Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 27 Jan 2007 18:30 T Wake wrote: > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message > >T Wake wrote: > > > >> The insanity is the same, the actions carried out as a result of the > >> insanity are different. Does that mean the insanity is different? > > > > Certainly. The ones who cause the most harm to themselves > > or others are the most insane. > > Ok then I will modify my previous statement to saying fundamentalist Muslims > are no more (or less) insane than any religious fundamentalist who advocates > / causes harm to others on the same scale. Which is one reason why the Palestine issue is destined to run and run. Graham
From: Eeyore on 27 Jan 2007 18:34 T Wake wrote: > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message > >T Wake wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > >>>Ken Smith wrote: > >>>>T Wake <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>I don't recall anyone saying fundamentalist Muslims were not insane. > >>>> > >>>>I did question what we mean by "insane". > >>> > >>>Both T Wake and I consider it crazy to believe in a 'God' or > >>>divine/ultimate being. > >>> > >>>Does that make all Christians, Muslims, Hindus etc insane ? > >> > >> If you ask me. Yes. > > > > Since that is the default human condition, the definition > > might ought to be reversed if we accept that "insane" > > equates in some way to "abnormal" or "aberrant." > > If religious beliefs are the default human condition [*] then it could be > argued that non-believers are insane. > > I dont agree that religious beliefs are the default human condition though. > > > This is precisely why I wanted a differentiation into > > degrees of insanity. > > Not something I can provide as I tend to think of insane and not insane. > However, I have nothing against differentiating insanity into different > grades and can see the logic behind saying the insanity of someone who goes > to church every Sunday is different from the insanity of someone who > prevents their children receiving chemotherapy for cancer on religious > grounds, which again is different from the insanity of some one who kills > innocent people on the grounds of their religion. Some Christian cults won't even accept blood transfusions. How insane is that if you're condeming someone to die for a belief when life-saving treatment is readily available ? Graham
From: T Wake on 27 Jan 2007 18:40 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45BBE0A0.523C7A5D(a)hotmail.com... > > > T Wake wrote: > >> "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >> >T Wake wrote: >> > >> >> The insanity is the same, the actions carried out as a result of the >> >> insanity are different. Does that mean the insanity is different? >> > >> > Certainly. The ones who cause the most harm to themselves >> > or others are the most insane. >> >> Ok then I will modify my previous statement to saying fundamentalist >> Muslims >> are no more (or less) insane than any religious fundamentalist who >> advocates >> / causes harm to others on the same scale. > > Which is one reason why the Palestine issue is destined to run and run. Yep. When you get two insane people arguing, will it ever end? (I present this thread as evidence the answer is no... :-))
From: unsettled on 27 Jan 2007 18:40 T Wake wrote: > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message > news:d7bcf$45bbcd8d$4fe72dd$25382(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > >>T Wake wrote: >> >> >>>"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >>>news:86f93$45bbbd7e$4fe72dd$24906(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >> >> >>>>It does to me. Both sides were begging the US to enter on their >>>>side, right from the beginning. The US attempted to remain >>>>neutral, however munitions manufacturers illegally sold to >>>>the Brit side, eventually forcing the issue. >> >>>OK. I am I reading your post correctly here. Both sides were asking for >>>help but your country refused to help. When some people broke the law and >>>helped one side by selling munitions your government, the resulting >>>attack by the Germans (in 1915) made your Government change it's mind and >>>join the war (in 1917). >> >>>It might be me, but I dont read that as saying the country got involved >>>Europe asked for help. >> >>The UK asked from the beginning of hostilities and never >>withdrew their request for help. >> >>Our internal politics had the country divided, so we kept out >>of the war. >> >>The sinking of the Lusitania resolved the internal dissent and >>we entered the war to help the UK and her allies at her request. > > > OK. You might want to edit > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_1#Entry_of_the_United_States to > clarify matters a bit. Anyone reading the Wiki article is likely to come > away thinking the US did it for American foreign policy reasons. I'll see to it next week. >>>My recollections from my school days may be a bit vague but I seem to >>>recall the US objected to the German submarine warfare, and when it was >>>resumed in 1917 (along with German attempts to get Mexico involved) that >>>tipped the balance. >> >>That's what solved the internal disputes in the US. You're >>not saying that your government didn't ant us to help, are >>you? > Not at all. That is a very different thing to what I am saying. I am saying > the US did not enter the war soley because a European nation was asking for > help. If the Lusitania had not gone down, and the Zimmerman telegraph not > been publicised, would the US have got involved? Everything has multiple reasons. We stayed out so long because powerful factions had opposing desires. > If they wouldn't have, then it was not the requests for help they responded > to but the attack (and potential future attacks). > To me there is a difference. You may think otherwise. We both seem to like to differentiate things for varying reasons. >>>>No it isn't. Russia/SU was always European. >> >>Take a few minutes to look at a historical map from before the >>SU breakup. The part of the SU that's in Europe is tremendous. >>If I recall correctly, it is the largest European nation at >>the time. > Two thirds of the USSR's land mass is outside Europe. For example see > http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/Soviet_Union_Administrative_Divisions_1989.jpg > As the Urals are the "border" of Europe and Asia there, it seems most of the > Soviet landmass is outside Europe. > Granted the part of the USSR that is still inside Europe is larger than any > other "single" European nation it is not larger than the nations which make > up the EU, EC or any other European grouping. Then look at the history as well. Especially this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Russian_Army Don't you see the historic ties to Europe? It wasn't till Peter and afterwards that empire building took off in a big way. > Is NATO european? Is the UN Asian? NATO isn't a nation or an empire, neither is the UN. They're treaty organizations while Imperial Russia and her descendant the SU were a nation empire with a government directly controlling lands and peoples. >>>But refering to it as a European power in the context of BAH's statement >>>is. When she talks about Europe (and uses the term "you" towards the >>>Europeans posting in this thread), I doubt she includes Cold War USSR in >>>that category. >> >>>I may be wrong, and if she clarifies matters I will reconsider. >> >>See above. She has differentiated between "formerly free Europe" >>and the soviet block, but not distinguished the soviet block as >>not being part of Europe. > I will wait until BAH can speak for herself on this matter. >>>>>But even at the shocking use of Cold War USSR as being a European power, >>>>>when did Europe ask the US to get involved? >>>> >>>>Stalin insisted on the subdivision of Korea. What the hell >>>>did the US want with another Asian nation to look after? >> >>>BAH stated the US got involved in Korea when Europe asked for Help. What >>>on Earth does Stalin subdividing Korea show about a European nation >>>asking for help? >> >>Stalin was the head of a European nation. I won't argue on >>her behalf, but in this context of Stalin being an important >>part of Europe in that day I agree with her statement. > Ok, if we accept that Stalin was head of a European nation, when did he ask > for the US' help in the Korean war? When he instructed his ambassador to walk out of the Security Council. >>>>>That was the claim. Your post talks about the background to the >>>>>separation, not the request for US/UN involvement. BAH claims the US got >>>>>involved when Europe asked for help. >>>> >>>>That's right. At the close of WW2. Did you read the Wikipedia >>>>article? >> >>>Yeah, but I think I missed that bit. I read the bit where Truman went to >>>the UN to get UNSC approval for the action. >> >>There are two strange aspects to that. The first is that the US >>didn't want to "go it alone" precisely because we were there as >>a consequence of one of the "unfinished WW2 messes" that BAH talks >>about. > > > The US could have allowed all of Korea to go to the Russians. It is my understanding Stalin was insistent. >>Even more strange is the fact that the SU, knowing that this >>request from the US was in the works, created an artificial >>row in the SC so that they could walk out and not participate >>when it came time to vote on the Korean matter. One might make >>the case that the Soviets couldn't openly approve of the US >>involvement in this "police action" however they approved of >>it by absenting themselves and purposely allowing the vote to >>favor the US proposed resolution. > That is certainly one way to look at it. It is very different from saying > the US only got involved because a European nation asked for US help, and as > the Soviets supported the North Koreans it strikes me as an unusual > definition. Now we have to argue over "only got involved because"???? The Soviets minimally supported NC with a handful of advisers because they wanted to continue to get along with China at that time. > I would be interested to see any other claims that the US involvement in > Korea was because a European nation - the USSR - wanted their help there. Don't know if there are any, but this satisfies my curiosity. >>It wasn't long till it was the SU's turn to chair the SC, >>so at that time they returned to the SC, took the chair >>without comment, and continued as though nothing had >>happened. >> >> >>>It is a long document so I may have overlooked the European request for >>>help. Can you point it out to me please? >> >>Stalin got us into Korea in the first place. And then helped >>the Korean War happen, see above. > First off, Stalin never forced the US to agree to a split surrender of Korea > so I still don't see how he got an apparently unwilling US into Korea. We were there, he was stretched very thin by then. Consider the deaths his side experienced, the dearth of officers available, and his very good understanding that Germany was pressing the western Allies not to demobilize into occupation forces but to press onwards and defeat the Soviet military because the timing was perfect, the SU was at its weakest at that moment. You really have t look at entire world pictures whenever you're looking at these sorts of issues. > Then saying he "helped the Korean war happen" is radically different from > saying the US got involved because the Soviet Union requested their help. If > Stalin did help the war happen, then that was something he did to help the > US (who requested UN approval for the conflict) rather than the US doing > something because Stalin wanted their help. I'm going off into another story to illustrate how these things work in the real world. Back when John F Kennedy was running for president a phone call was placed to Mayor Daley of Chicago the father of the one presently holding that office (for life, probably, just like his dad.) I've heard the entirety of that conversation which was preserved on tape and released in more recent years. The discussion with someone in power in Washington (might have been speaker of the house or who knows) was very brief, asking for Daley's support for Kennedy. Daley said something like, "That's what the national party wants?" The answer was, "That's what the national party wants." They then said thank you and goodbye. But the request was understood. Daley, using his political machine, got out the Cook County vote for Kennedy, which was enough to take the state, and the electors in the electoral college, to help put Kennedy into office. In the end, the Illinois vote was their safety in case they lost some other smaller states. As things turned out, they didn't need the Illinois vote to cinch the election, but better a reserve than not. As long as Daley lived, any time he called Washington to ask for anything for his city, it was delivered without debate. That's the way things work in high level politics. Stalin took his ambassador out of the Security Council, assuring that the vote would favor the US resolution though the SC had been calling for US forces to leave Korea immediately. And Stalin didn't start any problem with the Chinese who he needed to be friendly towards the USSR. They never get down on their knees and beg, you know. In high stakes politics, deniability is always the most significant consideration.
From: T Wake on 27 Jan 2007 18:40
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45BBE19F.9AB4D7D2(a)hotmail.com... > > > T Wake wrote: > >> "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >> >T Wake wrote: >> >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >>>Ken Smith wrote: >> >>>>T Wake <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>>I don't recall anyone saying fundamentalist Muslims were not insane. >> >>>> >> >>>>I did question what we mean by "insane". >> >>> >> >>>Both T Wake and I consider it crazy to believe in a 'God' or >> >>>divine/ultimate being. >> >>> >> >>>Does that make all Christians, Muslims, Hindus etc insane ? >> >> >> >> If you ask me. Yes. >> > >> > Since that is the default human condition, the definition >> > might ought to be reversed if we accept that "insane" >> > equates in some way to "abnormal" or "aberrant." >> >> If religious beliefs are the default human condition [*] then it could be >> argued that non-believers are insane. >> >> I dont agree that religious beliefs are the default human condition >> though. >> >> > This is precisely why I wanted a differentiation into >> > degrees of insanity. >> >> Not something I can provide as I tend to think of insane and not insane. >> However, I have nothing against differentiating insanity into different >> grades and can see the logic behind saying the insanity of someone who >> goes >> to church every Sunday is different from the insanity of someone who >> prevents their children receiving chemotherapy for cancer on religious >> grounds, which again is different from the insanity of some one who kills >> innocent people on the grounds of their religion. > > Some Christian cults won't even accept blood transfusions. How insane is > that if > you're condeming someone to die for a belief when life-saving treatment is > readily available ? I hope that if their god does actually exist, they are all sent to hell. |