Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: George O. Bizzigotti on 4 Oct 2006 13:52 On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 16:18:03 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >"Keith" <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote in message >news:MPG.1f8d949b973606e3989d61(a)News.Individual.NET... >> >>> > Oh, you mean like the Reagen and Clinton administrations did with Osama >>> > bin Laden when he was fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan? >>> >>> Sadly, yes. >> >> Another idiot heard from. > >You don't believe that former administrations provided substantial support >to two people/organizations who have subsequently turned against the US? >You need to read more, it's well-known. It may also qualify as a folk myth; see: http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Jan/24-318760.html The US provided substantial support to Afghan Mujahideen fighting the Soviets, but did not support bin Laden's group (the "Afghan Arabs."). Regards, George ********************************************************************** Dr. George O. Bizzigotti Telephone: (703) 610-2115 Mitretek Systems, Inc. Fax: (703) 610-1558 3150 Fairview Park Drive South E-Mail: gbizzigo(a)mitretek.org Falls Church, Virginia, 22042-4519 ********************************************************************** -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
From: Eeyore on 4 Oct 2006 13:55 Keith wrote: > To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)My-Web-Site.com says... > > On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:39:04 -0700, John Larkin wrote: > > >On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:13:11 -0700, John Larkin wrote: > > >>On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:25:32 +0100, Eeyore wrote: > > >> > > >>>Bunch of damn cowboys. > > >> > > >>Yaaa-hoo! > > >> > > >>John > > > > > >Which reminds me that it's time to mosey on home and watch the next > > >episode of "Deadwood" > > > > > >John > > > > I'll get out my copy of "Tombstone" ;-) > > Meanwhile, the stuffed donkey will watch the documentary about the > wild west, "Blazing Saddles". I've never watched it. It's far too tedious. Graham
From: Eeyore on 4 Oct 2006 13:58 Keith wrote: > In article <efvurj$8ss_006(a)s811.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com says... > > > You can't have it both ways. > > Eeyore (a.k.a. the stuffed donkey) can. He's a two-faced Europeon. LMAO ! The USA is the most two-faced nation on the planet. You regularly back one side then declare war on them. You might care to consider what that might do for your credibility. Graham
From: John Fields on 4 Oct 2006 13:55 On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 22:29:53 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Fields wrote: > >> On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 15:27:54 +0100, Eeyore wrote: >> >mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >> >> John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> writes: >> >> > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >> >>"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote >> >> >>> --- >> >> >>> 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. >> >> >> >> No, not quite. True about the part of world domination, not about the >> >> other one. Islam recognizes two categories of non-believers. One is >> >> "polytheists" for whom, indeed, the accepted options are conversion or >> >> death. The other is "Um al_Kitab", meaning "Nations of the Book", >> >> which includes Christians and Jews. These may be allowed to live >> >> without converting but only as "dhimmi" (you may check on this term). >> >> Meaning, second class subjects, possessing the (limited) rights >> >> granted them by their Muslim rulers, with the stipulation that said >> >> rights may be withdrawn at the whim of the rulers. >> > >> >Until such time as Muslims exist in sufficient numbers the point is utterly moot. >> >> No, it's not. > >Yes it is. --- Just because you're intent in dodging the subject doesn't mean the point is moot. --- >> What we're discussing > >We ? Which we is this ? --- Do your own legwork. It's all in the headers. Do you know how to navigate? --- >> is Islamic law and its ramifications, not the >> number of Muslims required to overrun a non-Muslim society to the >> point where you're given the choice to either convert or die. > >Fine. So I'm never going to have the problem. Hence it's moot. --- Your _assumption_ that you'll never have the problem because you'll have your head buried in the sand to avert it doesn't mean that the problem won't visit you. On the contrary, your refusal to recognize it as a possibility makes you much more vulnerable than you'd otherwise be. It might surprise you to hear this, but complacency is _not_ a virtue. -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: Eeyore on 4 Oct 2006 14:02
Keith wrote: > rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > >"T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message > > > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > >>> T Wake wrote: > > > >>>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > This mess is about changing a mindset; either Western civilization's > > > >>>> > mindset is changed or religious extremists' mindset is changed. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> I agree completely. > > > >>> > > > >>> How about removing the either and replacing the or with and ? > > > >> > > > >> Also an option. Any one of those three will work. > > > > > > > >I think the mutual concession option > > > > > > This option does not exist. > > > > You can't accept that Islam isn't a threat to your lifestyle ? > > Islam, yes. Radical Islam, no. ...and you're stupid to think so > (but what's new?). And you think you can defeat 'radical Islam' with bombs and bullets ? Graham |