Jihad needs scientists

[Homer J Simpson]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:45229733.8D7D0F64@hotmail.com...

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

They're all really just books of magic spells anyway.

 

[T Wake]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4522962B.69757C28@hotmail.com...

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.

Sorry, I was wrong. Your posts come across as being anti-American rather
than Anti-CurrentUSPolicy.

It is not the first or the last time I have made a mistake though. I will
try to pay more attention in the future.

 

[T Wake]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:45229A6B.1F273DBC@hotmail.com...

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.

Prior to the "GWOT" the hardliners were still strongly advocating armed
conflict. Following the Declaration of War on Nebulous Concepts, Sinn Fein
pulled out all the stops to turn peaceful. The emergence (and rise in
activity) of splinter groups also supports this change.

However, this is nothing but a personal opinion so I may be wrong.

 

[T Wake]

<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:y5xUg.19119$Ij.18198@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...

"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.

Most terrorist organisations have links with each other in some way or form.
It has been several years since I was ever involved in thinking about this,
but in those days there were basically two sides to the terror market. Some
were right wing, neo-Nazis who were by and large pitiful. They had next to
no funding, equipment or manpower and existed mainly in the feverish wank
fantasies of teenaged white boys who couldn't get laid. (Not all though).

On the other end was a conglomeration of groups like Red Army Faction, Bader
Meinhof, PIRA, Palestine Islamic Jihad, Shining Path and so on. While these
groups did not share a common idology or centralised control (and never will
based on how disparate they were/are) they did share training grounds and
equipment suppliers. Often they were reasonably well funded and the training
camps turned out shockingly high standards. (Fortunately most of their gun
men were in fact retards of the highest order).

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?

Possibly. There are a lot of differences though.

Oh, great.

With Radicalised Islamic terrorist groups, even this may not help :-(

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."

I think it certainly has rings of truth.

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
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.

Prior to the "GWOT"

GWOT ?

the hardliners were still strongly advocating armed
conflict. Following the Declaration of War on Nebulous Concepts, Sinn Fein
pulled out all the stops to turn peaceful. The emergence (and rise in
activity) of splinter groups also supports this change.

However, this is nothing but a personal opinion so I may be wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Friday_Agreement

Was the major turning point.

Graham

 

[T Wake]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4522A0F5.F7D9C53F@hotmail.com...

lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message

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.

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. Despite their current protestations, the other political parties were
largely behind the conflicts.

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

It was Gaddafi who sent the IRA arms.

Amongst others. Gaddafi was fundamentally nothing more than a middle man.
Libya had no centralised manufacturing capability.

Libya did provide most of the training grounds for European Marxist /
Catholic terrorists though.

 

[T Wake]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:45229C68.148DC1AD@hotmail.com...

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.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4522B7B5.1811FA67@hotmail.com...

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 you don't much care
for.

Yes. As I said, not the 'right sort of people'.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote in
message news:f5b5i25b016ar7oqs9spvpbnkne7c70uv6@4ax.com...

The 'Robin Williams' attribution for the final item was interpreted as
applying to the list as a whole, so now the entire piece circulates as
'the Robin Williams plan.'

But he didn't create it.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

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

Sorry, I was wrong. Your posts come across as being anti-American rather
than Anti-CurrentUSPolicy.

It is not the first or the last time I have made a mistake though. I will
try to pay more attention in the future.

You may care for individual lemmings, but when you see them all charging
over the cliff en masse . . . .

(And yes, I know they don't really do that).

 

[Homer J Simpson]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
newskc5i2lt97pr89s6btknjt9vv1rfn840ub@4ax.com...

They did break US law. There's lots of legal precedence here. If a
Canadian kills a US citizen in Canada, that's a violation of US law.

Don't care. It's a violation of Canadian law and must be punished under that
law.

An American 'bounty hunter' came up to Canada, kidnapped a resident who had
broken the law in the US and took him back to the US for trial. The
kidnapped man was returned to Canada and the bounty hunter was extradited to
Canada where he was tried, sentenced and imprisoned for violating Canadian
law. That is as it should be.

"Dog the Bounty Hunter" seems to have missed that lesson.

The French see things the same way... murdering a Frenchman anywhere
is against French law.

Shipping drugs into the US harms US citizens, so is reasonably a
crime.

International waters are not US waters. Piracy is still a hanging offence.

 

[Gordon]

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 15:21:12 +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.

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?



1979 Nov. 4, Tehran, Iran: Iranian radical students seized the
U.S. embassy, taking 66 hostages. Fourteen were later released.
The remaining 52 were freed after 444 days, on the day of
President Reagan's inauguration.

1982-1991 Lebanon: Thirty US and other Western hostages kidnapped
in Lebanon by Hezbollah. Some were killed, some died in
captivity, and some were eventually released. Terry Anderson was
held for 2,454 days.

1983 April 18, Beirut, Lebanon: U.S. embassy destroyed in suicide
car-bomb attack; 63 dead, including 17 Americans. The Islamic
Jihad claimed responsibility.

1983 Oct. 23, Beirut, Lebanon: Shiite suicide bombers exploded a
truck near U.S. military barracks at Beirut airport, killing 241
Marines. Minutes later a second bomb killed 58 French
paratroopers in their barracks in West Beirut.

1983 Dec. 12, Kuwait City, Kuwait Shiite truck bombers attacked
the U.S. embassy and other targets, killing 5 and injuring 80.

1984 Sept. 20, east Beirut, Lebanon: truck bomb exploded outside
the U.S. embassy annex, killing 24, including 2 U.S. military.
Dec. 3, Beirut, Lebanon: Kuwait Airways Flight 221, from Kuwait
to Pakistan, hijacked and diverted to Tehran. Two Americans
killed.

1985 April 12, Madrid, Spain: Bombing at restaurant frequented by
U.S. soldiers, killed 18 Spaniards and injured 82.
June 14, Beirut, Lebanon: TWA flight 847 en route from Athens to
Rome hijacked to Beirut by Hezbollah terrorists and held for 17
days. A U.S. Navy diver executed.

1985 Oct. 7, Mediterranean Sea: gunmen attack Italian cruise
ship, Achille Lauro. One U.S. tourist killed. Hijacking linked to
Libya.

1985Dec. 18, Rome, Italy, and Vienna, Austria: airports in Rome
and Vienna were bombed, killing 20 people, 5 of whom were
Americans. Bombing linked to Libya.

1986 April 2, Athens, Greece:A bomb exploded aboard TWA flight
840 en route from Rome to Athens, killing 4 Americans and
injuring 9.

1986April 5, West Berlin, Germany: Libyans bombed a disco
frequented by U.S. servicemen, killing 2 and injuring hundreds.

1988 Dec. 21, Lockerbie, Scotland: N.Y.-bound Pan-Am Boeing 747
exploded in flight from a terrorist bomb and crashed into
Scottish village, killing all 259 aboard and 11 on the ground.
Passengers included 35 Syracuse University students and many U.S.
military personnel. Libya formally admitted responsibility 15
years later (Aug. 2003) and offered $2.7 billion compensation to
victims' families.

1993 Feb. 26, New York City: bomb exploded in basement garage of
World Trade Center, killing 6 and injuring at least 1,040 others.
In 1995, militant Islamist Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and 9 others
were convicted of conspiracy charges, and in 1998, Ramzi Yousef,
believed to have been the mastermind, was convicted of the
bombing. Al-Qaeda involvement is suspected.

1985 Nov. 13, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: car bomb exploded at U.S.
military headquarters, killing five U.S. military servicemen.

1996 June 25, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia: truck bomb exploded outside
Khobar Towers military complex, killing 19 American servicemen
and injuring hundreds of others. Thirteen Saudis and a Lebanese,
all alleged members of Islamic militant group Hezbollah, were
indicted on charges relating to the attack in June 2001.

1998 Aug. 7, Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: truck
bombs exploded almost simultaneously near 2 U.S. embassies,
killing 224 (213 in Kenya and 11 in Tanzania) and injuring about
4,500. Four men connected with al-Qaeda two of whom had received
training at al-Qaeda camps inside Afghanistan, were convicted of
the killings in May 2001 and later sentenced to life in prison. A
federal grand jury had indicted 22 men in connection with the
attacks, including Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden, who remained
at large.

2000 Oct. 12, Aden, Yemen: U.S. Navy destroyer USS Cole heavily
damaged when a small boat loaded with explosives blew up
alongside it. Seventeen sailors killed. Linked to Osama bin
Laden, or members of al-Qaeda terrorist network.

2001 Sept. 11, New York City, Arlington, Va., and Shanksville,
Pa.: hijackers crashed two commercial jets into twin towers of
World Trade Center; two more hijacked jets were crashed into the
Pentagon and a field in rural Pa. Total dead and missing numbered
2,9921: 2,749 in New York City, 184 at the Pentagon, 40 in Pa.,
and 19 hijackers. Islamic al-Qaeda terrorist group blamed. (See
September 11, 2001: Timeline of Terrorism.)

2002 June 14, Karachi, Pakistan: bomb exploded outside American
consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 12. Linked to al-Qaeda.

2003 May 12, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: suicide bombers killed 34,
including eight Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners.
Al-Qaeda suspected.

2004 May 29-31, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists attack the
offices of a Saudi oil company in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, take
foreign oil workers hostage in a nearby residential compound,
leaving 22 people dead including one American.

2004 June 11-19, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists kidnap and
execute Paul Johnson Jr., an American, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Dec. 6, Jiddah, Saudi Arabia: terrorists storm the U.S. consulate
killing 5 before being subdued by Saudi security who killed five
of the militants.

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 20:19:17 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 18:28:11 GMT, "Homer J Simpson" wrote:
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@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.

John

 

[Gordon]

On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 18:06:56 +0100, "T Wake"
<usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

"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.

If the U.S. had "world domination" as a goal we would surely have

kept control of those countries we liberated during previous
wars.

Gordon

 

[Homer J Simpson]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:bp15i2tcudiitke1b9dt5i8h2c2btatpih@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.

 

[T Wake]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:45229F2D.194CE2EC@hotmail.com...

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 ?

The original quote which was being discussed.

 

[T Wake]

"Homer J Simpson" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:ckyUg.45877$bf5.5504@edtnps90...

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:h_WdnWq6y6WFBL_YRVnyvg@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.

 

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

T Wake wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:45229C68.148DC1AD@hotmail.com...

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.

That's the point at which they've won.

--
Dirk

http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress - The UK's only occult talk show
Presented by Dirk Bruere and Marc Power on ResonanceFM

 

"Gordon" <gordonlr@DELETEswbell.net> wrote in message
news:57d5i21spajr15qtdavgd63em37bvhd42c@4ax.com...

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:47:09 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



Frithiof Andreas Jensen wrote:

mmeron@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

 

[T Wake]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4522A060.1D52688A@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.