Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 3 Oct 2006 16:25 Gordon wrote: > On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 15:21:12 +0100, Eeyore wrote: > >John Fields wrote: > >> On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 19:59:42 +0100, "T Wake" wrote: > >> >"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message > >> >> > >> >> 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. > > > >There is no entity called 'radical Islam'. > > > >Who exactly do you mean ? > > > >Graham > > If the Muslims behind the atrocities in the following list were > not radical, does this imply that all Muslims are of this same > mind set? Do all Muslims regard the persons who did these things > as honorable, non-radical Muslims whom all should love and > respect? Eh ? Are you being deliberately obtuse ? How are you going to identify 'radical islam' ? Graham
From: Eeyore on 3 Oct 2006 16:26 John Larkin wrote: > On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 20:19:17 +0100, Eeyore wrote: > >John Larkin wrote: > >> On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 18:28:11 GMT, "Homer J Simpson" wrote: > >> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker(a)emory.edu> wrote > >> > > >> >> Tell me how many times the Bill of Rights says "people" and how many times > >> >> it says "citizens." > >> > > >> >SCOTUS has said that even visitors have the rights of citizens when it come > >> >to legal processes. After all, you expect their homeland laws to apply in > >> >the US would you? > >> > >> Correct. But they also realize that the rights apply only when those > >> people are physically in the USA. Which is why some bad guys are held > >> elsewhere. > > > >So you can 'get round the rules'. That's so reassuring to know. So the rules have > >effectively been flushed down the toilet for anyone yoy don't much care for. > > > >Graham > > No, the issue is that you don't approve of the rules. Have your Chief Justices or whatever you call them ruled on the legality of extraordinary rendition ? Graham
From: Eeyore on 3 Oct 2006 16:27 Gordon wrote: > On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 18:06:56 +0100, "T Wake" wrote: > > >Ok. This is just your opinion though. An equally valid opinion would be to > >say the US has global world domination as it's goal. It is after all only an > >opinion. > > If the U.S. had "world domination" as a goal we would surely have > kept control of those countries we liberated during previous > wars. Define 'kept control of'. Graham
From: Eeyore on 3 Oct 2006 16:29 Homer J Simpson wrote: > "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message > news:bp15i2tcudiitke1b9dt5i8h2c2btatpih(a)4ax.com... > > > Yeah, right! A pretty much tapped-out England and Germany joined by > > a bunch of little pissant states squabbling about who'd be leading > > and who'd be following and is this proper and is that not proper, > > and in the meantime the Russian juggernaut would have rolled right > > over you, LOL! > > Stalin was TOO paranoid to try that. He preferred killing his own people. > Left to his own devices, the USSR would have been all commissars and no > generals. Prior to WW2 *it was* all commissars ! That's why the German invasion was so successful initially. Graham
From: lucasea on 3 Oct 2006 16:29
"Homer J Simpson" <nobody(a)nowhere.com> wrote in message news:2TyUg.49718$E67.33987(a)clgrps13... > > "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message > news:jfr4i21cr7v19okiju8thv4fnn2hici7af(a)4ax.com... > >> And that has _what_ to do with racism??? > > God killed his child so he killed to get back at God. Racism, religionism, > it's all of a piece. That's not religionism, and it comes from a very different place than does racism (at least the US version). Much as racism is the purposeful and systemic treatment of one race worse than another because the members of the denigrated race are viewed as subhuman, religionism is the purposeful and systemic treatment of one religion worse than another because the members of that race are viewed as subhuman. As you stated it above, he was trying to get back at God for a perceived maltreatment. That doesn't imply a desire to destroy one religion over another--it is a desire to get back at anything associated with the God that killed his child. While we will never know exactly what was going on in his fevered brow, I think it's a real stretch to call it religionism, just to make a point about US society. Eric Lucas |