Jihad needs scientists

"MooseFET" <kensmith@rahul.net> wrote in message
news:1161055552.800809.247610@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...

mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <45205022.CCB68B6B@hotmail.com>, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> writes:

[....]
It is a war. Refusing to recognize it as such will not make it go
away.

It's not a meaningful war since the 'enemy' isn't an identifiable entity
but a 'view'.

That just makes it a far worse and more dangerous war.

What we really need is a war on the incorrect use of the term "a war
on". Right now people are talking of a "war on terror" as though
somehow the emotion "terror" was an external threat. Once the "war on
terror" is over, I expect they will start the "war on ennui" or "a war
on limerence".

Point very well made.

(And wow, it's not often I see a word I've not seen before. Good job.)

Eric Lucas

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 23:36:51 +0100, "T Wake"
<usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

Intelligent design is a dead end as far as science goes because it defeats
the quest for knowledge. Comparing a scientific theory to creationism (or ID
or what ever you want to call it) is a basic fallacy. From a logical
position, ID/Creationism can be used to dismantle Monotheistic religions on
exactly the same principle they try to dismantle (for example) evolutionary
theory.

Why so? If some supersmart kid in another spacetime designed this
universe as a science project, wouldn't we still want to figure out
how it works? If the origin of the universe is unknown, and maybe
unknowable, feeling that it was designed on purpose does no harm to
scientific inquiry. It might even lead to insights in basic physics;
Lord knows we need some.

John

 

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:9oj8j2dpkd7sqjrk8hec86mh5cejov3u72@4ax.com...

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 03:13:08 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

OK, how about "a world where the US government wasn't so arrogant and
oblivious to the negative effect that some of its actions have"?


You're still talking about what you don't like,

No, I'm talking about what I would like to see.

and not even
explaining why.

I have a very simple and direct reason for that wish--I'm tired of us doing
things that encourage other people to do nasty things to us. I'd really
like to see my 50th birthday, and if we don't stop pusing around countries
like North Korea, there's some chance that I won't.

What's interesting to me about this discussion -
actually, I'm learning a lot

No, you're not. That's just another strawman to act all morally superior.

- is that nobody here except me seems to
have a vision of a better world, other than that the US should do
less. Nobody seems to care about poor or abused people, or have any
recognition of a concept of human rights,

Nice strawman. Those things are all great, and most everyone else would
like to see those problems solved--so don't try to strut around as if you're
the only one that has a "vision of a better world". It's simply that those
things are not on topic for the current discussion. Also, keep in mind that
you've expressed the things that you would like to see in terms of what you
would not like--poverty, abuse, people without rights. So don't go getting
all moralistic about defining your wishes in terms of what you want more of,
as opposed to what we want less of.

they just don't like
arrogant Americans and want to see them fail.

No, but nice try on that strawman too. As I've said, I'm tired of the
arrogant behavior of the US government causing problems for us.

Lots of people here want
to see Iraq dissolve into chaos and civil war so that they can say
"told ya so!"

Again, nice try on another strawman. I'd just like to not lose any more
American or Iraqi lives in a losing battle. Several insurgent groups have
said that they will end their activities when the US leaves.

No wonder I don't get along with a lot of people here. I'm way too
liberal.

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

Eric Lucas

 

[Eeyore]

John Larkin wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
Lloyd Parker wrote:
JoeBloe <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

All of Islam (read the moslems) believe that all others that are not
moslem are "infidels" and that killing them is not, nor should not be
a crime.

You are lying.

I suspect it's what he learnt at Church.

American Christian fundamentalists are as dangerous if not more so than their
Muslim counterparts.

Yeah, all those Southern Baptist suicide bombers.

Yup, your military kindly do it for them.

Graham

 

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:9ak8j2p3075nf8dbsq62bnig11f7i6gbvf@4ax.com...

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 04:12:10 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 18:43:41 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan
jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote:

And politically potent, right now. Keep that clearly in mind as you
see US Republican political platforms playing out. They need this
base, desperately.

With things as closely balanced as they are, each party needs every
vote desperately. The Dems need the black vote and the urban liberal
vote and the farm vote and the NRA vote. Watch Hilary triangulate.

What the Dems really need is proof that Bush is Satan.

Which is inconsistant with their belief that he's dumb.

Is that the only way you can discuss issues, by putting words in peoples'
mouths, and lumping Democrats all together as one organism in order to set
up a strawman? Some Democrats probably do believe he is dumb. I'm of the
opinion that he is sharp as a tack, and uses the bumbling "golly-gee"
country-boy image to sell himself. Evidence of this comes when he's
off-camera, and doesn't think anybody is watching, he is articulate, and
does none of the bumbling "Bush-isms" that he very consciously does in front
of the camera.

I'll take "dumb" over "hypocritical and dishonest" any day of the week. At
least "dumb" can surround itself with smart advisers, and has a chance of
being right once in a while.

Eric Lucas

 

[Eeyore]

MooseFET wrote:

mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
Eeyore<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> writes:
Someone else said
It is a war. Refusing to recognize it as such will not make it go
away.

It's not a meaningful war since the 'enemy' isn't an identifiable entity but a 'view'.

That just makes it a far worse and more dangerous war.


What we really need is a war on the incorrect use of the term "a war
on". Right now people are talking of a "war on terror" as though
somehow the emotion "terror" was an external threat. Once the "war on
terror" is over, I expect they will start the "war on ennui" or "a war
on limerence".

How about a 'war on gullibilty about imaginary threats' ?

Graham

 

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:qdk8j29a18e3jpjv10oqht1vkhv1ecdv13@4ax.com...

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 23:36:51 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:


Intelligent design is a dead end as far as science goes because it defeats
the quest for knowledge. Comparing a scientific theory to creationism (or
ID
or what ever you want to call it) is a basic fallacy. From a logical
position, ID/Creationism can be used to dismantle Monotheistic religions
on
exactly the same principle they try to dismantle (for example)
evolutionary
theory.


Why so? If some supersmart kid in another spacetime designed this
universe as a science project, wouldn't we still want to figure out
how it works?

Nice parable and attempt at a distraction. However, considering that even
the Religious Right admits that ID was nothing but an attempt to get around
the Supreme Court's decision on teaching Creationism, you know as well as I
do that that "supersmart kid in another universe as a science project" is
intended to be not-so-opaque code for "God".

If the origin of the universe is unknown, and maybe
unknowable, feeling that it was designed on purpose does no harm to
scientific inquiry.

That's disingenuous. You know as well as I do that, the way ID/Creationism
is currently being used by the Religious Right is precisely to attempt to
shut down teaching of evolution, and thus to quell honest and open inquiry
into evolutionary biology, at the very least.

You really do need to take a more critical look at the wackos in your own
political party and the damage that they're doing to our society. It's far
worse than what a few wacko Islamic terrorists are doing or will do.

Eric Lucas

 

[Eeyore]

John Larkin wrote:

You're still talking about what you don't like, and not even
explaining why. What's interesting to me about this discussion -
actually, I'm learning a lot - is that nobody here except me seems to
have a vision of a better world, other than that the US should do
less.

Try this for an explanation.
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-1002626006461047517&q=power+of+nightmares

Gon on watch it.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

John Larkin wrote:

Lots of people here want
to see Iraq dissolve into chaos and civil war so that they can say
"told ya so!"

I don't *want* it to but I see that it's now inevitable.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

John Larkin wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote:

And politically potent, right now. Keep that clearly in mind as you
see US Republican political platforms playing out. They need this
base, desperately.


With things as closely balanced as they are, each party needs every
vote desperately. The Dems need the black vote and the urban liberal
vote and the farm vote and the NRA vote. Watch Hilary triangulate.

What the Dems really need is proof that Bush is Satan.


Which is inconsistant with their belief that he's dumb.

Maybe Cheney's Satan then ?

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

Any church that
dabbles in politics by telling their congregation how to vote should have
their tax-exempt status revoked.

So what's stopping ppl ?

Graham

 

In article <vc97j2t5u0ugeni9jnqks988b3db7aounl@4ax.com>, John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> writes:

On Mon, 16 Oct 06 09:53:59 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <45322D41.6B0FA0F9@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:


John Larkin wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

Its interesting that the other "non wins" you mention are from almost
200
years ago. We have lost more recent wars as well. We can compare this
to
Vietnam, I suppose.

Which was a French mess and a continuation of WWII.

It had ZILCH to do with WW2.

Graham

How could *anything* that happened after WWII have zilch to do with
WWII?

So WW2 is responsible for *everything* ????????

Did you think that a political climate that culiminated with
WWII went away when people quit fighting?

It certainly changed. Communism was a lot different in philosophy and
tactics from facism.

Oh, of course. The point, though, is that war doesn't end when some

formal documents are signed, it really ends when stability is
restored. In the case of a great war, where a lot of the existing
international structure is destroyed, restoring stability can take a very
long time. And WWI (yes, I mean WWI, WWII was just a continuation
after a short breather) was such a cataclismic event that its effects
are still lingering.

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

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 03:39:16 GMT, <lucasea@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. But I cannot even 'hear' Kent
State without also thinking about Jackson State, that same year. It
was basically a black university and two students were killed there
with others wounded. The circumstances did not get as much attention
as Kent and probably because it was black and not white. But that's
not for sure. Speculation of mine.

What is deeper in my memory is Fred Hampton, late 1969. He was an
extremely charismatic, intelligent and young black working in Chicago.
Fred was shot by two policemen, point blank to the head, after he was
already in their custody after an early AM raid. We are talking about
not so long ago -- the willingness of those in gov't control to kill
our own children and young adults out of hate like this.

Anyway, can you say how you meant Kent State in this context of how a
European wide military might have to handle deployment to one of their
own 'states?' My own memory is that Kent State was a result of the
state's own guard (the Ohio ANG) and, so far as I'm aware, not federal
troops. So it doesn't relate well to the question about a national
(union) military deployed into a European Union 'state.' It was the
misuse of state coercive forces within a state, instead. That kind of
thing is common in the world, still today. But it is a different
question, I think.

Jon

 

In article <1161055552.800809.247610@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, "MooseFET" <kensmith@rahul.net> writes:

mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <45205022.CCB68B6B@hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> writes:

[....]
It is a war. Refusing to recognize it as such will not make it go
away.

It's not a meaningful war since the 'enemy' isn't an identifiable entity but a 'view'.

That just makes it a far worse and more dangerous war.


What we really need is a war on the incorrect use of the term "a war
on". Right now people are talking of a "war on terror" as though
somehow the emotion "terror" was an external threat.

Well, there is a threat, and it is external (to some places). But,
you're right, terror is just a tool being used here, the proper should
be "war on extremism".

Once the "war on
terror" is over, I expect they will start the "war on ennui" or "a war
on limerence".

Heck, we've "war on obesity" already

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

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 05:22:33 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote:

And politically potent, right now. Keep that clearly in mind as you
see US Republican political platforms playing out. They need this
base, desperately.


With things as closely balanced as they are, each party needs every
vote desperately. The Dems need the black vote and the urban liberal
vote and the farm vote and the NRA vote. Watch Hilary triangulate.

What the Dems really need is proof that Bush is Satan.


Which is inconsistant with their belief that he's dumb.

Maybe Cheney's Satan then ?

The usual image here in the US for Cheney is just Darth Vader.

Jon

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 20:14:47 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 19:50:08 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan
jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote:

American Christian fundamentalists are as dangerous if not more so than their
Muslim counterparts.

More so, because they (through political influence over the power of
US action) have so much greater power by which they can act. (They
are a very large, very well funded, and highly-catered minority here
and they often pass around internal lists of who to vote for, as
well.)


And you think the Mother Jones crowd doesn't have their own lists? You
seem to imply that there's something wrong with political organizing
among people you don't agree with. Stalin thought that, too.

John, I've never seen a list for liberals to vote towards. Not ever.
Nor has anyone ever suggested one to me. Perhaps you might be the
first for that. But I take it you haven't ever experienced these
religious groups. If you had, you'd understand. This isn't a matter
of choice for the flock. This is a matter of whether or not you go to
Hell. Different thing.

Much more serious.

And you still haven't dealt with my little disseration on why politics
and organized religion do not mix. They don't, by the way.

Jon

 

[Eeyore]

Jonathan Kirwan wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote:

And politically potent, right now. Keep that clearly in mind as you
see US Republican political platforms playing out. They need this
base, desperately.


With things as closely balanced as they are, each party needs every
vote desperately. The Dems need the black vote and the urban liberal
vote and the farm vote and the NRA vote. Watch Hilary triangulate.

What the Dems really need is proof that Bush is Satan.


Which is inconsistant with their belief that he's dumb.

Maybe Cheney's Satan then ?

The usual image here in the US for Cheney is just Darth Vader.

Rumsfeld ?

Graham

 

[Robert Latest]

["Followup-To:" header set to sci.electronics.design.]
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 13:32:29 -0700,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote
in Msg. <ooq7j2pfi24dvhdl6dqhrdkdliltdjjfu1@4ax.com>

If there are universal human rights, and the UN or some other
broad-based coalition believes in them, it seems to me that we cannot
avoid intervention when a madman decides to starve a few million of
his own population. If there are no human rights, then only power
matters, so quit whining about the USA doing whatever it can.

Please take this issue seriously and tell me what you think. I haven't
entirely resolved this myself, but I don't see that Kim has the right
to rule Korea as a god and kill millions, and have a voting seat on
the UN to legitimize him as "head of state." I think *the world*
shouldn't allow this sort of horror.

I think you're absolutely right, but there are many key issues that are
extremely difficult to resolve. What constitutes human rights is,
fortunately, pretty much agreed upon. What is lacking is a good measure
of how grossly it must be violated in order to warrant intervention by
"the world" as a whole, and what measures can be taken. Who wants to
decide that a million deaths are too much but ten thousand are not?

And even if it is decided that "something" must be done, it is not clear
what can be done, by whom, and how.

Given that "the world", in order to act united, needs to reach a
consensus but at the same time, different members of "the world" have
very different ideas of what "the world" or at least their part of it
should look like, it is very unlikely that efficient measures can be put
to work.

In the light of this I think the UNO is in fact quite efficient. But if
a nation decides, "Fuck Human Rights" or "Fuck Kyoto" it's pretty much
their own decision. I'm not saying that this is a good thing, I just
can't see how to change it. Just look at what China and Russia are doing
in the UNO about NK, and those are pretty big players if you're talking
about "the world".

The last "positive" example was WW2 where a single country, by military
aggression, pissed off enough other members of the world simultaneously
to get fought down efficiently and constructively. I'm certain that if
the Nazis had "only" murdered the German Jewish population (about half a
million people) and had not gone to war, nothing at all would have
happened.

robert

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 07:20:27 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Jonathan Kirwan wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote:

And politically potent, right now. Keep that clearly in mind as you
see US Republican political platforms playing out. They need this
base, desperately.


With things as closely balanced as they are, each party needs every
vote desperately. The Dems need the black vote and the urban liberal
vote and the farm vote and the NRA vote. Watch Hilary triangulate.

What the Dems really need is proof that Bush is Satan.


Which is inconsistant with their belief that he's dumb.

Maybe Cheney's Satan then ?

The usual image here in the US for Cheney is just Darth Vader.

Rumsfeld ?

Well, we still don't know who the Imperial Emperor happens to be,
operating behind the scenes. But Rumsfeld is the Grand Moff Tarkin,
but completely incompetent.

Jon

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 08:30:42 GMT, I wrote:

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 07:20:27 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Jonathan Kirwan wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote:

And politically potent, right now. Keep that clearly in mind as you
see US Republican political platforms playing out. They need this
base, desperately.


With things as closely balanced as they are, each party needs every
vote desperately. The Dems need the black vote and the urban liberal
vote and the farm vote and the NRA vote. Watch Hilary triangulate.

What the Dems really need is proof that Bush is Satan.


Which is inconsistant with their belief that he's dumb.

Maybe Cheney's Satan then ?

The usual image here in the US for Cheney is just Darth Vader.

Rumsfeld ?

Well, we still don't know who the Imperial Emperor happens to be,
operating behind the scenes. But Rumsfeld is the Grand Moff Tarkin,
but completely incompetent.

"The Tarkin Doctrine is a doctrine of state terrorism that its
namesake engineered; he was originally responsible for suppressing
treasonous activity against the Empire. Rather than spend large
amounts of money and resources to bend all the worlds of the Empire to
Palpatine's will, the Tarkin Doctrine instead centered around the use
of massive displays of force that could be used to discourage and
prevent any opposition."

Jon