The fundamentalist mindset.
vze2...@mail.verizon.net
monolithic entity and taking the worst aspects of it and extrapolating
back to the "whole". Religious fundamentalism is not just the province
of Islam but is to be found in many religions including Christianity.
The fundamentalists of the Southern Baptist Convention used religion to
justify slavery, segregation and lynching. Even today the SBC has placed
women in an inferior role to men. It has infected some aspects of the
Catholic church.
One need not be reminded of all the millions murdered in the name of
Jesus. Are we to judge all of Christianity by their excesses?
Fundamentalism
Fundamentalism is a term popularly used to describe strict adherence to
Christian doctrines based on a literal interpretation of the Bible. This
usage derives from a late-19th- and early-20th-century
transdenominational Protestant movement that opposed the accommodation
of Christian doctrine to modern scientific theory and philosophy.
So says Grolier Electronic Publishing, Inc. The term “Fundamentalist”
has since been extended by the mass media to refer to “Fundamentalist”
Jews, Moslems, and even Hindus. In each case, the inference is that some
people refuse to budge from the most conservative version of their faith
that is available to them and resist, even to the point of violence, all
competing worldviews, including scientific knowledge about the origins
of life and of Earth not really being the center of the universe.
Non-Christian examples include some Orthodox and Hassidic Jews, most
Shiite Muslims in Iran, and most Sunni Muslims elsewhere. Christian but
not Protestant examples would be ultra-conservatives within both Roman
and Eastern Orthodox Catholicism, as well as some Mormons (though
non-Mormons often consider all members of the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter Day Saints “non-Christian”). Nontheistic examples would include
many Marxists and Secular Humanists, as well as other fervent atheists.
The largest fundamentalist menace in America is Protestant or claims to
be Protestant.
See A Challenge to Atheists
To make the water even murkier was massive changes in the Christian
religion since 1800. The huge influx and infiltration of pseudo-science,
Eastern religion, personality cults with new prophecy, Gnostic style
revisionism, speaking in tongues, faith healing, apocalypse ravings, and
all kinds of "New Age" style theology have totally infiltrated and
transformed many Protestant denominations into cults.
Because fundamentalists reject all scholarship and prefer to manufacture
their own based often on their own claims of direct revelations from
God, they produce what is little more than New Age religion with the
social agenda of the 17th century Puritans. The ones I'm going to be
looking at are the so-called Protestants.
According to a CBN pamphlet "Cults," 1992" A cult is any group that has
a form of godliness, but does not recognize Jesus Christ as the unique
Son of God."..."One test of a cult is that it often does not strictly
teach that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God who HImself is God
manifested in the flesh."..."Christian-oriented cults include the Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or Reorganized Church of Latter Day
Saints (Mormons), the Worldwide Church of God, Christian Science, Unity,
Unitarianism, The Way International, Rosicrucian Society of America,
Bahai, Hare Krishna, Scientology, the Unification Church, and the
Jehovah's Witnesses."
But this should also include Adventists Churches and their off-shoots
(Christian Identity, British Israelism, etc), most Baptist Churches and
Pentecostals because of their massive infiltration by non-Biblical
theology. Just because they still "sort of" have the Trinity doesn't
mean they're Christian. None of these groups follow traditional
Christian teachings or insert things that are clearly in error. One
example is the Adventists following the teachings of an occult
prophetess Ellen K. White and her end-times "visions" of the 1840s.
Other silly claims includes America is the new Israel, etc. Sorry, no
new revelations allowed. All of these churches are very cult-like; they
control and attempt to isolate their members from mainstream society,
etc. That makes them cults, period.
More from Pat Robertson
See Militias Take Aim in VA
Fundamentalism is an attitude that has nothing to do with faith more
than political power. Be it Islam, Christianity, or whatever they can
always find some twisted logic for almost anything. Most of this crap is
home-grown American or British and isn't Biblical at all. Being a cult
is a social structure regardless of religious dogma. And what happens
when the Bible doesn't say what one wants to hear? We have a new
conversation with God.....
For a look at early Christian origins see the following:
The Guilt of Chrstianity Towards the Jewish People
Apostle Paul
St. Augustine: Christian Wolrd-View
The Real Jesus
Humanisn and Reason Rejected
Salvation is not faith alone.
John Calvin
Servetus and John Calvin
Deism
The Puritans were Calvinist or followers of John Calvin a 16th murderer
and political tyrant who advocated the state be subjugated to the
church. Calvin's Christianity was pure legalism stripped off all
compassion and personal freedom of any kind. Calvin's negative outlook
on people, obsession with sin, and autocratic personality are all
present in Puritanism. While most fundamentalist churches reject his
view of predestination, opposition to separation of church/state and
claims of "faith alone" and "literal" interpretation of Scripture are
the cries of the Religious Right. These are really not biblical but
political.
The tent revival was the mainstay of many early wondering evangelists
and is still with us today. In a way these became sideshows competing
for the time (and contributions) of small town and frontier farms all
across a growing America. Starting about 1830 a great backlash against
education and scholarship in many churches began and continue to this
day. Many of America's cult churches began here.
Many of these preachers were at best semi-literate who rejected most
mainstream churches and education in general. They tended to rely on the
fallacy of the Bible being the only source of inspiration and preached
their own opinions. This is how we got so many new cults/churches of
today. In this way anything could be “the word of God.”
The rise of modern premillennialism is common to a variety of religious
splinter groups: the Plymouth Brethren (developed Dispensationalism),
the Millerites (became the Adventists), Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses,
and Pentecostals. This nonsense has infiltrated many Baptist churches as
well. Many other more mainstream churches are being infiltrated by this
and other cult ideals or are tearing themselves apart over issues such
as abortion, women, and homosexuals.
Like all cults they discredit historic Christianity by claiming that all
the prominent commentaries, all the church fathers, and even the
Reformers (Luther, Calvin, Knox, etc.) were deluded by "man-made
doctrines." New revelation" is claimed and their leaders even claimed to
have received "new truth" or at other times "rediscovered truth" that
had been lost since the apostles. Enthusiasm was whipped up on the false
pretense that Christ's coming was imminent. Frequent false predictions
did not seem to deter this enthusiasm.
See Christian Confusion and End Times Nonsense
Dispensational premillennialism was marketed the same way as the cultic
groups. For these groups the only Scriptures addressed specifically to
Christians were the gospel of John, Acts, and the Epistles and Book of
Revelation. Their moral code is that of the most brutal sections of the
Old Testament and the Ten Commandments. One will hear "born again"
(John) endlessly but little relevance is paid at all to the other
Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke that contain the core of Jesus' most
important moral teachings. The moral teachings of Jesus thus become
optional thus fundamentalists believe they are saved and their personal
conduct, no matter how unChristian, is forgiven. This "faith alone"
nonsense is salvation for nothing and these fundamentalist can construct
God in their own image.
It should also be noted that these cult/splinter churches all hold
Catholics and main line Protestant churches as "spirits of the
Antichrist." (Pat Robertson) Most of their claims are totally
non-Biblical such "secret rapture" and the word "rapture" isn't even in
the KJV Bible at all. What they really preach is their own politics and
the occult. I do not consider these churches Protestant (they are
separate sects) and really question if they are Christian at all. All of
their leaders such as Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Oral Roberts, etc.
have no recognized credentials as theologians. Yet the damage they do to
the emotional well-being of others can't be calculated.
See People United For Religious Freedom: Exposing TV Preachers!
This occult nonsense comes through leaders such men as A. T. Pierson, A.
J. Gordon, and C. I. Scofield (Scofield Bible) to A. C. Dixon and Reuben
Torrey, William Jennings BRYAN, and J. Gresham Machen.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Make no mistake, their stated purpose is to impose, with force if
necessary, a theocracy and eliminate all modern scientific theory and
social philosophy. This means entire scientific fields and research
would be banned, restricted, or curtailed. All civil law as we know it
today would be replaced by Biblical Law based mainly on the most brutal
sections of the Old Testament. Even many Christian churches would be
banned for their lack of "Christian correctness." The potentially lethal
mix of politics, religious bigotry, and the belief in non-Biblical
dispensationalism is a menace to our free society. This was behind the
Y2K fiasco that had fundamentalist preachers wiping egg off their faces.
This along with their social structure is why Christian Fundamentalists
are cults.
This excerpt from http://www.kelebekler.com/circasgb.htm says it all:
A first important point is that the USA has had much to do with the
Bible, but little with Plato, Thomas Aquinas, al-Ghazali or Voltaire.
Truth tends to be seen, not the product of reasoning, but as "what
works." In the field of religion this basically means, it makes
something that makes one feel good or achieves visible results of some
kind. There is a surprising affinity here between two worlds which are
apparently at violent odds with each other: Christian fundamentalism and
the New Age. Both certainly "feel good", provide "inner experience" and
make very definite promises, which may include anything from miraculous
healing to success in business. Of course, in order to feel good or to
enjoy the miracles, one must "believe": according to the Christians in
Jesus, according to the New Age people in one's own divinity, but the
final result is not so different. People "discover Jesus" in very much
the same way they discover a new kind of psychotherapy; and since
"belief" in both cases is fundamental, failure is not due to the quality
of the product, but to the lack of "belief" in the consumer.
A second point of the American Religion is its entrepreneurial nature.
It has little to do with the solemn institutions of the old world, with
their reassuring connection to tradition, although of course staid,
"mainstream" churches do exist. As in business, the religious
entrepreneur must swim or die. He must create the emotions that make
people "feel good", he must make the lame at least think they can walk,
otherwise his church, not supported by any government funds, will be
deserted for more interesting places. The extraordinary vulgarity of
Jimmy Swaggart or Jack Van Impe is shocking to Christians from other
cultures, but necessary in its context. And it does, alas, work.
A third point is the political use of the Bible. It is a commonplace in
other countries to say that the US is a "new country" with "no history".
Actually, the history of the USA is largely biblical. If other countries
look back to the Kelts and the Etruscans, the Americans look back to the
ancient Israelites; David's wars are their wars too. And of course,
American society is future-oriented: the "book" must say something about
this too.
These three factors - religion which must "deliver the goods", the fact
that religion easily becomes show business, and the use of the Bible as
history - all merge together in the great "end-of-the-world" fantasy of
Dispensationalism. This is basically a system which says, Armageddon is
around the corner. This notion implies an absolutely concrete promise:
the "Kingdom" is coming, and will be a time of physical well being, when
Christians will rule the world and all others will be subject to them.
This Kingdom is coming soon, a crucial factor in any delivery. The
Kingdom however will come after a highly dramatic period, something far
more thrilling than any film - the good will prevail, but only after
total war with intrinsically evil races, who will nearly win.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fundamentalism
Copyright (c) 1992 Grolier Electronic Publishing, Inc.
Fundamentalism is a term popularly used to describe strict adherence to
Christian doctrines based on a literal interpretation of the Bible. This
usage derives from a late-19th- and early-20th-century
transdenominational Protestant movement that opposed the accommodation
of Christian doctrine to modern scientific theory and philosophy.
With some differences among themselves, fundamentalists insist on belief
in the inerrancy of the Bible, the virgin birth and divinity of Jesus
Christ, the vicarious and atoning character of his death, his bodily
resurrection, and his second coming as the irreducible minimum of
authentic Christianity. This minimum was reflected in such early
declarations as the 14-point creed of the Niagara Bible Conference of
1878 and the 5-point statement of the Presbyterian General Assembly of
1910. Two immediate doctrinal sources for fundamentalist thought were
MILLENARIANISM and biblical inerrancy.
Millenarianism, belief in the physical return of Christ to establish a
1,000-year earthly reign of blessedness, was a doctrine prevalent in
English-speaking Protestantism by the 1870s. At the same time, powerful
conservative forces led by Charles Hodge and Benjamin Warfield opposed
the growing use of literary and historical criticism in biblical
studies, defending biblical inspiration and the inerrant authority of
the Bible.
The name fundamentalist was coined in 1920 to designate those "doing
battle royal for the Fundamentals." Also figuring in the name was The
Fundamentals, a 12-volume collection of essays written in the period
1910-15 by 64 British and American scholars and preachers. Three million
copies of these volumes and the founding of the World's Christian
Fundamentals Association in 1919 gave sharp identity to fundamentalism
as it moved into the 1920s. Leadership moved across the years from such
men as A. T. Pierson, A. J. Gordon, and C. I. Scofield to A. C. Dixon
and Reuben Torrey, William Jennings BRYAN, and J. Gresham Machen.
As fundamentalism developed, most Protestant denominations in the United
States felt the division between liberalism and fundamentalism. The
Baptists, Presbyterians, and Disciples of Christ were more affected than
others. Nevertheless, talk of schism was much more common than schism
itself. Perhaps the lack of a central organization and a normative
creed, certainly the caricature of fundamentalism arising from the
SCOPES TRIAL (1925), the popularization of the liberal response by
representatives like Harry Emerson FOSDICK, well-publicized divisions
among fundamentalists themselves, and preoccupations with the Depression
of the 1930s and World War II curtailed fundamentalism's appeal.
By 1950 it was either isolated and muted or had taken on the more
moderate tones of EVANGELICALISM. In the 1970s and 1980s, however,
fundamentalism again became an influential force in the United States.
Promoted by popular television evangelists and represented by such
groups as the MORAL MAJORITY, the new politically oriented "religious
right" opposes the influence of liberalism and secularism in American
life. The term fundamentalist has also been used to describe members of
militant Islamic groups. Paul Merritt Bassett
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saabirah
caught the "Liberal Bug"?
;-)
--
Saabirah
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Contemporary Muslim Expressions
http://users.sgi.net/~saabirah
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<vze2...@mail.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3BD038C9...@mail.verizon.net...
vze2...@mail.verizon.net
it easy to dismiss ideas. I rail against the Libertarians for what they self
proclaim as a group but on individual issues I may be in complete agreement with
them. DH is an idealogue who tries to dismiss arguments by lable rather than
substance. I am a Liberal on political issues and a conservative on social
issues and may suddenly switch sides depending on the argument. I am more
interested in ideas than lables.
Dan Keller
<vze2...@mail.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3BD0B5E9...@mail.verizon.net...
vze2...@mail.verizon.net
Saabirah
<vze2...@verizon.net> wrote
> Lables are for those that need them to identify with a certain group.
> They make it easy to dismiss ideas. I rail against the Libertarians
> for what they self proclaim as a group but on individual issues I may
> be in complete agreement with them. DH is an idealogue who tries
> to dismiss arguments by label rather than substance. I am a Liberal
> on political issues and a conservative on social issues and may
> suddenly switch sides depending on the argument. I am more
> interested in ideas than labels.
Bravo Paul!
Dan Keller
<vze2...@mail.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3BD0D368...@mail.verizon.net...
> I'd love to but I'm retired from hands on plumbing. I just do it
vicariously.
>
Well. if you change your mind, I have a flex hose going into my water
heater, which is not up to code. Before I sell this place, I want to get it
up to standard.
Send me an email if you are interested.
Chuck
>Lables are for those that need them to identify with a certain group. They make
>it easy to dismiss ideas.
>"I rail against the Libertarians "
Dude--- you just used a label. Libertarian, Liberal, Democrat,
Conservative,Republican, muslim, islamic, Christian, Jew--- all
labels.
Quit trying to be so PC.
Chuck
vze2...@mail.verizon.net
what I mean. Have any of your postings been dismissed because it was you who posted
them?
vze2...@mail.verizon.net
Depot and it is as easy to install as a lightbulb.
Chuck
>Now Chuck don't be, sorry Chuck is a lable that identifies who you are. You know
>what I mean. Have any of your postings been dismissed because it was you who posted
>them?
Of course not.... but you still ignore the fact that we all of us use
labels everyday. We all have names, we all have opinions and we all
have the constitution, why worry about being labeled?
Jeremiah and Sabr use labels, they call themselves muslims, but the
islam they practice is light years away from the true islam being
practiced in Afgan, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Africa- etc
etc... those folks follow the brutal teachings of their "final
messenger" Muhammad. Is it any wonder why islam has produced more
terrorists than any other religion combined?
Chuck
vze2...@mail.verizon.net
Chuck wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Oct 2001 10:15:30 GMT, vze2...@mail.verizon.net wrote:
>
> >Now Chuck don't be, sorry Chuck is a lable that identifies who you are. You know
> >what I mean. Have any of your postings been dismissed because it was you who posted
> >them?
>
> Of course not.... but you still ignore the fact that we all of us use
> labels everyday. We all have names, we all have opinions and we all
> have the constitution, why worry about being labeled?
I'm not worrying about being self labeled if that is what you want to do. What concerns
me is the use of labels to dismiss another's pov. Chuck posts a line of thought that is
conservative. Folks reply "He's just a right wing nut spewing his conservative bile".
What we do not have is a reasoned response to your pov., just a dismissal based upon
your pov.. "He's a Clinton liberal" no response to the idea just a dismissal based upon
a label. Since 9/11 you have correctly stated that we are all Americans not just a
collection of liberals and conservatives and I like that thought and let us continue it.
It is a novel idea but why not respond to each other's arguements with a reasoned
arguement instead of a label?
>
>
> Jeremiah and Sabr use labels, they call themselves muslims, but the
> islam they practice is light years away from the true islam being
> practiced in Afgan, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Africa- etc
> etc... those folks follow the brutal teachings of their "final
> messenger" Muhammad. Is it any wonder why islam has produced more
> terrorists than any other religion combined?
I don't think you want to go there.
Chuck
>
>
>Chuck wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 20 Oct 2001 10:15:30 GMT, vze2...@mail.verizon.net wrote:
>>
>> >Now Chuck don't be, sorry Chuck is a lable that identifies who you are. You know
>> >what I mean. Have any of your postings been dismissed because it was you who posted
>> >them?
>>
>> Of course not.... but you still ignore the fact that we all of us use
>> labels everyday. We all have names, we all have opinions and we all
>> have the constitution, why worry about being labeled?
>
>I'm not worrying about being self labeled if that is what you want to do. What concerns
>me is the use of labels to dismiss another's pov. Chuck posts a line of thought that is
>conservative. Folks reply "He's just a right wing nut spewing his conservative bile".
Paul... so what, that has been done for hundreds of years, so what
else is new. It does not discourage most from speaking their mind,
mostly because we live in the greatest country in the world where we
can say what we want.
>What we do not have is a reasoned response to your pov., just a dismissal based upon
>your pov.. "He's a Clinton liberal"
Clinton a Liberal? I think that has been proven to be false, I mean
look at some of the law Clinton signed, welfare reform etc... I have
really taken a new look at Clinton history and I now realize he was
not a Liberal. I think Clinton was a scoundrel, womanizer and a liar,
but he is no Liberal.
Almost everyone in this country labels something or someone... it
really is no big deal, I mean look at Jeremiah, if you start winning
an argument, he uses the old (oooops here it goes) "Liberal" trick of
calling you "mean" or "hateful". The problem is, that label has been
used too many times, it simply does not work any more.
Chuck
DH
Christians' that also ended Slavery, helped overthrow Jim Crow, ended
Gladioters in Ancient Rome, Allows Women Ministers etc etc!
I doubt you even know what a Fundamentalist Christian is? No doubt you have
a wonderful Caraciture for me!!
Islamic Fundamentalism (a term Muslims do not even subscribe too) from our
perspective means anyone who takes the Quran and Hadiths Literally and
applies them and they count for 100's of Millions of Muslims and in so
doing, they practice Slavery, degradation of Women, breaking treaties,
horrific tortures, forced conversions etc etc and all these are in
conjunction with the Hadiths and Quran etc etc!
As per your typically brain dead liberal arguements, when those that have
called themselves christians and done horrible things, this has militated
against the Biblical doctrine;when Muslims murder and convert by force, they
are following Muhammed's orders!!
Try opening your mind a little;no make that a lot!!
Devon Hill
<vze2...@mail.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3BD038C9...@mail.verizon.net...
Jeremiah McAuliffe
>Jeremiah and Sabr use labels, they call themselves muslims, but the
>islam they practice is light years away from the true islam being
>practiced in Afgan, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Africa- etc
>etc... those folks follow the brutal teachings of their "final
>messenger" Muhammad. Is it any wonder why islam has produced more
>terrorists than any other religion combined?
Bigoted stupidity on parade....
Chuck, you are a cretin and a lout.
There.... two new labels for you.
Very, very accurate labels, to be sure.
Jeremiah McAuliffe ali...@city-net.com
Page O' Heavy Issues
http://speed.city-net.com/~alimhaq/miaha.html
Emergency!
http://www.ampcast.com/emergency
Chuck
<ali...@city-net.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 20 Oct 2001 13:11:50 GMT, Chuck <charl...@home.com> wrote:
>
>>Jeremiah and Sabr use labels, they call themselves muslims, but the
>>islam they practice is light years away from the true islam being
>>practiced in Afgan, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Africa- etc
>>etc... those folks follow the brutal teachings of their "final
>>messenger" Muhammad. Is it any wonder why islam has produced more
>>terrorists than any other religion combined?
>
>Bigoted stupidity on parade....
Hey dude, I'm sorry that you deny the facts.... islam has produced
more terrorists THAN ANY OTHER RELIGION COMBINED.
I am sorry to say it Jeremiah, but you are trying to make a silk purse
out of a sow's ear by trying to make islam sound so warm and fuzzy.
Sorry dude, the truth hurts.
>Chuck, you are a cretin and a lout.
LOL---
Oh no, forever labeled by mullet head, king of the obfuscators, ohhh
the humanity.
Did your "final messenger" Muhammad tell you to say that Jeremiah?
WWMD?
Chuck
Saabirah
"Chuck" <charl...@home.com> wrote
> Hey dude, I'm sorry that you deny the facts.... islam has produced
> more terrorists THAN ANY OTHER RELIGION COMBINED.
Well... the late and great Hitler did the job of more terrorists combined.
Over 6 million in one terrorist swoop.
>
> I am sorry to say it Jeremiah, but you are trying to make a silk purse
> out of a sow's ear by trying to make islam sound so warm and fuzzy.
> Sorry dude, the truth hurts.
When has Jeremiah made Islam look warm and fuzzy?
I didn't know there's anything like a farm fuzzy Islam.
jus...@usa.net
Saabirah wrote:
Well... the late and great Hitler did the job of more terrorists combined.
Over 6 million in one terrorist swoop.
Paul Galvanek - Ver. 3.5
vze2...@mail.verizon.net
nothing.
vze2...@mail.verizon.net
DH wrote:
> Typical Liberal tripe!
Chuck
wrote:
>
>
>"Chuck" <charl...@home.com> wrote
>
>> Hey dude, I'm sorry that you deny the facts.... islam has produced
>> more terrorists THAN ANY OTHER RELIGION COMBINED.
>
>Well... the late and great Hitler did the job of more terrorists combined.
Yes, but again, he had no religion.
>Over 6 million in one terrorist swoop.
Yeah, most of them Jews, but then that does not bother you, ehhh?
>I didn't know there's anything like a farm fuzzy Islam.
On that we can agree, nothing warm and fuzzy about islam, just hate,
hate and more hate.
Chuck
Chuck
>See what I mean.
Yeah, so what, you have a right to respond.... I've never seen you
stop discussing something because someone labeled you.
Chuck
Jeremiah McAuliffe
>On that we can agree, nothing warm and fuzzy about islam, just hate,
>hate and more hate.
As I said a number of times a few weeks ago-- it is *very clear* these
days who are filled with hatred and who are not.
You Chuck, have shown more hatred on this group than everyone else
combined.
Way to go.
Jeremiah McAuliffe
Uh, not really Paul. Nothing is so stupidly simplistic-- especially
not a populace embracing forms of fascism, totalitarianism or nazism.
And, aren't we doing exactly what you just described by bombing the
shit out of Afghanistan?
Jeremiah McAuliffe
>See what I mean.
Yes. And its these types who will cause the end of the great American
experiment..... :-(
>
>DH wrote:
>
>> Typical Liberal tripe!
>> As per your typically brain dead liberal arguements,
Jeremiah McAuliffe ali...@city-net.com
jus...@usa.net
Jeremiah McAuliffe wrote:
>
>Uh, not really Paul. Nothing is so stupidly simplistic-- especially
>not a populace embracing forms of fascism, totalitarianism or nazism.
>
You mean the form of government the Taliban represents, the form of
government bin Laden want to install in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Syria
once he's managed to eradicate the "moderate" elements and over thrown
them?
>
>And, aren't we doing exactly what you just described by bombing the
>shit out of Afghanistan?
>
No Jeremiah it's a not the same thing at all. There a huge difference
between identifying a group of people who never threatened you and
trying to make them the scapegoat for you problems - as the Nazis did,
as the Aryan Nation, the Klan do and the Taliban and bin Laden are doing
and seeking to destroy the people who've already expressed their desired
to kill you because of who you are and what you believe and have acted
on those feeling and attacked.
It's the difference between a phony threat manufactured with propaganda
to justify the murder of innocents and a real threat that is evidenced
by two collapsed buildings, repeated bombings and thousands dead.
To compare the rounding up of civilians and the mass execution of them
to the military attacks on people who've already murdered thousands and
have promised to continue to do so only serves to demonstrate how
intellectually, morally and ethically bankrupt you are.
Jeremiah McAuliffe
>
>
>Jeremiah McAuliffe wrote:
>
>>
>>Uh, not really Paul. Nothing is so stupidly simplistic-- especially
>>not a populace embracing forms of fascism, totalitarianism or nazism.
>>
>You mean the form of government the Taliban represents, the form of
>government bin Laden want to install in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Syria
>once he's managed to eradicate the "moderate" elements and over thrown
>them?
Yes. Exactly.
>
>>
>>And, aren't we doing exactly what you just described by bombing the
>>shit out of Afghanistan?
>>
>No Jeremiah it's a not the same thing at all. There a huge difference
>between identifying a group of people who never threatened you and
>trying to make them the scapegoat for you problems - as the Nazis did,
But that isn't what you said, you said "- they did bad stuff to us and
they're responsible for our plight so we're going to make them pay
with their lives."
That is what I was responding to.
Saabirah
"Chuck" <charl...@home.com> wrote
> On Sun, 21 Oct 2001 01:38:36 -0400, "Saabirah" <Saab...@stargate.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Well... the late and great Hitler did the job of more terrorists
combined.
>
> Yes, but again, he had no religion.
Ah ha. Hitler and the Nazi party were not Christian... (says a Christian
like we're supposed to believe him.)
However, when we say that Bin Laden and the Taliban are not Muslim the
Christian won't believe us.
Double standards?
>
>
> >Over 6 million in one terrorist swoop.
>
> Yeah, most of them Jews, but then that does not bother you, ehhh?
And now "most of them" are Muslim.
>
>
> >I didn't know there's anything like a farm fuzzy Islam.
>
> On that we can agree, nothing warm and fuzzy about islam, just hate,
> hate and more hate.
I'm talking, and I believe that Jeremiah was talking, about Islam... not
extremist Muslims.
--
Saabirah
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Contemporary Muslim Expressions
http://users.sgi.net/~saabirah
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Chuck
Saabirah
--
Saabirah
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Contemporary Muslim Expressions
http://users.sgi.net/~saabirah
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"DH" <dsb...@home.com> wrote in message
news:nwqA7.97946$oa2.31...@news2.rdc1.ab.home.com...
vze2...@mail.verizon.net
Chuck
<ali...@city-net.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 21 Oct 2001 13:14:40 GMT, Chuck <charl...@home.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On that we can agree, nothing warm and fuzzy about islam, just hate,
>>hate and more hate.
>
>As I said a number of times a few weeks ago-- it is *very clear* these
>days who are filled with hatred and who are not.
LOL....
Yep, we know who they are. Those that try to make a silk purse from
the sow's ear.
Yep, islam, religion of love. Give me a break.
>You Chuck, have shown more hatred on this group than everyone else
>combined.
Like I said, islam, the religion that has spawned more hatred filled
terrorists than any other religion combined. Look it up Jeremiah,
those were not bibles those terrorists were carrying. They were
carrying the book of your "final messenger" Muhammad.
>Way to go.
<patting self on back>
Thank you <bowing> thank you.
Chuck
Chuck
<ali...@city-net.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 21 Oct 2001 12:16:31 GMT, vze2...@mail.verizon.net wrote:
>
>>See what I mean.
>
>Yes. And its these types who will cause the end of the great American
>experiment..... :-(
Nope what makes America great is our constitution and our great
people, what hurt America is 15 or so islamic terrorists flying into
the WTC and Pentagon killing our great people, get it right Mullet
Head.
Chuck
vze2...@mail.verizon.net
divisive epethets we had gotten so used to calling each other and realize
that we are all Americans. I have been as guilty as anyone in the past
but my New Year's resolution for myself was to stop the name calling and
just deal with the issues. For those that want to continue with their
divisive use of derogatory labels instead of arguement, go ahead and
continue to spit on the phrase "united we stand".
DH
world!
Fundamentalism was formed as a Protestant bulwark at the turn of the century
against the Liberalism that was rampant in many denominations which began in
the schools of Germany 100 years previous and started to seep into America
around the early 1900's!
Of course I myself do not subscribe in totality to fundamentalism because it
is far too wooden and lacks the Great intellectual acumen of the Giants of
the Christian Faith ie Lewis, Muggeridge, Chesterkon, Sayers, etc etc!
So Sabr, if I am understanding you correctly, you are saying that any Muslim
that actually takes the words of the Quran and Hadiths completely Literally,
then they would be accused of Extremism?! Well, if that's what you mean,
then we have a rare moment of agreement and if more muslims practiced their
faith where they behaved this way, we wouldn't be seeing movements in
Algeria, Sudan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Kashmir, etc etc!
By all means, the more muslims we have not taking the Quran literally, the
better for the World!
We need more Ataturks and less Ladins!!
Devon Hill
"Saabirah" <Saab...@stargate.net> wrote in message
news:tt5s4q2...@corp.supernews.com...
DH
"Jeremiah McAuliffe" <ali...@city-net.com> wrote in message
news:erm5ttg4dur47snns...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 21 Oct 2001 03:31:57 -0400, jus...@usa.net wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Saabirah wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>Well... the late and great Hitler did the job of more terrorists
combined.
> >>
> >>Over 6 million in one terrorist swoop.
> >>
> >Yep and he rallied the people who helped him do it with the exact same
> >argument you use when you and others try to blame US policy as the
> >reason for the hate of suicide bombers - they did bad stuff to us and
> >they're responsible for our plight so we're going to make them pay with
> >their lives.
>
> Uh, not really Paul. Nothing is so stupidly simplistic-- especially
> not a populace embracing forms of fascism, totalitarianism or nazism.
>
> And, aren't we doing exactly what you just described by bombing the
> shit out of Afghanistan?
>
so utterly depraved to compare the attack of Sept.11 with us going after the
Taliban?
Has moral relativism suck so low and I guess in your case it has!!
Devon Hill
DH
> On Sun, 21 Oct 2001 13:14:40 GMT, Chuck <charl...@home.com> wrote:
>
>
> >On that we can agree, nothing warm and fuzzy about islam, just hate,
> >hate and more hate.
>
> As I said a number of times a few weeks ago-- it is *very clear* these
> days who are filled with hatred and who are not.
>
> You Chuck, have shown more hatred on this group than everyone else
> combined.
Anyways, I find it funny that we refer to Islam as warm and fuzzy etc etc!
It recalls the classic barb that the Brave Salmon Rushdie said regarding
Islam when he called it
"The Least huggable of the all the faiths" !!
Never were their truer words spoken!!
Devon Hill
Chuck
wrote:
>
>
>"Chuck" <charl...@home.com> wrote
>
>> On Sun, 21 Oct 2001 01:38:36 -0400, "Saabirah" <Saab...@stargate.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Well... the late and great Hitler did the job of more terrorists
>combined.
>>
>> Yes, but again, he had no religion.
>
>Ah ha. Hitler and the Nazi party were not Christian... (says a Christian
>like we're supposed to believe him.)
Nope, Hitler was not Christian, I am sorry that gets under your burka,
but ole Adolf was not Christian. I foresee somehow you and J will
obfuscate this somehow and try to change history, maybe Jeremiah will
post some article from the Internet showing that Adolf was one of the
first Popes...
>However, when we say that Bin Laden and the Taliban are not Muslim the
>Christian won't believe us.
They are islamic what gives you the idea that they are not? They
practice islam, read your book that your "final messenger" Muhammad
wrote, all of the hate and hatred for Christians and Jews is right
there.
Bin Laden is just following the book that your "final messenger"
Muhammad wrote.
>> On that we can agree, nothing warm and fuzzy about islam, just hate,
>> hate and more hate.
>
>I'm talking, and I believe that Jeremiah was talking, about Islam... not
>extremist Muslims.
Actually, no, Jeremiah and you practice the kinder and more gentle
warm and fuzzy islam, Bin Laden is following your "final messenger"
Muhammad.
Chuck
vze2...@mail.verizon.net
DH wrote:
I see you neglect to note that it was 'Fundamentalist
> Christians' that also ended Slavery, helped overthrow Jim Crow, ended
> Gladioters in Ancient Rome, Allows Women Ministers etc etc!
>
> I doubt you even know what a Fundamentalist Christian is? No doubt you have
> a wonderful Caraciture for me!!
in All Sources Almanacs Dictionary Encyclopedia Biographies
Dictionary
fun•da•men•tal•ism
Pronunciation: (fun"du-men'tl-iz"um), [key]
—n.
1. (sometimes cap.) a movement in American Protestantism that arose in the early
part of the 20th century in reaction to modernism and that stresses the
infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a
literal historical record, holding as essential to Christian faith belief in
such doctrines as the creation of the world, the virgin birth, physical
resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second
Coming.
2. the beliefs held by those in this movement.
3. strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles: the fundamentalism
>
>
> Islamic Fundamentalism (a term Muslims do not even subscribe too) from our
> perspective means anyone who takes the Quran and Hadiths Literally and
> applies them and they count for 100's of Millions of Muslims and in so
> doing, they practice Slavery, degradation of Women, breaking treaties,
> horrific tortures, forced conversions etc etc and all these are in
> conjunction with the Hadiths and Quran etc etc!
>
> when those that have
> called themselves christians and done horrible things, this has militated
> against the Biblical doctrine;when Muslims murder and convert by force, they
> are following Muhammed's orders!!
You actualy believe that the centuries of Jew killing, Catholics killing
Protestants and vica versa, owning slaves, ect. were done by people who were
conscious that what they were doing contradicted biblical doctrine? I submit
that just the opposite was true.
Chuck
>
>"Jeremiah McAuliffe" <ali...@city-net.com> wrote in message
>news:0pm5ttk0nj5rg8r0p...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 21 Oct 2001 13:14:40 GMT, Chuck <charl...@home.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >On that we can agree, nothing warm and fuzzy about islam, just hate,
>> >hate and more hate.
>>
>> As I said a number of times a few weeks ago-- it is *very clear* these
>> days who are filled with hatred and who are not.
>>
>> You Chuck, have shown more hatred on this group than everyone else
>> combined.
>Ah yes, Jeremiahs favorite canard! Play the old bigot card!
Yes, but that dog don't hunt anymore... he has used that crap up.
>Anyways, I find it funny that we refer to Islam as warm and fuzzy etc etc!
Well, that is what J & Sabr try to portray.
>It recalls the classic barb that the Brave Salmon Rushdie said regarding
>Islam when he called it
>"The Least huggable of the all the faiths" !!
>
>Never were their truer words spoken!!
Amen!
Chuck
>That's true.
Exactly, and most people do not fall for being labeled, heck, mullet
head has called me every name in the book.
If labels were to cause opinions to be muted, pgh.opinion would be
silent.
Chuck
DH
and never even has the guts to explain why!!
Devon Hill
<vze2...@mail.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3BD2F3C9...@mail.verizon.net...
Saabirah
> those were not bibles those terrorists were carrying. They were
> carrying the book of your "final messenger" Muhammad.
I'd imagine that King Henry VIII was carrying a bible as he executed his
wives and Catholic heads of state.
What were the Crusaders carrying while they attempted to conquer Jerusalem
and reclaim the "Holy Land"?
History repeats until someone asks "why"....?
Don't be so quick to bow Chuck.
--
Saabirah
PS... I've been noticing that you no longer add "God Bless America" to your
posts. Was that too much like Bin Laden for your taste?
Wonder
>... ole Adolf was not Christian ...
He referred to himself in his own writings as a Catholic.
Chuck
wrote:
>
>
>> those were not bibles those terrorists were carrying. They were
>> carrying the book of your "final messenger" Muhammad.
>
>I'd imagine that King Henry VIII was carrying a bible as he executed his
>wives and Catholic heads of state.
Ahhhh once again, you obfuscate.... ole Henry was not following the
New Testament while on the other hand ole Bin Laden is following your
"final messenger" Muhammad. Big difference, but I am sure you were
already aware of that....
>History repeats until someone asks "why"....?
Yes, islam has repeated itself many times, even on Sept 11th.... ole
Bin Laden was out to get us "infidels"
>Don't be so quick to bow Chuck.
<bowing> thank you, thank you....
Chuck
DH
<vze2...@mail.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3BD2F681...@mail.verizon.net...
>
>
> DH wrote:
> I see you neglect to note that it was 'Fundamentalist
>
> > Christians' that also ended Slavery, helped overthrow Jim Crow, ended
> > Gladioters in Ancient Rome, Allows Women Ministers etc etc!
> >
> > I doubt you even know what a Fundamentalist Christian is? No doubt you
have
> > a wonderful Caraciture for me!!
>
>
> in All Sources Almanacs Dictionary Encyclopedia Biographies
>
> Dictionary
>
>
> Pronunciation: (fun"du-men'tl-iz"um), [key]
> 1. (sometimes cap.) a movement in American Protestantism that arose in the
early
> part of the 20th century in reaction to modernism and that stresses the
> infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals but
also as a
> literal historical record, holding as essential to Christian faith belief
in
> such doctrines as the creation of the world, the virgin birth, physical
> resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second
> Coming.
> 2. the beliefs held by those in this movement.
> 3. strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles: the
fundamentalism
>
Yes, see my above definition! It subscribes very closely to this!
> > Islamic Fundamentalism (a term Muslims do not even subscribe too) from
our
> > perspective means anyone who takes the Quran and Hadiths Literally and
> > applies them and they count for 100's of Millions of Muslims and in so
> > doing, they practice Slavery, degradation of Women, breaking treaties,
> > horrific tortures, forced conversions etc etc and all these are in
> > conjunction with the Hadiths and Quran etc etc!
> >
> > when those that have
> > called themselves christians and done horrible things, this has
militated
> > against the Biblical doctrine;when Muslims murder and convert by force,
they
> > are following Muhammed's orders!!
>
> You actualy believe that the centuries of Jew killing, Catholics killing
> Protestants and vica versa, owning slaves, ect. were done by people who
were
> conscious that what they were doing contradicted biblical doctrine? I
submit
> that just the opposite was true.
You can submit all you want to do but this exactly militates against
Biblical Doctrine! Now if you want to refer to the 30 years war where the
Protestants defended themselves against Catholic Brutality, well their is
nothing wrong with defending oneself!!
Slavery was overturned by Christians in the Roman era and in the British
Empire and America! Islam has not ONCE created a Wilberforce or Carey or any
other abolitionists and that is because the good quran allows slavery (with
the caveat of treating ones slave kindly) etc etc!
Whilst it is true that every ideology or faith from Buddhism to Zorastrism
has had its share of bastards, Islam stands unique and condemned because of
the teaching of Muhammed and his corresponding sayings that allow for the
most depraved actions etc etc!
Simply pick up the voluminous Burkari Hadiths or a Quran and learn for
yourself!
This is a matter of public domain which Muslims cannot hide any longer!
Sabr and Jeremiah worship a truncated Islam that would not even be
recognized by overseas Muslims and indeed in places like Saudi Arabia,
Sudan, Iran , etc etc they would lose their heads!
Only in secular Turkey could they pull the kind of crap that they practice
here in the Good ole USA!
Ataturk was a great man who knew clearly the brutality of Muhammed and the
Quran and defanged the Islamists in his country! Of course militant muslims
to this day accuse Ataturk of being a Jew ad nauseum!
Doing a little study would not hurt you vze!!
Devon Hill
DH
>
>
> > those were not bibles those terrorists were carrying. They were
> > carrying the book of your "final messenger" Muhammad.
>
> I'd imagine that King Henry VIII was carrying a bible as he executed his
> wives and Catholic heads of state.
>
> What were the Crusaders carrying while they attempted to conquer Jerusalem
> and reclaim the "Holy Land"?
>
noticed whining Muslims leave that little FACT out all the time!
Of course a good idea that went bad!
Devon Hill
jus...@usa.net
Jeremiah McAuliffe wrote:
>
>But that isn't what you said, you said "- they did bad stuff to us and
>they're responsible for our plight so we're going to make them pay
>with their lives."
>
Yes Jeremiah, but the difference is that the people we are bombing DID
do bad stuff, they have attacked and they have murdered and they have
done it to others for centuries and they have promised to do so again.
That is different than making up an imaginary threat and killing people
based on paranoia and lies.
The people Hitler murdered did nothing to him and never posed a threat
except in their twisted minds, the people we're bombing ARE a threat to
anyone who is different than they are as they have been for centuries,
they HAVE acted on their threats and they continue to make more threats
and try to act on them.
Do you not understand the difference between attacking a phantom threat
or making up a fake threat to justify what you already have planned and
using force against people who've already tried to kill you?
Saabirah
"Chuck" <charl...@home.com> wrote
>"Saabirah" <Saab...@stargate.net>
> >Ah ha. Hitler and the Nazi party were not Christian... (says a Christian
> >like we're supposed to believe him.)
>
> Nope, Hitler was not Christian, I am sorry that gets under your burka,
Says you. Why should I believe you?
And..... It's spelled "burqa" although I do not wear one.
> >However, when we say that Bin Laden and the Taliban are
> >not Muslim the Christian won't believe us.
>
> They are islamic what gives you the idea that they are not?
> They practice islam,
Do you know what "practicing Islam" entails?
> read your book that your "final messenger" Muhammad
> wrote,
Muhammad, God Love Him, did not "write the book" of Divine Revelation which
is obvious in the fact that he was illiterate.
> all of the hate and hatred for Christians and Jews is right
> there.
Seems to me that you must be illiterate of have astoundingly poor reading
skills if you have read Qur'an.
> >> On that we can agree, nothing warm and fuzzy about islam, just hate,
> >> hate and more hate.
> >
> Actually, no, Jeremiah and you practice the kinder and more gentle
> warm and fuzzy islam, Bin Laden is following your "final messenger"
> Muhammad.
As I have said, there is nothing warm and fuzzy in the same way that there
is nothing terrifying about Islam. Those may be true of extremists but I
hope to God that neither I nor Jeremiah are extreme.
Saabirah
"Chuck" <charl...@home.com> wrote
> Nope what makes America great is our constitution
... then preserve and follow it.
> our great people,
Who are from all over the world.
> what hurt America is 15 or so islamic terrorists
If 15 or so terrorists can actually hurt America (as opposed to attack
buildings) then we've got something to worry about.
> the WTC and Pentagon killing our great people,
The deaths of 6 or 7 thousand people is horrific although I've got to say
that the US, whose citizens were curiously able to watch the "terror" on
live television, is comprised of more than a few thousands.
Chuck
wrote:
>
>
>"Chuck" <charl...@home.com> wrote
>>"Saabirah" <Saab...@stargate.net>
>
>> >Ah ha. Hitler and the Nazi party were not Christian... (says a Christian
>> >like we're supposed to believe him.)
>>
>> Nope, Hitler was not Christian, I am sorry that gets under your burka,
>
>Says you. Why should I believe you?
Considering I've caught you lying your ass off and propagandizing, I
would suggest you believe me.
But if you want to keep believing that Adolf was a Christian, hey, it
is a free country.
>And..... It's spelled "burqa" although I do not wear one.
Oooops, I apologize....
I'll state it again- Nope, Hitler was not Christian, I am sorry that
gets under your burqa.
>> >However, when we say that Bin Laden and the Taliban are
>> >not Muslim the Christian won't believe us.
>>
>> They are islamic what gives you the idea that they are not?
>> They practice islam,
>
>Do you know what "practicing Islam" entails?
I understand that you and Jeremiah practice a bastardized version of
islam, but that is not to say that is bad, most folks would not want
you practicing true islam here in America, ie: beating women,
polygamy, forcing islam on others....... etc, etc
Chuck
Wonder
>... the people we're bombing ARE a threat ...
The four security guards for the UN mine-removal organization
were 'a threat'? How? The innocent villagers being bombed
would be 'a threat'? In what way? How about the millions of
refugees in Afghanistan who will starve in the winter snow?
What proof would you have of their 'guilt'? Don't you say
people should be innocent until proven guilty?
jus...@usa.net
Saabirah wrote:
Ah ha. Hitler and the Nazi party were not Christian... (says a Christian
like we're supposed to believe him.)
However, when we say that Bin Laden and the Taliban are not Muslim the
Christian won't believe us.
Double standards?
Answer this question if you can. If the people carrying out these attacks are not Muslims and they are a small minority in the Muslims communities of the Middle East, then who an why should the US worry about rising up in response to our efforts to stop these frauds before they attack again?
If I take what you say at face value then I can conclude that you think the only real Muslims in your opinion are those who live in the west.
You tell us on one hand these people aren't Muslims, but on the other hand warn that if attack these people in response to their declarations of war we run the risk of further enabling anti American hatred amongst Muslims.
Which is it? Are we attacking and threatening real Muslims with our bombings or not?
Saabirah
vze2...@mail.verizon.net> wrote
> I was so thrilled to see us comming together after 9/11
> dropping all the divisive epethets we had gotten so used
> to calling each other and realize that we are all Americans.
> I have been as guilty as anyone in the past but my New Year's
> resolution for myself was to stop the name calling and
> just deal with the issues. For those that want to continue
> with their divisive use of derogatory labels instead of
> arguement, go ahead and continue to spit on the phrase
> "united we stand".
That's a noble sentiment Paul although I've got to point out the "united we
stand" might not mean being like a pack blindly following it's Alpha Male.
Chuck
wrote:
>
>
>"Chuck" <charl...@home.com> wrote
>
>> Nope what makes America great is our constitution
>
>... then preserve and follow it.
I do, I love it... I support your right be a Christian/Jew hating
bigot too. 1st amendment says you can be that Sabr.
>> our great people,
>
>
>Who are from all over the world.
Agreed
>> what hurt America is 15 or so islamic terrorists
>
>
>If 15 or so terrorists can actually hurt America (as opposed to attack
>buildings) then we've got something to worry about.
If you do not believe that hurt America, ask some of the relatives of
victims of those 15 or more islamic terrorists.
Chuck
Chuck
>
>
>Saabirah wrote:
>
>>
>>Ah ha. Hitler and the Nazi party were not Christian... (says a Christian
>>like we're supposed to believe him.)
>>
>>However, when we say that Bin Laden and the Taliban are not Muslim the
>>Christian won't believe us.
>>
>>Double standards?
>>
>
>No Saabirah, contradiction on your part.
>
>Answer this question if you can. If the people carrying out these
>attacks are not Muslims and they are a small minority in the Muslims
>communities of the Middle East, then who an why should the US worry
>about rising up in response to our efforts to stop these frauds before
>they attack again?
Good point.
>If I take what you say at face value then I can conclude that you think
>the only real Muslims in your opinion are those who live in the west.
Another good point.
>You tell us on one hand these people aren't Muslims, but on the other
>hand warn that if attack these people in response to their declarations
>of war we run the risk of further enabling anti American hatred amongst
>Muslims.
Great points...
>Which is it? Are we attacking and threatening real Muslims with our
>bombings or not?
It depends on which will suit her argument the best... now this will
take some time for her to figure out that you have pulled her burqa
off and shown her to be the obfuscator/propagandist that she really
is.
Chuck
Saabirah
"20'th century Protestantism emphasizing as fundamental the literal
inerrancy of the Scriptures, the second coming of Jesus Christ, the virgin
birth, physical resurrection and substitutionary atonement." and further
"adherence to such beliefs."
Some of my foundational beliefs are the literal inerrancy of Qur'an (in
Arabic), the second coming of Jesus Christ, the virgin birth, physical
resurrection and I live according to those beliefs although they are not
completely representative of my faith, nor are they particularly necessary
for me, personally.
Extremists forget to say "not completely representative" of Islam when they
choose only a few tenets of faith.
I may be wrong but I'd expect that a fundamentalist Muslim believes in the
Qur'an, the Sunnah and Ahadith while failing to broaden the understand
Qur'an, the Sunnah or Ahadith.
The extremist "broadens his understanding" although by listening to men
instead of using their own brains. Terrorific!
jus...@usa.net
Oh cut me a break this stupidity already...
The UN security guards and the villagers that are hit during war are not the targets of the attacks as you know it. Wars, whether you start them or whether you're dragged into them aren't clean and perfect and there are unintended victims no matter what you do, nobody is happy when they occur, but that in no way invalidated the goals and objectives of the war. What kind of coward would rather stand aside and let fanatic murders terrorize their own nation and those around them rather than deal with the unpleasant realities of war?
As for the refuges and the starvation it would be more honest to note that MOST of them were there on the borders trying to escape the terrors of the Taliban long before anything that transpired in September. Relief agencies have been on the ground trying to prevent the starvation since last year. If the US is successful against the Taliban those refugees will benefit from our actions by hopefully someday being able to return to the home that was stolen from them by Pakistani trained militants without the fear of being massacred because they don't practice the same radical form of Islam the Taliban demands... they will not suffer from our actions..
Your view of the situation is just about the most dishonest and despicable I've seen expressed to date.
Jeremiah McAuliffe
>This coming from the man that personally emails me and calls me an asshole
>and never even has the guts to explain why!!
<laughing> You ARE an asshole Devon! But you are way too stupid to
ever grasp why.
Jeremiah McAuliffe
>
>
>Jeremiah McAuliffe wrote:
>
>>
>>But that isn't what you said, you said "- they did bad stuff to us and
>>they're responsible for our plight so we're going to make them pay
>>with their lives."
>>
>Yes Jeremiah, but the difference is
The difference is you didn't articulate your point clearly. Now you
have done so.
vze2...@mail.verizon.net
Chuck wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Oct 2001 10:27:50 -0400, Jeremiah McAuliffe
> <ali...@city-net.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 21 Oct 2001 13:14:40 GMT, Chuck <charl...@home.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>On that we can agree, nothing warm and fuzzy about islam, just hate,
> >>hate and more hate.
> >
> >As I said a number of times a few weeks ago-- it is *very clear* these
> >days who are filled with hatred and who are not.
>
> LOL....
>
> Yep, we know who they are. Those that try to make a silk purse from
> the sow's ear.
>
> Yep, islam, religion of love. Give me a break.
>
> >You Chuck, have shown more hatred on this group than everyone else
> >combined.
>
> Like I said, islam, the religion that has spawned more hatred filled
> terrorists than any other religion combined. Look it up Jeremiah,
> those were not bibles those terrorists were carrying. They were
> carrying the book of your "final messenger" Muhammad.
>
> >Way to go.
>
> <patting self on back>
>
> Thank you <bowing> thank you.
>
> Chuck
Chuck, I objected to Saabriah's use of a body count to settle who was right
and I object to you using the same tactic. Do you suppose that all the
slaughtering done by Christians is less than the slaughtering done by
Islam? Does it make a difference as to the body count?
Don't forget we had a head start.
vze2...@mail.verizon.net
Chuck wrote:
get it right Mullet Head.
>
>
Saabirah
<jus...@usa.net> wrote
> The UN security guards and the villagers that are hit during war are not
> the targets of the attacks as you know it.
You know that and condone it?
Maybe the solution to the problem is much more difficult than using our
arsenal of weapons. The question remains whether or not we want to get to
the root of the disease or eradicate the symptoms.
> or whether you're dragged into them aren't clean and perfect and there
> are unintended victims no matter what you do,
This is true although when you know for certain that more innocents than
perpetrators are going to suffer then it looks to me that a different
solution is in order.
> What kind of coward would rather stand aside and let fanatic
> murders terrorize their own nation and those around them rather than
> deal with the unpleasant realities of war?
What kind of coward depends upon guided missles that bomb innocents without
having to look them in the eye? The cowards who attacked the WTC with
planes looked into the faces of their victims.
Mentioning cowards, let's not forget Bin Laden. Qur'an condemns the
hypocrisy of those who say, "I'm with you. Here's how you do it... go ahead
while I stay at home (or in my cave where you'll never find me).
Saabirah
<vze2...@mail.verizon.net> wrote
> Chuck, I objected to Saabriah's use of a body count
Paul, I don't suggest that body count is a way of prooving who's right and
who's not. However, we can't ignore it either when overkill is evidently a
fact.
Saabirah
"Chuck" <charl...@home.com> wrote
> you have pulled her burqa off
That statement appears to me to be a form of passive aggression.
Saabirah
<jus...@usa.net> wrote in message news:3BD2FF64...@usa.net...
>
>
> Saabirah wrote:
>
> >
> >Ah ha. Hitler and the Nazi party were not Christian... (says a Christian
> >like we're supposed to believe him.)
> >
> >However, when we say that Bin Laden and the Taliban are not Muslim the
> >Christian won't believe us.
> >
> >Double standards?
> >
>
> No Saabirah, contradiction on your part.
No contradition whatever.
You say: "He wasn't Christian"
I say: "He's not Muslim".
Where's the contradition?
>
> Answer this question if you can. If the people carrying out these
> attacks are not Muslims and they are a small minority in the Muslims
> communities of the Middle East, then who an why should the US worry
> about rising up in response to our efforts to stop these frauds before
> they attack again?
Are you saying that the US and her coalition should rightly be waging war on
Islam and all Muslims in the Middle East?
I've never mentioned the US' need to worry about anyone "rising up."
>
> If I take what you say at face value then I can conclude that you think
> the only real Muslims in your opinion are those who live in the west.
There are Muslims in the US who carry over warped thinking about Islam.
That is not to say that they are extremists out to kill anyone. IF all
Muslims in the Middle East were to truly believe that the West is so awful
then all they'd have to do is put a lid on their oil wells. It's not
"Islam" that prevents that happening, more likely it's greed. The
difference is, greed allows Muslims to keep other Muslims in poverty.
You're probably half right. The West affords the best chance of getting
back to Islam freed from pseudo-religiosity... often called "culture". The
"culture" argument is a cop out.
>
> Which is it? Are we attacking and threatening real Muslims with our
> bombings or not?
Are you targetting Muslims? Yes or no.
Saabirah
"Jeremiah McAuliffe" <ali...@city-net.com> wrote
>
> <laughing> You ARE an asshole Devon! But you are way too stupid to
> ever grasp why.
Yeah! Devon Asshole, Devon Asshole! ;-)
Nyah nyah....
--
Saabirah
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Contemporary Muslim Expressions
http://users.sgi.net/~saabirah
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
Saabirah
"Chuck" <charl...@home.com> wrote
> >If 15 or so terrorists can actually hurt America (as opposed to attack
> >buildings) then we've got something to worry about.
>
>
> If you do not believe that hurt America, ask some of the relatives of
> victims of those 15 or more islamic terrorists.
Yes... it killed or hurt thousands of Americans. It did not pose a threat
to democracy.
--
Saabirah
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Contemporary Muslim Expressions
http://users.sgi.net/~saabirah
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Chuck
Dan Keller
I was told that flex hoses are not up to code period - that pipe has to be
used. This isn't true?
<vze2...@mail.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3BD150D6...@mail.verizon.net...
> Dan, you can get a replacement flex connector which is up to code at any
Home
> Depot and it is as easy to install as a lightbulb.
>
> Dan Keller wrote:
>
> > <vze2...@mail.verizon.net> wrote in message
> > news:3BD0D368...@mail.verizon.net...
> > > I'd love to but I'm retired from hands on plumbing. I just do it
> > vicariously.
> > >
> >
> > Well. if you change your mind, I have a flex hose going into my water
> > heater, which is not up to code. Before I sell this place, I want to get
it
> > up to standard.
> > Send me an email if you are interested.
>
Chuck
>
>
>Chuck wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 21 Oct 2001 10:27:50 -0400, Jeremiah McAuliffe
>> <ali...@city-net.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sun, 21 Oct 2001 13:14:40 GMT, Chuck <charl...@home.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>On that we can agree, nothing warm and fuzzy about islam, just hate,
>> >>hate and more hate.
>> >
>> >As I said a number of times a few weeks ago-- it is *very clear* these
>> >days who are filled with hatred and who are not.
>>
>> LOL....
>>
>> Yep, we know who they are. Those that try to make a silk purse from
>> the sow's ear.
>>
>> Yep, islam, religion of love. Give me a break.
>>
>> >You Chuck, have shown more hatred on this group than everyone else
>> >combined.
>>
>> Like I said, islam, the religion that has spawned more hatred filled
>> terrorists than any other religion combined. Look it up Jeremiah,
>> those were not bibles those terrorists were carrying. They were
>> carrying the book of your "final messenger" Muhammad.
>>
>> >Way to go.
>>
>> <patting self on back>
>>
>> Thank you <bowing> thank you.
>>
>> Chuck
>
>Chuck, I objected to Saabriah's use of a body count to settle who was right
Your objection is so noted...
Chuck
Chuck
wrote:
>
>
>"Chuck" <charl...@home.com> wrote
>
>> you have pulled her burqa off
>
>That statement appears to me to be a form of passive aggression.
And your point is?
Chuck
Chuck
wrote:
>
>
>"Chuck" <charl...@home.com> wrote
>
>> >If 15 or so terrorists can actually hurt America (as opposed to attack
>> >buildings) then we've got something to worry about.
>>
>>
>> If you do not believe that hurt America, ask some of the relatives of
>> victims of those 15 or more islamic terrorists.
>
>Yes... it killed or hurt thousands of Americans. It did not pose a threat
>to democracy.
There is more to the US than the fact that it is a democracy..... like
I said, ask the relatives of the WTC.
Chuck
Chuck
<ali...@city-net.com> wrote:
><laughing> You ARE an asshole Devon! But you are way too stupid to
>ever grasp why.
Jeremiah, WWMD?
Chuck
>This coming from the man that personally emails me and calls me an asshole
Is that a label?
Hmmmm
Chuck
>Devon Hill
><vze2...@mail.verizon.net> wrote in message
>news:3BD2F3C9...@mail.verizon.net...
>> I was so thrilled to see us comming together after 9/11 dropping all the
>> divisive epethets we had gotten so used to calling each other and realize
>> that we are all Americans. I have been as guilty as anyone in the past
>> but my New Year's resolution for myself was to stop the name calling and
>> just deal with the issues. For those that want to continue with their
>> divisive use of derogatory labels instead of arguement, go ahead and
>> continue to spit on the phrase "united we stand".
>>
>> Jeremiah McAuliffe wrote:
>>
>> > On Sun, 21 Oct 2001 12:16:31 GMT, vze2...@mail.verizon.net wrote:
>> >
>> > >See what I mean.
>> >
>> > Yes. And its these types who will cause the end of the great American
>> > experiment..... :-(
>> >
>> > >
>> > >DH wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> Typical Liberal tripe!
>> > >> As per your typically brain dead liberal arguements,
>> >
Chuck
Paul,
Did you ever think the queen obfuscator was going to answer that
question?
Chuck
Saabirah
:-D
--
Saabirah
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Contemporary Muslim Expressions
http://users.sgi.net/~saabirah
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Chuck" <charl...@home.com> wrote in message
news:g4j6tt09airmc5spg...@4ax.com...
Saabirah
"Chuck" <charl...@home.com> wrote
"Saabirah" <Saab...@stargate.net>
> >Yes... it killed or hurt thousands of Americans. It did not pose a
threat
> >to democracy.
>
> There is more to the US than the fact that it is a democracy..... like
> I said, ask the relatives of the WTC.
I thought we're at war to defend democracy.
Saabirah
"Chuck" <charl...@home.com>
>
>"Saabirah" <Saab...@stargate.net>
> >That statement appears to me to be a form of passive aggression.
>
>
> And your point is?
If you do not understand that passive aggression is dysfunctional then
you've got a serious problem.
Saabirah
--
Saabirah
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Contemporary Muslim Expressions
http://users.sgi.net/~saabirah
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Chuck" <charl...@home.com> wrote in message
news:nuj6ttoh7i58t5jhu...@4ax.com...
Look at this post. Which question?
--
Saabirah
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Contemporary Muslim Expressions
http://users.sgi.net/~saabirah
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Chuck
>
Chuck
wrote:
>
>
>"Chuck" <charl...@home.com>
>>
>>"Saabirah" <Saab...@stargate.net>
>
>> >That statement appears to me to be a form of passive aggression.
>>
>>
>> And your point is?
>
>If you do not understand that passive aggression is dysfunctional then
>you've got a serious problem.
And again, your point was?
Chuck
wrote:
Right, read it, answer his question.
Chuck
vze2...@mail.verizon.net
Saabirah wrote:
It would seem that for a few folks who have not gotten their act together this
is the case.
For some they are aligning themselves with the Taliban in wanting this to be a
religious war.
vze2...@mail.verizon.net
disaster?
jus...@usa.net
Saabirah wrote:
>
>You know that and condone it?
>
What I don't condone is the - let's not take any action at all, because
someone might get hurt. Worse yet is the peace nik college kids who
says; oh, I might get hurt so let's not do anything.
Whether I condone it or not, innocent people are already dying everyday.
The notion that the world should be paralyzed to inaction because the
few you think are more important than the thousands that just died is
silly, just plain silly.
War was declared on US in word and deed. The idea that we should not
respond is absurd.
>
>Maybe the solution to the problem is much more difficult than using our
>arsenal of weapons. The question remains whether or not we want to get to
>the root of the disease or eradicate the symptoms.
>
You and I see a different root of the problem. You're steadfast
refusal to even attempt to address history of violence by these people
directed at others besides the US leads me to the conclusion that you
aren't interested in getting to the root of the problem, you're only
interested in having us get to what YOU want the root the root of the
problem to be.
>
>This is true although when you know for certain that more innocents than
>perpetrators are going to suffer then it looks to me that a different
>solution is in order.
>
That's an assertion that I see no supporting evidence of.
This precisely why I say we shouldn't even care about the reaction our
actions create. I knew before the first shot was fired. as I'm sure the
policy makers knew,
that every soldier and terrorist that was killed would be called a
civilian by the Taliban, that every military installation hit would be
called a baby nursery and they would make grand claims about their
success on the battlefield.
The pathological nature of the lying by the Taliban and bin Laden
supporters is well documented and we will simply need to deal with it.
>
>What kind of coward depends upon guided missles that bomb innocents without
>having to look them in the eye? The cowards who attacked the WTC with
>planes looked into the faces of their victims.
>
bwhahahhahaha ! You're joking right?
Look into the faces of their victims? You mean the civilian victims
they select precisely because they know they'll be unarmed and unable to
fight back?
If the suicide bombers are so courageous, tell us why they never select
military installations as their targets?
Terrorist are called terrorist precisely because they don't have the
courage to strike when and where they might expect to face an opponent
that could fight back. The only faces they look into are those
belonging to people unable to fight back. That is the very definition
of a coward.
The day you manage convince the Taliban and bin Laden's people to meet
the Rangers and Delta Force in and open field for a bare knuckle brawl
to the death to settle matter and the US still bombs from the air, then
I'll accept your assertion that bombing from the air is cowardly and
murdering unarmed women and children is more noble.
Until then you're just yapping out your rear end trying to rationalize
the most cowardly of acts.
Saabirah
<jus...@usa.net> wrote
> Saabirah wrote:
>
> >
> >You know that and condone it?
> >
> What I don't condone is the
So you do condone the acknowledged killing of innocents.
Now on to what you do not condone:
> - let's not take any action at
> all, because someone might get hurt. Worse yet is the peace nik
> college kids who says; oh, I might get hurt so let's not do anything.
I agree with you. Someone's always going to be hurt when issues so grave
must be addressed. Failing to respond only promotes atrocities or prolongs
the disease which causes them.
>
> Whether I condone it or not, innocent people are already dying everyday.
This is a ridiculous statement. Of course people are dying every day.. that
is a fact of life. However, being the cause of untimely death "kills" more
than the target. When you condone merciless killing a piece of you dies as
well. When the US promotes the idea that it's OK that innocents suffer and
die, a piece of America and her freedoms dies as well.
> The notion that the world should be paralyzed to inaction because
> the few you think are more important than the thousands that just
> died is silly, just plain silly.
I've never said that we must be paralyzed into inaction. I'm saying that we
must take a very hard and long look at ourselves and our world. We've
played a role in promoting hatred by our foreign policies.
What makes you think that all people in the world want a political system
that is imposed upon them? Certainly, democracy is the best system in the
world today but when you impose it upon other countries you are failing to
recognize the basic freedoms which democratic people must uphold. Israel
claims to be the one bastion of democracy in the Middle East. Israel is
founded upon religious and racial discrimination as well as the "make 'em
pay" attitude.
>
> War was declared on US in word and deed. The idea that we should not
> respond is absurd.
Bin Laden declared jihad against America after the bombing of Afghanistan
began.
Even at that, Bin Laden has no right to declare jihad against the United
States because there are Muslims living in the United States and a Muslim
cannot wage war against another Muslim..... never mind against innocent
people, non-combatents, women and children.
>
> >
> >Maybe the solution to the problem is much more difficult than
> > using our arsenal of weapons. The question remains whether
> > or not we want to get to the root of the disease or eradicate the
symptoms.
> >
> You and I see a different root of the problem.
Yes, we do. I see US foreign policy playing a very great part although that
isn't the root. Another root of the problem is oil. It cannot be ignored
that US support of Israel plays a role in the reason of the terrorist acts.
Israel is wildly concerned with oil since it's the one thing the Arabs have
that she can't occupy.
> that every soldier and terrorist that was killed would be called a
> civilian by the Taliban, that every military installation hit would be
> called a baby nursery and they would make grand claims about their
> success on the battlefield.
No one can call soldiers civilians. I haven't heard of any Taliban
victories, there are not many military installations and I doubt there are
any baby nurseries.
>
> >What kind of coward depends upon guided missles that bomb innocents
without
> >having to look them in the eye? The cowards who attacked the WTC with
> >planes looked into the faces of their victims.
> >
>
> bwhahahhahaha ! You're joking right?
Nope.
> The day you manage convince the Taliban and bin Laden's people to meet
> the Rangers and Delta Force in and open field for a bare knuckle brawl
You are an arrogant asshole.
Saabirah
"Chuck" <charl...@home.com> wrote
> >>"Saabirah" <Saab...@stargate.net>
> >
> >If you do not understand that passive aggression is dysfunctional then
> >you've got a serious problem.
>
>
> And again, your point was?
Y-o-u-'v-e g-o-t a s-e-r-i-o-u-s p-r-o-b-l-e-m.
Saabirah
<vze2...@mail.verizon.net> wrote
> Which reminds me Saabriah Who is the Who in the "real culprits" of the WTC
> disaster?
It was an attack and I assume that Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda were the
"culprits".
jus...@usa.net
Saabirah wrote:
>
>No contradition whatever.
>
>You say: "He wasn't Christian"
>
>I say: "He's not Muslim".
>
>Where's the contradition?
>
In what you just wrote...
Whatever Hitler was he never claimed to be doing what he did in the name
of Christianity or any other religion, he never claimed his actions were
ordained by god. His religious beliefs, whatever they might have been
or not been are as incidental to the Holocaust and hiss attempts to
conquer Europe as his vegetarianism and peculiar sexual preferences and
I know of no Christian organization that claims Hitler as their own or
as their leader. They have no bearing on the matter.
Bin Laden claims he is a Muslim, he conducts his terror in the name of
Islam and god. You claim he is not a Muslim, his followers claim he's
not only a Muslim but the equal of Islam itself and that an attack on
him is an attack on Islam. He claims people like are not Muslims you
both claim to speak with authority on what is Islam.
It's a contradiction on your part to claim to speak for Islam and define
what a "real Muslim is" and dispute that bin Laden is a Muslim because
he claims to speak for Islam
>
>Are you saying that the US and her coalition should rightly be waging war on
>Islam and all Muslims in the Middle East?
>
What I'm saying is that it is always the attacker who defines the terms
of the battle - whether the US and the coalition want to fight a war on
all Islam and Muslims is irrelevant. If Muslims in the area accept bin
Laden's call to arms against the Jews, Christians and infidels in the
name of Islam, then guess what that's the battle we'll be fighting.
We may choose to only target the Taliban and bin Laden's people, but
it's really up to Muslims whether it becomes a battle against Islam. If
the "real Muslims" are what you say and reject bin Ladens' attempt to
set himself up as the king of Islam, then they'll either stand aside
while we swat him out of existence, if they have any guts they'll stand
up to the people who blaspheme Islam by equating an attack on bin Laden
with an assault on Islam and help us. If the "real Muslims" are what
bin Laden and the Taliban claim and they rally to his side in the fight
then we'll have to do battle with all those who do.
They're the aggressors in the fight, what happens is really up to them now.
>
>Are you targetting Muslims? Yes or no.
>
You tell me. The real argument here seems to be between those who
follow your view of what constitutes real Islam and those who follow
the bin Laden/Taliban definition of what real Islam is.
Next time you feel inclined to blame US policy as the root of terrorism
factor the Arab nations' policies on that question. If government
policy is the problem, maybe it's not the US government's policies that
need to be scrutinized and we're not the people you should be debating.
vze2...@mail.verizon.net
jus...@usa.net wrote:
> You and I see a different root of the problem. You're steadfast
> refusal to even attempt to address history of violence by these people
> directed at others besides the US leads me to the conclusion that you
> aren't interested in getting to the root of the problem, you're only
> interested in having us get to what YOU want the root the root of the
> problem to be.
The root of the problem is not relevant to me. Killing 7,000 innocent people
deserves a response.
jus...@usa.net
Saabirah wrote:
So you do condone the acknowledged killing of innocents.
Do I condone the intentional targeting and killing of innocents - absolutely not.
I can still understand that innocent people are sometimes killed by accident in war, I'm not happy about it, I wish it wouldn't happen, but I don't know whether you can or can not condone an unintentional result.
I agree with you. Someone's always going to be hurt when issues so grave
must be addressed. Failing to respond only promotes atrocities or prolongs
the disease which causes
This is a ridiculous statement. Of course people are dying every day.. that
is a fact of life. However, being the cause of untimely death "kills" more
than the target. When you condone merciless killing a piece of you dies as
well. When the US promotes the idea that it's OK that innocents suffer and
die, a piece of America and her freedoms dies as well.
I'm sorry, but you've completely lost me. These to statements seem totally contradictory to me and I can't follow.
You agree that people will get hurt when issues so grace "must be addressed," but when it happens our nation and freedom dies...
I've never said that we must be paralyzed into inaction. I'm saying that we
must take a very hard and long look at ourselves and our world. We've
played a role in promoting hatred by our foreign policies.
If or when we change our policies will the Arab governments who reign over their people and keep them ignorant and poverty stricken look at their policies?
If not then how does out unilateral change reduce the hatred?
Bin Laden declared jihad against America after the bombing of Afghanistan
began.
You are an arrogant asshole.
Because I don't accept your assertion that it takes courage to look into the face of an unarmed, defenseless woman or child before you murder them? Somehow I never thought of Richard Speck or David Berkowitz as very courageous.
If the hatred is driven as you say by US policy and the Taliban and bin Laden want to conduct a war against us, holy or otherwise, then they should be attacking our military if they really are brave as you suggest. Not unarmed helpless civilians.
Chuck
wrote:
>
>
>"Chuck" <charl...@home.com> wrote
>> >>"Saabirah" <Saab...@stargate.net>
>> >
>> >If you do not understand that passive aggression is dysfunctional then
>> >you've got a serious problem.
>>
>>
>> And again, your point was?
>
>Y-o-u-'v-e g-o-t a s-e-r-i-o-u-s p-r-o-b-l-e-m.
LOL... from terrorist sympathizer to obfuscator now to psychologist...
what a ding dong.... what next? rocket scientist? NOT!
Chuck
Chuck
>
>
>Saabirah wrote:
>
>>
>>So you do condone the acknowledged killing of innocents.
>>
>I'm not sure what you mean with this question, I'm not sure condone is
>the right word.
Neither is Sabr, or will she ever be sure what condone is...
>Do I condone the intentional targeting and killing of innocents -
>absolutely not.
>
>I can still understand that innocent people are sometimes killed by
>accident in war, I'm not happy about it, I wish it wouldn't happen, but
>I don't know whether you can or can not condone an unintentional result.
>
>>
>>I agree with you. Someone's always going to be hurt when issues so grave
>>must be addressed. Failing to respond only promotes atrocities or prolongs
>>the disease which causes
>>
>>
>>This is a ridiculous statement. Of course people are dying every day.. that
>>is a fact of life. However, being the cause of untimely death "kills" more
>>than the target. When you condone merciless killing a piece of you dies as
>>well. When the US promotes the idea that it's OK that innocents suffer and
>>die, a piece of America and her freedoms dies as well.
>>
>
>I'm sorry, but you've completely lost me. These to statements seem
>totally contradictory to me and I can't follow.
She subscribes to Jeremiah's Liberal Psycho babble tripe....
Chuck
vze2...@mail.verizon.net
you are familiar with yourself. That will no longer be the case since my New
Year's resolution.
DH wrote:
> This coming from the man that personally emails me and calls me an asshole
> and never even has the guts to explain why!!
vze2...@mail.verizon.net
Good point I await her answer.
jus...@usa.net wrote:
> Answer this question if you can. If the people carrying out these
> attacks are not Muslims and they are a small minority in the Muslims
> communities of the Middle East, then who an why should the US worry
> about rising up in response to our efforts to stop these frauds before
> they attack again?
>
> If I take what you say at face value then I can conclude that you
> think the only real Muslims in your opinion are those who live in the
> west.
>
> You tell us on one hand these people aren't Muslims, but on the other
> hand warn that if attack these people in response to their
> declarations of war we run the risk of further enabling anti American
> hatred amongst Muslims.
>
> Which is it? Are we attacking and threatening real Muslims with our
> bombings or not?
>
vze2...@mail.verizon.net
Saabirah wrote:
> vze2...@mail.verizon.net> wrote
>
> > I was so thrilled to see us comming together after 9/11
> > dropping all the divisive epethets we had gotten so used
> > to calling each other and realize that we are all Americans.
> > I have been as guilty as anyone in the past but my New Year's
> > resolution for myself was to stop the name calling and
> > just deal with the issues. For those that want to continue
> > with their divisive use of derogatory labels instead of
> > arguement, go ahead and continue to spit on the phrase
> > "united we stand".
>
> That's a noble sentiment Paul although I've got to point out the "united we
> stand" might not mean being like a pack blindly following it's Alpha Male.
vze2...@mail.verizon.net
Saabirah wrote:
>
>
> The extremist "broadens his understanding" although by listening to men
> instead of using their own brains. Terrorific!
>
> --
> Saabirah
>
Good point
vze2...@mail.verizon.net
because they can crack and go boom. The silver hoses that we sell at the Home
Depot are up to code and are safe. What you need to know is wether you need male
or fermale ends and what size pipe. Use pipe thread sealent paste. As long as
you can tell men from women and the size of their holes you will be ok.
Dan Keller wrote:
> I was told that flex hoses are not up to code period - that pipe has to be
> used. This isn't true?
>
> <vze2...@mail.verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:3BD150D6...@mail.verizon.net...
> > Dan, you can get a replacement flex connector which is up to code at any
> Home
> > Depot and it is as easy to install as a lightbulb.
> >
> > Dan Keller wrote:
> >
> > > <vze2...@mail.verizon.net> wrote in message
> > > news:3BD0D368...@mail.verizon.net...
> > > > I'd love to but I'm retired from hands on plumbing. I just do it
> > > vicariously.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Well. if you change your mind, I have a flex hose going into my water
> > > heater, which is not up to code. Before I sell this place, I want to get
> it
> > > up to standard.
> > > Send me an email if you are interested.
> >
Saabirah
An Alpha Male is the "leader of the pack"
--
Saabirah
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Contemporary Muslim Expressions
http://users.sgi.net/~saabirah
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<vze2...@mail.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3BD32839...@mail.verizon.net...
Saabirah
<jus...@usa.net> wrote >
> Do I condone the intentional targeting and killing of innocents -
> absolutely not.
>
> I can still understand that innocent people are sometimes killed by
> accident in war, I'm not happy about it, I wish it wouldn't happen, but
> I don't know whether you can or can not condone an unintentional result.
When more innocents are killed than combatents then there's a serious
problem which looks a lot like terrorism.
>
> >
> >However, being the cause of untimely death "kills" more
> >than the target. When you condone merciless killing a piece of you
> >dies as well. When the US promotes the idea that it's OK that
> >innocents suffer and die, a piece of America and her freedoms dies as
well.
> >
>
> I'm sorry, but you've completely lost me. These to statements seem
> totally contradictory to me and I can't follow.
>
> You agree that people will get hurt when issues so grace "must be
> addressed," but when it happens our nation and freedom dies...
The terrorism and hate must be addressed. That doesn't mean indiscriminate
killing.
>
> >
> >I've never said that we must be paralyzed into inaction. I'm saying that
we
> >must take a very hard and long look at ourselves and our world. We've
> >played a role in promoting hatred by our foreign policies.
> >
> Sure we had a role, but it's just that a role. We're not the only
> country with policies, so why it always us that has to take the blame?
The most powerful nation in the world's role is generally pretty damn
powerful. That requires responsibility which matches the power.
>
> If or when we change our policies will the Arab governments who reign
> over their people and keep them ignorant and poverty stricken look at
> their policies?
That's a problem that's going to have to be addressed. Bombing the shit out
of a country because we don't care for the lifestyle isn't going to do
anyone any good.
>
> If not then how does out unilateral change reduce the hatred?
Maybe the US should take an honest look at the fruits of our foreign policy
and how many times we've used those Middle Eastern nations for our own
benefit.
>
> >
>
> >You are an arrogant asshole.
> >
>
> Why because I don't think it's cowardly to for a military to use the
> technology it's developed to minimize their causalities?
What was that we've been punishing Iraq for? Are you saying that *if Iraq
has any heavy duty weapons that she should use them now to minimize the
casualities?
>
> Because I don't accept your assertion that it takes courage to look into
> the face of an unarmed, defenseless woman or child before you murder
> them?
Ask any soldier who's looked into the face of a person before shooting them.
That takes guts. Pushing a button from the cockpit of a plane takes
training not bravery.
> ... they should be attacking our military if they really are brave as you
> suggest. Not unarmed helpless civilians.
..... are you calling on Bin Laden to drop a few bombs on military
installations in the US?
--
Saabirah
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Contemporary Muslim Expressions
http://users.sgi.net/~saabirah
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
Saabirah
<vze2...@mail.verizon.net> wrote
> What you need to know is wether you need male
> or fermale ends and what size pipe.
> you can tell men from women and the size of their holes you will be ok.
ROTFLMAO!!!!
--
Saabirah
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Contemporary Muslim Expressions
http://users.sgi.net/~saabirah
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
vze2...@mail.verizon.net
Saabirah wrote:
>
> I've never said that we must be paralyzed into inaction. I'm saying that we
> must take a very hard and long look at ourselves and our world. We've
> played a role in promoting hatred by our foreign policies.
Are you suggesting that our forign policy be based upon who we tick off rather
than promoting our best interests?