Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 4 Oct 2006 15:39 lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote > > On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 03:05:09 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> Gave us: > > > >>I don't see you speaking out against racism in the US. Does that mean you > >>approve of it, or do you apply different standards to others than you > >>apply to yourself? > > > > You're an idiot. My family was directly involved with the > > "underground railroad". If you have any brains at all, you'll know > > that *that* made for more freedom in this country than just about > > anything else you could name since. > > Immature insults aside, yes, I do know how much good the Underground > Railroad did. Good for them, but I didn't ask about your ancesotrs, I asked > about *you*? I am a direct descendant of Daniel Boone, but you don't see me > crowing that I fought native Americans and conquered the US frontier. > > > I DO speak out more than a twit like you could ever know. > > Immature name-calling aside, don't you think MAYBE, just maybe, the leaders > of moderate Muslim groups might be speaking out against terrorism, more than > *you* could ever know? Check this out. " Therefore SMC, with all its members and directors, condemns all forms of terrorism and the oppression of human rights around the world, whether committed by Muslims, Christians, Jews or members of other faiths " http://www.sufimuslimcouncil.org/aboutus.html Graham
From: Keith on 4 Oct 2006 15:39 In article <IjTUg.51405$E67.42536(a)clgrps13>, nobody(a)nowhere.com says... > > "Ken Smith" <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote in message > news:eg0hcc$h85$2(a)blue.rahul.net... > > >>Clinton was successful. > >> > >>Bush is a failure. > > > > Unless you assume some really bad things about his motives that is. > > 9/11 was Bush's failure. You are your mother's failure. -- Keith
From: Eeyore on 4 Oct 2006 15:43 John Fields wrote: > "Homer J Simpson" <nobody(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > >"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote > > > >> They did break US law. There's lots of legal precedence here. If a > >> Canadian kills a US citizen in Canada, that's a violation of US law. > > > >Don't care. It's a violation of Canadian law and must be punished under that > >law. > > --- > I agree. The crime should be prosecuted in the jurisdiction in > which it's committed. So are you going to press for a change in US law ? Graham
From: T Wake on 4 Oct 2006 15:45 "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:9ag7i21j1pom75krl0ip9d40ta9tnoc9j8(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... > >>> --- >>> "It" being radical Islam, >> >>Radical Islam can't be described as having a "single unified goal." > > --- > I disagree. I think the single, unified goal would be the > acquisition of unlimited power. Really? "Radical Islam" covers a variety of branches of Islam - which are often at war with each other - yet you also think they have a unified goal. Interesting take. Which group would get the unlimited power and why would the others (Shi'a vs Sunni for example) allow them to have it? How can a groups of organisations which have no single unified command or structure have a single unified goal? >>Some radical Islamic groups which operate as Terrorist organisations in >>Asia have >>no interest in Global conversion. > > --- > But they still want power. Which nation, religious group, company (etc) doesnt? > --- > >>> 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. > > --- > Well, no. The fate of infidels who fail to convert to Islam (not > just radical Islam either) is spelled out in the Koran and is > relegation to social insignificance, at best, for 'People of the > Book', and death for the rest of humanity. Yet, as mentioned elsewhere, it is not as clear cut as this. Islamic nations tolerate Hindus for example. Christianity does not tolerate unbelievers either. Papal bulls in the tenth century declared all non-Christians as subject to death on the whims of their Christian lords. Just as with Christianity, there are differences in how people interpret their "rulebook." > >>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. > > --- > I think the US's actions speak otherwise in that, clearly, we have > no aspirations to Empire. Had we chosen to we could have kept > Germany and Japan after we beat them, but we didn't. I think otherwise. The US has no aspirations to an empire in the form of the Nineteenth century European ones, I agree. However the US wants to have as many nations as possible under its sphere of influence. That is an Empire.
From: Eeyore on 4 Oct 2006 15:47
John Fields wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote: > >> T Wake wrote: > >> > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote > >> >> T Wake wrote: > >> >> > >> >>> The same reason unthinking Muslims support groups considered terrorist by > >> >>> the west. > >> >> > >> >> Is Hezbollah a terrorist organisation ? > >> > > >> > If you are asking my opinion..... then yes. A nasty, ruthless one. However > >> > sometimes terrorists seem to come in from the cold. > >> > >> That's the point at which they've won. > > > >Looks like they won in that case. > > --- > A skirmish, perhaps, but not the war. Israel can only 'win' by erasing Lebanon. Is that what you want ? Graham |