Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum Define Terrorist

We also have to take into account who exactly the people are who talk most about terrorists and what their motives really are.

Without doubt, it are the Neo-Cons who talk most about terrorists. But they don't define it very clearly. They simply have a list of so-called ''terrorist'' countries they don't like. Whatever these countries do, it is never ok. They also have a list of friendly countries. They can do whatever they like it is always ok.

So, if a bomb explodes in Lebanon, then Syria is almost automatically blamed. Syria is a terrorist state so if something bad happenes they must be responsible, according to Neo-Con logic. If a Palestinian refugee camp is bombed by Israel, then Israel can count on the US to veto a resolution condemning this action. Israel is not a terrorist state so they cannot possibly do anything wrong, acording to Neo-Con logic.


What is most interesting is when countries change their staus. Iraq used to be on the states sponsors of terrorism lists (before 1980). Then Saddam invades Iran, and the US takes Iraq off this list. Relations between Iraq and the US improve. Saddam invades Kuwait and Iraq is put back on the list.

Count Iblis ... you are seeing things clearly. Terrorist is a label without meaning. Just like liberal, or conservative, or the one you used Neo-Con. They are words intended to inflame rather than clarify (not that I am saying that was your intent).

What is pathetic is that so many people take these fuzzy labels and use them to render opinions such as "tax and spend liberals" which we heard so much about. Funny that now with conservative Republicans controlling the White House and all of Congress, and with budgets higher than they ever were before ... we don't hear any complaining about government spending being out of control. Yep is was just a red herring that meant ... they control who gets the money and not us.

So it is with terrorism. We do effectively the same things they do ... of course we do it with 500 pound bombs and don't kill our pilots while they do it with volunteers shorter on brains than guts. But in both cases innocent people are killed.

The problems will stop when the average moron on the street gets it through his thick head that none of this benefits him and his family. He's just too stupid to say "Hell no we won't go" when called upon to support the label d'jour.

Come one guys stop this discussion.
You know you are not qualified enough to guage the difference between murder and suicide.
Those concepts do not relate to my science...
and what about yours?

dkv, many people are uncomfortable with such topics, and in very many cases, too many cases I would say, they refuse to address them. One of the excuses is that they are not competent to judge them, and that there are others, much more competent that cann address them (your argument). While such an approach is valid in physics, it's falacity is rather obvious in the social context of a democracy (social sciences). You elect your representatives, so you must judge them, their platforms and their actions, if indeed you are to uphold the underlying democratical principles you claim you adhere to.

Brushing such issues under the carpet will only undermine a democratic society, and its principles, to the point where the peoples themselves have to suffer the most. Which bring you to the issue of the average people's actions mentioned by D.A.Morgan, and others posting on this thread.

dvk you wrote: "You know you are not qualified enough to guage the difference between murder and suicide."

Sorry dvk you are absolutely correct. We should leave the definitions of these words to those paid to define them: Politicians and spin doctors.

You see dvk I didn't have a lobotomy. So I think I have as much right to define the word as they do: And I will until such time as their definitions come with clarity or pigs can fly whichever comes first.

that reply contained humour .. i dont know to which country you belong to but I feel you are affected by terrorism at least at psycological level...And your reply was a brave one...
I dont know what to write on this subject .. and I dont know who is write and who is wrong ...
But the innocent people must not die...they all have there own war to wage everyday...
I hope no one will over react to this .. like some people do.

I am not saying that I am not affected by terorrism, far from me to believe that. And I fully agree with you that innocent people, or more generally people should not in such idiotic acts, or in wars which are equally idiotic. But in order to prevent such occurrences, people need to be socially (and politically for that matter) knowledgeable, so they can prevent morons to gain power. Which latter trend is becomming more and more common lately. And I am not pointing the finger to one country in particular. There are several other countries in this situation, developed or not.
Only very, and I mean very seldom during the history it had happend that governments have avoided conflicts of one nature or another. Most often, they have either started conflicts, or had to take sides in some conflict that not always "swallowed" the coutry geographically or politically or economically.
And if one might find this understandable for the mentalities in the 1600's or so, it becomes rather sad that the same arguments (in slightly different forms) are used for the same reasons today. So much for learning from history/past experience.

The chances of you getting attacked is 1 in millions ... so why do you want powerful people to effect your lives in a way which reduces your freedom and offers false security...
The chances that someone will die because of heart attack is much more than due to terrorist attack...
If countries or people start over reacting then we know who won...
It must ignored and fundamental reasons needs to be resolved peacefully.
The fundamental solution involves mutual accpetance of the fact they do not fully understand each other as countires and communities ...and we need to discuss and allow osmosis of cultures..
Both parties must accpet that they both will have to change their undertanding of what they know(as their is always something new to know)..
Even the prophet failed to write every detail about the Universe...not becuase he didnt knew it but because he had not enough time to write it... thus every individual must discover new truths on his own...
Going back every time exclusively to science and religion will not help ...They both describe the truth in a self enclosed way ... nothing from outside can validate it...or prove it right or wrong...
Reality uses reality to verify..
Maths uses maths to verify...
Religion uses religion to verify ...
Therfore discuss more often ...and share more often and share it like christ.

dkv:"The chances of you getting attacked is 1 in millions ... so why do you want powerful people to effect your lives in a way which reduces your freedom and offers false security..."

My point exactly. With the only difference that I am also affected when someone is attacked, for the very obvious reasons.

dkv: "The chances that someone will die because of heart attack is much more than due to terrorist attack..."

And yet there is a major imbalance for the funding alotted to medical research of heart diseases and the funding alotted to, let's call it euphemistically "defensive measures". Care to think about why?

dkv: "If countries or people start over reacting then we know who won.It must ignored and fundamental reasons needs to be resolved peacefully."

Sure, you are perfectly right, except the ignorance fact. It must be acknowledged, and as you say, the fundamental reasons need to be addressed and solved peacefully. But are you aware what your solution involves? Do you think for example, that the oil companies will find your reasons and arguments compelling?

dkv: "The fundamental solution involves mutual accpetance of the fact they do not fully understand each other as countries and communities. And we need to discuss and allow osmosis of cultures."

Involves mutual acceptance, yes. That countries do not understand each other and communities do not understand each other, that is just an excuse. they can understand each other if they so desire. What lacks is the effort in such directions. Afterall, you have a power structure in each corner of the world, and a hierarchy of such powe structures at the international level.

dkv: "Both parties must accpet that they both will have to change their undertanding of what they know(as their is always something new to know)."

This would have solved the Christian/Muslim/Jewish issues even before the crusades, and yet itt did not happen. Why do you think this is?

dkv: "Even the prophet failed to write every detail about the Universe.Not becuase he didnt knew it but because he had not enough time to write it. Thus every individual must discover new truths on his own."

And all is fine until they replace their holy books with the grean abridged version stating "In God we trust" or similar verses/pictures. Which would explain whay there actually were so few prophets....

dkv: "Going back every time exclusively to science and religion will not help.They both describe the truth in a self enclosed way.Nothing from outside can validate it.Or prove it right or wrong."

I have very seldom seen people going back to science to solve conflicts. I have seen, unfortunately, science being used to provide means for a conflict to develop, or to end.

With religion, though, at least the way it is applied today (and was applied earlier in the history), I don't know of any example where conflicts were peacefully ended. But I know a lot of examples that were started by religious issues...

dkv: "Reality uses reality to verify.Maths uses maths to verify. Religion uses religion to verify. Therfore discuss more often. And share more often and share it like christ."

I don't necessarily think that you need some God for doing good to others, but there you are. Back to D.A. Morgan's issue regarding the reaction of the average person in a society.

Then I am afraid that it is a clash between betweeen a totally scientific society and totally religious society...they both are trying to prove each other wrong...or atleast they are scared of each other.
We need to learn a lot and before we can think of reaching a compromise...
all i can say is that i belive in God and i believe in Science...
It might appear to be contradictory in some cases but one should not expect every idea to be reinenforced by some other orthogonal domain because it will amoount to murdering a useful component of reality as they will not match.
And They will not match unless we achieve the highest perfection in chosen domain of specialization.At that level all domains are expected get unified resolving all conflicts.
Therefore the desire should be to reach the perfection without any claim to be right ,always.

dvk ... to answer your question I am a US citizen but I have lived in other countries and plan to be doing so again in a few years.

Does terrorism affect my life? Only in that environment is changed by the morons that terrorise with bombs in cars and by the morons that terrorise by using morons with bombs in cars as an excuse to try to take away my rights and freedoms.

The clash that exists today, and has existed throughout human history, is between those that follow and those that think.

The followers may be following nationalist idiocy such as in Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia or, today, NeoCon America. The followers may be following religious idiocy such as those that took part in the crusades, or supported the Inquisition, or follow Pat Robertson or Osama bin Laden. The followers may be following populist/cultural idiocy such as giving a damn about what Paris Hilton does or does not do. It really doesn't matter what they follow it always leads them inevitably to hell.

The thinkers, on the other hand, whether thinking about science, or music, or art, those using their minds for creative purposes have rarely, if ever, led nations to genocide, homicide, or suicide.

When society places more value on the memory of a famous surgeon or educator than it does on the memory of a famous conqueror or football player progress will have been made. I don't expect to live long enough to see that day. Nor do I expect my children or their children to do so either.

dvk ... to answer your question I am a US citizen but I have lived in other countries and plan to be doing so again in a few years.
REP: Glad to know that you belong to great country which has allowed me to speak freely.
===============================
Does terrorism affect my life? Only in that environment is changed by the morons that terrorise with bombs in cars and by the morons that terrorise by using morons with bombs in cars as an excuse to try to take away my rights and freedoms.
REP: Yes, thats what I want to say .. you have power of vote... do not choose people who speak against freedom or dilute its current expression.Because the advantages of restrictions are too tempting to ask for more and more...ask a communist nation.
============================
The clash that exists today, and has existed throughout human history, is between those that follow and those that think.
REP: Those that follow fight with those who follow, although they both follow different things.. and thinkers are not so innocent , they lay the foundation of such ideologies.clash is natrual but you must not fight with bombs... nothing serious ever happens in this billion numbered Universe.So enjoy and prescribe peace with voice without violence.
======================
The followers may be following nationalist idiocy such as in Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia or, today, NeoCon America. The followers may be following religious idiocy such as those that took part in the crusades, or supported the Inquisition, or follow Pat Robertson or Osama bin Laden. The followers may be following populist/cultural idiocy such as giving a damn about what Paris Hilton does or does not do. It really doesn't matter what they follow it always leads them inevitably to hell.
REP:No one goes to hell... only those in heaven call it hell.
================================
The thinkers, on the other hand, whether thinking about science, or music, or art, those using their minds for creative purposes have rarely, if ever, led nations to genocide, homicide, or suicide.
REP: Creative people are girlishly sensitive about their feelings and ideas.. even ordinary stupid daily looks mysterious to them...
So they cant even think of doing Genocide but they lay the foundation unknowingly...
Otherwise why Einstein wrote E=mc^2
=============================
When society places more value on the memory of a famous surgeon or educator than it does on the memory of a famous conqueror or football player progress will have been made. I don't expect to live long enough to see that day. Nor do I expect my children or their children to do so either.
REP:Couldnt get you here...World remembers no one for too long ..

dvk: A few comments on your responses

"and thinkers are not so innocent , they lay the foundation of such ideologies.clash is natrual but you must not fight with bombs..."

So you blame the guy who invented fire for firebombs not heat? The guy that invented chemistry for explosives not medicines? Science may be applied for good or bad. Scientists rarely if ever opt for the bad. That is not to say there isn't the occassional Edward Teller ... but they are by far the exception: Not the rule.

"REP:No one goes to hell"

Hell is a figure-of-speech not to be taken literally.

"World remembers no one for too long .."

World remembers Ghenghis Khan ... not one scientist from his time. World remembers Atilla ... not one sculture from his time. World remembers Alexander, Ceaser, Hitler, Stalin, etc.
Please keep in mind that the holy books of every Judeo-Christian-Islamic religion is a history of blood sport ... not of science or culture. Recall all the names you can remember from all of the holy books of all 3 religions. How many of those names are of people with blood on their hands? How many scientists? How many physicians? How many musicians? How many painters?

We raise our young on a steady diet of blood worship. Then we act surprised when they do as we have instructed. And please don't bore me with any Prince of Peace nonsense. History written hundreds of years after the fact is painting the target after the arrow has been shot.

i Dont remember Chengiz kan(not khan as he was a mongolian) only..
A bloody history needs to be forgotten at any cost..otherwise it will carry on forever.
Learn to forget my dear friends..
And this is the reason why forgetfulness was inbuilt into the human system...

In other words we should forget the guy that invented the number zero. Forget the person that invented the electric battery. Forget the person that invented the alphabet, and books, and art, and dance. I think we've done that don't you? Do you remember the names of anyone on the team that invented penicillin as an antibiotic were responsible for saving hundreds of millions of lives?

How about the name Kalashnikov? Do you remember what he invented? Edward Teller ring a bell? Alfred Nobel?

Your argument is faulty at its foundation. We, as a society, value blood sport over science. Value football over culture. Value morons like Paris Hilton over high-school science teachers.

It may not be pretty ... but who said the truth would be?

That was interesting...
You call them the team members ..
and you assume that we couldnt have acheived anything beyong bullock-cart without the World Wars...
That is a dangerous idea(if not faulty).. imagine some one murders you and your family for his/her own growth...

Imagine that what your wrote made sense.

Not one sentence you wrote is understandable or appears to b e based on what I have written. Clarification might be useful.

I am busy call up someone who is there in this team..
:-))

Busy? How is that possible. Summer vacation ought to have you out of school until September.