Time to lower the boom (was: Dawkins View)

From: Richard Brodie (richard@brodietech.com)
Date: Thu Sep 20 2001 - 20:41:14 BST

  • Next message: Wade T.Smith: "RE: Dawkins was right all along"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id UAA10265 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-bounces@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 20 Sep 2001 20:46:15 +0100
    From: "Richard Brodie" <richard@brodietech.com>
    To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    Subject: Time to lower the boom (was: Dawkins View)
    Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 12:41:14 -0700
    Message-ID: <JJEIIFOCALCJKOFDFAHBGENJDHAA.richard@brodietech.com>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
    X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0)
    In-Reply-To: <NEBBKOADILIOKGDJLPMAAEGJCGAA.debivort@umd5.umd.edu>
    X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
    Importance: Normal
    Sender: fmb-bounces@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk


    <<The Taliban government is the closest thing to a government Afgahnistan
    to ignore them diplomatically does us no good. Without diplomatic relations
    we cannot pursue extradition effectively (see my original message for the
    necessary sequence in which this has to be done). The UN's support to 'take
    action' is non-specific, and of little use to us if the action we take is

    Have you considered the possibility that they are all in bed together and
    they are taking advantage of our politeness and good nature to stall for
    time while they plan and execute other acts of terrorism?

    >> I think you're way off in #4. Once the kid shoots of his Uzi in the
    >> schoolyard it's a little too late to have a nice chat with him
    >> and find out
    >> why he thinks he's being unfairly persecuted.

    >Actually, it is not too late. Yes, of course it would have been better to
    >so before the event, but even afterwards it is of great use.

    I think that says it all. You're way out on the fringe here.

     Or would you
    >suggest we shoot first and ask questions later?

    You make it sound like we're not already sure bin Laden is a terrorist.
    Remember, he's already been convicted of killing hundreds of American
    servicemen in Africa.

     Why so averse to learning
    >about those we consider our opponents? Are we afraid of what we might

    Straw man. No one is afraid of learning. We all love to learn. We spend
    billions on intelligence. We know quite a bit about this cult and we're
    learning more hourly. This is about stopping our enemies from killing us.
    The best way to do that is to destroy them utterly.

    Now if it turns out that the entire Muslim world takes exception to our
    objecting to having our cities destroyed, maybe you need to use a different
    tactic to avoid a world war. But for now no one is on bin Laden's side. The
    world is outraged. We have the power and the mandate to destroy them. Let's
    do it.

    This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
    Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
    For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
    see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 20 2001 - 20:51:12 BST