Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 4 Oct 2006 16:06 Keith wrote: > jfields(a)austininstruments.com says... > > > Graham is vehemently anti-American, as can be seen in his posts > > which have nothing to do with US policy. > > Yep! ...right down to the way local school districts run their > school buses. He knows all. It seems Americans are too stupid to even consider the concept of double decker buses if you need to move more ppl than fit in a single deck one ! Graham
From: T Wake on 4 Oct 2006 16:07 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45230188.EADF3DB5(a)hotmail.com... > > > T Wake wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote >> > T Wake wrote: >> >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote >> >> > T Wake wrote: >> >> >> >> Look at the [expletive deleted] from Leeds who blew up the >> >> >> underground. For them to function there has to be places where >> >> >> they can exist and move about. >> >> > >> >> > Their homes it would seem and the streets in the places where they >> >> > live. >> >> >> >> Yes. Because the local people support their fight. >> > >> > Actually it seems that local ppl have been genuinely surprised. >> >> I suspect most of them are. There have to be enough sympathisers for it >> to >> have happened though. > > It only needs very few. Still a non-zero number. People have to have not noticed the contact they had with the extremist who "corrupted" their belief. People have to have not noticed as they headed down the road towards the act. Some people will be innocently keeping themselves to themselves. Some will have encouraged it. The problem is, the cowards who encourage it, live to repeat the action another day. >> >> How can this be the case in a developed country with a democratically >> >> elected >> >> government and low unemployment? >> > >> > Because it has nothing to do with any of the above. >> >> Yet young, educated men decided to kill their country men. >> >> The problem is they had become disassociated with their own country >> enough >> for this to happen. If they had come from an integrated part of society >> it >> would have been less likely to happen and they would have been less able >> to >> function. > > I can elaborate on this for sure. > > 'Traditional' Islamic families have almost nothing in common with the > norms of > British society. It's inevitable that some of their kids will find it > perplexing > and revolt ( one way or the other ). > > Integration is anathema to these ppl. How do you fix that ? Sadly, the only solution is to ask them to leave. I am a huge fan of the freedoms and rights I have as a British citizen. If some one chooses to come to live in this country, then they should live by the rules and customs. They have actively chosen to come here. If I went to Iran (for example) and tried to open a pub selling Australian lager would I get away with it? Note: This does not just apply to Islam. All ghettoisation is wrong and causes nothing but trouble. Integration is the only long term option.
From: Kurt Ullman on 4 Oct 2006 16:09 In article <GbCdndSLQptNj7nYRVnygw(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > > > I am often amused by the number of people here in the UK who sing the > praises of [Insert Country], yet would never consider going and living there > for the rest of their lives. Why? Different set of thoughts behind liking some place and actually wanting to live there. I like England, but have no particular desire to uproot family and stay there. Heck I like Chicago, but same principle and a LOT closer.
From: T Wake on 4 Oct 2006 16:09 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4522FD02.34809B70(a)hotmail.com... > > > T Wake wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> > Actually no. They fight against those claiming to have legal >> > jurisdiction >> > in the area. Also there is no requirement that it use terror methods >> > either. >> >> This is pedantry. > > Not to me. It's a subtle but precise distinction. > > in?sur?gent? [in-sur-juhnt] - noun > 1. a person who rises in forcible opposition to lawful authority, esp. a > person > who engages in armed resistance to a government or to the execution of its > laws; > rebel. > > ter?ror?ism? [ter-uh-riz-uhm] -noun > 1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for > political > purposes. > 2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or > terrorization. > 3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government. > The two terms are not mutually exclusive. Terrorists fight against a legal government. Insurgents use violence to intimidate / coerce (eg overthrow the government). Not at all precise.
From: Eeyore on 4 Oct 2006 16:11
John Fields wrote: > On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 22:29:53 +0100, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >Fine. So I'm never going to have the problem [forced conversion]. 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. There is no possibilty of me ever being asked to convert under threat of force simply because there will never be enough Muslims here to be in a position to force me to do anything ( even assuming they wanted to ) . In any case they'd have to overthrow EU and UK law first. The very concept is insanely stupid. Graham |