Guest Jason Posted November 1, 2007 Posted November 1, 2007 In article <097ii35na1tem8b4ormhj2tsromi88daqp@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:08:55 -0800, in alt.atheism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-3110071608550001@67-150-124-24.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>: > >In article <3p4ii3pu7vf0m7788kbvnjptfdbccnfmvh@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 12:13:37 -0400, in alt.atheism > >> Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in > >> <29ahi3houucl8cvb6s8a4no2mlaji3tn1l@4ax.com>: > >> >On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 00:08:54 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> > > >> >>How many times has Iran attacked America? > >> > > >> >None. > >> > >> Niggling little criticism. Attacking an embassy or consulate does count > >> as attacking a country (see flap about US bombing of Chinese Embassy). > >> Of course Jason is still way off base. > >> > >> >Hint: Defending isn't attacking. > >> > > >> >How many times has the US made UNPROVOKED attacks on the Middle East. > >> > > >> >Hint: Many, many times, both directly and through clients - during one > >> >such attack we were counter-attacked. > > > >I also seem to recall that they attacked one of our war ships. > > Which one? Before or after we shot one of their civiliam planes out of > the sky? I believe it was the USS Cole (spelling ??) Quote
Guest Jason Posted November 1, 2007 Posted November 1, 2007 In article <PJidncTvypjFhrTanZ2dnUVZ_qDinZ2d@comcast.com>, Charles & Mambo Duckman <duckman@gfy.slf> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > >>>Hint: Defending isn't attacking. > >>> > >>>How many times has the US made UNPROVOKED attacks on the Middle East. > >>> > >>>Hint: Many, many times, both directly and through clients - during one > >>>such attack we were counter-attacked. > > > > > > I also seem to recall that they attacked one of our war ships. > > So has Israel. That is true but I don't remember the details. Quote
Guest Jason Posted November 1, 2007 Posted November 1, 2007 In article <7a7ii31q0i2sh54amv5o0av08c0q1cmd59@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:07:28 -0800, in alt.atheism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-3110071607280001@67-150-124-24.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>: > >In article <3t4ii3th1lc8t37l4frmmuhj3ls4amt8cp@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 00:16:50 -0800, in alt.atheism > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> <Jason-3110070016500001@66-53-216-130.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>: > >> >In article <81klv4-drh.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > >> ><kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> [snips] > >> >> > >> >> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 18:38:05 -0800, Jason wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > RAFSANJANI SAYS MUSLIMS SHOULD USE NUCLEAR WEAPON AGAINST ISRAEL > >> >> > >> >> Bush says we should start a war in Iraq! For no justifiable reason! > >> >> Which we can't get out of! Let's go kick some heathen butt! > >> >> > >> >> Yup, when religious loonies are in charge, you get problems. Which isn't > >> >> to say atheists in charge wouldn't have problems, either, but at least > >> >> they're not living an entire life of delusions of magic and pixies and > >> >> muddleheaded nonsense - nonsense which often induces horrific crimes in > >> >> its name. > >> >> > >> >> I'm sure you had a point, but other than demonstrating that religion > >> >> should not be allowed in office - which we're happy to agree with - the > >> >> point isn't clear. > >> >> > >> >> Oh, you mean it's okay if religion is in office as long as it's your > >> >> religion, just not if it's the other guy's religion? Nah, can't be. From > >> >> the outside, they're about equally meaningless - and about equally > >> >> dangerous. > >> > > >> >America had no desire to take over the world. Otherwise, Americans would > >> >now have total control over Germany and Japan. The Muslims have made it > >> >clear that their end goal is to take over the world. The Muslims from the > >> >Middle East are presently taking over the Sudan. > >> > > >> America had no such desire, but we are ruled by George Bush now and he > >> chose to go to war, to conquer and occupy Iraq. That is imperialism, > >> nothing else. > > > >If the rulers of Iran want America to leave that country, we will leave > >that country. > > > We have occupied Iraq and made it clear that we aren't going anywhere. > Even our hired thugs are allowed to murder Iraqis without being > arrested. Please post an AP report indicating that the rulers of Iraq have decided they no longer want our troops in Iraq. I have never read such a report. Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted November 1, 2007 Posted November 1, 2007 On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:05:34 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >In article <MPG.2192bf729011ee7498a297@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>, James >Beck <jim@reallykillersystems.com> wrote: > >> In article <Jason-3110071313440001@67-150-123-199.lsan.mdsg- >> pacwest.com>, Jason@nospam.com says... >> > In article <l79hi3tc5n5ncp4440nt82vhvijdm0pqgj@4ax.com>, Al Klein >> > <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: >> > >> > > On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 13:32:06 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > > >> > > >If you believe that the president of Iran is making nuclear materials to >> > > >be used for peaceful purposes >> > > >> > > The SCIENTISTS who have inspected the facilities KNOW he is. >> > >> > Nuclear materials can be used to make nuclear weapons. >> > >> >> Ah, but it has to be CERTAIN materials. > >Iran either already has those CERTAIN materials Not at all. > or can easily buy those CERTAIN materials. Which they could still do if you bombed their nuclear facilities. -- Al at Webdingers dot com "My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them." - Abraham Lincoln Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted November 1, 2007 Posted November 1, 2007 On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 18:44:50 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 12:13:37 -0400, in alt.atheism >Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in ><29ahi3houucl8cvb6s8a4no2mlaji3tn1l@4ax.com>: >>On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 00:08:54 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >>>How many times has Iran attacked America? >> >>None. > >Niggling little criticism. Attacking an embassy or consulate does count >as attacking a country (see flap about US bombing of Chinese Embassy). >Of course Jason is still way off base. Counter-attacking isn't attacking. -- Al at Webdingers dot com "My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them." - Abraham Lincoln Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted November 1, 2007 Posted November 1, 2007 On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:08:55 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >In article <3p4ii3pu7vf0m7788kbvnjptfdbccnfmvh@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 12:13:37 -0400, in alt.atheism >> Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in >> <29ahi3houucl8cvb6s8a4no2mlaji3tn1l@4ax.com>: >> >On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 00:08:54 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > >> >>How many times has Iran attacked America? >> > >> >None. >> >> Niggling little criticism. Attacking an embassy or consulate does count >> as attacking a country (see flap about US bombing of Chinese Embassy). >> Of course Jason is still way off base. >> >> >Hint: Defending isn't attacking. >> > >> >How many times has the US made UNPROVOKED attacks on the Middle East. >> > >> >Hint: Many, many times, both directly and through clients - during one >> >such attack we were counter-attacked. > >I also seem to recall that they attacked one of our war ships. > WE attacked IRAN. They responded. -- Al at Webdingers dot com "My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them." - Abraham Lincoln Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted November 1, 2007 Posted November 1, 2007 On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 17:06:34 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >In article <097ii35na1tem8b4ormhj2tsromi88daqp@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:08:55 -0800, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-3110071608550001@67-150-124-24.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>: >> >In article <3p4ii3pu7vf0m7788kbvnjptfdbccnfmvh@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> > >> >> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 12:13:37 -0400, in alt.atheism >> >> Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in >> >> <29ahi3houucl8cvb6s8a4no2mlaji3tn1l@4ax.com>: >> >> >On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 00:08:54 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> > >> >> >>How many times has Iran attacked America? >> >> > >> >> >None. >> >> >> >> Niggling little criticism. Attacking an embassy or consulate does count >> >> as attacking a country (see flap about US bombing of Chinese Embassy). >> >> Of course Jason is still way off base. >> >> >> >> >Hint: Defending isn't attacking. >> >> > >> >> >How many times has the US made UNPROVOKED attacks on the Middle East. >> >> > >> >> >Hint: Many, many times, both directly and through clients - during one >> >> >such attack we were counter-attacked. >> > >> >I also seem to recall that they attacked one of our war ships. >> >> Which one? Before or after we shot one of their civiliam planes out of >> the sky? > >I believe it was the USS Cole (spelling ??) > AFTER WE attacked THEM. -- Al at Webdingers dot com "My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them." - Abraham Lincoln Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted November 1, 2007 Posted November 1, 2007 On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:19:57 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >In article <MPG.2192bfac54f3bcd898a298@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>, James >Beck <jim@reallykillersystems.com> wrote: > >> In article <Jason-3110071317160001@67-150-123-199.lsan.mdsg- >> pacwest.com>, Jason@nospam.com says... >> > In article <leahi319r50tea720ajlukkn9hhlc65p99@4ax.com>, Al Klein >> > <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: >> > >> > > On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 18:40:45 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > > >> > > >The president of Iran and one of the chief clerics in Iran both have >> > > >stated that they want to use nuclear weapons against Israel. >> > > >> > > The US has said that it wants to eradicate Islam. >> > > >> > > > As you know, >> > > >we are obligated to protect Israel since they are an ally of America. >> > > >> > > Since there's been no attack, there's nothing to defend. "Defending" >> > > against an attack that MAY happen, some nebulous time in the future, >> > > is known as "attacking", and we're NOT obligated to START a war. (That >> > > we've done it a few times doesn't mean that there's any treaty that >> > > obligates us to do it.) >> > >> > I am shocked that so many atheists have so much trust in religious nut >> > cases like the president of Iran and one of the chief clerics in Iran. >> > >> >> We don't have any faith in ANY relious nut cases, including the >> christian ones in this country. >> >> Jim > >What about the religious nut case that is the president of Iran? > What about the religious nut case that is the president of the US, Jason, who HAS THOUSANDS of nuclear weapons all ready to be fired NOW? -- Al at Webdingers dot com "My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them." - Abraham Lincoln Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted November 1, 2007 Posted November 1, 2007 On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 17:02:05 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >In article <kg8ii3903hjb8u27imco3supu5oqluo5oo@4ax.com>, Al Klein ><rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: > >> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 13:18:45 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> >In article <fs8hi3p9uicde8hc9npmclr6r0cr3o7424@4ax.com>, Al Klein >> ><rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: >> > >> >> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 00:00:34 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> >> >> >I disagree. Roy Mooore worships God. >> >> >> >> Then why did he violate the law in an attempt to place a rock in a >> >> court house? You usually make no sense, Jason, but this is stupid >> >> even for you. >> > >> >I have heard Roy Moore preach a sermon and he mentioned in that sermon >> >that he worships God. >> > >> Then why did he violate the law in an attempt to place a rock in a >> court house? > >He claims to have the law on his side related to this issue. But he was wrong, because the law says he CAN'T put a religious symbol in a government building. > Of course, various liberal judges disagreed with him related to this issue. Because the Constitution is a liberal document. >As you may know, liberal judges have an agenda. > Yes - upholding the "liberal" Constitution. Face it, Jason, you live in a nation that BY LAW is liberal and secular. Tying to make it conservative or sectarian is ILLEGAL. -- Al at Webdingers dot com "My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them." - Abraham Lincoln Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted November 1, 2007 Posted November 1, 2007 On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 17:05:40 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >In article <dh8ii31mlrdq887o2a80hjemberns4g2is@4ax.com>, Al Klein ><rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: > >> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 13:08:27 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> >In article <gtahi31b7fnaj3mpb8deh2kbfgcau1mj46@4ax.com>, Al Klein >> ><rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: >> > >> >> On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 21:10:58 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> >> >> >I have seen pictures of at least of Iran's nuclear facilities on a >> >> >television news show. >> >> >> >> Have you seen pictures of US nuclear facilities? (I live within the >> >> 10 mile evacuation zone of one.) >> >> >> >> What's the difference? >> > >> > >> >The president of Iran stated "Israel must be wiped off from the map of the >> >world." >> >> But he has no means to do it, so it's just empty rhetoric. > >I disagree--a nuclear tipped missile Which he doesn't have, so he doesn't have the means to do it. >Read this: Why? It's OLD inflammatory rhetoric that has not only had no connection with reality, but was PROVED to be TOTALLY FALSE. >SANTIAGO, Chile, Nov. 17 -- The United States has intelligence that Iran >is working to adapt missiles to deliver a nuclear weapon The SAME "intelligence" it had that Iraq was attempting to purchase yellocake in Africa - MADE UP LIES. >further evidence >that the Islamic republic is determined to acquire a nuclear bomb, >Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said Wednesday. Condy lost her job? Oh, an "olds" story that was dead before it was printed. Was that an error on your part, Jason, or just another of your deliberate lies? This was November 17, 2004, Jason. Almost FOUR YEARS ago. And even then it was just BASELESS ACCUSATIONS, of exactly the same kind Bush had used to get us into an illegal war less than a year earlier. >Separately, an Iranian opposition exile group charged in Paris that Iran >is enriching uranium at a secret military facility unknown to U.N. weapons >inspectors. Which proved to be a lie once inspectors actually inspected the facility. > Iran has denied seeking to build nuclear weapons. And in FOUR YEARS no one has found ANY evidence that they've EVER lied about that. >Mohammad Mohaddessin, of the National Council for Resistance in Iran, uses >satellite imagery to pinpoint what the group says is a previously unknown >nuclear facility in Iran. (Laurent Rebours -- AP) Which, ACTUAL INSPECTIONS have found, are being used for research into nuclear power generation. Any more deliberate lies, Jason? -- Al at Webdingers dot com "My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them." - Abraham Lincoln Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted November 1, 2007 Posted November 1, 2007 On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 17:06:34 -0800, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-3110071706350001@67-150-175-249.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>: >In article <097ii35na1tem8b4ormhj2tsromi88daqp@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:08:55 -0800, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-3110071608550001@67-150-124-24.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>: >> >In article <3p4ii3pu7vf0m7788kbvnjptfdbccnfmvh@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> > >> >> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 12:13:37 -0400, in alt.atheism >> >> Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in >> >> <29ahi3houucl8cvb6s8a4no2mlaji3tn1l@4ax.com>: >> >> >On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 00:08:54 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> > >> >> >>How many times has Iran attacked America? >> >> > >> >> >None. >> >> >> >> Niggling little criticism. Attacking an embassy or consulate does count >> >> as attacking a country (see flap about US bombing of Chinese Embassy). >> >> Of course Jason is still way off base. >> >> >> >> >Hint: Defending isn't attacking. >> >> > >> >> >How many times has the US made UNPROVOKED attacks on the Middle East. >> >> > >> >> >Hint: Many, many times, both directly and through clients - during one >> >> >such attack we were counter-attacked. >> > >> >I also seem to recall that they attacked one of our war ships. >> >> Which one? Before or after we shot one of their civiliam planes out of >> the sky? > >I believe it was the USS Cole (spelling ??) Please point to anywhere that claims that Iran attacked the USS Cole. As far as I was aware, the concensus was that al Qaeda did it. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted November 1, 2007 Posted November 1, 2007 On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 22:03:53 -0400, in alt.atheism Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in <svcii3t9malr8f08g06kuemtr8rh8741hr@4ax.com>: >On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 17:06:34 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >>In article <097ii35na1tem8b4ormhj2tsromi88daqp@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:08:55 -0800, in alt.atheism >>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >>> <Jason-3110071608550001@67-150-124-24.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>: >>> >In article <3p4ii3pu7vf0m7788kbvnjptfdbccnfmvh@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >>> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>> > >>> >> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 12:13:37 -0400, in alt.atheism >>> >> Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in >>> >> <29ahi3houucl8cvb6s8a4no2mlaji3tn1l@4ax.com>: >>> >> >On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 00:08:54 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>> >> > >>> >> >>How many times has Iran attacked America? >>> >> > >>> >> >None. >>> >> >>> >> Niggling little criticism. Attacking an embassy or consulate does count >>> >> as attacking a country (see flap about US bombing of Chinese Embassy). >>> >> Of course Jason is still way off base. >>> >> >>> >> >Hint: Defending isn't attacking. >>> >> > >>> >> >How many times has the US made UNPROVOKED attacks on the Middle East. >>> >> > >>> >> >Hint: Many, many times, both directly and through clients - during one >>> >> >such attack we were counter-attacked. >>> > >>> >I also seem to recall that they attacked one of our war ships. >>> >>> Which one? Before or after we shot one of their civiliam planes out of >>> the sky? >> >>I believe it was the USS Cole (spelling ??) >> >AFTER WE attacked THEM. No, Iran had nothing to do with it. Wikipedia tells us (with footnote) "On March 14, 2007, a federal judge in the United States, Robert Doumar ruled that the Sudanese government was liable for the bombing.[3]" [3]^ NBC News. Federal judge rules Sudan responsible for USS Cole bombing in 2000. NBC News. Retrieved on March 14, 2007. That was news to me. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted November 1, 2007 Posted November 1, 2007 On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 17:10:34 -0800, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-3110071710340001@67-150-175-249.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>: >In article <7a7ii31q0i2sh54amv5o0av08c0q1cmd59@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:07:28 -0800, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-3110071607280001@67-150-124-24.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>: >> >In article <3t4ii3th1lc8t37l4frmmuhj3ls4amt8cp@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> > >> >> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 00:16:50 -0800, in alt.atheism >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> <Jason-3110070016500001@66-53-216-130.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>: >> >> >In article <81klv4-drh.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason >> >> ><kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> [snips] >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 18:38:05 -0800, Jason wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > RAFSANJANI SAYS MUSLIMS SHOULD USE NUCLEAR WEAPON AGAINST ISRAEL >> >> >> >> >> >> Bush says we should start a war in Iraq! For no justifiable reason! >> >> >> Which we can't get out of! Let's go kick some heathen butt! >> >> >> >> >> >> Yup, when religious loonies are in charge, you get problems. >Which isn't >> >> >> to say atheists in charge wouldn't have problems, either, but at least >> >> >> they're not living an entire life of delusions of magic and pixies and >> >> >> muddleheaded nonsense - nonsense which often induces horrific crimes in >> >> >> its name. >> >> >> >> >> >> I'm sure you had a point, but other than demonstrating that religion >> >> >> should not be allowed in office - which we're happy to agree with - the >> >> >> point isn't clear. >> >> >> >> >> >> Oh, you mean it's okay if religion is in office as long as it's your >> >> >> religion, just not if it's the other guy's religion? Nah, can't >be. From >> >> >> the outside, they're about equally meaningless - and about equally >> >> >> dangerous. >> >> > >> >> >America had no desire to take over the world. Otherwise, Americans would >> >> >now have total control over Germany and Japan. The Muslims have made it >> >> >clear that their end goal is to take over the world. The Muslims from the >> >> >Middle East are presently taking over the Sudan. >> >> > >> >> America had no such desire, but we are ruled by George Bush now and he >> >> chose to go to war, to conquer and occupy Iraq. That is imperialism, >> >> nothing else. >> > >> >If the rulers of Iran want America to leave that country, we will leave >> >that country. >> > >> We have occupied Iraq and made it clear that we aren't going anywhere. >> Even our hired thugs are allowed to murder Iraqis without being >> arrested. > >Please post an AP report indicating that the rulers of Iraq have decided >they no longer want our troops in Iraq. I have never read such a report. > You assume they have a choice in the matter. Quote
Guest The Chief Instigator Posted November 1, 2007 Posted November 1, 2007 Jason@nospam.com (Jason) writes: >In article <5orgquFoc38tU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" ><witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote >> snip >> > The problem in that case was that Terry Shiavo did NOT have a living will >> > and also failed to tell the many members of her family what she wanted the >> > members of her family to do if she was ever in a comma. >> First of all, the word you're looking for is "coma". Second of all, she >> apparently made her wishes clear to her husband and that's all that matters. >He was probably lying. How the hell would YOU know? -- Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2007-08 Houston Aeros) AA#2273 LAST GAME: Syracuse 3, Houston 2 (October 30) NEXT GAME: Friday, November 2 vs. Lake Erie, 7:35 Quote
Guest Jason Posted November 1, 2007 Posted November 1, 2007 In article <2scii3tknfkidvg4jcq8au3ak4v15d4ssu@4ax.com>, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: > On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:05:34 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > >In article <MPG.2192bf729011ee7498a297@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>, James > >Beck <jim@reallykillersystems.com> wrote: > > > >> In article <Jason-3110071313440001@67-150-123-199.lsan.mdsg- > >> pacwest.com>, Jason@nospam.com says... > >> > In article <l79hi3tc5n5ncp4440nt82vhvijdm0pqgj@4ax.com>, Al Klein > >> > <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: > >> > > >> > > On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 13:32:06 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> > > > >> > > >If you believe that the president of Iran is making nuclear materials to > >> > > >be used for peaceful purposes > >> > > > >> > > The SCIENTISTS who have inspected the facilities KNOW he is. > >> > > >> > Nuclear materials can be used to make nuclear weapons. > >> > > >> > >> Ah, but it has to be CERTAIN materials. > > > >Iran either already has those CERTAIN materials > > Not at all. > > > or can easily buy those CERTAIN materials. > > Which they could still do if you bombed their nuclear facilities. We should bomb them again after they start rebuilding the facilities. Quote
Guest Jason Posted November 1, 2007 Posted November 1, 2007 In article <58eii318keku1r32ahb6ia7puij4j9oau8@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 17:10:34 -0800, in alt.atheism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-3110071710340001@67-150-175-249.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>: > >In article <7a7ii31q0i2sh54amv5o0av08c0q1cmd59@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:07:28 -0800, in alt.atheism > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> <Jason-3110071607280001@67-150-124-24.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>: > >> >In article <3t4ii3th1lc8t37l4frmmuhj3ls4amt8cp@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> > > >> >> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 00:16:50 -0800, in alt.atheism > >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> >> <Jason-3110070016500001@66-53-216-130.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>: > >> >> >In article <81klv4-drh.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > >> >> ><kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> [snips] > >> >> >> > >> >> >> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 18:38:05 -0800, Jason wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > RAFSANJANI SAYS MUSLIMS SHOULD USE NUCLEAR WEAPON AGAINST ISRAEL > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Bush says we should start a war in Iraq! For no justifiable reason! > >> >> >> Which we can't get out of! Let's go kick some heathen butt! > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Yup, when religious loonies are in charge, you get problems. > >Which isn't > >> >> >> to say atheists in charge wouldn't have problems, either, but at least > >> >> >> they're not living an entire life of delusions of magic and pixies and > >> >> >> muddleheaded nonsense - nonsense which often induces horrific crimes in > >> >> >> its name. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> I'm sure you had a point, but other than demonstrating that religion > >> >> >> should not be allowed in office - which we're happy to agree with - the > >> >> >> point isn't clear. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Oh, you mean it's okay if religion is in office as long as it's your > >> >> >> religion, just not if it's the other guy's religion? Nah, can't > >be. From > >> >> >> the outside, they're about equally meaningless - and about equally > >> >> >> dangerous. > >> >> > > >> >> >America had no desire to take over the world. Otherwise, Americans would > >> >> >now have total control over Germany and Japan. The Muslims have made it > >> >> >clear that their end goal is to take over the world. The Muslims from the > >> >> >Middle East are presently taking over the Sudan. > >> >> > > >> >> America had no such desire, but we are ruled by George Bush now and he > >> >> chose to go to war, to conquer and occupy Iraq. That is imperialism, > >> >> nothing else. > >> > > >> >If the rulers of Iran want America to leave that country, we will leave > >> >that country. > >> > > >> We have occupied Iraq and made it clear that we aren't going anywhere. > >> Even our hired thugs are allowed to murder Iraqis without being > >> arrested. > > > >Please post an AP report indicating that the rulers of Iraq have decided > >they no longer want our troops in Iraq. I have never read such a report. > > > You assume they have a choice in the matter. They had a vote about a year ago. Quote
Guest Jason Posted November 1, 2007 Posted November 1, 2007 In article <szkbqae8zbm.fsf@eris.io.com>, The Chief Instigator <patrick@eris.io.com> wrote: > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) writes: > > >In article <5orgquFoc38tU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > ><witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote > >> snip > >> > The problem in that case was that Terry Shiavo did NOT have a living will > >> > and also failed to tell the many members of her family what she wanted the > >> > members of her family to do if she was ever in a comma. > > >> First of all, the word you're looking for is "coma". Second of all, she > >> apparently made her wishes clear to her husband and that's all that matters. > > >He was probably lying. > > How the hell would YOU know? The members of her family stated that he was lying. I believed them. He had a motive for lying. He wanted to marry another woman and could not marry her until Terry died. Quote
Guest Jason Posted November 1, 2007 Posted November 1, 2007 In article <t2dii3lrumssluaspo3rqab0f9o133r27h@4ax.com>, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: > On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 17:02:05 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > >In article <kg8ii3903hjb8u27imco3supu5oqluo5oo@4ax.com>, Al Klein > ><rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: > > > >> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 13:18:45 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> > >> >In article <fs8hi3p9uicde8hc9npmclr6r0cr3o7424@4ax.com>, Al Klein > >> ><rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: > >> > > >> >> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 00:00:34 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> >> > >> >> >I disagree. Roy Mooore worships God. > >> >> > >> >> Then why did he violate the law in an attempt to place a rock in a > >> >> court house? You usually make no sense, Jason, but this is stupid > >> >> even for you. > >> > > >> >I have heard Roy Moore preach a sermon and he mentioned in that sermon > >> >that he worships God. > >> > > >> Then why did he violate the law in an attempt to place a rock in a > >> court house? > > > >He claims to have the law on his side related to this issue. > > But he was wrong, because the law says he CAN'T put a religious symbol > in a government building. > > > Of course, various liberal judges disagreed with him related to this issue. > > Because the Constitution is a liberal document. > > >As you may know, liberal judges have an agenda. > > > Yes - upholding the "liberal" Constitution. Face it, Jason, you live > in a nation that BY LAW is liberal and secular. Tying to make it > conservative or sectarian is ILLEGAL. The 10 commandments have been in American court houses hundreds of years. Due to the actions of the ACLU and liberal judges, 10 commandment displays are now considered to be illegal. Believe it or not, liberal judges have an agenda. Their agendas are more important to them than the constitution. Quote
Guest Jason Posted November 1, 2007 Posted November 1, 2007 In article <h5eii3h1or8sdgq7t2c3910mh1t6ft588m@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 22:03:53 -0400, in alt.atheism > Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in > <svcii3t9malr8f08g06kuemtr8rh8741hr@4ax.com>: > >On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 17:06:34 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > >>In article <097ii35na1tem8b4ormhj2tsromi88daqp@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > >><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> > >>> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:08:55 -0800, in alt.atheism > >>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >>> <Jason-3110071608550001@67-150-124-24.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>: > >>> >In article <3p4ii3pu7vf0m7788kbvnjptfdbccnfmvh@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > >>> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >>> > > >>> >> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 12:13:37 -0400, in alt.atheism > >>> >> Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in > >>> >> <29ahi3houucl8cvb6s8a4no2mlaji3tn1l@4ax.com>: > >>> >> >On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 00:08:54 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >>> >> > > >>> >> >>How many times has Iran attacked America? > >>> >> > > >>> >> >None. > >>> >> > >>> >> Niggling little criticism. Attacking an embassy or consulate does count > >>> >> as attacking a country (see flap about US bombing of Chinese Embassy). > >>> >> Of course Jason is still way off base. > >>> >> > >>> >> >Hint: Defending isn't attacking. > >>> >> > > >>> >> >How many times has the US made UNPROVOKED attacks on the Middle East. > >>> >> > > >>> >> >Hint: Many, many times, both directly and through clients - during one > >>> >> >such attack we were counter-attacked. > >>> > > >>> >I also seem to recall that they attacked one of our war ships. > >>> > >>> Which one? Before or after we shot one of their civiliam planes out of > >>> the sky? > >> > >>I believe it was the USS Cole (spelling ??) > >> > >AFTER WE attacked THEM. > > No, Iran had nothing to do with it. Wikipedia tells us (with footnote) > > "On March 14, 2007, a federal judge in the United States, Robert Doumar > ruled that the Sudanese government was liable for the bombing.[3]" > > [3]^ NBC News. Federal judge rules Sudan responsible for USS Cole > bombing in 2000. NBC News. Retrieved on March 14, 2007. > > That was news to me. I recall reading that C-4 was probably made in Iran. Read this report: http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/11/01/cole.investigation/index.html WASHINGTON (CNN) -- C-4, an advanced plastic explosive, was used in the attack on the USS Cole, according to Yemen's prime minister and sources close to the U.S. investigation. The prime minister, Abdul Karim al-Ariani, told CNN the use of C-4 points to what he called "an Afghan connection" but does not necessarily implicate Osama bin Laden, the alleged mastermind of other attacks on U.S. targets abroad. "I will only guess that such a thing could be organized by an Afghan connection," the prime minister said. "But the question being raised, 'Is it bin Laden?' I could not say yes or no." The United States and many other countries have signed a pact mandating that plastic explosives be tagged with selected chemical marking agents to facilitate their detection. That agreement was negotiated in the wake of the 1988 Pan Am Flight 103 bombing and is aimed at combating the use of plastic explosives by terrorists. Iran also makes C-4 The FBI refused to comment on the results of its forensic analysis or any other aspect of its continuing investigation, but well-placed sources familiar with the probe confirmed C-4 was the explosive used. The sources said the finding narrows the investigation to which terrorist groups -- including that of the Afghanistan-based bin Laden -- are believed to have access to the military-style explosive. The finding suggests the possibility of state-sponsored terrorism, sources said. Although C-4, which contains the explosive material RDX (Research Development Explosive), is primarily manufactured in the United States, forms of C-4 are made in Austria, Iran and other countries, according to knowledgeable sources. But the sources provided no other evidence to suggest involvement by any of those countries. Two sources familiar with the Cole investigation say the C-4 finding has placed Iran on the radar for investigators, but one source said that suspecting Iran would be merely the result of "an educated guess." The sources stressed the investigation is still in the early stages, and no one is predicting where it may ultimately lead. Bin Laden's network remains on the list of potential suspects. Seventeen U.S. sailors were killed and more than three dozen others injured in the October 12 attack. The explosion tore a 40-by-40 foot hole in the side of the destroyer. Citing "credible threat information" against U.S. targets in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, all U.S. forces in those Persian Gulf countries have been placed on the highest state of alert. Interrogation progress reported The urgency of the Cole investigation has prompted the FBI to keep some units in its crime lab operating around the clock. Explosives experts, metallurgists and other scientists are continuing to analyze the extensive array of evidence brought back from the bomb-damaged destroyer, the Port of Aden and other locations, including the house where the bomb was believed to have been constructed. The Yemeni prime minister told CNN on Wednesday there is no question that Yemeni citizens helped the bombers falsify their identity cards. But he said there is now some question about whether Yemenis had helped the attackers prepare their small boat for the bombing on the Cole. Sources familiar with the investigation did not dispute the prime minister's statements. Yemeni and U.S. officials appear to be making progress toward resolving their disagreements over how to proceed with the investigation. U.S. sources agree with the al-Ariani's statement to CNN that an arrangement under discussion calls for FBI agents to be present as Yemeni police question their own citizens. FBI agents would be allowed to write down any follow-up questions and hand them to Yemeni investigators. "There are still a few matters to be resolved," said one U.S. official Wednesday. The official said that in return for allowing the FBI presence during questioning, the Yemeni government was looking for information from the U.S., but the official would not say what was being requested. Yemeni law forbids the questioning of Yemeni citizens by authorities from other countries. The FBI faced a similar situation in Saudi Arabia during the investigation of the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing which killed 19 U.S. servicemen, sources said. But they noted Yemen has so far been more flexible than the Saudi authorities were. CNN Senior International Correspondent Walter Rodgers and The Associated Press contributed to this report. Quote
Guest Jason Posted November 1, 2007 Posted November 1, 2007 In article <61eii3he08kkrhtt4c3m18r482hi18lbet@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 17:06:34 -0800, in alt.atheism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-3110071706350001@67-150-175-249.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>: > >In article <097ii35na1tem8b4ormhj2tsromi88daqp@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:08:55 -0800, in alt.atheism > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> <Jason-3110071608550001@67-150-124-24.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>: > >> >In article <3p4ii3pu7vf0m7788kbvnjptfdbccnfmvh@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> > > >> >> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 12:13:37 -0400, in alt.atheism > >> >> Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in > >> >> <29ahi3houucl8cvb6s8a4no2mlaji3tn1l@4ax.com>: > >> >> >On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 00:08:54 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >>How many times has Iran attacked America? > >> >> > > >> >> >None. > >> >> > >> >> Niggling little criticism. Attacking an embassy or consulate does count > >> >> as attacking a country (see flap about US bombing of Chinese Embassy). > >> >> Of course Jason is still way off base. > >> >> > >> >> >Hint: Defending isn't attacking. > >> >> > > >> >> >How many times has the US made UNPROVOKED attacks on the Middle East. > >> >> > > >> >> >Hint: Many, many times, both directly and through clients - during one > >> >> >such attack we were counter-attacked. > >> > > >> >I also seem to recall that they attacked one of our war ships. > >> > >> Which one? Before or after we shot one of their civiliam planes out of > >> the sky? > > > >I believe it was the USS Cole (spelling ??) > > Please point to anywhere that claims that Iran attacked the USS Cole. As > far as I was aware, the concensus was that al Qaeda did it. http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/11/01/cole.investigation/index.html WASHINGTON (CNN) -- C-4, an advanced plastic explosive, was used in the attack on the USS Cole, according to Yemen's prime minister and sources close to the U.S. investigation. The prime minister, Abdul Karim al-Ariani, told CNN the use of C-4 points to what he called "an Afghan connection" but does not necessarily implicate Osama bin Laden, the alleged mastermind of other attacks on U.S. targets abroad. "I will only guess that such a thing could be organized by an Afghan connection," the prime minister said. "But the question being raised, 'Is it bin Laden?' I could not say yes or no." The United States and many other countries have signed a pact mandating that plastic explosives be tagged with selected chemical marking agents to facilitate their detection. That agreement was negotiated in the wake of the 1988 Pan Am Flight 103 bombing and is aimed at combating the use of plastic explosives by terrorists. Iran also makes C-4 The FBI refused to comment on the results of its forensic analysis or any other aspect of its continuing investigation, but well-placed sources familiar with the probe confirmed C-4 was the explosive used. The sources said the finding narrows the investigation to which terrorist groups -- including that of the Afghanistan-based bin Laden -- are believed to have access to the military-style explosive. The finding suggests the possibility of state-sponsored terrorism, sources said. Although C-4, which contains the explosive material RDX (Research Development Explosive), is primarily manufactured in the United States, forms of C-4 are made in Austria, Iran and other countries, according to knowledgeable sources. But the sources provided no other evidence to suggest involvement by any of those countries. Two sources familiar with the Cole investigation say the C-4 finding has placed Iran on the radar for investigators, but one source said that suspecting Iran would be merely the result of "an educated guess." The sources stressed the investigation is still in the early stages, and no one is predicting where it may ultimately lead. Bin Laden's network remains on the list of potential suspects. Seventeen U.S. sailors were killed and more than three dozen others injured in the October 12 attack. The explosion tore a 40-by-40 foot hole in the side of the destroyer. Citing "credible threat information" against U.S. targets in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, all U.S. forces in those Persian Gulf countries have been placed on the highest state of alert. Interrogation progress reported The urgency of the Cole investigation has prompted the FBI to keep some units in its crime lab operating around the clock. Explosives experts, metallurgists and other scientists are continuing to analyze the extensive array of evidence brought back from the bomb-damaged destroyer, the Port of Aden and other locations, including the house where the bomb was believed to have been constructed. The Yemeni prime minister told CNN on Wednesday there is no question that Yemeni citizens helped the bombers falsify their identity cards. But he said there is now some question about whether Yemenis had helped the attackers prepare their small boat for the bombing on the Cole. Sources familiar with the investigation did not dispute the prime minister's statements. Yemeni and U.S. officials appear to be making progress toward resolving their disagreements over how to proceed with the investigation. U.S. sources agree with the al-Ariani's statement to CNN that an arrangement under discussion calls for FBI agents to be present as Yemeni police question their own citizens. FBI agents would be allowed to write down any follow-up questions and hand them to Yemeni investigators. "There are still a few matters to be resolved," said one U.S. official Wednesday. The official said that in return for allowing the FBI presence during questioning, the Yemeni government was looking for information from the U.S., but the official would not say what was being requested. Yemeni law forbids the questioning of Yemeni citizens by authorities from other countries. The FBI faced a similar situation in Saudi Arabia during the investigation of the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing which killed 19 U.S. servicemen, sources said. But they noted Yemen has so far been more flexible than the Saudi authorities were. CNN Senior International Correspondent Walter Rodgers and The Associated Press contributed to this report. Quote
Guest Charles & Mambo Duckman Posted November 1, 2007 Posted November 1, 2007 Jason wrote: >>>I also seem to recall that they attacked one of our war ships. >> >>So has Israel. > > > That is true but I don't remember the details. So, I am confused. Are we supposed to attack Israel, too? -- Come down off the cross We can use the wood Tom Waits, Come On Up To The House Quote
Guest Charles & Mambo Duckman Posted November 1, 2007 Posted November 1, 2007 Jason wrote: > > The members of her family stated that he was lying. I believed them. He > had a motive for lying. He wanted to marry another woman and could not > marry her until Terry died. ??? Are you feeling well? I mean, this is too stupid even for your standards. -- Come down off the cross We can use the wood Tom Waits, Come On Up To The House Quote
Guest hhyapster@gmail.com Posted November 1, 2007 Posted November 1, 2007 On Nov 1, 2:48 pm, Charles & Mambo Duckman <duck...@gfy.slf> wrote: > Jason wrote: > >>>I also seem to recall that they attacked one of our war ships. > > >>So has Israel. > > > That is true but I don't remember the details. > > So, I am confused. Are we supposed to attack Israel, too? > > -- > Come down off the cross > We can use the wood > > Tom Waits, Come On Up To The House Arrogant American bastard like Jason is follwing the bible teaching: "an eye for an eye", right? With the US attitude, there is no need for this counter action, just a buildup excuse would do and they will attack any one. The example:::::Iraq. Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted November 1, 2007 Posted November 1, 2007 Mike wrote: > Tokay Pino Gris wrote: >> There are some quite similar questions in a test that was set up to >> determine whether people react "morally" regardless of religion. >> >> Let's see if I can get them together. >> >> Scenario A: >> >> Train roll towards a track switch. If you do nothing, five people tied >> to the tracks will die. If you flip the switch, one will die, standing >> on the alternate track (not tied to it, but can't evade). >> >> IIRC over 95% decided to throw the switch. > > In this case, doing nothing doesn't involve as much harm as it did in my > scenerio. I was trying to give Jason a choice between an evil and a > really BAD, super BIG evil. Yes, the amount of harm is limited in these scenarios. I doubt, however that Jason understands the conclusions drawn from those questions and the results. > >> Scenario B: >> >> Train rolls towards five people tied to the tracks. You stand on a >> bridge and there is a very fat guy just sitting there. You could stop >> the train if you push the fat guy off the bridge. >> >> The result was not so clear, but still (IIRC) over 80% decided NOT to >> throw him off. > > Yeah, Jason tried squirming out of this one by saying "but I don't know > for sure that pushing the fat guy off would work" and "the fat guy might > have family that would also be affected", etc. Those are questions you can't ask in these scenarios (There were just a few of them in Dawkins book... later on, such additional information could have been in them. I found this experiment quite interesting. It was set up to determine if there was a certain kind of "moral" that was inherent to humans, regardless of religion, color, country or anything else. > >> >> (I think the problems/questions posed get more complicated and more >> difficult to answer) >> >> So, where is the difference? Head count is the same. >> >> Many theories about that, but mostly it is said that the man in >> scenario A is "collateral damage" and the fat guy in scenario B is a >> complete innocent bystander. >> >> >> (I'd have to look that up. It was in Dawkins book, I think, "The God >> Delusion", at least it was explained there. An explanation why morals >> are morals and that they do not derive from a book) >> >> So, that kid those terrorists want dead is in my eyes the innocent >> bystander while the kids in the sub are "collateral". > > Yes, there is that point as well. > >> Plus the point that these are terrorists. You can't negotiate with >> terrorists. Or blackmailers. Oh, you can, of course, but imagine what >> would happen afterwards? How soon will the next terrorist group kidnap >> more kids to get their goals? Maybe they would not want ONE kid to be >> dead but a thousand? All firstborns of egypt? >> >> Where to draw the line? How much are you willing to give those >> terrorists? One kid? Two? Ten? A hundred? >> >> Would you do a head count? "If you have five kids kidnapped, I am >> willing to kill four?" >> >> Well. I wouldn't. One is one to many. Very sad about the kidnapped. >> Very very sad indeed. But in the long run, this works out. It is not >> nice, it is not a happy decision. It is not an easy decision. But make >> it you must and I think there is really not much of a choice. > > I have no problems with your decision and maybe I would do the same > myself if it really happened. Basically, there's no "right" or "wrong" > answer. I did not mean to say that you had a problem with my answer. Nor would I have one with yours, whatever it is. I was merely explaining why I decided to answer the way I did. But Jason doesn't have CONSISTENT answers and that's what I was > trying to illustrate. Funny how he does that, isn't it? And when driven into a corner, he changes the subject, introduces unrelated questions and more of that stuff. Sometimes he even resorts to "making it up as you go along". (Heaven in another dimension.... ROFL) Tokay -- "Just once, I wish we would encounter an alien menace that wasn't immune to bullets" The Brigader, "Dr. Who" Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted November 1, 2007 Posted November 1, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <tuefi3p2v1aknfg133v7r2594kgl9l1ji1@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 12:50:24 -0800, in alt.talk.creationism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-3010071250250001@66-53-215-221.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>: >>> In article <fg7db2$d3d$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Jason wrote: >>>>> The 10 commandments are the only laws from the Old Testament that most >>>>> Christians pay any attention to. Most of those laws are unrelated to life >>>>> in America. For example, many of the laws are related to animals. Imagine >>>>> the trouble that Christians could get into if we stoned someone to death >>>>> for committing adultery. >>>> Ok, Jason, let's see how much attention you pay to the 10 commandments >>>> (and possibly get you to finally understand that there is no "one right >>>> answer" in all circumstances.) >>>> >>>> There is a religious group (doesn't matter who other than they aren't >>>> xians) who have become convinced that a 2 year old living in NY is the >>>> "antichrist" of their religion. They are desperate to kill this child or >>>> have it killed. They don't care about what penalty they'd pay and, other >>>> than this, they are a very peaceful group. They have repeatly tried, at >>>> great expense of money and life, to kill this child. >>>> >>>> They have taken control of a nuclear sub and have several children as >>>> hostages in the sub. The sub is in 300' of water off the coast of NY. >>>> They know the launch codes for the nukes. There is no way possible to >>>> get the children out of the sub and dropping depth charges will kill all >>>> on board. You are in charge of the naval ships that could drop such > charges. >>>> They have sent a demand to you: Personally kill the child on live TV by >>>> 5:00pm, at which time we will surface the sub and surrender, or we >>>> launch a nuke on NYC which will kill the child and then we will surface >>>> and surrender. Based on your knowledge of the religion, etc. you know >>>> that they will keep their word on the surrender. >>>> >>>> Now your only options are: >>>> >>>> 1: Kill the child yourself. >>>> >>>> 2: Drop depth charges on the sub, killing them but also killing several >>>> children on board. >>>> >>>> 3: Do nothing and let them nuke NYC, thus killing the child as well as >>>> many others. >>>> >>>> NO other options (such as "we won't vote at all and just pray that a >>>> rescue ship comes by and gets us before we all die of thirst." or "I'll >>>> wait to see if I can get a clear shot.") are available. >>>> >>>> What are you going to do? >>>> >>>> Personally, I'd kill the child. I wouldn't be happy at all about it and >>>> would probably need therapy for the rest of my life, but I'd see no >>>> other choice. >>>> >>>> Occasionally, you have no other choice but to kill an innocent person. >>> I would do nothing. >>> >> So, why would you choose to let NYC be nuked? Are you really persuaded >> that NYC is a den of iniquity and that God wants it nuked? > > Of the options you provided, it was my favorite. You chose the solution with the highest head count. Why? > > In relation to Iran, if you was president of the USA--would you attack the > nuclear facilities in Iran now or wait until after they fired several > nuclear tipped missiles at Israel? > > I answer first: I would order an attack on the nuclear facilities in Iran ASAP. Good thing you are not the president (Although I guess this bugger will eventually attack... Hopefully not with nuclear weaponry. Even he can't be that stupid). You have no evidence that these facilities are de facto for building nuclear weapons. So, you would attack on basis of what? The word of that bugger from Iran? What if he is bluffing? Of course, what if he is not bluffing? Politics and especially international politics are not black and white. Tokay -- "Just once, I wish we would encounter an alien menace that wasn't immune to bullets" The Brigader, "Dr. Who" Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.