Slashdot Mirror
Terrorists Bomb Moscow Airport
jayme0227 writes "Terrorists detonated a bomb at Moscow's busiest airport on Monday, killing 35 people and wounding another 152, Russian authorities said. President Dmitry Medvedev, who called the bombing a terrorist attack, ordered additional security at Moscow's other airports and transportation hubs, and Moscow police went on high alert in case of additional bombs."
According to the NY Times, "The airport remained open on Monday evening, and passengers continued to flow through the hall where the bomb had exploded."
Religion of peace? Or religion of PIECES.
I find the latter appears to be true more often than not. They enjoy being pieces.
Here we'd have closed the airport for days to make it look like we were doing something. There, they just pick up the pieces and move on. Guess who's not going to still be running things in twenty years?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Sacrificing civil liberties does not prevent terrorism.
Just think about this next time you're queued up forever in the security theater line waiting to get your junk touched. It seems like the ideal place to attack an airport and get lots of casualties.
"The airport remained open on Monday evening, and passengers continued to flow through the hall where the bomb had exploded."
Good to see the terrorists haven't won everywhere...
Clearly, it is time to move the security checkpoint out into the parking lot.
In Soviet Russia, ... nevermind. My condolences to the families.
Then they should have the bomb sniffing dogs sniffing you. Much less invasive and will ACTUALLY find any bomb residue/traces.
UPS Sucks
I put no stock in religion. By the word religion I have seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called the will of god. I have seen too much religion in the eyes of too many murderers. Holiness is in right action, and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves, and goodness. What god desires is here [points to head] and here [points to heart] and what you decide to do every day, you will be a good man - or not.
I can't say it better, so I won't even try.
Obama will say to Putin, bomb the fuck out of the Middle East with your 50 megaton bombs, we'll go "Oops our bad! We're a sucky declining broke World Power, we, the USA can't do nuttin about it.
Hopefully, Russia took out Jerusalem and we'll have World Peace.
The last time Russia was fighting for its territorial integrity 24 million Russians died. The terrorists have severely underestimated what it takes to frighten the Russian leadership into making concessions. You see, as long as all the terrorists die, the Russians don't really care. If you look at the Beslan massacre or the Moscow Theatre Seige, there was very little concern for the hostages, many of whom died during the raids by the security forces. It seems the main thing the government accomplished in both of the raids was killing all the terrorists and minimal casualties to security forces. It's probably modeled after things like Stalin's decision to not evacuate Stalingrad when the Nazis invaded.
I can see Russia moving armies and throwing bombs ...
meanwhile in Russia : nearly 100 traffic deaths A DAY. http://www.car-accidents.com/country-car-accidents/russia-car-crash-accidents.html
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
Given that it's the "busiest" airport 35 dead isn't very high (not saying that one life isn't a lot in itself obviously), thank goodness it wasn't more.
Queue the crazy American married woman over-reacting syndrome in 6 hours...
... is clearly to create another security lane at the entrance of the airport so terrorist can reach the passenger security lane with bombs.
There's a difference between religion and religion; a difference between organized theism and non-organized such; a difference between islam and f.e. buddhism, and definitely a difference between core values of islam and f.e. christianity. Don't taint all religion per se just because of what the islamist swine do.
Just think about this next time you're queued up forever in the security theater line waiting to get your junk touched.
Usually people don't wait in line in order to get their junk touched...
How do you know the bomb sniffing dogs are sniffing for bombs or if you just didn't shower long enough that morning?
It's not surprising that these idiots were able to bomb the place. Whilst there's always a guy at the door with a metal detector / baggage scanning machine when you walk in everyone just walks right through so you're not actually being scanned unless they specifically stop you (never happens unless they *really* don't like they way you look. Now of course that will change for a while... but Russia is such a big place with so many landmarks that can be targeted that there's no way to stop some lunatics from blowing themselves up in public and killing people if they're really keen on it.
The one difference worth noting is that in Russia/Israel/India etc... they just get back to work, in USA they would've created some 500 million $ memorial and immortalized the event for at least a decade.
in the security theater line
This is a straw man. There will be lines at the airport, with or without "security theater". They can just as easily blow you up in a crowded jetway.
No one is selling the airport gate screening as a way to make the airport safer - they are selling as a way to make the plane (and potential targets on the ground) safer. We can argue whether or not this is effective, but there's no reason to set up a bogus argument.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
In Soviet Russia, baggage claims you!
While this remains a fair point, this bombing was in the arrivals hall, not in the queue for security checks. But yes, sadly, it was only a matter of time before someone, somewhere decided to bomb one of the many areas of an airport you can get to without security checks. Although AFAIK, numerous Russian airports have the capability to operate checkpoints at entrances.
We've often posed the question on /., what happens when someone hits a security checkpoint? Do we add security checkpoints for security checkpoints? All we're doing is lumping people up. Given population densities, there will ALWAYS be places where people congregate. Do we go to a system of armed guards in every public place, Israeli-style? Admit that once someone has a working bomb, it's almost impossible to stop them from getting it to somewhere with lots of people and setting it off, and then invade privacy on a massive scale to prevent anyone from possibly making a bomb?
I don't like either system. But how many Russians, and how many Americans, would be willing to accept these systems? It seems like an overwhelming majority.
Accepting that there will always be a few nutjobs wanting to kill lots of people for various reasons, whose hearts and minds cannot be won (except early on, with excellent secular education programs), do we just accept that terrorist attacks are a cost of an open, free society? How does one explain it to the victims and their families? "I am sorry for your loss, but it is outweighed by the potential loss of the freedoms of the masses that is the alternative“
It's gruesome arithmetic. The freedom of a few people to live, versus the freedom of the rest of us to live free.
All religion is tainted. The foundation of modern Christianity was forged in the inquisition and before that in the crimes of the Hebrew. No religion can be just when it is founded on oppression, rape, murder, slavery and genocide. I know this because I have lived in a "good christian home" and saw violence and depravity that few can imagine. I know this because I read my bible, every chapter, every verse, every word. Then I studied other religions and found them as filled with vile filth as my own. A good man can not found his morality on so corrupt and decayed a foundation as that.
You do realize that murdering of infidels is in their "so called" good book.
Peace is a possibility, but the infidels must be killed or enslaved first, according to this religion of peace.
And to say otherwise is contradicting the prophet is punishable by death.
But somehow I got redirected to the daily beast.
It's murderous religious gits that taint religion, not us the commentators.
I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
I dunno, but some of the first commenters here already linked it to Muslims. So what's your point exactly, except that you don't see anything wrong with putting targets over the heads of politicians?
That's why we need sophisticated pre-screening before people get in lines for the screening screening.
Security starts when the citizen leaves their door.
Yup, it was only a matter of time.
What is especially scary - This was in Russia, where there are likely not to be nearly as many chokepoints that make good targets like we've created in the United States. In fact, they targeted the arrivals area.
In the US, the lines of the security area would be very easy to get to.
Let's try to stay on topic here, okay?
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
This seems as part of a larger picture or a continuation of previous attacks. Very few may notice this, but the decrease in these attacks in the past few years seems temporary. The decrease in attacks seems to be as a result of the anti-terrorism surge in different parts of the world. The high oil prices means more money going to fundamentalist groups thru Zakkat donations. Even money not channeled to these terrorist groups will end up in strengthening their base so recruitments will be easier in the coming years. As soon as the anti-terrorism surge subsides, these terrorists will be able to move again after they have accumulated the funding from the high Oil prices and they will have a wider more fertile ground for recruitment also from all the extra money used to promote the fundamentalist ideologies. People need to know that there is nothing called moderate sunni islam; its either you are secular or you are not....
I think that this demonstrates how utterly pointless most of airport security we've implemented truly is now that terrorists have shown that they're completely willing to blow themselves up and kill hundreds of people before getting on the plane. Why go to all the hard work of actually getting on a plane when there's plenty of people queued up at a security checkpoint that you can easily kill and cause just as much panic and terror?
There's no easy way to prevent this, unless the security checkpoint is at the front door, in which case you still have a large queue of people, even more miserable and pissed off that they have to stand inline outside. Even if they made people strip naked, it still wouldn't stop the first clever terrorist to shove the bomb up his ass.
... Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 for this? Yes, I went there.
AccountKiller
Just think about this next time you're queued up forever in the security theater line waiting to get your junk touched.
Usually people don't wait in line in order to get their junk touched...
Correct, the sex industry is far more efficient than the TSA...
All religion is tainted. The foundation of modern Christianity was forged in the inquisition and before that in the crimes of the Hebrew. No religion can be just when it is founded on oppression, rape, murder, slavery and genocide. I know this because I have lived in a "good christian home" and saw violence and depravity that few can imagine. I know this because I read my bible, every chapter, every verse, every word. Then I studied other religions and found them as filled with vile filth as my own. A good man can not found his morality on so corrupt and decayed a foundation as that.
And where in the Buddhist Canon are is the rape, murder, slavery and genocide?
And don't say the Japanese or Chinese, because those were polluted by Shinto and Confucianism, and a far cry for the actual doctrine.
Is the difference the balance of power in the world? Is this why Christians were busy burning witches and torturing people while the Muslims were building hospitals and developing algebra?
Terrorist attacks are horrible.
I've personally been in areas in Israel where massive bombs exploded killing and maiming dozens of people, weeks before the incident. It's a fact of life.
There are bomb scares every day in Israel. Woops. Grandpa left his grocery bag unattended next to an ATM. Area is closed off.
You can see people waiting impatiently, tapping their feet with a "come on get on with it" look at the bomb sapper in full gear is tippy toeing to the bag (abandoned grocery bag),
detonating it in minutes. Once the all clear is rang out, as the bomb sapper is nervously taking his bomb proof helmet off, sitting on sidewalk, slowly pulling out a cigarette, people are practically pushing and shoving next to him,
right next to where the "bomb" was, queuing to use the ATM.
I saw this scenario happening a few times.
People get on with their lives.
security theatre is dangerous, and only common sense, intelligence, and self-policing will work.
Make sure you design public spaces with heightened terrorist attack value (e.g. airport) well designed to lower casualty count.
So, you're suggesting that less people would have been killed if they had gotten the bomb through screeners and on an airplane? Brilliant analysis!
They do, seen them in SEA, PDX and ANC. They also have alot of chemical sniffers installed in airports and government buildings.
Much less invasive and will ACTUALLY find any bomb residue/traces
Right, because ONLY Terrorists(TM) have any traces of explosives on them, and not any of the mining engineers, chemists, etc, etc, etc, who happen to be passing through the airport!
Seriously: I've worked for a couple of mining and geological exploration companies and to here them tell it all these "anti-terrorist" measures do nothing but make their lives less convenient.
If I were a Terrorist(TM) I'd get a job with a mining company, get a letter from my employer certifying that I handle explosives, and then blow something up. These measures are so easy to circumvent they are hardly worth mentioning.
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
I know this because I have lived in a "good christian home" and saw violence and depravity that few can imagine
If few can even imagine the "violence and depravity" you witnessed at home, and Christianity is one of the world's major religions, it stands to reason that perhaps by any definition of Christianity that you didn't actually live in a "good Christian home". Also I don't know what version of the bible you're reading "every chapter, every verse, and every word" of but if it has anything about the Spanish Inquisition being the foundation of Christianity then you should probably buy a new one.
One article I read said the bomb went off in the baggage claim area, while the CNN article states it was detonated at the entrance to the international arrivals section. I've been through Domodedovo a few times, but without more details it is difficult to know if the bomb was detonated in the "secure" area past the security checkpoints or simply where everyone waits to greet passengers as they clear customs.
No one cares what your captcha was
Houston TX, USA
Islamic nationalist from Chechnya most likely.
This is a straw man. There will be lines at the airport, with or without "security theater". They can just as easily blow you up in a crowded jetway.
Of course there will be lines at the airport. But aren't they longer with security theatre, and doesn't that mean a more dense group of targets? Common wisdom says you show up an extra half hour or hour earlier than we used to 10 or 20 years ago, just to make sure you clear security in time for your plane.
No one is selling the airport gate screening as a way to make the airport safer - they are selling as a way to make the plane (and potential targets on the ground) safer. We can argue whether or not this is effective, but there's no reason to set up a bogus argument.
You are making a straw man argument, yourself. Where did the GP claim that gate screening was to make the airport safer? You put those words in his mouth, and then shot the argument down. GP was putting forth a theory that the big lines at the airport are made bigger by security theatre, and this should make them a tempting target.
I do enjoy the irony that you construct a straw man argument yourself in order to accuse someone else of doing the same, though!
I have a class on terrorism today, I'm sure this is all I'm going to hear about. So much for the class lesson I prepared for
It is sad to read about such things, but people who don't follow what's happening in Russia might not know that this is a coincidence which leaves many open questions. It was the ideal time for something like this to happen, and that's why. At the beginning of the year there was a big issue in an airport in Moskow. A lot of flights were delayed, people spent a week sleeping in the airport, on the floor, with officials from airline companies absolutely not giving a damn about them. And there was no power in the whole airport. And people who came to bring water and food for free to the ones in the airport were turned back by some obscure thugs who were selling bottles of water for huge money. This whole thing was on Russian TV just a couple of days ago. There was a lot of angry people on TV and some rude airline spokesmen bragging that he'll compensate from his own bank account (while it was disclosed that for every hour of delay people can be paid like $2, so his offer looked more like a mockery). The bottom question was not if somebody will get punished or sued, but if there's something to be done to avoid such situations in the future. So here we go, this whole thing now looks like something was done. Nobody will have any success trying to get a compensation, nobody will be prosecuted, because now everyone's busy praying for the dead people and looking for the terrorists.
Except bomb sniffing dogs are actually pretty terrible with both false positives and false negatives.
Face it, you can't be 100% safe.
You have a lot more to fear from false detection triggered by the cop handling the dog than a false positive from the dog nose itself.
Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
I was a combat engineer in the Army. Trust me, you don't want to have ANY residue on you if your going anywhere near a federal building/airport.
You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
That most of the posts here are about the security practices of airports in different countries rather than even commenting on the terrorist attack itself?
You'd think we'd be marginally upset about some individuals blowing up a bunch of other individuals. Maybe even interested in what caused it, where it came from, who did it.
Instead, we just argue about TSA.
Not saying we shouldn't argue about TSA... but perhaps that's not the only thing there is to argue about.
First of all I would like to express my condolences to all the victims of this senseless act of brutality. Second, I would like to express my respect for the mature manner in which the Russians handled this. I've always said regarding the US that we have reached maturity as a society only when someone can commit an atrocity and no laws or procedures need to change as a result. Terrorism is all about getting a reaction; if you react to the terrorists, then the terrorist have won.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
No, but I'm sure Rush "big fat drug addict racist" Limbaugh will say that this is a reason we can't have a mosque near ground zero. And then he'll do his Chinaman impersonation to piss off yet another billion people.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
All the terrorists would have to do is blow up two security lines at two different airports, and then "leak" info that there were at least 5 bombers. Air travel would shut down. TSA would then receive enough money to strip every person who wanted to fly.
Perhaps wed be forced to fly naked. Does bring up the possibility to have a strip club like atmosphere on airplanes though. Don't forget to bring lot of ones.
You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
Buddhism is not a religion, but thanks for playing all the same.
In a world of the blind, the one-eyed man is king--and the two-eyed man is a heretic.
I have been thinking the same thing. Why bother trying to get on the plane when there's a plane-load of unscreened people standing around the body scanner? Just blow up the scanner and take out a million dollar machine and whoever is nearby. This makes the whole security setup useless. Anybody can walk up to the scanner with a bomb and the TSA will have to think of something else like screening people before they go through screening. While you are in line you are standing next to the unscreened terrorist (if there is one). PS: I am not a terrorist nor do I play one on TV.
Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
Most people with at least half a brain will see this and realize that this could happen now in the US even with all these checkpoints. Sadly, most people who have a say lack that much brain power, and they'll cry for the government to protect them and violate them more.
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
You are right there is no way to stop lunatics. Not Russian, Chechen, Canadian or Dutch. Lunatics are unstoppable because they lack the basic mental elements to tell them that what they are doing is futile. They also lack the higher functions of compassion and empathy for their intended victims.
Find a way to "fix" these individuals before they weaponize themselves and their "causes" will have to be solved through diplomacy or other higher forms of conflict resolution
I went to battle M.C. Escher, but drew a blank.
If you have easy access to explosives, you probably SHOULD be inspected more closely, don't you think? Of course it is only a matter of time before we get an "ass bomber" smart enough to lock themself in the lavatory before attempting to light the fuse.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
As if anyone says "Golly, all that pointless murder has really convinced me! lets all convert"
(If at first you don't succeed, do it different next time!)
Any faith which requires money be paid to anyone, bar none, is corrupt. Faith should never cost nor earn a paycheck for anyone.
Likewise faith should never dictate anything regarding offspring.
In a world of the blind, the one-eyed man is king--and the two-eyed man is a heretic.
Buddhism is not a religion, but thanks for playing all the same.
Said like a man of true ignorance.
Soviet Union was the main supporter
what kind of bullshit is this ? i am living in one of the countries usa/nato has used islam as a control tool to prevent encroachment of 'reds'. we are still paying the price for that 'security' policy today.
dont sell bullshit.
Read radical news here
The violence was known, sanctioned and even encouraged by the church. "spare not the rod", women and children are property, etc.
I apologize for having poor structure. The second sentence should not have been in that paragraph. It is independent of the later sentences. But yes, the foundation (as in its basic structure and nature rather than a point of creation) of modern Christianity has been forged (transformed) in the inquisition. The inquisition went far beyond Spain and the hunt for heretics.
I think your Bible was missing Matthew 22:37-40 and 18:21-22.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
I got pulled aside at National Airport a few years ago after the chemical sniffer alerted on me.
The landscapers for my apartment complex sprayed fertilizer the day before, and some of it got on my shoes, and the legs of my jeans.
I want to shoot the messenger!
... is encourage them, OFF ALL FORMS OF RECORD, to destroy the homelands of their enemies so thoroughly that terrorism no longer looks like a good idea.
The reason that the US cannot win in Iraq and Afghanistan is we can't use much force due to having to maintain Coalition support. Russia and China, OTOH, needn't bootlick the rest of the world to maintain the fading illusion of Empire.
Russia recently developed the largest fuel-air explosive yet deployed. They should erase an enemy city in reprisal for every attack. The way to beat an opponent is to win an existential struggle against him, not a mere scuffle.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Christianity was "founded" long before the Roman Catholic Church. And long before Constantinople, for that matter.
I would be interested to know the definition of a "good Christian home" in your view. It is quite possible to claim to be one thing and not be. It's called "hypocrisy" and is unfortunately quite prevalent in humans, and unfortunately, it is thus quite prevalent with many who claim to be Christians.
So I guess it comes down to what exactly Christianity was founded on. I would argue it's supposed to be founded on Christ. If it is founded on something else, then it has problems. Many "Christian" churches and church organizations in "church history" have founded their ... for lack of a better word, "brand," on something other than Christ; tradition, philosophy, whatever.
Christ, and the apostles He taught, had a lot to say about violence and depravity. It seems to me that a true Christ-founded Christianity is the only religion that actually asserts human depravity in very strong terms. That is basically half of the point of the "Gospel" in the New Testament; humans are utterly depraved and capable of all manner of horrible things that utterly disgust God. The other half is that Christ has provided a way to break our enslavement to that depravity and live in freedom from it (and, instead of serving said depravity - or sin - serving Christ).
Most people like that whole "you don't go to hell anymore!" Most people don't like the "you have to deny yourself and set Christ as your Lord" part of it; thus, they may claim to be "Christian" but nothing has changed in their life. Including their slave-to-depravity state. Hence the depravity. And hypocrisy.
Buddhist claim there is no God, then they spin their prayer wheels and put prayer flags in the wind... prayers to WHOM?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Civil rights cannot be "sacrificed" or bargained with in any manner. The very notion smacks of tyranny, and fosters a conformist ideology where it is expected that governments cherry-pick the civil rights they "allow" for "their" people.
But I never sacrificed anything after 9/11 -- did you? Of course not. I don't know anybody that did. What actually happened is that your civil rights were stolen. from you. Denied. Oppressed. Attacked. You and I didn't have a say in it at all, and neither did the pawns who cheered it on. There was no "sacrifice" in any of this, only the elite at the top of the pyramid playing god with powers that no mortal man is worthy of.
Let's call a spade a spade: civil rights are either honored or oppressed. There is no picking and choosing.
No. But it included a lot more than just those few select verses. Modern Christianity encompasses the whole bible plus the last 2 millennium of translations, reinterpretations and outright fabrications.
epic CT fail :D
It seems that we waited a while, and now the Muslims are burning and torturing people while the Christians are building hospitals and developing technology.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Plus the link in TFS indicated that Russia has had experiences like this from Chechen suicide bombers.
WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
Dogs aren't machines, though.
Dogs need a bit of time to detect the scent of explosives; it's not instantaneous. Dogs will need rest, not to mention play; they cannot just sniff people for hours. Finally, even dogs don't have perfect noses, and there will still be false positives/negatives.
The idea that millions of passengers at a busy airport could be screened with dogs... sorry. It's a nice idea, but it doesn't work.
Security Theater introduces additional delays. Without it, the lines would be fewer and shorter.
While that might not make the airports safer, it means you spend less time in them, thus reducing the liklihood that you will be there when the bomb goes off.
Though I think the issue is more about cost-to-benefit ratios. If a huge inconvienence/injustice only buys you a tiny bit of saftey, then it isn't a cost worth paying.
I don't see how this relates at all to the topic I was addressing but I'd agree with the money issue. I've never seen a church that required you to pay anything though unless you want to use their building for a wedding or something, which seems rather understandable to me. Unless we're going to consider asking for donations to be the definition of corrupt now and lump that child cancer hospital that asks for donations at the movie theater into the corrupt category.
I don't understand why having principals and guides about how children should be raised would make a faith corrupt. We're talking about a way of life here, and your claiming that no way of life should guide someone in how to deal with the biggest part of most people's lives? That just doesn't make any sense.
Whats stopping them from exploding a bomb IN LINE, answer, nothing.
It's murderous religious gits that taint religion
That's just the first on a long list.
Perhaps wed be forced to fly naked. Does bring up the possibility to have a strip club like atmosphere on airplanes though. Don't forget to bring lot of ones.
(three months later)
Someone theoretically designed an EXPLOSIVE designed to be put in one dollar bills! CLOSE TEH AIRPORTZ0RZ AND BAN TEH M0NIE$!!!1!
And then all the cash the TSA is getting fo this becomes contraband. Problem solved!
Why is it that every time some crazy fucker blows up himself and a whole bunch of innocent people he turns out to be a Muslim.
This a good thing: when most other religions blow up a bomb and kill innocent people, they aren't considerate enough to include themselves in the blast.
Plenty of other religious people are killing in the name of 'god'. It isn't a 'Muslim' thing.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
“I'm Having More Fun Than a Human Being Should Be Allowed to Have” Rush Limbaugh.
You either love him, or hate him. He sure knows how to tweak the offend-able. Not that I agree with that tactic, but he is Rush Limbaugh and he will change his character for no one. Perhaps not folding to the PC (politically correct) establishment is what offends people the most in fact and thus why he does it.
Life is not for the lazy.
They have presidential elections coming up next year, and someone dug up the same playbook that brought Putin to power. As some of you may recall, in 1999 there were massive bombings in Moscow, and as a result Putin, who was literally nobody to the public just a few months before, was elected president. All it took is 24x7 rotation on TV and a tough stance on Chechen terrorists. Yeltsin resigned abruptly, Putin spent some time as his lawful successor, and then got elected by a landslide thanks to his promise to deal with the issue. If it wasn't for those bombings, I think most Russians will agree, there was no way in hell he'd get the presidency.
The whole thing is awfully suspicious. For instance, after the blast, the airport _wasn't evacuated_. This could mean incompetence on FSB's (Russian counterpart of the FBI) part, or it could mean that they _knew_ there wasn't a second bomb.
What this tells me is Putin (and folks who are behind him), is gearing up to take over the reins from Medvedev in 2012.
If you have easy access to explosives, you probably SHOULD be inspected more closely, don't you think?
Household products are sufficient, so who does not have easy access?
No, it's not a coincidence. It's also not very useful.
You need to examine the distinction between "Statistical Significance" and "Practical Importance".
For example, suppose the difference in IQ scores between people in two cities is 1/2 point. The studies can be extremely accurate and the results can be correct to a strong degree of statistical significance, but the overall result is of no practical importance.
Similar with Muslim extremists. Try to assign a probability (high or low) to each of the following:
Probability that someone is a Muslim, given that they are terrorist.
Probability that someone is a terrorist, given that they are Muslim.
There are about 8,500 people on the U.S. "no fly" list, and about 1.5 billion followers of Islam. If *all* terrorists are Muslims, you still have to sort through 175,000 profiled people to find one terrorist.
This is not a piece of data which is useful in and of itself from which to draw conclusions or make policy.
You don't have to be afraid of your neighbors, even if they are are from Pakistan.
Agreed, but probably not the same meaning as yours.
Faith should never cost nor earn a paycheck for anyone.
So people who provide services based on that faith should never get paid to do it? Hmmm.
How does one practice one's faith that includes charity to the poor without cost?
Faith without cost is meaningless faith. Something about "putting ones money where one's mouth is" comes to mind.
I missed the part where he said that if a dog signals that you have traces of explosives on you, its off to Gitmo for you
If I were a Terrorist(TM) I'd get a job with a mining company, get a letter from my employer certifying that I handle explosives, and then blow something up.
... and such a job is also very convenient to get any needed supplies...
That's just people in general. I don't think I'd pin horrible actions on religious fruitcakes and suggests atheists/agnostics don't sometimes carry out the same.
In the end, once in a while crazy people do crazy stuff. Hopefully they do it before the reproduce so we can jail them before they procreate.
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
A friend is in Russia at the moment. They just informed me that, on two major news networks, one is currently showing a dating show and another is showing a game show...
Junk checks aren't for bomb residue/traces, they're for weapons. The puffers, which have been argued to be ineffective, are for residue.
So the dogs would only replace the machines (with much argument as puffers don't have any propensity to bite people or have disease carrying fleas... note, I wouldn't be making these arguments), and junk checks would continue.
It's all moot to me. After being screamed at by a TSA agent in Houston for pointing out that she let some asshole cut in line, I vowed to drive everywhere possible from now on.
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
The problem with bomb-sniffing dogs has nothing to do with the dogs themselves.
The dogs are supposedly trained to give a "silent" signal to their handler indicating the presence of explosives (or drugs). Something that a citizen wouldn't notice but the trained handler can recognize.
The citizen can't verify whether the dog gave the signal, so it's a classic authentication abuse scenario.
When bomb-sniffing dogs are used, look for lots of false-positives which just happen to be "pretty, large-breasted women" pulled aside for more in-depth screening.
You are making a straw man argument, yourself.
No, I was making an accusation. If I wasn't explicit enough, I apologize. To be more clear, I was accusing him of trying to undermine the argument for gate screening by asserting that a more vulnerable target is created in the process of screening.
While true that a line (and thus an additional target) is created, there are already at least three other places with very large and dense lines. The first is the most obvious - when 100+ people are crowded in a jetway. The second is check-in, which is so large and snaking at times that it can overflow the lobby of the airport. The third is baggage claim.
All of those can rival any security line that I've seen, depending of course on the day and time.
The second paragraph of my post is what you call a "straw man", and I can't imagine how you get there. Surely I can continue the discussion by adding my own on-topic commentary? I thought I addressed his two-sentence post adequately in my first paragraph.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Hopefully, Russia took out Jerusalem and we'll have World Peace.
They would fight over the ruins.
I've thought about that for an hour now.
I have no rebuttal.
You are 100% correct.
I have come to the conclusion that the only solution is an ultimate solution(TM Adolf Hitler).
Thank you for clearing that up for me.
Buddhism is not a religion, but thanks for playing all the same.
Said like a man of true ignorance.
Except that Buddhism is NOT a religion.
It's a school of thought. It focuses on peace, harmony, etc. The fact the people practice it as if it were a religion, or tack on their own supernatural back story (which flies in the face of the actual teachings) is irrelevant.
Security Theater introduces additional delays.
Sure, compared to ZERO security. It would work like Amtrak. Are you advocating zero security? Otherwise, there will still be a line.
If a huge inconvienence/injustice only buys you a tiny bit of saftey, then it isn't a cost worth paying.
I'd agree with that statement, though I'd add the propaganda value of downing an airplane to your equation.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Different meanings of the word "foundation". My intent was not as the event, but as in the platform on which modern Christianity is built and corrupted.
Why do I have to deny myself and submit myself to a false authority to be a good person, to supplicate myself before a supposedly loving god to avoid damnation? That is also hypocrisy.
I don't need to believe in magic and superstition. I don't need external validation of my purpose in life. I don't need faith. I don't need to be controlled. I can be good all on my own without fearing damnation, seeking reward in heaven or trying to be reincarnated as a higher being.
Any faith which requires money be paid to anyone, bar none, is corrupt. Faith should never cost nor earn a paycheck for anyone.
Then, you'll be pleased to know of the following exploits by Jesus.
Matthew 21:12-13 (New American Standard Bible)
12 And Jesus entered the temple and drove out all those who were buying and selling in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who were selling doves.
13 And He said to them, “It is written, ‘MY HOUSE SHALL BE CALLED A HOUSE OF PRAYER’; but you are making it a ROBBERS’ DEN.”
Mark 11:15-18
15 Then they came to Jerusalem. And He entered the temple and began to drive out those who were buying and selling in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who were selling doves;
16 and He would not permit anyone to carry merchandise through the temple.
17 And He began to teach and say to them, “Is it not written, ‘ MY HOUSE SHALL BE CALLED A HOUSE OF PRAYER FOR ALL THE NATIONS’? But you have made it a ROBBERS’ DEN.”
18 The chief priests and the scribes heard this, and began seeking how to destroy Him; for they were afraid of Him, for the whole crowd was astonished at His teaching.
Luke 19:45-47
45 Jesus entered the temple and began to drive out those who were selling,
46 saying to them, “It is written, ‘AND MY HOUSE SHALL BE A HOUSE OF PRAYER,’ but you have made it a ROBBERS’ DEN.”
47 And He was teaching daily in the temple; but the chief priests and the scribes and the leading men among the people were trying to destroy Him,
John 2:13-16
13 The Passover of the Jews was near, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.
14 And He found in the temple those who were selling oxen and sheep and doves, and the money changers seated at their tables.
15 And He made a scourge of cords, and drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen; and He poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables;
16 and to those who were selling the doves He said, “Take these things away; stop making My Father’s house a place of business.”
Likewise faith should never dictate anything regarding offspring.
And why not?
Now I'm not religious, but I'd sure as fuck rather be called a Christian than an atheist. Atheists are fucking assholes. Every single fucking one. And guess what - they have as much evidence for their beliefs as the Christians do!
Buddhism is not a religion, but thanks for playing all the same.
Said like a man of true ignorance.
Except that Buddhism is NOT a religion. It's a school of thought. It focuses on peace, harmony, etc. The fact the people practice it as if it were a religion, or tack on their own supernatural back story (which flies in the face of the actual teachings) is irrelevant.
How about actually trying to study Buddhism?
Buddhist concepts like karma, which differs from Hindi karma, are purely religion.
Then there's reincarnation which is also part of Buddhism.
To call Buddhism something other then a religion is an argument purely from ignorance.
Obviously the solution is to set up another layer of scanners and TSA pat-downs at the enterances to the airport...
Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
And then he'll do his Chinaman impersonation
[lebowski]"asian american, please!"[/]
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Ammonia's about all it takes.
Are you saying that if one has access to ammonia, one should be investigated more closely?
Do you have access to ammonia?
This just in.....
It is STILL over 1000 times more dangerous to have a backyard swimming pool than an airport that gets hit with a bomb every 20 years.
Perspective, people....
Tragedy, yes. Bad people, yes.
ZOMGWTF, hide the kids! No.
Perhaps not folding to the PC (politically correct) establishment is what offends people the most in fact and thus why he does it.
Perhaps this is what we all need to do.
Say the truth without sugar-coating it.
To be fair, household products are only sufficient in significantly higher quantities and are more likely to blow the arm off the idiot that makes them.
Early reports from Moscow suggest the blast was equivalent to 7Kg of TNT. I would've thought (though I'm happy to be corrected by someone with any experience) that a blast that size would take a sizable amount of household products to produce - probably more than a suitcases worth - almost certainly enough for any bomb sniffing dog within a mile to be noticing.
Either way, you must admit that false positives from dogs sniffing out engineers that handle explosives have to got be a lot less common and much easier to sort out, than from any current method and a whole load less intrusive for the mass populace. They've already got the dogs in the baggage handling area out back - why not bring them out front as well?
At the very least, I'd rather have my crotch sniffed by an inquisitive Beagle than be irradiated on a regular basis.
The second paragraph of my post is what you call a "straw man", and I can't imagine how you get there.
By adding this:
...We can argue whether or not this is effective, but there's no reason to set up a bogus argument.
to end of your second paragraph the second paragraph cannot be a separate commentary, but a continuation of your argument that he was building a straw man. And the previous sentence is what made what you said a straw man argument, because it makes it sound as though HE was talking about that.
This is how it reads to me:
Him:
point
You:
point was straw man, counterpoint
straw man counterpoint, reinforce that point was straw man and that straw man is bad
You are claiming that you meant:
Him:
point
You:
point was straw man, counterpoint
related point, reinforce that point was straw man and that straw man is bad
Perhaps it was unintentional, but IMO what you wrote was pretty much a textbook straw man. In the "straw man counterpoint" you present a related issue and make it sound like the GP argued for it.
No one is selling the airport gate screening as a way to make the airport safer - they are selling as a way to make the plane (and potential targets on the ground) safer.
That's argumentative text. You're attacking a position, and making a point... and since this is obviously pointed at the GP, it's implied that it's his position. Thus, the straw man.
Now, personally my best argument against terrorists attacking a security checkpoint line is this:
Why would they want to do that? Aren't they really happy with how the security theatre is panning out? If you bomb it directly you risk provoking the adoption of real security, and you also risk people realizing that the security doesn't do anything ("if they can bomb the security lines, obviously it does nothing!") and getting rid of it. Both of those are disasters for the terrorist.
Now I'm not religious, but I'd sure as fuck rather be called a Christian than an atheist. Atheists are fucking assholes. Every single fucking one. And guess what - they have as much evidence for their beliefs as the Christians do!
I agree wholeheartedly. Atheists are fucking pricks. Sure, I can't 'prove' that the Flying Spaghetti Monster broke into my car and stole some CDs. But those fucking atheists can't prove that it didn't!
Suppose there is a bug in some code.
If the engineer discovers it while typing and corrects it, the cost to fix is pennies (a couple of seconds times the hourly pay of the engineer).
If it's caught on compile, the cost to fix is a buck.
If it's caught on unit test, it's maybe 10 bucks.
If it's caught in code review, it's several people for 10 minutes - maybe 50 bucks.
If it's caught in QA, maybe 100 bucks.
If it's let out into the wild where it inconveniences customers, it can cost many thousands of dollars to fix.
The take-away from this is that efforts made more early in the process are more cost-effective.
Similarly with terrorists. When you mass-screen people you are at the point where one problem can hide among hundreds of thousands of cases, and so the cost of finding the one bad case is very high.
In the previous analysis: 1 in 175,000 Muslims is a terrorist. Consider a tip-line where people can call in to describe suspicious behaviour of Muslims. Will receiving 1 valid tip among 175,000 false alarms be effective?
Rather than pay officers to man the tip line, it's more effective to target your efforts to a small population, where the probabilities of finding a terrorist are much higher.
This is what I mean by useful. A probability which is much more likely to return results, given that we have fixed resources.
New service! If you're willing to pay the $250 "enjoyment" fee when you fly our airlines, you can have a much more pleasurable security experience, with one of the trained professionals examining you! (I wonder if there is a photo directory that you pick your "trained professional" from?)
Have you ever heard of a "tithe"? Just because youre not opressed enough by the catholic church as europeans were hundreds of years ago (some still chose to be now...) doesnt mean thats not the foundation of a religion.
I have nothing at all against religion, ones personal relationship with ones god/gods - my problem is, and always has been with organised religion... "lets go with the consens of some people who were born to somewhat similar people in general to my parents/grandparents and go to the same place of worship whenever" - if god is god, why do you need a translator?
I am very sucseptible to "let's have another drink"
Catholic church has historically had a 10% tax - a "tithe", to be paid by everyone in the congregation (or even not, lest they burn in hell)
I am very sucseptible to "let's have another drink"
Just think about this next time you're queued up forever in the security theater line waiting to get your junk touched. It seems like the ideal place to attack an airport and get lots of casualties.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Gate Rape
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-01-24/suicide-bomber-attack-kills-35-at-moscow-airport.html says the bomb blew up in an arrival hall - that means the arrival of passengers from incoming planes.
There is no security, as per the article:
Przhezdomsky said by telephone. “I remember coming to Domodedovo without going through any screening at the entrance. You walk in freely. This has to change.”
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I should clarify that I'm not saying that everything Rush Limbaugh says is true, just that we need to be truthful without sugar-coating it to appease overly-sensitive people who walk around with chips on their shoulders.
And guess what - they have as much evidence for their beliefs as the Christians do!
Care to try that one again, with logic this time?
I'd say that the very, very specific things that Christians believe have a much higher bar to clear than an atheist "belief", such as it is.
Atheist = What you see is what you get. Show me some proof/promising research leading toward something else, or STFU.
Theist = My very specific take on the universe, no more or less valid than the thousands of other religions' takes on the universe, is 100% valid. My fiction is right and your fiction is wrong. Everyone else STFU.
With the first link, the chain is forged.
Worship a god that manifests as a vandal? Fantastic... There is a difference between an atheist and an agnostic, there is a difference between a real scientist and one writing "research" for money... I dont believe in a god, i hope that there is something greater than humanity and a life beyond this one, but there is no way that I am going to join one of these mass cults going these days... the only reason they are termed religion and not cult is the number of followers.
I am very sucseptible to "let's have another drink"
Like the fact that its written in the fabrication of the last few thousand years called the English language (I assume you read that and not the "original")
I am very sucseptible to "let's have another drink"
So the terrorist would set off the bomb near the metal detector, with a buddy standing outside blowing himself into bits in the following chaos, or just a hidden bomb with a RF operated timer.
Yes, I'm aware that's a potential danger.
But realistically, for whatever reason, that has not happened. What HAS happened is that in an airport without screening, we have a major attack that has succeeded.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
>>I was a member of the IRA. Trust me, you don't want to have ANY residue on you if your going anywhere near a federal building/airport.
FTFY. What exactly is the point of these measures if it's possible to get the residue off and therefore only affects dumb terrorists? Oh yeah... We're talking about the same people who were responsible for the deadly underpants bomber, and a MMA fighter's "War on Christmas Trees" in Portland.
Slaughtering innocent people who are just trying to get from point A to point B won't further your aims, won't garner any sympathy, and certainly won't win you the hearts and minds of the rest of the world. You aren't freedom fighters, heroes, or martyrs, you're just assholes killing innocent people.
...terrorists bom....
Um, wait....
shit.
In Catholicism, hypocrisy is a virtue: one has to live as a virgin who got a kid, which is impossible - hence hypocrisy.
Just because the government has usurped the religion in Europe (tithing = tax in some countries) doesn't mean that is truly a Christian tenet. Yes, there is the concept of tithing, but it is voluntary in most (if not all) major religions. In some religions, you may not gain access to certain areas of a church or temple without paying a tithe, but it is still voluntary and generally won't prevent you from attending the weeklyhttp://news.slashdot.org/story/11/01/24/1836225/Terrorists-Bomb-Moscow-Airport?from=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Slashdot%2Fslashdot+%28Slashdot%29# services.
A weapon is of no use to a terrorist on a plane with a secure cockpit (unless he uses it to damage the aircraft, but no weapon with that capability is likely to make it through the metal detector).
If you have easy access to explosives, you probably SHOULD be inspected more closely, don't you think?
With that logic, gun owners should be inspected more closely. Or those of a religious affiliation we don't like. Or how about those with an physics or chemistry background sense they are far more likely to have the knowledge to build explosives.
Besides the fact remains, there are tons of explosives which can be made trivially with ingredients from your local hardware and grocery stores.
And if you want to apply a little statistics, I'm sure you'll find that those who DON'T have legal access to explosives are more likely to commit terrorist acts. Oddly enough, most crimes are not committed by law abiding citizens who purchase their weapons legally; which is why background checks on weapon purchases statistically never prevent crime. Here's a hint, if you're going to commit a crime, its a good idea not to have a direct link between you and a crime.
Sorry, but you've fallen pretty far down the wrong rabbit hole there.
That really doesn't matter. The PP was suggesting replacing junk checks with residue sniffing dogs. I was just pointing out the failed logic.
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
Have you ever heard of a "tithe"?
I have but I've never heard of anyone kicked out of a church for not doing it. Also tithing usually includes money given to charities and the like. Faith be oppressing people into choosing to help the less fortunate huh?
Just because youre not opressed enough by the catholic church as europeans were hundreds of years ago (some still chose to be now...) doesnt mean thats not the foundation of a religion.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. You think I'm not being oppressed enough by the Catholic Church? Just because religion doesn't do something anymore doesn't mean that thing isn't it's foundation? I might be confused about foundations and all but I'm pretty sure a structure has to have one to exist. I've replaced foundations in buildings before, but you certainly can't leave a building devoid of one, unless it's in space. Hmmm...a space church....I'll be right back.
Well, you know there is more than one branch of Buddhism. You would know if you actually studied it.
Whenever I see "All XXX is YYY", I really can't continue reading.
And some will not believe even if someone rises from the dead.
I weep for anyone who allows corrupt humans to destroy your ability to believe in a loving God.
Then you weep tears for a monstrous horror. Even if your christian god existed, and he does not, the bible itself proves that he is evil and unworthy of worship.
In Soviet Russia the airport bombs you !
Yes, and exactly how does this refute anything I said? Pezbian said: "Faith should never cost nor earn a paycheck for anyone." I'm pointing out that true faith ALWAYS has a cost, else it is worthless. Meaningless. A "faith" that tells you that everything is ok and you can keep doing exactly what you were doing all along is the only kind of faith that has no cost, and of what meaning is that?
Talking about the Catholic church in a discussion about Christianity is silly. Things like not worshiping idols (statues of the "Holy Mother") sorta rules them out as true Christians. Even so, tithing is voluntary. If I'm not mistaken, even the Catholics say you can buy the redemption of your loved ones, so you can refuse to tithe for an entire lifetime and have someone else pay for you. But that, too, is such a stretch of the true rules of Christianity that it serves as another example of why they are not.
If few can even imagine the "violence and depravity" you witnessed at home, and Christianity is one of the world's major religions, it stands to reason that perhaps by any definition of Christianity that you didn't actually live in a "good Christian home"
Your answer reads like a textbook example of the No True Scotsman fallacy.
In fact, No True Christian is quite a common example of the above fallacy.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
Bow down and worship at the almighty (Creflo) Dollar
So, if you go home tonight and find someone sitting in your comfy chair watching your television, ordering pay per view movies, and eating your cheetos, you'll just sit on the couch and ask him to please pass the bag? Or will you have the stranger ejected from your house and arrested for trespassing? Might you grab the remote control from his hand before he leaves? Yes? YOU VANDAL!
It's your house. It was His house. He wasn't vandalizing His own house. He was ejecting the refuse. Now you might try to claim that it wasn't His house really, but the people there called it that and believed it to be so, just like you believe that the house you are paying mortgage payments on (or rent to occupy) is "yours" for the purposes of kicking out the trash.
there is a difference between a real scientist and one writing "research" for money...
There are very few scientists who "write research" without being paid by someone. It's nice to be able to 'do science' as a hobby and not get paid for it, but most scientists get a paycheck just like the local auto mechanic.
Just so you know, Chechen is not a religion like Islam/Muslim is.
..the fact remains that most of the time that somebody blows themselves up, intent on taking others with them, it is someone from an Islamic background.
The Chechen people are primarily Islamic in faith.
I know that you didnt really want to support the point of the person you were replying to, but thats exactly what you did.
Now I don't know if its the religion itself, the economic conditions that are primarily experienced by those of the religion, the political situations in the regions of its popularity, or what...
One might argue that this fact is evidence that the other religions and their respective political blocks have so thoroughly long-term-fucked these people over that this sort of thing just plain makes more sense to them than it does to others.
Now what I truly believe is that poverty is at the core of all this shit, that if you remove wide-spread poverty from the equation then you end up with a different sort of problem. People rioting instead of people blowing themselves up.
"His name was James Damore."
I think religion as a concept is almost like evolution, evolution only cares what genes survive not if they're "good" or "bad" and religion only cares what beliefs survive not if they're "good" or "bad". Where's the Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Norse and who knows how many other religions? Extinct. Christianity is what it is because it's a religion that spread instead of diminished. A religion that conquered instead of being conquered. A religion that promoted greater growth - "be fruitful and multiply". Any religion that doesn't try to convert people from other religions, any religion that doesn't in some way say that their religion is the Right Way and everyone else's way is the Wrong Way has probably been overrun by a religion that did.
The rise and fall of religions has not depended on personal belief but rather the structure to convert and raise more people in that religion. Kings and lords has ordered churches and monasteries built and the population goaded into attending. Through missionaries children were educated and helped but also converted into the Christian religion. I think many look at Christianity today and say "But religion is a personal matter. Just accept Jesus into your heart and let's all sing Kumbaya." but the reality is that if that was how Christianity had started it probably would have died a quick and insignificant death long before the Roman empire fell. People should not be so naive to think that this institutionalized drive to expand and conquer has simply vanished just because it has become less and less accepted in the Christian world.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Buy a "new" one? What's wrong with the original scriptures? It doesn't fit well with your "good" Christianity?
The practice of Indulgence by the Catholic Church was a corrupt practice, not Tithing.
in spite of all the countermeasures.
Except for everything in the bible has been shown to be nothing more than a relic of the bronze age.
And your bible doesn't even contribute anything innovative to society. Really says something about this omnipotent Magic Man in the Sky of yours.
There's a difference between religion and spirituality. Buddhism is more on the side of spirituality, and its believers believe in various metaphysical stuff. It's a lot like "new-age" beliefs here in western society.
However, it's unlike normal religions because there's no "god" that is conscious and constantly looking at everything we do, and whom we must worship and talk to and try to divine the will of. Almost every non-Far-East religion is like that: there's a god (or gods) with a name (Jahweh/Allah/Jehovah/Zeus/Apollo/Odin/Jupiter/Quezlcoatl/Krishna/etc.), who followers are required to worship and make offerings to to please him (ranging from food to prayers to fasting to animal sacrifices to human sacrifices), and there's a bunch of rules that you're supposed to follow to make him happy and get you better favor with him both on earth and in the afterlife (which can either be a blissful place, a horrible place, or being reincarnated as something or someone else).
Buddhism doesn't follow this. Buddhists don't believe they're going to please any supreme being by blowing themselves up for some cause.
Exactly.
Atheist = "There is absolutely no god. I am sure of it, even though there's no way to disprove the existence of one."
Agnostic = "I don't know anything for sure. Show me some real evidence and I'll consider it."
Perhaps not folding to the FC (factually correct) establishment is what offends people the most in fact and thus why he does it.
FTFY
Oh yeah? Well this atheist thinks you're a poopy-head!! THPTHPPTHTP!!
Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
I don't love him or hate him. I barely even remember he exists most days. I do however have many friends who say they aren't "sugar coating it" or being "PC" and that usually means they are just being tactless and rude. I think manners are very important and under-represented in media today.
This is appalling. What makes it worse is that this happens almost daily in Iraq and Afghanistan and Pakistan and no one cares because the body count is already so high. And all because of religion as well.
I think you should re-read the textbook. I didn't make a circular argument defining "good christian homes" as not being full of violence and depravity. I simply pointed out the logical impossibility that if "good christian homes" are full of violence and depravity and there are many Christians in the world then it wouldn't make sense for few people to even be able to imagine let alone witness the violence and depravity he did. GP is the one making the universal claim, not me, and I'm not dismissing a counterexample through circular logic but instead pointing out the faulty logic in his universal claim
Even had I taken the tack of saying "well it's not a good Christian home because it was full of violence and depravity" it would be a form of the No Scotsman fallacy but that's not necessarily a bad thing as long as we understand I am presenting what I believe to be a unfalsifiable axiom and not a conclusion.
Presenting unfalsifiable axioms are not necessarily a bad thing. For example, I might say "No Good work environment involves forced rape." You can point out what you believe to be "good work environments" where people get forcibly raped all you want but I'm just going to say they aren't good work environments because I wasn't presenting a conclusion that even has the possibility of being disproved by counterexample but instead preventing an unproved axiom that is self evident. You can disagree with the axiom but that doesn't mean I'm committing some sort of logical sin in having such an axiom.
Not only are you confusing "atheist" with "rabid, radical anti-theist", by your own admission you're also a poser, wanting to be grouped with Christians without actually walking the walk. Sad.
And Bible quotes when you're supposed to be non-religious? Really?
Penn Jillette said it best:
If God told you to kill your child, would you do it?
If your answer is "no." you're an atheist.
If you're answer is yes, you're dangerous and need to be locked up.
In a world of the blind, the one-eyed man is king--and the two-eyed man is a heretic.
So people who provide services based on that faith should never get paid to do it? Hmmm.
How does one practice one's faith that includes charity to the poor without cost?
Faith without cost is meaningless faith. Something about "putting ones money where one's mouth is" comes to mind.
Right, they should never get paid. It's charity to do it for free after all. That's why you do your voluntary Sunday gig on Sunday and work like everyone else at a real job during the week.
Charity doesn't have to appear in the form of dollar signs, either. Any real "hungry hobo" will agree with me there.
In a world of the blind, the one-eyed man is king--and the two-eyed man is a heretic.
If someone wanted to create death and mayhem at the games, all they'd have to do is toss a grenade into the security lineups (sometimes hours long). This seems to be precisely what these bombers have done.. blown themselves up before getting inside the security line up -- yet, despite the fact that this security theatre doesn't do much to protect us against a threat that's less likely to kill us than the trip to and from the airport, we're still forced to submit ourselves to very personal searches between the greater threat and getting on the airplane.
BTW: If we put as much work into preventing drunk driving as we do against 'terrorism', we'd probably save about 100 times as many lives. (And, from what I can tell, this would be doubly true in Moscow).
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
Also, not really paying attention to that movie? Cause... Batman kinda has this rule about NOT killing people.
What you are looking for is someone like Ironman.
Keep in mind though that he is a (recovering) alcoholic.
Also, on a guilt-trip cause his weapons killed all those "innocent people" so he is working through that by killing more people face to face. But these are all bad.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
You know the Holy Bible in its current form was actually put together by the Catholics, right?
Last I checked, Catholics and Protestants are reading from the exact same book. Odd.
The only Christians deviating from using the Catholic Bible are the Mormons. Though not really. They use it _in addition_ to three others.
In a world of the blind, the one-eyed man is king--and the two-eyed man is a heretic.
I thought a fundamental Christian is someone who believes in the fundamental tenets of Christianity and same same for fundamentalist Muslims. However, according to the media, a fundamentalist is someone who directly contradicts the teaching of their religion and blows things up.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
... now the "authorities" are going to use this as an excuse to turn Russia into a pol-...
oh, wait, never mind
Part of the Second American Revolution!
Regarding donations, I'm talking about tithing.
Regarding children, I should have clarified that I'm referring to attempts to dictate what you do with your "baby making parts". Declaring premarital sex, birth control, masturbation, homosexuality, etc. to be evil, for example.
As for child rearing tips, solid moral principle isn't exclusive to any religion. That stuff about humans being evil as baseline is FUD to initiate insecurity or justify destructive behavior ("The devil made me do it!").
All principle can be reduced to one line:
"Life's short. Don't be a dick."
In a world of the blind, the one-eyed man is king--and the two-eyed man is a heretic.
Wow! Isn't that a bit like asking "Why is it that every time some crazy fucker shoots up a school full of kids he turns out to be an American"?
Or how about "Every time some crazy fucker makes someone else blow up himself and a whole bunch of innocent people he turns out to be Irish. Or Colombian.
You know... Flamebaiting and stuff?
But I guess that for someone who goes trolling on topics about innocent people being shot by crazies being "asking for it" just cause they don't agree with his political stance - tossing racist remarks that equalize about 1/6th of the planet with mentally deranged mass murderers would be "just Tuesday".
Falsely accusing one side of violence, as the above mentioned did throughout 2010 election campaign, despite most of the actual incidents of violence coming from the left, is a 'veiled' invitation to respond in kind. How do you expect more extreme elements on the left to respond when they are constantly being told that about violent fascist and racist right-wingers are taking over in the form of Tea Party (which in reality is a peaceful and law-abiding movement if there ever was one). That is the impression one gets when listening to them and it is a form of incitement to violence.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Agnostic = I don't believe in God, and I am absolutely sure that it's impossible to know for sure that there is one or is not one.
Atheist = I don't believe in God.
All agnostics are atheist. Not all atheists are agnostic. And agnostics are the ones that assert unprovable things as an absolute. Atheism is not the affirmative belief that there isn't a God, but the lack of belief in the existence of God, regardless of how militant or lax one is in that belief.
Learn to love Alaska
OKC has been used as a discussion point elsewhere in this thread:
McVeigh did get executed, but Terry Nichols *is* in Supermax for life.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
Christianity was "founded" long before the Roman Catholic Church.
I'm not sure what you claim, but the Roman Catholic Church claims to be founded by Jesus himself at the exact same time Christianity itself was founded.
Learn to love Alaska
to end of your second paragraph the second paragraph cannot be a separate commentary, but a continuation of your argument that he was building a straw man.
That was an appeal to an honest debate, which I was attempting to start - not an attempt to put words in his mouth.
Anyway, I've apologized and attempted to clarify... can we move on?
Why would they want to do that? Aren't they really happy with how the security theatre is panning out? If you bomb it directly you risk provoking the adoption of real security, and you also risk people realizing that the security doesn't do anything ("if they can bomb the security lines, obviously it does nothing!") and getting rid of it. Both of those are disasters for the terrorist.
Why, other than operationally, would a terrorist care what we do with security? So long as there is a soft yet horrifying target, they will have plenty to do. If we step up security at airports to a point where they simply can't risk an operation there, well, lets just say there are plenty of soft targets for them to choose from.
Of course, I can answer my own question a bit - terrorists see certain targets as more valuable than others. They (and we) are particularly hung-up on planes. No matter how much security you throw at airports, they keep going after the planes rather than picking low-hanging fruit. So of course, we throw even more resources at the preferred target.
Anyway, I think you are giving "terrorists" far too much credit for strategic thinking...
Timothy McVeigh thought that he could incite a popular revolution, and instead he's best remembered for killing a bunch of preschoolers.
Bin Laden wants us out of the Middle East, yet his actions so far have drawn us further in.
Ramzi Yousef wants - at the very least - a Palestinian state and uses terrorism to further that cause, which has not exactly panned out.
My point is that they aren't, as a class, the best strategic thinkers. In fact, they usually hurt their cause - so much so that it fuels conspiracy theories. George Bush would never have had the political capital to invade two Middle Eastern countries without the 9/11 attacks. Chechnya is more locked down and less independent than ever, and Russia is now largely an autocracy. And this North Caucasus stuff has some Russians so whipped up into a nationalistic frenzy that ordinary Muslims are just attacked for daring to exist.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Wrong. Read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
What you describe as "agnostic" is actually only one of 6 types of agnosticism, called "strong agnosticism". Most agnostics aren't like this, most are one of the other types (which aren't all completely separate from each other), such as "weak agnosticism", "agnostic atheism", or "agnostic theism".
So no, all agnostics are NOT atheist as you state.
Similarly, "atheism" has many different shades too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism. Interestingly, Jainists and Buddhists are atheists, as they do not believe in a god, even though they are technically classed as religions.
However, in my experience, usually when people talk about atheists vs agnostics, they mean the "weak agnostics" above, and the "philosophical atheists" who vigorously deny the existence of deities.
The Mormons like to say that the bible has been partly corrupted also. They use this to negate parts they don't like. If you attend one of their services they will speak alot more about the book of mormon then the bible or any of their other works, like the pearl. (Their other works are more off kilter then the BoM. They try to save those until your more comfortable with the religion. )
Just so I don't come off as a conspiracy nut, think about terrorist organizations. They're pretty much the definition of a conspiracy.
So since there are terrorist organizations out there, there definitely are conspiracies. But do you think they spontaneously came into being? Well, maybe some did. But I doubt many. Terrorist camps exist though, right?
Well, who funds these camps? People being fed propaganda are stupid and rabid... but I doubt the people doing the funding are like that. The people with the coin purses have an agenda.
Ok, so if the people who are funding them have an agenda, what are they trying to accomplish? Because someone, somewhere, is thinking strategically. Not the bombers themselves, the people with the coin purses.
Keep in mind that of the anti-US terrorism, very little "real" damage has been done. It's mostly been about stirring up the hornet's nest and making people scared.
So if you want to know who the people behind the terrorists are, you probably have to look at who gains from all the stuff you just described.
However, in my experience, usually when people talk about atheists vs agnostics, they mean the "weak agnostics" above, and the "philosophical atheists" who vigorously deny the existence of deities.
I understand what some people think of, and what those who edit Wikipedia assert. However, the original definition of atheist is simply anyone who doesn't affirmatively assert that there is a god. Also, agnostics were initially a subset of atheists. I know that there are plenty of people out there that purposefully destroy the language in order to push their personal agendas. To be an atheist, all you need to do is not swear in a belief in god. To be an agnostic you have to assert that you do not believe in god, in addition to assertions about whether one can know god.
There's an active campaign from the religious to paint "atheist" as a bunch of radicals.
Learn to love Alaska
The purpose of the classic "God" is to save your ass so you can live forever in some form of Paradise.
The goal of Buddhism is to attain enlightenment to the point of nirvana and _become_ god-like by ending the cycle of suffering and rebirth.
The classic God is held to be above his followers, whom he threatens incessantly and has no qualms about throwing into eternal suffering for the most minor of things. The Buddha is held to be a role model, someone they admire and want to, and can, be like some day.
It's less like thanking Kim Jong Il for not killing your ass while he makes his fifth daily hole-in-one and more like going to a Van Halen concert and cheering for Eddie because you aspire to play guitar with his level of skill some day.
They're basically praying to themselves, if you think about it.
In a world of the blind, the one-eyed man is king--and the two-eyed man is a heretic.
I was not a member of the IRA. I live in the US, and I served in the army for 4 years as a combat engineer. One of the major responsibilites of such an engineer is working with explosives.
You didn't fix shit, you were just trying to troll. Go screw yourself.
You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
So since there are terrorist organizations out there, there definitely are conspiracies. But do you think they spontaneously came into being? Well, maybe some did. But I doubt many. Terrorist camps exist though, right?
There are many, many reasons for terrorist groups to spring into existence. Sometimes it's a genuine grass-roots hatred of some real or perceived injustice. Sometimes you have someone like the CIA or a dumb-but rich Saudi Prince lending a hand. I think it varies.
Well, who funds these camps?
Again, it varies. Sometimes it's a dictator like the good Colonial Quadaffi. Sometimes it's a oil prince with more money than education or sense. Sometimes it's the spy agency of your friendly local democracy.
People being fed propaganda are stupid and rabid... but I doubt the people doing the funding are like that.
A counter-example would be the IRA, who were quite successful fund-raising in the greater Boston area from the ethnic Irish population.
Because someone, somewhere, is thinking strategically. Not the bombers themselves, the people with the coin purses.
That's true, but there are ample examples of money not correlating with brains. Sometimes it works splendidly... if one considers the mujahideen to be terrorists, that would be one example. In any event, most of the time I think terrorists are funded as a long-shot hope from a government or individual who either does not want to or cannot otherwise get their hands dirty. They are tools of a proxy war.
Keep in mind that of the anti-US terrorism, very little "real" damage has been done. It's mostly been about stirring up the hornet's nest and making people scared.
I'd argue that this is due to our large military presence in the Middle East. To use a cliche, we've "taken the fight to them". Scared US citizens aren't the only ones susceptible to human nature... I think that would-be suicide bombers are much more attracted to defending their homeland than in overseas adventure.
So if you want to know who the people behind the terrorists are, you probably have to look at who gains from all the stuff you just described.
The stockholders of Lockheed/Boeing? I dunno - that's a pretty big stretch. It certainly is more complex than other explanations, and I'm a big fan of Occam :)
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Be realistic. The last two elections were both questionable.
Why do you think they try so hard to kill off journalists?
but there's no reason to set up a bogus argument.
Yeah it is. The lines are set up under the assumption that my time is free and safety is the only concern. Now an event has said: hey queuing up for an hour to get a Rapiscan is an hour YOU COULD DIE!
Safety vs. Safety lets you bring this argument to the only playing field some people will listen to. Since, "I think I could better spend this hour commenting on news feeds", sounds ludicrous to scared people, I now get to change it to "What if someone in line has a Bword? Can we get this line moving before we all die?! Please?!"
BTW: Am I the only person who noticed those things are called Rapiscans? Do you pronounce it differently maybe?
This mess would have been prevented hadn't Governments across the world refused to give autonomy to socioeconomically diverse communities.
Govt must constitute a panel to rewrite US Constitution and Quran
I don't believe Christianity is tainted, but people sure are tainted. You will not find "good Christians in this world", because they don't exist. That's the point of it -- no one is without sin (Romans 3:23) and we deserve judgement from a perfect just God, but Jesus was sent to live a perfect life and die to bear that burden as our substitute (Romans 6:23). Christianity is about living in belief of that.
If you want to make claims against the oppression of Christianity, you have to make claims against Jesus (who arguably was the greatest liberator known -- look at the way he treats children, women, and Gentiles amongst a Jewish culture which had no value for those people)... Christianity is about Jesus, not about the Christians. People are destined to screw up.
for centuries many did
in England, Church Rate wasn't voluntary until 1868
eww, you wore the same pants as the day before on a flight?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
I'm sure the GP is another scholar who believes that the Bible was brought to modern language via the game of "telephone". The major English translations are directly from the best* available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek sources.
* "Best" means "earliest" for the NIV, and "the earliest majority" for most of the others.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Now an event has said: hey queuing up for an hour to get a Rapiscan is an hour YOU COULD DIE!
These passengers were not in a security line. There are plenty of lines to attack at an airport - you are in danger whether you are checking in, getting on the plane, or getting your bags. The security line is only maybe 1/4 of the problem.
I now get to change it to "What if someone in line has a Bword? Can we get this line moving before we all die?! Please?!"
It's still dishonest, and makes you just as bad as dishonest people on the other side. But hey, if "fight fire with fire" is your thing, don't let morality get in the way.
BTW: Am I the only person who noticed those things are called Rapiscans? Do you pronounce it differently maybe?
They could be called "THE BODY VIOLATOR" and it wouldn't change the arguments.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Imagine you live in a very, very poor country, and a huge military superpower decides to attack your people. You see your town destroyed, some family members die, you got no future, etc.
As I understand it, you then have three options:
1. Fight back (hopelessly, your army is 1/10 the size of the attacker's, and chances of winning are nil).
2. Do nothing and get raped and killed.
3. Reciprocate via the ONLY way you can, that would actually hurt the attacking government in question, i.e. perform a terrorist attack on civilians.
I'm not saying this is the situation in the Russia-Chechnya conflict (I'm a complete ignorant when it comes to this particular conflict), but I am sure that my description perfectly fits many other conflicts. My point is, life is not black and white, you guys. Who knows how we would react, were we in a situation like the one I described.
Baloney. Literally. Bologna contains traces of nitrates, as does salami, so anyone who eats it will have bomb residue / traces.
(thanks for the info)
Where's the
P.S.
Oh, wait...
when you need one?
WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
Things like not worshiping idols (statues of the "Holy Mother") sorta rules them out as true Christians.
Catholics do not worship statues any more than you worship the wooden cross which is presumably atop the steeple in your fundie church.
If I'm not mistaken, even the Catholics say you can buy the redemption of your loved ones, so you can refuse to tithe for an entire lifetime and have someone else pay for you.
You are completely mistaken. The Catholic church states that you earn heaven through belief and good works, not cash. They used to charge for salvation, time away from Purgatory, etc during the Middle Ages.
But that, too, is such a stretch of the true rules of Christianity that it serves as another example of why they are not.
What, pray tell, are the 'true rules of Christianity'? 100% of the material in your Bible was compiled and edited by Catholics, thousands of years before your sect existed. Martin Luther arbitrarily threw out a few books to be different, but for the most part it's the same. The really interesting stuff created by the Gnostics is the only real variant in Christianity, and that was thrown out/suppressed by the same Catholics that created your Bible.
Modern Christians are pretty much interchangeable unless you count the Mormons as Christians...which I don't.