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

[Shannon Hendrix]

On Nov 1, 2007, at 6:03 PM, Mike Meredith wrote:

> In fact a great deal of warfare at the time involved 'dishonourable'
> targets. As an example, Portsmouth (where I live) first acquired
> fortifications during those period episodes when the English and  
> French
> were having a disagreement. It didn't work; the French sacked the  
> town,
> burned the fortifications to the ground, and sold much of the
> population into slavery.

Terrorism is attacks by trained units (cells) which have no  
traditional target or military/economic purpose, and are primarily  
used to cause fear, and convince leadership that it would be easier  
to give in than to fight it.  They avoid direct engagement with other  
fighting forces.

An assassin or saboteur has a tangible goal, a terrorist doesn't.

I think it is a useful distinction.

> And by the way you were implying that the US didn't resort to sending
> 'danegeld' to pay off the pirates ... they did.

No, I said Jefferson didn't want to.

And for what it is worth, we paid tribute for about 15 years.

England and Europe did it for 400 years.

Wee bit of difference.

> Maybe so. Or perhaps Jefferson demonstrated that the Ottoman empire
> wasn't going to react; at least to a small nation across the atlantic.

Organized piracy only exists in a power vacuum.  The Ottoman military  
fleets were no threat  by then.

Also, in the Second Barbary War, we *DID* effectively stop it.

> But we're getting distracted. Your first email implied that the craven
> Europeans were too terrified to do anything other than pay the pirates
> off and only the US was courageous enough to fight them and not pay
> them off. Not really so was it ?

No, you said it just now, I never did.

I don't really know all of the reasons why Europe and England used  
tribute so much, but they fact remains they did, and it didn't work  
for piracy or anything else.

In the late 1700s America proposed an anti-piracy fleet be created  
with ships donated from France, England, Portugal, and other  
nations.  The idea was that this way no one nation would be  
vulnerable to each other, but a sizable fleet could still be created.  
Only Portugal agreed.

For awhile, US merchant fleets tried to seek out other fleets that  
had paid bribe money and travel with them, but it was clear that we  
needed our own navy, because our trade routes were not all the same.

In 1794, the US Navy was created and one of the primary reasons was  
to kill off the Barbary  pirates.

Six frigates were built, all specifically created to beat any vessel  
afloat, including anything England had.  They had better hulls that  
were faster and stronger, and better and more accurate artillery, and  
we trained our crews to be more tactically flexible.  We also put  
soldiers on most of our ships who were trained for grapple and board,  
giving them high leather collars and strong uniforms to protect them  
from swords and knives.

Those guys became the US Marine Corp and that's why they are still  
called Leathernecks today.

Anyway, the First Barbary War didn't work, as you pointed out.   
However, the second one pacified the pirates and ended the threat to  
US shipping and we stopped paying tribute.

England and Europe then agreed that anti-piracy patrols were possible  
and necessary to keep piracy under control.

They did this only *AFTER* we pacified the pirates

> The trouble with bringing the religion into the terrorist problem is
> that it confuses the issue and alienates the very people whose help we

It is islamic terrorism we are talking about.

It's a little hard to avoid religion coming into the picture.

I think you mean we need to avoid blaming it on religion.

> terrorists is to attack that radicalisation process. And saying things
> like 'islam is a terrorist religion' *helps* the radicalisation  
> process.

...and one of the ways to do that is to bring religion into it.  Have  
the religious leaders they respect get active and recruit them  
instead of the lunatic fringe.

I would agree that calling islam a terrorist religion is not helpful,  
but neither is not dealing with its involvement.

> And this differs from early European behaviour how exactly ? It is

Who cares, I wasn't defending Europe.  I was commenting on you saying  
the islamic empire was tolerant of non-muslims.  They weren't except  
for very narrow definitions of tolerant.

> I'm not sure
> that most islamic governments do like terrorists ... some do, but most
> are suffering more from the terrorists than we do.

Many people suffer from their own creations.

I made a list of islamic governments and it seems to me most of them  
are on the list of terrorist supporters.

I'd agree with you if you said most islamic people don't like or  
support it.

Their governments are often another story, frequently treating their  
people like crap, so support of terrorism doesn't seem out of  
character to me.

That's hardly the only example in history.

Who was the primary target of the Crusades?  The Holy Lands?  No, it  
was innocents in Europe that suffered more than anyone else,  
including some of the very people who made their weapons and their  
supplies.

> Indeed. Personally I think the only real long-term solution is  
> going to
> come from inside the islamic world itself ... any action by outsiders
> is going to be viewed by extremists as an attack on islam and make it
> easier for terrorists to recruit.

Step number one is to become independent of them so we can just  
defend ourselves and otherwise leave them alone.

Our interaction with them should be limited to good business and  
trade, which is far more likely to have a positive effect anyway.

-- 
"Where some they sell their dreams for small desires."