OT --- The "religion of peace" update --- OT
MR. PHP
FYI
We have all been drilled on the idea that Islam is a "religion of
peace." Day after day, the media, and even (LOL) politicians keep
repeating that mantra over and over again.
Sure, Islamists have vowed to take over the world and convert
everyone to Islam, and they want to continue Adolph Hitler's program
to wipe the Jews off of the face of the earth, but we are still forced
to believe that Islam is a "religion of peace." Sure... LOL
When all the Jews are dead, they will start suicide bombing the
infidel Christians!
Just to help us to understand that Islam is a "peaceful religion,"
the Ayatallah of Iran (Ayatallah translates as "word of God" LOL)
has pronounced the Death Penalty on three American ministers:
Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and the son of Reverend Roberts.
Why did the Islamists in Iran pronounce the death penalty? Because
they dared to speak the truth: Islam is a violent religion. To prove
that Islam is not a violent religion, these peaceful and pious leaders
of Islam ("a peaceful religion") have demanded that these American
ministers be killed.
Islam is SO peaceful, that they demand death for those who disagree!
ROFLMAO
What better way to prove that Islam is a "religion of peace" than to
call for the murder of American ministers! And while they're at it,
they will stone hundreds of women to death and chop off the hands,
feet, and heads of those who break the laws of their "religion of
peace."
ROFL
It might be funny if so many idiots around the world didn't take that
Islamists crap seriously.
BTW
As far as we know, the People For The American Way, and the ACLU have
not sent out the death penalty for those American ministers. They have
come close, but haven't gone that far yet At least we now know who
they are aligned with...
Post45
What do you think of the search for a GM ??
Think Flanagan is a good choice ?
Post45
David H.
news:20021112062339...@mb-fn.aol.com...
> I have no idea why you are now slamming the faith of a billion people.
>
If Islam had a "Pope-like" leader, he could condemn the extreme
interpretations that sanction killing "infidels".
They indoctrinate violence toward Jews and by extension...anything Western.
They have poisoned their children with this since at least 1948 with the
birth of Israel.
Putting a McDonalds and Starbucks in Baghdad isn't the answer.
Making it glow in the dark seen from outer space perhaps.
> What do you think of the search for a GM ??
>
> Think Flanagan is a good choice ?
>
Anybody other than Syd Thrift, IMO.
David H.
Charles Supha
"David H." <dhag...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:aqr4bg$lft$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> "Post45" <pos...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20021112062339...@mb-fn.aol.com...
> > I have no idea why you are now slamming the faith of a billion people.
> >
>
>
> >
> > Think Flanagan is a good choice ?
> >
>
> Anybody other than Syd Thrift, IMO.
>
> David H.
It doesn't matter who they put in there, since Angelos seems to veto just
about any blockbuster deal. Angelos should set a freakin budget and then
let the GM do whatever he wants under that budget.
C.
nob...@junk.min.net
11/12/02
> Sure, Islamists have vowed to take over the world and convert everyone
>to Islam, and they want to continue Adolph Hitler's program to wipe the
>Jews off of the face of the earth, but we are still forced to believe
>that Islam is a "religion of peace." Sure... LOL
Funny, they say the same about Christianity, which produced the Crusades
and the Inquisition.
> When all the Jews are dead, they will start suicide bombing the infidel
>Christians!
The fundies will. Guess what - fundies of any religion are bad news.
Alan
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
**** Please use address al...@min.net to reply via e-mail. ****
Posted using registered MR/2 ICE Newsreader #564
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Mack
<7FFAB93CFACEBBAB.21B7CBFC...@lp.airnews.net>,
MR. PHP <mr...@planet.gong.rgi> wrote:
> FYI
>
> We have all been drilled on the idea that Islam is a "religion of
> peace." Day after day, the media, and even (LOL) politicians keep
> repeating that mantra over and over again.
>
> Sure, Islamists have vowed to take over the world and convert
> everyone to Islam, and they want to continue Adolph Hitler's program
> to wipe the Jews off of the face of the earth, but we are still forced
> to believe that Islam is a "religion of peace." Sure... LOL
> When all the Jews are dead, they will start suicide bombing the
> infidel Christians!
Wow, so we are now to judge a whole institution based on what a few
psychos do in its name? Christianity wouldn't fair too well under that
scrutiny, now would it? Nor would America, Europe. . . hell, not much
of anything would fair too well.
> ROFLMAO
I'm glad you find so much humor in the current state of foreign affairs.
--
Smack
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." -Publius Terentius Afer
David Marc Nieporent
>> FYI
>> We have all been drilled on the idea that Islam is a "religion of
>> peace." Day after day, the media, and even (LOL) politicians keep
>> repeating that mantra over and over again.
>> Sure, Islamists have vowed to take over the world and convert
>> everyone to Islam, and they want to continue Adolph Hitler's program
>> to wipe the Jews off of the face of the earth, but we are still forced
>> to believe that Islam is a "religion of peace." Sure... LOL
>> When all the Jews are dead, they will start suicide bombing the
>> infidel Christians!
>Wow, so we are now to judge a whole institution based on what a few
>psychos do in its name? Christianity wouldn't fair too well under that
>scrutiny, now would it? Nor would America, Europe. . . hell, not much
>of anything would fair too well.
But it's not a few, Stephen. I know people want to believe it, because
they want to believe that people are all basically good, and that there are
just a few extremists out there. But radical Islam is the majority voice,
not the minority.
---------------------------------------------
David M. Nieporent niep...@alumni.princeton.edu
Pete Foosis
>I have no idea why you are now slamming the faith of a billion people.
I do: because he's a racist sociopath.
>
>What do you think of the search for a GM ??
I think they'll hire someone who has a long, mediocre resume.
>
>Think Flanagan is a good choice ?
Probably not, but better him than someone who's already proved he
doesn't know how to put together a team. I'd like to see Paul
DePodesta.
>
>Post45
MR. PHP
>I have no idea why you are now slamming the faith of a billion people.
>
Because they think God tells them to kill people.
>What do you think of the search for a GM ??
>
>Think Flanagan is a good choice ?
>
Yep!
Peter Schmuck thinks he's a better choice than Cal. I would like to
see Mike in charge of ALL the Os pitching from Florida to Baltimore at
the very least. I also think he would make an excellent GM. If Cal
would take the Player Developement job I would give it to him in a
heartbeat.
If we could get the Expos GM that might also be a good choice. The
Shorebirds were an Expos affiliate for their first year in '97 and
there was some talent on that team including Orlando Cabrera, Michael
Barrett, and Javier Vasquez. There is no doubt that they have a better
player developement program. Maybe if he had more $$$ to work with he
might be able to make things happen....
>Post45
MR. PHP
<fake_emai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 12 Nov 2002 11:23:39 GMT, pos...@aol.com (Post45) wrote:
>
>>I have no idea why you are now slamming the faith of a billion people.
>
>I do: because he's a racist sociopath.
Islam is a "religion," not a race. The fact that you associate a
religion to a race shows that perhaps you have a slight
misunderstanding of the issues. There is growing evidence (a
no-brainer IMHO) that Islam is now more of a political, rather than a
religious force.
And what is a sociopath? Hmmm lets see...
Some traits include:
- Goal of enslavement of people
- Authoritarian
- Exercises despotic control over every aspect of peoples' lives
- May state readily that their goal is to rule the world
Yep! That's the modern Islamist!
Nice try, but you were aiming at the wrong target.
David H.
<nob...@junk.min.net> wrote in message
news:3dd18a8e$1$nynaurff$mr2...@news.md.comcast.giganews.com...
> In <7FFAB93CFACEBBAB.21B7CBFC...@lp.airnews.net>, on
> 11/12/02
> at 05:33 AM, MR. PHP <mr...@planet.gong.rgi> said:
>
>
> > Sure, Islamists have vowed to take over the world and convert everyone
> >to Islam, and they want to continue Adolph Hitler's program to wipe the
> >Jews off of the face of the earth, but we are still forced to believe
> >that Islam is a "religion of peace." Sure... LOL
>
> Funny, they say the same about Christianity, which produced the Crusades
> and the Inquisition.
Were not The Crusades a war between Christians and Muslims?
IOW, it seems that every few hundred years, the West has to deal with this
religion on a battlefield.
The Islamic religion has kept the Arabs in the 15th Century compared to the
rest of the World.
>
> > When all the Jews are dead, they will start suicide bombing the infidel
> >Christians!
>
> The fundies will. Guess what - fundies of any religion are bad news.
>
Well, until Pope Pius Ahmed Abullah Mohammed Bin Laden tells them to cease
unless they want to spend eternity sleeping with Moms Mabley in lieu of 70
virgins, they *ALL* have to treated as the enemy.
David H.
Stephen Mack
David Marc Nieporent <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
> >Wow, so we are now to judge a whole institution based on what a few
> >psychos do in its name? Christianity wouldn't fair too well under that
> >scrutiny, now would it? Nor would America, Europe. . . hell, not much
> >of anything would fair too well.
>
> But it's not a few, Stephen. I know people want to believe it, because
> they want to believe that people are all basically good, and that there are
> just a few extremists out there. But radical Islam is the majority voice,
> not the minority.
Well, no, I don't buy that more than 500 million Muslims have terrorist
tendencies. But even if that's the case, it's irrelevant. As I've
said before, how would we respond if foreigners came into our country
to control our economy with military force? And if we would respond
aggressively - which we would - does that mean that the problem lies in
Christianity, or in caucasian genes, or in eating McDonald's food, or
in talking on cell phones, or in any other thing Americans happen to
do?
If people in the Middle East were Hindu, they'd pray to different gods,
but there wouldn't be much difference - if any - in the political
climate. Blaming Islam is just another convenient way for us to shirk
responsibility.
David Marc Nieporent
Stephen Mack <sm...@zzappspam.org> wrote:
>David Marc Nieporent <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>> >Wow, so we are now to judge a whole institution based on what a few
>> >psychos do in its name? Christianity wouldn't fair too well under that
>> >scrutiny, now would it? Nor would America, Europe. . . hell, not much
>> >of anything would fair too well.
>> But it's not a few, Stephen. I know people want to believe it, because
>> they want to believe that people are all basically good, and that there are
>> just a few extremists out there. But radical Islam is the majority voice,
>> not the minority.
>Well, no, I don't buy that more than 500 million Muslims have terrorist
>tendencies. But even if that's the case, it's irrelevant. As I've
>said before, how would we respond if foreigners came into our country
>to control our economy with military force?
Is _that_ what Australians were doing at that nightclub in Bali? Or what
that French oil tanker was doing? Or the Pope when he was visiting the
Philipines?
> And if we would respond
>aggressively - which we would - does that mean that the problem lies in
>Christianity, or in caucasian genes, or in eating McDonald's food, or
>in talking on cell phones, or in any other thing Americans happen to do?
We would indeed respond aggressively to an armed attack. Not in the name
of Christianity, or "caucasian genes," or McDonalds, or cell phones, but in
self defense. On the other hand, we probably wouldn't respond by attacking
pizzerias or embassies or office buildings. And if the "armed attack"
happened 500 years ago, we'd probably have gotten over it.
>If people in the Middle East were Hindu, they'd pray to different gods,
>but there wouldn't be much difference - if any - in the political
>climate. Blaming Islam is just another convenient way for us to shirk
>responsibility.
Where are all the Buddhist suicide bombers? How many Hindus plan to hijack
planes into the Eiffel Tower? Do you see lots of Lutherans who target
theatergoers?
Pete Foosis
<niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
No, but I do see a lot of Muslims not doing those things, either. And
even if it were all Muslims who sought to kill the infidels, I'd still
have trouble calling it a reflection of the religion, seeing how the
bulk of Islam's history doesn't involve terrorism.
Pete Foosis
wrote:
>
>
><nob...@junk.min.net> wrote in message
>news:3dd18a8e$1$nynaurff$mr2...@news.md.comcast.giganews.com...
>> In <7FFAB93CFACEBBAB.21B7CBFC...@lp.airnews.net>, on
>> 11/12/02
>> at 05:33 AM, MR. PHP <mr...@planet.gong.rgi> said:
>>
>>
>> > Sure, Islamists have vowed to take over the world and convert everyone
>> >to Islam, and they want to continue Adolph Hitler's program to wipe the
>> >Jews off of the face of the earth, but we are still forced to believe
>> >that Islam is a "religion of peace." Sure... LOL
>>
>> Funny, they say the same about Christianity, which produced the Crusades
>> and the Inquisition.
>
>Were not The Crusades a war between Christians and Muslims?
>
>IOW, it seems that every few hundred years, the West has to deal with this
>religion on a battlefield.
The Crusades were an unprovoked effort to "free" the Holy Land from
the infidels, but it's generally accepted that they were created by
the Church to stop the nations of Europe warring among themselves.
>
>The Islamic religion has kept the Arabs in the 15th Century compared to the
>rest of the World.
For one thing, Arabs aren't in the 15th century. Some of them hold
15th century ideals, but I don't think you, of all people, are in a
position to criticize them. More than that, this terrorism is a
reflection of widespread poverty. The West has been made a scapegoat
by religious leaders, for sure, but religious leaders of every stripe
have always done a good job at shifting the blame to outsiders. For
instance, the Black Plague was frequently blamed on Jews.
>
>>
>> > When all the Jews are dead, they will start suicide bombing the infidel
>> >Christians!
>>
>> The fundies will. Guess what - fundies of any religion are bad news.
>>
>
>Well, until Pope Pius Ahmed Abullah Mohammed Bin Laden tells them to cease
>unless they want to spend eternity sleeping with Moms Mabley in lieu of 70
>virgins, they *ALL* have to treated as the enemy.
>
All Arabs? All Muslims? Even our friends, like the Turks and the
Moroccans? Seems like you're using the same logic as bin Laden.
>David H.
>
Pete Foosis
wrote:
>On Wed, 13 Nov 2002 05:28:31 GMT, Pete Foosis
><fake_emai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 12 Nov 2002 11:23:39 GMT, pos...@aol.com (Post45) wrote:
>>
>>>I have no idea why you are now slamming the faith of a billion people.
>>
>>I do: because he's a racist sociopath.
>
>Islam is a "religion," not a race.
Fine. I misspoke: you're a bigot.
>The fact that you associate a
>religion to a race shows that perhaps you have a slight
>misunderstanding of the issues.
Or perhaps it stems from reading enough of your idiotic posts to
recognize that you're a racist.
>There is growing evidence (a
>no-brainer IMHO) that Islam is now more of a political, rather than a
>religious force.
Growing evidence? Islam is a religion. And like any other religion,
it is easy for people to use it as a platform for political issues.
But is is overwhelmingly a religion before it is a political movement.
>
>And what is a sociopath? Hmmm lets see...
>Some traits include:
>
Grandiose sense of self
Callousness/lack of empathy
Poor behavioral control
Paranoia
>- Goal of enslavement of people
>- Authoritarian
>- Exercises despotic control over every aspect of peoples' lives
>- May state readily that their goal is to rule the world
>
>Yep! That's the modern Islamist!
And no one here is defending Islamists. Please recognize the
significant difference between Muslims and people who want the entire
world to be ruled by a single Islamic ruler.
David Marc Nieporent
Pete Foosis <fake_emai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 13 Nov 2002 06:48:32 -0500, "David H." <dhag...@erols.com> wrote:
>><nob...@junk.min.net> wrote in message
>>> > Sure, Islamists have vowed to take over the world and convert everyone
>>> >to Islam, and they want to continue Adolph Hitler's program to wipe the
>>> >Jews off of the face of the earth, but we are still forced to believe
>>> >that Islam is a "religion of peace." Sure... LOL
>>> Funny, they say the same about Christianity, which produced the Crusades
>>> and the Inquisition.
>>Were not The Crusades a war between Christians and Muslims?
>>IOW, it seems that every few hundred years, the West has to deal with this
>>religion on a battlefield.
>The Crusades were an unprovoked effort to "free" the Holy Land from
>the infidels, but it's generally accepted that they were created by
>the Church to stop the nations of Europe warring among themselves.
Unprovoked? How do you think the "Holy Land" got into the possession of
the "infidels" in the first place?
>>The Islamic religion has kept the Arabs in the 15th Century compared
>>to the rest of the World.
>For one thing, Arabs aren't in the 15th century. Some of them hold
>15th century ideals, but I don't think you, of all people, are in a
>position to criticize them. More than that, this terrorism is a
>reflection of widespread poverty.
Frankly, this is bullshit. There is zero correlation between poverty and
terrorism. Nobody who has looked at this believes this. Few who are poor
become terrorists, and few who become terrorists are poor. Terrorism is
generally a middle-class phenomenon.
> The West has been made a scapegoat
>by religious leaders, for sure, but religious leaders of every stripe
>have always done a good job at shifting the blame to outsiders. For
>instance, the Black Plague was frequently blamed on Jews.
Again with the medieval comparisons. I don't think it helps your case to
point out that Islam is comparable to 14th century Christendom.
Pete Foosis
<niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>In article <kir5tu01p5hpnrj37...@4ax.com>,
> Pete Foosis <fake_emai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On Wed, 13 Nov 2002 06:48:32 -0500, "David H." <dhag...@erols.com> wrote:
>>><nob...@junk.min.net> wrote in message
>>>> at 05:33 AM, MR. PHP <mr...@planet.gong.rgi> said:
>
>>>> > Sure, Islamists have vowed to take over the world and convert everyone
>>>> >to Islam, and they want to continue Adolph Hitler's program to wipe the
>>>> >Jews off of the face of the earth, but we are still forced to believe
>>>> >that Islam is a "religion of peace." Sure... LOL
>
>>>> Funny, they say the same about Christianity, which produced the Crusades
>>>> and the Inquisition.
>
>>>Were not The Crusades a war between Christians and Muslims?
>>>IOW, it seems that every few hundred years, the West has to deal with this
>>>religion on a battlefield.
>
>>The Crusades were an unprovoked effort to "free" the Holy Land from
>>the infidels, but it's generally accepted that they were created by
>>the Church to stop the nations of Europe warring among themselves.
>
>Unprovoked? How do you think the "Holy Land" got into the possession of
>the "infidels" in the first place?
Muslims took it from Byzantine Christians in 638. The First Crusade
began over 450 years later.
>
>
>>>The Islamic religion has kept the Arabs in the 15th Century compared
>>>to the rest of the World.
>
>>For one thing, Arabs aren't in the 15th century. Some of them hold
>>15th century ideals, but I don't think you, of all people, are in a
>>position to criticize them. More than that, this terrorism is a
>>reflection of widespread poverty.
>
>Frankly, this is bullshit. There is zero correlation between poverty and
>terrorism. Nobody who has looked at this believes this. Few who are poor
>become terrorists, and few who become terrorists are poor. Terrorism is
>generally a middle-class phenomenon.
I didn't claim that terrorists were poor. Political activists rarely
are. But I feel it's a safe assumption that there would be no al
Qaeda without widespread poverty
>
>> The West has been made a scapegoat
>>by religious leaders, for sure, but religious leaders of every stripe
>>have always done a good job at shifting the blame to outsiders. For
>>instance, the Black Plague was frequently blamed on Jews.
>
>Again with the medieval comparisons. I don't think it helps your case to
>point out that Islam is comparable to 14th century Christendom.
It does when the point I'm trying to make is that it's unfair to
condemn an entire religion based on acts done in its name over a
relatively brief period.
David H.
news:kir5tu01p5hpnrj37...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 13 Nov 2002 06:48:32 -0500, "David H." <dhag...@erols.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >The Islamic religion has kept the Arabs in the 15th Century compared to
the
> >rest of the World.
>
> For one thing, Arabs aren't in the 15th century. Some of them hold
> 15th century ideals, but I don't think you, of all people, are in a
> position to criticize them. More than that, this terrorism is a
> reflection of widespread poverty. The West has been made a scapegoat
> by religious leaders, for sure, but religious leaders of every stripe
> have always done a good job at shifting the blame to outsiders. For
> instance, the Black Plague was frequently blamed on Jews.
Marx stated that religion is the opiate of the masses.
When 90% of a country is kept in poverty while the "elite" live in palaces,
religion is the easiest way to control them.
Unfortunately, cable tv has made the world too "small" to get away with
that.
They look around and see that their kitchen doesn't require a "Swifter", but
a rake.
Add, that the richest, freest country in the world supports Israel *and* on
top of that....are "unbelievers", and you have a recipe for disaster.
Now, add the fact that they *still* execute women for what we consider
"minor" infractions, such as doing a Moncia Lewinsky on the next-door
neighbor.
*THAT* isn't 15th Century?
Perhaps, 12th Century, then?
And, just because I'm stuck in the 60's in baseball terms, doesn't mean I
haven't adapted to the rest of the world.
> >
> >Well, until Pope Pius Ahmed Abullah Mohammed Bin Laden tells them to
cease
> >unless they want to spend eternity sleeping with Moms Mabley in lieu of
70
> >virgins, they *ALL* have to treated as the enemy.
> >
>
> All Arabs? All Muslims? Even our friends, like the Turks and the
> Moroccans? Seems like you're using the same logic as bin Laden.
>
By "all", I mean citizens of Rogue States such as Iraq and Saudi Arabia,
etc..
I fear that Hussein will go Scorched Earth on us, and it's imperative that
we secure the oil fields to keep the taps open.
Now, if you moronic Liberals think that means this war is "all about oil",
then go ahead and don your tie-dyed shirt, buy a guitar and "Go West young
man".
It's about preserving our country from Smallpox or worse, from some jealous,
misguided MUSLIM, who can't seem to look around him and see the pile of shit
*HE* lives in....and won't be happy until we're all dead.
David H.
Pete Foosis
wrote:
It definitely shows them as backwards, but bear in mind that a lot of
countries look at us as Medieval for still using the death penalty.
But, yeah, I'm not looking to defend their justice systems.
>
>And, just because I'm stuck in the 60's in baseball terms, doesn't mean I
>haven't adapted to the rest of the world.
That was a joke. Kind of.
>
>> >
>> >Well, until Pope Pius Ahmed Abullah Mohammed Bin Laden tells them to
>cease
>> >unless they want to spend eternity sleeping with Moms Mabley in lieu of
>70
>> >virgins, they *ALL* have to treated as the enemy.
>> >
>>
>> All Arabs? All Muslims? Even our friends, like the Turks and the
>> Moroccans? Seems like you're using the same logic as bin Laden.
>>
>
>By "all", I mean citizens of Rogue States such as Iraq and Saudi Arabia,
>etc..
I think the current administration would take issue with your
including Saudi Arabia. And who do you include in your etc.? The
other Middle-Eastern member of the Axis of Evil might actually be
cooperating with us as regards al Qaeda, and their people seem to like
and admire America more every day.
>
>I fear that Hussein will go Scorched Earth on us, and it's imperative that
>we secure the oil fields to keep the taps open.
>
>Now, if you moronic Liberals think that means this war is "all about oil",
I definitely don't think that. I do think there's more to that than
Bush will admit, but I don't necessarily have a problem with that.
But, in the end, I really believe it's about Saddam's arsenal and his
willingness (if not eagerness) to use it. And I'm about as disgusted
by the "No blood for oil" people as I am by the "nuke 'em all" ones.
>then go ahead and don your tie-dyed shirt, buy a guitar and "Go West young
>man".
Never owned a tie-dye, already own a guitar, already went west.
>
>It's about preserving our country from Smallpox or worse, from some jealous,
>misguided MUSLIM, who can't seem to look around him and see the pile of shit
>*HE* lives in....and won't be happy until we're all dead.
And it's my belief that our going off half-cocked and attacking every
country we dislike and killing scores of innocents in the process will
ultimately mean more hatred, and thus more terrorist attacks against
us.
David H.
Pete, here's what I think is a condensed, easy-to-read, opinion on why
Muslims hate us.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/788744/posts
excerpts (2)
"...The growth of Kuwaiti anti-Americanism is spurred by the tragic fact
that many of the country's foremost religious leaders actively encourage it.
When two young Kuwaiti men killed an American marine in a suicide bombing
last month, for instance, a prominent fundamentalist cleric eulogized them
at their funeral by stating, "They were better than us because they stood up
against infidels bent on usurping our rights." For good measure, this same
cleric later referred to Americans as "devils." We can only wonder whether
he had felt similarly offended in 1990, when the US saved his nation's very
existence from the ravages of Saddam's invading army.
"...Kuwait, of course, is by no means unique in succumbing to fundamentalist
Islamism. Much of the Muslim world has seen the proliferation of religious
schools where young people are taught to defend their faith against the
purported malevolence of Jewish and Christian infidels. Virulent
anti-Americanism is merely a by-product of such instruction. From the
madrasas of Pakistan to the pesantrens of Indonesia, schools teaching
self-righteous religious intolerance also encourage students to detest the
United States for its alleged hostility toward Islam. "From very deep in my
heart I think the United States is evil," says sixteen-year-old Muhammad
Fadhil, an honor student attending an Indonesian religious boarding school.
"There are too many interventions by the United States around the world."
No further questions, your honor.
Your witness, Pete.
David H.
Pete Foosis
wrote:
This isn't exactly news, David, and I don't see how it contradicts
anything I've said; a religion essentially like any other has been, in
G.W.'s words, hijacked by extremists. The religion isn't the
dangerous thing, it's the people who misuse it.
nob...@junk.min.net
>Frankly, this is bullshit. There is zero correlation between poverty and
> terrorism. Nobody who has looked at this believes this. Few who are
>poor become terrorists, and few who become terrorists are poor.
>Terrorism is generally a middle-class phenomenon.
Bin Laden is wealthy - he's not a terrorist because he's poor.
Stephen Mack
David Marc Nieporent <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
> In article <131120021609217447%sm...@zzappspam.org>,
> Stephen Mack <sm...@zzappspam.org> wrote:
> >David Marc Nieporent <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>
> >> >Wow, so we are now to judge a whole institution based on what a few
> >> >psychos do in its name? Christianity wouldn't fair too well under that
> >> >scrutiny, now would it? Nor would America, Europe. . . hell, not much
> >> >of anything would fair too well.
>
> >> But it's not a few, Stephen. I know people want to believe it, because
> >> they want to believe that people are all basically good, and that there
> >> are
> >> just a few extremists out there. But radical Islam is the majority voice,
> >> not the minority.
>
> >Well, no, I don't buy that more than 500 million Muslims have terrorist
> >tendencies. But even if that's the case, it's irrelevant. As I've
> >said before, how would we respond if foreigners came into our country
> >to control our economy with military force?
>
> Is _that_ what Australians were doing at that nightclub in Bali? Or what
> that French oil tanker was doing? Or the Pope when he was visiting the
> Philipines?
We've covered this. See our last discussion on the subject.
> > And if we would respond
> >aggressively - which we would - does that mean that the problem lies in
> >Christianity, or in caucasian genes, or in eating McDonald's food, or
> >in talking on cell phones, or in any other thing Americans happen to do?
>
> We would indeed respond aggressively to an armed attack. Not in the name
> of Christianity, or "caucasian genes," or McDonalds, or cell phones, but in
> self defense.
Not an armed attack. If a foreign country had its military present on
our soil for the purpose of controlling our economy. . . it wouldn't
take an actual attack to get us mobilized (otherwise, we wouldn't be
talking about Iraq, would we?). We could call it self-defense, but
we'd be lying. Fighting a country for controlling our economy doesn't
qualify as self-defense. The Revolutionary War wasn't in self-defense.
Americans just don't like being pushed around. We don't like paying a
lot for gas, we don't like dictators that don't cooperate, and we have
a history (a very glorified one) of not putting up with an overbearing
foreign government. Why we should expect Middle Easterners to is
beyond me.
More likely than self-defense, we'd hear exactly the same type of stuff
we heard after 9-11, from the President on down: God is on our side,
protect our freedom, they're attacking our way of life (which, make no
mistake, includes McDonald's, cell phones, etc.).
> On the other hand, we probably wouldn't respond by attacking
> pizzerias or embassies or office buildings. And if the "armed attack"
> happened 500 years ago, we'd probably have gotten over it.
>
> >If people in the Middle East were Hindu, they'd pray to different gods,
> >but there wouldn't be much difference - if any - in the political
> >climate. Blaming Islam is just another convenient way for us to shirk
> >responsibility.
>
> Where are all the Buddhist suicide bombers? How many Hindus plan to hijack
> planes into the Eiffel Tower? Do you see lots of Lutherans who target
> theatergoers?
Frankly, I'd have given you more credit than this, David. Maybe this
is too close to home, or maybe your days of truth-searching have come
and gone. There aren't a lot of Buddhists, Hindus, or Lutherans living
in places filled with a natural resource the United States takes a
great interest in. Many people don't respond well to being pushed
around. The fact that the people we're pushing around happen to be
largely Muslim doesn't mean their religion is the problem.
But as far as Buddhist suicide bombers, a very large percentage of
Japanese call themselves Buddhist, and where do you think the word
"kamikaze" comes from? As for the latest high-profile group of people
to target theatergoers, they weren't Lutherans, but they weren't
Muslims either.
Stephen Mack
<nob...@junk.min.net> wrote:
> In <nieporen-9D5654...@news-east.giganews.com>, on 11/14/02
> at 01:47 AM, David Marc Nieporent <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> said:
>
> >Frankly, this is bullshit. There is zero correlation between poverty and
> > terrorism. Nobody who has looked at this believes this. Few who are
> >poor become terrorists, and few who become terrorists are poor.
> >Terrorism is generally a middle-class phenomenon.
>
> Bin Laden is wealthy - he's not a terrorist because he's poor.
Yes. And the fact that he's wealthy allows him to say to many people:
"Hey, wanna eat? Just do this little job for me."
David Marc Nieporent
Stephen Mack <sm...@zzappspam.org> wrote:
><nob...@junk.min.net> wrote:
>> at 01:47 AM, David Marc Nieporent <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> said:
>> >Frankly, this is bullshit. There is zero correlation between poverty and
>> > terrorism. Nobody who has looked at this believes this. Few who are
>> >poor become terrorists, and few who become terrorists are poor.
>> >Terrorism is generally a middle-class phenomenon.
>> Bin Laden is wealthy - he's not a terrorist because he's poor.
>Yes. And the fact that he's wealthy allows him to say to many people:
>"Hey, wanna eat? Just do this little job for me."
Except that (a) I doubt that people who fly planes into buildings are
overly worried about eating, and (b) those people weren't poor, either.
sli...@slidge.com
> - Authoritarian
> - Exercises despotic control over every aspect of peoples' lives
> - May state readily that their goal is to rule the world
Sounds a whole lot like Falwell and his crowd to me.
> Yep! That's the modern Islamist!
Yep! That's the modern Christianist!
> Nice try, but you were aiming at the wrong target.
Same target. Religious zealots share two things in common:
1) Zealotry
2) An amazing trait to act completely opposite the religion the religion
they claim to be acting in the name of.
MR. PHP
<fake_emai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 13 Nov 2002 03:23:13 -0500, MR. PHP <mr...@planet.gong.rgi>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 13 Nov 2002 05:28:31 GMT, Pete Foosis
>><fake_emai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 12 Nov 2002 11:23:39 GMT, pos...@aol.com (Post45) wrote:
>>>
>>>>I have no idea why you are now slamming the faith of a billion people.
>>>
>>>I do: because he's a racist sociopath.
>>
>>Islam is a "religion," not a race.
>
>Fine. I misspoke: you're a bigot.
You were wrong.
>
>>The fact that you associate a
>>religion to a race shows that perhaps you have a slight
>>misunderstanding of the issues.
>
>Or perhaps it stems from reading enough of your idiotic posts to
>recognize that you're a racist.
You admit that you were were wrong, but you restate your original
claim anyway? LOL!
Dude! Islam is a religion not a race!
Words really do mean things. I guess you have gotten used to attacking
people you disagree with by calling them names like "racist" or
"bigot" or "homophobe." You figure that once that word is out there
you have done your job and you have nothing left to think about...
Sorry! You can't call me a racist for not approving of modern Islam.
If you think that all Muslims are Arabs then you are the racist. You
should go to South East Asia and tell the majority of Indonesians that
they are Arabs. It will sure come as news to them! LOL! Probably not
welcome news BTW...
FYI - Most Iranians are Muslims, but they sure aren't Arabs. They
don't even speak the same language. They have a long history of
killing each other.
>>There is growing evidence (a
>>no-brainer IMHO) that Islam is now more of a political, rather than a
>>religious force.
>
>Growing evidence? Islam is a religion. And like any other religion,
>it is easy for people to use it as a platform for political issues.
>But is is overwhelmingly a religion before it is a political movement.
>
How many Christians and Jews are blowing up nightclubs and pizza
joints frequented by Muslims or flying planes into buildings in Muslim
countries?
If Islam has not become a political movement, why would you say:
"... Political activists rarely are. But I feel it's a safe
assumption that there would be no al (sic) Qaeda without widespread
poverty"
Can I assume from your own words that you admit the the root of the
problem is indeed political?
BTW
Here's another FYI on the "religion of peace:"
-----------------------------------------------
Friday, March 4 2002: 15 students burned to death at a girl's school
in Mecca, Saudi Arabia. Members of the Mutawwian, the religious
police, appeared at the main gate of the school and prevented the
girls from escaping the blazing school building without proper Islamic
dress: black cloaks (Abaya) and head coverings, which are mandatory
for Saudi girls and women. They intentionally obstructed the efforts
to evacuate the girls because they were unveiled. The religious police
even hindered the firemen and other people to save the victims.
------------------------------------------------
Wow! Where do I sign up!?!?!
And you say that I am a sociopath?
Sorry Pete. You are way wrong on this one.
MR. PHP
>> - Goal of enslavement of people
>> - Authoritarian
>> - Exercises despotic control over every aspect of peoples' lives
>> - May state readily that their goal is to rule the world
>
> Sounds a whole lot like Falwell and his crowd to me.
Because you are not listening.
Pete Foosis
wrote:
>On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 05:39:52 GMT, Pete Foosis
><fake_emai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 13 Nov 2002 03:23:13 -0500, MR. PHP <mr...@planet.gong.rgi>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 13 Nov 2002 05:28:31 GMT, Pete Foosis
>>><fake_emai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 12 Nov 2002 11:23:39 GMT, pos...@aol.com (Post45) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I have no idea why you are now slamming the faith of a billion people.
>>>>
>>>>I do: because he's a racist sociopath.
>>>
>>>Islam is a "religion," not a race.
>>
>>Fine. I misspoke: you're a bigot.
>
>You were wrong.
>
>>
>>>The fact that you associate a
>>>religion to a race shows that perhaps you have a slight
>>>misunderstanding of the issues.
>>
>>Or perhaps it stems from reading enough of your idiotic posts to
>>recognize that you're a racist.
>
>You admit that you were were wrong, but you restate your original
>claim anyway? LOL!
>
>Dude! Islam is a religion not a race!
Dude! I never said it was. I didn't restate my original claim; I
think you're a racist based on your past xenophobic ramblings.
>
>Words really do mean things. I guess you have gotten used to attacking
>people you disagree with by calling them names like "racist" or
>"bigot" or "homophobe." You figure that once that word is out there
>you have done your job and you have nothing left to think about...
>
>Sorry! You can't call me a racist for not approving of modern Islam.
>
>If you think that all Muslims are Arabs then you are the racist. You
>should go to South East Asia and tell the majority of Indonesians that
>they are Arabs.
Or Pakistanis, or Moroccans, or Turks. You're not telling me anything
I don't know. But I still think you're a racist.
>It will sure come as news to them! LOL! Probably not
>welcome news BTW...
>
>FYI - Most Iranians are Muslims, but they sure aren't Arabs. They
>don't even speak the same language. They have a long history of
>killing each other.
Yet you still choose to paint all Muslims with the same brush.
>
>>>There is growing evidence (a
>>>no-brainer IMHO) that Islam is now more of a political, rather than a
>>>religious force.
>>
>>Growing evidence? Islam is a religion. And like any other religion,
>>it is easy for people to use it as a platform for political issues.
>>But is is overwhelmingly a religion before it is a political movement.
>>
>
>How many Christians and Jews are blowing up nightclubs and pizza
>joints frequented by Muslims or flying planes into buildings in Muslim
>countries?
And how many Muslims are terrorists? Maybe 1 or 2 percent?
>
>If Islam has not become a political movement, why would you say:
>
> "... Political activists rarely are. But I feel it's a safe
>assumption that there would be no al (sic) Qaeda without widespread
>poverty"
That's an inappropriate (sic). "Al" means "the". It doesn't require
capitalization.
>
>Can I assume from your own words that you admit the the root of the
>problem is indeed political?
Yes. And not religious. By your logic, since all Klansmen are
Christian, Christianity must therefore be a religion of racial and
religious intolerance.
>
>
>
>BTW
>
>Here's another FYI on the "religion of peace:"
>-----------------------------------------------
>
>Friday, March 4 2002: 15 students burned to death at a girl's school
>in Mecca, Saudi Arabia. Members of the Mutawwian, the religious
>police, appeared at the main gate of the school and prevented the
>girls from escaping the blazing school building without proper Islamic
>dress: black cloaks (Abaya) and head coverings, which are mandatory
>for Saudi girls and women. They intentionally obstructed the efforts
>to evacuate the girls because they were unveiled. The religious police
>even hindered the firemen and other people to save the victims.
>
>------------------------------------------------
>
>Wow! Where do I sign up!?!?!
Do you see me defending these people?
>
>
>And you say that I am a sociopath?
Yes. Just because there are people worse than you does not mean you
are good. Bin Laden is evil, but that does not make Jimmy Swaggart
right to call Mohammed a "sexual deviant."
>
>Sorry Pete. You are way wrong on this one.
If you say so.
David H.
Pete, the point is that the Islamic Religion *IS* truly the opiate of the
masses in the Middle and Far East.
It has permeated the government where it is no longer secular in nature.
If a child is taught that "Americans are devils", with no contrary opinions
put forth, they grow into young zealous adults.
They don't blame their leaders or rulers for their economic plight. They
blame outsiders.
They see videos of Las Vegas' strip.....the showgirls, gambling.
They see our latest teen idols, gyrating to the new music videos....sexual
in nature.
They turn off the TV (if they have one) and go outside to take a shit.
*THESE* are the soldiers of the Muslims.
The big name terrorists are middle class, but the ones doing to dying in
suicide bombing, etc., are the poor schmuck who thinks he's going to spend
eternity with Salma Hayek.
End result is that we have to give them all their wish to go to Allah.
The sooner the better, IMO.
David H.
David H.
news:141120021924423192%sm...@zzappspam.org...
> In article <3dd43690$3$nynaurff$mr2...@news.md.comcast.giganews.com>,
> <nob...@junk.min.net> wrote:
>
> > In <nieporen-9D5654...@news-east.giganews.com>, on 11/14/02
> > at 01:47 AM, David Marc Nieporent <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu>
said:
> >
> > >Frankly, this is bullshit. There is zero correlation between poverty
and
> > > terrorism. Nobody who has looked at this believes this. Few who are
> > >poor become terrorists, and few who become terrorists are poor.
> > >Terrorism is generally a middle-class phenomenon.
> >
> > Bin Laden is wealthy - he's not a terrorist because he's poor.
>
> Yes. And the fact that he's wealthy allows him to say to many people:
> "Hey, wanna eat? Just do this little job for me."
>
How was Muhammad Atta going to eat after crashing the 727 into the World
Trade Center tower? ;^)
David H.
David H.
news:8050E9C5190B1195.84FADFE9...@lp.airnews.net...
> Words really do mean things. I guess you have gotten used to attacking
> people you disagree with by calling them names like "racist" or
> "bigot" or "homophobe." You figure that once that word is out there
> you have done your job and you have nothing left to think about...
Yep, a typcial "Left" Coast Liberal's MO........
Don't like the truth about something, attack the messenger instead.
>
> >>There is growing evidence (a
> >>no-brainer IMHO) that Islam is now more of a political, rather than a
> >>religious force.
> >
> >Growing evidence? Islam is a religion. And like any other religion,
> >it is easy for people to use it as a platform for political issues.
> >But is is overwhelmingly a religion before it is a political movement.
Hold old was Pete when Ayatollah Khomeni ruled Iran upon exiling the Shah?
> How many Christians and Jews are blowing up nightclubs and pizza
> joints frequented by Muslims or flying planes into buildings in Muslim
> countries?
>
> If Islam has not become a political movement, why would you say:
>
> "... Political activists rarely are. But I feel it's a safe
> assumption that there would be no al (sic) Qaeda without widespread
> poverty"
>
> Can I assume from your own words that you admit the the root of the
> problem is indeed political?
Hear! Hear! ;^)
>
> BTW
>
> Here's another FYI on the "religion of peace:"
> -----------------------------------------------
>
> Friday, March 4 2002: 15 students burned to death at a girl's school
> in Mecca, Saudi Arabia. Members of the Mutawwian, the religious
> police, appeared at the main gate of the school and prevented the
> girls from escaping the blazing school building without proper Islamic
> dress: black cloaks (Abaya) and head coverings, which are mandatory
> for Saudi girls and women. They intentionally obstructed the efforts
> to evacuate the girls because they were unveiled. The religious police
> even hindered the firemen and other people to save the victims.
>
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> Wow! Where do I sign up!?!?!
>
>
> And you say that I am a sociopath?
>
> Sorry Pete. You are way wrong on this one.
Ah, but is he willing to admit it?
David H.
>
Mark Stahl
"David H." <dhag...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:ar2v76$frr$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> > >
> >
> > This isn't exactly news, David, and I don't see how it contradicts
> > anything I've said; a religion essentially like any other has been, in
> > G.W.'s words, hijacked by extremists. The religion isn't the
> > dangerous thing, it's the people who misuse it.
>
> Pete, the point is that the Islamic Religion *IS* truly the opiate of the
> masses in the Middle and Far East.
>
> It has permeated the government where it is no longer secular in nature.
>
just like xianity in the US...
Charles Supha
By giving some $$ to his familiy....
C.
David Marc Nieporent
Stephen Mack <sm...@zzappspam.org> wrote:
>David Marc Nieporent <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>> Stephen Mack <sm...@zzappspam.org> wrote:
>> >David Marc Nieporent <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>> >> >Wow, so we are now to judge a whole institution based on what a few
>> >> >psychos do in its name? Christianity wouldn't fair too well under that
>> >> >scrutiny, now would it? Nor would America, Europe. . . hell, not much
>> >> >of anything would fair too well.
>> >> But it's not a few, Stephen. I know people want to believe it, because
>> >> they want to believe that people are all basically good, and that there are
>> >> just a few extremists out there. But radical Islam is the majority
>> >> voice, not the minority.
>> >Well, no, I don't buy that more than 500 million Muslims have terrorist
>> >tendencies. But even if that's the case, it's irrelevant. As I've
>> >said before, how would we respond if foreigners came into our country
>> >to control our economy with military force?
>> Is _that_ what Australians were doing at that nightclub in Bali? Or what
>> that French oil tanker was doing? Or the Pope when he was visiting the
>> Philipines?
>We've covered this. See our last discussion on the subject.
Well, I don't know which discussion that was, and I'm not going to search
through google to guess. My point, just to be clear, was twofold: that
nonmilitary targets are being targeted, and that non-belligerents were
being targeted.
If this were really about "defending against American military power," then
why would the French, who have obstructed the US, be attacked? If this
were really about "defending against Israeli aggression," then why would
the pro-Palestinian anti-Israel Pope be targeted?
>> > And if we would respond
>> >aggressively - which we would - does that mean that the problem lies in
>> >Christianity, or in caucasian genes, or in eating McDonald's food, or
>> >in talking on cell phones, or in any other thing Americans happen to do?
>> We would indeed respond aggressively to an armed attack. Not in the name
>> of Christianity, or "caucasian genes," or McDonalds, or cell phones, but in
>> self defense.
>Not an armed attack. If a foreign country had its military present on
>our soil for the purpose of controlling our economy. . . it wouldn't
>take an actual attack to get us mobilized (otherwise, we wouldn't be
>talking about Iraq, would we?). We could call it self-defense, but
>we'd be lying. Fighting a country for controlling our economy doesn't
>qualify as self-defense. The Revolutionary War wasn't in self-defense.
I don't have any idea what you're talking about. No foreign country has
its military present on anybody's soil for the purpose of controlling
anybody's economy. If you're referring to the U.S., the only place the
U.S. is occupying militarily is Afghanistan, and they don't have any
economy to control.
I don't know what you mean, "Not an armed attack." How did this
hypothetical foreign country get "its military present on our soil for the
purpose of controlling our economy," without an armed attack? The only two
ways I can see to get their military here are attack or invitation. If the
former, it's self-defense. If the latter, we have no reason to be upset.
>> >If people in the Middle East were Hindu, they'd pray to different gods,
>> >but there wouldn't be much difference - if any - in the political
>> >climate. Blaming Islam is just another convenient way for us to shirk
>> >responsibility.
>> Where are all the Buddhist suicide bombers? How many Hindus plan to hijack
>> planes into the Eiffel Tower? Do you see lots of Lutherans who target
>> theatergoers?
>Frankly, I'd have given you more credit than this, David. Maybe this
>is too close to home, or maybe your days of truth-searching have come
>and gone. There aren't a lot of Buddhists, Hindus, or Lutherans living
>in places filled with a natural resource the United States takes a
>great interest in.
What does that have to do with anything? We take a great interest in an
awful lot of things, from software piracy in China to genetically modified
agricultural products in Europe. I don't recall that leading to terrorist
attacks, though.
> Many people don't respond well to being pushed
>around. The fact that the people we're pushing around happen to be
>largely Muslim doesn't mean their religion is the problem.
I don't recall us "pushing around" Afghanistan before 9/11. The only
country we were "pushing around" before 9/11 was Iraq. If it has nothing
to do with religion, then why are people whose only connection to Iraq is
that they share the same religion getting upset?
Why are there terrorist attacks in Indonesia, when the only connection
between Indonesia and Iraq is the religion?
>But as far as Buddhist suicide bombers, a very large percentage of
>Japanese call themselves Buddhist, and where do you think the word
>"kamikaze" comes from?
Leaving aside that they were primarily Shinto, not Buddhist, there's a big
difference between a military attack on a military target in wartime and a
terrorist attack on a civilian target in peacetime.
> As for the latest high-profile group of people
>to target theatergoers, they weren't Lutherans, but they weren't
>Muslims either.
Unless there was an event in Peru which happened more recently than the one
in Moscow, they certainly were.
nob...@junk.min.net
11/15/02
>Here's another FYI on the "religion of peace:"
>-----------------------------------------------
>Friday, March 4 2002: 15 students burned to death at a girl's school in
>Mecca, Saudi Arabia. Members of the Mutawwian, the religious police,
>appeared at the main gate of the school and prevented the girls from
>escaping the blazing school building without proper Islamic dress: black
>cloaks (Abaya) and head coverings, which are mandatory for Saudi girls
>and women. They intentionally obstructed the efforts to evacuate the
>girls because they were unveiled. The religious police even hindered the
>firemen and other people to save the victims.
>------------------------------------------------
That's not the religion - it's the Wahabbist interpretation of it. Plenty
of Muslim women don't wear such clothing, and aren't forced to by either
the government of wear they live or the imam of their mosque.
David H.
"Charles Supha" <cli...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:odcB9.1468$B85.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
<dhag...@erols.com> wrote in message
> > How was Muhammad Atta going to eat after crashing the 727 into the World
> > Trade Center tower? ;^)
> >
> By giving some $$ to his familiy....
>
Okay, so martyrdom is the *main* course, with a side of hero-worship.
Sounds noble on the surface.
Now, figure that there's a BILLION of them?
How are you going to defeat a billion hypnotized, cult-addicted, suicidal
maniacs?
"Nuke em till they glow, and then shoot them in the dark"
THAT's HOW! ;^)
David H.
nob...@junk.min.net
>> >Growing evidence? Islam is a religion. And like any other religion,
>> >it is easy for people to use it as a platform for political issues.
>> >But is is overwhelmingly a religion before it is a political movement.
>Hold old was Pete when Ayatollah Khomeni ruled Iran upon exiling the
>Shah?
How old were you when the Iranian people elected the Shah? Wait - he
wasn't elected by the people. Seem some foreign country was involved with
bringing him to power. Which country, I wonder?
Pete Foosis
wrote:
>
>"Charles Supha" <cli...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:odcB9.1468$B85.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
><dhag...@erols.com> wrote in message
>
>> > How was Muhammad Atta going to eat after crashing the 727 into the World
>> > Trade Center tower? ;^)
>> >
>> By giving some $$ to his familiy....
>>
>
>Okay, so martyrdom is the *main* course, with a side of hero-worship.
>
>Sounds noble on the surface.
>
>Now, figure that there's a BILLION of them?
There aren't a billion of them. There are not even close to a billion
of them. Get it through your head that the vast majority of Muslims
are not terrorists, just like the vast majority of Christians are not
Southern Baptists.
Stephen Mack
David Marc Nieporent <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
> >> Is _that_ what Australians were doing at that nightclub in Bali? Or what
> >> that French oil tanker was doing? Or the Pope when he was visiting the
> >> Philipines?
>
> >We've covered this. See our last discussion on the subject.
>
> Well, I don't know which discussion that was, and I'm not going to search
> through google to guess.
Here you go:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=241020022018533722%25smack%40zzapps
pam.org&output=gplain
Scroll to the bottom.
> My point, just to be clear, was twofold: that
> nonmilitary targets are being targeted, and that non-belligerents were
> being targeted.
That's how they feel they need to get their point across. They're
wrong to do so. Wrong wrong wrong. Pointing out that the U.S. has
some responsibility in the current situation is not to absolve
terrorists of their own responsibility.
Meanwhile, whether you target a Red Cross building or call it
acceptable collateral damage doesn't really make a big difference in my
mind. The innocents are dead either way.
> If this were really about "defending against American military power," then
> why would the French, who have obstructed the US, be attacked? If this
> were really about "defending against Israeli aggression," then why would
> the pro-Palestinian anti-Israel Pope be targeted?
Again, see last discussion. One issue at a time.
> I don't have any idea what you're talking about. No foreign country has
> its military present on anybody's soil for the purpose of controlling
> anybody's economy. If you're referring to the U.S., the only place the
> U.S. is occupying militarily is Afghanistan, and they don't have any
> economy to control.
>
> I don't know what you mean, "Not an armed attack." How did this
> hypothetical foreign country get "its military present on our soil for the
> purpose of controlling our economy," without an armed attack? The only two
> ways I can see to get their military here are attack or invitation. If the
> former, it's self-defense. If the latter, we have no reason to be upset.
Well, we weren't necessarily attacked by the British Empire (though
naturally most American Indians would think otherwise).
Saddam Hussein, the Taliban, Osama bin Laden: all United States
creations. Our actions in the Middle East are imperial to the core.
We started a war when we felt we were being pushed around too much by
an empire. Those in the Middle East have started an especially
gruesome war for the same reasons.
> >Frankly, I'd have given you more credit than this, David. Maybe this
> >is too close to home, or maybe your days of truth-searching have come
> >and gone. There aren't a lot of Buddhists, Hindus, or Lutherans living
> >in places filled with a natural resource the United States takes a
> >great interest in.
>
> What does that have to do with anything? We take a great interest in an
> awful lot of things, from software piracy in China to genetically modified
> agricultural products in Europe. I don't recall that leading to terrorist
> attacks, though.
But if imperialism in the Middle East has these repercussions, why not
end such imperialism? Even if we were to ignore the relative level of
U.S. imperial interest in the Middle East compared to elsewhere, what
good is it to say, "Well, other countries don't respond so harshly, so
why should they?" Why not actually attempt to solve the problem?
And, in anticipation of your response, war hasn't solved the problem
yet. I see no reason to believe it will in the future. Well, actually
let me correct that. We can solve the short term problem by removing
Saddam Hussein just like we "solved" the short term problem with Iran,
Russia's invasion of Afghanistan, etc. The long-term problem still
remains.
> > Many people don't respond well to being pushed
> >around. The fact that the people we're pushing around happen to be
> >largely Muslim doesn't mean their religion is the problem.
>
> I don't recall us "pushing around" Afghanistan before 9/11. The only
> country we were "pushing around" before 9/11 was Iraq. If it has nothing
> to do with religion, then why are people whose only connection to Iraq is
> that they share the same religion getting upset?
>
> Why are there terrorist attacks in Indonesia, when the only connection
> between Indonesia and Iraq is the religion?
Okay, you're right. These people are all just psychos and it's all
because of their religion. They want nothing out of their actions.
They just have a religious tendency to travel many many miles to a
particular foreign country to destroy their buildings and kill
civilians for no reason.
Happy now?
Pete Foosis
wrote:
>In article <nieporen-F48211...@news-east.giganews.com>,
>David Marc Nieporent <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>
>> >> Is _that_ what Australians were doing at that nightclub in Bali? Or what
>> >> that French oil tanker was doing? Or the Pope when he was visiting the
>> >> Philipines?
>>
>> >We've covered this. See our last discussion on the subject.
>>
>> Well, I don't know which discussion that was, and I'm not going to search
>> through google to guess.
>
>Here you go:
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=241020022018533722%25smack%40zzapps
>pam.org&output=gplain
>
>Scroll to the bottom.
>
>> My point, just to be clear, was twofold: that
>> nonmilitary targets are being targeted, and that non-belligerents were
>> being targeted.
>
>That's how they feel they need to get their point across. They're
>wrong to do so. Wrong wrong wrong. Pointing out that the U.S. has
>some responsibility in the current situation is not to absolve
>terrorists of their own responsibility.
>
>Meanwhile, whether you target a Red Cross building or call it
>acceptable collateral damage doesn't really make a big difference in my
>mind. The innocents are dead either way.
There's a definite moral distinction, though. Sure, the end result is
the same, but a civilian casualty is not the same as a civilian
target. If we were to bomb a building containing twenty high-ranking
terrorists and thirty babies, presumably we will have untimately saved
more lives than we've taken.
>
>> If this were really about "defending against American military power," then
>> why would the French, who have obstructed the US, be attacked? If this
>> were really about "defending against Israeli aggression," then why would
>> the pro-Palestinian anti-Israel Pope be targeted?
>
>Again, see last discussion. One issue at a time.
>
>> I don't have any idea what you're talking about. No foreign country has
>> its military present on anybody's soil for the purpose of controlling
>> anybody's economy. If you're referring to the U.S., the only place the
>> U.S. is occupying militarily is Afghanistan, and they don't have any
>> economy to control.
>>
>> I don't know what you mean, "Not an armed attack." How did this
>> hypothetical foreign country get "its military present on our soil for the
>> purpose of controlling our economy," without an armed attack? The only two
>> ways I can see to get their military here are attack or invitation. If the
>> former, it's self-defense. If the latter, we have no reason to be upset.
>
>Well, we weren't necessarily attacked by the British Empire (though
>naturally most American Indians would think otherwise).
My memory on this is hazy, but wasn't the war triggered with the
Boston Massacre, when British soldiers killed Americans for throwing
snowballs at them?
>
>Saddam Hussein, the Taliban, Osama bin Laden: all United States
>creations.
That's not fair. We supported those people in fights against our then
enemies, and perhaps we chose to ignore the potential consequences.
But we hardly created them. We trained bin Laden, we didn't teach him
how to create a multi-national terror organization.
> Our actions in the Middle East are imperial to the core.
If we sought to expand our empire, I think we'd be much more direct
and aggressive about it. Our troops are there stragecially, not as an
occupying force. The Germans and the Japanese and the South Koreans
may resent our military presence in their countries, but it does not
drive them to wanton violence.
>We started a war when we felt we were being pushed around too much by
>an empire. Those in the Middle East have started an especially
>gruesome war for the same reasons.
That is their claim. In the case of the Palestinians, I think there
is some merit to the claim, and if the hostility were limited to
soldiers and some of the more belligerent settlers, it would be much
more defensible. But al Qaeda and its supporters seek to conquer the
world, with (ideally) bin Laden as its holy ruler. They may offer
assorted rationales, but really what they resent is our power to keep
them from realizing their horrible goals.
>
>> >Frankly, I'd have given you more credit than this, David. Maybe this
>> >is too close to home, or maybe your days of truth-searching have come
>> >and gone. There aren't a lot of Buddhists, Hindus, or Lutherans living
>> >in places filled with a natural resource the United States takes a
>> >great interest in.
>>
>> What does that have to do with anything? We take a great interest in an
>> awful lot of things, from software piracy in China to genetically modified
>> agricultural products in Europe. I don't recall that leading to terrorist
>> attacks, though.
>
>But if imperialism in the Middle East has these repercussions, why not
>end such imperialism? Even if we were to ignore the relative level of
>U.S. imperial interest in the Middle East compared to elsewhere, what
>good is it to say, "Well, other countries don't respond so harshly, so
>why should they?" Why not actually attempt to solve the problem?
We need to be much more active in demonstrating to potential
terrorists that we're far from the monsters that the Islamic right
wing would have them believe, but at the same time I think we
unfortunately will have to kill a lot of people while we're doing it.
It's a narrow tightrope, and so far we've made very little attempt to
even try to walk it.
>
>And, in anticipation of your response, war hasn't solved the problem
>yet. I see no reason to believe it will in the future. Well, actually
>let me correct that. We can solve the short term problem by removing
>Saddam Hussein just like we "solved" the short term problem with Iran,
>Russia's invasion of Afghanistan, etc. The long-term problem still
>remains.
But things evolve on their own. Despite what the world would like to
believe, we don't have the resurces to solve all its problems.
Sometimes war is the only way to keep things from getting too bad.
Sometimes people get sick enough of war that they seek to eliminate
the root problem themselves.
>
>> > Many people don't respond well to being pushed
>> >around. The fact that the people we're pushing around happen to be
>> >largely Muslim doesn't mean their religion is the problem.
>>
>> I don't recall us "pushing around" Afghanistan before 9/11. The only
>> country we were "pushing around" before 9/11 was Iraq. If it has nothing
>> to do with religion, then why are people whose only connection to Iraq is
>> that they share the same religion getting upset?
>>
>> Why are there terrorist attacks in Indonesia, when the only connection
>> between Indonesia and Iraq is the religion?
>
>Okay, you're right. These people are all just psychos and it's all
>because of their religion. They want nothing out of their actions.
>They just have a religious tendency to travel many many miles to a
>particular foreign country to destroy their buildings and kill
>civilians for no reason.
>
>Happy now?
But they are just psychos. Just because they claim religious and
political rationales for their actions doesn't mean that those
rationales are legitimate.
David Marc Nieporent
Stephen Mack <sm...@zzappspam.org> wrote:
>David Marc Nieporent <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>> >> Is _that_ what Australians were doing at that nightclub in Bali? Or what
>> >> that French oil tanker was doing? Or the Pope when he was visiting the
>> >> Philipines?
>> >We've covered this. See our last discussion on the subject.
>> Well, I don't know which discussion that was, and I'm not going to search
>> through google to guess.
>Here you go:
>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=241020022018533722%25smack%40zzappspam.org&output=gplain
>Scroll to the bottom.
Ah. I was out of town then, and I guess I missed your reply. Still, I
don't think that was an answer; your theories about the causes of terrorism
don't really seem to explain terrorism very well.
>> My point, just to be clear, was twofold: that
>> nonmilitary targets are being targeted, and that non-belligerents were
>> being targeted.
>That's how they feel they need to get their point across. They're
>wrong to do so. Wrong wrong wrong. Pointing out that the U.S. has
>some responsibility in the current situation is not to absolve
>terrorists of their own responsibility.
I think it has that effect. I think it would be seen as rather insensitive
if, for instance, you talked about how the rape victim shouldn't have been
walking down the dark alley at night, or how she shouldn't have been
talking to strange men in bars.
>Meanwhile, whether you target a Red Cross building or call it
>acceptable collateral damage doesn't really make a big difference in my
>mind. The innocents are dead either way.
Yes, and far more Americans died in 2001 from traffic accidents than from
9/11, but that doesn't mean that 9/11 was insignificant. There's a big
difference between trying to kill people and accidentally killing people.
>> If this were really about "defending against American military power," then
>> why would the French, who have obstructed the US, be attacked? If this
>> were really about "defending against Israeli aggression," then why would
>> the pro-Palestinian anti-Israel Pope be targeted?
>Again, see last discussion. One issue at a time.
It's the same issue. Your theory is that terrorism is prompted by American
imperialism. But people who _oppose_ American imperialism have been
targeted by the same people who target the U.S.
>> I don't have any idea what you're talking about. No foreign country has
>> its military present on anybody's soil for the purpose of controlling
>> anybody's economy. If you're referring to the U.S., the only place the
>> U.S. is occupying militarily is Afghanistan, and they don't have any
>> economy to control.
>> I don't know what you mean, "Not an armed attack." How did this
>> hypothetical foreign country get "its military present on our soil for the
>> purpose of controlling our economy," without an armed attack? The only two
>> ways I can see to get their military here are attack or invitation. If the
>> former, it's self-defense. If the latter, we have no reason to be upset.
>Well, we weren't necessarily attacked by the British Empire (though
>naturally most American Indians would think otherwise).
>Saddam Hussein, the Taliban, Osama bin Laden: all United States
>creations. Our actions in the Middle East are imperial to the core.
>We started a war when we felt we were being pushed around too much by
>an empire. Those in the Middle East have started an especially
>gruesome war for the same reasons.
None of Saddam Hussein, the Taliban, or Osama Bin Laden were American
creations.
Nor were our actions "imperial" by any definition of the term with which
I'm familiar. In Afghanistan, we were helping (for our own reasons, of
course) local residents defend themselves against foreign invasion. That's
not imperial. Indeed, the biggest criticism of the U.S. was that after we
helped them defeat the Soviets, that we ignored them. That's anti-imperial.
>> >Frankly, I'd have given you more credit than this, David. Maybe this
>> >is too close to home, or maybe your days of truth-searching have come
>> >and gone. There aren't a lot of Buddhists, Hindus, or Lutherans living
>> >in places filled with a natural resource the United States takes a
>> >great interest in.
>> What does that have to do with anything? We take a great interest in an
>> awful lot of things, from software piracy in China to genetically modified
>> agricultural products in Europe. I don't recall that leading to terrorist
>> attacks, though.
>But if imperialism in the Middle East has these repercussions, why not
>end such imperialism? Even if we were to ignore the relative level of
>U.S. imperial interest in the Middle East compared to elsewhere, what
>good is it to say, "Well, other countries don't respond so harshly, so
>why should they?" Why not actually attempt to solve the problem?
My point was that I don't think that (a) U.S. actions are in any way
"imperialism," or that (b) "imperialism" is what had these "repercussions."
Islamic attacks on the West are caused by Islamic hatred for the West.
>And, in anticipation of your response, war hasn't solved the problem
>yet. I see no reason to believe it will in the future. Well, actually
>let me correct that. We can solve the short term problem by removing
>Saddam Hussein just like we "solved" the short term problem with Iran,
>Russia's invasion of Afghanistan, etc. The long-term problem still remains.
The long term problem remains because we _haven't_ tried war before. Our
approach, as well as that of the rest of the west, has always been to look
the other way and hope they'd leave us alone. If they attacked the United
States, as they did with the Cole/World Trade Center 1993/Embassies, we
arrested a few people, maybe shot a couple of missiles, and then assumed we
were done with the matter. Never once did we attempt to deal with the
problem at its source.
>> > Many people don't respond well to being pushed
>> >around. The fact that the people we're pushing around happen to be
>> >largely Muslim doesn't mean their religion is the problem.
>> I don't recall us "pushing around" Afghanistan before 9/11. The only
>> country we were "pushing around" before 9/11 was Iraq. If it has nothing
>> to do with religion, then why are people whose only connection to Iraq is
>> that they share the same religion getting upset?
>> Why are there terrorist attacks in Indonesia, when the only connection
>> between Indonesia and Iraq is the religion?
>Okay, you're right. These people are all just psychos and it's all
>because of their religion. They want nothing out of their actions.
>They just have a religious tendency to travel many many miles to a
>particular foreign country to destroy their buildings and kill
>civilians for no reason.
>Happy now?
I don't know why you'd think that would make me happy. And I didn't say
that they had no reason; just that they had no good reason. But I don't
see how you can dispute that people who fly planes into office buildings
are "psychos," and they themselves say that it's because of their religion;
why do you refuse to believe them?
The New Republic this week has a story of someone who writes about Islamic
law. He teaches that Islam is a religion of peace. He gets death threats,
regularly. From other Muslims.
http://tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20021118&s=foer111802
MR. PHP
<fake_emai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
To be a racist, I would have to believe that my race is superior to
any other race. Could you please tell me where I have made any such
claim in the past?
Now you claim that am a "xenophobe."
I'm a racist-bigot-xenophobic-sociopath? Does that about cover it?
I can find an extra hyphen or two if you want...
>
>>
>>Words really do mean things. I guess you have gotten used to attacking
>>people you disagree with by calling them names like "racist" or
>>"bigot" or "homophobe." You figure that once that word is out there
>>you have done your job and you have nothing left to think about...
>>
>>Sorry! You can't call me a racist for not approving of modern Islam.
>>
>>If you think that all Muslims are Arabs then you are the racist. You
>>should go to South East Asia and tell the majority of Indonesians that
>>they are Arabs.
>
>Or Pakistanis, or Moroccans, or Turks. You're not telling me anything
>I don't know. But I still think you're a racist.
>
>>It will sure come as news to them! LOL! Probably not
>>welcome news BTW...
>>
>>FYI - Most Iranians are Muslims, but they sure aren't Arabs. They
>>don't even speak the same language. They have a long history of
>>killing each other.
>
>Yet you still choose to paint all Muslims with the same brush.
>
Not "all." Not all Muslims are terrorists. But the majority do
support the acts of the radicals either financially or passively. It
is a simple fact of polling.
>>
>>>>There is growing evidence (a
>>>>no-brainer IMHO) that Islam is now more of a political, rather than a
>>>>religious force.
>>>
>>>Growing evidence? Islam is a religion. And like any other religion,
>>>it is easy for people to use it as a platform for political issues.
>>>But is is overwhelmingly a religion before it is a political movement.
>>>
There's the rub. More Muslims are now using it as a political
movement. This movement is growing faster than the religion can
spread.
>>
>>How many Christians and Jews are blowing up nightclubs and pizza
>>joints frequented by Muslims or flying planes into buildings in Muslim
>>countries?
>
>And how many Muslims are terrorists? Maybe 1 or 2 percent?
>
That's about right. But how many Muslims approve of their acts?
IMHO tacit approval of the killing of innocent men, women, and
children IS an act of terrorism. Taking to the streets and cheering
should be considered an overt act of support. That would raise your
number a bit....
>>
>>If Islam has not become a political movement, why would you say:
>>
>> "... Political activists rarely are. But I feel it's a safe
>>assumption that there would be no al (sic) Qaeda without widespread
>>poverty"
>
>That's an inappropriate (sic). "Al" means "the". It doesn't require
>capitalization.
>
Sorry Pete!
Since I can both read, speak, and write in Modern Standard Arabic, I
could give you many lessons in the use of the 'alef' and the 'hamza.'
The "A" you refer to is not really a true letter. The 'alef' is only a
seat for the 'hamza.'
Ah! Enuff! I'll just tell you that in English, to spell "The Base,"
which is the name of an organization, you should capitalize both. You
will notice that most reporters use this form. This is the correct
form.
BTW There are no capitalized letters in Arabic.
Don't even get me started on triliteral-verbs and conjugation... you
don't want to know!! TRUST ME! It makes the western head swim!
>>
>>Can I assume from your own words that you admit the the root of the
>>problem is indeed political?
>
>Yes. And not religious. By your logic, since all Klansmen are
>Christian, Christianity must therefore be a religion of racial and
>religious intolerance.
>
The Klan? Are you kidding?
The Klan hated Blacks, Jews and Catholics. Hell! These days they would
put Muslims at the top of the list! The problem is, there are not
enough "Klansmen" to fill a phonebooth at an Alabama trailer park! LOL
>>
>>
>>
>>BTW
>>
>>Here's another FYI on the "religion of peace:"
>>-----------------------------------------------
>>
>>Friday, March 4 2002: 15 students burned to death at a girl's school
>>in Mecca, Saudi Arabia. Members of the Mutawwian, the religious
>>police, appeared at the main gate of the school and prevented the
>>girls from escaping the blazing school building without proper Islamic
>>dress: black cloaks (Abaya) and head coverings, which are mandatory
>>for Saudi girls and women. They intentionally obstructed the efforts
>>to evacuate the girls because they were unveiled. The religious police
>>even hindered the firemen and other people to save the victims.
>>
>>------------------------------------------------
>>
>>Wow! Where do I sign up!?!?!
>
>Do you see me defending these people?
>
Well, you sure are attacking me!
>>
>>
>>And you say that I am a sociopath?
>
>Yes. Just because there are people worse than you does not mean you
>are good. Bin Laden is evil, but that does not make Jimmy Swaggart
>right to call Mohammed a "sexual deviant."
>
Mohammed did marry a girl who was about 10-years old. What do you
think? Muslims now try to push the idea that Alia was 12-years old
because it is more "socially acceptable." (What they want the world to
believe is that she had started her period) He was at least 50 at the
time.
I'ld say he was a perv...
>>
>>Sorry Pete. You are way wrong on this one.
>
>If you say so.
What do I know? I'm just a "racist-bigot-xenophobic-sociopath" ...
I love the Arabic language (though difficult), I crave the food, and I
have many Arab (and Farsi) teachers and friends.
Can I mention my Hindu friends from India who I work with everyday?
(BTW, they only hire Hindus and Christians - they say the Muslims only
cause trouble... )
Are they racists too?
David H.
"MR. PHP" <mr...@planet.gong.rgi> wrote in message
Most impressive! For once, I'm speechless.
David H.
Pete Foosis
But this does not mean Islam is not a religion of peace, just like
Christians saying that Matthew Sheppard (?) got what he deserved
doesn't negate Christianity's being a religion of tolerance.
David Marc Nieporent
I don't know anybody, not even Fred Phelps, who goes quite that far. But
if large numbers of Christians said that, then that _would_ negate the idea
of Christianity as a religion of tolerance. If the Pope said it, it would
definitely negate the idea of Roman Catholicism as a religion of tolerance.
Pete Foosis
wrote:
<snip>
>To be a racist, I would have to believe that my race is superior to
>any other race.
That's an awfully narrow view of racism. My view is that a person who
considers any one race superior or inferior to any single other is a
racist. I wouldn't know the specific thread to search, but I
distinctly recall you sharing some very negative opinions of
Hispanics.
>Could you please tell me where I have made any such
>claim in the past?
>
>Now you claim that am a "xenophobe."
>
>I'm a racist-bigot-xenophobic-sociopath? Does that about cover it?
I think "asshole" sums it up pretty neatly.
>I can find an extra hyphen or two if you want...
>
>>
>>>
>>>Words really do mean things. I guess you have gotten used to attacking
>>>people you disagree with by calling them names like "racist" or
>>>"bigot" or "homophobe." You figure that once that word is out there
>>>you have done your job and you have nothing left to think about...
>>>
>>>Sorry! You can't call me a racist for not approving of modern Islam.
>>>
>>>If you think that all Muslims are Arabs then you are the racist. You
>>>should go to South East Asia and tell the majority of Indonesians that
>>>they are Arabs.
>>
>>Or Pakistanis, or Moroccans, or Turks. You're not telling me anything
>>I don't know. But I still think you're a racist.
>>
>>>It will sure come as news to them! LOL! Probably not
>>>welcome news BTW...
>>>
>>>FYI - Most Iranians are Muslims, but they sure aren't Arabs. They
>>>don't even speak the same language. They have a long history of
>>>killing each other.
>>
>>Yet you still choose to paint all Muslims with the same brush.
>>
>
>Not "all." Not all Muslims are terrorists. But the majority do
>support the acts of the radicals either financially or passively. It
>is a simple fact of polling.
The majority? I don't believe that. But let's just say it's 60%.
That leaves 400,000,000 people who don't support it. That's an awful
lot of people to kill for being in the worng place at the wrong time.
>
>>>
>>>>>There is growing evidence (a
>>>>>no-brainer IMHO) that Islam is now more of a political, rather than a
>>>>>religious force.
>>>>
>>>>Growing evidence? Islam is a religion. And like any other religion,
>>>>it is easy for people to use it as a platform for political issues.
>>>>But is is overwhelmingly a religion before it is a political movement.
>>>>
>
>There's the rub. More Muslims are now using it as a political
>movement. This movement is growing faster than the religion can
>spread.
The movement is an attempt to spread the religion. And I've seen no
evidence that either one is growing.
>
>
>>>
>>>How many Christians and Jews are blowing up nightclubs and pizza
>>>joints frequented by Muslims or flying planes into buildings in Muslim
>>>countries?
>>
>>And how many Muslims are terrorists? Maybe 1 or 2 percent?
>>
>
>That's about right. But how many Muslims approve of their acts?
>IMHO tacit approval of the killing of innocent men, women, and
>children IS an act of terrorism. Taking to the streets and cheering
>should be considered an overt act of support.
There's a big difference between an "overt act of support" and "the
killing of innocent men, women, and children." Am I disgusted by the
people who cheer terrorist acts? Of course! Do I think they should
be killed for it? Definitely not.
> That would raise your
>number a bit....
>
>
>>>
>>>If Islam has not become a political movement, why would you say:
>>>
>>> "... Political activists rarely are. But I feel it's a safe
>>>assumption that there would be no al (sic) Qaeda without widespread
>>>poverty"
>>
>>That's an inappropriate (sic). "Al" means "the". It doesn't require
>>capitalization.
>>
>
>Sorry Pete!
>
>Since I can both read, speak, and write in Modern Standard Arabic, I
>could give you many lessons in the use of the 'alef' and the 'hamza.'
>The "A" you refer to is not really a true letter. The 'alef' is only a
>seat for the 'hamza.'
Great. But we're talking about English rules of grammar.
>
>Ah! Enuff! I'll just tell you that in English, to spell "The Base,"
>which is the name of an organization, you should capitalize both.
No you shouldn't. It's the Ku Klux Klan, not The Ku Klux Klan. You
should definitely not capitalize the "the" preceding a proper noun.
>You
>will notice that most reporters use this form.
They might, but their editors seem to be on the ball enough to correct
it before it goes to print. Here, from the Washington Post: "...
Osama bin Laden, the al Qaeda leader..." Or perhaps that's just
their liberal bias. So how 'bout the Washington Times? "The FBI says
al Qaeda terrorists might be..."
>This is the correct
>form.
Yes, in your upside-down, backwards little world.
>
>BTW There are no capitalized letters in Arabic.
>
>Don't even get me started on triliteral-verbs and conjugation... you
>don't want to know!! TRUST ME! It makes the western head swim!
>
>
>>>
>>>Can I assume from your own words that you admit the the root of the
>>>problem is indeed political?
>>
>>Yes. And not religious. By your logic, since all Klansmen are
>>Christian, Christianity must therefore be a religion of racial and
>>religious intolerance.
>>
>
>The Klan? Are you kidding?
>
>The Klan hated Blacks, Jews and Catholics. Hell! These days they would
>put Muslims at the top of the list! The problem is, there are not
>enough "Klansmen" to fill a phonebooth at an Alabama trailer park! LOL
There are plenty of Klansmen, neo-Nazis, etc. in this country. I
think you missed the point.
>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>BTW
>>>
>>>Here's another FYI on the "religion of peace:"
>>>-----------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>Friday, March 4 2002: 15 students burned to death at a girl's school
>>>in Mecca, Saudi Arabia. Members of the Mutawwian, the religious
>>>police, appeared at the main gate of the school and prevented the
>>>girls from escaping the blazing school building without proper Islamic
>>>dress: black cloaks (Abaya) and head coverings, which are mandatory
>>>for Saudi girls and women. They intentionally obstructed the efforts
>>>to evacuate the girls because they were unveiled. The religious police
>>>even hindered the firemen and other people to save the victims.
>>>
>>>------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>Wow! Where do I sign up!?!?!
>>
>>Do you see me defending these people?
>>
>
>Well, you sure are attacking me!
More evidence of your black and white worldview. I'm attacking you,
so therefore I must be defending them.
>
>>>
>>>
>>>And you say that I am a sociopath?
>>
>>Yes. Just because there are people worse than you does not mean you
>>are good. Bin Laden is evil, but that does not make Jimmy Swaggart
>>right to call Mohammed a "sexual deviant."
>>
>
> Mohammed did marry a girl who was about 10-years old. What do you
>think? Muslims now try to push the idea that Alia was 12-years old
>because it is more "socially acceptable." (What they want the world to
>believe is that she had started her period) He was at least 50 at the
>time.
>
>I'ld say he was a perv...
I don't know what the standards were at that time in that part of the
world. In the modern world, he'd be a pervert, but I can't say about
then. Swaggart, we know, is a sexual deviant by today's standards,
having paid hookers to pose for him while he masturbated in the
corner.
>
>>>
>>>Sorry Pete. You are way wrong on this one.
>>
>>If you say so.
>
>What do I know? I'm just a "racist-bigot-xenophobic-sociopath" ...
>
>I love the Arabic language (though difficult), I crave the food, and I
>have many Arab (and Farsi) teachers and friends.
Who gives a fuck?
>
>Can I mention my Hindu friends from India who I work with everyday?
>(BTW, they only hire Hindus and Christians - they say the Muslims only
>cause trouble... )
>
>Are they racists too?
>
Certainly sounds like it.
Pete Foosis
<niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>In article <fordtu0l8vd26r26h...@4ax.com>,
> Pete Foosis <fake_emai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>David Marc Nieporent <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>
>>>The New Republic this week has a story of someone who writes about Islamic
>>>law. He teaches that Islam is a religion of peace. He gets death threats,
>>>regularly. From other Muslims.
>>>http://tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20021118&s=foer111802
>
>>But this does not mean Islam is not a religion of peace, just like
>>Christians saying that Matthew Sheppard (?) got what he deserved
>>doesn't negate Christianity's being a religion of tolerance.
>
>I don't know anybody, not even Fred Phelps, who goes quite that far. But
>if large numbers of Christians said that, then that _would_ negate the idea
>of Christianity as a religion of tolerance. If the Pope said it, it would
>definitely negate the idea of Roman Catholicism as a religion of tolerance.
You can't fairly judge something that spans millenia over what happens
over the course of a few years. If you're just saying that Islam, at
this point in time, is a religion of hatred, then I perhaps see your
point, but saying it in such a definite way seems rash.
Mark Stahl
"David Marc Nieporent" <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in message
news:nieporen-2C37C1...@news-east.giganews.com...
>
> None of Saddam Hussein, the Taliban, or Osama Bin Laden were American
> creations.
>
i guess you don't read the newspaper...?
Ron Johnson
wrote:
From various references David's made I'd guess he reads more
newspapers than anybody I know.
However if one of the newspapers you've read said that any of the
above were American creations they were wrong.
Saddam Hussein came to power without any American aid. America did
have a moderately close relationship with him at one point, but Iraq
was never what you'd call a client state.
The US did sponsor a number of groups in Afghanistan. Bin Laden and
the Taliban were never among them. Bin Laden was pretty much an
independent, using his own person wealth as well as money he raised.
The Taliban's primary external sponsor was Pakistani intelligence.
Stephen Mack
David Marc Nieporent <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
> >> Well, I don't know which discussion that was, and I'm not going to search
> >> through google to guess.
>
> >Here you go:
>
>
> >>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=241020022018533722%25smack%40zzappspam.
> >org&output=gplain
> >Scroll to the bottom.
>
> Ah. I was out of town then, and I guess I missed your reply. Still, I
> don't think that was an answer; your theories about the causes of terrorism
> don't really seem to explain terrorism very well.
I will accept that my "theories" are incomplete, but not that they are
necessarily wrong. If we're going to be addressing the incompleteness
of each other's theories, one has to ask why we don't read in the news
about terrorists from Djibouti. How does the IRA fit into the picture?
Why do Western countries like Switzerland, Netherlands, etc. not have
to worry about these problems?
> >> My point, just to be clear, was twofold: that
> >> nonmilitary targets are being targeted, and that non-belligerents were
> >> being targeted.
>
> >That's how they feel they need to get their point across. They're
> >wrong to do so. Wrong wrong wrong. Pointing out that the U.S. has
> >some responsibility in the current situation is not to absolve
> >terrorists of their own responsibility.
>
> I think it has that effect. I think it would be seen as rather insensitive
> if, for instance, you talked about how the rape victim shouldn't have been
> walking down the dark alley at night, or how she shouldn't have been
> talking to strange men in bars.
Maybe it would be insensitive. Maybe a more sensitive way to get the
point across is to advise the victim not to continue such behavior. At
any rate, the truth is sometimes imprudent, but that doesn't negate
that it's truth.
> >Meanwhile, whether you target a Red Cross building or call it
> >acceptable collateral damage doesn't really make a big difference in my
> >mind. The innocents are dead either way.
>
> Yes, and far more Americans died in 2001 from traffic accidents than from
> 9/11, but that doesn't mean that 9/11 was insignificant. There's a big
> difference between trying to kill people and accidentally killing people.
Marc Harold at the University of New Hampshire actually took the
trouble to attempt a calculation of the civilian death totals in
Afghanistan between Oct. 7th and Dec. 7th of last year (a very
difficult task since the media in the States made a very deliberate
attempt not to cover such issues). He used reports from official news
agencies, foreign newspapers, and the BBC. The number his calculations
worked out to: 3,767.
The terrorists don't care about the innocents in the World Trade Center
and Pentagon. They want something out of their actions, and innocent
people are acceptable collateral damage. The U.S. wants something out
of its actions, and innocent people are acceptable collateral damage.
In both cases, the aggressor knows well that more of the innocent will
die than the guilty, but they decide that it's worth it for their
cause.
There is a difference between the "War on Terrorism" and terrorism
itself (the terrorists focus on a specific civilian target while the
military includes civilians in a general military target), but I
wouldn't necessarily call it a big one.
The days of lining up troops on the battleground are over (though I
still don't understand why that kind of war was ever glorified). We
live in a different world now. Bush wants to wage new school war in an
old school context.
> >Again, see last discussion. One issue at a time.
>
> It's the same issue. Your theory is that terrorism is prompted by American
> imperialism. But people who _oppose_ American imperialism have been
> targeted by the same people who target the U.S.
See above, re: incompleteness.
> None of Saddam Hussein, the Taliban, or Osama Bin Laden were American
> creations.
They were funded, trained, and armed by the U.S. The U.S. had a big
part in their rises to power.
> Nor were our actions "imperial" by any definition of the term with which
> I'm familiar. In Afghanistan, we were helping (for our own reasons, of
> course) local residents defend themselves against foreign invasion. That's
> not imperial. Indeed, the biggest criticism of the U.S. was that after we
> helped them defeat the Soviets, that we ignored them. That's anti-imperial.
In that particular case, we got what we wanted from them and abandoned
them, because as you pointed out, there's nothing much in Afghanistan.
Awhile back, you said that terrorists want to destroy us out of envy.
You are partially correct. Many of them envy our democracy, but what
makes many of them upset is not that we have it and they don't, but
that we have it and prevent them from having it. The U.S. doesn't want
democracy in the Middle East because a democracy is very difficult to
control. The U.S. supports oppressive regimes and dictators because
they're much easier to control. When a dictator stops cooperating with
us, he can be replaced (see Current Events, Saddam Hussein). This is
readily apparent in the Middle East.
> >And, in anticipation of your response, war hasn't solved the problem
> >yet. I see no reason to believe it will in the future. Well, actually
> >let me correct that. We can solve the short term problem by removing
> >Saddam Hussein just like we "solved" the short term problem with Iran,
> >Russia's invasion of Afghanistan, etc. The long-term problem still remains.
>
> The long term problem remains because we _haven't_ tried war before. Our
> approach, as well as that of the rest of the west, has always been to look
> the other way and hope they'd leave us alone. If they attacked the United
> States, as they did with the Cole/World Trade Center 1993/Embassies, we
> arrested a few people, maybe shot a couple of missiles, and then assumed we
> were done with the matter. Never once did we attempt to deal with the
> problem at its source.
The only possible way I see that war could end terrorism - or even help
- is if every terrorist is killed, an impossible task. If the plan is
genocide, the very action itself will likely make a whole slew of new
enemies in the process.
Of course, such genocide would also mean targeting our close, loving
friends in Saudi Arabia, wouldn't it? Though I guess once our other
enemies were eliminated, we wouldn't need them anymore, and could thus
justify attacking them.
> >Okay, you're right. These people are all just psychos and it's all
> >because of their religion. They want nothing out of their actions.
> >They just have a religious tendency to travel many many miles to a
> >particular foreign country to destroy their buildings and kill
> >civilians for no reason.
> >Happy now?
>
> I don't know why you'd think that would make me happy.
Just testing.
> And I didn't say
> that they had no reason; just that they had no good reason. But I don't
> see how you can dispute that people who fly planes into office buildings
> are "psychos," and they themselves say that it's because of their religion;
> why do you refuse to believe them?
First you tell me they're psychos, then you say I should believe them?
If a psycho tells me God told him to kill his parents, should I blame
God?
Religious extremists attribute EVERYTHING to their religion. Whether
they're praying, taking a shower, eating beans, or blowing up their
chosen enemies, they can find an excuse to attribute it to their God.
Read Leviticus, and you find a whole code of rules that would
apparently have nothing to do with God and religion, simply because the
Israelites didn't distinguish between what was worldly and what was
godly. Catholics managed to construe the Inquisition as the will of
God. If people misinterpret their religion in their own interests,
it's not the religion's fault.
David Marc Nieporent
Stephen Mack <sm...@zzappspam.org> wrote:
>David Marc Nieporent <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>> >> Well, I don't know which discussion that was, and I'm not going to search
>> >> through google to guess.
>> >Here you go:
>> >>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=241020022018533722%25smack%40zzappspam.org&output=gplain
>> >Scroll to the bottom.
>>
>> Ah. I was out of town then, and I guess I missed your reply. Still, I
>> don't think that was an answer; your theories about the causes of terrorism
>> don't really seem to explain terrorism very well.
>I will accept that my "theories" are incomplete, but not that they are
>necessarily wrong. If we're going to be addressing the incompleteness
>of each other's theories, one has to ask why we don't read in the news
>about terrorists from Djibouti.
Because the population of Djibouti is smaller than Wyoming's? You don't
read about anything involving Djibouti. Or, at least, I don't, and I
follow the news pretty carefully.
> How does the IRA fit into the picture?
Which picture? Are you saying that they're terrorists and they're
non-Islamic? Yes, I agree that not all terrorists are Islamic. ETA, the
RAF, Baader-Meinhof, FARC. The vast majority, but not all. I didn't say
that only Islam can inspire terrorism.
>Why do Western countries like Switzerland, Netherlands, etc. not have
>to worry about these problems?
Which problems? They do worry about Islamic terrorism.
>> >> My point, just to be clear, was twofold: that
>> >> nonmilitary targets are being targeted, and that non-belligerents were
>> >> being targeted.
>> >That's how they feel they need to get their point across. They're
>> >wrong to do so. Wrong wrong wrong. Pointing out that the U.S. has
>> >some responsibility in the current situation is not to absolve
>> >terrorists of their own responsibility.
>> I think it has that effect. I think it would be seen as rather insensitive
>> if, for instance, you talked about how the rape victim shouldn't have been
>> walking down the dark alley at night, or how she shouldn't have been
>> talking to strange men in bars.
>Maybe it would be insensitive. Maybe a more sensitive way to get the
>point across is to advise the victim not to continue such behavior. At
>any rate, the truth is sometimes imprudent, but that doesn't negate
>that it's truth.
Fair enough -- except that you recognize that in such a context, your
advice is amoral. It's pragmatic, nothing more. It's not the right thing
to do; it's just the convenient thing to do. But if there's an option
that's both right and convenient, I would suggest that. For instance, _my_
suggestion would be the woman carry a gun if she's going to walk in the
dark alleys.
>> >Meanwhile, whether you target a Red Cross building or call it
>> >acceptable collateral damage doesn't really make a big difference in my
>> >mind. The innocents are dead either way.
>> Yes, and far more Americans died in 2001 from traffic accidents than from
>> 9/11, but that doesn't mean that 9/11 was insignificant. There's a big
>> difference between trying to kill people and accidentally killing people.
>Marc Harold at the University of New Hampshire actually took the
>trouble to attempt a calculation of the civilian death totals in
>Afghanistan between Oct. 7th and Dec. 7th of last year (a very
>difficult task since the media in the States made a very deliberate
>attempt not to cover such issues). He used reports from official news
>agencies, foreign newspapers, and the BBC. The number his calculations
>worked out to: 3,767.
I know. It's a widely discredited study. Everyone, including the new
Afghan government, has done so. Herold has a new version out, which covers
the entire period from October to the present -- IOW, 12 months instead of
3 -- and magically it's *lower* than his previous one. 3,141 now. Still
about 3 times as large as any other study. The AP looked at it. So did
Human Rights Watch. They both said about 1000-1200.
>The terrorists don't care about the innocents in the World Trade Center
>and Pentagon. They want something out of their actions, and innocent
>people are acceptable collateral damage. The U.S. wants something out
>of its actions, and innocent people are acceptable collateral damage.
>In both cases, the aggressor knows well that more of the innocent will
>die than the guilty, but they decide that it's worth it for their cause.
No. The terrorists *do* care about the innocents in the World Trade
Center. Their *goal* is to kill innocents. The WTC is not a military
target. Neither is a pizzeria, or a dance club, or a Pesach dinner, or an
embassy, or a transit bus. The civilians are not collateral damage;
they're the target. That's what distinguishes terrorism from war.
>> >Again, see last discussion. One issue at a time.
>> It's the same issue. Your theory is that terrorism is prompted by American
>> imperialism. But people who _oppose_ American imperialism have been
>> targeted by the same people who target the U.S.
>See above, re: incompleteness.
It's not "incomplete;" it directly contradicts your thesis. The French
would not be targets if your theory were correct.
>> None of Saddam Hussein, the Taliban, or Osama Bin Laden were American
>> creations.
>They were funded, trained, and armed by the U.S. The U.S. had a big
>part in their rises to power.
Incorrect. The U.S. had no role in Saddam Hussein's rise to power. He was
not funded, trained, or armed by the U.S. During his war with Iran, the
U.S. provided him with some military intelligence (primarily satellite
photos), but that was long after he was in power.
We supported people in Afghanistan who later created the Taliban after we
left. And Harvard trained Ted Kaczynski, and the U.S. army traded John
Allen Muhammed. I don't think you'd blame Harvard or the army for these
individuals. The Pakistani ISI was the primary force putting the Taliban
into power.
>> Nor were our actions "imperial" by any definition of the term with which
>> I'm familiar. In Afghanistan, we were helping (for our own reasons, of
>> course) local residents defend themselves against foreign invasion. That's
>> not imperial. Indeed, the biggest criticism of the U.S. was that after we
>> helped them defeat the Soviets, that we ignored them. That's anti-imperial.
>In that particular case, we got what we wanted from them and abandoned
>them, because as you pointed out, there's nothing much in Afghanistan.
We didn't "get" something from them. Obviously, we wanted them to succeed,
for our own reasons -- but it didn't involve "giving" us anything. That's
self-interest, but it's not imperialism.
>Awhile back, you said that terrorists want to destroy us out of envy.
>You are partially correct. Many of them envy our democracy, but what
>makes many of them upset is not that we have it and they don't, but
>that we have it and prevent them from having it.
Uh, no. Osama Bin Laden isn't bombing in favor of One Man, One Vote.
(Though the "man" part would appeal to him.) Islamicists explicitly reject
democracy as incompatible with Islamic rule. God's law, sharia, not man's
law, is their goal.
In no country in the middle east is the U.S. preventing democracy. The
countries we're closest to are the most democratic ones. Kuwait, Turkey,
Bahrain, Indonesia (it's not the Middle East, but it's Islamic), Malaysia.
Not exactly New England town meetings, but they're liberalizing. In Iran
we're closest to the pro-democracy opposition.
>> >And, in anticipation of your response, war hasn't solved the problem
>> >yet. I see no reason to believe it will in the future. Well, actually
>> >let me correct that. We can solve the short term problem by removing
>> >Saddam Hussein just like we "solved" the short term problem with Iran,
>> >Russia's invasion of Afghanistan, etc. The long-term problem still
>> >remains.
>> The long term problem remains because we _haven't_ tried war before. Our
>> approach, as well as that of the rest of the west, has always been to look
>> the other way and hope they'd leave us alone. If they attacked the United
>> States, as they did with the Cole/World Trade Center 1993/Embassies, we
>> arrested a few people, maybe shot a couple of missiles, and then assumed we
>> were done with the matter. Never once did we attempt to deal with the
>> problem at its source.
>The only possible way I see that war could end terrorism - or even help
>- is if every terrorist is killed, an impossible task. If the plan is
>genocide, the very action itself will likely make a whole slew of new
>enemies in the process.
The only possibly way I can see to end terrorism is through war, so I think
we're at an impasse. I think the lessons of World War II are instructive.
The only way for us to win is to totally rebuild their societies from the
ground up -- which means we need to defeat them, first. It worked in
Japan, which possessed a similar supremacist culture, and of course in
Germany.
>> >Okay, you're right. These people are all just psychos and it's all
>> >because of their religion. They want nothing out of their actions.
>> >They just have a religious tendency to travel many many miles to a
>> >particular foreign country to destroy their buildings and kill
>> >civilians for no reason.
[...]
>> And I didn't say
>> that they had no reason; just that they had no good reason. But I don't
>> see how you can dispute that people who fly planes into office buildings
>> are "psychos," and they themselves say that it's because of their religion;
>> why do you refuse to believe them?
>First you tell me they're psychos, then you say I should believe them?
>If a psycho tells me God told him to kill his parents, should I blame
>God?
When they're talking about their own motivations? Sure you should believe
them. Why shouldn't you believe that they did it because they think God
wants them to? (Not "told" them to; I didn't say they were delusional,
except to the extent that all religious belief is.) "Psycho" doesn't mean
that they're lying.
>Religious extremists attribute EVERYTHING to their religion. Whether
>they're praying, taking a shower, eating beans, or blowing up their
>chosen enemies, they can find an excuse to attribute it to their God.
>Read Leviticus, and you find a whole code of rules that would
>apparently have nothing to do with God and religion, simply because the
>Israelites didn't distinguish between what was worldly and what was
>godly.
Right; neither does Islam. The distinction is a modern western,
post-enlightenment concept. To say that the rules "have nothing to do with
god and religion" misses the point. _Life_ has to do with god and
religion. Religion isn't what you do on Saturday, or Friday, or whatever;
it's how you live your life.
>Catholics managed to construe the Inquisition as the will of
>God. If people misinterpret their religion in their own interests,
>it's not the religion's fault.
Of course it is. There's no such thing as a religion in the abstract, is
there? A religion is what its followers believe it to be.
If that's the source of our disagreement, then it's a semantic
disagreement, not a real one. You want to blame what people practice as
opposed to what's written in the books, as if the books define the
religion. But a religon is defined by practice, not by texts. I don't
blame the Koran -- though I don't think it's particularly peaceful. I
blame Islam.
Stephen Mack
David Marc Nieporent <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
> I didn't say
> that only Islam can inspire terrorism.
And I didn't say that only imperialism can inspire terrorism.
> Fair enough -- except that you recognize that in such a context, your
> advice is amoral.
Ummm. . . no I don't. I don't see how telling someone to be more
cautious could be considered amoral.
> For instance, _my_
> suggestion would be the woman carry a gun if she's going to walk in the
> dark alleys.
Okay, so your suggestion would be to be better prepared if and when the
same situation presents itself. My suggestion would be to try and
avoid those situations altogether. I don't see how one is more moral
or amoral than the other.
> No. The terrorists *do* care about the innocents in the World Trade
> Center. Their *goal* is to kill innocents.
Not buying it.
> >In that particular case, we got what we wanted from them and abandoned
> >them, because as you pointed out, there's nothing much in Afghanistan.
>
> We didn't "get" something from them.
Don't nitpick. We "got" their resistance to our common enemy.
> The only possibly way I can see to end terrorism is through war, so I think
> we're at an impasse.
Yes, that is becoming more and more apparent.
MR. PHP
<fake_emai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 16 Nov 2002 04:49:42 -0500, MR. PHP <mr...@planet.gong.rgi>
>wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>To be a racist, I would have to believe that my race is superior to
>>any other race.
>
>That's an awfully narrow view of racism. My view is that a person who
>considers any one race superior or inferior to any single other is a
>racist. I wouldn't know the specific thread to search, but I
>distinctly recall you sharing some very negative opinions of
>Hispanics.
Jeez! Pete. I hate to see you become a liar. Damn! shame.
Then again, your pathetic "the dog ate my homework" claim is as
worthless as just about everything else you have said.
I have never said anything racist about Hispanics or anyone else, and
that is using what you say is my "narrow view of racism."
Face it! To be a racist means that I consider that my race is superior
to any other race. You may consider that a narrow definition but that
IS the definition. I know it is an inconvenience when you want to
pigeonhole someone you don't agree with, but that is the way it is.
>
>
>>Could you please tell me where I have made any such
>>claim in the past?
>>
>>Now you claim that am a "xenophobe."
>>
>>I'm a racist-bigot-xenophobic-sociopath? Does that about cover it?
>
>I think "asshole" sums it up pretty neatly.
>
Your skills at debate and persuasion are really coming along.
>
>>I can find an extra hyphen or two if you want...
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Words really do mean things. I guess you have gotten used to attacking
>>>>people you disagree with by calling them names like "racist" or
>>>>"bigot" or "homophobe." You figure that once that word is out there
>>>>you have done your job and you have nothing left to think about...
>>>>
>>>>Sorry! You can't call me a racist for not approving of modern Islam.
>>>>
>>>>If you think that all Muslims are Arabs then you are the racist. You
>>>>should go to South East Asia and tell the majority of Indonesians that
>>>>they are Arabs.
>>>
>>>Or Pakistanis, or Moroccans, or Turks. You're not telling me anything
>>>I don't know. But I still think you're a racist.
>>>
>>>>It will sure come as news to them! LOL! Probably not
>>>>welcome news BTW...
>>>>
>>>>FYI - Most Iranians are Muslims, but they sure aren't Arabs. They
>>>>don't even speak the same language. They have a long history of
>>>>killing each other.
>>>
>>>Yet you still choose to paint all Muslims with the same brush.
>>>
>>
>>Not "all." Not all Muslims are terrorists. But the majority do
>>support the acts of the radicals either financially or passively. It
>>is a simple fact of polling.
>
>The majority? I don't believe that. But let's just say it's 60%.
>That leaves 400,000,000 people who don't support it. That's an awful
>lot of people to kill for being in the worng place at the wrong time.
>
LOL! 600,000,000 who don't mind the suicide bombing of Jews,
Christians, Hindus, Satanists, and Atheists.
No problem heh?
Let's say only %10 of them are willing to blow themselves up to kill
Americans. Maybe only %1 are willing to blow themselves up at the mall
when you and your friends are there...
do the math dude.
>>
>>>>
>>>>>>There is growing evidence (a
>>>>>>no-brainer IMHO) that Islam is now more of a political, rather than a
>>>>>>religious force.
>>>>>
>>>>>Growing evidence? Islam is a religion. And like any other religion,
>>>>>it is easy for people to use it as a platform for political issues.
>>>>>But is is overwhelmingly a religion before it is a political movement.
>>>>>
>>
>>There's the rub. More Muslims are now using it as a political
>>movement. This movement is growing faster than the religion can
>>spread.
>
>The movement is an attempt to spread the religion. And I've seen no
>evidence that either one is growing.
>
Um.. In case you haven't noticed, many experts (including Muslims)
have refererd to the borders of Islam as "The Borders of Blood."
Some Islamists have claimed this title with pride.
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>How many Christians and Jews are blowing up nightclubs and pizza
>>>>joints frequented by Muslims or flying planes into buildings in Muslim
>>>>countries?
>>>
>>>And how many Muslims are terrorists? Maybe 1 or 2 percent?
>>>
>>
>>That's about right. But how many Muslims approve of their acts?
>>IMHO tacit approval of the killing of innocent men, women, and
>>children IS an act of terrorism. Taking to the streets and cheering
>>should be considered an overt act of support.
>
>There's a big difference between an "overt act of support" and "the
>killing of innocent men, women, and children." Am I disgusted by the
>people who cheer terrorist acts? Of course! Do I think they should
>be killed for it? Definitely not.
>
Killed? No. But they should be deported. Do you want people who are
openly hostile to our way of life and cheering the death of thousands
of Americans living next to you?
>> That would raise your
>>number a bit....
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>If Islam has not become a political movement, why would you say:
>>>>
>>>> "... Political activists rarely are. But I feel it's a safe
>>>>assumption that there would be no al (sic) Qaeda without widespread
>>>>poverty"
>>>
>>>That's an inappropriate (sic). "Al" means "the". It doesn't require
>>>capitalization.
>>>
>>
>>Sorry Pete!
>>
>>Since I can both read, speak, and write in Modern Standard Arabic, I
>>could give you many lessons in the use of the 'alef' and the 'hamza.'
>>The "A" you refer to is not really a true letter. The 'alef' is only a
>>seat for the 'hamza.'
>
>Great. But we're talking about English rules of grammar.
>
Yes we are. If I say the my group is "The Base," you should refer not
my group as "the Base."
>>
>>Ah! Enuff! I'll just tell you that in English, to spell "The Base,"
>>which is the name of an organization, you should capitalize both.
>
>No you shouldn't. It's the Ku Klux Klan, not The Ku Klux Klan. You
>should definitely not capitalize the "the" preceding a proper noun.
>
Have you ever seen bands like The Clash, or The Band called "the
Clash" or "the Band?"
>>You
>>will notice that most reporters use this form.
>
>They might, but their editors seem to be on the ball enough to correct
>it before it goes to print. Here, from the Washington Post: "...
>Osama bin Laden, the al Qaeda leader..." Or perhaps that's just
>their liberal bias. So how 'bout the Washington Times? "The FBI says
>al Qaeda terrorists might be..."
>
>>This is the correct
>>form.
>
>Yes, in your upside-down, backwards little world.
>
Where English speakers actually speak Arabic? Yes!
LOL
FYI - just some ignorant press to chew on....
MSNBC: ...."who was once the military commander of Al Qaeda’s..."
Janes: ..."by December 1999, Hijazi's Jordanian cell - now in
co-operation with Al-Qaeda..."
CSM: ..."and underscores the shift in the war on Al Qaeda from
Afghanistan to Pakistan...
I prefer Janes' type, using "Al-Qaeda."
But I'm sure that with your vast knowledge of the Arabic language and
Islam, you know better than me. After all, your knowledge of
name-calling is advanced indeed!
>>
>>BTW There are no capitalized letters in Arabic.
>>
>>Don't even get me started on triliteral-verbs and conjugation... you
>>don't want to know!! TRUST ME! It makes the western head swim!
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>Can I assume from your own words that you admit the the root of the
>>>>problem is indeed political?
>>>
>>>Yes. And not religious. By your logic, since all Klansmen are
>>>Christian, Christianity must therefore be a religion of racial and
>>>religious intolerance.
>>>
>>
>>The Klan? Are you kidding?
>>
>>The Klan hated Blacks, Jews and Catholics. Hell! These days they would
>>put Muslims at the top of the list! The problem is, there are not
>>enough "Klansmen" to fill a phonebooth at an Alabama trailer park! LOL
>
>There are plenty of Klansmen, neo-Nazis, etc. in this country. I
>think you missed the point.
Dude! You could put the entire membership of the KKK in the US into
Bob's County Bunker and still have room for the NeoNazi skins.
This aint the 1930s.
>>
>>>>
>>>>BTW
>>>>
>>>>Here's another FYI on the "religion of peace:"
>>>>-----------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>Friday, March 4 2002: 15 students burned to death at a girl's school
>>>>in Mecca, Saudi Arabia. Members of the Mutawwian, the religious
>>>>police, appeared at the main gate of the school and prevented the
>>>>girls from escaping the blazing school building without proper Islamic
>>>>dress: black cloaks (Abaya) and head coverings, which are mandatory
>>>>for Saudi girls and women. They intentionally obstructed the efforts
>>>>to evacuate the girls because they were unveiled. The religious police
>>>>even hindered the firemen and other people to save the victims.
>>>>
>>>>------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>Wow! Where do I sign up!?!?!
>>>
>>>Do you see me defending these people?
>>>
Well, yes.
>>
>>Well, you sure are attacking me!
>
>More evidence of your black and white worldview. I'm attacking you,
>so therefore I must be defending them.
>
>>
You have called me an "asshole," a "xenophobe," a "racist," ...
Well, you get the idea. If that is not a "black-and-white" worldview I
cannot imagine what else you can come up with...
You could call me a few more names.
You could display your mental acumen for all to see.....
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>And you say that I am a sociopath?
>>>
>>>Yes. Just because there are people worse than you does not mean you
>>>are good. Bin Laden is evil, but that does not make Jimmy Swaggart
>>>right to call Mohammed a "sexual deviant."
>>>
I don't recall mentioning Jimmy Swaggart. Try to stay focused... it's
not that difficult
>>
>> Mohammed did marry a girl who was about 10-years old. What do you
>>think? Muslims now try to push the idea that Alia was 12-years old
>>because it is more "socially acceptable." (What they want the world to
>>believe is that she had started her period) He was at least 50 at the
>>time.
>>
>>I'ld say he was a perv...
>
>I don't know what the standards were at that time in that part of the
>world. In the modern world, he'd be a pervert, but I can't say about
>then. Swaggart, we know, is a sexual deviant by today's standards,
>having paid hookers to pose for him while he masturbated in the
>corner.
>
Umm.. OK
Jimmy Bad!
Bad! Jimmy.
What does that have to do with anything?
>>
>>>>
>>>>Sorry Pete. You are way wrong on this one.
>>>
>>>If you say so.
>>
>>What do I know? I'm just a "racist-bigot-xenophobic-sociopath" ...
>>
>>I love the Arabic language (though difficult), I crave the food, and I
>>have many Arab (and Farsi) teachers and friends.
>
>Who gives a fuck?
>
I can see that your skills at debate and persuasion have progressed
even further than I thought.
>>
>>Can I mention my Hindu friends from India who I work with everyday?
>>(BTW, they only hire Hindus and Christians - they say the Muslims only
>>cause trouble... )
>>
>>Are they racists too?
Sure! I guess you would say that they are...
>>
You are so understanding...
Your knowledge of world events is amazing!
>Certainly sounds like it.
Maybe my Hindu friends have had to bury a few more familiy members
every year than you do because of Muslim extremists. I'm sure that
where you live there aren't funerals held every month to bury men,
women, and children killed in clashes with the Jihad. Maybe you could
explain to a few of my friends that a few AK and grenade attacks is
just an attempt to spread a "religion of peace."
Maybe my Arab-Christian instructors who had to flee their homes
because the Muslim Brotherhood was going to kill them don't mean
anything to you. One of my teachers had the nerve to fly a MIG out of
Iraq! I'm sure that the friends and family he left behind have had
sweet and prosperous lives. No problem!
I tell you what, my great hope is that America can remain as safe as
it is now so that people like you can keep their heads buried so
safely and so firmly up their asses.
PS
Hurry up! You are running out of hyphens. You have run out of logical
arguments a long time ago...
Pete Foosis
wrote:
>On Sun, 17 Nov 2002 11:35:31 GMT, Pete Foosis
><fake_emai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 16 Nov 2002 04:49:42 -0500, MR. PHP <mr...@planet.gong.rgi>
>>wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>To be a racist, I would have to believe that my race is superior to
>>>any other race.
>>
>>That's an awfully narrow view of racism. My view is that a person who
>>considers any one race superior or inferior to any single other is a
>>racist. I wouldn't know the specific thread to search, but I
>>distinctly recall you sharing some very negative opinions of
>>Hispanics.
>
>
>Jeez! Pete. I hate to see you become a liar. Damn! shame.
>Then again, your pathetic "the dog ate my homework" claim is as
>worthless as just about everything else you have said.
>I have never said anything racist about Hispanics or anyone else, and
>that is using what you say is my "narrow view of racism."
>
Okay, fine. Here you go:
[Pete! We almost agree!
Just for the record though, Rocker didn't really spout racial
epithets. He did, however, make comments about the number of
foreigners, people with AIDS, and weird people in general in New York.
He was talking about taking the subway to a Mets game.
He did, however, use the word "queer." It "may" be epithet, but is
certainly not racial...
"Imagine taking the 7 train to the ballpark looking like you're riding
through Beirut next to some kid with purple hair next to some queer
with AIDS right next to some dude who just got out of jail for the
fourth time right next to some 20-year-old mom with four kids. It's
depressing." "The biggest thing I don't like about New York are the
foreigners. I'm not a very big fan of foreigners. You can walk an
entire block in Times Square and not hear anybody speaking English.
Asians and Koreans and Vietnamese and Indians and Russians and Spanish
people and everything up there. How did they get in this country?"
There really were no racial epithets. The only comment that was
offensive was "...I'm not a very big fan of foreigners."
On everything else he was dead on! Only people who have never been to
New York could say that his comments were not factual. He gave his
opinion... and he has paid for it!
Still, A Rod has gotten a free pass by the same liberal writers for
comments that should be challenged.
For some context, let me relate a personal story to ya:
A guy I work with is a fireman. During the Vets day holiday
celebration this summer, they held a parade here on the Eastern Shore
and had a color guard out to raise the flag to the national anthem. As
the anthem played there were some "gentlemen" of hispanic heritage
laughing, joking, and talking loudly during the ceremony. One of his
fellow firemen went over to them and asked them to "show respect,"
etc. He was treated to a round of profanity, disrespect, and threats.
Nothing jars the senses like seeing an immigrant say "FUCK YOU" to a
uniformed fireman while the American flag is raised!!!!!
There were reporters on the scene and one reporter even saw the events
from just a few feet away!
Was it reported? LOL! Of course not! Even the local paper wouldn't
touch it!
By the way, the USA beat the Mexican soccer team this year in the
World Cup. I never saw a single news report that showed how strong the
support was for the Mexican team in the US even though these fans live
and work in the US. This was the most under-reported story of the
year! (besides the reporting of arge number of muslims who took to the
streets in celebration after the terrorist attacks on 9-11 in New
Jersey and Michigan)
It is worse than you think!
And getting worse...]
Sorry, but you come off as pretty racist.
>Face it! To be a racist means that I consider that my race is superior
>to any other race. You may consider that a narrow definition but that
>IS the definition. I know it is an inconvenience when you want to
>pigeonhole someone you don't agree with, but that is the way it is.
Simply put, a racist is one who practices racial prejudice. I didn't
called you a White Supremacist, which is what you seem to be defining.
>
>>
>>
>>>Could you please tell me where I have made any such
>>>claim in the past?
>>>
>>>Now you claim that am a "xenophobe."
>>>
>>>I'm a racist-bigot-xenophobic-sociopath? Does that about cover it?
>>
>>I think "asshole" sums it up pretty neatly.
>>
>
>Your skills at debate and persuasion are really coming along.
Right back atcha.
I've never said it wasn't a problem, just that it's not a problem for
which the other 400,000,000 must pay. And the fact of the matter is
that, even assuming your spurious claim that "most" Muslims support
this global jihad is accurate, that the vast majority of the current
supporters are can be led away rather easily from seeing the West as
their scapegoat (just as Germans who supported the Nazis ceased
blaming their troubles on Jews).
>
>Let's say only %10 of them are willing to blow themselves up to kill
>Americans.
I think that's an outrageously inflated number. I think it's a hell
of a lot closer to 100,000 than 100,000,000.
>Maybe only %1 are willing to blow themselves up at the mall
>when you and your friends are there...
I think people who are eager to blow themselves up would be willing to
do so anywhere. I don't see the distinction you're trying to make.
>
>do the math dude.
Okay, lemme see... ah, the numbers show that you're 100% cuckoo.
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>There is growing evidence (a
>>>>>>>no-brainer IMHO) that Islam is now more of a political, rather than a
>>>>>>>religious force.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Growing evidence? Islam is a religion. And like any other religion,
>>>>>>it is easy for people to use it as a platform for political issues.
>>>>>>But is is overwhelmingly a religion before it is a political movement.
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>There's the rub. More Muslims are now using it as a political
>>>movement. This movement is growing faster than the religion can
>>>spread.
>>
>>The movement is an attempt to spread the religion. And I've seen no
>>evidence that either one is growing.
>>
>
>
>Um.. In case you haven't noticed, many experts (including Muslims)
>have refererd to the borders of Islam as "The Borders of Blood."
>Some Islamists have claimed this title with pride.
That's some really hard evidence you've got there, detective.
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>How many Christians and Jews are blowing up nightclubs and pizza
>>>>>joints frequented by Muslims or flying planes into buildings in Muslim
>>>>>countries?
>>>>
>>>>And how many Muslims are terrorists? Maybe 1 or 2 percent?
>>>>
>>>
>>>That's about right. But how many Muslims approve of their acts?
>>>IMHO tacit approval of the killing of innocent men, women, and
>>>children IS an act of terrorism. Taking to the streets and cheering
>>>should be considered an overt act of support.
>>
>>There's a big difference between an "overt act of support" and "the
>>killing of innocent men, women, and children." Am I disgusted by the
>>people who cheer terrorist acts? Of course! Do I think they should
>>be killed for it? Definitely not.
>>
>
>
>Killed? No. But they should be deported. Do you want people who are
>openly hostile to our way of life and cheering the death of thousands
>of Americans living next to you?
>
Wait. Now you're talking about people HERE cheering the WTC attacks?
What was that, maybe twenty people? And no, I don't think they should
be deported. (Monitored, yes.) Sure, it personally disgusts me to
see people come here and immediately start protesting the policies of
their new country, but they have the right to do so, just like any of
us.
>
>>> That would raise your
>>>number a bit....
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>If Islam has not become a political movement, why would you say:
>>>>>
>>>>> "... Political activists rarely are. But I feel it's a safe
>>>>>assumption that there would be no al (sic) Qaeda without widespread
>>>>>poverty"
>>>>
>>>>That's an inappropriate (sic). "Al" means "the". It doesn't require
>>>>capitalization.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Sorry Pete!
>>>
>>>Since I can both read, speak, and write in Modern Standard Arabic, I
>>>could give you many lessons in the use of the 'alef' and the 'hamza.'
>>>The "A" you refer to is not really a true letter. The 'alef' is only a
>>>seat for the 'hamza.'
>>
>>Great. But we're talking about English rules of grammar.
>>
>
>Yes we are. If I say the my group is "The Base," you should refer not
>my group as "the Base."
>
>>>
>>>Ah! Enuff! I'll just tell you that in English, to spell "The Base,"
>>>which is the name of an organization, you should capitalize both.
>>
>>No you shouldn't. It's the Ku Klux Klan, not The Ku Klux Klan. You
>>should definitely not capitalize the "the" preceding a proper noun.
>>
>
>Have you ever seen bands like The Clash, or The Band called "the
>Clash" or "the Band?"
No, I never did get to see the Clash, but I did see Joe Strummer and
the Mescaleros. Hell of a show.
>
>>>You
>>>will notice that most reporters use this form.
>>
>>They might, but their editors seem to be on the ball enough to correct
>>it before it goes to print. Here, from the Washington Post: "...
>>Osama bin Laden, the al Qaeda leader..." Or perhaps that's just
>>their liberal bias. So how 'bout the Washington Times? "The FBI says
>>al Qaeda terrorists might be..."
>>
>>>This is the correct
>>>form.
>>
>>Yes, in your upside-down, backwards little world.
>>
>
>Where English speakers actually speak Arabic? Yes!
>
>LOL
At least you amuse someone...
>
>FYI - just some ignorant press to chew on....
>
>MSNBC: ...."who was once the military commander of Al Qaeda’s..."
>
>Janes: ..."by December 1999, Hijazi's Jordanian cell - now in
>co-operation with Al-Qaeda..."
>
>CSM: ..."and underscores the shift in the war on Al Qaeda from
>Afghanistan to Pakistan...
AP: "al Qaeda"
UPI: "al Qaida"
Reuters: "al Qaeda"
BBC: "al-Qaeda"
We could go on and on. Obviously there are several acceptable
spellings. Just admit you were in the wrong trying to (sic) me and we
can drop it.
>
>I prefer Janes' type, using "Al-Qaeda."
I think I prefer the NY Times's "the Qaeda network."
>
>But I'm sure that with your vast knowledge of the Arabic language and
>Islam, you know better than me.
I'm awfully proud of you for knowing something, but it's really
irellevant to the discussion.
> After all, your knowledge of
>name-calling is advanced indeed!
Ah, touche! Dipshit.
>
>
>>>
>>>BTW There are no capitalized letters in Arabic.
>>>
>
>>>Don't even get me started on triliteral-verbs and conjugation... you
>>>don't want to know!! TRUST ME! It makes the western head swim!
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Can I assume from your own words that you admit the the root of the
>>>>>problem is indeed political?
>>>>
>>>>Yes. And not religious. By your logic, since all Klansmen are
>>>>Christian, Christianity must therefore be a religion of racial and
>>>>religious intolerance.
>>>>
>>>
>>>The Klan? Are you kidding?
>>>
>>>The Klan hated Blacks, Jews and Catholics. Hell! These days they would
>>>put Muslims at the top of the list! The problem is, there are not
>>>enough "Klansmen" to fill a phonebooth at an Alabama trailer park! LOL
>>
>>There are plenty of Klansmen, neo-Nazis, etc. in this country. I
>>think you missed the point.
>
>
>Dude! You could put the entire membership of the KKK in the US into
>Bob's County Bunker and still have room for the NeoNazi skins.
>
I've tried to find some numbers, but all I can come up with so far is
that there are 6-700 active hate groups in the US, and that the number
of total groups is dwindling but generally because of widespread
consolidation. I'd venture that the total number of individuals in
these groups is well into the tens of thousands, at least.
>This aint the 1930s.
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>BTW
>>>>>
>>>>>Here's another FYI on the "religion of peace:"
>>>>>-----------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>>Friday, March 4 2002: 15 students burned to death at a girl's school
>>>>>in Mecca, Saudi Arabia. Members of the Mutawwian, the religious
>>>>>police, appeared at the main gate of the school and prevented the
>>>>>girls from escaping the blazing school building without proper Islamic
>>>>>dress: black cloaks (Abaya) and head coverings, which are mandatory
>>>>>for Saudi girls and women. They intentionally obstructed the efforts
>>>>>to evacuate the girls because they were unveiled. The religious police
>>>>>even hindered the firemen and other people to save the victims.
>>>>>
>>>>>------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>>Wow! Where do I sign up!?!?!
>>>>
>>>>Do you see me defending these people?
>>>>
>
>Well, yes.
Where? Show me one example of my defending any brand of religious
extremism.
>
>>>
>>>Well, you sure are attacking me!
>>
>>More evidence of your black and white worldview. I'm attacking you,
>>so therefore I must be defending them.
>>
>>>
>
>You have called me an "asshole," a "xenophobe," a "racist," ...
>Well, you get the idea. If that is not a "black-and-white" worldview I
>cannot imagine what else you can come up with...
Explain how my disliking your opinions and the overbearing way in
which you present them indicates that I see things in black and white.
>
>You could call me a few more names.
In due time.
>
>You could display your mental acumen for all to see.....
How? By trying to insert my credentials into the conversation?
>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>And you say that I am a sociopath?
>>>>
>>>>Yes. Just because there are people worse than you does not mean you
>>>>are good. Bin Laden is evil, but that does not make Jimmy Swaggart
>>>>right to call Mohammed a "sexual deviant."
>>>>
>I don't recall mentioning Jimmy Swaggart. Try to stay focused... it's
>not that difficult
Talk about staying focused. I mentioned Jimmy Swaggart, and you just
replied to my comment for the second time. (And, for the record, I
mentioned Jimmy Swaggart because he'd just joined the pantheon of
American right-wing Christian zealots who've publicly condemned
Islam.)
>
>>>
>>> Mohammed did marry a girl who was about 10-years old. What do you
>>>think? Muslims now try to push the idea that Alia was 12-years old
>>>because it is more "socially acceptable." (What they want the world to
>>>believe is that she had started her period) He was at least 50 at the
>>>time.
>>>
>>>I'ld say he was a perv...
>>
>>I don't know what the standards were at that time in that part of the
>>world. In the modern world, he'd be a pervert, but I can't say about
>>then. Swaggart, we know, is a sexual deviant by today's standards,
>>having paid hookers to pose for him while he masturbated in the
>>corner.
>>
>
>Umm.. OK
>
>Jimmy Bad!
>Bad! Jimmy.
>
>What does that have to do with anything?
It has to do with a lot of things, really. There's something telling
about a wealthy televangelist who disgraced himself by engaging in
deviant sexual practices and who espouses a largely un-Christian
worldview publicly denouncing another religion. I'm sure Jesus would
be right in his corner.
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Sorry Pete. You are way wrong on this one.
>>>>
>>>>If you say so.
>>>
>>>What do I know? I'm just a "racist-bigot-xenophobic-sociopath" ...
>>>
>>>I love the Arabic language (though difficult), I crave the food, and I
>>>have many Arab (and Farsi) teachers and friends.
>>
>>Who gives a fuck?
>>
>
>I can see that your skills at debate and persuasion have progressed
>even further than I thought.
Look at the nonsense to which I'm responding. I don't think you're
doing too great a job yourself.
>
>>>
>>>Can I mention my Hindu friends from India who I work with everyday?
>>>(BTW, they only hire Hindus and Christians - they say the Muslims only
>>>cause trouble... )
>>>
>>>Are they racists too?
>
>Sure! I guess you would say that they are...
Why wouldn't I? Since blacks make up such a large percentage of the
prison population, is it not racist to say that "the blacks only cause
trouble"?
>
>>>
>
>You are so understanding...
>Your knowledge of world events is amazing!
Uh huh.
>
>>Certainly sounds like it.
>
>Maybe my Hindu friends have had to bury a few more familiy members
>every year than you do because of Muslim extremists. I'm sure that
>where you live there aren't funerals held every month to bury men,
>women, and children killed in clashes with the Jihad. Maybe you could
>explain to a few of my friends that a few AK and grenade attacks is
>just an attempt to spread a "religion of peace."
The old, "I'm not a racist because I have friends who are X" trick.
What a shock to see you use it.
And, no, I wouldn't try to justify violent "religious" attacks in any
way. Please pay attention.
>
>Maybe my Arab-Christian instructors who had to flee their homes
>because the Muslim Brotherhood was going to kill them don't mean
>anything to you.
You really are a bore.
>One of my teachers had the nerve to fly a MIG out of
>Iraq! I'm sure that the friends and family he left behind have had
>sweet and prosperous lives. No problem!
Huh? What? Who cares if you know someone who fled Iraq? And who
claimed that life is at all pleasant in Iraq? But this is what I
should expect from you: I disagree with you on an issue, and that
immediately means I side with the enemy. You may be educated, but
you're certainly not very sharp.
>
>I tell you what, my great hope is that America can remain as safe as
>it is now so that people like you can keep their heads buried so
>safely and so firmly up their asses.
I hope America becomes safer than it is now, and that we can make it
so without having to eradicate every Muslim.
>
>
>PS
>
> Hurry up! You are running out of hyphens. You have run out of logical
>arguments a long time ago...
Ha ha ha ha ha! You are a witty, witty man, and it will take me hours
to recover from the zingers you've sent my way. (And you're the one
using all the hyphens, jackass.)
m...@raybradley.com
>
> > No. The terrorists *do* care about the innocents in the World Trade
> > Center. Their *goal* is to kill innocents.
>
> Not buying it.
Then what is the military advantage of the World Trade Center? Any
political significance? None - it was purely to kill as many civilians
as possible, and to help bring further destruction to the global
economy. What about that Bali nightclub full of Australians? They
killed a bunch of innocents - same thing as when terrorists targeted a
Pan Am flight full of Syracuse students, or tried to take out a cruise
ship.
Al-Qaida targeted the WTC in 1993, they planned attacks on 1/1/2000
that was luckily averted by Border Patrol and local police agencies.
Their military and governmental targets (the embassies, the Saudi
towers, the Cole) brought about absolutely ZERO U.S. response by
force. No wonder OBL called us "impotent." We dropped matchbooks with
Osama's picture and script saying there's a $6 million reward for him.
That was as effective as flicking rubber bands at a tank. The Sudanese
government and intelligence agencies practically gave Osama Bin Laden
to the US five or six years ago, and our leaders ignored their
assistance.
- Ray Bradley
Ron Johnson
> In article <171120021730583763%sm...@zzappspam.org>,
> Stephen Mack <sm...@zzappspam.org> wrote:
> Uh, no. Osama Bin Laden isn't bombing in favor of One Man, One Vote.
> (Though the "man" part would appeal to him.)
Somebody doesn't read Pratchett.
(The Patrician's the Man. He has The Vote.)
> Islamicists explicitly reject democracy as incompatible with Islamic
> rule. God's law, sharia, not man's law, is their goal.
>
> In no country in the middle east is the U.S. preventing democracy. The
> countries we're closest to are the most democratic ones. Kuwait, Turkey,
> Bahrain, Indonesia (it's not the Middle East, but it's Islamic), Malaysia.
> Not exactly New England town meetings, but they're liberalizing. In Iran
> we're closest to the pro-democracy opposition.
I know more than a few Islamicists would argue for Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden
among them. It's one of his major grievances against the US.
Well actually he's arguing that the US is propping up corrupt autocrats (and
that's true). But the people who would bring it down have a model along the
order of Iran in mind as the replacement. So I guess your point is valid.
David Marc Nieporent
joh...@ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) wrote:
>David Marc Nieporent <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in message
>> Uh, no. Osama Bin Laden isn't bombing in favor of One Man, One Vote.
>> (Though the "man" part would appeal to him.)
>Somebody doesn't read Pratchett.
>(The Patrician's the Man. He has The Vote.)
You're right, actually. Surprisingly (given my preferences in the area of
light reading) I've never read Pratchett.
>> Islamicists explicitly reject democracy as incompatible with Islamic
>> rule. God's law, sharia, not man's law, is their goal.
>> In no country in the middle east is the U.S. preventing democracy. The
>> countries we're closest to are the most democratic ones. Kuwait, Turkey,
>> Bahrain, Indonesia (it's not the Middle East, but it's Islamic), Malaysia.
>> Not exactly New England town meetings, but they're liberalizing. In Iran
>> we're closest to the pro-democracy opposition.
>I know more than a few Islamicists would argue for Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden
>among them. It's one of his major grievances against the US.
>Well actually he's arguing that the US is propping up corrupt autocrats (and
>that's true). But the people who would bring it down have a model along the
>order of Iran in mind as the replacement. So I guess your point is valid.
Exactly; I don't disagree that we provide some support for autocratic
regimes in the Middle East -- but we do so in places where the alternatives
are more fanatical dictatorial regimes, not where people are campaigning
for the unalienable rights of man.
Now, you can argue, as some do (and I have come to agree) that supporting
even these regimes is a bad idea. Iran seems to demonstrate that, while
dangerous, the theocrats are not more dangerous than the other autocrats.
Saudi Arabia wouldn't be any worse if the House of Saud were gone, and
could be better. But let's not recast OBL as a crusader for freedom and
liberty.
Stephen Mack
<fake_emai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Okay, fine. Here you go:
>
> <snip>
>
>
> Sorry, but you come off as pretty racist.
There's not really anything in there that pegs him one way or another
as a racist. A xenophobe, very likely, but not a racist. He may come
off as the type who would be a racist, but he hasn't said anything to
specifically peg him as a racist. I think it's only fair to give
people the benefit of the doubt in such a situation.
> Simply put, a racist is one who practices racial prejudice.
Yes. Finally someone uses the correct definition of the word.
Pete Foosis
wrote:
>In article <72khtugkk6t5c1ga0...@4ax.com>, Pete Foosis
><fake_emai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Okay, fine. Here you go:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>> Sorry, but you come off as pretty racist.
>
>There's not really anything in there that pegs him one way or another
>as a racist. A xenophobe, very likely, but not a racist. He may come
>off as the type who would be a racist, but he hasn't said anything to
>specifically peg him as a racist.
That's probably more accurate. I take it back, Mr. PHP--you're not
definitely a racist, but you almost certainly are.
>I think it's only fair to give
>people the benefit of the doubt in such a situation.
Fair enough, though I'd suggest that most everyone is a racist,
anyway, myself included. Some of us, though, see this as a problem.
MR. PHP
wrote:
>In article <72khtugkk6t5c1ga0...@4ax.com>, Pete Foosis
><fake_emai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Okay, fine. Here you go:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>> Sorry, but you come off as pretty racist.
>
>There's not really anything in there that pegs him one way or another
>as a racist. A xenophobe, very likely, but not a racist. He may come
>off as the type who would be a racist, but he hasn't said anything to
>specifically peg him as a racist. I think it's only fair to give
>people the benefit of the doubt in such a situation.
>
LOL! I'm not a racist but a close facsimile?
Anyway, thanks for pointing out that (the obvious) I made no racists
comments.
He's just a hyper-sensitive and politically-correct leftist.
The context of the post regarded bias in the media on the reporting
comments (now infamous) that John Rocker made and comments (not as
widely reported) that ARod made.
Pete left out (how did that happen?) the entire context. The original
post also included ARod's comments.
>> Simply put, a racist is one who practices racial prejudice.
>
... and maybe anyone who uses the right of free speech ???
>Yes. Finally someone uses the correct definition of the word.
That is not the main definition:
Racism-
1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or
ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
Deference to political correctness is the cause for the second entry.
Either is ridiculous in practice.
MR. PHP
<fake_emai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 18 Nov 2002 06:07:12 -0500, MR. PHP <mr...@planet.gong.rgi>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 17 Nov 2002 11:35:31 GMT, Pete Foosis
>><fake_emai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 16 Nov 2002 04:49:42 -0500, MR. PHP <mr...@planet.gong.rgi>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>To be a racist, I would have to believe that my race is superior to
>>>>any other race.
>>>
>>>That's an awfully narrow view of racism. My view is that a person who
>>>considers any one race superior or inferior to any single other is a
>>>racist. I wouldn't know the specific thread to search, but I
>>>distinctly recall you sharing some very negative opinions of
>>>Hispanics.
>>
>>
>>Jeez! Pete. I hate to see you become a liar. Damn! shame.
>>Then again, your pathetic "the dog ate my homework" claim is as
>>worthless as just about everything else you have said.
>
>
>>I have never said anything racist about Hispanics or anyone else, and
>>that is using what you say is my "narrow view of racism."
>>
>
>Okay, fine. Here you go:
>
>[Pete! We almost agree!
>
This thread was about media bias.
ARod made some statements that were not reported while Rocker got
fried in the media!
>Just for the record though, Rocker didn't really spout racial
>epithets. He did, however, make comments about the number of
>foreigners, people with AIDS, and weird people in general in New York.
>He was talking about taking the subway to a Mets game.
>He did, however, use the word "queer." It "may" be epithet, but is
>certainly not racial...
You originally said that Rocker "spouted racial epithets." You lied
then and you have never stopped lying!.
>
>"Imagine taking the 7 train to the ballpark looking like you're riding
>through Beirut next to some kid with purple hair next to some queer
>with AIDS right next to some dude who just got out of jail for the
>fourth time right next to some 20-year-old mom with four kids. It's
>depressing." "The biggest thing I don't like about New York are the
>foreigners. I'm not a very big fan of foreigners. You can walk an
>entire block in Times Square and not hear anybody speaking English.
>Asians and Koreans and Vietnamese and Indians and Russians and Spanish
>people and everything up there. How did they get in this country?"
>
>There really were no racial epithets. The only comment that was
>offensive was "...I'm not a very big fan of foreigners."
>
I admitted that that comment was offensive.
Can't you read?
That was rhetorical I guess, you can obviosly read, it is
comprehension you have a problem with.
>On everything else he was dead on! Only people who have never been to
>New York could say that his comments were not factual. He gave his
>opinion... and he has paid for it!
>
>Still, A Rod has gotten a free pass by the same liberal writers for
>comments that should be challenged.
>
>For some context, let me relate a personal story to ya:
>
>A guy I work with is a fireman. During the Vets day holiday
>celebration this summer, they held a parade here on the Eastern Shore
>and had a color guard out to raise the flag to the national anthem. As
>the anthem played there were some "gentlemen" of hispanic heritage
>laughing, joking, and talking loudly during the ceremony. One of his
>fellow firemen went over to them and asked them to "show respect,"
>etc. He was treated to a round of profanity, disrespect, and threats.
>Nothing jars the senses like seeing an immigrant say "FUCK YOU" to a
>uniformed fireman while the American flag is raised!!!!!
>
>There were reporters on the scene and one reporter even saw the events
>from just a few feet away!
>
>Was it reported? LOL! Of course not! Even the local paper wouldn't
>touch it!
>
>By the way, the USA beat the Mexican soccer team this year in the
>World Cup. I never saw a single news report that showed how strong the
>support was for the Mexican team in the US even though these fans live
>and work in the US. This was the most under-reported story of the
>year! (besides the reporting of large number of muslims who took to the
>streets in celebration after the terrorist attacks on 9-11 in New
>Jersey and Michigan)
>
>It is worse than you think!
>
>And getting worse...]
>
>
>Sorry, but you come off as pretty racist.
>
And you have proven how petty and foolish you are.
Everything in that post is factual. You may not like the truth, but it
is factual. There is nothing there that would even come close to a
claim that my one is surperior to any other race.
And unlike you, I reserve the right to complain about illegal
immigrants who spit on uniformed fireman during that national anthem
at a flag-raising ceremony on Veterans Day.
>
Stephen Mack
<0DBD471C71A62123.34817857...@lp.airnews.net>,
MR. PHP <mr...@planet.gong.rgi> wrote:
> LOL! I'm not a racist but a close facsimile?
No. I didn't say you weren't a racist. I simply said that you haven't
said anything that would confirm it one way or another. That doesn't
mean that you're not, in fact, a racist.
> Racism-
> 1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or
> ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
> 2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
You said that in order to be a racist, you must believe that your race
is superior to others. That's not necessarily true. Someone who
believes his race is superior to others is necessarily a racist, but a
racist doesn't necessarily believe his race is superior to others.
David Marc Nieporent
<3E3C4F4939B4EE65.9F5BB307...@lp.airnews.net>,
MR. PHP <mr...@planet.gong.rgi> wrote:
>On Mon, 18 Nov 2002 12:31:59 GMT, Pete Foosis
><fake_emai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>For some context, let me relate a personal story to ya:
>>
>>A guy I work with is a fireman. During the Vets day holiday
>>celebration this summer, they held a parade here on the Eastern Shore
>>and had a color guard out to raise the flag to the national anthem. As
>>the anthem played there were some "gentlemen" of hispanic heritage
>>laughing, joking, and talking loudly during the ceremony. One of his
>>fellow firemen went over to them and asked them to "show respect,"
>>etc. He was treated to a round of profanity, disrespect, and threats.
>>Nothing jars the senses like seeing an immigrant say "FUCK YOU" to a
>>uniformed fireman while the American flag is raised!!!!!
[...]
>And unlike you, I reserve the right to complain about illegal
>immigrants who spit on uniformed fireman during that national anthem
>at a flag-raising ceremony on Veterans Day.
Spit on? If you're going to lie, you should at least have the decency to
snip the earlier post so that we can't tell that you're lying. There's no
mention of "spitting."
And as I pointed out, there is no Veterans Day ceremony in the summer,
because Veterans' Day is in November. And unless we've started making them
wear yellow stars, you don't have any idea whether they were "illegal
aliens."
David H.
In all liklihood, he meant Memorial Day, another "Veteran's Day".
And, he's also giving the Latino the benefit of the doubt, in predetermining
his nationality.
For, if he was an American citizen and showed disrespect in that particular
environment, he would have been called something worse......a Liberal.
David H
MR. PHP
<niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>In article
><3E3C4F4939B4EE65.9F5BB307...@lp.airnews.net>,
> MR. PHP <mr...@planet.gong.rgi> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 18 Nov 2002 12:31:59 GMT, Pete Foosis
>><fake_emai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>For some context, let me relate a personal story to ya:
>>>
>>>A guy I work with is a fireman. During the Vets day holiday
>>>celebration this summer, they held a parade here on the Eastern Shore
>>>and had a color guard out to raise the flag to the national anthem. As
>>>the anthem played there were some "gentlemen" of hispanic heritage
>>>laughing, joking, and talking loudly during the ceremony. One of his
>>>fellow firemen went over to them and asked them to "show respect,"
>>>etc. He was treated to a round of profanity, disrespect, and threats.
>>>Nothing jars the senses like seeing an immigrant say "FUCK YOU" to a
>>>uniformed fireman while the American flag is raised!!!!!
>
>[...]
>
>>And unlike you, I reserve the right to complain about illegal
>>immigrants who spit on uniformed fireman during that national anthem
>>at a flag-raising ceremony on Veterans Day.
>
>Spit on? If you're going to lie, you should at least have the decency to
>snip the earlier post so that we can't tell that you're lying. There's no
>mention of "spitting."
Because I did not mention it.
Some in group of immigrants cursed at the fireman who asked them to
show some respect.
Spit - as in "to spit curses" or "spitting with rage"
>
>And as I pointed out, there is no Veterans Day ceremony in the summer,
It was the annual Memorial Day parade.
That was a mistake.
>because Veterans' Day is in November. And unless we've started making them
>wear yellow stars, you don't have any idea whether they were "illegal
>aliens."
But I do...
You would be surprised at how the word gets around outside of the
large urban areas...
The firemen tend to work closely with the local police from time to
time at fires and accidents and such, and at least a few in that bunch
of miscreants has since had some "issues" with the INS. At the time I
was only told that were "immigrants." I only later found out that
several were, indeed, illegal.
You would be amazed at the things you here about when you have a
friend or two on the local police force, a volunteer firemen or two,
and at the local emergency room's nursing staff! It can get very
interesting...
I'm not sure if you are aware, but the INS regularly raids some of
the poultry and seafood processing plants in MD, DE, VA and NC because
these companies have had a history of employing illegal immigrants.
The INS has had some success in cracking down on this, but it is still
a big problem.
Douglas T. (Doug) Massey
MR. PHP <mr...@planet.gong.rgi> writes:
> On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 04:49:52 -0500, David Marc Nieporent
> <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>
>>In article
>><3E3C4F4939B4EE65.9F5BB307...@lp.airnews.net>,
>> MR. PHP <mr...@planet.gong.rgi> wrote:
>>
>>>And unlike you, I reserve the right to complain about illegal
>>>immigrants who spit on uniformed fireman during that national anthem
>>>at a flag-raising ceremony on Veterans Day.
>>
>>Spit on? If you're going to lie, you should at least have the decency to
>>snip the earlier post so that we can't tell that you're lying. There's no
>>mention of "spitting."
>
> Because I did not mention it.
> Some in group of immigrants cursed at the fireman who asked them to
> show some respect.
>
> Spit - as in "to spit curses" or "spitting with rage"
Wow -- that's a re-definition worthy of the Rosetta-Stone-Around-Your
Neck saga . . .
I've never heard the phrase "spit on" to mean "spit curses" or
"spit with rage". "Spit on" means expectorate -- flinging saliva
with your mouth onto something or someone.
Doug
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
___, Doug Massey, ASIC Digital Logic Designer
\o IBM Microelectronics Division, Burlington, Vermont |>
| Phone: (802)769-7095 t/l: 446-7095 fax: x6752 |
/ \ |
. My homepage: http://doug.obscurestuff.com (|)