Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 13 Jan 2007 13:24 "MassiveProng" <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message news:fu4iq214gej7b621sdr4s3j88grvp4cpgd(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 12:29:44 -0000, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> Gave us: > >>Somalis who think the ICU are a good thing. >>Just because you and I think of them as "terrorists" does not mean the >>term >>has an abstract, definite, value. > > So how do you classify such things as embassy bombings? Me personally or the Somalis who support the ICU? Your snippage has removed the majority of the context but, I can answer for myself and they are terrorists. Read the original message to get more of an idea of what the other side may think. By the way, "MassiveProng" is probably more appropriate than "JoeBloe."
From: T Wake on 13 Jan 2007 13:26 "MassiveProng" <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message news:k05iq29ne88mdf9utn1tv76qt3umbtfue8(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 12:29:44 -0000, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> Gave us: > >> >>"MassiveProng" <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in >>message news:qqgeq25oqqb4hjhepj0ncbu9g3q7a82gmg(a)4ax.com... >>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 08:01:32 +0000, Eeyore >>> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: >>> >>>>MassiveProng wrote: >>>> >>>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: >>>>> >>>>> >> There is. It's called the Worldwide Struggle Against Terrorism, >>>>> > >>>>> >It isn't worldwide. It's certainly no longer called a 'war on terror' >>>>> >in the UK >>>>> >for one thing. >>>>> >>>>> Tell that to the Somalians. Those in power there now are certainly >>>>> on the "war against terror" bandwagon, and obviously countless other >>>>> countries you are unaware of. You are unaware of so much... >>>> >>>>Have you forgotten already that there are always at least 2 sides in >>>>every >>>>dispute ? >>>>One man's 'terrorist' is another's 'freedom fighter'. >>> >>> Are you trying to say that the invading Islamic factions that over >>> ran Somalia >> >>Where did they invade from? >> >>> deserved to be there as they were "fighting" for "their >>> freedom"???? >> >>No, learn to read his post before jumping in. Eeyore said one mans >>terrorist >>is another's freedom fighter. There are lots of Somalis who look to the >>Islamic Courts Union as saviours from the "government" of thugs and war >>lords who cruelly oppressed them. The ICU (like most terrorists trying to >>legitimise themselves) played up to this and built schools, bridges etc., >>which the government forces tried to take over. >> >>There are lots of "ordinary" Somalis who think the ICU are a good thing. >>Just because you and I think of them as "terrorists" does not mean the >>term >>has an abstract, definite, value. >> >>> They were not fighting. They were raping and pillagin', son. >> >>The ICU were doing lots of things. >> >>> Do you know what the word "pirate" means? They were not considered >>> military combatants either. They were immediate targets for death, >>> and considered rogue criminal, despite any hardware they were sailing >>> in/with... military or otherwise. >> >>Is it still the seventeenth century? The Geneva Convention on the High >>Seas >>describes piracy in articles 14 - 22 of the 1958 convention and in >>summary, >>pirates are to be detained for international trial and their goods may be >>seized by what ever signatory power seizes their ships. >> >>More importantly, what has piracy got to do with anything? >> > > Ships... cars... trucks... doesn't seem to be much difference > between a sea of water and a sea of dessert to me. Yet there is. Despite that, the ICU are not pirates. They are far more popular among the people in Somalia than the Ethiopian puppet government the US is supporting. The ICU may well be described as terrorists by westerners, but to the local people they are indeed freedom fighters trying to overthrow an oppressive government.
From: T Wake on 13 Jan 2007 13:27 "Ken Smith" <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote in message news:eob3vh$4d2$4(a)blue.rahul.net... > In article <uKudnf7uj82CfTXYnZ2dnUVZ8qKvnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, > T Wake <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:eoal14$8ss_002(a)s914.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <eo87us$nji$3(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>>In article <eo85rh$8qk_007(a)s788.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>>[...] >>>>>Sheesh. The invention of ink didn't change the words used. >>>> >>>>Actually it did. The printing press did it even more so. How words >>>>were >>>>spelled, the ones used and to some degree how they were pronounced were >>>>all changed by the fact that the written word can be transported over >>>>long >>>>distances. >>> >>> I said "the words used". >> >>Which, I would have though, was covered with the "spelled" phrase? > > No, because I also put in "the ones used". Having the "spelled" phrase > also mean that would have me repeat my self and if the phase containing > the word "spelled" covered that case, the statement becomes a tautology. Yes, sorry, I was lax with my typing and had meant to refer to the line starting with spelled.
From: T Wake on 13 Jan 2007 13:28 "MassiveProng" <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message news:g45iq2ti3grsuatbjg4q09bo3f1jsgjrug(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 12:31:52 -0000, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> Gave us: > >> The >>hard ware the enemy has is not relevant no matter how you try to include >>it. > You giving them any credence whatsoever can cost lives. I don't give them any credence. Learn to read my posts Joe.
From: T Wake on 13 Jan 2007 13:31
"MassiveProng" <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message news:ad6iq21ngvtier0pg66vh93gukdnf6b76h(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 13:33:57 -0000, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> Gave us: > >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:eo80er$8qk_001(a)s788.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <45A74B55.B204D4DE(a)hotmail.com>, >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>MassiveProng wrote: >>>> >>>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: >>>>> > >>>>> >You mean Iran ? Simply not proven. >>>>> >>>>> You see... there you go... and you had almost made it completely >>>>> out of the retard barrel. >>>>> >>>>> I guess it's in your genes. You'll wash up on shore... Whale on the >>>>> beach. >>>> >>>>You have some *PROOF* ? I do mean proof not conjecture. With regard to >>>>conjecture I'd agree it's very likely they don't have an interest but >>>>they're >>>>*way* off being able to do anything. >>> >>> So you are willing to wait until Iran bombs somebody before >>> you will believe that 1. they have the bombs and 2. they >>> will use them. I suggest you write them a letter and volunteer >>> to be their first target. I personally prefer mess prevention >>> rather than cleaning it up. >> >>The terrorists have beaten you. >> > That's one boy's opinion. Yes. That is all there is on USENET. Your boyish opinions may be different but they are still just your opinions. |