It's been over three years since the Patriot Act was passed, and I am still ambivalent on the subject. Clearly, the Patriot Act has not ended democracy and freedom and brought down a crushing wave of repression on the nation. Less clear are potential longer-term negative consequences, if any. Even less clear are the benefits of the law. The war we are fighting is one where defense is effectively impossible. Yes, we may stop one or two or a dozen attacks, but our security posture is so open that the Patriot Act is like trying to use a band-aid as a bullet-proof vest. It is so ridiculously ineffective as to be silly. If we say that our security posture before 9/11 was 2 out of one hundred, the Patriot Act raised it to 2.35. All other changes made domestically during that time raised it to a 3. It's silly. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and a defense is only as strong as the weakest opening. Yes, we theoretically could radically increase our security posture. That would cost trillians of dollars, damage our national economy, inconvenience a huge portion of our population, and cause enormous domestic political difficulties. It's just not something that we as Americans are going to do. Let's quantify the benefits of the Patriot Act. It is probably reasonable to assume that over the course of a decade, the Patriot Act will stop three terrorist attacks. Let's assign theoretical casualty numbers of 30, 300, and 3,000 to these attacks. This gives us a casualty count of 3,330 per decade. That number represents .0001 percent of our population. As a risk factor, it doesn't even make the chart. A nuclear attack will radically alter those numbers. Ten million dead in NYC will probably mean the end of Islam as we know it. Americans are not endlessly patient. But I digress. The real question is "How do we prevent these attacks?" Well, it isn't defense. Defense is effectively impossible in this war. We're America. We're wide open. We're a free society just sitting here like a big fat target waiting to be attacked. And we are not going to change. To think otherwise is a fantasty. How then do we win this war? We win this war using two parallel techniques. 1. We convince as many Muslims as possible that war with the West is not the answer. 2. We kill the ones that we cannot convince. Strategy #1 is made much more difficult by the Western press and American entertainment industries -- who strongly believe that war with the West is the answer. This 5th column is hated by our enemies, but this 5th column hates us more than they hate our enemies. To win the war, we must either win these people over or replace them. In addition, we must go directly to the populaces of the Muslim world and proselytize them on the values of freedom, liberty, democracy, and religious tolerance. We must also show them that war with the West means certain death. A winning strategy requires both a carrot and a stick. Strategy #2 is required to operate in parallel. We must make the ordinary populace of the Muslim world safe from the tyrannical Islamists who control them through fear and intimidation. We do this by killing those people whom we cannot convert. Sometimes the only war to get rid of a bad idea is to smash the vessels in which it is stores. We are never going to make peace with Osama bin Laden and the boys of Al Qaeda. That is a fight to the death -- hopefully theirs. We must make it an unmistakeable truth that joining Al Qaeda means certain death and absolute defeat. Individual death alone won't do it, these boys are accepting of that. We must show them that joining Al Qaeda and following the Al Qaeda strategy means certain death for their cause. In summary: 1. We must completely defeat Al Qaeda as an organization, along with all of its allied organizations. 2. We must change the Muslim world so that it is no longer an effective breeding ground for such organizations. The Patriot Act accomplishes neither of these core tasks. It's a diversion from what needs to be done. We must accept that we are going to take casualties, both military and civilian. We must focus on winning this war, not on the casualties we are inevitably going to take before we do.
Even if I do not fully agree with everything in Will's post, it is an excellent one in any case. Most of it I actually do agree with
Really? Legally spying on international calls and emails of terrorists? If that's the case, then it would mean the opposite is true...that you are for what they are doing. I've never known you to be one that's pleased about going after terrorists. Because that's so far over the top, it's pathetic. It's typical ferret, trying to compare the NSA doing it's job....going after terrorists, to something far fetched. We do know. The sales book article the NYT released reluctantly admitted what the fabricated story was about, hidden in the middle of their sales copy. So, here I am responding to tin foil. It's not about spying on citizens, it's about going after terrorists. No wonder you are disappointed! And if you had actually read the article or paid attention at all, you would know none of these groups were even mentioned. What were mentioned? al qaida terrorists. They could have also been monitoring white folks in Iowa that had contact with alien ships Where was that covered? Don't you think if the NYT was willing to betray our country, they'd go all the way and mention skinheads? But they didn't, did they? Nope, they mentioned exactly who our government was monitoring, where the intel came from and why. But if you are interested in skinheads, and monitoring them: http://www.channeloklahoma.com/news/5543895/detail.html?rss=okl&psp=news What administration was this under? Oh, the outrage More ifs...always the ifs...what about...could be...might be...we don't know. We do know. Read the article. No mention of your friends above. Nice company you keep. Can only imagine what other type of "company" you keep. Since you are talking fantasy, by not addressing what the nyt was trying to sell in their book, I also think the tooth fairy is over rated. I mean $1.00 for a pulled tooth? Adjust the frequency on the tin foil hat, please.
all the groups I mention are considered "terrorists" by the FBI along with some christian anti-abortion ones, one called christian identity or something like that where does it stop? why do you trust the government so much , you want to give up our contitution rights? I agree with most of will said, but since Iraq didn't really have that many muslim extremists, wasn't ruled by muslim extremists, I don't see why we are there Saudia Arabia, Iran, afganistan , all are or were ruled by muslime extremists
I would like to respond with something like "Elementary, my dear Ferret", but the reality is that the benefits of the invasion of Iraq are far from elementary. The invasion of Iraq is actually the single most far-sighted and strategic act of a Presidential administration in my lifetime. Remember our strategic goal #1 from my previous post? We need to turn the Muslim world around. We need to drag it kicking and screaming into the 21st century. What is the greatest factor preventing that -- what is the greatest factor keeping the Muslim world living in the barbaric past? SURPRISE! It's not Islam. The Western World has Christianity; the Muslim World has Islam. Why does Christianity not cause the kind of problems that Islam does? Because in the Western world, Christianity is kept in check by other forces -- the forces of liberty, freedom, democracy, tolerance, and economic prosperity. What keeps those forces from working the same magic in the Islamic world? Despotic governments. Powerful central governments that rule through fear and intimidation, and by keeping their populations poor, ignorant, and brainwashed. So how do we fix that? We can work slowly, as Condoleeza Rice is doing, to gently pull these despotic regimes forward. However, most of these brutal dictators know that if they lose control for an instant they will end up like Nicolae Ceausescu. They are not keen on any change in their stratified societies. What we need is to make an example. An example of a prosperous and peaceful Democratic nation -- that is also an Islamic nation. OK, so who do we "flip" into the 21st century? Saudi Arabia? Ha! Get real. We can't take Mecca without causing a world war. Afghanistan? Almost useless. Afghanistan is the sticks. The Arabs wouldn't care that it existed at all, except that it provided a useful training ground for them. And good luck making Afghanistan democratic or prosperous. Afghanistan is still in the warlord stage of sociopolitical development. It's going to take generations to fix. Iran? Mmmm... Now we're getting closer. Except, at the time, it looked strongly like the liberal Muslims were gaining ground inside Iran. It wouldn't do to kick a liberal Muslim regime in the teeth. What about Iraq? Hey... 1. 1/3rd the population of Iran. Easier to manage within budget. 2. We've already pretty much destroyed its armed forces. Much easier to win than a war with Iran. 3. Unlike Iran, the government of Iraq is very unpopular domestically. The Iraqi's are ready for a new political direction. 4. Geographically perfect. We can reach it by land and sea AND it borders our entire next round of targets. 5. Everyone hates Saddam. The Muslims won't even stand up for that ruthless sonofabitch. The only friends he has are the French, Russians, and Germans whom he has bribed -- and they won't do anything but whine. 6. We're already spending taxpayer dollars to enforce the no-fly zone. 7. Saddam is completely ignoring the agreements he made which ended the last war -- giving us clear legal justification for an invasion. 8. Iraq has an awesome population. Until The Baath Party took over in 1965, Iraq was doing very well. They are politically aware and ready for the future. As far as countries go, Iraq wouldn't be much more difficult to turn around than East Germany. I'm probably missing a couple. It's been awhile since I wrote this out. So Ferret, now do you see why we are there? Do you see why fixing Iraq is a critical component in winning the war on Islamist terrorism? Whether you do or you don't, I'll tell you who does -- Al Qaeda. It took Al Qaeda a few months to work this all out, but as soon as they did they rushed troops, arms, and money into Iraq. They know that they cannot let us win Iraq and still win their overall War Against Modernity. So Iraq is going to be tough -- because it's critical for us and it's critical for Al Qaeda. No one can afford to lose. That makes for a bitter fight, a long fight, and a bloody fight. President Bush never promised us an easy war. However, I believe that Al Qaeda's move into Iraq was more successful than we estimated. That's one of the nasty things about war -- the best laid plans go completely to hell as soon as the first shot is fired. Enemy action is dynamic and our enemies are smart and dedicated. This isn't Hollywood, where every war ends after two hours with the good guys winning. This is going to be a long bloody battle protecting the country we are incubating against all threats to its livelihood.
Are you on some kind of drug? What is this BS that you are posting here? It is so stupid that I wonder anybody except a sick mind can believe in such nonsense. I think we have established that you don't know that much about Christianity but do you know anything about Darwin theory of evolution or UN? What is your education level, have you ever been to a school or high school or were you home schooled by nut case parents? Darwin theory is not about the survival of fittest, it is about evolution and how living organism adopt to their environment to survive. Social rules and norms has got nothing to do with natural science and how we have developed. What do you know about UN? Can you tell us how UN is going to rule the world or your preacher just knew how stupid it is to talk about the birth of Anti-Christ and replaced the Anti-Christ with UN in his stories? Do you know that despite many studies by religious right nut cases, they have never found any relation between being gay or lesbian with being pedophile or bestiality? It seems there is more of a connection between being a priest and being pedophile than gay and pedophile. I think with all your obsession with what you think as perverse sex, you are the one who is having difficulty dealing with your desires that can be anything from simple desire to have sex and orgies to more complicated as homosexuality or to illegal such pedophile and bestiality. It seems you are looking to religion to deal with these desire and your sense of guilt for having it probably because of your religious upbringing. What ever it is, religion can not help you as demonstrated by failures of many catholic priests. If your desires are legal, you don't need to feel guilty and enjoy it but if the desires are wrong and illegal, try to get a professional help to deal with it.
Hey, this is the first time you did not cut and paste something! Congratulations on your progress. But now I understand why you do because your line of reasoning is so incoherent, that it must have been the result of being beaten as a child. Are you a redhead Gworld? D
It is incoherent to you because you are too obsessed thinking about "perverse sex" to think about anything else. I think we have already established the following facts about you: 1- You don't know about Christianity history and roots. 2- You don't know about UN and in your mind UN is the Anti-Christ. 3- You don't' know about Darwin evolution theory and it's place in natural science and instead repeat the nonsense that illiterate preachers tell to their flock. Have you ever thought about visiting a library, or do you think that is where the Satan worshiper go to praise Satan? By the way, you are welcome to cut and paste anything that you like that shows: 1- There is any historical proof that Jesus existed. 2- Supports your crazy idea about survival of fittest in society has anything to do with Darwin theory of evolution. 3- Any thing that explains the other empires since according to you and your version of bible it should only be 7.
Doug, your are getting gworld were he cries the most - Christianity.... He hates Christians with a passion and would do anything to get rid of Christiams. Then he would go back after the Jews. Muslims are OK in his book, cause they hate Christians as much as he does. His incoherency increases with each post as I am assuming his anger is increasing, cause he cant' understand those who haven't been brainwashed like him.
And you do? The UN is corrupt, certainly not the "Anti-Christ", but certainly corrupt. Interesting. There is not much difference between Darwin's theory, and religious beliefs in Creation. Neither are founded on fact. Darwin's theory is just that; a theory. So too is Creationism. Both require a bit of "faith". So as usual, what's your point? Perhaps you should make your first visit to the library. You will find Darwin's theory, the Bible, and books on Satan there. No need for a copy paste. History has already shown that a man, Jesus, existed. Hell, it was only 2,000 years ago. If the earth really is older than 6,000 years, 2k is a drop in the bucket. Whether or not "Jesus" was the messiah is the real question that I think you seek "historical proof" for. I do not know a rational soul alive that disputes the fact that a man name Jesus lived 2,000 years ago. Was he the messiah? That is generally what is disputed. If you want proof you need look no further than yourself. Let go of all your anger and hatred towards others and there you will find your proof and salvation. I'm still praying for you almost daily. Hang in there man. Me thinks you better read up on Natural Selection my friend, that is if you are going to make statement like that. SOF, and NS are one in the same
Mia As usual with your postings, do you have any source, reference or logical arguments for your posting or do you make up things as you go along? Show us 1 source that states there is a historical proof that a Jesus ever existed. What I am looking for is the historical proof that a man named Jesus existed who did all the supposed miracles according to bible. Show us 1 source that survival of fittest as social science is the same as Darwin theory of evolution in natural science.
What Are the Dead Sea Scrolls? The Dead Sea Scrolls are ancient Jewish manuscripts, most of them written in Hebrew, some in Aramaic, and a few in Greek. Many of these scrolls and fragments are over 2,000 years old, dating to before the birth of Jesus. Among the first scrolls obtained from the Bedouins were seven lengthy manuscripts in various stages of deterioration. As more caves were searched, other scrolls and thousands of scroll fragments were found. Between the years of 1947 and 1956, a total of 11 caves containing scrolls were discovered near Qumran, by the Dead Sea. When all the scrolls and fragments are sorted out, they account for about 800 manuscripts. About one quarter, or just over 200 manuscripts, are copies of portions of the Hebrew Bible text. Additional manuscripts represent ancient non-Biblical Jewish writings, both Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. Some of the scrolls that most excited scholars were previously unknown writings. These include interpretations on matters of Jewish law, specific rules for the community of the sect that lived in Qumran, liturgical poems and prayers, as well as eschatological works that reveal views about the fulfillment of Bible prophecy and the last days. There are also unique Bible commentaries, the most ancient antecedents of modern running commentary on Bible texts. Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls? Various methods of dating ancient documents indicate that the scrolls were either copied or composed between the third century B.C.E. and the first century C.E. Some scholars have proposed that the scrolls were hidden in the caves by Jews from Jerusalem before the destruction of the temple in 70 C.E. However, the majority of scholars researching the scrolls find this view out of harmony with the content of the scrolls themselves. Many scrolls reflect views and customs that stood in opposition to the religious authorities in Jerusalem. These scrolls reveal a community that believed that God had rejected the priests and the temple service in Jerusalem and that he viewed their group’s worship in the desert as a kind of substitute temple service. It seems unlikely that Jerusalem’s temple authorities would hide a collection that included such scrolls. Although there likely was a school of copyists at Qumran, probably many of the scrolls were collected elsewhere and brought there by the believers. In a sense, the Dead Sea Scrolls are an extensive library collection. As with any library, the collection may include a wide range of thought, not all necessarily reflecting the religious viewpoints of its readers. However, those texts that exist in multiple copies more likely reflect the special interests and beliefs of the group. Were the Qumran Residents Essenes? If these scrolls were Qumran’s library, who were its residents? Professor Eleazar Sukenik, who obtained three scrolls for the Hebrew University in Jerusalem in 1947, was the first to propose that these scrolls had belonged to a community of Essenes. The Essenes were a Jewish sect mentioned by first-century writers Josephus, Philo of Alexandria, and Pliny the Elder. The exact origin of the Essenes is a matter of speculation, but they seem to have arisen during the period of turmoil following the Maccabean revolt in the second century B.C.E. Josephus reported on their existence during that period as he detailed how their religious views differed from those of the Pharisees and the Sadducees. Pliny mentioned the location of a community of Essenes by the Dead Sea between Jericho and En-gedi. Professor James VanderKam, a Dead Sea Scroll scholar, proposes that “the Essenes who lived at Qumran were just a small part of the larger Essene movement,†which Josephus numbered at about four thousand. Although not perfectly fitting all descriptions, the picture that emerges from the Qumran texts seems to match the Essenes better than any other known Jewish group of that period. Some have claimed that Christianity had its beginnings at Qumran. Nevertheless, many striking differences can be noted between the religious views of the Qumran sect and the early Christians. The Qumran writings reveal ultrastrict Sabbath regulations and an almost obsessive preoccupation with ceremonial purity. (Matthew 15:1-20; Luke 6:1-11) Much the same could be said regarding the Essenes’ seclusion from society, their belief in fate and the immortality of the soul, and their emphasis on celibacy and mystical ideas about participating with the angels in their worship. This shows them to be at variance with Jesus’ teachings and those of early Christians.—Matthew 5:14-16; John 11:23, 24; Colossians 2:18; 1 Timothy 4:1-3. No Cover-up, No Hidden Scrolls In the years following the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, various publications were produced that made the initial finds readily available to scholars around the world. But the thousands of fragments from one of the caves, known as Cave 4, were far more problematic. These were in the hands of a small international team of scholars set up in East Jerusalem (then part of Jordan) at the Palestine Archaeological Museum. No Jewish or Israeli scholars were included in this team. The team developed a policy of not allowing access to the scrolls until they published the official results of their research. The number of scholars on the team was kept to a set limit. When a team member died, only one new scholar would be added to replace him. The amount of work demanded a much larger team, and in some cases, greater expertise in ancient Hebrew and Aramaic. James VanderKam put it this way: “Tens of thousands of fragments were more than eight experts, however skilled, could handle.†With the Six-Day War in 1967, East Jerusalem and its scrolls came under Israeli jurisdiction, but no policy change for the scroll research team was instituted. As the delay in publishing the scrolls from Cave 4 extended from years to decades, an outcry was heard from a number of scholars. In 1977, Professor Geza Vermes of Oxford University called it the academic scandal par excellence of the 20th century. Rumors started to spread that the Catholic Church was deliberately hiding information from the scrolls that would be devastating to Christianity. In the 1980’s, the team was finally expanded to 20 scholars. Then, in 1990, under the direction of its newly appointed editor in chief, Emanuel Tov, of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, the team was further expanded to over 50 scholars. A strict schedule was set up for publishing all the scholarly editions of the remaining scrolls. A real breakthrough came unexpectedly in 1991. First, A Preliminary Edition of the Unpublished Dead Sea Scrolls was published. This was put together with computer assistance based on a copy of the team’s concordance. Next, the Huntington Library in San Marino, California, announced that they would make available for any scholar their complete set of photographs of the scrolls. Before long, with the publication of A Facsimile Edition of the Dead Sea Scrolls, photographs of the previously unpublished scrolls became easily accessible. So for the last decade, all the Dead Sea Scrolls have been available for examination. The research reveals that there was no cover-up; there were no hidden scrolls. As the final official editions of the scrolls are being published, only now can full analysis begin. A new generation of scroll scholarship has been born. But what significance does this research have for Bible students? I guess over a 10,000 historical documents that are over 2,000 years old does not count as proof to you Gworld. Before Christianity these documents were and during the life of Christ they survived, all the way down to our day. But we know you don't believe in historical documents that thousands of atheistic professors agree are real, and exist in museums around the world. I would presume if Jesus himself gave you a digital picture of himself today, you wouldn't believe it was he unless you took the picture. Keep your camera around for Armageddon; you might need to take pictures to believe that one. D
Doug Do you know even what you are talking about? There are some old documents in the world and that proves Jesus existed. The question is very simple: Was there a man named Jesus, who was called the Christ, living in Palestine 2000 years ago and his life is documented in Bible? Since you know so much about these scrolls, give us 1 reference (provide a link, a quote) which is from the time Jesus supposedly existed and is referring to this actual real person. The oldest Gospel is by Mark which is probably as late as 90 CE. Gospel of Matthew and Luke are just copies of Mark with minor changes. Mark was not from Palestinian and was not an eye witness to the events. Gospel of John is even older and it is about 110 CE. Since generally Christians claim that Jesus was crucified at about 30 CE, all these gospels are written between 60 to 80 years after the event. There were many important historians both Jewish and Romans in a time that Jesus supposedly existed and they have left so many documents that can fill a library with such small details as occurrence of floods in different area but none of these people mention a person named Jesus. The question is not about the stories or how Christianity was formed by different myth and cultures but about if a person named Jesus refereed to in Bible as Christ ever existed as man walking on earth.
JEWISH TESTIMONY for Gworld To begin with, there is the testimony of the early Talmudical writings. The noted Jewish scholar Joseph Klausner, after thoroughly investigating their testimony, reports that the “early Talmudical accounts†of Jesus confirm ‘both the existence and the general character of Jesus.’—Jesus of Nazareth, p. 20. There are also two references to Jesus in the works of Josephus, a first-century Jewish historian. One of these is often questioned because it makes Josephus sound like a Christian. (Antiquities of the Jews, Book XVIII, Chap. III, par. 3) But, as Klausner and other scholars point out, it is unreasonable to conclude that Josephus would have made no reference to Jesus’ ministry when he dealt at length with that of John the Baptist. Besides, in a later reference, Josephus tells that “the sanhedri[n] of judges [had] brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James.†(Antiquities of the Jews, Book XX, Chap. IX, par. 1) Rightly, these scholars hold that this quotation intimates that something had been previously said about Jesus, otherwise why identify an unknown James as being his brother? They therefore hold that Josephus did tell about Jesus’ ministry but that some other, later hand embellished the account. TESTIMONY OF ROMAN HISTORIANS It is not to be expected that Roman historians would have much to say about an apparently small religious movement in faraway Palestine. At best we would expect to find scanty references, and such is the case. Thus, that foremost Roman historian, Tacitus, tells of Nero fastening the blame for the burning of Rome upon those “called Christians by the populace. Cristus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus.â€â€”The Complete Works of Tacitus, translated by A. Church and W. Brodribb, p. 380. A number of other Roman Writers, including Pliny the Younger, Seneca and Juvenal also make references to Christ’s followers. Rightly, then, The Encyclopædia Britannica states regarding the testimony of early Jewish and pagan writers: “These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries.â€â€”1974 Edition, Vol. 10, p. 145.
As you know very well, most scholars consider the 2 passage about Jesus by Josephus a forgery and it is only accepted by Christian writers desperate for the smallest evidence of his existence. It is funny that it is very similar to a forgery about a year ago that some one claimed he has found a box for bones with inscription on it which stated the bones of James the brother of Jesus or something similar. He was trying to sell the box but the test in Canada and Europe revealed it as forgery. there are many sources that discuss this subject and you have mentioned it yourself but if you want I can provide the links. In regard to Tacitus, let' look at his exact words: "Nero looked around for a scapegoat, and inflicted the most fiendish tortures on a group of persons already hated by the people for their crimes. This was the sect known as Christians. Their founder, one Christus, had been put to death by the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. This checked the abominable superstition for a while, but it broke out again and spread, not merely through Judea, where it originated, but even to Rome itself, the great reservoir and collecting ground for every kind of depravity and filth. Those who confessed to being Christians were at once arrested, but on their testimony a great crowd of people were convicted, not so much on the charge of arson, but of hatred of the entire human race." Book XV, Chapter 44 (D.R. Dudley's translation) Does he claim to have any first hand knowledge about Jesus? No, he is simply reporting the popular and accepted myth of his time. As I mentioned before there is no historical proof about Jesus ever existed but we can make this even more interesting and discuss the factual problems in new testament and the growth of Jesus myth on every new version of Bible that was produced such as how curing a sick person in the early version of bible is changed to raising the dead in the later version.
Doug: You're playing a game you can't win; you're trying to make gworld happy. gworld is not going to be happy unless you produce a first-hand eye-witness who personally saw Jesus in the Middle East two thousand years ago. And then gworld would just call that person a liar, so that wouldn't do any good either. No matter what you present, gworld will refuse to accept it. This is little gworld's first opportunity in years to get a little bit of power and he's going to milk it as long as he can.