Jihad needs scientists

[John Fields]

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 00:54:09 GMT, "Homer J Simpson"
<nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:bcb3i25cegi15r7b0m2iigln69kavrdvs7@4ax.com...

I wasn't happy with the selection of Bush (not really elected) and his
ideas
of attacking Iraq.

---
For all your pretense of knowledge of things American, you should
have known that Bush was fully legally elected.

You see, it's not the popular vote which matters, it's the votes of
the electors which count, and _they_ were the ones that elected Bush
to office, regardless of the debacle in Florida.

---
Snipped a lot of crap which had nothing to do with the electoral
college.
---

Had the Congress not enacted the two-term rule, Clinton might never
have been elected to the presidency.

True, but that's the will of the voters.

---
Not 'but', asshole, 'because'.


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 00:54:10 GMT, "Homer J Simpson"
<nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news1a3i217rkdlk75f5c4qshb3d3te49m1cd@4ax.com...

And yet the Israelis get what they need done in a far more competent
manner
with only a few errors.

What does that have to do with clandestine work to which you're not
privy?

What do you have to do with intelligent discussion?

Merely participate.

And you?


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 01:58:29 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
<dirk.bruere@gmail.com> wrote:

Gordon wrote:
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 00:47:08 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:


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

Graham, what John said is straight out of their Koran. Repeated
in many Surah, Ayah passages. For example;

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Surah 47, Ayah 4 When ye encounter the infidels, strike of their
heads till ye have made a great slaughter among them, and of the
rest make fast the fetters.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the record, an infidel is anyone who is not a recognized
Muslim in good standing. A Muslim who turns away from the Muslim
religion is an infidel. Any person who belongs to and
acknowledges belonging to any other religion is an infidel.

Gordon

Then how do you account for Iran having the second highest Jewish
population in the ME? According to your theory they should all be
Muslims or dead by now.

---
They are "People of the Book" and deserve respect.


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[Homer J Simpson]

<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:UqlUg.19060$Ij.1578@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...

And this has exactly what to do with a conversation on racism? It's not
even religion-ism--it was someone extracting revenge on a community for a
20-year-old wrong. Please get the facts before you spout off.

Facts you are unaware of?

Other national: "I feel bad so I'll talk to my friends"

American: "I feel bad so I'll murder some innocent people"

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 02:09:54 GMT, "Homer J Simpson"
<nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:R9jUg.19029$Ij.3465@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...

I don't think Clinton was a very good moral example, but then again, there
are lots of things that are worse than getting an adulterous blowjob at
work

Carter sold arms to the Indonesians so they could massacre the East
Timorese. Compared to that a blowjob is nothing.

I'm just disappointed that the "leader of the free world" was getting such
crappy sex. Most other world leaders do a lot better - esp. the French.

With all of the high paid assistants in the White House it seems it would be
easy to have one of them be the unofficial presidential bicycle.

---
So, I was right!

You don't give a shit about what's right and what's wrong, you're
such a simp that what you'd use the President's office for (if you
were the President of the US) would be to try to score some snatch.

You're pitiful, and any woman worth her salt would wear a burka in
your presence.



--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 02:09:55 GMT, "Homer J Simpson"
<nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:7ed3i2hh00fettsqj0csuni7mjbfqvtg60@4ax.com...

All that incident in Jasper, Texas, proved was that three racist
whites killed a black man.

Two of them were sentenced to death by lethal injection, and the
third was sentenced to life.

If this was a racist society they would all have gotten off with a
year or so, if that.

How long is it since you could blow up a church and murder children and not
be charged?

---
That has nothing to do with racism, so it seems you've changed the
topic to Waco, David Koresh, and the Branch Davidians.

What do you want to discuss about that?


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[Homer J Simpson]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:21r3i29au320e00180ge85golv0qb28v86@4ax.com...

So, I was right!

You don't give a shit about what's right and what's wrong, you're
such a simp that what you'd use the President's office for (if you
were the President of the US) would be to try to score some snatch.

You're pitiful, and any woman worth her salt would wear a burka in
your presence.

You're a sad little person aren't you? A sad little whiner who cries for his
mommy because the world isn't as nice as he wants it to be and people are
mean to him.

Get over yourself.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:47p3i2lhdd5ch20qfkdn9n4tsnbn697boi@4ax.com...

True, but that's the will of the voters.

Not 'but', asshole, 'because'.

Keep drinking. The bad feelings will go away.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:a8q3i2p8c069ke06esqnp7se8h32ekc04r@4ax.com...

What do you have to do with intelligent discussion?

Merely participate.

And you?

Lead.

 

[Paul Hovnanian P.E.]

Send them the resume of the guy who things the WTC was brought down by a
controlled demolition.

--
Paul Hovnanian mailtoaul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
David Bradley (IBM programmer who created the Ctrl-Alt-Del reboot
keyboard sequence), "I may have invented it, but Bill made it famous."

 

[Frithiof Andreas Jensen]

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:aqidnbfWDbnvorzYnZ2dnUVZ8qCdnZ2d@pipex.net...

I do think the Arabs need to get over Palestine. Its not as if they dont
have other countries to go to...

It's rather the UN that needs to get over Palestine - without the UN keeping the
camps running and maintaining status quo people would move. The Arabs despise
the Palestine people as much as the jews.

 

[Frithiof Andreas Jensen]

<mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:4ngUg.37$45.164@news.uchicago.edu...

In article <g8OdnRoTOcYdo7zYRVnyiw@pipex.net>, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> writes:

mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:g0%Tg.10$45.93@news.uchicago.edu...


As I said, you're thinking way too small. And, too parochial. The
belief that other people are just reacting to what we do, not acting
on their own plans and ideas, is touching, but not anchored in
reality. It is a pleasant belief, no doubt, since it presents us with
the illusion of control, with the sense that ultimately all that's
happening depends only on what we do, thus we just have to find the
proper mode of behavior and everything will be great. A pleasant
illusion, but no more than this.


So, if the West's actions have no impact on the behaviour of the "opponent,"
how can the war be won? Your post implies that nothing we [tinw] can do will
change their behaviour.

We did change the behavior of Germany and Japan, didn't we?

At the cost of maybe 20% of the German population - which clearly noone is
willing to pay yet in the middle east; mainly because it would look really bad
on TeeVee. If one is not going to fight for real and destroy the opponents there
is really, really no point in sending soldiers.

Do you advocate armed conflict purely out of vengeful spite?

No. "War is a continuation of policy by means of force". Policy is
aimed at shaping the future, not avenging the past.

Therein lies the problem:

"Policy" seems to mean more and more: "Keep that Saudi Oil flowing" for a few
years more regardless of the costs in civilian lives and freedom of speach and
expression.

I.M.O: If WW2 was conducted the same way, we would be still be busy knocking
over small groups of Waffen SS while talking about our "deep respect" for
Neo-German culture and the historic achievements of Hitler (all the while buying
German products to prop up the failing plundocracy)!

 

In article <eft89f$20j$1@news.al.sw.ericsson.se>, "Frithiof Andreas Jensen" <frithiof.jensen@die_spammer_die.ericsson.com> writes:

mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:4ngUg.37$45.164@news.uchicago.edu...
In article <g8OdnRoTOcYdo7zYRVnyiw@pipex.net>, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> writes:

mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:g0%Tg.10$45.93@news.uchicago.edu...


As I said, you're thinking way too small. And, too parochial. The
belief that other people are just reacting to what we do, not acting
on their own plans and ideas, is touching, but not anchored in
reality. It is a pleasant belief, no doubt, since it presents us with
the illusion of control, with the sense that ultimately all that's
happening depends only on what we do, thus we just have to find the
proper mode of behavior and everything will be great. A pleasant
illusion, but no more than this.


So, if the West's actions have no impact on the behaviour of the "opponent,"
how can the war be won? Your post implies that nothing we [tinw] can do will
change their behaviour.

We did change the behavior of Germany and Japan, didn't we?

At the cost of maybe 20% of the German population - which clearly noone is
willing to pay yet in the middle east; mainly because it would look really bad
on TeeVee. If one is not going to fight for real and destroy the opponents there
is really, really no point in sending soldiers.

Well, so here is the situation. As Clausevitz wrote, war doesn't end
till the spirit of one of the opponents is not broken. Now, the
breaking point will depend on the specific nation as well as on the
circumstances of the specific war, but based on ample historical data
it is somewhere in the vicinity of 10% of the population (give or take
factor two for the specific circumstances). But, since we're living
in kinder and gentler times", we prefer to ignore the empirical
record, and hope, against hope, that somehow, by some miracle, same
result can be obtained much cheaper. Now, miracles can be very nice
when they happen, but putting trust in them is not very wise. So,
yes, I agree with you, absent the readiness to fight for real we're
just biding our time.

Do you advocate armed conflict purely out of vengeful spite?

No. "War is a continuation of policy by means of force". Policy is
aimed at shaping the future, not avenging the past.

Therein lies the problem:

"Policy" seems to mean more and more: "Keep that Saudi Oil flowing" for a few
years more regardless of the costs in civilian lives and freedom of speach and
expression.

I.M.O: If WW2 was conducted the same way, we would be still be busy knocking
over small groups of Waffen SS while talking about our "deep respect" for
Neo-German culture and the historic achievements of Hitler (all the while buying
German products to prop up the failing plundocracy)!

I'm afraid you're right.

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

 

In article <xA9Ug.7703$GR.5123@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4520F44A.881C5E16@hotmail.com...


mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

In article <efqje7$8ss_003@s821.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
In article <45206C37.EA6475DA@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

Western Europe wasn't interested in getting much involved in the
anshluss, because it wasn't the target of Nazi expansionism.

All of which has zilch to do with this.

Your comment is an example of why history has to repeat itself.

Yes, exactly.

There is no exactly about it.

It's just that the American fundamentalist Right has only scare tactics to
resort to and
nothing of substance whatever.


....and if one chooses to draw parallels between our actions in the Middle
East and 1933-1939 Germany, one parallel is the fact that Bush is using
similar scare tactics to retain power,

The anti-Bushers keep saying this and it makes absolutely no sense.
What do you mean "retain power"? He has a term in office which
will end. He won't retain any powers after the Inaugeration in 2009.

take away peoples' rights, and kill a
segment of the world population, in much the same propagandistic way that
Hitler did.

You've been listening to Democrats without thinking. Everything
coming out of their mouths is campaign speeches for 2004. This
is not a typo...I meant four.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Bush is the next
Hitler, just that there *are* parallels between their misanthropic behavior,
if hugely different in degree and consequence.

You are excoriating Bush for doing one of his primary jobs which
is national security. I suppose you long for the days of the
Clintons where the goal was to breakdown all national security.

 

In article <efr837$sb7$3@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:

In article <c7WdncygLPPv3r3YRVnytQ@pipex.net>,
T Wake <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
[...]
The western world bandies the term "war" around much too easily. (War on
Terror, War on Drugs, War on Obesity etc.)

It is time for a war on the improper use of the term "war on".

Yes. I always thought that these sound bytes were crying
wolf. When was the first one? Johnson's War on Poverty?

/BAH

 

In article <efship$e0d$1@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:

In article <DkfUg.31$45.83@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote:
In article <efr907$sb7$5@blue.rahul.net>, kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken
Smith) writes:
In article <XxYTg.5$45.149@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote:
[...]
Islamic terrorists aim at destruction of the western society and
you're not going to deter them because there is no deterring people
who already decided that they don't care whether they live or die.

Actually that is not true. Deterring people is about placing a treat
against what they value. You may be able to deter many of them with the
threat that if there is another attack, we will nuke Meca.

This, in fact, may work. We didn't get to this stage yet, but we may.
But this level of deterrence is in the province of war, not police
action.

I picked a very extreme example on purpose.

You people aren't thinking ;-).

The point I wanted to make
was that there is some extreme thing that we can be fairly sure would
serve as a deterrent. I figured once I had that point made, I could then
go on to the less extreme but much more doable.

This would not be a deterrent at all.

<snip>

/BAH

 

In article <XplUg.45$45.124@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

In article <2kj3i2du8jqbhpcei9mh1469dmncvt7bck@4ax.com>, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> writes:
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 00:05:51 GMT, mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

In article <v673i2dusng3t5a82qt9hm7n8ve5p4t7ua@4ax.com>, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> writes:
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.

No, not quite. True about the part of world domination, not about the
other one. Islam recognizes two categories of non-believers. One is
"polytheists" for whom, indeed, the accepted options are conversion or
death. The other is "Um al_Kitab", meaning "Nations of the Book",
which includes Christians and Jews. These may be allowed to live
without converting but only as "dhimmi" (you may check on this term).
Meaning, second class subjects, possessing the (limited) rights
granted them by their Muslim rulers, with the stipulation that said
rights may be withdrawn at the whim of the rulers.

---
How pleasant to read a scholar! Thank you.

Two small comments, if I may; the first being that I believe "Um
al_Kitab" means "People of the Book", and the second being that I
don't believe _radical_ Islam would have any qualms about
dispatching non-converts whether they were people of the book or
not.

What do you think?

Yes, I agree. "People" is really the more appropriate translation of
"Um". In fact I think that Islam doesn't even really recognize the
concept of "nation". As for the second, again, yes. There is no
stipulation, to my knowledge, that "Um al-Kitab" must be allowed to
live (without converting), only that they may be allowed to live (with
the decision left to those in power).

I think that a lot of this sorting out has to do with peoples
figuring out what nation means and how to run one. At least,
that's my current hypothesis. The Islamic civil law book was
created and evolved based on nationless empire. I don't know
enough about law and civil administrations to be able to
exptrapolate while streining out my Western civilization bias.

/BAH

 

In article <DReUg.28$45.71@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

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.

Because the content of his posts are a catalyst for real
discussions that aren't getting done in the usual mediums.

/BAH

 

In article <452197A3.17CCE793@hotmail.com>,
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' ?

This mess is about changing a mindset; either Western civilization's
mindset is changed or religious extremists' mindset is changed.

/BAH

 

In article <MeqUg.46$45.147@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

In article <eft89f$20j$1@news.al.sw.ericsson.se>, "Frithiof Andreas Jensen"
frithiof.jensen@die_spammer_die.ericsson.com> writes:

mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:4ngUg.37$45.164@news.uchicago.edu...
In article <g8OdnRoTOcYdo7zYRVnyiw@pipex.net>, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> writes:

mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:g0%Tg.10$45.93@news.uchicago.edu...


As I said, you're thinking way too small. And, too parochial. The
belief that other people are just reacting to what we do, not acting
on their own plans and ideas, is touching, but not anchored in
reality. It is a pleasant belief, no doubt, since it presents us with
the illusion of control, with the sense that ultimately all that's
happening depends only on what we do, thus we just have to find the
proper mode of behavior and everything will be great. A pleasant
illusion, but no more than this.


So, if the West's actions have no impact on the behaviour of the
"opponent,"
how can the war be won? Your post implies that nothing we [tinw] can do
will
change their behaviour.

We did change the behavior of Germany and Japan, didn't we?

At the cost of maybe 20% of the German population - which clearly noone is
willing to pay yet in the middle east; mainly because it would look really
bad
on TeeVee. If one is not going to fight for real and destroy the opponents
there
is really, really no point in sending soldiers.

Well, so here is the situation. As Clausevitz wrote, war doesn't end
till the spirit of one of the opponents is not broken. Now, the
breaking point will depend on the specific nation as well as on the
circumstances of the specific war, but based on ample historical data
it is somewhere in the vicinity of 10% of the population (give or take
factor two for the specific circumstances). But, since we're living
in kinder and gentler times", we prefer to ignore the empirical
record, and hope, against hope, that somehow, by some miracle, same
result can be obtained much cheaper. Now, miracles can be very nice
when they happen, but putting trust in them is not very wise. So,
yes, I agree with you, absent the readiness to fight for real we're
just biding our time.

Clarification, please? A mindset change of a people only needs
10% of them to change? This doesn't make sense,...unless.....
it's the intelligensia that has to do the changing. Another
question, if the answer is yes to the 10% of the population, is
there a particular sector of workers that have to do the changing?

<snip>

/BAH