Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: mmeron on 2 Oct 2006 18:25 In article <4-mdnUz58qFpoLzYnZ2dnUVZ8sudnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> writes: > ><mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message >news:zzYTg.6$45.103(a)news.uchicago.edu... >> In article <35ydnZvRUoF4z73YRVny2A(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" >> <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> writes: >>> >>>I think you have too broad a definition of the term "war." I fight a war >>>against grass in my garden every week. I seem to be losing. >>> >> How about cracking open Clausevitz and checking his definition. >> > >How about Merriam Webster's dictionary: > >(1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between >states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict > >Clausewitz defines war as: > >"War therefore is an act of violence to compel our opponent to fulfil our >will." > >Who shall we pick as the authorative reference for the meaning of words? >Clausewitz was defining the term in the manner he wanted it used through out >the rest of his treatise. In your version how does Clausewitz define >"Terrorism" and when he discusses examples and methods of war, which do you >feel appropriate for the "War on Terror" (given that not all terrorists are >Islamic, and not all hail from the middle east)? > Check "War is a continuation of policy, by means of force". Think what it is about. And, no, it takes some more reading that checking a dictionary. Especially for somebody who doesn't want to rely on soundbites. Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, meron(a)cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
From: mmeron on 2 Oct 2006 18:27 In article <g8OdnRoTOcYdo7zYRVnyiw(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> writes: > ><mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message >news:g0%Tg.10$45.93(a)news.uchicago.edu... > >> >> As I said, you're thinking way too small. And, too parochial. The >> belief that other people are just reacting to what we do, not acting >> on their own plans and ideas, is touching, but not anchored in >> reality. It is a pleasant belief, no doubt, since it presents us with >> the illusion of control, with the sense that ultimately all that's >> happening depends only on what we do, thus we just have to find the >> proper mode of behavior and everything will be great. A pleasant >> illusion, but no more than this. >> > >So, if the West's actions have no impact on the behaviour of the "opponent," >how can the war be won? Your post implies that nothing we [tinw] can do will >change their behaviour. > We did change the behavior of Germany and Japan, didn't we? >Do you advocate armed conflict purely out of vengeful spite? No. "War is a continuation of policy by means of force". Policy is aimed at shaping the future, not avenging the past. Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, meron(a)cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
From: Jim Thompson on 2 Oct 2006 18:31 On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 15:16:21 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 13:10:43 -0700, Jim Thompson ><To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)My-Web-Site.com> wrote: > >>On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 13:05:08 -0700, John Larkin >><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> [snip] >>>Of course it doesn't, but "consent" remains legal anyhow. >>> >>>There are millions of Muslims in this country, citizens and legal >>>residents, and their rate of participation in terrorism is within the >>>engineering definition of zero. >>> >>>John >> >>I find it very troubling that CAIR and other Muslim organizations go >>out of their way to sidestep questioning whether they favor the >>behavior of Islamic terrorists or not. >> >>"silence implies consent" is INDEED a provision of LAW, but I think it >>applies here as well... particularly given the sidestepping :-( >> >> ...Jim Thompson > >You think they are guilty of criminal acts because they do not >publicly condemn Muslim terrorism? That's a novel interpretation of >law. Can we find you guilty of not condemming, well, everything that's >illegal? Better start condemming... you have a lot of catching up to >do. > >John John, I don't think you are reading what I wrote. When the media asks a Muslim _organization_ if they approve of what the Islamic terrorists are doing, and they hedge, there are only two possible conclusions, both very scary... they _approve_ of what the terrorists are doing, or they fear for their own lives if they open their mouths. I fear for those of you living in "nice target" cities. Me, I live sufficiently in the boonies that a hit here wouldn't make for very glorified headlines... even with a "nucular" device ;-) ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | | | E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat | | http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
From: John Fields on 2 Oct 2006 18:39 On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 10:36:08 -0700, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 17:24:24 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell" ><mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > >>Jim Thompson wrote: >>> >>> I've seen very few French tourists here in AZ... probably because >>> they'd be shunned ;-) >> >> >> The ones I've met in Florida were quite rude, and about as ignorant >>as the donkey. They think we owe them a huge favor because they came >>here to harass us. :( > >When I hear them in restaurants I say something like, "Le peuple de la >France est ignorant" ;-) --- My favorite is: "Ce p?t? sent comme la merde de chat." -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: John Larkin on 2 Oct 2006 18:43
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 15:31:34 -0700, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 15:16:21 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 13:10:43 -0700, Jim Thompson >><To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >> >>>On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 13:05:08 -0700, John Larkin >>><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>> >[snip] >>>>Of course it doesn't, but "consent" remains legal anyhow. >>>> >>>>There are millions of Muslims in this country, citizens and legal >>>>residents, and their rate of participation in terrorism is within the >>>>engineering definition of zero. >>>> >>>>John >>> >>>I find it very troubling that CAIR and other Muslim organizations go >>>out of their way to sidestep questioning whether they favor the >>>behavior of Islamic terrorists or not. >>> >>>"silence implies consent" is INDEED a provision of LAW, but I think it >>>applies here as well... particularly given the sidestepping :-( >>> >>> ...Jim Thompson >> >>You think they are guilty of criminal acts because they do not >>publicly condemn Muslim terrorism? That's a novel interpretation of >>law. Can we find you guilty of not condemming, well, everything that's >>illegal? Better start condemming... you have a lot of catching up to >>do. >> >>John > >John, I don't think you are reading what I wrote. When the media asks >a Muslim _organization_ if they approve of what the Islamic terrorists >are doing, and they hedge, there are only two possible conclusions, >both very scary... they _approve_ of what the terrorists are doing, or >they fear for their own lives if they open their mouths. Neither of which are illegal, and neither justifies "rounding them up." >I fear for those of you living in "nice target" cities. Me, I live >sufficiently in the boonies that a hit here wouldn't make for very >glorified headlines... even with a "nucular" device ;-) It won't be the local Muslims that nuke a US city. And I live 99.9 percent west of the rest of the country, and the wind blows to the east. John |