Jihad needs scientists

[Michael A. Terrell]

T Wake wrote:

Or "If we give you this money will you promise to use it to buy weapons and
fight [Insert Disliked Government of the Day] and promise never to fight
us - unless you really have to?"

Can you [or anyone] remind me why the Irish Republican terrorist
organisations received so much in the way of donations from concerned,
caring, American private citizens? I've never been all that sure myself.

I get of hearing this. They collected money in areas with high Irish
American population, and the average American heard nothing about it,
till the "TV news Exposé". If the average American had know about it
and had agreed with it, there would have been more than enough money
flowing into their coffers for them to have won. The ones who did
donate were people who came to the US to get away from the British, and
wanted to help those left behind, right or wrong.


--
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

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 19:56:34 +0100, "T Wake"
<usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:45214B1B.7A9DD9AD@earthlink.net...
Jim Thompson wrote:

I've seen very few French tourists here in AZ... probably because
they'd be shunned ;-)


The ones I've met in Florida were quite rude, and about as ignorant
as the donkey. They think we owe them a huge favor because they came
here to harass us.

All French people are rude. That is why no one likes them. Even the French
don't like themselves.

I drove around France for six weeks once. The people in cities were
often rude, and the people in small towns and in the countryside were
almost always cheerful and friendly. In the US, I find city and
country people mostly friendly, without a big difference.

I think the rudest place I've been was Moscow... glories of Socialism
and all that.

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 02 Oct 06 13:03:29 GMT, lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

In article <i8c2i21iudf7dv1cpc4p91klck9bl53ppj@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 08:44:02 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:


Have you forgotten that the USA regularly denigrates the UN ?

Hell, *I* regularly denegrate the UN. It's stupid, massively corrupt,
and makes decisions based on majority vote of governments run by
thugs.

John

Like the US government then.

Your insight and eloquence are impressive. Is Graham your mentor?

John

 

[Homer J Simpson]

<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:6TdUg.937$NE6.620@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...

It might surprise you to know that I am a longtime Republican. The
disingenuity and outright dishonesty of the Bush administration has
disgusted me with the modern Republican party.

I wasn't happy with the selection of Bush (not really elected) and his ideas
of attacking Iraq. I did hope, however, that they would come up with a plan
for this which was so diabolically clever that even the enemies of the USA
would be in awe of it.

Instead, as the joke goes, he wanted to attack Iraq in the "worst possible
way" -- and he did just that.

It's also good that when FDR chose to ignore the precedent in the 1940s,
at least Congress was wise enough to codify it into the Constitution.

No, that was a bad idea. Clinton would have served the US much better for a
third term and was widely reported to be very fixated on terrorism (which
may have saved lives and billions). The next group clearly wasn't. Most of
the latter amendments, from income tax to the 22nd and even the 14th have
had negative effects.

 

In article <4520F3AD.D40CA468@hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> writes:

mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> writes:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <4520D844.DCF01BAD@hotmail.com>, Eeyore writes:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> writes:

There is no such thing as a coherent 'Islamic terrorist' movement, much as the USA would like to >> >have
you believe it. Much Islamic terrorism isn't even targeted at the West.

There wasn't such thing as a coherent "Axis" in 1939-40. There were
three separate nations, pursuing separate goals, often in
non-coordinated fashion, at times even in a way which was detrimental
to the other Axis members goals.

Your fixation with the history of WW2 is idiotic.

I'll take this for a tacit admition that you've no better answer.

The history of WW2 has nothing useful to offer in the current context. In fact it's wholly misleading to > use it as
any kind of template.

Aha. And this is based on, well, on your say so. Well, since I
already determined to my satisfaction what you're, don't expect me to
put to much of a weight on you opinions.

You seriously can't see the differences ?

I can see both the differences and the similarities. These and these

are important.

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

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 13:21:19 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 19:56:34 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:


"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:45214B1B.7A9DD9AD@earthlink.net...
Jim Thompson wrote:

I've seen very few French tourists here in AZ... probably because
they'd be shunned ;-)


The ones I've met in Florida were quite rude, and about as ignorant
as the donkey. They think we owe them a huge favor because they came
here to harass us.

All French people are rude. That is why no one likes them. Even the French
don't like themselves.


I drove around France for six weeks once. The people in cities were
often rude,

Absolutely! Probably from breathing the sewage stench constantly ;-)

and the people in small towns and in the countryside were
almost always cheerful and friendly.

Absolutely! I wouldn't be able to tell the difference between rural
France and rural WV except for the road signs.

In the US, I find city and
country people mostly friendly, without a big difference.

I think the rudest place I've been was Moscow... glories of Socialism
and all that.

John

We have our rude cities... NYC and Boston come to mind, though Boston
has gotten much better in recent years. I've often pondered if
rudeness is inversely correlated with personal economic health.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[Eeyore]

Homer J Simpson wrote:

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:YM6dnaSDq6ef-bzYRVnyug@pipex.net...

Very true. The invasion of Afghanistan made sense. The invasion of Iraq
was madness that has blunted the west's ability to get on with the rest of
the "mission." (Stabilisation of Afghanistan, change opium production to
other crops, stop Pakistan supporting the Taleban, remove safe routes for
AQ etc.)

The invasion of Afghanistan was a terrible risk which amazingly worked out
well. The US was now in a enviable position with a population generally in
favor of those who had removed their oppressors, worldwide acceptance, the
opportunity to turn Afghanistan into a shining example of peace and
democracy, the chance to shut down most of the world's opium production and
to provide these poor people with some minimal services like clean water and
earthquake proof schools.

Instead G W Bush flip-flopped and changed course and decided to attack Iraq
which was about as smart as attacking a hornet's nest with a baseball bat.

And now Afghanistan's going tits up. Not least because of the stupid pointless
Iraq war which resulted in taking the eye off the ball.

Video from the front line here including interviews with 'our boys'.

http://mfile2.akamai.com/22743/wmv/carlton1.download.akamai.com/12621/news/neelyfrontli_200906_883_00_IT.asx

http://mfile2.akamai.com/22743/wmv/carlton1.download.akamai.com/12621/news/1830afghanis_180906_925_00_IT.asx

http://mfile2.akamai.com/22743/wmv/carlton1.download.akamai.com/12621/news/1119afghanbr_190906_795_00_IT.asx

http://mfile2.akamai.com/22743/wmv/carlton1.download.akamai.com/12621/news/219neelyafgh_210906_280_00_IT.asx

http://mfile2.akamai.com/22743/wmv/carlton1.download.akamai.com/12621/news/1830neely1br_220906_983_00_IT.asx

http://mfile2.akamai.com/22743/wmv/carlton1.download.akamai.com/12621/news/afghanblogbr_270906_921_00_IT.asx

http://mfile2.akamai.com/22743/wmv/carlton1.download.akamai.com/12621/news/090027afghan_270906_783_00_IT.asx

http://mfile2.akamai.com/22743/wmv/carlton1.download.akamai.com/12621/news/090027afghan_270906_783_00_IT.asx

http://mfile2.akamai.com/22743/wmv/carlton1.download.akamai.com/12621/news/neelygrimbro_200906_885_00_IT.asx

http://mfile2.akamai.com/22743/wmv/carlton1.download.akamai.com/12621/news/neelychopper_200906_905_00_IT.asx



Graham

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 09:02:37 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 08:37:41 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

Sheeesh! Do a Google-groups search on Eeyore/Graham... he's a
depraved poster to porn groups, so he's probably in a cell, posting
from the prison library ;-)

...Jim Thompson


Really? What sort of smut does he specialize in? Probably the
non-procreative British kind.

John


---

He probably thinks that programming errors are called 'buggers'


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 17:05:11 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

Graham has a pathological and mostly irrational hatred of America,

Not at all. I am however intruiged how Americancs invariably bring out the hate word the very second even the tiniest
criticism is voiced against them.

It's not hate at all, more like despair at the crass stupidity of your governmemnt and the ppl who elected them.


and makes up things to support that need.

Simply no need ever to do that !


So naturally he doesn't like to
be reminded about stuff like WWII or the Cold War. He believes that
the UK and Russia defeated Germany with little need for US assistance.

The USA was around 3 years late to the party of course. I have little doubt that Russia would have eventually defeated
Germany anyway. Germany could certainly never ever have defeated Russia, the numbers simply aren't even remotely
credible.

---
That's all Monday morning quarterbacking but, if as you say, had
Russia defeated Germany without the US being involved do you think
that you'd still be speaking English as a first language?


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote in

Good to see you Nederlanders are doing so well ;-)

I assume I have just missed the joke here. Is this going to be used in your
act?

He has a thing about them. To him it's simply an insult to call someone a
Netherlander. He doesn't approve of their 'liberal' thinking.

Graham

 

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:XOSdncxhP5FZ_bzYRVnyvQ@pipex.net...

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:qsh2i2drpinua4j4gbg6utio5ap565jm4q@4ax.com...

Yeah, like: "If we give you this money will you promise to use it to
feed your people and not to make weapons with it?"

Or "If we give you this money will you promise to use it to buy weapons
and fight [Insert Disliked Government of the Day] and promise never to
fight us - unless you really have to?"

Oh, you mean like the Reagen and Clinton administrations did with Osama bin
Laden when he was fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan? The US government
needs to get over its black-and-white thinking that "the enemy of my enemy
is my friend"...or at least add the caveat "until I piss him off, too."

remind me why the Irish Republican terrorist
organisations received so much in the way of donations from concerned,
caring, American private citizens? I've never been all that sure myself.

Probably mostly because they were able to legitimize themselves as an
"Army", and whether rightly or wrongly, to legitimize their fight as being
against a hostile occupying government...you know, the same thing we risk
doing by legitimizing the "War on Terror", and continuing to occupy Iraq,
thereby giving the terrorists the grist of an enemy occupation to foment and
legitimize their fight. The thing that Meron doesn't understand is that
perception *is* reality, and that by calling a thing by a certain name, we
can influence people's perceptions of it from afar. If we go around telling
people we're fighting a "war on terror", then the logical assumption is that
the terrorists are fighting a war against us. This leads to the assumption
that they must have something legitimate to be fighting for, which engenders
much more sympathy and support globally, by people who are not affected by,
and thus do not understand the misanthropic nature of the acts of the
terrorists.

For those who insist on comparing the current situation to another, Northern
Ireland over the past 30 years or so is a far, far better analogy than WWII,
and we should have learned a lot from it. Unfortunately, it appears we're
doing all the wrong things to give the terrorists global sympathy and
support like the IRA enjoyed for a long time. Fortunately, the Northern
Irish got tired of dying, and have largely stopped their terrorist
activities. Will we be so lucky with the current global terrorists?

Eric Lucas

 

In article <9n22i2tv97gi1nu17cif4u0nlj2el109nf@4ax.com>, JoeBloe <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> writes:

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 09:24:57 GMT, mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu Gave us:

In article <4520D8A3.4083F074@hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> writes:


mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

In article <4520CA69.C0BBA60B@hotmail.com>, Eeyore writes:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

You may have noted that 9/11 was way before the invasion of Iraq.

Does Palestine ring any bells ?

The real demon is the State of Israel.

You should note that Al Queda hardly ever mentioned Palestine before
9/11 either.

Al Qaeda wasn't really known about prior to 9/11 so your point is moot.

Al Queda was known for at least a decade before 9/11. "Not paid
attention to" is not the same thing as "not known". And Al Queda
itself is just an offshot of earlier movements.


Why even converse with that stupid idiot?

Good question.

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

 

[Eeyore]

John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 10:41:22 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

I repeat, "silence implies consent".

Of course it doesn't, but "consent" remains legal anyhow.

There are millions of Muslims in this country, citizens and legal
residents, and their rate of participation in terrorism is within the
engineering definition of zero.

Silence was once legal under the law AIUI. I guess that's the reason for
those secret prisions and extraordinary rendition..... to get round those
awkward legal niceties.

Graham

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 17:15:32 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 16:06:00 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

How much do you personally donate to things like this?

I don't have to account for it thank you and I certainly don't have the kind of income
that would allow me to donate anything like you do. We do however have a government
that does it on our behalf, not to mention the likes of Oxfam etc... in the 'voluntary
sector' who are normally very fast off the mark when need is high.

Graham

In other words, nothing. In Texas, people like you are called "all hat
and no horse."

It's none of your business.

Unlike some who like to look the other way when a collecting tin comes round, I don't
though.

---
No, you like to look in so you can remove the largest bills as it
goes by.


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[Eeyore]

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

T Wake wrote:

Or "If we give you this money will you promise to use it to buy weapons and
fight [Insert Disliked Government of the Day] and promise never to fight
us - unless you really have to?"

Can you [or anyone] remind me why the Irish Republican terrorist
organisations received so much in the way of donations from concerned,
caring, American private citizens? I've never been all that sure myself.

I get of hearing this. They collected money in areas with high Irish
American population, and the average American heard nothing about it,
till the "TV news Exposé". If the average American had know about it
and had agreed with it, there would have been more than enough money
flowing into their coffers for them to have won. The ones who did
donate were people who came to the US to get away from the British, and
wanted to help those left behind, right or wrong.

So you're happy to admit to a desire to sponsor terrorism ?

Graham

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 17:16:30 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 08:37:41 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

Sheeesh! Do a Google-groups search on Eeyore/Graham... he's a
depraved poster to porn groups, so he's probably in a cell, posting
from the prison library ;-)

...Jim Thompson

Really? What sort of smut does he specialize in? Probably the
non-procreative British kind.

I'm all ears to hear what juicy tidbits Jim has to offer.

---
And afterwards you'll be all mouth and asshole trying them out.


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 17:05:11 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
John Larkin wrote:

Graham has a pathological and mostly irrational hatred of America,

Not at all. I am however intruiged how Americancs invariably bring out the hate word the very second >even the tiniest
criticism is voiced against them.

It's not hate at all, more like despair at the crass stupidity of your governmemnt and the ppl who >elected them.

and makes up things to support that need.

Simply no need ever to do that !

So naturally he doesn't like to
be reminded about stuff like WWII or the Cold War. He believes that
the UK and Russia defeated Germany with little need for US assistance.

The USA was around 3 years late to the party of course. I have little doubt that Russia would have >eventually defeated
Germany anyway. Germany could certainly never ever have defeated Russia, the >numbers simply aren't even
remotelycredible.

---
That's all Monday morning quarterbacking but, if as you say, had
Russia defeated Germany without the US being involved do you think
that you'd still be speaking English as a first language?

Probably. Once Germany knew it was losing it's quite likely that's they'd have abondoned the war with Britain and asked for
our help. History's quite clear on this point.

Graham

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 17:24:42 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 00:50:29 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

but the really unfortunate thing is that it was a
result of the fact that our leader chose to piss off the entire rest of the
world with his cowboy antics.

---
Whether his actions (or, rather, the consequences of his decisions)
would piss off the rest of the world isn't something that should
stand in the way of his doing what he considers to be the right
thing.

It's the wrong thing though. I doubt much thought was involved either aside from
xenophobia.

---
From your point of view, anything he did would be wrong, just
because he's American, so whether what he did pisses you off or not
is irrelevant.

As is whether he pisses off the rest of the world or not. We're not
here to appease a bunch of thugs who want nothing less than to take
over the world for their own perverted ends, and we're not here to
appease a bunch of short-sighted cowards like you (you, Graham, not
the UK) who want to maintain the status quo by taking that radical
Islamic dick up your ass, as long as it goes in slowly.


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:YM6dnaSDq6ef-bzYRVnyug@pipex.net...

lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:6rbUg.7744$GR.3438@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...

I agree. The West has initiated this "war" on the basis we are
good/free/democratic etc and "they" aren't. Throwing away the rule book so
we can get "them" is not a step in the right direction. There is a reason
why police have to follow the law to apprehend criminals.

Side issue, but this has always been a pet peeve of mine. The consequence
of the police not following the law in apprehending criminals has only ever
been that they are have to release the alleged criminal. In other words,
the police can trample people's (anybody's, not just criminals') rights at
will, and the worst that will happen is the apprehendee is released, to
commit more crime if they were the criminal in the first place. How is that
good for society? In pathological cases, it leads to innocent people having
their rights trampled, and guilty people walking free. Shouldn't the police
be subject to criminal penalties when they violate the law to apprehend a
criminal?

I'll take you one further...in order to succeed (win), you have to define
what success would look like. Can we even do that in any realistic
sense? Has Bush and his cronies actually ever even bothered to try? If
not, it sure starts to sound like nothing more than a catch-phrase
soundbite, along the lines of "Mission Accomplished".

Defining success in a nebulous concept is difficult for sane people. Maybe
if the President of the United States waits long enough, God will tell
him.

Actually, I don't even think he expects that...he knows it will not be his
problem, since there's no credible scenario that leads to victory (however
you might define it) in the "war on terror" before 2009. He will never face
accountability for his lack of vision or forethought. If I were a
conspiracy theorist (I'm not), I would say that he started the mess in Iraq
knowing full well that it would worsen and extend the whole fight against
terrorism to a time when he wouldn't have to accept responsibility for what
is in all likelihood a no-win situation.

Iraq was such a badly timed move it beggars belief.

Trust me...about half of the US population agreed with you even back then,
and that has grown to almost 2/3 now. What beggars belief is that not more
of the population has come to realize what a colossal blunder it was. I
pray that this doesn't happen, but I think another attack on US soil is
inevitable despite our bluster that it won't happen. Maybe if that happens,
everybody will start to "get it".

Even waiting three years would have worked wonders.

It's not clear to me it would *ever* have been a good idea. I now pray that
Rice et al don't stir the pot too much with Iran. The Middle Eastern
scholars I've heard and read are now saying that Ahmadinejad has so little
popular support that he will be ousted within a short time, and that a
peaceful, secular regime will in all likelihood succeed him. If we stick
our noses in there, we could just give him enough support among Iranians to
stick around long enough to develop and use nuclear weapons technology.

I want Special Forces assistance in my War Against Grass this Sunday.

Fortunately, mine seems to have largely stopped to grow for this year.

I hear Napalm works well for that. Does Dow still sell it? ;^)

Eric Lucas

 

In article <efr7vg$sb7$2@blue.rahul.net>, kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) writes:

In article <2p1Ug.16$45.152@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote:
[....]
Well, here is at least one thing you can say for Al Queda. They are
quite honest, no pretending.


Maybe, they are just more effective liars. If you haven't caught them in
a lie, it doesn't mean there weren't lies they got away with.

Oh, I'm sure there were some, but these are what is called "tactical

lies". With regard to principal matters, i.e. their goals, they're
quite forthcoming. Just as Hitler was.

The whole idea that they have anything to do with any form of Islam may
well be a lie.

I wouldn't quite say so. The only operational answer to the question
"what does a given religion say and command" is "what its adherents
believe it says and commands". Given enough preachers stating "this
is what the religion commands" and enough believers accepting it,
"this" becomes the reality. And they do have a lot to do with
Wahabism, which is the form of Islam common in the Saudi peninsula.

They can get lots of cannonfodder from the Muslim world
may be the reason they try to appear Islamist. It may really be about
power and control.

One doesn't contradict the other one. People may be driven by the
desire for power and control *and* to really, truly believe in what
they're doing (to the point of willing to die for it), at the same time.

In our "goody-goody" western upbringing we're conditioned to believe
that only "good people" (where "good" means "good by our standards")
are motivated by ideals while "bad" (again, by our standards) people
are motivated solely by selfish desires, for wealth, power and the
like. It ain't so. There is no doubt that many of the top Nazis
truly believed in the righteousness of their cause. When the day of
reckoning came, many of them preferred to kill themselves rather than
live in a world where their ideals have been defeated. Goebbels and
his wife poisoned themselves and all their kids as well. If that's
not an act of a true believer, I don't know what is.

So, disconcerting as the notion may be, the people "on the other side"
may be just as commited to their ideals as we're to ours. Possibly
more so. It'll be a grave error to underestimate them and assume that
it is not so.

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