Chaos, death and disaster - several bombs have just exploded in London ;-(

Michel Boucher wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote in
:

"0ld Yank" same@ Isee.net wrote:

"Michel Boucher" wrote in message
. 142...

Take a very deep breath and try to regain composure. Oh, and "to
surveil" is not a verb.

Verb or no, I laud him his balls to write it. I plan to use it.

As well you should... Webster's thinks it's a verb, and that's good
enough for me. the listed meaning (not surprisingly) is "to place
under surveillance"

Webster's is also the dictionary that lists "neighbour" as the British
variant of "American" spelling.

Ummmm.... and? The inverse is also equally true (that "neighbor" is
the American variant of the British spelling). The dollar is the
American equivalent of the pound, and vice versa.

Or are you suggesting that if a word isn't listed in a British
dictionary, it shouldn't be used by an American?

Mark "there goes humor" Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 13:10:54 -0500, 0ld Yank wrote:

Are we in agreement here?

If not, let's start eliminating the possible nonsuspects. It should be
someone who has not been proliferating terror for the last 12-15 years.
Let's see, there's that incident of the USS Cole; the Indonesian blast that
killed hundreds; the Spanish train incident; the two attacks on the NY Trade
Center in a span of years; the plethora of Embassies blown up around the
country; the....... hmmmm. Well, then there's, uh,..... Hmmmm. We
know who did all those things, but of course, we can't just assume that the
same Islamic vermin were responsible for this horror. I mean, that would be
unChristian of us not to mention stupid.

For the life of me, I can't think of anyone at all who would do such a thing
to innocent people. Can you?

Kind of a blinkered view. We've had terrorism in the UK for donkeys years.
Over the last 12-15 years, we've been hit by the IRA numerous times, along
with "Christian" extremists.

Well, mebbe whoever did it left a video g. Damn that was a good line.

But vengeance is not the impetus for retaliation. If it were, then the West
could simply nuke Mecca and get it over with. But self preservation should
be our motive--and in that vein, nuking Mecca might not be such a bad idea,
eh?

Of course, we'd need to give them advance notice so that all the noninvolved
Muslims living there could high-tail it to the city limits. Ten minutes
ought to do it.

You really need to get over blaming a religion - it's facile. Would you
really like to put yourself in the same category as the likes of Timothy
McVeigh (assuming of course that you're Christian)? Islam is
a religion of peace, the fact that these fanatics choose to promote their
causes under the name of Islam is actually offensive to true Muslims.

On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 16:55:20 +0100, bomba wrote:

On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 13:10:54 -0500, 0ld Yank wrote:

Are we in agreement here?

If not, let's start eliminating the possible nonsuspects. It should be
someone who has not been proliferating terror for the last 12-15 years.
Let's see, there's that incident of the USS Cole; the Indonesian blast that
killed hundreds; the Spanish train incident; the two attacks on the NY Trade
Center in a span of years; the plethora of Embassies blown up around the
country; the....... hmmmm. Well, then there's, uh,..... Hmmmm. We
know who did all those things, but of course, we can't just assume that the
same Islamic vermin were responsible for this horror. I mean, that would be
unChristian of us not to mention stupid.

For the life of me, I can't think of anyone at all who would do such a thing
to innocent people. Can you?

Kind of a blinkered view. We've had terrorism in the UK for donkeys years.
Over the last 12-15 years, we've been hit by the IRA numerous times, along
with "Christian" extremists.

Well, mebbe whoever did it left a video g. Damn that was a good line.

But vengeance is not the impetus for retaliation. If it were, then the West
could simply nuke Mecca and get it over with. But self preservation should
be our motive--and in that vein, nuking Mecca might not be such a bad idea,
eh?

Of course, we'd need to give them advance notice so that all the noninvolved
Muslims living there could high-tail it to the city limits. Ten minutes
ought to do it.

You really need to get over blaming a religion - it's facile. Would you
really like to put yourself in the same category as the likes of Timothy
McVeigh (assuming of course that you're Christian)? Islam is
a religion of peace, the fact that these fanatics choose to promote their
causes under the name of Islam is actually offensive to true Muslims.


Facile indeed. Unfortunately, Americans have been indoctrinated with
the concept that Islamic is synonymous with evil,. It's firmly
established in most people's little minds. Most Americans get their
news from the television, Cable channels, which have done a very good
job of vilifying an entire religion.

This idiot you're responding to, for example, with his patriotic
little moniker, is a fine example. A complete moron. I have a mental
picture of the ****er's bumper. A yellow ribbon sticker, a W04
sticker, and a big ****ing dent that's never going to get fixed
because he can't come up with the deductible.

--R

I disagree. Four bombs, in the middle of London, at the height of rush
hour. If they'd been well organised, and / or aiming for maximum civilian
casualties the death toll would / should have been far greater.


I'm with you on this Jon - if they knew what they were doing, or were going
for maximum impact, there'd be hundreds if not thousands dead...

I know we shouldnt speculate, BUT
The Al Q group named are thought to be home grown.
Brits who may not even have been out of the country for terror training.
Unlike the Brits caught in Afganistan who endedup in Guantanamo.

Its possible that lack of training may be why they failed to achieve
the same impact as their fellows did at Madrid.
Its also possible that the 4th guy on the bus got stuck in slow moving
commuter traffic and failed to make the train station in time for his
planned connection, and there he was, literally sitting on a primed
bomb. No wonder bystanders thought he was 'nervous'. Its possible in
those circumstances to step off the bus as commuters do and to walk
away without being noticed.
I can imagine he'd be aiming for a 4th Underground line.
Mike

Mark Hickey wrote in
:

As well you should... Webster's thinks it's a verb, and that's
good enough for me. the listed meaning (not surprisingly) is
"to place under surveillance"

Webster's is also the dictionary that lists "neighbour" as the
British variant of "American" spelling.

Ummmm.... and? The inverse is also equally true (that "neighbor"
is the American variant of the British spelling). The dollar is
the American equivalent of the pound, and vice versa.

Or are you suggesting that if a word isn't listed in a British
dictionary, it shouldn't be used by an American?

I'm suggesting that Webster's is not a dictionary.

--

"Compassion is the chief law of human existence."

Dostoevski, The Idiot

Bob W bob @bobbbbbbbbb.net wrote:

Facile indeed. Unfortunately, Americans have been indoctrinated with
the concept that Islamic is synonymous with evil,. It's firmly
established in most people's little minds. Most Americans get their
news from the television, Cable channels, which have done a very good
job of vilifying an entire religion.

I disagree entirely. I've seen a lot of well-deserved negative press
for the faction of radical Islam that's carrying out the terroist
attacks, but from what I've seen the mainstream media has gone out of
its way to differentiate between them and the "normal Islamic
culture".

And FWIW, the mainstream Islam religion isn't doing itself any favors
by staying tight-lipped rather than condemning the attacks in the most
blatant ways. I hope this changes, and would like to see an
overwhelming groundswell of condemnation from the Islamic leadership
when thing like the London bombings (or attacks anywhere for that
matter) occur.

I suppose one could also assume that we were all "indoctrinated with
the concept that the Catholic religion is synonymous with evil" as
well, given the events in Northern Ireland. But that didn't happen
either.

This idiot you're responding to, for example, with his patriotic
little moniker, is a fine example. A complete moron. I have a mental
picture of the ****er's bumper. A yellow ribbon sticker, a W04
sticker, and a big ****ing dent that's never going to get fixed
because he can't come up with the deductible.

It's so much easier when you can resort to that kind of thing rather
than considering an alternative opinion, isn't it?

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

Michel Boucher wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote in
:

As well you should... Webster's thinks it's a verb, and that's
good enough for me. the listed meaning (not surprisingly) is
"to place under surveillance"

Webster's is also the dictionary that lists "neighbour" as the
British variant of "American" spelling.

Ummmm.... and? The inverse is also equally true (that "neighbor"
is the American variant of the British spelling). The dollar is
the American equivalent of the pound, and vice versa.

Or are you suggesting that if a word isn't listed in a British
dictionary, it shouldn't be used by an American?

I'm suggesting that Webster's is not a dictionary.

.... and therefore that Americans shouldn't use an American
"dictionary" when composing email? Then pray tell, what source of
literary accuracy SHOULD us poor colonials refer to when attempting to
craft verbiage that might inadvertently travel across the big pond?

Should we replace our "z" keys with an extra "u" key, perhaps?

Is this like the UK version of the spelling police?

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

Mark Hickey wrote in
:

I'm suggesting that Webster's is not a dictionary.

... and therefore that Americans shouldn't use an American
"dictionary" when composing email? Then pray tell, what source of
literary accuracy SHOULD us poor colonials refer to when
attempting to craft verbiage that might inadvertently travel
across the big pond?

Should we replace our "z" keys with an extra "u" key, perhaps?

Is this like the UK version of the spelling police?

I'm not in the UK, so the short answer is...no. You can do what you
want but if you quote Webster's as an authority on language, I will
not accept that. You are free to do so, but you may from time to
time encounter opprobrium for your jejune use of local resources.
Personally, I only recognize the Oxford and you, as a websterite,
have the option of consulting the New Oxford American [sic]
Dictionary. So don't tell me you weren't warned.

http://www.oup.com/us/brochure/noad/?view=usa

Oh, and unlax, doc. You're wound tighter than George Bush at a gay
pride parade.

--

"Compassion is the chief law of human existence."

Dostoevski, The Idiot

"bomba" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 13:10:54 -0500, 0ld Yank wrote:

Are we in agreement here?

If not, let's start eliminating the possible nonsuspects. It should be
someone who has not been proliferating terror for the last 12-15 years.
Let's see, there's that incident of the USS Cole; the Indonesian blast
that
killed hundreds; the Spanish train incident; the two attacks on the NY
Trade
Center in a span of years; the plethora of Embassies blown up around the
country; the....... hmmmm. Well, then there's, uh,..... Hmmmm.
We
know who did all those things, but of course, we can't just assume that
the
same Islamic vermin were responsible for this horror. I mean, that
would be
unChristian of us not to mention stupid.

For the life of me, I can't think of anyone at all who would do such a
thing
to innocent people. Can you?

Kind of a blinkered view. We've had terrorism in the UK for donkeys years.
Over the last 12-15 years, we've been hit by the IRA numerous times, along
with "Christian" extremists.

Well, mebbe whoever did it left a video g. Damn that was a good
line.

But vengeance is not the impetus for retaliation. If it were, then the
West
could simply nuke Mecca and get it over with. But self preservation
should
be our motive--and in that vein, nuking Mecca might not be such a bad
idea,
eh?

Of course, we'd need to give them advance notice so that all the
noninvolved
Muslims living there could high-tail it to the city limits. Ten minutes
ought to do it.

You really need to get over blaming a religion - it's facile. Would you
really like to put yourself in the same category as the likes of Timothy
McVeigh (assuming of course that you're Christian)? Islam is
a religion of peace, the fact that these fanatics choose to promote their
causes under the name of Islam is actually offensive to true Muslims.


You really need to learn to discern tongue in cheek when you read it--as no
one is seriously suggesting blowing Mecca to bits--especially me. As I
said in another posting, I have nine granddaughters who are enamored with
camels.

However, all joking aside, for you to state in writing that Islam is a
religion of peace is a joke indeed. Mebbe you know some *true* Muslims who
will be willing to go on public record as denouncing the violence. Your
response might be that they are too fearful to do it. --Afraid that someone
might slip into their bedchamber at night and slit their throats and those
of their children.

Some religion of peace, eh?

--Yankee Viejo

"Bob W" bob @bobbbbbbbbb.net wrote in message
...
On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 16:55:20 +0100, bomba wrote:

On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 13:10:54 -0500, 0ld Yank wrote:

Are we in agreement here?

If not, let's start eliminating the possible nonsuspects. It should be
someone who has not been proliferating terror for the last 12-15 years.
Let's see, there's that incident of the USS Cole; the Indonesian blast
that
killed hundreds; the Spanish train incident; the two attacks on the NY
Trade
Center in a span of years; the plethora of Embassies blown up around
the
country; the....... hmmmm. Well, then there's, uh,..... Hmmmm.
We
know who did all those things, but of course, we can't just assume that
the
same Islamic vermin were responsible for this horror. I mean, that
would be
unChristian of us not to mention stupid.

For the life of me, I can't think of anyone at all who would do such a
thing
to innocent people. Can you?

Kind of a blinkered view. We've had terrorism in the UK for donkeys
years.
Over the last 12-15 years, we've been hit by the IRA numerous times,
along
with "Christian" extremists.

Well, mebbe whoever did it left a video g. Damn that was a good
line.

But vengeance is not the impetus for retaliation. If it were, then the
West
could simply nuke Mecca and get it over with. But self preservation
should
be our motive--and in that vein, nuking Mecca might not be such a bad
idea,
eh?

Of course, we'd need to give them advance notice so that all the
noninvolved
Muslims living there could high-tail it to the city limits. Ten
minutes
ought to do it.

You really need to get over blaming a religion - it's facile. Would you
really like to put yourself in the same category as the likes of Timothy
McVeigh (assuming of course that you're Christian)? Islam is
a religion of peace, the fact that these fanatics choose to promote their
causes under the name of Islam is actually offensive to true Muslims.


Facile indeed. Unfortunately, Americans have been indoctrinated with
the concept that Islamic is synonymous with evil,. It's firmly
established in most people's little minds. Most Americans get their
news from the television, Cable channels, which have done a very good
job of vilifying an entire religion.

This idiot you're responding to, for example, with his patriotic
little moniker, is a fine example. A complete moron. I have a mental
picture of the ****er's bumper. A yellow ribbon sticker, a W04
sticker, and a big ****ing dent that's never going to get fixed
because he can't come up with the deductible.

--R

I hope you ain't a-feferrin' to me, dude!