Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 18 Oct 2006 17:03 "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:n3dcj21bf99k4s6rsamuc8dbdf9kifonha(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 07:29:36 +0100, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >>lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >> >>> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote >>> > T Wake wrote: >>> >>> >> 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. >> >>For comparison it would be very unusual to see guns used in a similar >>example >>here in the UK and our military doesn't come out onto the streets as a >>rule >>either ( most of our police are unarmed of course ). >> >>Graham > > > The Kent State troops were state National Guards, a part-time > quasi-police force that US states keep available for callup in > emergencies when there are not enough fulltime cops or emergency > workers to handle a crisis. They tend to be very effective for natural > disasters, floods and blizzards and earthquakes. This is essentially a > civilian militia that trains a few weeks a year, aka "weekend > warriors." They are under control of state governors but can also be > activated by the Federal government in times of national need. > > Do you have anything like that? No. The army may be used in a national disaster but that is to help people not shoot at them. Regular and reserve soldiers are often used to help flood defences and the like. Don't tend to need to shoot at things in those circumstances. There were "exceptional circumstances" declared in NI which allowed soldiers to patrol the streets but that was to protect the RUC police. All our military and police agencies are under the control of the national government.
From: T Wake on 18 Oct 2006 17:09 <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:X3hZg.13899$GR.6848(a)newssvr29.news.prodigy.net... > > "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in > message news:qndaj2p3kovkgrk7g4ijnppv9d1ptn2qfm(a)4ax.com... >> On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 20:07:41 +0100, "T Wake" >> <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >>>It is sad that people are pushed to the point at which they feel they >>>need >>>to throw stones at Soldiers to get their voices heard. Isn't democracy >>>wonderful. >> >> How does hurling rocks get "their voices heard"? > > > Well, in fact I think it was exactly events like KSU that made > visible/audible a rising tide of discontent with Vietnam, that Nixon could > no longer ignore, and ultimately led to our complete withdrawal. > > >>>> As I said, I >>>> wouldn't throw rocks at people with guns; I don't fancy being in the >>>> right, and dead. >>> >>>It is fortunate your countries founding fathers didn't hold this >>>viewpoint. >> >> They threw rocks at people with guns? > > > Maybe not the "Founding Fathers" as in Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, > etc, but in fact, yes. The famous "shot heard round the world" was a > British soldier firing on an angry mob, some of whom were throwing stones. > One of the first people killed was a child, if I remember my 10th-grade > American History class correctly. (This could have been a little bit of > jingoistic rewriting of history, though.) If my memory is correct, it was > precisely this act of firing on the mob that incensed the population, and > served to motivate the revolutionaries through the ensuing brutal years of > fighting. Personally, I am of the opinion that any government which mobilises troops against its own people is doomed. This is very true of Democratic governments but seems (given a longer term view :-)) to apply to others as well :-)
From: T Wake on 18 Oct 2006 17:13 <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:cQgZg.13896$GR.8942(a)newssvr29.news.prodigy.net... > > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message > news:2aydnQ5hfotjtKjYRVnytw(a)pipex.net... >> >> "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? > > Especially considering that they were in full riot gear, with body shields > and all, it is a bit surprising. However, I guess I don't know how I > would have reacted if an angry mob was attacking me in that situation. I > was really too young to comprehend the situation at that time, but I > understand that there were a lot of conflicts on compuses around the > country between ROTC and non-ROTC students, and as many of the National > Guard were probably ROTC graduates, the shootings could have been a > spillover of that emotional conflict. I suspect they were really the wrong troops to do that sort of thing. This is why I am a firm believer that soldiers do *not* do police work very well. Soldiers are trained to shoot at things. All military training is for war, and a high intensity war. Soldiers get trained to shoot at everything which is not on "their side." This does not translate into riot control very well (i.e. Bloody Sunday over here, I suspect there are similar events in the US). Modern soldiers are sort of trained in riot control but it is not an easy transition. Police make much better police men. >> 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. > > The wheels of the US version of a representative democracy do indeed turn > slowly sometimes--in 2/4/6 year chunks, usually. A true democracy might > be more responsive, but it's also *completely* impractical on the scale of > anything more than a few hundred people. Very true > The thing that I find more insidious, and thus far more offensive, is the > type of "crowd control" used at politicians' public appearances these > days. Bush has been in the habit, since 2000, of having any possible > protesters banished from his appearances, and either falsely imprisoned > (for example, for wearing a T-shirt with an anti-Bush slogan) or bused to > so-called "Free Speech Zones" (how's that for a 1984-type euphemism) > outside of town in remote areas where they're guaranteed not to be heard > by more than a few people. That sort of quashing of debate and opposing > opinions makes my spine curl. George Orwell must be spinning in his grave now :-)
From: T Wake on 18 Oct 2006 17:14 <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:PTgZg.13897$GR.8668(a)newssvr29.news.prodigy.net... > > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message > news:yKCdnU0EBp8At6jYRVnyrA(a)pipex.net... >> >> If legislation came into force which demanded I worship in Church every >> Sunday I would happily throw rocks at soldiers in protest. If they killed >> me as a result it would, if nothing else, highlight to others how unjust >> the system had become. > > I think that sort of dedication to principles has become very rare in the > US, perhaps through a few decades of unparalleled peace and prosperity. > People are so insistent on having an existence with as close to a zero > chance of dying as possible, that doing something like that, which carries > some risk of dying, is unthinkable. As previously mentioned, this is one of things I find amusing about the Western nations "willingness" to send soldiers to die in a foreign country while "enforcing" these freedoms upon said foreigners.
From: T Wake on 18 Oct 2006 17:15
"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message news:4535C4F2.1612DF92(a)earthlink.net... > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >> >> "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message >> news:45355C57.28A8837D(a)earthlink.net... >> > >> > The one where someone is >> > reported to have fired at the National Guard >> >> Now *there's* a nice little bit of revisionist history. > > > Revisionist? It was report on local TV that way the day it happened. > Must be true then. |