There were boobs, but no earthquake

April 28th, 2010

Share

Hooray! Hooray! Why do I feel the need to yell hooray every time there are boobs around? And why do some people seem to think they cause earthquakes?

Getting back onto semi-serious topics, you may have already heard of the “boobquake” a skeptical, pro-science, anti-nonsense spoof of an event that demonstrated that boobs are not actually an effective way of triggering seismic activity.

It was one of those rare events (which maybe someday I’ll be lucky enough to trigger) that brought an otherwise relatively obscure blogger to fame overnight. Jennifer McCreight described herself as a “geeky, perverted atheist feminist” putting her D-cup breasts where her mouth is.” What she was doing to be precise, was wearing some low cut clothing to show off her boobs for a day and encouraging others to. The suggestion spawned a Facebook group and drew tens of thousands.

The event was a bit of a tongue-in-cheek jab at those who claim natural disasters are caused by god going after immoral humans. Apparently some believe god doesn’t have any “smartbombs” so when someone in a society does something he doesn’t like, he just sends a quake to hurt everyone and damn the collateral damage. Disasters being linked to immorality (or perceived immorality) is a claim commonly made by everyone from Pat Robertson to Jerry Faldwell. However, in this case, the boobquake was directed specifically at Iranian cleric Hojatoleslam Kazem Sedighi, who suggested that immodestly dressed women had triggered the wrath of god and thus recent earthquakes.

His statement was:

Many women who do not dress modestly…lead young men astray, corrupt their chastity and spread adultery in society, which (consequently) increases earthquakes

This Animation Shows how the hypothetical relationship might work:


There was a more serious side to the event. In addition to ridiculing the ridiculous notion that god hates boobs and their display makes him so angry he shakes the ground, the event served as a protest against oppression against women who dare to violate the tight taboos in many parts of the world. In many Islamic countries, shaking your boobs around could get you beheaded. Of course, choosing to not wear extremely conservative dress does not make a person immoral, although punishing someone for doing so certainly does.

Today there were a few minor tremors, as there are every day, but no major reports of earthquakes. Perhaps god is just waiting to unleash his vengeance.

My only complaint about the event: Low cut is fine and all, but wouldn’t it have been better if it were just plain out topless?


This entry was posted on Wednesday, April 28th, 2010 at 7:09 pm and is filed under Bad Science, Culture, Good Science, Humor, Misc, religion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
View blog reactions

28 Responses to “There were boobs, but no earthquake”

  1. 1
    Q Says:

    Meh. It’s a funny concept but after visiting the page of the woman who started it, I’m left thinking she got a lot of attention she does not deserve. She’s one of those very political kind who really seem to have a bone to pick with the industrial world as much as religion. There’s a lot of feminism to the blog and it’s not the kind that promotes women as having the same rights as men, but rather it’s the kind that thinks men are responsible for all the problems in the world and also are inherently weak and incapable. (Anyone ever hear of the term “eco feminist” for example.)

    I don’t know. It all just looked way too much like Mother Jones. Too much trying to push her social agenda down everyone’s throat and coating it in science and skepticism to make it seem more palatable.

    That’s just my take.


    Quote Comment
  2. 2
    BMS Says:

            Q said:

    I’m left thinking she got a lot of attention she does not deserve.

    Yes, but would you be willing to deny her her right to show us her boobs?

    I know my answer to that one. ;-)

    Sadly, Spring Break and Mardi Gras are already over, so it’s a little late in the year to be thinking about such things.

    Seriously, however, it’s a Facebook thing. They’re all getting a lot more attention than they deserve.


    Quote Comment
  3. 3
    Giant Pulsating Brain Says:

            Q said:

    I’m left thinking she got a lot of attention she does not deserve.

    Oh? Well check again in another 15 minutes (or more seriously, in about a month and a half)

    I mean, come on. This is never going to be anywhere near as big as “Rick Roll”. I’d be surprised if it has the staying power of “Leave Brittney Alone” or “Chocolate Rain.” Before long it’ll be as down the list as “Mister T Ate My Balls” and less noteworthy than “Hello My Future Girlfriend” or “Bert Is Evil”

    That’s how internet phenomena go.


    Quote Comment
  4. 4
    DV82XL Says:

    Pronouncements like that of the that of this cleric, must be answered by ridicule. It is the most powerful tool we have when dealing with these self-appointed intercessors, who claim special knowledge of the will of god.


    Quote Comment
  5. 5
    David Says:

    Meh. No need to nitpick the blogger who started this. I agree with DV82XL. It if shows how stupid these self appointed god-men are I’m all for it. Nothing wrong with boobs either.


    Quote Comment
  6. 6
    Troberg Says:

    I don’t think that shaking your boobs will get you beheaded, not even in the most backward countries, such as Saudi or Kuwait.

    That said, if sexual activity is a cause of seismic events, I think that me and my new girlfriend may be responsible for the volcano on Iceland. In fact, brace for impact, because there’s another eruption coming up tonight!


    Quote Comment
  7. 7
    drbuzz0 Says:

            Troberg said:

    I don’t think that shaking your boobs will get you beheaded, not even in the most backward countries, such as Saudi or Kuwait.

    I don’t know about just shaking them, but immodest dress and activities seen as being immodest, sexual or corrupt are illegal in those countries. Showing a lot of cleavage and blatantly shaking boobs in public could likely get a woman in extreme trouble there. If not beheaded then whipped, imprisoned or something.

    These are societies where it’s considered acceptable to kill a woman for being raped.


    Quote Comment
  8. 8
    DV82XL Says:

            drbuzz0 said:

    I don’t know about just shaking them, but immodest dress and activities seen as being immodest, sexual or corrupt are illegal in those countries.

    Ya think!

    A woman not wearing a covering over her face is considered naked is some of those places.

    Story: My sister is a nurse, and her husband was posted to Oman for several years. She worked while they were there for a gynecologist that served the Western expatriate community. She told me once that all the magazines that were brought into the country had to pass through a censor, to make sure no immodest material was brought in. They didn’t stop western woman’s mags from entering, but apparently each and every one was vetted by a local woman who used a felt-pen to, among other things, fill in the cleavage displayed in the photos.

    She came into the clinic one day to find several of the patients in the waiting room giggling hysterically. The reason was that the current edition of Cosmopolitan, (or some other similar magazine) had passed trough the censor, who had dutifully blacked out the offending décolletage in a De Beers’ ad for a diamond necklace, but not being able to read English, had left the article on the facing page untouched, its title being “Should You Swallow.”


    Quote Comment
  9. 9
    drbuzz0 Says:

            DV82XL said:

    Story: My sister is a nurse, and her husband was posted to Oman for several years. She worked while they were there for a gynecologist that served the Western expatriate community. She told me once that all the magazines that were brought into the country had to pass through a censor, to make sure no immodest material was brought in. They didn’t stop western woman’s mags from entering, but apparently each and every one was vetted by a local woman who used a felt-pen to, among other things, fill in the cleavage displayed in the photos.

    Westerners have no business being in such a place. Not only do westerners have no business, but no person from a modern, just, enlightened society has any business with such a place. Whether that is the United States, Canada, the UK, Japan, South Korea or Australia. The nations of the world that have established some measure of civility and enlightenment should consider places like Omen nothing more than a cesspool of barbaric practices.

    I suggest most of the Middle East should be treated in the same way we treat North Korea. No economic exchanges, no travel, no tourism, no diplomatic relations, no military support and very little communications.

    We know what the culture of an Islamic state is very well. It has no redeeming qualities and no legitimacy of any kind.

    The answer is simple. Where hydrocarbon fuels are necessary, either provide them from supplies obtained domestically or from civil countries. As this will not be enough to fill the need, provide the rest by synthesis of fuels using nuclear fission to provide the necessary process heat and feedstock of organic garbage, agricultural waste, coal or whatever other carbon feedstock is available. We have no shortage of that.


    Quote Comment
  10. 10
    gman Says:

            drbuzz0 said:

    Westerners have no business being in such a place…

    No economic exchanges, no travel, no tourism, no diplomatic relations, no military support and very little communications.

    Ironically, this is exactly what the jihadists want too.


    Quote Comment
  11. 11
    drbuzz0 Says:

            gman said:

    Ironically, this is exactly what the jihadists want too.

    I really don’t care about that. Ideally I’d want to wipe that whole filthy religion off of the human race and allow the whole world to progress without the cancer that is Islam festering on it, but since that’s not a realistic option given the mentality of those who subscribe to it and it’s scale, that would be the next best thing.

    I’d be reasonably happy simply assuring that the cancer that is Islam did not metastasize to other societies, or at least was kept at a minimum and did not impact the rest of the world and impede our progress toward a more civil, just, fair, peaceful, enlightened, educated way of life.


    Quote Comment
  12. 12
    Shafe Says:

            drbuzz0 said:

    Westerners have no business being in such a place.

    I suggest most of the Middle East should be treated in the same way we treat North Korea. No economic exchanges, no travel, no tourism, no diplomatic relations, no military support and very little communications.

    I can’t agree with this one. In the long run, it is prosperity that begets liberalization. Severing economic and cultural ties will only force those states to trade with other outcast states and create bonds between them based on anti-first-world sentiment. Or if forced into poverty by embargo, you end up reducing a potential first-world, liberal state to another Zimbabwe.

    Rather than using a stick to punish states for emerging too slowly from the 7th century, we should be working (as we are) with states like UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait, etc. who want to be included in the first-world and are continually modernizing and adopting Western attitudes. They’ve demonstrated that they want to play ball.

    Shutting them off like N. Korea is akin to blocking the entrance to a cave and telling the cave-men they can come out when they get some culture.


    Quote Comment
  13. 13
    drbuzz0 Says:

            Shafe said:

    Or if forced into poverty by embargo, you end up reducing a potential first-world, liberal state to another Zimbabwe.

    Rather than using a stick to punish states for emerging too slowly from the 7th century, we should be working (as we are) with states like UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait, etc. who want to be included in the first-world and are continually modernizing and adopting Western attitudes. They’ve demonstrated that they want to play ball.

    Are they really moving past the 7th century though? Sure places like Kuwait and the UAE have electricity, HDTV, skyscrapers, luxury hotels, airliners and everything. That doesn’t say much for their culture. It’s not as though better living standards always improve liberalization when they’re dealing with a religion like Islam that is in charge at the top. There’s no such thing as a just and peaceful Islamic society. The two are not compatible. About the closest you can come is Turkey, which is really a lot more secular than Islamic. Saudi Arabia? They can have all the Lamborghinis and A-380′s they want and as long as they take their law from the Koran they won’t have a shred of worth or decency.

    Hitler and the Nazis would have done a lot less damage to the world if they had been confined to a third world society where the worst thing they could do was throw stones or use sticks as weapons. Nazism is the kind of ideology you just can’t negotiate with or tolerate any kind of capitulation to – much like Islam.

    Yes, I know Dubai has some amazing examples of human ingenuity. So did the 1936 Olympics. Yet for all its electronic television, massive stadiums, color photography and spectacular airships, Nazism still should never have been engaged or legitimized by the rest of the world. That was a big mistake. Islam is, if anything, considerably worse and less honorable than Nazism.


    Quote Comment
  14. 14
    Shafe Says:

            drbuzz0 said:

    Are they really moving past the 7th century though? Sure places like Kuwait and the UAE have electricity, HDTV, skyscrapers, luxury hotels, airliners and everything. That doesn’t say much for their culture. It’s not as though better living standards always improve liberalization when they’re dealing with a religion like Islam that is in charge at the top.

    If the goal of imposing an embargo is to compel states to form secular governments, then expect it to work about as well as Sea Shepherd ramming whaling boats to stop Japanese whaling. It will be seen by the people as an attack on their culture and will cause them to cling more closely to their Islamic governments.

    Hitler and the Nazis would have done a lot less damage to the world if they had been confined to a third world society where the worst thing they could do was throw stones or use sticks as weapons. Nazism is the kind of ideology you just can’t negotiate with or tolerate any kind of capitulation to – much like Islam.

    The Germans were stopped once through military defeat and then economic isolation. They did not become a humble 3rd world state. Their poor economy and resentment of the situation rallied them around Hitler. That’s one possible outcome of isolating these Islamic states. (Except Hitler didn’t control the lion’s share of the world’s oil supply.) At any rate, I wouldn’t expect them to just contentedly remain in the 1950′s like Cuba. I would expect something closer to 1990′s Iraq, and absent a war, how long could Iraq have continued under sanctions before falling into a situation like post-Soviet Afghanistan?

    Is there a historic example of embargoes and sanctions leading to a voluntary shift of power to a secular democracy? I don’t know of one.

    … Nazism still should never have been engaged or legitimized by the rest of the world. That was a big mistake. Islam is, if anything, considerably worse and less honorable than Nazism.

    Nothing will change for the better if the conditions are bad for the people. If we cut them off and the people can’t get a taste of the free world, they will only resent its exclusivity, and their leadership will use us as a scapegoat. But if the people have experienced the benefits of a free society and are given the chance, they will be compelled to move toward a secular democracy, even if slowly.

    I can’t blame you for feeling so strongly about Islam, but I don’t think that everything Muslim is a lost cause. Judging by the Muslims I know, I don’t think many Muslims who live in free societies desire anything like an Islamic state. Europe was once mired in oppressive Christianity and would have earned the same disdain you have for Islamic states. Europe not only outgrew that stage but also spun-off the world’s greatest free society. Islam has had its ups and downs and certainly has regressed terribly in the 20th/21st centuries, but integration of willing states into the modern world may just be a new Enlightenment and the impetus to dispose of their theocracies.


    Quote Comment
  15. 15
    PsihoKekec Says:

    For a moment I thought I was reading Arthur’s Hall of Viking Manliness :-) .
    It’s true, prosperity does not automaticly bring enightenment. Saudi Arabia is prosperous state exporting the most extreme version of Islam – Wahabism. It is most extreme becouse it’s most fundamental. While we love to name everyone who picks few lines of Bible and runs with them fundamentalist, fundamentalism is sticking to basics, Bible for Christians, Quaran for Muslims (actualy real equvalent of Bible would be Quara + Hadith). While it’s posible to be good person (by Westen norms) while sticking to Bible, it’s quite difficult to do so while sticking to Quaran. Media likes to ”Religion of peace”, but they ommit that peace is Unmah, world united in Islam, where unbelivers are reduced to status of Dhimmis and it is this peace that all faitfull should strive for.

    Islam reached it’s intelectual peak as it conquered the lands of Byzantine and Persian empire along with Indian states. It has been eroding ever since.


    Quote Comment
  16. 16
    Shafe Says:

            PsihoKekec said:

    For a moment I thought I was reading Arthur’s Hall of Viking Manliness :-) .
    It’s true, prosperity does not automaticly bring enightenment. Saudi Arabia is prosperous state exporting the most extreme version of Islam – Wahabism. It is most extreme becouse it’s most fundamental. While we love to name everyone who picks few lines of Bible and runs with them fundamentalist, fundamentalism is sticking to basics, Bible for Christians, Quaran for Muslims (actualy real equvalent of Bible would be Quara + Hadith). While it’s posible to be good person (by Westen norms) while sticking to Bible, it’s quite difficult to do so while sticking to Quaran. Media likes to ”Religion of peace”, but they ommit that peace is Unmah, world united in Islam, where unbelivers are reduced to status of Dhimmis and it is this peace that all faitfull should strive for.

    Islam reached it’s intelectual peak as it conquered the lands of Byzantine and Persian empire along with Indian states. It has been eroding ever since.

    Islam may not be at an intellectual peak, but it’s having no trouble growing and winning converts. They will remain a major world player for some time.

    As Deviate stated…

    Pronouncements like that of the that of this cleric, must be answered by ridicule. It is the most powerful tool we have when dealing with these self-appointed intercessors, who claim special knowledge of the will of god.

    The reason ridicule is effective is that it forces introspection. Looking at oneself through the eyes of an outsider provides an opportunity to consider one’s situation more objectively. Cultural exchange and interaction provides that same opportunity. The more Omanis are able to interact with the Western world, the more basis they have for comparing its benefits to the ills of their own society, and the more reason they will have to question their own leadership and effect change.

    If they are isolated, their customs are likely only to reinforce themselves, and societal progress and liberalization are likely to happen much more slowly, if at all. If they are both isolated and ridiculed, they are likely only to become ever more hostile. This is not to say that I encourage free trade with states such as Iran that are already belligerent and actively anti-Western, but only that we should maintain good relations with those states that show a desire for peaceful progress and trust that our good example will be the most effective persuasion for shifting to a more liberal secular government.


    Quote Comment
  17. 17
    drbuzz0 Says:

            Shafe said:

    If the goal of imposing an embargo is to compel states to form secular governments, then expect it to work about as well as Sea Shepherd ramming whaling boats to stop Japanese whaling. It will be seen by the people as an attack on their culture and will cause them to cling more closely to their Islamic governments.

    No, that’s not what the point is. The point is more akin to quarantine and to assuring that these societies remain as poor, incapable of causing problems to the rest of the world and weak.

    For one thing, I find it ethically reprehensible to in any way legitimize Islam or enable Islamic leaders to do anything. It’s more than that though. I don’t hold out a lot of hope for Islamic societies turning around.

    An Islamic society is like a homicidal, crazed, drugged up, dirty psychopath. The idea of rehabilitation is probably not realistic. Keeping them in a mental hospital would be a good idea. Baring that, the best thing is to just make sure they never get their hands on any kind of gun, explosives or anything like that. As long as you do that, they can’t do all that much damage.

            Shafe said:

    The Germans were stopped once through military defeat and then economic isolation. They did not become a humble 3rd world state. Their poor economy and resentment of the situation rallied them around Hitler. That’s one possible outcome of isolating these Islamic states. (Except Hitler didn’t control the lion’s share of the world’s oil supply.) At any rate, I wouldn’t expect them to just contentedly remain in the 1950′s like Cuba. I would expect something closer to 1990′s Iraq, and absent a war, how long could Iraq have continued under sanctions before falling into a situation like post-Soviet Afghanistan?

    Germany is an imperfect example. Islam is different than Nazism because isolation is not required to get it to be supported with such extreme furver.

    However, because Afghanistan is so dirt poor and powerless after the Soviet era, it’s incapable of doing much to harm the rest of the world. 9/11 may have been planned by those sheltered in Afgahnistan, but it was financed and carried out by Saudi Arabians and Egyptians.

    If the whole Islamic world were as incapable as Afgahnistan and if the US and the rest of the world did not grant visas of entry to Muslims from Islamic countries, it would not have happened.

            Shafe said:

    Is there a historic example of embargoes and sanctions leading to a voluntary shift of power to a secular democracy? I don’t know of one.

    Nothing will change for the better if the conditions are bad for the people. If we cut them off and the people can’t get a taste of the free world, they will only resent its exclusivity, and their leadership will use us as a scapegoat. But if the people have experienced the benefits of a free society and are given the chance, they will be compelled to move toward a secular democracy, even if slowly.

    Nothing will change as long as there is Islam. Empowering an Islamic country is like giving an H-bomb to a rabid drunk chimpanzee.

            Shafe said:

    I can’t blame you for feeling so strongly about Islam, but I don’t think that everything Muslim is a lost cause. Judging by the Muslims I know, I don’t think many Muslims who live in free societies desire anything like an Islamic state. Europe was once mired in oppressive Christianity and would have earned the same disdain you have for Islamic states. Europe not only outgrew that stage but also spun-off the world’s greatest free society. Islam has had its ups and downs and certainly has regressed terribly in the 20th/21st centuries, but integration of willing states into the modern world may just be a new Enlightenment and the impetus to dispose of their theocracies.

    People like to go after me because I’m anti-Islam. Supposedly this is an ignorant/bigoted/narrow-minded kind of way to be.

    I don’t buy that because I know quite a bit about Islam, believe it or not. I challenge you to read the Koran. That was the one thing that really shocked me and made me realize what we’re dealing with here. Just open it to any page and start reading for four or five pages. You don’t need to read the whole thing, just look through a few passages from various parts.

    The book reads like the ravings of an evil madman. It reads like Charlie Manson wrote the thing. It’s an enormously angry religion with very violent undertones. You can look at how it played out on the Barbary Coast and the Islamic empires of the middle ages. There’s nothing good about it. These societies did have some great achievements, but it was despite being Islamic, not because of it.

    I do happen to know some Muslims and the ones I know are descent people, but that’s because they’re not very religious. They’re kinda like the “Christmas and Easter Christian.” They really don’t take the religion very seriously and just kinda shrug it. It’s what they were taught.

    The danger is that you can’t be a devout Muslim and a good person. You can be a semi-religious, mostly-secular Muslim and be a good person. As soon as a Muslim decides that “You know, I should try to be more religious” they are basically then a problem.

    The difference between other religions is that Christianity can be oppressive and can be violent, but it is not necessarily so. There are devout Christians who are peaceful people who can function as part of a society. Christians are not compelled to fly planes into buildings. Neither are Jews or Buddists. When religion does cause conflict it’s generally because some leader or nation exploits it to do so. However, an autonomous devout christian or jew will very rarely take it upon themselves to try to kill as many as possible. These religions also can be practiced without imposing horrible injustice on others.

    I mean, I’ve looked at the scripture and the history trying to find some way that this religion could be reconciled to live peacefully or liberalize successfully. It’s just not possible.

            Shafe said:

    Islam may not be at an intellectual peak, but it’s having no trouble growing and winning converts. They will remain a major world player for some time.

    However many Muslims there are in the world, even though there may be more than a billion, they are still the minority and the rest of us can, if we recognize what this force is, keep it in check and possibly some day snuff it out.

    Remember, this is not Islam versus the “West.” We’re all in this together. The US, Europe, Japan, China, India. All the non-Islamic countries of the world can shun and eventually contain and destroy this cancer on humanity.

    Islam manages to get converts in the world because it knows where to get them. Islam is a perverted, violent, unjust, harmful mentality. Where do you find perverted, violent, unjust and harmful people? In prison! That’s why prisons are the biggest single place for Islam to gain converts.

    The first thing we can do to stop it from growing is ban it entirely from prison. That’s not a first amendment problem, IMHO, it’s well recognized that prisoners are not entitled to having their rights protected like the rest of us. Prisoners, by definition, have no freedom.

    What can be done from there, I think a big part of it would be simply not tolerating it. Now imagine the KKK walked down the street in your town. They might have the right to do that, but would they be popular? No, people would jeer them. People who were in the KKK would get fired from their jobs. Anyone who owned a business would find nobody would be willing to patronize them once they supported the KKK.

    The KKK is socially unacceptable and as such as been largely driven out of power. Islam should be treated the same way. However for this to work, it needs to be universal or nearly universal.

    People need to understand that this mentality is downright evil and it should be greeted with the same warmth and acceptance that you’d greet someone flying a swastika with.

            Shafe said:

    The reason ridicule is effective is that it forces introspection. Looking at oneself through the eyes of an outsider provides an opportunity to consider one’s situation more objectively. Cultural exchange and interaction provides that same opportunity. The more Omanis are able to interact with the Western world, the more basis they have for comparing its benefits to the ills of their own society, and the more reason they will have to question their own leadership and effect change.

    If they are isolated, their customs are likely only to reinforce themselves, and societal progress and liberalization are likely to happen much more slowly, if at all. If they are both isolated and ridiculed, they are likely only to become ever more hostile. This is not to say that I encourage free trade with states such as Iran that are already belligerent and actively anti-Western, but only that we should maintain good relations with those states that show a desire for peaceful progress and trust that our good example will be the most effective persuasion for shifting to a more liberal secular government.

    I don’t think you get it. There’s no hope for persuading an Islamic society to liberalize. Even if it seems to on the surface, it’s still got the festering dishonorable and deplorable mentality.

    You can’t negotiate with this. It’s not like it has some redeeming quality that can be appealed to. It has none.

    Now Islam may be toughly ingrained and something that has been historically tough to get out of a society, but I believe there is a way. First, for the safety of the rest of the world, Islamic societies need to be quarantined and kept as much in the dark ages as possible.

    Now the bigger issue: Does making a society miserable and the people suffer make them hate you and rally behind their own leaders? Not necessarily so. Actually, it can be the opposite, but only if there are certain criteria met.

    1. Never give them an inch. Never allow even the tiniest concession. Never grant them even the smallest symbolic gain. It’s extremely demoralizing to be constantly losing and never see any kind of hope. That is what you want. Absolute hopelessness.

    2. Make it clear that you will not negotiate. The one thing you will not ever accept is Islam. There can be absolutely no discussion on this.

    3. Repeatedly and consistently pound the following message: “Your suffering is caused by Islam and by your Islamic leadership. Your country must disavow Islam forever or you will continue to suffer. You bright this on yourself because of support for Islam. Your country and your society are asking for this”

    4. An even more important message must be continually put out: “Islam is failing you. Your god does not protect you. Look around you. Why are you always losing? Why does your god never help you in the slightest? Why does your god provide no hope? Your god is a false and vile creature.”

    Will this enrage a society? Yes, at first. But it can break down a society. It can break down the will to sustain a mentality. It can ultimately turn them against their own leadership.

    By the end of World War II, Germans didn’t really hate the allies so much as they hated their own leaders for bringing it upon them. After Italy suffered from years of war, the body of Mousolini was dragged through the streets and spat on and stoned by citizens.

    This is not unusual. You CAN get a society to turn against itself with enough force.

    Does this sound harsh? Violent? Horrible? Well, perhaps. I don’t like the idea of imposing suffering on another human. However, we are talking about Islam. We’re talking about a cancer on humanity. Killing a cancer is never a fun thing. It involves poisons, amputation and radiation that causes pain and harm to the body. But… it has to be done, or the cancer will just grow and kill the whole organism.

    Islam is not just another religion. It’s a scourge on humanity and we can’t ever hope to live in a world that is peaceful, just, civil, progressive and happy until its blood supply is cut off and it is eventually choked and killed.


    Quote Comment
  18. 18
    Matthew Says:

            drbuzz0 said:

    No, that’s not what the point is. The point is more akin to quarantine and to assuring that these societies remain as poor, incapable of causing problems to the rest of the world and weak.

    The problem with isolating them like that is that if we don’t force some kind of resolution, we may end up in a position where we are forced towards the “option zero” that Ringo worried about back in 2002.

    Basic premise: if we continue a low level, non-resolvable conflict, we give them time to do something so nasty that we quite literally go insane and commit genocide.

    Full essay: http://www.johnringo.net/EssaysandRants/OptionZero.aspx

    Relevant portion excerpted:
    =====
    Hemorrhagic smallpox is nearly one hundred percent fatal (194 out of 200 cases.) The only “cure” for it is to be immunized (general smallpox vaccination.) Immunizations last for approximately thirty years. Full population immunizations were discontinued in the US in the 1970s but military personnel were immunized up through 1989.

    Imagine absolute horror for a moment. Imagine that right now hemorrhagic smallpox was being distributed by mujaheddin that were “living weapons.” Imagine that it infected nearly one hundred percent of the American public.

    All that would be left after it swept across the country is former military who served from 1973-1989.

    Their children would be dead. Their friends would be dead. Their parents would be dead. Virtually every “liberal” in the US would be dead.

    And they would still have enough nuclear weapons to vaporize half the world.

    If you don’t think we would use them, you’re dead wrong. You don’t have to be hail to press a button. Bad knees don’t really count in an Ohio. There wouldn’t be a teary eye in the house as the Minutemen and Tridents arched into the sky. And the guys who had last piloted F-4s would be flying B-2s and screaming: “This is for my grand-children you rag-head bastards!”
    =====

    I’m not convinced that he’s wrong, and as he points out, leaving someone who wants you dead to stew in his own juices just gives him more time to think of a way to get at you. Remember, these guys are nasty and barbaric, not dumb or unimaginative, and not at all concerned about potential negative results for themselves. Given time, they *will* come up with something to hurt us.


    Quote Comment
  19. 19
    drbuzz0 Says:

            Matthew said:

    I’m not convinced that he’s wrong, and as he points out, leaving someone who wants you dead to stew in his own juices just gives him more time to think of a way to get at you. Remember, these guys are nasty and barbaric, not dumb or unimaginative, and not at all concerned about potential negative results for themselves. Given time, they *will* come up with something to hurt us.

    The Isralies have delt with a similar situation – they will come up with ways to hurt us. One defense against this is to use deterrence with overwhelming one-sidedness. Cause the death of a few Americans and the price you pay is to be completely overwhelmed with millions of deaths in retaliation. That has *some* impact, but really it’s only so-so. They only way to keep them from causing much damage is to keep it contained.

    Not that I want to do that to anyone, but that’s the ONLY technique that works at all. And if they did do what you describe, well then there should not be a teary eye in the house. They would have brought it on themselves.

    Now, here’s the problem with the above mentioned situation. There’s no way that they could infect most of the population of the US or any country with Hemorrhagic Smallpox. One person won’t do it. Two won’t. It does not spread fast enough. They would have to seed the population with thousands of individuals with raging cases of smallpox in order to actually have a hope of triggering anything other than a regional flare-up.

    Releasing smallpox in an unvaccinated population is NOT going to make everyone get it. Even in the days before the vaccine and before any medical understanding of smallpox, it was not the kind of disease that drove humanity to near extinction.

    Besides, if it were introduced, a combination of quarantine and rushing vaccines into production would probably keep it from being anywhere near as bad as centuries past.

    BUT, there’s an even bigger problem
    As far as we know, there are only two existing cultures of viable human-infectable smallpox in the world. They’re very small, freezedried and stored at the CDC and at a medical institute in Russia in a deep freeze. It would need to be re-cultured to create enough to effectively and reliably sicken a human.

    It’s remotely possible that a viable strain could be found in a mummified corpse or something, but to effectively recover it and make it reliably infect some humans, you’d still need to culture it, also to make sure it actually was the smallpox virus you had.

    Hence, the way you can keep them from ever doing any harm: Deny Islamic nations any and all technology with the potential to harm. No incubators, no petri dishes, no chemical reactors, no gas centrifuges etc.

    And if they develop them indigenous, destroy them. And I do not mean damage them – reduce any industrial capability in an Islamic nation to rubble and as soon as it starts to get rebuilt, do it again.

    These guys are nasty and barbaric. However, I don’t hate Muslims. I hate Islam. But here’s what the thing is about this: As long as there is Islam there will never be a truly peaceful world. We have two choices, we can decide to live with Islam and accept the fact that it means there will always be terrible injustice, ghastly violence, horrible suffering in the world and that we will never ever be truly safe. Or we can decide that human kind and the future is too important and despite the short term risks, we will contain Islam, deny it any ability to grow or gain power and eventually stamp that filthy religion out.


    Quote Comment
  20. 20
    Gordon Says:

    Well, Steve, I agree with you that Islam brings out the wort in man and that as it’s probably the worst religion ever created, even worse than Christinaity.

    What I don’t agree with is that there’s no way short of isolating it and trying to stop it from being too powerful to deal with it. I hope that educating and entering societies can make them eventually liberalize and hopefully someday become secular and finally let Islam die on its own because people will be better enlightened to the world.

    However, you might be right. I hope you are not, but it could be the case. I just am not willing to throw in the towel.

    I do however think that many of the regimes especially the Saudi Royal Family are no better than the Mafia. That does not reflect the whole muslim population being of that type.


    Quote Comment
  21. 21
    matthew Says:

            drbuzz0 said:

    BUT, there’s an even bigger problem
    As far as we know, there are only two existing cultures of viable human-infectable smallpox in the world.

    They’re very small, freezedried and stored at the CDC and at a medical institute in Russia in a deep freeze.

    It would need to be re-cultured to create enough to effectively and reliably sicken a human.

    It’s remotely possible that a viable strain could be found in a mummified corpse or something, but to effectively recover it and make it reliably infect some humans, you’d still need to culture it, also to make sure it actually was the smallpox virus you had.

    Hence, the way you can keep them from ever doing any harm: Deny Islamic nations any and all technology with the potential to harm.

    No incubators, no petri dishes, no chemical reactors, no gas centrifuges etc.

    Very true, but the basic premise stands. We’re dealing with extremely nasty, imaginative, and relentless enemies. Letting them have the time to think of things to do can only come back to bite us in the end.


    Quote Comment
  22. 22
    DV82XL Says:

            drbuzz0 said:

    It’s more than that though. I don’t hold out a lot of hope for Islamic societies turning around. An Islamic society is like a homicidal, crazed, drugged up, dirty psychopath. The idea of rehabilitation is probably not realistic.

    There is a better historical precedent to follow here, although I doubt if America bring themselves to do it.

    India’s mystery-shrouded Thuggee cult where bands of roving stranglers with over two million kills attributed mostly to travellers across the sub-continent, during their day. The extremely well organised character of their operation has led to the Thugs being described as a Mafia like criminal outfit. However Thuggee slips the noose of easy comparison, as religious belief gave it the dimension of a cult. These mass-murderers didn’t just kill for wealth alone; they worshipped Kali, the Hindu goddess associated with death and destruction, hinting at a sacrificial aspect to their killings. The parallels are obvious.

    When the British decided to get rid of the Thugs in the 1830s, they appointed one Major William Sleeman. He set up a dedicated police force, the Thuggee Department, and established special tribunals that prevented local influence from affecting criminal proceedings. He used the Crown Evidence Act to get lower echelon members to implicate the leaders. And he started a program of hangings, which was pursued vigorously, and where necessary at random, until the fall in the number of attacks indicated that the region was free of Thugs.

    Note the sequence of the cure: Recognising that local governments were not up to the task, the British established direct rule. They established an organization on the ground with a single mandate. They dealt with the problem without concern for the cultural values of the area. They then build infrastructure that helped bring (a comparative) measure of wealth to the lower classes.

    Then they established a functioning democracy.


    Quote Comment
  23. 23
    Anders Troberg Says:

            drbuzz0 said:

    An Islamic society is like a homicidal, crazed, drugged up, dirty psychopath.

    I disagree with you. I’ve lived and worked in Jordan for 2 years, so I have a fair idea of what I’m talking about. Sure, there are some horrid examples, such as Saudi or Kuwait, but most of the middle east is quite modern and secular.

            drbuzz0 said:

    9/11 may have been planned by those sheltered in Afgahnistan, but it was financed and carried out by Saudi Arabians and Egyptians.

    Well, one can argue about the methods and targets, but I think that the only ones surprised by that attack is the Americans. The rest of the world had seen it coming a long time.

            drbuzz0 said:

    Nothing will change as long as there is Islam.

    The same could be said for Christianity.

            drbuzz0 said:

    I challenge you to read the Koran. That was the one thing that really shocked me and made me realize what we’re dealing with here.

    Have you read the Bible, especially the old testament? They are old books, they reflect old values.

            drbuzz0 said:

    The danger is that you can’t be a devout Muslim and a good person.

    Sure you can, I have several friends who are devout Muslims who are good people. The same goes for some devout Christians I know.

            drbuzz0 said:

    There are devout Christians who are peaceful people who can function as part of a society. Christians are not compelled to fly planes into buildings.

    Neither are Jews or Buddists.

    Neither are Muslims. In fact, it strongly frowned upon by the vast majority of Muslim scholars, who see it as an unforgivable sin.

            drbuzz0 said:

    However, an autonomous devout christian or jew will very rarely take it upon themselves to try to kill as many as possible. These religions also can be practiced without imposing horrible injustice on others.

    What about the crusades? The witch hunts? Various wars fought between Protestants and Catholics? Christian persecution of Jews? The ongoing ethnic cleansing performed by the israelis?

            drbuzz0 said:

    All the non-Islamic countries of the world can shun and eventually contain and destroy this cancer on humanity.

    You pretty much disproved your earlier assertion, in the quote above this quote, there.

            drbuzz0 said:

    There’s no hope for persuading an Islamic society to liberalize. Even if it seems to on the surface, it’s still got the festering dishonorable and deplorable mentality.

    Sure there is. Look at, for example, Jordan. It’s quite secular and as open as most countries in the west.

    The way to do it is to keep the lines open and let our values influence them. Blockading them just creates a battle line of us vs them.

            drbuzz0 said:

    1. Never give them an inch. Never allow even the tiniest concession. Never grant them even the smallest symbolic gain.

    It’s extremely demoralizing to be constantly losing and never see any kind of hope. That is what you want. Absolute hopelessness.

    Without hope, there is nothing to lose by fighting.

            drbuzz0 said:

    3. Repeatedly and consistently pound the following message: “Your suffering is caused by Islam and by your Islamic leadership.

    Without open lines of communication, you’ll lose any propaganda war.

            drbuzz0 said:

    However, we are talking about Islam. We’re talking about a cancer on humanity. Killing a cancer is never a fun thing.

    I suggest you go down to a local mosque and actually try to talk to some Muslims. They are nice, ordinary people. Equating a handful of extremists to the entire religion is like saying that people like Phelps, Chick or the KKK is representative of Christianity.

            drbuzz0 said:

    Islam is not just another religion. It’s a scourge on humanity and we can’t ever hope to live in a world that is peaceful, just, civil, progressive and happy until its blood supply is cut off and it is eventually choked and killed.

    Actually, I’m just happy coexisting with it. I’ve lived in a predominately Muslim country, and I welcome Muslims to my country with open arms. At it’s core, it’s just like any other religion, and carries the same values. Sure, I would be happier if religions were done away with along with other superstitions, but not at any price.


    Quote Comment
  24. 24
    drbuzz0 Says:

            Anders Troberg said:

    Neither are Muslims. In fact, it strongly frowned upon by the vast majority of Muslim scholars, who see it as an unforgivable sin.

    If you actually look at the numbers it’s shockingly high how many approve. Even if 5% are pro-terrorist (which some polls indicate) that would mean in a small town of 30,000 there would be an average of 1500. Shockingly high

            Anders Troberg said:

    What about the crusades? The witch hunts? Various wars fought between Protestants and Catholics? Christian persecution of Jews?

    I’m not too concerned that anyone I know is going to be killed by the Spanish Inquisition. These are no longer a clear and present danger, at least in general. Christianity and Judism have their periods of conflict, but Islam is never anything but violent. More importantly, it is now.

            Anders Troberg said:

    The ongoing ethnic cleansing performed by the israelis?

    Oh don’t give me that crap. Israel is a country the size of New Jersey which occupies primarily desert that isn’t worth much. It was created from what had previously been a colony of the British that had been in limbo for years.

    Despite this the country has never been allowed to live in peace. They’ve been forced to seal their borders with extreme measures because if they don’t, they end up with people bombing buses and restaurants. There’s no “ethnic cleansing” there’s only an attempt to keep down the constant attempts to kill their citizens.

    You go to Israel and it’s the ONE AND ONLY country in the Middle East that gives you full rights that are recognized as the international standards. If you’re accused of a crime, you get a trial with a jury and an opportunity to mount a defense. You can file suit if you’re discriminated against because of your ethnicity or gender. You can file suit if the government mistreats you. You can freely publish material criticizing the government.

    Not only that, Israel allows non-jews to be citizens, even Arabs who are Muslims. You can be of any race and move to Israel through legitimate channels, with a visa and everything, and you can buy a place there. You can apply for residency and then citizenship. You can vote and even run for office.

    There exists no such place outside Israel in the Middle East. It is the one bastion of civility. Jordan may be better than Iran or Saudi Arabia. It’s still run by a dictator king and is still an Islamic theocracy.

            Anders Troberg said:

    You pretty much disproved your earlier assertion, in the quote above this quote, there.

    How so? I don’t say that Islam is easily altered. It may be something that would take centuries to root out, but if it’s contained and cut off from all resources, it will have no choice but to wither and die.

    You probably can’t completely change the societies, but some of the citizens may be made to give it up.

            Anders Troberg said:

    The way to do it is to keep the lines open and let our values influence them. Blockading them just creates a battle line of us vs them.

    Uh, they’re already a scourge on humanity and the safety of the world. This is what I’m talking about. There’s no point in letting them be part of the world. They’re inherently unfit and can’t contribute. You don’t relate with societies that only cause harm. It can’t do us any good to interact.

            Anders Troberg said:

    Without hope, there is nothing to lose by fighting.

    Take a look at the historical examples. You’d be surprised. With no hope there’s no reason to bother. Besides, I really don’t care if they want to fight us.. as long as it’s limited to sticks and stones thrown at tanks, it does not bother me. Just keep anything explosive or toxic away from them.

    I don’t like fighting anyway. I don’t condone violence. I would never say we should just slaughter Muslims. Just keep them from harming us and cut the religion off so it can die.

            Anders Troberg said:

    Without open lines of communication, you’ll lose any propaganda war.

    Leaflets. Shortwave. Satellite television.

    Not that it matters so much. The only ones who need to really be convinced are the Muslims living in Non-Islamic societies. They need to be cleaned of their filthy belief system. The Middle East is probably a lost cause for the time being. Let them live in the stone age for a couple generations and perhaps then they can be overwhelmed by outside forces.

            Anders Troberg said:

    Actually, I’m just happy coexisting with it. I’ve lived in a predominately Muslim country, and I welcome Muslims to my country with open arms. At it’s core, it’s just like any other religion, and carries the same values. Sure, I would be happier if religions were done away with along with other superstitions, but not at any price.

    I already said I know some Muslims, but they’re descent people because they’re extremely unreligious. It’s like a person who says “Well, I’m catholic.. I mean… I was raised… I haven’t gone to church in a few years or anything, but, uh.. I was married in a catholic church ten years ago.”

    A Muslim can be good when they’ve basically shrugged off most of the religion.

    But I do not hate them personally. If anything I consider it a great tragedy that a whole region of the world has been taken over by this cancer. The Arabic world has a rich history all the way back to Babylon and Mesopotamia. They invented mathematics as we know it and were the first to establish astronomy. How tragic indeed that such a great region of the world and such a diverse people with such history and talent would be destroyed by this poisonous religion of filth.

    I invite any Muslim to come to the modern civil world. To break free of the filthy religion of violence and oppression. Whether that means becoming an atheist or even something else (a Christian, a Jew, a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Pagan or something else – just about any religion is a step up)

    There is no need to live in self-oppression, your life dedicated to a god of war, pain and rage. There is no need to worship a despicable idol who demands you cause pain to yourself and others.

    There is a world of happiness, peace and civility.


    Quote Comment
  25. 25
    drbuzz0 Says:

            Anders Troberg said:

    Well, one can argue about the methods and targets, but I think that the only ones surprised by that attack is the Americans. The rest of the world had seen it coming a long time.

    On that much I agree. We were stupid to think that we could live in a world with Islam and the slaughter would only be overseas. The filthy violent religion seeks to bring it to all parts of the world. We should have known long ago that people driven by this belief would strike anywhere to the maximum extent they can.

    To say it was the fault of us for mistreating them or that part of the world is idiotic. In addition to having many very very rich, there’s no justification for attacks like that based on a nations support for policies that may have not always been the best.

    Sure, US policy in the Middle east can be criticized and we certainly can look back at the colonial powers and see many mistakes and missdeads over the centuries. That is no excuse.

    India has plenty to hold a grudge against the British for. Do you see Hindus engaged in constant terror attacks?

    The Native Americans have been mistreated badly and were not given a fair shake in most cases until the mid 20th century. Do you see Native Americans constantly engaged in terror attacks?

    Do you see constant terror at the hands of blacks sore about slavery and segregation? I suppose there was the Black Panthers, but other than that relatively small, short-lived and generally low impact thing not really.

    Do you see Jews bombing Germany?

    How about the Vietnamese? The Aboriginals? The black South Africans? The Gypsies? The Hawaiians?

    No! Many many many societies have not engaged in 100% benevolent foreign policy or treatment of others, but no other group turns this into reason for unrestrained slaughter of civilians and constant terror tactics like Islamic societies do.


    Quote Comment
  26. 26
    BMS Says:

            drbuzz0 said:

    I’m not too concerned that anyone I know is going to be killed by the Spanish Inquisition.

    Of course you aren’t. Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!


    Quote Comment
  27. 27
    Troberg Says:

            drbuzz0 said:

    If you actually look at the numbers it’s shockingly high how many approve. Even if 5% are pro-terrorist (which some polls indicate) that would mean in a small town of 30,000 there would be an average of 1500. Shockingly high

    How large is the percentage of Americans who support drastic military measures against Iraq, Afghanistan or Iran?

            drbuzz0 said:

    Christianity and Judism have their periods of conflict, but Islam is never anything but violent.

    Actually, it was the peaceful cultural and scientific center of the world until the crusades, where it was forced to adopt a more aggressive stance.

            drbuzz0 said:

    Oh don’t give me that crap. Israel is a country the size of New Jersey which occupies primarily desert that isn’t worth much. It was created from what had previously been a colony of the British that had been in limbo for years.

    Despite this the country has never been allowed to live in peace. They’ve been forced to seal their borders with extreme measures because if they don’t, they end up with people bombing buses and restaurants. There’s no “ethnic cleansing” there’s only an attempt to keep down the constant attempts to kill their citizens.

    BS. They dispossessed millions at gunpoint to create that country. It was a great mistake by the international community to allow that state to be created, and that mistake needs to be fixed.

            drbuzz0 said:

    You go to Israel and it’s the ONE AND ONLY country in the Middle East that gives you full rights that are recognized as the international standards.

    If you’re accused of a crime, you get a trial with a jury and an opportunity to mount a defense.

    You can file suit if you’re discriminated against because of your ethnicity or gender.

    You can file suit if the government mistreats you. You can freely publish material criticizing the government.

    Not only that, Israel allows non-jews to be citizens, even Arabs who are Muslims.

    You can be of any race and move to Israel through legitimate channels, with a visa and everything, and you can buy a place there. You can apply for residency and then citizenship. You can vote and even run for office.

    Except, of course, if you are a Palestinian, and especially if you want your property back.

            drbuzz0 said:

    There exists no such place outside Israel in the Middle East.

    Jordan is one such place I know well.

            drbuzz0 said:

    Jordan may be better than Iran or Saudi Arabia. It’s still run by a dictator king and is still an Islamic theocracy.

    It’s, much like Sweden, a monarchy with a state religion, but, much like Sweden, the power rests mainly with the elected parliament and the state religion is not mandatory and has little or no effect on the laws.

    Yes, monarchy is inherently undemocratic, but there are levels to it. Yes, a state religion is bad, but as long as it’s not mandatory and written into law, the damage is controllable.

            drbuzz0 said:

    Uh, they’re already a scourge on humanity and the safety of the world.

    This is what I’m talking about. There’s no point in letting them be part of the world.

    They’re inherently unfit and can’t contribute. You don’t relate with societies that only cause harm.

    It can’t do us any good to interact.

    With statements like that, I don’t think you are qualified to criticize others for lack of tolerance.

            drbuzz0 said:

    With no hope there’s no reason to bother.

    It doesn’t work that way. Remove hope, and you get the deadliest fighters imaginable.

            drbuzz0 said:

    I already said I know some Muslims, but they’re descent people because they’re extremely unreligious. It’s like a person who says “Well, I’m catholic.. I mean… I was raised… I haven’t gone to church in a few years or anything, but, uh.. I was married in a catholic church ten years ago.”

    A Muslim can be good when they’ve basically shrugged off most of the religion.

    Well, I know devout Muslims, Protestants and Catholics, and they are good people as well, despite their superstitions.

            drbuzz0 said:

    I invite any Muslim to come to the modern civil world. To break free of the filthy religion of violence and oppression.

    Take a look at some photos from the Middle East. Look at the roof tops. There’s a satellite dish on just about every one. Look at the stuff in shops. It’s the same as we have here. Most of them are already in the modern world. They lag a decade or two in some respects, but they are coming along nicely.

            drbuzz0 said:

    There is no need to live in self-oppression, your life dedicated to a god of war, pain and rage. There is no need to worship a despicable idol who demands you cause pain to yourself and others.

    I agree, but I also am strongly convinced that the god of Islam is not such a god, and neither is any of the world religions.

    If you plop down the greatest scholars of all religions, including atheism, and ask them one simple question: “How should one behave to be a good person?”, I’m pretty sure you will get more or less the same answer from everybody.


    Quote Comment
  28. 28
    Troberg Says:

            drbuzz0 said:

    To say it was the fault of us for mistreating them or that part of the world is idiotic. In addition to having many very very rich, there’s no justification for attacks like that based on a nations support for policies that may have not always been the best.

    Sure, US policy in the Middle east can be criticized and we certainly can look back at the colonial powers and see many mistakes and missdeads over the centuries.

    It’s more than bad policies. USA (and their allies) has stomped over large part of the world since WW2. Eventually, someone had enough, and it happened to be the ones currently under the US boot.

            drbuzz0 said:

    India has plenty to hold a grudge against the British for. Do you see Hindus engaged in constant terror attacks?

    Not now, because the matter is resolved. There were quite a lot of violence before the British left, though.

            drbuzz0 said:

    The Native Americans have been mistreated badly and were not given a fair shake in most cases until the mid 20th century. Do you see Native Americans constantly engaged in terror attacks?

    Too weak to mount any attacks mentionable.

            drbuzz0 said:

    Do you see constant terror at the hands of blacks sore about slavery and segregation? I suppose there was the Black Panthers, but other than that relatively small, short-lived and generally low impact thing not really.

    Well, there were some riots.

            drbuzz0 said:

    Do you see Jews bombing Germany?

    Why should they? They got what they wanted, their country.

            drbuzz0 said:

    How about the Vietnamese? The Aboriginals? The black South Africans? The Gypsies? The Hawaiians?

    In order:

    * No, they won, so why should they?
    * Too weak.
    * Plenty of fighting there until the apartheid doctrine fell, and still one of the most violent countries in the world, especially racially fueled violence. Heck, even Mandela started his career with terrorism.
    * Too weak and dispersed.
    * I don’t know enough about Hawaiian history to have an opinion.

            drbuzz0 said:

    Many many many societies have not engaged in 100% benevolent foreign policy or treatment of others, but no other group turns this into reason for unrestrained slaughter of civilians and constant terror tactics like Islamic societies do.

    Constant terror tactics? It’s just a few attacks, staged by a very small subset of the Islamic society.

    As for non-100% benevolence, I think we can put open warfare pretty much on the lower end of a percentage on a benevolence scale. The second Gulf war, the third Gulf war and Iraqi occupation, the bombing of Iraq between the wars and the attacks on civilian Iraqi aviation between the wars, the Afghanistan occupation, the support for israel, the constant destabilizing efforts of the entire region, the constant sabre rattling in the region. It adds up. Sooner or later, someone is bound to get pissed off, and it doesn’t take that many to pull off a terror attack.

    I don’t know if Sweden is representative or not, but I can tell you what the typical discussion where around the coffee table at work after the WTC incident. Basically, it was “Will this make USA understand that they are pissing the world off and that they need to stop waving their military and economic power around indiscriminately?”. The conclusion, which seems to be right, was “Probably not…”.


    Quote Comment

Leave a Reply

Current month ye@r day *

Please copy the string Nze0c4 to the field below:

*

Protected by WP Anti Spam