Jihad needs scientists

[Kurt Ullman]

In article <GbCdndSLQptNj7nYRVnygw@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

I am often amused by the number of people here in the UK who sing the
praises of [Insert Country], yet would never consider going and living there
for the rest of their lives.

Why? Different set of thoughts behind liking some place and actually
wanting to live there. I like England, but have no particular desire to
uproot family and stay there. Heck I like Chicago, but same principle
and a LOT closer.

 

[T Wake]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4522FD02.34809B70@hotmail.com...

T Wake wrote:

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

Actually no. They fight against those claiming to have legal
jurisdiction
in the area. Also there is no requirement that it use terror methods
either.

This is pedantry.

Not to me. It's a subtle but precise distinction.

in?sur?gent? [in-sur-juhnt] - noun
1. a person who rises in forcible opposition to lawful authority, esp. a
person
who engages in armed resistance to a government or to the execution of its
laws;
rebel.

ter?ror?ism? [ter-uh-riz-uhm] -noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for
political
purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or
terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

The two terms are not mutually exclusive. Terrorists fight against a legal
government. Insurgents use violence to intimidate / coerce (eg overthrow the
government).

Not at all precise.

 

[Kurt Ullman]

In article <6tUUg.51423$E67.4167@clgrps13>,
"Homer J Simpson" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

"Gordon" <gordonlr@DELETEswbell.net> wrote in message
news:mv38i29lpc9s9sshrkdrbpgramufns6jn4@4ax.com...

9/11 was Bush's failure.

How long had Bush been in office when 9/11 occurred? Who was in
office the 8 years before that?

Right. Sure. Any successes Bush has had (have there been any?) are totally
his own. All failures are the fault of the previous administration.

Isn't that one of the three biggest lies?

Yep. If you want to assign blame for 9-11 you can find all sorts of
times we could have stopped it or stopped the things that lead up to it.
But putting it all on Ottoman Empire doesn't make any hay politically.

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

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

Fine. So I'm never going to have the problem [forced conversion]. 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.

There is no possibilty of me ever being asked to convert under threat of force simply
because there will never be enough Muslims here to be in a position to force me to do
anything ( even assuming they wanted to ) .

In any case they'd have to overthrow EU and UK law first.

The very concept is insanely stupid.

Graham

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 23:57:20 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:14:23 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:

And your plan would be to...

By removing the reasons for terrorist action primarily.

---
The reason there's terrorist action against the US is basically
because we won't abandon Israel, and that's non-negotiable.
---

That'll mean listening to genuine greivances and doing something about them though.
Just like we did in N. Ireland.

---
Oh, yeah, you did that out of the goodness of your hearts, huh?
Fuck you, you lying piece of shit.

The grievances we'll hear, and that we've hearing all along, will
be that Israel must be allowed to die, which is something we won't
allow to happen.

So, you don't have any real answers, only more of your simplistic
unrealizable bullshit.

You don't have a clue do you ?

---
Certainly I do.

When you're faced with the task of defending yourself and you have
no defense, you resort to flim-flammery in an effort to take the
heat off of yourself and direct it elsewhere.
---

There are so many flawed assumption and interpretations there I barely know where to
begin. It's simply not worth it in your case either.

You're a poorly informed, misinformed even, bigoted fool and doubtless always will be.

---
See? Nice try, but no seegar, Boyo.


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[T Wake]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:50u7i2h1nkv91i933t146sile4cdjht076@4ax.com...

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 23:00:23 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



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 ?

---
Whoever chooses to launch an attack on us or our friends or chooses
to make it seem like an attack from them is imminent.

Brilliant. War really will never end.

 

[Eeyore]

Keith wrote:

rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com says...

And you think you can defeat 'radical Islam' with bombs and bullets ?

I know there is no choice. Perhaps you want to submit?

There is no need to 'submit'

You're living in a perversely stupid fantasy paranoid world.

Graham

 

[T Wake]

<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:I9GUg.11209$6S3.5489@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:8KadnUZe2txEdL_YnZ2dnUVZ8tadnZ2d@pipex.net...

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4522E78E.8D15FE63@hotmail.com...


T Wake wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
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 ;-)

Trust me, there is one.

Really? Technically there may be, given that insurgents fight an invading
force.

Well, sorry to niggle, but technically, no.
Definitions of insurgent on the Web:

a.. (joint) Member of a political party who rebels against established
leadership. (JP 1-02)

www.liberalsagainstterrorism.com/wiki/index.php/Counterinsurgency_Operations/Glossary

b.. Someone who rises against Constituted Authority, a Rebel . The Active
or Open Hostility to any Constituted Authority is called Insurrection
users.skynet.be/jeeper/Terms%20I.html

c.. a person who takes part in an armed rebellion against the constituted
authority (especially in the hope of improving conditions)
d.. guerrilla: a member of an irregular armed force that fights a
stronger force by sabotage and harassment
e.. in opposition to a civil authority or government
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

f.. An insurgency is an armed rebellion by any irregular armed force that
rises up against an established authority, government, or administration.
Those carrying out an insurgency are "insurgents". Insurgents conduct
sabotage and harassment. Insurgents usually are in opposition to a civil
authority or government primarily in the hope of improving their
condition.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurgent

None of these is the OED (I don't have a subscription), but they're
consistent in describing an insurgency as a rebellion against an
established authority, and the Princeton site I trust as regards
definitions. Invading forces are by definition not "established
authorities". Once they establish themselves, they become "the new
government", not "an invading force", and an insurgency then becomes
possible by definition. It's niggling, but technically, "insurgent" is
closer to "revolutionary" or "freedom fighter" than your definition.
Then, see my other post about the difference between "terrorist" and
"freedom fighter" depending largely on the point of view of the person
applying the label.

This all leads to the comment, though...the US has quite a bit of
arrogance to consider themselves the "established authority" in Iraq, as
they imply when they call the resistance there "the insurgency". What
happend to those much-vaunted elections that the Bush administration keeps
telling people indicate that Iraq is taking control of their own
country--i.e., becoming their own established authority?

Again, this is pedantry.

Insurgents can use terrorist methods. Terrorists can be insurgents (given
any of the definitions used so far).

There is little or no difference between terrorists and insurgents. In
practical terms there is no difference - other than the legitimacy you wish
to confer on the terrorist / government they fight.

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
John Fields wrote:

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 ?

---
Whoever chooses to launch an attack on us or our friends or chooses
to make it seem like an attack from them is imminent.

So, as ever you can't actually identify any one or group.

You're another believer in the 'Phantom Menace'.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Keith wrote:

rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com says...
Keith wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com says...

You can't have it both ways.

Eeyore (a.k.a. the stuffed donkey) can. He's a two-faced Europeon.

LMAO !

The USA is the most two-faced nation on the planet. You regularly back one side then
declare war on them.

You are a two-faced bastard. That fact is well established by your
posts.

Show me an example of this two-facedness.

Graham

 

[T Wake]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4522F51C.5859741F@hotmail.com...

T Wake wrote:

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

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

Why would they ever convert and why do you even consider that this is
what
it's about ?

Because this is the simplistic example.

They would convert because, as the example said, they are more concerned
with staying alive than remaining free.

You wouldn't catch me doing it. I believe in the right to practice no
religion
at all !

Which is heading down the road of a circular argument.

As I said, when people decide life is more important than anything else,
conversion becomes the sensible option.

If you feel that right to Atheism is paramount you will die to retain it.

Personally, I would. I am old enough to think that about most of my rights
though.

 

[Daniel Mandic]

T Wake wrote:

No way of knowing that for sure. Hitler's insanity contributed
heavily to his forces defeats. If they had a competent, sane,
commander in chief it may have gone differently.

Hi T Wake!



Bah... let Hi.l.. out of the Thread.
I hope that that time will be the most worse human happening, for the
time to come.

A problem is, reminding it always. Like, we are a bit below, what have
been happened.
Being below, low or deep, the actions of Na... is not a free-card to do
other violations.



Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic

 

[Eeyore]

Keith wrote:

rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com says...
Keith wrote:

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

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

Of course! You know everything, even what's tedious without having
watched.

The first few minutes are enough to put me off. I've even accidentally come
across bits in the middle and it's not better. It's typical American
brain-dead slime designed to appeal to the mentally feeble.

Graham

 

[T Wake]

"Homer J Simpson" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:hRGUg.50885$E67.40516@clgrps13...

lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:3rEUg.11175$6S3.2934@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...

Nuke 'em. And if they complain then, as Bette Midler says, "Fuck 'em if
they can't take a joke".

Humor noted, but it leads to the question "Nuke whom?" To cover all of
the ground that terrorists currently occupy, you'd have to drop enough
nukes to basically make the rest of the planet completely uninhabitable
for a long time. Nuclear winter scenarios from the Cold War, all over
again. If that were the case, I think the ones at Ground Zero would be
the lucky ones, regardless of which side they're on.

That is a problem, but even 4 nukes would total the US medical care
system. What would a couple do to Iran, say?

Not kill a high proportion of terrorists.

You'd also have to take out most of Africa, Europe, Latin America and
portions of CONUS.

I am sure the survivors would be happy though, and if they keep the species
going long enough for the radiation to drop to habitable levels, the planet
will be sparsely populated enough to avoid wars for quite some time.

 

[T Wake]

<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:TnEUg.11174$6S3.3555@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:VZWdnQZifpoHQr_YnZ2dnUVZ8tCdnZ2d@pipex.net...

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

T Wake wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message

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.

I think the mutual concession option is probably the most desirable
option, as it avoids resentful compliance on either side (or at least it
would spread the resentment more equitably.)

Definitely the most desirable and the one with long term prospects.

Sadly the least likely!

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 )

Ony O Henry could have written a more ludicrous ending! :^)

LOL.

 

[T Wake]

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:efvuff$8ss_005@s811.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <TnEUg.11174$6S3.3555@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:VZWdnQZifpoHQr_YnZ2dnUVZ8tCdnZ2d@pipex.net...

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

T Wake wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message

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.

I think the mutual concession option

This option does not exist.

Really? Says who?

is probably the most desirable option,
as it avoids resentful compliance on either side (or at least it would
spread the resentment more equitably.)

You are suffering from wishful thinking that life is a fairy tale
and all will live happily ever after.

You watch too many action films.

 

[T Wake]

"Keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
news:MPG.1f8dc2d64226c088989d71@News.Individual.NET...

In article <4523F72F.5B41BA26@hotmail.com>,
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com says...


Keith wrote:

rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com says...
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in
message
T Wake wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message

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.

I think the mutual concession option

This option does not exist.

You can't accept that Islam isn't a threat to your lifestyle ?

Islam, yes. Radical Islam, no. ...and you're stupid to think so
(but what's new?).

And you think you can defeat 'radical Islam' with bombs and bullets ?

I know there is no choice. Perhaps you want to submit?

Oh dear. Back to the very start point of this thread.

 

[Eeyore]

John Larkin wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
Keith wrote:

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

Most of Mel Brooks' stuff is loaded with Hollywood insider jokes,
usually mocking studio fatheads. His "Robin Hood: Men in Tights" did a
nice job on Kevin Cosner. Like in Wodehouse's books, the plots are
just a framework to hold things up.

I find the humour too juvenile for my taste. It's like finding farts funny
and nothing else.

Graham

 

[T Wake]

"Keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
news:MPG.1f8d99ab23cb9137989d62@News.Individual.NET...

In article <452390F5.E960000B@hotmail.com>,
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com says...


jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
T Wake wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message

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.

I think the mutual concession option

This option does not exist.

You can't accept that Islam isn't a threat to your lifestyle ?

Islam, yes. Radical Islam, no. ...and you're stupid to think so

Aha, so the mutual concession option does exist then?

 

[Eeyore]

John Larkin wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
John Fields wrote:
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 18:23:50 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

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

---
American liberation of France in WW2?

*American* liberation ?

Was Eisenhower British?

What's it got to do with him ?

Graham