| 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: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Human IQ Average Going Down: Religion Goes Up |
30 May 2005 11:35:29 PM |
|
|
"Mars" <dennisli2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1117512892.360295.286860@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
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.
The time scales you are suggesting are, I think, too short to show any
significant change due to evolution.
Poisoning our ground water until we're all brain damaged, however, seems to
be a more likely scenario.
Stupidity will get us in the end.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: Human IQ Average Going Down: Religion Goes Up |
31 May 2005 09:53:31 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 30 May 2005 23:35:29 -0500, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote:
"Mars" <dennisli2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1117512892.360295.286860@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
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.
The time scales you are suggesting are, I think, too short to show any
significant change due to evolution.
Poisoning our ground water until we're all brain damaged, however, seems to
be a more likely scenario.
Stupidity will get us in the end.
Intelligence in humans, seems to me, a little more complicated than that.
It seems to be as much nurture, as nature.
There is no evidence that high intelligence parents, produce high intelligence
off spring.
In fact, from the bits and dabs that I have read, the opposite would appear the
norm.
What gives the child of the intelligent parents, the advantage, is the improved
conditions that the generally wealthier, high intelligence parents, can provide,
on both the domestic front, and the educational one.
This, obviously helps the child to achieve it's true potential.
Sadly, it also means that the high intelligence child, of the less intelligent
parent, is at a disadvantage.
A quick run down history's list of high achievers, will probably show a hundred
high achievers, from wealthy, or privileged backgrounds, for every one from
poor, underprivileged, roots.
If we now include religious fervour, to the list of disadvantages, the child of
the lesser intelligent suffers from, and the high esteem that so many religious
fanatics place upon ignorance of "worldly" learning, then religion, in general,
and the Abrahamic religions, in particular, could well cause the average world
IQ, to drop. This drop will be seen most clearly, in countries like the USA, as
American innovation, and leadership, in so many fields, declines.
--
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: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Human IQ Average Going Down: Religion Goes Up |
31 May 2005 12:07:39 AM |
|
|
2. Civilization depends totally upon innate intelligence.
I think civilization depends upon the innate intelligence of the elite,
the alphas:
1. People like Lee Raymond (head of Exxon) to provide the gasoline.
2. People like Robert Mueller to keep drugs and crime in control.
3. Inventors, engineers, artists, musicians, writers, journalists,
teachers, doctors, scientists.
4. People like Alan Greenspan to keep trade and commerce stable.
5. People like Billy Graham to maintain human decency, fairness,
civility, moderation.
6. People like Rachel Carson and Ralph Nader to keep the air and water
clean.
7. People like Scott Thomas (head of Federal Election Commission) to
keep elections meaningful, so as to temper corruption, war, and tyranny.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Barry Trotter" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Human IQ Average Going Down: Religion Goes Up |
31 May 2005 06:18:47 AM |
|
|
In the great debate about "Re: Human IQ Average Going Down: Religion
Goes Up" in alt.atheism, catapaulted the
following boulder:
2. Civilization depends totally upon innate intelligence.
I think civilization depends upon the innate intelligence of the elite,
the alphas:
1. People like Lee Raymond (head of Exxon) to provide the gasoline.
Lee Raymond doesnt provide gasoline, he exploits the people who do.
2. People like Robert Mueller to keep drugs and crime in control.
Not very good at it, is he?
3. Inventors, engineers, artists, musicians, writers, journalists,
teachers, doctors, scientists.
4. People like Alan Greenspan to keep trade and commerce stable.
Greenspan is nothing but a soothsayer.
5. People like Billy Graham to maintain human decency, fairness,
civility, moderation.
No he doesn't, he promotes Christianity, a blood soaked death cult.
6. People like Rachel Carson and Ralph Nader to keep the air and water
clean.
And the Republicans in power.
7. People like Scott Thomas (head of Federal Election Commission) to
keep elections meaningful, so as to temper corruption, war, and tyranny.
Not very good at it, is he?
So, what you are saying, in effect, is that civilisation is fucked.
David Silverman F.L.A.H.N. aa #2208
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Great Hairy One" |
|
| Title: Re: Human IQ Average Going Down: Religion Goes Up |
31 May 2005 05:29:30 AM |
|
|
In article <1117512892.360295.286860@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
dennisli2@yahoo.com says...
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.
Intelligence is a quantitative trait - in other words, many genes affect
the end product. On top of this, it is also highly affected by
environmental factors (smoking during pregnancy, etc., etc.). The range
of genes is so wide that a pair of low IQ parents can produce a genius
child.
Furthermore, the measuring of intelligence is very difficult these days.
How do we actually assign a value to intelligence? That mechanic who
fixes your car might not be able to do complex calculus, but he probably
can tell you what is wrong with an engine just by listening to it for 10
seconds.
Finally, do not fall into the erroneous thought that ancient people,
whose civilisation just does not measure up to ours, were less
intelligent. We just have a much deeper pool of knowledge to draw on. If
we don't manage to destroy ourselves in the next 100 years, the people
of 2200CE will probably think we were pretty backwards too.
Cheers,
TGHO
--
The Great Hairy One,
BAAWA it all over!
And a SMASHing good time for all of us
=======================================
CEO EAC Roleplaying Division
Roleplaying isn't just a lifestyle
It's a higher calling.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Barry Trotter" |
|
| Title: Re: Human IQ Average Going Down: Religion Goes Up |
31 May 2005 01:06:56 PM |
|
|
In the great debate about "Human IQ Average Going Down: Religion Goes
Up" in alt.atheism, "Mars" <dennisli2@yahoo.com> catapaulted the
following boulder:
Logic and scientific evidence stand behind each statement listed above.
No, they don't. The definitions and assumptions are not scientific,the
assertions aren't factually correct and the conclusions aren't
logical. Religion is actually in decline, and this is because people
are generally better educated. No genuine scientist has ever defined
intelligence and we are still decades off having a complete
understanding of how our brains work.
Eugenics sits on a pyramid of intellectual dishonesty founded by the
phrenologists, bump-feelers and statisticologists of the 19th century.
Each generation of intellectual criminals (Galton, Burt, Eysenck,
Jensen, Murray etc.) has added to this pyramid of lies, and
dishonestly endowed it with a kind of self contained legitimacy.
Biologists - real scientists - have long since discredited all of
these 'scientists'. They exist because rich and powerful people want
the masses to be racists and fascists and believe that the human race
can be subdivided into meaningful categories genetically. It's easier
to fool-and-rule people that way.
Badly educated people breed faster and,coincidentally, believe in
religion because they are badly educated. People are badly educated
and, coincidentally, poor because society is badly and unjustly
organised.
Eugenics is just another string to the bow of those who would argue
that concerning ouselves with social justice is futile. In some cases
they get paid an awful lot of money for telling us these things, in
others they are simply wishing to excuse their obsequiousness toward
those who rule society.
David Silverman F.L.A.H.N. aa #2208
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wieland the Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Human IQ Average Going Down: Religion Goes Up |
31 May 2005 02:17:50 PM |
|
|
Barry Trotter wrote:
In the great debate about "Human IQ Average Going Down: Religion Goes
Up" in alt.atheism, "Mars" <dennisli2@yahoo.com> catapaulted the
following boulder:
Logic and scientific evidence stand behind each statement listed above.
No, they don't. The definitions and assumptions are not scientific,the
assertions aren't factually correct and the conclusions aren't
logical. Religion is actually in decline, and this is because people
are generally better educated. No genuine scientist has ever defined
intelligence and we are still decades off having a complete
understanding of how our brains work.
Eugenics sits on a pyramid of intellectual dishonesty founded by the
phrenologists, bump-feelers and statisticologists of the 19th century.
Each generation of intellectual criminals (Galton, Burt, Eysenck,
Jensen, Murray etc.) has added to this pyramid of lies, and
dishonestly endowed it with a kind of self contained legitimacy.
Biologists - real scientists - have long since discredited all of
these 'scientists'. They exist because rich and powerful people want
the masses to be racists and fascists and believe that the human race
can be subdivided into meaningful categories genetically. It's easier
to fool-and-rule people that way.
Badly educated people breed faster and,coincidentally, believe in
religion because they are badly educated. People are badly educated
and, coincidentally, poor because society is badly and unjustly
organised.
Eugenics is just another string to the bow of those who would argue
that concerning ouselves with social justice is futile. In some cases
they get paid an awful lot of money for telling us these things, in
others they are simply wishing to excuse their obsequiousness toward
those who rule society.
David Silverman F.L.A.H.N. aa #2208
well stated, I think, once you get onto this slippery road of separating
people by such pseudo-scientific categories, you have a high risk,
that you end up with fascistic thinking.
Intelligence, f.e., when you use it for measurement above an IQ of 70 or
80 is a rather disputed thing, because above this level the results of
the IQ tests depend a lot on education and IQ test training.
The major flaw in theories like eugenics seems to be a "technical"
thinking (not scientific) in fields, where such a technical thinking and
technical "values" are simply not appropriate.
And, in many cases, people tend to put a high value at features, they
are good at.
F.e., I have to laugh about members of the mensa club; if they were
really smart, they should know, that IQ measurement in the high regions
is guesswork.
Wieland the Smith
AA#2040 EAC: Herder of the Trolls
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mars" |
|
| Title: Re: Human IQ Average Going Down: Religion Goes Up |
05 Jun 2005 04:25:45 PM |
|
|
It seems like it would be in the interest of every atheist to support
eugenics. The more politically correct atheists choose to be, the more
their atheist world view will shrink as humans keep on becoming less
intelligent. It's time to get controversial by supporting eugenics!
http://www.neoeugenics.com/
http://www.eugenics.net/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: Human IQ Average Going Down: Religion Goes Up |
05 Jun 2005 09:40:20 PM |
|
|
On 5 Jun 2005 14:25:45 -0700, "Mars" <dennisli2@yahoo.com> wrote:
It seems like it would be in the interest of every atheist to support
eugenics. The more politically correct atheists choose to be, the more
their atheist world view will shrink as humans keep on becoming less
intelligent. It's time to get controversial by supporting eugenics!
http://www.neoeugenics.com/
http://www.eugenics.net/
I'll tell you what, kid; You provide evidence that eugenics, works, and we will
give it some thought.
--
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: "Divin Marquis" |
|
| Title: Re: Human IQ Average Going Down: Religion Goes Up |
31 May 2005 07:46:01 AM |
|
|
Le Mon, 30 May 2005 21:14:52 -0700, Mars a écrit :
1. Human intelligence is largely hereditary.
Is video game playing hereditary?
I remember a survey where video game playing was correlated with IQ.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Human IQ Average Going Down: Religion Goes Up |
31 May 2005 07:48:09 AM |
|
|
Divin Marquis wrote:
Le Mon, 30 May 2005 21:14:52 -0700, Mars a écrit :
1. Human intelligence is largely hereditary.
Is video game playing hereditary?
I remember a survey where video game playing was correlated with IQ.
Yes. On average, video game players are smarter than their
non-video-gamer counterparts. Something to do with problem-solving, IIRC.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "jwk" |
|
| Title: Re: Human IQ Average Going Down: Religion Goes Up |
03 Jun 2005 01:59:40 PM |
|
|
Mars wrote:
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.
When you breed dogs you don't call it "evolving". Being stupid is not
an evolutionary development. A stupid dog is still a dog. A stupid
man is still a man. Evolution is different.
jwk
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Human IQ Average Going Down: Religion Goes Up |
31 May 2005 12:39:11 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 30 May 2005 21:14:52 -0700, Mars wrote:
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.
I disagree. "Civilization" is a very broad term, and depends on many
factors, including instinctive pack mentality, etc. Intelligence is
important for technological advancement, which determines how large a
civilization can become and remain cohesive, but it is not the sole
determinant.
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.
Not necessarily. Again, you are throwing around vague definitions. What
is a "higher" level of civilization. More people? More egalitarian?
More elitist?
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.
It is true that getting pregnant requires little skill or money, but that
doesn't necessarily mean that we are becoming less intelligent.
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."
It is entirely possible that an increase in civilization will increase our
misery quotient. Many civilizations seem to thrive at the expense of
other civilizations, the environment, etc.
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.
People are taking up religion, in part, as a backlash against the rise of
secularism. As secularism gets more popular, the religious
fundamentalists get louder and more determined.
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Katt" |
|
| Title: Re: Human IQ Average Going Down: Religion Goes Up |
31 May 2005 02:20:07 PM |
|
|
"MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.05.31.17.39.10.694706@
People are taking up religion, in part, as a backlash against the rise of
secularism. As secularism gets more popular, the religious
fundamentalists get louder and more determined.
Would you say also that many people are taking up religion as a 'backlash'
against the perceived rise of *another religion*...? That populations made
nervous and frightened by what they believe to be the religious
'radicalising' of *other* populations are 'uniting' under some religious
banner that, previously, they hardly had any interest in, but which feels a
bit less alien to them than the 'foreign' one....?
If so, we must ask ourselves the question that was first on the lips of
every Roman lawyer in search of a culprit.: 'Cui bono...?'
So let's ask: 'Who benefits...?'.
Katt.
.
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Human IQ Average Going Down: Religion Goes Up |
31 May 2005 03:52:56 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 31 May 2005 19:20:07 +0000, Katt wrote:
"MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.05.31.17.39.10.694706@
People are taking up religion, in part, as a backlash against the rise
of secularism. As secularism gets more popular, the religious
fundamentalists get louder and more determined.
Would you say also that many people are taking up religion as a 'backlash'
against the perceived rise of *another religion*...? That populations made
nervous and frightened by what they believe to be the religious
'radicalising' of *other* populations are 'uniting' under some religious
banner that, previously, they hardly had any interest in, but which feels
a bit less alien to them than the 'foreign' one....?
If so, we must ask ourselves the question that was first on the lips of
every Roman lawyer in search of a culprit.: 'Cui bono...?'
So let's ask: 'Who benefits...?'.
Katt.
It seems to me that the Christian fundies in the USA were gathering power
before 9/11. If anything, the rise of Muslim fundamentalism could be a
reaction to the rise of Christian fundamentalism. Which came first?
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Human IQ Average Going Down: Religion Goes Up |
31 May 2005 04:41:25 PM |
|
|
MarkA <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in
news:pan.2005.05.31.20.52.55.507710@stopspam.net:
On Tue, 31 May 2005 19:20:07 +0000, Katt wrote:
"MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.05.31.17.39.10.694706@
People are taking up religion, in part, as a backlash against the
rise of secularism. As secularism gets more popular, the religious
fundamentalists get louder and more determined.
Would you say also that many people are taking up religion as a
'backlash' against the perceived rise of *another religion*...? That
populations made nervous and frightened by what they believe to be
the religious 'radicalising' of *other* populations are 'uniting'
under some religious banner that, previously, they hardly had any
interest in, but which feels a bit less alien to them than the
'foreign' one....?
If so, we must ask ourselves the question that was first on the lips
of every Roman lawyer in search of a culprit.: 'Cui bono...?'
So let's ask: 'Who benefits...?'.
Katt.
It seems to me that the Christian fundies in the USA were gathering
power before 9/11. If anything, the rise of Muslim fundamentalism
could be a reaction to the rise of Christian fundamentalism. Which
came first?
The Wahhabi sect of Islam has been around for centuries, IINM.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Even if the grass is greener on the other side,
they still have to cut it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: Human IQ Average Going Down: Religion Goes Up |
01 Jun 2005 10:07:33 AM |
|
|
MarkA <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in
news:pan.2005.05.31.20.52.55.507710@stopspam.net:
On Tue, 31 May 2005 19:20:07 +0000, Katt wrote:
"MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.05.31.17.39.10.694706@
People are taking up religion, in part, as a backlash against the
rise of secularism. As secularism gets more popular, the religious
fundamentalists get louder and more determined.
Would you say also that many people are taking up religion as a
'backlash' against the perceived rise of *another religion*...? That
populations made nervous and frightened by what they believe to be
the religious 'radicalising' of *other* populations are 'uniting'
under some religious banner that, previously, they hardly had any
interest in, but which feels a bit less alien to them than the
'foreign' one....?
If so, we must ask ourselves the question that was first on the lips
of every Roman lawyer in search of a culprit.: 'Cui bono...?'
So let's ask: 'Who benefits...?'.
Katt.
It seems to me that the Christian fundies in the USA were gathering
power before 9/11. If anything, the rise of Muslim fundamentalism
could be a reaction to the rise of Christian fundamentalism. Which
came first?
The omelette.
--
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: "Katt" |
|
| Title: Re: Human IQ Average Going Down: Religion Goes Up |
01 Jun 2005 08:24:29 PM |
|
|
MarkA <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in
It seems to me that the Christian fundies in the USA were gathering
power before 9/11. If anything, the rise of Muslim fundamentalism
could be a reaction to the rise of Christian fundamentalism. Which
came first?
Umm... From what I gather, the Muslim fundamentalism you mention was pretty
well entirely the creation of the US, though in two different ways: in Iran
it was a 'backlash' to the US's unconditional and unending support for that
vile and murderous tyrant, the Shah, whose absolute rule they had even
brought about through their role in the murder of his original rival and
counterweight. And in Afghanistan they created the fundamentalism through
their long-term and generous support for the Mujahedin/Taliban and for Osama
Bin Forgotten-About, all of whom were highly valued as dementedly determined
opponents of the Russians - whose desire to invade and occupy Afghanistan,
we recall, was entirely prompted by the beginnings of US interference in the
country in the 1970s.
So the answer to your thoughtful question would seem to be that what 'came
first' was actually the US's usual attempted combination of corporate
gang-rape and imperialism; this created - accidentally in one place and
deliberately in another - an armed, trained and seriously pissed-off Muslim
fundamentalism. And back in the US, a whole crowd of Christain
fundamentalists - relatively marginalised up to that point, in terms of real
political influence - were delighted to find that they could use the
imaginary as well as the real aspects of the phenomenon to consolidate their
power-base and radicalise other believers, somewhat in the manner in which
one magnet can be used to magnetise others...
Ugly picture, innit...?
Katt.
.
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Human IQ Average Going Down: Religion Goes Up |
02 Jun 2005 06:15:32 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 01:24:29 +0000, Katt wrote:
MarkA <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in
It seems to me that the Christian fundies in the USA were gathering
power before 9/11. If anything, the rise of Muslim fundamentalism
could be a reaction to the rise of Christian fundamentalism. Which
came first?
Umm... From what I gather, the Muslim fundamentalism you mention was
pretty well entirely the creation of the US, though in two different ways:
in Iran it was a 'backlash' to the US's unconditional and unending support
for that vile and murderous tyrant, the Shah, whose absolute rule they had
even brought about through their role in the murder of his original rival
and counterweight. And in Afghanistan they created the fundamentalism
through their long-term and generous support for the Mujahedin/Taliban and
for Osama Bin Forgotten-About, all of whom were highly valued as
dementedly determined opponents of the Russians - whose desire to invade
and occupy Afghanistan, we recall, was entirely prompted by the beginnings
of US interference in the country in the 1970s.
So the answer to your thoughtful question would seem to be that what 'came
first' was actually the US's usual attempted combination of corporate
gang-rape and imperialism; this created - accidentally in one place and
deliberately in another - an armed, trained and seriously pissed-off
Muslim fundamentalism. And back in the US, a whole crowd of Christain
fundamentalists - relatively marginalised up to that point, in terms of
real political influence - were delighted to find that they could use the
imaginary as well as the real aspects of the phenomenon to consolidate
their power-base and radicalise other believers, somewhat in the manner in
which one magnet can be used to magnetise others...
Ugly picture, innit...?
Katt.
Very astute, Katt. And, I suspect, very accurate. The US has a long
history of trying to manipulate the affairs of other countries, only to
wind up making a bigger mess than the one we had originally.
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Human IQ Average Going Down: Religion Goes Up |
02 Jun 2005 09:57:34 AM |
|
|
MarkA <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in
news:pan.2005.06.02.11.15.30.816285@stopspam.net:
On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 01:24:29 +0000, Katt wrote:
MarkA <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in
It seems to me that the Christian fundies in the USA were gathering
power before 9/11. If anything, the rise of Muslim fundamentalism
could be a reaction to the rise of Christian fundamentalism. Which
came first?
Umm... From what I gather, the Muslim fundamentalism you mention was
pretty well entirely the creation of the US, though in two different
ways: in Iran it was a 'backlash' to the US's unconditional and
unending support for that vile and murderous tyrant, the Shah, whose
absolute rule they had even brought about through their role in the
murder of his original rival and counterweight. And in Afghanistan
they created the fundamentalism through their long-term and generous
support for the Mujahedin/Taliban and for Osama Bin Forgotten-About,
all of whom were highly valued as dementedly determined opponents of
the Russians - whose desire to invade and occupy Afghanistan, we
recall, was entirely prompted by the beginnings of US interference in
the country in the 1970s.
So the answer to your thoughtful question would seem to be that what
'came first' was actually the US's usual attempted combination of
corporate gang-rape and imperialism; this created - accidentally in
one place and deliberately in another - an armed, trained and
seriously pissed-off Muslim fundamentalism. And back in the US, a
whole crowd of Christain fundamentalists - relatively marginalised up
to that point, in terms of real political influence - were delighted
to find that they could use the imaginary as well as the real aspects
of the phenomenon to consolidate their power-base and radicalise
other believers, somewhat in the manner in which one magnet can be
used to magnetise others...
Ugly picture, innit...?
Katt.
Very astute, Katt. And, I suspect, very accurate. The US has a long
history of trying to manipulate the affairs of other countries, only
to wind up making a bigger mess than the one we had originally.
The US also has a long history of trying to influence the affairs of
other countries and getting positive results.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Even if the grass is greener on the other side,
they still have to cut it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Human IQ Average Going Down: Religion Goes Up |
02 Jun 2005 04:30:50 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 14:57:34 +0000, Fred Stone wrote:
MarkA <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in
news:pan.2005.06.02.11.15.30.816285@stopspam.net:
On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 01:24:29 +0000, Katt wrote:
MarkA <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in
It seems to me that the Christian fundies in the USA were gathering
power before 9/11. If anything, the rise of Muslim fundamentalism
could be a reaction to the rise of Christian fundamentalism. Which
came first?
Umm... From what I gather, the Muslim fundamentalism you mention was
pretty well entirely the creation of the US, though in two different
ways: in Iran it was a 'backlash' to the US's unconditional and
unending support for that vile and murderous tyrant, the Shah, whose
absolute rule they had even brought about through their role in the
murder of his original rival and counterweight. And in Afghanistan they
created the fundamentalism through their long-term and generous support
for the Mujahedin/Taliban and for Osama Bin Forgotten-About, all of
whom were highly valued as dementedly determined opponents of the
Russians - whose desire to invade and occupy Afghanistan, we recall,
was entirely prompted by the beginnings of US interference in the
country in the 1970s.
So the answer to your thoughtful question would seem to be that what
'came first' was actually the US's usual attempted combination of
corporate gang-rape and imperialism; this created - accidentally in one
place and deliberately in another - an armed, trained and seriously
pissed-off Muslim fundamentalism. And back in the US, a whole crowd of
Christain fundamentalists - relatively marginalised up to that point,
in terms of real political influence - were delighted to find that they
could use the imaginary as well as the real aspects of the phenomenon
to consolidate their power-base and radicalise other believers,
somewhat in the manner in which one magnet can be used to magnetise
others...
Ugly picture, innit...?
Katt.
Very astute, Katt. And, I suspect, very accurate. The US has a long
history of trying to manipulate the affairs of other countries, only to
wind up making a bigger mess than the one we had originally.
The US also has a long history of trying to influence the affairs of other
countries and getting positive results.
Very true, also. However, it seems that we often intervene in foreign
affairs with the mistaken notion that everyone wants to be like us. In
the Middle East, for example, we really seem to be at a loss as to why so
many people are so mad at us, when we are just trying to help.
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Katt" |
|
| Title: Re: Human IQ Average Going Down: Religion Goes Up |
02 Jun 2005 05:04:53 PM |
|
|
"MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.06.02.21.30.48.312847@
The US also has a long history of trying to influence the affairs of
other
countries and getting positive results.
Who the ***** wrote that? Participating in the defeat of the Axis, 60-odd
years ago, hardly outweighs or obscures the remainder, you compliant nutjob.
Feel free to try and whitewash decades of international crime and
mass-murder, if that floats your shrunken little boat - but don't expect an
actual *adult* to pay you the slightest fucking attention while you do it...
Very true, also.
Ahem...!
However, it seems that we often intervene in foreign
affairs with the mistaken notion that everyone wants to be like us.
'Seems', maybe, but that's about all! In reality, the US only 'intervenes in
foreign affairs' *to protect its access to and domination of global
markets*; *in search of strategic resources*; and *to maintain the flow of
oil*. And that's it: everything else is just *window dressing* to satisfy
the credulous and narcissistic 'democracy-loving' masses at home, via a
corrupt and compliant corporate media. No other reason for 'intervening'
offers the requisite profits; no other consideration need be posited to
explain the observed behaviour; and no other motivation has ever been
revealed by an insider. QED.
Katt.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Human IQ Average Going Down: Religion Goes Up |
02 Jun 2005 06:45:04 PM |
|
|
"Katt" <seruhshjaudn@dfhu.net> wrote in
news:9oLne.4955$hT6.2988@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net:
"MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.06.02.21.30.48.312847@
The US also has a long history of trying to influence the affairs of
other
countries and getting positive results.
Who the ***** wrote that? Participating in the defeat of the Axis,
60-odd years ago, hardly outweighs or obscures the remainder, you
compliant nutjob. Feel free to try and whitewash decades of
international crime and mass-murder, if that floats your shrunken
little boat - but don't expect an actual *adult* to pay you the
slightest fucking attention while you do it...
Do you think an actual *adult* will agree with you?
Very true, also.
Ahem...!
However, it seems that we often intervene in foreign
affairs with the mistaken notion that everyone wants to be like us.
'Seems', maybe, but that's about all! In reality, the US only
'intervenes in foreign affairs' *to protect its access to and
domination of global markets*; *in search of strategic resources*; and
*to maintain the flow of oil*. And that's it: everything else is just
*window dressing* to satisfy the credulous and narcissistic
'democracy-loving' masses at home, via a corrupt and compliant
corporate media. No other reason for 'intervening' offers the
requisite profits; no other consideration need be posited to explain
the observed behaviour; and no other motivation has ever been revealed
by an insider. QED.
Ah, yes, of course, it's all a conspiracy of the corporations and the
media. The evidence is that there is no evidence, which proves that
there's a coverup.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Even if the grass is greener on the other side,
they still have to cut it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Human IQ Average Going Down: Religion Goes Up |
03 Jun 2005 07:01:24 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 22:04:53 +0000, Katt wrote:
"MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.06.02.21.30.48.312847@
The US also has a long history of trying to influence the affairs of
other
countries and getting positive results.
Who the ***** wrote that? Participating in the defeat of the Axis, 60-odd
years ago, hardly outweighs or obscures the remainder, you compliant
nutjob. Feel free to try and whitewash decades of international crime and
mass-murder, if that floats your shrunken little boat - but don't expect
an actual *adult* to pay you the slightest fucking attention while you do
it...
Very true, also.
Ahem...!
However, it seems that we often intervene in foreign affairs with the
mistaken notion that everyone wants to be like us.
'Seems', maybe, but that's about all! In reality, the US only 'intervenes
in foreign affairs' *to protect its access to and domination of global
markets*; *in search of strategic resources*; and *to maintain the flow of
oil*. And that's it: everything else is just *window dressing* to satisfy
the credulous and narcissistic 'democracy-loving' masses at home, via a
corrupt and compliant corporate media. No other reason for 'intervening'
offers the requisite profits; no other consideration need be posited to
explain the observed behaviour; and no other motivation has ever been
revealed by an insider. QED.
Katt.
I probably have a more generous view of history than you do. The covert
imperialism of the USA is motivated by many things, and clearly corporate
profits are important. However, I also believe that more philosophic
motives also factor in. Many of our political leaders sincerely believe
that democracy is the most benign form of government, and it is in our
best interests to have as many friendly democratic governments around the
globe as possible. Of course, if we can make some money in the process,
so much the better!
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Human IQ Average Going Down: Religion Goes Up |
02 Jun 2005 05:02:29 PM |
|
|
MarkA <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in
news:pan.2005.06.02.21.30.48.312847@stopspam.net:
On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 14:57:34 +0000, Fred Stone wrote:
MarkA <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in
news:pan.2005.06.02.11.15.30.816285@stopspam.net:
On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 01:24:29 +0000, Katt wrote:
MarkA <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in
It seems to me that the Christian fundies in the USA were
gathering power before 9/11. If anything, the rise of Muslim
fundamentalism could be a reaction to the rise of Christian
fundamentalism. Which came first?
Umm... From what I gather, the Muslim fundamentalism you mention
was pretty well entirely the creation of the US, though in two
different ways: in Iran it was a 'backlash' to the US's
unconditional and unending support for that vile and murderous
tyrant, the Shah, whose absolute rule they had even brought about
through their role in the murder of his original rival and
counterweight. And in Afghanistan they created the fundamentalism
through their long-term and generous support for the
Mujahedin/Taliban and for Osama Bin Forgotten-About, all of whom
were highly valued as dementedly determined opponents of the
Russians - whose desire to invade and occupy Afghanistan, we
recall, was entirely prompted by the beginnings of US interference
in the country in the 1970s.
So the answer to your thoughtful question would seem to be that
what 'came first' was actually the US's usual attempted combination
of corporate gang-rape and imperialism; this created - accidentally
in one place and deliberately in another - an armed, trained and
seriously pissed-off Muslim fundamentalism. And back in the US, a
whole crowd of Christain fundamentalists - relatively marginalised
up to that point, in terms of real political influence - were
delighted to find that they could use the imaginary as well as the
real aspects of the phenomenon to consolidate their power-base and
radicalise other believers, somewhat in the manner in which one
magnet can be used to magnetise others...
Ugly picture, innit...?
Katt.
Very astute, Katt. And, I suspect, very accurate. The US has a
long history of trying to manipulate the affairs of other countries,
only to wind up making a bigger mess than the one we had originally.
The US also has a long history of trying to influence the affairs of
other countries and getting positive results.
Very true, also. However, it seems that we often intervene in foreign
affairs with the mistaken notion that everyone wants to be like us.
In the Middle East, for example, we really seem to be at a loss as to
why so many people are so mad at us, when we are just trying to help.
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.
--
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 |
02 Jun 2005 06:12:52 PM |
|
|
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?
--
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 |
02 Jun 2005 07:16:58 PM |
|
|
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?
Because I can verify that our government does know what it's talking
about when it comes to terrorists, as opposed to those fundies who do
not.
http://www.terrorismunveiled.com/athena/2005/02/what_is_an_isla.html
http://athena.blogs.com/athena/files/military_studies_in_the_jihad_again
st_the_tyrants.doc
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.
Here's some very good resource sites:
http://www.memri.org/
http://www.jihadwatch.org/
--
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 |
03 Jun 2005 12:40:49 PM |
|
|
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:
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?
Because I can verify that our government does know what it's talking
about when it comes to terrorists, as opposed to those fundies who do
not.
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.
As for terrorism, anybody who will not kowtow to God's chosen country, America,
are terrorists.
At least, from where I am sitting, that is how it reads.
Bush and Blair, want to force xtianity on the evil muslims: That is for now.
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
It might be muslims today; But what about tomorrow?
I think it will be you and me.
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.
Because that is the government they want.
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.
http://athena.blogs.com/athena/files/military_studies_in_the_jihad_against_the_tyrants.doc
Aint read this; It wanted me to d/load something. That is a No-no.
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.
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.
SD# 915.
Again, I have heard/read, American xtian fundies, telling how the Jews distorted
the Torah, hated, cursed, and murdered Jesus.
SD# 914.
Much the same as the Bush propagandists, exposing how Sadam was behind the 9/11
attacks.
SD# 913.
Might as well be "We must discuss why we hate Muslims"
The west has started an unholy war, against Islam: What do you expect,
capitulation?
It aint going to happen.
The only way that the west will win, is through genocide.
Bush is well on his way to getting his End Times War.
Now while I fully expect the insane, American xtian fundies, to cheer that
along, I never expected you to.
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.
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.
This was before WMDs were ever mentioned.
--
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 |
03 Jun 2005 02:30:38 PM |
|
|
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:
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?
Because I can verify that our government does know what it's talking
about when it comes to terrorists, as opposed to those fundies who do
not.
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.
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. :-) But seriously, the ones we call terrorists are the ones who
*are* terrorists.
At least, from where I am sitting, that is how it reads.
You're reading some very jaundiced material to come to that conclusion.
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.
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 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. Islamists worry me a lot more than
xtian fundies. 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.
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.
Because that is the government they want.
But that is *not* the government they want. A small minority of violent
Islamist radicals want dictatorship. 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.
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.
The Iraqi government is more pluralistic than you imagine. 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.
http://athena.blogs.com/athena/files/military_studies_in_the_jihad_agai
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The west has started an unholy war, against Islam: What do you expect,
capitulation?
Not against the religion of Islam. Against the violent Jihad.
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".
Bush is well on his way to getting his End Times War.
He doesn't want that any more than you or I do.
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.
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? 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.
This was before WMDs were ever mentioned.
I'm shocked by how close-minded you are about all this. I had thought
better of you. I tried to present a case for what we understand about
Islamists and you've treated it like it's all Bush-Blair propaganda.
--
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 |
04 Jun 2005 06:34:40 PM |
|
|
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
No more than the fundies can insult you into belief, can you bomb, murder, maim
and kill people into "peaceful relations".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
A small minority of violent
Islamist radicals want dictatorship.
Not dictatorship, Theocracy. Just like xtian fanatics 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.
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.
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.
But he wouldn't toe the American line, so America tried to get him back under
control, by destabilising the economy, with sanctions.
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.
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.
I suppose that is a positive move.
http://athena.blogs.com/athena/files/military_studies_in_the_jihad_agai
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Is that how you will win?
But define it as you will, bombing them into submission with nukes, or
genocide, is the only way you will win.
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.
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.
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.
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"
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.
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.
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.
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.
I always found them to be friendly, honest, and hospitable.
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.
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
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
