Thursday, January 29, 2015

Battle Mode - Lies of the Godless


Tony Steed[shared link] 



I'm all for it. Religion is the bane of humanity.. I'm not saying you shouldn't believe in something. But when your beliefs stop progress then it's bad. If your faith in the invisible makes you feel better have at it. But don't try to influence my and others lives with your belief systems not based on facts.

Muhammad Rasheed - Dude...

Muhammad Rasheed - Quit.

Tony Steed - Where am I lying? Religion is the bane of our species..

Muhammad Rasheed - Tony Steed wrote: "Where am I lying?"

Let us count the ways...

Tony Steed wrote: "Religion is the bane of our species."

This is a lie. Religion is where all of our ethics and morals came from and is what we built our civilizations around from the very beginning of our species.

Tony Steed wrote: "Religion is the bane of humanity.."

This is the same lie as above. Somewhere along the course of your life, you personally felt you didn't like religion, and made the decision to know as little about it as possible while spewing vitriol from the sidelines based on that ignorance. Somewhere in your head you seem to actually think that your
Tourette syndrome-like comments "Religion is the bane of our species!" is expressing a truth, when it absolutely isn't. 

Tony Steed wrote: "I'm not saying you shouldn't believe in something."

lol Tony, first you have to learn the subject and be able to speak upon it from a place of informed knowledge based on REAL facts, not subjective bias, in order for your opinion to have at least a tiny bit of value. We've established definitively from a few of these dialogues that your opinion holds zero value regarding religion because, like Bill, you've proven not to know a single thing about it. Not one thing. Yet you've both jumped on this new atheist fad using the very same herd mentality of ignorance on the topic that you directed towards that circumcision clip earlier. 

Tony Steed wrote: "But when your beliefs stop progress then it's bad."

Another lie.  Give me an example of how you believe religion is stopping progress so I may demonstrate the depths of your ignorance in front of all your friends & family on Facebook. Do it.

Tony Steed wrote: "If your faith in the invisible makes you feel better have at it."

Faith in the invisible, the unseen, is our humanity. It's what will save us. We wouldn't be here without it. 

Tony Steed wrote: "But don't try to influence my and others lives with your belief systems not based on facts."

Please provide a single fact that proves the lies I've pointed about above are actually not lies. Your own faith-based belief that "Religion is the bane of our species!" is what is holding progress back. Ask me how.

Bill Jonke - I'm a product of a project engineer. Logic has taken over. Religion is illogical. It makes no sense to me. What's been proven makes sense to me, and no part of religion has EVER been proven. The decline and the desperation that's screaming from religion these days is immeasurable because by some strange streak of fate, people are starting to think. Thinking isn't as easy as some people would believe, but have something or someone else think for you, real or imagined, leads to your ruin as a human being.

Muhammad Rasheed - Bill Jonke wrote: “I'm a product of a project engineer.”

Does that magically mean you have the ability to speak on what religion is or isn’t without ever studying what the faiths are actually about? Did they pass out bibles on the first day of engineering school?

Bill Jonke wrote: “Logic has taken over.”

Do you still believe that an engineering degree grants you special insight into religion? Is this a demonstration of your version of “logic?”

Bill Jonke wrote: “Religion is illogical.”

In what way?

Bill Jonke wrote: “It makes no sense to me.”

So because of your own intellectual weaknesses, it means it is illogical? Is this more of your “logic” at work?

Bill Jonke wrote: “What's been proven makes sense to me…”

Does it?

Bill Jonke wrote: “…and no part of religion has EVER been proven.”

What part of religion is supposed to be proven? You recognize that they are called “faiths” for a reason, yes? Belief is the activating principle in world religion per the instructions within the sacred texts, yet you are rejecting them because they operate on that foundational principle. Judging fields based on concepts they were never intended to function by seems to be another tenet of your version of “logic.” And this seems reasonable to you?

Bill Jonke wrote: “The decline and the desperation that's screaming from religion these days…”

What does that even mean? This sounds suspiciously faith-based. Show me proofs of this “screaming.” I’m to believe that project engineers operate on proof, right? Show me your proofs if you are truthful.

Bill Jonke wrote: “…is immeasurable because by some strange streak of fate, people are starting to think.”

Not in this thread they haven’t. You and Tony like to spew a lot of faith-based anti-religion doctrine you apparently make up on the fly though. I’m looking forward to you providing some facts that back up your claims so you can finally put me in my place.

Bill Jonke wrote: “Thinking isn't as easy as some people would believe…”

I’m genuinely not surprised to hear you confess this. The first step in curing a deficiency is to admit one possesses it. Maybe now we can get you the help you need, Bill. Good show.

Bill Jonke wrote: “…but have something or someone else think for you, real or imagined, leads to your ruin as a human being.”

Right now, you and Tony have jumped on the “Down with religion!” band wagon without a single fact among you to support your anti-religious claims. Whenever I provide any measure of pushback, you scamper off like Godless rodents (the worst kind of rodent, of course). What do you have for me today?

Throw down your rod.

Tony Steed - I don't need to throw down a rod. Since Morality is seen within the animal world without books. Religion is used by people to feel good about things unseen, and their place in the world. Most of us do not need such things. I am a human being. I treat other humans fairly, sometimes I treat them douchy, because I cam human. Your books of myth and fables, where Gods create imperfection, yet expect perfection are false parables.

Tony Steed - Your gods take human women, and impregnate them with themselves, then give birth to themselves, to sacrifice themselves, for something they did. That's a great moral play there.

Tony Steed - Your Gods are petty and impetulant. they demand worship, yet offer nothing in return except promises and rules to live by. Yet the rules they live by and expect us to live by are full of discrepancies, which people compile into old and new testaments from their mythical beings. Which people who follow the religions, like I used to, pick and choose which rules they wish to follow. You can despise the gay, yet on sunday you can go to church, then eat the shellfish afterwards. You can kill the blasphemer, yet wear multi fabriced items. You can claim the kingdom, yet shave your beards. You tell others the immorality of themselves, yet work on the sabbath.

Tony Steed - The promise of the church is designed to control the highest number with promises of greatness not on the world they live in but the world of tomorrow. Yet they fall into the trap of thinking themselves higher than their fellow man. You have men of the Church claim education and science, yet tell you to not question your Gods, because they work in mysterious ways. The church promoted education not among the masses but among themselves, it was a good thing that men and women of science and higher morality chose to rebel against the church, and chart a better course for humanity.

Tony Steed - Religion offers help to those in need as long as they accept the gods. As a human I offer help, because it's the right thing, and i care for no reward, if I am to be punished for not bowing to the gods, so be it. They do not deserve to be worshiped for the plagues they unleash on man and their creations. They can create, but every creators secondary job is to maintain. The creators write manuals for living that are NOT up to interpretation, and not up to being mistaken into old and new. The creators give knowledge to the people to maintain the creation, and then check in to make sure things run smooth. The gods of humans, THEIR creations, are surprisingly absent throughout history. Humanity has existed for 250 thousand years in our modern form, yet where were the gods to help us with their books and teachings?

Tony Steed - The gods of man deserve no worship, people should pray for others after helping others. Praying for the gods to do something is lazy, and makes people less capable of helping their fellows without care for heavenly rewards.

Tony Steed - The Gods, EVERY SINGLE ONE of them deserve nothing, because they do not exist. If they do exist mankind should not worship them, because the Gods have failed for 250 thousand years.

Muhammad Rasheed - Tony Steed wrote: "I don't need to throw down a rod."

You do if you claim to stand on the side of truth & facts. Proclaiming faith-based subjective opinion based on ignorant dislike is to perform what you say you condemn in your ideological rivals.

Tony Steed - @Muhammad Rasheed… You asked where has religion stopped progress. You must be blind to how islam went from being a religion that made amazing headways in the Science of astronomy, to what it''s become today. If religions were so progressive, why are there so many factions? if Religions don't impede progress, why did they burn bruno at the stake? Why did they kill Joan de arc a progressive and devout woman of her time, who led armies? Why did they put galileo under house arrest? Why the Inquisition which has just ended, but continues in christian countries? Science and Religion by Mark Humphrys (Irish. Atheist. Liberal-right. Anti-jihad. Pro-West. Pro-Israel.)

Tony Steed - I'll never claim truth, I will stand by facts. Truths are mutable, facts change as the evidence does. Truths are whatever people want them to be.

Muhammad Rasheed - lol You're literally making my argument for me and can't see it.

This is going to be fun...

Muhammad Rasheed - smh

Tony Steed -  One thing about "debating" with the religious, is that they always see themselves winning. When I was a Christian, I was the same way. Thankfully I woke up.

Muhammad Rasheed - Tony Steed wrote: “Since Morality is seen within the animal world without books.”

Animals function primarily on instinct, while humans function primarily on learned behavior. I see you use the same “logic” that Bill dips into.

Tony Steed wrote: “Religion is used by people to feel good about things unseen, and their place in the world.”

That’s not the reason I subscribe to religion, so what are you basing this claim upon? You said you have no factual rods to throw down to prove any tenet of your faith-based anti-religion stance, so that would be a big fat “nothing,” right?

Tony Steed wrote: “Most of us do not need such things.”

How ironic. You proclaim a strawman, and then smugly state how people don’t need the concept you literally made up and then proclaimed as a truth. Interesting.

Tony Steed wrote: “I am a human being. I treat other humans fairly, sometimes I treat them douchy, because I cam human. Your books of myth and fables, where Gods create imperfection, yet expect perfection are false parables.”

Yet another strawman. In His scriptures, God gifted us with the concept of “repentance.” I would hardly think it would be needed if He expected “perfection.” Experience has shown that you walk around with a whole bag full of equal nonsense that you pretend comes from religion, a trait both you and Bill share. I expect nothing less from you.

Tony Steed - Where was Gods morality, for 248 thousand years?

Muhammad Rasheed - ^What does that mean? What are you asking?

Bill Jonke - So how many times has faith been broken? I don't have faith in anything! It usually comes back to bite you in the ass. My father would say "Take things as they come." I do interpret that as "drop the faith and do the best you can with what's handed to you!" He'd agree with me on that!

Muhammad Rasheed - Tony Steed wrote: “Your gods take human women, and impregnate them with themselves, then give birth to themselves, to sacrifice themselves, for something they did. That's a great moral play there.”

There’s too much Pauline Christian doctrine reference here for me to defend, which I cannot do. You are woefully ignorant on the Islamic stance of the immaculate conception so I cannot debate it with you. Naturally I don’t expect you to research it so you can catch up.

Tony Steed - Actually I'm reading it now...

Muhammad Rasheed - SURRRRRE you are.

Muhammad Rasheed - Tony Steed wrote: “Your Gods are petty and impetulant. they demand worship, yet offer nothing in return except promises and rules to live by.”

Do you not breathe, walk about, and have the freedom to blaspheme the God that made you at your discretion? Has He not provided the bounty of the earth to sate your ungrateful gullet? Has He not offered Eternal Bliss in exchange for obeying Him?

Then what in the WORLD can you possibly be talking about?

Tony Steed wrote: “Yet the rules they live by and expect us to live by are full of discrepancies…”

Like what? And how could you possibly be qualified to discern between a discrepancy and the truth of the Lord?

Tony Steed wrote: “…which people compile into old and new testaments from their mythical beings. Which people who follow the religions, like I used to…”

Please stop pretending that you used to actually follow the commands of God. We already had that discussion and you admitted you had no idea what the book said; you didn’t even read it.

Tony Steed wrote: “…pick and choose which rules they wish to follow.”

You admit that humans choose not to do what God commands, yet somehow blame the religion for the deficiency? And this is logical to you?

Tony Steed wrote: “You can despise the gay, yet on sunday you can go to church, then eat the shellfish afterwards. You can kill the blasphemer, yet wear multi fabriced items. You can claim the kingdom, yet shave your beards. You tell others the immorality of themselves, yet work on the sabbath.”

Obviously this critique is a reference to the difference between the old and new Testaments of the Christian faith. I’ll take up this challenge for them.

What did Jesus tell the children of Israel (since you claim you used to be a Christian) if they would follow him and accept his message? Tell me if you know.

Tony Steed - It means, why did the Gods wait 248 thousand years to write terrible books on how to live, and what they want us to do

Tony Steed - Jesus Christ in Islam

Tony Steed - I like knowing what I speak..

Muhammad Rasheed - Apparently not, Tony.

Tony Steed wrote: "It means, why did the Gods wait 248 thousand years to write terrible books on how to live, and what they want us to do"

Who said God waited thousands of years before He wrote His books?  Based on what?  Is that what scripture says?

Tony Steed - And mention in the Book (the Qur’an, O Muhammad, the story of) Maryam, when she withdrew in seclusion from her family to a place facing east. She placed a screen (to screen herself) from them; then We sent to her Our Ruh (the angel Gabriel), and he appeared before her in the form of a man in all respects. She said: ‘Verily, I seek refuge with the Most Gracious (Allah) from you, if you do fear Allah.’ (The angel) said: ‘I am only a messenger from your Lord, (to announce) to you the gift of a righteous son.’ She said: ‘How can I have a son, when no man hath touched me, nor am I unchaste?’ He said: ‘So (it will be), your Lord said "That is easy for Me (Allah): And (We wish) to appoint him as a sign to mankind and a mercy from Us (Allah), and it is a matter (already) decreed (by Allah)." ‘ " Qur’an – Surat Maryam 19: 16-21

Muhammad Rasheed - Tony Steed wrote: “The promise of the church is designed […] and chart a better course for humanity.”

We already talked about this and you were conspicuously silent. What does the bureaucratic institutions of men and their power struggles, have to do with the tenets of the faith of God and His commands for your life. Everyone with a lick of sense (and I’m not even Christian) recognize the difference between “The Church” and “Christianity,” so why can’t you, O Former Christian?

Muhammad Rasheed - Tony Steed wrote: "And mention in the Book (the Qur’an, O Muhammad, the story of) Maryam..." 

I certainly hope you plan to explain how that verse supports your point.

Muhammad Rasheed - Tony Steed wrote: “Religion offers help to those in need as long as they accept the gods.”

Religion offers salvation from the weaknesses in humanity.

Tony Steed wrote: “As a human I offer help…”

Do you offer salvation?

Tony Steed wrote: “…because it's the right thing…”

How do you know that helping people is the right thing? Based on what?

Tony Steed wrote: “…and i care for no reward, if I am to be punished for not bowing to the gods, so be it.”

It is a certainty. Die in your current state of unbelief and you are doomed.

Tony Steed wrote: “They do not deserve to be worshiped for the plagues they unleash on man and their creations.”

Humans die. lol Does it matter how? Humans live this life to prepare themselves for the Life Eternal. Plagues, storms, etc. demonstrate how none of us have any control over the hour of our deaths… it can come at anytime. It would behoove us to make sure our lives are in order so we can be alright on the Otherside. This is part of the warning of God’s message that you are oddly unaware of. Your “plagues they unleash” concept is considerably at odds with the actual message of God and lacks insight on any level.

Tony Steed wrote: “They can create, but every creators secondary job is to maintain. The creators write manuals for living that are NOT up to interpretation, and not up to being mistaken into old and new.”

You’ve proven once again to have NO IDEA what’s in His book, so why do you think you are qualified to speak on how it can be interpreted, etc.? The message has endured for thousands of years; do you recognize this? The problem you think you see is one of statistics and is already built into the Plan. Ask me how.

Tony Steed wrote: “The creators give knowledge to the people to maintain the creation, and then check in to make sure things run smooth. The gods of humans, THEIR creations, are surprisingly absent throughout history. Humanity has existed for 250 thousand years in our modern form, yet where were the gods to help us with their books and teachings?”

Everything you’d said here is part of your personal belief’s lack of understanding about the point of religion, and once again fails to line up to the actual Abrahamic religions & Scripture. I’m looking forward to seeing how you plan to justify these comments. Naturally I’ve heard them before from equally ignorant atheists who have a habit of simply making up what they think religion is about and them arguing against it as if it is true in a classic strawman. This is your opportunity to provide facts to support these. Anytime you’re ready.

Muhammad Rasheed - Tony Steed wrote: “The gods of man deserve no worship…”

By definition God deserves worship. He created everything you hold dear and made life possible.

Tony Steed wrote: “…people should pray for others after helping others.”

What?

Tony Steed wrote: “Praying for the gods to do something is lazy, and makes people less capable of helping their fellows without care for heavenly rewards.”

You just demonstrated that you have NO IDEA what the point of prayer is. None. Tony how can you critique something, and have such a hard-hearted stance against a field of study, when you don’t know anything about it at all? How do you justify this? Tell me.

Muhammad Rasheed - Tony Steed wrote: “The Gods, EVERY SINGLE ONE of them…”

There is only One God. Does your ignorance know no limits?

Tony Steed wrote: “…deserve nothing, because they do not exist.”

The One God’s enduring message, guiding mankind for lo these thousands of years, says otherwise. How long do you believe your words will last? Hm?

Tony Steed wrote: “If they do exist mankind should not worship them, because the Gods have failed for 250 thousand years.”

lol Failed at what exactly? Tell me.

Tony Steed - Funny thing is every single argument is based on your personal belief based on 1 book, by sheep herders 2000 years ago. I grant you that's some amazing faith.. I also do love how you keep telling me I know nothing.. it's pretty amazing. But all good. Arguing the facts of the bible, or the Koran, using only those books as evidence is a poor argument. Because every other book outside of the books of the religious, ALL religions. Your God is no more real than the Gods of Mthraism, Egyptian Pantheon, The Greeks, the Hellenists, the pagans, the wiccans (of whom I follow intensely), the jews, the christians, or anyones. There's no there there. Praying to the Gods for help with a task, is like asking the wall to open the door for you. When you can simply do it yourself.

Muhammad Rasheed - Tony Steed wrote: "Funny thing is every single argument is based on your personal belief..."

And yet you've opted not to provide any actual facts for your own faith-based claims. Curious.

I keep saying "Ask me how." lol Are you scared to?

Muhammad Rasheed - Tony Steed wrote: “@Muhammad Rasheed… You asked where has religion stopped progress. You must be blind to how islam went from being a religion that made amazing headways in the Science of astronomy, to what it''s become today.”

lol So you admit to me that during the fresh bloom of its purity, the religion of Al-Islam led the world in progress, but became less so as it became bogged down with bureaucratic institutionalism over time. In other words, the religion was great for progress the closer it was to its original holy/divine source, but became less so as mankind focus less on the Source and more on the institution of “The Church.” You type this at me, yet fail to see the significance? And in the very same thread you choose to blaspheme that Source and build up evidence against yourself in the face of that which you mock? lol

Tony Steed wrote: “If religions were so progressive, why are there so many factions?”

This is a question? The most perfect system in the universe won’t work if people don’t follow it but only pretend to. You know this better than anyone, Mr. Former Christian who couldn’t tell me basic shit about the bible.

Tony Steed wrote: “…if Religions don't impede progress, why did they burn bruno at the stake?”

Explain what that had to do with the commands of God in His religion and you will answer it for yourself.

Tony Steed wrote: “Why did they kill Joan de arc a progressive and devout woman of her time, who led armies?”

Were the people who killed her following God’s commands? How come the historians know why they killed her but you don’t? lol Why are you even bringing up her name since you are ignorant of the story? She was killed because those leaders feared her power over the people and her potential influence. Why are you blaming that on “religion?”

Tony Steed wrote: “Why did they put galileo under house arrest?”

Again, what did that have to do with the religion of God? Can you find the verse in His book that commanded them to do so? Do it.

Tony Steed wrote: “Why the Inquisition which has just ended, but continues in Christian”

Why are you bringing up the Inquisition? The Spanish Inquisition was a royal decree formed to persecute those hypocrites of the state who didn’t comply with the royal command for everyone to convert. This came from Isabella & Ferdinand, not from the church. Why are you bringing this up when you are not aware of these facts?

Muhammad Rasheed - Tony Steed wrote: “I also do love how you keep telling me I know nothing.. it's pretty amazing.”

Stop continuously proclaiming fallacies and untruths about the religions while pretending they are truths found in the religions and I promise to stop doing it. Deal?

Tony Steed wrote: “But all good.”

*shrug* It’s up to you.

Tony Steed wrote: “Arguing the facts of the bible, or the Koran, using only those books as evidence is a poor argument. Because every other book outside of the books of the religious, ALL religions”

To be clear, when you argue concepts that are at odds with what the book actually teaches (remember your “plagues they unleash” comment?) naturally I would use the instructions within the book to refute your nonsense. What you just did there is called classic misdirection, while failing to provide anything at all to support your own claims outside of your subjective bias.

Tony Steed wrote: “Your God is no more real than the Gods of the jews, the Christians”

Do you understand the significance of referring to these three as “Abrahamic?” What does that mean in YOUR world, Tony?

Tony Steed wrote: “Mthraism, Egyptian Pantheon, The Greeks, the Hellenists, the pagans, the wiccans (of whom I follow intensely), , or anyones. There's no there there.”

There is only one message from One God – one that has endured throughout the ages – in which He has addressed mankind, explained who He was, explained that all other deities are but fictions of rebellious men, and instructed mankind in what He wants from us so we may prosper. Not a single one of those other deities have a message that challenges this message from the One God. In fact, all of the ones you’ve named are officially “dead religions” with all that may imply. Logically, what does that mean in YOUR world, Tony?

Tony Steed wrote: “Praying to the Gods for help with a task, is like asking the wall to open the door for you. When you can simply do it yourself.”

When an atheist, who has no idea what the purpose of prayer is, attempts to give an analogy demonstrating his opinion of the concept, it has the equivalent value as work boots on a tape worm.

Tony Steed wrote: "One thing about 'debating' with the religious, is that they always see themselves winning. When I was a Christian, I was the same way. Thankfully I woke up."

Naturally I assume you now think you are losing. lol

Tony Steed - lol Actually I don't think i'm losing. Just offering that Gods, yours nor anyone elses exists. They affect the humans that believe in them in amazing ways, and mostly to the detriment of those who believe otherwise, and those who don't believe. The People of the Gods, have more influence, than the Gods themselves. Yours or anyone else.

Muhammad Rasheed - You're supposed to stand on the side of facts, so are you going to provide any facts that support any of your claims? Are you going to answer any of the challenges that provide opportunity for you to prove what you claim about religion?

Or do you plan to continue to say things about the faiths that they themselves never claim while pretending you are actually winning this argument? Do you think you can consider yourself an advocate of facts and win an argument, while not once providing a fact to support your side of the discussion?

Muhammad Rasheed - Tony Steed wrote: "...and mostly to the detriment of those who believe otherwise, and those who don't believe."

Explain how, please. I wish to once again demonstrate your pathetic inability to discern between religion and institutionalism.

Tony Steed - We're good my man. You win. I can't prove anything, even if i'm not the one claiming magic. I give.

Muhammad Rasheed - So the guy who says he is an advocate of facts can't provide any facts to back his passionate, faith-based anti-religious stance.

Thank you, Tony. 

Muhammad Rasheed - I suggest that you bow down to your Guardian Lord who made you, repent of the filth of your disbelief, and do as He commands that you may prosper in this life and in the next.

Peace be on you.

Tony Steed - No. I just know when to end a "discussion" that's going nowhere. don' 't pat yourself on the back too hard. You didn't gain any ground.

Muhammad Rasheed - lol It "went nowhere" because you refused to answer any challenges or questions asked of you, continued to say things of the religions that weren't true within the belief systems themselves, never provided any facts to support your arguments, and then gave up.

Somehow this means I didn't gain any ground. lol

Wednesday, January 28, 2015

Raised Right? Then Act Like It.


Muhammad Rasheed - [posted meme]  Ridiculous.


That's how you know that chivalry is dead.  Since when do the civilized allow the uncivilized to affect their behavior?  When they are only pretending to be civilized and were never trained how to act in public.  They're being fake; doing it because they want something from you.

The other person's reaction has NOTHING to do with you acting correctly.  

If you haven't been taught that, and the ungratefulness of the savage gets you all in your feelings to the point where you don't want to be civilized anymore, then you were never chivalrous in the first place.  

Is It So Hard To Control Your Savagery?

Muhammad Rasheed - Not too long ago, minorities and women were actively abused within a system that encouraged the abuse, abuse that came with it's own code language. Today in our more enlightened age, it is now illegal to abuse women and minorities that way, empowering them to fight to grow even more enlightened in the Golden Rule: "Treat others as you would wish to be treated," with respect. Consequently, anytime that old code language pops up the vigilant women and minorities who are by no means keen to go back to the dark times will immediately pounce on it, hence this new politically correct era.

It's not a big deal unless you are actually saying you miss the dark times. All you have to do is put yourself in someone else's shoes, and not say things to offend people. In a civilized society that shouldn't be difficult. Just control yourself and don't be a dick to people. If you slip up, apologize, don't do it again, and move on with your life. This is how society will get progressively better. Getting mad and bitter that the dark days are gone, and wishing they would return to the point of sabotaging this new enlightened era is how society will actually get worse. Please embrace civilization and let go of savagery.

Do Not Mistake Your Friend For Your Enemy


Muhammad Rasheed - [shared photo]


The site The Higher Learning demonstrates how young entrepreneurs, highly-trained in math/science/tech, create new jobs in a competitive Free Market, while stagnant, anti-competition big businesses attempt to shut them down for their selfish, hoarding monopolies (the traditional enemy of the Free Market). The young entrepreneurs represent "capitalism" while the bad guys represent "corporatism."

Please learn to understand the difference between the two before you end up breaking the wrong thing with your misplaced activism pointing in the wrong direction, plunging us into a new dark age.

The concept of a "wealthy minority exploiting a poor majority" doesn't describe 'capitalism,' it describes a plutocracy. 'Capitalism is an economic system in which trade, industry, and the means of production are largely or entirely privately owned and operated for profit...' and it is divorced from social concerns like racism.  Using trade and commerce in the markets, the poor have the ability to improve their quality of life under a capitalistic system. In a circumstance such as we experience in Western society, where there is a wealthy minority ruling, it's not because of capitalism that this is so, but because the plutocrats have usurped the system for their own gain.

It's a mistake to blame the system itself because some greedy people manipulated it for their own selfishness. That's like condemning donuts because somebody keeps stealing them.

"Aktarer [from the United Airlines article] has set up a GoFundMe page if you’d like to help with his legal fees."

NEEDED: An organization specializing in preventing large corporations from bulldozing over small businesses and start-ups... with predatory suits & legal fees... in their efforts to monopolize an industry.

Clouded Judgment: Refusing to See Through Prejudice


Donna Courtois[shared link] It’s all nice and lovely to say that we will march hand in hand and give out some more hugs. But the day after the tragedy in Paris, 2,000 people were killed in Nigeria by an Islamic extremist group.



James Mullaney - "Extremist," Donna?

Donna Courtois - I forgot the quote marks. That was from the article, not me.

James Mullaney - I didn't read it. Too many links, not enough time.

Bar Barian - Extremism has at least two meanings it seems. A Christian "Extremist" kills an abortionist, most Christian clerics bemoan the loss of life and come down harshly on those taking vengence into their own hands. A group of muslim "Extremists" fly planes into buildings, killing thousands, and the Islamic Clerics say they are martyrs and encourage the people to dance and pass out candy in the streets. I do not think it means what they think it means.

Muhammad Rasheed - Links to these "Islamic Clerics," please, Bar?

Rick Drew - Just Google it. You'll find plenty.


Rick Drew - Yep. Some are condemning it. Just as many are praising it. Clerics from the Muslim Brotherhood, clerics in the USA and all over the world.  Feds Go After $250K Owed by Dearborn Cleric with ISIS Influence

Muhammad Rasheed - Everyone is condemning it except the few who are affiliated with those militias.

Rick Drew - Unfortunately those militias are now in control of several governments or exert extreme influence. At what point are they no longer a militia, but a terrorist state? Hamas for one, ISIS for another. Then there's al Qaeda.

Muhammad Rasheed - What does that have to do with your "Islamic Clerics?"

Bar Barian - israel matzav - blogspot: For 'Palestinians,' the celebration of 9/11 continues Just for you, though you'll never acknowledge the source it doesn't make it invalid for the rest of us. The word "clerics" was used in articles I read at the time, since then the spinmeisters seem to have left them out of the searchable archive. Its no stretch of the imagination if you see lots of the faithful dancing in the streets though. Here's another one about the Boston bombing: Palestinians Cheer While America Mourns the list continues but you get the drift. Most of the clerics didn't appear to want any bad press nomatter if they agreed, so in light of that I will retract "clerics" and say "people in the streets" if it makes you feel better.

Muhammad Rasheed - Bar Barian wrote: “israelmatzav.blogspot... Just for you...”

Thanks, although I fail to see what it is supposed to prove. So you hand me a blogspot blogger’s opinion of a FoxNews clip. The clip shows random images of Arabs celebrating, while FoxNews say that they are celebrating an American tragedy, and the blogger agrees. I understand that this supports your own indoctrination and biases, but what is it supposed to be proving to me? Did you intend it to represent some kind of truth? You fail to realize there are no facts being demonstrated here, only opinions. By definition it proves nothing except your own prejudices.

Bar Barian wrote: “…though you'll never acknowledge the source...”

The source is a blogger who happens to be an orthodox Jew, and presumably, a pro-Zionist supporter. This latter makes him my ideological rival. Btw that’s an interesting comment considering you’ve never been in my FB friend list and don’t know me at all. 

Bar Barian wrote: “…it doesn't make it invalid for the rest of us.”

A subjective opinion spin job doesn’t have much worth unless you are predisposed to believing nonsense.

Bar Barian wrote: “The word ‘clerics’ was used in articles I read at the time, since then the spinmeisters seem to have left them out of the searchable archive.”

Islam doesn’t have a priest class, so the term “clerics” is a misnomer, thus my own objection to the term, as well as the reason more educated writers left the term out of their keyword lists. Some sects have established a version of a priest class, but that is by no means a representation of an Islamic tenet. 

Bar Barian wrote: “Its no stretch of the imagination if you see lots of the faithful dancing in the streets though.”

Random images of “the faithful” celebrating in a FoxNews clip? I wonder where they retrieved the footage, and what they were actually celebrating?

Bar Barian wrote: “Here's another one about the Boston bombing:...the list continues but you get the drift.”

Yes, it’s yet another opinion piece that doesn't have a single fact within it. The “drift” is that you are enthusiastically drawn to those opinions that support your prejudices, and oddly, somehow believe they represent proofs of those prejudices. The interesting part about this blog piece is that it falsely subscribes to the Palestinians what the Israelis themselves actually performed during the 9/11 event. Check it out if you have the integrity and guts:





Bar Barian - Believe what you like, I will do the same.

Muhammad Rasheed - I know you will.   ;)

Sunday, January 25, 2015

Final Answer.


Al Bush[shared meme] Considering that (1) Dick Cheney absolutely opposed any invasion of Iraq until the day he joined Halliburton, and (2) Halliburton earned $39 billion from the Iraq war, I think we know the answer to this.  


Muhammad Rasheed - Corporate greed; final answer.

Al Bush - Didn't need to call for help either.

Al Bush - Blessings to you this day MR.

Anton Von Flugelhorn - it's not like Hitler trying to invade Russia, - the russian fighting for their country and survival - those poor soldiers were sent there under false pretenses, it removes nothing to their courage and the respect due to them, but the "king is to blame" (re: Henry the V by Shakespeare, a scene exacltly about this: a little glimpse of Harry in the night, even in those days it was a valid question)

Al Bush - Correct AVF. I respect vets. I don't respect lying to vets.

Anton Von Flugelhorn - Vets have been lied to, they are victims, when they come back they are treated like crap, it's disgusting, only banks get bailed out

Tim Brown - Ultimately, the chief reason why the U.S. invaded Iraq was not, as critics later claimed, to find and dismantle Saddam's stockpiles of WMD. The "Authorization for the Use of Force in Iraq" that President Bush obtained in October 2002 was a resolution passed by both the House of Representatives and the Senate, with Democratic as well as Republican majorities. It contained a total of 23 clauses that spelled out the rationale for the war. Of those 23 clauses, only 2 mentioned WMD. What the Authorization did stress -- in 12 separate clauses -- were 16 UN Security Council Resolutions that Saddam had ignored or defied since 1991. These Resolutions were more than mere expressions of UN opinion. The first two -- Resolutions 687 and 689 -- constituted the terms of the truce negotiated in the first Gulf War, a truce whose violation was a legal justification for renewed combat. The other 14 Resolutions were failed attempts to enforce those first two. In sum, the major reason why the U.S. was preparing for war, was to enforce the UN Resolutions and international law. SO there's your truth.... but it just doesn't seem to matter to the far left.

Tim Brown - More facts to ponder: As a result of President Bush’s appeal, the UN Security Council voted unanimously (on November 7, 2002) to present Saddam with an ultimatum and a 30-day deadline -- to expire on December 7, 2002 -- by which date he was bound to honor the terms of the Gulf War truce and to destroy his illegal weapons programs, or face “serious consequences.” This ultimatum was UN Resolution 1441 – the seventeenth attempt to enforce a truce to which Saddam had agreed after the Gulf War of 1991. The deadline came and went without Saddam’s compliance, as the Iraqi dictator knew that his military suppliers and political allies -- Russia and France -- would never authorize its enforcement by arms. This -- and not a preference for unilateral measures -- is the reason why the United States eventually went to war against Iraq without UN approval.

Tim Brown - And a few more little bothersome facts.....In addition to Saddam's failure to abide by the UN Resolutions, there were other reasons for the U.S. to feel threatened by this self-declared enemy of America. For example: • he had attempted to orchestrate the assassination of former President George H.W. Bush; • he was the only head of state to openly celebrate the destruction of the World Trade Center after 9/11; • every major intelligence agency in the world -- including the British, the French, the Russian, the German and the Jordanian -- believed that Saddam was in possession of WMD; • there were in fact links between international terrorists (including al Qaeda) and the Saddam regime -- links that are documented in in Stephen Hayes’ book, The Connection

Tim Brown - Though critics -- including many Democratic Party leaders – later depicted America's invasion of Iraq as a hasty endeavor undertaken without patience or forethought, President Bush gave Saddam numerous and ample opportunities to avoid war. By March 2003, nearly 14 months had elapsed since his January 2002 "axis of evil" speech. After the December 7, 2003 deadline had passed, the United States did not immediately attack Iraq. Instead, the White House spent the next three months trying by diplomatic means to persuade the French, Russians, and Chinese to honor the terms of the Gulf War truce that they -- as Security Council members -- had ratified and promised to enforce. Notably, the entire national security team of the former Clinton administration -- including the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and the Director of Central Intelligence -- supported George W. Bush when he sent American troops into Iraq in March 2003.

Muhammad Rasheed -

Tim Brown - And Muhammad is the first to reply even after facing the facts...... I will say this, there is corporate greed in every war. Even in 1776 there were Congress members getting rich from the Revolution we had yet to win! You find one war our nation fought where corporations didn't make out, big time, if you can....... but you can't.

Muhammad Rasheed - Tim Brown wrote: "...there is corporate greed in every war."

That's why it's the easy $100 question.

Muhammad Rasheed - You'll have to go back pretty far to find a war that WASN'T over corporate greed. Any post-Adam Weisthaupt war was DEFINITELY corporate greed driven, and certainly any American war after 1913.

Tim Brown - Go check them All Muhammad, from the Revolution forward.

Muhammad Rasheed - I already know they are, Tim, because of the significance of the events/personages/date I mentioned. The official spin job you’ve bought into given to the public is irrelevant.

Al Bush - That was a case not made, a case I'd still struggle over and certainly not last resort. Baring assassination they posed little threat to us. But this was about oil, chest thumping, teaching someone who's boss, not honestly dealt with, wrong war, wrong plan, wrong financing, wrong deaths, wrong sales job, wrong to do to voters and wrong in outcome. Didn't make anyone safer as assassination is still an open question. It disrupted the biggest threat opposition- Iraq to our current object of scorn, Iran. Left a monster in the budget, killed a ton of the wrong people and made our weaknesses starkly apparent. We live now in a world where cyber is as deadly or more so, I'd say more so, than ground warfare and we still act like we can display military muscle for effect. BS on dry toast. Those days are over.

Tim Brown - No "spin job". The facts I have displayed are just that, facts. There is no spin. The war was brewing long before G.W. or Clinton was in office, and it had more to do with Saddam's actions than Chaney's relationship with Halliburton

Muhammad Rasheed - ...and made a small percentage of the world's populace obscenely wealthier.

Al Bush - Ahh yes we lived through the sins of the father.

Tim Brown - They always do Muhammad and always will

Gambler Wilde - Tim, you can worship your false idol, the American Empire, all you like. Now you can explain to us why McCain and the other Republicans demanded the arming of militias in Syria and Iraq that were obviously al-Qaeda affiliated - al Nusra and the entities that became ISIS/ISIL. Someone please explain to me why American air power has yet to make a dent in ISIS? Iraq folded in weeks in the face of air strikes in two different wars, but ISIS continues to hold its ground on several fronts. My guess is that ISIS knows they can't attack because they will only face significant air strikes when they are on the offensive. America needs boogeymen like ISIS.

Tim, as a likely partisan hack, will agree that Obama's air assault on Libya was a mistake. All of the Democrat shills will have to apologize for Obama's Libya adventure. The moral equivalence between Bush's Iraq War and Obama's Libya War are obvious for those with eyes to see. The real story behind the Benghazi hype was a deliberate policy of arming al-Qaeda linked terrorists in order to destabilize the world. These imperialists want nothing but war - on this, the far left and the far right agree. The dummies in the middle will continue believing their fables until the bitter end.

Tim Brown - Wow Gambler...... Who's your idol? Kardashian? We were discussing the Iraq war. ISIS and American Air Power...... Now I do know a little about that. The air power we are using today is but a fraction of what we usually do Gambler. Pretty simple answer.

Al Bush - Gambler is accurate in assessing the American policy as Empire. We don't know how apparently to realign ourselves to new realities. When I said above I thought there were as many digital dangers as ground force ones it's become clear that we are captive to our history and our weapons. And we can no longer afford it. Defense will now need every dollar to combat cyber warfare. Attacks upon our economy are as deadly or more so since they're not well thought through. The war plan against this country is now one of never ending data streams corrupted and viral, chipping away at banking, infrastructure and grid power supplies, communication and energy. We can't stay in the 20th century when the 22nd is upon us. -- Reassess. Quickly.

Tim Brown - Exactly Al, our real threats are threats where conventional warfare will do little to stop it.

Al Bush - Gambler Wilde is smart as can be. Likely correct about Libya as I've come to regret the chaos there . Now if we don't have to go through the partisan hack stage of getting to know one another we'll be better able to hear.

Carol Tvaroh - Then there's the question of how our invasion of Iraq, a counrty tht did nothing to us, would help "protect our freedom" What rubbish!

Jonathan Beatrice - In Halliburton we trust

Tim Brown - Please Carol and Jonathan please resort to the factual statements that I posted. They can not be refuted.........

Muhammad Rasheed - Tim Brown wrote: "What the Authorization did stress -- in 12 separate clauses -- were 16 UN Security Council Resolutions that Saddam had ignored or defied since 1991." 

What was the ultimate purpose for grooming Saddam for that leadership role where his handlers needed him to play ball? Saddam's "ignoring & defiling" are not the root cause of that war. That's the official spin job reason; the real reason is that 1.) wealth was exchanging hands and they needed their own agent in the region to help the process along, and 2.) part of the web of sabotage in the area preventing the Arab nations from working together to attack Israel again (see: Syria & Egypt's counterattack after Israel destroyed their airforces).

Tim Brown - your theory holds no water Muhammad, actually makes no sense what do ever........

Tim Brown - What-so-ever

Muhammad Rasheed - Saddam's decision to not play along and to seize ultimate power in his area for his own benefit was a win-win for western forces: If he played along then the above two points would be in place and the west would be happy, and if he didn't play along the west would get to crank up the war machine and make their billions of dollars a day.

Muhammad Rasheed - I find your theory, Tim, to be hopelessly naive and lacking insight.

Muhammad Rasheed - So I guess we're even.

Tim Brown - I gave you facts Muhammad, you gave me theories, at best. Check the history, the UN resolutions and the votes in Congress. I believe even Al Bush can agree I Have given nothing but facts

Muhammad Rasheed - You gave me an "ultimate reason" theory based on how you interpreted the official spin job reports, which were completely divorced from the root cause of the reason the west is even over there in the first place. Please stop pretending you know what a "fact" looks like. It's getting embarrassing.

Belinda Bates - The question isn't whether or not what you posted was true. The question is how did that threaten our security, and how did going to war with Iraq further secure our freedoms?

I distinctly remember that Saddam Hussein did submit a weapons report before the war that was so heavily redacted that it was impossible for any one without top security clearance to decipher. But the reports after the war were clear. There were no WMDs and their weapons program had long been destroyed. 

And none of that really matters now because it's in the past. What really matter is: how are we treating our returning veterans? There seems to be a prevailing ideology on the right: purchase of life, limb, body, and soul is okay to secure our society and maintain our way of life, but money is sacrosanct.

So the same people who made money sending our troops to war are the same people hiding that money in tax shelters and lobbying to make sure that the tax cuts to the rich are either extended or made permanent. Meanwhile our veterans are being treated deplorably. It's hypocritical and disgusting.

Tim Brown - Oh my.... yea the facts get in the way. If you want to blame oil..... Well duh!!!!! Of course but sadly we need it.

Muhammad Rasheed - Oil is a piece of it, to keep our civilization running. A bigger piece is the protection of Israel from a unified Arab face. A bigger piece still is corporate greed.

Tim Brown - Nope..... It's just not in the facts.

Muhammad Rasheed - Tim, so you really think the entire problem of our war machine leads only to Saddam, and what those reports said?

Really? And that represents "the facts" to you?

Tim Brown - We were only speaking of the Iraqi invasion...... You were bringing up erroneous info.....

Muhammad Rasheed - lol

Muhammad Rasheed - All conflicts in the middle east are corporate greed driven. That's why western powers are over there. That's "the facts." Al's very first post in this thread showcases the true facts of relevance. The view that everything we need to know is in the official reports about the events that are actually only are spin-job misdirection, is a naive view.

Sam Gootas - get the hell off Halliburton's back, the Army needed the services they were contracted for.

Muhammad Rasheed - The Army could've done it themselves cheaper. It was a con job.

Al Bush - Damn Sam. They still payin?

Al Bush - Remember the 9B completely lost? Zeroed out. Pitiful.

Ken Peck - There was a time when the Army Corps of Engineers built barracks, roads, and anything else the Army needed. And the mess was the domain of army cooks. Etc. But such wasn't profitable for the corporatists.

Tom 'Papa' Ray - The Iraq War Could Cost More Than $6 Trillion Tim Brown, you are a worthy foot soldier in something I often see; justifications/revisionism from those who cheer-led for this elective war, literally by The Rivers Of Babylon. I have no desire to speak at length about what shall be seen by historians as the greatest misstep of foreign policy by my nation. Suffice to say---in money, dead bodies, and political mistakes---we blew it, and this financial report leads me to ask: do you actually believe it was worth it?? With all due respect, 'Fellow White Man Please....'

Tom 'Papa' Ray - Al Bush: Is 'Tim Brown' an alias for Ken Krueger??

Ken Peck - Yes, folks forget that the cost of a war goes on long after the war is history. We will be caring for wounded veterans and paying other veteran costs for decades. (The final survivors of WWII have only recently died -- and got their government paid funerals.)

Al Bush - Lol. No. They're both decent men of a political persuasion foreign to my way of thinking but friends, obstinate friends.

Tom 'Papa' Ray - It did seem Mr. Brown was more given to justifications via UN resolutions, something of a different, if not novel way to justify a mistake.

Al Bush - Like all of us, blind in places. Brilliant in others.

Tom 'Papa' Ray - I never claimed 'brilliance', just the uncomfortable tendency for knowing there's a bad moon rising, while the big parade mistakes it for a dish of ice cream.

Al Bush - Like that Tom 'Papa' Ray. Just like that. Lolol

Tim Brown - "Novel"? No Tom, just the truth. People saying we went to war because Chaney was involved in Haliburton are just speculating. They can point at the costs and how much Haliburton made, but it's just an assumption, an opinion. There Iare no facts to hold that theory up. It's just a rallying cry for the Bush haters. I have presented you rock hard evidence and a replay of events that lead up to the war. I paid very close attention to what was going on in those days, because these events would have a profound affect upon my life I knew I would go to Iraq. I saw above where someone was saying the Corps of Engineers use to build barracks and such...... It has been a very long time that the Corp and other Civil Engineering units in the service actually built major projects. It became much cheaper to contract out. Keeping troops on active duty is very, very expensive. Are the wars in the Middle East "all corporate", driven? No, and there is no proof of that anywhere. Do corporations make money from war? Of course they do, they always have. Was the Iraqi War raged mainly because of corporate greed, no, of course not. You can accept what is solid facts or speculation....... I guess what ever gives you a warm fuzzy.

Tim Brown - MRasheed said: “Tim... so you really think the entire problem of our war machine leads only to Saddam, and what those reports said?  Really? And that represents ‘the facts’ to you?”

I do not recall ever saying our entire problem of our "war machine", leads only to Saddam. I just gave the events that lead up to the Iraqi invasion. And yes, those are the factual events that lead up to the war. Look it up yourself. Question.... How on earth did you ever construe that I thought that Saddam was or even still our entire problem? Especially today. Please note the lists of reasons and the facts I have displayed only apply to the events that lead up to the invasion.

Tom 'Papa' Ray - Speaking of the warm fuzzies Tim--if you wish to view this elective war as good a deal for our nation as it was for, oh, Iran (& with the price tag stated above), I must ask: as an engineer, would you like to invest in some bridges over the nearby rivers I own??

Tim Brown - This "elective war", really went south when we left so quickly. Was it a good deal? Few wars are, most are just a violent action that at best may give temporary relief from a regional problem. World War I was the most horrible war ever up to that point, all it really did was set up WWII and in many ways set up the stage in the Middle East. I am just using that war as an example. Even the Korean War.... Well it had an outstanding outcome for the south, but catostrophic for the north.

Tom 'Papa' Ray - 'LEFT SO QUICKLY'?? LMAO. I sense in you---going out on a limb now; bear with me--- an inability to admit the reality of the past dozen years. I'll leave this with my favored example in Southern folklore for summing up this fiasco: We Got Stuck To The Tar Baby...by the by sir, think there's any chance of selling that 1 Billion dollar Embassy to the Chinese?? It'd only be fitting. After all, we gave the debt to pay for this war to their bankers, and they currently have the oil leases. 'Left so quickly...' lawdhavemercy. I also am always well-amused by those who were/are cheerleaders for this molly-trolly reducing all who opposed it to the simplistic 'left/right liberal/conservative' construct. After all, the Dems drank the kool-aid also...

Tim Brown - Very funny Tom. Making fun of people because of where they are from? Really? Tom, you just don't or won't understand. If we as a nation decide we are going to invade, no matter the reason, we had better plan on staying there for a very long time. It's the only policy that has brought forth any fruit in the past. We can't just go in tear the place a part leave it vulnerable, SOFA agreement or not.

Tom 'Papa' Ray - How am I making fun of where someone is from??? I'M FROM THE SOUTH! All my kin is Georgia/South Carolina/N.E. Florida. Southern fried and sanctified. Otherwise, in all this you really can't give reply to the facts I stated. You ignore the sad realities brought when MY nation choose to invade Iraq; sad realities that are in the multitudes, still ongoing.

Tom 'Papa' Ray - It wasn't worth it for my country. ...IMO, the most positive result to salvage from this clusterf**k is the Kurds throwing off the yoke of our former CIA asset, Hussein. IMO, they are our only actual 'friends' in the region; not the House Of Saud, not the Israeli government.

Al Bush - I'll keep Israel but have had enough of Bibi. I'm good with Jordan, good with the Kurds. Good with a good portion of Egypt. Can't trust Qatar. And I don't see Iran as the end all enemy like some do. I think there's a good, better than anticipated chance there if idiocy doesn't screw it to death.

Tom 'Papa' Ray - Al...I am always amused at how so often, those policies that favor the USA the least in this region are ones most supported by Riyadh and the Knesset. Jordan, OK. Egypt? Yeah, as long as we keep shoveling the $$$. And given we are in up to our necks in this region of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend', it is about time we quit acting as if it is beyond the pale to deal with the nation facing as great a threat from ISIS as any: Iran. I'm still chuckling over your friend Mistuh Brown thinking I was slamming the region of my own birth.

Al Bush - Tim's a good man. Opinionated but steady and decent. The rest? Agreed.

Tim and Ken are similar but different. I missed some of the education they got so I give room. But both will display great heart and I get more often from talking with those who think differently or have specialized knowledge. They both think very differently than me. You and I are closer but not twins. Plus you have specialized knowledge. I've enjoyed the St. Louis crew and the Kentucky crew. Y'all can eat at my place when you're here.

Sue Hulett - The al Saud is doing us a solid in taking down Putin and making it unprofitable to continue installing thousands of unregulated fracking wells per month in the great plains. Dick Cheney must be gnashing his teeth over that.

Al Bush - Excellent point Sue Hulett

Loren Gerlach - Tim, you are absolutely right that Saddam very stupidly played into Bush's hands, and effectively committed suicide, by refusing to cooperate on inspections. But the fact remains that without Cheney's repeated statements that we have PROOF (not circumstantial evidence but PROOF) that Saddam had WMD, there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that either Congress or the American people would have agreed to war. Cheney lied. He repeatedly said he had proof when all he had was circumstnatial evidence. Colin Powell lied when he said we had proff that Niger had sold yellowcake to Iraq - in fact, the American official who went to Niger and found that to be bullshit was hounded by the Bush administration and his wife (a CIA agent) was outed all in an attempt to cover up the truth. And since you are so keen on historical fact, what is your explanation for the incontrovertible fact that Cheney resolutely argued against invading Iraq ("we could get to Baghdad in a week but we'd be in a guerilla quagmire for years", he repeatedly said) until the day he joined Halliburton?

Tim Brown - Sue, I think they are doing us a "solid" too, but you do know our fracking is one of the reasons the Saudi's are flodding the market. I am not sold on the "safety", they tout about fracking. It just doesn't peg my common sense meter. Being from a town that you could barely breath in downtown during the summer because of illegal sewage dumpage I know a little bit about the effects of ground water, how it moves and just how easy it is for us to ruin it.

Loren Gerlach - Ronald Reagan wanted to invade Nicaragua as badly as Halliburton wanted to invade Iraq. but we never did go to war with Nicaragua. what's the difference? Mainly it's this: while Reagan desperately sought to exaggerate the threat down there, he never flat out lied to make a false case for war. Whether that's because he had a conscience, or because he knew he wouldn't get away with it is an open question. America in the 1980s was fresh from Vietnam and skeptical about war. America post-9/11, by contrast, was in a McCarthyist fog.

Tim Brown - Loren, please check my above comments about the real and factual reasons we invaded Iraq. There wasn't any "lying" by Bush or Chaney. The reasons were real and profound and had to be addressed. Papa Ray, and just why do you call it a cluster F@$*? The invasion was one of the quickest and well orchestrated in history. When the insurgents came, we in the military felt as we had given the terrorist a battle ground far from America and most American citizens. Those terrorists wanted to kill the infidels, mainly Americans. Why not let them come after a trained force and not innocent civilians in a city. We killed hundreds of thousands of terrorist, no doubt. Things went real down hill after we left. Plain and simple. I have taken note we have changed plans and have decided to leave a much larger force in Afghanistan.... Did we learn a lesson?

Loren Gerlach - Um, Tim, cheney repeatedly stated he had PROOF THAT SADDAM HAS WMD. PROOF. That was a lie, Tim. Your statements above are very carefully and deliberately incomplete, you are committing a sin of omission.

Tim Brown - No, Loren I am actually the ONLY one giving the complete listing and reasons. There are several reasons we knew Saddam had WMD, but to think that was the only or even the main reason is absurd, and to think its because of Halliburton is ludicrous

Tim Brown - Please read the history lesson I have provide. You will find there were 23 clauses for the war, only two included WMD. So many are a victim of media hype.

Tim Brown - Does anyone here know the main reason we thought Saddam still had WMD?

Tom 'Papa' Ray - Uh, because this nation had indeed allowed the sale of chemical agents (yes, 'WMDs', even if the technology was from WW1; we did not mind when Saddam used it against the Iranians in their bloody trench war), & of course there were the hollow threats by Saddam himself--- our forces never came under attack with WMDs because the threat was empty. But let me ask you Mr. Brown: at the eventual lower estimate of 3 trillion dollars(notwithstanding the dead folks), are you willing to say 'YES WE DID THE RIGHT THING AND IT WAS WORTH IT' ?? You really seem to ignore a number of factual points here that counter your justifications for this elective war; in this, you do resemble Mr. Cheney.

Muhammad Rasheed - Tim Brown wrote: "I do not recall ever saying our entire problem of our 'war machine,' leads only to Saddam. I just gave the events that lead up to the Iraqi invasion. And yes, those are the factual events that lead up to the war. Look it up yourself. Question.... How on earth did you ever construe that I thought that Saddam was or even still our entire problem?"

Because the entire war machine is corporate greed driven, producing enormous profits for the usual suspects, and it doesn't matter what excuse they use to throw us into yet another wasteful, murderous war. Your insistence on narrowing all "the facts" of this particular war segment to that particular body of spin job reports, as if everything we could possibly need to know about it is confined to that spin job, is pretty offensive. "Look, everyone! I've bought into the spin job! And if you want to truly be enlightened on this topic, you should hook, line & sinker buy into it, too, just like I have! Nothing is any different than what the slimy, murderous, war profiteers have allowed into these publicly available reports! These represent 'the facts,' and if you really want to be in the know, don't look any further than these; nothing else that has happened before or after these events are of any relevance."

Muhammad Rasheed - Tim Brown wrote: "Does anyone here know the main reason we thought Saddam still had WMD?"

lol

Because the handful of people who would MOST profit from a war with Saddam insisted that he had them so they could get richer.

Battle Mode - Atheist vs Muslim: Religious Antiquity

Brian Lewis - Some say religions starts war.That may be true,but when did atheism bring my people peace?

Sa'tori Ananda - the problem with that statement is the assumption that any people all do one thing. Africa for instance has/had many gods and many avenues of spirituality and no religion for centuries

Brian Lewis - I'm talking to ones here in the good ole usa.

Sa'tori Ananda - ah ok

Brian Lewis - I talk to many Africans at my school.We talk about our disconnection from each other.These were some of the questions we were building on.

Sa'tori Ananda - the thought I have about most people is they dont actually believe in what they say they do. they want to i guess but they dont actually. for instance.. many people claim to be christian. if they actually believed in what their bible said they wouldnt do most of the things they do.. because they would believe they would face judgement and go to hell.

Sa'tori Ananda - people believe they will go to jail if they steal for instance or speed when they see a cop so they dont do it

Brian Lewis - You very correct when it comes to moral laws.A lot believers in these major religions don't follow their own book..lol

Sa'tori Ananda - they dont even know what it says

Sa'tori Ananda - i hear ppl say "the grace of god" that isnt even in the bible

Sa'tori Ananda - actually the opposite.. the bible says in heb 10:26 if you keep sinning after you know its a sin, than their is no sacrifice for you left

Sa'tori Ananda - the whole blessed and highly favored mess too.. like what?!!

Brian Lewis - Does it have to be in the bible to make it a true statement?.I believe the Most High shows grace everyday to me just by waking up.

Sa'tori Ananda - lol very little of whats in those books are true- in my opinion

Brian Lewis - I know with you..lol

Sa'tori Ananda - question just for curiosity .. if you were born on an island without any other outside influence how would you believe in a Most High

Brian Lewis - I can look at all of creation and know Im not the Creator of this.Something or Someone other than myself had grand designs for this planet.

Sa'tori Ananda - well thats not answering the question but there are millions of people who didnt have outside influence and they made up many gods over the years of existence. study creation myths of all people .. it gives amazing perspective of what our imaginations are capable of. Science explains most things. I think spirituality is ok as long as we understand its mostly our own minds trying to make up what we have no answers for. not that there are no answers just that personally we may not have them.

Sa'tori Ananda - for instance the aboriginals have dreamtime. and the celtics had Melody.. the hebrews have the garden of eden and so on and so forth

Brian Lewis - well i believe in reincarnation also.I think everything here concerning life runs in cycles.

Sa'tori Ananda - then you have your own religion lol cuz neither the bible or the quran teach that

Muhammad Rasheed - Sa'tori Ananda wrote: "...but black people didnt always have religion."

Sure they did. Humans have always had religion. Are you referring to the specific modern three Abrahamic religions?

Sa'tori Ananda wrote: "there was spirituality in every culture pre religion and there was peace."

There have been pockets of peace among humanity around the globe, but we are a warring species by our nature. The point of civilization is to control our animal selves.

Sa'tori Ananda wrote: "also buddhism is atheist. and its uber peaceful"

Here:  How an Extremist Buddhist Network Is Sowing Hatred Across Asia

None of us are immune from the savage criminal mind. Individuals who refuse to play nice are the reason for strife in the earth, not religion.

Brian Lewis - I remember losing my brakes on Mt.Eisenhower in Colorado.3 mile drop,brakes on fire,no way I could of slow down.I was gonna die and a few cars would of got taken out.I was ready to die.,but I started saying Jesus if it be your will,please slow this truck down so I don't kill nobody.I made it to the bottom without a scratch..Divine intervention?.Yes in my book!

Muhammad Rasheed - Brian Lewis wrote: "Some say religions starts war."

How? How would a religion ‘start a war’ without a war-minded human willing to point a gun?

Sa'tori Ananda - @muhammad .. i think you are confusing religion and spirituality. religion has not always existed

Muhammad Rasheed - Of course it has. Why wouldn't it?

Muhammad Rasheed - I think you have bought into the popular "let's demonize the concept of religion" idea.

Sa'tori Ananda - its your burden to prove that is has ..

Sa'tori Ananda - i dont really do the popular thing sorry

Brian Lewis - Luke 19:27

Muhammad Rasheed - Sa'tori Ananda wrote: "its your burden to prove that is has .."

Based on what? Because the person that has joined the popular "spiritual not religious" crowd said so? You're going to have to do better than that.

Brian Lewis - Religion and spiritually what's the difference ?

Sa'tori Ananda -  im not spiritual.. im an atheist

Leah Garcia-Hatt - Hahahaha never, because they have faith in NOTHING!#faithisthesubstanceofallthingshopedforandnotseen
I could be offered anything in the world that the heart desires, and I would never trade my faith in Christ for it! I am proof of Devine interventions, where there are no coincidences, just REAL blessings on the watch of Christ!
#hehasneverfailedme

Sa'tori Ananda - muhammad you arent actually stating any facts anyway. if i say the world was created by a unicorn then the burden of proof is on me.

Muhammad Rasheed -

religion:  a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. 

spiritual: any of various doctrines maintaining that the ultimate reality is spirit or mind. 

Spirituality is the belief in the concept of "spirit" and/or an "all powerful creator" without the codified system of doctrine/rituals that demonstrate that belief in the adherent's life.

Muhammad Rasheed - Sa'tori Ananda wrote: "muhammad you arent actually stating any facts anyway. if i say the world was created by a unicorn then the burden of proof is on me."

Well, this is the fictional thing you said in which the burden of proof was on you to prove: "...but black people didnt always have religion. there was spirituality in every culture pre religion and there was peace."

Muhammad Rasheed - Did you forget already?

Brian Lewis - Wow i didn't mean for this thread to be a debate.lets be cool yo!..lol

Muhammad Rasheed - Any time you'd care to start tossing facts on the table, Sa'tori.

Leah Garcia-Hatt  - #iwannaputonmymymymyboogieshoes. LUV that song, lol

Sa'tori Ananda - no i didnt forget.. im actually fully aware of the timeline of religion and we can start there if you want. i will state again .. religion has not always existed. it eventually came to be. and im generally not interested in "debating". brian and i have good conversations where we share our thoughts. you are arrogant and presumptive muhammad and my understandings and studies of religion and anthropology will be lost on your ego. so i will pass  have a good day .. ( i bet you think you won too lol)

Muhammad Rasheed  - Sa'tori Ananda wrote: "no i didnt forget.. im actually fully aware of the timeline of religion..."

This outta be good.

Muhammad Rasheed - Sa'tori Ananda wrote: "i will state again .. religion has not always existed."

Sure, before humans came on the scene.

Sa'tori Ananda wrote: "it eventually came to be. and im generally not interested in 'debating.'"

Figures. It's easy to spout fictions while telling the other person the burden of proof is on them while copping out of proving your own arrogant proclamations. Is that a tenet of atheism then?

Sa'tori Ananda wrote: "...and my understandings and studies of religion and anthropology..."

Another fiction? What do you have a bag full of them?

Sa'tori Ananda - lol ya

Muhammad Rasheed - And you magically don't believe the burden of proof is on you to prove any of them? Curious.

Sa'tori Ananda - magically..  Muhammad .. i love discussions. I dont have anything to prove. Im not the one who says there is a god or some infinite religion. thats you. so you have the burden of proof. like you know .. in court. Also. i dont care about debating to be right. this convo has no value to me. its not a discussion at all. you are already convinced and convicted of your beliefs. have them.

Brian Lewis - Oh Mr. Rasheed you live for this don't you?..lol

Muhammad Rasheed - Sa'tori Ananda wrote: "I dont have anything to prove."

...she said hypocritically, while telling someone else the burden of proof was on them. [roll eyes]

Muhammad Rasheed - Sa'tori Ananda wrote: "Im not the one who says their is a god or some infinite religion."

But you did proclaim a different fiction that you very tellingly refuse to provide proof for, while you attempt this "prove God" misdirection.

Muhammad Rasheed - No wonder you don't like debating.

Sa'tori Ananda - exactly. Muhammad.. the burden of proof is on the one with the suggestion of a deity and religion. im not sure why you dont understand that. Its like court. Im not sure why you dont understand

Sa'tori Ananda - your smugness is hilarious tho

Muhammad Rasheed - Sa'tori Ananda wrote: "exactly. Muhammad.. the burden of proof is on the one with the suggestion of a deity and religion."

The burden of proof is on any party that proclaimed a definitive truth.

Prove the religion/spiritual concept that you led the discussion with, please.

Muhammad Rasheed - Sa'tori Ananda wrote: "your smugness is hilarious tho"

Your smugness is the reason I'm here.   ;)

Muhammad Rasheed - Back up your own smugness with the proof of your claims, please.

Sa'tori Ananda - let me get on my laptop. cell phone debates are exhausting lol and im mad i let you drag me into this

Muhammad Rasheed - Finally! Jesus!

Muhammad Rasheed – lol

Muhammad Rasheed - Brian Lewis wrote: "Oh Mr.Rasheed you live for this don't you?..lol"

Yes.

Brian Lewis - Let's move on please..I have other random thoughts to spew out today..lol

Muhammad Rasheed - Not until I convert your atheist girlfriend to Islam...

Sa'tori Ananda - friend .. and no thank you. dated muslims and my best friend doesnt even show her eyebrows. pass

Brian Lewis - She is not my girlfriend and stop trying to convert my friends..or Im posting Gospel music all day today!..lolol

Muhammad Rasheed - hahahaha

Sa'tori Ananda - im tryin to wear less clothes not more

Sa'tori Ananda - and hold for the "debate" im going to sonic

Muhammad Rasheed - Is that the extent of your knowledge of "Islam?"

Muhammad Rasheed - lol smh

Muhammad Rasheed - Yeah, you'd BETTER run to Sonic!

Muhammad Rasheed - [throws shoe]

Sa'tori Ananda - see lol now youre showing me the bottom of shoes.. thats so offensive

Sa'tori Ananda - ok so we have to agree on a few things as common denominators. I agree with your above descriptions of religon/ spirituality. There are a couple of different timelines about who had religion first. But the most recent discovery of ritualized worship was in Botswana and its like 70k years old.

Brian Lewis - Botswana came before Sumerian?

Sa'tori Ananda - ya i think the sumerian religion is like 50 thousand years old but Sumerian is like the oldest written

Sa'tori Ananda - yall gonna make my head hurt trying to remember dates and stuff

Brian Lewis - Lol..

Muhammad Rasheed - Sa'tori Ananda wrote: "There are a couple of different timelines about who had religion first. "

It's impossible to know who had religion first using any kind of modern scientific method. The homo sapien is significantly older than 70,000 years. Consequently it's impossible to take such statements seriously.

Sa'tori Ananda - ok

Saturday, January 24, 2015

The Worms That Invade Your Brain Found in This Food Favorite

There are many forms of tapeworm, three of which can readily infect the brain. From a public health perspective, there's one in particular to watch out for. "It's mainly the pork tapeworm that's the main brain one," says Helena Helmby from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

The pork species, known as Taenia Solium, can infect humans in two forms. The first is by eating undercooked pork from infected pigs, resulting in taeniasis -- an adult worm residing in the intestine. The second, in the larval form, through contact with the feces of an infected pig or human, which can go on to infect many tissues. If the larval worm enters the nervous system, including the brain, it can result in a condition known as neurocysticercosis. Infection of this kind can often cause epilepsy once inside the brain. Almost a third of epilepsy cases in countries where the disease is native are people who have previously had neurocysticercosis, according to the World Health Organization.

Neurocysticercosis infection arises from poor sanitation and hygiene. "You can actually infect yourself," says Helmby, as poor hygiene, such as failing to wash your hands, could result in you eating the eggs of an adult worm living in your intestine. "Self-infection is common."

The global distribution of pork tapeworms is widespread with high numbers across Latin America, Africa and Asia, according to the World Health Organization. As a result of its higher prevalence and due to increased international travel, Gkrania-Klotsas has three patients in her care in Cambridge who have previously experienced neurocysticercosis.

Infections with pork tapeworms are common but treatable with antihelminthic drugs targeting the worm. Until now, treatment for Spirometra has been surgical, but the recent genetic insight from Bennett's team in Cambridge found that some drugs, such as praziqantil, which is used against schistosomiasis (snail fever), could have an effect. Certain drugs used against cancer were also identified as potential treatments.

Both Helmby and Gkrania-Klotsas are concerned about risks from increased international travel and the global food trade. "Food import and export is increasing and increasing risks of consuming infected goods," says Helmby, who feels there is a need for more vigilance with food inspection. She predicts more cases will occur in places like the United Kingdom where such infections have been virtually eliminated.

"I'm confident there will be more of this in the future," agrees Gkrania-Klotsas, who has seen patients infected without having traveled abroad. "People are getting infections without going anywhere."

Those who do travel, however, also need greater awareness when visiting regions where infections are commonplace. But if health teams are ready for the consequences, this rise can be controlled.

"We need to be able to treat these infections," says Helmby. "That's the challenge at the moment." A challenge where genetics researchers could prove invaluable, as their sequencing continues to reveal the secrets of these parasites.