Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: lucasea on 1 Oct 2006 20:58 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45205A9F.698166CE(a)hotmail.com... > > > Gordon wrote: > >> On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 22:14:02 GMT, "Homer J Simpson" wrote: >> >"Gordon" <gordonlr(a)DELETEswbell.net> wrote >> > >> >> No, I'm saying that this war on terrorism started long before >> >> President Bush and the present Republican administration was >> >> involved in any way. >> > >> >But it isn't a war. It is a problem for a police force that requires >> >international cooperation, something the US is notoriously unable or >> >unwilling to be involved in. >> >> Homer, I don't agree with you, but you are certainly entitled to >> your opinion. A police force of international cooperation just >> doesn't seem available. The main reason this won't work is that >> Europe needs Mid-East petroleum and the Mid-East needs European >> manufactured goods. For the most part, Europe just isn't going to >> get involved to the extent that would jeopardize their petroleum >> supply. > > Europe's not interested in getting much more involved largely because > Europe wasn't the target of the 9/11 terrorists. That may and may not be true, but it is clear that after 9/11, the US did get a lot of international support in its mission. > Most of Europe is > frankly sick of the USA to the proverbial back teeth. Unfortunately, I think you're exactly right, and it doesn't stop with Europe. All that international goodwill that we had after 9/11 evaporated when the Shrub chose to play cowboy and destroy a large fraction of that goodwill. >> The thing that I do not understand at all is what the Muslim >> terrorists' goal was/is. They surely didn't think we would >> knuckle under and surrender to them without a fight. So, it seems >> they really did want us to engage them in an all-out war >> situation. Why? It took them 22 years to get a full scale war >> going with us, full bore, but what is their ultimate goal? Well, I don't know if it was their goal, but they've certainly succeeded in getting our government to take away a number of Constitutional rights, all in the name of the hallowed "War on Terror". Since those rights are what we like to strut around as the thing that gives us the moral superiority to go throwing our weight around in the world political arena, I'd say they've succeeded in lessening us. > It's not a full-scale war. It's still capable of tying up the US and UK > military very effectively though. Yep, and what happens when we are faced with a "real war"? Eric Lucas
From: Eeyore on 1 Oct 2006 21:07 Gordon wrote: > On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 01:19:47 +0100, Eeyore wrote: > >mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: > > > >> The Islamic terrorists aim at destruction of the western society > > > >Where did you get that idea ? > > > >Graham > > > Their Koran makes this pretty clear. The fundamental goal of the > Muslim religion is to make the entire world Muslim and anyone who > won't convert is to be executed. > > There are several Surah, Ayah in their Koran that say essentially > the same as this one None of which has anything to do with the ' destruction of the western society '. Graham
From: Eeyore on 1 Oct 2006 21:09 lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote > > Gordon wrote: > >> On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 22:14:02 GMT, "Homer J Simpson" wrote: > >> >"Gordon" <gordonlr(a)DELETEswbell.net> wrote > >> > > >> >> No, I'm saying that this war on terrorism started long before > >> >> President Bush and the present Republican administration was > >> >> involved in any way. > >> > > >> >But it isn't a war. It is a problem for a police force that requires > >> >international cooperation, something the US is notoriously unable or > >> >unwilling to be involved in. > >> > >> Homer, I don't agree with you, but you are certainly entitled to > >> your opinion. A police force of international cooperation just > >> doesn't seem available. The main reason this won't work is that > >> Europe needs Mid-East petroleum and the Mid-East needs European > >> manufactured goods. For the most part, Europe just isn't going to > >> get involved to the extent that would jeopardize their petroleum > >> supply. > > > > Europe's not interested in getting much more involved largely because > > Europe wasn't the target of the 9/11 terrorists. > > That may and may not be true, but it is clear that after 9/11, the US did > get a lot of international support in its mission. From gullible fools perhaps. > > Most of Europe is > > frankly sick of the USA to the proverbial back teeth. > > Unfortunately, I think you're exactly right, and it doesn't stop with > Europe. All that international goodwill that we had after 9/11 evaporated > when the Shrub chose to play cowboy and destroy a large fraction of that > goodwill. Exactly right. And wanting 'revenge' doesn't come over well either. > >> The thing that I do not understand at all is what the Muslim > >> terrorists' goal was/is. They surely didn't think we would > >> knuckle under and surrender to them without a fight. So, it seems > >> they really did want us to engage them in an all-out war > >> situation. Why? It took them 22 years to get a full scale war > >> going with us, full bore, but what is their ultimate goal? > > Well, I don't know if it was their goal, but they've certainly succeeded in > getting our government to take away a number of Constitutional rights, all > in the name of the hallowed "War on Terror". Since those rights are what we > like to strut around as the thing that gives us the moral superiority to go > throwing our weight around in the world political arena, I'd say they've > succeeded in lessening us. > > > It's not a full-scale war. It's still capable of tying up the US and UK > > military very effectively though. > > Yep, and what happens when we are faced with a "real war"? Better hope there isn't one then ! Graham
From: mmeron on 1 Oct 2006 21:18 In article <4520595E.F279285A(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> writes: > > >mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> writes: >> >mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >> >> "Homer J Simpson" <nobody(a)nowhere.com> writes: >> >> >"Gordon" <gordonlr(a)DELETEswbell.net> wrote in message >> >> > >> >> >>>So you are saying they are NOT better Xtians than everyone else? >> >> >>> >> >> >> No, I'm saying that this war on terrorism started long before >> >> >> President Bush and the present Republican administration was >> >> >> involved in any way. >> >> > >> >> >But it isn't a war. >> >> >> >> It is a war. Refusing to recognize it as such will not make it go >> >> away. >> > >> >It's not a meaningful war since the 'enemy' isn't an identifiable entity but a 'view'. >> >> That just makes it a far worse and more dangerous war. > >Far more dangerous to us in the West for sure ! It is making Radical Islamist thinking more popular. > If you think, for a moment, that the popularity of radical Islamic thinking depends much on what we call it, then you're thinking way too small. Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, meron(a)cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
From: mmeron on 1 Oct 2006 21:24
In article <45205A9F.698166CE(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> writes: > > >Gordon wrote: > >> On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 22:14:02 GMT, "Homer J Simpson" wrote: >> >"Gordon" <gordonlr(a)DELETEswbell.net> wrote >> > >> >> No, I'm saying that this war on terrorism started long before >> >> President Bush and the present Republican administration was >> >> involved in any way. >> > >> >But it isn't a war. It is a problem for a police force that requires >> >international cooperation, something the US is notoriously unable or >> >unwilling to be involved in. >> >> Homer, I don't agree with you, but you are certainly entitled to >> your opinion. A police force of international cooperation just >> doesn't seem available. The main reason this won't work is that >> Europe needs Mid-East petroleum and the Mid-East needs European >> manufactured goods. For the most part, Europe just isn't going to >> get involved to the extent that would jeopardize their petroleum >> supply. > >Europe's not interested in getting much more involved largely because >Europe wasn't the target of the 9/11 terrorists. Most of Europe is >frankly sick of the USA to the proverbial back teeth. > Western Europe wasn't interested in getting much involved in the anshluss, because it wasn't the target of Nazi expansionism. Then, though a tad more interested, it decided against getting involved with Chechoslovakia because, again, it wasn't the target. And then... Try reading some of the stuff Muslim extremists are writing. It is not just the US that is their target. >> The terrorists would have taken those Mid-East petroleum >> sources out before now had this not been the case. > >They don't yet have the ability to do that. The longer that the USA >continues demonising Islam the sooner they *will* have that ability >though. > The US is not demonizing Islam, at this point. It makes the distinction between Islam and Islamic extremism. Try to remain truthful, to the extent of your ability. Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, meron(a)cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same" |