Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 6 Oct 2006 16:11 "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:ld0di2hfaesv1o0dvmuer25fogrrktmnti(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 21:14:07 +0100, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >> >>"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message >>news:cdfai2hr2cn8dq19nmkpsc2l4kefaktodj(a)4ax.com... >>> On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 01:35:41 +0100, Eeyore >>> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>John Fields wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 17:09:50 +0100, Eeyore wrote: >>>>> >John Fields wrote: >>>>> >> On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 15:21:12 +0100, Eeyore wrote: >>>>> >> >John Fields wrote: >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> >> "It" being radical Islam, the goal, in my opinion, would be to >>>>> >> >> convert everyone to Islam and have them be subject to control by >>>>> >> >> Muslim jurists, the goal being total world domination by Islam. >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> Refusal to convert would result in death. >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> >There is no entity called 'radical Islam'. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> --- >>>>> >> Just like there's no entity called 'white supremacists'. >>>>> >> --- >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >Who exactly do you mean ? >>>>> >> >>>>> >> --- >>>>> >> The members of Islam who would have no qualms about relieving you >>>>> >> of >>>>> >> your head if you refused to convert. >>>>> > >>>>> >Let me make this clearer. >>>>> > >>>>> >Who *exactly* do you mean ? >>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> What, you want _names_? >>>> >>>>That would be a start. Something more coherent than 'radical islam' for >>>>example. >>> >>> --- >>> Too bad a simple concept is so hard for you to grasp when it's other >>> than American. >>> >>> For example, I'm sure you'd have no problem with radical white >>> American supremacists. well, understanding the concept, that is. >>> I'm sure you'd have a very _big_ problem with them otherwise. >>> >> >>I would have no problem with the phrase used properly. Radical Islamic >>extremists provide the thrust for the terrorist attacks which this thread >>is >>about. Speaking of Radical Islamic extremists as a single coherent >>organisation is wrong. > > --- > Yes, of course. That's why I used white supremacists as an example > since they're clearly understood to be fragmented groups, but more > or less unified through their ideology. They do have slightly more unification than radical Islamic groups. Not many white supremacist groups view other groups as black people.
From: T Wake on 6 Oct 2006 16:12 "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:od2di2l1fctnfp8jtilbtbdbvev4ei3seg(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 21:27:40 +0100, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >>John Fields wrote: >> >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >John Fields wrote: >>> >> On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 17:09:50 +0100, Eeyore wrote: >>> >>> >> >Let me make this clearer. >>> >> > >>> >> >Who *exactly* do you mean ? >>> >> >>> >> What, you want _names_? >>> > >>> >That would be a start. Something more coherent than 'radical islam' for >>> >example. >>> >>> --- >>> Too bad a simple concept is so hard for you to grasp when it's other >>> than American. >> >>No. It's *not* a simple concept you fuckwitted simpleton. > > --- > You're the only one who seems to be struggling with it > --- > >>Who *are* these ppl ? > > --- > Who knows? Might be your next-door neighbors, might be mine. > Well, kill them all. God will know his own.
From: Homer J Simpson on 6 Oct 2006 16:13 "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message news:452699FF.8FAF8AC9(a)earthlink.net... >> > They banned the hell out of lawn darts - for sure. >> Phew. Good job. Might have some one's eye out.... > You think that is worse that the kids that died from them? Three children -- ages 4,7, and 13 -- are known to have died in lawn dart-related incidents. In the U.S. for 2001, there were 29,573 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 16,869; Homicide 11,348; Accident 802; Legal Intervention 323; Undetermined 231.(CDC, 2004) This makes firearms injuries one of the top ten causes of death in the U.S. The number of firearms-related injuries in the U.S., both fatal and non-fatal, increased through 1993, but has since declined steadily.(CDC, 2001) However, firearms injuries remain a leading cause of death in the U.S., particularly among youth (CDC, 2004). Every year there are 2,400 pool-related drownings from various causes among kids aged 1 to 14. Yep, lawn darts are a menace.
From: Eeyore on 6 Oct 2006 16:13 John Fields wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >John Fields wrote: > > >What do you think about the Vincennes shooting down an Iranian Airbus then ? > > --- > From: > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/3/newsid_4678000/4678707.stm > > "The USS Vincennes had tracked the plane electronically and warned > it to keep away. When it did not the ship fired two surface-to-air > missiles, at least one of which hit the airliner." > > I think the airplane's pilot should have had the good sense to heed > the Vincennes' warning. The Vincennes transmitted that warning on a military frequency which airliners don't have the receivers for. Why they didn't broadcast it on a civilian frequency ? They thought it was an F-14 ! The fact is that they didn't even know it was an airliner despite having the most up-to-date radars etc.! Bloody idiotic Yank sailors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655 Graham
From: T Wake on 6 Oct 2006 16:12
"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:31uci2lt18enkt904s45kc74b1qf5ju3qh(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 20:43:44 +0100, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >>John Fields wrote: >> >>> What we want is an economically competitive planet with all nations >>> at peace and capable of determining their own futures. >>> Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be everyone's goal. >>> Fortunately, we're the cops. >> >>No. You're the playground bullies. > > --- > No, were the ones who go after the playground bullies so that you > can have a safe playground. Really? Who gets to say who the bully is? |