Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 27 Jan 2007 18:19 unsettled wrote: > T Wake wrote: > > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > >>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 ? > > > > If you ask me. Yes. > > Since that is the default human condition, the definition > might ought to be reversed if we accept that "insane" > equates in some way to "abnormal" or "aberrant." What do you consider the default human condition to be ? Religious ? > This is precisely why I wanted a differentiation into > degrees of insanity. Context is everything. Graham
From: Eeyore on 27 Jan 2007 18:24 Phil Carmody wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> writes: > > It would in fact be a very serious mistake to underestimate the Islamists by > > assuming they're insane. > > > > The way they've planned and executed attacks with minimal materials to hand > > shows a great deal of inventiveness/resourcefulness. > > Sociopathic? If we were Muslims living in the ME who felt threatened by the USA they would seem like heroes / a resistance force. Graham
From: Eeyore on 27 Jan 2007 18:25 Phil Carmody wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> writes: > > unsettled wrote: > > > Where's the bright line distinguishing fundamentalist from sane? > > > > Islamist are not medically insane, > > Have you ever played 'tick the boxes' with DSM IV? I haven't. > They're insane in spades, according to that. > 99% of usenet would be too, though. Very believable. Graham
From: T Wake on 27 Jan 2007 18:27 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45BBDF11.113CB005(a)hotmail.com... > > > Phil Carmody wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> writes: >> > It would in fact be a very serious mistake to underestimate the >> > Islamists by >> > assuming they're insane. >> > >> > The way they've planned and executed attacks with minimal materials to >> > hand >> > shows a great deal of inventiveness/resourcefulness. >> >> Sociopathic? > > If we were Muslims living in the ME who felt threatened by the USA they > would seem > like heroes / a resistance force. Only because we, being Muslims, would be insane [*]. -- [*] see previous posts about my ideas on who is and isn't insane
From: Eeyore on 27 Jan 2007 18:27
T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > > 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 ? > > The two are not mutually exclusive. > > In my experience, most zealots err on the side of "inhumanity" and if you > use that a definition of evil, they are evil. (www.godhatesfags.com - are > they zealots or simply evil?) LMAO @ "gospel truth" ! Graham |