For those that think Iran has a right to nuclear energy

[ashurbanipal]

Right now, they are not capable. They are very lost behind a fog of religious perversions, desperations, and ignorance. Much of this civilization hates us simply because they have been raised within hate and have been instructed to do so. Like I said, in the Middle East the narcotic of choice is "Blame."

I don't mean that they could change overnight. But in practical terms for what it would mean for us, I think the change would happen rather quickly if we do what I've been saying we should--namely, treat them respectfully and stop corrupt business deals with them.

We are not at war with Islam. Terrorist are hiding behind this religion and the Middle East has oppressed their people behind this religion. We are not at war because they are Islam. There are Islamic people all over the world that are prospering in their host nations.

My point was that we are at war with a culture, not merely nations within that culture (though we are certainly at war with them also). However, I imagine that many Americans hold some pretty deep resentment of Muslims in general post-9/11, and it's fairly clear that an increasing number of Muslims don't like westerners, Americans foremost.

The only way today's clash could have been prevented was if the greed of the Arab and Persian elite did not oppress and abuse their own people.

However, that probably wouldn't have happened if we hadn't auditioned volunteers and set up the nastiest of the bunch.

The course of progression still demands a stable oil flow. No matter what, our business dealings with this elite had to happen. As far as respect, it is not our place to tell them how to govern their people. However, this didn't stop them from using us as the scapegoat for all that is wrong in their own civilization.

Where to begin?

1) Progress doesn't necessarily demand a stable oil flow--but that was and is certainly the most convenient means of making progress. The inherent flaws in this way of making progress are already making themselves felt, and we will shortly be experiencing the full force of those flaws.

2) "This" elite, as you say, is the elite that Western Powers selected, paid, trained, removed at will, etc. etc. in order to ensure that they oppressed their people. This was necessary so that we could have access to cheap oil because oppressed people don't have to be paid as much.

3) Our corporations to this day undertake such attrocious and despicably corrupt acts that have very real and very harmful effects on the people of the Middle East that most Americans simply wouldn't believe it. I didn't at first.

4) Certainly, the elite mentioned above are not themselves westerners. Nor are the people they use to carry out what is essentially our bidding. Certainly, not all Middle Easterners are strangers to cruelty and malice. But if Middle Easterners are the trigger men, we're the ones who are hiring them.

5) So this isn't something merely wrong with their own civilization. Their civilization has been helped along on its current course by us. I really don't know how or on what grounds that could possibly be disputed.

I acknowledge that they have grievances. I do not acknowledge that they are correct with their blame. They blame the easy scapegoat out of jealousy and desperation. We are the infidels, yet our civilization prospers under freedom and technology. They are the "true believers," yet their civilization is failing under oppression and neglect. They hate us for it. The Muslim Brotherhood was created in 1929 and these terror tactics were used in Egypt. This is a culture and not so much that they just simply have "serious" grievances.

I've posted earlier in this thread a Wikipedia article on the Muslim Brotherhood. You've yet to respond to it. They were not originally a terrorist organization, nor are they for the most part now. Some splinter groups within the Muslims brotherhood are terrorists, especially in Egypt.

Furthermore, we wouldn't be nearly so prosperous if we'd have had to pay a fair price for Middle Eastern oil. We saw an opportunity post-WWII to do a bunch of dirty deals and, by spreading corruption and oppression, sieze middle eastern oil assets. That's what we did, a lot of Middle Easterners died because of it, and saying that this is somehow because of their culture is just wrong.

I assure you that given the choice, we would conquer.

Of that I have no doubt. That you can say that, and maintain the position that the Middle East is placing false blame on us just boggles me.

This deal could have easily not been made with devils. These devils could have easily taken care of their people, instead of what they did. It wasn't our doing. One of the problems with the Middle East is that they hate each other. No matter who we befriend, we will p*ss off half of the civilization. There is no pleasing these people.

Yes, it was our doing--or rather, it was half our doing. We had a choice between either staying out or installing fair rulers, or installing corrupt and brutish rulers. We chose the latter because it was an advantage for us. That makes it our doing to the extent that we "hired" these various "elites" knowing what they would do. We hired them because that's what we wanted to happen. It's that simple. You can't give money to a hit man and then call yourself blameless for the resultant murder. No amount of community service gets you off the hook, either.

Maybe not even against their will. Given the government of Iran's history for the last twenty years, and especially today, religious zealousy could easliy trump national interests.

That's where I disagree. As fiery as some of their rhetoric gets, they know not to go there.

We do not deal with people. We deal with governments and as I stated above, in the Middle East, no matter what we do and who we befriend, we will p*ss off half of the civilization. The Sunni and the Shi'ite hate each other. And given the track record of leaderships in the Middle East, whoever we befriend will wind up oppressing and abusing their people, as we are used as the scapegoat, because we "support" him.

This skips over a lot of our documented actions. For instance, if we didn't want the Shah to oppress his people, why provide him funding and direct, in-person training for his Savak police? If we didn't want violence there, why provide weapons, training, and money to the Kurds in 1974, along with encouragement to start a rebellion against both Iraq and Iran. We promised them military support in 1975 as tensions were mounting between Iraq and Iran. They rose up; we didn't support them and they were crushed. Henry Kissinger, asked to explain this, admitted that the whole thing was a ploy to destabilze and inflame both Iraq and Iran, which worked to our favor in a number of ways at the time.

These are a couple examples of a pattern of behavior that I could paint in much more detail if you like. The point is, it's not like we made a square business deal with one side and that got the other side angry at us. Our business and political dealings were heinous, murderous, and corrupt.

They seem to hate us, because they are not allowed to slaughter and overthrow each other's governments. It is like being a playground monitor and splitting up the kids in a fight. For the rest of the school year they throw rocks at you, because you won't allow them to tear each other apart.

No, that's a skewed view of the recent history of the Middle East. Imagine instead if we found the meanest kids in school, told them we'd give them candy if they'd start fights and beat up the smaller kids and taught them ways to make it really hurt, then we rewarded them for doing so while at the same time handing out candy to other bullies who would start fights with the original set and giving them the same sorts of encouragement, agreeing to punish selectively, sometimes sticking to those promises and sometimes not, and occasionally getting into the fights ourselves. Whenever one of the kids we haven't had dealings with starts to look like he might be getting popular support; we throw explosives at him, not caring who else is killed. That would be an accurate analogy. We have in no way and at no time since the 1940's been any kind of benign authority, apathetic business partner, or innocent bystander in the affairs of the middle east. Had none of the kids been bullies, and none of them inclined to form cliques, then our tactics wouldn't have worked. But holding us blameless on that basis just seems silly if it weren't also insidious.

 

[ashurbanipal]

No. To ensure we preserve our way of life.

OK. Does this change anything?

The understanding that we all die, actually does not change importance of preserving life

I didn't say that it does. I did say that it undermines the idea that life should be preserved no matter what. This seems pretty clear to me. If you were being attacked by someone, would you grab one of your kids and hurl them at the attacker to allow you time to escape? If you did do something like that, would you be worthy to be called human any more? Not to be vague: that's the action of a maggot, not and adult human.

Both are equal laws of human existence. You cannot give preference to one or put 2 against each other. No light to the next dark question. All I can answer to your context: killing innocent people is not good, and I don’t know who would not agree with me except for your lovely Islamic friends, and psychopaths.

I don't currently have any Islamic friends. But I understand your point, stupid and ignorant though it is--you think that "my Islamic friends" have some kind of monopoly on killing innocent people? You think that all the terrorists in the world have spilled even one thousandth of the innocent blood that we have spilled or commissioned to be spilled, and that unjustly, with malice, contempt and apathy? I triple-dog-dare you to add up the body count of every last terrorist incident that has been commissioned or performed by Muslims since the begining of the twentieth century and find a way to make it look worse than your pick of our actions in Guatemala in 1954, Iraq in 1973-75 and again in 2003-present, Indonesia in 1976, Iran in 1953, Russia in 1998, etc. etc. ad nauseum.

Our quality of life is the freedom not to have quality life if somebody finds it is his/her way of life. I do not fight for quality of life, but for the rights of homeless and hippies. AGAIN: I FIGHT FOR FREEDOM OF EVELASTING PERSUIT OF NEVER ACHIEVED HAPPINESS AS THE BASIC LAW AND NEED OF HUMAN NATURE. If I was looking just for better quality I would be making money at this moment, not typing.

You think that money=quality of life? I never said that; what made you think and then type it?

Money has almost nothing to do with quality of life above a certain point of income. Quality of life is impacted by severe poverty, but it's entirely possible to be swimming in money and have a crappy life.

Anyway, I don't get what you're saying at all as your use of English is a little unconventional. You think that people need to pursue a never acheived happiness? If no one's acheived it, is it acheivable? How do you know?

You did not define the nature of violence, but you look at it like it was a bad thing. You cut it in 3 pieces and put a third on your bread. Does it taste better?

WTF? Are you that timecube guy? In general I think violence is bad, but not always. However, it should have been clear to anyone who passed third grade english from the context of the thread that I was talking about violence that we have perpetrated or commissioned to be perpetrated in the Middle East.

My goal is to use as less violence as ever possible. As an illustration: if I have to set off 2 nukes to avoid 10 nukes going off I will not hesitate. SySgt I am sure wants to use as less violence as possible.

I don't know who SySgt is. I think GySgt doesn't want to have unecessary violence either; he and I just disagree on what is necessary and why.

How careful? Not to bomb them immediately? We don’t so far. It’s all careful so far. Don’t be scared by shadows of your superstitions.

No, we haven't bombed them immediately. But we're starting to hear Bush and co. make the same sorts of speeches he made in the lead up to the war in Iraq. Maybe there won't be a war in Iran. I really hope not. But because we haven't attacked them so far isn't any sort of argument for the notion that we eventually won't. Most people who don't live in the Timecube universe understand that there was a time prior to just about every war ever started. Maybe this sort of idea is what passes for superstition in your world; to me it's just a simple matter of logic.

 

[akyron]

Ahhh, but many do not know.

I think many choose to turn a blind eye to much of this.
Choose from several above examples.

 

[justone]

I didn't say that it does. I did say that it undermines the idea that life should be preserved no matter what. This seems pretty clear to me. .

I was meaning no matter what. It is exactly a law equal to “we will die”.

If you were being attacked by someone, would you grab one of your kids and hurl them at the attacker to allow you time to escape? If you did do something like that, would you be worthy to be called human any more? Not to be vague: that's the action of a maggot, not and adult human. .

As I said neither of us is a maggot or psychopath. I would be fighting for preservation of my life and life of my kids no matter what. Some other laws of human nature would also be acting in your construction. Looking at them would make you and me “way too philosophical.” Which is good, but not at this moment.

But I understand your point, stupid and ignorant though it is--you think that "my Islamic friends" have some kind of monopoly on killing innocent people? You think that all the terrorists in the world have spilled even one thousandth of the innocent blood that we have spilled or commissioned to be spilled, and that unjustly, with malice, contempt and apathy? I triple-dog-dare you to add up the body count of every last terrorist incident that has been commissioned or performed by Muslims since the begining of the twentieth century and find a way to make it look worse than your pick of our actions in Guatemala in 1954, Iraq in 1973-75 and again in 2003-present, Indonesia in 1976, Iran in 1953, Russia in 1998, etc. etc. ad nauseum. .

It makes a little bit easier to understand your view.
Let me inform you: terrorists of all kinds spilled oceans of blood in 20th century, a lot more than USA throughout all it’s history. As an example: have your ever heard about ‘’red terror”? Terrorism is not an invention of Muslims, they don’t bank on it just from nowhere. In someway we can look at the 20th century as the century of terrorism. All were are doing is trying to prevent the 21st century from being bloodier than the 20th century. We know the features and consequences of terrorism, and know the ways it has been dealt with. If I see Muslims starting on the path of terrorism I see where this path is leading to. I don’t give them a chance to get there, contrary to your hopes.

You think that money=quality of life? I never said that; what made you think and then type it? .

This is how I could read your sentence. I accept you explanation that you did not mean what you said.

Money has almost nothing to do with quality of life above a certain point of income. .

Again I am reading your association of quality with money as a certain level of income. And I always have doubts in a definition containing the word “almost.”

Quality of life is impacted by severe poverty, but it's entirely possible to be swimming in money and have a crappy life. .

That is my view I tried to use to argue your view. It makes my statement that we are not fighting for quality of life but our way of life..

Anyway, I don't get what you're saying at all as your use of English is a little unconventional. You think that people need to pursue a never acheived happiness? If no one's acheived it, is it acheivable? How do you know? .

Thank you for correcting. It is never achievable. It is all I can know in my life. I have not seen anything else. I have seen wisest people devoting their lives to research the phenomenon and to come to the same conclusion. Also it is somewhat logical. If the happiness is achieved the pursuit of it stops. Which would make nonsense out of the whole declaration. Certainly you have the right built a construction in you mind to argue the declaration… and make a nonsense. Which would be your way of pursuit of your happiness.

However, it should have been clear to anyone who passed third grade english from the context of the thread that I was talking about violence that we have perpetrated or commissioned to be perpetrated in the Middle East. .

1. Thank for the good grade, because I have never passed even 1st grade English. English is my second language. I thought it myself as an adult, putting it into my stiffed brain. I don’t use it at home, and I don’t have to use it too much at work. So, one of my goals here is to practice my English. Thank you for tolerating.
2. Does not change my picture of you slicing it in 3 parts.

I think GySgt doesn't want to have unecessary violence either; he and I just disagree on what is necessary and why. .

Your disagreement is based on your personal feeling that 1/3 of the violence tastes better than the whole shi’it. I look at the subject it is applied to in order to see how much is necessary. SySgt has a good picture of the whole subject and studied and has applied means of dealing with the subject in real life. His observations of how it works are more valuable to me than you ideas of how it should work. You personality ( I have nothing against it) and your personal feelings (very respectable) play too much of a role in your ideas.

Maybe there won't be a war in Iran. I really hope not. But because we haven't attacked them so far isn't any sort of argument for the notion that we eventually won't. Most people who don't live in the Timecube universe understand that there was a time prior to just about every war ever started. .

We have different hopes. I do hope the war will start. In my Timecube it has been the most sure way to live in peace. Of course, you can make a construction in your mind to argue the axiom ‘’ if you want peace be prepared for war,’’ but I prefer to stay with
old axioms and rules, or as SySgt would say “looking backwards and passing down traditions”, which is his definition of my Timecube. I hope there would be a war in Iraq and I do hope we preparing for war in China. I mean not only bombing and shooting, but also all other means involved in warfare. Generally I consider myself a peace activist.

By the way, one of the rules of warfare is - if you’re going to win a war, you must deceive, cheat, talk, hide, but do not let anybody know when and how. I would not give too much of a straight reading to the talks. It looks a little bit more complicated to me, and don’t have enough information to form an opinion. It looks more like IO and PR part of war to me so far.

 

[beyondtherim55008@yahoo.c]

hates us simply because they have been raised within hate and have been instructed to do so

Yes, once we convert them to Love the whole world will be free, they are the only people/country that hate other people, :bs

 

[MSgt]

Yes, once we convert them to Love the whole world will be free, they are the only people/country that hate other people, :bs

The only? No....however, they are the subject. Try to keep up.

Let's hear of your experience with the Middle East.....

 

[Nephtis]

It seems that the Middle East is turning into a big pit. The reason why the U.S and all of Europe is allowed to have Nuclear Weapons is because we have earned the right to have them through responsobility. Think of it this way, The U.S is the baby-sitter. The Middle East is a big crib, and the kids inside--they wont stop screaming and ranting. You give them a raddle (Money and Respect) and this occupies them for a while. But in time the children become greedy and fight amongst themselves, over the toy. Thats when the Babysitter goes in and tries to punish the bully child, when the other children see this, they automatically gain this since of family between all of the children and rebel against the baby sitter. Now seeing this the Baby sitter has three options. A: She can go back in and try to calm them down. B: She would not do anything and let them fight. or C: Give one of them a Knife (Nuclear Weapon) and let them all kill each other You could easily say C. But the problem is if they are all dead what will you tell the parents? (The rest of world) B would do about the same thing but wont be nearly as bad, and that leaves A. the only option. But the problem is its futile. So therefore you form a paradox with all of the choices, basically proving that the Middle Eastern problem can only be fixed by totally leaving the baby-sitting job. (This represents the whole world ignoring it.)

 

[MSgt]

It seems that the Middle East is turning into a big pit. The reason why the U.S and all of Europe is allowed to have Nuclear Weapons is because we have earned the right to have them through responsobility. Think of it this way, The U.S is the baby-sitter. The Middle East is a big crib, and the kids inside--they wont stop screaming and ranting. You give them a raddle (Money and Respect) and this occupies them for a while. But in time the children become greedy and fight amongst themselves, over the toy. Thats when the Babysitter goes in and tries to punish the bully child, when the other children see this, they automatically gain this since of family between all of the children and rebel against the baby sitter. Now seeing this the Baby sitter has three options. A: She can go back in and try to calm them down. B: She would not do anything and let them fight. or C: Give one of them a Knife (Nuclear Weapon) and let them all kill each other You could easily say C. But the problem is if they are all dead what will you tell the parents? (The rest of world) B would do about the same thing but wont be nearly as bad, and that leaves A. the only option. But the problem is its futile. So therefore you form a paradox with all of the choices, basically proving that the Middle Eastern problem can only be fixed by totally leaving the baby-sitting job. (This represents the whole world ignoring it.)

Indeed, the Middle East defies solution.

 

[ashurbanipal]

Thank for the good grade, because I have never passed even 1st grade English. English is my second language.

Well, I will try to cut you a little slack, then.

I was meaning no matter what. It is exactly a law equal to “we will die”.

No it is not. Omnia Mors Aequat. No one has ever yet succeeded, and will likely ever succeed, at living forever. Death is inevitable; life is not. And there are certain things that, having done, make life unlivable. Would you want to live if you had been forced to kill everything you love (as a for instance)?

As I said neither of us is a maggot or psychopath. I would be fighting for preservation of my life and life of my kids no matter what.

Yes, but forced to choose, you would die for your children. Ergo, the desire to preserve ones life is superceeded, at times, by other concerns. This is what I'm saying. The idea that we must kill a bunch of children just to preserve our way of life would be repugnant if it were really true.

Some other laws of human nature would also be acting in your construction. Looking at them would make you and me “way too philosophical.” Which is good, but not at this moment.

I don't understand what you're saying. Please rephrase.

Let me inform you: terrorists of all kinds spilled oceans of blood in 20th century, a lot more than USA throughout all it’s history. As an example: have your ever heard about ‘’red terror”?

Yes, but your comment was that only psychopaths and "my Muslim friends" think that killing innocent people is a good idea. I was showing that that's an absurd idea.

Terrorism is not an invention of Muslims, they don’t bank on it just from nowhere.

Actually, terrorism is generally credited to a Nizari Muslim named Hassan i' Sabbah, who formed the Assassins during the first crusade. Before him, people killed for the express purpose of making their victims dead. Hassan had the idea to kill in order to demoralize his foes.

In someway we can look at the 20th century as the century of terrorism. All were are doing is trying to prevent the 21st century from being bloodier than the 20th century. We know the features and consequences of terrorism, and know the ways it has been dealt with. If I see Muslims starting on the path of terrorism I see where this path is leading to. I don’t give them a chance to get there, contrary to your hopes.

Why do we care whether it's bloodier or not? Answer that, and then consider Nietzche:

"Beware when battling monsters that ye become not a monster, and if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."

The point is that, if we have to become terrorists to prevent terrorism, then what good did we do?

Aside from that, we had no intention of stopping terrorism prior to fairly recently. Terrorism, as long as it was directed at others, was good for us.

Again I am reading your association of quality with money as a certain level of income. And I always have doubts in a definition containing the word “almost.”

It's not really a definition. Resources such as food, clothing, medicine, shelter, etc. all require money. So long as you have enough money to get those things necessary to having a healthy body and mind, no more money is needed. That's what I mean.

That is my view I tried to use to argue your view. It makes my statement that we are not fighting for quality of life but our way of life.

I don't understand how the idea that money over and above that necessary to live isn't necessary for a good quality of life causes a re-interpretation of GySgt's comments.

Thank you for correcting. It is never achievable. It is all I can know in my life. I have not seen anything else. I have seen wisest people devoting their lives to research the phenomenon and to come to the same conclusion.

Again, I don't understand. What are you saying?

Also it is somewhat logical.

That remains to be seen.

If the happiness is achieved the pursuit of it stops. Which would make nonsense out of the whole declaration. Certainly you have the right built a construction in you mind to argue the declaration… and make a nonsense. Which would be your way of pursuit of your happiness.

I think I sense the idea you're trying to express. I both agree and disagree.

So long as your idea of happiness is external--i.e. in having a big house or in finding the love of your life of something then of course there is the possibility of complacency. And that seems to be what you're talking about. But my idea of happiness is internal, and only is concerned with the external as an extension of the internal; happiness is present in any ordinary circumstance. This is what makes our pursuit of Middle Eastern Oil at any cost so perverse. It's not helping us have a better quality of life. We've been over there killing people so we could have our x-box 360s and our Ford Expeditions and so on. We traded the blood of Iraqis, Iranians, Lebanese, Afghanis, and Saudis for big houses and flashy clothes. Not for happiness, which we have generally lost sight of. There's nothing necessary about what we're doing or have done there since WWII.

There is a quote that I keep on my office wall from the Gospel of Thomas--it's the very last verse thereof--and I think it bears particularly on this topic:

"It is no use looking for the Kingdom of God here, or there, or by wishing for it, or by anticipation of it. The kingdom will never come. Rather, the kingdom of God is spread out upon the earth before men, but they do not see it."

Does not change my picture of you slicing it in 3 parts.

I just don't understand what you're saying.

Your disagreement is based on your personal feeling that 1/3 of the violence tastes better than the whole shi’it.

No, my disagreement is based on the fact that we didn't have to start 2/3rds of the fights we've started in the Middle East, and maybe well more than that but I'm being generous. Sure it's a personal feeling. Is it your personal feeling that dropping bombs on wedding parties or shooting children or women who aren't trying to do anything but hide is somehow good? I understand that in a war sometimes that sort of thing is unavoidable. But if the war was started because we wanted bigger houses and nicer cars, that seems to undercut that line of argument to me.

I look at the subject it is applied to in order to see how much is necessary. SySgt has a good picture of the whole subject and studied and has applied means of dealing with the subject in real life. His observations of how it works are more valuable to me than you ideas of how it should work. You personality ( I have nothing against it) and your personal feelings (very respectable) play too much of a role in your ideas.

How could personal feelings, especially those that come from a desire to be honorable and decent, play too much of a role in anything?

We have different hopes. I do hope the war will start.

No one who has seen blood spilled and maintained their sanity hopes for more killing. It's one thing to consider it necessary. It's quite another to actually want it.

In my Timecube it has been the most sure way to live in peace. Of course, you can make a construction in your mind to argue the axiom ‘’ if you want peace be prepared for war,’’ but I prefer to stay with
old axioms and rules, or as SySgt would say “looking backwards and passing down traditions”, which is his definition of my Timecube. I hope there would be a war in Iraq and I do hope we preparing for war in China. I mean not only bombing and shooting, but also all other means involved in warfare. Generally I consider myself a peace activist.

If you mean that you actually want those wars--i.e. that if given the option to avoid them and lose nothing in the process you'd undertake them anyway--then you're insane. If you mean something else, then try explaining again.

 

[ashurbanipal]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11072377/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11939503/

Seems like I was saying something about this earlier in this thread...of course nothing's certain, but the stories continue to pile up.

 

[justone]

Death is inevitable; life is not. .

?.Inevitability of death without inevitability of life? Dialectics made simple: It is when 2 things ALWAYS fight each other because they NEVER can exist without each other, and then one thing will always becomes another one, in order to ALWAYS rise again from ashes, and so it goes in circles. Up and down, left and right, 2 ends of a stretched rope, day and night, death and life, + and -, good and evil, you and me, us and them. http://www.mp3lyrics.org/p/pink-floyd/us-and-them/ It is the difference of potentials to have an energy flow – or the Universe dies.

And there are certain things that, having done, make life unlivable. Would you want to live if you had been forced to kill everything you love (as a for instance)? Yes, but forced to choose, you would die for your children. Ergo, the desire to preserve ones life is superceeded, at times, by other concerns. This is what I'm saying. The idea that we must kill a bunch of children just to preserve our way of life would be repugnant if it were really true….I don't understand what you're saying. Please rephrase. .

I am saying, each time when you make a construction you are introducing a whole number of new, undefined and often unrelated variables (1. forced, 2.die for children. 3. desire of life suppressed. 4 other concerns. etc.) Unless you define all the variable and their mechanics, you ideas will be based on undefined variables. The idea that “we must kill a bunch of children” is hanging in the air with no support in my vision, it is not applicable to anything and it looks more like your fear of another shadow of yours.

My ideas are based on: Things do not depend on what I want and what I don’t. Humans are not different from animals in obeying the same laws of nature, evolution or God. The only difference is that we have the same nature PLUS an additional ability to develop our minds ( doesn’t mean a developed mind is given to an individual at birth) so we can put our minds between our instincts of seeking the most pleasurable sensations and our actions, like a transmission between the engine and wheels. Thus we achieve our pleasures in the most energy efficient way. We are energy efficient animals. So I have to make sure that my ideas do not contradict these basic definitions and rules. Life is beautiful, there is nothing to fear.

So long as your idea of happiness is external--i.e. in having a big house or in finding the love of your life of something then of course there is the possibility of complacency. And that seems to be what you're talking about. But my idea of happiness is internal, and only is concerned with the external as an extension of the internal; happiness is present in any ordinary circumstance. .

Which makes the idea of happiness different for everyone. This is what I am reading in FREEDOM OF. Also internal=external; you’re are breaking a dialectic pair (or couple, or unity in English?) PERSUIT is - The house is never big enough, the world is not enough, -you cannot stop flow of energy at an “”achieved”” goal. The Universe would die. You exist in the Universe, don’t look just at your house. I already expressed this in other posts. The true love is always different from the ideal you had been looking for, and you still have fights in the kitchen and she cries; you have not achieved internal happiness because you know you’ll die, and you have no idea when, you cannot do anything to know or change when; and whatever you have to worry about (parents, children, work, minimal “’Resources such as food, clothing, medicine, shelter, etc.”’) can be all gone for you tomorrow in New Orleans. I don’t see you’re so naïve not to be aware of that. The only way for you to achieve the internal happiness is to become a Buddhist –meditate and not to have anything, not to worry about anybody, not to have anything to loose, = NOT TO BE. The short cut is to organize a sect and commit suicide, as a way to experience and achieve the most sensation of life, and NOT TO BE. The only thing I can tell you - don’t– life IS beautiful. See dialectics above and add the dialectic pair happiness=grief to the list. Isn’t it beautiful? The minute of philosophy is over; now let’s get back to our sheep.

Actually, terrorism is generally credited to a Nizari Muslim named Hassan i' Sabbah, who formed the Assassins during the first crusade. Before him, people killed for the express purpose of making their victims dead. Hassan had the idea to kill in order to demoralize his foes. .

I see in indication that the word terrorism as we know it was introduced by Hi’S. I doubt Assassins. I doubt nobody had been killed before to demoralize before Hassan. There is too much uncertainty in that history. I do not see specific changes and creation of conditions which made killing to demoralize invented. If it could happen before Hi’S it certainly had happened. The rule is if something could happen it did happen.
I prefer more certain and applicable sources. I credit TERRORISM AS WE KNOW IT to SySgt’s civilization and his idea of progress.
Just a random click reavals: http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/REV/RADICAL.HTM

The "Reign of Terror" lasted from September of 1793 to July of the following year; these nine months make up the events we normally associate with the French Revolution. The Terror, however, was a relatively brief episode in a process that was begun in 1789 and really didn't conclude until Napolean's coup d'état in 1799. Its hallmark event, of course, was the massive extermination of counter-revolutionaries and so-called enemies of the Republic; over forty thousand Frenchmen lost their lives to the guillotine in these years.

Frenchmen meant no referral to Hassan. Didn’t we all come out of the French Revolution? Then you said you were aware about the red terror and etc. Whatsoever, my statement that terrorists in the 20th century spilled a lot more blood than USA ever did throughout history still stands. Therefore you were wrong stating otherwise and basing your view on your statement.

 

[justone]

Why do we care whether it's bloodier or not? Answer that, and then consider Nietzche:………………..
The point is that, if we have to become terrorists to prevent terrorism, then what good did we do? .

I have to make sure that the public is aware that you don’t care if terrorists (the main blood spillers of the 20th century) spill even more blood in the 21st century. Thus explanation #1 appeals to common sense of the general public.
Explanation #2: Who is Nietzsche? You expressed a very popular IDEA, which has nothing to do to observation of reality. I base my views on my observations - we killed millions of Nietzsches, Japanise, Italians, Viets and others in the most terrifying way and we did not become fascists, communists, Nazis, terrorists or crazy bloody killers. We have gained more civil rights and liberties since. If you see otherwise you would have to find yourself living in the fascist, communist and terrorist country of US for a few generations. If you see yourself in a such country I only can advise you 1. just learn another language and put your life for getting out and immigrating to a better place. Or 2. tell everything to a psychiatrist and ask for diagnosis. Preventing terrorism in the way, which is not even close to be as cruel as it used to be, has no chance to make us terrorists or “like terrorists”. (Check with the above: Terrorism is opposite to those who fight it. Both exist as a couple. We can turn into terrorists only if they turn into us. Since you are not complaining about them turning into us you are breaking the dialectic couple.)

But if the war was started because we wanted bigger houses and nicer cars, that seems to undercut that line of argument to me. .

How do I refer you to my other post where I already started on the subject? We don’t have a choice as humans. Due to our animal nature and energy efficiency = the need of application of the Excessive Energy (see my other post) we have to compete and achieve and seek the most sensations of life, we have to be always on pursuit of a carrot on a rope in front of a donkey (both externally and internally). Our system gives more opportunities (freedom of pursuit) and you observe more side products (houses and SUVs.) of such competition and achievements. They are side products of real achievements of humanity like space exploration, Internet, cloning, E=MC2, stem sells, etc. You cannot limit or change human nature. You can suppress it by Islamic laws, but not forever, because you would see us from your mosque and you would find yourself competing with us and reaching for your carrot by means of terror or whatever. If you win you will become us in a blink of an eye (100 years or 500 or 1000).

No one who has seen blood spilled and maintained their sanity hopes for more killing. It's one thing to consider it necessary. It's quite another to actually want it
If you mean that you actually want those wars--i.e. that if given the option to avoid them and lose nothing in the process you'd undertake them anyway--then you're insane. If you mean something else, then try explaining again. .

It would not help us if you change my words and reply to the changes. I hoped the war will start. I did not say killings. The only option which has been proven to work is to want those wars. Somebody said ‘’if you want peace be prepared for war’’. Be fully prepared means to want those wars really, no kidding. Fully preparing for war with China will certainly prevent shooting and bombing. By the way when we announced axels of evil we declared war. We ARE in war with Iran. If we really want it Iran will most likely back up. If it does not back we will provide the world with minimal possible killing. We are in IO and PR stage of the war. And since you don’t want it you have a good chance to see more killings than necessary. As I said, I refer to very old axioms and observations of humanity. I am always looking backwards and passing down traditions.
I have not submitted any new ideas or thoughts to you. I have not done any discoveries. Everything I said is so old and has been repeated so many times and is so banal that I just feel ashamed. I like SySgt’s talk better than my own. I just like to listen to old, very old Pink Floyd and appreciate you letting me share my feeling of the music.

 

[Mr. Endicott]

Joke

Good Day everyone.
I have a hilarious joke.

Knock knock.
Who's there?
Me.
Me who?
I dont know!

:rofl

 

[justone]

Re: Joke

Good Day everyone.
I have a hilarious joke.

Knock knock.
Who's there?
Me.
Me who?
I dont know!

:rofl

go away and come back when you know

 

[Mr. Endicott]

A riddle for ye

I have an incy wincy little riddle for ye.

What gets wetter the more it dries?