Jihad needs scientists

[T Wake]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4522EEAD.94D0E058@hotmail.com...

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.

I didnt say there wa anything unique about it, I said it was a problem when
it came to negotating with former terrorists.

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 ?

Personal opinion? Yes.

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.

Call it anything you want. It gets in the way of solving the problem.

What would your answer be?

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 08:29:14 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 15:30:02 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:452198F0.A71D16AC@hotmail.com...


John Fields wrote:

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 !

Yes, but you see, if he denigrates your point of view by labelling you as
someone that could never say anything good about the US, then he doesn't
have to take your point of view seriously and try to understand that perhaps
it might even be a valid point of view, that an intelligent person may be
capable of coming to through independent thought. It's the same thing the
Bush administration does by labelling everyone that disagrees with it a
"traitor" (under the *extremely* liberal interpretations that disagreeing
with your government is tantamount to aiding the enemy.) What they seem to
fail to understand is that the Constitution gives every US citizen is given
the *responsibility* to question its government *every single* day of their
lives. It really is sad that the Bush administration has seen fit to
legitimize this sort of anti-American behavior.

I saw Keith Olberman's broadcast on this issue.

I find it truly fantastic that the US Gov't has become such a cesspool of
fuckwits and that so may of the US population are keen to lap it up.

Graham

It was some time ago that you stopped thinking and stopped discussing
and began ranting. I sure hope you don't design electronics with a
similar level of intellectual effort.

---
Like when he advocated using a chip to drive 8, 20mA LEDs when the
absolute maximum current in the supply or the ground pin was limited
to 75mA?


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[T Wake]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4522EF28.B56A19B@hotmail.com...

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.

Ok.

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

Also Terrorists.

But our friends !

Yep. Still terrorists though. If they weren't helping in Iraq we'd be
helping exterminate them.

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

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

His [Ahmadinejad] 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.

There was a front runner who was considered more western leaning though.

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.

It's not a democracy as we'd understand it for sure.

Graham

 

[JoeBloe]

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 16:20:21 GMT, Gordon <gordonlr@DELETEswbell.net>
Gave us:

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?

If you had/have any memory of your oath, policies, and laws, you had
better wait.

San Diego PIGS (yes here they are actually pigs still) dump their
entire clips into a person from 30 paces away, and three "officers" do
it in unison. That judge and jury at the end of a gun barrel CRAP
don't get it in his country, in my view. Buncha pussies is what they
are. They shot some old, drunk five foot two obese mexican man with a
garden trowel in his hand... from 30 paces away... and dumped the
whole clip in him. These bastards should ALL be ousted from the
farce, and we should start over.

The real problem lies with the California version of a police
academy. They have no clue what is contained in the US Constitution,
and they ALL forget their oath five seconds after they utter it.

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:25:32 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

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.

They weren't directly actually.

Making thought and advice illegal puts the USA on a very slippery slope.

Graham

 

[JoeBloe]

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 17:22:12 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> Gave us:

Sssshhhh. You shouldn't ask tricky questions like that !

Shhhhhh! You're an idiot! We don' need no stinkin' idiots!

Obviously it's a 'war' on the terrorists 'we' disapprove of. We'll call the
other ones guerillas. That sounds alright doesn't it ?

You're an idiot. Indisputably so.

Graham

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 17:03:12 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

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?

---
Why don't you do your own legwork?


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

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

Actually no. They fight against those claiming to have legal jurisdiction in the
area. Also there is no requirement that it use terror methods either.

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?

I don't know enough about that.

Graham

 

[T Wake]

"JoeBloe" <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:5pr5i2his5dccj9emaujrv65hmohk2j4h0@4ax.com...

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 16:20:21 GMT, Gordon <gordonlr@DELETEswbell.net
Gave us:

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?


If you had/have any memory of your oath, policies, and laws, you had
better wait.

Something we agree on.

San Diego PIGS (yes here they are actually pigs still) dump their
entire clips into a person from 30 paces away, and three "officers" do
it in unison. That judge and jury at the end of a gun barrel CRAP
don't get it in his country, in my view. Buncha pussies is what they
are. They shot some old, drunk five foot two obese mexican man with a
garden trowel in his hand... from 30 paces away... and dumped the
whole clip in him. These bastards should ALL be ousted from the
farce, and we should start over.

The real problem lies with the California version of a police
academy. They have no clue what is contained in the US Constitution,
and they ALL forget their oath five seconds after they utter it.

For once I agree with you.

 

[T Wake]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4522F181.41DC0D07@hotmail.com...

T Wake wrote:

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

Actually no. They fight against those claiming to have legal jurisdiction
in the
area. Also there is no requirement that it use terror methods either.

This is pedantry.

Terrorists fight those who claim legal jurisdiction.

While there is no "requirement" that insurgents use terror-tactics, most (if
not all do).

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?

I don't know enough about that.

Same as the French ones only German and not as effective.

 

[JoeBloe]

On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 17:31:58 +0100, "T Wake"
<usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> Gave us:

It would be a great world where you could shoot any one who didn't agree
with you, wouldn't it?

It isn't his agreement or disagreement, it is his utter lies and
total stupidity, and... oh yeah... the US hatred thing.

He's no more than a retarded goddamned troll.

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:14:43 -0700, JoeBloe
<joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

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.

The Europeons have no clue how Americans react when they finally get
mad... Democrat and Republican divisions disappear, and we fight as
one. The shit WILL hit the fan.

If they '...pull a "war all at once" on us' they will be lined up dead
in the streets.

...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 17:33:41 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> Gave us:

I said I have a soft spot for readheads. Is there anything else you'd like to
introduce ?

So one downloads redheads from the binary porn groups. One does NOT
get into the groups and start chatting, dumbass.

 

[JoeBloe]

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 17:37:00 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> Gave us:

At this level he's really a closet Islamist.

You're a goddamned idiot.

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

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

In the long term I dare say. It won't be done by force though.

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.

Actually it seems that local ppl have been genuinely surprised.

How can this be the case in a developed country with a democratically elected
government and low unemployment?

Because it has nothing to do with any of the above.

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

You come from a different culture.

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 was thinking that posting armed gurds around Mosques would actually help the
extremists.

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

I don't believe it can ever be completely done ( disable and disarm )

The only way to change this long term is simply by acting honourably and hoping
it gets noticed.

Graham

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 17:04:06 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

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.

---
No, it doesn't.

If we gave much more it would make everyone else's contribution look
so small that they'd figure it was OK to abrogate their
responsibility and they'd give even less. Or nothing at all.


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[JoeBloe]

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 17:55:05 GMT, "Homer J Simpson"
<nobody@nowhere.com> Gave us:

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:45214A32.16D10271@earthlink.net...

This should narrow it down:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

WHOIS results for 131.167.64.124

Now you are a stalker?

Jeez. A remark like that proves that you are a complete idiot.

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:13:11 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

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



Bunch of damn cowboys.


Yaaa-hoo!

John

Which reminds me that it's time to mosey on home and watch the next
episode of "Deadwood"

John

 

[Eeyore]

Gordon wrote:

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?

Your first mistake is to imagine it has to come from a *country* ( as in its
government presumably ? ). To suggest France shows you to be a rather badly
informed simpleton.

We didn't have to go to war with Germany.

Which 'we' ?

Ah. You're American. Explains a lot. US forces were attacked by Japan at Pearl
Harbor, right ? So the USA declared war on Japan, right ? Germany was its ally
and duly declared war on the USA too. So, simply no choice sunshine.

< snipped nonsense rambling >

Graham