Jihad needs scientists

[John Fields]

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 21:36:25 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

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.

---
LOL, you think that because you're in the dark as to what's going on
behind closed doors that nothing's being done? That's gotta be
pretty close to penultimate arrogance.
---

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.

---
Why? AIUI, it's a work in progress.
---

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

---
See 'LOL', above.


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

In article <4523844C.CA22EFDF@hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> writes:

mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

In article <4522F8DE.C46161BD@hotmail.com>, Eeyore writes:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

You didn't read carefully. It is not "10% changing". It is that
historical data indicates dramatic changes when about 10% of the
population is *dead*. Does this make it clear?

So, we only need to kill 100 million Muslims or so ?

I didn't say, at the moment, what we need (or need not) to do. I
pointed what empirical data for past conflicts shows. Go argue with
history if you don't like it.

But you still mainatain we'd need to kill that many to have an effect ?

Graham

Not that "we'd need" but that, as a worst case scenario, we may need.

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

 

[thelasian]

lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

"thelasian" <thelasian@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1159934214.272157.109720@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

That's mainly because most observers don't know much about Iran. The
election of the last president was also a surprise to "most observers"
and so what the 1979 revolution.
Most observers are surprised to hear that sex change operations, drug
needle exchanges, cloning, stem cell research, and even skiing happen
in Iran. That's because they can't get over their mental stereotypes.

Interesting facts about Iran, but come on, that last sentence is a bit
unfair. Most people (myself included) simply have little data upon which to
base a change in point of view on Iran. However, my curiosity piqued by
your comments, I intend to set about learning more.

Eric Lucas

Ah, but stereotypes and pre-conceptions are immune to data. We'd like
to think that humans are rational beings that would adjust their
conceptions of reality based on facts/data that are available to them,
and that they would naturally seek out such facts and data -- but
social scientists and psychologists tell us otherwise. See the
phenomenon of cognitive dissonance, for example.

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 22:21:44 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

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 ?

---
Unless that led to convergence, why would that guarantee cessation
of hostilities?

The solution is the willingness to look for common ground and to
build a mutually respectful relationship around that island.


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@emory.edu> wrote in message
news:eg0k81$e61$2@leto.cc.emory.edu...

Corporations cannot donate money to political candidates. PACs can, but
not
corporations.

Even if that's true, it's a distinction without a difference.

Eric Lucas

 

In article <eg000d$8ss_011@s811.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:

In article <Z_KUg.56$45.161@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <efvskd$d45$1@news.al.sw.ericsson.se>, "Frithiof Andreas Jensen"
frithiof.jensen@die_spammer_die.ericsson.com> writes:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4522F8DE.C46161BD@hotmail.com...


mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

You didn't read carefully. It is not "10% changing". It is that
historical data indicates dramatic changes when about 10% of the
population is *dead*. Does this make it clear?

So, we only need to kill 100 million Muslims or so ?

Something like that - and the *point* is that if we are *not entirely
willing to
do that*, the only other known-to-work-at-least-once strategy is the Cold
War;
cut the connections with all regimes fuelling the "jihad" (by word, deed or
inaction) and allow the regimes to fail on their own accord!

Which, in view of our current dependence on oil (which, even under the
most optimistic assessments is not going to change significantly over
the next couple decades at least) is not a realistic option.

The present idea of spending ~USD 95,000,000,000.-- (more actually, this is
just
Iraq) per year on bombing the shit out of tribespeople and chain-gunning
peoples
houses from AC-37's every time someone pops a few rounds/rivals is I.M.O.
pointless and self-defeating.

Imagine that we will still be doing that in 20 years time! Except that we
have
gone bust by then!!

One can probably buy a mars base for that money -or- wipe AIDS off the
surface
of the earth, eradicate just about every kind of water bourne disease there
is
and maybe even get enough left over for primary schools in the entire
Africa.

Hence the problem. Basically, we we cannot disengage and we don't
dare to go all out. So, we're just coasting, waiting for something
horrific enough to happen to justify drastic means.

Yup. I've come to this conclusion. Mess prevention work cannot
begin until there's a really big mess to clean up. Women aren't
trained to work this way. Or at least the women of my generation.

Unfortunately, that's how things work in human affairs. That's why we

end up with so many big messes.

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

 

"thelasian" <thelasian@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1159980332.343325.73730@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:
"thelasian" <thelasian@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1159934214.272157.109720@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

That's mainly because most observers don't know much about Iran. The
election of the last president was also a surprise to "most observers"
and so what the 1979 revolution.
Most observers are surprised to hear that sex change operations, drug
needle exchanges, cloning, stem cell research, and even skiing happen
in Iran. That's because they can't get over their mental stereotypes.

Interesting facts about Iran, but come on, that last sentence is a bit
unfair. Most people (myself included) simply have little data upon which
to
base a change in point of view on Iran. However, my curiosity piqued by
your comments, I intend to set about learning more.

Ah, but stereotypes and pre-conceptions are immune to data.

That's a disingenuous strawman. You're assuming that people have
pre-conceptions, in order to prove that they have pre-conceptions.

In any case, it's also wrong, at least in many cases. I indeed have
preconceptions about Iran and other parts of the Middle East. However, the
only reason I had formed a more accurate impression is that I have in the
past had no data. Now that I have become interested enough to actually get
some accumulate facts, I get a much clearer picture of what it's really
like.

Eric Lucas

 

[Keith]

In article <9VQUg.8418$GR.1968@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net says...

"JoeBloe" <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:7s57i2h1e9t48lv1d8i1jmfdm9kj4b9iis@4ax.com...
On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 03:09:12 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> Gave us:


"JoeBloe" <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:5pr5i2his5dccj9emaujrv65hmohk2j4h0@4ax.com...

The real problem lies with the California version of a police
academy. They have no clue what is contained in the US Constitution,
and they ALL forget their oath five seconds after they utter it.

Oh, you mean like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom from
unreasonable (warrantless) searches and seizures? Yet you're OK when Bush
ignores those? How about a little consistency in your views? Or do you
just get on Usenet to insult and swear at people?


You're an idiot. Show me where I posted a stand on anything about
Bush.

OK, so what is your stand on his attacks on the Constitutional rights I
listed above?


Also, name one US household he has sent government agents into
without a warrant.

Well, since that's classified information, ya got me there, I can't give
names and addresses....

So, you admit that you have only your paranoia as evidence.

However, the answer to your question is any
household of which the phone has been tapped by the NSA.

Phones (of the domestic type, anyway) aren't tapped without
warrant. Get with the program.

You're going to
have to come into the 21st century and understand that searches include not
only a physical search, but also electronic surveillance...or so common
sense and the Supreme Court would tell us.

You're paranoia is showing again.

--
Keith

 

[Keith]

In article <s5k7i2luhh4mtg6c2bh4alv042i67thinp@4ax.com>,
jfields@austininstruments.com says...

On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 20:37:46 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:


"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4522962B.69757C28@hotmail.com...


T Wake wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 17:24:42 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 00:50:29 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

but the really unfortunate thing is that it was a
result of the fact that our leader chose to piss off the entire rest
of
the world with his cowboy antics.

Whether his actions (or, rather, the consequences of his decisions)
would piss off the rest of the world isn't something that should
stand in the way of his doing what he considers to be the right
thing.

It's the wrong thing though. I doubt much thought was involved either
aside from
xenophobia.

From your point of view, anything he did would be wrong, just
because he's American, so whether what he did pisses you off or not
is irrelevant.

Sadly, Graham seems to be resolutely anti-American. This is not a view
point
every one who disagrees with the US shares.

I am resolutely against current US policy which I consider not only to be
blinkered and morally without substance but also totally
counter-productive not
just for the USA but most of the Western world too.


Sorry, I was wrong. Your posts come across as being anti-American rather
than Anti-CurrentUSPolicy.

---
No, you were right.

Graham is vehemently anti-American, as can be seen in his posts
which have nothing to do with US policy.

Yep! ...right down to the way local school districts run their
school buses. He knows all.

He also likes to play the chameleon.

s/chameleon/jackass/

---

It is not the first or the last time I have made a mistake though. I will
try to pay more attention in the future.

---
Good man.

--

Keith

 

[Keith]

In article <4523D7C4.6E24B94F@earthlink.net>,
mike.terrell@earthlink.net says...

Keith wrote:

Meanwhile, the stuffed donkey will watch the documentary about the
wild west, "Blazing Saddles".


He should pay close attention to the scene where someone punches out
the horse.

Which is the stuffed donkey, Mongo or the horse?

--
Keith

 

[Keith]

In article <eg0k2p$e61$1@leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker@emory.edu
says...

In article <MPG.1f8d91f2b6b5c0e8989d5f@News.Individual.NET>,
Keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
In article <efugkv$4up$3@leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker@emory.edu
says...
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.

Actually, no it didn't. It said only that Congress had some say in
the matter.

No, Bush claimed the detainees could not sue in US courts and the case should
be dismissed. The USSC said they could, and heard the case. Not talking
about the way of trying them; talking about the right to sue.

No, it said that the Bush plan hadn't been authorized by congress,
but that they were free to do so.

---
Keith

 

[Keith]

In article <4523D85F.43BBD99C@earthlink.net>,
mike.terrell@earthlink.net says...

Jim Thompson wrote:

I should know shortly what low-life job Eric has at Battelle... my
guess is janitor ;-)


Are you sure they would give him that much responsibility?

Keys to the place?

--
Keith

 

[Keith]

In article <%8RUg.8425$GR.1728@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net says...

"Keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
news:MPG.1f8d949b973606e3989d61@News.Individual.NET...

Oh, you mean like the Reagen and Clinton administrations did with Osama
bin Laden when he was fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan?

Sadly, yes.

Another idiot heard from.

You don't believe that former administrations provided substantial support
to two people/organizations who have subsequently turned against the US?
You need to read more, it's well-known.

It's well known that the Quarterbacking on Monday morning is much
better than that on Sunday afternoon too. What a maroon!

--
Keith

 

[Keith]

In article <pYidnXP5O4IrC7_YnZ2dnUVZ8tednZ2d@pipex.net>,
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com says...

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
newsdh3i25h8hk1kik38lke3npcqe4nc5h9pe@4ax.com...
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 23:59:35 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> 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?


I wouldn't. I'd just speak English very loudly and very slowly. There is a
reason we had an Empire.
^^^

Yes there is.

--
Keith

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 18:23:50 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
T Wake wrote:
"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message

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?

I wouldn't. I'd just speak English very loudly and very slowly.

---
How brutal. If you didn't understand French and they spoke French to
you, very loudly and very slowly, would you understand what they
were trying to say?

How much sweeter to be able to softly crush an opponent with his own
tongue.
---

There is a
reason we had an Empire.

---
Yes, you took it at swordpoint. Nothing very subtle about that!
---

There's also a reason most French can understand English.

---
American liberation of France in WW2?

*American* liberation ?

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

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...

---
"It" being radical Islam,

Radical Islam can't be described as having a "single unified goal."

---
I disagree. I think the single, unified goal would be the
acquisition of unlimited power.

Since you're incapable even of identifying 'radical Islam' your thoughts count for
nothing.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

I think the US's actions speak otherwise in that, clearly, we have
no aspirations to Empire.

" the Project for the New American Century is a non-profit, educational organization
whose goal is to promote American global leadership "

http://www.newamericancentury.org/aboutpnac.htm

Had we chosen to we could have kept
Germany and Japan after we beat them, but we didn't.

The *USA* didn't beat them and they weren't yours to keep.

Graham

 

[George O. Bizzigotti]

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 16:18:03 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

"Keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
news:MPG.1f8d949b973606e3989d61@News.Individual.NET...

Oh, you mean like the Reagen and Clinton administrations did with Osama
bin Laden when he was fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan?

Sadly, yes.

Another idiot heard from.

You don't believe that former administrations provided substantial support
to two people/organizations who have subsequently turned against the US?
You need to read more, it's well-known.

It may also qualify as a folk myth; see:

http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Jan/24-318760.html

The US provided substantial support to Afghan Mujahideen fighting the
Soviets, but did not support bin Laden's group (the "Afghan Arabs.").
Regards,

George
**********************************************************************
Dr. George O. Bizzigotti Telephone: (703) 610-2115
Mitretek Systems, Inc. Fax: (703) 610-1558
3150 Fairview Park Drive South E-Mail: gbizzigo@mitretek.org
Falls Church, Virginia, 22042-4519
**********************************************************************

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

[Eeyore]

Keith wrote:

To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com says...
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:39:04 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:13:11 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:25:32 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

Bunch of damn cowboys.

Yaaa-hoo!

John

Which reminds me that it's time to mosey on home and watch the next
episode of "Deadwood"

John

I'll get out my copy of "Tombstone" ;-)

Meanwhile, the stuffed donkey will watch the documentary about the
wild west, "Blazing Saddles".

I've never watched it. It's far too tedious.

Graham

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 22:29:53 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

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.

---
Just because you're intent in dodging the subject doesn't mean the
point is moot.
---

What we're discussing

We ? Which we is this ?

---
Do your own legwork.

It's all in the headers. Do you know how to navigate?
---

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.

---
Your _assumption_ that you'll never have the problem because you'll
have your head buried in the sand to avert it doesn't mean that the
problem won't visit you. On the contrary, your refusal to recognize
it as a possibility makes you much more vulnerable than you'd
otherwise be. It might surprise you to hear this, but complacency
is _not_ a virtue.



--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer