Chaos, death and disaster - several bombs have just exploded in London ;-(

"Bob W" bob @bobbbbbbbbb.net wrote in message
...
On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 16:55:20 +0100, bomba wrote:

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

Are we in agreement here?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

--R


Let me rephrase that:

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

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

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

"Michel Boucher" wrote in message
...
Mark Hickey wrote in
:

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

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

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

Is this like the UK version of the spelling police?

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

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


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

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

--Yankee Viejo

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

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

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

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

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

--

"Compassion is the chief law of human existence."

Dostoevski, The Idiot

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

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

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

"Michel Boucher" wrote in message
...
"0ld Yank" same@ Isee.net wrote in
:

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

--Yankee Viejo

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill S.

bomba wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michel Boucher wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote in
:

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

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

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

Is this like the UK version of the spelling police?

I'm not in the UK, so the short answer is...no. You can do what you
want but if you quote Webster's as an authority on language, I will
not accept that. You are free to do so, but you may from time to
time encounter opprobrium for your jejune use of local resources.

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

Personally, I only recognize the Oxford and you, as a websterite,
have the option of consulting the New Oxford American [sic]
Dictionary. So don't tell me you weren't warned.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michel Boucher wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Mark Hickey" wrote in message
...
Michel Boucher wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

--Yankee Viejo