Slashdot Mirror


WHO Says Afghan School "Poison Attacks" Probably Mass Hysteria

New submitter smugfunt writes "A number of incidents at schools in Afghanistan, especially girls' schools, have been attributed to poisoning by the Taliban. The World Health Organization has investigated 32 of them but found no poison. "Mass Psychological Illness is the most probable cause," they conclude, the Telegraph reports. The Taliban has consistently denied poisoning schools and have even consented to allow the education of girls in a deal with the government which allows significant Taliban control over the curriculum."

146 comments

  1. WHO by amiga3D · · Score: 0, Troll

    Who? Oh, those guys. I don't know what happened but I'm not taking the WHO's word for anything at all. Maybe it didn't happen but if they said it didn't then I think it probably did. Mass pyschological illness. They imagined it.

    1. Re:WHO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who? Oh, those guys. I don't know what happened but I'm not taking the WHO's word for anything at all. Maybe it didn't happen but if they said it didn't then I think it probably did. Mass pyschological illness. They imagined it.

      Alright, grandpa, we'll stop the bad conspiracy people from poisoning Afghans and trying to take your Amiga away. Now get that thing off the information superhighway. And turn its blinkers off, too. ;)

      (Whoa, my captcha is "hoodwink." Oh man, I think Slashdot is trying to warn me that it's been infiltrated by the Taliban! Dammit, I suppose I'd better get that A500 out of the closet. If I'm going to be crazy, I might as well do it right.)

    2. Re:WHO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Who? Oh, those guys. I don't know what happened but I'm not taking the WHO's word for anything at all.

      Hey, they have some kick ass songs. Plus, Pete Townshend's powerslide.

    3. Re:WHO by amiga3D · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Heh, whippersnapper at least you know what an Amiga is, I'll give you props for that. I'll stand by the WHO comment though no matter how they downmod me. They're a pack of liars. Like I said, I may have doubted the claims at first but now that WHO says it didn't happen I have to think it might be true. If they say it's sunny I'm taking a flashlight. By the way, if you need a hard drive for that A500 I've got a GVP A530 for sale too. ;)

    4. Re:WHO by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      That Tommy sure plays a mean pinball.

  2. The Taliban denied.. by slackware+3.6 · · Score: 2

    and someone believed them? Shame shame shame.

    1. Re:The Taliban denied.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Since the Taliban are the most politically convenient thing to the US Neocons to appear on the global marketplace of \textit{casus belli}, it's more accurate to say, "Something was said about the Taliban.. and people believed them?"

      Anyone not allowing themselves to be as the slowly boiled frog over the past 15 years should recognise that nothing which comes out of the mouths of Washington and London is to be believed, nor is any of the reporting home and abroad which can be controlled by either. War reporting died after the DoD saw what happened when people saw the live action footage of Vietnam. It's not that everything's a lie - though everything does, of course, have a spin put on it. It's merely that it would be intellectually dishonest for the average guy sitting at home to claim that he has evidence of what's a lie and what's the truth - anyone who claims so is usually just allowing his prejudices to select the evidence which backs up his views.

    2. Re:The Taliban denied.. by EdIII · · Score: 2

      Taliban are not relevant. At least not to the investigation part into whether or not the crime occurred. Who cares what a possible suspect says anyways when you still can't even establish that.

      This isn't just somebody either. It's the WHO. Considering their reputation, I think it's reasonable to assume they were some actual investigation into hospital records, perhaps even direct tests on the girls.

      I am admittedly still a little bit skeptical. 32 incidents, and not a single scrap of evidence for poison? No indications in their blood samples? No physical samples in the water? The schools themselves have no chemical traces?

      That's amazing to have that many incidents of mass hysteria. Really amazing.

    3. Re:The Taliban denied.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahaha oh man it's late/early and I've been writing too much, well... the government told me Slashdot had a LaTeX preprocessor and I was lied to!

    4. Re:The Taliban denied.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree, it seems like a lot. How many incidents of mass hysteria per year is there in US schools and/or workplaces? I remember hearing about several where people swore they smelt something that made them sick but nothing was ever found.

    5. Re:The Taliban denied.. by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 2

      It's especially amazing in a place where many women have in fact immolated themselves rather than face further abuse from their husbands. There are so many real, systemic abuses of women in that society that honestly if somebody is looking for abuse and doesn't find it, I smell cover-up. What was the methodology? Who was doing the sampling, the analysis? What was the chain of custody?

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    6. Re:The Taliban denied.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I tend to believe the group that doesn't behead innocent civilians, which also happens to be the one that doesn't strap bombs to themselves or the mentally handicapped to blow up in crowds.

      Of course it's easy to sit on the other side and suggest that it's the other side that is wrong. After all, it was the other side that prevented women from going to school until the US invasion of Afghanistan. It is the US that regularly slaughters large groups of people, such as those traveling via bus, because they have received aid from the coalition forces.

      Uh, no. My evidence is my brother with shrapnel in his face from an RPG that barely missed him, plus multiple concussions alongside his three tours overseas. But, you should probably keep reading whatever liberally slanted, terrorist-forgiving drivel that you call news.

      I'm not saying that the Taliban has poisoned these school girls, nor am I saying that there are terrorist under every rock. I am saying that the Taliban is an evil organization filled with men that have no level of humanity left, and yet here we are debating whether or not we're pinning too much on an organization that has proven it has no limits to its disgusting behavior. Then again, as the article points out, here we are helping a nation that is going to allow the Taliban back with open arms the moment we leave, and possibly even sooner.

    7. Re:The Taliban denied.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am saying that the Taliban is an evil organization filled with men that have no level of humanity left
      Sounds like the US Congress to me...

    8. Re:The Taliban denied.. by captjc · · Score: 5, Interesting

      To play devil's advocate, what reason do they have to deny it if they did it? The Taliban is a fundamentalist party that supports acts of terrorism. The difference between a terrorist and psychopath is that a terrorist has a message. If a terrorist group were to lie about culpability it would probably be to take credit for acts they didn't commit. In fact, for pretty much any disaster or accident, there is almost always a group willing to take responsibility whether they did it or not.

      The Taliban is a malevolent organization, but they are not comic book villains plotting nefarious acts for evil's sake.

      --
      Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 1 hour, 47 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
    9. Re:The Taliban denied.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure the Taliban is absolutely relevant. They provide excellent targets to test new drone based weapon systems and intelligence gathering methods in a real world environment instead of just using simulations. If a civilian happens to get caught in the crossfire they might want to stop hanging around with the wrong crowd. Although it's most likely that the oh so brave Taliban fighters hide behind civilians who are forced to serve as human shields. Anyone who defends the Taliban should seriously start questioning how far they are really ready to go just to justify their criticisms of the US and NATO efforts. Too bad Afghanistan wasted their opportunity to create a more stable country when the US and NATO forced the Taliban from power. After the US leaves, which I personally wish had taken place about 9 years ago, the Afghan citizens will once again be dominated and terrorized by the most inhumane group of people on the planet. And there is no way the US will ever go back to that country. The same thing applies to Iraq. They also squandered the opportunity to improve their society and government without having to look over their shoulder waiting for Saddam and his henchman to slowly feed them into a wood chipper feet first. Instead they immediately got back to killing each other in earnest 2 days after the US forces left. The best strategy for the US is to totally leave the entire middle east and South Asia and let the inhabitants resume killing each other without any interruptions.

    10. Re:The Taliban denied.. by EdIII · · Score: 2

      I remember hearing about several where people swore they smelt something that made them sick but nothing was ever found.

      We had that happen at a company I worked for almost 10 years ago. Determined it was a complex chemical reaction between "Steve" and "Del Taco".

    11. Re:The Taliban denied.. by gl4ss · · Score: 2, Insightful

      THE RELEVANT thing is that the girls haven't died AND they've all gone home in few hours.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    12. Re:The Taliban denied.. by Nursie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No offence meant to your brother here, but your evidence that the Taliban is evil is that your brother, a foreign soldier and member of an occupying army, has been attacked?

      Wow.

    13. Re:The Taliban denied.. by Tom · · Score: 5, Insightful

      what reason do they have to deny it if they did it?

      My thoughts exactly. The fact that they could have done it and nobody would be very surprised is what gives this denial plausability.

      The Taliban is a malevolent organization, but they are not comic book villains plotting nefarious acts for evil's sake.

      Like all real-life villains, they consider themselves the good guys.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    14. Re:The Taliban denied.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To play devil's advocate, what reason do they have to deny it if they did it?

      They have reason to deny it because it makes them look like backwards savages to the rest of the world. So they deny it and hope that useful idiots around the world choose to believe them and start to criticize those trying to prevent the backwards savages from getting back in power.

      The Taliban is a malevolent organization, but they are not comic book villains plotting nefarious acts for evil's sake.

      Of course not, their nefarious acts are committed to intimidate others and gain influence and power over them.

      "Lone Star, now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb." -- Dark Helmet

      He's could be talking about the folks at WHO and other useful idiots who believe that the real good guys are the bad guys because the real bad guys said that the good guys were the bad guys.

    15. Re:The Taliban denied.. by Hentes · · Score: 2

      The point of terrorism is to cause terror. Denying its existence would not be in the Taliban's interests if they were behind the attacks. Still, it's possible that they have just backed out.

    16. Re:The Taliban denied.. by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      Actually, on the same grounds - I do believe it. What reason would the WHO have to cover something up? They have no history of political cover-ups. I take it they investigated and actually found nothing. As you say, there is enough real abuse one should care about.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    17. Re:The Taliban denied.. by Nexusone1984 · · Score: 1

      Evil is relative, especially if you believe your committing it in the name of God then it is ok.

      You try to make the case that they are just defending their Country and in part they may feel that is what they are doing.

      But ask the people who when the Taliban was in power had their hands and feet cut off, or mutilated.
      The number of thousand year old cultural artefacts that they destroyed. From that perspective kind of a Evil group.

    18. Re:The Taliban denied.. by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      If we did nothing but trust names and reputations, we'd never uncover corruption or negligence. Such low standards enable the erosion of responsibility.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    19. Re:The Taliban denied.. by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The "everyone is lying"-approach is not exactly productive, either, is it? I am somewhat fed up by the success of the conservatard "teh scientist are frauds and are only doing it for teh funds!!! lol !!!" meme. Skepticism is good, but it has to be based in facts, not in some herp-derp-it's all lies conspiratorial bullshit. You got any indication that the WHO is covering something up here? If so, I'll play along.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    20. Re:The Taliban denied.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are we talking about stupid americans here ?

    21. Re:The Taliban denied.. by TapeCutter · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The Taliban is a malevolent organization, but they are not comic book villains plotting nefarious acts for evil's sake.

      Spot on. The Taliban are basically the political right-wing of the Pushtun tribe (ie: a clan within the tribe). The Pushtun's have ruled the area around the ancient city of Kandahar for centuries, the area is also a natural choke point for intenational trade and is a strategically a very important control point, as such the locals have fought with and against just about every empire that has existed over the past 10,000yrs, there is a desert city in the area that is 7000yo (forget the name), it has been leveled by invading armies 800 times, the current city is built on a 30-40 foot high mound of rubble left over from the previous 799 versions.

      Hamid Karzai (the president of Afghanistan and Nato's BFF) is himself a Pushtun but belongs to a different clan. They are all hard people living in a hard place, a large chunk of the population are literally still living in a medieval culture, the more radical clans such as the Taliban remind me very much of the Scottish highlanders who until fairly recently attacked anyone who came to close to their mountains (and did so with sound reasoning based on past experience).

      AFAICT US policy seems to be to assasinate the Pushtun warlords it does not like. Having seen the video of Saddam Hussien doing something conceptually similar (start @ 1:25, nsfw), I'm not sure I'm ok with that.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    22. Re:The Taliban denied.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What reason would the WHO have to cover something up?

      Well, they're on first?

    23. Re:The Taliban denied.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think anyone in this thread is arguing the Taliban isn't evil. The argument is that, even if they are evil, their existence is being exploited to further others' dubious or evil intentions.

      The US killed their natives, stole land from and murdered Mexicans, illegally overthrew the Hawaiians, .. on and on. The US certainly is not 'as evil' as others have been or are, but is also far from being a good guy. This is good to keep in perspective when talking about good vs evil.

    24. Re:The Taliban denied.. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      20 some years ago I recall engaging in 'chemical warfare' in the cube farm.

      Garlic, Hard boiled eggs and Old Mil are like a 50 megaton nuke. After that day we decided to stop. The paint was peeling and they were complaining in the accounting department (at the far end of the floor).

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    25. Re:The Taliban denied.. by HornWumpus · · Score: 0

      They do have a history of political distortions. Recall the world health study that ranks the USA very low. The methods were so undefensible they never repeated it. Basically the only stat that mattered was equality of outcome.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    26. Re:The Taliban denied.. by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 0

      Oh, butthurt much. I get it. Whatever goes for objectivity in your orthogonal universe. No it is not parallel.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    27. Re:The Taliban denied.. by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 2

      To play devil's advocate, what reason do they have to deny it if they did it?

      They have reason to deny it because it makes them look like backwards savages to the rest of the world

      The Taliban has never cared to be seen as backward savages by, in their own view, immoral infidels. These are the people who blew the Bamiyan's Bhuddas to pieces, who whipped women to shreds, who planned to give yellow armbands to the local Hindus for ease of identification, and were quite ok with committing acts of genocide against the Hazaras. They are too fucking illiterate to even realize the type of bestial savagery they represent.

      Any concessions they give now is because they have been under the gun for quite sometime. Otherwise, rest assure they'd back to their shit-on-the-ground, bestial shenanigans.

    28. Re:The Taliban denied.. by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      That would have to read "filled with men and women" to sound like the US Congress.

    29. Re:The Taliban denied.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Taliban is much smarter than you give them credit for. Much of hteir plan for control of the world is based on implementing Sharia law. In spite of everything Bushbama is doing in Afghanistan, the largest threat to them is education of women. If half of your society objects to being slaves, your society will implode. They don't need to take credit for poisoning; they need to keep girls out of school. Two very different targets here, and mass attacks on kids are bad publicity. While I have no evidence either way, a thoughtful look at the Taliban's motives makes it completely plausible that they would poison wells at girls schools and deny it.

    30. Re:The Taliban denied.. by spire3661 · · Score: 0

      You cannot STEAL land, it is taken and held by force alone. This is called military conquest, and is a completely legitimate form of ownership.

      --
      Good-bye
    31. Re:The Taliban denied.. by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      I wonder how you would feel if your local police started shooting at you because the person standing next to you at the bus stop is wanted for murder. I mean it would be your own fault for being so close to a known criminal right?

      --
      Good-bye
    32. Re:The Taliban denied.. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      here we are helping a nation that is going to allow the Taliban back with open arms the moment we leave, and possibly even sooner.

      This is the crux of the problem: we're spending an insane amount of money on this place, and short of exterminating all the males there, there's absolutely nothing we can do to prevent it from becoming exactly like it was before we invaded. The afghanistan campaign should have taken no longer than 6 months at the very most: bomb all of AQ's training camps and caves and wipe them out so they're no longer a global threat, and then leave the people there to their own devices. "Nation building" simply doesn't work in a place where there's no real civilization and tribalism reigns supreme.

    33. Re:The Taliban denied.. by ooshna · · Score: 1

      Hey buddy I have a group of the last dozen or so of the last Native Americans left with me and they wanted me to tell you you can go fuck yourself.

    34. Re:The Taliban denied.. by brit74 · · Score: 1
      I generally agree that if the Taliban denied responsibility for poisonings, then I'm inclined to believe them. This is not based on "trust of washington" or "trusting what the Taliban say" - both of which asks us to believe organizations without reference to what we're being asked to believe. In this specific case, I don't know why the Taliban would deny responsibility. Reducing this to a question of "do you believe those neocons in Washington" is asking the *wrong* question.

      Since the Taliban are the most politically convenient thing to the US Neocons to appear on the global marketplace of \textit{casus belli}, it's more accurate to say, "Something was said about the Taliban.. and people believed them?"

      This is an organization who shut down girls schools in the past, so it fits the pattern. Keep in mind that this is the same organization who are blocking polio vaccinations, so it's not at all surprising that they would pull something like poisoning water at girls schools. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/26/taliban-bans-polio-vaccinations

    35. Re:The Taliban denied.. by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      Militarily Conquered, just like everyone else. Doesnt matter if its a pen or sword. There is nothing special about the Native Americans in this regard. They held the land as long as they were able to, until a superior force came and took it. Thats all.

      --
      Good-bye
    36. Re:The Taliban denied.. by scot4875 · · Score: 1

      Ohh, so Mother Nature needs a favor? Well maybe she should have thought of that when she was besetting us with droughts

      You can't get a whole lot less rational than declaring a vendetta against a non-sentient entity.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    37. Re:The Taliban denied.. by murdocj · · Score: 1

      ... It's merely that it would be intellectually dishonest for the average guy sitting at home to claim that he has evidence of what's a lie and what's the truth - anyone who claims so is usually just allowing his prejudices to select the evidence which backs up his views.

      Including yourself, of course.

    38. Re:The Taliban denied.. by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      Is that why Bin Laden hid in Abbottabad?

    39. Re:The Taliban denied.. by captjc · · Score: 1

      But does it make sense? Yes, they oppose the education of women. Which would be smarter for them to do, poison the schools and not only keep quiet but flat out deny it or to poison the schools and say "We oppose the education of women and not only did we poison this school, but we will continue at random until every last school closes?"

      My point was that terrorists are not lone nuts wreaking havoc, but are whackjobs wreaking havoc to further their agenda. If they did it and are keeping quiet then you are giving them too much credit because that is really stupid.

      --
      Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 1 hour, 47 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
    40. Re:The Taliban denied.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As the person you are responding too: No, I my evidence is not that he was attacked while defending the men, women, and children of Afghanistan from the monsters that threaten them. My evidence is everything that he saw and heard directly from the people while doing it.

      The naivety of your comment, and the fact that numerous people felt it was insightful, is astounding.

    41. Re:The Taliban denied.. by lennier · · Score: 2

      You cannot STEAL land, it is taken and held by force alone. This is called military conquest, and is a completely legitimate form of ownership.

      Your thesis on homeowner's rights intrigues me and I would like to join your suburban real-estate agency.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    42. Re:The Taliban denied.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A terrorist is a man with a bomb, but no air force.

    43. Re:The Taliban denied.. by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      No offence meant to your brother here, but your evidence that the Taliban is evil is that your brother, a foreign soldier and member of an occupying army, has been attacked?

      Wow.

      Afghanistan has a legally formed government based on UN monitored elections. The Taliban is trying to overthrow that and reestablish their dictatorship. Along the way they are chopping off heads and hands, blowing up markets with bombs, hanging 7 year olds as spies, banning kite flying, destroying schools, driving out or killing foreign aid workers, and working hand in glove with the drug cartels. The main reason the brother was there to begin with was the Taliban government hosted Al Qaeda, who greatly admired the Talibans work in building a 7th century society, and allowed them to use Afghanistan as a base to conduct their campaigns of terror, shooting, bombing, and killing tens of thousands with the goal of bringing this sort of governance to the entire world in stages. None of this seems to set your "moral sensitivities" a tingling. All I can say is, wow. You don't really seem to have much claim to be a commentator on evil and other people's views. No offense.

      When the Allies occupied Germany in 1945, who was evil then? Apparently it would be consistent with your thinking that it was the Allies.
      Now that the US and its allies have withdrawn from Iraq, is this now a bad thing? Or was it still bad before?
      Since the US and its NATO allies are still in Afghanistan, does that mean this is OK with you? How can it be bad if there are "occupiers" in the country?

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    44. Re:The Taliban denied.. by Nursie · · Score: 1

      Oh for god's sake.

      I wasn't saying the Taliban aren't evil or that the US is, I was saying his standard for evidence of that was ludicrous.

      Try reading comprehension sometime.

    45. Re:The Taliban denied.. by Nursie · · Score: 1

      That's not what you said though, is it? You said -

      "My evidence is my brother with shrapnel in his face from an RPG that barely missed him, plus multiple concussions alongside his three tours overseas."

      I'm not arguing that they're not The Bad Guys(TM), I'm just saying that your statement of evidence there was pretty worthless.

    46. Re:The Taliban denied.. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Assuming you are actual Native american, you might want to look at your own history.

      Native Americans where killing each other and taking each others land and towns. You're people helps a great deal against other tribes.
      So don't get holier then thou, fuck twad.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    47. Re:The Taliban denied.. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Get serious about internal power.

      Get a really like war effort moving on building 4th gen reactor and solar combined country system.
      One people stop using their oil, it will take about a decade for them to be throwing rocks at each other, or work together.

      " then leave the people there to their own devices."
      AH, so blow up all their shit then just leave.
      I see. You're pretty rude, aren't you?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    48. Re:The Taliban denied.. by ooshna · · Score: 1

      True but they didn't pursue systematic genocide across an entire continent. And no I'm white. You can also stop with the they did it too so that makes it ok mentality. You probably love the whole M.A.D idea don't you?

    49. Re:The Taliban denied.. by martyros · · Score: 1

      The point of terrorism is to cause terror. Denying its existence would not be in the Taliban's interests if they were behind the attacks. Still, it's possible that they have just backed out.

      Terrorism has a target. As long as the people who were meant to be terrorized believe the source and motivation behind the attack, it doesn't matter what everyone else believes. An abusive husband can tell everyone else that his wife tripped and fell without reducing the effectiveness of his violence, because she knows what really happened. If the goal of the Taliban (or some subgroup thereof) was to scare girls away from going to school, and they know that Afghan girls will believe that was the purpose, they could deny it to the international community without reducing the effectiveness of the attack.

      (Not saying that's what happened, just pointing out the possibility.)

      --

      TCP: Why the Internet is full of SYN.

    50. Re:The Taliban denied.. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      " then leave the people there to their own devices."
      AH, so blow up all their shit then just leave.
      I see. You're pretty rude, aren't you?

      To be fair, AQ was not exactly enmeshed in the general population there; they were separate, in training camps and mountain bases. We didn't need to go into the cities to bomb AQ to smithereens.

      And how else would you do it? Take over the country and set up a puppet government that's thoroughly corrupt, taking decades and bankrupting yourself in the process? How's that working out for us right now?

    51. Re:The Taliban denied.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look up Yellow Rain in Vietnam in the early 80's. There was mass hysteria that the government was poisoning the populace, the "yellow rain" turned out to be "bee poop". Hundreds of samples were taken by international organisations (including the US Army), all turned out to be regular bee poop, EXCEPT for samples handled by the US Department of State, which contained a cocktail of 7 toxins.

    52. Re:The Taliban denied.. by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      For starters, how about that the government claims to have evidence and that people have confessed to doing it? I don't particularly trust the Afghan government either, but people are in custody for this right now.

      Furthermore, as I already alluded to, the society in Afghanistan is already so rife with the abuse of women and girls that it has one of the highest rates of female suicide and attempted suicide in the world. And it's not the quiet, comfortable type that girls usually go for like ODing on sleeping pills, they're routinely lighting themselves on fire, for fuck's sake. They want to be damn sure they're really dead, and they don't care anymore how much it hurts because that care has been savagely beaten out of them systematically by the men who control every aspect of their lives.

      Like I said, if you go to Afghanistan looking for abuse and you don't find it, something is wrong with your eyes at a minimum.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    53. Re:The Taliban denied.. by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      The Taliban has traditionally used physical harm as a conduit for communication. The Taliban has made an agreement with the government to permit the education of girls so long as they have substantial control over the curriculum. If the Taliban wanted to put a stop to these schools for girls what would be the logical reason for denying their involvement in poisoning the girls or for working with the government in operating these school?

      If the girls truly were poisoned then it would be best to look at motive. Who would have a motive? Since the Taliban were to my understanding being universally assigned blame then it would stand to reason that either another group failed spectacularly to be earn the credit and communicate their message, or it was another group that would benefit from the Taliban being blamed for poisoning girls attending school. Since the first one is most unlikely then it falls to trying to make the Taliban look evil to the victims' families and other concerns. We also know that the Taliban have become partner with the Afghan government to a certain small extent through negotiated agreements such as this one dealing with the schooling of girls. It cannot be ruled out that there may be motivation to put a stop to this cooperation.

      So if these girls were really poisoned--which I don't think can be ruled out, given the number of schools over geographically separated areas and given that "mass-{x}" psychology assignments are typically specious excuses for things unexplainable, or things unwilling to be explained--who has motive? Since the Taliban have no motive to deny doing it. Who is left? What group(s) would see value in inciting anger against the Taliban, and/or harming the cooperation between the Taliban and the Afghan government?

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
  3. Re:Lack of proof is not proof of lack by EdIII · · Score: 1

    Lack of proof is not proof of lack

    Did you get that from some TV shows? Like the one where they are always hunting the "Squatch"?

  4. A small foreshadowing of the US's future. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Christian Taliban is every bit as violent, corrupt, evil, and influential in our government as that other Taliban is in Afganistan. You hear Christian politicians, daily, who want to impose Sharia Law on all citizens of the US (10 Commandments). The US is in a new dark ages, and falling ever deeper by the day.

    1. Re:A small foreshadowing of the US's future. by Quila · · Score: 1, Troll

      So that explains the Christians here on the streets beating women who don't have their heads covered. That explains why all the women here have been forced out of employment and education. That explains why Christians who go to another religion or become atheist are commonly executed here.

      Oh wait, none of that's even close to happening.

      We have a tiny, tiny minority of Christians in this country who wish they could do a Christian-style Sharia, but the most encroachment on our lives is the annoying Westboro Baptist clan. But even then, the Bible says to give to Ceasar what is Caesar's, meaning Christians can separate religion and government in accordance with the Bible. Sharia demands there be no such separation.

    2. Re:A small foreshadowing of the US's future. by vux984 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But even then, the Bible says to give to Ceasar what is Caesar's

      I always thought that meant that you had a duty to pay your taxes, serve the army, serve your country...

      But that you also had to be mindful of a duty to tithe, serve god, and serve the church..

      I'd never read that as "separation of church and state", just an admonishment that you had a duty to both, and should neglect neither.

    3. Re:A small foreshadowing of the US's future. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A very strong case can be made that the phrase refers to paying tax as the payment of tax is the specific issue involved in the story. The rest is interpretation.

    4. Re:A small foreshadowing of the US's future. by Empiric · · Score: 2

      Factually erroneous on every point, but out of curiosity, what do you mean by "evil" per -your- definition and objective justification, rather than parasiting off of Christianity's as you attack it?

      Are you saying that any of this behavior reduces the likelihood of the DNA of the theism advocates propagating maximally, as a Naturalism criticism that would validly remain open to you? Because at this point, you haven't suggested anything that gives any weight, validity, or significance to your characterizations.

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    5. Re:A small foreshadowing of the US's future. by sirambrose · · Score: 2

      The passage suggests that a seperation of church and state is permissible, but not required. Jesus said that paying taxes was required even if the government did not enforce religious law. If Jesus felt that Government was required to enforce religious law, he would have stated that ceaser's government was illegitimate and that paying taxes to him was forbidden.

      I don't believe that there is any passage in the new testament that encourages theocratic government. Groups like the Westbroro Baptist church claim that god wants government to enforce old testament law even though the new testament focuses on spreading religion to people instead of using government to force people to follow divine law.

    6. Re:A small foreshadowing of the US's future. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The way you say that is like jesus was a real person and that what is in the bible was actually said. There is no legitimacy in the bible, so stop phrasing things like there is.

    7. Re:A small foreshadowing of the US's future. by Quila · · Score: 1

      But that you also had to be mindful of a duty to tithe, serve god, and serve the church..

      Yes, your personal duty, not the duty of the state. In the perfect Muslim state there is no differentiation between religion and state, they are one.

    8. Re:A small foreshadowing of the US's future. by BetterSense · · Score: 1

      It's not worth trying to extract a great lesson on politics from this passage, although that hasn't stopped people from trying to do so. The Church has a consistently poor understanding of this passage, partly because they don't read history outside of the bible, which you have to do in order to understand some of it.

      The Roman denarius was the USD of its day, being the most important world currency and what you needed to pay your taxes. It was stamped with an image of Cesar. Now, remembering your history, the emperors of Rome were considered to have divinely sanctioned authority, and we ain't talking Yaweh here. The Jews did not like this at all, and considered the image of Cesar stamped on the denarius to be idolatry. Jews had been known to actually re-mint denarii with different images. They might have avoided the coins altogether, and vanished from history by starvation, but we can assume they compromised--principles are great, but sometimes there's no other option but to use the currency of the day (sort of like h.264).

      When the Pharisees try to entrap Jesus by asking him if it's ok to pay taxes, he jabs back at them by drawing attention to the fact that although they talk big, the coins in their pockets are Roman denarii, thus highlighting the the fact that they are just a bunch of whores whose rules and laws are as irrelevant as Ceasar's on a spiritual level. If there is an overarching political message of the gospels, it's that things of the world do no matter, including political matters.

      Matthew 21, ESV

      45 When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they perceived that he was speaking about them. 46 And although they were seeking to arrest him, they feared the crowds, because they held him to be a prophet.

      15 Then the Pharisees went and plotted how to entangle him in his words. 16 And they sent their disciples to him, along with the Herodians, saying, “Teacher, we know that you are true and teach the way of God truthfully, and you do not care about anyone's opinion, for you are not swayed by appearances.[b] 17 Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?” 18 But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, “Why put me to the test, you hypocrites? 19 Show me the coin for the tax.” And they brought him a denarius.[c] 20 And Jesus said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” 21 They said, “Caesar's.” Then he said to them, “Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.” 22 When they heard it, they marveled. And they left him and went away.

      The "Render unto Cesar" passage is nothing more than Jesus deflecting the Pharisees' attempts to frame him, in a somewhat clever way. It's pointless to try to derive a lesson or a teaching on separation of church and state from it. Actually, it's hard to extract any political message at all from the teachings of Jesus, which teachings are practically devoid of political content even to the point of ignoring looming contemporary political issues. It's not just modern followers who are frustrated by this. His disciples never quite got it either. They discussed what position they would have in the kingdom when Jesus made himself king. Seriously. After his resurrection, they assume he's going to take over the world, and he immediately brushes them off and starts talking about the Holy Spirit.

      6 Then they gathered around him and asked him, 'Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?'

      7 He said to them: 'It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. 8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.'

    9. Re:A small foreshadowing of the US's future. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh shut the fuck up you stupid twat. I'm an atheist and even I think you're an over-dramatic fuckstick.

  5. It's not "Mass Hysteria"; it's "Mass Terror" . . . by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    . . . and the Taliban are quite successful at spreading it. If you had a bunch of "Islam Gone Wild" retro medieval fanatics romping around your neighborhood killing innocent folks for fun and excitement . . . you might tend to be a bit on the edgy side yourself. A car engine backfire will incite you to grab your assault rifle and empty the clip in all directions, to defend yourself. In essence, anyone in Afghanistan will believe that the Taliban are capable of committing horrific atrocities. That makes people fear the Taliban, and it gives the Taliban strength.

    Now, take a look in your own airports, and see if the population of your country is so scared, that they tolerate crotch groping and all other types of submissive humility . . . all because the fear of terror has devoured their souls.

    Yep, terror can inflict colossal mass hysteria damage.

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  6. Meanwhile in Miami..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Believe the Taliban or the locals. Sounds like a case of picking your poison.
    *puts on sunglasses*

    YYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!
    *the WHO starts playing*

    1. Re:Meanwhile in Miami..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope you die a painful death.

  7. Conversion diseases are so frustrating... by MPAB · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm a neurologist and I deal everyday with people that are obviously suffering a conversive disease. This does not mean that they are feigning or malingering, It's just that somehow their brains malfunction and generate bizarre symptoms. In most cases the disease has no anatomical and physiological integrity (i.e. it crosses boundaries that it should not, or a certain part that should also be affected works fine).
    It's frustrating because the patient and everyone around her (mostly happens to females) is pretty convinced of an impending illnes and they request test after test, sometimes even threatening to sue. Of course nothing is found ... or worse: a harmless congenital defect can be found, which will produce more anxiety.

    1. Re:Conversion diseases are so frustrating... by Psychotria · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Are the "electric shocks" that occur after (or even without) cessation of SSRIs a "conversive disease"? I ask only because no neurologist, or psychiatrist, or general prac that I've personally spoken to even admit it's they are a true phenomenon. They say it cannot be true because CAT,. MRI, and other etc neuroimaging methods show nothing. So I guess those millions of people who do suffer from them are making it up, or have somehow been "infected" through a "conversive disease" (??)

    2. Re:Conversion diseases are so frustrating... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good question .. I've had symptoms similar to the electric shocks (feels more like physical shocks) for years and have never taken an SSRI.

    3. Re:Conversion diseases are so frustrating... by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I ask only because no neurologist, or psychiatrist, or general prac that I've personally spoken to even admit it's they are a true phenomenon.

      Define "true". Are you experiencing side-effects which to you feels like electric shocks? Yes. Are you actually being shocked? No. It's "all in your head", but you're not imagining it. It's real, but it's really not what it feels like. In the same way that heart-attack sufferers often report numbness or pain in their left arm, not their chest. It's real, but it has nothing to do with their arm. (Or in the case of the Afghan girls, their symptoms are "real", in that they are classic symptoms of anxiety and panic (Nausea, dizziness, breathing problems, even fainting.) But they aren't "true" in being caused by poison.)

      As for health professionals "admitting it's real". It was my GP who suggested the term, "electric shocks", when I tried to describe that part of the withdrawal symptoms. (To me it's not a "shock", it feels more related to the inner ear. Or at least, to head movement.) He told me it's a common symptom, gave me a pretty good idea how long it would last, used it to gauge the level of withdrawal.

      I wonder if the difference is the intellectual respect your GP/etc has for you? Your GP/etc sees their job as reassuring a panicky/hysterical patient that he/she is not actually being electrically shocked (it stuns me that they actually sent you to get CAT scans, MRIs, etc), while my GP sees his job as working with me to ensure I'm getting the benefits I want, without unusual/dangerous symptoms. (For example, my GP picked up on my description as being related to head-movement, and asked about balance/dizziness. If the symptoms were severe enough to actually affect my balance, then I'd probably have to slow the speed of withdrawal, give my brain longer to adjust.)

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    4. Re:Conversion diseases are so frustrating... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Serious question from the audience: How frequently do you encounter patients with some form of conversion disorder, and where you later discover your initial diagnosis was in fact wrong?

      I have just been through 18 (eighteen) years of severe migraine headaches, because I was incorrectly labelled as having conversion disorder, probably due to stress encountered in and after a car accident. (Note that migraine runs in my family.)

      Turns out my initial, self diagnosis for the cause of the migraines, some form of sleep related breathing disorder, was a) correct and b) the self diagnosis was part of the reason I got the label of CD.

      Basically I have some form of neurological damage in the brain stem, which disturbs my body's ability to regulate breathing during all phases of sleep. Note that this is distinct from the usual (and common) types of central- and obstructive sleep apnea, and that I cannot be diagnosed via the simple sleep monitoring methods. It took 5 overnight stays at a specialist hospital department to find the cause, yet was trivially easy to treat once diagnosed. Said hospital department was shocked to learn it took me 18 years to get an appointment to see them... (I didn't like trying to sue people in order to force my way though the healthcare system in my country. Silly me.)

      So here I sit half a life later with a disability pension, hopeless personal finances, a ruined career and ditto personal life behind me. The amount of verbal abuse I have had to suffer over the years from various doctors, especially the neurologists, is embarrassing for the profession IMO.

      What should I have done differently?

      Posted AC for obvious reasons.

    5. Re:Conversion diseases are so frustrating... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Posted AC for obvious reasons.

      Not as obvious as you think.

    6. Re:Conversion diseases are so frustrating... by MPAB · · Score: 2

      It's a side effect I've heard from many people. I don't know why it happens, but I believe them. I don't even know if the sensation is produced in the peripheral nerves or in the brain. Like when you hit your elbow and feel an electric shock in your outermost fingers: the hit stimulates the ulnar nerve and that signal is interpreted in your brain as a weird feeling in the area the aforementioned nerve controls. No imaging method nor an EMG/ENG/EEG will show anything because it's a tiny chemical malfunction that happens somewhere, like a miscalibration. Most withdrawal symptoms (even from alcohol) come from such miscalibrations because the brain adapts to the new chemical balance induced by the drug.

    7. Re:Conversion diseases are so frustrating... by MPAB · · Score: 2

      I myself have migraines. Lots of people do and everyone's migraine is different and has different triggers. As an anecdote: I had daily migraines for a few months while at med school. I even blamed the anatomy teacher, because they would begin during said class. Then someone fixed the vending machine, which had been giving away Fanta at 1/10th the price and I quit drinking it before class. The migraines remitted to their usual frequency of once or twice a month and I could unleash one by drinking a Fanta (not a Coke or Sprite). I've known of no other person with such a trigger.
      As for your question, most of the time CD diagnosis is straighforward but tests are made to ensure it is not a rare manifestation of a life-threatening illness. Sometimes, it's not as simple as it seems. I've seen deep focal epilepsies which go undetected by EEG after EEG but cause bizarre symptoms. Or paraneoplasic syndromes that show up as dementia in which the tumor isn't detected until after a year or so.
      In your case, migraines are in fact very sensitive to sleep disorders, still I'm very surprised a doctor would keep you in for 5 whole nights just because your sleep disorder was not diagnosed in the first full-night polysomnography. We usually draw the line there.

    8. Re:Conversion diseases are so frustrating... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 0

      What should I have done differently?

      Made an appointment for a full sleep study and paid cash. The cost is less than a used car, and the payback period would have been short. Put it on a credit card if there's no cash, payback period would be short (if you're right, but you were).

      I seem to know lots of people who refuse to put any of their own money into healthcare because they have insurance form their employer or from the State and feel that if they can't get them to pay for it, somehow it's impossible. Healthcare practicitioners aren't infallable, so sometimes you have to take matters into your own hands. Take control of your own life, people.

      I spent three days in a biomedical library working out a condition my daughter had, when the system's diagnosis (known ideopathic condition) was resistant to logical deconstruction and offered no treatment options (aside from 'throw steroids at it' which nearly poisoned her). Turned out to have been a nutritional deficiency, but that was only arrived at by asking repeatedly, "ok, what can cause that symptom", "how does this mechanism work", "how is that pathway signaled", etc. But it crossed neurology, endocrinology, and nutrition, and we never saw any docs with such cross-specialties. It helped that I did pre-med coursework but it's all eventually accessible to somebody with a firm grounding in the basic sciences.

      We need more hackers in medicine (which is why it's awesome to see a neurologist here).

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    9. Re:Conversion diseases are so frustrating... by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      It's called SSRI discontinuation syndrome. I took Paxil when I was younger. I suffered a bad case of depression (still do, but I can now manage it without pills). I can confirm the "the shocks" do happen when you drop cold turkey from them. It also has a nack for making you rage in the process. Effectively, the brain is suffering and possibly in pain. I suppose by definition, that's what a withdrawal is.

      BTW, never take or recommend Paxil. It's bad shit!

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    10. Re:Conversion diseases are so frustrating... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 5 nights were not used at once, they came about as one pair and 3 individual nights over a period of almost a year.

      The trouble in my case is that by the time I had my first polysomnography, it was already 5 or so years after the accident, and it didn't show anything seriously untoward. Nor did a follow-up study some years later. So while I have talked with neurologists about the sleep apnea as a cause for the migraines, they all pointed to the fact that I had one or two negative sleep studies done. This caused me to be subject to a battery of tests and 'lifestyle changes', all of which came up negative.

      In this country diagnosis and treatment of sleep related breathing disorders is separated out, depending on the severity of each case. Normal sleep apnea is diagnosed and treated at the local ear/nose/throat hospital department. On top of this we have some specialist departments, which takes care of the 'impossible' cases, like vent users (quads, MD/SMA, ALS etc.). These specialists also looks at sleep related breathing disorders too hard to handle for the locals. Unfortunately, as my initial studies showed only very mild sleep apnea symptoms, it was a *very* hard sale to get an appointment at the specialists. Doubly so due to all the negative test results.

      The *speculation* at this time of what is happening is as follows: Basically I may have ruined my ability to breathe spontaneously during the deepest stage of sleep, which in its own right is a preposterous claim given my overall condition. Fortunately I do wake myself up just enough to start breathing again, once SpO2 drops sufficiently, yet this means I get very little and fragmented deep sleep. Over time I have apparently developed a 'chaotic' sleep pattern as a kind of self defence, which also meant my (sligt) dips in SpO2 initially didn't coincide well with any particular EEG event etc.

      The initial two(!) nights, which the specialists had set aside for me after my initial assessment, showed my chaotic sleep pattern, yet again only mild apnea. Most notable was the fact that the two nights were anything but identical. For instance I had a bit of trouble with OSA one night, and not the other.

      So initially I was given a simple CPAP machine, in particular a modern unit with full data logging. Over time the hardware has been 'upgraded' due to the data from the machine logs, and each night requires a night in the sleep lab to asses compatbility between myself and the new machine.

      Today I am on one of those fancy Respironics home vents with full data logging (still non-invasive), though it took me quite some time to get used to the vents. Initially they themselves woke me up. However things are slowly improving as I got used to the machinery and (speculation) my sleep pattern normalized. According to the logs my longest 'breathless' period at this time is just shy of 90 minutes, though most such phases are a fair bit shorter than that. Today the overall result on my well being has been nothing short of miraculous, though I am not yet symptom free.

      Later this year the specialists may spend another night or two on me to give me a full sleep study again, this time with full vent support. This to see if the speculated mechanism of my condition can be confirmed.

      Thank you for your time, how this was a bit entertaining if nothing else.

    11. Re:Conversion diseases are so frustrating... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please see my new response to the OP above.

      I *did* spend money on private sleep specialists, and I did have sleep studies early on. Seeking alternative options has cost me a fortune over the years, relatively speaking. I believe I mentioned pension and ruined personal finances?

      The trouble is that I am apparently a one-in-a-million basket case. The private practitioners are in it for the money, and run away screaming, figuratively speaking, once they realized I wasn't an ordinary sleep apnea patient.

      I was in contact with various specialists, including the top private practitioner on sleep studies in the country. Additionally I was repeatedly assured that given the people I had seen, there wouldn't be anything gained by, say, seeking medical attention in a different country. Knowing what I know now I strongly suspect this to be correct.

    12. Re:Conversion diseases are so frustrating... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      I *did* spend money on private sleep specialists, and I did have sleep studies early on.

      Ah, well then good for you. When you mentioned suing insurance companies, it didn't sound that way.

      So, what was it that those sleep studies missed that [something] later picked up on?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    13. Re:Conversion diseases are so frustrating... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      So, what was it that those sleep studies missed that [something] later picked up on?

      Oh, nm, I found the cousin comment. Very interesting - I hope you got a journal article published for the sake of others in your condition.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  8. Suspicious... by matunos · · Score: 3, Funny

    This sounds like the work of Scarecrow. A Dark Knight Rises ad campaign?

  9. Plausible by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As best I can tell there have been no reported deaths. That doesn't completely rule out poisoning, but along with there being no actual threats or anyone claiming responsibility, it does lend credence to the idea of it just being hysteria.

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    1. Re:Plausible by Squeeself · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Considering a number of other examples are quite similar to these particular events, I find mass hysteria to be not only plausible, but a likely explanation, in my not-so-expert opinion. All it takes is a number of closely-interacting people (especially young girls) under stress (the region certainly provides plenty of fearful catalysts) and a trigger (simple normal sickness will do) and you've got an "outbreak."

  10. Not unusual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As far as mass hysteria is concerned this isn't particularly unusual. Here's a bigger one that has even received official sanction by a mainstream religion.

    1. Re:Not unusual by Empiric · · Score: 1

      Yawn. It is "the same" as would be any religious claim about anything whatsoever, right?

      If you're going to link it, you should at least address your own link's statements, otherwise it is a citation refuting, not supporting, your claim/snark.

      De Marchi claims that the prediction of an unspecified "miracle", the abrupt beginning and end of the alleged miracle of the sun, the varied religious backgrounds of the observers, the sheer numbers of people present, and the lack of any known scientific causative factor make a mass hallucination unlikely.[25] That the activity of the sun was reported as visible by those up to 18 kilometres (11 mi) away, also precludes the theory of a collective hallucination or mass hysteria.

      In any case, these are not analogous. The presence or absence of a poison can be tested by quite-direct means, and in its absence, hysteria becomes a likely explanation.

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
  11. Re:It's not "Mass Hysteria"; it's "Mass Terror" . by Mashiki · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    19,171 terrorist attacks since 9/11 really does make it mass terror. It's a religion of peace, and if you repeat it often enough, maybe they won't cut your throat on the way out and through while they're trying to do something nasty to everyone else. That though, doesn't mean I live in fear of it. More so, I point out exactly what it is. For those not keeping track, that would be the greatest death cult since the fall of the USSR. And their "unofficial pogom service."

    By the by, hear the lastest news from the UK? A dozen or so muslims arrested in the last 3 odd days for planning terrorist attacks against the Olympics? Religion of Peace, strikes again. Well you guys had that guy down in Fort Hood, despite what the media tells you, he was a full blown Jihadi. Then there was the case in Dearborn last weekend of "sudden Jihad syndrome" where a muslim tried to rundown 9 Christians protesting a muslim fair thing. He's been charged with attempted murder. It's not a case of "the population is scared" that they'll tolerate it. That's the government and security theater, rather if terrorists tried it on a plane again. There wouldn't be anything left of them by the time the plane landed, except orange goo. I'll lay $100 on it.

    But people in Afghanistan have a good reason to be scared. The Taliban are well known for being brutal, executing people in soccer stadiums, beating women for being without minders, cutting off the hands of women for talking to a man. Executing children for talking to the opposite sex, executing men for not having a beard of the proper length. On, and on, and on.

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...
  12. I don't know. by dohzer · · Score: 2

    I give up! Who?

    1. Re:I don't know. by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 1

      Sam and Janet Evening!

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
  13. I don't know. by houghi · · Score: 0

    Who Says Afghan School "Poison Attacks" Probably Mass Hysteria?

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  14. Mass hysteria by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The American reaction to 9/11, that's mass hysteria. Just wait until WHO finds out that Bin Laden didn't do it.

  15. Attacks as Propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    from those with a vested interested in keeping war profits flowing.

  16. I smell a rat here by cpghost · · Score: 1

    Isn't it interesting how the narrative changes with the global policy? Not long ago, the Talibans were the epitome of evil, but now that western countries support the islamists to overthrow Assad, the Talibans are suddenly innocent and the good guys? This change of narrative is rather puzzling, if we take news making with more than just a grain of salt.

    --
    cpghost at Cordula's Web.
    1. Re:I smell a rat here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so because they didn't find any link between the girls and the Taliban, somehow that makes the Taliban the good guys? can you share whatever you are smoking

    2. Re:I smell a rat here by Zironic · · Score: 2

      Just because you have a criminal as your next door neighbour doesn't mean everything bad that happens to you is something your neighbour did. It might be very convenient to blame everything on him, but it's more constructive to look into the actual cause first.

  17. Probably Radio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If there is no biological cause, then it is most likely radio. The NSA is developing a system and is using the tests to build a driver/interface between an A.I. and a human. Conflict zones are mainly used due to the breakdown of social systems that can mask the program.

    Nasty stuff if your on the receiving end.

    1. Re:Probably Radio by mrsquid0 · · Score: 1

      Cool! Where can I find your blog. I would like to add it to my RSS feed.

      --
      Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
  18. Re:It's not "Mass Hysteria"; it's "Mass Terror" . by marcello_dl · · Score: 1

    I dunno about living in Afghanistan, but here the population is not scared and didn't decide to be groped at airports. Population is forced to submit to screening at gates.

    If a rational debate about security from terrorist attacks on flights had ever been made, it would have concluded that a determined attacker with a bit of equipment can take down whatever civilian flight and escape, without needing to pass through gates. Ergo, both Al Qaeda and the TSA's objectives are likely different from what they proclaim to us retarded masses.

    --
    ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
  19. WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought we (USA and UK) just fought a war in Afghanistan and lost many Troops in the process, to make it a democracy where the Taliban had no political control in the country. And now i read the Taliban has consented to allow the education of girls in a deal with the government which allows significant Taliban control over the curriculum.

    Nice!

  20. Its all ok they are on our side by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Afghanistan has been designated as America's latest "major non-Nato ally", Hillary Clinton announces in Kabul, allowing it to buy advanced US weaponry." source Today's BBC World news.

    Also Nice!

  21. Re:It's not "Mass Hysteria"; it's "Mass Terror" . by margeman2k3 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "19,171 terrorist attacks since 9/11"
    [[Citation Needed]]

    Also, Christianity, which seems to have a history of torturing or forcefully converting people (ie: the inquisitions) is frequently referred to as the religion of love. If you're going to mock the fact that Islam is called the religion of peace, at least be unbiased enough to mock Christianity on the same basis.
    Remember, Christianity is the religion that says it's better to contract AIDS and die an excruciating death than to use a condom. The religion of love strikes again.

    I don't defend people claiming that this is Islam telling them to kill "heretics", but you have no right to tell me that Islam is inherently evil.
    Although, I do wonder how many Muslims are convicted of murder each year, compared to the number of Christians who are....

  22. Re:It's not "Mass Hysteria"; it's "Mass Terror" . by VortexCortex · · Score: 2

    you might tend to be a bit on the edgy side yourself. A car engine backfire will incite you to grab your assault rifle and empty the clip in all directions, to defend yourself.

    Hmm, that's doubtful. Wouldn't that just lead to waves of scared people taking up arms against the stray bullets of their neighbours?

    . . . all because the fear of terror has devoured their souls.

    FDR said it best, "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself."
    So, we're afraid of the fear, as we should be?

    I'd say it's impossible for fear to have "devoured their souls", those spirits have been gone a long time. That's why they couldn't tell the difference between People and Corporations.

    It's almost like they didn't really mean it when they repeated the quote with zeal, "Give me Liberty or give me death!" -- I mean, they've hardly any damn liberty left, WTF do they expect?

    "Land of the Brave" my ass!

  23. Re:It's not "Mass Hysteria"; it's "Mass Terror" . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Also, Christianity, which seems to have a history of torturing or forcefully converting people (ie: the inquisitions) is frequently referred to as the religion of love. If you're going to mock the fact that Islam is called the religion of peace, at least be unbiased enough to mock Christianity on the same basis.

    The inquisitions were a period when Christianity was being used as an excuse by greedy bastards to kill people and take their property. The inquitions were antithetical to Christian doctrine. I do believe that Islam requires putting infidels to the sword, though. Don't look at the actions of people who *say* they're followers, look at the doctrines of the religion itself.

    Remember, Christianity is the religion that says it's better to contract AIDS and die an excruciating death than to use a condom.

    And it's best to sleep only with your spouse (and not get a convenience divorce) which would end the spread of AIDS completely if everyone did it. Leaving rules out and claiming "flaw!" is a children's game.

  24. Re:It's not "Mass Hysteria"; it's "Mass Terror" . by Schmorgluck · · Score: 2

    Then there was the case in Dearborn last weekend of "sudden Jihad syndrome" where a muslim tried to rundown 9 Christians protesting a muslim fair thing. He's been charged with attempted murder.

    That incident had nothing to do with jihadism and everything to do with Christian fundies playing party poopers. I'm not saying his course of action was legitimate, but provocating and insulting rarely results in constructive outcomes.

    --
    There's nothing like $HOME
  25. Re:It's not "Mass Hysteria"; it's "Mass Terror" . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I do believe that Islam requires putting infidels to the sword, though. Don't look at the actions of people who *say* they're followers, look at the doctrines of the religion itself.

    Ok, let's see what the Good Book says...

    15:13 That whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.

    Oh, yeah, much better than Islam. Islam has more crazies now, but given the chance any religion will stab you in the back with no second thoughts, you dirty unbeliever.

  26. Re:It's not "Mass Hysteria"; it's "Mass Terror" . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And also, the crusades were a defensive action against several hundred years of aggressive attacks by the muslim armies on [what were understood in the thinking of the time to be] christian lands. Christians who wanted to visit the holy land were being attacked, and the muslim armies kept invading the Christian countries on the borders of the muslim countries. There were raids by muslims on Christian communities living near the borders of muslim lands - where they would capture people and take them off to be slaves. In that context, the various feudal kings within Christendom decided to mount a series of retaliatory counter-attacks. Of course, this has nothing much to do with the Christianity of the Bible, but it wasn't Christianity being especially bloodthirsty - it was generally groups of feudal kings and their knights[who thought of themselves as Christians but had almost no understanding of what Jesus said and commanded] mounting counter-attacks in response to muslim aggression on the lands of which they were a part.

  27. Re:It's not "Mass Hysteria"; it's "Mass Terror" . by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

    Wow, I have found myself groping crotches recently! Now I know that it's because of terrorism, and my subconscious is just checking for explosives. Hopefully the media will publicize this phenomenon so that young ladies are no longer surprised by my behavior.

  28. Acid Attacks by rgbrenner · · Score: 2

    Just because the WHO says the girls haven't been poisoned doesn't mean they are not being attacked. Girls have had acid thrown in their faces repeatedly. And when you're face is scared for life, there's no dispute that it happened:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/14/world/asia/14kandahar.html?pagewanted=all
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/14/world/asia/14iht-kandahar.1.17822365.html
    http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-224_162-4631708.html

    1. Re:Acid Attacks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because the WHO says the girls haven't been poisoned doesn't mean they are not being attacked. Girls have had acid thrown in their faces repeatedly. And when you're face is scared for life, there's no dispute that it happened:

      I agree. In related news, just because the WHO says the girls haven't been poisoned doesn't mean that the moon landings weren't a hoax.

    2. Re:Acid Attacks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cool story bro.

  29. Poor choice of words by dalias · · Score: 0

    Allegedly it's the Taliban who are misogynist, but then /. goes using the incredibly misogynist word "hysteria" to describe the alleged psychological illness...

  30. Re:It's not "Mass Hysteria"; it's "Mass Terror" . by peppepz · · Score: 1

    Until just 3 centuries ago, the British (not some primitive tribe) used to occasionally disembowel people alive only because they happened to profess the wrong variant of Christianity, let alone a different religion.

  31. Re:It's not "Mass Hysteria"; it's "Mass Terror" . by khallow · · Score: 2

    That's why they couldn't tell the difference between People and Corporations.

    A moderately insightful comment turns to shit with this sentence. Nobody, including the court systems of the world, actually makes that mistake. I see this ranting against corporate personhood as another form of theater. Doesn't make us any more free than groping crotches does in airports.

    It's almost like they didn't really mean it when they repeated the quote with zeal, "Give me Liberty or give me death!" -- I mean, they've hardly any damn liberty left, WTF do they expect?

    What do you think is the appropriate response to tyranny? Roll over and let them scratch your belly? Bark at shadows? At some point, you have to actually resist the actual tyranny.

  32. Re:it's american psyops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Exactly, young Afghanistan girl have been brainwashed by a stupid egocentric country to lie about crime they weren't the victim and put it on talibans fault.

    Stupid americans.

  33. Taliban control over curriculum? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ....which allows significant Taliban control over the curriculum

    Allowing the Taliban control over education/curriculum is definitely not a good idea. There was a documentary on PBS that claims that, years ago Saudi Arabia basically gave the fundamentalists control of the ministry of education because they didn't want to have them involved in other parts of the government. I'll let others comment on what happened years later.

  34. Re:It's not "Mass Hysteria"; it's "Mass Terror" . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I imagine the propaganda from our side does fuck-all to alleviate that fear....

  35. Re:It's not "Mass Hysteria"; it's "Mass Terror" . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    15:13 That whosoever

    Which book are you quoting exactly?

  36. As I expected by tgibbs · · Score: 2

    "Mass hysteria" (an unfortunate term for a real phenomenon, IMO) was my guess from the outset, based on
    1. The symptoms reported are typical of mass hysteria.
    2. Nobody claimed responsibility (somewhat unusual for a terrorist attack).
    3. Symptoms resolved fairly rapidly, with no deaths (so pretty incompetent poisoning, if that was what it was, but typical of mass hysteria)

  37. Re:It's not "Mass Hysteria"; it's "Mass Terror" . by gtall · · Score: 1

    yeah, the Taliban and their fellow cronies have given up on airplanes long ago. We have no reason not to give them first class tickets just as show we don't fear them taking down a plane for the sheer pleasure of it.

  38. Re:It's not "Mass Hysteria"; it's "Mass Terror" . by RoccamOccam · · Score: 2

    Christianity is (obviously) based on the teachings in the Old Testament, but it doesn't end there. Otherwise, Christians would just be Jews.

    1But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

    But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

    9At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

    11“No one, sir,” she said.

  39. Re:It's not "Mass Hysteria"; it's "Mass Terror" . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ah, the old "Christians were just defending themselves in the Crusades!". Explain the Albigensian Crusade then, 1 million killed because the Pope ordered the complete extermination of a competing Christian sect. "These heretics are worse than the Saracens!" exclaimed Pope Innocent III, and on March 10, 1208, he proclaimed a crusade against a sect in southern France that became one of the bloodiest blots in European history.

  40. Re:It's not "Mass Hysteria"; it's "Mass Terror" . by HornWumpus · · Score: 0

    When someone is your enemy, but lying, getting him to tip his hand is a 'constructive outcome'.

    There is now one less violent jehadi pretending to be civilized in the USA.

    I suspect the real purpose of Iraq was to provide stupid Jehadis a convenient place to go and get killed. Keep them out of Afghanistan (which in turn is there to keep them out of Europe and N. America.)

    One thing I'm sure of, we aren't creating 'new enemies', we're getting old enemies to reveal their true intentions. Provoking and insulting Muslims is exactly the right thing to do today. They aren't known for thoughtful self restraint.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  41. Re:It's not "Mass Hysteria"; it's "Mass Terror" . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok you have used a precise number attempting to add weight to your claim but a quick Google search for 19171 terrorist attacks comes up with your post as the top search return, so I am gonna claim utter bullshit on your entire comment as you started with a flat out fabrication.

  42. Re:It's not "Mass Hysteria"; it's "Mass Terror" . by Schmorgluck · · Score: 1

    Post like this makes me glad I live in a country in which the Christian fundies involved in this incident would have been arrested for breach of peace before their provocations triggered nasty reactions.

    --
    There's nothing like $HOME
  43. Re:It's not "Mass Hysteria"; it's "Mass Terror" . by spire3661 · · Score: 0

    So its the PROTESTORS fault? Way to blame the victim for a crazy person not being able to contain themselves. WE live and die for freedom of speech, you might want to watch your fucking socialist mouth.

    --
    Good-bye
  44. Re:It's not "Mass Hysteria"; it's "Mass Terror" . by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    I'm glad you live there too.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  45. Re:It's not "Mass Hysteria"; it's "Mass Terror" . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's probably counting all the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan that the west makes into little bullet point blurbs every day. The same day as the bombing/Attack in Norway there were dozens killed in Iraq, guess which one we're still talking about.

  46. Re:It's not "Mass Hysteria"; it's "Mass Terror" . by Mashiki · · Score: 1

    Citation done:
    19,171. Done, it's not hard to figure it out. They're all nicely sourced for you too. Including by day, week, month, and year. Including, death tallies, injuries, and all the rest.

    Well let's see, between Christianity and Islam. Which of the two had a reformation? And no that's all of Christianity, rather that's one branch of that says using condoms is *bad*. If you're going to try something, try harder. Remember the two major branches of Islam(Sunni and Shiite) believe the same thing and when they don't they just murder each other. Wahabbists happily are still expanding on their extremism though. Druze are the most peaceful of all the branches.

    But hey, tell me something. When was the last time you saw a islamic government that didn't crush everyone, and make or try to make women chattel? I'll wait, because you won't find one.

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...
  47. Re:It's not "Mass Hysteria"; it's "Mass Terror" . by Mashiki · · Score: 1

    That incident had nothing to do with jihadism and everything to do with Christian fundies playing party poopers. I'm not saying his course of action was legitimate, but provocating and insulting rarely results in constructive outcomes.

    So, if you're standing on the corner of your street and you're pissing on a flag. I should just get in my car and run you over? No free speech for you I guess. There's no difference. And there's no difference in this case either.

    Just so you know, since it was actually reported in the newspapers, you can go blog hunting for it though. When they pulled him out of his car he was screaming the good old gone-by-gone "god is great". Yeah he was a sudden jihad syndrome.

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...
  48. Re:It's not "Mass Hysteria"; it's "Mass Terror" . by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.”

    Removed in edit by council of Nicaea.

    A rock whizzed by Jesus's head and hit the harlot square in the temple, she dropped. Jesus slowly turned and with great annoyance said 'Mother...'

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  49. Where have I heard this before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's like a British redcoat soldier complaining about the American minutemen militias being evil because they don't engage with traditional warfare to defend their turf.
    Agree or disagree with them, the Taliban has not and is not interested in foreign attacks, they are only there to protect their countries and ward off invaders. Any foreign attacks, and you have the Mujahideen (or as we like to call them, Al Qaeda, which means "the (data)base").
    When you are the invader, you have no room to complain.

  50. Re:It's not "Mass Hysteria"; it's "Mass Terror" . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That incident had nothing to do with jihadism and everything to do with Christian fundies playing party poopers. I'm not saying his course of action was legitimate, but provocating and insulting rarely results in constructive outcomes.
    Especially when you're confronting savages. You'd never see the same event happen at a christian fair if aethiests or muslims were waving signs about something.

  51. Re:It's not "Mass Hysteria"; it's "Mass Terror" . by Schmorgluck · · Score: 1

    I also live in a country in which I can shout "I AM AN ATHEIST" on a public place without being ostracised - the worst I would get.is a "so what" look or a "why should I give a fuck" look. Or more likely a "Dude, just quit shouting already, it's annoying."

    I live in a country in which the religious believes of candidates is considered a marginal matter when it comes down to elections.

    I live in a country in which catholicism is the mainstream religion, and in which even conservative political figures, if they are practicing catholics, abstain from following the rites as a church follower when they are there in any official respect. Like, funerals of fallen soldiers. Devout christians tend to be even more infuriated with this than atheists.

    In which country are you more free?

    --
    There's nothing like $HOME
  52. Re:It's not "Mass Hysteria"; it's "Mass Terror" . by Reziac · · Score: 1

    "I see this ranting against corporate personhood as another form of theater."

    I hadn't thought of that, but I think you've got a good point there... when times are bad, or going wrong, everyone wants a bogeyman to blame. For the gov't, it's OMG-terrorists. For the geek crowd, it's corporations.

    --
    ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  53. Re:It's not "Mass Hysteria"; it's "Mass Terror" . by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    The one with the lowest tax rate. Duh.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  54. Re:It's not "Mass Hysteria"; it's "Mass Terror" . by FluffyWithTeeth · · Score: 1

    Hahahaha oh man, that's great.

    I guess you never hear about the other benefits of immaculate conception.

  55. Re:It's not "Mass Hysteria"; it's "Mass Terror" . by FluffyWithTeeth · · Score: 1

    3 centuries ago? I guess you've never been to an Old Firm game.

    Of course, now you'll never have to.
    Ahahahahahaha!