Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Richard Holbrooke, the special US envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, have told Karzai they objected to the recent reinstatement of Dostam as military chief of staff, the Times said, citing a senior State Department official.

"We believe that anyone suspected of war crimes should be thoroughly investigated," the official added, hinting the Obama administration is open to an inquiry.

And just what do you think Karazai will throw right back in our face?

Well thank you very much for your warm support:

Telling the truth is so simple. It's all there in front of you and you don't need to lie, which is hard work. So that's why LL 'gets away with it'.

So to just briefly recap. LondonLad is an extremely simple individual totally incapable of putting in the hard work necessary to lie.

That's indeed about the sum of it but perhaps you don't need to go so heavy on the simple next time round, if you don't mind.

Simple. He's telling the truth. People like Ondelette and Jim Montague are trying to muddy the waters and obscure it. Telling the truth is so simple. It's all there in front of you and you don't need to lie, which is hard work. So that's why LL 'gets away with it'. The truth is usually scary and some people, as we know, just can't handle the truth. They would rather tell a million lies than face it. The Obama administration, for example, is afraid to prosecute criminals like Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld for torture or indeed for anything. They know where any investigation of the neo cons and their activities will lead and they don't want to be responsible for exposing the fantastic lie that is YKW. Ripples in a pond- who knows where they'll spread to? So they would rather throw some CIA underling in the slammer, but they're kidding themselves.If they take the lid off it at all and start investigating anything it will 'pancake' all around them and the dirt will fly. And it's going to stick to some very interesting people. Play with those figures all you like Jim M. You'll never be able to make them add up to 96 seconds. Newton gives you the finger and his law of gravity gives you the truth whether you like it or not.

but I'd venture the theorems I was referring to were already proven and in the literature. You didn't know them.

No you see I had been given to understand that a theorem was already a proven thing before it became a theorem. Ondellete again:

A theorem is something that's been proven true. Which means it was always true

But then:

but we now know it was always true, because we've discovered the proof

you see contrary to what he had said before, that last would give me the idea that the proof now follows after the theorem has been composed.

But what the fuck would I know? I only work with words and can only understand them if they make sense. If they don't, I'm lost.

@LondonLad

I can answer question 3 without identifying anyone. The answer is 1.

You didn't use the singular in your original post. Nor did you in any subsequent posts on the matter. Would you like me to go and dragged them out for all to see?

Now why am I still waiting for the answers to the other two questions?

I'm also waiting for you to retract the statement byou made about me ever asking for names which I of course did not.

So, I still want two more answers and one retraction.

They are used a lot in science nowadays. Turbulence calculations in aerodynamics, and precise measuring of shorelines are just two uses. And I got this from a PBS program on TV about two years ago. Criminently!

I'm with you Retzillian, I want to talk about retiring my arch nemesis, Dickless Cheney. I hope they can pin something on his bratty little snot nosed daughter too.

Just who pissed in everybody's Wheaties® this morning, anyway? (@sig)

I can answer question 3 without identifying anyone. The answer is 1.

Ondelette wrote, "Ask the patent office. They will tell you it's something you discover."

So, you think the US patent office decides philosophical issues in mathematics? Well, that is the biggest hoot you ever wrote here at UT by far. Do you really mean to say that? Jesus on a stick that is uninformed.

As to the rest of your whining about this and that; go for it. But this: "The reason I said there was no invasion of Afghanistan is because that's what the facts say. Invasions require troops, those troops invade. It didn't happen" is a fraud. I quoted you from credible sources otherwise; you are, in fact, wrong.

Live with it.

As first-person a posteriori knowledge of principals involved with the crimes cited is in perfect "sync" with the American Creed and the prophetic, utopian, whig writings of America's Prophet, Founder and Author, Thomas Jefferson; and full recognition of the political economic historio-religious threat the American Revolution yet poses - having "ignited a volcano under the thrones of Europe" - the "trivia" of mathematical modeling and corroboration can be left to posterity.

Traitors to the Constitution and People must first be tried and fried.

Annuit Coeptis

If it's any comfort to you, I picked up early on that your spelling was probably due to being a foreign national. I didn't think it worth mentioning, but you really should start using the correct expression 'dynamical systems', not 'dynamic systems'.

I was not being imprecise. The subject matter is taught as plane geometry. I am more than aware that there are other kinds, I do most of what I do with geometry in one or the other of those other kinds.

As for your experience with fractals and Mandelbrot, it's shallow. Just accept that and move on. There is a lot more that can be done with them, you didn't do it, that isn't a crime, but it makes you less than expert on what their application range is. I don't know what you mean by early on, but I'd venture the theorems I was referring to were already proven and in the literature. You didn't know them.

As for my references to Afghanistan and complex systems, it is what I said it was: The world has too many people in it for cultures and societies to not interact, and interaction of nonlinear systems becomes more chaotic and complex as the degree of coupling increases. If you have studied the subject, and not just played around making fractal graphics, you know that is the case, and you know that there are theorems that back that up, and that is what I was saying. If you don't know the subject sufficiently well to know that, then you don't really know the subject, those are very basic theorems, many proven in the 1960's and 70's. So don't pass judgment on it.

No, being successful and making money on mathematics doesn't preclude your being able to speak about it. But you offered it as a measure of the worth of your mathematics, which it surely is not, and my statement was that it is a businessman, not a mathematician, who would evaluate a piece of mathematics on those terms.

I work very hard to understand Afghanistan, you obviously think it is quite simple to understand. I disagree. So be it.

But stop trying to prove that mathematics is irrelevant to understanding social interaction because it isn't. You just don't know which mathematics can apply.