Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: mmeron on 17 Oct 2006 22:26 In article <1161136120.854490.3840(a)k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> writes: > >mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >> 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: > >[....] >> >> >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. > >I disagree. At least up until the last several years, the word of the >US would have counted for a great deal on this subject. What they call >themselves doesn't matter at all. It is what others consider them that >matters. If they are considered criminals they will be arrested if >they are considered freedom fighters they will get aid. > In nations and societies which sponsor them and see them as heroes, they'll not get arrested, in fact they'll get aid, regardless of what you call 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. > >In the US there is a law called the RICO statute. I assume that most >other countries have a law like this too. You assume a lot. > It makes it a crime to be a >member of an on going criminal enterprise. Also most countries have >conspiracy laws that don't require the police to wait for the crime to >be commited. But they require to have evidence that'll stand in court, a requirement which is fine for dealing with individuals and small groups, but cannot be satisfied when dealing with global ideological movement. > There are lots of legal tools that can be used without >calling it "a war". For that matter calling it "a war" doesn't really >add any new tools. > See above. It appears to me that you believe that it is not a war unless you call it so. Would be nice, but it ain't so. > >[....] >> >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. > >... and then a operation to repair the damage the second ones caused. > Lots of jobs, all around:-) Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, meron(a)cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
From: Eeyore on 17 Oct 2006 22:31 David Bostwick wrote: > lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: > > >McVeigh was a part of the radical Christian right. The IRA was Catholic > >fighting Protestants (and Protestants fought back). > > And the guy who killed the Amish kids was what? Mad presumably. Graham
From: Eeyore on 17 Oct 2006 22:33 David Bostwick wrote: > Are you also willing to include left-wing "fundamentalists" with every killer > who is anti-religion or unreligious? What left wing fundamentalists ? > People kill because they are evil. Or deranged / psychotic or even simply misled / confused perhaps. Graham
From: Eeyore on 17 Oct 2006 22:34 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > > >Religious extremism is always the result of one of the following: > > > >A) Insanity > > > >B) Desire for power, control, and wealth > > > None of the above. Fear. Pure, simple terror. You think religious extremism is the result of fear ? You're barking mad. Graham
From: Eeyore on 17 Oct 2006 22:35
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > |||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk wrote: > > > Check out the infamous Matrix-Churchill show trial and the UK > >government whitewash that followed its collapse. > > > >http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/15/newsid_2544000/2 > 544355.stm > > I ain't going to go look for that. I think you mean *look at that*. So why not ? Graham |