Jihad needs scientists

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

C2H6O talking?

What's wrong with C2H5OH ?

Graham

 

[unsettled]

Eeyore wrote:

unsettled wrote:


Eeyore wrote:

unsettled wrote:


If Islam provided a Ghandi equivalent, and agreed to
follow his/her lead, this entire war on terror thing
would dissipate in a matter of days because the west
would immediately embrace it.

This solution is obvious, and simple. The fact that it
hasn't been adapted by Islam speaks loudly as to the
motives of Islamic leaders. So much for being a
"religion of peace."


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

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

I do think this does make them vulnerable to extemism.

Once again you fail to understand the lessons of history.


Eh ?



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


Cite ?

Do your own homework where world history is concerned.

Jinnah acted against his wishes and prevailed.

Once? Frequently? Always? Context?

Disingenuous argumentation.

 

[unsettled]

Eeyore wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:


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


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

snip

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


Please be precise.

Exactly what danger(s) are you referring to ?

Generalisation is not acceptable.

Yet another of your one way streets, eh?

I've got to dive out of here for a road trip of a few
days pretty soon. See if you can educate yourself while
I'm gone.

 

[Eeyore]

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

Here is a religious extremism whose stated goal is to destroy
Western civilization.

Cite ?

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

So you reckon that all Muslim women would happily say OK to this ?

Graham

 

[unsettled]

Eeyore wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:


unsettled <unsettled@nonsense.com> wrote:


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

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


I think you're very mistaken wrt reality.

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

Headed for another Dunkirk episode, are they?

 

[Eeyore]

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
In article <74kcj2dtgob35abvm2tucgiuim8r3mot3e@4ax.com>,
Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

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

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

This is not the image Islam portrays to its women.

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

Perhaps among extremist minorities.

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

What scenario is that pray tell ?

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

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

Yes it is. Primarily based on old-fashioned tribal thinking too.

Graham

 

[Radial]

T Wake wrote:

hill@rowland.org> wrote in message
news:1160958932.302841.324250@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

science_for_jihad@yahoo.com wrote:
Jihad needs competent scientists in the fields of nuclear physics,
chemistry and biology. Qualified scientists and engineers at the
Master/Ph.D. level and above are encouraged to apply. Readiness
to travel and to pass a preliminary examination is required.

Anyone interested should send his anonymous CV to the address
science_for_jihad@yahoo.com . The CV should contain information
reflecting the academic level reached by the candidate and his work
experience. The information however should not be so accurate as to
identify the candidate. An appropriately fantasious nickname and a
birth date corresponding to the approximate age of the candidate
should also be provided, together with a working email address.
Further instructions will follow.

4200 postings and still going strong. Amazing.

BTW, did the further instructions follow?

Sadly, no

 

[Eeyore]

unsettled wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
unsettled wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
unsettled wrote:

If Islam provided a Ghandi equivalent, and agreed to
follow his/her lead, this entire war on terror thing
would dissipate in a matter of days because the west
would immediately embrace it.

This solution is obvious, and simple. The fact that it
hasn't been adapted by Islam speaks loudly as to the
motives of Islamic leaders. So much for being a
"religion of peace."


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

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

I do think this does make them vulnerable to extemism.

Once again you fail to understand the lessons of history.


Eh ?


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


Cite ?

Do your own homework where world history is concerned.

So you admit you were making it up. Good.

Jinnah acted against his wishes and prevailed.

Once? Frequently? Always? Context?

Disingenuous argumentation.

Fact.

" Jinnah came to believe that Muslims and Hindus were distinct nations, with
unbridgeable differences—a view later known as the Two Nation Theory.[17]
Jinnah declared that a united India would lead to the marginalization of
Muslims, and eventually civil war between Hindus and Muslims. " etc etc .....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jinnah#Leader_of_the_Muslim_League

And hence we have near perpetual war between India and Pakistan.

Graham

 

[Radial]

I got a response. Firstly, I had to id names of people I knew who were
in the security services. They wanted to check my connections, my
validity and legitimacy. Nationality was not important though country
of operation and area of expertise clearly was. There is someone at
the other end who is playing a joke but also being serious.

 

[Eeyore]

unsettled wrote:

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

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

snip

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

Please be precise.

Exactly what danger(s) are you referring to ?

Generalisation is not acceptable.

Yet another of your one way streets, eh?

You can't answer the question. No surprise.

I've got to dive out of here for a road trip of a few
days pretty soon. See if you can educate yourself while
I'm gone.

So you don't actually have the tiniest clue do you ?

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

unsettled wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
unsettled <unsettled@nonsense.com> wrote:

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

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


I think you're very mistaken wrt reality.

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

Headed for another Dunkirk episode, are they?

Wipe you chin. You're drivel's showing.

Graham

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 13:08:57 +0100, the renowned "T Wake"
<usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

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

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


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

---
C2H6O talking?

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

It should have read:

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

It should have read:

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

Sorry for any confusion caused.

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_4499101

2-3% of the entire population have met violent deaths in
foreign-occupied Iraq, and many, many more who have fled for their
lives to places like Syria and Jordan. Untold hundreds of thousands
(more likely millions) wounded and maimed, bereaved, financially and
emotionally shattered. What a bloody mess, and with no end in sight.

http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/international/index.ssf?/base/international-34/116154776484580.xml&storylist=international


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

 

[Daniel Mandic]

MooseFET wrote:

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.

Hi MooseFET!



I came to a new conclusion (from binary to 3-phase) after all that
heated dabate...


Intelligence - Emotion - Force (Physical, Nerves, Heart, Hands
etc.. Human Force)


You change any word to any three places.


My combination I wrote is the most worse, bez intelligence makes the
empotions.

Better e.g., Emotion - Force - Intelligence. E.g. Lust to fight - doing
world-championsship tournaments, aka Olympia - looking them intelligent
behind the TV, or life.




Kind regards,

Daniel Mandic

 

[Daniel Mandic]

Eeyore wrote:

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


Graham

Hi Grahame!



The difference between them, is IMO, the Republicans send out troops
for political (World Police) reasons, Democrats do it, really for
ressources. And so they change sometimes the rule (Gov.), on how the
demand stays...



Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic

 

[MooseFET]

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <1161448269.254202.18890@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"MooseFET" <kensmith@rahul.net> wrote:

T Wake wrote:

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

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

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

What I'm more concerned about is the Democrats' and others' complete
silence about nuclear power plants which is the most important
action that can be taken right now.

.... so I type the words "democrat" and "nuclear" into google and the
very first page that comes up reads:
********
WASHINGTON, Oct. 20 (UPI) -- Democrats from Iowa to powerful members of
Congress are endorsing more nuclear power in the United States, often
to combat climate change or dependence on oil, but critics say it's a
shortsighted venture.
***********

Only the person known
as President Bush is even uttering those nouns.

Perhaps the problem is that you spelled it "nucular" when you did your
google search. When I tried that I got mostly stuff about North Korea
gitting nucular wepins.

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

/BAH

 

[MooseFET]

Eeyore wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

What on earth are you talking about ?

The discussion seems to have turned to the idea of making more nuclear
power plants. One way to make the country more secure is to not have
to import large amounts of oil.

The US still has oil with in its boundaries, but the dumbest thing you
can do is start using it. If you assume that the oil will run out one
day this just makes sure that the other guys have the last oil. If the
economy continues to rely on oil, the last guy with oil wins.

Renewable energy, can reduce the need but it doesn't look like it can
meet all the need. This leaves use with few other options besides
eventually building more atomic power plants.

The nuclear power industry has a history of making false promices and
screwing up badly. As a result the idea of making a new power plant
isn't very popular. Strangley enough research into the theory that
makes them go is still fairly popular. This may be a good thing
because a "new generation of safe power plants" may just sell.

Graham

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <955a3$453d2b09$49ed52d$28585@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
unsettled <unsettled@nonsense.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 12:42:53 -0500, unsettled <unsettled@nonsense.com
wrote:


John Larkin wrote:


On Mon, 23 Oct 06 10:55:36 GMT, lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:



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 don't reject it. I have a long history in s.e.d. of arguing that
evolution and the operations of DNA will turn out to be far more
complex than Darwin or the neo-Darwinists ever imagined. The dispute
is that I believe in evolution more than most other people do. As
such, evolution is still very poorly understood, hence not very well
developed science.

The same statement can be made with great validity about any
of the sciences.


Most of the other sciences produce theories that work quantitatively
to some goodly number of decimal points, and can be tested
experimentally, and that have difficulty quantitatively explaining
only extreme situations. Evolution is essentially qualitative, and
only connects the dimly-understood functionality of DNA to evolution
in a fuzzy, descriptive sort of way.

Let's examine one tidbit, the one I was addressing.

"evolution is still very poorly understood, hence not
very well developed science."

But that could be said of any theory, from gravity to quantum mechanics.

We know only a tiny fragment of the totality of
eventually available knowledge, irregardless how many
decimel poinnts of accuracy we can muster for the
relatively few bits of understanding we have.

snip

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <14800$453d2fea$49ed52d$28694@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
unsettled <unsettled@nonsense.com> wrote:

Lloyd Parker wrote:
In article <e1423$453cf4ae$49ecff9$26900@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
unsettled <unsettled@nonsense.com> wrote:

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.


And total deaths are way up.

We don't know that because we don't have any way
of knowing, with *any* accuracy, what deaths were
before.

We do know that. Did you look at the Lancet article?

Now you may wish to attribute the insurgency to US actions,
but there's no valid cause/effect relationship.


The hell there isn't. Bush's own NIE says our presence there is fueling
insurgents.

So are you saying the insurgents have no choice in the matter?

Sure they do, but they weren't killing thousands of Iraqis before we invaded.

Are you saying they *must* kill because we're there?

No, but they are killing because we're there. We also have a choice in the
matter.

I repeat, there is *no* causal relationship.

What the NIE says is not clear.

To anybody with a lick of common sense, it is.

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <bf3bb$453d32e1$49ed52d$28745@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
unsettled <unsettled@nonsense.com> wrote:

Lloyd Parker wrote:

In article <9949f$453cf343$49ecff9$26858@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
unsettled <unsettled@nonsense.com> wrote:

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.


No, it was a survey of deaths.

Sorry you're having a problem with understanding
something so simple. How do you input information
into the survey? You take reports of deaths as your
input data.

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.

No, everybody pretty much agrees the violence is much worse now.

That's because the violence isn't in isolated secret
locations these days.

No, that's because of the methods the survey used.

Do you think CNN was there in
minutes after the killings and before the mass graves
were covered over? They're sure there now, to *report*
the facts on the ground.

And there are people who can tell what the murder rate was like under Saddam
too.

There are found mass graves, and

Still not equalling 600,000 a year.

You know this as a fact somehow?

Yes. The article.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/worldopinionroundup/2006/10/is_iraqs_civilian
_death_toll_h.html

Uh, you do understand what "blog" and "opinion" mean, do you not?

Safe to say there's a lot of dispute over the
*estimates*.

Safe to say, the Bushites want it to appear that way, just like the right
wants to make it seem like there's dispute over global warming and even
evolution.

The **fact** is, we have a study by Johns Hopkins in one of the most
respected, peer-reviewed journals in the world.

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.

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <2a253$453d5fe4$49ecf83$29717@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
unsettled <unsettled@nonsense.com> wrote:

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

lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:


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


lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:



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



Lloyd Parker wrote:




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




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




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




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

Except start wars.

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

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

In our system, anything not prohibited is permitted.


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

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



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

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


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

If you bothered to actually read the US Constitution,
including Ammendments, you might actually understand
and stop relying on what you think it might be about.
It is online for free access.

The Constitution is known world wide not as an
enabling document, but a document which restricts the
power that the government may exercise. The direction
of the verbiage is not of concequence. Some of the
Amendments are written in a positive context, for
example Amendment 6, but what is clear in content,
interpretation, and practice, is that it forbids
prolonged incarceration and a bunch of other evils
exercised by other nations.

Therefore, all which is not prohibited is permitted.

Depends. Sometimes the language is very general (provide for the general
welfare) and it's almost like that. But not always. The president, for
example, could not let his wife veto bills, even though the constitution
doesn't prohibit that.