Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: John Fields on 2 Oct 2006 22:32 On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 00:43:47 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >Gordon wrote: > >> On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 23:50:11 +0100, Eeyore 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... > >You sound completely nuts to me ! --- And your plan would be to... -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: Ken Smith on 2 Oct 2006 22:34 In article <NdfUg.992$NE6.169(a)newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: [....] >It's not clear to me it would *ever* have been a good idea. I now pray that >Rice et al don't stir the pot too much with Iran. The Middle Eastern >scholars I've heard and read are now saying that Ahmadinejad has so little >popular support that he will be ousted within a short time, and that a >peaceful, secular regime will in all likelihood succeed him. If we stick >our noses in there, we could just give him enough support among Iranians to >stick around long enough to develop and use nuclear weapons technology. I think if the US said it supported him, he'd be out by sunset. Only by having the US to blame and scare his population with does he maintain his position of power. Illegitimate governments have often used an external threat as a way to rally the populace behind themselves. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: lucasea on 2 Oct 2006 22:34 "Ken Smith" <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote in message news:efship$e0d$1(a)blue.rahul.net... > 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$45.149(a)news.uchicago.edu>, >>> <mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote: > [...] >>>>Islamic terrorists aim at destruction of the western society and >>>>you're not going to deter them because there is no deterring people >>>>who already decided that they don't care whether they live or die. >>> >>>Actually that is not true. Deterring people is about placing a treat >>>against what they value. You may be able to deter many of them with the >>>threat that if there is another attack, we will nuke Meca. >>> >>This, in fact, may work. We didn't get to this stage yet, but we may. >>But this level of deterrence is in the province of war, not police >>action. > > I picked a very extreme example on purpose. What makes you think nuking Mecca would have anything but a very, very negative effect on us? Simply threatening to nuke Mecca would not work, the Arab world is used to the usual propagandistic bluster from their own leaders, and it would be easy to ignore as a bluff. The actual act of nuking Mecca would just solidify the *entire* Muslim world as mortal enemies of the US. I can't see a positive outcome for anybody. >The point I wanted to make > was that there is some extreme thing that we can be fairly sure would > serve as a deterrent. I figured once I had that point made, But you haven't yet made that point. I think the point is that there really *isn't* anything we could do that would deter them. > I could then > go on to the less extreme but much more doable. Eric Lucas
From: Homer J Simpson on 2 Oct 2006 22:39 "Ken Smith" <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote in message news:efsi7m$e0d$2(a)blue.rahul.net... > I think if the US said it supported him, he'd be out by sunset. Only by > having the US to blame and scare his population with does he maintain his > position of power. Illegitimate governments have often used an external > threat as a way to rally the populace behind themselves. Maybe we could get Bush to walk hand-in-hand with him.
From: John Fields on 2 Oct 2006 22:41
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 00:47:08 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Fields wrote: > >> On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 19:59:42 +0100, "T Wake" wrote: >> >"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >> So what? With world domonation as its goal, one would expect it >> >> would strike world-wide, as the opportunity arose. >> > >> > >> >Whose goal? "It" isn't really appropriate to define the long term aims of a >> >disparate group of organisations. Are "they" trying to dominate the world or >> >destroy western society or convert every one or... >> >> --- >> "It" being radical Islam, the goal, in my opinion, would be to >> convert everyone to Islam and have them be subject to control by >> Muslim jurists, the goal being total world domination by Islam. >> >> Refusal to convert would result in death. > >Do you often conjure up such idiotic ideas out of thin air ? --- LOL, it's clear that you can't see past the end of your nose, nor are you a student of history. -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer |