# Terrorized by "War on Terror"



## synergy543 (Mar 2, 2008)

Just as one man can wreck havoc on a composers forum, so can this happen a nation and the world.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/022908I.shtml

Such events are both insidious and invidious. As Brzezinski says, "let us show some sense. Let us be true to our traditions."


----------



## aeneas (Mar 2, 2008)

synergy543 @ Sun 02 Mar said:


> Just as one man can wreck havoc on a composers forum, so can this happen a nation and the world.
> 
> http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/022908I.shtml
> 
> Such events are both insidious and invidious. As Brzezinski says, "let us show some sense. Let us be true to our traditions."


In the context, that is even more relevant: 
_«Where is the U.S. leader ready to say, "Enough of this hysteria, stop this paranoia"? Even in the face of future terrorist attacks, the likelihood of which cannot be denied, let us show some sense. Let us be true to our traditions.»_

To paraphrase it - 
Where is the leader to say: "Stop addressing countries and nations with: bombs, battleships, and military bases - these won't stop the conflicts, these represent the arrogance that only deepens the conflicts. Instead, let's address the issues: lack of cultural respect, lack of education, lack of cooperation, lack of logical, neutral, impartial analysis of facts - these are more likely to deflate the conflicts."

Applied to this forum, that would sound very simple: address the points rather than the person. It's easier than it may seem.

Good points in that article, thanks for sharing!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 2, 2008)

And Zbigniew is a hawk!

He's right - it's time to declare an end to the "War on Terror."


----------



## JonFairhurst (Mar 2, 2008)

The definition of "terror" is "fear." How do you win a "war on fear"? 

Easy. Stop being afraid.

*Main Entry:* terror
*Part of Speech: * noun
*Definition:* fear
*Synonyms:* alarm, anxiety, awe, consternation, dismay, dread, fearfulness, fright, horror, intimidation, panic, shock, trepidation, trepidity
*Antonyms:* peace
*Notes:* terror is stronger than horror, though it usually lasts for a shorter time
_Source: Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.3.1)_


And what is an "afraid person"?

*Main Entry: * coward
*Part of Speech:* noun
*Definition:* afraid person
*Synonyms:* alarmist, baby*, big baby, caitiff, chicken*, chicken liver*, chicken-heart, craven, cur, dastard, deserter, faint-of-heart, fraidy cat, funk, gutless*, gutless wonder, invertebrate*, jellyfish*, lily-liver, malingerer, milksop, milquetoast, mollycoddle, mouse*, nerd, pessimist, poltroon, punk, quitter, rabbit*, recreant, scaredy-cat, shirk, shirker, sissy, skulker, sneak, turkey, weak sister, weakling, white liver*, yellow*, yellow-belly
*Antonyms:* daredevil, hero, stalwart
_Source: Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.3.1)
* = informal or slang_

My recommendation for the day: do not give in to fear.


----------



## synergy543 (Mar 2, 2008)

aeneas @ Sun Mar 02 said:


> .... impartial analysis of facts - these are more likely to deflate the conflicts."


Au contraire. Aeneas,.... it is not "impartial analysis of facts" we need but rather human interaction, diplomacy and meaningful and emotional contact with our fellow men. Particularly when it comes to the nature of art and creation such as composition. For what is the meaning of art without emotional expression?

Even with this algoritmic composition you can hear the man behind the music. 
http://sunsite.univie.ac.at/Mozart/dice/

Its a bit like the Wizard of Oz no? Its only numbers and lines of code....but somebody's behind the curtain playing games. Fun? Not really. Its the patterns of human emotion and thought that Mozart imprinted in our minds that makes it slightly amuzing.

Even Schoenberg went beyond impartial analysis with his systematic music and some of the best examples today of aleatoric music are imbued with passionate emotion.

Diplomacy too is very much like art. It requires more than calculated strategy to deflate conflicts.


----------



## Fernando Warez (Mar 2, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sun Mar 02 said:


> And Zbigniew is a hawk!
> 
> He's right - it's time to declare an end to the "War on Terror."



Yea! That's why I'm so freaked out to hear this from him! >8o 

I'd be so happy to see the end of this ridiculous wa... this scam! You have no idea.
But I'm convinced this thing was engineered by, what I'd like to call, the secret rulers. And i have very little hope they will stop there. All they need is to bring in a nuke in the US or Israel, Canada etc.. blame it on Al Qaeda and we're in for a very long time..


----------



## synergy543 (Mar 2, 2008)

FUD over 8 years (and counting) probably has as much if not more impact than a nuke (which like 9/11, bad as it was, is localized - its the fear that spread beyond and developed a life of its own). We have a lot of real problems to solve but we're frozen in the headlights like a paranoid animal.


----------



## Ed (Mar 3, 2008)

Fernando Warez @ Sun Mar 02 said:


> All they need is to bring in a nuke in the US or Israel, Canada etc.. blame it on Al Qaeda and we're in for a very long time..



If the US do something real stupid and vote the idiot Mccain in, we'll be there for a hundred years! or more! And hw can say stuff like that and have people still vote for him I have no idea.


----------



## Fernando Warez (Mar 3, 2008)

Ed @ Mon Mar 03 said:


> Fernando Warez @ Sun Mar 02 said:
> 
> 
> > All they need is to bring in a nuke in the US or Israel, Canada etc.. blame it on Al Qaeda and we're in for a very long time..
> ...



The right wing Christians have a way to get out the votes :wink:


----------



## Scott Rogers (Mar 3, 2008)

..........


----------



## MacQ (Mar 3, 2008)

Well, Scott, I don't think that "right-wing Christians" can really be classified as a pejorative. I mean, that's what they are, without implied negativity. If you added another adjective like "crazy" in there, then sure.

And they do indeed have a way of getting out the votes. There are roughly 80 million evangelicals in the United States, and if they all vote in the same direction, they control the election. What continues to be so ironic is Christians in favour of war. How unlike Christ can you get?

~Stu


----------



## Evan Gamble (Mar 3, 2008)

tarzana @ Mon Mar 03 said:


> Hello ,
> 
> Friend if you want to quote Christ..
> 
> ...



Actually Jesus had nothing to do with revelations.

Just wanted to point that out.


----------



## tarzana (Mar 3, 2008)

Hello,

2 Peter 1:19-21

Theme: This passage assures us of the authority and inerrancy of the Scriptures; because it shows us that holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. 


The Author and Finisher ...

Before Abraham was I AM

Jesus Is God

Regards,
Tarzana :D


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 3, 2008)

"Uhmm... last i checked these guys are strapping bombs on females who 
are mentally challenged and detonating the bombs remotely to blow up there own fellow countrymen/women/children... 

is this not happening? "

Okay Tarzana, you're on.

First of all, do you have any idea what's going on behind obscenities like that incident you're talking about?

Obviously not, but let me answer: a 1400-year-old religious conflict between Shias and Sunnis that we uncorked in Iraq.

"you are the same ones who were saying "why are they mad at us" 
when they killed 3,000 innocent American citizens... "

Well, why are they mad at us? You tell me.

Give up? I've posted all this before, but okay - I'll tell you what Bin Laden said very shortly after 9/11:

1. Because our sanctions against Iraq were responsible for the deaths of thousands of children.

2. Because of our Prince Sultan air force base in Saudi Arabia.

3. Because of our unwavering support for Israel.

Obviously Bin Laden has a couple of rather disgusting ideas, and he's horrifyingly arrogant to believe that because he has grievances it's okay to murder a bunch of people. But I'm inclined to take what he said at face value. That's why Ron Paul is right when he says we're creating blowback by our behavior around the world. And we should be examining that if we want to be safer from terrorist acts, not just treating it as a policing problem.

Well, it is a policing problem - what I mean is that we should stop treating it as a military problem. The policing is what has thwarted attacks, not the military invasions.


----------



## Evan Gamble (Mar 3, 2008)

Well, I suppose that's true if you believe he is God.

If you don't than he never taught anything in that Book.


Continue on..


----------



## Scott Rogers (Mar 3, 2008)

..........


----------



## Scott Rogers (Mar 3, 2008)

..........


----------



## tarzana (Mar 3, 2008)

Nick,

you just contradicted yourself with the point of
bin laden's so called compassion on Iraqi children...

al qaeda in Iraq blows up Iraqi children while our blessed US soldiers are handing out candy to them...

they put children in cars to get past checkpoints only to then jump out of the
cars with the kids still in them and blow up these vehicles...

Al qaeda is trying to overthrow the Saudi government...

they have said ,"Israel is not the problem America is, without America there is no Israel"

Regards,
Tarzana


----------



## Fernando Warez (Mar 4, 2008)

> Scott Rogers @ Mon Mar 03 said:
> 
> 
> > Fernando Warez said:
> ...



You stole that line from Shawn Hannity didn't you? You buy way too much into this left vs right, which is most likely a way for the elite class to rule the lower class. See divide and conquer.

And you sound like you hate liberals, what have they done to you? Anyway, it would do you good to stop watching Fox news i think.


----------



## Fernando Warez (Mar 4, 2008)

tarzana @ Mon Mar 03 said:


> Nick,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And you believed that? The US support for Israel is the main cause of anti-Americanism in the region you can be sure about that! What you heard is most likely, hell it is disinformation. The Support for Saudi is an other one.


----------



## Fernando Warez (Mar 4, 2008)

Here's one thing i would like you guys to consider. Let's say you invade a country and you know that if too many of your soldiers dies the war will get politically too difficult to handle. Meaning people will start protesting and you will quickly loose the support of the population etc and you will loose the war as a consequence.. How would you minimize casualties on your side? How would you make sure the people you've conquered will not turned on you? Well, one way to make sure they don't attack you is to try to turn them on each other. I know it ain't pretty but it works and that's all that matters. It's extremely naive to think that we didn't think and use such strategy over there. So yes, it's very likely that's what happened over there. This can be done by special opp or private contractors. All you need to do is filled cars with explosives and target on fraction and make it look like the other one did it, and you do this until the other strike back. In the case of Iraq, it took 2 years for the other fraction to strike back. Now I'm sure the shyite and whatever there name is, I'm sure they didn't like each other, but i find it very hard to believe that they would attack each other rather that attack the invader that they know to be there for oil and oil only. 

P.S. It's probably why the allies divided the land that way so that they knew it could be useful in the future. And don't think they didn't think about that. The second world war i think it was.. or was it the first? Who cares!


----------



## Scott Rogers (Mar 4, 2008)

..........


----------



## Dan Selby (Mar 4, 2008)

Scott Rogers @ Tue Mar 04 said:


> Meanwhile, London has been hit, as I said, and they have been appeasing jihadi Islamists for some time now in their country - committing cultural suicide in the process. And Spain, too, was hit, and like cowards, they shamefully surrendered to the terrorist agenda. None of that is spin. Like it or not, these are all _true_ statements.



None of that is spin? _True_ statements? Seriously, Scott, you berated a non-American in another thread for taking a view on "your" country and then you come out with this? I have no problem with you, other Americans or other nationals voicing their opinions on "my" country but to come out with such reactionary hyperbole (and patent nonsense) about Britain and to describe it as indisputable fact seems rather rich, given your previous standpoint.

Respectfully,

Dan


----------



## Fernando Warez (Mar 4, 2008)

Why do you think Chavez is nut?


----------



## Fernando Warez (Mar 4, 2008)

And tell me what you see here? These are tow very short videos of about 9 second.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9184329400593634920&q=label%3Azionism (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... %3Azionism)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7082804592890872932&q=label%3Azionism (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... %3Azionism)


----------



## Fernando Warez (Mar 4, 2008)

Here's a small interesting video on the London Bombing. Guess What? It turns out they were running terrorist exercise that morning of almost the exact same scenario. Do you guys realize what that means? It's about impossible to have those to event happening the same day. The odd of that happening is virtually impossible. It's like if you and your brothers and sister and cousins etc.. were to win the lottery next year with different tickets. Actually i think it's worse. Exercises like these provide the perfect setup/cover up for a black up though... or a false flag operation if you prefer. 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4086669930902683252 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 0902683252)

People need to realize that these so called terrorist attack don't favour Muslim but favour our big corporation you wants to go over there and control the resources. It also favour Israel but I'm not going there today. There's no hazard or luck at that level.


----------



## JB78 (Mar 4, 2008)

Fernando Warez @ Tue Mar 04 said:


> Here's a small interesting video on the London Bombing. Guess What? It turns out they were running terrorist exercise that morning of almost the exact same scenario. Do you guys realize what that means? It's about impossible to have those to event happening the same day. The odd of that happening is virtually impossible. It's like if you and your brothers and sister and cousins etc.. were to win the lottery next year with different tickets. Actually i think it's worse. Exercises like these provide the perfect setup/cover up for a black up though... or a false flag operation if you prefer.
> 
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4086669930902683252 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 0902683252)
> 
> People need to realize that these so called terrorist attack don't favour Muslim but favour our big corporation you wants to go over there and control the resources. It also favour Israel but I'm not going there today. There's no hazard or luck at that level.



Wow, that's a pretty unlikely coincidence. Weren't there a similiar exercise during 9/11 involving a hi-jacking scenario? I must say that IF these attacks were orchestrated by the same people (not Al queda as we've been told) they must either be very stupid (or believing the general population is) or have enormous titanium-class sets of balls.

Best regards
Jon


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Mar 4, 2008)

Looney alert :mrgreen:


----------



## JB78 (Mar 4, 2008)

Christian Marcussen @ Tue Mar 04 said:


> Looney alert :mrgreen:



If that comment is intended for my previous post I would like to clarify that what I mean by "not by Al qaeda as we've been told" is not that I don't believe that's who did it. I just find it a weird coincidence and I believe anyone with some common sense would feel the same way. If that makes me a "looney" in your book, then so be it.

Best regards
Jon


----------



## tarzana (Mar 4, 2008)

Hi Fernando,

explain to me why are there terrorist activity in .....

India from Pakistan.... oh yeah you are right it's India's support for Israel, or maybe 
for Oil...

How about Indonesia .....the most populous Muslim-majority nation in the world.
approximately 88%.... are they being attacked for being in Iraq?

do you forget what happened in the Beslan school hostage crisis ....
that was in Russia.... 

how are any of these related to your ridiculous conspiracy....

I Thank God for America .... truly this nation is the greatest nation in the history of
mankind....

its disgraceful how many people try to hate on America....

Regards,
Tarzana


----------



## JB78 (Mar 4, 2008)

tarzana @ Tue Mar 04 said:


> I Thank God for America .... truly this nation is the greatest nation in the history of
> mankind....
> 
> its disgraceful how many people try to hate on America....
> ...



Tarzana, I don't think people in general are "hating" on America. I lived in L.A between 95-96 while attending G.I.T, I loved it over there. Very open and friendly people, some assholes but that's hardly something unique to your country. 
The thing I don't like is they way your current administration have acted these last 8 years. 
I think most people around the world is smart enough to understand that the way the people in power sometimes abuse it ,doesn't mean that everyone living there is standing behind it. 

Best regards
Jon


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 4, 2008)

"You're missing my point. But never mind."

I don't think I'm missing it at all, Scott, although I missed the Apolalypse Now reference. You're saying that liberals are intolerant of and will happily make bigoted statements against Evangelical Christians, while they'd be shocked to hear the same comments made about other groups.

And my answer is that the Christian right (not Evangelical Christians) is a highly organized *political* organization that in my opinion is abusing religion in the most hypocritical ways to promote an intolerant political agenda. There's nothing sanctimonious about my liberal orientation to start with, but if there were one, criticizing a distasteful political group wouldn't violate it!

Of course they have a right to organize just like any other group, but that doesn't mean it's hypocritical not to like what they're saying when you feel it's wrong.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 4, 2008)

"Meanwhile, London has been hit, as I said, and they have been appeasing jihadi Islamists for some time now in their country - committing cultural suicide in the process. And Spain, too, was hit, and like cowards, they shamefully surrendered to the terrorist agenda. None of that is spin. Like it or not, these are all true statements."

The events are indisputable, but your interpretation of them being the result of appeasing terrorists is subjective. And to me the Spanish people were right to get out of Iraq, for example; it wasn't in their interest to be there in the first place.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 4, 2008)

" .... truly this nation is the greatest nation in the history of 
mankind...."

What makes it greater than Lichtenstein or Botswana?


----------



## JB78 (Mar 4, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Mar 04 said:


> " .... truly this nation is the greatest nation in the history of
> mankind...."
> 
> What makes it greater than Lichtenstein or Botswana?



Well DUHH, Nick...Tarzana doesn't live in lichtewhatever or Botswhatsthatnow...

:wink:


----------



## PolarBear (Mar 4, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Mar 04 said:


> " .... truly this nation is the greatest nation in the history of
> mankind...."
> 
> What makes it greater than Lichtenstein or Botswana?



...or Iran.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 4, 2008)

> Nick,
> 
> you just contradicted yourself with the point of
> bin laden's so called compassion on Iraqi children...
> ...



Tarzana, you're confusing me with Bin Laden and blurring him into a widely varied collection of other people from a huge region, most of whom have separate agendas. Once again, bear in mind that there are 1.3 million Shias and 1.3 billion Sunnis, and there's a 14-year-old [edit: 1400, not 14!] struggle going on between them that still hasn't been settled. Within those groups are many others.

We went through the same thing in the West, by the way, with the conflict between Catholics and Protestants. That took a long time to settle down.

And have you ever seen Albert interviewed? Albert Queda?


----------



## tarzana (Mar 4, 2008)

Moonchilde,

you got me started....

Hitler was born Catholic just as Stalin was born into the Russian Orthodox Church and Mao was raised as a Buddhist. These facts prove nothing as many people reject their religious upbringing, as these three men did. From an early age Hitler “had no time at all for Catholic teaching, regarding it as a religion fit only for slaves and detesting its ethics.” 

How then do we account for Hitler’s claim that in carrying out his anti-Semitic program he was an instrument of divine providence? During his ascent to power, Hitler needed the support of the German people—both the Bavarian Catholics and the Prussian Lutherans—and to secure this he occasionally used rhetoric such as “I am doing the Lord’s work.” To claim that this rhetoric makes Hitler a Christian is to confuse political opportunism with personal conviction. Hitler himself says in Mein Kampf that his public statements should be understood as propaganda that bears no relation to the truth but is designed to sway the masses. 

The Nazi idea of an Aryan Christ who uses the sword to cleanse the earth of the Jews—what historians call “Aryan Christianity”—was obviously a radical departure from the traditional Christian understanding and was condemned as such by Pope Pius XI at the time. Moreover, Hitler’s anti-Semitism was not religious, it was racial. Jews were targeted not because of their religion—indeed many German Jews were completely secular in their way of life—but because of their racial identity. This was an ethnic and not a religious designation. Hitler’s anti-Semitism was secular. 

Hitler’s Table Talk, a revealing collection of the Fuhrer’s private opinions, assembled by a close aide during the war years, shows Hitler to be rabidly anti-religious. He called Christianity one of the great “scourges” of history, and said of the Germans, “Let’s be the only people who are immunized against this disease.” He promised that “through the peasantry we shall be able to destroy Christianity.” In fact, he blamed the Jews for inventing Christianity. He also condemned Christianity for its opposition to evolution. 

Hitler reserved special scorn for the Christian values of equality and compassion, which he identified with weakness. Hitler’s leading advisers like Goebbels, Himmler, Heydrich and Bormann were atheists who hated religion and sought to eradicate its influence in Germany. 

The Nazis regarded the churches as the strongest and toughest reservoirs of ideological opposition to the principles they believed in. Once Hitler and the Nazis came to power, they launched a ruthless drive to subdue and weaken the Christian churches in Germany. Evans points out that after 1937 the policies of Hitler’s government became increasingly anti-religious. 

The Nazis stopped celebrating Christmas, and the Hitler Youth recited a prayer thanking the Fuhrer rather than God for their blessings. Clergy regarded as “troublemakers” were ordered not to preach, hundreds of them were imprisoned, and many were simply murdered. Churches were under constant Gestapo surveillance. The Nazis closed religious schools, forced Christian organizations to disband, dismissed civil servants who were practicing Christians, confiscated church property, and censored religious newspapers. 

If Nazism represented the culmination of anything, it was that of the nineteenth-century and early-twentieth century ideology of social Darwinism.Hitler and Himmler were admirers of Darwin and often spoke of their role as enacting a “law of nature” that guaranteed the “elimination of the unfit.” Hitler himself “drew upon a bountiful fund of social Darwinist thought to construct his own racist philosophy” and concludes that while Darwinism is not a “sufficient” intellectual explanation for Nazism, it is a “necessary” one. Without Darwinism, there might not have been Nazism. 

The Nazis also drew on the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, adapting his atheist philosophy to their crude purposes. Nietzsche’s vision of the ubermensch and his elevation of a new ethic “beyond good and evil” were avidly embraced by Nazi propagandists. Nietzsche’s “will to power” almost became a Nazi recruitment slogan. I am not for a moment suggesting that Darwin or Nietzsche would have approved of Hitler’s ideas. But Hitler and his henchmen approved of Darwin’s and Nietzsche’s ideas. 

So what sense can we make of your claim that the leading Nazis were “knowingly or unknowingly” agents of religion? Clearly, it is nonsense. 

So in addition to the mountain of corpses that the God-hating regimes of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and others have produced, we must add the body count of the God-hating Nazi regime. The Nazis, like the Communists, deliberately targeted the churches and the believers because they wanted to create a new man and a new utopia freed from the shackles of traditional religion and traditional morality.

Thats all for today...  

Regards,
Tarzana


----------



## Moonchilde (Mar 4, 2008)

Tarzana,

However misguided Hitler was, he still believed in Christ, even though not a jewish Christ. That would make him a christian by basic definition of christian - one who believes in christ. What isn't there to understand? He wasn't an atheist and apparently was deeply religious according to his own writings in his book where he claims he is doing the work of the lord.

The man was against the Jews yes, but not against Christ.

You're so quick to put blame on atheism, why? Not all bad deeds are done by atheists, and in your defense, not all bad deeds are done by christians. Evil people are evil no matter what their beliefs are.

I'd also like to add, that if you can write all that up as grammatically well as you have, why can't you normally make posts like that? Normally your posts are short and full of error, to the point it makes me wonder if English is a second or third language for you. You've shown mis-comprehension of my posts in the past and it makes me question why.


----------



## tarzana (Mar 4, 2008)

Moonchilde,

It's not registering.... :? 

Go read it again ....

Regards,
Tarzana


----------



## Moonchilde (Mar 4, 2008)

Ugh, whatever. I fully understand your point, but in his own words in Mein Kampf he believed he was doing the Lord's work. May not be your Lord, but it is A lord and he was originally christian. You pointed out yourself the Aryan Christianity, and he believed the Jews were god killers. His belief is all over the place!

My point is, and read this very carefully, that atheism does not create evil. Neither does christianity.

My post was in reply to yours when you said NAME ONE TIME CHRISTIANS AND PROTESTENTS HAVE DONE THIS (in regards to murder) ONCE.

So I did.

And so I'm done.

P.S. You still haven't given any shred of proof those organizations committing mass murder in Africa and South America are Atheist groups.


----------



## tarzana (Mar 4, 2008)

Moonchilde,

Darwinian evolutionism with its ”survival of the fittest” ideology has devalued human life. If man is not created in the image of God, and if there is no God in heaven Who will judge the living and the dead, if there are no objective standards of right and wrong - then life becomes cheap. When you devalue God, you devalue life.

What are people according to atheists who believe in evolution? ”A hairless ape” - Schoenberg; ”A mere insect, an ant…” - Church; ”An accidental twig” - Gould; ”A rope stretched over an abyss” - Nietzsche; ”A fungus on the surface of one of the minor planets” - Du Maurier; ”A jest, a dream, a show, bubble, air…” - Thornbury; and ”I see no reason for attributing to man a significant difference in kind from that which belongs to a grain of sand” - Oliver Wendell Holmes.

When atheism takes hold of a society, moral relativism is inevitable. Nothing is sacred. There is no objective standard of right and wrong, no God, no eternal Day of Judgement. No hope of eternal justice. Life becomes cheap. 

As the existentialist writer Jean-Paul Sartre explained: ”Without God all activities are equivalent…thus it amounts to the same thing whether one gets drunk alone, or is a leader of nations.”

At least 100 million people have been killed by secular governments in the 20th Century. And that is a very conservative estimate. We are not here talking about people who have died in wars caused by secular humanist states, because that would massively increase the body count. No, over 180 million people have been killed by their own secular humanist governments in the 20th Century. The greatest threat to life in the 20th Century was not firearm accidents, or crime, or even wars! More people were killed by their own governments in peace time than were killed by foreign invaders in war time.

Stalin was responsible for killing over 40 million people. Joseph Stalin closed down over 48 000 churches, and attempted the liquidation of the entire Christian Church. 

Mao was responsible for killing about 72 million people. 

The communist takeover of Cambodia in 1975 resulted in the death of up to 3 million people - a full third of the total population. When we add to these the death toll of communist regimes in Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Angola, Mozambique, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Cuba, and Zimbabwe, the body count is staggering. 

As Dostoevsky so eloquently put it: ”If God is dead, then all things are possible!”

The terrifying thing about secular humanist states is that there is no authority above the state to which one can make an appeal. The concept of ”inalienable rights” endowed by a Creator are of course impossible in a secular state. If the state itself is the highest authority, then there are no limits to the abuses and oppression that unrestrained human nature is capable of. The humanist state inevitably leads to tyranny and despotism.


The bitter harvest of atheism proves that humanism is the most destructive religion in all of history. The secular state is the greatest killer ever, and secular states have made the 20th Century the bloodiest century of all time. :( 


Regards,
Tarzana


----------



## Ashermusic (Mar 4, 2008)

Moonchilde @ Tue Mar 04 said:


> Tarzana,
> 
> However misguided Hitler was, he still believed in Christ, even though not a jewish Christ. That would make him a christian by basic definition of christian - one who believes in christ. What isn't there to understand? He wasn't an atheist and apparently was deeply religious according to his own writings in his book where he claims he is doing the work of the lord.
> 
> The man was against the Jews yes, but not against Christ.



Moonchilde, this is not a strong argument. I am not a Christian but it seems to me to be rather obvious that if one acts consistently against its precepts, one is not Christian regardless of the fact that he/she professes to be Christian.

To call Hitler a Christian is analogous to my calling myself a basketball player, even though I cannot dribble, defend without fouling, or consistently sink a shot.


----------



## Dan Selby (Mar 4, 2008)

Scott Rogers @ Tue Mar 04 said:


> Dan Selby said:
> 
> 
> > Scott Rogers said:
> ...



No, you've missed my point. I have no problem at all with Americans or nationals of any other country offering a reasoned critique on any aspect of Britain; actually I welcome your and other people's perspectives. I'm well aware of the very real problems in my country (though I would imagine that I would pick out different ones from you :lol: ). My point was that you made a sweeping and unsubstantiated assertion and claimed it as fact when it was no more than opinion.



Scott Rogers said:


> Well I hate to burst your bubble, but Britain _has_, in fact, been appeasing jihadi Islamists for decades now (and to a slightly lesser extent, so has the rest of Europe, and to a still slightly lesser extent, so has the United States. This is a very well-researched area by people who are experts on these issues. I'm not an expert in this area, but experts _do_ exist - believe it or not. But I can imagine now, Fernando concocting another one of his cockeyed fantasies to explain away anything that doesn't fit into his flat earth society construct.
> 
> As I said before, I don't pull things out of my ass, but I'm not going to do anyone's homework for them. Do you have the courage to educate yourself on this matter, or do you prefer to stick your head in the sand? A truly sad thing that so many people in this world prefer the latter option.



Sorry, you're not bursting a bubble because you've just restated an opinion and skirted supporting it by saying you're not going to do my homework for me, I should have the courage to educate myself and, effectively, "experts have proved". Sorry, that doesn't wash.

You shouldn't assume that I'm not educated, engaged and that I don't also read books and in depth analysis. Plus, I do actually live here, of course. :wink: 

*I've* never said that you're an unthinking, rabid reactionary who parrots his views from Fox News and rightwing talkshows. *I* certainly don't subscribe to some of the, ahem, wackier "theories" that have been aired around here.



Scott Rogers said:


> Did our world really learn nothing from Chamberlain's appeasement of the Nazis? It almost brought Britain and the rest of the continent to ruin, and now you're doing it again. I'd hate to see it digress to an irreversible point this time. While my country needs a leader it's not going to have because most of our population is asleep at the wheel (and I would be really hard-pressed to name one person in our political arena who seems to be up to the task), likewise, Britain needs another bulldog like Churchill who will have unwavering cultural self-confidence.
> 
> I've read quite a bit of horse [email protected]#t around here about "blowback" being the cause of Islamofascism. Why do so many people naively believe the jihadi laundry list of supposed grievances? Those are nothing more than excuses which they use as a facade to gain legitimacy in the eyes of those who have their head up their ass. Nothing more than a manipulative trojan horse of sorts. Hello?
> 
> You can appease, and appease, and appease, all you want - but it will never be enough for them. The Islamists will settle for nothing less than the subjugation of the entire world. This is their stated goal. This is only the umpteenth time in world history where an ideology has sought world domination, and the radicalized muslim sects that began this quest came about during the early part of the 20th Century. Wait until they get their hands on some nukes. It'll be hot time in the old town that night.



I agree with your assessment of the gravity of the challenges we face and the poisoness nature of the extremist perversion of Islam espoused by Al-Qaeda and their like but I diverge with your analysis. 

You cite the appeasement of Chamberlain but the lesson I draw from that era was that the rise of Nazism was foreshadowed (and likely could have been avoided or mitigated) by the events and actions of nations following WWI.

I also don't think that Hitler, Chamberlain and Churchill are terribly useful models for the threat we face today. Critically, we don't face a State that can be defeated (it's arguable if we face a real unified ideology either, but let's set that aside). The more relevant history is surely to look at the terrorist organizations and guerrilla wars.

The lessons (my reading) of Northern Ireland, the Israel-Palastine region, the Basque country, Chechnya and others that if you try to win solely through military means you are unlikely to prevail. At some point, however distasteful, you need to engage - if not with the people firing the rockets or strapping on the bombs then at the least with the constituency they draw their recruits from.

...which is why I don't think you can ignore "blowback" (of course it isn't the whole picture) or the way your country and mine interact with other nations and parts of the world.



Scott Rogers said:


> But this is one of those many subjects we just can't discuss forthrightly in this world, because as soon as you do, some delicate genius cries and hurls accusations of "Islamophobia", in lieu of actual argument. Our political correctness will be our downfall. Enjoy!
> 
> But don't misunderstand my intentions here. I know full well that I didn't make a dent. And that's okay, too. We are each responsible for our own world view.
> 
> ______________________________



It's easier and cosier to label and write people off as a "liberal" or a "conservative", a "panderer" or a "reactionary" - it means you don't actually have to engage with them and support your own positions and challenge your own as well as their thinking. It's something I try not to do.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 4, 2008)

> Hi Nick,
> 
> you said...
> 
> ...




What?!

I mean I'm inclined to take what he said at face value as being his grievances. But I'll gladly pedal forward full speed if you like - I'm not backing down from nuffin.




> with regards to your point of him
> attacking USA because of the sanctions in Iraq...




Once again, I'm saying that those are the grievances he listed. I think I made it pretty clear that I'm not a Bin Laden apologist. He's a piece of shit, no question.



> another point you try to make saying...
> "We went through the same thing in the West, by the way, with the conflict between Catholics and Protestants. That took a long time to settle down."
> 
> which of these two groups(Catholics - Protestants) would take rusted knives and cut off the heads of living people while yelling "In the name of Jesus"...



Both. I think if you took a look at the IRA in recent history, for example, you'd be pretty appalled by their behavior.

Unfortunately the arguments you want to make - that there's something different about those people or that only godless groups are atrocious - doesn't stand up. People throughout history have used both religion and ideology to justify their actions; you can justify absolutely anything very easily. It's the beast within, and so people in large groups haven't found a way to escape it. If we had, there would be no wars.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 4, 2008)

> Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Mar 04, 2008 7:30 am wrote:
> " .... truly this nation is the greatest nation in the history of
> mankind...."
> 
> ...



Then you miss my point. But never mind.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 4, 2008)

hahahaha

The point is that people in every country feel the same way about their country, no matter how f-ed up it is.

Now, it so happens that I have many blessings to count, and I'm very glad I live here rather than most places (although Lichtenstein is probably very nice -never been). But most of the West is equally enlightened.


----------



## Scott Rogers (Mar 4, 2008)

..........


----------



## Moonchilde (Mar 4, 2008)

Ashermusic @ March 4th 2008 said:


> Moonchilde @ Tue Mar 04 said:
> 
> 
> > Tarzana,
> ...



Hitler was born and raised as a christian with christian family values. That was his whole upbringing! A person's childhood has a good affect on molding their being. It has a part in his life. He was a practicing christian, and later warped it to his own idea of what christ and god were.

Tarzana,

So, the only reason to believe in god is to keep the masses in check and well behaved? Thats old, primitive thinking. Your argument against atheism is a terrible one. Basically, that we as humans can't behave without the fear of eternal punishment at the hands of some nasty, bitter old man in the sky.

Most atheists are people who know right from wrong. Right from wrong doesn't come with god, it is and was and always has been established by humans. People will pick up arms and fight an unjust cause. Look at WW2. I bet you any amount of money the allies were a mix of faiths and beliefs. I bet you any amount of money the Nazis were a mixed group of faiths and beliefs. Obviously, some were "aryan christian" and from your own words, atheists as well. That is a mix of beliefs! It doesn't matter the belief of a person. Any person is capable of great evil, no matter the diety they believe in or choose not to believe in.

You make some good points, however, religious damnation is a tool of the past to control masses. Yes, it is and can be very effective. It does not make it right, or the truth. Proponents of that type of control have some very convincing arguments. I'm actually glad to see you expand views to more than a mere sentence, its a lot more interesting.


----------



## Dave Connor (Mar 4, 2008)

Moonchilde @ Tue Mar 04 said:


> Hitler was a practicing christian...



The oxymoron of the last thousand years or so.

I think you mean _declared_ (also untrue though) instead of 'practicing'. Still I'm not aware of any favorable disposition towards Christians from that paticular anti-christ personage.


----------



## Ed (Mar 4, 2008)

Ashermusic @ Tue Mar 04 said:


> To call Hitler a Christian is analogous to my calling myself a basketball player, even though I cannot dribble, defend without fouling, or consistently sink a shot.



No, that would make you a bad basketball player 

Bad analogy though. If Tom Cruise started taking Prozac tomorrow, he would still be a scientologist, just a weird one.


----------



## Ed (Mar 4, 2008)

tarzana @ Tue Mar 04 said:


> Moonchilde,
> 
> My friend I will make it simpler...
> 
> ...



With the exception of Hitler, (I dont know why this myth that Hitler was an atheist keeps going around), did those others hurt people in the name of atheism, or because they were just bad people? See the thing with religion is, it seems to have a knack for making ordinarily good people do horrible things.


----------



## Ed (Mar 4, 2008)

Scott Rogers @ Tue Mar 04 said:


> Firstly, it is not spin. I stated that I haven't yet been "terrorized by the war on terror." Like it or not, that is a _true_ statement. Then, I stated that I have enjoyed the fact that America has not been hit again by terrorists since 911. Like it or not, that, also, is a true statement.



Scott do you not think the Patriot Act is something of a problem? You might not have been personally effected yet, but just generally.


----------



## tarzana (Mar 4, 2008)

Hi Ed,

Of course I agree that murderous regimes, whether Christian or atheist, are generally seeking to strengthen their position. But if Christian regimes are held responsible for their crimes committed in the name of Christianity, then atheist regimes should be held accountable for their crimes committed in the name of atheism. And who can deny that Stalin and Mao, not to mention Pol Pot and a host of others, all committed atrocities in the name of a Communist ideology that was explicitly atheistic? Who can dispute that they did their bloody deeds by claiming to be establishing a “new man” and a religion-free utopia? These were mass murders performed with atheism as a central part of their ideological inspiration, they were not mass murders done by people who simply happened to be atheist.

The poverty of the atheist argument becomes clear with a bit of examination. What does it prove to say that Hitler was raised Catholic? Stalin was raised in the Orthodox Church. Mao was raised as a Buddhist. Lots of people repudiate their religious upbringing. Hitler vehemently rejected the traditional Christianity in which he was raised. During the period of his ascent to power, he needed the support of the German people — mostly Christian, mostly Lutheran — and he occasionally used boilerplate rhetoric such as “I am doing the Lord’s work” to try and secure this. This rhetoric, it should be noted, is a commonplace rhetorical device among atheist writers. Nietzsche, for instance, regularly compared himself to Jesus, even titling one of his books Ecce Homo (“behold the man,” a biblical reference to Christ). But no intelligent reader of Nietzsche can doubt that he was a rabid atheist, as was Hitler. One should not confuse political opportunism with personal conviction. Not surprisingly, Hitler invoked Christ’s death at the hands of the Jews in order to solicit Christian support for his (secular and racial, not religious) anti-Semitic agenda.

Once Hitler and the Nazis came to power, however, they denounced Christianity and launched a ruthless drive to subdue and weaken traditional Christianity. Since 1937 the policies of Hitler’s government became openly and increasingly anti-religious. In particular, they repudiated what they perceived as the Christian values of equality, compassion and weakness and extolled the atheist notions of the Nietzschean superman and a new society based on the “will to power.” Hitler’s leading advisers, such as Goebbels, Heydrich and Bormann, were atheists who were savagely hostile to religion. Several of his associates reported that the Fuhrer’s personal views were deeply anti-Christian. Again, Hitler’s hostility to religion in general, and Christianity in particular, were not incidental to the violence that characterized his regime. They were part of the Nazi ideology — a secular ideology that deified race over creed — and they helped to justify the horrors of extermination and holocaust. Like Stalin and Mao, Hitler illustrates the point made by both Dostoyevsky and earlier John Locke: when God is excluded, then it is not surprising when morality itself is sacrificed in the process and chaos and horror is unleashed on the world. So it has been in our time, and all the elaborate evasions produced by today’s atheists cannot change what their anti-religious kinsmen did, cannot change the grim facts of history. 


Regards,
Tarzana


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 4, 2008)

"But if Christian regimes are held responsible for their crimes committed in the name of Christianity, then atheist regimes should be held accountable for their crimes committed in the name of atheism."

Barking up the wrong tree.

To repeat myself: the way atrocities are jutified is really not very interesting, because you can justify anything very easily. It's trivial.

Religion has been used as a justification for atrocities, so have communism, racism, what have you. Mao staged a "cultural revolution" and killed more than anyone in history. Hitler didn't like Jews and gypsies. Stalin had his thing, so did Idi Amin and lots of people on smaller scales (not to diminish the horror). Saddam Hussein didn't want a bunch of Shia gathering around in a religious fervor that could cause people to want to challenge his majority Sunni rule; his was a secular regime.

The Communists said religion is the opiate of the people - which it has been in some cases, or at least it's been used to control people. So has outlawing religion.

There's no pattern.

I also think you copied and pasted your last posts. Am I wrong?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 4, 2008)

"when God is excluded, then it is not surprising when morality itself is sacrificed in the process and chaos and horror is unleashed on the world."

...the implication being that you have to believe in God to be "moral?" Do you honestly believe that? I sure don't.


----------



## artsoundz (Mar 4, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Mar 04 said:


> "
> I also think you copied and pasted your last posts. Am I wrong?




http://catholiceducation.org/articles/a ... ap0214.htm


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 4, 2008)

As I thought.


----------



## Moonchilde (Mar 4, 2008)

Wow, that catholiceducation site sure spends a lot of time trying to disprove atheism and science rather than teach things about catholics and christ.


----------



## JB78 (Mar 4, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Mar 04 said:


> "when God is excluded, then it is not surprising when morality itself is sacrificed in the process and chaos and horror is unleashed on the world."
> 
> ...the implication being that you have to believe in God to be "moral?" Do you honestly believe that? I sure don't.



I would actually be offended by Tarzanas statement here, if it wasn't so ignorant that it's just laughable.

Sweden is secular and we haven't really had any blood baths lately, not that much killing going on overall. :roll: 

Don't you think it's kind of backwards when you accuse secular countries of non-morality when you yourself live in the largest porn producing country in the world? Not to mention that you support a government that thinks torture is "a ok" and have invaded a country on false premises resulting in thousands of innocent lives lost?

I don't know you Tarzana, but it seems to me that you don't travel much and seem a little bit afraid of the rest of the world. Have you ever visited another country and met the people? 

Best regards
Jon


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Mar 5, 2008)

Not to mention: 75% of prisoners in the US are Christians. This makes sense since 75% of the general population is Christian - so nothing odd there, except if you contrast it to Athetist; They make up 10-15% of the US population but less than 1% of the prisoners. 

Additionally they have lower divorse rate than Christians - the list goes on


----------



## Dan Selby (Mar 5, 2008)

Scott Rogers @ Wed Mar 05 said:


> Dan Selby said:
> 
> 
> > No, you've missed my point...... My point was that you made a sweeping and unsubstantiated assertion and claimed it as fact when it was no more than opinion.
> ...



Just repeating again, without support, that "experts" (unnamed and unreferenced) have proven your wild claim as fact and that the onus is on me to educate myself, whilst avoiding all the substantive points I made, doesn't really qualify as a response. :roll: 

As you might say: Oy, and if you will, Vey.

Anyway Scott, since you have the lock on both education and moral and political certitude, there doesn't seem much to be gained pursuing this, further. I'll bow out gracefully here.

Respectfully,

Dan


----------



## synergy543 (Mar 5, 2008)

For any of you who don't feel terrorized by the "War on Terror", read the article below and then tell me if you don't feel concerned that the war could end up costing two trillion dollars. There are some very big lost opportunities due to the elusive and extended easter egg hunt for WMDs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/opini ... are&st=nyt

Feel nothing? Really?


----------



## JB78 (Mar 5, 2008)

synergy543 @ Wed Mar 05 said:


> For any of you who don't feel terrorized by the "War on Terror", read the article below and then tell me if you don't feel concerned that the war could end up costing two trillion dollars. There are some very big lost opportunities due to the elusive and extended easter egg hunt for WMDs.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/opini ... are&st=nyt
> 
> Feel nothing? Really?



That's just tragic when you look at the examples in article where the money COULD have gone. It's even more sickening when you think about how Bush and alot of his friends are actually MAKING money from this debacle.

But what do I know, I'm just a liberal Swede... :roll: 

Best regards
Jon


----------



## Ed (Mar 5, 2008)

tarzana @ Tue Mar 04 said:


> Moonchilde,
> 
> you got me started....
> 
> Hitler was born Catholic just as Stalin was born into the Russian Orthodox Church and Mao was raised as a Buddhist. These facts prove nothing as many people reject their religious upbringing, as these three men did. From an early age Hitler “had no time at all for Catholic teaching, regarding it as a religion fit only for slaves and detesting its ethics.”



I see you are quoting the above _word for word _from a "Dinesh D’Souza which i found while looking up the quote above: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DineshDSouza/2007/11/05/was_hitler_a_christian Are you Dinesh D’Souza?

I dont know where this Allen Bullock gets the idea that he believed that about Catholic teaching, or even if that is in context. However I cant find anything that supports it. At best we can say that Hitler was a bizzare guy that took bits and pieces from several religions including the Occult and Christainity. However, that would be downplaying Christianity in Hitlers life. 

Hitler didnt like the church in certian specific ways, that is why you find reports on him attacking Christians. He wasnt attacking Christianity, he was attacking what he saw as political dissidents. He didnt want independant churches he wanted his own and set up "National Reich Church". Furthermore there are many so called Christians today which even say Catholicism is Satanic (Martin Luther did the same which we will get onto later), so dislike of Catholics would hardly be a measure of someones belief in Christianity even if it were true. 

And then we have Hitlers Private Letters and Notes which shoot down this notion that he was only acting as a Christian for political gain. 

http://img147.imageshack.us/my.php?image=hitlersbiblewr0.jpg 

These original handwritten documents have Hitler saying things like "_Racial purity the highest law_" . Under his notes on "_The Bible - Monumental History of Mankind"_ he writes "_First people's history (based on) the race law-- Eternal course of History--_" and "_Children of God and Men confused and muddled-- (Lord Disraeli) Basic Race Law_". Hitler seems to be saying that Disraeli was confused and muddled. Disraeli was the First Earl of Beaconsfield and lived in the 1800s, later he eventually became Prime Minister. His parents were Jewish but converted to Christianity, and he also believed the Jews were a race interested in gaining wealth etc, but said that in spite of this you cannot deny that Jesus was a Jew. This is probably why Hitler refers to him as "confused" as Hitler believed Jesus to be an Ayran. Despite thinking he is confused he however does refer to Disraeli in his speech to the Reichstag:

"_The British Jew, Lord Disraeli, once said that the race problem is the key to the history of the world. We National Socialists have become great in this knowledge. By devoting our attention to the existence of the race problem, we have found the solution for many problems which would have otherwise have seemed incomprehensible..._"
--Hitler in an address to the Reichstag, 6 April 1942

Refering back to Hitlers comments about race laws (which was written under the header of _The Bible -- Monumental History of Mankind_ if you remember, the Nazi Julius Streicher said in his trial that the Nazis got the idea of race laws from the Old Testament:

"_I have written such articles again and again; and in my articles I have repeatedly emphasized the fact that the Jews should serve as an example to every race, for *they created the racial law for themselves-- the law of Moses, which says, "If you come into a foreign land you shall not take unto yourself foreign women." And that, Gentlemen, is of tremendous importance in judging the Nuremberg Laws.*. These laws of the Jews were taken as a model for these laws. When after centuries, the Jewish lawgiver Ezra demonstrated that notwithstanding many Jews had married non-Jewish women, these marriages were dissolved. That was the beginning of Jewry which, because it introduced these racial laws, has survived throughout the centuries, while all other races and civilizations have perished_."
- Julius Streicher - Nuremberg Trials

But lets look to see who was possibly the most influential person for Hitler. The founder of the Protestant religion, Martin Luther. He was, frankly, a biggoted raving lunatic. He wrote many crazy and dangerous things but he also wrote a book called "_On the Jews and Their Lies_", and anything in that book could easily have been said by Hitler. It rambles on for many pages so Im not going to quote it all but the interesting thing is though, much of what Luther wanted to do to the Jews, Hitler carried out pretty much word for word. 

"_Accordingly, it must and dare not be considered a trifling matter but a most serious one to seek counsel against this and to save our souls from the Jews, that is, from the devil and from eternal death. My advice, as I said earlier, is:

First, that their *synagogues be burned down*, and that all who are able toss sulphur and pitch; it would be good if someone could also throw in some hellfire...

Second, that *all their books-- their prayer books, their Talmudic writings, also the entire Bible-- be taken from them, not leaving them one leaf*, and that these be preserved for those who may be converted...

Third, *that they be forbidden on pain of death to praise God, to give thanks, to pray, and to teach publicly* among us and in our country...

Fourth, that *they be forbidden to utter the name of God within our hearing*. For we cannot with a good conscience listen to this or tolerate it..._
-Martin Luther "On The Jews and their Lies"

Luther was praised over and over again by the Nazis and Hitler listed him as one of of the greatest religious reformers. 

As Nazi Julius Streicher again in his trial puts it:

_"Dr. Martin Luther would very probably sit in my place in the defendants' dock today, if this book had been taken into consideration by the Prosecution. I*n the book 'The Jews and Their Lies,' Dr. Martin Luther writes that the Jews are a serpent's brood and one should burn down their synagogues and destroy them..*." _



> The Nazi idea of an Aryan Christ who uses the sword to cleanse the earth of the Jews—what historians call “Aryan Christianity”—was obviously a radical departure from the traditional Christian understanding and was condemned as such by Pope Pius XI at the time.



A departure from the traditional *Catholic* church? Its possible. But then they sent him birthday greetings and praised him, and didnt seem to speak a word against him until the world demanded it. It wasnt of course a radical departure, even parts of New Testament condems Jews. But not only that, even if it didnt, that would have to mean all Protestants like Luther werent really Christian either even though he believed the same things as Hitler and most of Nazi party did. If anti-semitism were factor in deciding if someone were a Christian or not, that would make a lot of people at the time and today non-Christians. But even if you can manage to make yourself think that they werent "true" Chrustians, it certianly doesnt make them atheist and so makes this argument is irrelevant. 



> Moreover, Hitler’s anti-Semitism was not religious, it was racial. Jews were targeted not because of their religion—indeed many German Jews were completely secular in their way of life—but because of their racial identity.



Today, the KKK and the Neo Nazi party are all extreme Right Wing Christians, not secularists and Id be surprised if you can find me any atheists that believe any of the things about Jews that Hitler did. Luther believed it was a race problem as well, and used many Bible sources to back up his beliefs. And if a secular society were a measure of someones Christianity then G.Bush and Tony Blair would be atheists too by that definition I suppose.


----------



## Ed (Mar 5, 2008)

> Hitler’s Table Talk, a revealing collection of the Fuhrer’s private opinions, assembled by a close aide during the war years, shows Hitler to be rabidly anti-religious. He called Christianity one of the great “scourges” of history, and said of the Germans, “Let’s be the only people who are immunized against this disease.” He promised that “through the peasantry we shall be able to destroy Christianity.” In fact, he blamed the Jews for inventing Christianity. He also condemned Christianity for its opposition to evolution.



Hitlers table talk may not even be reliable. Martin Bormann, whos idea it was to transcribe the conversations, says that it will be "rechecked" by him if it isnt "apposite". We can only speculate as to what that means, but its worth pointing out that he apparently hated the church and Christianity and worked secrectly behind Hitlers back against it. Dr. Henry Piker regarded _his _recording of the conversations as authentic, and says "no confidence can be placed in Bormann's editing of it" and that Bormanns "alterations" were not authorised by him. Unfortunately we only have Bormann's version, the one that he altered and edited. The introduction to the book where it was published was written by Trevor-Roper and claims that the Table Talk is better than his personal notes and letters to get an understanding of Hitlers mindset, because it was transcribed from his informal private conversations. But Hitler knew the entire time that the scribes were recording it, so Hitler knew full well that it wasnt private. Another reason to distrust the source is that the thoughts as presented as his own do not occur in any other private or personal conversations, speeches or writings anywhere. 

But even if we accept the Table Talk nowhere does he (or probably Bormann) actually attack Jesus and even sees him as a liberator. While he talks against "Christianity" in context he is more likely talking about the _church_. Luther himself made several similar statements like this one, "*The papacy is truly the real power and tyranny of the Antichrist....* As beautiful as it was to keep a state of virginity, in the early days of *Christianity, so abominable has it now become*, when it is used as a means of eliciting Christ's help and grace". And many others have argued against the church like John Calvin who said "We maintain that the government of the *Church was converted into a species of foul and insufferable tyranny*.". Clearly, being against the church or arguing against what you believe Christianity "has now become" doesnt stop them being Christian. 

And remember what I said about Luther earlier? Here, he praises Luther again, "Luther had the merit of rising against the Pope and the organisation of the Church. It was the first of the great revolutions. And thanks to his translation of the Bible, Luther replaced our dialects by the great German language! ". 

The most damaging part for you claiming that the Table Talk proves Hitler was an atheist, probably comes from the fact that even if we accept the transcription as accurate, it has him saying, "*We don't want to educate anyone in atheism*... An uneducated man, on the other hand, *runs the risk of going over to atheism (which is a return to the state of the animal)*... ". Does that sound like an Darwinistic atheist talking to you? Can you kindly explain why you appear to ignore all of that?



> The Nazis regarded the churches as the strongest and toughest reservoirs of ideological opposition to the principles they believed in.
> 
> Once Hitler and the Nazis came to power, they launched a ruthless drive to subdue and weaken the Christian churches in Germany. Evans points out that after 1937 the policies of Hitler’s government became increasingly anti-religious.



Except they had programs for "Positive Christianity" which wanted to do away with the Jewish parts of the Bible and merge over 20 churches into his "Protestant Reich Church". Speer was Hitlers Architect and said of Bormann "[he] curtly informed me that churches were not to receive building sites". 

Speer however said of Hitler:

_Even after 1942 Hitler went on maintaining that he regarded the church as indispensable in political life. He would be happy, he said in one of those teatime talks at Obersalzberg, if someday a prominent churchman turned up who was suited to lead one of the churches- or if possible both the Catholic and Protestant churches reunited. He still regretted that Reich Bishop Muller was not the right man to carry out his far-reaching plans. But* he sharply condemned the campaign against the church, calling it a crime against the future of the nation*. For it was impossible, he said, to replace the church by any party ideology._ - Speer 

I could also mention all the clergy that praised him in regard to this, such as:

"One sister could not refrain from saying: Herr Reichkanzler, from where do you get the courage to undertake the great changes in the whole Reich? Thereupon *Hitler took out of his pocket the New Testament of Dr. Martin Luther, which one could see had been used very much, and said earnestly: "From God's word.*" ... Without a doubt the chancellor lives in faith in God. He recognizes Christianity as the foundation of Western culture..." -Helmreich

Hitler didnt want to do away with religion, like communist Russia or China. He wanted to Nationalise Christianity and have them teach the brand of Christianity *he* and the Nazi party believed. In his memoirs he talks at length about his idea of Socialism. 

If we are to accept such a dubious source as Table Talk (which again doesnt prove he is an atheist), we must also accept into the record the the "Secret Conversations With Hitler" where you can find him saying things like:

"I intend to set up a thousand-year Reich and anyone who supports me in this battle is a fellow-fighter for a unique spiritual-- I would say divine-- creation.... Rudolf Hess, my assistant of many years standing, would tell you: If we have such a leader, God is with us"... ... "We do not forget the influence of the churches. There will definitely be no Vatican crusade against us. We know Monsignor Pacelli since he was the Vatican's diplomatic representative in Germany for twelve years; as Secretary of State and adviser to Pope XI it is greatly in his interest that the German Catholics should at last have a statute "



> The Nazis stopped celebrating Christmas, and the Hitler Youth recited a prayer thanking the Fuhrer rather than God for their blessings.


Hitler did not stop Christmas we even have photographs of them celebrating it, and do you have any sources for the rest? Of course, they still had many Christian and Biblical influences such as "God with us" on their uniform belt buckles, crosses on their helmets, or an award in the shape of the Christian Cross given to German Mothers, mementoes to dead german soldiers with crosses, and he even backed the "German Christians movement", and many many other artifacts that show Christian crosses and influences, including his mother (who he was devoted) whos grave stone stands there with a large cross above it. Yes, Hitler was arogant and bizzare, in Martin Luther Memorial Church they have wooden carvings which show Nazi soldiers with Jesusand Aryan followers, or carvings of Hitler himself but that doesnt mean he was an atheist that wanted to be worshipped instead of God. He made soldiers swear an oath "_I swear by God, this holy oath, to the Führer of the German Reich and people.._."



> Clergy regarded as “troublemakers” were ordered not to preach, hundreds of them were imprisoned, and many were simply murdered.



Hitler did do those things but he did so for poltical reasons and for whom Hitler saw as *political *dissidents. For example "The Confessing Church" (originally the "Pastors Emergency League") calling themselves the "True Church" was set up to oppose the state controlled Nazi Churches and they werent recognised as official by the Nazis. Other Protestant churches condemend them as well. Its also worth pointing out that nothing they said was against anti-semitism either.



> Churches were under constant Gestapo surveillance. The Nazis closed religious schools, forced Christian organizations to disband, dismissed civil servants who were practicing Christians, confiscated church property, and censored religious newspapers.



Aside from the misrepresentations of some of those points, not much else of that is true. 



> If Nazism represented the culmination of anything, it was that of the nineteenth-century and early-twentieth century ideology of social Darwinism. Hitler and Himmler were admirers of Darwin and often spoke of their role as enacting a “law of nature” that guaranteed the “elimination of the unfit.” Hitler himself “drew upon a bountiful fund of social Darwinist thought to construct his own racist philosophy” and concludes that while Darwinism is not a “sufficient” intellectual explanation for Nazism, it is a “necessary” one. Without Darwinism, there might not have been Nazism.



Nazies drew from many sources including the Occult and Social Darwinism. Social Darwinism is philosophy. 



> I am not for a moment suggesting that Darwin or Nietzsche would have approved of Hitler’s ideas. But Hitler and his henchmen approved of Darwin’s


Just so you know, Social Darwinism has nothing to do with Darwin himself or any science.


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Mar 5, 2008)

Don't fuck with the bug-eyed mammal! 8)


----------



## Ed (Mar 5, 2008)

Christian Marcussen @ Wed Mar 05 said:


> Don't f#@k with the bug-eyed mammal! 8)



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkqqMPPg ... re=related


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 5, 2008)

Scott wrote:



> Yes, Nick, no group or belief system or ideology is above criticism. I know that, but that's a separate issue from the point of my original post. I sometimes wonder why more people don't recognize that if you can criticize one group on substantive issues, then you can criticize another on the same basis - even when it's not convenient to your ideology - so long as it's not based on a superficial prejudice (skin color, gender, etc.). But political correctness so often gets in our way, because criticizing some groups for their belief system or tactics or whatever is fenced off for protection, while you can really go to town on other groups with no questions asked.
> 
> My original point was a simple one regarding the issue of double standards.



I just read this.

Scott, I think that's a little bit straw. I for one am happy to criticize any voting bloc that in my opinion deserves it - including Jews (ò8b   rÇR8b   rÇS8b   rÇT8b   rÇU8b   rÇV8b   rÇW8b   rÇX8b   rÇY8b   rÇZ8b   rÇ[8b   rÇ\8b   rÇ]8b   rÇ^8b   rÇ_8b   rÇ`8b   rÇa8b   rÇb8b   rÇc8b   rÇd8b   rÇe8b   rÇf8b   rÇg8b   rÇh8b   rÇi8b   rÇj8b   rÇk8b   rÇl8b   rÇm8b   rÇn8b   rÇo8b   rÇp8c   rÇq8c   rÇr8c   rÇs8c   rÇt8c   rÇu8c   rÇv8c   rÇw8c   rÇx8c   rÇy8c   rÇz8c   rÇ{8c   rÇ|8c   rÇ}8c   rÇ~8c   rÇ8c   rÇ€8c   rÇ8c   rÇ‚8c   rÇƒ8c   rÇ„8c   rÇ…8c   rÇ†8c   rÇ‡8c   rÇˆ8c   rÇ‰8c   rÇŠ8c   rÇ‹8c   rÇŒ8c   rÇ8c   rÇŽ8c   rÇ8c   rÇ8d   rÇ‘8d   rÇ’8d   rÇ“8d   rÇ”8d   rÇ•8d   rÇ–8d   rÇ—8d   rÇ˜8d   rÇ™8d   rÇš8d   rÇ›8d   rÇœ8d   rÇ8d   rÇž8d   rÇŸ8


----------



## JB78 (Mar 5, 2008)

Good work Ed! 
o-[][]-o 

Tarzana, it's kind of weak when you copy and paste stuff and "forget" to name your sources. :roll: 

Best regards
Jon


----------



## Ed (Mar 5, 2008)

JB78 @ Wed Mar 05 said:


> Good work Ed!
> o-[][]-o
> 
> Tarzana, it's kind of weak when you copy and paste stuff and "forget" to name your sources. :roll:
> ...



Well its not like I mind, its just like... at least try writing it in your own words.  The only thing he has for sure is the Table Talk which again proves he *isnt *an atheist, if he really wants to insist its valid.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 5, 2008)

"When atheism takes hold of a society, moral relativism is inevitable. Nothing is sacred. There is no objective standard of right and wrong, no God, no eternal Day of Judgement. No hope of eternal justice. Life becomes cheap."

Yeah, that has nothing to do with reality.

Well, of course it's true that there's no God, no eternal Day of Judgement, and no hope of eternal justice. But if you look around, I think you'll find that there are lots of atheists who are every bit as moral and ethical as you, Tarzana.


----------



## Frederick Russ (Mar 5, 2008)

Note from admin: 

Tarzana, if you are going to quote copyrighted text, _please make sure you state the source_! Quoting text (without quotation marks) and without referencing it to its rightful copyrighted owner is problematic at best.


----------



## aeneas (Mar 5, 2008)

Terrorized by "Tarzana" vs. Terrorized by "War on Tarzana" 0oD 

My two pence for Tarzana: 
The "absence of God" didn't put bullies into armours and send them on the horses to sack Jerusalem (Constantinople, etc.) Also, the "absence of God" didn't put bullies in jet-planes and send them into skyscrapers to kill thousands of innocents. Neither religion, nor atheism did all the evil things ever done on Earth. Hate did.

My third pence: 
God is love. In the absence of God, love must take his (her, its) place. Love is a tremendous power. Love will surely conquer hate, if people will learn to truly have faith in love.

People are terrorized neither by "Terror", nor by "War on Terror". People are terrorized by hate. First, by their own hate; then, by the others' hate. Love is the answer.

Peace.

æ


----------



## Ed (Mar 5, 2008)

synergy543 @ Wed Mar 05 said:


> For any of you who don't feel terrorized by the "War on Terror", read the article below and then tell me if you don't feel concerned that the war could end up costing two trillion dollars. There are some very big lost opportunities due to the elusive and extended easter egg hunt for WMDs.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/opini ... are&st=nyt
> 
> Feel nothing? Really?



Im worried that if Mccain gets in we'll be there for a hundred years!! Or... at least until his time runs out and the American people can get someone else in, unless he decides to declare Martial Law or something and then not allowing any more elections. Of course the Patriot Act already allows the government to do pretty much whatever they want.


----------



## Thonex (Mar 5, 2008)

aeneas @ Wed Mar 05 said:


> People are terrorized neither by "Terror", nor by "War on Terror". People are terrorized by hate. First, by their own hate; then, by the others' hate. Love is the answer.
> 
> Peace.
> 
> æ



I would argue people are terrorized by fear. Hate doesn't have to factor into the equation. Example:

Thousands were terrorized to a state of extreme fear and distress by the 1994 Northridge earthquake in Los Angeles. My wife was one of them. She woke up in utter terror. I've never witnessed something like this since.

The quake was just one of natures forces... no hatred there.

My 2 cents.


----------



## Scott Rogers (Mar 5, 2008)

..........


----------



## aeneas (Mar 5, 2008)

Thonex @ Wed 05 Mar said:


> I would argue people are terrorized by fear. Hate doesn't have to factor into the equation. Example:
> 
> Thousands were terrorized to a state of extreme fear and distress by the 1994 Northridge earthquake in Los Angeles. My wife was one of them. She woke up in utter terror. I've never witnessed something like this since.
> 
> The quake was just one of natures forces... no hatred there.


Good point: like animals, humans can feel terrorized by their fear of the nature's power.

My bad - I forgot to remind the limits of this topic: I was not referring to the terror caused by the nature to humans, by nature to animals, and by humans to animals. I was only referring to the terror caused by humans to humans. My point was that, in humanly (hmmm...) created terror, hate is a much deeper cause than fear is. Remove hate from the equation: fear, terror, and evil will disappear. Remove fear from the equation: terror will surely disappear, but hate will still generate evil. So, fear is not the enemy - hate is. Again, all these above only within the limits of human/human context.

I stand on my initial position - overcoming hate is the cure for both: [human generated] terror, and evil. Love and faith in love are, IMO, the solution of overcoming hate.

Also, my previous point still stands: As decades of fights clearly prove, war is not the answer. Love is. Love is powerful and contagious. What was that guy saying: Give Love a Chance (or something...) o


----------



## Dan Selby (Mar 5, 2008)

Scott. You made a what I felt was a pretty wild assertion about the country I happen to know a fair bit about by virtue of the fact that I've lived here most of my life. I challenged you on it - not in a defensive way but suggesting you should support your view, particularly since you were claiming it as "fact".

You seemed to respond in a pretty contemptuous and condescending way, making a lot of assumptions about who I am, my frame of reference, world view and my level of education. This, of course, is my reading and it's very possible that wasn't your intention.

That's it. I'm not interested in saving face or winning an argument but rather in engaging with other people's views and challenging my own.

I certainly wasn't pissed off at you about anything else (as I've told you before, I've found your contributions on the non-OT areas of VI to be fascinating, informative and offered in a spirit of great generosity) and I was only mildly tweaked by the way you dismissed and skirted when I called you on what you said.

If you want to post later I'll certainly read what you have to say, and with an open mind, despite what you might think. Equally, if you'd rather not and prefer to move on, that's fine too. Really.

Respectfully,

Dan


----------



## Scott Rogers (Mar 5, 2008)

..........


----------



## JB78 (Mar 6, 2008)

Moonchilde @ Wed Mar 05 said:


> aeneas @ March 5th 2008 said:
> 
> 
> > It looks like, if one is an Arab, or a Muslim, one should be denied a few human rights. That sounds vaguely familiar to me... Also, "Islamists" rhymes with "Zionists"...
> ...



I totally agree with the above, and I find it extremely childish for lack of a better word to be upset with something like that. Fine, if your offended you can explain why you find it offensive and file a complaint in a civil manner, but when it comes to actually threatening to kill someone, then that's WAY over the line. 


Actually they've been published again as a demonstration of free speech, by several danish newspapers and one swedish after the arrest of a group plotting to kill the cartoonist. 

Religious people of all kinds need to understand that they cannot force their faith down peoples throats, it will never ever work.

Best regards
Jon


----------



## Scott Rogers (Mar 6, 2008)

..........


----------



## Scott Rogers (Mar 6, 2008)

..........


----------



## Dan Selby (Mar 6, 2008)

Scott:

Thanks for your detailed reply and references. I'll have a look soon; had a rush job land on me today.

Best,

Dan


----------



## JB78 (Mar 6, 2008)

Scott Rogers @ Thu Mar 06 said:


> Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Mar 05 said:
> 
> 
> > Tony Blankley wrote a book about that too, by the way. It's on my list.
> ...




I haven't read the book Scott, but you must admit that this reviewer from Amazon.com is pretty paranoid at best...

"If you want to see how they are going to destroy us..., September 3, 2007 
By M. Samuel Sherwood - See all my reviews


Read on... This is a must for anyone who wants to see how they are destroying us, and what they intend. It is an absolute must for every American, Canadian, European, Latino.... this is a war of culture, religion, and people versus people. We are in the last stage of war, where one people rise up against another irrespective of nation, politics, philosophy, resources or technology. It is an all out war to the death of one, or the other. There is no compromise, there is no middle ground, there is no peace. There is only death or surrender. "

Not suprisingly he gave it 5 stars, here is one of the 1 star reviewers:

"
11 of 30 people found the following review helpful: 
NOT a serious terrorism expert (not academic), November 30, 2006 
By Walid kildani (Williamsburg, VA) - See all my reviews


First of all, the threat of Jihadists in his book is unquestionable and his opinions are interesting. However, here are the reasons why his book does not qualify to be a text for students and serious researchers: 

1) Citations: He cited himself more than 35 times, mentioned ideas as if they were facts without providing any evidence (if you read on page 146, he says, "Jihadists within the West pose as civil rights advocates, interested in the rights of their immigrant communities). But what's worse is that Mr. Pharis cites well-known racist authors or right-wing radicals whose books are in question (daniel Pipes and Robert Spencer) instead of quoting terrorism experts such as Robert Pape or Bruce Hoffman. What's interesting is that Dr. Phares discredits (MESA),the Middle East Studies Association of America (maybe because he can't join it or he doesn't like is members), and, at the same time, praises Bernard Lewis by quoting him several times. But what Mr. Phares didn't know is that Bernard Lewis is (or was) one of the founders or board members of MESA. Additionally, he cited an 11-page double spaced essay that has no footnotes or anything to make a serious point in his argument (chapter six, endnote 6). If you were a college student, you would get an F for such a citation. There are even more controversial issues of citations and true academic work. 

2) Dr. Pharis appears to fall in the ranks of the Wahhabi lobby myth. His logic is not convincing especially when he attacks American scholars who, unlike him, mention some good things about Islam or defend it. Just because one Middle Eastern scholar was arrested for sending money to Hamas, then the whole educational system in the US is infiltrated by Jihadists. That is what he tries to convince his readers. In addition, he likes the guilt by association argument. Just because an institution received money from Saudi Arabia, then its professors must be apologists for the Wahhabis. That is ridiculous. It appears to me that Dr. Phares is just jealous because he can't get a job in a 5 star university like Georgetown. 

Finally, again, the facts cannot be disputed, and Dr. Pharis is an intelligent man and is very knowledgeable about Middle Eastern politics. However, I'm only criticizing his scholarly work and line of reasoning, and not his beliefs or ideas with which, in some instances, I agree. "

Reviews taken from the following page:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1403975116/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/140397 ... roduct_top)

It seems like a big conspiracy theory book, at least when you read some of the reader reviews.


Best regards
Jon


----------



## Scott Rogers (Mar 6, 2008)

..........


----------



## Scott Rogers (Mar 6, 2008)

..........


----------



## JB78 (Mar 6, 2008)

Scott Rogers @ Thu Mar 06 said:


> JB78 said:
> 
> 
> > I haven't read the book Scott, but you must admit that this reviewer from Amazon.com is pretty paranoid at best...
> ...



Well, I don't know about you but I tend to look at reviews before buying a book, a sample library or pretty much anything that has reviews available. I'm not cherry picking anything Scott, I took two reviews, one from the highest rating and one from the lowest. There's over 40 reviews of this book, I read around 5 of them before I pasted the examples in this thread. 
Since you're the only one I assume have read this book on this forum, the reviews are the next best thing to reading it myself on this short notice. It's kind of hard to discuss anything with you if you're going to play the know-it-all card and claim that anyone who's not agreeing with you are naive or just plain stupid.

Best regards
Jon


----------



## Scott Rogers (Mar 6, 2008)

..........


----------



## JB78 (Mar 6, 2008)

Scott Rogers @ Thu Mar 06 said:


> JB78 said:
> 
> 
> > It's kind of hard to discuss anything with you if you're going to play the know-it-all card and claim that anyone who's not agreeing with you are naive or just plain stupid.
> ...



Yeah, we can discuss this further when I've read that book, in the meantime you can check out these as well: 

http://www.amazon.com/What-We-Say-Goes-Conversations/dp/0805086714/ref=pd_bbs_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1204836900&sr=8-4 (http://www.amazon.com/What-We-Say-Goes- ... 900&amp;sr=8-4)

http://www.amazon.com/Failed-States-Abuse-Assault-Democracy/dp/0805082840/ref=pd_bbs_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1204836900&sr=8-3 (http://www.amazon.com/Failed-States-Abu ... 900&amp;sr=8-3)

http://www.amazon.com/Hegemony-Survival-Americas-Dominance-American/dp/0805076883/ref=pd_bbs_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1204836900&sr=8-2 (Hegemony-Survival-Americas-Dominance-American)

http://www.amazon.com/Noam-Chomsky-Distorted-Morality-Americas/dp/B00008AOW1/ref=sr_1_13?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1204836900&sr=8-13 (Noam-Chomsky-Distorted-Morality-Americas)

http://www.amazon.com/Blackwater-Rise-Worlds-Powerful-Mercenary/dp/1560259795/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1204837152&sr=8-1 (Blackwater-Rise-Worlds-Powerful-Mercenary)

I can't do the homework for you ya know :wink: 

BTW, do you know any muslims at all? Do you really believe that they are just plotting to take over the world, seriously?

Best regards
Jon


----------



## Scott Rogers (Mar 6, 2008)

..........


----------



## JB78 (Mar 6, 2008)

Scott Rogers @ Thu Mar 06 said:


> JB78 said:
> 
> 
> > BTW, do you know any muslims at all? Do you really believe that they are just plotting to take over the world, seriously?
> ...



Wow, snappy comeback Scott, any more book recommendations?
Of course my reading comprehension is a bit off, I read everything with my liberal-Swede glasses on...

Warm hugs
Jon


----------



## JB78 (Mar 6, 2008)

Btw...weren't you off to some important place just a minute ago?

There's always time for a little insult, right Scotty :D


----------



## Fernando Warez (Mar 6, 2008)

I'm not sure but i think these guys are trying to tell us something...




http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=vKFudjqLz2c&NR


----------



## Fernando Warez (Mar 6, 2008)

O.K. Reality check everyone. It's a bit out dated but who cares.

For those who by into this WOT, welcome to the real world.



> WELCOME TO THE REAL WORLD
> 
> 1.2 MILLION: People in killed in road accidents EVERY YEAR.
> 
> ...



http://www.theinsider.org/news/article.asp?id=0472


----------



## JB78 (Mar 6, 2008)

Fernando Warez @ Thu Mar 06 said:


> I'm not sure but i think these guys are trying to tell us something...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Maybe the reps should cancel all the other planned political commercials come this fall, and just use this clip instead...be afraid, very afraid only McCain can protect you now >8o 

It's kind of funny that Arnold has way better pronounciation of "terror,terrorism" than G'dubya... :lol: 


Best regards
Jon


----------



## Fernando Warez (Mar 6, 2008)

JB78 @ Thu Mar 06 said:


> Fernando Warez @ Thu Mar 06 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not sure but i think these guys are trying to tell us something...
> ...



:lol: You too! I think George likes to have a little drink before these conventions. o-[][]-o


----------



## Ashermusic (Mar 6, 2008)

BTW, do you know any muslims at all? Do you really believe that they are just plotting to take over the world, seriously?

Best regards
Jon[/quote]

What I believe is:

1. There are a relatively small number of Muslim who believe:
a) Islam is the only true religion and therfore Sharia laws should be universal.
b) Non-believers should be either forced to convert, live as second class citizens, or be killed.
c) Violence against innocents is laudable as a means to support these beliefs.

2. There are a significantly large number of Muslims who would not commit the violence but sympathize with either/and the violence or the goals the violence is trying to achieve..

3, There is a very large group of Muslims who would not commit the violence, do not sympathize with it, but who will not condemn it, either because they think you do not criticize your own, or are afraid to.

4. There is a relatively small group of Muslims who, reject the violence, reject its goals, and are willing to condemn it.

According to numerous polls that have been taken, in the U.S., they are overwhelmingly #3. In the Middle East, they are overwhelmingly #2.

It is a clear danger and only a person who has not opened his eyes does not see that.
Now what we do with that knowledge is trickier.


----------



## JB78 (Mar 6, 2008)

Ashermusic @ Thu Mar 06 said:


> What I believe is:
> 
> 1. There are a relatively small number of Muslim who believe:
> a) Islam is the only true religion and therfore Sharia laws should be universal.
> ...



I see your point Jay, and like I said earlier in this thread I find it unacceptable that certain groups could go as far as plotting to kill someone over a cartoon. But the way your current administration has handled this situation so far by invading a country that posed no threat to the USA resulting in a extremely unstable situation responsible of killing thousands of innocent men,women and children. Using torture, putting people in jail without a trial for years etc...isn't exactly solving the issue either now is it? 

Unless this stops I fear that your worst case scenario might become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Best regards
Jon


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 6, 2008)

"My comment was about amnesty to illegal aliens. That term does not discriminate based on ethnicity, nationality, or religion."

True, but the immigration "debate" isn't about Canadians coming here, it's about Latin American immigration.

But I'll back off that if you agree to back of the stuff about liberals not having the intellectual rigor to face reality, being sanctimonious, and being unwilling to talk about anything that offends us.


----------



## JB78 (Mar 6, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Mar 06 said:


> "My comment was about amnesty to illegal aliens. That term does not discriminate based on ethnicity, nationality, or religion."
> 
> True, but the immigration "debate" isn't about Canadians coming here, it's about Latin American immigration.
> 
> But I'll back off that if you agree to back of the stuff about liberals not having the intellectual rigor to face reality, being sanctimonious, and being unwilling to talk about anything that offends us.



I have a feeling Scott is going to develop a strong dislike for swedes, if I don't start agreeing with him soon enough.

:shock:


----------



## JonFairhurst (Mar 6, 2008)

I heard an interesting interview on NPR recently. (Sorry, I missed parts, so I don't have a link/reference.) The woman had written a book about attitudes, polls and surveys in the Muslim world.

The surprising thing was that the people who were against terrorism tended to use religious language to describe why the killing of innocent people was wrong. The people who supported terrorism to some degree (less than 7 percent) used secular language (typically describing Western hegemony) to justify the killing of innocent people. 

Also, American people were almost universally seen as "nice." The American government was almost universally seen as "bad." Movies and TV shows are powerful...

The overall conclusion was that Middle Eastern terrorism is mostly in response to Washington's actions, rather than because of the religion of Islam.

I think there's a parallel with slavery in the US 150+ years ago. People didn't own slaves because they were Christians. But people who were Christians and owned slaves found religious examples and spoke in religious language to help justify and promote their position. Same with Middle Eastern terrorists. Religion is a tool, rather than the driving force.


----------



## JB78 (Mar 6, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Mar 06 said:


> "My comment was about amnesty to illegal aliens. That term does not discriminate based on ethnicity, nationality, or religion."
> 
> True, but the immigration "debate" isn't about Canadians coming here, it's about Latin American immigration.
> 
> But I'll back off that if you agree to back of the stuff about liberals not having the intellectual rigor to face reality, being sanctimonious, and being unwilling to talk about anything that offends us.



I know that this is probably not the right thread for this, just wanted you to know how great I think your mag is Nick! I have only downloaded a few issues so far but I feel that the back-issues alone is worth the price for the 2-year subscription. I especially enjoy the "mock-up-microscope", but everything else is top-notch as well.

Keep it up!

Best regards
Jon


----------



## Ed (Mar 6, 2008)

JB78 @ Thu Mar 06 said:


> It's kind of funny that Arnold has way better pronounciation of "terror,terrorism" than G'dubya... :lol:



Im more worried that he calls American his "homeland"... Nazis did that too


----------



## Scott Rogers (Mar 8, 2008)

..........


----------



## JB78 (Mar 8, 2008)

1) He may be an expert but he's not exactly an unbiased source considering he's made contributions to the Bush/Cheney campaign in 2004. 

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Walid_Phares

2) Anyone supporting Mitt Romney will certainly not get any money from me.

" However I have studied in particular the agenda and national security language of Governor Mitt Romney and I do personally believe that at this stage he has best understood the parameters I am concerned about: that is the threat of Jihadism, the human rights crisis in the Greater Middle East and the need for a confrontation of Jihadism within the US Homeland. Governor Romney, by my academic and analytical parameters has been able to draw a counter-Jihadism doctrine which can best determine the danger, identify the threat and direct national resources into the confrontation.

In addition I have had the chance to learn that the Mitt Romney policy on the Middle East will particularly focus on containing the Iranian and Syrian regimes, standing by and defending democracies in Israel, Lebanon and Iraq and *promoting human rights in the region.*
This is why at this stage I would recommend to the Republicans to vote for Mitt Romney in the primaries as first among equal colleagues.

This analysis and recommendation represent my personal views and do not represent the views and opinions of the NGOs and institutions I belong to.

At this stage may aim is not to engage in a debate about primaries but only to inform all those on my lists of my views regarding the national security and war on terror agendas of the candidates from both parties.

Best regards

Dr Walid Phares"

http://michaelinmi.wordpress.com/2008/0 ... tt-romney/

Yes so far the republicans have done a super job of "promoting human rights" in that region. :roll: 


3) I don't know you Scott and you obviously don't know me. One thing that's clear though is that we will probably never see eye to eye on political issues. You've been a member far longer on this forum than me, and I do apologise if you feel that I've been "trolling", that was never my intent. Hopefully we still can discuss music and what not without getting in each others faces. 

o-[][]-o 

Best regards
Jon


----------



## JB78 (Mar 8, 2008)

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/08/bush.torture.ap/index.html (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03 ... index.html)

Way to go George, maybe it's time to stop watching "24".


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 8, 2008)

"But it looks like Nick B. was right. You really can discuss important issues with those on the far left. Once again, I stand corrected! "

Sure, and all conservatives wear loafers with tassels.


----------



## Fernando Warez (Mar 8, 2008)

> More trollish baiting. There's not nearly enough of that around here. Good of you to join their club.



Trolling like this?



> Fernando, you are always good for a laugh. Again, that's pure gold!



I wish i could say the same about...

And you still didn't tell me why Chavez is nuts? i know that's what they say on TV but Venezuela has lost of oil and Chavez isn't so willing to play ball as many oder oil colonies so i think the media is bias here...


----------



## Dan Selby (Mar 12, 2008)

Scott,

Finally had a chance to read your post properly (thanks for taking the time) so thought I should respond. I understand that you were writing quickly and so probably in painting broad strokes in part. However...

I don't really buy some of your historical analysis. You talk about Europe as an amorphous whole, instead of a collection of very different countries with different political systems, taxation regimes and approaches to immigration, immigrant assimilation and multi-culturalism. The Scandanavian countries, for example, have historically been very left wing (certainly by your standards, I would imagine) - high tax rates and a large "nanny state"... but also economically prosperous, high quality of life and living standards. However, their immigration levels have been pretty low, as I understand it. Certainly when I was in Stockholm I saw very few non-nordic looking faces. Britain has had and continues to have relatively high levels of immigration but is fiscally much more conservative. France also has a fair size immigrant population but approaches their assimilation in a completely different way. Where Britain has adopted a pluralistic multi-cultural approach, allowing (within acceptable bounds) for immigrant communities to retain their cultures and traditions, the French model has been that immigrants should become wholly French and excludes a place for diversity of culture and religion within mainstream French society. If these are two "extremes" I would think that the paradigm in the USA is somewhere in the middle - so you're Irish-American, Italian-American etc... but American first.

Also, it is my understanding that the riots in France were not "muslim riots". Although it is right to say that they sprung up in North African immigrant communities (ghettos), the causes seemed to have been socio-economic tensions etc and have no connection to islamic extremism.

So when you talk about Europe having "a liberal multiculturalist immigration policy" I don't think it makes sense.

When you talk about Britain being a haven for islamic fundamentalism I'm sure that there is certainly some truth in there, but I just don't see any hard evidence (and haven't read any) for "appeasment", "conspiracies" or "turning a blind eye"... naivety and taking the eye off the ball seems much more probable. 

Your original assertion was that "London has been hit, as I said, and they have been appeasing jihadi Islamists for some time now in their country - committing cultural suicide in the process." Again, I don't see evidence for "appeasement" and, as for "committing cultural suicide"... I just don't recognise that. I don't live in London but many of my clients are there so I visit regularly. There are lots of things I don't like about London (believe me) but my impression is that it is an incredibly vibrant, dynamic, self-confident city, enormously enriched by the huge range of diverse peoples who choose to make it their home. Prosperous, arguably the financial capital of the world and, above all culturally rich and flourishing.

For the rest of your argument I largely agree with the serious and frightening nature of the threat facing our societies but I differ on the analysis and strategy. As I said in my previous post, I think the analogy you made with Nazi Germany is not accurate or helpful and that the lessons from other conflicts I mentioned are more pertinent. I would agree with you the hardline jihadist leaders are, for the most part, irredeemable and not open to negotiation. However, by completely dismissing all grievances and the part our foreign policies have had in fuelling the uptake of their hateful ideology we do ourselves a disservice, I believe. We may well not be able to reason with the leaders and current foot soldiers but we only give succor to their recruitment of gullible, dispossed and angry young men when we entertain *only* military and intelligence base solutions.

Anyway, interesting thoughts, Scott - appreciated... and I've added the Walid Phares book to my reading list. 

Best,

Dan


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 12, 2008)

"And you still didn't tell me why Chavez is nuts?"
Fernando, are you aware that he recently tried to buy votes with his peoples' own money to rework the Venezuelan constitution so that he could remain in power long after his term will end? Thankfully the proposal was defeated, but he has a bad case of power lust.


----------



## Fernando Warez (Mar 12, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Mar 12 said:


> "And you still didn't tell me why Chavez is nuts?"
> Fernando, are you aware that he recently tried to buy votes with his peoples' own money to rework the Venezuelan constitution so that he could remain in power long after his term will end? Thankfully the proposal was defeated, but he has a bad case of power lust.



I expected something like that. He's an unusual politician and certainly not your typical lawyer politician that's for sure, but I'm willing to bet it was not about power lust. I think he wants to do good for his country and probably though he could protect Venezuela's interest by staying in power as long as possible. A bit naive but he was honest about it and asked people to vote on this and lost. As fare as buying votes, i would have to see proof of that.

I don't personally know the guy so i don't know that he's immune to power lust, but let me put it this way. He would take the US offer regarding Venezuela's oil if it was about power. And gain the support of the most powerful country on hearth instead of making them an enemy. And enemy that will most likely end up killing him at some point. 

All Chavez wants for his country is a fair deal regarding Venezuela's oil so that the people of his country can benefit from their resources and wealth. And he's been doing just that and the people are better off already. The world needs more Chavez.


----------

