No, instead the perpetuate a state sponsored version of history that says the palestinians willingly left their homes when Israel was founded, ignoring the terror campaign instituted that made them want to leave their homes, ignoring the hundreds of thousands that were literally forced out at gun point. Instead they force their children to participate in a generations long campaign of ethnic cleansing. Instead they relocate their families to settlements, thereby implicating them in war crimes. No, they don't use suicide bombers, they just use bombers. That way they can go back over and over again.

I'm not saying the Palestinians make good neighbours. I am saying that Israel makes for a horrible neighbour.

Who won't the terrorists recruit to be suicide bombers?

There will never be an easy solution, but in discussing drones there are points that deserve deliberation;
The Pakistani government cannot be seen, publicly, to condone drone strikes. However, given the carnage being done by the taliban, which they are finding difficult to contain, behind the scenes they actually do.
Terrorists existed long before drones and to believe that ceasing their use would reduce terrorism is naive and dangerous.
Manned or unmanned - and no matter what care is taken - weapons cause collateral damage. But these weapons can be highly effective, as was demonstrated in the "taking out" of the pakistani taliban leader last week.
If the terrorists had the same technology they would, certainly, use it. At the moment they are restricted to suicide bombers and maniacs with AK's who massacre innocents in schools or shopping malls etc. If/when they acquire chemical, biological, or atomic weapons you will see just how "restrained" in there use they truly are.
All weapons can be used for evil. The difference is, who controls them and how they are used. You just have to ask yourself, who would you prefer to hold the military advantage?

I'll try a point by point and then I'll probably lose track.

-I wouldn't say courage. I would say naivety (the two are confused alot....maybe you need one for the other...idk). He was used by wiki-leaks and the gang as a suicide bomber and now he will be raped in jail for the rest of his life...and nothing will change except that wiki-leaks gained notoriety. I bet he would take it back if he could.

-He was and is a traitor to his country (it's sad because I get the feeling he didn't fully understand what he was doing...prob. blinded by wiki leaks and gang). You don't release gobs of state secrets like that. Why couldn't he just release the helicopter video or other choice things? (still bad even then).

-He was a soldier. He swore an oath. Anyone even remotely connected to the military understands what I'm getting at. If he wanted to be a champion of truth he shouldn't have gone into the military. Become a reporter, a politician. There are plenty of more legitimate (effectiveness aside) ways to do what he did.

-The concept of total transparency as applied to states is stupid. Every state since the beginning of time has functioned because of its ability to have secrets. Try it on an individual level....go around 1 day and tell everyone everything.

-You talk about the absolute hypocrisy of this administration? Every administration in the history of mankind (excluding Camelot, the Magic Kingdom, and/or Castle Greyskull) to a greater or lesser has done the same thing. To think otherwise is naive. Thats how States function....by not telling, lets say, North Korea that we dropped off patriot missiles in Japan or that we have a secret agreement to to attack them with China should anything happen.

-Am I saying that we should be able to hush up the deaths of innocent civilians and etc......no. I'm just saying that there are more responsible ways to ensure that stuff like that doesn't happen.

In the video Galloway also goes on to say that he's had several Israeli citizens on his show and who he's on platform with. Galloway specifically states that he doesn't consider every Israeli citizen the problem

2:45 in Gorillaman's video, "I don't debate with Israelis", again at 8:44 and again at 11:08. Galloway only declares that his problem is not with Jewish people, he repeatedly declares that he absolutely will not debate Israeli's.

What is your response to the gorrilaman video which Galloway explains his reasoning.

My response is disgust, outrage and disbelief. Galloway declares that on principle, his boycott of Israel extends to the point of refusing to even engaging any Israeli in debate. I had hoped that much was clear, and if that point isn't agreed let me know. I don't know how Galloway could make himself any clearer but apparently some still don't hear him.

On the face of it, his position on that isn't even what I find most offensive, though I do find it so. I insist it is no different than any other nationality I've mentioned up thread. What is intolerable is Galloway's own past record.

Saddam Hussein committed genocide against his own people not once, but twice. Killing nearly a half million people across the two. George Galloway did NOT refuse to engage Saddam(let alone Iraqis) in debate. In fact, George went to Baghdad and met Saddam, telling him "Sir, I salute your courage, your strength and your indefatigability. I can honestly say when I was speaking with my comrades about coming here, each one wished me to extend their fraternal greetings and support."

Bashir al Assad is continuing on the work of his father, brutally repressing and killing his own people. Galloway again went to Damascus, to praise Syria and tell the people how lucky they were to have Assad. He even squeezed in praise for the Iraqi suicide bombers then blowing up Shia mosques and neighbourhoods.

Galloway's moral 'high' road towards Israel is revealing in the extreme when looking at his eagerness to not only engage, but actively praise other war criminals in the region.

The latest in suicide bomber technology

You're assuming a reasonable person. A suicide bomber is not reasonable. Maybe this person's family is already dead to american drone attacks (or whatnot), which set him on the path of wanting to destroy america. My point is, you can't assume these kinds of people act in a reasonable way, or that they even know that everyone has weapons. Avoiding nuclear disaster from the cold war was only done because people were smart and cautious; if it had been George W instead of JFK at the cuba crisis, would the same thing have happened? Maybe, maybe not - it doesn't take much for it all to come crashing down. What if it had been Saddam Hussein instead of JFK?

It's not that there is a 'war' on... it's that there are a bunch of non-scientists walking around saying they're 'creation scientists'.

Many creation scientists have advanced degrees and have published many papers. Why aren't they scientists? What makes a scientist a scientist?

You're absolutely correct, there is no research being done on 'young Universe'... but there is also no science being done to prove 'old Universe'. Science is done by taking small bits of knowledge that have little gaps, and filling those gaps in. We didn't figure out the half-life of Rubidium in order to prove the age of the earth, we figured out the half-life of Rubidium to figure out the half-life of Rubidium. Some other scientists had taken measurements of the natural occurrence of elements and their isotopes in various parts of the world. And then more scientists apply the knowledge acquired in both fields and try to find out what it tells us.

There was a very concerted effort, especially during the 19th and 20th centuries to come up with evidence for an old age of the Earth to support the ideas of uniformitarian geology and macro evolution. There was an ideological war going on, just as there is today, between those secular scientists who wanted to establish their own secular idea of origins to undercut the account of biblical creation. Up until that point, all geologists were flood geologists. Now a days, you're right, they are resting on their laurels, because as I said it has become conventional wisdom, which is not science but philosophy.

I agree, you absolutely should question scientists with an agenda, but I've NEVER heard a non-christian suggest that there is scientific evidence for the earth being younger than 4-5 billion years old.

I grew up in a secular home with a great love for science, and I very activiely pursued studies in astronomy and biology. In all of my studies, I never heard so much as a peep about the controversy. There is an information filter on this subject, and it had kept me in the dark about the whole thing most of my life.

You want to cast doubt on scientists by saying that there are millions of dollars and reputations on the line, but this reasoning is more destructive if you aim it at the young-earthers: Their religion has made explicit claims as to time-spans that occurred 'in the beginning'... their religious leaders have made explicit claims as to the literalness of the Bible. And most church leaders have been explicit that other denominations of Christians may not be allowed into heaven... So you have a large group of individuals who are not only risking their reputation, but what they believe is their eternal soul, on something that they didn't discover, but have worked backward to find evidence to prove that their book is correct.

None of this has anything to do with the question of salvation. The conflict you're seeing is coming from a liberal movement within the church which tends to embrace secular values and rejects traditional interpretation of scripture. As numbers go, it is a small amount of people. As a recent survey shows, the majority of Americans (ie 46 percent) believe in creationism:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/05/americans-believe-in-creationism_n_1571127.html

These views get overreprented in the media by liberals sympathic to their causes. It gets presented in such a way that it looks like it is the majority view when it is actually the minority view.

As far as what Creation scientists have to lose..not much. They already lost much of what they had to lose by becoming a creation scientist in the first place.

Young-earthers each, individually, have much more to lose than scientists. And let's be clear... religions have enough money to staff up scientific R&D labs and fund their own research if they wanted. In fact, the Vatican DOES have it's own, world-renowned observatory. So, how old does this Priest thing the Universe is?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=OwWqrXGtrRs#!

I don't agree with the catholic church on practically anything, let alone this.

So, to be clear, it's not Scientists vs. Christians. It's Scientists AND Christians vs. People Who Don't Trust Science.

It's actually the wisdom of God versus the wisdom of man.

And I expect this. Christians have long fought against persecution, and it thrived while it was being persecuted. Now that it's the dominant religion, many of the teachings have lost their luster. Members who believe that the Bible has something personal to say to them will pick up on the persecution aspect, which was intended to help those in the year 200AD... not 2012. So they make up bogey-men and pick a fight with anyone who says something that isn't explicitly allowed in the Bible (and is convenient for them)... hence the anti-Gay-Marriage protests, but no anti-shellfish protests.

Over 200 thousand Christians are martyred every year for their faith, all over the world.

You're a product of your environment, shinyblurry... you're as predictable as Islam producing suicide bombers... and just as pathetic in your misunderstanding of the Universe.

All I'll say to this is that ad hominem attacks reveal more about your character than they do mine.

It's not that there is a 'war' on... it's that there are a bunch of non-scientists walking around saying they're 'creation scientists'.

You're absolutely correct, there is no research being done on 'young Universe'... but there is also no science being done to prove 'old Universe'. Science is done by taking small bits of knowledge that have little gaps, and filling those gaps in. We didn't figure out the half-life of Rubidium in order to prove the age of the earth, we figured out the half-life of Rubidium to figure out the half-life of Rubidium. Some other scientists had taken measurements of the natural occurrence of elements and their isotopes in various parts of the world. And then more scientists apply the knowledge acquired in both fields and try to find out what it tells us.

I agree, you absolutely should question scientists with an agenda, but I've NEVER heard a non-christian suggest that there is scientific evidence for the earth being younger than 4-5 billion years old. You want to cast doubt on scientists by saying that there are millions of dollars and reputations on the line, but this reasoning is more destructive if you aim it at the young-earthers: Their religion has made explicit claims as to time-spans that occurred 'in the beginning'... their religious leaders have made explicit claims as to the literalness of the Bible. And most church leaders have been explicit that other denominations of Christians may not be allowed into heaven... So you have a large group of individuals who are not only risking their reputation, but what they believe is their eternal soul, on something that they didn't discover, but have worked backward to find evidence to prove that their book is correct.

Young-earthers each, individually, have much more to lose than scientists. And let's be clear... religions have enough money to staff up scientific R&D labs and fund their own research if they wanted. In fact, the Vatican DOES have it's own, world-renowned observatory. So, how old does this Priest thing the Universe is?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=OwWqrXGtrRs#!


So, to be clear, it's not Scientists vs. Christians. It's Scientists AND Christians vs. People Who Don't Trust Science.

And I expect this. Christians have long fought against persecution, and it thrived while it was being persecuted. Now that it's the dominant religion, many of the teachings have lost their luster. Members who believe that the Bible has something personal to say to them will pick up on the persecution aspect, which was intended to help those in the year 200AD... not 2012. So they make up bogey-men and pick a fight with anyone who says something that isn't explicitly allowed in the Bible (and is convenient for them)... hence the anti-Gay-Marriage protests, but no anti-shellfish protests.

You're a product of your environment, shinyblurry... you're as predictable as Islam producing suicide bombers... and just as pathetic in your misunderstanding of the Universe.

I'll answer some of messengers questions:

"1. Which part of, "Palestinians in Gaza are the prisoners of Israel, and Hamas is fighting against Israel because Israel has taken away the freedom of Palestinians in Gaza," do you disagree with?"

Gaza is now basically a prison camp, and yes, Israel is behind that, but thats not why Islamic totalitarian terrorists are fighting. They are not seeking freedom, they are seeking islamic totalism and the extermination of jews.

"2. Do you think that Hamas would continue fighting Israel if Palestine returned to its 1946 borders?"
Yes, probably.

"3. Do you think Hamas would stop fighting if all Israelis in the world were killed, but some other country kept Palestinians confined in Gaza and continued the embargo?"

If the occupiers were muslims, imprisoning and ruling Gaza with an islamic iron fist, then yes, probably. It is a strange and sad fact that Islamic societies are rabidly anti-semitic and anti-everything-not-islam, and at war with any neighbour that doesnt conform to islam, while being strangely content and silent if oppressed by fellow muslims, as is the case in so many islamic countries, where were the islamic suicide bombers fighting the oppression of Saddam?, The taliban, kohmeini? Muslims, especially women, are suffering every day all over the place, and most of the suffering is NOT caused by Israel or the west, but by islamic or muslim thugs at the helm of an oppressed people. I'd love for the palestinians to have freedom, but not just from Israel, but also from the violent ideology of the terrorists claiming to fight for them.

"4. Are there any rules against celebrating after killing your enemy?

5. Is killing someone worse than celebrating the killing?"

Firstly, The enemy is not israeli civilians, secondly this question sets up a false dichotomy: obviously killing is worse than celebration, but celebrating the death of innocent people doesnt exactly show that you are ready for peace or reconcilliation.It shows that Hamas' tactics are not simply last-resort, desparate actions from an imprisoned people, but something they at some level rejoice in doing. If Hamas were the peace-loving hippie freedom fighters you seem to think they are, they surely would not celebrate like this?

The depths people will go for their beliefs. I suppose it's better than a suicide bomber though eh?

Bull fucking major shit, dude... what could the kid have been doing, except reacting to growing up in a situation where armed men are waiting to kick you? Maybe he was causing a little trouble, maybe some graffiti... so lets turn him into a suicide bomber and then take his parents land and claim to know nothing about the origin of the threat? Nothing about this scene is acceptable. Do you accept this behavior from a US soldier against any child?? Then why the military that we almost exclusively fund?

This is a systematic problem, and the Israeli's immediate "they'd do it to us" excuse that makes nearly everyone non-arab turn a blind eye, is quite reminiscent of the governmental situation which ultimately led to the creation of "their" state. You can't spell Nazi or Zionism without a "Z". Different means to the same end: Racial purity of the chosen people.

How fucking twisted and no one can say anything about the emperor being naked without being anti-Semitic, which is itself a misappropriated term which does not mean Jewish or Israeli but refers to language origins. Arabs are Semitic, too.

Pretty obvious letting people just make up rules based on no logic leaves no room for diplomacy. None. Why bother when you can shoot and kick your way to the promised land? The whole middle east should be a DMZ, no one there is doing anything with weapons defensively.

>> ^messenger:

You're putting words in the commentators' mouths by assuming the answer to your opening question. These two would not characterise Islam moderate, and they suggested nothing of the kind. That's equivalent to me just assuming that you support the actions of Anders Brevik because you're afraid of a European takeover of Islam. Fair?
And FWIW, everything you said about Islam and the Quran also holds true for Christianity and the Bible (except of course for the etymology). For example, the Bible is very clear on the mandate to spread Christianity -- where do you think Islam got the idea? These commentators are derisory of the material taught in this course, derisory of the same things you just said were "extreme" and "ridiculous", so I'm not sure what point you're making except that you're a wee bit xenophobic.>> ^A10anis:
So, how would these two guys characterize the islamic faith? Would they say islam is benign and wants to co-exist peacefully with the west, allowing freedom from religious intrusion, equality for woman, gays, and those of other faiths? The evidence shows the opposite. The very word islam means submission, it is not just a faith, it is a theocracy and dictates every facet of daily life. Dooley's first comment about Hiroshima was extreme, and the FBI comment about Obama being influenced by islamic extremists was ridiculous. But the quran -despite people claiming it is taken "out of context"- is very clear on the propagation of islam. The quran must be followed by every muslim and In 50 years- it has been predicted- muslims in europe will have the balance of voting power. If that happens the commentators, who are so derisory today, will be able to see just how "moderate" islam will be.


I suggest you read my comment again, slowly. Far from putting words in their mouths, I pose the legitimate question; "how would they characterize islam?" Please observe the question mark which, funnily enough, denotes a question NOT a statement. However, they certainly DID suggest what their answer would be. My inference is based upon their demeanor of derision and incredulity at anything said by Dooley, and the fact that they openly condemn him as a war monger. The two comments that I said were "extreme" and "ridiculous," were just that. The other comments made by Dooley were legitimate. Your Brevik comment is absurd and, as such, is not worth commenting on. As for you comparing islam with christianity? What are you talking about? I am an atheist and deride ALL myths. However, in defence of Christianity; When was the last Christian suicide bomber? When was the last time Christians flew planes into buildings? When was the last time a Christian stoned a woman to death or carried out an "honour" killing, or hung gays from a crane? When was the last time a christian beheaded a non-believer, etc, etc? Comparing the two is ignorant and intellectual laziness. If by xenophobic you mean I am afraid of those who wish to radically change our lives and drag us back to the bronze age, then yes, I am very afraid. Islam is an insidious threat, one we ignore at our peril. Finally, If you wish clarification on any other points that you don't understand, I will happily explain them.

You're nuts.

What is Terrorism QM?

An attack on a population to instill fear? i.e. World Trade Center Attacks

So your solution to stop these "Terrorists" is to.. completely eradicate an entire population.

[Because that totally doesn't sound like something Hitler would do at all]

Not to mention. What about all the "terrorists" outside the Middle East/Brown People countries you wanna blow up?

*Le Gasp*

Oh my gaaawd QM, What about those terrorists who have already crossed our borders!?!?! ohnoooooooooeesss!!!!1!!!!!!111!

"Goddamn Suicide Bombers killing all these innocent freedom loving American Citizens on a daily basis! The only way to handle terrorism inside the United States is to turn the entire place into a gl-glass..? parking lot?.. yeah"

Come man, stop trollin'
>> ^quantumushroom:

If the enemy is terrorists with no formal government, than the only way to win is to kill every last one of them.
Either turn the entire country into a glass parking lot and leave nothing alive or leave it be.