[OT] As Others See Us, in this case the DHS
James Nicoll
http://armchairgeneralist.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/05/casual_fridays_3.html
That's kind of an unimaginative list of writers for this. Who
should Homeland Defense be talking to?
You know, it's kind of a pity Laumer is dead.
--
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
Jacob W. Haller
> Niven, Pournelle and other SF writers advise DHS:
>
> http://armchairgeneralist.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/05/casual_fridays_3.html
>
> That's kind of an unimaginative list of writers for this. Who
> should Homeland Defense be talking to?
>
> You know, it's kind of a pity Laumer is dead.
I see that in the comments on the article someone suggested Philip K.
Dick. I'm sure that would have gone over well.
-jwgh
--
"Only in America could something like that not happen in America."
-- Matt McIrvin, 29 November 2005
James Nicoll
Jacob W. Haller <yo...@jwgh.org> wrote:
>James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> Niven, Pournelle and other SF writers advise DHS:
>>
>> http://armchairgeneralist.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/05/casual_fridays_3.html
>>
>> That's kind of an unimaginative list of writers for this. Who
>> should Homeland Defense be talking to?
>>
>> You know, it's kind of a pity Laumer is dead.
>
>I see that in the comments on the article someone suggested Philip K.
>Dick. I'm sure that would have gone over well.
>
http://www.alphane.com/moon/PalmTree/fbi.htm
right?
Jacob W. Haller
> In article <1hyoh4x.1kw6wun1vrmf7iN%yo...@jwgh.org>,
> Jacob W. Haller <yo...@jwgh.org> wrote:
> >
> >I see that in the comments on the article someone suggested Philip K.
> >Dick. I'm sure that would have gone over well.
> >
> You know about this,
>
> http://www.alphane.com/moon/PalmTree/fbi.htm
>
> right?
Hmm, no. I was going to say it wasn't surprising, and then I had an
internal debate about whether or not it surprised me, and then I decided
it was too hot to waste energy on arguing with myself, so I will
compromise on: Interesting.
Scott Lurndal
> That's kind of an unimaginative list of writers for this. Who
>should Homeland Defense be talking to?
>
Someone with a grasp of reality would be a good start.
Perhaps Zbigniew Brezinski[*], to start. Colin Powell may have
some valuable input now that he's not a mouthpiece for the
C-student in the whitehouse. Any one of the retired generals
who think the current administration has little grasp of reality.
Anyone from the past 4 administrations, not including the current one.
scott
[*] Who said, in response to "fight them over there or fight them here":
"what are they going to do, swim across the atlantic?"
David Loewe, Jr.
wrote:
>jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) writes:
>
>> That's kind of an unimaginative list of writers for this. Who
>>should Homeland Defense be talking to?
>Someone with a grasp of reality would be a good start.
>
>Perhaps Zbigniew Brezinski[*], to start. Colin Powell may have
>some valuable input now that he's not a mouthpiece for the
>C-student in the whitehouse. Any one of the retired generals
>who think the current administration has little grasp of reality.
>
>Anyone from the past 4 administrations, not including the current one.
>[*] Who said, in response to "fight them over there or fight them here":
>
> "what are they going to do, swim across the atlantic?"
To which anyone with a brain should have retorted, "No. They'll fly
like they just did for 9/11, you blithering moron."
Having lived through the Carter Administration, it boggles my mind
that anyone takes Zbiggy seriously.
--
"I think between us, Bill Clinton and I have settled any lingering myths about the
brilliance of Rhodes scholars."
Kris Kristofferson
Sea Wasp
> Niven, Pournelle and other SF writers advise DHS:
>
> http://armchairgeneralist.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/05/casual_fridays_3.html
>
> That's kind of an unimaginative list of writers for this. Who
> should Homeland Defense be talking to?
>
> You know, it's kind of a pity Laumer is dead.
Well, he'd have been a fun choice pre-stroke. RAH was also an obvious
choice now gone. Doc Smith!
Shouldn't they be talking to me? I mean, really.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Par
> Shouldn't they be talking to me? I mean, really.
Depends. Do they want to get better or even worse?
/Par
--
Par use...@hunter-gatherer.org
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
Sea Wasp
> Sea Wasp <seawasp...@sgeObviousinc.com>:
>
>> Shouldn't they be talking to me? I mean, really.
>
>
> Depends. Do they want to get better or even worse?
Depends on what you mean by better or worse...
Peter D. Tillman
jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote:
> http://armchairgeneralist.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/05/casual_fridays_3.html
>
> That's kind of an unimaginative list of writers for this.
"Dr. Virginia Bush (Sage Walker) were joined by Dr. Arlan Andrews, Dr.
Yogi [sic] Kondo (Eric Kontani), Dr. [!!] Larry Niven, and Dr. Jerry
Pournelle. They are all top noch scientists...."
It is to laugh....
> Who should Homeland Defense be talking to?
Why, David Weber, of course....
"In other news from Faluja, 147 insurgents were crushed beyond
recognition in a massive info-dump late yesterday...."
Cheers -- Pete Tillman
--
Several Baghdad falafel vendors were killed by Islamists, because
falafels did not exist in the 7th century, when Islam was founded --
NYer, 9-11-06
Gene Ward Smith
news:Tillman-95BEB8...@sn-radius.vsrv-
sjc.supernews.net:
>> Who should Homeland Defense be talking to?
>
> Why, David Weber, of course....
Dr. Weber, if you please.
Wayne Throop
: Dr. Weber, if you please.
Repeating the gem I found some time ago:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1416509119/104-3351018-0549563
[...] one can well imagine that when future star warriors develop
their tactics, Weber's narratives will provide a template.
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Peter D. Tillman
wrote:
> ::: Who should Homeland Defense be talking to?
> :: Why, David Weber, of course....
> : Dr. Weber, if you please.
>
> Repeating the gem I found some time ago:
>
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1416509119/104-3351018-0549563
>
> [...] one can well imagine that when future star warriors develop
> their tactics, Weber's narratives will provide a template.
>
Um. Well, certainly a weapon!
Cheers -- Pete Tillman
--
"A bad feeling crawled up my trouser leg."
-- Jay Russell, Celestial Dogs, 1996
Alan Baker
"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 25 May 2007 22:11:15 GMT, sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
> wrote:
>
> >jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) writes:
> >
> >> That's kind of an unimaginative list of writers for this. Who
> >>should Homeland Defense be talking to?
>
> >Someone with a grasp of reality would be a good start.
> >
> >Perhaps Zbigniew Brezinski[*], to start. Colin Powell may have
> >some valuable input now that he's not a mouthpiece for the
> >C-student in the whitehouse. Any one of the retired generals
> >who think the current administration has little grasp of reality.
> >
> >Anyone from the past 4 administrations, not including the current one.
>
> >[*] Who said, in response to "fight them over there or fight them here":
> >
> > "what are they going to do, swim across the atlantic?"
>
> To which anyone with a brain should have retorted, "No. They'll fly
> like they just did for 9/11, you blithering moron."
And how will fighting them "over there" prevent that?
>
> Having lived through the Carter Administration, it boggles my mind
> that anyone takes Zbiggy seriously.
--
"I always read what is posted, as I don't share your habits." -- "Upon
rereading your original post, I see that I have been mistaken in what I wrote.
I apologize for my mistaken accuastions and insults." -- Edwin
David Loewe, Jr.
wrote:
> "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 May 2007 22:11:15 GMT, sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>> wrote:
>> >jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) writes:
>> >
>> >> That's kind of an unimaginative list of writers for this. Who
>> >>should Homeland Defense be talking to?
>>
>> >Someone with a grasp of reality would be a good start.
>> >
>> >Perhaps Zbigniew Brezinski[*], to start. Colin Powell may have
>> >some valuable input now that he's not a mouthpiece for the
>> >C-student in the whitehouse. Any one of the retired generals
>> >who think the current administration has little grasp of reality.
>> >
>> >Anyone from the past 4 administrations, not including the current one.
>>
>> >[*] Who said, in response to "fight them over there or fight them here":
>> >
>> > "what are they going to do, swim across the atlantic?"
>>
>> To which anyone with a brain should have retorted, "No. They'll fly
>> like they just did for 9/11, you blithering moron."
>
>And how will fighting them "over there" prevent that?
>
It won't. It's a response to Brezinski's idiotic comment.
>>
>> Having lived through the Carter Administration, it boggles my mind
>> that anyone takes Zbiggy seriously.
--
"Go ahead and hate your neighbor, go ahead and cheat a friend
Do it in the name of heaven and you can justify it in the end
There won't be any trumpets blowing come the Judgement Day
And on the bloody morning after....One Tin Soldier rides away."
One Tin Soldier - The Legend Of Billy Jack
Joe Bednorz
<e11k5359gflpnshl2...@4ax.com>:
>On Sun, 27 May 2007 21:51:28 GMT, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
>wrote:
>
>> "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 25 May 2007 22:11:15 GMT, sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>>> wrote:
>>> >jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) writes:
>>> >
>>> >> That's kind of an unimaginative list of writers for this. Who
>>> >>should Homeland Defense be talking to?
>>>
>>> >Someone with a grasp of reality would be a good start.
>>> >
>>> >Perhaps Zbigniew Brezinski[*], to start. Colin Powell may have
>>> >some valuable input now that he's not a mouthpiece for the
>>> >C-student in the whitehouse. Any one of the retired generals
>>> >who think the current administration has little grasp of reality.
>>> >
>>> >Anyone from the past 4 administrations, not including the current one.
>>>
>>> >[*] Who said, in response to "fight them over there or fight them here":
>>> >
>>> > "what are they going to do, swim across the atlantic?"
>>>
>>> To which anyone with a brain should have retorted, "No. They'll fly
>>> like they just did for 9/11, you blithering moron."
>>
>>And how will fighting them "over there" prevent that?
>>
"Prevent?" Nothing. It's just much, much easier for them to fight
over there, especially in terms of command and control.
Human nature will do the rest. (E.g. managers hate for subordinates
to telecommute.)
--
Links to Gigabytes of free books on line, emphasis on SF:
<http://www.mindspring.com/~jbednorz/Free/>
All the Best,
Joe Bednorz
Bill Snyder
<Til...@toast.net_DIESPAMMERSDIE> wrote:
>In article <11802...@sheol.org>, thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
>wrote:
>
>> ::: Who should Homeland Defense be talking to?
>> :: Why, David Weber, of course....
>> : Dr. Weber, if you please.
>>
>> Repeating the gem I found some time ago:
>>
>> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1416509119/104-3351018-0549563
>>
>> [...] one can well imagine that when future star warriors develop
>> their tactics, Weber's narratives will provide a template.
>>
>
>Um. Well, certainly a weapon!
Hurled against the enemy with great force?
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank.]
Alan Baker
"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 27 May 2007 21:51:28 GMT, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
> wrote:
>
> > "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 25 May 2007 22:11:15 GMT, sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
> >> wrote:
> >> >jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) writes:
> >> >
> >> >> That's kind of an unimaginative list of writers for this. Who
> >> >>should Homeland Defense be talking to?
> >>
> >> >Someone with a grasp of reality would be a good start.
> >> >
> >> >Perhaps Zbigniew Brezinski[*], to start. Colin Powell may have
> >> >some valuable input now that he's not a mouthpiece for the
> >> >C-student in the whitehouse. Any one of the retired generals
> >> >who think the current administration has little grasp of reality.
> >> >
> >> >Anyone from the past 4 administrations, not including the current one.
> >>
> >> >[*] Who said, in response to "fight them over there or fight them here":
> >> >
> >> > "what are they going to do, swim across the atlantic?"
> >>
> >> To which anyone with a brain should have retorted, "No. They'll fly
> >> like they just did for 9/11, you blithering moron."
> >
> >And how will fighting them "over there" prevent that?
> >
> It won't. It's a response to Brezinski's idiotic comment.
But his comment wasn't idiotic.
The only kind of groups you can fight "over there" are armies and they
can't just fly over on airliners.
David Loewe, Jr.
wrote:
> "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 May 2007 21:51:28 GMT, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
>> wrote:
>> > "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 25 May 2007 22:11:15 GMT, sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) writes:
>> >> >
>> >> >>That's kind of an unimaginative list of writers for this. Who
>> >> >>should Homeland Defense be talking to?
>> >>
>> >> >Someone with a grasp of reality would be a good start.
>> >> >
>> >> >Perhaps Zbigniew Brezinski[*], to start. Colin Powell may have
>> >> >some valuable input now that he's not a mouthpiece for the
>> >> >C-student in the whitehouse. Any one of the retired generals
>> >> >who think the current administration has little grasp of reality.
>> >> >
>> >> >Anyone from the past 4 administrations, not including the current one.
>> >>
>> >> >[*] Who said, in response to "fight them over there or fight them here":
>> >> > "what are they going to do, swim across the atlantic?"
>> >>
>> >> To which anyone with a brain should have retorted, "No. They'll fly
>> >> like they just did for 9/11, you blithering moron."
>> >
>> >And how will fighting them "over there" prevent that?
>> >
>> It won't. It's a response to Brezinski's idiotic comment.
>
>But his comment wasn't idiotic.
>
>The only kind of groups you can fight "over there" are armies
Oh, bullshit.
We can't hunt down al-Qaeda affiliated groups with Special Ops troops
like we're doing in Afghanistan, the Philippines and many other
countries around the world?
>and they can't just fly over on airliners.
--
"I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord,
make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it."
- Voltaire
Keith Morrison
fingers and typed:
>>> Repeating the gem I found some time ago:
>>>
>>> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1416509119/104-3351018-0549563
>>>
>>> [...] one can well imagine that when future star warriors develop
>>> their tactics, Weber's narratives will provide a template.
>>
>>Um. Well, certainly a weapon!
>
>Hurled against the enemy with great force?
Nah. You let the enemy use it to guide *their* operations. Sort of like
using Hollywood as instructional material for proper gun handling.
Peter Meilinger
> >> > "what are they going to do, swim across the atlantic?"
>
> >> To which anyone with a brain should have retorted, "No. They'll fly
> >> like they just did for 9/11, you blithering moron."
>
> >And how will fighting them "over there" prevent that?
>
> It won't. It's a response to Brezinski's idiotic comment.
Do you think Bush's frequent comments about fighting them
over there so we don't have to fight them over here are
equally idiotic?
Pete
Alan Baker
Sounds great...
...but why are you wasting time in Iraq.
>
> >and they can't just fly over on airliners.
--
Joe Bednorz
<alangbaker-04E4C...@news.telus.net>:
>In article <o3jk539asjr6g0hh3...@4ax.com>,
> "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 28 May 2007 02:50:35 GMT, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>> We can't hunt down al-Qaeda affiliated groups with Special Ops troops
>> like we're doing in Afghanistan, the Philippines and many other
>> countries around the world?
>
>Sounds great...
>
>...but why are you wasting time in Iraq.
<http://engram-backtalk.blogspot.com/2007/05/senator-dodd-is-not-telling-truth-about.html>
"Al-Qaida group claims killing of 9 GIs in Iraq"
"MSNBC News Services"
"Updated: 4:54 p.m. PT April 24, 2007"
"BAGHDAD - An al-Qaida-linked group posted a Web statement Tuesday
claiming responsibility for a suicide car bombing that killed nine
U.S. paratroopers and wounded 20 in the worst attack on American
ground forces in Iraq in more than a year."
Joe Bednorz
<1180327278....@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>:
This is a huge article from May 09, 2007 discussing al Quaeda in
Iraq which quotes a lot of sources, including the Iraq Study Group,
Human Rights Watch, even Zarqawi. There's way too much to cherry pick
or even give a good teaser quote. (My immediately previous post made
that mistake without pointing out that the article needs to be read in
its entirety.)
<http://engram-backtalk.blogspot.com/2007/05/senator-dodd-is-not-telling-truth-about.html>
Wakboth
> James Nicoll wrote:
> > Niven, Pournelle and other SF writers advise DHS:
>
>
> > That's kind of an unimaginative list of writers for this. Who
> > should Homeland Defense be talking to?
>
> > You know, it's kind of a pity Laumer is dead.
>
> Well, he'd have been a fun choice pre-stroke. RAH was also an obvious
> choice now gone. Doc Smith!
Hmm... Star Wars + missile defence + Doc Smith: coruscating death-rays
of freedom! :)
-- Wakboth
David Loewe, Jr.
"equally"? No.
--
"There is no limit to stupidity. Space itself is said to be bounded
by its own curvature, but stupidity continues beyond infinity."
- Gene Wolfe
dwight...@gmail.com
Good God. 1776, anyone? I'm thinking of Bush's idiotic comments
about "For the first time . . ." we've had to worry about attacks on
our native soil.
David Loewe, Jr.
wrote:
Why do you think we're "wasting time" in Iraq? What do you think the
root of the problem is?
>> >and they can't just fly over on airliners.
--
"Democracy substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment by
the corrupt few."
- George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman (1903) Maxims for Revolutionists: Democracy
Walter Bushell
"dwight...@gmail.com" <dwight...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Good God. 1776, anyone? I'm thinking of Bush's idiotic comments
> about "For the first time . . ." we've had to worry about attacks on
> our native soil.
Seem to remember something about some unpleasantness around the 1860's.
The even bombed NYC.
David DeLaney
> "dwight...@gmail.com" <dwight...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Good God. 1776, anyone? I'm thinking of Bush's idiotic comments
>> about "For the first time . . ." we've had to worry about attacks on
>> our native soil.
>
>Seem to remember something about some unpleasantness around the 1860's.
>The even bombed NYC.
I was treated to some of that "for the first time" in the Memorial Day
service I was just at, also. Plus an odd little moment when the current
speaker, going through the history of the Pledge of Allegiance before we
all like said it and stuff, was trying to impress on the crowd that there
wasn't supposed to be a comma before the "under God" part. Except that for
some reason came out as the "oh God" part. I blame Paris Hilton, personally.
Dave "this trapezoid of text brought to you by the note A-flat" DeLaney
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Peter D. Tillman
Keith Morrison <kei...@idontwantnosteenkingspam.qiniq.com> wrote:
Heh. Something of a Lazy Gun, then.... <GG>
Cheers -- Pete Tillman
--
"The alien device was a blank, black cube about a foot high and three
feet long." (Philip E.High, Twin Planets, 1967)
Mike Schilling
"Sea Wasp" <seawasp...@sgeObviousinc.com> wrote in message
news:465828A5...@sgeObviousinc.com...
> James Nicoll wrote:
>> Niven, Pournelle and other SF writers advise DHS:
>>
>> http://armchairgeneralist.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/05/casual_fridays_3.html
>>
>> That's kind of an unimaginative list of writers for this. Who
>> should Homeland Defense be talking to? You know, it's kind of a pity
>> Laumer is dead.
>
> Well, he'd have been a fun choice pre-stroke. RAH was also an obvious
> choice now gone. Doc Smith!
>
>
> Shouldn't they be talking to me? I mean, really.
You're at the top of the list forpeople to call the minute the U.S. is
threatened by immortal werewolves.
Gene Ward Smith
news:AkN6i.4175$u56....@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net:
message
> news:465828A5...@sgeObviousinc.com...
>> Shouldn't they be talking to me? I mean, really.
>
> You're at the top of the list forpeople to call the minute
the U.S. is
> threatened by immortal werewolves.
By the time there is an actual threat it may be too late. We
need to put a plan in place *now*.
What about invading Romania?
Sea Wasp
Typical. They're going to wait until the threat is already obvious
before they do anything.
mark...@earthlink.net
I wish I could remember the title of the story in which a people lost
their war because they kept making their weapon systems ever more
complex and prone to failure.
Walter Bushell
d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:
> On Mon, 28 May 2007 14:39:25 -0400, Walter Bushell <pr...@oanix.com> wrote:
> > "dwight...@gmail.com" <dwight...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Good God. 1776, anyone? I'm thinking of Bush's idiotic comments
> >> about "For the first time . . ." we've had to worry about attacks on
> >> our native soil.
> >
> >Seem to remember something about some unpleasantness around the 1860's.
> >The even bombed NYC.
>
> I was treated to some of that "for the first time" in the Memorial Day
> service I was just at, also. Plus an odd little moment when the current
> speaker, going through the history of the Pledge of Allegiance before we
> all like said it and stuff, was trying to impress on the crowd that there
> wasn't supposed to be a comma before the "under God" part. Except that for
> some reason came out as the "oh God" part. I blame Paris Hilton, personally.
>
> Dave "this trapezoid of text brought to you by the note A-flat" DeLaney
Oh, how could I have forgotten the War of 1812? Where the hell does he
think the Star Spangled Banner came from? The Confederates at least
didn't sack the capitol burn the White House.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
>I wish I could remember the title of the story in which a people lost
>their war because they kept making their weapon systems ever more
>complex and prone to failure.
"Superiority," by Arthur C. Clarke.
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
The fourth issue of Helix is at http://www.helixsf.com
The tenth Ethshar novel has been serialized at http://www.ethshar.com/thevondishambassador1.html
David McMillan
> Niven, Pournelle and other SF writers advise DHS:
>
> http://armchairgeneralist.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/05/casual_fridays_3.html
>
> That's kind of an unimaginative list of writers for this. Who
> should Homeland Defense be talking to?
>
> You know, it's kind of a pity Laumer is dead.
I'm trying to imagine "Retief of the DHS."
PAGEFAULT: CRITICAL IMAGINATION FAILURE -- PLEASE REBOOT THE SYSTEM.
David Harmon
"dwight...@gmail.com" <dwight...@gmail.com> wrote,
>Good God. 1776, anyone? I'm thinking of Bush's idiotic comments
>about "For the first time . . ." we've had to worry about attacks on
>our native soil.
Bush never had to worry about 1776.
Ericth...@gmail.com
wrote:
> Par wrote:
> > Sea Wasp <seawaspObvi...@sgeObviousinc.com>:
>
> >> Shouldn't they be talking to me? I mean, really.
>
>
> Depends on what you mean by better or worse...
"You made the fires worse!"
"Worse...or BETTER?"
Eric Tolle
mark...@earthlink.net
> On 29 May 2007 06:31:24 -0700, markr1...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
> >I wish I could remember the title of the story in which a people lost
> >their war because they kept making their weapon systems ever more
> >complex and prone to failure.
>
> "Superiority," by Arthur C. Clarke.
Thanks. I thought it might be Clarke. Should have searched his
bibliography rather than doing a general search.
MajorOz
Does anyone have the words represented by the dots?
cheers
oz
JSBass...@gmail.com
> In article <e11k5359gflpnshl2300i89se2nq7de...@4ax.com>,> > On Sun, 27 May 2007 21:51:28 GMT, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> > "what are they going to do, swim across the atlantic?"
>
> > >> To which anyone with a brain should have retorted, "No. They'll fly
> > >> like they just did for 9/11, you blithering moron."
>
> > >And how will fighting them "over there" prevent that?
>
> > It won't. It's a response to Brezinski's idiotic comment.
>
> But his comment wasn't idiotic.
>
> The only kind of groups you can fight "over there" are armies and they
> can't just fly over on airliners.
Why, what happens if you try to fight guerillas or terrorists "over
there?" Do they magically sideslip into an adjacent dimension or
something?
Guerillas and terrorists take up space and have headquarters, just
like any other kinds of fighting organizations.
- Jordan
- Jordan
JSBass...@gmail.com
No, I consider them an expression of realistic thinking. If the
Terrorists are occupied defending their own areas, they cannot
simultaneously use the same resources to attack _our_ homelands.
- Jordan
William Hyde
> "Mike Schilling" <mscottschill...@hotmail.com> wrote innews:AkN6i.4175$u56....@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net:
>
>
>
> > "Sea Wasp" <seawaspObvi...@sgeObviousinc.com> wrote in
> message
> >news:465828A5...@sgeObviousinc.com...
> >> Shouldn't they be talking to me? I mean, really.
>
> > You're at the top of the list forpeople to call the minute
> the U.S. is
> > threatened by immortal werewolves.
>
> By the time there is an actual threat it may be too late. We
> need to put a plan in place *now*.
>
> What about invading Romania?
You just know they have Werewolves of mass destruction.
William Hyde
Roger Christie
--
www.blackcatcrossing.net
<JSBass...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1180459492.3...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Stupid on so /many/ levels.
David DeLaney
Besides, history shows again and again how nature points out the ... wait,
wrong metaphor. Meant to type "Besides, that trick NEVER works!"
Dave "we'll need an exact duplicate of their King" DeLaney
Par
> Nah. You let the enemy use it to guide *their* operations. Sort of like
> using Hollywood as instructional material for proper gun handling.
Didn't they make a movie about that?
/Par
--
Par use...@hunter-gatherer.org
It is not enough to succeed. Others must fail.
-- Gore Vidal
Gene Ward Smith
news:1180459645.5...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
wrote:
>> By the time there is an actual threat it may be too late.
We
>> need to put a plan in place *now*.
>>
>> What about invading Romania?
>
>
> You just know they have Werewolves of mass destruction.
Many reliable reports have said so. Plus, it is the birthplace
of both Dracula and the Anitchrist. Can we afford *not* to
invade?
Mike Schilling
This assumes a fixed number of "terrorists", as if nothing the U.S. does
creates new enemies and the tactics called "terrorism" can only be used by
certain people.
David Johnston
Terrorists are not in the business of defending things.
Joe Bednorz
<1180459492.3...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:
Obviously correct.
The sample quotes given are just a small part of following articles.
Please read them in their entirety if you are at all interested in the
subject.
Turnaround in Baghdad
By NIBRAS KAZIMI
January 25, 2007
<http://www.nysun.com/article/47363>
"The wider Sunni insurgency — the groups beyond Al Qaeda — is being
slowly, and surely, defeated. The average insurgent today feels
demoralized, disillusioned, and hunted. Those who have not been
captured yet are opting for a quieter life outside of Iraq. Al Qaeda
continues to grow for the time being as it cannibalizes the other
insurgent groups and absorbs their most radical and hardcore fringes
into its fold. The Baathists, who had been critical in spurring the
initial insurgency, are becoming less and less relevant, and are
drifting without a clear purpose following the hanging of their idol,
Saddam Hussein. Rounding out this changing landscape is that Al Qaeda
itself is getting a serious beating as the Americans improve in
intelligence gathering and partner with more reliable Iraqi forces."
"In other words, battling the insurgency now essentially means
battling Al Qaeda. This is a major accomplishment."
"Jihadist Meltdown"
BY NIBRAS KAZIMI
March 12, 2007
<http://www.nysun.com/article/50244>
"The battle has been turned and we are witnessing the beginning of a
jihadist meltdown."
"Absolutely Worth It"
By NIBRAS KAZIMI
March 23, 2007
<http://www.nysun.com/article/51068>
"'Was it worth it?' is a question that I hear at every anniversary
of the Iraq war, and it gets more pointed and pained — and asked more
accusingly by some — with every passing year and especially this week
as we mark the fourth anniversary after a particularly rough year."
"And I can never understand the bewildered and disappointed look
upon the questioner's face — whether they be well-meaning or
sanctimonious — when I answer, matter-of-factly, 'Yes, of course.'"
"The Way to Debate Iraq"
<http://futurist.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/02/the_way_to_deba.html>
"Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, and 77 of 100 Senators (including Hillary
Clinton, John Kerry, and John Edwards) all believed that Saddam had
WMDs, particularly since he used them against the Kurds and Iranians
before."
"Progressive Detox 1.01"
<http://blackandright.mensnewsdaily.com/2007/05/12/progressive-detox-101/#more-339>
'On February 4, 1998, President Bill Clinton said, “One way or the
other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons
of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our
bottom line.”'
"Extremism can be defeated"
By Tony Blair
May 29, 2007 12:00
<http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,21808251-5001031,00.html>
"I was stopped by someone the other week who said it was not
surprising there was so much terrorism in the world when we invaded
their countries (meaning Afghanistan and Iraq). No wonder Muslims
felt angry."
"I said to him: tell me exactly what they feel angry about. We
remove two utterly brutal and dictatorial regimes; we replace them
with a UN-supervised democratic process."
"And the only reason it is difficult still is because other Muslims
are using terrorism to try to destroy the fledgling democracy and, in
doing so, are killing fellow Muslims."
"Why aren't they angry about the people doing the killing? The odd
thing about the conversation is I could tell it was the first time
he'd heard this argument."
--
Links to Gigabytes of free books on line, emphasis on SF:
<http://www.mindspring.com/~jbednorz/Free/>
All the Best,
Joe Bednorz
Peter D. Tillman
Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
> On 29 May 2007 06:31:24 -0700, mark...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
> >I wish I could remember the title of the story in which a people lost
> >their war because they kept making their weapon systems ever more
> >complex and prone to failure.
>
> "Superiority," by Arthur C. Clarke.
And, on a much smaller scale, "The Weapon", by Sheckley.
Happy reading--
Pete Tillman
Joe Bednorz
<4k_6i.8570$4Y....@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net>:
As happened in Occupied France, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway
during WWII, Germany and Japan postwar, the South during the
Reconstruction following the USA Civil War....
David Johnston
>> The only kind of groups you can fight "over there" are armies and they
>> can't just fly over on airliners.
>
>Why, what happens if you try to fight guerillas or terrorists "over
>there?" Do they magically sideslip into an adjacent dimension or
>something?
Or they could simply get in car, on a plane or board a train and
relocate somewhere else. Heck, they might even walk.
James Nicoll
If they pick their religion carefully, they can avoid being
called terrorists. I don't think many people called the would-be bomb
tosser at Falwell's funeral a terrorist. Mind you, his intention was
to _prevent_ disruptions* so maybe he wouldn't qualify anyway. I can't
recall William Krar beng called a terrorist (Well, would-be terrorist)
despite his involvement in the Tyler Gas Plot.
* http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3201543&page=1
I believe it is safe to say that he did not think it through.
--
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
Aaron Denney
> In article <jg2p53dnt2i6ln1ei...@4ax.com>,
> David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
>>On 29 May 2007 10:23:11 -0700, JSBass...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> The only kind of groups you can fight "over there" are armies and they
>>>> can't just fly over on airliners.
>>>
>>>Why, what happens if you try to fight guerillas or terrorists "over
>>>there?" Do they magically sideslip into an adjacent dimension or
>>>something?
>>
>>Or they could simply get in car, on a plane or board a train and
>>relocate somewhere else. Heck, they might even walk.
>>
>
> If they pick their religion carefully, they can avoid being
> called terrorists. I don't think many people called the would-be bomb
> tosser at Falwell's funeral a terrorist. Mind you, his intention was
> to _prevent_ disruptions* so maybe he wouldn't qualify anyway. I can't
> recall William Krar beng called a terrorist (Well, would-be terrorist)
> despite his involvement in the Tyler Gas Plot.
Then there was the recent attempted bombing of a Women's health clinic
in Austin. Most news reports are not calling it terrorism.
--
Aaron Denney
-><-
David Loewe, Jr.
wrote:
What stops an Army from jumping out it's vehicles (if they actually
have any) changing clothes (if they're even wearing uniforms) and
doing this?
--
"Well, listen, I read Hillary's book, because like I said, I like to
see all sides. And all I remember is I got to that chapter where she
said she had no idea her old man was running around on her, and I
remember thinking, Really? I'm pretty sure you're not smart enough
to be my president. Because that is a massive Macy's balloon sized
tea leaf that you failed to read there, honey."
Dennis Miller
David Loewe, Jr.
><JSBass...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 27, 9:41 pm, Peter Meilinger <p_meilin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On May 27, 3:21 pm, "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > It won't. It's a response to Brezinski's idiotic comment.
>>>
>>> Do you think Bush's frequent comments about fighting them
>>> over there so we don't have to fight them over here are
>>> equally idiotic?
>>
>> No, I consider them an expression of realistic thinking. If the
>> Terrorists are occupied defending their own areas, they cannot
>> simultaneously use the same resources to attack _our_ homelands.
>
>This assumes a fixed number of "terrorists", as if nothing the U.S. does
>creates new enemies and the tactics called "terrorism" can only be used by
>certain people.
I just love the implicit assumption that nothing the US does causes
people to renounce terrorism...
--
"I - I don't believe it, There she goes again
She's tidied up, and I can't find anything
All my tubes and wires, And careful notes
And antiquated notions..."
Thomas "Dolby" Robertson
David Loewe, Jr.
wrote:
>On 29 May 2007 10:24:52 -0700, JSBass...@gmail.com wrote:
So, make them change jobs...
--
"'Funny Republican' is an oxymoron in the public
mind. Sense of humor and conservatism are not
supposed to go together."
- P. J. O'Rourke
Mike Schilling
"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3j6p53thal6gl6i5n...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 29 May 2007 11:31:28 -0700, "Mike Schilling"
> <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>><JSBass...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On May 27, 9:41 pm, Peter Meilinger <p_meilin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On May 27, 3:21 pm, "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > It won't. It's a response to Brezinski's idiotic comment.
>>>>
>>>> Do you think Bush's frequent comments about fighting them
>>>> over there so we don't have to fight them over here are
>>>> equally idiotic?
>>>
>>> No, I consider them an expression of realistic thinking. If the
>>> Terrorists are occupied defending their own areas, they cannot
>>> simultaneously use the same resources to attack _our_ homelands.
>>
>>This assumes a fixed number of "terrorists", as if nothing the U.S. does
>>creates new enemies and the tactics called "terrorism" can only be used by
>>certain people.
>
> I just love the implicit assumption that nothing the US does causes
> people to renounce terrorism...
What did you have in mind?
Mike Schilling
"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:vm6p53hemiclqu1ga...@4ax.com...
> "'Funny Republican' is an oxymoron in the public
> mind. Sense of humor and conservatism are not
> supposed to go together."
> - P. J. O'Rourke
Because "Funny Republican" suggests things like "Mallard Fillmore". P.J.'s
funny because he doesn't bludgeon his audience with political talking
points.
David Johnston
<dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>Or they could simply get in car, on a plane or board a train and
>>relocate somewhere else. Heck, they might even walk.
>
>What stops an Army from jumping out it's vehicles (if they actually
>have any) changing clothes (if they're even wearing uniforms) and
>doing this?
A massive loss of combat effectiveness.
David Johnston
<dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>No, I consider them an expression of realistic thinking. If the
>>>Terrorists are occupied defending their own areas, they cannot
>>>simultaneously use the same resources to attack _our_ homelands.
>>
>>Terrorists are not in the business of defending things.
>
>So, make them change jobs...
And why would they do that?
Sea Wasp
I thought the point of being a terrorist rather than a member of some
country's military was that you didn't HAVE "your own areas" and would
move any time some military tried to catch you -- possibly even over
to THEIR country.
Otherwise, what's the difference between a Terrorist and a Soldier?
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Sea Wasp
> William Hyde <wthyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On May 29, 1:05 am, Gene Ward Smith <g...@chewbacca.org> wrote:
>>
>>>By the time there is an actual threat it may be too late. We
>>>need to put a plan in place *now*.
>>>
>>>What about invading Romania?
>>
>>You just know they have Werewolves of mass destruction.
>
>
> Besides, history shows again and again how nature points out the ... wait,
> wrong metaphor. Meant to type "Besides, that trick NEVER works!"
>
> Dave "we'll need an exact duplicate of their King" DeLaney
He's grinning -- a grin about 2.5 feet wide and 9 inches high -- from
ear to ear at the thought.
Sea Wasp
> On Tue, 29 May 2007 18:48:20 GMT, David Johnston <da...@block.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>On 29 May 2007 10:24:52 -0700, JSBass...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>On May 27, 9:41 pm, Peter Meilinger <p_meilin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On May 27, 3:21 pm, "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>It won't. It's a response to Brezinski's idiotic comment.
>>>>
>>>>Do you think Bush's frequent comments about fighting them
>>>>over there so we don't have to fight them over here are
>>>>equally idiotic?
>>>
>>>No, I consider them an expression of realistic thinking. If the
>>>Terrorists are occupied defending their own areas, they cannot
>>>simultaneously use the same resources to attack _our_ homelands.
>>
>>Terrorists are not in the business of defending things.
>
>
> So, make them change jobs...
You can't, though. The basic concept of terrorism is not to have a
set base of operations. You may have areas you'd PREFER to operate out
of, but if the enemy overruns those areas, you're not stymied; you
move. Terrorists are not like armies. They have neither the resources,
nor the logistical or mission-oriented limitations, or armies.
David Loewe, Jr.
wrote:
>On Tue, 29 May 2007 16:25:33 -0500, "David Loewe, Jr."
Ah, but a maintenance of personnel integrity ensues...
--
"It only takes 20 years for a liberal to become a conservative without
changing a single idea."
- Robert Anton Wilson
David Loewe, Jr.
<mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Killing them. They then realize that it's dangerous being a
terrorist.
Building schools. They then realize that we're not the bad guys.
--
"I love the smell of napalm in the morning. It smells like...
victory!"
- Apocalypse Now
David Loewe, Jr.
wrote:
>On Tue, 29 May 2007 16:28:23 -0500, "David Loewe, Jr."
Because they're under fire...
--
"I think between us, Bill Clinton and I have settled any lingering myths about the
brilliance of Rhodes scholars."
Kris Kristofferson
David Loewe, Jr.
They won't shoot back if we have them under fire?
And, trust me, if you make them use up enough of the limited
resources, you degrade their effectiveness.
--
"...you know, it seems to me you suffer from the problem of
wanting a tailored fit in an off the rack world."
Dennis Juds
David Johnston
<dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 29 May 2007 14:37:44 -0700, "Mike Schilling"
><mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 29 May 2007 11:31:28 -0700, "Mike Schilling"
>>> <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>><JSBass...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On May 27, 9:41 pm, Peter Meilinger <p_meilin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On May 27, 3:21 pm, "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > It won't. It's a response to Brezinski's idiotic comment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you think Bush's frequent comments about fighting them
>>>>>> over there so we don't have to fight them over here are
>>>>>> equally idiotic?
>>>>>
>>>>> No, I consider them an expression of realistic thinking. If the
>>>>> Terrorists are occupied defending their own areas, they cannot
>>>>> simultaneously use the same resources to attack _our_ homelands.
>>>>
>>>>This assumes a fixed number of "terrorists", as if nothing the U.S. does
>>>>creates new enemies and the tactics called "terrorism" can only be used by
>>>>certain people.
>>>
>>> I just love the implicit assumption that nothing the US does causes
>>> people to renounce terrorism...
>>
>>What did you have in mind?
>>
>Killing them. They then realize that it's dangerous being a
>terrorist.
In order to follow that strategy one must be able to reliably
distinguish terrorists from civilians. Otherwise they'll realise it's
more dangerous not to be a terrorist.
David Johnston
<dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 29 May 2007 22:01:45 GMT, David Johnston <da...@block.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 29 May 2007 16:28:23 -0500, "David Loewe, Jr."
>><dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>No, I consider them an expression of realistic thinking. If the
>>>>>Terrorists are occupied defending their own areas, they cannot
>>>>>simultaneously use the same resources to attack _our_ homelands.
>>>>
>>>>Terrorists are not in the business of defending things.
>>>
>>>So, make them change jobs...
>>
>>And why would they do that?
>
>Because they're under fire...
Sorry, they aren't going to start defending things because they are
under fire.
David Johnston
<dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>You can't, though. The basic concept of terrorism is not to have a
>>set base of operations. You may have areas you'd PREFER to operate out
>>of, but if the enemy overruns those areas, you're not stymied; you
>>move. Terrorists are not like armies. They have neither the resources,
>>nor the logistical or mission-oriented limitations, or armies.
>
>They won't shoot back if we have them under fire?
By and large, no. They'll run and hide. That's the whole point of
insurgency, to not stand and fight.
Gene Ward Smith
news:82ap531idcim96si0...@4ax.com:
We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and
convert them to Christianity.
David Loewe, Jr.
wrote:
Start by shooting the ones doing obvious terrorist activities - like
planting IEDs or brazenly shooting at the GIs.
>>
>>Building schools. They then realize that we're not the bad guys.
--
"He either fears his fate too much,
Or his deserts are small,
Who dares not put it to the touch,
To win or lose it all."
David Loewe, Jr.
wrote:
>"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 May 2007 14:37:44 -0700, "Mike Schilling"
>> <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>What did you have in mind?
>>>
>> Killing them. They then realize that it's dangerous being a
>> terrorist.
>>
>> Building schools. They then realize that we're not the bad
>> guys.
>
>We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and
>convert them to Christianity.
Ann!
David Loewe, Jr.
wrote:
>On Tue, 29 May 2007 17:27:26 -0500, "David Loewe, Jr."
><dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>On Tue, 29 May 2007 22:01:45 GMT, David Johnston <da...@block.net>
>>wrote:
>>>On Tue, 29 May 2007 16:28:23 -0500, "David Loewe, Jr."
>>><dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>No, I consider them an expression of realistic thinking. If the
>>>>>>Terrorists are occupied defending their own areas, they cannot
>>>>>>simultaneously use the same resources to attack _our_ homelands.
>>>>>
>>>>>Terrorists are not in the business of defending things.
>>>>
>>>>So, make them change jobs...
>>>
>>>And why would they do that?
>>
>>Because they're under fire...
>
>Sorry, they aren't going to start defending things because they are
>under fire.
Not even their lives?
David Loewe, Jr.
wrote:
>On Tue, 29 May 2007 17:29:50 -0500, "David Loewe, Jr."
GIs in front, GIs to the left, GIs to the right, GIs behind. "No
where to run to, no where to hide."
--
"You don't win a war by dying for your country, you win a war by
making the other poor bastard die for his country."
- George Smith Patton, Jr.
No 33 Secretary
news:7adp531v41697keou...@4ax.com:
You can also accept collateral damage - be willing to commit
atrocities - to convince those who aren't terrorists, but have
terrorists living among them, that it's more dangerous to piss us
off than to piss the terrorists off.
A harsh, brutal strategy, and contrary to western philosophy, but
it's one they would understand.
--
"What is the first law?"
"To Protect."
"And the second?"
"Ourselves."
Terry Austin
No 33 Secretary
news:0edp53h0srn1r7l3m...@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 29 May 2007 22:34:03 GMT, David Johnston
> <da...@block.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 29 May 2007 17:27:26 -0500, "David Loewe, Jr."
>><dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>On Tue, 29 May 2007 22:01:45 GMT, David Johnston
>>><da...@block.net> wrote:
>>>>On Tue, 29 May 2007 16:28:23 -0500, "David Loewe, Jr."
>>>><dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>No, I consider them an expression of realistic thinking.
>>>>>>>If the Terrorists are occupied defending their own areas,
>>>>>>>they cannot simultaneously use the same resources to attack
>>>>>>>_our_ homelands.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Terrorists are not in the business of defending things.
>>>>>
>>>>>So, make them change jobs...
>>>>
>>>>And why would they do that?
>>>
>>>Because they're under fire...
>>
>>Sorry, they aren't going to start defending things because they
>>are under fire.
>
> Not even their lives?
In many cases, no, not even then. Dying for the faith makes on a
martyr, which guarantees one a place in heaven. This is the
argumetn against making war on them - some, who would not otherwise
engage in terrorist violence, because there was little chance of
dyign a martyr, will do so if we up the chances.
(I don't really agree that's a reason to avoid war with them, but
it's at least an internally consistent argument.)
No 33 Secretary
news:ffdp53tmrijh6h7m0...@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 29 May 2007 22:47:34 GMT, David Johnston
> <da...@block.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 29 May 2007 17:29:50 -0500, "David Loewe, Jr."
>><dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>You can't, though. The basic concept of terrorism is not to
>>>>have a set base of operations. You may have areas you'd PREFER
>>>>to operate out of, but if the enemy overruns those areas,
>>>>you're not stymied; you move. Terrorists are not like armies.
>>>>They have neither the resources, nor the logistical or
>>>>mission-oriented limitations, or armies.
>>>
>>>They won't shoot back if we have them under fire?
>>
>>By and large, no. They'll run and hide. That's the whole point
>>of insurgency, to not stand and fight.
>
> GIs in front, GIs to the left, GIs to the right, GIs behind.
> "No where to run to, no where to hide."
If you have enough GIs. We don't.
David Johnston
<dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>Killing them. They then realize that it's dangerous being a
>>>terrorist.
>>
>>In order to follow that strategy one must be able to reliably
>>distinguish terrorists from civilians. Otherwise they'll realise it's
>>more dangerous not to be a terrorist.
>>
>Start by shooting the ones doing obvious terrorist activities - like
>planting IEDs or brazenly shooting at the GIs.
That will not be particularly effective. Guys brazenly shooting at
GIs are already on a suicide run and people plant IEDs stealthily.
David Johnston
<dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 29 May 2007 22:34:03 GMT, David Johnston <da...@block.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 29 May 2007 17:27:26 -0500, "David Loewe, Jr."
>><dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>On Tue, 29 May 2007 22:01:45 GMT, David Johnston <da...@block.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>>On Tue, 29 May 2007 16:28:23 -0500, "David Loewe, Jr."
>>>><dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>No, I consider them an expression of realistic thinking. If the
>>>>>>>Terrorists are occupied defending their own areas, they cannot
>>>>>>>simultaneously use the same resources to attack _our_ homelands.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Terrorists are not in the business of defending things.
>>>>>
>>>>>So, make them change jobs...
>>>>
>>>>And why would they do that?
>>>
>>>Because they're under fire...
>>
>>Sorry, they aren't going to start defending things because they are
>>under fire.
>
>Not even their lives?
The best way to defend your life from someone shooting at you who has
more men and more ammo is to find some other place to be.
David Johnston
<dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 29 May 2007 22:47:34 GMT, David Johnston <da...@block.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 29 May 2007 17:29:50 -0500, "David Loewe, Jr."
>><dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>You can't, though. The basic concept of terrorism is not to have a
>>>>set base of operations. You may have areas you'd PREFER to operate out
>>>>of, but if the enemy overruns those areas, you're not stymied; you
>>>>move. Terrorists are not like armies. They have neither the resources,
>>>>nor the logistical or mission-oriented limitations, or armies.
>>>
>>>They won't shoot back if we have them under fire?
>>
>>By and large, no. They'll run and hide. That's the whole point of
>>insurgency, to not stand and fight.
>
>GIs in front, GIs to the left, GIs to the right, GIs behind. "No
>where to run to, no where to hide."
Uh-hunh. Sure. Whatever.
Sea Wasp
> On Tue, 29 May 2007 18:09:19 -0400, Sea Wasp
> <seawasp...@sgeObviousinc.com> wrote:
>
>
>>David Loewe, Jr. wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 29 May 2007 18:48:20 GMT, David Johnston <da...@block.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 29 May 2007 10:24:52 -0700, JSBass...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On May 27, 9:41 pm, Peter Meilinger <p_meilin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On May 27, 3:21 pm, "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It won't. It's a response to Brezinski's idiotic comment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Do you think Bush's frequent comments about fighting them
>>>>>>over there so we don't have to fight them over here are
>>>>>>equally idiotic?
>>>>>
>>>>>No, I consider them an expression of realistic thinking. If the
>>>>>Terrorists are occupied defending their own areas, they cannot
>>>>>simultaneously use the same resources to attack _our_ homelands.
>>>>
>>>>Terrorists are not in the business of defending things.
>>>
>>>So, make them change jobs...
>>
>>You can't, though. The basic concept of terrorism is not to have a
>>set base of operations. You may have areas you'd PREFER to operate out
>>of, but if the enemy overruns those areas, you're not stymied; you
>>move. Terrorists are not like armies. They have neither the resources,
>>nor the logistical or mission-oriented limitations, or armies.
>
>
> They won't shoot back if we have them under fire?
Sure, but they won't STAY there.
Attack the United States, our army pretty much HAS to stay there.
it's defending the USA.
Attack Terrorist Organization, they shoot back as you approach, then
pack up and leave. Then set up somewhere else.
It's an entirely different problem.
>
> And, trust me, if you make them use up enough of the limited
> resources, you degrade their effectiveness.
Again, sure, but not nearly so much as one would like, since many of
the resources are easily replaceable, especially for an organization
that doesn't worry about, say, legality.
They didn't BUY the aircraft they crashed into the Towers. They
didn't even buy the cars they've used to bomb places, in many cases --
they rent the damn things or steal them. If necessary, they steal the
material to make the bombs.
There's nothing stopping them from moving their base of operations to
somewhere here in the USA except that there's more danger of immediate
harrassment. This is ALMOST (though not quite) offset by the dramatic
increase in ease of access to the targets of interest.
I know what I'd do if I were a terrorist and wanted to keep badly
damaging the USA. Fortunately, terrorists are stupid. But push even
stupid people long enough, they'll eventually hit on the "right"
strategy, unless you can manage to wipe them all out.
The problem being that you can't wipe them out unless you can change
the perception in the target population that we're the problem.
(whether that perception is accurate or not isn't relevant in this
case, only the perception).
Sea Wasp
> On Tue, 29 May 2007 22:47:34 GMT, David Johnston <da...@block.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>On Tue, 29 May 2007 17:29:50 -0500, "David Loewe, Jr."
>><dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>You can't, though. The basic concept of terrorism is not to have a
>>>>set base of operations. You may have areas you'd PREFER to operate out
>>>>of, but if the enemy overruns those areas, you're not stymied; you
>>>>move. Terrorists are not like armies. They have neither the resources,
>>>>nor the logistical or mission-oriented limitations, or armies.
>>>
>>>They won't shoot back if we have them under fire?
>>
>>By and large, no. They'll run and hide. That's the whole point of
>>insurgency, to not stand and fight.
>
>
> GIs in front, GIs to the left, GIs to the right, GIs behind. "No
> where to run to, no where to hide."
We claimed we were going to do that with OBL.
We didn't manage it. Then we ran off on another tangent and started
ignoring him, which made us look like either liars or ineffective
wusses, and him look uncatchable and heroic to his target recruiting
market.
Yeah, if you can find all of The Terrorists, whoever they are, and
surround them, yeah, you can kill them.
Let me know if you find a way to actually make that HAPPEN.
Sea Wasp
Oh, certainly. If we were willing to use the REAL iron fist -- in
other words, if we were the Great Satan they like to paint us -- we
could easily solve this Terrorist Problem.
Bill Snyder
wrote:
>"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote in
That's ridiculous. If Ghu had wanted us to convert them, He wouldn't
have given us nukes.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank.]
Bill Snyder
ObSF (approximate, due to poor memory and laziness) from Pratchett's
_Jingo_: "It is always useful to face a foe who wishes to die for his
country. This means that you and he have the same goal in mind." Cf
George Patton.
David Loewe, Jr.
<terry.nota...@gmail.com> wrote:
>"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 May 2007 22:47:34 GMT, David Johnston
>> <da...@block.net> wrote:
>>>On Tue, 29 May 2007 17:29:50 -0500, "David Loewe, Jr."
>>><dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>You can't, though. The basic concept of terrorism is not to
>>>>>have a set base of operations. You may have areas you'd PREFER
>>>>>to operate out of, but if the enemy overruns those areas,
>>>>>you're not stymied; you move. Terrorists are not like armies.
>>>>>They have neither the resources, nor the logistical or
>>>>>mission-oriented limitations, or armies.
>>>>
>>>>They won't shoot back if we have them under fire?
>>>
>>>By and large, no. They'll run and hide. That's the whole point
>>>of insurgency, to not stand and fight.
>>
>> GIs in front, GIs to the left, GIs to the right, GIs behind.
>> "No where to run to, no where to hide."
>
>If you have enough GIs. We don't.
Written by someone who either has no conception of or is ignoring
strategy and tactics.
They've divided their forces. There are advantages to this approach -
which you boys have tried to enumerate, but there are also weaknesses.
--
"The dead remember our indifference.
The dead remember our silence."
President James Marshall "Air Force One"
David Loewe, Jr.
wrote:
>On Tue, 29 May 2007 18:24:39 -0500, "David Loewe, Jr."
><dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>On Tue, 29 May 2007 22:47:34 GMT, David Johnston <da...@block.net>
>>wrote:
>>>On Tue, 29 May 2007 17:29:50 -0500, "David Loewe, Jr."
>>><dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>You can't, though. The basic concept of terrorism is not to have a
>>>>>set base of operations. You may have areas you'd PREFER to operate out
>>>>>of, but if the enemy overruns those areas, you're not stymied; you
>>>>>move. Terrorists are not like armies. They have neither the resources,
>>>>>nor the logistical or mission-oriented limitations, or armies.
>>>>
>>>>They won't shoot back if we have them under fire?
>>>
>>>By and large, no. They'll run and hide. That's the whole point of
>>>insurgency, to not stand and fight.
>>
>>GIs in front, GIs to the left, GIs to the right, GIs behind. "No
>>where to run to, no where to hide."
>
>Uh-hunh. Sure. Whatever.
My... THAT'S persuasive.
One way to deal with insurgents is to MAKE them stand up and fight.
And one way to do that is to surround them. Will they always be able
to surround them? No. Will it work quite a bit, given our mobility
advantage? yes.
--
"Beware of altruism. It is based on self-deception, the root
of all evil."
-Lazarus Long
David Loewe, Jr.
<terry.nota...@gmail.com> wrote:
>"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 May 2007 22:34:03 GMT, David Johnston
>> <da...@block.net> wrote:
>>>On Tue, 29 May 2007 17:27:26 -0500, "David Loewe, Jr."
>>><dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>>On Tue, 29 May 2007 22:01:45 GMT, David Johnston
>>>><da...@block.net> wrote:
>>>>>On Tue, 29 May 2007 16:28:23 -0500, "David Loewe, Jr."
>>>>><dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>No, I consider them an expression of realistic thinking.
>>>>>>>>If the Terrorists are occupied defending their own areas,
>>>>>>>>they cannot simultaneously use the same resources to attack
>>>>>>>>_our_ homelands.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Terrorists are not in the business of defending things.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So, make them change jobs...
>>>>>
>>>>>And why would they do that?
>>>>
>>>>Because they're under fire...
>>>
>>>Sorry, they aren't going to start defending things because they
>>>are under fire.
>>
>> Not even their lives?
>
>In many cases, no, not even then.
So...
They'll just stand up to be shot?
Observationally, this hasn't happened.
>Dying for the faith makes on a
>martyr, which guarantees one a place in heaven. This is the
>argumetn against making war on them - some, who would not otherwise
>engage in terrorist violence, because there was little chance of
>dyign a martyr, will do so if we up the chances.
>
>(I don't really agree that's a reason to avoid war with them, but
>it's at least an internally consistent argument.)
--
"Quantum particles: the dreams that stuff is made of."
- David Moser
David Loewe, Jr.
wrote:
>On Tue, 29 May 2007 18:21:43 -0500, "David Loewe, Jr."
><dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
The more of them we send off to meet the 72 Virginians, the better.
>and people plant IEDs stealthily.
ObOtherThread: Time to implement that hellacious 1 inch resolution
surveillance over there.
--
"Neon lights, A Nobel Prize
The mirror speaks, the reflection lies
You don't have to follow me
Only you can set me free"
Living Colour
Joe Bednorz
<6vhp5356korka7col...@4ax.com>:
David,
Thanks for politely and effectively making these points.
--
Links to Gigabytes of free books on line, emphasis on SF:
<http://www.mindspring.com/~jbednorz/Free/>
All the Best,
Joe Bednorz
David Johnston
<dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>That will not be particularly effective. Guys brazenly shooting at
>>GIs are already on a suicide run
>
>The more of them we send off to meet the 72 Virginians, the better.
Well killing and being killed is always good clean fun. But does it
get you closer to your goal?
David Johnston
<dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 29 May 2007 23:32:23 -0000, No 33 Secretary
><terry.nota...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 29 May 2007 22:47:34 GMT, David Johnston
>>> <da...@block.net> wrote:
>>>>On Tue, 29 May 2007 17:29:50 -0500, "David Loewe, Jr."
>>>><dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>You can't, though. The basic concept of terrorism is not to
>>>>>>have a set base of operations. You may have areas you'd PREFER
>>>>>>to operate out of, but if the enemy overruns those areas,
>>>>>>you're not stymied; you move. Terrorists are not like armies.
>>>>>>They have neither the resources, nor the logistical or
>>>>>>mission-oriented limitations, or armies.
>>>>>
>>>>>They won't shoot back if we have them under fire?
>>>>
>>>>By and large, no. They'll run and hide. That's the whole point
>>>>of insurgency, to not stand and fight.
>>>
>>> GIs in front, GIs to the left, GIs to the right, GIs behind.
>>> "No where to run to, no where to hide."
>>
>>If you have enough GIs. We don't.
>
>Written by someone who either has no conception of or is ignoring
>strategy and tactics.
>
>They've divided their forces. There are advantages to this approach -
>which you boys have tried to enumerate, but there are also weaknesses.
None of which involve being unable to leave the country.
David Johnston
<dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 29 May 2007 23:43:34 GMT, David Johnston <da...@block.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 29 May 2007 18:24:39 -0500, "David Loewe, Jr."
>><dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>On Tue, 29 May 2007 22:47:34 GMT, David Johnston <da...@block.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>>On Tue, 29 May 2007 17:29:50 -0500, "David Loewe, Jr."
>>>><dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>You can't, though. The basic concept of terrorism is not to have a
>>>>>>set base of operations. You may have areas you'd PREFER to operate out
>>>>>>of, but if the enemy overruns those areas, you're not stymied; you
>>>>>>move. Terrorists are not like armies. They have neither the resources,
>>>>>>nor the logistical or mission-oriented limitations, or armies.
>>>>>
>>>>>They won't shoot back if we have them under fire?
>>>>
>>>>By and large, no. They'll run and hide. That's the whole point of
>>>>insurgency, to not stand and fight.
>>>
>>>GIs in front, GIs to the left, GIs to the right, GIs behind. "No
>>>where to run to, no where to hide."
>>
>>Uh-hunh. Sure. Whatever.
>
>My... THAT'S persuasive.
You get what you give. Yes it would be wonderful if you could
identify the enemy and surround them with overwheling force.
David Loewe, Jr.
wrote:
>On Tue, 29 May 2007 19:57:54 -0500, "David Loewe, Jr."
The more of them that die, the better. I reckon they'll run out of
idiots ("martyrs")before we run out of bullets.
--
"Go ahead and hate your neighbor, go ahead and cheat a friend
Do it in the name of heaven and you can justify it in the end
There won't be any trumpets blowing come the Judgement Day
And on the bloody morning after....One Tin Soldier rides away."
One Tin Soldier - The Legend Of Billy Jack
David Loewe, Jr.
wrote:
Which is irrelevant to the point I addressed - but, you already know
that. And, if you (or your cohorts) don't, then maybe a primer is
called for...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defeat_in_detail
Austin seems to think we don't have enough troops to surround
al-Qaeda. When they divide their forces, we DO have enough to
surround each individual group - and annihilate them.
--
"Just think of it as evolution in action."
Tony Rand in Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle's
'Oath of Fealty'