Jihad needs scientists

In article <453A25A3.5B3C1495@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

The precursors may not quite so simple to make as you imagine.

Goodfucking GRIEF! I didn't say it was simple.

You implied that any country could make these complex precursors.

Any person who learns how to do chemistry can.

No chemistry is simple. Have you ever taken a chemistry course?

Yes. I have an 'A level' in Chemistry - that's after the 'O level' of course.
I
can even recite the periodic table from memory.

Since you think that memorization rather than cooking defines
knowing chemistry, I'll assume that you cannot understand what
I'm talking about.

You ?

I was getting a biology major. Chemistry minor was a
requirement for that.

/BAH

 

In article <0ru_g.14854$GR.11260@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:453A25A3.5B3C1495@hotmail.com...


jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

The precursors may not quite so simple to make as you imagine.

Goodfucking GRIEF! I didn't say it was simple.

You implied that any country could make these complex precursors.


No chemistry is simple. Have you ever taken a chemistry course?

Yes. I have an 'A level' in Chemistry - that's after the 'O level' of
course. I
can even recite the periodic table from memory.

I'll raise you a PhD and 15 years of industrial experience. To you, BAH.

With all that chemistry experience, you are telling me that
you could not make one of the ingredients for a chemical weapon?

/BAH

 

In article <453A2600.2D21DA2@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

I know I do not write clear enough for all values of IQs.

Mine's 152.

What's yours ?

I don't know. It was too high so it was decided to never tell me
and fix the problem of being too smart.

/BAH

 

In article <_Sq_g.16180$vJ2.3492@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehd31a$8qk_004@s884.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

A chemistry major would know
how to make those ingredients and then make the weapons.

Of course, but then again there's a vast difference between knowing how,
and
actually being able to do.

Whew.

Knowing how doesn't make it practical or easy

Sigh! It doesn't have to be practical nor easy. Why do you
think every other country has OSHA rules in place?

It certainly has to be practical. Learn the definition of the word:
capable of being practiced.


to
do, or even possible to do without the US State Department and various
other
agencies knowing about it.

What? No governemental department has the ability to know
what is happening at all times everywhere. For some strange
reason, you and other Democrats seem to believe this (or at least
try to sell this to their consumers).

Look, you brainless git. In case it's not mortifyingly obvious, I work in
the chemical industry (and yes, I do frequently work near the places of
production, as you implied I didn't in another sorely misinformed post), and
I'm telling you, one branch or another of the Federal government knows
exactly what every single chemical plant that produces more than a few
pounds per year in this country is making, and who they are shipping to.

You seem to believe that Iraq had no chemical knowhow to manufacture
chemical weapons, including the basic ingredients. Furthermore
you seem to want me to believe that only US chemical companies
know how to make these precursors.

I'm starting to think you and your useless sycophant are nothing more than
trolls to keep the discussion rolling, and rack up as many postings as
possible.

No, I'm behind in my other posts. I have a task that has to
be done in this one.

/BAH

 

In article <453A2669.2F402C77@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

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

Why France ?

Their SOP seems to be to make a mess then leave it for the
somebody, usually the US, to clear up.

Example please ?

WWII, Nam, Middle East, Northern Africa. Some Pacific islands
were still in a infrastructure mess in the mid 80s.

And they wanted to keep Iraq in its US and UK contained status.

AFter a summer of being a field test site for riots, now the
over here trying to make up.

/BAH

 

In article <453A2699.E10D871A@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

A lot of recent killing is the hangover of the Cold War.

Uh ?????

Can you elaborate on that ?

Weren't you the one who claimed to have learned a lot history
in this thread?

A goal of Russia was to control the Suez Canal and oil shipping.
So it would pick a country, advise it, furnish weaponry.
The free world countries such as the UK, US, and France would
pick a country next door and do the same thing.

Focus points were the Arabian Gulf, southeast Asia, north
Pacific, Suez Canal, Cuba, various central and South American
countries, and lots of places in the African continent.

/BAH

 

In article <2cb0a$453a24a0$49ecfae$3598@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
unsettled <unsettled@nonsense.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <58GdnewlesO5CKvYRVnygA@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eh536o$8qk_004@s847.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

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.
0
To kill each other? Strikes me as a reasonable idea. Let them all kill each
other, then when the dust settles we can kill the one or two survivors and
take all the diamonds.


A lot of recent killing is the hangover of the Cold War.

Not true, IMO. African hatreds are much like American
ones, passed from one generation to the next without
understanding, as in "Damn Yankees burned the south!"

Those hatreds were used by the Communists and by the free world.

Tribal hatreds go back many generations and thrive
partly because of their verbal traditions.

The UN
has not helped since it seems to be admirable to keep the
former third world in its place by making them welfare countries
and punishing those who refuse such handouts.

Please consider the fact that the third world had
exactly the same opportunities as the first world
over a period of several millenia. They aren't
welfare countries because of us and the UN, they
remain welfare countries despite us and the UN.
This all comes back to mindsets and cultural values.

I disagree. A hidden agenda, perhaps unconscious, of the
UN leaders were to keep the rest of the world in their
place. A political leader who refused "help" from the
UN (thus placing the country in a long-term debt it could
never repay) was punished by ignoring reasonalbe requests.

It's a human behaviour thing.

You'll find that within those countries are some
extremely wealthy families. The local population
has a sense that those rich folks are crooked
and taking advantage of the poor. The simple
fact is that in every population of national
size you'll have a few individuals who are
truly entrepreneurs. Sometimes the government
and/or the people manage to pull them down and
redistribute their wealth.

A lot of times, it is the UN generosity that does this.

For examples of all of the above, visit Appalachia.

Didn't marketing move into Appalachia and start cottage
industries in crafts?

For a minature slightly more entertaining version,
watch the movie _Zorba the Greek_.

I'll try. Out of curiosity, what do you consider rich?
A GNP measure or balance of a checking account or something
else?

/BAH

 

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

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehd382$8qk_006@s884.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <58GdnewlesO5CKvYRVnygA@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eh536o$8qk_004@s847.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
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.

To kill each other? Strikes me as a reasonable idea. Let them all kill
each
other, then when the dust settles we can kill the one or two survivors and
take all the diamonds.

A lot of recent killing is the hangover of the Cold War. The UN
has not helped since it seems to be admirable to keep the
former third world in its place by making them welfare countries
and punishing those who refuse such handouts.

Most of the troubles in Africa are down to the fact they are not countries
in the sense "Westerners" use the term. They are artificial borders drawn by
colonial powers which cross traditional tribal and ethnic boundaries. To
expect people to settle with this is (IMHO of course) nonsense and the
warfare is almost understandable.

I don't think that any of the central African nations are hold overs from
Cold War proxy conflicts, it goes back further than that.

Sigh! Make a list of their debt to the World Bank.
Compare who is having lots of internal problems with those
who are building an infrastructure that is skipping
the copper wire.

/BAH

 

In article <453A27D2.ACA3FA8F@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

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

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

Both ? Which both is this ?

Islam and Christianity. I thought that was what this drift
of the thread was talking about.

So you admit Christianity has extremist leaders too ?

WTF are you talking about? Before 9/11 I was working on
preventing the messes those people were making. The priority
of that work got pushed down because those problems will not
exist if the Islamic extremists get their way.

/BAH

<snip>

/BAH

 

In article <ZJw_g.41$U73.14@newsfe03.lga>,
Jamie <jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:


Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



You're clueless.

Graham

Did we catch you talking to your self in the mirror again?

That guy does not need you to edit his posts to make him
look foolish; he does that just fine all by himself.

So why did you do this?

/BAH

 

[Daniel Mandic]

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

120? But that's in metric, not English.

What is the Number telling?



Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic

 

In article <PtWdnWzlorfyqafYnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehd3gi$8qk_007@s884.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <45378C8B.35815C8E@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:


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 ?

Islam and Christianity. I thought that was what this drift
of the thread was talking about.



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.

That's the irony of their preaching to get back to the old ways.
The Unibomber suffered the same thinking schism.

I agree (for once). Islamic extremists (as do Christian and Jewish ones etc)
often only ban things which are enjoyable. When it comes to warfare on the
latest, most sinful, items will do.

No. Not enjoyable. The ones who are ruthless enough to become
the leaders enjoy inflicting pain and suffering to prove they
have power. This is a normal human condition. The US, so far,
has avoided this because of the elections which give voters
the opportunity of revenge without spilling blood.

Those extremists are terrified of losing power over their
constituencies. These types do not know how to herd
people who are able to think for themselves. They are
more comfortable giving orders and expecting all to obey
them without question. People who are allowed to think
for themselves, will question orders or lifestyles that
don't make sense. Western civilization lifestyles
encourage people to think for themselves; they learn how
to make lifestyle decisions.

Think about a religion that tells you what kind of shoes
you will wear thruout your lifetime.

Notice what has happened in Somalia
recently.

Can you be more specific ?

The regular people were not allowed to watch a soccer match
(TV shows human images which is not allowed in Islam). Now
the regular people are starting to say no to these extremists.

Which is why there is very little to fear from extremism.

Sigh! I estimate that this attitude change will take about 10 years.
I do not think the world will have those 10 years to evolve societies.
I think there will be an event that will cause such a huge mess
that it will take a milenia to restore life styles back to current
levels.

In Turky, with 98% of the population being Moslem, they watch TV.

Sigh! Turkey has a government body that separates church from
state. It has its own spoken and written language. It has
not had this type of government very long and is in danger
of reverting back to the old ways. Pay attention to what is
going on in Turkey. Turkey is also the only Muslim country I
visited where people knew how to work and get things done.
They tend to have capitalism as their economic base.

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.

Europe is more susceptible than any other place in the Western
world (that I can think of).

Not true. Your nation is founded by religious zealots who left Europe to get
religious freedom for their idiosyncrasies.

No wonder you have your attitude. You are wrong about how
the Constitution was written.

Yes, 500 years ago, Europe was the centre of Christian extremism. This is no
longer the case. The papal state is not exactly a large nation, is it?

However, the creators of Europe's last Christian extremism is
starting to get political power in Germany again. So don't
get so damned smug. The veneer of civilization in Europe is very thin
and breeches have been allowed to occur with very little reaction...
again.

You certainly have forgotten
all of your history.

Again, not true. Culture has flourished in Europe since at least 3000BC.
Europe has only been a Christianised region since around AD1000. Up until
around AD1700, Europe was dominated (in a loose sense of the word) by
Christianity but since then it has been on the wane.

Are you implying that those 700 years of Christian ascendancy outweigh the
other 4300 years?

I am implying that Europe is very used to allowing religious
extremism to make messes. It is in that location's folklore
and basic hidden assumptions.

Your nation is led by a President who is overtly seek guidance from God.

All of our Presidents have done this. It's part of the politics in the
US.

That would frighten me. The UK PM is a devout Catholic. That offends me, but
at least we are not a super power

There you go again placing the US in the position as supercop
yet bitching vehementing when we do take action.

and there are (currently) significant
checks and balances to prevent a religious upsurge.

No, there is not, even in your country. You indulge people
who make messes based on ideologies.

/BAH

 

In article <Ez7Zg.17266$6S3.3486@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>,
<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eh2hrq$8qk_001@s777.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <ytOdnWLb3pxhMa7YRVnyig@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:egvmeh$8qk_001@s806.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <f8SdndAS3r_41q_YRVnygA@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:egt6gf$8qk_001@s995.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
You might question it. People who expect their systems to stay
up no matter what kind of errors occur, didn't question it. It
was a requirement to have certain uptimes.

If it is excessive then it is poor business sense. If your system needs
99.999% uptime then you take the correct precautions to ensure that. If
it
only requires 99% uptime the precautions can be different.

Spending money and time making a 99% system 99.9999999% is wasted money.

Think about this the next time you are a passenger on a plane.
Think about this when you're getting an MRI or CAT scan.
Also think about this when you are at the bank trying to get
some money.

Think about what? If the system needs to be 99.999% then making it 99% is
also a failure.

I have yet to come across a system which is 100%. Is that even possible?

Yes.

Never heard of Goedel's Theorem, have you?

Well, I can't find my post. As pointed out to me, I committed
a big boner here.

I was going to try to write more clearly about what I was thinking.
I'm not going to do that; I think it would be a waste of English
ASCII bits. The answer should have been no. I was not thinking
of "system" being a single hard/software entity. I was talking
about the computing servcies provided by 0, 1, ... n collections
of hard/software.

/BAH

 

[Eeyore]

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

Our business and politics do not
work that way. I think a lot Europeans are confused by
this because their businesses are generally government
controlled.

A total lie. Europe is very capitalistic.

Not the labor. Labor is union.

Wrong again ! Is it only myths that you take seriously ?

I have never been in any trades union for example.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

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

STate a problem. You keep contending that Iraq is one. It is
not.

It's all going badly wrong in Iraq right now.

Of course it is. The goal is to Democrats in power in the US
elections.

Whose goal ?

The Islamic extremists. Based on past history, they believe
that Democrats will not retaliate with swift and deadly force
when their next mess is made against the US.

And do pray tell me how these extremists can influence the elections in the
USA.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Why not start listening to and watching the BBC
?

I have and I do. I now listen to the BBC to see which
slant of surrendering to the Islamic extremists they
are taking that day.

Amazing. Can you let me know when you come across any please?

Any report about the Palestinians will give you a start.

You think the BBC has surrendered to the Palestinians ?

No. That will be the consequence.

You live in a very strange little world far, far removed from reality.

Graham

 

[unsettled]

Eeyore wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:


Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:


What is really frustrating about these people is that
they don't have to know any history.

I reckon in any competition, my knowledge of history would knock yours
into the proverbial cocked hat.

Possibly. I forgot the utliple choice answer-type history.
ARe you not alarmed that Nazis are getting elected to seats of
power in Germany?


The are no Nazi members in the Bundestag

You just finished with a denial that you and Wake have
selective blindness, yet here you are once again
giving us a clear demonstration. The Nazi party, and
similar spinoffs, are outlawed in Germany, so clearly
there are today no Nazi "members" anywhere in Germany.

http://www.rickross.com/reference/neonazis/neonazis59.html

That doesn't prevent people with Nazi style beliefs from
being elected into political office so long as they are
careful how they frame their statements.

Do you not get that deja vu feeling all over again?

No.

I don't fear any individual or their philosophy. In
fact it is important to permit folks with strange
ideas to be permitted to exist in any open society.
The entire idea is to prevent those who would undo
the openness of western societies from collaborating
thereby gaining strength beyond their numbers by
their numbers.

This is about as good a place as any to try to resolve
this particularly overlong debate about Jihad.

The Indian subcontinent spawned a Ghandi. The American
Negro, as small a set as that is, spawned another. Well,
at least an adherent to the already established
philosophy. Yet all of Islam has failed to produce one.
Instead they relish killing, more especially beheading.

How many Ghandilike individuals live in western society
today? Plenty, I think.

If Islam provided a Ghandi equivalent, and agreed to
follow his/her lead, this entire war on terror thing
would dissipate in a matter of days because the west
would immediately embrace it.

This solution is obvious, and simple. The fact that it
hasn't been adapted by Islam speaks loudly as to the
motives of Islamic leaders. So much for being a
"religion of peace."

Most of the discussion in this thread is just so much
fluff, but thanks for playing.

 

[unsettled]

lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:453C4494.53C1529@hotmail.com...


unsettled wrote:


T Wake wrote:

IT and computers are a science field.

Only as a misnomer.

Since when was electronics not a field of science ?


It's a fairly subtle difference, but an important one as regards such things
as approach and mindset. Science is the field of using the scientific
method (you know, hypothesize, test, repeat) to try to discover thruths
about the universe. Electronics in the sense of designing and building
electronic devices like computers is more a field of engineering than
science--i.e., it's a field that uses the results of science to do and make
cool things that people want. Electronics in this sense does use the
results of the sciences of solid state physics, chemistry, etc., and there
can be use of the scientific method involved in designing electronic
circuits (hypothesize, build, test, repeat), but it's really more an
engineering mindset.

Failure to understand the differences between science and
technology is a problem prevalent on usenet and in American
society in general.

Electronics research may be science.

Applied electronics is always technology.

Chemistry research may be a science.

Applied chemistry is always technology.

 

[unsettled]

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <453C44D7.540280C@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:


jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:


Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:


Funny, you've offered no solutions to the problems that have been

created

by the current administration.

STate a problem. You keep contending that Iraq is one. It is
not.

It's all going badly wrong in Iraq right now.

Of course it is. The goal is to Democrats in power in the US
elections.

Whose goal ?


The Islamic extremists. Based on past history, they believe
that Democrats will not retaliate with swift and deadly force
when their next mess is made against the US.

As has been demonstrated in the past.

 

[unsettled]

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <0ru_g.14854$GR.11260@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:453A25A3.5B3C1495@hotmail.com...


jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:


Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:


The precursors may not quite so simple to make as you imagine.

Goodfucking GRIEF! I didn't say it was simple.

You implied that any country could make these complex precursors.



No chemistry is simple. Have you ever taken a chemistry course?

Yes. I have an 'A level' in Chemistry - that's after the 'O level' of
course. I
can even recite the periodic table from memory.

I'll raise you a PhD and 15 years of industrial experience. To you, BAH.


With all that chemistry experience, you are telling me that
you could not make one of the ingredients for a chemical weapon?

Typical problem, if it's not in the company manual he can't do it.