Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 17 Oct 2006 17:27 John Larkin wrote: > On Tue, 17 Oct 06 12:40:58 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >>>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. Suicide is a sin in Islam AIUI. Graham
From: Eeyore on 17 Oct 2006 17:28 T Wake wrote: > 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. You would have become a martyr. Now compare with how the suicide bombers see themselves ! Graham
From: Eeyore on 17 Oct 2006 17:29 Daniel Mandic wrote: > 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. Hindered ? Graham
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 17 Oct 2006 17:37 On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 13:05:07 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 20:07:41 +0100, "T Wake" ><usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >>"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. > >How does hurling rocks get "their voices heard"? Wrong question, John. There were a lot of people there who did NOT throw rocks. Only _some_ threw rocks. And a separate question, entirely, John. Do you imagine that only those throwing the rocks are the ones who were injured or killed by professional military action? Jon >>> 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. > >They threw rocks at people with guns? > >John
From: Eeyore on 17 Oct 2006 17:37
John Larkin wrote: > On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 20:07:41 +0100, "T Wake" > > >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. > > How does hurling rocks get "their voices heard"? Are you really being that obtuse ? Graham |