Jihad needs scientists

[T Wake]

<mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:0lYTg.4$45.126@news.uchicago.edu...

In article <45205022.CCB68B6B@hotmail.com>, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> writes:


mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

"Homer J Simpson" <nobody@nowhere.com> writes:
"Gordon" <gordonlr@DELETEswbell.net> wrote in message

So you are saying they are NOT better Xtians than everyone else?

No, I'm saying that this war on terrorism started long before
President Bush and the present Republican administration was
involved in any way.

But it isn't a war.

It is a war. Refusing to recognize it as such will not make it go
away.

It's not a meaningful war since the 'enemy' isn't an identifiable entity
but a 'view'.

That just makes it a far worse and more dangerous war.

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.

 

[martin griffith]

On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 23:39:40 GMT, in sci.electronics.design
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

In article <45205022.CCB68B6B@hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> writes:


mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

"Homer J Simpson" <nobody@nowhere.com> writes:
"Gordon" <gordonlr@DELETEswbell.net> wrote in message

So you are saying they are NOT better Xtians than everyone else?

No, I'm saying that this war on terrorism started long before
President Bush and the present Republican administration was
involved in any way.

But it isn't a war.

It is a war. Refusing to recognize it as such will not make it go
away.

It's not a meaningful war since the 'enemy' isn't an identifiable entity but a 'view'.

That just makes it a far worse and more dangerous war.

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

Main Entry: amorˇphous
Pronunciation: &-'mor-f&s
Function: adjective
Etymology: Greek amorphos, from a- + morphE form
1 a : having no definite form : SHAPELESS <an amorphous cloud mass> b
: being without definite character or nature : UNCLASSIFIABLE <an
amorphous segment of society> c : lacking organization or unity <an
amorphous style of writing>
2 : having no real or apparent crystalline form <an amorphous mineral>


martin

 

[Gordon]

On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 22:14:02 GMT, "Homer J Simpson"
<nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

"Gordon" <gordonlr@DELETEswbell.net> wrote in message
news:00c0i29vn31ejl71pku1d0r1nfaevj6p4i@4ax.com...

So you are saying they are NOT better Xtians than everyone else?

No, I'm saying that this war on terrorism started long before
President Bush and the present Republican administration was
involved in any way.

But it isn't a war. It is a problem for a police force that requires
international cooperation, something the US is notoriously unable or
unwilling to be involved in.

Homer, I don't agree with you, but you are certainly entitled to

your opinion. A police force of international cooperation just
doesn't seem available. The main reason this won't work is that
Europe needs Mid-East petroleum and the Mid-East needs European
manufactured goods. For the most part, Europe just isn't going to
get involved to the extent that would jeopardize their petroleum
supply. The terrorists would have taken those Mid-East petroleum
sources out before now had this not been the case.

The thing that I do not understand at all is what the Muslim
terrorists' goal was/is. They surely didn't think we would
knuckle under and surrender to them without a fight. So, it seems
they really did want us to engage them in an all-out war
situation. Why? It took them 22 years to get a full scale war
going with us, full bore, but what is their ultimate goal?

The way I see the situation, presently, is that our government
and the coalition governments are not bent on immediately
overwhelming of the terrorist cells. It seems that a great many
of the key terrorists are being "allowed" to continue their
program and in the process serve as "maggot magnets." By this I
mean they are serving well in the process of drawing a lot of
jihad psychotics into the cross-hairs where they can be
eliminated. This is effectively culling the Mid-East of a lot of
extremists and if enough of them are taken out, the whole jihad
operation may collapse.

This could produce something in the form of a Darwinian selection
process, given enough time. That is, it might not be the best
solution to whip the terrorist cells down immediately and force
them to withdraw into deep levels of hiding, only to spring back
up again as soon as we pull our forces out.

As long as the terrorist cells think they are still able to
continue their jihad commitment they will likely keep active and
that means exposing themselves, a few at a time, to the
annihilation process.

Gordon

 

In article <lqCdnZd8Rd3mzL3YRVnysA@pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> writes:

mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:tGXTg.2$45.154@news.uchicago.edu...
In article <c7WdncygLPPv3r3YRVnytQ@pipex.net>, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> writes:

mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:foXTg.1$45.124@news.uchicago.edu...
In article <K4XTg.7154$N4.5515@clgrps12>, "Homer J Simpson"
nobody@nowhere.com> writes:

"Gordon" <gordonlr@DELETEswbell.net> wrote in message
news:00c0i29vn31ejl71pku1d0r1nfaevj6p4i@4ax.com...

So you are saying they are NOT better Xtians than everyone else?

No, I'm saying that this war on terrorism started long before
President Bush and the present Republican administration was
involved in any way.

But it isn't a war.

It is a war.

Really? So all the "Rules of War" apply then?

The rules of war apply to those who themselves apply the rules of war.

That is a cop out.

No, it is not.

Declaring "War on Terror" was an interesting soundbite and has generated
lots of publicity for the campaign to reduce the threat of international
Islamic-inspired terrorism.

Reading from the manual?

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.

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.

It is not a war. This is not a case of "refusing to recognise it

as such." Wars are wars. Soldiers are notoriously bad at fighting terrorism.
Terrorists are criminals.

Criminals are people who are motivated by self interest and can be
deterred by sufficiently reducing the chance of profit. And, they're
parasites on the society, not trying to destroy it, just milk it. The
Islamic terrorists aim at destruction of the western society and
you're not going to deter them because there is no deterring people
who already decided that they don't care whether they live or die.
For the same reason, the concepts of "punishment" and "bringing to
justice" are plain silly in this context.

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.

Giving it the title "War" may sound cool and exciting but it is inaccurate.
No amount of wishful thinking will change that.

The only wishful thinking I see at present is this shared by the

greater part of the Western "intelligentsia". True to form, it is
always ready to substitute its fantasies for reality.

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. The conflict is global in

nature. Learn to see the forest behind the trees.

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

 

In article <35ydnZvRUoF4z73YRVny2A@pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> writes:

mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:0lYTg.4$45.126@news.uchicago.edu...
In article <45205022.CCB68B6B@hotmail.com>, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> writes:


mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

"Homer J Simpson" <nobody@nowhere.com> writes:
"Gordon" <gordonlr@DELETEswbell.net> wrote in message

So you are saying they are NOT better Xtians than everyone else?

No, I'm saying that this war on terrorism started long before
President Bush and the present Republican administration was
involved in any way.

But it isn't a war.

It is a war. Refusing to recognize it as such will not make it go
away.

It's not a meaningful war since the 'enemy' isn't an identifiable entity
but a 'view'.

That just makes it a far worse and more dangerous war.

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.

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

 

[John Fields]

On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 22:51:16 GMT, "Homer J Simpson"
<nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:c7WdncygLPPv3r3YRVnytQ@pipex.net...

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."

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

It's the Yanks that do that. They like the sound of it. They COULD have a
"War on Stupidity" but Bush (and Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice) would be SO the
wrong persons to lead THAT.

---
Awww... You're just trying to discredit them because you're afraid
that the first target would be you.


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message

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

I disagree. It is not a war. This is not a case of "refusing to recognise it
as such." Wars are wars. Soldiers are notoriously bad at fighting terrorism.
Terrorists are criminals.

Indeed. And no War on Crime has ever been won.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> writes:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
"Homer J Simpson" <nobody@nowhere.com> writes:
"Gordon" <gordonlr@DELETEswbell.net> wrote in message

So you are saying they are NOT better Xtians than everyone else?

No, I'm saying that this war on terrorism started long before
President Bush and the present Republican administration was
involved in any way.

But it isn't a war.

It is a war. Refusing to recognize it as such will not make it go
away.

It's not a meaningful war since the 'enemy' isn't an identifiable entity but a 'view'.

That just makes it a far worse and more dangerous war.

Far more dangerous to us in the West for sure ! It is making Radical Islamist thinking more popular.

Graham

 

[Homer J Simpson]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:j0j0i21qmups653btr7mdtr7q44pu7b1ug@4ax.com...

I see. You think that we've isolated ourselves and that we're
pursuing a strictly military solution to the problem.

You are insane.

I seem to recall references to "Shock and Awe". Doesn't sound like the cops
to me - unless it's the nutjob US cops who shoot everything in sight.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

"Gordon" <gordonlr@DELETEswbell.net> wrote in message
news:vfj0i2ltkdg2atqfq93hr5usnqsd20b9q6@4ax.com...

The thing that I do not understand at all is what the Muslim
terrorists' goal was/is. They surely didn't think we would
knuckle under and surrender to them without a fight. So, it seems
they really did want us to engage them in an all-out war
situation. Why? It took them 22 years to get a full scale war
going with us, full bore, but what is their ultimate goal?

It is because Islam is collapsing in the face of the triumph of the West.
The real roots of all of this started with the Industrial Revolution - which
left Arabia behind. They made little effort to acquire technology and none
to create it and now are facing the contradictions between their beliefs and
reality. Reality has a nasty habit of trumping belief.

Everything the terrorists use and do involves using western technology.
Nothing involves home grown technology. They almost have to become us to
attack us, and they attack our technology with our technology.

Unfortunately the US is following in their footsteps - we see the rise of so
called evangelicals, suspicion of science, the export of technology to Japan
and now China; and the triumph of ignorant platitudes "No Child Left Behind"
over genuine and measurable progress.

I comfort myself with the thought that those who seem to know of what they
speak say that after the nuclear response to the final outrage the oil in
Arabia will be perfectly fine and will run my car as always - and we will
need no wars to pump it.

"... The monkeys called the place their city, and pretended to despise the
Jungle People because they lived in the forest. And yet they never knew what
the buildings were made for nor how to use them. They would sit in circles
on the hall of the king's council-chamber, and scratch for fleas and pretend
to be men; or they would run in and out of the roofless houses and collect
pieces of plaster and old bricks in a corner, and forget where they had
hidden them, and fight and cry in scuffling crowds, [...]" -- The Jungle
Book, Rudyard Kipling

 

[John Fields]

On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 23:28:08 GMT, "Homer J Simpson"
<nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:tGXTg.2$45.154@news.uchicago.edu...

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

What is the uniform of the other side and how do you distinguish them from
the non combatants?

---
So the American Revolutionary War wasn't a real war because the
Americans didn't wear uniforms?


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[Eeyore]

Gordon wrote:

On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 22:14:02 GMT, "Homer J Simpson" wrote:
"Gordon" <gordonlr@DELETEswbell.net> wrote

No, I'm saying that this war on terrorism started long before
President Bush and the present Republican administration was
involved in any way.

But it isn't a war. It is a problem for a police force that requires
international cooperation, something the US is notoriously unable or
unwilling to be involved in.

Homer, I don't agree with you, but you are certainly entitled to
your opinion. A police force of international cooperation just
doesn't seem available. The main reason this won't work is that
Europe needs Mid-East petroleum and the Mid-East needs European
manufactured goods. For the most part, Europe just isn't going to
get involved to the extent that would jeopardize their petroleum
supply.

Europe's not interested in getting much more involved largely because
Europe wasn't the target of the 9/11 terrorists. Most of Europe is
frankly sick of the USA to the proverbial back teeth.

The terrorists would have taken those Mid-East petroleum
sources out before now had this not been the case.

They don't yet have the ability to do that. The longer that the USA
continues demonising Islam the sooner they *will* have that ability
though.

The thing that I do not understand at all is what the Muslim
terrorists' goal was/is. They surely didn't think we would
knuckle under and surrender to them without a fight. So, it seems
they really did want us to engage them in an all-out war
situation. Why? It took them 22 years to get a full scale war
going with us, full bore, but what is their ultimate goal?

It's not a full-scale war. It's still capable of tying up the US and UK
military very effectively though.

Graham

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 00:36:07 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 22:14:02 GMT, "Homer J Simpson" wrote:
"Gordon" <gordonlr@DELETEswbell.net> wrote

No, I'm saying that this war on terrorism started long before
President Bush and the present Republican administration was
involved in any way.

But it isn't a war. It is a problem for a police force that requires
international cooperation, something the US is notoriously unable or
unwilling to be involved in.

---
I see. You think that we've isolated ourselves and that we're
pursuing a strictly military solution to the problem.

It looks pretty military to me for sure.

---
What you see is.


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[Eeyore]

mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

The Islamic terrorists aim at destruction of the western society

Where did you get that idea ?

Graham

 

[Homer J Simpson]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:20l0i2pjb21a1uil7hfgkeqnt8m60cl52a@4ax.com...

It's the Yanks that do that. They like the sound of it. They COULD have a
"War on Stupidity" but Bush (and Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice) would be SO
the
wrong persons to lead THAT.

Awww... You're just trying to discredit them because you're afraid
that the first target would be you.

True. In the land of the blind, the one eyed man must be killed first.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:7im0i2htmt58ohd6n44iblbi4kevk8cfl8@4ax.com...

Indeed, quite true. Yet, in this case, it is a real war.
What is the uniform of the other side and how do you distinguish them from
the non combatants?
So the American Revolutionary War wasn't a real war because the
Americans didn't wear uniforms?

It was a rebellion and they were terrorists.

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 00:17:17 GMT, "Homer J Simpson"
<nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:j0j0i21qmups653btr7mdtr7q44pu7b1ug@4ax.com...

I see. You think that we've isolated ourselves and that we're
pursuing a strictly military solution to the problem.

You are insane.

I seem to recall references to "Shock and Awe".

---
Of course. What you don't hear about is the clandestine work that's
being done. You're not supposed to.
---

Doesn't sound like the cops
to me - unless it's the nutjob US cops who shoot everything in sight.

---
Yup, we've got some bad ones, same like everywhere.


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[Eeyore]

Homer J Simpson wrote:

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

Indeed, quite true. Yet, in this case, it is a real war.
What is the uniform of the other side and how do you distinguish them from
the non combatants?
So the American Revolutionary War wasn't a real war because the
Americans didn't wear uniforms?

It was a rebellion and they were terrorists.

They were actually insurgents to be more accurate.

Graham

 

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:6ln0i296ogmudnj5hhpl3nl9gadkfo6o9c@4ax.com...

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 00:17:17 GMT, "Homer J Simpson"
nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:


"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:j0j0i21qmups653btr7mdtr7q44pu7b1ug@4ax.com...

I see. You think that we've isolated ourselves and that we're
pursuing a strictly military solution to the problem.

You are insane.

I seem to recall references to "Shock and Awe".

---
Of course. What you don't hear about is the clandestine work that's
being done. You're not supposed to.
---

Doesn't sound like the cops
to me - unless it's the nutjob US cops who shoot everything in sight.

---
Yup, we've got some bad ones, same like everywhere.

"Some bad ones" is more than a little disingenuous. The nutjob that made
the quoted words famous is supposed to be the leader of the free world--he's
not supposed to be one of the "bad ones". It really robs him and his
mission of credibility to act like some sort of irresponsible cowboy.

Eric Lucas

 

"Gordon" <gordonlr@DELETEswbell.net> wrote in message
news:vfj0i2ltkdg2atqfq93hr5usnqsd20b9q6@4ax.com...

On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 22:14:02 GMT, "Homer J Simpson"
nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:


"Gordon" <gordonlr@DELETEswbell.net> wrote in message
news:00c0i29vn31ejl71pku1d0r1nfaevj6p4i@4ax.com...

So you are saying they are NOT better Xtians than everyone else?

No, I'm saying that this war on terrorism started long before
President Bush and the present Republican administration was
involved in any way.

But it isn't a war. It is a problem for a police force that requires
international cooperation, something the US is notoriously unable or
unwilling to be involved in.

Homer, I don't agree with you, but you are certainly entitled to
your opinion. A police force of international cooperation just
doesn't seem available.

Unfortunately that's true, 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.

Eric Lucas