Jihad needs scientists

[T Wake]

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:45355E4E.F2B8F835@earthlink.net...

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.

 

[T Wake]

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eh54ge$8qk_011@s847.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

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;

These teachers should be fired.

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.

 

[T Wake]

<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
newspiZg.13928$GR.7848@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...

"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 !


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)

 

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:
[....]

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

investigation. 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). 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. 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.

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.

[....]
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.

Well, yes. Longevity figures, so far, agree with you on this.

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

 

[T Wake]

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

<snip>

Take them however you like. Actually, I'm surprised by how
narrow-minede and dogmatic people are about evolution, how firmly they
cling to the dumb-blueprint, random mutstion model of DNA. I know
that, as evolution is eventually understood, all sorts of amazing and
wonderful machanisms will be discovered. So many people seem to have a
vested interest in dullness... I guess they're most comfortable with
it.

I agree, dogmatic beliefs to almost (*) anything need to be avoided where
possible. On the other side, when something does resist the test of time,
and so many assaults from various directions, it requires some very good
evidence to over throw it.

I am not a biologist. I am firmly in the camp of speculating for fun, often
using knowledge remembered from almost forty years ago and some more
recently read books (Ancestors Tale is interesting).

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?

(*) I say *almost* because the fundamental process of the scientific method
is IMHO the dogmatic belief which has to be adhered to, or else madness
reigns.

 

[T Wake]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:irbbj21g2kpf26j9k453j93a17hpmei2ik@4ax.com...

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.

Science isn't fragile, religion is. Science can co-exist with religion
perfectly well. Dogmatic adherents to certain monotheistic religions do not
find it as easy. The problem is how the mindset seems to read.

For scientists it comes as no real shock if a "Law" is falsified or found to
be lacking. In most cases it is a time of joy and excitement as people rush
to find new theories.

For dogmatic religious people, when faced with a line in their Holy Book
being wrong, it is an entirely different matter.

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.

Well, I sort of agree. The problem (IMHO) is this is no longer science.
Ideas and innovation are great. Having an idea then going about working out
how to test it is _very_ good science. Assuming things which can not be
tested for is not science.

Keeping an open mind is essential. Having a mind _so_ open that it spends
eternity determining every possibility is not essential.

Why are so many amateur scientists so hostile
to the idea that the universe was designed?

I dont know. I can only speak for myself. I am hostile to the idea as
science because it is untestable. All the current evidence is that it was
not designed, yet at each stage the Designer Supporters seem to redefine the
critera.

Also, if the universe was designed it answers no questions but simply
creates many, many more. Where is the designer? Who designed the designer?
Who designed the universe the designer is in? How can we call it a
"universe" when there is more than one of them?

Finding new questions is often good for science but these are not. They
continue into a logical circle.

I figure there's a chance
that it was,

And an even greater chance it wasn't.

and a bigger chance that DNA was designed.

But still a greater chance it wasn't.

Both also lead to the questions of how can we test to see if it is designed?
Who designed it? How can we falsify our choice of designer?

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

I dont know why either.

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

Not all religious adherents do. Some followers of some deities dislike the
fact that current scientific understanding forces them to redefine the
tenets of their faith (age of the planet, descent of man etc). Others are
more reasonable and don't. There are lots of people with strong religious
beliefs of all denominations (especially pantheistic religions) who do very
well in science. The two are not mutually exclusive in normal circumstances.
When people try to teach religion as science, though, they are doing a great
disservice to both.

 

[T Wake]

<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.........

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. Looking for "Gravitons" and trying to tie it into the standard
model is (IMHO of course) a wasted effort.

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."

 

[T Wake]

"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.

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.

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

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.

 

[T Wake]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:iuicj2hq5e3gsabtq0pk16l20eiqsnradv@4ax.com...

My particular interest is understanding where ideas come from, and why
some of them get squashed. When Townes was trying to get his first
maser to work, his department head was convinced it was a waste of
time. Townes broke the idea to a Nobel laureat who promptly told him
that the maser couldn't work because it violated the rules of
thermodynamics. He later reconsidered.

If you read sci.physics you can see hundreds of new topics, everyday, from
people who think they have invented the great new idea. Should time and
money be spent on every one of them?

Stories like this are great, they show that out of every bazillion nutcases
and cranks, some one has a truly great idea. There are still a bazillion
cranks trying to get attention...

 

[T Wake]

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eh4va9$8ss_004@s847.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <OziZg.13931$GR.6652@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:453591FE.C2B3C58@hotmail.com...


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.

Amazing line of reasoning. Your reality seems very different from everyone
else's.

 

[T Wake]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:453591FE.C2B3C58@hotmail.com...

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)

 

[T Wake]

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eh5425$8qk_010@s847.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <0oWdnYXsM90H3KjYnZ2dnUVZ8sudnZ2d@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
message
news:009aj2dksthbu9fopngsr64nhfofi1dnjl@4ax.com...
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.

An interpretation issue really. It would not be unreasonable for Radical
Christians or Jews to redefine some aspects of their faith to enable
suicide
for a just cause. The bible has killing anyone a sin,

Murder is a sin; this is not "not killing anyone".

"Thou shalt not kill"

State sanctioned murder is still murder, otherwise what Saddam Hussein did
to the marsh arabs was not murder.

Christians have been
fairly free with the definition of this though.

Do you kill where kill is deliberate cessation of a living thing?

I am not a Christian so I do not see where this is going.

Killing some one is, IMHO, ending their life against their wishes.

Why? Do you kill where kill is deliberate cessation of a living thing?

 

[T Wake]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:rp9bj25994ni7bfk5bha9p0dtm3cjl7jq9@4ax.com...

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 19:23:05 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:



Good point and fair cop. Although the debate was about America as an
entity
so there is still some validity in the terminology used. I am not trying
to
say "everyone in Azerbaijan hates America" or anything along those lines.
It
is simply the case that the "general opinions" as made available by
popular
media, news and political debate is that the populations of most countries
have a low opinion of the US as an entity (not of Americans per se) and of
US actions on a global scale.

This is strange as the US does so much good. People can either accept the
low opinion and ask why this skewed perspective exists or dismiss it and
carry on as normal.


The US is rich and powerful. That alone creates a lot of resentment.

Very true. This not something I am dismissing, more the fact that taking
this as being the _sole_ cause of the resentment is a fallacy.

If I were poor and opressed and hungry, of course I'd tend to resent
people who spend more maintaining their swimming pool than it would
take to feed my village.

Yet the US spends a fair amount of money supporting these villages. The
problem is (at least from when I was last in Africa in the 1990s) that a lot
of this help is carried with so many demands that the people change their
way of life to "be like America."

And they have a point. They might dislike
europeans or Australians as well, but the US has become the cultural
symbol for material excess and hedonism. Part of the dislike for
Americans is for what we do, but I sense it's more for what we are,
and for what we *can* do.

I suspect it is more a case of the people in various backwater nations are
sold the American dream (big car, big house, big pool etc), yet will never
in their lifetime aquire that.

I was in Angola assisting with infrastructure repair and there were American
missionaries (I use this term because I cant think of a better one - they
were not religious, they were just helping reconstruct), telling people how
great it is to own big houses, TVs etc. These people lived in mud huts and
had the most basic subsistence economies.

Some people, perhaps a minority, look at the US and don't resent us,
they say "Cool, I want to be like that too." And some of them emigrate
here, and do it. Some of them stay home and do it. Different
temperaments. I have a friend that I met in Russia, and I invited him
to visit me here, which he did, and now *he* has a swimming pool
behind his big house in Sacramento, and I still don't.

Getting bigger and better things is not everyone's dream. One of the
downsides of encouraging it (especially as it is so seductive) is that it
creates all manner of problems in nations where it will never, ever, happen.
Then you get the village elders / tribal leaders who become scared that
their culture is being eaten up by the McAmerica conglomerate.

This is the same as western statesmen who are worried that "western culture"
will be destroyed by Islam or any other "foreign" cultural threat. It is
farcical when examined critically but very few people can do that. Everybody
likes traditions.

 

[T Wake]

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eh536o$8qk_004@s847.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <uqkaj29qqainbc7l4mc8i51e40dbj8cf56@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 21:57:10 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



John Larkin 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?

Which bits of Africa did you have in mind ?


Well, let's see. We could start with the Belgian Congo, and maybe
Rhodesia, perhaps Cote D'Ivorie and German East Africa.

I think Liberia is key but I'm not sure. It would be productive
if the countries in Africa were left alone.

To kill each other? Strikes me as a reasonable idea. Let them all kill each
other, then when the dust settles we can kill the one or two survivors and
take all the diamonds.

 

[T Wake]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:453573E4.C686A665@hotmail.com...

T Wake wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote
Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote:
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

How does hurling rocks get "their voices heard"?

Wrong question, John. There were a lot of people there who did NOT
throw rocks. Only _some_ threw rocks.

And a separate question, entirely, John. Do you imagine that only
those throwing the rocks are the ones who were injured or killed by
professional military action?

The Guardsmen were mostly kids, about the same age as the college
kids, but working-class, hardly "professional" military. They didn't
like being there, but they were under orders, there to prevent
violence. And the college kids assigned them the role of "authority"
and stoned them. Of course the shooting was unjustified, but the
college kids were incredibly clueless.

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.

Not in this instance. We have done the same in the UK. I have friends who
were deployed against protesters in NI in the very early 1970s. Armed
soldiers facing housewives. Very brave. Very democratic.

Hopefully we[tinw] (the UK) have learned from this. Hopefully the US has as
well.

Watching footage of soldiers wave guns at crowds of people in Iraq makes me
suspect "not fully."

 

[T Wake]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:n3dcj21bf99k4s6rsamuc8dbdf9kifonha@4ax.com...

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?

No.

The army may be used in a national disaster but that is to help people not
shoot at them. Regular and reserve soldiers are often used to help flood
defences and the like. Don't tend to need to shoot at things in those
circumstances.

There were "exceptional circumstances" declared in NI which allowed soldiers
to patrol the streets but that was to protect the RUC police.

All our military and police agencies are under the control of the national
government.

 

[T Wake]

<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:X3hZg.13899$GR.6848@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
message news:qndaj2p3kovkgrk7g4ijnppv9d1ptn2qfm@4ax.com...
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 20:07:41 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

It is sad that people are pushed to the point at which they feel they
need
to throw stones at Soldiers to get their voices heard. Isn't democracy
wonderful.

How does hurling rocks get "their voices heard"?


Well, in fact I think it was exactly events like KSU that made
visible/audible a rising tide of discontent with Vietnam, that Nixon could
no longer ignore, and ultimately led to our complete withdrawal.


As I said, I
wouldn't throw rocks at people with guns; I don't fancy being in the
right, and dead.

It is fortunate your countries founding fathers didn't hold this
viewpoint.

They threw rocks at people with guns?


Maybe not the "Founding Fathers" as in Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton,
etc, but in fact, yes. The famous "shot heard round the world" was a
British soldier firing on an angry mob, some of whom were throwing stones.
One of the first people killed was a child, if I remember my 10th-grade
American History class correctly. (This could have been a little bit of
jingoistic rewriting of history, though.) If my memory is correct, it was
precisely this act of firing on the mob that incensed the population, and
served to motivate the revolutionaries through the ensuing brutal years of
fighting.

Personally, I am of the opinion that any government which mobilises troops
against its own people is doomed. This is very true of Democratic
governments but seems (given a longer term view ) to apply to others as
well

 

[T Wake]

<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:cQgZg.13896$GR.8942@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:2aydnQ5hfotjtKjYRVnytw@pipex.net...

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
message news:0h7aj25ckalb1dr630lm9apu323h2hj3ah@4ax.com...
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 16:45:03 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan
jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote:

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 08:50:18 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

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.

And by that comment do you mean to justify the application of deadly
force and the taking of lives in this particular circumstance? Just
curious.


Of course not. But if you do really, really stupid things, you can get
hurt, no different from poking a pit bull with a stick.

It is sad that your national guard are pit bulls. Are stones really that
frightening for them?

Especially considering that they were in full riot gear, with body shields
and all, it is a bit surprising. However, I guess I don't know how I
would have reacted if an angry mob was attacking me in that situation. I
was really too young to comprehend the situation at that time, but I
understand that there were a lot of conflicts on compuses around the
country between ROTC and non-ROTC students, and as many of the National
Guard were probably ROTC graduates, the shootings could have been a
spillover of that emotional conflict.

I suspect they were really the wrong troops to do that sort of thing. This
is why I am a firm believer that soldiers do *not* do police work very well.
Soldiers are trained to shoot at things. All military training is for war,
and a high intensity war. Soldiers get trained to shoot at everything which
is not on "their side." This does not translate into riot control very well
(i.e. Bloody Sunday over here, I suspect there are similar events in the
US).

Modern soldiers are sort of trained in riot control but it is not an easy
transition. Police make much better police men.

It is sad that people are pushed to the point at which they feel they
need to throw stones at Soldiers to get their voices heard. Isn't
democracy wonderful.

The wheels of the US version of a representative democracy do indeed turn
slowly sometimes--in 2/4/6 year chunks, usually. A true democracy might
be more responsive, but it's also *completely* impractical on the scale of
anything more than a few hundred people.

Very true

The thing that I find more insidious, and thus far more offensive, is the
type of "crowd control" used at politicians' public appearances these
days. Bush has been in the habit, since 2000, of having any possible
protesters banished from his appearances, and either falsely imprisoned
(for example, for wearing a T-shirt with an anti-Bush slogan) or bused to
so-called "Free Speech Zones" (how's that for a 1984-type euphemism)
outside of town in remote areas where they're guaranteed not to be heard
by more than a few people. That sort of quashing of debate and opposing
opinions makes my spine curl.

George Orwell must be spinning in his grave now

 

[T Wake]

<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
newsTgZg.13897$GR.8668@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:yKCdnU0EBp8At6jYRVnyrA@pipex.net...

If legislation came into force which demanded I worship in Church every
Sunday I would happily throw rocks at soldiers in protest. If they killed
me as a result it would, if nothing else, highlight to others how unjust
the system had become.

I think that sort of dedication to principles has become very rare in the
US, perhaps through a few decades of unparalleled peace and prosperity.
People are so insistent on having an existence with as close to a zero
chance of dying as possible, that doing something like that, which carries
some risk of dying, is unthinkable.

As previously mentioned, this is one of things I find amusing about the
Western nations "willingness" to send soldiers to die in a foreign country
while "enforcing" these freedoms upon said foreigners.

 

[T Wake]

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:4535C4F2.1612DF92@earthlink.net...

lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:45355C57.28A8837D@earthlink.net...

The one where someone is
reported to have fired at the National Guard

Now *there's* a nice little bit of revisionist history.


Revisionist? It was report on local TV that way the day it happened.

Must be true then.