Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Ken Smith on 6 Dec 2006 11:13 In article <cfe5c$4575a308$4fe71d5$13749(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Ken Smith wrote: > [....] >>>writing this reply. Rome not a world government? Hahahahahaha. >>>Of course it was, in its day. >> >> >> You said it was and then admitted that they did not rule Scotland. Was >> Scotland outside the world? > >LOL Pretty much! A world government need not be total and absolute. No, that makes it just a large empire. A "world government" would have to rule the known world. I think that the folks on a little island could fit that definition if you allow "known" to mean those known about by those being governed, so we would have to qualify it a bit. [....] >> I knew a German who was there at the time. He claimed that a big part of >> the advantage he had was because "national socialist" sounds very good in >> German. He tried to come up with an english phrase that would be about >> the same. The best he could do was "reasonable democracy". It sounds >> good but its meaning is very unclear. > >That's the usual characteristic of sound bytes. This was before the term was in common use but yes "national socialist" could be called a "sound bite". [....] >> Stalin killed those who were a threat to him remaining in power. >> Unfortunately, he was paranoid so everyone was seen as a threat. He wiped >> the leadership of the military out because they were an obvious threat. > >As I said, anyone who crossed his path. > >> BTW: Many people would claim that Stalin was not really a communist. He >> was just power hungry and saw the way to get it. Since nobody was ever >> really close to him, we don't really have an internal read on his motives. > >When one wields the baton and the orchestra plays, one is the >conductor. His daughter wrote a number of books once she >escaped to the US. That doesn't really work. There is a difference between believing the ideas of communism and gaining power by leading the communist party. In the US, the christian right is learning a lesson like that. [....] >> I have always figured that Japan went with Hitler because basically he was >> their only option. They wanted to take over everyone nearby so they were >> out. The US wanted to have some power in the Pacific so they were out. >> The Brits had some colonies. Russia touched the Pacific. After you >> strike off all that Japan would reject, the only strongish nation left >> would be Germany. > >Japan and Russia had an earlier war in which Russia took some >Japanese islands they hold to this day. Hitler had a good political >insight, promising restoration of whatever was bothering a potential >ally. If you read the history you'll discover that Hitler actively >courted Japan. I wonder what sort of twostep the ambassadors had >to dance whenever the discussion came around to the proposed >blond blue eyed Aryan rule of the world. Take a look at a picture of Hitler. :) It could be that they claimed that the rulers of Japan were some other type of superhuman race. > >> [.....] > > [....] >> I do apply logic to the know facts to come to a conclusion. I admit to >> this bias. I don't hold with the invisible unicorn theory of physics[1]. >> I believe that humans operate largely logically based on what they >> believe. Emotions exist but unlike others, I claim that they too function >> logically. Emotions come from our instincts. These instincts evolved in >> another time and place and unlike learned logic, they haven't changed >> since then. > >I give you "feminine instinct" to ponder. No thanks. That and Quantum Physics at the same time may make my head explode. There is already some risk of that because the "weak signal" is stronger than the "strong signal". > >> [1] Everthing is caused by invisible unicorns. > >LOL Turtles all the way down. > >> You on the other hand seem to have taken as axiomatic that Islam is deadly >> threat and exagerate the arguments in favor and ignore those against so >> that you can mantain that belief. I think this may be a case of "the guys >> on the other side of the river are cannibals". > >Yet the towers fell and members of our tribe keep getting >beheaded for no "obvious" sane reason. Your "sane" assumes that the data going into the logic are the facts as you believe them to be. If you believed that banging on a drum made it rain and that you needed rain to make your corn grow, you would logically bang on a drum. To someone without that idea, a man walking around outside banging a drum, may look insane. > > You believe that there are >> cannibles and you believe that there are people over there that are >> different. Back in a more primative time. If you knew about cannibals, >> it would be because they are nearby so the instinct would have made sense >> back then. Today where we know of many peoples at great distances, it >> doesn't work anymore. > >Distance doesn't change the rules or the outcome. We were >isolated in centuries past, thus relatively immune from >attacks on "our homeland." That distance has effectively >shrunk. Now we know of many people. You are a victim of an instinct that worked when we only kneew of a few. It causes you to lump together all the people out there as the cannibals across the river. Only some of them are. [....] >On the one hand we have the hue and cry over why did we not >see 9/112 coming and do something. On the other we have >your ideas that we should ignore the cannibals on the other >side of the river. > >Imaginary cannibals they're not. No, you missed the point. There are many people over there. Only a small fraction are the cannibals. If you blunder in and start killing people at random, the noncannibals will see that they have two threats. They have the threat from the cannibals that are around somewhere and a threat from the US. If they believe the US is the bigger threat, they will set aside the fight against the cannibals while they deal with the bigger threat. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: T Wake on 6 Dec 2006 11:47 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:el6el5$8qk_001(a)s867.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <el43p1$83n$4(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, > lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>In article <el3o53$8qk_001(a)s881.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>In article <45742DA0.41C26436(a)hotmail.com>, >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >>>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >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 ? >>>>> >>>>> The sound bite "war on xxxx" was misused so often that, when >>>>> the real thing is happening, nobody pays attention. The fable >>>>> about the boy crying wolf has become reality. >>>> >>>>That wasn't quite what I meant but I can't really disgree with that >>>statement. >>>> >>>>To return to the original question. Do you feel this so-called 'war on >>>terror' >>>>has been useful or counter-productive ? >>> >>>It has been useful. Libya decided it would give up making >>>atom bombs in return for trade. Saudis are slowly emancipating >>>their women. >> >>Let's see, they can't drive, they can't go outdoors unless escorted by >>their >>husband or a male relative, they get punished for adultery and the man >>doesn't, their testimony in court is legally worth less than that of a >>man... >> >>If that's emancipation, I'd hate to see what you consider inequality! > > They are starting to get their driver's license. Blimey. > It will take > a half generation or so for the mindset to change. Wasting > 50% of their resources by keeping them under cover is stupid. > This can only happen in a middle class mindset. Total nonsense. > I'm starting > to think about how Islam started out as middle-class and rather > ignored the working part. Your rampant marxism is coming through again. Islam never started out middle class and it certainly is not middle class now. For some one who is themselves very middle class you have some strange ideas. >>>Somalia is trying to sort itself out and seems >>>to be tottering towards trade rather than isolation. >> >>Just a nasty little civil war going on. > > You should watch what they're fighting about. It's about > their lifestyle. Incorrect. > Every Muslim nation is going to go through > similar internal discussions. One the methods used to avoid > dealing with thorny issues is to point outside the borders > and say, "it's their fault". Amazingly, although you start from an incorrect assumption you hit what could be described as an accurate insight. It just goes to show.
From: T Wake on 6 Dec 2006 11:56 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:el6fmf$8qk_003(a)s867.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <45759985.33FA2A25(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> None of this preservation matters if extreme Islam >>> becomes the predominate governing and economic law. >> >>And how exactly is that ever going to happen ? > > Listen to you enemy. They aren't lying to you. Interesting take on things. You fail to say how this is ever going to happen other than to point to the myriad of threats made by an extremist minority. The extremists have no way of forcing people to convert to Islam, nor can they institute Islamic law on unwilling countries. We can do that to ourselves if people become so frightened of the alternatives (or the alternatives become worse). More importantly you ascribe an automatic truth to enemy propaganda. Is there a reason for this? The enemy are saying things to cause fear, uncertainty and doubt. You, oddly, accept everything they say and assume they are capable of doing amazing things against a democracy. You really do have a low opinion of the democratic process and what it is capable of.
From: Eeyore on 6 Dec 2006 12:12 unsettled wrote: > A world government need not be total and absolute. I guess that's not so much 'bending the rules' as just ignoring them ! Graham
From: Eeyore on 6 Dec 2006 12:17
T Wake wrote: > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> > >>> None of this preservation matters if extreme Islam > >>> becomes the predominate governing and economic law. > >> > >>And how exactly is that ever going to happen ? > > > > Listen to you enemy. They aren't lying to you. > > Interesting take on things. You fail to say how this is ever going to happen > other than to point to the myriad of threats made by an extremist minority. > The extremists have no way of forcing people to convert to Islam, nor can > they institute Islamic law on unwilling countries. We can do that to > ourselves if people become so frightened of the alternatives (or the > alternatives become worse). > > More importantly you ascribe an automatic truth to enemy propaganda. Is > there a reason for this? The enemy are saying things to cause fear, > uncertainty and doubt. You, oddly, accept everything they say and assume > they are capable of doing amazing things against a democracy. > > You really do have a low opinion of the democratic process and what it is > capable of. Never mind the democratic process. If any Muslims over here try it on, they'll discover what a swift kick to the nuts does ! Graham |