Bombs in LOndon

Sunset Strip

The film is called Sunset Boulevard.

"Bill Moore" wrote in message
...
Not to imply, BTW, that the exploitation you speak of isn't real.
But the effect that believing paradise awaits has is real as well
and should not IMO be downplayed if one wishes to understand the
mentality.

http://www.petermaass.com/core.cfm?p=1&mag=66&magtype=1

"You are put to the test in this world," professor Ayaz explained. "If you
pass, there are no bans in the next world. It is free." He went on: "What
is the meaning of life? Is life a big house, a good job, a comfortable bank
balance? Muslims who believe in their faith are not trying to have a
comfortable life here. They are trying to please Allah." An eternally
comfortable life will come in paradise, which is the payoff for the hard
times required by Allah on this side of the great divide.

Professor Ayaz raised, without prompting, the question of a typical suicide
bomber.

"What is the force that leads him to this act, leaving his family and friends?
It is because he is convinced he is going to paradise."

Exactly. It's about time thick left wing journalists started listening to the
likes of Professor Ayaz, and other Muslim scholars, and stopped imposing their
own "causes" on the suicide bombers.

--
Andy

"Des Small" wrote in message
...
and me. Very convenient to say vote Labour, Blairs going soon,
wasnt it?

In fact I voted LibDem, for tactical reasons: the seat was so solidly
Labour that the only game in town was pushing the rat******* Tories
down to third. (Which we did; well done us!)

Excellent. So next time, some Tory voters will realise there's no point voting
Tory since they came last, and will vote LibDem to keep Labour out. People who
voted Labour because they thought voting LibDem was a wasted vote, will realise
it isn't.

--
Andy

"Martin" wrote in message
...
I don't read any newspapers except free ones which come through the door. I
use
much more reliable and broader based sources of information.

Called watching TV? :-)

Nope. TV generally tries to be too "balanced" in reporting. The internet is much
better - you can read articles from news agencies from around the world, often
heavily biased, but reading heavily biased news reports from all sides is much
more informative than a news report from an organisation trying to be
"balanced", because any supposedly balanced report will always include some sort
of (perhaps unintentional) bias.

Our legal system of course uses this method (presenting the evidence from 2
opposing POV's), and while obviously not perfect, it is certainly better than if
a supposedly unbiased barrister was to present evidence in a neutral way.

Also reading books written with different philosophies can help you make sense
of current events, as well as speaking to people of different religions and
cultures.

--
Andy

On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 01:07:09 GMT, Charles Hawtrey wrote:

In article ,
says...
Where did you get the handle you use, singing in the church choir? I would
prefer you stay anywhere other than the U.S. if you like it better than the
this country. I've been reading your posts for some time, and believe me,
if you call my posts stupid, I admit I can't match that for yours. My
reading comprehension is better than your writing if you want to know the
truth.
But, if you aren't French, or an Ex-Pat, then Southern California does
explain a lot. As you know, it is the Left Coast of the U.S. where all the
weirdo's live.

Lighten up. Granted Evelyn can appear something of a ditz, but she's
harmless. If you object to her so much then just put her in your
killfile and be done with it.

Just don't get behind her
when boarding, she tends to
have tantrums after being wheeled in her buggy to
the gate.

On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 17:14:34 -0500, "dae" wrote:

As you know, it is the Left Coast of the U.S. where all the
weirdo's live.

Past residents have included Bob Hope, Ronald Reagan,
Nixon, Schwarzenegger (temporaraly in Sacramento).

"irwell" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 17:14:34 -0500, "dae" wrote:

As you know, it is the Left Coast of the U.S. where all the
weirdo's live.

Past residents have included Bob Hope, Ronald Reagan,
Nixon, Schwarzenegger (temporaraly in Sacramento).


irwell,

I make an exception to those. They, with the exception of Schwarzenegger,
were there when it was normal, somewhat.

Don

http://www.petermaass.com/core.cfm?p=1&mag=66&magtype=1

Exactly. It's about time thick left wing journalists started listening
to the likes of Professor Ayaz, and other Muslim scholars, and stopped
imposing their own "causes" on the suicide bombers.

I doubt many suicide bombers are motivated by scholarship. Bin Laden's
ideas, as explained in his 1997 statement to CNN, are a bit closer to
the people affected, and he doesn't say anything about rewards in heaven -
he's arguing that people have a moral obligation to fight and sacrifice
simply because of what's happening on earth. The language is religious,
the content is straightforward nationalism with a bit of added indignation
about sacrilege. And he doesn't claim any religious authority.

I doubt if the Muslim Middle East's tally of suicide bombers has yet
got anywhere near the numbers of Christian British soldiers who died
on suicide missions during WW2.

============== j-c ====== @ ====== purr . demon . co . uk ==============
Jack Campin: 11 Third St, Newtongrange EH22 4PU, Scotland | tel 0131 660 4760
http://www.purr.demon.co.uk/jack/ for CD-ROMs and free | fax 0870 0554 975
stuff: Scottish music, food intolerance, & Mac logic fonts | mob 07800 739 557

"Jack Campin - bogus address" wrote in message
...
Exactly. It's about time thick left wing journalists started listening
to the likes of Professor Ayaz, and other Muslim scholars, and stopped
imposing their own "causes" on the suicide bombers.

I doubt many suicide bombers are motivated by scholarship.

They aren't "motivated" by scholarship any more than they are motivated by thick
left wing journalists.

But Muslim scholars understand their motivation much better than Westerners who
don't have a clue about Islam and can only rationalise their actions by, say,
comparing them to Westerners who sacrificed their lives during the war.

Bin Laden's
ideas, as explained in his 1997 statement to CNN, are a bit closer to
the people affected, and he doesn't say anything about rewards in heaven -
he's arguing that people have a moral obligation to fight and sacrifice
simply because of what's happening on earth.

Specifically, the interference by infidels in Islamic nations, eg the stationing
of US troops in Saudi and the invasion/liberation of Kuwait. He didn't give a
toss about the suffering in Islamic nations caused by Islamic regimes, eg the
Shiites and Kurds in Iraq etc.

--
Andy

In article ,
Padraig Breathnach wrote:

If you want to persuade people, you don't start by regarding them as
cretins; cretins are notoriously difficult to teach.

Try to understand your enemy, and why he his your enemy. Then you
might have a chance of dealing with the problem. If you do not try to
understand, then you have no claim to moral superiority.

This isn't something new in American politics.

They have to simplify and vilify the enemy, rather than try to
understand them. It's easier to connect to the American electorate by
calling the Communist bloc evil, as if people labeled thus are the only
ones capable of horrific behavior.

They have to claim moral superiority because it's no accident that those
who use terms like evil claim to be doing God's work.