Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 17 Oct 2006 11:37 Lloyd Parker wrote: > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > >From the news reports I heard, they got this data by going > >from house to house asking each member how many of their relatives > >and friends were killed. Do you not see the flaw in the sum of > >the numbers reported by all these interviewees? > > It's called sampling. It's a very established, respected method of finding > out things. We do it here for questions on the census each decade (the > demographic data). And in most cases death certificates were shown too. Graham
From: lucasea on 17 Oct 2006 11:38 "Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote in message news:i9n8j29atodlsous5hl3bpuk1avrj0s9a4(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 03:39:16 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >>Nicely written. > > Thanks. > >>Ever heard of a dinky, crappy little liberal arts college called Kent >>State? > > I'm not sure how you intend that to be applied, of course, since you > don't say what you are thinking here. Sorry if that sounded snotty--no hidden agenda, just the obvious example of troops being ordered into a situation and attacking their own people. > But I cannot even 'hear' Kent > State without also thinking about Jackson State, that same year. It > was basically a black university and two students were killed there > with others wounded. The circumstances did not get as much attention > as Kent and probably because it was black and not white. But that's > not for sure. Speculation of mine. Hadn't heard of it--thanks. > What is deeper in my memory is Fred Hampton, late 1969. He was an > extremely charismatic, intelligent and young black working in Chicago. > Fred was shot by two policemen, point blank to the head, after he was > already in their custody after an early AM raid. We are talking about > not so long ago -- the willingness of those in gov't control to kill > our own children and young adults out of hate like this. > > Anyway, can you say how you meant Kent State in this context of how a > European wide military might have to handle deployment to one of their > own 'states?' My own memory is that Kent State was a result of the > state's own guard (the Ohio ANG) and, so far as I'm aware, not federal > troops. So it doesn't relate well to the question about a national > (union) military deployed into a European Union 'state.' It was the > misuse of state coercive forces within a state, instead. That kind of > thing is common in the world, still today. But it is a different > question, I think. Well, I think that's a fairly minor distinction--for example, I think KSU compares better to the potential situation with the European defense force than it does to the situation of a couple of cops abusing their power. It was a symptom of the us (the people) vs. them (the government and its military)--and to the "us", it doesn't so much matter if the "them" is the EU or the governor of the state of Ohio. I had mis-remembered that Nixon had ordered the NG into KSU, but even if it was just the governor of Ohio, it's a bad situation to be put in. Eric Lucas > Jon
From: lucasea on 17 Oct 2006 11:39 <mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message news:CzZYg.10$45.100(a)news.uchicago.edu... > In article <1161055552.800809.247610(a)m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, > "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> writes: >> >>mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >>> In article <45205022.CCB68B6B(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore >>> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> writes: >>> > >>[....] >>> >> It is a war. Refusing to recognize it as such will not make it go >>> >> away. >>> > >>> >It's not a meaningful war since the 'enemy' isn't an identifiable >>> >entity but a 'view'. >>> > >>> That just makes it a far worse and more dangerous war. >>> >> >>What we really need is a war on the incorrect use of the term "a war >>on". Right now people are talking of a "war on terror" as though >>somehow the emotion "terror" was an external threat. > > Well, there is a threat, and it is external (to some places). But, > you're right, terror is just a tool being used here, the proper should > be "war on extremism". Exactly. And removing extremists from our own government would be a great start. Eric Lucas
From: John Larkin on 17 Oct 2006 11:43 On Tue, 17 Oct 06 11:23:14 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <vc97j2t5u0ugeni9jnqks988b3db7aounl(a)4ax.com>, > John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>On Mon, 16 Oct 06 09:53:59 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>>In article <45322D41.6B0FA0F9(a)hotmail.com>, >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>John Larkin wrote: >>>> >>>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>> >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >Its interesting that the other "non wins" you mention are from almost >>>200 >>>>> >> >years ago. We have lost more recent wars as well. We can compare this >>>to >>>>> >> >Vietnam, I suppose. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Which was a French mess and a continuation of WWII. >>>>> > >>>>> >It had ZILCH to do with WW2. >>>>> > >>>>> >Graham >>>>> >>>>> How could *anything* that happened after WWII have zilch to do with >>>>> WWII? >>>> >>>>So WW2 is responsible for *everything* ???????? >>>> >>>Did you think that a political climate that culiminated with >>>WWII went away when people quit fighting? >> >>It certainly changed. Communism was a lot different in philosophy and >>tactics from facism. > >Which Communism? From the little I've studied, Russia's seems >to be the same peasant economy without one individual ruler >who inherited the job. > >China's (from reading and observation) seems to have been the >only method to restore the country's resources and survival. >China was being run by the Ottoman's equivalent of Jannissaries. >This seems to be a key to the cessation of a political and >economic empire. > >I don't know. I'm still trying to figure all of this out. > Me too. John
From: John Larkin on 17 Oct 2006 11:46
On Tue, 17 Oct 06 11:32:56 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >I'm still trying to figure out how people keep track of >all these kinds of details when they're having things >we call summit meetings. > And if the world were run by historians, would it work any better? John |