Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: mmeron on 3 Oct 2006 05:41 In article <eft89f$20j$1(a)news.al.sw.ericsson.se>, "Frithiof Andreas Jensen" <frithiof.jensen(a)die_spammer_die.ericsson.com> writes: > ><mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message >news:4ngUg.37$45.164(a)news.uchicago.edu... >> In article <g8OdnRoTOcYdo7zYRVnyiw(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" ><usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> writes: >> > >> ><mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message >> >news:g0%Tg.10$45.93(a)news.uchicago.edu... >> > >> >> >> >> As I said, you're thinking way too small. And, too parochial. The >> >> belief that other people are just reacting to what we do, not acting >> >> on their own plans and ideas, is touching, but not anchored in >> >> reality. It is a pleasant belief, no doubt, since it presents us with >> >> the illusion of control, with the sense that ultimately all that's >> >> happening depends only on what we do, thus we just have to find the >> >> proper mode of behavior and everything will be great. A pleasant >> >> illusion, but no more than this. >> >> >> > >> >So, if the West's actions have no impact on the behaviour of the "opponent," >> >how can the war be won? Your post implies that nothing we [tinw] can do will >> >change their behaviour. >> > >> We did change the behavior of Germany and Japan, didn't we? > >At the cost of maybe 20% of the German population - which clearly noone is >willing to pay yet in the middle east; mainly because it would look really bad >on TeeVee. If one is not going to fight for real and destroy the opponents there >is really, really no point in sending soldiers. Well, so here is the situation. As Clausevitz wrote, war doesn't end till the spirit of one of the opponents is not broken. Now, the breaking point will depend on the specific nation as well as on the circumstances of the specific war, but based on ample historical data it is somewhere in the vicinity of 10% of the population (give or take factor two for the specific circumstances). But, since we're living in kinder and gentler times", we prefer to ignore the empirical record, and hope, against hope, that somehow, by some miracle, same result can be obtained much cheaper. Now, miracles can be very nice when they happen, but putting trust in them is not very wise. So, yes, I agree with you, absent the readiness to fight for real we're just biding our time. > >> >> >Do you advocate armed conflict purely out of vengeful spite? >> >> No. "War is a continuation of policy by means of force". Policy is >> aimed at shaping the future, not avenging the past. > >Therein lies the problem: > >"Policy" seems to mean more and more: "Keep that Saudi Oil flowing" for a few >years more regardless of the costs in civilian lives and freedom of speach and >expression. > >I.M.O: If WW2 was conducted the same way, we would be still be busy knocking >over small groups of Waffen SS while talking about our "deep respect" for >Neo-German culture and the historic achievements of Hitler (all the while buying > German products to prop up the failing plundocracy)! > I'm afraid you're right. Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, meron(a)cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
From: jmfbahciv on 3 Oct 2006 05:17 In article <xA9Ug.7703$GR.5123(a)newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >news:4520F44A.881C5E16(a)hotmail.com... >> >> >> mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >> >>> In article <efqje7$8ss_003(a)s821.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: >>> >In article <45206C37.EA6475DA(a)hotmail.com>, >>> > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> Western Europe wasn't interested in getting much involved in the >>> >>> anshluss, because it wasn't the target of Nazi expansionism. >>> >> >>> >>All of which has zilch to do with this. >>> > >>> >Your comment is an example of why history has to repeat itself. >>> > >>> Yes, exactly. >> >> There is no exactly about it. >> >> It's just that the American fundamentalist Right has only scare tactics to >> resort to and >> nothing of substance whatever. > > >....and if one chooses to draw parallels between our actions in the Middle >East and 1933-1939 Germany, one parallel is the fact that Bush is using >similar scare tactics to retain power, The anti-Bushers keep saying this and it makes absolutely no sense. What do you mean "retain power"? He has a term in office which will end. He won't retain any powers after the Inaugeration in 2009. >take away peoples' rights, and kill a >segment of the world population, in much the same propagandistic way that >Hitler did. You've been listening to Democrats without thinking. Everything coming out of their mouths is campaign speeches for 2004. This is not a typo...I meant four. > Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Bush is the next >Hitler, just that there *are* parallels between their misanthropic behavior, >if hugely different in degree and consequence. You are excoriating Bush for doing one of his primary jobs which is national security. I suppose you long for the days of the Clintons where the goal was to breakdown all national security.
From: jmfbahciv on 3 Oct 2006 05:23 In article <efr837$sb7$3(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <c7WdncygLPPv3r3YRVnytQ(a)pipex.net>, >T Wake <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >[...] >>The western world bandies the term "war" around much too easily. (War on >>Terror, War on Drugs, War on Obesity etc.) > >It is time for a war on the improper use of the term "war on". Yes. I always thought that these sound bytes were crying wolf. When was the first one? Johnson's War on Poverty? /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 3 Oct 2006 05:28 In article <efship$e0d$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >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. You people aren't thinking ;-). > 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. This would not be a deterrent at all. <snip> /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 3 Oct 2006 05:35
In article <XplUg.45$45.124(a)news.uchicago.edu>, mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >In article <2kj3i2du8jqbhpcei9mh1469dmncvt7bck(a)4ax.com>, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> writes: >>On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 00:05:51 GMT, mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >> >>>In article <v673i2dusng3t5a82qt9hm7n8ve5p4t7ua(a)4ax.com>, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> writes: >>>>On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 19:59:42 +0100, "T Wake" >>>><usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>>"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message >>>>>news:3kh2i2p1qoa888afm2l1ksq3j2qcvcfvrl(a)4ax.com... >>>>>> --- >>>>>> 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. >>>> >>>No, not quite. True about the part of world domination, not about the >>>other one. Islam recognizes two categories of non-believers. One is >>>"polytheists" for whom, indeed, the accepted options are conversion or >>>death. The other is "Um al_Kitab", meaning "Nations of the Book", >>>which includes Christians and Jews. These may be allowed to live >>>without converting but only as "dhimmi" (you may check on this term). >>>Meaning, second class subjects, possessing the (limited) rights >>>granted them by their Muslim rulers, with the stipulation that said >>>rights may be withdrawn at the whim of the rulers. >> >>--- >>How pleasant to read a scholar! Thank you. >> >>Two small comments, if I may; the first being that I believe "Um >>al_Kitab" means "People of the Book", and the second being that I >>don't believe _radical_ Islam would have any qualms about >>dispatching non-converts whether they were people of the book or >>not. >> >>What do you think? >> >Yes, I agree. "People" is really the more appropriate translation of >"Um". In fact I think that Islam doesn't even really recognize the >concept of "nation". As for the second, again, yes. There is no >stipulation, to my knowledge, that "Um al-Kitab" must be allowed to >live (without converting), only that they may be allowed to live (with >the decision left to those in power). I think that a lot of this sorting out has to do with peoples figuring out what nation means and how to run one. At least, that's my current hypothesis. The Islamic civil law book was created and evolved based on nationless empire. I don't know enough about law and civil administrations to be able to exptrapolate while streining out my Western civilization bias. /BAH |