Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: John Larkin on 2 Oct 2006 22:51 On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 23:38:55 GMT, "Homer J Simpson" <nobody(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > >"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message >news:hu33i2tqjfg6nfvg8d5o1krhaq0lr1umhi(a)4ax.com... > >> The issue is whether non-US-citizens have Constitutional rights when >> they are not physically in the USA, or whether US citizens have such >> rights when captured in a foreign country while fighting against our >> military. > >The US believes that US law applies everywhere in the world, but US >constitutional rights don't apply to anyone who isn't the 'right sort of >person'. > > Preposterous. John
From: Ken Smith on 2 Oct 2006 22:52 In article <kefUg.29$45.67(a)news.uchicago.edu>, <mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote: >In article <efr7vg$sb7$2(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken >Smith) writes: >>In article <2p1Ug.16$45.152(a)news.uchicago.edu>, >> <mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote: >>[....] >>>Well, here is at least one thing you can say for Al Queda. They are >>>quite honest, no pretending. >> >> >>Maybe, they are just more effective liars. If you haven't caught them in >>a lie, it doesn't mean there weren't lies they got away with. >> >Oh, I'm sure there were some, but these are what is called "tactical >lies". With regard to principal matters, i.e. their goals, they're >quite forthcoming. .... or perhaps they have just gotten away with the big lies. :> [...] >> They can get lots of cannonfodder from the Muslim world >>may be the reason they try to appear Islamist. It may really be about >>power and control. > >One doesn't contradict the other one. People may be driven by the >desire for power and control *and* to really, truly believe in what >they're doing (to the point of willing to die for it), at the same time. Actually it is often a closely coupled set of ideas. People who are certain that their way is the only right way often think it is a cruel trick of fait when they lack the power to implement their ideas. They are also often very surprised at the results when and if they do get power. If the King of country A sees the King of country B as universally evil he may invade on the theory of doing good or the people of country B. Unfortunately for him, the people of country B may see the King of country A as the evil one and fight back. [...] >reckoning came, many of them preferred to kill themselves rather than >live in a world where their ideals have been defeated. Goebbels and >his wife poisoned themselves and all their kids as well. If that's >not an act of a true believer, I don't know what is. We may not really know their motives. They may have thought that they would get about the same treatment as they had applied to the Jews. This for many would be a reason to take the easy way out. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: John Fields on 2 Oct 2006 22:59 On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 00:05:51 GMT, mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >In article <v673i2dusng3t5a82qt9hm7n8ve5p4t7ua(a)4ax.com>, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> writes: >>On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 19:59:42 +0100, "T Wake" >><usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >>> >>>"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message >>>news:3kh2i2p1qoa888afm2l1ksq3j2qcvcfvrl(a)4ax.com... >>>> --- >>>> So what? With world domonation as its goal, one would expect it >>>> would strike world-wide, as the opportunity arose. >>> >>> >>>Whose goal? "It" isn't really appropriate to define the long term aims of a >>>disparate group of organisations. Are "they" trying to dominate the world or >>>destroy western society or convert every one or... >> >>--- >>"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. >> >No, not quite. True about the part of world domination, not about the >other one. Islam recognizes two categories of non-believers. One is >"polytheists" for whom, indeed, the accepted options are conversion or >death. The other is "Um al_Kitab", meaning "Nations of the Book", >which includes Christians and Jews. These may be allowed to live >without converting but only as "dhimmi" (you may check on this term). >Meaning, second class subjects, possessing the (limited) rights >granted them by their Muslim rulers, with the stipulation that said >rights may be withdrawn at the whim of the rulers. --- How pleasant to read a scholar! Thank you. Two small comments, if I may; the first being that I believe "Um al_Kitab" means "People of the Book", and the second being that I don't believe _radical_ Islam would have any qualms about dispatching non-converts whether they were people of the book or not. What do you think? -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: Michael A. Terrell on 2 Oct 2006 22:58 John Fields wrote: > > On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 21:46:18 +0100, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > >"Michael A. Terrell" wrote: > > > >> T Wake wrote: > >> > > >> > Or "If we give you this money will you promise to use it to buy weapons and > >> > fight [Insert Disliked Government of the Day] and promise never to fight > >> > us - unless you really have to?" > >> > > >> > Can you [or anyone] remind me why the Irish Republican terrorist > >> > organisations received so much in the way of donations from concerned, > >> > caring, American private citizens? I've never been all that sure myself. > >> > >> I get of hearing this. They collected money in areas with high Irish > >> American population, and the average American heard nothing about it, > >> till the "TV news Expos?". If the average American had know about it > >> and had agreed with it, there would have been more than enough money > >> flowing into their coffers for them to have won. The ones who did > >> donate were people who came to the US to get away from the British, and > >> wanted to help those left behind, right or wrong. > > > >So you're happy to admit to a desire to sponsor terrorism ? > > --- > What's that all about? > > All he wrote, it seemed to me, was a narrative. Ignore the donkey behind the curtain. -- Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida
From: John Larkin on 2 Oct 2006 23:01
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 16:55:57 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Larkin wrote: > >> On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 10:13:41 +0100, Eeyore wrote: >> >mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >> >> In article <4520C734.BF44F5D0(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore writes: >> >> >> >> >There is no such thing as a coherent 'Islamic terrorist' movement, much as the USA would like to have >you >> >> believe it. Much Islamic terrorism isn't even targeted at the West. >> >> >> >> There wasn't such thing as a coherent "Axis" in 1939-40. There were >> >> three separate nations, pursuing separate goals, often in >> >> non-coordinated fashion, at times even in a way which was detrimental >> >> to the other Axis members goals. >> > >> >Your fixation with the history of WW2 is idiotic. >> >> Is ignorance better? > >It simply has zero relevance to the issue at hand. Mind you, just to put your fevered American minds at rest, >should European Islam be stupid enough to get 'nasty' expect another 'Kristallnacht' with Muslims being >progromised. > I bet you're looking forward to that, boxcars and death camps. Does "get nasty" include acquiring political power? John |