Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: John Fields on 2 Oct 2006 21:56 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' ? --- We won the one on German extremism so who's to say it's not possible to win this one? -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: John Fields on 2 Oct 2006 21:59 On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 23:53:26 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Larkin wrote: >> The issue is whether non-US-citizens have Constitutional rights when >> they are not physically in the USA, or whether US citizens have such >> rights when captured in a foreign country while fighting against our >> military. > >A decently civilised country wouldn't have any 'issue' with sorting that one >out. --- Well, Graham, since you seem to consider yourself something of a supremely civilized being, let's have your take on it. -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: Homer J Simpson on 2 Oct 2006 22:09 "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:7ed3i2hh00fettsqj0csuni7mjbfqvtg60(a)4ax.com... > All that incident in Jasper, Texas, proved was that three racist > whites killed a black man. > > Two of them were sentenced to death by lethal injection, and the > third was sentenced to life. > > If this was a racist society they would all have gotten off with a > year or so, if that. How long is it since you could blow up a church and murder children and not be charged?
From: Ken Smith on 2 Oct 2006 22:23 In article <DkfUg.31$45.83(a)news.uchicago.edu>, <mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote: >In article <efr907$sb7$5(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken >Smith) writes: >>In article <XxYTg.5$45.149(a)news.uchicago.edu>, >> <mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote: [...] >>>Islamic terrorists aim at destruction of the western society and >>>you're not going to deter them because there is no deterring people >>>who already decided that they don't care whether they live or die. >> >>Actually that is not true. Deterring people is about placing a treat >>against what they value. You may be able to deter many of them with the >>threat that if there is another attack, we will nuke Meca. >> >This, in fact, may work. We didn't get to this stage yet, but we may. >But this level of deterrence is in the province of war, not police >action. I picked a very extreme example on purpose. The point I wanted to make was that there is some extreme thing that we can be fairly sure would serve as a deterrent. I figured once I had that point made, I could then go on to the less extreme but much more doable. >>They also very likely would fear being held in prison for life. >> >This may be so but the technique of carrying poison on yourself at all >times, so as to prevent the possibility of being taken alive is known >for a long time. You don't get your 70 Verginians for killing your self so they may not be willing to do this. > BTW, the fact that their leaders didn't adapt it yet >is encouraging, in a way. It may be for religious reasons, because they want them to go down fighting or because they haven't thought of it. I suspect that the last is the least likely of the three, -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: lucasea on 2 Oct 2006 22:27
"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:sng3i29surgrg2h0ivjcvpk8fob97q15ea(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 23:50:11 +0100, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>So, are you saying it's possible to win a 'war on Islamic extremism' ? > > We won the one on German extremism so who's to say it's not possible > to win this one? Do you honestly believe they're even remotely similar? German extremism was a relatively easy battle, since it was concentrated in easily identifiable entities like the government and army of the country, and happened in fairly localized places (along battle fronts) by easily identified fighters (uniformed soldiers, identifiable bomber aircraft, warships, etc.) The fight against terrorism is diffuse, the enemy very difficultly identifiable, and the battle itself is very diffuse and unpredictable on the hour-to-hour timescale--it's on whatever street corner where the terrorists choose to plant a car bomb. We've never really won a war like that. Vietnam was close, and that was a miserable failure (and was almost certain to be, no matter who led us in that effort.) And much of the high-tech fighting paraphernalia developed since then is aimed at improving our success in a *traditional* war, not a guerilla-like war. Guerilla tactics win wars--that's been proven repeatedly since the late 1770s. Eric Lucas |