# THAILAND: Muslims behead a 9-year-old boy (WARNING: Graphic Images)



## Archangel M (May 12, 2011)

http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com...head-a-9-year-old-boy-warning-graphic-images/



> *More than than 4000 people from police and teachers to monks and children have been killed in the past 7 years by Muslims in southern Thailand, but hardly a word in the mainstream media.* In Southern Thailand Muslim gunmen continue killing and threatening innocent citizens. The Muslim insurgents have threatened to kill 20 teachers and have distributed fliers that said, WANTED: 20 Deaths of Buddhist teachers. Muslim terrorists object to the education system which teaches Buddhist culture that is not acceptable in Islam. The attacks are intended to force Buddhists to leave the region because Muslims want to create an independent Muslim nation in the three southern provinces.




Video is not for the weak of stomach.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 12, 2011)

hmmm.. gee, but this must be a mistake, islam is a religion of peace


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 12, 2011)

The video is real.  The story is incorrect.

http://www.tannetwork.tv/tan/ViewData.aspx?DataID=1043058



> Hallucinating Father Kills Two Sons Before Hanging Himself
> UPDATE : 25 April 2011
> In a tragic incident, a father went mad killing his two sons before hanging himself at his house in Rayong Province.
> 
> ...



In any case, part of the story is true.  Southern Thailand is home to a minority 10% Muslim population, there is an insurgent war in progress, and Islamic terrorists have indeed beheaded people.

It should also be noted that in the past several weeks, two Buddhists have been discovered beheaded - and one Muslim has been stabbed to death and crucified ("for being an infidel Islamist") in the area.  I can post the links to the stories if you like.

In my news search, I also discovered recent news stories involving beheadings.  A man in Africa, apparently an Animist, who beheaded some children to extract their 'juju' (pretty sure 'juju' is not an Islamic term).  A bunch of people found beheaded in Mexico near the US border, presumably by Mexican drug smugglers.  A woman in India beheaded by her boyfriend (story was posted on MT recently) in some kind of weird murder/suicide pact).  And a woman who beheaded her child in Georgia.  Apparently mentally disturbed, but definitely not Muslim.

But hey, let's go with _"Muslims are bad,"_ because that's what's important here.  Right?


----------



## Twin Fist (May 12, 2011)

some muslims ARE bad


----------



## Archangel M (May 12, 2011)

If one were to do a study of world religions TODAY and see which denominations are involved in "operations" like this...organized, funded, supported groups that are a threat on a national scale...not the "lone whacko or small splinter group"..what it would show?


----------



## billc (May 12, 2011)

That an organized, state sponsered group of swedish grandmothers is actually more of a terrorist threat than anyone else.  Obviously, with the anectdotal evidence at airports of swedish looking female senior citizens getting full screenings at security check points, the government has intelligence on this group that we do not have.  One can only hope that the information on this multinational terrorist movement of seniors was not obtained by water boarding.  

I sympathize with you Arch angel, thanks for the post.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 12, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> some muslims ARE bad



Yes, some are.

Some are bad in the name of their religion, and some are just bad people - their religion has nothing to do with their badness.

It is also true that some Christians, Jews, Atheists, Jains, Agnostics, and Buddhists are bad.  And some of them are bad in the name of their religion and some are just bad without their religion (or lack of it) being involved.

Being fixated on news stories involving bad Muslims over any other sort indicate an unhealthy obsession, IMHO.  Some call it bigotry.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 12, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> If one were to do a study of world religions TODAY and see which denominations are involved in "operations" like this...organized, funded, supported groups that are a threat on a national scale...not the "lone whacko or small splinter group"..what it would show?



It would show that militant Islamic groups are far more prevalent than violent religious groups of any other type.  No one denies this.  Militant Islam is a serious and real problem, and it's getting worse.

And that has what to do with posting a link to a bogus news story that does not, in fact, involve Muslims beheading anyone?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 12, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> some muslims ARE bad


Yes, some Muslims are.

What PERCENTAGE of Muslims are Bad?

US Population: 307M-313M
Source: US Census & CIA Fact Book

US Muslim Population: 0.6% (1.82-1.88M)
Source: CIA Fact Book

Side Note: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_the_United_States

So, what PERCENTAGE of Muslims are the evil ones?
I keep seeing people beating the "Muslims Bad" drum, you must have this information.
So share it.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 12, 2011)

surveys in the middle east show 35% support terrorist or agree with them.







and that survey doesnt include iran, saudi arabia, iraq, afganistan which are more anti american than the ones surveyed.


but lets just say it is 1%, for the sake of argument.(we all know it is higher, but lets just say it is 1%

how many muslims in the world? 1 billion?

now do the numbers:
1,000,000,000 x 0.01=10,000,000n potential 9-11's

BTW- one lasssssssst time, i think the religion itself is bad, not the people, they were not born jihadists, but corruption from that book makes a lot of them that way.

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/26/where-terrorism-finds-support-in-the-muslim-world

now, for some contrary (or is it) information

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism



Gallup conducted tens of thousands of hour-long, face-to-face  interviews with residents of more than thirty-five predominantly Muslim  countries between 2001 and 2007. It found that  contrary to the  prevailing perception in the west that the actions of al-Qaida enjoy  wide support in the Muslim world  *more than 90% of respondents  condemned the killing of non-combatants on religious and humanitarian  grounds [197]*
but then again:


*A 2004, a year after the War in Iraq, Pew Research  survey found that suicide bombings against Americans were seen as  "justifiable" by Jordanians (70%), Pakistanis (46%), and Turks (31%).*At  the same time, the survey found that support for the U.S.-led War on Terror had increased.[198][199]
A 2005 Pew Research  study that involved 17,000 people in 17 countries showed support for  terrorism was declining in the Muslim world along with a growing belief  that Islamic extremism represents a threat to those countries.[200] A Daily Telegraph survey[201] showed that 88% of Muslims said the July 2005 bombings in the London Underground were unjustified, while 6% disagreed.
In Pakistan, despite the recent rise in the Taliban's influence, a  poll conducted by Terror Free Tomorrow in Pakistan in January 2008  tested support for al-Qaida, the Taliban, other militant Islamist groups  and Osama bin Laden himself, and found a recent drop by half. In *August  2007, 33% of Pakistanis expressed support for al-Qaida; 38% supported  the Taliban. By January 2008, al-Qaida's support had dropped to 18%, the  Taliban's to 19%. *When asked if they would vote for al-Qaida, just 1%  of Pakistanis polled answered in the affirmative. The Taliban had the  support of 3% of those polled [197]
Pew Research surveys in 2008 show that in a range of countries   Jordan, Pakistan, Indonesia, Lebanon, and Bangladesh  there have been  substantial declines in the percentages saying suicide-bombings and  other forms of violence against civilian targets can be justified to  defend Islam against its enemies. Wide majorities say such attacks are,  at most, rarely acceptable [197]
The shift of attitudes against terror has been especially dramatic  in Jordan, where 29% of Jordanians are recorded as viewing  suicide-attacks as often or sometimes justified (down from 57% in May  2005). In the largest majority-Muslim nation, Indonesia, 74% of  respondents agree that terrorist attacks are "never justified" (a  substantial increase from the 41% level to which support had risen in  March 2004); in Pakistan, that figure is 86%; in Bangladesh, 81%; and in  Iran, 80% [197]
A poll conducted in Osama bin Laden's home country of Saudi Arabia  in December 2008 shows that his compatriots have dramatically turned  against him, his organisation, Saudi volunteers in Iraq, and terrorism  in general. Indeed, confidence in bin Laden has fallen in most Muslim  countries in recent years [197]
In Iraq, people of all persuasions unanimously reject the terror  tactics against Iraqi civilians of "al-Qaida in Mesopotamia". An ABC  News/BBC/NHK poll revealed that all of those surveyed  Sunni and Shi'a  alike  found al-Qaida attacks on Iraqi civilians "unacceptable"; 98%  rejected the militants' attempts to gain control over areas in which  they operated; and 97% opposed their attempts to recruit foreign  fighters and bring them to Iraq [197]
so the SMALLEST estimates say "less than 10%"

so lets assume that is true, that means *UP TO 9%*

how many muslims in the world?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 12, 2011)

> how many muslims in the world?



Enough that if the paranoia was fully justified, we'd already have been decapitated and out empty heads wired for those new fangled LED lights.



> how many muslims in the world?



2 Billion.  almost 1/3 of the world population.



> how many muslims in the world?



A lot more than there are American's.



> how many muslims in the world?



So many, you'd run out of rope, bullets, bombs, arrows, and witty rejoinders before they unleash bloody jihad on Mayberry and turn Aunt Bee into a gooseberry pie.

If the threat was as big a deal as all the hype, lies, and outright BS make it out to be.

So, 1% of US population. 1.82M
1% of that as 'terrorists or terrorist sympathizers". 19k
We had in 10 years under 300 cases of 'Domestic Terrorism'.

Shouldn't we have had more?
Alot more?
Shouldn't we be like, having cars blowing up weekly?
Shouldn't we have had massive states of emergency?
Shouldn't we have had you know, mainstream media covering it? I mean, all these constant threats and attacks and what not, surely someone's been catching it?

Or, is it just that much overhyped paranoia?

Oh....by the way....you did catch that part where it said 25% of the new Muslims in America were you know....black?

So...should I be afraid of blacks now too?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 12, 2011)

Nations who hate the US:
Iran
North Korea
Somalia
Syria
Libya

know what the top 2 have?  Hint:  The US is the ONLY nation in world history to use them on civilian populaces.

Guess which one can hit California?


----------



## Twin Fist (May 12, 2011)

Bob,
the North Koreans cant even manage to grow enough wheat to feed thier own people, they may have nukes, but i doubt they have delivery vehicles, and they will never attack us outright, no reason to.

you seemed determined to pretend there is no muslim problem in the world, i guess just because you wish there wasnt one, but wishing dont fill up baskets, you know?

look at the big picture, look how much happens across the globe, how many crimes committed BY MUSLIMS in the NAME OF ISLAM

it is real, and it is a particuarly bad enemy cuz you cant bargin with them


----------



## MA-Caver (May 12, 2011)

I appreciate Bill digging further into this story and find out that it had NOTHING to do with religion or Muslim or anything... just a father who went out of his mind and killed his family before killing himself. 


> Hallucinating Father Kills Two Sons Before Hanging Himself


That people are twisting this tragedy into something that it is not is nothing more than hate-mongering and ill used propaganda. Not too unlike how the Viet Cong showed villagers American made canned goods with pictures of the items inside, then showing a jar of Gerber baby food and letting them draw their won conclusions. 

It's sickening that they would resort to this. 

Will it stop?

Prolly not... at least until the unthinkable happens and we'll stand poised on the knife edge of utter destruction and (hopefully) pull back, then another shrine will be built that didn't need to be.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 12, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> Bob,
> the North Koreans cant even manage to grow enough wheat to feed thier own people, they may have nukes, but i doubt they have delivery vehicles, and they will never attack us outright, no reason to.
> 
> you seemed determined to pretend there is no muslim problem in the world, i guess just because you wish there wasnt one, but wishing dont fill up baskets, you know?



John.... are you willfully ignorant, or outright stupid? Wait, I know you're not stupid.
I -SAID- there was a problem.  Go back, reread what I said. I'll wait.
*watches some Scooby Doo....pets the cat...queues up some BS on the tele**
Ok, did you see that?



> look at the big picture, look how much happens across the globe, how many crimes committed BY MUSLIMS in the NAME OF ISLAM



How many were there?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism


> *Opinion Surveys*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hey, some of that looks familiar.


Now this, just doesn't happen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Terrorism


The problem with American's is that they believe the Universe revolves around them, that they are the good guys, and that everyone else should be grateful they're around.  You know, sometimes, we're not. Not the good guys, not welcome, and resented.
Go do a survey in North Korea, Iran, Somalia, hell Libya and Northern Mexico. Ask them if they think Americans should be shot.  I bet you get a good ratio that says yes.
I wonder why.  


Of course, threads like this one, where the original posts story was quickly debunked don't matter.  "If that story wasnt true, it happened somewhere else anyway". 

69 US cops have died so far this year.
How many of those deaths were the result of am Islamic Terrorist?

There is a threat, yes.
But I'm more likely to slip in the shower, crash my car, get struck by lightning, OR Win The Lottery, than be a victim of an Islamic Terror Attack inside the US.
If I was wandering around the US/Mexican border, I have a better chance of getting nailed by a drug gang, than a car bomb.  If I was wandering around IN! Mexico, I'm still safer than some make it out to be.

Simply put, The Sky Is Not Falling!


----------



## Twin Fist (May 12, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> There is a threat, yes.
> But I'm more likely to slip in the shower, crash my car, get struck by lightning, OR Win The Lottery, than be a victim of an Islamic Terror Attack inside the US.
> If I was wandering around the US/Mexican border, I have a better chance of getting nailed by a drug gang, than a car bomb.  If I was wandering around IN! Mexico, I'm still safer than some make it out to be.
> 
> Simply put, The Sky Is Not Falling!




I am simply speaking up for being mindfull is all. You admit there is a problem at least

nothing wrong with being mindfull of the threats out there.

oh, and i pay attention to ALL the threats. Not just the islamic ones.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 12, 2011)

Be nice if those other ones came up once in a while. 

Why, if I looked at the last months threads here, I'd get the impression that troop transports had hit the beaches, and a clone army let by Obama himself was half way to Phili already, as nuns were being decapitated in the streets of DC.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 12, 2011)

i will try to get the mexican cartels to murder a few more tourists.....


not my fault that the islamics keep pulling this ****


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 12, 2011)

List of notables who died so far this month.

Funny....I didn't realize there were so many ways those evil muslims could get you.
The SOBs invented CANCER!!!!!!!!!

May 2011
13
12

    * Aaron Douglas, 21, American college football player (University of Alabama). [1]
    * Daryl Hawks, 38, American sportscaster (NBC 5). [2] (body found on this date)

11

    * Leo Kahn, 94, American entrepreneur, co-founder of Staples, complications from a series of strokes. [3]
    * Albert Kanene Obiefuna, 81, Nigerian Roman Catholic prelate, Archbishop of Onitsha (1995&#8211;2003). [4]
    * Reach Sambath, 47, Cambodian journalist, stroke. [5]
    * Robert Traylor, 34, American basketball player (Bucks, Cavaliers, Hornets), suspected heart attack. [6] (body found on this date)

10
Zim Ngqawana, South African jazz saxophonist

    * Michael Baze, 24, American jockey. [7]
    * Bill Bergesch, 89, American baseball executive (New York Yankees, Cincinnati Reds). [8]
    * Vasilis Bozikis, 67, Greek photojournalist, cancer. [9] (Greek)
    * Mia Amber Davis, 36, American plus-size model and actress (Road Trip), postoperative complications. [10]
    * Bill Gallo, 88, American cartoonist and newspaper columnist, complications from pneumonia. [11]
    * M. S. Gurupadaswamy, 89, Indian politician and minister, heart attack. [12]
    * Héctor Medina, 35, Honduran journalist, shot. [13]
    * Zim Ngqawana, 51, South African jazz saxophonist, stroke. [14]
    * Burt Reinhardt, 91, American broadcast journalist and executive (CNN), complications from strokes. [15]
    * Stanley Wright, 62, American jazz musician. [16]
    * Norma Zimmer, 87, American entertainer (The Lawrence Welk Show). [17]

9
Lidia Gueiler Tejada, Bolivian politician

    * Gerald Bordman, 79, American playwright (American Musical Theatre) and author, cancer. [18]
    * David Cairns, 44, British politician, MP for Greenock and Inverclyde (2001&#8211;2005) and Inverclyde (since 2005), acute pancreatitis. [19]
    * Robert Ellsworth, 84, American politician and diplomat, U.S. Representative from Kansas (1961&#8211;1967), Ambassador to NATO (1969&#8211;1971), complications from pneumonia. [20]
    * Henry Feffer, 93, American professor and spine surgeon, treated Saddam Hussein, heart failure. [21]
    * Dolores Fuller, 88, American actress (Glen or Glenda), and songwriter ("Rock-A-Hula Baby"). [22]
    * Jeff Gralnick, 72, American television news producer. [23]
    * Lidia Gueiler Tejada, 89, Bolivian politician, acting President (1979&#8211;1980), after a long illness. [24]
    * Manos Loukakis, 60, Greek poet and literary critic, cancer. [25] (Greek)
    * Ivo Pe&#353;ák, 66, Czech singer, dancer and comic performer. [26] (Polish)
    * Shailendra Kumar Upadhyaya, 82, Nepali politician, Foreign Minister (1986&#8211;1990). [27]
    * Wouter Weylandt, 26, Belgian road bicycle racer, race crash. [28]

8
Li Desheng, Chinese general

    * Huthaifa al-Batawi, Iraqi al-Qaeda leader, shot. [29]
    * Moayed al-Saleh, Iraqi brigadier general, head of counter-terrorism in Baghdad, shot. [30]
    * Cornell Dupree, 68, American jazz and R&B guitarist, complications from emphysema. [31]
    * Gheorghe Gu&#355;iu, 87, Romanian Catholic hierarch, Archbishop of Cluj-Gherla (1994&#8211;2002). [32]
    * Li Desheng, 95, Chinese People's Liberation Army general. [33] (Chinese)
    * Greg Percival, 86, Australian politician, member of the New South Wales Legislative Council (1977&#8211;1978; 1986&#8211;1988). [34]
    * So&#328;a Pertlová, 23, Czech chessplayer, cancer. [35]
    * Lionel Rose, 62, Australian world champion boxer. [36]
    * Carlos Trillo, 68, Argentine comic book writer (Cybersix). [37] (Spanish)
    * Galina Urbanovich, 93, Russian Olympic gold and silver medal-winning (1952) gymnast. [38]
    * Arkady Vaksberg, 83, Russian journalist, critic and biographer. [39] (Russian)

7
Willard Boyle, Canadian physicist and Nobel laureate

    * Johnny Albino, 93, Puerto Rican bolero singer, heart attack. [40] (Spanish)
    * Seve Ballesteros, 54, Spanish golfer, brain cancer. [41]
    * Nikos Boutachidis, 56, Greek football club secretary, heart failure. [42] (Greek)
    * Willard Boyle, 86, Canadian physicist, Nobel laureate (2009). [43]
    * Jack Gordon, 66, American politician, member of the Mississippi House of Representatives (1972&#8211;1980), State Senator (1980&#8211;1992; 1996&#8211;2011), brain cancer. [44]
    * Allyson Hennessy, 63, Trinidadian broadcaster. [45]
    * Eilert Määttä, 75, Swedish ice hockey player and coach. [46] (Swedish)
    * Gunter Sachs, 78, German photographer, author and multi-millionaire industrialist, suicide by gunshot. [47]
    * Ella Schuler, 113, American supercentenarian. [48]
    * Robert Stempel, 77, American automobile executive, Chairman and CEO of General Motors (1990&#8211;1992). [49]
    * Kate Swift, 87, American writer, stomach cancer. [50]
    * John Walker, 67, American musician (The Walker Brothers), liver cancer. [51]
    * George Webley, 53, British broadcaster and music arranger. [52]
    * Doric Wilson, 72, American playwright and gay activist. [53]

6

    * Barry Connolly, 72, Australian football player. [54]
    * Horace Freeland Judson, 80, American science historian (The Great Betrayal: Fraud In Science), complications of a stroke. [55]
    * Quazi Nuruzzaman, 86, Bangladeshi veteran of the Liberation War, natural causes. [56]
    * Duane Pillette, 88, American baseball player (Yankees, Browns, Orioles, Phillies). [57]
    * Mike Spoerndle, 59, American music club founder (Toad's Place). [58] (body discovered on this date)
    * Dick Walsh, 85, American baseball (Los Angeles Dodgers) and soccer executive. [59]
    * Yoon Ki-Won, 24, South Korean football player, suicide by inhaling toxic fumes. [60]

5
Claude Choules, last combat veteran of World War I

    * Alice Bridges, 94, American Olympic bronze medal-winning (1936) swimmer. [61]
    * Halit Çelenk, 89, Turkish lawyer and socialist activist, cancer and asthma. [62]
    * Claude Choules, 110, British-born Australian veteran, last combat veteran of World War I. [63]
    * Thomas Compaoré, 23, Burkinabé basketball player, heart attack. [64] (German)
    * Elvis Gordon, 52, British Olympic judoka, pancreatic cancer. [65]
    * Salomón Hakim, 91, Colombian neurosurgeon, researcher and inventor. [66]
    * Arthur Laurents, 93, American playwright, librettist, stage director, and screenwriter (Anastasia, Rope, West Side Story). [67]
    * Dougie McCracken, 46, Scottish football player (Ayr United), suspected suicide. [68]
    * Yosale Merimovich, 86, Israeli football player and manager. [69] (Hebrew).
    * Nigel Pickering, 81, American guitarist (Spanky and Our Gang), liver cancer. [70]
    * Rolo Puente, 71, Argentine actor, pulmonary emphysema. [71]
    * Dana Wynter, 79, German-born British actress (Invasion of the Body Snatchers), heart failure. [72]
    * Snooky Young, 92, American jazz trumpeter, saxophonist and singer. [73]

4
Thomas G. Nelson, American federal judge

    * Lázaro Blanco, 73, Mexican photographer, cancer. [74] (Spanish)
    * Velzoe Brown, 101, American jazz pianist. [75]
    * Frans de Kok, 87, Dutch conductor. [76] (Dutch)
    * Néstor Groppa, Argentine poet. [77] (Spanish)
    * Jacques Georges Habib Hafouri, 94, Syrian Catholic hierarch, Archbishop of Hassaké-Nisibi (1982&#8211;1996). [78]
    * Jagdish Khebudkar, 77, Indian writer, renal failure. [79]
    * Sammy McCrory, 86, Northern Irish footballer. [80]
    * Thomas G. Nelson, 74, American federal judge, complications from declining health. [81]
    * Françoise Olivier-Coupeau, 51, French politician, cancer. [82] (French)
    * Frans Sammut, 66, Maltese writer, natural causes. [83]
    * Bernard Stasi, 80, French politician, Minister for Overseas Departments and Territories (1973&#8211;1974), Alzheimer's disease. [84] (French)
    * Louis Stumberg, 87, American businessman, introduced Tex Mex TV dinners, after long illness. [85]
    * Sada Thompson, 83, American actress (Family), lung disease. [86]

3
Jackie Cooper, American actor

    * Paul Ackerley, 61, New Zealand hockey player and coach, skin cancer. [87]
    * Jackie Cooper, 88, American actor (Skippy, Our Gang, Superman) and director (M*A*S*H). [88]
    * Sergo Kotrikadze, 74, Georgian football player and coach, heart attack. [89] (Russian)
    * Mildred Robbins Leet, 88, American philanthropist, co-founder of Trickle Up, complications of a fall. [90]
    * Patrick Roy, 53, French politician, pancreatic cancer. [91] (French)
    * Thanasis Veggos, 83, Greek actor, stroke. [92]
    * Des Williams, 83, South African Olympic boxer. [93]

2
Alexander Lazarev, Russian actor

    * Leonid Abalkin, 80, Russian economist. [94]
    * Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti, 46, Kuwaiti Al-Qaeda computer expert, shot. [95]
    * Danny Kassap, 28, Congolese-born Canadian long-distance runner. [96]
    * Osama bin Laden, 54, Saudi founder of Al-Qaeda, planned September 11 attacks, shot. [97]
    * Alexander Lazarev, 73, Russian actor. [98] (Russian)
    * Eddie Lewis, 76, English footballer (Manchester United, West Ham United), cancer. [99] (death announced on this date)
    * Ernest Mothle, 69, South African jazz musician. [100]
    * René Emilio Ponce, 64, Salvadoran general and defence minister, army chief of staff during the Civil War. [101]
    * David Sencer, 86, American public health official, director of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (1966&#8211;1977), heart disease. [102]
    * Shigeo Yaegashi, 78, Japanese footballer. [103] (Japanese)

1
J. Ernest Wilkins, Jr., American mathematician and nuclear scientist

    * Alex, 52, Indian actor and magician, after short illness. [104]
    * Spyrydon Babskyi, 52, Ukrainian Orthodox hierarch, Archbishop of Vinnytsya in UOC-KP (1992&#8211;1993). [105] (Russian)
    * Sir Henry Cooper, 76, British Olympic heavyweight boxer. [106]
    * Agustín García-Gasco Vicente, 80, Spanish Roman Catholic cardinal, Archbishop of Valencia (1992&#8211;2009), cardiac arrest. [107]
    * Moshe Landau, 99, Israeli jurist, Chief Justice (1980&#8211;1982), presided over Adolf Eichmann's trial (1961). [108]
    * Ted Lowe, 90, British snooker commentator. [109]
    * Steven Orszag, 68, American mathematician, chronic lymphomic leukemia. [110]
    * Ivan Slavkov, 70, Bulgarian sports official. [111]
    * William O. Taylor II, 78, American journalist and publisher (The Boston Globe), brain tumor. [112]
    * Reynaldo Uy, 59, Filipino politician, Mayor of Calbayog, shot. [113]
    * J. Ernest Wilkins, Jr., 87, American mathematician and nuclear scientist. [114]


----------



## fangjian (May 12, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> The video is real.  The story is incorrect.
> 
> http://www.tannetwork.tv/tan/ViewData.aspx?DataID=1043058
> 
> ...



Ok. So this is what I got. *Drugs are bad. Middle Eastern Mythology is bad. Mental Illness is bad. 
*
Now what is_ part_ of the remedy for all 3?   

-Science Education


----------



## billc (May 12, 2011)

Actually, I think this part of the story is the important part...

*More than than 4000 people from police and teachers to monks and children have been killed in the past 7 years by Muslims in southern Thailand*



*Can't we all just get along...*


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 12, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Actually, I think this part of the story is the important part...
> 
> *More than than 4000 people from police and teachers to monks and children have been killed in the past 7 years by Muslims in southern Thailand*
> 
> ...


Ok, that's an important fact.
That's an average of 572/yr from Islamic terrorists.

Lets add perspective.
2004 numbers are what I could find.
in 2004, in Thailand, there were 504 thousand deaths.
in 2004, injuries accounted for 57,366 out of the 504,000 deaths.
Chance of dying in Thailand, from a terrorist attack: .11%.

http://www.nationmaster.com/country/th-thailand/ter-terrorism has more information
*Terrorist Acts > 1968-2006 > Deaths to incidences ratio*                  0.673846154 Deaths per act                            
                               [70th of 162]                                                                                         *Terrorist Acts > 1968-2006 > Fatalities*                  438                            
                               [16th of 161]                                                                                                                   *Terrorist Acts > 1968-2006 > Fatalities (per capita)*                  6.777  per 1 million people                            
                               [39th of 161]                                                                                         *Terrorist Acts > 1968-2006 > Incidences*                  650                            
                               [10th of 165]                                                                                                                   *Terrorist Acts > 1968-2006 > Incidences (per capita)*                  101.268  per 10 million people                            
                               [29th of 164]                                                                                         *Terrorist Acts > 1968-2006 > Injuries*                  957                            
                               [22nd of 164]                                                                                                                   *Terrorist Acts > 1968-2006 > Injuries (per capita)*                  14.807  per 1 million people                            
                               [34th of 164]                                                                                         *Terrorist Acts > 2000-2006 > Fatalities*                  305                            
                               [13th of 110]                                                                                                                   *Terrorist Acts > 2000-2006 > Fatalities (per capita)*                  4,719.054  per 1 billion people                            
                               [20th of 110]                                                                                         *Terrorist Acts > 2000-2006 > Incidences*                  619                            
                               [5th of 112]                                                                                                                   *Terrorist Acts > 2000-2006 > Incidences (per capita)*                  9.577  per 1 million people                            
                               [14th of 112]                                                                                         *Terrorist Acts > 2000-2006 > Injuries*                  905                            
                               [15th of 112]                                                                                                                   *Terrorist Acts > 2000-2006 > Injuries (per capita)*                  14.002  per 1 million people                            
                               [19th of 112]                   

Compared to the US
*Terrorist Acts > 1968-2006 > Deaths to incidences ratio*                  5.888686131 Deaths per act                            
                               [8th of 162]                                                                                         *Terrorist Acts > 1968-2006 > Fatalities*                  3,227                            
                               [2nd of 161]                                                                                                                   *Terrorist Acts > 1968-2006 > Fatalities (per capita)*                  10.813  per 1 million people                            
                               [23rd of 161]                                                                                         *Terrorist Acts > 1968-2006 > Incidences*                  548                            
                               [14th of 165]                                                                                                                   *Terrorist Acts > 1968-2006 > Incidences (per capita)*                  18.53  per 10 million people                            
                               [94th of 164]                                                                                         *Terrorist Acts > 1968-2006 > Injuries*                  4,165                            
                               [7th of 164]                                                                                                                   *Terrorist Acts > 1968-2006 > Injuries (per capita)*                  13.956  per 1 million people                            
                               [37th of 164]                                                                                         *Terrorist Acts > 2000-2006 > Fatalities*                  2,990                            
                               [2nd of 110]                                                                                                                   *Terrorist Acts > 2000-2006 > Fatalities (per capita)*                  10,018.623  per 1 billion people                            
                               [10th of 110]                                                                                         *Terrorist Acts > 2000-2006 > Incidences*                  98                            
                               [20th of 112]                                                                                                                   *Terrorist Acts > 2000-2006 > Incidences (per capita)*                  0.328  per 1 million people                            
                               [75th of 112]                                                                                         *Terrorist Acts > 2000-2006 > Injuries*                  2,386                            
                               [5th of 112]                                                                                                                   *Terrorist Acts > 2000-2006 > Injuries (per capita)*                  7.995  per 1 million people                            
                               [27th of 112]                                                                                         *Victims of the September 11th 2001 attacks*                  2,902                            
                               [1st of 41]                                                                                                                   *Victims of the September 11th 2001 attacks (per capita)*                  98.129  per 10 million people                            
                               [2nd of 41]



Put another way:http://www.thailandguru.com/terrorism-in-bangkok-thailand.html


> Another viewpoint, considering only road accidents:
> 
> 
> On January 2, on Thailand roads, there were 509 vehicle accidents resulting in 56 people killed and 576 injured.
> ...


----------



## billc (May 12, 2011)

Archangel M.  this video helps to explain the difference between the lone gunman at fort Leonard wood (what was his motive anyway?) and the threat by radical muslim terrorism.  Just found it and it is in its own thread, but it still reveals a lot for this thread.

http://www.declarationentertainment.com/firewall-memebusters-osama-bin-laden-edition


----------



## Tez3 (May 13, 2011)

The deaths of Elvis Gordon, a great Judoka and Sir Henry Cooper are great losses and cyclist Wouter Weylandt was a favourite of mine, I'd seen the crash as I was watching the Giro D'Italia live.

Our martial arts club has close ties to Thailand, we are sponsored by Fairtex, my instructor goes out there at least a couple of times a year, we send students out to train there, my daughter spent February and March there travelling around the country plus two of our students' mother is Thai. The Muslim 'problem' isn't nearly as great as some are making it out to be, it's really a civil war anyway. No denying there is conflict in the south which is actually well reported here as well as the demonstrations in Bangkok and at the airport. Thailand is ruled by a military dictatorship so demonstrators who want democracy and those who disagree with the government are going to be prevalant, there are different ways of protesting, some prefer violence to peaceful protest sadly. As has been said elsewhre violence begets violence, the military is very heavy handed in South Thailand which doesn't help a situation that is already unstable.

In this country for what ever reason we have had a spate of parents killing their own children, sometimes they killed themselves sometimes not. Recently a woman was sent to prison for stabbing to death her three young children. Horrible and tragic but nothing to do with Muslim terrorists. I'd say the terrorists have already won if they can induce this sort of panic, despondancy and talk among people. 


As Bob has said the main cause of 'non natural' deaths in Thailand is RTAs, many are foreigners using scooters or motor bikes. Thailand's road safety record is appalling.


----------



## Blade96 (May 13, 2011)

True what you said about Americans, Bob. Recetly i went to get a pic for my passport. At the time, i happened to be wearing a shirt that said american eagle on it. I love the shirt but was avised to take it off because someone might think i was an american and beat me up or something while traveling in some foreign country.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 13, 2011)

Bob,
you're denial of the problem is getting downright aggressive.

exactly WHY do you fight so hard to deny the threat of radical islam? 

you are pretty grounded, and pretty smart for a yankee, lol

but when the subject of radical islam comes up, you ALWAYS jump through your *** to downplay the threat. i seriously dont understand. You go out of your way to try and prove how safe the world is from Radical Islam.

When it isnt. Anyone can look at the trends. It isnt about AQ, it is world wide, groups of muslims, unconnected except by religion, and the same things are happening everywhere islam is.

conversion by force

intimidation by murder

terror attacks

suicide bombings

Thailand, India, London, the WHOLE middle east, the Phillipines,  HERE

a CAREER ARMY OFFICER and islam corrupted him

American citizens, law abiding thier whole lives, and Islam can turn them into murderers.

And even though it isnt very many, or very often, it is getting more and more common every year. I mean, we would actually be remiss if we didnt admitt that the problem is getting worse

and sure, right now we can afford to soak up the occasional mass killing, or shooting spree.

But what happens when one of them gets a nuke?

they will be arguing trying to decide if they will destroy israel or an american city. Which do you think it will be Bob? israel or one of our port cities?


----------



## Tez3 (May 13, 2011)

It smacks of people running around like headless chickens shouting 'don't panic'!
There is a threat, a rather large one,so remain alert and carry on as normal. If you don't the terrorists have won. A good many countries have lived with terrorism threats and acts for decades and they know the best way to fight it is good intel, good security forces, keeping a cool head and carrying on as normal. The terrorists want you panicking, want you to change your lifestyle and want you running scared, so far they are winning.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 13, 2011)

Why?  Because you are making a mountain out of a molehill.
You are blowing the risk and threat out of all proportion.
You have no sense of perspective.

The US, in 10 years has lost about 4,000 civilians, on US soil, to terrorists.
In that same 10 years we lost 1,591 LEO's. About 90 of those were related to the 9/11 attacks and resulting injuries or illness associated with them. 5.7% 
Mexico, by comparison has lost over 32,000 people to cartel violence since 2006. They've lost about the same number of cops in 5 years that we did in 10.
That violence is threatening to wash over our Southern Border.

The Border that Obama, and Napolitano say is "more secure than ever".
Napolitano of course is the person who continues to insist that the TSA is operating properly, every time they put their hands down your pants and fondle your baby girl. She also says that homegrown terrorism is growing.  Now, is a person who says it's ok to molest you and who continues to ignore a real security hole, a reliable source?

It's perspective. I'm looking at the big picture, at a large amount of data, and I am not seeing the need to panic you are.

Terrorism is on the DECREASE globally.  What you are seeing is the growing pains of a movement in the direction you want. The extremist portion is growing apart from the core of their societies, is as a result becoming more desperate in their measures. In the US we are not under 24 hr paranoia. Car bombs and suicide bombers are not showing up at Starbucks. Israel where suicide bombers were common place a few years ago has been pretty peaceful. The UK which saw large amounts of terror attacks in the 70's and 80's, is pretty peaceful too.  We arent under martial law. We aren't seeing things blowing up daily, we aren't hearing about mass poisonings. No one has yet serrin gassed our subways (happened in Japan some years back).

What do I see as my immediate threats?
1- drivers. I rarely fail to see stupid and careless or aggressive drivers almost or actually cause accidents, weekly. Remember, I live in Buffalo, which is a dirt road compared to the I35 between Dallas and Austin. 

2- crime. Home invasions are on the rise.

3- assault. most likely related to #2.

So, in the 'whats Bob worried about' list, getting in a car accident tops the list.  Getting jumped while walking about, a close second.

I'm not worried about getting raped or murdered. I'm not worried about my house burning down (which folks in TX and CA worry more about), or it being washed away (coastal towns during hurricane season, anyone along the Mississippi this week). Not worried about earthquakes even though I live on a fault line (CA is more at risk).
And I'm not worried about terrorism even though I live in the state that lost the most people and took the biggest economic hit.

If I was planning a trip to do a hiking tour of India, trust me, I'd be a whole lot more concerned.

As to who a terrorist would nuke....my money is on NYC or a coastal city in Israel.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 13, 2011)

well Tez, you have to make SOME changes.

but yeah, in general, sure. Carry on, but be mindfull of the threat.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 13, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> well Tez, you have to make SOME changes.
> 
> but yeah, in general, sure. Carry on, but be mindfull of the threat.


Mindful. As in 'aware'.  As in 'pay attention to whats around you dumbass, oh yeah and pick your feet up so you don't trip'.
I pay attention.  This is why my back hurts...picking up all the pocket change folks over look. 
But John, you and Bill, couple others, you guys are honestly coming across at times like uber-paranoid types.  Almost stereotypical in nature.

John.

Be aware of your surroundings. Be mindful of that which surrounds you. Do not let your fear control you. Do not let your anger guide you. In short:


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 13, 2011)

The world **is** in danger from radical Islamists.
The world's Muslims are to the largest extent **not** radical Islamists.

These two statements seem to confuse many people.

While many on MT Study forum (and lots of other places) seem to give lip-service to the notion that _'not all Muslims are bad'_, they also seem rather fixated on *ONLY* paying attention to what the few who are bad are up to.  Ignoring any and all other threats to our nation, with the possible exception of occasionally making a run at all the bad illegal immigrants.

As I have said before, this in my opinion is an unhealthy obsession at best.  At worst, it's indicative of pure hatred and bigotry.  Some here have said - and I believe it was Twin Fist - that even though they accept that not all Muslims are bad, they _"don't trust one of them."_  That's entirely your right, but it does reveal a mindset that is skewed, and even you accept that it's skewed.  Forgive me if you're not the one who said that, but I thought you were.  Correct me if I'm wrong.

When there are three incidents involving threats to airplanes on the same week in the USA, but certain people are ONLY interested in posting about the one that involved a Muslim, even changing the thread of the OP to reflect the "Muslim one" since the original thread turned out NOT to be about Muslims, and this thread - again with the Muslim beheadings - except it turned out the beheadings were NOT done by Muslims, but by a drug-crazed father of the children.  BUT IT DOES NOT MATTER because we're back on how terrible the Muslims are again.

THAT IS AN UNHEALTHY OBSESSION - IMHO.

I'm sorry if that's a problem for you.  The obsession is annoying and becoming a problem for me.  People with hate-based obsessions frighten me; they're irrational and dangerous.  Muslim terrorists and non-Muslim Muslim-haters alike.


----------



## Steve (May 13, 2011)

Here's an article written in December 2001.  

http://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/1201/prescol.html



> [FONT=arial,helvetica]The moral: It's  perfectly normal to fear purposeful violence from those who hate us.   But with our emotions now calming a bit, perhaps it's time to check our  fears against facts.  "It's time to get back to life," said  terror-victim widow Lisa Beamer before boarding the same flight her  husband had taken on September 11. To be prudent is to be mindful of the  realities of how humans die. By so doing, we can take away the  terrorists' most omnipresent weapon: exaggerated fear.[/FONT]



We take risks every day.  This article was written just a few months after 9/11, and a decade later, it's only more apropos.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 13, 2011)

I am not panicked, I am just willing to admit the truth

there are people out there that want to kill us, each and every one of us, and they will do anything to achieve that goal.

they are fanatics and they cannot be reasoned with.

may not be many of them, and if the numbers are right, less and less every year, and with OBL dead, maybe that will take some of the wind out of thier sails.

we can hope, but we owe it to each other to be mindfull and carefull in the meantime.

big difference between panicked and aware


----------



## Steve (May 13, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> I am not panicked, I am just willing to admit the truth
> 
> there are people out there that want to kill us, each and every one of us, and they will do anything to achieve that goal.
> 
> ...


Do you consider yourself to be a fanatic?


----------



## Twin Fist (May 13, 2011)

not in the slightest, there are some here i consider fanatics tho


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 13, 2011)

How big a danger do you see?
Compared to getting hit by a bus, mugged by a thug, or a parking ticket from a cop?


----------



## Steve (May 13, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> not in the slightest, there are some here i consider fanatics tho


Did you read the article I linked?


----------



## Twin Fist (May 13, 2011)

one nice thing about texas, and a small town, there are no buses, not many thugs, and not many muslims.

parking enforcement however is a nightmare.....

besides, i can handle a mugger, and I can choose to not park illegally. Hell, i can pay attention to where i am walking. 

I cant control how much some religious nutbar is willing to do to killa few infidels.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 13, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> Did you read the article I linked?




it was boring


----------



## Steve (May 13, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> it was boring


Which parts?  Can you be more specific?  Do you disagree with the points made?  If so, which ones?    

Are any of the people you'd consider to be fanatics on these boards conservative?  Are all of them people you'd characterize as being progressive/liberal/leftist?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 13, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> I am not panicked, I am just willing to admit the truth
> 
> there are people out there that want to kill us, each and every one of us, and they will do anything to achieve that goal.
> 
> they are fanatics and they cannot be reasoned with.



I am not panicked, but I am *likewise* willing to admit the truth.

There are people out there that want Islam to be wiped out as a threat to humanity, and they will do anything to achieve that goal.

They are fanatics and they cannot be reasoned with.

And I might add, their fixation with ALL THINGS MUSLIM is what I see most on MT Study forum.  It does not seem to matter to them what else might be wrong with the world.  A crazed gunman can drive onto an Army base and shoot it up with AK-47 rifle fire and they're not interested in the slightest - unless he's Muslim.  A man can try to open the emergency exit door of a plane while it is in flight and have to be subdued; but they're not interested unless he's Muslim.  White powder sent in envelopes to various politicians - from the 'real' Anthrax attack to the latest, every-day-now talcum powder attacks?  Yawn; it's not Muslims doing it, so it's of no interest.  Someone burns down a mosque?  So what?  They had it coming.  Someone burns down a Synagogue?  Well, was it a white supremacist or a Muslim?  If it was a Muslim then we care a lot.  If it was just a racist, then yawn.

All the things in the world that are real threats, which we really should be concerned about, and some choose to fixate on one threat only - and then misconstrue it entirely so that a tiny subset of a religion becomes the entire religion to them.  They want to drag us into a world-wide holy war...and you don't see THAT as a threat?  I do.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 13, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I am not panicked, but I am *likewise* willing to admit the truth.
> 
> There are people out there that want Islam to be wiped out as a threat to humanity, and they will do anything to achieve that goal.



name ONE

you cant, because NO ONE has suggested that. Much less on MT, at least, i have never seen it. Hell, even my harshest words have been that I consider islam a plague on this world, and the world would be better off without it. But nowhere have i advocated "doing anything" to accomplish this...


----------



## Twin Fist (May 13, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> Are any of the people you'd consider to be fanatics on these boards conservative?  Are all of them people you'd characterize as being progressive/liberal/leftist?



I have met several conservatives i would consider fanatical. None on MT. IMO


There are however several fanatical leftists on this board, IMO


----------



## Tez3 (May 13, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> I have met several conservatives i would consider fanatical. None on MT. IMO
> 
> 
> *There are however several fanatical leftists on this board*, IMO


 
Names please.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 13, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> name ONE
> 
> you cant, because NO ONE has suggested that. Much less on MT, at least, i have never seen it. Hell, even my harshest words have been that I consider islam a plague on this world, and the world would be better off without it. But nowhere have i advocated "doing anything" to accomplish this...



http://www.fstdt.net/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=35688



> Religion? No, lets make this quite clear: Not all religions are equal.  Christianity should play a large role in modern society, as God  intended, for it is the Truth. But the abomination of Islam should be  wiped out, destroyed by force if nessicessary - both for its constantly  earthly attrocities and oppressions, and for leading people from Christ  and thus damning them eternally.



http://www.facebook.com/pages/Evil-Islam-Should-Be-Banned/173880475979034

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/10830

*



			Can We Ban Islam? - Legal Guidelines for the Criminalization of Islam in the United States
		
Click to expand...

*


http://houston.indymedia.org/news/2004/04/28708.php



> CAIR made that demand after receiving a complaint from a concerned Muslim who heard WTKK-FM (http://www.969fmtalk.com)  host Jay Severin's Thursday afternoon program. WTKK-FM General Manager  Matt Mills told CAIR that in a discussion about how Severin claims  Muslims want to take over America, even if it takes centuries, Severin  said, "I've got an idea, let's kill all Muslims."



http://digg.com/news/politics/Muslim_group_helps_shut_down_Kill_All_Muslim_Kids_web_site



> A blogger who bills  himself as the right wing howler has apparently been silenced by his  Internet service provider, HostGator, after a Muslim advocacy group -  the Tampa chapter of the Council for American Islamic Relations -  complained about content that encouraged the killing of Muslim children



http://www.petitiononline.com/No2Islam/petition.html


> Outlaw Islam Online Petition


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 13, 2011)

I liked this one:

http://atheism.about.com/b/2004/05/04/kill-all-muslims.htm



> Christian rage at Islam has been growing since the September 11, 2001  terrorist attacks. Even early on there were vicious verbal attacks  against Muslims, but they haven't really abated much with time. Even now  there are apparently those who considers Muslims to be less than human.  Jessica Bennett, writes for The Boston Globe:  _The statement -- made during [Jay] Severin's show Thursday on WTKK-FM  -- was allegedly part of a discussion about how Severin believes  Muslims want to take over the world, said Rabiah Ahmed, a spokeswoman  for the Council on American-Islamic Relations. She said he then  remarked, "I've got an idea, let's kill all Muslims."_​



And...



> Even if Severin was only talking about Muslims outside of America, the  remark is unconscionable. I exchanged emails with pathetic person  claiming to be a military veteran who lambasted Muslims and he refused  point-blank to explain whether his bigoted comments were supposed to be  about all Muslims or only Muslim extremists. Some people can't tell the  difference, some people don't want to tell the difference, and some just  don't care.



Martial Talk Study Forum - All Muslim, All The Time.  BUT WE DON'T HATE MUSLIMS.  Like fun, we don't.


----------



## Steve (May 13, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> I have met several conservatives i would consider fanatical. None on MT. IMO


Who would you characterize as being a conservative fanatic? Can you give a couple of examples of people whom you consider to be a fanatical conservative?  What does a conservative fanatic look like to you?

And did you read the article I linked to?  What specifically did you find boring about it?  Which parts?  Do you disagree with the points that the author of the article made?  If so, which ones?  





> There are however several fanatical leftists on this board, IMO


I understand you'll avoid naming names because that would be rude.  But, what sort of behavior leads you to conclude that someone is a fanatical leftist?  I asked above what a conservative fanatic looks like.  What does a liberal fanatic look like?


----------



## Blade96 (May 13, 2011)

i thinks i'm probably more likely to get attacked by a domestic dog than a radical muslim terrorist nut bar. Just my opinion.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 13, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Names please.




that would be against the TOS i believe, and besides that, it would also serve no good, aside to inflame and offend and i dont wish to do either right now


----------



## Tez3 (May 13, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> that would be against the TOS i believe, and besides that, it would also serve no good, aside to inflame and offend and i dont wish to do either* right* *now*


 

So you will accuse people of being 'lefties' when it suits you!


----------



## Twin Fist (May 13, 2011)

interesting that they can say anything but no one can say anything about them.......


interesting List Bill

I will think on that.

still tho, if, as you tell us about muslims CONSTANTLY we cannot judge the whole by the nuttier parts, we cant think of those people too harshly, now can we?


----------



## Twin Fist (May 13, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> So you will accuse people of being 'lefties' when it suits you!


 
now THAT is a large leap


----------



## Tez3 (May 13, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> now THAT is a large leap


 
Look at what you said, it was that you didn't want to do it 'right now', that reads as if there's a time coming when you will.

When everyone says 'Muslims' people do realise there are different 'types' for want of a better word of Muslim just as there are Christians and Jews. If we don't like what the Pope says we don't complain about the Methodists for example. Look at the different types of Islam before condemning all Muslims, many Muslims are killed by other Muslims. I think too some need to get it into their heads that because one wants fairness one is supporting terrorism.


----------



## Steve (May 13, 2011)

Twin Fist, I'd really like to hear your specific thoughts on the article you said was boring.  The article specifically addresses some of the issues you're bringing up.  

I'm also really interested in learning more about how you see fanaticism.  It's relevant to the discussion because you're grounding your entire position on the fanaticism of the radical muslims, whom you believe represent the group.  

So, you mentioned conservative fanatics.  What does that look like?  Can you name one?


----------



## Twin Fist (May 13, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> you're grounding your entire position on the fanaticism of the radical muslims, whom you believe represent the group.
> 
> So, you mentioned conservative fanatics.  What does that look like?  Can you name one?




no, i dont, i think they represent the fanatics, the problem is, i think there are more fanatics or supporters of fanatics than you do.

conservative fanatics are, IMO, the ones that base thier political decisions on religion, in this case christianity instead of islam

the only real difference is that the christian religion doesnt advocate jihad. Islam does. 

look at the clinic bombers. THAT


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 13, 2011)

Christianity was more into Crusades than Jihads.  Did a couple on itself I think, even used children once or twice. Good year to be a slave trader those were. 

As to left vs right, I'm a righty, except when doing Arnis, when I go both ways.
(stick in each hand sickos. )


----------



## Steve (May 13, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> no, i dont, i think they represent the fanatics, the problem is, i think there are more fanatics or supporters of fanatics than you do.
> 
> conservative fanatics are, IMO, the ones that base thier political decisions on religion, in this case christianity instead of islam
> 
> ...


So, in your opinion, fanaticism is related directly to religion.  More specifically, people who base their political decisions on religion?  Do you believe that some of the liberals on the board here do that?


----------



## Twin Fist (May 13, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> So, in your opinion, fanaticism is related directly to religion.  More specifically, people who base their political decisions on religion?  Do you believe that some of the liberals on the board here do that?




more like religion can create fanaticism, other things too, but nothing works quite as well as religion

also, athieism is a religion, so is global warming, socialism, and liberalism.

IMO


----------



## Twin Fist (May 13, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Christianity was more into Crusades than Jihads.  Did a couple on itself I think, even used children once or twice. Good year to be a slave trader those were.
> 
> As to left vs right, I'm a righty, except when doing Arnis, when I go both ways.
> (stick in each hand sickos. )




500 years ago....*yawn*


----------



## Steve (May 13, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> more like religion can create fanaticism, other things too, but nothing works quite as well as religion
> 
> also, athieism is a religion, so is global warming, socialism, and liberalism.
> 
> IMO


If liberalism is a religion, would you say that conservatism is a religion, as well?


----------



## Twin Fist (May 13, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> If liberalism is a religion, would you say that conservatism is a religion, as well?



can be

political idealogy can, if taken too far, be just like a religion in its ability to generate fanaticism

IMO


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 13, 2011)

Like when you point to the religion of any random criminal offender as proof that the religion is bunk.


----------



## Steve (May 13, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> can be
> 
> political idealogy can, if taken too far, be just like a religion in its ability to generate fanaticism
> 
> IMO


Okay.  I'm starting to get a little confused.  Fanatics are people who "base thier political decisions on religion" but now you're saying that political ideology can be inherently religious.  While that makes it pretty easy to call any liberal you'd like to a fanatic, it's a definition that would also include just about everyone on this forum.  

Hey.  Did you read the article I posted?  I'm still interested in what you think.  You said it was boring.  Can you be more specific?  Do you disagree with the points the author made?


----------



## Twin Fist (May 13, 2011)

get enough catholics to do the sam etype of crime over and over........


----------



## Steve (May 13, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> get enough catholics to do the sam etype of crime over and over........


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases


----------



## Twin Fist (May 13, 2011)

you are not paying attention

I said religion CAN, not does (as in it WILL, sure thing, no doubt)

political thoughts can, when taken to extreems, be LIKE a religion, in that it can breed fanaticism

no WILL, just CAN

anything, when taken too far, CAN breed fanaticism, but it isnt gauranteed





stevebjj said:


> Okay.  I'm starting to get a little confused.  Fanatics are people who "base thier political decisions on religion" but now you're saying that political ideology can be inherently religious.  While that makes it pretty easy to call any liberal you'd like to a fanatic, it's a definition that would also include just about everyone on this forum.
> 
> Hey.  Did you read the article I posted?  I'm still interested in what you think.  You said it was boring.  Can you be more specific?  Do you disagree with the points the author made?


----------



## Twin Fist (May 13, 2011)

[FONT=arial,helvetica]







*B**y so doing, we can take away the  terrorists' most omnipresent weapon: exaggerated fear...............*


no, it is far more potent to actually kill people than just scare them. Only the living are afraid







*If, God forbid,  anthrax or truck bombs kill a thousand Americans, we will all recoil in  horror. Small comfort, perhaps, but the odds are 284,000 to one that you  won't be among them.*




yawn


this is nothig more than an attempt to reassure people it wont happen to them. But it can,and people SHOULD be aware of that. *Sure, it is all true*, but that doesnt change anything


it is just one more time of people telling me i shouldnt feel what i feel


its annoying and tired.

[/FONT]


----------



## Steve (May 13, 2011)

No.  I'm paying very close attention and trying desperately to understand you.  

You said liberalism is a religion.  I asked about conservatism and you said, "can be."  But that doesn't follow.  If liberalism is a religion, then it follows that you would also believe conservatism to be a religion.

Previously, you linked religion to fanaticism.  You've alleged that there are several people on this board who are liberal fanatics.  You've also claimed to have identified some conservative fanatics, although no one here meets your criteria.  I've asked a couple times now for you to speak plainly and explain what you mean, but you've been evasive.

Can you describe a fanatic?  So far, you've tied it to religion.  You mention "other things" but didn't explain what that means.  You also lumped liberalism, socialism and global warming in under the "religion" banner.   

So, can you name a conservative fanatic?

Also, hey.  About that article.  Did you read it?


----------



## Twin Fist (May 13, 2011)

let me be MORE clear

religion, liberalism, conservatism, atheism, all of these things CAN produce fanaticism if taken too far.

ANYTHING, if taken too far, can produce fanatics

a famous conservative thats a fanatic, IMO?? Pat Robertson


----------



## Twin Fist (May 13, 2011)

oh, i am not being "evasive" I am just not spelling out my words for you, so you are getting lost

really my fault for not being as clear as you clearly need me to be


----------



## Steve (May 13, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> oh, i am not being "evasive" I am just not spelling out my words for you, so you are getting lost
> 
> really my fault for not being as clear as you clearly need me to be


If you're interested in being understood, then yes.  It's your fault.  Particularly since the questions I'm asking are very direct.  Personally, if asked a direct question, I try to respond in kind.  

I can't speak for anyone else, but you've gone in so many circles I'm dizzy trying to keep up.


----------



## Steve (May 13, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> let me be MORE clear
> 
> religion, liberalism, conservatism, atheism, all of these things CAN produce fanaticism if taken too far.
> 
> ...


Can you explain to me what you mean by "too far?"  That's really vague.   What are some ways that Pat Robertson took his conservatism too far?


----------



## Twin Fist (May 13, 2011)

if you dont have the ability to know what "if taken too far" means, i cant help you, i suspect tho, that you know full well what i mean, you are just being a putz.

so, since i am now bored, and not that interesting in playing your games, please learn to read english:

anything belief system, political or religious, if taken too far, can produce fanatics

if you cant understand that..................


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 13, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> 500 years ago....*yawn*


Well, yeah. That was 500 or so years ago.
But Christian extremists are still active, still inflicting mass murder, rape and whatnot.
We went over that already though.
The key word is extremists.
You deal with them. You work to minimize their effect, their ability to recruit, their ability to spread.  Sometimes with candy. Sometimes with 2 shots and a splash.

But, threads like this one, based on misinformation, only help their cause of spreading the fear. It makes them look bigger than they are. Makes them more powerful. 

I don't like to give them that kind of power.


----------



## Steve (May 13, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> if you dont have the ability to know what "if taken too far" means, i cant help you, i suspect tho, that you know full well what i mean, you are just being a putz.
> 
> so, since i am now bored, and not that interesting in playing your games, please learn to read english:
> 
> ...


I know what "taken too far" means to me.  But I'm also pretty sure that it's not the same as it means to you.   These aren't difficult questions, but you're sure acting like they are.  And it's a lack of specificity that leads to misunderstanding.  

For example, "if you can't understand that......................"  What's the ".........................?"  Would you please post a complete sentence?  What are you trying to say?  

Or how about the yes or no question I've asked several times.  Have you really read the article I posted?  

And a simple follow up:  What specifically was in the article that you disagreed with?

I'm sure you have a reason for appearing to be so intentionally vague.  If it were anyone else, I'd be inclined to believe that you're being so vague and evasive because you really haven't thought things through.  But, as you said, it's really just because you're bored.


----------



## fangjian (May 13, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> more like religion can create fanaticism, other things too, but nothing works quite as well as religion
> 
> also, athieism is a religion, so is global warming, socialism, and liberalism.
> 
> IMO



Atheism is *NOT* a religion. Common misconception. 

Remember? We went through this earlier in the week.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 13, 2011)

it's a belief system, based on a lack of belief rather than the alternative, but it is a belief system non the less.


----------



## Steve (May 13, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Atheism is *NOT* a religion. Common misconception.
> 
> Remember? We went through this earlier in the week.


Global warming is a religion, too.  But creationism is science.  Keep up, fangjian.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 13, 2011)

Steve, last post to you:

i posted a reply, you just either missed it or you dont want to consider it a response, and i said that while the BS psycho babble article you posted was essentially correct, i found it boring. Like this game you are trying to play.

and I am being pretty clear, i was just trying to be nice, and keep myself out of trouble with the mods, I am pretty sure a bright boy like you can figure it out.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 13, 2011)

who claimed creationism was a science? i must have missed that,unless you are making **** up................


----------



## fangjian (May 13, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> it's a belief system, based on a lack of belief rather than the alternative, but it is a belief system non the less.



No. 


Then *not* collecting baseball cards is a 'hobby', and *not* smoking is a 'habit'

If I have a 'belief system', it would be IMO _'the best way to find out what is true and what is not'_. Physical evidence, human reason and logic.

 Since this is my 'belief system', my stance on certain claims like, gods or fire breathing dragons is a 'lack of belief'. So my stance on each claim would not be a 'belief system' unto itself. 

Hope I cleared it up.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (May 13, 2011)

That's a fair point, Fangjian.

If you have no interest in baseball cards, then it's not a hobby.

But if you don't collect baseball cards and yet insist on being a part of serious discussion about baseball cards....then yeah, being vocally anti-baseball cards is your hobby. An odd hobby, but I can think of some of my own that may seem stranger. 

Bottom line: athiests have an opinion about spiritual matters. That opinion is based on a faith judgment, not on empirical evidence. It is thus a belief. 

That's assuming we're talking about "fundamentalist atheists." If you're just somebody who doesn't give spiritual matters much thought at all, then that isn't a belief......but we rarely end up having this debate with that kind of atheist.


----------



## Empty Hands (May 13, 2011)

bushidomartialarts said:


> Bottom line: athiests have an opinion about spiritual matters. That opinion is based on a faith judgment, not on empirical evidence. It is thus a belief.



One could say the exact same thing about refusing to believe in Invisible Pink Unicorns dancing about on the tops of all of our heads.

Refusing to believe in that for which there is no evidence is not a faith judgment.  No more than refusing to believe in Invisible Pink Unicorns, Thor, Anubis, gremlins, spriggan, leprechauns or centaurs qualifies as "faith judgments" or a "belief."

If it did, then everyone is an atheist - some just make different "faith judgments".


----------



## bushidomartialarts (May 13, 2011)

Not believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster (may his noodly appendage guide and protect you, ra-men) or unicorns or leprechauns in a casual way isn't a statement of faith.

Declaring your belief to be a state of unbelief is a statement of faith. Please don't make me quote Rush at you. I hate that song. 

Since the most vocal atheists are in the latter group, it seems reasonable to call them out on it.


----------



## Empty Hands (May 13, 2011)

bushidomartialarts said:


> Not believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster (may his noodly appendage guide and protect you, ra-men) or unicorns or leprechauns in a casual way isn't a statement of faith.
> 
> Declaring your belief to be a state of unbelief is a statement of faith.



I'm not sure the distinction is meaningful.  Either you believe, or you do not.  What difference does it make whether you declare it or not?  The epistemology is the same.  

There is zero evidence that astrology is accurate.  If I call it a fraud, have I made a faith statement?  If I invent a deity on the spot, right to your face, and you tell me it doesn't exist, have you made a faith statement?  It just seems silly.  We could invent ever more elaborate and obvious fraudulent things to believe or not believe in, and if you have no reason to believe in it, stating that you don't shouldn't qualify as a "faith" or a "belief".

There are a multitude of things you don't believe in because there is no evidence for them.  Including all God(s) for which you don't believe in.  It doesn't seem rational to call all that lack of belief itself a belief.

Or to paraphrase another famous atheist "if atheism is a belief, than bald is a hair color."



bushidomartialarts said:


> Please don't make me quote Rush at you. I hate that song.


----------



## fangjian (May 13, 2011)

bushidomartialarts said:


> Not believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster (may his noodly appendage guide and protect you, ra-men) or unicorns or leprechauns in a casual way isn't a statement of faith.
> 
> Declaring your belief to be a state of unbelief is a statement of faith. Please don't make me quote Rush at you. I hate that song.
> 
> Since the most vocal atheists are in the latter group, it seems reasonable to call them out on it.




UFO abductions, deities and psychics are all the same to me. I have the exact same view of all of those. The only difference on the posting here, is that the subject is a deity. I've also said in a forum about astrology, that I don't believe it. I don't consider them different. 

Guess I'm not understanding what you wrote


----------



## Sukerkin (May 13, 2011)

I don't see why quoting Rush is a bad thing:

We can walk our road together
If our goals are all the same
We can run alone and free
If we pursue a different aim

Let the truth of Love be lighted
Let the Love of Truth shine clear
Sensibility
Armed with sense and liberty
With the Heart and Mind united
In a single, perfect, sphere

To be clear, I'd be banned if I gave free rein to my views on those who choose to place important decision/policy making into the hands of a creator deity whose origins are in re-interpretations of the superstitions of our early forbears.

I have no issues with a persons individual beliefs, however fanciful I find them, just as long as they stay that persons beliefs and don't start having a role in the real world, or indeed, real universe.

That place is strange enough without inventing mystical beings.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (May 13, 2011)

It's equally possible I'm misunderstanding you -- maybe more possible as I'm currently posting from my comfy recovery bed, assisted by my good buddy oxycodone. (minor surgery. no complications, just fuzzy meds)

What I see a lot of in this kind of conversation is the assumption that atheism is somehow less a leap of faith than belief in the supernatural. And I agree if that atheism or lack of belief is a casual thing -- choosing not to think about it, or for that matter being a "C&E Christian" who shows up twice a year but doesn't really give religion much mental real estate. 

But if your atheism is a strongly held view -- the kind of view that leads folks to get judgmental about religious people, for example -- it pays to remember that any strongly held view requires a faith decision. 

It might be a faith decision about what data is more reliable, or what value (say, safety vs. personal freedom) is more important. But it's still a faith decision.

How and why and who's fault it is that "faith" is a loaded word in the American discourse is a subject for another thread entirely.


----------



## Sukerkin (May 13, 2011)

Empirical value judgement, not faith, *Bushido*.  

Something based upon observation and experiment rather than a view inculcated through early socialisation and enforced by a Priest class whose role is/was control of the masses for the ruling powers.

The only reason this matters is that it decides the future of our species, otherwise none of us who rejected the con-trick would care a jot.

Yes, we need humanity as well as intelligence to survive.  Unfettered logic can lead us to some pretty unpleanant places e.g. Malthus was actually 'right' in terms of the numbers and if we don't get the science/engineering right will still be right soon enough in terms of outcomes.  

Likewise, faith untramelled by reason leads us to some pretty deadly places for those who do not elect to follow the same 'divine' being of peace as another power group.


----------



## fangjian (May 13, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> Empirical value judgement, not faith, *Bushido*
> The only reason this matters is that it decides the future of our species, otherwise none of us who rejected the con-trick would care a jot.



*EXACTLY!*

Imagine if, instead of bibles and qurans in places of worship, there were telescopes and history books. Sooner or later we will meet our possible extinction event, and I like to think that maybe we might make it out alive, and explore the galaxy.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (May 13, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> Empirical value judgement, not faith, *Bushido*.
> 
> Something based upon observation and experiment rather than a view inculcated through early socialisation and enforced by a Priest class whose role is/was control of the masses for the ruling powers.
> .



That would be fair, if it were true as often as you're implying.

Absolutely, there are people who believe (and often believe strongly) because of exactly what you say. However, there are many adults who came to "Belief" as the result of observation and informed consideration. 

On the flip side, a great many atheists have a relationship with science that's identical to the relationship between the faithful and religion. They trust the spokespeople of science (all too often lobbyists and media outlets) to interpret the "scripture of science" for them with no more skepticism than a Christian asking their priest about abortion.

Empirical value judgment is different from faith _if_ you have a direct line on the data. If not, you're making a belief decision about how much importance to give your information.

I'm not saying it's impossible to be an atheist based solely on logic, reasoning and available information. I'm just saying it's equally possible to not be one based on those same criteria.


----------



## Carol (May 13, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> I don't see why quoting Rush is a bad thing:
> 
> We can walk our road together
> If our goals are all the same
> ...




To be clear, I'd be banned if I gave free rein to my views on those who choose to place important decision/policy making into the hands of a creator deity whose origins are in re-interpretations of the superstitions of our early forbears.

I have no issues with a persons individual beliefs, however fanciful I find them, just as long as they stay that persons beliefs and don't start having a role in the real world, or indeed, real universe.

That place is strange enough without inventing mystical beings.[/quote]

There are plenty of people who aren't atheists that aren't fond of that either. 

Oh, and I'll see your Spheres and raise you a Roll The Bones 




> Why are we here?
> Because were here
> Roll the bones
> Why does it happen?
> ...


----------



## fangjian (May 13, 2011)

bushidomartialarts said:


> On the flip side, a great many atheists have a relationship with science that's identical to the relationship between the faithful and religion. They trust the spokespeople of science (all too often lobbyists and media outlets) to interpret the "scripture of science" for them with no more skepticism than a Christian asking their priest about abortion.



The scientific method is demonstrably the best way to attempt to understand the universe and nearly everything in it. You are right, there is a certain level of trust that is similar. However the process of peer review makes it so we each of us doesn't have to study EVERYTHING. Their value can be measured by their 'fruits' or what have you. Their accomplishments. I can pick just ONE realm of science and its accomplishments, just in the last 5 years, far surpass ALL of the accomplishments of pretty much ALL religions.


----------



## Sukerkin (May 13, 2011)

Sorry mate (*Bushido*) - I would love to meet you half way on this one but I can't.

There is a world of difference between accepting the existence of a creator deity on the say-so of the Priest-class and accepting (as a 'lay-man') the existence and functioning of gravity on the say-so of Newton and his peers.

The former is a social-control assertion predicated on the non-necessity of proof (why that does not send more alarm bells ringing I can never figure out).  The latter can land an artillery round on your head or put a man on the moon, depending on what use you want to put it to.

As an aside, who are these 'spokespeople' you speak of as if you mean 'salesmen'?  That's not how science works; tho' it might be how business seeking to profit from science operates.

Predictive utility is what matters in science.  A theory can be as beautiful as a sunset but if it's not able to predict outcomes then it has no use (or, to be cautious, has no use right now if the science is incomplete).


----------



## bushidomartialarts (May 13, 2011)

I'll absolutely concede the point that the scientific method is a better tool for deciding what's true than consulting an thrice-translated allegorical poem for a literal translation.

However, there's an enormous gap between the scientific method and how research gets carried out today -- and an even greater gap between the research and reports of what the research finds. Science is the new religion in so many ways, saddest of all the way it gets misused to suit different groups' political and power agendas.



> Their value can be measured by their 'fruits' or what have you. Their accomplishments. I can pick just ONE realm of science and its accomplishments, just in the last 5 years, far surpass ALL of the accomplishments of pretty much ALL religions.



And here's the root of my objection in a nutshell. If you research quantifiables like amount of revenue given to relief efforts, number of volunteers for those efforts, homeless shelter beds in major metro areas, ratio of donations to actual aid dollars, amount of operating space given to humanitarian outreach.....religious organizations win hands-down and have for centuries. 

This may change...there are some interesting things coming out of the private sector since 1995 or so (look into venture philanthropy some time)....but thus far religion is kicking booty in that department.  

My objection isn't that you're wrong, but that you made the statement out of "blind faith" that it was correct....based on your belief set about religion vs. science. Not, as might be expected from your argument, after analyzing the relevant data sets.


----------



## elder999 (May 13, 2011)

fangjian said:


> The scientific method is demonstrably the best way to attempt to understand the universe and *nearly everything* in it.


 
This is key. Science doesn't explain as much as it makes models-those models are subject to constant revision with deeper understanding. There are things, though, that science has difficulty modeling, or for which the models are completely inadequate, for the time being....."God" is one of them. Religion also has little to no place "explaining the universe," or even making models for reality-only models for behavior.

.





fangjian said:


> I can pick just ONE realm of science and its accomplishments, just in the last 5 years, far surpass ALL of the accomplishments of pretty much ALL religions.



This   is a remarkable exaggeration-science takes baby steps, no matter the realm. Occasional leaps take place, and the value of its "accomplishments" is relative. 

"Five years"-even the last five-usually aren't really very  much in science and technology. For example, the Laserdisc debuted in 1976, the compact disc was developed from it around 1979, and the technology made its commercial debut in 1982-83. The CD-ROM didn't come until around 1985, and we didn't have a recordable CD format for data until 1990. That's 15 years or so from Laserdisc to CDR-even more to CDRW. That's just one realm of science. In that time, religions have saved people from starvation, drug addictions, homelessness and despair. They have also been the cause of a great deal of abuse and misery-just as science and technology have. 

The scientific method can offer little in a realm where there is no empirical, measurable or observable evidence-this is usually the case with what individuals might call religious phenomena. Such events are experiential-ya gotta be there: they _usually_ can't be reproduced, and there usually isn't much in the way of empirical or measurable evidence in their aftermath. Once they take place, though, there isn't much need for the individual who has experienced them to bother trying to _explain_ them-they are self explanatory and inexplicable, self-evident and unseen. As technology and science continue to progress-*if* they continue to progress-a scientifc explanation for such things,and ways of gathering observable, measurable, reproducable empirical evidence may become possible. In the meantime, people have their own ideas, which most accept on faith, and no need of scientific explanations-or their own experience beyond mundane ritual.


----------



## fangjian (May 13, 2011)

bushidomartialarts said:


> And here's the root of my objection in a nutshell. If you research quantifiables like amount of revenue given to relief efforts, number of volunteers for those efforts, homeless shelter beds in major metro areas, ratio of donations to actual aid dollars, amount of operating space given to humanitarian outreach.....religious organizations win hands-down and have for centuries.



Religion, pretty much by definition is 'to connect' right?  It is an attempt to understand existence. Science is the exact same thing. They both have the same goal. But one of them demonstrably does it better. 

When you say 'religion', you are referring to the actual 'clubs' or 'organizations', who have more 'identity' if you will. Every town in the USA has a bunch of churches and synagogues and such. If there were near equal amounts of science clubs too, and the religious clubs did more for the homeless etc., I would agree with you. But I'm talking about it 'as a method of understanding the universe'. And when it comes to finding out if something is true or untrue, the scientific method is so far the way to go. And pretty much everyone agrees. Many people though, for some odd reason, abandon the scientific method when it comes to  Cosmology/Cosmogony. Strange.


----------



## fangjian (May 13, 2011)

elder999 said:


> This is key. Science doesn't explain as much as it makes models-those models are subject to constant revision with deeper understanding. There are things, though, that science has difficulty modeling, or for which the models are completely inadequate, for the time being....."God" is one of them.
> .



Pegasus is also something that science has a difficult time giving a model for. 



> Religion also has little to no place "explaining the universe," or even making models for reality-only models for behavior.


 
Yes. They have no place in explaining the universe. But they do anyway. 

Religion also has no place in making models of human behavior. That's science!!


----------



## Sukerkin (May 13, 2011)

elder999 said:


> The scientific method can offer little in a realm where there is no empirical, measurable or observable evidence-this is usually the case with what individuals might call religious phenomena.




Other than wanting to ask soto voce "And this is a bad thing, how?"  I would counter by saying that if there was a phenomeon capable of description and verification then the only way forwards is to figure out how to measure and define it.

When it comes to 'religious experiences', the experiments that show that you can induce the sense of the prescence of the supernatural by manipulating the magnetic fields around the brain are pretty indicative.  I don't mean anything perjorative to individuals by that (and I have seen a fair few 'inexplicable' things in my time too), it is just that it is highly suggestive that thought processes are not as immune to outside physical effects as we might like to reassure ourselves.

And with that, I have to confess that my own thought processes are getting a bit muddled by an excess of wine and the fact that it is nearly four in the morning here ...  so I shall bid you all a fond farewell.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (May 13, 2011)

Religion isn't merely a tool for understanding the universe. It's equally concerned with human morality/ethics and how to interact with each other.

On the bad side, that study of how to interact has focused on how to keep the most people obedient to the craziest church leader. On the good side, it has led to the most powerful humanitarian forces on the planet to date. 

I will again point out that I agree 100 percent that the scientific method is the superior tool for understanding the phenomenological universe. But that's only part of the question.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (May 13, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> Sorry mate (*Bushido*) - I would love to meet you half way on this one but I can't.
> 
> There is a world of difference between accepting the existence of a creator deity on the say-so of the Priest-class and accepting (as a 'lay-man') the existence and functioning of gravity on the say-so of Newton and his peers.
> 
> ...



That's true of (I hope) most scientists operating in the lab. But take two cases:

a. A guy who ignores climate change because he read a study funded by an oil company with results published in a newspaper run by a conservative media conglomerate.

b. A guy who pays the priest an indulgence because a lay minister told him it would get his father in to heaven.

The guy's relationship to knowledge and the working of the universe is identical in both cases. And sadly, and with respect, this is _exactly_ like too much science works anymore. To talk about science without acknowledging how it gets funded is like talking about religion without accknowledging holy wars.


----------



## fangjian (May 13, 2011)

bushidomartialarts said:


> Religion isn't merely a tool for understanding the universe. It's equally concerned with human morality/ethics and how to interact with each other.



Yup. And they fail in that department too. Morals/Ethics are part of evolutionary biology.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (May 13, 2011)

The overwhelming majority of functional legal systems in the world are based on religious ideas of how to live with other people, most of them developed before evolutionary/social biology became a field of study.

And Evolutionary Biologists for Positive Change doesn't really make the top ten for applying the best ideas of how to treat one another.


----------



## billc (May 13, 2011)

Something to think about with the muslim threat you think we are obsessing over.  Unlike a lone gunman here in the states, muslim terrorists can and do recieve state sponsership.  This is often in the form of special training in tactics, communications, falsifying identities, explosives and firearms.  Also, they may recieve access to deadlier weapons, with mass effects that the lone wacko doesn't have access to.  Right now, the muslim radicals are sending their A-team over to places in the middle east, especially Iraq and Afghanistan, and we are benefiting from that decision.  They are dying in their thousands because of this decision, and we are disrupting a lot of their command and control structures, and forcing them to move with extreme caution, because they are being hunted.

If we let up on them, and give them a chance to regroup, and allow new leadership to take over, who may choose different targets and tactics it could very well be very bad for us.  It is easy to point to how little activity we have over here, because most of the hard core terrorists are fighting over seas, which is why we are over there.  It is easier for them to get to our troops than it is to get over here, with weapons and numbers.  

By downplaying the threat of radical muslim terrorism now, marginalizing those who bring it up so it is not forgotten, it hurries up the day when we ease up on the terrorists.  People have already forgotten 9/11 to a great extent.  We may not see a spike in terrorist activity, but our kids or grand kids might from terrorists with real training and real weapons, and not just jihadi wannabe's but highly trained terrorists or at least highly motivated terrorists such as the ones in Mumbai.  Check out the documentary "Terror in Mumbai."  that is what we are trying to avoid by reminding people that there still is a threat and it is real.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 13, 2011)

Bill, who is suggesting letting up on them?  Who is downplaying the threat?

Let me put it another way.

How many innocent Muslims must face harassment, discrimination, assault would you consider an acceptable number?

What is your or Johns solution to this "Muslim Problem" you keep going on about?

Should we outlaw the religion?
Require they were special uniforms or badges?
Put them in camps?

Because all I've seen is "worry, panic, be afraid".
I've yet to see anyone come up with a realistic solution to the 'problem'.


----------



## elder999 (May 13, 2011)

_muslim terrorists can and do _
_marginalizing those who bring it up _
_not just jihadi wannabe's _
_"Terror in Mumbai." _
_real training _
_real weapons_
_9/11 already forgotten _
_hurries up the day_
_see a spike _
_bad for us_
_with weapons and numbers_


----------



## Empty Hands (May 13, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> What is your or Johns solution to this "Muslim Problem" you keep going on about?



Whatever this Solution is, I hope it's a Final one.  I would hate to have to deal with this problem again in a few years.



Bob Hubbard said:


> Put them in camps?



Hopefully some type of Camp where they can think really hard about how bad Islamic extremism is.  You know, where they can really Concentrate on that topic.

Sorry, couldn't resist!


----------



## elder999 (May 13, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Religion, pretty much by definition is 'to connect' right? It is an attempt to understand existence. Science is the exact same thing. They both have the same goal. But one of them demonstrably does it better.


 
The root of the word, "religion," is the latin _relegare,_ "to *regulate.* 
"Religion," by definition, is a method of ordering one's life, something it does demonstrably better than science.I'd even add, here, that for some _scientists_, science *is* a "religion," _a method of regulating their lives_. One can, by extension, also say that religion *and* spirituality are attempts to understand existence, but they are doing it in a completely different realm than that of science. I had a religious studies professor start the year by coming in and asking everyone what "religion" was _*for*_, opposed to what it "is", and write this on the board:
*LIFE/DEATH*
...and say, "what does this mean?" If there is anything after death, there is no scientific evidence of it-it's hardly subject to the scientific method, and what little evidence that is presented can easily be attributed to other things, but my point here is to point out that your posts don't really demonstrate much understanding of what religion is for most, or what it's meant to be. 



fangjian said:


> When you say 'religion', you are referring to the actual 'clubs' or 'organizations', who have more 'identity' if you will. Every town in the USA has a bunch of churches and synagogues and such. If there were near equal amounts of science clubs too, and the religious clubs did more for the homeless etc., I would agree with you.


 
Regardless, "religion," _clubs_ if you will, do more for the homeless etc., even in a town like Los Alamos, which has something like 35 churches and one of the biggest "science clubs" in the world.....:lol:



fangjian said:


> But I'm talking about it 'as a method of understanding the universe' And when it comes to finding out if something is true or untrue, the scientific method is so far the way to go. And pretty much everyone agrees. Many people though, for some odd reason, abandon the scientific method when it comes to Cosmology/Cosmogony. Strange.


 
And this is a confusion on both sides. The cosmological models offered by most religions-Christianity and Judaism as special examples-are, in fact,originally intended to be allegorical, and applied to one's self, rather than an explanation of how the universe actually works.


----------



## fangjian (May 14, 2011)

elder999 said:


> The root of the word, "religion," is the latin _relegare,_ "to *regulate.*
> "Religion," by definition, is a method of ordering one's life, something it does demonstrably better than science.I'd even add, here, that for some _scientists_, science *is* a "religion," _a method of regulating their lives_. One can, by extension, also say that religion *and* spirituality are attempts to understand existence, but they are doing it in a completely different realm than that of science.


Religion (from O.Fr. religion "religious community," from L. religionem (nom. religio) "respect for what is sacred, reverence for the gods,"[3] "obligation, the bond between man and the gods"[4]) is derived from the Latin religi&#333;, the ultimate origins of which are obscure. One possibility is derivation from a reduplicated *le-ligare, an interpretation traced to Cicero connecting lego "read", i.e. re (again) + lego in the sense of "choose", "go over again" or "consider carefully". Modern scholars such as Tom Harpur and Joseph Campbell favor the derivation from ligare "bind, connect", probably from a prefixed re-ligare, i.e. re (again) + ligare or "to reconnect," which was made prominent by St. Augustine, following the interpretation of Lactantius.[5][6] The medieval usage alternates with order in designating bonded communities like those of monastic orders: "we hear of the 'religion' of the Golden Fleece, of a knight 'of the religion of Avys'".[7]


> If there is anything after death, there is no scientific evidence of it-it's hardly subject to the scientific method, and what little evidence that is presented can easily be attributed to other things, but my point here is to point out that your posts don't really demonstrate much understanding of what religion is for most, or what it's meant to be.


There is no evidence of some type of consciousness after your brain dies. Yes. That doesn't make Islam and Judaism relevant now. It would still be a scientific issue. Biology. Neuroscience. Brain Chemistry......

Religion is a lot of things for many. A way to understand the universe. A way to lead ones life. A way to manage a country......................



> And this is a confusion on both sides. The cosmological models offered by most religions-Christianity and Judaism as special examples-are, in fact,originally intended to be allegorical, and applied to one's self, rather than an explanation of how the universe actually works.



There original intent is unknown. The cosmological, biological, geological........models in those books are different things to different people. Allegorical, reality, nonsense.............Interpret them however you like.


----------



## fangjian (May 14, 2011)

bushidomartialarts said:


> The overwhelming majority of functional legal systems in the world are based on religious ideas of how to live with other people, most of them developed before evolutionary/social biology became a field of study.
> 
> And Evolutionary Biologists for Positive Change doesn't really make the top ten for applying the best ideas of how to treat one another.



All I am saying is that our ideas of morality and ethics are all part of the evolution of the human brain. No supernatural magic explanation needed. 

Law/morality/ethical systems......are all things that need to be discussed by rational leaders using human reason and such. No Old Testament or Dianetics needed.


----------



## elder999 (May 14, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Religion (from O.Fr. religion "religious community," from L. religionem (nom. religio) "respect for what is sacred, reverence for the gods,"[3] "obligation, the bond between man and the gods"[4]) is derived from the Latin religi&#333;, the ultimate origins of which are obscure. One possibility is derivation from a reduplicated *le-ligare, an interpretation traced to Cicero connecting lego "read", i.e. re (again) + lego in the sense of "choose", "go over again" or "consider carefully". Modern scholars such as Tom Harpur and Joseph Campbell favor the derivation from ligare "bind, connect", probably from a prefixed re-ligare, i.e. re (again) + ligare or "to reconnect," which was made prominent by St. Augustine, following the interpretation of Lactantius.[5][6] The medieval usage alternates with order in designating bonded communities like those of monastic orders: "we hear of the 'religion' of the Golden Fleece, of a knight 'of the religion of Avys'".[7]


 
Well, the scholarship, and Latin, of that particular wikipedia paragraph is pretty weak in places. To say that _re ligare_ means to connect again, or to rebind, is somewhat like saying that "mooring a boat" is the same as the "moors" in England. 

Wrong.

In fact, _religare_ actually is the verb that would have been used in mooring a boat-a form of _regulation,as well as one _associated with rites, rituals. 

Interesting that the paragraph cites Muller, who would have agreed with me about the allegorical aspects of mythology-it was he who said that "mythology is a disease of language," that myth changes _concepts_ into beings and stories.



fangjian said:


> There is no evidence of some type of consciousness after your brain dies. Yes.


 
There is no evidence that there _isn't_ some type of consciousness after the body dies, yes. If there were, would you recognize it? Could you? Could it be duplicated, measured and replicated? 



fangjian said:


> That doesn't make Islam and Judaism relevant now. It would still be a scientific issue. Biology. Neuroscience. Brain Chemistry......


 
And, in fact, all those sciences and more may just have models for that, someday-but if we had scientific confirmation of consciousness after death, it would only serve as confirmation of validity of certain spiritual principles and _concepts_ (see above)-ones common to all religions that have their roots in shamanism, which is, of course, all religions.



fangjian said:


> Religion is a lot of things for many. A way to understand the universe. A way to lead ones life. A way to manage a country......................


 
Yes, yes, justification for murder and mayhem, sexually abusing children, exploiting labor, etc., etc., etc.

There is a science to religion, though-there are, through ritual, replicable, observable , measurable phenomena. Of course, these same phenomena can be attirubuted to purely scientific issues: biology, neuroscience, brain chemistry, but, from a biological standpoint, and touching on what Sukerkin mentioned upthread, if human beings have an ingrained biological capacity to have "spiritual experiences,' what biological purpose do they serve, evolution wise?

*Why* are we religious, and why does it work for us? 




fangjian said:


> There original intent is unknown. The cosmological, biological, geological........models in those books are different things to different people. Allegorical, reality, nonsense.............Interpret them however you like.


 
The cosmological aspects of religion have always, always, *alway*s been meant to be allegorical, in *all* religions, throughout our history. The best, and very best example of this are the practices and rituals of the ancient Egyptians, where everything they have left us was allegorical and cosmological in nature, and not open to interpretation at all-quite unambiguous, though often unfathomable.


----------



## fangjian (May 14, 2011)

elder999 said:


> There is no evidence that there _isn't_ some type of consciousness after the body dies, yes. If there were, would you recognize it? Could you? Could it be duplicated, measured and replicated?



There also *isn't* evidence that fire breathing dragons *don't* exist. You could play that game with *anything *that there isn't evidence for. No touch knock outs, afterlife, unicorns, .....

If there *was* evidence, of course I'd except. Evidence is evidence. 



> The cosmological aspects of religion has always, always, *alway*s been meant to be allegorical, in *all* religions, throughout our history. The best, and very best example of this are the practices and rituals of the ancient Egyptians, where everything they have left us was allegrical and cosmological in nature, and not open to interpretation at all-quite unambiguous, though often unfathomable.



You made the assertion that most or all of them originated to be allegorical. I don't know. Thanks, I will look in to it. 

Many sure don't take them as _just_ allegorical or poetry. Many take the quran as: A science book, history book, law book, ........Same with the bible.

And since the thread is about Muslims beheading people. I wonder where they got this _morality_ from. And I'm not talkin about some 'twisted ideology' like the Eugenics program or anything, I'm talking about *direct and perfect words from a real god.*


----------



## elder999 (May 14, 2011)

The significance to the original post, of course, is simple: it's a perversion of most religions to commit acts of terror, sexual abuse, murder and mayhem. That's *not* what they're meant for, and any interpretation of them that allows such behavior is typically an incorrect interpretation.

Islam is, sadly, a special case in this regard, but the vast majority of its adherents hold this very viewpoint about Islamic terrorism, and even hold that there is no coercion in conversion, and that Jews and Christians are believers in the same book-this was, in fact, a common saying in Afghanistan, before the arrival of the Taliban


----------



## fangjian (May 14, 2011)

elder999 said:


> The significance to the original post, of course, is simple: it's a perversion of most religions to commit acts of terror, sexual abuse, murder and mayhem. That's *not* what they're meant for, and any interpretation of them that allows such behavior is typically an incorrect interpretation.



Yeah. And the words in it never change, since it's the perfect word of a god. You can interpret the bible the same way. You can interpret _Catcher In The Rye_ and go kill people too for that matter. The only difference is, with the other, people actually think it is the divine word of a god. Irresponsible.


----------



## elder999 (May 14, 2011)

fangjian said:


> There also *isn't* evidence that fire breathing dragons *don't* exist. You could play that game with *anything *that there isn't evidence for. No touch knock outs, afterlife, unicorns, .....
> 
> If there *was* evidence, of course I'd except. Evidence is evidence.


 
Well, no, in the case of religious experience, evidence isn't evidence at all. Real scientific evidence is, after all, objective, and we're talking about something that is completely _subjective_: I can say what I experience, and it may even have told me exactly what it signifies, but you *can't* tell me what it is. In that respect, I probably can't convince you if you need "evidence." You have to take it on faith. 

There are, as I said, completely replicable experiences in shamanic ritual that have even been subjected to double blind testing with all individuals reporting the same information. These, however, are easily attributable to any of the various causes you mentioned earlier: brain chemistry, etc.-which still brings us back to my question: what evolutionary purpose does this capacity for religious/spiritual/transcendent  experiences have? 

I added "transcendent" because it's been my observation that in some of my colleagues, _science_ provides the same sort of experience. Thus, when Dr. Andy Saunders managed to capture a record number of super-cold neutrons in a magnetic bottle, it was, for him, a religious experience, despite his atheism. It was, likewise, a religious experience for our mentor, Dr. Kevin Jones, though, being an Episcopalian, Kevin probably didn't recognize it as such.

For me, having had religious experiences independent of science, it was simply the culmination of a lot of hard work.



fangjian said:


> You made the assertion that most or all of them originated to be allegorical. I don't know. Thanks, I will look in to it.


 
It's certainly true of the Genesis creation myth, and was commented upon as such through much of the period between 500 B.C. to about 1000 A.D., when literal interpretation came to the fore. Thus, literal interpretation of the Bible is, essentially, Dark Ages thinking.

A really good example in the Old Testament is the story of wise King Solomon,and the two mothers-the "Judgement of Solomon." If you're unfamiliar with it, essentially, two women claimed a baby as their own, and came before King Solomon to settle it. He told them that he'd cut the baby in two, and give them each half-whereupon he could discern the true mother, because she yielded her claim in order to keep the baby alive. The backstory is that Solomon wasn't thought of as the rightful claimant to the throne of Israel-they thought that David's older, fourth son Adonijah was the rightful claimant, and were trying to dispute the claim, possibly dividing the kingdom of Israel. The story of the two mothers is a bit of politics by Solomon, whereby he says that he will be the "false claimant," and cut the baby-Israel-in two, and that the "true claimants" should yield their claim for the good of all. 




fangjian said:


> Many sure don't take them as _just_ allegorical or poetry. Many take the quran as: A science book, history book, law book, ........Same with the bible


 
Unquestionably. I'm saying that this is usually a mistake-however, since religious experiences are subjective, it's not for me, or anyone else, to say, sadly.



fangjian said:


> And since the thread is about Muslims beheading people. I wonder where they got this _morality_ from. And I'm not talkin about some 'twisted ideology' like the Eugenics program or anything, I'm talking about *direct and perfect words from a real god.*


 

Well, yes and no. While religious texts have been used to justify various human depridations throughout the centuries, and they can find verses to justify and support their actions, the fact is that the "morality" comes from a twisted political agenda that uses perversions and misinterpretations to justify and accomplish political ends-think Solomon actually splitting a baby in two.


----------



## billc (May 14, 2011)

Which muslims have faced harrassment, discrimination or assault.  Of all the places in the world, our country has little if any of that going on against muslims, and that is the right thing.  You have people who complain constantly about mistreatment but what little there is is minor compared to what would be happening anywhere else in the world if the situation of 9/11 had been reversed.  The solution?  I don't know.  Iraq turning into a real democracy would be a big step in the right direction.  It would at least be a start in showing muslims who just want to live in peace that there is a way to do it.  Supporting at least in words the real Iranians opposed to their government would be another step.  Clearly identifying when radical muslims kill people is also a step in the right direction, the main stream press trying to hide it isn't helping.  It makes people more suspicious, not less.  the Hassan shooting is the worst example of this.


----------



## Archangel M (May 14, 2011)

In ANY society you are going to have examples of people attacking others based on issues such as race/religion/ethnicity etc. To raise individual examples as proof of some sort of "problem" can be as duplicitous as saying that there is a thievery problem by pointing at news stories of shoplifting. There will ALWAYS be crime where people are involved. You have to show that there is a widespread and socially accepted level of discrimination beyond the "normal" level of a human society. IMO the USA is no more (or less) discriminatory against Muslims than any other 1st world society. As a matter of fact I think we are much more tollerant.. haven't had a genocide here within at least my great grandparents generation, or had organized use of murder to force people of a specific race/religion out of an area of the country. Theres quite a few European countries that can't say the same.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 14, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Which muslims have faced harrassment, discrimination or assault.  Of all the places in the world, our country has little if any of that going on against muslims, and that is the right thing.



Bill....

FBI Stats for 2008 list
Anti-Islamic 107 Incidents           128 Offenses          132  Victims         95 known offenders.

*Report: Muslim Harassment Up - CBS News*
May 3, 2004 *...* American-Islamic Group Says Post-9/11 Abuse Continues.

*Surge in Anti-Muslim Incidents Reported - washingtonpost.com*
Sep 19, 2006 *...* Md., Va. and D.C. Among Top 10 Locations for _Harassment_ *...* "We're seeing a rise in anti-_Muslim_ rhetoric fed by the Internet and  also on *...

**CNN: Bush denounces Muslim harassment*
Sep 17, 2001 *...* A _Muslim_  group on Monday detailed scores of reports of attacks against American  Muslims, South Asians and Arabs since the terrorist attacks *...

**Teacher tells 9th grade Muslim girl: I bet youre grieving for uncle Osama May 4th, 2011*
A ninth grade algebra teacher was suspended from a Texas school district  after making offensive comments to a Muslim student in front of the  entire class.

*Army Investigation Over False Accusations Ruined Our Lives, Say Muslim Soldiers 
*Five Muslims who joined the Army to work as military translators say  their lives and careers were ruined after they were falsely accused of  trying to poison their fellow soldiers.   In an interview for  ABC News,  two of the men say an Army investigation into the matter has cast a  stigma on their lives, preventing them from gaining citizenship and  employment.

*U.S. probe to look at border concerns of Muslims*
May 7 2011
The U.S. government has launched an investigation into allegations that  federal agents at several U.S.-Canada border crossings in Michigan  repeatedly harassed, jailed and body searched Muslims because of their background or appearance.

*San Diego assault brings calls for hate crime charges*
Saturday, May 15th, 2010
The Muslim man was praying near Mission Bay park last Wednesday when  the incident began. A man watched the Muslim pray and then followed him  to a taxi stand where he had parked his cab.
 When the victim attempted to enter the taxi, his alleged assailant  first shouted, You idiot, you mother f**ker, go back to where you came  from.
 The Muslim cab driver was then grabbed by the shirt and punched  repeatedly. The victim had to undergo hospital tests including a CAT  scan.


Do you really want me to continue here?  I could post hundreds of these. A simple google search of muslim harassment or muslim assault turns up a **** load.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 14, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> In ANY society you are going to have examples of people attacking others based on issues such as race/religion/ethnicity etc. To raise individual examples as proof of some sort of "problem" can be as duplicitous as saying that there is a thievery problem by pointing at news stories of shoplifting. There will ALWAYS be crime where people are involved. You have to show that there is a widespread and socially accepted level of discrimination beyond the "normal" level of a human society. IMO the USA is no more (or less) discriminatory against Muslims than any other 1st world society. As a matter of fact I think we are much more tollerant.. haven't had a genocide here within at least my great grandparents generation, or had organized use of murder to force people of a specific race/religion out of an area of the country. Theres quite a few European countries that can't say the same.


Bill said "little if any" indicating an ignorance of the problem.
I corrected that ignorance.

There is less anti-islamic behavior than anti-homosexual behavior. I'm not sure that's a good statistic however.

Now, if the 100 or so deemed-hate-crimes are an acceptable number in a nation of 300 million people, then I suppose the 11 deemed terrorist actions are also acceptable?  Or is this a case where 11 > 100?

Just curious.


To go on the record, the only number of either I consider acceptable is 0.
Before someone mis reads what I said and decides I'm somehow condoning terrorism. /sarcasm


----------



## Archangel M (May 14, 2011)

Only if you are trying to say that planned and funded murder of thousands of people in a terrorist attack is the equivalent of some random knucklehead attacking another individual or some "Teacher tells 9th grade Muslim girl: &#8216;I bet you&#8217;re grieving&#8217; for &#8216;uncle&#8217; Osama". I don't think that analogy has much downrange effect Bob.

Not that either should be seen as "acceptable" but there is such a thing as severity.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 14, 2011)

None of it's acceptable in my opinion.
I don't weigh it out.

Also, only 1 muslim attack in the US killed thousands.
Most muslim attacks, in fact most terrorist attacks kill single to low double digits.
The worst attack in 100 years on US soil was 9/11/01.
#2?  Oklahoma City. (White Guy, NYer in fact)

I did a quick google search. Found a few links. If I dig, I'll find more. I can pull up case after case after case, going back before 9/11.  There are assaults, murders, etc.
It's there. It's not new. It's just being fanned by those who choose to not see it, who want to somehow excuse it or justify it.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 14, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Bill, who is suggesting letting up on them?  Who is downplaying the threat?



you for one....


Bob Hubbard said:


> Let me put it another way.
> 
> How many innocent Muslims must face harassment, discrimination, assault would you consider an acceptable number?


i would like to see zero myself



Bob Hubbard said:


> What is your or Johns solution to this "Muslim Problem" you keep going on about?
> 
> Should we outlaw the religion?
> Require they were special uniforms or badges?
> ...



there is only one answer other than "worry, panic, be afraid". The problem is, that answer is horrible. No, not to kill every muslim, (tho that WOULD work, it cannot be considered, it is simply too severe), but rather to kill every single imam that spouts the wahabbist radical call to arms.

if, as some claim, it is just the priests that create the fanatics, then killing those particular priests should solve the problem, shouldnt it?

edited to add, it would be nice tho, to see the people walk away from the wahabbist and the radicals. But lets be honest, compared to other religions it sure seems like muslims take thier religion pretty damned seriously.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 14, 2011)

John,
  How many Muslims do you encounter on a regular basis?  Just curious.

I counted 4 at the supermarket last night, 12 at the mall, and shop regularly at a local store that caters to the asian/arab market. (best veggie and spice prices in town IMO).  (numbers based on counting ninjas and associated family looking types)


----------



## Twin Fist (May 14, 2011)

fangjian said:


> No.
> 
> 
> Then *not* collecting baseball cards is a 'hobby', and *not* smoking is a 'habit'



that was a really stupid thing to say

atheism is a belief, it is a belief that there is nothing

theism is a belief, that there IS someone

collecting cards is an action
not collecting cards is not an action

believing in god is an action
believing there is no god is an action

your example fails 

now, there is no "all", there are always exceptions so the words "can" "sometimes" and "could" should be understood to be included.
example:
atheism CAN be a believe system, or not
religion can be a belief system, or not (for some it is simply a part of thier culture, but without real faith)


----------



## Twin Fist (May 14, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> John,
> How many Muslims do you encounter on a regular basis?  Just curious.
> 
> I counted 4 at the supermarket last night, 12 at the mall, and shop regularly at a local store that caters to the asian/arab market. (best veggie and spice prices in town IMO).  (numbers based on counting ninjas and associated family looking types)



did you ask if they were muslim? cuz if you were judging based on looks, thats profiling and stereotyping.......

there are a few families here in this tiny town i live in, and I have no problem with them at all. They are all very friendly, very pro-america, at least outwardly.

so they get the benefit of the doubt from me. But i never forget who I am dealing with.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 14, 2011)

ok, in fairness, they might have been a bunch of ninjas out for the evening.


----------



## billc (May 14, 2011)

There are two muslim schools right near my home.  I see the kids in the small store I frequent all the time.  There is a strong muslim community right where I live, so I don't have a problem with muslims, just radical muslim terrorists who kill innocent men women and children who belong to all faiths, islam, bhudism, christian, jewish, Jains, Bahai, you name it.  I want the innocent protected, the guilty stopped and hopefully punished.


----------



## billc (May 14, 2011)

That Bob, is culturally insensitive.


----------



## Tez3 (May 14, 2011)

billcihak said:


> There are two muslim schools right near my home. I see the kids in the small store I frequent all the time. There is a strong muslim community right where I live, so I don't have a problem with muslims, just radical muslim terrorists who kill innocent men women and children who belong to all faiths, islam, bhudism, christian, jewish, Jains, Bahai, you name it. *I want the innocent protected, the guilty stopped and* *hopefully punished*.


 
But to be innocent in Bill's eyes one has to be right wing, left wing and you're on your own.


----------



## Archangel M (May 14, 2011)

There are also people who are attacked because of the color shirt they choose to wear that day, or because of their weight...all of it is wrong, but trying to pigeonhole peoples beliefs about the "issues of religious extremism" into some sort of "you encourage violence against Muslims" is either a diversion or a load of hyperbole IMO.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 14, 2011)

billcihak said:


> That Bob, is culturally insensitive.


What?  Seems that women in head to toe eyes only visible outfits are either traditional muslims, or ninjas. Unless there's another group that wears such outfits?

Like guys in really loud and garrish outfits, are either Golfers, Pimps or Tourists in Hawaii.

I didn't have time to worry about any possible plans to blow me up though. I was too busy talking to one nice lady about spices.

I'll try and be properly terrified and concerned next time.


----------



## The Last Legionary (May 14, 2011)

[yt]ZJ5gkKgM-tw[/yt]


----------



## billc (May 14, 2011)

Sorry Tez, but once again you are incorrect.  I just don't believe that the left should have much if any power when it comes to the government.  I think their policies are wrong, and I will vote against them every chance I get.  As an American conservative, I believe that everyone, even lefty's, are entitled to the God given rights and protections outlined in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and the Bill of rights.


----------



## The Last Legionary (May 14, 2011)

[yt]RUBtyUEZQVs[/yt]
Is this Billchiak or Twin Fist?


----------



## Tez3 (May 14, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Sorry Tez, but once again you are incorrect. I just don't believe that the left should have much if any power when it comes to the government. I think their policies are wrong, and I will vote against them every chance I get. As an American conservative, I believe that everyone, even lefty's, are entitled to the God given rights and protections outlined in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and the Bill of rights.


 

The problem is that you don't actually know who the left are! And that is why you and your ilk will end up if allowed, to put in a fascist government to rule over America. I trust however in the better judgement of more sensible Americans than you.


----------



## billc (May 14, 2011)

Fascists are lefty's Tez, I'm trying to keep them out of power with my vote.  Fascists do not believe in personal liberty, the constitution, the bill of rights, the declaration of independence, the rule of law or democracy.


----------



## The Last Legionary (May 14, 2011)

The inability to see the contradiction is, entertainingly humorous.
No wonder I look forward to the eventual over throw of the government by aliens.


----------



## Tez3 (May 14, 2011)

billcihak said:


> *Fascists are lefty's* Tez, I'm trying to keep them out of power with my vote. Fascists do not believe in personal liberty, the constitution, the bill of rights, the declaration of independence, the rule of law or democracy.


 

That's complete bollocks. It's deeply amusing to see you clinging to the raft of incomprehension on the sea of misinformation clutching your book of 'Why lefties are bad people'. Keep thinking that and when the real fascists, the extreme right, come for you at four in the morning the rest of us will turn over in bed and ignore your cries of 'I thought you were lefties'.


----------



## The Last Legionary (May 14, 2011)




----------



## bushidomartialarts (May 14, 2011)

fangjian said:


> All I am saying is that our ideas of morality and ethics are all part of the evolution of the human brain. No supernatural magic explanation needed.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## billc (May 14, 2011)

Remember Tez, you brought this up, not me, you too other guys who will tell me you are tired of this.   Fascism is a term brought about by Italian Socialist Bennito Mussolini who wanted to differentiate his brand of socialism from the soviet style.  the international socialists jumped on this to distinguish themselves from the national socialists in germany.


----------



## Tez3 (May 14, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Remember Tez, you brought this up, not me, you too other guys who will tell me you are tired of this. Fascism is a term brought about by Italian Socialist Bennito Mussolini who wanted to differentiate his brand of socialism from the soviet style. the international socialists jumped on this to distinguish themselves from the national socialists in germany.


 
You only say that to make people laugh.


----------



## billc (May 14, 2011)

Tez, here is part of an article about the left that describes a rightist...

http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=22626

So what are Rightists? 
The prime focus in this paper has been on defining and explaining what Leftism is. It would nonetheless be remiss not to give also at least a skeletal outline of what Rightism is so I will now do that. If Leftism and Rightism are NOT mirror-images, as this paper asserts, some such account does appear necessary in order to complete the picture. I have, however, written one book and many previous papers for those who wish to study conservatism at greater length (See Ray, 1972b, 1973, 1974, 1979 & 1981). 
Military Dictators? 
In the late 20th century, it was a common rhetorical ploy of the more "revolutionary" Left in the "Western" world simply to ignore democracy as an alternative to Communism. Instead they would excuse the brutalities of Communism by pointing to the brutalities of the then numerous military dictatorships of Southern Europe and Latin America and pretend that such regimes were the only alternative to Communism. These regimes were led by generals who might in various ways be seen as conservative (though Peron was clearly Leftist) so do they tell us anything about conservatism? 
Historically, most of the world has been ruled by military men and their successors (Sargon II of Assyria, Alexander of Macedon, Caesar, Augustus, Constantine, Charlemagne, Frederick II of Prussia etc.) so it seems unlikely but perhaps the main point to note here is that the Hispanic dictatorships of the 20th century were very often created as a response to a perceived threat of a Communist takeover. This is particularly clear in the case of Spain, Chile and Argentina. They were an attempt to fight fire with fire. In Argentina of the 60s and 70s, for instance, Leftist "urban guerillas" were very active &#8212; blowing up anyone they disapproved of. The nice, mild, moderate Anglo-Saxon response to such depredations would have been to endure the deaths and disruptions concerned and use police methods to trace the perpetrators and bring them to trial. Much of the world is more fiery than that, however, and the Argentine generals certainly were. They became impatient with the slow-grinding wheels of democracy and its apparent impotence in the face of the Leftist revolutionaries. They therefore seized power and instituted a reign of terror against the Leftist revolutionaries that was as bloody, arbitrary and indiscriminate as what the Leftists had inflicted. In a word, they used military methods to deal with the Leftist attackers. So the nature of these regimes was only incidentally conservative. What they were was essentially military. We have to range further than the Hispanic generals, therefore, if we are to find out what is quintessentially conservative. 
It might be noted, however, that, centuries earlier, the parliamentary leaders of England &#8212; led by Fairfax, Cromwell etc. &#8212; did something similar to the Hispanic generals of the 20th century. Faced by an attempt on the part of the Stuart tyrant to abrogate their traditional rights, powers and liberties, they resorted to military means to overthrow the threat. There is no reason to argue that democracy cannot or must not use military means to defend itself or that Leftists or anyone else must be granted exclusive rights to the use of force and violence. 
German Origins 
What modern-day Rightists of the English-speaking world are, then, traces right back to the German invaders who overran Britannia around 1500 years ago and made it into England. They brought with them a very decentralized, largely tribal system of government that was very different from the Oriental despotisms that had ruled the civilized world for most of human history up to that time. And they liked their decentralized system very much. So much so that the system just kept on keeping on in England, century after century, despite many vicissitudes. Only the 20th century really shook it. 
Where the English get their traditional dislike of unrestrained central power is not the main point or even an essential point of the present account. Nonetheless, tracing that dislike to the ultimately German descent of most of the English population might seem colossally perverse in view of Germany's recent experience. Was not Hitler a German and was he not almost the ultimate despot and centralizer of power in his own hands? One could quibble here by saying that Hitler was NOT a German (he was an Austrian) and the Israeli historian Unger (1965) has pointed out that Hitler was much less of a despot than Stalin was but neither of those points is really saying much in the present context. 
The important thing here again is to see things with an historian's eye and realize that recent times are atypical. Right up until Bismarck's ascendancy in the late 19th century, Germany was remarkable for its degree of decentralization. What we now know as Germany was once always comprised of hundreds of independent States (kingdoms, principalities, Hanseatic cities etc.) of all shapes and sizes: States that were in fact so much in competition with one another in various ways that they were not infrequently at war with one-another. 
And it was of course only the fractionated and competing centres of power existing in mediaeval Germany that enabled the successful emergence there of the most transforming and anti-authority event of the last 1000 years: The Protestant Reformation. Despite the almost immediate and certainly widespread popularity of his new teachings among Germans, Luther ran great risks and would almost certainly have been burnt at the stake like Savonarola, Hus and his other predecessors in religious rebellion had it not been for his (and our) good fortune that he was a Saxon. His Prince, Frederick III ("The Wise") of Saxony gave him constant protection. As one of the Electors of the Holy Roman Empire, Frederick was strong enough and independent enough to protect Luther from Pope, from Emperor and from other German potentates. 
So only after Bismarck engineered the defeat of the French at Sedan in 1870 did most of Germany become unified &#8212; with the Germans of the Austrian lands remaining independent even then. And to this day Germany has a Federal system very similar to that of their largely Germanic brethren in the United States, Canada and Australia &#8212; a system of State governments which markedly limits central (Federal) government power. So the German origins of the English do make their historic dislike of concentrated power at the Centre just one part of a larger picture. 
In 1066, William of Normandy disrupted the traditional decentralized and competitive power structure of England to some degree but by the time of King John and Magna Carta it was back with a vengeance. Even in the reign of that great Tudor despot, Henry VIII, there were still in England great and powerful regional Lords and many less powerful but numerous local notables representing local interests that the King had to take great care with. Even Tudor central government power was highly contingent, far from absolute and much dependant on the popularity of the ruler among ordinary English people. And when the Stuarts, with their doctrine of "the divine right of Kings", ignored all that and tried to turn the English monarchy into something more like a centralized Oriental despotism, off came the head of the Stuart King. 
A Conservative Revolution 
And the parliamentarians who were responsible for beheading King Charles I in 1649 were perfectly articulate about why. They felt that Charles had attempted to destroy the ancient English governmental system or "constitution" and that he had tried to take away important rights and individual liberties that the English had always enjoyed &#8212; liberty from the arbitrary power of Kings, a right to representation in important decisions and a system of counterbalanced and competing powers rather than an all-powerful central government. It is to them that we can look for the first systematic statements of conservative ideals &#8212; ideals that persevere to this day. And they were both conservatives (wishing to conserve traditional rights and arrangements) and revolutionaries! 
So right back in the 17th century we had the apparent paradox of "conservatives" (the parliamentary leaders &#8212; later to be referred to as "Whigs") being prepared to undertake most radical change (deposing monarchy) in order to restore treasured traditional rights and liberties and to rein in overweening governmental power. So Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were not at all breakaways from the conservatism of the past. They had very early and even more determined predecessors. Nobody who knew history should have been surprised by the Reagan/Thatcher "revolution". And it was in deliberate tribute to the parliamentarians of Cromwell's day and their immediate successors that two of the most influential conservative theorists prior to Reagan and Thatcher both described themselves as "Old Whigs" &#8212; Burke (1790) and Hayek (1944). Hayek described Whig ideals as "the only set of ideals that has consistently opposed all arbitrary power" (Hayek, 1960).


----------



## Tez3 (May 14, 2011)

Very nice I'm sure but not proof I'm afraid, the source is biased. Stop boring people whith your obsession, you should take up a sport or hobby...like martial arts.


----------



## The Last Legionary (May 14, 2011)




----------



## billc (May 14, 2011)

Not proof but a reference to what a righty is.  That definition above is truly the opposite of a lefty, unlike the socialists in Italy an Germany.


----------



## billc (May 14, 2011)

See guys, someone like the last legionary can post pictures and still be interesting.  I'm curious about the lack of outrage at his style of posting...hmmmm...could it be he agrees with the people who complain about my posts....Hmmmm.  I like his style.  It is short, gets his point across.  Brevity is the soul of whit.  I think some English guy said that.


----------



## The Last Legionary (May 14, 2011)




----------



## The Last Legionary (May 14, 2011)

billcihak said:


> See guys, someone like the last legionary can post pictures and still be interesting.  I'm curious about the lack of outrage at his style of posting...hmmmm...could it be he agrees with the people who complain about my posts....Hmmmm.  I like his style.  It is short, gets his point across.  Brevity is the soul of whit.  I think some English guy said that.


I think you're all ****ing broken records.


----------



## Tez3 (May 14, 2011)

billcihak said:


> See guys, someone like the last legionary can post pictures and still be interesting. I'm curious about the lack of outrage at his style of posting...hmmmm...could it be he agrees with the people who complain about my posts....Hmmmm. I like his style. It is short, gets his point across. Brevity is the soul of whit. I think some English guy said that.


 

No he said brevity is the soul of *wit*. Whit is something else as in 'I don't give a whit what you think'.


----------



## The Last Legionary (May 14, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> No he said brevity is the soul of *wit*. Whit is something else as in 'I don't give a whit what you think'.


I'm sure you're wrong. What would an English woman know about the English language? It was invented in America you know.


----------



## Tez3 (May 14, 2011)

The Last Legionary said:


> I'm sure you're wrong. What would an English woman know about the English language? It was invented in America you know.


 
So I'm told was coffee, probably time to go and get one or more?


----------



## The Last Legionary (May 14, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> So I'm told was coffee, probably time to go and get one or more?


Everything was invented in America. That's why Christopher Columbus took that trip, to discover Spain and claim it in the name of George Washington.
As to coffee, do I really seem like I need more caffeine?
:roflmao:


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 14, 2011)

*Thread locked for becoming a major mess.*


----------

