Jihad needs scientists

[T Wake]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:v673i2dusng3t5a82qt9hm7n8ve5p4t7ua@4ax.com...

On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 19:59:42 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:


"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:3kh2i2p1qoa888afm2l1ksq3j2qcvcfvrl@4ax.com...
---
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,

Radical Islam can't be described as having a "single unified goal." Some
radical Islamic groups which operate as Terrorist organisations in Asia have
no interest in Global conversion.

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.

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.

 

[T Wake]

"Gordon" <gordonlr@DELETEswbell.net> wrote in message
news4b3i2d3urlnfo43jikkt0cbqts5djstrt@4ax.com...

Graham, what John said is straight out of their Koran. Repeated
in many Surah, Ayah passages. For example;

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Surah 47, Ayah 4 When ye encounter the infidels, strike of their
heads till ye have made a great slaughter among them, and of the
rest make fast the fetters.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the record, an infidel is anyone who is not a recognized
Muslim in good standing. A Muslim who turns away from the Muslim
religion is an infidel. Any person who belongs to and
acknowledges belonging to any other religion is an infidel.

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.

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 17:58:41 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

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

There's one two doors down from me at this instant, and I talk to him
about stuff like this all the time.

So, "yes."

John

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote

and the average American heard nothing about it,

So that makes it OK then?

I seem to recall one of his debating pals said "silence implies consent" !

Graham

 

[T Wake]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:nfq3i21ho617f25tnndifm0hlhpmo5onul@4ax.com...

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 01:58:29 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
dirk.bruere@gmail.com> wrote:

Gordon wrote:
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 00:47:08 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:


John Fields wrote:

On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 19:59:42 +0100, "T Wake" wrote:
"John Fields" <jfields@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.
Do you often conjure up such idiotic ideas out of thin air ?

Graham

Graham, what John said is straight out of their Koran. Repeated
in many Surah, Ayah passages. For example;

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Surah 47, Ayah 4 When ye encounter the infidels, strike of their
heads till ye have made a great slaughter among them, and of the
rest make fast the fetters.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the record, an infidel is anyone who is not a recognized
Muslim in good standing. A Muslim who turns away from the Muslim
religion is an infidel. Any person who belongs to and
acknowledges belonging to any other religion is an infidel.

Gordon

Then how do you account for Iran having the second highest Jewish
population in the ME? According to your theory they should all be
Muslims or dead by now.

---
They are "People of the Book" and deserve respect.

As are Christians. Gordon did say "For the record, an infidel is anyone who
is not a recognized Muslim in good standing."

This implies that Jews, Christians, Hindus etc are all subject to the
beheading.

 

[Eeyore]

Gordon wrote:

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:29:46 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

_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?

No. In fact 'radical Islam' is well recognised with the wider Muslim community.
It is by varying degrees both loathed and feared by ordinary Muslims.

What I'd like to see is a concrete proposal to deal with these groups that has
some actual substance and credibility.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Jim Thompson wrote:

"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.

I can see how that would appeal to your violent nature.

Graham

 

[T Wake]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:61u2i2pirp98lghk6samgbgfq4f9ria646@4ax.com...

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 17:05:11 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



John Larkin wrote:

Graham has a pathological and mostly irrational hatred of America,

Not at all. I am however intruiged how Americancs invariably bring out the
hate word the very second even the tiniest
criticism is voiced against them.

It's not hate at all, more like despair at the crass stupidity of your
governmemnt and the ppl who elected them.


and makes up things to support that need.

Simply no need ever to do that !


So naturally he doesn't like to
be reminded about stuff like WWII or the Cold War. He believes that
the UK and Russia defeated Germany with little need for US assistance.

The USA was around 3 years late to the party of course. I have little
doubt that Russia would have eventually defeated
Germany anyway. Germany could certainly never ever have defeated Russia,
the numbers simply aren't even remotely
credible.

---
That's all Monday morning quarterbacking but, if as you say, had
Russia defeated Germany without the US being involved do you think
that you'd still be speaking English as a first language?

And that isn't Monday morning quarterbacking?

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

Personally I think without 11 Sept 2001, the situation in NI would still be
hostile.

The timescale doesn't fit with that idea.

Graham

 

[T Wake]

<mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:VdgUg.35$45.83@news.uchicago.edu...

In article <qrWdndqvubGlpLzYnZ2dnUVZ8tednZ2d@pipex.net>, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> writes:

mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:jUZTg.9$45.98@news.uchicago.edu...
In article <45205B23.8190A32@hotmail.com>, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> writes:


mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

The Islamic terrorists aim at destruction of the western society

Where did you get that idea ?

From their own writings. Try to keep informed.

Which writings are they?

Which Islamic Terrorist movement are you referring to? Or do you lump them
all in as one? Are you able to see the difference between terrorist
organisations?

Is the "war" on terror a war against all terrorist organisations or just
the
Islamic ones which have targeted the US?


Answers:

1) See my replies to Graham.
2) All of them.

I assume the US are going to Occupy Belfast to stomp out the RIRA threat
then?

 

[T Wake]

<mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
newskfUg.31$45.83@news.uchicago.edu...

In article <efr907$sb7$5@blue.rahul.net>, kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken
Smith) writes:
In article <XxYTg.5$45.149@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote:
[....]
Criminals are people who are motivated by self interest and can be
deterred by sufficiently reducing the chance of profit.

No, criminals are people who commit crimes. Their have been some who have
done so for nonprofit and in a few cases nonselfish reasons. They are
still none the less criminals. Consider the example of someone who gives
LSD to minors because it "expands their mind". Such a person is still a
criminal.

And, they're
parasites on the society, not trying to destroy it, just milk it.

They may in many cases really be trying to destroy it. Simply "milking
it" may not be their aim at all. They may see themselves as trying to
reform it or improve it.


The
Islamic terrorists aim at destruction of the western society and
you're not going to deter them because there is no deterring people
who already decided that they don't care whether they live or die.

Actually that is not true. Deterring people is about placing a treat
against what they value. You may be able to deter many of them with the
threat that if there is another attack, we will nuke Meca.

This, in fact, may work. We didn't get to this stage yet, but we may.
But this level of deterrence is in the province of war, not police
action.

They also very likely would fear being held in prison for life.

This may be so but the technique of carrying poison on yourself at all
times, so as to prevent the possibility of being taken alive is known
for a long time. BTW, the fact that their leaders didn't adapt it yet
is encouraging, in a way.

A surprisingly small number of Islamic extremists are actually willing to
die for their cause you know?

 

[T Wake]

<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:NdfUg.992$NE6.169@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:YM6dnaSDq6ef-bzYRVnyug@pipex.net...

lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:6rbUg.7744$GR.3438@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...

I agree. The West has initiated this "war" on the basis we are
good/free/democratic etc and "they" aren't. Throwing away the rule book
so we can get "them" is not a step in the right direction. There is a
reason why police have to follow the law to apprehend criminals.

Side issue, but this has always been a pet peeve of mine. The consequence
of the police not following the law in apprehending criminals has only
ever been that they are have to release the alleged criminal. In other
words, the police can trample people's (anybody's, not just criminals')
rights at will, and the worst that will happen is the apprehendee is
released, to commit more crime if they were the criminal in the first
place. How is that good for society? In pathological cases, it leads to
innocent people having their rights trampled, and guilty people walking
free. Shouldn't the police be subject to criminal penalties when they
violate the law to apprehend a criminal?

When I become God, they will be subject to the rule of law

Even waiting three years would have worked wonders.

It's not clear to me it would *ever* have been a good idea. I now pray
that Rice et al don't stir the pot too much with Iran.

Not stiring the pot will go against all the US stated foreign policy as it
is actually a regime which overtly sponsors terrorism. (PIJ etc)

Add in North Korea and the US is going to be busy for some time.

The Middle Eastern scholars I've heard and read are now saying that
Ahmadinejad has so little popular support that he will be ousted within a
short time, and that a peaceful, secular regime will in all likelihood
succeed him. If we stick our noses in there, we could just give him
enough support among Iranians to stick around long enough to develop and
use nuclear weapons technology.


I want Special Forces assistance in my War Against Grass this Sunday.

Fortunately, mine seems to have largely stopped to grow for this year.

I hear Napalm works well for that. Does Dow still sell it? ;^)

That would be good.... Mine grows constantly. The constant rain doesn't help
either..

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

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

Is Hezbollah a terrorist organisation ?

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

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

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.

There's also a reason most French can understand English.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

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

The Czechs and Slovaks are especially playful. The Poles are pretty friendly
too.

Graham

 

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:MMqdnSZ0oLqTC7_YRVnyiA@pipex.net...

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....)

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. By the way,
I had been unaware of the connections between Middle Eastern terrorists and
NI, but I guess it doesn't surprise me.

So, taken to its logical conclusion, you're saying that the only way this
unpleasantness in the Middle East will end is if some other group of
extremists starts making trouble somewhere else in the world? Oh, great.
But this support the notion that the current Middle East set-to is related
to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the resulting vacuum of a global
conflict to gel nations into cooperation. There is a humorous saying in the
world of instrumentation: "He who has one watch always knows what time it
is, he who has two watches never knows what time it is." As a similar maxim
for global politics, how about: "A world with two superpowers is
predictable and stable, a world with only one superpower is unpredictable
and unstable."

Eric Lucas

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
"John Fields" <jfields@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,

Radical Islam can't be described as having a "single unified goal." Some
radical Islamic groups which operate as Terrorist organisations in Asia have
no interest in Global conversion.

And how much of it is about Islam any way ?

Most of it is about territory and power.

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.

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.

" The Project for the New American Century intends, through issue briefs,
research papers, advocacy journalism, conferences, and seminars, to explain what
American world leadership entails

American leadership is good both for America and for the world

Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush

Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve
Forbes

Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle

Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz

Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen

Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz "

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 17:58:41 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
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

There's one two doors down from me at this instant, and I talk to him
about stuff like this all the time.

So, "yes."

I thought that might be the case. So what does he say ?

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere@gmail.com> wrote:
Gordon wrote:
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 00:47:08 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:
On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 19:59:42 +0100, "T Wake" wrote:
"John Fields" <jfields@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.
Do you often conjure up such idiotic ideas out of thin air ?

Graham

Graham, what John said is straight out of their Koran. Repeated
in many Surah, Ayah passages. For example;

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Surah 47, Ayah 4 When ye encounter the infidels, strike of their
heads till ye have made a great slaughter among them, and of the
rest make fast the fetters.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the record, an infidel is anyone who is not a recognized
Muslim in good standing. A Muslim who turns away from the Muslim
religion is an infidel. Any person who belongs to and
acknowledges belonging to any other religion is an infidel.

Gordon

Then how do you account for Iran having the second highest Jewish
population in the ME? According to your theory they should all be
Muslims or dead by now.

---
They are "People of the Book" and deserve respect.

As are Christians. Gordon did say "For the record, an infidel is anyone who
is not a recognized Muslim in good standing."

This implies that Jews, Christians, Hindus etc are all subject to the
beheading.

According to whom ?

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote

1) See my replies to Graham.
2) All of them.

I assume the US are going to Occupy Belfast to stomp out the RIRA threat
then?

Maybe they'd have threatened to nuke Dublin ?

Graham