Jihad needs scientists

[T Wake]

"Kurt Ullman" <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kurtullman-556EC5.17113404102006@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx...

In article <HPWdnXZeKd_lvLnYRVnyig@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:


If you spent your day waving placards outside the Whitehouse saying how
great the UK was and how all Americans should live like that the analogy
would make more sense.

I'd still argue it. Lots of reason to stay home, not the least of which
is trying to reform your home country. That and all those extra "u"s
they throw into words for no apparent in the UK (G).

Nothing wrong with the letter u. I've never understood why Americans seem to
avoid it. (Don't get me started on the pronunciation of route... )

 

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:wo6dnaYdAMyDh7nYRVny3w@pipex.net...

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:efvu0c$8ss_002@s811.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

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

Reasonable enough wish, although it carries the risk that you only read
posts which say things you already agree with.... Always seems kind of
pointless to me.

Seems that's what most people in this discussion want...and if you don't
give it to them, they'll swear at you, insult you, and even threaten
physical violence and assault. I have learned a lot from the few
*reasonable* posters in this thread, both those I agree with *and* those I
don't...and there are even a few people in the discussion with whom I
disagree but they still showed respect for my opinion. It's too bad that
everyone else is so insecure in themselves and their views that the
slightest difference of opinion brings obscenity, insults and threats of
violence instead of healthy discussion.

Eric Lucas

 

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:1pCdnS44OZS0kbnYnZ2dnUVZ8tKdnZ2d@pipex.net...

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:efvu2h$8ss_003@s811.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <k1CUg.49$45.181@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
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.

I don't remember that one. Another item I've forgotten :-(.


Aha. We need a war on forgetfulness then.....

I'll second that! Now, what was my name, again? ;^)

Eric Lucas

 

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:452415BE.DB0DBC1E@hotmail.com...

Keith wrote:

rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com says...

And you think you can defeat 'radical Islam' with bombs and bullets ?

I know there is no choice. Perhaps you want to submit?

There is no need to 'submit'

You're living in a perversely stupid fantasy paranoid world.

It comes from the constant bombardment by Bush's fear-mongering--it's his
way of keeping power over people. People start to lose perspective on what
is happening and why. It really is a very powerful narcotic.

Eric Lucas

 

[T Wake]

<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:dzVUg.13308$7I1.60@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:1pCdnS44OZS0kbnYnZ2dnUVZ8tKdnZ2d@pipex.net...

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:efvu2h$8ss_003@s811.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <k1CUg.49$45.181@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
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.

I don't remember that one. Another item I've forgotten :-(.


Aha. We need a war on forgetfulness then.....


I'll second that! Now, what was my name, again? ;^)

Second what?.......

 

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:SvCdnW6IaZ6XjrnYnZ2dnUVZ8qKdnZ2d@pipex.net...

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:45238783.71D6265B@hotmail.com...


lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

"thelasian" <thelasian@yahoo.com> wrote in message

That's mainly because most observers don't know much about Iran. The
election of the last president was also a surprise to "most observers"
and so what the 1979 revolution.
Most observers are surprised to hear that sex change operations, drug
needle exchanges, cloning, stem cell research, and even skiing happen
in Iran. That's because they can't get over their mental stereotypes.

Interesting facts about Iran, but come on, that last sentence is a bit
unfair. Most people (myself included) simply have little data upon
which to
base a change in point of view on Iran. However, my curiosity piqued by
your comments, I intend to set about learning more.

Iran likes to see itself as very modern in fact. It's certainly not
backward
looking.

Do any countries see themselves as backward? (Or any countries see them
selves as not "modern")

Point well taken.

Eric Lucas

 

[T Wake]

<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:sxVUg.13307$7I1.4380@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:wo6dnaYdAMyDh7nYRVny3w@pipex.net...

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:efvu0c$8ss_002@s811.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

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

Reasonable enough wish, although it carries the risk that you only read
posts which say things you already agree with.... Always seems kind of
pointless to me.

Seems that's what most people in this discussion want...and if you don't
give it to them, they'll swear at you, insult you, and even threaten
physical violence and assault. I have learned a lot from the few
*reasonable* posters in this thread, both those I agree with *and* those I
don't...and there are even a few people in the discussion with whom I
disagree but they still showed respect for my opinion. It's too bad that
everyone else is so insecure in themselves and their views that the
slightest difference of opinion brings obscenity, insults and threats of
violence instead of healthy discussion.

Sadly it is what passes for normal debate on USENET most of the time though

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:42:39 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

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?

---
Almost. It was that if the US hadn't gotten into the war, then when
the UK and Germany were duking it out and Germany double crossed
Russia, The UK and Germany would forget their squabble and get
together to fend off Stalin, who'd be after Hitler's blood for the
double-cross.


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[Kurt Ullman]

In article <XKadnfJ0jY0iubnYRVny3w@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kurtullman-556EC5.17113404102006@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx..
.
In article <HPWdnXZeKd_lvLnYRVnyig@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:


If you spent your day waving placards outside the Whitehouse saying how
great the UK was and how all Americans should live like that the analogy
would make more sense.

I'd still argue it. Lots of reason to stay home, not the least of which
is trying to reform your home country. That and all those extra "u"s
they throw into words for no apparent in the UK (G).

Nothing wrong with the letter u. I've never understood why Americans seem to
avoid it. (Don't get me started on the pronunciation of route... )

I suppose now is a good a time as any to bring out the two countries
divided by only a common language quote. G

In case you are interested a Yank-Brit dictionary can be found at
http://gardenphotos.com/gethitched/huh.html

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

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

The problem is one of history though.

For example, we are currently in a situation where people are "getting
revenge" for acts carried out against their people by the Oppressor
(Palestinians vs Israel for example).

And the USA vs Islam.

As part of this thought experiment we
imagine a situation where the "West" decides to enforce a cease fire and
forces Israel to give the Palestinians land, coastline, water etc.

Now, fast forward 50 years and picture a group of disaffected Israeli boys
being whipped into a murderous fervour by a Rabbi who is telling them how
the dirty Arabs stole their lands and how they should exact revenge. Off
they go, with their guns and kill some Arabs. The cycle continues.

I can well imagine this too. Israel has to be encouraged to come to a mutually
acceptable deal with the Palestinians.

Graham

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 00:42:54 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

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 do. It's called Australia.

You could make the prisoners actually work the land and stuff.
You never know, it might do them good.

---
They certainly seem to be doing better than you lot, lately.


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[Eeyore]

Keith wrote:

rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com says...
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:
Keith wrote:

Meanwhile, the stuffed donkey will watch the documentary about the
wild west, "Blazing Saddles".

He should pay close attention to the scene where someone punches out
the horse.

Your American Love of Violence is once again nnoted.

Do you think that violence is the only way to 'win an argument' ?

Perhaps not

Just perhaps ?

, but if you're dead you certainly 'lost the argument'
(why the single quotes, I have no idea). The Islamists certainly
want you to lose the argument.

I haven't a clue what you mean.

Graham

 

[Homer J Simpson]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:7q78i2110dvqf9s036o5b5i44dtpb316vo@4ax.com...

What _is_ illegal is establishing a presence here and then using
that presence to break our laws.

The internet is not a presence.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

"Gordon" <gordonlr@DELETEswbell.net> wrote in message
news:a988i2lk7jrbt6j4si7sr2vrb2tt51h889@4ax.com...

Slight correction...any successes (or failures) Bush had within
the first few months are likely linked to the former
administration, but that doesn't extend more than a year or so,
in most instances.

In a September 25 interview, Rice told the New York Post, "We were not left
a comprehensive strategy to fight al-Qaida," adding that, "Nobody organized
this country or the international community to fight the terrorist threat
that was upon us until 9/11."

Former President Bill Clinton on Fox News, September 22, 2006:

CLINTON: And I think it's very interesting that all the conservative
Republicans, who now say I didn't do enough, claimed that I was too obsessed
with bin Laden. All of President Bush's neo-cons thought I was too obsessed
with bin Laden. They had no meetings on bin Laden for nine months after I
left office. All the right-wingers who now say I didn't do enough said I did
too much - same people.

...

WALLACE: Do you think you did enough, sir?

CLINTON: No, because I didn't get him.

WALLACE: Right.

CLINTON: But at least I tried. That's the difference in me and some,
including all the right-wingers who are attacking me now. They ridiculed me
for trying. They had eight months to try. They did not try. I tried.

So I tried and failed. When I failed, I left a comprehensive anti-terror
strategy and the best guy in the country, Dick Clarke, who got demoted.

...

CLINTON: What did I do? What did I do? I worked hard to try to kill him. I
authorized a finding for the CIA to kill him. We contracted with people to
kill him. I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since. And if
I were still president, we'd have more than 20,000 troops there trying to
kill him.

Now, I've never criticized President Bush, and I don't think this is
useful. But you know we do have a government that thinks Afghanistan is only
one-seventh as important as Iraq.

And you ask me about terror and Al Qaida with that sort of dismissive
thing? When all you have to do is read Richard Clarke's book to look at what
we did in a comprehensive, systematic way to try to protect the country
against terror.

And you've got that little smirk on your face and you think you're so
clever. But I had responsibility for trying to protect this country. I tried
and I failed to get bin Laden. I regret it. But I did try. And I did
everything I thought I responsibly could.

The entire military was against sending Special Forces in to Afghanistan
and refueling by helicopter. And no one thought we could do it otherwise,
because we could not get the CIA and the FBI to certify that Al Qaida was
responsible while I was president.


Condoleezza Rice Interview with New York Post Editorial Board:

QUESTION: By now I assume you've seen Bill Clinton's performances. How do
you respond to his specific accusation that the eight months before 9/11 the
Bush Administration, in his words, didn't even try to go after al-Qaida?

SECRETARY RICE: I'd just say read the 9/11 report. We went through this.
We went through this argument. The fact of the matter is I think the 9/11
Commission got it about right. Nobody organized this country or the
international community to fight the terrorist threat that was upon us until
9/11. I would be the first to say that because, you know, we didn't fight
the war on terror in the way that we're fighting it now. We just weren't
organized as a country either domestically or as a leader internationally.

But what we did in the eight months was at least as aggressive as what the
Clinton Administration did in the preceding years. In fact, it is not true
that Richard Clarke was fired. Richard Clarke was the counterterrorism czar
when 9/11 happened and he left when he did not become Deputy Director of
Homeland Security some several months later. We were not left a
comprehensive strategy to fight al-Qaida. For instance, big pieces were
missing, like an approach to Pakistan that might work, because without
Pakistan you weren't going to get Afghanistan. And there were reasons that
nobody could think of actually going in and taking out the Taliban, either
the Clinton Administration or the Bush Administration, because it's true you
couldn't get basing rights in Uzbekistan and that was the long pole in the
tent.

So I would make the divide September 11, 2001 when the attack on this
country mobilized us to fight the war on terror in a very different way. But
the notion that somehow for eight months the Bush Administration sat there
and didn't do that is just flatly false. And you know, I think that the 9/11
Commission understood that.

QUESTION: So you're saying Bill Clinton is a liar?

SECRETARY RICE: No, I'm just saying that, look, there was a lot of passion
in that interview and I'm not going to - I would just suggest that you go
back and read the 9/11 Commission report on the efforts of the Bush
Administration in the eight months, things like working to get an armed
Predator that actually turned out to be extraordinarily important, working
to get a strategy that would allow us to get better cooperation from
Pakistan and from the Central Asians, but essentially continuing the
strategy that had been left to us by the Clinton Administration, including
with the same counterterrorism czar who was Richard Clarke. But I think this
is not a very fruitful discussion because we've been through it; the 9/11
Commission has turned over every rock and we know exactly what they said.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:nK6dndhIJoSMvLnYnZ2dnUVZ8qednZ2d@pipex.net...

Yes, but we are not the generation of seventy years ago.

It is not a case of reading reports of pacifist beliefs - currently we are
willing to surrender basic freedoms all to "Prevent Terrorism."

I have no doubt the British people are as warlike as they were in the
fifth century.

I do, however, doubt how wedded we are as a society to the fundamental
freedoms we grew up with. (Stop and search, ID cards etc).

All you need is another Churchill. You've already got a Chamberlain.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:XKadnfJ0jY0iubnYRVny3w@pipex.net...

Nothing wrong with the letter u. I've never understood why Americans seem
to avoid it. (Don't get me started on the pronunciation of route... )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah_Webster

 

[Homer J Simpson]

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:2vCdnf_pXpBrv7nYRVnygw@pipex.net...

But the oil would be fine.

And by then, load more of it would have fossilised out....

We'd hire Arabs to connect up the pipes.

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 18:23:50 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
T Wake wrote:
"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message

I input: "This paté smells like cat shit."

and I got back: "Ce pâté sent comme la merde de chat."

How would you translate it?

I wouldn't. I'd just speak English very loudly and very slowly.

---
How brutal. If you didn't understand French and they spoke French to
you, very loudly and very slowly, would you understand what they
were trying to say?

How much sweeter to be able to softly crush an opponent with his own
tongue.


It was SATIRE, fer Chrissake. Sheesh, even I got that.

Something's don't translate into USENET very well. And while I have no rabid
dislike of Americans (I think every Englishman should keep one as a pet), I
notice a tendency for them to miss the subtler parts of British humour....

Americans only understand stuff like fart jokes.

Graham

 

"Keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
news:MPG.1f8dd485be8e903f989d78@News.Individual.NET...

In article <0h18i21ket4s0m5rkk8gckp0kk4oih33hh@4ax.com>, To-Email-
Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com says...
On Wed, 04 Oct 06 14:48:36 GMT, lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

In article <MPG.1f8db6b8105f0bb9989d69@News.Individual.NET>,
Keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
[snip]

Phones (of the domestic type, anyway) aren't tapped without
warrant. Get with the program.


Tapped? That's semantics. How does the NSA know a call is going to
involve
someone of interest? They monitor all calls and a computer "listens"
for
certain key words and phrases.

[snip]

That's rarely the case, and not without warrant.

What NSA was doing was using computer perusal of telephone _records_,
"To/From" data.

From those suspicious records, taps were authorized by a judge.

YEs, and the foreign "taps" were intercepted calls from
"interesting" foreign numbers. They were not taps on phones.

I don't care. If you're listening to a phone call to which the phone in my
living room is party, then as a citizen of the US, I demand that your
listening be carried out according to my Constitutional rights.

 

[T Wake]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4524279C.2853754B@hotmail.com...

T Wake wrote:

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

The problem is one of history though.

For example, we are currently in a situation where people are "getting
revenge" for acts carried out against their people by the Oppressor
(Palestinians vs Israel for example).

And the USA vs Islam.


As part of this thought experiment we
imagine a situation where the "West" decides to enforce a cease fire and
forces Israel to give the Palestinians land, coastline, water etc.

Now, fast forward 50 years and picture a group of disaffected Israeli
boys
being whipped into a murderous fervour by a Rabbi who is telling them how
the dirty Arabs stole their lands and how they should exact revenge. Off
they go, with their guns and kill some Arabs. The cycle continues.

I can well imagine this too. Israel has to be encouraged to come to a
mutually
acceptable deal with the Palestinians.

The Palestinians need to be encouraged to come to a mutually acceptable deal
with the Israelis as well. All too often negotiations are simply another
word for "re-arming"