Af/Pak & Other News (2/13/2013)

[dump...@hotmail.com]

Afghan Endgame:

http://nation.time.com/2013/02/13/afghan-endgame/



Panjwai residents battle Taliban:

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Panjwai_residents_battle_Taliban_999.html



US watchdog group: Afghanistan can't handle direct aid:

http://news.msn.com/world/us-watchdog-group-afghanistan-cant-handle-direct-aid




Forget Drones. The Real Problem Is “War Without Boundaries”:

http://nation.time.com/2013/02/13/forget-drones-the-real-problem-is-war-without-boundaries/




Announcement of US troop withdrawal draws mixed reactions in
Afghanistan:

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/02/13/announcement-us-troop-withdrawal-draws-mixed-reaction-in-afghanistan/



No charges in Britain over Taliban body part claims:

http://dawn.com/2013/02/13/no-charges-in-britain-over-taliban-body-part-claims/



A Potential Therapy for PTSD?:

http://nation.time.com/2013/02/13/a-potential-rx-for-ptsd/




Indian Air Force MiG-27 crashed:

http://alert5.com/2013/02/13/indian-air-force-mig-27-crashed/




US defense experts unimpressed by alleged Iranian Qaher-313 stealth
fighter:

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2013/02/us-defense-experts-unimpressed.html



Iran Photoshopped Its New Stealth Fighter Jet to Look Like It Was
Flying When It Totally Wasn’t:

http://gizmodo.com/5983870/iran-photoshopped-its-new-stealth-fighter-jet-to-look-like-it-was-flying-when-it-totally-wasnt




Saudi Tornado crashed:

http://alert5.com/2013/02/13/saudi-tornado-crashed/





Rebels seize airport as Syria dead nears 70,000:

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Rebels_seize_airport_as_Syria_dead_nears_70000_999.html



Russia Says It Is Supplying Syria, Mali with Arms:

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130213/DEFREG04/302130013/Russia-Says-Supplying-Syria-Mali-Arms?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE



Lebanese Prevent Tankers From Crossing Into Syria:

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/lebanese-prevent-tankers-crossing-syria-18488692




IDF cyber-defense control center goes online:

http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=303089



Israel struggles to keep cloak of secrecy over spy story:

http://news.msn.com/world/israel-struggles-to-keep-cloak-of-secrecy-over-spy-story





Egypt floods Gaza tunnels to cut Palestinian lifeline:

http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCABRE91C0RF20130213



Hundreds on Police Force Protest Egypt’s Government:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/13/world/middleeast/hundreds-on-police-force-protest-egypts-government.html?ref=world




Hired guns may have finally scuppered Somali pirates:

http://news.msn.com/world/hired-guns-may-have-finally-scuppered-somali-pirates




Mali threatens to become another Afghanistan: Canada:

http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=29424:mali-threatens-to-become-another-afghanistan-canada&catid=49:National%20Security&Itemid=115



Mali: Storming The Mountains:

http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/mali/articles/20130213.aspx




PICTURES: Secret Russian UAV design revealed:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/pictures-secret-russian-uav-design-revealed-382274/




Thai marines kill 16 militants after attack on military base:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/thai-marines-kill-16-militants-after-attack-on-military-base-8492547.html





North Korea's neighbors ready militaries after nuclear test:

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/02/13/neighbors-prep-diplomacy-militaries-while-studying-evidence-from-north-korea/





Pentagon Inks Deal for Smartphone Tool That Scans Your Face, Eyes,
Thumbs:

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/02/biometric-smartphone/



Mac Thornberry: Congress Must Empower Special Operations - EXCLUSIVE:

http://defense.aol.com/2013/02/13/mac-thornberry-congress-special-operations-exclusive/



RQ-21A Small Tactical Unmanned Air System Completes First Ship-Based
Flight:

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/142597/rq_21a-small-uav-completes-first-ship_based-flight.html



Why All The Fuss About UAVs:

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htmurph/articles/20130213.aspx



Navy: No New Weapons System on Our Future Carrier-Based Drone:

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/02/x47-weapons/

[Andrew Swallow]

On 13/02/2013 18:44, dump...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Forget Drones. The Real Problem Is �War Without Boundaries�:
>
> http://nation.time.com/2013/02/13/forget-drones-the-real-problem-is-war-without-boundaries/

Is using drones to kill people giving the USA a good or a bad reputation?

Bad - The USA is a bad place that kills people without trial.

Good - Tough, real tough country. No longer a coward.

Andrew Swallow

[dott.Piergiorgio]

the response lies in two factors: the target and the technique in the
killing.

Action like the killing of /bin/laden and, in past, the downing of
Yamamoto was in the "good" and "tough" action; the usage of a drone,
weakens the "tough" side, because of the "cowardice" factor the
stand-off nature of a drone has (let's be honest, too many cultures
highly value the putting oneself in harm's way for an objective and/or
scope, Italian and Latin is one of these)

And the target must be also be really recognized as a "villain" or at
least recognized by the public opinion as a combatant, and there's 100%
certainity on the target ID; in other words, there's not only the insult
of being considered "bad" because of a "killing without a trial", but
also the (serious) injury of the mark of "seriously bad" the "execution
of an innocent" carry with it....

Best regards from Italy,
dott. Piergiorgio.

[Airyx]

On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 3:39:50 PM UTC-6, dott.Piergiorgio wrote:

> > Bad - The USA is a bad place that kills people without trial.
>
> > Good - Tough, real tough country. No longer a coward.
>
> the response lies in two factors: the target and the technique in the
> killing.
>
> Action like the killing of /bin/laden and, in past, the downing of
> Yamamoto was in the "good" and "tough" action; the usage of a drone,
> weakens the "tough" side, because of the "cowardice" factor the
> stand-off nature of a drone has (let's be honest, too many cultures
> highly value the putting oneself in harm's way for an objective and/or
> scope, Italian and Latin is one of these)
>
> And the target must be also be really recognized as a "villain" or at
> least recognized by the public opinion as a combatant, and there's 100%
> certainity on the target ID; in other words, there's not only the insult
> of being considered "bad" because of a "killing without a trial", but
> also the (serious) injury of the mark of "seriously bad" the "execution
> of an innocent" carry with it....

> Best regards from Italy,
>
> dott. Piergiorgio.

You are correct, Dott.

I think the use of drones or cruise missiles is generally considered to be cowardly, especially in Middle Eastern cultures.

The good side, is this:

Imagine that you are a bad guy to the U.S.. A drone COULD be watching you at any time, so you always have take steps to conceal what you are doing. You can't travel the same route more than once. You can't be seen with the same people repeatedly. You have to load vehicles inside a garage. You can't really establish a facility in any permanent location, not for training, not for admin. Imagine trying to manage some sort of project while under those constraints.

Of course, the reason you know you have to do these things, because many of the leaders or cohorts in your organization have already been killed from this unseen enemy. So fear is also a factor.

[Diogenes]

On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 14:32:53 -0800 (PST), Airyx <ewei...@gmail.com>
wrote:

"Oderint dum metuant"
Let them hate, so long as they fear ~ Roman proverb
----
Diogenes

The wars are long, the peace is frail
The madmen come again . . . .

[jonathan]

"dott.Piergiorgio" <chied...@ask.me> wrote in message
news:HKTSs.34660$5b.1...@tornado.fastwebnet.it...

> Il 13/02/2013 21:01, Andrew Swallow ha scritto:
>> On 13/02/2013 18:44, dump...@hotmail.com wrote:

>>> Forget Drones. The Real Problem Is "War Without Boundaries":

>>>
>>> http://nation.time.com/2013/02/13/forget-drones-the-real-problem-is-war-without-boundaries/
>>>
>>
>> Is using drones to kill people giving the USA a good or a bad reputation?
>>
>> Bad - The USA is a bad place that kills people without trial.
>>
>> Good - Tough, real tough country. No longer a coward.
>
> the response lies in two factors: the target and the technique in the
> killing.
>
> Action like the killing of /bin/laden and, in past, the downing of
> Yamamoto was in the "good" and "tough" action; the usage of a drone,
> weakens the "tough" side, because of the "cowardice" factor the stand-off
> nature of a drone has (let's be honest, too many cultures highly value the
> putting oneself in harm's way for an objective and/or scope, Italian and
> Latin is one of these)

Drones help solve one of the biggest problem with conventional
air strikes as they can provide real time data and greatly reduce the
chances of civilian casualites.

>
> And the target must be also be really recognized as a "villain" or at
> least recognized by the public opinion as a combatant, and there's 100%
> certainity on the target ID; in other words, there's not only the insult
> of being considered "bad" because of a "killing without a trial", but also
> the (serious) injury of the mark of "seriously bad" the "execution of an
> innocent" carry with it....

We've been dealing with the resentment of being able
to strike from a distance with near impunity for a long time.
Whether long range bombers, cruise missiles and now
drones. When we swept away Saddam's supposed
million man army with almost no casualties, people
overseas howled in anger that we didn't have more
deaths, didn't pay a bigger price.

I don't feel America should have to apoligize for having
better military capabilities. I don't feel America should
apoligize for trying to reduce civilian casualites, or for
chasing down terrorists wherever they should go.

If Pakistan or Yemen don't want these drone strikes
let them take control over their own territory and
stop forcing us to act.

But people should understand something about
the nature of democracy and freedom. Dictatorships
or anarchy are to democracy as a censorship is
to the Internet. The Internet will always gravitate
towards and find a way of destroying the exessive
control, or fill the voids.

Democracy is drawn to destroying dictatorships
like a moth is drawn to a flame. And democracy
is destined to win in the end. It's inevitable that
nature always comes out on top, one way or
the other.

[Ian B MacLure]

Andrew Swallow <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote in
news:AdydnUOtbbS-bIbM...@bt.com:

> On 13/02/2013 18:44, dump...@hotmail.com wrote:

>> Forget Drones. The Real Problem Is �War Without Boundaries�:
>>
>> http://nation.time.com/2013/02/13/forget-drones-the-real-problem-is-wa

>> r-without-boundaries/
>
> Is using drones to kill people giving the USA a good or a bad
> reputation?
>
> Bad - The USA is a bad place that kills people without trial.
>
> Good - Tough, real tough country. No longer a coward.

And what pray tell is the difference between an airstrike from a
UAV and an attack by a legacy jet?

The contention is really about where the attacks ocur not the
means.

Jihadis are quite understandably upset about their foes ability
to get at them in places they had traditionally thought safe.

Boo freakin' hoo.

And as to trial, there's a war on. They declared it and get to
take casualties. End of story.

[Grantland]

On Thursday, 14 February 2013 03:30:49 UTC+2, jonathan wrote:

<snipped the rah-rah yahoo nonsense>

> But people should understand something about
>
> the nature of democracy and freedom.
>

> ...

>
> Democracy is drawn to destroying dictatorships
>
> like a moth is drawn to a flame. And democracy
>
> is destined to win in the end. It's inevitable that
>
> nature always comes out on top, one way or
>
> the other.
>

If you imagine that you are still living in a free democracy, you haven't been paying attention. Period.

Grantland

[Dennis]

Ian B MacLure wrote:

> Andrew Swallow <am.swalloternet.com> wrote in

On 13/02/2013 18:44, dumpstm wrote:

>>> Forget Drones. The Real Problem Is “War Without Boundaries”:
>>>
http://nation.time.com/2013/02/13/forget-drones-the-real-problem-is-wa
r-without-boundaries/
>>
>> Is using drones to kill people giving the USA a good or a bad
>> reputation?
>>
>> Bad - The USA is a bad place that kills people without trial.
>>
>> Good - Tough, real tough country. No longer a coward.
>
> And what pray tell is the difference between an airstrike
> from a UAV and an attack by a legacy jet?

An attack by a legacy jet puts a person in harm's way, which appeals to
many culture of what does not constitute 'cowardice.'

OTOH, a drone can actually take a lot longer to gather accurate
real-time data on its target, to minimize collateral damage and to
verify that the target is the desired person. I suppose you could use a
drone for observation and a jet together to get some of both, but not
entirely by any means.

> The contention is really about where the attacks ocur not the
> means.
>
> Jihadis are quite understandably upset about their foes
> ability to get at them in places they had traditionally
> thought safe.
>
> Boo freakin' hoo.
>
> And as to trial, there's a war on. They declared it and get
> to take casualties. End of story.

Well, the jihadis in so many cases blend in with innocent civilians, or
are massively used as unwilling human shields, as in Gaza. That's a
sizeable difference with the past, though it's always been a factor in
insurgencies, and was in Vietnam.

The drones deal best with that for non-war situations. In Operation
CAST LEAD, the Israelis had naval firepower for great precision,
on-the-spot endurance, and the in-harm's-way macho factor.

Dennis

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Il 14/02/2013 02:30, jonathan ha scritto:

> We've been dealing with the resentment of being able
> to strike from a distance with near impunity for a long time.
> Whether long range bombers, cruise missiles and now
> drones. When we swept away Saddam's supposed
> million man army with almost no casualties, people
> overseas howled in anger that we didn't have more
> deaths, didn't pay a bigger price.
>
> I don't feel America should have to apoligize for having
> better military capabilities. I don't feel America should
> apoligize for trying to reduce civilian casualites, or for
> chasing down terrorists wherever they should go.

I'm born in a city whose is the very embodiment of the concept and
meaning of Power, and where Democracy leaves the confines of city-states
to became of Peoples and Universal. so if I actually want to play who
has more jingoism I can beat wou effortlessy...

But because of this, I instead point to you that if some apologies can
give strength and durability to peace and prosperity, the apologies are
more than worthwhile.

you can impose democracy with arms, but this led to vilify Democracy to
the vanquished people; and a vilified and despised democracy imposed
with arms isn't a solid democracy, if we can even call it democracy.

Nation-building is also infrastructure, utmost respect for the
vanquished people's culture and customs, seeding shared values. we have
done this, and the end result is a thing called Western Society.

[Jim Wilkins]

"dott.Piergiorgio" <chied...@ask.me> wrote in message

news:iaWTs.35492$5b.2...@tornado.fastwebnet.it...

>
> I'm born in a city whose is the very embodiment of the concept and
> meaning of Power, and where Democracy leaves the confines of
> city-states to became of Peoples and Universal. so if I actually
> want to play who has more jingoism I can beat wou effortlessy...
>

Do you really want us to rehash the failures of "8 million bayonets"?

[dott.Piergiorgio]

do you actually read jonathan's posts ? he often spew childish jingoism,
and I pointed out that if I spew out, let's call it "mature jingoism",
he ends utterly defeated in that unusual "scholastic debate"

[Ian B MacLure]

Dennis <tsalagi...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:XnsA168CF8FAA1BEts...@130.133.4.11:

> Ian B MacLure wrote:
>
>> Andrew Swallow <am.swalloternet.com> wrote in
>
> On 13/02/2013 18:44, dumpstm wrote:
>
>>>> Forget Drones. The Real Problem Is “War Without Boundaries”:
>>>>
> http://nation.time.com/2013/02/13/forget-drones-the-real-problem-is-wa
> r-without-boundaries/
>>>
>>> Is using drones to kill people giving the USA a good or a bad
>>> reputation?
>>>
>>> Bad - The USA is a bad place that kills people without trial.
>>>
>>> Good - Tough, real tough country. No longer a coward.
>>
>> And what pray tell is the difference between an airstrike
>> from a UAV and an attack by a legacy jet?
>
> An attack by a legacy jet puts a person in harm's way, which appeals to
> many culture of what does not constitute 'cowardice.'

Hiding among civilians is hardly a act of bravery and in fact
could be considered a war crime under certain conditions
particularly if their presence is not desired.

And in any case why should jihadi notions of what constitutes
proper behavio(u)r be given any attention whatsoever.

> OTOH, a drone can actually take a lot longer to gather accurate
> real-time data on its target, to minimize collateral damage and to
> verify that the target is the desired person. I suppose you could use
a
> drone for observation and a jet together to get some of both, but not
> entirely by any means.

Why bother. You have identified and acquired a target. Now you kill
it/him/her/they/whatever by whatever means are most convenient. For
the jihadi command structure, target identification, acquisition,
and destruction is often most conveniently done from a UAV.

>
>> The contention is really about where the attacks ocur not the
>> means.
>>
>> Jihadis are quite understandably upset about their foes
>> ability to get at them in places they had traditionally
>> thought safe.
>>
>> Boo freakin' hoo.
>>
>> And as to trial, there's a war on. They declared it and get
>> to take casualties. End of story.
>
> Well, the jihadis in so many cases blend in with innocent civilians, or
> are massively used as unwilling human shields, as in Gaza. That's a
> sizeable difference with the past, though it's always been a factor in
> insurgencies, and was in Vietnam.

Using civilians as unwilling shields is a war crime. The
Hamastinians should be treated as the criminals they are.

> The drones deal best with that for non-war situations. In Operation
> CAST LEAD, the Israelis had naval firepower for great precision,
> on-the-spot endurance, and the in-harm's-way macho factor.

Once having acquired a legitimate military targte it matters not
whether:

1. You stroll up to it and beat it to death with a blunt object.
2. Stroll up to it, stick a pistol in its ear and pull the trigger
3. Shoot it from a distance with a rifle, machine gun, etc.
4. Call in artillery.
5. Call in air support.
...

You do have certain obligations to try and avoid involving non-
combattants. But that doesn't give the other guy a veto and if he
choses to use the non-combattants as shields, guess who is up the
legal creek?

IBM

[Andrew Swallow]

It is quite simple to stop the drones - just stop sinning. The drones
are sent to attack sinners.

As Moses pointed out committing murder is a major sin.

Andrew Swallow

[Dennis]

Ian B MacLure wrote:

> Dennis <tsalagi...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>

>> An attack by a legacy jet puts a person in harm's way, which appeals
>> to many culture of what does not constitute 'cowardice.'
>
> Hiding among civilians is hardly a act of bravery and in fact
> could be considered a war crime under certain conditions
> particularly if their presence is not desired.
>
> And in any case why should jihadi notions of what constitutes
> proper behavio(u)r be given any attention whatsoever.

You're quite right, but we're talking about the impression we make,
among the populations of other countries, perhaps those whose citizens
become collateral damage, and in any case people we would like to have
on our side. No, we don't care about what the jihadis themselves think.

>
>> OTOH, a drone can actually take a lot longer to gather accurate
>> real-time data on its target, to minimize collateral damage and to
>> verify that the target is the desired person. I suppose you could
>> use
> a
>> drone for observation and a jet together to get some of both, but not
>> entirely by any means.
>
> Why bother. You have identified and acquired a target. Now
> you kill it/him/her/they/whatever by whatever means are most
> convenient. For the jihadi command structure, target
> identification, acquisition, and destruction is often most
> conveniently done from a UAV.

In a non-war situation, yes. If the Hellfire missile comes from a jet,
perhaps we garner more sympathy among the people whose opinion we value,
maybe not.

>> Well, the jihadis in so many cases blend in with innocent civilians,
>> or are massively used as unwilling human shields, as in Gaza. That's
>> a sizeable difference with the past, though it's always been a factor
>> in insurgencies, and was in Vietnam.
>
> Using civilians as unwilling shields is a war crime. The
> Hamastinians should be treated as the criminals they are.

I dunno what their legal status is. The Geneva Conventions afford
protection to 'participants in armed conflicts.' And we, alas, assume
everyone guilty until proven innocent. It's true that UAV and jet
killings alike violate that.

>> The drones deal best with that for non-war situations. In Operation
>> CAST LEAD, the Israelis had naval firepower for great precision,
>> on-the-spot endurance, and the in-harm's-way macho factor.
>
> Once having acquired a legitimate military targte it matters
> not whether:
>
> 1. You stroll up to it and beat it to death with a blunt
> object. 2. Stroll up to it, stick a pistol in its ear and
> pull the trigger 3. Shoot it from a distance with a rifle,
> machine gun, etc. 4. Call in artillery.
> 5. Call in air support.

Indeed, in a way situation such as CAST LEAD.

...
> You do have certain obligations to try and avoid involving
> non- combattants. But that doesn't give the other guy a veto
> and if he choses to use the non-combattants as shields, guess
> who is up the legal creek?

Sending Hamastis to Den Haag for trial on war crimes is really nicer
than what they deserve, let's face it.

Dennis

[Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.]

dott.Piergiorgio wrote:
>
> do you actually read jonathan's posts ? he often spew childish jingoism,
> and I pointed out that if I spew out, let's call it "mature jingoism",
> he ends utterly defeated in that unusual "scholastic debate"

Dear Italian Old Fool (tm),

Even an old fool cannot defeat jonathan's 10th grade mentality.
;-)

[Andrew Swallow]

On 18/02/2013 06:06, Dennis wrote:
> Ian B MacLure wrote:
{snip}

>> You do have certain obligations to try and avoid involving
>> non- combattants. But that doesn't give the other guy a veto
>> and if he choses to use the non-combattants as shields, guess
>> who is up the legal creek?
>
> Sending Hamastis to Den Haag for trial on war crimes is really nicer
> than what they deserve, let's face it.
>
> Dennis
>

I have no objection to giving them a war crimes trial, providing 6
months later we remember to put a rope around their neck. Also no
returning the bodies for honourable burial.

Andrew Swallow

[Andrew Swallow]

On 18/02/2013 06:06, Dennis wrote:

{snip}

> You're quite right, but we're talking about the impression we make,
> among the populations of other countries, perhaps those whose citizens
> become collateral damage, and in any case people we would like to have
> on our side. No, we don't care about what the jihadis themselves think.

Actually we probably should care. If the Jihadis think that attacking
the West will result in their death and the sins they committed will
result in their side losing they may be less inclined to attack us.

Andrew Swallow

[george152]

Yup.
The fact that there is nowhere to run and nowhere to hide must have
occurred to them by now.
More terrorist attacks are going to lead to more leaders hiding in
Pakistan suddenly dying.
The impression you want to leave is "you kill one of ours we will kill
whoever planned the killing"

[Ian B MacLure]

Dennis <tsalagi...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:XnsA16B11287C88ts...@130.133.4.11:

> Ian B MacLure wrote:
>
>> Dennis <tsalagi...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>
>>> An attack by a legacy jet puts a person in harm's way, which appeals
>>> to many culture of what does not constitute 'cowardice.'
>>
>> Hiding among civilians is hardly a act of bravery and in
>> fact could be considered a war crime under certain
>> conditions particularly if their presence is not desired.
>>
>> And in any case why should jihadi notions of what
>> constitutes proper behavio(u)r be given any attention
>> whatsoever.
>
> You're quite right, but we're talking about the impression we make,
> among the populations of other countries, perhaps those whose citizens
> become collateral damage, and in any case people we would like to have
> on our side. No, we don't care about what the jihadis themselves
> think.

There ar some populations out there for whom the only lasting
impression is unfortunately that left by a crater.

>>> OTOH, a drone can actually take a lot longer to gather accurate
>>> real-time data on its target, to minimize collateral damage and to
>>> verify that the target is the desired person. I suppose you could
>>> use
>> a
>>> drone for observation and a jet together to get some of both, but
>>> not entirely by any means.
>>
>> Why bother. You have identified and acquired a target. Now
>> you kill it/him/her/they/whatever by whatever means are most
>> convenient. For the jihadi command structure, target
>> identification, acquisition, and destruction is often most
>> conveniently done from a UAV.
>
> In a non-war situation, yes. If the Hellfire missile comes from a
> jet, perhaps we garner more sympathy among the people whose opinion we
> value, maybe not.

In the ideal situation the delivery vehicle will never be seen.
There would be no jet, no launch, only the earth-shattering KA-BOOM
( h/t Marvin the Martian ). A moderately Zen process.

>>> Well, the jihadis in so many cases blend in with innocent civilians,
>>> or are massively used as unwilling human shields, as in Gaza.
>>> That's a sizeable difference with the past, though it's always been
>>> a factor in insurgencies, and was in Vietnam.
>>
>> Using civilians as unwilling shields is a war crime. The
>> Hamastinians should be treated as the criminals they are.
>
> I dunno what their legal status is. The Geneva Conventions afford
> protection to 'participants in armed conflicts.' And we, alas, assume
> everyone guilty until proven innocent. It's true that UAV and jet
> killings alike violate that.

The Hamastinians ae criminals. Full stop.

>>> The drones deal best with that for non-war situations. In Operation
>>> CAST LEAD, the Israelis had naval firepower for great precision,
>>> on-the-spot endurance, and the in-harm's-way macho factor.
>>
>> Once having acquired a legitimate military targte it matters
>> not whether:
>>
>> 1. You stroll up to it and beat it to death with a blunt
>> object. 2. Stroll up to it, stick a pistol in its ear and
>> pull the trigger 3. Shoot it from a distance with a rifle,
>> machine gun, etc. 4. Call in artillery.
>> 5. Call in air support.
>
> Indeed, in a way situation such as CAST LEAD.
> ...
>> You do have certain obligations to try and avoid involving
>> non- combattants. But that doesn't give the other guy a veto
>> and if he choses to use the non-combattants as shields,
>> guess who is up the legal creek?
>
> Sending Hamastis to Den Haag for trial on war crimes is really nicer
> than what they deserve, let's face it.

What they deserve is eternity in whichever circle of Hell contains
a lake of flaming pig excrement.

IBM

[Dennis]

Don't forget, they're seeking martyrdom. But yes, if whatever we do makes
their side lose, by all means do it. Making some of them martyrs might not
accomplish that.

Dennis

[Dennis]

Andrew Swallow wrote:

> On 18/02/2013 06:06, Dennis wrote:
>> Ian B MacLure wrote:
> {snip}
>
>>> You do have certain obligations to try and avoid involving
>>> non- combattants. But that doesn't give the other guy a veto
>>> and if he choses to use the non-combattants as shields, guess
>>> who is up the legal creek?
>>
>> Sending Hamastis to Den Haag for trial on war crimes is really nicer
>> than what they deserve, let's face it.
>

> I have no objection to giving them a war crimes trial, providing 6
> months later we remember to put a rope around their neck. Also no
> returning the bodies for honourable burial.

If that were how it worked, I'd have no objection either. But the most
they'd get is a life sentence, it'd probably take years to get there.

Dennis

[Dennis]

Ian B MacLure wrote:

> Dennis <tsalil.com> wrote in
>
>> Ian B MacLure wrote:
>>
>>> Dennis <tsalagom> wrote in

>>>
>> You're quite right, but we're talking about the impression we make,
>> among the populations of other countries, perhaps those whose
>> citizens become collateral damage, and in any case people we would
>> like to have on our side. No, we don't care about what the jihadis
>> themselves think.
>
> There ar some populations out there for whom the only lasting
> impression is unfortunately that left by a crater.

LOL!!!! Good one!

>> In a non-war situation, yes. If the Hellfire missile comes from a
>> jet, perhaps we garner more sympathy among the people whose opinion
>> we value, maybe not.
>
> In the ideal situation the delivery vehicle will never be
> seen. There would be no jet, no launch, only the
> earth-shattering KA-BOOM ( h/t Marvin the Martian ). A
> moderately Zen process.

The Rod from God?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment

>> I dunno what their legal status is. The Geneva Conventions afford
>> protection to 'participants in armed conflicts.' And we, alas,
>> assume everyone guilty until proven innocent. It's true that UAV and
>> jet killings alike violate that.
>
> The Hamastinians ae criminals. Full stop.

Alas, persons are 'innocent until proven guilty,' though I honestly
don't know what US law says in this case.

>> Sending Hamastis to Den Haag for trial on war crimes is really nicer
>> than what they deserve, let's face it.
>
> What they deserve is eternity in whichever circle of Hell
> contains a lake of flaming pig excrement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dante%27s_Inferno#Eighth_Circle_.28Fraud.29

"Bolgia 2: Flatterers also exploited other people, this time using
language. They are steeped in human excrement, which represents the
words they produced. "

This seems more applicable:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dante%
27s_Inferno#Seventh_Circle_.28Violence.29

"Outer ring: This ring houses the violent against people and property.
Sinners are immersed in Phlegethon, a river of boiling blood and fire,
to a level commensurate with their sins: Alexander the Great is immersed
up to his eyebrows, although Dante praises Alexander at other points in
the poem, meaning he might be referring to a different Alexander.
Dionysius I of Syracuse, Azzolino da Romano, Guy de Montfort, Obizzo
d'Este, Ezzelino III da Romano, Rinier da Corneto, and Rinier Pazzo are
also seen in the Phlegethon as well as references to Atilla the Hun. The
Centaurs, commanded by Chiron and Pholus, patrol the ring, shooting
arrows into any sinners who emerge higher out of the river than each is
allowed. "

Dennis

[Daryl]

Until recently, the leaders may have preached wanting to become
martyrs but they didn't believe it would happen to them. They
preached it like that so others would be the martyrs. That's not
the case anymore. This is why they are moving to other areas
that don't have the drones in the airspace. We need to follow
them wherever they go and make them hold to their promise of
Martyrdom. Be it mali, Pakistan, Syria, etc.. They declared war
on US, not the other way around and we need to start treating it
like a war. And we need to stop with the namby pamby BS around
civil courts. Our Criminals deserve our courts but they deserve
a nice drone up the ass.

Daryl




--
http://tvmoviesforfree.com
for free movies and Nostalgic TV. Tons of Military shows and
programs.

[Daryl]

On 2/18/2013 6:37 PM, Ian B MacLure wrote:
> Dennis <tsalagi...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:XnsA16B11287C88ts...@130.133.4.11:
>
>> Ian B MacLure wrote:

>>
>> You're quite right, but we're talking about the impression we make,
>> among the populations of other countries, perhaps those whose citizens
>> become collateral damage, and in any case people we would like to have
>> on our side. No, we don't care about what the jihadis themselves
>> think.
>
> There ar some populations out there for whom the only lasting
> impression is unfortunately that left by a crater.

I am always in favor of a nice B-52 strike on the behind. If you
can't do that, go for the Drone.

>>
>> In a non-war situation, yes. If the Hellfire missile comes from a
>> jet, perhaps we garner more sympathy among the people whose opinion we
>> value, maybe not.
>
> In the ideal situation the delivery vehicle will never be seen.
> There would be no jet, no launch, only the earth-shattering KA-BOOM
> ( h/t Marvin the Martian ). A moderately Zen process.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDl5EHev-us

>
>>>> Well, the jihadis in so many cases blend in with innocent civilians,
>>>> or are massively used as unwilling human shields, as in Gaza.
>>>> That's a sizeable difference with the past, though it's always been
>>>> a factor in insurgencies, and was in Vietnam.
>>>
>>> Using civilians as unwilling shields is a war crime. The
>>> Hamastinians should be treated as the criminals they are.
>>
>> I dunno what their legal status is. The Geneva Conventions afford
>> protection to 'participants in armed conflicts.' And we, alas, assume
>> everyone guilty until proven innocent. It's true that UAV and jet
>> killings alike violate that.

Actually, it's been pointed out that due to their own actions,
they are NOT protected by the Geneva Convention at all. They are
neither legal combatants nor legal non combatants. It was never
designed to protect animals of that magnitude.

And if you call them criminals, you would have to apologize to
each and every criminal in the free world. Criminals would take
umbrage to them being called criminals.

>
> The Hamastinians ae criminals. Full stop.
>
>>>> The drones deal best with that for non-war situations. In Operation
>>>> CAST LEAD, the Israelis had naval firepower for great precision,
>>>> on-the-spot endurance, and the in-harm's-way macho factor.
>>>
>>> Once having acquired a legitimate military targte it matters
>>> not whether:
>>>
>>> 1. You stroll up to it and beat it to death with a blunt
>>> object. 2. Stroll up to it, stick a pistol in its ear and
>>> pull the trigger 3. Shoot it from a distance with a rifle,
>>> machine gun, etc. 4. Call in artillery.
>>> 5. Call in air support.
>>
>> Indeed, in a way situation such as CAST LEAD.
>> ...
>>> You do have certain obligations to try and avoid involving
>>> non- combattants. But that doesn't give the other guy a veto
>>> and if he choses to use the non-combattants as shields,
>>> guess who is up the legal creek?
>>
>> Sending Hamastis to Den Haag for trial on war crimes is really nicer
>> than what they deserve, let's face it.
>
> What they deserve is eternity in whichever circle of Hell contains
> a lake of flaming pig excrement.
>
> IBM

Slap em around with some swine or dog do-do while you question
them. Since they are not protected under the Geneva Convention,
you can do pretty much what you want to them legally.

And we put Mad Dogs down in the US on a regular basis. What's
the difference.

[Dennis]

Daryl wrote:

>>> I dunno what their legal status is. The Geneva Conventions afford
>>> protection to 'participants in armed conflicts.' And we, alas,
>>> assume everyone guilty until proven innocent. It's true that UAV
>>> and jet killings alike violate that.
>
> Actually, it's been pointed out that due to their own actions,
> they are NOT protected by the Geneva Convention at all. They are
> neither legal combatants nor legal non combatants. It was never
> designed to protect animals of that magnitude.
>
> And if you call them criminals, you would have to apologize to
> each and every criminal in the free world. Criminals would take
> umbrage to them being called criminals.

You're right about that. In fact, I've often thought that the best
punishment for them would be a life sentence, and then put them in the
general prison population.

Dennis

[Daryl]

Do you know what the life expectancy of a Pedophile that kills
his victims in Prison? They aren't kept in general population
because there would be the largest fight in the Prisons History
to see who gets to kill him. I place the Terrorists below even
that and so would the prisoners.

No, don't give them life unless you castrate them first. But we
do have a facility here in Colorado that is quite up to the task
of life imprisoning these animals. A 6 by 9 cell with a cement
bed, a combo toilet and sink made of concrete with no windows and
no outside contact. And no one talks to the prisoner EVER. No
human contact. Now, you can do life.

Daryl

[Uncle Steve]

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 04:33:38AM -0700, Daryl wrote:
> On 2/20/2013 3:29 AM, Dennis wrote:
> >Daryl wrote:
> >
> >>>>I dunno what their legal status is. The Geneva Conventions afford
> >>>>protection to 'participants in armed conflicts.' And we, alas,
> >>>>assume everyone guilty until proven innocent. It's true that UAV
> >>>>and jet killings alike violate that.
> >>
> >>Actually, it's been pointed out that due to their own actions,
> >>they are NOT protected by the Geneva Convention at all. They are
> >>neither legal combatants nor legal non combatants. It was never
> >>designed to protect animals of that magnitude.
> >>
> >>And if you call them criminals, you would have to apologize to
> >>each and every criminal in the free world. Criminals would take
> >>umbrage to them being called criminals.
> >
> >You're right about that. In fact, I've often thought that the best
> >punishment for them would be a life sentence, and then put them in the
> >general prison population.
> >
> >Dennis
> >
>
> Do you know what the life expectancy of a Pedophile that kills
> his victims in Prison? They aren't kept in general population
> because there would be the largest fight in the Prisons History
> to see who gets to kill him. I place the Terrorists below even
> that and so would the prisoners.

Really? Terrorists may believe they are legitimately fighting a
despicable state enemy, but pedos are evil psychopaths who fully
understand the harm they are causing to innocent kids. I say the
morphology of pedophilia is an order of magnitude more repugnant than
what you are calling terrorism.

Pedos are given a free pass in comparison to "illegal combatants"
primarily for the reason that people don't generally understand the
motivations of the pedophile, and the psychiatrists aren't talking.

> No, don't give them life unless you castrate them first. But we
> do have a facility here in Colorado that is quite up to the task
> of life imprisoning these animals. A 6 by 9 cell with a cement
> bed, a combo toilet and sink made of concrete with no windows and
> no outside contact. And no one talks to the prisoner EVER. No
> human contact. Now, you can do life.

Well that is certainly in line with the current fad of the
normalization of torture in pop culture. Nice to see you can parrot
the party line with the best of them.

The main problem of terrorism today is that people like you deny the
legitimacy of conflict when it suits your purposes. This is a
recapitulation of Cold-War values, nothing more. Islamic terrorists
(among others) are being agitated and directed by people who repudiate
diplomacy, and who no doubt gloat in their vainglory at the resultant
spectacle of death. The West requires political instability and armed
conflict to justify the appropriations to build up the military
forces. The threat of peace is the threat that generals will have no
war to test the mettle of their armed forces, and all the toys
manufactured by the arms industry.

Without enemies, you would have to create them, all of which is rather
short-sighted, but then you losers don't care about the long-term
effects of these wars or their human and economic costs.

Your kids are going to inherit a quasi-theocratic militarized police
state, and they will believe they are privileged to be in 'control' of
and beneficiaries of the associated largesse. Just like you.


Regards,

Uncle Steve

--
Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra and then suddenly it
flips over, pinning you underneath. At night, the ice weasels come.
-- Friedrich Neitzsche

[Jim Wilkins]

"Uncle Steve" <stev...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c20a9d2c50...@gmail.com...

>
> Without enemies, you would have to create them, all of which is
> rather
> short-sighted, but then you losers don't care about the long-term
> effects of these wars or their human and economic costs.
>

> Uncle Steve

Stop listening to the demons whispering in your ear. Politicians and
generals act more rationally than you do.

This is the real history of the strength of the US Army between WW1
and 2:
http://www.history.army.mil/books/AMH-V2/AMH%20V2/chapter2.htm
"In January 1921 Congress directed a prompt reduction in enlisted
strength to 175,000 and in June 1921 decreased that figure to 150,000.
A year later Congress limited the Regular Army to 12,000 commissioned
officers and 125,000 enlisted men, not including the 7,000 or so in
the Philippine Scouts; Army strength stabilized at about that level
until 1936."

For comparison Sweden's military numbered 400,000 in 1940.

Former General Eisenhower cut defense spending by 27% after the Korean
War:
http://www.businessinsider.com/eisenhowers-chilling-analysis-of-defense-spending-2012-11

Stalingrad veteran Khrushchev tried to divert resources from the
military to his pet agricultural programs.
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/K%20Disk/Khruschev%20Obituaries/Item%2007.pdf
"On top of all that, he embodied the virgin lands campaign, the
Russian effort that moved from manpower to missiles in the military
field, and a check on the "metal-eaters" of heavy industry in order to
make life better for the consumers."

Russian and US defense spending trends:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/markadomanis/2013/02/04/five-myths-about-russia/

[Uncle Steve]

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 01:01:15PM -0500, Jim Wilkins wrote:
> "Uncle Steve" <stev...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:c20a9d2c50...@gmail.com...
> >
> > Without enemies, you would have to create them, all of which is
> > rather
> > short-sighted, but then you losers don't care about the long-term
> > effects of these wars or their human and economic costs.
> >
> > Uncle Steve
>
> Stop listening to the demons whispering in your ear. Politicians and
> generals act more rationally than you do.

Some may be rational, but I tend to distrust politicians as a rule.
And of course, the results of armed conflict are plain to see.

> This is the real history of the strength of the US Army between WW1
> and 2:
> http://www.history.army.mil/books/AMH-V2/AMH%20V2/chapter2.htm
> "In January 1921 Congress directed a prompt reduction in enlisted
> strength to 175,000 and in June 1921 decreased that figure to 150,000.
> A year later Congress limited the Regular Army to 12,000 commissioned
> officers and 125,000 enlisted men, not including the 7,000 or so in
> the Philippine Scouts; Army strength stabilized at about that level
> until 1936."
>
> For comparison Sweden's military numbered 400,000 in 1940.

So what you're saying is that Congress put all those soldiers out of
work. Let them try that trick again this time.

> Former General Eisenhower cut defense spending by 27% after the Korean
> War:
> http://www.businessinsider.com/eisenhowers-chilling-analysis-of-defense-spending-2012-11
>
> Stalingrad veteran Khrushchev tried to divert resources from the
> military to his pet agricultural programs.

Who else was it that had their great failed agricultural program. I
think it may have been under Stalin, but I don't recall the source.

> http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/K%20Disk/Khruschev%20Obituaries/Item%2007.pdf
> "On top of all that, he embodied the virgin lands campaign, the
> Russian effort that moved from manpower to missiles in the military
> field, and a check on the "metal-eaters" of heavy industry in order to
> make life better for the consumers."
>
> Russian and US defense spending trends:
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/markadomanis/2013/02/04/five-myths-about-russia/

No-one is suggesting that the policy of militarization is not one that
has a tendency to get out of control at the drop of a hat.

[Andrew Swallow]

The Geneva Convention allows the death penalty for 'grave breaches'.
The actual penalty awarded is decided by a Western country and its
government. If the proscribed penalty by our laws is too low we can
choose to change our laws.

Andrew Swallow

[Dean Markley]

And yet you have no hesitation living in and enjoying the benefits of this "quasi-theocratic militarized police state" do you? Or are you really an impostor posting from one of those lovely Islamic Republics?

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Il 20/02/2013 12:33, Daryl ha scritto:

> Do you know what the life expectancy of a Pedophile that kills his
> victims in Prison? They aren't kept in general population because there
> would be the largest fight in the Prisons History to see who gets to
> kill him. I place the Terrorists below even that and so would the
> prisoners.
>
> No, don't give them life unless you castrate them first. But we do have
> a facility here in Colorado that is quite up to the task of life
> imprisoning these animals. A 6 by 9 cell with a cement bed, a combo
> toilet and sink made of concrete with no windows and no outside
> contact. And no one talks to the prisoner EVER. No human contact.
> Now, you can do life.

Every honest criminologist will point to you the strict correlation to
these penalties and the ratio between pedo victims found alive and
bodies of pedo victims...

... better a traumatized victim than a dead victim, and this treatment
is a sure-fire way to motivate the criminals to "suppress damning
evidences".

/evil Imperial mode ON

(aside that an excuse for a *functional* restoration of the Coliseum is
nice, now that the alleged last Conclave starts... ;) )

/evil Imperial mode OFF

[Daryl]

I wasn't suggesting the castration of the Pediphiles. I was
suggesting it be done to the Terrorists. Do it the way we old
Farmers did your pigs. No pain Reliever, just a pocket knife
while holding it's balls in the air. Let it squeal.

Then give them life after explaining why it was done that way.

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Il 21/02/2013 02:06, Daryl ha scritto:

> I wasn't suggesting the castration of the Pediphiles. I was suggesting
> it be done to the Terrorists. Do it the way we old Farmers did your
> pigs. No pain Reliever, just a pocket knife while holding it's balls in
> the air. Let it squeal.
>
> Then give them life after explaining why it was done that way.

well, considering how maschilist is their sick interpretation of the
Quran, makes sense, but I think that the ICJ and every military court
(save perhaps the Erithrean and Ethopian ones) will strongly disagree on
this gross violation of geneva conventions..

(actually is how Ethopia keeps tabs on Islamists since time immemorial;
after Adwa being NOT muslim was a prerequisite for enrollmnent into
Italian Askari)

and yes, there's a very definite reason of my constant watching of the
issues between Egyptian Coptic Christian and Islamists: a crusade
sanctioned from Axum and the Lion of Judas rampaging (and emasculating
in His wake) northward is the very least thing needed....

[Daryl]

There was a huge reason for the fear of having Islam around in
the olden days. They attacked and invaded everyone within
walking distance and they weren't shy about walking months or
years. Convert or Die.........Behead. Convert or
Die........Behead. Convert of die.......Ah, a Convert. This
went on for a couple of centuries. It's ironic what the Mongols
did around the 13th century. Of course, that may have been the
only thing that stopped the Islamist's bloody expansion. Guess
it was turnabout's fair play on this one. Afterall, the
Islamists invaded China first with the Convert Die......Behead
routine. China is still trying to calm that one down. Islamists
hate forever and NEVER forgive.

Today, the word Moderate for Islamists means that only the
extremist are doing the bloody work. The problem is, they do it
by hiding inside the Moderate (or are they) Islamic Population.
Muslims are not all Islamists. But you can bet the Terrorists
Are. So we treat them like a disease that wants to be martyred.
We castrate them like a pig and give them a life sentence each
and every time we can capture one alive. Makes the Drone almost
appealing to them. Maybe they will take the alternative, go out
to the nearest open field and phone in their location.

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Il 21/02/2013 06:28, Daryl ha scritto:

> There was a huge reason for the fear of having Islam around in the olden
> days. They attacked and invaded everyone within walking distance and
> they weren't shy about walking months or years. Convert or
> Die.........Behead. Convert or Die........Behead. Convert of
> die.......Ah, a Convert. This went on for a couple of centuries. It's
> ironic what the Mongols did around the 13th century. Of course, that
> may have been the only thing that stopped the Islamist's bloody
> expansion. Guess it was turnabout's fair play on this one. Afterall,
> the Islamists invaded China first with the Convert Die......Behead
> routine. China is still trying to calm that one down. Islamists hate
> forever and NEVER forgive.
>
> Today, the word Moderate for Islamists means that only the extremist are
> doing the bloody work. The problem is, they do it by hiding inside the
> Moderate (or are they) Islamic Population. Muslims are not all
> Islamists. But you can bet the Terrorists Are. So we treat them like a
> disease that wants to be martyred. We castrate them like a pig and give
> them a life sentence each and every time we can capture one alive.
> Makes the Drone almost appealing to them. Maybe they will take the
> alternative, go out to the nearest open field and phone in their location.

I have a question for you: what is, in your worldview, the difference
between Muslim and Islamic ?

Your words are interesting, and helpful. this night I have fine-tuned my
map of the next few months, in advance of my voting this Sunday.

the electoral results here isn't so in the dark as seems; little here,
little there, the picture emerges, and I have figured the paths toward
the most important post-electoral target (changing the EU general
election of June '14 into a constituitional convention election) and the
hard work to be done here quickly and throughly (bringing back ASAP
Italians into a more conscious and proactive mindset, and being worth of
the rather impegnative roles looming ahead...)

[Ian B MacLure]

"dott.Piergiorgio" <chied...@ask.me> wrote in news:XpgVs.36648$5b.4924
@tornado.fastwebnet.it:

> Il 21/02/2013 02:06, Daryl ha scritto:
>
>> I wasn't suggesting the castration of the Pediphiles. I was
suggesting
>> it be done to the Terrorists. Do it the way we old Farmers did your
>> pigs. No pain Reliever, just a pocket knife while holding it's balls
in
>> the air. Let it squeal.
>>
>> Then give them life after explaining why it was done that way.
>
> well, considering how maschilist is their sick interpretation of the
> Quran, makes sense, but I think that the ICJ and every military court
> (save perhaps the Erithrean and Ethopian ones) will strongly disagree
on
> this gross violation of geneva conventions..

I'm very much afraid thair "sick interpretation of the Koran" is
more or less orthodox in much of the Mooselimb world.

> (actually is how Ethopia keeps tabs on Islamists since time immemorial;
> after Adwa being NOT muslim was a prerequisite for enrollmnent into
> Italian Askari)

Ah yes, Adowa, that shining passage in the history of Italian arms
on 1 March 1896.
I presume the remark about Mooselimb Askaris refers to Albertone's
brigade of Eritreans who were presumably Mooselimb? They actually
didn't do too badly under the circumstances.

> and yes, there's a very definite reason of my constant watching of the
> issues between Egyptian Coptic Christian and Islamists: a crusade
> sanctioned from Axum and the Lion of Judas rampaging (and emasculating
> in His wake) northward is the very least thing needed....

Ethiopia would have to fight their way through a considerable
mass of jihadis bfore they got at the Egyptians and their ability
to project power probably isn't up to it. Its one thing to lay a
beat down on the Somalis next door, another thing entirely for the
Lion of J-U-D-A-H to launch itself down the Nile heading toward
Alexandria.

[Daryl]

Easy answer. There are sects of Islamist that want to
reestablish the Caliphate and will use any means possible to do
so. Most Muslims and Islamists want to reestablish The Caliphe
in the Middle East, there is a few sects that want to create the
Caliphate throughout the entire world and will use any and all
methods available. Moderate Muslims don't want the Caliphate
returned to power. It would be a very bloody world wide disaster
and they support a more democratic government. The problem is,
the Extremists only understand iron hands like the Ottomans used.
the Romans NEVER had to face the extremist Islamics since their
day was before Mohammed was born. But they did know how to
handle things like that, didn't they. We need to learn from the
History of what it's taken to contain this problem. Play by
their own rules and kill them all. Convert from a Islamic War
Participant or Die. and that goes for anyone harboring them as well.

>
> Your words are interesting, and helpful. this night I have
> fine-tuned my map of the next few months, in advance of my voting
> this Sunday.
>
> the electoral results here isn't so in the dark as seems; little
> here, little there, the picture emerges, and I have figured the
> paths toward the most important post-electoral target (changing
> the EU general election of June '14 into a constituitional
> convention election) and the hard work to be done here quickly
> and throughly (bringing back ASAP Italians into a more conscious
> and proactive mindset, and being worth of the rather impegnative
> roles looming ahead...)

I wished I understood Italian. There are supposed to be some
pretty funny cartoons about the people that are running for
office in Italy. And I do know if it's bizarre in Italy then
it's going to be hilarious here. You have much more fun
elections than we do.

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Il 21/02/2013 09:19, Daryl ha scritto:

>> I have a question for you: what is, in your worldview, the
>> difference between Muslim and Islamic ?
>
> Easy answer. There are sects of Islamist that want to reestablish the
> Caliphate and will use any means possible to do so. Most Muslims and
> Islamists want to reestablish The Caliphe in the Middle East, there is a
> few sects that want to create the Caliphate throughout the entire world
> and will use any and all methods available. Moderate Muslims don't want
> the Caliphate returned to power. It would be a very bloody world wide
> disaster and they support a more democratic government. The problem is,
> the Extremists only understand iron hands like the Ottomans used. the
> Romans NEVER had to face the extremist Islamics since their day was
> before Mohammed was born. But they did know how to handle things like
> that, didn't they. We need to learn from the History of what it's taken
> to contain this problem. Play by their own rules and kill them all.
> Convert from a Islamic War Participant or Die. and that goes for anyone
> harboring them as well.

Seems that you think that the islamists (moderate and extremists) are
the majority and the muslims the minority (aside that the positions on
the Caliphate isn't that great lithmus test...)

On the Romans, well, I suspect that I known a bit more than you, and I
noticed that you look only one side of the coin; the other is the
tolerance, respect and integration of the other cultures (we can call it
gluing together in a mosaic) but.. you not have learned all from
History: the vanquished people must get peace and prosperity after being
conquered, together with a modern infrastructure and on the horizon,
being part of the conqueror's society.

My lithmus test on muslim/islamic is their position on Sharia and civil
rights, because is the non-negotiable conditio sine qua non for being
integrated in the modern society. That is, accession to the United Europe.

If all goes well, in the exact centenary of the failure of the europe of
the nation, we will start the Constitutional Assembly (Monti's programme
for EU is that, giving Constitutional mandate to the next EU Parliament,
to be elected, June 2014 (whose imply starting their works in the late
July-early August '14, I pointed that Italians have an unique capability
of handling and using powerful symbols & symbolism) and after that,
sorry for the blunt words, integrating the muslim word into their
rightful place in the Western Civilization carrying with them, the
energy resource into an integrated energy/production system across the
Mediterrannean (that is, the third iteration of the Roman State....)

Obama seems to have noticed this pattern, in proposing during the State
of Union address, starting talks with the EU for an free trade agreement
(that is, getting advantageous condition while is still possible..)

>> Your words are interesting, and helpful. this night I have
>> fine-tuned my map of the next few months, in advance of my voting
>> this Sunday.
>>
>> the electoral results here isn't so in the dark as seems; little
>> here, little there, the picture emerges, and I have figured the
>> paths toward the most important post-electoral target (changing
>> the EU general election of June '14 into a constituitional
>> convention election) and the hard work to be done here quickly
>> and throughly (bringing back ASAP Italians into a more conscious
>> and proactive mindset, and being worth of the rather impegnative
>> roles looming ahead...)
>
> I wished I understood Italian. There are supposed to be some pretty
> funny cartoons about the people that are running for office in Italy.
> And I do know if it's bizarre in Italy then it's going to be hilarious
> here. You have much more fun elections than we do.

In the previous phases the electoral campaign is indeed fun (aside the
occasional night brawl, that is) but now is in the final and sour phase,
final canvassing here is along the "Pickett's charge" and/or "Custer's
last stand" lines, and this until midnight of Friday, in the saturday
prior of the election day no electoral activity is allowed (officially
the "day for pondering the vote to cast", but in reality, for an healthy
cooldown)...

What matters of the elections isn't the results, whose is predictable,
but the measuring of the actual work in reanimating that "comatose
girlfriend" (cit. of a recent US movie about Italy)

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Il 21/02/2013 07:38, Ian B MacLure ha scritto:

>> (actually is how Ethopia keeps tabs on Islamists since time immemorial;
>> after Adwa being NOT muslim was a prerequisite for enrollmnent into
>> Italian Askari)
>
> Ah yes, Adowa, that shining passage in the history of Italian arms
> on 1 March 1896.
> I presume the remark about Mooselimb Askaris refers to Albertone's
> brigade of Eritreans who were presumably Mooselimb? They actually
> didn't do too badly under the circumstances.
>
>> and yes, there's a very definite reason of my constant watching of the
>> issues between Egyptian Coptic Christian and Islamists: a crusade
>> sanctioned from Axum and the Lion of Judas rampaging (and emasculating
>> in His wake) northward is the very least thing needed....
>
> Ethiopia would have to fight their way through a considerable
> mass of jihadis bfore they got at the Egyptians and their ability
> to project power probably isn't up to it. Its one thing to lay a
> beat down on the Somalis next door, another thing entirely for the
> Lion of J-U-D-A-H to launch itself down the Nile heading toward
> Alexandria.
>

pls decide: either Adwa is the result of Italian military incompetence
or the result of Ethiopian (and Erithean) fierce will to fight to the
utmost...

and pls notice that the two rump states that is sudan now are both
weaker than somalia (another rump state...) and the poor little pricks
(literally) in Egypt will find the Lion of Judas/Judah on their doorstep
in remarkably short time

Dott. Piergiorgio.

[Ian B MacLure]

"dott.Piergiorgio" <chied...@ask.me> wrote in
news:CYmVs.36692$5b.3...@tornado.fastwebnet.it:

Looks to me like lots of both.
Military incompetence on the Italian side coupled with local
superiority and some canny work by the Ethiopians.

> and pls notice that the two rump states that is sudan now are both
> weaker than somalia (another rump state...) and the poor little pricks
> (literally) in Egypt will find the Lion of Judas/Judah on their
> doorstep in remarkably short time

Could the Ethiopians maintain supply lines through several hundred
miles of Sudan? Its not like they could rely on their navy for
support what with being landlocked.
They might make common cause with the South Sudanese to put the
fearogawd into Khartoum but Egypt is just way too far off.

IBM

[Dennis]

Uncle Steve wrote:

>> Stalingrad veteran Khrushchev tried to divert resources from the
>> military to his pet agricultural programs.
>
> Who else was it that had their great failed agricultural program. I
> think it may have been under Stalin, but I don't recall the source.

If memory serves, the Holodomor, the deliberate mass famine in Ukraine
happened while Stalin was on his way up, but Khrushchev was in charge of
it. That was before Stalingrad, though.

Dennis

[Dennis]

Daryl wrote:

> There was a huge reason for the fear of having Islam around in
> the olden days. They attacked and invaded everyone within
> walking distance and they weren't shy about walking months or
> years. Convert or Die.........Behead. Convert or
> Die........Behead. Convert of die.......Ah, a Convert. This
> went on for a couple of centuries.

That's actually NOT how the original Islamic conquests went. You got
privileges for converting, and many did for that reason, but no one was
forced. In fact, the fact that conversions lead to loss of revenues
from taxing dhimmis was what kept spurring on the conquests.

> It's ironic what the Mongols
> did around the 13th century. Of course, that may have been the
> only thing that stopped the Islamist's bloody expansion.

No, Chales the Hammer at Poitiers, followed by internecine fighting
among the Muslims, was what finally ended it.

> Guess
> it was turnabout's fair play on this one. Afterall, the
> Islamists invaded China first with the Convert Die......Behead
> routine. China is still trying to calm that one down.

See above.

> Islamists
> hate forever and NEVER forgive.

It's rather that nowdays they long for their long-gone age of glory.

> Today, the word Moderate for Islamists means that only the
> extremist are doing the bloody work. The problem is, they do it
> by hiding inside the Moderate (or are they) Islamic Population.

Here in the USA a lot of Muslims report people trying to recruit for
radical groups to the FBI.

> Muslims are not all Islamists. But you can bet the Terrorists
> Are. So we treat them like a disease that wants to be martyred.

That's the problem - we don't want to create martyrs. I suppose the
solution is to make them disappear into the Night and Fog.

> We castrate them like a pig and give them a life sentence each
> and every time we can capture one alive. Makes the Drone almost
> appealing to them. Maybe they will take the alternative, go out
> to the nearest open field and phone in their location.

See above.

Dennis

[Uncle Steve]

I was trying to remember the name of the guy in charge of the
program... It is possible I read it in volume one of The Gulag
Archipelago, which sadly I no longer possess.

Aha, I was reading up on Lamarckism and ran across this guy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trofim_Lysenko
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism

Trofim Denisovich Lysenko (September 29 [O.S. September 17] 1898
– November 20, 1976) was a Soviet pseudoscientist of
Ukrainian origin, who was director of Soviet biology under Joseph
Stalin. Lysenko rejected Mendelian genetics in favor of the
hybridization theories of Russian horticulturist Ivan Vladimirovich
Michurin, and adapted them to a powerful political-scientific movement
termed Lysenkoism. Today, Lysenko's agricultural experimentation and
research is largely viewed as fraudulent.

His unorthodox experimental research in improved crop yields earned
the support of Soviet leader Joseph Stalin, especially following the
famine and loss of productivity resulting from forced collectivization
in several regions of the Soviet Union in the early 1930s. In 1940, he
became director of the Institute of Genetics within the USSR's Academy
of Sciences, and Lysenko's anti-Mendelian doctrines were further
secured in Soviet science and education by the exercise of political
influence and power. Scientific dissent from Lysenko's theories of
environmentally acquired inheritance was formally outlawed in 1948,
and for the next several years, opponents were purged from held
positions, and many imprisoned. Lysenko's work was officially
discredited in the Soviet Union in 1964, leading to a renewed emphasis
there to re-institute Mendelian genetics and orthodox science.

Though Lysenko remained at his post in the Institute of Genetics until
1965,[1] his influence on Soviet agricultural practice had declined by
the 1950s. The Soviet Union quietly abandoned Lysenko's agricultural
practices in favor of modern agricultural practices, after the crop
yields he promised failed to materialize.

-------------------

This wacko may have been involved in the Ukrainian Famine of '32 - '33,
but perhaps only peripherally. This guy's claim to fame was setting
Soviet science back several decades. Sounds a little like Fred in
relation to his political methods, although Fred doesn't claim
pretensions to scientific expertise.

It is not clear why the Soviet political establishment was so keen to
favor Lysenkoism; perhaps a characteristic of politicians in general
is a preference for what sounds good over what is true, and screw the
consequences. That is unlikely to change unless they are held
responsible for the deleterious consequences of their policies.

[Jim Wilkins]

"Dennis" <tsalagi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

>
> That's the problem - we don't want to create martyrs. I suppose the
> solution is to make them disappear into the Night and Fog.
>

> Dennis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nacht_und_Nebel

[Jim Wilkins]

"Uncle Steve" <stev...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:2d353169dd...@gmail.com...

>
> It is not clear why the Soviet political establishment was so keen
> to
> favor Lysenkoism; perhaps a characteristic of politicians in general
> is a preference for what sounds good over what is true, and screw
> the
> consequences. That is unlikely to change unless they are held
> responsible for the deleterious consequences of their policies.
>

> Uncle Steve

Lysenko's nurture-over-nature theories gave the leadership hope of
creating a New Soviet Man better adapted to communism than Homo
Sapiens had turned out to be.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Soviet_man
"The Soviet man was to be selfless, learned, healthy and enthusiastic
in spreading the socialist Revolution."

Nietszche's Uebermensch.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9Cbermensch

[Gernot Hassenpflug]

The same way the Western elites make use of tools like Keynes and his ilk in justifying their programs.

--
Gernot Hassenpflug
Aunkai

[Uncle Steve]

That's the sort of thing designed to replace religious dogma.

> Nietszche's Uebermensch.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9Cbermensch

I really have been misusing the term. I suppose I shall have to read
the original work in my copious free time.

[Dennis]

Ah gee, you remembered! Do you think the CIA could build a concentration
camp for jihadists out in Area 51, where they would produce pork products,
whiskey, and gambling machines? And of course, there'd be gas chambers and
crematoria; I think there's some old German technology that's had the bugs
worked out of it, though I guess you'd need pollution controls on the
crematoria stacks.

Yes, I know, sick, sick, sick.

Dennis

[Keith W]

Incorrect.

Stalin was very much in charge and the collectivization of
agriculture was his personal policy. His response to the
catastrophic famine it caused was to execute those who had
opposed the policy, specifically Nikolai Bukharin and Alexey Rykov

Keith

[Keith W]

Uncle Steve wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 09:43:06PM +0000, Dennis wrote:
>> Uncle Steve wrote:
>>
>>>> Stalingrad veteran Khrushchev tried to divert resources from the
>>>> military to his pet agricultural programs.
>>>
>>> Who else was it that had their great failed agricultural program. I
>>> think it may have been under Stalin, but I don't recall the source.
>>
>> If memory serves, the Holodomor, the deliberate mass famine in
>> Ukraine happened while Stalin was on his way up, but Khrushchev was
>> in charge of it. That was before Stalingrad, though.
>
> I was trying to remember the name of the guy in charge of the
> program... It is possible I read it in volume one of The Gulag
> Archipelago, which sadly I no longer possess.
>

Vyacheslav Molotov was placed in charge of the collectivization
project and it was he personally led the Extraordinary Commission
for Grain Delivery in Ukraine which seized millions of tonnes of
grain from the peasants leading to mass starvation in the breadbasket
of the USSR.

Lazar Kaganovich and Pavel Postyshev were the party functionaries who
adminstered the policy in the Ukraine. Postyshev was particularly
active in using terror to collect every last grain of food from the farms
ensuring that any collector who erred from the path of pure Bolshevik
vigilance who left the family with food to eat was shot for his
crimes of economic sabotage.

Keith

[Andrew Swallow]

Confirming that Stalin is Al Capone but less efficient.

Andrew Swallow

[Keith W]

I would have said Stalin was chillingly efficient, he stayed
at the top of the heap of the worlds most dangerous mobsters
for more than 40 years and died aged 74 still on top.

Capone didn't make 50 and spent 10 of those years in prison
and his last decade as a drooling syphilitic lunatic with a
mental age of 12.

Keith

[Dennis]

Dennis wrote:

> Ian B MacLure wrote:
>

>> What they deserve is eternity in whichever circle of Hell
>> contains a lake of flaming pig excrement.
>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dante%27s_Inferno#Eighth_Circle_.28Fraud.29

> "Bolgia 2: Flatterers also exploited other people, this time using
> language. They are steeped in human excrement, which represents the
> words they produced. "

On reviewing this, I see we've change human excrement to taurine
excrement! ;)

> This seems more applicable:
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dante%27s_Inferno#Seventh_Circle_.28Violence
.29
>
> "Outer ring: This ring houses the violent against people and property.
> Sinners are immersed in Phlegethon, a river of boiling blood and fire,
> to a level commensurate with their sins: Alexander the Great is
> immersed up to his eyebrows, although Dante praises Alexander at other
> points in the poem, meaning he might be referring to a different
> Alexander. Dionysius I of Syracuse, Azzolino da Romano, Guy de
> Montfort, Obizzo d'Este, Ezzelino III da Romano, Rinier da Corneto,
> and Rinier Pazzo are also seen in the Phlegethon as well as references
> to Atilla the Hun. The Centaurs, commanded by Chiron and Pholus,
> patrol the ring, shooting arrows into any sinners who emerge higher
> out of the river than each is allowed. "