Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 28 Jan 2007 04:25 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45BBF46A.4C2E26B1(a)hotmail.com... > > > T Wake wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> > Phil Carmody wrote: >> >> 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. >> > >> > The USA ? >> > >> > Films like Saw III which depict murder, mutilation and torture as >> > entertainment say something very scary about the society that produces >> > them. >> >> I disagree with you wholeheartedly here. > > You don't think it says something scary about the USA ? No, I dont. >> I am far from convinced that media violence or activities has the impact >> on >> people that it is claimed. It certainly has not happened in my case, and >> it >> has not happened in the cases of anyone I know. > > I would once have tended to side with you but extreme examples such as the > one I > mentioned tend to isolate ppl from reality I reckon and numb them about > such > things. You see, I dont agree with this. While there are isolated incidents of people doing bad things to other people after watching a film, there is no way to determine if they would have done the bad things without watching the film. > To present torture specifically intentionally as entertainment is perverse > to > say the least IMHO. > >> While this is purely anecdotal evidence (and I am fully aware of how >> valuable that makes it...), the research which says "watching violence >> makes >> you violent" is shaky at best. > > I suspect it may make you more tolerant of it. Some of the most violent cultures in the world have no access to the desensitising nature of television/film. While cultures which do have access (and popularise) violence on film, the worst atrocities of the last century were committed by cultures which had no access to this sort of thing. It could be argued that the media portrayal makes people less sensitive to violence, but at most this is only reflected on a very minor scale. To some extent, blaming media violence for a persons "Bad Acts" strikes me more as an excuse to avoid blame more than anything else. >> It is the same as saying things like Playing Dungeons and Dragons makes >> you >> a Satanist or any of the other claims about "contemporary" culture which >> have been made over the years. > > I don't see the connection there at all. Your claim that watching violence makes people violent is the same as the claim in the 1970s that playing RPGs which involved devils and demons made people Satanists. In the 50's Rock music was accused of destroying the family unit with it's talk of rebellion. I suspect similar claims have been made pretty much every generation and I am not convinced any are supported by fact.
From: T Wake on 28 Jan 2007 04:26 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:e1836$45bbfe73$4fe70dd$26560(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >T Wake wrote: > >> "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >> news:61ab6$45bbee47$4fe70dd$26171(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >> >>>T Wake wrote: >>> >>>snip >>> >>> >>>>All I can say is, it seems to me that religion is not genetically coded >>>>for. If it is, which religion? Which parts of religion? Why are >>>>religions different? etc. >>> >>>Might be, might not be, but it seems to me (and some others) >>>that it is. There are also other references (I've spent too >>>long on this today already so I'm not in the mood to go on >>>another search) that some forms of extreme religiosity >>>appear to be connected to frontal lobe epilepsy. >>> >>>I think we're (generic human) genetically coded to believe >>>in things beyond our ability to perceive. >> >> >> Possibly so, but this is different than saying it is coded for religion. > > Depends on what your definition of religion is. > Very much so.
From: jmfbahciv on 28 Jan 2007 07:31 In article <87zm84ytis.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: >> MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >> > What part of ALL radiating devices do you not understand? >> > >> > If anything, the business/commercial class was LESS tolerant of >> >emissions. >> >> Sigh! And we weren't selling to the business nor commercial class >> at that time. > >Who mentioned anything about "selling"? I did. We manufactured those TTYs. > >Is there no pathetic attempt at a wriggle that you won't try? > >Maybe your computer kit was blue. Perhaps the law doesn't apply to >blue boxed. Try that one, it's probably more believable than your >previous attempts. Perhaps you should try to learn how the biz worked in the late 60s and early 70s. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 28 Jan 2007 07:36 In article <d2922$45bb6d21$4fe7573$21189(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> In article <45BB5F73.55484113(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: >>>>> >>>>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>T Wake wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>I suppose you'd have them round them up now and detain them without >>>>>>>>>trial ? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Because in BAH's world that is so much better than following them and >>>>>>>>finding out who else they interact with...... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I mean, why attack the network when you can get caught up swatting >> >> the >> >>>>>>>>little flies at the edges. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Silly me, I forgot to mention that aspect of it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Yes of course they can get more and better intelligence by giving their >>>>>>>suspects a sense of false security. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>In fact 5 Muslims were arrested earlier this week in connection with an >>>>>>>ongoing enquiry AIUI. All this stuff requires intelligence ( both sorts >> >> ! >> >>>>>>>). >>>>>> >>>>>>The best way to traceback contacts isn't by noting people >>>>>>contacts but by watching the cash flows. You people are >>>>>>aware that an internet exists? People no longer have to >>>>>>physically meet to plan to make a mess. >>>>> >>>>>But they do physically meet. How else do you think they make their bombs >> >> etc >> >>>>>? >>>> >>>>The members of each group do not have to meet their handlers any >>>>more. This is no longer the Cold War and email, cell phones, and >>>>FedEx are available commercially. >>> >>>What 'handlers' LMAO ? >>> >>>All the evidence to date has shown that these UK groups have acted entirely >>>independently. >>> >>>You still haven't addressed how a group make a bomb. It can't be done single >>>handedly. >> >> >> Since we've had high school kids make them, I assumed that people >> living in Europe had enough brains to make them, too. You >> do know that these things are getting taught in the mosques; >> don't you? > >There's no reason to believe that McVeigh couldn't have built >his truck bomb single handedly. I'm trying to address a mistaken assumption these people are making. Their idea of war is when two highly organized groups, each funded and supplied by a single government, meet on a field somewhere and shoot at each other; thus, conflicts of any other nature has to be treated as criminal and apply a country's criminal law to each individual. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 28 Jan 2007 08:00
In article <45BB5E0D.331FE01E(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: >> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> >> >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> Any longer was rejected by Parliament. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >IMHO 30 days is too long, but I suspect I am in a minority there. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> These people take years to plan their attacks. And you think 30 days >> >> >> >> is too long?! >> >> >> > >> >> >> >It is for someone who's innocent ! >> >> >> >> >> >> Your laws do assume innocence until proven guilty...right? Thus >> >> >> all are innocent. Are you willing to wait until a mess is made >> >> >> and then have the law infrastructure deal with these people? >> >> > >> >> >Are you trying to suggest that there would be suspects who were simply >> >> >allowed to continue do their evil deed ? >> >> >> >> Of course there will be. No law enforcement infrastructure >> >> is infallible. If your laws force your police to let someone, >> >> go, that person will not be deterred from making a mess. What >> >> makes you think that he will stop his plans? >> > >> >If someone's let go they can still be arrested again if there's new evidence. >> >> Before or after King's Cross is rubble? > >What's Kings Cross got to do with it ? You won'r blow it up with a homebrew >backpack bomb you know. Or even 3 or 4 of them. > > >> >> >> What if the infrastructure isn't there any more becaues that >> >> >> is what was messed up. >> >> > >> >> >You overestimate what a few ppl can achieve. You're quite obsessed by the >> >> >curious idea that our society is so flimsy that it'll fall over if anyone >> so >> >> >much as huffs and puffs at it. I don't share your fears. >> >> >> >> A very small huff and puff happened in New Orleans. It's infrastructure >> >> is still in shatters. It doesn't seem that anyone knows how to rebuild >> >> it without calling in the US Army. >> > >> >Thaty just goes to show how powerless the Islamist terrorists are compared to >> >mother nature. >> >> It shows that cleaning up a big mess may be impossible. > >Even Hiroshima and Nagasaki got cleaned up. > >Humans are very industrious creatures. Those areas were cleaned up by the people who dropped the bomb. The Islamic extremists do not ever intend to clean up their messes. They have no plans to rebuild anything of Western civilization. That is what "destroy Western Civilization" means. /BAH |