Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 3 Oct 2006 19:25 T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote > > 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. Actually no. They fight against those claiming to have legal jurisdiction in the area. Also there is no requirement that it use terror methods either. > 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? I don't know enough about that. Graham
From: John Fields on 3 Oct 2006 19:25 On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 17:03:12 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >JoeBloe wrote: > >> On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 14:17:53 +0100, Eeyore >> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: >> >> >US aid is frequently accompanied by compulsory 'trade concessions' that favour the >> >USA. >> >> Funny, I don't recall us ever asking Russia for anything for the >> millions of tons of wheat we have sent them over the last several >> decades. > >Why does Russia need 'aid' ? Why is it going there. Can't they pay for it? --- Why don't you do your own legwork? -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: T Wake on 3 Oct 2006 19:30 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4522F181.41DC0D07(a)hotmail.com... > > > T Wake wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote >> > 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. > > Actually no. They fight against those claiming to have legal jurisdiction > in the > area. Also there is no requirement that it use terror methods either. This is pedantry. Terrorists fight those who claim legal jurisdiction. While there is no "requirement" that insurgents use terror-tactics, most (if not all do). >> 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? > > I don't know enough about that. > Same as the French ones only German and not as effective.
From: JoeBloe on 3 Oct 2006 19:31 On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 17:31:58 +0100, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> Gave us: >It would be a great world where you could shoot any one who didn't agree >with you, wouldn't it? It isn't his agreement or disagreement, it is his utter lies and total stupidity, and... oh yeah... the US hatred thing. He's no more than a retarded goddamned troll.
From: Eeyore on 3 Oct 2006 19:34
T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote > > T Wake wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote > >> > T Wake wrote: > >> > > >> >> The key is removing the lifeblood of the terrorists. Without this, it > >> >> will never end. > >> > > >> > Their lifeblood is quite simply injustices ( real or perceived ). Can > >> > you remove them ? > >> > >> It isn't always their lifeblood and if you don't the conflict will last > >> for eternity. > >> > >> You can disable a terrorist group by stopping the local people from > >> supporting them. This is where removing the perception of injustice comes > >> from. > > > > How are you going to persuade the locals of this ? > > I never said it was easy. This is what a hearts and minds campaign consists > of. > > You only asked could this be done. The answer is yes. In the long term I dare say. It won't be done by force though. > >> Look at the [expletive deleted] from Leeds who blew up the underground. > >> For them to function there has to be places where they can exist and move > >> about. > > > > Their homes it would seem and the streets in the places where they live. > > Yes. Because the local people support their fight. Actually it seems that local ppl have been genuinely surprised. > How can this be the case in a developed country with a democratically elected > government and low unemployment? Because it has nothing to do with any of the above. > If I disagree with a government policy I dont blow myself up to make a > point. You come from a different culture. > >> Educate people that these are not "Fighting for a cause" and you make it > >> a little bit harder for them. Educate people that they (bombers) are evil > >> criminals and you make it harder yet. > > > > How are you going to educate them about this idea ? Why should they > > believe you? > > They don't have to. I never said it would be successful. You asked could it > be done. > > Previously you refered to Borneo as a success story. This is how it > happened. > > The education begins with teaching the people what a democracy is and what > is good about it. By educating people to be a part of society not separate > themselves. > > If they chose not accept this then the conflict will continue. Eventually > one side will die out. > > >> Alternatively you could put every mosque under armed guard and provide > >> them with no end of support.... :-) > > > > Whose 'support' are you referring to ? > > Well, mine for a start, if the government ever took such a measure. I was thinking that posting armed gurds around Mosques would actually help the extremists. > I will redirect the questioning - how to you propose to disable and disarm > the current terrorist threat? I don't believe it can ever be completely done ( disable and disarm ) The only way to change this long term is simply by acting honourably and hoping it gets noticed. Graham |