Re: OT: Physicians for a National Health Program

["Edmund Fitzgerald" <ef@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"Frank Olson" <use_the_email_links@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:VTS8j.6272$_r2.1978@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Edmund Fitzgerald wrote:
>> "Frank Olson" <use_the_email_links@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
>> message news:OAN8j.6005$_r2.331@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Nathan W. Collier wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>> you are truly ignorant to the teachings of th quran.  here is a brief
>>>> example.  were it not midnight i would undertake a larger effort to
>>>> expose your ignorance:
>>>>
>>>> from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam#Jihad
>>
>> <snip Bass Braszilian orphanages claims>
>>
>>> Have you actually read the Quran?  Quoting "Wiki" as an "authority" on
>>> the Quran is about as ignorant as you can get.  The Quran does not teach
>>> or preach "Jihad".  "Jihad" is often described as an inner struggle all
>>> of us face on a daily basis.  Mohamed never intended to "war" on
>>> Christian or Jewish States (or Countries).  His purpose was to enlighten
>>> the world.  He speaks of Christians as "People of the Book" and called
>>> for tolerance, acceptance, charity, and love.  Muslims and Jews "share"
>>> the same "patriarch" in Abraham (and I suppose we Christians do as well
>>> since Jesus was a Jew).  Mohamed didn't advocate "Holy Jihad" as a means
>>> to an end. On the contrary, the Quran teaches that to achieve Allah's
>>> purpose of one unified people and one religious state, it must be done
>>> by political and diplomatic means first.  It's much easier to
>>> "infiltrate" and "change from within" than to invade and conquer
>>> (although he did leave that open as an option so long as the proper
>>> warnings have been distributed).  However, when one attacks a Muslim
>>> State (particularly if the attacker is a "non-believer"), then the
>>> Faithful must defend against that attack (and in so doing assure
>>> themselves of a place in heaven).
>>>
>>> According to your definition (which you obviously happen to share with
>>> "Bush") every Muslim in the US is now bound to join in the phony "Jihad"
>>> declared by the lunatic responsible for 911 (and every other idiot that
>>> spews hatred for Israel and the great US Devil).  Bush doesn't
>>> understand Islam any more than you do and he's trying to convince you
>>> that it's basically "evil" (which makes him an idiot).  I'd suggest you
>>> do a little reading (and possible avoid that moniker as well).  Muslims
>>> are NOT going to invade your house, make off with your wife, blow up
>>> your truck, etc. Google "Aga Khan" for a start.  (http://www.akdn.org).
>>>
>>> Sheesh!
>>
>> It's not clear to me O Holy One what difference you think it makes what
>> the Quran says.
>
> I was merely pointing out that the Quran is a "book of peace", not a
> manual for war.  Instead of reading for himself, Nathan seems quite
> content to promote the ignorant views of others.
>
>
>> It doesn't seem to me that this "great religion" is doing anything to
>> stop the "phony jihadist" as you call them.  Until the "peaceful Muslims"
>> get on board to stop this mind boggling global madness they are a part of
>> the problem - not the solution.


>
> It's really no different than our own "great religion".  We have advocates
> for Peace as well yet it all seems to fall on "deaf ears".


Pure horseshit.  There are no organazitions of Christian crusaders running
amuck in the world beheading and blowing up whoever they please.  Next you
will be going on about how George Bush blew up the WTC buildings.
It was spouting off this kind of rubbish that got Rosie O'Donnell fired from
The View of all places.


> FWIW, I am a Christian.  Jesus greatest commandment was to "love one
> another and love your God".  I could never bring myself to kill another
> human being.  I would make a poor soldier in that respect.  I don't live
> in a neighbourhood where anyone would threaten my family, and I honestly
> don't know how I would respond to some of the situations I've read about
> where someone was called upon to defend what they hold dear with deadly
> force.  I hold a high blue belt in kick-boxing and have practised kendo
> for over fifteen years.  I believe I would be able to acquit myself rather
> well if the situation warranted, but I would stop short of actually
> killing someone.  Pain through maiming can be an equally effective counter
> and is far more preferable (in my view) to manslaughter.

Ok I've got it about not getting into a fist fight or a kicking match with
you, but these days the phony Jihadist are using big knives, guns, and
bombs.  Let's say some of these phony Jihadist kidnapped your wife and
children (assuming you have them) during your next trip to Mecca and they
were about to behead them.  If someone put a gun in your hand and pushed you
into the room with these guys would you be willing to kill them to the save
the lives of your wife and children?  If you wouldn't, I'd  be willing to do
it for you.

If a co-conspritor of the phony Jihadists was in custody and it was
understood he had information about your kidnapped family's whereabouts
would you be willing to pour water over his face in an effort to save the
lives your family?  If you wouldn't, I'd be willing to do it for you.  Your
kendo (thought that was a card game) is not going save your family under
these circumstances.

But I am glad to hear you live in a nice neighborhood where monsters can't
find you or your family.



I don't believe Canadian troops are accomplishing
> anything truly useful in Afghanistan.  I would far prefer to see them used
> to interdict the illicit drugs and weapons that are crossing our borders
> on a daily basis and pose a far more direct threat to our security.  We're
> bleeding from within and our Government is doing precious little about it.
> We may as well be throwing bags of marshmallows at the criminals too.
> What "justice" is there in handing someone a 20 month conditional sentence
> for beating another person so badly that they've been rendered a
> quadriplegic?  The perp was *laughing* at the press conference afterwards.
>
>

Sounds about right for a politically correct  bleeding heart liberal
dominated society.


>>
>> By the way I was wondering what the Quran had to say about blasphemy.
>> Under Islamic law the penalty is death and recently there was this teddy
>> bear
>

> Yes, I've heard all about the "teddy bear".  From what I understand there
> was no disrespect intended ("what's in a name?").

>Extremist views abound

Well do tell.

>and I'm glad that "cooler heads" prevailed.  I'm sorry for the kids
>involved.  She is apparently a gifted teacher with an excellent record.

Well let's say these Muslim men somehow did determine that this gifted
teacher with an excellent record did intend disrespect with that teddy bear.
In that case wouldn't  those "cooler heads" have been compelled  to turn her
over to the raging mob with machettes or quietly stone her to death in a
stoning pit somewhere?  All in all she's quite
fortunate to have survived her near death experience with the "religion of
peace".  My advice for her would be stay in Britian and keep the hell away
from the Muslim side of town.  Whoppi Goldberg's advice for her is that she
needs to be more sensitive to Muslim customs.  Well I  reckon so.  Muslim
men are such a sensitive lot.

This morning I read about a Muslim man who killed his bride on their wedding
night because he could not "break her hymen".  Whether it was not there or
if  there was some other kind of shortcoming we don't know.  In any event he
somehow convinced himself she had been with another man and then proceeded
to stab her to death.  What I'm wondering is this:  does the "peaceful
religion" limit in any way the right of Muslim men to kill their wives and
female children?  Seems to me the peace in this "peaceful religion" is
reserved exclusively for Muslim men and boys, excluding the homosexual men
of course.


>
>
>> ......oh what's the use.  Forget it.
>
>
> Heh.  This is actually the kind of discussion I enjoy.