Apart from a man's parents, children and near relatives, there also
exists a permanent association and contact between him and his
neighbors. The state of his association - be it good or otherwise has
a great influence on his life and morals. The Prophet (PBUH) had
attached great importance to this and has constantly urged the Ummah
to pay due regard to the rights of neighbors to the extent that he had
declared good neighborliness to be part of Iman (Faith) and an
essential requisite for salvation.

Three Categories Of Neighbors

In a Hadith, related by Jabir (R.A.), the Prophet (PBUH) is reported
to have said

"Neighbors are of three kinds. Firstly, the neighbor who enjoys
only one right (and as far as rights are concerned) he is of the
lowest grade. Secondly, the one who enjoys two rights and thirdly the
neighbor who enjoys three rights.

The neighbor with only one right is the Polytheist (i.e. a non-
Muslim neighbor with whom there are no family ties). The neighbor with
two rights is the neighbor who is also a Muslim (as such he has a
claim as a neighbor as well as a fellow Muslim) and the one with three
rights is the neighbor who is a Muslim and a Relative - he has a claim
as a neighbor, as a fellow Muslim and as a relative".

This Hadith clearly explains that the obligation to live in peace and
harmony with neighbors, as demanded in the Holy Quran and the
Traditions, also includes the non-Muslim neighbors. They too have a
claim to our kindness and sympathy. We treat the animals with kindness
and we have been warned against ill treating them, then what of our
fellow humans - more so our neighbors. It will be significant to note
that in all Ahadith Traditions mentioned, with regards to the basic
rights of neighbors, no distinction had been made between Muslims and
non-Muslims.

Emphasis On The Rights Of Neighbors

It is reported, on the authority of Ayesha (R.A.) and Ibn Umar (R.A.)
that the messenger of Allah (PBUH) said "The Angel Jibra'il (A.S.)
counseled me so frequently regarding the rights of the neighbor that I
feared, he too would be declared an heir."

This Hadith shows that Angel Jibra'il (A.S.) brought commandments from
Allah, concerning the rights of the neighbor so frequently and
stressed the need to be kind and courteous to him with such force and
regularity that the Holy Prophet (PBUH) thought that the neighbor also
will be made an heir i.e. just as parents, children and near relatives
inherit the property left by the deceased, he thought that the
neighbor, too, will be given a share in it.

Note:- The purpose of this Hadith is not merely to state a fact, but
rather it is most effective way of highlighting the importance of the
neighbor to the Muslims.

Importance Of Good Treatment To Neighbors (It is an essential
condition of Iman (faith))

It is narrated by Abu Shurayh (R.A.) that the Prophet (S.A.W.) said

"Whoever believes in Allah and the final day (Day of Judgment) it
is essential that he does not harm his neighbors and whoever believes
in Allah and the final Day it is essential for him to entertain his
guest with kindness and generosity and whoever believes in Allah and
the Final Day it is essential that he speak what is good or otherwise
remain silent."

Amongst other points this Hadith explains that it is essential for the
true believer to be mindful of his neighbors at all times so that he
does not harm him in any way. It also gives us an idea of the value
placed on the rights of neighbors by the Holy Prophet of Islam (PBUH).

In another Hadith related by Abu Hurairah (R.A.) the Prophet (PBUH)
said,

"By Allah, he is not a true believer, By Allah, he is not a true
believer, By Allah, he is not a true believer (three times). He was
asked 'Who?" Upon which he replied, "The one whose neighbors do not
feel secure from his mischief and evil.

The construction and manner of the Hadith shows how agitated the
Prophet (PBUH) must have been when he said this. The essence contained
in this Hadith is that the Muslim whose character is such that his
neighbors expect nothing but evil from him and they live in fear of
being hurt or harmed by him, cannot be regarded as a true and faithful
believer - he doesn't deserve the title of Muslim or Mu'min. On
another occasion the Prophet (PBUH) is reported to have said that such
a person (whose neighbors do not feel safe on his account) shall not
go to Heaven.

Note:- In the language of Prophet hood, when special emphasis is laid
on a deed, the customary way of putting it is to say that whoever
neglects it etc. is not a true believer, and he shall not go to
Heaven. It should be understood that this does not imply that he has
actually been thrown out of the fold of Islam and now the laws of
Infidelity (Kufr) will apply to him, and that in the hereafter he will
be treated as an infidel, but rather this is an emphatic way of
explaining that such a person does not possess the true spirit of Iman
which is the glory of a Muslim and is pleasing to Allah. The
particular phrasing is used to lend greater force to the matter.

In yet another Hadith, related by Anas (R.A.), the Prophet (PBUH) said

"He has not affirmed faith in me (i.e. he is not a true follower)
who eats to his satisfaction and sleeps comfortably at night while his
neighbor goes hungry - and he is aware of it."

How astonishing that such a wide gap has occurred between these
teachings and traditions and the actual conduct of the Muslims as a
whole! It is extremely difficult for an unknowing person to believe
that such, really, were the teachings of the Holy Prophet of Islam
(PBUH).

Nevertheless, these traditions and teachings explain clearly the
importance of good and kind treatment to neighbors and they are a
clear admonition to those who remain indifferent to the needs and
difficulties of their neighbors and care nothing for them.

"hamada" wrote in message
...
Apart from a man's parents, children and near relatives, there also
exists a permanent association and contact between him and his
neighbors.

Man, you certainly don't respect this when newsgroups are concerned. Stop
invading other newsgroup. The distance between what you say and what you do
is phenomenal. Typical...

Answer us this: Why has every terrorist of late been muslim? How
many Jews or Christians raise their kids to strap on bombs to kill
innocents?



On May 29, 8:16*am, hamada wrote:
Apart from a man's parents, children and near relatives, there also
exists a permanent association and contact between him and his
neighbors. The state of his association - be it good or otherwise has
a great influence on his life and morals. The Prophet (PBUH) had
attached great importance to this and has constantly urged the Ummah
to pay due regard to the rights of neighbors to the extent that he had
declared good neighborliness to be part of Iman (Faith) and an
essential requisite for salvation.

Three Categories Of Neighbors

In a Hadith, related by Jabir (R.A.), the Prophet (PBUH) is reported
to have said

* * "Neighbors are of three kinds. Firstly, the neighbor who enjoys
only one right (and as far as rights are concerned) he is of the
lowest grade. Secondly, the one who enjoys two rights and thirdly the
neighbor who enjoys three rights.

* * The neighbor with only one right is the Polytheist (i.e. a non-
Muslim neighbor with whom there are no family ties). The neighbor with
two rights is the neighbor who is also a Muslim (as such he has a
claim as a neighbor as well as a fellow Muslim) and the one with three
rights is the neighbor who is a Muslim and a Relative - he has a claim
as a neighbor, as a fellow Muslim and as a relative".

This Hadith clearly explains that the obligation to live in peace and
harmony with neighbors, as demanded in the Holy Quran and the
Traditions, also includes the non-Muslim neighbors. They too have a
claim to our kindness and sympathy. We treat the animals with kindness
and we have been warned against ill treating them, then what of our
fellow humans - more so our neighbors. It will be significant to note
that in all Ahadith Traditions mentioned, with regards to the basic
rights of neighbors, no distinction had been made between Muslims and
non-Muslims.

Emphasis On The Rights Of Neighbors

It is reported, on the authority of Ayesha (R.A.) and Ibn Umar (R.A.)
that the messenger of Allah (PBUH) said "The Angel Jibra'il (A.S.)
counseled me so frequently regarding the rights of the neighbor that I
feared, he too would be declared an heir."

This Hadith shows that Angel Jibra'il (A.S.) brought commandments from
Allah, concerning the rights of the neighbor so frequently and
stressed the need to be kind and courteous to him with such force and
regularity that the Holy Prophet (PBUH) thought that the neighbor also
will be made an heir i.e. just as parents, children and near relatives
inherit the property left by the deceased, he thought that the
neighbor, too, will be given a share in it.

Note:- The purpose of this Hadith is not merely to state a fact, but
rather it is most effective way of highlighting the importance of the
neighbor to the Muslims.

Importance Of Good Treatment To Neighbors (It is an essential
condition of Iman (faith))

It is narrated by Abu Shurayh (R.A.) that the Prophet (S.A.W.) said

* * "Whoever believes in Allah and the final day (Day of Judgment) it
is essential that he does not harm his neighbors and whoever believes
in Allah and the final Day it is essential for him to entertain his
guest with kindness and generosity and whoever believes in Allah and
the Final Day it is essential that he speak what is good or otherwise
remain silent."

Amongst other points this Hadith explains that it is essential for the
true believer to be mindful of his neighbors at all times so that he
does not harm him in any way. It also gives us an idea of the value
placed on the rights of neighbors by the Holy Prophet of Islam (PBUH).

In another Hadith related by Abu Hurairah (R.A.) the Prophet (PBUH)
said,

* * "By Allah, he is not a true believer, By Allah, he is not a true
believer, By Allah, he is not a true believer (three times). He was
asked 'Who?" Upon which he replied, "The one whose neighbors do not
feel secure from his mischief and evil.

The construction and manner of the Hadith shows how agitated the
Prophet (PBUH) must have been when he said this. The essence contained
in this Hadith is that the Muslim whose character is such that his
neighbors expect nothing but evil from him and they live in fear of
being hurt or harmed by him, cannot be regarded as a true and faithful
believer - he doesn't deserve the title of Muslim or Mu'min. On
another occasion the Prophet (PBUH) is reported to have said that such
a person (whose neighbors do not feel safe on his account) shall not
go to Heaven.

Note:- In the language of Prophet hood, when special emphasis is laid
on a deed, the customary way of putting it is to say that whoever
neglects it etc. is not a true believer, and he shall not go to
Heaven. It should be understood that this does not imply that he has
actually been thrown out of the fold of Islam and now the laws of
Infidelity (Kufr) will apply to him, and that in the hereafter he will
be treated as an infidel, but rather this is an emphatic way of
explaining that such a person does not possess the true spirit of Iman
which is the glory of a Muslim and is pleasing to Allah. The
particular phrasing is used to lend greater force to the matter.

In yet another Hadith, related by Anas (R.A.), the Prophet (PBUH) said

* * "He has not affirmed faith in me (i.e. he is not a true follower)
who eats to his satisfaction and sleeps comfortably at night while his
neighbor goes hungry - and he is aware of it."

How astonishing that such a wide gap has occurred between these
teachings and traditions and the actual conduct of the Muslims as a
whole! It is extremely difficult for an unknowing person to believe
that such, really, were the teachings of the Holy Prophet of Islam
(PBUH).

Nevertheless, these traditions and teachings explain clearly the
importance of good and kind treatment to neighbors and they are a
clear admonition to those who remain indifferent to the needs and
difficulties of their neighbors and care nothing for them.

On Thu, 29 May 2008 12:32:32 -0700, bigjimpack wrote:

Answer us this: Why has every terrorist of late been muslim? How many
Jews or Christians raise their kids to strap on bombs to kill innocents?

So you've never heard of the KKK? I got news for you, there's a very
large, extremely well armed army of terrorists living in America.

....and it wasn't Muslims bombing the abortion clinics.

--
"Remain calm, we're here to protect you!"

In article , Ivan Marsh says...

On Thu, 29 May 2008 12:32:32 -0700, bigjimpack wrote:

Answer us this: Why has every terrorist of late been muslim? How many
Jews or Christians raise their kids to strap on bombs to kill innocents?

So you've never heard of the KKK? I got news for you, there's a very
large, extremely well armed army of terrorists living in America.

...and it wasn't Muslims bombing the abortion clinics.


Or the fed building in Oklahoma.

We also seem to have forgotten about the ELA, the IRA, the FLA. Or the Hindu
nationalists in the Gujarat.

Banty

In article ,
Banty wrote:


We also seem to have forgotten about the ELA, the IRA, the FLA. Or the Hindu
nationalists in the Gujarat.


Or SDS, or Weather Underground, or SLA, to bring the liberal wingnuts
into play.

In article ,
Ivan Marsh wrote:

In the 1920's. It's 2008.

So... the militant Islamists are living 500 years in the past but 88 years
is excusable?

I think he was discussing number relative to then and now.


Before Bush whacked the middle-eastern hornets nest was the number of
militant Islamists increasing or declining?

Increasing. Cole, the African Embassies, WTC 1, Beirut and a whole
bunch of bombings in Israel all predated. Wasabi schools, also greatly
predated Bush.

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
Ivan Marsh wrote:

In the 1920's. It's 2008.

So... the militant Islamists are living 500 years in the past but 88
years is excusable?

I think he was discussing number relative to then and now.


Before Bush whacked the middle-eastern hornets nest was the number of
militant Islamists increasing or declining?

Increasing. Cole, the African Embassies, WTC 1, Beirut and a whole
bunch of bombings in Israel all predated. Wasabi schools, also greatly
predated Bush.


before America promised to help get ,
Russia out of Iraq and then broke the promise and left them screwed

Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
Ivan Marsh wrote:



In the 1920's. It's 2008.


So... the militant Islamists are living 500 years in the past but 88 years
is excusable?



I think he was discussing number relative to then and now.




Before Bush whacked the middle-eastern hornets nest was the number of
militant Islamists increasing or declining?



Increasing. Cole, the African Embassies, WTC 1, Beirut and a whole
bunch of bombings in Israel all predated. Wasabi schools, also greatly
predated Bush.



Yeh, and before that there was the Crusades.

P.S. Why are y'all cross posting to alt.religion.scientology?

On Thu, 29 May 2008 21:53:46 +0000, % wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
Ivan Marsh wrote:

In the 1920's. It's 2008.

So... the militant Islamists are living 500 years in the past but 88
years is excusable?

I think he was discussing number relative to then and now.


Before Bush whacked the middle-eastern hornets nest was the number of
militant Islamists increasing or declining?

Increasing. Cole, the African Embassies, WTC 1, Beirut and a whole
bunch of bombings in Israel all predated. Wasabi schools, also greatly
predated Bush.

before America promised to help get, Russia out of Iraq and then broke
the promise and left them screwed

....and then armed the Afghans, Iraq and Iran so they could fight each
other just to **** off the Soviets.

....not to quote an inflammatory, unpopular man but, have America's
chickens come home to roost?

--
"Remain calm, we're here to protect you!"

In article KBF%j.514$i74.155@edtnps91, "%" wrote:


Increasing. Cole, the African Embassies, WTC 1, Beirut and a whole
bunch of bombings in Israel all predated. Wasabi schools, also greatly
predated Bush.


before America promised to help get ,
Russia out of Iraq and then broke the promise and left them screwed

Would you like to try that again (seriously). That doesn't make
any sense to me.

In article ,
Norminn wrote:


Yeh, and before that there was the Crusades.

Before that was all sorts of Moslem mischief. Heck Mohamed himself
started something like 50 wars of aggression to spread the Word during
his lifetime. Religion has been a blood sport for a faction of the
Muslims since the beginning.

In article ,
Ivan Marsh wrote:


If you want the root of this situation look to the Regan administration
(which amusingly includes quite a few of the same assholes that are in the
Bush administration).

If you want to look at the root of this situation,go back to the
partioning of old Ottoman empire. Heck if you want the real root, go
back to early times. Muhammed himself started various wars to get what
he wanted, specifically Mecca and Arabia conquests. Muslim has always
had a faction that views religion as a blood sport.

hamada wrote:
Apart from a man's parents, children and near relatives, there also
exists a permanent association and contact between him and his
neighbors.

How about your neighbors in unrelated newsgroups, ya big cross-posting kook!

On Thu, 29 May 2008 12:32:32 -0700, bigjimpack wrote:

Answer us this: Why has every terrorist of late been muslim? How many
Jews or Christians raise their kids to strap on bombs to kill innocents?

If they're Jews in Jerusalem and Christians in Ireland, the answer is A LOT.

Janithor wrote:

I don't know. They were very active all during the 90's, and 9/11 was
planned on Clinton's watch. If you think this is all about Bush,
well, I don't know what to say to that either. I don't think that's
very rational.


I'm about half way through Douglas Feith's new book, "War and Decision."
Feith was Undersecretary of Defense for Policy during the first six years of
the Bush administration and the #3 man in the Pentagon. He discusses the
events and policies that led up to the war in Iraq. Here's one revelation:

Capturing Ben Laden was NEVER a goal of the United States. Capturing and
"bringing to justice" is a crime control concept, not an anti-terror
concept. The number one goal of the war on terror, from the beginning, was
to prevent another attack on U.S. interests. This could be accomplished by
disrupting or destroying the terrorist's funding, communication, membership,
chain-of-command, training facilities, logistical support, and so on.

To that end, there has not been a successful terrorist attack against the
United States or U.S. interests anywhere in the world for five years. Not
one.

Rhiannon wrote:
On Thu, 29 May 2008 12:32:32 -0700, bigjimpack wrote:

Answer us this: Why has every terrorist of late been muslim? How
many Jews or Christians raise their kids to strap on bombs to kill
innocents?

If they're Jews in Jerusalem and Christians in Ireland, the answer is
A LOT.

Not so. Neither Jews nor Catholics condone suicide. No Jewish or Christian
group I've ever heard of has resorted to such. Neither the Jews in Israel
(or anywhere) nor the IRA has ever attacked a civilian target.

On May 29, 10:16 pm, hamada wrote:

Apart from a man's parents, children and near relatives, there also
exists a permanent association and contact between him and his
neighbors. The state of his association - be it good or otherwise has

I think you half to pay half each to replace a worn out yard fence.
There could be an argument over who gets the smooth side and
who gets the side with the posts.

Otherwise if the have noisy pets or noisy parties, choose police
or coucil ranger, if they don't do those things they can be quite
friendly.

When in an apartment building, you don't need to worry
about the fence bit, however have to be diplomatic while
meeting in the elevator and say hi and bye.

HTH

Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
Ivan Marsh wrote:



In the 1920's. It's 2008.


So... the militant Islamists are living 500 years in the past but 88 years
is excusable?



I think he was discussing number relative to then and now.




Before Bush whacked the middle-eastern hornets nest was the number of
militant Islamists increasing or declining?



Increasing. Cole, the African Embassies, WTC 1, Beirut and a whole
bunch of bombings in Israel all predated. Wasabi schools, also greatly
predated Bush.



How did the kingdom of Saudi Arabia come to be?

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Rhiannon wrote:
On Thu, 29 May 2008 12:32:32 -0700, bigjimpack wrote:

Answer us this: Why has every terrorist of late been muslim? How
many Jews or Christians raise their kids to strap on bombs to kill
innocents?

If they're Jews in Jerusalem and Christians in Ireland, the answer is
A LOT.

Not so. Neither Jews nor Catholics condone suicide. No Jewish or Christian
group I've ever heard of has resorted to such.

Uh, yeah, right.

Neither the Jews in Israel (or anywhere) nor the IRA has ever attacked a
civilian target.

Yer funny.

--
Rhi

Norminn wrote:


How did the kingdom of Saudi Arabia come to be?

The Ottoman Empire was on the losing side in WW1 and its territory was
broken into "mandates" (mostly British and French). With the permission of
the League of Nations, Britain drew some squiggly lines on a map back in
London and gave what is now Saudi Arabia to the House of Saud to govern. The
runner-up - as far as tribal loyalties was concerned - was given the bulk of
Trans-Jordan. The current rulers of Jordan, the Hashemites, are not
Jordanian/Palestinian. They are the second-place contestants from the Arabia
lottery.

To answer your question directly: The Turks lost the war and the winners
divvied up the spoils.

Ivan Marsh wrote:

That's not a rational assumption. I haven't said anything about Bush
other than to suggest that terrorism recruiting has increased since
the invasion of Iraq... which it has.


That claim is pretty hard to prove since there's no census. Where are all
these terrorists of which you speak?

There has not been one successful terrorist attack against the U.S. or U.S.
interests since 2003.

Rhiannon wrote:

Not so. Neither Jews nor Catholics condone suicide. No Jewish or
Christian group I've ever heard of has resorted to such.

Uh, yeah, right.

Neither the Jews in Israel (or anywhere) nor the IRA has ever
attacked a civilian target.

Yer funny.

In a similar spirit of levity, name one. Point to an attack by the IRA or
Jewish groups in Israel that specifically targeted civilians. Just one. And
I'll quit giggling.

HeyBub wrote:

Norminn wrote:




How did the kingdom of Saudi Arabia come to be?



The Ottoman Empire was on the losing side in WW1 and its territory was
broken into "mandates" (mostly British and French). With the permission of
the League of Nations, Britain drew some squiggly lines on a map back in
London and gave what is now Saudi Arabia to the House of Saud to govern. The
runner-up - as far as tribal loyalties was concerned - was given the bulk of
Trans-Jordan. The current rulers of Jordan, the Hashemites, are not
Jordanian/Palestinian. They are the second-place contestants from the Arabia
lottery.

To answer your question directly: The Turks lost the war and the winners
divvied up the spoils.




There were American oil companies in there somewhere, no?

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Rhiannon wrote:

Not so. Neither Jews nor Catholics condone suicide. No Jewish or
Christian group I've ever heard of has resorted to such.

Uh, yeah, right.

Neither the Jews in Israel (or anywhere) nor the IRA has ever
attacked a civilian target.

Yer funny.

In a similar spirit of levity, name one. Point to an attack by the IRA or
Jewish groups in Israel that specifically targeted civilians. Just one. And
I'll quit giggling.

Depending on how you divvy up the factions, the Provos (an IRA
offshoot) did bomb Harrods, not exactly a military target. Same with
Canary Wharf. In the interest of equal time, protestants blew up that a
betting parlor frequented by Catholics in Belfast in 92. For awhile in
the 90s, both sides in this particular dispute took turns bombing and/or
shooting up civilian targets in an action/reaction manner. The lists go
on and on. Actually the IRA has a long history of going after civilian
targets.

On 30 May, 12:51, "HeyBub" wrote:
Rhiannon wrote:

Not so. Neither Jews nor Catholics condone suicide. No Jewish or
Christian group I've ever heard of has resorted to such.

Uh, yeah, right.

Neither the Jews in Israel (or anywhere) nor the IRA has ever
attacked a civilian target.

Yer funny.

In a similar spirit of levity, name one. Point to an attack by the IRA or
Jewish groups in Israel that specifically targeted civilians. Just one. And
I'll quit giggling.


I'll give you two, just for starters:

The Balmoral furniture store bombing on the Shankill road in Belfast
in 1971. No warnings were given and two infants, a two year old and 17
month old, were among those blown apart as a result. A very strategic
military target, a furniture shop.

The Warrington bomb of the 20th of March, 1993. From wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warring...#Second_attack

"At 11:58am on (20 March 1993), the telephone help charity The
Samaritans received a coded message that a bomb was going to be
detonated outside the Boots shop in Liverpool, fifteen miles away from
Warrington. Merseyside Police investigated, and also warned the
Cheshire Constabulary (who patrolled Warrington) of the threat, but it
was too late to evacuate. At 12:12pm two bombs exploded, one outside
Boots on Bridge Street and one outside the Argos catalogue store. It
later turned out that the bombs had been placed inside cast-iron
litter bins, causing large amounts of shrapnel.

Buses were organised to ferry people away from the scene and 20
paramedics and crews from 17 ambulances were sent to deal with the
aftermath.

Eyewitnesses of the time said that "the first explosion drove
panicking shoppers into the path of the next blast just seconds
later."

There were two fatalities from the blast. Three-year-old Johnathan
Ball died at the scene, accompanied by his babysitter, who survived.
The second victim, 12-year-old Tim Parry, died in hospital from his
injuries five days later. 54 more people were injured, four of them
seriously"

Bombs planted on a busy shopping street, and detonated at a time when
there would be many people going about their business, to
*specifically* target innocent civilians. Do you think the shrapnel
from the cast iron bins and the resulting injuries wasn't factored in
by these sophisticated killers?

The idea that the IRA never targeted civilians, that civilian deaths
were a tragic accident, is a myth perpetrated by the current
leadership of Sinn Fein and the other ex-IRA murderers now enjoying
the trappings of power and supposed respectability in 21st century
Northern Ireland. While the move from the bomb to the ballot box is to
be applauded and the courage and foresight shown by those on both
sides of the divide is acknowledged and commended, the truth, however,
will never be forgotten: the IRA and their political masters, Sinn
Fein, were nothing but a band of murderous thugs who slaughtered men,
women and children indiscriminately for their own petty political
ends. And before anyone responds with "What about the UVF/UDA?" I hold
no brief for loyalist murderers either.

From the Irish Independent:

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/an...ry-495357.html

"Almost from the outset the IRA was engaged in the deliberate killing
of civilians for purely terrorist effect.

In 1971 in Belfast, there were a series of bomb attacks on Protestant
pubs, killing at least seven people.

Times and places were chosen to create maximum Protestant civilian
casualties.

At the end of that year the IRA detonated a bomb without warning
outside the Balmoral Furniture Store on the Shankill Road.

This bomb killed an infant boy and girl and two men working for the
Store.

In 1972, the IRA unleashed a series of bloody no-warning bomb attacks
centring on civilian targets in Belfast. The attacks were directed by
the IRA leader, Seamus Twomey, who Adams has identified as one of his
guiding figures.

The worst atrocities of 1972 included the Abercorn Restaurant bombing
in March. A bomb in a shopping bag exploded without any warning in the
centre of the café which was packed with women shoppers.

Two young women, both Catholics, were blown apart and three other
women had more than one limb amputated. One young Donegal woman
shopping for her wedding dress lost both legs and an arm.

This was followed by a no-warning bomb attack which killed six people
in Donegall Street and the Bloody Friday series of bomb attacks in
July 1972 in which 22 bombs exploded in 45 minutes.

The IRA gave warnings in both these events but the information they
gave was wrong and actually increased the numbers of casualties.

At the end of July 1972, the IRA responded to the British army's
invasion of its "no go" areas by detonating a car bomb without warning
in the village of Claudy, Co Derry, killing nine people including a
nine-year-old girl.

The history of the Troubles is littered with examples of the IRA's
murderousness."

"One of the most hideous attacks in the history of the Trouble's was
the IRA's killing of 12 people attending a kennel club dinner at the
La Mon House Hotel in east Belfast in January 1978.

The IRA used a blast incendiary bomb - using plastic explosive and a
canister of home-made napalm - which caused all the victims to suffer
horrific burns. There was no warning."

Still laughing?

HeyBub wrote:
Rhiannon wrote:

Not so. Neither Jews nor Catholics condone suicide. No Jewish or
Christian group I've ever heard of has resorted to such.

Uh, yeah, right.

Neither the Jews in Israel (or anywhere) nor the IRA has ever
attacked a civilian target.

Yer funny.

In a similar spirit of levity, name one. Point to an attack by the
IRA or Jewish groups in Israel that specifically targeted civilians.
Just one. And I'll quit giggling.

The King David Hotel.

--

dadiOH
____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico

BoredToTears writes:

On 30 May, 12:51, "HeyBub" wrote:
In a similar spirit of levity, name one. Point to an attack by the IRA or
Jewish groups in Israel that specifically targeted civilians. Just one. And
I'll quit giggling.


I'll give you two, just for starters:

Well, obviously "HeyBub" wins the argument, since you weren't able to
point to *just one* attack.

Boy, some people don't understand debate.

Note followups.

--
Jesse F. Hughes
"But nothing's being Dr. Ullrich is a particular case of something's
being such that nothing is it: (Ex)~(Ey)(y = x)"
-- John Correy on the failings of first order logic

"BoredToTears" wrote in message
...
On 30 May, 12:51, "HeyBub" wrote:
Rhiannon wrote:

Not so. Neither Jews nor Catholics condone suicide. No Jewish or
Christian group I've ever heard of has resorted to such.

Uh, yeah, right.

Neither the Jews in Israel (or anywhere) nor the IRA has ever
attacked a civilian target.

Yer funny.

In a similar spirit of levity, name one. Point to an attack by the IRA or
Jewish groups in Israel that specifically targeted civilians. Just one.
And
I'll quit giggling.

Do you think I would have said it unless I knew it to be true? I was all
prepared to point out several until BTT did it for me. Thank you BTT. Now?
Yes, by all means, feel free to quit giggling.

--
Rhi

Rhiannon wrote:
"BoredToTears" wrote in message
...
On 30 May, 12:51, "HeyBub" wrote:
Rhiannon wrote:

Not so. Neither Jews nor Catholics condone suicide. No Jewish or
Christian group I've ever heard of has resorted to such.

Uh, yeah, right.

Neither the Jews in Israel (or anywhere) nor the IRA has ever
attacked a civilian target.

Yer funny.

In a similar spirit of levity, name one. Point to an attack by the
IRA or Jewish groups in Israel that specifically targeted civilians.
Just one. And
I'll quit giggling.

Do you think I would have said it unless I knew it to be true? I was
all prepared to point out several until BTT did it for me. Thank you
BTT. Now? Yes, by all means, feel free to quit giggling.



i think you'd say anything to save yourself from being laughed at ,
but i still LOL at your entire life

On Fri, 30 May 2008 06:49:52 -0500, HeyBub wrote:

Ivan Marsh wrote:

That's not a rational assumption. I haven't said anything about Bush
other than to suggest that terrorism recruiting has increased since the
invasion of Iraq... which it has.

That claim is pretty hard to prove since there's no census. Where are
all these terrorists of which you speak?

There has not been one successful terrorist attack against the U.S. or
U.S. interests since 2003.

The Bush administrations itself has claimed recruiting has increased, as
has every military leader in the theatre.

--
"Remain calm, we're here to protect you!"

On Thu, 29 May 2008 18:38:45 -0500, HeyBub wrote:

Janithor wrote:

I don't know. They were very active all during the 90's, and 9/11 was
planned on Clinton's watch. If you think this is all about Bush,
well, I don't know what to say to that either. I don't think that's
very rational.


I'm about half way through Douglas Feith's new book, "War and Decision."
Feith was Undersecretary of Defense for Policy during the first six years of
the Bush administration and the #3 man in the Pentagon. He discusses the
events and policies that led up to the war in Iraq. Here's one revelation:

Capturing Ben Laden was NEVER a goal of the United States. Capturing and
"bringing to justice" is a crime control concept, not an anti-terror
concept. The number one goal of the war on terror, from the beginning, was
to prevent another attack on U.S. interests. This could be accomplished by
disrupting or destroying the terrorist's funding, communication, membership,
chain-of-command, training facilities, logistical support, and so on.

To that end, there has not been a successful terrorist attack against the
United States or U.S. interests anywhere in the world for five years. Not
one.

Now they're just killing members of our military directly.

--
"Remain calm, we're here to protect you!"

On 30 May, 17:11, "Rhiannon" wrote:
"BoredToTears" wrote in message

...
On 30 May, 12:51, "HeyBub" wrote:



Rhiannon wrote:

Not so. Neither Jews nor Catholics condone suicide. No Jewish or
Christian group I've ever heard of has resorted to such.

Uh, yeah, right.

Neither the Jews in Israel (or anywhere) nor the IRA has ever
attacked a civilian target.

Yer funny.

In a similar spirit of levity, name one. Point to an attack by the IRA or
Jewish groups in Israel that specifically targeted civilians. Just one.
And
I'll quit giggling.

Do you think I would have said it unless I knew it to be true? *I was all
prepared to point out several until BTT did it for
me. *Thank you BTT. *


You're welcome. I just get a little tired of seeing people fall for
the same revisionist propaganda over and over again. While "one man's
terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" may have some truth to it,
in this particular case neither side can possibly lay claim to the
moral high ground; it's obscured by the mangled bodies of the
innocent.



Now?
Yes, by all means, feel free to quit giggling.

--
Rhi

http://tinyurl.com/2q7hd9


see also


www.shakespeareauthorship.com


The Droeshout portrait is not unusual at all!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/shakenbake.html


See my demolition of Monsarrat's RES paper!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/monsarr1.html


Agent Jim

Norminn wrote:
HeyBub wrote:

Norminn wrote:




How did the kingdom of Saudi Arabia come to be?



The Ottoman Empire was on the losing side in WW1 and its territory
was broken into "mandates" (mostly British and French). With the
permission of the League of Nations, Britain drew some squiggly
lines on a map back in London and gave what is now Saudi Arabia to
the House of Saud to govern. The runner-up - as far as tribal
loyalties was concerned - was given the bulk of Trans-Jordan. The
current rulers of Jordan, the Hashemites, are not
Jordanian/Palestinian. They are the second-place contestants from
the Arabia lottery. To answer your question directly: The Turks lost the
war and the
winners divvied up the spoils.




There were American oil companies in there somewhere, no?

Probably not. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was formed in 1927 (Treaty of
Jeddah) through 1932; oil wasn't discovered until 1938.

Prior to westerners' proclaiming the worth of oil, the Bedouins thought that
black, sticky stuff was effluvia from sick camels. They used it to treat bee
bites.

Ivan Marsh wrote:
On Fri, 30 May 2008 06:49:52 -0500, HeyBub wrote:

Ivan Marsh wrote:

That's not a rational assumption. I haven't said anything about Bush
other than to suggest that terrorism recruiting has increased since
the invasion of Iraq... which it has.

That claim is pretty hard to prove since there's no census. Where are
all these terrorists of which you speak?

There has not been one successful terrorist attack against the U.S.
or U.S. interests since 2003.

The Bush administrations itself has claimed recruiting has increased,
as has every military leader in the theatre.

I'd be grateful for a link. Google "terrorist recruitment bush/military
leaders" yields claims by John Kerry, the BBC, and others, but nothing by
Bush himself or any current military leaders.

I have no doubt that recruitment of terrorists continues; but I suspect the
actual numbers recruited have diminished drastically.

Ivan Marsh wrote:

I'm about half way through Douglas Feith's new book, "War and
Decision." Feith was Undersecretary of Defense for Policy during the
first six years of the Bush administration and the #3 man in the
Pentagon. He discusses the events and policies that led up to the
war in Iraq. Here's one revelation:

Capturing Ben Laden was NEVER a goal of the United States. Capturing
and "bringing to justice" is a crime control concept, not an
anti-terror concept. The number one goal of the war on terror, from
the beginning, was to prevent another attack on U.S. interests. This
could be accomplished by disrupting or destroying the terrorist's
funding, communication, membership, chain-of-command, training
facilities, logistical support, and so on.

To that end, there has not been a successful terrorist attack
against the United States or U.S. interests anywhere in the world
for five years. Not one.

Now they're just killing members of our military directly.

Well, yeah. Some. But that's the chance our volunteers took when they signed
up for the opportunity to wreak havoc. Interestingly, 85% of those who
served a tour in Iraq or Afghanistan re-enlisted when their enlistment
anniversary arrived.. Just last week, the 1st Infantry Division, now on its
THIRD tour of duty in Iraq, reported it met its annual re-enlistment goal in
the first six months of the fiscal year!

Our troops WANT to be there, they NEED to be there, they ENJOY being there!
We need to support our troops by continuing to provide them with the
opportunity to kill people and blow **** up. Hoo-Rah!

Kurt Ullman wrote:

In a similar spirit of levity, name one. Point to an attack by the
IRA or Jewish groups in Israel that specifically targeted civilians.
Just one. And I'll quit giggling.

Depending on how you divvy up the factions, the Provos (an IRA
offshoot) did bomb Harrods, not exactly a military target. Same with
Canary Wharf. In the interest of equal time, protestants blew up that
a betting parlor frequented by Catholics in Belfast in 92. For awhile
in the 90s, both sides in this particular dispute took turns bombing
and/or shooting up civilian targets in an action/reaction manner.
The lists go on and on. Actually the IRA has a long history of going
after civilian targets.

I stand corrected. In the main, the IRA attacked police stations and offices
of government, but, you're right. They did, from time to time, go after
civilian targets in a terroristic mode.

*******s.

BoredToTears wrote:

In a similar spirit of levity, name one. Point to an attack by the
IRA or Jewish groups in Israel that specifically targeted civilians.
Just one. And I'll quit giggling.


I'll give you two, just for starters:

The Balmoral furniture store bombing on the Shankill road in Belfast
in 1971. No warnings were given and two infants, a two year old and 17
month old, were among those blown apart as a result. A very strategic
military target, a furniture shop.


[...]

You're correct. I apologize for giving the IRA more credit for being
civilized than they deserve.

On Fri, 30 May 2008 15:47:24 -0500, HeyBub wrote:

Ivan Marsh wrote:

I'm about half way through Douglas Feith's new book, "War and
Decision." Feith was Undersecretary of Defense for Policy during the
first six years of the Bush administration and the #3 man in the
Pentagon. He discusses the events and policies that led up to the war
in Iraq. Here's one revelation:

Capturing Ben Laden was NEVER a goal of the United States. Capturing
and "bringing to justice" is a crime control concept, not an
anti-terror concept. The number one goal of the war on terror, from
the beginning, was to prevent another attack on U.S. interests. This
could be accomplished by disrupting or destroying the terrorist's
funding, communication, membership, chain-of-command, training
facilities, logistical support, and so on.

To that end, there has not been a successful terrorist attack against
the United States or U.S. interests anywhere in the world for five
years. Not one.

Now they're just killing members of our military directly.

Well, yeah. Some.

Some? More than were killed in the 9/11 attacks and the Cole combined and
then some.

But that's the chance our volunteers took when they signed up for the
opportunity to wreak havoc.

They did not sign up to be lied to by the commander in chief.

Interestingly, 85% of those who served a tour in Iraq or Afghanistan
re-enlisted when their enlistment anniversary arrived.. Just last week,
the 1st Infantry Division, now on its THIRD tour of duty in Iraq,
reported it met its annual re-enlistment goal in the first six months of
the fiscal year!

It's called stop-loss.

Our troops WANT to be there, they NEED to be there, they ENJOY being
there! We need to support our troops by continuing to provide them with
the opportunity to kill people and blow **** up. Hoo-Rah!

None of my friends that are there believe any of the crap that's being
shoveled at them by the Bush administration.


--
"Remain calm, we're here to protect you!"