....."I looked at it and it was a B-29"

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 09:11:37 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Derek Lyons) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

(Derek Lyons) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

THis is the fundamental difference between the Soviets and the Islamists.
Too many people can't see that the Islamists are not behaving and will not
behave in the manner that our old enemies would. The Soviets behaved in a
manner that we didn't like, but was somewhat predictable. They could be
reasoned with. The Islamists are not interested in anything but complete
world domination, because they want to bring about Allah's kingdom on Earth,
and anything less than total victory is total defeat.

Which is oddly similar to to the way Christian evangelists view the world.

Next time a Christian evangelist blows himself and schoolchildren up,
screaming "Praise Christ!," get back to us.

Never heard of various abortion clinic bombings have you?

I have. The targets were not "innocents" (they were people
participating in abortions), and I doubt if anyone praised Christ as
the bombs went off.

Why are Christian definitions that justify killing and violence
inherently better than Islamic definitions that justify the same? Why
do you defend Christians killing in the name of their religion, but
not Islamics?

I don't defend them. I simply point out that it is not morally
equivalent.

I doubt if anyone praised Christ as the bombs went off.

Never read their websites or newsletters have you?

No, I haven't.

This is not a defense of abortion bombings. Just pointing out some
critical differences.

Except - you didn't point any differences in actions, you pointed out
differences in definitions.

Yes, and there is a significant difference between taking action
against someone you perceive to be doing wrong, and prevent further
wrongdoing, and taking action against someone for no other reason than
to sow fear.

(And by accepting the Christian
definitions you implicitly defend the bombings.)

No, I don't defend the bombings. I point out that there is a
difference.

Again, tell me about Christians blowing up kindergartens and pizza
parlors, and get back to me.

Haven't read much news out of Ireland in the last few decades have
you?

Not in the name of Christ. Can you provide a single example of an IRA
bomber who praised the Pope or Christ when the bomb went off?

I'm kind of shocked that you're indulging in the same nutty moral
equivalence that Pat is.

I'm merely applying the same standards to Christian fascists that I do
to their Islam brethren.

There are far, far more of the latter than the former. When an
abortion clinic is bombed, do Christians run out in the streets, and
hand out candy, and cheer and ululate? Has some Christian theocratic
government been funding abortion clinic bombings?

To fear a few Christian extremists more than millions of adherents of
radical Islam is nutty.

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 23:49:58 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Derek Lyons) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
Never heard of various abortion clinic bombings have you?

I have. The targets were not "innocents" (they were people
participating in abortions),

What law are US citizens breaking when they're "participating in abortions"?
The "pro-life" bombers are the ones breaking the law by committing an act of
violence.

and I doubt if anyone praised Christ as
the bombs went off.

Yea, right. These people are radical enough to risk wounding or killing law
abiding citizens due to their religion, so I wouldn't be surprised if they
were praising Christ as the bombs went off.

This is not a defense of abortion bombings. Just pointing out some
critical differences.

I see little difference between law abiding Iraqis being blown up and law
abiding US citizens "participating in abortions" being blown up.

Again, tell me about Christians blowing up kindergartens and pizza
parlors, and get back to me.

There is a slight difference between blowing something up with the intent of
killing versus accepting the risk of killing, but I think that's a minor
issue compared to obeying US law.

I'm kind of shocked that you're indulging in the same nutty moral
equivalence that Pat is.

Nuts of a kind flock together, or something like that. ;-)

Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...


The Republican nominee will be either Giuliani, Romney, or Fred
Thompson (I think we can just say "Thompson" now that the other one
has dropped out). If I had to bet, I'd bet on the latter.

They won't find anyone honest, qualified, and competent? No big surprise.

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 07:16:12 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Mike
Schilling" made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:


"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...


The Republican nominee will be either Giuliani, Romney, or Fred
Thompson (I think we can just say "Thompson" now that the other one
has dropped out). If I had to bet, I'd bet on the latter.

They won't find anyone honest, qualified, and competent?

Apparently, you can't read.

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 09:32:47 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Jeff
Findley" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:


"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 23:49:58 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Derek Lyons) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
Never heard of various abortion clinic bombings have you?

I have. The targets were not "innocents" (they were people
participating in abortions),

What law are US citizens breaking when they're "participating in abortions"?

I didn't say they were breaking a law. That's why I put "innocents"
in quotes.

The "pro-life" bombers are the ones breaking the law by committing an act of
violence.

I agree.

and I doubt if anyone praised Christ as
the bombs went off.

Yea, right. These people are radical enough to risk wounding or killing law
abiding citizens due to their religion, so I wouldn't be surprised if they
were praising Christ as the bombs went off.

I'm not aware that it's ever happened. At least not vocally.

This is not a defense of abortion bombings. Just pointing out some
critical differences.

I see little difference between law abiding Iraqis being blown up and law
abiding US citizens "participating in abortions" being blown up.

The difference is that in one case, the Iraqis are simply going about
their daily business. In the other, a specific activity is being
targeted.

Again, tell me about Christians blowing up kindergartens and pizza
parlors, and get back to me.

There is a slight difference between blowing something up with the intent of
killing versus accepting the risk of killing, but I think that's a minor
issue compared to obeying US law.

What does any of this have to do with US law?

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 09:32:47 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Jeff
Findley" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:


"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 23:49:58 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Derek Lyons) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
Never heard of various abortion clinic bombings have you?

I have. The targets were not "innocents" (they were people
participating in abortions),

What law are US citizens breaking when they're "participating in
abortions"?

I didn't say they were breaking a law. That's why I put "innocents"
in quotes.

It's still a religius war since abortion is legal in the US. Calling them
"innocents" doesn't dimish the fact that they're being unjustly killed
because they're not following the religious practices of a particular group
of people. Considering the principle of separation of church and state in
the US, I find this appalling.

This is not a defense of abortion bombings. Just pointing out some
critical differences.

I see little difference between law abiding Iraqis being blown up and law
abiding US citizens "participating in abortions" being blown up.

The difference is that in one case, the Iraqis are simply going about
their daily business. In the other, a specific activity is being
targeted.

True, a specific activity which is allowed under US law is being targeted.
The goal of the "pro-life" terrorists is to scare everyone involved into not
engaging in that specific activity. The goal in Iraq seems to be to scare
people into leaving their communities. I still don't see how one is morally
superior to the other.

Again, tell me about Christians blowing up kindergartens and pizza
parlors, and get back to me.

There is a slight difference between blowing something up with the intent
of
killing versus accepting the risk of killing, but I think that's a minor
issue compared to obeying US law.

What does any of this have to do with US law?

Since you can never get people to completely agree on morals and religion
(unless you have state sponsored religion coupled with oppression of all
other religion), you have to have the rule of law for everyone to follow.
That's supposedly what sets the US apart, separation of church and state.

Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 07:16:12 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Mike
Schilling" made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:


"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...


The Republican nominee will be either Giuliani, Romney, or Fred
Thompson (I think we can just say "Thompson" now that the other one
has dropped out). If I had to bet, I'd bet on the latter.

They won't find anyone honest, qualified, and competent?

Apparently, you can't read.

Apparently, you think that a Washington lawyer and lobbyist pretending to be
a good-old-boy outsider is honest, and that having a deep voice is a
qualification. Go on, tell me, what did Fred accomplish during his Senate
career?

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 10:40:23 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Jeff
Findley" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 23:49:58 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Derek Lyons) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
Never heard of various abortion clinic bombings have you?

I have. The targets were not "innocents" (they were people
participating in abortions),

What law are US citizens breaking when they're "participating in
abortions"?

I didn't say they were breaking a law. That's why I put "innocents"
in quotes.

It's still a religius war since abortion is legal in the US. Calling them
"innocents" doesn't dimish the fact that they're being unjustly killed
because they're not following the religious practices of a particular group
of people. Considering the principle of separation of church and state in
the US, I find this appalling.

So do I. I simply don't find it as appalling as deliberately blowing
up a kindergarten.

This is not a defense of abortion bombings. Just pointing out some
critical differences.

I see little difference between law abiding Iraqis being blown up and law
abiding US citizens "participating in abortions" being blown up.

The difference is that in one case, the Iraqis are simply going about
their daily business. In the other, a specific activity is being
targeted.

True, a specific activity which is allowed under US law is being targeted.
The goal of the "pro-life" terrorists is to scare everyone involved into not
engaging in that specific activity. The goal in Iraq seems to be to scare
people into leaving their communities. I still don't see how one is morally
superior to the other.

The goal of the "pro-life" terrorists is not merely to scare people
(in fact, it's not clear if that is the purpose at all). It's to
prevent abortions, by destroying the facilities in which they occur
and/or killing those performing them.

Again, tell me about Christians blowing up kindergartens and pizza
parlors, and get back to me.

There is a slight difference between blowing something up with the intent
of
killing versus accepting the risk of killing, but I think that's a minor
issue compared to obeying US law.

What does any of this have to do with US law?

Since you can never get people to completely agree on morals and religion
(unless you have state sponsored religion coupled with oppression of all
other religion), you have to have the rule of law for everyone to follow.
That's supposedly what sets the US apart, separation of church and state.

We're not talking about the US. We're talking about the world. I
think the difference is more than "slight." I also think that the
quantity matters as well. Abortion clinic bombings are few and far
between, and very few Christians endorse them, let alone cheer when
they occur. Many (in fact, most) Christian pastors deplore and
condemn them when they occur.

On the other hand, radical Islam has many millions of adherents, who
agree with bin Laden, and cheer when there is a successful terrorist
act, particularly against infidels.

I simply don't see the equivalence.

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...

The goal of the "pro-life" terrorists is not merely to scare people
(in fact, it's not clear if that is the purpose at all). It's to
prevent abortions, by destroying the facilities in which they occur
and/or killing those performing them.

And by frightening other doctors out of performing abortions, with the
implicit threat that they could be killed too.

Rand Simberg wrote:

This is not a defense of abortion bombings. Just pointing out some
critical differences.

I see little difference between law abiding Iraqis being blown up and law
abiding US citizens "participating in abortions" being blown up.

The difference is that in one case, the Iraqis are simply going about
their daily business. In the other, a specific activity is being
targeted.


The defining aspect of a terrorist is their utter inability to actually
make what they want to happen, happen, so they cause as much damage as
they can (and except to those directly effected, the damage is
irrelevant), hoping that this will somehow lead to what they want.

Whether the terrorist is christian, muslim, buddist or elvist, doesn't
make a difference.

So, if the bombing were being done in order to kill the guilty, you'd
have a point, but that doesn't seem to be the case: it's being done to
scare others into behaving differently. That makes it terrorism, no
different than AlQ.

--
JM
"Everything is futile." -- Marvin of Borg