Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 3 Oct 2006 11:51 mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: > "Frithiof Andreas Jensen" <frithiof.jensen(a)die_spammer_die.ericsson.com> writes: > ><mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message > > >> We did change the behavior of Germany and Japan, didn't we? > > > >At the cost of maybe 20% of the German population - which clearly noone is > >willing to pay yet in the middle east; mainly because it would look really bad > >on TeeVee. If one is not going to fight for real and destroy the opponents there > >is really, really no point in sending soldiers. > > Well, so here is the situation. As Clausevitz wrote, war doesn't end > till the spirit of one of the opponents is not broken. So which nation should we be at war with ? Graham
From: Jamie on 3 Oct 2006 15:15 Eeyore wrote: > > Jim Thompson wrote: > > >>Since most (if not all) >>Muslims won't criticize Jihad, in a war we will have to presume that >>all Muslims are closet Islamic terrorists. > > > You haven't a clue what Jihad really means. If you understood........... > > " Jihad, sometimes spelled Jahad, Jehad, Jihaad, Djehad or Cihad, (Arabic: > ????? ?ih?d) is an Islamic term, from the Arabic root ?hd ("to exert > utmost effort, to strive, struggle"), which connotes a wide range of > meanings: anything from an inward spiritual struggle to attain perfect > faith to a political or military struggle " > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad > > Graham > is that like the colorful metaphors that get thrown in every other line by the average educated hard working american that really means absolutely nothing other than taking up extra space in the text and getting in the way? at least it adds flavor to the mix what the hell does Jihad do ? -- Real Programmers Do things like this. http://webpages.charter.net/jamie_5
From: Eeyore on 3 Oct 2006 11:51 mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: > "Frithiof Andreas Jensen" <frithiof.jensen(a)die_spammer_die.ericsson.com> writes: > > >I.M.O: If WW2 was conducted the same way, we would be still be busy knocking > >over small groups of Waffen SS while talking about our "deep respect" for > >Neo-German culture and the historic achievements of Hitler (all the while buying > > German products to prop up the failing plundocracy)! > > I'm afraid you're right. You're both quite mad ! Graham
From: John Fields on 3 Oct 2006 11:51 On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 15:27:54 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: > >> John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> writes: >> > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >>"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote >> >>> --- >> >>> 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. > >Until such time as Muslims exist in sufficient numbers the point is utterly moot. --- No, it's not. What we're discussing is Islamic law and its ramifications, not the number of Muslims required to overrun a non-Muslim society to the point where you're given the choice to either convert or die. But, more to the point, why do you feel the need to always poke your nose into places where it doesn't belong? Just as an example, your last post contributed nothing to the thread, and was an annoyance. Are you capable of understanding that? If you are, then why do you do it? -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: lucasea on 3 Oct 2006 11:51
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4522814D.248F1F7E(a)hotmail.com... > > > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > >> Ahmadinejad hasn't made the mistake of genocide like Saddam did, he's >> just >> not very popular. > > How did he get elected then ? The glib answer is "Just like Bush." Look at how popular *he* is. The honest answer is, I don't know. I have to admit I'm not familiar with the workings of the Iranian government. What I do know of the situation comes from the writings of several scholars of the Middle East, who, to a man, say that Ahmadinejad is not popular with his constituency, and will be gone presently if we don't stir the pot too much. Eric Lucas |