Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 3 Oct 2006 17:02 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eftbe0$8ss_007(a)s888.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <452197A3.17CCE793(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >> >>> "T Wake" writes: >>> >>> >The victory conditions are either nonsensical or nonachievable. Has any > "War >>> >on Terror" been won? >>> > >>> The term "War on Terror" is a misnomer. It really should be "The war >>> on Islamic extremism". Terror is just a tool. >> >>Obfuscation noted. >> >>So, are you saying it's possible to win a 'war on Islamic extremism' ? > > This mess is about changing a mindset; either Western civilization's > mindset is changed or religious extremists' mindset is changed. > I agree completely.
From: Tim Williams on 2 Oct 2006 22:21 <mrdarrett(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:1159561995.236231.287830(a)i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > Were Wernher von Braun (V-2) or Sergey Korolyov (Sputnik) Jewish? How > about Edward Teller (Hungarian, "Father of the Hydrogen Bomb") and > Andrei Sakharov (Soviet nuclear scientist)? Heisenberg also comes to mind. A big bunch of the Manhattan Project was jewish, though. Tim -- Deep Fryer: a very philosophical monk. Website: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms
From: T Wake on 3 Oct 2006 17:04 <mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message news:dfhUg.41$45.137(a)news.uchicago.edu... > In article <45219CAF.CF32F90C(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> writes: >> >> >>mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >> >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> writes: >>> >mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >>> >> "T Wake" writes: >>> >> >>> >> >The victory conditions are either nonsensical or nonachievable. Has >>> >> >any "War >>> >> >on Terror" been won? >>> >> > >>> >> The term "War on Terror" is a misnomer. It really should be "The war >>> >> on Islamic extremism". Terror is just a tool. >>> > >>> >Obfuscation noted. >>> > >>> >So, are you saying it's possible to win a 'war on Islamic extremism' ? >>> >>> Yes. Though, unfortunately, far stronger means than those currently >>> employed may be needed. I hope I'm wrong on this. >> >>Do go on..... >> > Not at present. Note, though, that Germany and Japan ceased to be a > problem after 1945. Which country would you nuke? The war against Germany and Japan was declared internationally against sovereign nations. When their government toppled the countries surrendered. The war on terror is against a belief. You could nuke every country in the middle east and still not win. Oddly, the UK / US act more like Germany and Japan did in WWII. Which doesn't bode well for your endgame.
From: Lloyd Parker on 3 Oct 2006 12:13 In article <g205i2dq8n267ob4gkruf9abrebi4nbblf(a)4ax.com>, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Tue, 03 Oct 06 09:51:23 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) >wrote: > >>In article <jqhUg.45399$bf5.39370(a)edtnps90>, >> "Homer J Simpson" <nobody(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >>> >>>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message >>>news:hu33i2tqjfg6nfvg8d5o1krhaq0lr1umhi(a)4ax.com... >>> >>>> The issue is whether non-US-citizens have Constitutional rights when >>>> they are not physically in the USA, or whether US citizens have such >>>> rights when captured in a foreign country while fighting against our >>>> military. >>> >>>The US believes that US law applies everywhere in the world, but US >>>constitutional rights don't apply to anyone who isn't the 'right sort of >>>person'. >>> >>> >>> >> >>Tell me how many times the Bill of Rights says "people" and how many times it >>says "citizens." > >It says "the people", not the more global "people." Not the more restrictive "citizen" is more to the point. >And it does >recognize the concept of US citizenship. Yes, which makes it even more telling that it spells out the rights of "people" not "citizens." >And in fact the constitution >originally recognized that slaves did not have full rights of regular >citizens, so there's plenty of precedent for allowing preferential >rights to citizens. > But slaves really weren't considered "people" -- 3/5, remember? And they were property. Quite different from people who are here but just not citizens. >But US law certainly doesn't apply everywhere, Never said it did. But it applies everywhere on US territory, whether the person involved is a citizen or not. >and the US courts >recognize that. It's self-appointed "International Courts" which claim >global reach. > >John > Well, if we sign a treaty recognizing that, it's part of our law too.
From: Lloyd Parker on 3 Oct 2006 12:14
In article <wGvUg.1284$NE6.314(a)newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >news:4522814D.248F1F7E(a)hotmail.com... >> >> >> lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >> >>> Ahmadinejad hasn't made the mistake of genocide like Saddam did, he's >>> just >>> not very popular. >> >> How did he get elected then ? > >The glib answer is "Just like Bush." Look at how popular *he* is. > >The honest answer is, I don't know. I have to admit I'm not familiar with >the workings of the Iranian government. What I do know of the situation >comes from the writings of several scholars of the Middle East, who, to a >man, say that Ahmadinejad is not popular with his constituency, and will be >gone presently if we don't stir the pot too much. > >Eric Lucas > > For one thing, he got elected because the unelected Council of Guardians (mullahs) disqualified pretty much everyone who was not a hard-line conservative. |