Jihad needs scientists

[Gordon]

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 18:12:21 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Gordon wrote:

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:29:46 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

_Radical_ Islam has shown no qualms whatsoever about dispatching other
*Muslims*, if it suits their ends. Well more than half of the victims of
the insurgency in Iraq have been Iraqi (presumably Muslim) citizens.

There is no entity known as radical Islam.

Graham

Graham, are you saying that the Muslims' inability to recognize
any behavior traits as being radical, accounts for the on-going
radical Muslim behavior that the rest of the world observes?

No. In fact 'radical Islam' is well recognised with the wider Muslim community.
It is by varying degrees both loathed and feared by ordinary Muslims.

What I'd like to see is a concrete proposal to deal with these groups that has
some actual substance and credibility.

Graham

I am convinced that the process which is currently under way will

achieve the outcome you specify, but it won't happen quickly. The
process, sometimes called "Maggot Magnet," involves leaving the
terrorist cells functional, but understaffed. That is, the lower
level constituents are deleted, a few at a time, at regular
intervals. The terrorist leaders then solicit replacements for
those who were deleted, and the process repeats, again and again.
This should eventually reach the point where the terrorism
leaders can not find replacements. Then, it is time to send the
leaders on to their "paradise with 72 virgins" and end the whole
fiasco.

Gordon

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

Interesting connection--and it now starts to be a little clearer why the
UK has been the one supporter that has stood by the US since 9/11.

That's simply down to Blair. It's made him shockingly unpopular here and
if he was to stay as PM he'd make Labour almost un-re-electable.

I very much doubt any UK government would have failed to keep step with the
US.

We'll see about that in the future !

Despite their current protestations, the other political parties were
largely behind the conflicts.

No. The Liberal Democrats were against it and so were the SNP IIRC too. Only the
major parties only the Conservatives backed Blair and he had a tough job selling
it to his own party with several related cabinet level resignations over a
period of time. Not sure about the others.

Mnay of us hoped that Blair would be a modeating voice of reason but it seems he
lost his head and got carried away.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
T Wake wrote:

The same reason unthinking Muslims support groups considered terrorist by
the west.

Is Hezbollah a terrorist organisation ?

If you are asking my opinion..... then yes. A nasty, ruthless one. However
sometimes terrorists seem to come in from the cold.

How do you account for its presence as a political party with elected members
and its welfare schemes ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Gordon wrote:

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

There is no entity called 'radical Islam'.

Who exactly do you mean ?

Graham

If the Muslims behind the atrocities in the following list were
not radical, does this imply that all Muslims are of this same
mind set? Do all Muslims regard the persons who did these things
as honorable, non-radical Muslims whom all should love and
respect?

Eh ? Are you being deliberately obtuse ?

How are you going to identify 'radical islam' ?

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 20:19:17 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 18:28:11 GMT, "Homer J Simpson" wrote:
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@emory.edu> wrote

Tell me how many times the Bill of Rights says "people" and how many times
it says "citizens."

SCOTUS has said that even visitors have the rights of citizens when it come
to legal processes. After all, you expect their homeland laws to apply in
the US would you?

Correct. But they also realize that the rights apply only when those
people are physically in the USA. Which is why some bad guys are held
elsewhere.

So you can 'get round the rules'. That's so reassuring to know. So the rules have
effectively been flushed down the toilet for anyone yoy don't much care for.

Graham

No, the issue is that you don't approve of the rules.

Have your Chief Justices or whatever you call them ruled on the legality of
extraordinary rendition ?

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Gordon wrote:

On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 18:06:56 +0100, "T Wake" wrote:

Ok. This is just your opinion though. An equally valid opinion would be to
say the US has global world domination as it's goal. It is after all only an
opinion.

If the U.S. had "world domination" as a goal we would surely have
kept control of those countries we liberated during previous
wars.

Define 'kept control of'.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Homer J Simpson wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:bp15i2tcudiitke1b9dt5i8h2c2btatpih@4ax.com...

Yeah, right! A pretty much tapped-out England and Germany joined by
a bunch of little pissant states squabbling about who'd be leading
and who'd be following and is this proper and is that not proper,
and in the meantime the Russian juggernaut would have rolled right
over you, LOL!

Stalin was TOO paranoid to try that. He preferred killing his own people.
Left to his own devices, the USSR would have been all commissars and no
generals.

Prior to WW2 *it was* all commissars ! That's why the German invasion was so
successful initially.

Graham

 

"Homer J Simpson" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:2TyUg.49718$E67.33987@clgrps13...

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:jfr4i21cr7v19okiju8thv4fnn2hici7af@4ax.com...

And that has _what_ to do with racism???

God killed his child so he killed to get back at God. Racism, religionism,
it's all of a piece.

That's not religionism, and it comes from a very different place than does
racism (at least the US version). Much as racism is the purposeful and
systemic treatment of one race worse than another because the members of the
denigrated race are viewed as subhuman, religionism is the purposeful and
systemic treatment of one religion worse than another because the members of
that race are viewed as subhuman. As you stated it above, he was trying to
get back at God for a perceived maltreatment. That doesn't imply a desire
to destroy one religion over another--it is a desire to get back at anything
associated with the God that killed his child. While we will never know
exactly what was going on in his fevered brow, I think it's a real stretch
to call it religionism, just to make a point about US society.

Eric Lucas

 

[Eeyore]

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:

T Wake wrote:
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
T Wake wrote:

The same reason unthinking Muslims support groups considered terrorist by
the west.

Is Hezbollah a terrorist organisation ?

If you are asking my opinion..... then yes. A nasty, ruthless one. However
sometimes terrorists seem to come in from the cold.

That's the point at which they've won.

Looks like they won in that case.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
T Wake wrote:

This implies that Jews, Christians, Hindus etc are all subject to the
beheading.

According to whom ?

The original quote which was being discussed.

And has that 'quote' any validity ?

Graham

 

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4522C5D3.C8E7A747@hotmail.com...

T Wake wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

Interesting connection--and it now starts to be a little clearer why
the
UK has been the one supporter that has stood by the US since 9/11.

That's simply down to Blair. It's made him shockingly unpopular here
and
if he was to stay as PM he'd make Labour almost un-re-electable.

I very much doubt any UK government would have failed to keep step with
the
US.

We'll see about that in the future !


Despite their current protestations, the other political parties were
largely behind the conflicts.

No. The Liberal Democrats were against it and so were the SNP IIRC too.
Only the
major parties only the Conservatives backed Blair and he had a tough job
selling
it to his own party with several related cabinet level resignations over a
period of time. Not sure about the others.

Amazing parallels to the events in the US during the same time!

Mnay of us hoped that Blair would be a modeating voice of reason but it
seems he
lost his head and got carried away.

Trust me, so were half of the US population, at least after we had achieved
some kind of success in Afghanistan and started turning our gaze toward
Iraq.

Eric Lucas

 

[Eeyore]

Gordon wrote:

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 18:12:21 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
Gordon wrote:
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:29:46 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

_Radical_ Islam has shown no qualms whatsoever about dispatching other
*Muslims*, if it suits their ends. Well more than half of the victims of
the insurgency in Iraq have been Iraqi (presumably Muslim) citizens.

There is no entity known as radical Islam.

Graham

Graham, are you saying that the Muslims' inability to recognize
any behavior traits as being radical, accounts for the on-going
radical Muslim behavior that the rest of the world observes?

No. In fact 'radical Islam' is well recognised with the wider Muslim community.
It is by varying degrees both loathed and feared by ordinary Muslims.

What I'd like to see is a concrete proposal to deal with these groups that has
some actual substance and credibility.

Graham

I am convinced that the process which is currently under way will
achieve the outcome you specify, but it won't happen quickly.

There is no *process*. It's just a jumbled mess ! There has been ZERO thought about
what we're doing.

The
process, sometimes called "Maggot Magnet," involves leaving the
terrorist cells functional, but understaffed. That is, the lower
level constituents are deleted, a few at a time, at regular
intervals. The terrorist leaders then solicit replacements for
those who were deleted, and the process repeats, again and again.
This should eventually reach the point where the terrorism
leaders can not find replacements. Then, it is time to send the
leaders on to their "paradise with 72 virgins" and end the whole
fiasco.

You're barking mad if you believe that.

For starters how are you going to identify these supposed 'terorist cells' ? This is
Cold War style thinking and is a complete fiction.

Graham

 

[Tim Williams]

<mrdarrett@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1159561995.236231.287830@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Were Wernher von Braun (V-2) or Sergey Korolyov (Sputnik) Jewish? How
about Edward Teller (Hungarian, "Father of the Hydrogen Bomb") and
Andrei Sakharov (Soviet nuclear scientist)?

Heisenberg also comes to mind.

A big bunch of the Manhattan Project was jewish, though.

Tim

--
Deep Fryer: a very philosophical monk.
Website: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <g205i2dq8n267ob4gkruf9abrebi4nbblf@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Tue, 03 Oct 06 09:51:23 GMT, lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

In article <jqhUg.45399$bf5.39370@edtnps90>,
"Homer J Simpson" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

"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'.




Tell me how many times the Bill of Rights says "people" and how many times
it
says "citizens."

It says "the people", not the more global "people."

Not the more restrictive "citizen" is more to the point.

And it does
recognize the concept of US citizenship.

Yes, which makes it even more telling that it spells out the rights of
"people" not "citizens."

And in fact the constitution
originally recognized that slaves did not have full rights of regular
citizens, so there's plenty of precedent for allowing preferential
rights to citizens.

But slaves really weren't considered "people" -- 3/5, remember? And they were
property. Quite different from people who are here but just not citizens.

But US law certainly doesn't apply everywhere,

Never said it did. But it applies everywhere on US territory, whether the
person involved is a citizen or not.

and the US courts
recognize that. It's self-appointed "International Courts" which claim
global reach.

John

Well, if we sign a treaty recognizing that, it's part of our law too.

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <wGvUg.1284$NE6.314@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>,
<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4522814D.248F1F7E@hotmail.com...


lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

Ahmadinejad hasn't made the mistake of genocide like Saddam did, he's
just
not very popular.

How did he get elected then ?

The glib answer is "Just like Bush." Look at how popular *he* is.

The honest answer is, I don't know. I have to admit I'm not familiar with
the workings of the Iranian government. What I do know of the situation
comes from the writings of several scholars of the Middle East, who, to a
man, say that Ahmadinejad is not popular with his constituency, and will be
gone presently if we don't stir the pot too much.

Eric Lucas


For one thing, he got elected because the unelected Council of Guardians

(mullahs) disqualified pretty much everyone who was not a hard-line
conservative.

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <nrc5i2tq8jr4k99aqofmbbesm7em13ktok@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 18:28:11 GMT, "Homer J Simpson"
nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:


"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@emory.edu> wrote in message
news:eftptn$c8p$2@leto.cc.emory.edu...

Tell me how many times the Bill of Rights says "people" and how many times
it
says "citizens."

SCOTUS has said that even visitors have the rights of citizens when it come
to legal processes. After all, you expect their homeland laws to apply in
the US would you?



Correct. But they also realize that the rights apply only when those
people are physically in the USA. Which is why some bad guys are held
elsewhere.

John


Well, Bush thought Gitmo qualified as "elsewhere" but the USSC said no. Then

he held people in Europe, which is raising a stink there. It might keep some
prospective EU members out even.

 

[T Wake]

<mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:6cgUg.34$45.161@news.uchicago.edu...

In article <uIKdnchMwIE1pbzYnZ2dnUVZ8tSdnZ2d@pipex.net>, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> writes:

mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:XxYTg.5$45.149@news.uchicago.edu...
In article <lqCdnZd8Rd3mzL3YRVnysA@pipex.net>, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> writes:
However, it has some major drawbacks. Mainly, it is not a "war" that can
ever be won. Ever.

I wouldn't say that much but it may take a very long time to win it.
On the other hand, it is a war which can be lost.

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.

It is a misnomer. It is not a war. You can not declare war on "Islamic
Extremism" either.

Historically, terrorism finds its early footing when people "feel"
oppressed
and have no reasonable method to gain self representation. This feeling
(primarly from the Middle East against other Middle Eastern governments)
has
been pounced upon by people who have more to gain from conflict.
Eventually
the Bad People have managed to get the oppressed people to refocus on the
US
as the great Satan.

When people who feel oppressed take it out on their oppressors, that's
an internal matter of the given country.

If their oppressors are from that country. In the case of Iraq and
Afghanistan the people now feel oppressed by external nations.

When they start taking it
out on people quite distinct from their oppressors, it is a completely
different kettle of fish.

Yes. Most of the time they think (are led to believe, tricked into thinking,
whatever) they are taking it out on their oppressors.

Again, I suggest that you start reading
what the extremists write about their goals.

I do thanks.

Can I suggest you broaden your reading. Please try to be aware that the
extremists are a disparate group and what one group states is its aim does
not always apply to the others. You may want to watch less TV Dramas as
well, they seem to cloud the issue for you.

There is nothing there
about "rights", oprresion by their governmants etc. On the other
hand, there is a lot about the need to correct the "wrongness" in the
world. I'll let you find for yourself what said wrongness is.

Your patronising attitude is amusing. You are arguing that doing something
wrong to people is ok because you are worried that people associated with
them will do something wrong to your people. Your post tries to imply that
all Islamic extremists want to "exterminate the non-Muslim" - this is far
from the case.

You need to step away from your focus on a small select group of vocal
extremists and see the bigger picture. (Especially ironic as you repeatedly
say this to others)

Al-Jezera shows figure heads who make good news. They are not representative
of _all_ the extremist groups and they certainly are not representative of
all Islam.

If you do have examples of every Islamic terror group making these same
claims, please share them.

You could kill all the bad people, but as long as people felt oppressed
there would still be the sparks of Terrorism (Freedom Fighters). As more
and
more rights get taken away at home to fight the Invisible Enemy (Its all
for
the War Effort so it is Unpatriotic to complain), more people at home feel
oppressed. The circle never ends.

Terrorist / Freedom Fighters have been in existence for all of recorded
history. Does it seem realistic that it can ever be "beaten."

Equating "terrorists" with "freedom fighters" doesn't quite apply in
this case.

Really? Depends who you speak to. The PIJ think they are freedom fighters.
AI think they are freedom fighters - most do. Some (more than half I
strongly suspect) think they are fighting for the freedom of their oppressed
"brothers." See the video suicide notes of some of the recent ones if you
doubt me.

Because _you_ call them terrorists doesnt mean they call themselves
terrorists. Ask the people Hammas build sewers for. Ask the people the
Islamic Courts Union help build houses.

A "War on Islamic Extremist Inspired Terrorism" may have victory
conditions,
but publicising such a war would certainly provide succor and support to
the
enemy.

Refusing to recognize it as such will not make it go
away.

Calling it a war legitimizes the terrorists and stops people thinking
of
them as criminals who should be punished. For thirty years the British
were
terrorized by Irish Republicans, it was never called a "war."

I'll say again, it is a war, refusing to recognize it as such will not
make it go away.

I disagree.

I know you disagree, but I couldn't care less.

Obviously. If you dont care, dont reply. If you care enough to reply dont
be
rude.

Nah, I'll reply in the way I find appropriate, to the extent I find
value in replying. When I don't, I won't.

So you do care then. Why say otherwise? If you didn't care who agreed or
disagreed, you wouldn't debate the subject.

Reasonable argument there and it certainly is with merit, although it does
also lean away from calling it a war. Very few soldiers go into battle not
caring if they live or die.

Indeed. Thus what we've here is not just any war, but an especially
visoius one.

Well, no. Calling it a war lends legitimacy and identity to the enemy. They
are now soldiers fighting for a cause.

The west is caught between treating the terrorists as criminals on the one
hand and soldiers on the other. If they are criminals then the vastly more
experienced justice system can disrupt their operations.

I'm afraid not. This grew far beyond the scope of what the justice
system can deal with.

How do you work that one out??

If they are
soldiers then invade the local Mosques, by definition they are providing
support and succor to the enemy.

Indeed. We may get to this point (in fact I deem it quite probable).

Well, resonances of crystalnact all over again. What about non-Mosque
organisations which do not decry the Terrorists?

Personally, if this ever happened I would convert to Islam.

I agree with you that what we do at the moment is a half hearted
attempt, because we find the ideas of what may be necessary to do in
order to prevail quite unpalatable. And, yes, half hearted attempts
do not win wars.

You do not win a war against an Idea. The "victory condition" is
preservation of the western democatic way.

Throwing that away is not a victory.

The crux is how much you are prepared to destroy western society in order
that you protect it.

Any significant war involves risks to the society waging it, same as
any significant surgery involveds risks to the patient. The extent of
risks to be accepted depends on the extent of risks faced when not
taking the appropriate steps. There is no single answer fitting all
cases. When you find a mouse rumaging in your living room, by the
china cabinet, you'll be a fool to discharge your shotgun at it
(assuming you've one), gentler means will quite suffice. If it is not
a mouse but a tiger, on the other hand, then "the hell with the
china".

Interesting analogies. Depends what you think the greatest threat is. If you
value your life over your freedom and liberty then yes, shotgun the tiger.
If you value your freedom and liberty (china in your example) more then the
answer is obvious.

Can I suggest that if life is the primary "victory condition" then
conversion would seem the better option. Much greater chance of sucess.

For me personally, generations have died to ensure I have the freedoms I
exercise today. I would be happier to die than lose them now.

When fighting a "war" there are methods and tactics that are different
to
fighting terrorism. You combat terrorists with intelligence-led police
work.
You fight wars with tanks.

You fight wars with all sorts of means (including intelligence),
depending
on the situation. Intelligence is important but if you'll rely on
this alone, you're going to lose.

The basic unit of warfighting is a combat infantryman fire team.

No, that is the basic unit of ground combat, which is a component of
war but far from encompassing all war.

We are getting very philosophical on the topic of war. A war without ground
combat hasn't gotten started yet. You fight a war by closing with and
killing the enemy. You can bomb etc but the basics rely on the soldier with
his rifle and bayonet.

However, this is not a war. It is global. It does involve people dying and
fighting. It is not a war.

These are soldiers trained to kill. This in no way denigrates US / UK
soldiers, who are currently engaged in levels of combat unparelled for
decades. There is a reason why we dont have soldiers on the streets in the
west.

The problem is soldiers are soldiers. They fight. They are told who on
their
side and can kill every one else. Terrorist are often indistinguishable
from
the local population. This results in soldiers sometimes killing innocent
people. From this, the obviously distraught families feel the invaders are
a
"bad thing" and the local terrorist cell gets a few new recruits who want
to
"get their own back" (in the same manner that so many westerner want to
"bomb them back to the stone age").

Well, that must explain the ongoing German and Japanese terrorism,
continuing since WWII, following on the killing of all those innocent
people in Allied bombings, right?

Your fixation with WWII is noted, and may be why you are blinkered to the
lessons of the conflicts since.

You have the sides mistaken. The Germans and Japanese invaded _other_
countries in spite of international condemnation. They did not form from
"grass roots" popular terrorist organisations.

I am glad you are starting to see the "War on Terror" is not like a war.

In the early seventies it became very apparent that using Soldiers to
police
the streets in Northern Ireland was never going to end the troubles and
the
RUC was brought back in on the scene. Police men, especially local ones,
are
much better at police work.

As I said, it all depends on the magnitude of the threat. Same as
with surgery, how deep you're willing to cut depends on what
consequences there can be if you refrain from cutting.

You dont cut off your head to save your life. You dont sacrifice your
freedom and rights to save your culture.

Why is saying it is (or isnt) a war anything to do with "fantasies?"

The fantasy in this case is the sincerey held belief that it is alol
about poverty, grievances and "us offending them".

Not a fantasy I hold.

It is a pleasant
fantasy since it implies that if only we send them some money and
"treat them nicely", all problems will be resolved. Ain't so.

Possibly true. Calling it a war hasnt solved any problems either.

Terrorism and terrorists stem from a multitude of sources. Some terrorists
_will_ be motivated by poverty and the like. Some _will_ respond to being
treated nicely.

To date, none have been bombed into submission.

Calling it a war will not make it go away. Fighting terror as a war will
not
make it go away and is less likely to produce a "victory."

The western world bandies the term "war" around much too easily. (War
on
Terror, War on Drugs, War on Obesity etc.)

Indeed, quite true. Yet, in this case, it is a real war.

Again. I disagree. The conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan is a real war.
The
activity at airports and train stations is not a war.

It is all part of the same conflict.

It still isnt a war.

The conflict is global in nature.

And it still isnt a war.

Learn to see the forest behind the trees.

Learn to hear the truth behind the soundbite.

I do not care for soundbites.

You really could have fooled me. Shall we do a count of how many you use in
your posts?

I analyze things. That's what I do all
my life. You should start practicing, as well.

Thanks for the advice. I try to. Generally I try to analyse situations by
starting with a clean slate and removing as many preconceived ideas as
possible (and being aware of the ones you can not remove). I add into that a
broad spectrum of sources, and note the source bias.

You should try that.

 

[T Wake]

"Gordon" <gordonlr@DELETEswbell.net> wrote in message
news:6p73i2pvi3rr001l95t74f8daifjlr8nd7@4ax.com...

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...

Not a bad idea, and has been tried with limited success in the past. The
problem is Darwinian selection mean the ones who come in are "better and
harder" than the ones before.

The key is removing the lifeblood of the terrorists. Without this, it will
never end.

 

[T Wake]

<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
newsUjUg.19040$Ij.10361@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:sng3i29surgrg2h0ivjcvpk8fob97q15ea@4ax.com...
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 23:50:11 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

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?

Do you honestly believe they're even remotely similar? German extremism
was a relatively easy battle, since it was concentrated in easily
identifiable entities like the government and army of the country, and
happened in fairly localized places (along battle fronts) by easily
identified fighters (uniformed soldiers, identifiable bomber aircraft,
warships, etc.) The fight against terrorism is diffuse, the enemy very
difficultly identifiable, and the battle itself is very diffuse and
unpredictable on the hour-to-hour timescale--it's on whatever street
corner where the terrorists choose to plant a car bomb. We've never
really won a war like that.

Not sure anyone has. Off the top of my head I cant think of any long term
success against terrorists.

Alexander seem to ring a few bells but even that was very short term.

Vietnam was close, and that was a miserable failure (and was almost
certain to be, no matter who led us in that effort.) And much of the
high-tech fighting paraphernalia developed since then is aimed at
improving our success in a *traditional* war, not a guerilla-like war.
Guerilla tactics win wars--that's been proven repeatedly since the late
1770s.

Sure do. In pretty much every war I can think of, the victors have had some
form of "Unconventional" warfare troops. (If we stick to the WWII analogy,
the French resistance were certainly terrorists, but this highlights how the
UK/US are looking more like the Axis with each analogy so I will stop..)

 

[T Wake]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:45227BBF.5ADFFF74@hotmail.com...

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.

In the Early Days, then when popularity showed signs of wavering the "Enemy"
appeared.

Labour party....

Scarily, they are a socialist party which have grown strong nationalistic
tendencies....

(OK, I will stop now. I will probably even vote Labour at the next
election....)