"Ophelia" wrote in message
>
> "limey" wrote in message
>>
>>I also post on a UK
>> newsgroup and was amazed by several responses: "We don't live in
>> London so why should we care?". Are people really that blasé at home
>> anymore?
>
> There were two of them Dora and they have been (rightly) vilified. I
> don't think anyone else was saying that
>
> O

No, thank goodness. Those remarks really mystified me but they soon got
their come-uppance from the UK posters. As you can see, people here in the
US are also full of sympathy. My rant is that these terrorists are
cowards - wear masks, or cover their faces with their headdresses, come out
of the woodwork, create death and mayhem and fade back into the crowd, with
no regard for the lives of their own citizens. Somehow, I feel we are all
punching at a balloon. If their beliefs are so strong, why don't they
fight like real men?
Sorry for the non-r.f.c. rant - just had to get it off my chest.

Dora

On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 day wrote:

> On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 15:05:17 +0100, "Shaun aRe"
> > wrote:
>
>
>> No it isn't - it's because they are wrong sorts, given wrong information.
>> One of the guys I work with happens to be a teacher in his mosque - nothing
>> he has ever read or taught preaches anything other than peace. He and his
>> are as appalled at what has been transpiring as you and I are. As I've said
>> before, it's rotten apples, not rotten barrels full.
>>
>> Misguided Christians, or those with their own agenda, have for centuries
>> falsely killed in the name of their religion, too, and these two religions
>> are not alone in this.
>>
>> Shaun aRe
>>
> Are there two versions of the Koran or however it is spelled this week
> one for terrorist and one for regular worship? You see it with a K or
> a Q.
> You can do a search under " Islam kill non-believers " to see what the
> instructions are for killing, beheading, maiming, cutting off fingers
> , enslaving and making war on non-believers and forcing them to
> convert or die.
> Look it up on your own so I don't get accused of telling lies and
> preaching hate.

There are about twelve "good" versions of the Koran (canonical or catholic
or orthodox).

Most of the differences are misspellings.

Religions from that part of the world, or from any part of the world where
people live on the edge of death, tend to be far more... graphic than
other places.

"Society has the morality it can afford".... and there, they could afford
precious little mercy.

Lena

y'all never read the bible? it's got stonings in it, and other
punishments that are worse than getting cut by a knife.

now, i'm wondering if poeple in Saudi Arabia get medical treatment after
criminal amputation.

limey wrote:
> "Ophelia" wrote in message
>
>>"limey" wrote in message
>>
>>>I also post on a UK
>>>newsgroup and was amazed by several responses: "We don't live in
>>>London so why should we care?". Are people really that blasé at home
>>>anymore?
>>
>>There were two of them Dora and they have been (rightly) vilified. I
>>don't think anyone else was saying that
>>
>>O
>
>
> No, thank goodness. Those remarks really mystified me but they soon got
> their come-uppance from the UK posters. As you can see, people here in the
> US are also full of sympathy. My rant is that these terrorists are
> cowards - wear masks, or cover their faces with their headdresses, come out
> of the woodwork, create death and mayhem and fade back into the crowd, with
> no regard for the lives of their own citizens. Somehow, I feel we are all
> punching at a balloon. If their beliefs are so strong, why don't they
> fight like real men?
> Sorry for the non-r.f.c. rant - just had to get it off my chest.
>
> Dora
>
>

I believe in their culture their fighting style is considered honorable.
You are looking at this from a very ethnocentric point of view. These
people have completely different value systems and believe they are the
ones being victimized and they are just fighting back. I don't agree
with them, but they do see themselves as being heroic. When your
opponent feels that way it just makes the fight that much harder.

Remember the Red Coats vs. the Minutemen? The British said the rebel
colonists were fighting like savages because they wouldn't come out and
line up as tradition and culture had dictated. As it turned out, the
"cowardly" methods of fighting were more effective. Something to think
about...

Matt

"Bill Sornson" > wrote in
:

> Michel Boucher wrote:
>> "Shaun aRe" > wrote in
>> news.net:
>>
>>>> Al Quaeda (spelling?) have claimed
>>>> responsibility but not sure how truthful this is. Tony Blairs
>>>> on his way back from Gleneagles.
>>>
>>> Yup - they posted a message making the claim, on a Muslin
>>> web-site - still unconfirmed last I heard.
>>
>> Interesting how this happens just as Bush wants to talk security
>> and the others want to push Kyoto...wonder what the motivation
>> was to hit Britain at this time, if it was a willful act and not
>> a gas explosion.
>
> GAS EXPLOSION?!? /FOUR/ of 'em?!? (Including one on a friggin'
> BUS?!?)

It was still early when I posted that.

>> At any rate, I'm leaning towards thinking it had nothing to do
>> with the G-8.
>>
>> I am wary of claims at this point and hope the British security
>> people are also careful before jumping the gun (as it were).
>
> Chances are there's some video. We'll know who's responsible
> soon.

What do you think? That they left one? No one has claimed
responsibility for the attacks on the US on September 11, so why do
you expect this would be any different?

--

"Compassion is the chief law of human existence."

Dostoevski, The Idiot

"0ld Yank" <same@ Isee.net> wrote in
:

>> > I am wary of claims at this point and hope the British security
>> > people are also careful before jumping the gun (as it were).
>>
>> Chances are there's some video. We'll know who's responsible
>> soon.
>
> Yes. We certainly don't want to blame those poor, disenfranchised
> Al Queda Islamic terrorists unnecessarily, do we?

I guess if you're only interested in vengeance, it doesn't matter
whether those you choose to be the guilty parties actually did it or
not. Personally, I favour being correct over being in a hurry.

--

"Compassion is the chief law of human existence."

Dostoevski, The Idiot

Michel Boucher wrote:
> "Bill Sornson" > wrote in
> :

{snippage}

>> Chances are there's some video. We'll know who's responsible
>> soon.
>
> What do you think? That they left one? No one has claimed
> responsibility for the attacks on the US on September 11, so why do
> you expect this would be any different?

Low on meds? A) I was talking about London's vast surveillance system; and
B) OBL/AQ /did/ claim "credit" for 9-11, and at least one group has already
done so for yesterday's attacks, too.

Read much?

"Shaun aRe" > said:

> <geno's blah blah blah nonsense snipped>

Shaun, RFC wouldn't be getting the blah blah blah nonsense if you had
posted to the three groups individually, instead of cross-posting. Just a
thought.

Hang in there,
Carol

"Michel Boucher" > wrote in message
...
> "0ld Yank" <same@ Isee.net> wrote in
> :
>
> >> > I am wary of claims at this point and hope the British security
> >> > people are also careful before jumping the gun (as it were).
> >>
> >> Chances are there's some video. We'll know who's responsible
> >> soon.
> >
> > Yes. We certainly don't want to blame those poor, disenfranchised
> > Al Queda Islamic terrorists unnecessarily, do we?
>
> I guess if you're only interested in vengeance, it doesn't matter
> whether those you choose to be the guilty parties actually did it or
> not. Personally, I favour being correct over being in a hurry.
>


Are we in agreement here?

If not, let's start eliminating the possible nonsuspects. It should be
someone who has not been proliferating terror for the last 12-15 years.
Let's see, there's that incident of the USS Cole; the Indonesian blast that
killed hundreds; the Spanish train incident; the two attacks on the NY Trade
Center in a span of years; the plethora of Embassies blown up around the
country; the....... hmmmm. Well, then there's, uh,..... Hmmmm. We
know who did all those things, but of course, we can't just assume that the
same Islamic vermin were responsible for this horror. I mean, that would be
unChristian of us <not to mention stupid>.

For the life of me, I can't think of anyone at all who would do such a thing
to innocent people. Can you?

Well, mebbe whoever did it left a video <g>. Damn that was a good line.

But vengeance is not the impetus for retaliation. If it were, then the West
could simply nuke Mecca and get it over with. But self preservation should
be our motive--and in that vein, nuking Mecca might not be such a bad idea,
eh?

Of course, we'd need to give them advance notice so that all the noninvolved
Muslims living there could high-tail it to the city limits. Ten minutes
ought to do it.

--Yankee Viejo

<day dreamer@dream .com@> wrote in message
...

> >
> Are there two versions of the Koran or however it is spelled this week
> one for terrorist and one for regular worship? You see it with a K or
> a Q.

No, the "K" vs. "Q" difference comes from different ways of
Romanizing a word that originally comes from (and is written in)
Arabic. It's like trying to TRULY spell Japanese words properly
without using kanji or kana - can't really be done.


> You can do a search under " Islam kill non-believers " to see what the
> instructions are for killing, beheading, maiming, cutting off fingers
> , enslaving and making war on non-believers and forcing them to
> convert or die.

And of course, all information on the web is complete, unbiased,
accurate, and presented in context, right?

Bob M.

"0ld Yank" <same@ Isee.net> wrote in message
...
>
> "Michel Boucher" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "0ld Yank" <same@ Isee.net> wrote in
> > :
> >
> > >> > I am wary of claims at this point and hope the British security
> > >> > people are also careful before jumping the gun (as it were).
> > >>
> > >> Chances are there's some video. We'll know who's responsible
> > >> soon.
> > >
> > > Yes. We certainly don't want to blame those poor, disenfranchised
> > > Al Queda Islamic terrorists unnecessarily, do we?
> >
> > I guess if you're only interested in vengeance, it doesn't matter
> > whether those you choose to be the guilty parties actually did it or
> > not. Personally, I favour being correct over being in a hurry.
> >
>
>
> Are we in agreement here?
>
> If not, let's start eliminating the possible nonsuspects. It should be
> someone who has not been proliferating terror for the last 12-15 years.
> Let's see, there's that incident of the USS Cole; the Indonesian blast
that
> killed hundreds; the Spanish train incident; the two attacks on the NY
Trade
> Center in a span of years; the plethora of Embassies blown up around the
> country; the....... hmmmm. Well, then there's, uh,..... Hmmmm. We
> know who did all those things, but of course, we can't just assume that
the
> same Islamic vermin were responsible for this horror. I mean, that would
be
> unChristian of us <not to mention stupid>.
>
> For the life of me, I can't think of anyone at all who would do such a
thing
> to innocent people. Can you?
>
> Well, mebbe whoever did it left a video <g>. Damn that was a good line.
>
> But vengeance is not the impetus for retaliation. If it were, then the
West
> could simply nuke Mecca and get it over with. But self preservation
should
> be our motive--and in that vein, nuking Mecca might not be such a bad
idea,
> eh?
>
> Of course, we'd need to give them advance notice so that all the
noninvolved
> Muslims living there could high-tail it to the city limits. Ten minutes
> ought to do it.
>
> --Yankee Viejo

Old Yank responds to his own interesting article and writes:

I have had second thoughts.

I read that a camel carrying a full grown man can run 30 miles an hour.
That's a mile every two minutes. Assuming that the camel can run for ten
minutes, it could only get five miles away from the blast.

That's prolly not far enough and we need to give them more time because my
granddaughters have a fondness for camels.

--Yankee Viejo

On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 18:21:31 GMT, "Bob Myers"
> wrote:

>
><day dreamer@dream .com@> wrote in message
.. .
>
>And of course, all information on the web is complete, unbiased,
>accurate, and presented in context, right?
>
>Bob M.
>
Well I don't know about that. However, I don't stay awake at night
making things up and I looked at about 50 sites from schools to pro
Islam sites and the ones that had a koran you could search said the
same thing. Over 2 million results come up so like I said people can
go and look on their own and figure it out.

Bill wrote (I undid obnoxious cross-posting):

> Low on meds? A) I was talking about London's vast surveillance system;
> and B) OBL/AQ /did/ claim "credit" for 9-11, and at least one group has
> already done so for yesterday's attacks, too.
>
> Read much?

Hey, how do they feel about racial profiling in the UK? This thread
prompted me to dig out a quiz from the past. It was written about airport
screeners, but could apply equally well to police officials:

It is safe to say as Americans we never want to offend anyone -
particularly fanatics intent on killing us.

In attempt to keep political correctness well & alive here in the United
States it has been established airport screeners will not be allowed to
profile individuals on their race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or
nationality. They will continue random searches of 80-year-old women,
little kids, airline pilots with proper identification, Secret Service
agents who are members of the President's security detail, a Congressional
Medal of Honor winner (who was carrying his medal to a speaking engagement),
and 85-year old Congressmen with metal hips.

Let's pause a moment and review.

In 1979, the U.S. Embassy in Iran was taken over by:
(a) Norwegians from Ballard
(b) Elvis
(c) A tour bus full of 80-year-old women
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.


In 1983, the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by:
(a) A pizza delivery boy
(b) Crazed feminists complaining that being able to throw a grenade beyond
its own burst radius was an unfair and sexist requirement in basic training
(c) Geraldo Rivera making up for a slow news day
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.


In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by:
(a) Luca Brazzi, for not being given a part in "Godfather 2"
(b) The Tooth Fairy
(c) Butch and Sundance who had a few sticks of dynamite left over from the
train mission
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.


In 1998, the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by:
(a) Mr. Rogers
(b) Hillary, to distract attention from Wild Bill's women problems
(c) The World Wrestling Federation to promote its next villain "Mustapha
the Merciless"
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.


In 1996 the Air Force Barracks at Khobar Towers was bombed by:
(a) O.J. Simpson
(b) A rogue element of the NRA flying Black UN helicopters.
(c) The Spice Girls
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.


In 2000 the USS COLE was bombed while porting in Aden, Yemen by:
(a) Jar-Jar Binks
(b) Cher
(c) The IRA
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.


On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked and destroyed by:
(a) Bugs Bunny and Wile E. Coyote
(b) Daffy Duck, and Elmer Fudd
(c) Hot Lips Houlihan
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.


Nope, there is obviously no patterns here. We should continue to focus on a
broad spectrum of individuals since we have no idea who is responsible for
these attacks.


Bob

On Fri, 8 Jul 2005, Bob wrote:

> Bill wrote (I undid obnoxious cross-posting):
>
>> Low on meds? A) I was talking about London's vast surveillance system;
>> and B) OBL/AQ /did/ claim "credit" for 9-11, and at least one group has
>> already done so for yesterday's attacks, too.
>>
>> Read much?
>
> Hey, how do they feel about racial profiling in the UK? This thread
> prompted me to dig out a quiz from the past. It was written about airport
> screeners, but could apply equally well to police officials:
>
> It is safe to say as Americans we never want to offend anyone -
> particularly fanatics intent on killing us.
>
> In attempt to keep political correctness well & alive here in the United
> States it has been established airport screeners will not be allowed to
> profile individuals on their race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or
> nationality. They will continue random searches of 80-year-old women,
> little kids, airline pilots with proper identification, Secret Service
> agents who are members of the President's security detail, a Congressional
> Medal of Honor winner (who was carrying his medal to a speaking engagement),
> and 85-year old Congressmen with metal hips.
>
> Let's pause a moment and review.
>
> In 1979, the U.S. Embassy in Iran was taken over by:
> (a) Norwegians from Ballard
> (b) Elvis
> (c) A tour bus full of 80-year-old women
> (d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.
>
>
> In 1983, the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by:
> (a) A pizza delivery boy
> (b) Crazed feminists complaining that being able to throw a grenade beyond
> its own burst radius was an unfair and sexist requirement in basic training
> (c) Geraldo Rivera making up for a slow news day
> (d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.
>
>
> In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by:
> (a) Luca Brazzi, for not being given a part in "Godfather 2"
> (b) The Tooth Fairy
> (c) Butch and Sundance who had a few sticks of dynamite left over from the
> train mission
> (d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.
>
>
> In 1998, the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by:
> (a) Mr. Rogers
> (b) Hillary, to distract attention from Wild Bill's women problems
> (c) The World Wrestling Federation to promote its next villain "Mustapha
> the Merciless"
> (d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.
>
>
> In 1996 the Air Force Barracks at Khobar Towers was bombed by:
> (a) O.J. Simpson
> (b) A rogue element of the NRA flying Black UN helicopters.
> (c) The Spice Girls
> (d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.
>
>
> In 2000 the USS COLE was bombed while porting in Aden, Yemen by:
> (a) Jar-Jar Binks
> (b) Cher
> (c) The IRA
> (d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.
>
>
> On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked and destroyed by:
> (a) Bugs Bunny and Wile E. Coyote
> (b) Daffy Duck, and Elmer Fudd
> (c) Hot Lips Houlihan
> (d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.
>
>
> Nope, there is obviously no patterns here. We should continue to focus on a
> broad spectrum of individuals since we have no idea who is responsible for
> these attacks.

You forgot ELF!

You forgot IRA!

You forgot McVeigh!


There is no profiling based on age/sex/ethnicity.

There is substantial profiling based on when you buy your ticket.

Lena

yet, they still let garottes on planes...

"Bill Sornson" > wrote in
:

> Michel Boucher wrote:
>> "Bill Sornson" > wrote in
>> :
>
> {snippage}
>
>>> Chances are there's some video. We'll know who's responsible
>>> soon.
>>
>> What do you think? That they left one? No one has claimed
>> responsibility for the attacks on the US on September 11, so why
>> do you expect this would be any different?
>
> B) OBL/AQ /did/ claim "credit" for 9-11,

Ok, I had forgotten about that...he did so two months after the
events and actually offered little in the way of substantiating
evidence. At the time, I didn't take it seriously, but I guess you
did. Nonetheless, if Al-Qaeda waited two months to announce that (if
in fact they did it), what makes you think they wouldn't act in the
same way now?

> and at least
> one group has already done so for yesterday's attacks, too.

And what if two groups claim it? What if the group(s) that claim(s)
it had nothing to do with it?

Back in 1970, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police falsified a
communication which was claiming to originate with a cell of FLQ
insurgents in Québec. The communiqué was crafted in such a way that
it would elicit an angry response from the population because the
first (legitimate) communiqué was eliciting a sympathetic response.
They also set fire to a barn and blamed it on the FLQ. They were
embarassed into admitting their responsibility in these actions and
have since been subjected to complaints commission.

In 1940, the National Film Board of Canada was charged with making a
piece of propaganda which is sometimes used without knowing it's
propaganda, Hitler's famous "dance" at Versailles.

Obviously you (and many others) are prepared to believe the first
thing that fits your preconceived notions.

--

"Compassion is the chief law of human existence."

Dostoevski, The Idiot

Michel wrote:

> And what if two groups claim it? What if the group(s) that claim(s)
> it had nothing to do with it?

Seems to me that any group claiming responsibility ought to be ready to take
the heat for it.

Bob

"Bob" > wrote in
:

> Michel wrote:
>
>> And what if two groups claim it? What if the group(s) that
>> claim(s) it had nothing to do with it?
>
> Seems to me that any group claiming responsibility ought to be
> ready to take the heat for it.

So far, no one I've heard says they know anything about this group.
In fact I hadn't heard about them and we hear about most of these
groups regularly. Possibly it was being kept quiet but if so, why?
It could also be a group of anti-Islamists taking advantage of the
opportunity to cause trouble for muslims in Britain and elsewhere.

I guess thinking outside the box is not a priority for you? From the
Beeb:

"Home Secretary Charles Clarke said looking for potential bombers was
like searching for "needles in haystacks".

"A claim on the website of a previously unknown group, the Secret
Organisation Group of al-Qaeda of Jihad Organisation in Europe,
saying it was behind the blast, was now being taken seriously, he
said."

If you're old enough to remember the assassination of Franco's
successor, Admiral Luis Carrero Blanco, who had stated that his
objective upon coming to power was a return to Spain of Rota base
near Seville, you'll recall that the first reports indicated the
killers were headed towards Malaga. But as soon as ETA claimed
responsibility, the manhunt towards the south ceased. Why? Had they
been wrong in pursuing the murderers, or did ETA provide them with a
political expedient they could live with?

--

"Compassion is the chief law of human existence."

Dostoevski, The Idiot

Michel Boucher wrote:
> "Bill Sornson" > wrote in
> :
>
>> Michel Boucher wrote:
>>> "Bill Sornson" > wrote in
>>> :
>>
>> {snippage}
>>
>>>> Chances are there's some video. We'll know who's responsible
>>>> soon.
>>>
>>> What do you think? That they left one? No one has claimed
>>> responsibility for the attacks on the US on September 11, so why
>>> do you expect this would be any different?
>>
>> B) OBL/AQ /did/ claim "credit" for 9-11,
>
> Ok, I had forgotten about that...he did so two months after the
> events and actually offered little in the way of substantiating
> evidence. At the time, I didn't take it seriously, but I guess you
> did. Nonetheless, if Al-Qaeda waited two months to announce that (if
> in fact they did it), what makes you think they wouldn't act in the
> same way now?
>
>> and at least
>> one group has already done so for yesterday's attacks, too.
>
> And what if two groups claim it? What if the group(s) that claim(s)
> it had nothing to do with it?
>
> Back in 1970, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police falsified a
> communication which was claiming to originate with a cell of FLQ
> insurgents in Québec. The communiqué was crafted in such a way that
> it would elicit an angry response from the population because the
> first (legitimate) communiqué was eliciting a sympathetic response.
> They also set fire to a barn and blamed it on the FLQ. They were
> embarassed into admitting their responsibility in these actions and
> have since been subjected to complaints commission.
>
> In 1940, the National Film Board of Canada was charged with making a
> piece of propaganda which is sometimes used without knowing it's
> propaganda, Hitler's famous "dance" at Versailles.
>
> Obviously you (and many others) are prepared to believe the first
> thing that fits your preconceived notions.

Dude, I really do think you're mental. YOU SNIPPED WHAT I WROTE ABOUT VIDEO
EVIDENCE POSSIBLY EXISTING -- NOT BECAUSE THE TERRORISTS "LEFT A TAPE" BUT
BECAUSE LONDON IS HIGHLY SURVEILLED.

Sea Kelp.

BS

"Bill Sornson" > wrote in
:

> Dude, I really do think you're mental. YOU SNIPPED WHAT I WROTE
> ABOUT VIDEO EVIDENCE POSSIBLY EXISTING -- NOT BECAUSE THE
> TERRORISTS "LEFT A TAPE" BUT BECAUSE LONDON IS HIGHLY SURVEILLED.

Well, perhaps I discounted it because it's not being referred to
anywhere except to say that it isn't enough. Again from the Beeb:

"[Scotland Yard Deputy Assistant Commissioner Brian] Paddick denied
reports that investigators were looking "for any specific
individual".

"Prime Minister Tony Blair warned that security and surveillance will
not be enough to stop such attacks - and that there has to be an
ideological struggle in which terrorism is "pulled up by the roots".

and further:

"A claim for the attacks has been made in the name of Al-Qaeda - by a
group calling itself the Abu Hafs al-Masri brigade.

"But the BBC's security correspondent Gordon Corera has urged caution
over the credibility of the claim."

Take a very deep breath and try to regain composure. Oh, and "to
surveil" is not a verb.

--

"Compassion is the chief law of human existence."

Dostoevski, The Idiot

"Michel Boucher" > wrote in message
...

>
> Take a very deep breath and try to regain composure. Oh, and "to
> surveil" is not a verb.
>
>

Verb or no, I laud him his balls to write it. I plan to use it.

--Yankee Viejo

"0ld Yank" <same@ Isee.net> wrote:

>"Michel Boucher" > wrote in message
2...
>
>> Take a very deep breath and try to regain composure. Oh, and "to
>> surveil" is not a verb.
>
>Verb or no, I laud him his balls to write it. I plan to use it.

As well you should... Webster's thinks it's a verb, and that's good
enough for me. the listed meaning (not surprisingly) is "to place
under surveillance"

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

"0ld Yank" <same@ Isee.net> wrote in
:

> "Michel Boucher" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Take a very deep breath and try to regain composure. Oh, and "to
>> surveil" is not a verb.
>
> Verb or no, I laud him his balls to write it. I plan to use it.

Of course you do. No surprise there.

--

"Compassion is the chief law of human existence."

Dostoevski, The Idiot

Mark Hickey > wrote in
:

> "0ld Yank" <same@ Isee.net> wrote:
>
>>"Michel Boucher" > wrote in message
42...
>>
>>> Take a very deep breath and try to regain composure. Oh, and "to
>>> surveil" is not a verb.
>>
>>Verb or no, I laud him his balls to write it. I plan to use it.
>
> As well you should... Webster's thinks it's a verb, and that's good
> enough for me. the listed meaning (not surprisingly) is "to place
> under surveillance"

Webster's is also the dictionary that lists "neighbour" as the British
variant of "American" spelling.

--
"Compassion is the chief law of human existence."

Dostoevski, The Idiot

Michel Boucher > wrote:

>Mark Hickey > wrote in
:
>
>> "0ld Yank" <same@ Isee.net> wrote:
>>
>>>"Michel Boucher" > wrote in message
. 142...
>>>
>>>> Take a very deep breath and try to regain composure. Oh, and "to
>>>> surveil" is not a verb.
>>>
>>>Verb or no, I laud him his balls to write it. I plan to use it.
>>
>> As well you should... Webster's thinks it's a verb, and that's good
>> enough for me. the listed meaning (not surprisingly) is "to place
>> under surveillance"
>
>Webster's is also the dictionary that lists "neighbour" as the British
>variant of "American" spelling.

Ummmm.... and? The inverse is also equally true (that "neighbor" is
the American variant of the British spelling). The dollar is the
American equivalent of the pound, and vice versa.

Or are you suggesting that if a word isn't listed in a British
dictionary, it shouldn't be used by an American?

Mark "there goes humor" Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

Stan Horwitz wrote:

> In article . net>,
> "Gregory Morrow"
> <gregorymorrowEMERGENCYCANCELLATIONARCHIMEDES@eart hlink.net> wrote:
>
> > Stan Horwitz wrote:
> >
> > > Haven't you been paying attention? The Israelis have always very quick
> > > at reprisal whenever a terrorist attack occurs in Israel and they are
> > > very up front about it. What has reprisal gotten the Israelis? More
> > > terrorist attacks. Violence begets violence. Period.
> >
> >
> > Nope, I have to disagree in regard to the Israelis, Stanley. The
Israelis
> > have delivered CRUSHING blows to those who promulgate suicide bombings -
> > which is why the incidence of suicide bombings in Israel is WAY down...
>
> The reduction in suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism in Israel
> is due to several conditions. To attribute this reduction to Israel's
> acts of violent retaliation is a huge stretch of logic. Arafat's death
> brought forth a major change in Palestinian governance. There's a treaty
> in place now, active attempts to negotiate with the radical Palestinians
> are also being made, if I am not mistaken, and most importantly, the
> Israeli government is granting a lot of land in the Gaza Strip and other
> concessions to the Palestinians in their attempt to form a Palestinian
> state.


Israel has given and given and given and what has been the result? *More*
terrorism from the Arabs. That's because it is a stated goal of the Arabs
to destroy Israel.



> After decades of swift and severe retaliation, Israel got nowhere in any
> attempts at breeding peace with the Palestinians. The more acts of
> violence Israel perpetrated upon the Palestinians, the more acts of
> violence were perpetrated upon Israelis. Preventing terrorism by
> committing terrorism only breeds more terrorism. Which side is the
> terrorist is purely a matter of perspective.


I don't think so, Stan. Israel has *never* had a policy of targeting
innocent civilians. The targeting of innocent civilians is however standard
MO for the "Palestinians"...

Don't forget that the "Palestinians" *deliberately* place women, children,
and old people in harm's way when they *know* there will be a retaliatory
Israeli attack. That way they can bray out about Israeli "terrorism"
against "innocent civilians". It's an old, old tactic of theirs. I for one
am not buying such a patently transparent tactic.


> Sure, this new treaty that's in place between Israel and the
> Palestinians may be broken, its the best hope for a secure and peaceful
> Middle East region we've had in my lifetime. What really brought about
> this brief period of peace is a willingness on BOTH sides to shed
> violence as a means of negotiation. I truly hope this situation persists
> for the long haul, but only time will tell. I know the Palestinians have
> broken treaties before, but so have the Israelis, so we'll just have to
> wait to see if both sides value their children more than their land.


Yes, we shall see...

--
Best
Greg

On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 13:10:54 -0500, 0ld Yank wrote:

> Are we in agreement here?
>
> If not, let's start eliminating the possible nonsuspects. It should be
> someone who has not been proliferating terror for the last 12-15 years.
> Let's see, there's that incident of the USS Cole; the Indonesian blast that
> killed hundreds; the Spanish train incident; the two attacks on the NY Trade
> Center in a span of years; the plethora of Embassies blown up around the
> country; the....... hmmmm. Well, then there's, uh,..... Hmmmm. We
> know who did all those things, but of course, we can't just assume that the
> same Islamic vermin were responsible for this horror. I mean, that would be
> unChristian of us <not to mention stupid>.
>
> For the life of me, I can't think of anyone at all who would do such a thing
> to innocent people. Can you?

Kind of a blinkered view. We've had terrorism in the UK for donkeys years.
Over the last 12-15 years, we've been hit by the IRA numerous times, along
with "Christian" extremists.

> Well, mebbe whoever did it left a video <g>. Damn that was a good line.
>
> But vengeance is not the impetus for retaliation. If it were, then the West
> could simply nuke Mecca and get it over with. But self preservation should
> be our motive--and in that vein, nuking Mecca might not be such a bad idea,
> eh?
>
> Of course, we'd need to give them advance notice so that all the noninvolved
> Muslims living there could high-tail it to the city limits. Ten minutes
> ought to do it.

You really need to get over blaming a religion - it's facile. Would you
really like to put yourself in the same category as the likes of Timothy
McVeigh (assuming of course that you're Christian)? Islam is
a religion of peace, the fact that these fanatics choose to promote their
causes under the name of Islam is actually offensive to true Muslims.

On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 16:55:20 +0100, bomba > wrote:

>On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 13:10:54 -0500, 0ld Yank wrote:
>
>> Are we in agreement here?
>>
>> If not, let's start eliminating the possible nonsuspects. It should be
>> someone who has not been proliferating terror for the last 12-15 years.
>> Let's see, there's that incident of the USS Cole; the Indonesian blast that
>> killed hundreds; the Spanish train incident; the two attacks on the NY Trade
>> Center in a span of years; the plethora of Embassies blown up around the
>> country; the....... hmmmm. Well, then there's, uh,..... Hmmmm. We
>> know who did all those things, but of course, we can't just assume that the
>> same Islamic vermin were responsible for this horror. I mean, that would be
>> unChristian of us <not to mention stupid>.
>>
>> For the life of me, I can't think of anyone at all who would do such a thing
>> to innocent people. Can you?
>
>Kind of a blinkered view. We've had terrorism in the UK for donkeys years.
>Over the last 12-15 years, we've been hit by the IRA numerous times, along
>with "Christian" extremists.
>
>> Well, mebbe whoever did it left a video <g>. Damn that was a good line.
>>
>> But vengeance is not the impetus for retaliation. If it were, then the West
>> could simply nuke Mecca and get it over with. But self preservation should
>> be our motive--and in that vein, nuking Mecca might not be such a bad idea,
>> eh?
>>
>> Of course, we'd need to give them advance notice so that all the noninvolved
>> Muslims living there could high-tail it to the city limits. Ten minutes
>> ought to do it.
>
>You really need to get over blaming a religion - it's facile. Would you
>really like to put yourself in the same category as the likes of Timothy
>McVeigh (assuming of course that you're Christian)? Islam is
>a religion of peace, the fact that these fanatics choose to promote their
>causes under the name of Islam is actually offensive to true Muslims.
>

Facile indeed. Unfortunately, Americans have been indoctrinated with
the concept that Islamic is synonymous with evil,. It's firmly
established in most people's little minds. Most Americans get their
news from the television, Cable channels, which have done a very good
job of vilifying an entire religion.

This idiot you're responding to, for example, with his patriotic
little moniker, is a fine example. A complete moron. I have a mental
picture of the ****er's bumper. A yellow ribbon sticker, a W04
sticker, and a big ****ing dent that's never going to get fixed
because he can't come up with the deductible.

--R

On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 09:05:32 -0700, Bob W <bob @bobbbbbbbbb.net>
wrote:

This idiot you're responding to, for example, with his patriotic
little moniker, is a fine example. A complete moron. I have a mental
picture of the ****er's bumper. A yellow ribbon sticker, a W04
sticker, and a big ****ing dent that's never going to get fixed
because he can't come up with the deductible.

--R
After seeing the tripe you typed, you are calling him an idiot and
moron? At least he only posted to one newsgroup and didn't crosspost
to bother others.

Mark Hickey > wrote in
:

>>> As well you should... Webster's thinks it's a verb, and that's
>>> good enough for me. the listed meaning (not surprisingly) is
>>> "to place under surveillance"
>>
>>Webster's is also the dictionary that lists "neighbour" as the
>>British variant of "American" spelling.
>
> Ummmm.... and? The inverse is also equally true (that "neighbor"
> is the American variant of the British spelling). The dollar is
> the American equivalent of the pound, and vice versa.
>
> Or are you suggesting that if a word isn't listed in a British
> dictionary, it shouldn't be used by an American?

I'm suggesting that Webster's is not a dictionary.

--

"Compassion is the chief law of human existence."

Dostoevski, The Idiot

Bob W <bob @bobbbbbbbbb.net> wrote:

>Facile indeed. Unfortunately, Americans have been indoctrinated with
>the concept that Islamic is synonymous with evil,. It's firmly
>established in most people's little minds. Most Americans get their
>news from the television, Cable channels, which have done a very good
>job of vilifying an entire religion.

I disagree entirely. I've seen a lot of well-deserved negative press
for the faction of radical Islam that's carrying out the terroist
attacks, but from what I've seen the mainstream media has gone out of
its way to differentiate between them and the "normal Islamic
culture".

And FWIW, the mainstream Islam religion isn't doing itself any favors
by staying tight-lipped rather than condemning the attacks in the most
blatant ways. I hope this changes, and would like to see an
overwhelming groundswell of condemnation from the Islamic leadership
when thing like the London bombings (or attacks anywhere for that
matter) occur.

I suppose one could also assume that we were all "indoctrinated with
the concept that the Catholic religion is synonymous with evil" as
well, given the events in Northern Ireland. But that didn't happen
either.

>This idiot you're responding to, for example, with his patriotic
>little moniker, is a fine example. A complete moron. I have a mental
>picture of the ****er's bumper. A yellow ribbon sticker, a W04
>sticker, and a big ****ing dent that's never going to get fixed
>because he can't come up with the deductible.

It's so much easier when you can resort to that kind of thing rather
than considering an alternative opinion, isn't it?

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

Michel Boucher > wrote:

>Mark Hickey > wrote in
:
>
>>>> As well you should... Webster's thinks it's a verb, and that's
>>>> good enough for me. the listed meaning (not surprisingly) is
>>>> "to place under surveillance"
>>>
>>>Webster's is also the dictionary that lists "neighbour" as the
>>>British variant of "American" spelling.
>>
>> Ummmm.... and? The inverse is also equally true (that "neighbor"
>> is the American variant of the British spelling). The dollar is
>> the American equivalent of the pound, and vice versa.
>>
>> Or are you suggesting that if a word isn't listed in a British
>> dictionary, it shouldn't be used by an American?
>
>I'm suggesting that Webster's is not a dictionary.

.... and therefore that Americans shouldn't use an American
"dictionary" when composing email? Then pray tell, what source of
literary accuracy SHOULD us poor colonials refer to when attempting to
craft verbiage that might inadvertently travel across the big pond?

Should we replace our "z" keys with an extra "u" key, perhaps?

Is this like the UK version of the spelling police?

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

Mark Hickey > wrote in
:

>>I'm suggesting that Webster's is not a dictionary.
>
> ... and therefore that Americans shouldn't use an American
> "dictionary" when composing email? Then pray tell, what source of
> literary accuracy SHOULD us poor colonials refer to when
> attempting to craft verbiage that might inadvertently travel
> across the big pond?
>
> Should we replace our "z" keys with an extra "u" key, perhaps?
>
> Is this like the UK version of the spelling police?

I'm not in the UK, so the short answer is...no. You can do what you
want but if you quote Webster's as an authority on language, I will
not accept that. You are free to do so, but you may from time to
time encounter opprobrium for your jejune use of local resources.
Personally, I only recognize the Oxford and you, as a websterite,
have the option of consulting the New Oxford American [sic]
Dictionary. So don't tell me you weren't warned.

http://www.oup.com/us/brochure/noad/?view=usa

Oh, and unlax, doc. You're wound tighter than George Bush at a ***
pride parade.

--

"Compassion is the chief law of human existence."

Dostoevski, The Idiot

"bomba" > wrote in message
news
> On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 13:10:54 -0500, 0ld Yank wrote:
>
> > Are we in agreement here?
> >
> > If not, let's start eliminating the possible nonsuspects. It should be
> > someone who has not been proliferating terror for the last 12-15 years.
> > Let's see, there's that incident of the USS Cole; the Indonesian blast
that
> > killed hundreds; the Spanish train incident; the two attacks on the NY
Trade
> > Center in a span of years; the plethora of Embassies blown up around the
> > country; the....... hmmmm. Well, then there's, uh,..... Hmmmm.
We
> > know who did all those things, but of course, we can't just assume that
the
> > same Islamic vermin were responsible for this horror. I mean, that
would be
> > unChristian of us <not to mention stupid>.
> >
> > For the life of me, I can't think of anyone at all who would do such a
thing
> > to innocent people. Can you?
>
> Kind of a blinkered view. We've had terrorism in the UK for donkeys years.
> Over the last 12-15 years, we've been hit by the IRA numerous times, along
> with "Christian" extremists.
>
> > Well, mebbe whoever did it left a video <g>. Damn that was a good
line.
> >
> > But vengeance is not the impetus for retaliation. If it were, then the
West
> > could simply nuke Mecca and get it over with. But self preservation
should
> > be our motive--and in that vein, nuking Mecca might not be such a bad
idea,
> > eh?
> >
> > Of course, we'd need to give them advance notice so that all the
noninvolved
> > Muslims living there could high-tail it to the city limits. Ten minutes
> > ought to do it.
>
> You really need to get over blaming a religion - it's facile. Would you
> really like to put yourself in the same category as the likes of Timothy
> McVeigh (assuming of course that you're Christian)? Islam is
> a religion of peace, the fact that these fanatics choose to promote their
> causes under the name of Islam is actually offensive to true Muslims.


You really need to learn to discern tongue in cheek when you read it--as no
one is seriously suggesting blowing Mecca to bits--especially me. As I
said in another posting, I have nine granddaughters who are enamored with
camels.

However, all joking aside, for you to state in writing that Islam is a
religion of peace is a joke indeed. Mebbe you know some *true* Muslims who
will be willing to go on public record as denouncing the violence. Your
response might be that they are too fearful to do it. --Afraid that someone
might slip into their bedchamber at night and slit their throats and those
of their children.

Some religion of peace, eh?

--Yankee Viejo

"Bob W" <bob @bobbbbbbbbb.net> wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 16:55:20 +0100, bomba > wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 13:10:54 -0500, 0ld Yank wrote:
> >
> >> Are we in agreement here?
> >>
> >> If not, let's start eliminating the possible nonsuspects. It should be
> >> someone who has not been proliferating terror for the last 12-15 years.
> >> Let's see, there's that incident of the USS Cole; the Indonesian blast
that
> >> killed hundreds; the Spanish train incident; the two attacks on the NY
Trade
> >> Center in a span of years; the plethora of Embassies blown up around
the
> >> country; the....... hmmmm. Well, then there's, uh,..... Hmmmm.
We
> >> know who did all those things, but of course, we can't just assume that
the
> >> same Islamic vermin were responsible for this horror. I mean, that
would be
> >> unChristian of us <not to mention stupid>.
> >>
> >> For the life of me, I can't think of anyone at all who would do such a
thing
> >> to innocent people. Can you?
> >
> >Kind of a blinkered view. We've had terrorism in the UK for donkeys
years.
> >Over the last 12-15 years, we've been hit by the IRA numerous times,
along
> >with "Christian" extremists.
> >
> >> Well, mebbe whoever did it left a video <g>. Damn that was a good
line.
> >>
> >> But vengeance is not the impetus for retaliation. If it were, then the
West
> >> could simply nuke Mecca and get it over with. But self preservation
should
> >> be our motive--and in that vein, nuking Mecca might not be such a bad
idea,
> >> eh?
> >>
> >> Of course, we'd need to give them advance notice so that all the
noninvolved
> >> Muslims living there could high-tail it to the city limits. Ten
minutes
> >> ought to do it.
> >
> >You really need to get over blaming a religion - it's facile. Would you
> >really like to put yourself in the same category as the likes of Timothy
> >McVeigh (assuming of course that you're Christian)? Islam is
> >a religion of peace, the fact that these fanatics choose to promote their
> >causes under the name of Islam is actually offensive to true Muslims.
> >
>
> Facile indeed. Unfortunately, Americans have been indoctrinated with
> the concept that Islamic is synonymous with evil,. It's firmly
> established in most people's little minds. Most Americans get their
> news from the television, Cable channels, which have done a very good
> job of vilifying an entire religion.
>
> This idiot you're responding to, for example, with his patriotic
> little moniker, is a fine example. A complete moron. I have a mental
> picture of the ****er's bumper. A yellow ribbon sticker, a W04
> sticker, and a big ****ing dent that's never going to get fixed
> because he can't come up with the deductible.
>
> --R

I hope you ain't a-feferrin' to me, dude!

"Bob W" <bob @bobbbbbbbbb.net> wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 16:55:20 +0100, bomba > wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 13:10:54 -0500, 0ld Yank wrote:
> >
> >> Are we in agreement here?
> >>
> >> If not, let's start eliminating the possible nonsuspects. It should be
> >> someone who has not been proliferating terror for the last 12-15 years.
> >> Let's see, there's that incident of the USS Cole; the Indonesian blast
that
> >> killed hundreds; the Spanish train incident; the two attacks on the NY
Trade
> >> Center in a span of years; the plethora of Embassies blown up around
the
> >> country; the....... hmmmm. Well, then there's, uh,..... Hmmmm.
We
> >> know who did all those things, but of course, we can't just assume that
the
> >> same Islamic vermin were responsible for this horror. I mean, that
would be
> >> unChristian of us <not to mention stupid>.
> >>
> >> For the life of me, I can't think of anyone at all who would do such a
thing
> >> to innocent people. Can you?
> >
> >Kind of a blinkered view. We've had terrorism in the UK for donkeys
years.
> >Over the last 12-15 years, we've been hit by the IRA numerous times,
along
> >with "Christian" extremists.
> >
> >> Well, mebbe whoever did it left a video <g>. Damn that was a good
line.
> >>
> >> But vengeance is not the impetus for retaliation. If it were, then the
West
> >> could simply nuke Mecca and get it over with. But self preservation
should
> >> be our motive--and in that vein, nuking Mecca might not be such a bad
idea,
> >> eh?
> >>
> >> Of course, we'd need to give them advance notice so that all the
noninvolved
> >> Muslims living there could high-tail it to the city limits. Ten
minutes
> >> ought to do it.
> >
> >You really need to get over blaming a religion - it's facile. Would you
> >really like to put yourself in the same category as the likes of Timothy
> >McVeigh (assuming of course that you're Christian)? Islam is
> >a religion of peace, the fact that these fanatics choose to promote their
> >causes under the name of Islam is actually offensive to true Muslims.
> >
>
> Facile indeed. Unfortunately, Americans have been indoctrinated with
> the concept that Islamic is synonymous with evil,. It's firmly
> established in most people's little minds. Most Americans get their
> news from the television, Cable channels, which have done a very good
> job of vilifying an entire religion.
>
> This idiot you're responding to, for example, with his patriotic
> little moniker, is a fine example. A complete moron. I have a mental
> picture of the ****er's bumper. A yellow ribbon sticker, a W04
> sticker, and a big ****ing dent that's never going to get fixed
> because he can't come up with the deductible.
>
> --R


Let me rephrase that:

I hope you ain't a referrin' to me dude. 'Cause I've got me a yaller ribbon
on the back of my pickup truck. I've also got me big o'l trailer hitch for
my bass boat, and a 'Mercan flag on the back of it. I don't know what a WO4
sticker is, but I want one if it's patriotic. No dents though because I've
got a brother-in-law in the paint and body business.

God Bless America, and God Bless George W Bush and my cat Dubya.

--Yankee Viejo
www.royergovernance.com
www.churchboardleadership.com
www.mastersfitness.net
www.kickaliberalsbutt.com

"Michel Boucher" > wrote in message
...
> Mark Hickey > wrote in
> :
>
> >>I'm suggesting that Webster's is not a dictionary.
> >
> > ... and therefore that Americans shouldn't use an American
> > "dictionary" when composing email? Then pray tell, what source of
> > literary accuracy SHOULD us poor colonials refer to when
> > attempting to craft verbiage that might inadvertently travel
> > across the big pond?
> >
> > Should we replace our "z" keys with an extra "u" key, perhaps?
> >
> > Is this like the UK version of the spelling police?
>
> I'm not in the UK, so the short answer is...no. You can do what you
> want but if you quote Webster's as an authority on language, I will
> not accept that. You are free to do so, but you may from time to
> time encounter opprobrium for your jejune use of local resources.
> Personally, I only recognize the Oxford and you, as a websterite,
> have the option of consulting the New Oxford American [sic]
> Dictionary. So don't tell me you weren't warned.
>
> http://www.oup.com/us/brochure/noad/?view=usa


Lordy lordy®. All this time I thought I was speaking English, and I was
really speaking Websterese. Of course, that's better than those
snooty-tooty people on the big island who speak *Oxfordian*.

But whatever they speak, they need to get their idiotic heads buckled on
right and see this terrorist thing for what it is: A war against everyone
who doesn't Islamibabble.

--Yankee Viejo

"0ld Yank" <same@ Isee.net> wrote in
:

> But whatever they speak, they need to get their idiotic heads
> buckled on right and see this terrorist thing for what it is: A
> war against everyone who doesn't Islamibabble.

And you say this because you have special knowledge? Allow me to
suggest right now that I seriously doubt you have special knowledge.

I was actually happy to hear Blair echo my own thinking and address the
real issues that are at the root of this problem: grinding poverty and
despair. Until these problems are dealt with, the attacks will
continue.

And it isn't Islam you need to fear any more than the Muslims in the
12th century needed to fear Christianity. It is the perversions of
religions that are fearful. Fundamentalist Christianity is just as
wrong as fundamentalist Islam.

--

"Compassion is the chief law of human existence."

Dostoevski, The Idiot

On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 14:24:24 -0700, Mark Hickey wrote:

> And FWIW, the mainstream Islam religion isn't doing itself any favors
> by staying tight-lipped rather than condemning the attacks in the most
> blatant ways. I hope this changes, and would like to see an
> overwhelming groundswell of condemnation from the Islamic leadership
> when thing like the London bombings (or attacks anywhere for that
> matter) occur.

Where does this impression come from? DYOR, but it's patently not true.

"Michel Boucher" > wrote in message
...
> "0ld Yank" <same@ Isee.net> wrote in
> :
>
> > But whatever they speak, they need to get their idiotic heads
> > buckled on right and see this terrorist thing for what it is: A
> > war against everyone who doesn't Islamibabble.
>
> And you say this because you have special knowledge? Allow me to
> suggest right now that I seriously doubt you have special knowledge.
>
> I was actually happy to hear Blair echo my own thinking and address the
> real issues that are at the root of this problem: grinding poverty and
> despair. Until these problems are dealt with, the attacks will
> continue.
>
> And it isn't Islam you need to fear any more than the Muslims in the
> 12th century needed to fear Christianity. It is the perversions of
> religions that are fearful. Fundamentalist Christianity is just as
> wrong as fundamentalist Islam.
>

If Blair said that poverty causes terrorism, he was wrong. He was prolly
pandering to his socialist base--and it was a silly silly statement. You
are equally silly for mouthing it here on the newsgroup. I was born in the
middle of the Great American depression. My dad made $.17 an hour when he
could get work. My parents were so poor they ate beans and bread for
months. It took them years to recover from their plight. In the interim,
they never killed anyone, and neither did their equally destitute neighbors.

Sensible people don't kill because they are in lack. Evil people kill
because they know they can.

As for Fundamental(ist) Christianity being as wrong as Fundemental(ist)
Islam, I also disagree. You are hideously misinformed. There are no
accepted Christian churches preaching terrorism or indiscriminate killing of
peoples of other religions.

I bet you're posting from alt.mountain-bike.sissy, aren't you?

--Yankee Viejo

bomba wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 14:24:24 -0700, Mark Hickey wrote:
>
>> And FWIW, the mainstream Islam religion isn't doing itself any favors
>> by staying tight-lipped rather than condemning the attacks in the
>> most blatant ways. I hope this changes, and would like to see an
>> overwhelming groundswell of condemnation from the Islamic leadership
>> when thing like the London bombings (or attacks anywhere for that
>> matter) occur.
>
> Where does this impression come from? DYOR, but it's patently not
> true.

Sure seems true here in the states...AND the Middle East (the latter of
which is understandable: if you speak out against senseless violence by
radical Islamics, you're liable to be blown up too or have your head cut
off).

Sure, there's the odd (token) spokesperson here and there who claims to
deplore terrorist acts; but leaders and indeed their followers are
deafeningly silent.

/Maybe/ some of that will change after the bombing in a highly Muslim
section of London, but not much or enough any time soon.

Bill S.