PING: William Graham!

"Annika1980" wrote in message
...
From: "William Graham"

Sadly, his views reflect a large portion of the dittoheads in the USA.

You won't really know just how many until this November 3rd........

Methinks you'll be the one crying when the results are in. I just hope it
isn't too close so the Repugs don't figure out a way to steal it again.
I'll
betcha that Dan Rather won't be making any bold predictions this year.

"Florida has gone to Kerry. No wait, It's Bush!"

I don't even think it's gonna be close--in terms of electoral votes.
I think Kerry is in for a big dissappointment.

Take a look at CNN's poll-tracker.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/spe...lls/index.html
You'll note there that Kerry has NEVER...N-E-V-E-R even been at or above
50%.
Bush has been there in the five of the polls, and is there today...by a
widening margin.

And... CNN definitely cannot be accused of being a bastion for Republican
ditto-heads!!

The only WORSE candidate the Dems could have possibly selected to run, other
than Kerry, would have been Gore.
Kerry's in for a HUGE embarrassment.

Wanna lay some money down??
I'm serious.
Whata-ya-got???

How about that 20D?
How confident are you REALLY in Herman Munster for Pres????
Gimme some action!

"Annika1980" wrote in message
...
From: "William Graham"

Sadly, his views reflect a large portion of the dittoheads in the USA.

You won't really know just how many until this November 3rd........

Methinks you'll be the one crying when the results are in. I just hope it
isn't too close so the Repugs don't figure out a way to steal it again.
I'll
betcha that Dan Rather won't be making any bold predictions this year.

"Florida has gone to Kerry. No wait, It's Bush!"

I don't even think it's gonna be close--in terms of electoral votes.
I think Kerry is in for a big dissappointment.

Take a look at CNN's poll-tracker.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/spe...lls/index.html
You'll note there that Kerry has NEVER...N-E-V-E-R even been at or above
50%.
Bush has been there in the five of the polls, and is there today...by a
widening margin.

And... CNN definitely cannot be accused of being a bastion for Republican
ditto-heads!!

The only WORSE candidate the Dems could have possibly selected to run, other
than Kerry, would have been Gore.
Kerry's in for a HUGE embarrassment.

Wanna lay some money down??
I'm serious.
Whata-ya-got???

How about that 20D?
How confident are you REALLY in Herman Munster for Pres????
Gimme some action!

"Joseph Kewfi" wrote in message
...
IRA and other terror groups in Ireland that bomb based largely on
religioun-based disputes between Catholics and Protestants.

The situation in Northern Ireland doesn't revolve around a conflict
"largely
based on religion" , it is mainly a political problem.
The fact that the two opposing political views are also from different
sects
of Christendom just adds to it, but it is not the main point of dispute.

I didn't claim it was the main point.
Read again.
If you'd like to remove that from consideration, fine!
-That just points all the more to the fact that there is no other religion
which inspires more murder and terrorism than the Muslim faith.
This was, after all my point--in response to your weak quip about the dusty
history of the Crusades.


Ever hear of "Jihad" ("holy war")???
Where the CRAP have you been?????

Jihad does not mean holy war you stupid yank. It means struggle.

Wrong.
Read:


ji·had [ji h?d]
(plural ji·hads) or je·had [ji h?d] (plural je·hads)
n
1. Islamic campaign against nonbelievers: a campaign waged by Muslims in
defense of the Islamic faith against individuals, organizations, or
countries regarded as hostile to Islam
2. hostile campaign: any hostile campaign, for example, a series of
political advertisements attacking an adversary

"Joseph Kewfi" wrote in message
...
IRA and other terror groups in Ireland that bomb based largely on
religioun-based disputes between Catholics and Protestants.

The situation in Northern Ireland doesn't revolve around a conflict
"largely
based on religion" , it is mainly a political problem.
The fact that the two opposing political views are also from different
sects
of Christendom just adds to it, but it is not the main point of dispute.

I didn't claim it was the main point.
Read again.
If you'd like to remove that from consideration, fine!
-That just points all the more to the fact that there is no other religion
which inspires more murder and terrorism than the Muslim faith.
This was, after all my point--in response to your weak quip about the dusty
history of the Crusades.


Ever hear of "Jihad" ("holy war")???
Where the CRAP have you been?????

Jihad does not mean holy war you stupid yank. It means struggle.

Wrong.
Read:


ji·had [ji h?d]
(plural ji·hads) or je·had [ji h?d] (plural je·hads)
n
1. Islamic campaign against nonbelievers: a campaign waged by Muslims in
defense of the Islamic faith against individuals, organizations, or
countries regarded as hostile to Islam
2. hostile campaign: any hostile campaign, for example, a series of
political advertisements attacking an adversary

"Joseph Kewfi" wrote in message
...
Jihad does not mean holy war you stupid yank. It means struggle.

Like I said before Joseph you are not worth the time it takes to spit.
Actually you are the one who is in the wrong, read below. I have included
the url IF you want to become enlightened.

From a statement posted by ShanuWahid, August 29, 2003 at 20:44
http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/10921

The Islamic idea of jihad, which is derived from the Arabic root meaning "to
strive" or "to make an effort," connotes a wide range of meanings, from an
inward spiritual struggle to attain perfect faith to an outward material
struggle to promote justice and the Islamic social system. The former
meaning was emphasized by Sufis (Muslim mystics), who popularized a
tradition describing the inner jihad as greater than the outer jihad. When
used in the latter sense, jihad is closely identified with the injunction in
the Qur'an, the revelation of God to the prophet Muhammad, to the Muslim
community to "command the right and forbid the wrong" (3:104, 110). The
close connection of jihad with the struggle for justice is reinforced in the
hadith, the sayings and actions attributed to Muhammad. One of the best
known states that a Muslim must strive to avert injustice first by actions,
and if that is not possible, by words, and if that is not possible, at least
by intentions.

During the period of Qur'anic revelation while Muhammad was in Mecca
(610-622), jihad meant essentially a nonviolent struggle to spread Islam.
Following his move from Mecca to Medina in 622, and the establishment of an
Islamic state, fighting in self-defense was sanctioned by the Qur'an
(22:39). The Qur'an began referring increasingly to qital (fighting or
warfare) as one form of jihad. Two of the last verses on this topic (9:5,
29) suggest a war of conquest or conversion against all unbelievers.

As you can read Joseph, jihad has several meanings INCLUDING warfare. I
would suggest you remove your head from your ass and take a breath of fresh
air.

"Joseph Kewfi" wrote in message
...
Jihad does not mean holy war you stupid yank. It means struggle.

Like I said before Joseph you are not worth the time it takes to spit.
Actually you are the one who is in the wrong, read below. I have included
the url IF you want to become enlightened.

From a statement posted by ShanuWahid, August 29, 2003 at 20:44
http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/10921

The Islamic idea of jihad, which is derived from the Arabic root meaning "to
strive" or "to make an effort," connotes a wide range of meanings, from an
inward spiritual struggle to attain perfect faith to an outward material
struggle to promote justice and the Islamic social system. The former
meaning was emphasized by Sufis (Muslim mystics), who popularized a
tradition describing the inner jihad as greater than the outer jihad. When
used in the latter sense, jihad is closely identified with the injunction in
the Qur'an, the revelation of God to the prophet Muhammad, to the Muslim
community to "command the right and forbid the wrong" (3:104, 110). The
close connection of jihad with the struggle for justice is reinforced in the
hadith, the sayings and actions attributed to Muhammad. One of the best
known states that a Muslim must strive to avert injustice first by actions,
and if that is not possible, by words, and if that is not possible, at least
by intentions.

During the period of Qur'anic revelation while Muhammad was in Mecca
(610-622), jihad meant essentially a nonviolent struggle to spread Islam.
Following his move from Mecca to Medina in 622, and the establishment of an
Islamic state, fighting in self-defense was sanctioned by the Qur'an
(22:39). The Qur'an began referring increasingly to qital (fighting or
warfare) as one form of jihad. Two of the last verses on this topic (9:5,
29) suggest a war of conquest or conversion against all unbelievers.

As you can read Joseph, jihad has several meanings INCLUDING warfare. I
would suggest you remove your head from your ass and take a breath of fresh
air.

"Joseph Kewfi" wrote in message
...
Jihad does not mean holy war you stupid yank. It means struggle.

Like I said before Joseph you are not worth the time it takes to spit.
Actually you are the one who is in the wrong, read below. I have included
the url IF you want to become enlightened.

From a statement posted by ShanuWahid, August 29, 2003 at 20:44
http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/10921

The Islamic idea of jihad, which is derived from the Arabic root meaning "to
strive" or "to make an effort," connotes a wide range of meanings, from an
inward spiritual struggle to attain perfect faith to an outward material
struggle to promote justice and the Islamic social system. The former
meaning was emphasized by Sufis (Muslim mystics), who popularized a
tradition describing the inner jihad as greater than the outer jihad. When
used in the latter sense, jihad is closely identified with the injunction in
the Qur'an, the revelation of God to the prophet Muhammad, to the Muslim
community to "command the right and forbid the wrong" (3:104, 110). The
close connection of jihad with the struggle for justice is reinforced in the
hadith, the sayings and actions attributed to Muhammad. One of the best
known states that a Muslim must strive to avert injustice first by actions,
and if that is not possible, by words, and if that is not possible, at least
by intentions.

During the period of Qur'anic revelation while Muhammad was in Mecca
(610-622), jihad meant essentially a nonviolent struggle to spread Islam.
Following his move from Mecca to Medina in 622, and the establishment of an
Islamic state, fighting in self-defense was sanctioned by the Qur'an
(22:39). The Qur'an began referring increasingly to qital (fighting or
warfare) as one form of jihad. Two of the last verses on this topic (9:5,
29) suggest a war of conquest or conversion against all unbelievers.

As you can read Joseph, jihad has several meanings INCLUDING warfare. I
would suggest you remove your head from your ass and take a breath of fresh
air.

"Joseph Kewfi" wrote in message
...
Jihad does not mean holy war you stupid yank. It means struggle.

Like I said before Joseph you are not worth the time it takes to spit.
Actually you are the one who is in the wrong, read below. I have included
the url IF you want to become enlightened.

From a statement posted by ShanuWahid, August 29, 2003 at 20:44
http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/10921

The Islamic idea of jihad, which is derived from the Arabic root meaning "to
strive" or "to make an effort," connotes a wide range of meanings, from an
inward spiritual struggle to attain perfect faith to an outward material
struggle to promote justice and the Islamic social system. The former
meaning was emphasized by Sufis (Muslim mystics), who popularized a
tradition describing the inner jihad as greater than the outer jihad. When
used in the latter sense, jihad is closely identified with the injunction in
the Qur'an, the revelation of God to the prophet Muhammad, to the Muslim
community to "command the right and forbid the wrong" (3:104, 110). The
close connection of jihad with the struggle for justice is reinforced in the
hadith, the sayings and actions attributed to Muhammad. One of the best
known states that a Muslim must strive to avert injustice first by actions,
and if that is not possible, by words, and if that is not possible, at least
by intentions.

During the period of Qur'anic revelation while Muhammad was in Mecca
(610-622), jihad meant essentially a nonviolent struggle to spread Islam.
Following his move from Mecca to Medina in 622, and the establishment of an
Islamic state, fighting in self-defense was sanctioned by the Qur'an
(22:39). The Qur'an began referring increasingly to qital (fighting or
warfare) as one form of jihad. Two of the last verses on this topic (9:5,
29) suggest a war of conquest or conversion against all unbelievers.

As you can read Joseph, jihad has several meanings INCLUDING warfare. I
would suggest you remove your head from your ass and take a breath of fresh
air.

"William Graham" wrote in message
news:ZLBdd.505767$8_6.364591@attbi_s04...


I meant for the US. We've never suffered an attack like that in our
recent
history. Bush was asleep at the switch, and we paid for it.

What nonsense! What could Bush have done about 9/11, when the CIA was
gutted
back in the 70's and it became politically incorrect to maintain any
secret
organization whatsoever? I remember a presidential directive, (under
Richard
Nixon, I believe) that said from now on, the CIA would have to publish a
list of every cent they spent. This effectively made it impossible for
them
to maintain any operatives, or perform any clandestine operations from
that
point on. It effectively disbanded that organization....Of what use is a
CIA
if they can't carry on anything in secret? How can they possible know
where
the Al Queda is doing if they can't infiltrate them with their operatives?
You can't blame Bush, or even Clinton, for that......You can, however,
blame
the liberals. (and I do, brother, I do.)

Blame whoever you want, but the absolute fact is that we were attacked,
successfully, on Dumbya's watch. That makes it his fault. Deal with it. He's
a total failure.

"William Graham" wrote in message
news:ZLBdd.505767$8_6.364591@attbi_s04...


I meant for the US. We've never suffered an attack like that in our
recent
history. Bush was asleep at the switch, and we paid for it.

What nonsense! What could Bush have done about 9/11, when the CIA was
gutted
back in the 70's and it became politically incorrect to maintain any
secret
organization whatsoever? I remember a presidential directive, (under
Richard
Nixon, I believe) that said from now on, the CIA would have to publish a
list of every cent they spent. This effectively made it impossible for
them
to maintain any operatives, or perform any clandestine operations from
that
point on. It effectively disbanded that organization....Of what use is a
CIA
if they can't carry on anything in secret? How can they possible know
where
the Al Queda is doing if they can't infiltrate them with their operatives?
You can't blame Bush, or even Clinton, for that......You can, however,
blame
the liberals. (and I do, brother, I do.)

Blame whoever you want, but the absolute fact is that we were attacked,
successfully, on Dumbya's watch. That makes it his fault. Deal with it. He's
a total failure.