Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 22 Jan 2007 16:45 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:7708d$45b4e6e8$49ecfc1$10152(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >T Wake wrote: >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> news:eontsk$8qk_002(a)s887.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> >> <snip> >> >>>And this enemy does not recognize your law. They consider >>>your law illegal. So they will never obey it and are actively >>>trying to destroy its infrastructure. >> >> >> This is funny. Do you feel "normal" criminals recognise the law and >> respect it? > > I would say yes, they do, since most "normal" criminals, > as opposed to the clearly insane ones, work hard not to > get caught. Interesting perspective and I see your point here. I am tempted to argue that this is not so much "respecting" the law as realising it is there and that law enforcement officials will enforce it but I now think that would be on very shaky ground. > "This enemy" as BAH puts it, does not recognize (meaning > actually acceptance of validity) of your laws. Our western > criminals see an opportunity and they think they can avoid > the consequences. But that clearly is not the same thing as > refusing to recognize the laws. I still maintain this is identical to the situation BAH describes. The "enemy" she worries about must actually recognise the law if they view it as illegal and aim to undermine it. BAH is trying to make the case that as the [insert current enemy] does not "play" by the same rules and laws, the US (and associated coalition forces) should not feel bound by those rules. This is (IMHO) very wrong. BAH asserts this is a war between cultures (civilisations / societies whatever, the term changes) and while she is arguing about a nebulous enemy fighting towards a nebulous goal, it strikes me that a "war" like this can not be won without one side maintaining the moral high ground. Becoming terrorists will not win the war against terrorism.
From: Lloyd Parker on 22 Jan 2007 12:47 In article <dd154$45b518b3$4fe7758$13257(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >T Wake wrote: > >> "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >> news:45920$45b0e072$49ecf6f$19658(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >> >> >>><snip> >>>[Lancet] >>>"The risk of death was estimated to be 2�5-fold (95% CI >>>1�6�4�2) higher after the invasion when compared with >>>the preinvasion period." >>> >>>Note the ESTIMATED. >>><snip> >> >> >> All statistical studies produce estimated results. The confidence level is >> the important bit. > >GIGO > > Take a basic statistics course.
From: T Wake on 22 Jan 2007 18:47 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:e3d5d$45b51eee$4fe7758$13922(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >T Wake wrote: > >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> news:eoqmqj$8qk_003(a)s790.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> >>>In article <45AFA70E.49B8825A(a)hotmail.com>, >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >> <snip> >> >>>>nor were US troops >>>>stationed in the Middle East. >>> >>>Then these problems cannot be the fault of the US. >> >> >> Eh? Do you have a list of logical fallacies you need to use in each post? >> >> Your line of reasoning here is nonsensical. >> >> 1 - *you* assert the problems are based on the situation 100 years ago - >> with nothing to support this claim. >> 2 - Eeyore says that there were no US troops in the Middle East then >> 3 - You use this to conclude the problems have nothing to do with the US. >> >> Blimey. >> >> Talk about building from a false premise. > > Shame on both you for taking Eeyore's insane ramblings as > anything to consider They are often no more insane than BAHs and normally much less. > Your Lawrence was there stirring up all sorts of trouble, > trying to unite the Arabs against everyone else including > their only salvation at the time, the British Army. They > should have sent him home much earlier. > > His legacy remains very much intact. First off, this does not imply BAH's line of reasoning was in any way, shape or form, logical. Secondly, this suffers from the same history problems as most attempts to revisit the past. Lawrence was there stirring up the currently existing issues the tribes in the region had, so blaming him is a bit arbitrary.
From: T Wake on 22 Jan 2007 18:49 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:4b867$45b51d88$4fe7758$13824(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >T Wake wrote: > >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> news:eoo7cj$8qk_001(a)s1231.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> >> <snip> >> >>>Now take a look at the rules of engagement that our enemies use. >>>They are depending on us to abide by _our_ rules; they will make >>>great advances in gaining power because we have tied ourselves >>>up in "we better than they are" attitudes; this is arrogance. >> >> <snip> >> >> You are either trolling or insane. >> >> Re-read this post and see if it is what you meant to say. > > There's a logic to what she said. An example is taking > a knife to a gunfight. That is (IMO) a false analogy but is the only one in which her posts holds _any_ water(which goes some lengths to suggest her reasoning is flawed). This is a redraft of the police breaking the law to fight crime argument.
From: unsettled on 22 Jan 2007 21:44
T Wake wrote: > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message > news:e3d5d$45b51eee$4fe7758$13922(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >>Your Lawrence was there stirring up all sorts of trouble, >>trying to unite the Arabs against everyone else including >>their only salvation at the time, the British Army. They >>should have sent him home much earlier. >>His legacy remains very much intact. > First off, this does not imply BAH's line of reasoning was in any way, shape > or form, logical. I don't follow her arguments very closely. > Secondly, this suffers from the same history problems as most attempts to > revisit the past. History only 100 years old is not fraught with problems. My own father was very much in touch with world events in that day, and transmitted lots of information to me as I was growing up in ways that helped shape my life, my thinking, and how I dealt and continue to deal with the world. I have every reason to believe that there are lots of people in the middle east with a similar history, and at my age we tend to be community leaders. 100 year old history is pertinent to today. > Lawrence was there stirring up the currently existing > issues the tribes in the region had, so blaming him is a bit arbitrary. That's what we call a copout. That there were pre-existing issues is true enough, but that Lawrence didn't increase the problems isn't a realistic conclusion. He also showed the Arabs of the day how to beat the British Army, not a very cool move then or now. This is kind of like the 4 minute mile. Once someone did it it became commonplace. Until that time, it was considered an insurmountable barrier. |