From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Wed Jan 22 2003 - 13:02:50 MST
Spudboy100@aol.com wrote:
> Samantha asked:
> <<Is the point lost on you that at one time some powerful nations
> and groups said similar things about the Jewish people? It is a
> very dark road that you are contemplating.>>
>
> Yah! But the Jews were and are tiny compared to a billion Muslims, and a
> large fraction of Jews never felt so threatend by democracy, that they
> became kamikazi attackers (9-11). As Bernard Lewis aptly stated: "The
> Wahabbis as if the American KKK inherited oil fields. Powerful nations
> (Europeans) still hate Jews but let the North Africans (as in France)
> carry out the violence-all they while pretending to "deplore" it.
> Laughable ;-)
Hmmm. A dozen suicidal terrorists are "a large faction" of the
Islamic population? Islamic people are a larger group so it is
ok to target them as a whole for destruction? Jewish conspiracy
theories are worth no more than other conspiracy theories are.
>
> <<This is utterly ridiculous. You claim those who do not want
> this very questionable war, much less your even broader
> conception of it are thereby "Leftists" (whatever the hell that
> his in your mind) or "Pro-Nazi"? Do you honestly believe any
> sane person will accept such an argument?>>
>
> Well, sanity seems never to be an issue as far as winning arguments go.
> But, yes, the neonazi National Alliance party in Cleveland, and their
> involvement with David Duke, who just completed a speaking tour in
> Kuwait, Abu Dabai, Bahrain etc.; before he was sentenced to prison for
> embezzling.
>
So you admit your argument employed insane tactics? And then
you turn around and attempt to defend them with some weak news
about a Nazi group allied with David Duke which you do not even
bother to tie to those opposed to this particular war. Why even
bother with such a pointless response?
> <<You are categorically opposed (apparently) to the existence of
> large number of others! You are very hypocritical in this. You
> wish to cast all of this in terms of those opposed to your
> existence and the existence of your people. Consider for just a
> moment that this is not so. At the very least admit the obvious
> fact that those that disagree with you are not out to
> exterminate you and your people even when and if you advocate
> the extermination of others.
> - samantha>>
>
> After meeting so many Muslims in Yahoo chat, I am, as the lawyers say,
> convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, that, at least they know what they
> want. Chiefly, the destruction of my peeps, which they are quite ardent
> about; and the ruination of the USA, which they seem even more motivated
> toward. I am emphatically not, trying to seek a moral highground, but
> merely realize that these fellows want a war of extermiation. Passivity
> is not my orientation, so basically I am in favor of destabling the
> Wahabbis, the Ayatollahs and the like. I see no other choice, knowing
> what I believe I know, rather then just what I feel.
>
Do you think that a war of extermination agains Islamic people
per se is then justified? Do you think the Muslims you flushed
out on these chat groups are sufficient to decide such a thing
against all of Islam? Because much of your lingo has been a bit
more wide than simply destablizing the Wahabbis and Ayatollahs.
It is that that worries me.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 02 2003 - 21:26:02 MST