Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 18 Oct 2006 16:39 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eh4va9$8ss_004(a)s847.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <OziZg.13931$GR.6652(a)newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>, > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>news:453591FE.C2B3C58(a)hotmail.com... >>> >>> >>> David Bostwick wrote: >>> >>>> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>>> >>>> >McVeigh was a part of the radical Christian right. The IRA was >>>> >Catholic >>>> >fighting Protestants (and Protestants fought back). >>>> >>>> And the guy who killed the Amish kids was what? >>> >>> Mad presumably. >> >>And just because not all bad acts are caused by religious radicals doesn't >>mean that no bad acts are caused by religious radicals. >> >>Still, there is a far more important (non-violent) sense in which >>religious >>(mostly Christian) radicals are a danger to the US. > > Then start choosing Democrats who are willing to deal with reality. Amazing line of reasoning. Your reality seems very different from everyone else's.
From: T Wake on 18 Oct 2006 16:43 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:453591FE.C2B3C58(a)hotmail.com... > > > David Bostwick wrote: > >> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >> >> >McVeigh was a part of the radical Christian right. The IRA was Catholic >> >fighting Protestants (and Protestants fought back). >> >> And the guy who killed the Amish kids was what? > > Mad presumably. And at least a Christian :-) ("His suicide notes stated that he was still angry at God for the death of a premature infant daughter nine years prior." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Carl_Roberts)
From: T Wake on 18 Oct 2006 16:46 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eh5425$8qk_010(a)s847.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <0oWdnYXsM90H3KjYnZ2dnUVZ8sudnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in >>message >>news:009aj2dksthbu9fopngsr64nhfofi1dnjl(a)4ax.com... >>> 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. >> >>An interpretation issue really. It would not be unreasonable for Radical >>Christians or Jews to redefine some aspects of their faith to enable >>suicide >>for a just cause. The bible has killing anyone a sin, > > Murder is a sin; this is not "not killing anyone". "Thou shalt not kill" State sanctioned murder is still murder, otherwise what Saddam Hussein did to the marsh arabs was not murder. >>Christians have been >>fairly free with the definition of this though. > > Do you kill where kill is deliberate cessation of a living thing? I am not a Christian so I do not see where this is going. Killing some one is, IMHO, ending their life against their wishes. Why? Do you kill where kill is deliberate cessation of a living thing?
From: T Wake on 18 Oct 2006 16:54 "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:rp9bj25994ni7bfk5bha9p0dtm3cjl7jq9(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 19:23:05 +0100, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > > >> >>Good point and fair cop. Although the debate was about America as an >>entity >>so there is still some validity in the terminology used. I am not trying >>to >>say "everyone in Azerbaijan hates America" or anything along those lines. >>It >>is simply the case that the "general opinions" as made available by >>popular >>media, news and political debate is that the populations of most countries >>have a low opinion of the US as an entity (not of Americans per se) and of >>US actions on a global scale. >> >>This is strange as the US does so much good. People can either accept the >>low opinion and ask why this skewed perspective exists or dismiss it and >>carry on as normal. >> > > The US is rich and powerful. That alone creates a lot of resentment. Very true. This not something I am dismissing, more the fact that taking this as being the _sole_ cause of the resentment is a fallacy. > If I were poor and opressed and hungry, of course I'd tend to resent > people who spend more maintaining their swimming pool than it would > take to feed my village. Yet the US spends a fair amount of money supporting these villages. The problem is (at least from when I was last in Africa in the 1990s) that a lot of this help is carried with so many demands that the people change their way of life to "be like America." > And they have a point. They might dislike > europeans or Australians as well, but the US has become the cultural > symbol for material excess and hedonism. Part of the dislike for > Americans is for what we do, but I sense it's more for what we are, > and for what we *can* do. I suspect it is more a case of the people in various backwater nations are sold the American dream (big car, big house, big pool etc), yet will never in their lifetime aquire that. I was in Angola assisting with infrastructure repair and there were American missionaries (I use this term because I cant think of a better one - they were not religious, they were just helping reconstruct), telling people how great it is to own big houses, TVs etc. These people lived in mud huts and had the most basic subsistence economies. > Some people, perhaps a minority, look at the US and don't resent us, > they say "Cool, I want to be like that too." And some of them emigrate > here, and do it. Some of them stay home and do it. Different > temperaments. I have a friend that I met in Russia, and I invited him > to visit me here, which he did, and now *he* has a swimming pool > behind his big house in Sacramento, and I still don't. Getting bigger and better things is not everyone's dream. One of the downsides of encouraging it (especially as it is so seductive) is that it creates all manner of problems in nations where it will never, ever, happen. Then you get the village elders / tribal leaders who become scared that their culture is being eaten up by the McAmerica conglomerate. This is the same as western statesmen who are worried that "western culture" will be destroyed by Islam or any other "foreign" cultural threat. It is farcical when examined critically but very few people can do that. Everybody likes traditions.
From: T Wake on 18 Oct 2006 16:57
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eh536o$8qk_004(a)s847.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <uqkaj29qqainbc7l4mc8i51e40dbj8cf56(a)4ax.com>, > John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 21:57:10 +0100, Eeyore >><rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>>John Larkin wrote: >>> >>>> On Tue, 17 Oct 06 11:50:44 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >>>> >Pushing in certain areas is not the best way to prevent future >>>> >messes. I've found that the only way for people to learn how >>>> >not make new messes is to have them clean up the ones they >>>> >already made. >>>> >>>> >>>> Excellent. Care to assign cleanup duties in the Middle East and >>>> Africa? >>> >>>Which bits of Africa did you have in mind ? >>> >> >>Well, let's see. We could start with the Belgian Congo, and maybe >>Rhodesia, perhaps Cote D'Ivorie and German East Africa. > > I think Liberia is key but I'm not sure. It would be productive > if the countries in Africa were left alone. To kill each other? Strikes me as a reasonable idea. Let them all kill each other, then when the dust settles we can kill the one or two survivors and take all the diamonds. |