Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: John Larkin on 18 Oct 2006 00:52 On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 16:55:17 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >>> >>>John, I've never seen a list for liberals to vote towards. Not ever. >>Now you have: >> >>http://www.emilyslist.org/ >> >>There are lots more... just look. > >Please show me the list there. Good grief, do I have to do all your web work for you? https://secure1.emilyslist.org/Donation/index.cfm?event=initiative_showOne&initiativeID=12&mt=146 John
From: lucasea on 18 Oct 2006 00:55 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:453573E4.C686A665(a)hotmail.com... > > > T Wake wrote: > >> "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote >> > Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >> >>John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >> >>>How does hurling rocks get "their voices heard"? >> >> >> >>Wrong question, John. There were a lot of people there who did NOT >> >>throw rocks. Only _some_ threw rocks. >> >> >> >>And a separate question, entirely, John. Do you imagine that only >> >>those throwing the rocks are the ones who were injured or killed by >> >>professional military action? >> > >> > The Guardsmen were mostly kids, about the same age as the college >> > kids, but working-class, hardly "professional" military. They didn't >> > like being there, but they were under orders, there to prevent >> > violence. And the college kids assigned them the role of "authority" >> > and stoned them. Of course the shooting was unjustified, but the >> > college kids were incredibly clueless. >> >> You are quite correct in that blaming the soldiers directly for their >> actions is wrong. The blame rests squarely with the person who wants to >> use >> guns and soldiers against their own people. > > You could blame the US gun culture too. I'm not sure I see the connection. The "gun culture" generally refers to arms in the hands of civilians. Soldiers and police have guns in just about every culture (I can't think of a single counterexample), and it was those soldiers' guns that caused the deaths at KSU. Eric Lucas
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 18 Oct 2006 01:01 {restricted to sci.electronics.design as John is commenting on newsgroup members there] On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 19:46:53 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: ><snip> >It's surprising to me, in this newsgroup, how hard it is to get people >to brainstorm, to riff on ideas. Rigidity rules. I can't say about this group, sci.electronics.design. There were other wonderful groups in this threar, probably not listening. But you might keep it in mind when you are talking about "this newsgroup." In sci.electronics I consider myself more as a guest, learning instead as this is just a hobby to me. So feel free to comment on the group in any general way you feel. And thanks for your comments. I think that clears the air, just fine. Jon
From: lucasea on 18 Oct 2006 01:00 <mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message news:6hgZg.13$45.170(a)news.uchicago.edu... > 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. The obvious and important difference is, of course, what they are called by other nations and societies, who are not already predisposed to support them...the US, for example. There are plenty of examples of people we supported as fighting a noble (and useful, to us) war who later turned our contributions on us, and came thereafter to be called terrorists. Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are only two of the more recent and more visible examples. > It appears to me that you believe that it is not a war unless you call > it so. Or, in the case of President Bush, to call it a war when it suits his purpose (to ignore the US Constitution) and to call it "not a war" when that suits his purpose better (to ignore the Geneva Convention). Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 18 Oct 2006 01:02
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:453591FE.C2B3C58(a)hotmail.com... > > > 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. And just because not all bad acts are caused by religious radicals doesn't mean that no bad acts are caused by religious radicals. Still, there is a far more important (non-violent) sense in which religious (mostly Christian) radicals are a danger to the US. Eric Lucas |