Jihad needs scientists

[T Wake]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4522EC23.681F0F2F@hotmail.com...

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.

Ok, it is my recollection though.

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

There's been *loads* !

In my posts?

 

[JoeBloe]

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 17:12:32 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> Gave us:

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.

Nobody wants to see your incredulous bullshit posts anywhere at any
time.

 

In article <efta6e$8ss_003@s888.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:

In article <efr837$sb7$3@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:
In article <c7WdncygLPPv3r3YRVnytQ@pipex.net>,
T Wake <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
[...]
The western world bandies the term "war" around much too easily. (War on
Terror, War on Drugs, War on Obesity etc.)

It is time for a war on the improper use of the term "war on".

Yes. I always thought that these sound bytes were crying
wolf. When was the first one? Johnson's War on Poverty?

Well, there was this and "the War on Cancer". Not sure which came

first.

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

 

[JoeBloe]

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 16:13:24 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> Gave us:

Yep, all it takes is a "Mission Accomplished" banner, and you too can
declare victory in your favorite war on x...and here's the best
part...without actually having to accomplish anything.

What have you EVER done to make the world a better place?

 

In article <eftat5$8ss_005@s888.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:

In article <XplUg.45$45.124@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <2kj3i2du8jqbhpcei9mh1469dmncvt7bck@4ax.com>, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> writes:
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 00:05:51 GMT, mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

In article <v673i2dusng3t5a82qt9hm7n8ve5p4t7ua@4ax.com>, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> writes:
On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 19:59:42 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:


"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:3kh2i2p1qoa888afm2l1ksq3j2qcvcfvrl@4ax.com...
---
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.

No, not quite. True about the part of world domination, not about the
other one. Islam recognizes two categories of non-believers. One is
"polytheists" for whom, indeed, the accepted options are conversion or
death. The other is "Um al_Kitab", meaning "Nations of the Book",
which includes Christians and Jews. These may be allowed to live
without converting but only as "dhimmi" (you may check on this term).
Meaning, second class subjects, possessing the (limited) rights
granted them by their Muslim rulers, with the stipulation that said
rights may be withdrawn at the whim of the rulers.

---
How pleasant to read a scholar! Thank you.

Two small comments, if I may; the first being that I believe "Um
al_Kitab" means "People of the Book", and the second being that I
don't believe _radical_ Islam would have any qualms about
dispatching non-converts whether they were people of the book or
not.

What do you think?

Yes, I agree. "People" is really the more appropriate translation of
"Um". In fact I think that Islam doesn't even really recognize the
concept of "nation". As for the second, again, yes. There is no
stipulation, to my knowledge, that "Um al-Kitab" must be allowed to
live (without converting), only that they may be allowed to live (with
the decision left to those in power).

I think that a lot of this sorting out has to do with peoples
figuring out what nation means and how to run one. At least,
that's my current hypothesis. The Islamic civil law book was
created and evolved based on nationless empire.

Yes, yes, yes. You're on the right track.

I don't know enough about law and civil administrations to be able to
exptrapolate while streining out my Western civilization bias.

Well, I'll leave you thinking about it, for a bit.

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

 

[T Wake]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4522EB81.79984E79@hotmail.com...

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.

Yes, often the case. Sadly the local populace dont really see that. In
Vietnam the _worst_ atrocities were carried out by the Vietnamese, but the
Americans got the blame.

The British in Kenya / Malaysia were not clean cut though, handing a
prisoner over who you know will be tortured is still banned by the Geneva
Accords.

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.

Yes. Unfortunately the Americans have the double edged sword of so much fire
power. It gives them a fantastic advantage in combat, but tends to make the
appear bullying peace keepers / occupiers. Every time they kick a door down
and rough up the inhabitants as part of a routine patrol it provides support
for the enemy.

 

In article <eftb20$8ss_006@s888.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:

In article <DReUg.28$45.71@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <9n22i2tv97gi1nu17cif4u0nlj2el109nf@4ax.com>, JoeBloe
joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> writes:
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 09:24:57 GMT, mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu Gave us:

In article <4520D8A3.4083F074@hotmail.com>, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> writes:


mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

In article <4520CA69.C0BBA60B@hotmail.com>, Eeyore writes:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

You may have noted that 9/11 was way before the invasion of Iraq.

Does Palestine ring any bells ?

The real demon is the State of Israel.

You should note that Al Queda hardly ever mentioned Palestine before
9/11 either.

Al Qaeda wasn't really known about prior to 9/11 so your point is moot.

Al Queda was known for at least a decade before 9/11. "Not paid
attention to" is not the same thing as "not known". And Al Queda
itself is just an offshot of earlier movements.


Why even converse with that stupid idiot?

Good question.

Because the content of his posts are a catalyst for real
discussions that aren't getting done in the usual mediums.

My old "speaking through...", right?-) Well, maybe, just maybe, it

does some good.

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

 

[T Wake]

"Gordon" <gordonlr@DELETEswbell.net> wrote in message
news:mbq5i29hg2qgun7p1rm5fpbdb6fr31ogvs@4ax.com...

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?

Sorry, you seem to have missed my question. In your list of terrorist
attacks which country do you plan to invade as payback? All of them?

How current do you want the financing?

 

[T Wake]

"JoeBloe" <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:n6r5i25q6mfsbj8ml6ejevpb8aiusn46pp@4ax.com...

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 16:13:24 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> Gave us:

Yep, all it takes is a "Mission Accomplished" banner, and you too can
declare victory in your favorite war on x...and here's the best
part...without actually having to accomplish anything.

What have you EVER done to make the world a better place?

Not being you is a good start.

 

In article <eftbpt$8ss_008@s888.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:

In article <MeqUg.46$45.147@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <eft89f$20j$1@news.al.sw.ericsson.se>, "Frithiof Andreas Jensen"
frithiof.jensen@die_spammer_die.ericsson.com> writes:

mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:4ngUg.37$45.164@news.uchicago.edu...
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?

At the cost of maybe 20% of the German population - 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.

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?

You didn't read carefully. It is not "10% changing". It is that

historical data indicates dramatic changes when about 10% of the
population is *dead*. Does this make it clear?

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

 

[Homer J Simpson]

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

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...

Always the best way.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:VZWdnQZifpoHQr_YnZ2dnUVZ8tCdnZ2d@pipex.net...

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

Nuke 'em. And if they complain then, as Bette Midler says, "Fuck 'em if they
can't take a joke".

 

[Homer J Simpson]

"Gordon" <gordonlr@DELETEswbell.net> wrote in message
news:mbq5i29hg2qgun7p1rm5fpbdb6fr31ogvs@4ax.com...

Where did the current terrorism financing and materials come
from?

From the USA (oil). Unlike most every other conflict, the US is paying for
both sides in this one.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:Xf6dncBSL_zee7_YRVnyhw@pipex.net...

What does Joe Sixpack pay attention to?

Six packs?

Of beer.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:a6p5i2dauerugsd1ojked6ti9db04pdini@4ax.com...

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?

You wouldn't want him calling all of his former friends in the current US
administration as witnesses now, would you?

 

[John Larkin]

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

Bunch of damn cowboys.

Yaaa-hoo!

John

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

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

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.

I don't see anything unique about that involved with this course of action.

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.

So it was wrong to talk to the IRA ?

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.

It's called realpolitik.

Graham

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:06:48 -0700, JoeBloe
<joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 16:13:24 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> Gave us:

Yep, all it takes is a "Mission Accomplished" banner, and you too can
declare victory in your favorite war on x...and here's the best
part...without actually having to accomplish anything.

What have you EVER done to make the world a better place?

He's a paisano at Battelle ;-)

...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.

 

[JoeBloe]

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

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).

I fucking agree. WHERE are all the US bound Muslim leaders at
making known how wrong the extremist terrorist behaviors are?

Silence does more than imply consent in this case, if you ask me.
The bastards actually think they can pull a "war all at once" on us.
They need to get real.

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

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

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?

I truthfully don't know enough to make a decision.

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

Also Terrorists.

But our friends !

Graham