Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: lucasea on 21 Oct 2006 10:52 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4539D062.D4FDFC69(a)hotmail.com... > > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> > >> >> As for Europe, I'm not hearing much discussions about this >> >> either. What I do hear is capitulations so that they >> >> get their oil deliveries. >> > >> >Utter drivel. >> >> If your posts are an example of conclusions made from the news >> you get, I'm even more worried about Eurpoe ceding completely >> with one little oil tap turned off. > > Ceding to whom ? The Phantom Evil Empire ? Yes, that would seem to be about the level of analysis these people apply. "Ooooh, big scary Evil Empire!" Eric Lucas
From: T Wake on 21 Oct 2006 10:53 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ehd3gi$8qk_007(a)s884.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <45378C8B.35815C8E(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >> >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >Religious extremism is always the result of one of the following: >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> >A) Insanity >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> >B) Desire for power, control, and wealth >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> None of the above. Fear. Pure, simple terror. >>> >> > >>> >> >You think religious extremism is the result of fear ? >>> >> >>> >> Yes. Fear of losing control. >>> > >>> >Whose control ? >>> >>> I don't understand your question. In both religions, the >>> extremist leaders cannot have their followers think for >>> themselves; >> >>Both ? Which both is this ? > > Islam and Christianity. I thought that was what this drift > of the thread was talking about. > >> >> >>> all critical thinking skills are dangerous >>> to their grasp of power. The Muslims who fear this loss >>> see Western civlization as the culprit (EMF media cannot >>> be blocked out). >> >>LOL. Muslims are quite capable of using electronic media themselves. > > That's the irony of their preaching to get back to the old ways. > The Unibomber suffered the same thinking schism. I agree (for once). Islamic extremists (as do Christian and Jewish ones etc) often only ban things which are enjoyable. When it comes to warfare on the latest, most sinful, items will do. >> >> >>> Notice what has happened in Somalia >>> recently. >> >>Can you be more specific ? > > The regular people were not allowed to watch a soccer match > (TV shows human images which is not allowed in Islam). Now > the regular people are starting to say no to these extremists. Which is why there is very little to fear from extremism. In Turky, with 98% of the population being Moslem, they watch TV. >>> The residents in that area are now sorting >>> out which culture will exist. >> >>That is indeed for those who live there. >> >> >>> The US' religious right has similar fears. Note their >>> tactics. They chose a political tactic and targeted >>> schools. It's blowing up in their faces in most areas >>> (they're either getting fired or voted out). I don't >>> know what these types in Europe are doing. I only get >>> hints from Pope news. >> >>Religion doesn't have that much power in most of Europe. There is no >>parallel. > > Europe is more susceptible than any other place in the Western > world (that I can think of). Not true. Your nation is founded by religious zealots who left Europe to get religious freedom for their idiosyncrasies. Yes, 500 years ago, Europe was the centre of Christian extremism. This is no longer the case. The papal state is not exactly a large nation, is it? > You certainly have forgotten > all of your history. Again, not true. Culture has flourished in Europe since at least 3000BC. Europe has only been a Christianised region since around AD1000. Up until around AD1700, Europe was dominated (in a loose sense of the word) by Christianity but since then it has been on the wane. Are you implying that those 700 years of Christian ascendancy outweigh the other 4300 years? Your nation is led by a President who is overtly seek guidance from God. That would frighten me. The UK PM is a devout Catholic. That offends me, but at least we are not a super power and there are (currently) significant checks and balances to prevent a religious upsurge.
From: T Wake on 21 Oct 2006 11:03 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ehd4o6$8qk_004(a)s884.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <tidcj2hc7r29unnup0qjddadothkt473q2(a)4ax.com>, > John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>On Wed, 18 Oct 06 11:51:42 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>>In article <e9ednZ8s0K3l2ajYRVnyuA(a)pipex.net>, >>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>news:4535424A.C08609A3(a)hotmail.com... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> T Wake wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >>>>>> >>>>>> > Certainly a lot of the details of Darwin's theories have been >>>>>> > subject >>>>>> > to >>>>>> > question and modification over the years. What has not changed is >>>>>> > the >>>>>> > basic idea of evolution. >>>>>> >>>>>> Very true. There is a conflict of terminology and if the people on >>>>>> the >>>>>> radio >>>>>> show were talking about "Darwin's theories" specifically they are a >>>>>> bit >>>>>> behind the curve. Modern evolutionary theory has progressed beyond >>>>>> the >>>>>> specifics Darwin described. >>>>> >>>>> I've noticed that there is now a common tendency for those who reckon > they >>>>> know >>>>> better to dismiss such things as 'just theories' as if that meant they > had >>>>> no >>>>> vailidity ! >>>> >>>> >>>>I love that phrase "just theories." It really makes me smile when some >>>>creationist goes on about how "evolution is just a theory." >>>> >>>>Like Newtonian Gravity isn't "just" a theory. :-) >>> >>>Yes. It is just a theory. It is the human race's best >>>guess at how nature and its laws work. >> >>It's a pretty good theory but ignores relativistic effects. It's >>quantitatively precise in most practical situations, but not all >>situations, so it is indeed flawed, and not a "best guess." >> > > I'm not going to deal with this one. So why make any post? Why not just ignore it?
From: unsettled on 21 Oct 2006 11:05 lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message > news:19699$453974ae$49ecfc2$31364(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > >>lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >> >> >>>"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >>>news:3afe9$4538c549$49ecf72$25771(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >> >>>>T Wake wrote: >> >>>>>If the West changed to Islamic based societies life would continue >>>>>largely as normal. >> >>>>Normal in Islamic based societies is brothers killing >>>>brothers in religious fanaticism, thank you very much! >> >>>Proof, please. >> >>Pay attention to what's happeing in the world right >>now and read some non-western history. > > > A few wackos are attacking innocents. How exactly does that equate to > "Normal in Islamic based societies is brothers killing brothers"? You need > to learn to think critically, and not tar an entire society by the actions > of a few. You cited half a million Iraqui dead. How many were killed by the west, and how many by your terribly mischaracterized "a few wackos?" The fact is those "few wackos" tend to kill off a lot of their own brothers whenever they strap on a bomb vest and blow themselves up. The discussions by the Mullahs have offered that killing Muslims as part of the greater ideal of killing westerners is perfectly acceptable. That's grown into it being OK to kill your brothers if they're of a different sect. Clearly your statement is a lie. Whether you know it to be a lie, as you post it, is the only remaining question. >>>>Either all of history, or your rendition of an ideal >>>>world, is a lie. I've my thoughts on the matter and >>>>have no further need of yours. >>>Oh, goody, another "kill 'em all, because they all wanna kill you" enters >>>the fray. >>The nice thing is that you're entitled to be as demented >>as you wish to be. > As are you. I forgot, your metric is all there is!
From: unsettled on 21 Oct 2006 11:08
Eeyore wrote: > > unsettled wrote: > > >>Eeyore wrote: >> >>>unsettled wrote: >>> >>>>T Wake wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>If the West changed to Islamic based societies life would >>>> >>>>>continue largely as normal. >>>> >>>>Normal in Islamic based societies is brothers killing >>>>brothers in religious fanaticism, thank you very much! >>> >>> >>>No it isn't. >> >>This sort of denial is meaningless. > > > It's definitely as valid as your daft assertion ! > > > >>I was used to >>hearing it from very young school children who >>didn't like the facts they were denying byt had >>absolutely no grounds for argument. >> >>It is obvious you have no knowledge of history. > > > Au contaire, my knowldege of history is very good. > > > >>Brother killing brother was not stopped by >>conversion to Islam. It remains prevalent in >>the culture. > > > OK then. Cite please. google islam killing 8,370,000 hits (arguments both ways) |