sniper

what are your thoughts on the latest 'terrorist threat to our nation?' (us citizens of course, you other worldly types may read it as 'terrorist threat to the us' i suppose)

i think that for someone with a death wish, its one hell of a way to go. i am fairly glad that i live in the state where unabombers send bombs from, rather than receive them. these recent acts of ... senselessness have caused me to step back and take a look at where we as a world are going. personally, i think were f*cked.

It could be any number of things. Personally so many people think it's an external threat, when it's just as likely it's some ex-military person that has decided to use his sniper skills again. With as random as it's been, terrorism seems to be the primary goal of the attacks.

Hopefully the person doing this will slip up somehow and be caught soon. Mass histeria to me is worse then a few deaths.

They should start telling everyone in DC to run in zig-zag patterns anytime they're outside.

It's pretty messed up. I mean, screwing around and talking about killing people who piss you off or something is entertaining at times, devising various torture techniques - "hanging by the nutsack" and such. But actually doing it is so different - it's completely against (my) human nature to actually go out and purposely kill other humans.

I wonder if it is ex-military, somehow previously trained for combat, who's gotten over the "don't kill people" thing?

If it were some pissed off ex-mil type, then the targets would have been less random. This isn't about a cause. If it were then you can bet that a 13yr old wouldn't have been targetted.

I reckon this is more likely to be a nihilist teen with Daddy's hunting rifle looking for his 5 minutes of attention.

Dollars to donuts: Postal Worker.

With all of the children being kidnapped and killed lately besides this sniper, I think I agree with you. This world (or maybe just this country) is really f*cked up.

Sad times we live in.

Definitely a psycho type, based on the writing on the tarot card.. someone really ill.

I wouldn't like to be anywhere near there now

Are you talking about the guy in the DC metro area who's shooting people? Or somewhere else?

You've got to expect the area is going to have some freaky stuff happen. Manhole covers like to pop up without notice. This summer we had some jerks riding around throwing 6" darts at people at random. I was born and raised just outside the city, about a mile from the CIA, in fact. People in my community were killed in the CIA shootings, which were at an intersection my parents go through on the way to work every day.

We've all been f*ed all throughout history. I'm not sure it's changed much lately.

I have the uneasy feeling that it's some nutjob that thinks this will get him recruited by the CIA.

I also have the uneasy feeling that he might be right.

what are your thoughts on the latest 'terrorist threat to our nation?

Someone find told the longshoremen to stop being unpatriotic?

That was the theroy or some FBI person that was interviewed on the radio today. She thought it was two people though.

What's a radio?

> I reckon this is more likely to be a nihilist teen with Daddy's hunting rifle looking for his 5 minutes of attention.

Yeah, that is my thought too. Given his range of victims he seems to me younger rather than older; he doesn't have a pattern of victims matching some hated group like older psychos do, he just is mad at the entire world and targeting anyone.

I heard they held a woman today for questioning...wouldn't that through the profilers for a loop.

Personally so many people think it's an external threat, when it's just as likely it's some ex-military person that has decided to use his sniper skills again.

That wouldn't surprise me, either. Remember McVeigh, anyone?

Even more scary is the potential for this to be an "Operation Northwoods". Substitute Iraq for Cuba, and Bush and cronies for Eisenhower and cronies, and it's frighteningly similar to the current political situation.

In reply to:

---

us citizens of course

---

Am I just slow, to not realise that an unqualified "Washington" on the radio meant the one in the eastern US? I just assumed they meant Washington in Tyneside, and it never occured to me to think of anywhere else. And to say that I work for a US company an' all....

What concerns me (not from a personal standpoint as I am far away from the danger here) is that if this guy (or gal, although I doubt it - rare profile) has done his homework and prepared well, he should be able to get away with this nearly indefinitely.

Pick random targets, scope the area first, use different modes of transport, avoid looking shifty (technical term) and don't get greedy.

Although what invariably happens in the nutter sniper cases is they tend to get crazier, or more reckless and that's when catching (or at least finding) them becomes easier. Either that, or a friend or relative will suddenly realise what he's been up to and let the world know...probably for a big cash payout from a major newspaper or news network.

'terrorist threat to the us'

Surely it's only terrorism if he or she is doing it to gain a political goal? It's a senseless waste of innocent lives and a terrible crime, but unless there are "do such-and-such or I kill again" letters we aren' t being told about, then it doesn't count as terrorism.

Peter

Merriam-Webster (sorry for the US-centric source -- I don't have my OED at work) says that terrorism is ``the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion'' (emphasis mine).

Am I just slow, to not realise that an unqualified "Washington" on the radio meant the one in the eastern US?

You've been paying too much attention to Mr. Gates or Mr. Cobain, methinks.

In general, though, an unqualified ``Washington'' is going to be Washington, DC (it is the capital, after all ), except, probably in the Pacific Northwest. Any references to Washington State would be as ``Washington State''. At least in my neck of the woods.

the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

Is the sniper systematically using terror for anything, though, or just happening to cause it as a byproduct of his or her habit of killing people? Media reports so far make the whole thing sound unpleasantly like recreational killing, not the "systematic use" of anything.

Peter

Fair enough. I suppose it's possible that it's simply recreational. But, assuming the note found was written and left by the sniper, plus the deliberate manner in which the murders were committed, then I'd say that there was the intent of terror. But that's just a personal opinion.

And the systematic use could just as easily be to get the sniper off as to induce coercion.

Edit: Fixed stupid brain-o.

In reply to:

---

an unqualified ``Washington'' is going to be Washington, DC

---

Right, that's what I assumed - once I realised they're talking about the US.

I suppose I fell into the trap of thinking that random shootings in the US are too common to be newsworthy. It's a relief to see that it isn't the case.

an unqualified ``Washington'' is going to be Washington, DC

George Washington's family, after whom Washington DC is named, came from Washington County Durham and the town has a number of artefacts to verify this, so your analogy is not so far away.

When I heard of the sniper attacks, I thought of the shootings in Hungerford here in the UK, it's the worst of all nightmares, you or somebody in your family being randomly shot down in cold blood, something that would be almost impossible to guard against - and the likelyhood of it happening in Washington DC, County Durham or anywhere else in the world is about evens.

Well, I unfortunately live very close to the affected area - this is just nuts because all the schools around the area here (I live outside of Baltimore) have pretty much cancelled anything outdoors. No sports, play time, field trips... that totally sucks.

Oh, and there has been another shooting - they are still investigating if it is tied with the serial sniper, but no confirmation yet.

the likelyhood of it happening in Washington DC, County Durham or anywhere else in the world is about evens.

Actually, Washington, DC is often the murder capital of the US based on pure quantity. It usually trades back and forth with Detroit, IIRC. (Miami and NYC are also on up there.) So I'd say it's slightly higher there.

But, then again, this sort of thing is anomalous anywhere outside a war zone.

I serverly doubt this guy is ex-military, for a couple of reasons:
1. the kid was just injured, military snipers dont miss
2. The kids mom her the blast, a military sniper is not goin to randomly shoot some kid close enough where somebody might have heard or seen where the shot came from.

This guy is just some nut job, who probably thinks he has some greater cause, or maybe he is just mad at the world. I just hope this doesnt progress like the School shootings did, random violence all the way to organized torture and massacre.

And the longer this guy gets away with it, the more likely copycats will think "ahah, this might just be a bit of a laugh if we can get away with it"

I get to go to Washington on the 20th for the annual AUSA meeting. Personally, I'm not really looking forward to using the techniques I honed playing BF1942 while trying to get to the symposium/hotel/restaurant, etc.

Oh well, last year they scheduled me to go to Japan on Sept 18. Fun, fun, fun!

Wow, I hadn't seen where they were talking about with these things (I'm off at school now). I saw a headline that said Maryland, but now they seem to believe the Virginia shooting was by the same guy. Too bad that article is so poorly written.

Wow, I'm going home this weekend on fall break. I hope I don't get shot at the mall or something...

Surely it's only terrorism if he or she is doing it to gain a political goal?

i feel, as a young adult in the this country, that my views of terrorism have been shaped to the idea of a senseless act of anything that causes mass hysteria and a national bonding is known as terrorism. its almost gotten to the point where i welcome acts of 'terror' because it seems to be the only moments when this country can get together and make decisions or really act.

enough untouched oil in alaska to run our country for many many years and were worried about the effects any actions in the middle east will have on our economy. i think that, unfortunately, it takes loss of life before anything gets done, and that saddens me.

Terrorism is a meaningless word. It basically means any act of violence the other side doesn't like (and sometimes not even violence is required before the label gets thrown around). Enough already.

Isn't the easy answer "don't be violent"?

what are your thoughts

Not very happy as I am working the next week here in Herndon, Virginia..... my boss (with his wife and 3 kids) is down the road in Manassas (site of the latest killing) and my kid sister (and her 4 kids) are up in PG County Maryland (site of the initial killings).

As we were driving back from Baltimore today listening to the latest updates, I wondered if this murderous party spent some time scouting out hides (is that the right term?) where they could fire from good cover and then escape. And, tarot card or not, I don't see any great amount of desire to break cover.

If this is so, and perhaps even if it is not, I have a bad, gut-level, prediction, one that I hope will be shown wrong: I don't think that that this killer will be apprehended.

My return flight is next Wednesday at 5:00 PM. Can't wait.

best of luck to you jim.

If you wear a kevlar vest and you run in zig-zags anytime you're outside (just don't stand still), I think you'll be safe. It'll be much harder for him to shoot a moving target, and kevlar will easily stop a .22 (isn't that what he's using?). Though of course you'll look silly, and you probably have a greater chance of dying in a car wreck then being hit by the sniper.

The shells are .223, much different than the .22 you are thinking of, and kevlar vests have a nasty habit of not protecting the parts the don't cover (think 'head').

Wow, interesting Jim. My girlfriend lives not far from where you'll be working. She's a Loudon County resident, and just over the Herndon border. But it's a neat coincidence that you'll be in the area at the same time. Wish there were some sort of empeg meet going on, sniper or no.

i feel, as a young adult in the this country, that my views of terrorism have been shaped to the idea of a senseless act of anything that causes mass hysteria and a national bonding is known as terrorism.

I feel, as a young(ish) adult in this country, that my views of terrorism have been shaped by the IRA and the Northern Ireland conflict. Even at the height of the IRA "terror campaign" of the eighties and early nineties, there were still plenty of people -- perhaps a majority of people -- in Britain who just didn't know the extent to which the mechanisms of state in Northern Ireland oppressed the Catholic minority. (The Patten report, for instance, described the Northern Ireland police as "falling far short of the human rights standards to be expected in a modern democracy".)

So I've ended up with the idea that terrorism is often not a disease as such, but a symptom of other underlying societal problems. Democracy is all well and good as a way of preventing a minority from repressing the majority, but it doesn't help in a situation where the majority is repressing a minority -- especially if the media too is largely run by "the majority". Terrorism doesn't in itself solve those sorts of problems either, of course, but sending a message that there is a problem is sometimes the difficult first step towards finding a solution.

That's why I don't think that a (presumably) rich bored white male playing a first-person shooter with innocent people's lives, deserves to be dignified with the name of terrorist. He's not repressed. He's not sending a message. He's just a criminal.

enough untouched oil in alaska to run our country for many many years and were worried about the effects any actions in the middle east will have on our economy. i think that, unfortunately, it takes loss of life before anything gets done, and that saddens me.

What saddens me more is when loss of life causes people who don't see the big picture, to try and cure the disease by suppressing the symptoms -- which just leaves the actual problem to get worse and worse. So the British government initially dealt with Republican terrorism by pouring more militarised, predominantly Unionist, security forces into Northern Ireland (and, whether officially or not, supporting Unionist paramilitaries). And the Spanish government deals with Basque terrorism by outlawing the Basque political movement. And the US government deals with Columbine by training teachers to "profile" misfits rather than worrying about why dominant cliques create misfits in the first place. And the US government (again) follows a Middle-East policy of supporting petty dictator A versus petty dictator B according to oil and defence-industry interests, calling it democracy (who won the last Kuwaiti general election?) and backed by an electorate who, to paraphrase the Disposable Heroes, think the Middle-East means Tennessee but know a low gas price when they see one. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

The only positive thing I've got to say, is that every media pundit in sight was saying, after Tiananmen Square, that global media in general and the Internet in particular were beginning to mean that totalitarian governments couldn't get away with that kind of stuff any more. Perhaps eventually democratic governments will realise that they can't get away with it either.

Peter

That's why I don't think that a (presumably) rich bored white male playing a first-person shooter with innocent people's lives, deserves to be dignified with the name of terrorist. He's not repressed. He's not sending a message. He's just a criminal.

I'll agree with that. My major problem with Al Qaeda (a group I think we can all view as terrorist from any viewpoint -- not that anyone brought it up) is that they don't seem to expend much effort in making their points known; it's all posturing. They're like a woman saying ``If you don't know why I'm mad, I'm not telling you''. The IRA and PLO, for examples, always made sure that everyone knew why they they were doing the things they did. But Al Qaeda seems much more interested in killing folks than trying to get things changed.

every media pundit in sight was saying, after Tiananmen Square, that global media in general and the Internet in particular were beginning to mean that totalitarian governments couldn't get away with that kind of stuff any more

Too bad they were wrong (so far).

I don't think AL Qaeda is as interested in changing things as they are in killing infidels. If Muhammed Atta just wanted to change something on earth (policy or whatever), then I don't think he would have gone on a suicide mission.

Terrorism doesn't in itself solve those sorts of problems either, of course, but sending a message that there is a problem is sometimes the difficult first step towards finding a solution.

My reaction is the same as one might take to a crying baby who realizes by crying they get attention, because I don't know how else to discourage it: if terrorism is your answer, you have no rational basis to complain about being repressed.

You can say it's a reaction, but one you lose the moral high ground, you're dirt.

And I can say it without hypocrisy, because I've known for years that I'm dirt; I never had any moral high ground, despite my dislike of terrorism.

What saddens me more is when loss of life causes people who don't see the big picture, to try and cure the disease by suppressing the symptoms

Allow me to take the other side: if you aren't doing anything to restrain people who advocate your position, why should anyone take you seriously? (not you particularly, obviously)

Don't get the idea that I'm holding up the government here as ideal, either. Not a chance. The Clinton administration was less odious, at least, but these ones have foreign policy which basically boils down to "piss all over everyone who doesn't share our agenda". I didn't vote for them. I pray that in the next election Bush doesn't manage to make himself a "wartime president" and thus get retained, and maybe, maybe we have a chance to salvage the government's image in the eyes of other countries.

But Al Qaeda seems much more interested in killing folks than trying to get things changed.

Yeah, its because they think it is religious, and that anyone not following their religion (especially Americans) are evil. Hence it is a holy war to them.

I totally agree.. they don't make readily available the reason for their terrorism - their message. I believe they simply don't care, the only answer to them is to destroy our way of life. I say 'our' to not mean 'American' but anyone that lives in freedom. And they are unfortunately hijaking the very religion that they are "fighting for". Although it is unfortunate to see and have seen in the past, lots of blood has been spilled over various religious disputes - such (unfortunate) irony since the major religions themselves seem to have a common moral thread that teaches peace and love.

Although the sniper is terrorizing the crap out of people around here, he is a crazed criminal that unfortunately has a gun, and I don't take it as being acts of terrorism. In fact, I don't think I've heard terrorism mentioned in any local news coverage about the sniper here. I think the comments that several people here made about what terrorism really is are correct.

they don't seem to expend much effort in making their points known

I thought bin Laden had made himself perfectly clear: He wants the West to get out of the Muslim countries. He particularly wants the US to stop propping up the Saudi government.

He's concerned that Western secularism is eroding the Islamic fervour of the people. This is (to him) a Bad Thing.

Yeah, its because they think it is religious, and that anyone not following their religion (especially Americans) are evil. Hence it is a holy war to them.

Actually, there are plenty of non-Islamic, relatively free countries in the world which are not hated by Al-Qaeda. It's specifically the US which they have a problem with.

I totally agree.. they don't make readily available the reason for their terrorism - their message. I believe they simply don't care, the only answer to them is to destroy our way of life. I say 'our' to not mean 'American' but anyone that lives in freedom.

I always had the impression that it had more to do with US foreign policy in the Middle-East. I suspect that, much as with British foreign policy in Northern Ireland in the 80s, the oppressor nation's media (and the media of close allies) have not been telling the story entirely even-handedly.

Peter

if terrorism is your answer, you have no rational basis to complain about being repressed.

You can say it's a reaction, but one you lose the moral high ground, you're dirt.

Yes, I think the whole issue is that it's a reaction. And the terrorists are being irrational and immoral. The question is, what awesome and terrible forces are acting on these human beings that can turn them immoral enough to kill 2,800 of some other country's citizens, or irrational enough to give their lives doing so?

Have you seen news footage of Garvaghy Road in Belfast? It's an utterly ordinary-looking street of houses on a utterly ordinary-looking housing estate that could be anywhere in Britain. But when the Orange Order is marching down it, both verges are lined with Army landrovers nose-to-tail, filled with armed soldiers, and people on opposite sides of the landrovers are throwing pipebombs at each other. You don't need to have a high opinion of the morals or rationality of the pipebomb-throwers to realise that the big picture is that something has gone terribly, terribly wrong with this ordinary street of houses on an ordinary housing estate, and that even if you could arrest the entire community it wouldn't help.

Peter

Well shit. These killings are going to be all around me. I know it sounds selfish, but I was supposed to drive back home today. Not there was a killing in Fredericksburg, which is half-way home. It's raining, it's Friday, and the roads are blocked off. It's gonna take like 7 hours to drive home. This suck.

And then I'm just driving into all this crap. Damn.

I thought bin Laden had made himself perfectly clear

It wasn't my intent to say that he hadn't. Rather, that he/they don't make a lot of effort into promoting that. If that was his real concern, he'd spend more time making, for lack of a better term, press junkets, when, in fact, apparently almost all of his time is spent in killing folks, and even some of that is done so that we don't know it was necessarily them, which doesn't promote extending his concerns.

Those facts lead me to believe that his espoused reasons for his terrorism are simply there to supoprt his killing, rather than the other way around.

Of course, my facts could be incorrect. I'm sure that, at least in part, the reasons that Al Qaeda messages were ``banned'' is that more westerners would begin to understand his concerns. It would be horribly unfortunate if this was all because he was under the impression that westerners understood his cause and didn't care, when, in fact, they didn't, and still don't, know.

Just curious, what is the "this" in the comment "unfortunate if this was all because..." to which you refer?

Specifically, the World Trade Center attack. Generally, all the Al Qaeda terrorist actions. Which has nothing to do with the DC-area sniper.

The question is, what awesome and terrible forces are acting on these human beings that can turn them immoral enough to kill 2,800 of some other country's citizens, or irrational enough to give their lives doing so?

If I start caring, they win. As long as I see them for what they are, they've lost.

You do have a point, and I'm really not trying to gloss over it, but this is something that I'm entirely consistent about: once you start doing stuff which causes harm, in many cases irreversible and often final, to other people in the guise of whatever cause, I hope to see you and your cause get smashed. If you want to throw away the basis for society, fine, but why do you feel the need to drag as many other people down with you as possible? It's all talk... "it's so bad here that..." and it's bull, if it's so bad, leave. "They won't let us" is also bull, because they also won't let you kill people, and yet...

In that vein, I need to figure out where my own life is going, because if we're going to continue walking all over other countries, I can't stay forever, but nor can I support for instance overthrow of the government by other than electoral means, because again, it involves walking on innocent people to achieve one's ends, which to get back to my original point, is lower than dirt.

If I'm rambling, I apologize.

"the oppressor nation's media (and the media of close allies) have not been telling the story entirely even-handedly."

If I'm going to believe one news source, it'll be over here where we have freedom of the press and not Propaganda TV in the mideast. I know we have propaganda here, too, but it is usually subtle and not far from the truth since we have plenty of competing news agencies, and it's in their best interest to report the facts.



"the reasons that Al Qaeda messages were ``banned'' is that more westerners would begin to understand his concerns."

What do you mean? When were Al Qaeda messages 'banned' and by who? Do you mean the major news networks? The governement couldn't legally ban any information and I don't think that ALL of the news businesses in the west would just suddenly decide not to report something that is certainly newsworthy.

or do you mean banned by Bin Laden? If so, I didn't know he did.

"the oppressor nation's media (and the media of close allies) have not been telling the story entirely even-handedly."

If I'm going to believe one news source, it'll be over here where we have freedom of the press and not Propaganda TV in the mideast. I know we have propaganda here, too, but it is usually subtle and not far from the truth since we have plenty of competing news agencies, and it's in their best interest to report the facts.

Hopefully, then, you aren't going to believe one news source, but will piece together your understanding of what's going on through a multitude of news sources. The propaganda here (in the US) is hardly what I would consider "subtle", unless you consider being smacked over the head with a 2x4 subtle. The trouble isn't the "subtle propaganda" that gets printed, it's the volume of what doesn't get printed that's more worrisome -- US media has a distinct tendancy to ignore anything that, on a national scale, casts doubt on US policy, or otherwise portrays the US in a negative light. Why? Because the major US media outlets are owned by large conglomerates that are beholden to the government. Sure, individual reporters may be free of bias, but it's the editors and their superiors that determine the political leanings of what they publish, and those people still curry favour with the politicos. If you want to have any real idea of what's going on in the world, take up reading non-US media. The Gaurdian is a good place to start.

"the reasons that Al Qaeda messages were ``banned'' is that more westerners would begin to understand his concerns."

What do you mean? When were Al Qaeda messages 'banned' and by who? Do you mean the major news networks? The governement couldn't legally ban any information and I don't think that ALL of the news businesses in the west would just suddenly decide not to report something that is certainly newsworthy.

Yes, the government can legally ban any information they want. "I'm sorry... that tape you have of Bin Laden giving a speech? We're in the middle of a war now. You can't play that because it may contain coded messages for his followers. That tape is now classified information." And yes, the media does withhold newsworthy items at the behest of the government, and yes, the government hides information from the media that is of great interest to the public. The magic words are "we're at war".

I know we have propaganda here, too, but it is usually subtle and not far from the truth

"They hate us because we are free"?

Peter

You do have a point, and I'm really not trying to gloss over it, but this is something that I'm entirely consistent about: once you start doing stuff which causes harm, in many cases irreversible and often final, to other people in the guise of whatever cause, I hope to see you and your cause get smashed.

But I think this would end up with both opposing causes getting smashed in most of the world's terrorist theatres. Most terrorism starts as a response to irreversible and often final humanitarian harm: it seems to be a good rule of thumb, a bit like Boyle's Law, that oppressing people turns them into terrorists, and --at least for creating largish terrorist groups -- no other force seems strong enough to do so.

I'm discounting lone terrorists such as the Unabomber here. Such people often think they're being oppressed, but the reason they think that is because they're mentally ill.

If I start caring, they win. As long as I see them for what they are, they've lost.

The only way, short of genocide, to end any genuine terrorist conflict is for both sides to stop thinking in terms of "terrorists winning" or "terrorists losing". As long as there are any terrorists, both sides are losing badly. Although, as Northern Ireland shows, the tissue of delicately-worded compromises needed to achieve a situation where, for once, there is peace and both sides win, can be elusive and fragile.

Indeed, is it possible at all? Looking at the centuries-old Northern Ireland conflict, or the century-old (at least) Palestine conflict, it's easy to believe that resolution is unachievable. But other equally volatile situations have been defused. There are no terrorists in England still fighting the Wars of the Roses, or the Catholic/Protestant conflicts of the 1600s. Healing can come. But it takes the removal of oppression, it takes gifted peacemakers, and, most importantly, it takes generations.

Peter

Let me restate what I was trying to say earlier....there's lots of propaganda over here, probably just as much as in the mideast. The difference is we have the freedom to say what we want and share information as we please, so we get to see all sides of the story. People in Iraq only get to hear Saddam's side of the story, and the Afghani's only view of the outside world was Al Jazeera TV. And if they speak against what they say then they can end up dead.

I think the people in the mideast are being oppressed, but not by us, by their own governments. The US would want nothing more than the mideast to be a free democracy, because then people would start to think for themselves, put down their AK's and their bombs, do something for themselves, boost the economy, and hopefully become a stable, peaceful country. They think they're being oppressed by US foreign policy, but in reality the people who are oppressing them are feeding them propaganda (and stamping out any opposing voice) so that they don't realize it. So where some terrorists would fight to combat genuine oppression, I think that the arab terrorists are fighting a non-existant cause and are blinded from seeing their true oppressors for what they are.

Unless of course everything I've been told about the rest of the world has been a complete lie (i've never been to the mideast), but in that case my parents could be robots for all I know and my surroundings just illusions.

...but nor can I support for instance overthrow of the government by other than electoral means

Just curious, which government... Iraq or the US?

Ours. Note that I don't particularly support our overthrow of theirs, but what happens there is much less my business as long as it's not our fault.

Most terrorism starts as a response to irreversible and often final humanitarian harm
but at least those people (usually) don't lie and claim to be freedom fighters or some other B.S.

The only way, short of genocide, to end any genuine terrorist conflict is for both sides to stop thinking in terms of "terrorists winning" or "terrorists losing.

If you're right, that's ok, because I'm under no delusion that I can do anything anyhow.

Healing can come. But it takes the removal of oppression, it takes gifted peacemakers, and, most importantly, it takes generations.

And I'm way too cynical to believe that just because it can, it will. Hence my seething resentment of everyone involved.

Pretty creepy ... the latest one is like 5-10 minutes from me ... It's pretty disconcerting having cops at your exit every day patrolling looking for a serial killer. Of course your odds of dying are thousands of times higher just driving your car at all, but it's still creepy.

Yeah, I was joking about him hitting my area when I went home for the weekend, and the one on Monday was really close to me. Scary stuff.

Well, about the sniper.
I think he may have some small military training I think. He is not chosing victims by itself. But he is chosing them after places. Like a gas station, where the "objects" are slow or non moving are easy targets. Anybody being within the area of affect is chosen just because. And about a real sniper wont leave any victis alive or he would shoot them in the head is totally wrong. A real sniper would shoot towards the chest and aim to the heart. There is just to much that could go wrong aiming at the head (Wind, breathing, tick) a shot from 400 yards will be missed if not all the factors are perfect. That is why you aim at the chest, its a bigger target. Its better to injure and possibly kill the enemy than missing him. And about using a kevlar west. Well I´m not sure about how much .228 cal is. Where I live we count the caliber in millimeters. And with a weapon capable of "sniping" from 400 yards I dont think a west would help very much. The best way would be to run zig-zag and to be covered from as many directions as possible. (I am from sweden btw).


And about the WTC terrorism. Of course its wrong to kill 2800 poeple and call it jihad. But its equally wrong to invade any country at all (kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan) Of course you could debate all about the purpose of invading Kuwait and Iraq, but why the hell would you invade Afghanistan??? Invade and surpress an entire country on behalf of what 1 renegade organisation did!!!! Thats just sick! I think that entire war was because Bush had to do SOMETHING. And in the meanwhile maybe collect an extra vote or two.
I think that war, injustice, murders are wrong in ALL ways. No matter what banner or name/philosophy you´re marching under.
And about the propaganda, BOTH countries have done their share of it. The big difference is that USA is a hell of alot better at it than Bin Laden is. Remember that the best propagande is the propagande you dont notice!

Not that its wrong or anything, I just think that USA is probably one of the most patriotic countries in the world, because of really "good" propaganda through the years.

Its better to injure and possibly kill the enemy than missing him.

When you're fighting a war, it's generally better to injure the enemy, rather than kill him. Killing one guy deprives the opposition of one guy. Injuring one guy deprives the opposition of that one guy, the two or three guys required to get him back to medical assistance, the dozen or so medics back at the hospital...

This is why anti-personnel landmines maim, rather than kill, people.

Well I´m not sure about how much .228 cal is. Where I live we count the caliber in millimeters.

First, it's .223 caliber. And, while I'm not an expert at this sort of thing, I believe that that's basically the US term for 5.56 NATO ammo, which is what's used in M-16s, but not the 5.56 Long ammo that's used in AK-47s. Actually, .223 and 5.56 ammo is slightly different, but they're close enough that some people use them interchangeably. And I wouldn't be surprised if it was impossible to tell the difference once the bullet has hit something. Anyway, the cartridge and charge behind .223 and 5.56 is very similar -- much different than that behind a .22 bullet.

And about a real sniper wont leave any victis alive or he would shoot them in the head is totally wrong. A real sniper would shoot towards the chest and aim to the heart

Well, I'm not sure what experience or knowledge you're basing that on, but this latest shooting was in the gut, which isn't as critical an area. It takes a long time to die from a gut wound, I think.

well.... I recieved alot of ansers..;) And about the Nato caliber, wich was what I was looking for. Thank you!

And as written I live in Sweden where the news about this is not as good as it should be. No real details, just the info about somebody being shot autside a school and so on. So my info about these shootings in themselves are pretty limited. I was talking about snipers in general.
I have about 1 year of military training here in Sweden. I had about 2 days worth of sniping exercise, so I´m not that experienced.
And about injuring rather than killing. Well (I think) in most cases is that you are going after officers with the sniper. And its true you (if you wound them) that it takes alot of more manpower away from the action. But as it probably is an officer you would probably want him dead so he wont come back. But I guess thats a matter of opinion, anyway they dont shoot at the head wich was my point. And I dont think a bulletproof west would help that much against a 5.56 bullet. But I could be wrong about that.

On the protective ability of bulletproof vests:

http://www.armocom.ru/English/classif.htm
http://www.nlectc.org/txtfiles/BodyArmorStd/NIJSTD010103.html

Basically, the best vest available is spec'ed to stop a 5.56 NATO round.

I stand corrected.....

In reply to:

---

Of course your odds of dying are thousands of times higher just driving your car at all, but it's still creepy.

---

It's actually 4 times higher. We calculated it at work. I've told this to a lot of people and it's odd how comforting everyone finds it.

But I agree, it's scary regardless of the numbers. I have to get gas this morning and I must admit I'm nervous. I'm not one who typically gets flustered by news events but this one has me a bit shaken.

-Dylan

"Invade and surpress an entire country on behalf of what 1 renegade organisation did!!!!"

The taliban "suppressed" the afghani people. They also catered to terrorists and Osama Bin Laden was the commander of the taliban's military. We dropped off food and medical supplies to the afghani people and then killed the guys that were taking away their freedom. I'd say we helped them.

Not to mention that it is illegal to own body armor in the US. It might actually just be illegal to wear it in public. And that might be local law, but still.

What????????!!!!!!!!!!!!

So in states with Open-Carry laws, it's legal to wear something that spits out a high velocity bit of semi-molten metal, but not to wear something to stop it? That's got to be just about the most arse-about-face thing I've ever heard.

Local news agencies are reporting that police have surrounded a white van and made an arrest in Richmond...

Hopefully they got the SOB and this madness can end.

Well, the idea is that no one would actually wear body armor unless they expected to be in a situation where they would need it, and the only such plausible situations are extraordinarily likely to be criminal.

However, I tend to agree, in that there are legitimate uses for body armor outside armed robbery and expected police shootouts, peace of mind in northern Virginia these days being one of them, hunting accidents being another, and I have major problems with laws that attempt to reinforce already-illegal acts by making illegal acts that might lead to them that also make illegal the same acts that wouldn't lead to illegality.

This one, in particular, I'm a little iffy about, because I can't imagine anyone actually using body armor in relation to non-illegal acts; I don't think that there are very many hunters out there that would wear body armor if it were available to them (not that I have a consensus on this), and I doubt that your average citizen would be willing to spend a thousand dollars to buy one for each member of the family when it's easier to just stay home.

In addition, I seem to have overstated it a little. It would appear that in many states it's illegal for felons to purchase body armor. In some states, it is illegal to purchase it at all. I believe that that is more accurate than my earlier statement.

In reply to:

---

reinforce already-illegal acts by making illegal acts that might lead to them that also make illegal the same acts that wouldn't lead to illegality.

---

Whaa? I think I know what you mean, but I can't follow that sentence. Must be nearly home time

CNN appears to be reporting on an arrest - looks like they may have grabbed the sniper! You can tell I'm working hard:-)

I have major problems with laws that attempt to reinforce already-illegal acts by making illegal acts that might lead to them that also make illegal the same acts that wouldn't lead to illegality.

You are Umberto Eco and I claim my five pounds.

Peter

I have major problems with laws that attempt to reinforce already-illegal acts by making illegal acts that might lead to them that also make illegal the same acts that wouldn't lead to illegality.

Let me see if I can parse this:

Reinforcing already-illegal acts by making further acts (that might lead to these already-illegal acts) illegal is wrong when these laws also make these acts illegal in situations when they don't lead to one of the original illegal acts.

To suggest an example:

1. Bank robbers might use body armour.
2. So make body armour illegal.
3. Despite there being good (legal) reasons for wearing body armour.
4. and robbing banks already being illegal.

How am I doing?

I cannot believe that I wrote that sentence. It was even harder translating it from the Italian.

Let me see if I can parse this

Maybe I should diagram that sentence....

As I said, I'm a little up in the air on the body-armor issue, so let me use a different example that I and we are likely to have definitive views on.<ol type="1">

People ``stealing'' music might rip CDs

So make ripping CDs illegal

But empeggers rip their own CDs to make the music to which they own usage rights more accesible to themselves and no one else, which is certainly not illegal

``stealing'' music is already illegal</ol>So why make ripping CDs illegal? Wasn't the illegality of ``stealing'' the music enough in the first place? Making ripping illegal is intended to compound upon ``stealing'' penalties. But it makes people who were infringing on no one else's rights criminals for no reason. And if the penalty for ``stealing'' music was not enough in the first place, then modify that law.

On the other hand, handguns, for example, have no legitimate use outside of a firing range. In addition, making them illegal while in public stands the chance of preventing harm. So I cannot come up with a compelling reason that having a handgun outside a firing range (except for transport) should not be illegal. (I've got irrational problems with that argument, but it's a good counterpoint nonetheless. Also, this is not intended to start a gun control debate; it's just an example.)

Edit: I just tried to diagram that, and it's very big. Nightmare, really. But rest assured that it's gramatically correct, even if it is impossible to read.

But rest assured that it's gramatically correct

Oh, I wasn't questioning that. I even agree with the sentiment! I think the problem was that everyone first reads the three consecutive words "making illegal acts" as "committing illegal acts" not "making acts illegal", and only realises much later on that it was ambiguous and thus needs to be reparsed.

Peter

"this is not intended to start a gun control debate"

Well we can have a quick one. Don't you think defense is a legitimate use for handguns?

On a side note, a friend of mine has an old kevlar vest and he has had people shoot him with a .22 while he is wearing it. I haven't tried it but he says you can barely feel it. He also draped it over a door and shot it with a 9mm - it stopped the bullet but it broke through the door.

Sounds like a Darwin Award waiting to happen.

Okay. This is all I'll say about guns: I think that handguns are largely evil. There is some legitimacy in using handguns for defense, but I think that you'll seldom find that a valid argument out on the streets somewhere -- only in the home. I don't believe that the same sort of gun control that works in the UK could work in the US based largely on the fact that the US is more spawling than the UK and the mindset of the average person is affected by that. It's also more difficult to police wide-open areas.

Also, it's interesting to note that the standard sidearm for the US Army changed from a .38 revolver to the Model 1911 .45 semiautomatic when fighting the Moros in the Philippines. The reason for this is that the Moros would get into an altered state before battle and, essentially, the .38 bullets would pass through them unnoticed. The .45 bullets knocked them down, which is what it took to stop them.

Actually, there is increasing amount of commentary that gun control isn't working in England very well anymore. England's crime rate is approaching that of America, and the ban on handguns is largly not affecting criminals.

He also draped it over a door and shot it with a 9mm - it stopped the bullet but it broke through the door.

The part of the body armour image Hollywood leaves out is that while it may "stop" the bullet, broken ribs and severe bruising are to be expected when bringing a bullet from 1500 fps muzzle velocity to a dead stop in less than a second. A .223 can do plenty of damage as their velocity is higher than say a .30-06, the standard cartridge of an M-1 Garand used in WWII and early part of the Korean War, which is bigger but slower. I've seen a .223 go in the chest of a deer and out the hindquarter before at over 100 yards.

For the record, the factory load .223 pushes about 3200 fps.

http://www2.whidbey.com/deadeye/223Rifle.htm

For the record, the factory load .223 pushes about 3200 fps.

Oops, it's been awhile, I switched to fishing, slightly less expensive.
Either way, it'll probably bruise and break things even if it doesn't penetrate unless the target is at an extreme distance. Maybe I was thinking velocity at 100 yards or something like that.

But in BF1942 headshots are the key...

d33zY wrote: "The taliban "suppressed" the afghani people. They also catered to terrorists and Osama Bin Laden was the commander of the taliban's military. We dropped off food and medical supplies to the afghani people and then killed the guys that were taking away their freedom. I'd say we helped them."

Then how come just about everybody hates your people in the middle east? Some people doesnt want to be "freed".
I dont deny that they were in alot of misery. But you DID go over there and overthrew their government and put your own in their place. That is NOT good, that is not the democratic way. And the people who replaced the taliban regim isnt that better. And who can say that all afghani and talibans are pro terrorism. Sure, it was a good thing to drop off food and supplies. But i´ll bet the afghani people are no better off now. What you did was go in, kill alot of people and putting a government that ows USA alot of things. The civilians never win in war. Sure it helped USA in the short run, but you also made alot of people angry at the USA foreign policy! Wich I personally isnt very impressed by. Its a tragic how a world leading nation can be so behind in some things and so leading in others.

"but you also made alot of people angry at the USA foreign policy!"

Well the taliban and Osama Bin Laden made us angry by killing 3,000 of our civilians. Some people tend to get mad when the US kills a few civilians on accident, but you tend to ignore the fact that the people we are after are purposely killing civilians. We have the right to attack any nation that attacks us. And yes, I think the afghani people are better off now.

In reply to:

---

Well the taliban and Osama Bin Laden made us angry by killing 3,000 of our civilians

---

I think you had better check your statistics on this one.

A reasonable chunk of the 3000 of "our civilians" you refer to are not in fact "Americans" [i.e. US Citizens].

There were many people killed on 9/11 who were from/citizens of Cananda, The UK, Mexico, Australia and many other countries around the world.

These people may have had Green Cards, but they were not American Citizens.

And therefore, while they were civilians, they were not "(y)our civilians."

Not everyone in the world wants to live or work in America, and of those who do, not every one of them wants to become a US citizen.

So your assertion about "3000 of our civilians" is too high.

> Then how come just about everybody hates your people in the middle east? Some people doesnt want to be "freed".

Well, I can't talk about everybody, but Osama hates us because we have troops in Saudia Arabia, who asked us to be there. He hates us because he is a religious zealot who thinks that all non-Muslims should be banned from the entire area, much like they are already banned from the holy cities of Mecca and Medina.

Some people in that region hate us because we support Israel, an argument that may have some merit. I don't really want to get into a debate about that at the moment.

And a good chunk hate us because they see us as a meddling bully, and while there may be some truth to that, we have helped many Muslims as well. Not only have we helped the people of Afghnastan, we have liberated Kuwait and Muslim Kosovo (from a Christian Serbia no less). They choose to ignore the good we do and focus on the mistakes instead. This has nothing to do with reason or logic, just with a desire to find someone to hate, and the U.S. is the easiest target.

> But you DID go over there and overthrew their government and put your own in their place.

Well, not entirely true. We didn't choose the government, but we did help replace one internal faction with another. As for Democracy, they didn't have one before so tell me how we did anything bad in that regard.

> But i´ll bet the afghani people are no better off now.

You blew any chance at being taken seriously with that statement. The idea that the current government, even with all its faults, is not better than the brutal, oppressive, iron-fisted, zealot government of the Taliban is ludicrous.

I think there must be a very unusual slant to the reporting of these crisis by the Swedish media. I find it interesting to read the news reports of different nations, and see the spin in each case. Some countries seem to regularly spin toward their national line (US, Germany) and others regularly against it (UK, France). There's probably some truth somewhere in the middle.

I don't know any English language Swedish news sites, though.

Rob

"A reasonable chunk of the 3000 of "our civilians" you refer to are not in fact "Americans" [i.e. US Citizens]."

Ok, fair enough. I think the final death toll was 3,025. I'm not sure how many were americans, but I would guess about 90%.

In reply to:

---

Ok, fair enough. I think the final death toll was 3,025. I'm not sure how many were americans, but I would guess about 90%.

---

I think 90% is still too high.

Considering that you have to remove the non-civilian personnel involved [mostly at the Pentagon], as they were not civilians [for the most part these were miltary employees i.e. US Citizens].

Now you have got below 3000, then from memory something like 500+ were not "Americans", and who knows how many of the 2500 or so remaing actually were.

So, its more like 83% (2500/3000) at the most were American Civilians.

I don't think the percentage or the exact number is important to the point he was making.

In reply to:

---

I don't think the percentage or the exact number is important to the point he was making.

---

I agree that the exact numbers are irrelevant, even one can be considered one too many.

But that sword cuts both ways.


However, if anyone makes claims that America has a right to be annoyed with someone because X of "our people" got killed, and the X you quote is wrong for all sorts of reasons - is the original claim still valid?

I think you have a right to be corrected if you make outrageous claims which are clearly and provably false.

For instance:

I could say 100% of everything Tony Blair (UK PM/Leader) says is utter rubbish.
But saying it does not make it so.

And if I am proved wrong and only 83% of everything that Tony Blair says is definately rubbish, then my claim that 100%... is clearly wrong.

If I originally said "at least 80% of everything Tony Blair says is rubbish" then whether it it was 81% or 99.99% *would* be irrelevant.


All I am doing is correcting the abuse of statistics.

On the topic of gun control and whatnot...

Go see "Bowling For Columbine". Interesting documentary about guns in the American culture.

As for England's crime rate approaching that of the US, that really has nothing to do with gun control. Getting rid of the gun controls will not do anything to stop a rise in crime. But it *will* make it easier for criminals and "borderline" criminals to get guns, and it *will* increase the number of non-crime related gun deaths.

As one who as lived in a country with gun control (Canada), and one without gun control (the US), I feel much, much, much safer walking down the street in the country *with* gun control. I'm less afraid of a criminal with a gun than I am the average Joe on the street with a gun, who might decide to intercede in a mugging and accidentally shoot me instead of the mugger, or who might get ticked off in a fit of passionate road rage, or who might use his gun in "self-defence", miss his target, and hit me.

If you're so concerned about self-defense that you think you need to carry a handgun, I'd recommend studying Jeet Kune Do, Krav Magda, or a similar martial art. The things that can be done with a stick, a blade, a half-dozen quarters in the end of a handkerchief, or just your own two hands (and legs) is astonishing, not to mention far more dependable and versatile than a handgun.

not to mention far more dependable and versatile than a handgun.

But, how will I get my daughter's basketball off the roof, or change the channel on the TV, or put out the lights at bedtime if not with a gun?

(If you don't get it, I apologize.)

Osama hates us because we have troops in Saudia Arabia, who asked us to be there

Ah yes, that'll be the will of the democratically-elected parliament of the Republic of Saudi Arabia, will it?

we have liberated Kuwait

Again, I'm sure the many fine populist political parties who contested Kuwait's last election are very grateful for that.

Sarcasm aside, of course a US-bolstered democratic state in Afghanistan will be an improvement on the Taleban. But firstly, the Afghans remember that the Taleban themselves were not a force in Afghanistan until they were bolstered, funded, and armed by the US as a scorched-earth policy against Communist annexation of Afghanistan -- and secondly, the history of US adventurism and bait-and-switch regime meddling in the Middle-East will not be filling Afghans with confidence in the US' commitment to the long-term infrastructure support needed now to weld a proper country from an uneasy coalition of overarmed ex-warlords. In particular, the Afghans must be fearing -- as the world fears -- that Afghanistan will be left to the wolves again once it all kicks off in Iraq.

Peter

I would have to apologize to all Americans, I did choose my arguments very clumsily and bluntly.

The thing is, you have the right to be angry and sad at the WTC terrorism. But you have to be reminded of, that its not a country you are fighting against. Its a terror organisation. Without boundraries or national claims. In attacking Afghanistan you took the war up one level. Because the "civilian casulties" you claim are equal to Afghanistans casualties. Has nothing to do with your war. And believing in that YOUR country has the right to sacrifice Afghani civilians makes you just as much a terrorist as they are. Sacrificing anybody (especially civilians) are not justified by any goals! And as someone else pointed out, the civilians are not just affected by the bullets. But also by all the war parties that encircles them. Even if the USA troops doesnt affect the civilians in a direct way (stealing food/supplies/luitering/raping) I wouldnt be surprised if the taliban or the afghani counterpart are doing it. By your presence there, you started the war and have an indirect blame for what has happened. I believe that is one strong argument for NOT starting any war for no whatsoever reason. How would you feel if your home were to be plundered and your wife raped together with all the neigbourhoods wifes. And thats just one aspect of war and "civilian casualties". Its very easy for a strong nation like the USA to making war here and there. But you also have to think about the consequences. And what you indirectly inflicted was not upon the al quaida.... (they were hiding in the mountains) it was upon the innocent people of Afghanistan.

Maybe I´m just as touched by my own governments propaganda as many of the Americans are. But atleast we stand for NO killing!

"But at least we stand for NO killing!"

I think this is the stand that makes your viewpoint different from mine. Don't get me wrong, I think that anytime a person dies at the hand of another, it is the result of evil. The problem is, evil is hard at work in the world to make some killing necessary.

There are many people in the world who, if they could, would kill me in a split second simply because I'm an American. That's the sad reality, the one with which the US (and other countries) must deal. And of course, we (the US) make mistakes, as you have pointed out, which is tragic and evil as well. But to stand for NO killing is a nice benign viewpoint until someone wants to come into YOUR house and rape YOUR wife and take YOUR life. If right now your country can take that stance, be grateful for the current climate, because if the terrorists have their way, eventually you will be in their sites.

As far as specific go, I personally believe our action in Afghanistan was warranted and could have been avoided if its government had worked with us. I also think that innocents died, but they were never intended to be our target. The Afghanistan government could have protected their people, but they refused. I believe that we made the right choice, and it is tragic and evil that people had to die. I might be wrong, of course, because I don't know the whole story. What I do know is that we don't live in a word where "NO killing" is an option.

The Afghanistan government could have protected their people, but they refused.

Protected them from what? Protected them from being listed under "collateral damage"?

How would they have done that, except by kowtowing to what the US wants? This leads to an erosion of the religious fervour that they were trying to promote when they took over the country in the first place.

When will you guys just get it? The Islamic fundamentalists just don't like secular westerners. Shipping in McDonalds and Disney to calm them down is the last thing they want.

And that's just the government. The average man in the street, strange as it may seem, doesn't hold a viewpoint that different. For him, though, it's probably not about religion, more the erosion of a lifestyle. The French don't particularly like US culture (or the absence of it), and they're just as western-secular as the rest of us.

Moreover, these people are poor. They're not worried about such basic human rights as self-determination. They're worried about such basic human rights as food.

America has no policital interests in the middle east and should act accordingly. America has energy interests and passes off nuclear weapons as a reason to control the area. Pakistan, India, China, Korea and several other Nations have chemical and nuclear weapons.
Why not attack them?

More civilians, locals or not, were killed in the war raids on Afghanistan than were killed in the S11 events.

There is NO reason for guns in civilian hands.
Q. What about self protection?
A. What started this thread?

Sweeping statements I know, but it's late and I'm irritated by people thinking that there is a tolerable level of violence.

There is NO reason for guns in civilian hands.

There absolutely is. The second amendment to the US Constitution exists for a very specific reason. Read the US Declaration of Independence. Given, we don't have an insane monarch trying to extract fealty from halfway around the world now, but just because the reason doesn't exist in the wild now doesn't mean that no reason exists at all. Things change, often for the worse. Examine the war-mongering civil-liberties-impairing idiot we have in office now. And then look at his approval ratings. Then tell me that it couldn't get worse.

Is there a tolerable level of violence? No. But sometimes intolerable things must be done.

Edit: Note that I am in favor of gun control (at least in theory) and think that the NRA adminstration is comprised largely of pandering gun nuts. So I'm not coming from that viewpoint. It's just that your statement is a little beyond the pale.

I see it the same way - from colleagues in various offices round the world, the overwhelming viewpoint seems to be that the US should just leave well alone. In the Middle East this is especially so - as there the US not only acts in its own interests, typically by screwing the locals out of fuel/resources etc, but also trying to overpower the local culture with (as Roger put it) it's own lack of one.

Imposition of the US Intellectual Property Framework is also not helping developing countries, and just further reinforces the world view that the US is the big bully of the neighbourhood.

World transmission of the CNN channel also does the US no favours at all! The coverage of issues outside the US is staggeringly low (admittedly, we in the UK have a similar issue here - a cow falling off a cliff in Cornwall is likely to make the news although there is enough independence in the various news channels that we get a reasonable world focus) so the rest of the world may get the impression that the US pays no attention to anything outside its borders unless American corporate interests are impacted, and then any force is acceptable to resolve the problem, no matter what the collateral damage.

I for one was horrified by the Twin Towers attack, but think it outrageous that the US attacked Afghanistan and killed more innocents than the original terrorists. A definite case of abuse of a powerful position by the US.

Hmmm - I sound tetchy today. Must be all the rain - hasn't stopped for 38 hours here. Need a holiday. Unfortunately I'm heading north a few hundred miles for the weekend, so it'll be even wetter. Oh joy.

a cow falling off a cliff in Cornwall is likely to make the news

Are you sure it fell? Maybe it was tipped

Possibly

The bizarre thing was my brother got scrambled to rescue it...from halfway down the cliff where it was clinging. Well, not so much clinging as wedged I guess, hooves not being that great for rock climbing. Then again, goats seem to manage...so maybe the hooves aren't the problem so much as the cow's bulk.

Sarcasm aside, of course a US-bolstered democratic state in Afghanistan will be an improvement on the Taleban. But firstly, the Afghans remember that the Taleban themselves were not a force in Afghanistan until they were bolstered, funded, and armed by the US as a scorched-earth policy against Communist annexation of Afghanistan -- and secondly, the history of US adventurism and bait-and-switch regime meddling in the Middle-East will not be filling Afghans with confidence in the US' commitment to the long-term infrastructure support needed now to weld a proper country from an uneasy coalition of overarmed ex-warlords. In particular, the Afghans must be fearing -- as the world fears -- that Afghanistan will be left to the wolves again once it all kicks off in Iraq.

Good sarcasm. I'd tend to think of the approach as "bait-and-forget" in a lot of cases, though.

"Pakistan, India, China, Korea and several other Nations have chemical and nuclear weapons.
Why not attack them?"

Because nations like China (who aren't even our enemy) already have the nukes and attacking them could lead to an all out nuclear war. Iraq and North Korea (who are our enemies) are trying to obtain nukes and we don't want that to happen.




"World transmission of the CNN channel also does the US no favours at all!"

CNN, McDonald's, Disneyland, etc. springing up around the world has nothing to do with the US government. These businesses are owned and run by individuals who open them for one reason - to make money. There is no conspiracy to force american culture down anyone's throat. If everyone hated McDonald's so much then nobody would eat there and it would close down. Likewise, CNN is only broadcast around the world because people like to watch it.


"but think it outrageous that the US attacked Afghanistan and killed more innocents than the original terrorists."

How so? Do you consider the taliban and Al Qaeda innocents? Sure, some civilian bystanders got caught in the line of fire, and while it is always tragic, it was necessary to take the bad guys out. And we certainly didn't kill anywhere near 3000. Should we have just held back and waited until they killed another few thousand of our civilians? Or should we have sent cops to afghanistan with arrest warrants? I'd say we're doing a damn good job avoiding civilian deaths. If this had happened 50 years ago then the whole coutry would have just been carpet bombed to shit. But back then you didn't have CNN to show you graphic pictures of the dead bodies and crying loved ones.

People die in war. War should be avoided. We didn't start it but we're gonna end it.

I for one was horrified by the Twin Towers attack, but think it outrageous that the US attacked Afghanistan and killed more innocents than the original terrorists. A definite case of abuse of a powerful position by the US.

When I look at sources like this casualty count that estimate 3000+ civilian casualties, I think I'd at least have to admit your contention -- perhaps I'd say "that may well have killed more innocents than the original terrorists". As with estimated civilan deaths in Iraq (from sanctions), there seems to be a direct relationship between estimates and political agenda.

In this case, I'm going to guess that the Pentagon's accounting is low, while we continue to tout the amazing accuracy of JDAMs and such. Some of these things *are* certainly amazingly accurate, but that is not much help if they are precisely aimed at the wrong target. Plus, don't we remember the "amazing accuracy" of the Patriot missiles in 1991 and what bullshit that turned out to be?

Given the circumstances in late 2001, though, what I don't know is what alternative path I might have taken vis-a-vis Al Quaeda and Taleban had they given the keys to the White house to a more qualified individual (me.) I mean, WWJD? (What Would Jed Do??) It was the most depressing circumstance....a huge tragedy with the official national/military response in the hands of folks I don't consider trustworthy, with no real coherent alternative in play.

It's not getting better. I saw a cartoon last week with a picture of Democrats depicted as a haggard canine entitled "The Dog That Didn't Bark". My sentiments, exactly. With a few notable exceptions such as my Iraq-traveling congressman (McDermott) there seems to be little dissention from the Cheney Plan. All we need is the Iraqui version of the Gulf of Tonkin Incident and we're on our way (for, indeed, it seems that most folks don't remember the GoTI anymore or that it was a fabrication).

The media? One aspect of my discomfort over the past year is that it seems the major outlets' biggest interest is not in developing an independent analysis but in finding a way to "brand" the story -- Attack on America and all that. I have already seen signs of this on CNN at least -- the graphics folks are quite busy getting ready for Iraq.

For those that don't know, Gulf of Tonkin.

Rrrr! Oh my god this is pissing me off.

As I am proud to be an American - I am just as ashamed to be. I am really really annoyed when people bitch at other Americans (and myself) on this board, and in general, for actions our government is taking or has taken, and make it look like we ourselves are to blame. For one, many Americans dont agree with what our government is doing, but simply because we are Americans, it makes us bad or something. I take it personally. I'm not defending the actions of my government!! I don't think that many of the things we did was right. Makes me want to move to Canada or somewhere, or go practice my German.

I forget who said it, but I agree with the comment that the US just needs to leave the world alone. I hate McDonalds, Disney, and CNN, and although I don't like to see them barging into places they are not necessarily "welcome", I could really care less what they do.

I'm not going into the gun control side of the debate right now... I'm a stupid american and I might get so mad right now that I'm going to go drive around and get road rage then I'm going to reach in my glove compartment and go shoot the ass that didn't use his turn signal.

Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot the [/sarcasm] tag in the last paragraph there. I guess I don't fit the "perceived" world view of being an "average" fat, stupid american.

You elected them.

I did NOT elect the current one. I voted for Bill 'n Opus.

World transmission of the CNN channel also does the US no favours at all!

CNN, McDonald's, Disneyland, etc. springing up around the world has nothing to do with the US government.

Small missage of point here, I think: the original poster wasn't adding CNN to the list of cultural imperialism charges laid at the US, he was saying that showing the rest of the world what US news reporting looks like reinforces everyone's stereotype of US parochiality.

Peter

No, we didn't. We elected Gore and Lieberman, but GWB's brother decided otherwise.

Ok I calmed down.

I actually agree with most of the viewpoints presented here, and I try to hold more of a world view instead of a US-centralized one when looking at these things. One of the things that I really like about this board is this is a true global community. I get to read, chat, learn from people from all around the world - and I don't even think of country barriers when participating here. I ordered the sled plug from Shonky - and I felt important when I received a package from Queensland, Australia! I plan to purchase a tuner kit from Patrick, and I am grateful to everyone on this board for contributing so much.

Granted - I have been annoyed with various things since 9/11 - and I'm not pissed at anyone specific here, just the general sentiment and situation in the world now is what irritates me. I have a lot to be thankful for, though (my empeg, for one). I feel bad when I see on tv that Israel attacked Palestine again, usually killing innocent victims, and I feel equally as bad when I see that there was another suicide bombing in Israel, killing innocent victims there. It is endless madness. Therefore, walking around town here, I'm not generally concerned that some sniper might be in the woods about to shoot me. Its not a pleasant situation by any means, but compared to situations elsewhere in the world... meh, what are you going to do? There is a greater chance I'll be struck by lightning, or killed in a car accident than be shot by a sniper in the woods. My situation could be worse, and I think about that all the time and I'm thankful for the relative tranquility I have.

And, I can always move to Canada if it gets really bad.

You elected them.

Rrr. This is exactly what I'm talking about.

Why cant English be like other languages! You - in this sense can be both singular and plural. Why cant it be like in German - du and Sie. Or French - tu and vous?


Don't you mean "Your country elected them"?!?

BTDTGTTS. Fifth post down by our resident grammar Naz^H^H^HCza^H^H^HGuru.

Why cant it be like in German - du and Sie ...

I think you mean du and ihr. Unless you're not being totally informal, in which case it would be Sie and Sie. Not to mention the confusion between ihr the second person plural pronoun and ihr the third person singular female possessive pronoun and Ihr the second person formal singular possessive pronoun and Ihr the second person formal plural posessive pronoun.

Yeah, other languages are easier.

Thank you, I missed that thread but very interesting. The history behind the grammar is interesting. It just goes to show that there is so much to learn just from this BBS! My German and French grammar is rusty too, they didn't teach these to me in elementary school here (I wish they did).

I voluntarily took a few semesters of German in college just because I was interested in learning something about another language.

I'll freely admit that I am probably overreacting. It is absurd to think that someone overseas singally and wholly blame me for my nation's mistakes simply because I live in it. I think it can be generally be agreed that a lot of people are not comfortable with what is going on right now, myself included. I'm not particularly fond of the idea of going into Iraq, and at the same time I'm scared to think what Saddam can do, and hope that he doesn't do it.

I think you mean du and ihr

Correct. I read and bookmarked the other thread that was referenced. See, I wasn't kidding when I said my German is rusty. I remember stumbling over all those pronouns when I wrote papers and essays in German.

Yeah, I was being deliberately inflammatory. And yes, I did mean you plural.

I guess all that I'm saying is that you live in a democracy. You have freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, etc.. If you truly don't like something that your government is doing, then do something about it. Let your elected representatives know how you feel.

Otherwise you might as well have voted for the incumbent.

"a desperate choice for desperate times"

Vote in 2004!

classic.

at the same time I'm scared to think what Saddam can do

Let me tell you a story:

I was on vacation in Spain on 9/11. The first I knew about the WTC attacks was when I was sitting outside a bar, enjoying some tapas. I overheard some nearby English tourists saying something to the effect of "Holy f***ing s**t, I just saw the WTC collapse".

So, I wandered down the street to a bar with a TV, and tried to figure out what the Spanish news was saying.

A confession: My first thought was "Oh sh*t, GWB is President of the US, now what kind of stupid thing is he going to go and do?"

My second thought was about the loss of life. In those early stages, it still seemed totally unreal -- I couldn't get my head around it.

My third thought was to phone a friend of mine to see if he'd heard from a mutual friend of ours who works near the WTC, and often goes there to visit clients. Thankfully, he and his wife were fine.

What I did find encouraging was the way that the British, American, Australian and Canadian tourists (other than the Japanese, are there any others?) kinda bonded in those few days. The expat pubs were heaving with people trying to catch the (English-language) news, and to try to get a handle on what was going on.

I was encouraged when Bush went into Afghanistan because it seemed like a measured (for him) response to the issue. Turns out I was wrong.

I think that the correct response to Saddam is simply to ignore him. He'll die of natural causes eventually.

I think that the correct response to Saddam is simply to ignore him. He'll die of natural causes eventually.

Yup, keep telling yourself Saddam is just one isolated totalitarian leader with nobody who would succeed him with the same convictions and ideals...

Thinking that the problems in Iraq will be solved once Saddam is gone is akin to a cancer patient who goes into remission thinking that they're guaranteed a long, healthy life.

Having said this, I am totally against any kind of military invasion into Iraq at this point. I am very much in favor of a covert operation to kill him and overthrow his regime, though, but I would want this to be done BY the Iraqi people, with as much help from us as they need. At the very least, Iraq needs to truly open up to UN inspections of all areas (the oft-quoted "unfettered access.")

I gave up voting many, many years ago. I keep telling myself that if there is every anyone worth electing to office I'll register again. But when you only have a choice of electing either dick A or dick B, what is the use. I have written different officials about different issues but unless you have some power behind you it doesn't seem to do any good.

I don't like what our government is doing over in the Middle East, they meddle too much in other countries and don't take care of the issues that need to be addressed in our own country. Easier to go muck up some place else than to solve the real problems at home, get the old American spirit up and get the economy moving again. They need to let the UN handle more than they do and quit being the bullies of the world as you put it.

We are just not used to being attacked on our own soil like other countries have had to put up with, how dare someone come over here and attack 'us'. This country has always seemed blood thirsty to me, but it is my country.

Yup, keep telling yourself Saddam is just one isolated totalitarian leader with nobody who would succeed him with the same convictions and ideals...

So? Ignore them too. I think that you should let the people of a country decide upon their own destiny. Deposing one head of state and replacing him with an American puppet is not the right way to resolve the issue, even if it does bring favourable oil price agreements.

Particularly when you then leave that guy high and dry when his policies suddenly don't agree with yours. If you do that, there are (at least) two possible results:

1. He doesn't get deposed: He gets annoyed with you for dropping him.
2. He does get deposed: His replacement gets annoyed with you for propping him up for so long.

So? Ignore them too.

Yeah, that approach looks really wise until the first ( chemical | biological | nuclear ) warhead lands in your backyard.

No fair, editing your original one-line post to contain logical arguments.

Yeah, there's a clear precedent for America dropping puppets in, and that's exactly what I'm NOT in favor of. A majority of the people in Iraq don't want Saddam in power, they just don't have the means to uproot him. The idea is to give them the means, but to let them decide who else gets into power (provided they're not building and hiding weapons.)

Re: oil, Iraq is just one member country of OPEC. Installing a leader sympathetic to the U.S. would have little or no tangible benefit to us, if anything, it would unite other OPEC members against the U.S.

I think that the correct response to Saddam is simply to ignore him. He'll die of natural causes eventually.

Read the October 21, 2002 issue of Newsweek on Saddam's sons. Be careful what you wish for.

provided they're not building and hiding weapons

Why not? We (US/UK) build and hide weapons. Why shouldn't other countries?

If I was some tinpot dictator, hearing the rhetoric coming out the White House these days, I'd want nukes, just to discourage Bush invading me on a whim. c.f. the North Koreans' admission that they're working on nukes.

Note: Devil's Advocate hat is firmly on.

Read the October 21, 2002 issue of Newsweek

Got a URL?

Pay site. Sorry. But virtually any search on Qusay Hussein or Uday Hussein will yield the same picture.

Let your elected representatives know how you feel.

If you don't know how despotic this country has gotten in the last couple of years, here's an interesting quote from Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA):

I have come to the floor to state that, after much deliberation, I have decided to vote for the Resolution introduced by Senators Lieberman, Warner, Bayh and McCain. ... I serve as the Senior Senator from California, representing 35 million people. That is a formidable task. People have weighed in by the tens of thousands. If I were just to cast a representative vote based on those who have voiced their opinions with my office - and with no other factors - I would have to vote against this resolution.

Actually, we don't hide our chemical weapons... And we're supposed to get rid of them by 2004. And according to this we've already gotten rid of all of our stockpiles of biological weapons not related to bio defense research. Yeah, I see the grey area in there too. Are there classified sites that are housing one or the other of these menaces? Hell if I know... But why would there be when we have such a large supply of nukes?

And hey, I'm no huge fan of ANY weapons, especially nukes, but unless every country on the globe follows the mantra of War Games ("the only winning move is not to play") then everyone needs to kinda hold on to what they have to protect their own interests. I don't like the concept, but completely disarming every nuke in the world and preventing anyone from building another one seems pretty unreasonable.

I don't like the concept, but completely disarming every nuke in the world and preventing anyone from building another one seems pretty unreasonable.

Yet it's okay for us to have them, but not okay for other countries? Or am I missing your point?

Got a URL?

Here's the story

I have come to the floor to state that, after much deliberation, I have decided to vote for the Resolution introduced by Senators Lieberman, Warner, Bayh and McCain. ..... If I were just to cast a representative vote based on those who have voiced their opinions with my office - and with no other factors - I would have to vote against this resolution.

Yes, astounding. Depressing. But the Democrats want me to vote for *them* because they are so different.

Perhaps she voted for the Silent Majority.

How did you get that link?

I didn't directly address who's allowed to have what. Ideally we want zero nuclear weapons on the planet, but we all know nobody's going to yield theirs while others posess them. I think it's NOT okay for *anyone* to *use* them at all. Who *has* them is a more complex issue, now that the cat's out of the bag, but I think the general concept is that we all want to reduce them, and keep new countries from getting them.

Really. 21st century democrats are just 20th century republicans and 21st century republicans are 20th century fascists.

Next time, I'm voting communist. They probably have Lyndon-Johnson-like politics these days.

I think the general concept is that we all want to reduce them, and keep new countries from getting them.

So that we can keep them under our thumb(s)? I'm not saying that that's really the case, but I believe that that's exactly some of the reason that many 2nd and 3rd world nations are pissed at us -- because we have to be the top dog, and we'll keep every one else down to do it.

How did you get that link?

I searched for "Newsweek October 21, 2002 issue" and it most hits were for msnbc.com where I searched for "Saddam sons" and got the article... talk about mis-guided youth... sheesh they're bad news.

Perhaps she voted for the Silent Majority

Maybe she just felt like it was the right thing to do. Further quotes from her press release:

But as a member of the Intelligence Committee, as someone who has read and discussed and studied the history of Iraq, the record of obfuscation and the terror Saddam Hussein has sown, one comes to the conclusion that he remains a consequential threat.

In fact, she's the chair of the Technology and Terrorism Subcommittee. But the chair of the Intelligence Committee, Bob Graham (D-FL), said ``I would also like to reinforce my conviction that this resolution forces the President to focus our military and intelligence on the wrong target''. What could she know that he wouldn't? (Unfortunately, if you read that paper, he's still a big war mongerer.)

Regardless, it is her duty to represent her consituents. And that was my point.

Edit: Oops. URL added.

Of course, the weird thing about all of this is that one of the UN weapons inspectors apparently went overnight from saying ``we have to get back into Iraq'' to ``they didn't have anything when we left''. (I don't have a source on this, and it might be totally wrong.) That feels very odd to me.

"When will you guys just get it? The Islamic fundamentalists just don't like secular westerners."

Believe me, I get it. That doesn't, however, make it ok for them target civilians like Osama did in the WTC. It also doesn't make it ok for them to protect those that do.

"Is there a tolerable level of violence? No. But sometimes intolerable things must be done."

Well stated.

I did not mean to imply in my earlier post that killing was tolerable or something I desire. Though I'll rejoice in the freedom that war has purchased for me, I will never be glad that people had to die. War is evil, and I hope to never be a willing participant.

Regardless, it is her duty to represent her consituents. And that was my point.

I disagree. That's why we don't have a democracy. We have a republic. We are electing people who represent our standards and viewpoints to make an educated decision for us based on their knowlege and experience.

I applaud Senator Feinstein for making that decision as she is far more informed than the average Californian (I used to be one).

Furthermore, (and I'm probably the only one on this board) I think Bush and his administration are doing an excellent job given their limitations, and I doubt Gore/Leiberman could do much better.

Lastly (and here's where I probably piss everyone off), I think it's awfully pretentious and ignorant for any of us to pretend that we can make informed decisions on how to handle foreign policy (barring the possibility that there are any high-ranking government officials or intelligence community members on this board).

But that's just my opinion...and everyone knows that opinions are like @$$holes....everyone has one and noone particularly cares to hear more about mine.

If you read her quote carefully, you will see that it says if she voted as per the wishes of the people who called her office. That is not of course a scientific poll. I would bet a scientifi poll would reveal much the same as the rest of the country.

Even if it was, she is not bound to vote as per the wishes of her constituents. Right or wrong we have a representative government. I remember the flag burning laws in the late 80s. I live in a very conservative District. My Congressman was hounded to vote for the flag burning ban. Calls and letters were 100 to 1 for the ban. He felt like it was a violation of free speech and voted against it.

I believe that that's exactly some of the reason that many 2nd and 3rd world nations are pissed at us -- because we have to be the top dog, and we'll keep every one else down to do it.

Look, everyone wants the brass ring. A poor guy in a 3rd world country is willing to overlook a leader who violates human rights, rules with an iron fist, and kills anyone in his way, provided the regime puts food on their table. The thing is, countries who have acheived a certain level of prosperity and might have, generally, done so the right way, or at least in a way that is more right than what Iraq has done. This past history of doing things the right way, and only resorting to war when necessary,

In the specific case of America, we're in a position to set an example for the rest of the world. Half of it is that we've chosen to take that position, and half of it is that we've had no choice, and been thrust into that position, with other countries such as our UK brethren watching, cheering and saying "go get 'em!" I'm not saying our allies love everything we do, but there have been times when someone needed to do something and the U.S., being the superpower, did it. Have there been screwups? Hell yeah. Should we have stayed out of a certain number of the things we've gotten our hands in? Maybe. But overall, I think good decisions have been made, and most of our involvements in foreign affairs have had a positive influence, and left behind countries that are better off than before we got there.

I think that history, and our current status as the flagship of modern democracy, affords us the right to say, or at least recommend, who gets to have what in terms of weapons. The part I am not on board with at all is Bush's "we'll do it even if nobody joins us" attitude. I believe that the U.S. needs to not just lead by example, but also make sure that allies and even adversaries understand why we're doing something, and need to be encouraged to go with us. With Iraq, I'm not entirely sold on the idea that we should be there, but certainly, Saddam Hussein should not have these things.

Now, Bitt, mind sharing your solution to the global nuclear crisis? Or the situation with Iraq?

When will you guys just get it? The Islamic fundamentalists just don't like secular westerners

I'd like to ask if this is really "fundamentalism". I'm in a class on Islam at the moment, and from what I understand, what Bin Laden is doing is not exactly showing basic Muslim beliefs. Hell, jihad doesn't mean holy war, yet either he or the press keeps using it that way.

All I know is, Jesus, Muhammad, et all would be pissed at all of us these days.

I disagree. That's why we don't have a democracy. We have a republic. We are electing people who represent our standards and viewpoints to make an educated decision for us based on their knowlege and experience.

Well stated. Unfortunately, the masses are sometimes ill-equipped to make decisions based on nothing more than emotional response. The other thing that bothers me is that people have a tendency to judge politicians for making decision they would NOT have made, even though as a civilian, there is simply no way they could possibly know all the facts and be able to weigh the consequences. Being in the position of working for the government, I have, on several occasions, had my mind changed when I was concerned about an (apparently) ill-advised decision, talked to the representative, and been told a few more tidbits of crucial information that the public simply cannot be privy to for various reasons. (Think privacy and secrecy laws).

In other words, I happen to believe that our system works exceedingly well, regardless of our personal feelings.

Unfortunately, the masses are sometimes ill-equipped to make decisions based on nothing more than emotional response.

Yeah, the old saying that Democracy is the theory that the People know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.

Here's a better take on it. Transcribed from Will Durst's album (referring to the tax rebate check we got a year ago):

Don't get me wrong, man. That 300 bucks last August... That rebate check came in handy. I live here in town, I paid off two parking tickets with it.

But we had this windfall, we could have done anything with it. We could have paid for every hot lunch program in America through the year 2054. We could have put a downpayment on prescription drugs, which they talked about last November and now we haven't heard Word One of. We could have done a lot.

"Oh no, no, you can't do that. Uh-uh. No." "Why?" "Well, the American people want tax cuts."

Duh. The American people also want drive through nickel beer night.

The American people want to lose weight by eating ice cream. The American people would chew off their own foot if Oprah told them there was liquid gold in their ankle veins. The American people love the Home Shopping Network because it's commercial-free.

So yeah, the idea that sometimes the government has to do unpopular things (within reason) is not a problem with me.

So yeah, the idea that sometimes the government has to do unpopular things (within reason) is not a problem with me.

Good point. If we do end up going into Iraq (I hope we don't), then maybe it will be for some reason that the government is withholding - some form of irrefutable evidence that Saddam is going to do something terrible unless we act. Unfortunately, there is no way of knowing.

A good example is the Serial sniper (isn't that what started this thread?). The news media was at one point (and still is to a certain extent) hindering the investigation by following investigators looking for clues - disclosing their locations; broadcasting clues that the police did not want to go public; among other things. Basically, these guys (law enforcement) need to do their jobs, and there are certain things they do not want the public to know. Unfortunately, the media is thirsty for any little bit of news so they can include it in their already dry and repetitive coverage.

I suppose it isn't an exact example - but it sort of ties in with what was being discussed. I became irritated when, folliwing the Oklahoma City bombing, they were not only saying how easy it was to make the bomb, but actually showing how to do it on TV. Now, I know, yes, someone who really wanted to do it could use the internet, libraries, etc etc. But just putting stuff up like that on TV opens the door for some lunatic to actually try what they saw on 60 minutes. Same for the sniper, who is most likely also watching the coverage, if he is smart, can use information the media is blabbering out (if they are not careful) to his advantage.

I'm replying to a bunch of comments in one post, and I think none of them from you, BleachLPB, so don't freak out.

I think it's awfully pretentious and ignorant for any of us to pretend that we can make informed decisions on how to handle foreign policy

I think it's ignorant to think that GWB can make informed decisions on anything.

she is not bound to vote as per the wishes of her constituents

Just as members of the electoral college are not required to vote as per the wishes of their consituents, as seen in Florida a while back.

I think that history, and our current status as the flagship of modern democracy, affords us the right to say, or at least recommend, who gets to have what in terms of weapons. The part I am not on board with at all is Bush's "we'll do it even if nobody joins us" attitude.

This goes back to my problem with making non-illegal things illegal in order to prevent the illegal things. As such, I'm not really sure about all of this. There's certainly a large portion of devil's advocacy in my statements, but they're still, I think, valid points that at least need to be considered by more people.

mind sharing your solution to the global nuclear crisis? Or the situation with Iraq?

The only solution I can come up with for the nuclear crisis is to have sent Oppenheimer back in time to prevent himself from creating the bomb. Obviously, though, someone else would have come up with it, and they could have been more evil than the US. You cannot unknow knowledge.

The situation with Iraq? What situation with Iraq? As far as I can tell, it's been fabricated from nothing. Did you think about Iraq at all three years ago? No? What's changed since then? An unrelated group of Muslims attacked us? I've yet to see any evidence at all that ties Iraq to that. Hell, I could have come up with the plan to fly planes into buildings, if I knew many zealots. Folks were always talking about the immense amounts of planning required to have pulled that off. I'll admit that booking flights is not the easiest thing in the world to do, but it's hardly rocket science. So what would they have needed Iraq for? Not to mention that Iraq isn't an Islamic state, which is largely what al Qaeda is pushing for.

I'd like to ask if this is really "fundamentalism".

Of course not, it's just that that word has come to mean religious extremism of late in reference to Christianity, and they've expanded that to Islam as well. Some people have posited that one of the ways that the Taliban controlled their populace was that the populace was largely illiterate, and all of their understanding of the Qu'ran was from being told by their clerics (I forget now what Islamic clerics are called -- sorry), with no way to verify it.

Hell, jihad doesn't mean holy war

Well, it does and it doesn't. There are three or four jihads. All but one of them are internal struggles with one's self. The last actually is war with the infidels, but it's generally considered to be the least important. I don't know if modern thinking is what made that determination or not (I'm hardly an Islamic scholar, much less a scholar of historical Islam), but that's what I've read.

I have, on several occasions, had my mind changed when I was concerned about an (apparently) ill-advised decision, talked to the representative, and been told a few more tidbits of crucial information that the public simply cannot be privy to for various reasons. (Think privacy and secrecy laws).

I'm calling bullshit on that one. There are very few things that the public should not be privy to. In fact, the only ones I can think of are when there is an imminent attack and ``loose lips'' might ``sink ships''. But that doesn't apply here, since GWB has been poking Iraq for months now. It's not like a sneak attack is really a possibility now.

he tax rebate check we got a year ago

Which we then had to pay back in taxes the next year. The tax instructions claimed it was just a loan or some other bullshit.

there are certain things they do not want the public to know

Like what? I understand that you want to withhold one or two pieces of evidence so that you can verify who's a kook and who's real, but that's easily enough done by changing the wording of the letter or something similar. The media is not hindering the investigation. (Other than generally being in the way, I'm sure.) I mean, do you think that the sniper thinks that people are not looking for him? I cannot come up with much that should be restricted, at least in this case in particular. That doesn't mean that I don't think that the public's prurient interests aren't disgusting, but the idea that they shouldn't be allowed to know, is, well, fascist.

Being a Californian and a Democrat, I have to say I hate Feinstein. She had consistently undermined freeedom, is a big-business money whore, and is just plain mean. Don't judge all Democrats by her; according to the ACLU she leans more to the right of many Republicans.

Can you tell I despise her? I actually voted Republican last time she was up for re-election, a first time ever for me, just because nothing can be worse than her. Well, maybe my Congressman David Dreier, a man to the right of Hitler. Sigh.

I cannot come up with much that should be restricted, at least in this case in particular.

The idea with most criminal investigations is that the less the public knows about the crime scenes, the more likely a suspect will give him or herself away by knowing something about the crime scene that the public doesn't. This apparently does happen in real life, not just in detective stories, although I guess it happens less the smarter the criminal is.

Peter

why can't other nations have nukes? (paraphrased)

Like ynot said, nukes will probably keep the peace. But do you really want to let a nation like Iraq get nukes? That would be like giving a known felon a sawed off shotgun. Saddam has expressed his hatred for America before, and I wouldn't be surprised that if and when he had nukes he'd pass one off to a terrorist group. Superpowers have a lot to lose by inciting a nuclear war - 3rd world countries and terrorist organizations don't.

All I know is that the killing in Manassas was accross town from me. I used to rent an apartment a half mile away, I used to go to that station at least twice a week for gas and or smokes.... A guy I work with lives in falls church and another lives in Fredricksburg.... It's hitting way to close to home for me... We all actually hide behind things when we get gas it's frickin rediculous.

On a more comic note... I was listening to the radio the other day and heard the police cheif talking Charles Moose (I think thats his first name) any way... he sounds just like "the ladies man"..."so as soon as I finish dis press conference could any eligable ladies please meet me by the taco stand"

Interestingly, I heard yesterday that 40% of sniper shootings are never solved. Now two things suprised me about the statistic. One is I have never even heard of other sniper shootings (excepting Charles Whitman - The Texas Tower Sniper - and they damn sure caught him) much less that they would have enough cases to run statistics on. Two is that without continued shootings and a subsequent mistake by the shooter, it may never be solved. The irony of that second item should not be lost on anyone.

If anyone is interested, I can post some things that do not add up on the "sniper" and his choice of caliber and technique. I'll look for a link to an AP story of last week that has some similar information.

Like what?

Interested...

Like ynot said, nukes will probably keep the peace.

"How can we have peace without preparing for war?" from the Simpsons, Season 1 Episode 2 "Bart the Genius"

well..... there have certainly been alot of hot feeling in this discussion. And its just too much i want to say and comment on all thats been written.... so screw it.... Lets change the subject..;)
These questions arent meant as critisism at anybody or any ideology, take it for what it is. A question.

I´ve been thinking. How have the communism gotten such a bad reputation over in the US. What is it (some) of you guys hate about it. As I see it, its just as good (or bad) ideology as kapitalism is. Both are working towards the same goals (I hope)
Communism is built on a strong state, The government pays and controlls everything. They aim at getting as efficient as possible. In this way you get the same treatment and sallory as your neighbour. Everything is paid for by taxmoney(hospitals/schools, and so on). Nobody ends up a homeless or without proper healthcare.
In capitalism, you are more free to distribute your own money. Less taxes, and the money is increased by reinvestment. Everything is paid for by commercial enterprises (who are run by your own invested money).

Both ideologys aim at the same goal. Provide health and wellbeing for its practitioners. So how can one hate someone just because "they" are doing it differently?

And my other question.... Isnt it so that a political leftwing believe in a strong government. And a rightwing believe at a weak government.
A leftextremist is a "commy". And a rightextremist believs in Anarchy. Then how come the nazis are considered right extremists. They belive in an extremely powerfull government and effiency is what is wanted. (Erasing other races as they consider "lower" and cannot contribute enogh to their state.)
Shouldnt nazis be called leftextremists? Or am i missing a big point here??

Do not think that I belong to any of these ideologys, as I am in the center as possible. Humans rights is the only way. Its good to commercialise but with government controll and guideline.

How have the communism gotten such a bad reputation over in the US.

Because, as an economic system, it's the opposite of what our US capitalist ideology strives for. And our government and media have, for many years, done a good job of feeding us with the propoganda that their system was a threat to ours. I assume because they want to encourage the capitalist ideology.

There are, however, many places in the US that support communist thinking if not the specific communist system of another coutry. Small groups such as communes and co-ops operate as little "cells" of pseudo-communism floating in a capitalist sea.

How have the communism gotten such a bad reputation over in the US

Decades of propaganda. It's as simple as that. US news medias showing the "evils" of what the USSR did, and always made sure to associate communism with it, thus it became a bad thing in the minds of US citizens. The exact same thing probably was going on in the USSR, showing all the poverty of the US and associating it with capitalism.

Ultimately, corruption ruins each idealogy. In communism corruption is on a widespread scale since *anybody* who works for the government is in a relatively powerful position (when compared to non-government workers), but the amounts paid per corrupt act are probably not huge. The 50 whatevers to the housing attendant to jump you up the housing list, the 50 to the local cops to avoid being arrested on completely fabricated charges etc.
In capitalism, the corruption is far less widely spread, as government is smaller and less powerful, and business is bigger and more powerful. The damage is just as great - laws being passed to help big business in return for a campaign donation that help the big corporations but rip off the public - eg DCMA, the 'Mickey Mouse' Act of 1976, etc. And let's not forget the carefully woven webs of decit that have brought down Enron, Arthur Andersen, Worldcom, Tyco etc, robbing people of their jobs and pensions, while the CEOs get very rich. I cannot believe that those scandals could be perpetuated without some wheels being greased along the way.

Before I attempt answer the question of Capitalism Vs. Communism, let me first say that I do not propose to be an authority on either subject. I'll agree with your stipulation that both have noble goals, but unfortunately their methods are not equally successful. Actually I think that if communism were able to exist in a pure state without human corruption, it would easily beat capitalism, for pure capitalism would be cruel an unmerciful. This is why I think that capitalism must have some limits (which it has in the US) to be successful.

As far as the problems inherent in Communism, Communism relies on the state being uncorrupt, as well as the individual producing the goods. The state must be able to evaluate the needs of the common man and distribute goods accordingly. The individual must be willing to produce all that he or she can for the good of others, an act that unfortunately contradicts human nature of selfishness. Instead you'll have people competing for the servicing of their needs, not their production. Production ends up lower because people are unmotivated (“it doesn't benefit me") , and society as a whole suffers. Note that if people could overcome this selfishness, then I think communism might actually work. I have observed with some humor when watching Star Trek: TNG recently that this is exactly the system that Rodenberry foresees in the future (no money, everyone works for the common good).

The brilliance of Capitalism, however, is that it utilizes human selfishness to benefit society. People must compete to produce the most, because that will cause them to gain the most. The evil inherent in this is that in a pure statue you have economic Darwinism, where the less-able-to-produce are treated as if they have no value and are cast aside. A very real ill effect of this in the US is that educators are paid WAY below the amount they benefit society because they are not valued like they should be.

Still, I believe that Capitalism will always end up the victor until humans overcome their natural selfishness.

Edit: Also, this is only the economics. The Atheism of Communism is a deal killer for me.

I think it's ignorant to think that GWB can make informed decisions on anything.

Not as ignorant as making a sweeping staement like that.

Not as ignorant as making a sweeping staement like that.

GWB:: "Hon, what's good?"
Waitress: "Waaaal, folks really like our Steak-and-eggs Super Combo"
GWB: "Well, OK, Hon. Gimme the Steak-and-eggs Super Combo!"

I gotta hand it to you. You're right.

Right vs. Left vs. Communism vs. Fascism, etc.

The main problem with all of this is that there are multiple axes all compressed into one by popular understanding. But there's no real connection between leftism and communism, or rightism and fascism. Let me try to define each of these terms.

Right == The desire to keep the status quo
Left == The desire for change
Fascism == The idea that rights are bestowed by the state
Communism == The idea that all property is owned by the people

So, in fact, Fascism is not the opposite of Communism. The opposite of Fascism would be, I don't know, Anarchism, maybe. The opposite of Communism is Capitolism, more or less.

The connection between the Left and Communism comes from the fact that most Communist states became that way due to the desire for change from the previous state (Tsarist Russia, Batista's Cuba, etc.) and the relationship between western, perhaps particularly American, liberals and their fascination with Communism in the early twentieth century.

I'm not really sure about the connection between the Right and Fascism, but that probably has to do with my lack of knowledge of early twentieth-century Germany, Spain, Italy, and Japan. Perhaps the Fascist governments grew out of an apparent desire for more government control, but that's pure speculation.

In reality, there's no reason why you couldn't have a Fascist Communist government. It'd be one that believed that the state's assets were owned by the people, but whose people had no inherent rights. In fact, that would seem to be a pretty good description of most Eastern European Communist states.

Well, he's run every business he's ever been associated with into the ground, other than the Texas Rangers, and that would have required concerted effort. I certainly don't believe that anyone competent could manage that track record.

Duh, use a bow and arrow with a string tied to the back end of the arrow so you can retrieve it...

The Atheism of Communism is a deal killer for me.

In which direction? Soviet suppression of religion was IMO a Bad Thing, not because it cut down on organised religion in the Soviet Union but because it was such an ineffective way of cutting down on organised religion. People who thought they were God's Chosen Ones tended to revel in the kind of self-righteousness that state suppression fostered. A much more effective way of combatting superstition is to have an open society with a religious free market, in which everyone can see that their One's Chosen God is a fashion choice and not a fact of nature.

Peter

My intent was not to bring religion into the discussion, merely to identify one major issue I have with communism. Still, I suppose now I have to respond to your assertion that the US approach to faith better lets us see that organized religions are really only fashionable superstitions.

My personal belief, as unpopular as it may be, is that Christianity is the only one true religion, so therefore I cannot agree that it is a fashionable superstition. But just because I believe so strongly in Christianity, that doesn’t mean I think you can force people to believe it. I much prefer the "freedom of religion " approach in the US rather than trying to declare the nation as Christian. I have not simply adopted the faith of my parents (neither of which where evangelical Christians) so I am glad that I live in a country where individuals are encouraged to seek out the truth for themselves. And of course I wouldn’t want to live in a place where belief in God was illegal (even though as you pointed out, persecution does tend to bolster a person’s cause).

I missed this further up the thread. I'd just like to point out that communism and atheism, and religion in general, are not related. Marxist/Leninist societies that are based partially on the economic concept of communism usually include atheism as an important tenet, and, of course, Marx stated that ``religion is the opiate of the masses''. But he was hardly the originator of communism -- he just ``popularized'' it with the publication of Das Kapital.

In fact, the earliest reference to a communist society I can think of is Jesus' society. Of course, Paul bastardized all of that, but that's a different story.

How have the communism gotten such a bad reputation over in the US

Iosif Dzhugashvili !

Fascism is connected to the right because back in the old days when republicanism was created somewhere in europe, people believed in social classes, and some of that still exists today, ie. KKK. I connect liberals with communism because most of them are for bigger government and socialism.

Ilduce, I don't like communism or socialism or fascism, because the more rights that you give the government, the less you have for yourself. The government shouldn't control the people; the people should control the government.

A good look at the Josephite movement will show a group of "organized" (man that term is evil, a necessary one though) believers that were far from self righteous. Most of them died for their faith, soon after the communist revolution in Russia. They are the unknown martyrs of their generation.

Secondly the Christian religion is based on infused righteousness. Anyone practicing self righteousness is at best worthy of discipline and at worst a lying hypocrite in the very eyes of organized religion.

Anyone practicing self righteousness is at best worthy of discipline and at worst a lying hypocrite in the very eyes of organized religion.

If there were more people like you around representing Christianity, and religion in general, I wouldn't be so opposed to it.

However, you seem to be the exception more than the rule. At the extremes, you've got people like Jerry Falwell, who seems to embody the idea of self-righteousness. And, unfortunately, most people I've found that refer to themselves as Christians (I live in the South, so there's not much around in the way of other religions), while not to that extreme, tend to fall into the realm of self-righteousness bolstered by the idea that their religion proves that they're right about everything. I realize that most Christians are not parts of that group (my mother springs to mind), but they really are a silent majority. If I were inclined to believe in a supreme being, which I'm largely not, I'd definitely not want to be associated with any of these groups.

And at least I'm up front with the fact that my self-righteousness and pedantism is based on bullheadedness and arrogance.

It's not so much that I'm opposed to religion as that I'm opposed to organized religion, as it seems to tend to create followers. We need more leaders.

Well, back to the sniper. So they grabbed two guys, and found a rifle, scope, and tripod in their car. It's looking good that this may actually be the guy this time.

And here is related political cartoon that I thought was quite good.

[thinks to self] ughh... Falwell....[\thinks to self] Sadly my denomination is clouded with individuals who I can mostly agree with, but who's ability to communicate truth in useful ways is equivalent to that of a head of lettuce.

Just for the record, I grew up in a Southern Baptist church, and I've seen the SBC go from a reasonable organization intended to help distribute money in useful ways by conglomeration to a near-fascist organization that's much more interested in keeping their constituent churches under their thumb. But, then again, my viewpoint early on was as a kid, so I may not have been privy to as much as I think I remember.

(BTW, my former dentist of over twenty years is your avatar's son-in-law. I had to get a new one recently when it turned out that he's not really a very good dentist. He and his wife and two daughters used to go to my church, too. Left around the time I think those chages I referenced above really started to hit.)

Why hasn't Bush spoke about this sniper much? He has been "bullying" congress to spend millions of dollars on our "Homeland Security". Last time I checked all of these murders happened in the United States and dealt with security. Kind of intresting he hasn't said a thing about them, maybe he will now because the suspects last name is Muhammed and all of his aides can spin that to make it look like he was a foreign terrorist.

They are clearly saying he was not affiliated with a terrorist group. He was sympathetic with the 9/11 terrorists but he acted independently. He does however have a connection to the Nation of Islam. It will be interesting to see how that plays out.

Don't you know this will have the professional profilers scratching their heads.

You mean the Farrakhan Nation of Islam?

Yep.

Why hasn't Bush spoke about this sniper much?

I rarely miss an opportunity to deride our light-headed chief executive, and it seems like Shrub *is* always on the lookout for an opportunity to take a "pass" on issues (say, the Middle East, for example) when it would be easier to go to the ranch in Crawford.

That being said, this situation was probably a no-win from an executive branch perspective -- they could be criticized for not intervening enough or for intervening too much. The Feds track record of being perceived as riding roughshod over local law enforcers is long and negative. They probably wanted to avoid that given the many other bruises they've suffered lately.

Sounds like some opportunities were missed and mistakes made WRT to the sniper/s, but the continuity of having Moose as the clear spokesman was a good thing IMO.

Anyhow, it looks as if my prediction that the killer would not be caught was, thankfully, wrong. I wish I could feel better that it hasn't given other wackos some ideas or that the capture was the result of stellar police work; if the killers hadn't essentially begged to be caught and (more or less) turned themselves in, I fear they could still be out there.

Sick.

well..... FerretBoy..... personally regarding your thoughts about political extremes, I totally agree with you. Both ways.
Any extreme ideology wouldnt work because of the human nature. Selfishness is the lead word here. In communism you do not want to work alot and still make the same money as someone who doesnt. And in Capitalism is very weak against corruption, were CEO:s gain alot of power and combine that with corruption and you have a pretty mess. Maybe the only ideology that could work is Anarchy, provided that people grow into it and are not raised with societys laws of helping other. That would probably be impossible as every other ideology. (Not that I think Anarchy is good. But you have to think objectively at this)

And wfaulk, your theory about the left vs right isnt flawless I must say. As I have come to understand it (Now all the Germans out there can correct me if I´m wrong) After WW1, wich Germany lost a great deal in. Poverty and starvation fallowed. The people where screaming for change (Note that this puts them on the left side) And now Hitler came forward, declaring that he alone could end hunger and poverty, restore the deutsch glory (He was also supported by some officials giving him more credibility) AS you probably know he was a good speaker and in those days he didnt speak as much about war and all the rest evil actions he commited. So he was elected (The officials where glad since they thought they had raised a puppet that they could controll. they were greiviosly mistaken)

Thats what Ive been told in school what happened so i guess thats somewhat the true story. But it wasnt exactly yesterday so I could be wrong.

So my qustion still stands unanswered (I believe). How come the faschists have been put to the right wing? I think they are much more related to pure communism than to Anarchy. ("Strong Government" vs "No Government")
Allthough as closest Ive been to ansering this question is as fallows:
What if this line (Left vs Right) doesnt show government status. But it shows market value or bussines value (Dont know what you would call it, but I´ll explain)
To the left you have the government controlling bussiness. No privately owned companies and no real money making. Since all the profit go to paying as much salory and taxes as possible. And on the right side you have a big private sector wich means anybody can start their own bussiness and make personal profit. The Government can still be strong on the right side. But it doesnt invade on the market.
I dont know exactly how the Nazi government handled bussiness so I could be out on a limb here. But I think this is probably the most logical answer to my question. Unless its as i suspect that people just havent been thinking on what exactly they are saying. And I havent been able to find an exact definition of what this line represents. And until I do, this question can never be answered.

And regarding religion. And Christianity in regard. I dont agree at all with most of the organisations. I am an agnostic (close to atheist) wich I believe means that I dont belive in anything but I hope and would be pleasantly surprised if God really existed. I believe in science and on the dark and sad beliefe that nothing means anything. We are not here for any reason. We are just coincidence and we or anything dont mean [censored]. Its just a bunch of matter (dont know the correct bending, or if its the correct word at all [materia]) and energy flowing in a bunch of space. No one watches over us. But as I said, IF there were a God, I would be glad.
The thing that pisses me off (ohh boy..... now im going to get alot of angry people after me) is the hipocracy of most of the Christian organisations. Believing in God has NOTHING to do with big churches with gold and Fat priests saying I have the blessings of God and so on. Beliefe lies in the heart, and believing you are doing the right thing. To go and have a confession or recieve a bunch of bread and wine does not help me at all if i did something wrong. As it says in the evangelium of Tomas, beliefe lies in each mans heart. And in the eyes of God The big Church doesnt matter. (This wasnt a quote)
Perhaps I should say that Tomas is in fact Judas and is known for betraying Jesus Christ. Tomas himself says that Jesus told him to. The evangelium of Tomas was taken away from the bible (I think it was in year 1500 or so) Since it didnt ad up with the Christian beliefs of big churches and sucking out alot of money from people so that priests could live like kings.

Maybe I am a little religious after all. I try to fallow the commandments as good as i can, as I think they are good guidelines for humans regardless of religious beliefe. And searching through my heart I can only find one thing that I feel would be considered as a sin. I once a few years ago hurt someone verbaly on intention. I try not to kill any animal even if its a spider or a bug. I catch them and let them out the window. Beacuse I thinks its utterly unnecisary. The amount of energy that it takes for me to carry a bug outside is worth its life. Its such a small task for me. But means so much for him.

Nazi Germany had a capitalist economy.

So my qustion still stands unanswered (I believe). How come the faschists have been put to the right wing?

Because, I think, like "communism", the word is no longer used in its original meaning. In the US, even the proletariat opposes communism, because to them it means totalitarianism, atheism, and anti-Americanism. Likewise, and not just in the US this time, everyone opposes fascism because to them it means totalitarianism, invading everyone, and massacring Jews.

Unsurprisingly, what with all the invading and massacring, everyone has forgotten that fascism was originally quite a good socialist agrarian reform policy, and both Hitler and Mussolini (who always seemed less enthusiastic about the invading and massacring anyway) had hugely beneficial effects on their countries' economies before they went berserk.

The evangelium of Tomas was taken away from the bible (I think it was in year 1500 or so)

Probably more like 400? The apocryphal gospels often make cracking reading ("Woe to you for the wheel that turns in your minds!") but if you read enough of them it's clear that they cover a huge metaphysical range, and clear that the Christian church as we know it today was defined more by the councils that canonised the, er, canon, twelve generations after the fact, than it was by Jesus of Nazareth.

I try to fallow the commandments as good as i can, as I think they are good guidelines for humans regardless of religious beliefe.

Me too. So long as religion is basically a trick to make people do good when they otherwise wouldn't, I think it does have a place in sufficiently primitive societies. It's when religion starts to be about accruing vapourware afterlife benefits by doing things that increase human suffering (or decrease human happiness) in this life, that it stops being a Good Thing.

Despite the impression people might have got so far, I'm not really anti-religious. I'm not anti- anything that's harmless. (And you only have to read this book to realise that it's a terrible shame when a religion dies out altogether.) It's only when religion isn't harmless that I'm against it.

Peter

a (presumably) rich bored white male

Oh well, I guess at least I got one out of four.

Peter

"The thing that pisses me off (ohh boy..... now im going to get alot of angry people after me) is the hipocracy of most of the Christian organisations."

I don't think you're going to get a lot of people mad at you for that statement here!

While I think that everyone has some hypocrisy, Christians seem to have a knack for outdoing the masses. This is a very tragic thing to me because our hypocrisy (and I know that I'm not innocent in this) only serves to hide what I consider to be the ultimate truth. The point was made earlier in this thread that though there are a few people who make Christianity look attractive, there are others who more visibly turn people away.

"Believing in God has NOTHING to do with big churches with gold and Fat priests saying I have the blessings of God and so on. "

Phrased that way I would agree with you. However, there is value in worship and the obedience of God in the ways that he has instructed us to approach him (which have nothing to do with gold, or Fat priests, etc.). Such traditions as the Lords Supper however, have great meaning, though not tied to earning favor in the eyes of God. They are designed to know and commune with God (hence the name “Communion”). Even the sacrificial system found in the Old Testament was designed for the purpose of knowing God more fully.

I realize that the general feeling here is that “organized” religions are largely traditions that have been created by man, probably for the purpose of controlling other men (and women). I think the real questions are, were we created by a God (and I believe that we were), and did He in His creation desire us to know and enjoy Him? If all religions are simply traditions, then the answer to this question is “no”, but I believe that God had a more personal interest in His creation. There is still the issue beyond this of: “Ok, if God is meant to be known, in which religion did He reveal Himself? Maybe it was little bit in all of them?” The problem is, that when you get to the real issues of who God is in any tradition, the contradictions with others become apparent (is a relationship with God found by doing good, His grace and pleasure, complete chance and luck, etc.). I believe that Christianity holds the answer to all of these questions, and that our worship practices have great value in knowing God more fully. Unfortunately, even these practices have been turned for use against fellow man.

everyone has forgotten that fascism was originally quite a good socialist agrarian reform policy

First, let's assume that Mussolini effectively coined the term Fascist. (His ``original'' political party (he had earlier been a fairly high-ranking member of the Italian Socialist party), the Fascisti, is what the term is based on.) It seems apparent from Mussolini's history, both before and after his rise to power, that he didn't have any cohesive plan. It was all based on immediate opportunism. It would seem that the term Fascism has been placed on nationalist totalitarian regimes because of what it quickly developed into after Victor Emmanuel presented Mussolini dictatorial powers to run Italy. I think it gained a fairly precise generic definition precisely because it was so amorphous before, whereas Naziism was very precise from the get-go.

In reality, that form of government wasn't so bad other than Mussolini's odd forays into expansionism, probably largely because the Italians were simply not going to have any of that oppression, so it just didn't happen. And I think that it might have lasted a much longer time if it hadn't gotten caught up with the Nazis. Of course, the factors that led to the rise of both the Fascists and the Nazis are almost all derived from the Treaty of Versailles, so it was probably inevitable.

Oh well, I guess at least I got one out of four

Unless you consider you left off the "s".

FerretBoy..... well.... As you say, I think religion is the product of tradition and culture. In the west you put your insecurity into an entity (God). I think this is pretty expleinatory for our culture. We tend to look at external wrongings. Its rarely our own fault. So we put our trust into a being. Its the will of God and so on. Its not MY fault. The eastern culture is more aimed at going "inside" with your thoughts and concerns. Trying to ignore the external faults. And whoops, we have bhuddism. Wich strives to totally ignore everything external. To achieve, Nirvana.
I know this is not exactly the history of bhuddism but I´m trying to show the relationship between culture and religion.
Now, essantially all major religions aim at one thing.
Bliss. (I hope that is the correct word)
They aim at being happy. (Good people go to heaven, where everybody is happy and no "external" prolems exist anymore. Or Nirvana, where nothing exists anymore.)

I know this is simplyfying alot. And I believe that everything can be simplified into 2 things. Two opposits. Something like bhuddism perhaps. Yin and yang. And if you think about it everything can be devided.
And it is as it says in The wheel of Time series by Robert Jordan. "The wave corrects itself". If you have a child that is rough and wild, he will become calm later, and vice versa. And the more I think about this, you can find the same pattern in everything. Maybe with a splash of the multitude of the human personalety required from The Diceman by Luke Rhineheart.


Ohh... damn.... I got a little off track here, as always..=)
Everywhere people are trying to reach happyness. Then of course one might say that you use the church as a tool to obtain some of this happiness. Then who am I to say that this is wrong. I personnally think that we dont need to go to church and look for happiness. We can find it everywhere, anytime.
As a side note, I think that everybody should read "The Diceman" by Luke Rhineheart. Because it says alot about the human nature. And you will learn ALOT about yourself. One must try to look past the dice throwing part of it, and see WHY.....

I have tooooooo many theories. And few answers... I cant wait to die so that I finally can get an answer!!...=))) The worst thing i know is Not knowing! =)))

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20021026_52.html