Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 12 Jan 2007 18:25 "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? How do you declare war on any criminal organisation? Is this not a sign that "declaring war" on such organisations is little more than soundbites at work? If the news report that the government has declared war on car thieves, does this mean they are allowed to suspend the "normal" peacetime run of things?
From: unsettled on 12 Jan 2007 20:57 T Wake wrote: > "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? BTW, this remains an excellent open question. The terrorist groups have some semblance of organization, however they can't be pinned down and defined as a country. >>>>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. The two main branches transcend national boundaries and ethnic groups. The Arabs have never managed to cobble together a single nation, although it has been attempted. The Turks are a separate ethnic group as are the Kurds who are spread out among a larger number of defined countries. "Estimated at about 35 million people, the Kurds make up the largest ethnic group in the world who do not have a nation-state of their own." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdish_people Kurds are most closely related to Iranian Persians. Don't forget who established the middle eastern nation states. It was the UK which imposed the borders on peoples who were only marginally able to govern themselves. > 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. Two designations, which are based along ethnic and religious lines. The nation state boundaries are artificial, imposed from without. >>>>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. It is a war in which one set of protagonists is well defined and the opposition is defined only by our understanding of their goals and their capacity to carry through on those goals. >>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. But the "criminals" were ideologues just like the Islamic ones of today, with a singular goal of freedom from UK. It seems to me that was an honorable goal. The Islamic criminals of today don't seek freedom from the west, they want to revise western culture to be a carbon copy of their own. IMO that's not an honorable goal. > 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 know a little something about that. I sat on a train, wasting an hour and a half, while it stopped to be checked front to back on both sides looking for bombs. >>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. Didn't work with Northern Ireland, certainly won't work with Islamist terrorists. Look at the case of Lebanon to try to understand. In the Islamist case it is a religious issue and the terrorists are taught from early childhood on. The next 50 years of terrorism is being carefully crafted an created as we sit here in these discussions. They'll sacrifice anything and everything. Mothers willingly teach their children such things knowing their lives will probably be shortened and perhaps they won't have any grandchildren. Taking an intelligent very western approach to solving these issues won't work because they simply don't think or function as we do. I can only scratch around the edges of the mentality. None of us can actually understand it because it is as alien to western thought as any race coming at us from outer space.
From: unsettled on 12 Jan 2007 21:08 T Wake wrote: > "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? > > > How do you declare war on any criminal organisation? Is this not a sign that > "declaring war" on such organisations is little more than soundbites at > work? We also declared war on drugs so this must be a cultural issue. On this side of the pond we seem to understand what it means. > If the news report that the government has declared war on car thieves, does > this mean they are allowed to suspend the "normal" peacetime run of things? Generally our declared wars which aren't against some recognized nation state, whether on terrorism or drugs, have an international aspect. It certainly sends notice to the locals that there's going to be much heavier than usual surveillance by the FBI of related activities within the USA. That, already, is much more than the "normal peacetime run of things."
From: unsettled on 12 Jan 2007 22:13 T Wake wrote: > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message > news:f40fb$45a7ae0d$4fe7610$13513(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > >>T Wake wrote: > <snips> >>>No, this is not the same thing as sampling every single conversation for >>>"key phrases." >>That depends. Busy street, undercover narcotics cop who has >>a specific reason for being there. > There is still a limit to the number of conversations he can over hear and, > in UK law at least, there is no presumption of privacy which surrounds > conversations in a public place. In UK law, if you walk in to a room where > there are only two of you, you gain the protection of a presumption of > privacy. I am not certain of precisely how our "reasonable expectation of privacy" has been defined, because that's scattered through a bunch of SCOTUS opinions. > In 2001 this was extended to grant people the presumption of privacy over > telephone calls So you're 34 years behind our "Katz v. US" of 1967 which established the telephone expectations. snip >>>A democratic government is ultimately accountable to the electorate. A >>>government official (in the UK at least) who authorises an illegal >>>activity are themselves subject to the rule of law when the illegal >>>activity is brought to light. >>It is a rare instance that a head of state is taken to task >>for illegal behaviors. Perhaps a handful in the past century? > Sadly true - but maybe this simply means they are not carrying out illegal > activities. We had Nixon. That was terrible mishandled by government operatives. We can never know how many incidents were better managed, on both sides of the pond. > In the UK we have had a few senior civil servants prosecuted for illegal > activities in the last fifty or so years, not many I'll admit. > Comes to the question of how many should be prosecuted? I have worked with > members of the UK security apparatus and I actually do think they would not > carry out illegal activities. If you thought they were capable of it, and they had to, they wouldn't be very effective, would they? The main feature any good spy has is that no one would ever believe they're a spy. snip > The point I was trying to make is that if a government of the day carry out > illegal searches / taps etc., the subsequent government is very likely to > discover this and make it public (as happened over the Security Service > surveillance of Labour party MPs under Thatcher). While not a solution for > the person while they are suffering, the threat of this actually goes some > lengths to curtailing the excesses of government. Our American branch of the Mafia had a solution. They tried to make it a practice to set up someone who already had a significant health problem with the likelihood of a very short future in order to do their will when it was likely the wrongdoer might be caught. They would reward them with funds for wrongdoer's family, college education for the kids, and so forth. We've seen US law enforcement use civilian operatives and informants to do all sorts of questionable things. >>When an agency monitors a data stream looking for certain >>patterns they have no idea whose discussion has raised the >>warning flag. > Yes they do. When I monitor data passing through a router, the data tells me > where it has come from and where it is going. The data is there. If you program to look only for certain patterns in the data stream, record the pertinent block of data but not identify the originating and terminating nodes and you don't look till you have a warrant in hand then? >>How about then going to court and asking to dissect the data >>stream to discover who is the subject of this attentions by >>warrant? > It may happen in the US but it is not allowed in the UK (as a result of RIPA > / IOCA). Here the requirement is surveillance is targetted - be it > electronic or physical. In this case we're probably behind your laws, perhaps intentionally. > <snip> >>>No, but without laws nothing else means anything. >>We invariably depend on the benovalence of the leadership. > This is an area in which I think we will continue to disagree. I don't know why. It is the benovalent attitude of government which keeps the government obeying the laws. There's nobody holding a gun to your PM's head along with his underlings as it was with the Commissars in the SU days of Stalin. > It is interesting that one of the worries "I" have about the increased legal > options being made available to governments is the risk of a malevolent > leadership at some point in the future. That's realistically a universal risk at all times, no more so in the future than at any given present moment. > It seems we may actually agree on that. I'm even more a "realist" about this than you seem to be. Recognizing a possibility does not equal a paranoid fear that things like that are actually happening. >>Think about how the entire system of laws developed to >>today's "enlightenment." Police, arrests, jails, are still >>pretty barbaric. > Again, this is not something I agree with. Most of our police will handcuff anyone arrested. Pretty barbaric IMO. > I can not pass judgement of the > US system, but in the UK prisoners are not treated in anything I would think > of as a barbaric manner. All arrests in the US are defined as a battery. It is legal under certain circumstances. I know some readers are going to jump on this, but they only need to dig through the litany of caselaw to find this description. > Once in jail it may be different but that is a > whole different debate. You may be taking a much narrower definition of the word than I am using. >>The "courts" retain significant vestiges >>of religious trappings and customs, especially things like >>judicial immunity. > Do you think judical immunity is a religious trapping? Very much so. Realistic and reasonable judges usually wouldn't have any fear of suit against them. The entire immunity thing descends from the "anointed by God" mentality. > For many years, the > UK legal system was dominated by the church but that is, I suspect, a thing > of the past now. While there is ritual around a trial, there is certainly no > blind obedience to the final decree. Even the word decree smacks of the religious trappings. Here in the US SCOTUS issues "opinions." Sometimes a court will issue an "order". We seem to still use the word "decree" in case of divorce, however. >>Now read Hayek, as I suggested to BAH. The reason for having >>and implementing laws is so that individuals living in a >>society can plan their lives and business while understanding >>in advance what coercive powers the state will bring to bear >>in the event some law is breached. We've also, to varying >>degrees, managed to constrain the powers of the state. >>Try this one on for size. The fact that your conversations >>might be subject to being overheard does not infringe on any >>legal business you wish to conduct. > This brings to mind two immediate responses: > The first is a "so what?" The lack of impact on my legal business does not > make a law acceptable. Hayek speaks to principles, the underpinnings of the laws. Don't forget that your take on the acceptability of laws and the ideas of legislative bodies don't always align as nicely as you might hope. I think you might enjoy reading one of your own guys about constitutions and such issues, Dicey. > The second is that sentence should carry the word "currently." There is no > way I can predict what future governments will want to do with the data > intercepted. I have no way of verifing that the government are not going to > allow the information to fall into to my competitors hands. (etc). Generally speaking a government will not have a stake in your business. However if it ever does it is not very likely that "the law" will be enough to protect your interests as you'd hope. > If I choose to have a private meeting with some one, then my "choice" to > meet in private should be respected by law. We need to get back to the first principle of secrecy. The only secret is one known by only one person who doesn't talk in their sleep and doesn't pray aloud. LOL The instant a second person knows, your secrecy is compromised. You depend extensively on benovalence, honesty, and honorability. > Would a law demanding all meetings of two or more people were carried out in > the presence of a police officer be acceptable to you? No. This brings to mind the paranoia of Soviet style governing which prohibited gatherings. Larger families which were celebrating grandmother's birthday left in dribs and dabs spaced out by 10 to 15 minutes per departure. We're not nearly there, nor do I expect we ever will be. The fact is that in most instances your legitimate and legal business would not actually be compromised by some random government employee overhearing your plans because, unless you're violating some law, they don't care. Besides there's just so much information out there that yours would simply disappear in the overwhelming morass of data. The government would have to have as many people doing surveillance as there are people to spy on in order to make sense of it all. No government has a budget that big.
From: T Wake on 12 Jan 2007 22:13
"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:4e92b$45a83f1d$49ecf47$19198(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >T Wake wrote: > >> "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? >> >> >> How do you declare war on any criminal organisation? Is this not a sign >> that "declaring war" on such organisations is little more than soundbites >> at work? > > We also declared war on drugs so this must be a cultural issue. On > this side of the pond we seem to understand what it means. You mean on your side of the pond you have redefined the word so it can be used many times, no matter how relevant it is? A war on drugs is an interesting concept. How can it ever end? When it is declared over, what will be the end state? Who are the legitimate combatants? >> If the news report that the government has declared war on car thieves, >> does this mean they are allowed to suspend the "normal" peacetime run of >> things? > > Generally our declared wars which aren't against some recognized > nation state, whether on terrorism or drugs, have an international aspect. They still are not "wars." > It certainly sends notice to the locals that there's going > to be much heavier than usual surveillance by the FBI of related > activities within the USA. It is interesting, and used over here sometimes, that what ever the "enemy of the moment" is becomes the subject of a "war on ..." soundbite from a politician looking to increase voter support because people think it means "getting serious on." It doesn't but I suspect it will eventually and going to war will no longer be a significant step for a nation to take, and one which can not be taken lightly. Article 2 of the Geneva Accords of 1948 even goes as far as to describe how and when signatory nations can declare war. For example, in the US isn't declaration of war a congressional power rather than something which can be done almost arbitrarily? > That, already, is much more than the "normal peacetime run of > things." Maybe so. |