Paris Attack

[astonas]

Re: Paris Attack

I tend to be of the belief that you don't really own something, unless you can successfully defend it.

I can follow you there. But I also note that in this case, this implies that the culture of America is "owned" by lunatic ideas of cultural purity. If that is indeed what America is, then it really ISN'T worth fighting for.

Increasingly, my view is of two extremes:

One extreme is a minority believing it is acceptable to use violence to pursue their rigid, obsolete, and dangerous ideology.

On the other extreme I see a minority believing it is acceptable to use rhetoric to pursue a naive, excessively progressive, and dangerous ideology.

There's a lot of mass media coverage on the former, but what about the latter?

Is it not dangerous for people to confuse technological progress with social progress?

Yes, of course. There has been considerable technological progress that has made the world a smaller place. This has forced parties to interact that didn't have to do so before, and therefore created a need for social progress to be faster than we as a species may be able to handle.

But that's different from saying that because we evolved in the stone age (and before) we must strive to live there today.

Don't some sheltered "excessive progressives"(with voices/audiences to match) display almost child-like naivete about the greater world around them and the lack of human evolution in terms of baser human behavior?

There is no human physiology/psychological equivalent to Moore's Law.

We may be quickly approaching the technological bridge of the USS Enterprise in Star Trek, but aren't we still psychologically living in caves?

Many of us are. But some have learned to overcome their most primitive instincts. Perhaps it is possible to teach others.

That is generally what social progress means.

Yes, we do have to do it faster than ever before.

But the survival of civilization may depend on our doing exactly that. And the means is by first realizing that it is a worthwhile endeavor to do so.

In my mind, while I am embarrassed and disgusted by any unjustifiable backlash, violent or otherwise, directed at muslim communities over this(outside of a calm, cool, collected look at immigration, assimilation, integration policies), we do have some robust law enforcement, security, and stability to mitigate the risk of a pogrom.

Of course I agree. My response was not triggered by a calm, cool, collected look at immigration, assimilation, and integration policies. My response was triggered by notions of cultural superiority that are quite obviously unjustified. If this culture of superiority is indeed dominant, then it is anything but superior. It represents the lowest ideals possible for humans, and especially since it is the identical notion that drives muslim extremists to terrorism. "We are fundamentally better than all others (ordained by god to dominate) and willing to commit unilateral violence to fulfill that mission." THAT is the implicit root of the argument, which I was opposing.

I think it is a notion worth opposing. I do think most people who have such ideas implicit in their belief structures haven't examined those closely enough to notice the presence of them.

I am more concerned about "excessive progressive" attitudes by people living on the "right side" of the Brave New World who think Moore's Law somehow applies to human beings and their behaviors.

Not exactly dangerous in terms of murdering people with AK47s for their scribblings, but dangerous in it's extreme naivete.

What do you reckon?

I think the size of the weapon is in fact the central matter here. The pen may be mightier than the sword, but only if it is permitted to engage in the battlefield of ideas in the first place! That is why this discussion was triggered by the events in Paris.

I've argued, and believe, that an idea cannot truly be dangerous at all as long as it is accompanied by respect for all persons (though not other ideas!) But the inverse is not true.

An AK-47 is fundamentally a tool of FORCE, not reason. It is dangerous, no matter what idea it is held for. If it is not used with great care, it can even be dangerous to the person wielding it.

The asymmetry is quite clear to me, as is the relative danger.

Are you REALLY suggesting that progressive ideology will kill more people than warfare can?

That seems to me hard to fathom.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Paris Attack

I can follow you there. But I also note that in this case, this implies that the culture of America is "owned" by lunatic ideas of cultural purity.

I would disagree on American "cultural purity". It was certainly not one raised by me.

The term I have used consistently is immigrant assimilation into the existing dominant culture.

I think the US culture is a bit like the Borg.....it assimilates and promotes as it's own IP what it likes, and throws what it doesn't in the rubbish.

Yes, of course. There has been considerable technological progress that has made the world a smaller place. This has forced parties to interact that didn't have to do so before, and therefore created a need for social progress to be faster than we as a species may be able to handle.

But that's different from saying that because we evolved in the stone age (and before) we must strive to live there today.

I'm definitely not implying we stay in the stone age. What I stated is an oft forgotten reminder that physiologically and psychologically we haven't changed since we left the cave.

That doesn't mean we can't(or shouldn't) advance out of the cave and onto the bridge of the USS Enterprise.

What it does mean is we have caveman brains and increasingly democratized Star Trek weapons.

Many of us are. But some have learned to overcome their most primitive instincts. Perhaps it is possible to teach others.

No offense, but that's what I fear is that human "Moore's Law enlightenment" when it's simply not true.

We are rife with abhorrent human behavior across the spectrum of education/income/enlightenment that cannot be ignored.

Where is the empirical evidence that we are enlightened beyond violence towards, and exploitation of, our fellow man/woman?

I admire the Star Trek aspirations, but isn't the reality more like "excessive progressives" aspiring to one thing, but actually doing or passively accepting another?

Are progressives somehow inoculated or immune from real world examples of the Milgram Experiment, the Stanford Prison Experiment, or participating like so many other ordinary people in genocide actively/passively?

The threat and/or application of violence is not just a means TO commit horrific acts towards each other, but also a means to prevent or mitigate our baser selves from doing so in the first place.

Yes, we do have to do it faster than ever before.

How does the expression go?

You can have it quick, cheap, good.....pick one.

But the survival of civilization may depend on our doing exactly that. And the means is by first realizing that it is a worthwhile endeavor to do so.

I think it's highly unlikely the survival of the civilization is at stake(unless someone really evil and smart/lucky does the "grey goo" thing), as that implies the potential loss of billions of lives.

But I would say we are increasingly likely to see the loss of millions or more as a direct and indirect result of failing to succeed. And that might genuinely include the failure to kill some in order to save many.


Of course I agree. My response was not triggered by a calm, cool, collected look at immigration, assimilation, and integration policies. My response was triggered by notions of cultural superiority that are quite obviously unjustified. If this culture of superiority is indeed dominant, then it is anything but superior. It represents the lowest ideals possible for humans, and especially since it is the identical notion that drives muslim extremists to terrorism. "We are fundamentally better than all others (ordained by god to dominate) and willing to commit unilateral violence to fulfill that mission." THAT is the implicit root of the argument, which I was opposing.

I think it is a notion worth opposing. I do think most people who have such ideas implicit in their belief structures haven't examined those closely enough to notice the presence of them.



I think the size of the weapon is in fact the central matter here. The pen may be mightier than the sword, but only if it is permitted to engage in the battlefield of ideas in the first place! That is why this discussion was triggered by the events in Paris.

I've argued, and believe, that an idea cannot truly be dangerous at all as long as it is accompanied by respect for all persons (though not other ideas!) But the inverse is not true.

An AK-47 is fundamentally a tool of FORCE, not reason. It is dangerous, no matter what idea it is held for. If it is not used with great care, it can even be dangerous to the person wielding it.

The asymmetry is quite clear to me, as is the relative danger.

Are you REALLY suggesting that progressive ideology will kill more people than warfare can?

That seems to me hard to fathom.

That's not what I'm saying.

Exchange WILL with MIGHT.

What I am saying is that I fear an "excessive progressive" ideology that does not accept the idea that killing 1 person to save 10/100/1000+ is a genuine policy option.

And that's based on the disconnect I see between aspirational human enlightenment that is perceived and actual human behavior that is reality.

Going back to the aspirational "excessive progressive" Star Trek viewpoint, didn't Star Trek simply monitor and report on less progressive planetary cultures until they were ready?

Globalization and instantaneous communication of everything means there's no monitor and report, it means Star Fleet is here now.....ready or not, we're not asking.

We've seen free market technological innovation disrupt industries.

Now we're seeing it disrupt cultures.

I reckon the blowback is going to be epic.

[astonas]

Re: Paris Attack

I would disagree on American "cultural purity". It was certainly not one raised by me.

I was unclear, and consequently misunderstood. I apologize for both.

The notion of "cultural purity" was not raised by you at all, and I did not intend my response to imply that.

My vehemence was directed at another participant, but the contextual chain was broken by the fact that a quote-within-quote is not replicated in responses when using this forum software.

My object was the post to which I initially responded, prior to your welcome interjection, and I was defending my response to that, which you had merely commented on. The series of statements leading up to that post made numerous statements that DID require a concept of cultural purity to be invoked to justify the logical chain.

While I won't defend the precision of my targeting, I will defend the payload deployed.

The vigorous opening salvo you responded to was intended to initiate a discussion that would permit me to dissect that logical chain, and reveal the implicit assumption, unambiguously. (I intended, if you will forgive the multi-pun, to ultimately dispatch it with extreme prejudice.) While this is a service I am still happy to provide, your redirection is far more likely to be productive - hence, welcome.

I will again repeat that my critique of implicitly bigoted ideas as various forms of stupid was NOT intended to involve or criticize any other participant in, or reader of, this thread, except to the extent that they also hold to the repugnant notion of a deity-based intrinsic superiority over other people.

The term I have used consistently is immigrant assimilation into the existing dominant culture.

I think the US culture is a bit like the Borg.....it assimilates and promotes as it's own IP what it likes, and throws what it doesn't in the rubbish.

I entirely agree. I'll even go farther and say one of our strengths as a nation is that we seek out and adopt good people and ideas wherever we may find them. Our language does so particularly readily:

The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.
-- James D. Nicoll

;)

I'm definitely not implying we stay in the stone age. What I stated is an oft forgotten reminder that physiologically and psychologically we haven't changed since we left the cave.

That doesn't mean we can't(or shouldn't) advance out of the cave and onto the bridge of the USS Enterprise.

What it does mean is we have caveman brains and increasingly democratized Star Trek weapons.

I'm again with you, 100%.

No offense, but that's what I fear is that human "Moore's Law enlightenment" when it's simply not true.

Since that isn't what I believe, I don't know how I could take offense. We've made some progress, but we aren't becoming enlightened at ever-increasing rates.

But that same fact will produce ever greater problems in the future if we don't progress where we can.

We are rife with abhorrent human behavior across the spectrum of education/income/enlightenment that cannot be ignored.

Where is the empirical evidence that we are enlightened beyond violence towards, and exploitation of, our fellow man/woman?

I'll certainly grant you that it appears slim at times. But there are numerous data that show that in spite of common misperceptions, human-caused violence can decline. For starters, it has declined considerably as the centuries have passed, technological advances in killing each other notwithstanding.

This has been studied a great deal. The most famous currently fashionable scholar is Steven Pinker, though there are of course many others.

The abstract of Pinker's most recent book reads:

We’ve all had the experience of reading about a bloody war or shocking crime and asking, “What is the world coming to?” But we seldom ask, “How bad was the world in the past?” In this startling new book, the bestselling cognitive scientist Steven Pinker shows that the world of the past was much worse. With the help of more than a hundred graphs and maps, Pinker presents some astonishing numbers. Tribal warfare was nine times as deadly as war and genocide in the 20th century. The murder rate of Medieval Europe was more than thirty times what it is today. Slavery, sadistic punishments, and frivolous executions were unexceptionable features of life for millennia, then suddenly were targeted for abolition. Wars between developed countries have vanished, and even in the developing world, wars kill a fraction of the people they did a few decades ago. Rape, battering, hate crimes, deadly riots, child abuse, cruelty to animals—all substantially down.

How could this have happened, if human nature has not changed? What led people to stop sacrificing children, stabbing each other at the dinner table, or burning cats and disemboweling criminals as forms of popular entertainment? The key to explaining the decline of violence, Pinker argues, is to understand the inner demons that incline us toward violence (such as revenge, sadism, and tribalism) and the better angels that steer us away. Thanks to the spread of government, literacy, trade, and cosmopolitanism, we increasingly control our impulses, empathize with others, bargain rather than plunder, debunk toxic ideologies, and deploy our powers of reason to reduce the temptations of violence.

With the panache and intellectual zeal that have made his earlier books international bestsellers and literary classics, Pinker will force you to rethink your deepest beliefs about progress, modernity, and human nature. This gripping book is sure to be among the most debated of the century so far.

I'm not going to claim that his book on the subject is the most accessible one, but you did ask for empirical evidence, and this one has 832 pages (and as the pitch says, over a hundred of graphs).

I admire the Star Trek aspirations, but isn't the reality more like "excessive progressives" aspiring to one thing, but actually doing or passively accepting another?

Are progressives somehow inoculated or immune from real world examples of the Milgram Experiment, the Stanford Prison Experiment, or participating like so many other ordinary people in genocide actively/passively?

Entirely inoculated? Of course not! That is why societal pressure and social norms are required to reinforce behavior that de-escalates violence. It is why hate speech, which can and should be protected by law from force, or legal prosecution, should nonetheless be pointed out and shunned by civilized society.

People do have a right to be jerks, and even harbor racist or violent thoughts. They don't have a right to be respected while doing so. That difference is precisely what leads society to advance, if it is to do so at all. Shame is powerful, and should be used for good when that is possible.

I believe it was you who referred to this as "calling out the fart in the room." You were very right. We HAVE to call out the odious farts in the room, if we want to live in a society that isn't filled with the stench of pointless hatred.

As jk pointed out through the cartoon he posted, this is the flip side of free speech. Yes, the cartoonists' right to publish safely should be defended with a full throat. But we also have an obligation to speak loudly in opposition to hate-filled views in those moments when free speech is NOT under direct assault. If I would have seen the cartoons prior to attack, I hope I would have done that too. (I do my best to do so on these pages, as well.)

It comes back again to Voltaire's comment on repugnant ideas: disagree with what is said (when its existence isn't threatened) defend the right to say it (when it is). Both parts matter.

That's how we advance. By acknowledging that we aren't, any of us, ever immune. That we require each other to keep ourselves in line.
(Well, that and by the passing of generations, when people are beyond convincing.)

The threat and/or application of violence is not just a means TO commit horrific acts towards each other, but also a means to prevent or mitigate our baser selves from doing so in the first place.

It can be, when ruled by reason.

It can be the opposite, when ruled by our lesser demons.

The difference stems from the battle of ideas. The setting of aspirations for our human race. It requires defining ourselves not only by what the forces pressing on us say we must be and do, but also defining ourselves at least in part by how we can best be, and what we should aspire to do.

Are there forces we have no choice but to respond to? Of course! But a reflexive response is hardly the only thing we are capable of. We need to admit that too.

How does the expression go?

You can have it quick, cheap, good.....pick one.

Hey, I'm not even trying to defend the idea that it is easy to accelerate societal change to keep up with technological requirements. It isn't. I'm only pointing out that as long as it isn't attempted, it is impossible. And I do think it is necessary:

I think it's highly unlikely the survival of the civilization is at stake(unless someone really evil and smart/lucky does the "grey goo" thing), as that implies the potential loss of billions of lives.

I've done just enough military-funded R&D to know that what you are assuming to be an unlikely or distant "unless" ... just isn't. The advance of technology is fundamentally double-edged. It is becoming very easy to do things that were very hard not long ago. Custom DNA, any sequence you want, in an e.coli host cell? No problem at all, and using off-the shelf, untrackable equipment. And that's just one possibility for the very near future.

The simple fact is that technology really IS the forcing function. Not only does it mean that we CAN live in a single, small, world, it means we HAVE to.

But I would say we are increasingly likely to see the loss of millions or more as a direct and indirect result of failing to succeed. And that might genuinely include the failure to kill some in order to save many.

[...]

Are you REALLY suggesting that progressive ideology will kill more people than warfare can?

That seems to me hard to fathom.

That's not what I'm saying.

Exchange WILL with MIGHT.

What I am saying is that I fear an "excessive progressive" ideology that does not accept the idea that killing 1 person to save 10/100/1000+ is a genuine policy option.

Sorry, but that last boldface line just isn't true. I have said before (and meant it): I am not a pacifist. Progressive doesn't mean stupid. Nor does it mean you can't compare two scenarios and make a decision about what is "least bad." You are conflating two orthogonal axes, in this fear. Pacifism is not causally related to progressivism.

We DO have to make hard choices. And yes, people WILL still die.

But that's very different from saying we want them to. That those deaths are in themselves valid goals.

It is the difference between war and genocide. And I'll freely agree that gray areas exist. But even amongst all the grey there is a need to draw a line, and say "thus far, and no farther." Up to this point lies justifiable war, beyond, only murder. The need for that line will never go away, no matter how grey the world.

And its definition, too, has evolved as technology, and society, has progressed.

It will continue to do so.

Will we be one of the nations that helps it advance? Or one of the ones that is a monstrous holdout, with no moral standing?

So far we've mostly been the former. But it is still possible, by clinging to old ideas and definitions, to become the latter. The world is changing ever faster. Are we re-evaluating with it?

And that's based on the disconnect I see between aspirational human enlightenment that is perceived and actual human behavior that is reality.

I know that I am talking about a goal of where we should go, rather than the place that we are at.

But if we never talk about where to go, we will never go anywhere. In a changing world, that is the same as going backwards.

Going back to the aspirational "excessive progressive" Star Trek viewpoint, didn't Star Trek simply monitor and report on less progressive planetary cultures until they were ready?

Globalization and instantaneous communication of everything means there's no monitor and report, it means Star Fleet is here now.....ready or not, we're not asking.

We've seen free market technological innovation disrupt industries.

Now we're seeing it disrupt cultures.

I reckon the blowback is going to be epic.

Yep. It was a nice piece of fiction. They waited. In their universe, they had that choice.

We don't.

In this universe, a guy hiding in a cave in Pakistan can hit New York city, with nearly no military technology at all. And there is nothing at all that can eliminate, or in the long term, even prevent the rapid growth of, that kind of capability.

So we have no choice but to work on the motive instead.

Means, motive, and opportunity. Only one can be reduced in the long run. They will eventually have more means than they do today, advancing technology makes that inevitable. And no matter how much we try, as long as even communication exists across borders, there will be opportunities.

Will there also be vastly more with sufficient motive?

[Mega]

Re: Paris Attack

Am NOT the only one!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...sts-midst.html

Mike

[Mn_Mark]

Re: Paris Attack

You mean like this?


If your logic were indeed valid, the United States would not have a right to exist. Every single criterion you list applied to the native americans and their culture, just as much as it applies to your twisted and despicable vision of "American" culture now.

The one and only difference? Those natives were not militarily advanced enough to enforce their claim.

That's why what you are REALLY saying boils down to "might makes right." If we have the ability to replace a culture with our own, we are "right" to do so. (Since we already have, and since you wish to defend it, it is presumably "right".) Being deluded enough to treat your logic as valid implies that if others seek to do the same with us (colonize here) then whoever is stronger should win.

Since we are generally militarily stronger at the moment, that can work out just fine for us ... for a while.

Until someone figures out how to penetrate our walls with their culture.

That's 9/11. And other similar attacks worldwide since then.

But by your logic, things like that have to happen, don't they? To find out which culture deserves to exist in a space. After all, "we will not let other peoples occupy or settle our land" is an idea that requires testing of the word "let" to establish the "right" to settle. That's how we won the right to exist here. Shows of force.

So we'd get a state of constant war between all cultures, each grabbing whatever land they can from any others, whenever they think they can do so. And being fully justified in practicing whatever shows of force they wish whenever they can't take land outright. (If might makes right, and all cultures are in an eternal war for dominance and space, then each culture has to do what it takes to assert itself, if only in self-defense.)

This is the inevitable and ultimate consequence of your repugnant excuse for ethics. Eternal terrorism, for everyone in the world.

Are you really stupid enough to believe that this is not only a war that can be won, but also a war that we should be eager to make happen? That this is the best way for a world to work, the best way to resolve cultural differences?

Some may well like that idea. I'd say it sounds like an incredibly inane desire. That such a miserable excuse for morality is itself the enemy, and the fact that a few islamic nuts believe exactly the same logic IS ITSELF THE PROBLEM. In other words, though you may not yet have examined it closely enough to realize it, you are espousing precisely the same core idiocy that all terrorists do.


I cannot imagine that an iTulip reader could be so incredibly stupid, and so I choose to believe that you haven't thought your drivel through fully enough to understand its inescapable logical consequences.

Ignoring the insults, you raise some great points that I think really get towards the heart of the issues here.

Maybe the most basic principle we're supposed to follow on this forum is to discuss not how things should be, but how they are. "Is", not "Ought".

I contend that the world really does operate according to "might makes right." And you ignore that at your civilization's peril.

You are outraged by such an idea because you are operating from an "ought" perspective. The world "ought" not be like that, and you are outraged that someone is suggesting our nation behave accordingly.

You want humanity to come together and mutually agree never to operate according to "might makes right". To never invade another, weaker, people's land and take it. That's a nice idea, and I am in favor of our (American/Western) people operating according to that principle going forward and leaving Africa to the Africans, Latin America to the Latinos, etc. And leaving Muslim lands to the Muslims.

But I also am a realist and recognize that whether *we* think everyone should leave everyone else alone, there are people and ideologies in the world that have no interest in doing so. Islam is an ideology that commands its adherents to conquer the world for Allah.

It seems to me common sense not to allow people who think like that to settle in your people's lands. But to starry-eyed, well-meaning progressive universalists, it's not a matter of common sense - it's a matter of immorality, practically of evil, to think of some other group of people in the world as different and incompatible with our people. If your highest moral principle is universal human equality, then it is a violation of that highest moral principle to suggest that there are people who are not equal, not compatible. And people get really mad and start flinging insults or trying to get you fired from your job or otherwise punish you for the sin of violating their highest moral value.

I think universal human equality is a nice idea but it's not the way the world actually is. All the various human groups are not equal.

The best possible solution I can see is every significant identity group has its own country and we all try to mutually agree not to conquer one another's countries. I'd like to see a world with hundreds of small countries, one for every significant identity group in the world. That would be REAL diversity. That would give a real chance for world peace, because conflict almost always occurs within countries between identity groups competing for control.

I am also realistic enough to recognize that there is a built-in imperative into all forms of life, including humans, to reproduce and acquire new and better resources. And that means eventually taking someone else's resources one way or another, whether through conquest or by outcompeting them and buying them out. We can voluntarily forgo the conquest that we (up to now, anyway) have been fully capable of carrying out, but we would be idiots to assume that other peoples in the world won't take our land and resources if they see a way to do it.

You are wrong when you say my ideology is the same as the jihadists. I am not recommending conquering anyone else. I am saying we should not allow ourselves to be conquered. But for a progressive universalist like you, it appears that saying we should not allow ourselves to be conquered is a stupid, insane, evil idea...because to you, it is stupid and insane and evil to suggest that all human identity groups are not universally equal and all equally interested in peace and love and getting along.

To my mind, what's really stupid and insane is not judging a group like Muslims by their track record, by the words of their holy book and prophet, and allowing them into our countries in any significant numbers at all. There is no reason they can't stay in their own lands and, if the mass of them are unhappy with how their countries are run and want them to be more like the West, they can change their own countries. Let THEM struggle with Islam, let THEM reform Islam and make it "modern". There is no obligation, moral or otherwise, that we take the risk of losing our own civilization (and we've already lost thousands of our people, murdered and maimed, to Muslim attacks) in order to provide a space for Muslims to get away from their own civilization. The dissatisfied ones are the very ones who should stay there and change their primitive society.

[jpetr48]

Re: Paris Attack

i didn't say i had one. i just said yours was wrong. i think any "solution" will likely be as complex as the problem: i.e. very.

your solution reminded me of a christian "solution" to the albegensian heresy. when the catholic forces finally conquered the last hold out city, beziers, the bishop ordered the military commander to kill all the cathars. the population of beziers was mixed, however. some residents were loyal catholics, some cathars. when the bishop was asked how to tell one from the other, he replied: "kill them all. the lord will know his own." 20,000 people were executed, men, women and children.

simple, huh?

very surprising to see some as learned as you confuse Christianity and the early church which was a composite society with Roman Catholicism.
in the year 250 Origen church father suggests that entire Roman Empire unite to one true God ( this is not Christianity)
In 325 Constatine then hand picked Christianity as his religion and that all have one God and require infant baptisms (this is not Christianity - no infant baptism)
Here is where church and state became one through rites, practices as infant baptism and the formation of Catholic religion occurred. To indoctrinate every one under the emperor's religion pagan practices were instituted. This is start of Christendom and the end of Christianity (new testament church)

Today Christians acknowledge and want separation of church and state and that man has free will to choose who he wants to worship without a government edict. History may not repeat exactly but it does rhyme.

[Master Shake]

Re: Paris Attack

Well stated.

[lektrode]

Re: Paris Attack

Well stated.

+2

[lektrode]

Re: Paris Attack

.....

We've seen free market technological innovation disrupt industries.

Now we're seeing it disrupt cultures.

I reckon the blowback is going to be epic.

Yep. It was a nice piece of fiction. They waited. In their universe, they had that choice.

We don't.

In this universe, a guy hiding in a cave in Pakistan can hit New York city, with nearly no military technology at all. And there is nothing at all that can eliminate, or in the long term, even prevent the rapid growth of, that kind of capability.

So we have no choice but to work on the motive instead.

Means, motive, and opportunity. Only one can be reduced in the long run. They will eventually have more means than they do today, advancing technology makes that inevitable. And no matter how much we try, as long as even communication exists across borders, there will be opportunities.

Will there also be vastly more with sufficient motive?

therein lies the question, Mr A.

but my question to that one is: HOW do we in the west even begin to discuss this stuff with people who STILL live in the dark ages - people who strap bombs on themselves and go into public places and blow themselves up, along with as many non-combatants (women&children) as possible?

but while 'starfleet' could translate and understand klingon, the islamics flatly refuse to even listen to reason -

and the evidence of that is how they train THEIR OWN CHILDREN to blow themselves up in the name of jihad?

i always find it somewhat amusing how some of us apparently 'live in such abundance' that they dont see the 'culture' that has been surrounding us with a clear, present & growing danger

[Raz]

Re: Paris Attack

very surprising to see some as learned as you confuse Christianity and the early church which was a composite society with Roman Catholicism.
in the year 250 Origen church father suggests that entire Roman Empire unite to one true God ( this is not Christianity)
In 325 Constatine then hand picked Christianity as his religion and that all have one God and require infant baptisms (this is not Christianity - no infant baptism)
Here is where church and state became one through rites, practices as infant baptism and the formation of Catholic religion occurred. To indoctrinate every one under the emperor's religion pagan practices were instituted. This is start of Christendom and the end of Christianity (new testament church)

Today Christians acknowledge and want separation of church and state and that man has free will to choose who he wants to worship without a government edict. History may not repeat exactly but it does rhyme.

Please read.

http://www.antiochian.org/content/in...hurch-believes

[vt]

Re: Paris Attack

http://apnews.myway.com/article/2015...4f24c654f.html

[Techdread]

Re: Paris Attack

Your are correct, but miss the point that Chrisians today no longer behave the way they did centuries ago. They grew and evolved. Islamic fundamentalists are still practicing the barbarism that Christians practiced centuries ago and they want to force the rest of the world to live that way, too.

Very unfair, We had a war not too long ago where the Christians sent Muslim boys and men to concentration camps and killed them.
Also we have a big state sponsored Army that kills in the name of freedom, I'm sure the people of Iraq are not happy with the state we left their country in.

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Paris Attack

the "free speech" argument may be more complicated than you think.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]5564[/ATTACH]

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/...essed_20150111

[don]

Re: Paris Attack

"Things Just Happen"
by MICKEY Z

“For some people, war is terror, disaster, and death. For others, it’s a PR problem”

- Norman Solomon

All it would take is a casual glance at social media to agitate anyone with even a hint of contextual knowledge. Current events — events that repress, oppress, and kill by design — are viewed in a guilt-free vacuum. Each sensationalist episode is portrayed as discrete, garners a few insipid memes and hashtags, and then boom: we’re being spoon-fed the next set of lies.

News Flash #1: From the perpetual international interventions to the wars being waged on our streets by unaccountable, militarized law enforcement agents, it’s all connected.

News Flash #2: It’s our job to draw those connections and spread the word.

Please read on for small sampling of how we’re consciously and relentlessly manipulated.

“Selling our policy”

The use of public relations (PR) during wartime went truly public during the first Gulf War — with television as its ultimate smart bomb. Speaking in 1991, Richard Hass of the National Security Council, called television “our chief tool in selling our policy.”

After being invaded by Iraq on Aug. 2, 1990, the government of Kuwait funded as many as 20 PR, law, and lobby firms to marshal world opinion. For example: a 15-year-old Kuwaiti “refugee” named Nayirah stood before the U.S. Congressional Human Rights Caucus. She tearfully described witnessing Iraqi troops stealing incubators from a hospital, leaving 312 babies “on the cold floor to die.”

The story was a hoax. Nayirah’s false testimony was part of a $10 million Kuwait government propaganda campaign managed by the public relations firm Hill and Knowlton. Rather than working as a volunteer at a hospital, Nayirah was actually the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to Washington.

“We didn’t know it wasn’t true at the time,” said Brent Scowcroft, President George H.W. Bush’s national security adviser. But, he admitted, “It was useful in mobilizing public opinion.”

One of the firms hired by Kuwait, The Rendon Group, was called on once again after America’s post-9/11 assault on Afghanistan. In order to make itself look good while bombing Afghanistan, the Pentagon offered Rendon a four-month deal worth $397,000.

“We needed a firm that could provide strategic counsel immediately,” Lt. Col. Kenneth McClellan, a media officer at the Pentagon, said. “We were interested in someone that we knew could come in quickly and help us orient to the challenge of communicating to a wide range of groups around the world.”

“Things just happen”

In the battle for the hearts and minds of American TV couch potatoes, Rendon got plenty of help from the major networks. CNN Chair Walter Isaacson ordered his reporters to downplay casualties from the U.S. bombing of Afghanistan:

“It seems perverse to focus too much on the casualties or hardship in Afghanistan,” Isaacson wrote as Operation Enduring Freedom (sic) commenced. “We must talk about how the Taliban are using civilian shields and how the Taliban have harbored the terrorists responsible for killing close to 5,000 innocent people.”

The media and their many related tentacles are not designed to expose connections. As Alternative Radio founder and director, David Barsamian explains: “There’s no context for actions, there’s no background; there’s no history. Things just happen.”

Context. Background. History. These are our weapons in the battle to defend independent thinking. As events spin in and out of news feeds, if we do not find a way to put them into proper perspective, we become willing participants in the global carnage.

If you’re privileged enough to be reading this article, you’re also privileged enough to do the crucial work of self-education.

[don]

Re: Paris Attack

IN SOLIDARITY WITH A FREE PRESS: SOME MORE BLASPHEMOUS CARTOONS

BY GLENN GREENWALD

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/01/09/solidarity-charlie-hebdo-cartoons/