Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 9 Nov 2006 07:20 In article <59ca1$45509fb1$4fe7725$6784(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: <snip> > > Schooling of their kids has to be converted from >> learning how to kill and then die to learning how to thrive >> under a society based on law. > >In an interview I saw last night about another documentary >concerning PLO suicide bombers, out of 45 of them, only >one stopped himself. It happened because he saw a mother >breastfeeding, and decided it just wasn't right. > >1 out of 45! That's an improvement. I also heard a story of a girl who refused to be a bomb because they wanted her to dress up like a tart. That is two. All it takes is for somebody to say no once and other people start to stop and think. The news prefers to report about all the stories where people didn't say no. Once in a great while, the improvements do get reported. We just don't hear about them. > >>>A War on Islam would be a world war so OAPEC oil embargoes would be the >>>least of anyone's problems. > >> Right. To prevent this from becoming a religious war, the moderates >> of tha religion have to squelch the zealots. > At the moment, to >> do so is suicide. > >Which means they have to become as violent against their >own people as the militants are. The likelihood of that >coming to fruition is zilch, there is no advantage to it >and plenty of personal risk. It doesn't necessarily mean that these moderates have to fight. The goal is to give these moderates enough time so the mindset of the culture can evolve. > >> These moderates need military backing so >> they can get on with establishing a society based on law rather >> than the meanest and ruthless running all aspects of their society. > >In fact, they cannot do it for themselves. It requires an >outside force to do it for them, but they should be paying >for the services rendered. They will if allowed to change their social structures into productive and thriving communities. > >>>>Why do you think Al >>>>Queda is trying to make this a war against Islam? > >>>Well it is being aided in its task by the west. Islam is not a united >>>religion. > >> You are mistaken. It is a united religion; that is the problem. > >They don't actually have a "Pope" but their leaders are >on the same general wavelength, not only hearing one another >but for their own reasons they aid one another. The aid to one another only seems to happen when there is an outside enemy. Once that enemy is gone, they fight among each other. That has been the history since their first war. The mindset change is all about using courts of law to duke it out rather than human and nuclear bombs. > >> Zealots are taking over. The carrot for all is the dream that >> all of Islam can be politically united. It never will and >> I wish people who are currently parroting our Democrat leadership >> would realize this. > >All of Islam can be politically united. The more dangerous >dream is the conversion of the entire world to their >religion and ideology. Preventing that is going to be the >most difficult chore of all. > >Look at how openly they're pushing for Islamic law and >government in England, including "We won't rest till we >have it". Separation of church and state is one of the things that Islam has to sort out. It's a problem their religion hasn't worked on for centuries. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 9 Nov 2006 07:28 In article <45531D87.D2766E37(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >> >Islamic societies are based on law. It is a law which uses the Koran as its >> >guide rather than the Bible but it is still law. >> >> And that law is currently being interpreted so that all people >> who are not Muslim must be killed. > >No it's not. That is a complete fallacy. You haven't been listening to the extremists, then. I did not say that *all* of Islam has this interpretation. It doesn't, yet. But it's only a matter of years before extremists of all kinds will have weapons that can interrupt and destroy the world's trade. Do you want to prevent this mess from happening or wait until it's in your lap. If you choose the latter, not only will you have the work to clean up the mess, you will also have additional work of trying to prevent it from happening again-- which will be impossible. /BAH /BAH
From: xray on 9 Nov 2006 07:48 On Thu, 09 Nov 06 12:31:21 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >I don't how strategy work gets done, but Bush does have a coherent >policy. That's a joke right?
From: jmfbahciv on 9 Nov 2006 07:46 In article <54d5d$4550a066$4fe7725$6784(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> In article <cXH3h.6200$B31.5579(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, >> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >>>You might be more convincing in this statement if you were to stop blindly >>>spouting the Republicans' fear-mongering talking points. > >> If the Republicans mention a fact, you automatically believe it's >> a lie. When non-Republicans mention the same fact, you >> automatically catagorize them as blind and aping Rep. statements >> of fact. > >> This thinking is illogical. > >See, I think 34 words to tell him he's an idiot is >a waste of ascii and boring. But I'm not calling him an idiot. I'm trying to figure out how this thinking works. It's a waste of my time to do any namecalling. I've got better things to do and tons of things to learn. Getting into a pissing contest never fixed bugs and usually made the side effects worse. My complaint about your postings is that I cannot separate the the namecalling ones from the useful ones. If you changed the subject header to include "ditto" I could mark those as read without having to spend time waiting for the text to download. Please note that the newserver I use has fixed what wasn't broke; my current hypothesis is that the code has been unionized and the last strike agreement caused the code to take a coffee break every 1000 packets. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 9 Nov 2006 08:04
In article <rA14h.8307$B31.443(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:eipv7t$8qk_003(a)s900.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <cXH3h.6200$B31.5579(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, >> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>> >>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>news:ein8p9$8qk_001(a)s943.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>> In article <zNSdnSXXb4_BIdHYnZ2dnUVZ8sydnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >>>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> <snip> >> >>>> If this conflict becomes a war against Islam, all factions will >>>> cooperate with each other temporarily. Why do you think Al >>>> Queda is trying to make this a war against Islam? >>> >>>And exactly why have we decided to act in such a way as to make those >>>claims >>>credible to many Middle Eastern Muslims? >> >> We removed the Arab leader who attacked other Arabs and intended to >> do it again. The middle eastern Muslims would have the opposite opinion. > >Sorry, that just simply isn't the case. Just because you choose to ignore >survey after survey that show that Iraqis want us the hell out, and that >many of them view it as aggression against Islam, doesn't mean that they're >not true. It is good that Iraqis want us out. That implies that they intend to deal with their own problems rather than depend on some foreign entity (as Europe does) to carry the stick. > > >>>>>Unsettled is talking nonsense and creating more strawmen than usual >>>>>here. >>>>>Siding with him on this does your argument no good. >>>> >>>> Will you get it through your head that I am not siding with anybody >>>> except myself? >>> >>>You might be more convincing in this statement if you were to stop blindly >>>spouting the Republicans' fear-mongering talking points. >> >> If the Republicans mention a fact, you automatically believe it's >> a lie. > >No, I don't. It may seem that way, because the Republicans have lied to us >so many times to justify the war, And what about all the lies from the Democrats who say there a problem doesn't exist? >and to justify their stances on scores of >other issues, including fiscal responsibility, civil rights, Constitutional >rights, etc., etc. I'm exactly the opposite of what you assume about me. I >assume what people (*everybody*, even you) say is the truth, unless I know >facts (you know, data, that thing that you go out of your way to ignore) >that prove them to be lying. Now, think about exactly *why* people might be >excused for thinking that all the Republicans are doing is lying-- I have been thinking. I've also traced quite a lot of the sound bites back to the Democrat leadership and/or Presidential campaign field tests of reactions to sound bites. >they're >losing their grip on power, and trotting out fear is the only tool that has >consistently worked to keep them in power....fear of Muslims, fear of people >who think differently than they do, fear of people who live and love >differently than they do, fear of people who look different than they do, >and on and on. If everything the Republicans said was to make me fearful, why am I not afraid? You should try tracing where the namecalling using fear started from. > > >> When non-Republicans mention the same fact, you >> automatically catagorize them as blind and aping Rep. statements >> of fact. > >No, I don't. But when you repeatedly parrot the Republican talking points, Have you considered that these points may be correct? The fact that I say similar things may have something to do with reality rather than political manipulations to get elected? >over and over and over again, in the *exact* same words that they use, one >has to wonder how much you are thinking on your own...or if you're even >capable of telling the difference between thinking and parroting. I may be using the same words because I've come to the same conclusions based on what's really happening and past history. /BAH |