kpr37

Latest Followers:

Kathleen BeastOfTheEast Gordy327 Uncle Bruce badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη magnoliaave DocPhil Dean Moriarty Spikegary livefreeordie Al-316 Done chefaz Jonathan P volfan katlin02 teufelhund bitemore Gfotwo Kavika Vic Eldred ausmth Nowhere Man 1ofmany Goodtime Charlie Perrie Halpern R.A.

Jihad violence as explained by Newton's first law (subtitled the sharia compliance theory)

By:  kpr37  •  islam  •  3 months ago  •  38 comments

Jihad violence as explained by Newton's first law (subtitled the sharia compliance theory)

Two article caught my attention recently. I look at things differently, or I try too at least. For some unexplained reason, Newton's first law. Inertia and Mass State of Motion Balanced and Unbalanced Forces immediately sprung to my mind. ( I blame my habitual use of the "devil weed" for this strange occurrence)


Pakistan claims credit for cancellation of Dutch cartoon contest.  Imran Khan's government claimed victory after far-right Dutch politician Geert Wilders cancelled his provocative contest for people to draw cartoons of the Prophet after receiving 'death threats'

https://atimes.us14.list-manage.com/track/click?u=2049a8663daea00bd30c32cf2&id=36fa333ee4&e=7477bba0c0

The second article is here

"The 19-year-old suspect is accused of stabbing the Americans in an unprovoked attack after he arrived at Amsterdam's Central Station on an international train. Prosecutors say he did not know the victims were U.S. citizens. Prosecutors say the suspect believes that Islam is 'insulted' in the Netherlands, and that drove him to travel to the Netherlands to carry out an attack. 'It is apparent from his statements that he believes that in the Netherlands, the Prophet Muhammad, the Quran, Islam and Allah are repeatedly insulted,' prosecutors said in a statement Monday, noting that the young Afghan man specifically mentioned Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders, who is well known for his fierce anti-Islam rhetoric".

(Islam is Arabic for submission, so in reality, Geert Wilders is anti-submission. But it will never be phrased like that. As that, in, and of itself, is likely to inspire more jihadi violence.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6134531/Cops-shot-jihadist-stabbed-tourists-Amsterdam-just-NINE-SECONDS-began-attack.html

The two articles lead me to theorize this sharia compliance theory. Based on Newton's principles. The systemic application of violence is the quickest, and surest way to establish and enforce sharia in a secular, non-Islamic society. Think of it as Newton described Inertia in his "first law". A society evolving at a natural pace will proceed in the same general direction unless acted upon by hyper-violent jihadis enforcing sharia on a non-compliant society. Unless an equal, or greater force is applied to the Jihadis, the secular society will inadvertently adopt the seventh-century murderous, misogynist, antisemitic, pedophilic norms found predominantly throughout the Islamic world.


The law of inertia states that:

A body will preserve its velocity and direction so long as no force in its motion's direction acts on it.

http://muse.tau.ac.il/museum/galileo/the_law_of_inertia.html

Paraphrasing Newton's law to examine jihadi violence. My theory of sharia compliance postulates, thus. A nation or society will preserve it cultural and legal codes, only so long as no jihadi force disrupts a nations cultural and legal codes by means of the application of persistent applied violence, directed at the civilian population of said nation.

What does this mean?

This means that there is a natural tendency of nation states to keep on doing what they're doing. All nation-states, as a rule, resist sudden, drastic, unnatural, changes in their state of governance. In the absence of an unbalanced force, ( such as--unopposed jihadi violence) a nation state will maintain a general direction of governance supported widely by the will of the people as determined in open elections. It is this hyper-violent outside force, applying pressure (jihad) that changes the trajectory of a previously secular nation to become sharia-compliant. 

"Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal"........................... (Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies).https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00ABKGP4E?ie=UTF8&linkCode=as2&camp=1634&creative=6738&tag=paroftheday07-20&creativeASIN=B00ABKGP4E

This simply, and easily explains that nation-states, do not start, stop or change direction all by themselves, needlessly submitting themselves to become compliant with seventh-century sharia norms. It requires some great effort, or force acting upon them from the outside to cause such a change. ( I identify this force as applied jihadi violence)  While this concept seems simple and obvious to me today, I have not been infected with the politically correct memeplex, permanently blinding me to this unfortunate, really, really, "fucked up" reality.

A meme may improve its prospects for survival if it becomes part of what Dawkins termed a “memeplex”. This is a situation where a number of compatible memes join together in a manner that is mutually supportive, and may be seen as a roughly analogous situation to that where genes work in concert with other genes in the genome. Political and religious beliefs and also the combined knowledge of experts such as blacksmiths or builders can be seem as memeplexes and they clearly help to secure the longevity of the memes of which they are composed. https://www.richarddawkins.net/2014/02/whats-in-a-meme/

Tags

jrBlog - desc
kpr37
1  seeder  kpr37    3 months ago

Took the summer off, stayed away from social media and feel refreshed. Hi all!

 
 
Enoch
1.1  Enoch  replied to  kpr37 @1    3 months ago

Dear Friend KPR37: I hope the summer treated you and yours well.

Welcome home brother.

Wasn't the same without you.

Peace and Abundant Blessings Always.

Enoch.

 
 
kpr37
1.1.1  seeder  kpr37  replied to  Enoch @1.1    3 months ago

I had a great summer. Did more fishing than I have in years. I also have wild grapes, way in the back of my yard, and tended the vines for the first time this year, getting them to produce way more than when I just ignored them. Sadly, I lost the war with the evil, evil little devil rabbits, who have eaten my marijuana plants for the second year in a row now. Weed may be legal for me to grow, but rabbits won't let me reap the benefits of my states relaxed drug law. Next year I'll build a little greenhouse off the side of the garage, I have finally admitted they are way smarter than me. I should have learned from watching all those bugs bunny cartoons, rabbits are  "wascally" little varmints that just cannot be stopped.

 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.1.2  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  kpr37 @1.1.1    2 months ago

OMG.. the image of stoned bunnies jumping everywhere is just too funny. 

 
 
Enoch
1.1.3  Enoch  replied to  kpr37 @1.1.1    2 months ago

Dear Fwriend KPR37: Wassacwe Wabbits.

Ewmer Enoch.

 
 
kpr37
1.1.4  seeder  kpr37  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.2    2 months ago

I've never seen the rabbits eat it, or act funny. My only evidence is bunny prints around the eaten plants. I got a little, like rolling pin thing, with spikes on it to aerate the dirt and the prints show up real well after I use it.

 
 
kpr37
1.1.6  seeder  kpr37  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.2    2 months ago

Here is one back for you.

Hey Margaret, the squirrels are messing with your bird feeder.

 
 
Krishna
1.1.7  Krishna  replied to  kpr37 @1.1.6    2 months ago

And its not just Squirrels! 

 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.1.8  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  kpr37 @1.1.6    2 months ago

LMAO.. Good one!

 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.1.9  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Krishna @1.1.7    2 months ago

I know.. Wally can't get off the stuff. 

IMG_0295.jpg

 
 
epistte
1.1.10  epistte  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.9    2 months ago

I grow catnip so my cat and every stray in a 3 block radius thinks I am Dr. Feelgood. You need to grow it in a tall planter or a hanging basket because if it is at ground level they will kill the plant in their extasy. 

 
 
Buzz of the Orient
2  Buzz of the Orient    2 months ago

Be careful, kpr37. By providing a warning about jihad violence, and the tolerance of it, you could get yourself labelled as an Islamophobe - a fate that HAS earned threats of death, and sometimes successfully achieved. Better to just submit to a "creeping" caliphate, small steps. After all, the word "Islam" is translated to English as "submission" and there are all too many who find it more palatable to submit and show intolerance to those who warn of the results of such submission.

 
 
kpr37
2.1  seeder  kpr37  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2    2 months ago

I'm shadow banned on another site, because of my Islamophobia? Or my open mocking of the concept of political correctness. Might be either one or both.  My papers and articles are invisible even to me, and my view count went from a few thousand to virtually none. I lost all of my followers. Just before I ckecked in here, a freind emailed me this. (https://www.academia.edu/595527/Anarchism_Terrorism_Studies_and_Islamism ) My page is the naked biker dude "Taranis" koboo37  on the upper right. I'm not sure if you can see it, or access it. But if you can, that is my, now, blank page. I've been un-personed academically LOL. Orwell would be so proud of me. 

 
 
Buzz of the Orient
2.1.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  kpr37 @2.1    2 months ago

I signed up for academia but all they sent me were articles about anarchy.

 
 
kpr37
2.1.2  seeder  kpr37  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2.1.1    2 months ago

I get the articles I subscribe to all the time. You just pick the authors you want to read, and when they publish, they send (email) the articles to ya. My first article over there was "Philistines, Jews, Herodotus, and the Palestine question. I got a great response from it. I published 5 or 6 more, and then one day, they were just all invisible. It still accepts my articles, they just don't show up, and if there is feedback, I don't see it. So I just read my favorites and don't bother publishing anymore. I get an email from some people I don't know from time to time, recommending articles from people I don't subscribe to. So someone knows I'm still around and interested.  And if I'm bored, I can scan topics on a vast array of subjects that would be difficult to find somewhere else.  Other than being an un-person I really like it. (LOL)

 
 
Krishna
2.1.3  Krishna  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2.1.1    2 months ago

I signed up for academia but all they sent me were articles about anarchy.

You think you've got a problem? That's nothing-- I signed up for anarchy and all I got was articles about academia!
 
 
Krishna
2.1.4  Krishna  replied to  kpr37 @2.1    2 months ago

I'm shadow banned on another site, because of my Islamophobia? Or my open mocking of the concept of political correctness. Might be either one or both.  My papers and articles are invisible even to me, and my view count went from a few thousand to virtually none. I lost all of my followers. 

Why don't you keep posting here on NT? In addition to the people already here, often people land on this site because they are googling something.If you post good articles, some people might find them through googling-- some might stay to read more of your articles. 

(People are not banned here for stupid reasons...)

 
 
Krishna
2.2  Krishna  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2    2 months ago

By providing a warning about jihad violence, and the tolerance of it,

Unfortunately, all too often people ignore warnings.

 
 
Krishna
2.2.1  Krishna  replied to  Krishna @2.2    2 months ago

Unfortunately, all too often people ignore warnings.

(See, for example, this comment and the ensuing discussion. Notice how strongly people argue in favour of ignoring warnings....)

 
 
Buzz of the Orient
2.2.2  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Krishna @2.2.1    2 months ago

Were there not unheeded warnings about the attack on Pearl Harbor?

 
 
Buzz of the Orient
2.2.4  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Krishna @2.2    2 months ago
"Unfortunately, all too often people ignore warnings."

For some reason I couldn't open that link, and it's not because of a blocked website - it kept telling me the server was "reset" every time I tried, but I had no problem with the link to your 9/11 article.

 
 
Krishna
2.2.5  Krishna  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2.2.4    2 months ago
"Unfortunately, all too often people ignore warnings."
For some reason I couldn't open that link, and it's not because of a blocked website - it kept telling me the server was "reset" every time I tried, but I had no problem with the link to your 9/11 article.

That link was actually to a BBC article dated Feb 6, 2003 on the BBC site entitled  "Lessons of the First WTC Bombing".

(Note: The first attack on the WTC was in 1993-- many people are unaware of it).

Excerpt:

Ten years ago a bomb exploded in the car park of the World Trade Center building in New York, killing six and injuring over 1,000.

Six men are serving life imprisonment as a result.

But in light of the events of 11 September, a number of analysts are now questioning whether the attack was a warning that was never heeded.

"In many ways it was the opening salvo of al-Qaeda's campaign against the West," terrorism writer Simon Reeve told the BBC World Service's Analysis programme.

"This was their first attack"Many of the individuals involved in the 1993 WTC bombing were connected in some way to Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda.

"This was their first attack."

Here's the link in a different form--  it might work for you.

 
 
epistte
2.3  epistte  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2    2 months ago
Be careful, kpr37. By providing a warning about jihad violence, and the tolerance of it, you could get yourself labelled as an Islamophobe - a fate that HAS earned threats of death, and sometimes successfully achieved. Better to just submit to a "creeping" caliphate, small steps. After all, the word "Islam" is translated to English as "submission" and there are all too many who find it more palatable to submit and show intolerance to those who warn of the results of such submission.

This is why we have the separation of church and state in the US, to keep all religions out of government/public sphere and to protect the secular rights of all people, regardless to their religious beliefs and lack thereof. The problem in the US isn't with Muslims but with conservative Christians who think that their Biblical nuttiness is above the Constitution, so they have a divine right to enforce their version of Sharia law, but strangely I don't hear many conservatives complaining about Christian beliefs being legislated and enforced as secular law. 

The fact that there is only a fraction of Muslims are supporters of sharia law as secular law is lost on you and your daily threads by John Bolton's mouthpiece site or World Nut Daily.  

 
 
kpr37
2.3.1  seeder  kpr37  replied to  epistte @2.3    2 months ago
so they have a divine right to enforce their version of Sharia law
 
One major difference between reality and personal delusion is that reality can be sourced from multiple sources. Whereas personal delusions exist is the individual human's mind. When I reference sharia, ( meaning the way or path of the prophet and found in the Quran Hadith, and Sira) I can link to an actual book, in this case, "the reliance of the traveler". It is real, it exists. The book was certified by Al- Azhar University as an accurate translation of the original Arabic. There are many things that I do not know. ( many more than I can count) So I ask, can you provide a source supporting your idea of an equivalent Christian book of "sharia".(Source me the actual book that you mean) Because if you can not, I will suspect the unsupported claim is only a  direct manifestation of a personal animus for Christians, and claiming there is such a thing as "Christian sharia" is the result of said animus, producing a derogatory "slur" to insult Christians with an unsupportable and unfounded accusation.
The fact that there is only a fraction of Muslims are supporters of sharia law
 Do you believe that what that fraction may, in fact, be, significant? In a Pew poll survey of Muslim attitudes toward sharia, support for it varied greatly by national origin, but worldwide it safe to say at least about 50% support its implementation. In the most populated Islamic nation, Indonesia, support was 77%. Saudi Arabia and Iran were not part of the survey. Only 39 nations were included, yet there are 57 member states in the origination of Islamic corporation, the 'IOC", the discrepancy is due to it, not being allowed by the governments who were excluded for whatever undisclosed reasons.

a Pew Research Center survey of Muslims in 39 countries asked Muslims whether they want sharia law, a legal code based on the Quran and other Islamic scripture, to be the official law of the land in their country. Responses on this question vary widely. Nearly all Muslims in Afghanistan (99%) and most in Iraq (91%) and Pakistan (84%) support sharia law as official law. But in some other countries, especially in Eastern Europe and Central Asia – including Turkey (12%), Kazakhstan (10%) and Azerbaijan (8%) – relatively few favor the implementation of sharia law.
 
I could find no reputable poll (they could be accused of being either far right or far left on the political spectrum ) on the attitudes of American Muslims regarding sharia. But I have read one of British Muslims beliefs and attitudes, the results are needless to say very concerning regarding women's right and homosexual rights.  https://www.channel4.com/info/press/news/c4-survey-and-documentary-reveals-what-british-muslims-really-think
I found it through this NY times article.
Looking deeper into the results, a chasm develops between those Muslims surveyed and the wider population on attitudes to liberal values on issues such as gender equality, homosexuality and issues relating to freedom of expression,” the network said in a statement. “And it also reveals significant differences on attitudes to violence and terrorism.”
 
 
kpr37
2.3.2  seeder  kpr37  replied to  kpr37 @2.3.1    2 months ago

You can better your understanding of sharia here.

In classical form the Sharīʿah differs from Western systems of law in two principal respects. In the first place the scope of the Sharīʿah is much wider, since it regulates an individual’s relationship not only with one’s neighbours and with the state, which is the limit of most other legal systems, but also with God and with one’s own conscience. Ritual practices, such as the daily prayers, almsgiving, fasting, and pilgrimage, are an integral part of Sharīʿah law and usually occupy the first chapters in the legal manuals. The Sharīʿah is also concerned as much with ethical standards as with legal rules, indicating not only what an individual is entitled or bound to do in law but also what one ought, in conscience, to do or refrain from doing. Accordingly, certain acts are classified as praiseworthy (mandūb), which means that their performance brings divine favour and their omission divine disfavour, and others as blameworthy (makrūh), which means that omission brings divine favour and commission divine disfavour; but in neither case is there any legal sanction of punishment or reward, nullity or validity. The Sharīʿah is not merely a system of law, but a comprehensive code of behaviour that embraces both private and public activities.

The second major distinction between the Sharīʿah and Western legal systems is the result of the Islamic concept of law as the expression of the divine will. With the death of the Prophet Muhammad in 632, communication of the divine will to human beings ceased so that the terms of the divine revelation were henceforth fixed and immutable. When, therefore, the process of interpretation and expansion of this source material was held to be complete with the crystallization of the doctrine in the medieval legal manuals, Sharīʿah law became a rigid and static system. Unlike secular legal systems that grow out of society and change with the changing circumstances of society, Sharīʿah law was imposed upon society from above. In Islamic jurisprudence it is not society that molds and fashions the law but the law that precedes and controls society.

Such a philosophy of law clearly poses fundamental problems of principle for social advancement in contemporary Islam. How can the traditional Sharīʿah law be adapted to meet the changing circumstances of modern Muslim society? This is now the central issue in Islamic law. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Shariah

I'm pagan, under sharia, I'm "kafir harbi" the same category the Yazidi of Iraq found themselves. The men were murdered and women taken as sex slaves.

 
 
epistte
2.3.3  epistte  replied to  kpr37 @2.3.1    2 months ago
Do you believe that what that fraction may, in fact, be, significant? In a Pew poll survey of Muslim attitudes toward sharia, support for it varied greatly by national origin, but worldwide it safe to say at least about 50% support its implementation. In the most populated Islamic nation, Indonesia, support was 77%. Saudi Arabia and Iran were not part of the survey. Only 39 nations were included, yet there are 57 member states in the origination of Islamic corporation, the 'IOC", the discrepancy is due to it, not being allowed by the governments who were excluded for whatever undisclosed reasons.

Most of the Muslims that I know, even casually are not the hardcore theocrats that we see in the government of Iran, Saudi or Indonesia. I've seen Muslims eat pork outside of their religious community and drink alcohol as long as they feel safe from religious retribution.  There are always a few Koranic thumpers in the crowd but most Muslims are not more hardcore religious than your typical midwestern Lutheran or Methodist.   As with many Christians, their religion is more of a social or cultural observance than it is a strict religious lifestyle.

What I refer to as Chritian Sharia is Old Testament Mosaic law and the enforcement of Leviticus, with the sprinkling of the letters of Paul. No LGBT rights, little personal freedom, no women's rights, forced religious observance, and public prayer.  

 
 
kpr37
2.3.4  seeder  kpr37  replied to  epistte @2.3.3    2 months ago
Most of the Muslims that I know, even casually are not the hardcore theocrats

Ah, personal anecdotal evidence. How amusing, and it is supposed to mean exactly what to me?

What is the relationship between the total number of Muslims you personally know, and the world's population of Muslims who number over 1.5 billion individuals? Just give me the percentage in relation to 1.5 billion individuals in the world if you will.

Muslims are not more hardcore religious

The linked pew poll stands in stark opposition to that statement. It just does, try reading it again, as you may be confused as to what it actually says. Because using the numbers provided it's reasonable to suggest that about 750 million Muslims  (fully half of the world's Muslims) support sharia. Details on just what that encompasses can be found in "the reliance of the traveler" linked in my earlier comment. I suggest reading it, as no understanding of the implications of sharia actually being enforced, can be taken seriously without reading the rulings, laws, and theocratically compelled behaviors prescribed within the book.

What I refer to as Chritian Sharia is Old Testament Mosaic law and the enforcement of Leviticus

I study history, and could not tell you, the last time that was enforced. Can you tell me when, and where, it was last enforced? and what nation or nations enforced it. Providing a source of the information would be nice.

Also, please source anyone, anywhere, calling for its return. Next, a poll of Christian who support such an agenda should be included. Before such an idea can reasonably be considered valid in the modern world. And not just what you, as an individual, personally believe.

Because a large number of Islamic nations are governed by Islamic law and not a single Christian nation is ruled by Christian law. Reality can be sourced, personal beliefs not so much.

According to this list,10 Islamic nations are governed fully by Sharia, while others use a mixed sharia/semi-secular system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_of_Islamic_law_by_country

These 9 out of 10 nations where the death penalty is called for in cases of homosexual behavior match the above list. (except for Nigeria where sharia is applied in the north of the nation only) Not sure if killing homosexuals are limited to the north only, however.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/06/13/here-are-the-10-countries-where-homosexuality-may-be-punished-by-death-2/?utm_term=.648b4086296d

Since 2000, twelve states in northern Nigeria have added criminal law to the jurisdiction of Shari'a (Islamic law) courts. Shari'a has been in force for many years in northern Nigeria, where the majority of the population is Muslim, but until 2000, its scope was limited to personal status and civil law. The manner in which Shari'a has been applied to criminal law in Nigeria so far has raised a number of serious human rights concerns.It has also created much controversy in a country where religious divisions run deep, and where the federal constitution specifies that there is no state religion.

https://www.hrw.org/report/2004/09/21/political-sharia/human-rights-and-islamic-law-northern-nigeria

Not a single Christian nation kills homosexuals for their behavior, that I'm aware of. I could be incorrect.

 
 
Buzz of the Orient
2.3.5  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  epistte @2.3.3    2 months ago
"I've seen Muslims eat pork outside of their religious community and drink alcohol as long as they feel safe from religious retribution."

"Fear" is a great controller.

 
 
Buzz of the Orient
2.3.6  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  kpr37 @2.3.1    2 months ago

Were women permitted by their husbands to offer their opinions to Pew?

 
 
kpr37
2.3.7  seeder  kpr37  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2.3.6    2 months ago

I don't know

 
 
epistte
2.3.8  epistte  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2.3.5    2 months ago
Fear" is a great controller.

It works with Baptists too, 

Baptist Joke #1:
Q: Why do you have to take two Baptists with you when you go fishing?

A: Because if you take just one, he'll drink all your beer.
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
2.3.9  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  kpr37 @2.3.4    2 months ago
"Ah, personal anecdotal evidence. How amusing, and it is supposed to mean exactly what to me?"

As a lawyer, I got to meet some criminals myself, some that had served jail time, and I have to say that they were all really good people.  However, I never did get to meet any murderers, kidnappers or rapists.  So do those bad guys actually exist, because I've never met any?

 
 
Kavika
3  Kavika     2 months ago

Hi kpr, good to see you back on the net....

The battle with those dreaded rabbit's is on going and you never win. Even my dog has given up and now they are all friends destroying my gardens...

 
 
badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη
3.1  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη  replied to  Kavika @3    2 months ago

I've battled a few rabbits in my time. The white one was a formidable opponent.

 
 
Enoch
3.1.1  Enoch  replied to  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη @3.1    2 months ago

Dear Friend Badfish: That and Grace Slick.

E.

 
 
Krishna
3.1.2  Krishna  replied to  Enoch @3.1.1    2 months ago
Dear Friend Badfish: That and Grace Slick.

Ah-- Grace Slick!

 
 
kpr37
3.2  seeder  kpr37  replied to  Kavika @3    2 months ago

 "my dog has given up and now they are all friends"... My little 165-pound puppy passed two springs ago ( he was 13) and now, it seems, I got rabbits, deer, and I think Coyotes feeding on rabbits in my fenced backyard. Either that or someone is blowing a dying rabbit call out there while I watch Tv at night.LOL. I've seen Turkeys in my front yard, and the coyotes roaming in the street when I get up real early. What is funny, I live in a very urban environment, just ten years ago not a single one of these critters could be found within twenty miles of me.  The only thing I hunt now is Turkeys, I see them all the time in my neighborhood, just never where they can be hunted in season, not once in ten years of hunting them.

 
 
Krishna
3.3  Krishna  replied to  Kavika @3    2 months ago

Hi kpr, good to see you back on the net....

Ditto! :-)