Jihad needs scientists

[unsettled]

lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4539D062.D4FDFC69@hotmail.com...


jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:


Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:


As for Europe, I'm not hearing much discussions about this
either. What I do hear is capitulations so that they
get their oil deliveries.

Utter drivel.

If your posts are an example of conclusions made from the news
you get, I'm even more worried about Eurpoe ceding completely
with one little oil tap turned off.

Ceding to whom ? The Phantom Evil Empire ?


Yes, that would seem to be about the level of analysis these people apply.
"Ooooh, big scary Evil Empire!"

LOL Denial trumps appeasement?

 

[T Wake]

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehd382$8qk_006@s884.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

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

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eh536o$8qk_004@s847.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <uqkaj29qqainbc7l4mc8i51e40dbj8cf56@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 21:57:10 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 17 Oct 06 11:50:44 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

Pushing in certain areas is not the best way to prevent future
messes. I've found that the only way for people to learn how
not make new messes is to have them clean up the ones they
already made.


Excellent. Care to assign cleanup duties in the Middle East and
Africa?

Which bits of Africa did you have in mind ?


Well, let's see. We could start with the Belgian Congo, and maybe
Rhodesia, perhaps Cote D'Ivorie and German East Africa.

I think Liberia is key but I'm not sure. It would be productive
if the countries in Africa were left alone.

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

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

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

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

 

[T Wake]

"unsettled" <unsettled@nonsense.com> wrote in message
news:90d58$4539615e$49ecfc2$30941@DIALUPUSA.NET...

lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehacl6$8qk_008@s949.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

Here's a hint to you, hon. I've scratched off the ones that you
have used to build a wall around you.



No walls here.

Eric Lucas

You're pretty good at meaningless denials then?

You hold the gold medal in meaningless posts though.

 

[T Wake]

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehd6kb$8qk_013@s884.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

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.

Yeah, I suspect that is a popular myth.

 

[T Wake]

"unsettled" <unsettled@nonsense.com> wrote in message
news:a8a9c$453a3a5b$49ecfae$4118@DIALUPUSA.NET...

Eeyore wrote:


jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:


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


Mine's 152.

What's yours ?


You're good at taking IQ tests. Doesn't actually
mean you're "smart."

You are a funny guy. I have realised you are a Left Wing plant to try and
discredit the Right Wingers in this thread. Well done.

 

[T Wake]

"unsettled" <unsettled@nonsense.com> wrote in message
news:7433b$453a35b5$49ecfae$3982@DIALUPUSA.NET...

Eeyore wrote:


unsettled 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.


It's definitely as valid as your daft assertion !



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.


Au contaire, my knowldege of history is very good.



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


OK then. Cite please.

google islam killing 8,370,000 hits (arguments both ways)

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=christian+killing

17,300,000 hits.

Is there a point to your post?

 

[T Wake]

"unsettled" <unsettled@nonsense.com> wrote in message
news:85443$453a3c1c$49ecfae$4118@DIALUPUSA.NET...

Eeyore wrote:


jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:


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


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


History has two distinct parts:

1) Knowledge of facts

2) Understanding historical facts in context

You lose.

Lose what? All you did was write two sentences. There is _no_ indication
based on the posts in this thread that you or BAH are able to carry out both
the points you mentioned.

So, in reality, you lose. Thanks for playing.

Try again soon.

 

[unsettled]

T Wake 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.

I give you all of WW2 and both the Soviet and the Nazi
extremism. Socio-political extremist movements are
to be feared and destroyed at the earliest possible
stage.

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

There are very strong movements in Turkey to ditch the
secular government in order to replace it with a
fundamentalist Muslim one. One of the things that's
kept that from happening is the US involvement in
Afghanistan and Iraq.

Again, not true. Culture has flourished in Europe since at least 3000BC.
Europe has only been a Christianised region since around AD1000.

Start here: http://ctlibrary.com/3730

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.

DOA

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

Of course they do. Just how well do you remember your first
lover compared to the current one (assmuing, out of the blue,
that in real life you might actually be enough of an actor to
be lovable

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

See what I mean about assumptions about "first language" based
on a few posts?

That would frighten me.

Seeking guidance is a euphamism for introspection while
bringing to the fore one's entire value system. The fact
that you make this into something sinister clearly demonstrates
your personal absence of what we call a "soul."

The UK PM is a devout Catholic. That offends me,

So if he's not an athiest ort a Muslim you're offended?
Once again the personal metric triumphs over sanity
and logic!

but at least we are not a super power and there are
(currently) significant checks and balances to prevent
a religious upsurge.

See how you are! You don't want a Christian religious
upsurge in your country, but a Muslim one would be OK!

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

 

[T Wake]

"unsettled" <unsettled@nonsense.com> wrote in message
news:39928$453a3515$49ecfae$3982@DIALUPUSA.NET...

lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

"unsettled" <unsettled@nonsense.com> wrote in message
news:19699$453974ae$49ecfc2$31364@DIALUPUSA.NET...

lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:


"unsettled" <unsettled@nonsense.com> wrote in message
news:3afe9$4538c549$49ecf72$25771@DIALUPUSA.NET...

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!

Proof, please.

Pay attention to what's happeing in the world right
now and read some non-western history.


A few wackos are attacking innocents. How exactly does that equate to
"Normal in Islamic based societies is brothers killing brothers"? You
need to learn to think critically, and not tar an entire society by the
actions of a few.

You cited half a million Iraqui dead.

How many were killed by the west, and how many by
your terribly mischaracterized "a few wackos?"

Not relevant. You claimed the "normal" situation, not one where a country is
in turmoil following an occupation and enforced regime change.

The fact is those "few wackos" tend to kill off a lot
of their own brothers whenever they strap on a
bomb vest and blow themselves up.

Yes. Still not normal.

The discussions by the Mullahs have offered that killing
Muslims as part of the greater ideal of killing westerners
is perfectly acceptable. That's grown into it being OK
to kill your brothers if they're of a different sect.

Only for the "wackos." They are not normal, by definition.

Clearly your statement is a lie. Whether you know it
to be a lie, as you post it, is the only remaining
question.

Your statement is an attempt to support an untenable position and you defend
it by going off on a tangent. Your statement is a lie. The remaining
question is if you are capable of ever realising that.

 

[T Wake]

"unsettled" <unsettled@nonsense.com> wrote in message
news:20097$453a3bcc$49ecfae$4118@DIALUPUSA.NET...

Eeyore wrote:


jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:


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?


Not at all.

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

Well, I don't think that is the issue there. Of course, if you know how many
civilians were killed each year by the US-led coalition _before_ 2003 please
share the figures.

 

[unsettled]

T Wake wrote:

I actually go out of my way to try and comprehend your point of view. You
obviously choose not to show me the same courtesy and, when your standpoint
becomes untenable, you fall back on accusing me of deliberate
misunderstanding.

Well done.

She's right. You're a Muslim or a Muslim shill. That being said,
you're so brainwashed your "truths" are limited to what you've
been "carefully taught." (see _South Pacific_)

 

[MooseFET]

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.

take a couple of minutes and think about the logistics of
such a place.

I did, that is why I made the joke. There was a serious thought behind
it that I think you missed. The whole 70 virgins thing doesn't work
unless virgins are created for the purpose in heaven. The numbers
can't be made to work otherwise.

Assume that those virgins do not get replaced.

Why would I assume that? The promice of "70 virgins" would be sort of
meaningless if the same 70 had to serve all the martyrs. That would be
less than one virgin each. This would be more lawyering of the
situation than anyone would expect of God.

Now heaven is enternal look but don't touch.

Each martyr getting 70 virgins does not mean that they remain virgins.
The logic doesn't follow.

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

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

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.

/BAH

 

[unsettled]

T Wake 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?

Because she had a point to make, and made it.

 

[T Wake]

"unsettled" <unsettled@nonsense.com> wrote in message
news:75461$453a3cc7$49ecfae$4118@DIALUPUSA.NET...

lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4539D062.D4FDFC69@hotmail.com...


jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:


Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:


As for Europe, I'm not hearing much discussions about this
either. What I do hear is capitulations so that they
get their oil deliveries.

Utter drivel.

If your posts are an example of conclusions made from the news
you get, I'm even more worried about Eurpoe ceding completely
with one little oil tap turned off.

Ceding to whom ? The Phantom Evil Empire ?


Yes, that would seem to be about the level of analysis these people
apply. "Ooooh, big scary Evil Empire!"


LOL Denial trumps appeasement?

I assume you are talking about your own denial and appeasement of BAH here?
In her case it is abject denial that anything but the exact current US
policy can prevent terrorism and appeasement of any home sacrifices which
need to be made.

I am glad you summarised your own position so succinctly.

 

[unsettled]

T Wake distorted as only a Muslim can:

snip

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


No more or less prevalent than in any other culture.

 

[unsettled]

T Wake distorts as only a Muslim can:

Jesus was the son of God (Part of God if you belive in the holy trinity). He
gave his life rather than kill. This is the basic tenet of early
Christianity. It was modified significantly over the next three to nine
hundred years until by the end of the first millenium, Christianity was a
war like religion which appealed to the Scandinavians.

 

[unsettled]

T Wake distorts as only a Muslim can:

This is a line you really do not want to take. You
cherry pick segments of history which you hope will
support your viewpoints.

Thanks for this succinct demonstration of your most
prevalent distortion technique. See below.

Are you talking about yourself here? Are you saying that because the Turks
killed the Christians in Anatolia they will all do it again? Which ignore
both the recent treatments in Islamic countries _and_ the treatment of
Christians by the likes of Salah Adin.

Here you go, an out of context snippet of history which has
little to no parallel.

_You_ are the person who is using Afghanistan under the Taliban as an
example of what would happen.

And does it again here

> Wow.

 

[T Wake]

"unsettled" <unsettled@nonsense.com> wrote in message
news:57500$453a38e5$49ecfae$4118@DIALUPUSA.NET...

Eeyore 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.

google "Battle of teh Bulge"

The battle of the bulge was a temporary, minor, reversal.

Which side do you equate the current combatants? In three years the US have
lost (on average) more than one person in fighting every single day (except
for feb 2004).

Currently the death rate of US soldiers is going up.

It would be equally valid for the Islamic extremists to view the Fallujah
mission as the Battle of the Bulge.

In warfare things don't always go "well." It is
only the final result that matters. If you don't
understand that then you have no grounds for
being involved in this discussion.

Nicely spoken. It has that amazing ring of truth that things which are not
true often have.

While the final result matters, each battle is a step towards that final
result. One battle which does not go well will in fact be the final turning
point. Even "positive" final results which are built on things not going
well, end up more disasterous than victory. If you do not understand this
you have no grounds for being involved in this discussion.

The death rate in Baghdad is up 22% this month and the coalition recently
lost control of 2
major cities Amara and Ramadi.

What was the civilian death rate in Germany
during WW2?

What was the civilian death rate in German in 1948 - three years after
Hitler lost control of his nation?

What doe this have to do with anything? The War in Iraq was not like WW2. It
was not because Saddam invaded Poland or the Sudetenland.

You are bringing in arguments which are, basically, irrelevant. The US-led
occupation was supposed to liberate Iraqis and save them. They are currently
dying at a greater rate than before the occupation. Coalition forces are
under such sustained attack (despite ground operations being declared "over"
in 2003) that they end up shooting passers by. Civilians in Iraq are being
killed by all sides.

Doesn't sound very liberating to me.

Even Bush is having to reconsider his options or hadn't you noticed ?

That's an ongoing process during any military action.
The only difference is that this one is, for local
political reasons, announced to the public.

What did you think? They sit down at the beginning,
create an agenda, and never alter or deviate from
it?

This post of yours is especially foolish.

You really do want the best of both worlds, don't you. Yes all planned
processes (military or otherwise) change and evolve as the situation
dictates.

The argument in this thread is that the current plans were wrong. It appears
that the military chain of command are coming to think that as well.

 

[unsettled]

lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

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

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

That's practicable, not the use of the word she intended.

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

Seems like you took a does of something that scrambled your brains.

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

If anyone cares what Lucas thinks raise your hand!

See that! No one cares.

Actually you're losing so badly in this "discussion" I wonder why
you continue.

 

[unsettled]

T Wake distorts as only a Muslim can:

You're clearly a sock puppet adhering to
someone else's agenda.

Hahaha. Nice one. You are a funny guy. Whose agenda am I adhering to?

Your Mullah's, unless you are a Mullah!

Are
you JoeBloe? (I doubt it because you can use more than two or three words at
a time).

My identity is unimportant. My statements are what I offer.

Generally speaking, your posts are meaningless and full of badly thought out
comments. Good work all round really.

Thank you. Coming from you I take this as your ultimate
compliment.