I'm not a theologian but I thought that an agnostic could believe in god its just that they acknowledge that it is impossible to comprehend its existence and hence don't bother trying ?
Printable View
I'm not a theologian but I thought that an agnostic could believe in god its just that they acknowledge that it is impossible to comprehend its existence and hence don't bother trying ?
Red brigade :) .Quote:
Originally Posted by Zed
I agree silent, Hiroshima was the largest terrorist act ever committed.
I also think that Israel uses terrorism tactics in its push to get more land promised by god.
No, an agnostic accepts that you can never know whether or not there is a god. It is impossible for an agnostic to have an absolute belief in God - if he does, he is not an agnostic. Some agnostics might believe that there could be a god, in other words, they don't rule it out. There is an important difference.Quote:
an agnostic could believe in god its just that they acknowledge that it is impossible to comprehend its existence and hence don't bother trying
An atheist on the other hand believes that there is no god, or that there was one but he is dead. This is an absolute belief that an agnostic cannot hold.
As opposed to a gnostic, that is a completely different god botherer:U:U:UQuote:
Originally Posted by silentC
Then there are gnoles - and whatever you do, don't sell rope to them....
I watched part of that interview with Haneef. It was the most pathetic interviewing style I have seen in a while. As much as I disliked the attitude of the late Richard Carlton, he makes that interviewer look like schoolgirl.
She simply accepted everything and moved on to the next question. Are you are terrorist. No. OK. (not quoted)
And as to your solution Zed. The fact that the punishment is handed out by a "non believer" would make them a martyr and heighten their "hero" status.
Was it just me, or was the "one way ticket" line of questioning simply an ask and accept style of questioning? I still want to know why he had a one way ticket going to see his family shortly after the bombing, knowing that his family was involved.
Given that I didn't want to watch the rest of the interview, did he at any stage condemn his cousin.
I've got no problem with the way he was treated and I can tell you I have no sympathy for this government. His detention only differs from others in that he can be held without charge for a little longer than others. Big deal. It's not the G Bay type of detention.
As to his visa, well I see it as a privilege not an entitlement. If there is any doubt about him or even his family, why on earth should we be taking the risk.
Too me, the system has worked very well thus far. We are not dealing with people who play by the rules (which does not mean our government shouldn't) so the rules/laws need to evolve with the situation with which we are now faced. That my friends is a fact of life.
As an analogy, there was no need to legislate against spam at one point in time.
BTW- I have no view on whether Haneef is a terrorist or not. I don't know as I don't have enough information to make an informed decision. Nor does anybody else posting their opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by silentC
Had to Wiki that one:?
Hi CQuote:
Originally Posted by silentC
My birth date is the 6th August and yes, every year I remember the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There was recently some work done on the recollections of the victims and makes for horrible and compelling viewing. http://search.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/sear...rt=2&scope=all
Was it a terrorist act to drop a bomb on a city and kill 140,000 people? Was it a terrorist act to send the tanks into Tiannamen Square or massacre the men and boys of Srebeniza? Yes. Was it a terrorist act to storm Normandy or Gallipoli? Was it a terrorist act to send subs into Pearl Harbour and bomb the US fleet. No.
When soldiers fight soldiers its war, reprehensible, low down mean dirty old war. When civilian populations are randomly targetted its terrorism. I could get pedantic and claim that a lot of communication is terrorising civilian populations, eg tax department warnings, but that devalues the impact of the word.
But here is the rub, its a word that describes an emotion. It has been co-opted in the cause of political control. To create a war on an emotion!! wallys,
ps God told the shrub to invade Iraq. Poor god, she gets blamed for so much....
Sebastiaan
I read The Man Who Sold Rope to the Gnoles many years ago in an anthology of horror stories edited by Alfred Hitchcock.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gra
Allied bombing of Dresden, is that the same thing? Discuss (fight you buggers fight)Quote:
Originally Posted by Sebastiaan56
Speaking of words and emotions, it's funny the way terrific is now accepted to mean the opposite of horrific, don't you think?
The very fact that civilians are victims of war does not make the act that killed them, 'a terrorist act', in a situation where they are collateral damage, so to speak. It sounds awful, I know.
How is that civilian categorized when he or she goes to work in a munitions factory or even a factory that supplies food to the armed forces. How is the same person categorized if they support the war in question.
I think the problem is the fact that war is no longer fought by two armies facing each other in a open field. Times have changed. Modern warfare is fought in areas surrounded by civilians. Identifying combatants is now also a problem, like in Vietnam. You don't know who the enemy is. The rules again, do seem to be followed by all involved.
Now honestly, why do we pretend that war is civilized and fought in accordance with rules? I think you can go back centuries and find examples of "unsportmanlike" behaviour on the battle fields and beyond. Who are we kidding.
Terrorism works, like it or not.
I'll bite, certainly was one of the greatest acts of vandalism in that war, almost as bad as building an army base on top of the ruins of Babylon. Was it terrorism, yes, it targetted civilians. So was the Mongol slaughter of the population of Peking, the Crusades were pretty suss, as was Cromwell's invasion of Ireland.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gra
Sebastiaan
Just the facts ma'm........
Back in the olden times (ww2 or ww1 era) An American general did something like that and it instantly cured problems with fanatical terrorists.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zed