Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 3 Oct 2006 19:15 T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote > > T Wake wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote > >> > Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote: > >> >> T Wake wrote: > >> >> > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote > > >> >> >> Is Hezbollah a terrorist organisation ? > >> >> > > >> >> > If you are asking my opinion..... then yes. A nasty, ruthless one. > >> >> > However sometimes terrorists seem to come in from the cold. > >> >> > >> >> That's the point at which they've won. > >> > > >> > Looks like they won in that case. > >> > >> Do you count Hizbullah as a terrorist organisation? > > > > I don't see a clear cut black and white case either way quite frankly. > > Fair one. Which side of the fence do you put them on a a personal opinion? I truthfully don't know enough to make a decision. > > The Turkish Gov't has a similar problem with the KDP. > > Also Terrorists. But our friends ! Graham
From: T Wake on 3 Oct 2006 19:16 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4522EEAD.94D0E058(a)hotmail.com... > > > T Wake wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote >> > T Wake wrote: >> >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote >> >> > T Wake wrote: >> >> >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote >> >> >> >> > Is Hezbollah a terrorist organisation ? >> >> >> >> >> >> If you are asking my opinion..... then yes. A nasty, ruthless one. >> >> >> However sometimes terrorists seem to come in from the cold. >> >> > >> >> > How do you account for its presence as a political party with >> >> > elected >> >> > members and its welfare schemes ? >> >> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah >> >> >> >> As I said, sometimes terrorists come in from the cold. They are an >> >> organisation dedicated to the overthrow of another state through >> >> terror >> >> based tactics. As I said, my personal opinion is that they are >> >> terrorists. >> >> >> >> I am sure the locals they support do not hold the same view. >> > >> > So, if such an organisation shows the signs of coming in the the cold >> > should that not be encouraged ? >> >> Well, depends on your perspective. >> >> The easy answer is yes. Get them on side and convert them into a >> sovereign >> nation which can exist in the world and stop their bombings. Makes sense. >> >> However it has two stumbling blocks. >> >> First off, how do you get the "victims" of their attacks to sit back when >> they wouldn't sit back. As with GFA, we now let terrorist murders back >> out >> onto the streets - how do you think the families who lost people should >> react? Terrorism feeds itself with the vicious circle and there is no >> clear >> cut reason as to which side should give up first. > > I don't see anything unique about that involved with this course of > action. I didnt say there wa anything unique about it, I said it was a problem when it came to negotating with former terrorists. >> Secondly, you risk encouraging others. For example the only possible >> official diplomatic standpoints you can hold with terrorists (or >> kidnappers >> etc) is no negotiation. As soon as you negotiate, more join in. By >> letting >> one group bomb you to the negotiating table it implies to the others that >> as >> long as they can hold out and kill enough of "you," eventually you will >> join >> them in talks. > > So it was wrong to talk to the IRA ? Personal opinion? Yes. >> From a personal opinion, Hezbollah are genuine scum who despite current >> appearances should continue to be treated as terrorists. Sadly, their >> enemy >> state only exists because the west gave in to terrorists so they (may) >> feel >> if they go long enough they can get it as well. > > It's called realpolitik. Call it anything you want. It gets in the way of solving the problem. What would your answer be?
From: John Fields on 3 Oct 2006 19:17 On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 08:29:14 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 15:30:02 +0100, Eeyore ><rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >>lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >> >>> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:452198F0.A71D16AC(a)hotmail.com... >>> > >>> > >>> > John Fields wrote: >>> > >>> >> You miss no opportunity to lambaste the US, its population, its >>> >> government, its institutions, and you hate its very existence, so >>> >> what do you expect me to think, that you're a benevolent soul trying >>> >> to help with constructive criticism? >>> > >>> > I thought it was fine under Clinton ! >>> >>> Yes, but you see, if he denigrates your point of view by labelling you as >>> someone that could never say anything good about the US, then he doesn't >>> have to take your point of view seriously and try to understand that perhaps >>> it might even be a valid point of view, that an intelligent person may be >>> capable of coming to through independent thought. It's the same thing the >>> Bush administration does by labelling everyone that disagrees with it a >>> "traitor" (under the *extremely* liberal interpretations that disagreeing >>> with your government is tantamount to aiding the enemy.) What they seem to >>> fail to understand is that the Constitution gives every US citizen is given >>> the *responsibility* to question its government *every single* day of their >>> lives. It really is sad that the Bush administration has seen fit to >>> legitimize this sort of anti-American behavior. >> >>I saw Keith Olberman's broadcast on this issue. >> >>I find it truly fantastic that the US Gov't has become such a cesspool of >>fuckwits and that so may of the US population are keen to lap it up. >> >>Graham > >It was some time ago that you stopped thinking and stopped discussing >and began ranting. I sure hope you don't design electronics with a >similar level of intellectual effort. --- Like when he advocated using a chip to drive 8, 20mA LEDs when the absolute maximum current in the supply or the ground pin was limited to 75mA? -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: Eeyore on 3 Oct 2006 19:19 T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote > > T Wake wrote: > > > >> His [Ahmadinejad] election was heavily assisted by the Religious leaders though... > > > > Do you have any cite for that ? > > I will endeavour to find a relevant one, a quick slightly relevant one is - > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/16/AR2005061601056.html. > The Guardian Council vetted the presidential candidates to ensure no one too > "reformist" would be on the bill. There was a front runner who was considered more western leaning though. > > My understanding was that his electoral success was a surprise to most > > observers. > > Yes. It was. The last president was a secular reformist. Still does not mean > the elections were fair and open democratic process showing the will of the > people. It's not a democracy as we'd understand it for sure. Graham
From: JoeBloe on 3 Oct 2006 19:24
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 17:22:12 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: >Sssshhhh. You shouldn't ask tricky questions like that ! Shhhhhh! You're an idiot! We don' need no stinkin' idiots! > >Obviously it's a 'war' on the terrorists 'we' disapprove of. We'll call the >other ones guerillas. That sounds alright doesn't it ? You're an idiot. Indisputably so. > >Graham > |