Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 2 Oct 2006 12:26 T Wake wrote: > <mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message > > > There wasn't such thing as a coherent "Axis" in 1939-40. > > So what? WWII wasn't fought against a coherent Axis. Nor is there such a thing as a coherent Al Qaeda either. Graham
From: T Wake on 2 Oct 2006 12:27 <mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message news:zzYTg.6$45.103(a)news.uchicago.edu... > In article <35ydnZvRUoF4z73YRVny2A(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> writes: >> >>I think you have too broad a definition of the term "war." I fight a war >>against grass in my garden every week. I seem to be losing. >> > How about cracking open Clausevitz and checking his definition. > How about Merriam Webster's dictionary: (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict Clausewitz defines war as: "War therefore is an act of violence to compel our opponent to fulfil our will." Who shall we pick as the authorative reference for the meaning of words? Clausewitz was defining the term in the manner he wanted it used through out the rest of his treatise. In your version how does Clausewitz define "Terrorism" and when he discusses examples and methods of war, which do you feel appropriate for the "War on Terror" (given that not all terrorists are Islamic, and not all hail from the middle east)?
From: Eeyore on 2 Oct 2006 12:28 T Wake wrote: > The scariest analogies to WWII are the state of Germany in the 1930s. Deeply so ! A democracy turned into an effective dictatorship in what ~ 5 years ? > A > despotic leader re-affirmed public support in his otherwise crackpot > government by creating a "bugbear" enemy out of a religious group. The same > despot undermined and ignore the League of Nations because he felt his > country was "glorious and powerful" enough to not have to listen to other > countries. > > Using the second world war as an analogy for the steps taken to dismantle > the Islamic terrorist threat to the west is pretty off the wall. I agree. It's more of a reason to reconsider the US model of democracy in fact. Graham
From: T Wake on 2 Oct 2006 12:29 <mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message news:g0%Tg.10$45.93(a)news.uchicago.edu... > > As I said, you're thinking way too small. And, too parochial. The > belief that other people are just reacting to what we do, not acting > on their own plans and ideas, is touching, but not anchored in > reality. It is a pleasant belief, no doubt, since it presents us with > the illusion of control, with the sense that ultimately all that's > happening depends only on what we do, thus we just have to find the > proper mode of behavior and everything will be great. A pleasant > illusion, but no more than this. > So, if the West's actions have no impact on the behaviour of the "opponent," how can the war be won? Your post implies that nothing we [tinw] can do will change their behaviour. Do you advocate armed conflict purely out of vengeful spite?
From: Eeyore on 2 Oct 2006 12:32
Gordon wrote: > This is sad and very unfortunate. The thing we must ask ourselves > is, had I been one of the cops would/should I have waited for the > suspect to pull what ever he had in his pocket out and just hope > it wasn't a gun? > > I should think there was a language barrier, and the suspect > didn't understand what the cops were trying to tell him to do and > the cops didn't understand the suspect's replies to their > commands. The cops probably thought he was going for a gun, and > weren't willing to just wait and see if he started shooting. This is a problem in a country where gun ownership is so widespread of course. Graham |