Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 23 Jan 2007 09:09 unsettled wrote: > T Wake wrote: > > "Ken Smith" <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote > >>T Wake <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >> > >>>>We can only hold ourselves accountable for our actions, not > >>>>those of insurgents and terrorists. So what is it you're > >>>>actually trying to say here. I smell doublespeak. > >>> > >>>I thought he was referring to the treatment of Iraqi prisoners taken by the > US forces, >>>and the treatment of people at Guantanamo. I may be wrong. > >> > >>Yes exactly. The US needs to hold to its standards in what it does. > > Armchair philosophers emerged again. > > The "standard" is what the law allows, nothing more, nothing less. So, you've changed the law to lower your (US) standards. > That law is different from place to place. And the USA is notorious for ignoring the laws of other lands and/or attempting to impose its own laws there. CIA ? kidnappings for example. > If a person doesn't want to end up at Gitmo, all they have to > do is avoid situations likely to land them in Gitmo. That's > an ordinary sort of life decision. So how about those at Gitmo who were 'detained' simply because someone pointed a finger at them for a reward ? Graham
From: unsettled on 23 Jan 2007 09:12 T Wake wrote: > It seems there is a clash of cultures here in this thread, let alone between > "Islam and Western Civilisation." I'm going to throw in a partial agreement which is supported by an excellent bio about Milton Friedman I just happen to be reading. He died last year. "What I did not discover until many years later was that Friedman had been spitefully frozen out of much of the intellectual life of the Cambridge Economics Faculty. For instance, there was an absurdly-named 'secret seminar' that discussed capital theory, where Friedman could have helped very much by cutting through some of the mathematical problems and bringing out the essentials, but from which he was excluded. "What dismayed him most were the illiberal attitudes of some in the faculty who were theoretically on his side. An example was the late Professor Sir Denis Robertson, who always maintained reservations about Keynes and who advocated zero inflation decades before that became fashionable. But he shocked Friedman by defending vigorously the right of County Agricultural Committees to dispossess farmers they deemed inefficient. The Chicago professor's admiration for the founding fathers of British economics became tinged with perplexity at what so many contemporary English people were inclined to assert." http://www.ft.com/cms/s/cb74eef8-7599-11db-aea1-0000779e2340.html We not only have different ways of doing things, we have significantly different ways of looking at things. Antiamericanism has been so thoroughly built into UK society for generations as an unrealized bias filtering every thought related to world events that Brits have come to think such thinking is "normal." That's OK, so long as we in the US recognize it and understand why Brits behave as they do.
From: Eeyore on 23 Jan 2007 09:13 unsettled wrote: > T Wake wrote: > > > The British Army had been beaten many times prior to this. > > But the Arabs sure didn't know that and didn't have any of the > tools to do it with. Afghanistan ! They were defeating us 165 yrs ago ! " Afghanistan was invaded twice from British India, firstly in the First Anglo-Afghan War of 1838�1842, and again in the Second Anglo-Afghan War of 1878�1880, both times with the intention of limiting Russian influence in the country, and quelling local tribal leaders. Both invasions ended in total defeat for the British forces " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasions_of_Afghanistan Graham
From: unsettled on 23 Jan 2007 09:17 T Wake wrote: > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message > news:ca129$45b603e6$4fe7715$22116(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > >>T Wake wrote: >> >> >>>"Ken Smith" <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote in message >>>news:ep42ff$fib$4(a)blue.rahul.net... >>> >>> >>>>In article <zISdnY4yq_45cinYRVnyiQA(a)pipex.net>, >>>>T Wake <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>>[....] >>>> >>>> >>>>>>We can only hold ourselves accountable for our actions, not >>>>>>those of insurgents and terrorists. So what is it you're >>>>>>actually trying to say here. I smell doublespeak. >>>>> >>>>>I thought he was referring to the treatment of Iraqi prisoners taken by >>>>>the >>>>>US forces, and the treatment of people at Guantanamo. I may be wrong. >>>> >>>>Yes exactly. The US needs to hold to its standards in what it does. >> >>Armchair philosophers emerged again. > > > And you consider yourself something different? > > >>The "standard" is what the law allows, nothing more, >>nothing less. > > > This is an argument heading down a moral maze. If this is true, then the > prisoners must be detained and treated in a manner fully in keeping with the > law. Chaining them in the foetal position is not in keeping with the law. Cite please, of Cuban law. >>That law is different from place to place. > Do you mean to say that American soldiers / government representatives in > foreign countries are not bound by American laws? They are bound by local laws. If we didn't observe local laws we'd insult the host country. > <snip> >>I hear nothing in this thread other than America bashing at >>every turn. Perhaps you both need to take a look at your >>motivations because they sure don't rise to any "standard" >>of reasonability. > Perhaps you need to stop reading this thread. very soon. > Here you present the argument > that the opposing views are incorrect because they are "nothing but America > bashing," That's a fact > which is a fallacy to say the least. > Criticism of a democratic > nation is something which should be encouraged at all times. "Criticism" is taken to mean "constructive criticism" and not license to keep bashing with the same irrational points repetitively. > My comments are > equally aimed at the rest of the coalition, but as the US has established > itself as the "leadership" it shares the brunt of the blame. There is it again. This Antiamerican bias is so very much part of you that you have no inkling it is even present.
From: unsettled on 23 Jan 2007 09:19
T Wake wrote: > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message > news:7f314$45b60722$4fe7715$22176(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > >>T Wake wrote: >><snip preamble> >> >>>Yet here we have an example of how it is still fraught with problems. My >>>parents were also in touch with what went on, but certainly in an age >>>before the Internet (before TV in the UK), their knowledge and >>>understanding of what went on in the colonies and elsewhere was biased. >> >>Time has no hold on bias. People are just as biased about >>an event that happened 5 minutes ago as one that happened >>36,500 days ago. Your persistent America bashing shows your >>bias despite the internet and TV, so it isn't a communications >>and information issue. Here you conveniently jump subjects... > It is a shame you think I am bashing America. I think America has a lot > going for it and should be prepared to live up to the high standards. > > Your comments seem to imply America is a barbaric nation, where suspected > criminals are denied their rights and convicted prisoners are treated in an > arbritrarily cruel manner. But I am the one bashing America. > > Oh well. > > >>>>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. >> >>>Well, here we hit an impasse. I say it is bad practice to make judgements >>>like this based on an arbritrary date in the past, and you seem to want >>>to use it when you get to pick the dates and interpretation. >> >>Then there's never any discussion to be had because whether we >>speak of 5 minutes ago, or 5 hours ago, or 5 days ago, or 5000 >>days ago, or even 36,500 days ago we encounter exactly the same >>problem. >> >>Yet clearly we have discussions, so the premise must be flawed. > > > No, the conclusion is flawed. I said it was bad practice to make judgements > not that there could never be any discussion. > > >>>>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. >> >>>The British Army had been beaten many times prior to this. >> >>But the Arabs sure didn't know that and didn't have any of the >>tools to do it with. > > > Actually they did. The ones Lawrence helped them to take away from the Turks. |