Explosion Believed to be Bomb

[The Real Picard]

Saw this on CNN yesterday... "Exlosion believed to be bomb" - just sounded funny to me, like one might think "Oh no! I hope that explosion wasn't due to melting ice cream!"

 

And while I'm rambling about bombs... I still can't fathom why there can be so many suicide bombers in the world. I mean, I know there are alot of sick and misguided people but how anyone can strap on enough dynamite to disengrate themselves, fully knowing, they're not going back to the ones they love, or ever experiencing anything on Earth again, well is beyond me.

 

I think CNN should do more bits on how crazy suicide bombing really is, in all languages, and maybe, just maybe a few of them will 'wake up' saving hundreds of lives in the process instead of murdering themselves and others.

 

Explosion believed to be bomb... sounds just like "Explosion believed to be Loud" to me. But what do I know?

 

TRP

[AceSpades]

Well I'd say around 99% of these "Suicide Bombers" are Islamic. In the Qu'ran it states that suicide is against Islam but Martyrdom is not.

 

Definition of Martyr:

"is a person who is put to death or endures suffering because of a belief, principle or cause. The death of a martyr or the value attributed to it is called martyrdom."

 

The point of these bombers isn't suicide, it's to kill "infidels" in battle. Mohammed allows this and it's encouranged with heavenly rewards when you p!@#$%^&* on into a so called paradise.

 

I found a verse in the Qu'ran which kinda sums this up

 

Sura (4:74) - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward."

 

 

 

 

P.S - Not every explosion is caused by a bomb oh foolish one. What about if a power generator shorts or a gas pipe ignites?

Edited May 23, 2007 by AceSpades

[SeVeR]

Religion removes the fear of death through the promise of afterlife paradise. If the whole world were darwinist/survivalist, the suicide bombers wouldn't exist. All forms of life value personal survival above all else, unfortunately humanity has derived a way of making others give up their lives to further anothers... in a way it is an extremely darwinistic motivation on behalf of the instillers of this belief. Unfortunately i doubt the teachers know that.

[The Real Picard]

P.S - Not every explosion is caused by a bomb oh foolish one. What about if a power generator shorts or a gas pipe ignites?

 

 

I know this, it just sounded and looked funny on CNN.

[Aileron]

Wrong again SeVeR. Darwinism only requires the organism reproduce before dying. Infact, in the case of most insects, especially the variety which lives in colonies (ants, bees, termites, etc.), males will commit suicide after reproducing. Given that humans are social, under the Darwinist method a group would maximize its chances of survival and increase the rate of evolution by sending out all adults who are not going to reproduce in the future on suicide missions against other groups, for as long as they remain all they do is consume resources which could be allocated to the next generation.

 

 

Also, you can discount religion as the source of it by citing Japan during WWII, which though not having any religion (other than Buddhism, which isn't technically a religion) showed a lot of suicidal behavior, both in the air as Kamikaze pilots and on the ground. You'll say that this was due to imperialistic nationalism, but there were several other empire-wannabes at this time which did not use suicide strikes on the battlefield. In reality, the suicide bombing was based upon thier culture and history, and the Way of the Samurai which they believed in.

 

They didn't believe in an afterlife. They overcame their fear of death by realising that it was inevitable and then by wanting it to be as 'glorious' as possible.

 

 

The problem is that at this time in history teenagers and young adults have a high rate of depression and suicide to begin with. Deep down, these bombers want to kill themselves. All al Queda needs to do is talk them into it. Its probably very easy to do, as the person already has an immense amount of self-loathing to begin with, and the recruiter just has to get them to transfer that hatred to a large 'faceless' foreign government. Generally the difference between an al-Queda suicide bomber and that kid who went on a murderous ramapge at V.T. is that the al-Queda bomber was recruited first and pointed in a direction.

 

Culture however is playing a role. In civilized countries, when identified such persons are given encouragement to live. In the countries where the Muslim Brotherhood operates, when identified such persons are encouraged to join a terrorist group. Thus, they can generate more suicidal persons per capita. (...and it is the Muslim Brotherhood who is behind everything, though they keep forming splitt-off groups with different names in attempts to confuse.)

[rootbear75]

Islams are also promised 72 virgins ( ) upon entering heaven...

 

watch this:

 

72 virgins video

 

 

funny videos at darlugo.com

 

EDIT: Html doesnt appear to work... go here: http://www.darlugo.com/?id=526

Edited May 23, 2007 by rootbear75

[GameTime]

P.S - Not every explosion is caused by a bomb oh foolish one. What about if a power generator shorts or a gas pipe ignites?

 

 

I know this, it just sounded and looked funny on CNN.

 

I don't think you do.

 

[MillenniumMan]

Half are religous zealouts who believe that what they are doing is dictated by God, the rest are weak-minded simpletons who are easily coaxed or cohearsed with a bit of candy in ones hand from a fat guy in a beard in a sedan promising them a lot of cool stuff will happen if you just go along with them

 

Hallowed be the Ori, *starts chanting* sarcantum dori los cantum Ori, dos velios dominos...

*huge forcefield surrounds the StarGate as a massive amount of troops come spilling through the gate, ready to take over the milky way galaxy*

 

To hear the real message, play this record backwards

[Aileron]

sigh....

 

I like StarGate too, but...

 

Those are CHARACTERS. Real people don't follow such flat roles. Weak minded fools are actually in short supply, though there are many who lust for greed or glory who are willing to play the role of a weak minded fool in order to justify their selfish greed.

 

Belief in an afterlife isn't a factor. People come to terms with mortality regardless.

Belief in God usually lowers the capacity for zealots to kill, because then they wish to convert their enemies whenever they can.

 

The Nazis didn't believe in God, yet they were zealots. The communists didn't either, yet they were also zealots. The Imperial Japanese didn't believe in a diety, but they were zealots enough to fly kamikaze.

 

The truth of the matter is that while the word of God is constant, people will decide if they want to follow it, and if their violation is small enough, they prefer to lie rather than admit their actions are unholy. Clearly, suicide bombing while citing the name of God violates "Thou shalt not use the name of thy God in vain", and "Thou shalt not murder."

 

"Thou shalt not murder" is easy enough, though when origionally written it did not include properly justified cases such as self-defense and acts of war. "Thou shalt not kill" was a mis-translation.

 

However, the violation which is relevant to this case is "Thou shalt not use the name of thy God in vain." Basically, unless the heavens open up and you hear his voice telling you to do it or a burning bush talks to you and tells you to do it or the angel Gabriel comes down and tells you to do it, God did NOT tell you to do it and you do NOT have His permission to say that He did! And if so, others are not expected to believe you until you show them a sign as such.

 

Simply put, if someone wants to kill someone else, they will. In a non-religious environment, a sinner does what he wants, and in a religious environment he does what he wants and lies about it. To that end, religion helps, because if there is a religion present, the authority in charge has to deal with it. The leader could lie, but if the population has copies of the holy text a their home he wouldn't get away with it for long. He could twist, but only so far. Point being without religion, leaders like Hitler and Stalin could directly move on to "Go on my crusade because I said so" without having to deal with a divine authority which contradicts their opinion.

 

 

So what makes a zealot? The book I read when learning history was "The True Believer" by Eric Hoffer. He states that zealotry is usually caused my socioeconomic conditions rather than idealogy. Infact, the idealogy is irrelevant. Generally, those who are content with their wealth don't engage in it because they have everything to lose and nothing to gain. Those who are too poor just are afraid of losing what they have left. Those who are somewhat poor but have a taste of wealth are the ones who can become zealots.

 

This is how the Muslim Brotherhood formed. They got a little money from selling oil, and thus want to rule the world. Islam got twisted into an excuse for their behavior. Like the KKK, they don't do anything directly any more and instead form splinter groups like al Queda which does all the grunt work while the Muslim Brotherhood slips them money and does their propaganda. Then, the total organization convinces the suicidal or near-suicidal to blow themselves up rather than use pills or rope.

 

So all islamic terrorism is is yet another case of greed and hatred.

[SeVeR]

Belief in an afterlife isn't a factor. People come to terms with mortality regardless.

Belief in God usually lowers the capacity for zealots to kill, because then they wish to convert their enemies whenever they can.

Proposterous.

 

Belief in an afterlife removes the fear of death and allows a person to perform more radically dangerous acts without a thought to personal survival. Suicide bombing is the natural result.

 

Belief in a God is used to justify the killings as being what an omnipotent all-good and powerful en!@#$%^&*y would want to be done. It removes personal guilt!

 

The Nazis didn't believe in God, yet they were zealots. The communists didn't either, yet they were also zealots.

They didn't suicide bomb anyone. They valued power but in a destructive and non-survivalist fashion, and they perished as a result at the hands of their enemies.

 

So all islamic terrorism is is yet another case of greed and hatred

Convenient. What of vengeance?

 

Wrong again SeVeR. Darwinism only requires the organism reproduce before dying. Infact, in the case of most insects, especially the variety which lives in colonies (ants, bees, termites, etc.), males will commit suicide after reproducing. Given that humans are social, under the Darwinist method a group would maximize its chances of survival and increase the rate of evolution by sending out all adults who are not going to reproduce in the future on suicide missions against other groups, for as long as they remain all they do is consume resources which could be allocated to the next generation.

Aileron, if Darwinism only requires the organism to reproduce before dying, then up until the point of reproduction the need to survive must be of principle importance. All men and women who are biologically capable of reproducing should therefore not kill themselves for any reason. Anyway, i did say Darwinism/survivalism. I feel that the survival instinct is the basis for all the morals of a productive non-destructive society. Religion distorts those morals and is a pernicious influence on society.

 

Your theory that absolute darwinism would mean sending all adults who are not going to reproduce out on suicide missions is profoundly flawed. You must first understand how morals are derived from the survival instinct. The most basic moral "do not kill" is in fact a product of the will to survive: We do not kill because then others will fear us and attempt to eliminate the threat to their survival. i.e. killing is a threat to our survival. Of course if our survival is threatened, then we may kill to protect ourselves. By sending in suicide bombers we increase the threat to our own survival and instill the opinion that it is acceptable to not value your life. This is profoundly damaging to a cause of war. Peace should be sought in all conflicts of interest. Secondly, almost all adults are biologically capable of reproducing until old age, and all adults can be subject to a change of opinion, so how would you know who is not going to reproduce. Thirdly, sending someone on a suicide mission who does not want to die brings a threat to your survival from the person being sent.

 

It's a well do!@#$%^&*ented fact that the Japanese saw their royal family as Gods before the conclusion of the second world war. Religion can most certainly be blamed.

[Wild Luck]

I saw a do!@#$%^&*entary about it on the arabs part, it was a while ago, but I am going to try and explain it.

 

It said some arabs saw their parents been humiliated by israely soldiers when they were kids and that made them seek something that cant be humiliated when they were bigger, and something that cant be humiliated was god, so they might join the terrorist group who claim that god was on their side and did kamikazi. And that was the reason they could grab more easy the idea of suicide bombing.

 

Anyway in my own opinion those sicks arabs, who raise their children since day 0 and start telling them that been kamikazi is the greatest thing in the world and that they will get 70 virgings in their afterlive if they do it, they are just brain washed since childish. Imagine an arab telling his son since he is 3 months old: "kamikazi, kamikazi" and that its first spoken word is kamikazi. What can you spect, really?

[Aileron]

People don't need to believe in an afterlife to defeat their fear of death.

 

 

The relevant feature is not weather or not the organism will reproduce in the future, but whether or not the organism thinks he will. Most mammalian apex-hunting predators function in packs. If morality is based upon survivalism, it would be from the need to form social groups in order to hunt, not for fear of reprisals. If the thing you attacked is dead, there will be no reprisal.

 

Such groups have alphas, team leaders, and omegas, villiage idiots, and a plethura of roles in between. Omegas don't mate because their superiors won't let them. Usually being an omega is a passing thing though. They grow stonger while their superiors grow older, or maybe they just leave the pack. However, suicidal tendencies can develop if the same animal stays as the omega for too long, because all they are is a waste of resources on the group.

 

Now in our modern society, most people under 18 is an omega. Hormonally, those people are ready to take charge. Thus, they spend several years as the omega and after a while their hormones tell them that they are a waste of food.

 

Ofcourse, humans are not animals, and thus we have reasoning ability that will override these hormonal impulses in most cases. (An evolutionary feature, as really human reasoning is the only biological advantage humans have over animals.) Still, even under Darwinism it is "Humans evolved from animals" and not "humans are the latest variety of animal", pending the day scientists can get a monkey to understand quantum mechanics.

 

 

 

 

I know the Nazis weren't suicidal, but they can be used to show a point. We all know Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Hitler learned it too. His interpretation of that scientific theory was that the strong (the "master race") had a right to induce survival of the fittest by killing off the weak (jews for starters). The goal was to somehow induce human evolution by eventually using breeding to assign positions of power, and most likely would have moved on to arranged marriages.

 

Theres nothing wrong with the theory when it is used in biology. However, it makes a poor political agenda. Similarly, if humankind threw out biology it wouldn't prevent groups like the Nazis from forming...they would just find something else to latch on to and twist towards their own agenda.

 

Religion is similar. It is what it is, and what it is contributes to peace. However, there are always idiots who want to kill and are willing to twist and misinterpret everything around them in order to justify it.

[SeVeR]

True, people don't need to believe in an afterlife to defeat their fear of death. I never claimed such a thing. However, belief in an afterlife has to be a major contributer for many of those who are not afraid to die. The fear of death stops me and you from killing ourselves for a cause. Religion gives a ticket to a world beyond death, so why be afraid of dying a religious martyr? Of course there are instances where religion is not involved... there wouldn't be many suicides otherwise.

 

If morality is based upon survivalism, it would be from the need to form social groups in order to hunt, not for fear of reprisals.

Fear of reprisal is the whole reason we formed social groups (tribes) in the first place. We are stronger in a group, we are more likely to kill our enemies, less likely to be killed by them; it's why we formed groups - in order to survive. From this simple co-operation we learn not to kill those in our tribe - basic morality. If we kill those in our tribe we become feared by others in the tribe, and they may eliminate us to ensure their survival. We then learn not to indiscriminately kill outsiders and non-involved groups, as they may seek to eliminate us as a result - general morality. We still kill our enemies, but seek alliances.

 

An omega is in my opinion a rarity. However they are still useful to the tribe rather than a "waste of resources". They serve the purpose as protector for those who will reproduce, helping to guarantee the Darwinistic progression, even if they themselves are not worthy. This is rare as frustration can arise, which can act as a counter force to Darwinsitic progression by posing as a threat to the survival of those who will reproduce.

 

Now in our modern society, most people under 18 is an omega. Hormonally, those people are ready to take charge. Thus, they spend several years as the omega and after a while their hormones tell them that they are a waste of food.

I do not understand your reasoning. Everything around a child/teenager is telling them that they are not a waste of resources. The existence of adults tells them that they will one day be at the age to reproduce.

 

Humans are just another animal. Our survival instinct has merely developed beyond that of any other spieces. It has developed religion - the means to permanently weaken other members of the spieces in order to conquer them, rule them, and keep them from seeking power and wealth. I'm beginning to see religion as a natural course afterall...

 

Hitlers mistake was simple and in two parts:

1. He made the rest of the world fear him. They percieved his invasions of Poland and France and his vision of a German master race as labelling them the weak and the disposable. England/America and every other race therefore had a survivalist compulsion to annihilate Hitler and the Germans.

2. He misunderstood empathy. Empathy is a naturally derived moral, which is very different to charity. Empathy tells us to help the weak become strong so that they may become our ally and owe us a debt - something that may aid our own survival. Charity helps the weak through the instilled moral obligation that it is the right thing to do, it very often keeps them weak, as their is no ambition beyond the short term fix. Hitler annihilated the weak, and went against the naturally survivalist empathetic urge to help the weak become strong. Prime example: Hitler would have killed Stephen Hawking, I would have seen the potential for a great mind (as i do in all mentally able people) - It is not survivalist and it is not Darwinistic.

 

So this theory when understood is perfectly applicable to politics.

 

Yes, there are always idiots who misinterpret, and despots who deliberately misinterpret religion and darwinism. The difference is darwinism can be progressively understood as it is based on us (our evolution, our history, our biology), religion will always be open to interpretation as it is based on an en!@#$%^&*y that is unknown to our senses and exists only for as long as we have faith. It is based on words in a book, and you should know that anything can be re-interpreted for a purpose (gay-bashing, abortion doctor killing, muslim-hating etc) based on whether that purpose is desired.

Edited May 29, 2007 by SeVeR

[MillenniumMan]

What I'm seeing most of is the what ifs of death. Death isn't the end all beat all punishment for some. For others, it is infact the promise of something better after they leave this coil of existance. If they stay, they can be harmed in so many ways.

 

Ail, I was trying to make the point that some have this notion drilled into their head that from the womb what they have been led to believe as God will have ultimate control over their lives and afterlife. Zealots would have control over such a poor boob, lead him to believe that the world is flat and we are at the center of it all. The catholic church did this, and we had the crusades. We also had the black death because most were taught that cats were the devils pets, instead of killers of mice that brought the plauges. The inquisition, the salem witch trials, sink and they were good, float and they are witches.

 

Fear of those greater that can give life and death or grant safety or harsh punishments is a driving factor in all men. Those claiming to represent God and his version of a belief system are those who are !@#$%^&*ed if what they bring is harm and those who follow them ought to have the flavor smacked out of their mouths.

 

I like to think there is a difference between faith and religion, being that faith is what you hold to be true and religion is what others tell you is true but that you just wind up falling for the party line.

 

Me personaly, I know God said no killing, no stealing, honor your parents because they brought you into this world. Even though there could be a problem with that last one seeing as how my mother is catholic and I'm not, I still know her as my mom, the one who raised me, who wouldn't harm me or let harm come to me. This is a matter of devotion. Some would belive that it's ok to harm a child (or anyone else they deem fit).

 

Faith in what you know to be right is important only to you, you can share it, just don't try to drill it into people. That's how wars start.

[MillenniumMan]

Hitlers mistake was simple and in two parts:

1. He made the rest of the world fear him. They percieved his invasions of Poland and France and his vision of a German master race as labelling them the weak and the disposable. England/America and every other race therefore had a survivalist compulsion to annihilate Hitler and the Germans.

2. He misunderstood empathy. Empathy is a naturally derived moral, which is very different to charity. Empathy tells us to help the weak become strong so that they may become our ally and owe us a debt - something that may aid our own survival. Charity helps the weak through the instilled moral obligation that it is the right thing to do, it very often keeps them weak, as their is no ambition beyond the short term fix. Hitler annihilated the weak, and went against the naturally survivalist empathetic urge to help the weak become strong. Prime example: Hitler would have killed Stephen Hawking, I would have seen the potential for a great mind (as i do in all mentally able people) - It is not survivalist and it is not Darwinistic.

 

Wait a minute, I thought Adolph's medical report while in the Austrian Army showed him with a 1 1/4" peins. I'm sorry, but if he belived so fervently in superiority, he should have slit his own throat years before becoming chancellor

 

Joking aside, there are many productive people in our society that deserve mention other than the great Mr. Hawking. Carl Sagan (deceased), Michu Kaku, !@#$%^&* Cheyney (shot a lawyer) Margaret Thatcher, KISS, the biochemist Timothy Leary not the guru. Let's name others

Edited May 29, 2007 by MillenniumMan

[SeVeR]

Carl Sagan for sure. He wrote Cosmos, which romanticised the history of science and convinced me to become an astrophysicist. I think i read one of Kaku's popular Quantum physics books, if thats the right guy. I don't know about the others... Thatcher and Cheney deserve eachother. As for Hitler's Braunpoker, the story is probably made up, just like the one about him being a panzer (pansy).

[MillenniumMan]

Carl Sagan for sure. He wrote Cosmos, which romanticised the history of science and convinced me to become an astrophysicist. I think i read one of Kaku's popular Quantum physics books, if thats the right guy. I don't know about the others... Thatcher and Cheney deserve eachother. As for Hitler's Braunpoker, the story is probably made up, just like the one about him being a panzer (pansy).

 

Well, the boy still had more issues than a newsstand.

 

It's a shame we don't as of yet have the means to copy the real time thoughts of our greats, the ones who have gone can never be and the ones that still are won't be with us forever. With the mind of Hawking, Benjamin Carson and Einstein (the scientist, not the bagel guys) sitting in a supercomputer somewhere, so many current issues could be solved, just have to make sure they don't realize they're sitting in a machine. That might cause them to go nuts.