Jihad needs scientists

[Eeyore]

mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> writes:
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote
---
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rights may be withdrawn at the whim of the rulers.

Until such time as Muslims exist in sufficient numbers the point is utterly moot.

Graham

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 04:10:11 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:d5l3i2trj8i6k1l80sr6151mtncu6efrqv@4ax.com...
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 00:38:14 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:


"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:4193i25jnfriiu1rskbtn7rdpdk6c38c8m@4ax.com...
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 20:04:16 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

And you claim to be human.

Which is the bigger stretch?

John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

Given your repeatedly hurling insults at people, I think a far bigger
stretch is you applying the adjective "Professional" to yourself. I've
not
seen such unprofessional behavior from somebody who goes out of their way
to
label themselves a "professional" in a long time. There's a big
difference
between having a healthy disagreement that leads to mature discussion and
deeper understanding, and name-calling.

---
The "professional" thing refers to what I do for a living. I'm a
circuit designer, I get paid for it (except around here, where
everything I do is pro bono and I advertise here, but just a
little, with my .sig and a real email address and link.

As for the rest of it, it's USENET, so as far as I'm concerned it's
pretty much a donnybrook where anything goes and there are no rules.
Probably the last place on Earth where that's true and you can call
a spade a spade without having to confront an armada of lawyers.

I'm writing from sci.electronics.design, where we have a lot of
world-class talent, so we attract a lot of world-class egos who
fancy themselves to be fast-draw McGraw.

Our job is to shoot them down before they convince themselves that
they're 'Q' and really hurt themselves or someone else, so the
insults are designed to cut through the bullshit and give them a
glimpse of the real world. Or, maybe, _this_ world.

In any case, no one wants to let go of their firmly held beliefs, no
matter how stupid (just threw that in for shock value) they may be,
so here we are.

John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

Please do remember that it's possible to do all that and still *act* civil,
i.e., like a professional.

---
Thanks for the advice, but I think I'll forego the act and continue
shooting from the hip, as is my style.


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[Eeyore]

lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:452198F0.A71D16AC@hotmail.com...


John Fields wrote:

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 !

Yes, but you see, if he denigrates your point of view by labelling you as
someone that could never say anything good about the US, then he doesn't
have to take your point of view seriously and try to understand that perhaps
it might even be a valid point of view, that an intelligent person may be
capable of coming to through independent thought. It's the same thing the
Bush administration does by labelling everyone that disagrees with it a
"traitor" (under the *extremely* liberal interpretations that disagreeing
with your government is tantamount to aiding the enemy.) What they seem to
fail to understand is that the Constitution gives every US citizen is given
the *responsibility* to question its government *every single* day of their
lives. It really is sad that the Bush administration has seen fit to
legitimize this sort of anti-American behavior.

I saw Keith Olberman's broadcast on this issue.

I find it truly fantastic that the US Gov't has become such a cesspool of
fuckwits and that so may of the US population are keen to lap it up.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Gordon wrote:

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 00:47:08 +0100, Eeyore 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.

The Bible says contradictory things too.

Your point ?

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 21:46:18 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
"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 ?

---
What's that all about?

All he wrote, it seemed to me, was a narrative.

It was a clear acceptance that sponsoring terrorism may be acceptable.

" If the average American........had agreed with it, there would have been more than
enough money
flowing into their coffers [the IRA] ".

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 21:52:45 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
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.

---
And if you'd have helped them, Russia would have wiped you both out
because of Germany's double-crossing Russia and you'd be speaking
Russian right now, if anything.

If you'd elected not to help them, then Russia would have wiped them
out and who's to say Stalin wouldn't have had his eye on a weak
little island incapable of defending itself at that point? And for
that matter, all of Europe. In which case, if he had his way with
you, you'd be speaking Russian right now. In public, anyway.

No way. If Britain and Germany had allied, the rest of Europe would have joined us too ( except the Swedes and Swiss probably )

Graham

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 20:01:19 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 16:55:57 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 10:13:41 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <4520C734.BF44F5D0@hotmail.com>, Eeyore 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.

Is ignorance better?

It simply has zero relevance to the issue at hand. Mind you, just to put your fevered American minds at rest,
should European Islam be stupid enough to get 'nasty' expect another 'Kristallnacht' with Muslims being
progromised.


I bet you're looking forward to that, boxcars and death camps. Does
"get nasty" include acquiring political power?

John

"progromised" ??

Eeyore is such an idiot ;-)

...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.

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 05:39:31 GMT, "Homer J Simpson"
<nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

"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.

---
From the rear?


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[Keith]

In article <nImUg.45564$bf5.35021@edtnps90>, nobody@nowhere.com
says...

"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.

Ok, so you ate a lot of it, as a child.

--
Keith

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields 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' ?

---
We won the one on German extremism so who's to say it's not possible
to win this one?

The Nazi party was genuinely popular. That's one reason they got elected.

Islamist extremism *isn't* popular. Although it may become more so as thew USA
continues to bumble its way from one disaster to another.

Graham

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 15:24:17 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 20:13:49 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 15:57:00 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

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.

Very different. The outcome could be similar though. This is why the USA needs
to be halted in its current idiotic behaviour.

---
And just how do you propose to do that?

There's this thing called public opinion and it affects this other thing called
politics.

---
Definitions aren't answers.

I'll ask you again: "Just how do you propose to do that?"

If you don't have any idea how individuals can influence things there's no point
answering.

---
Waffle on, you phony bastard.


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 23:55:44 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:

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.

---
Not at all true, but when I read your violent rhetoric I like to
translate it into visuals which depict what you'd like to do if you
weren't afraid of the reprisals.

Show where I have espoused violence. The only violently inclined ppl in this thread
are yourself, Thompson and Terrell. Violent even to the point of making personal
threats.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Homer J Simpson wrote:

lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote

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.

Heck, even the UK sold arms to the Idonesians. Jet fighters in fact.

That the US public could get so worked up over a minor sexual indiscretion yet
not give a damn about killing tens of thousands of foreigners is very telling
and a very depressing comment on the state of US society.

Graham

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 15:21:12 +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.

There is no entity called 'radical Islam'.

---
Just like there's no entity called 'white supremacists'.
---

Who exactly do you mean ?

---
The members of Islam who would have no qualms about relieving you of
your head if you refused to convert.


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 23:59:35 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
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.

---
Bitch at:

http://babelfish.altavista.com/

not at me.

I input: "This paté smells like cat shit."

and I got back: "Ce pâté sent comme la merde de chat."

How would you translate it?

Without involving babelfish.

Graham

 

JoeBloe wrote:
[snip]

Most college campuses today have open wireless access, so it could be
argued as being worse now than it was then.

Heh heh. All of downtown Toronto has free WIFI access for the
next six months. They are trying to get the playground kiddies
hooked on heroin.
Socks

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 00:43:47 +0100, Eeyorewrote:
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 !

---
And your plan would be to...

By removing the reasons for terrorist action primarily.

That'll mean listening to genuine greivances and doing something about them though.
Just like we did in N. Ireland.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Ken Smith wrote:

In article <NdfUg.992$NE6.169@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
[....]
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 think if the US said it supported him, he'd be out by sunset. Only by
having the US to blame and scare his population with does he maintain his
position of power. Illegitimate governments have often used an external
threat as a way to rally the populace behind themselves.

Another big issue in Iran is that it's becoming more modern by its own efforts.
Did you know for example that 70% of all Iranian graduates are now women.

Graham

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 15:22:58 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 20:01:40 +0100, Eeyore 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.

What gives you the utterly fuckwitted idea I'd ever be in such a position ?

---
I see. There's _absolutely_ no chance you'd _ever_ have to make that
decision? How comforting it must be to live in that
ignorance-induced fantasy world of yours.
---

Moslems only account for a tiny percentage of the population if you hadn't noticed.

---
Your arrogance will be your undoing.


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 00:47:08 +0100, Eeyore 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 ?

---
LOL, it's clear that you can't see past the end of your nose, nor
are you a student of history.

There is no possibilty ever of Islam being forced on any of us.

You're a stupendously cretinous fool to even imagine it.

Graham