Straight out of GOP.gov a new action movie!

[guartz]

http://gop.gov

THERE IS NO URGENCY! BOOOOM!

lawl @ scare propaganda

beats the exploding van imo.

Nice background music too.

Overall I say 8/10, lacking explosions.

[skurlover]

I didn't realize there was that site, fuck yeah, now I get more of my propaganda that I miss out on sometimes.

[Maxxthepenguin]

inc orange alert

btw, I think presidents who ignore memos with titles like "Osama Bin Laden determined to strike America" are more of a danger than lack of warrantless wiretapping.

[guartz]

Maxx, what's with the quote?

[skurlover]

Maxx, what's with the quote?

Just like to quote some of your stupidity.

[Maxxthepenguin]

Maxx, what's with the quote?

it's a quote

you said it

[guartz]

suicide bombing is really no different then school shootings.

People under heavy duress/injustice lashing out. Why is that so hard to understand?

[Maxxthepenguin]

Bombing kills indiscriminately and impersonally, school shootings focus on directly killing those who cause the perceived harm. School shootings also are caused by misery, depression, and loathing that are cultivated by oneself. Bombings are loathing cultivated by the leader.

You also used the word valid. It sure as hell isn't a valid response. It sure as hell isn't something that promotes a good society. It sure as hell helps nobody.

1. sound; just; well-founded: a valid reason.
2. producing the desired result; effective: a valid antidote for gloom.
3. having force, weight, or cogency; authoritative.
4. legally sound, effective, or binding; having legal force: a valid contract.
5. Logic. (of an argument) so constructed that if the premises are jointly asserted, the conclusion cannot be denied without contradiction.
6. Archaic. robust; well; healthy.

Which definition were you using? The only one even close to what you were saying is #3...and thinking of it like that is pretty twisted.

[Vail]

suicide bombing is really no different then school shootings.

People under heavy duress/injustice lashing out. Why is that so hard to understand?

because lashing out is socially unexceptable, you can't be socially unexceptable and expect people to accept your (horrible) choices.

Lashing out of anger is a sign of weakness and lack of self control. The sign of someone who has not discarded his childhood when they became an adult.

[Khamsin]

suicide bombing is really no different then school shootings.

You're right. School shootings are a valid human response to an unusually stressful situation, just like a faster heart rate, hyperventilation, sweating, or fainting.

[guartz]

Bombing kills indiscriminately and impersonally, school shootings focus on directly killing those who cause the perceived harm. School shootings also are caused by misery, depression, and loathing that are cultivated by oneself. Bombings are loathing cultivated by the leader.

You also used the word valid. It sure as hell isn't a valid response. It sure as hell isn't something that promotes a good society. It sure as hell helps nobody.

1. sound; just; well-founded: a valid reason.
2. producing the desired result; effective: a valid antidote for gloom.
3. having force, weight, or cogency; authoritative.
4. legally sound, effective, or binding; having legal force: a valid contract.
5. Logic. (of an argument) so constructed that if the premises are jointly asserted, the conclusion cannot be denied without contradiction.
6. Archaic. robust; well; healthy.

Which definition were you using? The only one even close to what you were saying is #3...and thinking of it like that is pretty twisted.

#2.

Look, there have been numerous public studies regarding suicide bombers. The only ones who concur that suicide bombers are the results of indoctrinations come incidentally from Israel. Everyone else says these individuals suffer from acute stress, or what is it called, post traumatic stress disorder from childhood without any treatment.

Here is one example; http://www.mcc-hs.org/terrorism.html

[Charla]

But effective at what? Ending the individual's stress? Because it doesn't seem to be producing much benefit for the rest of the population.

[guartz]

Here is a quote from the article

Shafiq Masalha, a Palestinian psychologist, studied psychological consequences of prolonged trauma on 114 Palestinian children. He studied the dreams of children (9-10 year olds) to measure the psychological state of children. 79% of Palestinian children dreamt constantly about political violence, and 13% dreamt that they were killed, or sacrificing their own lives. These children were preoccupied with death in one form or another. These dreams and preoccupations with the violence ultimately resulted in the expression of violent behavior. 30 Mahmud Sehwail, a Palestinian psychiatrist stated that the Palestinian children do not suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, but they suffer from continuing traumatic stress disorder. In the U.S. and other countries, a person usually gets one traumatic event, and later he lives in at least a protected environment. [insert reference to personal communication] In Palestine, children are not living in any protected environment. The situation is always unpredictable. They cannot even plan for the evening, or the next day.

[Xavier]

suicide bombing is really no different then school shootings.

People under heavy duress/injustice lashing out. Why is that so hard to understand?

Ok. But even if you assume that suicide bombers and school shootings are a response to the same social pressures (I disagree, but still), how does that make them a "valid" response?

People still get shocked and outraged at school shootings. If it was a valid response, would it really shock people?

[isladar]

Perhaps he means 'valid' in the sense of.. Hmm. I was going to try and say something clever, but really, there's nothing for that. Using 'valid' as a means of describing an atrocity is a pretty interesting argument.


Edit: If by valid you mean "perceivable", then yes, we can perceive that people take it upon themselves to commit vile, horrendous acts of incomparable violence. Its clear that this is the case. But perception does not equate to validity. Simply because there are those who chose to lash out at the world in that manner does not mean that such acts are valid insofar as an ethical/moral standpoint. They are valid in that they are fact; suicide bombings DO occur. Are they valid in that they have value? Come now.

[guartz]

suicide bombing is really no different then school shootings.

People under heavy duress/injustice lashing out. Why is that so hard to understand?

Ok. But even if you assume that suicide bombers and school shootings are a response to the same social pressures (I disagree, but still), how does that make them a "valid" response?

People still get shocked and outraged at school shootings. If it was a valid response, would it really shock people?

People do a lot of things that are incomprehensible to others, for example, in nazi death camps. The soldiers would herd people into barns to gun them down/burn them. Now what was incomprehensible to me is why the victims didn't resist, they just filed into rank and followed the soldiers to die. I mean, if you are gonna die ANYWAY, why not at least put up some resistance, you know?

But that's not the case, apparently I'd do the same thing in that situation. I'd file rank and wait to be shot. So it seems to be a valid human response. Or should I say a natural human response? Sound better?

[Charla]

Here's a useful analogy: when a Buddhist monk sets himself on fire to protest something, we call it "valid". When Chef sets a Buddhist monk on fire to protest something, we call it South Park. Oh wait...

edit: the term natural gives the sentance a completely different meaning. Now it doesn't have to be rational, useful or productive, it can just be a fluke of psychology that causes people to act in a certain way. And now we're allowed to condemn it as backwards and deplorable, because we believe in free will and refuse to see Humans as slaves to their own psychological mechanisms. Personally, I think you could argue the opposite, but at that point it becomes a philosophical issue.

edit 2: Yes, but South Park is <- way

[guartz]

Here's a useful analogy: when a Buddhist monk sets himself on fire to protest something, we call it "valid". When Chef sets a Buddhist monk on fire to protest something, we call it South Park. Oh wait...

humor... grim topic... *sigh* I dunno,

/b/ is that way --->

[isladar]

People do a lot of things that are incomprehensible to others, for example, in nazi death camps. The soldiers would herd people into barns to gun them down/burn them. Now what was incomprehensible to me is why the victims didn't resist, they just filed into rank and followed the soldiers to die. I mean, if you are gonna die ANYWAY, why not at least put up some resistance, you know?

But that's not the case, apparently I'd do the same thing in that situation. I'd file rank and wait to be shot. So it seems to be a valid human response. Or should I say a natural human response? Sound better?

You are a terribly uninformed and unintelligent fellow. I am sorry that you have evidently received positive reinforcement in the past for your monumental ignorance, as it has led you to continue to speak when you most certainly should not.

[Khamsin]

Look, there have been numerous public studies regarding suicide bombers. The only ones who concur that suicide bombers are the results of indoctrinations come incidentally from Israel. Everyone else says these individuals suffer from acute stress, or what is it called, post traumatic stress disorder from childhood without any treatment.

I think it's a two part problem. Of course, the only ones who would blow themselves up are the crazies who have the problems you mentioned. However, they get the idea to blow themselves up from the indoctrination.

Notice that most people in the US, for example, who commit violent acts that are stressed out and a little unstable tend not to blow themselves up. They use guns, bricks, baseball bats, fists or whatever happens to be on hand at the time they snap. Even the ones that do blow things up try not to blow themselves up in the process.

On the other hand, those who actually intend to blow themselves up only do so because they were told to or otherwise made to believe it was the best choice. Naturally, those who do it have snapped and are unstable, but the notion to bomb oneself is not a natural intuitive instinct like grabbing a brick and bashing someone's head in. Someone made them believe it was the right thing to do, or that their sacrifice would bring about a change that's worth their life.