If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
I realised what was causing the problem in communication.
You all test whether something is true or not by looking for agreement, I go and look for physical evidence.
Evey time I have said "x - it's not there" someone has retorted "everyone agrees it is!" like that is actually proof.
No wonder I think you are all fricking crazy - you are!
:shocking: what you mean by X?...non-entites i take it...there's functions in our brain that comprehend the fucking NATURE of these non-netites, and we use our understanding of the NATURE of these non-entites to make physical things, to make the world go round...it's all fucking plain and simple i think but you seem to be the crazy one...
i think as time goes by it's becoming more and more obvious that while al qaeda are a group, they seem to be a mere device used by america for it's own political, militarial, economical hegemony over the world...fear is the strongest of human emotions, use it well and you will conquer...
What I think is happening is that you are hearing the word, processing whatever it means to you and then having real difficulty rejecting it because you make the word real, somehow.
"there's functions in our brain that comprehend the fucking NATURE of these non-netites, and we use our understanding of the NATURE of these non-entites to make physical things"
And when I point out that they are only functions of the brain you stall.
To take "Al qaeda" as an example, because the word exists, you have to accept the concept on some level, even if you subsequently reject it. In this way you are also accepting that "law" "government" etc etc also exist and whatever check you are using to see if something is real or imaginary is bypassed or failing to reject such obviously skewed ideas.
Interesting.......
All you've found perhaps is that they're on a 'jihad' against the West. Actually that's not true and an elementary look at Al Qaeda* would show that there aim is the return of all lands which were once Moslem to their interpretation of the Koran. It may be unobtainable, but its not vague.
We become targets not because Al-Q wants an Islamic UK (whilst though I'm sure many of them wouldn't mind its not their aim), but because too many of our strategic allies are under threat by them and in our interests to stop them falling to hostile groups.
You seem to be mistaking aims with abilities. The various groups of Al-Q are hunted in virtually every country in the world. Its hard to organise attacks when your every step is being dogged. The Palestinian situation shows that some people will be suicide bombers (as does Iraq), but it also shows that only a minority of Moslems (even those who actively support either cause) are willing to blow themselves up. Suicide bombers are hard to get.
There is also the problem that people get used to lots of small scale atrocities and work their way round it. I was born and brought up in Northern Ireland so I know. The terrorists tactics are to go for large scale atrocities - which are harder to plan, but have more impact.
They are serious - don't mistake the fact they haven't suceeded in a major boming in the UK for lack of intentions.
All our civil liberties? Probably not worth surrendering them all - I'm against detention without trial for example. But I accept that we do loose some freedoms to protect us from not being blown up. The conflict between freedom and security isn't a new one - its being going on for as long as the concept of individual freedom has been around.
If I knew where the terrorists were I'd be telling MI-6 rather than posting it on a forum. But at a guess I'd say some are planning things within parts of the UK, others are in Iraq, the wastelands of Saudi, the tribal areas of Pakistan. The terrorist in the UK is swimming in a not very friendly pond, virtually all Moslems in the UK will quite happily inform against them and its not as easy as you think to plant a bomb.
Firstly you need explosive, neither easy to make or obtain. You need a detonator. Some way to carry it. and the fact you didn't see precautions doesn't mean they're not in place - some of the most effective precautions won't be seen by anyone but an observer knowing what to look for.
And as someone who uses the tube virtually everyday I've lost track of the times its been delayed due to 'suspect packages' suggesting the police take it very seriously indeed.
That said its a failure if you actually need to rely on the final precautions to stop someone planting the bomb. The aim is to arrest (or kill) them before they get anywhere near planting the bomb.
I'd agree that in some people's mind the threat is exxagerated (a squadron of RAF Tornadoes could do more damage than the whole Al-Q), but that doesn't mean its not there.
*I'm being simplistic and treating Al-Q as one group, rather than an umbrella organisation covering a lot of different organisations with some weak links between them. It also means that not all these groups have the same ambitions.
That said I've been gone close to twenty years and things seem to have got better in my absence (though I hope these two things are not linked)
ha i'm sure they're not linked...or maybe they are...i'm from newry myself so i know the mournes well enough...
I never used to appreciate it when I was younger. Now I live in London and hardly ever see any greenery I realise how lucky I was being brought up where five minutes in one direction I could be at the sea and not much more in another climbing up the Mournes.
Mc Knights was it?...yea i always go out walking around...it's good cos there's the facilities of the city and the peace of the countryside right beside ya...
Pwnd.
No, its isn't. The IRA are.
Targets? Where there are people. Lots of them. Thats what Terrorists attack.
i'm sorry i think you're misguided again...i live in an IRA heartland...the IRA are certainly not going to bomb any london targets ever again...rob banks, kidnaps yea...but bombings no....maybe you're thinking of the CIRA,RIRA,INLA etc but they're just splinter groups, no orginisation and any attacks form them would be minor, shows of force if you will...
I just don't know all the groups like PIRA, RIRA, etc... x( To many splinter groups!
We all amalgamte Islamic Groups under the name "Al Queda" now, anyway. After all, it gives the folks a nice simple target then!
yes exactly, another convenient and vague enemy we will never be able to defeat.....my grandparents had to face fascism, my parents communism, and me terrorism, no im not taking the piss i think terrorism is here to stay.....after all, how can you track down every terrorist? it's the perfect enemy :thumb:
even if there are no terrorists...how can we prove there aren't...it's the perfect enemy and scare-mongerer...
what you mean "what next" there's about 1000 things that are of more concern to me in life than terrorism...i don't get why these silly bastards start going on aobut it all the time...the irony in it reaks to high heaven...USA..the supossed flag bearer of liberty and freedom using an evil device for their own evil means...sickens me...
Thats because we grew up thinking the USA was that. Then the sad truth hits us.
Just like the way Communism was used before it, Terrorism is the new, unseen, hidden evil lurking round every corner. Its your neigbor. The shop keeper. The cat form up the street.
Aah... joy. Just remember the old saying:
"Ones mans Terrorist is another man's Freedom Fighter." Its true, you know. No one is every right or wrong. Only History can judge that, depending on who wins.
And I shall end this with a lesson counter-strike taught me:
"Terrorists Win"
it's true though...i dunno if it's in my blood (i come from a strong republican family) but i've just never like authority, never liked aggressors and i've always smiled when poor people who've been shat on their whole lives rise up and axctually have the balls to fight and die for something they believe in...so it'll always be the case of the freedom fighter for me...
We have no "Freedom Fighters" in the UK i would willingly stand by though, to my knowledge. Oh Well... I guess us British are just to damn laid back. We'll wait until the problem hits crisis "act now or die" level, then solve it.
If you're going to do the patronising attitude, I suggest you up the quality of your argument. You're presenting this whole thing as if you had just come up with a brilliant new idea, completely ignorant of the fact that a thousand philosophers have been there before you.
Numbers are facts. Actually you don't get much more factual than 2+2=4. It remains true even if you take away the words and symbols that represent it. Laws are slightly different but just as numbers exist without any apparent form, laws exist as ideas.
Still wrong. The act of unlawfully killing another human being with intent has the verb 'murder' attached to it. Other acts include execution and manslaughter. In some circumstances killing may not be murder - it might be by accident, or in self-defence etc. The commandment often quoted as 'Thou shalt not kill' is actually translated, 'Thou shalt not murder' since a prohibition on killing would make the passages of the Bible which deal with capital punishment for various crimes, somewhat contradictory.
Incorrect. See above.
No it isn't. You could have someone manage a shop for you in which you have no intention of becoming involved but with the proviso that if your manager does a poor job, you'll replace him.
The meaning of words is pretty much just an agreement between people. However, the law necessarily uses them in very specific ways.
2+2=4 cannot happen in the physical world, because you can never have more than 1. It's a useful lie to say that you can ever have more than one, and a perceptual position only. I am assuming that by fact you mean something there is evidence for.
You have again assumed that the men and women who make laws are somehow special, and that when they kill it is different than when you or I do.
The fact of murder remains the same, what changes is the political opinion of that action. If you are opposed to the "government" then what they do is murder. If you support the "government" then what they do is "execution". The idea that "execution" isn't murder is a political position and not a statement of fact.
In order to be "execution" and not murder, the "government" would have to be possessed of special qualities. What are they and where and when did they get them?
If you have a manager look after a shop for you, then while you are away he has all the power to make decisions. You have as you have stated given up all control to him and the fact that you can replace him in future does not give you control over how he behaves at the moment.
The "law" has an opinion on the use of words. It's just another opinion though, even if they do have men in costumes to detain those who disagree.
Your argument seems somewhat circular. Firstly you are arguing the law does not exist. Then you are saying all killing is murder.
Murder is a killing which is against the law. If there are no laws to break no killings are murder.
http://www.legal-explanations.com/definitions/murder.htm
Murder
n. When a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought and no legal excuse or authority to kill another human being.
Use a 30cm ruler to measure a 60cm length. 2 identical lengths of 30cm on the ruler but not the object measured.
By 'fact' I mean 'justified true belief'.
The men and women who make our laws and do the killing (where there is capital punishment) are our responsibility. They are part of a society to which we tacitly consent. Socrates argued much more eloquently than I ever could when he was condemned to death for corrupting the youth of Athens. He refused the aid of his friends when the offered to help him escape...you'll have to read Plato to get a feel for that argument, I just can't do it justice here.
Wrong on all counts. You see, murder is defined by the government just as much as execution is. Without government there can be no murder, only killing.
Speaking for our government, it is the consent of the people to make laws.
What if you stood behind him at all times watching every decision? His knowledge that you could fire him will definitely control how he behaves to an extent.
But where the law invented the word, I'd say they have pretty good reason.
Ergo there is no such thing as murder according to you.
I think that is my point. If there is no law to give authority there can be no murder. You need laws for murder to exist.