Kent Finnell wrote:
>> Kent Finnell wrote:
>>>> Kent Finnell wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Do they think if we destroy our freedoms for the
>>>>>> terrorists they will no longer have a reason to attack
>>>>>> us? -Ron Paul(R)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well,
>>>>>> there's a really easy way: stop participating in
>>>>>> it. -Noam Chomsky
>>>>>>
>>>>> Why don't you add Barack Obama to your list of people
>>>>> who think that talking to radical Islamist will cure
>>>>> the problem? Then you'll have 3 fools.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> So...what do you think is the cure...killing them all
>>>> without a word?
>>> Where did I say that, jak? To begin with, with whom do
>>> we have a word? This is by no means a conventional war
>>> where the enemy is in uniform. Instead the enemy straps
>>> bombs on women and children to kill civilians in markets
>>> and mosques. The enemy has no state, no government with
>>> which to negotiate (with words). The enemy only wants to
>>> convert with the sword (or suicide bomb or highJAKed
>>> airliner or car bomb) to a perverted version of Islam.
>>> The enemy puts out hit contracts on writers and
>>> cartoonists. It opposes all forms of freedom for women,
>>> regards them as cattle.
>>>
>> Are you talking about the KKK? Obviously bombing a mosque
>> is not a blow against 'us'. You keep saying that this is
>> not a conventional war, but you seem to not understand
>> that it means that it cannot be fought by conventional
>> means.
>
> No, the KKK is not a force of any consequence in this
> country, nasty and dangerous, yes, but there's no real
> movement toward its dark philosophy.
>
They were at one time...in certain regions. Their first cousins were
responsible for OK City and numerous other domestic bombings. Remember
Atlanta?
> So how should we fight this war, jak? Surrender, give them
> whatever they want regardless of the consequences? Peace in
> our time, Mr. Chamberlain?
>
Uh...talk to them? I believe that was the 'foolish' notion you brought
up. Did you forget?
>>>> How's that working out? Who's the fool?
>>> You. Apparently you're all set to buy your daughter a
>>> berka and a backpack bomb.
>>>
>> And you probably put yours in chaps with a six-shooter.
>
> No chaps, no six shooter. Just standing fast against the
> weak-kneed appeasiers in this country.
>
>
>> If you hadn't jumped the shark--way, way back--then this
>> would be when you lost all credibility.
>
> A "Happy Days" reference, jak? Are you living that far in
> the past?
>
A well-known term (originating when The Fonz literally jumped the shark,
but in common use today). Google it....
> You do seem to be ready to bow down to the terrorists, not
> I.
>
You keep saying that, Kent; and make vile references to my offspring
that would get you punched in the eye if you were to do it to my face.
Cite some evidence that I 'bow down'.
Liar.
>> Those of my various daughters' friends who *do* wear
>> burkas look pretty fetching in them. I don't look on them
>> as inferior to me. Religious freedom. Freedom from
>> religion...two sides of the same coin.
>
> And I have no quarrel with children. Several Muslim girls
> wear burkas where my granddaughters go to school. No
> problem as they are not forced by mullas to wear the full
> gear and cover their faces and they are obviously allowed to
> get an education. Their mothers drive and I'm sure that
> some of them have jobs outside the home.
So why the negative reference to burkas?
>> You appear to be on your own jihad.
>
> Hardly. I've yet to kidnap or behead anyone not do I have
> plans to do so.
Yet you support those who do worse things....
jak
>> jak
>>
>
