Jihad needs scientists

[Jamie]

John Fields wrote:

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 15:33:51 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@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 Exposé". 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

 

[Jamie]

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

 

[Jamie]

Homer J Simpson wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:45215FBD.CA21777D@hotmail.com...


Jim Thompson wrote:


N'est pas?

Your 'French' is dreadful.


But he has an 8" tongue!



now how would you know that? that's getting a little close

isn't it ?


--
Real Programmers Do things like this.
http://webpages.charter.net/jamie_5

 

[Jamie]

Eeyore wrote:

T Wake wrote:


"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote


Hey Eric, I guess you are a true dumb-ass... you don't even have a
hat, and too stupid to realize Larkin is in CA, not TX.

What is your street address? I have some buddies at Ohio State that
are just drooling for the chance to "meet" you ;-)

You are funny guy. Do you really have buddies or are they just made up to
try and make you look good?


He trots out this nonsense from time to time.

I expect it's to hide inner feelings of insecurity. He'd really like to hang out
with bikers you know !

Graham


my favorite group of guys!, at least they aren't afraid to express there

real feelings.


--
Real Programmers Do things like this.
http://webpages.charter.net/jamie_5

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@emory.edu> wrote in message
news:eftpq8$c8p$1@leto.cc.emory.edu...

In article <eft9s4$8ss_002@s888.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <xA9Ug.7703$GR.5123@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
....and if one chooses to draw parallels between our actions in the
Middle
East and 1933-1939 Germany, one parallel is the fact that Bush is using
similar scare tactics to retain power,

The anti-Bushers keep saying this and it makes absolutely no sense.
What do you mean "retain power"? He has a term in office which
will end. He won't retain any powers after the Inaugeration in 2009.

People probably mean keep Republican control of Congress -- without that
Bush's powers will be quite curtailed.

Yes, but it goes further than that. He needs the support of his own party
and Congress if he's to get anything done, and the rhetoric of fear was
aimed at getting people to hand over their Constitutional rights without a
fight. Thankfully, his anti-Constitutional policies are losing him support
among his own party, which has long beat its chest as a supporter of the
Constitution.

take away peoples' rights, and kill a
segment of the world population, in much the same propagandistic way that
Hitler did.

You've been listening to Democrats without thinking. Everything
coming out of their mouths is campaign speeches for 2004. This
is not a typo...I meant four.

I could just as easily say that you've been listening to the Republicans
without thinking (at least I have evidence--see below). However,
name-calling won't get us anywhere. If you disagree, present us with
evidence to the contrary (see some of mine below). Tacit insults ("listen
without thinking") don't count. I can think for myself, thank you. It *is*
telling that even the Republican party is starting to distance themselves
from the Administration because of its untenable anti-Constitutional
policies..

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Bush is the next
Hitler, just that there *are* parallels between their misanthropic
behavior,
if hugely different in degree and consequence.

You are excoriating Bush for doing one of his primary jobs which
is national security. I suppose you long for the days of the
Clintons where the goal was to breakdown all national security.

He could very easily do his job without robbing American citizens of their
Constitutional rights and trampling all over international agreements (to
which we are party, by the way). A few major examples below:

1) As one example--the whole thing about getting warrants for wiretaps.
His rhetoric is that he needs the NSA to act quickly to quell terrorist
threats. However, that's hollow fear-mongering strawman rhetoric. The FISA
act requires warrants, so that there is some accountability for the program,
but it allows for (I think) up to 72 hours _post_facto_ to get the warrant.
The can do anything they want, as long as they keep a record of it, and
demonstrate to the FISA court at _some_point_ that they had a good reason
for thinking that the person they tapped had terrorist ties. As a citizen
with rights under the Constitution, I don't insist on warrants *before*
wiretapping, but I do insist on getting a warrant *sometime*, so that the
NSA is accountable to *somebody* for their actions. Without this
accountability, Bush has successfully removed one of the carefully crafted
checks-and-balances built into the Constitution, as well as remove people's
First Amendment rights.

2) As another example is the Bush administrations approach to protesters
and other dissenting opinions. Labelling anybody who dares to disagree with
is policies a "traitor" may not be illegal, but it is disingenuous, since
the Constitution gives us the responsibility to think critically about
everything our government does. Protesters are never allowed anywhere near
Bush's speeches, where they might actually be able to be heard. When I
lived in Charleston, WV, he has had protesters at one of his speeches
rounded up and thrown in jail overnight, and he has also had protesters
relocated to "Free Speech Zones" (there's a _1984_ euphemism if I've ever
heard one) located in remote, unpopulated, crime-ridden areas in town so
that he could maintain the illusion of unblemished support.. "Free speech"
isn't free if the governement can make you do it in such a way that it is
guaranteed never to be heard. The First Amendment was written precisely so
that dissenting opinions could not be prevented from being heard.

3) My final example for now--his treatment of the prisoners of the war and
the Geneva Convention. It wasn't written and agreed to (including by us)
just to have a rogue nation come along and rewrite it. By writing his own
interpretation, he is inviting any other group that comes along to ignore
the Convention and rewrite the rules of war any way they want. Holding
prisoners, including US citizens, offshore in places not even remotely
related to the conflict (Cuba, for example) is just a way of getting around
treating prisoners by the rules that we spend a lot of time beating our
chests about following.

Yes, that nightmare of peace and prosperity. How glad we are it's over!

Better than losing our Constitutional rights. To quote Ben Franklin, "He
who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither." Pretty wise man, I'd
say.

Eric lucas

 

[T Wake]

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:45217475.3CA18629@earthlink.net...

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.

I assume the sick was missing. Its a shame this is overused, as it
highlights some interesting parallels with today.

They collected money in areas with high Irish
American population,

Which is not massively different to the comments in this thread that
"Muslims who do not actively disagree with terrorists support them and
should be rounded up."

Such a policy twenty years ago would have been hard to enforce in the US.

and the average American heard nothing about it,

So that makes it OK then?

till the "TV news Exposé". 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.

Possibly, probably not as despite their claims they had no where near the
same level of support back in the UK. Oddly most of the funding from the US
found its way to Islamic terrorist organisations (providers of training and
explosives).

It is good to feel this level of support from our "staunch allies in the war
on terrorism."

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.

Again, if this conversation was adjusted and we talked about the average
person from [insert enemy country of choice]. Most do not actively support
the actions of Jihadists, yet their country gets invaded and they get shot
for failing to obey commands shouted in English.

The "average person" may have been ignorant of the collections, and I
suspect they were (I have relatives who live in New York and have never been
tapped up for money). However, the Governmental structures must have been
aware (or should have) and to allow it to happen, implies official consent.

 

[Gordon]

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:29:46 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message

and the second being that I
don't believe _radical_ Islam would have any qualms about
dispatching non-converts whether they were people of the book or
not.

What do you think?

_Radical_ Islam has shown no qualms whatsoever about dispatching other
*Muslims*, if it suits their ends. Well more than half of the victims of
the insurgency in Iraq have been Iraqi (presumably Muslim) citizens.

There is no entity known as radical Islam.

Graham

Graham, are you saying that the Muslims' inability to recognize

any behavior traits as being radical, accounts for the on-going
radical Muslim behavior that the rest of the world observes?

Gordon

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 11:58:51 -0400, Keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

In article <18l4i2pda32a9pcks1snm7p1ne0ksphvjd@4ax.com>,
joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org says...
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 07:33:14 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> Gave us:



That's why we should discontinue all aid except to developing nations
needing food and health assistance.

And burn the UN to the ground.


Have you ever heard that little piece by Robin Williams about us
simply stopping all we do for others? It is very funny as it were.

You mean this one?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/williams.asp

I like this part....

"The Statue of Liberty is no longer saying 'Give me your poor, your
tired, your huddled masses.' She's got a baseball bat and she's
yelling, 'You want a piece of me?'" — Robin Williams.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[T Wake]

<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:QQeUg.977$NE6.665@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:XOSdncxhP5FZ_bzYRVnyvQ@pipex.net...

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:qsh2i2drpinua4j4gbg6utio5ap565jm4q@4ax.com...

Yeah, like: "If we give you this money will you promise to use it to
feed your people and not to make weapons with it?"

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?"

Oh, you mean like the Reagen and Clinton administrations did with Osama
bin Laden when he was fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan?

Sadly, yes.

The US government needs to get over its black-and-white thinking that "the
enemy of my enemy is my friend"...or at least add the caveat "until I piss
him off, too."


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.

Probably mostly because they were able to legitimize themselves as an
"Army", and whether rightly or wrongly, to legitimize their fight as being
against a hostile occupying government

Although by far the most who died and suffered at the hands of both
republicans and loyalists were other Northern Irish people.

...you know, the same thing we risk doing by legitimizing the "War on
Terror", and continuing to occupy Iraq, thereby giving the terrorists the
grist of an enemy occupation to foment and legitimize their fight. The
thing that Meron doesn't understand is that perception *is* reality, and
that by calling a thing by a certain name, we can influence people's
perceptions of it from afar. If we go around telling people we're fighting
a "war on terror", then the logical assumption is that the terrorists are
fighting a war against us.

I agree. A war implies fighting for something and imbues the participants
with a certain "honour."

Instead of saying the terrorists are evil scumbag criminals, who if they
couldnt get a Jihad would be robbing banks and peddaling prostitutes, we
have given them status.

Shame really.

This leads to the assumption that they must have something legitimate to
be fighting for, which engenders much more sympathy and support globally,
by people who are not affected by, and thus do not understand the
misanthropic nature of the acts of the terrorists.

For those who insist on comparing the current situation to another,
Northern Ireland over the past 30 years or so is a far, far better analogy
than WWII, and we should have learned a lot from it. Unfortunately, it
appears we're doing all the wrong things to give the terrorists global
sympathy and support like the IRA enjoyed for a long time. Fortunately,
the Northern Irish got tired of dying, and have largely stopped their
terrorist activities. Will we be so lucky with the current global
terrorists?

Personally I think without 11 Sept 2001, the situation in NI would still be
hostile. Since the Americans had to institute a "War on Terror" it forced
the hard liners to re-invent themselves. Not to mention the majority of the
IRA training and equipment came from Islamic terrorist organisations..... (A
significant minority came direct from the US....)

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 17:24:42 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 00:50:29 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

but the really unfortunate thing is that it was a
result of the fact that our leader chose to piss off the entire rest of
the world with his cowboy antics.

Whether his actions (or, rather, the consequences of his decisions)
would piss off the rest of the world isn't something that should
stand in the way of his doing what he considers to be the right
thing.

It's the wrong thing though. I doubt much thought was involved either
aside from
xenophobia.

From your point of view, anything he did would be wrong, just
because he's American, so whether what he did pisses you off or not
is irrelevant.

Sadly, Graham seems to be resolutely anti-American. This is not a view point
every one who disagrees with the US shares.

I am resolutely against current US policy which I consider not only to be
blinkered and morally without substance but also totally counter-productive not
just for the USA but most of the Western world too.

Graham

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 11:58:52 -0400, Keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

In article <45213544.1C686151@hotmail.com>,
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com says...


Jim Thompson wrote:

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 07:57:37 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 09:09:14 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
Jim Thompson wrote:

That's where we pretend we like the French ;-)

Sorry, Jim, but I'm not THAT good at playing pretend.

Don't worry. The French don't much like your kind of Americans either.

Graham

Heck, you can hardly get into a roadside rest area bathroom for the
crowds from the French tour busses. On our way back from Monterey, my
wife had to sit shivering at the Junipera Serra rest stop for that
very reason, waiting out a bus full of female French tourists. If you
go to the top of Twin Peaks in San Francisco, the language you're most
likely to overhear is German.

Stay home! The lines at Peet's Coffee and Joseph Schmidt Chocolate are
long enough already.

John

I've seen very few French tourists here in AZ... probably because
they'd be shunned ;-)

What is there for them to see ?

Just a few little things like the Grand Canyon, Walnut Creek
Canyon, the Painted Desert, the Pertified Forrest, Sunset Crater...
Nah, nothing there.

And more golf courses and resorts than you can count.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[T Wake]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:f373i2do0954oud9eabnj30o1jcav9n0iq@4ax.com...

On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 19:56:02 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:


"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:qsh2i2drpinua4j4gbg6utio5ap565jm4q@4ax.com...

---
Yeah, like: "If we give you this money will you promise to use it to
feed your people and not to make weapons with it?"
---

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.

---
Catholic VS Protestant?

I don't know either.

The same reason unthinking Muslims support groups considered terrorist by
the west.

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
T Wake wrote:
"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@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?

That would seem to be quite probable. Mind you he says he's liked France but
hates the French even more than Netherlanders.

Graham

 

[T Wake]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
newsdh3i25h8hk1kik38lke3npcqe4nc5h9pe@4ax.com...

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 23:59:35 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



John Fields wrote:

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 10:36:08 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 17:24:24 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
Jim Thompson wrote:

I've seen very few French tourists here in AZ... probably because
they'd be shunned ;-)

The ones I've met in Florida were quite rude, and about as ignorant
as the donkey. They think we owe them a huge favor because they came
here to harass us.

When I hear them in restaurants I say something like, "Le peuple de la
France est ignorant" ;-)

---
My favorite is: "Ce pâté sent comme la merde de chat."

Your 'French' is as bad as Thompson's.

---
Bitch at:

http://babelfish.altavista.com/

not at me.


I input: "This paté smells like cat shit."

and I got back: "Ce pâté sent comme la merde de chat."

How would you translate it?

I wouldn't. I'd just speak English very loudly and very slowly. There is a
reason we had an Empire.

 

[Eeyore]

John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:21:16 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 17:12:32 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

" 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.

Has it occurred to you to ask any Muslims ?

Graham

 

[T Wake]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:grs2i25e29m02qt6takp6sfpoi0snt838s@4ax.com...

On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 19:56:34 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:


"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:45214B1B.7A9DD9AD@earthlink.net...
Jim Thompson wrote:

I've seen very few French tourists here in AZ... probably because
they'd be shunned ;-)


The ones I've met in Florida were quite rude, and about as ignorant
as the donkey. They think we owe them a huge favor because they came
here to harass us.

All French people are rude. That is why no one likes them. Even the French
don't like themselves.


I drove around France for six weeks once. The people in cities were
often rude, and the people in small towns and in the countryside were
almost always cheerful and friendly. In the US, I find city and
country people mostly friendly, without a big difference.

Oddly, I agree. I often visit the US and invariably people are polite and
friendly. I avoid rural France for fear of the Guillotine...

I think the rudest place I've been was Moscow... glories of Socialism
and all that.

Not been to Moscow, most Former Soviet countries tend to be quite polite
though. Maybe the Russians took the breakdown worse than the rest...

 

[Eeyore]

Gordon wrote:

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 10:30:07 -0500, John Fields wrote:
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 15:30:55 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

The Bible says contradictory things too.

What's contradictory about: "If you don't convert we'll cut off your
infidel head."?

The really puzzling part of the Muslim religion is that in some
Koran passages they regard Jesus of Nazareth as an apostle of
God, but in other Koran passages they regard Jesus as a liar and
a deceiver.

Reputedy Mohammed went a little ga-ga in his later years. Anyway, show me a religious text that*isn't*
riddled with contradictions.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message

If and when western extremists will start systematically blowing people up
they'll have to be dealt with as well.

Well, from 1968 - 2000 they did in the UK.

It's interesting to note that the UK Gov't didn't respond by threatening all
Irish ppl too. Or even by killing all the 'insurgents'.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Jamie wrote:

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 ?

It means what it says.

What's a drugs Czar for example ?

Are all crusades violent ?

Graham