Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Jamie on 12 Oct 2006 14:55 Eeyore wrote: > > T Wake wrote: > > >>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >>>T Wake wrote: >>> >>> >>>> In the UK we are toying with ID cards to fight terrorism. Pure, >>>>unadulterated nonsense. >>> >>>They would certainly be quite useless against terrorism. >> >>Yet that was the initial reason they were suggested. Fingerprinting / >>recording Biometrics of people will not prevent terrorism either. > > > Why would a potential terrorist be afraid of having his identity > confirmed FFS ? It's not like he's making a secret of it in the first > place. > > Until the Police / State Security can read your brain, all these ideas > are so much wasted time. speaking of which ^^^^^^ > Graham > > -- Real Programmers Do things like this. http://webpages.charter.net/jamie_5
From: Jamie on 12 Oct 2006 14:59 Eeyore wrote: > > John Fields wrote: > > >>Graham's vocabulary >>encompasses a rather limited subset of the English language > > > I have GCE Oxford and Cambridge Board 'O levels' in English Language and My eye's are not so good these days -- ^^^^^^^-- did you say 0 level ? > English Literature. > > What do you have ? > > Graham > -- Real Programmers Do things like this. http://webpages.charter.net/jamie_5
From: Ken Smith on 12 Oct 2006 11:44 In article <ivTWg.10$25.119(a)news.uchicago.edu>, <mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote: >In article <eggdcq$1bi$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken >Smith) writes: >>In article <krBWg.7$25.142(a)news.uchicago.edu>, >> <mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote: >>>In article <egdvtv$31b$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken >>>Smith) writes: >>[....] >>>>It cerrtainly could not have been done before the warning was given. The >>>>warning was IIRC very short notice. >>> >>>The missilles had to fly over at least 4-500 miles of Pakistani >>>territory. That's close to an hour at Tomahawk speed. And, the >>>warning had to be issued before they crossed the Pakistani border. >>>So, at a modest estimate, the warning had to be at least an hour >>>before impact. Plenty of itme. >> >>I agree with the estimated number but dispute the conclusion for the >>reasons I suggested below. >> >>> >>>> The Pakistani inteligence called the >>>>ISI is well know to be infiltrated. This means that some members not all >>>>members are working for the other side. The warning went not to the ISI >>>>but to the government. If would then have to travel through the >>>>government to the ISI and then within the ISI to a corrupt person who >>>>would then have to have OBL's number on speed dial. It is very likely >>>>that Musharraf knowing that the ISI is infiltrated would delay telling >>>>them of the warning until after the missiles have reached the target. >>>> >>>the time we're talking about is before 9/11, thus before Musharraf >>>became an ally in the war on terror. In fact, the US-Pakistani >>>relations were far from friendly at that time. Thus, no reason to expect >>>Musharraf to be especially cooperative in this respect (and plenty of >>>reasons to expect otherwise). And, it wasn't only the ISI that was >>>infiltrated at that time. >> >>Musharraf and his buddies are "secular thugs". OBL is a religious nut >>case and an enemy of Musharraf. There is no reason to believe that >>Musharraf would help OBL unless he felt he had something to gain and every >>reason to think he would be happy at his misfortune. >> >You need to learn way more about how things work in these parts of the >world (in most of the world, for that matter). Your thinking above is >along the same lines which made the British intelligence and foreign >service, in the late 30s, to rest assured that there is no possibility >of an aliance between Hitler and Stalin, and we know how that turned >out. Stalin fully agreed to the aliance. He simply would not believe that Hitler was stupid enough to attack Russia. He was wrong in this but it was a good direction for him to bet. As for not understanding the world, I point the charge back at you. >Aliances, especially in these parts of the world, are not based on >mutual love, only on utility and potential of harm. Yes and the logic on the Pakistan side would say that OBL is a danger. > You befriend >somebody not because you like him but because, otherwise, he may harm >you (while, in the right constellation, he may harm your opponents). >You probably forgot that prior to 9/11 Musharraf and his "secular >thugs" were quite friendly with the religious thugs of the Taliban >(who were Osama's hosts). Actual it is some of the tribes within Pakistan that were the reason for the "befriending". Musharraf has a largish population in the west that are the same tribe as the Taliban. He was unlikely to make public statements against them for fear of causing trouble within his own country. This does not mean that didn't see OBL as a threat. > So, the different religious perspectives >didn't get in the way of mutual understanding. You mean utilization not understanding. Each side was attempting to play the other. >So, when you add all this up, the picture is quite opposite of what >you paint above. I disagree. When you add it all up Musharraf would have been happy for OBL to go away. He had every reason to fear Al Queda. He would not have warned him. > providing a timely warning to Osama was in Musharraf >interests, as it enhanced his utility for the Taliban, diminishing the >chances of them fomenting trouble within Pakistan. No. Having provided the warning the event is over. Nothing needs to be traded for it. Musharraf would have gained nothing for it. He would have at the most have mailed an urgent letter to OBL knowing it would get there too late. [....] >Mind you, I'm not saying here for sure that Musharraf did in fact >convey this information (or caused it to be conveyed). Only, that the >balance of political logic points in this direction. I disagree as per above. The bulk of the logic says he would not. It also says that if he did it would have been too late. Also we know that OBL changed his plans before. If any leak happened it happened before this. >>I personally wasn't there but it has been reported that he changed his >>plans and didn't go. Since these reports have not been rebutted, I take >>it as likely that that is what happened. > >:-)) Rebutted by whom? The Afghani free press? By and large, the >stuff that got reported from Taliban's Afghanistan was the stuff that >the Taliban wanted to be reported. Or, if Al Quada was involved, the >stuff that both the Taliban and Al Quada wanted to have reported. By anyone at all. This includes the US intelligence agencies to the degree that their results have been published. This is the accepted view of what happened. > >Try to think about it seriously for a moment. Why? It makes my head hurt :) > Suppose you're Osama >and you escaped a deadly attack thanks to a timely information >provided by a well connected source. Are you going to publicize this >fact. That would've been dumb, since it would disclose the fact that >you've such sources, risking compromising the identity of the sources. >This, in turn, would mean that the next time around you may get no >warning. Thus, regardless what actually happened, it is in your >interests to cause it to be believed that you just happened to be >elsewhere, purely by chance. And since you're in full control of the >flow of information from your compound, who is going to rebut you? OBL still doesn't have a time machine so he sti
From: Michael A. Terrell on 12 Oct 2006 11:53 Ken Smith wrote: > > A lot of people could die if the US makes that sort of mistake. At least > we aren't hearing "we will be greeted with flowers and candy". Maybe that > is only because the offical story is that N. Korea doesn't have any > flowers or candy. They sold them to build missles. -- Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida
From: Jamie on 12 Oct 2006 15:25
Eeyore wrote: > > JoeBloe wrote: > > >>On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 16:54:32 -0500, John Fields >><jfields(a)austininstruments.com> Gave us: >> >> >>>OK, maybe you're right. From your viewpoint, how would a >>>non-aggression pact signal a non-alliance? >> >> He probably thinks it's like them saying "We don't like you, but >>we'll be nice and sign this agreement..." > > > Go Bloe yourself > > You brits can't even get the slang correct over there. -- Real Programmers Do things like this. http://webpages.charter.net/jamie_5 |