Jihad needs scientists

[joseph2k]

T Wake wrote:

<snip>

People whose feelings get hurt on USENET should find other pastimes.
USENET is full of pathetic people who have nothing better to do with their
time than try to score points off others.

Speaking for your self i see.

I have had people screaming in my face that
they were going to kill me, and they didn't scare me any more than you
do.

Ok, I didnt realise I was trying to scare you. I was simply pointing out
you are somewhat pathetic. I am sure you are a rough, tough, hard core
knife fighter. It doesnt matter, your posts are still written like a
school child and your taunts are pathetic even by that standard.

How about you two take this to someplace like us.politics and quit polluting
this newsgroup.

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

 

[joseph2k]

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 03:48:40 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

According to my doctor, I am fine other than the medical problems.
No insanity, never had any problems with 95% of the people I've met.

OTOH, morons like the one who was blowing his horn and cursing at me
for walking too slow across a marked crosswalk while using my cane do
piss me off, as it should be. I had one punk try to take my cane away.
I wound his arm behind his back so tight he was begging for me to let
him go. I may be 100% disabled, but I'm no easy target. ;-)

Have you seen the movie, "Falling Down" ?


No, not yet. BTW, I found a website showing an easy way to put a
rapier blade inside a hollow cane. If someone grabs the staff, they save
you the trouble of pulling it off. Do you think I'd have to actually use
it, or would they run away looking for clean underwear?

I've also considered a tiny inverter and battery in the handle with
some nice copper inlay in the staff to deliver a couple hundred volts at
20 "Hurts" per second. I built one 40 years ago that burnt out a 110
volt 15 watt bulb when i tested it from a six volt lantern battery.
Think what I can do with a bunch of nicads or nimh. ;-)

I think an embedded taser is a great idea, just be sure that that they
cannot grab you while it is "ON".

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

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <sfGVg.11940$6S3.1257@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>,
<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

"Ken Smith" <kensmith@green.rahul.net> wrote in message
news:eg72kt$a4m$4@blue.rahul.net...
In article <FN9Vg.19673$Ij.18806@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

"Ken Smith" <kensmith@green.rahul.net> wrote in message
news:eg32g6$okg$3@blue.rahul.net...
In article <f%jUg.19041$Ij.8532@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

What makes you think nuking Mecca would have anything but a very, very
negative effect on us?

Note that I said "theat". I was suggesting that the threat would work
so
I don't need to respond to this.

Yes you do. Hollow threats are worthless.

Note that I said "treat" not "Hollow threat" so, again I don't need to
respond to this.

Well, again, yeah, you do. The threat is hollow (we would never nuke them,
as you said above) and they know it. What part of the phrase "hollow
threat" do you fail to understand?

I said "threat" not "hollow threat" and nowhere did I say "we would never
nuke them". A threat means that we will do it. It does not mean doing it
and then saying "see" as you seem to believe.

They're crazy, not stupid. They know that *we* wouldn't be stupid enough
to
nuke anything, because the threat is too diffuse.

This argument doesn't work. They only need to be convinced that the US
thinks it isn't a stupid idea.

And how exactly would we do that? They know it is a bad idea

They "believe" it is a bad idea. They currently also believe that the US
won't do it. Invading Iraq was a "bad idea". The US invaded Iraq. They
have plenty of evidence that the US will do things that are "a bad idea".


[... repeating of point deleted ...]

We've killed 200,000 Iraqis so far. How well is that deterring them? All I
see it doing is *increasing* the terrorist threat in Iraq. Deterrents that
actually *encourage* the behavior that they are intended to deter aren't
usually considered very effective. And surely death is a far stronger
deterrent than mere imprisonment.

No, the fear of death is not a stronger deterrent than the fear of jail,
doubly so when it is the death of some random collection of Iraqis and not
the terrorists.


[...]

No, I never said without trial.

Exactly what fraction of the hundreds (thousands?) of detainees that we are
currently holding have had a trial, or even a hearing?

That isn't related to this discussion but lets just assume that none of
the random bunch of people being held have had a trail. This says nothing
about what I said should be the fate of the terrorists. The US ended up
sweeping up a bunch of people who were simply not involved and now has an
embarassing problem.


[....]

How is the court going to handle this suddenly huge
caseload?

In 2005, the US District courts handled about 70,000 cases. The appeals
court handled about an equal number. The civil courts handled about
250,000 cases. The so called "war on terror" would add to the yearly case
load but if those that are obviously not terrorists were excluded it
doesn't look to me like anything that could not be handled with a
reasonable increase in funding. Remember the cases would not all happen
in the same year.


--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <xfGVg.11941$6S3.9608@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>,
<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

"Ken Smith" <kensmith@green.rahul.net> wrote in message
news:eg72np$a4m$5@blue.rahul.net...
In article <4525651A.5E36C356@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:


lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

So how many prisons will we need to build, and what fraction of the GDP
will
go into staffing/supporting/maintaining them, in order to imprison 100
million people?

That would most likely sap the entire GDP of the USA.

No, not since it doesn't have to happen. I only spoke of the fear of life
in prison being a deterent. If a crime is detered, it doesn't happen and
the jail isn't needed.


We've killed 200,000 Iraqis, and it hasn't deterred a damn thing. We're
going to have to imprison a helluva lot more than that, if we want to
convince anybody to do anything we want. So, now please go back and answer
the question.

You haven't put 200,000 terrorists in jail. You have killed 200,000
Iraqis.

You can't expect killing a random bunch of folks that have nothing to do
with the thing you are trying to deter to be an effective deterent.

We also have already covered the idea that the threat of jail may be a
much stronger deterent than the treat of killing. You would still have to
make the threat apply to right people. Throwing a bunch of Brazilian
plumbers in jail won't deter Islamic terrorists very much.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <sPGdnWhqqOyW7LrYRVnyrw@pipex.net>,
T Wake <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:xfGVg.11941$6S3.9608@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...

"Ken Smith" <kensmith@green.rahul.net> wrote in message
news:eg72np$a4m$5@blue.rahul.net...
In article <4525651A.5E36C356@hotmail.com>,
[....]
in prison being a deterent. If a crime is detered, it doesn't happen and
the jail isn't needed.


We've killed 200,000 Iraqis, and it hasn't deterred a damn thing. We're
going to have to imprison a helluva lot more than that, if we want to
convince anybody to do anything we want. So, now please go back and
answer the question.

Doesn't that imply killing them is not a deterrent? The problem is we are
killing Iraqis and the terrorist are Syrians.

Even if the terrorists were Iraqis, the war has not selectively killed
them. It has killed Iraqis more or less at random.

If the Jihadists thought they
would be jailed for life and have to suffer eighty years before they were
martyred it would take a fair bit of steam out of their sails. (IMHO of
course)

I don't even think they can call it "martyred" if they die of old age.


--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[joseph2k]

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:4525D26C.C2FF6B64@earthlink.net...

YAWN = Not very intersting reply to me. How long have you been on
Usenet?

No, "not very interesting reply to me" means you just skip it and move
on. YAWN is "I'm trying to impress you with how
big/smart/important/well-hung I
am by telling you your reply is beneath me, and screaming it at you." At
least be honest with yourself.

Eric Lucas


You have your definition, I have mine. I never gave a shit about
impressing anyone, unless it was promotion time. I was good at my job
which hurt or helped, depending on the day and the "Crisis de jour". I
have worked in electronics for over 40 years, and did things I was told
was impossible.


If you have to brag about being well hung, I still have plenty of
rope. ;-)


Personally, i like a fine strong wire; decapitates reliably.

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

 

[joseph2k]

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

T Wake wrote:

This is a logical fallacy. Everything you have said can be true and still
it would not disprove anything YD has written.

Insulting someone does not change the validity of their comments, nor
does eliciting sympathy for yourself.


If I needed sympathy, I wouldn't visit the vast troll playground
known as Usenet. ;-)


Top drawer reply Mr. Terrell.

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

 

[joseph2k]

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 22:12:27 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 18:17:20 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:

No one east of Missouri knows how to drive ;-)


You would have trouble driving some of the roads I was on in Alaska.
If you drove like you do in the desert, you would have killed yourself
in a couple days, tops.

Not hardly. You forget that I'm originally a West Virginia c'untry
boy. I can drive mountain roads fast enough to ensure that you dirty
your panties ;-)


You haven't done it on those Alaska roads with over a foot of ice and
going around a mountain with a drop on one side that seasoned drivers
have gone over. High speed on that road was about 12 miles an hour. Any
faster and you didn't make the turns. The military shuttle bus went over
the side two weeks after I left Alaska, and that man had driven the road
for over ten years.

Yup. I've driven black ice on North Mountain (US33 from Harrisonburg,
VA to Franklin, WV)... you tip-toe, then you hit fog and you crawl ;-)

...Jim Thompson

Black ice and fog is a bad combination. I have been in fog so bad that i
could tell which lights i had on but could not see a foot beyond an window.
Had to stop, could not see my buddy standing right in front of the
lights/vehicle.

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

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <9eWdncK2mZOUcbrYRVnyuw@pipex.net>,
T Wake <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

[...]

Democrats don't want to talk about it; if
they don't talk about it, they cannot deal with it.

I dont know enough about American political infighting to respond to this.
However, If, as previously mentioned, the problem has existed for a century,
I suspect all parties are equally guilty of action / inaction.

The republicans don't seem to be guilty of inaction. With the actions
they have taken, the US is running out of feet though.

[...]

No amount of extremist bombings can repeal your constitution unless _you_
(American people) chose to allow it. Fear of the imaginary external threat
will cause more damage than some idiots with a bomb.

It isn't the fear that causes the problem it is cowardice. Courage isn't
the lack of fear. It is carrying on in the face of fear. Even a public
that is afraid of an imaginary threat can refuse to give up its rights.


--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <45281869.9579556A@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
[...]

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 ?

I don't remember Rummy using the word "treason". He said "morally
confused" for sure however.


--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

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

No he wasn't. The initial calls went out on a military frequency only which ordinary
airliners can't even receive.

In any case those calls were made to "Iranian F-14", not Iranian Airbus.

because he was an apparent threat to one of our assets and its crew.

Because the crew were incompetent. Even given state of the art radar and related
electronics they thought an Airbus on a level flight path was an F-14 on a descending
attack profile.

He chose not to.

He was legally flying in an civil air lane. He's not supposed to move unless ATC tell
him to.

Kaboom. End of story.

He never even knew what was going on.

Americans are fuckwits and you're surprised that Iran loathes the Great Satan still ?

America never even apologised for their navy's fuck-up FFS ! The paasengers only got
any compensation by taking the matter to law and to this day, the USA hasn't
recompensed Iran Air for the loss of its Airbus. And you wonder why they don't like you
?

Let me ask you quite frankly if you think this is even remotely acceptable behaviour
for the 'most powerful nation on Earth' ?


Graham

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote
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.

America is fucked !

Graham

 

[joseph2k]

John Larkin wrote:

On 6 Oct 2006 07:18:41 GMT, Robert Latest <boblatest@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 10:58:29 -0700,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote
in Msg. <gchai2ligb29uejo28rjrpi78fkdonglhp@4ax.com

But I consider trerrorism to be attacking non-combattant populations
for political/emotional/morale reasons, which both sides did in WWII
and I don't think the US is doing deliberately at present.

At present, no. Deliberately, no. It is in fact difficult to make out
what the US are doing at present, and why they insist on doing it.

The theory is, I think, that the US has the power and the moral
imperative to spread democracy throughout the world. You can argue
that it's in our self-interest to do so, but I could reply that it's
in everybody's self-interest. Whether the goal is being pursued
intelligently or effectively is certainly open to debate.

snip
John

Your pseudo-American moral-imperative nonsense is exactly what is wrong
about how America is handling the issues. It is _MY_ nation (as well as
millions of other's) and I have the obligation, as one of its sovereign
citizens, to criticize it when it goes astray.

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

 

In article <eg9dpn$ba4$1@blue.rahul.net>, kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) writes:

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.

That's not the claim (not mine, at least). Just that the warning of
Pakistan is an indication of lack of seriousness about the whole
affair. Not that it was very serious to begin with. Cruise missiles
are fine for stationary targets. They may be used agains mobile
targets (like a person) at times, when you've ground assetts capable
of informing you that the target is at such and such location and will
remain there for a while. Absent this, all you're making is a gesture
and not a very convincing one at that.

On a much deeper level, the lack of seriousness still persists in
broad spheres, as evidenced by the fixation on OBL. About what is to
be expected from a generation raised on James Bond movies. Standard
plot, evil mastermind threatens the world, evil mastermind is
dispatched and the world is at peace again. That's childishness.
Muslim extremism is not a leader worship movement, it is motivated by
ideology which is independent of any single specific person. This is
not to say that we shouldn't go after the heads of the various
organizations, as part of the overall strategy, but this alone is not
the key part of the struggle on concentrating on this to the detriment
of all else will be quite counterproductive.

There are, at times, movements where a successful blow at the head may
eliminate the whole organization. But not in this case.

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

 

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:a5-dnQ-NUaXtiLXYnZ2dnUVZ8s6dnZ2d@pipex.net...

"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.

Nah, just the President, that's all. Nobody important.

Eric Lucas

 

"Ken Smith" <kensmith@green.rahul.net> wrote in message
news:eg9ind$ba4$5@blue.rahul.net...

In article <45281869.9579556A@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
[...]
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 ?

I don't remember Rummy using the word "treason". He said "morally
confused" for sure however.

In an attempt to suppress free speech and debate on the issue, both Rumsfeld
and Bush have used the word to refer to anybody that disagrees with Bush's
prosecution of the non-existent war. It's reprehensible.

Eric Lucas

 

"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.

Repetitive sycophant.

Eric Lucas

 

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:Y6GdnWmpKY3sibXYRVnyrw@pipex.net...

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

blah, blah blah

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.

What, of a crank talking nonsense? He has given examples of that in every
post he's written.

You'd have thought you would have learned after such a life of stupidity.

T Wake, please do think a little more before you write things like that.

Eric Lucas

 

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:qm9gi297oamqd9flmtc4291edbfh6k9e2n@4ax.com...

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?

Bush. Rumsfeld. Need any more?

Eric Lucas

 

"Ken Smith" <kensmith@green.rahul.net> wrote in message
news:eg9fi9$ba4$3@blue.rahul.net...

Even if the terrorists were Iraqis, the war has not selectively killed
them. It has killed Iraqis more or less at random.

And some people still can't grok the fact that the Muslim world might be
just a tad justified in being more than a little pissed off at this. It's
too bad that several of the people who haven't caught on to that are those
designing and implementing US foreign policy.

Eric Lucas