Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 3 Oct 2006 12:09 John Fields wrote: > On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 15:21:12 +0100, Eeyore wrote: > >John Fields wrote: > > > >> "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. > > > >There is no entity called 'radical Islam'. > > --- > Just like there's no entity called 'white supremacists'. > --- > > >Who exactly do you mean ? > > --- > The members of Islam who would have no qualms about relieving you of > your head if you refused to convert. Let me make this clearer. Who *exactly* do you mean ? Graham
From: T Wake on 3 Oct 2006 12:15 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45217974.A472CA0E(a)hotmail.com... > > > T Wake wrote: > >> "Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)My-Web-Site.com> wrote in >> >> > Good to see you Nederlanders are doing so well ;-) >> >> I assume I have just missed the joke here. Is this going to be used in >> your >> act? > > He has a thing about them. To him it's simply an insult to call someone a > Netherlander. He doesn't approve of their 'liberal' thinking. Oh right. Can I assume he has never been then?
From: T Wake on 3 Oct 2006 12:18 "Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)My-Web-Site.com> wrote in message news:f343i2p5aqlop09564hf9ef118p2pmf76q(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 15:16:21 -0700, John Larkin > <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 13:10:43 -0700, Jim Thompson >><To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >> >>>On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 13:05:08 -0700, John Larkin >>><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>> > [snip] >>>>Of course it doesn't, but "consent" remains legal anyhow. >>>> >>>>There are millions of Muslims in this country, citizens and legal >>>>residents, and their rate of participation in terrorism is within the >>>>engineering definition of zero. >>>> >>>>John >>> >>>I find it very troubling that CAIR and other Muslim organizations go >>>out of their way to sidestep questioning whether they favor the >>>behavior of Islamic terrorists or not. >>> >>>"silence implies consent" is INDEED a provision of LAW, but I think it >>>applies here as well... particularly given the sidestepping :-( >>> >>> ...Jim Thompson >> >>You think they are guilty of criminal acts because they do not >>publicly condemn Muslim terrorism? That's a novel interpretation of >>law. Can we find you guilty of not condemming, well, everything that's >>illegal? Better start condemming... you have a lot of catching up to >>do. >> >>John > > John, I don't think you are reading what I wrote. When the media asks > a Muslim _organization_ if they approve of what the Islamic terrorists > are doing, and they hedge, there are only two possible conclusions, > both very scary... they _approve_ of what the terrorists are doing, or > they fear for their own lives if they open their mouths. > > I fear for those of you living in "nice target" cities. Me, I live > sufficiently in the boonies that a hit here wouldn't make for very > glorified headlines... even with a "nucular" device ;-) > Such a shame. It would give you some great lines for your stand up comedy routines.
From: Jamie on 3 Oct 2006 15:47 John Fields wrote: > On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 15:33:51 +0100, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> >>John Fields wrote: >> >> >>>On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 21:46:18 +0100, Eeyore 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. >> >>It was a clear acceptance that sponsoring terrorism may be acceptable. >> >>" If the average American........had agreed with it, there would have been more than >>enough money >>flowing into their coffers [the IRA] ". > > > --- > That's merely a statement of fact and has nothing to do with > Michael's politics. > > What you're trying to do is set up a straw man so you can spend some > more time on your soap box, but it's not going to work, you > despicable slimeball. > > John, just a hello from the rest of the guys i work with here, We enjoy reading this NG and your replies. it puts a smile on our faces! keep up the good work! -- Real Programmers Do things like this. http://webpages.charter.net/jamie_5
From: John Larkin on 3 Oct 2006 12:25
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:21:16 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Larkin wrote: > >> On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 17:12:32 +0100, Eeyore wrote: >> >John Larkin wrote: >> >> On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 16:00:32 +0100, Eeyore wrote: >> >> >John Larkin wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> I read about a recent experiment that was done in the UK. In response >> >> >> to advertised job openings, good but fake resumes were invented and >> >> >> sent in, with the only difference that some had English-sounding names >> >> >> and some had Muslim-sounding names. The response ratio was about 5:1. >> >> > >> >> >I suspect this is another urban myth actually. A similar thing was *really* >> >> >done with different ages in fact. >> >> >> >> It's in here... >> >> >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Muslim#Islamophobia_in_Europe >> > >> >" he asks whether Muslims will be the victims of the next pogroms " >> > >> >See my post on this point. >> > >> >That's why I laugh when American try lecturing us about being blind to the danger >> >from Islam. Do you guys seriously think we'd ever let them get the upper hand ? >> > >> >Graham >> >> Upper hand? What does Europe plan to do about the exponents of >> population growth, negative for the traditional population and >> positive for Islamic immigrants? > >So, you're worried about a hypothetical something in maybe 1000 yrs ? > >Has it ever ocurred to you that most European Muslims don't want to live like backward >tribesppl ? > >Graham Has it occurred to you that there are different perspectives on "backward"? No, I guess not. John |