🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <f7dcsl$b12$5@blackhelicopter.databasix.com>,
 Joeseph P. Blow <jpblow@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 07:59:22 -0500, Al <albert.finney000@geemail.coom>
> wrote:
> 
> >In article <4699a285$0$20582$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
> > Slim <slim@pickins.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2007-07-14 22:06:33 -0400, Al <albert.finney000@geemail.coom> said:
> >> 
> >> > In article <46997cfd$0$4716$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
> >> >  Slim <slim@pickins.com> wrote:
> >> > 
> >> >> On 2007-07-14 18:41:08 -0400, Al <albert.finney000@geemail.coom> said:
> >> >> 
> >> >>> In article <f7bbcj$25e$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com>,
> >> >>> Joeseph P. Blow <jpblow@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>> 
> >> >>>> On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 17:05:24 GMT, Mike Smith <mws@wt.net> wrote:
> >> >>>> 
> >> >>>>> On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 11:45:16 -0400, Joeseph P. Blow 
> >> >>>>> <jpblow@gmail.com>
> >> >>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>> 
> >> >>>>>> On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 15:00:03 GMT, Mike Smith <mws@wt.net> wrote:
> >> >>>>>> 
> >> >>>>>>> On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 10:30:19 -0400, Joeseph P. Blow 
> >> >>>>>>> <jpblow@gmail.com>
> >> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>> 
> >> >>>>>>>> On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 11:48:32 GMT, Mike Smith <mws@wt.net> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>> 
> >> >>>>>>>> 
> >> >>>>>>>>> Folks,
> >> >>>>>>>> 
> >> >>>>>>>> aka fellow neocon dupes who haven't yet admitted it to themselves 
> >> >>>>>>>> that
> >> >>>>>>>> they were wrong
> >> >>>>>>>> 
> >> >>>>>>>>> this is typical liberal-think. This poor ignorant buffoon
> >> >>>>>>>>> actually thinks we are still trying to "take" Iraq and 
> >> >>>>>>>>> Afghanistan. 
> >> >>>>>>>>> We
> >> >>>>>>>>> already did that.. in about 3 weeks.
> >> >>>>>>>> 
> >> >>>>>>>> 
> >> >>>>>>>> No, we didn't.
> >> >>>>>>>>> The Taliban and Saddam were defeated in record time.
> >> >>>>>>>> 
> >> >>>>>>>> 
> >> >>>>>>>> The taliban wasn't IN iraq until after saddam was ousted, 
> >> >>>>>>>> dipshit.
> >> >>>>>>>> 
> >> >>>>>>> 
> >> >>>>>>> See what I mean, folks. Dumber than dirt...
> >> >>>>>> Yes, you are.  You're the one that made the claim.   Backing down 
> >> >>>>>> now?
> >> >>>>>> The taliban haven't been defeated. Bin Ladin hasn't been caught.  
> >> >>>>>> US
> >> >>>>>> Servicemen and Iraqi citizens are dying.  You are a fool.
> >> >>>>> 
> >> >>>>> Heh heh heh ..
> >> >>>>> 
> >> >>>>> You're the moron that "forgot" the Taliban were in Afghanistan
> >> >>>> 
> >> >>>> Still are.  Still haven't been defeated.  Nice try, neocon dupe.  You
> >> >>>> lose again.
> >> >>> 
> >> >>> They never will be defeated. Islam is simply a superior culture, and 
> >> >>> there is nothing you or I can do to stand in their way.
> >> >> 
> >> >> BULLSHIT.
> >> >> 
> >> >> Organized Religion is the Opiate of the masses.
> >> > 
> >> > Citation of marxist principles does wonders for your argument(s).
> >> 
> >> It certainly does, when its the truth.
> >> 
> >> More people have killed/be killed beacuse of religion than any other 
> >> reason.
> >
> >That's simplistic rhetoric.
> 
> Yet it's as true today as it was at any other time in history.

Sorry, no. Communism alone killed more people in the 20th century than 
all religiously-motivated efforts combined.

It is a rather popular misconception among statist types and the 
under-educated, though.
 
> >In ancient times, almost every group was 
> >identified by a religious belief,so every conflict had a religious 
> >element - but they were chiefly battles for land and resources.
> 
> 
> And now it's christians killing muslims.

You are simply parroting jihadi propaganda.

It is in fact Muslims who kill the most Muslims. Non-Muslim nations such 
as the US have expended the most to protect Muslims from other Muslims.
 
> >In modern times, such as the past century, most killing was under the 
> >auspices of regimes that were hostile to religion, as evidenced by your 
> >quotation of Karl Marx.
> 
> You're making his point for him.

Actually, no. Karl Marx was an atheist.

> >The assumption behind this "religion kills" position is that "lack of 
> >religion brings peace", and that's just not so.
> 
> Actually, it could be.  If there were NO religions, there'd be no
> religion to attack or defend.

Excellent logic for the pre-teen set, but as stated, no matter the 
warring factions, land and resources are the most common motivations.

> 
> >> Pat Robertson is a Mullah.
> >
> >In a comparative sense, he occupies a position comparable to a Muslim 
> >Mullah -  but not all Mullahs preach holy war, nor do most Christian 
> >preachers.
> 
> Nor are all muslims terrorists.

Your tenuous grasp of historical reality has led you to a painted 
corner, Joseph.

Your statement: " And now it's christians killing muslims" has to 
suppose all Muslims are terrorists, when in fact, the west targets 
*radical Islamists*, who are the primary force killing Muslims today.

It is you that fails to recognize this distinction. But, coming from one 
who apparently assumes those targeting radical Muslims are "Christian" 
armies, it is not a surprise.

Unless, of course, the Pakistani military has converted.