Jihad needs scientists

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 23:28:38 -0300, YD <ydtechHAT@techie.com> wrote:

Your pseudo-American moral-imperative nonsense is exactly what is wrong
about how America is handling the issues.

It's not my nonsense; I was expressing what I think is the theory
under which the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq took place. Since I
wasn't President at the time, they can't be my own theories.

But do agree with them?

I agree that all developed countries have a moral imperative to help
the less developed to evolve, so their people can have the health and
freedoms we enjoy. As such, doing nothing can be profoundly immoral.
All I can personally do, realistically, is write checks, which I do.

If you don't have a morality, why would you object to anything the
USA, or North Korea, or Sudan does? Why would it matter to you? This
is a great mystery to me, why people who scoff at the concept of
morality criticize the US for doing, well, anything we do.

Doing the *right* thing is of course a technical issue, and a very
difficult one.


John

 

[T Wake]

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:egdaq4$8qk_001@s891.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <rfGdnUpMeZCEmLTYnZ2dnUVZ8sudnZ2d@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:egakki$8qk_001@s779.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <hYSdnRmhgOqjdbrYRVny2Q@pipex.net>,

So far, the Christian extremists are not a global threat..yet.
But they are watching and learning what tactics and strategies are
working.

So from the mess prevention school of thinking we should kill them all now
to prevent the future mess.

It also the case that living in a Christian country, Christian extremists
are not a threat to _your_ way of life yet.

You are wrong. They are a threat to my personal way of life.

Who the Christians or Muslims? Both? Neither?

There won't be any opportunity to correct what those Christians
have wrought if the more dangerous threat isn't dealt with.

You have fixated on an imaginary threat and refuse to even percieve a world
view which is different. The threat from Islamic extremism to the American
Way of Life is almost non-existant. They may be able to kill individual
people (even in great numbers) but changing the way of life can only be done
internally.

Your fear of this threat allows others to change your way of life for you.
The communal fear means your society appears to turn on anyone who thinks
this fear is overblown.

If I was an Alien watching in, it would be quite interesting.

However, Muslims may think they
are. (In fact non-Christians often do think they are).


Only one Islamic nation was as even slightly as extreme as you
describe -
the Taliban in Afghanistan.

What evidence do you have this cannot be the political
and economic standard?

I didnt say it couldn't be the standard but the fact it only established
itself in _one_ country is a sign it is not normal.

What Iran, Somalia? How about Iraq. That climate allowed
visciousness to come into power.

Iran is nothing like the government _you_ described. Iraq was a very
"secular" country (by Middle Eastern standard) and was even less like the
government _you_ described. Somalia is an interesting one - what did the
Islamic Courts Union change about Womens rights, TV usage, etc? The country
was already devastated.

You are creating more strawmen than I can count. You have a nightmare image
of an Islamic society which you then transpose on to other nations.

Afghanistan has had a history of invasions and puppet governments. It is
entirely possible that this cultural history is what allowed the insane
Taliban the chance to get a foothold. In Iran which has a different
history
the Islamic revolution produced markedly different results.

What reason do you have to think that this would not be the case in any
Western nation which was converted to Islam (even assuming such a
conversion
was possible)?

Human nature. If there is no checks nor balances to a
peaceful method of choosing political leadership, the only
people who do gain power are those who remove their opposition
with death. This just plain human nature. There are lots of
examples of this kind of power evolution and acquisition.

Yet it worked in Iran. What reason do you think that Iran would not be the
model the Extremists aimed for?

As for your checks and balances, the same applies to the puppet governments
installed by the west.

The worst the current crop of exported
terrorists look for is the imposition of Sharia law (ala Iran).

Can you remind me which Islamic nations don't have cars?

Well, take a good look. How many manufacture their own goods.

Sorry, which country did you say didn't have cars? I seem to have missed
it.

Arabia has manufacturing plants? Do they have smelters? Do they
have foundries? Do they produce all of their own food? If they
do, who is doing the work?

I get the feeling you are ignoring my posts and heading off in conversations
of your own.

Let us identify some facts here.

1 - _you_ made the reference about not having cars, I asked which nations
didn't have cars.
2 - _you_ replied with manufacturing own goods, I asked what that had to do
with cars.
3 - _you_ continued about smelters, foundries and food production.

Ok. I think I can keep up with this.

When you say "Arabia" do you mean Saudi or the Arab nations in general?

Either way, yes Saudi has foundries as do other Middle Eastern countries.
They have smelters. They have manufacturing plant, they have food crops. Yes
they import food so do most other countries in the world.

As for who is doing the work - they are, along with migrant labour (as in
the rest of the world).

What on Earth is your point with all this?

If you look at Western countries you will see the same collection of ones
which have manufacturing industries and ones which dont.

Iran has an export market in the form of soft furnishings, or doesn't that
count? It also has a fairly robust defence industry.

All the Islamic countries have home grown manufacturing of local items.

So far, you haven't mentioned auto manufacturing plants.

So what? Are you saying only countries which manufacture their own cars are
worthy of being nations? (Bye bye Irish Free State).

Now have
you said who does the labor.

Yes.

Iran knows how to work. Turkey knows
how to work. Egypt has forgotten. I think Somalia is beginning to
remember how if the extremists leave them alone.

Eh?

How many have an infrastructure not based on oil revenues?

Why is basing the infrastructure on oil revenue morally wrong?


Oh GOOD GRIEF! What a dodge of the topic.

In what way is that a dodge of topic? Your diatribe was implying that basing
an infrastructre on oil revenue was wrong and I asked for clarification.

I give up--snip

Now, that is a dodge.

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 00:32:13 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

And, generally, speaking, airliners don't stray miles away from
their flight paths

What gave you the idea it had ?

and do respond when contacted by the military.

To not do so _is_ madness.

It did !

Reading a bit more.....

" When Carlson [commanding officer of the USS Sides which was nearby] concluded that
the Vincennes was referring to IR655 when making its warning to turn away or receive
fire ( on a military frequency only - my comment ) he urgently warned IR655 on a
civilian freqency that it was in danger, having been mistaken for a military craft and
should turn away. IR655 immediately complied and changed course onto a trajectory away
from the Vincennes. The Vincennes fired regardless. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655#Independent_sources

---
Oh, well... shit happens.


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[T Wake]

<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news8tWg.12748$6S3.9188@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:uOCdnaYSs6Z5oLfYRVnygg@pipex.net...
My biggest issue with the UK government at the moment stems on the way we
are throwing away rights and freedoms I grew up to take for granted
(possibly part of the problem).

I disagree--I think most Western nations view those rights as (to use a
word from one of our founding documents), inalienable--as they should.

I agree. In the UK we have an assumption of rights which is not seriously
different from the Iron Age. There have been periods in our history where
insane governance has removed or rescinded these assumed rights - but this
is supposed to be an enlightened age.

Until recently, the Republicans liked to trumpet about how precious
peoples' rights are, because there are millions of people who have fought
and died for them. Then, along comes a President who makes a few
major-league blunders, and decides the only way to distract from those
blunders is to pull a Chicken Little stunt, and hope that people are so
afraid that they will fall to their knees worshiping him and his cronies.
All of a sudden, the government is demanding that people give up their
rights, as part of the attempt to keep the "sky is falling" illusion. I
just don't buy it. Either those rights are sacrosanct (I happen to
believe they are) or they're not--in which case the government has no
right, ever again, to ask people to die to preserve those rights. They
can't have it both ways, and as a populace, we're fools to let them!

I agree, and I would add that not only should they never ask people to die
to defend them, the government should never try to "force" them on to other
nations.

Some of it is done in the name of "National Security" which really does
annoy me.

I agree. Thoughout human history, appealing to fear and anger has proven
one of the most effective techniques for getting power over other people.

Shamefully so.

Some of it is done in an insane move to appear to be "liberal" and
"multicultural."

I'm not sure I understand--can you give some examples? I tend to support
this sort of thing more than fear-mongering. There is much more mixing of
cultures in the world today than ever before. Plus, as was guaranteed to
happen at some point, there is for the first time since the Industrial
Revolution, a move toward levelling the vastly disparate standards of
living across the globe. I think it's simply the way of the world in a
highly technological society, and I think it's important to resist the
urge to fight it. There will be some pain (maybe a lot of pain), but in
the end, it will lead to a better, more peaceful world.

Sorry, I will try to make it clearer. I am not opposed to multiculturalism,
I think it is the only way for societies to survive and expand.

The problems we have in the UK (IMHO obviously) are that we are heading
towards legislation which (for example) bans jokes made at the expense of
religions because it may cause offence. This strikes me as playing into the
hands of the fear mongers.

Recently one of our Members of Parliment has asked that when his Female
Muslim constituents visit him for clinics, they lift their face veils to
enable one-on-one conversation. This caused uproar and now other MPs are
saying it is wrong and going on about how they are championing the rights of
women to wear veils.

More (IMHO) ammunition for the right wing extremists who pose ten times the
threat any Islamic one does.

Still, it isn't just the current government which is entirely to blame.
All the political parties are close enough that nothing will change.

And thus my comments about the broken political process. It would appear
from the outside that the UK does have more of a multi-party system than
the US, but how effective are the parties beyond the two major ones in
fomenting honest debate rather than a two sided "yes, you did"-"no, I
didn't" contest?

Not at all. We are a two party system with some others which leech away a
small percentage of the vote. Local elections are a different matter, but
this just makes it worst when facist organisations get elected on the wave
of anti-PCness.

No, but I can think of several that have fallen apart because their
government became corrupt and eroded peoples' rights all in the name of
keeping power when they should not have been able to.

Pretty much the main cause of Empires collapsing.

Yep, that's the thing we should *really* be afraid of and fighting
against.

A war on governmental corruption seems unlikely in the near future

 

[T Wake]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:k9ski2he66qemvlu5cp38ltao29anhdht3@4ax.com...

On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 14:37:23 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:


"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:uOCdnaYSs6Z5oLfYRVnygg@pipex.net...
My biggest issue with the UK government at the moment stems on the way
we
are throwing away rights and freedoms I grew up to take for granted
(possibly part of the problem).

I disagree--I think most Western nations view those rights as (to use a
word
from one of our founding documents), inalienable--as they should.

The Founders certainly didn't have our modern idea of "privacy."

So what? The US constitution is not the world's answer on rights. In the UK
we have a concept of privacy which dates back to (in written form at least)
the time of Alfred the Great.

For
the first 200 years of the Republic, it was illegal to use the US
Mails for "immoral" purposes, and mail was opened, and people
prosecuted for felonies, if immorality was suspected. Such
"immorality" included explicit letters between a husband and his wife.

And now that we live in much more enlightened times isn't strange when
people try to return to the days of reading other people's mail?

I don't think that any of the Founders would think it unreasonable to
snoop on international communications, or even domestic
communications, looking for signs of known conspiracies to commit
murder. They did list "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" in
that order.

At the start of the twentieth century, the UK and US agonised over the
introduction of SIGINT, thinking it was not "fair" to read the other sides
mail.

BTW: I think it is disengenious to ascribe a priority onto the list.

When it comes to monitoring - who watches the watchmen?

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Ken Smith wrote:

In article <4529A7FE.88FB0C0B@earthlink.net>,
Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:

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.


Come on Ken. Everyone knows that dogs don't know "Beans" about
grapes. ;-)

LOL

I know that cats can't taste sugar. Maybe it is also true of dogs. This
would explain a lot about dog viniculture. It would not explain the paint
stipper some wineries produce.

Simple: The dogs are not in charge, the bean counters are.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[T Wake]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:452A6228.3D02953D@hotmail.com...

T Wake wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
T Wake wrote:
"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote

Why assume bombs will be the weapons?

I didn't make that assumption. I was detailing the possible threat
delivery systems which could have been in place. As you can see
I also mentioned that ASMs are very efficient at hitting ships.

Having said that, the aircraft was flying level which is generally a
sign
of a bombing run.

Actually, the Vincennes thought they were diving IIRC.

Yes, if they had waited long enough for visual observation it may have
been
different. If the missile launch really was the result of faulty
equipment

It was the result of faulty ppl. The equpiment was working fine, the crew
were
reading what they wanted to see.


then all the more reason for the Ships Captain to be apologetic and
reassure
the families that the loss was an accident not a deliberate ploy on
behalf
of the "Enemy."

To be honest an apology should be left to the Pentagon in this case.
Arguably
the captain should have been court-martialled. He had apparently been
behaving
like a bear with a sore head all the time the Vincennes was stationed in
the
region.

I am not sure it wasn't the Captains place. As a human being, if he felt he
had made an accidental call then an apology is called for. Not apologising
implies he thought nothing was wrong. Saying they "did it by the book" is
far from sufficient.

If a group of people I was in charge with did something wrong, it would be
upon me to apologise on their behalf. The President should have _also_
apologised on the Nations behalf.

When I was in the Army (at around the same time) it was drummed into every
single person, at all ranks, that you were responsible for your actions. If
you were ordered to fire and it was "wrong" you were not to fire. It was
that clear cut (and has resulted in soldiers going to jail - admittedly not
many of them).

The missiles were a mistake. When you make a mistake you say sorry
afterwards.

 

[T Wake]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:452A6294.FC8DD10B@hotmail.com...

T Wake wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
John Fields wrote:

And, generally, speaking, airliners don't stray miles away from
their flight paths

What gave you the idea it had ?

and do respond when contacted by the military.

To not do so _is_ madness.

It did !

Reading a bit more.....

" When Carlson [commanding officer of the USS Sides which was nearby]
concluded that
the Vincennes was referring to IR655 when making its warning to turn
away
or receive
fire ( on a military frequency only - my comment ) he urgently warned
IR655 on a
civilian freqency that it was in danger, having been mistaken for a
military craft and
should turn away. IR655 immediately complied and changed course onto a
trajectory away
from the Vincennes. The Vincennes fired regardless. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655#Independent_sources

I never noticed that. Makes things a bit gloomier.

For me personally, the purpose of this branch of the debate is not to
seek
closure on the incident but to highlight the "world image" problem that
America suffers from.

Quite so and I find it truly amazing that seemingly well-educated
engineers
should still find no error with this kind of behaviour.

Well, that is engineers for you..........................

 

[T Wake]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:452A70D5.9293068F@hotmail.com...

John Larkin wrote:

frithiof.jensen@die_spammer_die.ericsson.com> wrote:
"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
message
On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 20:29:08 GMT, Jan Panteltje
pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

Veil seeking missiles serve 2 things:
1) The fear for them will keep the veils away and preserve our
society.
2) It will keep the veils away and preserve our society.


Do you really think that women wearing veils is a threat to your
society? How fragile that sounds.

In much the same way that skinheads wearing "hagen-kreutz" are - the
wearers
boldly avertise that they are outsiders that want a different society
where the
outsider-norms are the rule.

Scairy, aren't they, people who have different opinions and haircuts
from yours.

This is fascinating.

It seems to be the kind of thing that freaks some Americans too.

Not just Americans as this thread is showing. We have more than our fair
share of extreme right wing groups in the UK. (BNP, NF, Combat18 etc)

 

[T Wake]

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:egd9am$8qk_006@s891.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <45294670.AAB6384B@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:


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.

Actually, I think it stops maturing. Go read about the tower
of Babel and how nobody got anything done. I've got a new
hypothesis about this one. When you go to work and nobody
shuts up, nothing gets done.

Unless you are in a call centre. Or a TV Talk Show host. Or...

 

[T Wake]

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:egd9cb$8qk_007@s891.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <452946B9.4A53D6AA@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:


jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

If the mindset of the religious extremists are not changed and
they become successful in destroying Western civilization.......

How could they even begin to acheive this ?

You will help. I'm not make any specifications here just in
case someone hasn't thought of it.

Actually you are helping more. I can not go into details here as it may
still be a secret.

 

[T Wake]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:tfnki2l0e4j75vc8to034kg3uqnvl7mj3c@4ax.com...

On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 13:43:28 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:


I didn't Google search it. I made a judgement call on the most likely
result. It was not Google who used it in context in the debate though.


Well, you might consider doing so; it's not all that difficult.

Thank you, I am sure it isnt.

Turns
out a lot happened between about 630 and 1400. Since I have no
definition of "world power" you'll have to read it your way.

Ok, I will and often do.

The Muslim nations of the very early periods were still not the same ones as
we have today, and given my understanding of what makes a "world power" were
not world powers. I suspect you have read it differently to me.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Lloyd Parker wrote:

It was in a commercial flight path. And the pilot had no way of knowing the
ship was calling HIS plane.

So, what plane did the pilot think they were calling?


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[T Wake]

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:egdb10$8qk_002@s891.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <N6WdnRy5c-iGQLrYnZ2dnUVZ8sydnZ2d@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eg80it$8qk_002@s968.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <4_idnbX0z-W0FLrYRVny2w@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eg7t54$8qk_003@s968.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <zuWdnToy_6qB6rvYRVnytA@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eg5e55$8qk_007@s831.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <452633ED.B02A967A@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:


jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

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

another possibility is
the goal is to cede to these extremists

Are you really that monumentally stupid ?

Listening to their greivances isn't 'ceding' btw.

Arafat used this tactic. He kept people at the table talking
about peace to give his side time to accumulate weapons. He
even got all these rich countries to fund his efforts.

You're suggesting that because one person did this then we must
never
again listen ? That's a very blinkered view indeed.

It is a tactic that worked.

Is it? Has Israel ceased to exist now?

Those people have not acquired an instant gratification addiction.
They think in terms of decades and centuries.

So sying it "worked" is inappropriate, "working" is as much as you can
assume. Even then it is tenuous as the working / not working argument
has
equal support.

Arafat got billions
of dollars by talking peace while actually doing the opposite.

Don't you think others will try
the same thing if it succeeds in fooling all of the Democrats
all of the time?

Logical fallacy.

Apparently.

You can't change attitudes with bullets.

My attitude changed. And the trigger was two little airplane
missles.


Yet, you think doing the same to the other side will change their
attitude
in a different manner? Ok, that makes sense.

Not little missles. Clinton lobbed a couple of little missles and
it didn't stop them. These people do not care who nor how many
die. It is their stated goal to kill millions.

Who is this they of which you speak?

Islamic extremists. Bin Laden has declared it.

Ok, where should we send the bigger missiles to kill Bin Laden? How many
other people are we allowed to kill in order that we _eventually_ take out
UBL?

You still are avoiding the fact that Bin Laden is a symptom and
not the cause.

What?

You are the one who introduced UBL, not I.

How do you destroy a cause? Your post "not little missles" implies that
using bigger ones is better.

I have no idea why you keep branching out on tangents. If you have an
opinion then explain it and defend it.

Iran has
declared this goal.

Really? The president of Iran has declared it is the intention of his
country to kill millions? Could you point me in the direction of an
example
of this please

Where do you think their atomic bombs will be detonated?

Well, Israel if they have the chance.

Now, I have answered your question can you, please, answer mine?

Also, on the topic of nuclear weapons are you equally worried about North
Korea?

Clerics wish to remove all vestiges

Oh, I thought we were talking about killing millions. Also, do you mean
_only_ Islamic clerics or all religious fanatics?

of Western civilzation; this includes no freedom of the press,

Which we [tinw] are in the process of eroding ourselves.

TV and probably all computers (anything with a picture of a human
being),

Which Islamic countries do this?

all women in chattel (this is 50% of the labor force),

Which Islamic country puts all its women in chattel?

public schools will shut down, private property will no longer
be allowed, banks will be closed so trade will have to revert
back to person-to-person bartering.

Sorry, I am not sure where you get the model for this from. The Taliban
were
an extreme form of Government who fit the mould you discuss better than
any
others (women did work though and trade was certainly more than person to
person bartering), yet at no point did the Taliban ever express a desire
to
export their "brand" of worship.

Most Islamic states in existence now do not conform to any of the things
you
have described. What I can assume is that you have taken the "demands" of
a
few firebrand clerics as indicative of the desires of _all_ extremist
groups.

There is (based on the suggested responses) also the apparent implication
that this desire is shared by Islamic states themselves. This is not far
from assuming the ranting of a demented Christian cleric is indicative of
the desires of America.

It seems like every country has its own brand of Islam established
by its ruler. Each ruler functions by promising to become the
head of all Islam. I understand this; politicians do this
all the time when they discover that nobody can be satisfied
ever.

Well then, if the American people did "convert" to Islam (God only knows how
this would happen but it seems to be one of the current fears), why would an
Afghan Talib style regime be the one in place?

The Saudis call theirs ...shit...the word begins with a W and
the only word that pops up into my head is Wannabe.

Wahhabi.

 

[T Wake]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:452A60B3.CDF9C870@hotmail.com...

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

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

Most Islamic states in existence now do not conform to any of the things
you
have described. What I can assume is that you have taken the "demands"
of a
few firebrand clerics as indicative of the desires of _all_ extremist
groups.

There is (based on the suggested responses) also the apparent
implication
that this desire is shared by Islamic states themselves. This is not far
from assuming the ranting of a demented Christian cleric is indicative
of
the desires of America.

It seems like every country has its own brand of Islam established
by its ruler. Each ruler functions by promising to become the
head of all Islam. I understand this; politicians do this
all the time when they discover that nobody can be satisfied
ever.

The Saudis call theirs ...shit...the word begins with a W and
the only word that pops up into my head is Wannabe.

I suspect you mean Wahabi. An unrepresentative bunch of loonies along with
the
Muslim Brotherhood and the Qutbists.

Despite the Saudi regime being pretty nasty and slightly insane, there are
no sabre rattling complaints about them. Odd isn't it?

 

[T Wake]

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:452A8401.BA13C0FF@earthlink.net...

Lloyd Parker wrote:

It was in a commercial flight path. And the pilot had no way of knowing
the
ship was calling HIS plane.


So, what plane did the pilot think they were calling?

An Iranian F14, apparently.

 

[T Wake]

<panteltje@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1160410839.674787.75410@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

So, in short this could in one case boil down to:
I am happy chopping heads of jihadists, while you are pissed about the
blood on the veils,
in the same time, I score higher.

Well, this pretty much encapsulates your brilliance in one fell swoop.

 

[T Wake]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:39uki29uo6jlepu681cjpmh3blrqlilc3e@4ax.com...

On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 23:00:20 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:


"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:mujii25168dj6fm841h5qqvck8bdva1fb7@4ax.com...
On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 19:11:51 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



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 ?

---
I have the right to ask anything I want to, just as you have the
right to be devious.

Is refusing to answer being devious?

---
I refuse to answer. Is that being devious?

Not at all. In my opinion.

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@emory.edu> wrote in message
news:egdstf$86h$3@leto.cc.emory.edu...

Oh come on. The coalition refused to go into Iraq, which is why Bush Sr.
stopped when he did.

Bush I's *own advisers* said going into Baghdad would have been phenomenally
stupid. They were right! Gee, who knew? I think HW needs to sit W down,
smack him upside the head, and give him a good talking-to about diplomacy,
leadership, honor.

--or is it just your inability to admit that
Clinton was capable of doing anything good just because he got a blowjob?

The fact that he eschewed national security just to get that blowjob
was my concern.

The fact that you believe this is pathetic.

It's easier for her to take the black-and-white position
Bush-good-Clinton-bad, than to actually think about the issues and admit
that Clinton just might have done several things right, and Bush just might
have done several things wrong.

Clinton was verifiably trying to go after bin Laden--obviously he wasn't
successful, but he was trying.

No he wasn't. he was making a half-hearted gesture to show
that he was doing something. He was not serious about
dealing with this security threat.

Read Woodward's book. Read Clark's book. Get your info from other than
the
RNC.

*Especially* Clarke. He's one of the most intelligent people I've head
speak in the area of national security. He has over 20 years of government
service in the areas of security, intelligence and counterterrorism. His
ability to see and understand the issues in a manner that is independent of
party affiliation should be admired. He knew going into Baghdad would have
been a mistake in 1991, and Bush I was smart enough to listen to him. He
also knows that it was still a mistake in 2003. It's a shame that a cowboy
president with the diplomatic acumen of a cucumber managed to piss Clarke
and Powell off so much that they couldn't take it anymore and resigned.
They are voices of diplomatic reason that this country *desparately* needs
right not.

Those who try to claim that they don't simply parrot the Republican talking
points, and that they don't filter all information through the party line,
might want to look at Clarke as somebody who actually does think for himself
and draws conclusions based on the facts of the situation and his extensive
experience. And, remarkably enough, his conclusions reflect that level of
independent thought.

Eric Lucas

 

[T Wake]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:5duki2titt2epq8a1djpg27t6u26fl64k9@4ax.com...

On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 23:04:11 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:


"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:gelii25rlsap6hjbq5g67fb3vfe57q7lrn@4ax.com...
On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 19:44:34 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message

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

No, not even remotely. We would just stop going out of our way to do
the
things that we repeatedly do that piss off the rest of the world.

Using computers is a product of Western civilization. Are you
suggesting that all business stops using them? All TV shows
have human images in them. Are you going to stop watching TV
so the rest of the world won't get pissed off? All women have
to stay home. Are you going go get the groceries? No women
may have medical care. Are you going to deliver your own babies?
Are you willing to watch somebody you love die because she is not
allowed to go to the doctor nor the hospital?

What's that got to do with the above ?

---
Can't you figure it out?

Well, when I tried, all I could think was some one was very, very mistaken
about even the strictures of the Taliban's government.

Can you explain it to me please?

---
Seems you've done it for yourself.

Ok, I was kind of hoping for some enlightenment as to the thrust of BAH's
thinking. However, if my view matches the majority view I suppose that will
do for now.