Yeah well you're not getting the same news I am buddy. Which is really not surprising... Try watch something other than Western media. Islam wants to rule the world? Riiight...
What about this: US does rule the world - most of it anyway - and the islamists are the only ones with enough balls to put up a fight. Why don't the radical extremists terrorize more liberal muslim countries that don't apply Shariah law then like Jordan and Turkey if they really want Shariah law everywhere? Those should be easier to change...
You don't have the slightest clue of what you're talking about. It's because of people with such absurd opinions like yours that eat whatever crap mainstream media feeds them that there are terrorists in the first place and we almost have to get naked when traveling by airplane. If at least the victims were all people like you, the problem would settle quickly...
As for England and Netherlands, well it's price of globalization. Wasn't it supposed to be a good thing anyway?
Can you think up another way to cope with terrorists?
Uh I don't know... What about talking to them? They surely aren't doing that for fun... I mean, there must be something they want. How about a compromise? Now it's my turn to ask: Can you think up another way to cope with terrorists?
Tightening up security solves nothing because there's a limit on how tighter it can get while there's none on how creative terrorists can be. This is a consequence of living in a free country. It's all fun and games until someone loses an eye... I find it quite funny how many staunch defenders of freedom suddenly wanna drop it if when they feel threatened.
Does anybody even know what the alleged terrorist organization known as Al-Qaeda wants? Maybe once we understand that, we can find a solution. But instead what is told to us is that they're just a bunch of lunatics that commit enormous amounts of resources blowing things up because they're lunatics or extremists or new_political_buzzword_to_label_undesirables. Yeah right.
Well, about the Climate Change or Global Warming, I find it funny that people come and say the we have no proof of that. The other day I was hearing a known analyst on tv saying just that. I remember the same guy saying there were WMDs in Iraq well after US troops overrun the country, that Saddam hid them in a boat of truck in the desert... I'm not saying the same applies to you... My point is that while some disagreement seems to exist, that's more on how it's going to affect us, because the large majority - it no longer takes a scientist to see that - can't deny something is happening. But even if people don't want to believe the warming there's a whole array of other nice problems: garbage, garbage on the sea, extinction, deforestation, and our old but somewhat forgotten friend - the ozone hole! Now, are the scientists still trying to find proof for these too, I ask?
I sure think it's changing. In fact I'm sure. I hear my parents and grandparents saying how it used to rain more or how it used to be colder in Winter. Hell, seasons are blurring since a few years back. More extreme weather phenomena is happening... And it's going to get worse I fear.
As for research, we don't have much of that here, we slightly have some in the Universities but that's it. But in the US? Come on, cut a few percent off the defense budget and there's plenty dough for everyone. Why should people have to choose between having private or public R&D? They can have both.
Bit of off topic but I'd never heard about UN soldiers killing or raping Israelis... I've heard something like that, but in Africa, particularly through the Katanga secession crisis.
But I went and googled for it and, well, found nothing. I mean, I found the usual - Israelis killing U.N. workers, attacking U.N. installations, etc. - Also saw the Fox News website: Fox News, fair & balanced ah, ah.
Anyway, can you provide some references? Like when was it or where?
well, actually, I mentioned this same news to a friend of mine with a Law degree and he thought precisely that... Apparently, most people only perceive torrents as inherently illegal or a medium for carrying out exclusively illegal activities. I asked him on what facts was his opinion based on to which he replied that it was his empirical observation on what surrounded him. In other words, that he only saw people using that technology for illegal purposes. Needless to say, he had no clue whatsoever of what torrents really are.
Being a passionate for genetic algorithms I understand what you say perfectly. And I agree. Evolution is far more complex than simple survival of the fittest! Or maybe it's the fittest that's more complicated than we understand. Nevertheless, I'm sure you'll agree there is a difference between manipulating the genes - whatever they actually are, nucleic acids seems more accurate... - themselves than applying whatever pressure we want on the phenotype. In a way, the pressure we apply on the genotypes by our artificial selection, could be an extended phenotype of our own genes, making way for their own endeavor....! - therefore not artificial at all!:)
Anyway, here's to you for complementing what I say and shedding yet another bit of light on the ever complex matter of evolution, natural or not - if that makes any sense!:)
Yes but what is meant is you drive the change through the phenotype as opposed to directly changing the genotype.
So basically - and simplistically, you are acting like nature in which you say who's the fittest and therefore the one who reproduces the most hence the one who's traits are to be preserved. You are not acting as a genetic engineer manipulating the bits of nucleic acid directly with their hands or with whatever tools.
Never actually considered to talk with these extremists to know what's pissing them off instead of labeling them extremists did ya? Oh and maybe robbing them out of their oil...
It's funny Pearl Harbor is mentioned, because it's got to do with - that's right! - oil! In that case, the skillful manipulation of the Japanese empire into attacking first or loosing their supplies of oil.
I fail to understand how is it that you always manage to think you are the victims of unprovoked attack and aggression. You guys really live inside your own little bubble isn't it? You really believe the whole world hates America because they don't like, what, your flag? The way you talk? Or maybe it's the fact that your successive governments persist in fucking with everyone that has something they would like to have? You fuck with them, they fuck with you... I'll tell you more. You think it's going to stop? Think again. This is not the 40's... Your big bad army is pretty much useless. It's been like 8 years since Afghanistan was invaded right? Are more troops going to finally win the war? Think again. The war is lost already. Whether you want it or not, the talibans are returning to power. It's a matter of time and dead Americans. It's sad but true. Your people is dying there for what? Freedom? Come on...
Racism exists indeed in that some people dislike other people because they are of a different race. This is clear.
The invention I am talking about is when media and politicians tag xenophobia - as in someone who is suspicious of another person because that person is different, or a stranger, or not part of the group, in other words: an alien - as racism.
I think that while commonly used interchangeably, the two concepts are different. One is stupid because I'm not even sure a concept such as race can be defined scientifically. The other is a natural reaction of almost all living beings I can remember. Mixing the two does not, in my opinion, wield good results. It only makes people confused because while they feel they're entitled to distrust strangers because they are strangers, they don't like to be labeled racists because they're not.
Racism is the by-product of pseudo-scientific victorian anthropology made by arrogant 19th century imperialists and can't really exist if people are really scientifically educated. Xenophobia is a natural defense reaction that can gradually be lowered by mutual demonstrations of trust and good intentions by both host and guest.
This is what I meant. I am sorry if I failed to present my arguments in a compelling way but I can't stop myself from thinking if the same thing I'm trying to expose - the taboo about facing both concepts and differentiate between them - isn't the very thing that was stopping you from actually getting to see my point in the first place.
As for the dolphins, it was indeed irrelevant and was meant as a personal attack which clearly failed to deliver. Serves me right for trusting what the tv says. I apologize.
ah but there is your/most people mistake! You see, that is why I think culture works better than race. Most people tend to think of racists as people who think other race's people are somehow less than human or whatever... As in, either you're not racist and love everyone OR you're racist and hate everyone of different race. This makes no sense. You can't hate something you don't know. Most racists - I prefer xenophobes, it's a much better definition - don't hate different people. They feel suspicious of them. Which in turn makes them blame those different people for things they may not be to blame. Which in turn leads to hate. Mutual hate.
Now I think being a xenophobe is a natural thing. We all are in some degree... And the people that say they're not are either lying or they don't know. Imagine someone tells you that from now on, chimpanzees are going to have the right to vote. Chimps are pretty intelligent and they can communicate (with humans, by sign language) too. Imagine we find out they actually are almost as intelligent as humans are. I would like to see what many anti-racists would say then: when true racism emerged.
What is needed is that we acknowledge this and instead of marginalizing this natural distrust of strangers and making it seem unnatural, we need to build something positive out of it. Change the focus to culture, and understand what kind of cultural aspects don't go with each other. Because there are cultural practices that people don't want in the West. The people in Africa don't like other practices we have in Europe. The same goes for Asia. Find what is incompatible and retain what's compatible. Pretending everything is compatible is just stupid and won't end the problem. It's like pretending we are all heterosexuals. Face it as an inter-cultural problem and you might get something positive out of it. But no one is doing that. Racism is an empty word thrown out by politicians and other people with their own agenda with the intent of getting support for their own agenda.
I'll conclude with an example that racism is an mostly an invention. You have Barack Obama, president of the USA right? The first black president they have. From Kenyan origin. Like you said, one would expect Obama to, at least, try to make something better for his race and ancestor land right? Wrong. Right now there's a US military command in each continent, and the last one was set up in Africa last year. Heard about Sudan and Darfur right? Well it's about oil. They find oil in Africa and problems ensue. Suddenly, terrorists from Al-Qaeda are popping up everywhere oil is fond in Africa, even in the middle of the Saara desert! Now this is great because the US can go there and fight terror while securing more oil supplies than would instead go to China. Now, Obama knows this. And he doesn't give a fuck. Why? Because he's not black. He's not Kenyan. He is American. His culture is American. He cares for America and the American culture. You see why I say it's all about culture?
PS: about the dolphins, you completely missed where I was trying to go but that's ok. You should check about killing dolphins there in Denmark. Sick shit man.
Well it depends on what you consider inherently. In a way that's exactly what makes voting work. Whether or not race is a good factor is a different question.
I like to talk about cultures rather than races. Because cultures are better defined. Now say, imagine your country needs to establish a military command in another continent. Say Africa, for example. Who, all other traits being equal, would be better suited for the job of leading the command? A all-european cultural background man or someone with an African background? Well your distinguishing based on culture, even race. You can submit this to a voting process. Now, the African background guy is inherently better than the other guy. Just because he has an African culture background.
Now, I really don't give a fuck about who you are. I assumed you were Danish because you said so. Still, you didn't answer my question about the dolphins...
Well but what if, in my opinion (erroneous as it may be), I think that red people don't make good presidents, just because they are red? I would still be voting at issue at hand by today's standards. My point is that you vote for whatever reason you want. And voting based on racism is not much different than voting based on religion, for example. And yet, it's considered natural to vote based on religion and abject to vote based on race.
That said, I agree on this
And if you supported your actions, you'd be doing so against the entire idea of voting.
though you'll have to agree that most democracies are flawed because of this. Democracy only works if the majority proves to be right. Just because the majority thinks in a way, it doesn't make it right, obviously. If the majority is racist, then racist policies will ensue. As far as the typical democracy goes it's fair and square. You can't stop people for voting anyway they want to. Unless you factor in the majority proves right thing. But then you'd have to have a educated, responsible majority to ensure that in a democratic way... But that's not what most democracies have. They just assume that they have it. That's the problem as I see it.
getting back on-topic, I think voting is a decision making process independent from what criteria people apply in expressing their vote. You are against voting if you think voting is not a valid decision making process. Thinking football team A is better than B because it's your home team wouldn't make you against voting.
yeah well, more scary than all that (since the Italians actually voted for the man - and in democracy you get what you deserve) is the environmental catastrophe in and around Napoli and all Campania region. Probably affecting the whole south. Garbage. Everywhere, dangerous, unprocessed, toxic garbage. I saw it on vbs.tv's Toxic Napoli and it blew me away.
Sometimes you get the feeling that it's Manila or someplace like that... but no. It's Italia right in the middle of the EU...
Please... you Scandinavians with your do-goodie morals... What has racism got to do with voting? Or better, what has xenophobia got to do with voting? Because most of what is called racism is just xenophobia. And it's quite natural if you ask me. You get suspicious of strangers. There probably was a selection advantage in our ancestors behaving like that and it's not hard to see.
Now, we've come a long way since those times and many of us have learned that there's no need to be like that anymore. But some people have more trouble understanding that. Maybe because they had a bad experience with someone from a different culture or maybe they are just stupid or maybe they see something no one else sees. The point is, if you go and accuse those people, you segregate them, they are not going to understand. They'll go bitter and aggressive. Besides, you'll be treating them like you don't want them to treat outsiders. And putting everything in the racism bag doesn't help either....
Until we stop facing these politically incorrect themes with the usual ingenuity like - OMG dats racism!!!111!! Let's lynch him! - and then perfectly allow that to happen when it's a - supposed - minority like people have been referring, and don't start talking about things rationally, getting to the bottom of things it's only going to get worse. And the current "democratic dictatorship" also doesn't help. I mean it's all good in democracy, everyone's free and all BUT you can't be racist, you can't be anti-semitic, you can't be machoist AND then you can assume all muslims are terrorists, Iran want's to destroy the world, and be feminist and have women-only all kinds of things.... In the end, it's democracy to everyone, because everyone HAS to have it. But OUR kind of democracy. Not the other eeevil kind.
Come on, give us a break. I vote for whoever I want. And I'm racist. So what? Now I'm against the entire idea of voting? I don't like blue people, therefore I'm against voting. Crystal clear logic no doubt. What if I kill dolphins barbarically? I'm I against voting too?
I think you should review your assessment on pre-Israeli jewish terrorism. It's too naÃve. Feel free to google about the King David Hotel bombing and you'll see that both Jewish and Arab women and children got killed. You talk about extremists. Yet to my eye, Israel is as extremist as Hamas, because let's be clear, Isreal has no intention of becoming a multicultural multiethnic state whatsoever. It keeps colonizing West Bank territory despite the soft reprisals by the West. It's dominated by righ-wing militarist people, and corruption scandals succeed. Hamas attacks with something like 1:400 kill ratios are retaliated with full destruction and mayhem in Gaza, disregarding even UN buildings, while having the face to come and say terrorists we're using UN facilities to attack them. This is, in itself, insulting for the UN and therefore to most of the World. If this is not extremism then tell me what it is.
As for Israeli terrorism not having majority support, i don't know. But the fact remains that Menachem Begin become prime-minister of Israel and won a Nobel Prize for Peace. If this isn't support what the hell is it?
Restrain Israel. Make it stop the colonization and make it accountable for what they did in Gaza and Lebanon. The Muslims will negotiate. Just don't expect them to negotiate from a position of weakness. But Israel is not interested in negotiation until it has colonized the whole West Bank. And then there will be nothing to negotiate. And then no one will be able to expel them once they are there. So they win. Only a blind man isn't able to see this.
You see but the problem is precisely that. Our way of life. And, in the case of Muslim terrorism, their way of life.
Western people fail miserably in understanding Muslim people and general culture. As they do, in fact, with every culture but their own. While we allow our governments to keep interfering with the affairs of other nations, exploring their natural resources while conspiring to give the power to friendly people in those countries, this will never stop.
Like I said before, it's already started in Africa with US Africom. And it has nothing to do with Muslims... Go ahead and take a look on that. The Muslims are not a threat to our way of life. If the West didn't kept supporting coups, invading countries and supporting instability in the region, none of this would've happened. It's we that are a threat to their way of life. And Israel is the spearhead. It's the very materialization of insult right in the middle of their lands. Armed to the teeth, oblivious to everything but it's own expansive, colonizing agenda, while enforcing it quite aggressively, indiscriminating women and children and tearing houses down. While in all this being fully supported by the West.
Now tell me, what do you think Muslims are going to think when they see a Muslim country being repeatedly targeted by UN sanctions because of alleged disrespect of UN resolutions and for allegedly trying to build nuclear weapons while they see that aggressive alien colony, that kills them at the slight suspicion, breaking resolutions after resolutions, waging war whenever it feels like, killing their children and women by the hundreds, being fully supported by the Western nations. To be honest it almost makes me want to be terrorist. Muslims are not all, not even the most, fanatics. They are simply fighting back the best way they can. and until the West understands that, it will not stop. Because in case you are missing it, they ARE winning. Every year you trade a little bit more of your freedom for security. But you are never really safe, so you keep trading freedom. And your government loves it. And so you don't get to live better than the Muslims. So what's the point?
I agree. But, like you said, that can't work in the Western nations. I just think people should dry to dig out the facts and consider them all instead of taking someone's opinion and adopt it blindly. I'm not excusing terrorism but merely trying to say that the only efficient and sustainable way to stop it is by evaluating the claims and negotiate. Pretty much like what's done in an hostage situation. The problem is most people think we should go in guns blazin... That doesn't solve nothing especially because of the independent cell model now widespread all over the world. I say keep repression but engage in negotiation. Just don't let repression serve as an excuse for allowing equal barbarities and crimes perpetrated by the governments. Which is exactly what's happening in Africa with Africom. African governments are starting to designate rival contestants as terrorists and getting military aid from the US, in exchange for privileged access to natural resources.
Is that so surprising? Airplanes are particularly vulnerable targets. Because they crash. Now you can crash it on things like the ground or high buildings. Which is not quite the same thing as obliterating a fucking city and possibly bringing nuclear armageddon on the Earth. If you can't appreciate the difference between the two things maybe you should apply the adjective on yourself.
Well but I think the Japanese must have taken their time figuring out what happened. Remember that whole cities just vanished. And with no cell phones, it must take time to the news get up to the decision makers. I suspect when the second bomb hit they were still at odds with what exactly did happen...
And I'm quite sure that a demonstration of an A-bomb would suffice to get the surrender. A conditional surrender at the least. It's not something you can really fight. You have to prevent it. So I don't really understand how would they not surrender to a demo since they surrendered to the real thing. So they're not really stupid, if they were they'd never surrender... Besides they're a courageous, disciplined people their whole history. It's natural that they keep fighting until told to stop. A demo would be much more efficient to pass the message straight to the top.
The guy below pretty much summed it up. Anyway, let me just say that of course Israel didn't have any responsibility for the terrorist acts in Palestine before it's existence as state because, well, it didn't exist.
That's my point. It exists now because of the terrorist acts of the people that were and are part of it now. And those people cannot deny responsibility. It's own IDF - ah the irony - was based on those very terrorist organizations. Of course you can argue that they were fighting for their country. That they were freedom fighters. But that's a dangerous argument that can suddenly turn and hit you in the eye...
PS: some of those terrorists not only become highly respected Israeli officials in charge of the government, one even got a Nobel Prize for Peace... ah the irony again... Bin Laden: feel like winning a Nobel?
That's a typical lame american excuse for being SOBs. If you go and read about the development of the bomb e.g. Robert Jungk's Brighter Than a Thousand Suns you'll see that it was actually discussed whether the US should showcase the bomb in the desert or some place without killing anyone for the Japanese, or warn them that they were going to drop it or just drop it without warning. Most scientists, after the first detonation ever, went for the first one. They were convinced that not only Japan would surrender when they saw the explosion but that it was inhumane to drop it without warning.
Now, Mr. Truman thought that the Soviets would be much more impressed with his new toy if they actually saw the thing in a real life scenario. Much to his - and others - dismay, the Soviets would soon have a toy of their own, and a better one soon after.
So the excuse of saving lives is bullshit. As most of the - we are using disproportionate force to save lives - excuses generally are.
Yeah pal well get back to your physics and stay there because of politics you know jack. And they had a very good reason to do that. And it's spelled in three letters so it's easy for you to understand physics genius: OIL
If you spent some time try to learn about the people around you, you would know that the US supported and gave the power to the Shah against a democratically elected government, because the Shah would let the seven sisters extract all the oil they wanted for ridiculous prices. The hostage crisis was to support the revolution that ensued. So, if the US would keep themselves quiet instead of messing around with other countries, they'd have a lot less problems.
I doubt any terrorist would use a nuke anyway. Terrorism is not madness, in spite of what the western countries want you to believe, because it gives them an excuse to keep doing all the shit they want to do around the world.
Terrorism is desperation. The ONLY way to stop determined terrorism is to hear the claims of the terrorists and negotiate. If someone blows the fuck out of himself and a bunch of other people, it might be a good idea to hear what they're mad about. Do it covertly if you want, so that it doesn't seem you negotiate with them, but do it.
Anyway, a nuke would vanish forever any chance that a terrorist has of further advancing their cause. And before you start saying that their cause is already lost, please consider Israel. It was made out of terrorism - Menachem Begin & Co. - see the King David Hotel bombing, and many others. Conclusion? They got a country and nukes. How about that?
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah well you're not getting the same news I am buddy. Which is really not surprising... Try watch something other than Western media. Islam wants to rule the world? Riiight...
What about this: US does rule the world - most of it anyway - and the islamists are the only ones with enough balls to put up a fight. Why don't the radical extremists terrorize more liberal muslim countries that don't apply Shariah law then like Jordan and Turkey if they really want Shariah law everywhere? Those should be easier to change...
You don't have the slightest clue of what you're talking about. It's because of people with such absurd opinions like yours that eat whatever crap mainstream media feeds them that there are terrorists in the first place and we almost have to get naked when traveling by airplane. If at least the victims were all people like you, the problem would settle quickly...
As for England and Netherlands, well it's price of globalization. Wasn't it supposed to be a good thing anyway?
Can you think up another way to cope with terrorists?
Uh I don't know... What about talking to them? They surely aren't doing that for fun... I mean, there must be something they want. How about a compromise? Now it's my turn to ask: Can you think up another way to cope with terrorists?
Tightening up security solves nothing because there's a limit on how tighter it can get while there's none on how creative terrorists can be. This is a consequence of living in a free country. It's all fun and games until someone loses an eye... I find it quite funny how many staunch defenders of freedom suddenly wanna drop it if when they feel threatened.
Does anybody even know what the alleged terrorist organization known as Al-Qaeda wants? Maybe once we understand that, we can find a solution. But instead what is told to us is that they're just a bunch of lunatics that commit enormous amounts of resources blowing things up because they're lunatics or extremists or new_political_buzzword_to_label_undesirables. Yeah right.
Well, about the Climate Change or Global Warming, I find it funny that people come and say the we have no proof of that. The other day I was hearing a known analyst on tv saying just that. I remember the same guy saying there were WMDs in Iraq well after US troops overrun the country, that Saddam hid them in a boat of truck in the desert... I'm not saying the same applies to you... My point is that while some disagreement seems to exist, that's more on how it's going to affect us, because the large majority - it no longer takes a scientist to see that - can't deny something is happening. But even if people don't want to believe the warming there's a whole array of other nice problems: garbage, garbage on the sea, extinction, deforestation, and our old but somewhat forgotten friend - the ozone hole! Now, are the scientists still trying to find proof for these too, I ask?
I sure think it's changing. In fact I'm sure. I hear my parents and grandparents saying how it used to rain more or how it used to be colder in Winter. Hell, seasons are blurring since a few years back. More extreme weather phenomena is happening... And it's going to get worse I fear.
As for research, we don't have much of that here, we slightly have some in the Universities but that's it. But in the US? Come on, cut a few percent off the defense budget and there's plenty dough for everyone. Why should people have to choose between having private or public R&D? They can have both.
Bit of off topic but I'd never heard about UN soldiers killing or raping Israelis... I've heard something like that, but in Africa, particularly through the Katanga secession crisis.
But I went and googled for it and, well, found nothing. I mean, I found the usual - Israelis killing U.N. workers, attacking U.N. installations, etc. - Also saw the Fox News website: Fox News, fair & balanced ah, ah.
Anyway, can you provide some references? Like when was it or where?
well, actually, I mentioned this same news to a friend of mine with a Law degree and he thought precisely that... Apparently, most people only perceive torrents as inherently illegal or a medium for carrying out exclusively illegal activities. I asked him on what facts was his opinion based on to which he replied that it was his empirical observation on what surrounded him. In other words, that he only saw people using that technology for illegal purposes. Needless to say, he had no clue whatsoever of what torrents really are.
Agreed.
Being a passionate for genetic algorithms I understand what you say perfectly. And I agree. Evolution is far more complex than simple survival of the fittest! Or maybe it's the fittest that's more complicated than we understand. Nevertheless, I'm sure you'll agree there is a difference between manipulating the genes - whatever they actually are, nucleic acids seems more accurate... - themselves than applying whatever pressure we want on the phenotype. In a way, the pressure we apply on the genotypes by our artificial selection, could be an extended phenotype of our own genes, making way for their own endeavor....! - therefore not artificial at all! :)
Anyway, here's to you for complementing what I say and shedding yet another bit of light on the ever complex matter of evolution, natural or not - if that makes any sense! :)
Yes but what is meant is you drive the change through the phenotype as opposed to directly changing the genotype.
So basically - and simplistically, you are acting like nature in which you say who's the fittest and therefore the one who reproduces the most hence the one who's traits are to be preserved. You are not acting as a genetic engineer manipulating the bits of nucleic acid directly with their hands or with whatever tools.
But you knew this anyway right?
Never actually considered to talk with these extremists to know what's pissing them off instead of labeling them extremists did ya? Oh and maybe robbing them out of their oil...
It's funny Pearl Harbor is mentioned, because it's got to do with - that's right! - oil! In that case, the skillful manipulation of the Japanese empire into attacking first or loosing their supplies of oil.
I fail to understand how is it that you always manage to think you are the victims of unprovoked attack and aggression. You guys really live inside your own little bubble isn't it? You really believe the whole world hates America because they don't like, what, your flag? The way you talk? Or maybe it's the fact that your successive governments persist in fucking with everyone that has something they would like to have? You fuck with them, they fuck with you... I'll tell you more. You think it's going to stop? Think again. This is not the 40's... Your big bad army is pretty much useless. It's been like 8 years since Afghanistan was invaded right? Are more troops going to finally win the war? Think again. The war is lost already. Whether you want it or not, the talibans are returning to power. It's a matter of time and dead Americans. It's sad but true. Your people is dying there for what? Freedom? Come on...
Welcome to the big wide world.
To finalize and really make myself clear.
Racism exists indeed in that some people dislike other people because they are of a different race. This is clear.
The invention I am talking about is when media and politicians tag xenophobia - as in someone who is suspicious of another person because that person is different, or a stranger, or not part of the group, in other words: an alien - as racism.
I think that while commonly used interchangeably, the two concepts are different. One is stupid because I'm not even sure a concept such as race can be defined scientifically. The other is a natural reaction of almost all living beings I can remember. Mixing the two does not, in my opinion, wield good results. It only makes people confused because while they feel they're entitled to distrust strangers because they are strangers, they don't like to be labeled racists because they're not.
Racism is the by-product of pseudo-scientific victorian anthropology made by arrogant 19th century imperialists and can't really exist if people are really scientifically educated. Xenophobia is a natural defense reaction that can gradually be lowered by mutual demonstrations of trust and good intentions by both host and guest.
This is what I meant. I am sorry if I failed to present my arguments in a compelling way but I can't stop myself from thinking if the same thing I'm trying to expose - the taboo about facing both concepts and differentiate between them - isn't the very thing that was stopping you from actually getting to see my point in the first place.
As for the dolphins, it was indeed irrelevant and was meant as a personal attack which clearly failed to deliver. Serves me right for trusting what the tv says. I apologize.
ah but there is your/most people mistake! You see, that is why I think culture works better than race. Most people tend to think of racists as people who think other race's people are somehow less than human or whatever... As in, either you're not racist and love everyone OR you're racist and hate everyone of different race. This makes no sense. You can't hate something you don't know. Most racists - I prefer xenophobes, it's a much better definition - don't hate different people. They feel suspicious of them. Which in turn makes them blame those different people for things they may not be to blame. Which in turn leads to hate. Mutual hate.
Now I think being a xenophobe is a natural thing. We all are in some degree... And the people that say they're not are either lying or they don't know. Imagine someone tells you that from now on, chimpanzees are going to have the right to vote. Chimps are pretty intelligent and they can communicate (with humans, by sign language) too. Imagine we find out they actually are almost as intelligent as humans are. I would like to see what many anti-racists would say then: when true racism emerged.
What is needed is that we acknowledge this and instead of marginalizing this natural distrust of strangers and making it seem unnatural, we need to build something positive out of it. Change the focus to culture, and understand what kind of cultural aspects don't go with each other. Because there are cultural practices that people don't want in the West. The people in Africa don't like other practices we have in Europe. The same goes for Asia. Find what is incompatible and retain what's compatible. Pretending everything is compatible is just stupid and won't end the problem. It's like pretending we are all heterosexuals. Face it as an inter-cultural problem and you might get something positive out of it. But no one is doing that. Racism is an empty word thrown out by politicians and other people with their own agenda with the intent of getting support for their own agenda.
I'll conclude with an example that racism is an mostly an invention. You have Barack Obama, president of the USA right? The first black president they have. From Kenyan origin. Like you said, one would expect Obama to, at least, try to make something better for his race and ancestor land right? Wrong. Right now there's a US military command in each continent, and the last one was set up in Africa last year. Heard about Sudan and Darfur right? Well it's about oil. They find oil in Africa and problems ensue. Suddenly, terrorists from Al-Qaeda are popping up everywhere oil is fond in Africa, even in the middle of the Saara desert! Now this is great because the US can go there and fight terror while securing more oil supplies than would instead go to China. Now, Obama knows this. And he doesn't give a fuck. Why? Because he's not black. He's not Kenyan. He is American. His culture is American. He cares for America and the American culture. You see why I say it's all about culture?
PS: about the dolphins, you completely missed where I was trying to go but that's ok. You should check about killing dolphins there in Denmark. Sick shit man.
Well it depends on what you consider inherently. In a way that's exactly what makes voting work. Whether or not race is a good factor is a different question.
I like to talk about cultures rather than races. Because cultures are better defined. Now say, imagine your country needs to establish a military command in another continent. Say Africa, for example. Who, all other traits being equal, would be better suited for the job of leading the command? A all-european cultural background man or someone with an African background? Well your distinguishing based on culture, even race. You can submit this to a voting process. Now, the African background guy is inherently better than the other guy. Just because he has an African culture background.
Now, I really don't give a fuck about who you are. I assumed you were Danish because you said so. Still, you didn't answer my question about the dolphins...
Well but what if, in my opinion (erroneous as it may be), I think that red people don't make good presidents, just because they are red? I would still be voting at issue at hand by today's standards. My point is that you vote for whatever reason you want. And voting based on racism is not much different than voting based on religion, for example. And yet, it's considered natural to vote based on religion and abject to vote based on race.
That said, I agree on this
And if you supported your actions, you'd be doing so against the entire idea of voting.
though you'll have to agree that most democracies are flawed because of this. Democracy only works if the majority proves to be right. Just because the majority thinks in a way, it doesn't make it right, obviously. If the majority is racist, then racist policies will ensue. As far as the typical democracy goes it's fair and square. You can't stop people for voting anyway they want to. Unless you factor in the majority proves right thing. But then you'd have to have a educated, responsible majority to ensure that in a democratic way... But that's not what most democracies have. They just assume that they have it. That's the problem as I see it.
getting back on-topic, I think voting is a decision making process independent from what criteria people apply in expressing their vote. You are against voting if you think voting is not a valid decision making process. Thinking football team A is better than B because it's your home team wouldn't make you against voting.
yeah well, more scary than all that (since the Italians actually voted for the man - and in democracy you get what you deserve) is the environmental catastrophe in and around Napoli and all Campania region. Probably affecting the whole south. Garbage. Everywhere, dangerous, unprocessed, toxic garbage. I saw it on vbs.tv's Toxic Napoli and it blew me away.
Sometimes you get the feeling that it's Manila or someplace like that... but no. It's Italia right in the middle of the EU...
Please... you Scandinavians with your do-goodie morals... What has racism got to do with voting? Or better, what has xenophobia got to do with voting? Because most of what is called racism is just xenophobia. And it's quite natural if you ask me. You get suspicious of strangers. There probably was a selection advantage in our ancestors behaving like that and it's not hard to see.
Now, we've come a long way since those times and many of us have learned that there's no need to be like that anymore. But some people have more trouble understanding that. Maybe because they had a bad experience with someone from a different culture or maybe they are just stupid or maybe they see something no one else sees. The point is, if you go and accuse those people, you segregate them, they are not going to understand. They'll go bitter and aggressive. Besides, you'll be treating them like you don't want them to treat outsiders. And putting everything in the racism bag doesn't help either....
Until we stop facing these politically incorrect themes with the usual ingenuity like - OMG dats racism!!!111!! Let's lynch him! - and then perfectly allow that to happen when it's a - supposed - minority like people have been referring, and don't start talking about things rationally, getting to the bottom of things it's only going to get worse. And the current "democratic dictatorship" also doesn't help. I mean it's all good in democracy, everyone's free and all BUT you can't be racist, you can't be anti-semitic, you can't be machoist AND then you can assume all muslims are terrorists, Iran want's to destroy the world, and be feminist and have women-only all kinds of things.... In the end, it's democracy to everyone, because everyone HAS to have it. But OUR kind of democracy. Not the other eeevil kind.
Come on, give us a break. I vote for whoever I want. And I'm racist. So what? Now I'm against the entire idea of voting? I don't like blue people, therefore I'm against voting. Crystal clear logic no doubt. What if I kill dolphins barbarically? I'm I against voting too?
I think you should review your assessment on pre-Israeli jewish terrorism. It's too naÃve. Feel free to google about the King David Hotel bombing and you'll see that both Jewish and Arab women and children got killed. You talk about extremists. Yet to my eye, Israel is as extremist as Hamas, because let's be clear, Isreal has no intention of becoming a multicultural multiethnic state whatsoever. It keeps colonizing West Bank territory despite the soft reprisals by the West. It's dominated by righ-wing militarist people, and corruption scandals succeed. Hamas attacks with something like 1:400 kill ratios are retaliated with full destruction and mayhem in Gaza, disregarding even UN buildings, while having the face to come and say terrorists we're using UN facilities to attack them. This is, in itself, insulting for the UN and therefore to most of the World. If this is not extremism then tell me what it is.
As for Israeli terrorism not having majority support, i don't know. But the fact remains that Menachem Begin become prime-minister of Israel and won a Nobel Prize for Peace. If this isn't support what the hell is it?
Restrain Israel. Make it stop the colonization and make it accountable for what they did in Gaza and Lebanon. The Muslims will negotiate. Just don't expect them to negotiate from a position of weakness. But Israel is not interested in negotiation until it has colonized the whole West Bank. And then there will be nothing to negotiate. And then no one will be able to expel them once they are there. So they win. Only a blind man isn't able to see this.
You see but the problem is precisely that. Our way of life. And, in the case of Muslim terrorism, their way of life.
Western people fail miserably in understanding Muslim people and general culture. As they do, in fact, with every culture but their own. While we allow our governments to keep interfering with the affairs of other nations, exploring their natural resources while conspiring to give the power to friendly people in those countries, this will never stop.
Like I said before, it's already started in Africa with US Africom. And it has nothing to do with Muslims... Go ahead and take a look on that. The Muslims are not a threat to our way of life. If the West didn't kept supporting coups, invading countries and supporting instability in the region, none of this would've happened. It's we that are a threat to their way of life. And Israel is the spearhead. It's the very materialization of insult right in the middle of their lands. Armed to the teeth, oblivious to everything but it's own expansive, colonizing agenda, while enforcing it quite aggressively, indiscriminating women and children and tearing houses down. While in all this being fully supported by the West.
Now tell me, what do you think Muslims are going to think when they see a Muslim country being repeatedly targeted by UN sanctions because of alleged disrespect of UN resolutions and for allegedly trying to build nuclear weapons while they see that aggressive alien colony, that kills them at the slight suspicion, breaking resolutions after resolutions, waging war whenever it feels like, killing their children and women by the hundreds, being fully supported by the Western nations. To be honest it almost makes me want to be terrorist. Muslims are not all, not even the most, fanatics. They are simply fighting back the best way they can. and until the West understands that, it will not stop. Because in case you are missing it, they ARE winning. Every year you trade a little bit more of your freedom for security. But you are never really safe, so you keep trading freedom. And your government loves it. And so you don't get to live better than the Muslims. So what's the point?
I agree. But, like you said, that can't work in the Western nations. I just think people should dry to dig out the facts and consider them all instead of taking someone's opinion and adopt it blindly. I'm not excusing terrorism but merely trying to say that the only efficient and sustainable way to stop it is by evaluating the claims and negotiate. Pretty much like what's done in an hostage situation. The problem is most people think we should go in guns blazin... That doesn't solve nothing especially because of the independent cell model now widespread all over the world. I say keep repression but engage in negotiation. Just don't let repression serve as an excuse for allowing equal barbarities and crimes perpetrated by the governments. Which is exactly what's happening in Africa with Africom. African governments are starting to designate rival contestants as terrorists and getting military aid from the US, in exchange for privileged access to natural resources.
Is that so surprising? Airplanes are particularly vulnerable targets. Because they crash. Now you can crash it on things like the ground or high buildings. Which is not quite the same thing as obliterating a fucking city and possibly bringing nuclear armageddon on the Earth. If you can't appreciate the difference between the two things maybe you should apply the adjective on yourself.
Well but I think the Japanese must have taken their time figuring out what happened. Remember that whole cities just vanished. And with no cell phones, it must take time to the news get up to the decision makers. I suspect when the second bomb hit they were still at odds with what exactly did happen...
And I'm quite sure that a demonstration of an A-bomb would suffice to get the surrender. A conditional surrender at the least. It's not something you can really fight. You have to prevent it. So I don't really understand how would they not surrender to a demo since they surrendered to the real thing. So they're not really stupid, if they were they'd never surrender... Besides they're a courageous, disciplined people their whole history. It's natural that they keep fighting until told to stop. A demo would be much more efficient to pass the message straight to the top.
The guy below pretty much summed it up. Anyway, let me just say that of course Israel didn't have any responsibility for the terrorist acts in Palestine before it's existence as state because, well, it didn't exist.
That's my point. It exists now because of the terrorist acts of the people that were and are part of it now. And those people cannot deny responsibility. It's own IDF - ah the irony - was based on those very terrorist organizations. Of course you can argue that they were fighting for their country. That they were freedom fighters. But that's a dangerous argument that can suddenly turn and hit you in the eye...
PS: some of those terrorists not only become highly respected Israeli officials in charge of the government, one even got a Nobel Prize for Peace... ah the irony again... Bin Laden: feel like winning a Nobel?
That's a typical lame american excuse for being SOBs. If you go and read about the development of the bomb e.g. Robert Jungk's Brighter Than a Thousand Suns you'll see that it was actually discussed whether the US should showcase the bomb in the desert or some place without killing anyone for the Japanese, or warn them that they were going to drop it or just drop it without warning. Most scientists, after the first detonation ever, went for the first one. They were convinced that not only Japan would surrender when they saw the explosion but that it was inhumane to drop it without warning.
Now, Mr. Truman thought that the Soviets would be much more impressed with his new toy if they actually saw the thing in a real life scenario. Much to his - and others - dismay, the Soviets would soon have a toy of their own, and a better one soon after.
So the excuse of saving lives is bullshit. As most of the - we are using disproportionate force to save lives - excuses generally are.
Yeah? I remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Two cities, two bombs, two american bombs. Yep, I guess that's it...
In God we trust?
Yeah pal well get back to your physics and stay there because of politics you know jack. And they had a very good reason to do that. And it's spelled in three letters so it's easy for you to understand physics genius: OIL If you spent some time try to learn about the people around you, you would know that the US supported and gave the power to the Shah against a democratically elected government, because the Shah would let the seven sisters extract all the oil they wanted for ridiculous prices. The hostage crisis was to support the revolution that ensued. So, if the US would keep themselves quiet instead of messing around with other countries, they'd have a lot less problems.
Terrorism is desperation. The ONLY way to stop determined terrorism is to hear the claims of the terrorists and negotiate. If someone blows the fuck out of himself and a bunch of other people, it might be a good idea to hear what they're mad about. Do it covertly if you want, so that it doesn't seem you negotiate with them, but do it.
Anyway, a nuke would vanish forever any chance that a terrorist has of further advancing their cause. And before you start saying that their cause is already lost, please consider Israel. It was made out of terrorism - Menachem Begin & Co. - see the King David Hotel bombing, and many others. Conclusion? They got a country and nukes. How about that?