My beloved world...
Pay attention to me...
Read what's going on...

http://www.time.com/time/daily/special/photo/denvershooting/index.html
http://www.time.com/time/newsfiles/schoolviolence/
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/04/26/germany.shootingwitness/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/04/20/columbine.anniversary.ap/index.html

A "little" list...
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/04/26/deadly.school.violence/

Bullying...
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/03/08/violence.survey/index.html

Can you wake up now!

How many children will have to die for you to realize that our society has a problem!?!?!?!?!?!?!? :bugeye:

Good Lord... while I'm anxious to give Love to people and passing a message of Love and compassion, look what's going on...!!!!!

It's starting to irritate me... :mad:

Love,
Nelson

Um. Nelson......

You do realize that people have known there's a problem for years and years. Right?

Yes...

What I'm saying here is...

Why the hell "we" don't fix it!?!?!?!?!?:bugeye: :eek: :bugeye: :eek:

And the only way to fix it is by finishing with the root of the problem...

Love,
Nelson

My beloved world...
Pay attention to me...

If that isn't the height of arrogance...

I have two hands, why aren't I running the world?

Can you wake up now!

I thought you prefered the dreamworld. Are you now changing your tune?

How many children will have to die for you to realize that our society has a problem!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

And you've drawn this conclusion how?

Good Lord... while I'm anxious to give Love to people and passing a message of Love and compassion, look what's going on...!!!!!

Amazing. You've not included yourself in society. I suppose you could have stopped this had you been given the chance?

It's starting to irritate me...

IRRITATE YOU ??? Tell that to the families of the victims you heartless bastard. I wish you could have said that to my face so I could punch in yours.

You disgust me !

Rather than condem the world around you, which incidently created you, propose workable solutions.

I don't think the "problem" has escalated as much as people think over the past years. I think with modern media sources being able to broadcast things nationally, minutes after it happens, that we get more exposure to it.

And why shouldn't our children see these horrible things? It's real, its the "truth", its what should be presented to them, its what we've been "seeking" (sorry, shamless pun).

If you care, sitting on your buts won't help. One way is disscusion, like this. But only talk till your game plan is clear, don't let it dissuade you from action (ever seen Monty Python's the life of Brian? Anyway). Protest the "power", don't go quietly into the night, at least that's my philosophy. But I like social studies too much I think anyway.

Xev,

We will, if our species survives long enough, and if our knowledge of science increases. If religious belief continues to fade.

Science only served mainly to create confusion, violence and disorder in the world, so far...


(Q),

If that isn't the height of arrogance...

The height of arrogance is to think that Science can answer all questions... :rolleyes:

I thought you prefered the dreamworld. Are you now changing your tune?

[SARCASTICALLY]It is for YOU to wake up from your beautiful world where Science make us hold our hands and sing together:
Kunbayaaaaaa...
Kunbayaaaaaaaaa...
Kunbayaaaaaa...
Kunbayaaaaaaaaaaaaa... :rolleyes:
[/SARCSTICALLY]

And you've drawn this conclusion how?

Now you show the height of your ignorance... :bugeye: :eek:

Amazing. You've not included yourself in society. I suppose you could have stopped this had you been given the chance?

I'm actually one of the few people that I know that believe in Love...

IRRITATE YOU ??? Tell that to the families of the victims you heartless bastard. I wish you could have said that to my face so I could punch in yours.

What irritates me is your complete ignorance for what's going on in the world...

You disgust me !

You don't disgust me...


wet1,

Rather than condem the world around you, which incidently created you, propose workable solutions.

It's what I've been trying to do...
But I see that we have a looooooong way ahead to work it out... :(


Cactus,

And why shouldn't our children see these horrible things? It's real, its the "truth", its what should be presented to them, its what we've been "seeking" (sorry, shamless pun).

It's not the Truth, it's only our Reality...
Our Reality we create... our Truth not...

Love,
Nelson

Science only served mainly to create confusion, violence and disorder in the world, so far... If you critically look at our history you'd see tht different religions are the ones to make humankind suffer. You have studied history, haven't you TS?The height of arrogance is to think that Science can answer all questions not all, but pretty much ... in time[SARCASTICALLY]It is for YOU to wake up from your beautiful world where Science make us hold our hands and sing together:
Kunbayaaaaaa...
Kunbayaaaaaaaaa...
Kunbayaaaaaa...
Kunbayaaaaaaaaaaaaa...
[/SARCSTICALLY]
Kunbayaaaaaa...Kunbayaaaaaaaaa...
Kunbayaaaaaa...
Kunbayaaaaaaaaaaaaa... :p
I'm actually one of the few people that I know that believe in Love... and what it gives to you-> it only brainwashes your brainWhat irritates me is your complete ignorance for what's going on in the world... you are completely ignorant to the real world, you live in your utopic unconditional love reality and don't see what is real and apply's to the human nature and what not It's not the Truth, it's only our Reality... again playing with word definitions, TS???? WEBSTER-> REALITY-> (2) : the totality of real things and events
TRUTH->3 a : the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality ..........

........

TS,

I have to say it, if you have trouble breaking out of that cult, ring up your local federal office and ask for help. (They might try taping some wires to you first before they help, but thats their job)

Seriously, You could stand there outputting how much you LOVE the world, but the love has less mass than light. As well the shear fact how do you define LOVE? isn't your over zealoused use of the word, undermining it's true definitive meaning?

If you want to save the planet from itself, then your going to have to get a better campaign trail than "LOVE". (It was tried in the 60's and failed)

If you want to help people, then travel to a country and work helping rebuild where destruction has reigned terror. (Just don't preach.) Or better still go help out some people on an Indian reservation, you might even get some name for yourself ;)

Avatar,

If you critically look at our history you'd see tht different religions are the ones to make humankind suffer. You have studied history, haven't you TS?

I saw the exact opposite...

and what it gives to you-> it only brainwashes your brain
No... it gives Trust in myself... it gives me peace in mind and Heart.... and a bunch of other things...

you are completely ignorant to the real world, you live in your utopic unconditional love reality and don't see what is real and apply's to the human nature and what not

"Human nature" is to be sleeping in this nightmare where almost everyone is completly ignorant about Love...


About Reality and Truth...
We create our Reality by our actions. For example, if you jump a bridge your reality is "dead".
But Truth never changes. For example, your computer will always look the same...


Stryderunknown,

If you want to save the planet from itself, then your going to have to get a better campaign trail than "LOVE". (It was tried in the 60's and failed)

Everyone knows why it failed... :rolleyes:

If you want to help people, then travel to a country and work helping rebuild where destruction has reigned terror. (Just don't preach.) Or better still go help out some people on an Indian reservation, you might even get some name for yourself
Good idea the indian one... :)

I would like to quote Brian Adams...

"There is little sense in attempting to change external conditions, you must first change inner beliefs, then outer conditions will change accordingly."

That's my true Philosophy. By changing people's view on Love, by making them believe in the power of Love, I change the world. But it's not an easy thing to do...

If I reconstruct something or do something like that I won't be able to do very much. Its when I show people that they can change the world by believing in Love that I truly change the world (at least I try...).

Love,
Nelson

I saw the exact opposite... are you ill, what books have you been reading.....have read BIBLE maybe or a book about crusades???No... it gives Trust in myself... it gives me peace in mind and Heart.... and a bunch of other things... an illusion of truth maybe"Human nature" is to be sleeping in this nightmare where almost everyone is completly ignorant about Love... nobody is, but you underestimate itBut Truth never changes. For example, your computer will always look the same... truth always changes-> I can paint my pc blue or I can come with a hammer and slightly change its form;)That's my true Philosophy. By changing people's view on Love, by making them believe in the power of Love, I change the world. But it's not an easy thing to do... you are making it the easy way for you......the way tht is actually impossible

TS,

Personal question: Were you ever bullied at school? And if so did it caues you any psychological trauma like making you not want to go, or getting you to ask to be taught at home or anything?

You don't have to answer but it would explain alot.

I can sort of understand where TS is coming from, if not the way he says it. I look at the world around me and think "What the hell are you morons doing?" every single day.

Xev,

Are you mental? Show me one war, ONE WAR fought over science.

No... I'll do better. I'll tell you how many people were killed in wars by weapons made by science...

15 bloodiest wars:
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/war-list.htm

30 worst attrocities:
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/atrox.htm

Mass murderes:
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/tyrants.htm

Have you seen any other war besides scientific ones so far...?

What was exactly Cold War...? :rolleyes:

Second World War Statistics:
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/ww2stats.htm

Weapons and Machines of the First World War:
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWweapons.htm

Weapons of the Second World War:
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWweapons.htm

Some more...
http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/cwc/other/stats/warcost.htm
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstats.htm
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWdeaths.htm

To finish...
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/war-1925.htm
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/war-1950.htm
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/war-1975.htm
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/war-2000.htm

Conclusion:
Science made weapons of mass destruction... what was I saying...?
We still have them and people all over the world is controlled by fear, because of them...

*sights...

Love,
Nelson

Adam,

I can sort of understand where TS is coming from, if not the way he says it. I look at the world around me and think "What the hell are you morons doing?" every single day.
Thanks for being much more aware then other Adam...
You give me courage :)

Love,
Nelson

Xev,

Are you really really sure Nelson doesn't have an intelligence problem? You must have a little bit of doubt just based on this thread. Surely naivete has a limit.

Stryderunknown,

The answer is no... but what exactly are you looking for?
If you want to know... yes... I have traumas... many actually... :(

Love,
Nelson

Cris,

Your post don't even deserve a reply...

Actually... why the heck I'm replying that... :D:D:D

Good Luck,
Nelson

No... I'll do better. I'll tell you how many people were killed in wars by weapons made by science...

That don't answer my question, now does it?

Technology gives us the tools. You thiests use them to kill each other. Not the fault of scientists!

You can use knowledge of nuclear physics to build a A bomb or to power a hospital. You thiests seem to like A bombs better. (Read: India and Pakistan)

I tell you what Nelson, why don't you go live for ONE DAY without the things science gives you!

Go ahead. I dare you.

Okay, TS that's fine. I was just wondering because it would of explained something about the content of your Character.

As for Science and WAR, let me explain it simply. WARS start without Science, but science can be misused to try and end the wars quickly.

For instance if it wasn't for science I'm sure there would have been far more casualties in the more recent conflicts around the world, and in the future their will be newer technologies that will make it seem more and more futile to actually use weapons of old.

For instance I'm sure you've heard of or seen the Matrix and how NEO stops bullets, well there is a question on how useful technology like that would be. I can't go into full details, but image a war is fought where all bullets fired miss people and just drop out of the sky, or bury themselves in the dirt.

(If you read this Kmguru, you'll understand, if not, I could tell you if you ask)

I know that the board users might have applied pressures upon you, but thats because you've dubbed so many problems on science when you've actually avoided who your really upset at. Namely (Q) .

Your mentioning of Science as the problem I think is only related to you being upset at (Q) for his statements, and your retaliation is aimed at him. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Colin Wilson has said smth like-> humans can be like children.. you tell them of count Dracula, mummy and dr Hyde and then tell them of Baldzen (concentration camp), holocausts and genocides and Hitler and repressions done by Stalin (the child now think's tht everything is worse thn it really is and tht the only thing to do is to do a suicide)....but those who are adults (in mind) can not be fooled tht way, because we know tht evil can be fought with and there's no ultimate evil....
I think someone is holding a hand before your eyes TS...you see the world like a child....

and weapons don't kill, kill the men who use them... I could kill someone with my bare hands with no help from science......theists kill for their beliefs....history is the best teacher

Avatar,

an illusion of truth maybe

Not really... it's what I feel... and of course it's not an illusion...

nobody is, but you underestimate it

I tell you what I see... And what I see is a bunch of completly ignorant people that don't know anything about Love all over the world. The message the media pass about love is a distorted and meaningless one. People are brainwashed by the media, that pass all those stupid messages about ove and about what's going on in the world. This love is gibberish. But True Love is Essencial.

truth always changes-> I can paint my pc blue or I can come with a hammer and slightly change its form

Ok then...:D
But a computer will always be a computer... ;)

you are making it the easy way for you......the way tht is actually impossible

Only with the dreamer believe so. As I'm the one who dreams for a better world and I believe in my dream, there's nothing in the world that can provide me to accomplish it (besides myself...). ;)


Xev,

Technology gives us the tools. You thiests use them to kill each other. Not the fault of scientists!

Ok... now you are saying that the Korean War, the Cold War, the Vietnam War, the First World War and The Second World War...
Were caused by theists... :rolleyes:

You can use knowledge of nuclear physics to build a A bomb or to power a hospital. You thiests seem to like A bombs better. (Read: India and Pakistan)

An exception...
The discrepancy between theists and atheists using normal weapons and weapons of mass destruction is HUGE...

I tell you what Nelson, why don't you go live for ONE DAY without the things science gives you!

I can... but how would I talk with you...? :D

Love,
Nelson

Stryderunknown,

You are right... :)
I don't totally disagree with Sicence. New technologies are even fun. What I'm concerned about is the enviromental and psychological issues about consumerism, pollution and life philosophies...


Avatar,

I think someone is holding a hand before your eyes TS...you see the world like a child....

No. I do the exact opposite. I go deep inside what's happening and how it affects people all over the world...

and weapons don't kill, kill the men who use them... I could kill someone with my bare hands with no help from science......theists kill for their beliefs....history is the best teacher
Theists and Atheists kills for power and money... history is the best teacher...

Love,
Nelson

and of course it's not an illusion... why OF COURSE?I tell you what I see... And what I see is a bunch of completly ignorant people that don't know anything about Love all over the world. The message the media pass about love is a distorted and meaningless one. People are brainwashed by the media, that pass all those stupid messages about ove and about what's going on in the world. This love is gibberish. But True Love is Essencial. I don' t watch CNN and you should not also......you believe what you are told... go and see the truth, and if you can help then help, not whine about the world and ignorant humansBut a computer will always be a computer... if I try hard I can make into a television. Only with the dreamer believe so. As I'm the one who dreams for a better world and I believe in my dream, there's nothing in the world that can provide me to accomplish it (besides myself...). you yourself said for people to wake up, now you want everyone to dream:confused: Ok... now you are saying that the Korean War, the Cold War, the Vietnam War, the First World War and The Second World War... by theists and old ideas (Hitler believed tht jewish have to be killed and tht is a part of medievil age beliefs(I won't explain the reason, it's long) and don't look only @ the last 100 years.....we have a more thn 8000 years of RECORDED historyThe discrepancy between theists and atheists using normal weapons and weapons of mass destruction is HUGE... there's no difference-> weapons are used to kill, in any convenient way you likeI tell you what Nelson, why don't you go live for ONE DAY without the things science gives you! I have lived tht way for two days.....no modern scieence- just me and nature and can tell you tht I felt great, but I was away form being able to change smthing-> I couldn't affect any happenings in the world-> I couldn't react to thm...

Theists and Atheists kills for power and money of course-> but if you put it tht way - science has nothing to do with it. the thing is in our nature.... are you a theist?

Truthseeker

How can you really believe that technology and science kill? From what you have said so far, is saying that you believe this? A gun has never killed anyone, a bomb has never killed anyone, a car has never killed anyone. If you haven’t guessed, its people that kill people. Wars are started by people not computers. A broad example of this is that the dinosaurs are no longer living, (far as I know) did they use science, I don’t believe they ever uncovered a t-rex with a laptop. Explain how a computer (which has come from science) can kill someone?

???

truthseeker,

Science only served mainly to create confusion, violence and disorder in the world, so far... Yes I agree. If science had not existed then sciforums, the internet, and computers would not exist. In which case those here who have read your posts would not now be in a state of mental breakdown trying to interpret your posts, and others here would not be fuming with anger with a strong desire to throttle you for causing such misery and confusion.

But of course without science it is very unlikely you would exist either since the average human lifespan before the stone age is considered to be around 20 years. That means that the billions of people that were able to survive through the creativity of defensive weapons, hunting techniques, better shelter, agriculture, hygiene, medicine, etc, would not have existed. The likelihood is that your ancestors would not have ever existed as a result.

Of course you might realize that just the recent development of antibiotics has saved millions of lives already.

Here is an article on what the world was like without antibiotics – you would not have liked to live in those times. Death through infectious diseases overwhelmingly outnumbered any deaths brought about through wars and violence.

http://www.who.int/infectious-disease-report/2000/ch1.htm

Even most sensible religionists accept the immense and incalculable value that science has made in reducing misery and suffering in the world. To ignore this value or to conclude the opposite indicates a significant level of ignorance and stupidity.

The height of arrogance is to think that Science can answer all questions... Fortunately most informed people fully understand that science has not answered all questions, and that some questions may never be answered by science.

Contrast that with a religion like Christianity that claims it does have all the answers. Who is the more arrogant in this case?

Or contrast that with yourself who claims that love is the answer to everything.

Should you really be trying to discuss arrogance, or accuse others, with your track record?

Cris

"Ok... now you are saying that the Korean War, the Cold War, the Vietnam War, the First World War and The Second World War...
Were caused by theists..."

Second World War - Well the atoricities against Jews were because religion could segregate people
First World War - Difference between Serbians/Germans caused the war...largely cultural and religious differences
Korean War - communism. which, in it's true nature, can easily be classified as a religion or cult-like religion. like a few of us have pointed out, communist and christian morals and basis are similar
vietnam - communism

So yes, yes we are saying that.

Avatar,

why OF COURSE?

Because it's my own experience... it's like looking to my watch and say: "This is a watch"... It's just REAL...

I don' t watch CNN and you should not also......you believe what you are told... go and see the truth, and if you can help then help, not whine about the world and ignorant humans
I can only change the world by changing people. YOu can easily wash a city with rain, but not very easy if you use a little bucket to do the job... :D

I don't believe what I'm told, I believe on what I've seen... and what I sense...

by theists and old ideas (Hitler believed tht jewish have to be killed and tht is a part of medievil age beliefs(I won't explain the reason, it's long) and don't look only @ the last 100 years.....we have a more thn 8000 years of RECORDED history
First, Hittler only used the Jew argument for an excuse to get money, as his country had lots of inflation that time (if you don't know, the Jews are usually rich... compared to normal people in Germany, even more...). This already prove what I said about people using theist arguments for their own profit...

Second, the different of the number of killed people in "Theist" Wars and Atheist Wars is HUGE... The Atheist Wars kiled by far much more people...

if I try hard I can make into a television.

I won't even comment that... :D:D:D
The idea you have of a computer will always be the same... ;)

I have lived tht way for two days.....no modern scieence- just me and nature and can tell you tht I felt great, but I was away form being able to change smthing-> I couldn't affect any happenings in the world-> I couldn't react to thm...

I did it for 5 days. The only days that beat those, as best days of my life, were the days when I had a girlfriend...

of course-> but if you put it tht way - science has nothing to do with it. the thing is in our nature.... are you a theist?
I don't consider myself neither a theist nor an atheist...

Love,
Nelson

First, Hittler only used the Jew argument for an excuse to get money, as his country had lots of inflation that time (if you don't know, the Jews are usually rich... compared to normal people in Germany, even more...). This already prove what I said about people using theist arguments for their own profit... and from where did Hitler get tht JEW argument in the first place..... there are no theists TS and no atheists-> there are only humans which think different

oggie,

Oh... ok... I agree with you...
But what I'm saying here is that the weapons that kills people were created buy science. But why science wants to create weapons? That's my question...


Cris,

Yes I agree. If science had not existed then sciforums, the internet, and computers would not exist. In which case those here who have read your posts would not now be in a state of mental breakdown trying to interpret your posts, and others here would not be fuming with anger with a strong desire to throttle you for causing such misery and confusion.

I can do nothing if it's so much hard for you to understand simple things...

What I'm talking about here is the way we use our knowledge...
We still use it usually in a bad way...

Fortunately most informed people fully understand that science has not answered all questions, and that some questions may never be answered by science.

Not what it seems... :rolleyes:

Contrast that with a religion like Christianity that claims it does have all the answers. Who is the more arrogant in this case?

And if they really have...? You never know... :D:D

Or contrast that with yourself who claims that love is the answer to everything.

Sorry for being wise... :D:D:D

Should you really be trying to discuss arrogance, or accuse others, with your track record?

I would see yours... if I had a telescope potent enough... :D:D:D:D

Love,
Nelson

But what I'm saying here is that the weapons that kills people were created buy science. But why science wants to create weapons? That's my question... can't you get it-> not science invent weapons but people do!

I would see yours... if I had a telescope potent enough..

I....I won't even make the comment. I won't even say a word.

Nelson, science dosen't have wants. And certainly not to create weapons.

Tyler,

Second World War - Well the atoricities against Jews were because religion could segregate people

As I said before... a perfect excuse... :rolleyes:

First World War - Difference between Serbians/Germans caused the war...largely cultural and religious differences
Do you really know what triggered the First World War? Do you know about the Alliances? Do you really know what are you talking about...?

Korean War - communism. which, in it's true nature, can easily be classified as a religion or cult-like religion. like a few of us have pointed out, communist and christian morals and basis are similar

Communism is not a Religion... everyone knows that. Even Communist leadears don't liked Religion... probably because Religions have lots of moral and ethic issues related to them...

vietnam - communism

The same above.

Another two words for you and other people:
Nationalism
Imperialism

Love,
Nelson

Do you really know what triggered the First World War? Do you know about the Alliances? Do you really know what are you talking about...?

Do you? You didn't even know about Anaxagoras....and the ego keeps going, and going, and going.....

Communism is not a Religion... everyone knows that. Even Communist leadears don't liked Religion... probably because Religions have lots of moral and ethic issues related to them...

Communism was practically a religion. Everybody who has studied the subject knows that.

Another two words for you and other people:
Nationalism
Imperialism

Again with religious overtones.

And, pray tell what they have to do with our discussion?

avatar has it right, truthseeker do you not see that scinece itself does not kill, science itself does not want to make weapons, its people that want to make these weapons to kill, PEOPLE not scenice!

Xev,

Nelson, read my posts. Where the fuck did I say that?
I didn't say you said it... I said you mean it...

You said:
Technology gives us the tools. You thiests use them to kill each other. Not the fault of scientists!


You're right! Athiests have never used weapons of mass destruction! Thanks Nelson!

I didn't said that...
Besides... what about Hiroshima and Nagazaqui...

What the fuck are you talking about? There have been no wars about athiesm.

Really? And the Cold War? It was a war about political ideologies. It wasn't in the name of atheism but was caused by atheists.

Love,
Nelson

Avatar,

and from where did Hitler get tht JEW argument in the first place..... there are no theists TS and no atheists-> there are only humans which think different

Yes... but we are talking about two determined gropus of people that have opposing perpesctives of the reality... ;)

Love,
Nelson

oggie,

avatar has it right, truthseeker do you not see that scinece itself does not kill, science itself does not want to make weapons, its people that want to make these weapons to kill, PEOPLE not scenice!

Yes... but why do people want to make them? Why do people use science against ourselves...? That's my point...

Love,
Nelson

Really? And the Cold War? It was a war about political ideologies. It wasn't in the name of atheism but was caused by atheists so we are now going to devide wars of who started it....it doesn't matter it's the wars tht matter and if you look to the proportions then your so callled atheist wars are only some 5%......it doesn't matter TS who caused the war!Yes... but why do people want to make them? Why do people use science against ourselves...? That's my point... faster, cleaner, cheaper Yes... but we are talking about two determined gropus of people that have opposing perpesctives of the reality reality is relative

THIS IS MY POST ONE THOUSAND bring in the drinks and weapons:D and some i-net terminals.....I'm up to a party....

truthseeker,

And if they really have...? You never know That is the point you idiot. No one knows. So the claim to know is arrogant.

Sorry for being wise..You aren’t and everyone here knows that except you. But the topic was arrogance and you have just demonstrated your own incredible arrogance by claiming wisdom for yourself.

I would see yours... if I had a telescope potent enough...Your sense of logic is quite weird. Your analogy implies that my arrogance is so miniscule that you would need a massive telescope to find it. Did you mean to compliment me?

Cris

Avatar,

can't you get it-> not science invent weapons but people do!

...As I said before... that's my point... our use of Science...


Xev,

Do you? You didn't even know about Anaxagoras....and the ego keeps going, and going, and going.....

We learn this is Social Studies 11... ;)
... I didn't even know about Ephime... Eptha... well... the name of the guy began with an "E"... I remember that... :D
Those Greek names... :p

Communism was practically a religion. Everybody who has studied the subject knows that.

Other thing we learn in Social Studies 11...
Communism is an ideology. It's totalitarian. It has nothing to do with Religion. The ideal Communism was to seek a better distribution of wealth than Capitalism, by giving the power of the employee to manage the industries, for example (simplifying...).
NO Religion...

Unless you say that Capitalism is also almost a "Religion" or that "Religion" is evil, the Capitalism will save the day and the Capitalism is sweet and good... :D

[All capitalists, atheists and skeptics holding hands and singing]
Kunbayaaaaaa....
Kunbayaaaaa...
Kunbayaaaaaa....
Kunbayaaaaaaaaaaaaa...
[/All capitalists, atheists and skeptics holding hands and singing]

:D:D:D:D

Again with religious overtones

NOTHING to do with Religion!!!
Imperialism seek power over everyone!!!!!
Nationalism is the prejudice that caused mots wars!!!!!!!

And, pray tell what they have to do with our discussion?
They are the main causes of war... :bugeye: :eek:

Love,
Nelson

Avatar,

Congrats on your 1000.

Well done
Cris

You were saying that science was the cause, that is was what I was arguing about. And as I have said it’s the people not the science.

...As I said before... that's my point... our use of Science... if u think tht Bush and Putin and all the rest of the gang will now destroy their nuclear weapons and will redirect to construction of stone axes then you are stupid....

answer always is-> faster, cleaner, cheaper -----in every warfare or whatever actions taken by our governments.



THANX CRIS-> now on to the next 1000:)

truthseeker,

...As I said before... that's my point... our use of Science...
No. Your point is that science causes wars and violence.

Read your own posts.

Science only served mainly to create confusion, violence and disorder in the world, so far...

You specifically imply that without science we would be better off. Now you are saying that people are the problem.

I suggest you start again. What do you mean? Does science cause problems or is it the people who use science that cause problems? If the latter, then science is blameless, do you agree?

Cris

Avatar,

so we are now going to devide wars of who started it....it doesn't matter it's the wars tht matter and if you look to the proportions then your so callled atheist wars are only some 5%......it doesn't matter TS who caused the war!

It's not what it seems...
You and many others are talking about wars like crusades and so on... now you say that it doesn't matter... what are you trying to say...?? :confused:

faster, cleaner, cheaper

Ummmm... :confused: :bugeye: :eek:


Cris,

That is the point you idiot. No one knows. So the claim to know is arrogant.

Does Religion only claim to know or it REALLY knows...?
... :D

You aren’t and everyone here knows that except you. But the topic was arrogance and you have just demonstrated your own incredible arrogance by claiming wisdom for yourself.
I was being sarcastic, you dummy... :D:D

Your sense of logic is quite weird. Your analogy implies that my arrogance is so miniscule that you would need a massive telescope to find it. Did you mean to compliment me?

No. I meant that it begins here and finishes somewhere in a galaxy far far away... :D:D:D

No. Your point is that science causes wars and violence.
No. It causes slavery by consumerism, violence by competition, ignorance by arrogance,... a loooooong list...

You specifically imply that without science we would be better off. Now you are saying that people are the problem.
No you got to the point. Science is good, but the consumerism that it causes slaves people in this materialistic nonsense world...

Does science cause problems or is it the people who use science that cause problems? If the latter, then science is blameless, do you agree?

Yes, I agree. But better start to use it in a better way...


Avatar,

if u think tht Bush and Putin and all the rest of the gang will now destroy their nuclear weapons and will redirect to construction of stone axes then you are stupid....

No... I don't want even stone axes...

Love,
Nelson

im starting to think that truthseeker has changed minds from hating sceince to belive that science is a good thing. does anyone else notice this?

You and many others are talking about wars like crusades and so on... now you say that it doesn't matter... what are you trying to say I said tht only war and their consequences matter, not the poeple who started them , theists or no theistsUmmmm... faster to end with the war , cleaner - not to make a mess and leave yourself an infrastructure, cheaper- I wouldn' tneed to explain thtDoes Religion only claim to know or it REALLY knows...? it CLAIMS---IT HAS NO FUCKING EVIDENCE , don't you getI was being sarcastic, you dummy I wouldn't call Cris a dummy in no wayNo. It causes slavery by consumerism, violence by competition, ignorance by arrogance,... a loooooong list it is people not science is it so hard to understand?No... I don't want even stone axes... nobody will ask you for a advice anyway and of course I would like to live in a world with no nuclear weapons , but I see the reality and see tht they can't be taken back.........and everything can be used as a weapon, even our bodyes

oggie,

im starting to think that truthseeker has changed minds from hating sceince to belive that science is a good thing. does anyone else notice this?

I will clarify this. There's no reason why I would I hate Science at all. I never did. For example, I love computer games... :)
What I'm saying is that any excess caused by Science or any distorted use is bad.

When we began with Science we didn't have implications for it at all (only ancient clocks and such thing...). But as we developed it, we started to invent things. But now, there are three kinds of inventions that annoys me:


Consumerists
Anti-Environmental
Weapons


Consumerists inventions are those meaningless inventions that you can see in those TV channels specialized in selling products. They are usually completly meaningless and just get more garbage to the world (you can see critics about it in "The Simpsons")...

Anti-Environmental inventions are those that pollutes the ambient. Cars for example (at least the old ones...). Some can be at the same time Consumerists and Anti-Environmental...

Weapons inventions are those that harm humans.

I guess you got now... ;)

Love,
Nelson

medicine
space technology
genetically enchanted food


and i could continue and continue.... there is no bad. there is no good... it's only the question of ow you use it

TruthSeeker,
Or should I dub thee AttentionSeeker.

Have you inherited TONY1's WITT and CHARM by the way. I thought he had gone missing suddenly. (Perhaps someone put him back in his box, and pushed him under their bed or into a cupboard.)

Anyway, I'm posting because you've taken a stance towards people thats just rubbing them up the wrong way and as you can probably tell by another thread you are the centre of attention to work out wether your truly a scrambled kiddie, or a kiddie trying to scramble others.

You wanted your own little shrine on the board, well I'll tell you now if you want a shrine, make a website. You can even put your ideas together there and people can search them on google. (Well wade through them, and past them if need be)

Perhaps you should stop watching GODtv, and watch something a bit more interesting like.... GARDENING, or.... Erm.. .NEEDLECRAFT.... SHOPPING NETWORK.... I remember a German channel had a LOG ON A FIRE.

Anything but anything to do with religion, just for a while. Just so you can STAND BACK From the PICTURE to take it all in, rather than being stuck too close and only seeing some details.

Avatar,

I said tht only war and their consequences matter, not the poeple who started them , theists or no theists

I was talking about others...

faster to end with the war , cleaner - not to make a mess and leave yourself an infrastructure, cheaper- I wouldn' tneed to explain tht

Why do they start in the first place?
And how many civilian lifes are lost?
And how cheap it usually is (US with Afghanistan spending millions per day...:rolleyes: )

it CLAIMS---IT HAS NO FUCKING EVIDENCE , don't you get
It actually tells us how to seek evidence inside ourselves...

I wouldn't call Cris a dummy in no way

I was just teasing him... :D

it is people not science is it so hard to understand?
Didn't I said exactly the same thing...?:bugeye: :bugeye:

Well I'm sure Cris is happy that you think he has a large 'telescope'. Now can we get back to the subject? And maybe we could refrain from insulting people?

I would be pleased if you would tell this to him...

Totalitarian ideologys quickly become religious.

Ok...:rolleyes: So what's capitalism...?

And sit down, quiet your ego, accept that you DON'T know everything and learn.

I would be pleased if some people here would do that...

No, I think we'll throw a massive pot orgie instead.
Yeah... I should have guessed that...

It has HUGE religious overtones!

No comments... They've seek power, not religious beliefs... everyone knows that...

How in the holy fucking hell do you know what I mean? Are you psychic now, too?

As long as I know, I'm not psychic...

Now, what does athiesm have to do with this?

Weren't atheists who did it...?

Truman was an athiest? Stalin was? Eisenhower was? Kruschev was an athiest too? Breznev? Where the fuck did you read that?!

I meant NO RELIGIOUS CAUSES...


Stryderunknown,

Anyway, I'm posting because you've taken a stance towards people thats just rubbing them up the wrong way and as you can probably tell by another thread you are the centre of attention to work out wether your truly a scrambled kiddie, or a kiddie trying to scramble others.

Nahhhh... I'm just a simple loving kiddie... and that's all... :)

You wanted your own little shrine on the board, well I'll tell you now if you want a shrine, make a website. You can even put your ideas together there and people can search them on google. (Well wade through them, and past them if need be)
I never asked for that... even though people did it anyways...

Anything but anything to do with religion, just for a while. Just so you can STAND BACK From the PICTURE to take it all in, rather than being stuck too close and only seeing some details.

I don't read my Bible for a long time... I should read it more often... :D


Happy 1000th post Avatar! :)

Love,
Nelson

Seeker,It actually tells us how to seek evidence inside ourselves... how do you intend to distinguish truth from your own imagination?it is people not science is it so hard to understand?it is people not science is it so hard to understand?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Didn't I said exactly the same thing...? there are a lot of people really confused with you....you have stated many different angles of oppinions....but I recall you blaming science
Weren't atheists who did it...? there's no difference - theists or atheists---the difference is in the mind of particular people.... we have pope of rome (a peacful guy-my father has met him and says all the best of him) and then we have Bin Ladin---also a religious guy-> but he likes to kill americans...and both of them claim they have found their truth.

thnx for congrats:)- I'm startin to fell like having a birthday:D:D

"First, Hittler only used the Jew argument for an excuse to get money, as his country had lots of inflation that time (if you don't know, the Jews are usually rich... compared to normal people in Germany, even more...). This already prove what I said about people using theist arguments for their own profit...

Second, the different of the number of killed people in "Theist" Wars and Atheist Wars is HUGE... The Atheist Wars kiled by far much more people..."

You're so dumb it's unbelievable. I'm actually not able to comprehend a human as dumb as you. The whole concept is beyond me.

Hitler only wanted money? I don't even know if I can jsutify that with an answer. Hitler hated Jews. If there was no religion, there would be no way to classify the people based on religion....right? So eliminate religion and what do you get?

Theist wars span about 7800 years longer.



"But what I'm saying here is that the weapons that kills people were created buy science. But why science wants to create weapons? That's my question..."

Science doesn't want to, people want to. Usually religious people. Such as those in control of the U.S. at the time (and today) and, I will get to this later, communists.



"As I said before... a perfect excuse..."

Beyond dumb.



"Do you really know what triggered the First World War? Do you know about the Alliances? Do you really know what are you talking about...?"

The Alliances were why??? Because the Serbians wanted seperation an individual state. The Serbians did not want to be considered part of the nation of Austro-Hungary. They were considered different peoples. Hence, the segregation of peoples by religion and culture created the original fued.



"Communism is not a Religion... everyone knows that. Even Communist leadears don't liked Religion... probably because Religions have lots of moral and ethic issues related to them..."

If you had anything more than your cheap high-school education worth of knowledge on communism or any kind of intelligent insight, you would realize that communism and religion are very similar. Complete devotion is necessary. Unquestionable doctrine. A complete love for the originator. You are not allowed to question the possibility of truth (questioning the truth of Jesus is quite un-Christian, no?). The ethical basis is unchanging....

List goes on.




"Nationalism
Imperialism"

Woh boy. The ego goes on....and on.....and on.....

thinking we dont know those words? you must be a highschooler.



"I didn't said that...
Besides... what about Hiroshima and Nagazaqui..."

American leaders were Christian. And believed in God.




"Really? And the Cold War? It was a war about political ideologies. It wasn't in the name of atheism but was caused by atheists."

It was in the name of communism. Which every half-intelligent individual knows is the same as a religion.




"Yes... but we are talking about two determined gropus of people that have opposing perpesctives of the reality... "

And the stupidity goes on.....and on......and on........

Jews didn't actually do anything to be attacked. They existed. That was the problem. They existed inside Germany. Which many Germans felt was a country that should be reserved for Germans. And like I asked before; if there was no religion, could Hitler have segregated these people?



"Yes... but why do people want to make them? Why do people use science against ourselves...? That's my point..."

Usually in the name of their religion or political belief.



"Communism is an ideology. It's totalitarian. It has nothing to do with Religion. The ideal Communism was to seek a better distribution of wealth than Capitalism, by giving the power of the employee to manage the industries, for example (simplifying...).
NO Religion..."

Like I said, a high schoolers, believe-whatever-your-teachers-say, view. This from someone apparently infinitely wise man who never listens to the media......



"Does Religion only claim to know or it REALLY knows...?"

So dumb....



"No you got to the point. Science is good, but the consumerism that it causes slaves people in this materialistic nonsense world..."

Your original post in no way implied this.




"It actually tells us how to seek evidence inside ourselves..."

My only regret is that you won't know how wrong you are when you die. Because you won't be thinking.



" So what's capitalism...?"

Not totalitarianism you fucking moron.




"No comments... They've seek power, not religious beliefs... everyone knows that.."

Everyone except for all of us here who are deeply into philosophy and politics? All of us here who have read many a book about the topics? Including me who did a U of T accepted paper on communism versus fascism in america? Fucking moron.



Congragulations avatar.

World War One
The national/cultural boundaries in Yugoslavia were all screwed up, and the Austrian presence was basically the top of the heap. The Black Hand set about an assasination plot. The Archduke used the situation to knock off little Franz and his wife (who was ont at all liked by the Archduke). The Yugoslavian situation was basically an excuse for the Archduke to start turning Europe upside-down to set things the way he wanted.
http://www.ku.edu/~kansite/ww_one/comment/blk-hand.html

World War Two
The German dislike of Jews goes back at least as far as the First Crusade. In those days, when the call went out to join in the Crusade, the Germans thought "Hang on, why the hell should we go all the way over there to Jerusalem to kill non-christians, when we can do it right here?" So they did. After all, they had official church pardon for killing non-christians. Add to that the terrible state Germany was in following WW1, and Hitler's amazing powers to influence mobs, and Hitler's own belief in German superiority...

Korea and Vietnam
Exercises in US foreign policy. Since the end of WW2, the USA had been on a global campaign to stay at the top, against the most potent threat the USSR. This campaign involved three main attacks:
1) Belief. Flooding the world with pro-USA TV, radio, films, books, et cetera, which also happened to help with...
2) Economics. Beat the ruskies by having the more powerful economy, by forcing an arms race which, through proper economic management, the USSR could not possibly win. A race which would deliberately drain the USSR to the point fo collapse.
3) Military efforts to curb USSR interests, and to place a physical and economic wall around the USSR as was done with NATO.

The Korea and Vietnam conflicts were nothing more that that.

Now on to other matters...

People killed people long before the scientific method existed. People killed people before spears were invented. Lions kill, tigers kill, bears kill. Trees kill, by growing up faster than their neighbours and taking all the available sunlight and soil nutrients. It can not reasonably be said that science (ie. our efforts to understand the universe) is responsible for all that killing. Nor can it be said that religion is responsible for all that killing; nor politics, money, or television. As pointed out above, however, religion, politics, money, and even television, have all played parts in the instigation and waging of wars. Science has, as far as I know, never been in any way responsible for starting a war, but has been used in wars as a weapon.

Originally posted by Tyler

It was in the name of communism. Which every half-intelligent individual knows is the same as a religion.

Not even close. Unless you want to be vague enough to say that capitalism, socialism, and every other -ism is also nigh unto religion. Communism is about ownership and control of state assets. It is not even slightly about spiritual belief systems. Ca it inspire the mob enthusiasm we see in religion? Yes. So can any other -ism. So can football, car racing, or a stripper.

"Not even close. Unless you want to be vague enough to say that capitalism, socialism, and every other -ism is also nigh unto religion. Communism is about ownership and control of state assets. It is not even slightly about spiritual belief systems. Ca it inspire the mob enthusiasm we see in religion? Yes. So can any other -ism. So can football, car racing, or a stripper"

Nay, communism is far different than capitalism in this regard. Communism is about complete release of the individual for the good of the whole with an unquestionable love and faith towards the leader. The party is not to be overthrown and is always in the best interest in the people.

Capitalism is suppose to be about freedoms. Would you say Christianity is all about freedoms?

Communism is not about release of the individual. Nor is capitalism about individual freedom. Communism refers to a state syste in which the state assets are owned and controlled by the people. Meaning the people get a say in it. I would point to the Kalahari bushmen as an example. A communist state does not preclude the possiblity of a capitalist economy. Capitalism refers to the economic system of gaining interest on investments. A communist state is capable of making investments with the understanding of reciecing repayment plus interest. Individuals within a communist state are capable of receiving repayment plus interest.

In fact, democracy would work best of all in a communist state, in my opinion, far better than in today's representative democracies. And today we almost have the technology to make such a thing viable. The public owns the state assets, such as power generation, water supplies, public works departments, et cetera; and the public votes on the decisions/actions of those assets. Perhaps secure internet connections will some day make this feasible. If any major move of public assets was voted on by the people in this manner, it would be far more democratic than today's representative democracies. And it in no way threatens private business or investment.


Communism is about complete release of the individual for the good of the whole with an unquestionable love and faith towards the leader. The party is not to be overthrown and is always in the best interest in the people.

What you are talking about there is McCarthy's bollocks propaganda version of Evil Rusky Commies.

Im probably going over old teritory (sorry only just found thread)

Xev i can name one act of the top of my head with no pupose but to show off Science

Horosima and Negisaky the most people killed in an instant (and years later)

the gulf war was fort to get oil for technology and science tecnicaly (pun intended)

your aguments sound alot like an argument that went around with the gun lobby

"guns don't kill people, people kill people"

well first off no religion ever got up and killed someone (don't think anyones died by falling bibles) PEOPLE did it using religion in a similar way to the way they use science

they twist them to fit the purpose

(think i will leave it like that and see what you say first)

"Communism is not about release of the individual. Nor is capitalism about individual freedom. Communism refers to a state syste in which the state assets are owned and controlled by the people. Meaning the people get a say in it. I would point to the Kalahari bushmen as an example. A communist state does not preclude the possiblity of a capitalist economy. Capitalism refers to the economic system of gaining interest on investments"

1) Communism is not about the release of the individual, agreed. Communism in practice, however, means the release of the individual. The elimination of class, the elimination of political and social opinion... To me that is the elimination of the individual to the same point as Christianity encourages it.

2) Communism does not just refer to a state system in which the state assets are owned and controlled by the people. That's more a definition of modern Socialist states. Communism, if you want to say it's 'about' anything, is about the elimination of class and the equality of people.

3) "A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people." How can capitalism, a system which allows great variance in economic class, fit this?



"What you are talking about there is McCarthy's bollocks propaganda version of Evil Rusky Commies."

Nope, it's what ended up happening in the CCCP. I'm not a McCarthyist in any way (hilariously enough, that paper I talked about dealt largely with mccarthyism). And I HIGHLY doubt McCarthy would have called the Soviets 'always in the best interest of the people', now would he? And yes, people were encouraged to have unquestionable love for the leader. Read the anthem lyrics (the later ones, party of Stalin version).

Oh, and nelson......

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/REFORM/WARS.HTM

Tyler


Communism in practice, however, means the release of the individual. The elimination of class, the elimination of political and social opinion...

It seems to me you are actually referring to socialism: rule by the state for the people. Whereas communism is by the people for the people. This is a very common misconception, especially in North Americans I have met. Often people use both the USSR and 1984 as examples, whic is odd since both were clearly socialist rather than communist (not the "S" in USSR, and "Ingsoc" in 1984).


That's more a definition of modern Socialist states. Communism, if you want to say it's 'about' anything, is about the elimination of class and the equality of people.

Cummunism makes no reference to classes among the public. That is an assumption and interpretation people have been applying to it for a long time but which is not intrinsic in the communist system. Communism means only that state assets are controlled by the people. Socialism means state assets are controlled by the state. Fascism means the Party line is the only philosophy that can be allowed to exist (I would refer you to Mussolini's article on the subject, if you can find a copy) and therefore the sate supercedes the importance of the individual.


"A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people." How can capitalism, a system which allows great variance in economic class, fit this?

That is socialism with a little fascism mixed in. As previusly explained, there is no inherent mutual exclusion of communism and capitalism. A communist state has the control of public assets in the hands of the people. This does not preclude a free, capitalist private economy, with all its classes and such.


And I HIGHLY doubt McCarthy would have called the Soviets 'always in the best interest of the people', now would he? And yes, people were encouraged to have unquestionable love for the leader. Read the anthem lyrics (the later ones, party of Stalin version).

Again, you are referring to a socialist state.

Xev


Look at the worship of Stalin, Lenin and the Party present in Soviet art. Huge religious overtones!

A socalist/fascist state, not communist.

Tyler,

You are comparing those little wars with the others I cited...? :bugeye:

Besides that, all that the Portuguese and Spanish guys wanted was money and power. Everyone knows that...


Xev,

Your use of emoticon seems to indicate some disagreement. Do you dispute my contention?

I was comparing capitalism with totalitarism, as capitalism uses the TV to pass the message... usually hidden though... but the message is there...

Then how do you know my motivations?

I don't even remember what happened to you to bring this up... I probably read what you wrote and interpreted it psychologically...

Hitler was a Christian, although there is some dispute, Hirohito, as far as I know, believed in a form of Buddhism - the name of which escapes me - but in any case a religion. Chamberlain was a Christian.

Those Religions you cite are based on Love. If they used them as an excuse to get power (what is most likely) it answers your question. If they went to the war just because of their Religions, this just show how they were ignorant about their Religions...

Besides that, I did a Psychological Analisis of Hittler. I studied all his life. He attacked the Jews for two reasons:
- they were rich and he needed money
- when he was living in Vienna, he listened a bunch of people saying things against the Jews

Another reason for the war is that he waanted to unify all German speaking countries... he went further though...

Or who actually bombed the cities? Hell if I know.
It was an american... and he suicided after seeing what he has done. He couldn't stand it. He didn't wanted to bomb Nagazaqui, and he wouldn't (after see what he did with Hiroshima... he didn't know the power of the bombs...). He saw that he was being followed by other american planes which oblied him to drop the other bomb. He suicided after.

As you can see... I study it deeply so that I can see the underlying story, the hidden one... ;)

Besides that, everyone nows that the war was already finished and that the US didn't need to drop those bombs... the US tested them in innocent people... :(

You said:You said:

Really? And the Cold War? It was a war about political ideologies. It wasn't in the name of atheism but was caused by atheists.


Yes... I said that... and?
Are those things Religious causes...?

Love,
Nelson

Ah Adam. We've been argueing on different levels. Contrary to what I usually do (becuase usually I'm argueing with anti-commies on the topic), I've been looking at large examples of attempted communism. You've been looking at the theory, I believe.

And yes, my mistake, 'communism' is just an economic structure in which the state...

Then, allow me to ask, would you agree with what I've said in regard to socialism?

By the way - bring back that last pic, it was very cool.

Yes, as you know, I am somewhat an idealist. If I say "communism" I tend to mean what communism should be, rather than the screwed up attemps we dumb-arse humans have made.

And yes, I would agree that socialism in most models would most likely involve fascism and the things you mentioned previously.

http://users.erols.com/goodmank/nagasaki.jpg

Besides that, everyone nows that the war was already
finished and that the US didn't need to drop those bombs... the
US tested them in innocent people

Sorry, I can not agree with this statement.

Below is the first part of a site on this subject. It goes further to suggest two other reasons. The other reasons are spectulative in nature but I will provide the link anyway. As a side note this is a term paper for a high school student but I think it captures the picture accurately as far as the below quote goes,,,

In early August 1945 atomic bombs were dropped on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. These two bombs quickly yielded the surrender of Japan and the end of American involvement in World War II. By 1946 the two bombs caused the death of perhaps as many as 240,000 Japanese citizens(1). The popular, or traditional, view that dominated the 1950s and 60s--put forth by President Harry Truman and Secretary of War Henry Stimson-- was that the dropping of the atomic bombs was a solely military action that avoided the loss of as many as a million lives in the upcoming invasion of the island of Kyushu.

For the rest of this article:*here* (http://users.erols.com/goodmank/)

Adamski: I used to be a socialist, but then I read Marx and formed a hatred of anything associated with him. :D

Kidding.

Socialism might involve fascism, depending on how socialist you wish to be. For instance, I can see a Keynsian capitalist (I am one) society gradually becoming more and more socialistic without being fascist.

Nelson, I will soon be permenatly ignoring you, but i have to say one thing....


"Besides that, I did a Psychological Analisis of Hittler. I studied all his life. He attacked the Jews for two reasons:
- they were rich and he needed money
- when he was living in Vienna, he listened a bunch of people saying things against the Jews"

Hitler (note: no second t, learn to spell) did not hate Jews because they had money, solely. This is one of many reasons. And it was because the Jews were getting more high-paying jobs than Germans. Not just becuase htey 'had money'.

Second, when he was in Vienna he lived on the streets and heard every view under the sun. He didn't actually become fascist until he went to that first Nazi meeting. The reason he hated the Jews was because he believed German nations should be reserved for Germans. He also saw a huge link between Jews and Communists.

Now, I leave you to your ignorance.

Oh, and thanks for bringing back the pic!

Nelson: I will say a few last things:

I was comparing capitalism with totalitarism, as capitalism uses the TV to pass the message... usually hidden though... but the message is there...

Capitalism is an economic system. It does not consciously pass any message.

It was an american... and he suicided after seeing what he has done. He couldn't stand it. He didn't wanted to bomb Nagazaqui, and he wouldn't (after see what he did with Hiroshima... he didn't know the power of the bombs...). He saw that he was being followed by other american planes which oblied him to drop the other bomb. He suicided after.

As you can see... I study it deeply so that I can see the underlying story, the hidden one...

Besides that, everyone nows that the war was already finished and that the US didn't need to drop those bombs... the US tested them in innocent people...

Firstoff, you need to learn to cite sources that back your story up.

Second, you need to grow out of your pathological hatred of the U.S.

Third, you need to read some history.

The U.S was facing two possibilities:
Invade Japan
Drop the A-bombs.

An invasion of Japan would have been very difficult, as invasions are. The Japanese were prepared to fight, and many American troops would have been killed, as well as many Japanese, I should add.

The bombs had been tested in the Nevada desert. There was no reason to test them on Hiroshima or Nagasaki. There is no evidence that Truman ordered the bombing out of idle curiousity.

Now, in spite of your slurs against my country, you have yet to relate them to athiesm.

Yes... I said that... and?

And you were wrong. Learn to get over your ego and admit that you can be wrong. This discussion is over.

Xev:
You are wrong
read the "horosima was a terriost act" in word politic
its by goofy

There was no need to drop ONE bomb (because they were going to surender)

even if there WAS why TWO, one was MORE than enough

Both the UK PM and the US presidant should have been up on war crimes charges over that

Sorry that was off the topic
come to that thread and we will debate it xev

Asguard:
There were three bombs. One was dropped. The Japanese were given a few days to surrender. They did not. The second was dropped. The Japanese surrendered, but only just. There were attempts made by certain hardline elements of the Japanese military to stop the surrender.

I've read the thread. If you can't debate me, don't slur my country. However prevalent America bashing may be in your area, you don't get to fire false pot shots at my country with me around. I don't care how much you hate us, you can back your statements up or you can deal with me. In this thread. No scurrying away. No hiding.

I note that you have yet to retract your statement about the Gulf War....

Why would i retract it

its true

if there was no oil then there would have been no war

Kuwait was just the exsuse they used

And why am i US bashing

I said that the UK PM should go up to

I don't hate you i just don't think you should go around ordering the world to suite your selves

BUT the bombing of inocent civillans was against the geniva convention and that is why they should have been charged with war crimes

I don't hate you country but nor do i think everything you do is good

There would not have been a war had Iraq not invaded Kuwait. The US would probably not have gotten involved Kuwait did not have oil, but the fact remains that Iraq invaded.

Now, as for why they were chosen:

Although there was a military base in Hiroshima, this had little to do with targeting instructions. There was no significant military base at Nagasaki.

source (http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/122/hiro/target.htm)

On August 9, 1945, the American B-29 bomber, Bock's Car left Tinian carrying Fat Man, a plutonium implosion-type bomb. The primary target was the Kokura Arsenal, but upon reaching the target, they found that it was covered by a heavy ground haze and smoke, pilot Charles Sweeney turned to the secondary target of the Mitsubishi Torpedo Plant at Nagasaki.

source (http://www.atomicarchive.com/Photos/Photo11.shtml)

There are those who claim that Hiroshima was chosen because it was relativly free from previous bombings, thus being a good place to test the A-bomb's effects. I will not pass judgement on the validity of such claims now, only remark that this is a far cry from bombing simply to see what happened.

We had legitamate reasons to use the A-bomb, and we did. You would be better off attacking us on the fire-bombing of Dresden. ;)

Oh yes, and while I'm at it, a debunk of Nelson's claims re: the pilot who dropped the A-bomb on Nagasaki, Charles Sweeny.

1: Charles Sweeny was not an athiest, but a devout Catholic.
2: Charles Sweeny did not commit suicide, but is alive today.
3: Charles Sweeny did not regret the bombing. He wrote a book about it, justifying it.
4: Charles Sweeny was not forced to bomb anything.
http://hallbiographies.com/royalty/122.shtml

In breaking a silence of 50 years, Sweeney provides evidence that supports Truman's decision: the millions of Asians killed or enslaved by the Japanese military's conquest in places such an Nanking; the appalling losses by American forces in amphibious landings and battles at Saipan, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa; the introduction of horrifying suicide attacks on American forces; the unwillingness of the Japanese military to abandon the fight even as incendiary bombs leveled its cities and killed thousands; and the Japanese military's commitment to execute all Allied prisoners at the start of an Allied invasion. He blames Japan's warlords for not heeding Truman's warnings, instead letting their people remain in Hiroshima and Nagasaki—and die. Clearly, he experienced war in the Pacific firsthand, and he bristles at the revisionists who would distort America's motives, its role in the war, and the recalcitrance of the Japanese military.

Sweeney's work is of particular value because it places the reader in the boots of a young man faced with a great moral decision from which he never shied away from nor, in retrospect, felt remorse. He provides an eyewitness account of the momentous events that would forever change the human experience.

http://sandysq.gcinet.net/uss_salt_lake_city_ca25/sweeney.htm

So Nelson, you athiest who committed suicide out of regret turns out to be a devout Catholic who defends his country's action to this day.

Now, the pilot of the Enola Gay, which dropped Little Man on Hiroshima, is Paul Tibbets. He is not an athiest, is alive and kicking, and does not seem to regret his actions. Nor was he forced to drop the bomb.

Press conference: humanitarian award for Enola Gay pilot (Thu. 9/23/98)
Sun Tzu's Newswire (STN 98046)
by Richard Rongstad
Monday September 21, 1998 2:59 PM U.S. Pacific Time

Soldier of Fortune magazine publisher Robert K. Brown will be presenting the Soldier of Fortune Humanitarian Award to General Tibbets.

On August 6, 1945, then Colonel Paul Tibbets piloted Enola Gay, the B-29 bomber that dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan. Atomic bomb attacks brought Japan to its knees and prevented the planned annihilation of prisoners of war and civilian internees. The atomic bombs also ended Japan's brutal repression of Asians that involved germ warfare experiments, 200,000 comfort women sex slaves and the deaths of an estimated 14,000,000 Chinese and other Asians. Historians and World War II veterans state that the a-bomb attacks prevented millions more deaths including Japanese civilians and casualties to Japanese soldiers and the invading forces from the United States, Great Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

Source (http://vikingphoenix.com/news/stn/1998/stn98046.htm)

Happy now?

Yes you are right about Dresden. The reason i didn't mention it was because i have little knowlage about it.

BUT

Horiosima and Negisaky were atacked in violation of the geniva conevntion

Will find the part im talking about now and post it

Ok here we go

this is from the geneva convention for civillians

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

Thats for civillians

Sorce (http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/y4gcpcp.htm)

Civilian hospitals organized to give care to the wounded and sick, the infirm and maternity cases, may in no circumstances be the object of attack, but shall at all times be respected and protected by the Parties to the conflict.

Im sure there were hospitals in those citys

Well, thanks Asguard, but that dosen't wash:

Civilian hospitals organized to give care to the wounded and sick, the infirm and maternity cases, may in no circumstances be the object of attack, but shall at all times be respected and protected by the Parties to the conflict.

Object of attack. Was either city attacked because it contained a hospital? If yes, you have no evidence. If no, your argument fails.

So, the question is: Does attacking a military target with a high proportion of civilians violate the Geneva Convention?

And, did the Geneva Convention even apply at the time?

The answer to the first can be debated.

The answer to the second is a definitive 'no'.

Even from your links, we note that:
Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 75 U.N.T.S. 287, entered into force Oct. 21, 1950.

The bombs were dropped in 1945, five years earlier. It seems that the provisions about the protection of civilians did not apply in 1945.

See here (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/20020207-13.html) and here (http://home.ican.net/~rcpeel/history.htm) for confirmation that the clause regarding the treatment of civilians passed in '49, after the war was over.

So, since that section of the Geneva did not apply at the time, your argument fails.

Er
are you sure about that because my understanding is that the geneva convention was passed after WW1 not WW2?

Ok i consed that it didn't applie

Still don't think that droping bombs with that sort of long term harm on civilans showed they were good people, but it wasn't illegle

Can i just say while we are talking about violating the geneva convention that you are violating it at the moment

Check out the thread I just posted in Politics.

If your bissy we can debate it later but they ARE POW's and your goverment can't escape that by making up some title for them

Ok adam

Well....

Article 5
Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity, and in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.

We are occupying Afghanistan, are we not?

They will be dealt with, "at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State".....sometime after hell freezes over ;)

Finally, Al-Queda fighters are a measly bunch of fuckwits who - pardon - are terrorists, not signers of the Geneva Convention. As such, they are not entitled to its protections. Only the Taliban detainees are.

I should also note that:
The detainees will not be subjected to physical or mental abuse or cruel treatment. The International Committee of the Red Cross has visited and will continue to be able to visit the detainees privately. The detainees will be permitted to raise concerns about their conditions and we will attempt to address those concerns consistent with security.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/20020207-13.html

Er hang on i have to look it up again because i closed the search

Tyler,

Now, I leave you to your ignorance.

Who is really the ignorant here... :rolleyes:

Posted by Xev:
I will say a few last things

Posted by Tyler:
Nelson, I will soon be permenatly ignoring you, but i have to say one thing....

Yeah... can't argue with me and then run away...!! :bugeye: :eek: :rolleyes: :bugeye:

*sights...

Good Luck...
Nelson

Ok this is Artical4 of the geniva convention on POW's in intirety (SO you don't think i cut and paste to suite my own purpose

Sorce (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva03.htm)

ARTICLE 4
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions: (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

(1) Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

(2) The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.


The taliban fall into section 1 of that (so why did you denie them that right for so long) and al quieda fall into sections 1 or 2

Or you could class them as CRIMINALS under your civillan law

BUT even if it was decided later that they were NOT POW's artical 5 said that you should have started by treating them as POW's and decided later there statice (hope you can find the stuff i wrote in between all these quotes)


ARTICLE 5
The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal

I think what bothers me in this discussion is that we are talking about the "rights of POW's". Where were those rights for the victums of the 9/11 incident?

For years, Bin Ladin has enjoyed the sheild of the Taliban while preforming his terrorist activities. The Taliban benefited from the realtionship and denied any help to any country in the securing of Bin Ladin and eliminating the continuing threat of such terrorism. In effect making them the harbors of international criminals with the unacknowledged blessings of the Taliban. By such acts the Taliban made themselves criminals in the act. They were given more chances than can be counted to do the right thing. I fail to see where the Geneva Convention applies from the start. The Geneva Convention was not designed to protect criminals.

Im sorry but a hell of a lot more people were killed by Hitler than by those 2 planes

just like there are rights acorded to ACUSED criminals (rember no one has been found gulity by a court of law) the geneva convention aplies to ALL millatry action. NO EXCEPTIONS

I just thought of this

WHY ARE WE IN HUMAN SCIENCE?

We should be in politics or eithics

Ah, no Nelson. It's because we no longer wish to justify your comments with responses. You refuse to argue on any kind of basis but your own faiths.

And your claim about Hitler wanting to kill Jews for money is the final step. There is always a shadow of a doubt that maybe, just maybe, you truly are the next great type of thinker. That comment about Hitler erases all doubt.

As a simple rebutal I could have said; then why did he hate gypsies? They had NO money.

Nelson, it is not so much a matter of running away as it is a matter of not being a masochist. You have never and will never admit that you are ever in error, and you do not seem to be interested in debate.

I look forward to more cordial interactions with you, but I refuse to debate you any longer.

Asguard: Wet1 is right. We are talking about both criminals and fighters....which are they?

I submit they are both, and in a rather unique position re:international law. Therefore, while we may be violating the Geneva convention by holding them, it is not somthing I shall worry much about. I leave that to the lawyers, and if they are still hanging around Guantanamo in a few months, I'll rethink.

BTW, two planes? There were more than two......

Yes i apoligise to everyone for saying 2 planes, i realise there was 4 (that we know of) but the fact still remains that hitles killed WAY more and he was still protected and you are breaching section 5 at least. There is NO exceptions to the geneva convention because for starters it was put in place for times of last resort (WAR).

They are ALL POW's untill an independant body dimes otherwise, and MUST be treated as such (ESPECIALLY the taliban fighters who should ALLWAYS have had the full protection of the geneva convention)

Sorry i can't say more today (ran out of downloads and are at the libary)

Asguard,

I truely hope that you never, as a nation, have to experience some atrocity such as the 9/11 incident. Should this happen, you will find a profound attitude change from those around you, especially those directly effected, as they come out of the greiving for their loved and lost ones.

Hitler did many things that were right for his country. No, I am not talking about the atrocities he committed or those who committed them in his name. What he did good is overshadowed by what he did bad. I do not mean to condone the acts that underline his time on the world stage. Japan did many things that were also in line with this type of mentality.

Nor do I condone what the terrorist have laid out to do as something that if I turn my head they will go away. No, they won't. To make matters worse, they will continue and at the same time get stronger and more sophistacted, until it is not planes we are worring about but atom bombs and biowarfare. It is us or them. No other mentality works. Personally, if the Taliban fighters are there being detained a couple of years from now, it won't get more than a raised eyebrow from me. Their governments actions paved the way for them. The Geneva Convention was laid out when wars were fought differently, when you knew your enemy. Here the lines are blurred and it was never meant to protect criminals. Nor was it heard of at the time for the military to be policemen. The Convention has not kept up with the times. It is out dated and needs modification. I do not shed tears for those held in detainment.

Asguard:
They are ALL POW's untill an independant body dimes otherwise, and MUST be treated as such (ESPECIALLY the taliban fighters who should ALLWAYS have had the full protection of the geneva convention)

And, eventually, we'll get around to taking care of the Taliban fighters - however, Al Queda is a criminal group, not an army. They are being treated well, and will continue to be treated well.

Nor do I condone what the terrorist have laid out to do as something that if I turn my head they will go away. No, they won't. To make matters worse, they will continue and at the same time get stronger and more sophistacted, until it is not planes we are worring about but atom bombs and biowarfare. It is us or them. No other mentality works. Personally, if the Taliban fighters are there being detained a couple of years from now, it won't get more than a raised eyebrow from me. Their governments actions paved the way for them. The Geneva Convention was laid out when wars were fought differently, when you knew your enemy. Here the lines are blurred and it was never meant to protect criminals. Nor was it heard of at the time for the military to be policemen. The Convention has not kept up with the times. It is out dated and needs modification. I do not shed tears for those held in detainment.

Here here, Wet1! They are being provided

All detainees at Guantanamo are being provided: - three meals a day that meet Muslim dietary laws - water - medical care - clothing and shoes - shelter - showers - soap and toilet articles - foam sleeping pads and blankets - towels and washcloths - the opportunity to worship - correspondence materials, and the means to send mail -the ability to receive packages of food and clothing, subject to security screening

Monitering by the Red Cross - what the fuck else could they want? My government has been extremely generous and will most likely continue this generosity. They do not have my sympathy.

Exscuse me but YOU declared war on the Taliban NOT the other way around. The ARE POW's because you capured them in WAR. There should be no "getting around to it", it should have been automatic.

As for the others, Fine they are crimals. SO when do they get charged, when do they get their independant representation and there speedy trial?

If they are crimals you are breaching you own constitution by dening them the rights of everyother "aleged" (and thats all they are, you know presumption of inocents, burden of proof on the crown (its the crown here don't know what you call it)) crimal.

What do i think they should have, i don't know. Maybe the rights put in place to protect even the hardest crimal from abuse.

Tyler,

And your claim about Hitler wanting to kill Jews for money is the final step. There is always a shadow of a doubt that maybe, just maybe, you truly are the next great type of thinker. That comment about Hitler erases all doubt.

Helo-oooooo!!

There are History professors all around the world who consider this as the biggest possibility... :bugeye: :eek:

There was a huge inflation in Germany and Hitler needed money for all those military things...

From where do you thing the money came from?

From the sky?:bugeye:

Helloooo...
Is anyone home...? *knocking in Tyler's head*

Love,
Nelson

Inflation was mostly under control before Hitler started attacking the Jews. The money he seized from them was hardly enough to build a large military, and not even enough to stabalize the currency.

And no, there are not such history professors, that I have heard of. When one reads 'Mein Kampf' one recognizes that Hitler hated Jews from very early on in his career. His attack may have been to his advantage, but it did not stem from the desire for money.

Also, Hitler attacked many groups besides the Jews, and had planned to send 'inferior' "Aryans" to the camps once he won the war.

Asguard:
Actually, they attacked us, in essence declaring war.

If they are crimals you are breaching you own constitution by dening them the rights of everyother "aleged" (and thats all they are, you know presumption of inocents, burden of proof on the crown (its the crown here don't know what you call it)) crimal.

It's the state here.

And they are not American citizens, thus not entitled to protection under our constitution.

I was under the imprssion that if i came over to the US and was charged with a crime i was intilted to protection of you legle system the same as everyone else.

And im sorry but YOU atacked first

There was no attack by TALIBAN military forces on you, only you on there's. That dosn't mean you wern't right to attack (although im against this war) but you atacked them.

Oh......
right Nelson.......

of course that's the same reason he hated the Gypsies? Because they had so much money?

And the Communists too? Because they had so much money?

And the gays too?

And everyone else that he linked with Jews?

But Tyler, that's what Nelson's profs tell him. And we all know that everything our profs tell us is the absolute truth....

Asguard:

No, they attacked us on the morning of September 11th. We had not attacked before.

I was under the imprssion that if i came over to the US and was charged with a crime i was intilted to protection of you legle system the same as everyone else.

You would be, but these people were not on American soil when the commited their alleged crimes.

Your wrong Xev. I have seen No evidance (and Bush has never claimed) that you were atacked by the taliban. He atacked them because they wouldn't extidite the aleged (and yes bin ladan is still intitled to pursumption of inocents) terriost.

What is there crime by the way and if it didn't happen in the US then how can you charge someone with it?

If a crime happens in Australia then WE proicute or not based on OUR laws

You can't come in latter and say YOU want the criminal and change them in the US (which you HAVEN'T done, anyway) and invade if the courts decide not to exstidite


Im sorry for everyone who lost someone but thats just wrong

You have to make up your minds

Either there charged and protected as alleged criminals or there just POW's

Okay Asgaurd, let me put it to you this way.

I, in this situation, could care less about what is morally fair.

I, in this like most situations, care about what is best for the overwhelming majority.

The overwhelming majority of people benefit from the destruction of the Taliban.

Yes Tyler.

You know who is keeping UbL from attacking Sydney, Asguard?

Your wrong Xev. I have seen No evidance (and Bush has never claimed) that you were atacked by the taliban. He atacked them because they wouldn't extidite the aleged (and yes bin ladan is still intitled to pursumption of inocents) terriost.

Usama Bin Ladin attacked us. In protecting him, and allowing him to plan his attacks under their protection, the Taliban allied themselves with him. They, in effect, attacked us.

What is there crime by the way and if it didn't happen in the US then how can you charge someone with it?

The Taliban and Al Queda fighter's? Acessory to the murder of over 5000 people, I suppose. Haven't given it much thought.

You can't come in latter and say YOU want the criminal and change them in the US (which you HAVEN'T done, anyway) and invade if the courts decide not to exstidite

Australia has yet to kill 5000 of our people, under the protection of your government.

Either there charged and protected as alleged criminals or there just POW's

Maybe. Maybe not. I don't really care. I want to be safe. I want my countrymen to be safe. I want my family to be safe. I'm more or less satisfied that the detainees are being treated well.

I will shed no tears if their detention is in a gray area re:international law. International law is tangled anyway.

For starters WHY ARE WE IN HUMAN SCIENCE?

But to my real point

I know i can look at this more philosophicaly than someone how was there.

But JUSTICE MUST ALWAYS BE IMPARTIAL

As i said im sorry for everyone of those familys who died but i would be more angry if someone raped and murded my sister. That is beacuse its personal. This is a fact with EVERY court case and is the reason victoms must stay out of justic (i belive that now, have always belived it and hopfully can belive it if something DID happen)

There is a reason for pursuption of inocence

Now im going to ask something i don't actully belive (i don't buy into all the conspericy theorys)

But have you seen the evidance of there guilt?
Could the goverment have needed an enermy to lump the blame on and picked one at random? maybe they created some evidance to point to osama and now everyone associated with that organisation is automatically guilty, right?

Well im a member of the catholic church so if a cardanal in another country dose soemthing im guilty of it right? (thats what your saying)

The crime DID take place in the US and they SHOULD face US COURT justice with ALL the protections in place, if only to show the world how better than them you are and that no matter what the crime, the constitution (that the presidant swore to uphold) is apsolute

The overwelming mejority of people benifited from the destruction of the Nazis to but they still had to follow the rules

You will NEVER convince me that Osam is worse than the Natzies and it will just lower my opinion of you if you try

It would be an INSULT to everyone who was killed by them, to everyone who faced the Nazi doctors.

There are worse things than dieing. Ask the Australian POW's from WW2 who were captured by the Japaniese

The 9/11 tragedy is not the first nor the second incident of death and destruction by Bin Ladin. There have been many other incidents with his name on them and did not occur within the boundries of the US. Technically, the embassy and the Marine barracks were on US soil, too. The second occurrance of attack on the World Trade Center was the last straw. I think that there was patience enough shown.

I will not argee that the Geneva Convention rules were broke. But if they were, in this case I will not be the bleeding heart over their detainment. They were eager enough to celebrate the destruction of the WTC. I am eager enough to want them to see the result of that justice after whatever info can be gleaned from them.

I still don't see a conviction

You can't call him a criminal untill a COURT gives him the title

You are undemining your OWN justice system

Pursumtion of innocence exstends to EVERYONE

Look at it this way

do you sitting nicly in your homes want to be acused of terriosm

No theres a new law here (don't know if its inacted or if they WANT to pass it) that says anyone accused of terriosim must prove there inocence. This is because the goverment felt it was to hard the other way around.

Now piture this

You are down the street doing your shoping.
Say its your kids birthday so you are buying sparklers and matches and stuff. Maybe you are having a BBQ so you are buying lighters and stuff. Whatever the reason while you are buying it you meet someone nice and you talk to them. Say hello and stuff. It turns out ASIO wants this man for terriosim and they arest you to thinking you are involved

Now they can interigate you for 48 hours (i think its that long) without legle represtation and then if they don't like your answers they can throw you in jail for 5 years

So you go out to get last minute suplies for your childs party and you dissapear for the next 5 years

Is this FAIR and JUST

I must agree that UBL is not yet a legal criminal, if you know what I mean. I'm unaware of any court convictions against him. However, if international law or USA law allows that there is enough evidence for him to be arrested to face trial, then so be it.

Personally, though, if someone I loved had died in all that, and if I saw enough evidence to link UBL to the act but not enough to get him into court, I might simply go find him and stick a knife in his ribs. If he could be found that is.

Adam id feel that way if anyone i loved was killed by ANYONE. Hopefully i wouldn't act on the feeling though

B\W did you read my last post?
i would be interested in your responce to it

I hate ASIO's and ASIS's new powers. They suck in an enormous and truly ugly way. I emailed the PM's office telling the weiner's people how much those new powers suck. I've po