Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 21 Oct 2006 11:50 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:7433b$453a35b5$49ecfae$3982(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > 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) http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=christian+killing 17,300,000 hits. Is there a point to your post?
From: T Wake on 21 Oct 2006 11:52 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:85443$453a3c1c$49ecfae$4118(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > Eeyore wrote: > >> >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> >>>What is really frustrating about these people is that >>>they don't have to know any history. >> >> >> I reckon in any competition, my knowledge of history would knock yours >> into the proverbial cocked hat. > > > History has two distinct parts: > > 1) Knowledge of facts > > 2) Understanding historical facts in context > > You lose. Lose what? All you did was write two sentences. There is _no_ indication based on the posts in this thread that you or BAH are able to carry out both the points you mentioned. So, in reality, you lose. Thanks for playing. Try again soon.
From: T Wake on 21 Oct 2006 11:55 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:39928$453a3515$49ecfae$3982(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > 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?" Not relevant. You claimed the "normal" situation, not one where a country is in turmoil following an occupation and enforced regime change. > 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. Yes. Still not normal. > 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. Only for the "wackos." They are not normal, by definition. > Clearly your statement is a lie. Whether you know it > to be a lie, as you post it, is the only remaining > question. Your statement is an attempt to support an untenable position and you defend it by going off on a tangent. Your statement is a lie. The remaining question is if you are capable of ever realising that.
From: T Wake on 21 Oct 2006 11:56 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:20097$453a3bcc$49ecfae$4118(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > Eeyore wrote: > >> >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >>>>> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>They gave their 95% confidence interval. >>>>> >>>>>The news said that the questions that were asked was if >>>>>anybody knew anybody who died. Adding these up will not >>>>>give a correct count. >>>> >>>>The 'news' was wrong then. >>>> >>>>In most cases ( ~90 % ) a death certificate was shown. >>> >>>And the death certificates said that all the deaths were >>>due to US killing them? >> >> >> Not at all. >> >> The survey was to determine death rates from all causes pre and post >> war. Quite simple really. >> >> Pre-war of course there weren't any deaths from either US killings or >> any insurgents. > > And of course you faithfully believe Saddam's historical > records as being accurate and true! Bwahahahahahaha Well, I don't think that is the issue there. Of course, if you know how many civilians were killed each year by the US-led coalition _before_ 2003 please share the figures.
From: unsettled on 21 Oct 2006 11:56
T Wake wrote: > I actually go out of my way to try and comprehend your point of view. You > obviously choose not to show me the same courtesy and, when your standpoint > becomes untenable, you fall back on accusing me of deliberate > misunderstanding. > Well done. She's right. You're a Muslim or a Muslim shill. That being said, you're so brainwashed your "truths" are limited to what you've been "carefully taught." (see _South Pacific_) |