Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 3 Oct 2006 18:53 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4522E78E.8D15FE63(a)hotmail.com... > > > T Wake wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote >> > T Wake wrote: >> > >> >> If we stick to the WWII analogy, >> >> the French resistance were certainly terrorists >> > >> > More like insurgents in fact. >> >> In my lexicon there is no difference ;-) > > Trust me, there is one. Really? Technically there may be, given that insurgents fight an invading force. However terrorist is a broad term which has any meaning you want to give it. Literally it implies causing terror. Insurgents certainly did that. Just because they were attacking the "invaders" doesn't change it much. If you were a German soldier, they would have felt like terrorists. In the military the term Counter Insurgency is [was] used almost synonymously with Counter Terrorist. If you wont accept the French resistance as terrorists, what about the German resistance?
From: T Wake on 3 Oct 2006 18:56 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4522E812.EB03B19(a)hotmail.com... > > > T Wake wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote >> > T Wake wrote: >> >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote >> >> > John Fields wrote: >> >> >> On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 23:50:11 +0100, Eeyore wrote: >> >> >> >> >So, are you saying it's possible to win a 'war on Islamic >> >> >> >extremism' >> >> >> >? >> >> >> >> >> >> We won the one on German extremism so who's to say it's not >> >> >> possible >> >> >> to win this one? >> >> > >> >> > The Nazi party was genuinely popular. >> >> >> >> In the Early Days, then when popularity showed signs of wavering the >> >> "Enemy" appeared. >> > >> > Eh ? >> >> The Nazi party propaganda blamed the economic crisis on the Jews etc. >> This >> helped to shore up popular support for the government and ensure that all >> manner of draconian legislation could be brought in to what was >> previously a >> free and democratic society. > > I see what you mean. Not just the Jews though. Communists too for > mexample. > Yes. We [tinw] don't just demonise Islam though.... We [tinw] also demonise Eastern Europeans, Africans etc. (Even as far as shooting a Brazilian Catholic...) In my job I provide security risk management advice to companies and currently, the perception of threat from "middle easterners" or "Asians" is phenomenal. And totally out of proportion to the threat. More likely to die in a plane crash than to be even injured in a terrorist attack. (Now, what we really need is a war on traffic accidents...)
From: T Wake on 3 Oct 2006 18:58 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4522E895.E22B6570(a)hotmail.com... > > > T Wake wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote >> > T Wake wrote: >> >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> >> > In article <452197A3.17CCE793(a)hotmail.com>, >> >> > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>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. >> > >> > How about removing the either and replacing the or with and ? >> >> Also an option. Any one of those three will work. >> >> (simplistic examples) >> >> If westerners are more concerned with staying alive than having their >> freedoms eventually they will convert and the conflict will end. > > Why would they ever convert and why do you even consider that this is what > it's > about ? Because this is the simplistic example. They would convert because, as the example said, they are more concerned with staying alive than remaining free. The easiest way to end the conflict (simplistic example, remember) is to capitulate and turn the country into an Islamic Republic. Sorry if it was hard to follow. >> If the population in the Middle East become enticed by freedom and it's >> potential then the support for terrorists will dry up and the conflict >> will >> end. >> >> If both happens the conflict will end. (In an odd way though :-)) > > I suspect both are needed. I still think an either / or would do the trick as well.
From: Homer J Simpson on 3 Oct 2006 18:59 "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message news:4tGdnW9CkqRbQ7_YnZ2dnUVZ8smdnZ2d(a)pipex.net... > Alternatively you could put every mosque under armed guard and provide > them with no end of support.... :-) Or move them all to the Outer Hebrides - and the Muslims with them!
From: Eeyore on 3 Oct 2006 19:00
T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote > > Homer J Simpson wrote: > >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote > >> > >> > Not sure anyone has. Off the top of my head I cant think of any long > >> > term > >> > success against terrorists. > >> > >> British in Malaysia? > > > > British in Kenya. > > Same deal. There were some horrendous atrocities but they were far enough > from the public eye to pass unnoticed for years. The real atrocities were black on black btw. > The hearts and minds with the population did the trick. As it has often done for the British Army but the US version has fucked that up for sure. Graham |