Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Ken Smith on 3 Dec 2006 13:46 In article <92e10$45731539$4fe70d7$29597(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Ken Smith wrote: > >> In article <26e4$45722fd5$4fe757d$18514(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >>>>The world government I see forming will be a very strictly secular one. >>>>The US has the seperation of church and state because the founders saw the >>>>horrors that results when you mix the two. A world government would have >>>>the seperation for different and very practical reasons. Even within >>>>Islam, there is a great deal of disagreement about what the rules really >>>>are. > >>>They remain in a medieval tribal mindset. Nothing else matters. > >> Actually a great deal else matters. The fact that they can't agree among >> themselves makes them weak. They won't all follow any given leader. They >> will fight among themselves. > >> So long as nothing unites them, the odds of them forming a world >> government are zero. > >Not true. > >Rome gave up trying to conquer Scotland. Read Scottish history. Rome didn't become a world government nor did Scotland. >Take Islam out of the picture for a moment and look at Ireland >and those issues. Northern Ireland remains tribal. Protestants >re descendents of Brits, Catholics are old Celts. The old >Celts regularly war among theselves, but join forces against >the "outsiders" at every turn. If the threat is direct and large enough, they will. If there is only a small threat they won't. This is also a fairly small place with a fairly low number of people and factions involved. Islam is a lot messier. >When you look at social structures you have to abandon >the sort of formal logic you're used to using along with >the predictability that generates. Replace that with >historical observation. You can't use "hard science" >approaches to solve sociological (soft science) problems. You also can't select from history things that sound a little like the current problem and claim that they show anything. Ugh wacked Zog on the knee for taking his rabbit skin. Today someone stole some fur. I predict that they will get wacked on the knee. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Eeyore on 3 Dec 2006 13:47 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >Ken Smith wrote: > > > >> The so called "war on terror" has cost the US a great deal without really > >> yelding anything much as a result. > > > >You're kidding. > > > >It's yielded greater instability in the word and more hatred of the USA ( > >entirely justified this time ). > > > >What sheer brilliance. > > You both have been blind. Come on then. Don't be shy. What's your opinion on the matter ? Graham
From: unsettled on 3 Dec 2006 14:09 Ken Smith wrote: > In article <3affd$457312fb$4fe70d7$29554(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>Think also about parts of the middle east that actually produce >>nothing, only pump oil out of the ground and sell it abroad. > They are getting poorer with time. Basically they are spending their > savings. When the savings/oil runs out, they will be in trouble. The oil in the ground isn't wealth. For as long as people lived in the region, till the 20th century, it did the residents no good at all. The oil in the ground does them no good at all right now either, till they pump it out and sell it. Oil in the ground isn't savings.
From: Eeyore on 3 Dec 2006 14:34 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > > >> If you've been reading the posts, you should be able to figure > >> out why the extremists are winning. > > > >Eh ? > > > >Who says they are ? > > <sniff> Smell the coffee? Care to explain what you mean ? Graham
From: Eeyore on 3 Dec 2006 14:35
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> > > >> >> When everybody gets everything equally, nobody is > >> >> allowed to be wealthy. Thus, all are poor, equally poor, but > >> >> poor. > >> > > >> >Even communist Russia wasn't run like that ! > >> > >> Of course it was. Only the viscious of the managers got the > >> power. > > > >We were talking about wealth, albeit rather limited wealth in that era. > > And look how their agriculture suffered. How people get food is a clue > to their economy, social structure, trade and power. This has absolutely nothing to do with degress of wealth under communism. Graham |