h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

what a lot of crap you all spout what a deluded lot you all are

kariblake, don't take it too seriously. We're just having some fun. Would Jesus have made all that fine wine if he didn't want us to party?

'what a lot of crap you all spout what a deluded lot you all are'


what and who do you mean? I hope you're not referring in any way to what, in all seriousness, is a truly great folktale (the troll story) or two Beowulf, a classic of English literature. I can't imagine any way that a reasonably informed person could refer to either as 'a lot of crap' or interest in discussion of either as being a sign of delusion.

from my post 15551:
"There will be a third war after two great wars in which many are killed."

from >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_war
"The two World Wars, of the 20th century, took place on every populated continent on Earth."
"The two World Wars of the 20th century caused unprecedented casualties and destruction across the theaters of conflict. The numbers killed in the wars are estimated at between 60 and 100 million people. Unlike in most previous conflicts, civilians suffered as badly as or worse than soldiers, and the distinction between combatants and civilians was often erased."

So, as kariblake says, you're all not talking sense!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Furthermore, from >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler
"On 1 September 1939, Germany invaded western Poland. Britain and France declared war on Germany on 3 September but did not immediately act."
"German forces invaded Denmark and Norway. In May 1940, Hitler's forces attacked France, conquering the Luxembourg, Netherlands and Belgium in the process. France surrendered on 22 June 1940. These victories persuaded Benito Mussolini of Italy to join the war on Hitler's side on 10 June 1940."
"On 22 June 1941, three million German troops attacked the Soviet Union"
"Hitler's declaration of war against the United States on 11 December 1941, four days after the Empire of Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii and six days after Nazi Germany's closest approach to Moscow, set him against a coalition that included the world's largest empire (the British Empire), the world's greatest industrial and financial power (the United States), and the world's largest army (the Soviet Union)."
Fuhrer - Great Leader!

While we're quoting wikipedia, here's a list of wars by death toll. World War One comes in at sixth, with four above it that didn't occur in the twentieth century.

The point - isn't prophecy which speaks of "a third war after two great wars in which many are killed" incredibly vague, given the number of wars since history began?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_disasters_by_death_toll

I'd submit that it's also very rare for wars to be waged by someone who is *not* called a "leader".

>> "Unlike in most previous conflicts, civilians suffered as badly as or worse than soldiers, and the distinction between combatants and civilians was often erased." <<

Now there's a myth that needs debunking!

Armies - let's take Alexander the Great's for example - don't just engage the enemy army at some neatly set aside playing field. The major and determining battles may occur there but both armies will have stolen, killed, raped and pillaged all along the way.

The old saying, "An army travels on its stomach", conveniently ignores the fact that all armies must 'requisition' food, water, horses, clothing and all the other necessities (and a few luxuries) from the people unfortunate enough to live in their path.

The notion that civilians are safe during war likely comes from a relatively brief period of European history (say 1700 - 1900) when armies were regimented and uniformed and (fairly) well disciplined.

To a great extent (ignoring for the sake of brevity any colonial ventures) they were marching to and fro across the Continent where 'civilisation' was already more or less flourishing.

Rural folks with chickens and goats and cows and daughters have always been fair game for passing armies. So some effort was made by officers to see that some money was available to pay for provisions - especially when passing thru their own or an allies territory - but even then (and in spite of the threat of capital punishment) soldiers in the ranks were generally free to harass the peasantry and take whatever they fancied.

This was also true in WW1 and WW2 (See Catch 22).
But the real gripe that causes people to get so upset about civilian deaths was the new concept of massive arial bombardment beginning in Guernica Spain and culminating in the Abomb attacks on Japan. And it might be true that more city dwellers died in WW2 than is usual in a good war but we have to remember that Alexander and Tamberlane and Caesar and Chingis Khan and Charlemagne and Richard the Lionheart and Napolean all enjoyed leaving a mountain of skulls once they'd breached a city's wall.

peace
~jwf~



The spoils of war

thank you, ~jwf~! I was going to debunk that 'wars never hurt civilians' crap as well, but now I don't have to.

There's certainly a lot of rot talked on this thread, but the people of no particular belief certainly don't have a monopoly on it.

'... he slew all the house of Baasha: he left him not one that pisseth against a wall, neither of his kinsfolks, nor of his friends.'

1 Kings 16:11

Yep. It started with the Great War.

"'Abdullah Ibn 'Omar said, The Prophet stood up to address the people. He praised Allah as He deserved to be praised, then he spoke about the Dajjal (Anti-Christ): 'I warn you against him; there is no Prophet who has not warned his people against him, even Noah warned his people against him. But I will tell you something which no other Prophet has told his people. You must know that the Dajjal is one-eyed, and Allah is not one-eyed.'"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annuit_C%C5%93ptis
"Barton explained that the motto alluded to the Eye of Providence: 'Deo favente which alludes to the Eye in the Arms, meant for the Eye of Providence.' For Barton, Deus (God) and The Eye of Providence were the same entity."

'Wyrd oft nereð
unfægne eorl, þonne his ellen deah. '

Beowulf



Now I'm going to go away for a bit because your co-religionists, warner, have just killed one of my fellow citizens. Trooper Diab's courage certainly remained strong, but he was fated, so Wyrd did not spare him, nor did your people, warner.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/03/08/afghanistan-soldiers.html

anhaga,
Re post 15590:
Your remarks (co-religionist etc.) imply that all Muslims in the world are responsible for the deaths in Afghanistan. That is not a fair assumption, and I personally know of Muslims in the British Forces who have been sent to Afghanistan and Iraq.

I have been repeatedly communicating with all people against the wisdom of war in Afghanistan, and I'm sincerely upset of the death of soldiers and civilians on both sides. So far, nobody has agreed with me, and I don't personally feel responsible in any way just because I hold certain religious beliefs and have access to public knowledge of the Arab Nation.

warner:

to me, repeatedly spouting quotes from the Quran while soldiers from your country and mine are dying at the hands of people spouting the same words is roughly morally equivalent to playing Wagner full-blast out your window while Jews are being burned at Auschwitz.


(bet that won't make quote of the day.)

Oh, how I long for a killfile...

But then, I suppose this thread would have died long ago

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/legends/godwin/

a) I didn't specifically run afoul of Godwin's Law

b) Others did it before I didn't

c) I'm serious that I find warner's continuing Quranic references offensive.

I also find it particularly telling that he thinks that 'I have been repeatedly communicating with all people against the wisdom of war in Afghanistan' somehow makes it all okay: 'I said it was a dumb idea to attack Muslims so it's okay for me to carry on with my muslim-jewish-christian schtick.' Sorry, warner: the Taliban are bad, and they're Muslim, and everything they are, they claim derives directly from Islam. I agree it was a bad idea to attack them when we did -- we should have wiped them out ten years earlier. But you, warner, saying it was a bad idea to attack them doesn't give any hint that you are condemning the Taliban. The Taliban are the worst of the worst, as bad as anything in history, and they claim, like you, warner, to be devout Muslims, complete with quranic references more copious than your own. The Taliban claim that everything they do is in keeping with the very religion you claim for yourself. Whining that you've always told people it was a mistake for the West to fight them is not in any way distancing yourself from their hideous crimes. In fact, by suggesting that they should have been left alone, you are joining them in their crimes.

I didn't expect anything else.

a) I know, hence the link.. (and the )

b) ditto. According to Godwin's Law, this thread should be long deceased

c) me too, which is why hootoo needs a killfile

And I'm pretty much in agreement with both you and Sam Harris regarding Islam..

^^^

Anyway, as we all know, Godwin's rule is more what you'd call "guidelines" than an actual rule..

'And I'm pretty much in agreement with both you and Sam Harris regarding Islam..'

Oddly, I'm not sure that I am in agreement with Sam Harris regarding Islam. Or Buddhism. Or Hinduism. Or what ever the hell superstition he seems to want to cling to or condemn to eternal perdition.


Frankly, Sam Harris strikes me as the weak link, the poor sibling, the saddly retarded cousin, of the Four Horsemen. He lost me for sure when he condemned Islam for suicide bombings, etc. while embracing Buddhism/Hinduism which is responsible for the *invention* of the 'suicide belt'.

Whatever arguments I may have with the Taliban and warner, I'm not sure that Sam Harris and I are on the same team.

For sure, Harris', (or Hitchens'), perspective on some things may not align with yours, or mine for that matter.

I find little value in *any* religion, so if Harris truly does embrace Buddhism, and/or Hinduism, I certainly would disagree with him in that particular respect. Both religions are equally absurd, and their adherents are deluded.

However, I have enjoyed reading his articulate critiques of both Christianity and Islam, just as I am entertained by Hitchens' acerbic diatribes.


I'm not on anyone's team. I regularly read Pharyngula, and browse the Dawkins site occasionally, and I have subscribed to Harris' newsletter, (although rarely read it). I visit the Edge from time to time, and even read the Brights (shudder) bulletins sometimes.
But I ain't nobody's fanboi

warner
you say: "So far, nobody has agreed with me..."

Well I reckon that's because you got what we in the mountains call book-learnin' and ya got in a really bad way. Your head and your culture are stuck in a book. You don't just believe everything you read you recite it and bob up and down in what appears to be a catatonic seizure. Then yer so dizzy ya can turn the words inside out (or in-sigh-doubt if yer waiting for a punch line). Yer all book crazy the lot of ya.

Oh and thanks for agreeing with me in post 15483, your response to my post 15481.
It sounded like you meant it. And it didn't sound like it was taken from a book.
What happened there. Try to focus on that.


~jwf~

'I'm not on anyone's team. '

Nor am I. And, although I would welcome you, Tal, into my house (after locking up the Pusser's ) on your next visit to the neighborhood, I think the fact that we are not on anyone's team puts the lie to the sometimes mentioned idea that atheism is a new religion.

(If you want to come visit chez anhaga, ~jwf~, I can lock up the silverware and the rum for you as well)

But, seriously:


Talibano delenda est. (please forgive my rudimentary Pashto)