Jihad needs scientists

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

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

The key is removing the lifeblood of the terrorists. Without this, it
will never end.

Their lifeblood is quite simply injustices ( real or perceived ). Can you
remove them ?

It isn't always their lifeblood and if you don't the conflict will last for
eternity.

You can disable a terrorist group by stopping the local people from
supporting them. This is where removing the perception of injustice comes
from.

How are you going to persuade the locals of this ?

from Leeds who blew up the underground. For
them to function there has to be places where they can exist and move about.

Their homes it would seem and the streets in the places where they live.

Educate people that these are not "Fighting for a cause" and you make it a
little bit harder for them. Educate people that they (bombers) are evil
criminals and you make it harder yet.

How are you going to educate them about this idea ? Why should they believe you
?

Alternatively you could put every mosque under armed guard and provide them
with no end of support....

Whose 'support' are you referring to ?

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

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

If we stick to the WWII analogy,
the French resistance were certainly terrorists

More like insurgents in fact.

In my lexicon there is no difference ;-)

Trust me, there is one.

Graham

 

[T Wake]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4522E61D.EA28E065@hotmail.com...

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 ?

I will endeavour to find a relevant one, a quick slightly relevant one is -
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/16/AR2005061601056.html.
The Guardian Council vetted the presidential candidates to ensure no one too
"reformist" would be on the bill.

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

Yes. It was. The last president was a secular reformist. Still does not mean
the elections were fair and open democratic process showing the will of the
people.

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
T Wake wrote:
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
John Fields wrote:
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 23:50:11 +0100, Eeyore 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?

The Nazi party was genuinely popular.

In the Early Days, then when popularity showed signs of wavering the
"Enemy" appeared.

Eh ?

The Nazi party propaganda blamed the economic crisis on the Jews etc. This
helped to shore up popular support for the government and ensure that all
manner of draconian legislation could be brought in to what was previously a
free and democratic society.

I see what you mean. Not just the Jews though. Communists too for mexample.

Labour party....

Scarily, they are a socialist party which have grown strong nationalistic
tendencies....

(OK, I will stop now. I will probably even vote Labour at the next
election....)

You think labour is Socialist ????

Yes.

In parts.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
T Wake wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
In article <452197A3.17CCE793@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

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.

I agree completely.

How about removing the either and replacing the or with and ?

Also an option. Any one of those three will work.

(simplistic examples)

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

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

If the population in the Middle East become enticed by freedom and it's
potential then the support for terrorists will dry up and the conflict will
end.

If both happens the conflict will end. (In an odd way though )

I suspect both are needed.

Graham

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:25:32 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 23:38:55 GMT, "Homer J Simpson" wrote:
"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> 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.

The US believes that US law applies everywhere in the world, but US
constitutional rights don't apply to anyone who isn't the 'right sort of
person'.

Preposterous.

He's perfectly right.

The 'Natwest 3' were extradited to the USA from the UK for a supposed 'crime'
that doesn't even exist in UK law and that alleged 'crime' took place on UK
soil.

---
But they were fucking around with US law, US funds and a US company.
---

This UK Gov't has a lot to answer for for agreeing to an extradition
treaty that your lot haven't even signed and doubtless wouldn't accept the
conditions of were the situations reversed.

---
Then why don't you give them a good dressing down and see what good
it does, you impotent little twit.
---

Bunch of damn cowboys.

---
Ha, ha, ha!

What's the matter girlie, you don't like it when we get our way and
it's _you_ who gives us what we want, unilaterally?

Tough shit.

BTW, you might have noticed we sent Saddam Hussein back to his own
country to be tried there instead of us giving him a fair trial and
executing him here. Big of us, huh?

Yeah, yeah, I know... Save it for someone who gives a shit.


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[T Wake]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4522E760.E113D773@hotmail.com...

T Wake wrote:

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

The key is removing the lifeblood of the terrorists. Without this, it
will never end.

Their lifeblood is quite simply injustices ( real or perceived ). Can
you
remove them ?

It isn't always their lifeblood and if you don't the conflict will last
for
eternity.

You can disable a terrorist group by stopping the local people from
supporting them. This is where removing the perception of injustice comes
from.

How are you going to persuade the locals of this ?

I never said it was easy. This is what a hearts and minds campaign consists
of.

You only asked could this be done. The answer is yes.

from Leeds who blew up the underground.
For
them to function there has to be places where they can exist and move
about.

Their homes it would seem and the streets in the places where they live.

Yes. Because the local people support their fight. How can this be the case
in a developed country with a democratically elected government and low
unemployment?

If I disagree with a government policy I dont blow myself up to make a
point.

Educate people that these are not "Fighting for a cause" and you make it
a
little bit harder for them. Educate people that they (bombers) are evil
criminals and you make it harder yet.

How are you going to educate them about this idea ? Why should they
believe you?

They don't have to. I never said it would be successful. You asked could it
be done.

Previously you refered to Borneo as a success story. This is how it
happened.

The education begins with teaching the people what a democracy is and what
is good about it. By educating people to be a part of society not separate
themselves.

If they chose not accept this then the conflict will continue. Eventually
one side will die out.

Alternatively you could put every mosque under armed guard and provide
them
with no end of support....

Whose 'support' are you referring to ?

Well, mine for a start, if the government ever took such a measure.

I will redirect the questioning - how to you propose to disable and disarm
the current terrorist threat?

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
T Wake wrote:
"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 20:01:40 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

Afraid of what exactly ?

Convert or die.

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

Moot since it's never going to happen.

Really? Every day your way of life is threatened - more so by our own
country than any external threat.

There's no threat of being forced to convert to Islam for sure !

Do you intend to carry an ID card if they get brought in?

Probably although I'd prefer not to see them anyway on balance. Simply an
expensive waste of time.

What have you done to prevent the detention of suspects for 14 days
without access to legal counsel?

But they do have !

I am not asking should you convert which may well never happen. I am asking
which is most important to you, your life or way of life.

That's very hypothetical but I reckon I'd fight against any tyranny suppressing
important freedoms.

Graham

 

[T Wake]

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

T Wake wrote:

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

If we stick to the WWII analogy,
the French resistance were certainly terrorists

More like insurgents in fact.

In my lexicon there is no difference ;-)

Trust me, there is one.

Really? Technically there may be, given that insurgents fight an invading
force. However terrorist is a broad term which has any meaning you want to
give it. Literally it implies causing terror. Insurgents certainly did that.
Just because they were attacking the "invaders" doesn't change it much.

If you were a German soldier, they would have felt like terrorists.

In the military the term Counter Insurgency is [was] used almost
synonymously with Counter Terrorist.

If you wont accept the French resistance as terrorists, what about the
German resistance?

 

[T Wake]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4522E812.EB03B19@hotmail.com...

T Wake wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
T Wake wrote:
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
John Fields wrote:
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 23:50:11 +0100, Eeyore 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?

The Nazi party was genuinely popular.

In the Early Days, then when popularity showed signs of wavering the
"Enemy" appeared.

Eh ?

The Nazi party propaganda blamed the economic crisis on the Jews etc.
This
helped to shore up popular support for the government and ensure that all
manner of draconian legislation could be brought in to what was
previously a
free and democratic society.

I see what you mean. Not just the Jews though. Communists too for
mexample.

Yes. We [tinw] don't just demonise Islam though.... We [tinw] also demonise
Eastern Europeans, Africans etc. (Even as far as shooting a Brazilian
Catholic...)

In my job I provide security risk management advice to companies and
currently, the perception of threat from "middle easterners" or "Asians" is
phenomenal. And totally out of proportion to the threat. More likely to die
in a plane crash than to be even injured in a terrorist attack. (Now, what
we really need is a war on traffic accidents...)

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

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

And your plan would be to...

By removing the reasons for terrorist action primarily.

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

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

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

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

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

You don't have a clue do you ?

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

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

Graham

 

[Gordon]

On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 22:14:54 +0100, "T Wake"
<usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

"Gordon" <gordonlr@DELETEswbell.net> wrote in message
news:57d5i21spajr15qtdavgd63em37bvhd42c@4ax.com...
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:47:09 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



Frithiof Andreas Jensen wrote:

mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message

We did change the behavior of Germany and Japan, didn't we?

At the cost of maybe 20% of the German population

About 10% actually.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

- which clearly noone is
willing to pay yet in the middle east; mainly because it would look
really bad
on TeeVee. If one is not going to fight for real and destroy the
opponents there
is really, really no point in sending soldiers.

snip

I.M.O: If WW2 was conducted the same way, we would be still be busy
knocking
over small groups of Waffen SS while talking about our "deep respect"
for
Neo-German culture and the historic achievements of Hitler (all the
while buying
German products to prop up the failing plundocracy)!

There's no comparison since no Muslim country is actually at war with us,
imagined
or otherwise.

Graham

Graham, are you saying that the events on the following list were
just fun and games, and not to be construed as war in any form? I
don't agree. It seems to me that 23 years of "turning the other
cheek" was enough. It was time to put an end to this kind of
irresponsible brutality.


Which country are you suggesting was responsible? It is terrorist tactics,
not war. When the Red Army Faction were bombing US bases in Germany, did you
go to war with the Germans?

Where did the current terrorism financing and materials come

from? They weren't paying all their expenses out of pocket. Some
country or counties were giving them support. Iran? Iraq? Arabia?
France?

We didn't have to go to war with Germany. They took care of the
problem, as the Muslim countries should take care of the current
terrorism problems, but they won't take care of these problems.
Instead they pour funding and resources into the terrorists hands
and give them a resounding thumbs up.

 

[T Wake]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4522E895.E22B6570@hotmail.com...

T Wake wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
T Wake wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
In article <452197A3.17CCE793@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

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.

I agree completely.

How about removing the either and replacing the or with and ?

Also an option. Any one of those three will work.

(simplistic examples)

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

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

Because this is the simplistic example.

They would convert because, as the example said, they are more concerned
with staying alive than remaining free. The easiest way to end the conflict
(simplistic example, remember) is to capitulate and turn the country into an
Islamic Republic.

Sorry if it was hard to follow.

If the population in the Middle East become enticed by freedom and it's
potential then the support for terrorists will dry up and the conflict
will
end.

If both happens the conflict will end. (In an odd way though )

I suspect both are needed.

I still think an either / or would do the trick as well.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:4tGdnW9CkqRbQ7_YnZ2dnUVZ8smdnZ2d@pipex.net...

Alternatively you could put every mosque under armed guard and provide
them with no end of support....

Or move them all to the Outer Hebrides - and the Muslims with them!

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
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 real atrocities were black on black btw.

The hearts and minds with the population did the trick.

As it has often done for the British Army but the US version has fucked that
up for sure.

Graham

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:28:57 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 16:55:57 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 10:13:41 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

Your fixation with the history of WW2 is idiotic.

Is ignorance better?

It simply has zero relevance to the issue at hand. Mind you, just to put your fevered American minds >at rest,
should European Islam be stupid enough to get 'nasty' expect another 'Kristallnacht' with >Muslims being
progromised.

I bet you're looking forward to that, boxcars and death camps. Does
"get nasty" include acquiring political power?

If it ever came to it, I'd expect it would be the public reacting, not the politicians.

---
So then you're saying that you're all racists just waiting for
something to happen so you can let it out?


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[JoeBloe]

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 17:05:11 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> Gave us:

John Larkin wrote:

Graham has a pathological and mostly irrational hatred of America,

Not at all.

You're full of shit. The proof is in your posts from no more than
the last two days.

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

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

That's not my recollection.

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

There's been *loads* !

Graham

 

[T Wake]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4522E997.24CCBFD8@hotmail.com...

T Wake wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
T Wake wrote:
"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 20:01:40 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

Afraid of what exactly ?

Convert or die.

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

Moot since it's never going to happen.

Really? Every day your way of life is threatened - more so by our own
country than any external threat.

There's no threat of being forced to convert to Islam for sure !

Did I say there was or are you fixated with this for some reason? Read who
the posts are attributed to.

Do you intend to carry an ID card if they get brought in?

Probably although I'd prefer not to see them anyway on balance. Simply an
expensive waste of time.

You see, for me that is a freedom I will not accept losing.

What have you done to prevent the detention of suspects for 14 days
without access to legal counsel?

But they do have !

Yes, however the plans of the Prevention of Terrorism Act would have allowed
the detention of an Innocent person for an extended period of time.

This is the sort of legislation which is passed to "keep people safe" by
throwing away our basic "rights" which date back before the Normans.

I am not asking should you convert which may well never happen. I am
asking
which is most important to you, your life or way of life.

That's very hypothetical but I reckon I'd fight against any tyranny
suppressing
important freedoms.

Aha, you only defend "Important" freedoms. Ok.

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:19:16 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

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,

Don't be so utterly ridiculous !

Graham