Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: JoeBloe on 12 Oct 2006 20:35 On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 00:18:43 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> Gave us: >JoeBloe wrote: >> >> On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 22:05:43 +0100, Eeyore >> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: >> >> >And I'm Eeyore the donkey. >> > >> You are "The DonkTard"!!! > > > Shouldn't that be "Plonked tard"? It should be, but the true shame of the whole thread is that a bunch of us are actually enjoying toying with someone so utterly backward as the top US hating idiot of the UK.
From: mmeron on 12 Oct 2006 20:48 In article <eglntl$rec$10(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) writes: >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. Of course he did. That's the point. > He simply would not believe that Hitler was stupid enough to attack > Russia. Oh, no, you're wrong on this. Should study some historical sources of the time. Stalin was deeply worried and had reasons to be so. Looking on the situation now, with the advantage of hindsight, is not the same as observing it from the vantage point of the late 30s. Nobody (including Stalin) thought then that the Soviet Army would eventually turn out to be an unstoppable juggernaut. Consider that throughout WWI, which was just 20 years earlier, the Germans kept the Russian Army in check and broke it, eventually, using just a third of their forces, while employing two thirds at the Western Front. There were no compelling reasons to think (at the late 30s) that the balance of power changed significantly in Russia's favor. The hold on power of the Communist government was precarious, as evidenced by the huge purges of the mid to late 30s. Note especially the purge of the Red Army (1938, as I recall) where some 30-50 thousands officers were executed or imprisoned. All the signs pointed to an ineffectual force of low morale (as indeed it was, at the start of the war). Granted, following the purge the Soviets started a massive program of modernization of the armed forces but this was not expected to yield fruit till some years in the future. In the meantime, Stalin was worried and his goal was to play for time. And, it was not Russia but France that was considered the prime fighting force in Europe at the time (yes, I know this sounds atounding but this was the perception, based on troop strenght, tank and artillery stockpiles etc. So, no what Stalin counted on was not that Hitler will not be stupid enough to attack Russia. Rather, he counted on the following: 1) That Hitler will far prefer to tackle France first, not to attack Russia leaving the more dangerous (as it appeared then) France free to invade German territory. 2) That a war between Germany and Frnce will be a prolonged affair (in a WWI style) which will either end up in a stalemate or, in the worst case, with Germany victorious but so bloodied as to be unable to undertake offensive action for some years to come. As evidenced by the following events, Stalin was right on the first point, and as for being wrong on the second, well, so was everybody else. that the French Army became a hollow and demoralized force was something that no military expert of the time grasped. But, enough of these historical digressions. Back to the point ... > He was wrong in this but it was a good direction for him to bet. Nobody said it wasn't. The point (which you desperately try to redirect attention from) is that Hitler and Stalin, in spite of being sworn ideological enemies, were capable of coming to an agreement when it served their interests (as they saw them). Thus, there is little reason to assume that Musharraf's "secular thugs" and the "religious thugs" of the Taliban couldn't have done just the same. And there is evidence pointing to it, as well (later). > >As for not understanding the world, I point the charge back at you. > Words are cheap, especially when you've little to back them. > >>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. Nah, definitely not. Al Queda intended target was the West, not Pakistan. If somebody was a danger to Pakistan, it was the Taliban, not Al Queda. The Taliban, through its tribal and religious
From: Michael A. Terrell on 12 Oct 2006 20:56 JoeBloe wrote: > > On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 00:18:43 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell" > <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> Gave us: > > >JoeBloe wrote: > >> > >> On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 22:05:43 +0100, Eeyore > >> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: > >> > >> >And I'm Eeyore the donkey. > >> > > >> You are "The DonkTard"!!! > > > > > > Shouldn't that be "Plonked tard"? > > It should be, but the true shame of the whole thread is that a bunch > of us are actually enjoying toying with someone so utterly backward as > the top US hating idiot of the UK. He's not the top, he's just needs his daily dose of abuse. Now that his mistress raised her rates so high that he can't afford to have her flog him anymore. Now, he has no choice but to get it in smaller doses on Usenet. -- 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: JoeBloe on 12 Oct 2006 21:04 On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 00:56:03 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> Gave us: > He's not the top, he's just needs his daily dose of abuse. Now that >his mistress raised her rates so high that he can't afford to have her >flog him anymore. Now, he has no choice but to get it in smaller doses >on Usenet. Nawww... He's the type that dresses up in a maid's outfit, and scrubs toilet bowls.
From: Michael A. Terrell on 12 Oct 2006 21:08
JoeBloe wrote: > > On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 00:56:03 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell" > <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> Gave us: > > > He's not the top, he's just needs his daily dose of abuse. Now that > >his mistress raised her rates so high that he can't afford to have her > >flog him anymore. Now, he has no choice but to get it in smaller doses > >on Usenet. > > Nawww... He's the type that dresses up in a maid's outfit, and scrubs > toilet bowls. I thought that was Genome, since he talks about dressing girly and all. -- 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 |