Jihad needs scientists

In article <892dnbGwhIzhhajYRVnyvA@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eh2jst$8qk_001@s777.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <1161090357.909390.53800@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <eh01a0$ape$1@leto.cc.emory.edu>,
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

Actually we sold him weapons,

What percentage of all Iraq's purchases were from the US
government?

What, if it's only 50% that makes it OK?

You dodged answering the question. What percentage? Be specific.

we sold him the materials to make chemical
weapons.

Which materials?

The precursor chemicals.

Specify. I suspect you don't want to make that list because
I could buy most of them at the drug store.

I doubt if you would find any of the reactive starting materials for CW
like phosphorous chloride, fluoride, oxychloride, thionyl chloride or
any of the other more complex intermediates like trimethyl phosphite
(some of which have legitimate use in plastics and insecticides) on any
drug store shelf.

I have my chemistry book, also known as the recipe book. Now specify
the ingredients needed to make those dishes you've just listed.


They were ingredients.

Which need to be made. These compounds do not occur naturally
in the soil.

These days even legitimate industrial users of
organophosphorous compounds are vetted.

But the poster wasn't talking about these days. He was talking
about 25 years ago.


Yes, 25 years ago there was less vetting. Now there is more.

So, once somebody used certain chemicals to do mass killings the
US put it on the restricted export list. Yet you seem to blame
the US for all the killings even though other countries also
supplied similar chemicals.

Your point?

You are illogical in your zeal to make the US responsible
for all the ills in the world.

The US even sold Iraq helicopters and heavy vehicles on a don't ask
don't tell basis. As did the UK, Germany and even Israel... see for
example the WSU website (and links).

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

Exports of obvious CW precursors from US companies (and in theory their
overseas subsiduaries) were eventually blocked in March 1984 according
to the WSU article. That sounds about right to me.

And why did those ingredients get on the US' restriction list?


Well do you mean after Saddam stopped being America's great ally in the
region?

You should sit down and make a diary of events w.r.t. time.

<snip another question ignored>

Check out the infamous Matrix-Churchill show trial and the UK
government whitewash that followed its collapse.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/15/newsid_2544000
/2
544355.stm

I ain't going to go look for that. I thought the guy was accusing
the United _States_ for handing free weapons and components over
to Iraq--not United Kingdom.


Matrix Churchill was an example (remember the supergun which was mentioned
previously?) of how the UK/US (allies on the war in Iraq remember, the UK is
the most vocal european supporter of US policies) have a dual standard at
times.

If you think the fact the example was a UK company means the US were guilt
free I suggest you look at:

"In June, 1982, President Reagan decided that the United States could not
afford to allow Iraq to lose the war to Iran. President Reagan decided that
the United States would do whatever was necessary and legal to prevent Iraq
from losing the war with Iran. President Reagan formalized this policy by
issuing a National Security Decision Directive ("NSDD") to this effect in
June, 1982," said the "Teicher Affidavit," submitted on 31 January 1995 by
former NSC official Howard Teicher to the U.S. District Court, Southern
District of Florida.

Now, why did Regan decide that it was not a good idea for
Iran to acquire Iraq? This has to be answered within the context
of the Cold War. Pay particular attention to what the fUSSR
was achieving in disarming Europe.

and

Much of what Iraq received from the US, however, were not arms per se, but
so-called dual-use technology- mainframe computers, armored ambulances,
helicopters, chemicals, and the like, with potential civilian uses as well
as military applications. It is now known that a vast network of companies,
based in the U.S. and elsewhere, fed Iraq's warring capabilities right up
until August 1990, when Saddam invaded Kuwait

Note the "and elsewhere". What percentage of Iraq's imports came
from the "and elsewhere"?

[Both properly referenced on Wikipedia -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran-Iraq_war].





Or are you trying to get people to believe that everything the
UK did was also the US' fault?


Strawman based on a misconception that the UK dislikes the US.

Good grief. You are hopeles..

Rumsfield went over there and embraced him and told him he was our
friend.

What was the context of this visit?

A promotional sales tour to help the Iraqis to win the Iran-Iraq war.

Win? I don't think so. In those days, most deals had to do with
keeping strengths equal with the Communists' (mostly fUSSR) satellites.


See above.

Ah, so you are goingt to completely ignore the Cold War going
on at the time. This dominated all countries' politics and
seemed to be reaching a crescendo during the early 80s.

Now, what percentage of Iraq imports were from US companies?

Well in 1988 it was 5.44% of the arms imports (*). Not sure about other
products.

Is that an acceptable percentage?

5% implies that 95% came from elsewhere. Yet your arugments
imply that the US was the primary supplier. This is the illogic
that I was trying to get at.

Europeans have hidden assumptions about US companies and how they
function because their environment is based on their socailist
govnerments controlling production.


Pure nonsense. Spend less time reading crazy books and try to visit Europe.

I have visited Europe. Did Churchill, Thatcher, and Wilson
write crazy books? Am I supposed to assume that all their
writings were lies?

This is not how business
works in the US. Europeans have this subtle assumption and
don't seem to be able to realize that companies in the US
never first ask if they can manufacture a foo before they
build the plant.

Strawman.

No, it's not a strawman. Until you understand how our
commercial business is run, your assumptions that US
businesses only do what the government allows will be wrong.
European politics is still within a royalty mindset where
nothing is allowed unless the governing body Oks the request.
Things tend to be the reverse in the US. Until a product
is deemed harmful or not desirable, for whatever reason,
there generally isn't any restriction (other than tax
and contract law) to making stuff.

Please note that there is a difference between laws and politics.

European economy has constraints from unions. Ours doesn't
in today's markets.

==
(*) Source: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI)
SIPRI makes the following comment of the methodology of this table: "The
SIPRI data on arms transfers refer to actual deliveries of major
conventional weapons. To permit comparison between the data on such
deliveries of different weapons and identification of general trends, SIPRI
uses a trend-indicator value. The SIPRI values are therefore only an
indicator of the volume of international arms transfers and not of the
actual financial values of such transfers."

/BAH

 

In article <g67aj25a49595ld50f937e5q98qubbcgne@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Tue, 17 Oct 06 11:50:44 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:


Pushing in certain areas is not the best way to prevent future
messes. I've found that the only way for people to learn how
not make new messes is to have them clean up the ones they
already made.


Excellent. Care to assign cleanup duties in the Middle East and
Africa?

France would get a primary assignment with extreme adult
supervision.

That's a smart-assed answer and it won't work. I'm still
studying; I don't understand how stuff gets done.

/BAH

 

In article <uqkaj29qqainbc7l4mc8i51e40dbj8cf56@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 21:57:10 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 17 Oct 06 11:50:44 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

Pushing in certain areas is not the best way to prevent future
messes. I've found that the only way for people to learn how
not make new messes is to have them clean up the ones they
already made.


Excellent. Care to assign cleanup duties in the Middle East and
Africa?

Which bits of Africa did you have in mind ?


Well, let's see. We could start with the Belgian Congo, and maybe
Rhodesia, perhaps Cote D'Ivorie and German East Africa.

I think Liberia is key but I'm not sure. It would be productive
if the countries in Africa were left alone.

/BAH

 

In article <OF7Zg.17270$6S3.4818@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>,
<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eh2k1e$8qk_002@s777.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <e97b6$4534dd17$4fe728b$30183@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
unsettled <unsettled@nonsense.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:


I can state my hidden agenda; preserve the world's accumulated
knowledge. Religious extremists have the goal of destroying
most of that knowledge. Islamic extremists have the goal of
destroying it all because it's a product of Western civilization.

Religious extremism is always the result of one of the following:

A) Insanity

B) Desire for power, control, and wealth


None of the above. Fear. Pure, simple terror.

OK, if you must, then "fear of losing power, control and wealth". Witness
the fear-mongering among the Religious Right in the current election
campaign.

I am. More alarming is the message of the Democrats who keep implying
that there isn't any problem. The speeches say that Bush is lying
about the existence of this national threat. What do you think
most people would conclude from a statement like that?

/BAH

 

In article <453592A0.768BBF5D@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

unsettled <unsettled@nonsense.com> wrote:

Religious extremism is always the result of one of the following:

A) Insanity

B) Desire for power, control, and wealth


None of the above. Fear. Pure, simple terror.

You think religious extremism is the result of fear ?

Yes. Fear of losing control.

You're barking mad.

Arf, arf.

/BAH

 

In article <1161093895.152327.297830@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"MooseFET" <kensmith@rahul.net> wrote:

unsettled wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:


I can state my hidden agenda; preserve the world's accumulated
knowledge. Religious extremists have the goal of destroying
most of that knowledge. Islamic extremists have the goal of
destroying it all because it's a product of Western civilization.

Religious extremism is always the result of one of the following:

A) Insanity

B) Desire for power, control, and wealth

You left "sex" off the list, unless you include that in one of the
three you listed.

You haven't been paying attention. That is the reward for
murdering thousandS and millions of people.

/BAH

 

In article <3D7Zg.17268$6S3.12906@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>,
<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eh2iip$8qk_002@s777.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <4533B576.5375DC4E@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:


Lloyd Parker wrote:

JoeBloe <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

All of Islam (read the moslems) believe that all others that are not
moslem are "infidels" and that killing them is not, nor should not be
a crime.

You are lying.

I suspect it's what he learnt at Church.

American Christian fundamentalists are as dangerous if not more so than
their
Muslim counterparts.

Not yet. But they are watching the Islamic extremists and learning
what works.

Is *that* where Bush got the idea to attack a sovereign nation for no good
reason. That explains a lot.

No. I'm about ready to tell you to fuck off. Having a discussion
is impossible if you keep twisting the words of the discussion to
fulfill your premise.

/BAH

 

[Daniel Mandic]

Eeyore wrote:

Mad presumably.

Graham

It could be surely engaged with an other way. Time, for example.


American cannot handle with religion. They would kill you for something
he/she had inlaid you. :-(




Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic

 

[Daniel Mandic]

Eeyore wrote:

Their candidates ?

How long before the USA has religious political parties ? Are to
become the New Iran ?


Graham

Hi Graham!


They have not the slightest Idea about Religion. My dear, integrating
an Air-condition into a Church and such things...

They have to learn firstly the Right handling with the Land. And then
when it looks nice and paradise-like, then I would listen and talk with
USA citicens about Religion.
Till now, they showed the old Catholic Right-radical style, The Contra
ppl religion (e.g. Mrs. shiavo, 'Frau SCHINDLER' formerly). COMBINED
with the utterly mad idea about pränatal living and other Gen-Farttech.



I could feel (facelook) with George W. Bush and the other morons, which
have fit on my 4:3 TV, when they have stated the Veto against (I don't
know the word) something inhuman. (Stammzellenforschung aeeh..
Tribe-Cell Science?)
One of the better moves...




Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic

 

In article <009aj2dksthbu9fopngsr64nhfofi1dnjl@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Tue, 17 Oct 06 12:40:58 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <odi8j25ttpiuu9t6tbg4jne9cdut88qmin@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 17:38:14 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



Lloyd Parker wrote:

JoeBloe <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

All of Islam (read the moslems) believe that all others that are not
moslem are "infidels" and that killing them is not, nor should not be
a crime.

You are lying.

I suspect it's what he learnt at Church.

American Christian fundamentalists are as dangerous if not more so than
their
Muslim counterparts.


Yeah, all those Southern Baptist suicide bombers.

Sigh! Wait. If this gets results it will be tried.
Have you not noticed what's been happening lately?
And it's not just Southern Baptist.


Judiasism and Christianity have generally considered suicide to be a
sin.

So did Islam.

Radical Islam considers it to be a holy act. It also helps get
rid of the young males, making the world safe for lecherous old-fart
polygamists.

Now think again. Christians admire and praise people who are
martyrs. It doesn't take an IQ of greater than 60 to figure
out how to turn that one into making suicide bombers heroes.
Islam has figured out how. You need to listen to some
of Falwell's speeches. Turn to that religious channel that
is on your cable, arm yourself with a 10 gallon barf bag,
and listen to what those believers are getting told.


/BAH

 

In article <0oWdnYXsM90H3KjYnZ2dnUVZ8sudnZ2d@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:009aj2dksthbu9fopngsr64nhfofi1dnjl@4ax.com...
On Tue, 17 Oct 06 12:40:58 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <odi8j25ttpiuu9t6tbg4jne9cdut88qmin@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 17:38:14 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



Lloyd Parker wrote:

JoeBloe <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

All of Islam (read the moslems) believe that all others that are not
moslem are "infidels" and that killing them is not, nor should not be
a crime.

You are lying.

I suspect it's what he learnt at Church.

American Christian fundamentalists are as dangerous if not more so than
their
Muslim counterparts.


Yeah, all those Southern Baptist suicide bombers.

Sigh! Wait. If this gets results it will be tried.
Have you not noticed what's been happening lately?
And it's not just Southern Baptist.


Judiasism and Christianity have generally considered suicide to be a
sin. Radical Islam considers it to be a holy act.

An interpretation issue really. It would not be unreasonable for Radical
Christians or Jews to redefine some aspects of their faith to enable suicide
for a just cause. The bible has killing anyone a sin,

Murder is a sin; this is not "not killing anyone".

Christians have been
fairly free with the definition of this though.

Do you kill where kill is deliberate cessation of a living thing?

/BAH

 

In article <e9ednZ8s0K3l2ajYRVnyuA@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4535424A.C08609A3@hotmail.com...


T Wake wrote:

lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message

Certainly a lot of the details of Darwin's theories have been subject
to
question and modification over the years. What has not changed is the
basic idea of evolution.

Very true. There is a conflict of terminology and if the people on the
radio
show were talking about "Darwin's theories" specifically they are a bit
behind the curve. Modern evolutionary theory has progressed beyond the
specifics Darwin described.

I've noticed that there is now a common tendency for those who reckon they
know
better to dismiss such things as 'just theories' as if that meant they had
no
vailidity !


I love that phrase "just theories." It really makes me smile when some
creationist goes on about how "evolution is just a theory."

Like Newtonian Gravity isn't "just" a theory.

Yes. It is just a theory. It is the human race's best
guess at how nature and its laws work.

Fundamentalists understand the difference between just a theory
and their belief. They get threatened when teachers of their
kids present evolution as a belief; the implication of this
is that the goal of teaching evolution is to substitute
the religion known as evolution for the religion of God.

Listen to some of the idiots who are teaching el-hi science.

/BAH

 

[JoeBloe]

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 04:41:57 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> Gave us:

"JoeBloe" <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:hch5j2ts5fb7s60jg00nmlkknre0oa776q@4ax.com...
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 23:47:22 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> Gave us:

America would have eventually become independant. It always happens in the
end. No empire lasts for ever.


Ours will. Why? Because it is based on freedom. No matter how hard
to try to deny it, or point to current affairs as a proof against it.
It remains a fact.

Yes, your freedom to have anal rape fantasies will take us a long, long way,
I'm sure.

Eric Lucas

You're an immature idiot. That's all you are.
>

 

[JoeBloe]

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 17:09:32 +0100, "T Wake"
<usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> Gave us:

Well, all I said was we could meet up

No, that isn't "all you said".

 

[George O. Bizzigotti]

On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 03:20:23 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Maybe not the "Founding Fathers" as in Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, etc,
but in fact, yes. The famous "shot heard round the world" was a British
soldier firing on an angry mob, some of whom were throwing stones.

I can't resist being pedantic, because I think this is a conflation of
the "Boston Massacre" on March 5, 1770, in which British soldiers
fired on an angry mob, some of whom were throwing stones, and the
Battle of Concord on April 19, 1775, which Longfellow immortalized as
the shot heard round the world. To make things even more confusing,
the "shot heard round the world" has become connected in popular
culture with the "first shot" of the Revolution earlier on April 19 in
Lexington; it's not known whether the first shot at Lexington was
fired by a British soldier or an American militiaman. In Longfellow's
poem, the shot is fired by the colonial side, "the embattled farmers,"
at the Concord bridge.
Regards,

George
**********************************************************************
Dr. George O. Bizzigotti Telephone: (703) 610-2115
Mitretek Systems, Inc. Fax: (703) 610-1558
3150 Fairview Park Drive South E-Mail: gbizzigo@mitretek.org
Falls Church, Virginia, 22042-4519
**********************************************************************

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

Now think again. Christians admire and praise people who are
martyrs. It doesn't take an IQ of greater than 60 to figure
out how to turn that one into making suicide bombers heroes.
Islam has figured out how. You need to listen to some
of Falwell's speeches. Turn to that religious channel that
is on your cable, arm yourself with a 10 gallon barf bag,
and listen to what those believers are getting told.

Falwell? You would have to hold a gun to my head first, and pull the
trigger. You'd either have to shoot me, or the TV.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[JoeBloe]

On Mon, 16 Oct 06 11:01:16 GMT, lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) Gave
us:

Yes, by all means, label those who disagree with you as traitors. Worked for
Hitler, worked for Stalin, Bush is trying it... why should a little pissant
Nazi like you be any different?

SAid the retarded twit that obviously hasn't read the US hating spew
that the DonkTARD has been putting out. Bone up on a thread before
you interlope into it, jack-off!

 

[JoeBloe]

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 17:27:57 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> Gave us:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

JoeBloe <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> Gave us:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

Rumsfield went over there and embraced him and told him he was our
friend.

What was the context of this visit? What is the custom of greeting
in that country?

You're trying to deny this happeend ?


Answer HER question, you evasive fucktard!

He is not able to answer the question.

There was no credible question. It was obfuscation.

It's real simple, asshole

WHAT IS THE CUSTOM OF GREETING OVER THERE?

 

[JoeBloe]

On Mon, 16 Oct 06 09:26:12 GMT, lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) Gave
us:

What is the custom of greeting
in that country?

What does this mean?

Are you really that retarded?

 

[JoeBloe]

On Fri, 13 Oct 06 08:17:23 GMT, lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) Gave
us:

In article <f9lti2hovlmbvh6tpsbg55oi45obh9s11h@4ax.com>,
JoeBloe <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 16:01:45 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> Gave us:

So therefore we should kill more of his countrymen than he ever killed.


We have done no such thing. Those we fight "the insurgents" are
largely NOT Iraqi. Those THEY kill are not our fault.

Get a clue, you retarded fucks!

Well, they weren't dying at this rate before we invaded. Coincidence?

It's a retard magnet. They come out of the woodwork. Even you
showed up.