Jihad needs scientists

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.

Eric Lucas

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.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
 
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:
[....]

mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <1161055552.800809.247610@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, "
It is the status they grant themselves that matters far more than the
status we grant them.

I disagree. At least up until the last several years, the word of the
US would have counted for a great deal on this subject. What they call
themselves doesn't matter at all. It is what others consider them that
matters. If they are considered criminals they will be arrested if
they are considered freedom fighters they will get aid.

In nations and societies which sponsor them and see them as heroes,
they'll not get arrested, in fact they'll get aid, regardless of what
you call them.
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.


And viewing it as pure crime is
counterproductive as in the case of crime there is little you can do
*until* an even happened, and even then you're pretty much limited to
going after the specific peole involved with the event. That's fine
for dealing with a lose collection of individuals, not with a vast
organization.

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?

It makes it a crime to be a
member of an on going criminal enterprise. Also most countries have
conspiracy laws that don't require the police to wait for the crime to
be commited.

But they require to have evidence that'll stand in court, a
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.

There are lots of legal tools that can be used without
calling it "a war". For that matter calling it "a war" doesn't really
add any new tools.

See above.
I looked above. I don't see any new tools. What did you have in mind?


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.

Obesity has won. They have taken over. They sell you hambergers and
then little pills to prevent the hambergers from having their natural
effect.

Sure. then we'll get the little pills to counteract the effects of
the first little pills, etc.

... and then a operation to repair the damage the second ones caused.

Lots of jobs, all around:)
All in all, I'd rather have moden medical stuff be available than not
however.
 
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 07:29:36 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
T Wake wrote:

You are quite correct in that blaming the soldiers directly for their
actions is wrong. The blame rests squarely with the person who wants to
use guns and soldiers against their own people.

You could blame the US gun culture too.

I'm not sure I see the connection. The "gun culture" generally refers to
arms in the hands of civilians. Soldiers and police have guns in just about
every culture (I can't think of a single counterexample), and it was those
soldiers' guns that caused the deaths at KSU.

For comparison it would be very unusual to see guns used in a similar example
here in the UK and our military doesn't come out onto the streets as a rule
either ( most of our police are unarmed of course ).

Graham

The Kent State troops were state National Guards, a part-time
quasi-police force that US states keep available for callup in
emergencies when there are not enough fulltime cops or emergency
workers to handle a crisis. They tend to be very effective for natural
disasters, floods and blizzards and earthquakes. This is essentially a
civilian militia that trains a few weeks a year, aka "weekend
warriors." They are under control of state governors but can also be
activated by the Federal government in times of national need.

Do you have anything like that?

John
 
On Wed, 18 Oct 06 11:51:42 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <e9ednZ8s0K3l2ajYRVnyuA@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4535424A.C08609A3@hotmail.com...


T Wake wrote:

lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message

Certainly a lot of the details of Darwin's theories have been subject
to
question and modification over the years. What has not changed is the
basic idea of evolution.

Very true. There is a conflict of terminology and if the people on the
radio
show were talking about "Darwin's theories" specifically they are a bit
behind the curve. Modern evolutionary theory has progressed beyond the
specifics Darwin described.

I've noticed that there is now a common tendency for those who reckon they
know
better to dismiss such things as 'just theories' as if that meant they had
no
vailidity !


I love that phrase "just theories." It really makes me smile when some
creationist goes on about how "evolution is just a theory."

Like Newtonian Gravity isn't "just" a theory. :)

Yes. It is just a theory. It is the human race's best
guess at how nature and its laws work.
It's a pretty good theory but ignores relativistic effects. It's
quantitatively precise in most practical situations, but not all
situations, so it is indeed flawed, and not a "best guess."

John
 
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <1161093895.152327.297830@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"MooseFET" <kensmith@rahul.net> wrote:

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.

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.
 
In article <009aj2dksthbu9fopngsr64nhfofi1dnjl@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Tue, 17 Oct 06 12:40:58 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

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.

Sigh! Wait. If this gets results it will be tried.
Have you not noticed what's been happening lately?
And it's not just Southern Baptist.


Judiasism and Christianity have generally considered suicide to be a
sin. Radical Islam considers it to be a holy act. It also helps get
rid of the young males, making the world safe for lecherous old-fart
polygamists.

John
See the "Jesus Camp" movie.
 
In article <eh3g0l$1fm$1@news-int.gatech.edu>,
david.bostwick@chemistry.gatech.edu (David Bostwick) wrote:
In article <eh34ou$nc5$1@leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
In article <eh30er$n6o$1@news-int.gatech.edu>,
david.bostwick@chemistry.gatech.edu (David Bostwick) wrote:

[...]

Are you also willing to include left-wing "fundamentalists" with every
killer who is anti-religion or unreligious?

By definition, left-wingers aren't fundamentalist anything.

Of course they are. The term fundamentalist simply means anyone who believes
the fundamentals of a belief system.
But liberals believe in liberty (that's what the word "liberal" comes from)
and you take away liberty if you insist on fundamentalism.

It has become linked to religion, but
fundamentalism can be religious, economic, political, or whatever. You can
try to change the definition, but we're still on this side of the looking
glass.



Can I lump Ted and Barney in with anyone
who kills just because he wants to?

If you'll tell me whom they murdered and why.


You put people who have done nothing wrong into the same category as those
who
have committed crimes.
I put Tim McVeigh, Eric Rudolph, and the IRA in the same category as any
terrorist.

What's good for one side is good for the other.

(And Teddy's a gimme.)


There's probably a killer out there who
believes most of what you do, but I don't think you're a danger to anyone.

People kill because they are evil. They may use a belief to hide behind or
to
rally followers, or they may really believe what they say. If you want to
say
that everyone who believes X is bad because an evil person says he believes
X,
your're going to have a lot of labels to make.



True; my post was in response to those lumping all Moslems in as such.

And then you did *exactly* the same thing.
 
In article <45355C57.28A8837D@earthlink.net>,
"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

"Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote in message
news:hra8j25plmkagerobeimflqgo6p6q9j3cg@4ax.com...
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 00:36:21 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

Jonathan Kirwan wrote:

The article I read pointed out that the soldiers explicitly were under
a Euro command and that if they were ordered _into_ their own country
for some reason, that they must have already sworn to uphold the Euro
command and not obey those in command in their own home country.

What happens when they are ordered to attack their own country?

How hard is it for you to imagine the case here in the US, for gosh
sake?

Let's say, hypothetically speaking, that on May 17, 1954, the US
Supreme Court rules in some case called Brown v. Board of Education of
Topeka, Kansas, unanimously agreeing that segregation in public
schools is unconstitutional. Just hypothetically, of course,
overturning the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson ruling, sanctioning "separate
but equal" segregation of the races and now ruling that "separate
educational facilities are inherently unequal."

Let's also say that, just hypothetically speaking, that in order to
comply with this Brown v. Board decision, a place called Central High
School in Little Rock, Arkansas made plans to integrate blacks around
the hypothetical time of September, 1957. Let's also say, just
hypothetically, that when nine black high school students arrived to
attend, that they were met by angry crowds and that the governor of
the great State of Arkansas, a hypothetically named Mr. Orval Faubus
in fact, just happened to order his own Arkansas National Guard to
keep the black students out of the school.

Just hypothetically, you know.

So let's say that faced with such defiance, a US President named --
oh, let's just say named Dwight Eisenhower -- responded by sending
troops from the 101st Airborne to Little Rock with orders to protect
the nine students.

Just hypothetically, you know.

Now, suppose you happened to come from Arkansas and you were in the
101st Airborne and ordered to disobey the Arkansas governor and to go
against the state's own Arkansas National Guard.

What do you do? Just hypothetically, you know.

Come off it, Mike. The US has already answered this question. Europe
can just look here for the problems and some answers.

Nicely written.

Ever heard of a dinky, crappy little liberal arts college called Kent
State?


You mean Kent State in Ohio, where outside agitators stirred up the
students and told them, "Your parents are rich! You can do anything you
want, the soldiers won't shoot at you?!"? The one where someone is
reported to have fired at the National Guard,
I suggest you read the report as to what happened.


and someone yelled "Fire"
immediately afterwards? The one, where after numerous nasty incidents
at US colleges all over the country where drunken idiots threw rocks at
the National Guard troops, and local police while they burnt buildings
and demanded their rights? I may have.


It was on the local Cincinnati and Dayton TV stations for days, and
discussed for months. You may also remember that it brought an almost
immediate stop to the campus riots all over the country. The few groups
that gathered and started trouble ran away as soon as it was announced
that the guard was called in. The national Guard is made up of well
trained soldiers who don't shoot for the fun of it. On the other hand,
if the other side is shooting at them they are trained to defend
themselves.
I imagine the Nazis rounding up and shooting villagers if the resistance used
a village as a staging area put an end to villages allowing the resistance
there too.

The thing that surprised me was that the riots went on for so long
before it happened. At least a year before Kent State I was telling
people it was going to happen, and it would stop the riots, but no one
believed me.
 
In article <879bj21r9ffat4i1pbkbjffvfb2bag6d5r@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 18:07:18 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan
jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote:


They are prohibited by law from engaging in politics, and
that's reasonably well enforced.

Not in churches, they're not.

Churches may not donate money or substantial resources to political
candidates. Would you have a prohibition against members of a
congregation discussing politics? How about members of the Sierra
Club? The NRA? The ACLU? MADD?

There have been some recent legal actions against churches that have
broken the no-politics rules, and against some secular nonprofits,
too.

As a musician in a group that happens to play
for church services a lot, I've been to services of quite a few
denominations...and many of them preach politics from the pulpit, to the
extent of telling their congregation for whom they should vote. That is a
big problem, in my book.

Of course it is; you don't want their candidates to win.

John


The League of Conservation Voters puts out a voter's guide; the LCV is not a
tax-exempt organization because of this. Why are churches allowed to put out
voter's guides?
 
In article <irbbj21g2kpf26j9k453j93a17hpmei2ik@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 19:11:06 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:


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

Generally speaking any belief system does no harm to scientific exploration
in that manner.

Exactly.

The problem comes in when the belief tries to answer
scientific questions.

Science shouldn't be so fragile that it is threatened by peoples'
beliefs about stuff like this. Until it is proven otherwise, the
universe may have originated in intelligent design, vacuum fluctuation
or (as one serious theory has it) time is an illusion and the universe
had no date of origin. Why are so many amateur scientists so hostile
to the idea that the universe was designed?

Because it's not a scientific theory. It cannot be tested, and it cannot be
falsified (ask its advocates).

I figure there's a chance
that it was, and a bigger chance that DNA was designed.
Why then would a designer make every life form use almost the same DNA? Why
have a flower have the same basic DNA as a human?


These
speculations invoke hostility, for no logical reason I can figure out.

The Jesuits have a long history of science and mathematics. They
somehow didn't find them mutually exclusive to belief.

John
 
In article <eh54ge$8qk_011@s847.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <e9ednZ8s0K3l2ajYRVnyuA@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4535424A.C08609A3@hotmail.com...


T Wake wrote:

lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message

Certainly a lot of the details of Darwin's theories have been subject
to
question and modification over the years. What has not changed is the
basic idea of evolution.

Very true. There is a conflict of terminology and if the people on the
radio
show were talking about "Darwin's theories" specifically they are a bit
behind the curve. Modern evolutionary theory has progressed beyond the
specifics Darwin described.

I've noticed that there is now a common tendency for those who reckon they
know
better to dismiss such things as 'just theories' as if that meant they had
no
vailidity !


I love that phrase "just theories." It really makes me smile when some
creationist goes on about how "evolution is just a theory."

Like Newtonian Gravity isn't "just" a theory. :)

Yes. It is just a theory. It is the human race's best
guess at how nature and its laws work.

Fundamentalists understand the difference between just a theory
and their belief. They get threatened when teachers of their
kids present evolution as a belief;
It isn't. It's taught in science class as a scientific fact, which it 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.
Oh, BS.

Listen to some of the idiots who are teaching el-hi science.

/BAH
Can't be more BS than what you just posted.
 
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
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 just because not all bad acts are caused by religious radicals doesn't
mean that no bad acts are caused by religious radicals.

Still, there is a far more important (non-violent) sense in which religious
(mostly Christian) radicals are a danger to the US.

Then start choosing Democrats who are willing to deal with reality.
Maybe you need to understand what reality means first ?

You're living in a fantasy world.

Graham
 
jmfbahciv@aol.com 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.

Not necessarily.
How so ? You're suggesting it's rational behaviour to kill young girls ?


I suspect there will be more of this acting out.
Why ?


If the world, as we know it, is going to end,
Of course it's not. Why would it ?

a lot of people
are going to indulge in the secret desire which had been suppressed
by society's rules.
You are quite berserk yourself.

Graham
 
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

As for Europe, I'm not hearing much discussions about this
either. What I do hear is capitulations so that they
get their oil deliveries.
Utter drivel.


Now this bais of the news may
be due to media bias; I don't know but I'll find out.
It could well be US media bias. Why not start listening to and watching the BBC
?

Graham
 
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Tue, 17 Oct 06 11:50:44 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

Pushing in certain areas is not the best way to prevent future
messes. I've found that the only way for people to learn how
not make new messes is to have them clean up the ones they
already made.


Excellent. Care to assign cleanup duties in the Middle East and
Africa?

France would get a primary assignment with extreme adult
supervision.
Why France ?

Graham
 
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
unsettled <unsettled@nonsense.com> wrote:

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

A) Insanity

B) Desire for power, control, and wealth


None of the above. Fear. Pure, simple terror.

OK, if you must, then "fear of losing power, control and wealth". Witness
the fear-mongering among the Religious Right in the current election
campaign.

I am. More alarming is the message of the Democrats who keep implying
that there isn't any problem. The speeches say that Bush is lying
about the existence of this national threat. What do you think
most people would conclude from a statement like that?
Maybe they're [the Democrats] right ?

Bush is a proven liar after all.

Graham
 
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

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

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

A) Insanity

B) Desire for power, control, and wealth


None of the above. Fear. Pure, simple terror.

You think religious extremism is the result of fear ?

Yes. Fear of losing control.
Whose control ?

Graham
 
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

Judiasism and Christianity have generally considered suicide to be a
sin.

So did Islam.
So DOES Islam.

Graham
 
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 05:13:06 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:r84bj29ks79pg0usm3m1gckgv430imkd0d@4ax.com...

It's surprising to me, in this newsgroup, how hard it is to get people
to brainstorm, to riff on ideas. Rigidity rules.

I agree. I think the problem (at least on sci.chem) is that people will
present a new idea as a fact, rather than as a speculation. A post that
says "here's how I say it is" garners a very different response than one
that says "hey, guys, I had this new idea, and I'd like your thought on how
to refine it". People need to find better ways to get a brainstorm like
that going. I've also found, through years of using it as a tool in my
science, that to do brainstorming well and productively takes a phenomenal
amount of discipline, and people do have to agree to abide by rules (for
example, the main rule is "you can only present new ideas, not
criticize/critique what someone else has presented".) Refinement of the
ideas generated in a brainstorm also takes discipline, but not quite as
much. That sort of discipline just ain't possible in a free-form forum like
Usenet, particularly in unmoderated newsgroups.
My apologies for not being more aware of the crosspost... I'm writing
from the s.e.d. perspective. Scientists are trying to discover the
rules of nature, and engineers are usually annoyed by them. Actual
recent exchange: "Nice circuit, but it violates conservation of
energy." ... "Ooh, I really hate that one."

But the problem is the same, in that we both need new ideas, and most
of the easy ones were found a long time ago. If you get a bunch of
people together, groupthink lowers their mean IQ, with mob violence,
or maybe politics, being the extreme expression. Brainstorming is a
mechanism to increase mean IQ, but as you say, it's fragile and not
easy to arrange. One bad player can poison a brainstorming session,
and on usenet there are plenty of bad players available.

One on my brainstorming "rules" (and all brainstorming rules are
better kept hidden, enforced by stealth) is that no ideas be supressed
until they've been exposed and considered. The way to make that happen
is to substitute the enabling rule that there's no difference between
presenting an idea and making a joke. A good brainstorm is
recognizable by the laughter it generates. Lots of the jokes turn out
to be excellent ideas, after a little kicking around.

Yesterday we evolved an absurd speculation on the subject of dac
trimming into a new product idea, absolutely unrelated to the original
issue, one we can charge a heap of money for.

Brainstorming is magical when it works. It could be done on usenet if
the players had the guts to keep it up and not be intimidated by the
wedge-heads.

John
 
JoeBloe wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> Gave us:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
JoeBloe <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> Gave us:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

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

What was the context of this visit? What is the custom of greeting
in that country?

You're trying to deny this happeend ?


Answer HER question, you evasive fucktard!

He is not able to answer the question.

There was no credible question. It was obfuscation.

It's real simple, asshole

WHAT IS THE CUSTOM OF GREETING OVER THERE?
Kissing ? ;~)

Graham
 

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top