Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 16 Jan 2007 08:52 In article <C6OdnargkYJ9FTbYnZ2dnUVZ8smonZ2d(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:eodgi5$8qk_005(a)s849.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <o57hq2hgacs104ki37lf6fd2d8lgjjulru(a)4ax.com>, >> Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >>>On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 22:37:27 -0000, "T Wake" >>><usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>> >>>>"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? >>> >>>You know? I had thought so in my earlier years. Honestly believed in >>>the idea I was taught, that Congress declares wars. Of course, >>>reality has a way of making one more circumspect about this issue. >> >> I'm starting to think whether the Constitution has assumed that >> the only kinds of war can be the European-style in which the >> conflict is clearly nation against nation. I'm wondering if >> any Constitutional scholars have thought about a war that can't >> be nation against nation. > >Do you mean like the war of American Independence? The American Civil War >etc? No. > >When you eventually throw off your misguided "European" issues, you may be >able to learn some new things. For example, the articles of war which make >up the 1948 Geneva Accords (which the US signed, remember) also cover civil >wars (which are not nation against nation). And the enemy of Western Civilization hasn't signed any of those agreements. Perhaps you should consider that and spend at least three days considering that. > >It may surprise you but even in Europe there have been civil wars. I would not be surprised. I was surprised when I read that Masschusetts had a civil war. But laying civil war across the TTY screens is a red herring. I'm not talking about an internal struggle of power within an established Western political country. I guess another thing I need to think about is why people cannot consider the notion that there is a civilization conflict. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 16 Jan 2007 09:01 In article <dmqnq2dn64h4s3pteu23sr9trhh88m9obm(a)4ax.com>, Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >On Mon, 15 Jan 07 12:42:10 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>In article <sivkq2pl0b7gv8urglv2oo9hkdcia9elvg(a)4ax.com>, >> Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >>I cannot read your 651 block post because it's too large to fit in >>my machine's core. Sorry. > >I had no idea. I'll set it into smaller form for you. I apologize >for not realizing your limitations. No need to apologize for not knowing. I'm running old hard/software whose capaciites are not the current "unlimited" set of bits :-). > >Would you like me to respond to my 651 line post, breaking it up? Or >respond to your post again, adding two or three separate items? I don't know which is the best approach. I can't tell you without reading it :-). > Also, what is your limitation? The machine's physcial limitation seems to 200-300 but I've never wanted to experiment; a crash would trash the file system. However, ergonomically, keeping it to 100 (or under 200) is much better. Then everyone who reads them can deal with point at each sitting. It would be easier for me to think, too. We can experiment. I probably should also say that I've been a tad burnt out w.r.t. studying foreign policy, politics, and govnerning. I've started reading a textbook on the chemistry of hydrology; it's a sanity bath ;-). /BAH /BAH
From: Eeyore on 16 Jan 2007 09:26 unsettled wrote: > Ken Smith wrote: > > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >>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. > > > > Good plan, but with 20K more troops, there is no chance of doing so. With > > a few 100K perhaps it could be done. > > 20K can easily seal the borders in fairly short order. You have to be joking ! Graham
From: Ken Smith on 16 Jan 2007 09:32 In article <eoilbd$8qk_003(a)s961.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: [....] >And the enemy of Western Civilization hasn't signed any of those >agreements. Perhaps you should consider that and spend at least >three days considering that. Keeping to the agreements and following their rules will allow the west to win. Breaking with them ensures a loss. The rules are part of the moral standard that the west stands for. They are the core of what will sway the "hearts and minds". Give them up and you fall into the terrorists trap. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 16 Jan 2007 09:34
In article <eoilep$8qk_004(a)s961.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: [....] >Then you haven't been very observant about what's been going on >in this thread. MissingProng is just a troll. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge |