Jihad needs scientists

"MooseFET" <kensmith@rahul.net> wrote in message
news:1161223334.040783.47000@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

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

Generally, I agree (especially regarding Iraq). However, I suspect that
getting the Taliban, who were major supporters of al Qaeda, out of power in
Afghanistan, and forcing Osama bin Laden and most of al Qaeda underground,
has probably ended up significantly hampering their ability to plan and
coordinate attacks. We may never know, however.

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

Well, I'm not sure that's true. Disrupting their day-to-day activities and
their ability to communicate and plan operations probably does at least some
good--and actually, not killing Osama bin Laden probably has been the best
move (be it accidental or purposeful) that the Bush administration has made.
We kill him, and he becomes an instant martyr. Death from kidney failure in
some remote cave in Afghanistan is much more ignominious.

As I understand it, it took a huge amount of planning and coordination to
get even one of the 9/11 attacks to go off, let alone all four essentially
simultaneously. For one reason or another, the approach al Qaeda seems to
have taken to targeting non-Middle Eastern countries for attacks is that
they have to go huge-scale. This is unlike the usual suicide attacks in the
Middle east, which happen nearly daily, and only kill a few people at a
time. Maybe it has to do with a vastly different scale of size and
distance--perhaps they feel that small attacks will not have much effect,
even if repeated often. In any case, because they have targeted us in that
way, hampering the leadership's ability to plan complex operations probably
does have a big and postitive effect. The problem is we stopped paying
attention to Afghanistan in favor of "Mission Accomplished" banners in Iraq,
and the Taliban is reorganizing. However, that wasn't a problem of the
original military action, it is a problem of insufficient follow-up due to a
single-minded desire to stick our noses in and destabilize another stable
situation with no good reason.

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

Agreed. The threat is simply to disperse. That's exactly why WWII is such
a poor model for the current situation.

Eric Lucas

 

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4536EE67.9B9D34B@hotmail.com...

mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

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

Really ?

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

And that may well have been one of the happiest accidents in the whole messy
situation--if it indeed was an accident. Killing him would have been
disastrous--instant martyrdom would make a pretty good recruiting tool. He
is (or was) on the run in caves in Afghanistan., and apparently incapable of
long-distance (i.e., interceptable electronic) communication--this can't be
the ideal situation from which to plan and coordinate complex operations
5000 miles away. While not killing Osama bin Laden was probably good,
taking our attention almost completely off of Afghanistan was probably a
very, very bad idea. Now that the Taliban is beginning to reorganize in
Afghanistan, I think we need to get back in there, break them up, and
disrupt their operations planning as much as we can--then stay there and
keep it that way.

Eric Lucas

 

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4536EF11.59E6F82B@hotmail.com...

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

Americans take God too seriously.

I'm not really sure that's a fair statement in this case. Granted, 9 years
is a very long time to hold a grudge, I've heard that a parent that loses a
child really never is able to completely get over it. However, given such a
grudge, I suspect what he meant was more like he was still angry at
someone--the world, society, the universe--for the loss of his daughter.
God was simply a surrogate for the unnamable entity at which he was angry.

Eric Lucas

 

[JoeBloe]

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 17:02:03 +0100, "T Wake"
<usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> Gave us:

(with JoeBloe trying to butt in
occasionally)

You're an idiot. You also do not know how or when to use comma.

 

[Daniel Mandic]

Eeyore wrote:

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

Graham

Hi Graham!



That will not happen as well as Thermodynamics will not stay on the
same degree.


Kind Regards,

Daniel Mandic

 

[JoeBloe]

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 17:41:12 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> Gave us:

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
John Fields wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
John Fields wrote:

You seem to forget one tiny little detail, and that's that we didn't
go after Saddam Hussein for the WTC, we went after him because of
his defiance of the UN, his refusal to comply with their sanctions
and inspections, and our belief that he was either developing, or in
possession of, WMD.

You mean the fiction you invented.

---
So you think it was about the WTC even though UBL admitted
responsibility for that?

The fiction about the supposed weapons.

---
The jury's still out on that one.

No it's not.

You're an idiot.

 

[JoeBloe]

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 18:04:04 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> Gave us:

John Larkin wrote:

Ah, your concern is not about peace. It's not about democracy, or
human rights, or the health or nutrition or safety of the poorest
people in the world.

And the USA'a *IS* ?????

Yes, DonkTARD! Despite what your widdle bwain thinks, we are the

most giving nation on the planet, and none of your bent statistics can
change that fact.

 

[JoeBloe]

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 18:06:04 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> Gave us:

It's still quite mad.
^^ You spelled "I'm" incorrectly, DonkTARD.

 

[JoeBloe]

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 18:10:06 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> Gave us:

John Fields wrote:

And you're defending that pig? Shame on you.

I'm criticising the USA. And the 650,000 deaths you've caused.

The number is wrong. It would still be high even if cut in half.

 

[JoeBloe]

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 18:12:41 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> Gave us:

Do please also tell me about how the native American indians were treated.

Yes, it took us over a hundred years to shed the crap mentality we
learned from our european roots.

Then, we started the industrial revolution.

But hey... we got the country, and did it the same way our
forefathers taught us. That would have been your forefathers.
There is not enough squirming in the world you can do claiming that we
were somehow rogue-ish back then and that you guys weren't, like some
"better folk" stayed behind and you're it. Bullshit.

That was then, on a planet not quite filled up yet. Now that a good
deal of it is filled up, the rules have changed. Not just us, but
people everywhere has huge interests to protect.

So yeah, our forefathers killed a lot of "indians". Do you think
all those folk just "spawned" from the east out toward the west. They
immigrated from your side of the pond, chucko! Hoards of 'em!

So who killed the "indians"?

 

[JoeBloe]

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 18:14:15 +0100, "T Wake"
<usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> Gave us:

I assume the US is about to invade lots of other countries then.

So what? I can think of a few that need "correction" action taken
on them.

 

[Daniel Mandic]

<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

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

Eric Lucas

Good statement!


Normally a human does not need any higher-level Technic (Above shovel,
pitchfork etc... for making food), to get somthing out of his/her ass
;-)

But many ppl are shitting at the head and beneath. That's the problem...



Daniel Mandic


P.S.: Done and recorded (TV, News etc..) actions are present to that
act. The Amish do not need to corroborate the happened. I can make my
own imaginations what happened, out from the other side, too.

 

[JoeBloe]

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 18:16:08 +0100, "T Wake"
<usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> Gave us:

"JoeBloe" <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:8ni5j2ln096bdgi5drknv2bl4ohgcesrcn@4ax.com...
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 00:11:25 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> Gave us:


"JoeBloe" <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:76f5j21qlf5u34mjb8du9hs0slb9fqcsve@4ax.com...
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 23:21:34 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> Gave us:

Well done. Now you have got your froth out, please wipe up the spittle
off
the keyboard like a good boy. Go back and read my post. Once more, you
show
you are too intent on arguing to be able to work out what you are
arguing
about. You really are an angry young man, aren't you?


Which is it? A six year old girl, or angry man?

Given your apparent multiple personality disorder I find it hard to keep
track of which you are in each given post.

More immature baby bullshit, and you can't figure out why I call you
an immature bullshit baby.

You really are like a broken record.

You're an idiot.

Did you post on sci.physics under the
names SPACEMAN or DennisB by any chance?

You're an idiot, kook.

One day, when you are mentally mature enough,

Talk about broken records.

you will have the ability to
form your own opinions.

Are you really stupid enough to think that I cannot?

Then you will be able to debate them.

Are you really stupid enough to think that I cannot?

Until that
day, you are an object of ridicule.

Talk about broken records, kook, you take the cake.

 

[JoeBloe]

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 18:22:12 +0100, "T Wake"
<usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> Gave us:

Britains colonisation of Africa did not "result in slavery."

That's right. You referred to them as "servants".

What was the US
stance on slavery though?

The key word is "was".

Seems to me all men are created equal

Back then, the key word was men, and they distinguished some folks
as not being men. The incorrect has since been corrected. Have you
ever been commanded by a superior ranking officer that was of another
race in the service of your country? The US armed forces are quite
racially diverse, and we purged racism from our ranks decades ago.

as long as
they are White Christians.

You're an idiot.

The US is the most diverse melting pot of race, religion, creed,
and culture in the world.

 

In article <bFtZg.15970$e66.4970@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eh53ce$8qk_005@s847.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <OF7Zg.17270$6S3.4818@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eh2k1e$8qk_002@s777.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <e97b6$4534dd17$4fe728b$30183@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
unsettled <unsettled@nonsense.com> 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


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.

Citation, please. In your zeal to support the current administration,
you're not listening carefully.

Listen to any of them.

The speeches say that Bush is lying
about the existence of this national threat.

That would be your problem--comprehension issues. What every single one
I've seen has said, is that Bush is lying about the *extent* of the threat.
Perhaps in your black-and-white world, you're not able to tell the
difference (I sometimes question whether most Americans are), but there is a
*huge* difference.

I give up. It is going to take a nuclear bomb set off in
the tenderest place before any of you will begin to think
about the real danger.

/BAH

 

In article <45364394.1D6660E1@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

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 ?

I don't understand your question. In both religions, the
extremist leaders cannot have their followers think for
themselves; all critical thinking skills are dangerous
to their grasp of power. The Muslims who fear this loss
see Western civlization as the culprit (EMF media cannot
be blocked out). Notice what has happened in Somalia
recently. The residents in that area are now sorting
out which culture will exist.

The US' religious right has similar fears. Note their
tactics. They chose a political tactic and targeted
schools. It's blowing up in their faces in most areas
(they're either getting fired or voted out). I don't
know what these types in Europe are doing. I only get
hints from Pope news.

/BAH

 

In article <eh2qeu$c28$3@leto.cc.emory.edu>,
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

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).

But there is a control on the data collected for the census.
The data given is limited to people living in one house and
not a count of everyone they know.

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.

The news said that the questions that were asked was if
anybody knew anybody who died. Adding these up will not
give a correct count. I don't know enough about counting
but I would guess that the reliablility of the count
would be 1/x, where x=number of people asked. They are
going to report anybody who is rumored to have died.

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.

Perhaps you should learn how people talk.

/BAH

 

In article <9YudneJsm-X4vajYnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eh2iep$8qk_001@s777.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <eh066g$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,

Read the report before you critique their methods. News reports very rarely
explain statistical methods properly.

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?

Yes, do you know what statistical analysis takes place to flatten out this
flaw? Are you implyng _all_ market research is pointless?

Yes.

I am sure there
are some major businesses which may disagree.

I'm sure they would; reduced quality of their products is an
indication that they listen to their marketing stats rather
than their customers.

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

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.

You need to look into how statistics of any sort are calculated and
manipulated then read through the report procedures to see if you can find
fault. The key issue is this is a peer reviewed article, it is safe to
assume both right and left wing people have gone over the methodology.

I am not talking about the methodology. I'm talking about using
a poll to avoid dealing with difficult problems. Death certificates
just records the death of somebody. These can be forged or
reproduced. Within the context of Iraq's living styles, did
their public health really issue certificates for every body
buried in mass graves? Do the certificates verify that x was
killed by the US? This determination would come a long time
after the certificate is issued, unless there is a request
for an amendment. People are forgetting that a lot of deaths
were self-inflicted but blamed on the US; I'm thinking of the
ammo dumps that were stockpiled by foolish people who set them
off by accident. A lot of these were blamed on the US.

Opinion polls may work within a society that is generally
governed by laws. Iraq is within a culture were killing for
any perceived insult to religion is acceptable. Do the
death certificates state that death was due to committing
a deed that was deemed a sin punishable by death of another
sect?



/BAH

 

In article <kGtZg.15971$e66.10370@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eh53mh$8qk_008@s847.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <3D7Zg.17268$6S3.12906@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eh2iip$8qk_002@s777.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <4533B576.5375DC4E@hotmail.com>,
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.

Not yet. But they are watching the Islamic extremists and learning
what works.

Is *that* where Bush got the idea to attack a sovereign nation for no good
reason. That explains a lot.

No. I'm about ready to tell you to fuck off. Having a discussion
is impossible if you keep twisting the words of the discussion to
fulfill your premise.


It's called satire, but I guess you've lost all ability to think objectively
and have a sense of humor about this.

I understand you think this is all a joke. It is not funny.
It is a lethal situation. I'm trying to explain some of it
through you.

Twisting the meanings of my words is just an attempt to get
me to waste my time straightening out your editing exclusions.
I call it work prevention. It's a common practice in any
group of workers.

/BAH

 

In article <AMtZg.15973$e66.6756@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:kGtZg.15971$e66.10370@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eh53mh$8qk_008@s847.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <3D7Zg.17268$6S3.12906@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eh2iip$8qk_002@s777.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <4533B576.5375DC4E@hotmail.com>,
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.

Not yet. But they are watching the Islamic extremists and learning
what works.

Is *that* where Bush got the idea to attack a sovereign nation for no
good
reason. That explains a lot.

No. I'm about ready to tell you to fuck off. Having a discussion
is impossible if you keep twisting the words of the discussion to
fulfill your premise.


It's called satire, but I guess you've lost all ability to think
objectively and have a sense of humor about this.

Just to follow up my own thought....I have done this a few times now, and
the main reason is to try to break you out of your simplistic mental rut of
"US good, radical Muslims bad" and try to get you to see they hypocrisy of
some of the things you say. What you say about the actions of radical
Islamist terrorists can frequently be applied to the tactics of our own
government. If you refuse to see the parallels, or to get wry intellectual
enjoyment out of them, that's not my problem.

Oh, I see. I'm not supposed to be concerned when those Muslims
are a threat to my life and life style. Am I supposed to let
them act out, kill millions, if not billions of people, just
so I can join the politically correct crowd?

/BAH