Jihad needs scientists

[John Fields]

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:14:23 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 00:43:47 +0100, Eeyorewrote:
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...

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.


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[T Wake]

"Homer J Simpson" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:HRAUg.49766$E67.19008@clgrps13...

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:j-mdnR7jE_MQUr_YRVnyhw@pipex.net...

Not sure anyone has. Off the top of my head I cant think of any long term
success against terrorists.

British in Malaysia?

Yeah, it is the best one I can think of but I suspect the "long term" is the
problem. Still terrorists at play in the area today. (Granted not Soviet
supported ones!)

The brunt of the success was down to a very successful hearts and minds
campaign mixed with extreme violence. Luckily the media didn't have its
current status so all the bad things were well enough hidden they didn't
inflame the population...

 

[T Wake]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4522DD27.7E5D6650@hotmail.com...

Homer J Simpson wrote:

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote

Not sure anyone has. Off the top of my head I cant think of any long
term
success against terrorists.

British in Malaysia?

British in Kenya.

Same deal. There were some horrendous atrocities but they were far enough
from the public eye to pass unnoticed for years.

The hearts and minds with the population did the trick.

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

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

Despite their current protestations, the other political parties were
largely behind the conflicts.

No. The Liberal Democrats were against it

Well, not massively.

" The Liberal Democrats opposed UK participation in the 2003 Iraq war prior to
the conflict, but stated that they would support UK forces that had been ordered
to fight while it was taking place. After the initial military action was
completed, they renewed their political opposition."

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

When the invasion of Iraq was declared there was little dissent.

Don't be daft. There was a *massive* demonstration in London against the War,
the like of which has not been since before or after.

" Police said it was the UK's biggest ever demonstration with at least 750,000
taking part, although organisers put the figure closer to two million."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2765041.stm

Afterwards people said they opposed it.

and so were the SNP IIRC too.

Like they count....

They count in Scotland.

Of ( typo corection ) the major parties only the Conservatives backed Blair
and he had a tough job selling it to his own party with several related
cabinet
level resignations over a period of time.

All after the event and when things were starting to look bad.

Wrong again ! Where do you get these ideas from ?

" In early 2003 he was reported to be one of the cabinet's chief opponents of
military action against Iraq, and on March 17 he resigned from the Cabinet.

Cook's resignation speech [10] in the House of Commons, received with an
unprecedented standing ovation by fellow MPs, was described by the BBC's Andrew
Marr as "without doubt one of the most effective, brilliant, resignation
speeches in modern British politics."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Cook#Resignation_over_Iraq_war

Not sure about the others.

Mnay of us hoped that Blair would be a modeating voice of reason but it
seems he lost his head and got carried away.

Absolute power....

I suspect you're right there at least.

Graham

 

[T Wake]

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:4522DB9B.E2BB1527@earthlink.net...

T Wake wrote:

Which is most important to you, your life or your way of life?


At this point in my life? They would have to kill me.

That is how it should be. As an Atheist, I feel that if my government tried
to take away my freedoms (or the freedoms of my countrymen) simply to save
my life they are doing a horrific act and I will attempt to resist with all
my power.

I would rather be blown up by a middle eastern terrorist than have to
present an ID card to the police at checkpoints. I would rather be shot than
have my country men lose their right to worship as they see fit.

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
T Wake wrote:
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
T Wake wrote:

The same reason unthinking Muslims support groups considered
terrorist by the west.

Is Hezbollah a terrorist organisation ?

If you are asking my opinion..... then yes. A nasty, ruthless one.
However
sometimes terrorists seem to come in from the cold.

That's the point at which they've won.

Looks like they won in that case.

Do you count Hizbullah as a terrorist organisation?

I don't see a clear cut black and white case either way quite frankly.

The Turkish Gov't has a similar problem with the KDP.

Graham

 

[T Wake]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4522E253.DAB065C5@hotmail.com...

T Wake wrote:

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

Despite their current protestations, the other political parties were
largely behind the conflicts.

No. The Liberal Democrats were against it

Well, not massively.

" The Liberal Democrats opposed UK participation in the 2003 Iraq war
prior to
the conflict, but stated that they would support UK forces that had been
ordered
to fight while it was taking place. After the initial military action was
completed, they renewed their political opposition."

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

As I said, not massively. Wiki is not an infalliable resource. I lived in
London at the time of the invasion. There was little in the way of political
dissent for the invasion. The liberals, wet as ever, made some wimpers about
waiting but that was about it.

When the invasion of Iraq was declared there was little dissent.

Don't be daft. There was a *massive* demonstration in London against the
War,
the like of which has not been since before or after.

I was talking about the politcal parties. The public get their say in the
matter at election time.

" Police said it was the UK's biggest ever demonstration with at least
750,000
taking part, although organisers put the figure closer to two million."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2765041.stm

Always the organisers massively up the numbers. In an earlier life I
attended rallys and protests against War / Nukes / IRA / Brits in NI etc and
the figures quoted afterwards were always over estimated. I would have gone
with the 3/4 million myself.

Yes, it is a lot of people. However, for some reason in a democracy this was
not enough.

Afterwards people said they opposed it.

and so were the SNP IIRC too.

Like they count....

They count in Scotland.

Yeah, like that matters......

Of ( typo corection ) the major parties only the Conservatives backed
Blair
and he had a tough job selling it to his own party with several
related
cabinet
level resignations over a period of time.

All after the event and when things were starting to look bad.

Wrong again ! Where do you get these ideas from ?

Living through it mainly.

" In early 2003 he was reported to be one of the cabinet's chief opponents
of
military action against Iraq, and on March 17 he resigned from the
Cabinet.

Cook's resignation speech [10] in the House of Commons, received with an
unprecedented standing ovation by fellow MPs, was described by the BBC's
Andrew
Marr as "without doubt one of the most effective, brilliant, resignation
speeches in modern British politics."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Cook#Resignation_over_Iraq_war

Robin Cook is not "several." I made a mistake with the all. Even then, the
question resounds that what goes does a cabinet minister do by resigning?

You need to stop reading too much implied criticism where there isnt any.

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

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

The same reason unthinking Muslims support groups considered terrorist
by the west.

Is Hezbollah a terrorist organisation ?

If you are asking my opinion..... then yes. A nasty, ruthless one.
However sometimes terrorists seem to come in from the cold.

How do you account for its presence as a political party with elected
members and its welfare schemes ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah

As I said, sometimes terrorists come in from the cold. They are an
organisation dedicated to the overthrow of another state through terror
based tactics. As I said, my personal opinion is that they are terrorists.

I am sure the locals they support do not hold the same view.

So, if such an organisation shows the signs of coming in the the cold should
that not be encouraged ?

Graham

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:19:16 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Fields 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 ?

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

There is no possibilty ever of Islam being forced on any of us.

You're a stupendously cretinous fool to even imagine it.

---
If I can imagine it, it can happen, and just because you're so
blinded by your arrogance that you can't is what will be your
undoing.


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[T Wake]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:cnn5i2p1k9ir7d1k8m6kv3624a08uo9bj1@4ax.com...

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:14:23 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:


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.

A terrorist state if ever there was one.

Just shows, today's terrorist is tomorrows head of state.

(And I strongly believe in the rights of Israel to exist!)

---

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.

Ok, we will listen to your simplistic, unrealisable bullshit then.

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

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

This implies that Jews, Christians, Hindus etc are all subject to the
beheading.

According to whom ?

The original quote which was being discussed.

And has that 'quote' any validity ?

Not in my eyes. Which is why I pointed out its logical contradiction. Why?

I'd lost track of it. And I don't see it as being a likely method of supposed
forced conversion either.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:05:58 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 23:55:44 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:

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.

Show where I have espoused violence.

---
I recall you said that you have nukes which you'd use to repel
invading Muslims. That's pretty violent in my book.

I said no such thing. Nor do I expect any invasion ! What a crackpot idea.

But read it again, genius. It says: "when I read your violent
rhetoric". Do you deny that your rhetoric is violent?

There is no violence there at all.

The only violently inclined ppl in this thread
are yourself, Thompson and Terrell. Violent even to the point of making personal
threats.

---
Show where I made a personal threat.

Can you not read ? 'even to' doesn't have to include you.

Graham

 

[Homer J Simpson]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:5cn5i2tfs8dhlbmarcltqii1bgcrggt3ou@4ax.com...

Heck, even the UK sold arms to the Idonesians. Jet fighters in fact.

That the US public could get so worked up over a minor sexual indiscretion
yet
not give a damn about killing tens of thousands of foreigners is very
telling
and a very depressing comment on the state of US society.

You pay _way_ too much attention to the media.

What does Joe Sixpack pay attention to?

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:08:34 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
Homer J Simpson wrote:
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote

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.

Heck, even the UK sold arms to the Idonesians. Jet fighters in fact.

That the US public could get so worked up over a minor sexual indiscretion yet
not give a damn about killing tens of thousands of foreigners is very telling
and a very depressing comment on the state of US society.

---
You pay _way_ too much attention to the media.

I'm imagining Ken Starr ?

Graham

 

[T Wake]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4522E42B.F30916BC@hotmail.com...

T Wake wrote:

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

The same reason unthinking Muslims support groups considered
terrorist
by the west.

Is Hezbollah a terrorist organisation ?

If you are asking my opinion..... then yes. A nasty, ruthless one.
However sometimes terrorists seem to come in from the cold.

How do you account for its presence as a political party with elected
members and its welfare schemes ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah

As I said, sometimes terrorists come in from the cold. They are an
organisation dedicated to the overthrow of another state through terror
based tactics. As I said, my personal opinion is that they are
terrorists.

I am sure the locals they support do not hold the same view.

So, if such an organisation shows the signs of coming in the the cold
should
that not be encouraged ?

Well, depends on your perspective.

The easy answer is yes. Get them on side and convert them into a sovereign
nation which can exist in the world and stop their bombings. Makes sense.

However it has two stumbling blocks.

First off, how do you get the "victims" of their attacks to sit back when
they wouldn't sit back. As with GFA, we now let terrorist murders back out
onto the streets - how do you think the families who lost people should
react? Terrorism feeds itself with the vicious circle and there is no clear
cut reason as to which side should give up first.

Secondly, you risk encouraging others. For example the only possible
official diplomatic standpoints you can hold with terrorists (or kidnappers
etc) is no negotiation. As soon as you negotiate, more join in. By letting
one group bomb you to the negotiating table it implies to the others that as
long as they can hold out and kill enough of "you," eventually you will join
them in talks.

From a personal opinion, Hezbollah are genuine scum who despite current
appearances should continue to be treated as terrorists. Sadly, their enemy
state only exists because the west gave in to terrorists so they (may) feel
if they go long enough they can get it as well.

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

Ahmadinejad hasn't made the mistake of genocide like Saddam did, he's
just not very popular.

How did he get elected then ?

The glib answer is "Just like Bush." Look at how popular *he* is.

The honest answer is, I don't know. I have to admit I'm not familiar
with
the workings of the Iranian government. What I do know of the situation
comes from the writings of several scholars of the Middle East, who, to a
man, say that Ahmadinejad is not popular with his constituency, and will
be gone presently if we don't stir the pot too much.

I agree about not stirring the pot.

He was popularly elected though. Probably because Bush had pissed off lots
of Iranians with the axis of evil business.

His election was heavily assisted by the Religious leaders though...

Do you have any cite for that ?

My understanding was that his electoral success was a surprise to most
observers.

Graham

 

[T Wake]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4522E3AB.295F96FA@hotmail.com...

T Wake wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
T Wake wrote:
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
T Wake wrote:

The same reason unthinking Muslims support groups considered
terrorist by the west.

Is Hezbollah a terrorist organisation ?

If you are asking my opinion..... then yes. A nasty, ruthless one.
However
sometimes terrorists seem to come in from the cold.

That's the point at which they've won.

Looks like they won in that case.

Do you count Hizbullah as a terrorist organisation?

I don't see a clear cut black and white case either way quite frankly.

Fair one. Which side of the fence do you put them on a a personal opinion?

The Turkish Gov't has a similar problem with the KDP.

Also Terrorists.

 

[T Wake]

"Homer J Simpson" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:UzBUg.49790$E67.22461@clgrps13...

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:5cn5i2tfs8dhlbmarcltqii1bgcrggt3ou@4ax.com...

Heck, even the UK sold arms to the Idonesians. Jet fighters in fact.

That the US public could get so worked up over a minor sexual
indiscretion yet
not give a damn about killing tens of thousands of foreigners is very
telling
and a very depressing comment on the state of US society.

You pay _way_ too much attention to the media.

What does Joe Sixpack pay attention to?

Six packs?

 

[T Wake]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4522E491.78C03C23@hotmail.com...

T Wake wrote:

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

This implies that Jews, Christians, Hindus etc are all subject to
the
beheading.

According to whom ?

The original quote which was being discussed.

And has that 'quote' any validity ?

Not in my eyes. Which is why I pointed out its logical contradiction.
Why?

I'd lost track of it. And I don't see it as being a likely method of
supposed
forced conversion either.

Neither do I.

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:10:51 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:

How would you translate it?

Without involving babelfish.

---
Then do it, instead of your little waffle dance.

Tell you what. You stamp you little feet first ok ?

Graham