Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 15 Jan 2007 10:58 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > In article <d8a21$45ab8ca9$4fe773b$16654(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>>In article <45AB78A2.85C71A50(a)hotmail.com>, >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>So what do you expect from this 20K more troops? It isn't enough extra > > to > >>>>>>make a difference so it must be symbolic or political. Please explain > > how > >>>>>>they make anything better. >>>>> >>>>>I don't know if 20K more will do the job. I do know that the key >>>>>is to get the Iraqi middle class back and working. >>>> >>>>Working where ? >>> >>> >>>C'mon, eeyore. It does not become you to pretend to be that >>>stupid. >> >>He's not pretending. > > > In this case, eeyore was trying be cute. Maternal instincts kicking in? LOL
From: unsettled on 15 Jan 2007 11:01 T Wake wrote: > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > news:eofssu$8u0_004(a)s960.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > >>In article <eodof8$gus$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >> >>>In article <eodeen$8qk_004(a)s849.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>[....] >>> >>>>Anybody who insists that the extremists are criminals. To treat >>>>their actions as criminal, you must arrest and put them on trial. >>>>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. >>> >>>No, you have it wrong. You don't need a global police force to do it. >>>Criminals who have crossed borders are dealt with all the time. If >>>someone commits a murder in the US and then runs to England, he is not >>>safe. This is how it would be for the terrorists if they were called the >>>criminals they are. >>> >>>When you call it a "war" you make them soldiers. When they are soldiers >>>in a cause against you the other governments can't arrest them. When you >>>stop calling it "war" and start calling it "crime", other governments can >>>arrest them. This is part of why calling it a war is such an awful idea. >>> >> >>But nobody was arresting them, especially in Europe. > > > Yes they were. Terrorists have been getting arrested (or shot if they go to > Gibraltar) in Europe for decades. There are more terrorist organisations > than the Al Qaeda bogey monster you know. > > Currently, if as you say the fight against terrorism is a "war" then there > is no requirement for _any_ nation to arrest terrorists. Nations not > explicitly allied to the US should actively _not_ impede the passage of the > Terrorist Soldiers. Wrong. Any military force crossing neutral territory must have permission from that country to transit, otherwise they are violating that country's neutrality and territory. Check out German ships entering neutral ports during WW2.
From: T Wake on 15 Jan 2007 11:04 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:4b2bb$45aa932c$4fe76e9$25519(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... <snip> > We did what was best for the US. You don't like that, it is > historical fact, so tough. Iranian greed was the trigger. While, with the benefit of hindsight it seems the 1953 operation was misguided, I do actually agree with you here. The UK and US acted in their national best interests at the time. The fact it _may_ have been linked to the subsequent events of 1979 isn't the issue. It *could* be argued that a better solution would have been establishing an equitable deal with the Iranians (it is "their" oil etc), and that this may have prevented the Iranian revolution from ever happening - but we will never know for sure. As an aside, this is why I tend to think trying to argue over the pros and cons of things which happened decades ago is always going to be flawed.
From: Eeyore on 15 Jan 2007 11:18 unsettled wrote: > T Wake wrote: > > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message > >>Ken Smith wrote: > >> > >>>So what do you expect from this 20K more troops? It isn't enough extra > >>>to make a difference so it must be symbolic or political. Please explain > >>>how they make anything better. > >> > >>I've said before, disarm the population, seal the border, and we > >>can leave. > > > > And remove all knives, stones, bricks, shovels, axes etc.... > > Sarcasm replacing discussion noted. Where's the sarcasm ? Those are all potentially lethal weapons. Graham
From: unsettled on 15 Jan 2007 11:19
T Wake wrote: > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > news:eod9rm$8qk_001(a)s849.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>I have wondered and have tried to figure out why. The only conclusion >>left is that the Democrat leadership is insane. > Like I said, maybe you should try to re-assess this conclusion. It also > remains that you havent accounted for the rest of the republicans - you said > Bush was the "only one" in washington... > Now, if you are correct and the _entire_ Democrat leadership are insane, > then how many others must also be insane to allow them to appear to function > normally? > It seems that insanity must be very common in the US. When an insanity > becomes that common, "sanity" is often re-defined to allow the previous > insanity become sane again. (For example, if some one says they hear God > talking to them, they are not normally put in a padded cell. If some one > routinely claimed a green dinosaur was talking to them, things would be > different). > You may discover that, in reality, the Democrat leadership are not > insane.... I think the problem is that she takes politicians at their word. While the democratic rhetoric has for some time been along the lines of "cut and run" where the rubber hits the road they haven't been pushing for that at all. The democrats rightly are asking for a strategy, Bush's major downfall. When Baghdad fell I was astonished that the soldiers were sitting around as though they were on vacation. As far as I was concerned the work had just begun, and to a great extent that hasn't yet come true. |