Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 7 Dec 2006 18:13 T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > > >> The way the Democrats tested reactions > >> of the US was to go to Europe and give a speech that contained > >> the ideas they wanted a reaction test. BBC would report on > >> the speech. The American news media would report on what > >> the BBC reported minus the fact that it came from some guy's > >> speech. The politician would then watch to see how the > >> voters of the US received it. What you saw a the Democrat > >> platform had been vetted through Europe this way. > > > > You're barking up the wrong tree. > > You typed four extra words there. Oh yes ! Mea culpa. Graham
From: Eeyore on 7 Dec 2006 18:23 T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> > > >> >> >> For some strange > >> >> >> reason, Carter is rearing his ugly head and trying to swing > >> >> >> towards ceding to Islam. > >> >> > > >> >> >No he isn't ! > >> >> > > >> >> >How about a cite here ? > >> >> > >> >> Sigh! He's hawking another book. So far, all of his book selling > >> >> interviews promote the same opinion that extremists will be > >> >> willing to talk and compromise. > >> > > >> >All the evidence to date shows that this is what eventually happens. > >> > >> What?! You are very deluded. There is no evidence. > > > > Of coursde there is. Even Osama bin Laden said he would cease his attacks > > on the West if our military forces left Islamic lands ffs. > > Personally I wouldn't believe him. I would certainly take his words with a serious pinch of salt but it would be interesting to have called him on it. The point is however that it's not as if negotiation was ruled out. That's what I was hoping to illustrate. > UBL (and probably the core AQ leadership) will continue their terrorist > campaign no matter what you do to them. History shows, the world over, that > Terrorist leaders are the last to give in to peace - most are just ****s > with nothing going for them when their "hard man" image is taken away. > Fighting the leadership appears to not be the best way to "beat" terrorists. In the case of Al Qaida I don't beleive there ever has been a truly cohesive leadership or organisation in any serious way anyway. It seems to me largely to be an umbrella term that the west simply finds convenient to use. I recall a Sunday Times of many years ago that published a 'cutaway drawing' of an 'Al Qaida bunker' that looked like something out of the Cold War with a hardened concrete shell and all modern faciliies. When it was shown that all they had were caves, the idea was quietly dropped. > However, taking steps to reduce the stream of willing volunteers to the > terrorist cause is very, very effective. Absolutely. Hearts and minds. > Some people think this is done by > bombing anyone who is even suspected of being a terrorist - I suspect they > are wrong. Suspect ????? > While giving in to terrorist demands is _never_ a good idea, changing the > posture of the west towards the middle east may well reduce or eliminate the > stream of willing volunteers. No question whatever in my mind. > Giving the local population something to lose > if the terrorists "take over" may be the most effective. It always is. > As it stands the > occupation is forcing people to decide between getting killed by infidel > westerners or by their brothers. Yes. Not really a very smart choice to offer is it ? > >> > Was peace restored in N Ireland by 'defeating' the IRA ? > >> > >> There was no stomach to defeat the IRA. > > > > That's not what I asked. As eveer you seem incapable of giving a straight > > answer and offer rhetoric instead. You should perhaps be a politician. > > Watch the goalposts shift 50m that way ----> I'm sure the coming of dawn will establish that. > >> That conflict lasted because there was no intent to defeat the IRA. > > > > There was simply no way to defeat the IRA without perhaps eliminating most > > of the > > Catholic population of N. Ireland and very likely some of the population > > of the Republic too. > > > > Is that what we should have done ? > > Based on her opinion of how to beat Islamic terrorism - yes. Which neatly returns us to what I've asked before. Is US policy to kill all Muslims ? Is this sensible ? Graham
From: T Wake on 7 Dec 2006 19:52 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45789FC4.B0DE4996(a)hotmail.com... > > > What was wrong with developed, developing and under-developed ? > I think people didn't like being called "under developed" :-)
From: T Wake on 7 Dec 2006 20:04 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4578A285.28E2F783(a)hotmail.com... > > > T Wake wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> >> For some strange >> >> >> >> reason, Carter is rearing his ugly head and trying to swing >> >> >> >> towards ceding to Islam. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >No he isn't ! >> >> >> > >> >> >> >How about a cite here ? >> >> >> >> >> >> Sigh! He's hawking another book. So far, all of his book selling >> >> >> interviews promote the same opinion that extremists will be >> >> >> willing to talk and compromise. >> >> > >> >> >All the evidence to date shows that this is what eventually happens. >> >> >> >> What?! You are very deluded. There is no evidence. >> > >> > Of coursde there is. Even Osama bin Laden said he would cease his >> > attacks >> > on the West if our military forces left Islamic lands ffs. >> >> Personally I wouldn't believe him. > > I would certainly take his words with a serious pinch of salt but it would > be > interesting to have called him on it. Yes, and given a good PR spin it could have been used to the west's advantage when (if) he didnt cease operations. Unfortunately, the UK/US dont seem to have good PR machines when it comes to global politics. > The point is however that it's not as if negotiation was ruled out. That's > what > I was hoping to illustrate. Quite. I agree there. >> UBL (and probably the core AQ leadership) will continue their terrorist >> campaign no matter what you do to them. History shows, the world over, >> that >> Terrorist leaders are the last to give in to peace - most are just ****s >> with nothing going for them when their "hard man" image is taken away. >> Fighting the leadership appears to not be the best way to "beat" >> terrorists. > > In the case of Al Qaida I don't beleive there ever has been a truly > cohesive > leadership or organisation in any serious way anyway. It seems to me > largely to > be an umbrella term that the west simply finds convenient to use. It is massively over used as an umbrella term. For example the 7 Jul bombers in London, certainly were not "AQ" operatives. However, as an "organisation" Al Qaida does exist and will have a leadership cartel. Getting an insight into their actions and real motivations may well be beyond the abilities of anyone not sitting in the room with them at the time. The current use of AQ seems to be along the lines of the "bogeyman." Generally things like "pass these laws throwing away hard won civil liberties or AQ will get you." > I recall a Sunday Times of many years ago that published a 'cutaway > drawing' of > an 'Al Qaida bunker' that looked like something out of the Cold War with a > hardened concrete shell and all modern faciliies. When it was shown that > all > they had were caves, the idea was quietly dropped. > > >> However, taking steps to reduce the stream of willing volunteers to the >> terrorist cause is very, very effective. > > Absolutely. Hearts and minds. > > >> Some people think this is done by >> bombing anyone who is even suspected of being a terrorist - I suspect >> they >> are wrong. > > Suspect ????? Well, if I am honest I can not be 100% sure. I am sure if people dreg history they will be able to find an example of where this behaviour worked and can probably extrapolate a long term success claim out of that. (Alexander's campaign in the Hindu Kush springs to mind, but it was a short lived victory). However, it is certainly my belief that it doesn't work and recent history certainly supports that. >> While giving in to terrorist demands is _never_ a good idea, changing the >> posture of the west towards the middle east may well reduce or eliminate >> the >> stream of willing volunteers. > > No question whatever in my mind. There will, I think, always be a minority of people who will still join up with the terrorist groups but a lot of that is down to the perception of it being a "war" with all the glamour that seems to carry with young men. If AQ were properly demarcated as criminals (which is, effectively, what they are) then that glamour would go away as well. >> Giving the local population something to lose >> if the terrorists "take over" may be the most effective. > > It always is. I tend to be wary of blanket assumptions like that. There will be, in the course of Human history the occasional exception which falsifies statements like "always." Granted, in the current situation, I am certain it would be the most effective plan. Currently, the people fighting for the insurgents have nothing to lose. The local Iraqis are heading into that state faster and faster. If you look at it from their point of view, the west offers nothing but oppression and infidel governance. The terrorists are "heroic soldiers" fighting the war and can at least offer them the chance of paradise in the next life. Shame the UK/US dont seem to learn from previous operations. >> As it stands the >> occupation is forcing people to decide between getting killed by infidel >> westerners or by their brothers. > > Yes. Not really a very smart choice to offer is it ? Sadly no. I know what I would do if an Arabic army had invaded the UK. >> >> > Was peace restored in N Ireland by 'defeating' the IRA ? >> >> >> >> There was no stomach to defeat the IRA. >> > >> > That's not what I asked. As eveer you seem incapable of giving a >> > straight >> > answer and offer rhetoric instead. You should perhaps be a politician. >> >> Watch the goalposts shift 50m that way ----> > > I'm sure the coming of dawn will establish that. Opps, they've gone that way now <-------------------- >> >> That conflict lasted because there was no intent to defeat the IRA. >> > >> > There was simply no way to defeat the IRA without perhaps eliminating >> > most >> > of the >> > Catholic population of N. Ireland and very likely some of the >> > population >> > of the Republic too. >> > >> > Is that what we should have done ? >> >> Based on her opinion of how to beat Islamic terrorism - yes. > > Which neatly returns us to what I've asked before. > > Is US policy to kill all Muslims ? Is this sensible ? I cant really answer that. I suspect it isn't but it may well be the outcome of US policy. And no, it wouldn't be. :-)
From: JoeBloe on 7 Dec 2006 23:09
On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 06:25:37 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> Gave us: >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> Right. The world was at peace. > > > Until Cain slew Abel: > > Genesis: 4:8 > > And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they >were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew >him. > > There has been no peace on the Earth since that day. Actually, I'd say since Adam and Eve partook of the forbidden fruit. |