> >Interestingly enough, Daniel Pearl's wife said that he was sympathetic to
> >the Palestinean people and was concerned about the marginalization of
> >Muslims.
>
> Interestingly enough, so was I until about seven months ago. Strange how
> my "turn" came about.
Yes, based upon visceral qualities.
Doubtless! :-)
I'm sure you hate the people who killed
Daniel Pearl because of ... well ... those same people tore down the Twin
Towers. Right?
Approximately: the emotion is more like repulsion, or the rudiments of hatred. But yes, "the same people," while being a strictly arbitrary phrase, applies to some degree. We'll refer to this mind set by yet another one of two potential arbitrary phrases: "Islamic Extremism" or "religious extremism." In any case, I do not hate them per se. I definitely DO find them repulsive.
What are you doing theorizing on what the media already told you?
There's a difference between the visceral and the intellectual. While, on occasion, my heart boils with rage against "Islamic extremists," I remain aware that the truth and/or facts are not always as they seem or are reported to be.
> >I disagree that she is "less than attractive" ... but I digress. Anyway,
all
> >I can add is - nuke over a billion people based on their religion?
>
> More like based on their actions and threat to the world community at
> large, but yes, it's better to lose one billion than six or seven billion.
Ain't gonna happen that way, sorry. A billion goes, we all go.
Obviously. I present the possibility because I believe that is what we are being led to accept.
I put a
dollar on it.
Cheapskate :-) I'd put at least a hundred on it.
> > Round up
> >all the Muslims here in the US and execute them?
>
> Again, that depends on their actions.
Is this reparations?
Retaliation would be a better guess.
> > Makes the Holocaust look
> >miniscule ... and we would *surely* be nuked back.
>
> Also depends--on how quick and massive the initial attack. I wouldn't be
> at all surprised to hear of top secret meetings between the leaders of the
> world's major players about "cutting losses now while we still have a
world
> in which to live." Conceivably, a nuclear strike against X segment of the
> world's population might be a joint effort to "kill the cancer before it
> spreads."
Yeah, and they're all Muslim, right? Four centuries ago, it was not they.
It's their turn at the stump. One century, it's white Europeans; another it's the blacks; another it's the Jews, etc. etc.
> > It would pretty much be
> >the end of all of us, or most of us. Of course, India and Pakistan may
take
> >care of that without us lobbing the first nuclear warhead.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > Pakistan has
> >first strike perogative according to their policy, but India has a lot
more
> >warheads, according to Jane's.
>
> What was the last US "intelligence" estimate; 12 million give or take?
What is the "intelligence" of holocaust - yours or theirs?
I do not propose a holocaust. I propose that we are being LED to a holocaust.
Edward ><+>
"UFOs exist. It's the Air Force that's only in science fiction."~GB+
http://www.global-connector.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/reality_pump/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
