wrote in message
oups.com...

Jack wrote:
I have never heard anyone say that they feel that all Muslims are
horrible.
The muslims just coincidently are involved in 29 armed conflicts at this
point. I know many muslims, and have no problem with them. Some in
their religion have kidnapped the religion in violence. Muslims need
to
do more to stop the extremists in their own religion.


wrote in message
ups.com...
http://tinyurl.com/cxbz9


You are right about militant Muslims.
Same goes for Crusading Christians and Zionist Jews.
How the heck three religions that all
worship the same diety (the God of Abraham) can disagree and squabble
over everything so violently and incessantly is a wonder to behold.

But are the other two really self-destructive,
and of a design that fosters homicide bombing,
and teaches/breeds this idea of "self" destruction?
I mean, other cultures that dabbled in the "methods"
of self-destruction (Japan's Komacozi's etc) actually
had a goal/cause. Plus, when they dabbled in it,
it was in an implementation that could have actually
"worked" (in the plight of their cause/goals). That
is to say, Japan actually had a "strategy", it just
happened to have self-destruction as one of its
components. M.I. (Militant Islam) on the other
hand, has no such "strategy", as it is all driven
by a physiological/emotional thing, and not logic.
Proof is in the puddling: M.I., and Bin Ladan,
and the like are responsible for MORE loss
of Arab life, and Arab ground then they even
know! - terrorism has caused them to lose MORE
then they even know!. Following Bin Laden
didn't give them any love - they done lost
Afghanistan. Iraq never got Iran in the 80's,
Saddam found his ass in an American clink
(on *his* own turf), there is no "Club-Med"
in the Pali area's, Lebanon is a **** hole, Iran's
a ticking time-bomb about to be turned into an
all-glass Holiday Inn, so their main export of
terrorism ain't getting them Jack. But, all that
only "seems" bad in context's of a "goal/cause".
If one has no cause/goal, its all a moot point.
M.I. needs, (and will be) eliminated, *and*
the Arab cultures need to be brought back into
human advancement(s), and be in the same game,
as this will put them back on equal footing with
human development, and the World at large.

Mr Wizzard wrote:

components. M.I. (Militant Islam) on the other
hand, has no such "strategy", as it is all driven
by a physiological/emotional thing, and not logic.




Ahh, I have it now. Christianity as practiced by conservative white
males in the United States is driven by logic, and not the emotional.

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 13:46:59 -0400, Harry Krause wrote:

Mr Wizzard wrote:

components. M.I. (Militant Islam) on the other
hand, has no such "strategy", as it is all driven
by a physiological/emotional thing, and not logic.




Ahh, I have it now. Christianity as practiced by conservative white
males in the United States is driven by logic, and not the emotional.

Harry, have you ever heard of the proverbial 'Christmas Goose"?

--
John H.
On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Mr Wizzard wrote:

components. M.I. (Militant Islam) on the other
hand, has no such "strategy", as it is all driven
by a physiological/emotional thing, and not logic.




Ahh, I have it now. Christianity as practiced by conservative white
males in the United States is driven by logic, and not the emotional.

No, no, you are drawing some short-circuited conclusion.
First off, (and you NEED to get this straight, otherwise
we don't even have a debate) is that we're NOT talking
about Conservative vs. Liberal - don't do this. That tends
to be a Liberal trait: make it a Conservative vs. Liberal
fight no matter WHAT the conversation is about. You
need to learn to turn "off" your Anti American switch
when engaged in an "INTERnational" type conversations.
(We are talking about Muslims - that is neither a Liberal
thing, nor a white Conservative thing) - had this been
a thread about "domestic" subject, yeah, all fair game.
BUT, we happen to be discussing the Muslim/West
thing, and discussing ways to make it better by trying
to properly identify the problem, and its reasons, and
ways to make that better. (You game for such
NON 'Liberal vs. Conservative' conversation ?)

Now, on point... Our rationale for the Iraq
war(s) were logic based. The UN resolution
687 that enabled the seise-fire of the first Gulf
war was never satisified - that is why Saddam
is in the can. It was technically not about finding
WMD's, it was about *THEM* accounting for
all of the WMD's that *they* themselves documented
as having. They accounted for some, yeah, but not
for the ballance, so we went in and assumed that
they were still there. Doesn't matter if they "are",
"were", or in Tim Buck Too - they *still* had to
account for them, or face the full force of the USA
(for which they did - 'ya see that "Shock-n-awe"?)

We are not fighting wars based on Religion, however
M.I. does. The predominant religions here in the US
are largly emotions based, (coupled with a fair amount
of history, accounts, and possibly facts, and experiences).
yeah, and sometimes religions come about to agument
ones logic mechanisms, but none of this is supportive
of the discussion as hand, is it?