Jihad needs scientists

[MooseFET]

unsettled wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:


I can state my hidden agenda; preserve the world's accumulated
knowledge. Religious extremists have the goal of destroying
most of that knowledge. Islamic extremists have the goal of
destroying it all because it's a product of Western civilization.

Religious extremism is always the result of one of the following:

A) Insanity

B) Desire for power, control, and wealth

You left "sex" off the list, unless you include that in one of the
three you listed.

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <odi8j25ttpiuu9t6tbg4jne9cdut88qmin@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 17:38:14 +0100, 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.

John

McVeigh was a part of the radical Christian right. The IRA was Catholic
fighting Protestants (and Protestants fought back).

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <eh2dme$8ss_004@s777.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <eh01a0$ape$1@leto.cc.emory.edu>,
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
In article <egqd26$8qk_002@s961.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <ego03u$avm$2@leto.cc.emory.edu>,
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
In article <q2lti217ub0ipoq590okcqphu8snt59nga@4ax.com>,
JoeBloe <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 18:54:33 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> Gave us:


"Jamie" <jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote in
message
news:YQtXg.270$di5.251@newsfe06.lga...
Eeyore wrote:


JoeBloe wrote:


Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> Gave us:

JoeBloe wrote:

A "report" based on a guesstimate

No. Based on investigation. Something the USA hasn't done.

No. Folks over here, like Gary Sinese are sending books and pencils
and such over there so our soldiers can give them to kids in school.
Something they NEVER had in the past.


You're now suggesting that Iraqi kids didn't previously have books
and
pencils ?

You're madder than ever.


Graham

sure they did, the books was Saddams desired religion and 101 ways to
kill americans.

Unlikely in Iraq. In Iran maybe a variation (less Saddam and more ways
to
kill Americans), but not likely in Iraq. Prior to the early 1990s Iraq
was
almost a "liked" state in the region and they certainly had less
anti-western fervour than most other nations in that area.

Until Saddam totally fucked up and invaded the sovereignty of
another nation, the only thing we didn't like about him was that he
killed a lot of his own people. A ruthless regime which we
"tolerated" so as not to embroil the region.


Actually we sold him weapons,

What percentage of all Iraq's purchases were from the US
government?

What, if it's only 50% that makes it OK?

You dodged answering the question. What percentage? Be specific.


we sold him the materials to make chemical
weapons.

Which materials?

The precursor chemicals.

Specify. I suspect you don't want to make that list because
I could buy most of them at the drug store.



Rumsfield went over there and embraced him and told him he was our
friend.

What was the context of this visit?

Saddam had gassed the Kurds and was drawing world-wide criticism.

What year was this?


What is the custom of greeting
in that country?

What does this mean?

You dodged the question again. There are cultures where an
embrace is the normal greeting instead of a handshake.
Now, what is the custom of greeting in Iraq?

/BAH

Is telling someone they're still our friend after using poison gas a custom
too?

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <eh2iep$8qk_001@s777.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <eh066g$fqo$2@leto.cc.emory.edu>,
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
In article <pev4j2pkd0bj3da8vjm44121b4tohhc1l8@4ax.com>,
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 23:38:27 GMT, Richard The Dreaded Libertarian
null@example.net> wrote:

On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 17:07:30 -0500, John Fields wrote:

snip

It's a unilateral invasion, ordered by one man to satisfy a personal
vendetta, and 650,000 people have died as a result of his criminal
insanity.

---
You got a good source for that 650k? I picked it up blindly from
the Ass, but snapped to it and just a little while ago asked him for
a source. Maybe you've got one?
---

Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health as published in the British
medical journal Lancet.

From the news reports I heard, they got this data by going
from house to house asking each member how many of their relatives
and friends were killed. Do you not see the flaw in the sum of
the numbers reported by all these interviewees?

It's called sampling. It's a very established, respected method of finding
out things. We do it here for questions on the census each decade (the
demographic data).

If this method was used, do you not see how insultingly (to you,
if you believe their report) biased this number is?

They gave their 95% confidence interval.

This is another astonishing example of abject stupidity: 1.)
for those people who issued the report believing that this
was a good number and 2.) for their readers to
believe this is a good estimate and 3) for the way the
US media reported this.

snip

/BAH

Perhaps you should take a basic stats course.

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <eh2jst$8qk_001@s777.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <1161090357.909390.53800@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <eh01a0$ape$1@leto.cc.emory.edu>,
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

Actually we sold him weapons,

What percentage of all Iraq's purchases were from the US
government?

What, if it's only 50% that makes it OK?

You dodged answering the question. What percentage? Be specific.

we sold him the materials to make chemical
weapons.

Which materials?

The precursor chemicals.

Specify. I suspect you don't want to make that list because
I could buy most of them at the drug store.

I doubt if you would find any of the reactive starting materials for CW
like phosphorous chloride, fluoride, oxychloride, thionyl chloride or
any of the other more complex intermediates like trimethyl phosphite
(some of which have legitimate use in plastics and insecticides) on any
drug store shelf.

I have my chemistry book, also known as the recipe book. Now specify
the ingredients needed to make those dishes you've just listed.

Uh, those ARE the ingredients.

These days even legitimate industrial users of
organophosphorous compounds are vetted.

But the poster wasn't talking about these days. He was talking
about 25 years ago.


The US even sold Iraq helicopters and heavy vehicles on a don't ask
don't tell basis. As did the UK, Germany and even Israel... see for
example the WSU website (and links).

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

Exports of obvious CW precursors from US companies (and in theory their
overseas subsiduaries) were eventually blocked in March 1984 according
to the WSU article. That sounds about right to me.

And why did those ingredients get on the US' restriction list?

Exports of dual use and nuclear technology were still being approved
much later (although the US & UK governments tried damn hard to hide
it).

Define what "nuclear technology" is. I don't know what people
mean by this. I know what they want me to think.

Check out the infamous Matrix-Churchill show trial and the UK
government whitewash that followed its collapse.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/15/newsid_2544000/
2
544355.stm

I ain't going to go look for that. I thought the guy was accusing
the United _States_ for handing free weapons and components over
to Iraq--not United Kingdom.

Or are you trying to get people to believe that everything the
UK did was also the US' fault?


Rumsfield went over there and embraced him and told him he was our
friend.

What was the context of this visit?

A promotional sales tour to help the Iraqis to win the Iran-Iraq war.

Win? I don't think so. In those days, most deals had to do with
keeping strengths equal with the Communists' (mostly fUSSR) satellites.

Now, what percentage of Iraq imports were from US companies?

Europeans have hidden assumptions about US companies and how they
function because their environment is based on their socailist
govnerments controlling production.

OK, official idiot alert. What's next, the "commie under every bed" mantra?

If you do not believe capitalism is alive and flourishing in Europe, you're
hopelessly ignorant.

This is not how business
works in the US. Europeans have this subtle assumption and
don't seem to be able to realize that companies in the US
never first ask if they can manufacture a foo before they
build the plant.



/BAH

 

[Eeyore]

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

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

Did you think that a political climate that culiminated with
WWII went away when people quit fighting? War endings are
never like a FORTRAN program where the CALL to EXIT stops
everything.

So everything also caused by WW1 then.


It appears that you are incapable of thinking.

It seems you don't know much history !

The Versailles Treaty was assuredly the primary cause of WW2.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Lloyd Parker wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

Europeans have hidden assumptions about US companies and how they
function because their environment is based on their socailist
govnerments controlling production.

OK, official idiot alert. What's next, the "commie under every bed" mantra?

If you do not believe capitalism is alive and flourishing in Europe, you're
hopelessly ignorant.

This BAH idiot seems to be living in some curious fantasy world.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Lloyd Parker wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

From the news reports I heard, they got this data by going
from house to house asking each member how many of their relatives
and friends were killed. Do you not see the flaw in the sum of
the numbers reported by all these interviewees?

It's called sampling. It's a very established, respected method of finding
out things. We do it here for questions on the census each decade (the
demographic data).

And in most cases death certificates were shown too.

Graham

 

"Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote in message
news:i9n8j29atodlsous5hl3bpuk1avrj0s9a4@4ax.com...

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.

Sorry if that sounded snotty--no hidden agenda, just the obvious example of
troops being ordered into a situation and attacking their own people.

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.

Hadn't heard of it--thanks.

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.

Well, I think that's a fairly minor distinction--for example, I think KSU
compares better to the potential situation with the European defense force
than it does to the situation of a couple of cops abusing their power. It
was a symptom of the us (the people) vs. them (the government and its
military)--and to the "us", it doesn't so much matter if the "them" is the
EU or the governor of the state of Ohio. I had mis-remembered that Nixon
had ordered the NG into KSU, but even if it was just the governor of Ohio,
it's a bad situation to be put in.

Eric Lucas
> Jon

 

<mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:CzZYg.10$45.100@news.uchicago.edu...

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".

Exactly. And removing extremists from our own government would be a great
start.

Eric Lucas

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 17 Oct 06 11:23:14 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

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

Which Communism? From the little I've studied, Russia's seems
to be the same peasant economy without one individual ruler
who inherited the job.

China's (from reading and observation) seems to have been the
only method to restore the country's resources and survival.
China was being run by the Ottoman's equivalent of Jannissaries.
This seems to be a key to the cessation of a political and
economic empire.

I don't know. I'm still trying to figure all of this out.

Me too.

John

 

"Robert Latest" <boblatest@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4pjhnnFj8dasU1@individual.net...

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.

Just another reason that WWII is not in any sense a good model for our
invasion of Iraq.

Eric Lucas

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 17 Oct 06 11:32:56 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

I'm still trying to figure out how people keep track of
all these kinds of details when they're having things
we call summit meetings.

And if the world were run by historians, would it work any better?


John

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 03:41:23 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:hmg8j2d5e66hed8b2afqgd8t6lstbflj99@4ax.com...

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 18:37:22 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

"Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote in message
news:jul5j2tkh6tg8nptqgn390urkanmgjbng9@4ax.com...

Actually, President Bush has explicitly kept the "nuclear option" on
the table -- particularly, their tactical use.

Sad really, isn't it. I was hoping I would be able to see my great
grandchildren. But it gets less likely.

Well, if you survive the next two years, you're over the hump.

Good lord yes, let's hope saner minds take office in 2009.

Eric Lucas

Hilary, as much as I detest her, would probably be a pretty good prez,
a lot better than W or Willy.

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 15:38:17 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

"Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote in message
news:i9n8j29atodlsous5hl3bpuk1avrj0s9a4@4ax.com...
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.

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.

John

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@emory.edu> wrote in message
news:eh2q77$c28$1@leto.cc.emory.edu...

In article <odi8j25ttpiuu9t6tbg4jne9cdut88qmin@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 17:38:14 +0100, 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.

McVeigh was a part of the radical Christian right. The IRA was Catholic
fighting Protestants (and Protestants fought back).

While those are examples of Christian terrorists, that of course is not, as
John's strawman implies, the only or even the primary danger of the radical
Christian Right. It is their subsumption of a significant fraction of the
Federal and state governments, and foisting of their repressive principles
on the rest of the population that is so dangerous.

Eric Lucas

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 04:01:55 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

"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

If you graph your usage of "strawman"/post versus time, it seems to be
a pretty good increasing exponential fit. Or it might just be t^2, the
data is a bit noisy.

And I guess you can't be accused of being moralistic if you don't have
morals. Like you can't be accused of hypocracy if you don't have
principles.

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 04:09:40 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

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?

You lumped the Dems as a group, not me. Was that you, "What the Dems
really..."; it gets hard to tell. You are for sure the strawman man.

John

 

[John Larkin]

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 ?

That view is at least consistant.

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 04:17:52 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

"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

Thanks

and attempt at a distraction.

Sorry, I thought it was relevant to the issue at hand.

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".

Maybe that's his nickname. It doesn't matter.

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.

If you exclude considering possibilities because it might give you
something vaguely in common with Believers, then your mind is as
handicapped as theirs, likely more.

You really do need to take a more critical look at the wackos in your own
political party

I belong to no political party. My wife and my kid vote Democrat,
which is fine with me.

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.

Oh relax. Things are going to be fine.

John