Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: mmeron on 17 Oct 2006 15:22 In article <1161093618.810074.46780(a)m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> writes: > >mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >> 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: >> >> > >> >[....] >> >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". > >The problem with that is we would have to have "a war on extremism we >don't like". Perhaps it should be "a war on violent extremism". Aha. > The world is full of extremists and we sure can't take them all on so >perhaps "a war on extremist that are a threat" would be the way to go. >None of these will fit on a bumper sticker so I don't think it will >happen. Well, a bumper sticker culture has some limitations, indeed:-) > >Also if you call it a war, you make the folks on the other side into >"soldiers". This is an honerable status I am not sure we want to grant >them. They are criminals like the Mafia and nothing more. It will be >easier to get other countries to help get rid of them if you assert >that they are crooks that snuck into the place instead of soldiers for >a cause. It is the status they grant themselves that matters far more than the status we grant them. And viewing it as pure crime is counterproductive as in the case of crime there is little you can do *until* an even happened, and even then you're pretty much limited to going after the specific peole involved with the event. That's fine for dealing with a lose collection of individuals, not with a vast organization. > >"Mr. Whosit, sir, we in the US have detected that several bad guys from >the crime gang Lotsa Badguys have snuck into your country of >Ohheckistan." gives the leadership of Ohheckistan an easy way to disown >the terrorists. > >> >> > Once the "war on >> >terror" is over, I expect they will start the "war on ennui" or "a war >> >on limerence". >> > >> Heck, we've "war on obesity" already:-) > >Obesity has won. They have taken over. They sell you hambergers and >then little pills to prevent the hambergers from having their natural >effect. > Sure. then we'll get the little pills to counteract the effects of the first little pills, etc. Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, meron(a)cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
From: Spehro Pefhany on 17 Oct 2006 15:45 On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 19:32:27 +0100, the renowned "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >news:DhYYg.14725$vJ2.13515(a)newssvr12.news.prodigy.com... >> >> "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in >> message news:hmg8j2d5e66hed8b2afqgd8t6lstbflj99(a)4ax.com... >>> >>> On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 18:37:22 +0100, "T Wake" >>> <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>"Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote in message >>>>news:jul5j2tkh6tg8nptqgn390urkanmgjbng9(a)4ax.com... >>>> >>>>> Actually, President Bush has explicitly kept the "nuclear option" on >>>>> the table -- particularly, their tactical use. >>>> >>>>Sad really, isn't it. I was hoping I would be able to see my great >>>>grandchildren. But it gets less likely. >>>> >>> Well, if you survive the next two years, you're over the hump. >> >> Good lord yes, let's hope saner minds take office in 2009. > > >Does the party in office make that much of a difference? He didn't actually say the party made a difference, just saner minds. Best regards, Spehro Pefhany -- "it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward" speff(a)interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
From: John Larkin on 17 Oct 2006 16:05 On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 20:07:41 +0100, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message >news:0h7aj25ckalb1dr630lm9apu323h2hj3ah(a)4ax.com... >> On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 16:45:03 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan >> <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >> >>>On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 08:50:18 -0700, John Larkin >>><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>> >>>>On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 15:38:17 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>>"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. >>>> >>>>Somehow it never occurred to me to throw rocks at armed National Guard >>>>troops. >>> >>>And by that comment do you mean to justify the application of deadly >>>force and the taking of lives in this particular circumstance? Just >>>curious. >>> >> >> Of course not. But if you do really, really stupid things, you can get >> hurt, no different from poking a pit bull with a stick. > >It is sad that your national guard are pit bulls. Are stones really that >frightening for them? > >It is sad that people are pushed to the point at which they feel they need >to throw stones at Soldiers to get their voices heard. Isn't democracy >wonderful. How does hurling rocks get "their voices heard"? > >> As I said, I >> wouldn't throw rocks at people with guns; I don't fancy being in the >> right, and dead. > >It is fortunate your countries founding fathers didn't hold this viewpoint. They threw rocks at people with guns? John
From: Eeyore on 17 Oct 2006 16:13 John Larkin wrote: > On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 04:17:52 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > >You really do need to take a more critical look at the wackos in your own > >political party > > I belong to no political party. My wife and my kid vote Democrat, > which is fine with me. So are you not considering them too ? Graham
From: Eeyore on 17 Oct 2006 16:27
lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote > > >They are prohibited by law from engaging in politics, and > > that's reasonably well enforced. > > Not in churches, they're not. As a musician in a group that happens to play > for church services a lot, I've been to services of quite a few > denominations...and many of them preach politics from the pulpit, to the > extent of telling their congregation for whom they should vote. That is a > big problem, in my book. Such behaviour would be considered outrageous over here. Graham |