Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 27 Jan 2007 19:04 T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > Phil Carmody wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> writes: > >> > It would in fact be a very serious mistake to underestimate the > >> > Islamists by assuming they're insane. > >> > > >> > The way they've planned and executed attacks with minimal materials to > >> > hand shows a great deal of inventiveness/resourcefulness. > >> > >> Sociopathic? > > > > If we were Muslims living in the ME who felt threatened by the USA they > > would seem like heroes / a resistance force. > > Only because we, being Muslims, would be insane [*]. > > -- > [*] see previous posts about my ideas on who is and isn't insane This idea has legs I reckon ! ;~) Graham
From: Eeyore on 27 Jan 2007 19:12 unsettled wrote: > T Wake wrote: > > > Ok, if we accept that Stalin was head of a European nation, when did he ask > > for the US' help in the Korean war? > > When he instructed his ambassador to walk out of the Security Council. Surely this is some kind of joke ? Graham
From: T Wake on 27 Jan 2007 19:11 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:f09a7$45bbe2e3$4fe72dd$25912(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >T Wake wrote: > <snip> >>> >>>>It might be me, but I dont read that as saying the country got involved >>>>Europe asked for help. >>> >>>The UK asked from the beginning of hostilities and never >>>withdrew their request for help. >>> >>>Our internal politics had the country divided, so we kept out >>>of the war. >>> >>>The sinking of the Lusitania resolved the internal dissent and >>>we entered the war to help the UK and her allies at her request. >> >> >> OK. You might want to edit >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_1#Entry_of_the_United_States to >> clarify matters a bit. Anyone reading the Wiki article is likely to come >> away thinking the US did it for American foreign policy reasons. > > I'll see to it next week. Nice one. Thanks. >>>>My recollections from my school days may be a bit vague but I seem to >>>>recall the US objected to the German submarine warfare, and when it was >>>>resumed in 1917 (along with German attempts to get Mexico involved) that >>>>tipped the balance. >>> >>>That's what solved the internal disputes in the US. You're >>>not saying that your government didn't ant us to help, are >>>you? > >> Not at all. That is a very different thing to what I am saying. I am >> saying the US did not enter the war soley because a European nation was >> asking for help. If the Lusitania had not gone down, and the Zimmerman >> telegraph not been publicised, would the US have got involved? > > Everything has multiple reasons. We stayed out so long because > powerful factions had opposing desires. I agree wholeheartedly that everything has multiple reasons. This is why when BAH says "the US did [insert claim] because Europe asked for help" it is largely nonsense. Do you think the US would have got involved if the Germans hadn't restarted unrestricted submarine warfare? Would the US have got involved without the Zimmerman telegram? Would the US have got involved if the Luisitania hadn't gone down in 1915? >> If they wouldn't have, then it was not the requests for help they >> responded to but the attack (and potential future attacks). > >> To me there is a difference. You may think otherwise. > > We both seem to like to differentiate things for varying > reasons. > >>>>>No it isn't. Russia/SU was always European. >>> >>>Take a few minutes to look at a historical map from before the >>>SU breakup. The part of the SU that's in Europe is tremendous. >>>If I recall correctly, it is the largest European nation at >>>the time. > >> Two thirds of the USSR's land mass is outside Europe. For example see >> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/Soviet_Union_Administrative_Divisions_1989.jpg > >> As the Urals are the "border" of Europe and Asia there, it seems most of >> the Soviet landmass is outside Europe. > >> Granted the part of the USSR that is still inside Europe is larger than >> any other "single" European nation it is not larger than the nations >> which make up the EU, EC or any other European grouping. > > Then look at the history as well. Especially this page: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Russian_Army > > Don't you see the historic ties to Europe? It wasn't till > Peter and afterwards that empire building took off in a big > way. This strikes me as being a very convoluted way to try and describe the USSR as a European power. While at times Russians have been considered Europeans, their empire is rarely described as a European emprire. Napoleons retreat from Moscow is normally referred to in history books as a retreat "back to Europe" which makes no sense if Russia is accepted as being a European capital. However, as I stated previously I will await BAH's clarification on what she means as Europe. <snip> >>>Stalin was the head of a European nation. I won't argue on >>>her behalf, but in this context of Stalin being an important >>>part of Europe in that day I agree with her statement. > >> Ok, if we accept that Stalin was head of a European nation, when did he >> ask for the US' help in the Korean war? > > When he instructed his ambassador to walk out of the > Security Council. Was this when the US had called the security council to approve the conflict in Korea and provide UN forces? This still does not strike me as any meaningful way of saying Stalin was asking for help here. I am sure BAH can clarify though. >>>>>>That was the claim. Your post talks about the background to the >>>>>>separation, not the request for US/UN involvement. BAH claims the US >>>>>>got involved when Europe asked for help. >>>>> >>>>>That's right. At the close of WW2. Did you read the Wikipedia >>>>>article? >>> >>>>Yeah, but I think I missed that bit. I read the bit where Truman went to >>>>the UN to get UNSC approval for the action. >>> >>>There are two strange aspects to that. The first is that the US >>>didn't want to "go it alone" precisely because we were there as >>>a consequence of one of the "unfinished WW2 messes" that BAH talks >>>about. >> >> >> The US could have allowed all of Korea to go to the Russians. > > It is my understanding Stalin was insistent. That the US have half of it? Why didnt he give them the rest? >>>Even more strange is the fact that the SU, knowing that this >>>request from the US was in the works, created an artificial >>>row in the SC so that they could walk out and not participate >>>when it came time to vote on the Korean matter. One might make >>>the case that the Soviets couldn't openly approve of the US >>>involvement in this "police action" however they approved of >>>it by absenting themselves and purposely allowing the vote to >>>favor the US proposed resolution. > >> That is certainly one way to look at it. It is very different from saying >> the US only got involved because a European nation asked for US help, and >> as the Soviets supported the North Koreans it strikes me as an unusual >> definition. > > Now we have to argue over "only got involved because"???? Yes, that was the argument all along. BAH claims the US only got involved in Korea because Europe asked for help. I say that is nonsense of the highest order and no manner of convoluted logic can support it. > The Soviets minimally supported NC with a handful of advisers > because they wanted to continue to get along with China at > that time. So when they left, what help did they need? This from the Wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War#Hostile_Borders) "In mid 1949, Kim Il-Sung pressed his case with Joseph Stalin that the time had come for a reunification of the Korean peninsula. Kim needed Soviet support to successfully execute an offensive far across a rugged, mountainous peninsula. Stalin as leader of the communist bloc refused permission, concerned with the relative unpreparedness of the North Korean armed forces and with possible U.S. involvement." "Over the following year, the North Korean leadership molded the North Korean army into a formidable offensive war machine modeled partly on a Soviet mechanized force, but strengthened primarily by an influx of Koreans who had served with the Chinese People's Liberation Army since the 1930s. By 1950 the North Koreans, equipped with Soviet weaponry, enjoyed substantial advantages over the South in every category of equipment. After another visit by Kim to Moscow in March-April of 1950, Stalin approved an attack." Makes it difficult for me to see Stalins actions as a request for US help in Korea. Hopefully the original proponent of the claim can clear the matter up, because I am still far from convinced that any European nation (even including the USSR as a European nation) asked the US for help in Korea. >> I would be interested to see any other claims that the US involvement in >> Korea was because a European nation - the USSR - wanted their help there. > > Don't know if there are any, but this satisfies my curiosity. Really? You are happy now that Europeans asked for US help in Korea? >>>It wasn't long till it was the SU's turn to chair the SC, >>>so at that time they returned to the SC, took the chair >>>without comment, and continued as though nothing had >>>happened. >>> >>> >>>>It is a long document so I may have overlooked the European request for >>>>help. Can you point it out to me please? >>> >>>Stalin got us into Korea in the first place. And then helped >>>the Korean War happen, see above. > > >> First off, Stalin never forced the US to agree to a split surrender of >> Korea so I still don't see how he got an apparently unwilling US into >> Korea. > > We were there, he was stretched very thin by then. Consider > the deaths his side experienced, the dearth of officers > available, and his very good understanding that Germany > was pressing the western Allies not to demobilize into > occupation forces but to press onwards and defeat the > Soviet military because the timing was perfect, the SU was > at its weakest at that moment. Even if this is accepted as true, this is still torturous logic for saying that the US went in to help (even unwittingly) a European nation. If this accepted as true, Uncle Joe was making a big mistake. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War#Europe) The outbreak of the war convinced Western leaders of the growing threat of international communism. The United States began to encourage Western European countries, including West Germany, to contribute to their own defense, though this was perceived as a threat by its neighbours, especially France. As the war continued, however, opposition to rearmament lessened and China's entry in the war caused France to revise its position towards German rearmament. To contain the situation French officials proposed the creation of the European Defense Community (EDC), a supranational organisation, under the leadership of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). The USSR could certainly have done without the Conflict. Also, this seems to conflict with what you are saying: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War#Europe) The war was a political disaster for the Soviet Union. Its central objective, the unification of the Korean peninsula under the Kim Il-sung regime was not achieved. Boundaries of both parts of Korea remained practically unchanged. Furthermore, relations with then Communist ally People's Republic of China was seriously and permanently spoiled, leading to the Sino-Soviet split that lasted until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. The war meanwhile united the countries within the capitalist bloc: the Korean war accelerated the conclusion of a peace agreement between the USA and Japan, the warming of Germany's relations with other western countries, creation of military and political blocs ANZUS (1951) and SEATO (1954). However, the war was not without their pluses for the Soviet Union: the authority of the Soviet State seriously grew, which showed in its readiness to interfere in developing countries of the third world, many of which after the Korean war were forced into the socialist path of development, after being forced to select the Soviet Union as their patron. The war was a heavy burden on the national economy of the Soviet Union, which was still suffering from the effects of World War II. Expenditures for defense grew sharply. However, despite all these expenses approximately thirty thousand Soviet soldiers in one way or another, obtained the priceless experience of waging local wars. The war also allowed them the opportunity to test several newest forms of armaments, in particular the MiG-15 combat aircraft. Furthermore, numerous models of American military equipment were seized, which made possible for Soviet engineers and scientists to use American experience for development of new forms of armaments. Personally, I do not feel anything put forward so far supports the claim the US went into Korea to help a European nation. I think it was a standard peice of nonsense from BAH and you are trying your best to justify it.
From: Phil Carmody on 27 Jan 2007 19:15 Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> writes: > Phil Carmody wrote: > > > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> writes: > > > It would in fact be a very serious mistake to underestimate the Islamists by > > > assuming they're insane. > > > > > > The way they've planned and executed attacks with minimal materials to hand > > > shows a great deal of inventiveness/resourcefulness. > > > > Sociopathic? > > If we were Muslims living in the ME who felt threatened by the USA they would seem > like heroes / a resistance force. Yes. All things are relative. Sociopathic with respect to the societal norms that we Western-Europeans/Americans maitain. I'm fairly sure there are some fairly large communities where the societal norms would be, to me, completely fucked up. However, I call into question 'heroic' nature of those who are doing what they are doing not only because of the locally- perceived benefits (the resistance, the freedom fighting), but _also_, and in particular specifically, because some IPU has promised them a small bunch of grapes in an 'afterlife'. That kind of heroism is pretty cheap in my book. Phil -- "Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of /In God We Trust, Inc./.
From: Eeyore on 27 Jan 2007 19:16
The God of Odd Statements wrote: > On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 20:26:01 +0000, T Wake did most oddly state: > >>>>>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>>>>>> But, wait! He hasn't made any messes yet. So you can't arrest > >>>>>>> him. If your police do manage to arrest him, he can pay the bail > >>>>>>> and be free to continue his plans to make a mess. > > Someone who "hasn't made any messes yet" may continue to fail to do so. > Unless there is some kind of hard evidence proving a likelihood of an > intention to "make a mess", holding someone on vague suspicion is abuse > of power, and only likely to motivate a real mess-maker. It's always > easier to justify a terrorist attack when one is opposing genuine > tyranny. Saddam Hussein was always one to hold people based on vague > suspicions. Hold them ? Heck, he'd have them shot ! Graham |