Jihad needs scientists

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <ehfndt$8qk_013@s799.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
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?

/BAH

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.

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <ehfnmn$8qk_014@s799.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <C6ednV0xVsTyoKfYRVnyjQ@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehd5ug$8qk_010@s884.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
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?

What has the US killing them being the cause of death got to do with
anything?

It has everything to do with it since you are using
the report that rate has increased since the US went into
Iraq. See your comment below. I shall star it so that
you cannot miss your implication.

Have you read the posts you are replying to?

Yes. Now read your words below.

If the US attacks destroyed a water pipe and someone died from drinking
polluted water, what would the cause of death be recorded as?

The study looked at numbers and rates of deaths.

Now here you go..implying that the US has caused more deaths
than Saddam would have if he had remained in power.

Well, that's obvious. What has changed in the last 3 years?

***********
Since the US-led occupation
both have gone up.
***********

I have starred your statement so that you can tell why
I'm objecting to your usage of statistics in this discussion.

Is that an indicator of causal forces? You are now
heading into the argument that unless every death was the result of a _US_
soldier it had nothing to do with the occupation. This is nonsense.


Do these people own no logic circuits in their brains?

/BAH

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <184nj2pmmiu4gtl0vga9s0c4lvonj89lhi@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 18:55:27 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:



If you're going to label evolution as "just a belief", then you had better
be prepared to apply that appellation to *all* of the observational
sciences, since evolution is one of the best supported ideas in the history
of science.

It is not.

Yes it is. It the cornerstone for biology, in the way atoms are for
chemistry.

The observational evidence for big evolutionary jumps, and
especially for the creation of life, is spotty or non-existant.

OK, lie #1

There
is no demonstrably accurate mathematical model for evolution.

Lie #2

Nobody
actually understands how DNA works.

We don't understand quantum theory either, but the sun shines and your
computer works.

Evolution, and especially its
mechanisms, is nowhere near being good science; it may be some day,
but not yet.

You are lying.

If you use "best supported" to mean "popular", then I guess you're
right.

John


Idiot.

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <bt4nj2hg7452pfc15b7d76h3c4p6p4n6n5@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 18:03:45 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:


"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:tidcj2hc7r29unnup0qjddadothkt473q2@4ax.com...
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."


Yes, all theories are flawed by definition, and the only measure of a theory
is its usefulness--i.e., how well it predicts or explains a certain effect,
combined with how easy it is to use (i.e., simple).

The trouble is, the Creation Science/Intelligent Design people use that
"flawed" to mean "useless", in order to aggrandize their belief system,
which provides complete certainty and Truth, despite being nearly useless in
explaining and predicting natural phenomena.

Eric Lucas


By the standards set for decent scientific theories, evolution has a
long way to go. It's still very fuzzy about explaining and predicting
phenomena. It seems to be the only "science" that, confronted with
true mysteries, seems to accept, and be relieved and satisfied by,
unproven conjecture.

You are lying.

John

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <8t5nj29md56ugu8pm4epmitj8tgp66v2of@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 14:21:12 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> 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. 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?

Can you cite any modern case of the Religious Right denying the
accuracy of Newton's law of gravitation?

Well, there was an Onion story...

Strawman indeed. Since the
time of Galileo's house arrest, the western churches have
progressively conceded to science the domain of physical reality. I've
read, and believe, the argument that Christianity is in fact
pro-science, and Islam is not, which is why the West is so far ahead
in technology. The Irish monks kept the wisdom of the Greeks safe
through the dark ages, and the Jesuits were and are great contributors
to math and science.

So your rejection of evolution makes you more Islam than Christian?

I think that most of modern Christianity respects and celebrates
science, and lots of modern scientists are unreasonably hostile to
religion; sometimes so hostile it affects their science.

John

 

[Lloyd Parker]

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 article <1161169073.347610.229970@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,


The people I've been talking to appear to believe that only
the US government knows how to make these things.



They
seem to believe that only the US government can OK
all chemical invoices.


Weapons? Yes. Certain chemicals? Yes again.

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

A total lie. Europe is very capitalistic.

Not the labor. Labor is union.

So? Takes both capital and labor to make anything. Besides, you said
"government controlled."

and/or union controlled

Aw, corporations give their workers a voice in how they're run. Gee, what a
radical idea. Straight out of biblical-era communes and Pilgrim New
England.

espeically in the
manufacturing and mining areas.

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?

That was written that way so that the states didn't war
among themselves. Disputes are settles in courts of law
rather than killing fields. The people who met at
the Constitutional Convention did not want to go through
the hundreds of years' war that Europe meandered in.




This
is gradually getting destroyed; everytime you hear about
a Supremem Court ruling about the Constitution deals with whether
the states or feds have power.


Buying the bulk reagents from Western sources at high purity allowed
them to concentrate on the hard part of industrial scale synthesis and
improved yeilds.

I understand that. However, that was convenience and it was possible.
What these Europeans (with whom I'm talking) are really saying is
that the US government should take control of all business and
make the decisions of what, who, what and where. IOW, they
want the US to become, not socialist, but communist.


You are a liar.


Geez, the "red under every bed" paranoia went out with McCarthy!

Communism is the result of choosing equality for everybody
in favor of liberty for everybody.

/BAH

And what is Bush doing but taking away our basic liberties?

 

[Lloyd Parker]

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. Bush's invasion of Iraq, OTOH,

had nothing to do with the US being attacked.

 

[MooseFET]

unsettled wrote:

lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehi48a$8qk_005@s784.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <Am7_g.16015$vJ2.1847@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehadg0$8qk_001@s949.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

snip

However, there isn't a single
Democrat running for President in 2008 who is willing to deal
with the reality that we have an enemy capable of destroying
Western civilization and everything that smells of this living
style.

Proof, please. Again, this is your arrogance claiming to know what people
are and are not willing to do. The 2008 campaigns haven't even begun yet.

ARe you kidding? People are actively campaigning already. Kerry
just tried to make the same campaign speech in New Hampshire he
did during his failed attempt in 2004. He's already collecting
for his money chest.

Clinton has an election office opened in NH.


And yet you continue to offer not one shred of evidence--not even one
quote--that "there isn't one single Democrat...who is willing to deal with
the reality that we have an enemy capable of destroying Western civilization
and everything that smells of this living style."

Those of us who know the candidates don't need to start
with 1+1=2 as you demand. Don't confuse argument style
with validity of argument.

He isn't demanding a start with 1+1=2 he is merely demanding that you
not start with 1+1=3.
The error in your thinking is in the assumptions you are starting with
not the logic you are following it with. If you start with the
assumption that OBL and GWB are co-conspirators or that Dick Cheney is
in fact satan, the conclusions you will come to are quite different.

 

"MooseFET" <kensmith@rahul.net> wrote in message
news:1161613350.609768.193490@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...

Eeyore wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

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

If enough death and destruction is rained down on the troops in Iraq,
the voters will see how incompetent the Republican administration has
been and vote Democrat. This could be a consideration of the Iraqi
extremists. It would, in general, make them prefer that the
Republicans remain in power. Having you rememy blunder about on the
world stage is a great advantage.

Of course they want the Republicans to remain in power. The goals of the
terrorists appear to include the destruction of the rights that we consider
a hallmark of our way of government. The current administration has been
100% complicit in this aim, as they are the ones that have been dismantling
several parts of the Constitution, including the 4th Amendment and several
of the checks-and-balances built into the first 3 articles of the
Constitution. Take away Republican complicity, and the 9/11 attacks
accomplished nothing but destroying several billion dollars worth of real
estate and killing fewer Americans than we have since sent to their deaths
in Iraq.

I find it interesting that when the administration apologists talk about the
~2800 people who died in the 9/11 attacks, it's a huge number, and we must
all fear for our lives, but yet when they talk about the ~2800 US kids sent
to their death in the questionable, ill-timed and ill-run Iraq war, it
suddenly becomes, "eh, that's not so much, it's just a fact of life." Seems
we have more to fear for our lives from the unchecked US foreign policy than
from terrorists.

Eric Lucas

 

[George O. Bizzigotti]

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.

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

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.

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.
Regards,

George
**********************************************************************
Dr. George O. Bizzigotti Telephone: (703) 610-2115
Mitretek Systems, Inc. Fax: (703) 610-1558
3150 Fairview Park Drive South E-Mail: gbizzigo@mitretek.org
Falls Church, Virginia, 22042-4519
**********************************************************************

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

[T Wake]

<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.

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.

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?

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 indulge people
who make messes based on ideologies.

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

 

[T Wake]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:nnonj2di3nkre0891g9d4vtle4bprhkl40@4ax.com...

On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 12:06:29 -0400, 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..



Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

Anybody know the reward for a female martyr?

72 pairs of shoes.

 

[T Wake]

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehi6j5$8qk_001@s784.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

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

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

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

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

Whew.

Knowing how doesn't make it practical or easy

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

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


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

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

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


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

I don't know where you get this from, I don't recall anyone saying that. The
argument was simply that the US (with or without government acceptance)
supplied Saddam's regime with dual use materials.

 

[T Wake]

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehi3q8$8qk_004@s784.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

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 article <1161169073.347610.229970@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,


The people I've been talking to appear to believe that only
the US government knows how to make these things.



They
seem to believe that only the US government can OK
all chemical invoices.


Weapons? Yes. Certain chemicals? Yes again.

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

A total lie. Europe is very capitalistic.

Not the labor. Labor is union.

Not all labour. You seem to have not realised it is no longer 1983.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

That wouldn't be very smart. Until they receive their discharge
papers, they are still considered US government property. I had a
couple morons cursing at me at the Cincinnati International Airport in
1974 when I flew home in my dress uniform. I laughed at them and told
them where to go, but if either one had spit at me I would have beat the
shit out of them with my 95 pound duffle bag and pressed charges for
assault.

The spitting was done in California by so-called hippies. I was
appalled.

They would be charged by the feds with attempting to destroy
government property.

I never heard that happening. However, by 1974 I was busy
making something that would, in my naive mind, stop mess making.
I have since discovered that we had everything bassackwards.

It also applies to military who injure themselves to avoid any type
of duty. They are hospitalized under arrest, treated, and court
martailed. Most are sentenced to time at Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas
Military prison. The rest are given medical discharges, and classed
mental cases.

It was four more years before I finished my
reserve duty, and received my DD-214

What does DD-214 mean? (besides discharge).

The DD-214 is an honorable discharge, given after you have completed
your enlistment. In my case it was two years active duty, and four
years inactive reserves. My MOS only had one reserve company, on the
west coast, so I was put on inactive duty. There were very few changes
in my field, and my records held a letter of commendation, and a copy of
the MOS test that let me bypass a three year electronics school at Ft.
Monmoth, so they decided it was a waste of money to fly me across the
country to pretend to be an engineer at a mock-up TV station.


There are other types of discharge:

Medical: For obvious reasons.

Hardship: Releases someone from their duty because of a death in the
family that creates severe finacial, or other problems for the family,
and they are needed at home to help their family. This is not very
common.

Dishonorable: When you are court martailed (Military trial), found
guilty, and thrown out of the service.

I was threatened with a court martial, and reduction in rank for
refusing an illegal order. Instead of being tried, the charges were
dropped, and I was promoted.
--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[unsettled]

Lloyd Parker wrote:

In article <ehd5ug$8qk_010@s884.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

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?


That wasn't what the study (which you haven't read) said. It was all deaths
in Iraq.

Wrong. It was all the *reported* deaths which is a
completely different thing.

Everybody agrees most of them have been due to sectarian violence.
But the point is, the death rate is significantly higher than when Saddam was
in power, giving lie to the notion that we've made Iraq safer.

Probably only higher than the deaths reported during
the Saddam regime. There are found mass graves, and
likely to be more not yet found. We know that not
all deaths were reported during the Saddam regime.

We hope all current deaths are being reported.

You don't have good data. With bad data, all
conclusions are worthless, and that's the case
in this discussion at the moment.

 

[unsettled]

Lloyd Parker wrote:

In article <ehfndt$8qk_013@s799.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
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?

/BAH


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.

No bannana for this one either. When you have bad data
you are not in any position to decide it has some other
value that makes it useful.

Some deaths are over reported. Others are unreported.
Still others are correctly reported. How can you
draw any valid conclusions out of such data. You might
hazzard a guess, but hazzard is the operative word
whenever you try that.

 

[unsettled]

Lloyd Parker wrote:

In article <ehfnmn$8qk_014@s799.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <C6ednV0xVsTyoKfYRVnyjQ@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehd5ug$8qk_010@s884.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

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?

What has the US killing them being the cause of death got to do with
anything?

It has everything to do with it since you are using
the report that rate has increased since the US went into
Iraq. See your comment below. I shall star it so that
you cannot miss your implication.


Have you read the posts you are replying to?

Yes. Now read your words below.

If the US attacks destroyed a water pipe and someone died from drinking
polluted water, what would the cause of death be recorded as?

The study looked at numbers and rates of deaths.

Now here you go..implying that the US has caused more deaths
than Saddam would have if he had remained in power.


Well, that's obvious. What has changed in the last 3 years?

One thing that's changed is that insurgents are killing
the local population. Deaths resulting from government
actions is way down.

Now you may wish to attribute the insurgency to US actions,
but there's no valid cause/effect relationship. The
insurgents have a choice to kill or not, we can't make
them do either, apparently.

***********

Since the US-led occupation
both have gone up.

***********

I have starred your statement so that you can tell why
I'm objecting to your usage of statistics in this discussion.


Is that an indicator of causal forces? You are now
heading into the argument that unless every death was the result of a _US_
soldier it had nothing to do with the occupation. This is nonsense.


Do these people own no logic circuits in their brains?

/BAH

 

[unsettled]

Lloyd Parker wrote:

In article <184nj2pmmiu4gtl0vga9s0c4lvonj89lhi@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 18:55:27 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:



If you're going to label evolution as "just a belief", then you had better
be prepared to apply that appellation to *all* of the observational
sciences, since evolution is one of the best supported ideas in the history
of science.

It is not.


Yes it is. It the cornerstone for biology, in the way atoms are for
chemistry.


The observational evidence for big evolutionary jumps, and
especially for the creation of life, is spotty or non-existant.


OK, lie #1


There
is no demonstrably accurate mathematical model for evolution.


Lie #2


Nobody
actually understands how DNA works.


We don't understand quantum theory either, but the sun shines and your
computer works.


Evolution, and especially its
mechanisms, is nowhere near being good science; it may be some day,
but not yet.


You are lying.


If you use "best supported" to mean "popular", then I guess you're
right.

John



Idiot.

Whether or not models are correct is not important to us.
What is important that they provide accurately predictive
tools for us to use.

 

[unsettled]

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 article <1161169073.347610.229970@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,

The people I've been talking to appear to believe that only
the US government knows how to make these things.



They
seem to believe that only the US government can OK
all chemical invoices.


Weapons? Yes. Certain chemicals? Yes again.

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

A total lie. Europe is very capitalistic.

Not the labor. Labor is union.


So? Takes both capital and labor to make anything. Besides, you said
"government controlled."


and/or union controlled

Aw, corporations give their workers a voice in how they're run. Gee, what a
radical idea. Straight out of biblical-era communes and Pilgrim New

England.

espeically in the
manufacturing and mining areas.

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.

That was written that way so that the states didn't war
among themselves. Disputes are settles in courts of law
rather than killing fields. The people who met at
the Constitutional Convention did not want to go through
the hundreds of years' war that Europe meandered in.




This
is gradually getting destroyed; everytime you hear about
a Supremem Court ruling about the Constitution deals with whether
the states or feds have power.


Buying the bulk reagents from Western sources at high purity allowed
them to concentrate on the hard part of industrial scale synthesis and
improved yeilds.

I understand that. However, that was convenience and it was possible.
What these Europeans (with whom I'm talking) are really saying is
that the US government should take control of all business and
make the decisions of what, who, what and where. IOW, they
want the US to become, not socialist, but communist.


You are a liar.


Geez, the "red under every bed" paranoia went out with McCarthy!

Communism is the result of choosing equality for everybody
in favor of liberty for everybody.

/BAH


And what is Bush doing but taking away our basic liberties?