Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 4/6/04 09:38 AM, Ruination wrote:

At 3/5/04 04:49 AM, TheMason wrote:

::

What anyone failed to mention was that the order of the Templars was at first chaste and was bound by vows of poverty. In fact, they were not even allowed to bathe, thus discouraging people from wanting contact with them all together. As the order grew in numbers, so do it its influence. The templar knights rid themselves of their previous scruples and became richer than kings, undermining their authority and that of the pope himself. Long story short; they were branded heretics and burned at the stake. Whatever order existing today, be it a derivative of the heretic Templars or not, should not be mistaken with the original.

I am just curious, where do you draw your information from? It seems to contradict somewhat the histories of the Order that I have read.

From what I understand, soon after they formed they made a discovery in Jerusalem that gave them great power over the Pope and even helped them to even appoint kings.

I have never heard that they were astetics, or took vows of poverty, chastity and uncleanliness.

At 4/3/04 04:21 PM, bumcheekcity wrote:

At 4/3/04 12:34 PM, TheMason wrote: Terrorists do not worry about candy-ass countries such as France and Spain.

Like this argument. Maybe terrorists only worry about countries that they believe are doing more harm to the woirld than good. America is definately right on top of the list for being one of those countries.

You obviously misunderstand BCC. They attacked the US because bin-Laden believed that the US was weak and would cower after such an attack. However, he underestimated the US resolve against surprise attack. But I digress. The point I was trying to make was that groups such as bin Laden simply do not care what these candy-ass countries think. A bully does not care about what a nerd thinks as he is robbing the weaker person of their lunch money. Terrorists prey upon weakness, rarely will they attack someone/place that is strong.

As far back as the 1980s bin Laden believed the US to be weak and the US military to be weaker than the Soviet war machine. Helping push the USSR out of Afghanistan in the 1980s fed bin Laden's ego. He often boasted about how he could take on America, after all he had defeated the superior Soviets. These radicals were surprised by the US response. I do not think we will be hit domestically again until a Democrat is in the White House.

They veiw people who think like BCC as weak; sheep to be slaughtered. Before 9/11 this is what they thought of the US, that our military was a paper tiger much like the Spanish immediately before the Spanish-American war. Now they are not so sure. They thought that we would just bend to international pressure (in the Clinton tradition). Our strong response has given them pause.

In that case, why did they TARGET Spain with a Right-Wing government, and then SUSPEND attacks after the Socialist was let in?

They do not need to continue; they got what they wanted. Spain folded, and I fear they have only opened themselves up to further attacks.

At 4/3/04 02:44 PM, RoteStinktier wrote:

At 4/3/04 12:34 PM, TheMason wrote: Crazy thing about the terrorist mindset is that this result of the rest of world thinking this about the US, is probably a victory and worthy of an A.

Why do the boogeymen 'terrorists' care if we invaded Iraq? Afterall, the single Al-Qaeda cell in Iraq is now flourishing, with twice the membership it had before this latest war.

It is obvious that you do not know anything about the ideology behind al-Qaeda. The primary issue that bin Laden made a core factor in mobolizing the troops is the first Gulf War. This is an issue that is PROMINENT in his fatwas (religious edicts) and on biographies of the man.

Over the course of the next 1-5 years the US presence on the peninsula will decrease dramatically. Hell we have already pulled out of the "Holy Land" of Saudi Arabia. This cuts the al-Qaeda stance in half. Before they were pissed about US forces in Saudi and US involvement in the Isreal/Palestine mess.

If I was one of these scary 'terrorists', I would be congratulating the US in invading Iraq, and getting caught up in something that doesn't effect me at all, for a few years.

All I can say is you need to educate yourself more. Maybe start with primary sources from bin Laden himself. The issue becomes clearer when you edit out media influence (be they liberal, conservative or "balanced").

Lastly, you may think you made some good points here. However, all you did was show your ignorance of the fundamentalist mindset.

At 4/1/04 06:55 PM, JMHX_DeLux wrote:

.

Look at them. Look at them and understand that this war cannot always be edited by shrewd CNN executives, or hidden away in stacks of paper by the Bush administration. This is war as it truly is, this is what President George W. Bush has involved us in, and it will not stop, it will not cease, until we have handed over power to the Iraqis and pulled the final troop from that nation.

The acts on those four corpses presses the limits of what we deem acceptable, because deep down we know war is not acceptable. This violence now gives us a taste of how this war is from the viewpoint of those fighting. They do not get the privilege of editing out these images from their minds. If more people saw these images, and more people took them in, perhaps we would have fewer supporters of this war.

Then think about history. We pulled out of Somalia after similar pictures surfaced. The result was an emboldenment of UBL and a feeling that the US will cut and run when the war gets too horrible.

But this is war, one that was not started by the US. Our enemy will not come to the negotiating table to discuss peace. Instead they see ppl such as you as the weakness of the West. They see this type of warfare as honorable and glorious. War is ugly, in this case the enemy is savage. The US, more so than any country in history, tries to minimize colateral damage. The enemy (radical fundamentalism, and not just the Islamic variety), does not know the meaning of colateral damage. To them everyone is a target.

There has never been a war that has not been terrible or bloody. Maybe someday the world can live without war, I look forward to that day. However, the sad truth is that I will only be ancient bones when that day comes.

At 4/1/04 03:45 PM, bumcheekcity wrote:

At 4/1/04 02:32 PM, mentalis wrote: .

Wow. I'd give it an F. Mainly because the whole of the Western World now considers the American Government to be a bunch of Right-Wing Lying Warmongerers.

Crazy thing about the terrorist mindset is that this result of the rest of world thinking this about the US, is probably a victory and worthy of an A.

Terrorists do not worry about candy-ass countries such as France and Spain. They veiw people who think like BCC as weak; sheep to be slaughtered. Before 9/11 this is what they thought of the US, that our military was a paper tiger much like the Spanish immediately before the Spanish-American war. Now they are not so sure. They thought that we would just bend to international pressure (in the Clinton tradition). Our strong response has given them pause.

As for the person who brought up the US going against the UN, you are wrong. We actually supported the UN. In the years since the first gulf war, the UN has passed several resolutions (consequences of non-compliance of these res's was military action). Iraq disregarded them. Have you ever heard of the League of Nations? This proto-UN failed because it had no teeth. The UN was/is heading down the same path. If actions were not taken against Iraq, how could the UN stope the next Hussein, or worse; Hitler?

Last point that I have to make; I do not think violence in the Middle East has escalated because of Iraq (I can hear the mass "Is this guy nuts?" exclamations). Hussein was a dictator that was not really liked. I think the Arab world is holding its collective breath to see if our promises of Iraqi autonomy pan-out. What I believe has incited new feelings of hate is the US' response to Isreal's crimes against the Palestinians.

Bush has backed Sharon too much, and has demonstrated that he is not "even-handed" when it comes to dealing with Jew vs. Islam situations. This is what has stirred the feelings of anti-US sentiment. Iraq is just a side issue, and if one were to actually study the terrorist's anti-US ideology they would see that by invading Iraq and doing what we have done actually weakens their position.

Somehow I think 30,000 civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan is a little bit of a reach.

Also what I'm seeing is just violence in the Sunni minority areas of Iraq where foreign instigators have found a foot-hold. Otherwise, Iraq seems to be stabilizing and we should be mostly out of the country in about a year. This is contrary to the perception that there is mass chaos and we are failing in Iraq. (The same thing happened in Germany and Japan after WWII, and no one has ever called those countries "failures").

As for foreign relations, no damage was done that is permanent. Hell, France has our flank in Afghanistan! Furthermore, once the rich in France decide they want a part of this little corner of what was once part of the UK's colonial sphere of influence, they will be really cozy to the US.

HOWEVER, I think this Administration's handling of Isreal and Palestine is a huge F and will cost the US in future terrrorist attacks. We need to push for an independant Palestine (leaning on Isreal as well as some Arab states) just as we did for Isreal in 1948.

Overall, I think this is a C+ or B-. The awful truth is bin-Laden declared war on the US around 1993. By treating it like a law enforcement issue instead of the war that it is for 8 years, caused 9-11. Since it is a war, it is not a pretty thing.

Just wanted to say Gameboy that I feel your pain. I am originally from Bourbon, MO. I remember being 15 in the middle of the rock=satanism paranoia. At the time, and still to this day, I listened to Motley Crue, Metallica (when they were cool before selling out), Megadeth, Iron Maiden etc. My father worked in city government as an accountant and he would go to these symposiums on how the music I was listening to would lead me into Satanism and eventually suicide (the suicide attempt would happen much later due to marriage to a "nice" girl, but that is another story).

However, that too soon passed. I am sorry to hear that my home state is returning to this backwardness. Many of my friends today are either Goth or sympathitic. I find them to be the most intelligent, open and underated people I know. They are the new bohemians. I think I'll write my state rep about this. Was this a state or federal representative?

At 3/15/04 10:08 AM, D2KVirus wrote:

At 3/14/04 04:43 AM, TheMason wrote:

Besides, how is Turkey "decadent" - ever been there? Apart from Istanbul (which was a Greek city before, so therefore another can of worms can be opened in reference to...Spartan terror groups?), there is not too much to accuse the country of.

Yes I have been there. I have also studied under one of the great minds to come from that region at my Universty (Prof. Akhavi, an Iranian). Compared to Afghanistan under the Taliban, Iran or the Sudan (more "pure" Islamic countries) countries such as Turkey (you can actually drink there!), Lebanon in the 1970s, even Iraq is considered decadent in the mindset of UBL. If you really knew as much about terrorism as you think you do you would have understood my point and that my statement was relative and relevent to the terrorist mindset.

Also your quip about "conspiracy theories", you obviously do not know anything about me. If you did you would know that I actually enjoy debunking them. You did however inspire me to change the little quote at the bottom of my posts, so thank you!

Lastly, I heard tonight that Spain has given in and is leaning heavily (if they have not already made up their minds) to pull out of Iraq. (I guess they read BCC's postings in this thread!) I've got to tell you this makes me uncomfortable. South Korea is in a highly dynamic political state (for those who do not know the President here was impeached last week). Regardless of who actually bombed those trains, it sends the message that al-Qaida can win through terror (even when they don't actually do it, if in fact they had nothing to do with it). Spain was in a dynamic political climate (the elections) so what will stop them from thinking that they could not acheive the same victory in South Korea? (Oh D2K, before you ask about me ever having been to South Korea look at my profile.)

CHEERS!

At 3/12/04 03:33 PM, bumcheekcity wrote:

At 3/12/04 02:38 PM, TheMason wrote:

Don'#t think it would: Bin Laden hates the US because of it's blatant hypocracy and lies to the world for the past say... 40 years. Maybe showing him you're willing to change woul take the fight out of him. Well, probably not, but it would definately gain you piblic support.

This has been tried and it was called the Clinton presidency and the result was 9/11.

Also, just a quick history lesson: This problem is more than 40 years old. Do you realize that Muslim and Jew PEACEFULLY co-existed until ENGLAND and FRANCE began meddling in the internal affairs of the Ottoman Empire? The current conflict between Isreal and Palestine actually goes back 80-90 years? That YOUR country along with France caused division in the Middle East during WWI to weaken Germany? That YOUR country, with little regard to local cultural differences, drew international borders on the Penninsula? Furthermore, the borders of one of these countries was drawn to serve YOUR countries thirst for oil (If you guessed Iraq you win a gold star!)?

You want to talk about hypocracy and lies, lets look at all the promises ENGLAND and FRANCE made to Arab and Jew alike during WWI. All parties were promised authority over over-lapping territories. During this time ENGLAND began making indications that it would help the Zionists (no not the Zionists of conspiracy and bin-Laden lore, but the actual historical movement that you can read about in college history books) set up their homeland. This was all done to defeat your colonial rival, Germany. After the war, the region was left in chaos.

Then came WWII. Following this war England and France could no longer maintain control of their colonies (resulting in the conflicts of most notably Algeria, Vietnam, Faulklands and the founding of Isreal). As for the Middle East, Zionists had already begun encroaching on Palestine by buying land from peasants who did not fully understand what was going on. This process was helped along largely by the English. Following the Holocaust the world felt it was time for Isreal and the West (including the US) & USSR stepped into help and we made a mess of it. England could no longer maintain political control over Iraq so it fell into a state of political chaos until Saddam took control in the 1970s and was able to consolidate and maintain his power.

Now, I know that the US is not perfect. We come across as cocky and arrogant, and we have a very powerful military. Furthermore, we do not have another power to balance us out and that makes people more than a little nervous.

However, we were the country that (due to geography) came out of WWII most intact. We thus inherited these problems. We made mistakes and in several cases we could have done things better. But remember, until WWII we could be considered a very minor power. We were a big country with some territories, but by no means an Empire. England and France had CENTURIES of experience with Colonialism and Imperialism. We were the kid who had to grow-up overnight and become a Superpower.

Yes, I'm ready to kill to stay alive, I just dont think the threat to myself is so great as to warrant the killing.

What I just wrote may not weigh on the minds of ppl in the West, but BCC, do not think for a minute that UBL does not think about that (as well as the Crusades). I do not think Blair is Bush's lap dog, I think he understands history and that because of history a very big gun is pointed at the ppl of his country (YOU).

Well gang it looks like I might have killed this thread and I am sorry, mea culpa.

I hope some will eventually return. I saw the last Sitcom Foamy and thought it was great!

For anyone interested in Goth issues there is an interesting thread in politics about an area in my hometown of Missouri that is confronting the "evils" of Goth culture. Check it out, and remember to vote! (Unless its for the other guy.)

At 3/15/04 10:08 AM, D2KVirus wrote:

At 3/14/04 04:43 AM, TheMason wrote:

:: Of course it's comfortable - I'm not looking over my shoulder ll the time for the Arab Bad Man 24/7.

I think D2K, that you are so caught up in disproving that this al-Qaida that you cannot even see when someone is agreeing with you in principle. Everyone has their own personal bad guys, in fact I mine used to be white, southern/mid-west redneck Americans! (Btw, I'm white and mid-western, but not a redneck) Hell today I still think there is a dangerous domestic fifth column!

However, I was just trying to point out some flaws in what you were saying. Then you had to attack me personally.

Something else you may or may not have noticed. They arrested five people. 3 of them are Morracan (sp?), the other 2 were INDIAN. The question I have are these guys Islamic or Hindu? If they are Islamic that strengthens an al-Qaida link (history lesson: when the US gave funds to Pakistan in the 1980s to train insurgents against the USSR, Pakistan used it to create a group of insurgents for use in the dispute with India over Kashmir. This was kept from the CIA because these people were also highly anti-US and Pakistan did not want to lose the money).

HOWEVER, if they are Hindu there is some real funky mojo going on because I cannot think of why a Hindu Indian would be helping an Islamic cause. This would definitely go against al-Qaida doing the bombing.

Has the Eta disavowed responsibility for the bombing?

At 3/12/04 08:00 AM, D2KVirus wrote:

At 3/11/04 02:04 PM, darkmaster2000 wrote:

I've heard people saying the date holds meaning (11/3, in US dates), forgetting the fact that you can give anything a meaning if you make some shit up - just watch The Matrix for a good example.

Here you are proving that you know squat about terrorists when you try to down-play dates. If you did, you would know that dates are INCREDIBLY important to terrorists.

As for your aggravation at people trying to like it to Islamists:

Did you know that Spain was once a Muslim territory?
Did you know that it is a fundamentalist Islam belief that once a terrority is taken over by Muslims, it is part of the Muslim world for eternity?
So why does it not make any sense to you for Islamists to bomb one part of the "Muslim World" that has become decadent (Turkey) and then another part (Spain)?

Furthermore, it appears that your knee-jerk trigger is domestic groups such as the ETA, IRA and militias. You do not want to open yourself up to international terrorists. You would do well to think outside of your narrow little box.

Maybe it was the ETA, or al-Qaida or even the Earth Liberation Front. This will not be known until the evidence is examined. However, if you wish to speculate take into consideration all that is public information (how the attacks happened, the date they happened on or near, and have there been any attacks anywhere else recently). I am sorry if I challenge your comfortable position.

At 3/13/04 10:18 AM, D2KVirus wrote:

20 years of the IRA bombing my country, thank you. Can you compare with that one? If not, don't assume you're an authority on the subject, OK?

28 years of living amongs people with extremist worldviews that are counter to my own. Not being able to speak my mind for fear of reprisal. Having family member's minds warped by extremist, militia propaganda. Then becoming a member of the military overseas and thus a target.

As for the logical side of the argument: in my undergrad years I did several independant studies of terrorist organizations. I took classes that had a direct relevance to counter-terrorism studies. I am currently pursuing a Masters in counter-terrorism.

I am sorry if you do not like it but I am a authority on the subject, probably more of an authority than you. If you do not think this is the case, please move away from purely emotional arguments.

Anyway, ill-informed jackasses aside, I've spotted a MASSIVE difference between this and 9/11.

This is not on par with 9/11, it is more like the Oklahoma City bombing. The targets were indiscrimate (ie commuter trains) while 9/11 was a broad spectrum strike on the economic, military and political structures of the US.

For a start, after this happened, both the King of Spain - and the rest of the Royal Family - and Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar appeared in public to try and restore some semblance of calm and order amid the chaos, and to reassure the citizens. On 9/11, Bush ran and hid for a long time, no-one knowing where he was, as he jumped from one place ot the next to protect himself.

Let me just say that if the Spanish security organizations responsible for these individual's protection thought they were in danger, they would not have appeared in public. On 9/11 the President himself was probably a target (the plane that crashed in Pennsylvannia was heading to either the White House or the Capital Building).

Also, the aftermath.
Last night, Spainish streets were filled with people mourning and showing solidarity against Eta. ... There was nothing like this post 9/11 in the US, as most people were running like headless chickens before hiding under the bed.

I will excuse your lack of information because I think I may infere from your previous reference that you are from the UK (if I am wrong I am sorry). I guess this did not make it on European TV. There was a massive show of solidarity in this country. Members of Congress from both parties gathered on the steps of the Capital Building to sing God Bless America. There were a massive amount of candle-light vigils across the country. People gathered in churches.

So, I would appreciate no more of this one-upsmanship crap from people like TheMason. It's offensive to those in Spain, and I don't recall you appreciating it when the world told you to stop exploiting 9/11 for your own ends last week.

I do not mean to be insensitive to the Spanish people. My heart goes out to them for their loss. However, you miss many of the points that I tried to make.

After Oklahoma City (OKC) many wished to believe that it was the work of the Arabs. Judging from the target, the geographical location and the date some of us were able to figure out that the perp was probably a white-supremist. In the US we want to knee-jerk to Islamists, I guess in Spain it is the ETA and in the UK (maybe not since 9/11) it was the IRA. However as OKC, shows one never really knows until the evidence has been examined.

I was just bringing up another possibility. I'm sorry if this pulled your emotional triggers and clouded your intellect.

CORRECTION:
so you just through out a tirade

That should actually be "threw" instead of "through".

At 3/11/04 04:58 PM, locdogg1984 wrote:

At 3/11/04 04:48 PM, mrpopenfresh wrote:

Sorry, but I don't exactly fit into your hate-Whitey stereotyped trailer-trash image. I am a high school graduate with decent grades. "I are can read and write."

Wow I'm glad for you. I'm a University graduate with decent grades.

Things is, you find yourself in opposition to my beliefs and you can't debate them, so you call me a racist. That's a fact, not a debatable topic.

"Things is..." WOW you are really showing how you know how to read and write.

I am in opposition to your belief on this topic, and what you are saying and advocating is racist. Most mainstream people (conservative or liberal) would see the situation and try to figure out a way to integrate a fringe group into society through say compulsory education for ALL or laws governing statuatory rape or marriage. Also, not only did Hitler and the Nazis use sterilization as the first step in the "Final Solution" but white South Africa during the 1970s and 80s did research into biological agents that would sterilize the black Africans.

Your ideas are more simple than you would ever care to admit to yourself, and you do not want the stigma of racist attached to you even though if you were honest with yourself you are perfectly comfortable being a racist.

Maybe when your sucking Tom Fulp's cock, you can't murmur something about a racist in the politics forum.

Again you are proving just how clever a debater you really are. This just added so much to your argument as well as the exchange of ideas. You are to be commended!

Oh by the way, you just did what you accused the rest of us of doing by calling you a racist. You could not produce any real or intelligent arguments so you just through out a tirade that it only fitting in a locker-room. This is called projection and that means on some subconcious level you do agree with us that you are a racist, and furthermore that you feel your arguments have no real basis in reality and are too easily debatable.

At 3/12/04 11:32 AM, Damien3003 wrote: First off, let me point out that the original poster DID sound very racist. If i call all black people monkies, people will call me a racist. If i call all gypsies 'locusts', people will also probably call me a racist.

Now, it is wrong what the hospital did, yes. People don't deserve sterilization. I will point out, however, that if the young girl hadn't made such HORRIBLE life choices, it would have never happened. I'm sorry, but people should be held responsible for their actions. When you willingly place yourself into despondancy...when you CHOOSE it...you lose a little of my sympathy. It's like blacks refusing to move out of the ghetto...but still wanting a new social program every single year to help them.

The problem is she DID NOT choose it. Her society chose it for her, and the government of the Country she lives in encourages continued discrimination. Remember we are not talking about the US, but a society that from the sounds of it has not developed the social concept of puberty (something that only exists in the Industrializied world). If she had an arranged marriage at 12-15, she had no choice. If she was not allowed to go to school she did not have choice. Remember that this is a different culture and you have to look at something as subjective as "choice" by a different measure and break out of a narrow political/ethnocentric world view.

At 3/12/04 06:23 PM, IceStalker wrote: Ok I did do a poor job disproving you. I will be mature and admit it it. I didnt understand your metaphor.
I also hear that Mary M. was supposedly as powerful as christ so that could explain why they got together and stuff.

How do you mean powerful? Political/economically or do you mean Divine power?

Most of the theories I've heard about the M. is that she came from a family with royal blood and money. Thus when they were married it fused the Royal blood of the House of David with that of another Jewish King, fulfilling an ancient prophesy. Also she bankrolled Christ's ministry. If this is how you mean powerful, yes this is what I believe is likely. However, I do not believe that the M. could turn water into wine and raise the dead as Jesus did.

At 2/26/04 09:42 AM, Fiend_Lore wrote: the world is always ending dude....

Exactly, just like each one of us has been dying since the day we were born (or if one prefers concieved)...

At 3/12/04 12:38 PM, Kyle_22 wrote: I've said it before, and I'll say it again, terrorism is effective. It's a really good way to agitate those in power.

Read Caleb Carr's The Lessons of Terror, it is a historical perspective on the use of terror to further political means and its consequences.

In the end Terrorism fails.

At 3/12/04 08:00 AM, D2KVirus wrote:

At 3/11/04 02:04 PM, darkmaster2000 wrote:

Yes, the political wing of ETA (Batasuna) have denied being involved in this act, which is unusual of them, but it's actually highly unusual for terrorist organisations to admit responsibility - 9/11 an obvious exception.

I'm not sure where you have gotten your expertise in terrorist behavior, but you are quite wrong on this count. After most major and minor attacks MANY groups clamor to claim responsibility. Even if they had no part in the attack. In fact there is so much "noise" from groups that it makes the job of investigators and intelligence gatherers that much more difficult.

As for the ETA there does appear to be an Islamist connection, yes there are the upcoming Spanish elections but there was also a recent attack at a Masonic Temple in Turkey by Islamists just days ago.

Also BCC, it would be nice if we could sit down with UBL and solve our differences like civilizied people. However, that would only contribute to more terrorist attacks. It is in their mindset that political ends can be accomplished through terror and force, and in UBL's case he sees the West as weak and corrupt needed to be removed so that the Sha'ria (7th C. Islamic law) may flourish.

In short BCC, if we conducted ourselves according to your way of thinking we would probably be living in a savage kill or be killed world. Are you ready to kill to stay alive?

At 3/9/04 02:47 PM, lifey wrote: Hey Foamy Fans... It has been pretty quite here in this thread... The new cartoon comes out thursday, it's called Sitcom Silliness.. the past couple of cartoons Illwillpress has been submitting them a day early so keep you eyes open...

It kindof sucks, I finally get to a computer to watch the new and the damn headsets don't work! Arrgh!! Oh well a project for tommorrow.

In light of recent immature behavior in here by myself and another party, I hope that this thread can "come back to life".

At 3/10/04 01:20 PM, Izuamoto wrote: well, i'm not entirely certain what test they use for marijuana. i believ that the hair test should be outlawed, since you shouldn't be kept out of the military cuz you tried marijauna four years ago. but i DO agree with urine or blood testing because anyone serving in the military should have their full wits about them at all times

I have several points on this since I myself serve in the Air Force.
1) I have never had a hair test. It has all been done through urinalysis.

2) We have two Air Force pilots who have recently gone through legal proceeding because they dropped bombs on the wrong target and killed some civilians. Something that comes into play is that to fight fatigue, pilots were being given speed. These guys claimed that while the speed rev'd them up, it dulled their good judgment. Many of us deal with life and death on a daily basis, as a maintainer the life of the pilot is in my hands. I believe MJ should be legal, however I think that this something that is best left in the civilian world. The life of the military is one of sacrifice, and people know that drugs are one of the sacrifices of service. If they do not recruiters and the people at MEPS make a clear point of it.

This even includes beer and liquor. There are command directives on when we can and cannot drink.

on a somewhat related note, what do you think of the military regulations on tattoos, piercings and other intentional markings? i knew of a guy who had the anarchy symbol carved into his arm and before he joined the marines he had to gash it out with a knife so they wouldn't see it. now he's go a huge ugly scar on his arm that's even worse

Personally I think that the military is being overly PC when it comes to tattoos.

Piercings, on-duty it can be a safety hazard. HOWEVER, commanders take it too far when guys are not allowed to wear piercings out of uniform and in the case of some base commanders off-base as well.

At 1/27/04 04:49 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: No, it doesn't. The Koran is based on violence, the Muslim faith is based on self-propagation by force throughout the world.

It's nice to assume the Bible is equally violent, but it really isn't..if you had read either you'd know this.

I would like to take issue with this. I have studied domestic terrorist groups such as the militia and Patriot movements. I have read their literature and talked to them and learned what their world-view and justifications are. I have done this in pursuit of my University degree.

Many of these groups have taken the bible, to include the New Testament, and perverted its teachings to fit their violent world-view and justify violence. For example; Jesus casting out from the temple the money changers is interpreted by them as legitimizing force in the face of the profane infecting the sacred.

Also, they claim that Jesus himself ordered his disciples to arm themselves (were they not armed when the Romans came to take Jesus, did He not tell one of them to put away his sword?).

Also look at the Old Testament, the story of the Isrealites breaking free from Egyptian bondage to eventually find the land of milk and honey. Along the way they encounter hostile people who either they or God smite. This is a story of the political expansion, oft violent, of God's (and I mean Jehovah not Allah) people.

To digress just a bit to the original topic of the Templars and ruling the world, why is that if they have come to dominate world events that this means they are inheriently evil? Could this secretive council not be a good thing?

Remember, Hitler's regime ruthlessly oppressed secret societies in Germany and conquered territories in the 1930s & 40s. Perhaps they stand on the vanguard between progress and despotism? Hell just yesterday a Masonic temple in Turkey was attacked by Islamist terrorists.

As for the Templars being immortal from discovering the Holy Grail, I doubt that. I would guess that if there still exists an unbroken Templar leadership, it is either a hereditary position and/or seeks out the most worthy to join their ranks.

At 3/9/04 09:18 PM, IceStalker wrote:

At 3/9/04 09:09 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 3/9/04 07:35 PM, IceStalker wrote: So what your saying is that Mary herself is the Holy Grail, so King Arthur was seeking a woman who been in hiding for years and years. And if that is true then the Templars could have dranked Mary's blood(don't mean to be gross here).

I don't know what your on sir, but lay off it for a while. Mary of Magdelene was human, not immortal.

I meant her decendents, not herself.

I can understand the bit about Mary's decesenteds and such being considered the Holy Grail, but it doesn't explain why the Templar's would have said something to the effect of "We found it," (refering to the Grail) as if they were talking about an object instead of a person.

I was disproving the guy who said that the Mary was the grail, I dont think someone would kill someone and drink their blood.

You actually did a VERY poor job, or rather you did nothing close to disproving my point. What I was saying was that it was probably code for 1) the bloodline and 2) perhaps the remains of Mary M. Also, not just the remains, but there are theories that with the remains are documents from the early church that would rock the foundation of Roman/Western-based Christianity.

You sir, either read just a little too much into the point I was trying to make, or cannot understand simple metaphor.

As for the bit about King Arthur:

1) If Christ's blood held the key to an immortality of the flesh, then he himself would still be around physically instead of dying on the cross. Thus it follows that unless Arthur was a contemporary of Mary M. between Zero AD and say 68 AD, she would be dead.

2) If he did quest for the Grail, and assuming that it was Mary M. just for argument sake, then he was seeking a connection to a blood line that would have held AWESOME political power at the time. (Which is the secret, as some claim, between the power held by the Merovingian bloodline in France.)

At 3/1/04 10:27 PM, krowdick wrote: the reason vietnam was a failure people were dodging the draft there we hostilities on the homefront and truman was too much of a wuss to bring in some artlirity and shoot those north vietmanese people back to the stone age.USA! USA!

You need to get your history right, Truman was President during the Korean war, Kennedy and Johnson during the Vietnam war.

At 2/29/04 05:46 AM, bumcheekcity wrote: You sound so psoud of the fact that you can blow up any country you like, but dont have a Health Service.

Actually I am proud of that, we could trade our Medical system for a UK/Canada system and then our citizens can receive much inferior medicine!

I think I'll keep my capitalistic health system and actually have medicine progress than to turn it over to the socialists!

At 3/9/04 02:59 AM, Ceris wrote: Regardless of what Holy Grail is supposed to be, the best thing to come out of the it: Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

Followed closely by Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade!

At 3/5/04 05:33 AM, Ceris wrote:

Forthe historical accuracy of the Bible, let me make a breif arument explaining why the 4 Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) are historically accurate. Most of what I have to say here is drawn from "The Case for Christ", by Lee Strobel. I highly recommend this to anyone and everyone.

I recommend Ehrlmann's Lost Christianities for anyone interested in the dynamics of the history of the early part of Christendom.

One thing of note is that the 4 Gospels were written anonymously. They were not signed. However, the uniform testimony of the anchient Christian chruch was that the Gospels were written by Matthew (one of the 12 disciples), John Mark (a close companion of the disciple Peter), Luke (the 'beloved physician' of Paul), and John (one of the 12 disciples). From this we can be assured that the Gospels are recorded on either direct or indirect eyewitness testimony.

The problem with this argument is that there was not ONE ancient Christian church with a uniform testimony, but MANY with equally diverse views of the faith. What you are arguing here is merely the uniform testimony of the group that managed to curry political favor with Rome and then force its way into power.

As for the idea that the Gospels were changed later by other people, allow me to refute that. Some of the earlier copies we have about the Gospels are strips of papyrus(early forms of paper used for scrolls) that date from approximately 200 A.D. which contain about 2/3 of the Gospel of John. However, the earliest scrap of parchement that we have with some of the Gospel on it is a strip that contains 8 verses from chapter 18 of the Gospel of John. This strip has been dated to between 100 to 150A.D. It was discovered in Egypt in 1920. Compare this to say, the main biography of Alexander the Great, which wasn't recorded until at least 100 years after his death and the closest copy we have dates from around 200 years after his death. Also, we have more early copies of the New Testament than anyother document in history. If you take into account all the manuscripts that were direct copies, you will find that we have over 24,000 manuscripts from that time. From this we can cross reference them to show that they agree with each other 99.5% of the time. As Sir Frederic Kenyon (a studier of anchient papyri and the former director of the British Museum) said, "in no other case [in history] is the interval of time between the composition of a book and the date of the earliest manuscripts so short as in that of the New Testament"

I will not argue that fact that Christians began putting pen to paper as quickly as possible. HOWEVER, Luke ended at about 16:22 according to our earliest copy of the Gospel. If no one added anything to the Gospels, why is it that this one now goes to what 22? (Sorry I do not have my Bible handy enough for exact # of chapters.) Secondly, our complete manuscripts of the NT only comes from about 300-450AD, well after the Orthodox church established itself in Rome. The damage would have already been done. Earlier than that, what as you yourself describe, our only frame of reference is scraps of paper about the size of credit cards. This is not enough evidence to support, one way or another, that these texts were changed between 62AD and 450 AD.

Also as for copying of the manuscripts. The process is not flawless, and the manner of writing was also different back then. For example: backthenscribesdidnotusespacesbetweenwordsonlybetweensentences nordidtheyusepunctuationtoindicatetheendofasentence

Try copying by hand a text that looks like that (much longer of course, like almost 1,000 pages) without error. In fact it has been shown that the scribes made significantly more errors than just .5% of the time.

As for the Gnostic Gospels, the biographies of Jesus that are not included in the New Testament, they were all written after 140A.D. and are much more fanciful in their writings about Jesus.

Actually the archeological evidence shows that many of these texts were created at the same time as the orthodox texts. The reason we do not study them today and there is such furor over them is that the Church in Rome did to the other churches (in Egypt, Ethiopia, Syria, JERUSALEM) and civilizations they thought were a threat: burned what they did not like or that they feared. The Nag Hammdi texts for example only exist because the Bishop of the church in Egypt thought they had significant religious value that they should be saved from the fires ordered by Rome.

You must realize, Christian tradition today is based upon a group that managed to consilidate their power in Rome and survive the persecutions. For example; the Roman church moved the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday to coincide with the feast day of Constantine's Sun God and moved Christmas from January 6 to December 25 (the day of the feast celebrating the Roman Sun God's birth). Now I know the argument that Constantine converted, that is a nice myth. However, the historical evidence suggests that his conversion did not happen until he was on his death bed, and that the decision to convert may have been made for him.

At 3/6/04 05:20 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 3/6/04 10:40 AM, Freakapotimus wrote:

:: I always thought that the Holy Grail was actually the cup that Jesus drank out of at the Last Supper. I can't say I've ever heard the blood line of Jesus being referred to as "The Holy Grail," it just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

Mason? Any thoughts on this?

I have a few, first the legend kindof morphed into a search for a chalice. However, I think the idea of a chalice is symbolic, and/or a way to discuss the Templar's finds in code. For arguments sake let's all just assume that Mary M. and Jesus were married and on at least one occassion He impregnated her. Would that child not be of Christ's blood? Then would it not follow that Mary M. then was a vessel that held the blood of Christ? Is not a cup/chalice/grail a vessel to hold a liquid?