Jihad needs scientists

[John Fields]

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 17:09:50 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

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 ?

---
What, you want _names_?

Don't be an ass. Oh, wait...


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[T Wake]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4522F36A.94B7D4B@hotmail.com...

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.

I never said it would be short term or enforced.

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.

I suspect most of them are. There have to be enough sympathisers for it to
have happened though.

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.

Yet young, educated men decided to kill their country men.

The problem is they had become disassociated with their own country enough
for this to happen. If they had come from an integrated part of society it
would have been less likely to happen and they would have been less able to
function.

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

You come from a different culture.

Well, I was born British.......

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.

It would. I would support the extremists.

That is what "provide them with no end of support" means. The earlier
examples were ways you can reduce the support the extremists get. The
removal of "rights" gives them supporters.

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.

Fair one. And I agree. Everyone dies in the end, so for me maintaining the
moral high ground is better than living a bit longer.

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

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

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.

You wouldn't catch me doing it. I believe in the right to practice no religion
at all !

Graham

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 18:00:38 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

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?

Sounds like it. Wasn't there a recent suggestion that the Nazis and
the Brits should have made a deal?

John

 

[Eeyore]

Homer J Simpson wrote:

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

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!

With such a wide selection to choose from, I often wonder why we have no
prison islands. You could make the prisoners actually work the land and
stuff. You never know, it might do them good.

Graham

 

[JoeBloe]

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 04:53:35 GMT, "Homer J Simpson"
<nobody@nowhere.com> Gave us:

Facts you are unaware of?

Other national: "I feel bad so I'll talk to my friends"

American: "I feel bad so I'll murder some innocent people"

You're an idiot. Euro nations were slaughtering thousands long

before we ever did.

Google "dark ages", dumbass.

Y'all had far more heathens roaming the countryside than we ever
have or ever will.

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:28:57 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 16:55:57 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
John Larkin wrote:


It [WW2] 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?

No.

I'm saying that if someone threatens their fundamental freedoms, the British public will defend them. You should
approve of that. It won't happen anyway, it's purely hypothetical.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

JoeBloe wrote:

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 17:05:11 +0100, Eeyore 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.

Given the simplistic juvenile level of what passes for thinking in your
retarded skull, I'd be happy to shit on you from a great height.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote

That's not my recollection.

Ok, it is my recollection though.

Fair nuff !

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

There's been *loads* !

In my posts?

A misunderstanding it seems.

Graham

 

[JoeBloe]

On Tue, 03 Oct 06 09:38:08 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:

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.

So. He makes shit burn better. Oh boy.

I have my doubts. He didn't start this thread... He spreads
disinformation, and clearly has a deep hatred for America.

Essentially a stupid jerk is all he amounts to.

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

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

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

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

It was meant to be emphasis about *fighting*.

Graham

 

In article <4522736A.9E51FBF@hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> writes:

mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> writes:
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote
---
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.

Until such time as Muslims exist in sufficient numbers the point is utterly moot.

A billion, give or take.

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

 

[Eeyore]

JoeBloe 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?

Coming from a troll like you why would he care about your comments ?

Graham

 

[hep]

science_for_jihad@yahoo.com wrote:

Jihad needs competent scientists in the fields of nuclear physics,
chemistry and biology. Qualified scientists and engineers at the
Master/Ph.D. level and above are encouraged to apply. Readiness to
travel and to pass a preliminary examination is required.

Anyone interested should send his anonymous CV to the address
science_for_jihad@yahoo.com . The CV should contain information
reflecting the academic level reached by the candidate and his work
experience. The information however should not be so accurate as to
identify the candidate. An appropriately fantasious nickname and a
birth date corresponding to the approximate age of the candidate should
also be provided, together with a working email address. Further
instructions will follow.

Hey dude,

Look no further. Jack Sarfatti is your man. He is said to be working
on vacuum based weaponry that can allegedly cause phase
transition of the vacuum and also quantum tsunami weapons. Heheh...

Or look for Tom Bearden for equally fantastic weapon such
as Scalar Beam Weaponry thousands times more destructive than
Particle Beam Weapons..

Or maybe even George Hammond to raise the IQs of the
existing scientists of the Jihads with his GR State of the Guv (God)
mind trick.

All of the above have PH.Ds in physics and have IQ running
650 Gigahertz or above... Lol...

H

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 17:13:28 +0100, "T Wake"
<usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

"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?

---
Yes and no.
---

Hard to tell the difference some times.

---
Agreed. _And_, it often depends on who the speaker is.
---

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...

---
Sometimes a crude allegory serves admirably in making a point
quickly.


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[Eeyore]

mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

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?

So, we only need to kill 100 million Muslims or so ?

Graham

 

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

T Wake wrote:

"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.

Probably still will if Iraq breaks up.
Then Turkey gets given its 'get out of jail free' card by the US for
whatever acts of genocide they decide to inflict upon the new Kurdish
republic.

--
Dirk

http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress - The UK's only occult talk show
Presented by Dirk Bruere and Marc Power on ResonanceFM

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

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

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.

I'm afraid I've seen US soldiers refer to Iraqis as 'animals'. Wrong !

Graham

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 17:15:49 +0100, "T Wake"
<usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

"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?

---
Sure, but it would probably be better if you asked him.


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote

It's called realpolitik.

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

What would your answer be?

Go for it. I consider myself a realist. I doubt that all the answers will be
entirely pure-as-driven-snow 100% ethical, they never are.

Grahamn