Jihad needs scientists

[T Wake]

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:wbydnc5N36yTn6PYnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@pipex.net...

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:tekqj2h5n1b16he0jnfocf1311tt0fv6g6@4ax.com...
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 22:10:46 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:


unsettleds argument certainly relies on a large population in Iraq before
the war. If the death rates during Saddam's regime to have exceeded the
ones
reported now, I am amazed there are any Iraqis left to report it.

---
C2H6O talking?

Well, I am not quite all the way down to drinking ethanol yet.

It should have read:

Sorry - last one sent by accident. Not having a good day.

It should have read:

"If the death rates during Saddam's regime are believed to have exceeded the
ones reported now, I am amazed there are any Iraqis left to report it. "

Sorry for any confusion caused.

 

[unsettled]

John Fields wrote:

On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 22:42:02 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan
jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote:


On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 18:57:34 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:


"unsettled" <unsettled@nonsense.com> wrote in message
news:9d61d$453cfc77$49ecff9$27195@DIALUPUSA.NET...

lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:


"unsettled" <unsettled@nonsense.com> wrote in message
news:cf679$453cf606$49ecff9$26900@DIALUPUSA.NET...


Lloyd Parker wrote:



In article <ehi3q8$8qk_004@s784.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:



In article <ehafo7$ot9$1@leto.cc.emory.edu>,
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:



In article <ehab1j$8qk_001@s949.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:



In the US, the federal government isn't allowed to do anything.

Except start wars.

When the nation is threatened, yes. It's in our Constitution.

And is it unconstitutional to do so when we're not threatened?

In our system, anything not prohibited is permitted.


Uh, sorry, no...the Constitution *specifically* limits the powers of the
Federal government to those listed in the Constitution.

Did you not read what I just wrote? Is your brain incapable of
understanding that "specifically limits" is a prohibition?


Uh, no..."specifically limits" says what they can do. Anything else is
prohibited, not permitted.

That about sums my grasp of it.

The radical idea debated prior to approving our US Constitution (as
documented in letters to the New York Journal, the Federalist Papers,
personal letters, the Virgina legislature debates in 1787, and so on),
was the idea of from where rights themselves emanate. I think I've
read published letters in the New York Journal dating back as far as
about 1755 on that topic. The conclusion of those writing the US
Constitution and, where it really counts, of those signing it into
effect is that they emanate from the individual, not from government
or from society, and that government operates by the consent of
individuals who grant those rights they deem necessary and which
persist only for so long as they choose to continue granting them.

You can see this kind of thinking in most of what survives today as
the body of materials elaborating the underlying intent of the
Constitution.

Some don't recall today that Hamilton had argued fiercely at the time
against the Bill of Rights, something that Jefferson felt was very
important to include. Hamilton's argument, if put in a nutshell,
claimed that if *any* specific guarantees about rights were written
down, that instead of being a useful protection against the more
frightening forms of state power and coersion, it would instead
eventually be seen as the *ONLY* rights anyone had. That later
generations would imagine (and therefore accept a yoke being placed
around their necks) these rights were the only ones and thus the Bill
of Rights would become the prison bars of our own jailing -- that
government would then be able to claim for itself, without much
resistance, everything else.

His argument was so profoundly expressed and so thoroughly agreed to
that they decided to actually write it in as one of the Bill of Rights
-- namely, the 9th Amendment (known as "The Hamilton Amendment".)

His argument went something like this: It's like coming to a new,
vacant land and staking out your homestead. You build a nice little
fence around it and put in a garden there. Someone new arrives and
sees your fence and naturally assumes that what isn't fenced, must be
available to newcomers or anyone else. Of course, having lived there
yourself for decades beforehand, you might think otherwise. But the
fence has become the only obvious line of demarcation. So the
assumptions others make may materially operate to make you seriously
regret having put up a fence at all. You might have been better off
simply not having one.

Hamilton's opposition argued that there were some individual rights
that were so important and so vital that they simply had to have
explicit expression. Kind of like, "Governments may transgress rights
now and then, but if they even come close to transgressing these you
know you are in very deep trouble already and should consider
abolishing what's there and finding another way."

Hamilton, though, felt very strongly that putting down just a few
rights would then imply that others didn't also exist and that later
generations would lose sight of the agreed upon understanding that all
rights emanate from the individual and that society and governments
have NO RIGHTS except those ceded by individuals, for such time as
they continue to perceive that the common benefits outweigh the cost
of ceding them to government.

---

There is no legitimate power of a government or a king or anyone else
to either grant rights or to take them away. Nothing inherently makes
anyone man or women the possessor of individual rights, who can hand
them out or withhold them as they please. We don't need a contract

from someone to have rights. And no one else owns that contract that

they can rescind at their will. These rights are "inalienable," as
the wording goes -- inherently within each of us, as individuals. They
flow out of us as actors in the world.

This starting point was debated over a period of decades, well before
the revolution started or the US Constitution was eventually created,
debated, and then signed. By the time it was signed, there was almost
no material argument here.


From this founding assumption, it followed that governments are

_granted_ rights "by the people" for the purposes of mutual safety and
their pursuit of happiness. The idea is actually pretty simple and
requires no belief in a god, no acceptance of the rights of a king,
etc. Instead, we grant our government certain rights, for example the
right to accumulate police powers needed to enforce a law against
murder, because we jointly feel that there is an overwhelming social
need that we can agree on. The benefits of ceding these rights to
government's good purposes outweighs the loss we suffer as individual
actors. We give up our own control to a degree and grant such powers
and for such purposes, so long as it continues to serve the general
will.

The problem with the Magna Carta was an implicit assumption. This was
argued about and made explicit in debates here in the US, prior to the
US Constitution even existing. The problem arises from the fact that
by accepting that a King may transfer, by signing a contract saying
so, some of his own rights to those of his lords, one also implicitly
then accepts that the King actually owned those rights in the first
place and actually had the authority to then sign some of them away by
contract. To accept any such "granting" is to implicitly accept the
idea that the King actually had the right _to_ grant them, in the
first place.

All this was avoided in the US by the "inalienable rights" phrasing.
Rights reside in each individual and no where else. No one else owns
our rights. We agree and accept the idea that good government has
need of at least some part of our individual rights, so that it can go
about the good purposes of securing our other liberties, our mutual
safety, and our right to secure a measure of happiness in our lives.
But the rights are deemed to start with each individual, who then
grants (accepts) that some are needed by government, for so long as
that government is serving its just purposes.

But even there, to the issue of what people may accept or be willing
to consider accepting, in granting some rights to government, there
was strongly felt a need to prevent popular fads and ideas from then
granting to government some rights that were so basic, so necessary to
individual liberty and happiness, that there was a need for some
explicit expression of a few that were felt to be the most important
of them -- that even a popularly held belief cannot transgress, in
terms of what each of us as individuals have secured. It was this
area where Hamilton felt worried -- that there were so many more that
were also equally important, or almost so, and to list them with so
little time left, and to then debate them and hammer them out... well,
it was better, he said, to not have any written down at all. Because
people would then imagine these were all there were and they would, in
later generations, accept government transgressions against all manner
of rights that just didn't happen to make "the short list."

In some ways, Hamilton was right. Many are now found to quickly
argue, "That right is not in the constitution!" As though that should
mean anything. The constitution doesn't have the power to grant
rights to individuals. It can help to secure them, or not, but not
grant them. No central group -- not a king, not a small collection of
people in power, not anyone, including a government -- holds our
rights in their hands.

We have "a government by and for the people."

So it is said, anyway.

Whether that is more true or less true is about whether or not we work
hard to well secure our rights. It's a path we walk, a treadmill we
cannot ever get off of. If we depart from the path or get off the
treadmill, to that degree we cede our individual rights to others.


---
Very nice. Very nice indeed, and your position lends credence to the
proposition that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.

I've always thought of our system, simplistically, as one where one
is allowed to park wherever there's been no "NO PARKING" parking
sign erected.

Lately, from what I'm reading here, it seems the approved signs have
changed to "PARKING ALLOWED HERE", making all other non-marked
parking places illegal.

The difference?

Good example. Here's one I like as well. Nowhere in the US
Constitution is the USG permitted to go into the forest and
timber business. Yet here we are today with some huge national
forests from which the USG sells of timber from time to time.

However, USG is not prohibited from such activity in the
constitution.

The difference between English and Roman law, where under English
law one was presumed innocent until proven guilty and under Roman
law, where one was presumed guilty unless proven innocent.

One of many differences.

 

[unsettled]

T Wake wrote:

People like unsettled (and JoeBloe) are more concerned with ranting and
insulting people than actually paying attention to what is said in the
posts. "He" has replied to the post in which you even say there are no
Nazis, with an exhortation that "there are no Nazis."

Pure brilliance.

Mischaracterizing and misstating what others write,
as you do here again, is your undoing.

 

[T Wake]

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehkr9t$8qk_001@s772.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <M9Wdndw-ELm9dqHYRVnyjw@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehi9t2$8qk_001@s784.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
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...
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 estimate that you are wrong and you reasoning is based on incorrect
data.

I do not think the world will have those 10 years to evolve societies.

It will if the west can be prevented from playing into the extremists
hands
with a massive over reaction.

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.

I dont think this.


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.

Yet it is still a Moslem country.

You do not know the difference when a government is not
based in a religion.

You are talking nonsense to support a non-argument. Being patronising does
not support your postion at all.

Turkey has a secular government, yet is an Islamic country.

*You're* stated objections to the growth of Islamic countries is they will
all become like Taliban Afghanistan.

The Turkish government is still closely aligned to Islam. It has to be.

This may be another ingredient
to the odd attitude in Europe.

You wouldn't know. Your attitude is so odd I am at a loss to work out where
it has come from.

Your arguments are equally applied to most western countries.

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.

This is not related to the religion or "mess-potential" of the nation in
any
meaningful manner.

It has everything to do with it.

No it isn't. It is a strawman you have concocted because you think that you
can dismiss the spread of Islamic radicalisation by blaming their culture
for not embracing capitalism.

This is incorrect.

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.

Really? Why did the founding fathers of the US leave Europe?

Our founding fathers were born here. They did not emigrate
from Europe. There may be one or two who were born in
Europe but I don't recall any.

All the people who wrote signed the declaration of independance were British
Citizens. Why did their ancestors leave Europe?

I never mentioned the constitution, I seem to recall that came quite some
time _after_ America was colonised.

I know you didn't. It is your ignorance of the impact of that
document which is causing you to make incorrect assumptions about
how US government, politics and business work.

Nonsense. Your ignorance of global politics and regional conflict is causing
you to make constant, inaccurate guessess about things. Your blindness is
causing you to ignore what has been written.

Your nation was (largely) founded by religous zealots who left Europe to
find a land where they would not be persecuted for their beliefs. Your
nation still identifies itself with the Pilgrims.

The writing of the Constitution came quite some time after this.

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.

You mean the Roman Catholics? Or do you mean the Facist Germans?

yes, among others.

Yes to which?

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.

The smugness you mention is not on this side of the atlantic.

Yes the facists are gaining popularity in Europe - this is largely because
there is a phantom menace from Islam which people seem to react to in the
same manner as to the claims Judaism was a threat in the thirties.

Then the menace is not a phantom, is it?

Yes. The threat from Terrorism is no greater than many other sources.

When you start to take
this menace seriously, then you'll begin to be able to discuss
the problem rather than keep throwing our Democrat sound bites
to prevent the discussion from occurring.

I take credible threats very seriously. Your sentence here is a
non-argument. You refuse to discuss something until every one agrees with
you.

Madness.

There is no "menace" from Islam. There is no large "menace" from Islamic
Extremists. Yes, they do want to kill people and destroy the western way of
life but only the first is possible.

Do you lie awake at night worrying about a car crash killing you? (It is
more likely) Or worrying that an asteroid will hit you? (about the same
chance).

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.

Your implications are wrong.

Allowing bad behaviour is not tolerance; it is an implicit approval
that the behaviour will be allowed to continue.

Your implications are still wrong.

With the exception of the Papal State there are no European countries which
tolerate Religious extremism.

It is in that location's folklore
and basic hidden assumptions.

Not the case.


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.

And you dont think this is odd.

No.

Well it is. Your politics are based on religion. If that religion was not
Christianity, you'd view yourself as a threat.

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.

Sorry, you must have misread me. I said super power not super cop.
Policing
is not about "power" as such, it is about enforcing the laws which are
written by governments which are elected by the people the police, police.

It is not the United States of America's job nor duty to police
the rest of the world. There is no universal code book of law.

I agree. The US shouldn't try to police the world.

Also, nothing I said contradicted in any way my previous postion on the
subject (which I suspect you dont understand anyway) - your post implied I
was "Happy" to have the US as super cop then complained when they did
anything.

I do not think of the US as "super cop" of anything.

Am I now supposed to assume that the US shouldn't use any
of this power outside of our country? Are you implying
that the US should stop sending goods, money and men to all
other areas of the world that is not US territory?

Well, we have hit a problem here. One argument used to justify the US
actions on the world scale is the SuperCop invading countries to "Put them
right." Earlier you said this shouldnt be the case, yet you support the
invasion of soverign states.

Where have I said the US shouldn't use its power outside its borders? I
think it should.

I also think it is a bully nation and needs to be prepared for the fact that
one day this will cause problems. It is the curse of Empire. As you seem to
think it isnt a World Police but it should excise power, do you think it
should bully?

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

No, there is not, even in your country.

Yes there are. You have no concept of what laws and legislation is in
place
in the UK.

You are assuming that everybody is tacitly agreeing to live and behave
by those rules. The current dicussion is dealing with a large
number of people who do not recognize those rules and laws and
refuse to live within that societal agreement.

False line of reasoning. You claim that there are not checks and balances
because there will alway be some people who ignore the rules. This is
nonsense.

Every country has people who will ignore the rules. They are called
criminals.

You still have no concept of what legislation is in place in the UK to
control a religious upsurge.

You indulge people
who make messes based on ideologies.

No more or less than any other western country, your own included.

No. The US tends to stop it when a big mess is made; this prevents
more messes.

Nonsense. The US creates bigger messes then says they are tidy and expects
every one to be happy with that.

What indulgency does the UK do towards people who make big messes, that the
US doesn't?

 

[unsettled]

unsettled wrote:

T Wake wrote:



People like unsettled (and JoeBloe) are more concerned with ranting
and insulting people than actually paying attention to what is said in
the posts. "He" has replied to the post in which you even say there
are no Nazis, with an exhortation that "there are no Nazis."

Pure brilliance.


Mischaracterizing and misstating what others write,
as you do here again, is your undoing.

I should probably have continued this post, so I do
that here.

The discussion was about "Nazi members" which is a
matter altogether different from "Nazi mentality."
I went on to show that the Nazi Party, as well as
anyorganization smelling like a spinoff, is banned
in Germany.

T Wake continues to distort whenever he can. I have
begun to think that he is possibly incapable of
having a cogent discussion rather than, as I had
surmised, driven by agenda.

Finally, even in Germany, not all fascism is
necessarily Nazism. The German nation should
be able to go forward without the Nazi label
continuously being hung on their necks.

 

[Eeyore]

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

"MooseFET" <kensmith@rahul.net> wrote:
T Wake wrote:

[... democrats ...]
They don't talk about what measures they will take to prevent alien
attacks

If we imagine that they have some ideas, we can also see reasons why
they may not want the other side to hear of them.

Also a great deal has been said about the risk of something nasty
coming in in a cargo container. Democrats have suggested better
inspection as part of the answer to this so it isn't true that they
haven't said anything. Unfortunately, the inspection needs to happen
at the shipping end not the recieving. The ports are places you
wouldn't want a nuke to go off.

What I'm more concerned about is the Democrats' and others' complete
silence about nuclear power plants which is the most important
action that can be taken right now. Only the person known
as President Bush is even uttering those nouns.

It says that Connecticut has submitted a request for a permit
to open a plant. We'll see what the will of these politicians
is.

What on earth are you talking about ?

Graham

 

In article <rYydnRCQepdT8abYRVnyhA@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehfl72$8qk_002@s799.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <1161446216.247073.137760@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"MooseFET" <kensmith@rahul.net> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <1161181426.078024.31230@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"MooseFET" <kensmith@rahul.net> wrote:
[....]
Actually, I have been paying attention. The toughest job in heaven
these days is virgin wrangler.

Other than react gleefully, which is the normal male reaction,

It is perfectly natural for humans of either gender to laugh at an
obvious joke. As a result, the qualifier "male" was not needed.
snip

This is not all that funny when it is the carrot used to
convince people to kill themselves in the form of a human bomb.

And yet the qualifier "male" was still not needed.

Yes, it is needed. I think that's one of the underlying reasons
people cannot comprehend the concept of mess prevention. It
appears that modern females are also not getting trained to
anticipate and prevent messes.

I'm starting to think that this may have something to do
with concentrating on work that pays money rather than
other kinds of work.

<snip>

/BAH

 

In article <1161533627.985532.89370@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
"MooseFET" <kensmith@rahul.net> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <1161446216.247073.137760@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"MooseFET" <kensmith@rahul.net> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <1161181426.078024.31230@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"MooseFET" <kensmith@rahul.net> wrote:
[....]
Actually, I have been paying attention. The toughest job in heaven
these days is virgin wrangler.

Other than react gleefully, which is the normal male reaction,

It is perfectly natural for humans of either gender to laugh at an
obvious joke. As a result, the qualifier "male" was not needed.
snip

This is not all that funny when it is the carrot used to
convince people to kill themselves in the form of a human bomb.

I disagree. The funniest humor is always about the most serious
subject. There is an evolutionary explaination for why this is so, but
even without the explanation, it is obvious from experience that it is
true. God, death and people being unfaithful are the normal grist for
jokes.

I'm not posting here to discuss the benefits and socioeconomic
effects of humor. I do not find satire funny. I think sarcasm
is not funny at all but a method of demeaning the subject.

I would assume
that this would actully be hell for males.

You seem to be suggesting that it wouldn't also be for females.

There is not.

Huh! The reply to the above make no sense. What does the "there" refer
to? You are saying something is not something but neither referent is
identified.

Sorry, I'm getting tired. I think my hands quit typing
and eyes don't report the fact.

IIRC, there isn't any benefits for females to want to go
the extremists' heaven. This latest movement of that
religions is steeped in sexual perversion and thinking.
It's just another weird aspect of that movement. I also think
that this absence is significant but I don't know why..yet.

Now, think about that in combination with the tactics
that are currently working w.r.t. the West's news media.

Since the thing I'm supposed to think about in combination with those
tactics makes no sense, I can't figure out what you are suggesting I
think about. That being said, you can't assume that I haven't already
thought about it.

Here is a religious extremism whose stated goal is to destroy
Western civilization. The compensation for those who die
while doing this work for them is only addressed to males.
The idealism puts all women out of society (cover and
no transport out of the house). This is not getting back
to the old ways of Muslim living (from I've read).

I wish people
would think a little bit more.

So do I but I've learned to live with the fact that others simply can't
keep up with my thinking, humor and artistic skills. This is the curse
of being the smartest person in the world.

You don't even approach the smartest. You certainly aren't any
where near as smart as the person known as JMF in my login name.

You also have missed the real meaning of what I said. I'm sure others
knew exactly what I meant. I don't feel like explaining it to you at
this point, but trust me, your responce doesn't make you look very good.

I am not posting here to look good. I don't care if I look good.
I am more interested in preserving knowledge attained by
Western civilization and the infrastructure that increases its
knowledge. I am interested in preventing a 75% reduction of
the world's population...although I'm rethinking this as a
desirable goal.

/BAH

 

In article <3MSdnYZwCOXO8abYRVnyuA@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehflan$8qk_003@s799.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <T5idnaxgJN-lqKfYnZ2dnUVZ8tKdnZ2d@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehd3s8$8qk_009@s884.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <74kcj2dtgob35abvm2tucgiuim8r3mot3e@4ax.com>,
Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
On 18 Oct 2006 07:23:46 -0700, the renowned "MooseFET"
kensmith@rahul.net> wrote:


jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
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.

Actually, I have been paying attention. The toughest job in heaven
these days is virgin wrangler.

/BAH

What's the reward for virgins? 1/72 of some hirsute dude? Hmmm...
could have used that line in HS..

You aren't thinking. This portrays to all women that women
don't matter. Their only role is sex slave.

This is not the image Islam portrays to its women.

Perhaps not to moderates. Now think a little bit more
about an interpretation that is trying to become the
one and only sect in the Islamic world.

Perhaps among extremist minorities.

You keep saying this; this is not a minority. I can produce
a scenario where the opinion would become 100% of all Muslims.

Now think a bit more about the reality
of Islam and how it is interpreted.

I suggest that you begin listening to what you keep insisting
is a minority movement. It is not.

/BAH

 

In article <453E0A58.1629B850@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

There is an upswell in right wing organisations getting public support
across Europe, but this is not quite the same.

Isn't that how Hitler got started?

Ppl were starving when Hitler got started. The support for far right wing
organisations across Europe is quite small, fragmentary and disorganised.

The BBC report did not imply this. They covered an organized
demonstration whose goal was to force the German government to
free some Nazi rock star. That tells me that the youth is
getting organized. Isn't that how Hitler got started?

/BAH

 

In article <xeidnaGqVPjT7abYnZ2dnUVZ8s-dnZ2d@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehfm39$8qk_006@s799.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <X5KdncZfhOmVpafYnZ2dnUVZ8tmdnZ2d@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehd506$8qk_005@s884.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

snip non-answered questions and evaded comments

Any fundamentalist will interpret this as the teacher substituting
evolution for Christain religious belief. Plus it is a useful
way to get public schools funds to hold their Sunday School clasess.

Like I said, only in the mind of fundamentalists. If you spent less time
trying to be patronising and imagining half the conversation you would be
able to appreciate what I actually wrote.

Saying "I believe in evolution" is a valid sentence.

No, it is not valid within this context. You do know that
the Creed starts out with "I believe...".

It is still valid. I honestly believe in Newtonian Gravity being the best
description of gravity in the domain in which it applies.

I don't believe it. I demonstrated it when I did my labs.

This is not
something which can be "known" as tomorrow some one may come up with a
better description.

Does this open the floodgates for the Religious Right to send me to hell?

When you try to make a religious creed out of science, yes. And
they will do everything they can to prevent their kids from getting
exposed to the Devil's words.

If someone reads that
as saying "I believe in evolution THEREFORE I cant believe in the Bible"
that is the fallacy.

It is not a fallacy.

It may happen but it is a fallacy, and a fallacy on behalf of the person who
has interpreted it as that not the person who spoke. Think a bit more about
what the words mean and what the interpretation is.

Will you please shut up and think? These were science teachers
using religious language to describe a theory.

This is not science. And the religious right is correct in
reacting to such tripe. Their solution to this problem has
no place in science.

There are only three things in their list
that are to be believed. Adding evolution to that list is
heresy.

Yet saying (for example) "I believe my wife loves me" or "I believe the US
is doing the right thing in Iraq" or anything along those lines is not
heresy?

When the whole convention is about not teaching evolution in
the science classroom and teaching intelligent design in
all science classrooms, the science teachers have absolutely
no business using the word "believe" in any sentence during
the days of that conference.

The word belief implies faith that passes all understanding.
This means that no evidence is required. No evidence has no
place in the science lab.

Yet the science lab is home to beliefs of all types. What evidence do we
have which properly supports the strong equivalence principle? Science is,
IMHO, more rigourous in that things which are believed are tested for as
much as possible but there is still a time of belief.

snip deliberate disingenuousness

Well.... what can I say to that. You think I am being disingenuous, yet I am
not. You think I am deliberately misreading you, yet I am not. Your beliefs
are flawed.

Now read what I replied above. Disingenuousness was being extremely
polite.

/BAH

 

In article <1dfnj29m7qmdina5m7ko9bh5650mcf92bi@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 19:42:48 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:


"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:975nj2hbutglodujgqd5ungvjn7ai8rhgo@4ax.com...
On Sun, 22 Oct 06 11:46:02 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <54OdnR2_EJ87q6fYRVnysg@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehd4o6$8qk_004@s884.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <tidcj2hc7r29unnup0qjddadothkt473q2@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 06 11:51:42 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

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.

It's a pretty good theory but ignores relativistic effects. It's
quantitatively precise in most practical situations, but not all
situations, so it is indeed flawed, and not a "best guess."


I'm not going to deal with this one.

So why make any post? Why not just ignore it?

It was a communication to the rational readers of this thread.
If correcting John's idea of the Scientific Method was
important, somebody else could do the writing. John's concept
is slightly incorrect and requires a nitpik.


So sorry. "Science" does not allow anyone to be "slightly incorrect."

Only partialy true, so in essence this is itself slightly incorrect.

Reminds me of some physics conferences I've attended, where you had to
watch your step for slipping on the blood on the floor.

All topics have conferences like that.


I find physicists to be especially aggressive.

Terseness isn't aggressive; it's efficient.

It's hard to brainstorm
with them, because their first reaction to an idea is often to slap it
down, rather than play with it and see if there might be something
there.

That's only way to design something. We wouldn't have gotten anything
done if we didn't slap each new idean and tear it apart.

Most physicists have a better understanding of device physics
than the average engineer, but are still rotten circuit designers...
check out the circuits in RSI, for instance. That wasn't so in the
RadLab days, but it sure seems that way now.

The physics biz is not a production line activity. It is their
job to fiddle and tweak until it works. Then the mess gets
handed over to engineers; it is their job to figure out how
to manufacture the thingie without having to reproduce the
bandaging steps.

The thing about physics, especially quantum/particle/cosmological
physics, is that some very smart people have already discovered a lot
of stuff, and there's no low-hanging fruit left that mere mortals can
reach. In condensed matter physics (aka "dirt physics") and chemistry
and biology, there's still a lot left to discover, so it's not as
brutally competitive.

Circuit design is fun, because you can invent something entirely new
most any afternoon, and dabble in the physics and chemistry and optics
without having to spend a decade as an impoverished post-doc.

<grin> You should try working with people who are doing engineering
work with a thinking style trained to do physics.

/BAH

 

In article <EpGdnaVnG9bgoafYRVnyjw@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehd69c$8qk_011@s884.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <acGdnTunitrAPqrYnZ2dnUVZ8tadnZ2d@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eh7odg$8qk_006@s977.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <HItZg.15972$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.

False conclusion drawn on an inaccurate assumption. There is no
competition
for Islam to "win" in that sense.

If the West changed to Islamic based societies life would continue largely
as normal.

I know you think this. I realize that all anti-Bushers
believe this. You are wrong.

I know you think I am an anti-Busher.

I don't think that. I think you're a follow-the-winner type.

You believe this because you can not
accept that there is more than two sides. You are wrong.

This is another bad assumption on your part.

I am not an anti-Busher. I was not anti-War in Iraq. I was not anti-Invasion
of Afghanistan. My main entry to this thread was the farcical nature of
calling anything a "War on Terror" and the problems with making too many
assumptions.

That's politics. I've been trying to avoid talking about politics.
The closest I got was pointing out that current US politics has
only one party who is dealing with reality.

You make false assumptions constantly.

Sure. That's all part of sorting out how to deal with messes.
However, the things you think I'm assuming are just not so.

You constantly prove the problems with making assumptions about people.

No. The bottom line of this discussion is that I believe the people,
who tell me they want me and mine dead, are telling the truth about
their intentions. You think they are lying and incapable of
carrying out their task.

By the way, it seems from today's news the Occupation forces are doing their
utmost to develop an urgent exit strategy from Iraq, realising their current
policies are doomed to failure. (And this was from CNN

CNN is worse than the BBC. CNN doesn't do retractions.

not the BBC)

I do not listen to CNN anymore. CBS seems to be taking lessons
from them.

/BAH

 

[Eeyore]

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

There is an upswell in right wing organisations getting public support
across Europe, but this is not quite the same.

Isn't that how Hitler got started?

Ppl were starving when Hitler got started. The support for far right wing
organisations across Europe is quite small, fragmentary and disorganised.

Graham

 

[unsettled]

T Wake wrote:

Our founding fathers were born here. They did not emigrate
from Europe. There may be one or two who were born in
Europe but I don't recall any.

All the people who wrote signed the declaration of
independance were British Citizens.

Wrong, Bucko! They had been British Subjects, an altogether
different thing as any colonial can explain to you.

Why did their ancestors leave Europe?

You'd have to do this on a case by case basis. Not all
fled Europe.

Your nation was (largely) founded by religous zealots
who left Europe to find a land where they would not be
persecuted for their beliefs. Your nation still identifies
itself with the Pilgrims.

Talking through your hate again.

Franklin was the son of an Anglican. George Washington
accepted all religions equally but one can take note
that Martha attended the Anglican church near her home.
You might actually want to take a survey of what the
religions of the founding fathers happened to
be before jumping to the sorts of conclusions
you seem to profess here.

The writing of the Constitution came quite some time after this.

In which period all sorts of aristocracy crossed the big puddle.

No. The US tends to stop it when a big mess is made; this prevents
more messes.

Nonsense. The US creates bigger messes then says they are tidy and expects
every one to be happy with that.

That's why the UK speaks English instead of German today?

What indulgency does the UK do towards people who make big messes, that the
US doesn't?

Don't get me started on the messes the UK has left
in its colonial wake. Think "British Mandate" when
you consider making statements like the one directly
above. The current middle eastern mess is, to a great
extent, one of England's making. The crown accepted
the mandate and then abandoned the missle east just
as quickly as it possibly could when they realized
that there was, at that time, very little wealth to
be stolen.

In dividing the territory into managable segments
the crown did what it did on the continent. They
put together, under one government, peoples who
they knew hated one another and could never get
along. So long as there was internal fighting
the crown didn't have to expend time or energy
there and was left to manage (read rape and
pillage) their colonial empire elsewhere.

 

[Eeyore]

unsettled wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
unsettled wrote:

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."


I'm sure there are plenty of well-meaning Muslims for sure, however the
structure of their faith does not allow for any one leader.

Quite simply they have no equivalent of the Pope or the Archbishop of
Canterbury.

I do think this does make them vulnerable to extemism.

Once again you fail to understand the lessons of history.

Eh ?

Ghandi was the acknowledged cross-religion leader in the
India of the period immediately after WW2. He was followed
by a majority of Hindus *and* Muslims.

Cite ?

Jinnah acted against his wishes and prevailed.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

There is an upswell in right wing organisations getting public support
across Europe, but this is not quite the same.

So where's le Pen now ?

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

I am sure "unsettled" is more than aware that Eeyore and I have very
different view points on lots of topics, so I am somewhat confused what
lumping us together adds to the weight of "his" argument - other than
creating the illusion of collusion to fuel his paranoia.
snip

You two, actually three, are getting lumped together because
you keep repeating our Democrat sound bites as supporting
evidence that there isn't a danger from Islamic extremeists.

Please be precise.

Exactly what danger(s) are you referring to ?

Generalisation is not acceptable.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

And yet the qualifier "male" was still not needed.

Yes, it is needed. I think that's one of the underlying reasons
people cannot comprehend the concept of mess prevention. It
appears that modern females are also not getting trained to
anticipate and prevent messes.

You do talk an astonishing amount of drivel.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

unsettled <unsettled@nonsense.com> wrote:

Now I understand. You're a Muslim or a MUslim shill.

I don't think so. I think these types of people are
trying to survive and assume that, if they were nice
about this terrosism, the Islamic extremists will
have mercy and not kill them. It's similar to a pack
mentality, I think.

I think you're very mistaken wrt reality.

If the British public feel seriously threatened by Islam it'll be
Islamic blood that'll be spilt, not Anglo-Saxon.

Graham