But he regularly changes his nym, and gets to start afresh.
Which Islamic country are you using for your model here? Your description is
The threat is over hyped. Nothing that has happened since 2001 has made the
I dont know enough about American political infighting to respond to this.
It _really_ is.
No it wont. Society exists without the trappings that you seem to want to
Yeah, but national security was not the reason.
No amount of extremist bombings can repeal your constitution unless _you_
Yes.
Still called a civil war though wasn't it?
Extrapolating an assumption here.
Cant be touched by _male_ doctors. In most islamic countries being a doctor
What relevance is gender? It is normally assumed that women are more
Yet it wasn't all eliminated. In Iran which had an Islamic extremist
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---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.
---
Well, no. The fate of infidels who fail to convert to Islam (not
just radical Islam either) is spelled out in the Koran and is
relegation to social insignificance, at best, for 'People of the
Book', and death for the rest of humanity.
Yet, as mentioned elsewhere, it is not as clear cut as this. Islamic
nations
tolerate Hindus for example.
---
Yes. It seems that nothing is ever really black and white. (Except,
perhaps, the statement that it seems that nothing is ever really
black and white.)
Very true
Christianity does not tolerate unbelievers either. Papal bulls in the
tenth
century declared all non-Christians as subject to death on the whims of
their Christian lords.
---
I think, "Christianity used to not tolerate unbelievers either"
might be more accurate.
The interpretation of the book is all that has evolved. The hubris of man
means even devoutly religious people think the Word of God is fallible
enough that mere humans can redefine it. In the case of Christianity
believers have morphed from peace loving worshippers of a kind and
benevolent God, to violent, blood thirsty crusaders killing all that moved
and then on to the modern state of a mixture of tolerance and rhetoric.
What is to say Islam will not undergo the same metamorphosis?
---
---
---
---
---
---
This is simply untrue.
No, not all extremists. Some want Israel to cease to exist. They dont care
Which shows, the extremists are unlikly to be able to make any _real_
Afghanistan is not a representative example of an Islamic nation. Bin Laden
How stupid are you?
How many people will die in the bombing?
Not in anything like a nice way.
Yet, none of this change really required invasions and bombings.
But saying the shared belief in Islam unites the Islamic groups means the
They are still not unified enough to be viewed as working toward a common
Which creates the logical problem of no entity declaring it's needs as being
But they can be reset because they are self determined.
Yes they should. That would (IMHO obviously) require a larger organism for
It would require aliens.
Who decides which is which?
I argee. People become too fixated on the past to see that things change.
Sadly possibly true.
But as with most things, people dont ask permission constantly. Islamic
Yes. Eventually the British Empire was broken up, as was the Roman, the
BothFortunately, we're the cops.
Here we disagree.
---
Do you disagree with the 'fortunately' part or the 'cops' part?
If you are the cops I disagree with "fortunately" - but in advance Yet, I have no say over the US Congress so, still, the World Police is not
Sadly. Nice idea though.
The problem is that the above kind of thought is now being branded as traitorous
Yes.
"JoeBloe" <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:ma7fi2l8q4oc32p6chnf39hvlm89tmhcdk@4ax.com...
On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 23:05:42 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> Gave us:
"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote in
message news
On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 21:51:21 GMT, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com
wrote:
In article <HLVUg.13315$7I1.5654@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
I don't care. If you're listening to a phone call to which the phone
in
my
living room is party, then as a citizen of the US, I demand that your
listening be carried out according to my Constitutional rights.
Probably is. Under a warrant for a phone anything that goes on over
that phone is legally admissable, even if the other person's phone
doesn't have a warrant on it. It well settled that as long as one phone
is legally tapped, any phone that calls it or is called by it is fair
game. Since there are no restrictions on tapping a phone outside of the
country, it would be legal tap. Thus anyone the phone calls or anyone
who calls the phone could be listened to as noted. Would be a rather
interesting case to make.
And it varies state-by-state... it is legal in Arizona to record all
calls on your own phone, _without_ notifying the other party.
All I need to do is push a button ;-)
It is good that you have these loopholes to circumvent civil liberties.
Fuck you, asswipe!
You are such a wizard with words.
I *SHOULD* have the right to record ANY call that
is passed on MY phone, and buyer beware to all that call it or speak
to me on it.
Your logic is flawed. As you have the IQ of a flea there is no point trying
to discuss the finer points of this with you.
As if anything you ever did or said was fine in any way.
I say again. You *know* nothing. You certainly know no such thing
You're an idiot. It is well known how stupid you are in that group
Again, you do not *know* anything.
Sure. My ideas are practical, however. Yours are closer to that of
idiot. That would make YOU the more idiotic.
Doubtful, pussy.
That doesn't make him any less an idiot.
Bah, you need some sense of scale. Check out how many Russians were
There is nothing to seem odd, since they're not doing it.
Absurd. American newspapers, public forums, political parties, and
So why are the Republicans branding criticism as treasonous ?