Jihad needs scientists

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 21:35:43 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 20:13:25 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

I give up--I was wrong. You weren't sincere when you said you examine your
assumptions. You don't even admit what assumptions you make, and what
political filter you put information through. You're no worse than the
other knee-jerk reactionaries on either side of this thread. If you are the
future of the political process in this country, we are in real trouble.

Just a hint, though...you might want to try having conversations with actual
mainstream Middle Eastern Muslims, rather than reading some right-wing
claptrap written to justify the US's current bad behavior and applying it to
all of Muslim society.

The problem is that the above kind of thought is now being branded as traitorous
in the USA.

Absurd. American newspapers, public forums, political parties, and
public institutions are full of different opinions, vigorously and
publicly stated. A very few people call the opinions of other to be
traitorous, and that's allowed free speech, too.

You say so much about the USA and you know so little.

So why are the Republicans branding criticism as treasonous ?

Some Repubs may call some comments treasonous, which is their right to
do so. And it's everybody else's right to decide if they make sense or
not, which they occasionally do. Why your knickers are so twisted over
US politics is a more interesting question.

I mostly ignore politics, which is mostly theatre. I do what I can to
make the world better in fact (as opposed to wasting energy on theory)
and try to make my life, and the lives of the people I care for,
better. If you read too many newspapers and watch too much TV news -
both culled for the inflammatory - you can get all steamed up and get
a heart attack from continuous anger and stress.

Turn off the telly and take a walk.

John

 

[T Wake]

"JoeBloe" <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:r20gi2939pubsn3r5mv9fvlupio5vr5mfn@4ax.com...

On Sat, 7 Oct 2006 17:52:29 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> Gave us:


"JoeBloe" <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:ma7fi2l8q4oc32p6chnf39hvlm89tmhcdk@4ax.com...
On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 23:05:42 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> Gave us:


"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote in
message newseb8i2lf4af0irq171tqukscc9n0lec541@4ax.com...
On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 21:51:21 GMT, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com
wrote:

In article <HLVUg.13315$7I1.5654@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:


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.

Probably is. Under a warrant for a phone anything that goes on over
that phone is legally admissable, even if the other person's phone
doesn't have a warrant on it. It well settled that as long as one
phone
is legally tapped, any phone that calls it or is called by it is fair
game. Since there are no restrictions on tapping a phone outside of
the
country, it would be legal tap. Thus anyone the phone calls or anyone
who calls the phone could be listened to as noted. Would be a rather
interesting case to make.

And it varies state-by-state... it is legal in Arizona to record all
calls on your own phone, _without_ notifying the other party.

All I need to do is push a button ;-)


It is good that you have these loopholes to circumvent civil liberties.

Fuck you, asswipe!

You are such a wizard with words.

I *SHOULD* have the right to record ANY call that
is passed on MY phone, and buyer beware to all that call it or speak
to me on it.

Your logic is flawed. As you have the IQ of a flea there is no point
trying
to discuss the finer points of this with you.

As if anything you ever did or said was fine in any way.

As if you would know what the word even meant, let alone be in a position to
judge.

You lose.

What have I lost?

 

[T Wake]

"JoeBloe" <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:780gi25ruponn590krd8cgvvt9p3catitk@4ax.com...

On Sat, 7 Oct 2006 18:13:31 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> Gave us:

It is ok, it was an imaginary elephant. In the real world, imaginary
things
cant hurt you. As an aside, I know what imaginary numbers *are* and I
also
know there is no way *you* are juggling them.

I say again. You *know* nothing. You certainly know no such thing
as any of the things which you have said about me.

Well, you don't know that. I do know your posts are written as if by an
idiot. It is true that you may simply be pretending.

 

[T Wake]

"JoeBloe" <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:1a0gi2909f3ana1bebl8q7e0qabhm2t2vs@4ax.com...

On Sat, 7 Oct 2006 18:13:31 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> Gave us:

You are possibly one of the more idiotic people who posts on USENET. I am
surprised you aren't a regular on sci.physics along with all the other
semi-literate cranks. Do you have some theories of your own on the mass of
a
photon or two-way light speed or any of the other crankbait topics?

You're an idiot.

Original. It is good to see your independant thought is going strong.

It is well known how stupid you are in that group
as well.

I am sure it is, although "it is well known" is normally the last defence of
the crank who is talking nonsense.

I am sure you can cite an example.

I have read there for years and posted there as well. You are an
idiot.

What nym do you shift to there? I can think of some suitable ones.

Actually, I probably know the answer to that.

Again, you do not *know* anything.

You don't have any ideas of
your own.

Sure. My ideas are practical, however. Yours are closer to that of
the idiot, "Gravity Physics".

Really? You have no idea how wrong you can be. You'd have thought you would
have learned after such a life of stupidity.

 

[T Wake]

"JoeBloe" <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:eg0gi2dr7va8r9gbikji1cmj6pgalcv2ht@4ax.com...

On Sat, 7 Oct 2006 18:16:52 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> Gave us:


"JoeBloe" <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:jv4fi2dv8pn3rk9ii4b82fh6g89ikgcao2@4ax.com...
On Sat, 7 Oct 2006 10:05:23 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> Gave us:


"JoeBloe" <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:sludi21v218aau83uue1nhpk001333skb4@4ax.com...
On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 19:26:17 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> Gave us:

Sadly, you are a...

Sadly, you are still no more than an idiot.

IKYABWAI.

Even being an idiot I am orders of magnitude above you.

Only on the idiot ranking board.

Yeah, you aren't even very good as an idiot.

The higher you are on the board, the more of an idiot you are,
idiot.

You are such an idiot you are looking at the board upside down.

That would make YOU the more idiotic.

Got clue?

You need to get out more.

 

[T Wake]

"JoeBloe" <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:go0gi2tdba0ak4s8j0uelqjm4l1sk5f3nv@4ax.com...

On Sat, 7 Oct 2006 18:53:52 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> Gave us:

In the seventies I was busy
fighting terrorists

Doubtful, pussy.

Doubt away big lad. If you want my service details, including Northern
Ireland tours, send me an email and I will give you enough information to
check with the army records in Glasgow.

Either that, or you can continue to think you are clever and rant on about
nonsense.

 

[T Wake]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:45280F9F.89B24BE1@hotmail.com...

John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 20:13:25 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

I give up--I was wrong. You weren't sincere when you said you examine
your
assumptions. You don't even admit what assumptions you make, and what
political filter you put information through. You're no worse than
the
other knee-jerk reactionaries on either side of this thread. If you
are the
future of the political process in this country, we are in real
trouble.

Just a hint, though...you might want to try having conversations with
actual
mainstream Middle Eastern Muslims, rather than reading some right-wing
claptrap written to justify the US's current bad behavior and applying
it to
all of Muslim society.

The problem is that the above kind of thought is now being branded as
traitorous
in the USA.

Absurd. American newspapers, public forums, political parties, and
public institutions are full of different opinions, vigorously and
publicly stated. A very few people call the opinions of other to be
traitorous, and that's allowed free speech, too.

You say so much about the USA and you know so little.

So why are the Republicans branding criticism as treasonous ?

Not all Republicans. Be wary of using the blanket assumptions you accuse the
other side of the argument of using.

Some, dicks like JoeBloe mainly, may head down this road but they are too
thick to realise what they are talking about.

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

"JoeBloe" <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> Gave us:

In the seventies I was busy
fighting terrorists

Doubtful, pussy.

Doubt away big lad. If you want my service details, including Northern
Ireland tours, send me an email and I will give you enough information to
check with the army records in Glasgow.

Either that, or you can continue to think you are clever and rant on about
nonsense.

Northern Ireland was tough. The most unpopular posting ever most likely.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 20:13:25 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

I give up--I was wrong. You weren't sincere when you said you examine
your
assumptions. You don't even admit what assumptions you make, and what
political filter you put information through. You're no worse than
the other knee-jerk reactionaries on either side of this thread. If you

are the future of the political process in this country, we are in real
trouble.

Just a hint, though...you might want to try having conversations with
actual
mainstream Middle Eastern Muslims, rather than reading some right-wing
claptrap written to justify the US's current bad behavior and applying
it to all of Muslim society.

The problem is that the above kind of thought is now being branded as
traitorous in the USA.

Absurd. American newspapers, public forums, political parties, and
public institutions are full of different opinions, vigorously and
publicly stated. A very few people call the opinions of other to be
traitorous, and that's allowed free speech, too.

You say so much about the USA and you know so little.

So why are the Republicans branding criticism as treasonous ?

Not all Republicans. Be wary of using the blanket assumptions you accuse the
other side of the argument of using.

Some, dicks like JoeBloe mainly, may head down this road but they are too
thick to realise what they are talking about.

Well...... the Republican head honchos are saying this stuff. Didn't Rumsfeld do
so explicitly for example ?

Graham

 

[T Wake]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:452817FC.42A2E1DD@hotmail.com...

T Wake wrote:

"JoeBloe" <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> Gave us:

In the seventies I was busy
fighting terrorists

Doubtful, pussy.

Doubt away big lad. If you want my service details, including Northern
Ireland tours, send me an email and I will give you enough information to
check with the army records in Glasgow.

Either that, or you can continue to think you are clever and rant on
about
nonsense.

Northern Ireland was tough. The most unpopular posting ever most likely.

I spent a total of five years of my life there. Other than the first tour in
1974 it wasn't that bad (plus after that tour, I'd learned what to do!) No
idea what it is like today though.

 

[T Wake]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:45281869.9579556A@hotmail.com...

T Wake wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 20:13:25 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

I give up--I was wrong. You weren't sincere when you said you
examine
your
assumptions. You don't even admit what assumptions you make, and
what
political filter you put information through. You're no worse
than
the other knee-jerk reactionaries on either side of this thread.
If you

are the future of the political process in this country, we are in
real
trouble.

Just a hint, though...you might want to try having conversations
with
actual
mainstream Middle Eastern Muslims, rather than reading some
right-wing
claptrap written to justify the US's current bad behavior and
applying
it to all of Muslim society.

The problem is that the above kind of thought is now being branded as
traitorous in the USA.

Absurd. American newspapers, public forums, political parties, and
public institutions are full of different opinions, vigorously and
publicly stated. A very few people call the opinions of other to be
traitorous, and that's allowed free speech, too.

You say so much about the USA and you know so little.

So why are the Republicans branding criticism as treasonous ?

Not all Republicans. Be wary of using the blanket assumptions you accuse
the
other side of the argument of using.

Some, dicks like JoeBloe mainly, may head down this road but they are too
thick to realise what they are talking about.

Well...... the Republican head honchos are saying this stuff. Didn't
Rumsfeld do
so explicitly for example ?

Fair one. There is always the risk of falling into the same fallacies that
the "other side" use so I do _try_ to be careful about generalisations. (No
one is perfect though, I've generalised about at least two people in this
thread - but they, so far, have lived up to my opinions....)

 

[John Fields]

On Sat, 7 Oct 2006 20:12:51 +0100, "T Wake"
<usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

((SNIPS FOR BREVITY))
"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:fqqfi2l5cpsn9okotl49qi1a3s07hsvl6c@4ax.com...
On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 21:29:15 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:3f5ai2la827940ak5b0vn7om58sbuoid1v@4ax.com...
I don't believe that their being at war with each other periodically
negates their collective desire to see the downfall of the west.

Aha, then you view all Christian nations as unified?

---
No. I view them as separate, but with Christianity in common.
---

We have a collective
desire to see the downfall of terrorism and we share a religion.

---
Yes.

But saying the shared belief in Islam unites the Islamic groups means the
shared Christianity should unite the west.

---
The unison is spiritual. Christianity has Roman Catholics,
Baptists, Episcopalians, etc. who are united in their belief that
the Bible is the rulebook for Christianity, and Islam has Sunnis,
Shi'ites, Sufis, Kahrijites, etc. who are united in their belief
that the Koran is the rulebook for Islam.

None of that means that there is any other union implied although,
in Islam, no mosque is denominational and any Muslims of any
background are welcome to attend services at any mosque.

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/islam/blfaq_islam_sects.htm
---

In the end, as in any war, to the victor goes the spoils.

Which is why they are not a unified group.

---
Agreed, but with the understanding that they have Islam in common.

It would be like a Venn diagram of two intersecting circles, where
the area in the intersect would be Islam.

They are still not unified enough to be viewed as working toward a common
goal. It is like saying the US, France and Chile have a unified aim.

---
Depends on the goal.

Let's say we have Episcopaleans in the US, Methodists in France, and
Catholics in Chile, all of whom practice their fail with the goal of
getting to heaven. That's certainly a unified aim, No?
---

They all do, and rightly so. The problem that arises, though, is
when any entity seeks power beyond its needs.

Interesting. Who determines its needs?

---
It does.

Which creates the logical problem of no entity declaring it's needs as being
fulfilled. All an entity needs to do to evade this problem is say its needs
are greater than before.

---
Yes, and that's one of the reasons why we have wars.
---

Are the needs set for "today" or for future possibilities?

---
For today and for some time in the future.

But they can be reset because they are self determined.

---
Yes, but would you take away self-determination?
---

Consider the human body; when in balance, a system where everything
in it is functioning for its own benefit as well as for the benefit
of the rest of the "team". But if any part of it starts getting
ideas about 'taking over', and puts those ideas into effect, then
the whole thing gets out of whack and we get sick. At that point,
it becomes the body's job to straighten out the offender and get
everything back on track. If it can't, it'll die.

Interesting and amusing analogy, but it implies all global nations work in
harmony for a single goal.

---
No, the implication is that they _should_.

Yes they should. That would (IMHO obviously) require a larger organism for
the nations to be part of. As long as people of any denomination view others
as "different" this can not happen.

---
But they _are_ different. Culturally as well as physically, and
trying to sweep those differences under the rug won't work. The
larger organism UN thing doesn't seem to be working all that well
either.

My liver is _certainly_ different from my kidneys, yet they're smart
enough to know how to do their jobs and not get angry with each
other, so I think a larger organism using the human body as a kind
of model would be interesting to contemplate.

What we _really_ need is some good way to show how we're all
interrelated and interdependent.
---

They dont, and as a result who gets to decide if
a body part is out of whack?

---
Ideally, it would be some neutral oversight agency. An immune
system of sorts?

It would require aliens.

---
_Fair_ aliens. <G>
---

Taking this analogy to its limits - the US is a cancer cell which refuses
to
abide with the wishes of the other body parts (UN).

---
The possibility also exists that the UN is flawed and the US must
fend for itself and find allies outside of that framework.

Who decides which is which?

---
We decide for ourselves what's best for us and follow that path.
---

What is to say Islam will not undergo the same metamorphosis?

---
I think it will.

I argee. People become too fixated on the past to see that things change.

I mean, no one
tries to kill Cathars any more do they? (Side note: Has the pope ever
rescinded the Papal Bull regarding them?)

---
Probably not. I believe it was only a few years ago that the Church
got around to accepting that the Earth's orbit is heliocentric.

Sadly possibly true.

Just as with Christianity, there are differences in how people interpret
their "rulebook."

---
Mostly true, I think, except for one branch of Cristianity, Roman
Catholicism, where the buck stops at the pope's desk.

Even then, some Catholic priests think that while they are not allowed to
marry or masturbate, it is perfectly legitimate to bugger choir boys.

---
Yes, but ask the Pope and he'll tell you that it's not.

But as with most things, people dont ask permission constantly.

---
Actually, they don't think it's perfectly legitimate, because they
know that if they asked permission, no matter how often, it would
never be granted.
---

Islamic
terrorists are working on a subset interpretation of the Koran.

---
I'm sure.
---

Again, all we are doing is debating an opinion which is based on our life
experienced and assesment of what information is available to us.

As I see, the US operates a variety of anti-competetive practices which
ensure American companys get a head start in the race.

I should, at this point, hightlight the fact I do not see this as "wrong."
I do think Empires come in many forms. The US occupation of Iraq for
instance has not opened it to global commerce.

---
It will have to eventually, so it's just a question of time.

Yes. Eventually the British Empire was broken up, as was the Roman, the
Macedonian, the Persian etc. It is always a question of time.

Fortunately, we're the cops.

Here we disagree.

---
Do you disagree with the 'fortunately' part or the 'cops' part?

Both If you are the cops I disagree with "fortunately" - but in advance
I disagree with being the cops

---
We're the last superpower left, so I think that makes us the world's
cops by default. That's not to say that we're going to be handing
out traffic tickets anytime soon. Although, I guess, that depends
on what you're trafficking in. As far as "fortunately" goes, I
think it _is_ fortunate. How do you think it would go if Russia had
won the cold war and _we_ went broke? Or how about if China was top
dog? We probably wouldn't even be having this conversation, and if
we were, I'm pretty sure there'd be some rather loud knocking on our
doors after a little while.
---

Having said that, ultimately the police need to be answerable to the
people
they police. The US is not answerable to anyone.

---
That's true, but we do have a Supreme court which is supposed to
determine the constitutionality of internal matters and a Congress
which is supposed to control how we play with the world.

Yet, I have no say over the US Congress so, still, the World Police is not
answerable to the people it "protects."

---
Well, we have the best politicians that money can buy, so that may
be a way to get them to listen, at any rate!

Seriously though, why should we be held accountable for anything we
do when the scumbags of the world get to commit their horrors with
impunity?

You may choose to counter with that the last scumbag horror was our
invasion of Iraq, but I'd point out that that was necessary cancer
surgery.

All we're trying to do is to give folks a chance to make up their
own minds about who they want to _elect_ as their leaders instead of
being told that they'll die if they dare to even speak.
---

Then there's the UN, LOL!

Sadly. Nice idea though.

---



--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[John Fields]

On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 20:13:25 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

I give up--I was wrong. You weren't sincere when you said you examine your
assumptions. You don't even admit what assumptions you make, and what
political filter you put information through. You're no worse than the
other knee-jerk reactionaries on either side of this thread. If you are the
future of the political process in this country, we are in real trouble.

Just a hint, though...you might want to try having conversations with actual
mainstream Middle Eastern Muslims, rather than reading some right-wing
claptrap written to justify the US's current bad behavior and applying it to
all of Muslim society.

The problem is that the above kind of thought is now being branded as traitorous
in the USA.

---
Really?

Can you cite some examples or is that just some more of your
Ameriphobia?


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[John Fields]

On 07 Oct 2006 19:29:02 GMT, "Daniel Mandic" <daniel_mandic@aon.at>
wrote:

T Wake wrote:

Still, it is amazing how well he managed to get rid of the evidence
come the invasion. If only he had used that skill for the UN
inspectors the war would never have happened.

Yes.

And a slighter tread, in the time of invasion. Attack is Attack, let's
say it is so, but the actions taken contradict any American thinking.

---
I'm American, and I think the actions taken were justified, so what
do you mean when you say the actions taken contradict any American
thinking?
---

With cannons on sparrows!

---
With BB guns on sparrows, the sparrows would win.


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[joseph2k]

T Wake wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:452817FC.42A2E1DD@hotmail.com...


T Wake wrote:

"JoeBloe" <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> Gave us:

In the seventies I was busy
fighting terrorists

Doubtful, pussy.

Doubt away big lad. If you want my service details, including Northern
Ireland tours, send me an email and I will give you enough information
to check with the army records in Glasgow.

Either that, or you can continue to think you are clever and rant on
about
nonsense.

Northern Ireland was tough. The most unpopular posting ever most likely.

I spent a total of five years of my life there. Other than the first tour
in 1974 it wasn't that bad (plus after that tour, I'd learned what to do!)
No idea what it is like today though.

Then you need to visit and tell us.

--
JosephKK
Gegen dummheit kampfen die Gotter Selbst, vergebens.  
--Schiller

 

[Daniel Mandic]

John Fields wrote:

I'm American, and I think the actions taken were justified, so what
do you mean when you say the actions taken contradict any American
thinking?

Your self-confirmatory on reasons, why you release someone, is lying on
save, help, security, goodwill and protection.

The standard defense Army of Irak have the order to defend the Land
against all intruder. With or without Saddam.

Your actions were rude and inappropriate. To overrun people with a
hum,m vehicle crab, even more. Shame on you.... is this save, help,
security, goodwill and protection??????



Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic

 

[T Wake]

((SNIPS FOR BREVITY))
"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:qn1gi29n0evquo5atsi3gtin7ht0vtog4f@4ax.com...

On Sat, 7 Oct 2006 20:12:51 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

But saying the shared belief in Islam unites the Islamic groups means the
shared Christianity should unite the west.

---
The unison is spiritual. Christianity has Roman Catholics,
Baptists, Episcopalians, etc. who are united in their belief that
the Bible is the rulebook for Christianity, and Islam has Sunnis,
Shi'ites, Sufis, Kahrijites, etc. who are united in their belief
that the Koran is the rulebook for Islam.

None of that means that there is any other union implied although,
in Islam, no mosque is denominational and any Muslims of any
background are welcome to attend services at any mosque.

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/islam/blfaq_islam_sects.htm

I agree with you to the extent that the reason for this debate is becoming
vague.

IIRC the problem is the lumping together Islamic Extremists as a "unified"
group with a single cause. As you say, there are numerous ways of
interpreting the Koran. Does this not imply calling the extremists Unified
in any meaningful sense is incorrect?

In the end, as in any war, to the victor goes the spoils.

Which is why they are not a unified group.

---
Agreed, but with the understanding that they have Islam in common.

It would be like a Venn diagram of two intersecting circles, where
the area in the intersect would be Islam.

They are still not unified enough to be viewed as working toward a common
goal. It is like saying the US, France and Chile have a unified aim.

---
Depends on the goal.

Let's say we have Episcopaleans in the US, Methodists in France, and
Catholics in Chile, all of whom practice their fail with the goal of
getting to heaven. That's certainly a unified aim, No?

Yes, I agree. In this instance though you unify Christianity with Islam. It
is still (IMHO) false to unify the Islamic extremist groups into any single
entity or imbue "them" with a single goal.

Yes they should. That would (IMHO obviously) require a larger organism for
the nations to be part of. As long as people of any denomination view
others
as "different" this can not happen.

---
But they _are_ different. Culturally as well as physically, and
trying to sweep those differences under the rug won't work.

Which is why the analogy was (IMHO) inaccurate.

The
larger organism UN thing doesn't seem to be working all that well
either.

No, but for a variety of reasons. When one sub organism feels it can act
with out the agreement of the larger body, the larger body must either
destroy the sub organism or die itself. (To abuse the analogy a bit. Sorry
)

My liver is _certainly_ different from my kidneys, yet they're smart
enough to know how to do their jobs and not get angry with each
other, so I think a larger organism using the human body as a kind
of model would be interesting to contemplate.

Who would that larger organism be though? It could not be a country because
that is the root of resentment.

What we _really_ need is some good way to show how we're all
interrelated and interdependent.

Yes. Too many people get fixated with what they view as race and nations
today. Such short term concepts can only lead to strife.

Ideally, it would be some neutral oversight agency. An immune
system of sorts?

It would require aliens.

---
_Fair_ aliens. <G

:-D

Taking this analogy to its limits - the US is a cancer cell which
refuses
to
abide with the wishes of the other body parts (UN).

---
The possibility also exists that the UN is flawed and the US must
fend for itself and find allies outside of that framework.

Who decides which is which?

---
We decide for ourselves what's best for us and follow that path.

Which undermines the whole concept. Returning to the body analogy, your
testes have decided to do what is best for them and to hell with the rest of
the body.

Both If you are the cops I disagree with "fortunately" - but in
advance
I disagree with being the cops

---
We're the last superpower left, so I think that makes us the world's
cops by default.

Again a point we will have to disagree on.

(IMHO) A police force needs to be accountable to the people it works for. At
best a super power is accountable to its own people. Police work for the
people, to be global police you would have to work for _every_ nation.
Asserting the American standard of behaviour is not in keeping with that.

A different analogy would be the last tough guy in the school yard can just
as easily be the school bully as be a nice guy.

That's not to say that we're going to be handing
out traffic tickets anytime soon. Although, I guess, that depends
on what you're trafficking in. As far as "fortunately" goes, I
think it _is_ fortunate. How do you think it would go if Russia had
won the cold war and _we_ went broke?

Not massively different in the great scheme of things. Communism is
unsustainable, even China has moved towards more open markets.

If we look back to western propaganda from the sixties, the Soviet Union was
always shown as a police state, where everyones phones were tapped, you were
checked for ID everywhere you went, freedom of movement was non-existant.
Questioning the Party was treason. etc.

In small, baby steps, this is creeping in. People are so fixated about the
"threat" from "terror" they dont notice it.

Or how about if China was top
dog? We probably wouldn't even be having this conversation, and if
we were, I'm pretty sure there'd be some rather loud knocking on our
doors after a little while.

Well, it is all perspective really. I am fairly sure that communism was
never going to win the long game. It is unsustainable. Under the Soviets,
Yugoslavia was a very different place to (say) Latvia. It is a falsehood to
assume every nation would have been in the worst gulag category.

As a trivial, simplistic, example, Nazi occupied France was not massively
different than pre-occupation France. People went to work. People got
married. People had children.

Yet, I have no say over the US Congress so, still, the World Police is not
answerable to the people it "protects."

---
Well, we have the best politicians that money can buy, so that may
be a way to get them to listen, at any rate!

I still cant influence it. In the UK we have a legal history which traces
its routes back to pre-Norman conquest. There are rights and freedoms which
have been in place for over a thousand years.

If the US decided to ignore them, in its role as World Police, what recourse
do I have?

I suppose I could become a terrorist.....

Seriously though, why should we be held accountable for anything we
do when the scumbags of the world get to commit their horrors with
impunity?

Because you position yourselves as the good guys. A police man who breaks
the law is a criminal.

To hold the moral high ground and have any justification in castigating
other regimes, your regime _needs_ to be whiter than white.

You may choose to counter with that the last scumbag horror was our
invasion of Iraq, but I'd point out that that was necessary cancer
surgery.

Nope, I wouldn't counter with that. I think Iraq should have been dismantled
in '91. I think 2003 was one of the _worst_ times to invade though. I think
democratic governments which have to withhold the real reasons for war from
the populace (or make up alternative ones) are shameful. I think governments
which do that, then say other governments are bad are shamefully
hypocritical.

All we're trying to do is to give folks a chance to make up their
own minds about who they want to _elect_ as their leaders instead of
being told that they'll die if they dare to even speak.

Really? If Country X isn't happy with it's government form why cant they
sort it out? When you go in and change them to an American democratic system
what happens if the people dont want that?

This line of reasoning carries with it the assumption that America knows
which governments foreigners want to have.

If providing this freedom was the real driving force then China would have
been invaded long ago (as well as several south American countries and most
of Africa).

 

[joseph2k]

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

T Wake wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:4525CE02.456E30F6@earthlink.net...
T Wake wrote:

I don't have to. Your country can intercept other nations to gather
foreign
intelligence.


Unless you are a terrorist, what are you worried about?


Interesting argument.

I work in corporate security and often work for governmental
organisations, will you please surrender to me all your bank records so I
can check what transactions take place. I also want you to record your
movements and actions at all times.

I am sure, that as you are not a terrorist, you will have no qualms
against this.

I await the data.


It wouldn't do you any good. I am on a small VA pension that barely
pays the bills. Anyway, I don't have a bank account.

I did not expect such ignorance from you. Via your VA pension you have
several bank accounts, though you do not control any of them. And yes,
they can be and are used to track you.

--
JosephKK
Gegen dummheit kampfen die Gotter Selbst, vergebens.  
--Schiller

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <VZFVg.68$45.187@news.uchicago.edu>,
<mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote:

In article <eg712e$a4m$3@blue.rahul.net>, kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken
Smith) writes:
[... OBL ...]
In fact, it appears he changed his plans before the phone call happened.

This may be but it is not much of an excuse.

It nicely rebuts the claim that the warning of Pakistan was the reason he
survived. We may be stuck with it simply being a matter of luck.
--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[joseph2k]

T Wake wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:clcdi2h9nj7cvvrc3orerb8kdgu50fg0js@4ax.com...
On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 04:42:27 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:


It's only when Americans get killed you get mad.

You're quite happy for the USN to kill innocent foreigners by the
planeload and it
doesn't even 'register on your radar' does it ?

---
Oh, the righteous indignation...

The pilot of the airplane was told to change his course because he
was an apparent threat to one of our assets and its crew. He chose
not to. Kaboom. End of story.


I am sure you are well aware of how wrong this is.

A passenger plane is a threat to a US Warship? How the mighty have fallen.

I find that assessment odd in light of the ability of passenger planes to
damage buildings like the World Trade Center towers impacts demonstrated.
Equally to the point, when told to change course by any military, the
refusal does not demonstrate reasonable judgment.

--
JosephKK
Gegen dummheit kampfen die Gotter Selbst, vergebens.  
--Schiller