Discussion:
Muslims set off 200 bombs in Bangladesh - In one day! Islam really is the religion of peace
(too old to reply)
Mr. Able Danger
2005-08-18 01:58:36 UTC
Permalink
More subhuman behavior.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/08/18/wbombs18.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/08/18/ixnewstop.html

Boy dies as terrorists unleash wave of 200 bombs across Bangladesh
By Peter Foster, South Asia Correspondent
(Filed: 18/08/2005)

Suspected Islamic extremists detonated more than 200 small bombs across
Bangladesh yesterday, killing two people and spreading fear and panic.

The attacks were blamed on an outlawed Islamic group, the
Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen, after several of their leaflets were found at the
bomb sites.

Since the scattering of Afghanistan's Taliban in 2001, western
diplomats have been increasingly concerned that Bangladesh is becoming
a safe haven for al-Qa'eda and its sympathisers.

The bombs, some no larger than fire crackers, exploded at hotels,
courts, government ministries and markets between 10.30 and 11.30 in
the morning. In the capital, Dhaka, devices exploded outside the
Sheraton Hotel, the diplomatic enclave and the international airport.

Local reports said that more than 100 people were taken to hospital for
treatment for minor injuries. A 10-year-old boy and a rickshaw driver
died.

The leaflets found at the scene of the blasts said they were a "third
call" to establish Islamic rule and threatened "counter-action" if
Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen's members were arrested or persecuted.

They also warned Britain and America against the occupation of Muslim
lands: "It is also to warn Bush and Blair to vacate Muslim countries,
or to face Muslim upsurge." Bangladesh, the world's third-most populous
Muslim country, has a long history of political violence but until
recently has rejected allegations from India and the West that it was
also fertile ground for Islamic terrorism.

Earlier this year, under pressure from the US, its secular government
banned Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen and the Jagrata Muslim Janata.

In May last year, the British High Commissioner in Bangladesh was
injured in a grenade explosion at a Muslim shrine in the north-eastern
town of Sylhet, where many British Bangladeshis have their origins.

The ruling Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and the main opposition
Awami League condemned the attacks.
r***@hotmail.com
2005-08-18 03:41:08 UTC
Permalink
Great. Muslims better get a grip on these factions. The world cannot
tolerate groups of extremists who demand infidels leave what they think
is "their country" and then go head and try to prostylitize and try to
convert people over. Now the U.S and UK have toget out of Bangladesh?
Like hell!

I have a question for Muslims out there. How many actually support
this policy?

- Richard Hutnik
Roger
2005-08-18 06:19:27 UTC
Permalink
Why is it okay for people to say "Muslims", but would never consider saying
"Jews", "Blacks", or "Catholics" in the same context?
Post by r***@hotmail.com
Great. Muslims better get a grip on these factions. The world cannot
tolerate groups of extremists who demand infidels leave what they think
is "their country" and then go head and try to prostylitize and try to
convert people over. Now the U.S and UK have toget out of Bangladesh?
Like hell!
I have a question for Muslims out there. How many actually support
this policy?
- Richard Hutnik
George
2005-08-18 07:14:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger
Why is it okay for people to say "Muslims", but would never consider
saying "Jews", "Blacks", or "Catholics" in the same context?
My wife is Jewish, I'm Catholic, and my neighbor is black. So what is your
point?
Post by Roger
Post by r***@hotmail.com
Great. Muslims better get a grip on these factions. The world cannot
tolerate groups of extremists who demand infidels leave what they think
is "their country" and then go head and try to prostylitize and try to
convert people over. Now the U.S and UK have toget out of Bangladesh?
Like hell!
I have a question for Muslims out there. How many actually support
this policy?
- Richard Hutnik
Roger
2005-08-18 11:33:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by George
Post by Roger
Why is it okay for people to say "Muslims", but would never consider
saying "Jews", "Blacks", or "Catholics" in the same context?
My wife is Jewish, I'm Catholic, and my neighbor is black. So what is
your point?
My main point is that I wasn't talking to you.

My secondary point is that if you can't understand my point, I'm not going
to explain it to you, because you probably won't understand it the second
time.
Post by George
Post by Roger
Post by r***@hotmail.com
Great. Muslims better get a grip on these factions. The world cannot
tolerate groups of extremists who demand infidels leave what they think
is "their country" and then go head and try to prostylitize and try to
convert people over. Now the U.S and UK have toget out of Bangladesh?
Like hell!
I have a question for Muslims out there. How many actually support
this policy?
- Richard Hutnik
George
2005-08-18 12:44:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger
Post by George
Post by Roger
Why is it okay for people to say "Muslims", but would never consider
saying "Jews", "Blacks", or "Catholics" in the same context?
My wife is Jewish, I'm Catholic, and my neighbor is black. So what is
your point?
My main point is that I wasn't talking to you.
Point taken. While you are at it, why don't you answer Richard's question?
Post by Roger
My secondary point is that if you can't understand my point, I'm not
going to explain it to you, because you probably won't understand it the
second time.
Being full of yourself doesn't help your position. You could just answer
the questions posed to you, though I doubt that you are capable.
Roger
2005-08-18 12:58:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by George
Post by Roger
Post by George
Post by Roger
Why is it okay for people to say "Muslims", but would never consider
saying "Jews", "Blacks", or "Catholics" in the same context?
My wife is Jewish, I'm Catholic, and my neighbor is black. So what is
your point?
My main point is that I wasn't talking to you.
Point taken. While you are at it, why don't you answer Richard's question?
Again, not talking to you.
Post by George
Post by Roger
My secondary point is that if you can't understand my point, I'm not
going to explain it to you, because you probably won't understand it the
second time.
Being full of yourself doesn't help your position. You could just answer
the questions posed to you, though I doubt that you are capable.
You were asking what I meant by something I wrote.

I answered your question before you asked it.

It means EXACTLY what I wrote.
George
2005-08-18 13:27:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger
Post by George
Post by Roger
Post by George
Post by Roger
Why is it okay for people to say "Muslims", but would never consider
saying "Jews", "Blacks", or "Catholics" in the same context?
My wife is Jewish, I'm Catholic, and my neighbor is black. So what is
your point?
My main point is that I wasn't talking to you.
Point taken. While you are at it, why don't you answer Richard's question?
Again, not talking to you.
Post by George
Post by Roger
My secondary point is that if you can't understand my point, I'm not
going to explain it to you, because you probably won't understand it
the second time.
Being full of yourself doesn't help your position. You could just
answer the questions posed to you, though I doubt that you are capable.
You were asking what I meant by something I wrote.
I answered your question before you asked it.
It means EXACTLY what I wrote.
Thanks for proving my point.
Roger
2005-08-18 13:39:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by George
Post by Roger
Post by George
Post by Roger
Post by George
Post by Roger
Why is it okay for people to say "Muslims", but would never consider
saying "Jews", "Blacks", or "Catholics" in the same context?
My wife is Jewish, I'm Catholic, and my neighbor is black. So what is
your point?
My main point is that I wasn't talking to you.
Point taken. While you are at it, why don't you answer Richard's question?
Again, not talking to you.
Post by George
Post by Roger
My secondary point is that if you can't understand my point, I'm not
going to explain it to you, because you probably won't understand it
the second time.
Being full of yourself doesn't help your position. You could just
answer the questions posed to you, though I doubt that you are capable.
You were asking what I meant by something I wrote.
I answered your question before you asked it.
It means EXACTLY what I wrote.
Thanks for proving my point.
Got that one wrong too.
FACE
2005-08-18 16:24:58 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 11:33:18 GMT, in uk.current-events.terrorism "Roger"
Post by Roger
Post by George
Post by Roger
Why is it okay for people to say "Muslims", but would never consider
saying "Jews", "Blacks", or "Catholics" in the same context?
My wife is Jewish, I'm Catholic, and my neighbor is black. So what is
your point?
My main point is that I wasn't talking to you.
You are on a public forum. I seriously doubt that you were addressing me
either, but then it IS a public forum and you ended up on my computer
screen. So much for your main point. Take it from there........

The main reason "Why is it okay for people to say "Muslims", but would never
consider saying "Jews", "Blacks", or "Catholics" in the same context?" is
that Jews, Blacks and Catholics are not in the daily process of blowing
people up and killing innocents. When they start, you can be assured that
they will be spoken of "in the same context".

FACE
Post by Roger
Post by George
Post by Roger
Post by r***@hotmail.com
Great. Muslims better get a grip on these factions. The world cannot
tolerate groups of extremists who demand infidels leave what they think
is "their country" and then go head and try to prostylitize and try to
convert people over. Now the U.S and UK have toget out of Bangladesh?
Like hell!
I have a question for Muslims out there. How many actually support
this policy?
- Richard Hutnik
Roger
2005-08-19 03:46:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by FACE
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 11:33:18 GMT, in uk.current-events.terrorism "Roger"
Post by Roger
Post by George
Post by Roger
Why is it okay for people to say "Muslims", but would never consider
saying "Jews", "Blacks", or "Catholics" in the same context?
My wife is Jewish, I'm Catholic, and my neighbor is black. So what is
your point?
My main point is that I wasn't talking to you.
You are on a public forum. I seriously doubt that you were addressing me
either, but then it IS a public forum and you ended up on my computer
screen. So much for your main point. Take it from there........
Read what I replied to. Again. See why a PERSONAL response was indicated.
Post by FACE
The main reason "Why is it okay for people to say "Muslims", but would never
consider saying "Jews", "Blacks", or "Catholics" in the same context?" is
that Jews, Blacks and Catholics are not in the daily process of blowing
people up and killing innocents. When they start, you can be assured that
they will be spoken of "in the same context".
When the Oklahoma city federal building was blown up, were people talking
about the Christians and why they weren't taking charge of their community
and addressing this problem. Where there calls for profiling Christians
getting on planes? Were there calls for intering Christians?

Think for a while. You probably can't put yourself in someone else's place,
but give it a shot.

Let me know how you do.
Post by FACE
FACE
Post by Roger
Post by George
Post by Roger
Post by r***@hotmail.com
Great. Muslims better get a grip on these factions. The world cannot
tolerate groups of extremists who demand infidels leave what they think
is "their country" and then go head and try to prostylitize and try to
convert people over. Now the U.S and UK have toget out of Bangladesh?
Like hell!
I have a question for Muslims out there. How many actually support
this policy?
- Richard Hutnik
George
2005-08-19 06:30:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger
Post by FACE
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 11:33:18 GMT, in uk.current-events.terrorism "Roger"
Post by Roger
Post by George
Post by Roger
Why is it okay for people to say "Muslims", but would never consider
saying "Jews", "Blacks", or "Catholics" in the same context?
My wife is Jewish, I'm Catholic, and my neighbor is black. So what is
your point?
My main point is that I wasn't talking to you.
You are on a public forum. I seriously doubt that you were addressing me
either, but then it IS a public forum and you ended up on my computer
screen. So much for your main point. Take it from there........
Read what I replied to. Again. See why a PERSONAL response was indicated.
Post by FACE
The main reason "Why is it okay for people to say "Muslims", but would never
consider saying "Jews", "Blacks", or "Catholics" in the same context?" is
that Jews, Blacks and Catholics are not in the daily process of blowing
people up and killing innocents. When they start, you can be assured that
they will be spoken of "in the same context".
When the Oklahoma city federal building was blown up, were people talking
about the Christians and why they weren't taking charge of their
community and addressing this problem. Where there calls for profiling
Christians getting on planes? Were there calls for intering Christians?
Think for a while. You probably can't put yourself in someone else's
place, but give it a shot.
Let me know how you do.
Because Christians, as a general rule in our country, don't use suicide
bombings, or any kind of violent attacks on civilians or other populations
in our country, as a means to further a political/radical religious agenda.
For all intents and purposes, there is no history for it here. The
Oklahoma case was a rare and very extreme exception, for which the
perpetrator paid dearly. In contrast, there is a lot of history of Muslims
carrying out such attacks worldwide, mountains of history. Capiche?
GW Chimpzilla
2005-08-19 06:39:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by George
Because Christians, as a general rule in our country, don't use suicide
bombings, or any kind of violent attacks on civilians or other populations
in our country, as a means to further a political/radical religious agenda.
It's called Manifest Destiny!

Indian Removal refers to the nineteenth century policy of the government of the
United States to relocate American Indian tribes living east of the Mississippi
River to lands west of the river. The policy was made official with the Indian
Removal Act of 1830, although the pattern of reluctant westward migration of
Native Americans had been established much earlier. Indian removal was
accomplished in a variety of ways, including warfare, treaty, purchase of
Indian land, and ultimately by forced march. The most well-known of these
Indian removals was the Trail of Tears, which resulted in the deaths of
thousands of Cherokee Indians.

Since the presidency of Thomas Jefferson, America's policy had been to allow
Indians to remain east of the Mississippi as long as they became assimilated or
"civilized." They were to settle in one place, farm the land, divide communal
land into private property, and adopt democracy.

In 1830, the so-called "Five Civilized Tribes" — the Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek,
Seminole, and Cherokee — were still living east of the Mississippi. They were
called "civilized" because many tribesmen had adopted various aspects of
European-American culture, including Christianity. The Cherokees had a system
of writing their own language, developed by Sequoyah, and published a newspaper
in Cherokee and English.

In spite of this acculturation, the position of the tribes was not secure. Some
felt the presence of the tribes was a threat to peace and security, since many
Native Americans had fought against the United States in previous wars, often
armed by foreign nations such as Great Britain and Spain. Other white settlers
and land speculators simply desired the land that was occupied by the tribes.

Accordingly, governments of the various U.S. states desired that all tribal
lands within their boundaries be placed under state jurisdiction. In 1830,
Georgia passed a law which prohibited whites from living on Indian territory
after March 31, 1831 without a license from the state. This law was written to
justify removing white missionaries who were helping the Indians resist
removal. Indian removal opponent Jeremiah Evarts urged the Cherokee nation to
take their case to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Marshall court ruled that while
Indian tribes were not sovereign nations (Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 1831),
state laws had no force on tribal lands (Worcester v. Georgia, 1832). President
Andrew Jackson is often quoted as having responded to the court by defiantly
proclaiming, "John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it!"
Jackson did not actually say this, though he made no effort to protect the
tribes from state governments.

Andrew Jackson and other candidates of the new Democratic Party had made Indian
Removal a major goal in the campaign of 1828. In 1830, Congress passed the
Indian Removal Act and President Jackson signed it into law. The Removal Act
provided for the government to negotiate removal treaties with the various
tribes. The Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek with the Choctaw was the first such
removal treaty implemented; while around 7,000 Choctaws ultimately stayed in
Mississippi, about 14,000 moved along the Red River. Other treaties, like the
dubious Treaty of New Echota with the Cherokee, followed, resulting in the
Trail of Tears.

As a result, the five tribes were resettled in the new Indian Territory in
modern-day Oklahoma and parts of Kansas. Some Indians eluded removal, while
those who lived on individually owned land (rather than tribal domains) were
not subject to removal. Those who stayed behind eventually formed tribal groups
including the Eastern Band Cherokee, based in North Carolina.

In 1835, the Seminoles refused to leave Florida, leading to the Second Seminole
War. The most important leader in the war was Osceola, who led the Seminoles in
their fight against removal. Hiding in the Everglades of Florida, Osceola and
his band used surprise attacks to defeat the U.S. Army in many battles. In
1837, Osceola was tricked into capture when he came to negotiate peace during a
truce. He died in prison. The Seminoles continued to fight. Some traveled
deeper into the Everglades, while others moved west. The Second Seminole War
ended in 1842, when the United States won.
Post by George
For all intents and purposes, there is no history for it here. The
Oklahoma case was a rare and very extreme exception, for which the
perpetrator paid dearly. In contrast, there is a lot of history of Muslims
carrying out such attacks worldwide, mountains of history. Capiche?
George
2005-08-19 07:06:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by GW Chimpzilla
Post by George
Because Christians, as a general rule in our country, don't use suicide
bombings, or any kind of violent attacks on civilians or other populations
in our country, as a means to further a political/radical religious agenda.
It's called Manifest Destiny!
Another time, another century. You're behind the times, Mr. Chimp. But
then, if you really want to get technical, the British, French and Spanish
killed more native Americans in the 300 years leading up to American
independance than Americans ever did afterwards. It has been estimated
that prior to European contact, there were some 7 million native Americans
living in North America. 100 years, after contact, the population had
plumetted to under three million. Did you get that? Over 4 million were
killed either directly or indirectly as a result of European actions here.
And that was just in North America. It was much worse and much more
barbaric in Central and South America, where the Spanish, French, and
Portugese had exclusive control over the situation. NEXT!
Roger
2005-08-19 09:05:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by George
Post by Roger
Post by FACE
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 11:33:18 GMT, in uk.current-events.terrorism "Roger"
Post by Roger
Post by George
Post by Roger
Why is it okay for people to say "Muslims", but would never consider
saying "Jews", "Blacks", or "Catholics" in the same context?
My wife is Jewish, I'm Catholic, and my neighbor is black. So what is
your point?
My main point is that I wasn't talking to you.
You are on a public forum. I seriously doubt that you were addressing me
either, but then it IS a public forum and you ended up on my computer
screen. So much for your main point. Take it from there........
Read what I replied to. Again. See why a PERSONAL response was indicated.
Post by FACE
The main reason "Why is it okay for people to say "Muslims", but would never
consider saying "Jews", "Blacks", or "Catholics" in the same context?" is
that Jews, Blacks and Catholics are not in the daily process of blowing
people up and killing innocents. When they start, you can be assured that
they will be spoken of "in the same context".
When the Oklahoma city federal building was blown up, were people talking
about the Christians and why they weren't taking charge of their
community and addressing this problem. Where there calls for profiling
Christians getting on planes? Were there calls for intering Christians?
Think for a while. You probably can't put yourself in someone else's
place, but give it a shot.
Let me know how you do.
Because Christians, as a general rule in our country, don't use suicide
bombings, or any kind of violent attacks on civilians or other populations
in our country, as a means to further a political/radical religious
agenda. For all intents and purposes, there is no history for it here.
The Oklahoma case was a rare and very extreme exception, for which the
perpetrator paid dearly. In contrast, there is a lot of history of
Muslims carrying out such attacks worldwide, mountains of history.
Capiche?
You still don't get it.

Muslims didn't bomb or kill. SOME Muslim bombed and killed.

See the difference?

It is both WRONG and STUPID to have prejudices like this. Wrong because you
are blaming the blameless, and stupid because you are spending time worrying
about the blameless when you should be worrying about the guilty.

Think. Reflect. Repost when you think you've got it and I just might correct
you yet again.
George
2005-08-19 10:39:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger
Post by George
Post by Roger
Post by FACE
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 11:33:18 GMT, in uk.current-events.terrorism "Roger"
Post by Roger
Post by George
Post by Roger
Why is it okay for people to say "Muslims", but would never consider
saying "Jews", "Blacks", or "Catholics" in the same context?
My wife is Jewish, I'm Catholic, and my neighbor is black. So what is
your point?
My main point is that I wasn't talking to you.
You are on a public forum. I seriously doubt that you were addressing me
either, but then it IS a public forum and you ended up on my computer
screen. So much for your main point. Take it from there........
Read what I replied to. Again. See why a PERSONAL response was indicated.
Post by FACE
The main reason "Why is it okay for people to say "Muslims", but would never
consider saying "Jews", "Blacks", or "Catholics" in the same context?" is
that Jews, Blacks and Catholics are not in the daily process of blowing
people up and killing innocents. When they start, you can be assured that
they will be spoken of "in the same context".
When the Oklahoma city federal building was blown up, were people
talking about the Christians and why they weren't taking charge of
their community and addressing this problem. Where there calls for
profiling Christians getting on planes? Were there calls for intering
Christians?
Think for a while. You probably can't put yourself in someone else's
place, but give it a shot.
Let me know how you do.
Because Christians, as a general rule in our country, don't use suicide
bombings, or any kind of violent attacks on civilians or other
populations in our country, as a means to further a political/radical
religious agenda. For all intents and purposes, there is no history for
it here. The Oklahoma case was a rare and very extreme exception, for
which the perpetrator paid dearly. In contrast, there is a lot of
history of Muslims carrying out such attacks worldwide, mountains of
history. Capiche?
You still don't get it.
Muslims didn't bomb or kill. SOME Muslim bombed and killed.
That they are/were Muslims is not contested by anyone but you. Whether you
want to believe it or not, they are Muslim, or at least claim to be. Why
should I doubt it when the history is there for anyone to see?
Post by Roger
See the difference?
It is both WRONG and STUPID to have prejudices like this.
It is both wrong and stupid to deny that they are Muslims when they
themselves profess to be. Whether they are some, one, or a million Muslims
is irrelevant. The facts are that they are Muslims and they are blowing
poeple up along with themselves. Get your tin foil beanie on straight,
Roger Rabbit.
Peter Duncanson
2005-08-19 12:16:44 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 06:30:39 GMT, " George"
Post by George
Because Christians, as a general rule in our country, don't use suicide
bombings, or any kind of violent attacks on civilians or other populations
in our country, as a means to further a political/radical religious agenda.
For all intents and purposes, there is no history for it here. The
Oklahoma case was a rare and very extreme exception, for which the
perpetrator paid dearly.
Don't forget the "anti-abortion" religious fanatics who employ violence
and murder to attain their political ends.
Post by George
In contrast, there is a lot of history of Muslims
carrying out such attacks worldwide, mountains of history. Capiche?
--
Peter Duncanson
UK (posting from uk.c-e.t)
George
2005-08-19 12:24:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Duncanson
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 06:30:39 GMT, " George"
Post by George
Because Christians, as a general rule in our country, don't use suicide
bombings, or any kind of violent attacks on civilians or other
populations
in our country, as a means to further a political/radical religious agenda.
For all intents and purposes, there is no history for it here. The
Oklahoma case was a rare and very extreme exception, for which the
perpetrator paid dearly.
Don't forget the "anti-abortion" religious fanatics who employ violence
and murder to attain their political ends.
Again, it is a very rare and extreme exception. And do note that there
have been no such attacks for at at least a decade, since most, if not all
of those perpetrators (including the Olympic bomber) are behind bars where
they belong.
Post by Peter Duncanson
Post by George
In contrast, there is a lot of history of Muslims
carrying out such attacks worldwide, mountains of history. Capiche?
--
Peter Duncanson
UK (posting from uk.c-e.t)
FACE
2005-08-19 15:35:54 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 13:16:44 +0100, in uk.current-events.terrorism Peter
Post by Peter Duncanson
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 06:30:39 GMT, " George"
Post by George
Because Christians, as a general rule in our country, don't use suicide
bombings, or any kind of violent attacks on civilians or other populations
in our country, as a means to further a political/radical religious agenda.
For all intents and purposes, there is no history for it here. The
Oklahoma case was a rare and very extreme exception, for which the
perpetrator paid dearly.
Don't forget the "anti-abortion" religious fanatics who employ violence
and murder to attain their political ends.
I don't think anybody "forgot" that. There was a doctor shot through his
kitchen window in New York a few years back, and there have been 2 or 3
bombings of abortion clinics -- in total. And in total they are not even a
blip on the terrorist radar screen. Since 1970 the islamofascists have
killed nearly 2 million people in the Sudan. And that is only one place.
How does that stack up?
Post by Peter Duncanson
Post by George
In contrast, there is a lot of history of Muslims
carrying out such attacks worldwide, mountains of history. Capiche?
r***@hotmail.com
2005-08-19 15:30:07 UTC
Permalink
I will also had here, you did have the Christian community speak out
against it. What you don't get hardly as often is Muslims speaking out
against extremism in their ranks. In Christian and Jewish ranks,
terrorism is not seen as being part of their religion. There is
numerous individuals who, in Islam, argue such tactics are justified.

A problem Muslims face is their religion, like Protestantism, is based
mainly around personal interpretation of a religious text. This means
it is prone to any extremist abusing it, and using it for his or her
own end, the same way, in the west, junk science is appealed to. Well,
not quite the same, as what it is appealed TO DO is more horrid amongst
Muslim extremists.

- Richard Hutnik
FACE
2005-08-19 16:27:11 UTC
Permalink
On 19 Aug 2005 08:30:07 -0700, in uk.current-events.terrorism
I will also had [add?] here, you did have the Christian community speak out
against it. What you don't get hardly as often is Muslims speaking out
against extremism in their ranks. In Christian and Jewish ranks,
terrorism is not seen as being part of their religion. There is
numerous individuals who, in Islam, argue such tactics are justified.
A problem Muslims face is their religion, like Protestantism, is based
mainly around personal interpretation of a religious text. This means
it is prone to any extremist abusing it, and using it for his or her
own end, the same way, in the west, junk science is appealed to. Well,
not quite the same, as what it is appealed TO DO is more horrid amongst
Muslim extremists.
- Richard Hutnik
Would you say a "good" Christian follows the Testament of Jesus?
Would you say a "good" Jew follows the torah?


"Good" Muslims are always going on about the absolute and literal truth of
the Koran. It becomes pretty hard to re-interpret things like "slay the
infidel wherever you may find him".

The Islamic Doctrine of Jihad

Excerpted:

~~~~
....

Although Muslims consider Jesus to be a "prophet" (Sura 2:135), and although
the Koran teaches that as "people of the book" Christians are to receive
courtesy (Sura 29:46), Christians are still considered infidels (Sura 2:140)
and idolaters (Sura 6:21) and thus are subject to the wrath of Islam (Sura
9:4). It is the duty of the faithful Muslim to invade and subjugate the
infidel (Sura 21:41-46). One of the main motivations for being a Jihad
warrior and even to commit suicide for Allah is the Islamic teaching that
the soldier who dies in Jihad gains immediate entry into paradise (Sura
3:156-159; 3:195; 22:58; 47:8; 61:10-13).

Despite the fact that many Muslims are attempting to distance themselves
from their history and doctrine, there is plenty in the Koran (and much more
in Islamic tradition) to justify the violent terror of Jihad in the minds of
those who take Islam seriously.

A few examples:

2:286 "Give us victory over unbelievers."

2:190-195 "Slay (the infidel) wherever you find them." "Fight against them
until God's religion reigns supreme." "If anyone attacks you, attack him as
he has attacked you."

2:216 Fighting is obligatory.

3:149-151 Do not yield to the infidel; put terror in their hearts.

8:39 Make war on unbelievers until idolatry ceases and God's religion reigns
supreme.

8:55 Unbelievers are the worst of beasts.

9:5 "Slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them,
lie in ambush everywhere for them."

9:23 Do not befriend (relatives) if they do not believe.

9:123 Make war on the infidel.

9:29 Fight against (Christians and Jews) until they are utterly subdued.

....

~~~~

FACE
Roger
2005-08-20 04:19:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@hotmail.com
I will also had here, you did have the Christian community speak out
against it. What you don't get hardly as often is Muslims speaking out
against extremism in their ranks. In Christian and Jewish ranks,
terrorism is not seen as being part of their religion. There is
numerous individuals who, in Islam, argue such tactics are justified.
When a white person commits a crime, are all white people supposed to "speak
out against extremism in their ranks?"

Terrrorism isn't "seen as being part of their religion" except by people who
know nothing.


You're without the slightest hint of a clue.
Post by r***@hotmail.com
A problem Muslims face is their religion, like Protestantism, is based
mainly around personal interpretation of a religious text. This means
it is prone to any extremist abusing it, and using it for his or her
own end, the same way, in the west, junk science is appealed to. Well,
not quite the same, as what it is appealed TO DO is more horrid amongst
Muslim extremists.
- Richard Hutnik
Mr. Able Danger
2005-08-20 06:17:07 UTC
Permalink
Violence, jihad, murder, subjigation, intolerance, ill treatment of
women like cattle and facism are a daily part of Islam around the
world. From Thailand, Indonesia, Bali, Australia, the UK, Holland,
USA, Canada, Iraq, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Russia, the list goes on and on.
You don't see it in Japan because the Muzzies are not allowed or China
where the Muslims will get their heads smashed in by the Chinese if
they misbehave,
The Happy Hippy
2005-08-20 11:47:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr. Able Danger
Violence, jihad, murder, subjigation, intolerance, ill treatment of
women like cattle and facism are a daily part of Islam around the
world. From Thailand, Indonesia, Bali, Australia, the UK, Holland,
USA, Canada, Iraq, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Russia, the list goes on and on.
You don't see it in Japan because the Muzzies are not allowed
Huh ? Far from being, "not allowed", there are Muslims in Japan, and Islamic
Mosques - http://pictures.care2.com/view/2/735040825 et al
Post by Mr. Able Danger
or China
where the Muslims will get their heads smashed in by the Chinese if
they misbehave,
Mr.G
2005-08-20 16:51:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Happy Hippy
Post by Mr. Able Danger
Violence, jihad, murder, subjigation, intolerance, ill treatment of
women like cattle and facism are a daily part of Islam around the
world. From Thailand, Indonesia, Bali, Australia, the UK, Holland,
USA, Canada, Iraq, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Russia, the list goes on and on.
You don't see it in Japan because the Muzzies are not allowed
Huh ? Far from being, "not allowed", there are Muslims in Japan, and Islamic
Mosques - http://pictures.care2.com/view/2/735040825 et al
Post by Mr. Able Danger
or China
where the Muslims will get their heads smashed in by the Chinese if
they misbehave,
Here you go Hippy.
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/447c6022-100d-11da-bd5c-00000e2511c8.html

I am not sure as to the nature of the Terrorist China is after.
It might be Terrorist after free speech or democracy, but they have
had some Islamic terrorist also, so I can't say one way or another.

Mr.G
George
2005-08-20 09:59:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger
Post by r***@hotmail.com
I will also had here, you did have the Christian community speak out
against it. What you don't get hardly as often is Muslims speaking out
against extremism in their ranks. In Christian and Jewish ranks,
terrorism is not seen as being part of their religion. There is
numerous individuals who, in Islam, argue such tactics are justified.
When a white person commits a crime, are all white people supposed to
"speak out against extremism in their ranks?"
This is not a racial issue, Woger Wabbit. But then, you knew that already.
FACE
2005-08-19 11:37:07 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 03:46:54 GMT, in uk.current-events.terrorism "Roger"
Post by Roger
Post by FACE
The main reason "Why is it okay for people to say "Muslims", but would never
consider saying "Jews", "Blacks", or "Catholics" in the same context?" is
that Jews, Blacks and Catholics are not in the daily process of blowing
people up and killing innocents. When they start, you can be assured that
they will be spoken of "in the same context".
When the Oklahoma city federal building was blown up, were people talking
about the Christians and why they weren't taking charge of their community
and addressing this problem. Where there calls for profiling Christians
getting on planes? Were there calls for intering Christians?
If you can show me where he said he did it *for* Jehovah and Yahweh, I might
take a second look. More than that, it was largely a one-off event. The
muslims do it near daily all over the world and though IU have not checked
this mornings news, yesterday they set off several hundred (reports vary
"over 100" to 500) small bombs calling for their Sharia law in Bangladesh.

Your attempt to draw a comparison between islam (ptah!) and christianity is
lame. To get to any campaign of any consequence on Christianity you will
have to go back to before the reformation of the Christian church at the end
of the middle ages. BUT THIS IS TODAY and shit from several hundred years
ago does not count for what is happening today.

If you have not heard the radical muslims babbling on about how they are
doing this for their god (shit be upon him) and their religion you have not
been listening -- which would not surprise me.

I have thought for a while and the problem is islam, not buddhism, not
hinduism, not christianity. Of the religions mentioned, christianity is the
least likely to cause any problems -- and that is not to say that it causes
no problems whatsoever, but quantitatively, it causes the least TODAY.


FACE
Roger
2005-08-19 12:11:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by FACE
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 03:46:54 GMT, in uk.current-events.terrorism "Roger"
Post by Roger
Post by FACE
The main reason "Why is it okay for people to say "Muslims", but would never
consider saying "Jews", "Blacks", or "Catholics" in the same context?" is
that Jews, Blacks and Catholics are not in the daily process of blowing
people up and killing innocents. When they start, you can be assured that
they will be spoken of "in the same context".
When the Oklahoma city federal building was blown up, were people talking
about the Christians and why they weren't taking charge of their community
and addressing this problem. Where there calls for profiling Christians
getting on planes? Were there calls for intering Christians?
If you can show me where he said he did it *for* Jehovah and Yahweh, I might
take a second look. More than that, it was largely a one-off event. The
muslims do it near daily all over the world and though IU have not checked
this mornings news, yesterday they set off several hundred (reports vary
"over 100" to 500) small bombs calling for their Sharia law in Bangladesh.
Doesn't matter. He was a Christian.
Post by FACE
Your attempt to draw a comparison between islam (ptah!) and christianity is
lame. To get to any campaign of any consequence on Christianity you will
have to go back to before the reformation of the Christian church at the end
of the middle ages. BUT THIS IS TODAY and shit from several hundred years
ago does not count for what is happening today.
I was making an ANALOGY. Look it up. Useful tool in discussions.
Post by FACE
If you have not heard the radical muslims babbling on about how they are
doing this for their god (shit be upon him) and their religion you have not
been listening -- which would not surprise me.
I have thought for a while and the problem is islam, not buddhism, not
hinduism, not christianity. Of the religions mentioned, christianity is the
least likely to cause any problems -- and that is not to say that it causes
no problems whatsoever, but quantitatively, it causes the least TODAY.
Some Muslims are doing it. NOT ALL.

Not a problems with Islam. Were it, ALL MUSLIMS would be doing it.

Obvious? Of course.
Post by FACE
FACE
George
2005-08-19 12:29:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger
Post by FACE
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 03:46:54 GMT, in uk.current-events.terrorism "Roger"
Post by Roger
Post by FACE
The main reason "Why is it okay for people to say "Muslims", but would never
consider saying "Jews", "Blacks", or "Catholics" in the same context?" is
that Jews, Blacks and Catholics are not in the daily process of blowing
people up and killing innocents. When they start, you can be assured that
they will be spoken of "in the same context".
When the Oklahoma city federal building was blown up, were people talking
about the Christians and why they weren't taking charge of their community
and addressing this problem. Where there calls for profiling Christians
getting on planes? Were there calls for intering Christians?
If you can show me where he said he did it *for* Jehovah and Yahweh, I might
take a second look. More than that, it was largely a one-off event.
The
muslims do it near daily all over the world and though IU have not checked
this mornings news, yesterday they set off several hundred (reports vary
"over 100" to 500) small bombs calling for their Sharia law in Bangladesh.
Doesn't matter. He was a Christian.
It does matter because he did not commit the crime for "Christian" reasons,
unlike Muslims terrorists, who make a point of doing it in "Allahs" name.
I see you haven't got your tin foilf hate straightened out yet.
Post by Roger
Post by FACE
Your attempt to draw a comparison between islam (ptah!) and christianity is
lame. To get to any campaign of any consequence on Christianity you will
have to go back to before the reformation of the Christian church at the end
of the middle ages. BUT THIS IS TODAY and shit from several hundred years
ago does not count for what is happening today.
I was making an ANALOGY. Look it up. Useful tool in discussions.
There is no anaolgy to make. The two aren't even close to being
comparable. Not even in the same ball park, really.
Post by Roger
Post by FACE
If you have not heard the radical muslims babbling on about how they are
doing this for their god (shit be upon him) and their religion you have not
been listening -- which would not surprise me.
I have thought for a while and the problem is islam, not buddhism, not
hinduism, not christianity. Of the religions mentioned, christianity is the
least likely to cause any problems -- and that is not to say that it causes
no problems whatsoever, but quantitatively, it causes the least TODAY.
Some Muslims are doing it. NOT ALL.
And? Where did you see any of us say that "all" Muslims are doing it? Be
specific.
FACE
2005-08-19 13:33:43 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 12:11:28 GMT, in uk.current-events.terrorism "Roger"
Post by Roger
Post by FACE
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 03:46:54 GMT, in uk.current-events.terrorism "Roger"
Post by Roger
Post by FACE
The main reason "Why is it okay for people to say "Muslims", but would never
consider saying "Jews", "Blacks", or "Catholics" in the same context?" is
that Jews, Blacks and Catholics are not in the daily process of blowing
people up and killing innocents. When they start, you can be assured that
they will be spoken of "in the same context".
When the Oklahoma city federal building was blown up, were people talking
about the Christians and why they weren't taking charge of their community
and addressing this problem. Where there calls for profiling Christians
getting on planes? Were there calls for intering Christians?
If you can show me where he said he did it *for* Jehovah and Yahweh, I might
take a second look. More than that, it was largely a one-off event. The
muslims do it near daily all over the world and though IU have not checked
this mornings news, yesterday they set off several hundred (reports vary
"over 100" to 500) small bombs calling for their Sharia law in Bangladesh.
Doesn't matter. He was a Christian.
Post by FACE
Your attempt to draw a comparison between islam (ptah!) and christianity is
lame. To get to any campaign of any consequence on Christianity you will
have to go back to before the reformation of the Christian church at the end
of the middle ages. BUT THIS IS TODAY and shit from several hundred years
ago does not count for what is happening today.
I was making an ANALOGY. Look it up. Useful tool in discussions.
Post by FACE
If you have not heard the radical muslims babbling on about how they are
doing this for their god (shit be upon him) and their religion you have not
been listening -- which would not surprise me.
I have thought for a while and the problem is islam, not buddhism, not
hinduism, not christianity. Of the religions mentioned, christianity is the
least likely to cause any problems -- and that is not to say that it causes
no problems whatsoever, but quantitatively, it causes the least TODAY.
Some Muslims are doing it. NOT ALL.
Not a problems with Islam. Were it, ALL MUSLIMS would be doing it.
Obvious? Of course.
What is obvious is that you have lost miserably in your gambit.
Roger
2005-08-20 04:20:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by FACE
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 12:11:28 GMT, in uk.current-events.terrorism "Roger"
Post by Roger
Post by FACE
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 03:46:54 GMT, in uk.current-events.terrorism "Roger"
Post by Roger
Post by FACE
The main reason "Why is it okay for people to say "Muslims", but would never
consider saying "Jews", "Blacks", or "Catholics" in the same context?" is
that Jews, Blacks and Catholics are not in the daily process of blowing
people up and killing innocents. When they start, you can be assured that
they will be spoken of "in the same context".
When the Oklahoma city federal building was blown up, were people talking
about the Christians and why they weren't taking charge of their community
and addressing this problem. Where there calls for profiling Christians
getting on planes? Were there calls for intering Christians?
If you can show me where he said he did it *for* Jehovah and Yahweh, I might
take a second look. More than that, it was largely a one-off event.
The
muslims do it near daily all over the world and though IU have not checked
this mornings news, yesterday they set off several hundred (reports vary
"over 100" to 500) small bombs calling for their Sharia law in Bangladesh.
Doesn't matter. He was a Christian.
Post by FACE
Your attempt to draw a comparison between islam (ptah!) and christianity is
lame. To get to any campaign of any consequence on Christianity you will
have to go back to before the reformation of the Christian church at the end
of the middle ages. BUT THIS IS TODAY and shit from several hundred years
ago does not count for what is happening today.
I was making an ANALOGY. Look it up. Useful tool in discussions.
Post by FACE
If you have not heard the radical muslims babbling on about how they are
doing this for their god (shit be upon him) and their religion you have not
been listening -- which would not surprise me.
I have thought for a while and the problem is islam, not buddhism, not
hinduism, not christianity. Of the religions mentioned, christianity is the
least likely to cause any problems -- and that is not to say that it causes
no problems whatsoever, but quantitatively, it causes the least TODAY.
Some Muslims are doing it. NOT ALL.
Not a problems with Islam. Were it, ALL MUSLIMS would be doing it.
Obvious? Of course.
What is obvious is that you have lost miserably in your gambit.
I was trying to educate.

I failed.

You probably blame the teachers when a moron child fails.

Yeah, another analogy.
George
2005-08-20 10:04:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger
Post by FACE
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 12:11:28 GMT, in uk.current-events.terrorism "Roger"
Post by Roger
Post by FACE
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 03:46:54 GMT, in uk.current-events.terrorism "Roger"
Post by Roger
Post by FACE
The main reason "Why is it okay for people to say "Muslims", but
would
never
consider saying "Jews", "Blacks", or "Catholics" in the same
context?"
is
that Jews, Blacks and Catholics are not in the daily process of blowing
people up and killing innocents. When they start, you can be
assured
that
they will be spoken of "in the same context".
When the Oklahoma city federal building was blown up, were people talking
about the Christians and why they weren't taking charge of their community
and addressing this problem. Where there calls for profiling Christians
getting on planes? Were there calls for intering Christians?
If you can show me where he said he did it *for* Jehovah and Yahweh, I might
take a second look. More than that, it was largely a one-off event.
The
muslims do it near daily all over the world and though IU have not checked
this mornings news, yesterday they set off several hundred (reports vary
"over 100" to 500) small bombs calling for their Sharia law in Bangladesh.
Doesn't matter. He was a Christian.
Post by FACE
Your attempt to draw a comparison between islam (ptah!) and
christianity
is
lame. To get to any campaign of any consequence on Christianity you will
have to go back to before the reformation of the Christian church at
the
end
of the middle ages. BUT THIS IS TODAY and shit from several hundred years
ago does not count for what is happening today.
I was making an ANALOGY. Look it up. Useful tool in discussions.
Post by FACE
If you have not heard the radical muslims babbling on about how they are
doing this for their god (shit be upon him) and their religion you
have
not
been listening -- which would not surprise me.
I have thought for a while and the problem is islam, not buddhism, not
hinduism, not christianity. Of the religions mentioned, christianity
is
the
least likely to cause any problems -- and that is not to say that it causes
no problems whatsoever, but quantitatively, it causes the least TODAY.
Some Muslims are doing it. NOT ALL.
Not a problems with Islam. Were it, ALL MUSLIMS would be doing it.
Obvious? Of course.
What is obvious is that you have lost miserably in your gambit.
I was trying to educate.
I failed.
You probably blame the teachers when a moron child fails.
Yeah, another analogy.
Before you try to educate people, it helps to know at least as much, and
preferably more about the subject in question than the people you are
trying to educate. I agree. You're a miserable failure. Now, go out to
the woodshed and bash your head in with an ax, Woger Wabbit.
Bill Again
2005-08-20 21:15:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by George
Post by Roger
Post by FACE
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 12:11:28 GMT, in uk.current-events.terrorism "Roger"
Post by Roger
Post by FACE
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 03:46:54 GMT, in uk.current-events.terrorism "Roger"
Post by Roger
Post by FACE
The main reason "Why is it okay for people to say "Muslims", but
would
never
consider saying "Jews", "Blacks", or "Catholics" in the same
context?"
is
that Jews, Blacks and Catholics are not in the daily process of blowing
people up and killing innocents. When they start, you can be
assured
that
they will be spoken of "in the same context".
When the Oklahoma city federal building was blown up, were people talking
about the Christians and why they weren't taking charge of their community
and addressing this problem. Where there calls for profiling Christians
getting on planes? Were there calls for intering Christians?
If you can show me where he said he did it *for* Jehovah and Yahweh, I might
take a second look. More than that, it was largely a one-off event.
The
muslims do it near daily all over the world and though IU have not checked
this mornings news, yesterday they set off several hundred (reports vary
"over 100" to 500) small bombs calling for their Sharia law in Bangladesh.
Doesn't matter. He was a Christian.
Post by FACE
Your attempt to draw a comparison between islam (ptah!) and
christianity
is
lame. To get to any campaign of any consequence on Christianity you will
have to go back to before the reformation of the Christian church at
the
end
of the middle ages. BUT THIS IS TODAY and shit from several hundred years
ago does not count for what is happening today.
I was making an ANALOGY. Look it up. Useful tool in discussions.
Post by FACE
If you have not heard the radical muslims babbling on about how they are
doing this for their god (shit be upon him) and their religion you
have
not
been listening -- which would not surprise me.
I have thought for a while and the problem is islam, not buddhism, not
hinduism, not christianity. Of the religions mentioned, christianity
is
the
least likely to cause any problems -- and that is not to say that it causes
no problems whatsoever, but quantitatively, it causes the least TODAY.
Some Muslims are doing it. NOT ALL.
Not a problems with Islam. Were it, ALL MUSLIMS would be doing it.
Obvious? Of course.
What is obvious is that you have lost miserably in your gambit.
I was trying to educate.
I failed.
You probably blame the teachers when a moron child fails.
Yeah, another analogy.
Before you try to educate people, it helps to know at least as much, and
preferably more about the subject in question than the people you are
trying to educate. I agree. You're a miserable failure. Now, go out to
the woodshed and bash your head in with an ax, Woger Wabbit.
Socrates would not have agreed with you. He didn't feel it necessary to know
more than his pupils. And he was a pretty good teacher.

BiL
FACE
2005-08-21 01:08:46 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 23:15:10 +0200, in uk.current-events.terrorism "Bill
Post by Bill Again
Post by George
Before you try to educate people, it helps to know at least as much, and
preferably more about the subject in question than the people you are
trying to educate. I agree. You're a miserable failure. Now, go out to
the woodshed and bash your head in with an ax, Woger Wabbit.
Socrates would not have agreed with you. He didn't feel it necessary to know
more than his pupils. And he was a pretty good teacher.
BiL
Do you notice Socrates around here anywhere? ;-)

FACE
George
2005-08-21 05:38:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by FACE
On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 23:15:10 +0200, in uk.current-events.terrorism "Bill
Post by Bill Again
Post by George
Before you try to educate people, it helps to know at least as much, and
preferably more about the subject in question than the people you are
trying to educate. I agree. You're a miserable failure. Now, go out to
the woodshed and bash your head in with an ax, Woger Wabbit.
Socrates would not have agreed with you. He didn't feel it necessary to know
more than his pupils. And he was a pretty good teacher.
BiL
Do you notice Socrates around here anywhere? ;-)
FACE
No Socrates, but Walt Disney's Pluto apparently frequents this NG.
George
2005-08-21 05:37:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Again
Post by George
Post by Roger
Post by FACE
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 12:11:28 GMT, in uk.current-events.terrorism "Roger"
Post by Roger
Post by FACE
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 03:46:54 GMT, in uk.current-events.terrorism "Roger"
Post by Roger
Post by FACE
The main reason "Why is it okay for people to say "Muslims", but
would
never
consider saying "Jews", "Blacks", or "Catholics" in the same
context?"
is
that Jews, Blacks and Catholics are not in the daily process of blowing
people up and killing innocents. When they start, you can be
assured
that
they will be spoken of "in the same context".
When the Oklahoma city federal building was blown up, were people talking
about the Christians and why they weren't taking charge of their community
and addressing this problem. Where there calls for profiling Christians
getting on planes? Were there calls for intering Christians?
If you can show me where he said he did it *for* Jehovah and Yahweh,
I
might
take a second look. More than that, it was largely a one-off event.
The
muslims do it near daily all over the world and though IU have not checked
this mornings news, yesterday they set off several hundred (reports vary
"over 100" to 500) small bombs calling for their Sharia law in Bangladesh.
Doesn't matter. He was a Christian.
Post by FACE
Your attempt to draw a comparison between islam (ptah!) and
christianity
is
lame. To get to any campaign of any consequence on Christianity you will
have to go back to before the reformation of the Christian church at
the
end
of the middle ages. BUT THIS IS TODAY and shit from several hundred years
ago does not count for what is happening today.
I was making an ANALOGY. Look it up. Useful tool in discussions.
Post by FACE
If you have not heard the radical muslims babbling on about how they are
doing this for their god (shit be upon him) and their religion you
have
not
been listening -- which would not surprise me.
I have thought for a while and the problem is islam, not buddhism, not
hinduism, not christianity. Of the religions mentioned,
christianity is
the
least likely to cause any problems -- and that is not to say that it causes
no problems whatsoever, but quantitatively, it causes the least TODAY.
Some Muslims are doing it. NOT ALL.
Not a problems with Islam. Were it, ALL MUSLIMS would be doing it.
Obvious? Of course.
What is obvious is that you have lost miserably in your gambit.
I was trying to educate.
I failed.
You probably blame the teachers when a moron child fails.
Yeah, another analogy.
Before you try to educate people, it helps to know at least as much, and
preferably more about the subject in question than the people you are
trying to educate. I agree. You're a miserable failure. Now, go out
to the woodshed and bash your head in with an ax, Woger Wabbit.
Socrates would not have agreed with you. He didn't feel it necessary to
know more than his pupils. And he was a pretty good teacher.
BiL
Socrates lived 2,000 or so years ago BiF. Today, if you are trying to
teach someone to become a nuclear physicist, you'd better know something
about nuclear physics. If your students know more about the subject that
you are trying to teach than you do, there isn't much point in you trying
to teach them, BiL. It begs the question of who is the teacher and who is
the student.
Bill Again
2005-08-21 21:39:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by George
Post by Bill Again
Post by George
Post by Roger
Post by FACE
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 12:11:28 GMT, in uk.current-events.terrorism "Roger"
Post by Roger
Post by FACE
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 03:46:54 GMT, in uk.current-events.terrorism "Roger"
Post by Roger
Post by FACE
The main reason "Why is it okay for people to say "Muslims", but
would
never
consider saying "Jews", "Blacks", or "Catholics" in the same
context?"
is
that Jews, Blacks and Catholics are not in the daily process of blowing
people up and killing innocents. When they start, you can be
assured
that
they will be spoken of "in the same context".
When the Oklahoma city federal building was blown up, were people talking
about the Christians and why they weren't taking charge of their community
and addressing this problem. Where there calls for profiling Christians
getting on planes? Were there calls for intering Christians?
If you can show me where he said he did it *for* Jehovah and Yahweh,
I
might
take a second look. More than that, it was largely a one-off event.
The
muslims do it near daily all over the world and though IU have not checked
this mornings news, yesterday they set off several hundred (reports vary
"over 100" to 500) small bombs calling for their Sharia law in Bangladesh.
Doesn't matter. He was a Christian.
Post by FACE
Your attempt to draw a comparison between islam (ptah!) and
christianity
is
lame. To get to any campaign of any consequence on Christianity you will
have to go back to before the reformation of the Christian church at
the
end
of the middle ages. BUT THIS IS TODAY and shit from several hundred years
ago does not count for what is happening today.
I was making an ANALOGY. Look it up. Useful tool in discussions.
Post by FACE
If you have not heard the radical muslims babbling on about how they are
doing this for their god (shit be upon him) and their religion you
have
not
been listening -- which would not surprise me.
I have thought for a while and the problem is islam, not buddhism, not
hinduism, not christianity. Of the religions mentioned,
christianity is
the
least likely to cause any problems -- and that is not to say that it causes
no problems whatsoever, but quantitatively, it causes the least TODAY.
Some Muslims are doing it. NOT ALL.
Not a problems with Islam. Were it, ALL MUSLIMS would be doing it.
Obvious? Of course.
What is obvious is that you have lost miserably in your gambit.
I was trying to educate.
I failed.
You probably blame the teachers when a moron child fails.
Yeah, another analogy.
Before you try to educate people, it helps to know at least as much, and
preferably more about the subject in question than the people you are
trying to educate. I agree. You're a miserable failure. Now, go out
to the woodshed and bash your head in with an ax, Woger Wabbit.
Socrates would not have agreed with you. He didn't feel it necessary to
know more than his pupils. And he was a pretty good teacher.
BiL
Socrates lived 2,000 or so years ago BiF. Today, if you are trying to
teach someone to become a nuclear physicist, you'd better know something
about nuclear physics. If your students know more about the subject that
you are trying to teach than you do, there isn't much point in you trying
to teach them, BiL. It begs the question of who is the teacher and who is
the student.
Thanks George. I think that you would be an ideal subject for the Socratic
Principle of teaching. But not over the Net, so I will give it a miss.

BiG

yD
2005-08-18 16:46:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by George
Post by Roger
Why is it okay for people to say "Muslims", but would never consider
saying "Jews", "Blacks", or "Catholics" in the same context?
My wife is Jewish, I'm Catholic, and my neighbor is black. So what is your
point?
Good question: I'm Jewish, my daughter-in-law is black so my
grandchildren are part Celtic, part Black and my children are athiests.
How am I supposed to get around that?
yD
Post by George
Post by Roger
Post by r***@hotmail.com
Great. Muslims better get a grip on these factions. The world cannot
tolerate groups of extremists who demand infidels leave what they think
is "their country" and then go head and try to prostylitize and try to
convert people over. Now the U.S and UK have toget out of Bangladesh?
Like hell!
I have a question for Muslims out there. How many actually support
this policy?
- Richard Hutnik
George
2005-08-18 20:28:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by yD
Post by George
Post by Roger
Why is it okay for people to say "Muslims", but would never consider
saying "Jews", "Blacks", or "Catholics" in the same context?
My wife is Jewish, I'm Catholic, and my neighbor is black. So what is your
point?
Good question: I'm Jewish, my daughter-in-law is black so my
grandchildren are part Celtic, part Black and my children are athiests.
How am I supposed to get around that?
yD
One has to wonder why he chose those particular ethnic groups for his
"example".
Jimi
2005-08-18 11:34:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger
Why is it okay for people to say "Muslims", but would never consider
saying "Jews", "Blacks", or "Catholics" in the same context?
Post by r***@hotmail.com
Great. Muslims better get a grip on these factions. The world
cannot tolerate groups of extremists who demand infidels leave what
they think is "their country" and then go head and try to
prostylitize and try to convert people over. Now the U.S and UK have
toget out of Bangladesh? Like hell!
I have a question for Muslims out there. How many actually support
this policy?
- Richard Hutnik
Howz this....

How many of you Blacks, Catholics and Jews support what these fucking
muslims are doing?
Aramis Gunton
2005-08-18 08:21:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@hotmail.com
I have a question for Muslims out there. How many actually support
this policy?
"When asked our survey said 0.00000000001%"!!!
--
Aramis Gunton
FACE
2005-08-18 16:56:01 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 09:21:22 +0100, in uk.current-events.terrorism Aramis
Post by Aramis Gunton
Post by r***@hotmail.com
I have a question for Muslims out there. How many actually support
this policy?
"When asked our survey said 0.00000000001%"!!!
The recent BBC poll was quite different.

Shirley you realize that terroristic revolutions do not take a majority of
actors.

They take very few actual actors and a significant percentage (not a
majority) of sympathisers. I forget the exact numbers of the poll but they
*were* significant. And....that was just the ones admitting it.

What do you think? That they'll call for a vote?

FACE
Aramis Gunton
2005-08-18 20:26:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by FACE
Post by Aramis Gunton
Post by r***@hotmail.com
I have a question for Muslims out there. How many actually support
this policy?
"When asked our survey said 0.00000000001%"!!!
The recent BBC poll was quite different.
And....that was just the ones admitting it.
My point exactly!
Post by FACE
What do you think?
That it is time we cease this fawning pretence that islam has any place
whatsoever in Western democratic nations.

We should be ridiculing such alien beliefs hourly.

A "C of E" vicar in a sweet woolly jumper adapting his beliefs by the
second dependant on just which perversion or social deviance is
currently in vogue is tolerable as such behaviour is a home grown
eccentricity.

This is not the case with islam as is abundantly clear by it's adherents
aversion to pork and canines.

One of my kids once attended a 'camp'. For some inexplicable reason some
lunatic paid for his 'muslim' child to attend. Almost daily someone's
dog was excitedly scooting about seeking attention from the kids. The
'muslim' was aghast and was adamant that its religion disallowed
touching the dog.

The camp ended with a barbecue which was similarly 'affected' in that
the 'muslim' had to bring in its own 'special food' whilst the other 20
kids happily munched away on the sausages and burgers kindly provided by
the organisers.

Personally I would have made it plain that all children will be treated
the same, that this is England and that the barbecue fare consist of
pork and beef killed in accordance with the health and safety laws of
England. Similarly it should have been stated that dogs are also welcome
whilst the children are dropped off and collected.

Of course none of the above would be required had no alien lunatic
beliefs infringed on a good old 'ging gang gooly'

Don't like it as is? - Don't come!!!

Or... as one astute 8 year old pontificated. "What stupid religion stops
you stroking dogs and eating bacon sarnies?"

I understand the unenlightened wee lad faced subsequent 'hate crime'
charges and was not welcomed back at future 'camps'

Maybe the organisers should have strung a live and kicking cow up in a
nearby tree and invited a local halal butcher along to educate the
'infidels' as to the machinations involved in creating 'special food'
for the 'barbie'.

Maybe next year after the canoeing or prayer mat knitting eh?
--
Aramis Gunton
George
2005-08-18 20:30:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by FACE
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 09:21:22 +0100, in uk.current-events.terrorism Aramis
Post by Aramis Gunton
Post by r***@hotmail.com
I have a question for Muslims out there. How many actually support
this policy?
"When asked our survey said 0.00000000001%"!!!
The recent BBC poll was quite different.
Shirley you realize that terroristic revolutions do not take a majority of
actors.
They take very few actual actors and a significant percentage (not a
majority) of sympathisers. I forget the exact numbers of the poll but they
*were* significant. And....that was just the ones admitting it.
What do you think? That they'll call for a vote?
FACE
I suspect his survey is bogus in the first place, because his 10^-11 result
is likely orders of magnitude below any realistic statistical error that
would result in such a survey (typiccally +- 3 to 5%).
Maria
2005-08-18 10:06:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@hotmail.com
Great. Muslims better get a grip on these factions. The world cannot
tolerate groups of extremists who demand infidels leave what they think
is "their country" and then go head and try to prostylitize and try to
convert people over. Now the U.S and UK have toget out of Bangladesh?
Like hell!
I have a question for Muslims out there. How many actually support
this policy?
If these 'insurgents' can't even get a grip in wholly Muslim
countries, and the 'insurgents' have to bomb Muslim countries to get
their point over, how much do you actually think they support it?
Maria
2005-08-18 10:08:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maria
Post by r***@hotmail.com
Great. Muslims better get a grip on these factions. The world cannot
tolerate groups of extremists who demand infidels leave what they think
is "their country" and then go head and try to prostylitize and try to
convert people over. Now the U.S and UK have toget out of Bangladesh?
Like hell!
I have a question for Muslims out there. How many actually support
this policy?
If these 'insurgents' can't even get a grip in wholly Muslim
countries, and the 'insurgents' have to bomb Muslim countries to get
their point over, how much do you actually think they support it?
Or, perhaps you could name one Muslim country where this tactic has
actually worked?
George
2005-08-18 10:49:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maria
Post by Maria
Post by r***@hotmail.com
Great. Muslims better get a grip on these factions. The world cannot
tolerate groups of extremists who demand infidels leave what they think
is "their country" and then go head and try to prostylitize and try to
convert people over. Now the U.S and UK have toget out of Bangladesh?
Like hell!
I have a question for Muslims out there. How many actually support
this policy?
If these 'insurgents' can't even get a grip in wholly Muslim
countries, and the 'insurgents' have to bomb Muslim countries to get
their point over, how much do you actually think they support it?
Or, perhaps you could name one Muslim country where this tactic has
actually worked?
Afghanistan pre-9/11.
Maria
2005-08-18 11:43:40 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:49:10 GMT, " George"
Post by George
Post by Maria
Post by Maria
Post by r***@hotmail.com
Great. Muslims better get a grip on these factions. The world cannot
tolerate groups of extremists who demand infidels leave what they think
is "their country" and then go head and try to prostylitize and try to
convert people over. Now the U.S and UK have toget out of Bangladesh?
Like hell!
I have a question for Muslims out there. How many actually support
this policy?
If these 'insurgents' can't even get a grip in wholly Muslim
countries, and the 'insurgents' have to bomb Muslim countries to get
their point over, how much do you actually think they support it?
Or, perhaps you could name one Muslim country where this tactic has
actually worked?
Afghanistan pre-9/11.
Not a particularly good example - no-one was in overall control of
Afghanistan pre-Taliban - it was a civil war between the relatively
civilised Taliban and bloodthirsty warlords who were bleeding the
nation dry. The war was fought in a traditional manner on the ground,
not using minority terror tactics. They brought social and moral order
from chaos, and relative prosperity to the country, and so had popular
support, which is why we left them alone.
George
2005-08-18 12:53:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maria
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:49:10 GMT, " George"
Post by George
Post by Maria
Post by Maria
Post by r***@hotmail.com
Great. Muslims better get a grip on these factions. The world cannot
tolerate groups of extremists who demand infidels leave what they think
is "their country" and then go head and try to prostylitize and try to
convert people over. Now the U.S and UK have toget out of Bangladesh?
Like hell!
I have a question for Muslims out there. How many actually support
this policy?
If these 'insurgents' can't even get a grip in wholly Muslim
countries, and the 'insurgents' have to bomb Muslim countries to get
their point over, how much do you actually think they support it?
Or, perhaps you could name one Muslim country where this tactic has
actually worked?
Afghanistan pre-9/11.
Not a particularly good example - no-one was in overall control of
Afghanistan pre-Taliban - it was a civil war between the relatively
civilised Taliban and bloodthirsty warlords who were bleeding the
nation dry. The war was fought in a traditional manner on the ground,
not using minority terror tactics. They brought social and moral order
from chaos, and relative prosperity to the country, and so had popular
support, which is why we left them alone.
Relatively "civilized"? The Taliban? Attacking other religions, destroying
the religious icons of other religions, and murdering those who are not "of
the faith" is your idea of "civilized"? You're joking, right? Moral order
from chaos? Executing women in a soccer stadium for not conforming to
their twisted, bigoted ideology is "moral"? Gee, I'd hate to be related to
you, Maria. Relative prosperity? Do you think Bin Laden's blood money is
a legitimate way for a government establish an economy? Oh, and speaking
of governments, only three out of 197 countries even recognized the Taliban
as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. If they had such popular
support, why was it so easy for the coalition governments to enlist the
populous to rise up against them? If they had such popular support, why
were there no elections. Why did 95% of the adult population participate
in elections after the Taliban were ousted? I think you are deluded,
Maria.
Roger
2005-08-18 13:03:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by George
Post by Maria
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:49:10 GMT, " George"
Post by George
Post by Maria
Post by Maria
Post by r***@hotmail.com
Great. Muslims better get a grip on these factions. The world cannot
tolerate groups of extremists who demand infidels leave what they think
is "their country" and then go head and try to prostylitize and try to
convert people over. Now the U.S and UK have toget out of Bangladesh?
Like hell!
I have a question for Muslims out there. How many actually support
this policy?
If these 'insurgents' can't even get a grip in wholly Muslim
countries, and the 'insurgents' have to bomb Muslim countries to get
their point over, how much do you actually think they support it?
Or, perhaps you could name one Muslim country where this tactic has
actually worked?
Afghanistan pre-9/11.
Not a particularly good example - no-one was in overall control of
Afghanistan pre-Taliban - it was a civil war between the relatively
civilised Taliban and bloodthirsty warlords who were bleeding the
nation dry. The war was fought in a traditional manner on the ground,
not using minority terror tactics. They brought social and moral order
from chaos, and relative prosperity to the country, and so had popular
support, which is why we left them alone.
Relatively "civilized"? The Taliban? Attacking other religions,
destroying the religious icons of other religions, and murdering those who
are not "of the faith" is your idea of "civilized"? You're joking, right?
Moral order
relatively : to a relative degree or extent : SOMEWHAT

somewhat : in some degree or measure : SLIGHTLY [m-w.com]
Post by George
from chaos? Executing women in a soccer stadium for not conforming to
their twisted, bigoted ideology is "moral"? Gee, I'd hate to be related
to you, Maria. Relative prosperity? Do you think Bin Laden's blood money
is a legitimate way for a government establish an economy? Oh, and
speaking of governments, only three out of 197 countries even recognized
the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. If they had such
popular support, why was it so easy for the coalition governments to
enlist the populous to rise up against them? If they had such popular
support, why were there no elections. Why did 95% of the adult population
participate in elections after the Taliban were ousted? I think you are
deluded, Maria.
Maria
2005-08-18 13:12:14 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 12:53:31 GMT, " George"
Post by George
Post by Maria
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:49:10 GMT, " George"
Post by George
Post by Maria
Post by Maria
Post by r***@hotmail.com
Great. Muslims better get a grip on these factions. The world cannot
tolerate groups of extremists who demand infidels leave what they think
is "their country" and then go head and try to prostylitize and try to
convert people over. Now the U.S and UK have toget out of Bangladesh?
Like hell!
I have a question for Muslims out there. How many actually support
this policy?
If these 'insurgents' can't even get a grip in wholly Muslim
countries, and the 'insurgents' have to bomb Muslim countries to get
their point over, how much do you actually think they support it?
Or, perhaps you could name one Muslim country where this tactic has
actually worked?
Afghanistan pre-9/11.
Not a particularly good example - no-one was in overall control of
Afghanistan pre-Taliban - it was a civil war between the relatively
civilised Taliban and bloodthirsty warlords who were bleeding the
nation dry. The war was fought in a traditional manner on the ground,
not using minority terror tactics. They brought social and moral order
from chaos, and relative prosperity to the country, and so had popular
support, which is why we left them alone.
Relatively "civilized"? The Taliban?
Yes - a strong moral code and law, as opposed to hacking bits off
anyone who gets in your way.
Post by George
Attacking other religions,
Irrelevant to the point in question.
Post by George
destroying
the religious icons of other religions,
Long gone previous religions which are no longer pertinent in that
area.
Post by George
and murdering those who are not "of
the faith" is your idea of "civilized"? You're joking, right?
No. The previous incumbants murdered anybody, regardless of religion,
which is why I said it was relative. The Taliban were an improvement
on the previous lot, which was not difficult..
Post by George
Moral order
from chaos? Executing women in a soccer stadium for not conforming to
their twisted, bigoted ideology is "moral"? Gee, I'd hate to be related to
you, Maria.
There is no point taking it all so personally. Try a pragmatic view.
Centiuries of bloody chaos lasting centuries v. ordered peace.
Post by George
Relative prosperity?
Yes - the warlords practised extortion and the constant state of
tribal war didn't do much for business.
Post by George
Do you think Bin Laden's blood money is
a legitimate way for a government establish an economy?
'Bin Laden's blood money'? What's that then? Plus, apart from the
Taliban allegedely sheltering him, what does he have to with the price
of chips? He was living in Sudan at the time IIRC.
Post by George
Oh, and speaking
of governments, only three out of 197 countries even recognized the Taliban
as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.
And how many recognised the previous one? And previous to that it was
under the control of Russian backed communists. Ho hum. Have we
forgotten about evil communism now?
Post by George
If they had such popular
support, why was it so easy for the coalition governments to enlist the
populous to rise up against them?
Because the Taliban were in control for 10 years, and over that time,
people didn't like what was happening, although at the beginning of
that period it was a distinct improvement.
Post by George
If they had such popular support, why
were there no elections.
Because they tend not to have elections in Islamist fundamentalist
states. How many elections did they have before the Taliban?
Post by George
Why did 95% of the adult population participate
in elections after the Taliban were ousted? I think you are deluded,
The question was actually, how many states have been brought under
Islamist control by the actions of minority terrorist groups - your
answer was Afghanistan, my response was that it was not a good
example, whereby you seem to have gone off at a tangent.
Perhaps if we stuck to the point of the thread/question...?
George
2005-08-18 14:00:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maria
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 12:53:31 GMT, " George"
Post by George
Post by Maria
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:49:10 GMT, " George"
Post by George
Post by Maria
Post by Maria
Post by r***@hotmail.com
Great. Muslims better get a grip on these factions. The world cannot
tolerate groups of extremists who demand infidels leave what they think
is "their country" and then go head and try to prostylitize and try to
convert people over. Now the U.S and UK have toget out of Bangladesh?
Like hell!
I have a question for Muslims out there. How many actually support
this policy?
If these 'insurgents' can't even get a grip in wholly Muslim
countries, and the 'insurgents' have to bomb Muslim countries to get
their point over, how much do you actually think they support it?
Or, perhaps you could name one Muslim country where this tactic has
actually worked?
Afghanistan pre-9/11.
Not a particularly good example - no-one was in overall control of
Afghanistan pre-Taliban - it was a civil war between the relatively
civilised Taliban and bloodthirsty warlords who were bleeding the
nation dry. The war was fought in a traditional manner on the ground,
not using minority terror tactics. They brought social and moral order
from chaos, and relative prosperity to the country, and so had popular
support, which is why we left them alone.
Relatively "civilized"? The Taliban?
Yes - a strong moral code and law, as opposed to hacking bits off
anyone who gets in your way.
Hogwash. Here is the Taliban's "strong moral code and law":

http://www.rawa.org/h-kill.htm
Post by Maria
Post by George
Attacking other religions,
Irrelevant to the point in question.
That is an astonishingly ignorant statement, Maria.
Post by Maria
Post by George
destroying
the religious icons of other religions,
Long gone previous religions which are no longer pertinent in that
area.
Excuse me? Buddhism is "long gone"? The religion of the ancient Egyptians
are also "long gone". Are you telling me that you support destruction of
the pyramids because no one worships them any more? Oh, by the way,
Buddhism is, in fact, the second most commonly practiced religion in
Afghanistan (or was until most of the Buddhists were forced out by the
Taliban and other extremist groups).
Post by Maria
Post by George
and murdering those who are not "of
the faith" is your idea of "civilized"? You're joking, right?
No. The previous incumbants murdered anybody, regardless of religion,
which is why I said it was relative. The Taliban were an improvement
on the previous lot, which was not difficult..
I think you are a deluded apologist for radical Islam if you truly believe
that.
Post by Maria
Post by George
Moral order
from chaos? Executing women in a soccer stadium for not conforming to
their twisted, bigoted ideology is "moral"? Gee, I'd hate to be related to
you, Maria.
There is no point taking it all so personally. Try a pragmatic view.
I do take a pragmatic approach. I believe that the world would be better
off without radical Islam, and support its total destruction. And you?
Post by Maria
Centiuries of bloody chaos lasting centuries v. ordered peace.
Post by George
Relative prosperity?
Yes - the warlords practised extortion and the constant state of
tribal war didn't do much for business.
If you think that Afghanistan was such a "business friendly" environment,
I'd hate to see your idea of a hostile one.
Post by Maria
Post by George
Do you think Bin Laden's blood money is
a legitimate way for a government establish an economy?
'Bin Laden's blood money'? What's that then? Plus, apart from the
Taliban allegedely sheltering him, what does he have to with the price
of chips? He was living in Sudan at the time IIRC.
Bin Laden moved to Afganistan in 1994, dear. Afterwards, the Taliban did
little without his knowledge or tacit approval.
Post by Maria
Post by George
Oh, and speaking
of governments, only three out of 197 countries even recognized the Taliban
as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.
And how many recognised the previous one? And previous to that it was
under the control of Russian backed communists. Ho hum. Have we
forgotten about evil communism now?
Oh gee, Afganistan went from no governments (well, one, actually)
recognizing them to only three recognizing them. Communism is not the
issue here. Radical Islam is.
Post by Maria
Post by George
If they had such popular
support, why was it so easy for the coalition governments to enlist the
populous to rise up against them?
Because the Taliban were in control for 10 years, and over that time,
people didn't like what was happening, although at the beginning of
that period it was a distinct improvement.
So you finally admit that they were so moral and lawful afterall. That's a
good start, Maria.
Post by Maria
Post by George
If they had such popular support, why
were there no elections.
Because they tend not to have elections in Islamist fundamentalist
states. How many elections did they have before the Taliban?
Irrelevant. They have elections now, don't they?
Post by Maria
Post by George
Why did 95% of the adult population participate
in elections after the Taliban were ousted? I think you are deluded,
The question was actually, how many states have been brought under
Islamist control by the actions of minority terrorist groups - your
answer was Afghanistan, my response was that it was not a good
example, whereby you seem to have gone off at a tangent.
Perhaps if we stuck to the point of the thread/question...?
Actually, my answer was pertinent, as the Taliban (minority terrorists)
did, in fact, gain control of a nation and make an Islamic state. Had it
not been for Al-Qaeda's attack on the U.S., they likely would still be in
control. You can thank us later.
Roger
2005-08-18 06:18:23 UTC
Permalink
How many bombs were dropped in the "shock and awe" phase of the Iraq
invasion?
Post by Mr. Able Danger
More subhuman behavior.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/08/18/wbombs18.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/08/18/ixnewstop.html
Boy dies as terrorists unleash wave of 200 bombs across Bangladesh
By Peter Foster, South Asia Correspondent
(Filed: 18/08/2005)
Suspected Islamic extremists detonated more than 200 small bombs across
Bangladesh yesterday, killing two people and spreading fear and panic.
The attacks were blamed on an outlawed Islamic group, the
Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen, after several of their leaflets were found at the
bomb sites.
Since the scattering of Afghanistan's Taliban in 2001, western
diplomats have been increasingly concerned that Bangladesh is becoming
a safe haven for al-Qa'eda and its sympathisers.
The bombs, some no larger than fire crackers, exploded at hotels,
courts, government ministries and markets between 10.30 and 11.30 in
the morning. In the capital, Dhaka, devices exploded outside the
Sheraton Hotel, the diplomatic enclave and the international airport.
Local reports said that more than 100 people were taken to hospital for
treatment for minor injuries. A 10-year-old boy and a rickshaw driver
died.
The leaflets found at the scene of the blasts said they were a "third
call" to establish Islamic rule and threatened "counter-action" if
Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen's members were arrested or persecuted.
They also warned Britain and America against the occupation of Muslim
lands: "It is also to warn Bush and Blair to vacate Muslim countries,
or to face Muslim upsurge." Bangladesh, the world's third-most populous
Muslim country, has a long history of political violence but until
recently has rejected allegations from India and the West that it was
also fertile ground for Islamic terrorism.
Earlier this year, under pressure from the US, its secular government
banned Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen and the Jagrata Muslim Janata.
In May last year, the British High Commissioner in Bangladesh was
injured in a grenade explosion at a Muslim shrine in the north-eastern
town of Sylhet, where many British Bangladeshis have their origins.
The ruling Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and the main opposition
Awami League condemned the attacks.
George
2005-08-18 07:15:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger
How many bombs were dropped in the "shock and awe" phase of the Iraq
invasion?
The discussion was about Muslims setting off 200 bombs in Bangladesh? Do
try to stay on topic, and not get sidestracked with irrelevant tripe.
Post by Roger
Post by Mr. Able Danger
More subhuman behavior.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/08/18/wbombs18.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/08/18/ixnewstop.html
Boy dies as terrorists unleash wave of 200 bombs across Bangladesh
By Peter Foster, South Asia Correspondent
(Filed: 18/08/2005)
Suspected Islamic extremists detonated more than 200 small bombs across
Bangladesh yesterday, killing two people and spreading fear and panic.
The attacks were blamed on an outlawed Islamic group, the
Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen, after several of their leaflets were found at the
bomb sites.
Since the scattering of Afghanistan's Taliban in 2001, western
diplomats have been increasingly concerned that Bangladesh is becoming
a safe haven for al-Qa'eda and its sympathisers.
The bombs, some no larger than fire crackers, exploded at hotels,
courts, government ministries and markets between 10.30 and 11.30 in
the morning. In the capital, Dhaka, devices exploded outside the
Sheraton Hotel, the diplomatic enclave and the international airport.
Local reports said that more than 100 people were taken to hospital for
treatment for minor injuries. A 10-year-old boy and a rickshaw driver
died.
The leaflets found at the scene of the blasts said they were a "third
call" to establish Islamic rule and threatened "counter-action" if
Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen's members were arrested or persecuted.
They also warned Britain and America against the occupation of Muslim
lands: "It is also to warn Bush and Blair to vacate Muslim countries,
or to face Muslim upsurge." Bangladesh, the world's third-most populous
Muslim country, has a long history of political violence but until
recently has rejected allegations from India and the West that it was
also fertile ground for Islamic terrorism.
Earlier this year, under pressure from the US, its secular government
banned Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen and the Jagrata Muslim Janata.
In May last year, the British High Commissioner in Bangladesh was
injured in a grenade explosion at a Muslim shrine in the north-eastern
town of Sylhet, where many British Bangladeshis have their origins.
The ruling Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and the main opposition
Awami League condemned the attacks.
Roger
2005-08-18 11:35:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by George
Post by Roger
How many bombs were dropped in the "shock and awe" phase of the Iraq
invasion?
The discussion was about Muslims setting off 200 bombs in Bangladesh? Do
try to stay on topic, and not get sidestracked with irrelevant tripe.
Tripe?

You don't think the deliberate MURDER of tens of thousands of mostly MUSLIMS
has anything to do with TERRORISM committed by some MUSLIMS?

Do you drink alchohol and are then surprised when you get drunk?
Post by George
Post by Roger
Post by Mr. Able Danger
More subhuman behavior.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/08/18/wbombs18.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/08/18/ixnewstop.html
Boy dies as terrorists unleash wave of 200 bombs across Bangladesh
By Peter Foster, South Asia Correspondent
(Filed: 18/08/2005)
Suspected Islamic extremists detonated more than 200 small bombs across
Bangladesh yesterday, killing two people and spreading fear and panic.
The attacks were blamed on an outlawed Islamic group, the
Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen, after several of their leaflets were found at the
bomb sites.
Since the scattering of Afghanistan's Taliban in 2001, western
diplomats have been increasingly concerned that Bangladesh is becoming
a safe haven for al-Qa'eda and its sympathisers.
The bombs, some no larger than fire crackers, exploded at hotels,
courts, government ministries and markets between 10.30 and 11.30 in
the morning. In the capital, Dhaka, devices exploded outside the
Sheraton Hotel, the diplomatic enclave and the international airport.
Local reports said that more than 100 people were taken to hospital for
treatment for minor injuries. A 10-year-old boy and a rickshaw driver
died.
The leaflets found at the scene of the blasts said they were a "third
call" to establish Islamic rule and threatened "counter-action" if
Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen's members were arrested or persecuted.
They also warned Britain and America against the occupation of Muslim
lands: "It is also to warn Bush and Blair to vacate Muslim countries,
or to face Muslim upsurge." Bangladesh, the world's third-most populous
Muslim country, has a long history of political violence but until
recently has rejected allegations from India and the West that it was
also fertile ground for Islamic terrorism.
Earlier this year, under pressure from the US, its secular government
banned Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen and the Jagrata Muslim Janata.
In May last year, the British High Commissioner in Bangladesh was
injured in a grenade explosion at a Muslim shrine in the north-eastern
town of Sylhet, where many British Bangladeshis have their origins.
The ruling Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and the main opposition
Awami League condemned the attacks.
George
2005-08-18 12:55:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger
Post by George
Post by Roger
How many bombs were dropped in the "shock and awe" phase of the Iraq
invasion?
The discussion was about Muslims setting off 200 bombs in Bangladesh?
Do try to stay on topic, and not get sidestracked with irrelevant tripe.
Tripe?
You don't think the deliberate MURDER of tens of thousands of mostly
MUSLIMS has anything to do with TERRORISM committed by some MUSLIMS?
Do you drink alchohol and are then surprised when you get drunk?
Non-sequitur. I think the issues you raise are irrelevant to the fact of
200 bombs going off in Bangladesh (the topic of this thread). Do try to
stay on topic. Oh, and your non-existent concern for the victims has been
noted.
Roger
2005-08-18 13:06:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by George
Post by Roger
Post by Roger
How many bombs were dropped in the "shock and awe" phase of the Iraq
invasion?
The discussion was about Muslims setting off 200 bombs in Bangladesh? Do
try to stay on topic, and not get sidestracked with irrelevant tripe.
Tripe?
You don't think the deliberate MURDER of tens of thousands of mostly
MUSLIMS has anything to do with TERRORISM committed by some MUSLIMS?
Do you drink alchohol and are then surprised when you get drunk?
Non-sequitur.
Analogy.

Are you completely devoid of logic and the use of language?
Post by George
I think the issues you raise are irrelevant to the fact of 200 bombs going
off in Bangladesh (the topic of this thread).
The dead people would probably differ.
Post by George
Do try to stay on topic.
I am. You are unable to contain the whole topic in your brain, it seems.
Post by George
Oh, and your non-existent concern for the victims has been noted.
Look at my postings for the last couple years and see how many times I've
complained about Bush murdering "tens of thousands of innocents".

In politics, it's my MAIN concern. I do not like it when someone
representing my country is a mass murderer.
George
2005-08-18 14:08:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger
Post by George
Post by Roger
Post by George
Post by Roger
How many bombs were dropped in the "shock and awe" phase of the Iraq
invasion?
The discussion was about Muslims setting off 200 bombs in Bangladesh?
Do try to stay on topic, and not get sidestracked with irrelevant tripe.
Tripe?
You don't think the deliberate MURDER of tens of thousands of mostly
MUSLIMS has anything to do with TERRORISM committed by some MUSLIMS?
Do you drink alchohol and are then surprised when you get drunk?
Non-sequitur.
Analogy.
Are you completely devoid of logic and the use of language?
Post by George
I think the issues you raise are irrelevant to the fact of 200 bombs
going off in Bangladesh (the topic of this thread).
The dead people would probably differ.
Post by George
Do try to stay on topic.
I am. You are unable to contain the whole topic in your brain, it seems.
Post by George
Oh, and your non-existent concern for the victims has been noted.
Look at my postings for the last couple years and see how many times I've
complained about Bush murdering "tens of thousands of innocents".
In other words, you are an apologist for radical Islamic terrorists. Your
mother would be proud. Clue: The victims to whom I refer are those who
were killed/maimed in the attacks in Bangladesh (the topic of this thread),
you poor misguided slut.
Post by Roger
In politics, it's my MAIN concern. I do not like it when someone
representing my country is a mass murderer.
Thank God Osama Bin Laden (your apparent hero) doesn't represent this
country.
Roger
2005-08-19 03:49:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by George
Post by Roger
Post by George
Post by Roger
Post by George
Post by Roger
How many bombs were dropped in the "shock and awe" phase of the Iraq
invasion?
The discussion was about Muslims setting off 200 bombs in Bangladesh?
Do try to stay on topic, and not get sidestracked with irrelevant tripe.
Tripe?
You don't think the deliberate MURDER of tens of thousands of mostly
MUSLIMS has anything to do with TERRORISM committed by some MUSLIMS?
Do you drink alchohol and are then surprised when you get drunk?
Non-sequitur.
Analogy.
Are you completely devoid of logic and the use of language?
Post by George
I think the issues you raise are irrelevant to the fact of 200 bombs
going off in Bangladesh (the topic of this thread).
The dead people would probably differ.
Post by George
Do try to stay on topic.
I am. You are unable to contain the whole topic in your brain, it seems.
Post by George
Oh, and your non-existent concern for the victims has been noted.
Look at my postings for the last couple years and see how many times I've
complained about Bush murdering "tens of thousands of innocents".
In other words, you are an apologist for radical Islamic terrorists. Your
I repeat again, for the 10,000 time:

There were NO TERRORISTS IN IRAQ BEFORE THE INVASION.

The people killed for the most part are INNOCENT IRAQIS.
Post by George
mother would be proud. Clue: The victims to whom I refer are those who
were killed/maimed in the attacks in Bangladesh (the topic of this
thread), you poor misguided slut.
Not what I was talking about. I'm not going to try to defend what you're
talking about.
Post by George
Post by Roger
In politics, it's my MAIN concern. I do not like it when someone
representing my country is a mass murderer.
Thank God Osama Bin Laden (your apparent hero) doesn't represent this
country.
You logic "skills" need work. Lots.
Mr.G
2005-08-19 04:29:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger
Post by George
Post by Roger
Post by George
Post by Roger
Post by George
Post by Roger
How many bombs were dropped in the "shock and awe" phase of the Iraq
invasion?
The discussion was about Muslims setting off 200 bombs in Bangladesh?
Do try to stay on topic, and not get sidestracked with irrelevant tripe.
Tripe?
You don't think the deliberate MURDER of tens of thousands of mostly
MUSLIMS has anything to do with TERRORISM committed by some MUSLIMS?
Do you drink alchohol and are then surprised when you get drunk?
Non-sequitur.
Analogy.
Are you completely devoid of logic and the use of language?
Post by George
I think the issues you raise are irrelevant to the fact of 200 bombs
going off in Bangladesh (the topic of this thread).
The dead people would probably differ.
Post by George
Do try to stay on topic.
I am. You are unable to contain the whole topic in your brain, it seems.
Post by George
Oh, and your non-existent concern for the victims has been noted.
Look at my postings for the last couple years and see how many times
I've complained about Bush murdering "tens of thousands of innocents".
In other words, you are an apologist for radical Islamic terrorists.
Your
There were NO TERRORISTS IN IRAQ BEFORE THE INVASION.
The people killed for the most part are INNOCENT IRAQIS.
There was a group or two in the North called Ansar Al Islam


"The positions of Ansar Al-Islam group (Supporters of Islam)
and Al-Jamah al-Islamia (Islamic Group) in Khormal, northern
Iraq , were completely destroyed and bodies blasted to pieces,
the all-news Arabic network's corresponded reported."
http://www.islamonline.net/english/News/2003-03/22/article04.shtml

If your not sure if that was a group of terrorists.
"Ansar al-Islam is often touted as the Kurdish constituency of al-Qaeda."
http://www.jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2368051


It seems there was one, Sabri al-Banna (a.k.a Abu Nidal).
They are not normally individual actors, more group actors.

"Abu Nidal died of between one and four gunshot wounds
in Baghdad in August 2002, believed by Palestinian
sources to have been killed on the orders of Saddam
Hussein, but said by the Iraqi government to have
committed suicide. [2] When he died, The Guardian
wrote: "He was the patriot turned psychopath. He
served only ... the warped personal drives that
pushed him into hideous crime. He was the ultimate
mercenary." "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Nidal
http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/ano.htm


In case you want to be ahead of the game when someone
has to kick the crap out of the Bangladeshi terrorist also.

Map of Jihadi terrorist training camps in Chittagong hills district
http://www.muktadhara.net/page120.html


Mr.G
Roger
2005-08-19 09:06:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr.G
Post by Roger
Post by George
Post by Roger
Post by George
Post by Roger
Post by George
Post by Roger
How many bombs were dropped in the "shock and awe" phase of the
Iraq invasion?
The discussion was about Muslims setting off 200 bombs in
Bangladesh? Do try to stay on topic, and not get sidestracked with
irrelevant tripe.
Tripe?
You don't think the deliberate MURDER of tens of thousands of mostly
MUSLIMS has anything to do with TERRORISM committed by some MUSLIMS?
Do you drink alchohol and are then surprised when you get drunk?
Non-sequitur.
Analogy.
Are you completely devoid of logic and the use of language?
Post by George
I think the issues you raise are irrelevant to the fact of 200 bombs
going off in Bangladesh (the topic of this thread).
The dead people would probably differ.
Post by George
Do try to stay on topic.
I am. You are unable to contain the whole topic in your brain, it seems.
Post by George
Oh, and your non-existent concern for the victims has been noted.
Look at my postings for the last couple years and see how many times
I've complained about Bush murdering "tens of thousands of innocents".
In other words, you are an apologist for radical Islamic terrorists.
Your
There were NO TERRORISTS IN IRAQ BEFORE THE INVASION.
The people killed for the most part are INNOCENT IRAQIS.
The below has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with what what's being discussed.
Post by Mr.G
There was a group or two in the North called Ansar Al Islam
"The positions of Ansar Al-Islam group (Supporters of Islam)
and Al-Jamah al-Islamia (Islamic Group) in Khormal, northern
Iraq , were completely destroyed and bodies blasted to pieces,
the all-news Arabic network's corresponded reported."
http://www.islamonline.net/english/News/2003-03/22/article04.shtml
If your not sure if that was a group of terrorists.
"Ansar al-Islam is often touted as the Kurdish constituency of al-Qaeda."
http://www.jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2368051
It seems there was one, Sabri al-Banna (a.k.a Abu Nidal).
They are not normally individual actors, more group actors.
"Abu Nidal died of between one and four gunshot wounds
in Baghdad in August 2002, believed by Palestinian
sources to have been killed on the orders of Saddam
Hussein, but said by the Iraqi government to have
committed suicide. [2] When he died, The Guardian
wrote: "He was the patriot turned psychopath. He
served only ... the warped personal drives that
pushed him into hideous crime. He was the ultimate
mercenary." "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Nidal
http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/ano.htm
In case you want to be ahead of the game when someone
has to kick the crap out of the Bangladeshi terrorist also.
Map of Jihadi terrorist training camps in Chittagong hills district
http://www.muktadhara.net/page120.html
Mr.G
George
2005-08-19 10:41:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger
Post by Roger
Post by George
Post by Roger
Post by George
Post by Roger
Post by George
Post by Roger
How many bombs were dropped in the "shock and awe" phase of the
Iraq invasion?
The discussion was about Muslims setting off 200 bombs in
Bangladesh? Do try to stay on topic, and not get sidestracked with
irrelevant tripe.
Tripe?
You don't think the deliberate MURDER of tens of thousands of
mostly MUSLIMS has anything to do with TERRORISM committed by some
MUSLIMS?
Do you drink alchohol and are then surprised when you get drunk?
Non-sequitur.
Analogy.
Are you completely devoid of logic and the use of language?
Post by George
I think the issues you raise are irrelevant to the fact of 200 bombs
going off in Bangladesh (the topic of this thread).
The dead people would probably differ.
Post by George
Do try to stay on topic.
I am. You are unable to contain the whole topic in your brain, it seems.
Post by George
Oh, and your non-existent concern for the victims has been noted.
Look at my postings for the last couple years and see how many times
I've complained about Bush murdering "tens of thousands of
innocents".
In other words, you are an apologist for radical Islamic terrorists.
Your
There were NO TERRORISTS IN IRAQ BEFORE THE INVASION.
The people killed for the most part are INNOCENT IRAQIS.
The below has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with what what's being discussed.
Neither does "There were NO TERRORISTS IN IRAQ BEFORE THE INVASION" have
anything to do with "
Muslims set off 200 bombs in Bangladesh - In one day! Islam really is the
religion of peace". Your tin foil beanie is slipping off again Roger! Try
this site. It might help you with that problem:



http://zapatopi.net/afdb/
George
2005-08-19 06:34:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger
Post by George
Post by Roger
Post by George
Post by Roger
Post by George
Post by Roger
How many bombs were dropped in the "shock and awe" phase of the
Iraq invasion?
The discussion was about Muslims setting off 200 bombs in
Bangladesh? Do try to stay on topic, and not get sidestracked with
irrelevant tripe.
Tripe?
You don't think the deliberate MURDER of tens of thousands of mostly
MUSLIMS has anything to do with TERRORISM committed by some MUSLIMS?
Do you drink alchohol and are then surprised when you get drunk?
Non-sequitur.
Analogy.
Are you completely devoid of logic and the use of language?
Post by George
I think the issues you raise are irrelevant to the fact of 200 bombs
going off in Bangladesh (the topic of this thread).
The dead people would probably differ.
Post by George
Do try to stay on topic.
I am. You are unable to contain the whole topic in your brain, it seems.
Post by George
Oh, and your non-existent concern for the victims has been noted.
Look at my postings for the last couple years and see how many times
I've complained about Bush murdering "tens of thousands of innocents".
In other words, you are an apologist for radical Islamic terrorists.
Your
There were NO TERRORISTS IN IRAQ BEFORE THE INVASION.
Bhwhahahahaha!!!

"Insanity - repeating the same thing over and over again and expecting a
different result"
- Albert Einstein
Post by Roger
The people killed for the most part are INNOCENT IRAQIS.
I agree that before the invasion that "The people killed for the most part
{we/a}re INNOCENT IRAQIS". There is no question that this is true.
Post by Roger
Post by George
mother would be proud. Clue: The victims to whom I refer are those who
were killed/maimed in the attacks in Bangladesh (the topic of this
thread), you poor misguided slut.
Not what I was talking about.
That is obvious to everyone readin this thread. You revel in the sidestep.
Can you also do the waltz, or the twist?
Post by Roger
I'm not going to try to defend what you're talking about.
Why not? You defend every other aspect of radical Islam? Why stop now?
Roger
2005-08-19 09:09:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by George
Post by Roger
Post by George
Post by Roger
Post by George
Post by Roger
Post by George
Post by Roger
How many bombs were dropped in the "shock and awe" phase of the
Iraq invasion?
The discussion was about Muslims setting off 200 bombs in
Bangladesh? Do try to stay on topic, and not get sidestracked with
irrelevant tripe.
Tripe?
You don't think the deliberate MURDER of tens of thousands of mostly
MUSLIMS has anything to do with TERRORISM committed by some MUSLIMS?
Do you drink alchohol and are then surprised when you get drunk?
Non-sequitur.
Analogy.
Are you completely devoid of logic and the use of language?
Post by George
I think the issues you raise are irrelevant to the fact of 200 bombs
going off in Bangladesh (the topic of this thread).
The dead people would probably differ.
Post by George
Do try to stay on topic.
I am. You are unable to contain the whole topic in your brain, it seems.
Post by George
Oh, and your non-existent concern for the victims has been noted.
Look at my postings for the last couple years and see how many times
I've complained about Bush murdering "tens of thousands of innocents".
In other words, you are an apologist for radical Islamic terrorists.
Your
There were NO TERRORISTS IN IRAQ BEFORE THE INVASION.
Bhwhahahahaha!!!
If there were, identify them:
----------------------------------------------------------------
Post by George
"Insanity - repeating the same thing over and over again and expecting a
different result"
- Albert Einstein
There must be more to this, because Einstein damn well knew that when PEOPLE
are involved, you NEVER get the same result.
Post by George
Post by Roger
The people killed for the most part are INNOCENT IRAQIS.
I agree that before the invasion that "The people killed for the most part
{we/a}re INNOCENT IRAQIS". There is no question that this is true.
So the missiles and bombs dropped by the coalition of Bush and Co. only fell
on GUILTY Iraqis.

You're a fucking moron.

You're a waste.

You are either playing dumb or a sickening example of the real thing.
Post by George
Post by Roger
Post by George
mother would be proud. Clue: The victims to whom I refer are those who
were killed/maimed in the attacks in Bangladesh (the topic of this
thread), you poor misguided slut.
Not what I was talking about.
That is obvious to everyone readin this thread. You revel in the
sidestep. Can you also do the waltz, or the twist?
Post by Roger
I'm not going to try to defend what you're talking about.
Why not? You defend every other aspect of radical Islam? Why stop now?
George
2005-08-19 10:47:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger
Post by George
Post by Roger
There were NO TERRORISTS IN IRAQ BEFORE THE INVASION.
Bhwhahahahaha!!!
----------------------------------------------------------------
Already been done many times, even in this thread that you've managed to
subvert. You missed the boat again, Rodge. Try doing a google groups
search for "terrorists in Iraq". If you are too lazy to do that, then try
doing a normal google search. If you are too lazy to do that, then shut
the fuck up.
Post by Roger
Post by George
"Insanity - repeating the same thing over and over again and expecting a
different result"
- Albert Einstein
There must be more to this, because Einstein damn well knew that when
PEOPLE are involved, you NEVER get the same result.
You must have been asleep in class when someone said "history repeats
itself".
Post by Roger
Post by George
Post by Roger
The people killed for the most part are INNOCENT IRAQIS.
I agree that before the invasion that "The people killed for the most
part {we/a}re INNOCENT IRAQIS". There is no question that this is true.
So the missiles and bombs dropped by the coalition of Bush and Co. only
fell on GUILTY Iraqis.
You're a fucking moron.
You're a waste.
You are either playing dumb or a sickening example of the real thing.
That's not what I said, Woger Wabbit. Try taking a comprehension class and
then read what I wrote again.
Post by Roger
Post by George
Post by Roger
Post by George
mother would be proud. Clue: The victims to whom I refer are those
who were killed/maimed in the attacks in Bangladesh (the topic of this
thread), you poor misguided slut.
Not what I was talking about.
That is obvious to everyone readin this thread. You revel in the
sidestep. Can you also do the waltz, or the twist?
Post by Roger
I'm not going to try to defend what you're talking about.
Why not? You defend every other aspect of radical Islam? Why stop now?
Speechless?
FACE
2005-08-18 17:28:42 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 11:35:27 GMT, in uk.current-events.terrorism "Roger"
Post by Roger
Post by George
Post by Roger
How many bombs were dropped in the "shock and awe" phase of the Iraq
invasion?
The discussion was about Muslims setting off 200 bombs in Bangladesh? Do
try to stay on topic, and not get sidestracked with irrelevant tripe.
Tripe?
You don't think the deliberate MURDER of tens of thousands of mostly MUSLIMS
has anything to do with TERRORISM committed by some MUSLIMS?
Oh give it a break you leftist creep.

Maybe two dozen bombs were dropped in the 15-30 minutes of Shock and Awe.
I doubt that anyone was killed, they were airbursts of conventional weapons.

I guess your "tens of thousands" bullshit is talking points from your
favorite socialist web site.

Besides being irrelevant to the topic of bombs in Bangladesh you have shown
your true colors and your unholy alliance with this one.

Death to Islamic Jihad,

FACE
Post by Roger
Do you drink alchohol and are then surprised when you get drunk?
Post by George
Post by Roger
Post by Mr. Able Danger
More subhuman behavior.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/08/18/wbombs18.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/08/18/ixnewstop.html
Boy dies as terrorists unleash wave of 200 bombs across Bangladesh
By Peter Foster, South Asia Correspondent
(Filed: 18/08/2005)
Suspected Islamic extremists detonated more than 200 small bombs across
Bangladesh yesterday, killing two people and spreading fear and panic.
The attacks were blamed on an outlawed Islamic group, the
Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen, after several of their leaflets were found at the
bomb sites.
Since the scattering of Afghanistan's Taliban in 2001, western
diplomats have been increasingly concerned that Bangladesh is becoming
a safe haven for al-Qa'eda and its sympathisers.
The bombs, some no larger than fire crackers, exploded at hotels,
courts, government ministries and markets between 10.30 and 11.30 in
the morning. In the capital, Dhaka, devices exploded outside the
Sheraton Hotel, the diplomatic enclave and the international airport.
Local reports said that more than 100 people were taken to hospital for
treatment for minor injuries. A 10-year-old boy and a rickshaw driver
died.
The leaflets found at the scene of the blasts said they were a "third
call" to establish Islamic rule and threatened "counter-action" if
Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen's members were arrested or persecuted.
They also warned Britain and America against the occupation of Muslim
lands: "It is also to warn Bush and Blair to vacate Muslim countries,
or to face Muslim upsurge." Bangladesh, the world's third-most populous
Muslim country, has a long history of political violence but until
recently has rejected allegations from India and the West that it was
also fertile ground for Islamic terrorism.
Earlier this year, under pressure from the US, its secular government
banned Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen and the Jagrata Muslim Janata.
In May last year, the British High Commissioner in Bangladesh was
injured in a grenade explosion at a Muslim shrine in the north-eastern
town of Sylhet, where many British Bangladeshis have their origins.
The ruling Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and the main opposition
Awami League condemned the attacks.
The Happy Hippy
2005-08-18 18:00:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by FACE
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 11:35:27 GMT, in uk.current-events.terrorism "Roger"
Post by Roger
Post by George
Post by Roger
How many bombs were dropped in the "shock and awe" phase of the Iraq
invasion?
The discussion was about Muslims setting off 200 bombs in Bangladesh?
Do
Post by FACE
Post by Roger
Post by George
try to stay on topic, and not get sidestracked with irrelevant tripe.
Tripe?
You don't think the deliberate MURDER of tens of thousands of mostly MUSLIMS
has anything to do with TERRORISM committed by some MUSLIMS?
Oh give it a break you leftist creep.
Maybe two dozen bombs were dropped in the 15-30 minutes of Shock and Awe.
I doubt that anyone was killed, they were airbursts of conventional weapons.
I guess your "tens of thousands" bullshit is talking points from your
favorite socialist web site.
Well, your own bullshit doesn't seem to be much better; "Maybe two dozen
bombs dropped" - Where do you get that crap from ? Oh, I remember, you hear
things in your head, and when you don't you just make the figures up.

Even Rumsfeld said, "there were a lot of bombs dropped" during 'Shock and
Awe', and in his 1st April 2003 briefing, just 12 days into the war, Gen
Myers said, "Our forces have fired more than 700 cruise missiles and dropped
more than 9,000 precision-guided munitions since Operation Iraqi Freedom
began".

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/t03252003_t0325.html
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/t04012003_t0401sd.html

You "doubt that anyone was killed, they were airbursts of conventional
weapons" ? Are you are living in some delusional fantasy world - well, we
know the answer to that - but didn't you watch the televised live footage of
buildings being destroyed and going up in smoke ? You don't think anyone
might have died during that ? You think it was some very expensive 4th of
July fireworks party ?

These bombs were meant to kill, and surely they did, although Bush's belief
that Saddam and sons had died in the opening onslaught was proven to be
incorrect ( as has much else in the passage of time ).

http://www.marines.mil/marinelink/mcn2000.nsf/0/49222b49f994422f85256feb004a
a9f6?OpenDocument
Roger
2005-08-19 03:51:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by FACE
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 11:35:27 GMT, in uk.current-events.terrorism "Roger"
Post by Roger
Post by George
Post by Roger
How many bombs were dropped in the "shock and awe" phase of the Iraq
invasion?
The discussion was about Muslims setting off 200 bombs in Bangladesh?
Do
try to stay on topic, and not get sidestracked with irrelevant tripe.
Tripe?
You don't think the deliberate MURDER of tens of thousands of mostly MUSLIMS
has anything to do with TERRORISM committed by some MUSLIMS?
Oh give it a break you leftist creep.
Maybe two dozen bombs were dropped in the 15-30 minutes of Shock and Awe.
I doubt that anyone was killed, they were airbursts of conventional weapons.
Was that the result of compassion on Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld's part or
complete incompetence?
Post by FACE
I guess your "tens of thousands" bullshit is talking points from your
favorite socialist web site.
No, just about every news agency that's discussed how many Iraqis have been
killed.

Much much lower than many estimates.
Post by FACE
Besides being irrelevant to the topic of bombs in Bangladesh you have shown
your true colors and your unholy alliance with this one.
I'm against killing innocent people. I love those colors.
Post by FACE
Death to Islamic Jihad,
Do you know what Jihad means?
Post by FACE
FACE
Post by Roger
Do you drink alchohol and are then surprised when you get drunk?
Post by George
Post by Roger
Post by Mr. Able Danger
More subhuman behavior.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/08/18/wbombs18.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/08/18/ixnewstop.html
Boy dies as terrorists unleash wave of 200 bombs across Bangladesh
By Peter Foster, South Asia Correspondent
(Filed: 18/08/2005)
Suspected Islamic extremists detonated more than 200 small bombs across
Bangladesh yesterday, killing two people and spreading fear and panic.
The attacks were blamed on an outlawed Islamic group, the
Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen, after several of their leaflets were found at the
bomb sites.
Since the scattering of Afghanistan's Taliban in 2001, western
diplomats have been increasingly concerned that Bangladesh is becoming
a safe haven for al-Qa'eda and its sympathisers.
The bombs, some no larger than fire crackers, exploded at hotels,
courts, government ministries and markets between 10.30 and 11.30 in
the morning. In the capital, Dhaka, devices exploded outside the
Sheraton Hotel, the diplomatic enclave and the international airport.
Local reports said that more than 100 people were taken to hospital for
treatment for minor injuries. A 10-year-old boy and a rickshaw driver
died.
The leaflets found at the scene of the blasts said they were a "third
call" to establish Islamic rule and threatened "counter-action" if
Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen's members were arrested or persecuted.
They also warned Britain and America against the occupation of Muslim
lands: "It is also to warn Bush and Blair to vacate Muslim countries,
or to face Muslim upsurge." Bangladesh, the world's third-most populous
Muslim country, has a long history of political violence but until
recently has rejected allegations from India and the West that it was
also fertile ground for Islamic terrorism.
Earlier this year, under pressure from the US, its secular government
banned Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen and the Jagrata Muslim Janata.
In May last year, the British High Commissioner in Bangladesh was
injured in a grenade explosion at a Muslim shrine in the north-eastern
town of Sylhet, where many British Bangladeshis have their origins.
The ruling Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and the main opposition
Awami League condemned the attacks.
George
2005-08-19 06:38:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger
Post by FACE
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 11:35:27 GMT, in uk.current-events.terrorism "Roger"
Post by Roger
Post by George
Post by Roger
How many bombs were dropped in the "shock and awe" phase of the Iraq
invasion?
The discussion was about Muslims setting off 200 bombs in Bangladesh?
Do
try to stay on topic, and not get sidestracked with irrelevant tripe.
Tripe?
You don't think the deliberate MURDER of tens of thousands of mostly MUSLIMS
has anything to do with TERRORISM committed by some MUSLIMS?
Oh give it a break you leftist creep.
Maybe two dozen bombs were dropped in the 15-30 minutes of Shock and Awe.
I doubt that anyone was killed, they were airbursts of conventional weapons.
Was that the result of compassion on Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld's part
or complete incompetence?
Post by FACE
I guess your "tens of thousands" bullshit is talking points from your
favorite socialist web site.
No, just about every news agency that's discussed how many Iraqis have
been killed.
Much much lower than many estimates.
Estimates are like assholes: Everybody's got one. Congratulations, you
apparently have many.
Roger
2005-08-19 09:10:00 UTC
Permalink
Go play with someone who's more interested in jerking you off than having a
decent discussion.
Post by George
Post by Roger
Post by FACE
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 11:35:27 GMT, in uk.current-events.terrorism "Roger"
Post by Roger
Post by George
Post by Roger
How many bombs were dropped in the "shock and awe" phase of the Iraq
invasion?
The discussion was about Muslims setting off 200 bombs in Bangladesh?
Do
try to stay on topic, and not get sidestracked with irrelevant tripe.
Tripe?
You don't think the deliberate MURDER of tens of thousands of mostly MUSLIMS
has anything to do with TERRORISM committed by some MUSLIMS?
Oh give it a break you leftist creep.
Maybe two dozen bombs were dropped in the 15-30 minutes of Shock and Awe.
I doubt that anyone was killed, they were airbursts of conventional weapons.
Was that the result of compassion on Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld's part
or complete incompetence?
Post by FACE
I guess your "tens of thousands" bullshit is talking points from your
favorite socialist web site.
No, just about every news agency that's discussed how many Iraqis have
been killed.
Much much lower than many estimates.
Estimates are like assholes: Everybody's got one. Congratulations, you
apparently have many.
George
2005-08-19 10:50:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger
Go play with someone who's more interested in jerking you off than having
a decent discussion.
My humour too dry for you? To direct? Apparently you are gay as well,
because you are admitting to jerking people off, even though you apparently
(and thankfully) don't have a desire to jerk me off. Perhaps Hippycrit is
more to your liking, you top-posting whiner.
Post by Roger
Post by George
Post by Roger
Post by FACE
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 11:35:27 GMT, in uk.current-events.terrorism "Roger"
Post by Roger
Post by George
Post by Roger
How many bombs were dropped in the "shock and awe" phase of the Iraq
invasion?
The discussion was about Muslims setting off 200 bombs in
Bangladesh? Do
try to stay on topic, and not get sidestracked with irrelevant tripe.
Tripe?
You don't think the deliberate MURDER of tens of thousands of mostly MUSLIMS
has anything to do with TERRORISM committed by some MUSLIMS?
Oh give it a break you leftist creep.
Maybe two dozen bombs were dropped in the 15-30 minutes of Shock and Awe.
I doubt that anyone was killed, they were airbursts of conventional weapons.
Was that the result of compassion on Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld's
part or complete incompetence?
Post by FACE
I guess your "tens of thousands" bullshit is talking points from your
favorite socialist web site.
No, just about every news agency that's discussed how many Iraqis have
been killed.
Much much lower than many estimates.
Estimates are like assholes: Everybody's got one. Congratulations, you
apparently have many.
Roger
2005-08-19 12:11:47 UTC
Permalink
Grow up.
Post by George
Post by Roger
Go play with someone who's more interested in jerking you off than having
a decent discussion.
My humour too dry for you? To direct? Apparently you are gay as well,
because you are admitting to jerking people off, even though you
apparently (and thankfully) don't have a desire to jerk me off. Perhaps
Hippycrit is more to your liking, you top-posting whiner.
Post by Roger
Post by George
Post by Roger
Post by FACE
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 11:35:27 GMT, in uk.current-events.terrorism "Roger"
Post by Roger
Post by George
Post by Roger
How many bombs were dropped in the "shock and awe" phase of the Iraq
invasion?
The discussion was about Muslims setting off 200 bombs in
Bangladesh? Do
try to stay on topic, and not get sidestracked with irrelevant tripe.
Tripe?
You don't think the deliberate MURDER of tens of thousands of mostly MUSLIMS
has anything to do with TERRORISM committed by some MUSLIMS?
Oh give it a break you leftist creep.
Maybe two dozen bombs were dropped in the 15-30 minutes of Shock and Awe.
I doubt that anyone was killed, they were airbursts of conventional weapons.
Was that the result of compassion on Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld's
part or complete incompetence?
Post by FACE
I guess your "tens of thousands" bullshit is talking points from your
favorite socialist web site.
No, just about every news agency that's discussed how many Iraqis have
been killed.
Much much lower than many estimates.
Estimates are like assholes: Everybody's got one. Congratulations, you
apparently have many.
George
2005-08-19 12:30:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger
Grow up.
Coming from a jerk off such as yourself, I just have to laugh.
FACE
2005-08-19 12:03:59 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 03:51:15 GMT, in uk.current-events.terrorism "Roger"
Post by Roger
Post by FACE
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 11:35:27 GMT, in uk.current-events.terrorism "Roger"
Post by Roger
Post by George
Post by Roger
How many bombs were dropped in the "shock and awe" phase of the Iraq
invasion?
The discussion was about Muslims setting off 200 bombs in Bangladesh?
Do
try to stay on topic, and not get sidestracked with irrelevant tripe.
Tripe?
You don't think the deliberate MURDER of tens of thousands of mostly MUSLIMS
has anything to do with TERRORISM committed by some MUSLIMS?
Oh give it a break you leftist creep.
Maybe two dozen bombs were dropped in the 15-30 minutes of Shock and Awe.
I doubt that anyone was killed, they were airbursts of conventional weapons.
Was that the result of compassion on Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld's part or
complete incompetence?
It was a planned event that was supposed to do just that.
Post by Roger
Post by FACE
I guess your "tens of thousands" bullshit is talking points from your
favorite socialist web site.
No, just about every news agency that's discussed how many Iraqis have been
killed.
You were talking about "Shock and Awe" which was a specific operation, not
the entire war. And no doubt you are babbling about the completely
discredited Lancet report. There are not "many" such reports unless maybe
if you delve into the unholy alliance of radical islam and the anti-
American and socialist web sites.
Post by Roger
Much much lower than many estimates.
See above.
Post by Roger
Post by FACE
Besides being irrelevant to the topic of bombs in Bangladesh you have shown
your true colors and your unholy alliance with this one.
I'm against killing innocent people. I love those colors.
You are just one more apologist for islam, the bloodiest religion in the
world.
Post by Roger
Post by FACE
Death to Islamic Jihad,
Do you know what Jihad means?
I do. I doubt you know much about it. I have explained it here (UKCET)
several times recently, look up where your explanation came from and try to
refute that your definition came from one who is considered an apostate of
islam -- because he taught peace in co-existence with the infidels.

You can't. Jihad, to muslims adhering to the koran and the hadiths, means
"holy war". Killing, conquering and converting and all that.
FACE
Post by Roger
Post by FACE
Post by Roger
Do you drink alchohol and are then surprised when you get drunk?
Post by George
Post by Roger
Post by Mr. Able Danger
More subhuman behavior.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/08/18/wbombs18.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/08/18/ixnewstop.html
Boy dies as terrorists unleash wave of 200 bombs across Bangladesh
By Peter Foster, South Asia Correspondent
(Filed: 18/08/2005)
Suspected Islamic extremists detonated more than 200 small bombs across
Bangladesh yesterday, killing two people and spreading fear and panic.
The attacks were blamed on an outlawed Islamic group, the
Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen, after several of their leaflets were found at the
bomb sites.
Since the scattering of Afghanistan's Taliban in 2001, western
diplomats have been increasingly concerned that Bangladesh is becoming
a safe haven for al-Qa'eda and its sympathisers.
The bombs, some no larger than fire crackers, exploded at hotels,
courts, government ministries and markets between 10.30 and 11.30 in
the morning. In the capital, Dhaka, devices exploded outside the
Sheraton Hotel, the diplomatic enclave and the international airport.
Local reports said that more than 100 people were taken to hospital for
treatment for minor injuries. A 10-year-old boy and a rickshaw driver
died.
The leaflets found at the scene of the blasts said they were a "third
call" to establish Islamic rule and threatened "counter-action" if
Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen's members were arrested or persecuted.
They also warned Britain and America against the occupation of Muslim
lands: "It is also to warn Bush and Blair to vacate Muslim countries,
or to face Muslim upsurge." Bangladesh, the world's third-most populous
Muslim country, has a long history of political violence but until
recently has rejected allegations from India and the West that it was
also fertile ground for Islamic terrorism.
Earlier this year, under pressure from the US, its secular government
banned Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen and the Jagrata Muslim Janata.
In May last year, the British High Commissioner in Bangladesh was
injured in a grenade explosion at a Muslim shrine in the north-eastern
town of Sylhet, where many British Bangladeshis have their origins.
The ruling Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and the main opposition
Awami League condemned the attacks.
Loading...