I've had enough!
goddess00
beliefs in our group, but what you said tonight was the last straw.
You are a sick son of a bitch. How you can sit in your safe little
world and type away your judgements about this countries morals and
lack of courage of the hostages taken by the hijackers on those
airplanes makes me want to puke. I am ashamed of you and for you. I
don't even pity you anymore, I think you suck.
Those men killed themselves and the others on the plane that went down
in Pennsylvania to keep the terrorists from sending that plane into
the White House or Capitol building. They had more guts and were
better people than you will ever be, you sick, judgmental, bastard.
You are no Christian. You aren't even what I would consider a human
being.
Get the hell out of this newsgroup and while your at it, go to hell.
Kat
Bob Weigel
earlier today in rmc...I didn't mention them at all here. I
was simply trying to say that we have NOT taken terrorism
seriously enough and WERE we to adopt a NO NEGOTIATION policy
MOST terrorists would decide it isn't worth hijacking a plane
knowing they are going to be killed while taking out only a
smattering of people who aren't even soldiers like themselves...
Allah would frown on such a thing. HOWEVER since we always
give them LOTS of options like THIS ONE...sheesh..they're all
over it! I'd like to see people's lives saved in the overall
picture which is why this "sick" person has ALWAYS sided with
the old Israeli policy in this area.)
My world has been anything but safe and you
don't know my world at all you prejudgemental person. I've
tried to tell you some about it but apparently you were
in the other room. AFTER ALL if you don't have something evil
to say, don't say anything at all, RIGHT? Why didn't you
ever try affirming anything I had to say that was right?
Or are you so dimented that you think all I said was wrong?
Quite a feat. I said a lot there. No, you chose to shutup
until you could spew forth pure evil.
I could care less what you've had enough of. I came in
here to find people with common interest and I got RUDELY
asessed by you and your buddies. So you just tell me how
sick I am. You mutter that with your dying breath if it
IS your building. I want to make a difference in my world
but it SEEMS there are a lot of people in the way who speak
evil things of others they dont' know and GRADUALLY become
SO HATE filled that they will even lash out and kill people
and stuff. I am not one of these people. You are. You
just proved it. Admit it. You'd like to kill me right
now wouldn't you? I've had people who spoke exactly
the kinds of words you just spoke admit it. Beth Sampson
was woman enough to admit it to my face...6'5" Bostonian
she was which helped :-). I'm sure she wouldn't have in public, but I
recently found out that Frank Stahl (famous U of O researcher)
had to get a restraining order on her after I left. Turned out
to be a little strange for people other than me I guess..
Were it legal she would have. If it was legal, wouldn't you? I don't
want to kill you. I pity you and your need to post
this. I don't sit here and post evil things about you
when I disagree with you. I never called you anything
that you didn't call yourself. -Bob
(NOTE: You said "You aren't even what I would consider to
be a human being". Therefore, it would not be morally illegal
to kill me in your mind. You DO understand that I drove
you to say what was on your heart all the time...don't you?
You hate me...why again? Because I show you who you are??
Tell me again. I somehow missed it amidst all
your hatred. :-) I do have a gift of getting to the heart
of the matter with people don't I? Choice wording. Couldn't
have played it back better with a recorder. )
Talos
Talos
Tracy
Bravo! Very well said Kat.
Tracy
~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/ ICQ: 18737275
....................................
I believe that all humans are created equal and deserve
the same respect and dignity. Let's end hatred...
*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***
Kalera Stratton
only about 25 miles from my housemate's paternal home was meant to go to the
White House... a destruction which would have meant a lesser loss of life
than what took place in New York, but would have been many times more
devastating to the morale of the country. I also believe that God is a
PRIVATE matter, and that the reason so many people publicly cried out to him
at this time of tragedy is a testament to how our lives are turned inside
out when catastrophe strikes.
My housemate, whom I have come to love as a family member, was devastated by
this. He hasn't lost anyone he knows, but the foundation of safety he took
for granted has been shaken. I, as an American indian, have never had that
foundation of safety so it comes as much less of a shock to me, but no less
a tragedy. For Bob to so callously judge those who invoke their Maker in
such a stressful time shows him as a sociopath, in my opinion.
-Kalera
Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX
>My housemate, whom I have come to love as a family member, was devastated by
>this. He hasn't lost anyone he knows, but the foundation of safety he took
>for granted has been shaken. I, as an American indian, have never had that
>foundation of safety so it comes as much less of a shock to me, but no less
>a tragedy.
I was devastated when Challenger crashed. Since then I've
faced death a number of times. And now some Muslims have
taken advantage of Clinton's decimnation of our intelligence
operations to exact revenge for Clinton's bombing of aspirin
factories et al as he wriggled out of the Lewinsky scandal.
911 will affect me orders of magnitude more than Challenger,
but I don't have the same reaction I had to the deaths of
the Callenger 7. Guess I'm a not such a virgin any more.
--
Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX N2469R c...@omen.COM www.omen.com
Omen Technology Inc "The High Reliability Software"
10255 NW Old Cornelius Pass Portland OR 97231 503-614-0430
Kris Hasson-Jones
>
> In article <B7C5B391.28BA%kal...@qwest.net>, Kalera Stratton wrote:
> >My housemate, whom I have come to love as a family member, was devastated by
> >this. He hasn't lost anyone he knows, but the foundation of safety he took
> >for granted has been shaken. I, as an American indian, have never had that
> >foundation of safety so it comes as much less of a shock to me, but no less
> >a tragedy.
>
> I was devastated when Challenger crashed. Since then I've
> faced death a number of times. And now some Muslims have
> taken advantage of Clinton's decimnation of our intelligence
Are you trolling? Why does it matter that they were Muslims
if not?
Some *individuals*, possibly supported by governments, committed
acts of terrorism. We hardly have clean hands--we may well have
trained the very individuals who committed these acts, intending
that they commit them against *someone else*.
--
Kris Hasson-Jones sni...@pacifier.com
God does not deduct from a child's allotted time on Earth the time spent
with Mr. Rogers.--Kathleen Parker, September 5, 2001
Bob Weigel
I stay in this state of grieving, and I'm kind of hyperalert towards
trying to work out solutions instead of just belaboring the tragic
events. I keep asking why
* they don't ARM crew with .45/.45/9mm birdshot guns..at least cabin crew
* put cctv monitors in the cabin
* Put an autopilot lock (something I wouldnt'have thought of before this)
on planes so that once initiated you can't get it out of a loop until
a code is entered.
* ADOPT ISRAEL'S NO NEGOTIATION POLICY!!
Were the latter done, all terrorists would know their limits. And
it would sure as hell never go to these kinds of extents AGAIN! WE
MUST DO THESE THINGS OR WE ARE JUST STUPID...and asking for it.
-Bob
In article <slrn9q1gl...@omen.omen.com>,
Brock Hannibal
> Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX wrote:
> >
> > In article <B7C5B391.28BA%kal...@qwest.net>, Kalera Stratton wrote:
> > >My housemate, whom I have come to love as a family member, was devastated by
> > >this. He hasn't lost anyone he knows, but the foundation of safety he took
> > >for granted has been shaken. I, as an American indian, have never had that
> > >foundation of safety so it comes as much less of a shock to me, but no less
> > >a tragedy.
> >
> > I was devastated when Challenger crashed. Since then I've
> > faced death a number of times. And now some Muslims have
> > taken advantage of Clinton's decimnation of our intelligence
>
> Are you trolling? Why does it matter that they were Muslims
> if not?
Because no other faith that I'm aware of has doctrines that support
jihad. These doctrines include eternal reward(including sex) for those
who die upholding them. Quite simply put this encourages suicidal
terrorist acts. No other religious sects that I am aware of do this.
Granted it is a small minority of Muslims, that adhere to them, but it
is ONLY Muslims that adhere to them. If less radical Muslims don't want
to be seen as associated with these atrocities they need to stand up now
and reject jihad in no uncertain terms.
> Some *individuals*, possibly supported by governments, committed
> acts of terrorism. We hardly have clean hands--we may well have
> trained the very individuals who committed these acts, intending
> that they commit them against *someone else*.
I'm sorry, I won't blame the victim like that Kris. These people
comitted these acts out of religious fanaticism. Religion and belief in
some Magic Nose Goblin IS the problem.
--
Brock
Nora: I read you were shot five times in the tabloids.
Nick: It's not true. He didn't come anywhere near my tabloids.
Andrew
: On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, Kris Hasson-Jones wrote:
:> Are you trolling? Why does it matter that they were Muslims
:> if not?
: Because no other faith that I'm aware of has doctrines that support
: jihad. These doctrines include eternal reward(including sex) for those
: who die upholding them. Quite simply put this encourages suicidal
: terrorist acts. No other religious sects that I am aware of do this.
: Granted it is a small minority of Muslims, that adhere to them, but it
: is ONLY Muslims that adhere to them. If less radical Muslims don't want
: to be seen as associated with these atrocities they need to stand up now
: and reject jihad in no uncertain terms.
Why? Does it matter that the people who advocate bombing abortion
clinics largely profess to be Christians? Do Christians have more
responsibility than non-Christians to denounce so-called Christians
who advocate bombing abortion clinics? Why can't we *all* condemn
such violence and not try to tarnish "Christians" just because of the
beliefs of a small minority who advocate such horrors?
David Koresh professed to be a Christian, too (or was it that he
professed to be Christ?). Should we draw from these examples that
Christians in general should be feared because of these so-called
Christians who advocate violence?
Most Muslims are not even Arabs. Most Muslims, as you say, do not
accept Jihad and abhor any violence of this sort, just as most
Christians do. Honestly, I know little about Islam, but I heard one
Muslim say this week that suicide is prohibited by the Koran. I have
no doubt that the vast majority of Muslims are as saddened by this
violence as are most Christians.
:> Some *individuals*, possibly supported by governments, committed
:> acts of terrorism. We hardly have clean hands--we may well have
:> trained the very individuals who committed these acts, intending
:> that they commit them against *someone else*.
: I'm sorry, I won't blame the victim like that Kris. These people
: comitted these acts out of religious fanaticism. Religion and belief in
: some Magic Nose Goblin IS the problem.
The question most people aren't even bothering to ask is: why do
these people hate us this much? I'm guessing most Americans simply
think that these terrorists hate "the American way of life" and
western decadence, but it is far from that simple. Is it support for
Israel? From what I've read, it's even more than that. Bin Laden is
a Saudi dissident (and billionare) who started his crusade against
America, it seems, after the Gulf war when America left troops in
Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden developed the notion that the American troops
were an occupation force; he wanted the US to get out of the region
and feared (in his mind anyway) that the US was trying to take over
the Middle East. It seems that this is where most of fanatics' hatred
comes from.
I agree with Kris; the US is far from a benevolent angel nation that
does only good things around the world. We've done some pretty
questionable stuff over the years, often in the name of the cold war.
The CIA probably was working with Bin Laden (as they worked with
Saddam Hussein) against the Soviets in Afghanistan, because he also
opposed them actively it seems. We can guess that Bin Laden used the
same kinds of tactics when we were working with him. Why are we
shocked that these monsters we worked with before have come back to
haunt us over the last decade?
America now has little choice but to retaliate in large measure
against the people and nation(s) responsible for these acts of war.
Still, after some of this cools down, I hope that America will finally
*GET OUT* of the Middle East. As in: cut off our dependence on
foreign oil; develop alternate energy sources 20 years after
investment was cut off in the Reagan years, and enforce higher fuel
efficiency standards for automobiles. Let Saudi Arabia hire and train
their own army. We should have done this after the Gulf War (which
was fought largely because of the need to protect Saudi oil
supplies). Will a future administration have the guts to go this
direction? Undoubtedly with two oil men as president and
vice-president, it's unlikely to happen any time soon...
Andrew
--
----> Portland, Oregon, USA <----
*******************************************************************
----> http://www.bizave.com/photos/ <---- Andrew's Photography
----> http://www.moviepundit.com/ <---- Andrew's Movie Website
*******************************************************************
To respond by EMAIL, please DO NOT hit "reply". Email address
scrambled for security. Instead, please visit the web page:
Jim Branch
news:3BA0CFB6...@pacifier.com...
> Why does it matter that they were Muslims if not?
IMNSHO, it doesn't matter what they were, but unfortunately, I seem to be in
the minority on this.
In a discussion with my son, I thought that Americans have evololved beyond
the hatred displayed in WW2 after the Pearl Harbour bombing towards
Asian-Americans. He laughed at me.
Sadly, he was right. Although it's not the <insert religion or ethnicity of
choice here> that is the problem, it is the attitude of the public in
general. I'm referencing the idiots who were outside a Mosque waving the
American flag (like the atendees aren't also American). I'm sure there's
more examples out there of this ignorance.
> Some *individuals*, possibly supported by governments, committed
> acts of terrorism. We hardly have clean hands--we may well have
> trained the very individuals who committed these acts, intending
> that they commit them against *someone else*.
The student turns on the teacher.
Anyone care to guess what happens next? I've already gotten e-mail
predicting the end of the world :-)
J
Brock Hannibal
<cddhjhjzcas...@bizaveNOSPAM.com>:
> Brock Hannibal <hami...@pacifier.com> wrote:
> : On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, Kris Hasson-Jones wrote:
> :> Are you trolling? Why does it matter that they were Muslims
> :> if not?
>
> : Because no other faith that I'm aware of has doctrines that
> support : jihad. These doctrines include eternal reward(including
> sex) for those : who die upholding them. Quite simply put this
> encourages suicidal : terrorist acts. No other religious sects
> that I am aware of do this. : Granted it is a small minority of
> Muslims, that adhere to them, but it : is ONLY Muslims that
> adhere to them. If less radical Muslims don't want : to be seen
> as associated with these atrocities they need to stand up now :
> and reject jihad in no uncertain terms.
>
> Why? Does it matter that the people who advocate bombing
> abortion clinics largely profess to be Christians?
Yes, it most certainly does. They are using their religion to justify
murder. JUST LIKE THESE CURRENT MURDERERS.
> Do Christians
> have more responsibility than non-Christians to denounce
> so-called Christians who advocate bombing abortion clinics?
Yes.
> Why
> can't we *all* condemn such violence and not try to tarnish
> "Christians" just because of the beliefs of a small minority who
> advocate such horrors?
Religious fanatacism has been responsible for much of the war and
violence throughout history. They do it in the name of religion.
Religion is inextricably tied to their motives.
>
> David Koresh professed to be a Christian, too (or was it that he
> professed to be Christ?). Should we draw from these examples
> that Christians in general should be feared because of these
> so-called Christians who advocate violence?
I never said that. But Christians should certainly denounce people
who profess to be Christians yet commit and advocate violence.
>
> Most Muslims are not even Arabs. Most Muslims, as you say, do
> not accept Jihad and abhor any violence of this sort, just as
> most Christians do. Honestly, I know little about Islam, but I
> heard one Muslim say this week that suicide is prohibited by the
> Koran. I have no doubt that the vast majority of Muslims are as
> saddened by this violence as are most Christians.
Actually the concept of jihad or holy war is preached in the Koran.
>
> :> Some *individuals*, possibly supported by governments,
> committed :> acts of terrorism. We hardly have clean hands--we
> may well have :> trained the very individuals who committed these
> acts, intending :> that they commit them against *someone else*.
>
> : I'm sorry, I won't blame the victim like that Kris. These
> people : comitted these acts out of religious fanaticism.
> Religion and belief in : some Magic Nose Goblin IS the problem.
>
> The question most people aren't even bothering to ask is: why do
> these people hate us this much? I'm guessing most Americans
> simply think that these terrorists hate "the American way of
> life" and western decadence, but it is far from that simple. Is
> it support for Israel? From what I've read, it's even more than
> that. Bin Laden is a Saudi dissident (and billionare) who
> started his crusade against America, it seems, after the Gulf war
> when America left troops in Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden developed
> the notion that the American troops were an occupation force; he
> wanted the US to get out of the region and feared (in his mind
> anyway) that the US was trying to take over the Middle East. It
> seems that this is where most of fanatics' hatred comes from.
>
> I agree with Kris; the US is far from a benevolent angel nation
> that does only good things around the world. We've done some
> pretty questionable stuff over the years, often in the name of
> the cold war.
We have also spent more on medicine, disaster relief, famine relief
and other benevolent programs than ALL OTHER COUNTRIES OF THE WORLD
COMBINED. Yeah, we're just terrible monsters.
We rebuilt Europe and Japan after WWII and never even required
payback for the loans we gave them from Britain, Russia and others.
> The CIA probably was working with Bin Laden (as
> they worked with Saddam Hussein) against the Soviets in
> Afghanistan, because he also opposed them actively it seems. We
> can guess that Bin Laden used the same kinds of tactics when we
> were working with him. Why are we shocked that these monsters we
> worked with before have come back to haunt us over the last
> decade?
We made Bin Laden and his family rich with our thirst for oil.
> America now has little choice but to retaliate in large measure
> against the people and nation(s) responsible for these acts of
> war. Still, after some of this cools down, I hope that America
> will finally *GET OUT* of the Middle East. As in: cut off our
> dependence on foreign oil;
Our dependence on their oil has caused many of the middle eastern
countries to thrive.
> develop alternate energy sources 20
> years after investment was cut off in the Reagan years, and
> enforce higher fuel efficiency standards for automobiles. Let
> Saudi Arabia hire and train their own army. We should have done
> this after the Gulf War (which was fought largely because of the
> need to protect Saudi oil supplies). Will a future
> administration have the guts to go this direction? Undoubtedly
> with two oil men as president and vice-president, it's unlikely
> to happen any time soon...
Andrew, the reason we are so universally hated in the Moslem world is
a religios reason. They hate the Jews. We support Israel. It's that
simple.
--
Brock
"Put a $20 gold piece on my watch chain so the boys'll know I died
standin' pat"
Bob Weigel
And then the guy acting like a punk spouts off something quite
logical. What is this...some kind of bias going on here Andrew? :-)
That's a rhetorical question. Remember you are talking to people
who called me a nazi and stuff just for association with people who
do peaceful protests at abortion clinics. :-)...while you...stood
idly by, only to join in with the mocking festivities later. And
now I know you know better. Much better. Hypocrit. -Bob
In article <cddhjhjzcas...@bizaveNOSPAM.com>,
Basaltrock
news:3ba17e42$1...@news.nwlink.com...
While I agree with you completely on the topic of religious fanatism I have
to differ from you on America's stance in the world. I tend to agree with
Andrew on this. I have a Palestian nextdoor neighbor and we have spoken
extensively over the years. Our support of Israel is very much a part of
their hate for us, but our attacking other Muslim states (Iran,Iraq) in the
past. Anyone here remember the US Navy mistakely shooting down an Iranian
Airliner? We lobed shells from the U.S.S. New Jersey into Beriut some time
back in retaliation to our embassy being bombed. Our shooting accuracy is
good, but considering the how many of our people that were killed by
friendly fire in the Gulf war, it's nothing to brag about. Civilians were
killed in Beruit and it wasn't shown to us on our media. Mohamar Kadafi is
another respected muslim leader and we spanked him several times. We don't
exactly endear ourselves to the Arab world.
We make friends with a group in times of war like we did with Bin Laden in
the 80's then we abandon them when it's no longer convienent. I know
Vietnam veterans that are ashamed of what our government did to the Mountain
fighters there (Moutinard?). A large amount of them were executed and
murdered when we pulled out and didn't take them with us.
Our weapons have rained down upon the heads of Arabs for many decades and
when they read the remaining bits and pieces with english on them and grow
to hate us. I have no problem with Jews or Muslims and I don't understand
why our government always sides with Israei interests. We need to look at
how we offer support to groups and realize how much if a ripple effect it
can have on the people in that area.
It is a very difficult thing to walk the high wire of foreign diplomacy and
we can't always get it right. I believe we can do a better job of it and
have a more balanced view when it comes to lending our support or largess to
a particular group or country.
> We rebuilt Europe and Japan after WWII and never even required
> payback for the loans we gave them from Britain, Russia and others.
American companies also profitted greatly from that rebuilding period. It's
also hard to get blood from a rock.
> > The CIA probably was working with Bin Laden (as
> > they worked with Saddam Hussein) against the Soviets in
> > Afghanistan, because he also opposed them actively it seems. We
> > can guess that Bin Laden used the same kinds of tactics when we
> > were working with him. Why are we shocked that these monsters we
> > worked with before have come back to haunt us over the last
> > decade?
>
> We made Bin Laden and his family rich with our thirst for oil.
Osama is very much a poor little rich boy. He doesn't reject the money, just
how it gets to him. He hates the Saudi royal family even though his family
got rich from them. His flavor of Islam hates western education and culture
yet he profits greatly from it. A colossal shining Anus by my measure.
> > America now has little choice but to retaliate in large measure
> > against the people and nation(s) responsible for these acts of
> > war. Still, after some of this cools down, I hope that America
> > will finally *GET OUT* of the Middle East. As in: cut off our
> > dependence on foreign oil;
>
> Our dependence on their oil has caused many of the middle eastern
> countries to thrive.
We're kinda cooking in our juices, so to speak.
> > develop alternate energy sources 20
> > years after investment was cut off in the Reagan years, and
> > enforce higher fuel efficiency standards for automobiles. Let
> > Saudi Arabia hire and train their own army. We should have done
> > this after the Gulf War (which was fought largely because of the
> > need to protect Saudi oil supplies). Will a future
> > administration have the guts to go this direction? Undoubtedly
> > with two oil men as president and vice-president, it's unlikely
> > to happen any time soon...
>
> Andrew, the reason we are so universally hated in the Moslem world is
> a religios reason. They hate the Jews. We support Israel. It's that
> simple.
I think it's a little more complex than that Brock. Not much mind you, but
a little more.
Basaltrock
Scott Rainey
Andrew:
> > Does it matter that the people who advocate bombing
> > abortion clinics largely profess to be Christians?
Brock Hannibal wrote:
> Yes, it most certainly does. They are using their religion to justify
> murder. JUST LIKE THESE CURRENT MURDERERS.
Yup
> > Do Christians
> > have more responsibility than non-Christians to denounce
> > so-called Christians who advocate bombing abortion clinics?
Brock Hannibal wrote:
> Yes.
Yup Yup
Jeff Henshaw
>Brock Hannibal <hami...@pacifier.com> wrote:
>: On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, Kris Hasson-Jones wrote:
>:> Are you trolling? Why does it matter that they were Muslims
>:> if not?
>
>: Because no other faith that I'm aware of has doctrines that support
>: jihad. These doctrines include eternal reward(including sex) for those
>: who die upholding them. Quite simply put this encourages suicidal
>: terrorist acts. No other religious sects that I am aware of do this.
>: Granted it is a small minority of Muslims, that adhere to them, but it
>: is ONLY Muslims that adhere to them. If less radical Muslims don't want
>: to be seen as associated with these atrocities they need to stand up now
>: and reject jihad in no uncertain terms.
>
>Why? Does it matter that the people who advocate bombing abortion
>clinics largely profess to be Christians? Do Christians have more
>responsibility than non-Christians to denounce so-called Christians
>who advocate bombing abortion clinics? Why can't we *all* condemn
>such violence and not try to tarnish "Christians" just because of the
>beliefs of a small minority who advocate such horrors?
Hmm.. Different situations. I'm not aware of any suicide bombings on
abortion clinics. So-called Christians who kill and maim in bombings of
clinics do so without (AFAIK) the blessing of God. To a small set of
Muslims, killing and maiming and dying in the practice of such IS with the
blessing of Allah, and does bring rewards in the afterlife. This is the
point Brock was making.
But, to answer your question - YES. When right/left/top/bottom extremist
Christians bomb clinics, I DO think it's up to the majority of non-violent
Christians to stand up and say "that's horrible, that's not what we believe,
they have taken what we believe to be God's Word and perverted it into
murder, death and destruction. I want everyone to know that I'm a God
fearing and God loving Christian and that there's no way that anyone will
ever have to fear that sort of thing from me. We need to find these people,
arrest them, judge them and put them away so they won't hurt anyone ever
again."
After all, if the majority WON'T stand up and shout loudly just how evil
that violence is, then we're left to wonder - maybe they DO think this way?
Granted, it sucks that nice people have to stand up and say "I've never been
a killer and I never will be" - but it's an imperfect world and things like
this are sometimes needed.
>David Koresh professed to be a Christian, too (or was it that he
>professed to be Christ?). Should we draw from these examples that
>Christians in general should be feared because of these so-called
>Christians who advocate violence?
Being an atheist, _lots_ of Christians make me nervous. Tolerance is more
honored in the breach than in reality by a large number of Christians -in my
experience (please note lack of generalization here.) Luckily, that's mostly
offset by how ludicrous their lies about their religion are. But that's just
me.
Let's generalize the question - should "X" be feared because a tiny subset
of "X" advocates and carries out violence? Obvious answer - NO! We're
already starting to hear of violence and threats against "towelheads" - this
is something we all have to combat by disagreeing vigorously with anyone who
spouts this kind of crap.
>Most Muslims are not even Arabs. Most Muslims, as you say, do not
>accept Jihad and abhor any violence of this sort, just as most
>Christians do. Honestly, I know little about Islam, but I heard one
>Muslim say this week that suicide is prohibited by the Koran. I have
>no doubt that the vast majority of Muslims are as saddened by this
>violence as are most Christians.
I quite agree. And you're right, suicide is prohibited in the Koran. It
takes fanatic madmen - whether religious fanatics in the form of Muslim
suicide bombers or secular fanatics in the form of the Japanese Kamikazes of
WW II - to perform these acts. In each case, "mad" is the common
denominator. I'm very much of the opinion that you deal with mad men the
same way you deal with mad dogs - you hunt them down and you shoot them.
>The question most people aren't even bothering to ask is: why do
>these people hate us this much? I'm guessing most Americans simply
>think that these terrorists hate "the American way of life" and
>western decadence, but it is far from that simple. Is it support for
>Israel? From what I've read, it's even more than that. Bin Laden is
>a Saudi dissident (and billionare) who started his crusade against
>America, it seems, after the Gulf war when America left troops in
>Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden developed the notion that the American troops
>were an occupation force; he wanted the US to get out of the region
>and feared (in his mind anyway) that the US was trying to take over
>the Middle East. It seems that this is where most of fanatics' hatred
>comes from.
>
>I agree with Kris; the US is far from a benevolent angel nation that
>does only good things around the world. We've done some pretty
>questionable stuff over the years, often in the name of the cold war.
>The CIA probably was working with Bin Laden (as they worked with
>Saddam Hussein) against the Soviets in Afghanistan, because he also
>opposed them actively it seems. We can guess that Bin Laden used the
>same kinds of tactics when we were working with him. Why are we
>shocked that these monsters we worked with before have come back to
>haunt us over the last decade?
From supporting Saddam to creating the Taliban that now hides Bin Laden,
we've made huge mistakes over the years. Why are we shocked? Because we're
naive. Why are we naive? Because we're clueless. I'm not talking about our
government (clueless is their prime directive), I'm talking about you and
me. We watched as America supported & installed Saddam. We watched as
America created the Taliban to confront Soviet aggression in Afghanistan.
Did any of us do any more than what we're doing today - suck up whatever
Peter Jennings tells us about it? The freedom-loving Taliban confronts the
evil Soviet empire - who'da thunk that 15 years later the freedom loving
Taliban would have decided that we're the enemy? Not us - we weren't paying
attention. There's a certain inherent problem in creating a puppet regime -
since we don't actually WANT to rule Iraq or Afghanistan, eventually the
puppets become the puppet masters - and then they do what they want.
>America now has little choice but to retaliate in large measure
>against the people and nation(s) responsible for these acts of war.
>Still, after some of this cools down, I hope that America will finally
>*GET OUT* of the Middle East. As in: cut off our dependence on
>foreign oil; develop alternate energy sources 20 years after
>investment was cut off in the Reagan years, and enforce higher fuel
>efficiency standards for automobiles. Let Saudi Arabia hire and train
>their own army. We should have done this after the Gulf War (which
>was fought largely because of the need to protect Saudi oil
>supplies). Will a future administration have the guts to go this
>direction? Undoubtedly with two oil men as president and
>vice-president, it's unlikely to happen any time soon...
Andrew, I'd really like us out of the Middle East as much as you. I'm less
sanguine about the shock to our country when gasoline rises to $15 a gallon
than you, research and implementation of alternative energy takes more time
than one might think.
But it's not really that that gives me pause. It's the reality that the
Palestinians, with help from all over the Arab world, will slaughter the
Israelis if we don't stand behind them. We're talking a purge that will make
the Nazi Holocaust look like a birthday party. I really don't want us to be
there, but at this point, the cost of walking away is more than I can live
with.
Jeff
--
"But what would you DO with a brain if you had one?"
Dorothy's question of the Scarecrow in _The Wonderful Wizard Of Oz_
Andrew
: SEE_BELOW...@bizaveNOSPAM.com (Andrew) wrote in
: <cddhjhjzcas...@bizaveNOSPAM.com>:
:> David Koresh professed to be a Christian, too (or was it that he
:> professed to be Christ?). Should we draw from these examples
:> that Christians in general should be feared because of these
:> so-called Christians who advocate violence?
: I never said that. But Christians should certainly denounce people
: who profess to be Christians yet commit and advocate violence.
Shouldn't *EVERYONE* denounce abortion clinic bombings? Shouldn't
*EVERYONE* denounce terrorism? Why does the religion of the
perpetrators obligate people subscribing to a religion of the same
name be more obligated than others to denounce them? I.e. I don't
think Muslims should be singled out at *all* unless they are
advocating terrorism. Otherwise, American Muslims are just American
citizens like you and me and ought not to be singled out for being
Muslim.
:> Most Muslims are not even Arabs. Most Muslims, as you say, do
:> not accept Jihad and abhor any violence of this sort, just as
:> most Christians do. Honestly, I know little about Islam, but I
:> heard one Muslim say this week that suicide is prohibited by the
:> Koran. I have no doubt that the vast majority of Muslims are as
:> saddened by this violence as are most Christians.
: Actually the concept of jihad or holy war is preached in the Koran.
And the Bible can be interpretted (and has been) to advocate all kinds
of war and terror. What's your point?
: We have also spent more on medicine, disaster relief, famine relief
: and other benevolent programs than ALL OTHER COUNTRIES OF THE WORLD
: COMBINED. Yeah, we're just terrible monsters.
Osama Bin Laden allegedly has offered famine relief to Afghanis, even
helped build hospitals for those people. This is apparently one
reason he has had acceptance and popularity in Afghanistan (also the
fact that he helped fight the Soviets). But by your logic Brock,
because this guy has done some good things, he's not a monster either,
right?
The US can still do nasty things just because it does many good things
for the world.
:> America now has little choice but to retaliate in large measure
:> against the people and nation(s) responsible for these acts of
:> war. Still, after some of this cools down, I hope that America
:> will finally *GET OUT* of the Middle East. As in: cut off our
:> dependence on foreign oil;
: Our dependence on their oil has caused many of the middle eastern
: countries to thrive.
Bingo. Let's *GET OUT* - not tomorrow, but gradually, so we won't
have to worry about the middle east as much in 20 years.
: Andrew, the reason we are so universally hated in the Moslem world is
: a religios reason. They hate the Jews. We support Israel. It's that
: simple.
Brock, I suggest you read up on Bin Laden in particular. The specific
reason he and his group hate America is because of our involvement in
the Gulf. He regards American troops stationed today in Saudi Arabia
as a force of occupation. Tonight, PBS' "Frontline" had a terrific
(but frightening) hour show detailing the history of Bin Laden's war
against the US. Israel was barely mentioned.
Andrew
--
----> Portland, Oregon, USA <----
*******************************************************************
----> http://www.bizave.com/photos/ <---- Andrew's Photography
----> http://www.moviepundit.com/ <---- Andrew's Movie Website
*******************************************************************
To respond by EMAIL, please DO NOT hit "reply". Email address
scrambled for security. Instead, please visit the web page:
Andrew
: Andrew sez:
:>Brock Hannibal <hami...@pacifier.com> wrote:
:>: On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, Kris Hasson-Jones wrote:
:>:> Are you trolling? Why does it matter that they were Muslims
:>:> if not?
:>
:>: Because no other faith that I'm aware of has doctrines that support
:>: jihad. These doctrines include eternal reward(including sex) for those
:>: who die upholding them. Quite simply put this encourages suicidal
:>: terrorist acts. No other religious sects that I am aware of do this.
:>: Granted it is a small minority of Muslims, that adhere to them, but it
:>: is ONLY Muslims that adhere to them. If less radical Muslims don't want
:>: to be seen as associated with these atrocities they need to stand up now
:>: and reject jihad in no uncertain terms.
:>
:>Why? Does it matter that the people who advocate bombing abortion
:>clinics largely profess to be Christians? Do Christians have more
:>responsibility than non-Christians to denounce so-called Christians
:>who advocate bombing abortion clinics? Why can't we *all* condemn
:>such violence and not try to tarnish "Christians" just because of the
:>beliefs of a small minority who advocate such horrors?
: Hmm.. Different situations. I'm not aware of any suicide bombings on
: abortion clinics. So-called Christians who kill and maim in bombings of
: clinics do so without (AFAIK) the blessing of God.
I've heard some of these people interviewed. I have no doubt that in
their minds, they *are* doing "God's work", and they undoubtedly think
they have "the blessing of God" (and if you ask one of them, no doubt
you will get an explanation, complete with scripture citations, that
"proves" it). So to me, that makes the abortion clinic bombers a
pretty good analog with the Isamic jihad.
: Andrew, I'd really like us out of the Middle East as much as you. I'm less
: sanguine about the shock to our country when gasoline rises to $15 a gallon
: than you, research and implementation of alternative energy takes more time
: than one might think.
We got the first warning shots in the 70's with the oil embargos and
the Iranian hostage crisis. Development of alternative energy sources
is a matter of not just time but investment. As I understand it, some
of these initiatives were funded during the Carter years, but when
Reagan came in, the price of oil fell through the floor enough to
discourage further investment. We've had twenty freaking years -
where's the big progress?
America built an atomic bomb and put a man on the moon in the 20th
century. If we wanted to, surely we could develop alternate sources of
energy in a reasonable amount of time. But - there are a lot of
people (oil companies, etc.) who stand to lose a lot of money that
way. And we have two oil men as the President and VP. I doubt we'll
see a change policy about oil any time soon.
: But it's not really that that gives me pause. It's the reality that the
: Palestinians, with help from all over the Arab world, will slaughter the
: Israelis if we don't stand behind them. We're talking a purge that will make
: the Nazi Holocaust look like a birthday party. I really don't want us to be
: there, but at this point, the cost of walking away is more than I can live
: with.
We aren't the only western country supporting Israel, but we are the
only one with troops in Saudi Arabia, I think. Most of the terrorist
activity against the US has come about in the decade since America
went after Iraq. We are way more involved in the Middle East than
just supporting Israel, and it seems some of this is what the militant
arabs over there are so upset about.
Andrew
--
----> Portland, Oregon, USA <----
*******************************************************************
----> http://www.bizave.com/photos/ <---- Andrew's Photography
----> http://www.moviepundit.com/ <---- Andrew's Movie Website
*******************************************************************
To respond by EMAIL, please DO NOT hit "reply". Email address
scrambled for security. Instead, please visit the web page:
Jeff Henshaw
>I guess I see people dying slowly in their spirit all the time so
>I stay in this state of grieving, and I'm kind of hyperalert towards
>trying to work out solutions instead of just belaboring the tragic
>events. I keep asking why
>
>* they don't ARM crew with .45/.45/9mm birdshot guns..at least cabin crew
Because that puts terrorists with fake pilot ID on board with weapons.
>* put cctv monitors in the cabin
I doubt that would help. On at least one of the flights, the terrorists
lured the pilots into opening the cockpit door by slaughtering stewardesses
- the screaming kinda got the pilots attention. I'm not too sure that
watching that happen on CCTV would keep a pilot from rushing back into the
passenger cabin. Then again, maybe it would, although that flight crew might
have a hard time sleeping some nights after watching the slaughter and
choosing to ignore it. Better than dying as an involuntary missile, though.
Putting cameras in certainly couldn't hurt.
>* Put an autopilot lock (something I wouldnt'have thought of before this)
> on planes so that once initiated you can't get it out of a loop until
> a code is entered.
Nope, enough torture and you can get the code. Bob Cringley had an excellent
idea though, take a look here:
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20010913.html
Basically, his idea is this - today's autopilots are smart enough to
actually land the aircraft on their own, without human intervention. We
already have a button in the aircraft the pilots can press (surreptitiously)
that signals the ground "I am being hijacked."
Add one more button next to it that means "I have lost control of my
aircraft". Once pressed, the on board autopilot takes over and can NOT be
countermanded from either cockpit or ground. Once pressed, the on board
computer has one and only one task - to put this aircraft on the ground at
the nearest airport capable of handling this size aircraft. Broadcasting
automatic warnings and distress calls on all distress frequencies, the
autopilot heads for the nearest airport that can handle the aircraft. If it
turns out the aircraft is within 30 minutes of such an airport when the
button is pressed, it circles for 30 minutes to allow the ground time to
handle immediate traffic, clear the skies along the approach path and get
emergency crews ready, then it goes to ground.
Killing the on board computer isn't much of an option for the hijackers,
since modern jet aircraft don't fly by manually tugging on cables that run
to ailerons and flaps and such any more - it's all "fly by wire", the
computer interprets tugs on the joystick and gives the appropriate
instructions to the control surfaces. Shooting up the computer is much like
cutting off the wings.
Me, I think this works, at least for jetliners. I'll grant you, it doesn't
do much for the lifespan of the flight crew in the face of some seriously
pissed hijackers. Then again, once hijackers know such a system is in place,
trying to take control of an aircraft will be pretty much useless, so it
evens out in the end.
>* ADOPT ISRAEL'S NO NEGOTIATION POLICY!!
They didn't ask to negotiate. They just pointed and died.
Kris Hasson-Jones
(Andrew) splashed into the river and bubbled:
>We aren't the only western country supporting Israel, but we are the
>only one with troops in Saudi Arabia, I think.
Just to clarify (I know you know this, Andrew), we are in Saudi at the
request of the government there.
--
Kris Hasson Jones sni...@pacifier.com
Andrew
: On 14 Sep 2001 07:35:56 GMT, SEE_BELOW...@bizaveNOSPAM.com
: (Andrew) splashed into the river and bubbled:
:>We aren't the only western country supporting Israel, but we are the
:>only one with troops in Saudi Arabia, I think.
: Just to clarify (I know you know this, Andrew), we are in Saudi at the
: request of the government there.
That's right. And we were in Iran in the 1970's at the request of the
Shah, too. We can see how well that turned out. :-(
Andrew
--
----> Portland, Oregon, USA <----
*******************************************************************
----> http://www.bizave.com/photos/ <---- Andrew's Photography
----> http://www.moviepundit.com/ <---- Andrew's Movie Website
*******************************************************************
To respond by EMAIL, please DO NOT hit "reply". Email address
scrambled for security. Instead, please visit the web page:
Bob Weigel
Jeff,
Andrew's point was quite logical. Anybody can call themself
anything they want. HERE on the NET for instance, some clever
person could pose as me. They could post so much crap that it
would absorb my entire life trying to straighten it out. So
my options are
* live my life being who I am
* devote my life to what this lifeless person has dicated it to be...useless
Do you see? If christians spend all their time trying to make up for
what people claiming to be christians do, they have no time to be christians...
and indeed will not be Christians!....and the idiots will have attained
their goal.
I see my own involvement in this group as I just explained it before
biting Xanthia's head off for bringing up the stupid pedophile thing
again. I'm sorry people have to seed the air with lies like
that. It's not my responsibility to dissociate myself from
what she and others have called me here functionally. I've done
no crime by which I should be associated with that thought. Enjoying
the company of young people who are full of life and like to play
football and basketball and stuff I like to do shouldn't get me
labelled a "pedophile"...gahh...sick sick sick people.. but sometimes
that is the way people are. THE BURDEN OF PROOF isn't on me, because
I have done no crime...any more than it is Xanthia's burden to
prove she isn't an international terrorist.
Likewise, it isn't the burden of Christians to prove they
aren't associated with "christians" who do un-Christlike things.!!!
READ THE HISTORY OF CHRIST! If people dont' know what "Christian"
means then it is their own damned fault for making poor asessments
of who is and isn't a Christian. THAT is where the burden lies. And
that is the completion of this work and I shall make no other
points about it because they have all been made. If new people
come into the group and people are still posting shit about me I
may confront it for their sake though and I will simply try to
be sensetive to the spirit I know in that area. -Bob
Bob Weigel
Jeff Henshaw <jhen...@teleport.com> wrote:
>Bob Weigel sez:
>
>>I guess I see people dying slowly in their spirit all the time so
>>I stay in this state of grieving, and I'm kind of hyperalert towards
>>trying to work out solutions instead of just belaboring the tragic
>>events. I keep asking why
>>
>>* they don't ARM crew with .45/.45/9mm birdshot guns..at least cabin crew
>
>Because that puts terrorists with fake pilot ID on board with weapons.
?? Apparently you don't know any pilots. It would be QUITE a feat to
get the WRONG PILOT on board with the protocol of any of the airlines
I'm aware of. :-) This is non-sense. Do whatever it takes. Put
the guns in lockup. Unlock the lockup with the code only the pilot/
copilot know AFTER they take the helm and lock their door and begin
watching the cctv.
>
>>* put cctv monitors in the cabin
>
>I doubt that would help. On at least one of the flights, the terrorists
>lured the pilots into opening the cockpit door by slaughtering stewardesses
>- the screaming kinda got the pilots attention. I'm not too sure that
Sorry, you shouldn't be a pilot as I said if you intend to
negotiate with terrorists. However...had they been armed...they
could have probably kept the stewardess from being hurt HAD they been
watching. There are always ways people can get hurt though. Why
are you contexting the obviously logical solutions I'm posing? It's
people who grip about everthing that would help that keep these things
happening in worse and worse ways.
>watching that happen on CCTV would keep a pilot from rushing back into the
>passenger cabin. Then again, maybe it would, although that flight crew might
>have a hard time sleeping some nights after watching the slaughter and
>choosing to ignore it. Better than dying as an involuntary missile, though.
>Putting cameras in certainly couldn't hurt.
Right. Think about it. If the pilot/copilot are armed and know what's
going on, they are a powerful force to deter any situation like this
one.
>
>>* Put an autopilot lock (something I wouldnt'have thought of before this)
>> on planes so that once initiated you can't get it out of a loop until
>> a code is entered.
>
>Nope, enough torture and you can get the code. Bob Cringley had an excellent
>idea though, take a look here:
Yep. Torture buys time and lets people see what is going down and gives
them opportunity. Even terrorists get tired and loose their ability to
think clearly and make mistakes. Stop trying to sound like you know
what you are talking about. You obviously do not. :-)
In the meantime from what you describe, we have the same idea. Bob
is just a little more up on cockpit technology that I am. Actually
I thought I had heard they could land planes from my friend Barry
who is a Pilot but I didn't want to presume. I figured that if
it was true someone with a 5 year old's brain would be able to
make the jump. :-)
>http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20010913.html
>
>Basically, his idea is this - today's autopilots are smart enough to
>actually land the aircraft on their own, without human intervention. We
I would hope so, and if so glad to hear it. Obviously then we would
have a landing lockup then wouldn't we?
>already have a button in the aircraft the pilots can press (surreptitiously)
>that signals the ground "I am being hijacked."
>
>Add one more button next to it that means "I have lost control of my
>aircraft". Once pressed, the on board autopilot takes over and can NOT be
>countermanded from either cockpit or ground. Once pressed, the on board
>computer has one and only one task - to put this aircraft on the ground at
>the nearest airport capable of handling this size aircraft. Broadcasting
>automatic warnings and distress calls on all distress frequencies, the
>autopilot heads for the nearest airport that can handle the aircraft. If it
>turns out the aircraft is within 30 minutes of such an airport when the
>button is pressed, it circles for 30 minutes to allow the ground time to
>handle immediate traffic, clear the skies along the approach path and get
>emergency crews ready, then it goes to ground.
>
Beautiful. Then we can just have the recall code issued from the ground
if need be, or just do away with it. However I DARE SAY that it would
be a GOOD idea to keep the option open...say were conditions to arise
which would make the auto-pilot unable to safely land the plane for
example. If possible, you don't turn control of a plane terminally over to a
computer basically. You know this, right? I guarantee that without a
defeat feature there would be a plane lost for no reason. On the other
hand, if a firm protocol is established on when a recall may be
entered so that we dont' wind up negotiating with terrorists in
that way, it would be a good thing. If we can't do that, then it
would certainly be better to have a "computer all the way" option
at least.
>Killing the on board computer isn't much of an option for the hijackers,
>since modern jet aircraft don't fly by manually tugging on cables that run
>to ailerons and flaps and such any more - it's all "fly by wire", the
>computer interprets tugs on the joystick and gives the appropriate
>instructions to the control surfaces. Shooting up the computer is much like
>cutting off the wings.
Yup.
>
>Me, I think this works, at least for jetliners. I'll grant you, it doesn't
>do much for the lifespan of the flight crew in the face of some seriously
>pissed hijackers. Then again, once hijackers know such a system is in place,
But again, if they KNOW they have no negotiations options and they
are just banging their heads against a machine....then only people
who just want to kill the people on that flight are even going to
try and thus we will eliminate things like the events of this week.
Scott Rainey
Andrew wrote:
> America built an atomic bomb and put a man on the moon in the 20th
> century. If we wanted to, surely we could develop alternate sources of
> energy in a reasonable amount of time.
We have. It's called nuclear.
More environmentally friendly than coal Natural Gas, Bunker Oil, wind,
or hydro power.
Oops, nuclear is still a big non-pc word, isn't it?
Andrew
: Andrew wrote:
Sure, Scott, let's store the nuclear waste at your place, okay?
Andrew
--
----> Portland, Oregon, USA <----
*******************************************************************
----> http://www.bizave.com/photos/ <---- Andrew's Photography
----> http://www.moviepundit.com/ <---- Andrew's Movie Website
*******************************************************************
To respond by EMAIL, please DO NOT hit "reply". Email address
scrambled for security. Instead, please visit the web page:
Donald Lanway
"Scott Rainey" wrote:
>> If we wanted to, surely we could develop alternate >>sources of
> > energy in a reasonable amount of time.
>
> We have. It's called nuclear.
>
> More environmentally friendly than coal Natural Gas, Bunker Oil, wind,
> or hydro power.
>
> Oops, nuclear is still a big non-pc word, isn't it?
Environmentally friendly? Tell that to the folks downwind of Chernobyl,
Three mile Island and the Hanford Reservation (In this last case, downstream
as well).
Nuclear is a dead end road as the needed uranium is limited in available
quantity and God ain't making more.
God help us all if we build power plants that run on Plutonium. :(
Let's just live without a few things and find safer ways to be spoiled. We
have fuel cells now that are coming into use... and very soon they'll run on
hydrogen made from sea water or tap water. Geothermal is also viable, it's
just a matter of doing it.
Let's let nuclear die...before we all do.
Scott Rainey
>
> : Andrew wrote:
>
> :> America built an atomic bomb and put a man on the moon in the 20th
> :> century. If we wanted to, surely we could develop alternate sources of
> :> energy in a reasonable amount of time.
>
> : We have. It's called nuclear.
>
> : More environmentally friendly than coal Natural Gas, Bunker Oil, wind,
> : or hydro power.
>
> : Oops, nuclear is still a big non-pc word, isn't it?
Andrew wrote:
> > Sure, Scott, let's store the nuclear waste at your place, okay?
If they pay me market rates, sure.
Oh by the way, between the geek engineers, writing regulations interpreted
by bureaucrats, and the squealing sillies afraid of what they don't
understand, so they get even dumber laws passed, you'll be able to
feel safe too, unless you're one of the latter.
Brian Walker
wrote:
>> Are you trolling? Why does it matter that they were Muslims
>> if not?
>
>Because no other faith that I'm aware of has doctrines that support
>jihad. These doctrines include eternal reward(including sex) for those
>who die upholding them. Quite simply put this encourages suicidal
>terrorist acts. No other religious sects that I am aware of do this.
>Granted it is a small minority of Muslims, that adhere to them, but it
>is ONLY Muslims that adhere to them. If less radical Muslims don't want
>to be seen as associated with these atrocities they need to stand up now
>and reject jihad in no uncertain terms.
Well, first of all, those terrorists who use Islam as an excuse to commit
attrocities are no more Moslem than the wackos who blow up abortion clinics
and shoot doctors or the white-sheeted cowards who lynched black men in the
old south. They have perverted the concept of Jihad. These terrorists
were far more dangerous because they were willing to die for their cause
but that willingness more a factor of desparation than of Islam.. Let us
not forget Japanese Kamakaze pilots of WWII or even the mediaeval
crusaders.
Moslems, both here and abroad, should not be required to prove their
allegiance. Many have already expressed their shock and outrage. Rather,
the problem lies in the with the small minded folks among us who make "rag
head" jokes, deface neighborhood Mosques, spread rumors, advocate turning
countries into glass parking lots or otherwise perpetuate bigotry and
hatred against any people because of race, ethnicity, national origin or
religion. It is the responsibility of all decent folks to speak out
against these injustices and try to cure the ignorance of their fellow
citizens.
>Andrew, the reason we are so universally hated in the Moslem world is
>a religios reason. They hate the Jews. We support Israel. It's that
>simple.
That tends to be an oversimplistic evaluation of the situation. Islam, in
fact, recognizes the Jewish scriptures and traditions. The actual reasons
are more political in scope. It is more accurate to say that people in the
Moslem world hate Zionism. Moslems have traditionally coexisted with both
Jews and Christians.
Many wars have been fought in the name of God, but all for political
purposes.
--
Brian Walker, wal...@aracnet.com
Jeff Henshaw
>Jeff Henshaw <jhen...@teleport.com> wrote:
>: Hmm.. Different situations. I'm not aware of any suicide bombings on
>: abortion clinics. So-called Christians who kill and maim in bombings of
>: clinics do so without (AFAIK) the blessing of God.
>
>I've heard some of these people interviewed. I have no doubt that in
>their minds, they *are* doing "God's work", and they undoubtedly think
>they have "the blessing of God" (and if you ask one of them, no doubt
>you will get an explanation, complete with scripture citations, that
>"proves" it). So to me, that makes the abortion clinic bombers a
>pretty good analog with the Isamic jihad.
I agree 100% on part of this- they do feel they're doing "God's Work".
However, if you ask their pastor/father/priest/whatever, you'll find them
being pronounced as "misguided". You won't find them being billed as
"martyrs to God", as you will with the Jihad-based/Jihad-friendly versions
of Islam.
Again, though - Christians seem to have moved beyond the Crusades and the
Spanish Inquisition, they're not really all that interested in murder
anymore. You'll look long and hard to find a priest willing to guarantee a
place in heaven for an abortion clinic bomber - so, yes, I'm going to call
these two different situations.
Having done that - yes, personally, I do find abortion clinic bombers a
pretty good analog with the Islamic Jihad. Gullible people doing heinous
crimes, all because they've been indoctrinated to believe it's the will of
god.
This isn't a popular sentiment right now, but in truth, all of these people
are really very sad. They've been deluded by people masking themselves as
knowledgeable of God's will - and yet, if they'd only listened to their
hearts, they would have known they were committing mortal sins. Neither
Jehovah nor Allah will accept them now.
>: Andrew, I'd really like us out of the Middle East as much as you. I'm less
>: sanguine about the shock to our country when gasoline rises to $15 a gallon
>: than you, research and implementation of alternative energy takes more time
>: than one might think.
>
>We got the first warning shots in the 70's with the oil embargos and
>the Iranian hostage crisis. Development of alternative energy sources
>is a matter of not just time but investment. As I understand it, some
>of these initiatives were funded during the Carter years, but when
>Reagan came in, the price of oil fell through the floor enough to
>discourage further investment. We've had twenty freaking years -
>where's the big progress?
>
>America built an atomic bomb and put a man on the moon in the 20th
>century. If we wanted to, surely we could develop alternate sources of
>energy in a reasonable amount of time. But - there are a lot of
>people (oil companies, etc.) who stand to lose a lot of money that
>way. And we have two oil men as the President and VP. I doubt we'll
>see a change policy about oil any time soon.
Hmm. I don't see you waxing romantic over the big progress made during the
Clinton years. But then again, despite what people might think, windmills
don't give big blowjobs.
OK, cheap shot, my apologies. Here's my real thinking. The problem is, I
agree with you 100% !
The energy density this country requires is literally astronomical. There IS
NO "GREEN" WAY that we can provide the amount of energy this country needs
when the oil runs out, sometime between 2020 and 2040. We cannot support the
level of energy-intensive "civilization" we currently "enjoy" without
blatantly wasting huge amounts of planetary resources. When those resources
are exhausted, this civilization *will* end - period.
Green resources can provide us about 10-20% of the energy we currently
consume - and when we have to fall back on those resources, the American
population will also drop to 10-20% of current numbers. Since we'll continue
to believe otherwise right up until the cities go dark, that drop will be
catastrophic and the ensuing intra-mural wars will render America into the
equivalent of what we now consider to be a 3rd world nation, somewhere
around Botswana. Frankly, I'd bet that the death toll in America after the
"Age Of Consumption" passes will be closer to 98%, no matter how desperately
you & I try to plant that last can of green beans.
The torch of civilization will once again pass to the Asian countries,
people who are not afraid to look ahead and take painful & necessary steps.
What were once Japanese fishing fleets may, by 2075, be independent nations,
all without an acre of land to call their own.
But that's just my opinion - bit of a downer, I know.
>: But it's not really that that gives me pause. It's the reality that the
>: Palestinians, with help from all over the Arab world, will slaughter the
>: Israelis if we don't stand behind them. We're talking a purge that will make
>: the Nazi Holocaust look like a birthday party. I really don't want us to be
>: there, but at this point, the cost of walking away is more than I can live
>: with.
>
>We aren't the only western country supporting Israel, but we are the
>only one with troops in Saudi Arabia, I think. Most of the terrorist
>activity against the US has come about in the decade since America
>went after Iraq. We are way more involved in the Middle East than
>just supporting Israel, and it seems some of this is what the militant
>arabs over there are so upset about.
Yes, and a lot of the Saudi population hates us, and hates the Saudi ruling
family. This is why the son of a Saudi billionaire can operate against us
for so long, the ruling family doesn't have the support of the people and
enforces it's will by power alone.
On the other hand, it all seemed like a good idea at the time. From raising
up Saddam Hussein to creating the Taliban, we thought we were creating
governments friendly to us. Osama bin Laden smiled and blessed us for
stinger missiles in 1985, last week he gave us back more explosives than
we'd ever given him.
On the gripping hand, maybe Fortress America isn't such a bad idea, at least
up until the Interregnum. Our feeble attempts at Pax Americana haven't
worked. Fortress America will probably give us full employment in both the
occupation and defense forces, it'll allow us to rally together in our
hatred, we can all wave our flags together until we burn that last drop of
oil...
Jeff Henshaw
>In article <Hp2hO6DJ0QbwKS...@4ax.com>,
>Jeff Henshaw <jhen...@teleport.com> wrote:
>Jeff,
>
> Andrew's point was quite logical. Anybody can call themself
>anything they want. HERE on the NET for instance, some clever
>person could pose as me. They could post so much crap that it
>would absorb my entire life trying to straighten it out. So
>my options are
>
>* live my life being who I am
>
>* devote my life to what this lifeless person has dicated it to be...useless
I'm four-square behind number 1, myself.
OK, let me ask for forgiveness in advance, it's already 11:20 & I'm hoping
to finish this by midnite, so I might be a little cruder & more disjointed
than usual.
> Do you see? If christians spend all their time trying to make up for
>what people claiming to be christians do, they have no time to be christians...
>and indeed will not be Christians!....and the idiots will have attained
>their goal.
No. You miss my point.
> THE BURDEN OF PROOF isn't on me, because
>I have done no crime...any more than it is Xanthia's burden to
>prove she isn't an international terrorist.
No. It's not about "burden of proof", it's about outrage.
> Likewise, it isn't the burden of Christians to prove they
>aren't associated with "christians" who do un-Christlike things.!!!
>READ THE HISTORY OF CHRIST! If people dont' know what "Christian"
>means then it is their own damned fault for making poor asessments
>of who is and isn't a Christian. THAT is where the burden lies.
Horseshit. What, I'm supposed to undergo several years of study to determine
that protestants, catholics, baptists and whatever other weird sects you
"Christians" factionalize yourselves into don't support blowing up buildings
and killing doctors?
Try it this way - should we all spend a year studying Islam in order to
understand that Islam doesn't believe in murder and terror, and should every
mullah (priest) of the Islamic faith tell America "Shut up and study Islam
before you make any judgements!" Or should they instead say "Allah does not
abide murderers". ?
Something I've read here (which may be complete BS, forgive me if I'm wrong)
is that you'd like to preach - to be instrumental in spreading your
religion. I gotta say, I don't think you're ready to minister to others at
this time, because you don't understand people at all.
Bob Weigel
Jeff Henshaw <jhen...@teleport.com> wrote:
>Bob Weigel sez:
>
>>In article <Hp2hO6DJ0QbwKS...@4ax.com>,
>>Jeff Henshaw <jhen...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
>OK, let me ask for forgiveness in advance, it's already 11:20 & I'm hoping
>to finish this by midnite, so I might be a little cruder & more disjointed
>than usual.
>
>> Do you see? If christians spend all their time trying to make up for
>>what people claiming to be christians do, they have no time to be christians...
>>and indeed will not be Christians!....and the idiots will have attained
>>their goal.
>
>No. You miss my point.
No? In what way can one deny that logic. CHristians are called to
help people in need and stuff that has NOTHING to do with policing
those who claim to be Christians but are not. In what way did I
"Miss" a point? I'm usually pretty keen at point pickin'. :-)
>
>> THE BURDEN OF PROOF isn't on me, because
>>I have done no crime...any more than it is Xanthia's burden to
>>prove she isn't an international terrorist.
>
>No. It's not about "burden of proof", it's about outrage.
Let's keep this specific. You lost me there. What is "it"??
We were talking as far as I can see about the burden on christians
to do something about people doing evil in the name of Christ.
People are ALWAYS going to do evil. As a Christian I'm not
called to beat up evil people primarily, though I will if I
am confronted with a protection issue situation of course. However,
where is evil? Usually someplace that I don't have the money to
get right away. :-) I love Bush's quote on the headlines yesterday
where it said he was going to "destroy evil doers" or something like
that...hehhehe. I think everyone has done evil and surely have the
capacity for it. So that should keep him busy for a longgg time.
>
>> Likewise, it isn't the burden of Christians to prove they
>>aren't associated with "christians" who do un-Christlike things.!!!
>>READ THE HISTORY OF CHRIST! If people dont' know what "Christian"
>>means then it is their own damned fault for making poor asessments
>>of who is and isn't a Christian. THAT is where the burden lies.
>
>Horseshit. What, I'm supposed to undergo several years of study to determine
Words are cheap. Impress me with reasoning, not stinky words. :-)
>that protestants, catholics, baptists and whatever other weird sects you
>"Christians" factionalize yourselves into don't support blowing up buildings
"YOURSELVES"?? Pardon me Jeff, but what kind of language is that?
THat's bigotry language thar pardner. :-) Think about it. I AM NOT
ABOUT THEM! JUST BECAUSE THEY CHOOSE TO LIE AND ASSOCIATE THEMSELVES
WITH MY SAVIOR DOESN'T GIVE US ANYTHING IN COMMON. I am a guy
who loves Jesus. I'm NOT in a "weird sect". I have no head office.
Jesus is my head. He's alive and my spirit communes with him.
In the time it took you to read this, and reply, you could have
cracked open a bible to the gospels and read enough to discern that
Jesus Christ has NOTHING in common with the types you are discussing.
"YEARS OF STUDY"...Oohhhh PLEEASE. This is getting Silly. Read Matthew
5-6 and TRY to reconcile the teachings of Christ with these things.
You cannot. End of story. No need for years of study.
>and killing doctors?
>
>Try it this way - should we all spend a year studying Islam in order to
No. It's easy to see how Islam makes provision for terrorists to think
things that lead them to these kinds of actions. Walk into any Islamic
temple (if they invite you as they did me :-) ) and in discussion you
will find that these people believe Ishmael was the chosen race...and
as I discussed, since they are humans and have no baseline for understanding
what "chosen" means as Israel did (basically chosen to have their butt
kicked every time they turned around :-) ) NATURALLY it becomes "Chosen
to have a better life than others"...based on race. RIght there, a
source of bigotrous superiority, along with a warrier leader who
chose this folklore God "Allah" to be their divine leader...get the
picture?
.
>understand that Islam doesn't believe in murder and terror, and should every
>mullah (priest) of the Islamic faith tell America "Shut up and study Islam
>before you make any judgements!" Or should they instead say "Allah does not
>abide murderers". ?
Muhammed was a murderer. Ahem. Your logic stinketh. If Allah's most
exalted prophet was a murderer, then...convince me that "Allah does not abide
murderers".
>
>Something I've read here (which may be complete BS, forgive me if I'm wrong)
>is that you'd like to preach - to be instrumental in spreading your
>religion. I gotta say, I don't think you're ready to minister to others at
>this time, because you don't understand people at all.
I don't think you understand much either obviously. :-) All a perspective thing
I guess.
Kalera Stratton
> From: SEE_BELOW...@bizaveNOSPAM.com (Andrew)
> Organization: The Movie Pundit
> Newsgroups: pdx.singles
> Date: 14 Sep 2001 07:16:44 GMT
> Subject: Re: I've had enough!
>
> Brock Hannibal <hami...@pacifier.com> wrote:
> : SEE_BELOW...@bizaveNOSPAM.com (Andrew) wrote in
> : <cddhjhjzcas...@bizaveNOSPAM.com>:
>
> :> David Koresh professed to be a Christian, too (or was it that he
> :> professed to be Christ?). Should we draw from these examples
> :> that Christians in general should be feared because of these
> :> so-called Christians who advocate violence?
>
> : I never said that. But Christians should certainly denounce people
> : who profess to be Christians yet commit and advocate violence.
>
> Shouldn't *EVERYONE* denounce abortion clinic bombings? Shouldn't
> *EVERYONE* denounce terrorism? Why does the religion of the
> perpetrators obligate people subscribing to a religion of the same
> name be more obligated than others to denounce them? I.e. I don't
> think Muslims should be singled out at *all* unless they are
> advocating terrorism. Otherwise, American Muslims are just American
> citizens like you and me and ought not to be singled out for being
> Muslim.
>
I agree with this completely. Furthermore, the onlooker has absolutely no
way of knowing whether any particular Muslim has been outspoken against
terrorism... it's not like they wear little "I SPEAK OUT AGAINST TERRORISM"
badges... no more than the rest of us do. AND THEY HAVE NO REASON TO.
Christians can be, and are, terrorists as much as any other group. As an
American indian, believe me, I know. Whether they engage in suicide
terrorism is irrelevant.
My coworker has been harrassed many times just for being of Middle Eastern
descent. I want to say to the harrassers, YOU ASSHOLES, WHY DO YOU THINK HE
MOVED TO THE US? He has a wife and two kids... one was born only six weeks
ago. He was CRYING in the office today, saying "Tell me, tell me what can I
do that will make me feel better?"
Does he deserve this? If anyone thinks he deserves harrassment and emotional
torture, deserves to fear for his family, simply for being Muslim (like many
of my coworkers are) than you are mentally ill and no better than a
terrorist yourself. If you think he deserves it, then you are no American
and no brother of mine.
-K
> ugh!/newsgroup=pdx.singles/messageid=zcasdacddaxchj32964644051403@bizaveNOSPAM
> .com
Kalera Stratton
been a failed experiment; it requires too many resources to keep it going,
and no nuclear power plant in the history of the US has earned a profit.
They all keep going on Fed money. They require electricity which is mostly
derived from coal just to keep going, and they generate waste which cannot
be safely disposed of. They're uneconomical and anti-capitalist. Not one of
them would have kept going without socialist government support. The only
reason for them was as a "key" for ongoing nuclear research, and even that
angle is played out.
There are many much more efficient and potentially profitable ways of
generating electricity, such as wind and solar, and we should explore them,
despite the econazi arguments against them.
-K
I'm really tired of both the corporati and the hippies. Half the time I
think the hippies were hired by the anti-free-enterprise corporati to
suppress capitalism.
-K
> From: "Donald Lanway" <lonewo...@home.com>
> Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster
> Newsgroups: pdx.singles
> Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 06:49:40 GMT
> Subject: Re: I've had enough!
>
>
Brian Walker
wrote:
>I agree 100% on part of this- they do feel they're doing "God's Work".
>However, if you ask their pastor/father/priest/whatever, you'll find them
>being pronounced as "misguided". You won't find them being billed as
>"martyrs to God", as you will with the Jihad-based/Jihad-friendly versions
>of Islam.
>
>Again, though - Christians seem to have moved beyond the Crusades and the
>Spanish Inquisition, they're not really all that interested in murder
>anymore. You'll look long and hard to find a priest willing to guarantee a
>place in heaven for an abortion clinic bomber - so, yes, I'm going to call
>these two different situations.
The factional violence in Northern Ireland and the "ethnic cleansing" by
Serbs and Croates in the former Yugoslavia would tend to disprove your
asumption that Christians have moved beyond violence and murder. I also
expect that the drug lords of the Medellin Cartel go to church every Sunday
like all devout Catholics.
>Having done that - yes, personally, I do find abortion clinic bombers a
>pretty good analog with the Islamic Jihad. Gullible people doing heinous
>crimes, all because they've been indoctrinated to believe it's the will of
>god.
>
>This isn't a popular sentiment right now, but in truth, all of these
people
>are really very sad. They've been deluded by people masking themselves as
>knowledgeable of God's will - and yet, if they'd only listened to their
>hearts, they would have known they were committing mortal sins. Neither
>Jehovah nor Allah will accept them now.
On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 12:24 AM, Jeff Henshaw <mailto:jhen...@teleport.com>
wrote:
>Bob Weigel sez:
>> THE BURDEN OF PROOF isn't on me, because
>>I have done no crime...any more than it is Xanthia's burden to
>>prove she isn't an international terrorist.
>
>No. It's not about "burden of proof", it's about outrage.
>
>> Likewise, it isn't the burden of Christians to prove they
>>aren't associated with "christians" who do un-Christlike things.!!!
>>READ THE HISTORY OF CHRIST! If people dont' know what "Christian"
>>means then it is their own damned fault for making poor asessments
>>of who is and isn't a Christian. THAT is where the burden lies.
>
>Horseshit. What, I'm supposed to undergo several years of study to
determine
>that protestants, catholics, baptists and whatever other weird sects you
>"Christians" factionalize yourselves into don't support blowing up
buildings
>and killing doctors?
>
>Try it this way - should we all spend a year studying Islam in order to
>understand that Islam doesn't believe in murder and terror, and should
every
>mullah (priest) of the Islamic faith tell America "Shut up and study Islam
>before you make any judgements!" Or should they instead say "Allah does
not
>abide murderers". ?
It probably wouldn't kill ya if you just read a reasonably good book about
Islam. Although it would also help if the Mullahs were more vocal against
terrorism rather than hiding from the expected public backlash against all
Muslims. But even if you did not want to learn anything about Muslims, you
could simply employ a quaint concept that Americans have been developing
during the last couple hundred years: treat them as people.
As a nation we have worked to eliminate racial prejudice against the Irish,
Catholics, blacks, Asians, native Americans, women and homosexuals.
Perhaps we can also add Arabs and Muslims to that list. We have learned
over time that a black man is not just 3/5 of a person and that women are
the equal of men. Hopefully the nightly news has not taught us that only
black people commit crimes and, just because a few postal workers resolved
their labor disputes using handguns, we do not run for cover when the
letter carrier delivers the mail. So, while not all Christians are
right-wing wackos, homophobes or abortion clinic bombers, neither are all
Muslims terrorists or terrorist sympathizers.
--
Brian Walker, wal...@aracnet.com
Bob Weigel
Brian Walker <wal...@aracnet.com> wrote:
>On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 10:23 PM, Jeff Henshaw <mailto:jhen...@teleport.com>
>wrote:
>>I agree 100% on part of this- they do feel they're doing "God's Work".
>>However, if you ask their pastor/father/priest/whatever, you'll find them
>>being pronounced as "misguided". You won't find them being billed as
>>"martyrs to God", as you will with the Jihad-based/Jihad-friendly versions
>>of Islam.
>>
Of course had Muhammed been guiding them, he'd have led them into
some kind of sneaky tactic war because, well, that's what the founder
of their faith DID! :-) "misguided"? By who? The founder of their
faith? ..on the other hand....
>>Again, though - Christians seem to have moved beyond the Crusades and the
>>Spanish Inquisition, they're not really all that interested in murder
>>anymore. You'll look long and hard to find a priest willing to guarantee a
>>place in heaven for an abortion clinic bomber - so, yes, I'm going to call
>>these two different situations.
Jesus, the founder of the Christian faith never killed anyone and in fact
said when someone evil comes against you to turn the other cheek. He also
fully acknowleged the God of Israel, who the Mulims only acknowlege as
being the mythical war God "allah" to the point of Abraham's children.
It would be non-sense anyway for any priest of Y'shua to say an abortion
clinic bomber had earned a place in heaven, because the non-confrontal
sneaky proceedure is one MUHAMMED would have used, NOT Jesus. WERE there
muslims that concerned to bomb clinics, certain ones might claim it
gave them a place in heaven. However, the way most of that culture
treats women, I don't think it's likely a concern.
>
>The factional violence in Northern Ireland and the "ethnic cleansing" by
>Serbs and Croates in the former Yugoslavia would tend to disprove your
>asumption that Christians have moved beyond violence and murder. I also
Christians follow Christ. Wanna be christians follow their own leading
and wind up killing people. IF YOU DID NOT KNOW about Jesus before,
you do now. He was never recorded to advocate any kind of killing, yet
the God who he claimed to be one with ordered people to wipe out certain
other people who had become a stench and had totally decided to follow
after ways of destruction. HE DID THIS to keep them from just taking down
others with them. Does that sound viable to you? If not, WHY NOT? Knowing
humanity as I do, I can totally see it as being viable. Anyway, respond
to this and I'll maybe write more. Otherwise I'll figure you aren't/don't
want to listen. You have the typical words of a person who doesn't
want to listen. And I have little time...been spending way too much
here answering people who are likely functional trolls..-Bob