Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 3 Oct 2006 16:09 "Homer J Simpson" <nobody(a)nowhere.com> wrote in message news:ckyUg.45877$bf5.5504(a)edtnps90... > > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message > news:h_WdnWq6y6WFBL_YRVnyvg(a)pipex.net... > >> It is interesting that until recent times, Islamic countries / empires >> had the greatest tolerance for Non-believers. >> >> Quoting the Koran as an example of what all Muslims adhere to is somewhat >> disingenuous. > > They were well ahead of the Catholic church for centuries in that regard. > Are they going forwards or backwards to becoming more intolerant? Sadly, somewhat stuck in the fourteenth century. Christian nations went through that period and evolved out of it. Unfortunately the theocracies are too rooted in the past.
From: lucasea on 3 Oct 2006 16:10 "Gordon" <gordonlr(a)DELETEswbell.net> wrote in message news:57d5i21spajr15qtdavgd63em37bvhd42c(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:47:09 +0100, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >>Frithiof Andreas Jensen wrote: >> >>> <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 >> >>About 10% actually. >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties >> >>> - 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. >> >>< snip > >> >>> 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)! >> >>There's no comparison since no Muslim country is actually at war with us, >>imagined >>or otherwise. >> > Graham, are you saying that the events on the following list were > just fun and games, Nice strawman, but of course he's not, and neither is anybody else. > and not to be construed as war in any form? > I don't agree. Why does your worldview not admit of anything other than "war" and "fun and games"? How about a third category (at least), called "thuggish criminal behavior". You've trotted out the same long list activites that everyone else does--and it's nothing but long list of criminal activities by thugs. To call it anything else legitimizes their actions, and gives them sympathy with segments of the world population that we just don't need to be alienating right now (like mainstream, non-extremist Muslims). To most of the world, "war" is noble, but "crime" is despicable, cowardly, misanthropic behavior. I guess calling a spade a spade doesn't make for good election-year soundbites. The problem is, the same rallying cry that was meant to galvanize the US population, "War on Terrorism", is increasing being heard in the Muslim world as "War on Islam", and has begun to serve as an effective rallying cry for them. Another odd aspect of this is that the Bush administration insists on calling it a war, but when we capture one of the so-called warriors, we refuse to treat him as the "soldier" that the term "war" implies. Bush may get his own party and part of his own populace to swallow this, but the rest of the world aren't about the let him get away with this double standard. > It seems to me that 23 years of "turning the other > cheek" was enough. Of course. Again nice strawman that nobody is disagreeing with. > It was time to put an end to this kind of > irresponsible brutality. Nobody has ever questioned that--but how does not turning the other cheek imply we must legitimize and glorify the terrorists' criminal actions as a "war"? Eric Lucas
From: T Wake on 3 Oct 2006 16:12 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4522A060.1D52688A(a)hotmail.com... > > > T Wake wrote: > >> Mine grows constantly [grass]. The constant rain doesn't help >> either.. > > You need some animals to eat it. Then you can eat the animals. It is an option. I was going to get a pygmy goat (not to eat though) but it was too much hassle and the garden isn't big enough for lots of them (being "social animals" and all). They are cute though.
From: Eeyore on 3 Oct 2006 16:19 T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote > > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > >> > >> Interesting connection--and it now starts to be a little clearer why the > >> UK has been the one supporter that has stood by the US since 9/11. > > > > That's simply down to Blair. It's made him shockingly unpopular here and > > if he was to stay as PM he'd make Labour almost un-re-electable. > > I very much doubt any UK government would have failed to keep step with the > US. We'll see about that in the future ! > Despite their current protestations, the other political parties were > largely behind the conflicts. No. The Liberal Democrats were against it and so were the SNP IIRC too. Only the major parties only the Conservatives backed Blair and he had a tough job selling it to his own party with several related cabinet level resignations over a period of time. Not sure about the others. Mnay of us hoped that Blair would be a modeating voice of reason but it seems he lost his head and got carried away. Graham
From: Eeyore on 3 Oct 2006 16:22
T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > T Wake wrote: > > > >> The same reason unthinking Muslims support groups considered terrorist by > >> the west. > > > > Is Hezbollah a terrorist organisation ? > > If you are asking my opinion..... then yes. A nasty, ruthless one. However > sometimes terrorists seem to come in from the cold. How do you account for its presence as a political party with elected members and its welfare schemes ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah Graham |