Jihad needs scientists

[Homer J Simpson]

<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:cuEUg.11177$6S3.8882@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...

Hahahah... I drink better beers than your retarded ass does.

So you only drink imported beer?

I also work on more sophisticated gear than you do.

So you only work on imported gear?

You're a fucking retard on both counts.

You insist on continuing to live up to the redneck Joe Sixpack stereotype,
then you get POed when someone points it out to you. It must suck to live
your life.

Not doubt. Drinking beer flavored cola and working on shitty US crap made by
people who don't know and don't care.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:18EUg.11166$6S3.3785@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...

Much more directly, the US funded and equipped ObL in his struggles
against the Soviets in Afghanistan. The US funded and equipped Saddam
Hussein when we were having a little set-to against the Iranians in the
70s. Funny, both seemed like such good ideas at the time....

What conclusion do you take from these facts?

I like to tell my American friends, "The British were the most cunning,
devious, unscrupulous bastards that ever ruled an empire and THEY couldn't
deal with the Middle East. What the hell are the naive and ignorant Yanks
doing there?"

 

[Frithiof Andreas Jensen]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4522F8DE.C46161BD@hotmail.com...

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 ?

Something like that - and the *point* is that if we are *not entirely willing to
do that*, the only other known-to-work-at-least-once strategy is the Cold War;
cut the connections with all regimes fuelling the "jihad" (by word, deed or
inaction) and allow the regimes to fail on their own accord!

The present idea of spending ~USD 95,000,000,000.-- (more actually, this is just
Iraq) per year on bombing the shit out of tribespeople and chain-gunning peoples
houses from AC-37's every time someone pops a few rounds/rivals is I.M.O.
pointless and self-defeating.

Imagine that we will still be doing that in 20 years time! Except that we have
gone bust by then!!

One can probably buy a mars base for that money -or- wipe AIDS off the surface
of the earth, eradicate just about every kind of water bourne disease there is
and maybe even get enough left over for primary schools in the entire Africa.

 

[Robert Latest]

["Followup-To:" header set to sci.electronics.design.]
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 15:31:34 -0700,
Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote
in Msg. <f343i2p5aqlop09564hf9ef118p2pmf76q@4ax.com>

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 15:16:21 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

You think they are guilty of criminal acts because they do not
publicly condemn Muslim terrorism? That's a novel interpretation of
law. Can we find you guilty of not condemming, well, everything that's
illegal? Better start condemming... you have a lot of catching up to
do.

John, I don't think you are reading what I wrote.

He has read you quite correctly. Let me refresh your memory on what you
wrote:

Message-ID: <l9e2i2thg49gbrmpdu959id1mchkfv6f11@4ax.com>:

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).

Message-ID: <7jj2i21m9ec0kg388bvffj3npa5tferpoo@4ax.com>:

Since most (if not all) Muslims won't criticize Jihad, in a war we
will have to presume that all Muslims are closet Islamic terrorists.

You're talking about individual Muslims. Mentioning organisations
started later.

robert

 

[Robert Latest]

["Followup-To:" header set to sci.electronics.design.]
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 10:30:59 -0700,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote
in Msg. <35j2i2lq62eh8kg54680jkjbqu3ikc82pr@4ax.com>

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).

The only people who should be "rounded up" are people who commit
crimes.

The rounding up of people who haven't been convicted of any crime has
already started five years ago. See "Guantanamo Bay" and "CIA prisons".

robert

 

[Robert Latest]

["Followup-To:" header set to sci.electronics.design.]
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 15:20:21 -0700,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote
in Msg. <hu33i2tqjfg6nfvg8d5o1krhaq0lr1umhi@4ax.com>

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 issue is not if they have Constitutional rights, but wether they
have any rights at all.

robert

 

In article <efvskd$d45$1@news.al.sw.ericsson.se>, "Frithiof Andreas Jensen" <frithiof.jensen@die_spammer_die.ericsson.com> writes:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4522F8DE.C46161BD@hotmail.com...


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 ?

Something like that - and the *point* is that if we are *not entirely willing to
do that*, the only other known-to-work-at-least-once strategy is the Cold War;
cut the connections with all regimes fuelling the "jihad" (by word, deed or
inaction) and allow the regimes to fail on their own accord!

Which, in view of our current dependence on oil (which, even under the

most optimistic assessments is not going to change significantly over
the next couple decades at least) is not a realistic option.

The present idea of spending ~USD 95,000,000,000.-- (more actually, this is just
Iraq) per year on bombing the shit out of tribespeople and chain-gunning peoples
houses from AC-37's every time someone pops a few rounds/rivals is I.M.O.
pointless and self-defeating.

Imagine that we will still be doing that in 20 years time! Except that we have
gone bust by then!!

One can probably buy a mars base for that money -or- wipe AIDS off the surface
of the earth, eradicate just about every kind of water bourne disease there is
and maybe even get enough left over for primary schools in the entire Africa.

Hence the problem. Basically, we we cannot disengage and we don't

dare to go all out. So, we're just coasting, waiting for something
horrific enough to happen to justify drastic means.

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

 

[Eeyore]

lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 17:04:06 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
JoeBloe wrote:
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 14:17:53 +0100, Eeyore 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.

Now there's a BS rationalization if I've ever heard one!

Europe's combined aid makes US aid look tiny anyway. There's simply no basis
for his idea in fact.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

"JoeBloe" <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote
"Homer J Simpson" <nobody@nowhere.com> Gave us:
"JoeBloe" <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote

Ignoring the blemishes, which is
what most of the Joe Sixpack 'Murc'n rednecks like yourself choose to do

Hahahah... I drink better beers than your retarded ass does.

So you only drink imported beer?

I also work on more sophisticated gear than you do.

So you only work on imported gear?

You're a fucking retard on both counts.

You insist on continuing to live up to the redneck Joe Sixpack stereotype,
then you get POed when someone points it out to you. It must suck to live
your life.

This character turns up and spews his bile under various nyms. He usually ends
up resorting to the 'fuck you' style of debate.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 18:32:57 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 17:58:41 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:21:16 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 17:12:32 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

" he asks whether Muslims will be the victims of the next pogroms "

See my post on this point.

That's why I laugh when American try lecturing us about being blind to the danger
from Islam. Do you guys seriously think we'd ever let them get the upper hand ?

Graham

Upper hand? What does Europe plan to do about the exponents of
population growth, negative for the traditional population and
positive for Islamic immigrants?

So, you're worried about a hypothetical something in maybe 1000 yrs ?

Has it ever ocurred to you that most European Muslims don't want to live like backward
tribesppl ?

Graham

Has it occurred to you that there are different perspectives on
"backward"? No, I guess not.

Has it occurred to you to ask any Muslims ?

Graham

There's one two doors down from me at this instant, and I talk to him
about stuff like this all the time.

So, "yes."

I thought that might be the case. So what does he say ?

Graham

that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance, except that the
Shiites are insane.

Ask him about the Muslim Brotherhood and the Wahabis/Salafis and the extent of their influence.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 18:00:17 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:


"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:grs2i25e29m02qt6takp6sfpoi0snt838s@4ax.com...
On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 19:56:34 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:


"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:45214B1B.7A9DD9AD@earthlink.net...
Jim Thompson wrote:

I've seen very few French tourists here in AZ... probably because
they'd be shunned ;-)


The ones I've met in Florida were quite rude, and about as ignorant
as the donkey. They think we owe them a huge favor because they came
here to harass us.

All French people are rude. That is why no one likes them. Even the French
don't like themselves.


I drove around France for six weeks once. The people in cities were
often rude, and the people in small towns and in the countryside were
almost always cheerful and friendly. In the US, I find city and
country people mostly friendly, without a big difference.

Oddly, I agree. I often visit the US and invariably people are polite and
friendly. I avoid rural France for fear of the Guillotine...

I think the rudest place I've been was Moscow... glories of Socialism
and all that.

Not been to Moscow, most Former Soviet countries tend to be quite polite
though. Maybe the Russians took the breakdown worse than the rest...


I spent a month in Moscow towards the end of the Breshnev regime,
while it was still the USSR. I have friends there (my friend Sergei
owns the biggest independent automatic transmission repair operation
in Russia, I think) and they say things are a lot better lately. I
have no desire to go back.

The Russians don't understand queues. If there's a cash register,
everybody crowds around and pushes in. When a elevator opens,
everybody outside rushes in from all directions and everybody inside
pushes their way out, all at the same time.

Just like India.

Graham

 

In article <V3CUg.51$45.177@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

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?-)

Right.

Well, maybe, just maybe, it does some good.

It helps me. IME, locally all I have to do is say one little
no and I see people stop and think rather than accept what
somebody else drools.

/BAH

 

In article <v6CUg.52$45.146@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

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.

I tried several times; I failed.

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?

Yes. Thank you. [emoticon rolls up piece of paper of possible
ideas and places it in the circular file]

/BAH

 

In article <Z_KUg.56$45.161@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

In article <efvskd$d45$1@news.al.sw.ericsson.se>, "Frithiof Andreas Jensen"
frithiof.jensen@die_spammer_die.ericsson.com> writes:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4522F8DE.C46161BD@hotmail.com...


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 ?

Something like that - and the *point* is that if we are *not entirely
willing to
do that*, the only other known-to-work-at-least-once strategy is the Cold
War;
cut the connections with all regimes fuelling the "jihad" (by word, deed or
inaction) and allow the regimes to fail on their own accord!

Which, in view of our current dependence on oil (which, even under the
most optimistic assessments is not going to change significantly over
the next couple decades at least) is not a realistic option.

The present idea of spending ~USD 95,000,000,000.-- (more actually, this is
just
Iraq) per year on bombing the shit out of tribespeople and chain-gunning
peoples
houses from AC-37's every time someone pops a few rounds/rivals is I.M.O.
pointless and self-defeating.

Imagine that we will still be doing that in 20 years time! Except that we
have
gone bust by then!!

One can probably buy a mars base for that money -or- wipe AIDS off the
surface
of the earth, eradicate just about every kind of water bourne disease there
is
and maybe even get enough left over for primary schools in the entire
Africa.

Hence the problem. Basically, we we cannot disengage and we don't
dare to go all out. So, we're just coasting, waiting for something
horrific enough to happen to justify drastic means.

Yup. I've come to this conclusion. Mess prevention work cannot
begin until there's a really big mess to clean up. Women aren't
trained to work this way. Or at least the women of my generation.

/BAH

 

[Eeyore]

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

JoeBloe <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

Essentially a stupid jerk is all he amounts to.

Let him be one. He is merely doing the popular action in
blaming the US to assuage his fear.

I have no fear of these issues. It's the damn Americans who are afraid
you clot !

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

Well, I'd like to have a few less crapolas posts so I can find
the ones were posted by thoughtful people.

Yet another American dismisses non-American thing thinking as crap.

You ppl are such a waste of space.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
T Wake wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message

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.

I think the mutual concession option

This option does not exist.

You can't accept that Islam isn't a threat to your lifestyle ?

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

Keith Olbermann had a good commentary a week or two ago about Bush calling a
criticism "unacceptable."

Which criticism was unacceptable?

Watch this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDg1WclMAfI

I don't understand you people; first you complain that he can't
think for himself; then, you object when he expresses his opinion about
something.

Who can't.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

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?

She was killing of her farmers at one point.

Under Stalin presumably ?

What's that got to do with giving Russia aid ?

Answer the damn question.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> 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' ?

This mess is about changing a mindset; either Western civilization's
mindset is changed or religious extremists' mindset is changed.

And seemingly both sides reckon it can be acheived by violent means !

You have overlooked that the extremists' methods are approved
by their religion.

No they aren't. You're ignorant to think so.

Rewards are booty if living and some
male nonsense if killed while committing this violence.

Utter rubbish.

Graham