MigL

Ahh, but even in Africa, Hyper, most of the terror ( what we call terror anyway ) groups are Islamic sects. That leads me to believe there is a connection. Consider this argument... Religion appeals to the 'weak minded' ( for lack of a better word ), or those who cannot influence their lot in life, so they ascribe it to a supernatural entity. It is an emotional and spiritual 'crutch', in other words. These people also tend to be ignorant and not well educated, and as such, are easy to control/influence and manipulate. It used to happen with Christians during the middle ages ( and still happens in the southern US with tele-evangelists ). You would then think this ( the acts of terrorism ) should happen with all religions that have large numbers of disenfranchised, desperate and ignorant people. But it doesn't ! As a matter of fact, some of the people recruited for these Muslim terrorist attacks, are often well-off and educated. As a matter of fact, sometimes they are actually born in a host country, are recruited back to the Middle East for training, and then return to the host country to commit acts of terror ( or we see them on-line cutting people's heads off while speaking with a 'natural' British accent ). Now, mind you, its not the religion of Islam that creates these whack-jobs, but rather, for some reason, Islam seems to appeal and attract these anti social individuals with violent tendencies. P.S. If the above sounds like I'm just 'fishing' for a reason, you are correct. I cannot make any sense of the events that happened last nite in Paris.

But that is exactly the point Hyper. The west was involved in all areas of the world, and not just starting with the overthrow of S Hussein and occupation of Iraq. Most parts of the third world ( at the time ) were colonised by the west. This disenfranchisement and desperation are present in various parts of the world where long simmering wars have occurred, and opportunities for young people are absent ( various parts of Africa, Indochina, even South/Central America. All are the result of the 'colonial' actions of the west during the last several centuries. Yet none of these other cultures show a propensity for strapping explosives to their chest and martyring themselves in an act of terrorism. It is never the religious leaders who do this though, they 'convince' the young and ignorant to blow themselves up for the cause. ( but I suppose that's no different than our old politicians starting wars and sending young 18 yr olds to fight and die ) The solution has to come from Muslims themselves. They need to realise how these acts make things worse not better, and start speaking against these religious leaders. This is not currently happening.

OK already ! You had me at bacon flavoured ice cream .

Neat article Overtone. My opinion has always been that neither Trump nor Carson will get elected ( I just don't see the relevance of his beliefs about the purpose of the pyramids ), and if either gets the nomination, the Republicans will be committing suicide at the polls. I see Democrats backing H. Clinton, and if either Trump or Carson gets the nod, most Republicans will be backing H. Clinton also. Of course there is always the 'banana peel' factor.

It now appears that the perpetrators of several co-ordinated attacks in the French capital were indeed Islamic fundamental terrorists. My deepest sympathies for the French people. I was almost hoping the violence was due to wacky global warmers ( yes there are some of those ) ahead of the global climate summit in two weeks. These actions will just ratchet up fear in Europe, and the people who suffer most will be Muslims trying to flee Syria and ISIS. I can see a lot of borders being shut in Europe at a time when these refugees need help. Charlie is crying again.

How come no-one disagreed with the 'argumentative person' part of the statement ? Now I see how it is !

When did I say that ? I'm just an argumentative person.

Well, since you don't seem to accept apologies gracefully Bells, I retract my apology. In fact you're still doing what I accused you of. Picking lines of my posts at random and giving non-sensical answers. The question was... If you could have stopped the slaughter of 40 million people during WW2 by an act that would have killed only 1 million, would you have done it ? I've been sort of steering this discussion with regards to WW2 since you first brought up war crimes. Today in Canada, it is Rememberance Day, when we pay our respects to those that have given all to protect our freedom and safeguard our way of life. It would have been much better if 40 million of them didn't have to die. But, as we're way off topic now, I'll give it a rest since Carson will never get elected anyway, and neither will Trump ( my prediction ). Contrary to what Overtone thinks, neither of these guys is even close to a R. Reagan.

Actually, even plumbers have to learn before they earn. Learning, and knowledge in general, enhances the quality of life. It is not simply a way to earn greater compensation. (as all the retired people who go back to school will attest to )

B is my answer, Ophiolite. ( and that makes a and c moot ) Are religious fanatics the only kind you consider unsuited for presidential office, Bells ? All other fanatics are OK ? I've answered your question. I think Egyptians would be more offended if we thought the pyramids were burial tombs for God-Kings, whose construction involved the hardships and deaths of many slaves. I think they could care less if their tourist attractions were believed by some to be grain storage. Now answer mine. How well would they negotiate with a president who lies under oath to his own people, never mind foreigners ? And while you're answering that one, tell me, exactly what is your position on WW2 ? If you had been a leader of a country at the time, would you have gone to war to stop Hitler and his axis allies ? And if yes, would you be appalled at the cost of 40 million lives to do so ? And if you had a solution that would involve the death of only one million, would you use it ? And would you consider yourself a war criminal for saving 39 million people ? P.S. Sorry if I came across as insulting, but I felt that the lines of my posts you were quoting, were not being presented or answered in the proper context.

Really, what about the fact that president Clinton, who we all agree was a decent president, seems to think its OK to lie under oath ? Does that mean we should be wondering what else he lied about ? Or should we just judge him on his performance as president ? You guys seem to think that because Carson has wonky opinions about the pyramid's purpose, he intends to do all sorts of evil things. You have him 'convicted' already of the things you think he will do. And Bells and Airbrush, I suggest you have a problem with reading comprehension. Re-read my posts s-l-o-w-l-y. You must be a product of the education system Carson intends to ruin when he becomes president. I suggested there were just causes for going to war AGAINST the Axis in WW2, 40 million people died, and not one single ALLIED war criminal. Bells seems to think differently. Maybe someday ( certainly not now ) it may be necessary to do the same against ISIS to protect our way of life, freedom and prosperity. But maybe Bells thinks we would all be war criminals if we did. We should just accept Sharia law, stone women and homosexuals who commit sexual 'improprieties' to death ( never mind giving them an education or letting them drive ), or even more brutal forms of capital punishment like beheadings and burnings, and outlaw all other religions. Maybe that is the one thing that I agree with Carson about. If after 9/11, the US had dropped leaflets ( instead of bombs ) over a mountanous area of Afghanistan, telling people to clear the area in one week, then gone ahead and dropped a large thermonuclear bomb on that area, levelling a mountain peak visible for 100 miles, I think all the militants in Afghanistan would have said "Holy sh*t, they can do that ?" and things would have quieted down. Instead we`ve had 13 yrs of war and increasing instability ( it`ll get worse, not better ). The idea started off just as a `fantasy`, but as more time goes by and the refugees and deaths pile up, you have to ask yourself just how far you`re willing to let things go, before doing nothing actually becomes worse than the nuclear option. going back to the WW2 example, one nuclear weapon ( if they had been available ) at the time of the invasion of Austria, Checkoslovakia or Poland, would have spared the lives of 40 million people. I think it wold have been worth it ( I must be a war criminal, Bells ).

I wouldn't go as far as calling it evil. Misguided perhaps ?

So you're saying there were no actual famines in Egypt ? The fact that he thinks God is responsible for the famines is inconsequential. The fact that Clinton didn't think oral sex is sex, and that a standing president can lie under oath didn't make him a bad president. I'm saying that a president can, likewise believe the pyramids were grain silos, and possibly still be a good president. ( but not Carson, he has plenty of other baggage ) And no, Phy, I'm not trying to 'spread' faults equally, I just use Clinton as an example of a good president with some crazy and unethical views. And do you really think Egyptians view the pyramids as something other than tourist attractions ? Or do you think that they are delusional for believing that they are the tombs of God-kings, and so , would be outraged by Carson's views ? Which is more offensive ? I only brought up WW2 because Bells mentioned the bombing of Fallujah, possibly killing several hundred thousand people. Whereas in WW2 several tens of million people died. Are there no just causes anymore ? Are all the participants in WW2 war criminals ? Should we be ashamed that we're not greeting each other with a " Hail Hitler', and there are still Jews and homosexuals in Europe ?

To be honest, being over 50 and single ( never married ), I try NOT to practice abstinence as often as possible. Sadly every year that passes, I fail more and more. Must be the church's fault and their preaching. But seriously, abstinence, by definition, cannot fail, while a condom can. If you stick your lower appendage in an unsavoury place, whether covered or not, there is a small possibility that you`ll catch something. If you don`t stick it in at all, its impossible to catch anything ( apologies for the graphic language ). The point you guys are trying to make is that, being human, we fail at the strict adherence to abstinence. So while abstinence may be unrealistic, that doesn`t mean it cannot work. And yes, ydoaPs, unruly children get punished. But again the Bible ( or other religious texts ) are not to be taken literally. I think I`ve stated that several times already.

The ATTEMPT at abstinence is ineffective. Abstinence itself is extremely effective.

Maybe Bells can show us all where it says in the Bible that the pyramids were grain silos. How is that Carson's 'religious belief' based on 'Biblical stories' ? You've just proved my point. Anyone can take an internet snippet, and stretch it to the point of absurdity. Now I'm not defending Carson by any means ( I certainly wouldn't vote for him ), but I still don't see how his uninformed views on the pyramids would affect his presidency ( in the unlikely event he should ever achieve it ). That's like saying that B. Clinton was an ineffective president because he doesn't think oral sex, is sex ( or is dishonest and lies under oath ). History shows that to be demonstrably false. As for Carson's other views, such as his beliefs about evolution, I'm already on record stating that would be harmful to education policies. But I don't see why these views on the pyramids are getting so much internet traction. By the way WW2 saw the deaths of approx. 40 million people. War crimes for everybody!

You are still missing the point. What is 'unscientific' about abstinence ?

Thank you for cherry picking my post, and disregarding all the other 'don't dos' which are meant to also safeguard our health. Do you think its unscientific to avoid foods which cause obesity and heart disease, and more scientific to have your stomach stapled and a triple bypass ?

Don't overeat, and deny your basic biology, because that may lead to obesity and heart disease. Don't overindulge in alcohol/drugs, and deny any biological feel-good stimulus, because that is also bad for your health. And there are many others which are preached to us daily by non-clergy. Fact is, unprotected sex is dangerous. One safeguard is protection,; another is abstinence ( and MOST of the time, that's not a choice ).

No. You misinterpret my post.

Yet both prevent the spread of HIV. And 'people have sex' is just rubbing it in now. I can tell that with advancing age that happens less and less.

Well I suppose having an intern under your desk in the oval office is also a dumb decision. But I don't think it impacted B. Clinton's efficiency as president. Nor should it. ( besides its all pretty tame stuff compared to the riding crops and leathers that your Brit politicians get up to in their scandals )

Your own link says, John, that the Catholic church is the largest private caregiver in the world with regards to HIV. What they are against is the promiscuity ( ?? ) that condom use brings with it as opposed to abstinence ( ?? again, not my opinion, but I understand theirs ). I don't see how that is against ( or what it has to do with ) scientific progress ?

Well it seems only overtone understood what I was attempting to say. ( thank God I didn't go into teaching ) But I'd say that even B. Obama and A. Gore ( to use your two examples ) have been 'soiled' by internet rumors. There are still rumors floating around that Obama isn't American, that he wasn't born in America and that he's a Muslim. Sometimes the internet explodes rumors way out of proportion and relation to the office the person is running for. Clinton's ( and Kennedy's ) philandering ways would have seemed quaint and even tame to most Europeans. In the US, they almost cost his presidency. Even H. Clinton's e-mails ( and sexual preference ? ) have made the rounds of internet rumors. And of course a candidate's understanding of the economy is important, but do I really care if he thinks pyramids were grain silos ? What impact will that have on his job performance ? ( of course I'd worry for education, though, given his views on evolution , if he actually believes that )

Agree with all of the above, John. With science, change ( towards improvement ) and questioning is encouraged. With religion, it is frowned upon ( and sometimes actually forbidden and punishable by death ). That being said most religions have changed, albeit at a glacial pace. The Vatican, for one, actually encourages scientific progress ( now, but not at the time of Galileo though ).