First, an example of someone who apparently thought he could predict (and, perhaps, influence?) the bad guys and failed. LINK

No, not really. I chose those for a reason, and I limited the choices for those same reasons. That said, I urge you and others to offer more nuanced choices. I would ask that those offering such alternatives suggest how they differed qualitatively from the three choices I included.

Keep in mind that eliminating group B can be as simple as changing their views to something more tolerant of group A. The old group B would cease to exist. So you see that the choices offered are not necessarily kinetic in nature. ;)

I am open to better ways. Please, tell me more.

Demographics creates an overall environment that influences those individual decisions, whether in terms of money and finance or population movements. I would contend that it an important (perhaps predominant) factor in human behavior.

Now you bring up those individual decisions, often inconsequential. Agreed. Still worse, individual behavior is hard to predict. Aggregate behavior, on the other hand, seems quite another matter. The advertising industry, in their efforts to promote both deodorants and politicians, seems confident that they can change overall behavior of populations.

The current economic malaise? It was predicted 15 years ago, and that was based on the demographics.

I suppose we'll have an agree to disagree position on this one.

Predicting what's over the horizon is always perilous, and often amusing when viewed in retrospect. And one can reasonably argue that people muddle through somehow, with the dire consequences never quite occurring.

Is this different? Hard to say. I think it's entangled with other issues (including demographics) that are rather wide-ranging. In the end, this may be another agree-to-disagree issue.

Could be. On the other hand, choosing to do or say nothing is a decision in its own right. And, too, there is a positive to the pressure you mention - it can manifest itself in the desire to offer alternatives. I sense that dynamic in your own post, which I quote from here. Creative alternatives might be a really good idea; however, I regret to say I'm not seeing many of those. But perhaps I've missed something?

Well...actually....no. :D

As ZonieDriver suggests, this is an emotionally loaded topic. We can use the kindest, most civil language...show the utmost in mutual respect...adopt the careful discourse of the disengaged scholar...but the emotion remains.

If you haven't read Hayakawa's book, Language in Thought and Action, I urge you to do so. It is a brilliant text. Per the book, we could modify the choice of buttons to hit - and, if we wanted to guide some particular discussion, we would do so. But that isn't the same as not pushing the buttons. Rather, we choose which buttons to hit - Christian Red, or Islamic Green, for example. (Yes, that's me pushing buttons, and having fun doing it.)

So what I hear you saying is that some percentage of the U.S. population have some probability of being bad guys, per the definition in my earlier post. And I see that you are urging some sort of filtration to discern who they are such that their action can be prevented.

I agree. This is all good.

Here's the problem - I don't see how to filter them out. DHS has tried, with notable failures. Perhaps there have been successes - if so, that's great! Perhaps DHS (or others) are good at filtering out bad guys - in which case, we have nothing to worry about.

However...big however...if the filtration I mention is not effective, then we have no way to stop the bad guys. This brings us back to those three options I've mentioned.

So, please tell me what I should conclude, so long as it is suitable to discuss in this public forum.


Now, Sigaba, I ask you - how much fun is that?

Seriously, though, this seems to lead to something like a shrug, followed by diligent searches through cable channels in search of a ball game. In essence, for the lower speed participants in the discussion to scratch themselves and defer the hard thinking to others.

I would contend that this is the very area where we need to have a broad societal dialog. Yes, it will sometimes become emotional. There will, from time to time, be anger and hurt feelings. And yet, societal evolution seems to demand exactly that sort of process.

MOO, YMMV.

LOL, simply Brillant
It is deeply emotional, my button requires only the slightest movement of air.

Thank you all. I state earlier, and I repost it here again for anyone who has contributed to this discussion and missed it in post #141

Edited for inaccurate word choice. Richard

Richard, Thank you for the correction, I know I was over the line, but passion and emotion when combined often lead to inappropriate displays of behavior; my sincere apologies to the board.

I agree with Sigaba - especially when we're talking issues which do not simply reduce themselves to a singularity as described in that "a, b, or c model", but which lend themselves to nearly infinite complexity among literally several billions of individuals and huge numbers of families; villages; tribes; ethnic groups; cultural affiliations and intra-cultural polychotomies; linguistic groupings; shared or divergent views of legends, myths, and histories; nations and non-governmental organizations - usw.

Either a, b, or c - the Forest Gump Model - "Simple is as simple does"?

I would reasonably think the model for such an issue calls for a much larger alphabet than that.

However, YMMV - and so it goes...

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Well...sorta. ;)

Models can be horrifically complex, and perhaps this is one of them. That does not mean that simplified approaches cannot address the predominant effects and provide useful insights.

Let's consider a baseball. Someone throws the baseball, and it lands in an open field (no broken windows!) We can describe much, but of course not all, of the motion by looking a the initial speed and the effect of gravity. Not a perfect effort by any means, but it gives us a rough understanding of what happens.

Should we add factors? Maybe. There is wind resistance. We might even want to take the effect of wind speed and its direction over the entire course of the baseball. The effects of roughness on the baseball surface and spin might be of interest. No doubt long-range snipers do this - they have a need for greater accuracy than does our baseball tosser, so they incorporate additional factors to accomplish a closer (but imperfect) approximation of the path of the object.

We extend the theory to long range artillery, firing a shell at a target 25 miles away. Gravity predominates. Wind speed and resistance may have an effect. And, the time in the air may mean we have to add the rotation of the Earth into the mix. Our simple model is becoming messy, isn't it?

This continues. At some point we're faced with a host of factors including relativistic effects as we approach the speed of light.

But...do we really need to add the effects of relativity to the path of an ordinary baseball? I think not. And as we grapple with basic understandings of a problem the minor factors (supposing they are minor) may distract rather than illuminate. Therefore, let's start out with a Forrest Gump approach - something that clears away as many factors as possible - and attempt to define primary effects.

In doing this, let's consider boundary effects - how do our approaches work at the limits? If we're looking at a baseball, this might mean we would wonder what would happen if we just dropped it - what path it might describe. Or, what would the path look like if we threw at at a very high speed. Some models fail at the boundary, you see.

So my Gump model (personally, I prefer the a,b,c model, but we may as well have some fun with this) is very simple. And yet, a variety of approaches are included. Let's consider...

In the category of eliminating the other group, we can include everything from cultural transformation, for example improving the rights of women, to causing (by whatever means) increased tolerance for other faiths, or even nuking Mecca. Whether any of these would actually work is beside the point - they all collapse down to a single broad category.

For surrender - the destruction of our group, in this case - we can include the do-nothing strategy. Surrender does not necessarily mean that we'll put all of our women in burkas - though it might. It just means that whatever we become will be very different than what we are.

Filtering is anything that tries to designate and locate the individuals (or, for that matter, groups of individuals) and do something with or to those groups or individuals. Notice that General Petraeus is trying this approach by dispersing the troops and attempting to get them to interact with (and gain the trust of) the local residents.

So, while I continue to urge people to add to or improve the Gump model, I don't see anything better at the moment. Hopefully, someone will.

I agree - scrimshaw is a funny sounding word.

And so it goes...;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

How can you say that?

ALL Muslims are REQUIRED to pay Zakat. And by definition- that is Sharia Law, Zakat supports jihad.
Ultimately, ALL Muslims are required to provide material support to the destruction of the United States.

How does that NOT make them our enemy?

BOOK H

ZAKAT

h1.0 WHO MUST PAY ZAKAT
((Muhammad Shirbini Khatib) Lexically, zakat means growth, blessings, an increase in good, purification, or praise. In Sacred Law it is the name for a particular amount of property that must be paid to certain kinds of recipients under the conditions mentioned below…”

h1.1 Zakat is obligatory

(a) for every free Muslim (O: male, female, adult or child):

THOSE FIGHTING FOR ALLAH {Jihad}

h8.17 The seventh category is those fighting for Allah, meaning people engaged in military operations {Jihad} for whom no salary has been allotted …

(Reliance of the Traveller, pages 244-274)


“rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation. That is why I am committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat." ~Barack Obama~

> http://www.meforum.org/2438/zakat-mu...ity-in-context

o9.0
(O: Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion.

o9.1 Jihad is a communal obligation (def: c3.2). When enough people perform it to successfully accomplish it, it is no longer obligatory upon others.

(The Reliance of the Traveller, page 599-600)

Sir, as we as pay billions to the Arab members of OPEC are we not the enemy? It would seem to me step one has to be stop the billions of our dollars from flowing to them.

I totally agree................:):):)

Big Teddy :munchin

This for your "religion of peace". http://www.wral.com/lifestyles/healt...story/8103708/.

That is tragic news.... they were good people doing important work. It's a terrible loss that they were killed.


I still believe that some do want peace though. For example...

Palestinian's organs go to Israel

The parents of a Palestinian boy killed by Israeli soldiers in the West Bank have donated his organs for use in Israel, in the hope of promoting peace.
Twelve-year-old Ahmed Ismail Khatib was shot in the town of Jenin by troops who mistook his toy gun for a real one.

His organs were transplanted into five Israeli children and a woman aged 58.

His father, Ismail, said saving lives was more important than religion, and added: "I feel that my son has entered the heart of every Israeli."

Ahmed died in hospital from his injuries after being shot in the body and head while throwing stones at Israeli soldiers who were hunting suspected militants in Jenin.

The Israeli army expressed regret over his shooting.

'Gesture of love'

Israel's parliamentary speaker, Reuven Rivlin, praised the Khatib family's action as a "remarkable gesture" after decades of conflict between Israelis and Palestinians.

Mr Khatib said he was very proud that his son's organs would help six Israelis.

"I have taken this decision because I have a message for the world: that the Palestinian people want peace - for everyone," he told the AFP news agency.

"We have no problem whether it is an Israeli or a Palestinian [who receives his organs] because it will give them life," added the boy's mother, Ablah Khatib.

Ahmed's kidneys, liver, heart and lungs were transplanted into Israelis including Jews, Arabs and a Druze girl, medical officials said.

The girl, aged 12 and from Israel's Arab minority, received Ahmed's heart, bringing to an end a five-year wait for a transplant.

Her father, Riad Gadban, called the donation a "gesture of love" and said his daughter was regaining strength after the operation.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/h...st/4417354.stm

No.:mad: Let's not.
Baseball is too beautiful, too pure . . .
Haberdashery is another funny word

Sky Hook
 

Fascinating, I suppose Captain Ahab felt the same way. I must confess like many American boys growing up, there were Muslims I admired. I had posters of them on the wall, cheered their exploits with passion, admired their courage and dominance, and hoped to emulate their achievments. One in particular was a hero for a great many Americans. There were two of the them, you might have heard of Muhammad Ali, or Kareem Abdul Jabar? If what you say hold true, that every Muslim is the enemy, as a patriotric American I'm in quite a quandry, all this time I just thought of them as gifted athletes who dominated their respective sports and were Americans of a particular faith. Since both of them are wealthy and could contribute significantly to Zakat, perhaps we should monitor them just in case, since by definition there is nothing else in their lives of greater importance or identity? I guess I have to root for the Celtics going forward...:eek:

Sky Hook
 

The following is an interesting read > http://www.nefafoundation.org/hlfdocs.html Zakat...

Edited to add:

My neighbor, knowing the killers endeavor, willingly gave bullets to the man who shot my wife - Is my neighbor guilty?