david goldman's hongkong based (and web published) media journal, the asia,times describes what may be the world's longest running terrorist insurrection in india.

their latest success was an attack on india's state security forces, in which they killed 26 members of the security force.. you can read the at's attempt to analyse the origins and causes of the naxalite (they are also called maoists) rebellions at: http://www.atimes.com/indias-maoist-violence-must-resolved-dialogue/.

the hindustan times has a table detailing the dead in this rebellion.. finally, i saw nothing about the latest attack (april) in the aussie media.

fulltimestudent

Simon: Why are you trying to diminish the threat? Muslim appeasement?

No! I do not particularly like Islam (another face to semitic religion).

This problem will not be solved by present policies.

I wanted to demonstrate that acts of terror have been used by all types of people, and not just one singular type.

Am I correct in the examples I've presented?

Think about it - how many people have been killed in attacks by Muslim terrorists in western countries (include Russia) ? Has the total yet reached 1000? On the other hand, how many people have been killed by western action in Islamic countries? (Include French action in Algeria, British action in Iraq in post WW1 era, and contemporary U.S. led actions).

We have had similar conversations before, and the problem is now worse than ever. And I think it will continue to become even worse, unless a different approach is used to the present policies.

133

Why is the white race so different?

by Crazyguy in

jw
friends

what i'm saying is the white race is the only one that has a verity of eye and hair colors , so what gives?

is it that this race was influenced genetically by a group of pre humans that didn't mix with other races?

.

fulltimestudent

Simon: Race is recognized both medically and under the law, so claiming it doesn't exist is simply daft.

But, Simon, the use of the term in any discipline like medicine or law, does not validate the term. Many terms are (in time) discarded because a recognition grows that they are not particularly useful in describing reality.

I guess I'd have to agree that the term is useful in some ways as it allows a quick understanding of what a person may be attempting to say. But is it a useful term? As a descriptive shorthand term to refer to a person's origins it does not seem to be particularly harmful, but I also think that its become so loaded with various ideological attachments to its meaning, that it is no longer, particularly useful.

Maybe its a bit like the term 'culture' which can be so cryptic that its difficult to know what meaning a person using the term is wanting to say. And, once you start having to attach other words to define your meaning, the word starts to lose its usefulness.

The Wikipedia (to use an easily available source) entry on 'Race and Society' starts its discussion by saying:

Social interpretations of race regard the common categorizations of people into different races, often with biologist tagging of particular "racial" attributes beyond mere anatomy, as more socially and culturally determined than based upon biology. Some interpretations are often deconstructionist and poststructuralist in that they critically analyze the historical construction and development of racial categories.

And, sadly the deeper one reads into the origins and usage of the term, the more complicated an understanding of the term becomes. (just try it)

Under the single word 'Race' the Wikipedia entry comments:

According to Smedley and Marks the European concept of "race", along with many of the ideas now associated with the term, arose at the time of the scientific revolution, which introduced and privileged the study of natural kinds, and the age of European imperialism and colonization which established political relations between Europeans and peoples with distinct cultural and political traditions.[39][40] As Europeans encountered people from different parts of the world, they speculated about the physical, social, and cultural differences among various human groups.

From that viewpoint the term's descriptive capacity has its origins in the nineteenth century, which is where Professor John Hobson locates it in his book, "The Eastern Origins of Western Civilisation." That was a time when Europeans sought some kind of philosophical justification for their attempt at world domination. It lead to such gems as Edward Long's (A British colonial administrator) claim that an orang-outang would be a suitable husband for an African Hottentot woman.

That developed racist philosophy also led to the various examples of Chinese exclusion legislation in Australia (The White Australia Policy) and the USA.

Another lovely example of racist attitudes in action.

It was only after WW2 and the end of colonialism in S.E.Asia, that Australia amended its laws to prevent Asians becoming resident in Australia. Arthur Calwell (a Labour party leader), once declaring, "Two Wongs don't make a white."

23

Muslims are not the only terrorists

by fulltimestudent in

jw
friends

david goldman's hongkong based (and web published) media journal, the asia,times describes what may be the world's longest running terrorist insurrection in india.

their latest success was an attack on india's state security forces, in which they killed 26 members of the security force.. you can read the at's attempt to analyse the origins and causes of the naxalite (they are also called maoists) rebellions at: http://www.atimes.com/indias-maoist-violence-must-resolved-dialogue/.

the hindustan times has a table detailing the dead in this rebellion.. finally, i saw nothing about the latest attack (april) in the aussie media.

fulltimestudent

Simon: Are you talking modern KKK or the long-gone KKK?

Oh! definitely (in my post) the distant past, not the present. But, it may be that contempory American life is also has examples of terror motivated, race based actions against negro's. But I have not read widely on that topic.

23

Muslims are not the only terrorists

by fulltimestudent in

jw
friends

david goldman's hongkong based (and web published) media journal, the asia,times describes what may be the world's longest running terrorist insurrection in india.

their latest success was an attack on india's state security forces, in which they killed 26 members of the security force.. you can read the at's attempt to analyse the origins and causes of the naxalite (they are also called maoists) rebellions at: http://www.atimes.com/indias-maoist-violence-must-resolved-dialogue/.

the hindustan times has a table detailing the dead in this rebellion.. finally, i saw nothing about the latest attack (april) in the aussie media.

fulltimestudent

And then there are other places where terrorists grow. Like the USA, where some seem to develop such extreme hatred that their subsequent actions can only be described as "terrorist" activity.

As examples, there is the terrorist activity of the KKK against coloured Americans.

Wikipedia has an entry called Terrorism in the USA, which lists and describes incidents that the author calls terrorism.

See - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States

And, now Facebook has called my attention to a UK, Guardian article called ...

They hate the US government, and they're multiplying: the terrifying rise of 'sovereign citizens'

While US counter-terrorism efforts remain locked on Islamist extremism, the growing threat from homegrown, rightwing extremists is even more pressing

and describes some horrific acts of terrorism (within the USA) by various groups the authors calls 'extreme right wing.'
See - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/15/sovereign-citizens-rightwing-terrorism-hate-us-government?CMP=share_btn_fb
I wonder when the government of the USA will have to start bombing its own citizens?

133

Why is the white race so different?

by Crazyguy in

jw
friends

what i'm saying is the white race is the only one that has a verity of eye and hair colors , so what gives?

is it that this race was influenced genetically by a group of pre humans that didn't mix with other races?

.

fulltimestudent

chook: But the real difference in races is that us white skinned people get sunburnt easier.

Yeah! and the sunburn leads to skin cancers (like melanoma) in your old age (if not before).

So nature acts to remove freaks with white skin.

(just had a melanoma removed, so speaking from experience).

More seriously, some scholarship postulates that early humans had dark skin, and that white skin was a mutation.

Of course, if there was a mutation, it clearly could occur more than once.

59

FWIW -- Anonymous suggests North Korea will start WWIII before the end of this year

by kpop in

jw
friends

i know most of you don't know what anonymous is or what the real 4chan is, but both are saying that their global meta data is pointing that now with south korean elections going to a pro war candidate (moon, who is a psycho) and china saying there may be no other solution, north korea will strike first before the end of this year.

japan has called up reserves.

take it with a grain of salt.

fulltimestudent

The ROK's new President Moon's life in photographs. Shared from The Korea Times.

This image (provided by his campaign team) shows him as a commando in the ROK Army.

More images of his life, at: http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/nation/2017/05/356_229027.html#

59

FWIW -- Anonymous suggests North Korea will start WWIII before the end of this year

by kpop in

jw
friends

i know most of you don't know what anonymous is or what the real 4chan is, but both are saying that their global meta data is pointing that now with south korean elections going to a pro war candidate (moon, who is a psycho) and china saying there may be no other solution, north korea will strike first before the end of this year.

japan has called up reserves.

take it with a grain of salt.

fulltimestudent

waton :
NK, like East Germany before, operates on the claim that they are the only legitimate rulers on the peninsula.
In 1950, both sides made that claim, but the fact remains that the west had given little thought to the important question of what to do with Korea after WW2. It is claimed that F. Roosevelt thought that it may be 50 years before they could rule themselves. By the time that Japan surrendered Russian (as the USSR) troops were inside this former part of the Japanese Empire, an well down the peninsula. The American command made a belated offer to the Russians to divide Korea into two. During the one year I spent studying Korean hiistory, I never found a satisfactory answer to the question of why the Russians agreed to the American proposal. Anyway, the Russians set up the DPRK under Kim Il sung, supposedly a former guerilla fighter against the 35 year long Japanese occupation.
The Americans set up the Republic of Korea, parachuting in a staunch anti-communist named Syngman Rhee, At the time that the Korean war commenced both sides were marching battalions of soldiers up and down the border. Who jumped first is not clear, but of course, most western sources claim the north did.
By the time the Americans got themselves a bit organised the DPRK, had pushed the ROK/American army into a corner around Busan. Macarthur's (quite brilliant) counter attack with an amphibious landing at Inchon, well behind the front line nearly brought about the rout of the north. Macarthur failed because he decided to ignore the Chinese warning not to drive through to the border area. When Macarthur ordered his forces to do just that, the Chinese entered the war, moving at night they took the Western forces by surprise and soon the American/western forces were fleeing south.
There is a reasonable description of the war in Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War.
There are some differences in that account and my own, but essentially both tell a similar story.
Waton: They never formally surrendered to the overwhelming looming western might.
"overwhelming looming western might." Is that why there was a truce, rather than a ROK/USA victory that steamrollered over the whole peninsula? Many observers think that it's the USA that has been slow to keep a final peace treaty from being signed.
How would the view you espoused fit in with ...
"The Agreed Framework between the United States of America and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea was signed on October 21, 1994 between North Korea (DPRK) and the United States. The objective of the agreement was the freezing and replacement of North Korea's indigenous nuclear power plant program with more nuclear proliferation resistant light water reactor power plants, and the step-by-step normalization of relations between the U.S. and the DPRK. Implementation of the agreement was troubled from the start, but its key elements were being implemented until it effectively broke down in 2003"
Why did this agreement break down? Who obstructed it?
Soon after the agreement was signed, U.S. Congress control changed to the Republican Party, who did not support the agreement.[16][17] Some Republican Senators were strongly against the agreement, regarding it as appeasement.[18][19] ... From 1996 Congress provided funding, though not always sufficient amounts.[11][21] Consequently, some of the agreed transitional oil supplies were delivered late.[22] KEDO's first director, Stephen Bosworth, later commented "The Agreed Framework was a political orphan within two weeks after its signature".[23]
Some analysts believe North Korea agreed to the freeze primarily because of the U.S. agreement to phase out economic sanctions that had been in place since the Korean War. But because of congressional opposition, the U.S. failed to deliver on this part of the agreement.[24] "
In other words the American side, (not the DPRK) could not fulfill its part of the agreement.
waton: Think of a united Korea with the aspiring North's military and the South's economic clout.
I doubt that will happen, there are too many historical and ideological differences. But the over-riding reason is the cost of such a move. Some calculate the cost to be as much as three trillion dollars.
The correct solution is to give the DPRK a reason to believe that they have some security of tenure, and support the current DPRK trend toward developing a market economy. As a middle class grows (who have an incentive to support a peaceful future) the problem will be solved.

7

A gay JWs experience - How he escaped his spiritual prison and built a better life

by fulltimestudent in

jw
friends

my gay xjw friend tells me this story is doing the rounds among the gay community.its josh gutteridge's story:.

http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/secrets-of-a-gay-jehovahs-witness-how-i-escaped-the-religion-and-rebuilt-my-life/#gs.egioclu.

fulltimestudent

I put together the two scraps of information (The Jonathon/David Love story and Jesus heals the centurion's young male lover for another friend (also gay) who thought he was going to debate with a JW pioneer on some aspect of being gay versus the YHWH/JESUS imagined deity...

There was no debate, the pioneer JW, flatly said, the Bible says you'll get destroyed, so I have nothing further to say. Anyway, as to Jonathon and David, there absolutely were no homosexuals in ancient Israel.

Can we fact check that last statement? Yes, we can! So how and where?

On this subject the Bible does give an answer. Open you're Bibles now ... to 1 Kings 14:23,24, which reads:

(its discussing what the Jews were doing during the reign of Rehoboam).

"And they too kept building for themselves high places and sacred pillars and sacred poles upon every high hill and under every luxuriant tree. And even the male temple prostitute proved to be in the land. ..." (NWT-Large print edition)

The JW publication "Insight" suggests that the 'sacred poles' were ... "It has been suggested that the poles represented the female principle, whereas the pillars represented the male principle. These appendages of idolatry, likely phallic symbols, were associated with grossly immoral sex orgies, as is indicated by the reference to male prostitutes being in the land as early as Rehoboam’s reign. (1Ki 14:22-24; 2Ki 17:10) Ref: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200003789#h=4

So, in the view of the author of 1 Kings, wherever you went in Judah, you would see these shrines with their representations of a penis and inside you could find a guy who'd have sex with you for fee. Did male Jews have sex with the 'male temple prostitute?' Its implicit in the text of the story that they would be likely to do that. Who screwed who? No clues about that, so we may just assume that some swung one way and some swung the other way.

The English language, for over 120 years has used the term 'homosexual' to describe, men who have sex with men.

So was the JW pioneer who told my friend, "there absolutely were no homosexuals in ancient Israel." right?

Wrong, wrong, wrong!!!!!! There were homosexuals in Israel, at leasst in the time Rehoboam, and probably always were.

fulltimestudent

Posts by fulltimestudent

They hate the US government, and they're multiplying: the terrifying rise of 'sovereign citizens'

waton :