Jihad needs scientists

[Homer J Simpson]

"Kurt Ullman" <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kurtullman-09ACF2.15073505102006@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx...

Jay Leno: "Which two countries border the United States?"

Girl on the Street: "Ummm, errr, ahhh, Europe and ummm, Paris?"

Yep, that's an American all right. Like those who think Alaska is an
island.

Yep I am impressed how one girl on the street can then be reliably
used as an exemplar for 300 million or so people. When do you go to
Norway?

Is it not true that most students in China know US geography and history
better than most students in the USA?

 

[T Wake]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:jk8ai2pn4ji8irqncea179lksck2cacfqs@4ax.com...

On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 20:47:29 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:lhn7i21h44h9s303rg8ru3q30g72nikg10@4ax.com...
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 21:36:25 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



Gordon wrote:

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 18:12:21 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
Gordon wrote:
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:29:46 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

_Radical_ Islam has shown no qualms whatsoever about dispatching
other
*Muslims*, if it suits their ends. Well more than half of the
victims of
the insurgency in Iraq have been Iraqi (presumably Muslim)
citizens.

There is no entity known as radical Islam.

Graham

Graham, are you saying that the Muslims' inability to recognize
any behavior traits as being radical, accounts for the on-going
radical Muslim behavior that the rest of the world observes?

No. In fact 'radical Islam' is well recognised with the wider Muslim
community.
It is by varying degrees both loathed and feared by ordinary Muslims.

What I'd like to see is a concrete proposal to deal with these groups
that has
some actual substance and credibility.

Graham

I am convinced that the process which is currently under way will
achieve the outcome you specify, but it won't happen quickly.

There is no *process*. It's just a jumbled mess ! There has been ZERO
thought about
what we're doing.

---
LOL, you think that because you're in the dark as to what's going on
behind closed doors that nothing's being done? That's gotta be
pretty close to penultimate arrogance.

Oddly, while I agree with the main elements of what you are saying here,
it
identifies a double standard in your way of thinking.

You are happy to accept that your Government is planning behind the scenes
to work against Terrorism and fight the global threat of [insert enemy
here], but when it comes to Islamic groups working behind the scenes to
reduce the levels of extremist activity - that can't be the case.

Strange.

---
You misunderstood my post.

Graham was pooh-poohing Gordon's claim that there's a process going
on to end terrorism, and I was pointing out that Graham has no clue
about what's being done in secret, just like most of the rest of us.

No, I think I did understand your post. I agree with your last part of the
sentence. None of us know what is going on in secret.

Graham thinks nothing and Gordon (plus I assume you) think there is lots.

No one knows, yet the comments are laced with "You are wrong, I know better"
type remarks.

That is what I found funny.

Notice that I made no reference to my government, his government, or
_any_ specific government, my belief being that pretty much everyone
involved who'd like to see terrorism end is working on the problem.

Hopefully this is the case. Sadly, I do government work and most of the time
Organisation is something they seem only vaguely aware of.

In secret, in order to keep it away from, primarily, the parasitic
goddam media.

How could it be done otherwise?

Interesting problem. For it to be effective it needs to be kept secret, but
for the people it will affect to have oversight then it shouldn't be.
Honestly, I cant think of a decent answer.

Personally, I feel that a fundamental "right" is to be able to know what
your government is doing on your behalf. Without this, elections are farces
(Ok, they seem to be) and the political process is pretty much a joke.

Do anti-terrorist measures need to be secret? Planned military strikes do, I
agree, but this is not the detail we [tinw] are discussing here (as far as I
am aware).

 

[T Wake]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:beaai2tet0okr4oqelvdlgalvns8oanpc5@4ax.com...

On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 20:49:11 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:


"Homer J Simpson" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:deDUg.49810$E67.34301@clgrps13...

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
message news:69t5i2hpcjkq20p8tm1dv71ub7k2vpbon0@4ax.com...

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

The British were asked to help take out Hitler before WWII and refused.
Big mistake, since no heir would have been as bad.


No way of knowing that for sure. Hitler's insanity contributed heavily to
his forces defeats. If they had a competent, sane, commander in chief it
may
have gone differently.

---
It certainly _would_ have.

Just for starters, there would have been no holocaust.

Really? And you can prove that, how?

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 21:15:12 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Keith wrote:

rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com says...
Keith wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com says...

You can't have it both ways.

Eeyore (a.k.a. the stuffed donkey) can. He's a two-faced Europeon.

LMAO !

The USA is the most two-faced nation on the planet. You regularly back one side then
declare war on them.

You are a two-faced bastard. That fact is well established by your
posts.

Show me an example of this two-facedness.

---
OK.

On one face you say there's no violent rhetoric in your posts and on
the other you call for the destruction of Israel.

Another example, more on topic: You're presented with
incontrovertible evidence that you made a technical blunder, but
instead of acknowledging it honestly you try to slime your way out
of it.

I could go on, but I think two examples are enough.


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[T Wake]

"Kurt Ullman" <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kurtullman-FB48B2.19023404102006@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx...

In article <3v-dnToicYfirLnYnZ2dnUVZ8s-dnZ2d@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

Nope, public debate - granted most of that is what the media show. I am
not
for one second suggesting chat shows or vox pop news is completely
indicative of public opinion - however, the media needs to get
listeners/viewers/readers so generally the opinions expressed _are_
representative.

I would argue with this (yet again, my friend).

Good. Without reasonable argument, USENET would be boring and occupied by
nothing but Cranks.

They are only
representative of what a certain segment of the population, and a
relatively small one at that, is willing to listen, read or watch. The
evening news hours get only about 25 million on average out of around
300 million people. Cable gets less. 1/10 people ins't representative.

It is not just news programmes - however the viewing figures in the UK are
broadly parallel. My comments were about the combination of TV, Radio and
the Press. Between them, these organisations can generate more audience
interest than will vote in the next election (in the UK at least).

This (IMHO) make them _generally_ representative of opinion.

I concur that very few, if any, people will agree completely with the
talking heads - but vocal minorities are the big bugbear of democracy.

If anything BIG declines in TV News veiwership over the years, at
least in the US, would indicate that the representative view is probably
elsewhere or why would be people be leaving in droves?

Probably the same over here.

Without using the media (TV, Radio, News and to an extent the Internet) to
judge public opinion, what else is there?

Worryingly, the political parties use the same sort of methods to judge what
policies will be acceptable to the people.

Our reactions to things are an example of public fear. The nonsense that
goes on at Airports is a shocking example of how people would rather be
messed around to "feel" safe, than actually institute effective security
measures.

When we all have to carry ID cards I will know the "war" is indeed over.

.. or just beginning...

In my mind, it will be over and the Enemy has won.

 

[T Wake]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:45244A13.A94DCCB9@hotmail.com...

T Wake wrote:

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

I'm saying that if someone threatens their fundamental freedoms, the
British public will defend them.

Hopefully.

I grow less and less sure of this as I watch public debate each day.

I think you mean political debate. I doubt the public would stand for
it.

Nope, public debate - granted most of that is what the media show. I am
not
for one second suggesting chat shows or vox pop news is completely
indicative of public opinion - however, the media needs to get
listeners/viewers/readers so generally the opinions expressed _are_
representative.

Our reactions to things are an example of public fear. The nonsense that
goes on at Airports is a shocking example of how people would rather be
messed around to "feel" safe, than actually institute effective security
measures.

That idiocy infuriates me. We are no safer for it at all.

Not at all. But we are more inconvenienced and, worrying, people are more
accustomed to the rules and regulations.

When we all have to carry ID cards I will know the "war" is indeed over.

Where have you got your view of current public debate here from ?

TV, Radio, Newspapers, Internet chat groups, public opinion polls etc.

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 20:58:01 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

On Thu, 05 Oct 06 09:58:50 GMT, lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

A lot of this anti-US fervor started with Democrat Presidential
candidates trying out their sound bytes in 2002-2004 in Europe.

/BAH
OH BS. It started with Bush invading another nation.

Actually, it started with FDR invading another nation. France,
specifically.

You're being very very silly.

Graham

I don't think so. A couple of things are at work here. One is the
military and cultural and technological and scientific dominance of
the USA as compared to Europe, which is bound to cause some
resentment. The other is expressed in the Chinese proverb, "if you
save someone's life, they will hate you forever."

John

 

[T Wake]

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:4524ABEE.A857925C@earthlink.net...

T Wake wrote:

When we all have to carry ID cards I will know the "war" is indeed over.


You don't have a driver's license?

Did you miss the word "have" in my post?

I _choose_ to carry a drivers licence. I _choose_ to drive.

Choice.

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 21:16:49 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Keith wrote:

rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com says...
Keith wrote:

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

I've never watched it. It's far too tedious.
^^^^^ ^^^^^^^

Of course! You know everything, even what's tedious without having
watched.

The first few minutes are enough to put me off. I've even accidentally come
across bits in the middle and it's not better. It's typical American
brain-dead slime designed to appeal to the mentally feeble.

---
Ah, you watched it from level 1...

Figures.


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[T Wake]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:msaai21n7dfgk1eute5i3na3voc5fm2ue1@4ax.com...

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 00:46:43 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

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.

---
Yes, I would, but I think if they're sufficiently demonized what's
more likely is that if your government decides that it's boxcars and
death camps for them, then you'll watch 'em get loaded up just like
the good non-Jewish citizens of Germany did about 60 years ago.
---

It won't happen anyway, it's purely hypothetical.

---
I'm sure the Jews in Germany thought the same thing until the
reality of it was forced on them.

Are you now advocating a more reasonable treatment of Muslims? Excellent.

If the government should decide sufficiently demonise [insert religion] then
I fully intend to convert to said religion and do what I can to fight back.
(Albeit probably not much. I can write some sarcastic letters though).

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 14:22:23 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

the State of Israel was founded on terrorism
itself. That's historical fact.

---
It's not a truth,

It's a fact.

Jewish terrorists even kidnapped and killed British servicemen in the same way
we're supposed to censure Hezbollah.

Graham

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 15:03:17 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Which one would that be, the dangers of driving on the nation's highways?
That's at least 3 orders of magnitude greater of a real threat to every
person in the country than is terrorism.

3000 people died at the WTC. Three orders of magnitude from that is 3
million. We kill about 40K people a year in car accidents.

John

 

[T Wake]

"Ken Smith" <kensmith@green.rahul.net> wrote in message
news:eg32m7$okg$4@blue.rahul.net...

In article <7qCdnW1uWfo2B7_YRVny3w@pipex.net>,
T Wake <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
[....]
A surprisingly small number of Islamic extremists are actually willing to
die for their cause you know?

Their belief system encourages it with promices of virgins etc.

Yet all the nasty old men who encourage the bombers refuse to do it
themselves.

They
would be far less willing to spend the rest of their lives in jail than to
die as a result. Dieing of old age doesn't get you the free ticket to
heaven.

I agree, life in Jail would be a better option. They are, after all,
criminals and killing them just gives them status amongst others.

 

[T Wake]

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:45244F75.8EAF5664@earthlink.net...

T Wake 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... )


You British twits added the extraneous "U"s in a pathetic attempt to
make yourselves look witty. It didn't work.

Other way round really.

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 20:51:39 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Bush and his ilk are American supremacists pure
and simple.

---
More of your garbage opinion.

It's a fact. By their own admission. Are you scared to read it ?

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

Graham

 

[T Wake]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:45244DC6.E677AC31@hotmail.com...

T Wake wrote:

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

The insurgent isn't automatically a terrorist.

It is a viewpoint issue. Were the July train bombers in London insurgents
or
terrorists?

Definitely terrorists. Not insurgents in any organised way.

But they were organised.

Are Iraqis who plant carbombs in Iraq insurgents or terrorists?
What about Palestinians who strap P4 to their chests and detonate at an
Israeli checkpoint?

Probably both.

And the French resistance ?

As I say, I don't differentiate. They were terrorists if you were a German,
Freedom Fighters if you were French and probably some variant on Insurgents,
Heroes etc to other nations.

 

[Kurt Ullman]

In article <aI2dnQoQOZz18rjYRVnyuA@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

"Ken Smith" <kensmith@green.rahul.net> wrote in message
news:eg32m7$okg$4@blue.rahul.net...
In article <7qCdnW1uWfo2B7_YRVny3w@pipex.net>,
T Wake <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
[....]
A surprisingly small number of Islamic extremists are actually willing to
die for their cause you know?

Their belief system encourages it with promices of virgins etc.

Yet all the nasty old men who encourage the bombers refuse to do it
themselves.

Nice to know there are some constants through out history and across
religions, area of the world and cultures. (g)

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
John Fields wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

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 ?

---
Unless that led to convergence, why would that guarantee cessation
of hostilities?

The solution is the willingness to look for common ground and to
build a mutually respectful relationship around that island.

So where do bombs and guns fit into this ?

---
Old enmities on both sides make the willingness to try to find
common ground difficult.

Since when did something being difficult mean it wasn't worth trying ?

Graham

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 21:19:37 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
Keith wrote:

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

I've never watched it. It's far too tedious.

Graham

Most of Mel Brooks' stuff is loaded with Hollywood insider jokes,
usually mocking studio fatheads. His "Robin Hood: Men in Tights" did a
nice job on Kevin Cosner. Like in Wodehouse's books, the plots are
just a framework to hold things up.

I find the humour too juvenile for my taste. It's like finding farts funny
and nothing else.

---
I suggest American and Jewish all at once is too much for you...


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[Eeyore]

Homer J Simpson wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4524DBAC.D9161B4D@hotmail.com...

We were much nicer to our enemy aliens.

" At the outbreak of war there were around 80,000 potential enemy aliens
in
Britain who, it was feared, could be spies, or willing to assist Britain's
enemies in the event of an invasion. All Germans and Austrians over the
age
of 16 were called before special tribunals and were divided into one of
three groups:
'A' - high security risks, numbering just under 600, who were immediately
interned;
'B' - 'doubtful cases', numbering around 6,500, who were supervised and
subject to restrictions;
'C' - 'no security risk', numbering around 64,000, who were left at
liberty. More than 55,000 of category 'C' were recognised as refugees from
Nazi oppression. The vast majority of these were Jewish. "

The US also helped round up Jews in S America and send them back to the
Nazis. They were enemy aliens you see.

What sheer genius !

Graham