Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: JoeBloe on 3 Oct 2006 19:06 On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 16:13:24 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> Gave us: >Yep, all it takes is a "Mission Accomplished" banner, and you too can >declare victory in your favorite war on x...and here's the best >part...without actually having to accomplish anything. What have you EVER done to make the world a better place?
From: mmeron on 3 Oct 2006 19:07 In article <eftat5$8ss_005(a)s888.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: >In article <XplUg.45$45.124(a)news.uchicago.edu>, > mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >>In article <2kj3i2du8jqbhpcei9mh1469dmncvt7bck(a)4ax.com>, John Fields ><jfields(a)austininstruments.com> writes: >>>On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 00:05:51 GMT, mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >>> >>>>In article <v673i2dusng3t5a82qt9hm7n8ve5p4t7ua(a)4ax.com>, John Fields ><jfields(a)austininstruments.com> writes: >>>>>On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 19:59:42 +0100, "T Wake" >>>>><usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message >>>>>>news:3kh2i2p1qoa888afm2l1ksq3j2qcvcfvrl(a)4ax.com... >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> So what? With world domonation as its goal, one would expect it >>>>>>> would strike world-wide, as the opportunity arose. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Whose goal? "It" isn't really appropriate to define the long term aims of >a >>>>>>disparate group of organisations. Are "they" trying to dominate the world >or >>>>>>destroy western society or convert every one or... >>>>> >>>>>--- >>>>>"It" being radical Islam, the goal, in my opinion, would be to >>>>>convert everyone to Islam and have them be subject to control by >>>>>Muslim jurists, the goal being total world domination by Islam. >>>>> >>>>>Refusal to convert would result in death. >>>>> >>>>No, not quite. True about the part of world domination, not about the >>>>other one. Islam recognizes two categories of non-believers. One is >>>>"polytheists" for whom, indeed, the accepted options are conversion or >>>>death. The other is "Um al_Kitab", meaning "Nations of the Book", >>>>which includes Christians and Jews. These may be allowed to live >>>>without converting but only as "dhimmi" (you may check on this term). >>>>Meaning, second class subjects, possessing the (limited) rights >>>>granted them by their Muslim rulers, with the stipulation that said >>>>rights may be withdrawn at the whim of the rulers. >>> >>>--- >>>How pleasant to read a scholar! Thank you. >>> >>>Two small comments, if I may; the first being that I believe "Um >>>al_Kitab" means "People of the Book", and the second being that I >>>don't believe _radical_ Islam would have any qualms about >>>dispatching non-converts whether they were people of the book or >>>not. >>> >>>What do you think? >>> >>Yes, I agree. "People" is really the more appropriate translation of >>"Um". In fact I think that Islam doesn't even really recognize the >>concept of "nation". As for the second, again, yes. There is no >>stipulation, to my knowledge, that "Um al-Kitab" must be allowed to >>live (without converting), only that they may be allowed to live (with >>the decision left to those in power). > >I think that a lot of this sorting out has to do with peoples >figuring out what nation means and how to run one. At least, >that's my current hypothesis. The Islamic civil law book was >created and evolved based on nationless empire. Yes, yes, yes. You're on the right track. > I don't know enough about law and civil administrations to be able to >exptrapolate while streining out my Western civilization bias. > Well, I'll leave you thinking about it, for a bit. 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 3 Oct 2006 19:08 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4522EB81.79984E79(a)hotmail.com... > > > 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. Yes, often the case. Sadly the local populace dont really see that. In Vietnam the _worst_ atrocities were carried out by the Vietnamese, but the Americans got the blame. The British in Kenya / Malaysia were not clean cut though, handing a prisoner over who you know will be tortured is still banned by the Geneva Accords. >> 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. Yes. Unfortunately the Americans have the double edged sword of so much fire power. It gives them a fantastic advantage in combat, but tends to make the appear bullying peace keepers / occupiers. Every time they kick a door down and rough up the inhabitants as part of a routine patrol it provides support for the enemy.
From: T Wake on 3 Oct 2006 19:11 "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message news:n6r5i25q6mfsbj8ml6ejevpb8aiusn46pp(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 16:13:24 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> Gave us: > >>Yep, all it takes is a "Mission Accomplished" banner, and you too can >>declare victory in your favorite war on x...and here's the best >>part...without actually having to accomplish anything. > > What have you EVER done to make the world a better place? Not being you is a good start.
From: mmeron on 3 Oct 2006 19:11
In article <eftbpt$8ss_008(a)s888.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: >In article <MeqUg.46$45.147(a)news.uchicago.edu>, > mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >>In article <eft89f$20j$1(a)news.al.sw.ericsson.se>, "Frithiof Andreas Jensen" ><frithiof.jensen(a)die_spammer_die.ericsson.com> writes: >>> >>><mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message >>>news:4ngUg.37$45.164(a)news.uchicago.edu... >>>> In article <g8OdnRoTOcYdo7zYRVnyiw(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" >>><usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> writes: >>>> > >>>> ><mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message >>>> >news:g0%Tg.10$45.93(a)news.uchicago.edu... >>>> > >>>> >> >>>> >> As I said, you're thinking way too small. And, too parochial. The >>>> >> belief that other people are just reacting to what we do, not acting >>>> >> on their own plans and ideas, is touching, but not anchored in >>>> >> reality. It is a pleasant belief, no doubt, since it presents us with >>>> >> the illusion of control, with the sense that ultimately all that's >>>> >> happening depends only on what we do, thus we just have to find the >>>> >> proper mode of behavior and everything will be great. A pleasant >>>> >> illusion, but no more than this. >>>> >> >>>> > >>>> >So, if the West's actions have no impact on the behaviour of the >"opponent," >>>> >how can the war be won? Your post implies that nothing we [tinw] can do >will >>>> >change their behaviour. >>>> > >>>> We did change the behavior of Germany and Japan, didn't we? >>> >>>At the cost of maybe 20% of the German population - which clearly noone is >>>willing to pay yet in the middle east; mainly because it would look really >bad >>>on TeeVee. If one is not going to fight for real and destroy the opponents >there >>>is really, really no point in sending soldiers. >> >>Well, so here is the situation. As Clausevitz wrote, war doesn't end >>till the spirit of one of the opponents is not broken. Now, the >>breaking point will depend on the specific nation as well as on the >>circumstances of the specific war, but based on ample historical data >>it is somewhere in the vicinity of 10% of the population (give or take >>factor two for the specific circumstances). But, since we're living >>in kinder and gentler times", we prefer to ignore the empirical >>record, and hope, against hope, that somehow, by some miracle, same >>result can be obtained much cheaper. Now, miracles can be very nice >>when they happen, but putting trust in them is not very wise. So, >>yes, I agree with you, absent the readiness to fight for real we're >>just biding our time. > >Clarification, please? A mindset change of a people only needs >10% of them to change? This doesn't make sense,...unless..... >it's the intelligensia that has to do the changing. Another >question, if the answer is yes to the 10% of the population, is >there a particular sector of workers that have to do the changing? > You didn't read carefully. It is not "10% changing". It is that historical data indicates dramatic changes when about 10% of the population is *dead*. Does this make it clear? Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, meron(a)cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same" |