Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: John Fields on 8 Oct 2006 11:49 On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 15:08:27 +0100, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message >news:bgrhi2dri7ejkovr8e8ojll00s0ums6i86(a)4ax.com... >> On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 10:46:58 +0100, "T Wake" >> <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >>> >>>"joseph2k" <quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >>>news:ceXVg.3010$NE6.540(a)newssvr11.news.prodigy.com... >> >>>> I find that assessment odd in light of the ability of passenger planes >>>> to >>>> damage buildings like the World Trade Center towers impacts >>>> demonstrated. >>>> Equally to the point, when told to change course by any military, the >>>> refusal does not demonstrate reasonable judgment. >>> >>>False analogy and lack of critical thinking has hindered your response. >>> >>>A warship is capable of manoeuvre which a building isn't. >> >> --- >> Not when an aircraft poses a threat, perceived or real. That is, >> for all intents and purposes, a ship might as well be dead in the >> water when threatened by an aircraft. > >Was the ship in question unable to move or is this hypothetical? --- The speed at which a ship can move when confronted by a threat from an aircraft is so small as to effectively render the ship a sitting duck. --- >While a nation owes a duty of care to its service personell, in the West we >have volunteer armed forces. People who take the job know that they are more >at risk than civilians and either accept it or leave. > >The people in the WTC did not have that option and what happened to them was >a terrible attrocity. > >The people in the Iran Air plane did not have that option and what happened >to them was a terrible attrocity. --- In the case of 9/11, the actions against the WTC were premeditated by terrorists for no reason but to hurt America, were well planned over a long period of time, were well executed, and resulted in a terrible atrocity. In the case of the Vincennes, a threat was perceived, one or more warnings was issued, the warnings were apparently ignored, and the aircraft was destroyed in order to eliminate the perceived threat. A tragic accident, but not an atrocity. --- >>>A warship which is threatened by a civilian airliner in a commercial air >>>lane can move away. I wasn't aware the WTC buildings had wheels. >>> >>>Still, the "might is right" response is enlightening. >> >> --- >> Closer to "An ounce of prevention"... I'd think. > >What did it prevent? --- Ostensibly, an attack on the Vincennes. Do you think we blow up commercial airliners for the fun of it? -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: T Wake on 8 Oct 2006 11:53 "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message news:45291B40.2A6283EA(a)earthlink.net... > John Fields wrote: >> >> On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 10:46:58 +0100, "T Wake" >> <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >"joseph2k" <quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >> >news:ceXVg.3010$NE6.540(a)newssvr11.news.prodigy.com... >> >> >> I find that assessment odd in light of the ability of passenger planes >> >> to >> >> damage buildings like the World Trade Center towers impacts >> >> demonstrated. >> >> Equally to the point, when told to change course by any military, the >> >> refusal does not demonstrate reasonable judgment. >> > >> >False analogy and lack of critical thinking has hindered your response. >> > >> >A warship is capable of manoeuvre which a building isn't. >> >> --- >> Not when an aircraft poses a threat, perceived or real. That is, >> for all intents and purposes, a ship might as well be dead in the >> water when threatened by an aircraft. >> --- >> >> >A warship which is threatened by a civilian airliner in a commercial air >> >lane can move away. I wasn't aware the WTC buildings had wheels. >> > >> >Still, the "might is right" response is enlightening. >> >> --- >> Closer to "An ounce of prevention"... I'd think. > > > He would know that if he had an ounce of brains. Oh, how I have missed your cutting responses. Feel free to jump on to the bandwagon of other people's post some more, I'd hate to think you had to come up with your own ideas and comments. As always, however, you have no idea what you are talking about. Have you learned the difference between choosing to do something and it being compulsory yet?
From: John Fields on 8 Oct 2006 11:54 On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 15:15:39 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Fields wrote: > >> On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 10:46:58 +0100, "T Wake" >> <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >> Not when an aircraft poses a threat, perceived or real. That is, >> for all intents and purposes, a ship might as well be dead in the >> water when threatened by an aircraft. > >There was no threat. --- Hindsight's 20-20. Were you there? --- > >> >A warship which is threatened by a civilian airliner in a commercial air >> >lane can move away. I wasn't aware the WTC buildings had wheels. >> > >> >Still, the "might is right" response is enlightening. >> >> --- >> Closer to "An ounce of prevention"... I'd think. > >Preventing what ? --- Ostensibly, an attack on the Vincennes. Do you think we blow up commercial airliners for the fun of it? -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: John Fields on 8 Oct 2006 11:59 On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 15:22:16 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >> >Critically, the threat of Islamic extremists destroying Western civilisation >> >is farcical. How could they do it? >> >> It's very easy. I have a couple scenarios that can make an >> irrecoverable mess or a middle mess that would take a couple >> hundred years to clean up. I am not going to be specific >> here. I'm not as clever as other people are. If I can think >> of a couple, there has to be lots of opportunities. > >You ideas are absurd. --- To a pinhead, obviously! BTW, you grammar needs work. -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: T Wake on 8 Oct 2006 12:05
"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:u37ii25hvicshf5oncuffs4olfd576thp9(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 15:08:27 +0100, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >>"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message >>news:bgrhi2dri7ejkovr8e8ojll00s0ums6i86(a)4ax.com... >>> On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 10:46:58 +0100, "T Wake" >>> <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>"joseph2k" <quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >>>>news:ceXVg.3010$NE6.540(a)newssvr11.news.prodigy.com... >>> >>>>> I find that assessment odd in light of the ability of passenger planes >>>>> to >>>>> damage buildings like the World Trade Center towers impacts >>>>> demonstrated. >>>>> Equally to the point, when told to change course by any military, the >>>>> refusal does not demonstrate reasonable judgment. >>>> >>>>False analogy and lack of critical thinking has hindered your response. >>>> >>>>A warship is capable of manoeuvre which a building isn't. >>> >>> --- >>> Not when an aircraft poses a threat, perceived or real. That is, >>> for all intents and purposes, a ship might as well be dead in the >>> water when threatened by an aircraft. >> >>Was the ship in question unable to move or is this hypothetical? > > --- > The speed at which a ship can move when confronted by a threat from > an aircraft is so small as to effectively render the ship a sitting > duck. In the context of an aircraft launched weapon system. Generally speaking these are not mounted on passenger aircraft. When it comes to bombs, ships are at difficult targets to hit. The example used was of passenger aircraft being used a the weapon system themselves. Crashing an airliner into a warship is not an easy matter. The fact that the WTC counter-example is getting stretched further and further makes me think it was, indeed, a very poor counter example. >>While a nation owes a duty of care to its service personell, in the West >>we >>have volunteer armed forces. People who take the job know that they are >>more >>at risk than civilians and either accept it or leave. >> >>The people in the WTC did not have that option and what happened to them >>was >>a terrible attrocity. >> >>The people in the Iran Air plane did not have that option and what >>happened >>to them was a terrible attrocity. > > --- > In the case of 9/11, the actions against the WTC were premeditated > by terrorists for no reason but to hurt America, were well planned > over a long period of time, were well executed, and resulted in a > terrible atrocity. > > In the case of the Vincennes, a threat was perceived, one or more > warnings was issued, the warnings were apparently ignored, and the > aircraft was destroyed in order to eliminate the perceived threat. > A tragic accident, but not an atrocity. Really? I agree from the perspective I am a white anglosaxon male who lives in the west. From my point of view it was indeed nothing but an accident. Did the commander of the warship issue a public apology? From the point of view of the families of the people who died it was an act of violence from a nation which seems to shoot first and ask questions later. >>>>A warship which is threatened by a civilian airliner in a commercial air >>>>lane can move away. I wasn't aware the WTC buildings had wheels. >>>> >>>>Still, the "might is right" response is enlightening. >>> >>> --- >>> Closer to "An ounce of prevention"... I'd think. >> >>What did it prevent? > > --- > Ostensibly, an attack on the Vincennes. Well, it prevented the threat of an attack. The problem is a country which is so hyped up about "rag heads" attacking that non-threats are percieved as threats, elimintated and people think its ok - 'cos there was a threat. It is (IMHO) madness. > Do you think we blow up commercial airliners for the fun of it? I have no idea. I would hate to pretend to know what people I have never met do for fun. I don't seem to recall even hinting this was an option in the motivation. Imagine the situation was reversed. If an Iranian military unit destroyed a US Airliner, what actions do you think the US would take? If your family were on board what actions would _you_ be demanding your country take? The problem is the US are the last superpower so no nation has the strength for direct action. This leaves the people who feel maltreated with no outlet, other than supporting terrorism. America is locked in a vicious circle and refuses to step outside of it. |