Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Ken Smith on 15 Jan 2007 22:25 In article <ec574$45aba9a4$49ecfc6$17678(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: [.....] >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" I think you may be near the truth here. The democrats have not uniformly been saying "cut and run". This is how the republican spin machine has characterized it. They have been all over the map with suggestions like moving the troops out of the cities and over the horizon and forcing the Iraqi army to do most of the work, moving the troops to the border areas and just getting the heck out. They certainly haven't spoken with one voice. BAH however seems to think that they have. The obvious way that whe could have gotten this impression is if she thought republican talking points were "the news". [...] > 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. I think the one he started with came from a think tank in Oz. The whole basis for the strategy, if there was one, seems to be a bunch of mistakes about the real situation. The problem now is that there is no good answer. The plane is crashing. The only choice is whether you hit the church or the whorehouse. >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. If they had maintained security, and been otherwise competent, we would likely see a very different situation today. Chances are the troops would be coming home. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 15 Jan 2007 22:32 In article <b3c3f$45abdb3b$4fe74ce$19043(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: [....] >I don't think they ever had one. Getting rid of Saddam was as >far as they thought. Plain old fashioned stupidity IMO. No, it was turbocharged with hubris and fueled with high octane "last chance to do something big". A bunch of them are from the Nixon and Reagan era. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 15 Jan 2007 22:51 In article <eofssu$8u0_004(a)s960.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <eodof8$gus$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: [....] >>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. Where in gawd's green earth did you get that little gem of misinformation. Members of ETA in spain have been arrested. Members of the IRA were arrested. Members of the FLQ were arrested. In September 1995, French officials arrested Dursun Karatas. A little time with google proves that this is completely wrong. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Eeyore on 16 Jan 2007 03:41 unsettled wrote: > Consider the situation in Israel with women accompanied > with children carrying submachine guns around doing their > daily routines. Do please provide a link showing this is normal practice there. Graham
From: Eeyore on 16 Jan 2007 07:21
Ken Smith wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >unsettled wrote: > > > >> Actually what you're asking for is even more impossible, > >> that any nation harboring a person we call a "terrorist" > >> be punished. > > > >Aside from those few countries that would intentionally harbour such persons, > >what's so difficult about that ? > > The ... we call a "terrorist" ... part would be the biggest problem. Yes. Some nations would indeed see them as 'freedom fighters' or whatever. Just like we do with their 'terrorists' too. Like the Kurds for example. > Even then, against the real threat, this wouldn't be enough of a problem to > prevent the idea from working. Quite so. Graham |