Jihad needs scientists

"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote in
message news:qi13i2h1if9jgqkpidmdk6ron9v06o9u6j@4ax.com...

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 21:25:06 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:


"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote in
message news:cct2i212ak2vq714ussr88s3f1tb2kram9@4ax.com...

We have our rude cities... NYC and Boston come to mind, though Boston
has gotten much better in recent years.

When I was in grad school in the late 80s, I struck up an unusual
friendship
with my 80-year old crusty born-and-bred Bostonian landlord. He once
confided in me that, when he was younger, Boston was a much more pleasant
city to live and especially drive in. His take was that their economic
success in the 60s - 80s lead to a large influx of non-Bostonians. I have
experienced this before, and it does tend to make a place much less
friendly, since the populace has fewer emotional ties to the area, and
thus
less interest in making it a pleasant place to be. That, and maybe the
Boston press have finally gotten that chip off their shoulder about "The
Curse".... :^)


I've often pondered if
rudeness is inversely correlated with personal economic health.

Maybe, but I've spent lots of time in several large US cities, and San
Francisco and San Diego are both among the wealthiest and also among the
friendliest.

Eric Lucas


You prove my theory... "_inversely_ correlated": high income => low
rudeness ;-)

Oops, I didn't read carefully enough. I thought you were explaining why New
York, Boston, Chicago, northern New Jersey (it's essentially all one big
city) and LA were such awful places, since they're all very rich cities.
They are certainly counterexamples of your theory, as read correctly. In
any case, I think there are many major cities in all four of the high/low
income/rudeness quadrants.

Eric Lucas

 

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:vo13i25nlc8q29kves66frsb06is8rs7no@4ax.com...

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 18:19:12 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

It is a cop-out, but it's not a digression--it's directly on point of
one of
the bad behaviors of the US government, that has help the terrorist
cause.
Human civilization has decided in the past that war is to be fought with
some semblence of rules, and came up with the Geneva Convention as a way
of
putting them on paper. This was precisely so that "the rules of war
apply
to those who themselves apply the rules of war", to prevent world
aggressors
like Hitler from making up their own rules of combat. The US loses the
moral high ground to the terrorists precisely when it chooses to
"re-interpret" (a euphemism for "ignore and unilaterally rewrite") the
Geneva Convention. By doing so, they have legitimized anybody else who
wants to rewrite the rules of the conflict that they find themselves
embroiled in--like the radical Islamist terrorists, or the next
group/country that decides it doesn't like the behavior of the US
government.

And also the USA has refused to sign up to the International Court for
fear of
Americans being tried for war crimes ! I wonder why ?????

---
Easy. Because as hated as the US is lately, bogus charges would be
made which would require a defense, and who needs the grief?

You mean like the bogus charges against many of the hundreds of people now
being held in Guantanamo that have had absolutely nothing to do with
terrorism? Convenient excuse.

Eric Lucas

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 18:20:24 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 08:44:02 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 22:14:02 GMT, "Homer J Simpson" wrote:
"Gordon" <gordonlr@DELETEswbell.net> wrote

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.

I don't understand those words, "international cooperation." Where
might that be found?

Not in the USA it seems.

Have you forgotten that 'foreign' intelligence agencies warned the USA of
a potential terrorist attack ?

Have you forgotten that the USA regularly denigrates the UN ?

International co-operation ! Hmmm.........

---
You're obviously selectively deaf.

Have you never heard of Camp David?

Have you never heard that it's usually the US who brokers
cease-fires and provides safe haven for peace talks?

Not any more it doesn't.

---
Well, then, we'll just have to bomb the shit out of anybody that
fucks with Israel.


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 21:48:34 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote in
message news:qi13i2h1if9jgqkpidmdk6ron9v06o9u6j@4ax.com...
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 21:25:06 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:


[snip]

You prove my theory... "_inversely_ correlated": high income => low
rudeness ;-)

Oops, I didn't read carefully enough. I thought you were explaining why New
York, Boston, Chicago, northern New Jersey (it's essentially all one big
city) and LA were such awful places, since they're all very rich cities.
They are certainly counterexamples of your theory, as read correctly. In
any case, I think there are many major cities in all four of the high/low
income/rudeness quadrants.

Eric Lucas

But it's probably neighborhood related. Drove up to Columbus from
Huntington, very early in the morning, arriving at the Alamo car drop
a 1/2 hour before they open, and desperately needing to take a leak,
after a 3-1/2 hour drive. The nearby gas station operator, locked in
his cage, wouldn't let me use the restroom, even though I bought
gas... so I pissed on his door and drove off ;-)

Never did get any response from police, Alamo or otherwise, so I don't
know if he couldn't see the plate number, or was too afraid to report
it ;-)

BTW: "Rich" cities don't necessarily make for rich peasants, cab
drivers, service people, etc.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

In article <uIKdnchMwIE1pbzYnZ2dnUVZ8tSdnZ2d@pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> writes:

mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:XxYTg.5$45.149@news.uchicago.edu...
In article <lqCdnZd8Rd3mzL3YRVnysA@pipex.net>, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> writes:

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.

It is, but it digresses.

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?

It has been a few years since I would have had any access to manuals of this
nature. Sadly.

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.

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.

Historically, terrorism finds its early footing when people "feel" oppressed
and have no reasonable method to gain self representation. This feeling
(primarly from the Middle East against other Middle Eastern governments) has
been pounced upon by people who have more to gain from conflict. Eventually
the Bad People have managed to get the oppressed people to refocus on the US
as the great Satan.

When people who feel oppressed take it out on their oppressors, that's
an internal matter of the given country. When they start taking it
out on people quite distinct from their oppressors, it is a completely
different kettle of fish. Again, I suggest that you start reading
what the extremists write about their goals. There is nothing there
about "rights", oprresion by their governmants etc. On the other
hand, there is a lot about the need to correct the "wrongness" in the
world. I'll let you find for yourself what said wrongness is.

You could kill all the bad people, but as long as people felt oppressed
there would still be the sparks of Terrorism (Freedom Fighters). As more and
more rights get taken away at home to fight the Invisible Enemy (Its all for
the War Effort so it is Unpatriotic to complain), more people at home feel
oppressed. The circle never ends.

Terrorist / Freedom Fighters have been in existence for all of recorded
history. Does it seem realistic that it can ever be "beaten."

Equating "terrorists" with "freedom fighters" doesn't quite apply in
this case.

A "War on Islamic Extremist Inspired Terrorism" may have victory conditions,
but publicising such a war would certainly provide succor and support to the
enemy.

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.

Obviously. If you dont care, dont reply. If you care enough to reply dont be
rude.

Nah, I'll reply in the way I find appropriate, to the extent I find
value in replying. When I don't, I won't.

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.

Reasonable argument there and it certainly is with merit, although it does
also lean away from calling it a war. Very few soldiers go into battle not
caring if they live or die.

Indeed. Thus what we've here is not just any war, but an especially
visoius one.

When it comes to terrorism, the suicide bombers are often exactly as you
describe. Most of the time, the facilitators, funders and the like are far
from this motivated. Even amongst Islamic extremists very few are so
hardened they are willing to die. In Iraq most attacks are stand off
(rockets etc) or use RCIEDs. If all the extremists were about to visit Allah
then there would be much, much more suicide bombings.

Yes, I agree.

The west is caught between treating the terrorists as criminals on the one
hand and soldiers on the other. If they are criminals then the vastly more
experienced justice system can disrupt their operations.

I'm afraid not. This grew far beyond the scope of what the justice
system can deal with.

If they are
soldiers then invade the local Mosques, by definition they are providing
support and succor to the enemy.

Indeed. We may get to this point (in fact I deem it quite probable).

I agree with you that what we do at the moment is a half hearted
attempt, because we find the ideas of what may be necessary to do in
order to prevail quite unpalatable. And, yes, half hearted attempts
do not win wars.

The crux is how much you are prepared to destroy western society in order
that you protect it.

Any significant war involves risks to the society waging it, same as
any significant surgery involveds risks to the patient. The extent of
risks to be accepted depends on the extent of risks faced when not
taking the appropriate steps. There is no single answer fitting all
cases. When you find a mouse rumaging in your living room, by the
china cabinet, you'll be a fool to discharge your shotgun at it
(assuming you've one), gentler means will quite suffice. If it is not
a mouse but a tiger, on the other hand, then "the hell with the
china".

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.

The basic unit of warfighting is a combat infantryman fire team.

No, that is the basic unit of ground combat, which is a component of

war but far from encompassing all war.

These are soldiers trained to kill. This in no way denigrates US / UK
soldiers, who are currently engaged in levels of combat unparelled for
decades. There is a reason why we dont have soldiers on the streets in the
west.

The problem is soldiers are soldiers. They fight. They are told who on their
side and can kill every one else. Terrorist are often indistinguishable from
the local population. This results in soldiers sometimes killing innocent
people. From this, the obviously distraught families feel the invaders are a
"bad thing" and the local terrorist cell gets a few new recruits who want to
"get their own back" (in the same manner that so many westerner want to
"bomb them back to the stone age").

Well, that must explain the ongoing German and Japanese terrorism,
continuing since WWII, following on the killing of all those innocent
people in Allied bombings, right?

In the early seventies it became very apparent that using Soldiers to police
the streets in Northern Ireland was never going to end the troubles and the
RUC was brought back in on the scene. Police men, especially local ones, are
much better at police work.

As I said, it all depends on the magnitude of the threat. Same as
with surgery, how deep you're willing to cut depends on what
consequences there can be if you refrain from cutting.

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.

I suggest you widen your field of view then.

Why is saying it is (or isnt) a war anything to do with "fantasies?"

The fantasy in this case is the sincerey held belief that it is alol
about poverty, grievances and "us offending them". It is a pleasant
fantasy since it implies that if only we send them some money and
"treat them nicely", all problems will be resolved. Ain't so.

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.

It still isnt a war.

The conflict is global in nature.

And it still isnt a war.

Learn to see the forest behind the trees.

Learn to hear the truth behind the soundbite.

I do not care for soundbites. I analyze things. That's what I do all

my life. You should start practicing, as well.

And now, if that would be all...

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

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 13:10:43 -0700, Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 13:05:08 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 10:41:22 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 10:30:59 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 09:16:54 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

[snip]

Yep. However I wouldn't hang my hat on anything CAIR has to offer.
Around here they spout all kinds of hate, refuse to say anything
negative about extremism, nor be interviewed by the media.

My feeling is that if American Muslims can't/won't be outspoken
against their extremist brothers, in an out-and-out world blow-up
they'll be rounded up into camps just like the Japanese-Americans in
WWII... deservedly... "silence implies consent" (Sir Thomas More).

The only people who should be "rounded up" are people who commit
crimes.

John

There are some provisions in my statement. Since most (if not all)
Muslims won't criticize Jihad, in a war we will have to presume that
all Muslims are closet Islamic terrorists.

If you catch them planting bombs, yes.


I repeat, "silence implies consent".


Of course it doesn't, but "consent" remains legal anyhow.

There are millions of Muslims in this country, citizens and legal
residents, and their rate of participation in terrorism is within the
engineering definition of zero.

John

I find it very troubling that CAIR and other Muslim organizations go
out of their way to sidestep questioning whether they favor the
behavior of Islamic terrorists or not.

"silence implies consent" is INDEED a provision of LAW, but I think it
applies here as well... particularly given the sidestepping :-(

...Jim Thompson

You think they are guilty of criminal acts because they do not
publicly condemn Muslim terrorism? That's a novel interpretation of
law. Can we find you guilty of not condemming, well, everything that's
illegal? Better start condemming... you have a lot of catching up to
do.

John

 

In article <qrWdndqvubGlpLzYnZ2dnUVZ8tednZ2d@pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> writes:

mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:jUZTg.9$45.98@news.uchicago.edu...
In article <45205B23.8190A32@hotmail.com>, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> writes:


mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

The Islamic terrorists aim at destruction of the western society

Where did you get that idea ?

From their own writings. Try to keep informed.

Which writings are they?

Which Islamic Terrorist movement are you referring to? Or do you lump them
all in as one? Are you able to see the difference between terrorist
organisations?

Is the "war" on terror a war against all terrorist organisations or just the
Islamic ones which have targeted the US?


Answers:

1) See my replies to Graham.
2) All of them.

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

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 21:43:57 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 10:41:22 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

I repeat, "silence implies consent".

Of course it doesn't, but "consent" remains legal anyhow.

There are millions of Muslims in this country, citizens and legal
residents, and their rate of participation in terrorism is within the
engineering definition of zero.

Silence was once legal under the law AIUI. I guess that's the reason for
those secret prisions and extraordinary rendition..... to get round those
awkward legal niceties.

Graham

The issue is whether non-US-citizens have Constitutional rights when
they are not physically in the USA, or whether US citizens have such
rights when captured in a foreign country while fighting against our
military.

John

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 18:22:06 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 08:47:23 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 02:33:19 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

The US is not demonizing Islam, at this point. It makes the
distinction between Islam and Islamic extremism.

I can assure you that many Americans don't understand the difference.

How many is "many"? Seven? If "many" means "a significant fraction",
then you are, as usual, inventing anti-American "facts."

The majority who post on Usenet for sure !

It seems to me that the US War on Terror has simply created a new kind of
hostile racism or culture'ism of a sort.

---
Understandably so, since it threatens terrorists and terrorist
sympathizers, for whom you seem to be a leading advocate.

You truly don't have the tiniest clue do you ? Don't you know anything more
than yelling 'traitor' every time someone disgrees with you ? Like your
dickhead government does too.

---
Where were you disagreeing with me???

Actually, if you read my post again you'll see that I was agreeing
with you _and_ giving you a reason why the US "War on Terror" has
caused you to become the rabid anti-American you are. Basically,
since you're a wannabe anti-American terrorist, you feel threatened
by the war on terrorism and those feelings have resulted in what you
correctly identified as cultureism (my spelling) on your part.

You miss no opportunity to lambaste the US, its population, its
government, its institutions, and you hate its very existence, so
what do you expect me to think, that you're a benevolent soul trying
to help with constructive criticism? You're not, you're just a
coward who's afraid to go out and do the bombing you'd really like
to.

Traitor to the US? No. You can't be, you're not an American. What
you are is what we call "white trash."


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[hanson]

"Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" <dirk.bruere@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4oddn6Fe5g63U3@individual.net...

mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <efr7vg$sb7$2@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) writes:
In article <2p1Ug.16$45.152@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote:
[Mati]
[....]
Well, here is at least one thing you can say for Al Queda. They are
quite honest, no pretending.

[Ken]
Maybe, they are just more effective liars. If you haven't caught them
in a lie, it doesn't mean there weren't lies they got away with.

[Mati]
Oh, I'm sure there were some, but these are what is called "tactical
lies". With regard to principal matters, i.e. their goals, they're quite
forthcoming. Just as Hitler was.

[Ken]
The whole idea that they have anything to do with any form of Islam may
well be a lie.

[Mati]
I wouldn't quite say so. The only operational answer to the question
"what does a given religion say and command" is "what its adherents
believe it says and commands". Given enough preachers stating "this is
what the religion commands" and enough believers accepting it, "this"
becomes the reality. And they do have a lot to do with Wahabism, which
is the form of Islam common in the Saudi peninsula.

[Ken]
They can get lots of cannonfodder from the Muslim world may be the
reason they try to appear Islamist. It may really be about power and
control.

[Mati]
One doesn't contradict the other one. People may be driven by the desire
for power and control *and* to really, truly believe in what they're
doing (to the point of willing to die for it), at the same time.

In our "goody-goody" western upbringing we're conditioned to believe that
only "good people" (where "good" means "good by our standards") are
motivated by ideals while "bad" (again, by our standards) people are
motivated solely by selfish desires, for wealth, power and the like. It
ain't so. There is no doubt that many of the top Nazis truly believed in
the righteousness of their cause. When the day of reckoning came, many
of them preferred to kill themselves rather than live in a world where
their ideals have been defeated. Goebbels and his wife poisoned
themselves and all their kids as well. If that's not an act of a true
believer, I don't know what is.

So, disconcerting as the notion may be, the people "on the other side"
may be just as commited to their ideals as we're to ours. Possibly more
so. It'll be a grave error to underestimate them and assume that it is
not so. Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"

[Dirk]
If Hitler had won there wouldn't be a Muslim problem.
Nor a Middle East one...
Makes one pine for 'the good old days' eh?...

[hanson]

ahahaha... so you have noticed that this thread runs strictly down
along religious/ethnic =goyim - Jew= lines, with the latter ones,
in the US, desperately trying to distance themselves of having
been the cause for riling up the ass-venters ever since after WWII
and that they, the Jews being ultimately the reason for having
caused the current mess in the ME.

== As an American goyim I could are less about these Jewish
issues and their Israel situation, as long as **Jews** finance it
privately. I don't mind if Jews finance and protect Israel with
Jewish money. That's ok by me. That is theirs, a sole Jewish affair.
Cool!. ... Pay for it with their own (collective) money just like any
other religion/cult must do and does so to sport their own quirks.
(Like the Evangelicals, by helping the "Settlers" to hasten Armageddon)

== BUT...the USA govt., which is paying to Israel 3-7 Billion $$$
US tax money each year for the last 60 years & an equal $ amount
to the Muslim ass-venters to placate and pacify them so that
they don't continue to kick Jew ass, does beg the question:

== What are all these BILLIONS of US tax-payer dollars
buying the American public, besides hatred and disdain from
almost every county in the world, loss of freedoms at home
because of continuous terrorism, mayhem and wars where
Jews are being connected to or involved in ?

== What good or benefit has come in return to the American
taxpayers from Israel now, for all that tax money that came
off the tables from poor American families?"

----------------
BTW, how's that DMSO regimen working for you?. If you want
post under a differnt suject title into sci.chem. Take care, Dirk.
hanson

--
Dirk
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress - The UK's only occult talk show
Presented by Dirk Bruere and Marc Power on ResonanceFM

 

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.

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

 

In article <g8OdnRoTOcYdo7zYRVnyiw@pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> writes:

mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:g0%Tg.10$45.93@news.uchicago.edu...


As I said, you're thinking way too small. And, too parochial. The
belief that other people are just reacting to what we do, not acting
on their own plans and ideas, is touching, but not anchored in
reality. It is a pleasant belief, no doubt, since it presents us with
the illusion of control, with the sense that ultimately all that's
happening depends only on what we do, thus we just have to find the
proper mode of behavior and everything will be great. A pleasant
illusion, but no more than this.


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?

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.

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

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 15:16:21 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 13:10:43 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 13:05:08 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

[snip]
Of course it doesn't, but "consent" remains legal anyhow.

There are millions of Muslims in this country, citizens and legal
residents, and their rate of participation in terrorism is within the
engineering definition of zero.

John

I find it very troubling that CAIR and other Muslim organizations go
out of their way to sidestep questioning whether they favor the
behavior of Islamic terrorists or not.

"silence implies consent" is INDEED a provision of LAW, but I think it
applies here as well... particularly given the sidestepping :-(

...Jim Thompson

You think they are guilty of criminal acts because they do not
publicly condemn Muslim terrorism? That's a novel interpretation of
law. Can we find you guilty of not condemming, well, everything that's
illegal? Better start condemming... you have a lot of catching up to
do.

John

John, I don't think you are reading what I wrote. When the media asks
a Muslim _organization_ if they approve of what the Islamic terrorists
are doing, and they hedge, there are only two possible conclusions,
both very scary... they _approve_ of what the terrorists are doing, or
they fear for their own lives if they open their mouths.

I fear for those of you living in "nice target" cities. Me, I live
sufficiently in the boonies that a hit here wouldn't make for very
glorified headlines... even with a "nucular" device ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 18:30:24 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 17:33:41 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
Jim Thompson wrote:
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 16:09:10 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Ummm...those references to eeyore liking pooh are not in fetish porn
groups...it's a children's story, and it's not the same eeyore. :^)

Eric Lucas

Do the search. He's on the porn groups. He even admitted it awhile
back when I inquired what he was doing there.

I said I have a soft spot for readheads. Is there anything else you'd like to
introduce ?

Graham

I assume you are repelled by American redheads, the fat and stupid
ones, like the pic I posted.

What pic ?

---
Slobber, slobber, drool, drool!!!


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 18:35:36 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 09:13:01 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
JoeBloe wrote:
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 04:01:20 GMT, "Homer J Simpson" Gave us:

Police shoot at unarmed man 41 times

An investigation has been launched into why four New York police officers
fired 41 shots at an unarmed man with no criminal record.

That's commonplace out here in San Diego. Not that I am in
agreement with any such behavior.

It has absolutely no parallel with Iraq though.

American troops hold the locals in disregard just the same way US cops feel
the same way about black foreigners.

---
??? Now you're an authority on American cops?

Just look at the evidence.

---
You have no evidence, twit, all you have is hearsay.


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 10:36:08 -0700, Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> 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."


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 15:31:34 -0700, Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 15:16:21 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 13:10:43 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 13:05:08 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

[snip]
Of course it doesn't, but "consent" remains legal anyhow.

There are millions of Muslims in this country, citizens and legal
residents, and their rate of participation in terrorism is within the
engineering definition of zero.

John

I find it very troubling that CAIR and other Muslim organizations go
out of their way to sidestep questioning whether they favor the
behavior of Islamic terrorists or not.

"silence implies consent" is INDEED a provision of LAW, but I think it
applies here as well... particularly given the sidestepping :-(

...Jim Thompson

You think they are guilty of criminal acts because they do not
publicly condemn Muslim terrorism? That's a novel interpretation of
law. Can we find you guilty of not condemming, well, everything that's
illegal? Better start condemming... you have a lot of catching up to
do.

John

John, I don't think you are reading what I wrote. When the media asks
a Muslim _organization_ if they approve of what the Islamic terrorists
are doing, and they hedge, there are only two possible conclusions,
both very scary... they _approve_ of what the terrorists are doing, or
they fear for their own lives if they open their mouths.

Neither of which are illegal, and neither justifies "rounding them
up."

I fear for those of you living in "nice target" cities. Me, I live
sufficiently in the boonies that a hit here wouldn't make for very
glorified headlines... even with a "nucular" device ;-)

It won't be the local Muslims that nuke a US city. And I live 99.9
percent west of the rest of the country, and the wind blows to the
east.

John

 

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

hanson wrote:

----------------
BTW, how's that DMSO regimen working for you?. If you want
post under a differnt suject title into sci.chem. Take care, Dirk.
hanson

It appears to have worked very well.
The rosacea had almost disappeared when I had to take a one week course
of metronidazole. Now it's gone completely, and it's been clear for the
past 3 months with only some slight redness remaining (which makes me
look normal, since I have a very pale skin naturally). So, I've not had
to apply it for 3 months.

--
Dirk

http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress - The UK's only occult talk show
Presented by Dirk Bruere and Marc Power on ResonanceFM

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 18:31:57 GMT, "Homer J Simpson"
<nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:a4j2i21n96u8g2joe6mti04hnacnt0p8uf@4ax.com...

LOL, with all that anti-American bile surging through your system,
"Methinks the gentleman doth protest too much." :-O

Yes, it's a well known fact that racism has been entirely eliminated from
all of US society. Why even the notion of it is completely foreign to all
residents of that land.

3 whites indicted in dragging death of black man in Texas

July 6, 1998

JASPER, Texas (CNN) -- Three white men were indicted Monday on capital
murder charges in the death of a black man who was chained to a pickup truck
and dragged to his death on a rural East Texas road in early June.

---
I think this one was adequately responded to already, so I won't
bother with it.


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[Eeyore]

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' ?

Graham