Matt,
I still don't know what I'm sidestepping. Do you think I condone the
London bombings? Is that what you deduced from what I said? I
opologize if I'm being dense.

We clearly read different newspapers. I'm a bit of a newspaper junkie,
and I read both the New York Times and the San Francisco Chronicle. I
can't find where I "condemned our men and women who are over there",
nor where I "justify the actions of terrorists". I don't think we're
on the same planet.

Mike

ps I'm not gay

On 22 Jul 2005 17:34:09 -0700, wrote:

Mike,
I got an e-mail from you. How do you do that?

It wasn't too long ago that a US Army general, in full uniform,
announced from a pulpit that the Christain God was bigger than the
Islamic God. After expressing shock and dismay, Bush quietly promoted
him. The whole evangelical movement is based on spreading the gospel
to the four corners of the world. I have little sympathy for
extremists of any stripe, especially religious extremists.

Re abortion I'm pro-choice. I consider a woman's right to privacy more
important than the life of a fetus.

Mike

AFAIK, I didn't send you an e-mail, and my "send items" / outbox
doesn't show one. My reply was posted on the newsgroup. But there's
been a lot of fake stuff flying around lately.

"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
On 22 Jul 2005 11:29:35 -0700, wrote:

Let's all thank the Lord that this time the bombs didn't go off. I
hope the perpetraters are caught and punished. But as I said in
another thread: as long as Britain makes war on Muslims,

I thought they were fighting Iraq.

Right, there`s no war with Muslims. As usual Mike Goodall makes a wrong
assumption so we can skip all of his reasoning after it.

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 23:53:34 -0400, "Angelo DePalma"
wrote:

Hey stupid ****ing asshole:

The difference between the so-called "fatwas" on anti-abortion sites and the
gratuitous death sentences passed by third-world towel-headed fascists is
that our "fatwas" do not carry the force of government.

Most of the fatwas coming from the radical Islamists don't have any
official government sanction (Iran being an exception). What you have
are religious figures giving anybody who happens to recognize them as
a holy authority direction or dispensation to kill people, regardless
of the (civil) law.

What I've noticed on many of the anti-abortion websites in the US is
that the leaders are now calling themselves "Pastor". And they are
publishing people's names and addresses and suggesting that it's
morally OK to kill them. I see this as a similar to what's coming out
of the radical Islamic websites. Obviously, it hasn't progressed as
far over here. But it's scary none the less.

My point, which I evidently didn't express very well or you wouldn't
have gone ballistic on me, is that it's the *secularism* of the West
that inhibits this sort of behavior. It wasn't all that long ago, in
historical time, that our ancestors *did* kill people for writng
certain books or expressing their opinions or belonging to heretical
faiths. The West took religion more seriously in those days.

If you take religion really seriously, and believe you have a pipeline
to the will of God, why would you let mere civil law protect those
who, in your opinion, jeapordize the infinitely precious immortal
souls of your children?

That's why I thought your post about being careful wishing for
democracy in some of these countries was a good one -- they'd have
their one vote, one time, and elect a radical Islamist theocracy.

You obviously don't
understand the idea that people in this country can disagree and it usually
doesn't cost them their lives. Of course there are accidents -- we are human
beings, and there are assholes among us (of which you are a prime example).
But we don't pass death sentences on people for writing books in this
country, or for expressing their opinions.

You're stupider, dumber, and a bigger asshole than I ever imagined.




"Mike Murray" wrote in message
.. .
On 22 Jul 2005 14:42:18 -0700, wrote:

Mike,
Bush and the White Christain Party (Republicans) want the whole world,
too.
Mike

There's a big difference between advocacy of world-wide political
systems (representative democracy, communism), world wide economic
systems (capitalism, socialism) and a world-wide religion, whether
through Christian missionaries or Islamic jihadists. Immortal souls
and the known will of God have value beyond compromise and negotiation
-- give me a little hypocrisy any day.

I agree that the shrub's supporters on the religious right are getting
pretty similar to the jihadists -- read some of the "fatwas" on the
anti-abortion websites, for examples.

On 22 Jul 2005 18:44:32 -0700, wrote:

Matt,
Oh, I'm just as crazy as I sound. I don't follow how anything was
deflected. The subject was changed. I'll return to the bombings if
you wish. The bombings probably would not have occurred had there been
no war in Iraq. So while the individual, human, innocent victims
certainly did not "have it coming" the country of Britain did.

This stupidity invalidates your entire argument.

How do you propose to punish sinful 'Britain' without injury to the
presumably innocent bystanders?

The so-called population has always been a great inconvenience when
generals and statesmen have made their plans. 'Collateral damage' is
entirely the fault of the population that insists on getting in the
way of precise surgical strikes.

Brecht once suggested that it would make sense for purely tactical
reasons to airlift the population and deposit it behind the enemy
lines.

Maybe
only crazy people like me can discern the distinction.
Mike

"Angelo DePalma" wrote in message
...

To say the US and Britain have a hard-on for muslims is about the
stupidest thing I've seen posted in this newsgroup.

You must of missed Bibuld's posts.

J=FCrgen R. wrote:
On 22 Jul 2005 18:44:32 -0700, wrote:

Matt,
Oh, I'm just as crazy as I sound. I don't follow how anything was
deflected. The subject was changed. I'll return to the bombings if
you wish. The bombings probably would not have occurred had there been
no war in Iraq. So while the individual, human, innocent victims
certainly did not "have it coming" the country of Britain did.

This stupidity invalidates your entire argument.

How do you propose to punish sinful 'Britain' without injury to the
presumably innocent bystanders?

Exactly. Goodall contradicts his own argument. He's an apologist for
the terrorists who (I guess) Mike feels are simply "expressing their
disdain" for Iraq's occupationby blowing themselves and innocent
civilians up there and elsewhere in the world; but, when the U.S. and
U=2EK., in an attempt to make the country safer for the people of Iraq as
a whole, get rid of a leader who killed said people on a whim and there
are some civilian casualties in the process, it's just plain wrong.
This, in Mike's mind, justifies the terrorist attacks.

The so-called population has always been a great inconvenience when
generals and statesmen have made their plans. 'Collateral damage' is
entirely the fault of the population that insists on getting in the
way of precise surgical strikes.

Brecht once suggested that it would make sense for purely tactical
reasons to airlift the population and deposit it behind the enemy
lines.

Maybe
only crazy people like me can discern the distinction.
Mike

Some questions, Goodall:

1=2E Who's side are you on?
2=2E For which great, noble cause do the terrorists "fight?"
3=2E How many people do you think these terrorists represent?
4=2E Do you think the actions of these terrorists are acting in the best
interests of the people of Iraq (or Muslim people in general) or are
they just a rogue group of crazy people like you who can't get enough
support for their cause so they engage in guerilla warfare to MAKE
people listen?

I'll be interested to hear your responses to the above if you're brave
enough to answer them.

MN

1. I'm not on your side. Your side has resulted in the slaughter of
at least a hundred thousand people, and counting. Sadam was very evil,
but he was not our problem.
2. The terrorists are fighting to get the foriegn invaders out of
their country. Others are fighting for Islam.
3. The terrorists represent only a small minority. They think they
represent all Muslims. The US and Britain don't "have a hard-on for
Muslims". But that is the widespread view among Muslims.
4. The majority of the world's people are against the US and Britain
because of the wars against Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq. We used
to be the good guys. Even after we murdered two million Vietnamese we
were exonerated because we lost. We were still the good guys until
Bush took over. That's no longer true.

To explain a phenomena is not to condone it. To identify a cause for
phenomena is not to morally justify it. I think the Bush
Administration is "a rogue group of crazy people like you" who have
done more to destroy America in a few short years than all the
terrorists put together.


Mike

Mike Goodall wrote :
1. I'm not on your side. Your side has resulted in the slaughter of
at least a hundred thousand people, and counting. Sadam was very evil,
but he was not our problem.

Wrong again : it was Sadman Insane who killed hundreds of thousands people,
including Iraqi people. He was a worldwide problem.

wrote:
1. I'm not on your side. Your side has resulted in the slaughter of
at least a hundred thousand people, and counting. Sadam was very evil,
but he was not our problem.
2. The terrorists are fighting to get the foriegn invaders out of
their country. Others are fighting for Islam.
3. The terrorists represent only a small minority. They think they
represent all Muslims. The US and Britain don't "have a hard-on for
Muslims". But that is the widespread view among Muslims.
4. The majority of the world's people are against the US and Britain
because of the wars against Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq. We used
to be the good guys. Even after we murdered two million Vietnamese we
were exonerated because we lost. We were still the good guys until
Bush took over. That's no longer true.

To explain a phenomena is not to condone it. To identify a cause for
phenomena is not to morally justify it. I think the Bush
Administration is "a rogue group of crazy people like you" who have
done more to destroy America in a few short years than all the
terrorists put together.


Mike

Thanks, Mike. We are all now dumber for having read your post.

You "explained" nothing in the original thread. What you said was that
the Brits "had it coming." I can only assume you thought we "had it
coming" on September 11, 2001 as well. Had you been alive on December
7, 1941 I imagine you'd have said that we "had it coming" in Hawaii,
too.

You're entirely too far gone to be worth talking to, Goodall. I'm
sorry I responded to your ludicrous remarks earlier, but sometimes I
just can't stop myself from pointing out the asinine statements people
like you make on this forum. Obviously, you haven't a clue and I
shouldn't have encouraged it. But now I'm through with you.

You're no better than the terrorists who carry out their homocidal
plans, Goodall. Live with that.

MN