Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 29 Jan 2007 09:39 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > > >> You keep insisting that the people who want to destroy Western > >> civilization are criminals. Under whose law? > > > >The relevant law of the land in question. > > Muslims don't honor any laws other than their own. Actually they do. The Koran tells them to. However whether they 'honour' it or not is irrelevant. They are subject to it regardless. > So now, under whose law? The relevant law of the land in question. Graham
From: Eeyore on 29 Jan 2007 09:41 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: > >Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >>> You keep insisting that the people who want to destroy Western > >>> civilization are criminals. Under whose law? > >> > >>The relevant law of the land in question. > > > >Also, I believe they violated German law too. Even when they did not act > >in Germany. > > But they didn't violate their own. Unimportant ( even if true ). They are subject to the laws that apply where they live. > So, are you really that arrogant that you insist your country's criminal laws > apply > everywhere across the globe? That's the USA's position. > If so, why are there such things as extradition treaties? To avoid the need to kidnap ppl ? Some the USA also does. Graham
From: Eeyore on 29 Jan 2007 09:43 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: > > > >Those who acted in the US broke many US laws before 9/11. The ones in the > >UK broke many law of the UK. The ones in Spain broke spanish law. > > Using your logic, when the Germans invaded France, they broke French law. > The Germans didn't care about French law. They intended to enforce > their German law onto all French citizens. And then the plans were > to enforce German law on the rest of Europe; then the rest of the > world. That was a real war you nitwit ! Germany *did not* enforce its own laws in France either. Graham
From: Ken Smith on 29 Jan 2007 09:44 In article <gpednd4c49znbSDYnZ2dnUVZ8sWhnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, T Wake <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >"Ken Smith" <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote in message [...] >>>What value system says they have no evil intent? This only works if you >>>use >>>the Christian values of good and evil. Personally, I think that wanting to >>>see someone suffer rather than be treated because of the unknown and >>>unconfirmed wishes of an imaginary friend is evil. >> >> No, it is merely stupid. There is a difference. > >Really? What would you use to define evil? The intent and beliefs of the person acting matters a great deal. In the case you suggested, the person honestly believes that they are acting in the best interest of the one suffering. The incorrect belief make their actions appear to them to be the correct ones. This makes them not evil. [....] >> Actually, this is not quite right. What you describe is more along the >> lines of what some jews think. Christians have a "get out of jail free >> card" in the form of "who so ever believes in me". It means that you can >> do all the nasty stuff you want just so long as you believe in Jesus, you >> are saved. It is a neat system to avoid having to do what's right in this >> life. > >Not all Christian denominations follow this doctrine. Yes, but I say that makes them jews who say the name Jesus a lot. >> There is a difference between being repulsed by someones actions and >> condemning them to hell. > >Not to me. But wait. You don't believe in hell. So you are really saying "there is no difference between being repulsed by someones actions and hoping nothing happens to them". > > -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Eeyore on 29 Jan 2007 09:44
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > > > >Which country has invaded the US? > > Nation of Islam. No such country / entity even. Graham |