Jihad needs scientists

[Eeyore]

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

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' ?

This mess is about changing a mindset; either Western civilization's
mindset is changed or religious extremists' mindset is changed.

And seemingly both sides reckon it can be acheived by violent means !

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <MeqUg.46$45.147@news.uchicago.edu>, wrote:

Well, so here is the situation. As Clausevitz wrote, war doesn't end
till the spirit of one of the opponents is not broken. Now, the
breaking point will depend on the specific nation as well as on the
circumstances of the specific war, but based on ample historical data
it is somewhere in the vicinity of 10% of the population (give or take
factor two for the specific circumstances). But, since we're living
in kinder and gentler times", we prefer to ignore the empirical
record, and hope, against hope, that somehow, by some miracle, same
result can be obtained much cheaper. Now, miracles can be very nice
when they happen, but putting trust in them is not very wise. So,
yes, I agree with you, absent the readiness to fight for real we're
just biding our time.

Clarification, please? A mindset change of a people only needs
10% of them to change? This doesn't make sense,...unless.....
it's the intelligensia that has to do the changing. Another
question, if the answer is yes to the 10% of the population, is
there a particular sector of workers that have to do the changing?

Interestingly enough, the ~10% of the germnaapopulation killed in WW2 were not
all Nazis by a long way !

There had to be an de-Nazification programme after the war. The war was won not
by 'winning over' the Germans anyway but by simply destroying their military and
invading their territory with a full-scale military occupation.

Graham

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 12:15:45 -0700, Jamie
<jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote:

Eeyore wrote:


Jim Thompson wrote:


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.


You haven't a clue what Jihad really means. If you understood...........

" Jihad, sometimes spelled Jahad, Jehad, Jihaad, Djehad or Cihad, (Arabic:
????? ?ih?d) is an Islamic term, from the Arabic root ?hd ("to exert
utmost effort, to strive, struggle"), which connotes a wide range of
meanings: anything from an inward spiritual struggle to attain perfect
faith to a political or military struggle "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad

Graham

is that like the colorful metaphors that get thrown in every other line
by the average educated hard working american that really means
absolutely nothing other than taking up extra space in the text and
getting in the way? at least it adds flavor to the mix what the hell
does Jihad do ?

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/990

...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.

 

[Eeyore]

Lloyd Parker wrote:

Keith Olbermann had a good commentary a week or two ago about Bush calling a
criticism "unacceptable."

" Unacceptable to think " in fact ! Yes I've seen it. Very damning indeed.

Graham

 

[Keith]

In article <18l4i2pda32a9pcks1snm7p1ne0ksphvjd@4ax.com>,
joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org says...

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 07:33:14 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> Gave us:



That's why we should discontinue all aid except to developing nations
needing food and health assistance.

And burn the UN to the ground.


Have you ever heard that little piece by Robin Williams about us
simply stopping all we do for others? It is very funny as it were.

You mean this one?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/williams.asp

--
Keith

 

[Keith]

In article <45213544.1C686151@hotmail.com>,
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com says...

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 07:57:37 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 09:09:14 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
Jim Thompson wrote:

That's where we pretend we like the French ;-)

Sorry, Jim, but I'm not THAT good at playing pretend.

Don't worry. The French don't much like your kind of Americans either.

Graham

Heck, you can hardly get into a roadside rest area bathroom for the
crowds from the French tour busses. On our way back from Monterey, my
wife had to sit shivering at the Junipera Serra rest stop for that
very reason, waiting out a bus full of female French tourists. If you
go to the top of Twin Peaks in San Francisco, the language you're most
likely to overhear is German.

Stay home! The lines at Peet's Coffee and Joseph Schmidt Chocolate are
long enough already.

John

I've seen very few French tourists here in AZ... probably because
they'd be shunned ;-)

What is there for them to see ?

Just a few little things like the Grand Canyon, Walnut Creek

Canyon, the Painted Desert, the Pertified Forrest, Sunset Crater...
Nah, nothing there.

--
Keith

 

[Keith]

In article <QQeUg.977$NE6.665@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net says...

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:XOSdncxhP5FZ_bzYRVnyvQ@pipex.net...

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:qsh2i2drpinua4j4gbg6utio5ap565jm4q@4ax.com...

Yeah, like: "If we give you this money will you promise to use it to
feed your people and not to make weapons with it?"

Or "If we give you this money will you promise to use it to buy weapons
and fight [Insert Disliked Government of the Day] and promise never to
fight us - unless you really have to?"

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

Are you always this stupid?

<much more trash snipped>

--
Keith

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 12:18:37 -0700, Jamie
<jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote:

Eeyore wrote:


T Wake wrote:


"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote


Hey Eric, I guess you are a true dumb-ass... you don't even have a
hat, and too stupid to realize Larkin is in CA, not TX.

What is your street address? I have some buddies at Ohio State that
are just drooling for the chance to "meet" you ;-)

You are funny guy. Do you really have buddies or are they just made up to
try and make you look good?


He trots out this nonsense from time to time.

I expect it's to hide inner feelings of insecurity. He'd really like to hang out
with bikers you know !

Graham


my favorite group of guys!, at least they aren't afraid to express there
real feelings.

Not only is Eeyore dumb as a stump, he either can't read, or his
retention is very low... a family member owns a Harley-Davidson
dealership.

...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 Tue, 03 Oct 2006 15:35:16 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 21:52:45 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 17:05:11 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
John Larkin wrote:

Graham has a pathological and mostly irrational hatred of America,

Not at all. I am however intruiged how Americancs invariably bring out the hate word the very second >even the tiniest
criticism is voiced against them.

It's not hate at all, more like despair at the crass stupidity of your governmemnt and the ppl who >elected them.

and makes up things to support that need.

Simply no need ever to do that !

So naturally he doesn't like to
be reminded about stuff like WWII or the Cold War. He believes that
the UK and Russia defeated Germany with little need for US assistance.

The USA was around 3 years late to the party of course. I have little doubt that Russia would have >eventually defeated
Germany anyway. Germany could certainly never ever have defeated Russia, the >numbers simply aren't even
remotelycredible.

---
That's all Monday morning quarterbacking but, if as you say, had
Russia defeated Germany without the US being involved do you think
that you'd still be speaking English as a first language?

Probably. Once Germany knew it was losing it's quite likely that's they'd have abondoned the war with Britain and asked for
our help. History's quite clear on this point.

---
And if you'd have helped them, Russia would have wiped you both out
because of Germany's double-crossing Russia and you'd be speaking
Russian right now, if anything.

If you'd elected not to help them, then Russia would have wiped them
out and who's to say Stalin wouldn't have had his eye on a weak
little island incapable of defending itself at that point? And for
that matter, all of Europe. In which case, if he had his way with
you, you'd be speaking Russian right now. In public, anyway.

No way. If Britain and Germany had allied, the rest of Europe would have joined us too ( except the Swedes and Swiss probably )

---
Yeah, right! A pretty much tapped-out England and Germany joined by
a bunch of little pissant states squabbling about who'd be leading
and who'd be following and is this proper and is that not proper,
and in the meantime the Russian juggernaut would have rolled right
over you, LOL!


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[Eeyore]

JoeBloe wrote:

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 14:17:53 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> Gave us:

US aid is frequently accompanied by compulsory 'trade concessions' that favour the
USA.

Funny, I don't recall us ever asking Russia for anything for the
millions of tons of wheat we have sent them over the last several
decades.

Why does Russia need 'aid' ? Why is it going there. Can't they pay for it?

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

JoeBloe wrote:

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 14:17:53 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> Gave us:

but the *SMALLEST* among developed countries as a
percentage of its GDP

Whoopie fuckin doo. That proves that we are a prosperous nation and
we still beat everyone else on the tab.

No. It proves you're shallow.

Graham

 

[T Wake]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:21r3i29au320e00180ge85golv0qb28v86@4ax.com...

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 02:09:54 GMT, "Homer J Simpson"
nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:


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.

---
So, I was right!

You don't give a shit about what's right and what's wrong, you're
such a simp that what you'd use the President's office for (if you
were the President of the US) would be to try to score some snatch.

You're pitiful, and any woman worth her salt would wear a burka in
your presence.

You need to get out a lot more.

 

[Eeyore]

JoeBloe wrote:

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 15:05:00 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> Gave us:

Ignoring the blemishes, which is
what most of the Joe Sixpack 'Murc'n rednecks like yourself choose to do

Hahahah... I drink better beers than your retarded ass does.

Obviously not American piss-water ones then.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 15:21:12 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:

"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.

There is no entity called 'radical Islam'.

---
Just like there's no entity called 'white supremacists'.
---

Who exactly do you mean ?

---
The members of Islam who would have no qualms about relieving you of
your head if you refused to convert.

Let me make this clearer.

Who *exactly* do you mean ?

Graham

 

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in
message newsHlUg.1497$v43.1476@fed1read02...

Saddam was Sunni (and Baathist). Sunni communities thrived under Saddam.
Shia and Kurdish communities were largely targets of his pogroms. Saddam
wasn't "secular". Notice how the Shia and the Sunni spend a lot of energy
(and lives) "getting even" now.

Yeah, so what? Bush is as much a Christian as Saddam is a Sunni Muslim, and
Christian communities are thriving much more under Bush than any other
recent president. We're not a theocracy (yet...). My understanding is that
the pogroms were ethnic, not religious (although in the Middle East, that
may be a distinction without a difference.) In the UK, the conflict was
between the Catholics in Northern Ireland and the Church of England, which
is mainstream in most of the rest of the UK, and is, since about 500 years
ago, the religion of the government...but I don't think anybody would call
the UK a theocracy. The important difference is that Iran's government
exists by the grace of the religious leadership of the country (i.e., the
Ayatollah), and that makes them a theocracy in some important ways. As I
understand it, again from reading the writing of scholars of the Middle
East, the Iranian government has much deeper ties to the religious
leadership than in Iraq. For example, Iran's laws are full of religious
rules from the Koran, Iraq's aren't, to anywhere near the same extent.

Plus, I think the US did have a lot of support originally
from the Iraqi populace. Due to our activities in Iraq, I
don't think the same can now be said of Iran.

We originally "pumped up" Saddam, simply to counter Iran's infuence in the
area. (You may recall the hostage crisis...) The enemy of my enemy...

Yes, that simplistic way of thinking is what got us in this mess, with both
Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.

Plus, by contrast, to my knowledge, Ahmadinejad hasn't
made the mistake of genocide like Saddam did, he's just not very popular.

Give us time. We'll screw that up too. I hope I'm wrong.

Me to.

But I don't think parading a US government official to make goody-goody
noises with Ahmadinejad will shorten Ahmadinejad's political career.

That was my point.

Eric Lucas

 

[T Wake]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:muu2i2lcu4t0ogk8gi81cf55vffltfobcf@4ax.com...

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 17:24:42 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 00:50:29 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

As is whether he pisses off the rest of the world or not. 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,

Sorry are we talking about the US still? Hard to tell the difference some
times.

and we're not here to
appease a bunch of short-sighted cowards like you (you, Graham, not
the UK) who want to maintain the status quo by taking that radical
Islamic dick up your ass, as long as it goes in slowly.

Well, as long as we are sticking to reasonable conversation to show how the
other person's view is wrong...

 

[T Wake]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:45217974.A472CA0E@hotmail.com...

T Wake wrote:

"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote in

Good to see you Nederlanders are doing so well ;-)

I assume I have just missed the joke here. Is this going to be used in
your
act?

He has a thing about them. To him it's simply an insult to call someone a
Netherlander. He doesn't approve of their 'liberal' thinking.

Oh right. Can I assume he has never been then?

 

[T Wake]

"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote in
message news:f343i2p5aqlop09564hf9ef118p2pmf76q@4ax.com...

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 ;-)

Such a shame. It would give you some great lines for your stand up comedy
routines.

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:21:16 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 17:12:32 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 16:00:32 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
John Larkin wrote:

I read about a recent experiment that was done in the UK. In response
to advertised job openings, good but fake resumes were invented and
sent in, with the only difference that some had English-sounding names
and some had Muslim-sounding names. The response ratio was about 5:1.

I suspect this is another urban myth actually. A similar thing was *really*
done with different ages in fact.

It's in here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Muslim#Islamophobia_in_Europe

" he asks whether Muslims will be the victims of the next pogroms "

See my post on this point.

That's why I laugh when American try lecturing us about being blind to the danger
from Islam. Do you guys seriously think we'd ever let them get the upper hand ?

Graham

Upper hand? What does Europe plan to do about the exponents of
population growth, negative for the traditional population and
positive for Islamic immigrants?

So, you're worried about a hypothetical something in maybe 1000 yrs ?

Has it ever ocurred to you that most European Muslims don't want to live like backward
tribesppl ?

Graham

Has it occurred to you that there are different perspectives on
"backward"? No, I guess not.

John

 

[Gordon]

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 10:30:07 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 15:30:55 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



Gordon wrote:

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 00:47:08 +0100, Eeyore 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 ?

Graham

Graham, what John said is straight out of their Koran. Repeated
in many Surah, Ayah passages. For example;

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Surah 47, Ayah 4 When ye encounter the infidels, strike of their
heads till ye have made a great slaughter among them, and of the
rest make fast the fetters.

The Bible says contradictory things too.

---
What's contradictory about: "If you don't convert we'll cut off your
infidel head."?

The really puzzling part of the Muslim religion is that in some

Koran passages they regard Jesus of Nazareth as an apostle of
God, but in other Koran passages they regard Jesus as a liar and
a deceiver. Maybe being a liar and a deceiver is a prerequisite
to being a Muslim apostle, so they had to work things around to
the extent that Jesus was, from their perspective, a liar and a
deceiver.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Surah 4, Ayah 156 And for their saying, 'Verily we have slain
the Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary, and Apostle of God.' Yet
they slew him not, and they crucified him not, but they had only
his likeness.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Surah 4, Ayah 169 O ye people of the Book! overstep not bounds
in your religion: and of God, speak only truth. The Messiah,
Jesus, son of Mary, is only an apostle of God, and his Word which
he conveyed into Mary, and a Spirit proceeding from himself.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------