Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 11 Oct 2006 14:23 John Fields wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > >> You people keep focusing on the buildings. Why don't you spend > >> a nanosecond thinking about the people who were killed, the > >> trade that was interrupted and the destruction of the > >> knowledge of how to do all this stuff? > > > >Like I said. Ppl are replaceable. > > --- > Have you ever lost a child? I lost my parents at a relatively young age. Will that suffice ? Life moves on. Graham
From: Eeyore on 11 Oct 2006 14:25 Daniel Mandic wrote: > John Fields wrote: > > > I get: http://www.cs.iastate.edu/jva/jva-archive.shtml > > > > Do you a cite to disprove it? > > Konrad Zuse Not electronic though. Graham
From: lucasea on 11 Oct 2006 14:25 "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:5fvpi2tubsr8ch1eurgj8fkfhh3jil7mnb(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 03:26:44 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> >>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in >>message >>news:ivmoi2p6langdjfh59umuho2vfefnjfeik(a)4ax.com... >>> On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 03:46:04 +0100, Eeyore >>> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>John Larkin wrote: >>>> >>>>> It's not that big a leap... >>>>> >>>>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061010/ts_nm/security_qaeda_libi_dc_2 >>>> >>>>Why are you so fixated on utter loonies ? >>> >>> But many of these >>> loonies have influence and access to resources and can do a good deal >>> of harm, so reasonable precautions are prudent, >> >>I absolutely agree. >> >>> and excess precautions >>> are often a political consequence. >> >>Sadly, yes, but they are not a *necessary* consequence. They *are*, >>however, a direct consequence of politicians using fear to manipulate >>people >>into re-electing them. > > I don't think that's the whole story. It's more like, "Four guys used > box cutters to hijack planes. If somebody else did it with cigar > slicers, wouldn't we look like fools. So let's ban everything sharp > from planes." You see the same effect in other areas, like food safety > and all sorts of things... an event produces specialized paranoia that > fades back to normal, like the airline liquids thing. And all sorts of > people do this, like business managers, not just politicos. I would argue that the examples you gave are necessary consequences. It's all the other overreacting that's gone on that I'm talking about. I return to the issue of wiretapping. FISA sets up a perfectly effective mechanism, whereby warrants can be gotten after the fact. This provides a mechanism for accountability and reiew of the process--i.e., at least a modicum of transparency. So, the only reason not to get a warrant for a wiretap is so that there is no record of it having happened, and thus no accountability. You can argue whether or not a wiretap of a call from an Omani phone to a US phone is a Constitutional violation, but clearly, getting a warrant for such a wiretap when possible would be better for the general notion of privacy in this country. And having some form of judicial review of that wiretap program would be better for the Constitutionally-established checks-and-balances between the branches of the government. Given that there is such a mechanism, this is an example of the President and NSA using fear to get people to allow the Executive branch of the government to have unfettered power in this arena. That is a negative consequence (destruction of one of the Constitution's checks-and-balances) of a fear-based overreaction. >>We (their constituency) have the power to not let >>them do that, but running around like Chicken Little, uncritically >>parroting >>political soundbites like "thry hate us for our freedom" and "they want to >>destroy all of Western Civilization" > > Exaggeration, based on all the people I know. Sane people have no real > fear of terrorism in their daily lives. I guess some people live in > fear, or are drama queens who like to get worked up, but they are > fairly rare; we only have a few in this ng. I agree about most of the public. I'm talking about some of the people in this thread, as well as all of the Republican politicians facing reelection this year. Have you seen some of the fear-mongering garbage that's being passed off by desparate Republicans, in the name of holding onto the jobs that they see slipping away from them? Eric Lucas
From: Eeyore on 11 Oct 2006 14:29 T Wake wrote: > "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote > > On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 16:24:31 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > >>BAH's condescension aside, I am willing to concede that knocking down the > >>two biggest World Trade Center buildings probably was symbolic of their > >>dislike of Western society. However, it is a *huge* leap of faith (i.e., > >>assumption) to go from knocking down two buildings as an act of dislike, > >>to > >>an "intent to destroy all traces of Western Civilization." It's exactly > >>these giant leaps that the US public must not let the Bush Administration > >>and his party get away with, in the name of using fear to hold onto > >>control > >>of the country. I will once again remind you that the US government has > >>changed our lifestyle post 9/11 *far* more than the terrorists have. > >> > >>Eric Lucas > > > > It's not that big a leap... > > > > http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061010/ts_nm/security_qaeda_libi_dc_2 > > It is still a leap of faith. Saying "'Allah will not be pleased until we > reach the rooftop of the White House,' Abu Yahya al-Libi was shown telling > fighters in the tape aired by the Dubai-based Al-Arabiya television" does > not also mean "intent to destroy all traces of Western Civilisation." > > A best this is one AQ person extolling his supporters to fight harder. Even > destroying the White House is a _far_ cry from attacking Western > Civilisation. The Islamic extremists can kill people, torture people, > destroy buildings and the like. They cant "destroy civilisation." Were it not for the modern media no-one would even be paying attention to him. Graham
From: T Wake on 11 Oct 2006 14:30
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:egig32$8ss_004(a)s909.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <VfKdnfOyDt1cTbbYRVnytg(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:egfp39$8ss_001(a)s934.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <YtsWg.12731$6S3.12584(a)newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>, >>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>> >>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>news:egd9oe$8qk_008(a)s891.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>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??? >>>>> >>>>> What assumptions? Islamic extremists wish to kill me and mine? >>>>> They've told me so. Furthermore, their statements were not >>>>> empty threats; they demonstrated their intent. >>>> >>>>No, they did nothing of the kind. They demonstrated their intent to >>>>destroy >>>>three or four buildings. It's a huge leap of faith (i.e., assumption) >>>>to >>>>extrapolate from this that they are "intent to destroy all traces of >>>>Western >>>>civilization." >>> >>> Which word do you have troubles with meaning: World, Trade, or Center? >> >>Was it really the economic centre of the world? > > It was a center; it was an important center. Yes. I dont disagree. What impact did destroying it have on Western Civilisation? The WTC was not the centre of world trade. > Or was it a grandiose name >>applied to some trade buildings? > > I figured you would take this stance. Avoiding reality doesn't > make it go away. The best thing you can do is to stay out of > the way of people who will be dealing with the messes. An excellent line in patronising retorts. Well done. I am not avoiding reality and there is nothing I want to go away. You can try to distort this with your strawman argument but it is, generally, naught but the sign of a weak argument. The reality is that the attacks on the WTC were an attack on America, not Western Civilisation. You can ignore this as much as you want. You can also fantasise that fear of a "mess" is justification to make as many other messes as you want. but this still is not reality. |