Brussels Bombers Filmed Nuclear Researchers, Hoped To Build A "Dirty Bomb," Expert Says (nbcnews.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from NBC News: The brothers behind this week's Brussels bombings also spied on a top nuclear researcher and hoped to build a so-called "dirty bomb," an expert involved in a probe into ISIS threats told NBC News on Thursday. Khalid and Ibrahim El Bakraoui were responsible for planting a hidden camera outside the Belgian researcher's house, according to Claude Moniquet, a French former intelligence official who was hired to investigate potential plots targeting Europe's nuclear sector. This camera produced more than 10 hours of film showing the comings and goings of senior researcher at a Belgian nuclear center and his family. "The terrorist cell ... naively believed they could use him to penetrate a lab to obtain nuclear material to make a dirty bomb," Moniquet, CEO of the European Strategic Intelligence and Security Center privacy consultancy said. The researcher worked at a center which stored a "significant portion of the world's supply of radioisotopes," according to the Center for Public Integrity, a nonprofit, nonpartisan investigative news organization in Washington, D.C. These isotopes are used in hospitals and factories around the world but can also be used to make a so-called "dirty bomb" -- a device that could spread radioactive material across a wide area.

Comments

Naively?

[mveloso]

I'm not sure that's very naive at all. In fact, "help us your we'll kill your family" is a very powerful motivator.

Re:Naively?

[khasim]

The naive part is the interest in a "dirty bomb" in the first place.

Why take on the significant additional risk of discovery for something that won't inflict much more damage?

A "dirty bomb" only spreads radioactive material in the area where it explodes. So it is easier to just rely upon shrapnel and the explosion. Any radioactive material they could get probably wouldn't do more damage than that. Most of it just isn't that damaging. Except in large quantities over many years.

It's the news shows that have played up the "threat" of a "dirty bomb".

Re:Naively?

[Hentes]

And what does getting one man on their side achieve? It's not like researchers can just take home radioactive samples.

Re:Naively?

[matbury]

If you believe that that primary intention of acts of terror is to cause harm, then yes, that sounds reasonable. However, as far as I understand it, the main point of acts of terror is usually to make people irrationally afraid (cars, dogs, and swimming pools are more dangerous). For that purpose, dirty bombs and the way they've been hyped in movies and the media, as you've stated, are perfect for terror attacks.

Re:Naively?

[angel'o'sphere]

We don't know how naive the terrorists are. So while a dirty bomb is unlikely it is not so unlikely that terrorists attempt to get materials for it. Keep in mind: they could use it completely different.

Re:Naively?

[Anonymous Coward]

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. If anyone is naive, it's the european "tolerant" idiots, who let scores of young muslim "refugees" into EU, believing they will somehow integrate into the western society.

Re:Naively?

[khasim]

For that purpose, dirty bombs and the way they've been hyped in movies and the media, as you've stated, are perfect for terror attacks.

That is where it is wrong.

It is the FICTIONAL accounts that are scary to the uneducated masses.

If you had enough radioactive material to make a "dirty bomb" there are, literally, HUNDREDS of ways to terrorize more people for longer periods of time with it.

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

Re:Naively?

[Kjella]

If you believe that that primary intention of acts of terror is to cause harm, then yes, that sounds reasonable. However, as far as I understand it, the main point of acts of terror is usually to make people irrationally afraid (cars, dogs, and swimming pools are more dangerous). For that purpose, dirty bombs and the way they've been hyped in movies and the media, as you've stated, are perfect for terror attacks.

Afraid and uncertain, if they were able to give a large number of people an increased cancer risk that could be a nagging fear for years. Not to mention leaving permanent scars, what do you think a warded off area with nuclear hazard signs will do, even if it won't harm anyone? And there's a reason the Geneva convention banned arms that are specifically designed to maim rather than kill, which terrorists obviously won't follow. It's about making it so messy and ugly as possible.

Re:Naively?

[blindseer]

I'm not sure that's very naive at all. In fact, "help us your we'll kill your family" is a very powerful motivator.

I could rephrase that question into something much less convincing, "Be an accessory to murder and we might let you and your family live long enough to get blown up by the bomb you helped us make, or we kill you, still kill many people, but you die without blood on your hands." Certainly they won't explain it as I just did but someone that cares about others just as much as themselves might not be so willing to help.

I'd think that if you want to be more convincing then you'd get your radioactive material as far away from the target as possible. Or at least lead the person from which you want help that the bomb is not going to be any where near them or their family, and also be unlikely to get traced back to them.

I also have to wonder how they expected to build this bomb. They might not care if they soak up too much gamma to survive in the long term as they intended to perish from the bomb too. What they would care about is success. Soaking up too much radiation could mean they die even before the bomb is built. If they survive that long they still must be healthy enough to carry the bomb to the target and not be puking up blood and having fingers rot off which would bring them more attention than they'd want.

Also, this radioactive material is dangerous because it is concentrated. If you blow up the pile of radioactive stuff then you are spreading it thinner. Spread it too thin and no one dies, at least not from the radiation. Spread it too thick and the clean up is too easy.

I can imagine a few people getting hit with radioactive "chunks" from the dirty bomb. Those people will die but at what kind of threat does that radioactive shrapnel hold that not radioactive shrapnel does not?

I know, I know, people aren't logical and terrorism isn't about the body count but the fear. If we see dirty bombs on a regular basis, people get good at cleaning up the mess, and people see them as no more a threat than any other bomb wrapped with bits of metal, then people could lose the fear of these threats.

Then let's get back to this researcher, he'd have to survive bringing the material from the lab. If the radiation poisoning doesn't get him it could be a high velocity case of lead poisoning from the security detail at the lab. Again, this researcher would have to be convinced that the terrorists would let him live if they were successful.

Re:Naively?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're confusing "terrorize" with physically harm. It doesn't matter if something is fictional version of something, as long as it has some element in reality (i.e. dirty bombs can exist, but not werewolves), because that is what gets utilized. How much money was spent and people impacted by 9/11, when it was a rather small number of deaths and injuries compared to other problems in the country? How much impact did it have on how people felt about flying, even if some of that was due to the government response? It won't be just the fictional accounts of an attack that will influence people, but also however politicians and media outlets portray things while possessing ulterior motives.

Re:Naively?

[radarskiy]

There was two aspects to their naivete:

1) Thinking that someone could just walk out of the building with a sack of nuclear material, if only sufficient threats were made.
2) Thinking that someone being threatened with "help us [or] we'll kill your family" would not be able to figure out that he and his family will be dead anyway.

Re:Naively?

[dsmatthews9379]

It is naive because intelligent people know that once the job was done they and their family would be killed anyway so as to not leave anyone who could raise the alarm before the bomb was used. i.e. You are going to die anyway so you may as well fight them anyway you can because that is that only option that has a greater than zero chance of survival, even if it is a small chance it is better than certain death.

Re:Naively?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah all you have to do is steal the dirty bomb material or publicly make it look like it's been stolen. Then threaten/claim to put it into the drinking water, some supermarket/mall/school/hospital (hospitals are good since there may already be radioactive stuff/patients around for false alarms ;) ). There's no need for building an actual bomb that would blow up.

Even if you don't actually do it it terrorizes people. And you can keep doing it a few times and people will be terrorized. Your claim will be more believable once the public believes the material has been stolen. Once they stop believing you put some actual material into supermarket milk/juice then make a anonymous public claim.

If you don't think it would scare people the Fukushima radiation stuff scared people across the Pacific, even though the increased risk to them was negligible.

Re:Naively?

[Solandri]

A bomb is probably the worst way to deliver this type of attack, because it immediately alerts everyone that an attack has taken place. The longer the contamination is allowed to spread without anyone knowing an "attack" is going on, the greater the damage and cleanup cost. In that respect I'm thankful for Hollywood and the news media's ignorance because they're sending potential terrorists barking up the wrong tree.

Everyone is getting all in a tizzy about protecting our nuclear reactors. It's our hospitals we should be worried about. If someone were to steal a radiation treatment source and scatter it around a city unbeknownst to its residents, the economic cost of cleanup would be massive. Easily hundreds of millions of dollars, possibly billions. Brazil only had to pay about $20 million in cleanup costs because the woman who brought the material to the hospital and to the attention of the authorities just by pure luck happened to transport it in a plastic bag. No plastic bag and the bus she rode on, all the people in it and all the places they went, the hospital, and the people visiting the hospital and everywhere they went would've been contaminated.

Re:Naively?

[AchilleTalon]

What is naive is to believe you can build an efficient dirty bomb with the grade of explosive they are using and the delivery means they have. How do you spread significant radioactive material over a large area? By large area, I mean something much more larger than the area damaged by the bombs they detonated in Brussels. Which isotope are they able to handle and how to do that? Being exposed to radiations doesn't kill or give cancer automagically. You need a large dose or a delivery mean that imply you will ingest a significant amount of the right isotope (yep, bananas and red beans contains a measurable amount of radioactive material you can ingest without harming yourself).

Making an efficient dirty bomb and deliver it is not a trivial task.

Re:Naively?

[AchilleTalon]

It is not true you have zero chance of survival after a dirty bomb event. In fact, you have pretty good chance to survive without any effect such an event. A dirty bomb has nothing to do with a nuclear bomb. The whole problem, if we take for granted they have the appropriate radioactive isotope in quantity in hand, is the delivery of such a bomb in order to create a large enough area with a large enough radiation intensity to be destructive. Given the means they have so far, I doubt they can do any harm greater than what they already did.

Re:Naively?

[religionofpeas]

The primary intention is to create a bigger battle, turn that into a civil war, kill all the infidels, and turn the place into a caliphate. And then the struggle will continue amongst themselves.

Re:Naively?

[m.alessandrini]

I think it's not conceivable that you can make a person steal radioactive material from one of the should-be most guarded structures in the world, and bring it outside under his jacket or in his bag, especially in these post-9/11 times. This could have worked in a 70s movie maybe.

Re:Naively?

[religionofpeas]

How do you spread significant radioactive material over a large area?

Grind it into a powder. Put powder in a box with a small hole. Attach box to drone. Fly over a crowd.

Re:Naively?

[TheRealHocusLocus]

I wish I could add a third,

3) [Naively] thinking that the small residue of radiation resulting from any kind of dirty-bomb dispersal would result in more fear than anger.

Imagine a world without irrational fear of radioactivity, where the word 'nuclear' would not ring a bell that makes the press salivate with anticipation. I'm afraid I'll have to toss in mdsolar too since 'e posts more nuke fud then solar crud these days. TEPCO has done a fine job gathering water and filtering worse contaminants to leave Tritium, for which only dilution is possible. Unit #4 fuel transfer is complete. The melted fuel in the reactors is stable, contained and cooled (by engineering foresight, not blind luck) awaiting an expensive but not impossible cleanup. Fukushima is an industrial disaster sure, but in terms of human life the evacuation was more costly. Compare it to the Bhopal body count or even Love Canal with its barbed wire fence and dioxins sleeping under a plastic liner... for some real examples of human and environmental fallout.

When you get down to it all radioactive materials are just undesired contaminants. In fact, they're the finest contaminants known to mankind because we can detect and measure their presence down past background levels. No asbestos lurking silently in a school somewhere, no lead paint in the nursery. As easy as spotting fireflies in the dark. Now there are two kinds of people in this world, those for whom spotting those fireflies is a reason to run in little circles crying "I told you so!" and that's it --- they have no other plan. Then there's folks like TEPCO and the rest of the nuclear power industry who see these as challenges of engineering to overcome. Fukushima has even resulted in a generation of new patents for processes to separate and decontaminate, something in which the rest of the world hadn't placed sufficient priority. Which horse would you rather back?

It really costs you big time to fear something. Especially when it's more productive to get mad as hell and find better ways to clean up so you can devote more effort into something productive --- appropriate responses such as revenge.

2) [Naively] thinking that someone being threatened with "help us [or] we'll kill your family" would not be able to figure out that he and his family will be dead anyway.

This is a tough one. Who's going to write off their family, especially if they have been kidnapped?

The most irresponsible and stupidly-contrived security apparatus is that which surrounds pathogen or so-called 'biological weapons' research. You're dealing with things that are not only accessible, they are undetectable at the gate and can be smuggled out on the head of a pin. The lone researcher in such a facility is worse than screwed... they're literally under a death sentence waiting to happen. At any time they may be coerced into taking something out of that facility with practically-100% chance of success and they know it. Even the morons who kidnap their families would know it.

Ironically --- the only conceivable way for stored pathogens to become 'safely' detectable at the gate might be to deliberately contaminate all water used in the lab with tiny but detectable amounts of radioactive Tritium.

But the world press is not talking about bio-labs right now, they're in total idiot radiation mode. They are trying to convince you that the radiation monitors at the gates (and garbage chutes, and sewers) of these facilities do not exist, or are ineffective or can be easily MacGyver'd. These may be true to some degree... but what is the likelihood of that researcher smuggling out anything approaching a Curie? Ra

Re:Naively?

[fnj]

The naive part is the interest in a "dirty bomb" in the first place.

Why take on the significant additional risk of discovery for something that won't inflict much more damage?

A "dirty bomb" only spreads radioactive material in the area where it explodes. So it is easier to just rely upon shrapnel and the explosion. Any radioactive material they could get probably wouldn't do more damage than that. Most of it just isn't that damaging. Except in large quantities over many years.

Get a clue. The damage of a dirty bomb would be incalculable in a financial sense and a psychological sense. Fukushima radiation didn't kill anyone either, but the financial and psychological damage has been colossal and continues with no sign of a letup five years later. If you were to touch off an effective dirty bomb in the New York financial district, it would probably be more damaging than the Great Depression, and hurt the USA much much more than even WW II (which actually finally lifted the USA out of the depression). The entire area would become a wasteland because nobody would want to go near it. The largest gold repository in the world - the Federal Reserve Bank at 33 Liberty Street[*] - would likely become effectively inaccessible - a realization of the nightmare scenario from Goldfinger. Most of that gold is actually owned by foreign interests, so there would be terrible international repercussions.

And it is the epitome of asymmetrical warfare. There would be no target to nuke in return, even if the USA (or ANY other nation, save North Korea and maybe Iran in a few years) had the stomach to consider doing so for an instant - which it most certainly doesn't. Look how we bankrupted ourselves responding ineffectively to 9/11.

[*] Much more gold is held there than in Fort Knox.

Re:Naively?

[necro81]

A "dirty bomb" only spreads radioactive material in the area where it explodes. So it is easier to just rely upon shrapnel and the explosion. Any radioactive material they could get probably wouldn't do more damage than that. Most of it just isn't that damaging. Except in large quantities over many years.

The article is unclear what material they were seeking, specifically. It hints at radioisotopes that are used in medical diagnostics. These are unsuitable for use in a dirty bomb, because they tend to be short-lived isotopes with half-lives measures in hours. In other words, any radioactivity would dissipate to below background levels in the space of a few days at most.

On the other hand, it could have been that they were after colbalt-60, which is used in some radiation therapies or for gamma-sterilization of equipment and food. That shit's nasty, and could definitely make an area uninhabitable for decades.

Of course, without further information, it is difficult to know the magnitude or credibility of the threat. Typical for journalism when dealing with terrorism and/or radiation - plenty of hype, but little genuine information, context, or proper appraisal of the risk.

Re:Naively?

[Anonymous Coward]

A bomb is probably the worst way to deliver this type of attack, because it immediately alerts everyone that an attack has taken place. The longer the contamination is allowed to spread without anyone knowing an "attack" is going on, the greater the damage and cleanup cost.

You're still not thinking about this properly. Their goal is not to cause direct damage, or make us spend a lot of money. Their goal is to incite FEAR.
The reason a 'dirty bomb' is the perfect weapon for them is because the explosion makes it immediately obvious that "OMFG THE RADIATIONS ARE COMING TO GET US!!!" It can't be easily ignored, overlooked, or swept under the carpet. And people's irrational fears and lack of understanding will make them think the worst.
They can't see Radiation, they can't smell it or taste it. It could be lurking anywhere... in your car, under your bed, in your child's toybox, the water supply... it might even be RIGHT BEHIND YOU!!!!

If all they wanted to do was cause damage and cost us money, they could just fill a couple trucks up with explosives and go blow up a hydroelectric dam.

Re:Naively?

[Anonymous Coward]

The naive part is in believing that their victim would be able to smuggle out radioactive material if he wanted to.

Re:Naively?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why I find that idea "If we turn into a police/mass surveillance state, then we lost." stupid.

While a police/mass surveillance state is bad, they don't care about that. They plan to conquer.

Re:Naively?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, it'd be a shit show for about a week. Immediately after the 'dirty bomb' goes off, people that aren't hurt by the explosion get evacuated. Then the construction equipment comes in and removes the radioactive material as just another step of cleaning up the damage done by the bomb. The world shrugs, and moves on. Everyone realizes that this particular form of attack is ridiculously stupid, and is never repeated.

By the way, dispersing a radioactive element is a fantastic way to reduce it's dangerous effects.

Re:Naively?

[MachineShedFred]

Why would you think that the area would be permanently warded off, rather than simply having the topsoil and rubble removed until a geiger counter shows an acceptable level of background radiation?

Oh no, someone covered a few blocks of a city with a material that is barely dangerous when it's spread out over a few blocks of a city. We'd better abandon that forever, or we could clean it up and laugh at how stupid a 'dirty bomb' really is.

There's a reason nobody has ever bothered with a 'dirty bomb' and it's not because of the unavailability of radioactive material.

Re:Naively?

[tinkerton]

The damage done by a dirty bomb is not counted in terms of death toll but in the measures that have to be taken in order to avoid fatalities. If you have to evacuate a part of a city for a long period, the cost of that can be huge.

Re:Naively?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for the tip!

O.B. Laden

Re:Naively?

[tigersha]

It is not hard to contemplate a few select targets. Riyad. The Ghawar oil field. Raqqa. Karachi. I can think of a few more.

!!!!sounds like a plot to a bad movie

[Anonymous Coward]

You have to be joking!

It's not forever a pipe dream

[rmdingler]

It's probable that we've avoided a larger impact terrorist hit because of their consistent incompetence.

But, realistically, if relations between the West and the world's radicalized Muslim population stay the same, it is likely a given a major western city will reap a dirty bomb, or worse, far too near in the future.

Re:It's not forever a pipe dream

[alvinrod]

That troubling part is that as incompetent as they may be, they're still quite highly effective. Worse it's what we'll do to ourselves in response. The U.S. is still suffering from the security theater thrown together in the wake of the September 11 attacks which have done little to make us more safe and have only hampered our liberties.

They don't need to set off a dirty bomb. The fear and paranoia that they might is more than enough for us to destroy ourselves.

Re:It's not forever a pipe dream

[Anonymous Coward]

I foresee the West or Russia delivering a "clean" bomb on the end of an IRBM or cruise missile to a major Muslim pilgrimage site.
OK, maybe that's just wishful thinking, but hey, I can dream, can't I?

Re:It's not forever a pipe dream

[khasim]

That troubling part is that as incompetent as they may be, they're still quite highly effective.

But they aren't. In the USofA, you are more likely to be killed while moving furniture than by a terrorist.

If someone kills you tomorrow, it will probably be someone you know (friend or family) or a traffic accident.

I used to work for an insurance company. You could get a "terrorism" rider on your policy at additional cost. That cost? $1. And it was pure profit for the company.

The problem is that our news agencies and politicians are SELLING the idea of a terrorism threat for their own benefit.

Re:It's not forever a pipe dream

[Zontar The Mindless]

Thereby guaranteeing the enmity of every Muslim on the planet. Which is exactly what Daesh want. Thanks for letting us know who you're working for.

Re: It's not forever a pipe dream

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, it would almost be better that way. We'd actually have someone to be at war with, rather than be at perpetual war with the intellectual boogeyman that is "terrorism". Bullets and bombs don't work all that well against ideas.

Re:It's not forever a pipe dream

[Trailer Trash]

That troubling part is that as incompetent as they may be, they're still quite highly effective.

But they aren't.

You think the aim of a terrorist attack is to kill people, and to the extent that they do they're not terribly good at it (thankfully). The aim of a terrorist attack is to instill fear. The 9/11 attacks killed 3000 people - about 3 days worth of tobacco deaths in America - but it paved the way for unconstitutional laws that supposedly will help government keep that from happening again. It led us to spend a trillion dollars trying to clean up part of the middle east. Etc. These attacks tend to be quite effective at their actual goal - which is to make the target do stupid irrational stuff.

If their intent is to destroy ...

[Taco Cowboy]

I, as an immigrant to the West, appreciate what I have gotten, and am still getting, and I do my best to contribute back to the society

On the other hand, I do know that there are other immigrants who not only do not appreciate what the West has offered them, they intend to disrupt, even to destroy the very society that gave them a helping hand when they need it

The one thing that I find about the Western people - mainly the Whites - are that they are being very kind, too kind some times

While that might be a good trait, it might also turn into a weakness

You see, those immigrants (or descendants of immigrants) who intend to make trouble - you guys (the White folks) still tolerate them, to the extend that even after those motherfuckers kill your people, you still standing up for them, in the name of, so called 'equality', 'diversity' et cetera

I dunno

I, as an immigrant to the West, is very very angry with those motherfuckers --- if it is up to me, those motherfuckers would be deported yesterday, every single fucking one of them

I mean, if those immigrants don't appreciate what the West has given them, they should move the fuck OUT

Stop using religion or whatever fucking excuse to carry out their despicable act

I don't care who they are, if I invite a guess into my house and that guess start to make trouble, he or she will either be thrown out, or a bullet in the head

But the, I am only an immigrant from China --- and my opinion, of course, can not represent that of the hosts - the White folks who have endless tolerance towards motherfuckers who create troubles

Re:If their intent is to destroy ...

[Braintrust]

I haven't posted on Slashdot in years, but I recently posted something somewhere that I will repost here in reply to you.

It was initially a response to an article written by Roger Simon, titled "Are We Ready for Reality after the Brussels Terror Attacks?".

https://pjmedia.com/diaryofama...

If you want to know how suicidal Western culture is at this point re. Islam, just watch how I get called out as a racist for daring to say these things.

Point is, I agree with everything you said, and I thank you for posting it.

Asian and Western cultures have their differences, but the last thing either society is trying to do to this world is bring into existence some kind of apocalyptic scenario. In my opinion Islam is utterly incompatible with ANY other culture in the long run, and we can blame ourselves all we want because that's safer today, but the problem will never go away until we fight back, and fight to win.

Anyway, here's my repost in its entirety:

Mr. Simon,

I don't know if you will ever read this, regardless, here goes:

I'm with you. I agree with everything you've said in your article, "Are We Ready for Reality after the Brussels Terror Attacks?".

I'm very sure that thousands and thousands and thousands of people from every corner of the globe agree with everything you've said.

I agreed with your conclusions yesterday. I agreed with them last November. I agreed in London, and Madrid, and Beslan, and Mumbai, and of course in New York and Washington.

I've agreed with you each of the 28,025 times the website thereligionofpeace.com has documented an attack that has occurred in the name of Islam world-wide SINCE 9/11.

I agreed with you when Sadat was murdered. I agreed with you when people fell from the sky over Lockerbie.

I agreed with you during the Six-Day War. I agreed with during the Yom Kippur War.

I agreed with you when I learned of Churchill's thoughts during the River War.

I agreed with you when I learned about the Siege of Vienna in 1683.

I agreed with you when I learned that the Crusades were defensive in nature.

I agreed with you when I learned of the Battle of Tours and Charles Martel.

When I look at the history of the last 1400 years, and I see that Islam is a predatory ideology founded by a warlord, I agree with you.

My question to you, and to anyone else reading this who has a thought to add, what next?

Who is going to organize all of us to destroy this culture of hate once and for all?

Who is going to bring about the cultural revolution, and it would take nothing less than that in the West at this point, to really, really fight back, and fight back to not just win and hold in check, but to win for all time?

This has been going on for 1400 years, and I can't even get my closest friends and family to acknowledge the threat we face right now, today.

I ask you Mr. Simon, what next?

p.s. Say what you want about the Chinese and Japanese, etc, they are not fools in the way that we in the West are, and not letting The Enemy infiltrate their societies en masse as we have done, is like adding 10% annual growth to their prospective GDP(s). It's a huge bonus for them not having to fight this fight. And all they've had to do to gain that advantage is be honest about the reality they inhabit.

Re:If their intent is to destroy ...

[the_povinator]

A non-white person who capitalizes the word 'White' is an unusual thing to encounter.

Re:If their intent is to destroy ...

[Anonymous Coward]

We have always had the power to end this. We just don't have the will. The climate is already in runaway, glassing parts of asia and the entire middle east might
swing the climate back in the direction we want it to go.

Food for thought.

Re:If their intent is to destroy ...

[Taco Cowboy]

... just watch how I get called out as a racist for daring to say these things ...

Dear Braintrust,

Not only they call me 'racist', they also tell me the following:

"Who the fuck you think you are? The Whites have decided to not do anything about it, and let me remind you --- you are only a chink"

Yes, that's the kind of 'reply' I got

Those folks are so gung-ho because of the non-action from the Whites

If you Whites can get your act together and ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING TO COUNTER THEM they wouldn't be so fucking full of it

I have had it with those motherfuckers --- before they bombed the London subway, I read in a forum somewhere that they actually called London - Londonistan !!

No, I am not kiddin'

They have become so embolden because of the non-action from the Whites

To them, you Whites are but a bunch of weak-minded cowards, that they can do anything they want to you and you guys just can't do anything back

Please do something, you White folks, PLEASE DO SOMETHING !!

Re:If their intent is to destroy ...

[dbIII]

In my opinion Islam is utterly incompatible with ANY other culture in the long run

Hundreds of years of history says otherwise. Various troubles have been equivalent to Christian groups fighting each other but we tend to forget that because it's easier to see problems on the outside.

Re:If their intent is to destroy ...

[Anonymous Coward]

You see, those immigrants (or descendants of immigrants) who intend to make trouble - you guys (the White folks) still tolerate them, to the extend that even after those motherfuckers kill your people, you still standing up for them, in the name of, so called 'equality', 'diversity' et cetera

Equality says little of the people who do bad things. I don't defend people who do bad things. But I do have a problem with people who try to punish and judge large groups of people for things done by a small minority of them. I'm not defending or even tolerating the fraction of those that are assholes, I'm trying to defend the fraction of them that are not assholes.

We used to have a philosophy, "It is better to let ten guilt people go free than one innocent person get punished," (even if in practice it was horribly implemented) but now it is more along the lines of, "I saw one person of group X do something bad, so we should get rid of all X to be safe." X can be anything from immigrants to people on food stamps.

We should focus on stopping the particular acts, even if solutions will be far from perfect. There will be times we have to accept that some assholes will get away with things, because what it takes to stop them would put undo costs on innocent people.

Re:If their intent is to destroy ...

[Anonymous Coward]

You do understand these terrorists are not immigrants. They're European citizens, second or third generation born from immigrant parents. It is European citizens (mostly from muslim families but also recently converted muslisms) that are radicalised, go to siria, iraq, etc.. to fight a global jihad and then come home. And plan attacks on their own fucking country ? You get that ? They're no different from Timothy MacVeigh in this respect.

One of the main problem European countries are facing is that for decades they have had a laissez fair attitude vis a vis mosques and imams who were given carte blanche to basically encite sedition and hate. All in the name of peaceful coexistence. Well we in Europe are not beholden to the US freedom of speech mantra. We should have thrown in prison imams and closed mosques where those in authority were predicating hate and armed rebellion. The mess in siria, iraq, etc.. created by fucking idiotic US policies has just worsened the problem.

Re:If their intent is to destroy ...

[Taco Cowboy]

You do understand that I am also a citizen of the United States, don't you?

Yet, I am also an immigrant

My grandchildren (3rd generation), citizens of the United States, if they behave badly, and let's say they want to destroy America, --- are you saying that the action of my grandchildren is in no way 'reflective' of my immigrant background??

Re:If their intent is to destroy ...

[Anonymous Coward]

--- are you saying that the action of my grandchildren is in no way 'reflective' of my immigrant background??

Why would the actions of your grandchildren (especially if they're adults) reflect on your immigrant background ?
You can be a good parent all you want, and yet your child could end up becoming a criminal. Is this sufficient to crucify you, and your ancestors up to what ? The book of Genesis ? Give me a break.

Re:If their intent is to destroy ...

[Braintrust]

Hey TC,

Thanks for the kind reply.

I read a paper about 15 years ago that I will try to summarize quickly here:

If you throw out all the myriad labels we use to divide ourselves into sub-groups within our different societies; left, right, liberal, conservative, all the various religions and organizing governmental doctrines we cling to, there are really only three overarching and competing philosophies in the world today.

1. Theocratic fascism.

This one is pretty self-explanatory. The lunatic fringe of those who believe in a higher power. Think the Westboro Baptist clan or a far-too-large segment of the Muslim world. They want to impose the will of their dogma on the rest of us at literally any cost.

2. Philosophical Empiricism.

To try and sum it up in very few words, these are people who are compelled to ask the deeper questions of how things really work, and how things really are. At it's most pure, this philosophy encompasses the Scientific Method among other things. P-Empiricism can lead to some pretty uncomfortable conclusions, because again, it forces its adherents to look honestly at the world and the universe they inhabit.

3. Philosophical Idealism.

Again, to sum up most likely poorly in very few words, these are people who are compelled to see the world as they wish it to be. An underlying linchpin to this philosophy is something called teleology. It's an emotionally-driven philosophy at its worst, and it is very, very widespread in the West at present. P-Idealists see things how they want them to be, and perhaps in some cases how they should be, but they have a very difficult time reconciling reality when in flies in the face of what they wish to see.

Very dumbed down summaries. But necessary to say this:

The third of the three philosophies I listed here is the real problem, in my opinion.

We in the West have about half our citizens living in a society that has been so materially successful, they have been afforded the luxury to take a vacation from history for most if not all of their lives, and their wishes for a better world have been indulged, both wisely and foolishly, for a few decades now.

I have no idea how to convince half of our population that sometimes the world is a scary place, and sometimes you need to fight for your survival, when the very idea of that is so abhorrent to them that they just simply choose to 'believe' otherwise.

I'm with you in what you say, and I like to think I can construct a cogent argument if needed, but I've found it to be almost like arguing the case for reality with the mentally ill.

I don't even know where to begin anymore. You need some common ground, and when all you get in reply is variations on, "La la la, you're a racist, war-monger, blue meanie, La la la", it's very, very disconcerting.

Meanwhile, Islam continues to spread like a cancer among us.

Thanks again for being rational actor.

Re:If their intent is to destroy ...

[blogagog]

I love you! Just as a friend. You know what I mean.

Re:If their intent is to destroy ...

[Anonymous Coward]

So if Chinese cyber attacks continue, you will self-deport?

Re: If their intent is to destroy ...

[Anonymous Coward]

The west is done with america, the cultural schism between the old west in Europe and the US has never been wider in 300 years.

So when you talk of us white Europeans here in western Europe in an inclusive manner of 'the west', it rings hollow to us.

The US is every bit as barbaric as Islam. Those nutters chop of heads of innocent people, you level cities like Fallujah using white phosphorous as a weapon.

Fuck you for even thinking we should bow to your wishes or to the raghead nutters wishes.

Americans have not yet woken up to what the ordinary people here are thinking. Its why extraditions to the US are getting harder. May as well send people to kangaroo courts in Nigeria than to US courts.

We will deal with Islamic terrorism without sacrificing our way of life - something you already failed since 2003. We are stronger than you were.
We will lose people and it will be ugly, but it will end and we will still have a place our children can be happy and free.

You missed that boat.

Re:If their intent is to destroy ...

[Taco Cowboy]

... Why would the actions of your grandchildren (especially if they're adults) reflect on your immigrant background ?

I use the example of my grandchildren because I am an immigrant. Perhaps it's a bad choice, as I do not bring up my children (and my children do not bring up my grandchildren) the way those folks in that special faith do ... with hatreds, with vengeance, with violence et cetera ...
 
But let's stick with the present theme for a moment ...
 
You see, I am from China. I landed in the United States back in 1970's. Because of me, my children and grandchildren are all born in the USA

Now, let's say my grandchildren turn out to be terrorists --- even with no fault of me --- but the fact is, if I did not come to the USA, my grandchildren would probably be still back in China

And if my grandchildren (of course, different sets) in China are of the same rotten stock, they would have carried out their rotten things in China, not in the United States of China

And if whatever my grandchildren did cause the death of innocent civilians, if not because of me arriving in the United States of America, those innocent people wouldn't have died in America

Everything trace back to that immigrant who came to America --- and if the immigrant has so much hate for America he or she could have gone back home

It is worse than 'biting the hand that feeds you', much worse

Whatever those profess in that certain faith are doing is totally out of realm of human civility

If they hate the West so much, GET THE FUCK OUT !!

Re: If their intent is to destroy ...

[Braintrust]

But, I'm not American.

Other than that little fact, your post is still quite silly.

Also, a tad hateful. You seem pretty hateful toward America, and if you are European and even the slightest bit honest with yourself about the history of the 20th Century, you owe America a debt you will never be able to repay. Think the Berlin Airlift for starters. Your parents and your grandparents know what they owe the United States. Just because you don't, doesn't make it any less true.

And again, I say all of the above as a non-American.

America makes all kinds of mistakes, but if you think they are the great evil you describe, you are merely seeing what you wish to see, perhaps to fill some hateful need within you.

Further, it's very easy to hate the United States, because deep down in whatever rational part of your mind that still exists, you know they're no physical threat to you at all. You're safe to hate them, and you know what? That's your right.

A right that the United States bought for you, many, many times over. If you can't acknowledge that, again, you're just a silly angry dishonest little person.

It's just laughably dishonest, is all. Laughably. Dishonest.

Would you be brave enough to answer if I ask what country you call home?

I realize this will fall on the deaf ears of an anonymous coward, but have you ever considered framing events via the concepts of capability and intent?

Re:If their intent is to destroy ...

[Bing Tsher E]

It's a serious mistake to label the threat 'Islam.'

The terrorists are an extreme branch of Islam. They embrace an antiquated literal interpretation of the Koran. Most Muslims are not like them.

There are a huge number of Muslims in the world, and if you 'draw the line' by grouping them with the human-garbage terrorists of ISIS and Al Quida, you're pushing a lot of people who can and will be our allies over to the other side. The problems in the Islamic world won't be solved by killing them all or forcing them all to convert to another religion. We need their help to fix things.

Re: If their intent is to destroy ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Your parents and your grandparents know what they owe the United States.

You mean what we owe to the US of the past, but not the grandchildren of that past... You don't punish kids for the deeds of their parents, nor do you owe them when they act contrary to helpful ways of their parents.

Re: If their intent is to destroy ...

[KGIII]

I keep thinking about saying this and I never do because I am not sure how to say it properly. There are a few political things we are a bit different about but that's okay. The gist of it is welcome to your country. It is not welcome to my country. Every time, you express your gratitude for your adopted country. Even when you are disappointed you are seemingly sincere in your appreciation.

So, it is not welcome to my country but, rather, it is welcome to your country. It is a bit late to say so but I prefer to think of it as long-overdue. Thanks for coming.

Re:If their intent is to destroy ...

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that so-called moderate Islam breeds extreme extremists. This happens for various reasons, but the most important ones are:
- Islam itself is very resilient against modern reinterpretation, much more so than other faiths, and if you give a population the Quran and Hadith and teach them moderate islam, a sizable number of them become extremists. Not a majority, but enough to be a real problem.
- Moderate Muslims tend to hide extremists from society as a whole, holding an umbrella over their heads and pretending to the outside world that they aren't there. They almost never give up radicalised acquaintances to the police for instance.
- Islam as a faith and culture is very divisive, separating the world in those who are Muslims and those who aren't. That may be mildly annoying to us, but to some young Muslims this acts as a kind of mind poison. They feel like they don't belong in modern non-Islamic society and seek belonging in organisations within, and too often that turns out to be IS.

Re:If their intent is to destroy ...

[Braintrust]

I disagree.

The mistake, in my opinion is not acknowledging that the problem IS Islam in its entirety.

There are currently 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. Do I think every last one of them is out to kill the infidel with every waking breath? Of course not.

I am convinced, however, that Islam is not just a religion. It has no separation of church and state by its very nature, and it is the very definition of a totalitarian ideology.

How do I know this? I've done the reading.

When people compare Islam to Christianity (disclaimer, not a Christian), the only real way that comparison is even remotely sound is to compare something in its current form (Islam) to something as it existed centuries ago.

Even then, a pre-Reformation, height-of-the-Inquisition Christianity was a very different philosophy than Islam has always been and continues to be.

At the core, the teachings of Christ are very very different than the teachings of Muhammad. Source? Again, I've done the reading.

Muhammad carried a sword, personally led armies into battle, and one of the central tenants of Islam, and you can deny this all you want, is to spread that Ummah until it encompasses the whole globe.

What Jesus had to say was far, far more benign, and the proper comparison to make between Jesus and another religious 'prophet' is to compare his philosophy to that of Buddha.

Buddha and Jesus would have got along fabulously.

Muhammad would have tried to convert both of them to Islam at the tip of a sword.

As another point, Hinduism is also a quite benign theology in comparison to Islam.

I'm sorry, the history of Islam is predatory, expansionist, and almost always violent.

The only reason everybody seems to have forgotten that, is that with the gradual embrace of science by Christendom over the last few hundred years, the mostly-Christian West has been so wildly successful and advanced so far beyond the rest of the world technologically, that after the fall of the Ottoman Empire one hundred years ago, yes, Islam, for the first time since it's creation, didn't pose a material threat to everyone else.

Now, the West has shared their science with everybody, the playing field is again much more level, and once again, Islam has the means to try and spread that pesky Ummah, which again, is one of the sole doctrines of the ideology that is Islam.

Once again, Source? Did the reading.

Re-read my first post in this thread. Learn about the Crusades. Learn about Vienna, Tours, the Barbary Pirates, etc, etc, etc, etc.

I'm not making this shit up. I wish I were. I really do.

TL:DR You are the one making the serious mistake.

p.s. Most estimates (did the reading) put the percentage of Muslims that we would consider 'radical' at about 20-30%.

That's 300-500 million 'radicals', and if you think that sounds preposterous, you're not paying attention to everything that's going on in the world.

Most estimates (DTR) put the percentage of 'radical' Christians world-wide at a fraction of 1%. There are 2.2 billion Christians, so you're still talking about 10-20 million potentially dangerous Christians, just to be fair. There are indeed nutjobs to be found everywhere. Islam just has far, far more than everybody else.

Cheers.

Re:If their intent is to destroy ...

[Anonymous Coward]

There is one billion muslims. There exist extremists who are only a branch of Islam. They conduct suicidal terrorist attacks.
There is more than seven billion humans. Assuming that muslims are no different than other humans, there should be six times as much terrorist attacks made by non-muslims than by muslims. Where are they? And that comes from a supposed "religion of peace" -- that means that Islam should have less of them than the rest of the world.
Also, why nobody had died because of this: http://www.theonion.com/article/no-one-murdered-because-of-this-image-29553 ?
Explain, please.

Re: If their intent is to destroy ...

[Braintrust]

What an unbelievably selfish, detached, and thoroughly post-modern thing to say.

You seem to think your position in history is an island unto itself.

Again,silly.

Further, the U.S. is still, by far, by far, the greatest force for good in this world. You can deny that reality all you want, doesn't make it any less true.

(Still not American.)

America has done all kinds of things wrong. Many stupid and wrong things. No question.

I would like to hear you find and name one positive thing they've done for humanity in the last 20 years. Can you be that honest?

Still waiting for a proper reply.

Country of origin? At least a stab at understanding capability and intent?

Re: If their intent is to destroy ...

[Braintrust]

Addendum:

Further, just to point out the logical fallacy in your last statement, if you're choosing to deny the good the U.S has done in the past, then logically, you would have to deny all the bad they've done as well, no?

Or are you just selectively cherry-picking history to prop up an unsustainable argumentative position?

Your Fu is weak.

I won't respond further, because, let's face it, you're having your ass handed to you right now, but if you come up with something honest and worthy of response, I'm your huckleberry.

Cheers.

Re:If their intent is to destroy ...

[Anonymous Coward]

...Again, I've done the reading.... you can deny this all you want

It doesn't matter if some internet poster is in denial about what the book actually says or not. However it very much matters if believers deny it, and many do. Something nearly all religions have in common is there are people who will bend, reinterpret, or ignore what is supposedly written in stone. If someone read the Bible cover to cover, do you expect them to predict and understand what various Christian sects and people say and believe? I've seen Jewish, Christian and Muslim arguments where both sides were claiming the exact same passage was proof the other is wrong. People can have vary widely different views of what the gist of a bunch of text is too. "Doing the reading" can't and won't teach you that.

Re: If their intent is to destroy ...

[Anonymous Coward]

America makes all kinds of mistakes, but if you think they are the great evil you describe, you are merely seeing what you wish to see, perhaps to fill some hateful need within you.

Funny, you see someone hate America for whatever reason, and you point out they can't be a great evil and that a person is merely filling some hateful need, because in the end they are a mix of good and bad. Yet you insist elsewhere that Islam is a great evil and that the U.S is the greatest force for good, and must be blind to the irony of complaining someone else is being too black and white. Telling people over and over again "You can deny..." doesn't make your opinions any more of a fact.

Don't talk of your arguing ability being able to hand someone their ass when you spend half of your posts with fluff to try to sound more authoritative. Maybe you're right and have good reasons, but that only makes you the dishonest one wasting your time on emotionally charged attacks instead of making an actual point.

Re: If their intent is to destroy ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Or are you just selectively cherry-picking history to prop up an unsustainable argumentative position?

Considering you're the only one talking about the past in this particular thread, it does sound like the AC you are replying to is being consistently disregarding the past for the present. That makes your claims of fallacies and dishonesty an attack on a strawman, so speaking of weak fu...

Re:If their intent is to destroy ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, let's say my grandchildren turn out to be terrorists -

Then let's say your children turn out to make friends with other children and help them deal with a shitty childhood that would otherwise have lead to them becoming terrorists. Then consider what if your children were going to grow up to be the next Hitler. Also consider what if your children grow up and join the army, helping fight terrorists. What if your children growing up in the US gives them a better life and too much to risk losing by becoming terrorists, when they would have instead became terrorists if you didn't come?

You don't know what kids are going to grow up and become. If you're scared of what they could become, that is an argument to not have/allow children at all, as they could be just as much of a problem anywhere they grow up. If you're trying to make a point that some kids are destined to grow up to become terrorists, then it doesn't matter where you move to raise your family, as such kids will kill anyway (well, it is easier to be terrorists in many non-US countries than the US...). If you aren't arguing that, and think that the environment factors into it, then you should raise your kids where you think they will have the most opportunities...

Re: If their intent is to destroy ...

[Anonymous Coward]

By far? The combined armies of Europe is larger than the silly one of the US. Also its economy.

If you have problems doing your research, stop repearing the things you heard on television.

Re: If their intent is to destroy ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Since you don't see your own falacies, here two examples:

"Dear judge, I indeed raped her every, every day, but... I did good things to her, years ago". I assume you would actually balance things out and maybe set him free.

Russia freed a larger part of Europe than the US. They also weakened the Nazi army a lot (the thoughest job), so the US could actually make a few final blows. I don't hear you say anything positive about Russia. According to your logic, Russia should get more from us than the US is getting.

Re:If their intent is to destroy ...

[jhol13]

This must the most idiotic, incorrect and bigoted post I have ever seen at +5.

Re:If their intent is to destroy ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I have done some reading too. And you are full of shit.

If Christians were in the same social and economic situation as the Muslims are right now they would behave exactly the same. People in general are able to do crazy shit. Remember the first and second world war?

The extraordinary crazy shit people can do, has nothing to do with religion or beliefs. It has everything to do with human beings under certain conditions.

Reducing complex problems to simple ones with even simpler solutions is not the answer. That is just convenient and lazy, but at the same time human too.

Re:If their intent is to destroy ...

[Anonymous Coward]

History told us that whites are some massive motherfuckers when pushed over the limit. If Daesh plants a dirty bomb in Europe, they will be wiped off the face of the planet.

Re: If their intent is to destroy ...

[Salgak1]

Actually, more and more, America is done with Europe. And it could be said that a lot of European nationals are ALSO just about done with "Europe". Perhaps you've heard of the Brexit Vote ? Or the Alternativ fur Deutschland movement ?
I'll also note that this conversation is occurring in English. Not German. Or Russian.

On behalf of my late grandfather, who flew 17 missions in a B-25 over Germany, you're welcome.
On behalf of my father, who served as a tank driver in the 1950s in Germany, you're welcome.
And on my behalf, flying bombers in support of NATO, you're welcome.

Re:If their intent is to destroy ...

[Evtim]

Many of us, East Europeans that went to West Europe have similar sentiments.

During communism we [the Bulgarians] did not receive much of a propaganda against other ethnic groups with the exception of the Turkish people [for obvious historical reasons plus the fact that the Turkey was the closest NATO member to the communist countries with large and well equipped military]. In fact the communist propagated a sense of sympathy to groups that were oppressed historically [e.g. black people, which is why most of us still call them the N word without putting any, and I do mean any derogative inflection - it is just a description to us].

Once the system collapsed and eventually I arrived in NL to my shock I discovered what you describe so well - that some minority groups are tolerated more than others and can break the local law while hiding behind religious or ethnic "reasons". All of us thought [and still think] that this is ridiculous to the extremes. So the East Europeans have to jump endless amount of hoops to go to the West, then the TV is banging daily about those pesky Romanians, Pols, Bulgarians etc [the UK being the worst offender], while we are like their brothers and sisters in terms of mentality compare to many other immigrant groups. I have seen the inside of a police station only once in 15 years when my very expensive bicycle got stolen in Amsterdam. I and every other Bulgarian I know in NL have no problem with integration. It has never crossed my mind that I can disrespect the locals or their laws...I am the guest in this country....the deal is they give me opportunity to work in science [BG is too poor to accommodate all scientist we produce in Universities] and I uphold their norms and values, pay the taxes and live my live in peace. What is so difficult to understand in this approach?!?

Many of us are deeply offended by this behavior - the Brits still bang about us left, right and center to the point that they are ridiculed ATM in Bulgaria with highly PC incorrect remarks of the type "Ok, if we are a threat to you, have fun with all those incompatible citizens you invited; how do you like them terrorist, eh; Oh, madam Merkel is solving the low birth-rate issue by inviting those nice young dark-skinned man, the German women will get pregnant whether they want it or not" and so on...

Of course in the beginning all Eastern Europe was labeled "racist and intolerant" when we were like "guys, be careful!"; now the West Europeans are waking up and we are like "told you so" [which again makes us the bad guys, no one likes being reminded that they have acted stupid, especially the West Europeans].

I am all for peace and love between nations and races but at the same time I do not see why we should not learn from history and why we are sacrificing the societies we built in the name of blind political correctness.

But there is another side to all this which I dislike even more - the fact that many countries in the World, including the West have supported actively or passively terrorists and extremists, usually for some global politics game. And thus we cannot stop this wackos....a tangential example - do you think that organized crime can exist without corruption in the police, juridical system and government of a given country? I think not....no mafia can fight against the state with all its recourses if there is no protection from the corrupted entities. Same with the terrorists - they are supported by various nations at various times...hell they are sometimes created by foreign powers.

I am sorry but what did the US do in Afghanistan back in the day...what did the Russian do there too...what is the game of Edrogan these days...what about Asad...what about Saudi Arabia - it all smells pretty bad.

You know, back in the day before the last Russian - Turkish war the UK downplayed the horrific atrocities committed by the Turkish army in extinguishing a rebellion that tried to gain independence from the empire . Disraeli went so far as to claim that the rebels committed

Re:If their intent is to destroy ...

[olau]

I think that perhaps what you have not yet understood is that this kindness is part of what makes Western societies work so well.

The optimal solution is not more harshness, but to fix these people so they start contributing positively to society. I'm not a crime researcher, but I believe there's plenty of evidence that helping people fix their problems works much better long term than harsher punishments. I.e. it's cheaper, and it prevents more crimes.

And yes, people can change, and yes, we still need to have punishments. Kindness does not mean there are no consequences.

Re: If their intent is to destroy ...

[Bartles]

Unfortunately for you, my friend, the countries of Europe have no will to fight. They are under attack by an enemy who wants to subjugate and convert or destroy them, and the best they can do is look at themselves and worry about what they did to deserve this, and what they can do to not offend the people trying to kill them. Europe had better get its act together or it will be destroyed by the people it thinks it is giving shelter to.

Re: If their intent is to destroy ...

[Bartles]

That's stupid. After reading tc's pkstsim fairly certain he would do what he can to help the country that he has adopted, and that has adopted him. He wouldn't give shelter to a cyber attacker, and if he knew their identity he would report them.

Re:If their intent is to destroy ...

[Karmashock]

White guilt and marxism have mixed in our cultures to tranquilize us.

We're told by our own culture that if we react in the manner we would have reacted in the past... that we are monsters. That it will stain our souls. That will become nazis... genocidal maniacs.... racists.

The danger is not that these people will destroy us... they aren't killing us fast enough. The danger is rather that there is tension building up between what we want to do and what we're told to do. This tension is a cable that is being strained. It is buckling. If you listen you can hear the cable groan and fray.

It is going to break.

And when it does... the change will be dramatic... like an arrow flying from a bow. Here one moment... there another. Snap.

The danger is that the very resistence to our reaction is self fulfilling the prophecy. Had we been allowed to do what we were inclined to do in the first place. Cut down on the immigration. Ensure there was more integration. Ease the problem. There would be no extreme reaction. But it is increasingly probable that the longer that is put off the more extreme the actual reaction is going to be in the end.

Sudden and extreme. People are being pushed to a point where they don't care anymore. Where any consideration and complaint simply loses meaning. There is a madness building. And if you stop and listen you can sense it.

Don't worry about the West... We're not the ones that are going to need to protection or pity. We're going to go from Dr Jekyll... to Mr Hyde. There is a duality in the West. The Japanese learned of it when they bombed Pearl Harbor. We can turn on a dime.

All that has to be done is to purge the irrational guilt... scour our flesh clean with fire... and then the Marxism has to be burned out. You can see that happening already. The Unions are turning on the Marxists throughout the West. It is in part why they want to bring in as many immigrants as possible. To replace the population with a fresh crop of dupes. Its failing in the US and it is failing in England and it is failed in Eastern Europe and it would never even be considered in the far east. The Marxists are on borrowed time everywhere but south america... and there they only survive out of some false sense of shared guilt which holds them down.

The change is coming...
https://youtu.be/YNieysjSZW4?t...

They really should have known better... this was all avoidable.

Re: If their intent is to destroy ...

[Trailer Trash]

We will deal with Islamic terrorism without sacrificing our way of life.

LOL, really? I'm going to tell you a dirty little secret, lean in here close: the millions of "refugees" that you geniuses just let flood into your countries are absolutely all about sacrificing your way of life for you. They don't want your way of life, moron - they want your land, your houses, and your money. Sure, not all of them, but enough of them to make a difference. And while you're working your ass off to pay for their welfare they're home breeding like rabbits. Your grandchildren will be a minority, and it's not going to be pretty.

I'm already explaining to my children that the day will come soon when Europe will again ask us to help clean up their mess. We did a damned good job of it 70 years ago, probably leaving Europe in better shape than it's been in for the last 2000 years. But they didn't learn their lessons. Again.

Oh, and my kids? The other thing I'm explaining to them is that it's best to let Europe deal with their own shit this time. They can wallow in it for all I care. Enjoy it, and learn Arabic while you're at it - you're gonna need it.

Re:If their intent is to destroy ...

[Anonymous Coward]

This kindness is what will make the West fall.
Apply those "cruel and unusual punisments" (talion law) one again and I mean really apply them, regardless of the individual found guilty, and you won't have so many crimes.
It's cheaper and it does prevent crimes.
Look at the current system. Kill a couple of people then go to jail where you'll spend a part of your life in comfort (free food, TV, internet, conjugal visits). What's not to like?

Re:If their intent is to destroy ...

[Anonymous Coward]

... Churchill's thoughts during the River War.

Churchill was a war-monger similar to those who scripted the punishment for post-Versailles Germany or even GW Bush. Churchill was lucky to have a enemy that truly endangered the whole world, which was how he became the leader of Great Britain. I don't depend on his view about war, that much.

... the Crusades were defensive in nature ...

Bullshit! Go watch 'Kingdom of heaven' (2005, Ridley Scott) to see how the Christian empire lost the holy lands won in the first crusade. The greed of the Christian empire ended the truce and lost the war Christians started, causing Christians to be permanently evicted from the middle east.

... but to win for all time?

Sounds like genocide and the second crusade again. It's interesting that so often war is proclaimed to be the everlasting victory, or at least, liberating. That didn't happen with the thirty-year war, WW1, the Korean war, the Afghan-Russian war, the Afghan-US war, the Six day war, or the Iraq war. Even WW2 was followed by the cold war. Leaving aside the problem of fighting an ideology, war only works only as long as your enemy has fewer friends than you do. That will change when the battlefield becomes so large, neighbouring countries join the fight; usually against you, the invader and self-titled liberator.

... Islam is a predatory ideology founded by a warlord ...

No-one had a problem with Islam until the 1960s. It was a time when African nations were fighting to evict their European masters and militant Islam was born to justify their wars of independence. When those wars ended, militant Islam slowly withered until they found a new believer and a new cause: The USA and the liberation of Afghanistan. The revolution of Iran happened too and militant Muslims quickly gained power in the back rooms of government. With a political voice and a lot of believers after the Afghan-Russian war ended, militant Islam slowly spread to other countries and believers now conduct guerrilla wars against their own governments.

You can fight every Muslim if you want, It is the American way: You truly think like an American, congratulations on your naturalization. But every Muslim isn't the problem. This is what most of your opponents are arguing. Also, getting embroiled in guerrilla wars tends to end badly for the self-titled liberator.

Re:If their intent is to destroy ...

[Anonymous Coward]

That is where you are wrong. There is no them or us. There are those in power, and the pawns underneath. Everything else is just noise.

Re:If their intent is to destroy ...

[Anonymous Coward]

How cand I as a white guy discern you from that ill intended guys?

Re:If their intent is to destroy ...

[Tom]

If Christians were in the same social and economic situation as the Muslims are right now they would behave exactly the same.

There are Christians living in the Middle East. A minority yes, but a few millions. Never heard of them becoming terrorists, maybe you can enlighten us?

Stop the excuses. Christians might react violently as well, yes. But claiming they would behave exactly the same is the exact reductionism you rail against. No, they would not. Maybe similar, maybe not, but definitely not exactly.

Islam is part of the problem. Maybe a small part, maybe a big part, that's an interesting discussion. But claiming its contribution is zero is delusional.

Re: If their intent is to destroy ...

[meta-monkey]

I'm already explaining to my children that the day will come soon when Europe will again ask us to help clean up their mess. We did a damned good job of it 70 years ago, probably leaving Europe in better shape than it's been in for the last 2000 years. But they didn't learn their lessons. Again.

It's horrid. I look at what Europe is doing, I look at my young son, and I know in a few decades he'll be parachuting into France to save them from the Islamic hordes. It could all be avoided if the Europeans weren't so blindly naive to the fact that not everyone in the world is nice like they are, and deep down wants the same peaceful existence they do.

Demographics are destiny.

Re:If their intent is to destroy ...

[Anonymous Coward]

In the book, Mr late Mr Lee Kuan Yew, when asked to assess the progress of multiracialism in Singapore, said: “I have to speak candidly to be of value, but I do not wish to offend the Muslim community.

        “I think we were progressing very nicely until the surge of Islam came, and if you asked me for my observations, the other communities have easier integration - friends, intermarriages and so on, Indians with Chinese, Chinese with Indians - than Muslims. That’s the result of the surge from the Arab states.”

        He added: ”I would say today, we can integrate all religions and races except Islam.”

        He also said: “I think the Muslims socially do not cause any trouble, but they are distinct and separate.”

Re:If their intent is to destroy ...

[randallman]

It would be similar to Jews or Christians following the Pentateuch (Old Testament Law). I'm not Jewish, so correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the Talmud, which they follow today, supercedes they Pentateuch.

Re:If their intent is to destroy ...

[MachineShedFred]

You are exactly right.

Islam is to Islamic terrorism as Christianity is to the KKK and abortion clinic bombers. Any sufficiently large group of people sharing a belief will have extremes, and people should not paint that entire group with the color of the extremes.

Re:If their intent is to destroy ...

[MachineShedFred]

"doing the reading" of the Book of Leviticus would have Christianity and Judaism calling homosexuality an abomination (Leviticus 18:22), the Book of Exodus would have people selling their daughters into slavery (Exodus 21:7) and putting people to death for working on the sabbath (Exodus 35:2). And let's not forget about touching the skin of a dead pig making one unclean (Leviticus 11:7), which means hundreds of millions of people are fucked for just having that slice of bacon.

If a farmer plants different crops side by side, do we really have to gather up the whole town to stone him?

Ancient religious texts are ancient, and many religions move past the arcane content contained within, in favor of celebrating the spirituality of the overarching messages. If Christians and Jews can evolve their teachings to get rid of these ridiculous passages, why can't muslims do the same? Are you saying that they are particularly resistant, or unwilling?

Re:If their intent is to destroy ...

[Megol]

You can't have read what the bible actually says nor learned what people that claim to follow it thinks it allows or even forces them to do.

Religions and Abrahamic religions in particular are dangerous.

Re:If their intent is to destroy ...

[Fragnet]

It's a question of statistics (as so many things are). If 90% aren't assholes it means 10% of them are. This should inform policy before you invite 10,000,000 of them to come and live in your country because there's no way to determine beforehand which of the 10,000,000 are in the 10% and which are in the 90.

Re:If their intent is to destroy ...

[bfpierce]

The trouble with this thinking is there isn't some kind of test you can issue where you'll know who the 'bad immigrants' are, which means you have to do something like this completely indiscriminately.

The problem with this? You end up alienating even MORE of that population against you. You need the 'good ones' to trust you enough to feed you the intelligence you need to stop the 'bad ones'. Booting everybody out of the country who's an immigrant from the middle east isn't an effective long term strategy.

Re:If their intent is to destroy ...

[Anonymous Coward]

In the book, the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew, when asked to assess the progress of multiracialism in Singapore, said: “I have to speak candidly to be of value, but I do not wish to offend the Muslim community.

        “I think we were progressing very nicely until the surge of Islam came, and if you asked me for my observations, the other communities have easier integration - friends, intermarriages and so on, Indians with Chinese, Chinese with Indians - than Muslims. That’s the result of the surge from the Arab states.”

        He added: ”I would say today, we can integrate all religions and races except Islam.”

        He also said: “I think the Muslims socially do not cause any trouble, but they are distinct and separate.”

Re: If their intent is to destroy ...

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet the reason why tyrants to the east of Europe aren't rolling in tanks and preventing you from saying such things is because of the defense agreements with the United States.

It's funny how quickly the smug would turn around on statements like the above if the United States stopped defending you thankless assholes from the threats that are knocking at the door. Then you would be hating on the United States for isolationism and "not caring what happens to the rest of the civilized world."

Go shit in your hat, read a history book, and open your eyes. Europe is what it is today specifically because of the contributions of the United States to keeping you free enough to be smug.

Re:If their intent is to destroy ...

[MachineShedFred]

You truly think like an American, congratulations on your naturalization. But every Muslim isn't the problem.

You win the irony-through-hypocrisy award for the day. You blast him for painting every muslim with the same brush, while simultaneously painting 330 million Americans with the same brush.

Can't imagine why you posted this as an anonymous coward. Oh, I know exactly why - because you're a fucking asshole, but don't want your true views of being an ignorant fuck to reflect on your actual pseudonymity.

Re:If their intent is to destroy ...

[Anonymous Coward]

White guilt and marxism have mixed in our cultures to tranquilize us.

Hmm, what are these things?

We're told by our own culture that if we react in the manner we would have reacted in the past... that we are monsters. That it will stain our souls. That will become nazis... genocidal maniacs.... racists.

Given that the Nazis were in the past, they were genocidal maniacs, and racists, yes. You should also consider the same if you act like was done by the Teuotonic Knights, the various exterminators of Native American culture, the colonizers of Africa, and the Gileadites.

They really should have known better... this was all avoidable.

Yes, you can. Find another path.

Re:If their intent is to destroy ...

[quantaman]

You see, those immigrants (or descendants of immigrants) who intend to make trouble - you guys (the White folks) still tolerate them, to the extend that even after those motherfuckers kill your people, you still standing up for them, in the name of, so called 'equality', 'diversity' et cetera

Not really. We throw them in jail or deport them when we find them.

The problem is finding them, "Arab" or "Muslim" is a very poor predictor of terrorism, sure there's a bias but the vast majority of Muslim Arabs are completely peaceful, you can't really pick out the bad ones any more than you can pick out the criminals of any group.

No one is standing up for terrorists, but for the good peaceful people who happen to share an ethnicity or religion with terrorists? I'll stand up for them.

Re:If their intent is to destroy ...

[david_thornley]

Western civilization won by being badass. We've still got the badass stuff, we just try to keep it unused. Lots of people have thought Western Civilization weak, and they tend to be found in the "losers" column if they tried to act on that. We can afford to be kind and forbearing. We can afford to be selective about who we condemn. People who see this as weakness will tend to act on that belief and lose. People who see it as kindness will tend to be absorbed by it.

Re:If their intent is to destroy ...

[WindBourne]

so China is sending loads of spies to get our military tech so that they can put us under their thumb. Should we stop Chinese immigrants as well?

Re: If their intent is to destroy ...

[Anonymous Coward]

English is a European language you retard. EU is an institution you fuckwit. I want out of the EU Schengen but I'm still European and I still want Americans to get fucked.

Did you even education 'brah'?

Re:If their intent is to destroy ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Never heard of them becoming terrorists, maybe you can enlighten us?

Check out the Maronites in the Lebanese Civil War.

Not at all pleasant, but I guess you'd never have reason to hear about them and their actions.

More recently, check out the various Christian groups in Africa, and historically, you can find the Mormons, the Puritans, the various anti-Pagan campaigns and inquisitions.

Blaming Islam, while failing to note the inhumanity of man towards others regardless of religion is part of the problem.

But go ahead, make excuses. Close your eyes. Ignore the log in thine own eye.

Re:If their intent is to destroy ...

[Karmashock]

What is white guilt and marxism? You have google... these are common terms. You can inform yourself.

As to what we are told and what we intended to do... the point was that the accusations are hyperbolic. Restricting immigration a bit doesn't make us Nazis unless the Australians and Mexicans are Nazis... both restrict immigration to a greater extent than we do.

The point further is that in stopping us from doing small sensible things that can deal with the problem before it becomes extreme... you create a situation where a sudden and extreme action will eventually be required. This means to a certain extent you're guilty of the self fulfilling prophecy. You predict something that won't happen but then do things in such a manner that what you predict happens.

You're doing it right now.

As to finding another path... you've gone out of your way to close off other paths. Our options are fewer every day. You stopped what was going to happen before... the simple easy solutions that no one would have noticed or minded or remarked upon... and you've made it increasingly necessary that more radical options become a requirement.

The political establishments in the US and Europe are crumbling because people like YOU had the arrogance to think you could do what you're doing indefinitely. Consequences. You have not paid attention to the politics. To the numbers. To the interests. And it will crack your humpty dumpty political order... and all the king's horses and all the king's men... won't be able to put humpty dumpty back together again. ;)

Re:If their intent is to destroy ...

[Anonymous Coward]

And it will crack your humpty dumpty political order... and all the king's horses and all the king's men... won't be able to put humpty dumpty back together again. ;)

You can't step into the same river twice. Besides, you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. The sun will rise tomorrow on a brand new day.

Figurative language, it has its problems. I'm not even sure what you think Humpty Dumpty has to do with any particular political order. But if you're going to take that character, then let us refer to Carrol then:

HOWEVER, the egg only got larger and larger, and more and more human: when she had come within a few yards of it, she saw that it had eyes and a nose and mouth; and, when she had come close to it, she saw clearly that it was HUMPTY DUMPTY himself. 'It can't be anybody else!' she said to herself. 'I'm as certain of it, as if his name were written all over his face!'
It might have been written a hundred times, easily, on that enormous face. Humpty Dumpty was sitting, with his legs crossed like a Turk, on the top of a high wall — such a narrow one that Alice quite wondered how he could keep his balance — and, as his eyes were steadily fixed in the opposite direction, and he didn't take the least notice of her, she thought he must be a stuffed figure, after all.
'And how exactly like an egg he is!' she said aloud, standing with her hands ready to catch him, for she was every moment expecting him to fall.
'It's very provoking,' Humpty Dumpty said after a long silence, looking away from Alice as he spoke, 'to be called an egg — very!'
'I said you looked like an egg, Sir,' Alice gently explained. 'And some eggs are very pretty, you know,' she added, hoping to turn her remark into a sort of compliment.
'Some people,' said Humpty Dumpty, looking away from her as usual, 'have no more sense than a baby!'
Alice didn't know what to say to this: it wasn't at all like conversation, she thought, as he never said anything to her; in fact, his last remark was evidently addressed to a tree — so she stood and softly repeated to herself:
'Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall:
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.
All the King's horses and all the King's men
Couldn't put Humpty Dumpty in his place again.'
'That last line is much too long for the poetry,' she added, almost out loud, forgetting that Humpty Dumpty would hear her.
'Don't stand chattering to yourself like that,' Humpty Dumpty said, looking at her for the first time, 'but tell me your name and your business.'
'My name is Alice, but —'
'It's a stupid name enough!' Humpty Dumpty interrupted impatiently. 'What does it mean?'
'Must a name mean something?' Alice asked doubtfully.
'Of course it must,' Humpty Dumpty said with a short laugh: 'my name means the shape I am — and a good handsome shape it is, too. With a name like yours, you might be any shape, almost.'
'Why do you sit out here all alone?' said Alice, not wishing to begin an argument.
'Why, because there's nobody with me!' cried Humpty Dumpty. 'Did you think I didn't know the answer to that? Ask another.'
'Don't you think you'd be safer down on the ground?' Alice went on, not with any idea of making another riddle, but simply in her good-natured anxiety for the queer creature. 'That wall is so very narrow!'
'What tremendously easy riddles you ask!' Humpty Dumpty growled out. 'Of course I don't think so! Why, if ever I did fall off — which there's no chance of — but if I did —' Here he pursed up his lips, and looked so solemn and grand that Alice could hardly help laughing. 'If I did fall,' he went on, 'the King has promised me — ah, you may turn pale, if you like! You didn't think I was going to say that, did you? The King has promised me — with his very own mouth — to — to —'
'To send all his horses and all his men,' Alice interrupted, rather unwisely.
'Now I declare that's too bad!' Humpty Dumpty cri

Re:If their intent is to destroy ...

[Karmashock]

Allow me to quote the library of congress to rebut.

Your evasion is noted. You basically had no response and so basically did the rhetorical version of "hey look over there"...

*yawn*

Unless you are going to contend with my argument, my point is uncontested.

Your post was effectively null.

Re:If their intent is to destroy ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, yes, the Library of Congress has many books. For example, if you want to try Anne of Green Gables instead:

CHAPTER I. Mrs. Rachel Lynde is Surprised

Mrs. Rachel Lynde lived just where the Avonlea main road dipped down into a little hollow, fringed with alders and ladies' eardrops and traversed by a brook that had its source away back in the woods of the old Cuthbert place; it was reputed to be an intricate, headlong brook in its earlier course through those woods, with dark secrets of pool and cascade; but by the time it reached Lynde's Hollow it was a quiet, well-conducted little stream, for not even a brook could run past Mrs. Rachel Lynde's door without due regard for decency and decorum; it probably was conscious that Mrs. Rachel was sitting at her window, keeping a sharp eye on everything that passed, from brooks and children up, and that if she noticed anything odd or out of place she would never rest until she had ferreted out the whys and wherefores thereof.
There are plenty of people in Avonlea and out of it, who can attend closely to their neighbor's business by dint of neglecting their own; but Mrs. Rachel Lynde was one of those capable creatures who can manage their own concerns and those of other folks into the bargain. She was a notable housewife; her work was always done and well done; she "ran" the Sewing Circle, helped run the Sunday-school, and was the strongest prop of the Church Aid Society and Foreign Missions Auxiliary. Yet with all this Mrs. Rachel found abundant time to sit for hours at her kitchen window, knitting "cotton warp" quilts—she had knitted sixteen of them, as Avonlea housekeepers were wont to tell in awed voices—and keeping a sharp eye on the main road that crossed the hollow and wound up the steep red hill beyond. Since Avonlea occupied a little triangular peninsula jutting out into the Gulf of St. Lawrence with water on two sides of it, anybody who went out of it or into it had to pass over that hill road and so run the unseen gauntlet of Mrs. Rachel's all-seeing eye.
She was sitting there one afternoon in early June. The sun was coming in at the window warm and bright; the orchard on the slope below the house was in a bridal flush of pinky-white bloom, hummed over by a myriad of bees. Thomas Lynde—a meek little man whom Avonlea people called "Rachel Lynde's husband"—was sowing his late turnip seed on the hill field beyond the barn; and Matthew Cuthbert ought to have been sowing his on the big red brook field away over by Green Gables. Mrs. Rachel knew that he ought because she had heard him tell Peter Morrison the evening before in William J. Blair's store over at Carmody that he meant to sow his turnip seed the next afternoon. Peter had asked him, of course, for Matthew Cuthbert had never been known to volunteer information about anything in his whole life.
And yet here was Matthew Cuthbert, at half-past three on the afternoon of a busy day, placidly driving over the hollow and up the hill; moreover, he wore a white collar and his best suit of clothes, which was plain proof that he was going out of Avonlea; and he had the buggy and the sorrel mare, which betokened that he was going a considerable distance. Now, where was Matthew Cuthbert going and why was he going there?
Had it been any other man in Avonlea, Mrs. Rachel, deftly putting this and that together, might have given a pretty good guess as to both questions. But Matthew so rarely went from home that it must be something pressing and unusual which was taking him; he was the shyest man alive and hated to have to go among strangers or to any place where he might have to talk. Matthew, dressed up with a white collar and driving in a buggy, was something that didn't happen often. Mrs. Rachel, ponder as she might, could make nothing of it and her afternoon's enjoyment was spoiled.
"I'll just step over to Green Gables after tea and find out from Marilla where he's gone and why," the worthy woman finally concluded. "He doesn't generally go to town this time of year and he

Re:If their intent is to destroy ...

[Karmashock]

To which one could respond with a citation of the New York phone book from 1972.

Your posts are null. And as null posts they leave my argument unmolested. My argument stands. You've done literally nothing to refute it.

Re:If their intent is to destroy ...

[Tom]

Check out the Maronites in the Lebanese Civil War.

I did a few Google searches, and couldn't find terrorism references. Links, please.

Blaming Islam, while failing to note the inhumanity of man towards others regardless of religion is part of the problem.

As the saying goes, there are many evil people in the world, but to get a good man to do evil, you need religion.

Failing to note how religion and inhumanity often go hand-in-hand is utter stupidity. Of course religion is not the only source of inhuman behaviour, I never claimed that. But you have to be ignorant to pretty much all of history to not see how religion reinforces, supports and provides justification for unbelievable atrocities.

But go ahead, make excuses. Close your eyes. Ignore the log in thine own eye.

I never bombed an airport, nor did I cut off any heads. So please, don't insult your own intelligence.

Re:If their intent is to destroy ...

[Anonymous Coward]

A phone book from 1972? That's of little use, few numbers would likely be valid, even if it were 518. And truly boring reading, unless you are fool enough to believe in numerology. Gematria may be a fun amusement, but it is only that.

I suggest you try something else, like the ever-so-popular Moby-Dick:

CHAPTER 28. Ahab.

For several days after leaving Nantucket, nothing above hatches was seen of Captain Ahab. The mates regularly relieved each other at the watches, and for aught that could be seen to the contrary, they seemed to be the only commanders of the ship; only they sometimes issued from the cabin with orders so sudden and peremptory, that after all it was plain they but commanded vicariously. Yes, their supreme lord and dictator was there, though hitherto unseen by any eyes not permitted to penetrate into the now sacred retreat of the cabin.
Every time I ascended to the deck from my watches below, I instantly gazed aft to mark if any strange face were visible; for my first vague disquietude touching the unknown captain, now in the seclusion of the sea, became almost a perturbation. This was strangely heightened at times by the ragged Elijah's diabolical incoherences uninvitedly recurring to me, with a subtle energy I could not have before conceived of. But poorly could I withstand them, much as in other moods I was almost ready to smile at the solemn whimsicalities of that outlandish prophet of the wharves. But whatever it was of apprehensiveness or uneasiness—to call it so—which I felt, yet whenever I came to look about me in the ship, it seemed against all warrantry to cherish such emotions. For though the harpooneers, with the great body of the crew, were a far more barbaric, heathenish, and motley set than any of the tame merchant-ship companies which my previous experiences had made me acquainted with, still I ascribed this—and rightly ascribed it—to the fierce uniqueness of the very nature of that wild Scandinavian vocation in which I had so abandonedly embarked. But it was especially the aspect of the three chief officers of the ship, the mates, which was most forcibly calculated to allay these colourless misgivings, and induce confidence and cheerfulness in every presentment of the voyage. Three better, more likely sea-officers and men, each in his own different way, could not readily be found, and they were every one of them Americans; a Nantucketer, a Vineyarder, a Cape man. Now, it being Christmas when the ship shot from out her harbor, for a space we had biting Polar weather, though all the time running away from it to the southward; and by every degree and minute of latitude which we sailed, gradually leaving that merciless winter, and all its intolerable weather behind us. It was one of those less lowering, but still grey and gloomy enough mornings of the transition, when with a fair wind the ship was rushing through the water with a vindictive sort of leaping and melancholy rapidity, that as I mounted to the deck at the call of the forenoon watch, so soon as I levelled my glance towards the taffrail, foreboding shivers ran over me. Reality outran apprehension; Captain Ahab stood upon his quarter-deck.
There seemed no sign of common bodily illness about him, nor of the recovery from any. He looked like a man cut away from the stake, when the fire has overrunningly wasted all the limbs without consuming them, or taking away one particle from their compacted aged robustness. His whole high, broad form, seemed made of solid bronze, and shaped in an unalterable mould, like Cellini's cast Perseus. Threading its way out from among his grey hairs, and continuing right down one side of his tawny scorched face and neck, till it disappeared in his clothing, you saw a slender rod-like mark, lividly whitish. It resembled that perpendicular seam sometimes made in the straight, lofty trunk of a great tree, when the upper lightning tearingly darts down it, and without wrenching a single twig, peels and grooves out the bark from top to bottom, ere running off in

Re:If their intent is to destroy ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Links, please.

For the Lebanese Civil War, you could not find reference to terrorism by the Christians there? The mind boggles. Even the Druze were involved in such.

Oh, but so many in America think that the marines in the barracks were the high point of the war.

I do not make light of their loss, but to focus upon it? Such a terrible farce.

As the saying goes, there are many evil people in the world, but to get a good man to do evil, you need religion.

Not at all, there's a thousand thousand things that will suffice to lead a man astray. Love, for example. Lust, for another. Fear and greed. Vengeance. I would go on, but I shall never quite manage to be exhaustive.

And that is even when you have the one man in ten thousand, most of us are not so strong.

Failing to note how religion and inhumanity often go hand-in-hand is utter stupidity.

Religion is but a mask, a cloak, tear it off, and a man shall simply weave another.

To find a reason for inhumanity, a man will choose by his own hand to believe in folly, or worse yet, have it chosen for him.

I never bombed an airport, nor did I cut off any heads. So please, don't insult your own intelligence.

That serves little comfort, as I cannot know the words or thoughts of those you have despited. Even where you testimony true, there is much you might have inflicted all the unaware, and I know you not a bit, so that I cannot even guess what would drive you to such acts as would be most repellent.

Still, with my experience with others, that potential is not so far and distant as I might hope, so I cannot say for certain that your own heart is well guarded.

Perhaps you stand closer to the edge than you realize.

And the fall is ever such a tempting one.

Evil's masks are so fetchingly seductive.

That's it for SMRs

[mdsolar]

If you need heavy security at each plant, the idea of small plants comes to an end.

Re:That's it for SMRs

[Anonymous Coward]

Not at all, one plant can have many units in one secured perimeter.

Re:That's it for SMRs

[mdsolar]

Cheaper to go large then.

Damn

[Dorianny]

Just what we needed. More fuel for the AntiNuclearPower campaigners just as the risk from Climate Change is fast aproaching critical thresholds

Re:Damn

[mdsolar]

But lots of nukes are being built in the Mid-East. http://time.com/3751676/iran-t...

Re:Damn

[Anonymous Coward]

Right. So because we can't seem to prevent ourselves from filling our nations with third world atavists we have to get rid of the cleanest base-load power source we have.

Fuck it. Trump 2016.

Re:Damn

[Anonymous Coward]

We can't even build cleaner reactors because bitches like Fonda scare people.

Re:Damn

[Anonymous Coward]

But do they need fuel? I thought they'd all be solar powered?

I hoped to be Napoleon

[Anonymous Coward]

But I can't

The ones with fatal naivete ...

[Taco Cowboy]

After living in the West for several decade I gotta say that the Whites (majority of them) are very naive

You guys are so naive that you think all people are as good as you, that they are all, like you, want to give the best to others

No !

I am an immigrant from China - and in my days of working / studying I mixed with immigrants from other parts of the world, and in that process I get to understand the worldview of the people from all corners of the world

While most immigrants are appreciative of what the West has offered them, a group has another idea --- THEY WANT TO TURN THE WEST INTO THE WORLD THEY ARE FROM --- meaning, they want you guys, the Whites, to subjugate to them, to serve them, to be their slaves

They want you guys to convert to their kind of 'belief system'

They want to fuck your daughters just because it feels good, and they want the right to walk away from everything (without having to be responsible for anything) because it is THEIR WAY BACK IN THE PLACE THEY ARE FROM

I guess you know which group of people I am talking about --- and I knew those people back in the late 1970's

Yes, some 40 odd years ago those people already having that kind of thinking --- and all the while you White folks are carrying on with your naive thinking, that all the folks you have helped would help you back

Of course, as an immigrant I am ashamed to be in the same group of those motherfuckers (they are immigrants too)

At that time I was very annoyed with their kind of thinking ... but at least back then they didn't do whatever they are doing now --- except for fucking the white girls and then walked away (think of the biological dad of Steve Jobs)

  Now that they are doing the things they are doing, bombing, killing, whatever, I am angry

But what can I do?

I am only an immigrant - I am not a host

It is still up to you, the White folks, to do something

After all, the West is yours --- if you White folks do not protect your West who the fuck is going to protect it for you?

Re:The ones with fatal naivete ...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the way the world ends. This is the way the world ends. This is the way the world ends. Not with a bang, but a whimper.

Re:The ones with fatal naivete ...

[Taco Cowboy]

... This is the way the world ends. This is the way the world ends. This is the way the world ends. Not with a bang, but a whimper ...

The question is ... Are you guys truly satisfied with that?

Do you guys want to leave the legacy of being the worst kind of coward ever lived in the history of mankind?

In China, where I was born, whenever those people create trouble, the Chinese authority makes sure that they got what they deserve

I am not here saying that I agree with everything the Chinese communist party does ... or that I agree with the harsh treatment those people got ... I am just telling you guys that the rest of the world do not treat those motherfuckers softly --- THEY STRIKE BACK !!

Re:The ones with fatal naivete ...

[Alwin Henseler]

(..) meaning, they want you guys, the Whites, to subjugate to them, to serve them, to be their slaves

You might be surprised how many of "the Whites" are into that kind of thing...

Re:The ones with fatal naivete ...

[chadenright]

Their religion says that they should drag us down to their level and then beat us with experience. Our religion says that we should ignore their petty antics for the tragic irrelevance that it is, turn the other cheek and continue to help them. Kindness is not a weakness; it heaps burning coals of shame on their heads when we are kind to them; it torments everyone we have been kind to when we are tormented. On the other hand, the West could be an awful lot more kind. We are not anywhere close to perfect and it seems like perfection is farther off every year.

Re:The ones with fatal naivete ...

[Anonymous Coward]

By "our" you probably mean "my" (yours). Thankyouverymuch!

Re: The ones with fatal naivete ...

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that religious believers are essentially mentally ill. Being kind to them won't work in the same way that being kind to a sane person might lead them to change their position. Radical Muslims see kindness as a weakness to be exploited. They will kill you with your kindness.

How many more...

[Anonymous Coward]

...of these incidents are going to occur before someone decides it's an act of war?

Re:How many more...

[Pseudonym]

How many? Well, it depends where you live.

Well, in the US, it takes only a few nutters committing a bad crime for the country to decide it's war, because war is one of the few things that people in the United States think they understand.

Europe actually understands war, so it would require a hostile attack from a recognised country. If it helps, remember that the IRA caused more deaths and damage in Europe than ISIS could ever dream of, and the UK never really considered itself to be at war. The UK knows what war is, and it's not that.

I don't want to downplay ISIS, who are definitely destroying the lives of people in the (thankfully shrinking) areas that they control. As murderous despotic regimes go, they're up there. But when it comes to terrorist attacks in Europe go, they're playing in the minor leagues. Separatist organisations are a far worse threat.

Re: How many more...

[Anonymous Coward]

I googled and only found about a hundred deaths from major IRA bombings. Total. ISIS is about even already. Still a tiny fraction of vehicular crashes, or 'fell off roof' accidents, etc. But it would be great to say IRA did 10x as much, didnt halt civilization.

Re: How many more...

[Pseudonym]

I googled and only found about a hundred deaths from major IRA bombings.

If you're only going to count bombings, that sounds about right. The total death toll was around 3500, mostly soldiers (British Army, RUC, UDA, UDF etc).

ISIS is about even already.

So less than half of the number of people who died in the Lockerbie bombing alone? Again, that sounds about right.

Re: How many more...

[Black Parrot]

On a related note, for those who hold Islam responsible for recent terrorism, who do you hold responsible for the IRA's terrorism?

Irish Catholicism?

All Catholicism?

All Christianity?

All religion?

All people?

Terrorism

[Etherwalk]

The naive part is the interest in a "dirty bomb" in the first place.

Why take on the significant additional risk of discovery for something that won't inflict much more damage?

You're thinking like an engineer, not a terrorist. The objective of a terrorist is to create fear and mass panic, and in this case overreaction that ultimately leads to an invasion which they can claim is a holy war against Islam.

A bomb the press can call "nuclear" will get more press coverage and a LOT more concern and reaction than an IED. Not necessarily because of a worse effect, but because laypeople are afraid of and do not understand science. That's why MRI's are called MRI's today instead of nMRI's. That's why a movies and television shows can warn against reactors exploding, when nuclear reactors do NOT explode. A dirty bomb can scare people more, and that helps terrorists.

You've also got the possibility of a propaganda radiation murder like when Putin had that guy in the UK murdered with... I think soup? That gets a lot of coverage.

Re:Terrorism

[Anonymous Coward]

That's okay. Hillary says she'll keep us safe, just like Lybia.

Re:Terrorism

[rtb61]

Let's be honest if terrorists started blowing up the luxury hidey holes of the rich and greedy along with those rich and greedy in attendance, things would change real fast. Where as blowing up the rest of us, just locks the status quo more firmly in place. Genuine terrorist would not target the 99%, genuine terrorists would zero in on the 1% as the decision makers. The more this bullshit drags on, the more blatantly, glaring suspicious it becomes. So somehow beyond all logic those really smart terrorists who plan these attacks are really, really stupid because they make smart plans to attack stupid targets, targets that gain them nothing but do ensure more money, a lot more money is spent fighting those terrorists. Yeah, the really did used to target those making the decisions and the rest of us were just collateral damage. Now they don't ever, ever touch the decision makers.

Re:Terrorism

[dbIII]

when nuclear reactors do NOT explode

One did. It may have been a steam explosion but bits did go everywhere at high speed. Going off like an atomic bomb is of course a different story.

Re:Terrorism

[Walter White]

Did you misspell Libya on purpose or are you just not capable?

Re:Terrorism

[Anonymous Coward]

The objective of a terrorist is to create fear and mass panic.

Than how about we only consider people with power, money, influence, interest and motive to be terrorists? (in context of Islam). People willing to and interested in committing violent acts can do it for all sorts of reasons, even altruistic ones. Most of them however lack the means and may require a nudge or a bit of brainwashing. A great example is Brigade Rosse. An Italian terror group that was funded by USSR as story goes. They chilled the fuck out relatively quickly once USSR stopped funding them. All of that limits the number of "potential terrorists" from hundreds of millions to... tens of thousands? Much better. I am hoping someone finds a large concentration of people like that on a pretty island in Pacific and sinks it. As a bonus Russians can be blamed for it indirectly or otherwise. Sure, more will show up. Repeat until "Holy War" starts loosing momentum.

But who would do such a thing? Unfortunately in most cases shit only flows downward. Ironically Brigade Rosse used a strategy similar to what I am suggesting. Must be the USSR upbringing :\

Re: Terrorism

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm just not capable.

Re:Terrorism

[Alumoi]

The objective of a terrorist is to create fear and mass panic

What? Are you saying western governments are terrorists? They are doing their best to create fear and mass panic that the honest terrorists are thinking of letting them join the fight.

Re:Terrorism

[PeDRoRist]

Using a dirty bomb to trigger an overreaction in your enemy and use that overreaction to get more allys is a double edged-sword, really. Trading blows using conventional and makeshift bombs is one thing, but using a dirty "nuclear" device is clearly crossing a line. That could provide the perfect casus belli and warrant an invasion, even in the eyes of those would could side with Daesh in the first place, by virtue of the same mechanism that makes people go nuts when they hear the words "dirty bomb"

Re:Terrorism

[Etherwalk]

That could provide the perfect casus belli and warrant an invasion, even in the eyes of those would could side with Daesh in the first place, by virtue of the same mechanism that makes people go nuts when they hear the words "dirty bomb"

Armed attacks in Paris, Belgium, Indonesia, etc... already provide the casus belli to the extent NATO or the UN want to respond. You think a dirty bomb would really make a difference about whether invasion would be okay in the eyes of anyone on the world stage?

The War on Terror [Re:How many more...]

[XXongo]

...of these incidents are going to occur before someone decides it's an act of war?

We declared a "war on terror" fifteen years ago, and have not yet negotiated a peace treaty, so, yes: it's one more act of war in the ongoing war that we declared fifteen years ago.

But when it's not a country doing the attack, uh, who do you think we should retaliate against? We're already killing terrorists, or anybody we think might be terrorists or supporting terrorists or related to terrorists, with drone strikes as fast as we can.

The attackers want a disproportionate response. They're trying to provoke a retaliation; that would serve as a recruiting tool for them,

Doesn't add up....

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, so the brothers were already flagged by Turkey to Belgium and were known to have an interest in nuclear bombs? And yet extraordinarily they were left free to carry out bombings and kill innocent civilians. And this narrative is supposed to make sense.

Given the slightest link to any kind of nuclear bomb making send up alerts all over the world and get you locked up instantly the only conclusion then is the intelligence services allowed this to happen. And now instead of facing the music for gross negligence they are allowed to fear monger and manipulate the public. This stinks!

Re:Doesn't add up....

[smooth wombat]

And yet extraordinarily they were left free to carry out bombings and kill innocent civilians.

Several of the 9/11 hijackers, including the two lead planners, were on watch lists yet not only entered the U.S. under their own names, moved about the country at will. They were never stopped, including after their visas had expired and, as we know, flew on multiple flights out of Boston to test and gauge security and to plan their attack.

Sounds like Belgium and Turkey were following the lead of George Bush and ignoring the problem.

Re:Doesn't add up....

[ScentCone]

Sounds like Belgium and Turkey were following the lead of George Bush and ignoring the problem.

So your problem is that, a few months into office, Bush didn't change Clinton's policies fast enough?

Re:Doesn't add up....

[mdsolar]

Rice ignored the efforts that had been keeping a lid on things. Richard Clarke was pretty clear on that.

Re:Doesn't add up....

[CajunArson]

So in addition to being a paid shill you're:
1. A climate change denialist since you don't support nuclear.
2. A fucking truther whackjob.

Re:Doesn't add up....

[dbIII]

Since that was a consequence of being on perpetual vacation and having cronies that didn't take their jobs seriously, then yes you are correct.
He didn't do anything fast enough apart from putting on a tailored costume designed to look like the perfect fighter pilot's uniform and stand in front of a "mission accomplished" banner.
Not that I'm a fan of Clinton either (a man ruled by donations and libido), but Baby Bush managed to bring an ongoing disaster to a new level, or at least watched it happen from the golf course.

Re:Doesn't add up....

[mdsolar]

Do you know who Rice is?

Re:Doesn't add up....

[Black Parrot]

I suspect a lot of the problem was the sheer mass of intelligence involved. You hear about low-level officials that tried to sound the alarm, but the problem is that everyone passed their concerns to their boss, and every boss winnowed it down for presentation to their own boss, and as a result the signs of 9-11 that we now recognize by hindsight didn't make it to the top.

Not sure there's a solution for this. (See also the recent story on current NSA data overload.)

Re:Doesn't add up....

[Bing Tsher E]

She's a black American woman, right?

A concert pianist.

A former Secretary of State.

Or do I have the wrong Rice in mind?

Re:Doesn't add up....

[smooth wombat]

That's what people whined about President Obama when he came to office. That he didn't immediately resolve the financial crisis in his first few months at the helm.

Re:Doesn't add up....

[Whorhay]

The failure to stop 9/11 had very little if anything to do with the sitting president at the time. It had a lot more to do with how promotions and pats on the back are distributed in the bureaucracy. The CIA was aware of and monitoring at least two of the hijackers. When the hijackers entered the USA the CIA agent in charge of watching them made a deliberate decision not to notify the FBI. That decision was made out of the fear that the FBI would get to bust them on something and hog all the glory. So instead the CIA let them enter the USA and go unmonitored in the hope that they'd leave again and re-enter the jurisdiction of the CIA.

Essentially 9/11 wasn't stopped because someone at the CIA didn't want to share or lose any credit to the FBI. This has been resolved, at least in theory, through the department of homeland security. DHS is supposed to ensure that cases which cross other agency jurisdictions and related to national security get handled properly.

Re:Doesn't add up....

[david_thornley]

Some of them were whining about his not having resolved the financial crisis a month before his inauguration. It was amusing to watch.

Re:Doesn't add up....

[ScentCone]

So you must be REALLY pissed at the current administration, with the even more family and golf trips and the even less useful bubble of underlings insulating the POTUS from reality.

What are you trying to say?

[Taco Cowboy]

... A non-white person who capitalizes the word 'White' is an unusual thing to encounter ...

A non Japanese person who capitalizes the word "Japanese" ... is that so unusual?

A non Chinese person who capitalizes the word "Chinese" ... is that, again, so unusual?

Even when I talk about the Blacks, I do capitalize the "B" ...

So ... please tell us, what are you really trying to say?

Re: What are you trying to say?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's actually a grammatical error. Typically, when referring to a group of people you should only capitalize the first letter if the group identifier is itself a proper noun, like France, Japan, Asia, etc. For example, the people who live in France are collectively 'the French' and the people in Japan are collectively 'the Japanese', but unless you're describing people with the same last name, you shouldn't refer to them as 'the Blacks'.

Re:What are you trying to say?

[Megol]

Maybe that it is completely wrong (grammatically) and something mostly done by far-right racists?

There are no thing that is a "white" people. If you mean Europeans, write that. But that covers a lot of different groups of people with varying skin color and other physical characteristics.

The same is true of "black" people. The genetic variation in Africans is incredible. There are people of a huge variety of skin colors etc.

Dughh DuHuu!

[Anonymous Coward]

Chomp Chomp Pachewychomp!

Reality demonstrated otherwise to movies

[dbIII]

When the real life equivalent of a dirty bomb fell out of orbit and spread itself thinly over a chunk of Cananda (Kosmos satellite) panic didn't happen.
The cleanup showed that if anything was active enough to cause immediate problems it was very easy to detect.
Even "Readers Digest" had a very good story on the incident.

Re:Reality demonstrated otherwise to movies

[Anonymous Coward]

And if had KGB had claimed responsibility for spreading radioactive debris through Toronto, and the detectors really did find such radioactive waste, would there be as little panic as a satellite accident in the vast unpopulated areas of Canada?

Re:Reality demonstrated otherwise to movies

[Anonymous Coward]

The effort to recover radioactive material from the satellite was dubbed Operation Morning Light. Covering a total area of 124,000 square kilometres (48,000sqmi), the joint Canadian-American team swept the area by foot and air in Phase I from January 24, 1978 to April 20, 1978 and Phase II from April 21, 1978 to October 15, 1978. They were ultimately able to recover 12 large pieces of the satellite. All but two of the fragments recovered were radioactive. These pieces displayed radioactivity of up to 1.1 sieverts per hour, yet they only comprised an estimated 1% of the fuel. One fragment had a radiation level of 500 R/h, which "is sufficient to kill a person ... remaining in contact with the piece for a few hours."

source

Even "Readers Digest" had a very good story on the incident.

could not find, but good stuff

nyt, 5 Jan 1983
nyt, 24 Jan 1983
Jan, 2013
Nov, 2015
Apr, 2015"

Here is why that did not happen

[dbIII]

Bin Laden was one of those "1%", an oil millionaire from a family that are still oil millionaires. The people in Saudi Arabia who were found to be funding ISIS were also part of that "1%" - more accurate to say 0.01% or far less though.
Bin Laden did not want to blow up the people in the middle east who made the decisions he disagreed with by inviting the west in, he wanted to kill some of us "worthless" westerners to scare us into actions that would force the people in the middle east to kick westerners out. He liked the "1%" but the "99%" were targets.

There's no point looking at it like a popular uprising instead of bloodthirsty games played by medieval style aristocrats or proxies of them - the "99%" are just targets and useful idiots and not active participants who are influencing the situation.

So somehow beyond all logic those really smart terrorists who plan these attacks are really, really stupid because they make smart plans to attack stupid targets, targets that gain them nothing but do ensure more money, a lot more money is spent fighting those terrorists

Useful idiots sent in to stir up trouble and drive a wedge between the west and anyone in the middle east that will work with us.

Re:Here is why that did not happen

[Bing Tsher E]

Bin Laden's family is in construction/logistics. Kind of a Saudi version of Haliburton.

Re:Here is why that did not happen

[dbIII]

Yes, just like Haliburton they made their millions by supporting the oil industry.
Ironically I use software from Haliburton (and it runs on linux) but that's another story.

That shows how naive you are !

[Taco Cowboy]

... I don't defend people who do bad things. But I do have a problem with people who try to punish and judge large groups of people for things done by a small minority of them ...

The paragraph above illustrates your naivete perfectly

Even till now you guys - mainly White folks - still maintain that 'a small minority' are the ones who create trouble

You say this because you guys do not mix with them, nor understand the tenet of their culture

I am not one of them, but I did mix with them enough to know from what angle they look at this world --- remember, back in China there are tens of million of 'them' also --- so those people are not totally 'alien' to me

While the one who made the bombs, the suicide bombers, and so on, represents a 'small minority', DO NOT FORGET that their community plays the part of the ***support group***, providing them everything from financial aid to networking to even safe houses for them to hide

Look at the case of Belgium --- when the Belgium law enforcement was trying to hunt down those people, you know what happened in the neighborhood

They threw stones at the cops !

Yes, their community actually feel proud of having terrorists amongst them ! The terrorists are their "heroes", someone who 'do things for them'

That is why when the Belgium cops were hunting for the terrorists in the neighborhood the people there threw stones and curse at the law enforcement officers

But of course, you do not read this type of 'news' in the mainstream media --- your White own main stream media have become so degenerate that their report can no longer be trusted without a motherfucking truckload of salt

You, Sir, are naive --- no matter how you want to deny it, those of us who are not from the West get to witness your naivete being displayed in the open

Re:That shows how naive you are !

[Anonymous Coward]

You say this because you guys do not mix with them, nor understand the tenet of their culture

I grew up in a poorer neighborhood that had several neighboring groups of different immigrants, and the cheap housing I found in university was in a mostly middle eastern neighborhood. You think I didn't mix enough with them, when instead it looks to me like your characterization seems like it is completely disconnected from the reality of immigrants who cared more about making money, getting good jobs and spouses, and raising their kids to do well in school than political and religious tenets. I'm not going to speculate on how much mixing you did, as observations are useless if you just see everything through tinted glasses.

DO NOT FORGET that their community plays the part of the ***support group***, providing them everything from financial aid to networking to even safe houses for them to hide

How many people provided safe houses and financial support? Even if it was 50%, you would still be an asshole for treating the other half like terrorists.

They threw stones at the cops !

So did the blacks in neighborhoods near where I grew up, and so did college students at the school I went to... there are a lot of reasons groups of people get pissed off at cops and end up doing stupid things to police.

Yes, their community actually feel proud of having terrorists amongst them ! The terrorists are their "heroes", someone who 'do things for them'

Again, what fraction? Are you extrapolating from a minority? How are you any different than those that say all Americans are proud of Trump, and that all Russians are proud of the Soviet era, other than you might be extrapolating from an even smaller minority?

But of course, you do not read this type of 'news' in the mainstream media -

And yet I've heard about the issues cops faced in those neighborhoods from mainstream media already... I find it funny how often people try to emphasize some point by claiming it wasn't covered by media, when it was, and that doesn't change how much or how little BS is involved in the original point.

You, Sir, are naive --- no matter how you want to deny it, those of us who are not from the West get to witness your naivete being displayed in the open

And yet when I travel overseas and out of the west, the most ridiculed aspects of westerners is not those that are too generous or open, or naively kind. Instead you hear nonstop complaints, insults, and jokes about how intolerant westerners are, how self-centered they are to the point of trying to force everyone else to act like them or GTFO. Any truth to what you say about problems in the West is not exclusive to the West, and you're just another person trying to make neat, easy piles to point fingers at.

You want people to not be naive and see reality? Start by not pretending that these problems are not neat little categories that are easy to blame instead of the big fucking mess it actually is.

Re:That shows how naive you are !

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't even tell the difference between comments that disagree with you from people apologizing for and supporting terrorists, yet we're supposed to trust your judgement of people you "mix" with?

Why kick the cat? It doesn't make the choices

[dbIII]

Currently nuclear power seems to be incompatible with capitalism due to the huge initial outlay and low rate of return. Blame bankers not protesters, and if you are actually serious then push for funding enough R&D into civilian nuclear to develop something commercially viable without a government handout (or push for government handouts).
Why kick the cat? As the Iraq war protests showed the protesters really have almost zero power. Economic and political donor factors (yet another downside of letting oil companies dictate policy) doomed the US civilian nuclear industry in the years leading up to 1980 - so no more reactors were built. Economic factors doomed the German industry around 1990 (reunification) and Japan (long running recession) around the same time - so no new reactors were built. The German government is making a lot of populist noise about shutting down reactors but they are all old so due to be shut down soon anyway which makes it very cheap politics. Some of those plants are getting to the point where they would need a major rebuild soon and the people with the expertise have not done that sort of work since 1990.

Here comes the apologist ...

[Taco Cowboy]

Every single time we bring up the issue of the terrorists being of a certain faith there sure come up people apologizing for them ... and as always, they will bring up "Christianity being the most evil of all and/or issue regarding the "Crusades", and so on ...
 
Can't you guys be truthful, for just a second, folks?

TODAY the bombers are not Christians

TODAY those who are killing people in Paris, in Belgium, in Madrid, in Mumbai, in London, in New York City, in San Bernardino, are not Christians !!

Get on with REALITY, folks !

Stop apologizing for those who are carrying out the terrorist acts !!

Re:Here comes the apologist ...

[Braintrust]

Hear, hear.

Re:Here comes the apologist ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Christianity being the most evil of all

Except that is not was said.

Every single time we bring up the issue of the terrorists being of a certain faith there sure come up people apologizing for them .

Except that was not done either. No apology was made. Comparing a current problem to a historic problem in no way resembles and excuse, apology, or belittling of the current problem.

TODAY ...

And yet you made a statement about the "long run" and some one called that out.

Stop apologizing for those who are carrying out the terrorist acts !!

Stop acting like anyone who disagrees on any point is apologizing for them.

Re:Here comes the apologist ...

[dbIII]

I did not say that. I wrote what I wrote and the "Christianity being the most evil" bullshit is baggage from others elsewhere or entirely invented.

Re:Here comes the apologist ...

[Megol]

You seem to have some kind of mental problem! You see things that aren't there (apologizing? where?). fuck off.

Re:Here comes the apologist ...

[Anonymous Coward]

TODAY the bombers are not Christians

Unless we're talking about abortion clinics, Oklahoma City, etc.

Crazy is crazy, no matter where the crazy comes from.

Re:Here comes the apologist ...

[bfpierce]

Can we please drop the panic religious shit and realize terrorism accounts for less than 1% of murders that occur in these areas?

Seriously if you want to bold 'reality' you should actually look it up and give me a count of how many 'Christians' murdered some guy over some Heroin last week.

Re:Here comes the apologist ...

[quantaman]

Every single time we bring up the issue of the terrorists being of a certain faith there sure come up people apologizing for them ... and as always, they will bring up "Christianity being the most evil of all and/or issue regarding the "Crusades", and so on ...

Can't you guys be truthful, for just a second, folks?

TODAY the bombers are not Christians

TODAY those who are killing people in Paris, in Belgium, in Madrid, in Mumbai, in London, in New York City, in San Bernardino, are not Christians !!

Get on with REALITY, folks !

Stop apologizing for those who are carrying out the terrorist acts !!

Ok. Lets unpack this.

1) No one was apologizing for anyone, the least of which terrorists.

2) People have defended Muslims as a group, which is legit, it's a very small fraction of Muslims who are carrying out these attacks, the vast majority are horrified by them, most of the time their own families are horrified by them.

3) Of course it's Muslim extremists carrying out attacks today, but on the days when it was the IRA carrying out bombings, extremists killing abortion doctors, or Sovereign Citizens launching "rebellions" no one was really pointing the finger at Christianity.

4) To the extend "Islam" has a bigger problem right now it's really confined to some specific faiths within Islam. If the Muslim sitting next to you is a Shia they're no more likely to be a terrorist than you are.

Re:Here comes the apologist ...

[s4m7]

Can't you guys be truthful, for just a second, folks?

TODAY the bombers are not Christians

TODAY those who are killing people in Paris, in Belgium, in Madrid, in Mumbai, in London, in New York City, in San Bernardino, are not Christians !!

Yes, lets be truthful for a second, shall we? Islamism has taken root in the places that have been subject to a century of careless political and military meddling by the western world. We resettled millions of European Jews in the religious heart of the middle east after world war 2. We used central and east asia as pawns in our "fight against communism" more or less from the 1940's through the end of the 20th century. We have aided coups, dumped trillions of dollars into the coffers of despotic, tyrannical dictators and warlords in Africa, Asia and the Middle East in exchange for natural resources. We funded and armed maniacs on BOTH SIDES of a regional dispute in the Iran-Iraq war. Then we used some terrorist attacks to justify the full-scale invasion and occupation of two entire countries for over a decade, destroying most of those countries infrastructure and politically destabilizing them in the process.

Then we sit back from the comfort of our countries where the "poor" have to settle for first-class emergency room care, last-generation iPhones and positively luxurious (by contrast) public transit systems, and wonder, "Why are these savages attacking US? We've tried so hard to help them! their IDEOLOGY must be incompatible with ours!"

The real question is not "when will we get the courage to deal with the reality of the Muslim threat" but rather, "what else can we possibly do to set these people further back on the cultural and economic scale?" and the answer is, nothing we haven't already, and now the proverbial chickens have come home to roost.

So when you want to talk about apologists, think about all the apologizing you're doing for the Bushes, Blair, Reagan, and all the other American and European war criminals that used their horseshit embrace of "Christian Values" to dupe voters into war profiteering and corporatist resource extraction and the expense of three generations of Asians, Africans, and Middle Easterners.

That's actually a comfort

[Anonymous Coward]

There's far easier ways to get nuclear material for a dirty bomb, sufficient to cause panic, than from a researcher.
There's an entire major industry, with relatively lax security, that could be targeted, along with sources readily available to the public. If the thought process only went as far as "nuclear researcher", than the thought process wasn't very advanced nor had plans for a dirty bomb been particularly well thought through.

This is the sort of thought process used by the cartoon bad guys in action movies.

If anything this should give some comfort about the realistic threat from a dirty bomb.

Yeah the media is at fault

[aepervius]

They are supposed to inform and they dropped the ball, then stampeded on it to finally set it on fire. Fucking news media is now an entertainment industry. They should be teaching/showing people WHY a dirt bomb is a stupid idea in practice but no.... "omgz nukluar !!!! dirtz bombz !". Whose fault it is ? The media for not informing. I don't expect everybody to learn that stuff on their own, but the news media should not pour gasoline on it and dance around the fire.

Not an apologist, don't pretend I'm strawman

[dbIII]

To speak plainly Islam is not the problem here but the pig fucking evil pieces of shit that are using it as an excuse. In no way am I an apologist for them and I find it incredibly insulting that you wish to pretend that I am. I also pity you for falling for the excuse from those pig fucking pieces of shit that their God told them to do it. How can you swallow that shit? When Manson said that shit we didn't fall for it - why should we fall for it with this bunch of killers instead?

Re:Not an apologist, don't pretend I'm strawman

[religionofpeas]

Islam is the problem. Sure, it's the extremists that are causing all the problems today, but they get support from a majority of the so-called moderates in the same towns. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:Not an apologist, don't pretend I'm strawman

[Barsteward]

if you are going to blame Islam then you have to tar all the abrahamic holy books with the same brush. they all have passages/god inspired events in them that can be used to justify demented actions by demented people, none of those books/ideologies are innocent. All those books should be burnt as books of hatred.

Re:Not an apologist, don't pretend I'm strawman

[religionofpeas]

if you are going to blame Islam then you have to tar all the abrahamic holy books with the same brush. they all have passages/god inspired events in them that can be used to justify demented actions by demented people

Sure, but it's not just the books. It's the books plus the interpretation and the culture. Most modern day Christians don't walk around killing people for not following the laws in the old testament, but such practices are still quite common in Muslim countries. Just look at where you can get death penalty for apostasy.

Re:Not an apologist, don't pretend I'm strawman

[Barsteward]

i covered that by saying "they all have passages/god inspired events in them that can be used to justify demented actions by demented people". my point was that if some demented christians wanted to do an ISIS, they could justify it quite happily, look up god inspired genocide in the bible as an example.

"Interpretation" is used to spin away the bad stuff and try and make it look good, you should never have to do an interpretation for "good". The demented sharia law supporters use their book literally and also then add some "interpretation". These ISIS guys are at the same stage of development of being civilised as the christians of the crusades era and that attitude ran for hundreds of years until they slowly got it. ISIS have only been around a for a few days in comparison.

Re:Not an apologist, don't pretend I'm strawman

[Tom]

Yes, but only Islam has kept to the murderous passages religiously. Christianity used to be just as evil, but if the pope called for another crusade today, people would check the calendar if it's the first of April, and if not, laugh and assume someone quoted a story from The Onion.

But if an Imam says "go and kill the heathens", some especially stupid losers actually do so.

Re:Not an apologist, don't pretend I'm strawman

[meta-monkey]

To speak plainly Islam is not the problem here but the pig fucking evil pieces of shit that are using it as an excuse.

That just isn't the case. The religion comes first, then the violence.

You're making the common multicultural error, that deep down everyone is a tolerant liberal like you who just wants to be happy and live their lives. They're not. The muslims actually believe their religion. They're not like you.

This is not the end of history. We have not played the game of Civilization, reached the bottom of the ideology tech tree, unlocked "White Liberalism" and now we're just waiting for everybody else to catch up. They will not become like us if they move into our countries. They will not become like us if their GDP goes up, or you stop global warming. Religion matters to people, and theirs is xenocidal.

Re:Not an apologist, don't pretend I'm strawman

[meta-monkey]

How about we burn the Korans first, see if the violence stops, and if so we can save time and just ignore the others? Deal?

Re:Not an apologist, don't pretend I'm strawman

[meta-monkey]

There really aren't "interpretations" of the Koran. It's not like the bible where Jesus taught in parables and metaphors. The Koran is just a bunch of literal commands about how to take over the world. If you're not being resisted, you do it stealthful like, "we are the religion of peace" Mecca mode. If you're being resisted you do it violent-like, "Aloha Snackbar" Medina mode.

This is why you will always get violence and civil war if you let Islam into your country. They'll start out peaceful, but once they get to about 5% of the population their more "progressive" imams will start calling for Sharia law in "their" neighborhoods. "After all, if we're all muslims here, why shouldn't we live as we like? We'll police it ourselves!" Of course you can't do this because the host government can't give authority to others to start chopping off people's hands. As soon as this happens they can claim they're being oppressed, and this triggers the Median-mode response. Now they get violent. You can see it all over the world, the attitude of the muslims in a nation are determined by their proportion of the population.

Few: "Religion of Peace." Like the USA.

~5%: "We should have Sharia law in our own neighborhoods." Starting to happen in London and Brussels.

~10%: Civil war/separatist movements. Philippines, Thailand.

Majority: No minority rights, slaughter of infidels, murder of homosexuals, women are property, etc. Saudi Arabia.

Demographics are destiny. It doesn't matter what you want to be true, this is what's true. This is not the end of history. We have not unlocked the last ideology tech, "White Liberalism," and are just waiting for everyone else to catch up. The West either resists Islam now, or in 100 years the West will be Islamic.

Re:Not an apologist, don't pretend I'm strawman

[Anonymous Coward]

I would say Jews could use interpretation to justify some sort of ISIS equivalent -- though only if they are defending a 300 x 100 mile piece of desert. Christians, however have a different directive from their Messiah: "love your neighbor as yourself", "do good to those who hate you", "resist not evil" are all in flat contradiction to violence and war. You should read some of the Christian apologists logical contortions to justify England defending itself in WW2. There's just not much to go on for self-defense in Christianity.

The Crusades were only possible because the Catholic Church and the Church of England were working with a nearly illiterate populace at the time -- much less one versed in Hebrew and Greek. (The Bible wasn't available to the masses until some 200 years after the Crusades.) Convincing the populace they must defend "the Holy land" and do physical violence using some of the Jewish directives from the Torah (Old Testament per Christianity) was probably easy to do.

Now that's not to say Christians don't get it wrong anymore -- or they're aren't any nutters that don't understand what they're reading -- but it is saying the source documents support pacifism rather than physical violence.

Under Islam however, the source documents do support physical violence, albeit only in cases where Islam is in the majority and is being attacked. Whether an attack is defined as physical (war) or rhetorical (speaking against the prophet) is the subject of some debate.

Overall I agree with the late Anthony Flew's description of Islam as the "unifying and justifying ideology of Arab Imperialism". In effect, it's a form of asymmetric warfare with a 1500 year history of resisting moderation.

Re:Not an apologist, don't pretend I'm strawman

[Anonymous Coward]

> To speak plainly Islam is not the problem here but the pig fucking evil pieces of shit that are using it as an excuse.

I'm sorry but Islam is exactly the problem, and if you knew anything about Islam, Mohammed and the Quran you would agree with me.

Please, listen to this woman. She is a muslim born and grown in middle east. Listen to her carefully because she explains very clearly that ISIS fighters are exactly what muslims are supposed to be.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXGE2eBUdlQ

While you are at it, also please listen to this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZiJehMXBpQ

You can find more informations here http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

Being a muslim means to follow the teachings and example of Mohammed. And Mohammed was a rapist, a cold-blooded killer and a liar. All the acts of Mohammed are clearly listen in the Quran, you can read the Quran and other muslim's "holy books" if you don't trust me. Those acts are there to be an example for every real muslim. Please note that, to the contrary of christianity, Islam never had any kind of reform as Paul clearly explains in the video above. That means that no part of the Quran has been superseded in any way. Mohammed is still their role model.

Also please note that it is perfectly ok for a muslim to lie to you, infidel, if this is to advance the reasons of Islam... so please don't believe anyone who is telling you that Islam is a peaceful religion, because it isn't and it has never been.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/taqiyya.aspx

Re:Not an apologist, don't pretend I'm strawman

[dbIII]

Then how do you explain the hundreds of millions of people who don't act like the losers that pretend that their God told them to kill?
Also trying on a different strawman for size ("You're making the common multicultural error, that deep down everyone is a tolerant liberal like you") is fucking offensive. The world is not binary.

Re:Not an apologist, don't pretend I'm strawman

[meta-monkey]

The peaceful majority doesn't matter. The peaceful majority has never mattered.

99% of Nazis were peaceful. They never gassed a Jew. They just supported an ideology that allowed their leaders to gas Jews once they gained control of the political system.

99% of Muslims are peaceful. They never slaughtered an infidel. They just support an ideology that allows their leaders to slaughter infidels as they gain control of the political system.

Islam is the religion of peace. Society is very peaceful when anyone who steps out of line is met with swift and severe violence.

Re:Not an apologist, don't pretend I'm strawman

[stoatwblr]

"Most modern day Christians don't walk around killing people for not following the laws in the old testament, "

I'm sure the victims of the Lord's Army in africa will feel relieved.

The problem is political. Religion is just a lever which gives the people involved tools - religious fanatics - to provide a means to their end (gaining more power/prestige/money/ego gratification).

Trump is using similar levers in the USA.

ALL of those levers become easier to manipulate during periods of regional/global recession or other stress such as famine. Blaming the "other" for problems is an easy way out. Bombing them (either from aircraft or via suicide bombers) simply provides more tools for the unscrupulous to use in their furtherance of the pursuit of power.

Kneejerk reactions of responding to violence with more violence is simply playing into the hands of the powerbrokers everywhere. Quite frankly I'm surprised that South Africa didn't spiral into that particular maelstrom after the fall of the Apartheid Regeime and the fact that it didn't provides hope and proof that alternative resolution paths DO exist and CAN work.

Re:Not an apologist, don't pretend I'm strawman

[dbIII]

From those words it appears that you are doing exactly what the "God told me to kill" pricks want you to do. They are driving a wedge to incite hatred between two groups. Do you really want to be manipulated by these evil bastards or are you going to think for yourself?

Re:Not an apologist, don't pretend I'm strawman

[Barsteward]

you need to read more of your bible then. there are countless examples of nastiness like genocide, stoning people to death etc etc.

Re:Not an apologist, don't pretend I'm strawman

[Barsteward]

the bible also supports violence against people, try reading more of it and don't just rely on the cherry picked good bits. Some Dutch students recently went onto the streets with the bible covered with a wrapper to say it was the koran and they read nasty passages out of it and got comment. They were shocked to find out it was the bible they were reading.

Re:Not an apologist, don't pretend I'm strawman

[Hognoxious]

So what? Books don't kill people.

You keep comparing religions to scriptures. Invalid - type mismatch.

Not So Fast...

[IBitOBear]

Nuclear Material in/near Reactors Secure's Itself.

Dry fuel pellets are harmless.

Fuel rods are made by welding dry pellets into steel I-Beams or similar big, heavy, structures.

Used (wet) fuel pellets are _fantastically_ _dangerous_ to handle, so much so that they have to kept wet at all times to keep them from roasting everything while they cool.

Back in the seventies my father (nuclear engineer) said he'd love to stage, and televise, a "raid" on a nuclear power facility... The _months_ necessary to get the stuff off the premises (let alone ground up into nuclear dust) would have probably lost its audience. But the "Fast As Possible" "Smallest Crew" version of the raid that the anti-nuke people were putting in movies and scare politics would be thoroughly disproved.

Even if I installed a pebble-bed reactor in your garage (and one _would_ fit), any attempt to turn it into a "dirty bomb" would fatal to the person attempting it. Someone could blow up the pebble-bed itself, but that would move a few of the "pebbles", if any, a short distance. Someone with a radiation counter and a radiation suit could then just go pick them up with tongs.

So the terrorists "want{ed} to build a dirty bomb" is about as likely to lead to that end as my personal desire to own all of Google _and_ Tesla Motors outright as a pure proprietorship.

Re:Not So Fast...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because the used fuel pellets are difficult to handle does not mean it is impossible to carry out a terrorist attack with them. Yes, if you put a fuel pellet in your pocket, you aren't going to get very far. But there are other ways we can handle them. In most reactors, fuel pellets are in the form of fuel rods.

So what one could do is fly a helicopter over to a spent fuel building, drill a hole in the roof, drop a cable down, somehow get a fuel rod on to the end, and fly off to the nearest city, fly into something that will burn for a while(ie fuel tank). Because the fuel rod hangs off a long cable, the helicopter pilot can survive long enough to fly to a city. Because fuel rods are designed to be easily manipulated with long poles, we can get the fuel rod onto our cable by putting a quick connect on our cable and having some guy in the building use a long pole to get this onto a fuel rod. Potentially we could do this with a simple robot on the end of the cable.

Because we are crashing into something that's going to burn for a while, we can make clean up much more expensive and potentially disperse the radioactive material in the fuel rods. In addition, there is also the possibility of the zirconium cladding of the fuel rod catching fire spontaneously. Even if the fuel rod remains intact and disperses minimal radioactivity, the public is irrational and will still freak out about it.

But I will admit, this is a rather contrived and james bondish scenario for which simple countermeasures exist. IE. shoot down any unauthorized helicopters flying into the nuclear plant's airspace.

Re:Not So Fast...

[mdsolar]

These terrorists seem to kill themselves as part of their tactics.

Re: Not So Fast...

[matt_hs]

Your scenario reminds me of Gru stealing the shrink ray from Vector.

Re:Not So Fast...

[IBitOBear]

Long polls? I don't think you realize how long the polls would have to be.

You are also mistaking the buildings these things are in for simple, flimsy structures into which one can simply drill a hole and drop a cable.

http://www.nrc.gov/waste/spent...
https://what-if.xkcd.com/29/

Official prognostication

[Marquis231]

During Trump's presidency he will nuke ISIL. I'm calling it now, March 2016. Remember when it happens that Marquis called it!

Deadly, but not as you might think

[CAPSLOCK2000]

Stealing this material would have hurt and maybe killed thousands of people, but not by putting it into a bomb. These isotopes are used in hospitals around the world for all kind of things like diagnosing and treating cancer. However there is only a very small number of places that can manufacture them. If memory serves there are only six of those laboratory's in the world and they are unable to fill the current demand anyway. If any of those can't produce for any reason the entire medical world immediately feels the consequences. Stealing a large supply of isotopes an possibly disturbing production or distribution for a long time would have deadly consequence. People would be unable to get diagnosed or treated and some of them will die. That part would be far more harmufll than any dirty bomb the terrorists could build.

Did you forget your meds this morning?

[Anonymous Coward]

That sounds like the kind of rant that an unstable person would post to facebook before going on a rampage with an AR-15. You've got a whole lot of self-pity in there, and no logical explanation for how to plan to get over it. It is high time for you to go find some psychiatric help there, son.

Re:Did you forget your meds this morning?

[Anonymous Coward]

Karmashock probably meant to post that on one of his other accounts.

Re:Did you forget your meds this morning?

[Anonymous Coward]

account on another site, or another account on this one? i don't know that i have seen this special snowflake in any other manifestations here on slashdot.

Re:Did you forget your meds this morning?

[Karmashock]

So your plan is to shore up the snapping steel wires with personal insults?

Look at the system and note that it is buckling. Posting some pathetic insults in my direction when I make the statements I made... is an ad hominem fallacy. You're not actually arguing against my point. You're just trying to change the subject. Which means my statement stands unmolested. You totally ignored it.

Its building. Attacking me won't stop it.

Re:Did you forget your meds this morning?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're not actually arguing against my point.

Was your point that you are parroting random conspiracies without thought or fact? Was your point that you are a few sandwiches short of a picnic? If so then you made those points well. If your point was that you are capable of independent thought and analytical view of facts, you fell straight on your face.

Re:Did you forget your meds this morning?

[Karmashock]

being vague doesn't shield you from rebuttal. It doesn't help your argument to be incoherent. It isn't in you rhetorical interest to say something so murky that it can be taken a dozen different ways.

Let me be clear. If "you" have "anything what so ever" you'd like to say in regards to my position... then do so specifically.

Least anyone must conclude that "you" have "nothing" or you judge your position to be so weak that you feel the only way it can even presume to stand on the table is as a shadow cast from another room.

Demonstrate that you have an opinion at all... that you have ANY point what so ever by simply expressing it clearly.

You say I am doing something but you don't specify. You make an ad hominem about my sanity but don't say upon what you base a complex psychological assessment that you are doubtless incompetent to judge in the first place even if you had the time to assess my mental state... which you haven't. You say I am incapable of "independent thought"... you say I am a puppet? Of what and what sort of magic was used to render that control? As to being analytical, my statement in this response to you alone demonstrates that I am in fact vastly more analytical than you are...

""
using or skilled in using analysis (i.e., separating a whole--intellectual or substantial--into its elemental parts or basic principles)
""

I analyzed your statement to me. I broke it down, categorized it line by line, and interpreted it. I even showed my work. You did no such thing to my post. I did that to YOUR post. Point in fact is that I am analytical... you are not. You are doubtless a blustering sophist. And sad wretches such as yourself are incapable of doing anything more than flim flamming some rhetorical snake oil and then running away before the poor dupes realize you're a fraud. Because I am analytical, your snake oil is identified on delivery as snake oil and you are cited as a fraud on sight.

Engage me and lose. That is not a threat... it is merely the rumblings of my appetite to gobble your undeserved sense of self worth. Engage me so I can correct this insult to civic order. Or evade and then run away thus validating my position without even having to try.

Its heads I win and tail you concede. Your only path to redemption is to engage me and prove me wrong. But you lack the mental tools or intellectual integrity to do that... so this shouldn't take long should test it.

As you will... :)

Re:Did you forget your meds this morning?

[Anonymous Coward]

What exactly do you think you are talking about? Do you really think you have posted something that you can defend? You posted a bunch of fact-free rhetoric. What you posted is an argument in the same way that claiming the world to be supported by an infinite stack of turtles would be as well. I guess the fact that nobody went out at shot anything up with a semi-auto that day at least suggests you were talked back down from the ledge - or you don't have access to such weaponry.

Seriously, you should look into psychiatric help. What you have posted resembles a large number of manifestos of people who tried to "go down in a blaze of glory" in attempts to defeat imaginary enemies.

Re:Did you forget your meds this morning?

[Anonymous Coward]

The overweening arrogance is rather hard to distinguish among the masses, but I think it'd be hard to get confused about the actual site.

Re:Did you forget your meds this morning?

[Karmashock]

Fact free? I cited opinions, bucko. Nice try. Anyway, seems like I pegged you correctly. You're just going to get increasingly salt without making any effort to make a coherent counter argument.

Your concession is noted. Please don't waste any more of my time with your pathetic attempts to save face. You're already a total failure absent any counter argument and throwing more ad hominems at me just validates my position while making you look like a complete fool.

So either man up and make a counter argument or put your stupid argument out of its misery.

Re:Did you forget your meds this morning?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fact free? I cited opinions, bucko.

No, you did no such thing. You stated various random rants but you never gave any basis of them, factual or otherwise. If you want to agree with those rants, that is fine but you gave no reason for anyone to view them as being in any way connected to reality.
 
 

Please don't waste any more of my time with your pathetic attempts to save face.

Who is trying to save face here? Not the AC. The person hoping to save face is the same person who started with a long collection of angry rants and has now gone for directly attempting to attack the person who dares ask them questions about said rants. You have not provided anything whatsoever to support your rants; you're like a Donald Trump speech only not as comical.
 
 

So either man up and make a counter argument

Counter argument? You haven't made an initial argument - unless of course your argument is that you are an angry young man who quickly attaches to any of a variety of silly rants and conspiracies without questioning whether or not they in any way reflect on reality. If that were your argument then there would be no reason to counter it.

Re:Did you forget your meds this morning?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fact free? I cited opinions, bucko.

Yeah, you "cited" your own opinions, and that was your only evidence. That's pretty much the definition of "fact free".

Please don't waste any more of my time with your pathetic attempts to save face.

Who's wasting your time? This is a Slashdot discussion, for crying out loud. If you think you are wasting your time, then stop responding.

Re:Did you forget your meds this morning?

[Karmashock]

And what would be sufficient data in this situation? Do you want charts, graphs, and tables?

Possibly a peer reviewed study?

Your argument doesn't pass the laugh test. You're saying that any opinion offered on the internet is contemptible if it doesn't include a full report?

You're an idiot.

What is more, you response to me was also just your opinion, jackass. If you want to elevate the discussion then why don't YOU offer up some evidence to support your rebuttal and then we can see who has more data to back up their position. Absent that, your laughable rebuttal is laughable.

Re:Did you forget your meds this morning?

[Karmashock]

As you're an AC shithead and other AC shitheads are commenting in the same thread, I can't keep you fucks straight. I've addressed a similar comment by another AC shithead in the same thread and consider that sufficient for your post as well. You can rebut that if you like or go off and cry somewhere.

I demonstrably don't care.

Re:Did you forget your meds this morning?

[Anonymous Coward]

You have not cited a single fact, in any way shape or form, in this discussion. You went on a rant and told us what you want to believe but you gave absolutely no factual basis for that belief system. You basically told us you believe that the world is cruelly conspiring against you and that you have convinced yourself you will magically come out on top when this conflict - which you take as an article of faith to be something that will happen - occurs. This is within the classic behaviors of cult members as well as the types of people who shoot up various congregation points in hopes of starting that conflict.

Seriously, get help. Your parents' health insurance should have mental health coverage for you, it's time you ask them to look in to it before you become a danger to yourself or others.

Re:Did you forget your meds this morning?

[Anonymous Coward]

shithead

 

shitheads

 

you fucks

 

shithead

You're so kind, good sir.
 
 

I demonstrably don't care.

The fact that you feel compelled to reply to these comments - particularly with such anger and frequency - quite thoroughly refutes your claim of not caring. If you really didn't care you would be able to show enough self control to not hit reply.

As others have said, get help. You might only be a danger to yourself right now but when you fully crack you might try to hurt someone else as well and that would be a shame. People with your kind of issues are seldom happy to go quietly.

Please get help. You don't seem to be a total moron, you could well become a contributing member of society if you could get over your issues. There are people who can help you with that.

Re:Did you forget your meds this morning?

[Anonymous Coward]

I demonstrably don't care.

Do you even know what "demonstrably" means? Given that you continue to reply, you demonstrably do care. If you actually know what that word means, then you are being dishonest.

Re:Did you forget your meds this morning?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want to elevate the discussion then why don't YOU offer up some evidence to support your rebuttal and then we can see who has more data to back up their position.

No, you are the one who began the discussion by making all sorts of outlandish claims indicting the status quo and predicting the future, so the burden of proof lies firmly with you.

Absent that, your laughable rebuttal is laughable.

That's hilarious! So you think the AC's rebuttal is "laughable" because they presented no evidence to counter your fact-free argument. Is the irony there not painfully obvious to you?

Re:Did you forget your meds this morning?

[Karmashock]

strawman. I'm saying I don't care which option you choose... not that I don't care enough to not respond to anything.

Fuckwit.

Re:Did you forget your meds this morning?

[Anonymous Coward]

strawman. I'm saying I don't care which option you choose... not that I don't care enough to not respond to anything.

If that's what you meant, then I'll ask again -- do you even know what "demonstrably" means? What in this thread would have previously demonstrated your lack of concern over how the AC chose to respond?

Fuckwit.

The meaning in your previous comment was, at best, ambiguous. It could just as reasonably be interpreted as if you were saying you no longer cared about the content of the discussion thread. Next time, try to write more clearly. Getting upset and calling the rest of us names because we improperly deciphered your poorly written text just makes you look pathetic.

Re:Did you forget your meds this morning?

[Anonymous Coward]

strawman

Not in the least. You stated, in your own words,

I demonstrably don't care.

Except that you replied, which shows plainly that you do care. If you didn't care, you would have just walked away and not responded at all.

Being as it is a direct response to the exact words you used, you cannot support your allegation of it being a "strawman". If you meant something else, then please tell us what you meant. Your words were that you don't care, but your actions were plainly that you very clearly do care.

Probably not. . .

[Salgak1]

. . . . he may be tele-operating a squad of Infantry-bots or a Robo-tank or three, but the age of the manned Airborne Assault was over 50+ years ago. . .

Re:Probably not. . .

[Trailer Trash]

. . . . he may be tele-operating a squad of Infantry-bots or a Robo-tank or three, but the age of the manned Airborne Assault was over 50+ years ago. . .

And, yet, we're quietly moving more and more troops back into Iraq....

Old News

[Anonymous Coward]

If this is the SCK researcher than this is old news dug up for sensatioanlist reasons.

Ah Wat?

[Anonymous Coward]

Filing a nuclear physicist DOES NOT teach you jack about how to build a "dirty bomb". That's like saying watching Scarlet Johansen movies teaches me how to be sexy. Seriously not it doesn't.