Missing sial, iron, and nickel explains Fermi paradox

Imams preach infmmatory homilies at
friday prayers. This is however not the same thing as the government
supporting it.

It *is* the same thing when the people are under Islamic law.

Alan Anderson wrote:
Imams preach infmmatory homilies at
friday prayers. This is however not the same thing as the government
supporting it.

It *is* the same thing when the people are under Islamic law.

Islam is in many respects quite different from christianity. The
largest single one may be that Islam does not divide soziety into
activities that are 'godly' and 'ungodly.' The idea about a separation
of realms, an Earthly vs. Godly, does not exist.

This means that by defninition a secular state is an anathema.


In some respects there a similarities. Islam does not have got a
religious authority, so in that respects Islam is like protestant
christianity. Basigly that means that one Imam´s word is as good as
that of any other.

If one compares them to say 'evangeligal' preachers, then in similar
ways as one preacher may have different opinions or religious ideas,
different imams may have different opinions or religious idea.

So it´s quite possible for one imam to preach a thing is wrong, while
another does not.

" It *is* the same thing when the people are under Islamic law."

So that need not be the case.

Cheers, Einar

Here he goes again...

Ian has once again removed any and all context, so he's about the go
Looking For Mr Nutbar.

Ian Parker wrote:

:Look, no country is supporting international terrorism. They are much
:too scared of it rebounding on them.
:

Yeah, right...

:
:Just two exceptions
:
:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4535661.stm
:

Ian has to go back 40 years to say something nutty...

:
:Also wealthy Saudis support AQ. Imams preach infmmatory homilies at
:friday prayers. This is however not the same thing as the government
:supporting it.
:

Typical left-wing cant. Blame the Saudis. Being anti-Saudi is pretty
much a UK pastime, ever since there was a Saudi Arabia.

:
:This is why AQ in Western countries is having to improvise. Look - use
:your common sense, if you have any. If any country did, there would be
:no H2O2 distillation. High quality military explosives/firearms would
:be obtained from the sponsor.
:

Not if deniability is to be maintained, they wouldn't. We're too good
at tracing the things back these days.

:
:Logic seems to be deserting you. The Cuban airliner was blown uip with
:high quality military explosives.
:

Only 40 more years and perhaps Ian will be current...


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

Einar wrote:

:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: Einar wrote:
:
: :
: :Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : Einar wrote:
: :
: : :
: : :Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : : Einar wrote:
: : :
: : : :
: : : :Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : : : Einar wrote:
: : : :
: : : : :
: : : : :Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : : : : Einar wrote:
: : : : :
: : : : : :
: : : : : :Rand Simberg wrote:
: : : : : :
: : : : : : Yes, just like Saddam allowed everyone to go just about everywhere and
: : : : : : check everything out. We'll just ignore all those reports of missing
: : : : : : weapons and material.
: : : : : :
: : : : : :
: : : : : :What reports and what missing materials? They had plenty of time to
: : : : : :check and double check such rumours. Your scepticism needs to got into
: : : : : :both directions, I mean rumours are easy to create, someone may think
: : : : : :something was missing but it only was a bookkeaping error, etc.
: : : : : :
: : : : :
: : : : : Once again we see the value of intellectualism and a Political Science
: : : : : degree.
: : : : :
: : : : : You apparently missed the whole 'missing anthrax' thing. It wasn't
: : : : : 'rumours'. It was large stocks of things that simply couldn't be
: : : : : accounted for.
: : : : :
: : : : : It wasn't "a bookkeeping error".
: : : : :
: : : : : Reality just doesn't intrude much for you, does it?
: : : : :
: : : : :
: : : : :And what is the evidence the stocks ever existed in the first plase?
: : : : :
: : : :
: : : : Saddam's people counted and reported them at the end of the Gulf War.
: : : :
: : : : :
: : : : :These materials according to documents existed at one time, however no
: : : : :shred of them was ever discovered. I mean these materials have really,
: : : : :really been searched for.
: : : : :
: : : : :Saddam´s underlings were constantly cooking the books. If you consider
: : : : :the evidence on fase value, or rather theyr utter lack, It appears
: : : : :just as likelly that someone, an underling I presume, stole the money
: : : : :and then cooked the books to make his superiors think that the
: : : : :materials had been purchased.
: : : : :
: : : : :Saddam´s Iraq was an incredibly corrupt plase.
: : : : :
: : : :
: : : : Preposterous notion! Too many people involved in the development are
: : : : still alive.
: : : :
: : : :
: : : :So you didn´t answere the question.
: : : :
: : :
: : : What question? I saw a bunch of silly assertions intended to
: : : essentially say that stuff that was inventoried and documented to
: : : exist just never happened at all.
: : :
: : :...and the only evidence that it ever existed at all comes from the
: : :document athledging that it was inventoried at one time.
: : :
: :
: : Well, that and the folks who did the inventory, the folks involved in
: : the development of the stuff, etc...
: :
: : :
: : :You really think inventory docs cant be faked?
: : :
: :
: : Why would Saddam fake such an inventory? How would he get all the
: : witnesses to lie even after his death?
: :
: : :
: : :
: : : :
: : : :What´s so preposterous about that? These materials have been searched
: : : :for, for years. Millions have been spent on that search. At some point
: : : :it becomes reasonable to question wether they ever existed. Appears
: : : :just as likelly as that they ever did. Like I said, nobody has seen
: : : :them ever,
: : : :
: : :
: : : False, else Saddam wouldn't have submitted them on the inventory to
: : : the UN in the first place.
: : :
: : :
: : :He would have, as he wouldn´t have known about this particular
: : :embellishement.
: : :
: :
: : So who do you claim lied, why, and how are they making all the
: : witnesses lie?
: :
: : :
: : :
: : : :
: : : :... nobody has been found who claims to have seen them
: : : :ever...
: : : :
: : :
: : : False. In point of fact, such people have not only been found but the
: : : claim is that the agents were destroyed but somehow THAT was never
: : : documented.
: : :
: : :
: : :"But David Albright, a former UN weapons inspector in regular contact
: : :with Iraqi scientists, said the system in which those scientists
: : :worked was guaranteed to produce misleading information. "Scientists
: : :would hoodwink their own bosses with all sorts of exaggerations of
: : :their achievements," said Mr Albright, who heads the Washington-based
: : :Institute for Science and International Security."
: : :
: : :The disrepancy stems from the fact that according to earlier claims a
: : :certain Dr. Rihab Taha had documented the production of "Taha admitted
: : :to the inspectors that she had grown 19,000 litres of botulism toxin;
: : :[7] 8,000 litres of anthrax; 2,000 litres of aflatoxins, which can
: : :cause liver cancer; clostridium perfringens, a bacterium that can
: : :cause gas gangrene; and ricin, a castor bean derivative which can kill
: : :by inhibiting protein synthesis. She also admitted conducting research
: : :into cholera, salmonella, foot and mouth disease, and camel pox, a
: : :disease that uses the same growth techniqes as smallpox, but which is
: : :safer for researchers to work with." but later she could not confirm
: : :what had happened to 1,800 gallon worth of that anthrax.
: : :
: : :So my suggestion is simply that Dr. Taha made exaggerated claims
: : :earlier, in order to please Saddam and/or get more money, then later
: : :she could not confirm the destruction of what never existed. There she
: : :was cought in the lye.
: : :
: :
: : Then all I can say is that if one is eager to deny reality and make up
: : reasons for it to not exist, one should probably never be placed in a
: : position where one's decisions matter.
: :
: : :
: : :"Dr Blix has always argued that weapons may be unaccounted for, but
: : :that did not mean they existed."
: : :
: :
: : Cite?
: :
: :
: :The only people who were withness to the existence of the athledged
: :materials were Dr. Taha and her staff.
: :
: :You are claiming it would have been impossible for Dr. Taha too have
: :faked the inventory claims she handled herself?
: :
:
: No, I am claiming that your claim fails Occam's Razor. What motive
: did Dr Taha have for this? What about her staff? Large conspiracies
: fail, Einar.
:
: You probably believe there are alien artifacts hidden in Area 51,
: too...
:
:
: --
: "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
: territory."
: --G. Behn
:
:What large conspiracy? Iraqi officials were stealing all of the time,
:that has been proven true. She could easilly enough have done that all
:by herself. Very simple, she did that part of the paperwork all by
:herself. Alternativelly she bribed someone.
:

You keep forgetting the "her staff" bit.

:
:I can also repeatedly remind you about the words of someone who really
:was there, and interviewed these people:
:
:"But David Albright, a former UN weapons inspector in regular contact
:with Iraqi scientists, said the system in which those scientists
:worked was guaranteed to produce misleading information. "Scientists
:would hoodwink their own bosses with all sorts of exaggerations of
:their achievements," said Mr Albright, who heads the Washington-based
:Institute for Science and International Security."
:
:Sounds pretty reasonable to me, as an alternate explanation.
:

Lots of screwball things seem "pretty reasonable" to you, it seems.


--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates

Einar wrote:

:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: Einar wrote:
:
: :
: :Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : Einar wrote:
: :
: : :
: : :Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : : Einar wrote:
: : :
: : : :
: : : :Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : : : Einar wrote:
: : : :
: : : : :
: : : : :Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : : : : Einar wrote:
: : : : : :
: : : : : :Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : : : : : Einar wrote:
: : : : : : :
: : : : : : :Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : : : : : : Einar wrote:
: : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : :Rand Simberg wrote:
: : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : Do you think there's
: : : : : : : : anything wrong with slavery?
: : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : :Very simple to answere, would you want to be a slave? If you think
: : : : : : : :slavery is unfair treatment of you, it´s an unfair treatment of others
: : : : : : : :as well.
: : : : : : : :
: : : : : : :
: : : : : : : I wouldn't want to live in a country that mandated my religion,
: : : : : : : either.
: : : : : : :
: : : : : : : Do you think there is something wrong with such countries?
: : : : : : :
: : : : : : : I wouldn't want to live in a country that told me I wasn't allowed to
: : : : : : : be armed to protect myself (including from the government).
: : : : : : :
: : : : : : : Do you think there is something wrong with such countries?
: : : : : : :
: : : : : : :
: : : : : : : I'd suggest it's not so simple to answer as you think.
: : : : : : :
: : : : : : :
: : : : : : :What I´m preaching is toleration.
: : : : : : :
: : : : : :
: : : : : : Toleration of what? Suppose I want to keep slaves and Rand wants to
: : : : : : have sex with 7 year olds. How's your 'toleration' now?
: : : : : :
: : : : : :
: : : : : :Why do you pick such extreme examples?
: : : : : :
: : : : :
: : : : : Because you made a silly statement and I wanted to demonstrate its
: : : : : silliness.
: : : : :
: : : : :
: : : : :But they don´t do that.
: : : : :
: : : :
: : : : But who doesn't do what?
: : : :
: : : : :
: : : : :Just about any human endevour can be treated
: : : : :in like manner if most extreme examples of failure are only chosen.
: : : : :
: : : :
: : : : Look, *YOU* said "What I´m preaching is toleration."
: : : :
: : : : Apparently now you don't mean it.
: : : :
: : : : So just what *ARE* you preaching? Is it, perhaps, "toleration for
: : : : things I think are ok and no toleration for things I think aren't"?
: : : :
: : : : So how are you different from anyone else, however intolerant, then?
: : : :
: : : :Apparently you don´t understand the meaning of the word 'toleration.'
: : : :Clearly it´s the opposite to 'intoleration.'
: : : :
: : : :Nobody is ever intolerant of everything, and at the same time nobody
: : : :ever is tolerant of everything.
: : : :
: : : :I would have expected you would prefer more toleration.
: : : :
: : :
: : : More toleration of WHAT, Einar? The things being 'tolerated' make a
: : : difference, you see.
: : :
: : : The same is true for you, despite your attempts to claim moral
: : : superiority.
: : :
: : :Your prejudices appear to be clouding your mind.
: : :
: :
: : What 'prejudices' would those be, you lying little sack of ****?
: :
: : You persist in trying to paint yourself as somehow 'better', yet
: : you're 'preaching' nothing but 'you should all agree with me'.
: :
: : People with any intelligence at all are going to require a bit more
: : support for a position than that, particularly given your recently
: : demonstrated intellectual dishonesty.
: :
: :Tut, tut, ...the one who was just squeeling about bad language on my
: :beahlf.
: :
: :Let´s say this was another observation, a result of having tested you
: :through speaking to you for some time, somewhat like Ian was
: :athledgelly tested by Rand.
: :
:
: You've claimed 'prejudice' on my part. Show it or apologize.
:
: I say you're being intellectually dishonest in making that baseless
: claim.
:
: :
: :
: : :
: : :
: : : :
: : : :
: : : : :
: : : : :You need to pick more representative examples.
: : : : :
: : : :
: : : : So I need to pick examples of things to tolerate that *YOU* think
: : : : should be tolerated?
: : : :
: : : : How are you different, again?
: : : :
: : : : :
: : : : :After all, to name an
: : : : :example, no country in the world actually allows slavery. Though there
: : : : :are couple of countries in which slavery is still believed to persist,
: : : : :most of it happening inside Sudan. However, Sudan is an outlyer state,
: : : : racticing many things like genocide that generally are aborred by the
: : : : :world at large. So neither genocide nor slavery is representative.
: : : : :
: : : :
: : : : You need to go read up some more. Slavery is endemic in much of the
: : : : world. Genocide against 'others' is both widely preached and widely
: : : : practiced.
: : : :
: : : :
: : : :How do you figure that to be true?
: : : :
: : : :Name a country and cough up with some citations.
: : : :
: : :
: : : If the preceding is news to you, you are FAR too stupid to be allowed
: : : out loose.
: : :
: : : Are you unaware of the Middle East entirely? Never heard of Africa
: : : and Asia? Missed the Balkans genocides and Hitler, did you?
: : :
: : :
: : :You are a strange one, when I ask you to come up with an example of
: : :what is happening today, you cite historic examples which belong well
: : :in the past.
: : :
: :
: : Well in the past? EVERYTHING is in the past, Einar, unless you're
: : making it up.
: :
: : You think the mess in the Balkans is "well in the past"? You think
: : the current situation in the Middle East is 'well in the past'?
: :
: : You are the strange one. You apparently think your lies trump all.
: :
: :
: :You have so far proven incapable of providing any citations, and when
: :I do you simply dismiss them away as well like TROLLS do....troll.
: :
:
: **** you very much. If anyone here is a troll it's you.
:
: :
: :
: : :
: : :I assume that you are only capable of bluster and assertions, in short
: : :you have got nothing to support you bluster and assertions.
: : :
: :
: : More lies and personal attacks. In other words, you've made
: : statements that you can only support via ad hominem attacks and one of
: : the biggest set of blinders I've ever seen to avoid actually seeing
: : reality.
: :
: :
: :Now, stop this vining as cough up some citations that have a bearing
: n the present, or prove youself a troll.
: :
:
: Stop lying and start showing some intellectual integrity or prove
: yourself a lying asshole.
:
: :
: :
: : :
: : :I tire of this, as it appears that whatever I say is only met with
: : :more bluster and empty assertions. The joke of all things is that you
: : :appear still to believe yourself to be an intellectual.
: : :
: :
: : No, dear boy. I don't consider myself an intellectual.
: : 'Intellectuals' are ineffectual little theoretical poofs who maunder
: : on about what reality would be if only it behave the way they want it
: : to.
: :
: : That's you, not me.
: :
: : Your terminating lies and attacks in the face of fact seem to point
: : that out quite clearly.
: :
: :
: :And so far from you we have only assertions. You appear to assume that
: :your word equals fact. Now, that is a fallacy. Now, cough up some real
: :information, get off you lazy bud and do some searching of your own.
: :That´s what civilized people do, they support theyr arguments.
: :
:
: Who told you what civilized people do?
:
: :
: :
: : :
: : :
: : : :
: : : :
: : : : :
: : : : : :
: : : : : :Mentione a singe country on the planet where such actions are legal?
: : : : : :
: : : : :
: : : : : What does that have to do with anything? YOU gave your position as
: : : : : "What I´m preaching is toleration."
: : : : :
: : : : :
: : : : :If you read through my posts I´ve never preahced toleration of
: : : : :genocide or slavery.
: : : : :
: : : :
: : : : So what you're preaching is toleration of things you think people
: : : : should have toleration for and intoleration for things you think
: : : : shouldn't be tolerated.
: : : :
: : : : Again, how are you different from anyone else?
: : : :
: : : :
: : : ifferent from who? I´ve never claimed being unique. Do you disagree
: : : :with the need for toleration.
: : : :
: : :
: : : Yes, I disagree, because you haven't said toleration of WHAT.
: : :
: : :
: : :Then how can you disagree?
: : :
: :
: : Because until you qualify your position with toleration of what, it's
: : merely insane and empty noise.
: :
: :
: :You have not been paying any attension to my clarification, simply
: :dismissed them away as noise and reasserted your position. That again
: :is a trolllike behaviour.
: :
:
: So you are NOT preaching toleration? I guess you need to make up your
: mind and stop misrepresenting yourself, then.
:
: :
: :
: : :
: : :You only appear to assume the worst
: : ossible, ignoring the fact that the flipside is at the very least
: : :just as likelly.
: : :
: :
: : I assume you mean what you say. This is probably a mistake, given
: : your recent behaviour, since you appear to be intellectually dishonest
: : and ethically bankrupt.
: :
: : :What is wrong with toleration, assuming that we are talking about
: : :sanity not insanity, as appears repeatedly to be your strange
: : :assumption?
: : :
: :
: : That depends on what you consider 'sane'. Given your recent
: : behaviour, I don't think you quite are and I certainly don't want to
: : write that kind of blank check to the sort of defective judgment
: : you've displayed to date.
: :
: :This began with UK, which is a highly tolerant society. Rand Simberg
: bjected to the fact that muslims living there often think themselves
: :muslim first British second. When I pointed out that is also the truth
: :with other groups, the Scottish think themselves Scots first British
: :second, and so do many other groups living in UK, and I moreover told
: :him I thought this was quite OK; he thought my toleration went to far.
: :
:
: I'm inclined to agree. It is one thing to for someone to be loyal
: first to their family or region. It is quite another to do so to some
: organization that is run from outside that country.
:
: :
: :You appear to have joined forces with him, shouting at me that I must
: :tolerate all kind of bad things, if I whish to be tolerant. However,
: :neither of you have really argued that case. Only ever asserted it.
: :
:
: I'm not responsible for how things appear to you. I took you as
: actually meaning what you said. Obviously this is a mistake when it
: comes to dealing with you.
:
: :
: :Now, assertions don´t make a fact, no matter how often you two keep on
: :asserting and reasserting them.
: :
:
: So your claim that "What I´m preaching is toleration" is a lie? So
: just what ARE you preaching?
:
: :
: :In UK there is a rule of law, literally as UK doesn´t have got a
: :constitution. That means people live and let live as long as they obey
: :the law.
: :
:
: How nice for you.
:
: :
: :Like I said, this began when I told Rand I was quite comfortable with
: :the fact that muslims in UK like many other groups there identify
: :first with theyr own groups and the country they live in second.
: :
: :Neither of you has really quite ever explained why you find this fact
: :a bad thing.
: :
:
: Because when an organization claims its own laws which are at odds
: with the laws of the nation they are resident in, it is a bad thing
: when people hold that organization above the country.
:
: Which part of that is confusing to you?
:
: :
: :
: : :
: : :
: : : :
: : : :I would have expected you to dislike intoleration and the often
: : : :resulting hate.
: : : :
: : :
: : : I do. Including yours.
: : :
: : :
: : :I must assume you are projecting on me how you are fealing.
: : :
: :
: : Whatever you need to do to get yourself through the day, Einar. If
: : reality is too hard, you just stay in your fantasy.
: :
: : :
: : :
: : : :
: : : :
: : : : :
: : : : :The fact is that western civilization will
: : : : :continue to be very influential, but the rise of others to prevalence
: : : : :means that it can´t much longer be dominant. That means in the
: : : : :interest of minimizing risks of conflict with others we have to
: : : : :respect theyr ways, literally.
: : : : :
: : : :
: : : : Slavery is widespread in Moslem countries. So is genocide, hatred of
: : : : 'other' groups, oppression of women, etc.
: : : :
: : : :
: : : :Citations!
: : : :
: : :
: : : What planet do you live on? You claim a degree in political science
: : : and are THIS ignorant of the world?
: : :
: : :
: : :So you are running on empty. How am I not exactly surpriced any more.
: : :
: :
: : So your head is firmly up and locked and you want to maintain your
: : current ignorance at all costs. There are estimated to be some TWENTY
: : SEVEN MILLION slaves in the world today. I guess 27,000,000 people
: : isn't enough to matter to you. What's the population of your country,
: : again?
: :
: : Educate yourself, Einar.
: :
: : http://www.iabolish.org/slavery_toda...rts/index.html
: :
: :
: :So finally you decided to look.
: :
:
: It's just that slavery and such are so well known it seems
: preposterous that you repeatedly deny it.
:
: :
: :I actually am familiar with that
: :claimed number. I could have presented this link to you, but chose not
: :to, observing wether you would finally get off your highhorse and
: :start presenting something beyond mere assertions.
: :
: :However, remember they have got a rather wide interpretation of what
: :constitutes slavery in theyr opinion.
: :
:
: So you preach toleration for SOME forms of slavery?
:
: :
: :According to them there is
: :slavery inside the USA. Do you then agree with that, or didn´t you
: :read that far?
: :
: :Slavery in the U.S.
: :http://www.iabolish.org/slavery_today/usa/index.html
: :
:
: Of course I read that far and of course I 'agree'. Disagreeing with
: facts is generally called 'insanity'.
:
: :
: :If one does go by theyr interpretation, slave trade is still
: :videspread underground criminal activity around the world. However,
: :the point you need to pay attension to which is according to my
: riginal claim that it´s an underground activity. After all my precise
: :claim was that slavery is nowhere allowed, which is the truth. It´s
: :really only in Sudan, I mentioned that fact earlier a fact you have so
: :far overlooked, that the gowernment is strongly suspected to be
: :actually involved with slave trade.
: :
: :Like I said, slavery is not representative as it´s with the sole
: :exception of Sudan allowed nowhere. So like I said, pick a more
: :representative example.
: :
:
: India? Thailand? Why do you think the UN has an office on human
: trafficking? Why does the United States State Department issue an
: annual report on the same subject?
:
: Perhaps you should acquire a copy of that report and read it?
:
: http://www.state.gov/g/tip/rls/tiprpt/
:
: :
: :
: : :
: : :
: : : :
: : : :
: : : : So what are you preaching, again?
: : : :
: : : :
: : : :You already know.
: : : :
: : :
: : : Evasion noted.
: : :
: : :
: : :Willful ignorance of reality noted.
: : :
: :
: : Intellectual dishonesty noted.
: :
: :
: : --
: : "You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size of
: : your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll disappear."
: : -- Mark Twain
: :
: :That can only go into a repeating circle.
: :
:
: Or you could just try practicing a bit of intellectual honesty and
: integrity.
:
:
: --
: "False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
: soul with evil."
: -- Socrates
:
:I´ve seen this kind of a thing before, i.e. that no matter what how
ften it's shown to be false, you simply ignore the counterarguments
:and reassert the position whichs flaws already have been repeatedly
:explained to you. It´s not my problem that you display every
:appearance of being narrow minded
:

Except you've never shown anything to be false. You're the one
pretending the reports and facts don't exist. You're the one ignoring
things. It is your problem that you're a liar.


--
"You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size of
your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll disappear."
-- Mark Twain

Einar wrote:

:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:
: Einar wrote:
: :
: :Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : Einar wrote:
: : :
: : :If the quite asinine idea that it was somehow designed to undermine
: : :the US economy was true, how do you explane that Europe never-the-less
: : ersisted with it and got more than 100 world countries to both sign
: : :and ratify it?
: : :
: :
: : Let's look at how they did that, shall we? In order to get enough
: : countries to sign on for it to go into effect, lots of special deals
: : got made (Russia, Australia, Canada, etc) that were refused in the
: : case of the United States.
: :
: :
: :Europe was simply granting the USA the same deal that it accepted for
: :itself, and did subsequently enforce on itself following the US
: :refusal. Does not sound unfair to me.
: :
:
: That's because you're misrepresenting what the 'deal' was.
:
: Isn't it 'interesting' how the EU allows CO2 'trading' between
: sovereign countries for THEMSELVES but not for anyone else?
:
:
:CO2 trading is allowed for industrial countries that have joined and
:ratified the Kyoto Protocol. That means that, to name an example
utside Europe that Japan can participate in the CO2 sceme. So would
:USA have been able to, if it had joined.
:

And yet nobody else has, even when they're not meeting Kyoto targets.
Why is that, Einar?

:
:The keyword is the defination, industrial country. As you remember
:third world countries and rapidly growing industrializing countries
:have been exempted from many burdens of the Kyoto. Those countries can
:´t purchase CO2 quotas, yet.
:

Those countries DON'T NEED TO purchase CO2 quotas, since they have no
'ceilings' in the first place.

:
:That may change during the negotiations
:for Kyoto 2, assuming they do accept to shoulder some real burdens.
:
: : And how about Europe itself? Internally the EU has implemented a 'CO2
: : credit trading' system so that some folks get to not meet the
: : requirements of Kyoto, but can instead buy CO2 'units' from other
: : countries to meet their targets. Oddly, this is something that the
: : United States had proposed be done on a world-wide basis and was
: : refused.
: :
: :
: :The sceme USA proposed differed from the sceme operational as part of
: :the Kyoto in varyous details.
: :
:
: And what were those "varyous details", other than that it wouldn't
: restrict the practice to just the EU?
:
:You are plane wrong, see abow.
:

I note you didn't answer the question.

:
:
: :
: :
: : :
: : :Sounds more likelly that Europe would in such a case have abandoned
: : :it, if the accusation had been true.
: : :
: :
: : They keep hoping they can somehow jam it down our throat, perhaps by
: : doing something through the WTO.
: :
: :
: :LOL, so now the WTO is part of the world conspiracy.
: :
:
: Einar, a majority of Americans distrust your 'international'
: organizations. Why do you think that is?
:
:
:Common misconceptions about international organizations.
:

That's not a "why", Einar. That's a "what". The question wasn't what
you want to characterize the opinion as. The question was WHY DO YOU
THINK PEOPLE BELIEVE IT.

:
:
: :
: :
: : :
: : :
: : : Kyoto II better be a lot more even handed than the last one.
: : :
: : :
: : :I'm sure extreme right wing Americans are quite capable of dismissing
: : :Kyoto 2 in same manner as a world conspiracy against the USA.
: : :
: :
: : I'm sure you're a lying idiot who is in denial about reality. I'm
: : hardly "extreme right wing" and *I* think declining Kyoto I was the
: : right decision because the whole negotiation process was biased
: : against the US.
: :
: :
: :LOL, so somehow what Europe planned to undergo itself, and in the end
: :did, was to unfairly tough for the USA. Go figure.
: :
:
: Yes, go figure, indeed. Debating tactics don't change the facts,
: Einar. So you continue to "LOL" and such. It's just another
: demonstration of your intellectual dishonesty.
:
:
:This time, you are right, "Debating tactics don't change the facts."
:The fact being that 'somehow what Europe planned to undergo itself,
:and in the end did, was too unfairly tough for the USA,' according to
:USA.
:

I see you're a fan of the Joseph Goebbels School. Saying something
false over and over doesn't make it true, Einar.

:
:
: :
: :
: : I repeat - Kyoto II better be a lot more even handed than the last
: : one.
: :
: :
: :It is planned to have far fewer opt outes than the Kyoto 1. Kyoto 1
: :was more like a proof of concept, but during the testing period which
: :Europe alone after US refusal undervent the full force of, it has come
: :to light that let´s say certain adjustments are necessary, to name an
: :example the carbon trading sceme requires modification to make it more
: :scientifically rigorous.
: :
: :Basigly the US criticism that Kyoto was halfbaked has allays been
: :deeply unfair.
: :
:
: Yet even you say "certain adjustments are necessary".
:
: Given the attitude you're showing, I'd bet we won't sign on to Kyoto
: II, either.
:
:
:...and USA will then, if that proves true, continue the trend of
:becoming ever more despised.
:

We don't think much of you, either. I rather suspect we're less upset
about your opinion than you are about ours.

:
:
: :
: :
: : :
: : :I guess Einstein was right that foolishness is truly without a limit.
: : :
: :
: : You would know.
: :
: :
: :Indeed I´ve been noticing the truth of that observation of his.
: :
:
: Noticing it? Hell, you've been DEMONSTRATING it.
:
:I see, you look at me but are seeing you.
:

Sure. Rubber and glue and all that sort of thing. Now run along back
to the playground, Einar.

:
:
: :
: :
: : :
: : :
: : : :
: : : :
: : : : :
: : : : :The world is sort of waiting, biting its time, to withness who will be
: : : : :the next precident.
: : : : :
: : : :
: : : : How nice for the world. Perhaps if the world started paying its own
: : : : way instead of bludging off of us it would help close that gap you say
: : : : you're so concerned about.
: : : :
: : : :
: : : :Yeah, a number of Americans still think they are carrying the world on
: : : :theyr shoulders.
: : : :
: : :
: : : Yeah. They're the ones paying attention.
: : :
: : :
: : :Let´s hope that the next administration will be a more intelligent one
: : :than the current one.
: : :
: :
: : If it is it'll start requiring the rest of the world to pay its own
: : way, since we've been carrying an inequitable share of the load for
: : the past half century.
: :
: :
: :Of what preciselly? I´m only avare of the huge armies maintained by
: :the USA. But, I doubt USA would go for cost shairing as that would
: :inevitably mean shairing in decisions of where and where not to
: :deployee them forces.
: :
:
: I'd suggest you need to rectify your selective avareness.
:
:
:I suggest you open up your mind, just a litle.
:

I suggest you stop your personal smears and lies, and not just a
little.

:
:
: :
: :
: : :
: : :
: : : :
: : : :
: : : : :
: : : : :They were stuck in the ways and hows of how terrorism
: : : : :worked and operated during the 70s and the 80s, when it was state
: : : : :supported, supported by inimical states. As they were stuck in old
: : : : :ideas, when AQ did not collapse after the fall of the Taliban they
: : : : :were totally convinhed AQ had another backer. As it had to have
: : : : :another backer, according to theyr opinion, they looked around the
: : : : :world for the culprit which looked to them the most likelly. Now,
: : : : :Saddam was clearly are very bad person, a clear enemy of the USA, he
: : : : :appeared to fit. As it was clear from the internal logic of theyr
: : : : :standing assumptions that only an enemy of the USA would dare to
: : : : :support the AQ, the choises were not that many, i.e. Saddam, Kim Yong
: : : : :Il, Gaddhafi and perhaps the gowernment of Sudan. It appears they didn
: : : : :´t need many hints to convinche themselves that it was Saddam. That
: : : : :there was a rumour that a AQ official had had a meating with Saddam,
: : : : :that an AQ affiliated organization was said to operate within the
: : : : :borders of Iraq though that was not within a region under Saddam´s
: : : : :control...etc.
: : : : :
: : : :
: : : : The preceding is the looniest piece of baseless illogic I have seen in
: : : : the net in some time - and that's saying something.
: : : :
: : : :
: : : :More ignorance.
: : : :
: : :
: : : More insanity.
: : :
: : :
: : :The Bush administration at the time insisted on seeing jihadist
: : :terrorism as dependent on rogue states such as Iraq, fact not
: : :insanity,
: : :
: :
: : If it's such a fact, you can presumably prove it. I shan't hold my
: : breath waiting for that...
: :
: : :
: : : ...though perhaps you are ironically right about the
: : :insanity charge, but pointing at the wrong target
: : :
: : :"Terrorist organizations cannot be effective in sustaining themselves
: : ver long periods of time to do large-scale operations if they don't
: : :have support from states," former Undersecretary of Defense Douglas
: : :Feith told The New Yorker in 2003, adding that this belief was "one of
: : :the principal strategic thoughts underlying our strategy in the war on
: : :terrorism.""
: : :
: :
: : Which is not quite the same thing you claimed. Perhaps the nuances of
: : the English language are escaping you?
: :
: :Faith tells the world in plane language that they hold to the old
: :model of state supported terrorism. That created an expectation that
: :al-Qaeda had state support. Now, what is unclear here?
: :
:
: Nothing at all, except perhaps to you.
:
:
:You can´t see what is in plane sight.
:

You mean I don't agree with your claims, right?

:
:
: :
: :
: : [Ideological politically motivated tripe elided]
: :
: : I'm intelligent enough to spot THAT tactic...
: :
: :
: :LOL, and that´s how you treat intellectually written articles posted
: :to you. This makes you a TROLL.
: :
:
: And that remark makes you a liar.
:
:
:This is what trolls do, no matter how often theyr position is shown to
:be wrong, they reassert it back, and no matter how many citations are
osted, they simply dismiss those away as some noise....to them they
:may actually be, but trolls are a pathetic bunch after all.
:

That makes you a troll.

:
:
: :
: :
: : --
: : "You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size of
: : your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll disappear."
: : -- Mark Twain
: :
: :
:
: --
: "False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
: soul with evil."
: -- Socrates
:


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine

1) Saudi Arabia - The princes of the blood are not sponsoring
terrorism qua government. Wahhabism a particularly extreme form of
Islam is the official religion. There have been fatwas about attacking
shiite shrines.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0809/p01s05-wome.html

http://www.iran-press-service.com/ip...twa_1807.shtml

This is the Iranian reaction

The government has now agreed to monitor fatwas

http://www.reuters.com/article/world...18870920070715

Even they are frightened of terrorism.

Wealty Saudis still put out subversive literature.

2) Western governments. Fundamentally what I am looking for is Western
governments which are knowledgeable about the international situation.
If you have an organisation which is centrally commanded you wage war.
However all the evidence is that western jihadis are inspired, if that
is the correct word by fiery clerics in the mosques and on the
Internet.

All the evidence too is that weapons etc. are improvised. Iraq is
awash with firearms and explosives, yet there is no conduit to the
West. Bush insists that defeat in Iraq would mean more terrorism in
the West. I wonder. If Iraqi jihadis were intent on coming west they
would be smuggling arms and explosives into western countries.

My point is this, one needs to look at evidence before devising a
strategy. If what might be described as "subversion" is what is
threatening us then we need to look at what is preached in mosques (in
the West) look, possibly with some form of AI at militant sites on the
Internet and find out who is looking at them.

War is not a solution.

One fact is that we are a free society while Saudi Arabia is very much
not.

http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/5937.html

They hide behind a wall of censorship.

In Britain our attitude is quite simple. We are not anti Saudi or anti
anyone. We are anti people who advocate murder and mayhem. The
Iranians talk about the Saudis as being stooges of the Americans. Not
quite true.

The US seems to have got themselves and everyone else into a mess.


- Ian Parker

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 08:15:10 -0700, in a place far, far away, Ian
Parker made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

snip cross posts

In Britain our attitude is quite simple. We are not anti Saudi or anti
anyone. We are anti people who advocate murder and mayhem.

Apparently not, since a large number of people in your populace
support the July 7th tube bombings, without penalty.

The US seems to have got themselves and everyone else into a mess.

No, the mess has been around for about thirteen centuries.

Fred J. McCall wrote:
Einar wrote:
--G. Behn
:
:What large conspiracy? Iraqi officials were stealing all of the time,
:that has been proven true. She could easilly enough have done that all
:by herself. Very simple, she did that part of the paperwork all by
:herself. Alternativelly she bribed someone.
:

You keep forgetting the "her staff" bit.

So what, I´ve told you how she might have done it. She was in charge
after all of that project. This was not like USA where you´ll expect
all kinds of oversight being present.

:
:I can also repeatedly remind you about the words of someone who really
:was there, and interviewed these people:
:
:"But David Albright, a former UN weapons inspector in regular contact
:with Iraqi scientists, said the system in which those scientists
:worked was guaranteed to produce misleading information. "Scientists
:would hoodwink their own bosses with all sorts of exaggerations of
:their achievements," said Mr Albright, who heads the Washington-based
:Institute for Science and International Security."
:
:Sounds pretty reasonable to me, as an alternate explanation.
:

Lots of screwball things seem "pretty reasonable" to you, it seems.


--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates

You probably are still convinched the missing poison gas is there
underneath some rock or some sandy dune.

Einar

Fred J. McCall wrote:
Einar wrote:


:I´ve seen this kind of a thing before, i.e. that no matter what how
ften it's shown to be false, you simply ignore the counterarguments
:and reassert the position whichs flaws already have been repeatedly
:explained to you. It´s not my problem that you display every
:appearance of being narrow minded
:

Except you've never shown anything to be false. You're the one
pretending the reports and facts don't exist. You're the one ignoring
things. It is your problem that you're a liar.


--
"You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size of
your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll disappear."
-- Mark Twain

You appear to have got the mental flexibility of a brickwall.

Einar