Jihad needs scientists

[T Wake]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:lkuki2lbh586tq7ibc7k1ajd4gtmcokueq@4ax.com...

On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 23:13:14 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:


"JoeBloe" <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:e5mii2lk999fcil32t1rtv0ad6qfnrjhdj@4ax.com...
On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 02:32:42 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> Gave us:


"JoeBloe" <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:780gi25ruponn590krd8cgvvt9p3catitk@4ax.com...
On Sat, 7 Oct 2006 18:13:31 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> Gave us:

It is ok, it was an imaginary elephant. In the real world, imaginary
things
cant hurt you. As an aside, I know what imaginary numbers *are* and
I
also
know there is no way *you* are juggling them.

I say again. You *know* nothing.

Repetitive sycophant.

The void between your ears is astounding.

Wow. A new insult. Brilliant. Did you spend all weekend trying to come up
with that one or did you over hear some school children like you seem to
have done with all your others.

---
Now, now...

I seem to recall that when you first started posting here you were
of the opinion that a calm and rational debating style was best.
Now, however, you seem to be more and more slipping into the
quagmire we love which you initially denounced...

For shame...

I try to limit my descent into the pit to replies to two people. As long as
the person I am talking "with" is reasonable, I hope I remain reasonable.

Anyway, did I denounce the quagmire or did I say it wasn't an effective
debating style

 

[Daniel Mandic]

JoeBloe wrote:

No, it doesn't. When placed next to a TRADE MARK, it does. When
placed next to your shithead name, it means absofuckinglutely nothing.

aahh, you mean my Head shits good. Yes... Thanks!

Compared to your brainfarts...


you should at least clean all the old shite around yours, or do you
grow up winter-cherries out of the ol' shite.




Well, it's not me... just sit on your Head.



Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic

 

[Daniel Mandic]

T Wake wrote:

Your two options ("Stay the course" or "concede") are generated by
you not the Extremists (Grocery Store). There are more options - for
example, try other courses.

They should expand their Democracy, at least. Now, it is Anarchic, IMO.



Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic


P.S.: or a coalition... for the first ... just imagine: nobody goes
to vote, then...

 

[Daniel Mandic]

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

You have forgotten that 9/11 was the second attempt to destroy
the World Trade Towers?

snip

/BAH

Who the f... is 9/11? Police? Porsche? A date?

Sorry to say this, but this is a paranoia number!!!!



Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic

 

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:7Nmdna-JXZt14rfYnZ2dnUVZ8qudnZ2d@pipex.net...

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.

And, to get on my high horse for a just a moment longer....this is *exactly*
what our Constitution was designed to do--prevent insane governance from
tossing out peoples' rights because of the bogeyman-du-jour. (Sorry for the
horrendous phrase coinage there.)

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.

It is, to an extent, human nature. However, that, in fact, was the basis of
Ben Franklin's famous quote. People who hand trade their hard-won rights
for a little security are the worst kind of cowards.

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.

Ah, I see now. I can't think of an instance of Political Correctness
reaching the extent of legislation in the US yet, but I'm sure someone will
point some out to me. However, I lay this more at the feet of people/groups
that are too eager to take offense at what someone says. It's a hard issue,
though, because I also feel that everybody has a responsibility to respect
others' thoughts and actions and choices. I think the answer is that
everybody needs to be just a tad more sensitive to the consequences of their
own actions and words, including on other peoples' feelings, while at the
same time being a tad less sensitive to the consequences of others's actions
and words. A noble aim to strive for, at the least.

Eric Lucas

 

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:3tKdnV9bh7LRH7fYnZ2dnUVZ8qudnZ2d@pipex.net...

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

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.

Maybe, but at the very least, the US as a nation owed Iran an official
apology.

Saying they "did it by the book" is far from sufficient.

And, in fact, implies the need to rewrite the book. To not do so tacitly
implies that it is OK to kill a large number of another nation's civilians
in a time of peace, for no good reason. Let's pray that no other nation
decides to turn those table on us. Oh, wait. They already did.

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).

I'm surprised. That sounds like a remarkably un-military way of doing
things. I always thought that the chain of command was to be immutable, for
good reason.

Eric Lucas

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

On 08 Oct 2006 19:48:02 GMT, "Daniel Mandic" <daniel_mandic@aon.at
wrote:

John Fields wrote:

That doesn't mean he's wrong, though.

He's not wrong and you are Right. Is this the tactic?

---
Go back and read it again.

As I recall, instead of debating a poster's claims, Eeyore was
claiming the poster was insane in order to try to discredit the
poster and, thus, his claims.

I merely pointed out that being insane doesn't automatically
preclude also being right.

I think suggesting that Islam wants to destroy our bridges, roads,
computers and manufacturing plants among other items suggested is a
pretty reliable indicator of some kind of mental illness.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Ken Smith wrote:

In article <egdb10$8qk_002@s891.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:
[... Iran ...]
Where do you think their atomic bombs will be detonated?

It could be that they don't intend to detonate them. Put your self in
their shoes. They see:

(1)
Iraq has no WMDs and gets invaded by the US.

(2)
N. Korea has WMDs and remains safely in power.

Looking at these two cases, Iran may take the leason that the only way to
not be invaded by the US is to have WMDs.

That will be the clear message if nothing is done about N Korea.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Ken Smith wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Anyone would think making nukes was easy the way the Republicans go on about it
too.

Actually it is fairly easy if you don't care about size or quality. The
material doesn't have to be "weapons grade" either. For a given yeld, the
bomb gets bigger as some very rapid function of impurity content but it
isn't a step function. You could stop short of what the US or Russia used
for material.

To get a high yeld you need to get the reaction material together and to
stay together for a longish time while the pressure is trying to push it
apart. If you use a huge surplus of material its own interia will hold a
portion of the material in. This gives a low yeld and very dirty bomb.

It also makes for a very heavy bomb with attendant issues wrt launching it on a
missile !

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

John Larkin wrote:

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.

Because the USA does a lot of immoral things maybe ?

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

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.

If the USA had said that, no doubt in more diplomatic terms, and compensated the families
of those killed along with Iran Air for the loss of its Airbus, I'm sure there would still
have been some justifiable grumbles but the USA would at least be seen to have discharged
its moral obligations. Instead the relatives had to take the USA to court and the
bitterness continues.

Graham

 

"Ken Smith" <kensmith@green.rahul.net> wrote in message
news:ege2t8$584$1@blue.rahul.net...

In article <hsuWg.4640$NE6.3613@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
[....]
Indeed. It is my observation that it is exactly this sort of xenophobia
which is leading to much of the overreaction to terrorism. Bush may be
fomenting it with his rhetoric of fear, but that rhetoric wouldn't work if
people weren't so ready to distrust and believe evil of those who are
different than them. For all I know, the terrorism itself may be partly a
product of the terrorists' xenophobia.


Back when we clubbed dinner over the head for a living, it made sense to
distrust anyone that looked different. Members of a different troupe ere
likely a threat. We as a result have an instinct to distrust those that
differ. We need to recognize this human weakness.

We also group things to make them easier to think of. This is an
advantage in many cases because it lets us get quickly to the right
answer. In many other cases, this grouping works against us because we
make the wrong groups.

These needs to be taken into account when thinking about the motives of
others or even our motives. If two murders seen on the news have bushy
eyebrows, the public may group all people with bushy eyebrows and think of
them as murders. This would be an error, but it is much easier to correct
if you see its source.

It seems that right now we have this sort of problem with terrorist and
Islamic. Without knowing they are doing it people are making a
subconcious grouping. Although they logically understand that there is a
difference they are working against their own instincts.

You had me until that last sentence. I don't think many people do logically
understand their own instincts. If they were, then when someone points out
to them that they are mistaken in making overbroad generalizations about
people, they would understand and accede. Instead, pointing it out to some
people just garners indignation, insults, threats, etc.--we've seen examples
of this very thing here in this thread.

I think it would
help a lot if they saw nonterrorist islamic folk on TV or even better in
real life.

Agreed. That's why I'm trying to get BAH to so make some personal contacts,
rather than just cherry-picking extremist right-wing tomes to read. She is
simply unaware of and will not acknowledge her prejudices and filters, and
the fallacy of the assumptions predicated thereupon.

Eric Lucas

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
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.

LOL ! :~)

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

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?

Moot. The Vincennes' radio calls were on a military frequency ( because they had
misidentified the plane as an F-14).. The pilot never heard them and even if he
had been able to, they weren't directed at the pilot of an airliner.


Graham

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <JHgWg.3$25.68@news.uchicago.edu>,
<mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote:

In article <egb8h8$og6$1@blue.rahul.net>, kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken
Smith) writes:
[....]
Somehow you think that not wanting to risk India and Pakistan flinging
nukes at each other makes the effort non-serious. I disagree.

You don't understand, I'm afraid.

Oh, but I do understand. I disagree with what you have (at least appear
to have) concluded about the warning.

Of course nobody would want to risk
an exchange between India and Pakistan over such issue. Yet, it was
not a secret that Osama and his friends had connections within the
Pakistani military and intelligence establishment and it didn't take a
genius to figure out that any forewarning passed to Pakistan will,
with very high probability, be transferred to Osama, fast

It cerrtainly could not have been done before the warning was given. The
warning was IIRC very short notice. The Pakistani inteligence called the
ISI is well know to be infiltrated. This means that some members not all
members are working for the other side. The warning went not to the ISI
but to the government. If would then have to travel through the
government to the ISI and then within the ISI to a corrupt person who
would then have to have OBL's number on speed dial. It is very likely
that Musharraf knowing that the ISI is infiltrated would delay telling
them of the warning until after the missiles have reached the target.

(that he
ended up not being there, anyway, is utterly irrelevant to the issue).

Atually it is relevant. If he was there, he would be dead now and you
would not be claiming that the attack was "not serious".

The intelligence said that OBL was going to be at the location. He had
planned to go there and be there at exactly the time the missile hit the
place. This was a very serious attempt to kill him.

As I said above, it is only serious when you've ground assets capable
of confirming that yes, he's there.

No. This is simply false. If someone shot down Airforce One who thought
the president was on it it would be a very serious effort to kill the
president. That person would not need to have a person on Airforce One
for it to be considered serious. If someone blew up the White House
thinking the president was there it would be serious. If someone blew up
a farm house in Idaho thinking the president was there, it would be
serious. now s/president/OBL/

We're not talking about devices
with great destructive range here, it was enough for him to go a
quarter mile away from the perimeter, for whatever reason, to be safe.

He was planning to be inside the building that got blown up. He would
have been very dead if he had stuck to his plans.

There is no fixation on OBL. Taking out the leadership of the other side
is a normal thing to want to do.

It is a normal thing to do to the extent that it deosn't distract from
other things. It is rarely the main thing to do.

It is the thing we know about because a lot of attention was drawn to it.
A quick search via google indicates that it wasn't the only thing done.

From:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/08/clarke.rice/index.html
***
CLARKE: My impression was that fighting terrorism, in general, and
fighting al Qaeda, in particular, were an extraordinarily high priority in
the Clinton administration -- certainly no higher priority. There were
priorities probably of equal importance such as the Middle East peace
process, but I certainly don't know of one that was any higher in the
priority of that administration.
***

Today there is a lack of seriousness
about the effort against terrorists. This I see as a political
calculation by the republicans. They can call anything they want part of
the "war on terror" so long as that "war" never actually ends.

The war will take a long time but the lack of seriousness is on the
side of the democrats. By and large they don't even recognize that

If the republicans are left in charge the "war" will be eternal. So far
all they have done is made things a lot worse. If the democrats did
nothing, it would be better than what the republicans have done so far.
The democrats have and do take the terrorism issue very seriously. I
guess it is just the latest republican talking point from Faux News of
Rush Limbaugh that says they don't.

At the time Clinton tried to take out OBL he was really a leader.

Sigh. What is it that you don't understand here. Any movement and
any organization have a leader. This *does not* mean that the
movement/organization is dependent on any specific person as a leader.

You still haven't caught on! OBL was the leader he is what at that time
made it a coordinated group. Without him it would have been more
fragmented. This would have made them much less of a threat. Without a
centeral leader the other efforts to mop them up would be more effective.

[...]

Taking out the leadership of the other side is a key part of an effort
such as the one we find ourselves in today. Drying up their funding and
trying to prevent them from making new converts is also important. Doing
stuff like attacking Iraq works directly against all three of these.

Nope. Talking about "drying up their funding and preventing them from
making new converts", by itself is akin to talking about teaching pigs
to fly.

This is simply false. Here are obvious methods for attacking each.

(1) They get a lot of the funding from "charities" which can outlawed in
the US so that US funds stop going to them.

(2) Fund free schools in the middle east so that the poor have a option
besides the madrassas.


[...]

Now, a blow to the
head may not eliminate them but it will fragment them making them much
easier to clean up.

Somewhat easier. "Much easier" would be nice but may be to much to
expect.

I think that "much" is exactly the right word in this case. I was
refering to during the Clinton era not now. Today there are a lot of
groups that call themselves "Al Quada" but are not the OBL group of the
Clinton era. They have been created, at least in part, because of the
blundering about of the current admin.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <aruki2hluk2ki2i9m7k4ad9su5u2t1m347@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
[...]

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?

"Greedy self interest" is not generally held to be a morality and yet it
could be used as a reason to object to much that goes on.


--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <hsuWg.4640$NE6.3613@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>,
<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
[....]

Indeed. It is my observation that it is exactly this sort of xenophobia
which is leading to much of the overreaction to terrorism. Bush may be
fomenting it with his rhetoric of fear, but that rhetoric wouldn't work if
people weren't so ready to distrust and believe evil of those who are
different than them. For all I know, the terrorism itself may be partly a
product of the terrorists' xenophobia.

Back when we clubbed dinner over the head for a living, it made sense to
distrust anyone that looked different. Members of a different troupe ere
likely a threat. We as a result have an instinct to distrust those that
differ. We need to recognize this human weakness.

We also group things to make them easier to think of. This is an
advantage in many cases because it lets us get quickly to the right
answer. In many other cases, this grouping works against us because we
make the wrong groups.

These needs to be taken into account when thinking about the motives of
others or even our motives. If two murders seen on the news have bushy
eyebrows, the public may group all people with bushy eyebrows and think of
them as murders. This would be an error, but it is much easier to correct
if you see its source.

It seems that right now we have this sort of problem with terrorist and
Islamic. Without knowing they are doing it people are making a
subconcious grouping. Although they logically understand that there is a
difference they are working against their own instincts. I think it would
help a lot if they saw nonterrorist islamic folk on TV or even better in
real life.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 09:03:48 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

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." 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.

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.

The current concept of privacy as a Constitutional right was cobbled
up by the Supremes to justify the Roe-v-Wade thing.

Hardly, John. I suspect you've not really been reading your history
much. The concept of privacy as a right abounds within any reasonable
interpretation of the Constitution itself, as well as in the
Declaration of Independence explicitly, as well as in the debates over
ratification, debates raging in the New York Journal of the day, and
in the personal letters -- those anyway for which we still have copies
of today.

But setting aside those details, of which you appear ignorant, there
was also quite a deep concern about rights, generally. Some states
had specific declarations that prevented gov't from encroaching the
rights of minority groups (majority groups don't need protections, as
they can pass laws easily to get what they want.) Some states didn't.
On early development of the Constitution, there were no Amendments
specifically attached. And there was deep concern among many,
including Jefferson who wrote about this lack, that there was a
specific need to list at least some of the more important ones so that
there would be no possibility of mistake in later generations.

Hamilton argued fiercely, though, against their inclusion. He argued
that they would become our prison bars, as later generations would
imagine that having listed any at all, that those were all there were
to protect. Like owning 1000 acres of land and putting up a tiny
picket fence around only 1 acre about your solitary home, others
arriving into the area might very well imagine that you only claimed
just one acre, because that is where you put your fence. Jefferson
likened putting out explicit rights very much like this picket fence
that later generations might imagine, or be convinced to imagine, was
the only real province of their rights. When, in fact, quite the
opposite was true -- that the listing of some rights should not at all
be construed as to mean that others did not also exist and with equal
force, too. So we have the 9th Amendment added, to satisfy Hamilton.
It's known as "The Hamilton Amendment."

The principle guiding the writing of the Constitution of the US is
that "All rights reside within the individuals and that individuals
cede to gov't only those rights they deem are necessary for the good
of the whole and only for so long as that continues to be the case."
The presumption here is that gov't has NO RIGHTS at all and that only
individuals innately have rights; that individuals choose consciously
to cede only some of those rights to gov't for such good purposes as
seem appropriate for a time.

The point is that the right to privacy was not some silly concoction
to satisfy some weird, twisted means to write Roe v. Wade the way it
is. The right to privacy is quite real, apart from any of that.

Being ignorant of this is excusable. But claiming that the "current
concept of privacy as a Constitutional right was cobbled up by the
Supremes to justify the Roe-v-Wade thing," isn't excusable. It's not
even enough right to be considered wrong. It's just pure ignorance
speaking.

Jon

 

[T Wake]

<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:ugwWg.21154$Ij.704@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:7Nmdna-JXZt14rfYnZ2dnUVZ8qudnZ2d@pipex.net...

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.

And, to get on my high horse for a just a moment longer....this is
*exactly* what our Constitution was designed to do--prevent insane
governance from tossing out peoples' rights because of the
bogeyman-du-jour. (Sorry for the horrendous phrase coinage there.)

It's ok - it made sense to me

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.

It is, to an extent, human nature. However, that, in fact, was the basis
of Ben Franklin's famous quote. People who hand trade their hard-won
rights for a little security are the worst kind of cowards.


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.

Ah, I see now. I can't think of an instance of Political Correctness
reaching the extent of legislation in the US yet, but I'm sure someone
will point some out to me. However, I lay this more at the feet of
people/groups that are too eager to take offense at what someone says.
It's a hard issue, though, because I also feel that everybody has a
responsibility to respect others' thoughts and actions and choices. I
think the answer is that everybody needs to be just a tad more sensitive
to the consequences of their own actions and words, including on other
peoples' feelings, while at the same time being a tad less sensitive to
the consequences of others's actions and words. A noble aim to strive
for, at the least.

Part of the problem is an apparent "desire" to be seen to be doing the right
thing, rather than actually doing it. The MP in question (in my example)
stated he felt he could not communicate properly with his constituents if
they wore a veil. A veil is not mandated dress in the Koran. If I went in
there with a bikers helmet on he would ask me to remove it and no one would
bat an eyelid.

(As always IMHO) The problem is this fawning to over-sensitive people (they
have a choice - remove the veil or vote for some one else....), creates a
situation where idiotic rabble rousers (National Front et al) can easily
spin this to get the culturally-challenged sections of our society thinking
there is a "Muslim Threat." (This thread appears to support this!).

I have no issues with external cultures integrating with the UK, but they
must integrate. Arriving and demanding the host culture subsume itself to
the arrived one is (IMHO) wrong.

 

[T Wake]

<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:9owWg.21158$Ij.16734@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:3tKdnV9bh7LRH7fYnZ2dnUVZ8qudnZ2d@pipex.net...

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

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.

Maybe, but at the very least, the US as a nation owed Iran an official
apology.

I agree.

Saying they "did it by the book" is far from sufficient.

And, in fact, implies the need to rewrite the book. To not do so tacitly
implies that it is OK to kill a large number of another nation's civilians
in a time of peace, for no good reason. Let's pray that no other nation
decides to turn those table on us. Oh, wait. They already did.

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).

I'm surprised. That sounds like a remarkably un-military way of doing
things. I always thought that the chain of command was to be immutable,
for good reason.

No, the Geneva Accords of 1948 and the effects of the War Crimes trials
ensure that any nation hoping to abide by the laws of armed conflict make
their soldiers aware of the need to exhibit judgement before each round is
fired. Soldiers are trained to be obedient, but taking someone else's life
(especially in peace keeping operations) is a critical action. As far as I
know the British Army still hammer this into it's soldiers (I suspect the
subject is called something other than Laws of Armed Conflict but they will
still be taught).

The issue is how much the soldiers take note of the lessons. I know it
because part of my role when I was a section commander and platoon sgt was
to teach it. There will always be significant parts of any organisation
which pay lipservice to a subject.