Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 17 Oct 2006 15:07 "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:0h7aj25ckalb1dr630lm9apu323h2hj3ah(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 16:45:03 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan > <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: > >>On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 08:50:18 -0700, John Larkin >><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >>>On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 15:38:17 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>> >>>>"Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote in message >>>>news:i9n8j29atodlsous5hl3bpuk1avrj0s9a4(a)4ax.com... >>>>> On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 03:39:16 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Nicely written. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks. >>>>> >>>>>>Ever heard of a dinky, crappy little liberal arts college called Kent >>>>>>State? >>>>> >>>>> I'm not sure how you intend that to be applied, of course, since you >>>>> don't say what you are thinking here. >>>> >>>>Sorry if that sounded snotty--no hidden agenda, just the obvious example >>>>of >>>>troops being ordered into a situation and attacking their own people. >>> >>>Somehow it never occurred to me to throw rocks at armed National Guard >>>troops. >> >>And by that comment do you mean to justify the application of deadly >>force and the taking of lives in this particular circumstance? Just >>curious. >> > > Of course not. But if you do really, really stupid things, you can get > hurt, no different from poking a pit bull with a stick. It is sad that your national guard are pit bulls. Are stones really that frightening for them? It is sad that people are pushed to the point at which they feel they need to throw stones at Soldiers to get their voices heard. Isn't democracy wonderful. > As I said, I > wouldn't throw rocks at people with guns; I don't fancy being in the > right, and dead. It is fortunate your countries founding fathers didn't hold this viewpoint. This is also one of the reasons why using solders on public disorder duties is wrong. Shooting someone for throwing a stone is far from justified.
From: John Larkin on 17 Oct 2006 15:08 On Tue, 17 Oct 06 12:40:58 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <odi8j25ttpiuu9t6tbg4jne9cdut88qmin(a)4ax.com>, > John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 17:38:14 +0100, Eeyore >><rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>>Lloyd Parker wrote: >>> >>>> JoeBloe <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> > All of Islam (read the moslems) believe that all others that are not >>>> >moslem are "infidels" and that killing them is not, nor should not be >>>> >a crime. >>>> >>>> You are lying. >>> >>>I suspect it's what he learnt at Church. >>> >>>American Christian fundamentalists are as dangerous if not more so than >their >>>Muslim counterparts. >>> >> >>Yeah, all those Southern Baptist suicide bombers. > >Sigh! Wait. If this gets results it will be tried. >Have you not noticed what's been happening lately? >And it's not just Southern Baptist. > Judiasism and Christianity have generally considered suicide to be a sin. Radical Islam considers it to be a holy act. It also helps get rid of the young males, making the world safe for lecherous old-fart polygamists. John
From: T Wake on 17 Oct 2006 15:10 <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:BW7Zg.17279$6S3.16351(a)newssvr25.news.prodigy.net... > > "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in > message news:0su9j2tbgmi1lk9probji10efek75h3uf1(a)4ax.com... >> On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 15:38:17 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >>> >>>"Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote in message >>>news:i9n8j29atodlsous5hl3bpuk1avrj0s9a4(a)4ax.com... >>>> On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 03:39:16 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>>Nicely written. >>>> >>>> Thanks. >>>> >>>>>Ever heard of a dinky, crappy little liberal arts college called Kent >>>>>State? >>>> >>>> I'm not sure how you intend that to be applied, of course, since you >>>> don't say what you are thinking here. >>> >>>Sorry if that sounded snotty--no hidden agenda, just the obvious example >>>of >>>troops being ordered into a situation and attacking their own people. >>> >> Somehow it never occurred to me to throw rocks at armed National Guard >> troops. > > Agreed, but those were pretty extreme times. I have stood in Northern Ireland while protesters threw petrol bombs let alone rocks. Firing back was not an option we were simply there to contain. It was made very clear to everyone that firing without having first been _fired_ upon would result in a police arrest and trial (murder if required). Shooting people because they are throwing stones at you is simply wrong. If legislation came into force which demanded I worship in Church every Sunday I would happily throw rocks at soldiers in protest. If they killed me as a result it would, if nothing else, highlight to others how unjust the system had become.
From: Daniel Mandic on 17 Oct 2006 15:14 John Fields wrote: > And your point would be??? First your. Best Regards, Daniel Mandic
From: Daniel Mandic on 17 Oct 2006 15:14
Eeyore wrote: > American Christian fundamentalists are as dangerous if not more so > than their Muslim counterparts. > > Graham Ah, now I understand you. Lower-Austria for example (Katlholics -hicks) do not allow hindered to visit the first communion. Best regards, Daniel Mandic |