Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 19 Jan 2007 19:13 On Fri, 19 Jan 07 14:19:43 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <kp8vq2tb9eaq0ed813jdpr00kbcstl3v5r(a)4ax.com>, > Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >>On Thu, 18 Jan 07 13:22:15 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>>In article <i98qq29j207ke01380bfk1h82rhguhf8lb(a)4ax.com>, >>> Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >>>>On Tue, 16 Jan 07 10:34:37 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) >>>>wrote: >>>> >>>>>In article <eoin12$8qk_002(a)s961.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >>>>><snippage for bah's reader> >>>> >>>>>>NATO is now in charge of helping Afghanistan. Bush isn't supposed >>>>>>to be helping there. >>>>> >>>>>What? We invaded! >>>> >>>>Yeah! So everyone else has to help patch things up after we break >>>>them. That's fair, right? Our motto, "We break 'em, you remake 'em." >>>> >>>> ;) >>> >>>It would behoove you to watch what happens and NATO's performance. >> >>None of that changes my 'teasing.' The US made the decision to >>invade. That it may hand over some of that later on does not dissolve >>its responsibilities created by that event. > >I didn't mean to imply that its responsibilities dissolved. Okay. >>By the way, I do tend to think that Afghanistan was the right place >>for us to invade. > >It was the logical _first_ step. There are about 13 steps involved >in dealing with this problem. Some can be done in parallel; some >have a heirarchy where one step has to be almost completed before >the next step can be started. Most of these steps can be laid >down in a PERT chart without too much thinking (that's how easy >the IF/THEN/ELSE/AND sets of conditions are. Getting these steps to >work is the extremely hard part. > >> Bush's admin got that one right, I think. However, >>I don't know if you remember, but the Taliban actually offered to turn >>over bin Laden to a neutral nation (not the US) and without any having >>to see any evidence (in other words, 'without recourse') that may be >>used in a trial, after the 9/11 attack in the US. They wanted a halt >>to the bombing, though. Bush said, "No." > >The Taliban had their chance. When, exactly? Let me make myself clear. You often write something very, very vague when I say something specific to you. I point out an exact circumstance where there was an offer and some of the details of that offer, in fact. You can easily check on me, because of those details. A simple google with drop it in your lap. In response, you don't say anything at all -- except that they 'had their chance.' Quite frankly, I find this behavior of yours very frustrating. I have no way of checking on you, figuring out what you are referring to, etc. You take no burden upon yourself, at all. But instead force me to somehow consult my crystal ball about what you are considering when you say that. If this doesn't cease, if you cannot be bothered in our discussions to at least provide me with some anchor to understand you, then I'm going to simply skip over your comments that lack support and references I can use to understand them and move on to something else. So... what are you talking about here. In enough detail that I can figure out what you mean by this. I am almost motivated to respond to the rest here, but I've decided that until you can at least handle what starts your ball rolling on this point, there probably is no point dealing with the rest and, also, I am aware of your browser's limitations and I suspect I would go over your limit, anyway. So let's get this one done. Then I'll try and go back to push forward, once again, on the rest of what you say here. Also, if you now look at what you wrote and decide that you should also flush out details there, feel free to help me that way, as well. Because if I come to an obstruction of 'hand waving,' I will similarly stop until you make your point clear. Jon
From: unsettled on 19 Jan 2007 21:21 Jonathan Kirwan wrote: > On Fri, 19 Jan 07 14:56:25 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: snip >>>It's been measured >>>through a series of international polls. >>Those polls don't as Poland or any of the fUSSR peoples. They >>don't ask the Muslim moderates with a guarantee of annonimity. > They cover the globe, using 30+ languages and covering more than 100 > countries. You can start here, for just one case I'm thinking about: > http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=185 > There are more, if you care to read them. There are significant holes in using this, and other similar, polls as the basis for decision making or for working to modify opinion on the basis of such polls. First, you can have no idea of how these polls were conducted, including neutrality of the questions and neutrality in the sequence of questions. Next, the polls themselves aren't simply "reports on the state of the world" but have become propaganda tools in their own right, helping you to form your opinions and here you attempt to convince someone else of the rightness of your opinion as opposed to that of your correspondent. I found this tidbit especially compelling as a commentary more than a neutral report: "Despite soaring anti-Americanism and substantial support for Osama bin Laden, there is considerable appetite in the Muslim world for democratic freedoms." Well gee whiz, it is a commentary that points to the fact we've known all along, that Muslims would love to throw off the shackles their clergy manages to impose on them, but they lack the guts to purge the clergy of oppressive "leaders." Still, they managed large numbers of people in the protests against the Mohammed cartoons, so there's some disingenuous aspect to this report in omitting such data, and indeed in not covering it along with opinions about Islam placing a price on the heads of people who write dissenting opinions about their religion. Any poll that asks only easy questions ignores significant core values which are important. "The broader, 44-nation survey shows that people in Muslim countries place a high value on freedom of expression, freedom of the press, multi-party systems and equal treatment under the law. This includes people living in kingdoms such as Jordan and Kuwait, as well as those in authoritarian states like Uzbekistan and Pakistan. In fact, many of the Muslim publics polled expressed a stronger desire for democratic freedoms than the publics in some nations of Eastern Europe, notably Russia and Bulgaria." Clearly those who experienced late stage Soviet style cradle to grave care with reduced political oppression have a fond memory of the best days of that form of communism when compared to the very difficult transition period which followed. The people in Muslim countries haven't had much experience with freedoms, let alone transition periods. The comparison appears to suggest it has some meaning while failing to provide any relevance. Honestly, I'm surprised that the "study" wasn't prepared by a glossy like the National Geographic or Smithsonian. It, and other similar reports, aren't worthy of elevation to form the basis for any sort of decision making. Is this study interesting? Sure. But then so are well written studies about the lives of protozoa. The *only* information relevant to decision making is the actual conduct of the peoples in question. Modern conduct varies very little from that of their historical conduct, no matter what "the polls" say. Why not go into prisons around the world to take a poll of felons about their views on society and the world and how they would life if they were suddenly turned out into a free society. I'll bet you'd get some very pretty stories out of that poll as well. I'll repeat this because it is so very important: The *only* information relevant to decision making is the actual conduct of the peoples in question.
From: jmfbahciv on 20 Jan 2007 07:39 In article <45AFB3E8.35783C24(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> > >> >> I have not forgotten Turkey. It is also currently under pressure >> >> to become more conservative. >> > >> >From whom ? >> >> The ultra conservative clerics and their followers. You really >> do need to get the real news. > >No. Their current Prime Minister is fairly conservative but the real pressure >he's under is coming from the EU and it's in precisely the reverse direction to >the one you suggest. That pressure exists. The opposite internal pressure also exists. > >What btw is this 'real news' you talk of ? Where do *you* get it from ? These items are usually only broadcast once if they ever are reported. The ones that are only mentioned once are significant and I've been noticing them. My hypothesis is that our (US) news media broadcast them once and then they can say that their news is balanced. This is a little sly if they don't weight their agenda items with the count of repititions. I listen to speeches broadcast on CSPAN. I also am told about stuff happening in these gossip sessions we call threads in newsgroups. I listen to the US media, BBC and notice which attitude they're trying to push. And I read books. I've probably read 50,000 pages worth over the last 8-10 years. >> >> You should watch all the individual >> >> laws and policies that get passed and then unpassed. You really >> >> need to listen to the real news. >> > >> >I do. >> >> No, unfortunately, you don't. > >I'm vastly better informed. You continually come up with load of old tosh that >you seem to have brainwashed into believing. > >Heck, you can't even *access* the likes of Al Jazeera using your steam powered >PC. Or you choose to use that as an excuse to avoid becoming better informed. If there's something of interest, I go to the library and read it. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 20 Jan 2007 08:00 In article <825vq21dvqu6lrc1e1copqmj63j3nn34t7(a)4ax.com>, Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >On Thu, 18 Jan 07 12:18:28 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>In article <ifvnq25pdonj1eq57u1q2u9qm3apfqkmec(a)4ax.com>, >> Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >>>On Mon, 15 Jan 07 13:19:27 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>>>In article <45AB7C5E.4BB0A12(a)hotmail.com>, >>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>>>> > >>>>>> >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. >>>>> >>>>>We are now. >>>> >>>>And then letting them go because of legal loop holes. This >>>>is utter nonsense. >>> >>>Some of the legal loopholes, as you call them, at least in the US were >>>created because of horrible abuses of power by police earlier on. They >>>were not created without some context. Do you not remember any of >>>those contexts? >>> >>>Aside from that, what exact legal loop hole are you discussing? Or is >>>this just some broad hand-sweep without any facts? Who is being let >>>go, what is the exact reason, and why do you disagree with it? >> >>I cannot remember details. Italy had to let some terrorists go because >>they said there wasn't any Italian law that allowed Italy to >>keep them in jail. At the time, there were quite a few news reports >>coming from Europe that were similar. I recall one from France and >>there was soemthing from Germany. IIRC, Germany was the first >>European country to begin breaking up these cells. > >Details are important, not vague recollections. Yes, I know. > Plus, even with the >details, I need to know your take on them before its worth time to >research them myself. I'll have to await that. The next time I hear it happening, I'll give you a heads up. > >>France didn't act until the field tests of urban riots happened. > >I vaguely recollect something here, but again need details. This was last summer. France had urban riots and seemed to be out of their Muslim workers. But the only people who seemed to be making messes were the kids. I found this significant given that clerics train the kids to make messes. Compare this tactic to the riots in the US during the 60s, especially the ones during the summers of 1966 and 1967. The ones who began the riots were imported into African-American neighborhoods and the kids burnt up the middle class black communities. > >>Spain seems to be slow to respond even after the trains were >>blown up. > >I remember some of this. What do you mean here by "slow to respond?" Spain has just started to recover, politically and economically, from the mess stirred by the Nazis. They have to take great care when investigating the messes just in case the mess was made by their home-grown terrorists [or whatever they call them]. >By this question, I mean both 'slow' and also what you feel was >inadequate about the response. Not inadequate, AFAIK, but slow because they had to tread lightly to avoid another internal civil fight. > >>I didn't understand that one but I got the sense that >>it had to do with their long history of civil war and they >>had to tread very carefully to prevent another one. > >Again, if you are going to make your point, you need to do at least a >modest level of research to make it. Spain's history is on my list to study. > That way, I can do my own >checking and then try to see if I can look at what you see as a >problem. I'm not trying to state that this is a problem but it's an aspect of how these problems are being addressed in Europe. So try to take a look at their flavors of reactions from the point of view of extreme conservative Muslims who intend to make messes. They are watching quite closely and using the timing of these reactions and types of reactions as part of their plans. Always remember that dying and killing is not a constraint to any of their plans. > >>If my time recall is correct (which isn't very often these days), >>this happened two, maybe 1-1/2, years ago. >> >>There are reports coming out of Indonesia where dealing with >>these extremist organization is tricky. Certainly the ones >>in Russia are problematic. We only hear news from that >>one place but there's a former Soviet area that I'm told >>is unstable. > >You know, jmfbahciv, the response from you that I'm narrowly focused >upon is this: "And then letting them go because of legal loop holes. >This is utter nonsense." You are making quite a sweeping statement >that, were I to be making it, I would have first researched my belief >a bit to verify that I could defend it well. What I see from above is >not at all a defense showing me that you know why you said what you >said. But instead, a response that tells me you have vague >recollections and nothing particularly condemning in mind, at all. And >if this recollection of yours is all you are going on for such a >definitive condemnation, I'd recommend that you think a little more >before saying such things. > >When I write, and after I say something in text, I look it over again >to see if I can specifically recall details to defend those points. If >I cannot recall enough to make a good defense, but think I'm right, I >go research it before posting, so that they are fresh in mind and >clearer and then adjust what I was saying to meet those details. If I >cannot recall enough and cannot research it to refresh my memory, I >don't post it. I respect the people I talk to enough for that much. Ok. I won't post what I cannot cite. Since I may not be able to cite very much, I may not be able to contribute my observations of the trends I see going on. I understand your frustration with my style of writing and discussions. I don't know how fix myself. I'll work on it. /BAH
From: unsettled on 20 Jan 2007 08:28
Jonathan Kirwan wrote: snip <so much crapola, so little time> > I can't argue with your state of mind. That's the entirety of the difficulty in having any discussion with you. Points that were made aren't understood by you. I can't tell whether that's simple fact, or trollish. Either way, it doesn't much matter to me. > You will note that I provided the Pew reference and that doing so > provided you with the opportunity to dispute what they said. You > didn't use that information to inform yourself in order to directly > dispute my use of the poll in regards to jmfbahciv's point, but > instead to go onto another subject I wasn't discussing. Branching is part of the value of the forum known as usenet. Threads would die after 2 or 3 posts without branching. > I would > appreciate it if you'd provide some evidence, external to your own > mind and where I can go examine it on my own, in making your argument. It appears you "missed the point" to everything I wrote. No sense in sending more good dollars down the hopper. > It would help me understand what you are saying, though illustration, > and it would provide some means by which we could widen our > examination for a more comprehensive view. Without that, it's just > your state of mind and this turns into a religious argument -- one > either accepts on faith what someone else says.. or not. And damn logic anyway, eh? Huge long posts with interlocking proofs for every little point aren't necessary for people who are well educated and have a good grounding in arts and sciences. I've no desire to write for your edification in the basics as though I'm a Philadelphia lawyer. You, of course, are welcome to do as you wish. |