Log in

View Full Version : terrorism, heroism, and eugenics

2004-01-15, 22:23
When I hear of news of a suicide bomber, I am especially sad when the suicide bomber is a woman. To me a spirited and courageous woman is an ideal type of woman. Seeing such a person kill herself is a waste of a good woman. That's the type of woman that I would go for.

It's ironic when a woman is a suicide bomber because the macho Islamic jihadists believe mostly in putting women in a subservient role. I think the best way to combat macho Islamic militism would be to promote the role of women as worthy individuals through feminism, rather than as created by God to keep man company or to bear children. That approach would have more impact than any "war on terrorism", but you know Bush wouldn't do such a thing because that goes against his mindset.

All suicide bombers are heroic because they are killing themselves for an idealistic cause. I think of suicide as a courageous act rather than a cowardly act.

Perhaps suicide bombers could be thought of best as "misguided heroes" because they are dying for their cause, but the results are not good due to the collateral damage. If there were no collateral damage then their strikes would be worthy and they would be labeled as "freedom fighters". The definition of a terrorist could be: one who is willing to accept collateral damage in order to further one's goals. Either terrorists believe that they are waging war against a broad group of people and they have no concept of collateral damage; or they are willing to accept collateral damage from a pragmatic perspective, as a means to an end, or as deserved by the victims due to guilt by association.

Just about everybody expects collateral damage in a war or a struggle, and in weighing the good and the bad considers such a thing to be acceptable.

It's unfortunate that Darwinian "survival of the fittest" has the heroes all dying. The heroes and suicide bombers are the first people to die in this world, when in fact such self-sacrificing people ought to be the ones who are prevalent in the world. Rather than us standing idly by and letting nature decide, perhaps we ought to embrace eugenics and actively promote such people. It would be foolish to allow nature to decide who lives and dies without taking an active role in such a thing. The government has a role in making the world a better place. We can't just let nature decide how the world will turn out.

2004-01-16, 00:48

Well slap my ass an call me .......


2004-01-18, 01:36
We can't just let nature decide how the world will turn out.

no that isnt how its happened for millions of years

industrial revolution and 50 years later and the summers themselves are hotter

we have fucked this place
no time for politics now only action

2004-01-19, 00:53
Originally posted by Criminal_Sniper
We can't just let nature decide how the world will turn out.

no that isnt how its happened for millions of years

Thats a stupid thing to say..........

Why can't we let nature decide?

2004-01-19, 02:29
obviously sarcastic if ya read the rest :p
and im far from stupid :)

2004-01-19, 02:31
and to answer ur question
because the rulers of this world feel they need to control nature

2004-01-20, 01:24
Originally posted by Criminal_Sniper
and to answer ur question
because the rulers of this world feel they need to control nature

No not true,

enviro wackies think they can control nature.

The university's today are churning out warrior biologists. Once they graduate they are looking for a job. It's not as if they care about anything but a paycheck.

And if u get screwed in the process of them gettin' paid....,

they call U a jerk.

2004-01-21, 02:22
do you think and type
or is one thing at a time enough?
the us has cut a LOT of funding from enviromental protection agency's and similar things

"Enviro wackies" as u put it are here to try and make them leave them alone

living in a capitalist country how can u not want to make a living?
thats rediculous just because it has changed from bartering and self sufficiancy that we cannot win our bread???
it the big corporations that cheat us

u must have had some wacked out experiences lol

2004-01-22, 02:19
W. Churchill said a while back, (pp)

"If U're young and not a liberial... U have no heart.
When older and not a conservitave... U have no brains."

I'll just leave it at that, other than mentioning I listen when older folks talk, I usually listen before ~~~~

acting the dillweed.

2004-01-22, 06:19
liberals are fucking my country
i dont know which the US's president and that are but they are fucking it
no heart?
they have no heart
they care not for the people but for themselves and the money which is where conservatives come in
they want to save as much as they can but will build weapons till the cows come home

fuck u and ur stupid opinions

they are baseless and worthless

the old liberals and connservatives have fucked this world

and there is a difference in conserving what u need and what u dont

how can u leave it at that?

2004-01-23, 02:24
Howard Dean has left the building.


2004-01-25, 06:12
Howard Dean?
i dont know shit all about him
and guess what i dont care
i dont live in america

and id never want to
its full of loosers who like to back up obviously corrupt leaders
i have my rights and opinions and it not anything like urs obviously
i dont need to hear from u anymore i know its shit before i read it

2004-01-25, 17:32
Originally posted by harby
I'm a redneck myself so I can't condemn him for his actions
Howard Dean may be just the candidate for you then. He said this: ''I still want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks. We can't beat George Bush unless we appeal to a broad cross-section of Democrats.''

He got into trouble for saying that. He gets into a lot of trouble because he says things off the top of his head. Journalists who have no news stories like to make stories out of his phrases and put doubt into his supporters. People accuse him of having a temper.

I support Howard Dean. I gave $100 to his campaign. I hopes he wins the Democrat primaries to become the largest challenger to president Bush in November.

2004-01-25, 20:33
Originally posted by eclectica
I support Howard Dean. why.....

for some reason i thought you were an elephant....

what's your opinion of genl clark?

2004-01-26, 09:55
On some issues I am more of a Republican. When it comes to energy issues then I am a Republican, because I don't support the California fruitcake solution to energy which is to conserve, drive tiny compact cars, and to have blackouts. I support a balanced budget, which used to be a Republican trait until Ronald Reagan shattered that pattern. I would raise taxes and I think that when politicians talk about "reducing the deficit" they lack courage, as it not only must be eliminated, but a surplus must be created to pay off the DEBT. I support big government spending and I think FDR was the best president in the 20th century. I support the death penalty and the legalization of marijuana. I support tort laws, which would limit ridiculous lawsuits. Overall I am more of a Democrat than a Republican.

I like Wesley Clark too. One thing that worried me about him was when he said that they ought to introduce a Constitutional amendment that bars the burning of the flag. I think the only two people who can actually beat Bush in November are either Clark or Dean. Many people think Kerry is the best choice now, but I find that he does not invoke passion. I am going to vote for Howard Dean in November regardless of whether he wins the Democrat party nomination or not. I will write him in if he doesn't. I will not be wasting my vote. I refuse to vote for the "lesser of two evils". Doing so would be a waste. I always vote for the best guy.

Some people gave up on Dean because he lost Iowa. If Dean loses New Hampshire on Tuesday then he still has a long way to go. Those are just two states.

They should get rid of the electoral college so that it would feel like my vote really counts for something.