Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 5 Oct 2006 19:40 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:452595E6.D40F716C(a)hotmail.com... > > > T Wake wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote >> > T Wake wrote: >> >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote >> >> > T Wake wrote: >> >> >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote >> >> >> > T Wake wrote: >> >> >> >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > The insurgent isn't automatically a terrorist. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> It is a viewpoint issue. Were the July train bombers in London >> >> >> >> insurgents >> >> >> >> or >> >> >> >> terrorists? >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Definitely terrorists. Not insurgents in any organised way. >> >> >> >> >> >> But they were organised. >> >> > >> >> > An organised group of 5 ? >> >> >> >> Yes. >> >> >> >> Is there a minimum number before you can become organised? >> >> >> >> Apart from that, who recruited them? Who trained them? Who equipped >> >> them? >> >> Who encouraged them? >> > >> > You can't conceive of the idea they did this on their own ? >> >> Well, yes. I can conceive the idea. >> >> There were still five of them. That is organised. >> >> If they did this on their own then it is a worrying sign. Normally you >> would >> hope they had been radicalised by some insane cleric with a grudge >> against >> the US. I am impressed they learned to make home made explosives (HME) >> without killing themselves - HME probably killed more IRA bombers than >> all >> the security forces put together. >> >> I am impressed at their untrained operational security in that they >> discussed it with each other an no one else on the planet found out about >> it. >> >> If they did all this on their own, then may be we should be worried. > > I think that's exactly the point. > You think we should be very worried? Me personally, I think they are no different (if slightly more suicidal) than the idiots who were IRA bombers in the seventies. Slightly less scary though.
From: Daniel Mandic on 5 Oct 2006 19:43 Homer J Simpson wrote: > > If you want to get snippy, consider this: there are several times > > more Native Americans alive now, in the USA, than there were when > > Columbus landed in the Americas. > > Pure blood? Bah... If you can show me men with green blood or people with over 1800ccm headbrain volume, I will believe to racial shite. Chuck Norris. Dave Haynie. Robert Beltran. Lou Diamond Phillips. Kevin Costner. And so on... Best Regards, Daniel Mandic P.S.: Jimmy Carter.
From: Daniel Mandic on 5 Oct 2006 19:43 John Larkin wrote: > And there is a tiny fraction of the Jews > living in Germany than there were in 1935. > > John Says what? .... or do you just gamble!? Best Regards, Daniel Mandic
From: T Wake on 5 Oct 2006 19:46 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45259659.BD322C1E(a)hotmail.com... > > > T Wake wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote >> > T Wake wrote: >> >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote >> >> > T Wake wrote: >> >> >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote >> >> >> >> >> >> > What does the USA get out of it ? Apart from terrorist attacks ? >> >> >> >> >> >> Well, my personal feeling is that changing your foreign policy as >> >> >> the >> >> >> result of terrorist attacks is _always_ wrong. >> >> > >> >> > You'd be insane to ignore the reasons ! >> >> >> >> What reasons? >> >> >> >> If you mean countries should adjust their policy at the whim of >> >> bombers >> >> then I hope you never run for political office. >> > >> > Like I said. You'd be insane not to consider the why of it. >> >> Sorry, I don't understand. What do you mean the "why of it?" > > I'm not sure how much clearer I can make it. > > Why would ppl want to bomb us ? Because some people are bad. There is an interesting twist on your posts. You appear to think it logical to say all Americans want to do is bomb every one else and are happy for pointing out that they are (generally) aggressive war mongerers. Then in this line, you think it is possible to be in a situation where other people would not want to bomb us because ( I assume) we [tinw] are so good and nice. In global politics it is never going to be possible to not offend someone. Ever. When that someone turns out to be mad, the risk of them retaliating is high. Take this example. Dispute between country A and country B. Superpower A is asked to help solve the dispute. Citizens of country B feel Superpower A went against their best interests and bomb Superpower A a bit. Superpower A, thinks I don't want to be bombed and changes its policy. Now Country A (quite rightly) gets offended. Fortunately for them, the precedence has been set and they bomb Superpower A for a while. Superpower A, thinks I don't want to be bombed and changes its policy. Can you see where this is heading? Changing the policy of a democratically elected government in response to violence or the threats of violence is (IMHO obviously) madness.
From: T Wake on 5 Oct 2006 19:46
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:452596CE.55583A62(a)hotmail.com... > > > T Wake wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote >> > T Wake wrote: >> >> >> Military Police patrolling civilian towns is not normal... The fact >> >> the >> >> idea was even suggested is shocking and I am ex-Army. >> > >> > What was the idea behind the use of MPs ? >> >> Civilian police were too undermanned to provide a suitable presence at >> weekends and it was thought that most of the drinkers would be local >> soldiers. > > I can see the logic in that. > Possibly. It is wrong though. If you were a local civilian caught up in it, how would you feel being arrested by Military Police? |