Jihad needs scientists

In article <453630FA.BC40A6F1@earthlink.net>,
"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

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?

And his ilk. There are a lot of them getting free EMF cycles.

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.

That's fine for a first reaction. But you will never know how
nor what these types are going to try next to make messes.

I'll hear a potential mess uttered by one of them; about three
months later I get the same sentence (almost verbatim) from
my mother. And her sect doesn't have anything to do with
those TV talking heads. I still have not traced the aping
flow of these ideas.

/BAH

 

[Daniel Mandic]

Eeyore wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

Ah, your concern is not about peace. It's not about democracy, or
human rights, or the health or nutrition or safety of the poorest
people in the world.

And the USA'a IS ?????

Graham

The Land with the greatest debts



Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic

 

[Daniel Mandic]

JoeBloe wrote:

So who killed the "indians"?

Not the Russian....



Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic


P.S.: All at all, I think it was a more a society, emmigrating to
America. Embedded in a clueless two-Party Government, changing the
sides every 6 years, or not and with that mysetrious small village in
the North, knowing every President before he/she has been voted
officially.

 

[Daniel Mandic]

JoeBloe wrote:

The US is the most diverse melting pot of race, religion, creed,
and culture in the world.

Melted hmhm, with a flame burner. (Napalm)



Best regards,

Daniel Mandic

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Lloyd Parker wrote:

Why then would a designer make every life form use almost the same DNA? Why
have a flower have the same basic DNA as a human?

Because that designer knows his tools, and how to use them. Do you
think that a bridge should be made of plastic, because steel had been
used for cars that will cross it?

Do you think a designer should learn a whole new disciple for every
project they do? Maybe we need an infinite number of elements so we
never use the same in any two designs?


--
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

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

I'm sure, in your black-and-whiteness, you've reported every crime you've
ever witnessed, and have refused to be around anybody who has ever done
anything illegal. Must be a really lonely existence.

I've thrown people out of my home and my business if they want to do
something illegal. How bad does a crime have to be for you to report
it? Or don't you have enough balls to be a man?

Lonely? Not at all. Goodbye.

--
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

 

In article <453643F9.131D0BC3@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

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

So did Islam.

So DOES Islam.

In case you haven't noticed, this has changed. It is not
suicide if you kill others when you kill yourself. Do you
not find something odd about this thinking, considering
what the Koran says?

/BAH

 

In article <HItZg.15972$e66.4379@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eh53u8$8qk_009@s847.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
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.


Now you're finally starting to catch on. There are far bigger dangers, both
ideological and potential physical threats, within our own borders than
without.

You are wrong. It is a secondary danger. If Islam wins, the
internal danger won't exist because none of those people
will be alive. Neither will you be alive so the internal
danger is a null job.

/BHA

 

In article <YrGdnWfM1rcLD6vYRVnyiA@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eh5425$8qk_010@s847.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
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".

"Thou shalt not kill"

State sanctioned murder is still murder, otherwise what Saddam Hussein did
to the marsh arabs was not murder.

That is how westerners view his killing (as murder).

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

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

I am not a Christian so I do not see where this is going.

Killing some one is, IMHO, ending their life against their wishes.

It is in everyone's hardware to have a will to survive.

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

Yes. I need to eat to keep living. I also try to keep vermin
and other critters from tresspassing in my house. If a human
being is threatening my existenece and I have evidence that
the intention is real, I will kill or expect someone else
(whose job is to protect me and mine) to kill him/her/them.

/BAH

 

[Daniel Mandic]

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

If a human

being is threatening my existenece

Have you hit somewhere hard with your head?

and I have evidence that

the intention is real, I will kill or expect someone else
(whose job is to protect me and mine) to kill him/her/them.

/BAH

--

Bah


You can have my dung fork into your ass, if I have evidence that your
intention is real.



Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic

 

[George O. Bizzigotti]

On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 16:44:50 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

As someone who works in the area of chemical demilitarization and
counterproliferation, I thought I could add some perspective to this
thread.

[snip]

For CWs and their precursors, the
culmination was the CWC in the late 90s, which set very strict limits on
materials whose only use beyond research is to make CWs (Schedule 1
compounds), and very close tracking on materials that have other legitimate
industrial uses but can also be used to make CWs (Schedule 2 and 3
compounds.) Beyond this, Schedule 1 - 3 compounds all have export limits.

The key word in Eric's post is culmination. The CWC entered into force
in April 1997, but the negotiations that led to the CWC began at least
a decade earlier and it was signed in 1993. Even before the CWC
entered into force, there were various schemes of export restrictions
on CW precursors; at the time of the Iran-Iraq War, a coalition known
as the Australia Group had negotiated a set of such restrictions.

[snip]

I said nothing of the sort. It is well-documented that the US government
supplied Saddam Hussein's regime in the 80s, in order to help them win the
war with Iran, our enemy at the time. I don't know if that extends to CW
starting materials--I suspect it does not, but I don't know that for a fact.

I'll go into detail here because there are many of Web sites that tell
only parts of this story and offer a misleading picture of US policy
at the time. One news account stated "Alcolac
International, a Maryland company, transported thiodiglycol, a mustard
gas precursor, to Iraq. A Tennessee manufacturer contributed large
amounts of a chemical used to make sarin, a nerve gas implicated in
Gulf War diseases." The web sites in question argue on this basis that
the US supplied the Iraqis with chemical warfare agents.

A more complete account would state that Alcolac was a supplier of
thiodiglycol to industry. More importantly, Alcolac went to a lot of
trouble to disguise the ultimate destination of the thiodiglycol going
to Iraq; they first transferred the chemical to another company in the
US, which then exported it via Singapore and Jordan. Through some
discrepancies in the Singapore paperwork, the US Customs Service
became aware of the scheme, and the Justice Department indicted the
company in 1988 for making illegal exports. Alcolac pleaded guilty to
one count of violating U.S. export laws and was put out of business.
Al Haddad, the Tennessee company, sold 60 tons of a precursor for
Sarin to Iraq, and had another order seized by Customs at Kennedy
Airport. Mr. Al Haddad skipped the country before he could be
prosecuted and the company was dissolved. Thus, I would argue that a
fairer interpretation was that two US-based companies illegally
smuggled chemical weapons precursor to Iraq, got caught, one was
prosecuted and went out of business, and the owner of the other
skipped the country to avoid prosecution.

I've never heard of CWs used against Iran, but that doesn't mean it didn't
happen.

It happened. The was a UN Security Council mission that established
this in 1984:

http://www.iranwatch.org/international/UNSC/unsc-s16433-rptusecw-032684.pdf

UNSCOM's 1999 report includes details of the Iraqi CW program during
the Iran-Iraq War:

http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/s/990125/dis-chem.htm

There are even epidemiological studies being done on exposed Iranian
soldiers:

http://jmedchemdef.org/Issue_0101/Ghanei_0803.html

Google "iran iraq war" and "chemical weapons" and you'll get 218,000
hits.
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

 

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eh7ksa$8ss_018@s977.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <bFtZg.15970$e66.4970@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eh53ce$8qk_005@s847.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
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.

Citation, please. In your zeal to support the current administration,
you're not listening carefully.

Listen to any of them.

Again, cite one please. You're not listening carefully.

Eric Lucas

 

[Eeyore]

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

I give up. It is going to take a nuclear bomb set off in
the tenderest place before any of you will begin to think
about the real danger.

Try describing this danger accurately and in detail and then ask yourself if it
isn't an imaginary danger after all for all practical purposes.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

JoeBloe wrote:

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 18:04:04 +0100, Eeyore wrote

John Larkin wrote:

Ah, your concern is not about peace. It's not about democracy, or
human rights, or the health or nutrition or safety of the poorest
people in the world.

And the USA'a *IS* ?????

Yes, DonkTARD! Despite what your widdle bwain thinks, we are the
most giving nation on the planet, and none of your bent statistics can
change that fact.

No you're not.

You're a bunch of meanies.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

JoeBloe wrote:

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 18:10:06 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> Gave us:
John Fields wrote:

And you're defending that pig? Shame on you.

I'm criticising the USA. And the 650,000 deaths you've caused.

The number is wrong. It would still be high even if cut in half.

And you *know* this how ?

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

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

Whose control ?

I don't understand your question. In both religions, the
extremist leaders cannot have their followers think for
themselves;

Both ? Which both is this ?

all critical thinking skills are dangerous
to their grasp of power. The Muslims who fear this loss
see Western civlization as the culprit (EMF media cannot
be blocked out).

LOL. Muslims are quite capable of using electronic media themselves.

Notice what has happened in Somalia
recently.

Can you be more specific ?

The residents in that area are now sorting
out which culture will exist.

That is indeed for those who live there.

The US' religious right has similar fears. Note their
tactics. They chose a political tactic and targeted
schools. It's blowing up in their faces in most areas
(they're either getting fired or voted out). I don't
know what these types in Europe are doing. I only get
hints from Pope news.

Religion doesn't have that much power in most of Europe. There is no
parallel.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

JoeBloe wrote:

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 18:22:12 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> Gave us:

Britains colonisation of Africa did not "result in slavery."

That's right. You referred to them as "servants".

You haven't a clue what you're talking about.

The US is the most diverse melting pot of race, religion, creed,
and culture in the world.

Rubbish. The UK is far more one of those.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

They gave their 95% confidence interval.

The news said that the questions that were asked was if
anybody knew anybody who died. Adding these up will not
give a correct count.

The 'news' was wrong then.

In most cases ( ~90 % ) a death certificate was shown.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

People are forgetting that a lot of deaths
were self-inflicted but blamed on the US

I'm sure 600,000 odd pl decided to commit suicide just in case someone came
along to check the numbers so as to make the USA look bad. Very convincing !

; I'm thinking of the
ammo dumps that were stockpiled by foolish people who set them
off by accident. A lot of these were blamed on the US.

Are you really this stupid ?

Graham

 

"George O. Bizzigotti" <gbizzigo@mitretek.org> wrote in message
news:7buej255mvce4j69cljs4ohh20pikqcl9l@4ax.com...

On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 16:44:50 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

As someone who works in the area of chemical demilitarization and
counterproliferation, I thought I could add some perspective to this
thread.

Thanks for the informative post.

I said nothing of the sort. It is well-documented that the US government
supplied Saddam Hussein's regime in the 80s, in order to help them win the
war with Iran, our enemy at the time. I don't know if that extends to CW
starting materials--I suspect it does not, but I don't know that for a
fact.

I'll go into detail here because there are many of Web sites that tell
only parts of this story and offer a misleading picture of US policy
at the time. One news account stated "Alcolac
International, a Maryland company, transported thiodiglycol, a mustard
gas precursor, to Iraq. A Tennessee manufacturer contributed large
amounts of a chemical used to make sarin, a nerve gas implicated in
Gulf War diseases." The web sites in question argue on this basis that
the US supplied the Iraqis with chemical warfare agents.

A more complete account would state that Alcolac was a supplier of
thiodiglycol to industry.

Does this imply that they might have actually been selling it to companies
in Iraq for legitimate industrial uses? Or was it pretty clear at the time
(because of the dodgy paper trail), that they really were selling it for CW?
I was in grad school at the time, and with my head buried in the lab X hours
a day, I was woefully unaware of world events of the day.

More importantly, Alcolac went to a lot of
trouble to disguise the ultimate destination of the thiodiglycol going
to Iraq; they first transferred the chemical to another company in the
US, which then exported it via Singapore and Jordan. Through some
discrepancies in the Singapore paperwork, the US Customs Service
became aware of the scheme, and the Justice Department indicted the
company in 1988 for making illegal exports. Alcolac pleaded guilty to
one count of violating U.S. export laws and was put out of business.
Al Haddad, the Tennessee company, sold 60 tons of a precursor for
Sarin to Iraq, and had another order seized by Customs at Kennedy
Airport. Mr. Al Haddad skipped the country before he could be
prosecuted and the company was dissolved. Thus, I would argue that a
fairer interpretation was that two US-based companies illegally
smuggled chemical weapons precursor to Iraq, got caught, one was
prosecuted and went out of business, and the owner of the other
skipped the country to avoid prosecution.

OK. Most of my comment was about either the US government selling arms and
munitions to the Iraqis, or the US government conveniently selectively
enforcing export laws so as to allow US companies to sell arms and munitions
to Iraq. I haven't ever heard anyone say that CW precursors were sold to
Iraq, presumably because the press actually reported these two situations as
exactly what they were--attempts at illegal exporting that were caught and
prosecuted.

It seems likely that the US government's only complicity with Iraq in the
80s was traditional munitions. In a time when the world was becoming
sensitive about the ethical issues of CW, the US government was probably
more comfortable selling (or allowing to be sold) traditional munitions than
CW.

Eric Lucas