Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 27 Jan 2007 16:35 unsettled wrote: > Since you say that the people at Gitmo aren't soldiers, they're > not subject to the convention and, as the Russians used to tell > the world, how we treat criminals is an internal matter. I think the Russians were talking about criminals in their own country. What allows the USA to determine what is criminal action in other ppls' countries. Graham
From: Ken Smith on 27 Jan 2007 16:36 In article <3e609$45b93b5f$49ecf8f$883(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: Begin loop: If you give up everything you claim to defend you have lost. Repeat until you understand. >>>Your threshold of what constitutes torture and mine differ vastly. > >> I guess they must. Some of the terrorists think that sawing someones head >> off while they are alive is just fine. I guess you would find friends >> among them. > >Snide enough for usenet but absurd, of course. You are the one suggesting that torture is ok. > -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Eeyore on 27 Jan 2007 16:37 Ken Smith wrote: > T Wake <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > > >I don't recall anyone saying fundamentalist Muslims were not insane. > > I did question what we mean by "insane". Both T Wake and I consider it crazy to believe in a 'God' or divine/ultimate being. Does that make all Christians, Muslims, Hindus etc insane ? Graham
From: unsettled on 27 Jan 2007 16:40 Ken Smith wrote: > In article <CPudnQHjc4nEPybYnZ2dnUVZ8qijnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, > T Wake <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > [....] > >>I don't recall anyone saying fundamentalist Muslims were not insane. > > > I did question what we mean by "insane". Some people seem to think that > there is no logic in insane people. There often is logic but some false > assumption going into it make the person insane. Someone who thinks the > family cat is a bird, will try to return the "bird" to its cage. Given > what they believe, their actions can be understood. Being understandable does not imply they're appropriate.
From: Eeyore on 27 Jan 2007 16:48
unsettled wrote: > Eeyore wrote: > > unsettled wrote: > >>T Wake wrote: > >>>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > >>>>T Wake wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>I don't recall anyone saying fundamentalist Muslims were not insane. > >>>> > >>>>No more so though than any religious zealot. > >>> > >>>Very true. > >> > >>Your bias rears up again. > >> > >>That depends on whether destruction and killing are part of > >>the zealot's "thing" or not. It is very much the "thing" > >>for Islamic fundamentalists, but I have yet to discover > >>any other religion with zealots advocating those things. > >> > >>Even if there is another one, its hardly a universal case. > > > > > > You're quite mad. History's full of such examples. > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_inquisition > > You really are very very stupid. > > The Spanish Inquisition was a political tool used to try > to eliminate converted Jews and Moors from Spain and to > seize their assets. > > Read the section headed "Motives for instituting....." > which tells about additional political advantages to the > institution. Are you truly that unaware of the wars between Protestants and Catholics throughout Europe ? How about witch-hunts ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Hopkins Was Hopkins a zealot or simply a very evil man ? Graham |