Ricardo: I am traveling tomorrow Orlando to DC for my step-daughter's wedding this weekend, so you won't hear much from me till next week.
> > I would like you to elaborate on what you think my POV is, though. > Perhaps I > > can clarify. > > Are you ok with the invasion to Irak? Do you stand for 'our poor boys > abroad'? Those same boys who choose to be trained to kill and choose to > go to other countries and kill, torture and rape? Are those "boys" > under > US law or under Sharia? My views on war generally and the Iraq war specifically are not easy to express in one email post. I shall take some time soon to elaborate, but suffice to say: 1. In hind sight I think the Iraq war was not in the strategic interest of the US, though it seemed so at that time, and it had nothing whatever to do with oil or WMDs, then or now. 2. Having said that, it has achieved good things as well as bad, and in the big scheme of things over the long-term, it may have proven necessary and even beneficial, whether it ever benefits the US directly or not. The categorization of our reasons for war and the conduct of the war has been myopic, lopsided, and wrong in many respects. 3. All war is bad, and most wars have their roots in fallen human nature. There is a time for war, and a time for peace. When it's time for war, everyone wants their guys to win it, and the other guys to lose it. Partisan politics skews this a bit, but only when things are going "too well"--and not when the chips are really down. > > Will you take a step back and tell me when the subject of this thread > became > > war? > > The minute you took the flag for hatred of everything muslim > (jew/chinese/japanese/etc..). Do you take me for a fool? All this rant > stems from your country's state of undeclared war to muslims. Twenty > years ago you wouldn't even know what Sharia is and you would give a > damn about Brit law allowing civil cases to be judged under it. I would say you are clairvoyant, except for the fact that you are dead wrong. I find it amusing that you are so confident you know what I knew (or didn't know) at some time in the past. I don't take you for a fool but you do seem to present yourself when you attempt to expound reverse prophecy like this. > > We are talking about the introduction of one framework of law > (Sharia), into > > another framework of law (British common law and constitutional law > > generally) > > None of which you know at all. So, as you are apparently far more highly qualified than I to render an opinion on these weighty matters, am I incorrect in pointing out that they (Sharia and Brittish common law) are based on entirely different precepts of law, justice and human rights? If so please elaborate, Dr. Araoz. > > >, based on entirely different (not to mention inimical) principles > > (not to mention assumption about human rights). I note that they are > > incompatible > > So it is your "humble" opinion that Brit lawyers, judges, and > parliament > know nothing about their own laws, that they didn't give the matter a > moment's thought, and that it is your "mission" to enlighten them. I know actual British folks who are very much into the debate. Some are for it, many against it. It was not a universally acclaimed decision; many people in England have deep reservations about it. Others take a poo-poo attitude, like our very own Adam Buckland (I'll be having a fine single malt scotch, straight up, this weekend, and shall surely think of him then). I'm not on any mission to enlighten you. This does not even appear possible. > >; Helio observes that the adherents of Sharia will not think of > > it the way the high-minded Brits, by allowing it, intend it--a point > with > > which I concur, albeit Helio and I arrive at this conclusion by > different > > paths of reason. > > Funny that you two can only coincide in the common hate towards a third > party. Wonder what this reveals about you two. > We agree mixing Sharia law with any form of Western constitutional law as inherently contradictory, and detrimental to the latter. As far as I know, this is all Helio agrees with me about. It has zip, nada, zilch to do with hate--I think your obsession on this topic says more about you and your hyper-judgmental-ism than it does about either of us. To be distressed about the logical consequence of something to the point that you speak out against it (yea, even with humor and hyperbole) is by no means the same thing as hating somebody. I wish you'd stop reducing the conversation to our personal motives, which you ignorantly claim to understand. For example, I'm quite sure you don't hate me, just because you misrepresent my opinions. But I wonder sometimes... > And I make an effort to highlight the contradictions, hatreds, and > prejudices in your set of convictions. Luke 6:42. > It's just that my loving nature sees you in the path to hell and wants > to save you from satan's claws, it's for your own good. Now this is an interesting statement. Pray tell, what can I do to avoid Satan's claws, in your view? > > My opposition to Sharia is in part based on a conviction--yes based > on > > study--that it is hate-filled and indeed evil. > > Again! So you are telling us Brit parliament and their lawyers and > judges are stupid people that have not studied the Sharia as profoundly > as you have. Go figure! These uncivilized Europeans! No, I agree with many Brits who are distressed about this development and think that it's a Bad Idea. In general, Europe is demographically becoming more Muslim and less European. This is not a hateful prejudice but a fact of modern history that will have profound impact on the next century. It's already impacting this century. > > How did it go? You shall be known by your acts? or something like that. By their fruits. Matthew 7:16. But this too, as with many other things, requires spiritual discernment. > > > This wouldn't matter if you didn't go > > beyond mere banter or all-in-good-fun poking to descend to personal > > analysis. > > You should read The Godfather. It is ALWAYS personal. When you make it so, then it is. It need not always be. > > > > That said, I do enjoy your rants. > > > > Thanks, so do I. Sounds like you do. - Bob _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
