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.

The impression comes from my own personal observations (or more
accurately, lack of observations...), and from similar opinions by
many in the mainstream media (seemingly pretty even across any
ideological divides).

I have seen individual clerics making statements condemning the
violence, but too few, too seldom.

If you've got information to the contrary, I'd really love to see it
(that's not a sarcastic comment - but a genuine request). Only when
it's clear that the terrorists are being condemned by virtually all of
the rest of the Muslim world will the naive stop buying into the
concept that it's a good idea to strap on a bomb belt and go for a bus
ride.

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

Michel Boucher > wrote:

>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.

Oh puuuhhhleeeeze. (I know, that's not in your dictionary).

>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.

I'm "wound tight"?... you gotta be kidding. You're projecting, dude.

OTOH, when one would try to justify chastising someone for using a
word that's clearly proper in one of the most common dictionaries...
one could be considered "wound tight".

I should mention that someone taking exception to using language
blessed by Mr. Webster in an environment where literary accuracy is as
low as it is in these forums is a bit like ignoring the haystack while
searching for the needle - complaining about how much room the needle
takes up.

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

Michel Boucher > wrote:

>"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.

If that were entirely true, the terrorists and radical Islamic leaders
would embrace the opportunity that's afforded by democracies in
Afghanistan and Iraq. However, they don't WANT their "subjects" to be
anything BUT poor and uneducated - that much has to be obvious to
anyone who's studied the region.

>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.

It depends on your definition of "fundamentalist". If you're refering
to the way the vast majority of devout Muslims practice their faith, I
think you can draw a parallel. Decoupling from the fundamentals of
either faith and pursuing other agendas is NOT "fundamentalism".

Or to put it another way - let me know what Jesus taught that you
disagree with. Anything else is just a shortcoming in execution.

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

"Mark Hickey" > wrote in message
...
> Michel Boucher > wrote:
>
> >"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.
>
> If that were entirely true, the terrorists and radical Islamic leaders
> would embrace the opportunity that's afforded by democracies in
> Afghanistan and Iraq. However, they don't WANT their "subjects" to be
> anything BUT poor and uneducated - that much has to be obvious to
> anyone who's studied the region.
>
> >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.
>
> It depends on your definition of "fundamentalist". If you're refering
> to the way the vast majority of devout Muslims practice their faith, I
> think you can draw a parallel. Decoupling from the fundamentals of
> either faith and pursuing other agendas is NOT "fundamentalism".
>
> Or to put it another way - let me know what Jesus taught that you
> disagree with. Anything else is just a shortcoming in execution.
>
> Mark Hickey
> Habanero Cycles
> http://www.habcycles.com
> Home of the $695 ti frame


I heard an interesting counter-take on talk radio where a liberal caller
declared that the reason the terrorists were blowing up things in the US,
Spain, the UK and all other places where possible was because they were
displeased with the Royal Families of the Middle East Countries and wanted
to be free from them.

That sounded like decent idealism at first--because that's exactly the
attitude the American colonists took when they finally broke from the rule
of England in the 18th century. However, the show's host asked if that were
so, then how come they were not blowing each other up in Saudi Arabia where
the Royal Family actually lives instead of in the streets of other countries
where they do not?

The caller had not considered that, of course, and had no viable answer.
Instead, he went off on a tangent again, decrying the Islamic
*reactionaries* (he called them) desiring to set their own destiny instead
of having it set for them by the Royal Families. It was the same vapid
argument, and the host asked if he meant *self rule*. The caller hesitated
and then breathlessly said yes.

The host then reminded him that self rule was what millions of people went
to the polls for in Iraq, and it is what the Islamic *reactionaries* are
fighting so hard to defeat. The host asked why.

The caller had not considered that and had no answer. Instead, he went off
on the original tangent again, this time claiming that it was about the
distribution of oil profits. With that, he babbled on for a half minute or
so before the host thanked him for his call and rang off.

Terrorism is not about Royal Families, oil or self rule of the people, or
any of that other crock. Terrorism is about Islam, the religion of peace,
and death to everyone who opposes it.

--Yankee Viejo

>
> 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.
>

But not so offensive as to be willing to lift a finger to clean the turds
out of their own punchbowl.

In article k.net>,
"Gregory Morrow"
<gregorymorrowEMERGENCYCANCELLATIONARCHIMEDES@eart hlink.net> wrote:

> 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.

If your previous posting, you said suicide bombings were down in Israel.
Now you are saying that more terrorism is taking place there. Which is
it? As far as I know, terrorist acts in Israel are down, so Isreal's
giving is working.

> > 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"...

Tell that to all the parents of Palestinian children who have died in
their homes. I am not saying that Isreal is entirely at fault here, but
peace has to be a two-way street.

> 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.

It seems that way, I agree. The fact is that Palestinians do not have
military bases like Israel does, so their choices of where to base their
"soldiers" are rather limited. I firmly believe that peace will only
endure in the Middle East when both the radical Palestinians and the
Israelis are truly interested in acting toward each other peacefully. I
hesitate to say so, but it looks like that kind of attitude my slowly be
growing on both sides, but I think this cease fire was the direct result
of Arafat's death and more sincere and moderate Palestinian leadership
taking his place.

Stan Horwitz wrote:

> In article k.net>,
> "Gregory Morrow"
> <gregorymorrowEMERGENCYCANCELLATIONARCHIMEDES@eart hlink.net> wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> If your previous posting, you said suicide bombings were down in Israel.
> Now you are saying that more terrorism is taking place there. Which is
> it? As far as I know, terrorist acts in Israel are down, so Isreal's
> giving is working.


Actually the walling out of "Palestinians" by the Israelis erecting barriers
is also a factor in the reduction. In this particular case the old saw,
"Good fences makes good neighbors" applies :-)


> > > 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"...
>
> Tell that to all the parents of Palestinian children who have died in
> their homes. I am not saying that Isreal is entirely at fault here, but
> peace has to be a two-way street.
>
> > 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.
>
> It seems that way, I agree. The fact is that Palestinians do not have
> military bases like Israel does, so their choices of where to base their
> "soldiers" are rather limited. I firmly believe that peace will only
> endure in the Middle East when both the radical Palestinians and the
> Israelis are truly interested in acting toward each other peacefully. I
> hesitate to say so, but it looks like that kind of attitude my slowly be
> growing on both sides, but I think this cease fire was the direct result
> of Arafat's death and more sincere and moderate Palestinian leadership
> taking his place.


Hopefully.

--
Best
Greg

"Gregory Morrow"
<gregorymorrowEMERGENCYCANCELLATIONARCHIMEDES@eart hlink.net> wrote
in news
> Actually the walling out of "Palestinians" by the Israelis
> erecting barriers is also a factor in the reduction. In this
> particular case the old saw, "Good fences makes good neighbors"
> applies :-)

Like the Berlin Wall made good neighbours. Taking the wall down to
begin the necessary dialogue will require an act of faith.

--

"Compassion is the chief law of human existence."

Dostoevski, The Idiot

Michel Boucher wrote:

> "Gregory Morrow"
> <gregorymorrowEMERGENCYCANCELLATIONARCHIMEDES@eart hlink.net> wrote
> in news >
> > Actually the walling out of "Palestinians" by the Israelis
> > erecting barriers is also a factor in the reduction. In this
> > particular case the old saw, "Good fences makes good neighbors"
> > applies :-)
>
> Like the Berlin Wall made good neighbours. Taking the wall down to
> begin the necessary dialogue will require an act of faith.


Nope, not comparable. The Berlin Wall was designed to keep DDR citizens
*in*. The Israeli barriers are designed to keep troublemakers *out*...and
they seem to be doing the job.

[The DDR regime justified the wall by saying it was an "anti - fascist"
barrier designed to keep NATO/West German/capitalist/imperialist
"revanchists" and "warmongers" out. Patently an absurd fantasy, and eveyone
knew it. And of course no one was shot dead trying to get into the DDR, but
a number of luckless folks were killed trying to get *out*.]

--
Best
Greg

"Gregory Morrow"
<gregorymorrowEMERGENCYCANCELLATIONARCHIMEDES@eart hlink.net> wrote
in ink.net:

> Michel Boucher wrote:
>
>> "Gregory Morrow"
>> <gregorymorrowEMERGENCYCANCELLATIONARCHIMEDES@eart hlink.net>
>> wrote in news >>
>> > Actually the walling out of "Palestinians" by the Israelis
>> > erecting barriers is also a factor in the reduction. In this
>> > particular case the old saw, "Good fences makes good neighbors"
>> > applies :-)
>>
>> Like the Berlin Wall made good neighbours. Taking the wall down
>> to begin the necessary dialogue will require an act of faith.
>
> Nope, not comparable. The Berlin Wall was designed to keep DDR
> citizens *in*. The Israeli barriers are designed to keep
> troublemakers *out*...and they seem to be doing the job.

A wall is an impediment to debate. It doesn't matter who built it
and for what reason.

When I visited Casablanca in December 1966, the tour bus we were on
drove by a wall with no openings. Windows which had been open were
bricked up. I asked what was behind the wall and the guide looked at
me as tsk'd as though I should have known not to ask. Obviously it
was something they didn't want tourists to see, most likely a slum.

I was immediately reminded of the wall in Naples that hid the slums
from the seaside view. Morris West described what life was like
behind the wall in his book Children of the Sun.

I would think that a wall, although intended to keep people in or out
(same thing really...prevent movement), also serves the longer term
purpose of hiding things from the population at large that they might
otherwise disagree with. If they can't see it, they can be told
anything at all by the government and they have no choice but to
accept it.

And ultimately walls come down. The politics of exclusion are always
a bad choice.

--

"Compassion is the chief law of human existence."

Dostoevski, The Idiot

In article t>,
"Gregory Morrow"
<gregorymorrowEMERGENCYCANCELLATIONARCHIMEDES@eart hlink.net> wrote:

> Stan Horwitz wrote:
>
> > In article k.net>,
> > "Gregory Morrow"
> > <gregorymorrowEMERGENCYCANCELLATIONARCHIMEDES@eart hlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > If your previous posting, you said suicide bombings were down in Israel.
> > Now you are saying that more terrorism is taking place there. Which is
> > it? As far as I know, terrorist acts in Israel are down, so Isreal's
> > giving is working.
>
>
> Actually the walling out of "Palestinians" by the Israelis erecting barriers
> is also a factor in the reduction. In this particular case the old saw,
> "Good fences makes good neighbors" applies :-)

I agree, but building fences is a far cry from taking military action.

On Sat, 9 Jul 2005, Gregory Morrow wrote:

>
> 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.

I think you mean "was". And, you might want to qualify your statements a
little. I hardly think the thousands of Arabs who vote in Israeli
elections want 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"...

**** me. Someone's forgotten about the Irgun. King David's Hotel
bombings, and other massacres of people both british and palestinian.

> 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.

Substantiate this. (from non-biased sources, please).

Lena

On Sun, 10 Jul 2005, Gregory Morrow wrote:

>
> Stan Horwitz wrote:
>
>> In article k.net>,
>> "Gregory Morrow"
>> <gregorymorrowEMERGENCYCANCELLATIONARCHIMEDES@eart hlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> If your previous posting, you said suicide bombings were down in Israel.
>> Now you are saying that more terrorism is taking place there. Which is
>> it? As far as I know, terrorist acts in Israel are down, so Isreal's
>> giving is working.
>
>
> Actually the walling out of "Palestinians" by the Israelis erecting barriers
> is also a factor in the reduction. In this particular case the old saw,
> "Good fences makes good neighbors" applies :-)

Israel has become everything the Jews decried in Russia.

Giving Palestinians no freedom to assemble,

Forbidding Palestinians to travel freely,

Wanton destruction of homes and property, without compensation.


Lena

I remember... do you?

On Sun, 10 Jul 2005, Gregory Morrow wrote:

>
> Michel Boucher wrote:
>
>> "Gregory Morrow"
>> <gregorymorrowEMERGENCYCANCELLATIONARCHIMEDES@eart hlink.net> wrote
>> in news >>
>>> Actually the walling out of "Palestinians" by the Israelis
>>> erecting barriers is also a factor in the reduction. In this
>>> particular case the old saw, "Good fences makes good neighbors"
>>> applies :-)
>>
>> Like the Berlin Wall made good neighbours. Taking the wall down to
>> begin the necessary dialogue will require an act of faith.
>
>
> Nope, not comparable. The Berlin Wall was designed to keep DDR citizens
> *in*. The Israeli barriers are designed to keep troublemakers *out*...and
> they seem to be doing the job.

If they weren't designed to crush an entire Palestinian economy, they sure
seem to be doing a good job of it.

Lena

"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
>
>

I'm afraid that is what it must come to.

There is no end. They will keep on till we are exterminated. I say let's
beat them to the punch....

Japan recovered nicely....

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Dave W wrote:

>
> "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
>>
>>
>
> I'm afraid that is what it must come to.
>
> There is no end. They will keep on till we are exterminated. I say let's
> beat them to the punch....
>
> Japan recovered nicely....

speakin' of japan, have y'all forgotten we said "they won't stop fighting
till the last man"

jeepers, that was the reason truman decided to bomb them, after all.

Lena

if it wasn't true then, it might not be true now

On Mon 11 Jul 2005 10:19:13a, Lena B Katz wrote in rec.food.cooking:

>
>
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Dave W wrote:
>
>>
>> "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
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I'm afraid that is what it must come to.
>>
>> There is no end. They will keep on till we are exterminated. I say
>> let's beat them to the punch....
>>
>> Japan recovered nicely....
>
> speakin' of japan, have y'all forgotten we said "they won't stop
> fighting till the last man"
>
> jeepers, that was the reason truman decided to bomb them, after all.
>
> Lena
>
> if it wasn't true then, it might not be true now
>

Then again, it might be.

--
Wayne Boatwright Õ¿Õ¬
____________________________________________

Give me a smart idiot over a stupid genius any day.
Sam Goldwyn, 1882-1974

Graphic Queen wrote:

> If the bombings are indeed down it is because of the wall they built.
> We need to build one also on the southern border.

GQ is an anti-illegal immigrant troll from alt.mexico among other places.

We wouldn't do that if they bombed here in the US, especially if it were
your home.

Now, go back over to alt.mexico and leave the good folks here alone.


jim

Shaun aRe wrote:
>
> Since the article, MANY more than the 2 first mentioned confirmed dead. This
> is bad, real, real bad...

My thoughts are with you all. This brings the cold sadness I felt after
9/11 back in a vivid and uncomfortable way.

I've been driving cross-country for a few days, listening to the
coverage (if you can call it that) on the AM talk stations, which is
all you can get in some places. It's really disturbing how sick and
bizarre these talk radio blowhards have become.

Take care.

CC

Wayne Boatwright > wrote in
:

>> jeepers, that was the reason truman decided to bomb them, after
>> all.
>>
>> if it wasn't true then, it might not be true now
>
> Then again, it might be.

I am very much afeared that our irrational reactions are causing
everyone to reach the wrong conclusions.

Until there is justice for every man, there is justice for no man.

--

"Compassion is the chief law of human existence."

Dostoevski, The Idiot

"Michel Boucher" > wrote in message
...
> Wayne Boatwright > wrote in
> :
>
> >> jeepers, that was the reason truman decided to bomb them, after
> >> all.
> >>
> >> if it wasn't true then, it might not be true now
> >
> > Then again, it might be.
>
> I am very much afeared that our irrational reactions are causing
> everyone to reach the wrong conclusions.

Everyone but you, I assume....

"Hairy" > wrote in news:3jgm7rFq14t1U1
@individual.net:

> "Michel Boucher" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Wayne Boatwright > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> >> jeepers, that was the reason truman decided to bomb them, after
>> >> all.
>> >>
>> >> if it wasn't true then, it might not be true now
>> >
>> > Then again, it might be.
>>
>> I am very much afeared that our irrational reactions are causing
>> everyone to reach the wrong conclusions.
>
> Everyone but you, I assume....

What is this? Juvenile questions time? I believe I said "our" which
unless I am mistaken, includes me, although I have never been one to
accept official explanations that are a. too pat, and b. self-
serving. But obviously you feel that questioning conclusions drawn
without a shred of evidence is not necessary.

--

"Compassion is the chief law of human existence."

Dostoevski, The Idiot

"Michel Boucher" > wrote in message
...
> "Hairy" > wrote in news:3jgm7rFq14t1U1
> @individual.net:
>
> > "Michel Boucher" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Wayne Boatwright > wrote in
> >> :
> >>
> >> >> jeepers, that was the reason truman decided to bomb them, after
> >> >> all.
> >> >>
> >> >> if it wasn't true then, it might not be true now
> >> >
> >> > Then again, it might be.
> >>
> >> I am very much afeared that our irrational reactions are causing
> >> everyone to reach the wrong conclusions.
> >
> > Everyone but you, I assume....
>
> What is this? Juvenile questions time? I believe I said "our" which
> unless I am mistaken, includes me, although I have never been one to
> accept official explanations that are a. too pat, and b. self-
> serving.

Usually, a spade is just a spade. Burying your head in the sand only
accomplishes one thing. It gives your enemies the opportunity to come along
and kick you in the ass. Do I believe everything my government tells me? No,
but they are unquestionably in a better position to know, than I am.
H

Hairy a =E9crit :

> > >> I am very much afeared that our irrational reactions are causing
> > >> everyone to reach the wrong conclusions.
> > >
> > > Everyone but you, I assume....
> >
> > What is this? Juvenile questions time? I believe I said "our" which
> > unless I am mistaken, includes me, although I have never been one to
> > accept official explanations that are a. too pat, and b. self-
> > serving.
>
> Usually, a spade is just a spade.

Who are you, really? Donald Trump? Bwahaha!!! (sorry, couldn't
resist, back to our regularly scheduled debate)

> Burying your head in the sand only
> accomplishes one thing. It gives your enemies the opportunity to come alo=
ng
> and kick you in the ass.

So your response is to attack the first target your brain recalls from
past (possibly fabricated) news reports, without the slightest
confirmation of their involvement? You'll probably tell me the loss of
thousands, or even millions, of innocent civilians is worth it to save
your skinny ass (metaphorically speaking). And with that attitude, you
wonder why 93% of the world's population see the current US actions as
dangerous to the overall security of the world? Is this statement
anti-American? Only if you think all you can do is to cause pain to
others it is. You have the potential to solve the problems but instead
you choose to compound them. Nobody likes a bully. I suspect even you
don't like bullies. So stop trying to justify acting like one.

> Do I believe everything my government tells me? No,
> but they are unquestionably in a better position to know, than I am.

To know what? Which are the desperately impoverished nations that are
clamouring for pointless invasions based up on trumped up charges to
find so-called perpetrators that may or may not be there? Yeah, my
guess is you're right there. It's not likely that a single individual,
possessing obviously the same gormless parameters (me good them bad),
could come up with such a scenario on their own. For a job like this,
you need the brain power of the dumbass squad (aka, the bush league)
and their coterie of corrupt capitalists comrads to concoct that sort
of canular.

At this point, I would distrust anything I hear or read (including
this), if I were you. Just resist the urge to jump to conclusions.
That in itself would be a victory for truth and justice.

Or perhaps you prefer to ignore that altogether. That would be your
choice, of course, but it comes at a price...your self-respect.

"Bob W" <bob @bobbbbbbbbb.net> wrote in message
...

> 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.

I am afraid that in this at least, you are wrong. I don't care for the guy's
attitudes - mark that mind you, but he is not as you describe.









Shaun aRe

Shaun aRe wrote:
> "Bob W" <bob @bobbbbbbbbb.net> wrote in message
> ...
>
>> 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.
>
> I am afraid that in this at least, you are wrong. I don't care for
> the guy's attitudes - mark that mind you, but he is not as you
> describe.

You know "Old Yank"?

"Bill Sornson" > wrote in message
...
> Shaun aRe wrote:
> > "Bob W" <bob @bobbbbbbbbb.net> wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> > I am afraid that in this at least, you are wrong. I don't care for
> > the guy's attitudes - mark that mind you, but he is not as you
> > describe.
>
> You know "Old Yank"?


Sure Shaun knows me. My mamma and his mamma used to wash clothes under the
same sun.

--Yankee Viejo

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

There have many killings of gays and pro-choice doctors by fundamentalist
Christians in the name of Christ. You're a complete ****ing moron. That's
terrorism.

Greg

0ld Yank wrote:
> "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=3Dusa
>
>
> Lordy lordy=AE. 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.

Terrorism in the name of religion is just that. Terrorism.
Nothing more, nothing less.
To suggest otherwise shows your complete ignorance of the situation and
indeed the facts.

Mike

(Cross posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.food.cooking-sissy)



"G.T." > wrote in message
...
>
> "0ld Yank" <same@ Isee.net> wrote in message
> ...
>

> > 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.
> >
>
> There have many killings of gays and pro-choice doctors by fundamentalist
> Christians in the name of Christ. You're a complete ****ing moron.
That's
> terrorism.
>
> Greg


You are not a very good reader, are you? I wrote: "There are no accepted
Christian churches preaching terrorism or indiscriminate killing of peoples
of other religions."

Homosexuality and abortion are repugnant examples of immorality, but there
are no accepted Christian churches preaching the killing of those who
practice those acts.

And you call ME a moron? Whoop!

--Yankee Viejo

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, 0ld Yank wrote:

> (Cross posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.food.cooking-sissy)
>
>
>
> "G.T." > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "0ld Yank" <same@ Isee.net> wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>
> > > 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.
>>>
>>
>> There have many killings of gays and pro-choice doctors by fundamentalist
>> Christians in the name of Christ. You're a complete ****ing moron.
> That's
>> terrorism.
>>
>> Greg
>
>
> You are not a very good reader, are you? I wrote: "There are no accepted
> Christian churches preaching terrorism or indiscriminate killing of peoples
> of other religions."

Currently, no. Christian churches have in the past preached such things.
In fact, the crimes of the Crusaders included killing a surprising number
of Christians who "looked funny". (they thought they were muslim, i
guess)

> Homosexuality and abortion are repugnant examples of immorality, but there
> are no accepted Christian churches preaching the killing of those who
> practice those acts.

This view is not an accepted one. Kindly refrain from stating values as
if they were facts

lena

> wrote in message
oups.com...
0ld Yank wrote:
> "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.

Terrorism in the name of religion is just that. Terrorism.
Nothing more, nothing less.
To suggest otherwise shows your complete ignorance of the situation and
indeed the facts.

Mike


You can't read, can you?
You guys need to spend more time in school and less time on those silly
wire-wheelers.

Bicycles are for girls.

--Yankee Viejo

0ld Yank a =E9crit :

> "G.T." > wrote in message
> ...
> > >
> > > As for Fundamental(ist) Christianity being as wrong as Fundemental(is=
t)
> > > Islam, I also disagree. You are hideously misinformed. There are no
> > > accepted Christian churches preaching terrorism or indiscriminate
> > > killing of peoples of other religions.
> >
> > There have many killings of gays and pro-choice doctors by fundamentali=
st
> > Christians in the name of Christ. You're a complete ****ing moron.
> > That's terrorism.
> >
> > Greg

Not to mention the Crusades. Yes it was a long time ago, but the
interested parties were the same two groups, basically. And I believe
that the current war on Iraq was daily fueled by prayers for success by
troops armed with superior firepower. Who were they praying to? Baal?
Ishtar?

> You are not a very good reader, are you? I wrote: "There are no accepted
> Christian churches preaching terrorism or indiscriminate killing of peopl=
es
> of other religions."

Define an accepted Christian church. Accepted by who?

> Homosexuality and abortion are repugnant examples of immorality,

According to who? I have my own views on homosexuality and abortion
but I would not use the term immorality when referring to them. That
implies a religious perspective which I don't have.

> but there
> are no accepted Christian churches preaching the killing of those who
> practice those acts.

Reverend Phelps?

http://www.godhatesfags.com/

According to the Bible, so says the good reverend, "If a man also lie
with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an
abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be
upon them." Leviticus 20:13.

Be put to death. Does that not advocate, or at least condone, the
killing of homosexuals? And that is in what I have come to understand
is an accepted book of Christians. So what "accepted Christian
churches" do not in one way or another accept that statement? Whether
they decide to carry it out is entirely another matter. That could
very well be because in recent years, the murder of homosexuals has
come to be treated like a normal murder and worthy of investigation,
charges and sentencing upon the guilty parties. But as I recall, it
wasn't that long ago that killing "homos" was a routine sport in some
of the most Christian areas of the US and Canada.

> And you call ME a moron?

Not me. I leave that to the experts.

0ld Yank wrote:
<snip some crap>
>
> Bicycles are for girls.
>

Someone better tell the Mormons!

> --Yankee Viejo
>
>

I found this first-hand account of a self-proclaimed Christian
committing murder. Interesting.
http://www.wandea.org.pl/pro-life.htm

Matt

On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 07:45:36 -0700, Mark Hickey wrote:

>>Where does this impression come from? DYOR, but it's patently not true.
>
> The impression comes from my own personal observations (or more
> accurately, lack of observations...), and from similar opinions by
> many in the mainstream media (seemingly pretty even across any
> ideological divides).
>
> I have seen individual clerics making statements condemning the
> violence, but too few, too seldom.
>
> If you've got information to the contrary, I'd really love to see it
> (that's not a sarcastic comment - but a genuine request).

There are loads of articles - just Google. This is a pretty good summation
of the Muslim countries that have condemned the atrocity:
http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/new...ervice_id=9140

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 12:25:45 -0400 (EDT), Lena B Katz wrote:

>
>
>On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, 0ld Yank wrote:

>
>Currently, no. Christian churches have in the past preached such things.
>In fact, the crimes of the Crusaders included killing a surprising number
>of Christians who "looked funny". (they thought they were muslim, i
>guess)
>
Try thislena
http://www.crisismagazine.com/april2002/cover.htm

>> Homosexuality and abortion are repugnant examples of immorality, but there
>> are no accepted Christian churches preaching the killing of those who
>> practice those acts.
>
>This view is not an accepted one. Kindly refrain from stating values as
>if they were facts
>
>lena

His statements are his opions, and to him a fact, Just as your
statements are your opions. And who are you to say what statements
are accepted or not.

Pan Ohco

r

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, Pan Ohco wrote:

> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 12:25:45 -0400 (EDT), Lena B Katz wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, 0ld Yank wrote:
>
>>
>> Currently, no. Christian churches have in the past preached such things.
>> In fact, the crimes of the Crusaders included killing a surprising number
>> of Christians who "looked funny". (they thought they were muslim, i
>> guess)
>>
> Try thislena
> http://www.crisismagazine.com/april2002/cover.htm

a little description, please? i do so hate trying to copy from unix to
mac....

>>> Homosexuality and abortion are repugnant examples of immorality, but there
>>> are no accepted Christian churches preaching the killing of those who
>>> practice those acts.
>>
>> This view is not an accepted one. Kindly refrain from stating values as
>> if they were facts
>>
>> lena
>
> His statements are his opions, and to him a fact, Just as your
> statements are your opions.

my opinions, where they are opinions, can be clearly labeled as such. In
fact, I believe that I can clearly label what I think are opinions and
what I think are facts, and that these can be more-or-less identical to
what you think are facts and what you think are opinions.

> And who are you to say what statements
> are accepted or not.

Me? I'm nobody. But the bioethics text I've got.... that's somebody.
The scads of scholars that write on the morality of abortion, they're
somebody.

And yes, that abortion is moral is not an accepted one, either.
Somethings are up for debate (at least in america, land where babies die
for the sake of letting headless babies "not consent" to give organs).

Lena

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 14:50:39 -0400 (EDT), Lena B Katz wrote:

>r
>
>On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, Pan Ohco wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 12:25:45 -0400 (EDT), Lena B Katz wrote:

>>> Currently, no. Christian churches have in the past preached such things.
>>> In fact, the crimes of the Crusaders included killing a surprising number
>>> of Christians who "looked funny". (they thought they were muslim, i
>>> guess)
>>>
>> Try thislena
>> http://www.crisismagazine.com/april2002/cover.htm

This is a quick study of the Crusades.

>a little description, please? i do so hate trying to copy from unix to
>mac....
>

>>> This view is not an accepted one. Kindly refrain from stating values as
>>> if they were facts
>>>
>>> lena
>>
>> His statements are his opions, and to him a fact, Just as your
>> statements are your opions.
>
>my opinions, where they are opinions, can be clearly labeled as such. In
>fact, I believe that I can clearly label what I think are opinions and
>what I think are facts, and that these can be more-or-less identical to
>what you think are facts and what you think are opinions.

So if YOU say something as an opinion, it's and opinion.
If YOU label something a fact, it's a fact.
Ain't you special.

>> And who are you to say what statements
>> are accepted or not.
>
>Me? I'm nobody. But the bioethics text I've got.... that's somebody.
>The scads of scholars that write on the morality of abortion, they're
>somebody
..
And there are just as many scholars, who write on the immorality of
abortion.

>And yes, that abortion is moral is not an accepted one, either.
>Somethings are up for debate
Agreed

>(at least in america, land where babies die
>for the sake of letting headless babies "not consent" to give organs).

You got me here Lena, I don't even understand this statement.

>Lena


Pan Ohco

Lena B Katz > wrote in
:

>> http://www.crisismagazine.com/april2002/cover.htm
>
> a little description, please? i do so hate trying to copy from
> unix to mac....

Pan is trying to foist his "Krusades gud Islam bad" message on you.
He only chooses articles that demonstrate that the godless Islamee
were in error in opposing Christianisation, notwiuthstanding the fact
that Islam accepts Christianity, and the message of Christ, at par
with other religions of the book (Judaism and Zoroastrianism); they
just don't make a big hairy deal about it.

Of course, the author need not substantiate his assertions with
supporting evidence as long as it meets the anti-Islamic needs of the
reader, as it were. Nowhere is a source cited, and that's ok with
Pan-bo.

I've tried to engage Pan in a reversal of roles but he is adamant in
the righteousness of his view and the leftiousness of mine :-)

--

"Compassion is the chief law of human existence."

Dostoevski, The Idiot

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, Pan Ohco wrote:

> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 14:50:39 -0400 (EDT), Lena B Katz wrote:
>
>> r
>>
>> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, Pan Ohco wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 12:25:45 -0400 (EDT), Lena B Katz wrote:
>
>>>> Currently, no. Christian churches have in the past preached such things.
>>>> In fact, the crimes of the Crusaders included killing a surprising number
>>>> of Christians who "looked funny". (they thought they were muslim, i
>>>> guess)
>>>>
>>> Try thislena
>>> http://www.crisismagazine.com/april2002/cover.htm
>
> This is a quick study of the Crusades.

It is interesting... a good read, and I thank you for it. Some of it I
knew, and other parts of it were new. It did fail to mention some of the
massacres I read about at the Museum of the Diaspora... but, it was a
summary, not a museum exhibit.

When I read George R. R. Martin's books, I remember the Crusades, and the
people so desperate for redemption that they would set out on these bloody
quests.

>>>> This view is not an accepted one. Kindly refrain from stating values as
>>>> if they were facts
>>>>
>>>> lena
>>>
>>> His statements are his opions, and to him a fact, Just as your
>>> statements are your opions.
>>
>> my opinions, where they are opinions, can be clearly labeled as such. In
>> fact, I believe that I can clearly label what I think are opinions and
>> what I think are facts, and that these can be more-or-less identical to
>> what you think are facts and what you think are opinions.
>
> So if YOU say something as an opinion, it's and opinion.
> If YOU label something a fact, it's a fact.
> Ain't you special.

And, if you disagree, we start a debate about how accepted my fact is.

But facts speak for themselves (faith, on the other hand, speaks only
through deeds...).

>>> And who are you to say what statements
>>> are accepted or not.
>>
>> Me? I'm nobody. But the bioethics text I've got.... that's somebody.
>> The scads of scholars that write on the morality of abortion, they're
>> somebody
> .
> And there are just as many scholars, who write on the immorality of
> abortion.
>
>> And yes, that abortion is moral is not an accepted one, either.
>> Somethings are up for debate
> Agreed

glad we found something to agree upon.

>> (at least in america, land where babies die
>> for the sake of letting headless babies "not consent" to give organs).
>
> You got me here Lena, I don't even understand this statement.

It's about not letting children who are born without heads donate their
bodies to other children. (I can provide a link, if you'd like).

It's something about them being unable to provide informed consent,
and is really really stupid.

Lena