224 replies to this topic

[eternaltraveler]

Scott my primary problem with attacking the terrorists is that we don't know who they are. Mcveigh was a terrorist, and the country that harbored him was america. Does that mean we should start attacking the american people in the hope that this will force them to expunge the terrorists from their mist?

I know the above sounds crazy but that is to some extent exactly what we are doing.

If we had clear understanding who are enemy was we should do everything in our power to destroy them, but I'm a fan of a couple of lines from the art of war:

If you know yourself you will win half of the battles you fight;
If you know your enemy you will win half of the battles that you fight;
If you know both yourself and your enemy you will win all of the battles that you fight.

Well we don't really know our enemy other than they are usually those guys over in that deserty place with all the oil, and we don't know ourselves insofar as we don't know the repercussions of all of our actions.

That puts us below the 50% win mark in my book. Not good odds.

[eternaltraveler]

"the word 'terrorist' itself can be a barrier rather than an aid to understanding"

So while they are blowing up things we are worried about hurting their feelings.

This is certifiable (insane) and why my signature is there.

That is insane.

[lightowl]

Again, care to comment on the Van Gogh incident?

I am not sure what incident you are referring to. I was just stating my opinion of what would be best for the people of earth.
.

2 November, 2004

Gunman kills Dutch film director

Van Gogh directed TV series and wrote newspaper columns
Dutch film maker Theo van Gogh, who made a controversial film about Islamic culture, has been stabbed and shot dead in Amsterdam, Dutch police say.



I suppose it is inevitable that a board with this stated goal should attract more idealists then realists....

Edit..heh between these 2 posts that should probably offend everyone here. Oh well. [lol]

Ah, sure, I will comment. I think the van Gogh incident is a hate murder by an extreme religious and troubled individual. I see no reason to alienate an entire culture or part of the world because a FEW people are stirring up trouble. I think we can limit the acts of violence with better security in the short terms as I have explained. I think its quite realistic that we can make a world where people everywhere can travel to anywhere they want. To close down borders and reject people on the basis of poverty and alien culture is adding to the problem that a FEW people will turn to violence. Thinking that shutting out people is a goal is in my opinion misguided and shortsighted. There is no simple fix it all solution. Earth is too small to just ignore everyone else. We need to work together, not work against each other.

[scottl]

http://sg.news.yahoo...12/1/3tfgc.html

The man accused of killing Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh confessed to a Dutch court that he acted out of his religious beliefs, saying he would do "exactly the same" if he were ever set free.

"I take complete responsibility for my actions. I acted purely in the name of my religion," 27-year-old Dutch-Moroccan national Mohammed Bouyeri told the court in Amsterdam on the final day of his trial.


Islam--religion of peace
www.strangecosmos.com/content/item/103505.html


(or is that pieces?)

[scottl]

Elrond,

We are not yet in the position Isreal is i.e. multiple attacks within our borders over a period of time. I hope it stays that way.

lightowl,

They HATE US i.e. western civilization (not that I can blame them given the shallow materialistic culture we live in but that is another story). We ignore this at our peril.

[cyric]

Islam is an extremist religion with narrow and simple minded views on religious coexistence, that being; there should be only one, their's. Until we remove all extremist (and possibly all others) religions, we can't exactly have peace. We can have a truce, for a time. But some fanatic will eventually rise to power and lead them as another tyranical dictator. They will brainwash their own people, and frenzy them into suicide bombings! Some thing of such a violent, extreme and volatile nature must be destroyed. Scrap all this tolerance and pacifism. We need action and PROPER foresight at the lead of our nations, to crush the inhibitors of liberty and equality. Some one who wants to impose their views and beliefs on all others has no place in a free world, only in socialogical destabilisation.

[scottl]

And if they continually indoctrinate their followers from birth that theirs is the only true religion, etc etc. (kinda like the palestinians do to their children regarding isreal) How are you gonna fight that with info?

[horehey]

if you kill everyone then you wont have to fear their retalitation, they cant be angry at us if they're dead... When you compare that to the other side that some of you suggest, which is give them our money and then hold hands and cry, counting on that then they'll decide that it wouldn't be nice if they killed us... I think the first option is more sensible based on history, most of these people wouldn't even exist if we didn't help them out in the past, the place couldn't support that many people until western people invented fertalizers, built irigation systems for them, ect. so you'd think that they'd be thankfull twards us for doing that, but they're not. So that means we really only have the first option. I would be surprised if any of you could give a decent arguement against that thinking. Something that is based on logic and not emotional garbage.

[jaydfox]

Islam is an extremist religion with narrow and simple minded views on religious coexistence, that being; there should be only one, their's. Until we remove all extremist (and possibly all others) religions, we can't exactly have peace. We can have a truce, for a time. But some fanatic will eventually rise to power and lead them as another tyranical dictator. They will brainwash their own people, and frenzy them into suicide bombings! Some thing of such a violent, extreme and volatile nature must be destroyed. Scrap all this tolerance and pacifism. We need action and PROPER foresight at the lead of our nations, to crush the inhibitors of liberty and equality. Some one who wants to impose their views and beliefs on all others has no place in a free world, only in socialogical destabilisation.

Islam isn't the problem, the fundamentalists and, more importantly, the fanatics are the problem. Christianity isn't the problem, it's the fundamentalists and fanatics. Atheism isn't the problem, it's the fanatics (the Machiavellian sociopaths who would like to see religionists made extinct for the protection of atheists).

The problem isn't religion. It's human nature. Not all of human nature, just that seed of hate and self-aggrandizement that unfortunately finds fertile soil in people from all walks of life. Just ask our resident religion-basher, karomesis, about his views on Machiavelli, and you'll find a man with as much evil and extemist fanaticism as you find in the very people he wants to destroy.

Let me repeat, religion is NOT the problem. It's a scapegoat. You shouldn't harshly judge the Immortality Institute based on the words of a small minority of our members, and you shouldn't harshly judge Islam for the actions of a small minority of its members.

[jaydfox]

I should point out that I'm not saying Karomesis is like the terrorists. There's a big difference between talk and action. Karomesis may make a lot of invective comments about religion, or veiled threats against people, but he hasn't to my knowledge acted on that. He may talk about rising to power and the domination and exploitation of people and society, but he can also come across as level-headed and rational from time to time. He even remembered that I'd like to go 200 MPH in a Porsche some day, though to be fair, it was first on his list, not mine.

To what degree it's just his hot-headed ego, and to what degree we should be concerned, I don't know. I like to hope that he's just pushing our buttons and testing the limits of our patience, trying to get a reaction out of us, as opposed to spelling out his manifesto before doing something... ill-advised.

[scottl]

Jay,

I was going to say that I'll take this part on faith, but given that e.g. the ACLU seems interested in stamping out any public display of religion, I'm not so sure about this one.

"Atheism isn't the problem, it's the fanatics (the Machiavellian sociopaths who would like to see religionists made extinct for the protection of atheists)."

I don't particularly care one way or the other about religion per se (though old catholic chruches have a really nice energy). The right does make a good case that those on the left only believe in freedom of religion for muslims, not christians....but this is really another thread and I"m getting side tracked (now where did I put my ritalin...)


This is far from self evident:

"you shouldn't harshly judge Islam for the actions of a small minority of its members.".

So perhaps you could provide some evidence for this.

And do you mean a minority of a few percent? 30%? This topic is very crucial and interesting and there is much spin both ways. Clearly there are peaceloving muslims in the US..of course there are also sleeper cells in the US.

[supertzar]

Am I the only one who is skeptical about the true identity of the terrorists? I mean everyone here trusts the intelligence agencies to tell us the truth: that it's a forgone conclusion that Islamic militants did it? No chance this was staged to further the goal of the international elite?

Scottl and perhaps others will recognize my username from avantlabs, where I initiated a discussion of the problems with the official story of what happened on 9-11. In my opinion, if Islamic militants carried out the hijackings on 9-11, it was knowingly or unknowingly on behalf of an international cabal that includes US leadership.

There are problems with the London bombings emerging, such as the Israeli website israelnn.com reporting that Netenjahu had advance warning of the blasts, then disappearing that story when the official word became he was warned after the bombing.

[Infernity]

You know what is absurd?

The mothers encourage their sons to become these suicidal killers, and when Israel's army gets them and kills them just before they blow themselves up with dozens more, their mothers cry and blame us in killing their sons! I mean come on!!!
If they are going to die anyway, and that's what they want, why do they cry?!
Are they expecting us to stand and welcome them with flowers as the last thing we do?
We can simply shoot them all, and that's it... Die dead enough... Just helping them getting to Heaven.

~Infernity

[jaydfox]

As long as we're talking about the terrorists themselves, I should point out that I'm not talking about being all politically correct and lovey-dovey with them. Kill the lot of them. But they number in the tens of thousands, and their material supporters in the hundreds of thousands or low millions, not even 1% of all Muslims. Islam isn't the enemy. It's radical fundamentalist Islam. But as long as I'm saying that, I won't dance around it. I will say that radical fundamentalist Islam is a problem and needs to be stamped out. But there's as much difference between radical fundamentalist Islam and mainstream Islam as there is between Islam and Buddhism. They are not the same religion.

[scottl]

Jay,

Thank you I think we are in agreement about radical islam.

supertzar

At any such incident, you believe there is a conspiracy which kinda doesn't do much for your credibility:

Just wondering how many people here believe the government story on 9-11: that it was carried out by Islamic highjackers.  I have never believed it.  From the very first moment I found out about it, I knew it was staged...

[scottl]

Promethius,

It is certainly a reasonable question.

OTOH this topic started out with a discussion of a current event. If there is another terrorist attack it will likely be discussed here.

Do you really wish to censor discussions of current events? Where and who will draw the line?

I can imagine....the conclusions reached here may offend some....understandibly so in some cases. I sure as hell wish there were better solutions.

As this place grows and draws from a larger pool of the population you may find a number of people not thrilled by other threads here.

I really dislike censorship except where there is no other choice. Sooo I can't think of any alternative.


BTW I think you said that you didn't grow up in the US (or perhaps that english was not your native language). May I ask where you grew up?

[cyric]

Fundamentalist Islam is a bigger problem then you would think. About 45% of Islamics are fundamentalists. Some of them may seem very friendly but that's what the neighbors of murderers say. Islam is an archaic religion that is morally wrong in some respects (excluding the fundamentalism) (ie. beating their wives, "honor" killings, etc) and is socialogically backwards. How long to you think it will take for them to realise they're screwed up (supposedly, alah is a god of peace and love, but how do they account for all the violence?). If we just take our retribution or if we interfere, that will draw more of them into fundamentalism. And if they won't do anything themselves, they won't get over it. So it is just perpetuating. We need to get rid of them (either that or ban their religion, or deport them all) somehow. And I can't understand how people can just sit back (the pacifists), and watch and forgive them for heinous acts of terrorism. It's sickening.

Besides, sometimes in order to beat something, you have to become that which you hate. I don't know who said it, but it's a famous saying I'm sure you've all heard.

Evil (the fundamentalists) is self replicating, but also self consuming. When there is no good left in the world to focus on, evil's hunger will consume itself. It's true for any evil absolute (if they were ruler of the entire world) dictation.

[Trias]

Islam isn't the problem, the fundamentalists and, more importantly, the fanatics are the problem. Christianity isn't the problem, it's the fundamentalists and fanatics. Atheism isn't the problem, it's the fanatics (the Machiavellian sociopaths who would like to see religionists made extinct for the protection of atheists).

The problem isn't religion. It's human nature. Not all of human nature, just that seed of hate and self-aggrandizement that unfortunately finds fertile soil in people from all walks of life. 

You speak well... Jay,
I don't think one can add or subtract from this statement.

-Daniel S.
(Israel)

[Trias]

You know what is absurd?

The mothers encourage their sons to become these suicidal killers, and when Israel's army gets them and kills them just before they blow themselves up with dozens more, their mothers cry and blame us in killing their sons! I mean come on!!!
If they are going to die anyway, and that's what they want, why do they cry?!
Are they expecting us to stand and welcome them with flowers as the last thing we do?
We can simply shoot them all, and that's it... Die dead enough... Just helping them getting to Heaven.

~Infernity

"The mothers encourage their sons to become these suicidal killers" - - >
Not true; the main pressure comes from peers and comrades to the Jihad and Hamas, Hizballa.

"their mothers cry and blame us in killing their sons"
Well, they should no? - No matter how a child dies - - his mother will ALWAYS cry and be sad, she had been shaped by evolution to do so =)
And why do they blame us (Israel) on killing her child? - because of the Kibush of course, the mothers assert that our Kibush was the thing that prompted their childs to take action and kill themselves. Naturally, this is not justifiable....

"If they are going to die anyway, and that's what they want, why do they cry?!"
Again, the mothers don't want it... no mother wants her child to die; when you'll be a mother, you'll understand -rest assured [sfty]

"We can simply shoot them all, and that's it... "
I hope you're referring ONLY to the terrorists, right ?

-Daniel S.

[cyric]

My dear Chip...also in law, the one who makes the guns isn't responsible for how it is used. And the word I was using was socialogically, not sociology. I know what both mean, and I mean what I say. Besides, back when the US were suppling them with arms, Iran was planning to invade Iraq. If we are to have peace, we can't let someone try to take someone else's resources and land. You must know everything about the situation before you point the finger. Besides, we had to work damn hard to reach the level of technological sophistication we have, and we hand over half our knowledge, and they winge because they don't get the lot on a silver platter? Bugger that, they can work for it like we had to. And just because we have a democracy and not a selfish dictatorship that takes all the money and resources, is no reason to go bombing countries that don't want to give you a handout.

Besides, your (or whoever's) theory is complete bulltwang. It's designed to challenge an individual to fight for what they want, and the right to keep it. It's designed to drag the pathetic masses up with the powerful, but also to slow the powerful on their ascension. That is what we have. And society is just or collective of people and their conflicting beliefs, not necessarily a synonym for "peaceful community".

What the hell is a "Kibush"?!

[jeromewilson]

And just because we have a democracy and not a selfish dictatorship that takes all the money and resources, is no reason to go bombing countries that don't want to give you a handout.

Think about that for a while.

[jaydfox]

Sociologically.

Curiously, I did a google seach, with an intentional misspelling to see what it would suggest, and it suggested socialogically. I guess it's a common mistake, much the way that most people would say "I should of known" rather than "I should've known".

But yes, it's sociologically. Root word: sociology, as Chip said.

Unless you just meant plain old "socially". Socially is a word.

[Infernity]

Daniel, I've just to see some film-strip taken from the TV, I'll soon post it on the Israel sub-forum... Gee you gotta see this.

Yours truthfully
~Infernity

[cyric]

Meh, what can I say? It looks like a real word, sounds right, alot of people use it, so I thought it was real. Thank you for...enlightening me.

[jaydfox]

Hey, what can I say? What else are smartas– er, I mean, what else are Directors for?

[cyric]

Hmmm...yes, well back to the issue at hand; the London Bombings. They've identified the suspected mastermind of the bombs. Some bloke called Mohammad Sadique Khan. All five (the fifth is only suspect) were described by others as; good natured, friendly, hardworking etc. But they all (maybe with the exception of the fifth) ended up bombing London, didn't they?

[supertzar]

scottl, what makes you so sure that these types of things are not the result of a conspiracy? We know that intelligence agencies lie, so why should we believe that they are credible sources? You are seriously telling me that there is no way British intelligence could possibly be involved on this? How could you know? Moreover, why would you not accept intelligence information with a grain of salt? Let's not forget that Al Qaeda is an outgrowth of the US supported Mujahedeen "freedom fighters."

Why was the CCTV turned off on that bus? Why was the number 30 bus the only one re-routed after the underground bombing? Was Netanyahu warned before the attacks? These things are worth looking into, are they not? Let's be critical thinkers, not feeble-minded consumers of the official line.

[Infernity]

Here it is Daniel, the thread is here http://www.imminst.o...ST&f=181&t=7215 so comment there, but however, the film-strip: http://www.imminst.o...oad/ShaidES.WMV

I don't think these girls will even become mothers... These are who meant to die before taking actions. Sad but true.

Yours truthfully
~Infernity