I know an entire family that would fit that description. Their
8-year-old daughter is in my daughter's class at school. We became
friends when both girls were in kindergarten together.
Elmer L. Fairbank wrote:
> At 17:42 11/9/2002 -0600, St Paul not Minnesota wrote:
> >Tell me the name
> >of j
I agree -- the 101st airborne, which is a light division and can be airlifted, as
its name implies, was the first *foreign* military on the scene, but they were
not the first military forces there.
Dan R Allen wrote:
> Marc:
> I don't think so. The foreigners had to get their assets into place, t
At 17:42 11/9/2002 -0600, St Paul not Minnesota wrote:
Tell me the name
of just one Muslim that does not despise the Jews and wish that their
nation was dissolved?
Munther Unes. A very fine gentleman if ever I have met one.
Till
/
Marc:
I don't think so. The foreigners had to get their assets into place, too.
It
wasn't unilateral. In fact, it's ironic that you're showing this particular
kind
of ignorance on the topic -- it was precisely because the Saudis allowed
foreign,
non-Moslem soldiers on its soil that set bin Laden
At 23:18 11/8/2002 -0800, Stacey wrote:
Where do the Mexicans align themselves?
Certainly not at a border crossing!
Till the ever-watchful
/
/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at ///
/// http://www.zionsbest.com
> Dan:
> What do you consider as first? IIRC, we did start troop movements, but
the
> first bombs didn't drop until after the coalition was in place.
Jon:
That's my point. it was a LOOONNGGG time between the two events. We are
not even near the point where bombs would drop, and President Bush
After much pondering, Gary Smith favored us with:
>Do we wait until Islam engulfs the nations and becomes a giant
>threat,before we "encourage" it to stand down and live peacefully among
>the nations of the world?
John:
Do you really think there is any danger that Islam could become "a giant
th
In addition, there are Christian Arabs who feel the same way about the
modern Jewish state. I can't name the author right now, but perhaps you
can find it on the internet. Read a book entitled BLOOD BROTHERS and then
tell me how you feel about the issue.
I played hookey today but for a good r
Stacy wrote back:
>Why doesn't he count? He claims as a Muslim he didn't hate Jews either,
>only the way modern Israel came into being. I'll name another one who
>claims to have loved all people. He even married a Christian woman
while
>he was Muslim, namely my sister. He is from Turkey. Hi
There are other sections of the Qur'an, it is true, that tell the soldiers
to slaughter unbelievers, but when one talks to most Muslims they claim
that this was during the first wars in self-defense from Christian and
Jewish opposition and that this has not always held true. At times
Christian
Why doesn't he count? He claims as a Muslim he didn't hate Jews either,
only the way modern Israel came into being. I'll name another one who
claims to have loved all people. He even married a Christian woman while
he was Muslim, namely my sister. He is from Turkey. His name is Tahir
Sozut
That's the problem with universal statements. They're like balloons -- it only
takes one pin to burst them.
Paul Osborne wrote:
> >Muhammad Karim, ex-Muslim and Christian. He only disapproves of the way
>
> >that modern Israel as a nation came into existence.
>
> He doesn't count.
>
> Paul O
> [
No, they're "beni Israel" (the title of one of the Suras of the Qur'an), meaning
by way of connotation that they, along with Christians, are "children of the
Book" and are to be treated with respect. It's not just Christians who are
hypocrites and misread their own scriptures. True infidels are act
>Muhammad Karim, ex-Muslim and Christian. He only disapproves of the way
>that modern Israel as a nation came into existence.
He doesn't count.
Paul O
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
Only $9.
No. I would say that person wasn't a true Muslim. Are not the Jews
infidels?
Paul O
On Sat, 09 Nov 2002 19:42:45 -0700 "Marc A. Schindler"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Suppose I were to tell you one. What would be your reaction? Would
> you change
> your mind?
>
> Paul Osborne wrote:
>
> > >
Muhammad Karim, ex-Muslim and Christian. He only disapproves of the way
that modern Israel as a nation came into existence.
Stacy.
At 05:42 PM 11/09/2002 -0600, you wrote:
>I suppose you have a dim view of all Muslims, then? Or is it just the
>Islamist factions?
Millions upon millions of Mu
Possibly, but I doubt it. You see, I'm not happy with the way in which the
modern Israel was created. It's my contention that the gathering of
spiritual Israel began before the political figures got involved and the
gathering of the Jews to their homeland wasn't supposed to be happening
until
Suppose I were to tell you one. What would be your reaction? Would you change
your mind?
Paul Osborne wrote:
> >I suppose you have a dim view of all Muslims, then? Or is it just the
> >Islamist factions?
>
> Millions upon millions of Muslims will gear up to go into Armageddon and
> their whole r
>I suppose you have a dim view of all Muslims, then? Or is it just the
>Islamist factions?
Millions upon millions of Muslims will gear up to go into Armageddon and
their whole religion will support it. Babylon must fall. Tell me the name
of just one Muslim that does not despise the Jews and wis
"Marc A. Schindler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 12:23 PM
> Subject: Re: [ZION] War Against All of Islam
>
> I don't think so. The foreigners had to get their assets into place, too. It
> wasn't u
;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 12:23 PM
Subject: Re: [ZION] War Against All of Islam
I don't think so. The foreigners had to get their assets into place, too. It
wasn't unilateral. In fact, it's ironic that you're showing this particular
kind
of ignoran
Let me answer this by explaining a cartoon that was in a recent New Yorker. A
bunch of Crusaders are leaving a Muslim city (there's a minaret in the background)
with loot on their horses, and the city in flames. They're up on a ridge, looking
down into a valley filled with a grove of olive trees.
There are Jewish fundamentalist groups who are planning to do exactly that,
actually. Fortunately they're kept in check, but every now and then one of them
gets loose and does something stupid, like the shooting in Hebron at the Tomb of
the Patriarchs a few years ago.
Paul Osborne wrote:
> >If Je
My suggestion is to FIRST elect GBH and THEN get rid of Bush.
Jon
> Let's get rid of Bush and elect Hinckley. I should have written his name
in.
>
> Stacy.
>
> At 01:31 AM 11/09/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>
> >But we have both!
> >
> >Jon
> >
> > > I'd rather have Hinckley than Bush.
> > >
> > > Sta
To my understanding, Saudia Arabia is the next most Islamist state around
next to Iraq now. They seem to be the most strict observers.
Stacy.
At 10:23 AM 11/09/2002 -0700, you wrote:
I don't think so. The foreigners had to get their assets into place, too. It
wasn't unilateral. In fact, it's i
By the way, I had quite a discussion in Gospel Doctrine last week on the
Zionist movement. I saw the original Zionist movement in 1948 as quite
improper and that the Jews had no business coming back to the Holy Land
until the Messiah, Jesus, should come the second time.
Stacy.
At 11:06 AM 11/
You make some interesting points there. But I have another question which
I think is very relevant. It seems wrong to me even in the face of oil
interests to consider Saudi Arabia on our side. Why can't we stop treating
them as allies, especially in light of their Islamist tendencies?
Stacy.
I suppose you have a dim view of all Muslims, then? Or is it just the
Islamist factions?
Stacy.
At 12:09 PM 11/09/2002 -0600, you wrote:
>If Jewish and Christian fundies don't beat them to it by attacking the
Temple
>Mount.
Well, anything is possible. But--you have to consider that the Jews
>As crazy as it sounds, I'd rather have Christian fundis in the
government
>than Islamists any time.
>
>Stacy.
Me too!
Paul O
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
Only $9.95 per month!
Visit www.
>If Jewish and Christian fundies don't beat them to it by attacking the
Temple
>Mount.
Well, anything is possible. But--you have to consider that the Jews had
their chance and still do--but they don't overstep their bounds by
attacking that disgusting dome. The Muslims are a force that can't be
t
Stacy, here's another link I found. While Mexico has been traditionally neutral
and non-interventionist (which, in the Wall Street Journal's eyes makes it
"leftist"), they have, as previously stated, agreed, along with the rest of the
Security Council on this last week's resolution on Iraq. This li
>Let's get rid of Bush and elect Hinckley. I should have written his
name in.
I've thought of that before but it is a wasted vote. I would rather spend
my vote on someone who can win rather than allow the worst candidate to
win. Bush was the only real choice in the last election. To vote for one
They did not take part in the Gulf War and are against any unilateral moves
against Iraq, but voted with the rest of the Security Council in unanimously
adopting the most recent resolution regarding Iraq.
The most current information I could find on the Mexican Foreign Affairs site are
links to tw
I don't think so. The foreigners had to get their assets into place, too. It
wasn't unilateral. In fact, it's ironic that you're showing this particular kind
of ignorance on the topic -- it was precisely because the Saudis allowed foreign,
non-Moslem soldiers on its soil that set bin Laden off. You
As crazy as it sounds, I'd rather have Christian fundis in the government
than Islamists any time.
Stacy.
At 09:20 AM 11/09/2002 -0700, you wrote:
If Jewish and Christian fundies don't beat them to it by attacking the Temple
Mount.
Paul Osborne wrote:
> JWR asked:
> >Do you really think there
If Jewish and Christian fundies don't beat them to it by attacking the Temple
Mount.
Paul Osborne wrote:
> JWR asked:
> >Do you really think there is any danger that Islam could become "a giant
>
> >threat" that "engulfs the nations?" That seems rather unlikely to me
> >regardless of we do or do
Let's get rid of Bush and elect Hinckley. I should have written his name in.
Stacy.
At 01:31 AM 11/09/2002 -0500, you wrote:
But we have both!
Jon
> I'd rather have Hinckley than Bush.
>
> Stacy.
/
/// ZION LIST CH
Where do the Mexicans align themselves?
Stacy.
At 02:01 AM 11/09/2002 -0500, you wrote:
Marc, that's great! You can now go to those books and read how we put
people into the area immediately, and then built up our forces unilaterally
over a several month period before ever establishing an inte
Marc, that's great! You can now go to those books and read how we put
people into the area immediately, and then built up our forces unilaterally
over a several month period before ever establishing an international
coalition. Now just as then, we had some instant allies such as the British
Commo
I am happy and humbled to have been of such great service to you! Let me
know, and I will repeat my performance for you.
Jon
John W. Redelfs wrote:
> You have no idea how that puts my mind at ease. I cannot tell you how
glad
> I am that I live in a day when wars are carefully controlled event
But we have both!
Jon
> I'd rather have Hinckley than Bush.
>
> Stacy.
/
/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at ///
/// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html ///
///
Dan R Allen wrote:
> Dan:
> As do I, although I'm not so sure that won't lead us into untenable
> situations - mainly because his decisions are only going to be as good as
> his sources.
True, but I think that he is fairly wide about which sources to trust. At
least, that's how it appears to me a
I want to assure you that not all Muslims want this but I believe the
Islamists do.
Stacy.
At 11:12 PM 11/08/2002 -0600, you wrote:
JWR asked:
>Do you really think there is any danger that Islam could become "a giant
>threat" that "engulfs the nations?" That seems rather unlikely to me
>regar
JWR asked:
>Do you really think there is any danger that Islam could become "a giant
>threat" that "engulfs the nations?" That seems rather unlikely to me
>regardless of we do or don't do.
You better believe it. The Islamic fundies are the ones that are going to
bring to pass Armageddon as the
It might surprise many to hear this, because of what we hear in the popular
press, but actually Christianity is growing faster than Islam is. It's growing in
3rd world countries with high birth rates, though, so it's "centre of gravity" as
it were, is moving away from Canterbury, the Vatican, and e
That's the way I originally thought. However, if Iraq really has
biological and chemical weapons and are on their way again to develop
nuclear weapons but they have the capacity to destroy us, antagonizing them
further will make them attack us for sure.
Stacy.
At 06:46 PM 11/08/2002 -0600, yo
After much pondering, Gary Smith favored us with:
Do we wait until Islam engulfs the nations and becomes a giant
threat,before we "encourage" it to stand down and live peacefully among
the nations of the world?
Do you really think there is any danger that Islam could become "a giant
threat" th
>Ah, but I would ("be so sure of that")! You see, unlike some on this
list,
>I am willing to be led by President Bush. I believe that he is honest
and
>sincere, and that he is no idiot. I don't take everything as gospel,
and I
>don't agree with some of what he wants to do, but he will not lead u
Jon Spencer wrote:
>
>
> By the way, to offset all the history revisionists, if you remember, under
> Bush 41 we acted FIRST, and then built a coalition, not the other way
> around. Does anyone need the history lesson, or do you remember now? (Dan,
> I'm not saying you said this, it just poppe
But sometimes one must stand up for what is right. Capt Moroni didn't
back down from the threat of the kingmen. He could have rolled over,
fearing war, and allowed the free republic they had become a kingdom. But
he realized that freedom, religion, and their families were more
important than keepin
Jon Spencer wrote:
> Quite a jump there, JWR! You mentioned Russia and China, and I shot them
> down. That's all.
>
> And yes, I am quite certain, especially after today's UN vote, that not a
> single solitary country will join Iraq against us.
>
> That is absolutely correct.
>
I don't think
Sorry, there must have been some confusion between posts. I thought you were
referring to something else. Russia had been holding back because it wanted
freedom to act against Chechnya, with the US's implicit OK (that is, it doesn't
force the US to help, but they won't criticize the Russians). I do
After much pondering, Jon Spencer favored us with:
Quite a jump there, JWR! You mentioned Russia and China, and I shot them
down. That's all.
And yes, I am quite certain, especially after today's UN vote, that not a
single solitary country will join Iraq against us.
You have no idea how that
I'd rather have Hinckley than Bush.
Stacy.
At 03:23 PM 11/08/2002 -0700, you wrote:
Jon:
Ah, but I would ("be so sure of that")! You see, unlike some on this list,
I am willing to be led by President Bush. I believe that he is honest and
sincere, and that he is no idiot. I don't take ever
Jon:
Ah, but I would ("be so sure of that")! You see, unlike some on this list,
I am willing to be led by President Bush. I believe that he is honest and
sincere, and that he is no idiot. I don't take everything as gospel, and I
don't agree with some of what he wants to do, but he will not le
Don't forget that when we started WW II we were pretty much a "righteous"
nation. I frankly don't see how we can really carry on our battles with
these people when they aren't any more righteous than the majority of the
nation.
Stacy.
At 04:36 PM 11/08/2002 -0500, you wrote:
Ah, but I would
Ah, but I would ("be so sure of that")! You see, unlike some on this list,
I am willing to be led by President Bush. I believe that he is honest and
sincere, and that he is no idiot. I don't take everything as gospel, and I
don't agree with some of what he wants to do, but he will not lead us in
Quite a jump there, JWR! You mentioned Russia and China, and I shot them
down. That's all.
And yes, I am quite certain, especially after today's UN vote, that not a
single solitary country will join Iraq against us.
That is absolutely correct.
Jon
John W. Redelfs asked:
> After much ponderi
No, I dare say I'm the only blind one on here. Yes, I see this happening,
all of us against Islam, not now but in the future. Because the whole
world of Islam will need to come out and become involved in the
conflict. The moderates will be swallowed up by the Islamicists.
Stacy.
At 03:45 PM
What do you mean? Did you read what I typed, or are you, too, going blind,
like Ryan and myself?
I will restate my sentence in different terms for you:
It would not matter if Russia and/or China had an existing mutual defense
treaty with Iraq [sidebar: the mere thought is extremely funny!]. Ne
Jon:
It wouldn't matter if they did - they wouldn't honor them. Especially
considering their votes today in the UN.
Dan:
I wouldn't be so sure of that...
/
/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at ///
/// http://ww
Dreamer!
Stacy.
At 07:43 AM 11/08/2002 -0900, you wrote:
After much pondering, Jon Spencer favored us with:
It wouldn't matter if they did - they wouldn't honor them. Especially
considering their votes today in the UN.
So you are absolutely sure that if we attack Iraq that no other country
After much pondering, Jon Spencer favored us with:
It wouldn't matter if they did - they wouldn't honor them. Especially
considering their votes today in the UN.
So you are absolutely sure that if we attack Iraq that no other country
will get involved against us, is that right? --JWR
///
Which votes? France and Russia voted in favour of the new US resolution at the
Security Council where they, along with the US, hold permanent seats.
Jon Spencer wrote:
> It wouldn't matter if they did - they wouldn't honor them. Especially
> considering their votes today in the UN.
>
> Jon
>
> J
It wouldn't matter if they did - they wouldn't honor them. Especially
considering their votes today in the UN.
Jon
John W. Redelfs wrote:
> After much pondering, Stacy Smith favored us with:
> >I basically believe we will attack and they in turn attack us. We will
> >then incite the entire Is
After much pondering, Stacy Smith favored us with:
I basically believe we will attack and they in turn attack us. We will
then incite the entire Islamic world and all will turn against us.
This is the likely scenario from my perspective. I wonder if either Russia
or China have secret, mutual
I basically believe we will attack and they in turn attack us. We will
then incite the entire Islamic world and all will turn against us.
Stacy.
At 04:47 AM 11/07/2002 -0900, you wrote:
After much pondering, Stacy Smith favored us with:
Of course, no one here on this list, including myself, c
After much pondering, Stacy Smith favored us with:
Of course, no one here on this list, including myself, can tell you what
will be the short and long term outcome of acting or not acting. I believe
that he is a continuing threat to our way of life, along with quite a few
other gangsters. Others
68 matches
Mail list logo
