Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Spanky
I really don't think power is the main priority. The simply want theocratic states. And will do whatever it takes to get that. They want to be in power to institute a theorcratic state. Unlike most power grabbers, most of these fanatics would be happy with a theocratic state in which they did not hold power. The power is a means to end, not the goal itself. They think they have to grab power to institute Gods plan. But I bet if you gave Osama the choice of having power in a non theorcratic state, or dying with all of Islamistan becoming one big theocratic state, he would sacrifice his life in a heartbeat.

If these guys were just cynical power grabbers that were using religion as an excuse to gain power they would be much less of a threat. It is their overwhelming belief in that they are implementing Gods will and that they are fighting for a cause larger than themselves that makes them so dangerous.

It is their religious fanatacism that makes them so courageous and selfless, and therefore so dangerous. Terms like Homicide Bomber and Islamofascist try and hide that reality, and underestimating the enemy is a huge error. Ask Sun Tsu.

They are similar to every other group of "revolutionaries" that have tried to impose their will on the masses. Any group that attempts to grab power without instituting a democracy is necessarily most concerned with power.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by sgtclub
They are similar to every other group of "revolutionaries" that have tried to impose their will on the masses. Any group that attempts to grab power without instituting a democracy is necessarily most concerned with power.

But what makes these guys even more dangerous is their willingness to die for their beliefs. And once your dead you can't really hold power. There were communist and Nazi fanatics, but very few were willing to make intentional suicide runs. Many took a lot of risks, but very few were willling to intentional sacrifice their lives. The Japanese were willing to do suicide runs, but that was because of their Shinto religious belief in the divinity of their Emporer.

There is nothing more fanatic than religious fanaticism.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Spanky
But what makes these guys even more dangerous is their willingness to die for their beliefs. And once your dead you can't really hold power. There were communist and Nazi fanatics, but very few were willing to make intentional suicide runs. Many took a lot of risks, but very few were willling to intentional sacrifice their lives. The Japanese were willing to do suicide runs, but that was because of their Shinto religious belief in the divinity of their Emporer.

There is nothing more fanatic than religious fanaticism.

That may or may not be true (i.e., that they are more dangerous). They are certainly more, dare I say, fanatical. But it says nothing about their primary motive.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by sgtclub
But your initial post suggested that anyone who voted against every single SDI bill that came up was an idiot, and that is where we differ.

If that was what you got out of it, that is not what I meant. Obviously if there is an SDI bill that is more pork barrel than effective it should be voted against. But there are many people that are against SDI in principle. That don't think the US should be involved in SDI research. I will say that these people are morons. There are many issues where I respect both sides arguments. Abortion, gun control, welfare reform, environmental law. But SDI I simply can't. It is beyond me how anyone could be against researching how to stop nucliear missiles from entering this country. And there are many liberal Senators and Congressman that take that position.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by sgtclub
That may or may not be true (i.e., that they are more dangerous). They are certainly more, dare I say, fanatical. But it says nothing about their primary motive.

Their primary motive is to bring about governments that are based on their interpretation of the Koran (that implement the Sharia). They want to create theocratic states like the one that existed in Afghanistan. Not to complicated or mysterious.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Are you really this ignorant, or are you just testing my knowledge? On the chance that you really are this ignorant, the whole point of the ABM treaty was to preserve MAD. If both sides got into missile defense plans, then the other side would have to build even more missiles in order to get throught the missile shield. If missiles were getting shot down then you could never have enough missiles to ensure you could survive a first strike and get enough missiles into the other country to ensure their destruction.

Assuming the logic of MAD, SDI was destabilising and would therefore escalate the arms race.

I like to play Socrates.

What's wrong with the notion that SDI will simply drive the other side to build more missiles and other counter-measures, neither of which is as remotely expensive as SDI?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sgtclub
No. There have been attacks against westerners and attacks against Saudis. 88 people did in a blast in Egypt this weekend.

I just read the NYT story. It says the targets were places where Europeans/tourists go. There were Muslims in the WTC 9/11 you know.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I like to play Socrates.

What's wrong with the notion that SDI will simply drive the other side to build more missiles and other counter-measures, neither of which is as remotely expensive as SDI?

so we'll force the USSR to build up?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
so we'll force the USSR to build up?

Hey, I know, so we'll force the people against us to use relatively small ground-based bombs against domestic targets, rather than (easily interceptable) missiles against military targets.

What do I win?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I like to play Socrates.

What's wrong with the notion that SDI will simply drive the other side to build more missiles and other counter-measures, neither of which is as remotely expensive as SDI?

Nothing. If the Soviet Union where the only nuclear power in the world. But the Soviet Union never was, and its successor Russia, are not the only other nuclear powers in the world. Russia is the least of our worries. Right now if a rogue state gets a nuclear weapon and a missile to carry it on there is absolutely nothing we can do about it. We couldn't do anything about it back then but we are developing the capability to do so now. It is not the responsible nuclear powers we have to worry about and it is only a responsible nuclear state that we could get into an arms race with. It is the rogue powers we have to worry about and they don't have the capability of getting into an arms race with us.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Hey, I know, so we'll force the people against us to use relatively small ground-based bombs against domestic targets, rather than (easily interceptable) missiles against military targets.

What do I win?

Contrary to popular belief, it is not very easy to transport a nuclear weapon into the United States. It is not impossible, but making small nuclear devices is not that easy (small ones have to use plutonium not Uranium). Transporting them undetected is also not very easy. With modern radiation sensing devices, the weapons grade plutonium, or the mass of Uranium that it would take to for a city destroying nuclear device, can be picked up by Satelite. If North Korea has a missile and a weapon, it would be alot easier to launch it from North Korea than try and sneak one in the United States. One just takes the push of a button. The other is a pretty sophisticated clandestine operation with unsure results.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
Contrary to popular belief, it is not very easy to transport a nuclear weapon into the United States. It is not impossible, but making small nuclear devices is not that easy (small ones have to use plutonium not Uranium). Transporting them undetected is also not very easy. With modern radiation sensing devices, the weapons grade plutonium, or the mass of Uranium that it would take to for a city destroying nuclear device, can be picked up by Satelite. If North Korea has a missile and a weapon, it would be alot easier to launch it from North Korea than try and sneak one in the United States. One just takes the push of a button. The other is a pretty sophisticated clandestine operation with unsure results.

Spankster, I was not talking about nuclear. So sorry if that was the sole topic here. I guess we are convinced that they are crazy enough not to care that we'd obliterate them? I guess with NK, we'd fuck up SK too, and we like them, so maybe we wouldn't obliterate them. But I wouldn't count on it.

I had thought that SDI was mostly to keep anyone from disarming us -- to intercept missles intended to destroy our missles, which would leave us toothless for some other attack. I mean, isn't one of the points of war to take out the other side's weaponry?

Well, whatever. I really should read up more on this stuff.

[dtb]

Here's an article put out by the Annenberg Political Fact Check group -- which I think is acknowledged by both sides to be evenhanded in its treatment of issues (if I'm not mistaken, Dick Cheney (mis)identified it during the VP debate as support for something he was saying) -- that talks about the Plame/Wilson/Novak/Rove morass.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb

I had thought that SDI was mostly to keep anyone from disarming us -- to intercept missles intended to destroy our missles, which would leave us toothless for some other attack. I mean, isn't one of the points of war to take out the other side's weaponry?

Pretty sure it was conceived to save lives, by preventing a nuclear attack (or limiting it). Even in the 80s, we would know within seconds if a nuclear attack were being launched against the US. Our birds would be flying long before they were destroyed by incoming missiles.

Didn't you see war games? jeez.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Spankster, I was not talking about nuclear. So sorry if that was the sole topic here. I guess we are convinced that they are crazy enough not to care that we'd obliterate them? I guess with NK, we'd fuck up SK too, and we like them, so maybe we wouldn't obliterate them. But I wouldn't count on it.

I had thought that SDI was mostly to keep anyone from disarming us -- to intercept missles intended to destroy our missles, which would leave us toothless for some other attack. I mean, isn't one of the points of war to take out the other side's weaponry?

Well, whatever. I really should read up more on this stuff.

You can't force yourself to learn about technology you don't care about. Learning about technology can be fun if you focus the learning on your areas of interest.

http://www.bakingbusiness.com/co_art...rticleID=49256

• In its latest move to increase the signature "hot doughnuts now" experience, Krispy Kreme introduced a newly developed proprietary donut technology, the Krispy Kreme Hot Doughnut Machine.
  
  According to the company, the new machine has the potential to substantially increase the number of stores featuring the hot donut experience. The Hot Doughnut Machine is designed to finish cooking and glazing donuts that have been prepared to a certain point at a factory store and delivered fresh to a store.
  
  "Hot donuts are the essence of the Krispy Kreme brand, and our company is committed to strategically pursuing opportunities to extend the hot donut experience to our customers," Mr. Livengood said. "This new technology accomplishes that through a patented process integrating the key variables of time, temperature and humidity."