Tiger's Eye

While we're on the topic of looking up terms, might as well look up the definitions for "culture", "country", and "religion". In reference to this specific issue concerning the comic strip, this is a religious clash. I don't see how calling a country or culture "uncivilized" is relevant in this thread, since it is a group of people belonging to a specific religion, not a specific culture (though, generally, Islam is a part of several cultures, not vice versa. Same goes for countries), that is angry by this event.

LOL. Interesting deduction.

I'm in full support of freedom of the press, however, I think that this wasn't really a smart move on the part of the newspapers. In my opinion, I think what upset pple more was not so much what the cartoon portrayed, but rather WHO was portrayed in it: Islam forbids the images of any religious figure, especially of Allah or of the Prophet (it's supposed to prevent idolatry, so I'm told). While the press should be free to express it's opinions about Islam, it should still respect the beliefs and customs of the religion as well. I mean, this is and is becoming a VERY serious matter, and now pple's lives are in danger... What makes you think that the press gives you all sides of the "now"?

Which started the countdown to the Apocalypse that CNN announced would...

Dropped off the Anti-Christ, who really was, in fact,...

When suddenly he heard a knock on the door: it was the kidnapped penguin from the zoo! But little did he know...

Wow, interesting. Hmmmm...It's a pretty controversial issue, isn't it? Pretty mind-boggling. Cheers, Tiger

I came across this weblink last night, and I must say that it really did bring about a lot of questions...not only about the real occurence of certain events, but also the way of our government...It was really kinda creepy watching it. It gave me the chills. But that coulda been because of the background music included Neways, here's the link: http://www.sahaskatta.com/html/videos_2.html#Main. Basically, this video presents a different theory about the plane crash in the Pentagon, and I must admit that some of what was being presented in the video seemed kinda convincing, to say the least. It's pretty self-explanatory, so I recommend that you guys check it out. If any of it is really true, then our government...really screwed up...some crazy stuff. K, cya l8er! Tiger

Please understand it was not my intention to bring about discussing this issue in this context. It was merely an example. However, you ask me what I would have done? Well, honestly, I’m not sure, nor am I certain that I have the particular grounds to support or, in fact, make such a suggestion, since I was neither there in terms of time or place. I don’t agree with the bombings of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki for a few reasons: 1) As my post above suggests, there were other means to end the war. (read the articles. They reveal a lot…not exactly things that you find in your history book. I sure didn’t.) 2) The US intentionally bombed highly populated areas of Japan, thus killing several thousands of people that did not deserve such deaths that would also soon take their children due to radiation 3) “History is propaganda of the victor”. (Corelli’s Mandolin: great book. Highly recommend it) The US bombed the two cities for revenge. That’s how I understand it. So again, does this make our decision-makers, our heroes, monsters? Or are they good, because they supposedly ended the war? In a final thought, revenge is ugly and will never really get us anywhere. It won’t bring those dead people back from Pearl Harbor, nor the dead girl back. We only seek revenge to satisfy ourselves. Is that not selfish? Is that justice? K, gotta go. L8er, Tiger

Well, as the title implies, there is a very interesting discussion taking place and deserves a lot of thought. Bravo to all of you. It takes a tremendous amount of guts to express such strong opinions. Well, okay. I just wanted to applaud all of you for that. It was well deserved. Ok, down to business (expressing my own thoughts ) I'm warning all of you know, this may get confusing…and perhaps a bit offensive to some. I apologize in advance, for there is no offense intended: Well, honestly, I don’t believe that classifying people as “good”, “bad” and “monsters” is necessarily an appropriate way of going about things. People are way more complex than that. Personally, I’m not all for the electric chair thing. I’d leave the guy in jail. Let him suffer in there; death would be more endurable for him than life, I would believe. But in terms of using the electric idea…justice should, of course, prevail, but to want to see someone die for one’s own personal satisfaction? I find a flaw in that. It makes us no better than the person being executed. It’s kinda sadistic in a twisted way. I’m not really for the ‘eye-for-an-eye’ philosophy; as Gandhi said, “it makes the whole world blind”. I mean, inserting the injection makes on a killer, too, no? And killing for satisfaction? Isn’t that what the guy did in the first place? And also, I don’t fathom the idea of watching a person die, especially one being executed. I’ve never seen an execution, nor do I want to; I don’t believe that I would be able to stomach it too well. I mean, one could say that by executing the killer, the little girl or the rapist was brought to justice. But somehow, in the end, one would have acted upon his/her own hate. It’s selfish and loses purpose. That’s not justice: it’s revenge. Period. Again, in reference to the terms “good”, “bad” and “monsters”…I’m gonna bring this situation to a whole other level, but I’m curious: We’ve had many wars and violent conflicts in our world today, with each side fighting for its own. War is nasty, that’s a given. Take for example, Iraq; we have so many troops there fighting for what we call as a good cause. Thus, they are heroes. But on the sidelines, they are brutal. Rape, torture, degrading humans to an extent where they lose their humanity, some of these cases which have been covered by the media, others not. So, are these people good? Or monsters? I mean, they’re fighting for a good cause, right? Do we classify them as good, because they’re fighting for us, even if they degrade other people to mere dogs for their own pleasure and entertainment (I dunno bout u, but taking pictures of soldiers of holding prisoners by leashes was no accident nor order from superiors, IMO)? “One man’s fighter is another’s terrorist.” Quite an interesting quote, but it sorta relates. Another example is Hiroshima. I think that you guys know what generally happened. The US dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima (and they bombed Nagasaki, afterwards, I think) and this ended the war, since Japan surrendered. But this could have been avoided; in other words, the bomb was unnecessary. Japan was ready to surrender and had submitted a 40-pg referendum to Gen. MacArthur, stating that it was completely prepared to unconditionally surrender, as long as the Emperor could remain on his throne. And this report was received before the Yalta conference, but it was ignored. Instead, the bomb was dropped, and later, Japan surrendered, agreeing to the conditions laid down by the US that were nearly identical to those that had been submitted by Japan earlier in the referendum. I can only think that we dropped the bomb in order to seek revenge for those killed in Pearl Harbor. But this is, again, revenge. We become no better than the people that hurt us. Millions of Japanese died deaths they did not ask for, nor deserve. And to this that this could have been avoided…Does this make us, or rather, the government of that time, monsters? I’d hate to think so. But ultimately, there was no real purpose. It was revenge. So, back to my question, are these heroes of war monsters as well? Does that mean they deserve to be die, also? In case I lost you guys on the Hiroshima thing, here are a couple of links (pretty long, i warn you !): http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p508_Hoffman.html http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1995/vo11no17/vo11no17_bomb.htm http://www.spectacle.org/696/long.html This one is part of the 2nd link: "The first atomic bomb was exploded over Hiroshima on August 5, 1945; the second was detonated over Nagasaki four days later. On August 8th, the Soviet Union declared war on an already beaten Japan. But other Japanese attempts to surrender had been coming fast and furious prior to these historically important developments. One of the most compelling was transmitted by General MacArthur to President Roosevelt in January 1945, prior to the Yalta conference. MacArthur's communiqué stated that the Japanese were willing to surrender under terms which included: • Full surrender of Japanese forces on sea, in the air, at home, on island possessions, and in occupied countries. • Surrender of all arms and munitions. • Occupation of the Japanese homeland and island possessions by allied troops under American direction. • Japanese relinquishment of Manchuria, Korea, and Formosa, as well as all territory seized during the war. • Regulation of Japanese industry to halt present and future production of implements of war. • Turning over of Japanese which the United States might designate war criminals. • Release of all prisoners of war and internees in Japan and in areas under Japanese control. Amazingly, these were identical to the terms which were accepted by our government for the surrender of Japan seven months later. Had they been accepted when first offered, there would have been no heavy loss of life on Iwo Jima (over 26,033 Americans killed or wounded, approximately 21,000 Japanese killed) and Okinawa (over 39,000 U.S. dead and wounded, 109,000 Japanese dead), no fire bombing of Japanese cities by B-29 bombers (it is estimated that the dropping of 1,700 tons of incendiary explosives on Japanese cities during March 9th-10th alone killed over 80,000 civilians and destroyed 260,000 buildings), and no use of the atomic bomb. Countless thousands of Japanese civilians perished as a result of the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And the world was suddenly and violently brought into the atomic age. Belated Revelations The U.S. government has never published MacArthur's communiqué detailing Japan's willingness to end the war, even though its existence first came to light in an article by Chicago Tribune journalist Walter Trohan and published on August 19, 1945 in both the Tribune and the Washington Times Herald. A military intelligence officer with access to classified information had given Trohan a copy of this peace proposal with the stipulation that he keep it confidential until the war ended. Trohan honored his end of the agreement, and then wrote his article immediately after Japan's August 14th surrender had been announced. Trohan's sensational revelations occasioned no response from the White House and State Department. Nor did it attract the kind of attention from the mass media it surely deserved. Historian Harry Elmer Barnes, writing in the May 10, 1958 issue of National Review, supplied additional credence to the Trohan report: After General MacArthur returned from Korea in 1951, his neighbor in the Waldorf Towers, former President Herbert Hoover, took the Trohan article to General MacArthur and the latter confirmed its accuracy in every detail and without qualification. But the January 1945 attempt to end the war wasn't Japan's only move. Robert Morris wrote in No Wonder We Are Losing: ... the Japanese made other overtures through the Soviet Union which were not transmitted to us. But on June 1, Tokyo wired its Ambassador in Moscow that the Emperor wished to make peace and told him to request Soviet mediation. This information was decoded by the United States -- two months before the atomic bomb dropped and the Soviet Union entered the war against Japan. In his 1963 book How the Far East Was Lost, Professor Anthony Kubek told of a July 6, 1945 message sent to the State Department by American diplomats in Sweden which claimed "that Prince Carl Bernodotte, nephew of King Gustov, had been told by the Japanese military attaché in Sweden that Japan had lost the war and wanted to enter surrender negotiations through the King of Sweden." Kubek further reported on July 12th, "Prince Konoye was received by the Emperor and ordered to Moscow as a peace plenipotentiary to 'secure peace at any price.'" Despite the strong efforts of the Japanese ambassador in Moscow to arrange for Prince Konoye's visit, however, the Russian government rejected the proposal. In his 1966 work The Death of James Forrestal, Cornell Simpson wrote that Forrestal, the Secretary of the Navy at the time, "had originated a plan to end the war with Japan five and a half months before V-J Day [August 14, 1945] finally dawned." Simpson pointed out that, had this plan been implemented, the atomic bombs would never have been used and "the Russians would not have had a chance to muscle into the Pacific war for the last six of its 1,347 days." Simpson added: The last point, of course, is why the fellow travellers hurriedly persuaded FDR to reject Forrestal's plan, and why they saw to it that the American people heard nothing about this chance to save untold numbers of American lives .... In May, another move to end the Pacific war was similarly scuttled. The very same month that Germany surrendered, Truman approved a peace ultimatum to Japan, subject to endorsement by the military. But on May 29, General Marshall rejected it as "premature." General MacArthur's January 1945 communiqué containing Japan's detailed peace proposal reached President Roosevelt two days before he departed for his meeting with Churchill and Stalin at Yalta. With his mind already made up about the need to continue the war, he completely discounted the entire proposal and flippantly remarked to an aide, "MacArthur is our greatest general and poorest politician." " Again, these are my opinions. Cheers, Tiger

Here with another translation, since the google one is kinda sketchy (sry RyanJ ). Hope this is somewhat accurate. Plz correct it if i'm way off. Cheers! Tiger Subliminal speeds and Ignatius de Loyola Speeds greater than 300000 km/s have been obtained in several (diverse) experiences/experiments (?) http://i-newswire.com/pr43033.html http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2796 But the experimenters (who have nothing to do w/ the theory of relativity) explain to the relativity zombies (fanatics?) why the theory is still valid all the same, and the zombies repeat the explanation three times a day. It’s Ignatius de Loyala’s principle (law): "That we may in all things attain the truth, that we may not err in anything, we ought ever to hold it a fixed principle, that what I see white I believe to be black if the Romish Church define it so to be." An illustration of subliminal motion: http://gregegan.customer.netspace.ne...ETS/20/20.html The subliminal motion is also called ‘Hamlet’: it exists because one registers its departure and arrival (if not, one wouldn’t be able to measure its speed), but at the same time, it must not exist because it is dangerous for the theory of relativity. This motion is truly very dangerous, for example, when trying to resolve Problem 6 (“Train in a tunnel”), p.47 (solution on pg.53), in http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~...tbook/ch10.pdf Pentcho Valev

Okaaaaaaaayyy... I'm just translating this post (Pentcho's) for the other poor souls on the forum who might need a translation. If i screw this one up, i'm sorry I hope it's not so bad and that it delivers the general gist across. Hey, Pentcho: really interesting topic you brought up. I don't quite understand it all, the relativity w/out c and stuff. Quite new to me. If i come to understand it, sooner or later, i'll get back. And when you say "relativitie pour toujours", is that infinite relativity? Just wondering. K, have fun. Hope this translation is right and that it helps you guys out. A bientot! (w/out the accents needed ) Is the relativist cult a criminal? Einstein and the other insiders have always known, with maybe the exception of a short period after 1905,that the second postulate (the speed of light constant) is false." Consequently, while the numerous quarrelsome zombies ruined their lives questioning the truth of the second postulate, the insiders developed an alternative theory titled 'Relativity w/out c'. This theory, combined w/ the traditional strategy defended by the zombies and titled 'relativity w/ c', had finally formed a global thoery titled 'infinite relativity’. Three example illustrate the strategy 'relativity w/out c’: 1) Einstein 'relativity' chapter 22 2) The insight of Tom Roberts on sci.physics.relativity > CAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT EXCEED 300000 km/s IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD? > Sure, depending on the physical conditions of the measurement. It can > also be less than "300000 km/s" (by which I assume you really mean the > standard value for c). And this can happen even for an accelerated > observer in a region without any significant gravitation (e.g. in > Minkowski spacetime). > GR predicts that measurements of the speed of light in a > locally-inertial frame using standard clocks and rulers will always > obtain the value c (to within the accuracy that the local frame is > inertial). But if you use non-standard rulers or clocks, or measure over > a non-local distance, or in a non-inertial frame, then you can obtain a > different value; perhaps wildly different. For instance, in an > accelerated rocketship in Minkowski spacetime one could measure an > infinite value for the speed of light; or a zero value, or even crazier > values.... > Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com 3) 'Relativity w/out c', p.35 in http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~...tbook/ch10.pdf . Evidently, 'Relativity w/out c' is nothing more than the Galilean transformations (p.37), but the reader is led to believe that such equations w/ the same form as those of Lorentz (the equations 10.71 on p.36) are always indispensable. And as they are indispensable, the success of the global theory ‘infinite relativity is guaranteed."

This is truly terrible, or rather, as someone had well put it, "a logistical nightmare". Does anyone else feel like this is a repeat of the bombings that took place in Egypt? Deja-vu? Geez...But at least now, the Jordanians are speaking out and protesting against Al-Qaeda. To say that they're pissed would be an understatement. Ugh. I just hope things don't take a turn to even worse events. What are your thoughts on the situation? I put some article links down here about the situation right now in Jordan in case anyone was interested. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051110/ap_on_re_mi_ea/jordan_explosion_68;_ylt=AvNjhXMBqual7iMC8oCRbH1YU.0A;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl (Jordanians Mourn, Protest After Bombings) http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051110/ap_on_re_mi_ea/jordan_analysis_2;_ylt=Aro4tm.R8LeGbFZJ.EoTHYpYU.0A;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl (America's Arab Allies Under Attack) Tiger

Hehehehe. I agree with you guys in saying that there is a great discussion going about. Very interesting reads (we've got some essays going on here! ) Right-o.... Yup. Definitely is true. I think that Palestine also condemned Iran’s comments, saying that it “did recognize Israel”. Oh, here is what was said: "Palestinians recognize the right of the state of Israel to exist and I reject his comments." -- Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erekat. These are just some newsflashes (relatively) in case you guys were interested. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4387852.stm (Iran 'not planning Israel attack' ) Interesting… http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4378948.stm L8er, Tiger *Applause for ecoli and LazerFazer! You guys have made excellent posts and make this thread worth reading *

Truth: Terrorists who have committed acts against the US are Muslim Myth: Islam is a religion full of lies, betrayal and violence. Please consider this before making anymore low blows upon the subject. @Bettina:

Oh. I thought that western media was more biast against the palestinians? I mean, the US is an ally of Israel, so I would have thought that it would have its media be in support of Israel. In my opnion, I always saw it like that (CNN, FOX News, etc.) I think that BBC is not as biased, tho of course it has it's biases. Just a thought. L8er, Tiger

Yeah, it really would be interesting to see where all this leads to. I wouldn't say that he's bluffing or anything, but i mean, this idea of 'eradicating Israel' ( ) is completely impractical. Gee, how many people will lose their lives and identity? One thing's for sure: wiping out a country will only cause problems that really aren't necessary. I'm actually somewhat surprised that Ahmadinejad would actually say this to the public, on media and stuff. "A World without Zionism" is pretty harsh language in itself. Our world is already plagued with a lot of problems and i think this does nothing but add on. I think that the real issue, though, is that Ahmadinejad calls for the wiping out of not only an entire place, but of a people. Should an entire people be wiped out or punished because its country was declared an enemy? Most of those people probably have nothing to do with clashes between Israel and Iran. In short, the large majority of people that suffer/will suffer are simply bystanders. And, honestly speaking, why is wiping Israel off the map a plus for Islam? I see this as a manipulation of the religion. I'm not sure that all Muslims feel the same way that Ahmadinejad does about this issue. I just hope that this whole thing doesn't spiral out of control for the sake of the Iranian people, the Israelis, the Muslims, and anyone else who really has nothing to do with the issue, but yet may still be affected by it, if anything really does happen. Seriously. Tiger