Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 7 Oct 2006 05:05 "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message news:sludi21v218aau83uue1nhpk001333skb4(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 19:26:17 +0100, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> Gave us: > >>Sadly, you are a... > > Sadly, you are still no more than an idiot. IKYABWAI. Even being an idiot I am orders of magnitude above you.
From: T Wake on 7 Oct 2006 05:06 "jenalyn" <nospam(a)houston.rr.com> wrote in message news:DKEVg.43727$DU3.32633(a)tornado.texas.rr.com... > "Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:4oddn6Fe5g63U3(a)individual.net... >> mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >>> In article <efr7vg$sb7$2(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken >>> Smith) writes: >>>> In article <2p1Ug.16$45.152(a)news.uchicago.edu>, >>>> <mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote: >>>> [....] >>>>> Well, here is at least one thing you can say for Al Queda. They are >>>>> quite honest, no pretending. >>>> >>>> Maybe, they are just more effective liars. If you haven't caught them >>>> in a lie, it doesn't mean there weren't lies they got away with. >>>> >>> Oh, I'm sure there were some, but these are what is called "tactical >>> lies". With regard to principal matters, i.e. their goals, they're >>> quite forthcoming. Just as Hitler was. >>> >>>> The whole idea that they have anything to do with any form of Islam may >>>> well be a lie. >>> >>> I wouldn't quite say so. The only operational answer to the question >>> "what does a given religion say and command" is "what its adherents >>> believe it says and commands". Given enough preachers stating "this is >>> what the religion commands" and enough believers accepting it, "this" >>> becomes the reality. And they do have a lot to do with Wahabism, which >>> is the form of Islam common in the Saudi peninsula. >>> >>>> They can get lots of cannonfodder from the Muslim world may be the >>>> reason they try to appear Islamist. It may really be about power and >>>> control. >>> >>> One doesn't contradict the other one. People may be driven by the >>> desire for power and control *and* to really, truly believe in what >>> they're doing (to the point of willing to die for it), at the same time. >>> >>> In our "goody-goody" western upbringing we're conditioned to believe >>> that only "good people" (where "good" means "good by our standards") are >>> motivated by ideals while "bad" (again, by our standards) people are >>> motivated solely by selfish desires, for wealth, power and the like. It >>> ain't so. There is no doubt that many of the top Nazis truly believed >>> in the righteousness of their cause. When the day of reckoning came, >>> many of them preferred to kill themselves rather than live in a world >>> where their ideals have been defeated. Goebbels and his wife poisoned >>> themselves and all their kids as well. If that's not an act of a true >>> believer, I don't know what is. >>> >>> So, disconcerting as the notion may be, the people "on the other side" >>> may be just as commited to their ideals as we're to ours. Possibly more >>> so. It'll be a grave error to underestimate them and assume that it is >>> not so. Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, >>> meron(a)cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the >>> same" >> >> If Hitler had won there wouldn't be a Muslim problem. >> Nor a Middle East one... >> Makes one pine for 'the good old days' eh?... >> >> -- > > rofl. I will definitely have to remember this for the next left-wing > fanatic professor I encounter or muslim radical student setting up a > "kosher" hot dog fundraising stand on campus. I wouldn't. It is an argument which only hold water in certain circumstances.
From: T Wake on 7 Oct 2006 05:07 "jenalyn" <nospam(a)houston.rr.com> wrote in message news:GnEVg.43721$DU3.24861(a)tornado.texas.rr.com... > "Homer J Simpson" <nobody(a)nowhere.com> wrote in message > news:K4XTg.7154$N4.5515(a)clgrps12... >> >> "Gordon" <gordonlr(a)DELETEswbell.net> wrote in message >> news:00c0i29vn31ejl71pku1d0r1nfaevj6p4i(a)4ax.com... >> >>>>So you are saying they are NOT better Xtians than everyone else? >>>> >>> No, I'm saying that this war on terrorism started long before >>> President Bush and the present Republican administration was >>> involved in any way. >> >> But it isn't a war. It is a problem for a police force that requires >> international cooperation, something the US is notoriously unable or >> unwilling to be involved in. > > The international community does not want our cooperation. They want the > United States to act as their dumb guard dog, do their bidding. Many > leaders are generally unhappy with the fact that we finally stepped up to > take charge. France is unhappy they are no longer a world power. Muslims > are unhappy they are no longer a world power. When were Muslims a world power? > I would go into greater details but this kind of discussion is better left > with with a pint of ale or in a military/political strategy/science > newsgroup. Fair one. Not that the rest of the thread has been particularly on topic for any of the NGs it has gone to.
From: T Wake on 7 Oct 2006 05:12 <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:sfGVg.11940$6S3.1257(a)newssvr25.news.prodigy.net... > > "Ken Smith" <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote in message > news:eg72kt$a4m$4(a)blue.rahul.net... > >> When you go to war against a country, you >> bomb its capital regardless of how large of a land mass the country >> covers. > > That would be great, but the terrorists aren't a country, and there is no > capital. This is (IMHO) the oddest thing about the jingoism over the "war on terror." People keep talking about bombing and invading, yet the list of countries which would have to be bombed / invaded is ludicrous.
From: T Wake on 7 Oct 2006 05:09
<lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:xfGVg.11941$6S3.9608(a)newssvr25.news.prodigy.net... > > "Ken Smith" <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote in message > news:eg72np$a4m$5(a)blue.rahul.net... >> In article <4525651A.5E36C356(a)hotmail.com>, >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >>> >>>> So how many prisons will we need to build, and what fraction of the GDP >>>> will >>>> go into staffing/supporting/maintaining them, in order to imprison 100 >>>> million people? >>> >>>That would most likely sap the entire GDP of the USA. >> >> No, not since it doesn't have to happen. I only spoke of the fear of >> life >> in prison being a deterent. If a crime is detered, it doesn't happen and >> the jail isn't needed. > > > We've killed 200,000 Iraqis, and it hasn't deterred a damn thing. We're > going to have to imprison a helluva lot more than that, if we want to > convince anybody to do anything we want. So, now please go back and > answer the question. Doesn't that imply killing them is not a deterrent? The problem is we are killing Iraqis and the terrorist are Syrians. If the Jihadists thought they would be jailed for life and have to suffer eighty years before they were martyred it would take a fair bit of steam out of their sails. (IMHO of course) |