never heard of the RSA ? Republic of South Africa. An independent
country.

Especially as it was an different European country which colonised most of
South Africa. You can blame Britain for the first Concentration Camps
though.

They were somewhat different to the German variety though.

Graham

 

[T Wake]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4533BF4A.C0229FEA@hotmail.com...

T Wake wrote:

Quite scary really. Even in the UK, BBC polls show almost a third people
have doubts about evolution and around a quarter think creationism is
correct.

Where did you get that from ?

URL on BBC science news about 8-9 months ago. Will look and see if I can
refind. Remember Faith Schools over here are on the upsurge and several have
"opted out" of the national curriculum.

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
"JoeBloe" <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message.
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> Gave us:
JoeBloe wrote:
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> Gave us:

Really? I seem to recall the British Empire went on to become quite
large and successfull while your nation was trying to expand.

You mean "colonization"? Yeah... that is what resulted in slavery
here, as well as apartheid in S. Africa, as well as the need for a
person like Ghandi to take a stand. We won't even mention the opium
trade, or the dens that existed in London even right up into the last
century.

Britain ended slavery about 100 years ( or more ? ) before the USA.

It was a british mindset that started it over here, dipshit.

Your moral relativism is showing. It was the people who bought and used
slaves that started the slave trade here.

And slave trading had gone on for thousands of years before the British
Empire turned up.

Not to mention that Britain was among the very first countries to abolish it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism#National_abolition_dates

Graham

 

[T Wake]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:kif7j2habs5c8u3sh5h3ngb4r1rmk8gn89@4ax.com...

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 23:59:34 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:


"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:bnd5j29k8v1onkl299t2a9q6jegh87ilf3@4ax.com...
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 14:22:34 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

You reckon that 'radical Islam' wants to invade the USA ?

---
No. They want us to fall apart because of fear and the inability to
deal with terrorism, then we'd be easy pickings.

Looks like they are on the way to getting their wishes then.

---
I don't think so. It's a pretty steep learning curve with no easy
answers it seems, and since we've never been attacked here before I
think we have tended to err on the side of caution in terms of
airports and allowing the government extraordinary powers.

Yet this stems from fear and an odd approach to dealing with terrorism.
Taking away liberties from the people is not saving the nation.

I do
notice, to our credit, that we don't have many suicide bombers doing
their dirty work over here.

Neither does Denmark.

 

[T Wake]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:2di7j2lauthpa95f32ra72o1dcanql3dat@4ax.com...

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 00:26:35 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



John Fields wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote

Why do you think that the first goal of the US is to be liked by
everyone?

That's a strawman. Our goal should be not to be hated by everyone.

That is wrong. Our goal should be to know what is in the
best interest of the nation and its people. Reacting to
threats to national security with growls instead of swift
and lethal bites is a sign of weakness; this becomes an open
invitation to anybody who would like to take over the real
estate.

You reckon that 'radical Islam' wants to invade the USA ?

---
No. They want us to fall apart because of fear

And you think that can be taken seriously ?

---
It's beyond me why you think that radical Islam isn't a threat and
can be ignored.

It isn't a threat to "society." It is a threat to the lives of some people
but it seems that a certain death toll is acceptable.

and the inability to deal with terrorism,

Your efforts so far in that respect haven't acheived much for sure !

---
Well, we haven't had any more buildings knocked down or any suicide
bombers on the streets, or any airplanes blown out of the sky, or
anything blown up over here, recently, so whatever we're doing seems
to be working.

Weak argument. Prior to 2001 you could say the same, yet after the act it
appears it was not the case. You are making a claim with no ability to say
doing [insert other thing] wouldn't have caused the same effect.

 

[T Wake]

"David Brown" <david.brown@hesbynett.removethisbit.no> wrote in message
news:4533cf16$0$16499$8404b019@news.wineasy.se...

lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:egqcsa$8qk_001@s961.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <45306AD8.B490EBFB@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
The rest of the world loathes the USA. They didn't used to.
This is wrong.

Yes, it absolutely *is* wrong for the rest of the world to hate the USA.
We do a lot of good for the world. We really should stop behaving in
such a way that makes other countries forget the good that we do.


Well said. It used to be the case that the good the USA did outweighed
the bad in the eyes of the world (although that was at least partly
because of what people hear about - I'd guess a higher proportion of the
world's population know about USA meddling in central and south America
now than they did at the time). Bush has single-handedly destroyed the
American image so badly that even with a total reversal of foreign policy,
it would take a generation to restore the goodwill and admiration that
people used to have for the USA. It's a real shame, because most
Americans are like most other people around the world, and are decent
hard-working and likeable people.

Sadly, this is not an argument some people here can realise. It is generally
assumed that if you say the US is disliked globally, you are just saying it
because you are an American Hating [insert country]. It is hard explaining
to some people that this is not the case.

 

[T Wake]

<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:NqQYg.372$T_1.68@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:k-mdnY3Eu6TeIa7YRVnygA@pipex.net...

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:egvkjt$8qk_003@s806.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <DuGdnR_IgIsP06_YnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:egt5lk$8u0_003@s995.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <b972j2hg5vph0kft82futt7v3sd8r5penb@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 05:43:04 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



The rest of the world loathes the USA. They didn't used to. You've
had to
work hard to
get to that position.

From a eurocentric point of view, maybe so. But India and China and
Japan and Africa don't count, apparently.

Nor the eastern countries of Europe.

While I don't agree with the rest of the world loathes the US argument,
it
is undeniable that most countries in the world have a low opinion of
"America" (as an entity) and it's actions on the world stage.

Why do you equate a few European countries with most of the
rest of world?

I don't. When did I do that?

Another strawman aimed at allowing her to not take your reasoned opinion
seriously. The hallmark of Republican politics these days, I'm afraid.

Not knowing much about the detail of American politics, I cant say much but
it certainly is a hallmark of BAH's posts.