On Sep 29, 2007 1:22 AM, Brian Loe thusly scribed: > On 9/28/07, Åke Nordin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I believe this was so early in the thread that the sattelite images that > > were discussed was those of the swastika-shaped buildings at > > Coronado. At least I made that connection when you wrote about > > censoring sattelite images to mitigate threats to the bases when > > the fear mongering part of this thread flowered. > > > > I'm sorry you don't know how to interpret an example pulled from > current news. Its not fear mongering, it's arguing. I could have said > Korea, Japan or the UK - it doesn't matter. You don't prepare just for > the known threats, but all threats.
I don't neessarily make the effort to ponder all possible interpretations, I usually focus on the subject at hands, Makes me a bit narrow minded, I know. The subject at hand was the images of Coronado. Generalizations come across better marked as such. Not that I am without error in this or other regards... > > > > I fail to comprehend how outspoken animosity towards Iran from > > > > another Head of State with strong backing from another set of > > > > religious fundamentalists could have any positive effect at all > > > > in that matter. > > > > > > I don't either, so what's your point? > > > > Seismic testing of your opinions, I think. That is, having you state > > just that. > > Okay, wtfe. That wasn't an opinion, it was a verbal shrug and a > request for more info. I don't know what heads of state your talking > about or how they relate to the discussion. And I'm afraid we'll need > to recompile this thread in order to regain context if you do explain > this further... Mr George W. Bush is perceived outside the U.S to be a leader of an agressive military power with a strong, religious right-wing lobby. The U.S. is well recognized for being very vocal about other states affairs. Now, I'm not very well versed in politics, but as poorly as I've figured it out, when a head of state (in this case GWB) expresses the threat of a full war with another state in his speeches, it is usually motivated more by the need tho cheer his own masses, than by the tactical or strategical needs of dealing with the other state. With what I grasp about the current leadership and political situation in Iran, they certainly welcome war threats from their "Great Satan" and might even welcome the attack, at least initially. > > > And are you calling Israel a > > > bunch of religious fundamentalists? > > > > I can't say that I've followed developments that close that I got the > > scoop on Shimon Perez or Ehud Olmert threatening Iran with > > full-scale war. Neither does "strong backing" necessarily imply > > the entire population. A vocal minority with a strong agenda > > certainly fits in. > > Israel is a nuclear power - there is an implicit threat of full > nuclear attack anytime your show animosity toward a nuclear power. Yeah, right. We're not discussing the level of that implicit threat, do we? It appears to me it would require far, far more than verbal animosity, even if that is on the level of "wishing Israel was wiped off the map". > > So no, I wasn't primarily thinking of ultraorthodox jews, rather > > the usual suspects of U.S. TV evangelists, creationists and > > what else we illuminated europeans perceive your religious > > right wing Washington lobby to be. Explicit enough? > > I guess we need to decide on a new word for "fundamentalists" when it > comes to muslims then. I have yet to see a video out of DC depicting a > priest beheading someone... Fundamentalism is fundamentalism regardless of religion. I really don't know to what degree their dogma actually allows for those decapitations, but I'd rather label them as political murderers, since it seems to me that all that fundamentalism just is a cover for their power hunger. > > > If they are, we could use a lot > > > more of that kind of fundamentalism in the muslim world - then they'd > > > be more focused on trade and building something out of their dessert > > > heap as opposed to slobbering all over themselves about what another > > > group was able to do with theirs! > > > > Couldn't agree more. That has been a subject of my fascination > > ever since I was a kid (around the time of the Yom Kippur war > > and on). I primary blame that on their liberal, democratic soft > > underbelly that never could function as effective as the very > > efficiently run totalitarian states that are their neighbours. > > Okay, you appear to be writing in code. Please decipher: > First, you're blaming someone's liberal underbelly and I have to > assume you mean Israel's. But Israel isn't the one that is wrong in > what you agreed with me saying. In other words, what are you blaming > on that underbelly? Sorry, I forgot that irony doesn't come across well on mailing lists. What I see as the Israeli strength (democracy, lawfullness, openness) that ist the ultimate driver behind the better Israeli progress is seen as a weakness by their totalitarian neighbours. They maintain an illusion of efficiency of their state affairs while their society is all impotent and incapable of the progres that "weak" Israel shows. -- Åke Nordin Unix/net geek, Netia.se consultant, Stacken member. Damian Conway: "The programmer is fighting against the two most destructive forces in the universe: entropy and human stupidity." _______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
