New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 8 Aug 2006 04:34 John Woodgate wrote: > In message <44D83E8F.3DA551(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com>, dated Tue, 8 Aug > 2006, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> writes > > >Sorry, John but I don't see that the argument that the US was attacked > >because of jealousy over the richness of the western lifestyle holds > >any water at all. > > Neither do I. Western lifestyle is contrary to many tenets of > established religions, Islam in particular but not exclusively. The > clerics see their raison d'tre threatened, and they are not wrong. So > they fire up their militants - 'jihad' is not just a label, they really > mean 'holy war'. Christianity largely went through a similar phase > around 500 years ago, waging war not only against people of other faiths > but, in many cases with even more spilling of blood, among the factions > and about the merest slivers of difference of interpretation. I entirely agree with your clarification. Another mistake I see the US making is the belief that *all* Moslems are wedded to this 'backward' view. It's very clear that the militants are in fact very much in the minority in terms of numbers but attract more attention on account of their extreme position. Graham
From: Eeyore on 8 Aug 2006 04:37 John Woodgate wrote: > In message <4jqtm0F9b7r6U1(a)individual.net>, dated Tue, 8 Aug 2006, Dirk > Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> writes > >Why not take Bin Laden at his word, and read *why* he attacked the US? > Citation? "We decided to destroy towers in America," because "we want to regain the freedom of our nation," Bin Ladin said. http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/23DAA5DE-7073-4F7A-9109-8C153B41A716.htm Graham
From: Eeyore on 8 Aug 2006 04:40 John Woodgate wrote: > In message <4jqtm0F9b7r6U1(a)individual.net>, dated Tue, 8 Aug 2006, Dirk > Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> writes > >Why not take Bin Laden at his word, and read *why* he attacked the US? > Citation? " Before I begin, I say to you that security is an indispensable pillar of human life and that free men do not forfeit their security, contrary to Bush's claim that we hate freedom. If so, then let him explain to us why we don't strike for example - Sweden? " http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79C6AF22-98FB-4A1C-B21F-2BC36E87F61F.htm Graham
From: Eeyore on 8 Aug 2006 04:41 John Woodgate wrote: > In message <4jqtm0F9b7r6U1(a)individual.net>, dated Tue, 8 Aug 2006, Dirk > Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> writes > >Why not take Bin Laden at his word, and read *why* he attacked the US? > Citation? "....we fight because we are free men who don't sleep under oppression. We want to restore freedom to our nation, just as you lay waste to our nation. So shall we lay waste to yours. " http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79C6AF22-98FB-4A1C-B21F-2BC36E87F61F.htm Sounds like 'Phat' to me ! Graham
From: Eeyore on 8 Aug 2006 04:43
John Woodgate wrote: > In message <4jqtm0F9b7r6U1(a)individual.net>, dated Tue, 8 Aug 2006, Dirk > Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> writes > >Why not take Bin Laden at his word, and read *why* he attacked the US? > Citation? " No one except a dumb thief plays with the security of others and then makes himself believe he will be secure." Now there's a true word or two ! Of course I suppose the Americans never get to hear what he *really* said. Graham |