On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 21:12:10 -0000, E.R.N. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
John Forbes wrote:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 12:59:43 -0000, E.R.N. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
John Forbes wrote:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 03:41:10 -0000, E.R.N. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
John Forbes wrote:
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 23:58:24 -0000, E.R.N. Reed
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I only know of one religion whose followers behave like that.
I think I know a lot of the followers of said religion who
wouldn't do it either, but there's an overwhelmingly large
number of them that do.
Are you saying that an "overwhelmingly large number" of people
(presumably you mean Moslems) are prepared to blow themselves up?
If that is what you meant, would you like an opportunity to
rethink that statement? Because it is clearly nonsensical.
Just how is it nonsensical to say that a lot of Moslems have blown
themselves up on purpose?
You didn't say "a lot"; you said "an overwhelmingly large number".
Even "a lot" is arguable, given the number of Moslems in the world,
but "an overwhelmingly large number" is nonsensical. In fact,
absurd.
I know what I said the first time.
I decided to say it a different way the second time since you
apparently didn't understand it the first time.
Seems you still don't. I said nothing about the number relative to
how many Moslems there are, either time.
But here's another way to look at "relative" numbers -- there are
still more people in the world who aren't Moslem than people who are,
and yet the suicide-bombers (i.e., people blowing themselves up on
purpose in order to kill other people in the process) are just about
all of them Moslem.
I didn't understand you because what you said was not what you meant.
It seems you meant (I'm having to guess because even on your third try
you're not clear) that the overwhelming majority of those who are
prepared to blow themselves up are Moslem.
Certainly an overwhelming majority of those who do so are Moslem, yes ...
That might be true presently,
"nonsense," you said; "absurd," you said; now you've made it as far as
"might be true presently" --
You are arguing dishonestly. What you actually SAID was:
I only know of one religion whose followers behave like that.
I think I know a lot of the followers of said religion who
wouldn't do it either, but there's an overwhelmingly large
number of them that do.
That means a very large majority of that religion. Now that you have
agreed with my explanation of what you MEANT, I agree that what you MEANT
was not absurd. But what you SAID, WAS absurd. That was why I suggested
you reconsider it. You have to assume that people will read what you say
and think you mean it.
but I would ask you to ask yourself how many countries in the world
today are illegally occupied by a belligerent and brutish foreign
power with a different religion. There is Afghanistan, occupied by
Americans who are busy torturing captives in defiance of the Geneva
Convention in Guantanamo Bay; Iraq, ditto; Palestine, occupied by
crazed Israelis in defiance of UN resolutions (with the support of
America); and Tibet, occupied by China.
Just a reminder: Suicide bombers murdered large numbers of Americans in
the USA *before* the US invaded Afghanistan or Iraq.
But not before the UK and Britain, bowing to pressure from Jewish
terrorists, permitted the setting up of Israel in territory occupied by
Moslems.
And you still have a problem with large numbers. Americans (supported by
our war-criminal prime minister) have directly or indirectly caused the
deaths of far more Moslems than the number of Americans who died in the
Twin Towers atrocity. Or don't Moslem lives count so much?
Until the twentieth century, Islam had a far better record of religious
tolerance than Christianity. And that caveat relies on discounting Hitler.
John
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
