Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 3 Oct 2006 16:30 Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote: > T Wake wrote: > > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote > >> T Wake wrote: > >> > >>> The same reason unthinking Muslims support groups considered terrorist by > >>> the west. > >> > >> Is Hezbollah a terrorist organisation ? > > > > If you are asking my opinion..... then yes. A nasty, ruthless one. However > > sometimes terrorists seem to come in from the cold. > > That's the point at which they've won. Looks like they won in that case. Graham
From: Eeyore on 3 Oct 2006 16:32 T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote > > T Wake wrote: > > > >> This implies that Jews, Christians, Hindus etc are all subject to the > >> beheading. > > > > According to whom ? > > The original quote which was being discussed. And has that 'quote' any validity ? Graham
From: T Wake on 3 Oct 2006 16:58 "Gordon" <gordonlr(a)DELETEswbell.net> wrote in message news:6p73i2pvi3rr001l95t74f8daifjlr8nd7(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 23:50:11 +0100, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> 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... Not a bad idea, and has been tried with limited success in the past. The problem is Darwinian selection mean the ones who come in are "better and harder" than the ones before. The key is removing the lifeblood of the terrorists. Without this, it will never end.
From: T Wake on 3 Oct 2006 17:00 <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:PUjUg.19040$Ij.10361(a)newssvr14.news.prodigy.com... > > "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message > news:sng3i29surgrg2h0ivjcvpk8fob97q15ea(a)4ax.com... >> On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 23:50:11 +0100, Eeyore >> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>>So, are you saying it's possible to win a 'war on Islamic extremism' ? >> >> We won the one on German extremism so who's to say it's not possible >> to win this one? > > Do you honestly believe they're even remotely similar? German extremism > was a relatively easy battle, since it was concentrated in easily > identifiable entities like the government and army of the country, and > happened in fairly localized places (along battle fronts) by easily > identified fighters (uniformed soldiers, identifiable bomber aircraft, > warships, etc.) The fight against terrorism is diffuse, the enemy very > difficultly identifiable, and the battle itself is very diffuse and > unpredictable on the hour-to-hour timescale--it's on whatever street > corner where the terrorists choose to plant a car bomb. We've never > really won a war like that. Not sure anyone has. Off the top of my head I cant think of any long term success against terrorists. Alexander seem to ring a few bells but even that was very short term. > Vietnam was close, and that was a miserable failure (and was almost > certain to be, no matter who led us in that effort.) And much of the > high-tech fighting paraphernalia developed since then is aimed at > improving our success in a *traditional* war, not a guerilla-like war. > Guerilla tactics win wars--that's been proven repeatedly since the late > 1770s. Sure do. In pretty much every war I can think of, the victors have had some form of "Unconventional" warfare troops. (If we stick to the WWII analogy, the French resistance were certainly terrorists, but this highlights how the UK/US are looking more like the Axis with each analogy so I will stop..)
From: T Wake on 3 Oct 2006 17:02
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45227BBF.5ADFFF74(a)hotmail.com... > > > John Fields 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' ? >> >> --- >> We won the one on German extremism so who's to say it's not possible >> to win this one? > > The Nazi party was genuinely popular. In the Early Days, then when popularity showed signs of wavering the "Enemy" appeared. Labour party.... Scarily, they are a socialist party which have grown strong nationalistic tendencies.... (OK, I will stop now. I will probably even vote Labour at the next election....) |