[geeks] FYI: CompUSA is offering OS X 10.5 for $99 (after rebate)

[Shannon Hendrix]

On Oct 30, 2007, at 3:23 PM, Mike Meredith wrote:

> The earliest 'wars of conversion by the sword' can't really be
> considered as terrorism in the modern sense of the word as they would
> have been carried out by direct command of the caliph; thus fitting
> more into the 'war crimes' category. It is foolish to impose modern
> sensibilities on the past though ... wars of conquest were accepted at
> the time.

That's true, and I didn't really mean the same kind of terrorism.

However, they did use something close to modern terrorism even back  
then, frequently hitting targets much of the rest of the world  
thought was dishonorable.  The Mongols did the same thing.

But no, that's not the same thing as modern terrorism.

Also, if you want an interesting read, study the Hashishin.  It's too  
bad we don't have much information about them.

>> Modern terrorism is fairly young, starting in the 1600s, and the US
>> got involved when the terrorists first started attacking us in the
>> 1700s, hitting our commercial shipping in the Mediterranean Sea.  We
>> didn't cause that, it happened because the islamic people believed
>> that they had a right to attack and steal from anyone who wasn't
>> islamic.
>
> I'm not aware of any terrorists operating in the Mediterranean in the
> 1700s.

The late 1600s was the first use of modern islamic terrorism.  They  
began to sanction independent groups, often religiously motivated, to  
attack civilian and "dishonorable" targets to influence world  
governments.  This also led to attacks by disassociated parties that  
appeared to be purely revenge or hate.

That's pretty much what modern terrorism is: a combination of some  
government sanctioned and supported third parties, and those acting  
independently, and often without solid reasoning behind it.

This started just over 300 years ago.

> There were certainly pirates and slavers operating in the region
> at the time, and had been since the decline of the Roman empire ...

Right, but the Barbary Pirates were funded by islamic governments,  
and one of their functions was terrorism, or the support of people  
carrying it out.

It wasn't as well developed as what we have now, but those are the  
first seeds of modern terrorism.

>> Europe's answer at the time was to try and pay them off, but it only
>> allowed them to buy better weapons, and increase the next ransom.
>> History repeats.
>
> You don't really expect *any* group of politicians to follow a
> consistent policy for 300 years ?

Is that a question or a statement?

> Much of the ransom paid (to free
> enslaved individuals) was paid by individuals or groups of individuals
> although there was some government ransom.

...and there were attacks against people for the purpose of influence  
and maintaining the flow of tribute, attacks which frequently were  
not geared toward any kind of military accomplishment, but were  
simply to cause fear politically.

Modern terrorism.

> As to why there was no more
> concrete action by governments at the time, there was a certain amount
> of power politics involved ... it was convenient for some to see  
> others
> suffering from the problems of piracy (and sufficiently large-scale
> land attacks that large numbers of sea-side settlements were  
> abandoned).

That's part of it, but part of it was also the same as today: if we  
just pay them off or ignore them, they'll go away.

They didn't then and they won't now.


>
>> Thomas Jefferson sent a fleet to North Africa to deal with the
>> problem with some success.
>
> Only after offering them money.

Incorrect.

Jefferson was against sending money.  Congress decided that, not him.

> And by the way the piracy wasn't stopped by the US navy although that
> started the process. It was the British and French who finally  
> finished
> them off.

I didn't say it was stopped, I said we had some success, and the rest  
were doing nothing until we went over there, because at the time some  
leaders were saying it was not possible to take concrete action  
against them.

> It is foolish and ignorant to portray islam as a terrorist religion.

It's foolish and ignorant to ignore the fact that a lot of islam *IS*  
a terrorist religion.

Sure, a lot of them are not like that, but that doesn't mean it is  
wise to ignore those which obviously are.

Likewise christianity has a ton of blood on its hands.

> Early medieval islamic society was far more civilised than Europe at
> the time ...

In some ways, sure.

But only as long as you obeyed their rules, which included  
recognizing you were inferior to all muslims and subject to  
restrictions they opposed on all tolerated infidels.

If you didn't follow their rules, they got barbaric very quickly.

> so-called 'arabic' numerals is not the only piece of
> knowledge that Europe acquired from the islamic world. Most muslims  
> are
> as horrified by islamic terrorists as anyone else; even those who (for
> whatever reason) have decided that the US is 'the great satan'.

Islamic terrorists kill more islamic people than anyone else, so of  
course they are very afraid of them.  Oh the irony...

It is common for the victims to help the terrorists, which is of  
course confusing and difficult to stop, but isn't at all uncommon in  
situations like that.

Of course, in the end, it is just yet another example of one group  
sending others to die for their desires and purposes.

> Just how many islamic terrorists are there ? Let us be *wildly*  
> paranoid
> and say there are 1 million; that's out of a population of 1.8  
> billion.
> So 0.05% ? Just a lunatic fringe.

A lunatic fringe which the people tolerate and rarely do much to  
combat, for whatever reason.

I'm not sure the numbers matter as much as the fact they are  
tolerated, actively encouraged and funded by islamic governments,  
parties, and other groups, and for whatever reason have enough hold  
over the people that they can count on their support, or at least non- 
interference.

It's a difficult problem to crack no matter how you approach it, and  
unfortunately one that is not going away.

And yes, the western world has been guilty of the same kind of  
complacency when its own lunatic fringe got bloody, many times over.

It's never right, and it's never a good idea to pretend it isn't  
there either.

-- 
Shannon Hendrix
shannon at widomaker.com