Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 2 Feb 2007 09:58 In article <epsv49$qbr$13(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >In article <45C1F8B1.BAB6CB77(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> Pay attention to what happened in Boston yesterday; especially >>> follow what happens after this and what the critics are saying >>> and what these critics don't say. One thing you need to know >>> is that the mayor of Boston is the only politician here who >>> is taking the warnings of 9/11 seriously. >> >>Would you care to explain for us who don't live there what it is that >happened >>in Boston ? >> >>Graham >> >From Reuters: > >BOSTON (Reuters) - A television network's marketing campaign went badly awry >on Wednesday, causing a day-long security scare in Boston that closed bridges, >shut major roads and put hundreds of police on alert. > >Apologizing for Boston's biggest security alert since the September 11 attacks >more than five years ago, Turner Broadcasting said it had placed electronic >devices at bridges and other spots to promote an animated cartoon. > >Police mistook the small, battery-powered electronic billboards as possible >improvised bombs. > >The discovery of the first one on a bridge led police to stop morning >rush-hour traffic on an interstate highway just north of Boston, halt a busy >train line, cordon off the area and deploy a bomb squad, which blew it up. > >By afternoon, at least nine more of the "suspicious" devices were found. >Authorities mobilized emergency crews, federal agents, bomb squads, hundreds >of police and the U.S. Coast Guard as traffic froze in parts of the city. > >The billboards, encased in dark plastic, consisted of blinking lights wired to >an electronic circuit board to project an animated cartoon image in an outdoor >promotion for a show on Turner's Cartoon Network called "Aqua Teen Hunger >Force." > >"The 'packages' in question are magnetic lights that pose no danger," Turner >Broadcasting System Inc., a unit of Time Warner Inc., said in statement. > >It said the devices, which police said resembled improvised exploding devices, >had been in place for two to three weeks in Boston, New York, Los Angeles, >Chicago, Atlanta, Seattle, Portland, Austin, San Francisco and Philadelphia. > >"We regret that they were mistakenly thought to pose any danger," Turner said. > >LEGAL ACTION THREATENED > >"I am deeply dismayed to learn that many of the devices are a part of a >marketing campaign by Turner Broadcasting," said Massachusetts Gov. Deval >Patrick, adding that he will consult with the state's attorney general for a >response. > >Boston Mayor Thomas Menino said he was prepared to sue. > >"It is outrageous, in a post 9/11 world, that a company would use this type of >marketing scheme," he said. "I am prepared to take any and all legal action >against Turner Broadcasting and its affiliates for any and all expenses >incurred during the response to today's incidents." > >The alarm prompted the Coast Guard to close the Charles River that runs >through the city and caused authorities to shut down major bridges along with >several roads. > >"This has taken a significant toll on our resources," Boston Police >Commissioner Edward Davis told reporters. > >The packages were discovered near the New England Medical Center, two bridges >and several other locations. Mayor Menino was so pissed off, he told reporters to shutup. Now, you have to understand that the Mayor has political instincts that work at 100%; he never tells reporters to shutup. This time he did. And they shut up. He is still pissed off and it's three days later. Turner's CEO has talked to Menino about 3 dozen times over the last 36 hours (Menino said that this morning). Menino is becoming slightly mollified. He keeps thinking about his people dying; so far there aren't any reports that any have died. /BAH
From: unsettled on 2 Feb 2007 10:08 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > In article <4836$45c1f278$4fe7201$24753(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> >>>In article <e5843$45c09a43$4fe73f1$10006(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>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. >>>> >>>>I think it is a symptom, not the cause of anything. >>> >>> >>>I didn't mean to imply cause. I'm thinking about it >>>being the one thing to tweak and most everything else will >>>fall out as a result. >>> >>> >>> >>>>IMO >>>>it represents one of a number of imaginary Maginot lines. >>>>It might be fun to try to identify and list as many as >>>>possible. >>> >>> >>>I've already tried to do that. My working style is to list them >>>and then figure out which least action will produce the maximum >>>benefit with a minimum of unwanted side effects. >>> >>>I'm getting a niggle thta this another sentence that you will >>>have those problems reading :-). >> >>Naw, I've heard this expressed many times and in many ways. > > > Oh, good. I don't have to work on a rewrite. > > >>It is a logical direct head on approach that rarely works >>if the target is human behavior. Look at this thread for >>the classic example of emotionalism superseding logic. >> >>Dr. Spock's products. Who knew? > > > I started thinking about this yesterday to see if there were > any other times when the usual war rules didn't apply. Wasn't > the Cold War a new kind of fighting where the old rules didn't > apply? The cold war was a combination of economic one upmanship and shoe banging on the table rhetoric. The hostiles were mostly in attitudes. Never a shot was fired nor a bomb dropped. Money was wasted in other ways. The Berlin Airlift springs to mind. The main byproduct was a fantastic expansion in the science and technologies realm, preparing for a war that never came, with beneficial "trickle down" technology that fed nicely into consumer products and a better life.
From: unsettled on 2 Feb 2007 10:14 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > In article <d26e$45c298f8$49ecf9f$6044(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> >> >>>I've already tried to do that. My working style is to list them >>>and then figure out which least action will produce the maximum >>>benefit with a minimum of unwanted side effects. >>> >>>I'm getting a niggle thta this another sentence that you will >>>have those problems reading :-). >> >>As a second reply to you on this specific, it seems to me >>that one of the problems is that Wake, Eeyore, and Smith >>reply with a fantastic depth of detailed objections in >>response to relatively brief conceptual presentations. >> >>They bury the discussion with all that stuff. The only >>message they allow to get through is that the US is at >>fault. > > > Ah! But that is exactly what the Democrats are doing. > They make a very good test bed. > > >>The google groups count this evening is 14942. IMO even the >>entertainment value of this thread is done. > > > But..but..but...I haven't learned everything yet! ;-). > Are you quitting? If so, I enjoyed batting my lines > across the net with you. I'm limiting my participation. No sense in throwing the baby out with the bath water. Nor is there any sense in throwing good money after bad. I could probably have said this more elegantly, but part of the audience probably wouldn't have understood.
From: jmfbahciv on 2 Feb 2007 10:08 In article <HLudnYPGZfi7Bl3YRVnyvgA(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >news:45C0944C.DE540314(a)hotmail.com... >> >> >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> 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. >> >> It's a shame there isn't a suitable island somewhere really. >> >> I'd prefer to see Islamist trouble makers deported to a Muslim country >> rather >> than locked up. > >I doubt the Muslim country that was on the receiving end of these nutjobs >would be too happy. Especially when the troublemakes got sent back home without accomplishing their job. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 2 Feb 2007 10:09
In article <45C0A13E.F0055D2A(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >T Wake wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> 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. >> > >> > It's a shame there isn't a suitable island somewhere really. >> > >> > I'd prefer to see Islamist trouble makers deported to a Muslim country >> > rather than locked up. >> >> I doubt the Muslim country that was on the receiving end of these nutjobs >> would be too happy. > >Tricky one isn't it ? > >I wonder if there are any suitable unoccupied Hebridean islands ? > How about dealing with the problem? /BAH |