Jihad needs scientists

[T Wake]

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eftbe0$8ss_007@s888.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

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.

I agree completely.

 

[T Wake]

<mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:dfhUg.41$45.137@news.uchicago.edu...

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.

Which country would you nuke?

The war against Germany and Japan was declared internationally against
sovereign nations. When their government toppled the countries surrendered.

The war on terror is against a belief. You could nuke every country in the
middle east and still not win.

Oddly, the UK / US act more like Germany and Japan did in WWII. Which
doesn't bode well for your endgame.

 

[T Wake]

<mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:vlgUg.36$45.43@news.uchicago.edu...

In article <4-mdnUz58qFpoLzYnZ2dnUVZ8sudnZ2d@pipex.net>, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> writes:

mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:zzYTg.6$45.103@news.uchicago.edu...
In article <35ydnZvRUoF4z73YRVny2A@pipex.net>, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> writes:

I think you have too broad a definition of the term "war." I fight a war
against grass in my garden every week. I seem to be losing.

How about cracking open Clausevitz and checking his definition.


How about Merriam Webster's dictionary:

(1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between
states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict

Clausewitz defines war as:

"War therefore is an act of violence to compel our opponent to fulfil our
will."

Who shall we pick as the authorative reference for the meaning of words?
Clausewitz was defining the term in the manner he wanted it used through
out
the rest of his treatise. In your version how does Clausewitz define
"Terrorism" and when he discusses examples and methods of war, which do
you
feel appropriate for the "War on Terror" (given that not all terrorists
are
Islamic, and not all hail from the middle east)?

Check "War is a continuation of policy, by means of force". Think
what it is about. And, no, it takes some more reading that checking a
dictionary. Especially for somebody who doesn't want to rely on
soundbites.

It was nothing more than a brief response. Your responses go nowhere towards
explaining what _you_ think war means and involves. You throw half formed
responses with a "check yourself" riposte at the end.

If I said "War" was a heated argument would you accept that (it is a common
usage for the term in modern society).

Your definitions largely stem from people setting a particular meaning to
the word for their treatises. What does the Geneva Convention define "War"
as? Surely that must be the definitive answer.

 

[T Wake]

"Frithiof Andreas Jensen" <frithiof.jensen@die_spammer_die.ericsson.com>
wrote in message news:eft7gb$1g4$1@news.al.sw.ericsson.se...

"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.

Very true.

 

[T Wake]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:ev83i29p6vq1ugjnin0vbeqlvgeag7fobc@4ax.com...

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.

Which is most important to you, your life or your way of life?

 

[T Wake]

<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:

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?

Yes. Which country do you suggest we occupy to change the behaviour of
Islamic extremists?

Your original post said that nothing we [tinw] did would affect the
behaviour of the enemy.

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.

Not always the case.

 

[T Wake]

"Gordon" <gordonlr@DELETEswbell.net> wrote in message
news:57d5i21spajr15qtdavgd63em37bvhd42c@4ax.com...

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:47:09 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



Frithiof Andreas Jensen wrote:

mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message

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

At the cost of maybe 20% of the German population

About 10% actually.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

- 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.

snip

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)!

There's no comparison since no Muslim country is actually at war with us,
imagined
or otherwise.

Graham

Graham, are you saying that the events on the following list were
just fun and games, and not to be construed as war in any form? I
don't agree. It seems to me that 23 years of "turning the other
cheek" was enough. It was time to put an end to this kind of
irresponsible brutality.

Which country are you suggesting was responsible? It is terrorist tactics,
not war. When the Red Army Faction were bombing US bases in Germany, did you
go to war with the Germans?

 

[T Wake]

"Ben Newsam" <ben.newsam@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:20b3i2dr9p8qf7jhh81uugu4vbv76ua83o@4ax.com...

On 29 Sep 2006 09:06:40 -0700, science_for_jihad@yahoo.com wrote:

The CV should contain information
reflecting the academic level reached by the candidate and his work
experience. The information however should not be so accurate as to
identify the candidate. An appropriately fantasious nickname and a
birth date corresponding to the approximate age of the candidate should
also be provided

LOL!

For a troll it certainly brought in a LOT of posts

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

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

Their lifeblood is quite simply injustices ( real or perceived ). Can you remove
them ?

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

If we stick to the WWII analogy,
the French resistance were certainly terrorists

More like insurgents in fact.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
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.

Eh ?

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....)

You think labour is Socialist ????

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
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.

I agree completely.

How about removing the either and replacing the or with and ?

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> 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:

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.

Which is most important to you, your life or your way of life?

Moot since it's never going to happen.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 15:27:54 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
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.

No, it's not.

Yes it is.

What we're discussing

We ? Which we is this ?

is Islamic law and its ramifications, not the
number of Muslims required to overrun a non-Muslim society to the
point where you're given the choice to either convert or die.

Fine. So I'm never going to have the problem. Hence it's moot.

Graahm

 

[Eeyore]

lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
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.

I agree about not stirring the pot.

He was popularly elected though. Probably because Bush had pissed off lots of
Iranians with the axis of evil business.

Graham

 

[Homer J Simpson]

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:j-mdnR7jE_MQUr_YRVnyhw@pipex.net...

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

British in Malaysia?

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:03:27 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

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.

---
What does that have to do with anything? We still beat the shit out
of them.
---

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

---
So what? If push comes to shove we'll beat the shit out of them too,
whether they're popular or not, dumbass.


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[T Wake]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4522BF5C.CE533B37@hotmail.com...

T Wake wrote:

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

Personally I think without 11 Sept 2001, the situation in NI would
still
be hostile.

The timescale doesn't fit with that idea.

Prior to the "GWOT"

GWOT ?

Global War on Terror.

the hardliners were still strongly advocating armed
conflict. Following the Declaration of War on Nebulous Concepts, Sinn
Fein
pulled out all the stops to turn peaceful. The emergence (and rise in
activity) of splinter groups also supports this change.

However, this is nothing but a personal opinion so I may be wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Friday_Agreement

Was the major turning point.

Possibly. There were numerous violations though. Generally speaking the IRA
(and its splinter groups) tended to form agreements when it suited them and
used the down time to retrain and rearm. As I said, this is all personal
opinion, but based on the activities between 1998 - early 2001 I wouldn't
have been surprised if a new campaign hadn't started.

The reformation of Libya may have also been going on behind the scenes and
without that source, the IRA were pretty much going to suffer.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

T Wake wrote:

Which is most important to you, your life or your way of life?

At this point in my life? They would have to kill me.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[YD]

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 00:06:38 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

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.

Huh, what's wrong with getting a piece of twat after hours? Or even
during the coffee break?

- YD.
--
Remove HAT if replying by mail.