Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: lucasea on 7 Oct 2006 09:43 "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message news:sPGdnW1qqOyX7LrYRVnyrw(a)pipex.net... > > "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message > news:g6udi2h3s876tsd4igje6qo10872ndlq2t(a)4ax.com... >> On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 18:09:56 +0100, "T Wake" >> <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> Gave us: >> >>>You would never know if you had 15 seconds as I very, very much doubt you >>>can count that high. >> >> I can juggle 15 imaginary numbers around, while you piddle fart > > I can juggle imaginary elephants. Beat that. > >> around with counting the digits of one hand. > > Wow. Good comeback. > >> Try again, asswipe. > > Ok, what other imaginary things shall we pretend we can juggle? Ooh, ooh, I've got one...how about intelligent neocons? Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 7 Oct 2006 10:00 "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message news:sPGdnWhqqOyW7LrYRVnyrw(a)pipex.net... > > <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? No, it actually comes out and says it. > 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) I'm not any sort of expert on either terrorists or any of the ethnicities in the Middle East, but I doubt that would make much of a difference. I think the terrorist leadership is good at convincing their minions that none of that matters. We'd have to imprison a hell of a lot of them in order for it to sink in that they might have a reasonable chance of being put in jail. In order for imprisonment to be any sort of deterrent, a significant fraction of criminals must actually be imprisoned, in order for the criminals to think they have any chance of being punished. Something like half of murderers have to be put in jail...and yet murder still happens. And I would argue that terrorists have a much stronger impetus to commit terrorism, than other more run-of-the-mill murderers have to commit murder. Eric Lucas Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 7 Oct 2006 10:24 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eg7tn5$8qk_005(a)s968.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <6ruVg.13907$7I1.7585(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:eg5el9$8qk_011(a)s831.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <452634AB.3341D603(a)hotmail.com>, >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >>>>> So much for mess prevention. So how many people does Bin Laden >>>>> have to kill before you deal with this problem? 300,000? >>>>> 3,000,000? 300,000,000? A billion? >>>> >>>>What makes you think any of the above are even remotely possible ? >>> >>> They >>> were brought in a culture that admires killing; I wasn't. >> >>Again, evidence to justify this assumption? > > You have got to be kidding. No, I'm absolutely dead serious. This very assumption is a crux, if not *the* crux, of this discussion. We have people going off all over the place, speculating like mad about what the Middle Eastern Muslim culture is and is not, and about what the terrorists' motivations really are. Unless you grew up a Muslim in the Middle East, I'm not going to let you get away with something this basic without evidence. My evidence, from talking to Muslim acquaintances, coworkers, etc. I've had over the years, is that Islam is a very peaceful religion. If this is true (and I have no reason to doubt them, they had no reason to lie to me), then what is the "culture that admires killing" of which you speak? And don't go quoting verses of the Koran to demonstrate that it is a "culture that admires killing"--there are verses in the Bible that would make you believe that Christianity is an equally violent culture. You and I know it is not--it is a culture that admires peace and life. >> All the Muslims I know are very >>much peace-loving people. Certainly much more so than any of the "kill >>'em >>all" Americans I see on this group. > > I haven't seen anybody (who is rational) demand that all Muslims > be killed. I have seen extrapolations about what will have to > be done if no mess prvention is done now. That was hyperbolic allegory. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 7 Oct 2006 10:31 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eg7tss$8qk_007(a)s968.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <P6-dnSajh_Dt4LvYnZ2dnUVZ8qudnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:eg5el9$8qk_011(a)s831.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <452634AB.3341D603(a)hotmail.com>, >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >>>>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >That said, you are nitpicking in the same manner. More than ten times >>>>> >as >>>>> >many people die every year as died as a result of the 11 Sep 01 >>>>> >attack. >>> That >>>>> >is TEN attacks of that scale (and that was a large scale attack by >>> anyone's >>>>> >standards) every single year. Year in, year out and accepted as a >>>>> >normal >>>>> >risk in life. >>>>> > >>>>> >Amazing really. >>>>> >>>>> So much for mess prevention. So how many people does Bin Laden >>>>> have to kill before you deal with this problem? 300,000? >>>>> 3,000,000? 300,000,000? A billion? >>>> >>>>What makes you think any of the above are even remotely possible ? >>> >>> Because I can think of one that will kill a billion in less >>> than 1/2 year. If I can think it, they certainly can. They >>> were brought in a culture that admires killing; I wasn't. >> >>I can think about space aliens invading and making everyone die their hair >>red. Doesn't mean it is going to happen. >> >>You can deal with things you _think_ will happen or deal with things which >>are happening. >> >>I know which makes more sense to me. > > I understand what makes more sense to you. I was brought up to > take action if I can see that a big mess is about to be made > if nothing is done. Yes, but whenever you are going to take preemptive action like that, it is based 100% on assumptions, mostly assumptions regarding what will happen and why. If you're going to make global policy based on assumptions, you absolutely *must* make sure your assumptions are 100% reliable. I've seen you make some extremely shaky assumptions that, in fact, are arguably wrong. You need to reexamine your assumptions and make sure they are solid--and this is something that, from your posts on this group, you don't seem to be willing to do. You appear to filter everything through Bush's fear-mongering rhetoric without question. That's an extremely dangerous position from which to make assumptions that, were they to translate to policy, would be extremely dangerous. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 7 Oct 2006 10:35
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eg7u2a$8qk_008(a)s968.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <eg5tpm$70s$13(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, > lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>In article <eg57l7$8ss_011(a)s831.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>In article <P4Kdnb9ApIGR47jYRVnyrw(a)pipex.net>, >>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in >>>>message >>>>news:qkrai2hvpp43t4lpu1ttca9tpq8ueb94qr(a)4ax.com... >>>>> On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 15:03:17 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Which one would that be, the dangers of driving on the nation's >>>>>>highways? >>>>>>That's at least 3 orders of magnitude greater of a real threat to >>>>>>every >>>>>>person in the country than is terrorism. >>>>> >>>>> 3000 people died at the WTC. Three orders of magnitude from that is 3 >>>>> million. We kill about 40K people a year in car accidents. >>>>> >>>> >>>>3000 people (not all of whom were US citizens) have been killed by >>>>Islamic >>>>terrorist attacks on the Mainland US in (shall we say 80 years). How >>>>many >>>>have died in car accidents in that time? >>>> >>>>That said, you are nitpicking in the same manner. More than ten times as >>>>many people die every year as died as a result of the 11 Sep 01 attack. > That >>>>is TEN attacks of that scale (and that was a large scale attack by >>>>anyone's >>>>standards) every single year. Year in, year out and accepted as a normal >>>>risk in life. >>>> >>>>Amazing really. >>> >>>So much for mess prevention. So how many people does Bin Laden >>>have to kill before you deal with this problem? 300,000? >>>3,000,000? 300,000,000? A billion? >>> >> >>So why aren't we devoting all our resources to getting him? > > Because this intent to destroy all traces of Western civilization > is not isolated to one human being. Where do you *get* these assumptions??? Eric Lucas |