Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: mmeron on 2 Oct 2006 19:06 In article <452197A3.17CCE793(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> writes: > > >mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: > >> "T Wake" writes: >> >> >The victory conditions are either nonsensical or nonachievable. Has any "War >> >on Terror" been won? >> > >> The term "War on Terror" is a misnomer. It really should be "The war >> on Islamic extremism". Terror is just a tool. > >Obfuscation noted. > >So, are you saying it's possible to win a 'war on Islamic extremism' ? > Yes. Though, unfortunately, far stronger means than those currently employed may be needed. I hope I'm wrong on this. Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, meron(a)cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
From: John Fields on 2 Oct 2006 19:11 On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 19:56:02 +0100, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message >news:qsh2i2drpinua4j4gbg6utio5ap565jm4q(a)4ax.com... >> >> --- >> Yeah, like: "If we give you this money will you promise to use it to >> feed your people and not to make weapons with it?" >> --- > >Or "If we give you this money will you promise to use it to buy weapons and >fight [Insert Disliked Government of the Day] and promise never to fight >us - unless you really have to?" > >Can you [or anyone] remind me why the Irish Republican terrorist >organisations received so much in the way of donations from concerned, >caring, American private citizens? I've never been all that sure myself. --- Catholic VS Protestant? I don't know either. -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: Eeyore on 2 Oct 2006 19:11 mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> writes: > >mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: > >> "T Wake" writes: > >> > >> >The victory conditions are either nonsensical or nonachievable. Has any "War > >> >on Terror" been won? > >> > > >> The term "War on Terror" is a misnomer. It really should be "The war > >> on Islamic extremism". Terror is just a tool. > > > >Obfuscation noted. > > > >So, are you saying it's possible to win a 'war on Islamic extremism' ? > > Yes. Though, unfortunately, far stronger means than those currently > employed may be needed. I hope I'm wrong on this. Do go on..... Graham
From: Gordon on 2 Oct 2006 19:26 On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 23:50:11 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: > >> "T Wake" writes: >> >> >The victory conditions are either nonsensical or nonachievable. Has any "War >> >on Terror" been won? >> > >> The term "War on Terror" is a misnomer. It really should be "The war >> on Islamic extremism". Terror is just a tool. > >Obfuscation noted. > >So, are you saying it's possible to win a 'war on Islamic extremism' ? > >Graham > I think it will prove possible, if this current situation is managed such that the radical terrorist cells are not attacked with such vigor that the core leaders are all wiped out too quickly. It will be better to leave the terrorist cells operating and use them to lure other would-be terrorists into their groups, then exterminate all but the leaders. Repeat the process several times and bleed the population dry of any would-be terrorists, then go after the backbone leaders...a Darwinian selection sort of process... Gordon
From: mmeron on 2 Oct 2006 19:27
In article <45219CAF.CF32F90C(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> writes: > > >mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> writes: >> >mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >> >> "T Wake" writes: >> >> >> >> >The victory conditions are either nonsensical or nonachievable. Has any "War >> >> >on Terror" been won? >> >> > >> >> The term "War on Terror" is a misnomer. It really should be "The war >> >> on Islamic extremism". Terror is just a tool. >> > >> >Obfuscation noted. >> > >> >So, are you saying it's possible to win a 'war on Islamic extremism' ? >> >> Yes. Though, unfortunately, far stronger means than those currently >> employed may be needed. I hope I'm wrong on this. > >Do go on..... > Not at present. Note, though, that Germany and Japan ceased to be a problem after 1945. Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, meron(a)cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same" |