Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 3 Oct 2006 17:58 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4522C8F3.6E151E60(a)hotmail.com... > > > T Wake wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote >> > T Wake wrote: >> > >> >> This implies that Jews, Christians, Hindus etc are all subject to the >> >> beheading. >> > >> > According to whom ? >> >> The original quote which was being discussed. > > And has that 'quote' any validity ? Not in my eyes. Which is why I pointed out its logical contradiction. Why?
From: Eeyore on 3 Oct 2006 17:59 Homer J Simpson wrote: > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote > > > Not sure anyone has. Off the top of my head I cant think of any long term > > success against terrorists. > > British in Malaysia? British in Kenya. Graham
From: T Wake on 3 Oct 2006 17:59 "Gordon" <gordonlr(a)DELETEswbell.net> wrote in message news:bpf5i25n82iiils7ohd27fm7209j5719mc(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 15:21:12 +0100, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >>John Fields wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 19:59:42 +0100, "T Wake" wrote: >>> >"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message >>> >> >>> >> So what? With world domonation as its goal, one would expect it >>> >> would strike world-wide, as the opportunity arose. >>> > >>> > >>> >Whose goal? "It" isn't really appropriate to define the long term aims >>> >of a >>> >disparate group of organisations. Are "they" trying to dominate the >>> >world or >>> >destroy western society or convert every one or... >>> --- >>> "It" being radical Islam, the goal, in my opinion, would be to >>> convert everyone to Islam and have them be subject to control by >>> Muslim jurists, the goal being total world domination by Islam. >>> >>> Refusal to convert would result in death. >> >>There is no entity called 'radical Islam'. >> >>Who exactly do you mean ? >> >>Graham >> > If the Muslims behind the atrocities in the following list were > not radical, does this imply that all Muslims are of this same > mind set? Do all Muslims regard the persons who did these things > as honorable, non-radical Muslims whom all should love and > respect? > Thanks for the list (again). Which Muslims were behind all these attacks? You are apparently trying to define an identifiable group here.
From: T Wake on 3 Oct 2006 18:01 "Gordon" <gordonlr(a)DELETEswbell.net> wrote in message news:96g5i21h2i9i3mu2r8hmk7vgn04q2b5iii(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 18:06:56 +0100, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >> >>"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message >>news:v673i2dusng3t5a82qt9hm7n8ve5p4t7ua(a)4ax.com... >>> On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 19:59:42 +0100, "T Wake" >>> <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message >>>>news:3kh2i2p1qoa888afm2l1ksq3j2qcvcfvrl(a)4ax.com... >>>>> --- >>>>> So what? With world domonation as its goal, one would expect it >>>>> would strike world-wide, as the opportunity arose. >>>> >>>> >>>>Whose goal? "It" isn't really appropriate to define the long term aims >>>>of >>>>a >>>>disparate group of organisations. Are "they" trying to dominate the >>>>world >>>>or >>>>destroy western society or convert every one or... >>> >>> --- >>> "It" being radical Islam, >> >>Radical Islam can't be described as having a "single unified goal." Some >>radical Islamic groups which operate as Terrorist organisations in Asia >>have >>no interest in Global conversion. >> >>> the goal, in my opinion, would be to >>> convert everyone to Islam and have them be subject to control by >>> Muslim jurists, the goal being total world domination by Islam. >>> >>> Refusal to convert would result in death. >> >>Ok. This is just your opinion though. An equally valid opinion would be to >>say the US has global world domination as it's goal. It is after all only >>an >>opinion. >> > If the U.S. had "world domination" as a goal we would surely have > kept control of those countries we liberated during previous > wars. Only if world domination had been a long term goal. Also, the US does keep an economic connection with its "liberated" countries (assuming you mean Japan) or it has left them in heavy debt to the US (if you mean most of Europe). However, as I said, it was an equally valid opinion not necessarily fact.
From: John Fields on 3 Oct 2006 18:00
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:05:58 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Fields wrote: > >> On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 23:55:44 +0100, Eeyore wrote: >> >John Fields wrote: >> >> >> You're not, you're just a coward who's afraid to go out and do >> >> the bombing you'd really like to. >> > >> >Don't be so absurd. It sems you can only relate to violent ideas. >> >> --- >> Not at all true, but when I read your violent rhetoric I like to >> translate it into visuals which depict what you'd like to do if you >> weren't afraid of the reprisals. > >Show where I have espoused violence. --- I recall you said that you have nukes which you'd use to repel invading Muslims. That's pretty violent in my book. But read it again, genius. It says: "when I read your violent rhetoric". Do you deny that your rhetoric is violent? --- >The only violently inclined ppl in this thread >are yourself, Thompson and Terrell. Violent even to the point of making personal >threats. --- Show where I made a personal threat. -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer |