Jihad needs scientists

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehnhh9$8qk_016@s885.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <ehildp$rv0$12@leto.cc.emory.edu>,
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
In article <ehi52h$8qk_007@s784.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
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.

/BAH
The Democrats supported action in Afghanistan.

Yup. And Kerry's campaign for president, both in 2003 and now,
is to promise to go back and wage that war all over again.

In case you hadn't noticed, that threat has grown substantially since we
declared victory and moved on. Another negative result of our idiotic
invasion of Iraq, and one that Bush appears to have no intent of dealing
with.

Bush's invasion of Iraq, OTOH,
had nothing to do with the US being attacked.

It is one step in the stragegy.

Hunh? What did it have to do with the 9/11 attacks?

It is a necessary step.

Why? The only result of us invading Iraq was the deaths of 650,000 Iraqis,
and the introduction of terrorism into a country that formerly had none.

It was
also the only step that could produce good results with minimum
risk.

What results were those, in terms of US national security? It's only made
terrorism worse, both in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This is still true unless the Democrats succeed in
diverting the world from the original threat.

You mean the Taliban and al Qaeda? The Democrats want the US to deal with
those threats. The current administration continues to ignore them.

Eric Lucas

 

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehnhl4$8qk_017@s885.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <453CBD2E.2081C49F@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:

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.

Ben Ladin said he would stop attacking if the voters voted for
Kerry.

Evidence, please. I was expecting such a message, but there never was one.

There was a news item that a similar ad is playing on
that al jazeer network. I haven't checked that one out.

Evidence, please.

Eric Lucas

 

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehni07$8qk_018@s885.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <453DA904.61F1CEC3@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:


unsettled wrote:

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

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.

Really ? The actions of the Republicans has made things far worse IMO.

If Bush hadn't organized, the bombs in the Underground would have
blasted that infrastucture to inoperability.

Evidence, please.

There would have
been more airplanes used as bombs.

Evidence, please.

Spain would have had more
crippling of its infrastructure.

Evidence, please.

Afghanistan would still be
training new recruits.

They are. Mission Failed.

The Islamic moderates would still be
in hidden in their closets.

Evidence, please.

Which ones would those be, Ahmadinejad? If we're not careful, we will turn
him from being highly unpopular with his own people, to being one of the
most popular tyrants in the world. Or do you mean the regime in Saudi that
is reviled throughout the Arab world as a puppet of the US?

Nobody would be trying to keep
Iran from deploying atomic bombs.

Evidence, please.

Women would not be gaining
access to mobility and education in Saudi Arabia.

Evidence, please?

Pakistan would
still be exporting its atomic bomb knowledge without restraint.

Evidence, please.

Should I go on?

Yes. Some evidence for your unsupported assertions would be nice.

Eric Lucas

 

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehni4n$8qk_019@s885.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <RT3%g.23038$7I1.13549@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehi52h$8qk_007@s784.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
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.

Ahh...so *that's* why the picked a Republican presidency to carry out
their
worst attack in history against anybody, ever. Now I understand your
logic.

No, the plans were made during Clinton's adminstration.

So what? By your assertion, it was only the timing of the actual attack
that mattered, since that is what would garner a retaliation. And that
happened when Bush was in office.

The first
bombing did not produce much reaction. Plans were made for a
second bombing. None of this happened when Bush was president.

No, just the destruction of several billion dollars of US real estate, and
the killing of about 2700 Americans.

Do get your timelines straight.

Yes, you can manipulate the timelines all you want, to make them say
whatever you want about whomever you want.

Eric Lucas

 

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehnibo$8qk_020@s885.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <6qSdndc6PtVrmqDYRVnyjQ@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehi55a$8qk_008@s784.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <453A24D6.FD9A2EED@hotmail.com>,
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.


Of what?

Choosing to protray groups of people, whose goal is to
destroy production, as good guys

This is another strawman. Who has said that?

Eric Lucas

 

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehnj35$8qk_001@s885.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <5qlpj2134gu2465dshd5e7iojthb0kqeta@4ax.com>,
George O. Bizzigotti <gbizzigo@mitretek.org> wrote:
On Mon, 23 Oct 06 10:28:08 GMT, 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?

I've worked in the areas of chemical demilitarization and
counterproliferation for the past dozen years or so, and I have a good
understanding of how chemical warfare agents were made, both in the US
and elsewhere. I would argue that the above issues can be better
understood if one discusses chemistry and technology separately.

The chemistry of chemical warfare agents is fairly simple. Most
undergraduates should be able to figure out the reactions used to make
chemical warfare agents; there number of possible routes for most
agents is small. Many laboratory syntheses are in the open literature.
For example, the most difficult part in finding multiple routes to
make mustard lies in finding a library that has holdings from the 19th
century; any chemist should know how to obtain the citation.

Thank you. You wrote what I was trying to say better than I did.


The technology of chemical warfare agents is considerably more
challenging. The challenges arise mostly in materials of construction
and in safety.

Exactly. Yet people seem to think that weapons made by
people who don't place any value on human life will adhere
to OSHA regulations.

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Nobody mentioned
OSHA. The safety aspect of which he speaks is in the very real danger of
exposure to the materials. It's not really a very effective weapons program
if everybody you send into the lab or plant to make the materials keeps
dying within seconds.

The reactions involve reagents that are very corrossive
to "standard issue" materials, and those materials that can stand up
to those reagents are some combination of expensive, rare, and much
more difficult to fabricate than standard materials. In the 1980s,
imports of production equipment were probably more critical to Iraq's
program than were imports of precursor chemicals.

I had assumed this. What I don't understand with all these
mess makers is why they didn't build their own plants but
bought...hmm...oh, if you have pots of new monies, you suffer
from middle classism and buy instead of making it by hand.

Safety is also a concern, even to authoritarians and at least some
terrorists. The skills required to operate manufacturing facilities
are rare enough that even the Saddam Husseins of the world cannot
afford to operate the plants unsafely. Making significant quantities
of chemical warfare agents without killing the operators requires
safety measures that go beyond standard industrial hygiene practices.

Would this still be true if there is no value of human life in a
society?

Evidence of this, please. In any case, yes, it would still be true, because
if people keep dying when you try to make chemical weapons, no weapons are
going to get made.

My reasonably educated opinion is that any decent chemist and most
bright university chemistry majors could figure out the reactions used
to make chemical warfare agents. However, the equipment and skills
required to produce more than laboratory quantities using those
reactions are much rarer.
Thank you. Saddam sent his brightest to US schools.

So what?

Isn't this
safety stuff taught in production classes?

No, in industry, we generally have to spend the first couple of years
teaching new chemists and engineers to work safely in the real world.

An intern working
for Dow would learn a lot about setting up a production line
that won't blow up the plant.

Generally not true. And with CWAs, "blowing up the plant" ain't what
matters.

Eric Lucas

 

[T Wake]

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehngkf$8qk_014@s885.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <48c%g.19686$6S3.1431@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

"unsettled" <unsettled@nonsense.com> wrote in message
news:856de$453d290d$49ed52d$28493@DIALUPUSA.NET...
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.

Precisely. So everything which is not prohibited is permitted,
exactly as I wrote.

You need to brush up on your propositional logic. "A implies B" is not
the
same as "(not A) implies (not B)".


And unsettled was talking about C.

Which may explain why his posts are so ... confused.

 

[T Wake]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news5ruj2hdqdprs3fmtr2m4i6c1k607mc94n@4ax.com...

On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 12:54:34 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:


"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
message
news:4iitj2p030albnbvi4ssev39j7ge23lq82@4ax.com...
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:47:01 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:


For every hundred thousand crackpot ideas there is one brilliant one.
How
should people react to new ideas?

By *thinking* about them!

For how long? Also this assumes that people don't think about them *at
all*
before they dismiss them. Often the new idea is thought about, maybe for a
second or two, before it is dismissed as crackpot.

This is not a bad thing.


No, if one is skilled in the area, and reasonably open-minded, ideas
can be sifted pretty fast. But cases like the Townes maser story still
give caution.

Not really. There are many orders of magnitude more crank theories than ones
with potential. The fact that the maser story exists as an anecdote
highlights just how unusual it was for it to make a success.

And in sciences that still have gaping holes in
explaining widespread phenomena, it makes sense to be more
open-minded.

You are asking for a very broad definition of open minded. Scientists are
generally quite open minded. People like fame and fortune. Finding a
breakthrough brings both.

The declaration "that's impossible" should not be applied lightly.

People who know what they are talking about do not use it lightly.

 

[T Wake]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:keruj2d5msml22kfoa757q12iblk09c25q@4ax.com...

On Wed, 25 Oct 06 09:58:47 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:


Our best OS people had their degrees in math, chemistry,
physics, a couple were engineers, and there was one philosophy
guy later on. These were very, very, very, very bright
people who did not suffer fools at all. The people here in
this newsgroup put up with 100x more shit than the guys
I worked with would.

The two best programmers I know were trained in chemistry and thermal
hydraulics. Neither ever studied programming.

The best computer programmer I have ever met has never formally learned
anything other than computer programming, and he is very, very good.

Reminds me of a professor I had, a psychologist in the Army Air Force
in WWII. He discovered that graduates of the cooks and bakers school
were better aerial gunners than graduates of the aerial gunnery
school.

Just means the aerial gunnery school was poor.

Using anecdotal evidence like this to justify assumptions is poor science.
The best physicists I have ever met have studied physics all their lives.
When I was in the Army the _best_ engineers I met had been taught
engineering.

 

[T Wake]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:1muuj2ta67qoe2coa47s6gp8q4mamqte57@4ax.com...

On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 03:41:14 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:56:33 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

Isn't that how Hitler got started?

Yes. However Germany is not suffering a massive economic depression and
smarting from a recent, unfair, peace treaty. In the 1930s Germany
still had
the capability of becoming a world power in military terms. This is no
longer the case.

Especially so as the Brits and French and Russians have nukes.

Nearly irrelevant in the European context.

The way things are going we ( the above ) need to target the USA.

---
Are you advocating a pre-emptive nuclear strike against the US?

If he says yes, are you going to lobby for your government to invade Europe?

 

[T Wake]

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehnj5b$8qk_002@s885.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <453F4FE2.29EB7593@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:


jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

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

In the 1930s Germany still had
the capability of becoming a world power in military terms. This is no
longer the case.

Isn't it trying to run the EU economics show?

No. The European Central Bank is.


The news
over here implies that France and Germany as the main
players. All those other countries seem to get no
attention.

Your news is crap in that case.

I'm glad you agree that the BBC is crap.

Most people in the UK think that.

 

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehnjo6$8qk_001@s885.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <9b6dnRQ92dLsyqLYRVnyhg@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehnbd1$8qk_001@s885.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <YsqdnSqgH-CP2qPYnZ2dnUVZ8sidnZ2d@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehktr9$8qk_004@s772.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
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.

I haven't heard any Democrat soundbites so I have no idea if I am
repeating
them.

You are.

Ok. Doesn't falsifiy them.

Apparently you did not comprehend the consequences of listening
and believing that these were facts that had happened rather
than political rhetoric to demean the oppostion.

Please list one thing he has said is "fact" that is in fact verifiably not
true.

Because something is a "soundbite" does not intrinsically make it
wrong or incorrect.

For the 2004 US President campaign (so this would be 2002, 2003, and
2004) Democrat candidates would go over to Europe, and try out
sound bites. The BBC would pick it up and repeat it. Our news
media would pick up the BBC report and report the sound bite as
news. Then this "news" would become recursive because now
the BBC would pick it up as fact. Meanwhile, polls were taken
to see the sound bite had resonance among US voters.

Ok. It still doesn't make them wrong. You post right wing soundbites but I
assume you think it is Ok to do that.

You heard the BBC report those sound bites as news. You use these
manufactured facts

Please list one fact that we have presented that you claim is manufactured,
and be prepared to prove that it is manufactured with something other than
your manufactured assumptions.


as your reasons to decide that there is no

threat to western civilization. Do I need to expand this
explanation further?

Sorry, but yes. Accusations of manufacturing facts need to be backed up
with evidence.

If the threat has diminished, why are the Alert states still high?

If there had been no infrastructure put into place, which you
see as Alert States, there wouldn't be anything that stops
people from [blowing?] your places up.

Evidence that that would have happened, please. What TWake is referring to
is the terrorism that didn't exist in Iraq before we went in, and now does.

But it can always pick
up again if a majority of people believe as you do and
open the city gates.

Far from the truth. You are saying the threat is lower but more
precautions
need to be taken?

This does not make sense.

That's because you keep twisting what I say. I know you
have to do that twisting.

He's not twisting. He's taking your statements to their logical conclusion.
If that sounds twisted to you, then perhaps you had better do more to
consider what the logical implications are of the things you say.

The smoke and mirrors is so thick in this discussion, it is
difficult to identify who is who.

Really? Maybe it isn't smoke and mirrors.

It is.

It isnt.

We haven't even started discussing the issue.

I have tried but you are obsessed about keeping your blinkers on.

You don't try if you keep repeating Democrat campaign sound bites
as your arguing points that prove there is no danger.

Why? All you do is repeat Republican fear-mongering soundbites.

I've
been trying to sweep away the crud that you were using
as a point to support your opinion.

But I'm not doing very well at this.

First you need to realise what is crud and what isn't. You are drowned in
false assumptions so it is not surprising you are struggling.

Oh, the irony.

Oh, the arrogance.

Eric Lucas

 

[Jamie]

Eeyore wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:


I'm not doing very well at this.


You finally noticed ?

Graham

he's learning your bad habits.

--
"I'm never wrong, once i thought i was, but was mistaken"
Real Programmers Do things like this.
http://webpages.charter.net/jamie_5

 

[Jamie]

Eeyore wrote:

John Larkin wrote:


On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:56:33 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:


Isn't that how Hitler got started?

Yes. However Germany is not suffering a massive economic depression and
smarting from a recent, unfair, peace treaty. In the 1930s Germany still had
the capability of becoming a world power in military terms. This is no
longer the case.

Especially so as the Brits and French and Russians have nukes.


Nearly irrelevant in the European context.

The way things are going we ( the above ) need to target the USA.

Graham



typical retarded brit, to busy getting their head out of their asses, to

close that mouth before it spews out bile.



--
"I'm never wrong, once i thought i was, but was mistaken"
Real Programmers Do things like this.
http://webpages.charter.net/jamie_5

 

[Jamie]

Eeyore wrote:

T Wake wrote:


Islamic Extremism does not pose a greater threat than other threats people
live with on a daily basis.


Indeed.



Oddly, the threat from Islamic Extremism has markedly _increased_ since
2003. The plan is not working.


The 'plan' if there ever really was one was critically flawed from the very
beginning.

Graham

Oh, and you have all the answers! typical./

--
"I'm never wrong, once i thought i was, but was mistaken"
Real Programmers Do things like this.
http://webpages.charter.net/jamie_5

 

[T Wake]

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehnj7o$8qk_003@s885.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

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

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehnadm$8ss_003@s885.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <YMidnRe1eI5f2KPYnZ2dnUVZ8t2dnZ2d@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
snip
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?

Yes. However Germany is not suffering a massive economic depression and
smarting from a recent, unfair, peace treaty.

That isn't the only thing that can trigger an economic depression.

Never said it was. Germany is not in a depression.

In the 1930s Germany still had
the capability of becoming a world power in military terms. This is no
longer the case.

Isn't it trying to run the EU economics show?

No more so than France.

The news
over here implies that France and Germany as the main
players.

Unlike 1930s Germany. France and Germany are closely aligned at times, but
at others they are not so. EU politics are no different than the rest of
the
world.

All those other countries seem to get no
attention.

News is not always accurate.

ROTFLMAO. oh, the irony.

Well, progress of sorts. Although for it to be ironic, I would have had to
have gone on about how great and accurate the news was in the past. I don't
recall doing that, but I am old so I forget things. I do seem to recall your
propensity for using the news as a gospel source.

Your reasoning is based on you reading a self-determined selection of books
about places and fleshing that knowledge with news reports (preferably ones
which reinforce your current thinking). You then use this self built
knowledge to make assumptions about various countries and people.

Oddly, you then use these assumptions to argue with the people who live in
those countries.

This is very strange.

 

[T Wake]

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehnjo6$8qk_001@s885.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <9b6dnRQ92dLsyqLYRVnyhg@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehnbd1$8qk_001@s885.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <YsqdnSqgH-CP2qPYnZ2dnUVZ8sidnZ2d@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehktr9$8qk_004@s772.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
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.

I haven't heard any Democrat soundbites so I have no idea if I am
repeating
them.

You are.

Ok. Doesn't falsifiy them.

Apparently you did not comprehend the consequences of listening
and believing that these were facts that had happened rather
than political rhetoric to demean the oppostion.

Apparently you are unable to determine what are, and what aren't facts.

Unlike some people, I have not used politcal rhetoric as my sole source of
information. I have worked in the middle east, I currently work for both
governmental and nongovernmental organisations of many nationalities.

The threat from Islamic terrorism is very, very minor compared to other
threats. You can try to dismiss my opinion by claiming it is based on
[insert dismissal of choice] but the reality is different.

More importantly _you_ do not comprehend the consequences of blindly
listening to the fear mongering that is going on in the "halls of power."

Because something is a "soundbite" does not intrinsically make it
wrong or incorrect.

For the 2004 US President campaign (so this would be 2002, 2003, and
2004) Democrat candidates would go over to Europe, and try out
sound bites. The BBC would pick it up and repeat it. Our news
media would pick up the BBC report and report the sound bite as
news. Then this "news" would become recursive because now
the BBC would pick it up as fact. Meanwhile, polls were taken
to see the sound bite had resonance among US voters.

Ok. It still doesn't make them wrong. You post right wing soundbites but I
assume you think it is Ok to do that.

You heard the BBC report those sound bites as news. You use these
manufactured facts as your reasons to decide that there is no
threat to western civilization. Do I need to expand this
explanation further?

Yes. The BBC does not try to play down the terrorist threat. Like most
western media organisations it over hypes the threat - albeit maybe less
than some organisations.

On the other hand, I do not use the BBC as my primary source of information
when it comes to determining the threat.

These bites have morphed.

Islamic Extremism does not pose a greater threat than other threats
people
live with on a daily basis.

You are being foolish.

No I am not. I make threat assessments for business on a daily basis and I
am actually very, very sucessful at it.

Business is much different than mortal annihilation of that business.

What do you think I protect them from?

Oddly, the threat from Islamic Extremism has markedly _increased_ since
2003. The plan is not working.

From what I see, it has diminished.

Realy? How do you work that one out?

If the threat has diminished, why are the Alert states still high?

If there had been no infrastructure put into place, which you
see as Alert States, there wouldn't be anything that stops
people from your places up.

You are heading into a dead end here. The extra measures which have been put
into place are there at a cost of both money and liberty, and are in place
_because_ there is an increased threat.

To say that the threat has decreased, yet the extra measures must remain,
implies that the measures will stay for ever now - and as such are not to
combat the "threat" but are to control people who are not a threat.

The sad truth is, that prior to 2003 there was a threat towards American
interests from Islamic extremists (not a bit one, but a threat nonetheless).
Since 2003 this threat has greatly increased.

The current "mess prevention" plans are working in reverse. They are
exacerbating the situation.

But it can always pick
up again if a majority of people believe as you do and
open the city gates.

Far from the truth. You are saying the threat is lower but more
precautions
need to be taken?

This does not make sense.

That's because you keep twisting what I say. I know you
have to do that twisting.

I am not trying to twist what you say. I am reacting to your posts. If your
posts do not say what you mean, I have no idea how to debate with you.

Try to stop being patronising. Stop trying to be mysterious. Stop alluding
to things and actually _write_ what you mean to say.

The smoke and mirrors is so thick in this discussion, it is
difficult to identify who is who.

Really? Maybe it isn't smoke and mirrors.

It is.

It isnt.

We haven't even started discussing the issue.

I have tried but you are obsessed about keeping your blinkers on.

You don't try if you keep repeating Democrat campaign sound bites
as your arguing points that prove there is no danger.

If you keep assuming everything which disagrees with you is a Democrat
soundbite, your blinkers will never come off.

I've
been trying to sweep away the crud that you were using
as a point to support your opinion.

But I'm not doing very well at this.

First you need to realise what is crud and what isn't. You are drowned in
false assumptions so it is not surprising you are struggling.

Oh, the irony.

I agree. It is ironic that you think you are trying to sweep away the crud.

 

[T Wake]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:453F5D61.CEC37E06@hotmail.com...

T Wake wrote:

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

IT and computers are a science field.

Oh, good grief. It is not.

Oh good grief it is. Because some teach it as not being a science does
not
make it so. Because some teachers are bad does not make it not a science.
Stop assuming your experience is the _only_ experience possible.

IT covers a wide range of things. I'd like to see a 'science free' way of
designing and building computers !

Who fancies defining what field logic falls into ?

For me it is a science. Logical arguments underpin mathematics......

Then again much programing is conceptual.

And there is an art to it

 

[T Wake]

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehnf70$8qk_008@s885.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <ehiku1$rv0$6@leto.cc.emory.edu>,
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

So if anything, the prewar deaths are over-reported, since you're relying
on
people to tell you, and for post-war deaths, you have death certificates.

When did the public records offices get reopened in that country?
How does their public records offices work?

I would need to know this before I'd even bother reading the
report of estimated death count.

How do you know this is not mentioned in the report?

Do you feel you are able to peer review a document without seeing it?

 

[T Wake]

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehnf2o$8qk_007@s885.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <be992$453b7621$4fe75d1$17105@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
unsettled <unsettled@nonsense.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <453A5164.754CBC24@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:


unsettled wrote:


Eeyore wrote:


The survey was to determine death rates from all causes pre and post
war. Quite simple really.

Pre-war of course there weren't any deaths from either US killings or
any insurgents.

And of course you faithfully believe Saddam's historical
records as being accurate and true! Bwahahahahahaha

The figures for the pre-war era encountered by the group tally with CIA
figures !


What era? And there aren't death certificates for those
in hidden mass graves. So any person asked about people
they know who died couldn't have shown a certificate.
This person who disappeared could have been reported by
10 households. Do you not see a problem in collected
unique datums?

Lucas & Wake's blindness is highly selective.

Yes.

Yet much less selective than unsettled and, assuming you are as joined to
"him" as I am to Lucas, you.

I don't understand their logic.

That much is true.

I am considering a new
hypothesis about this type of thinking.

I suspect it will functionally identical to your previous ones.