| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Mars" |
| Date: |
30 May 2005 11:14:52 PM |
| Object: |
Human IQ Average Going Down: Religion Goes Up |
http://www.neoeugenics.com/
1. Human intelligence is largely hereditary.
2. Civilization depends totally upon innate intelligence. Without
innate intelligence, civilization would never have been created. When
intelligence declines, so does civilization.
3. The higher the level of civilization, the better off the population.
Civilization is not an either-or proposition. Rather, it's a matter of
degree, and each degree, up or down, affects the well-being of every
citizen.
4. At the present time, we are evolving to become less intelligent with
each new generation. Why is this happening? Simple: the
least-intelligent people are having the most children.
5. Unless we halt or reverse this trend, our civilization will
invariably decline. Any decline in civilization produces a commensurate
increase in the collective "misery quotient."
Logic and scientific evidence stand behind each statement listed above.
So, what are your thoughts? One of my thoughts is that this decrease
in innate intelligence is one of the reasons more and more people are
taking up religion.
.
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Human IQ Average Going Down: Religion Goes Up |
04 Jun 2005 08:05:42 PM |
|
|
Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey> wrote in
news:00e4a194950m8rrpu3h9fm3asf75jmoi81@4ax.com:
On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 19:30:38 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey> wrote in
news:ipn0a115bod68cef3ursjls2pt6p4ffbn4@4ax.com:
On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 00:16:58 GMT, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey> wrote in
news:s74v91tvmo8m0e41e9j4klufji2cljg7eq@4ax.com:
On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 22:02:29 GMT, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
snip
But your government, are xtian fundies, with a xtian fundy agenda,
and their definitions of Islam, are no more accurate than their
definitions of atheism.
But they have specialists who *do* understand Islam.
But the same claims are made for understanding atheists.
If one is false; why assume that the other is valid?
Indeed, why assume anything when you can check the claims yourself?
As for terrorism, anybody who will not kowtow to God's chosen
country, America, are terrorists.
Lots of countries won't kowtow to American whims and we don't call
them terrorists. France, for instance; we call them cheese-eating
surrender monkeys. :-)
Well okay, perhaps you do not call them terrorists, but you
nonetheless, insult them, for their independence.
I don't call it "independence" when they bend over for any terrorist who
makes a credible threat.
But seriously, the ones we call terrorists are the ones who
*are* terrorists.
And Iraq?
Almost everything that our governments have told us about Sadam, and
Iraq, that has been verifiable, has turned out to be lies.
Actually, just about all their claims about Saddam and Iraq have turned
out to be true. And it has all been very thoroughly investigated, at
great length, by congressional commissions which could hardly be called
a whitewash by anybody who is objective about them.
Just enough truth to try and give plausible deniability, the rest, a
fiction.
At least, from where I am sitting, that is how it reads.
You're reading some very jaundiced material to come to that
conclusion.
No Fred. Age, and experience with governments, has given me a very
jaundiced view, of governments. I am only reading what the rest of
the world is reading.
I am just reading the "spin" out of it.
You're putting some pretty serious spin onto it.
Bush and Blair, want to force xtianity on the evil muslims: That is
for now.
That doesn't appear to be the case. We want to force *peaceful
relations* on the muslims.
Force "peaceful relations".
Yea, right.
Like the man said, "Accord, by discord, can never be taken.
That man never heard of the Pax Romana.
No more than the fundies can insult you into belief, can you bomb,
murder, maim and kill people into "peaceful relations".
Tell that to the Native Americans.
But look at what is happening in your country, and the UK.
There is Blair, with his faith based schools, and Bush with his
faith based initiatives
I don't like the idea a whole lot either, but those in America are
relatively minor programs to let churches get government money for
their charitable operations.
It is still a breach of your constitution, and it is on Blair's mind.
I don't know if they've been challenged in court yet or not.
It might be muslims today; But what about tomorrow?
I think it will be you and me.
I just don't see it happening like that.
I do.
Islamists worry me a lot more than
xtian fundies.
My fears, are the exact opposite.
What frightens most westerners, WRT muslim extremists, is that their
faith is near absolute. They believe that god is on their side, and
if they die, in his cause, they will go to paradise. So they will
strap a bomb to them selves, and walk into the enemy's base, secure in
the knowledge that they are heaven bound.
Few of, even the most extreme xtians, have that kind of faith.
The point is that many of them take it as an article of faith that they
are to destroy the West.
We talk a lot about how the christian fundies would like to
stone us, but the Muslims will really actually bury women up to the
neck and stone them to death.
Perhaps, but you aint going to change that, by bombing them.
We're not bombing them. In case you hadn't noticed, it's the terrorists
who are doing most of the bombing these days. And yes, you're right,
that's not the way to win.
All attacking them tells them, is that the evil xtians hate Allah's
Just Laws. So they must be right.
Just the same as when we attack fundies in here, they try to turn lack
belief, into hatred of their god.
Fanatic mentality is the same, no matter where you go.
http://www.terrorismunveiled.com/athena/2005/02/what_is_an_isla.html
This is just someone wanting to force something he *calls*,
"democracy", onto people who, if given "true" democracy, would
simply vote themselves back into a theocracy.
I don't think you understand who "Athena" is.
Probably not. The only Athena that I know of, is the Greek Goddess.
The one who runs that website is a Middle Eastern Studies grad student.
Because that is the government they want.
But that is *not* the government they want.
That is not what the muslims that I know, say.
Are they Iraqis?
A small minority of violent
Islamist radicals want dictatorship.
Not dictatorship, Theocracy. Just like xtian fanatics in America.
No, *dictatorship*.
Not anything at all ike xtian fundies want in America.
But the majority do not. Polls in Iraq
have shown that over and over. They have the example of Iran right
next door, and they do *not* like what they see.
Unfortunately, we only have our governments word for that.
No, we have the Iraqi's own media for that. Even the anti-American press
is not pro-theocracy. Especially not if the theocrats are the al Queda
types or the former Saddamist Baath party.
Fact is, If I could smell smoke, and I was getting hot, and your
government, or mine, told me , my arse was on fire, I would want an
independent opinion.
You could get one if you'd only look.
As far as I can see, the only reason that Blair, and Bush, want to
force western style, politics onto those people, is to fragment
their unity.
That seems backwards to me. If we wanted to fragment them we'd just up
and leave and let them fight the civil war that all the lefty
commentators keep predicting but which never materializes.
Iraq was united.
America had already interfered once, and successfully installed Sadam
as dictator.
We didn't actually install Saddam. He installed himself.
But he wouldn't toe the American line, so America tried to get him
back under control, by destabilising the economy, with sanctions.
My, what a spin you put on that. He invaded his neighbor, Kuwait, and
then wouldn't disarm after he lost that war, so we put sanctions on him
and he simply held out until he could finally manipulate the system and
bribe his minders.
But America aint the only market in the world, so that didn't work.
The Iraqi government is more pluralistic than you imagine.
I don't imagine, I talk to Iraqis that I know.
Who do you know who is living in Iraq?
Saddam was real
good at playing the Shia against the Sunni against the Kurds; but the
new government has actually brought them all together where they are
really negotiating agreements.
Actually, he suppressed one group, in favour of the other.
Now both groups are united against the UK/ US presence.
There are three groups, at least, and most of them are in favor of the
UK/US presence at least until their own military is up to speed.
I suppose that is a positive move.
http://athena.blogs.com/athena/files/military_studies_in_the_jihad_ag
ai nst_the_tyrants.doc
Aint read this; It wanted me to d/load something. That is a No-no.
It's an MS-Word document. The content is explosive but only because
it's a doctrine and training manual for Islamic terrorists.
One damn thing after another.
D/loaded it, then found that I couldn't read it.
Managed it eventually.
It looks to me, like typical propaganda, not that different to what
your government, and mine, pump out.
Not that different? *****, what kind of propaganda do you get that I
don't? Seriously!
Because I can read translations of what the terrorists are saying
about it themselves in Arabic as well as what their apologists say
in the mass media in English.
I tend to rely on news broadcasts from countries which do not have a
stake in it., and then compare it with Aunty.
Here's some very good resource sites:
http://www.memri.org/
IA# 224
This one looks no different to an American xtian fundy site.
To teach, or not to teach, Creationism. You are supporting a
government, that wants to teach it.
Oh, come on, are you just going to play the equivalence game? You
don't seem to care to see into the minds of the Islamist world.
I don't support teaching Creationism.
I never said that I supported it. It is just another internal,
religious squabble.
That's the whole point. You wanted to know how our government can know
Muslims' motives. That's how.
SD# 915.
Again, I have heard/read, American xtian fundies, telling how the
Jews distorted the Torah, hated, cursed, and murdered Jesus.
Yes, obviously you are.
SD# 914.
Much the same as the Bush propagandists, exposing how Sadam was
behind the 9/11 attacks.
Sigh. You even repeat that same stupid lie. Shame on you.
No lie, Fred.
The republican party, was planning an attack on Iraq, long before the
9/11 raids.
The US has plans to attack everybody. Including Great Britain. That's
what general staffs do.
SD# 913.
Might as well be "We must discuss why we hate Muslims"
Those are translations of articles in the Arabic press. What you're
saying is that the Islamists propaganda organs are just as loony as
the looniest of our xtian fundies. I agree.
Yea, pretty much. I see little to choose.
If pushed, I would choose the muslims, I have always found them more
trustworthy, and honest, than xtians.
Yes, they are quite honest about wanting to make all us into nice
submissive dhimmis.
The west has started an unholy war, against Islam: What do you
expect, capitulation?
Not against the religion of Islam. Against the violent Jihad.
Jihad, The righteous war, is a part of Islam.
If you make war on Jihad, you make war on Islam, and thus, on all
muslims, everywhere.
Not all muslims believe in the sort of violent Jihad that was described
in that Word document.
It aint going to happen.
Nor is the West going to capitulate to the Jihadis, though much of
Europe is pretty far gone already. You might as well resign yourself
to being a good dhimmi.
The only way that the west will win, is through genocide.
That's not how we define "winning".
No?
Your government has given it's self permission to initiate nuclear
attacks, against non nuclear countries, including Iraq.
No kidding.
Is that how you will win?
No, that's how we'll lose, by taking them with us.
But define it as you will, bombing them into submission with nukes,
or genocide, is the only way you will win.
No, the way we'll win is by giving their people the opportunity to
govern themselves, by breaking the stranglehold of the dictatorships.
You forget that muslims are the same species as the rest of us, and we
are not very good at loosing
Look at Ireland. Six hundred years after the event, and they are still
fighting.
We aren't trying to own or permanently occupy them, that's the
difference.
That is a holy war as well, a Jihad, in it's fashion.
Muslims have the added incentive, of a guaranteed place in heaven, if
they fight in a holy war.
Not all of them believe that this *is* a holy war.
Bush is well on his way to getting his End Times War.
He doesn't want that any more than you or I do.
I wonder. He seems to be expecting it.
Now while I fully expect the insane, American xtian fundies, to
cheer that along, I never expected you to.
I don't think there are many American fundies who think that they can
bring Armageddon on. By their own mythology they'd be the antichrist
if they did.
Not necessarily.
The war can be started by xtians, *against* the antichrist.
A few years ago, that would have been the CCCP, or USSR, if you
prefer.
Today, Korea, or any part of Islam, will do as the antichrist.
Not without certain preconditions that aren't in place yet.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/
This just reads to me, like western hysteria, and/or, a
British-American excuse to maintain an armed presence in the middle
east, ready at a moment's notice, to secure the oil fields, for good
xtian westerners.
Can you be more specific about which articles led you to that
conclusion?
No specific article, just the general emphasis on negativity, and
Islam.
Sort of, "Methinks the lady doth protest too much"
Oh, you mean like I feel about our own liberals complaining about
Bush... :-)
I
see a lot of stories about what the Jihadis are up to.
I have a couple of friends who were out there during the first Iraq
conflict.
They say, that as soon as the allied troops pulled out, the talk was
all about American/western, perfidy, and the unavoidable certainty,
of
the *next* American attack.
The only surprise, is that it was so long, in coming, they knew that
whatever excuse was used, it would a lie.
That's been the Islamist propaganda for years.
Al-Jazeera is a perfect
example of how slanted their view of the West is.
Nothing to do with Al-Jazeera, or propaganda.
These are a couple of English friends, who were working, or trying to
work, there, during the first Gulf conflict.
BTW, both speak the language.
Whoever they were talking to was probably repeating what they had heard
from that propaganda.
This was before WMDs were ever mentioned.
I'm shocked by how close-minded you are about all this.
If, by "close-minded", you mean cynical skepticism, and a refusal to
swallow my government's propaganda, without some sort of evidence from
a source that I trust, then, yes, you are correct, I am close-minded.
But you don't seem to be willing to trust any source that doesn't
already agree with your preconceived notions. I assure you that the ones
I cited are hardly Bush apologists sites.
I had thought
better of you.
That is always a mistake.
I tried to present a case for what we understand about
Islamists
What is an islamist?
I have seen the word a few times, lately, and it puzzles me.
It is not a follower of Islam, they are called Muslims, so I don't
know what it means.
and you've treated it like it's all Bush-Blair propaganda.
Because that is how it appears to me, and the more often Blair refuses
to divulge the information that supposedly vindicates him, the more
sure I am, that I am correct.
That it was all an excuse to get their hands on Iraq's oil.
You see, I have spent a lot of my life working with muslims.
Rather like I've spent most of my life around Christian fundies. None of
them are as bad as the ones we get on alt.atheism. Of course I don't
bother to mention evolution around my mom any more...
I have done work for muslim companies, in muslim countries, and
employed muslims.
Muslims are very useful people to employ.
Almost all of them both speak, and read, Arabic.
This gives all muslims, a common language, and simplifies
communication.
In none of my time, have I seen the sort of behaviour that our
governments are telling us is the norm, for muslims.
Our government, at least in the US, has always been clear that they're
not calling all muslims radical jihadists.
I always found them to be friendly, honest, and hospitable.
Our soldiers in Iraq are finding that to be true, in general.
Yes, there are fanatics, but I would bet that America alone has as
many xtian fanatics, as the rest of the world has muslim ones, and the
UK, has it's share.
...And yes, your xtian fanatics do go around bombing your buildings.
Yes, but the last time one hijacked a plane to fly it into a
skyscraper...oh, wait.
BTW, I voted Labour, in two elections, but not this last one.
...And probably, never again.
--
Puck Greenman
The spelling, Like any opinion stated here,
is purely my own
#162 BAAWA Knight.
Plonked by Rob Duncan
Na bister 500,000
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Even if the grass is greener on the other side,
they still have to cut it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: Human IQ Average Going Down: Religion Goes Up |
05 Jun 2005 09:37:48 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 01:05:42 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Like the man said, "Accord, by discord, can never be taken.
That man never heard of the Pax Romana.
Pax Romana, was maintained by force of arms.
It was not peaceful relations; It was the peace you have, with a bully holding a
sword at your throat.
Which is about what you have in Iraq.
And the result then, was the same as now.
At the first sign of distraction, the freedom fighters, fought back.
Nothing is changed.
The trouble with pacifying a man, by hog tieing him, is that you can never let
him loose.
No more than the fundies can insult you into belief, can you bomb,
murder, maim and kill people into "peaceful relations".
Tell that to the Native Americans.
Ah yes. The native Americans.
Attacked with superior weapons, cheated, lied to, robbed, imprisoned,
murdered.
Did I mention, lied to?
Their way of life destroyed: Who wiped out the buffalo?
Your language and religion, forced onto them, by forcing their children into
mission schools.
Corralled into "reservations", on what the Whites considered useless land, and
promised that it was theirs for all time.
....Until something valuable was found there.
Then you stole it from them, and hanged the protesters.
Did I mention the lies they were told, and for all I know, are still being told?
That aint peaceful relations, that is suppression and subjugation.
I wonder how they *really* feel.
snip
Few of, even the most extreme xtians, have that kind of faith.
The point is that many of them take it as an article of faith that they
are to destroy the West.
Just as your president, and his daddy, seem to take it as an article of faith,
that "not xtian" means "not human".
It has ever been the xtian directive, to spread xtianity, by any means, and the
sword has always been the quickest.
Your support of your president, is not supporting the defence of America. It is
supporting the use of military power, to spread xtianity.
We're not bombing them.
Semantics.
We, (the UK, and the US) waltzed in there, and bombed the ***** out of them.
....And we still aint found any weapons of mass destruction.
In case you hadn't noticed, it's the terrorists
who are doing most of the bombing these days. And yes, you're right,
that's not the way to win.
They will.
snip
Probably not. The only Athena that I know of, is the Greek Goddess.
The one who runs that website is a Middle Eastern Studies grad student.
Ah yes. Someone who knows more about the natives, than the natives them selves.
That is not what the muslims that I know, say.
Are they Iraqis?
Some of them.
Two of them, two cousins, are from high ranking families.
I came to know them, because one of them married the sister of a close friend
and business associate, of mine.
Others are/were neighbours.
A small minority of violent
Islamist radicals want dictatorship.
Not dictatorship, Theocracy. Just like xtian fanatics in America.
No, *dictatorship*.
Not anything at all ike xtian fundies want in America.
Enlighten us.
Explain how the total integration of church and state, with a religious leader
at the head of it, would be different in America, to what it would be in Iraq?
Unfortunately, we only have our governments word for that.
No, we have the Iraqi's own media for that.
I will start taking notice of Iraq's own media, when we are no longer standing
behind them with guns.
Even the anti-American press
is not pro-theocracy. Especially not if the theocrats are the al Queda
types or the former Saddamist Baath party.
Iraq was united.
America had already interfered once, and successfully installed Sadam
as dictator.
We didn't actually install Saddam. He installed himself.
But he wouldn't toe the American line, so America tried to get him
back under control, by destabilising the economy, with sanctions.
My, what a spin you put on that. He invaded his neighbor, Kuwait,
After being told by Bush senior's rep, in Iraq, that America was not interested
in his border disputes.
He asked permission from America, and was essentially told to, do as he pleased.
and
then wouldn't disarm after he lost that war,
He didn't loose, he was still in power.
And he had nothing to disarm.
Or are you still insisting that there are WMDs, so well hidden in Iraq, that
they have still not been found?
If there are, then they are so well hidden, that Sadam couldn't find them
either, to defend himself.
Can you really believe, that a man, who, according to the propaganda, has killed
thousands of his own people, in order to stay in power, would hesitate at
killing a few foreigners.
The nearest the ever found, was one missile shell, which *might* have had a
range of a couple of hundred miles, more than he was allowed.
so we put sanctions on him
and he simply held out until he could finally manipulate the system and
bribe his minders.
But America aint the only market in the world, so that didn't work.
The Iraqi government is more pluralistic than you imagine.
I don't imagine, I talk to Iraqis that I know.
Who do you know who is living in Iraq?
No one, that I have had contact with, since this second attack.
The best I can manage is second hand information, from people who's families are
still in Iraq.
Trouble is, I now live some six hours away from them, so on the occasions that
we do meet, politics is not a main subject for discussion.
However, I was in Birmingham, just before the elections in Iraq, and the general
consensus among the people I know there, was that they would go along with the
elections, and American style government, because they had no choice.
Sort of, "We will make all the right noises, and hope that it convinces the
Americans, and they all ***** home: Then we will get on with our own ways."
Now both groups are united against the UK/ US presence.
There are three groups, at least, and most of them are in favor of the
UK/US presence at least until their own military is up to speed.
Which probably explains all the "terrorist" activity.
It looks to me, like typical propaganda, not that different to what
your government, and mine, pump out.
Not that different? *****, what kind of propaganda do you get that I
don't? Seriously!
How well the war is going, and how well the majority of Iraqi's like the
occupation forces.
The WMDs are still there, but they WILL be found, and the Bush-Blair criminal
consortium will be justified.
Etc, etc.
That's the whole point. You wanted to know how our government can know
Muslims' motives. That's how.
I am a bit dense today, you will have to explain that to me.
The republican party, was planning an attack on Iraq, long before the
9/11 raids.
The US has plans to attack everybody. Including Great Britain. That's
what general staffs do.
Yes, but those plans are generalisations, the plans for Iraq, were a lot more
specific: Weren't they?
If pushed, I would choose the muslims, I have always found them more
trustworthy, and honest, than xtians.
Yes, they are quite honest about wanting to make all us into nice
submissive dhimmis.
True. But at least they don't hide their intent behind a vale of *****, like
ID.
They are, theologically, where christendom was, 500 years ago.
We had to grow out of it, and most of us did.
A faction in the west, is trying to return to it. Unfortunately, Bush and
Blair, two of the west's most prominent leaders, are part of that faction.
For them, this is a holy war.
Jihad, The righteous war, is a part of Islam.
If you make war on Jihad, you make war on Islam, and thus, on all
muslims, everywhere.
Not all muslims believe in the sort of violent Jihad that was described
in that Word document.
Quite true.
Trouble is, we have got fanatical leaders, fighting a war against other
fanatics.
snip
Your government has given it's self permission to initiate nuclear
attacks, against non nuclear countries, including Iraq.
No kidding.
I don't kid, where nukes are concerned.
Is that how you will win?
No, that's how we'll lose, by taking them with us.
I'm sure that is very deep, Fred, but it is 02:20hrs, monday morning, and it has
gone right over my head.
But define it as you will, bombing them into submission with nukes,
or genocide, is the only way you will win.
No, the way we'll win is by giving their people the opportunity to
govern themselves, by breaking the stranglehold of the dictatorships.
A lot more would have been won, and at much less cost, had Bush and Blair,
waited. But then, honest men assume that all men are honest; and vice versa.
Sadam was not nice, but the west supported him, until it looked like he might
control of Kuati(sp) oil.
And that is what it is all about. Oil. Black gold.
You forget that muslims are the same species as the rest of us, and we
are not very good at loosing
Look at Ireland. Six hundred years after the event, and they are still
fighting.
We aren't trying to own or permanently occupy them, that's the
difference.
And we can see how convinced the Iraqis are, of that.
America has been manipulating for 35 years, that I know of, to get some sort of
toe hold in the middle east, and Iraq has been the main target.
The Iraqi people know that, so America may have just a little difficulty,
convincing them, that they are not an army of occupation.
That is a holy war as well, a Jihad, in it's fashion.
Muslims have the added incentive, of a guaranteed place in heaven, if
they fight in a holy war.
Not all of them believe that this *is* a holy war.
Agreed. Just as many of us believe that for B&B, this *is* a holy war, a new
xtian crusade.
snip
Today, Korea, or any part of Islam, will do as the antichrist.
Not without certain preconditions that aren't in place yet.
Prophesy is flexible.
The conditions do not have to exist, all that is required, is that believers,
believe that they exist.
They have been believing it for 2000 yrs, how big a shove do you think they
would need?
No specific article, just the general emphasis on negativity, and
Islam.
Sort of, "Methinks the lady doth protest too much"
Oh, you mean like I feel about our own liberals complaining about
Bush... :-)
Possibly.
I
Whoever they were talking to was probably repeating what they had heard
from that propaganda.
So you are now saying that any Iraqi's who disagree with you, do not have an
opinion of their own, they are only repeating propaganda.
Funny though, how the propaganda, turned out to be correct; aint it?
If, by "close-minded", you mean cynical skepticism, and a refusal to
swallow my government's propaganda, without some sort of evidence from
a source that I trust, then, yes, you are correct, I am close-minded.
But you don't seem to be willing to trust any source that doesn't
already agree with your preconceived notions.
I have two preconceived notions, and two only.
1: Governments lie.
2: Generally speaking, people are honest, optimistic. They want to believe
that the people they elect, are descent, honest people. Because no one likes to
think that he has been taken for a ride.
That makes them vulnerable, and gullible.
snip
You see, I have spent a lot of my life working with muslims.
Rather like I've spent most of my life around Christian fundies. None of
them are as bad as the ones we get on alt.atheism.
Mmm. I wonder...
Of course I don't
bother to mention evolution around my mom any more...
....But I hear what you are saying.
In none of my time, have I seen the sort of behaviour that our
governments are telling us is the norm, for muslims.
Our government, at least in the US, has always been clear that they're
not calling all muslims radical jihadists.
Oh, we get the same here, but my own cynicism, cuts in and says, "you may not be
actually saying, but; what are you thinking?"
I always found them to be friendly, honest, and hospitable.
Our soldiers in Iraq are finding that to be true, in general.
Yes, there are fanatics, but I would bet that America alone has as
many xtian fanatics, as the rest of the world has muslim ones, and the
UK, has it's share.
...And yes, your xtian fanatics do go around bombing your buildings.
Yes, but the last time one hijacked a plane to fly it into a
skyscraper...oh, wait.
I must admit, that surprised me though I don't know why.
Fanatics, can be so innovative.
I suppose the real surprise, is that it took 50 years, for someone to get around
to doing it.
OK. OT.
I gotta go into hospital, for some minor heart surgery, on Tuesday, (got to
have my arteries, bored and sleeved, or something) so it will be a few days
before I get around to replying to you again.
Just so you don't think I'm ignoring you. (:-)
--
Puck Greenman
The spelling, Like any opinion stated here,
is purely my own
#162 BAAWA Knight.
Plonked by Rob Duncan
Na bister 500,000
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Human IQ Average Going Down: Religion Goes Up |
06 Jun 2005 06:37:58 AM |
|
|
Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey> wrote in
news:2547a15qdqko79vmcaedphj9jas7b02rvs@4ax.com:
On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 01:05:42 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
Like the man said, "Accord, by discord, can never be taken.
That man never heard of the Pax Romana.
Pax Romana, was maintained by force of arms.
It was not peaceful relations; It was the peace you have, with a bully
holding a sword at your throat.
Which is about what you have in Iraq.
And the result then, was the same as now.
At the first sign of distraction, the freedom fighters, fought back.
It lasted for centuries.
Nothing is changed.
The trouble with pacifying a man, by hog tieing him, is that you can
never let him loose.
That'll work.
No more than the fundies can insult you into belief, can you bomb,
murder, maim and kill people into "peaceful relations".
Tell that to the Native Americans.
Ah yes. The native Americans.
Attacked with superior weapons, cheated, lied to, robbed, imprisoned,
murdered.
Did I mention, lied to?
Their way of life destroyed: Who wiped out the buffalo?
Your language and religion, forced onto them, by forcing their
children into mission schools.
Corralled into "reservations", on what the Whites considered useless
land, and promised that it was theirs for all time.
...Until something valuable was found there.
Then you stole it from them, and hanged the protesters.
Did I mention the lies they were told, and for all I know, are still
being told?
That aint peaceful relations, that is suppression and subjugation.
Close enough for government work.
I wonder how they *really* feel.
I wonder why your claim that you can't bomb and kill people into
"peaceful relations" went up in smoke so easily?
snip
Few of, even the most extreme xtians, have that kind of faith.
The point is that many of them take it as an article of faith that
they are to destroy the West.
Just as your president, and his daddy, seem to take it as an article
of faith, that "not xtian" means "not human".
That doesn't seem to be the case.
It has ever been the xtian directive, to spread xtianity, by any
means, and the sword has always been the quickest.
That doesn't seem to be the case.
Your support of your president, is not supporting the defence of
America. It is supporting the use of military power, to spread
xtianity.
That doesn't seem to be the case.
We're not bombing them.
Semantics.
Yeah, right, you all fall back on "semantics" when the plain meaning of
the words won't do you any good.
We, (the UK, and the US) waltzed in there, and bombed the ***** out of
them.
...And we still aint found any weapons of mass destruction.
So?
In case you hadn't noticed, it's the terrorists
who are doing most of the bombing these days. And yes, you're right,
that's not the way to win.
They will.
Oh, what was all that about not being able to bomb and maim and kill
people into peaceful relations?
snip
Probably not. The only Athena that I know of, is the Greek Goddess.
The one who runs that website is a Middle Eastern Studies grad
student.
Ah yes. Someone who knows more about the natives, than the natives
them selves.
No, just someone who knows more abut the natives than *YOU* do.
That is not what the muslims that I know, say.
Are they Iraqis?
Some of them.
Two of them, two cousins, are from high ranking families.
High ranking Sunni families, by any chance?
I came to know them, because one of them married the sister of a close
friend and business associate, of mine.
Others are/were neighbours.
A small minority of violent
Islamist radicals want dictatorship.
Not dictatorship, Theocracy. Just like xtian fanatics in America.
No, *dictatorship*.
Not anything at all ike xtian fundies want in America.
Enlighten us.
Explain how the total integration of church and state, with a
religious leader at the head of it, would be different in America, to
what it would be in Iraq?
Fallacy of the Complex Question. Christian fundies in America don't want
total integration of church and state with a relgious leader at the head
of it. The reason they don't want that is that they can't be sure that
*their* leaders would be the ones who got the top spot. That joke about
the two Baptists from minutely different sects isn't far from the truth.
Unfortunately, we only have our governments word for that.
No, we have the Iraqi's own media for that.
I will start taking notice of Iraq's own media, when we are no longer
standing behind them with guns.
Then you're just calling them liars because they don't say what you want
to hear.
Even the anti-American press
is not pro-theocracy. Especially not if the theocrats are the al Queda
types or the former Saddamist Baath party.
Iraq was united.
America had already interfered once, and successfully installed
Sadam as dictator.
We didn't actually install Saddam. He installed himself.
But he wouldn't toe the American line, so America tried to get him
back under control, by destabilising the economy, with sanctions.
My, what a spin you put on that. He invaded his neighbor, Kuwait,
After being told by Bush senior's rep, in Iraq, that America was not
interested in his border disputes.
Actually, that story is false.
He asked permission from America, and was essentially told to, do as
he pleased.
No, he didn't. Tarik Aziz has admitted that that story was put out by
Saddam in order to blame the US for his own invasion plans.
and
then wouldn't disarm after he lost that war,
He didn't loose, he was still in power.
He got kicked out of Kuwait, and the dear old UN had agreed to leave him
in power.
And he had nothing to disarm.
UN Inspectors said differently.
Or are you still insisting that there are WMDs, so well hidden in
Iraq, that they have still not been found?
If there are, then they are so well hidden, that Sadam couldn't find
them either, to defend himself.
I thought the story was that he had destroyed them just before the
invasion, or was it before that when Clinton sent in a few missiles? You
guys can't even keep your own stories straight on that.
Can you really believe, that a man, who, according to the propaganda,
has killed thousands of his own people, in order to stay in power,
would hesitate at killing a few foreigners.
We've discussed this before. Hitler didn't use *his* war gas on his own
territory, why would Saddam?
The nearest the ever found, was one missile shell, which *might* have
had a range of a couple of hundred miles, more than he was allowed.
And warehouses full of precursor chemicals and tons of "dual-use"
equipment that the UN inspectors all agreed could be used for WMD
production.
so we put sanctions on him
and he simply held out until he could finally manipulate the system
and bribe his minders.
But America aint the only market in the world, so that didn't work.
The Iraqi government is more pluralistic than you imagine.
I don't imagine, I talk to Iraqis that I know.
Who do you know who is living in Iraq?
No one, that I have had contact with, since this second attack.
The best I can manage is second hand information, from people who's
families are still in Iraq.
Trouble is, I now live some six hours away from them, so on the
occasions that we do meet, politics is not a main subject for
discussion.
So the best you've got is third-hand hearsay.
However, I was in Birmingham, just before the elections in Iraq, and
the general consensus among the people I know there, was that they
would go along with the elections, and American style government,
because they had no choice.
Sort of, "We will make all the right noises, and hope that it
convinces the Americans, and they all ***** home: Then we will get
on with our own ways."
If that's the case they're doing a hell of a job of coordinating their
lies across all those factions that are supposed to be at each others
throats.
Now both groups are united against the UK/ US presence.
There are three groups, at least, and most of them are in favor of the
UK/US presence at least until their own military is up to speed.
Which probably explains all the "terrorist" activity.
It doesn't take a whole lot of activity to sound big on camera when the
news media won't point their cameras at anything *but* bombs going off.
Heck, if there's no new explosions they just run stories about some old
ones.
It looks to me, like typical propaganda, not that different to what
your government, and mine, pump out.
Not that different? *****, what kind of propaganda do you get that I
don't? Seriously!
How well the war is going, and how well the majority of Iraqi's like
the occupation forces.
That's funny, almost all of our news media is saying how badly the war
is going and how much a few Iraqis hate us. You have to really dig get
past the fact that they're only reporting the bad news and doing that
*very* selectively so as not to give out anything that might look like
progress against the terrorists.
The WMDs are still there, but they WILL be found, and the Bush-Blair
criminal consortium will be justified.
I don't hear anybody saying that the WMD is still there. You sure you're
actually *listening* to anybody?
Etc, etc.
That's the whole point. You wanted to know how our government can know
Muslims' motives. That's how.
I am a bit dense today, you will have to explain that to me.
They actually talk to actual people who actually live there.
The republican party, was planning an attack on Iraq, long before
the 9/11 raids.
The US has plans to attack everybody. Including Great Britain. That's
what general staffs do.
Yes, but those plans are generalisations, the plans for Iraq, were a
lot more specific: Weren't they?
No, all those contingency plans are *very* specific. All they have to do
is to update them for current conditions and fill in the blanks as to
which units do which jobs.
If pushed, I would choose the muslims, I have always found them more
trustworthy, and honest, than xtians.
Yes, they are quite honest about wanting to make all us into nice
submissive dhimmis.
True. But at least they don't hide their intent behind a vale of
*****, like ID.
They are, theologically, where christendom was, 500 years ago.
We had to grow out of it, and most of us did.
And there was much bloodshed in the process.
A faction in the west, is trying to return to it. Unfortunately, Bush
and Blair, two of the west's most prominent leaders, are part of that
faction.
That does not seem to be the case.
For them, this is a holy war.
That doesn't make the Jihad any less of an immediate threat.
Jihad, The righteous war, is a part of Islam.
If you make war on Jihad, you make war on Islam, and thus, on all
muslims, everywhere.
Not all muslims believe in the sort of violent Jihad that was
described in that Word document.
Quite true.
Trouble is, we have got fanatical leaders, fighting a war against
other fanatics.
At least they're willing to fight. All I hear from you is "oh, Muslims
are not *really* so bad, it's not so terrible to be a dhimmi..."
snip
Your government has given it's self permission to initiate nuclear
attacks, against non nuclear countries, including Iraq.
No kidding.
I don't kid, where nukes are concerned.
Neither do I.
Is that how you will win?
No, that's how we'll lose, by taking them with us.
I'm sure that is very deep, Fred, but it is 02:20hrs, monday morning,
and it has gone right over my head.
Nobody wins a nuclear war. But we can damn sure make certain that they
lose more than we do.
But define it as you will, bombing them into submission with nukes,
or genocide, is the only way you will win.
No, the way we'll win is by giving their people the opportunity to
govern themselves, by breaking the stranglehold of the dictatorships.
A lot more would have been won, and at much less cost, had Bush and
Blair, waited. But then, honest men assume that all men are honest;
and vice versa.
Really? Saddam was on the verge of having the sanctions lifted. And
don't pretend that Uday and/or Qusay would have somehow become nice guys
after the old man kicked the bucket.
Sadam was not nice, but the west supported him, until it looked like
he might control of Kuati(sp) oil.
We gave him some support when it looked like Iran was going to dominate
the mideast.
And that is what it is all about. Oil. Black gold.
Ah, the bloody party line again. You sure are predictable.
You forget that muslims are the same species as the rest of us, and
we are not very good at loosing
Look at Ireland. Six hundred years after the event, and they are
still fighting.
We aren't trying to own or permanently occupy them, that's the
difference.
And we can see how convinced the Iraqis are, of that.
90% or more of them are.
America has been manipulating for 35 years, that I know of, to get
some sort of toe hold in the middle east, and Iraq has been the main
target.
We already had bases in Saudi Arabia.
The Iraqi people know that, so America may have just a little
difficulty, convincing them, that they are not an army of occupation.
They've already convinced more than 90% of the Iraqi people.
That is a holy war as well, a Jihad, in it's fashion.
Muslims have the added incentive, of a guaranteed place in heaven,
if they fight in a holy war.
Not all of them believe that this *is* a holy war.
Agreed. Just as many of us believe that for B&B, this *is* a holy
war, a new xtian crusade.
snip
Today, Korea, or any part of Islam, will do as the antichrist.
Not without certain preconditions that aren't in place yet.
Prophesy is flexible.
The conditions do not have to exist, all that is required, is that
believers, believe that they exist.
They have been believing it for 2000 yrs, how big a shove do you think
they would need?
Bigger than you would care to admit. According to most of the fundies I
know, anybody who claims to know when it's supposed to happen is a liar
and a fraud.
No specific article, just the general emphasis on negativity, and
Islam.
Sort of, "Methinks the lady doth protest too much"
Oh, you mean like I feel about our own liberals complaining about
Bush... :-)
Possibly.
I
Whoever they were talking to was probably repeating what they had
heard from that propaganda.
So you are now saying that any Iraqi's who disagree with you, do not
have an opinion of their own, they are only repeating propaganda.
Funny how that works. I *can* tell propaganda by the smell of it. Why
can't you?
Funny though, how the propaganda, turned out to be correct; aint it?
If, by "close-minded", you mean cynical skepticism, and a refusal to
swallow my government's propaganda, without some sort of evidence
from a source that I trust, then, yes, you are correct, I am
close-minded.
But you don't seem to be willing to trust any source that doesn't
already agree with your preconceived notions.
I have two preconceived notions, and two only.
1: Governments lie.
What you don't seem to be willing to admit is that the opposition is
*also* part of the government, just not in power *at the moment*. That
doesn't magically transform them into fonts of veracity. They have the
strongest possible motive to portray the ones in power as beastly liars
and theives while polishing their own haloes.
2: Generally speaking, people are honest, optimistic. They want to
believe that the people they elect, are descent, honest people.
Because no one likes to think that he has been taken for a ride.
That makes them vulnerable, and gullible.
That works just as much for the people who voted for the side(s) that
didn't get the top spot.
snip
You see, I have spent a lot of my life working with muslims.
Rather like I've spent most of my life around Christian fundies. None
of them are as bad as the ones we get on alt.atheism.
Mmm. I wonder...
Of course I don't
bother to mention evolution around my mom any more...
...But I hear what you are saying.
In none of my time, have I seen the sort of behaviour that our
governments are telling us is the norm, for muslims.
Our government, at least in the US, has always been clear that they're
not calling all muslims radical jihadists.
Oh, we get the same here, but my own cynicism, cuts in and says, "you
may not be actually saying, but; what are you thinking?"
So no matter what they say you'll believe the worst anyway.
I always found them to be friendly, honest, and hospitable.
Our soldiers in Iraq are finding that to be true, in general.
Yes, there are fanatics, but I would bet that America alone has as
many xtian fanatics, as the rest of the world has muslim ones, and
the UK, has it's share.
...And yes, your xtian fanatics do go around bombing your buildings.
Yes, but the last time one hijacked a plane to fly it into a
skyscraper...oh, wait.
I must admit, that surprised me though I don't know why.
Fanatics, can be so innovative.
I suppose the real surprise, is that it took 50 years, for someone to
get around to doing it.
OK. OT.
I gotta go into hospital, for some minor heart surgery, on Tuesday,
(got to have my arteries, bored and sleeved, or something) so it will
be a few days before I get around to replying to you again.
Well, good luck. There isn't any such thing as minor heart surgery.
Just so you don't think I'm ignoring you. (:-)
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Even if the grass is greener on the other side,
they still have to cut it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: Human IQ Average Going Down: Religion Goes Up |
11 Jun 2005 04:08:43 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 11:37:58 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey> wrote in
news:2547a15qdqko79vmcaedphj9jas7b02rvs@4ax.com:
On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 01:05:42 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
snip
The trouble with pacifying a man, by hog tieing him, is that you can
never let him loose.
That'll work.
But what use is he, to you? You have to do everything for him, or kill him.
snip
That aint peaceful relations, that is suppression and subjugation.
Close enough for government work.
Perhaps, but somehow, I don't think so.
I wonder how they *really* feel.
I wonder why your claim that you can't bomb and kill people into
"peaceful relations" went up in smoke so easily?
It didn't.
Subjugation, is not peaceful relations, it is a time bomb.
snip
Few of, even the most extreme xtians, have that kind of faith.
The point is that many of them take it as an article of faith that
they are to destroy the West.
Just as your president, and his daddy, seem to take it as an article
of faith, that "not xtian" means "not human".
That doesn't seem to be the case.
Daddy's opinion of atheists, is well documented.
Do you doubt that Junior is any different?
I would suggest that the only difference is that Junior has been told to hold
his tongue, on the matter.
It has ever been the xtian directive, to spread xtianity, by any
means, and the sword has always been the quickest.
That doesn't seem to be the case.
Read some history. The Roman empire spread xtianity, at sword point.
The Conquistadors, did the same, as did the American settlers, the Bores, the
Ozies, and the Kiwis.
It is surprising what a man can claim he believes, when his life depends on it,
but to be on the safe side, you teach it to his children, and his grandchildren,
and soon, yours is the only belief they know.
Your support of your president, is not supporting the defence of
America. It is supporting the use of military power, to spread
xtianity.
That doesn't seem to be the case.
Oh, but it does. The problem is that most xtian fanatics, are blind to the
possibility that others can hold beliefs, just as deeply as they do, so it aint
working.
I am sure I recall bush, making some comment about bringing xtianity to the
muslim, or opening the way for missionaries.
We're not bombing them.
Semantics.
Yeah, right, you all fall back on "semantics" when the plain meaning of
the words won't do you any good.
We, (the UK, and the US) waltzed in there, and bombed the ***** out of
them.
...And we still aint found any weapons of mass destruction.
So?
It was the only thing that we had, that came even *close* to justification for
this war, and it was a lie.
If you are comfortable with that, then there is little else to say.
In case you hadn't noticed, it's the terrorists
who are doing most of the bombing these days. And yes, you're right,
that's not the way to win.
They will.
Oh, what was all that about not being able to bomb and maim and kill
people into peaceful relations?
They aint trying to bomb you into peaceful relations, they are trying to bomb
you *out* of their country, or even out of existence: Slightly different intent.
And they are willing to die, to do it.
snip
Ah yes. Someone who knows more about the natives, than the natives
them selves.
No, just someone who knows more abut the natives than *YOU* do.
Probably. I just know some of the people.
Funny thing about anthropology. The people never bear any but the most
superficial resemblance, to the experts opinion.
That is not what the muslims that I know, say.
Are they Iraqis?
Some of them.
Two of them, two cousins, are from high ranking families.
High ranking Sunni families, by any chance?
That, I couldn't say, but I don't think that religion plays much of a part in
the issue, as they are both rather secular; For muslims.
Explain how the total integration of church and state, with a
religious leader at the head of it, would be different in America, to
what it would be in Iraq?
Fallacy of the Complex Question. Christian fundies in America don't want
total integration of church and state with a relgious leader at the head
of it.
No?
Have you read some of the xtian Republicans, that post throughout the usenet?
You are right, up to a point, they do not want church and state, integration,
the want "church only".
The reason they don't want that is that they can't be sure that
*their* leaders would be the ones who got the top spot.
You think that any of them has actually thought that far ahead?
All they see, is a forced xtian state. Most of the ones who post here, refuse
to recognise that there are differences of opinion, on the grounds that all
those who disagree, are "not proper xtians", and will soon be forced into line.
That joke about
the two Baptists from minutely different sects isn't far from the truth.
I have heard one about Methodists. "Only the names have been changed, to
protect the embarrassed".
I will start taking notice of Iraq's own media, when we are no longer
standing behind them with guns.
Then you're just calling them liars because they don't say what you want
to hear.
No, I am calling the US, and UK, governments, liars.
I would not call a man a liar, for repeating what the man with the gun at his
head, tells him to say.
snip
After being told by Bush senior's rep, in Iraq, that America was not
interested in his border disputes.
Actually, that story is false.
Yep, I am sure it is, but we have been told so many lies, about this war, that I
see no reason to give that assertion, any more credence, than the rest.
That is the trouble with lies. You become known as a liar, and even when you
tell the truth, no one will trust your word.
He asked permission from America, and was essentially told to, do as
he pleased.
No, he didn't. Tarik Aziz has admitted that that story was put out by
Saddam in order to blame the US for his own invasion plans.
Fred, think about what you are saying.
You are accusing me of doubting what the media says, because it is not what I
want to hear, yet there you are, quoting your government's propaganda, as fact,
because it IS, what you want to hear: Where is the difference?
and
then wouldn't disarm after he lost that war,
He didn't loose, he was still in power.
He got kicked out of Kuwait, and the dear old UN had agreed to leave him
in power.
How he remained in power, is irrelevant. He was still in power.
And he had nothing to disarm.
UN Inspectors said differently.
Odd then, that they couldn't find them.
Or are you going to tell me that he hid them so well, that he left his country
unarmed, and at the mercy of Western invaders, and himself, open to arrest and
execution, just to prove a point?
If he had them, Why didn't he use them?
Or are you still insisting that there are WMDs, so well hidden in
Iraq, that they have still not been found?
If there are, then they are so well hidden, that Sadam couldn't find
them either, to defend himself.
I thought the story was that he had destroyed them just before the
invasion, or was it before that when Clinton sent in a few missiles? You
guys can't even keep your own stories straight on that.
Straw man.
I aint discussing what the stories are.
Either he had them, or he didn't.
The inspectors said he didn't.
Bush, said he did.
B&B, attacked, claiming that it was legal because he had them.
But somehow, he failed to use them, to defend him self, and they were never
found.
They then changed their story to; "It was legal, because he wasn't very nice"
Can you really believe, that a man, who, according to the propaganda,
has killed thousands of his own people, in order to stay in power,
would hesitate at killing a few foreigners.
We've discussed this before. Hitler didn't use *his* war gas on his own
territory, why would Saddam?
Logical fallacy.
What does Hitler have to do with it? We are discussing Sadam.
Because you didn't do something, does that mean that in the same circumstance, I
would not?
The nearest the ever found, was one missile shell, which *might* have
had a range of a couple of hundred miles, more than he was allowed.
And warehouses full of precursor chemicals and tons of "dual-use"
equipment that the UN inspectors all agreed could be used for WMD
production.
Which makes every croppy, with two sticks of dynamite, for shifting rocks or
tree stumps, a shed full fertiliser, to make the crops grow, and a gallon or two
of diesel, for his tractor, a bloody terrorist.
snip
Trouble is, I now live some six hours away from them, so on the
occasions that we do meet, politics is not a main subject for
discussion.
So the best you've got is third-hand hearsay.
Worse than that. All I have, is the same source that you have.
However, I was in Birmingham, just before the elections in Iraq, and
the general consensus among the people I know there, was that they
would go along with the elections, and American style government,
because they had no choice.
Sort of, "We will make all the right noises, and hope that it
convinces the Americans, and they all ***** home: Then we will get
on with our own ways."
If that's the case they're doing a hell of a job of coordinating their
lies across all those factions that are supposed to be at each others
throats.
Give them time. It is only their internal religious differences, which protects
our troops.
snip
Which probably explains all the "terrorist" activity.
It doesn't take a whole lot of activity to sound big on camera when the
news media won't point their cameras at anything *but* bombs going off.
Heck, if there's no new explosions they just run stories about some old
ones.
So now you are saying that the media is lying, too.
Best we do, as I have already done, and assume that anything we hear about the
war, is *****, with just enough fact added, to make it sound plausible.
How well the war is going, and how well the majority of Iraqi's like
the occupation forces.
That's funny, almost all of our news media is saying how badly the war
is going
So it aint just mopping up a few dissidents, the *mission* is NOT accomplished?
You surprise me.
and how much a few Iraqis hate us.
The word to watch for there, is "few".
I wonder what "few", translates to, as a % of the population.
If England had been "liberated", the way Iraq, was, I would sing the praises of
the "liberators", as well, while they could hear me.
....And cut their throats, when their backs were turned.
Have you ever fought in a war?
Funny thing about liberation, the cure is often, orders of magnitude worse, than
the complaint.
You have to really dig get
past the fact that they're only reporting the bad news and doing that
*very* selectively so as not to give out anything that might look like
progress against the terrorists.
Ah, right.
No anti terrorist propaganda.
Does that mean that your government has given up on *****?
Or is just more of the same, from them?
The WMDs are still there, but they WILL be found, and the Bush-Blair
criminal consortium will be justified.
I don't hear anybody saying that the WMD is still there. You sure you're
actually *listening* to anybody?
It aint so long since Blair, was making just that claim, and I aint heard him
retract it.
That's the whole point. You wanted to know how our government can know
Muslims' motives. That's how.
I am a bit dense today, you will have to explain that to me.
They actually talk to actual people who actually live there.
I think I have already commented on that.
No, all those contingency plans are *very* specific. All they have to do
is to update them for current conditions and fill in the blanks as to
which units do which jobs.
I believe there is a report, somewhere, that quotes Bush, as telling Rumsfield,
just a couple of hours after the 9/11, attacks, and before he had any
information as to the culprits, to find him(Bush), an excuse to attack Iraq.
It was posted in a.a, and I don't recall anyone questioning it.
They are, theologically, where christendom was, 500 years ago.
We had to grow out of it, and most of us did.
And there was much bloodshed in the process.
There still is, but Christendom didn't have a superior enemy, trying to shape it
in some way it didn't want to go. It found it's own way.
No one was trying to obliterate Christendom.
A faction in the west, is trying to return to it. Unfortunately, Bush
and Blair, two of the west's most prominent leaders, are part of that
faction.
That does not seem to be the case.
Then your cynicism, is turned down too low.
For them, this is a holy war.
That doesn't make the Jihad any less of an immediate threat.
True, in fact, their attitude and actions, make it even more of a threat,
If we are attacked, it will be an attack that our governments have brought on
them selves.
At least they're willing to fight. All I hear from you is "oh, Muslims
are not *really* so bad, it's not so terrible to be a dhimmi..."
They are no worse than xtians, and as a generalisation, they are a lot more
honest.
Why do you make "dhimmi", read like you are sneering, you don't make "Bush",
read that way; You don't even make fundy read like that.
I don't kid, where nukes are concerned.
Neither do I.
You seem to think it is okay, to start a nuclear war.
You gotta be kidding!
Is that how you will win?
Nobody wins a nuclear war. But we can damn sure make certain that they
lose more than we do.
By starting the war, and possibly, against countries who do not have nuclear
capability.
America has been very slow to speak, or act against anybody that might be able
to fight back, like Korea.
But define it as you will, bombing them into submission with nukes,
or genocide, is the only way you will win.
No, the way we'll win is by giving their people the opportunity to
govern themselves, by breaking the stranglehold of the dictatorships.
A lot more would have been won, and at much less cost, had Bush and
Blair, waited. But then, honest men assume that all men are honest;
and vice versa.
Really? Saddam was on the verge of having the sanctions lifted. And
don't pretend that Uday and/or Qusay would have somehow become nice guys
after the old man kicked the bucket.
Straw man, I have made no such suggestion, nor have I said that Sadam might have
had a change of heart; Just in case you are going to try that one.
But the truth is, it was none of our business, and we should have stayed out of
it, instead of lying, to give our selves an excuse to steal their oil.
How much profit, do you reckon that American companies have made out of this
war?
Sadam was not nice, but the west supported him, until it looked like
he might control of Kuati(sp) oil.
We gave him some support when it looked like Iran was going to dominate
the mideast.
*****!
America couldn't openly attack Iran, they had no grounds, whatsoever, so they
armed Sadam so that he could attack Iran, and make it look like a border
dispute.
Iran was not attacking Iraq.
That was Sadam, being a good little American pawn.
And that is what it is all about. Oil. Black gold.
Ah, the bloody party line again. You sure are predictable.
Of course I am, the truth doesn't change, just because you don't like it.
We aren't trying to own or permanently occupy them, that's the
difference.
And we can see how convinced the Iraqis are, of that.
90% or more of them are.
Okay. You might claim that 90% of Iraqis are convinced, but how much of the rest
of the world believes it?
Then see if it seems probable that 90% of Iraqis believe it, when possibly as
little as 35% of the rest of the world believes it.
35%, is, IIRC, the number of people in the UK, who are convinced by B&B.
The same sort of thing holds true for the US, I am sure.
Now I am sure that Iraqis are aware that such a large percentage of their
oppressors do not believe it. So what makes you think that they will believe
that we are not an army of occupation, when so many or their oppressors'
people, do not?
America has been manipulating for 35 years, that I know of, to get
some sort of toe hold in the middle east, and Iraq has been the main
target.
We already had bases in Saudi Arabia.
The Saudis, are not as compliant, nor as easily manipulated.
Their ruling class is very old, and used to power, more so than any western
leader.
They've already convinced more than 90% of the Iraqi people.
So you said.
Trouble is, If it is only 10% of the people, who are not convinced, why are
there are not more informants, telling about planned terrorist activities?
I remember the British government, giving us the same shite, about N,Ireland,
and how 90% of catholics were against the IRA.
There were/are, so many of them against the IRA, that they keep electing Sein
Fein MPs.
But I suppose that Iraq, is somehow different.
snip
The conditions do not have to exist, all that is required, is that
believers, believe that they exist.
They have been believing it for 2000 yrs, how big a shove do you think
they would need?
Bigger than you would care to admit. According to most of the fundies I
know, anybody who claims to know when it's supposed to happen is a liar
and a fraud.
What the ***** does that have to do with anything?
Nobody is talking about knowing when, we are talking about a little shove, to
make it happen now.
That does not go against xtian teaching, that we do not know when.
If indeed, such is the teaching. Cos they can't seem to agree.
snip
Whoever they were talking to was probably repeating what they had
heard from that propaganda.
So you are now saying that any Iraqi's who disagree with you, do not
have an opinion of their own, they are only repeating propaganda.
Funny how that works. I *can* tell propaganda by the smell of it. Why
can't you?
I must have a more sensitive nose, than you.
snip
I have two preconceived notions, and two only.
1: Governments lie.
What you don't seem to be willing to admit is that the opposition is
*also* part of the government, just not in power *at the moment*.
Don't I?
Interesting.
That
doesn't magically transform them into fonts of veracity.
Have I asserted that it did?
They have the
strongest possible motive to portray the ones in power as beastly liars
and theives while polishing their own haloes.
Indeed they do.
2: Generally speaking, people are honest, optimistic. They want to
believe that the people they elect, are descent, honest people.
Because no one likes to think that he has been taken for a ride.
That makes them vulnerable, and gullible.
That works just as much for the people who voted for the side(s) that
didn't get the top spot.
Agreed.
Now what makes you think that I am taking any particular political stance?
Could it be binary thinking, on your part?
Just as the fundy is often incapable of accepting that someone can be *a*
-theist,, is it also the case that the political fanatic, is incapable of
recognising that someone can be *a*-political?
Oh, we get the same here, but my own cynicism, cuts in and says, "you
may not be actually saying, but; what are you thinking?"
So no matter what they say you'll believe the worst anyway.
If it comes from any source that is trying to make it's self look good, or
trying to make the opposition, look bad. Too right.
OK. OT.
I gotta go into hospital, for some minor heart surgery, on Tuesday,
(got to have my arteries, bored and sleeved, or something) so it will
be a few days before I get around to replying to you again.
Well, good luck. There isn't any such thing as minor heart surgery.
Thanks Fred.
It wasn't as bad as I worried about, and I was so high on the happy juice, they
pumped into me, that I have only the vaguest recollections.
Still, they did some good, but to do the rest is major, open heart, surgery, and
up to a couple of years recovery.
But as the surgeon said. If they do it now, or wait until they have to do it, it
will be the same surgery, the same result, and the same recovery time.
It may never come to that, so why make my self miserable for what could be the
rest of my life, without a damn good reason?
--
Puck Greenman
The spelling, Like any opinion stated here,
is purely my own
#162 BAAWA Knight.
Plonked by Rob Duncan
Na bister 500,000
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: Human IQ Average Going Down: Religion Goes Up |
04 Jun 2005 11:01:28 AM |
|
|
Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey> wrote in
news:s74v91tvmo8m0e41e9j4klufji2cljg7eq@4ax.com:
On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 22:02:29 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
Maybe the media gives that impression, but it appears that our
policymakers do understand the motives of the terrorists who oppose
our helping the ordinary citizens to resist domination by those same
terrorists.
It's a funny thing, Fred, but if a fundy were to come in here,
asserting that he understood atheist motivation, and then started on
about hating god, etc, you would give him very short shift.
Yet when your own government, which sees the world as "Americans, and
terrorists", does the same thing with another country's beliefs, you
claim that your government knows what it is talking about.
Why Fred?
Like my old sig-file used to say :
'Few of us can easily surrender our belief that society must somehow make
sense. The thought that the state has lost it's mind and is punishing so
many innocent people is intolerable. And so the evidence has to be
internally denied.'
-Arthur Miller.
--
Jez, MBA.,
Country Dancing and Advanced Astrology, UBS.
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "RobH" |
|
| Title: Re: Human IQ Average Going Down: Religion Goes Up |
31 May 2005 07:59:24 AM |
|
|
When do you start the gas showers Nazi boy.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
