coming from >europe. Just of the jews and america. Until I see otherwise, >we must stay the course. see, one problem is that i can watch almost all US TV stations and buy
/> stay so for at least another 50 years. so i dont really know what to reply to such accusations. its so completely unreal, i dont know where to start. >See, any response to terrorism besides negotiation is either >"muscle flexing" or "cowboys" or "macho". muscle flexing is what i called it, getting bored by the "politics of force" terms i used the entire force. "cowboys" and "macho" is yet another projection of yours.
gain. oh well. >Perhaps they do not serve God at all. Perhaps at minimum they >have perverted Islam? Your hatred of religion will not offer an >alternative. no hatred. a very cynical distance though, yes, definetly. i did say a few words about personal belief on the one hand on huge monotheistic religious institutions on the other hand and whether the latter is any good for this planet. you can go back and read it if youre interested, but i guess for now its enough. and now ill go to b
ter than george-bush-is-pure-evil bullshit. >its kindergarden. no thanks. Nonsense. Where have I done this? I can support any of the very few claims I have made about Europe. >> you assume all violence is failure > > >i repeatedly said the exact opposite but nevermind. rant on. No, you espouse selective pacifism which you conveniently misplace in Bosnia, but apply rigidly to Israel. >i did. its why im interested in this discussion. >a childish &quot
sis in the future is, imo, the maybe >even more important goal. diplomacy, holding oneself to >the high standards we used to at least pretend to have, that >kind of stuff seems like the more promising way to go for >that (unless you want to tell me that you believe that the >very concept of diplomacy is at fault). Diplomacy only works with non-crazy people. At least for the long-term. Kill the gho
uls, negotiate with the sane survivors. >>And what do you offer in place of this accursed religion? >>Darwin? Pacifism? An enlightened social contract between >>free moral people? Think these things will sell to the islamofascists? >>Me neither. These are weak ideas and subject to the opinions of whoever >>offers them. >>Meaningless phrases full of intent, signifying
nothing. >just like institutionalized religion, really. only difference >being that is has a much cleaner historical track record. >but im not about to even start hoping that there will be >a significant change here anytime soon, cause im not >religious about that either. this is a change that comes >over time, separation of religion and politics... >it seemed to get better in the second half of the >last century. currently it seems to get worse again. >oh well. My point is that when confronted with religion that causes evil, the solution may not be atheism or secularism, but religion that causes good. >>Perhaps they do not serve
s views. John rick wrote: > hey, i found out i'm probably a drunk and definitely a jackass...so i > guess i'm deeper than i thought. > > ;o) > > On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 23:12:05 -0500, Tony <tonyx@standingxhampton.com> > wrote: > > >>Justin, >> >>I think the problem with these topics is that everyone seems pretty hell >>bent on changing somebody else's politics in the course of a few news group >>posts. That isn't ever going to happen. It takes years for each of us to >&
r /> [binary]
P+Pfox+D1HuN+P [binary]