Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 4 Oct 2006 05:48 lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message > > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message. > >> T Wake wrote: > >>> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote > >>> > T Wake wrote: > >>> >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote > >>> >> > T Wake wrote: > >>> >> > > >>> >> >> Personally I think without 11 Sept 2001, the situation in NI would > >>> >> >> still be hostile. > >>> >> > > >>> >> > The timescale doesn't fit with that idea. > >>> >> > >>> >> Prior to the "GWOT" > >>> > > >>> > GWOT ? > >>> > >>> Global War on Terror. > >> > >> Which the Good Friday Agreement pre-dated by many years. > > > > Well, three. > > And that's just reckoning to the visible *public* aspects of the GWOT (for > want of a better name). It seems pretty clear to me that the FBI and CIA > must have been significantly ramping up their surveillance after the first > WTC bombing--what was that, 1998? Remember, at the time, that was a *major* > event in the US--it was the first major time the conflict in the Middle East > had spilled over onto US soil. The Northern Irish plots that got sniffed > out in that increased effort could well have had a chilling effect on the > IRAs activities long before the visible efforts at combatting terror that > started after 9/11, and may well have been one of the things that led the > IRA to sit down and be party to the Good Friday Agreement. These are all > speculations on my part, but they seem plausible. Whilst I'd accept that the GWOT may have been the nail in the IRA's coffin, the Good Friday Agreement was the culmination of years of work. Check out the Anglo-Irish Agreement for example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Irish_Agreement Graham
From: Eeyore on 4 Oct 2006 05:52 mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: > In article <4522F8DE.C46161BD(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore writes: > >mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: > > > >> 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? > > > >So, we only need to kill 100 million Muslims or so ? > > > I didn't say, at the moment, what we need (or need not) to do. I > pointed what empirical data for past conflicts shows. Go argue with > history if you don't like it. But you still mainatain we'd need to kill that many to have an effect ? Graham
From: Eeyore on 4 Oct 2006 05:54 lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote > > Homer J Simpson wrote: > >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote > >> > >> > 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! > > > > With such a wide selection to choose from, I often wonder why we have no > > prison islands. You could make the prisoners actually work the land and > > stuff. You never know, it might do them good. > > Well, you tried that with Australia. What happened to that? Seemed to work - LOL ! Another British success story. Truth is that they were forced colonists rather than outright criminals. Graham
From: Eeyore on 4 Oct 2006 06:02 thelasian wrote: > T Wake wrote: > > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > > 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. > > Sorry but the last president was himself a turbaned cleric and not > secular, though he was a reformist. Thus neatly disposing of the idea that we should be afraid of Islam ! They do have reformers, a point seemingly lost on most Americans. > Furthermore, the elections in Iran > can be criticized for many things but there is no doubt that > Ahmadinejad won the majority of the votes, and that the voters rejected > the more liberal candidate. THis, after the US encouraged the voters to > boycott the vote. Not to mention after Bush's 'axis of evil' nonsense that doubtless pissed off most Iranians and made them more hard-line. If there was ever any reason not to tinker....... Graham
From: jmfbahciv on 4 Oct 2006 05:13
In article <uaEUg.11168$6S3.1521(a)newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:eftb20$8ss_006(a)s888.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <DReUg.28$45.71(a)news.uchicago.edu>, >> mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >>>In article <9n22i2tv97gi1nu17cif4u0nlj2el109nf(a)4ax.com>, JoeBloe >> <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> writes: >>>>On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 09:24:57 GMT, mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu Gave us: >>>> >>>>>In article <4520D8A3.4083F074(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore >> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>Al Qaeda wasn't really known about prior to 9/11 so your point is moot. >>>>>> >>>>>Al Queda was known for at least a decade before 9/11. "Not paid >>>>>attention to" is not the same thing as "not known". And Al Queda >>>>>itself is just an offshot of earlier movements. >>>>> >>>> Why even converse with that stupid idiot? >>> >>>Good question. >> >> Because the content of his posts are a catalyst for real >> discussions that aren't getting done in the usual mediums. > >Kind of a nice change of pace, isn't it? Well, I'd like to have a few less crapolas posts so I can find the ones were posted by thoughtful people. /BAH |