Jihad needs scientists

[Daniel Mandic]

T Wake wrote:

The problem is the US are the last superpower so no nation has the
strength for direct action. This leaves the people who feel
maltreated with no outlet, other than supporting terrorism.

America is locked in a vicious circle and refuses to step outside of
it.

Ahh, there is at least Russia and China to count. Not to forget France,
who can blackmail all together.

On concentional war, w/o nuclear, I guees no one could win, as no
culture would support such a plan till to the end. Some tried , all
fell on the nose...



Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 04:32:27 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:eprgi2letl4lmo4am69hagk9q15uat90mk@4ax.com...
On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 02:30:33 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:



In an attempt to suppress free speech and debate on the issue, both
Rumsfeld
and Bush have used the word to refer to anybody that disagrees with Bush's
prosecution of the non-existent war. It's reprehensible.


It might be, if it were true. Obviously it's not.

Obvious only to those who refuse to admit that Bush has ever done, or could
ever do, anything wrong. Those of us who saw each of them say it know they
did.

Eric Lucas

If you google "bush treason" you will get about 5e6 hits. I've only
perused a tiny fraction of them, but all that I've seen accuse Bush of
treason, which is clearly absurd.

Do you know of a case where W accused an American of "treason" for
disagreeing with his policies or actions?

John

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

In the case of the Vincennes, a threat was perceived,

Entirely falsely because the crew didn't check for any scheduled flights for one
thing.

one or more warnings was issued,

On the wrong frequency.

the warnings were apparently ignored,

They weren't even addressed to the Airbus.

and the aircraft was destroyed in order to eliminate the perceived threat.
A tragic accident, but not an atrocity.

It would have been less atrocious for sure had the US apologised for this
colossal error and compensated those affected straight away instead of having to
be reluctantly dragged into the courts years later.

What did it prevent?

---
Ostensibly, an attack on the Vincennes.

There never was an attack on the Vincennes.

Do you think we blow up commercial airliners for the fun of it?

It would seem those sailors did it through sheer incompetence. Another USN vessel
in the area had actually correctly identified the Iran Air flight btw.

And you stil think the USA can be proud of these actions ?

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
John Fields wrote:
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

Not when an aircraft poses a threat, perceived or real. That is,
for all intents and purposes, a ship might as well be dead in the
water when threatened by an aircraft.

There was no threat.

---
Hindsight's 20-20. Were you there?

The crew of the Vincennes was simply 'trigger happy. Another USN vessel realised
the mistake they'd made but was too late to stop them.

A warship which is threatened by a civilian airliner in a commercial air
lane can move away. I wasn't aware the WTC buildings had wheels.

Still, the "might is right" response is enlightening.

---
Closer to "An ounce of prevention"... I'd think.

Preventing what ?

---
Ostensibly, an attack on the Vincennes.

Do you think we blow up commercial airliners for the fun of it?

On the balance of evidence I'd have to say yes I'm afraid.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

The problem is a country which is so hyped up about "rag heads" attacking
that non-threats are percieved as threats, elimintated and people think its
ok - 'cos there was a threat.

Which is why they indulge in 'pre-emptive war' - just in case.

What a bunch of madmen.

Graham

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <egafn9$8ss_004@s779.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:
[....]

The Liberal news lately is full of reports that Iraq has failed.

Even Faux News is reporting the evidence that it has failed. It is time
to admit that it is a failure and start to fix the problem instead of
making excuses.

Why do you think it has failed?

At the instant someone noticed the lack of candies and flowers, someone
should have said ooops. The US has so far set up three governments in
Iraq. If two ships have sunk and the third has its decks awash, it can't
be called a success.

[....]

Give me a detailed time table. Do you expect these changes
in a few weeks, months, a few years? You certainly sound
like you expect everything to get perfect in less than a year.

Today, my estimate is that after the US election, there will be a draw
down of US troops followed by a breakup of Iraq. There may be some sort of
face saving "federalism". The Kurds will have something like a
functioning government in a year or so. Turkey will behave themselves
because they want the trade with the EU. Iran would, if allowed, act to
bring a measure of stability to the rest of it. We don't want that sort
of stability so there will be at least another 10 years of strife.


--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <ptbii21rkm1daeqt6ss3nrim3f97oic1vj@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 13:20:51 +0000 (UTC), kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken
Smith) wrote:

[....]
They may be ordering some of that yucky French wine instead of the nice
californian stuff. The NSA should not listen in; they should disconnect
the call.



Heck, you don't have to order French wine. They have it at the corner
7-11, cheaper than the mediocre California stuff.

Yes, but that wouldn't have made a joke so we have to ignore the 7-11
stores.

There is a *lot* of bad wine made in California too. When wine making
started to look like a way to make money, everyone and their dog got into
the business.


--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
krw wrote:
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com says...
Kurt Ullman wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

We won the Battle of Britain with no American help.

No ammunition? No fuel? No food?

Paid for.

No brains!

What American brains ? None were involved.

---
???

http://www.taphilo.com/history/WWII/BofBamericanpilots.shtml

7 American pilots ( out of a total of 510 non British flyers ) joined
the RAF in the Battle of Britain according to Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_britain#Foreign_contribution

So what ? What's the big deal about *brains* ???

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

If you had your way, everybody would convert to Islam. OK.
Assume that.

Let's not assume that at all.

No-one going to convert to Islam here under duress. How daft can you be to even
imagine such a thing ?

Since the factions are already killing each
other, what makes you think that they will stop killing and
murdering and destroying all infrastructure? The goal
is to destroy Western infrastructure. This means bridges,
roads, computers, any science results and their applications,
white collar jobs, blue collar jobs, manufacturing plants,
food processing plants, etc.

No it isn't. You're utterly mad.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 06 Oct 06 11:26:29 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

Our freedoms are under threat as a result of American stupidity.

Now I understand you. It is not Bin Laden's fault that he
is going to kill a lot of people. It's the Americans' fault
that caused Islamic extremists to want to destroy Western
civilization.

That's actually true. "American" culture, which is actually world
culture, is the thing they fear will seduce their sons and liberate
their daughters. As it must.

You flatter yourself about the impact of American 'culture'.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote

I see terrorist attack doesn't make the top twenty then That war on
tobacco really needs to get started soon.

It has, thankfully. Most major cities in the US ban tobacco use in public
places, and several states are considering state-wide bans. Still perfectly
legal at home and in most places outdoors, but at least I can eat dinner in
a restaurant without smoke making me physically ill.

I can barely wait for the UK law banning smoking in public places to come into
effect. It'll be so much nicer.

---
The last time my wife came back from the UK she said she couldn't
believe how much you people smoke. How much do you all smoke?

I don't know what the numbers are but I was delighted on Friday evening to find the
pub almost smoke free. You could actually smell girls' perfume for once !

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

The only thing that worries me about the 'state of the world' is what
idiocy America's up to next.

---
Bullshit.

All you're trying to do is avoid having to account for yourself in a
way which won't cast you in a bad light.

How much do you weigh?

How much do you make?

How much do you laugh?

Who would you like to see dead?

Are you willing to answer even just _one_ of the questions?

Why the heck should I ? What's it got to do with anything ? What gives you the
idea you even have any right to ask such intrusive questions ?


Graham

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

So, you don't carry anything else?...........
.........An insurance card so you don't die while waiting for
the hospital to make sure they will be paid for their services?

You really don't know much about the UK do you ?

Medical services are free.

---
Such as they are, I've heard.

It's what most ppl rely on. The great teaching hospitals are NHS too
fyi.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Daniel Mandic wrote:

You are more stupid than the Moon is shining from its Dark Side.
(Mandic TM)

Some of your phrases really crack me up !

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

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

America really should have known better. The invasion pretty much served no
purpose that waiting (say) five years wouldn't have missed out on.

---
Back then I think we were concerned with how much more money Saddam
Hussein could siphon from the humanitarian aid bucket and divert to
terrorist causes or squirrel away for his own use. Also, I think we
were more than a little angry about the impotence of the UN in being
able to conduct inspections on anything but Saddam Hussein's terms.
ISTR reading where the inspectors were often turned away from
inspection sites and told when they could come back to conduct the
inspection.

So to make up for it you bombed Iraq almost back to the stone age.

Neat thinking !

Graham

 

[John Fields]

On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 17:05:49 +0100, "T Wake"
<usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:u37ii25hvicshf5oncuffs4olfd576thp9@4ax.com...
On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 15:08:27 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:bgrhi2dri7ejkovr8e8ojll00s0ums6i86@4ax.com...
On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 10:46:58 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:


"joseph2k" <quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ceXVg.3010$NE6.540@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...

I find that assessment odd in light of the ability of passenger planes
to
damage buildings like the World Trade Center towers impacts
demonstrated.
Equally to the point, when told to change course by any military, the
refusal does not demonstrate reasonable judgment.

False analogy and lack of critical thinking has hindered your response.

A warship is capable of manoeuvre which a building isn't.

---
Not when an aircraft poses a threat, perceived or real. That is,
for all intents and purposes, a ship might as well be dead in the
water when threatened by an aircraft.

Was the ship in question unable to move or is this hypothetical?

---
The speed at which a ship can move when confronted by a threat from
an aircraft is so small as to effectively render the ship a sitting
duck.

In the context of an aircraft launched weapon system. Generally speaking
these are not mounted on passenger aircraft.

---
And, generally, speaking, airliners don't stray miles away from
their flight paths and do respond when contacted by the military.

To not do so _is_ madness.
---

When it comes to bombs, ships are at difficult targets to hit.

---
Why assume bombs will be the weapons?
---

The example used was of passenger aircraft being used a the weapon system
themselves. Crashing an airliner into a warship is not an easy matter.

---
It's a no-brainer. Mechanically I can easily do it in MFS if I'm
not geing shot at, But, why assume that's the plan? Issue warnings
and if they're not obeyed...
---

The fact that the WTC counter-example is getting stretched further and
further makes me think it was, indeed, a very poor counter example.

While a nation owes a duty of care to its service personell, in the West
we
have volunteer armed forces. People who take the job know that they are
more
at risk than civilians and either accept it or leave.

The people in the WTC did not have that option and what happened to them
was
a terrible attrocity.

The people in the Iran Air plane did not have that option and what
happened
to them was a terrible attrocity.

---
In the case of 9/11, the actions against the WTC were premeditated
by terrorists for no reason but to hurt America, were well planned
over a long period of time, were well executed, and resulted in a
terrible atrocity.

In the case of the Vincennes, a threat was perceived, one or more
warnings was issued, the warnings were apparently ignored, and the
aircraft was destroyed in order to eliminate the perceived threat.
A tragic accident, but not an atrocity.

Really? I agree from the perspective I am a white anglosaxon male who lives
in the west. From my point of view it was indeed nothing but an accident.

Did the commander of the warship issue a public apology?

---
No, and it wasn't his job to. If there was any apology to be made
it would probably have come from the State Department or the
President. I believe no apology was issued (although statements of
deep regret were made:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/3/newsid_4678000/4678707.stm

and reparations were made to the victims' survivors ) because none
was necessary. The Vincennes' actions were all "by the book" and
all that was needed for the tragedy to have been averted would have
been for the airliner's pilot to change the airplane's course.

Regardless, It was a tragedy and I regret that it happened.
---

From the point of view of the families of the people who died it was an act
of violence from a nation which seems to shoot first and ask questions
later.

---
Well, the airline pilot _was_ warned, and sometimes if you don't
shoot first you don't get to ask questions later.
---

A warship which is threatened by a civilian airliner in a commercial air
lane can move away. I wasn't aware the WTC buildings had wheels.

Still, the "might is right" response is enlightening.

---
Closer to "An ounce of prevention"... I'd think.

What did it prevent?

---
Ostensibly, an attack on the Vincennes.

Well, it prevented the threat of an attack.

---
No, that's not accurate. The threat was already there. Blowing up
the airliner eliminated the threat, it didn't prevent it.
---

The problem is a country which is so hyped up about "rag heads" attacking
that non-threats are percieved as threats, elimintated and people think its
ok - 'cos there was a threat.

It is (IMHO) madness.

---
Nope, the problem is the "rag-heads" as you call them, and their
penchant for airing their grievances by blowing people up.
---

Do you think we blow up commercial airliners for the fun of it?

I have no idea. I would hate to pretend to know what people I have never met
do for fun. I don't seem to recall even hinting this was an option in the
motivation.

---
It was a rhetorical question.
---

Imagine the situation was reversed. If an Iranian military unit destroyed a
US Airliner, what actions do you think the US would take? If your family
were on board what actions would _you_ be demanding your country take?

---
If the situation was exactly reversed and the pilot refused to
change his course, or even to communicate with the Iranian military,
then I think the US should do nothing except accept the regrets of
the Iranian government.

If my family was on that plane, I'd be filing a very big lawsuit
against the airline for the pilot's irresponsibility being the
reason members of my family were killed.
---

The problem is the US are the last superpower so no nation has the strength
for direct action.

---
If by "direct action", you mean trying to vanquish us militarily,
then you're right.

But, in my view, "direct action" also means peaceful negotiation,
which we're always ready to extend a hand to achieve.
---

This leaves the people who feel maltreated with no
outlet, other than supporting terrorism.

---
Nonsense. Terrorism is a direct result of the unwillingness of the
sponsors of terrorism to sit down at a table and talk things out,
but to want to win their wars through intimidation.
---

America is locked in a vicious circle and refuses to step outside of it.

---
Well, if we're _locked_ in one then we _can't_ step out of it, can
we?

But what you wrote makes no sense to me. What did you mean?


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[Eeyore]

jenalyn wrote:

"Homer J Simpson" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote
"Gordon" <gordonlr@DELETEswbell.net> wrote

So you are saying they are NOT better Xtians than everyone else?

No, I'm saying that this war on terrorism started long before
President Bush and the present Republican administration was
involved in any way.

But it isn't a war. It is a problem for a police force that requires
international cooperation, something the US is notoriously unable or
unwilling to be involved in.

The international community does not want our cooperation. They want the
United States to act as their dumb guard dog, do their bidding.

I'd rather the USA just went back home actually.

Many
leaders are generally unhappy with the fact that we finally stepped up to
take charge. France is unhappy they are no longer a world power. Muslims
are unhappy they are no longer a world power.

No Islamic state was ever a world power.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

JoeBloe wrote:

On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 04:43:03 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> Gave us:

Great, you're old to go along with being a stupid, redneck Joe-sixpack
sycophant. Whoop-de-doo.

I wonder if some well placed emails to battelle about a certain E.
Lucas might cause more than a little sweat on your brow.

So you're also anti free-speech too ?

Graham

 

In article <egaims$8qk_001@s779.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:

In article <GWTVg.69$45.157@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <eg827f$8qk_004@s968.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
In article <5dfVg.62$45.46@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <eg2paa$8qk_011@s829.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
In article <PsRUg.57$45.150@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <4523844C.CA22EFDF@hotmail.com>, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> writes:


mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

In article <4522F8DE.C46161BD@hotmail.com>, Eeyore writes:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

You didn't read carefully. It is not "10% changing". It is that
historical data indicates dramatic changes when about 10% of the
population is *dead*. Does this make it clear?

So, we only need to kill 100 million Muslims or so ?

I didn't say, at the moment, what we need (or need not) to do. I
pointed what empirical data for past conflicts shows. Go argue with
history if you don't like it.

But you still mainatain we'd need to kill that many to have an effect ?

Graham

Not that "we'd need" but that, as a worst case scenario, we may need.

The oddity of this, which I cannot find in past history, is that
the extremists are already doing this to themselves.

It is not that odd. Extremists are striving for a very high degreee
of coherence, in their own camp. This involves "purifying" your side
from "dubious elements".

This is premature viewing and we won't know until 10-80 years from
now but...

It seems like they are not purifying but self-emolating.

Bah, you need some sense of scale.

Yes, I know I have problems with that.

Check out how many Russians were
eliminated by Stalin, and how many Chinese by Mao. No, they're most
certainly ***not*** self-emolating. They're "cleaning the ranks".

And in Russia, a very pissed off army was digging the potato
crop 30 years later. I haven't read enough about China yet.

This is irrelevant to the issue.

Isn't there a difference? This self-emolation as part of their
ritual practice is what seems odd.

There is nothing to seem odd, since they're not doing it.

Right. They are not doing it now.

Aha.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"

 

[Eeyore]

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

What exactly is it that you're afraid of ?

Loss of enough knowledge of how to do things that it will
take another 1000 years to reinvent the wheel.

Are you actually serious ?

Yes. I'm working on a 1000 year scenario and trying to shortcut
the cold start so that it will only be 500 years.

In 500 years Islam will have 'grown up'.

They are at the age that Christianity was in the 1500s.
I've been studying that era. Assuming (this is a big
assumption) that religions follow similar growing paths,
take the same time for each growing pain, there is going
to be quite a bit of mess before things gets settled down.

I expect that modern global communications / media and living in each
others' cultures will speed up the growing process very considerably.

Graham