Jihad needs scientists

[T Wake]

"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 !

Yes, it may be different in the future but I doubt it.

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

No. The Liberal Democrats were against it

Well, not massively. When the invasion of Iraq was declared there was little
dissent. Afterwards people said they opposed it.

and so were the SNP IIRC too.

Like they count....

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.

All after the event and when things were starting to look bad.

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.

Absolute power....

 

[T Wake]

"Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" <dirk.bruere@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4ofubhFea5slU1@individual.net...

T Wake wrote:
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:45229C68.148DC1AD@hotmail.com...

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.

Sadly. They all seem to win in the end. Israel, Sinn Fein........

 

[T Wake]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4522C87C.1B354001@hotmail.com...

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.

Do you count Hizbullah as a terrorist organisation?

 

[T Wake]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4522C678.592D3C6B@hotmail.com...

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

As I said, sometimes terrorists come in from the cold. They are an
organisation dedicated to the overthrow of another state through terror
based tactics. As I said, my personal opinion is that they are terrorists.

I am sure the locals they support do not hold the same view.

 

[T Wake]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4522C8F3.6E151E60@hotmail.com...

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 ?

Not in my eyes. Which is why I pointed out its logical contradiction. Why?

 

[Eeyore]

Homer J Simpson wrote:

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote

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

British in Malaysia?

British in Kenya.

Graham

 

[T Wake]

"Gordon" <gordonlr@DELETEswbell.net> wrote in message
news:bpf5i25n82iiils7ohd27fm7209j5719mc@4ax.com...

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'.

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?

Thanks for the list (again). Which Muslims were behind all these attacks?
You are apparently trying to define an identifiable group here.

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:05:58 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

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.

---
I recall you said that you have nukes which you'd use to repel
invading Muslims. That's pretty violent in my book.

But read it again, genius. It says: "when I read your violent
rhetoric". Do you deny that your rhetoric is violent?
---

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

---
Show where I made a personal threat.


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:03:27 +0100, Eeyore 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.

Beat the shit out of whom exactly ?

Graham

 

[T Wake]

"Gordon" <gordonlr@DELETEswbell.net> wrote in message
news:96g5i21h2i9i3mu2r8hmk7vgn04q2b5iii@4ax.com...

On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 18:06:56 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:


"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:v673i2dusng3t5a82qt9hm7n8ve5p4t7ua@4ax.com...
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,

Radical Islam can't be described as having a "single unified goal." Some
radical Islamic groups which operate as Terrorist organisations in Asia
have
no interest in Global conversion.

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.

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.

Only if world domination had been a long term goal. Also, the US does keep
an economic connection with its "liberated" countries (assuming you mean
Japan) or it has left them in heavy debt to the US (if you mean most of
Europe).

However, as I said, it was an equally valid opinion not necessarily fact.

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:08:34 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

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.

---
You pay _way_ too much attention to the media.


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[T Wake]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4522D6EC.2E337BC7@hotmail.com...

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.

His election was heavily assisted by the Religious leaders though...

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

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

Which the Good Friday Agreement pre-dated by many years.

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.

Definitely !

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.

I would. Notably, the Catholic population of the North had made it clear by
ballot that they were sick of the troubles.

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.

No. The IRA had a stockpile of weapons. They didn't actually need Libya at all.

Graham

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:10:51 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

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.

---
Then do it, instead of your little waffle dance.


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[T Wake]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4522D398.A4B5D680@hotmail.com...

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 ?

It isn't always their lifeblood and if you don't the conflict will last for
eternity.

You can disable a terrorist group by stopping the local people from
supporting them. This is where removing the perception of injustice comes
from.

Look at the [expletive deleted] from Leeds who blew up the underground. For
them to function there has to be places where they can exist and move about.
Educate people that these are not "Fighting for a cause" and you make it a
little bit harder for them. Educate people that they (bombers) are evil
criminals and you make it harder yet.

Alternatively you could put every mosque under armed guard and provide them
with no end of support....

 

[T Wake]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4522D3CF.BF467A4F@hotmail.com...

T Wake wrote:

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

More like insurgents in fact.

In my lexicon there is no difference ;-)

 

[T Wake]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4522D419.2B6D8D41@hotmail.com...

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 ?

The Nazi party propaganda blamed the economic crisis on the Jews etc. This
helped to shore up popular support for the government and ensure that all
manner of draconian legislation could be brought in to what was previously a
free and democratic society.

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 ????

Yes.

 

[T Wake]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4522D468.BC853C9A@hotmail.com...

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 ?

Also an option. Any one of those three will work.

(simplistic examples)

If westerners are more concerned with staying alive than having their
freedoms eventually they will convert and the conflict will end.

If the population in the Middle East become enticed by freedom and it's
potential then the support for terrorists will dry up and the conflict will
end.

If both happens the conflict will end. (In an odd way though )

 

[T Wake]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4522D4E1.7C69B28D@hotmail.com...

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.

Really? Every day your way of life is threatened - more so by our own
country than any external threat.

Do you intend to carry an ID card if they get brought in? What have you done
to prevent the detention of suspects for 14 days without access to legal
counsel?

I am not asking should you convert which may well never happen. I am asking
which is most important to you, your life or way of life.

 

[T Wake]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4522DE51.EE67E06F@hotmail.com...

T Wake wrote:

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

Which the Good Friday Agreement pre-dated by many years.

Well, three.

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.

Definitely !

Not at all. The IRA still refused to allow decomissioning inspections. There
were still shootings and punishment beatings in NI. Other than operations on
the Mainland (which had tailed off a fair bit), things were close to normal
until at least 2000. Even then it was no different from any of the other
agreements Sinn Fein signed up to.

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.

I would. Notably, the Catholic population of the North had made it clear
by
ballot that they were sick of the troubles.

Which was important as it dried up a lot of the IRA support. However, the
troubles were far from over.

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.

No. The IRA had a stockpile of weapons. They didn't actually need Libya at
all.

Yes they did. Ammunition and training. Half the stockpiles were inaccessible
to PIRA and it needed escape routes and bolt holes for its gun men. The IRA
have always had stockpiles of weapons. Since 1916. In the seventies the were
still using WWII tommy guns and schmissers.