Solution for terrorism
-
I believe the root cause lies in the concept called religion. World would be a better place if we all snub religion and just believe in God, give him any name you like. "It doesn't matter by what name we call a rose, it would smell as sweet"
-Suhredayan
suhredayan wrote:
"It doesn't matter by what name we call a rose, it would smell as sweet"
Ahem: What's in a name? that which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet; Shakespeare sounds best in the original Klingon, of course, but that's the original English. ;)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Terrorism is caused by poverty and injustice. Right
No, poverty and injustice create the situations in which terrorism can be created. It's not a direct link, or all poor people would be terrorists. But, rich people, or even people with a hope for the future, are harder to convince to blow themselves up.
Stan Shannon wrote:
But poverty and injustice has nothing at all to do with the global economy?
Not sure how the economy came into it. The people targetted for terrorism are usually people who are being oppressed themselves and want to fight back, not just people who live in a trailer park and don't work.
Stan Shannon wrote:
If so, what do you suggest we do about poverty and injustice? How do we resolve the issue?
Well, withdrawing us support for Israel until they stop oppressing their neighbours would be a place to start. But, I was not suggesting that it's your fault personally, or that there's much you can hope to do.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
Christian Graus wrote:
withdrawing us support for Israel until they stop oppressing their neighbours would be a place to start
OK, what is Israel doing to oppress their neighbors? You have an argument for them oppressing 'palestinian' Arabs inside the 67 borders, or maybe even those Arabs who are being held in internment camps by the Syrian, Jordanian and Lebanese governments (and the UN). But how are Egyptians being oppressed by the Israelis? The Egyptian government, yes, but how by the Israelis? Or, for that matter, what about the Lebanese, Syrians or Jordanians (you know, the country most of Palestine belonged to before Israel took it over)? It looks like most of the oppression is being done by their own governments, who are using Israel as an excuse to do the oppression.
Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.
-
Rob Graham wrote:
This was his justification of the 911 attacks and later the Madrid and London attacks.
But are you sure you want to find yourself in agreement with Osama - or even worse, with Stan?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
I don't think I have a choice. What I might prefer isn't an available option. It isn't a matter of agreement or disagreement, but rather one of recognition.
-
I believe the root cause lies in the concept called religion. World would be a better place if we all snub religion and just believe in God, give him any name you like. "It doesn't matter by what name we call a rose, it would smell as sweet"
-Suhredayan
What of those in this world, and I presume there are millions, who do not believe, and refuse to believe in any God. So a rose may cause them ill health either through the smell or through the thorns. So what then if only a singular God is to be believed in. Persecute those that refuse to believe. Persecution was tried by the various religions in their respective histories. And persecution is another form of terror(ism).
-
So what you're saying that if they fight using capitalism, say raising oil prices to screw the US economy, then that's okay, otherwise it's a no-no? Of course we know that's also not true. All countries fight for their interests using whatever means possible. The total number of Muslim fundamentalists compared to those that aren't is astronomically small. The number of poor compared to filthy rich princes and oil sheiks is astronomically high. Money is the issue. And if they were to all get rich such that the US becomes a third-world nation in comparison (through legal means), you can bet the US and anyone else will bomb the shit out of them. Nobody likes being poor. Poverty, combined with no education, hunger, and mental instability caused by years of oppression and depression can cause people to do crazy things. If a woman is willing to drown her kids because "God" told her so, a few hundred people, who's relatives have been killed, can be convinced to blow themselves up. People are always looking to find out who does these things, but never why. The why is unacceptable to people like you who like the status quo as it is. What the f*** is wrong with sharing and working to better all of mankind? Then we can focus our efforts on mankind advancement instead of which fucking OS or programming language is better. Why give a shit?
Unfortunately, killing the rich will not make the poor wealthy, nor even not poor. Divide the total income of the world by it's population, and the result is a sub-poverty income for all. What is required, sadly, is either a very unlikely economic miracle that results in far more total wealth, or far fewer people. I leave it to you to guess which one is more likely to happen in the next few generations.
-
What of those in this world, and I presume there are millions, who do not believe, and refuse to believe in any God. So a rose may cause them ill health either through the smell or through the thorns. So what then if only a singular God is to be believed in. Persecute those that refuse to believe. Persecution was tried by the various religions in their respective histories. And persecution is another form of terror(ism).
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
What of those in this world, and I presume there are millions, who do not believe, and refuse to believe in any God.
Sounds like a pretty demanding religion. Maybe it should be what he calls "snubbed," too?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
I don't think I have a choice. What I might prefer isn't an available option. It isn't a matter of agreement or disagreement, but rather one of recognition.
Rob Graham wrote:
What I might prefer isn't an available option.
I prefer to take responsibility for my own actions. When Osama - or Stan if he ever gets any power - stops hiding behind "my victims drove me to do it," then they will have earned the right to walk on their hind legs.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Unfortunately, killing the rich will not make the poor wealthy, nor even not poor. Divide the total income of the world by it's population, and the result is a sub-poverty income for all. What is required, sadly, is either a very unlikely economic miracle that results in far more total wealth, or far fewer people. I leave it to you to guess which one is more likely to happen in the next few generations.
Rob Graham wrote:
Unfortunately, killing the rich will not make the poor wealthy, nor even not poor.
I never said that is needed, and don't agree with that.
Rob Graham wrote:
Divide the total income of the world by it's population, and the result is a sub-poverty income for all.
True, and the average number of hands or feet per person is less than two by the same logic. :)
Rob Graham wrote:
What is required, sadly, is either a very unlikely economic miracle that results in far more total wealth, or far fewer people. I leave it to you to guess which one is more likely to happen in the next few generations.
I agree with you on this. I've always wondered if maybe some sort of capital caste system is required. Then you can be richer than others, but not so rich that you're richer than 90% of the world population. I really have no answers. However, the status quo is off IMO. Just because it is what it is and people are used to it, it doesn't mean that any other way is wrong or wouldn't work. Those who are benefiting from it right now are probably the most likely to fight against change. However, if a different capital system got implemented correctly, a few generations from now, the people of that generation will claim that it is the perfect system yet again, even if another change is necessary with the times.
-
Rob Graham wrote:
Unfortunately, killing the rich will not make the poor wealthy, nor even not poor.
I never said that is needed, and don't agree with that.
Rob Graham wrote:
Divide the total income of the world by it's population, and the result is a sub-poverty income for all.
True, and the average number of hands or feet per person is less than two by the same logic. :)
Rob Graham wrote:
What is required, sadly, is either a very unlikely economic miracle that results in far more total wealth, or far fewer people. I leave it to you to guess which one is more likely to happen in the next few generations.
I agree with you on this. I've always wondered if maybe some sort of capital caste system is required. Then you can be richer than others, but not so rich that you're richer than 90% of the world population. I really have no answers. However, the status quo is off IMO. Just because it is what it is and people are used to it, it doesn't mean that any other way is wrong or wouldn't work. Those who are benefiting from it right now are probably the most likely to fight against change. However, if a different capital system got implemented correctly, a few generations from now, the people of that generation will claim that it is the perfect system yet again, even if another change is necessary with the times.
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
Then you can be richer than others, but not so rich that you're richer than 90% of the world population.
Mathematical impossibility. As soon as you allow for even a little random variation you end up with 1% of the population being richer than 99% of the population. Or 10% who are richer than the remaining 90%. I don't believe that there is a perfect system, not in a world with limited resources.
-
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
Then you can be richer than others, but not so rich that you're richer than 90% of the world population.
Mathematical impossibility. As soon as you allow for even a little random variation you end up with 1% of the population being richer than 99% of the population. Or 10% who are richer than the remaining 90%. I don't believe that there is a perfect system, not in a world with limited resources.
-
Most of the "neo-arabism" thats happening now, my generation, does not believe in these borders imposed since colonial times, namely Great Britain and France. We're all Arabs. Period. However, because of the current borders, there is a distinction between Palestinians and Jordanians. The latter live in Jordan whilst the former are either in Israel/occupied lands/West Bank/Gaza/refugee camps all around the world/ got a second citizenship and are living abroad.
Don't forget to vote if the response was helpful
Sig history "dad" Ishmail-Samuel Mustafa Unix is a Four Letter Word, and Vi is a Two Letter Abbreviation "There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance" Ali Ibn Abi Talib
Mustafa Ismail Mustafa wrote:
Most of the "neo-arabism" thats happening now, my generation, does not believe in these borders imposed since colonial times, namely Great Britain and France. We're all Arabs. Period.
Persia, Iraq, Syria, Palestine, Algeria, and Egypt were all separate countries with defined borders and their own languages, each ruled by the Ottoman Empire until taken away from them by the Allies after Turkey was defeated in WWI. Saudi Arabia was a series of principalities nominally under Ottoman control until Ibn Saud created it by conquest. The name refers back to two prior states both also named Saudi and rules by the same royal family. The Brits really had very little to do with it, except cheer him on during WWI. the Syrian Social Nationalist Party (Now where have I heard those concept put together to create a political party's name before?), claims that Syria, Lebanon the Sinai, Iraq, Kuwait and Cyprus all form "greater Syria" and should be annexed. (Leaders of the other countries don't seem to welcome that idea.) However, not even they suggest that Iran is part of Greater Syria and they seem content to ignore the southern 2/3rd of Saudi Arabia. The Brits and French did indeed redraw some borders while dividing the spoils between them, usually with a straight edge on a map, for no better reason than it made things easier for them to write down who got what. Britain, it would appear, made a complete mess of the Palestine Mandate, including creating countries where none had existed, and then ducked out before the mandate was even officially ended.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
I am writing this with deep frustration. I was thinking about a possible solution for terrorism. But i have no clue. Like many here in India,I never had interest to connect terrorism with any religion. Terrorists are traitors of their religion. I guess it's been over 3 years since I started a thread here supporting adnan siddique which got carried away by the other CPians who were reular in soapbox.After that one year before there happened the train bombings in Mumbai which killed over 200 people. That time I realized Adnan's anger towads India. When everybody here in CP were expressing their condolence, adnan was trying to spread his hatred towards India . I stayed in office the whole night replying to his messages and threads(I remember Vikram Punathambekar also said the same thing as eply to one of his comment). He was creating multiple threads over different Indian political Issues. Now moving from adnan,we are in deep sorrow after the mumbai attack. Analyzing the pattern of the attack it is obvious that the terrorists were higly trained and there is obvious support from external forces. India is not saying Pak government directly send these militant. But militants based from Pakistan with the support of forces like al-quida or Dawood Ibrahim must be behind this. There are many evidences to prove this. Police had found the troller that is used by the terrorists totravel from karachi. There are many eyewitnesses who have seen terrorists coming out of the troller. And the whereabouts of the arrested terorrist is the bigger evidence. Now the biggest problem is pakistan is acting as if they have not seen these evidences and asking for evidence. It's clear that Pakistan itself is sufferring heavily by terrorism. It would have been welcomed by everyone, if pakistan showed it's support for a joint investigation. The early signs from Pakistan was encouraging when the Pak president agreed to send the ISI chief to New Delhi but he latter took a U-turn after a discussion with the army. Natuarally we will be sceptical about the pakistani civiian governments control over the army. if everybody is like adnan then how could we sove this issue. They will keep on asking evidences which is as clear as daylight. If the world did not control this monster of terrorism it will distroy many places including pakistan. And one could imagine the situation if it had been got into the hands of the terrorists since pakistan being a nuclear state. We have a feeling that majority of the people are peace loving and they love hu
I didn't expect to see my name here :) But I more or less ignore that asshat these days, and I am happier :)
Cheers, Vıkram.
Stand up to be seen. Speak up to be heard. Shut up to be appreciated.
-
Rob Graham wrote:
Unfortunately, killing the rich will not make the poor wealthy, nor even not poor.
I never said that is needed, and don't agree with that.
Rob Graham wrote:
Divide the total income of the world by it's population, and the result is a sub-poverty income for all.
True, and the average number of hands or feet per person is less than two by the same logic. :)
Rob Graham wrote:
What is required, sadly, is either a very unlikely economic miracle that results in far more total wealth, or far fewer people. I leave it to you to guess which one is more likely to happen in the next few generations.
I agree with you on this. I've always wondered if maybe some sort of capital caste system is required. Then you can be richer than others, but not so rich that you're richer than 90% of the world population. I really have no answers. However, the status quo is off IMO. Just because it is what it is and people are used to it, it doesn't mean that any other way is wrong or wouldn't work. Those who are benefiting from it right now are probably the most likely to fight against change. However, if a different capital system got implemented correctly, a few generations from now, the people of that generation will claim that it is the perfect system yet again, even if another change is necessary with the times.
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
agree with you on this. I've always wondered if maybe some sort of capital caste system is required. Then you can be richer than others, but not so rich that you're richer than 90% of the world population.
The irony is that capitalism is the only economic system capable of producing the greatest amount of wealth for the greatest number of people. If all the people of the world trully enjoyed economic liberty - the ability to earn as much as their efforts and abilities allowed with as little government confiscation of that wealth as possible - human civilization would enjoy an explosion of wealth that would dwarf everything that as come before. But that is precisely what the governments of the world are trying to avoid, economic liberty means true freedom and independence from government itself. That is something they will never freely give.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
So what you're saying that if they fight using capitalism, say raising oil prices to screw the US economy, then that's okay, otherwise it's a no-no? Of course we know that's also not true. All countries fight for their interests using whatever means possible. The total number of Muslim fundamentalists compared to those that aren't is astronomically small. The number of poor compared to filthy rich princes and oil sheiks is astronomically high. Money is the issue. And if they were to all get rich such that the US becomes a third-world nation in comparison (through legal means), you can bet the US and anyone else will bomb the shit out of them. Nobody likes being poor. Poverty, combined with no education, hunger, and mental instability caused by years of oppression and depression can cause people to do crazy things. If a woman is willing to drown her kids because "God" told her so, a few hundred people, who's relatives have been killed, can be convinced to blow themselves up. People are always looking to find out who does these things, but never why. The why is unacceptable to people like you who like the status quo as it is. What the f*** is wrong with sharing and working to better all of mankind? Then we can focus our efforts on mankind advancement instead of which fucking OS or programming language is better. Why give a shit?
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
All countries fight for their interests using whatever means possible. The total number of Muslim fundamentalists compared to those that aren't is astronomically small.
That cannot possibly be true. If it were, there would be no difficulty for muslim countries to control them.
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
The number of poor compared to filthy rich princes and oil sheiks is astronomically high.
No more than it is in dozens of other societies which do not produce such horrific terrorism.
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
Poverty, combined with no education, hunger, and mental instability caused by years of oppression and depression can cause people to do crazy things.
Especially if their society raises them to be insane in the first place.
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
What the f*** is wrong with sharing and working to better all of mankind?
Because some centralized authority has to be given the power to define and enforce what 'better' means.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Rob Graham wrote:
What I might prefer isn't an available option.
I prefer to take responsibility for my own actions. When Osama - or Stan if he ever gets any power - stops hiding behind "my victims drove me to do it," then they will have earned the right to walk on their hind legs.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
I prefer to take responsibility for my own actions.
Than why do you want the federal courts protecting you from any possibility that you might need to reach some kind of political compromise with your neighbors?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
I prefer to take responsibility for my own actions.
Than why do you want the federal courts protecting you from any possibility that you might need to reach some kind of political compromise with your neighbors?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Than why do you want the federal courts protecting you from any possibility that you might need to reach some kind of political compromise with your neighbors?
Are you drinking again, Stan? Don't you have to go to work in the morning?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
I didn't expect to see my name here :) But I more or less ignore that asshat these days, and I am happier :)
Cheers, Vıkram.
Stand up to be seen. Speak up to be heard. Shut up to be appreciated.
-
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
agree with you on this. I've always wondered if maybe some sort of capital caste system is required. Then you can be richer than others, but not so rich that you're richer than 90% of the world population.
The irony is that capitalism is the only economic system capable of producing the greatest amount of wealth for the greatest number of people. If all the people of the world trully enjoyed economic liberty - the ability to earn as much as their efforts and abilities allowed with as little government confiscation of that wealth as possible - human civilization would enjoy an explosion of wealth that would dwarf everything that as come before. But that is precisely what the governments of the world are trying to avoid, economic liberty means true freedom and independence from government itself. That is something they will never freely give.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The irony is that capitalism is the only economic system capable of producing the greatest amount of wealth for the greatest number of people.
Where's the proof on this? Have we exhausted every possible way of doing it? Also, are we only working for money, or to improve mankind? What is our goal in life? I always thought that every capital system was a zero-end game. You work for a buck and charge a hundred, then someone else will do the same and negate that. If they don't, then eventually your profit will be devalued (stock or revolution) when they realize it's biased to your advantage. I never understood the concept of everyone getting rich. Money is just a placeholder for services rendered. Eventually, you have to pay up the full amount.
-
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
agree with you on this. I've always wondered if maybe some sort of capital caste system is required. Then you can be richer than others, but not so rich that you're richer than 90% of the world population.
The irony is that capitalism is the only economic system capable of producing the greatest amount of wealth for the greatest number of people. If all the people of the world trully enjoyed economic liberty - the ability to earn as much as their efforts and abilities allowed with as little government confiscation of that wealth as possible - human civilization would enjoy an explosion of wealth that would dwarf everything that as come before. But that is precisely what the governments of the world are trying to avoid, economic liberty means true freedom and independence from government itself. That is something they will never freely give.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The irony is that capitalism is the only economic system capable of producing the greatest amount of wealth for the greatest number of people
There will be pie in the sky, bye and bye, don't you cry . . .
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
All countries fight for their interests using whatever means possible. The total number of Muslim fundamentalists compared to those that aren't is astronomically small.
That cannot possibly be true. If it were, there would be no difficulty for muslim countries to control them.
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
The number of poor compared to filthy rich princes and oil sheiks is astronomically high.
No more than it is in dozens of other societies which do not produce such horrific terrorism.
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
Poverty, combined with no education, hunger, and mental instability caused by years of oppression and depression can cause people to do crazy things.
Especially if their society raises them to be insane in the first place.
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
What the f*** is wrong with sharing and working to better all of mankind?
Because some centralized authority has to be given the power to define and enforce what 'better' means.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
If it were, there would be no difficulty for muslim countries to control them.
Would, not could. Do you call the cops every time your neighbors fight?
Stan Shannon wrote:
Especially if their society raises them to be insane in the first place.
I'm not playing the blame game here. Everyone sees things differently.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Because some centralized authority has to be given the power to define and enforce what 'better' means.
Usually, the less people complain or revolt, the better things are. But even a centralized authority, ideally, has to answer to the people. So that brings up my original question. What's wrong in working to better mankind?