United 93 -- see it!

I see USENET and Usenet used interchangeably all over the web... I never
said it was an acronym... I don't know anything about knitting so you
might have to help me out on that one... Jeeze, you appear to be very
critical and then know about knitting too... You sure your not a woman
wrapped up in a mans body? :-) Thanks for your adivse though.. Peace
out...

Jon


Jim Logajan wrote:
Jon Kraus wrote:

This is USENET and I can give whatever opinion I like.


This is Usenet (not USENET - the word is not an acronym for anything and
shouldn't be in all caps) and if you can't keep your testosterone levels
within manageable range when people respond with their opinions, then you
may want to consider other less stressful pursuits like knitting.

Also, you wrote earlier:


One thing that is for sure is that airline passengers will NEVER
let some ragheads take over a plane ever again....


Sikhs wear head scarves, but they have nothing to do with Islam or Islamic
extremists. Arabs wear keffiyeh, but not all Arabs are Islamic extremists
or even Muslim. And not all Islamic extremists or terrorists are Arab.

Everyone has a right to expressing opinions founded on ignorance, and you
have exercised that right.

My advice is next time the opportunity occurs, try saying "terrorist" or
"religious extremist" rather than "raghead".

Bob Noel wrote:
In article .com,
"Flyingmonk" wrote:

You assuming that all people that wear cloths on their heads are
terrorist is just the same as the terrorists assuming that all
Westerners are what they think we are.

"just the same"? hardly.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

"Oh, he's black, he must be a mugger or a drug dealer or just plain up
to no good."
"Oh he's asian, he must not be able to play basketball."
"Oh he's wearing cloth on his head and he's looks Arabic, he must be a
terroist."
"Oh he's Polish, he must be stupid."
"Oh he's Irish, he must be a perpetual drunk."

Like the qoutes above, Jon's statement was a general
assumption/sterotypical. His inability to separate friends from foes
is the same as the terrorists' inability to separate friends from foes.
It is/was this 'shortcoming' that gets more and more of our people
targeted and killed. It is/was this 'shortcoming' that makes more and
enemies for us around the world. It is/was this 'shortcoming' that
makes us 'hate' our enemies and our enemies hate us more and more. It
is "shoot them all, let God sort them out" attitude that perpetuates
hatrade.

The Monk

In article .com,
"Flyingmonk" wrote:

Like the qoutes above, Jon's statement was a general
assumption/sterotypical.

true.

His inability to separate friends from foes
is the same as the terrorists' inability to separate friends from foes.

possibly.

It is/was this 'shortcoming' that gets more and more of our people
targeted and killed.

wrong.

The terrorist and his perversion of a religion (to be kind about it)
is what make him hate us. What we do doesn't matter.

To equate Jon's statement with the terrorist hatred shows a huge
gross misunderstanding of the terrorist.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate