Re: OT: Physicians for a National Health Program

[Frank Olson <use_the_email_links@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Edmund Fitzgerald wrote:

> This sounds like a cut and past from Rosie's blog.  You are a Rosieophile
> and just don't know it (or either hiding the truth from us - not that you
> would do that of course).

As has been pointed on numerous times...  This is USENET.  "Sound" is
something you hear.


>
>>> You and Rosie appear to have similar views vis a vie Christians being as
>>> big a threat as Muslim terrorists.
>> Rosie's obviously a "nut job".  There are many "Christian" criminals that
>> are/were as big a threat as Muslim terrorists (McVeigh is no longer with
>> us).
>
> Hey!  Look whose calling Rosie a nut job.

Pardon me.  I haven't actually read (or heard) anything she's said.  I'm
not interested either.


>
>>> I think if you would give her a fair chance she could probably convince
>>> you that George Bush really did blow up the World Trade Center buildings.
>> Bullshit.  Next you're going to tell us that it's impossible to roll a
>> Boeing 737.
>>
>
> I bet Rosie would believe you if you told her George Bush said it couldn't
> be done.

I don't have that kind of pull with George.  The last time I tried
calling him, I got put on hold.  It was painful, let me tell you.  They
play a selection of his "greatest speeches" instead of Muzak.



>>>
>>> Where we make
>>>> the biggest mistake is trying to impose that same morality on a people
>>>> that simply don't understand it (or our way of life).
>>>
>>> If that's true then I suggest it's a bad idea for them to immigrate to
>>> our counties since it would be to difficult for them to adapt to our
>>> morality and laws because of their fundamental lack of understanding.
>> On the contrary, those that do decide to immigrate here are much more
>> moderate (and Western) in their views.  I have many Muslim friends and
>> customers.  They're extremely nice people and deeply committed to making
>> the community (as a whole) better.
>>
>
> Shortly after I read this I heard breaking news of a Toronto area Muslim man
> who killed his high school age daughter because she took off the her hijab
> (head cover) while at school.  The news reprort said her 26 year old
> brother had lured his sister into a "death trap" involving the father.
>
> This news report also had an apologist Catholic priest explain that not all
> Muslim men murder their children.  You never hear Muslims speak up
> themselves against these kinds of atrocities.  Why is that?  Could they fear
> repercussions from a raging mob of their fellow adherents of the peaceful
> religion?

I don't know.  Why not ask a Muslim?



>>>  I know what I would do - I would not hesitate to kill a terriorist to
>>> save the lives of your family or any other innocents.  I understand we
>>> are in a global war with Islamic Jihadist.   And people are geting
>>> killed.  Not in great numbers as in our other wars, but this time no end
>>> is in sight.
>> Ah, yes...  the "war on terror".  I'm sorry to "burst your bubble", but
>> you can't make "war" on terrorism.
>
>
> You claim to understand what you read so I suggest you reread what I wrote.
> No where did I write "war on terror".  What I wrote was that we are in a
> global war with Islamic Jidhadist. Terror is one of the tactics the Islamic
> Jidhadist use.  Do you understand the distinction Frank?

I understand that "Islamic Jihadists" don't wear a recognizable uniform.
  Terrorists don't either.


>

>>> Islamic Jihadist, as you may have noticed, behead their captives,
>>> mutilate their bodies, and hang them up on public display.
>> Terrorists do that.  If you want to call them "Islamic Jihadists" then by
>> all means do so.
>
>
> They call people to join their Jihad.  Wouldn't it follow that they would be
> Jihadist?

OK...  What do we call people that support the killing of innocent Iraqi
citizens, then??  What do we call the people that arrest other people
and jail them without charge or representation?


>
>
> Personally, I think any terrorist is pretty "sick"
>> and twisted by any standard.  If you have to make a point by slaughtering
>> innocents, you're not going to accomplish what you thought (at least in my
>> view).
>
>
>
> Terrorist are those who attempt to use terrorism to accomplish their goals.
> Search and destroy is the basic remedy for terrorism. The vast majority of
> terrorist operations in the world today are Islamic Jihadist.

Uh... right...  Give every "redneck asshole" a gun and tell them to
"search and destroy"...  Let's eliminate the courts.  God fearing
soldiers will arrest, try, convict, and execute all terrorists.



> It doesn't take many Islamic Jihadist to kill thousands of people. Nineteen
> jihadist killed 3,000 +  on 9/11.   So what if they found our culture
> abhorrent?

And "nine" killed 150,000...  "Enola Gay"...  another ten killed
225,000...  "Bock's Car"...  We can't call it "terrorism" though.  After
all it was a war against the "yellow terror", or was that the "yellow
peril"??  I can never remember which...


>
> Even so hasn't Canada apprehended some home grown Islamic terror
> conspirators in the recent past?

"Home grown"??  As far as I know the only "home grown" terrorist
organization in Canada was responsible for the Air India bombing...  And
that was masterminded by a guy that was later killed in India...


>
> Concerning the Muslim man in the Toronto area that killed his daughter I'll
> take a guess that the Canadian judicial system will say it was a "mistake"
> to try to impose their laws and morality on this father and son and then
> pack them off  back to Pakistan.

Nah...  He'll get a twenty-four month conditional sentence and then
he'll claim refugee status.