Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 9 Oct 2006 08:45 "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message news:sbpji2tic6ajp5h0v1jsnu7aettp1o3lpi(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 23:13:14 +0100, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> Gave us: > >>Wow. A new insult. Brilliant. Did you spend all weekend trying to come up >>with that one or did you over hear some school children like you seem to >>have done with all your others. >> > Again you show your utter stupidity. How? Or is that just an automatic response you fall back on when you dont understand the words used? > I posted the response three seconds after I read the retarded > bullshit that was spewed by the idiot. Those three seconds must have felt like a lifetime for your one brain cell trying to think of an answer. If you spend less time trying to be obnoxious (in a seven year old style) and actually tried to think about your replies you may actually have some value. On second thoughts....
From: jmfbahciv on 9 Oct 2006 08:07 In article <tMOVg.9787$GR.4350(a)newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:eg7tn5$8qk_005(a)s968.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <6ruVg.13907$7I1.7585(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, >> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>> >>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>news:eg5el9$8qk_011(a)s831.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>> In article <452634AB.3341D603(a)hotmail.com>, >>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> So much for mess prevention. So how many people does Bin Laden >>>>>> have to kill before you deal with this problem? 300,000? >>>>>> 3,000,000? 300,000,000? A billion? >>>>> >>>>>What makes you think any of the above are even remotely possible ? >>>> >>>> They >>>> were brought in a culture that admires killing; I wasn't. >>> >>>Again, evidence to justify this assumption? >> >> You have got to be kidding. > >No, I'm absolutely dead serious. This very assumption is a crux, if not >*the* crux, of this discussion. We have people going off all over the >place, speculating like mad about what the Middle Eastern Muslim culture is >and is not, and about what the terrorists' motivations really are. Unless >you grew up a Muslim in the Middle East, I'm not going to let you get away >with something this basic without evidence. My evidence, from talking to >Muslim acquaintances, coworkers, etc. I've had over the years, is that Islam >is a very peaceful religion. If this is true (and I have no reason to doubt >them, they had no reason to lie to me), then what is the "culture that >admires killing" of which you speak? I cannot give you a web pointer. I have read more than 100 books and come to this conclusion. Do you want me to post the partial list of what I've read? I don't think you intend to read them since it's about 45,000 pages of small print without cartoons. > And don't go quoting verses of the >Koran I have no intention to use that argument. >to demonstrate that it is a "culture that admires killing"--there are >verses in the Bible that would make you believe that Christianity is an >equally violent culture. You and I know it is not--it is a culture that >admires peace and life. Christianity is not a religion based on peace and life. > > >>> All the Muslims I know are very >>>much peace-loving people. Certainly much more so than any of the "kill >>>'em >>>all" Americans I see on this group. >> >> I haven't seen anybody (who is rational) demand that all Muslims >> be killed. I have seen extrapolations about what will have to >> be done if no mess prvention is done now. > >That was hyperbolic allegory. I have absolutely no idea what you meant. /BAH
From: lucasea on 9 Oct 2006 09:51 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:egd9oe$8qk_008(a)s891.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>> >>>>So why aren't we devoting all our resources to getting him? >>> >>> Because this intent to destroy all traces of Western civilization >>> is not isolated to one human being. >> >>Where do you *get* these assumptions??? > > What assumptions? Islamic extremists wish to kill me and mine? > They've told me so. Furthermore, their statements were not > empty threats; they demonstrated their intent. No, they did nothing of the kind. They demonstrated their intent to destroy three or four buildings. It's a huge leap of faith (i.e., assumption) to extrapolate from this that they are "intent to destroy all traces of Western civilization." As I've said before, you don't even know what your assumptions are, and how ludicrous the premises on which you predicate them. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 9 Oct 2006 09:59 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:egda47$8qk_011(a)s891.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <Fn7Wg.3184$NE6.2374(a)newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:egak0r$8qk_001(a)s779.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <aQPVg.14037$7I1.13536(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, >>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>> >>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>news:eg81lv$8qk_001(a)s968.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>> >>>> This party is 100% ignoring the problem. All I want is to >>>>> start thinking and talking out loud about it. Their national >>>>> chairman actually thinks that replying to questions about >>>>> this problem with a "Trust me" is a sufficient answer. >>>> >>>>I'm starting to doubt your ability to not filter everything through the >>>>Republican talking points, >>> >>> I don't listen to them. How many times do I have to pound that >>> into your ASCII eyesite? >> >>....and you can't even be honest with yourself about what you're doing. >>As a >>middle-of-the-road independent, you are about the most extreme Republican >>apologist I've yet "met". > > Curious. The fear is so deep-rooted that the only > way you can read what I'm writing is to force my > thoughts into the box that can only obey and ape > one particular male that happens to be President at > the moment. No fear at all. It's just that I can find no other plausible explanation for your paranoid fantasies, your continual exaltation of Bush and all things Republican, your continual excoriation of Clinton and all things Democrat. If it looks like a duck, and it walks like a duck, and it talks like a duck...it sure ain't a sparrow. Like I've said before, if you had a more balanced perspective, I'd be much more willing to take you seriously. Your posts here are more one-dimensional than By the way, reread what you quoted above. I never mentioned Bush...I said Republican. Sounds like you're going out of your way to put a strawman into my mouth to discount what I say. Wearing your sexism on your sleeve? Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 9 Oct 2006 10:16
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:egdb10$8qk_002(a)s891.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <N6WdnRy5c-iGQLrYnZ2dnUVZ8sydnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >>Really? The president of Iran has declared it is the intention of his >>country to kill millions? Could you point me in the direction of an >>example >>of this please > > Where do you think their atomic bombs will be detonated? And yet more assumptions.... While this may be a slightly more sound assumption than the rest of your paranoid fantasies, can you not see that it is an assumption to say that Iran intends to make nuclear weapons, and it is yet another assumption that they intend to use them offensively? It is certainly plausible that Iran actually intends to build nuclear power plants. After all, as you point out, they are significantly behind the west in technology, and use of nuclear power could help them to catch up, and actually put them on more solid ground technologically as the oil supply begins to run out. However, let's suppose for a minute that you were a country that had just been declared (wrongly, in your view) that you are on the Axis of Evil by another country that has enough atomic weapons to destroy every lifeform on the face of the planet (with the possible exception of the cockroaches), several thousand times over. And let's say that that nation has just attacked your neighbor who happens to have similar religious views as you, in what you see as a crusade to destroy your religion. Wouldn't you want a nuke or two as a deterrant to being vaporized for (in your view) no good reason? While I certainly think it is *plausible* that Iran wants a nuke or two to use offensively, it is an *assumption* to say without qualification that it is true. And since the only actual support you have for it being true are your assumptions about Islamic extremists and their goals, and about whether or not Ahmadinejad is one of them, I'd say it's all a shaky house of cards on the basis of which I'm not ready to start tossing my Constitutional rights into a funeral pyre just yet. Eric Lucas |