Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: mmeron on 1 Oct 2006 19:39 In article <45205022.CCB68B6B(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> writes: > > >mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: > >> "Homer J Simpson" <nobody(a)nowhere.com> writes: >> >"Gordon" <gordonlr(a)DELETEswbell.net> wrote in message >> > >> >>>So you are saying they are NOT better Xtians than everyone else? >> >>> >> >> No, I'm saying that this war on terrorism started long before >> >> President Bush and the present Republican administration was >> >> involved in any way. >> > >> >But it isn't a war. >> >> It is a war. Refusing to recognize it as such will not make it go >> away. > >It's not a meaningful war since the 'enemy' isn't an identifiable entity but a 'view'. > That just makes it a far worse and more dangerous war. Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, meron(a)cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
From: T Wake on 1 Oct 2006 19:44 <mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message news:0lYTg.4$45.126(a)news.uchicago.edu... > In article <45205022.CCB68B6B(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> writes: >> >> >>mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >> >>> "Homer J Simpson" <nobody(a)nowhere.com> writes: >>> >"Gordon" <gordonlr(a)DELETEswbell.net> wrote in message >>> > >>> >>>So you are saying they are NOT better Xtians than everyone else? >>> >>> >>> >> No, I'm saying that this war on terrorism started long before >>> >> President Bush and the present Republican administration was >>> >> involved in any way. >>> > >>> >But it isn't a war. >>> >>> It is a war. Refusing to recognize it as such will not make it go >>> away. >> >>It's not a meaningful war since the 'enemy' isn't an identifiable entity >>but a 'view'. >> > That just makes it a far worse and more dangerous war. I think you have too broad a definition of the term "war." I fight a war against grass in my garden every week. I seem to be losing.
From: martin griffith on 1 Oct 2006 19:45 On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 23:39:40 GMT, in sci.electronics.design mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >In article <45205022.CCB68B6B(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> writes: >> >> >>mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >> >>> "Homer J Simpson" <nobody(a)nowhere.com> writes: >>> >"Gordon" <gordonlr(a)DELETEswbell.net> wrote in message >>> > >>> >>>So you are saying they are NOT better Xtians than everyone else? >>> >>> >>> >> No, I'm saying that this war on terrorism started long before >>> >> President Bush and the present Republican administration was >>> >> involved in any way. >>> > >>> >But it isn't a war. >>> >>> It is a war. Refusing to recognize it as such will not make it go >>> away. >> >>It's not a meaningful war since the 'enemy' isn't an identifiable entity but a 'view'. >> >That just makes it a far worse and more dangerous war. > >Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, >meron(a)cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same" Main Entry: amor?phous Pronunciation: &-'mor-f&s Function: adjective Etymology: Greek amorphos, from a- + morphE form 1 a : having no definite form : SHAPELESS <an amorphous cloud mass> b : being without definite character or nature : UNCLASSIFIABLE <an amorphous segment of society> c : lacking organization or unity <an amorphous style of writing> 2 : having no real or apparent crystalline form <an amorphous mineral> martin
From: Gordon on 1 Oct 2006 19:47 On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 22:14:02 GMT, "Homer J Simpson" <nobody(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > >"Gordon" <gordonlr(a)DELETEswbell.net> wrote in message >news:00c0i29vn31ejl71pku1d0r1nfaevj6p4i(a)4ax.com... > >>>So you are saying they are NOT better Xtians than everyone else? >>> >> No, I'm saying that this war on terrorism started long before >> President Bush and the present Republican administration was >> involved in any way. > >But it isn't a war. It is a problem for a police force that requires >international cooperation, something the US is notoriously unable or >unwilling to be involved in. > Homer, I don't agree with you, but you are certainly entitled to your opinion. A police force of international cooperation just doesn't seem available. The main reason this won't work is that Europe needs Mid-East petroleum and the Mid-East needs European manufactured goods. For the most part, Europe just isn't going to get involved to the extent that would jeopardize their petroleum supply. The terrorists would have taken those Mid-East petroleum sources out before now had this not been the case. The thing that I do not understand at all is what the Muslim terrorists' goal was/is. They surely didn't think we would knuckle under and surrender to them without a fight. So, it seems they really did want us to engage them in an all-out war situation. Why? It took them 22 years to get a full scale war going with us, full bore, but what is their ultimate goal? The way I see the situation, presently, is that our government and the coalition governments are not bent on immediately overwhelming of the terrorist cells. It seems that a great many of the key terrorists are being "allowed" to continue their program and in the process serve as "maggot magnets." By this I mean they are serving well in the process of drawing a lot of jihad psychotics into the cross-hairs where they can be eliminated. This is effectively culling the Mid-East of a lot of extremists and if enough of them are taken out, the whole jihad operation may collapse. This could produce something in the form of a Darwinian selection process, given enough time. That is, it might not be the best solution to whip the terrorist cells down immediately and force them to withdraw into deep levels of hiding, only to spring back up again as soon as we pull our forces out. As long as the terrorist cells think they are still able to continue their jihad commitment they will likely keep active and that means exposing themselves, a few at a time, to the annihilation process. Gordon
From: John Fields on 1 Oct 2006 19:56
On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 22:51:16 GMT, "Homer J Simpson" <nobody(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > >"T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message >news:c7WdncygLPPv3r3YRVnytQ(a)pipex.net... > >> Calling it a war legitimizes the terrorists and stops people thinking of >> them as criminals who should be punished. For thirty years the British >> were terrorized by Irish Republicans, it was never called a "war." >> >> The western world bandies the term "war" around much too easily. (War on >> Terror, War on Drugs, War on Obesity etc.) > >It's the Yanks that do that. They like the sound of it. They COULD have a >"War on Stupidity" but Bush (and Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice) would be SO the >wrong persons to lead THAT. --- Awww... You're just trying to discredit them because you're afraid that the first target would be you. -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer |