Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Ken Smith on 14 Jan 2007 12:28 In article <eodhg2$8qk_002(a)s849.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <eobnu0$oor$3(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: [....] >>Treat them like the IRA and or the Mafia. To help take down organized >>crime, the RICO law was created. If tools are needed, they can be made. > >So you are expecting a UN jurisdiction to handle these people and >the messes they make. No, you have it completely wrong. The UN had nothing to do with the Mafia. You seem to have this bogus idea about what happens if you don't call it a war and it is coloring everything you think about the subject. You would do far better to thik of the terrorists as being like the Mafia. You will quickly see how that model works whereas yours doesn't. > Are you also willing to subject the >Constitution to the UN charter? > >That's what you are asking for and demanding. No, it isn't. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Eeyore on 14 Jan 2007 12:35 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> 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? > >> > >> Will you please note that they are saying that the United > >> Nations (or whatever an organization of all countries is called) > >> should do this. > > > >Who is the "they" saying this? > > Anybody who insists that the extremists are criminals. To treat > their actions as criminal, you must arrest and put them on trial. Damn right ! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6235279.stm " Cartoons protester found guilty A British Muslim has been found guilty of soliciting murder during a London rally against cartoons satirising the Prophet Muhammad. Umran Javed 27, of Birmingham, was also convicted of stirring up racial hatred by a jury at the Old Bailey. " http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6133516.stm " Cartoons protester found guilty A man who called for the killing of British troops has been found guilty of stirring up racial hatred at a rally. Mizanur Rahman, of Palmers Green, north London, was arrested after a protest at the UK's Danish Embassy over cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad. " > This implies that the arresting officiers have jurisdiction wherever > and whenever these extremists reside. This approach requires a > global police force that is not answerable to any single nation. Is that a problem ? Do you prefer Team America World Police ? You do realise it was meant as satire don't you ? http://imdb.com/title/tt0372588/ Team America follows an international police force dedicated to maintaining global stability. Learning that power hungry dictator Kim Jong Il (Parker) is out to destroy the world, the team recuits Broadway star Gary Johnston (Parker) to go undercover. With the help of Team America (Stone, Miller, Masasa, Parker, and Norris), Gary manages to slip into an arms dealer's hideout to uncover the plan to destroy the world. Will Team America be able to save the world? Graham
From: Ken Smith on 14 Jan 2007 12:49 In article <eodh9a$8qk_001(a)s849.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <eobnlh$oor$2(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: [....] >No it is not at all like Mafia conflicts. The Mafia is firmly >entrenched in Western civilization styles of living and conducting >business. The Mafia is the better model. It isn't perfect because the details don't match up perfectly but it works quite well. The terrorists live among populations that are not the terrorists. To remove them you need the locals help. As with the Mafia, when you get the help of the locals, you wi. Calling them soldiers causes you to lose the help of the locals and calling them criminals allows you to gain it. >>Others believe that the threat from the Islamic extremists has been >>massively overblown. They remember global communism adn the threat it >>was. > >Which was still based on WEstern civilization without the capitalistic >economic laws. They had nukes pointed at the US and a nervous finger near them. This made them a major threat. They spread to new countries and it was claimed that once a country converted it would never convert back. Only the belief system differs. What the terrorist believe about themselves doesn't matter nearly as much as what others believe of them. When the are soldiers for some great cause, they get external support. When they are seen as the criminals they are, they lose the support. >> It was a far greater threat than the terrorists and yet we survived. > >You keep evaluating these extremists in Western civilization terms; >this is a fatal assumption. You keep seeing them as ten feet tall. Worse yet, this line of thinking makes them ten feet tall. If this is a war and the US doesn't quickly take out the terrorists, the US will be seen as losing to them and they will be seen as soldiers in a cause. This is exactly the thing the west should fear the most. The terrorists are a tiny minority. They are criminals. When the world treats them as such, their causee will be lost. >>No, it is the real world that applies this limitation on the use of the >>word. When a word serves only to increase the confusion of the reader >>about what you mean, it is time to stop using that word. > >THEN GIVE ME A BETTER WORD AND I'LL USE IT. So far you don't have >a word. One word won't do. "Anticrime effort" works well. >A war is what happens when no political agreement can be achieved. No, it doesn't always come to war. >Because you don't have a word to describe this disagreement between >civilizations, you assume the problem doesn't exist. This is >illogical and dangereous. No, you are incorrect in suggesting that I don't see the disagreement. Unlike you though, I did not hang the tag of "war" on it so I don't make the mistakes that doing that leads to. The actual terrorists are a very small fraction of Islam. There are others who are as western as you or I and between the two is a great number of people. If we make the mistake of acting as though the terrorist extreme is large or thet they are some sort of soldiers, we risk losing the "hearts and minds" of the great bulk of Islam. When we state that they are criminals and act as though we mean it, they don't gain support. Calling them criminals also give the other governments the political cover to act against them. >>>Islam didn't have the notion of nationalism until recently and >>>they still don't quite use this heirarchy for classification of >>>people groups. Until you understand this, >> >>This is another thing that you assume on no basis. > >Do they have a word for nation? If so, when was it created? They have many words for nation. Since they have many languages, you can expect many words for the same thing. >>> I guess you will >>>continue to ignore that this war[or whatever] exists. It is >>>not a simple conflict. >> >>You bet it isn't simple. It is not a major threat to the US. > >If you keep saying this loud enough, you won't have to deal >with cleaning up the mess because you'll be dead. You also assume this with no basis. The US has cleaned up many things that were not a major threat. It takes slow and careful work not blundering about of the world stage to do it. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 14 Jan 2007 12:57 In article <eod8lb$8ss_002(a)s849.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: [...] >So how do you detect that something is sniffing your bits or dumping >on your system without having to waste CPU cycles or any other system >resource? It isn't a waste of CPU cycles. Using your brain to do a function that is easier to do in hardware is a waste of brain cycles. I run Linux on the far side of a good firewalled router and have a firewall running on the box too. I don't download and install silly stuff. I run as a user not as root. The combined result is that there are no bits being sniffed. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 14 Jan 2007 13:14
In article <eod91k$8ss_006(a)s849.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: [.....] >Iran's promises are fantasies? Of their leaders, largely yes. Iran's economy is a mess. They are slowing increasing energy needs while oil production is near constant. In about 10 years or so the lines cross. Iran won't have the money to support terrorists or anything else at that point. This gives them about 10 years to get whatever they can do done. It is in the west's interest to contain them. Ahmadinejad isn't very popular. His support is thin and not very committed. Folks like Ayattollah Khamenehee don't have very wide support either. The country was going in the direction of becoming more western. Threats from GWB etc have caused the populace to rally around their leaders for now. I don't think this will last however. The youth has just about had enough of them. When the oil money dries up, there will be a shock to the situation. There is a chance that during this spasm, they will lash out. The odds of this are increased if the US does something stupid. Right now the best thing the west can do is to offer them fuel for their reactors completely free of charge. Obviously this can't be the US making the offer because they have good reasons not to trust the US. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge |