Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 21 Oct 2006 16:37 lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message > news:PtWdnWzlorfyqafYnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d(a)pipex.net... >>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 > Not clear to me why it should offend you, unless he has begun inflicting his > religious beliefs on his performance in office...and I haven't seen signs of > that, but then again, I'm not privy to much of what the UK government does, > day to day. Because he thinks there's some significant difference between the Church of England (which he mistakenly calls Protestant) and Roman Catholicism. >>and there are (currently) significant checks and balances to prevent a >>religious upsurge. > Used to be here, too. W has been slowly dismantling those, all on the basis > of unfounded fear. > Eric Lucas
From: unsettled on 21 Oct 2006 16:42 lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message > news:31176$453a333d$49ecfae$3923(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >>If you want to hang a label on me, try this one: >>Radical Fundamentalist American >>Why not join me! Leave all the political parties in >>the dust. > Because your type disgust me? You just made my day! I guess you better learn the Niemoeller song so you can chant it later.
From: unsettled on 21 Oct 2006 16:47 lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > "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?" > > > Those wackos wouldn't be there if we hadn't invaded. Here's a clue: they > *weren't* there before we invaded. 1) They are all Muslims. AFAIC, they represent a singular entity 2) Where were they before, destined to do terror attacks on the US mainland? 3) Part of the Iraqi action is to create a honey pot. It has been working. Those wackos would be killing someone somewhere. It might as well be someone other than us. Might as well get used to Machevellian logic, there's plenty coming at us down the pipe.
From: unsettled on 21 Oct 2006 16:50 lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message > news:C-ydnUWDRbUIpqfYnZ2dnUVZ8tWdnZ2d(a)pipex.net... > > >>Who ever morphed into "unsettled" > > [snip] > > That's an interesting supposition. I've been thinking this unsettled clown > is some sort of unearthly love child of JoeBloe and that Michael Terrell > fellow, only with less ability to reason. > > Eric Lucas > > Obviously whatever you two idiots think about me is of no consequence. Have your fun.
From: unsettled on 21 Oct 2006 16:55
lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message > news:7db9$453a413d$49ecfae$4310(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > >>T Wake wrote: >> >> >>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>news:ehd4o6$8qk_004(a)s884.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> >>> >>>>I'm not going to deal with this one. >>> >>>So why make any post? Why not just ignore it? >> >>Because she had a point to make, and made it. > > > What was that...that she's in the habit of ignoring facts that she finds to > be "inconvenient" in the face of her most tenaciously held fallacious > assumptions? Oh shoot, I can't follow your example? > Oh, and you can drop the third person. We already caught you once mixing up > your aliases. You're a funny little turd, you are. So there's BAH, and there's me, and then there's some third entity that's the two of us combined? LOL I *knew* you're living in a strange alternative reality! You simply can't believe that there are actually two somewhat disparate individuals on usenet who actually dare to disagree with you? ROTFL |