Jihad needs scientists

[John Fields]

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 22:20:10 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

We're not
here to appease a bunch of thugs who want nothing less than to take
over the world for their own perverted ends

Since that won't happen what are you so worried about.

You're legitimising the thugs by taking them so seriously.

---
I see. So by not taking them seriously that will automatically
prevent them from achieving their nefarious goals?

How convenient! Just don't believe in them and they'll disappear?

Sounds to me like you're just trying to buy some extra time for your
buddies.


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 22:25:30 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

I think they're talking about buggery, Graham.

Such huge intellects work in strange ways.

---
Hmmmmm... I doubt whether it's huge 'intellects' you're interested
in. :-O


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:bcb3i25cegi15r7b0m2iigln69kavrdvs7@4ax.com...

Had the Congress not enacted the two-term rule, Clinton might never
have been elected to the presidency.

By that, you seem to imply that the re-election of some previous 2-term
incumbent would have covered Clinton's "window of electability", which was
roughly 1990 to 2005. Who would that have been? Obviously not Bush 1,
Carter, Ford and Nixon--the first three didn't even manage a second term,
and Nixon managed to completely screw up his second term. Reagan? He was
already in 1988 showing obvious visible signs of impending senility that was
diagnosed as Alzheimer's disease in the very early 90s. He would not likely
have been re-elected to a third term, and certainly not a fourth. Besides,
a protracted Republican administration, whether a third Reagan term or Bush
1, would almost certainly have led to a backlash democrat election in either
case. Carter, Ford, Nixon--see my comment above about understanding events.

I didn't especially like him, but under his leadership, we did manage to
erase the deficit--ironic, consider longtime Republican bluster about being
the "Party of Fiscal Responsibility." Something went right during those
years, but I'm not especially willing to give Clinton credit. He did know
enough not to screw up a good situation...which is more than can be said of
Bush 2 after Afghanistan. I don't think Clinton was a very good moral
example, but then again, there are lots of things that are worse than
getting an adulterous blowjob at work (no, I've never been so lucky)...like
ripping chunks of the US Constitution to shreds, like Bush 2 has done.
Clinton was (and is) very charming and very easily electable. Given that, I
just don't see a reason that he wouldn't have ended up as President in the
90s, one way or the other.

Eric Lucas

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 22:26:25 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 17:32:11 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
Gordon wrote:

This is sad and very unfortunate. The thing we must ask ourselves
is, had I been one of the cops would/should I have waited for the
suspect to pull what ever he had in his pocket out and just hope
it wasn't a gun?

I should think there was a language barrier, and the suspect
didn't understand what the cops were trying to tell him to do and
the cops didn't understand the suspect's replies to their
commands. The cops probably thought he was going for a gun, and
weren't willing to just wait and see if he started shooting.

This is a problem in a country where gun ownership is so widespread of course.

---
Less of a problem than in the UK where if the perp had a gun and the
cops didn't _they'd_ probably be dead.

Your fondness for killing is noted.

---
Fondness for killing your bullshit? Unbounded!!!


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 23:50:11 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

"T Wake" writes:

The victory conditions are either nonsensical or nonachievable. Has any "War
on Terror" been won?

The term "War on Terror" is a misnomer. It really should be "The war
on Islamic extremism". Terror is just a tool.

Obfuscation noted.

So, are you saying it's possible to win a 'war on Islamic extremism' ?

---
We won the one on German extremism so who's to say it's not possible
to win this one?


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 23:53:26 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
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.

A decently civilised country wouldn't have any 'issue' with sorting that one
out.

---
Well, Graham, since you seem to consider yourself something of a
supremely civilized being, let's have your take on it.


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 23:55:44 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 18:22:06 +0100, Eeyore 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?

I thought it was fine under Clinton !

---
That doesn't answer the question.
---

You're not, you're just a
coward who's afraid to go out and do the bombing you'd really like
to.

Don't be so absurd. It sems you can only relate to violent ideas.

---
Not at all true, but when I read your violent rhetoric I like to
translate it into visuals which depict what you'd like to do if you
weren't afraid of the reprisals.
---

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

You truly don't have the tiniest clue do you ?

---
Yup, sweetie, I do.


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[Homer J Simpson]

<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:R9jUg.19029$Ij.3465@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...

I don't think Clinton was a very good moral example, but then again, there
are lots of things that are worse than getting an adulterous blowjob at
work

Carter sold arms to the Indonesians so they could massacre the East
Timorese. Compared to that a blowjob is nothing.

I'm just disappointed that the "leader of the free world" was getting such
crappy sex. Most other world leaders do a lot better - esp. the French.

With all of the high paid assistants in the White House it seems it would be
easy to have one of them be the unofficial presidential bicycle.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:7ed3i2hh00fettsqj0csuni7mjbfqvtg60@4ax.com...

All that incident in Jasper, Texas, proved was that three racist
whites killed a black man.

Two of them were sentenced to death by lethal injection, and the
third was sentenced to life.

If this was a racist society they would all have gotten off with a
year or so, if that.

How long is it since you could blow up a church and murder children and not
be charged?

 

[John Fields]

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?


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 23:38:55 GMT, "Homer J Simpson"
<nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:hh23i2t5rakkholb9uqk29vdl1mhl3mdim@4ax.com...

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

Why not 'accidentally' nuke it? That's what the Israelis do all the time.

---
I wasn't aware that the Israelis had let even a single nuke loose.
When did that happen?


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:sng3i29surgrg2h0ivjcvpk8fob97q15ea@4ax.com...

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 23:50:11 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

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?

Do you honestly believe they're even remotely similar? German extremism was
a relatively easy battle, since it was concentrated in easily identifiable
entities like the government and army of the country, and happened in fairly
localized places (along battle fronts) by easily identified fighters
(uniformed soldiers, identifiable bomber aircraft, warships, etc.) The
fight against terrorism is diffuse, the enemy very difficultly identifiable,
and the battle itself is very diffuse and unpredictable on the hour-to-hour
timescale--it's on whatever street corner where the terrorists choose to
plant a car bomb. We've never really won a war like that. Vietnam was
close, and that was a miserable failure (and was almost certain to be, no
matter who led us in that effort.) And much of the high-tech fighting
paraphernalia developed since then is aimed at improving our success in a
*traditional* war, not a guerilla-like war. Guerilla tactics win
wars--that's been proven repeatedly since the late 1770s.

Eric Lucas

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 00:43:47 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Gordon 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' ?

Graham

I think it will prove possible, if this current situation is
managed such that the radical terrorist cells are not attacked
with such vigor that the core leaders are all wiped out too
quickly. It will be better to leave the terrorist cells operating
and use them to lure other would-be terrorists into their groups,
then exterminate all but the leaders. Repeat the process several
times and bleed the population dry of any would-be terrorists,
then go after the backbone leaders...a Darwinian selection sort
of process...

You sound completely nuts to me !

---
And your plan would be to...


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

"Ken Smith" <kensmith@green.rahul.net> wrote in message
news:efship$e0d$1@blue.rahul.net...

In article <DkfUg.31$45.83@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote:
In article <efr907$sb7$5@blue.rahul.net>, kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken
Smith) writes:
In article <XxYTg.5$45.149@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote:
[...]
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.

Actually that is not true. Deterring people is about placing a treat
against what they value. You may be able to deter many of them with the
threat that if there is another attack, we will nuke Meca.

This, in fact, may work. We didn't get to this stage yet, but we may.
But this level of deterrence is in the province of war, not police
action.

I picked a very extreme example on purpose.

What makes you think nuking Mecca would have anything but a very, very
negative effect on us? Simply threatening to nuke Mecca would not work, the
Arab world is used to the usual propagandistic bluster from their own
leaders, and it would be easy to ignore as a bluff. The actual act of
nuking Mecca would just solidify the *entire* Muslim world as mortal enemies
of the US. I can't see a positive outcome for anybody.

The point I wanted to make
was that there is some extreme thing that we can be fairly sure would
serve as a deterrent. I figured once I had that point made,

But you haven't yet made that point. I think the point is that there really
*isn't* anything we could do that would deter them.

I could then
go on to the less extreme but much more doable.

Eric Lucas

 

[Homer J Simpson]

"Ken Smith" <kensmith@green.rahul.net> wrote in message
news:efsi7m$e0d$2@blue.rahul.net...

I think if the US said it supported him, he'd be out by sunset. Only by
having the US to blame and scare his population with does he maintain his
position of power. Illegitimate governments have often used an external
threat as a way to rally the populace behind themselves.

Maybe we could get Bush to walk hand-in-hand with him.

 

"Homer J Simpson" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:TDjUg.45469$bf5.3909@edtnps90...

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:7ed3i2hh00fettsqj0csuni7mjbfqvtg60@4ax.com...

All that incident in Jasper, Texas, proved was that three racist
whites killed a black man.

Two of them were sentenced to death by lethal injection, and the
third was sentenced to life.

If this was a racist society they would all have gotten off with a
year or so, if that.

How long is it since you could blow up a church and murder children and
not be charged?

Sadly, not long enough, but we have made strides. As those who grew up, for
example, when it was tacitly OK to blow up a church, die off, gradually this
type of behavior becomes less and less acceptable. It will be a *long*
road, however, since there are so many other, more endemic, ways in which
racism expresses itself. Attitudes change slowly, it's human nature.

Eric Lucas

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 00:47:08 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 19:59:42 +0100, "T Wake" wrote:
"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message

So what? With world domonation as its goal, one would expect it
would strike world-wide, as the opportunity arose.


Whose goal? "It" isn't really appropriate to define the long term aims of a
disparate group of organisations. Are "they" trying to dominate the world or
destroy western society or convert every one or...

---
"It" being radical Islam, the goal, in my opinion, would be to
convert everyone to Islam and have them be subject to control by
Muslim jurists, the goal being total world domination by Islam.

Refusal to convert would result in death.

Do you often conjure up such idiotic ideas out of thin air ?

---
LOL, it's clear that you can't see past the end of your nose, nor
are you a student of history.


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <DkfUg.31$45.83@news.uchicago.edu>,
<mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote:

In article <efr907$sb7$5@blue.rahul.net>, kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken
Smith) writes:
In article <XxYTg.5$45.149@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote:
[...]
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.

Actually that is not true. Deterring people is about placing a treat
against what they value. You may be able to deter many of them with the
threat that if there is another attack, we will nuke Meca.

This, in fact, may work. We didn't get to this stage yet, but we may.
But this level of deterrence is in the province of war, not police
action.

I picked a very extreme example on purpose. The point I wanted to make
was that there is some extreme thing that we can be fairly sure would
serve as a deterrent. I figured once I had that point made, I could then
go on to the less extreme but much more doable.

They also very likely would fear being held in prison for life.

This may be so but the technique of carrying poison on yourself at all
times, so as to prevent the possibility of being taken alive is known
for a long time.

You don't get your 70 Verginians for killing your self so they may not be
willing to do this.

BTW, the fact that their leaders didn't adapt it yet
is encouraging, in a way.

It may be for religious reasons, because they want them to go down
fighting or because they haven't thought of it. I suspect that the last
is the least likely of the three,

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <NdfUg.992$NE6.169@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>,
<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
[....]

It's not clear to me it would *ever* have been a good idea. I now pray that
Rice et al don't stir the pot too much with Iran. The Middle Eastern
scholars I've heard and read are now saying that Ahmadinejad has so little
popular support that he will be ousted within a short time, and that a
peaceful, secular regime will in all likelihood succeed him. If we stick
our noses in there, we could just give him enough support among Iranians to
stick around long enough to develop and use nuclear weapons technology.

I think if the US said it supported him, he'd be out by sunset. Only by
having the US to blame and scare his population with does he maintain his
position of power. Illegitimate governments have often used an external
threat as a way to rally the populace behind themselves.


--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

In article <efship$e0d$1@blue.rahul.net>, kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) writes:

In article <DkfUg.31$45.83@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote:
In article <efr907$sb7$5@blue.rahul.net>, kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken
Smith) writes:
In article <XxYTg.5$45.149@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote:
[...]
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.

Actually that is not true. Deterring people is about placing a treat
against what they value. You may be able to deter many of them with the
threat that if there is another attack, we will nuke Meca.

This, in fact, may work. We didn't get to this stage yet, but we may.
But this level of deterrence is in the province of war, not police
action.

I picked a very extreme example on purpose. The point I wanted to make
was that there is some extreme thing that we can be fairly sure would
serve as a deterrent. I figured once I had that point made, I could then
go on to the less extreme but much more doable.

Yes, reasonable.


They also very likely would fear being held in prison for life.

This may be so but the technique of carrying poison on yourself at all
times, so as to prevent the possibility of being taken alive is known
for a long time.

You don't get your 70 Verginians for killing your self so they may not be
willing to do this.

Oh, I'm sure you can find somebedy to issue a fatwa to the effect that

killing yourself to avoid capture is legitimate.

BTW, the fact that their leaders didn't adapt it yet
is encouraging, in a way.

It may be for religious reasons, because they want them to go down
fighting or because they haven't thought of it. I suspect that the last
is the least likely of the three,

I agree. Still, it may (just may) be possible that while willing to

send others to blow themselves up, they're not as willing to die
themselves. Though I wouldn't keep my hopes to high.

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