rec.autos.simulators

by **Mattias Hembru** » Fri, 14 Sep 2001 09:45:41

>> As I understand it, post-modernism is the belief that science does not
>have
>> all the answers, despite what we were told for years.. And it's what's
>> replacing modernism, not being replaced by something else, or so I'm told.

>Post Modernism's main bent is that it's pointless to look for meaning in
>anything because there is none at all to be found. It, like modernism etc
>will probably pass into another set of conceptions.

Agreed.

Sorry, that was not my intent. I will shut up now.

Mattias

by **Asbj?rn Bj?rnst** » Fri, 14 Sep 2001 11:01:42

> I'm not disagreeing that humanity is to blame for the disaster. However,
> some interesting stories have already surfaced from yesterday, and others
> will no doubt follow: a christian who had NEVER been late for work in his
> career of over 20 years (and was well known in his office as someone who was
> never late) and worked in the WTC just "happened" to pick Tuesday as the
> first day of his career to be late? Another christian (on his way to the
> WTC) who only turns on his cell phone to MAKE phone calls had a feeling he
> should turn it on on Tuesday while driving to work. His wife called him,
> they got talking, he was delayed.

With the number of people working in those buildings, I bet hundreds
of people did something out of the ordinary, or for the first time that
day. That some of those things included getting late for work for some
reason or another isn't surprising.
(Why did the wife call, didn't she know he only turned it on for
making calls?)
--
-asbjxrn

by **Brandon J. Van Ever** » Fri, 14 Sep 2001 11:44:32

As I was the one who made the "no one went to heaven" statement, I think you
need to back off here. I didn't blame anyone with religious beliefs other
than the people who actually committed this act of terror. I haven't
"targetted" most religions on the planet, whatever "targetting" means. That
said, statements such as "no one went to heaven" are mine as an Atheist to
make. Just as you're free to say "Oh, all those good people are in Heaven
now, and the terrorists are in Hell." I don't believe you, but I'm not
going to argue it with you.

I do blame fanatical religion of the sort likely espoused by these
terrorists, assuming they are in fact Muslim. When you can justify your
atrocities in the name of Allah, or God, or whatever the label is, you are
not operating in the same universe as the rest of the planet. In our
current technological age, this kind of fanatical religion is a threat to
our species and needs to be conditioned against. Where "conditioning" is
probably going to mean the bombing and ground invasion of whatever regime is
responsible.

I agree with another poster that "fanatical anything" is the problem, not
simply fanatical religion. I wouldn't want to be on the working end of a
fanatical Atheist's eugenics program, because it would probably mean that
your human dignity and survival was irrelevant.

--
Cheers, www.3DProgrammer.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA

People who make personal attacks are useless.
I killfile them no matter who they are insulting.

by **Isaac K** » Fri, 14 Sep 2001 12:06:33

>>Of course, I'm well aware of what heppenned to the Soviet Union,
>>despite the fact that they were at the height of their military
>>power. But they lost in Afghanistan for the same reason we lost
>>in Vietnam--loss of support back home. This is different.
>>Pearl Harbor galvanized our nation into war overseas into an
>>endless conflict costing millions of lives. This act was far
>>more atrocious in every way.
>The act itself is. But unfortunately, the strategic picture is unilateral.
>The USA got bombed. The rest of the world isn't about to be taken over,
>like in WW II. Also many of our citizens are much better educated and more
>affluent than in WW II. We will indeed have to answer the question of our
>resolve. Will we go into a job with a determination to finish what we
>start?

Two realizations are going to start really sinking in to the
American psyche in the coming days:

1. We're going to stop calling this attack "The worst attack on
the U.S. since Pearl Harbor". This phrase will give way to
simply calling it, "the worst attack on the U.S."

and

2. The next one won't be a skyscraper, it could be a city. The
"suitcase bomb" threat is finally going to get the attention
it deserves.

It would be naive to think in terms of today's attacks in the
future. I'm sure you remember the highly related thread you
started on rec.arts.sf.science not long ago.

Isaac Kuo

by **Dave Henri** » Fri, 14 Sep 2001 12:29:30

Mattias...with respect to the 'christians' who mysteriously missed the WTT
disaster. You infer possible connection with the attackers. Could you also
not infer that the God of these christians was looking out for them and
provided a means for their missing the tragedy? Or failing that....just
imagine...that America is largely christian.. are all christians, even those
who live thousands of miles away from New York City in collaberation with
the attackers?
I think many people don't realize just how vast the USA is and how many
diversified peoples we have here.
And I don't think your thoughts have been clearly examined by your own self.
Otherwise you might not choose this forum to make such foolish accusations.
good night.
dave henrie

> >> >I have incredible sadness, because I cannot explain to the people who
> >> >crashed the planes why what they did was wrong. They wouldn't believe
me
> >> >that they're simply dead, that all the people they killed are dead,
that
> >> >nobody went to Allah or Heaven or any such thing.

> >> Says you. I, and a lot of your "fellow Americans" would disagree with
you.

> >> Mattias

> >True, but you have no basis for this disagreement.

> And you have basis for yours? I suppose you've been dead a few times,
then? :-)

> >People believe in an afterlife despite a complete lack of supporting
> >evidence. Why is it that we accept a lower standard of proof for the
most
> >profound existential question than we do for the most mundane scientific
> >theory?

> Most people believe in things that science cannot explain. Love.
Friendship.
> The beauty of a sunset.

> As I understand it, post-modernism is the belief that science does not
have
> all the answers, despite what we were told for years.. And it's what's
> replacing modernism, not being replaced by something else, or so I'm told.

> >I understand that religion gives people comfort, and I am loathe to deny
> >them that comfort. But it is an illusion. God had nothing to do with
this
> >mess, nor will He be around to help us clean it up. This one has
"humanity"
> >written all over it. We have no one else to blame nor anyone else to
turn
> >to.

> I'm not disagreeing that humanity is to blame for the disaster. However,
> some interesting stories have already surfaced from yesterday, and others
> will no doubt follow: a christian who had NEVER been late for work in his
> career of over 20 years (and was well known in his office as someone who
was
> never late) and worked in the WTC just "happened" to pick Tuesday as the
> first day of his career to be late? Another christian (on his way to the
> WTC) who only turns on his cell phone to MAKE phone calls had a feeling he
> should turn it on on Tuesday while driving to work. His wife called him,
> they got talking, he was delayed.

> I respect your views, and do NOT want this to degenerate into another
> flamewar, especially in light of the tragedy.

> I respectfully disagree with your beliefs. Yet, I also respect your right
to
> hold those views.

> Mattias

by **Bruce Renni** » Fri, 14 Sep 2001 13:13:55

> > If such events happen in a short period of time, then we are at war, and
> the
> > enemy will be defeated.

> To assume that it's going to be that easy is *extremely* naive. Look at
all
> the historical precendents, particularly Northern Ireland before assuming
> you can just "win" this without any thought.I would like to see a valid
> proposal for how the "enemy will be defeated", so easily. In fact, I
expect
> it would be extremely difficult and would almost certainly result in far
> greater casualties.

The Northern Ireland analogy is flawed. The U.S. doesn't live in the area
and would not really be concerned with keeping two waring parties apart.

The likely goals of any campaign the Americans would launch would be
twofold:

1) Capture and prosecution of terrorists.
2) "Encouraging" countries who currently sponsor terrorism to change their
ways.

This really isn't all that different from the current goals. The real
difference is, the Americans would actually try to achieve something instead
of acting defensively.

To me, it's basic math. The Americans suffered fewer than 1000 casualties in
Desert Storm. They suffered 10 times that many this week. By not addressing
the problem.

It is going to be messy. No doubt about it. But the Americans got themselves
into this mess by thinking that a few bombs would scare these people away.
It's a war now and it has to be faced.

/bruce

by **Anthon** » Fri, 14 Sep 2001 13:41:57

> > > > If such events happen in a short period of time, then we are at war,
> and
> > > >the enemy will be defeated.

> > > To assume that it's going to be that easy is *extremely* naive.

> > Did my statement contain anything about ease? Make no mistake, the USA
> will
> > defeat any enemy that declares war upon it, no matter how arduous the
> task.

> Your statement implied ease. This statement implies ease. What if you
lose?
> You're not acknowledging it as a possibility is overconfidence, which as
> history has shown almost always leads to defeat. This is why I urge
caution
> and careful consideration of any retribution.

Quiet you. Americans need something to believe, they need to believe that
their military will exact revenge on the bad guys.

The people who are actually planning the retaliation deep beneath the
Pentagon are not going to make many mistakes.

~Anthony

by ZZ » Fri, 14 Sep 2001 13:48:39

hmmm my history book saiz here that the vietcong declared war on american in the
vietnam war.
do u mean to tell me that history books over in america say that the vietcong
was defeated in that war?
i know countries tend to rewrite history how they like it to of been but wasnt
aware america have done this with the vietnam war

by **Brandon J. Van Ever** » Fri, 14 Sep 2001 14:28:17

What on earth are you talking about? I didn't read any such thing in
Mattias' post.

--
Cheers, www.3DProgrammer.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA

People who make personal attacks are useless.
I killfile them no matter who they are insulting.

by **Arkla** » Fri, 14 Sep 2001 14:31:25

precisely! fanticisim is a generally bad thing... always has been. theres a
reason the fantic unti in Civ2 was so strong....

> > My point was: blaming EVERYONE with religious beliefs isn't the answer
> > either, as easy as it is, IMHO. A blanket statement like "no one went to
> > heaven" targets most religions on the planet, not only those involved
(if
> > such was the case - I have no reason to believe it wasn't).

> As I was the one who made the "no one went to heaven" statement, I think
you
> need to back off here. I didn't blame anyone with religious beliefs other
> than the people who actually committed this act of terror. I haven't
> "targetted" most religions on the planet, whatever "targetting" means.
That
> said, statements such as "no one went to heaven" are mine as an Atheist to
> make. Just as you're free to say "Oh, all those good people are in Heaven
> now, and the terrorists are in Hell." I don't believe you, but I'm not
> going to argue it with you.

> I do blame fanatical religion of the sort likely espoused by these
> terrorists, assuming they are in fact Muslim. When you can justify your
> atrocities in the name of Allah, or God, or whatever the label is, you are
> not operating in the same universe as the rest of the planet. In our
> current technological age, this kind of fanatical religion is a threat to
> our species and needs to be conditioned against. Where "conditioning" is
> probably going to mean the bombing and ground invasion of whatever regime
is
> responsible.

> I agree with another poster that "fanatical anything" is the problem, not
> simply fanatical religion. I wouldn't want to be on the working end of a
> fanatical Atheist's eugenics program, because it would probably mean that
> your human dignity and survival was irrelevant.

> --
> Cheers, www.3DProgrammer.com
> Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA

> People who make personal attacks are useless.
> I killfile them no matter who they are insulting.

by **Arkla** » Fri, 14 Sep 2001 14:34:18

i belive there was a miscommunication here.. i didn't ge tthe sense he was
saying christians were connected with the attackers in anyway. i think, what
he was trying to say was that they were spared due to their faith. but, i
don't havbe an opinion on this sort of thing. and i will try to avoid the
conversation of religion here further.

> Mattias...with respect to the 'christians' who mysteriously missed the
WTT
> disaster. You infer possible connection with the attackers. Could you
also
> not infer that the God of these christians was looking out for them and
> provided a means for their missing the tragedy? Or failing that....just
> imagine...that America is largely christian.. are all christians, even
those
> who live thousands of miles away from New York City in collaberation with
> the attackers?
> I think many people don't realize just how vast the USA is and how many
> diversified peoples we have here.
> And I don't think your thoughts have been clearly examined by your own
self.
> Otherwise you might not choose this forum to make such foolish
accusations.
> good night.
> dave henrie

> > >> >I have incredible sadness, because I cannot explain to the people
who
> > >> >crashed the planes why what they did was wrong. They wouldn't
believe
> me
> > >> >that they're simply dead, that all the people they killed are dead,
> that
> > >> >nobody went to Allah or Heaven or any such thing.

> > >> Says you. I, and a lot of your "fellow Americans" would disagree with
> you.

> > >> Mattias

> > >True, but you have no basis for this disagreement.

> > And you have basis for yours? I suppose you've been dead a few times,
> then? :-)

> > >People believe in an afterlife despite a complete lack of supporting
> > >evidence. Why is it that we accept a lower standard of proof for the
> most
> > >profound existential question than we do for the most mundane
scientific
> > >theory?

> > Most people believe in things that science cannot explain. Love.
> Friendship.
> > The beauty of a sunset.

> > As I understand it, post-modernism is the belief that science does not
> have
> > all the answers, despite what we were told for years.. And it's what's
> > replacing modernism, not being replaced by something else, or so I'm
told.

> > >I understand that religion gives people comfort, and I am loathe to
deny
> > >them that comfort. But it is an illusion. God had nothing to do with
> this
> > >mess, nor will He be around to help us clean it up. This one has
> "humanity"
> > >written all over it. We have no one else to blame nor anyone else to
> turn
> > >to.

> > I'm not disagreeing that humanity is to blame for the disaster. However,
> > some interesting stories have already surfaced from yesterday, and
others
> > will no doubt follow: a christian who had NEVER been late for work in
his
> > career of over 20 years (and was well known in his office as someone who
> was
> > never late) and worked in the WTC just "happened" to pick Tuesday as the
> > first day of his career to be late? Another christian (on his way to the
> > WTC) who only turns on his cell phone to MAKE phone calls had a feeling
he
> > should turn it on on Tuesday while driving to work. His wife called him,
> > they got talking, he was delayed.

> > I respect your views, and do NOT want this to degenerate into another
> > flamewar, especially in light of the tragedy.

> > I respectfully disagree with your beliefs. Yet, I also respect your
right
> to
> > hold those views.

> > Mattias

by **The Enigmatic O** » Fri, 14 Sep 2001 14:40:25

says...

>As much as I hate discussing politics in off-topic newsgroups...

On its terms, with a setup that is remarkably like the system of
reservations in the US with the same idea of second-class citizenship.

-Tim

by **Robert Twee** » Fri, 14 Sep 2001 14:40:36

What they need to believe is that justice will prevail. That is supposed to
be part of the American way, right? The guys in the Pentagon or wherever
their contingency centre is will plan a number of retaliations. The one they
recommend may not be the one selected by the president. The action taken
will be politically motivated, if Americans want *** then their president
has to deliver ***. Hopefully enough Americans can see past the temporary
blindness of anger induced hatred to back a good decision by their
government.

Revenge is not what is needed. Brandon's argument for a military objective
is sound, although I do not think it can be achieved as easily as he appears
to believe. The alternative argument for a fair trial and incarceration of
the perpetrators and all their accomplices is more sound. However, I think
that this must be done swiftly and with force to satisfy Americans that
justice has been done, not dragged out indefinitely like with the Lockerbie
bombing.

- Robert

by **Brandon J. Van Ever** » Fri, 14 Sep 2001 14:47:34

We don't need to believe it, we need to have the determination to make it
so. And we will have that determination not by fretting about how difficult
we could imagine it to be, but by assessing the facts. Hopefully soon we'll
know who did it, then we can start considering the logistical basis of the
terrorists. Assuming they're Muslim, do they get arms, money, and
logistical support from the entire Arab world, or are they diplomatically
isolated/isolable? If it's Afghanistan, a review of what the Soviets did
and didn't achieve militarily is in order. It might be a mistake to say
that the Soviets "lost" Afghanistan militarily, rather that they petered out
for similar reasons that we petered out in Vietnam.

The question that each and every American must now ask him/herself, is what
they're willing to do to contribute to such a war. If indeed they are. For
there is no certainty (yet) that it'll be a cakewalk like Desert Storm.
Many of us are now facing the difficult question of what we personally are
going to do. Can you ask someone to risk their life in your place? I
can't.

--
Cheers, www.3DProgrammer.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA

People who make personal attacks are useless.
I killfile them no matter who they are insulting.

by **Robert Twee** » Fri, 14 Sep 2001 14:49:38

Errr, have you looked up what the word imply means lately?

- Robert

rec.autos.simulators

To my American friends

To my American friends

To my American friends

To my American friends

To my American friends

To my American friends

To my American friends

To my American friends

To my American friends

To my American friends

To my American friends

To my American friends

To my American friends

To my American friends

To my American friends

To my American friends