Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 3 Dec 2006 14:47 Ken Smith wrote: > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >Ken Smith wrote: > > > >> I expect that in the next 20 years, Iran will show the same about Islam. > > > >Iran hasn't been independent long enough for the honeymoon > >to be over. > > The honeymoon will last roughly this generation. Many of them have TV > dishes hidden from view. The teenagers think America is cool. Well they did until Bush opened his big ignorant mouth ! Singlehandedly he's managed to re-radicalise Iran. Graham
From: Eeyore on 3 Dec 2006 14:49 Ken Smith 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 ? > > Those fanatical "C++" coders are going to take over the world. They hate > us for our tight code and lack of memory leaks. LOL ! Graham
From: mmeron on 3 Dec 2006 14:53 In article <73101$45730543$4fe70d7$29287(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> writes: >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> In article <4572483D.8CB44CB6(a)hotmail.com>, >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >snip > >>>It's more to do with 'professors' not having a clue about the real world > >> IMHO. > >> Those professors never had exposure to the real world when they >> were kids. It's a problem; one of the ones I'm working on. > > >One of the beauties of universal military service. > Yes. Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, meron(a)cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
From: Eeyore on 3 Dec 2006 14:55 unsettled wrote: > Ken Smith wrote: > > 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. What exactly is the connection there ? Graham
From: unsettled on 3 Dec 2006 15:52
Ken Smith wrote: > 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. Excuse me? I did a double take to make sure it wasn't dumb donkey writing this reply. Rome not a world government? Hahahahahaha. Of course it was, in its day. Scotland wasn't trying to, but they kept the Romans out despite their internal squabbling. That's why I urged you to read Scottish history. Unfounded dismissiveness doesn't cut it in a conversation with me. snip > 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. Let's back up and take a few deep breaths. Western nations, probably moreso the US then the rest, have done their citizens a disservice regarding the teaching of both geography and history. Let's take a step backwards into another part of this thread wher you were addressing Jesus on a stick, hatred of Jews, Christians agreeing with Jews, and so forth. It was an unfortunately oversimplistic viiew of history more attuned to a coffeehouse discussion then this one. There's a serious general lack of understanding of that period so perhaps my writing this is as much for posterity as anything else. A lot of what I'm presenting below is an amalgam of what I've learned through reading as well as 1st hand discussions with people in the time and general place of the events. During the 1920's and 1930's the chief European protagonist was Soviet International Communism. Coupled with the unfortunate hateful conditions of the WW1 peace treaties, Germany was in desparate economic times. It was obvious to all but the most stupid that some form of Socialism was going to rule the continent in the near future. Whatever else he was, Hitler was no dummy. He played all these elements to the hilt, and came out ruling Germany because to Germans he was obviously a much better choice than the soviets and he claimed his primary thrust was National Socialism. The rest of the European powers who were in jeopardy because of their geography also sided with what they were sold as "National Socialism" instead of the soviet version. They knew that the soviet version killed its own citizens, yet the German version wasn't known for that as yet. In the end both the National and Soviet versions were pretty much equals when it came to killing their own. Hitler demonstrated selective hatred, Stalin killed anyone who crossed his path. One name not heard much any longer is that of Bela Khun. It was a name well known all over central Europe in the 1920's and the 1930's. Kuhn was a communist who managed to overthrow and seize control of Hungary after WW1. He was ousted and escaped to Russia where initially he was accepted, but was eventually assasinated by the Soviet government, killing another of their own. That practice was well known by Central Europeans of the period. Take a look at this page: http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/psf/box32/t300m22.html which has some interesting concepts. It also shows why Japan side with Hitler. Hitler also played on the rest of the WW1 treaties and land divisions among historically warring factions to get them to voluntarily cooperate with Germany by making the sorts of repatriation promises as each had been hopeing for since the end of WW1. Tito was one of the few holdouts. It is a very full stew pot with lots of ingredients, many still not so well understood even today, more specially in the western end of the participants of WW2 because of the watered down versions taught in schools. It is obvious, Ken, that you continue to try to apply the same sorts of causality to international politics as you would to electronic circuity. The thing you appear unaware of is that in realpolitic there are many hidden variables, rendering your conclusions, for the most part, invalid. In the end those hidden variables, in a historic context anyway, aren't really so very hidden as they are generally unknown by the general public. |