EKen132
-
Posts
2.036 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by EKen132
-
-
Good article.
-
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraq's president said Tuesday that Saddam Hussein had confessed to killings and other "crimes" committed during his regime. President Jalal Talabani told Iraqi television that he had been informed by an investigating judge that "he was able to extract confessions from Saddam's mouth" about crimes "such as executions" which the ousted leader had personally ordered.
Talabani said that some of the confessions involved cases actively under investigation but he did not which ones. Saddam faces his first trial Oct. 19 for his alleged role in the massacre of Shiites in Dujail, a town north of Baghdad in 1982.
Saddam could face the death penalty if convicted in the Dujail case.
The Iraq Special Tribunal is also investigating Saddam's alleged role in other atrocities, including the 1988 gassing of thousands of Kurdish civilians in Halabja and the 1991 suppression of the Shiite rebellion in the south.
Iraqi authorities plan to try those cases separately.
Discuss, preferably without talking about whether the Iraq war is right or not.
Are you suprised? Is the death penalty right, even after these atrocious crimes? Who should try him?
-
This is my view on the firearm situation:
If people are allowed to use firearms, how do you keep them from using them improperly? Two things come to mind:
-punish them for using them improperly
-give them no excuse to use them improperly. Example: poverty is an excuse, because people become more focused on physical needs and less on the consequences of using guns.
Let's look at the ingredients in the NO anarchy soup:
-No police, goverment, national guard, or military for days
-Extreme and sudden poverty, on a large scale
Would we be likely to see improper use of firearms- threatening, shooting to scare, shooting to maim/kill? Unfortunately, I think yes, we would. Even if it wasn't guns, this little formula still works out, guns are far from the only weapon out there.
And Cory, the FEMA thing was the one thing that I'd said I'd heard about. I may have seen the nat'l geographic, but it was years ago. Anyhow, my opinion on this sort of "it was OBVIOUS, why didn't anyone do anything?!" attitude is that it's not like everyone in the US- let alone N.O.- was thinking "Gosh what if a hurricane hits... maybe I should move, or petition for more safety measures"... or even evacuate. Let's get those people saying "why didn't you know?" to predict what will happen, give a few "mark my words", and that way when what they say does happen, we don't have some going "come on guys it was obvious" when it wasn't paticulary a big hype- what, some three organizations in the US talking about this.
Maybe it's just some bias of mine indoctrinated into my by my ap psychology class, but I dislike when people think things were obvious and apparent in hindsight when there was relatively little hype beforehand. And I'm not talking about this disaster specifically.
-
Well to a degree we expected it. But very few called out that New Orleans was a disaster waiting to happen... I've only heard of one man who said that. Anyhow, let's congratulate ourselves on 20/20 hindsight.
I recently learned that Katrina wasn't actually going for N.O. In the general direction yes, but the part that hit the city proper was class 3 (or some lower number) winds, versus the class 5 hurricane. And it was after the fact that the levees broke, flooding the city (which obviously did a ton of the damage).
You know, it's hard to say. I guess I'd say that people are so incredibly dependant on these fragile water, electricity, and gas systems set up, that when we lose it, even for a few days, it becomes chaos. Also, floods in Italy (except for Florence, I'm not familiar with the places) may have been in less urban areas, where people are more self-sufficient anyhow. In the sort of megalopolises of today's America, with cities surrounded by suburbs for miles and miles, people are extremely dependant on each other for everything. And the sudden change from complete dependance to complete independance was just too much to take. That's my take on it, anyhow.A question arises in my mind: why? -
Eken, if you can point to a verse in any Holy Book or any religious document whatsoever that says Katrina was an act of God meant to punish sinners, then I will retract my statement.
I don't need to. The fact is that you labeled a group of people as "delusional nutcases" based on a ideological/religious beliefs.
You may not use terms or audio/visual materials referring to ethnic/national origin, ideological/religious beliefs, gender, or sexual preference in a demeaning context.Get my drift? I mean, like you said, you "did not attack any religion", which is true. But you did use terms referring to ideological/religious beliefs in a demeaning context.
I'm not, however, offended or mad at you or anything. And know that I'm not endorsing this view-- if I was, you would certainly know. I'm just pointing out facts.
Otherwise, I did not attack any religion, only those who would use the tragedy to further their own religious-political agenda.I don't see how the fact that some people are saying Katrina was an act of God to further their own religious-political agenda. Well, religious I can understand... but political? This is not some subversive view trying to make the US into a theocracy or anything, it's just a belief held by a (probably) minority of Christians (or Muslims, but with a slight twist).
Anyhow, looks like I'm going to end up defending this position just because I'm closer to it than any of you. There seems to be this big issue with "if God punished this one group once, why has/hasn't he punished every other person in the world exactly as they are due in a comprable manner throughout history?". Actually, not totally sure what to say to that. Maybe reading the book of Job would be worth your time if you've asked or wondered that question. In fact, the Bible says a ton about divine punishment... the only thing coming to my mind right now is "do not reject the punishment of the almighty"... doesn't really help.
If your going too follow a religion then follow it, dont use it as a weapon against other people you dont agree with or dislike in some way.This isn't a weapon! People just believe this because throughout all of human history it's been impossible to get the notion out of human minds that some sort of divine power interacts with our world. If Christians who think this use this as justification for being uncharitable towards these people, then they are clearly disobeying what Jesus has said. This has nothing NOTHING at all to do with liking or disliking people or agreeing or disagreeing with them, it just has to do with the idea that many things that are beyond human control are associated with the divine.
-
Yes, I was being very sarcastic when I said offense was the worst sin. You are right, it is a main catalyst to debate. Klaas potrayed the belief in a negative light by saying it causes offense. In my opinion, not only do we have much more to worry about than offending people, but small indirect comments like that should not emotionally be scarring anyone, yet we all hear plenty of complaint. Anyhow, as long as it's not directed personally- like at someone's mother or religion, it shouldn't be a problem.
...oh, and it appears you've labeled everyone who believes that Katrina was an act of God a "delusional nutcase". You're treading on thin ice, Michael:
You may not use terms or audio/visual materials referring to ethnic/national origin, ideological/religious beliefs, gender, or sexual preference in a demeaning context.That was from the community guidelines.
EDIT: Yiuel, I agree, to a degree. But to a degree because I really don't understand all you're trying to say. America, in my opinion, has become so used to immediate gratification and a historically unheard of standard of living that a disaster that has, so far, left some thousands homeless for five days has practically caused anarchy in the streets. And it really dissapoints me in how both the govt and the people have reacted to this. But it is getting better, and Generale Honore is a character who values efficiency. I'm glad he's getting stuff done there, because serious leadership was greatly needed.
-
Double post, I know, but different subjects.
I've been reading the lastest on it. I'm pleasantly suprised to see that Carnival has lent 3 of its cruise ships from "duty" to house refugees. The superdome has now been mostly evacuated, and now things are finally starting to get straightened out. It's going to be sick scouring the city for survivors and just finding bodies everywhere and complete destruction. The city is practically destroyed. And then trying to bail the water out... that's quite a task. I'm sorry, but any estimates on the amount of time before this city is, if ever, up and running again are way too conservative. If people wanna do this, they're in for the long, expensive haul. I guess its just a matter of whether people think it's worth it.
-
I was shocked as well, as Beowulf made references to a merciful God and all. It was quite jarring, and we read some other Anglo Saxon poetry... same story.
As for your question... I'm not exactly sure what you mean. In many ways, Arda already is a "Christian" world, as it's creator heavily drew from his religion and moral beliefs to make it.
-
in fact it's pretty offensive to all those who lost their friends or relatives imo.
Certainly not more offensive than Muslims pronouncing Katrina a footsoldier of Allah. And I'm not offended by that, and wouldn't be even if someone I knew was killed.
I really do fail to see the humor in the "religious implications" of the event.As do I. There really isn't anything funny about it, but some of the weather maps compared to a 9 week old human fetus seem to be taking it overboard. Anyhow, I'm not actively endorsing this view or anything, so don't take me in the wrong way.
If we want to discuss the "wrath of god," why not discuss why it has taken "Him" 2 dozen hurricane strikes to Louisiana to accomplish anything lasting with his wrath? Was "He" simply warning people? What about Hurricane Andrew? I bet the entire state of Florida "had it comin'" then, huh? Let's not stop there... what about the Tsunami? Was it a punishment from the Almighty imposed upon Muslim, Animist, and Hindu "heathens"? Killed plenty of "decadent" tourists too, that did!I think we can safely say which direction such a "religious" discussion would flow.
With you at the helm, I think we can say it would obviously take off pretty quickly. I'll consider easing back on my politically incorrect implications (offending is the worst sin, right?), and remember, just because I pointed out those three ironies doesn't mean that I'm saying every person who's died in a natural disaster in the last year has been a terrible, sinful person. You said, "Let's not stop there", and that is in my experience a red flag for someone who is about to take things too far. I digress, let's stop here.
-
On to the Canterbury Tales, same class.
-
Another fun, fun issue to discuss is the religious implications of this event.
Some Christians say that Hurricane Katrina was an apocolyptic-style purification of New Orleans, known for it's decadence.
In fact, "Decadence Weekend", the third largest homosexual party/parade/w-e you want to call it (after the NY and SF parades) was going to be over labor day weekend in the French Quarter.
Also, the hurricane hit the coastline on the 29th, which is the feast day of St. John the Baptist... who if you've ever attended church on a regular basis or read the Bible, you know that his catch phrase was "repent, repent, the kingdom of God is at hand".
Also, the etymology of Katrina comes from the German word for "pure".
Now that I'm googling this looking for more to add to the list, I'm finding out that there's a ton of great stuff out there, like pictures of the weather maps of Katrina resembling a fetus and all.
Oh and a great quote from the unabashadly (maybe too much so) conservative news source, Right Wing News. It sums up my feelings to a large degree
after a big natural disaster, there is always enormous pressure on politicians to do something now, now, now! They're supposed to fly over the disaster zone, give reassuring speeches, and then appropriate gargantuan sums of money as fast as possible to prove they care. Any sort of delay in doing any of these things is treated as icy and nearly inhuman indifference to human suffering...and keep in mind, this is one of the biggest natural disasters in American history. That means the pressure is going to be ratcheted up that much higher. That's why tomorrow, the House is supposed to: "return for an emergency session Friday to approve some $10 billion in federal aid for hurricane victims."Of course, that's understandable. It's vitally important to establish order in New Orleans, evacuate the city, help the people who are displaced, etc., etc. Those things need to be done and they need to be taken care of as quickly as possible.
Going beyond that, the problem here is that in a very short period of time, maybe in just a matter of weeks, our legislators will likely be spending tens of billions of dollars more and making far reaching decisions about the future of New Orleans. Moreover, it's entirely possible that little critical thinking is involved because of the aforementioned political pressure.
That would be an enormous mistake.
New Orleans is a city that is, at least in the United States, uniquely vulnerable to big hurricanes. Despite the fact that they've known that for decades, not only were their defensive measures against a big hurricane woefully inadequate, the city has been completely hamstrung in their response afterwards. We're talking about a city that can't even maintain public order or properly evacuate the Superdome. Of course, the fact that much of the city is under 15 ft. of water has a lot to do with that, but however you slice it, it should still be noted that the local government, despite plenty of forewarning, wasn't able to protect the city from Katrina and has been nearly helpless since the storm hit.
So, who's to say that if we pour 40 billion dollars into New Orleans, the whole city won't be wrecked again in exactly the same manner in another decade? As a matter of fact, given how long New Orleans had to prepare for this hurricane and the dismal results, a better question at this point might be why would we think the city wouldn't be destroyed again if it was hit by another hurricane in the future?
That's why people should be glad Hastert had the guts to speak up. There are some very hard questions that need to be asked about the rebuilding of New Orleans and the answers need to add up. If they don't, then maybe we should be encouraging people to move elsewhere. Maybe some parts of the city shouldn't be rebuilt. Maybe we should be asking if it's even possible to protect the city from a category 4 or 5 hurricane? These are things that need to be seriously discussed by experts before we open up the federal coffers for rebuilding a city on the coast that's in effect, in the middle of a colossal soup bowl.
What it all comes down to is that the people who have been effected by this hurricane deserve our compassion. But, as we move forward, we need to make sure that compassion is tempered by reason. Call that insensitive if you like, but a few tough questions today could end up saving 50 billion dollars and thousands of lives a few years down the road...
-
New Orleans has always been a disaster waiting to happen, and this has been known for years and years. Besides earthquakes, it's been a hundred years or more since we've had a real major national disaster like this, and for it to hit a major US city...
Don't act like it's an easy task to evacuate a half a million people while it's flooded in less than 48 hours... for heaven's sake, it's so easy to complain and blame isn't it.
And Titus, you're wrong about the worst of it. Any sort of major construction project that would have protected would take years and years to complete. Although I admit, it's easy to blame and complain after that fact. The actual worst part is that tens of thousands of people are still stuck in that hellhole, and that people have degenerated into raping, beating, looting monsters. I'm not happy with the organization of the relief effort so far (well it's definately getting better) either, but I take into consideration the how radical this catastrophe is.
-
Ooh why is their a rise in Fundamentalism... a question I haven't thought about.
To tell you the truth, I don't really see so much a rise in Fundamentalism, but a greater reaction against it, because so many laws now days come into direct conflict with religious beliefs. Sure there may be more as a "reaction to the reaction", but if you think about it, the past 300 years (speaking America-centric here) has definately seen a decrease in fundamentalism. BTW does fundamentalism refer only to religious things, or political ideologies as well?
-
Though I do not have something against banning symbols of hate (because this is explicitly a criminal act to menace someone), I wouldn't ban any other symbol, even in school. That I show my own religious allegences doesn't impeach someone else of doing what ever they please. (Black Knight, what if I impeach you of having a cross as a necklace, what would you do?) I do not show my religious allegences publicly, but I wouldn't like to be blocked of doing so, if I wanted.
Well said Yiuel. Muslim head scarves should not be banned on the basis that they are not offensive, harmful, imposing, or anything else. They are a traditional garb, and they are an expression. To limit non-harmful/offensive/threatening expression is, to me, clearly a violation of the first amendment/freedom of speech... w/e you want to call it, the simple fact of the matter is that "freedom of religion" is being taken as "freedom from religion", when they are clearly two seperate things. If Europe wants to give Freedom from Religion, go ahead, I can't speak for them as it is, but I think some legislators in France need to get a grip on reality.
Anyhow, in America you always hear little kids complain to their parents when restrained from doing something "it's a free country, I can do whatever I want". Of course we know something is wrong with this, but what. Let me quote my AP Government textbook, "Government by the People" Burns et al.
Liberty is not simply the absence of external restraint on a person (freedom from); it is the individual's freedom and capacity to act positively to reach his or her goals (freedom to). Moreover, both history and reason suggest that individual liberty is the key to social progress.And I agree with this statement. It explains so much... why little kids can't do whatever they want without bound, why we have to where seatbelts (required by law in US), and why banning headscarves does not make any progress towards freedom.
-
I cast my vote for Beowulf, but mainly because I will be reading it for AP english starting.. tomorrow I believe. Paradise lost comes later on in the year.
-
Make it so that every Muslim family has to give up their first-born son to millitary service at birth. Then train these kids to be super-patriotic fighting machines, fiercly loyal to the state.
Are you kidding? I can't imagine that ever flying in today's Europe.
-
I'm finally getting around to reading Beowulf (through my AP English class). We start next week
. -
Neither do any other evangelical Christians, so you're not alone.
However, just about everyone else does, so that's probably why it's put in that category.
-
Though, because religion has been so long in our system, because the church kept people stupid until even today, the dogma's are hard to be broken for some people.
I resent the insinuation that people are stupid because of the church. Some people actually willingly believe the doctrines of the church, not only because they are coerced into doing so. To generalize the church into a body which keeps people stupid, even today, and the believers as "stupid" (even today!) is something I find offensive and probably innapropriate for the forums. Please don't make any more comments of that sort.
-
Gordon Lightfoot, Complete Greatest Hits.
-
I've wondered, who is the artist and what is the name?
-
Clodhopper, even if you two debate until kingdom come, at the rate we're going, you're about as likely to believe what he believes as he is likely to believe what you believe.
I believed I've IMed you about this.
-
Don't start this now...
Yes and no, I lean towards yes. Since sound is really air vibrating yes, but since sound is a perception, and no percieving takes place, no. However, like a dog whistle, not all sound is percieved. Do dog whistles make a sound? Yes. Can we hear them? No, but we're able to get over that fact by looking at the definition of sound.
So yeah, the tree makes a sound.
-
Wow check out the cast for Beowulf!
Are there contradictions in the Bible?
in Hall of Intellectuals
Posted
From you, an atheist, it is no suprise to hear that last statement.
From me, or any other theist, it would be no suprise to hear that the most important thing of life is whether or not a god exists.
They're both just opinions.