Jihad needs scientists

[T Wake]

<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:4dgZg.13890$GR.3197@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:Qrqdndr70MFGuajYRVnysA@pipex.net...

lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:TAYYg.14731$vJ2.12451@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...

Again, nice try--you're just more moralistic than the rest of us.

Not from the point of view of my moral code.

There's a difference between "moral" and "moralistic".

Fair one.

 

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:nbydnQkv4doGEKvYnZ2dnUVZ8tydnZ2d@pipex.net...

lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:dEuZg.16010$e66.176@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
message news:6vhcj257beh7bgi1u0iac8m5mshbm5cmsr@4ax.com...
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 06:40:17 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

it's their destiny. As someone pointed out, many of the great
scientists (Newton, Einstein) were Believers, and it didn't damage
their creativity or math skills. I bet both were taught Creationism
big-time.

Maybe, but there's a big difference between the Jewish/Catholic (and most
Protestant sects') teachings, which take most New- and Old-Testament
stories as allegorical, and Christian Fundamentalism, which treat those
stories as literal truth (this is the basis for the name
"Fundamentalist"). An allegory about the formation of the universe is a
lot less damaging than a fairy tale that is to be taken literally.


If you're suggesting that ID is a viable scientific theory, then the
onus is
on *you* to come up with the experiments that will test that theory.

I'm suggesting that, given a big problem (and the universe is a *big*
problem) and no viable much less testable theories, there's no cause
for being hostile to any suggestion, and more than for being convinced
of any truth.

If they make no useful predictions and aren't testable/falsifiable, they
don't belong in science class. Period.

String theory, and the resulting outcomes, are in a slightly different
class from ID/CS.

Well.........

The discussion below was meant to be an explanation of that difference. Do
you disagree that they are fundamentally diffferent? (that's an honest
question, not an invitation to an argument.)

String theory is essentially mathematics, and not physics, and is the
only credible attempt (so far) to develop a mathematical construct that
unifies the electroweak force and gravity, and finally provide a unified
theory that explains all forces from a fundamental perspective. It has
not yet yielded any testable predictions, but I think that is from a
perspective of being far from complete. Ultimately, I think string
theorists do hope that the unification of those two forces will
ultimately provide new insights into physics that do provide testable
theories. The difference between it and ID/CS is that string theorists
are at least making a serious attempt to explain a physical phenomenon in
a way that may ultimately provide testable results. ID/CS shortcuts all
that, and says "it's true because the Giant Spaghetti Monster said it's
true." I don't see any possibility of that leading to any testable
hypotheses. If you think otherwise, then give me such a hypothesis, and
test it, and I'll be more than happy to have it taught in science class.

Personally, I tend to be of the opinion that gravity is a non-fundamental
force, in much the same way that centrifugal force is non-fundamental, in
that it is a side result of inertia in a non-inertial (rotating) frame of
reference. Gravity is a result of the curvature of space-time that is
described by Special Relativity. This may ultimately make it impossible
to unify the different forces in a meaningful and useful way, but I think
we're a long way from knowing whether or not that is true. In any case,
there's a good reason cutting-edge stuff like this isn't taught in high
school science classes--the students just don't have the basis of
experience needed to critically evaluate a such a new entity.

I agree with this, the quest for a GUT is a strange one and based on the
belief that all four forces _must_ have quantized particles and be
unite-able.

Gravity, certainly in my day, was taught as a curvature of space time.
There is no force carrier required as it shapes the "spacetime" everything
else exists in.

Well, I guess that sort of begs the question, because there must be a
mechanism for an object here to bend spacetime hundreds of millions of miles
away. That is discomforting.

That said, I hope I am wrong. I hope that someone actually does something
with the numerous theories bounding around - although at the moment I
doubt any could really be called "scientific theories."

I agree, they're mostly mathematical noodlings, at this point.

Eric Lucas

 

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:sK6dndcNHO1WDavYnZ2dnUVZ8s-dnZ2d@pipex.net...

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:45363396.C560073@earthlink.net...
lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

No, the acts of a lot of people here bother me enough to publicly
criticize
them, yet I still want to be "around" them in the context of this
discussion.

By the way, it is the church leadership of which I am critical. I have
many
friends in several of the congregations, and I thoroughly enjoy being
around
them, even though I deplore something their church does (that happens to
be
illegal.)

That may be your view--nice black-and-white worldview you've got there.
I
don't have that luxury, I see good and bad in everybody and everything.
I
get what I want out of the "relationship", and they appear to as well.
We
don't have to love everything each other does, but we can certainly
appreciate each other for what we and they are worth.

And your world view that allows you to ignore illegal acts somehow
makes you non hypocritical? It also makes you an accessory after the
fact, and depending on the crime, you could be charged for not reporting
it, when it does come under public scrutiny.

Nice line in gibberish you have going there. Almost enough to build a
strawman.

Wow, quite a discussion we've got going here. The strawman people now have
strawman wannabes.

Spending time with people who behave / think in a manner you don't agree
with is not hypocritical. It gives them the chance to teach _you_ why they
behave like that and _you_ the chance to educate them.

Indeed.

Eric Lucas

 

[T Wake]

<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:jnxZg.16082$e66.10170@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:nbydnQkv4doGEKvYnZ2dnUVZ8tydnZ2d@pipex.net...

lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:dEuZg.16010$e66.176@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
message news:6vhcj257beh7bgi1u0iac8m5mshbm5cmsr@4ax.com...
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 06:40:17 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

it's their destiny. As someone pointed out, many of the great
scientists (Newton, Einstein) were Believers, and it didn't damage
their creativity or math skills. I bet both were taught Creationism
big-time.

Maybe, but there's a big difference between the Jewish/Catholic (and
most Protestant sects') teachings, which take most New- and
Old-Testament stories as allegorical, and Christian Fundamentalism,
which treat those stories as literal truth (this is the basis for the
name "Fundamentalist"). An allegory about the formation of the universe
is a lot less damaging than a fairy tale that is to be taken literally.


If you're suggesting that ID is a viable scientific theory, then the
onus is
on *you* to come up with the experiments that will test that theory.

I'm suggesting that, given a big problem (and the universe is a *big*
problem) and no viable much less testable theories, there's no cause
for being hostile to any suggestion, and more than for being convinced
of any truth.

If they make no useful predictions and aren't testable/falsifiable, they
don't belong in science class. Period.

String theory, and the resulting outcomes, are in a slightly different
class from ID/CS.

Well.........



The discussion below was meant to be an explanation of that difference.
Do you disagree that they are fundamentally diffferent? (that's an honest
question, not an invitation to an argument.)

Generally, I treat all your questions as honest ones and I do try to respond
in kind.

This is a difficult question for me to answer as I suffer from two big
problems regarding physics - I went to university late in life (I do not
mean these in a disparaging matter, merely acceptance of the fact that after
a while it becomes harder to "warm" to new ideas ) and when I studied
String Theory was not really taught, even my post graduate work didn't touch
on it.

This has resulted in me carrying a certain bias against string theory, in
that while it is "popular" and some very, very talented people support it, I
cant shake the distrust for something which fails a lot of the basic tenets
of physics.

Sadly, a lot of people become almost religious in their zeal regarding new
theories, and string theory is certainly suffers from this.

When (if) string theory can be formed into something which makes testable
predictions as well as explaining the currently observed data - without
suffering from torturous, ad hoc, adjustments to shoe horn a fit - I will be
forced to reconsider.

Until then, I really cant shake the feeling it is more belief than science.

I am fully aware I am not in keeping with the majority viewpoint here and
none of this means I disagree with any of the rest of your post. String
theory at least has the potential to be testable

String theory is essentially mathematics, and not physics, and is the
only credible attempt (so far) to develop a mathematical construct that
unifies the electroweak force and gravity, and finally provide a unified
theory that explains all forces from a fundamental perspective. It has
not yet yielded any testable predictions, but I think that is from a
perspective of being far from complete. Ultimately, I think string
theorists do hope that the unification of those two forces will
ultimately provide new insights into physics that do provide testable
theories. The difference between it and ID/CS is that string theorists
are at least making a serious attempt to explain a physical phenomenon
in a way that may ultimately provide testable results. ID/CS shortcuts
all that, and says "it's true because the Giant Spaghetti Monster said
it's true." I don't see any possibility of that leading to any testable
hypotheses. If you think otherwise, then give me such a hypothesis, and
test it, and I'll be more than happy to have it taught in science class.

Personally, I tend to be of the opinion that gravity is a
non-fundamental force, in much the same way that centrifugal force is
non-fundamental, in that it is a side result of inertia in a
non-inertial (rotating) frame of reference. Gravity is a result of the
curvature of space-time that is described by Special Relativity. This
may ultimately make it impossible to unify the different forces in a
meaningful and useful way, but I think we're a long way from knowing
whether or not that is true. In any case, there's a good reason
cutting-edge stuff like this isn't taught in high school science
classes--the students just don't have the basis of experience needed to
critically evaluate a such a new entity.

I agree with this, the quest for a GUT is a strange one and based on the
belief that all four forces _must_ have quantized particles and be
unite-able.

Gravity, certainly in my day, was taught as a curvature of space time.
There is no force carrier required as it shapes the "spacetime"
everything else exists in.

Well, I guess that sort of begs the question, because there must be a
mechanism for an object here to bend spacetime hundreds of millions of
miles away. That is discomforting.

It does beg the question, and for me personally finding that mechanism would
be more worthwhile than trying to unify the electroweak, strong force and
gravity.

Even modern theories borrow this old view - brane theory for example carries
with it an ideal solution. Gravity would simply be a measure of how much a
given mass disturbs the membrane the universe is on. The old rubber mat
analogy has a lot to answer for

That said, I hope I am wrong. I hope that someone actually does something
with the numerous theories bounding around - although at the moment I
doubt any could really be called "scientific theories."

I agree, they're mostly mathematical noodlings, at this point.

Yes, it is an interesting time for science. I am intrigued by the number of
people (on and off line) I have talked to who think "everything is known."
There is so much still waiting to be learned it boggles the mind.

 

[T Wake]

<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:ToxZg.16084$e66.13844@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:sK6dndcNHO1WDavYnZ2dnUVZ8s-dnZ2d@pipex.net...

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:45363396.C560073@earthlink.net...
lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

No, the acts of a lot of people here bother me enough to publicly
criticize
them, yet I still want to be "around" them in the context of this
discussion.

By the way, it is the church leadership of which I am critical. I have
many
friends in several of the congregations, and I thoroughly enjoy being
around
them, even though I deplore something their church does (that happens
to be
illegal.)

That may be your view--nice black-and-white worldview you've got there.
I
don't have that luxury, I see good and bad in everybody and everything.
I
get what I want out of the "relationship", and they appear to as well.
We
don't have to love everything each other does, but we can certainly
appreciate each other for what we and they are worth.

And your world view that allows you to ignore illegal acts somehow
makes you non hypocritical? It also makes you an accessory after the
fact, and depending on the crime, you could be charged for not reporting
it, when it does come under public scrutiny.

Nice line in gibberish you have going there. Almost enough to build a
strawman.

Wow, quite a discussion we've got going here. The strawman people now
have strawman wannabes.

Strawbabies.

 

[Eeyore]

lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

"MooseFET" <kensmith@rahul.net> wrote in message
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

You haven't been paying attention. That is the reward for
murdering thousandS and millions of people.

Actually, I have been paying attention. The toughest job in heaven
these days is virgin wrangler.

Is that someone who wrangles virgins, or a wrangler who has not yet gotten
laid?

Thanks. You just helped me get it.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

John Larkin wrote:

Someone should do a serious psychological study of suicide bombers. I
bet there's a lot of sexual issues involved. Of course, proven suicide
bombers are hard to interview.

One of the London bomders was married with a kid ! What's that all about (
aside from mental illness ) ?

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 05:22:33 +0100, Eeyore

Maybe Cheney's Satan then ?

That view is at least consistant.


How can Eeyore believe in Satan when he doesn't believe in religion,
or that there is a God?

Neither of those to statements support that Eeyore doesn't believe in Satan.
Also belief is normally used to mean an unswerving assumption that something
which cant be proven is true. You believe in things which don't exist, when
they do you just accept them. Maybe Eeyore has just accepted them.

More accurately I've accepted that other ppl see them as true hence it's a valid
concept to refer to.

For my part I'd accept that some humans may have 'satanic views'.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message

Fundamentalists understand the difference between just a theory
and their belief. They get threatened when teachers of their
kids present evolution as a belief;

These teachers should be fired.

I suspect BAH is confusing science with belief actually. Evolution is accepted
science just as much as thermodynamics is.

the implication of this
is that the goal of teaching evolution is to substitute
the religion known as evolution for the religion of God.

Only in the mind of fundamentalists.

Maybe they're afraid ppl will see that science disproves God ? That's what
happened to me actually in a rather amusing way.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message

There appears to be a tendency in humans to want certainty in life.
Science provides absolutely no certainty, only explanations of varying
degrees of usefulness. Religion provides absolute certainty, and
religious explanations are therefore very appealing. In some sense, some
of the theories of science (notably, evolution, but I think there are
others) cast doubt on this certainty, and the religions appear to be
fighting back by highlighting the uncertainty of the science, and the
certainty of their religious offering. Sadly, the result is the ongoing
decline of US science education, and a dearth of good American-born
graduates at all levels of many sciences. Who knows where that will lead,
but my gut feel is that it ain't good for the US economic or technical
world hegemony.

Unfortunately it isn't just the US. Universities in the UK are closing
science departments all over the country, and starting numerous courses in
"new media" or other arts type courses ("Surf management" for example)

And a *few* ppl are now waking up to the fact that service industries don't
invent things !

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
David Bostwick wrote:

lparker@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 at least a Christian ("His suicide notes stated that he was still
angry at God for the death of a premature infant daughter nine years prior."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Carl_Roberts)

Hmmm..... The threat from fundamentalist religions.

Graham

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 20:56:56 +0100, "T Wake"
<usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

One thing I find odd, is that you don't think DNA/RNA mutation and evolution
is amazing and wonderful in itself. Isn't it amazing how four bases can
produce such variety?

The four bases are a programming language. The *programs* and their
high-level structure will turn out to be astonishing in their own
right.

John

 

[MooseFET]

mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

In article <1161180088.789377.65880@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "MooseFET" <kensmith@rahul.net> writes:

mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <1161136120.854490.3840@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "MooseFET" <kensmith@rahul.net> writes:

mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <1161093618.810074.46780@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, "MooseFET" <kensmith@rahul.net> writes:
[....]

In those cases, the US gains nothing by calling it a war either. If
the US calls it a war, they will be called "freedom fighters" so
nothing is gained. In those cases where the US does have some control
over public opinion, what the US calls them matters. In those places,
calling them criminals is better.

You can call them "guntzetzvarthers" and it still won't matter. It is
not what you call them but what means you employ that's the issue.

I disagree. I still believe that the US does have some influence by
means of what words it chooses to use. Using the word "war" is a
mistake in this case.

The means that have worked so far have been the police actions not the
miltiary ones. It was the British police that stopped the latest group
trying to use aircraft as weapons. It was a customs officer that
uncovered the millenium. After the first bombing of the world trade
center the police tracked down and arrested a whole bunch of folks. So
far, I've seen little or no evidence that the miltiary means has had
any net result.

[....]

In the US there is a law called the RICO statute. I assume that most
other countries have a law like this too.

You assume a lot.

Yes I do. Am I wrong on this. Doesn't Italy (for example) have a law
like this?

Some countries do, many don't, and since a law of this nature is very
vague, it'll be used (or not used) based on political contingencies.

This is always a problem with laws. We also have the same sorts of
problems with military actions. Other countries will help, hinder or
stand aside depending on internal politics.

[....]

requirement which is fine for dealing with individuals and small
groups, but cannot be satisfied when dealing with global ideological
movement.

I don't see why not. If it is a world wide movement with many people
involved, there should be even better evidence than if there are just a
few people. The more people in a conspiracy the more likely it is
someone will talk.

So he'll talk, so what. So you'll get few low level operatives
convicted (assuming you can find them in the first place). Will do
very little good.

If you throw all the operatives in jail and cut off the money supply it
will do a lot of good. If you catch just one it does only a little
good. If you send hundreds of thousands of troops into battle but fail
to catch or kill their leaders it also does very little good or perhaps
it does harm. If the bad guys survive an attempt on their life, it
increases their credibility.

[...]

You should read a bit about the difference between war and criminal
investigation.

No, I don't think so. I think you need to reconsider your opinion.
You seem to be a smart person so I know that if you stopped and thought
about these things you would see that I am 100% completely correct in
absolutely everything I have ever said.

Criminal investigation is aimed at individuals and
uses precise but limited tools. It is conducted under conditions
which severely limit what can and cannot be done (as it should be,
under the circumstances).

.... and I say this is exactly the only way to defeat the terrorists.
Going around killing people at random only makes the problem worse.

War is aimed at large entities and uses
blunt tools with few apriori limits on what can and cannot be done.
War means dirtying your hands (something you seem averse to) and,
unfortunately, lots of collateral damage.

No, I'm not worried about the dirty hands. I'm worried about the fact
that that route leads to a loss. Unless you are willing to turn a
large fraction of the world into slag, you can't defeat the terrorists
with the means of war.

Yet, in severe cases,
that's what is necessary. If you see a mouse in your living room, by
the china cabinet, you'll be a fool to use a shotgun (assuming you've
one). If you see a tiger there, you'll be a fool not to use the
shotgun.

The fact is though that the mouse nor the tiger is in the living room
at this moment. It is somewhere else. You have to figure out where it
is before you can do anything about it. Every time you shoot off the
gun it opens the cage doors on two more tiger cages. Shooting at
random isn't going to do any good. Once you know where the tiger is,
it is quite likely you will be able to dart it and return it to its
cage.

It appears to me that you believe that it is not a war unless you call
it so. Would be nice, but it ain't so.

No, what I believe is that calling it "a war" is a bad idea. As I said
at the start it is granting the other side a status that they should
not be granted.

I know you said it and I said that what you do or don't grant is
hardly of relevance here. What is of relevance is proper assessment
of risks.

The likely result of actions adn the risks need to be assessed.
Calling it a war makes things worse so lets stop doing that. What I
personally call it doesn't matter much but what the US refers to it as
matters a great deal.

 

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:0cmdnWILnIOmN6vYRVnysw@pipex.net...

lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:jnxZg.16082$e66.10170@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...

The discussion below was meant to be an explanation of that difference.
Do you disagree that they are fundamentally diffferent? (that's an honest
question, not an invitation to an argument.)

Generally, I treat all your questions as honest ones and I do try to
respond in kind.

Many here don't, and are quick to take offense. I hate the fact that I have
to waste so much time trying to keep this discussion focused, civil and
respectful.

This is a difficult question for me to answer as I suffer from two big
problems regarding physics - I went to university late in life (I do not
mean these in a disparaging matter, merely acceptance of the fact that
after a while it becomes harder to "warm" to new ideas )

I have known several people who have gone to school later in life. I have
to say that I respect it a lot. The fact that one loses one's ability to
learn new concepts with age is in my observation way more than
counterbalanced by the increased maturity, motivation, and focus on what
really matters.

Sadly, a lot of people become almost religious in their zeal regarding new
theories, and string theory is certainly suffers from this.

I guess I don't have enough exposure to such cutting edge physicists to see
this.

When (if) string theory can be formed into something which makes testable
predictions as well as explaining the currently observed data - without
suffering from torturous, ad hoc, adjustments to shoe horn a fit - I will
be forced to reconsider.

Until then, I really cant shake the feeling it is more belief than
science.

I can understand that. I guess the way I look at it now, much like most of
theoretical physics, is that it is much more a mathematical construct than a
physical theory. As such, they aren't really expected to make useful
predictions so much as to provide a mathematical underpinning. As such,
it's not so much a theory as a basis for describing. (On the other hand,
maybe I don't understand the purpose behind a GUT.) Hopefully, at some
point when the mathematical construct has been fleshed out better, one would
hope that it does make useful predictions, but until then, I don't have a
problem with people having enthusiasm for it, much like any other field of
mathematics--as long as they understand the limitations of the construct.
I'm not a physicist, but my understanding is that quarks were an exactly
analogous "discovery"--at first, they were a mathematical construct, that
was eventually fleshed out enough to make predictions about how we might
observe quarks--which we then proceeded to do. While it remains to be seen
whether string theory will reach the same level of experimental support to
be considered a physical theory, as opposed to theoretical physics.

I am fully aware I am not in keeping with the majority viewpoint here

I'm not so sure that's true. I've heard this critique a lot, from some well
respected physicists.

Gravity, certainly in my day, was taught as a curvature of space time.
There is no force carrier required as it shapes the "spacetime"
everything else exists in.

Well, I guess that sort of begs the question, because there must be a
mechanism for an object here to bend spacetime hundreds of millions of
miles away. That is discomforting.

It does beg the question, and for me personally finding that mechanism
would be more worthwhile than trying to unify the electroweak, strong
force and gravity.

As I understand it, EW and strong have already been unified--not true?
Perhaps they need to be unified in a slightly different way--a new
connection needs to be found between them--in order to be more compatible
with gravity without such mind-bending mathematical contortions as quantized
11-dimensional space-time.

Eric Lucas

 

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4536C69E.2FB24281@hotmail.com...

lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

"MooseFET" <kensmith@rahul.net> wrote in message
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

You haven't been paying attention. That is the reward for
murdering thousandS and millions of people.

Actually, I have been paying attention. The toughest job in heaven
these days is virgin wrangler.

Is that someone who wrangles virgins, or a wrangler who has not yet
gotten
laid?

Thanks. You just helped me get it.

OK, I have to admit I'm a little slow. Can you explain it to me? My
comment was mostly smartass meant to inject humor into the discussion.

Eric Lucas

 

In article <1161223334.040783.47000@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, "MooseFET" <kensmith@rahul.net> writes:

mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <1161180088.789377.65880@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "MooseFET" <kensmith@rahul.net> writes:

mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <1161136120.854490.3840@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "MooseFET" <kensmith@rahul.net> writes:

mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <1161093618.810074.46780@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, "MooseFET" <kensmith@rahul.net> writes:
[....]

In those cases, the US gains nothing by calling it a war either. If
the US calls it a war, they will be called "freedom fighters" so
nothing is gained. In those cases where the US does have some control
over public opinion, what the US calls them matters. In those places,
calling them criminals is better.

You can call them "guntzetzvarthers" and it still won't matter. It is
not what you call them but what means you employ that's the issue.

I disagree. I still believe that the US does have some influence by
means of what words it chooses to use. Using the word "war" is a
mistake in this case.

Feel free to believe what you wish, but don't expect me to share your

beliefs.

The means that have worked so far have been the police actions not the
miltiary ones. It was the British police that stopped the latest group
trying to use aircraft as weapons. It was a customs officer that
uncovered the millenium. After the first bombing of the world trade
center the police tracked down and arrested a whole bunch of folks. So
far, I've seen little or no evidence that the miltiary means has had
any net result.

Police actions are important, as defensive measures. They're

necessary but, in this case, far from sufficient.

In the US there is a law called the RICO statute. I assume that most
other countries have a law like this too.

You assume a lot.

Yes I do. Am I wrong on this. Doesn't Italy (for example) have a law
like this?

Some countries do, many don't, and since a law of this nature is very
vague, it'll be used (or not used) based on political contingencies.

This is always a problem with laws. We also have the same sorts of
problems with military actions. Other countries will help, hinder or
stand aside depending on internal politics.

Certainly.

[....]
requirement which is fine for dealing with individuals and small
groups, but cannot be satisfied when dealing with global ideological
movement.

I don't see why not. If it is a world wide movement with many people
involved, there should be even better evidence than if there are just a
few people. The more people in a conspiracy the more likely it is
someone will talk.

So he'll talk, so what. So you'll get few low level operatives
convicted (assuming you can find them in the first place). Will do
very little good.

If you throw all the operatives in jail and cut off the money supply it
will do a lot of good.

Sure. And if you won't it won't. There is little reason to think
that you're catching more than a small fraction of the operatives and
cutting off more than a small fraction of the money supply.

If you catch just one it does only a little
good. If you send hundreds of thousands of troops into battle but fail
to catch or kill their leaders it also does very little good or perhaps
it does harm. If the bad guys survive an attempt on their life, it
increases their credibility.

I'm glad you start to see why going personally after Bin Laden, in a

way which had far from overwhelming chance of success, was not a very
bright idea.

You should read a bit about the difference between war and criminal
investigation.

No, I don't think so. I think you need to reconsider your opinion.
You seem to be a smart person so I know that if you stopped and thought
about these things you would see that I am 100% completely correct in
absolutely everything I have ever said.

The net is full of people who are absolutely convinced that they're

100% correct in absolutely everything they ever said and who,
moreover, just know that everybody else will agree with them if
they'll just stop and think about it Take a number and wait in
line.

Criminal investigation is aimed at individuals and
uses precise but limited tools. It is conducted under conditions
which severely limit what can and cannot be done (as it should be,
under the circumstances).

... and I say this is exactly the only way to defeat the terrorists.

Didn't seem to work in any place it was tried, except against small
and isolated groups.

Going around killing people at random only makes the problem worse.

For a while, until you kill enough to get them discouraged. Read

Clausevitz about how wars end, eventually.

War is aimed at large entities and uses
blunt tools with few apriori limits on what can and cannot be done.
War means dirtying your hands (something you seem averse to) and,
unfortunately, lots of collateral damage.

No, I'm not worried about the dirty hands. I'm worried about the fact
that that route leads to a loss. Unless you are willing to turn a
large fraction of the world into slag, you can't defeat the terrorists
with the means of war.

Once they've a large support base, the only way to defeat them is to
discourage the base.

Yet, in severe cases,
that's what is necessary. If you see a mouse in your living room, by
the china cabinet, you'll be a fool to use a shotgun (assuming you've
one). If you see a tiger there, you'll be a fool not to use the
shotgun.

The fact is though that the mouse nor the tiger is in the living room
at this moment. It is somewhere else. You have to figure out where it
is before you can do anything about it. Every time you shoot off the
gun it opens the cage doors on two more tiger cages. Shooting at
random isn't going to do any good. Once you know where the tiger is,
it is quite likely you will be able to dart it and return it to its
cage.

Yeah, sure

It appears to me that you believe that it is not a war unless you call
it so. Would be nice, but it ain't so.

No, what I believe is that calling it "a war" is a bad idea. As I said
at the start it is granting the other side a status that they should
not be granted.

I know you said it and I said that what you do or don't grant is
hardly of relevance here. What is of relevance is proper assessment
of risks.

The likely result of actions adn the risks need to be assessed.
Calling it a war makes things worse so lets stop doing that. What I
personally call it doesn't matter much but what the US refers to it as
matters a great deal.

I trust you know that we're in total disagreement here.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"

 

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4536D490.247A7341@hotmail.com...

T Wake wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
David Bostwick wrote:

lparker@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 at least a Christian ("His suicide notes stated that he was still
angry at God for the death of a premature infant daughter nine years
prior."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Carl_Roberts)

Hmmm..... The threat from fundamentalist religions.

I'm not sure if your comment was meant to be sarcastic, but this was most
likely not an example of the threat from a fundamentalist religion. As I
understand it, the Amish aren't particularly Fundamentalist, they are just
deeply religious and very, very dogmatic when it comes to rejecting
technology. In any case, the fellow wasn't even Amish. No, this was more
likely just a guy who went over the edge, partly because of the death of his
daughter, and partly because of some pedophilia issues that were tormenting
him. One of the most touching aspects of the whole incident is the Amish
response. They knew immediately that there was absolutely no reason to hate
him, and almost immediately forgave him--he was quite clearly a very sick
man, who did what he did because of that sickness, not out of some
fundmental character flaw like hatred. Their consistent longer term
response was to invite his widow to the funeral for the little girls, and to
attend his funeral. They had no reason to hate her, either, and knew that
the best way to begin healing and get on with their lives was to help her
heal as well. That shows an amazing degree of maturity of which not many
social groups (including many Christian groups) would be capable, if you ask
me.

Eric Lucas

 

[Eeyore]

lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:
"MooseFET" <kensmith@rahul.net> wrote
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

You haven't been paying attention. That is the reward for
murdering thousandS and millions of people.

Actually, I have been paying attention. The toughest job in heaven
these days is virgin wrangler.

Is that someone who wrangles virgins, or a wrangler who has not yet
gotten laid?

Thanks. You just helped me get it.

OK, I have to admit I'm a little slow. Can you explain it to me? My
comment was mostly smartass meant to inject humor into the discussion.

The virgin wrangler would indeed be one who wrangles virgins. Presumably
because the virgins need 'persuasion' to be concubines for the martyr.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

I'm glad you start to see why going personally after Bin Laden, in a
way which had far from overwhelming chance of success, was not a very
bright idea.

Really ?

I heard that we were hot on his tail until troops were withdrawn to prepare to invade Iraq.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
T Wake wrote:
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
David Bostwick wrote:
lparker@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 at least a Christian ("His suicide notes stated that he was still
angry at God for the death of a premature infant daughter nine years
prior."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Carl_Roberts)

Hmmm..... The threat from fundamentalist religions.

I'm not sure if your comment was meant to be sarcastic,

A bit.

but this was most
likely not an example of the threat from a fundamentalist religion. As I
understand it, the Amish aren't particularly Fundamentalist, they are just
deeply religious and very, very dogmatic when it comes to rejecting
technology.

It wasn't the Amish I was suggesting were fundamentalist.

In any case, the fellow wasn't even Amish.

Exactly.

No, this was more
likely just a guy who went over the edge, partly because of the death of his
daughter, and partly because of some pedophilia issues that were tormenting
him. One of the most touching aspects of the whole incident is the Amish
response. They knew immediately that there was absolutely no reason to hate
him, and almost immediately forgave him--he was quite clearly a very sick
man, who did what he did because of that sickness, not out of some
fundmental character flaw like hatred. Their consistent longer term
response was to invite his widow to the funeral for the little girls, and to
attend his funeral. They had no reason to hate her, either, and knew that
the best way to begin healing and get on with their lives was to help her
heal as well. That shows an amazing degree of maturity of which not many
social groups (including many Christian groups) would be capable, if you ask
me.

" His suicide notes stated that he was still angry at God "

Americans take God too seriously.

Graham