Jihad needs scientists

[Eeyore]

John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 21:43:57 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
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

The issue is whether non-US-citizens have Constitutional rights when
they are not physically in the USA, or whether US citizens have such
rights when captured in a foreign country while fighting against our
military.

A decently civilised country wouldn't have any 'issue' with sorting that one
out.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 18:22:06 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 08:47:23 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 02:33:19 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

The US is not demonizing Islam, at this point. It makes the
distinction between Islam and Islamic extremism.

I can assure you that many Americans don't understand the difference.

How many is "many"? Seven? If "many" means "a significant fraction",
then you are, as usual, inventing anti-American "facts."

The majority who post on Usenet for sure !

It seems to me that the US War on Terror has simply created a new kind of
hostile racism or culture'ism of a sort.

---
Understandably so, since it threatens terrorists and terrorist
sympathizers, for whom you seem to be a leading advocate.

You truly don't have the tiniest clue do you ? Don't you know anything more
than yelling 'traitor' every time someone disgrees with you ? Like your
dickhead government does too.

---
Where were you disagreeing with me???

Actually, if you read my post again you'll see that I was agreeing
with you _and_ giving you a reason why the US "War on Terror" has
caused you to become the rabid anti-American you are. Basically,
since you're a wannabe anti-American terrorist, you feel threatened
by the war on terrorism and those feelings have resulted in what you
correctly identified as cultureism (my spelling) on your part.

You miss no opportunity to lambaste the US, its population, its
government, its institutions, and you hate its very existence, so
what do you expect me to think, that you're a benevolent soul trying
to help with constructive criticism?

I thought it was fine under Clinton !

You're not, you're just a
coward who's afraid to go out and do the bombing you'd really like
to.

Don't be so absurd. It sems you can only relate to violent ideas.

Traitor to the US? No. You can't be, you're not an American. What
you are is what we call "white trash."

You truly don't have the tiniest clue do you ?

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 10:36:08 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 17:24:24 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
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.

When I hear them in restaurants I say something like, "Le peuple de la
France est ignorant" ;-)

---
My favorite is: "Ce pâté sent comme la merde de chat."

Your 'French' is as bad as Thompson's.

Graham

 

In article <452197A3.17CCE793@hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> writes:

mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

"T Wake" writes:

The victory conditions are either nonsensical or nonachievable. Has any "War
on Terror" been won?

The term "War on Terror" is a misnomer. It really should be "The war
on Islamic extremism". Terror is just a tool.

Obfuscation noted.

So, are you saying it's possible to win a 'war on Islamic extremism' ?

Yes. Though, unfortunately, far stronger means than those currently

employed may be needed. I hope I'm wrong on this.

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

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 19:56:02 +0100, "T Wake"
<usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

"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?"

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.

---
Catholic VS Protestant?

I don't know either.


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[Eeyore]

mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> writes:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
"T Wake" writes:

The victory conditions are either nonsensical or nonachievable. Has any "War
on Terror" been won?

The term "War on Terror" is a misnomer. It really should be "The war
on Islamic extremism". Terror is just a tool.

Obfuscation noted.

So, are you saying it's possible to win a 'war on Islamic extremism' ?

Yes. Though, unfortunately, far stronger means than those currently
employed may be needed. I hope I'm wrong on this.

Do go on.....

Graham

 

[Gordon]

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 23:50:11 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

"T Wake" writes:

The victory conditions are either nonsensical or nonachievable. Has any "War
on Terror" been won?

The term "War on Terror" is a misnomer. It really should be "The war
on Islamic extremism". Terror is just a tool.

Obfuscation noted.

So, are you saying it's possible to win a 'war on Islamic extremism' ?

Graham

I think it will prove possible, if this current situation is

managed such that the radical terrorist cells are not attacked
with such vigor that the core leaders are all wiped out too
quickly. It will be better to leave the terrorist cells operating
and use them to lure other would-be terrorists into their groups,
then exterminate all but the leaders. Repeat the process several
times and bleed the population dry of any would-be terrorists,
then go after the backbone leaders...a Darwinian selection sort
of process...

Gordon

 

[Homer J Simpson]

<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:sDfUg.1001$NE6.847@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...

If I can get you to stop focusing on the race of the participants (doesn't
that make *you* the racist?), I'll ask the same question back at you in a
race-neutral fashion.

List some other coutnries where a man was murdered by being dragged to
death behind a truck.

Iraq? Iran? Saudi Arabia? Good company you keep.

 

In article <45219CAF.CF32F90C@hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> writes:

mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> writes:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
"T Wake" writes:

The victory conditions are either nonsensical or nonachievable. Has any "War
on Terror" been won?

The term "War on Terror" is a misnomer. It really should be "The war
on Islamic extremism". Terror is just a tool.

Obfuscation noted.

So, are you saying it's possible to win a 'war on Islamic extremism' ?

Yes. Though, unfortunately, far stronger means than those currently
employed may be needed. I hope I'm wrong on this.

Do go on.....

Not at present. Note, though, that Germany and Japan ceased to be a

problem after 1945.

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

 

[Homer J Simpson]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:no33i2566o90atlu6iu6dnvkmiufdfcv0c@4ax.com...

You think they are guilty of criminal acts because they do not
publicly condemn Muslim terrorism? That's a novel interpretation of
law. Can we find you guilty of not condemming, well, everything that's
illegal? Better start condemming... you have a lot of catching up to
do.

Isn't that now US law? If you fail to tell about a crime, even if you don't
know anything, you are guilty of something. If you fail to confess, even if
you believe you are not guilty, you are now guilty of that.

More and more like the Soviets every day!

 

[Homer J Simpson]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:452197A3.17CCE793@hotmail.com...

So, are you saying it's possible to win a 'war on Islamic extremism' ?

It isn't, but if you hunt down and kill enough Islamic extremists you could
have quite a chilling effect on them.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:hh23i2t5rakkholb9uqk29vdl1mhl3mdim@4ax.com...

Well, then, we'll just have to bomb the shit out of anybody that
fucks with Israel.

Why not 'accidentally' nuke it? That's what the Israelis do all the time.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:hu33i2tqjfg6nfvg8d5o1krhaq0lr1umhi@4ax.com...

The issue is whether non-US-citizens have Constitutional rights when
they are not physically in the USA, or whether US citizens have such
rights when captured in a foreign country while fighting against our
military.

The US believes that US law applies everywhere in the world, but US
constitutional rights don't apply to anyone who isn't the 'right sort of
person'.

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 23:53:26 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 21:43:57 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
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

The issue is whether non-US-citizens have Constitutional rights when
they are not physically in the USA, or whether US citizens have such
rights when captured in a foreign country while fighting against our
military.

A decently civilised country wouldn't have any 'issue' with sorting that one
out.

A decently civilized country has to have a constitution before this
becomes a problem.

John

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 19:59:42 +0100, "T Wake"
<usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:3kh2i2p1qoa888afm2l1ksq3j2qcvcfvrl@4ax.com...
---
So what? With world domonation as its goal, one would expect it
would strike world-wide, as the opportunity arose.


Whose goal? "It" isn't really appropriate to define the long term aims of a
disparate group of organisations. Are "they" trying to dominate the world or
destroy western society or convert every one or...

---
"It" being radical Islam, the goal, in my opinion, would be to
convert everyone to Islam and have them be subject to control by
Muslim jurists, the goal being total world domination by Islam.

Refusal to convert would result in death.


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 20:01:40 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 10:11:54 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <4520C55D.7B2F988C@hotmail.com>, Eeyore writes:

You need to do some reading. OBL for example.

I'm doing my reading. It is your reading that appears quite
superficial. Try following memri.org for a while, and that's just for
starters.

I see they mention the Muslim Brotherhood. They're the ppl you really should be scared about. Not >Islam
generally.

---
Probably _you_ should be afraid. I don't think they've forgotten
the Crusades yet.

Afraid of what exactly ?

---
Convert or die.


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[Eeyore]

Gordon wrote:

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 23:50:11 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
"T Wake" writes:

The victory conditions are either nonsensical or nonachievable. Has any "War
on Terror" been won?

The term "War on Terror" is a misnomer. It really should be "The war
on Islamic extremism". Terror is just a tool.

Obfuscation noted.

So, are you saying it's possible to win a 'war on Islamic extremism' ?

Graham

I think it will prove possible, if this current situation is
managed such that the radical terrorist cells are not attacked
with such vigor that the core leaders are all wiped out too
quickly. It will be better to leave the terrorist cells operating
and use them to lure other would-be terrorists into their groups,
then exterminate all but the leaders. Repeat the process several
times and bleed the population dry of any would-be terrorists,
then go after the backbone leaders...a Darwinian selection sort
of process...

You sound completely nuts to me !

Graham

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 20:04:16 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

T Wake wrote:

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

Yep, I knew he was at Battelle, thus my previous not-so-quiet comment
that his mouth was running on government money.

Wonder if his boss knows the crap he posts? I'll make sure that he
does ;-)

Loathe though I am to join in with the generalisation of American behaviour
traits, am I reading this correct in that some one has disagreed with you so
your response is a series of threats of violence and / or complaining to his
employer.

Amazing. You make me so proud.

Nothing's too base for Jim.

He even claims to be a libertarian !

---
And you claim to be human.

Which is the bigger stretch?\


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 19:59:42 +0100, "T Wake" wrote:
"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message

So what? With world domonation as its goal, one would expect it
would strike world-wide, as the opportunity arose.


Whose goal? "It" isn't really appropriate to define the long term aims of a
disparate group of organisations. Are "they" trying to dominate the world or
destroy western society or convert every one or...

---
"It" being radical Islam, the goal, in my opinion, would be to
convert everyone to Islam and have them be subject to control by
Muslim jurists, the goal being total world domination by Islam.

Refusal to convert would result in death.

Do you often conjure up such idiotic ideas out of thin air ?

Graham

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 20:11:50 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

T Wake wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 09:00:52 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

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.

So what? With world domonation as its goal, one would expect it
would strike world-wide, as the opportunity arose.

Whose goal? "It" isn't really appropriate to define the long term aims of a
disparate group of organisations. Are "they" trying to dominate the world or
destroy western society or convert every one or...

It seems to me he doesn't actually know or even care much as long as there's
some 'bogeyman' to have a pop at.

---
Blow me.


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer