Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 31 Jan 2007 07:22 In article <c9250$45bf73b5$4fe7196$2143(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> In article <970b3$45bcdaba$49ecfa9$6154(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >> >>>T Wake wrote: >>> >>> >>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>news:epi5ci$8ss_002(a)s804.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>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. >>>> >>>> >>>>Oh dear. The last two weeks of posts have vanished out of your memory now, >>>>haven't they? >>> >>>You have to read her comment *very* carefully. >> >> >> Damn! And I really worked on that post. > >Sorry. > >The difficulty lies in the distance between the "mistaken >assumption" bit and what it is that's mistaken. > >See if this rewrite suits your idea as I think it does. > >[rewrite of BAH theme] >In a historical context, war has been defined as two highly >organized groups, each funded and supplied by recognized >governments, meet on a field somewhere and shoot at each >other. More recent wars carry forward the same concept >with the adoption of WMD's and other distance killing. > >I'm trying to address the mistaken assumption that conflicts >of any other nature have to be treated as criminal and apply >a country's criminal law to each individual. Formal warfare >has progressed far beyond our earlier definitions and must >grow to include the new realities. >[end rewrite of BAH theme] Yes. That will do. I was never allowed to make a writeup personal. Thank you. Now, for your opinion. Is this lack of recognition of a new kind of conflict not the crux of the matter? I'm not just talking about these guys in this thread, but the so-called politically correct attitude that is pervasive. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 31 Jan 2007 07:32 In article <a_WdnXJGRKBVMiLYRVnytwA(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:epnqqm$8ss_017(a)s858.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <MvidnQbxmY5PSCHYnZ2dnUVZ8sSrnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>> >>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>news:epi5ci$8ss_002(a)s804.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> >>>> 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. >>> >>>Oh dear. The last two weeks of posts have vanished out of your memory now, >>>haven't they? >> >> I'm still working on the original problem; I haven't solved it. >> > > >While you are doing that you can remind us what the purpose of the Geneva >convention is (in your opinion) It was an argreement among countries about the rules of fighting were when they were fighting each other. Boxing, or any sport, does the same thing. This is a Western idea. > and what European country asked the US for >help in Korea. > >That would be an excellent start. I'll talk about the fighting that happened under Truman after WWII. AT that time, none of the European free countries were in any position to wage the coming fights that were to be called the Cold War. Yet these same countries did not want Communism to spread. So the US was the only country who had enough resources to lead and do most of the supplying. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 31 Jan 2007 07:43 In article <45BCCD5F.522D3C01(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >> > >> >No. If you go around opening the cage door on rabid pitbulls, you are >> >responsible for people getting bitten. >> >> I'm glad you agree with me about keeping these types locked up. > >It doesn't have to mean physically locked up. With today's transportation technology, it does. There is no Australia-type piece of land to keep them from making messes in other peoples' backyards. /BAH
From: Eeyore on 31 Jan 2007 08:00 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > I'll talk about the fighting that happened under Truman after WWII. > AT that time, none of the European free countries were in any > position to wage the coming fights that were to be called the > Cold War. Yet these same countries did not want Communism to > spread. So the US was the only country who had enough resources > to lead and do most of the supplying. It was the USA who was most concerned about communism spreading and it wasn't happening in Europe either. Graham
From: T Wake on 31 Jan 2007 08:05
"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:abb29$45bfe3fa$4fe7077$5106(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >T Wake wrote: > >> "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >> news:a557c$45bfbb21$49ecf90$4084(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >> >>>T Wake wrote: >>> >>> >>>>"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >>>>news:5eaf0$45bfb26f$49ecf90$3729(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >>>> >>>> >>>>>T Wake wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>"Ken Smith" <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote in message >>>>>>news:epnm4l$df5$4(a)blue.rahul.net... >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>In article <45BE8D83.976CEBA6(a)hotmail.com>, >>>>>>>Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>[.....] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Same question could be asked of Cain and Abel. Although every time >>>>>>>>>I try >>>>>>>>>asking priest or vicars they get annoyed with me. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I just discovered he lived to be 950 yrs old too ! Maybe he was a >>>>>>>>space alien ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>If you assume as I do that some confused months and years, he made it >>>>>>>to >>>>>>>79 which is old enough to get remarked on. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>This is close to special pleading. The holy text is specific enough at >>>>>>times, yet for something quite simple like days and nights it gets >>>>>>confused? >>>>> >>>>>How many translations/transcriptions in ~5000 years? >>>> >>>> >>>>That is the special pleading. The plea that Commandment X has survived >>>>and is the word of God, but Y has suffered a transcription error. >>> >>>We don't know that there weren't more or fewer commandments. >>>We don't know that today's commandment X is anything like >>>the original, if there was one. >>> >> >> >> Exactly. The devout will claim that (for example) Homosexuality is the >> one sin the Catholic Church can *never* condone (lets ignore the priests >> for now). Yet this is based on the transcriptions / translations and >> interpretations which have taken place in the last 2000 years. Given that >> they get errors in fundamentals (who was Cain's wife? Who was Abel's >> wife? etc), why do they assume that the doctrine they are going on about >> (homosexuality in this example) is actually what they think it is? > > Religion, IMO, is designed to answer the unanswerable > because there's a common human need for it. We spoke > about possible genetic implications earlier. Depending > on the particular society the answers deviate from one > another perhaps even to the point of being opposites > in diverse locations. Given human inconsistency there's > no reason to think that religious answers can anything > but inconsistent. I agree. I dont know why you seem to think this differs from any thing I said. > OTOH it has been pointed out, even by Sagan, that to a > space alien human societies (therefore religion as well) > would appear indistinguishable. Maybe so, but so what? > As much as you get into this it seems you have a bug up > your butt about this stuff. That's too bad because it > means you're not over your upbringing yet. Perhaps. I am not sure what bug I have up my butt though, all I said was religious doctrine suffers from the fallacy of special pleading and saying that X is acceptable because "it is written" is ludicrous. Everything you have written agrees with what I said, does that mean you have a bug up your butt as well? > I wish you Godspeed! :-) Thank you. |