Moses, while he did indeed commit violence, was not comparable at all to islam's paedophile prophet either.
Unfortunately for your point, the Medeans attacked first. They were raiding the nomadic "villages" one at a time, as can be plainly read in the bible. They were doing what the muslims are doing today in Darfur. They attacked, took food and women away, leaving many to die. They sold the captured women as slaves.
The Israelites were not in a position to defend themselves. They were nomadic. Fortifications make no sense for non-sedentary humans. Villages, due to resource limitations could not be made large enough, for long enough to have a decent chance of fighting off the Medean raiding parties.
Therefore they had to attack, a prospect they could easily win, because they would be able to determine the moment of battle, negating the need to be able to await the Medean forces for months, negating the need for significant supplies, without taking the enormous risk of discovery (in the desert you can, if you're smart, at the right time of day, easily see 100 kilometers. Therefore you can explore your raiding target weeks before the actual attack, completely out of range of any weapon. Trying to hide in the desert is a loser's game, even in 3000 (?) BC). After a successfull attack they'd be able to use Medean resources, large parts of those resources were stolen from them anyway, to maintain the rest of them, and if they attacked Medean villages the fact that these Medeans where much more mobile than they were would not matter. Their numbers dwarfed the numbers of Medeans. The orders Moses gave concerned looting (not allowed). Any children left alone would have to be adopted (not raped, and sold as slaves, like the muslims do, adopted, since then the taking of slaves in war was outlawed, and considered a moral abomination in Christianity/Judaism (neither were in their current forms obviously)). Muslims are still doing it (and *all* muslims did it until at least 1960)
Just like killing the firstborns of Egypt wasn't a random act but an act that was designed to use the fact that military degrees where inherited in Egypt's army at the time. Killing firstborns, killed the higher degrees of that army. It killed the command structure starting at Farao, paralysed the army for at least several days, I believe the story says they needed 3 days to get a small force operational, it killed the commanders, generals or whatever ranks that were, which made it impossible for Farao to react militarily to the departure of his slaves, until he could reorganize a functioning command structure.
Violence in the bible is not random. People don't turn to war without reason. Either they want to conquer*, or they want to defend themselves. Nobody goes to war "just because", as is so heavily implied in your post.
* the note should be made that a number of economic systems, such as socialism (sorry "communism", a totally different thing, *cough*) and nazism in the last century, and the islamic state before that, can only be maintained by constant offensive warfare.In the case of the islamic state constant offensive warfare was necessary to maintain the influx of slaves, who were killed in numbers that defy anyone's moral limits. Constant attacks on native peoples in Afrika maintained the number of the muslim's slaves, in addition to being their only export (the "barbary wars" were started by the muslims because America would no longer buy islam's slaves in trade for American goods, read about it). These state systems do not attempt to boost internal efficiency. They're designed to avoid learning from one's mistakes, to give in to purely emotional responses. When their internal circumstances change, even slightly, they're unwilling to adapt, and therefore have to replace the lost internal resources with booty, so they attack. They have a constant craving for superiority and most realize that being able to kill with impunity is the "ultimate" superiority one can have. The scary thing ? Darwin agrees with this, with the added little detail of course, that they must keep up the killing long enough, while not ignoring their internal problems. Not something these regimes, fortunately, have been very good at.
The fact that it's not "peace at all costs, at any price" is exactly right. Point well taken. You see that as a downside. Why ?
That would be stupid. Your quotes may be ill-chosen, but the point is there. Jesus was not 100% opposed to violence.
Violence, physical force is necessary, for some, to serve the purpose that the bible gives us. Police and even army is not a despicable institution for Jesus.
Violence in the bible, for example, is not just allowed, it's a requirement. You have to fight for your family. You have to defend the weak. You have to fight for justice.
Violence, like anything else in Christianity, is only bad if the intention is bad. Comitting violence like the paedophile prophet did, for booty, for sex, for slaves, for revenge... those are horrid crimes. Fighting, even killing if necessary and risking your life for your family, for your country, for a beggar is commendable behavior.
Anything else, would be stupid. Whatever else you believe in, or about the bible, you can at least accept that as true.
"So we know what they're up to" "they do it too" "they do it more"
Why don't you fight. Throw yourself into your rage ? Get a gun, you know where, and start shooting. Fight the power.
Oh wait. You're not so stupid as to actually believe what you're saying. You're not so stupid to believe there's anything really wrong with "government". But you still have rage. You still have hate.
Throw yourself into it. End it. You want to.
Yes the police has access to your email if they want to. They need it, too. So does google, obviously. Microsoft too, and probably at least 2 or 3 script kiddies. Deal with it.
Or throw yourself into your hate. Go out in a flash of despicable destruction. Fight. End it.
But we both know you're not so stupid to actually believe what you just wrote down. You DO understand how & why "the system" works. But you still hate, you still rage.
I don't claim all muslims are violent. I claim muslims are ordered to be violent by islamic dogma, which is entirely correct.
I don't claim all muslims act like islam orders them to do. That doesn't change the fact that islam DOES order muslims to commit, amongst other things, paedophilia and religious genocide.
Fortunately, as the bible predicts, most people know good from evil no matter what their parents try to teach them. That, however, does not make islam itself any less evil.
It always amazes me how people don't read what they're referring to... Heh.
Besides, in the new testament you won't even find this type of things. So unless you're criticizing the Jews, might I remind you that (at least in catholicism and protestantism) the old testament is a historical tale, describing God's interactions with the Jews. Not the center of Christian dogma, that would be the new testament. Jesus, who refuses to shed blood even to save himself. The best known story ever told on this little planet. But even in the old testament the situation isn't one tenth as bad as you imply :
1 Chronicles 21
And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel. And David said to Joab and to the rulers of the people, Go, number Israel from Beersheba even to Dan; and bring the number of them to me, that I may know it...
Oops, guess that one was a misser on your part, right ? You said "God". Actually a king did it, at the direction of satan. Also read the entire story. He did quite a bit more than "counting" before God intervened, protecting people (protecting some by attacking others).
Deuteronomy 3
Is about 2 armies fighting. One army faced another. One army did not survive, because God supported the other side.
Hardly seems the same as "killing and plundering all cities", now doesn't it ? Oops. They did gain dominion of a kingdom through that victory. Well duh, they didn't fight for fun, they actually fought over something.
I'd name all of them, none of which are anywhere near as clear-cut as you imply, but what's the point ? It's not like you're actually trying to make an informed argument about the bible. You haven't read the bible, and you're proud of the fact. First read those stories (and chapter before your reference and chapter after them), then we'll discuss what means what, like informed adults.
Really ? Why don't you tell us what reality is ? Because all these media seem to get the ball all wrong (well everybody certainly seems to agree all these facts are totally misguiding everyone)
The fact that the quran openly calls for genocide, and that these calls have been answered by muslims during their entire history, certainly doesn't help matters. But you're right. Most, if not 99% of islamic terror is muslims killing muslims for the most despicable of reasons, few having anything to do with religion. Money, fame, anger and especially shame cause muslims to murder eachother, but taking away the murder excuse that is islam would do no harm whatsoever.
That said, of course you're right every ten years or so there is a terrorist attack that isn't muslims killing for islam. Every now and then some communists kill around a bit. It's been a while though.
This week ONLY terrorist attacks. Since monday muslims murdered 70 people "for allah". Strangely enough there weren't any non-muslim terrorist attacks this week. Anyway here's the list : 10/16/2008 Pakistan Swat 5 15 A Fedayeen suicide car bomber rams into a police station, killing five Pakistanis. 10/15/2008 Iraq Karbala 22 0 A mass grave is discovered containing the bodies of twenty-two abducted shepherds 10/15/2008 Iraq Baghdad 7 18 A Mujahideen bomb blast and separate mortar attack on a mosque leave seven civilians dead. 10/15/2008 Afghanistan Lashkar Gah 6 0 Six local police are taken out in a brutal Taliban ambush on their checkpoint. 10/15/2008 Pakistan Swat 2 0 The Taliban enter a home and murder a husband and wife. 10/15/2008 Pakistan Swat 3 0 Three people, including two brothers, are killed in two Jihad shooting attacks. 10/14/2008 Afghanistan Kandahar 1 0 Religious extremists assassinate a government official who aids war widows. 10/14/2008 Afghanistan Uruzgan 9 6 Two children are among nine civilians murdered when Taliban bombers target a minibus. 10/14/2008 Philippines North Cotabato 1 0 Moro Islamists attack a Christian village, killing one civilian and driving many families from their homes. 10/14/2008 Pakistan Kabal 1 0 Sunni extremists abduct, torture and behead a local soldier. 10/14/2008 Somalia Mogadishu 1 0 Islamists murder the driver of an aid agency. 10/14/2008 India Poonch 2 0 Mujahideen kill two local soldiers in separate ambushes. 10/13/2008 Afghanistan Ghazni 6 2 Religious extremists take out six civilians with a roadside blast. 10/13/2008 Pakistan Darra Adam Khel 1 4 A sudden Sunni rocket attack leaves a local security staff member dead. 10/13/2008 Somalia Mogadishu 2 23 Two African Union mission members are killed when Muslim militia attack their vehicles. 10/13/2008 Pakistan Murid Wal 1 0 A young man is forced by honor to kill his mother when she refuses to break off an 'illicit' relationship.
Please point out in the bible where Jesus rapes a 9-year old girl "because God tells him to"... After all I've shown you the equivalent in islam ("repression" in English).
Please show me the christian states where rape of minor girls is STILL practiced because limiting such would be "illegal". Please show me the christians demanding the right to rape underage girls, please show me christians murdering their children because they try to run from these marriages...
After all "it's all the same", isn't it ? Let's see it.
Obviously, however this is part of that religion, and the little fact that this religion is worse than nazism... oh well "freedom of religion" is the highest good, right ? Well then you dress up killing others as a religion and you get at it !
But it gets worse : from its very, very beginning islam ("repression" literally) was already killing like this.
Google "asma bint marwan". Read about the "prophet" (of peace ?) sending out murderers in the night killing a mother in her tent, who fell asleep with her child on her chest. Needless to say, the child didn't survive islam's killer either.
You remember the story of Jesus and the woman that got brought before him, convicted to death because some men thought she had cheated, but they were not sure about killing her. Well "repression" (islam) has the same story :
Don't forget he people. You are clearly "opressing people" if you don't let them do this to people. If things like this makes you think ill about islam, clearly you're a racist :
After all : they're "all the same" these religions. "It's all the same"... except noone can ever seem to be able to point to an instance when Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, Joseph Smith, of even L.Ron Hubbard sending out murderers to advance their religion.
And now, for everyone's enjoyment. Islam killed a billion people in a thousand years. Communism killed a hundred million in less than 100 years.
So what do "progressives" do ? They progress... they combine the two. Communism, now in limited edition with extra prophets... because not enough people died last time !
Actually the quran is quite specific in which souls need to have a cruel, agonizing and bloody death. It also clearly specifies how they're to be administered : every muslim is to "fight, kill and die" as a slave of allah until there isn't a single non-muslim left.
And if you want demonstrations, you could read about the religious massacres in the description of the "prophet's" life.
It's even got paedophilia. Somehow I don't think it's very politically correct, all these inconvenient truths.
There's only one real question to ask. If someone publishes Obama's email. And there are some private "let's barbecue some white guy" jokes in there, along with an email of some secretary asking to pay a certain bill or not. You know "state business".
And it would have been published whole... I have to cover my ears just thinking about it.
So : it's NOT acceptable behavior. Sending the emails anonymously to the the police and keeping them 100% out of public view would be the very last line I would find tolerable on govt. official's private email addresses. But even that still involves a crime.
Well at least, when the honeymoon's over and it's time for Barack O. to publish his email correspondance he can claim to have "encrypted it" and then send a random string, telling the judge the password has something to do with a very dark hole where apparently many claim the sun does not shine.
There is no such thing as "airtight" evidence. There's always the possibility of "a string of coincidences".
This is not a problem with FBI agents, with oversight, or with anything, but a basic mathematical problem. It manifests itself when trying to measure the speed of light, and it manifests itself (a LOT worse) when trying to determine if someone is guilty of a crime. It even manifests itself in mathematical disciplines.
And it can't be eliminated... ever (as in in mathematics there's a proof that eliminating doubt from even natural number theory would take an infinite amount of work to be done, for every other discipline it's beyond trivial to prove that there is no certainty without at least infinite checks (yes you can check more than infinitely many times) ).
If you demand airtight evidence, you couldn't lock up Bill Ayers for bombing. You couldn't accuse a falling snowflake of being white. You couldn't say that Hitler harmed even a single fly.
There is no such thing as airtight evidence. We still need to deal with criminals. Therefore less than ideal evidence is going to have to do. Deal with it.
Actually, no, "progressive" is a term that the politically left socialist/communists identify themselves with. I've never seen a libertarian or more right than that organisation use it.
And the political left, the socialists/communists are screaming for "change".
Personally, I think you need to realize that this acceptance of free opinion that you have in Amerika is not nearly as widespread as you assume it is (not even in America).
In Europe, you can actually get physically attacked in some places for being openly against Obama, but mostly people will just hurl insults at you. Racist, warmonger are popular ones.
There is no-one controlling these people. They're just used to getting free handouts from government, and they will fight to keep them. Obama will apologize for America, and presumably prepare the road to bring America into the EU, that means bigger government. More money for handouts.
Even in America the press is more than just a little bit "left-leaning". In Europe, it's slightly more extreme than Stalin. In America it's ridiculous and "just some repeats" if some idiot claims that fearmongering and racism are campaigning against Obama (we all know who's side Wright was on, right ? So to say the least some of the more extreme racists are for Obama), in Europe it's front page news just about everywhere.
The extreme left dominates public opinion to a ridiculous extent in Europe. In America, it's a comparatively more moderate left. But the left is like muslims : they never stay moderate for long.
Have you ever even been to Afrika ? All of those states are better off now than before the colonization.
In fact, the harder the host country fought to retain it's colony, the more use the colony seems to have gotten from itself being colonized. And many countries, when starting to reassert those "better" "traditional" policies... well... in case you don't know. The darfur genocide-jihad started long, long, long ago. When the British left the arab muslims started killing black muslims for (well for what ? for being black).
Colonization was the best thing that ever happened to African countries. It liberated them from the islamic slave trade. Decolonization the worst, because it gave muslims the chance to restart their extermination wars on many fronts. One thing the colonizers did, for example, was defend blacks from the muslim-ottoman slave traders that were left after the collapse.
Want to know just how bad the ottoman-islamic slave trade was for blacks ? Well you know how bad it is in America. So count the number of blacks you know.
Now go to Marokko, a country that received AT LEAST several tens of millions of slaves over the course of the ottoman slave trade. Count the number of blacks... ZERO. Same goes for Algeria (except the southern part that was still somewhat defended by France where despite constant attacks still some tuaregs alive), Tunesia, Egypt, Sudan,...
You will find, btw, many afrikans that agree with this in Afrika. You can still go and visit rather old (if clumsily constructed) mosques where the slaves were traded.
Of course at the border of the "real" afrika (which is more or less the line that the "sahel" desert forms) you will still find muslims exterminating blacks. Darfur is just one battlefield that managed to attrackt at least some attention. But Chad, Ethiopia, Niger, Nigeria, Mali, Mauretania, and even Western Sahara are all, if for the moment mostly silent, battlefields where the muslims fight to exterminate the blacks.
Go visit Afrika once. You'll be surprised at the situation on the ground and the real problems. There is more to afrika than little children with big eyes and big bellies : there are tons of Afrikans wanting to remedy that situation. There are cities, there are factories, there are farms farms and more farms. Food aid is destroying as much, if not more as it is saving, and it's got to be done more reasonably.
Especially the UN is VERY VERY VERY bad influence on afrika. The disasters they caused, starting with the Katanga massacre by tibettan UN soldiers before the UN turned 5, but also continuing unabated today, the last large incident with moroccan soldiers raping black women in Senegal.
I don't see afrika as the disaster you see in it. And the Afrikans that you want to support, the ones that actually want to fix things, are not the ones calling for more aid, they're the ones calling for less interference. Especially less interference from soldiers. And it would help if UN forces could stop killing and raping whenever they get the chance, but rather, they'd just like to be rid of them.
Want to save Afrika ? Get out, and deploy soldiers exclusively on the line between arab muslims and blacks.
You advocate waiting them out, and that has worked thus far with a pretty darned significant list of anti-democracy types. Not with Libya, though - they settled down only after a bombing run that killed Khadafi's daughter (among 45 military and 15 civilian casualties) - similar to option 2 above. It also failed most notably in the prelude to WWII, as has been endlessly rehashed over the past 7 years, so there are no guarantees.
You call the cold war "waiting out" the USSR ? I want what you're smoking. I suppose it looked more like waiting from a large distance. The US wasn't "waiting" on the USSR at all, but constantly fighting, and winning most (but not all) fights.
Sometimes with dubious allies, constant battles, some won, some lost (even though it's a lie that the US ever supported Bin Laden, it is true that the US supported the once-existing "secular" wing of the taliban, which wasn't all that secular, but at least opposed to islam's jihad. They were massacred by the rest (as islam dictates, muslims who refuse to "fight, kill and die" for jihad are to be executed), and only the terrorists remain, having killed all the others)
Your suggestion that the war in afghanistan is popular worldwide is ridiculous. It's unfortunate, but that's the truth.
Yes it's given lip-service of supposedly being more "just" (what does just mean in this age of postmodernism ? In "modern" times it meant that Christianity was in a better position after the war, which is the doctrine (wars for ideology) that built the world we live in. What does a "just" war mean in a world without meaning (=postmodernism) ? Nothing. All wars are just. All wars are unjust. It's just a fashion, a feeling, nothing more, which boils down to "wars that benefit me financially or politically are just, the rest are unjust"). But support ? It has no support.
Not a single "American" war has any real support in Europe (outside of, ironically, Turkey and the ex-USSR states, even though both have radically different reasons for the popular support)
The sad thing is, if the USSR had lasted 10 more years (perhaps even a mere 2 years), the taliban would have been exterminated to the last man. As soon as the Russians realize this trivial truth, the USSR will (I think) resurrect itself.
The real problem is deeper for the American republic. Just like the problem was deeper for the Roman republic before it. Obama, imho, plays the role of Catiline.
Europe hates America because America is living proof that the "democrat-social" states of Western Europe are at best suboptimal, and probably doomed to succomb to the social part of their states, and America appears not to be. An essential part of the "social" ideology is that everybody is a socialist, and those that aren't are really criminals. Therefore America, and any war they're involved in, is criminal.
Obama's popularity in Europe comes from his promise to change America into an equally doomed "social" "democracy" (which will obviously neither be social, nor democratic).
It has nothing whatsoever to do with who attacked who and who is "guilty".
Most people don't realise the game people in power are playing. People in power are not so interested in individuals. The ones in power are interested in adding everyone to different lists so they can then control and profiling groups of people, so they can then use divide and conquer tactics, to break groups of people up. The goal is that the fragmented groups cannot then stand and oppose the point of view of the ones in power. That is why they data mine.
Now replace "the people in power" with "everyone". Give a few days thought for the very obvious but highly non-trivial fact that you yourself are part of "the people in power", and how you, nor anyone else, will do better.
Because let's not kid ourselves. The more "progressive" a government, the more it progressed in the UK in placing surveillance. This is not to say the tories did not do it too.
They did it less, and that's all we can hope for in the real world.
I don't mean any disrespect to those who died in 9/11, but people are dying all the time from accidents, disease and natural disaster. Wasting all the money you have on going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan when in fact it was a terrorist organisation and not a single country that attacked you, is pretty dumb. If you go around spending billions attacking everyone that you feel slightly threatened by, you'll end up in financial meltdown... oh, wait...
It was an ideology that attacked America. A non-free ideology that can't assess it's superiority in any manner other than killing.
Then again, since this is a religion, and we're "secular" : here's a thought : if Darwin's right, and they can kill others with relative impunity (which you propose : no real reaction against the ideology due to the 9/11 attack) then you have supported their behavior : they will obviously attempt to repeat it.
And if they succeed, according to darwin, the price for you is extermination, down to the last man, woman and child.
Tell me, is Darwin right ? Do Ideologies get selected out because of the killing/defense and procreation properties of their carriers ?
Or is all that stuff nonsense ?
(btw, I am an atheist too, I just honestly don't know how to think about this consistently. If Darwin's right, we have exactly one choice : fight back and fight to exterminate every last one of them. Extermination for one of the 2 parties is, regardless of tactics or respect for human rights (which the other side doesn't even pretend to have), or even firepower available the expected outcome. Even whether or not nuclear weapons are used (or even agreed to not be used) changes nothing : extermination is the Darwinist fate for all except one : one of the many is the fittest, after a little while this one will dominate. A little while longer and all others will be gone, and Darwin will start trying out new varieties, all descendent from this "one". Funny how it's entirely possible that the party that's killing people for embracing Darwinism could be the most fit one).
So you are worse at proving that you're human than at least a few computer programs.
I'd say it says something about you, but the sad thing is, it doesn't. In fact I know few people over 55, or under 16 or-so* that are even capable of proving they're human. Soon we will all be worse than computer programs in proving that we're human...
* I mean average people. Sure, geeks have little issues
Heh, should give "astroturfing" a totally new dimension. I see the academics salivating at their newfound "influence". Being able to drown out real humans in any debate will certainly not improve webboards. I mean, say "bushitler", or "islam is peace", is a stupid meme now, believed only by idiots, but some don't let that deter them in pushing it. What if they push it with computer programs 10000-programs-to-1-human ?
Do we start botwars ? I remember those from irc, and they drown out real conversation even more, reacting to eachother.
At the very least they kill the option of accepting new members into a channel/forum/community.
And never mind what will happen once these bots walk around and look like this. "Too ghastly to think about".
Heh, at least then we can all have "suicide bombers"**, without that tedious convincing unrealistically gullible idiots or the kidnapping extortions business that seems to be required today.
** actually muslims once comitted a "suicide bombing" campaign in Thailand using RC cars (just strap some dynamite and ball bearings on top of that in them, then get very close), while that's RC, not robotics, it would not be the fist "robotic" attack. That one attack failed, but was already very, very troubling. Another muslim was arrested in the U.S. for developing a suicide UAV bomber. Wonder what the future holds ! I can't wait.
And google simply commits to "doing no evil". Yet they comply with censoring orders even in America (youtube videos disappear not just for copyright reasons, as everyone knows).
Slashdot Mirror
Moses, while he did indeed commit violence, was not comparable at all to islam's paedophile prophet either.
Unfortunately for your point, the Medeans attacked first. They were raiding the nomadic "villages" one at a time, as can be plainly read in the bible. They were doing what the muslims are doing today in Darfur. They attacked, took food and women away, leaving many to die. They sold the captured women as slaves.
The Israelites were not in a position to defend themselves. They were nomadic. Fortifications make no sense for non-sedentary humans. Villages, due to resource limitations could not be made large enough, for long enough to have a decent chance of fighting off the Medean raiding parties.
Therefore they had to attack, a prospect they could easily win, because they would be able to determine the moment of battle, negating the need to be able to await the Medean forces for months, negating the need for significant supplies, without taking the enormous risk of discovery (in the desert you can, if you're smart, at the right time of day, easily see 100 kilometers. Therefore you can explore your raiding target weeks before the actual attack, completely out of range of any weapon. Trying to hide in the desert is a loser's game, even in 3000 (?) BC). After a successfull attack they'd be able to use Medean resources, large parts of those resources were stolen from them anyway, to maintain the rest of them, and if they attacked Medean villages the fact that these Medeans where much more mobile than they were would not matter. Their numbers dwarfed the numbers of Medeans. The orders Moses gave concerned looting (not allowed). Any children left alone would have to be adopted (not raped, and sold as slaves, like the muslims do, adopted, since then the taking of slaves in war was outlawed, and considered a moral abomination in Christianity/Judaism (neither were in their current forms obviously)). Muslims are still doing it (and *all* muslims did it until at least 1960)
Just like killing the firstborns of Egypt wasn't a random act but an act that was designed to use the fact that military degrees where inherited in Egypt's army at the time. Killing firstborns, killed the higher degrees of that army. It killed the command structure starting at Farao, paralysed the army for at least several days, I believe the story says they needed 3 days to get a small force operational, it killed the commanders, generals or whatever ranks that were, which made it impossible for Farao to react militarily to the departure of his slaves, until he could reorganize a functioning command structure.
Violence in the bible is not random. People don't turn to war without reason. Either they want to conquer*, or they want to defend themselves. Nobody goes to war "just because", as is so heavily implied in your post.
* the note should be made that a number of economic systems, such as socialism (sorry "communism", a totally different thing, *cough*) and nazism in the last century, and the islamic state before that, can only be maintained by constant offensive warfare.In the case of the islamic state constant offensive warfare was necessary to maintain the influx of slaves, who were killed in numbers that defy anyone's moral limits. Constant attacks on native peoples in Afrika maintained the number of the muslim's slaves, in addition to being their only export (the "barbary wars" were started by the muslims because America would no longer buy islam's slaves in trade for American goods, read about it). These state systems do not attempt to boost internal efficiency. They're designed to avoid learning from one's mistakes, to give in to purely emotional responses. When their internal circumstances change, even slightly, they're unwilling to adapt, and therefore have to replace the lost internal resources with booty, so they attack. They have a constant craving for superiority and most realize that being able to kill with impunity is the "ultimate" superiority one can have. The scary thing ? Darwin agrees with this, with the added little detail of course, that they must keep up the killing long enough, while not ignoring their internal problems. Not something these regimes, fortunately, have been very good at.
The fact that it's not "peace at all costs, at any price" is exactly right. Point well taken. You see that as a downside. Why ?
That would be stupid. Your quotes may be ill-chosen, but the point is there. Jesus was not 100% opposed to violence.
Violence, physical force is necessary, for some, to serve the purpose that the bible gives us. Police and even army is not a despicable institution for Jesus.
Violence in the bible, for example, is not just allowed, it's a requirement. You have to fight for your family. You have to defend the weak. You have to fight for justice.
Violence, like anything else in Christianity, is only bad if the intention is bad. Comitting violence like the paedophile prophet did, for booty, for sex, for slaves, for revenge ... those are horrid crimes. Fighting, even killing if necessary and risking your life for your family, for your country, for a beggar is commendable behavior.
Anything else, would be stupid. Whatever else you believe in, or about the bible, you can at least accept that as true.
You say your solution is "to fight".
"So we know what they're up to"
"they do it too"
"they do it more"
Why don't you fight. Throw yourself into your rage ? Get a gun, you know where, and start shooting. Fight the power.
Oh wait. You're not so stupid as to actually believe what you're saying. You're not so stupid to believe there's anything really wrong with "government". But you still have rage. You still have hate.
Throw yourself into it. End it. You want to.
Yes the police has access to your email if they want to. They need it, too. So does google, obviously. Microsoft too, and probably at least 2 or 3 script kiddies. Deal with it.
Or throw yourself into your hate. Go out in a flash of despicable destruction. Fight. End it.
But we both know you're not so stupid to actually believe what you just wrote down. You DO understand how & why "the system" works. But you still hate, you still rage.
I don't claim all muslims are violent. I claim muslims are ordered to be violent by islamic dogma, which is entirely correct.
I don't claim all muslims act like islam orders them to do. That doesn't change the fact that islam DOES order muslims to commit, amongst other things, paedophilia and religious genocide.
Fortunately, as the bible predicts, most people know good from evil no matter what their parents try to teach them. That, however, does not make islam itself any less evil.
It always amazes me how people don't read what they're referring to ... Heh.
Besides, in the new testament you won't even find this type of things. So unless you're criticizing the Jews, might I remind you that (at least in catholicism and protestantism) the old testament is a historical tale, describing God's interactions with the Jews. Not the center of Christian dogma, that would be the new testament. Jesus, who refuses to shed blood even to save himself. The best known story ever told on this little planet. But even in the old testament the situation isn't one tenth as bad as you imply :
1 Chronicles 21
And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel. And David said to Joab and to the rulers of the people, Go, number Israel from Beersheba even to Dan; and bring the number of them to me, that I may know it...
Oops, guess that one was a misser on your part, right ? You said "God". Actually a king did it, at the direction of satan. Also read the entire story. He did quite a bit more than "counting" before God intervened, protecting people (protecting some by attacking others).
Deuteronomy 3
Is about 2 armies fighting. One army faced another. One army did not survive, because God supported the other side.
Hardly seems the same as "killing and plundering all cities", now doesn't it ? Oops. They did gain dominion of a kingdom through that victory. Well duh, they didn't fight for fun, they actually fought over something.
I'd name all of them, none of which are anywhere near as clear-cut as you imply, but what's the point ? It's not like you're actually trying to make an informed argument about the bible. You haven't read the bible, and you're proud of the fact. First read those stories (and chapter before your reference and chapter after them), then we'll discuss what means what, like informed adults.
Really ? Why don't you tell us what reality is ? Because all these media seem to get the ball all wrong (well everybody certainly seems to agree all these facts are totally misguiding everyone)
The fact that the quran openly calls for genocide, and that these calls have been answered by muslims during their entire history, certainly doesn't help matters. But you're right. Most, if not 99% of islamic terror is muslims killing muslims for the most despicable of reasons, few having anything to do with religion. Money, fame, anger and especially shame cause muslims to murder eachother, but taking away the murder excuse that is islam would do no harm whatsoever.
That said, of course you're right every ten years or so there is a terrorist attack that isn't muslims killing for islam. Every now and then some communists kill around a bit. It's been a while though.
http://thereligionofpeace.com/
This week ONLY terrorist attacks. Since monday muslims murdered 70 people "for allah". Strangely enough there weren't any non-muslim terrorist attacks this week. Anyway here's the list :
10/16/2008 Pakistan Swat 5 15 A Fedayeen suicide car bomber rams into a police station, killing five Pakistanis.
10/15/2008 Iraq Karbala 22 0 A mass grave is discovered containing the bodies of twenty-two abducted shepherds
10/15/2008 Iraq Baghdad 7 18 A Mujahideen bomb blast and separate mortar attack on a mosque leave seven civilians dead.
10/15/2008 Afghanistan Lashkar Gah 6 0 Six local police are taken out in a brutal Taliban ambush on their checkpoint.
10/15/2008 Pakistan Swat 2 0 The Taliban enter a home and murder a husband and wife.
10/15/2008 Pakistan Swat 3 0 Three people, including two brothers, are killed in two Jihad shooting attacks.
10/14/2008 Afghanistan Kandahar 1 0 Religious extremists assassinate a government official who aids war widows.
10/14/2008 Afghanistan Uruzgan 9 6 Two children are among nine civilians murdered when Taliban bombers target a minibus.
10/14/2008 Philippines North Cotabato 1 0 Moro Islamists attack a Christian village, killing one civilian and driving many families from their homes.
10/14/2008 Pakistan Kabal 1 0 Sunni extremists abduct, torture and behead a local soldier.
10/14/2008 Somalia Mogadishu 1 0 Islamists murder the driver of an aid agency.
10/14/2008 India Poonch 2 0 Mujahideen kill two local soldiers in separate ambushes.
10/13/2008 Afghanistan Ghazni 6 2 Religious extremists take out six civilians with a roadside blast.
10/13/2008 Pakistan Darra Adam Khel 1 4 A sudden Sunni rocket attack leaves a local security staff member dead.
10/13/2008 Somalia Mogadishu 2 23 Two African Union mission members are killed when Muslim militia attack their vehicles.
10/13/2008 Pakistan Murid Wal 1 0 A young man is forced by honor to kill his mother when she refuses to break off an 'illicit' relationship.
Really ? In islam it is the prophet that commits paedophilic rape (forces a 9 year old girl to have sex with him).
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/058.sbt.html#005.058.236
Please point out in the bible where Jesus rapes a 9-year old girl "because God tells him to" ... After all I've shown you the equivalent in islam ("repression" in English).
Please show me the christian states where rape of minor girls is STILL practiced because limiting such would be "illegal". Please show me the christians demanding the right to rape underage girls, please show me christians murdering their children because they try to run from these marriages ...
After all "it's all the same", isn't it ? Let's see it.
Obviously, however this is part of that religion, and the little fact that this religion is worse than nazism ... oh well "freedom of religion" is the highest good, right ? Well then you dress up killing others as a religion and you get at it !
But it gets worse : from its very, very beginning islam ("repression" literally) was already killing like this.
Google "asma bint marwan". Read about the "prophet" (of peace ?) sending out murderers in the night killing a mother in her tent, who fell asleep with her child on her chest. Needless to say, the child didn't survive islam's killer either.
You remember the story of Jesus and the woman that got brought before him, convicted to death because some men thought she had cheated, but they were not sure about killing her. Well "repression" (islam) has the same story :
Obviously they stoned the woman to death, and when one of the muslims regretted his actions, stood with her and shielded her with his body, they stoned him to death too
Don't forget he people. You are clearly "opressing people" if you don't let them do this to people. If things like this makes you think ill about islam, clearly you're a racist :
After all : they're "all the same" these religions. "It's all the same" ... except noone can ever seem to be able to point to an instance when Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, Joseph Smith, of even L.Ron Hubbard sending out murderers to advance their religion.
And now, for everyone's enjoyment. Islam killed a billion people in a thousand years. Communism killed a hundred million in less than 100 years.
So what do "progressives" do ? They progress ... they combine the two. Communism, now in limited edition with extra prophets ... because not enough people died last time !
Actually the quran is quite specific in which souls need to have a cruel, agonizing and bloody death. It also clearly specifies how they're to be administered : every muslim is to "fight, kill and die" as a slave of allah until there isn't a single non-muslim left.
And if you want demonstrations, you could read about the religious massacres in the description of the "prophet's" life.
It's even got paedophilia. Somehow I don't think it's very politically correct, all these inconvenient truths.
There's only one real question to ask. If someone publishes Obama's email. And there are some private "let's barbecue some white guy" jokes in there, along with an email of some secretary asking to pay a certain bill or not. You know "state business".
And it would have been published whole ... I have to cover my ears just thinking about it.
So : it's NOT acceptable behavior. Sending the emails anonymously to the the police and keeping them 100% out of public view would be the very last line I would find tolerable on govt. official's private email addresses. But even that still involves a crime.
Forcing idiots to encrypt sensitive files will ...
force idiots to encrypt files (not the ones they should encrypt, obviously) using the password "password" ...
and
lose half the data, believing they encrypted it
and
send the data to half their family, especially anyone claiming to be a hacker, with the subject line "can you tell me the password for this file", who'll put it online on wikileaks (who'll happily -and proudly- publish extremely private information on anyone they don't like, laws and privacy be damned)
Well at least, when the honeymoon's over and it's time for Barack O. to publish his email correspondance he can claim to have "encrypted it" and then send a random string, telling the judge the password has something to do with a very dark hole where apparently many claim the sun does not shine.
There is no such thing as "airtight" evidence. There's always the possibility of "a string of coincidences".
This is not a problem with FBI agents, with oversight, or with anything, but a basic mathematical problem. It manifests itself when trying to measure the speed of light, and it manifests itself (a LOT worse) when trying to determine if someone is guilty of a crime. It even manifests itself in mathematical disciplines.
And it can't be eliminated ... ever (as in in mathematics there's a proof that eliminating doubt from even natural number theory would take an infinite amount of work to be done, for every other discipline it's beyond trivial to prove that there is no certainty without at least infinite checks (yes you can check more than infinitely many times) ).
If you demand airtight evidence, you couldn't lock up Bill Ayers for bombing. You couldn't accuse a falling snowflake of being white. You couldn't say that Hitler harmed even a single fly.
There is no such thing as airtight evidence. We still need to deal with criminals. Therefore less than ideal evidence is going to have to do. Deal with it.
In the US they attack the source of news, not the recipients.
It's called "fairness doctrine". Barack O. is a big proponent of it.
Actually, no, "progressive" is a term that the politically left socialist/communists identify themselves with. I've never seen a libertarian or more right than that organisation use it.
And the political left, the socialists/communists are screaming for "change".
Personally, I think you need to realize that this acceptance of free opinion that you have in Amerika is not nearly as widespread as you assume it is (not even in America).
In Europe, you can actually get physically attacked in some places for being openly against Obama, but mostly people will just hurl insults at you. Racist, warmonger are popular ones.
There is no-one controlling these people. They're just used to getting free handouts from government, and they will fight to keep them. Obama will apologize for America, and presumably prepare the road to bring America into the EU, that means bigger government. More money for handouts.
Even in America the press is more than just a little bit "left-leaning". In Europe, it's slightly more extreme than Stalin. In America it's ridiculous and "just some repeats" if some idiot claims that fearmongering and racism are campaigning against Obama (we all know who's side Wright was on, right ? So to say the least some of the more extreme racists are for Obama), in Europe it's front page news just about everywhere.
The extreme left dominates public opinion to a ridiculous extent in Europe. In America, it's a comparatively more moderate left. But the left is like muslims : they never stay moderate for long.
Have you ever even been to Afrika ? All of those states are better off now than before the colonization.
In fact, the harder the host country fought to retain it's colony, the more use the colony seems to have gotten from itself being colonized. And many countries, when starting to reassert those "better" "traditional" policies ... well ... in case you don't know. The darfur genocide-jihad started long, long, long ago. When the British left the arab muslims started killing black muslims for (well for what ? for being black).
Colonization was the best thing that ever happened to African countries. It liberated them from the islamic slave trade. Decolonization the worst, because it gave muslims the chance to restart their extermination wars on many fronts. One thing the colonizers did, for example, was defend blacks from the muslim-ottoman slave traders that were left after the collapse.
Want to know just how bad the ottoman-islamic slave trade was for blacks ? Well you know how bad it is in America. So count the number of blacks you know.
Now go to Marokko, a country that received AT LEAST several tens of millions of slaves over the course of the ottoman slave trade. Count the number of blacks ... ZERO. Same goes for Algeria (except the southern part that was still somewhat defended by France where despite constant attacks still some tuaregs alive), Tunesia, Egypt, Sudan, ...
You will find, btw, many afrikans that agree with this in Afrika. You can still go and visit rather old (if clumsily constructed) mosques where the slaves were traded.
Of course at the border of the "real" afrika (which is more or less the line that the "sahel" desert forms) you will still find muslims exterminating blacks. Darfur is just one battlefield that managed to attrackt at least some attention. But Chad, Ethiopia, Niger, Nigeria, Mali, Mauretania, and even Western Sahara are all, if for the moment mostly silent, battlefields where the muslims fight to exterminate the blacks.
Go visit Afrika once. You'll be surprised at the situation on the ground and the real problems. There is more to afrika than little children with big eyes and big bellies : there are tons of Afrikans wanting to remedy that situation. There are cities, there are factories, there are farms farms and more farms. Food aid is destroying as much, if not more as it is saving, and it's got to be done more reasonably.
Especially the UN is VERY VERY VERY bad influence on afrika. The disasters they caused, starting with the Katanga massacre by tibettan UN soldiers before the UN turned 5, but also continuing unabated today, the last large incident with moroccan soldiers raping black women in Senegal.
I don't see afrika as the disaster you see in it. And the Afrikans that you want to support, the ones that actually want to fix things, are not the ones calling for more aid, they're the ones calling for less interference. Especially less interference from soldiers. And it would help if UN forces could stop killing and raping whenever they get the chance, but rather, they'd just like to be rid of them.
Want to save Afrika ? Get out, and deploy soldiers exclusively on the line between arab muslims and blacks.
You advocate waiting them out, and that has worked thus far with a pretty darned significant list of anti-democracy types. Not with Libya, though - they settled down only after a bombing run that killed Khadafi's daughter (among 45 military and 15 civilian casualties) - similar to option 2 above. It also failed most notably in the prelude to WWII, as has been endlessly rehashed over the past 7 years, so there are no guarantees.
You call the cold war "waiting out" the USSR ? I want what you're smoking. I suppose it looked more like waiting from a large distance. The US wasn't "waiting" on the USSR at all, but constantly fighting, and winning most (but not all) fights.
Sometimes with dubious allies, constant battles, some won, some lost (even though it's a lie that the US ever supported Bin Laden, it is true that the US supported the once-existing "secular" wing of the taliban, which wasn't all that secular, but at least opposed to islam's jihad. They were massacred by the rest (as islam dictates, muslims who refuse to "fight, kill and die" for jihad are to be executed), and only the terrorists remain, having killed all the others)
Your suggestion that the war in afghanistan is popular worldwide is ridiculous. It's unfortunate, but that's the truth.
Yes it's given lip-service of supposedly being more "just" (what does just mean in this age of postmodernism ? In "modern" times it meant that Christianity was in a better position after the war, which is the doctrine (wars for ideology) that built the world we live in. What does a "just" war mean in a world without meaning (=postmodernism) ? Nothing. All wars are just. All wars are unjust. It's just a fashion, a feeling, nothing more, which boils down to "wars that benefit me financially or politically are just, the rest are unjust"). But support ? It has no support.
Not a single "American" war has any real support in Europe (outside of, ironically, Turkey and the ex-USSR states, even though both have radically different reasons for the popular support)
The sad thing is, if the USSR had lasted 10 more years (perhaps even a mere 2 years), the taliban would have been exterminated to the last man. As soon as the Russians realize this trivial truth, the USSR will (I think) resurrect itself.
The real problem is deeper for the American republic. Just like the problem was deeper for the Roman republic before it. Obama, imho, plays the role of Catiline.
Europe hates America because America is living proof that the "democrat-social" states of Western Europe are at best suboptimal, and probably doomed to succomb to the social part of their states, and America appears not to be. An essential part of the "social" ideology is that everybody is a socialist, and those that aren't are really criminals. Therefore America, and any war they're involved in, is criminal.
Obama's popularity in Europe comes from his promise to change America into an equally doomed "social" "democracy" (which will obviously neither be social, nor democratic).
It has nothing whatsoever to do with who attacked who and who is "guilty".
Most people don't realise the game people in power are playing. People in power are not so interested in individuals. The ones in power are interested in adding everyone to different lists so they can then control and profiling groups of people, so they can then use divide and conquer tactics, to break groups of people up. The goal is that the fragmented groups cannot then stand and oppose the point of view of the ones in power. That is why they data mine.
Now replace "the people in power" with "everyone". Give a few days thought for the very obvious but highly non-trivial fact that you yourself are part of "the people in power", and how you, nor anyone else, will do better.
Because let's not kid ourselves. The more "progressive" a government, the more it progressed in the UK in placing surveillance. This is not to say the tories did not do it too.
They did it less, and that's all we can hope for in the real world.
I don't mean any disrespect to those who died in 9/11, but people are dying all the time from accidents, disease and natural disaster. Wasting all the money you have on going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan when in fact it was a terrorist organisation and not a single country that attacked you, is pretty dumb. If you go around spending billions attacking everyone that you feel slightly threatened by, you'll end up in financial meltdown... oh, wait...
It was an ideology that attacked America. A non-free ideology that can't assess it's superiority in any manner other than killing.
Then again, since this is a religion, and we're "secular" : here's a thought : if Darwin's right, and they can kill others with relative impunity (which you propose : no real reaction against the ideology due to the 9/11 attack) then you have supported their behavior : they will obviously attempt to repeat it.
And if they succeed, according to darwin, the price for you is extermination, down to the last man, woman and child.
Tell me, is Darwin right ? Do Ideologies get selected out because of the killing/defense and procreation properties of their carriers ?
Or is all that stuff nonsense ?
(btw, I am an atheist too, I just honestly don't know how to think about this consistently. If Darwin's right, we have exactly one choice : fight back and fight to exterminate every last one of them. Extermination for one of the 2 parties is, regardless of tactics or respect for human rights (which the other side doesn't even pretend to have), or even firepower available the expected outcome. Even whether or not nuclear weapons are used (or even agreed to not be used) changes nothing : extermination is the Darwinist fate for all except one : one of the many is the fittest, after a little while this one will dominate. A little while longer and all others will be gone, and Darwin will start trying out new varieties, all descendent from this "one". Funny how it's entirely possible that the party that's killing people for embracing Darwinism could be the most fit one).
Actually yes. That's, after all, not me.
And to think I picked "oelewapperke" to have a unique nick. Helps a lot with not getting a superman54966878788554223@gmail.com email address
Can you do right-click capturing on firefox from javascript these days ? I thought that was a security risk and killed a few years ago.
No site I know of, not even google mail, has it.
So you are worse at proving that you're human than at least a few computer programs.
I'd say it says something about you, but the sad thing is, it doesn't. In fact I know few people over 55, or under 16 or-so* that are even capable of proving they're human. Soon we will all be worse than computer programs in proving that we're human ...
* I mean average people. Sure, geeks have little issues
Heh, should give "astroturfing" a totally new dimension. I see the academics salivating at their newfound "influence". Being able to drown out real humans in any debate will certainly not improve webboards. I mean, say "bushitler", or "islam is peace", is a stupid meme now, believed only by idiots, but some don't let that deter them in pushing it. What if they push it with computer programs 10000-programs-to-1-human ?
Do we start botwars ? I remember those from irc, and they drown out real conversation even more, reacting to eachother.
At the very least they kill the option of accepting new members into a channel/forum/community.
And never mind what will happen once these bots walk around and look like this. "Too ghastly to think about".
Heh, at least then we can all have "suicide bombers"**, without that tedious convincing unrealistically gullible idiots or the kidnapping extortions business that seems to be required today.
** actually muslims once comitted a "suicide bombing" campaign in Thailand using RC cars (just strap some dynamite and ball bearings on top of that in them, then get very close), while that's RC, not robotics, it would not be the fist "robotic" attack. That one attack failed, but was already very, very troubling. Another muslim was arrested in the U.S. for developing a suicide UAV bomber. Wonder what the future holds ! I can't wait.
Actually I've tried firefox just yesterday on my exchange webmail account. It certainly works.
Of course my company probably hasn't got the newest version of exchange webmail (? what's it called ?), but it works.
The VPN is the problem, really.
And google simply commits to "doing no evil". Yet they comply with censoring orders even in America (youtube videos disappear not just for copyright reasons, as everyone knows).