War

[Wojtek_Lerch1]

Glenn Sherman <gsherman@remove_this.m20.net> wrote:
…

The Bible has proven itself over and over again to be the most accurate
history book ever written. Archeological digs keep finding things that are
mentioned in the Bible. Because you might not want to believe in the God
of the Bible, does that mean that the evidence in the Bible is not true?

Science seems to always be proving itself wrong. What we thought was the
truth before doesn’t hold up anymore. ( Sorry, I am not up on all the new
“theories” ) I saw a documentary about volcanoes and the different types of
eruptions. The experts had always believed that they could tell what type
of
eruption had occured by the “evidence” left behind. 10 years after the
eruption of Mt. St. Helens, those experts decided that all of their theories
on volcanoes where wrong because the evidence of the eruption
contradicted what they saw happen 10 years prior.
This may seem like a flip example, but I just wonder why so much
credit is given to theories and so little credit is given to something that
has stood up for all these years.

Even if it’s true that the way people interpret the Bible has not
changed as much since the Crusades or the Spanish Inquisition as
scientific theories have, the reason is mainly because science grows due
to accumulation of new facts. It’s normal in science that a new theory
replaces an old theory – science knows that there’s a difference
between a theoretical model of the world and the world itself.

Sorry but I just couldn’t resist… I’ll shut up and crawl back into my
hole now.

[Mitchell_Schoenbrun]

Previously, Igor Kovalenko wrote in qdn.public.qnxrtp.advocacy:

Photons follow same lines. One of few actually observable effects of GR is
‘warping’ of light rays. It was predicted by theory and actually verified by
astronomers, which is what really made people to believe into GR. It would
be impossible in ‘force’ model, because photons do not have mass.

The was one of the first confirmations of GR. I believe it was shortly
after WWII that photographs were taken during an eclipse, and 6 months
later that confirmed this. Also important was the precession of the
orbit of Mercury. Not that precesses at all, but the total amount was
not accurately predicted by Newton alone. GR added a factor that
explained a lot of the error.

I think today the effect of gravity on the frequency of a laser is
one of the most accurate confirmations. I think I also read recently
about some Astronomical observation that indicated the warp in space.
That also brings to mind a phenomenon called Gravitational Lensing.



Mitchell Schoenbrun --------- maschoen@pobox.com

[Mitchell_Schoenbrun]

Previously, Stephen Munnings wrote in qdn.public.qnxrtp.advocacy:

Mitch, I think the question was in the context that God has blessed
America in the past. That question pre-supposes that there is a God.
Otherwise the question would be asked in a different form. I am not
using this as proof of the existence of God, merely pointing out that the
evidence asked for was not the existence of God, but that He had blessed
America.

Well any (actual) evidence that G-d has blessed America would be
evidence that he exists, don’t you think? I do recall some
statements about how great this country is and how fortunate
it has been, but I don’t see how that is EVIDENCE in any real
sense. One call equally call the falling of an Apple evidence
of G-d on the basis that someone must have invented gravity.

Dang, another turn down. How about one small piece. Just something
obvious and incontravertable. Sorry for the flipancy. Of course there
is no such evidence. If there were, why would there be any atheists.

That is a flawed argument. If there were evidence (which I believe
there is) there would be atheists for exactly the same reason that even
if there were no evidence (which you believe) there would still be some
who believed in various forms of God.

I agree. I think it would be more fair to say that if there were
incontravertable evidence, then there would be few atheists. Of course
there are relatively few, but to push further, if there were such
evidence that the G-d of the Christian Bible were real, then there
would be few Muslims, and Hindus, something that is clearly not the
case.

Is there evidence of a round (spherical) Earth?

Yes. Climb a tall building near the ocean and watch the boats
dissappear over the curviture. This is evidence that the earth
is a least a section of a sphere.

Are there any who still believe in a flat Earth?

Yes, they have a vibrant organization I think out of England.
The flat earth is help up on the backs of very large tortuses,
or turtles.

Human nature being what it is, and with many,
many factors playing into it, you will not get agreement from all,
regardless of the evidence!

I’m not really all that upset about people who don’t believe
well established facts.

BTW - if you are really interested, I did supply a link - go look at it.
I was not copping out of an answer (for anybody genuinely interested), I
was only copping out on the work of re-typing and re-phrasing the most
appropriate chunks of it at the time.
Again, that link is : > http://www.rae.org/bibref.html

Alas, this site sends the QNX 4 Voyager browser to a search engine called
your search engine.com. I’ll take a look later off line.

Evidence comes in many forms, the “mylar from Roswell” type of evidence
only being one possiblity. “Examining it and doing a reasonable job of
deciding whether it is a space ship or balloon” (or something else) is
drawing conclusions from the evidence and forming your own belief based
on the evidence!

Right. But there is a good point that you are missing here. If we
both examine some Mylar from the crash site, and it has stamped on it
“Made in Chicago” and you tell me that the Space travelers put that
on there just in case the ship crashed to fool us, well then we no
longer have a common basis to discuss things rationally. Likewise
if you, as an example, tell me that the red ocre paint found on the
Shroud of Turin is actually Jesus’s blood, but that some supernatural
force changed it into paint, well again we don’t have a common basis
in which to talk.

History is intrinsic to the case here. And the history contained in the
Bible is also. The real hard incontrovertible evidence is the series
events that happened roughly 2000 years ago.

Again, either there will be evidence of those events or not. If you
include the Bible as part of that evidence, then you are being
self referential.

If you took the gospel
accounts of Jesus’ life, sayings, and events surrounding his life as
well, gospel, (accurate historical fact) then a serious scrutiny of these
should be pretty convincing.

What evidence is there that the gospel is an accurate historical fact?
Do credible historians who are not otherwise prejudiced, report their
agreement with this?

If you believe these to be concocted or
distorted accounts, then it is easy to dismiss the events and sayings as
evidence.

Well if you aren’t at least skeptical of these events, then
you have of even approximating their truthfulness.

So, if you want to be lazy about it, just decide which group of “experts”
you wish to believe, and follow them. (That is what most people do!)

I don’t need to reply on experts.

(Note some of my statements here can be taken as rather harsh and
sarcastic - please note that they are not directed at you, Mitch,
personally. I respect you and have long appreciated your posts in the
QNX fora)

I don’t take any of it that way, and I hope you will consider my replies
sincere.

Mitchell Schoenbrun --------- maschoen@pobox.com

[Mitchell_Schoenbrun]

Previously, Rick Lake wrote in qdn.public.qnxrtp.advocacy:

But what if that really is the case. I.e. that certain regions in space
that look like voids, really is “cold matter” blocking light.

Or maybe the “cold matter” is too small to block light noticeably.
(Perhaps lots of debris from earlier supernova’s. Or maybe just plain
“space dust”.)

Incidentally it was also speculated that LOTS of neutrinos could account for
the missing mass. (According to a documentary I saw once…)

In fact an good college level course in Cosmology would examine all the
various types of mass/energy where the “dark” matter might be hiding.
For example, Neutrinos, molecules, black holes, snow balls. The last
item is not a joke btw. For each candidate one can make various
determinations, such as, would we detect it, and how likely is it to
exist at all. For example, we know generally how black holes
are formed, we therefore know that the universe isn’t old enough
to have created sufficient black holes to account for the missing
mass. I’m refering here only to the type of black hole formed by
a collapsing star.


Mitchell Schoenbrun --------- maschoen@pobox.com

[Mitchell_Schoenbrun]

Previously, Glenn Sherman wrote in qdn.public.qnxrtp.advocacy:

I don’t mean to keep this (thread) going forever, but…

…

There has been a lot a discussion here about reality being perception.
If this is the case, how can you say that evidence is a chunk of mylar?
Don’t you mean that evidence is YOUR perception of mylar. Even if
it is a widely held perception, what makes it better than my perception
of mylar? In which case, is there any real truth or reality?

…

Well this is a completely reductionist argument. It has the beautiful
effect of both winning all arguments, ending them, and providing
not content to the discussion. It’s not that it isn’t a coherent
argument, it’s just that like a mother telling a 5 year old about
walking off a cliff, “You don’t want to go there”.

The Bible has proven itself over and over again to be the most accurate
history book ever written. Archeological digs keep finding things that are
mentioned in the Bible.

Why do you think that proves the Bible is the word of G-d?
Even the most adament atheist will admit that the Bible is
based in some way on historical events. Unlike some, I
believe that Jesus existed. I just don’t think he was
any more than a very enlightened person.

Science seems to always be proving itself wrong.

What that statement shows a deep misunderstanding of
Science. If something scientific could not be proved wrong,
then it would not be science. The basis of science is that
you use evidence as the arbiter between theories of universe.
Any theory might be superceeded by a better one as more and
better evidence accumulates. Theories are ultimately judged
by how well they explain things. That Science proves itself
wrong on a regular basis shows that scientific inquiry is in
a healthy state. Not it is very uncommon for established
theories to not just be superceeded, but proved completely
wrong. For example, credible scientists expect that the
theory of evolution will be tweeked for a long time to come.
It would however at this stage be very surprising for its
basic tenents to be reversed.

What we thought was the truth before doesn’t hold up anymore.

Again, while science moves toward truth, it doesn’t ever
profess having found it.

10 years after the
eruption of Mt. St. Helens, those experts decided that all of their theories
on volcanoes where wrong because the evidence of the eruption
contradicted what they saw happen 10 years prior.

I don’t suppose this will help much, but there are wide disparities in
the quality of knowledge in different areas of science. Geology is in
a relatively rudamentary state. If you told me that it was discovered
that there are no tectonic plates, that would be rather surprising.

This may seem like a flip example, but I just wonder why so much
credit is given to theories and so little credit is given to something that
has stood up for all these years.

It’s very hard to know how to respond to a statement like that.
For many thousands of years before Jesus, the world was filled with
beliefs that held up as well. The flat earth is one such idea.
Of course it had the scientifically convient feature of being
falsifyable.


Mitchell Schoenbrun --------- maschoen@pobox.com

[ian_zagorskih2]

“Kevin Stallard” <mailto:kevin@robots.flyingrobots.fly> wrote in message
news:9nee2s$lra$1@inn.qnx.com…

Hi Mario,

I don’t know where you live, but I also have a couple of thoughts.

i’m really apologize to Steve Raid for this posting after his request to
stop feeding this thread but just interesting, how folks would comment this
info:

http://www.seattle.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=6934&group=webcast

1. I am a true-blue-right-to-the-bone American. I love freedom.
2. There are those who are jealous of that freedom and prosperity. (They
   call America “the great Satan…”) and would like to destroy her and her
   interests in order to justify their existance.
3. In order to keep us and others free, it requires our presence
   throughout
   the world and requires a STRONG military.
4. I don’t know of a single country that we’ve beaten in battle that we
   haven’t rebuilt and provided for.
5. We don’t use our military to increase our borders or put a people into
   captivity or its own countrymen.

If the company to whom you wish to sell, however unperfect they may be, is
a
weapons manufactor that supplies a country that supports the cause of
freedom, I would support them 120%. Yes they makes gobbes of money at
their
craft. That’s fine with me. It means they can afford the very best.

War is terrible, but so is the loss of liberty. This is why involvment in
the political process is important that we may have upright, moral and
leaders with integrity at the helm of this powerful force.

Kevin

// wbr

[Lee_R_Copp]

If US wanted to just subdue Japan, it would be enough to simply blow
Fujiyama mountain or some smaller island or anything with high symbolic

I don’t agree. Blow up some scenery and expect them to surrender? We
were digging them out like tics from island to island and still they kept
fighting. Their fanatical defense of those islands and their homeland was
not something the US really wanted to go up against if it could be avoided.
We knew we could do it and win but the end cost would have been
enourmous…

However, US chosen civilian cities to make an example. I think it was

When a country is at war there is no such thing as a ‘civilian city’.
Regardless
of whether that city produces tanks or guns or corn or babies, it is all put
into the war effort.

The fact that 2 cities were bombed also speaks for itself. One would still
be enough to demonstrate the power. So why another one? To show them you
have more than one bomb? It would be rather dumb for japs to assume you
made

The effect of the bomb was totally beyond comprehension of anyone at
the time. The US didn’t even know how powerful it was. The japenese
were in shock and were looking for an ‘Act-of-God’ explanation until we
told them we did it and would do it again. Take the recent trade center
attack. When the first plane hit, New Yorkers were in shock and first
believed that it was a terrible accident. It wasn’t until the second plane
hit that people fully realized what was going on…

only one bomb and wasted it on a city with no military/strategic value,

When you are dealing with a country/society which can produce kamikazis,
then EVERY city has military value.

population, which is not really guilty, not all of it anyway. Any decent
country does not fight with civilian population, war or not. So how about

Whats the difference between a civilian population and military population?
The term ‘innocent civilian’ becomes void when countries go to war.

[Lee_R_Copp]

Can some one verify that this guy, Gordon Sinclair, really exists and
really
wrote this?

I can’t verify that he exists or wrote it but I have seen it before several
years (I think)
ago. It came in my email box from my normal humor ‘chain’. I definately
saw it
before the WTC tragedy so it is not something he just wrote…

[Lee_R_Copp]

1. Only around 7% of the US population has passports. The US media devotes
   such a disproportionate time/space to domestic news that world news is
   virtually excluded. Ergo the US population is, in general, ignorant of
   world
   affairs. It’s not surprising they can’t comprehend why anyone has a motive
   for attacking them.

How much time do you really have in a day to watch the news? How long would
it take to cover all the major stories in the 100+ countries out there? Do
you have
a job? Do you have a family? Do you have any hobbies? Do you really want
to watch
TV all day long? The bottom line is most people have very little time left
over
in their busy days to stay up on the news and they are going to concentrate
on
what is close to them and their lives and not what is happening on the other
side of the planet…

‘wanted dead or alive’ might be going down well in Texas, but the rest of
the world is looking on, open-mouthed in disbelief.

Well, they better wake up and believe it. They can’t sit back and watch our
planes and ships arrive and unload food and aid and then turn on us. I for
one am sick of that behavior.

various military strategies is designed to confuse the ‘enemy’. The media
are as much a part of this ‘war’ as the military.

Thats true. The media here is far from trustworthy…

[Miguel_Simon1]

Hi Mario…

This is actually a short and partial answer, close to the best that I
can put it without being annoying.

This has been and interesting thread that I believe has helped us all in
one way or another. I, for one, do appreciate this opportunity.

Bests…

Miguel.

P.S. see bellow…


Mario Charest wrote:

“Miguel Simon” <> simon@ou.edu> > wrote in message
news:> 3BA800DE.B9AFA1F3@ou.edu> …
Hi Mario…

Mario Charest wrote:


Have you ever consider that you may yourself be victim of propaganda?
That this whole bible and God thing is a hoaks? These people have

Mario, have you ever read the Bible?

Long time ago yes.

Do you believe in God?

Not as pictured in the bible

In Jesus?

I really don’t know.


You either believe that the Bible is the word of God, or you do not.

These word were apparently told by a man claiming to speak the words of God.
The bible was written by men 2000 years ago. It has gone through 2000 years
of translations, re-writting, etc. Just last night, I saw an ad in the back
of the bus
about a new version of a bible (“The story is the same, but said better”)

I must said I’m confuse by the bible, I’m turn off by it. I will have to
look
in this. It is probably because I associate it with the Christian religious
system (Church) and that I’ve diassociate myself with it.

This is good. The religious system is not what God is after. He desires
all men to be saved and to come to the full knowledge of the truth.
Which means He wants us to know Him and to know anyone you need to
communicate with them. One means for us to know Him is through His word.
Another is to pray. Another is to listen to others testify of their
experience and of their learning.

I’ll give you an example. Women are not allow to be preist. From
what I heard this is because Jesus chose 12 man has its disciple.
Since Jesus hasn’t selected a women, the Church does the same today.
What a bunch of crap. Jesus lived in a different time in a different
place, with different reality that ours. That the bible is used
to set today’s rules and guide line repulses me. My mistake is probably to
reject
it alltogether.

Setting rules and guide lines goes much deeper than women in the church.
For example, our country has a lot of laws and code of ethics that
really comes from the Bible. Many companies are astounded that when
their company imposes things like zero tolerance for sexual harassment
and so forth that their employees can actually be more productive. This
comes from love your neighbor as yourself.

Men and women alike need to come under the headship of Christ. Christ
Himself marveled when a leader said “I am not worthy that you come into
my house, just speak a word that my daughter would be healed, for I also
am a man under authority saying to this one go and he goes and to
another do this and he does it”. The point is not what is your position
in the church, but how are you under the headship of Christ. As we grow
in Christ we will be more and more under the headship of Christ.

This believe, however, is not based on emotions, intellect, propaganda,
or any other such thing.

It’s based on what then?

If you go to a local library, get a hold of a Bible, and look for the
book of John, chapter 1, verse 1 it says: “In the beginning was the
Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

Do you have any sense for what the above means?

I think I do and I agree with this. But I’m disputing the fact
the bible is THE WORD.

Well, actually it means that Christ Himself is the living word that was
with God and was God. The implication that the Bible is the word is
simply the written form of communication to convey this person the Word
of God, Christ.

I could tell you, but I am not sure that you may want to hear…


I’m willing to hear anything. I may choose to beleive it or not.
Your use of the elipses (…) tells me you think I have a close
mind because I beleive in something different then you.

I have read somewhere " my way is one way amongst many,
and no way is better then any other way" (something close
as the book was in french > > . The book claim this
is the what God suggest the author of the book we should
be telling ourselves everyday.

People weren’t willing to hear that universe wasn’t created in
7 days. I had a conversation with my friend’s sister and she
is convince the universe was created in 7 days. And you know
what see said, "look in the bible book of X, chapter X, verse X it
says “God created the world in 7 days”. As we both try to explain
that there is a huge number of material evidence that state otherwise,
she keep on hanging on to the bible, like her life depended on it.
Like she wasn’t allow to dispute and disagree with its content,
probably afraid she would go the hell if she die.

Well, I don’t believe that the bible says the universe was created in 7
days either. As you know there were long periods between the different
ages and those verses simply state that the earth became waste and
empty. This is probably in between ages. Then goes on to state that God
said let there be … on the first day … on the second day … and so
forth. And then along came Adam. As you can probably see, there is a lot
of room for speculation, but what is more important is that none of this
is relevant when it comes for men to be saved.

As a long term homework assignment -if you will-, investigate about the
first two verses on the Bible, in Genesis. You’ll be surprise with what
you’ll find. If you find nothing, let me know and I’ll help you with
some pointers. Then again, none of this is relevant as far as salvation
is concerned.

Besides this, if we approach the bible with the attitude: “Lord I don’t
understand how this could be”, then we make a way for the Lord Himself
to reveal it to us.

I don’t like the bible for what it has done to her. Thinking about this
it may not be the bible fault after all. I will have to think about this.

She may be young and zealous in heart and want to carry it out to the T,
but eventually as she grows the Lord with reveal more than the mere
black and white. Please be patient with christians, we are a work in
progress.

It seems to me that you are trying to explain -or not explain, I am not
quite sure- God and the word of God (i.e. the Bible) with your head
using some earthly -circa 20001- logic.

Yes I think I am.

This path will lead you no where closer to any thing related to God,

??? I’ve been wondering for about 5 minutes now what to answer
to this. I’ve gone through many feeling in this 5 minutes, mostly anger.
Hence I will refrain since it don’t feel it would do any good to express
it in this context.

Ok after another 5 minutes I calm down > > Let me give you an
extreme example. I’ve seen this thing on TV. A killer
was interview from prison. I don’t recall the exact details
if he was a serial killer or not, but I remember that the killing
made headlines at the time. The guy had turn to the bible,
every 5 minutes he was making reference to something in the bible,
and you know what the guy sounded “holly”. He was helping
people around him, apparently he changed for the better. The
bible helped him in the process. So what am saying if he
hadn’t kill he would probably not have met God. Killing
was his path to God.

In my views (and that of the bible ?doesn’t it say somewhere, there
are many path to god?) you are in no position to make such
a statement.

Really the Lord desires all men to be saved. Contrary wise Satan is
against God and his destiny is the Lake of Fire (Hell) and his goal is
to destroy man and take as many as possible with him. Many, while on
this road to destruction, wake up and realize that this is not the path
they want to be on and open up to God and ask Him to forgive them and to
save them from such peril. Thus they find God in the midst of a poor
situation.

unless you would sincerely be open to hear about and would like to
experience God in a real way.

I’m ready to conceed my heart is close and that I may
not be experiencing God in a real way, are you?


Respectfully…


I believe you >

Miguel.

–

my opinions are mine, only mine, solely mine, and they are not related
in any possible way to the institution(s) in which I study and work.

Miguel Simon
Research Engineer
School of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering
University of Oklahoma
http://www.amerobotics.ou.edu/
http://www.saic.com

[Igor_Kovalenko2]

“Lee R. Copp” wrote:

However, US chosen civilian cities to make an example. I think it was

When a country is at war there is no such thing as a ‘civilian city’.
Regardless
of whether that city produces tanks or guns or corn or babies, it is all put
into the war effort.

I am almost speechless. So much for christian values…

I remember story about US Army leutenant (don’t remember name) who was
court martialed for killing babies in a Vietnam village. Hopefully, it
means not everyone in this country shares your ideas.

The effect of the bomb was totally beyond comprehension of anyone at
the time. The US didn’t even know how powerful it was. The japenese

US tested the bomb before using it and were quite aware of what it could
do. Otherwise why would they want to use it at all…

were in shock and were looking for an ‘Act-of-God’ explanation until we
told them we did it and would do it again.

Why didn’t US tell them in advance? ‘Hey japs, we got ourselves a nuke
and we gonna use it at that day to show you, unless you surrender. And
we gonna use it again if you still don’t surrender after that…’

So you think that would not have worked? Alright, may be they were such
stubborn imbecils as you assume, but it would not hurt US in any case to
give them chance, would it? If it did not work, at least US would live
with clearer conscience…

Take the recent trade center
attack. When the first plane hit, New Yorkers were in shock and first
believed that it was a terrible accident. It wasn’t until the second plane
hit that people fully realized what was going on…

only one bomb and wasted it on a city with no military/strategic value,

When you are dealing with a country/society which can produce kamikazis,
then EVERY city has military value.

population, which is not really guilty, not all of it anyway. Any decent
country does not fight with civilian population, war or not. So how about

Whats the difference between a civilian population and military population?
The term ‘innocent civilian’ becomes void when countries go to war.

Well, you just have justified nazis killing and burning people alive in
occupied lands. You also justified palestinians killing israeli
settlers. And I almost forgot, you just justified the attack on WTC and
any future potential terroristic acts against civil polulation of US.

• igor

[Bill_Caroselli_Q-TPS]

“Igor Kovalenko” <Igor.Kovalenko@motorola.com> wrote in message
news:3BABAACB.52B5B310@motorola.com…

“Lee R. Copp” wrote:

However, US chosen civilian cities to make an example. I think it was

When a country is at war there is no such thing as a ‘civilian city’.
Regardless
of whether that city produces tanks or guns or corn or babies, it is all
put
into the war effort.

I am almost speechless. So much for christian values…

I remember story about US Army leutenant (don’t remember name) who was
court martialed for killing babies in a Vietnam village. Hopefully, it
means not everyone in this country shares your ideas.

It was Lt. William Kalley (sp?)

The difference was that he killed individuals, one at a time, or nearly so.

I don’t want to agree with Lee’s point, but he is essentially right.

[Jim_Douglas1]

“Lee R. Copp” <Lee.R.Copp@MichiganScientificNOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:9og32o$p7g$1@inn.qnx.com…

• snip -

How much time do you really have in a day to watch the news? How long
would
it take to cover all the major stories in the 100+ countries out there?
Do
you have
a job? Do you have a family? Do you have any hobbies? Do you really
want
to watch
TV all day long? The bottom line is most people have very little time
left
over
in their busy days to stay up on the news and they are going to
concentrate
on
what is close to them and their lives and not what is happening on the
other
side of the planet…

But, what is happening on the other side of the planet DOES affect your
life…

The issue is not one of quantity but quality. The ethos of the broadcast
media in the UK (I talk from first hand experience) is to “Entertain,
Educate and Inform”. Judged by those criteria, the US broadcasters have a
somewhat different balance to those in the UK and their efforts to educate
and inform have an overall domestic bias. If you can get them, try watching
the BBC or ITN news channels on cable for 20 minutes each day.

Jim Douglas

[Armin2]

“Lee R. Copp” wrote:,

Whats the difference between a civilian population and military population?
The term ‘innocent civilian’ becomes void when countries go to war.

Everyone who claiming to be member of the civilized world knows the ‘Geneva
Convention’ .

Hope you are cilvilized …

Armin

[Igor_Kovalenko2]

“Bill Caroselli (Q-TPS)” <qtps@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:9ogd3j$195$1@inn.qnx.com…

“Igor Kovalenko” <> Igor.Kovalenko@motorola.com> > wrote in message
news:> 3BABAACB.52B5B310@motorola.com> …
“Lee R. Copp” wrote:

However, US chosen civilian cities to make an example. I think it
was

When a country is at war there is no such thing as a ‘civilian city’.
Regardless
of whether that city produces tanks or guns or corn or babies, it is
all
put
into the war effort.

I am almost speechless. So much for christian values…

I remember story about US Army leutenant (don’t remember name) who was
court martialed for killing babies in a Vietnam village. Hopefully, it
means not everyone in this country shares your ideas.

It was Lt. William Kalley (sp?)

The difference was that he killed individuals, one at a time, or nearly
so.

And that makes his crime more aggravated? As someone said, ‘kill one and
you’re a murderer, kill thousands and you’re a great warrior’. Guess killing
couple hundreds of thousands of civilians in a second makes you even
greater. Certainly takes a blessing, not sure if from God though.

I don’t want to agree with Lee’s point, but he is essentially right.

What does it mean ‘essentially’? Right or not? If you mean that his approach
would be effective, yes it probably would. Is it effective to use human
shields made of civilians to attack enemy? You bet it is. Can you do that?
Sure you can, but you may end up either in the Hague tribunal for war crimes
(if you lose the war), or may be in a martial court (if you win). That is,
if you’re a direct perpetrator. Now if you’re a president, it all depends on
who wins the war. Milosevich lost the war, so he’s in Hague, even though he
used that very logic (there’s no such thing as civilian population) as US
used to justify nuclear bombing.

• igor

[Lee_R_Copp]

When a country is at war there is no such thing as a ‘civilian city’.
Regardless
of whether that city produces tanks or guns or corn or babies, it is all
put
into the war effort.

I am almost speechless. So much for christian values…

Christian values? What has that got to do with anything? It was the
majority
of christian values in this country which got us into this mess. We pump
BILLIONS
of dollars of aid and relief and medical supplies and whatever else you want
to
call it into those foreign nations and what do we get? Our flag burning
away in
the streets and those same people who are eating our food are DANCING in
the streets when they see the news about the WTC.

I remember story about US Army leutenant (don’t remember name) who was
court martialed for killing babies in a Vietnam village. Hopefully, it
means not everyone in this country shares your ideas.

Thanks for lumping me in with a baby killer. I suppose my support of the
death
penalty makes me the same as some serial killer…

Its hard to really make a point in an email or newsgroup since you have to
type
out every thought to explain statements and that would take all day but the
overall
point I was trying to make is that if your enemy doesn’t distinguish between
military
and civilian then you can’t either. There is a HUGE difference in starting
a war by
attacking women and children then responding to attacks on women and
children.

US tested the bomb before using it and were quite aware of what it could
do. Otherwise why would they want to use it at all…

Wow. They learned every single possible thing about nuke bombs from that
first
test. Gee, what was the point of the 1,000s of tests since? The point I’m
going for
here is that the first test gave them some ‘idea’ of what it could do but
its full
potential was still unknown. Heck, they weren’t sure it would set up a
chain reaction
and blow up the planet.

Why didn’t US tell them in advance? ‘Hey japs, we got ourselves a nuke
and we gonna use it at that day to show you, unless you surrender. And
we gonna use it again if you still don’t surrender after that…’

When you are battling a military whose declaration of war is a sneak attack
on Pearl Harbor and a country who can turn their population into suicide
bombs you don’t pick up the radio and say “Hey, quit it or we are going to
drop our secret weapon on you”. You nuke one of their cities and when
they can’t figure out what happened you tell them the US did it and just to
remove all doubt from their minds, you do it again. Obviously that tactic
is
VERY effective…

So you think that would not have worked? Alright, may be they were such
stubborn imbecils as you assume, but it would not hurt US in any case to

Like I said, when someone is willing to DIE to kill you there really isn’t
any way to reason or negotiate with them.

give them chance, would it? If it did not work, at least US would live
with clearer conscience…

Give them a chance? You mean tell them about our nuclear bomb and then
sit down at the peace tables while they rush to build their own bomb (with
the info smuggled out of Germany). Just imagine a suicide mini-sub with
a nuke pulling into Pearl Harbor or San Diego or New York. No thanks.
I don’t want to even think about where that would have lead us…

Whats the difference between a civilian population and military
population?
The term ‘innocent civilian’ becomes void when countries go to war.

Well, you just have justified nazis killing and burning people alive in
occupied lands. You also justified palestinians killing israeli
settlers. And I almost forgot, you just justified the attack on WTC and
any future potential terroristic acts against civil polulation of US.

Justified? I don’t think so. The nazis treated civilians the same as the
military
and this was one of the reasons they were as successful as they were. They
saw the threat to their domination from the entire population and not just
those
people in a uniform who were given a gun and a rank. I do not agree with
what they did but I do agree with the extreme measures that must be taken to
fight an enemy like that. Israel is a whole different story. I have been
learning
more and more about middle east history and what they have done to their
neighbors in the region. I am shocked by the amount of aid and money which
we pump into that country of 5 million or so and what they have done with
it.
As far as ‘justifying’ the WTC I said when ‘countries go to war’. These
terrorists
have no country, no government, no people. They are simply a small group of
fanatics who think their acts are for some ‘greater good’.

[Lee_R_Copp]

who wins the war. Milosevich lost the war, so he’s in Hague, even though
he
used that very logic (there’s no such thing as civilian population) as US
used to justify nuclear bombing.

I’ve heard this many times but it amounts to “Winners write the history
books”
We can look back and try to second guess those at the time but that is a
huge
disservice to those men and women who did their best so we could have the
best.

[Lee_R_Copp]

But, what is happening on the other side of the planet DOES affect your
life…

It certainly does now…It has before, but 8 years of ‘Clinton’ has let
things
degrade to this point…

The issue is not one of quantity but quality. The ethos of the broadcast

That is so true. It is very rare to find accurate news in the US but with
the
Internet, and newsgroups…, people are becoming more and more informed.

somewhat different balance to those in the UK and their efforts to educate
and inform have an overall domestic bias. If you can get them, try
watching

I can’t really blame them their focus. Our states are larger then a lot of
the
countries out there.

the BBC or ITN news channels on cable for 20 minutes each day.

I have watched several specials lately and the majority of the specials had
footage provided by the BBC and I found it very good.

[Lee_R_Copp]

Everyone who claiming to be member of the civilized world knows the
‘Geneva
Convention’ .

Hope you are cilvilized …

Geneva Convention: an aggrement on how to wage war and what may be done
during war.

What a joke.

When you pick up a club, stone, knife, gun, rifle, cruise missle,
bio-hazard, or tactical nuke to KILL
someone then ‘all bets are off’. You have sunk below ‘civilization’ and
won’t return until the war is over.
We taught the british that lesson when we refused to stand in line and trade
musket shots and
the terrorists taught us that lesson when they attacked the WTC.

[Armin2]

Gary Dike wrote:

But why would you hate to say that? Is it wrong to be a patriot, proud of
your country?

Yes … from a rational point of view.

Armin