Jihad needs scientists

In article <L5CdnYoOFOhLa6XYRVnyrA@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehabhc$8qk_003@s949.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <z7ednZWcEbePHqvYnZ2dnUVZ8qmdnZ2d@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

Not relevant, they are ingredient for the creation of CW. Breaking it down
into the common elements is truly pointless and nothing but a distraction.

This point is not irrelavent.

It is.

I am trying to get you to think with
more than ball-influenced brains.

No, you are trying to divert into a strawman - as usual. You claim to be
trying to make other people think yet you resolutely refuse to do so
yourself.

A chemistry major would know
how to make those ingredients and then make the weapons. The
engineers next door are ones who figure out how to deliver it.
The biolgists across the hall figure out its efficacy.

Irrelevant.

You created a strawman - claiming I was trying to blame the US for
everything - and when challenged you say "I am not reading any of this."

Despite your claims of an open mind, willingness to learn etc., you really
do have your head buried in the ground.

You make multiple claims to justify your standpoint and ignore their mutual
contradiction. In one post (the bits you snipped) you claim both the US
supported Iraq as a proxy in the Iran-Iraq war and that the US never
supported Iraq.

Amazing. I love your line of logic.

Feel free to snip and ignore everything you find difficult.

I know I do not write clear enough for all values of IQs. You
have the annoying habit of misreading what I write. I've figured
out that you do this on purpose.

/BAH

 

In article <VO6_g.16001$vJ2.9906@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehabhc$8qk_003@s949.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <z7ednZWcEbePHqvYnZ2dnUVZ8qmdnZ2d@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eh52sr$8qk_002@s847.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <892dnbGwhIzhhajYRVnyvA@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

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

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

Actually we sold him weapons,

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

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

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

we sold him the materials to make chemical
weapons.

Which materials?

The precursor chemicals.

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

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

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


They were ingredients.

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


Not relevant, they are ingredient for the creation of CW. Breaking it down
into the common elements is truly pointless and nothing but a distraction.

This point is not irrelavent. I am trying to get you to think with
more than ball-influenced brains.

And women call men sexist.... You play the gender card far, far more than
any other person I know.

If the foo shits, wear it.

Get over yourself, and discuss based on facts, not
ad hominem.


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?

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).

snip..sorry, I'm not going to bother reading

Perhaps you should, perhaps you would fill in some of the vast chasms of
knowledge you seem to have about the way things work. Then again why let a
little knowledge stand in the way of a perfectly good paranoid conspiracy
theory. After all, that's what the current administration wants...an
uncritical, compliant public.

You appear to attribute Democrat goals as Bush's. This has worked
in the past. There must a psych name for this kind of
transference.

/BAH

Eric Lucas

 

In article <453642EF.F943628D@hotmail.com>,
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.

/BAH

 

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.

/BAH

 

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.

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.

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). You certainly have forgotten
all of your history.

/BAH

 

In article <1161181426.078024.31230@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"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.

Other than react gleefully, which is the normal male reaction,
take a couple of minutes and think about the logistics of
such a place. Assume that those virgins do not get replaced.
Now heaven is enternal look but don't touch. I would assume
that this would actully be hell for males. I wish people
would think a little bit more.

/BAH

 

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
tradition in all of Islam's history but it is Hollywood's
portrayal. They never show the male being harried, harrassed
and all pumped out.

/BAH

 

In article <8_CdnfSowYEpP6rYRVnygg@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eh7ovu$8qk_001@s977.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <YrGdnWfM1rcLD6vYRVnyiA@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eh5425$8qk_010@s847.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <0oWdnYXsM90H3KjYnZ2dnUVZ8sudnZ2d@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

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

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



Lloyd Parker wrote:

JoeBloe <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

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

You are lying.

I suspect it's what he learnt at Church.

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


Yeah, all those Southern Baptist suicide bombers.

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


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

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

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

"Thou shalt not kill"

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

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


Yes. I agree. All Moslems I have met and discussed this with view it as
murder as well. All Hindus do. And Janes. And Atheists. (etc).

In the bible, killing someone is wrong. Trying to redefine it to make
"murder" wrong and then coming up with reasons as to why killing person X is
not murder is (IMHO) wrong.

Unless of course the word of God is so open to interpretation that mere
mortals can have the temerity to explain what he "really" meant.


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

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

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

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

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


Yes. Killing is wrong. Murder is wrong. But killing people when it is not
murder is still wrong.



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

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

Yes, and you accept this is a necessary bad thing to keep yourself safe.
Part of the problem is Christianity has historically removed the "life" from
groups that people were allowed to kill. Early followers of Jesus were 100%
pacifists, dying before killing another human.

No, they weren't. People thought that Jesus was David come again
and would lead an army to defeat the Romans. He died because
he disappointed people by not starting a fight. Paul, formerly Saul,
was the one who stopped killing Christians and started changing
the rules. He was no pacifist.

As Christianity evolved
various reasons to kill others were introduced ranging from "killing to
protect myself" to "killing to protect my family," "killing to protect my
property" and even simply killing because the Pope declared the other person
Heretic so it is now ok.

Wow [awed emoticon]

Killing Animals is a good example. The whole "not having a soul" thing all
help to skirt round the "Thou Shalt Not Kill" rule.

Humans are good at finding loopholes to exploit.

[emoticon rereads post] Yep.

/BAH

 

In article <eh5f79$8b4$7@leto.cc.emory.edu>,
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

In article <eh54ge$8qk_011@s847.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
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.

Fundamentalists understand the difference between just a theory
and their belief. They get threatened when teachers of their
kids present evolution as a belief;

It isn't. It's taught in science class as a scientific fact, which it is.

Wow. This one was easy. YOu just demonstrated what I wrote.

<snip>

/BAH

 

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.

/BAH

 

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

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eh54ge$8qk_011@s847.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <e9ednZ8s0K3l2ajYRVnyuA@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

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


T Wake wrote:

lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message

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

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

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


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

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

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

Fundamentalists understand the difference between just a theory
and their belief. They get threatened when teachers of their
kids present evolution as a belief;

These teachers should be fired.

They are if they don't preach the Bible, too.

the implication of this
is that the goal of teaching evolution is to substitute
the religion known as evolution for the religion of God.

Only in the mind of fundamentalists.

You need to listen more. CSPAN aired some convention that
was to talk about this issue. Science teacher after science
teacher, who did not want to give Bible lessons in their classes,
kept using the language of "...I believe in evolution."

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.

/BAH

 

In article <4536D0E6.E1D06309@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

T Wake wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message

Fundamentalists understand the difference between just a theory
and their belief. They get threatened when teachers of their
kids present evolution as a belief;

These teachers should be fired.

I suspect BAH is confusing science with belief actually. Evolution is
accepted
science just as much as thermodynamics is.


the implication of this
is that the goal of teaching evolution is to substitute
the religion known as evolution for the religion of God.

Only in the mind of fundamentalists.

Maybe they're afraid ppl will see that science disproves God ? That's what
happened to me actually in a rather amusing way.

Then you were not taught the Scientific Method...or rather,
you did not learn the Scientific Method.

/BAH

 

In article <UJLZg.16284$e66.2136@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eh7ksa$8ss_018@s977.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <bFtZg.15970$e66.4970@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eh53ce$8qk_005@s847.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <OF7Zg.17270$6S3.4818@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

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


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

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

A) Insanity

B) Desire for power, control, and wealth


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

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

I am. More alarming is the message of the Democrats who keep implying
that there isn't any problem.

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

Listen to any of them.

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

I gave you one. Clinton's ramblings this past week in Mass.
I no longer remember which night it was.

/BAH

 

In article <57udnU2j2uYdBqrYnZ2dnUVZ8qGdnZ2d@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eh7ksa$8ss_018@s977.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <bFtZg.15970$e66.4970@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eh53ce$8qk_005@s847.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <OF7Zg.17270$6S3.4818@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

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


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

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

A) Insanity

B) Desire for power, control, and wealth


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

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

I am. More alarming is the message of the Democrats who keep implying
that there isn't any problem.

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

Listen to any of them.


Any and all conversations? Are they really that repetative?

Yes, the public speeches of the Democrats campaigning are
that repetitive. You should pay especial attention to everything
they don't talk about. Details having to do with national security
is one of them. They say not a single word about nuclear power
plants. These things take a decade to build. To be indepedent
of oil usage for the power grid, dozens of generating plants need
to be started getting built right now at this second.

These insane people don't say a single thing about it.

<snip snideness>

/BAH

 

In article <eh80lh$26o$3@leto.cc.emory.edu>,
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

In article <eh7mj3$8qk_001@s977.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <eh2qeu$c28$3@leto.cc.emory.edu>,
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
In article <eh2iep$8qk_001@s777.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <eh066g$fqo$2@leto.cc.emory.edu>,
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
In article <pev4j2pkd0bj3da8vjm44121b4tohhc1l8@4ax.com>,
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 23:38:27 GMT, Richard The Dreaded Libertarian
null@example.net> wrote:

On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 17:07:30 -0500, John Fields wrote:

snip

It's a unilateral invasion, ordered by one man to satisfy a personal
vendetta, and 650,000 people have died as a result of his criminal
insanity.

---
You got a good source for that 650k? I picked it up blindly from
the Ass, but snapped to it and just a little while ago asked him for
a source. Maybe you've got one?
---

Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health as published in the
British
medical journal Lancet.

From the news reports I heard, they got this data by going
from house to house asking each member how many of their relatives
and friends were killed. Do you not see the flaw in the sum of
the numbers reported by all these interviewees?

It's called sampling. It's a very established, respected method of finding
out things. We do it here for questions on the census each decade (the
demographic data).

But there is a control on the data collected for the census.
The data given is limited to people living in one house and
not a count of everyone they know.

The sampling was done in such a way as to take this into account, but it's
also why the confidence interval is wide.

Common sense would deemd that interval wider than the data.

If this method was used, do you not see how insultingly (to you,
if you believe their report) biased this number is?


They gave their 95% confidence interval.

The news said that the questions that were asked was if
anybody knew anybody who died.

So you haven't read the study, yet you claim to know it's wrong.

I don't know it's wrong. I do know enough that bad data will
never show any statistical significance.

Adding these up will not
give a correct count. I don't know enough about counting
but I would guess that the reliablility of the count
would be 1/x, where x=number of people asked. They are
going to report anybody who is rumored to have died.

Yes, you do not know enough. Have you studied statistics, sampling, data
analysis?

Yes. A long time ago.
/BAH

 

In article <45378D92.1903B626@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

They gave their 95% confidence interval.

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

The 'news' was wrong then.

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

And the death certificates said that all the deaths were
due to US killing them?

 

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.

/BAH

 

In article <39a8b$45395c28$49ecfc2$30835@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
unsettled <unsettled@nonsense.com> wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

unsettled wrote:


T Wake wrote:


If the West changed to Islamic based societies life would

continue largely as normal.

Normal in Islamic based societies is brothers killing
brothers in religious fanaticism, thank you very much!


No it isn't.

This sort of denial is meaningless. I was used to
hearing it from very young school children who
didn't like the facts they were denying byt had
absolutely no grounds for argument.

It is obvious you have no knowledge of history.

What is really frustrating about these people is that
they don't have to know any history. All they have
to do is notice what goes on in countries that are
currently ruled, or recently ruled, by these extremists.

Brother killing brother was not stopped by
conversion to Islam. It remains prevalent in
the culture.

Actually, I think is still fighting their first war.

/BAH

 

In article <4538F261.C1E065D4@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

Yes. The history we (US kids) learned in elementary school seems
to have been a lot of myth. What a waste of learning time.

Now stop to think what else might be based on popular myths ?

One of them is that Europe doesn't teach history their kids any
better than the US.

/BAH

 

[Eeyore]

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 ?


Graham