Are we all terrorists?

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by nanovate, Feb 9, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. nanovate

    Thread Starter Distinguished Member

    May 7, 2007
    665
    1
  2. Papabravo

    Expert

    Feb 24, 2006
    10,140
    1,789
    If they lock us all up who will make their cool spy toys and other instruments of oppression?
     
  3. beenthere

    Retired Moderator

    Apr 20, 2004
    15,815
    282
    Deeply suspect because we mess with things nobody else understands of course, but the terrorist tag sounds like the authors are crypto-Luddites.

    The paper was no doubt produced on a computer using word processing software, both products of EE's. In effect - "we are only too willing to benefit from their labors, but think they should be under heavy surveilance just in case".

    Horse pucky.
     
  4. lightingman

    Senior Member

    Apr 19, 2007
    374
    22
    It's funny that this has come about....I was sitting in my workshop the other night, building up some ni-cad battery packs and noticed that they looked like bombs.... if the police had stormed in, I would have had a problem explaining it away as they sat there along with the small PCB containing a microcontroler (that looked like some sort of timer) but was actualy the inteligent battery monitor PCB....Whilst on the subject, I personaly find it sad that with all the technology and all the fantastic things we have these days, we just can't live together and enjoy it instead of the whole world fighting eachother...If I am out of place here, then so be it..... I find all this political correctness a load of old crap.... I run a large business and there is no political correctness here. We all work together, whatever religion, race or beliefs... we all laugh, take the piss out of each other and love each others company.... I and my pratner (sister) have never had to dissipline anyone. No one is monitored or timed in and out.... The staff come and go as they please, some even come in on their day off because they enjoy being here and the quality of service that they give us is the best ever.... they are just the greatest bunch you could ever meet, and if enyone came in and spoiled that, they would be out with a boot up the backside who or whatever they were..... Terrorism, Hatred and aggression should not be tolerated in any way or form but we need to retain our wonderfull sense of humour and be able to laugh at oneself and others without fear of reprisal......There I have said my bit.... Daniel.
     
  5. FredM

    Senior Member

    Dec 27, 2005
    124
    1
    You are "out of place" - Your description of the way you and your employees relate does not comply with convention.. The reason is probably that you trust and respect others... Trust and respect are rare, and hated by those who want to impose their dictates and dogma on the world - The REAL terrorists do not want people to get on with each other - they want people grouped by ethnicity and religeon - then they can stirr up trouble by creating bogus 'events' which can be blamed on one of the classified groups - Extremists in these groups play along with this scheme - the extremists, even though they alledgedly have completely opposite objectives, are in fact all partners and in reality on the "same side" - They need each other to ferment distrust, fear, hatred and war..
    People respecting each other, trusting each other, and living in harmony with each other, is the REAL FEAR of ALL TERRORISTS - Whether these terrorists reside in the White House or in a training camp.
     
  6. chesart1

    Senior Member

    Jan 23, 2006
    269
    1
    FredM

    I think you misinterpret the intention of the terrorists. These people have radical Islamic beliefs that are contrary to western lifestyles. Islamic teachings are not confined to practices and worship. Islamic religion also specifies laws that an Islamic government enforces. The Sharia is the book of law that Islamic nations follow. Here is an article about the Sharia:

    Islam: Governing Under Sharia - Council on Foreign Relations

    The terrorists want an Islamic world.

    John
     
  7. Papabravo

    Expert

    Feb 24, 2006
    10,140
    1,789
    Don't know about y'all FredM but I mean to survive come what may.
     
  8. lightingman

    Senior Member

    Apr 19, 2007
    374
    22
    Hi again....If a person is invited into your home, they would be expected to respect your house rules/wishes I.E. not smoking, taking ones shoes off and not swearing (the list goes on).... As a law abiding person, if I were to decide to settle in another part of the world, I would respect their culture, uphold the law, keep my religious beleifs to myself and just settle in to be part of the comunity (as I know the larger percentage of people here do).....It is just the few that feel they are special and spoil it for everyone else.....No one is special, we are all made of the same stuff, breathe the same air and need the same basic things to enable us to live....I have friends of all skin types, from all differend backgrounds and of different religious beliefs. And all of them are wonderful people....Daniel.
     
  9. thingmaker3

    Retired Moderator

    May 16, 2005
    5,072
    6
    I humbly submit that Lightingman is not "out of place" at all. He and his companions set the example we should all strive to follow. It is the disgruntled who are "out of place."
     
  10. FredM

    Senior Member

    Dec 27, 2005
    124
    1
    So what? - These sentiments are shared and expressed by many, and they COUNT FOR DIDDLY XXXX when the brakes lock and you slide towards the big truck..
    We ALL want to survive - And we all want to feel safe - And EVERYONE except the Terrorists want an end to terror.. and this INCLUDES MUSLIMS!

    And if YOU were a Muslim reading postings here as inflamatory as the one above that I have objected to, and You saw that this was not removed, and that NO OTHER PERSON found this offensive .. You might just start to believe that the extremists in your mosque might just be right..

    For me, I am sick of the offensive and paranoid and insulting and stupid postings I see here, and shocked by the lack of responsible moderation - I wont be coming back to these boards again.
     
  11. Papabravo

    Expert

    Feb 24, 2006
    10,140
    1,789
    OK fine. I happen to think that censorship is the greater of two evils compared to intolerance. Without the rough and tumble of vigorous debate it is impossible to focus the bright light of day on the things we find objectionable. That everyone should have a valid opinion is fine by me.
     
  12. beenthere

    Retired Moderator

    Apr 20, 2004
    15,815
    282
    Bye FredM.

    The moderators did a reasonable job allowing postings they likely did not agree with, and even felt quite negative about. It sounds as if the complaint above comes form the OP having to see opinions he did not agree with/felt threatened by.

    FredM's problems belong to FredM, and not to this board. Anyone threatened by a differing opinion should stay away a place he/she might see something threatening.

    There is a simple principle operating on this board - Don't post things that are offensive. And, don't be too easily offended. Further, if you can't say anything nice, then don't post it.
     
  13. FredM

    Senior Member

    Dec 27, 2005
    124
    1
    Please remove me from membership of AAC. I cannot and will not be party to any collective which allows posting deliberately inciting hatred against a group - "Muslim skeletons" is such an incitement.
     
  14. Dave

    Retired Moderator

    Nov 17, 2003
    6,960
    144
    Ok, maybe this is why forums censor some discussions.

    Firstly, I will make it clear that as the active Admin I wish to take the higher ground here and stay impartial, that way I can comment appropriately and in the best and widest interests of the members here.

    Secondly, I wish to give all forum members party to this discussion/topic a fair chance to be clear about what they are saying such that a discussion (if one still exists) can continue. We support no stance on this topic and this will remain the case.

    Now, I have received a few complaints about the original quote by mrmeval. Rather than jumping the gun and claiming I understand what is being implicated I feel it best (for both themselves and this discussion) if the member responsible could clarify their comments. I have been moderating these forums long enough to understand that what is being written is often not is what is implied, none more so when there is an attempt at written humour (if indeed that was the case). That said, what being said has to be appropriate for a public forum, whether humour is the attempt or not.

    In light of this, if I deem the comment inappropriate I will remove it.

    Furthermore, if FredM (or anyone else) wishes to do so, I will be happy to hear your reasons for why this is inappropriate.

    If need be, anyone can take this to PM with me.

    Dave
     
  15. Papabravo

    Expert

    Feb 24, 2006
    10,140
    1,789
    I believe that there is a serious discussion here and the technology we are interested in plays a part. Here is my interpretation of the serious point. The premise of asymetrical warfare is that you can strike your opponent in a limited way and neutralize his strength because he is afraid to use all of the weapons at his disposal. If this is in fact the case then it is a dangerous game. All it would take to invalidate the premise is for enough people to decide that the unthinkable use of nuclear weapons as an incredibly blunt instrument of national policy is justified.

    I can assure that in such a case the "skeletons in glass" would not be limited to the people of a particular faith. From the end of World War II in 1945 until the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) worked precisely because the Russians from Stalin to Gorbachev were, in point of fact, NOT madmen willing to risk the survival of their populations. In the same way that presidents from Truman to Reagan were also unwilling to run that risk.

    We now have a situation in which a set of actors not affiliated with any state has declared unilateral war. There are no cities, factories , and populations that can be justifiably threatened and targeted. In fact the downfall of many regimes currently in power would be just fine with them. In frustration when a suitable number of people can no longer live with the threat it will be eliminated by whatever means necessary. This would include those means for which there is no moral justification except the survival of "us" and the elimination of "them". That is the fundamental tenent of survival, and this argument works both ways. If an Islamic bomb can be developed and fabricated then I have no doubt that it will be used. I assume that the outraged members would be equally outraged at the notion of any "skeletons in glass".
     
  16. beenthere

    Retired Moderator

    Apr 20, 2004
    15,815
    282
    This thread drifted away from the paper referred to in the opening post (I am guilty, too). Part of it is that it seems to be a sociology paper, and I spent too many hours in classrooms studying Soc to have any respect for it.

    The question it seeks to answer is: why are engineers so well-represented in the ranks of jehadis worldwide? The underlying assumption is that someone who is better educated should be more interested in improving things than destroying things. That assumption sounds more than reasonable to me, but my perceptions are colored by having been raised in an affluent Western country.

    It may be that the level of education is more like training for the engineering degree, and lacks so many of the"traditional" Western liberal arts elements that they have no better way to react to exposure to an outside way of life than by violence. That sounds cheesy even as I bang it out.

    The scary part is if the propensity to suicidal violence is somehow "built-in" to Islam. Religiously "spring-loaded to the pissed-off position", so to speak. If peace and mutual respect cannot be attained between Islam (assuming there is such a monolithic entity) and other religions/ways of life, then one is forced to agree with the us-or-them modality. If someone asserts (as bin Laden has) that I have no right to exist, I see no reason to roll over and die.
     
  17. Papabravo

    Expert

    Feb 24, 2006
    10,140
    1,789
    The deus ex machina aspect of the technical education without the balance of a liberal arts context can lead to sterile patterns of thought where it is impossible to recognize the humanity of others. The primacy of the individual in Western thought leads to a respect for the humanity of all. In a culture that relegates the importance of the individual to a secondary status: to the state or the priesthood, it is easy to see how a lack of regard for their own members leads to the same devaluation of the humanity of others.

    I have a long list of cultures that I believe are inferior simply based on the way they treat their own people.
     
  18. thingmaker3

    Retired Moderator

    May 16, 2005
    5,072
    6
    I have not yet had the time to peruse the full paper presented in NanoVate's opening post. I am intrigued by what little I was able to read, but cannot yet comment on the full content. I do look forward to having the time to read the treatise this weekend.

    Regarding comments by Lightingman and Papabravo, I applaud them.

    Regarding the free expression of opinion in a responsible manner, I can only say that offense is often in the eye of the beholder. If indeed the comment had been "Jewish skeletons" or "Christian skeletons" then Jews or Christians might well have been expeceted to take offense. Similarly, those persons sensitive or empathic to Jewish or Christian positions or philosophy might have taken offense. Peaceniks opposed to nuclear violence would also be expected to take offense. Whether offense was intended remains to be seen, as Dave has noted.

    I am neither Christian nor Muslim nor Jew nor Atheist. Shoot, I'm not even an engineer or a terrorist. Maybe that's why I see no offense here. If anyone takes offense at my position (an offense perceived rather than intended) they are welcome to comment.

    The proverb "Nuke 'em all and let God sort 'em out" has long been American dark humor. MrMeval is presumably American, so I'll grant him the benefit of doubt for now.
     
  19. Dave

    Retired Moderator

    Nov 17, 2003
    6,960
    144
    In the interests of civility and allowing the original topic outlined in the OP to continue to be discussed outside of the shadow of this sub-topic that has developed, I have removed the extraneous posts until I have confirmation from mrmeval about the implication of his comment.

    Several people have voiced a concern over the comment (publicly and privately), and I feel it best in the interests of all involved, including the AAC forums, that is sub-topic be removed until the appropriateness is clarified. My initial post in this thread still stands, and I would appreciate those concerned to put forward a case if they so wish.

    The posts are not deleted, they are merely removed from public view until further notice. I have solely taken this decision in the interests of AAC.

    People are free to discuss this topic and express personal opinions, but the rule of being responsible still applies.

    Anyone can feel free to contact me via PM to discuss this further if need be.

    Dave
     
  20. Papabravo

    Expert

    Feb 24, 2006
    10,140
    1,789
    Let us examine another weakness in the original paper. Among social scientists there is an all too common temptation to mistake correlation for cause and effect. Just because two events are correllated does not mean there is any cause and effect relationship. In fairness I have not finished reading the complete paper and I cannot say if the authors have dealt with this matter. It seems unlikely given the abstact and initial sections.

    We all know that there are lies, damned lies, and statistics.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.