or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Nightcrawler

What about the alternative? To arm and train all adults with handguns? Of course the handguns and ammunition would have to be registered and the training/certification not only involve the shooting but also the handling of the gun, to keep it protected and controlled...   That would be a major deterrance for anyone wanting to commit massacre, knowing that all adults are armed and trained, don't you think?
  I don't think you get it, the enshrined right to carry weapons in the US-constitution is meant to allow/enable citizens to have the fire-power to stand up against the government should the need arise.   So, yes, for that purpose allowing only handguns won't cut it.   Besides, most massacres were committed using handguns, so a ban on assault rifles won't stop massacres.
Nearly all the things that are to be seen in science-fiction-movies are due to become real in our near future, be it:   1. Robots/AI's (not only in manufacturing companies but everywhere, as if they were humans... replacing humans from most jobs (think for example Robocop), cars/trains/planes that drive autonomously...) 2. Cloning of humans and genetical improving, and reproduction is becoming fully artificial and children raised in state-facilities, families...
    1. Stopping terrorism won't help the palestinians achieve their political goals. The problem is that Israel's government and parts of Israel's society can't accept a palestinian state in all of the Westbank and Gaza with East-Jerusalem as capital. It’s a deeply-rooted zionistic dream of a bigger Israel that prevents a two-state-solution.   2. Who said that war is terrorism? I said that the difference between terrorism and other instances where civilians get killed is...
  I was not making any value-statements about the two sides of the conflict, I was just suggesting to be precise with the terms used:   Terrorism is not only about killing civilians, cause that happens in assassinations, murder, warfare... as well.   Spreading fear for the purpose of achieving a political change is the main-element of terrorism. The reason is mostly that through projecting fear a conflict-participant can have much greater effect than his military...
Science and religion...   I'm not sure that religion is dealing with science at all, mostly it's about spiritual guidance, general purpose of life, origin, destination and moral laws...   Science on the other hand can't tell us anything about origins, it can only tell us about how things work within the already existent universe. The reason is that science needs reproduceable phenomena to verify or falsify emprically theories that are able to predict...
If Israel wanted to target innocent civilians they could use all their weaponry and kill all palestinians, it's technically possible for Israel to commit a genocide. They don't do it because doing so would destroy Israel from within as the israelis themselves couldn't live with doing such a heinous crime.   Like already said using terrorism is not necessary for Israel, using normal warfare and occupational oppression they have enough means to achieve their military...
  It's important to be precise. The murder of iranian scientists is not terrorism, it's ordinary assassination.   The difference is that terrorism isn't specific regarding its victims, the sole purpose is to cause an effect of fear for the purpose of achieving a political change.   Killing the iranian scientists is a very specific assassination-campaign with the purpose of slowing down the development of the iranian nuclear program.   Like already said, Israel as a...
  Ah, sorry, never heard of such a sect. I thought you meant she was a real scientist with a christian faith.   I just read on wikipedia what this sect is about. Apparantely they believe that they can gain similar wonder-healing-capability as Jesus performed through faith and praying. But Jesus was a messenger of God with the holy spirit which enabled his wonderous healings. To expect normal human beings to gain that capability is quite strange. And even stranger is that...
The Boston Tea party act is imho definitely not terrorism, it was imho an act of rebellion.   That the rebels masquaraded as indians is though psychologically interesting. Maybe they saw indians as a symbol for uncompromised freedom or being disobedient and rebellious made them psychologically uneasy and the masquerading helped them overcome these inhibitions.
New Posts  All Forums: