Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 12 Jan 2007 16:11 David Brown wrote: > On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 08:26:08 +0000, Eeyore wrote: > > >>MassiveProng wrote: >> >> >>>Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: >>> >>>>MassiveProng wrote: >>>> >>>>>Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> There is. It's called the Worldwide Struggle Against Terrorism, >>>>>> >>>>>>It isn't worldwide. It's certainly no longer called a 'war on terror' in the UK >>>>>>for one thing. >>>>> >>>>> Tell that to the Somalians. Those in power there now are certainly >>>>>on the "war against terror" bandwagon, and obviously countless other >>>>>countries you are unaware of. You are unaware of so much... >>>> >>>>Have you forgotten already that there are always at least 2 sides in every dispute ? >>>>One man's 'terrorist' is another's 'freedom fighter'. >>> >>> Are you trying to say that the invading Islamic factions that over >>>ran Somalia deserved to be there as they were "fighting" for "their >>>freedom"???? >>> >>> They were not fighting. They were raping and pillagin', son. >> >>I'm not familiar with the current situation there really. It's been a disaster area for >>so long you just end up mentally 'giving up' over the place. I was making a more general >>point. >> > > > Just to update you on Somalia - most of Somalia's population are at least > nominally Muslim. Some of them got together and formed a series of > Islamic courts across the country, which brought a certain amount of > stability and justice to the anarchy in the country. They are aiming to > turn the country into an Islamic republic - they see a strong religious > force as the only way to get the country together again. "The capital's residents are still digesting how the Islamists, who rose to power on a wave of public backing, succumbed so meekly. The importance of clan loyalty over religion in Somalia is one theory. Abdulkadir Khalif, a Mogadishu resident, had another. "The Islamists created their own downfall," he said. 'Imagine closing down movie houses, restricting ladies' beauty salons, ordering radios to refrain from musical programmes and above all telling chewers of qat [a popular narcotic leaf] to remain sober for days on end.'" http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1981021,00.html "I don't care what you do to the women, but don't mess with my narcotics!" snip
From: T Wake on 12 Jan 2007 17:37 "Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote in message news:l6hfq2hq3pl65gn8pceon4g8l0fbhvc9r3(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 12:17:34 -0000, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >>"MassiveProng" <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in >>message news:qe6eq25v7vr2l8gqjagd38781phaa5v4kq(a)4ax.com... >>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 00:15:18 +0000, Eeyore >>> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: >>> >>>> >>>>The simple answer is that the terrorists are criminals and what's >>>>required >>>>is >>>>international *police* action to stop it. >>> >>> >>> There is. It's called the Worldwide Struggle Against Terrorism, >>> >>> AND IT IS A WAR. >> >>No it isn't. >> >>You do not declare war on things like terrorism any more than you declare >>war on poverty or childhood obesity. It sounds good, it makes a nice >>rallying call and fits soundbites. But it is not a declaration of war. >> >>Unless of course I missed the bit where the declaration was made official >>by >>a duly recognised authority. > > It's rhetoric from the administration with no other purpose at all > than to give it an excuse it can use to justify anything and > everything it does without having to make a rational argument to > anyone about it. The really sad thing is that the rhetoric actually > seems to gell with far too many here in the US. Aren't there certain conditions which have to be met before a "war" can be declared by the US?
From: T Wake on 12 Jan 2007 17:38 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eo85rh$8qk_007(a)s788.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <fJmdnb3Ot8NuEDrYnZ2dnUVZ8t-nnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:eo7uvq$8ss_001(a)s788.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <45A6D193.A694451(a)hotmail.com>, >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >>>>> You need to turn on your modem's sound. You'll hear all kinds of >>>>> mating sounds. You can also tell if the ISP you're calling has >>>>> a headache and will cause comm eruptions. >>>> >>>>I used to do that. >>>> >>>>With broadband it's not necessary. >>> >>> <shrug> I was in the biz; we used sound pattern differences for cues >>> to prevent messes. >> >>Time and technology have developed significantly in the last few decades. >> >> > But mess detection methods haven't changed much. Changes in > sound patterns means changes in behaviour. If one then > experiences problems, you can watch for the same sound > patterns and see if they correlate to the same bug. With broadband there is no "sound" to listen to. This is like trying to tune in a digital television with analog methods. > Sheesh. The invention of ink didn't change the words used. Poor analogy.
From: T Wake on 12 Jan 2007 17:40 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:206f4$45a79dcf$4fe7610$13166(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >T Wake wrote: > >> "MassiveProng" <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in >> message news:13feq2h52uo2d5dp3rfur44s64skc9c4no(a)4ax.com... >> >>>On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 06:08:19 +0000, Eeyore >>><rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: >>> >>> >>>> >>>>MassiveProng wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: >>>>> >>>>>>Armies are no good for this. >>>>> >>>>> You're an idiot. We are there to train them, and clean up the arms >>>>>stockpiles. We'll be coming home soon enough. >>>> >>>>Armies are for fighting wars. Armies are not policemen. >>> >>> >>> Peanut gallery mutterings don't get anything done about the problem >>>either. Don't try to mutter that there isn't one either. There's a >>>big problem. It is not like cleaning up a town with a biker problem. >>> >>> Those boys got big toys, and we have to counter that, and you need >>>to get that past that 4 inches of bone, donkey skull. >> >> >> Nothing you have said, ad hominems or otherwise, disagrees with anything >> Eeyore said. Armies are for fighting wars. Police are very different. The >> hard ware the enemy has is not relevant no matter how you try to include >> it. > > So what you and the dumb donkey are saying is that we now > need to revitalize a police model based on the Gestapo? > Really? Where have I said anything which even comes close to implying that? Does the US army provide a police force on the streets of American cities? Is the Gestapo the only alternative to using soldiers as policemen?
From: T Wake on 12 Jan 2007 18:19
"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:8af1c$45a7b0e1$4fe7610$13591(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >T Wake wrote: > >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> news:eo834m$8qk_002(a)s788.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> >>>In article <eo5kh2$gtn$3(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>> >>>>In article <eo5c66$8qk_002(a)s814.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>>[....] >>>> >>>>>They are not oblivious; these people are still thinking in >>>>>the old ways. >>>> >>>>No, they are simply unwilling to allow the wrong word to be applied to >>>>the >>>>situation. If you control the language, you control the debate. By >>>>calling something "a war", you are claiming certain things are true >>>>about >>>>it. If the thing being called "a war" doesn't really have those >>>>characteristics, using the term can lead to confusion. >>> >>>Then me a word to use that describes the fight to the death >>>between two civilizations. >> >> >> Why do you need a word which describes it any better than saying a "fight >> to the death between two civilizations?" (Which, incidentally is not what >> a "war" is). >> >> >>> I call this war. It is European-style >>>thinking that has limited the description between two countries. >> >> >> Nonsense. >> >> Did a legitimate, legally empowered authority in your government declare >> war? Is your government able to declare war on behalf of a civilisation? > > How do you declare war on Hesbalah or al qaeda? If you > win, who signs the surrender documents? > >>>Islam didn't have the notion of nationalism until recently and >>>they still don't quite use this heirarchy for classification of >>>people groups. > >> Incorrect. > > "Islam succeeded in uniting an Arab world of separate tribes > and castes, but disagreements concerning the succession of > the prophet caused a division in Islam between two groups, > Sunnis and Shi'ites." > > http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001468.html > > The balance of this history is interesting in its own right. > > Seems to me Islamic nationalism is along ideological lines > rather than classic geopolitical ones. It is still a nationalistic religion. Iran was massively unpopular amongst most other (Arabic) Islamic nations. Islamic kurds are viewed in a dim light by other islamic nation. While it is easy to provide quotes and studies of Islam, it fails on the basis that Islamic nations, like "Christian" ones, survive in a world where geo-political boundaries exist. As a result, Islamic nations do indeed use nationalist classification of people groups. >>>Until you understand this, I guess you will >>>continue to ignore that this war[or whatever] exists. It is >>>not a simple conflict. > >> I agree, the conflict is far from simple. It is not a war either, >> therefore invoking "war powers" is dishonest. > > For the US it is the only tool currently available. I believe > UK has a strong history of dealing with Irish terrorism in > precisely the same way. War was never declared against the IRA, despite the IRA's desire for it to happen. The UK government (and the Irish Republic government) took the position that declaring war would legitimise the criminals. At the height of the mainland bombing campaign "martial law" was never declared. If anything, police powers were more restricted than they are today. > I'm open to hearing about some other model. There's no one to > negotiate with, so what's left? Criminalise the terrorists and allow police forces to carry out their actions. Encourage people to not "fear" the actions of the criminals and life their lives as if it wasn't happening. Eventually the terrorists become starved of the supplies their cause needs and are forced to negotiate. The end result may not be a black and white we won, they lost result, which is why (IMHO) the US will not go down that route. |