Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 17 Jan 2007 10:36 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > In article <91109$45abaa9c$49ecfc6$17678(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> >>>In article <45AB91C2.CF5D0E83(a)hotmail.com>, >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>T Wake wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>What else can you treat terrorists as, other than criminals? They are not >>>>>"soldiers" fighting for an opposing power. >>>> >>>>Certainly the way Guantanamo is run suggests that too. Soldiers should be >>>>treated according to the Geneva Convention(s). >>> >>> >>>This isn't a Geneva convention styled war. >> >>His stupidity keeps boiling to the surface. > > > There happen to be a lot of people who think that, if the US > plays by Geneva convention rules, the Islamic extremists will. > Since this is a fallacy and the denigration of all US attempts to > deal with this global threat is based on this fallacy, there > is going to have to be extremely big messes before their minds > are changed. For you to dismiss this as stupidity make you worse > than them because you are, in your own way, ignoring the real > problem, too. Despite any persistent insistence otherwise, your belief system does not define legitimately "stupid." There are a lot of very stupid people in the world. Many of them actually vote and share the roads with the rest of us. Refusing to call the stupid because there are many of them is a mistake. The bell curve has that shape for a reason. The usual skews are small. If you're only average, half the people in the world are stupid by comparison. That ratio keeps increasing the smarter you actually are. I think the main problem here is that you need to take a few sociology classes and get rid of some rigidity.
From: unsettled on 17 Jan 2007 10:56 Ken Smith wrote: > In article <45ADA44F.4D6818AB(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >>unsettled wrote: >> >> >>>Ken Smith wrote: >>> >>>>unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>Bush isn't very bright. >>>> >>>> >>>>Either that or his motives are extremely foul. >>> >>>I don't think he's clever enough for that. >> >>The cabal behind him is though. >>http://www.newamericancentury.org/ > > > This may be his goal. It is not the extremely foul motives I was > suggesting. Imagine that Bush hates the US and everything it stands for > and look at his actions in that light: > > (1)Running up a huge debt > > (2)Causing the US to lose a war in the middle east > > etc Distractions from windfall profits in his family business.
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 17 Jan 2007 12:21 On Wed, 17 Jan 07 12:33:00 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <-OidnQ6ZMtcwMDbYnZ2dnUVZ8turnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>news:45ABA0D5.D518B9EC(a)hotmail.com... >>> >>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >T Wake wrote: >>>> > >>>> >> What else can you treat terrorists as, other than criminals? They are >>>> >> not "soldiers" fighting for an opposing power. >>>> > >>>> >Certainly the way Guantanamo is run suggests that too. Soldiers should >>>> >be treated according to the Geneva Convention(s). >>>> >>>> This isn't a Geneva convention styled war. >>> >>> In that case it's not a *war* - period ! >> >>I concur. As a signatory to the Geneva Accords of 1948, the US does not have >>the "right" to decide which wars the accords apply to and which they don't. > >The US isn't the one who has decided this. The people who intend >to kill you and yours are the ones who have decided. jmfbahciv, I'm going to take a different tack and point out something about what this comment suggests about your thinking process. You say that others 'decided.' By this, I take it that you mean that anything the US does to respond to 9/11 is justified merely by the fact of it. In other words, the act was horrible, the results were horrible, and therefore anything and everything we do in response is justified. Listen to that for a small moment. Hear yourself talk. You seem to be saying that we don't need to follow our own laws, or follow treaties we engage in, because 9/11 simply justifies anything an administration decides to do in its name. How do you decide what is too much? Where do you draw your lines? What limits to your actions do you place? Your explanation, jmfbahciv, is the explanation of someone who can justify anything on this event. It sounds like someone who, with bloodied nose, does not care what they do to anyone, even those who didn't land the punch, simply because they are still hurting. And that is a VERY DANGEROUS attitude, jmfbahciv. It's why, in fact, we even bother _having_ laws and a judicial system in place. Because taking matters into our own hands doesn't work well in a society. Vigilantism is exactly what needs to be restrained. Someone murders your own child, someone you love dearly. What does the law say? You cannot respond in kind to your transgressor. You are required to allow "the law" to deal with them. Why? Because when we allow individuals who are hurt to make such decisions, they are not rational in their actions. They get things wrong. They harm innocent people. And the whole thing flies apart. Society folds and violence reigns. Also to the point, there is no objective measure in what you say. It explains anything and everything you might do equally well (and equally poorly.) It's a blanket explanation that admits no judgment of fact, no examination of action -- it just says anything you do is okay because ... And that is a very dangerous and unhealthy attitude. Jon
From: Eeyore on 17 Jan 2007 15:01 Lloyd Parker wrote: > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>>>T Wake wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>What else can you treat terrorists as, other than criminals? They are not > >>>>>"soldiers" fighting for an opposing power. > >>>> > >>>>Certainly the way Guantanamo is run suggests that too. Soldiers should be > >>>>treated according to the Geneva Convention(s). > >>> > >>> This isn't a Geneva convention styled war. > >> > >>His stupidity keeps boiling to the surface. > > > >There happen to be a lot of people who think that, if the US > >plays by Geneva convention rules, the Islamic extremists will. > > No, but it's like law enforcement. The criminals don't have to play by any > rules, but the police do. Else we simply become no better than them. Graham
From: Ken Smith on 17 Jan 2007 22:01
In article <eol8sc$8ss_007(a)s812.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <eohgj8$rri$10(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: [....] >>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". > >Honey, I live in Massachusetts. I do know what the Democrats >are saying and I do know how and when they begin their herding in >any direction. I don't think you actually know what they are saying. I suspect you get it second or third had. By time the signal gets to you it has been filtered. If you start with random noise you can get any signal you want by applying the right filter. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge |