You are not logged in.
"A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both and deserve neither." - Thomas Jefferson
"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar" said Julius Caesar.
The above quotes from a Winnipeg message board. Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper is proving to be as bad as George W. Bush. You don't want to know the editorial that prompted that response. Prior to the last federal election, the Conservative Party of Canada sent candidates and campaign organizers to Republican school in the States. No, not up here! No, no no no noooooooo.
Offline
You sea Christens also sea the Arabs as invaders in there homeland, and the jews too. So you arguement that jews invaded a Imlamic state are false, the jews were just moving back to their homeland Israel.
Since the Romans destroyed Jerusalem...
No jew is returning to his "homeland", this so-called homeland has been inhabited with others than jews for two milleniums.
Jews from NY, Paris or Kiev are home where they were born, they are American, French, Ukrainian. When they go to Israel with Bibles as "property bills", then go and steal lands from Arabs in the occupied territories, they are clearly westen invaders, this is about a half centrury with a military occupation, and occupied populations have the full right to fight occupiers.
Should you pretend to have the right to come back to Europe, settle and steal actual europeans' land because your parents came from Europe, you would simply be welcome with gun shots, and you would deserve them.
Offline
If the people really believed it they would have elected him anyways. Given the difference between the nutjob in power now and the hopefull but powerless reformist that made up the last administration is night and day, I doubt that is the case.
You are massively under estimating Ahmadinejad. He knows what he is doing. Before he came to power. The Uranium enrichment was frozen and the negogiation was just the EU trying to force Iran to stop trying to make nuclear fuel (there is no evidence that they want the bomb. IAEA hasn't found any evidence yet). The Iranian Youth were getting agigated and wanted reforms if they revolted they could have toppled the government.
When Ahmadinejad he talked alot of rethorics started the uranium enrichment and had an aggresive forgien policy. What happened? USA BROKE THE DIPLOMATIC BAN THEY HAD FOR 27 YEARS. USA/EU/RUSSIA/CHINA ARE OFFERING IRAN INCENTIVES .
Thats a major change. Iran has been trying to get in the WTO (USA keeps blocking them) and they can go in if they want. The enriched uranium will be given to them. Now thats a major change. The youth have now become more pro-iranian. The popularity of the president is in an all time high.
That is a genius. He is like Hitler. Hitler before he invaded germany. He took back all the german land that was given away by the allies. He didn't invade Rhineland. All he did was have his troops enter riding bicyles during an election year for the french government and on a weekend the government weren't in the house of parilmant. He knew the that a threat of war would be bad for the french government who wanted to be re-elected and he also knew that the by the time the british government were in session. The occupation would have already been accomplished.
"...all I ask is a tall ship, and a star to steer her by."
Offline
Define what you mean by "genius," please. (Einstein was a genuine genius.) Meglomaniac perhaps, but nothing else. What is needed is a genuine genius who conceives of a way to convince believers that "Paradise" doesn't exist for suicides.
Offline
But what if perhaps it does. Maybe Osama and Co. are right. Once we all repent the terror can stop.
Come on to the Future
Offline
You must be kidding, because if you imagine for a minute that there's a "hereafter," how could space travel hold any attraction for you? Where's the genius in that? So, to be serious: What about my contention in the "Dr. No" thread? It may be politically impossible, until Bill Clinton (say) makes Secretary General of the United Nations, but if such an edict actualy transpired between all religions that paradise isn't for suicides, wouldn't that put an end to the present escalation of suicide bombings?
Offline
dicktice, no offense, but that is a gallingly narrow viewpoint ruled by a one-sided secular view that refutes the possibility of people believing in a "hereafter" while also holding a deep desire for space and space exploration.
If you need a way to rationalize and understand how an individual can believe in one, and still desire the other, think of it like this: The "hereafter" is an eventuality. The non-hereafter, or the now, well- that's our time in the sun to do what we want. Speak a few lines, have a few scenes.
This whole martyrdom thing is simple human rationalization. People routinely throw away their lives for religion, or for ideals, or for family, or for any number of beliefs that are decidedly secular.
Your suggestion treats a symptom, but not the root cause. I don't have an answer. i don't think there is one. We are dealing with a fundamental aspect of human nature- altruism. Yeah, it's twisted, but suicide bombers and those who sacrifice themselves for whatever reason are acting from altruism. They sacrifice themselves for something greater than themselves (or so they believe).
Human beings, like most organisms, have a natural inclination to preserve self. It takes conscious thought (mostly) to override that instinct. Sorry, but sh*t like this is something we are going to have to learn to deal with.
And I am in no way apologizing or excusing those who sacrifice their lives to senselessly kill others. However, I am willing to try and understand the motivation and the drive that carries others to do it. [shrug]
Offline
Agreed, but brainstorm for a moment--excluding everything else that you espouse: Unless the ordained pundits of all the faiths are hypocrites, if they should declare heaven/paradise/nirvana/anything like that, off limits to suicides ... wouldn't that put a virtual end to the religious excuse used by such as Osama bin Laden for such bombings?
Offline
They would just have to avoid getting killed while carrying out the war for God.
It would be extremely hard to make a case for any religion that God doesn't like death in general.
Besides certain countries are killing in the name of liberal democracy. Previously Kamikazes died for their emperor.
These 'suicide' bombing are closer to that. They are more kamikaze than suicidal. Their purpose is not to end their life, they don't want to end their lives, they want to end yours. That is why they look at the reward so strongly. They would really prefer not to die, but there are some things on this earth that are so evil that men must lay down their lives to stop.
Come on to the Future
Offline
Sorry, but my reply was a little bombastic, even for me, so I edited it out and resubmitted a toned-down reply below....
Offline
Re. They would just have to avoid getting killed while carrying out the war for God.
THAT'S JUST THE POINT. SKYJACKING PRIOR TO 9/11 WAS PRETTY MUCH UNDER CONTROL, SINCE IT INVOLVED HOSTAGE TAKING. IT'S THE WILLINGNESS OF THE SKYJACKERS TO CRASH AND DIE WITH THE PASSENGERS THAT MAKES IT SO COMPLICATED AND EXPENSIVE TO MAINTAIN AIR TRANSPORT SERVICES NOW. IT ENABLES THE WHOLE WORLD TO BE HELD HOSTAGE, BY MAKING ANYTHING BUT MILITARY AND PRIVATE AVIATION SAFE FOR AIR TRANSPORTATION.
Re. It would be extremely hard to make a case for any religion that God doesn't like death in general.
THAT'S NOT THE POINT. INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION BETWEEN FAITHS AGAINST THE INTENTIONAL KILLING AND/OR MAIMING OF INNOCENTS IN ORDER TO ATTAIN WHATEVER, AFTER DEATH.
Re. Besides certain countries are killing in the name of liberal democracy. Previously Kamikazes died for their emperor.
TRUE. BUT NOW WE'RE BACK TO THE FICTIONAL "DR. NO" ANALOGY. WE HAD A HANDLE ON THAT, I BELIEVE, PRIOR TO 9/11.
Re. These 'suicide' bombings are closer to that. They are more kamikaze than suicidal. Their purpose is not to end their life, they don't want to end their lives, they want to end yours. That is why they look at the reward so strongly. They would really prefer not to die, but there are some things on this earth that are so evil that men must lay down their lives to stop.
KAMIKAZIES WERE LAST RESORT DEFENDERS OF THEIR COUNTRY, UNIFORMED MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES, USING UNCONCEALED WEAPONS AGAINST OPPOSING DITTO ALLIED FORCES. CONCEALED WEAPONS--WHICH IS WHAT THE SUICIDE BOMBERS ARE--IN MARKET PLACES POPULATED BY ANYONE UNLUCKY TO BE THERE, REQUIRES BRAINWASHING THAT ELIMINATES THE SURVIVAL INSTINCT. ESPECIALLY WHEN THE BRAINWASHERS THEMSELVES DON'T SUFFER THE SAME FATE. WHERE'S THE INCENTIVE TO LAY DOWN ONE'S LIFE TO STOP THE SUPPOSED EVIL, IF ONE CAN'T WITNESS THE RESULT? ONE WON'T BE ABLE TO WITNESS THE "SUCCESS" RESULTING FOM THEIR SUICIDE, SO WHERE'S THE FUN IN THAT? COME ON: ADMIT THAT CONDEMNING SUICIDE BOMBING OF INNOCENTS IS ONE WAY, PERHAPS THE ONLY WAY LEFT TO US, TO BREAK THE DEADLOCK THAT THIS UNHOLY DOOMSDAY WEAPON OF OSAMA BEN LADEN THAT WE'VE ALLOWED OURSELVES TO BE SUCKERED INTO FIGHTING A LOOSING BATTLE. GIVE THE WORLD'S RELIGIOUS PUNDITS A CHANCE TO CORRECT THIS MISDIRECTED RISK TO CIVILIZATION (NOT TO MENTON SPACE TRAVEL) IN OUR TIME.
Offline
dicktice, no offense, but that is a gallingly narrow viewpoint ruled by a one-sided secular view that refutes the possibility of people believing in a "hereafter" while also holding a deep desire for space and space exploration.
If you need a way to rationalize and understand how an individual can believe in one, and still desire the other, think of it like this: The "hereafter" is an eventuality. The non-hereafter, or the now, well- that's our time in the sun to do what we want. Speak a few lines, have a few scenes.
This whole martyrdom thing is simple human rationalization. People routinely throw away their lives for religion, or for ideals, or for family, or for any number of beliefs that are decidedly secular.
Your suggestion treats a symptom, but not the root cause. I don't have an answer. i don't think there is one. We are dealing with a fundamental aspect of human nature- altruism. Yeah, it's twisted, but suicide bombers and those who sacrifice themselves for whatever reason are acting from altruism. They sacrifice themselves for something greater than themselves (or so they believe).
Human beings, like most organisms, have a natural inclination to preserve self. It takes conscious thought (mostly) to override that instinct. Sorry, but sh*t like this is something we are going to have to learn to deal with.
And I am in no way apologizing or excusing those who sacrifice their lives to senselessly kill others. However, I am willing to try and understand the motivation and the drive that carries others to do it. [shrug]
Perhaps the word Islamo-facist or Islamo-nazi would be helpful here.
We need a name for our enemies that distinguishes them from the rest of Islam, and we must delineate Islam to the exclusion of the Islamo-facists and the Islamo-nazis, and we must be clear that those who give aid and comfort to the Islamo-facists or Islamo-nazis are Islamo-facists and Islamo-nazis themselves. Saudi Arabia recently gave objection to the label Islamo-facist, used by George Bush. Why is that? isn't Islam a peaceful religion. The way to get rid of Islamo-facists and Islamo-Nazis is by killing them and not listening to their propaganda. Hezbollah, for example attacked Israel and Israel defended itself, and for that trouble, for the trouble of using precision weapons to kill their enemies and to take out the missile launchers, they get roundly condemned by the world community for defending themselves. People who condemn the Israelis don't offer them any alternative means of defending themselves that would inflict lesser casualities, they just condemn the Israelis for wanting to live in effect. You know that old saying, "how they judge others is how they shall be judged."
It is an outrage that Hezbollah can attack a Nation and then be treated as the victim of aggression. Suicide bombers are not invincible and neighter are terrorists, and they first step to getting rid of them is to first get rid of the UN, a useless mouthpiece for terrorists and antisemites. My main philosophy is that its better to have a few friends that you can count on than to have many friends that you can't. "Fairweather friends" and "sunshine patriots" are worthless.
Offline
I do of course agree regarding defending your territory against, in this case, rocket attack. But ... I do wish the Israelies hadn't used cluster bombs which, as a former infantryman who was prone to being "blown up" by training booby traps, find indefensible. The unexploded bomblets are delaying resettlement and occupation by UN troops--not to mention the little kids who are reported to be picking them up thinking them toys. That is, unless I'm accepting this is true when it's propaganda? We'll see soon enough.
Meanwhile my pipedream of having the heads of all the world's religions declare suicide bombers who intentionally blow themselves up to kill and maim innocent persons as the weapons-of-preference of international terrorist heads--that's the immediate problem to be faced by the whole world irrespective of political leanings. As far as I know, nothing like this is being planned, but who am I to be informed, since I'm not a member of any established faith, unless Cosmology counts as one. Meanwhile, certain events in Iraq regarding the tribal chiefs declaring loyality to the government, and rebuilding in the north of Afganistan, unreported by the war correspondents in the south, are enouraging. Sadly, if there's anything positive to be derived from the indescriminent slaughter of innocents by the suicide bombers, it's the sheer randomness of it. That's bound to sicken muslims and non-muslims alike and lead--as The Terror in the French Revolution led ultimately to revulsion--to the falling-out of Osama bin Laden's supporters.
Offline
The other point you are missing is that most religions don't view anybody as innocent, particuarly not adults. If you agree with execution of criminals, that is capital punishment, then you understand the viewpoint of religious extremists.
Come on to the Future
Offline
The other point you are missing is that most religions don't view anybody as innocent, particuarly not adults. If you agree with execution of criminals, that is capital punishment, then you understand the viewpoint of religious extremists.
I'm wondering what the original point I missed was. But anyway, my use of the word "innocent" referred to people going about their lives being blown up by indistinguishable suicide bombers in their midst. I meant: innocent of the presence of the bombers, of course. I don't see how anyone can condone this. I abhor executions or any form of legalized mutilating punishment. Even Hitler, et al. Public prosecution and incarceration, intelligently applied should be the norm when and it we ever learn how to go about it. In the meantime, we have to deal with these horrendous crimes against humanity as a whole. And no, I don't understand the viewpoint of religious extremists. They belong to the middle ages, where terror through torture and mutilation was the norm, until we made it unnecessary via explosives, cell-phone triggered and otherwise. What would you do that isn't being done so ineffectively now, which we are overlooking? My suggestion is an attempt to stimulate other suggestions, for which thanks. Who's next?
Offline
reprisal killings of the family members.
punishment of religious and secular figures who encourage violent resistence.
targeted ethnic profiling and increase the power of the state to search a place or person without judicial oversight.
prohibit air travel from/to certain areas.
prohibit ethnic types from the use of mass transportation.
round up all men between the ages of 12 to 55 in targeted areas and put them in controlled labor camps.
There are solutions. But is it worth the price? [shrug]
Offline
No, of course not. All these are reprisal moves--been there, done that, all through history. But to forbid suicide bombers their reward in heaven, by edict from the heads of all the religious faiths: Isn't that a new, unprecidented, way out of the present situation? How (if you agree), should be the next topic of discussion.
Offline
Like how the UN declared what human rights were, and then magically the world was better?
There was the Kellog-Briand Pact which outlawed war in 1929...
Religions are even more stubborn than governments. If the guys at the top start making ungodly edicts then everybody abandons them. Thats where we got the Protestant move a.k.a. Christianity and how Shi'ites and Sunnis Split.
You would have to get a prophet to come forward who was accepted by every religion, and then he would have to declare that God had abandoned violence as a way of getting things done. It would have to be added to everybodies canon of scripture, something unachieved by nearly anyone since Moses and even then he has a lot of versions floating around.
Religion is not like tax law, its not something there to suit your whim, its considered to be there because it -is-.
Come on to the Future
Offline
Come to think of it, I guess that's the point of my Dr. No Syndrome thread: A single threat to the world's faithful, however disparate, in the form of Osama bin Laden's use of the ultimate weapon of suicide bombing indiscriminantly against human targets of opportunity.... Shouldn't that be enough to draw them together to declare the edict?
Offline
Becareful not to over-generalize about religion. The reason I use words such as Islamo-facist is because I don't want to over-generalize about Islam, I wouldn't want to take that a step further and over-generalize about religion. I think too many Muslims over-generalize about their religion, too many of them seem willing to accept the Islamo-facists into their fold, witness the election of Hamas in the Palestinian Territories, no peaceful Muslim would vote for a violent factions such as Hamas, but perhaps some Muslims don't understand the difference between peaceful Islam and the Islamo-facists. In any case Islamo facism is not a fringe movement like the David Koreshites were, they have too much political power, they control armies and they push the Lebanese government around, I would not call that a fringe like those violent cults based on Christianity. My brother was once in a cult, not a violent one, but a very controlling one, we got him out, but what I've seen of Islamo-facism is very similar to other cults I've heard about.
I don't think the Israelis used cluster bombs, did you get your information about that from Reuters? I don't trust Reuters anymore ever since they included those doctored photos that included extra smoke to make the damage caused by the Israelis look all that much worse, I don't like those recycled bodies they used in photos either or the same victims bemoaning the destruction of a number of their "different homes" by the Israelis. And there is the fact that once building collapsed 6 hours after the Israelis struck it because it was being used as a launch site. Naturally the Islamic World swallowed all this phony propaganda hook line and sinker, and the Israelis backed down at the insistance of the Bush Administration despite the fact that the NEws coverage was doctored and biased against the Israelis.
So now the big picture is, an aggressor can attack a neigboring country and then get its victim to appologize for defending itself by manipulation the media that sympathises with the attackers. What happens to Israel may happen to us next, that is why I am sensitive to this subject. The French for example were all alone when they had those muslim riots in Paris, it was ok for them when the Israelis were attacked, them being "only jews" and such, when France gets attacked, they have no friends now, no real friends anyway because they were not loyal to their allies when those allies were attacked. It is the same principle that applies to the United States and its allies, the US defends its allies because it expects that loyalty to be returned when the US comes under attack.
I don't believe in abandoning Israel simply because it appears in many a Muslim's crosshairs. If America can be bullied into abandoning its allies, then it deserves no allies just like France does. Nothing against the French as a people, but their government has been very self-serving in the past, and some day, I believe they will reap what they have sowed in ill will. One day the Arabs won't have oil to sell, and the relationships the French have made with radical Arab states won't matter, only those people who remember how France had abandoned them in favor of oil will matter.
Offline
It is odd that Israel so completely failed to utilise 'the other half of the army' - the media, especially after watching such a masterful demonstration by their ally in Iraq.
Where were the 'embedded' journalists, where was the offical army media outlet, with the self-proclaimed monopoly on reliable information?
Quite an odd omission given their general mastery of traditional battlefield elements.
Come on to the Future
Offline
Its not so much that Israel or the other side manipulate the Media as it is that the International Media has a built in bias. I can't think of any other reason why one side should attack and then complain about being the victim and have the International Media go along with them trying to tailors their stories and pictures to show the terrorists in a favorable light. The Media should know better than to be manipulated or allow themselves to be manipulated, their job is to tell the truth, not to spread propaganda for either side. The fact that the side which started this war is portrayed as the victim by the media just goes to show you how biased the media is.
Offline
The media cant help but be biased, they dont have half the information the military commanders do.
It is an accepted part of military doctrine that one must win the media war, so either the Media is massively biased against Israel or Israel believes they are and can't be bothered with a pointless media operation.
Come on to the Future
Offline
Come to think of it, I guess that's the point of my Dr. No Syndrome thread: A single threat to the world's faithful, however disparate, in the form of Osama bin Laden's use of the ultimate weapon of suicide bombing indiscriminantly against human targets of opportunity.... Shouldn't that be enough to draw them together to declare the edict?
Dicktice, this is a dead end. All religions - ALL- have a premise that dying in the name of your god grants you a special place in the afterlife.
And to give you an example that this idea has been tried: Ten commandments- thou shall not kill. How is that one working out?
There is a break down here in perception- you are viewing the actions outside of the context in which these individuals are acting. You see suicide bombers. They are mrytrs dying for their belief or country against a vastly superior force that is heavily armed and in their country.
Offline
The media cant help but be biased, they dont have half the information the military commanders do.
It is an accepted part of military doctrine that one must win the media war, so either the Media is massively biased against Israel or Israel believes they are and can't be bothered with a pointless media operation.
The Media shouldn't be clay in the hands of propagandists, Reuters should not have allowed itself to be manipulated by Hezbollah as it was, it shouldn't have allowed Hezbollah to present its story unchecked and unfiltered, it owes a responsibility to its readys to fact check. The facts are plan an simply, Hezbollah started the war and Hezbollah and the surrounding people suffered by it. Israel has an obligation to protect its people first, as do the governments of all nations, a secondary responsibility is to minimize collateral damage to civilian populations. What Hezbollah did was make it very difficult for Israel to protect its people without inflicting collateral damage on the surrounding Lebonese, Reuters under-reported this fact, it exagerated the collateral damage cause by Israel's airstrikes by doctoring photographs and producing false reports and accepting stories from Hezbollah uncritically, this was not unbiased reporting and did not serve the readers well, those readers that wanted the truth so they could evaluate the situation properly rather than be forced to swallow terrorist propaganda.
The obligation of all governments is always to protect their own people, the Reuters reports made the Israeli government's job in this very difficult by concentrating on real and false reports of Lebonese civilian deaths and minimizing the deaths in Israel, making it look like an act of Israeli agression, when the facts still are undeniable that Hezbollah started this war and are primarily responsible for what occurs thereafter, and they still have not released those three soldiers they have so unlwafully abducted. thr Reuters reports keep deemphasiing these indisputable facts, and emphasize only the collateral damage of the Lebonese, afte all this, I really can't trust Reuters anymore, they failed in their responsibility to their readers and acted as a propaganda outlet instead. The Media relations people were only doing their jobs to get maximum military benefit from their propaganda, but for Reuters to act like clay in the hands of one side, is simply inexcusable, their responsibility is to their readers to get out the truth, not for them to help one side to win in this conflict.
Offline