For those who've seen black hawk down

[4ntifa 0]

Awgh, you guys made me sad. Everyone failed to see the point. The point is, that the media machine is beating the war drums. Just check the US newspapers and TV, check out Hollywood... it's plain propaganda.

The same shit is going on in Finland and everywhere else. The Finnish TV news didn't even report the Israeli missile strike on Arafat's headquarters! Nor did any mainstream media report police brutality in Genoa last summer. No mainstream media writes about the consequences of GATS. Etc.

We are being played for fools. The corporations 0wn0rzz our politicians and media. They use them to further their own agenda of neoliberalist global oligarchy, "The New World Order". For f*cks sake, show some fighting spirit and RESIST.

Useful links:

http://www.fair.org

http://www.gregpalast.com

http://www.indymedia.org

http://www.electronicintifada.org

http://www.zmag.org

[Longinius 1]

Muahaha...I am a 'suit' myself so why should I resist this New World Order? It happens to suit me just fine.

And yeah, the embargo against Iraq IS causing thousands of deaths, mainly to kids. I think its some 600 000 + dead now.

As for the pope causing AIDS, yes, a bit far fetched. But he isn't exactly helping in stopping it. But that's another story all together.

And a small comment to Wobble. About this "never been to EU before." Saying something like that, using 'before', means you think you are there at that point in time. Like if I visit the US and talk to someone, I might say "No, I have never been to the US before." If I wanted to say to someone in Denmark that I have never been in the US, I'd say "No, I have never been in the US." I wouldn't use 'before' in that sentence because I have not been to the US and I am not currently in the US.

[Oligo 1]

Yeah, the new world order rocks. I'm perfectly happy with corporations taking over, since the governments are just fucking it up. The noble democracy is actually a system that gives the power to the idiots (=the masses). Fuck democracy.

I want rulers who legalize genetic manipulation and cloning of humans. Let's create Homo Superior. Muahahahaaaa!!!

[4ntifa 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Feb. 20 2002,08:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Muahaha...I am a 'suit' myself so why should I resist this New World Order? It happens to suit me just fine.<span id='postcolor'>

Because it's inherently anti-democratic and anti-people, for starters? Smile while you're winning, it may change any day. We're just drones oiling the Big Boys' Profit Machine. FYI I'm an IT consultant, so I might consider myself in the "winning side" but instead choose to be on humanity's side. I recommend you do, too.

[4ntifa 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ Feb. 20 2002,10:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yeah, the new world order rocks. I'm perfectly happy with corporations taking over, since the governments are just fucking it up. The noble democracy is actually a system that gives the power to the idiots (=the masses). Fuck democracy.

I want rulers who legalize genetic manipulation and cloning of humans. Let's create Homo Superior. Muahahahaaaa!!!<span id='postcolor'>

BTW you sound like a nazi.

I admit that the masses are, frankly, stupid. But it doesn't have to be that way. The System wants them to be stupid. The problem in democracy is, that everyone's free to speak but money can buy you quite an amplifier. The masses don't read my (or anyone's) rants, they read newspapers or watch cable TV, and the guys who decide what gets aired certainly want the masses to stay stupid and ignorant. That's how corporate "democracy" works.

[Longinius 1]

"Because it's inherently anti-democratic and anti-people, for starters?"

Newsflash. Democracy does not work. It is a bandage at best, slowing down a process of decay. Atleast the way it works now. We are entitled to chose people to rule us and we give them the power to rule themselves. That is bound to end in a big cluster fuck.

"Smile while you're winning, it may change any day."

Sure it could change. And I will change with it. If the world can be dynamic, so can I.

"We're just drones oiling the Big Boys' Profit Machine. FYI I'm an IT consultant, so I might consider myself in the "winning side" but instead choose to be on humanity's side. I recommend you do, too."

I am on my own side. I figure I better get my own life straight before I start messing with others. I recommend you do, too.

[Wobble 1]

First of all, condom *does* shield from AIDS. Any "scientist" stating the opposite is simply twisting "science" to further his/her religious agenda. Such wide-spread bullshit is possible only in Ireland and USA, the rest of the developed world laughs at it.

I dont know why you pulled this out of your ass..

I exactly said that the condom CAN prevent spread of AIDS.. I enver one in any remote way said anything different.. I dont know what logic you used (if any) to get that I somehow dont believe that that form of contraception can help prevent the spread of it..

All I said is that monibot is a ignorant shit because according to him since the pope is catholic and under catholicism condoms are "taboo" that the pope is responsable for people dieing of aids..  wich is complete and utter bullshit.  you fuck around, you pay.. and anyone who is SOOOO religious to belive in not using contraception because of their religion should be religious enough to not go fucking someone they havent knows long enough to find that shit out..  basically they look at a goverment policy, invention, or programme.. and sit back and brainstorm about how it could be an evil plot of somesort and then print it..  good source indeed.. for fiction

Jesus christ I just realised your entire post is aimed and proving something that I already know..

Gets your facts straight, wiseguy!

read posts before you respond "wiseguy"

congrats on reserching and spending all yer time posting data for an argument that doesent exist.

Awgh, you guys made me sad. Everyone failed to see the point. The point is, that the media machine is beating the war drums. Just check the US newspapers and TV, check out Hollywood... it's plain propaganda

umm.. so just because the media covers terrorist acts and says they are bad.. and movies about war are made by the entertainment industry.. that means teh gov is trying to brainwash us into some frothing war frenzy??  hello? war/violence, goodguy/badguy programs and news has been around since before TV was invented.. its nothing new..

a few years ago 2 movies about asteriods hitting the earth came out in the same summer.. does that mean the gov is trying to brainwash us into killing innocent asteroids?

http://www.fair.org

basically a political tabloid.. insted of babies being eaten by aliens their "stories" (very good term for what they are) are about how almost every single goverment action has some deep seeded dark goal of controlling humanity..  

http://www.gregpalast.com

this place claims .. actually its not a place.. its ONE SINGLE person who says he is a "journalist".. and he claims that microsoft is a major cause of world wide hunger..

He also believes that the state lotteries in the US are a goverment born plot to eliminate the lower class.... yeaaa..

http://www.indymedia.org

believes NATO is a plot by the US and GB to rule the world...

www.electronicintifada.org

as the site itself says : The Electronic Intifada project is a focused network of pro-Palestinian activists

wow, i bet they are a bunch of logical non-biaed folks who look at boths sides of all stories.. much much beter than the international press.

dont forget to read their interesting article about how the Sept 11th attacks was orchestrated by "the glabal jew" in order to turn the world against "the arab"

www.zmag.org

just a collection of papers written by people.. I saw monibot in there a few times... so basically I could write an article about how cats are taking over the world and this site would probably add it to its "essays"..

well congrats... you managed to find sites and people who are on par with Monibot in their complete biased and paranoid opinions and suspicion for everything the western world..

you listed a buch of conspircy theorists, anti-US and Anyi- britian "journalists".. and a web site that simply displays essays people send it.

And yeah, the embargo against Iraq IS causing thousands of deaths

and the embargo is there because.... DING DING DING DING!! because saddam refuses to allow UN inspectors to examine susped chemical weapons storage and production sites, which was a major part.. if not THE major part of the surrender.. oh excuse me "cease fire" agreement.  IF he would comply with the terms he agreed to comply with the embargo would be lifted.. simple as that.

Newsflash. Democracy does not work

Newsflash... look at the US.. democratic, world power.

We are entitled to chose people to rule us and we give them the power to rule themselves. That is bound to end in a big cluster fuck.

what is the alternative?  monarchy.. that wors so well it doesent even exist anymore.. communism? wow look at the shining example the USSR and china are for that.. one fell apart the other is.. well.. ask a flattened student.

I am on my own side. I figure I better get my own life straight before I start messing with others. I recommend you do, too.

and THIS is the key.. if everyone would worry about THEIR OWN SHIT and not others..

sure democracy has its faults... but is there anything better?  your options are:

A: dictatorship (cuba)

B: monarchy (gone)

C: communist (borg from star-trek)

democracy lets people choose the leaders... but MORE IMPORTANTLEY it lets the people get rid of the leaders if they do not do their job!  thats where the rest fail.. in a dictatorship.. you cant do anything, in communism you cannot do anything, and in a monarchy you cant do anything..

at least with democracy the leader(s) do not absolute free reight over the people with no real risk of losing power.. and as history has shown (hitler, bloody mary, stalin..list goes on and on) when you give a goverment or leader absolute control.. if they abuse it.. YOUR FUCKED!..

so its either:

A: elect an offical who amy or maynot be the best canadate for the job.. but be able to get rid of them if they really fuck up..

B: let someone who SHOULD be a good leader take power.. but if they turn out to be a tyrant there is nothing you can really do about it short of a full scale revolution.

[Longinius 1]

"Newsflash... look at the US.. democratic, world power."

Yes, but this does not mean it WORKS. Nazi Germany was a worldpower aswell, I would hardly claim that was something that worked out very well. Biggest isn't best. And no Wobble, I am not calling the US a nazi regime. It was an example of another government / nation that was big, but did not work out.

"what is the alternative? monarchy.. that wors so well it doesent even exist anymore.. communism? wow look at the shining example the USSR and china are for that.. one fell apart the other is.. well.. ask a flattened student."

Those are not the only alternatives. Democracy is needed yes, but not in its current form. There needs to be someone watching the watchers. There needs to be someone checking what the politicians are up to. Those someones need to be a seperate entity, not so form of Internal Affairs deal.

I am sure that in perfect America politicians never ever abuse their power and think of themselves before anything else. But in most other nations, that is how it works. Credit card fraud, abuse of rights and priviliges, extreme wages set by themselves, decisions made regarding matters they have no real insight to.

Democracy needs to be taken down to a more grassroot level and the power more widely distributed. That is the only way you will ever have a functional democracy, when the people in the communities can actually effect the decisions made in their direct area. Some decisions need to be taken at the top level, that is for sure. But many things should be cleared with the people it effect first.

[R. Gerschwarzenge 0]

I don't know what posessed me to post this picture here.

[christophercles 0]

Go the nwo! (oh and also the illuminati and the alien invaders and the owlman and the evil alien living inside my roof) im only gunna be around 60 more years or so, so i dont give a crap, and if they introduce cloning and the homo superior, w00t!

[4ntifa 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">mm.. so just because the media covers terrorist acts and says they are bad.. and movies about war are made by the entertainment industry.. that means teh gov is trying to brainwash us into some frothing war frenzy?? hello? war/violence, goodguy/badguy programs and news has been around since before TV was invented.. its nothing new..<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, the US government is very much whipping the nation into war frenzy. Take a look around. The govt', for example Rice, has given "advice" to the media about war coverage. And this is how the media responds:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"We'll do whatever is our patriotic duty,'' said News Corp executive Rupert Murdoch (Reuters, 10/11/01)<span id='postcolor'>

Here's a couple of links:

http://www.fair.org/extra/0111/patriotism-and-censorship.html

http://www.fair.org/activism/osi-propaganda.html

http://www.fair.org/extra/0201/geraldo-fox.html

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">http://www.fair.org

this place claims .. actually its not a place.. its ONE SINGLE person who says he is a "journalist".. and he claims that microsoft is a major cause of world wide hunger..

He also believes that the state lotteries in the US are a goverment born plot to eliminate the lower class.... yeaaa..<span id='postcolor'>

Single person? Where did that come from?! Ahem, http://www.fair.org/whats-fair.html ... Also, a search in Google and clicking on a few links quite much revealed it to be an actual organization and a quite appreciated one, too. Wobble, quit bullshitting and bring out some facts instead of lying to your fellow forumgoers!

And please, send me a links to "MS = world hunger" and lottery articles, somehow I have completely missed them, even though I read FAIR on a weekly basis! <grin>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">http://www.indymedia.org

believes NATO is a plot by the US and GB to rule the world...<span id='postcolor'>

Indymedia does not believe anything, it has no official guideline or reporters. It's an "open newswire". Most of the stuff is BS, but there's a lot of good stuff on things mainstream media doesn't (want to) cover.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">www.electronicintifada.org

as the site itself says : The Electronic Intifada project is a focused network of pro-Palestinian activists<span id='postcolor'>

How does that differ from the mainstream media, which is clearly pro-israeli, especially in USA? Here's a couple of more neutral organizations:

http://www.nimn.org/

http://www.btselem.org/

[Oligo 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (4ntifa @ Feb. 20 2002,09:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">BTW you sound like a nazi.

I admit that the masses are, frankly, stupid. But it doesn't have to be that way. The System â„¢ wants them to be stupid. The problem in democracy is, that everyone's free to speak but money can buy you quite an amplifier. The masses don't read my (or anyone's) rants, they read newspapers or watch cable TV, and the guys who decide what gets aired certainly want the masses to stay stupid and ignorant. That's how corporate "democracy" works.<span id='postcolor'>

That's what always happens when you talk about genetic manipulation of humans. You're a nazi. Right. Maybe I can clarify:

What the nazis did is called eugenics, which aims at bettering the humanity by killing or otherwise getting rid of all individuals manifesting hereditary diseases. Eugenics has been proven not to work, since disease carriers are not eradicated. Furthermore every human on the planet is a carrier at least a few hereditary diseases. Somebody might even whine about the non-morality of killing sick people, but I won't go to that, since I already scientifically pointed out eugenics doesn't work anyway.

The genetic manipulation of humans however is a completely different thing. Now that we know the whole human genome, we can screen for hereditary diseases. And if genetic manipulation was allowed, we could also cure the diseases by changing the faulty gene to a correct one. End of hereditary diseases and you don't have to kill or get rid of anybody.

The next step would be to IMPROVE humans. The human body could be moulded to suit the needs of the particular individual. The possibilities are endless.

But our fucked goverments are listening to the fucked masses. And the masses are stupid. The masses resist change. So this beautiful new technology is almost completely banned. Interesting comparison: Do you think industrial revolution would have happened if the rulers had listened to the masses?

When did science turn from the saviour to the nemesis?

And good luck for trying to educate the masses. It has been tried and it won't work. You have to realize that 90% of people are just too stupid to think beyond sex and food and beer (this we could change with genetic engineering). This has always been so and probably will always be.

[4ntifa 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Feb. 20 2002,11:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Democracy needs to be taken down to a more grassroot level and the power more widely distributed. That is the only way you will ever have a functional democracy, when the people in the communities can actually effect the decisions made in their direct area. Some decisions need to be taken at the top level, that is for sure. But many things should be cleared with the people it effect first.<span id='postcolor'>

Amen to that! Power to the people!

[4ntifa 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ Feb. 20 2002,12:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That's what always happens when you talk about genetic manipulation of humans. You're a nazi. Right. Maybe I can clarify:

What the nazis did is called eugenics, which aims at bettering the humanity by killing or otherwise getting rid of all individuals manifesting hereditary diseases. Eugenics has been proven not to work, since disease carriers are not eradicated. Furthermore every human on the planet is a carrier at least a few hereditary diseases. Somebody might even whine about the non-morality of killing sick people, but I won't go to that, since I already scientifically pointed out eugenics doesn't work anyway.

The genetic manipulation of humans however is a completely different thing. Now that we know the whole human genome, we can screen for hereditary diseases. And if genetic manipulation was allowed, we could also cure the diseases by changing the faulty gene to a correct one. End of hereditary diseases and you don't have to kill or get rid of anybody.

The next step would be to IMPROVE humans. The human body could be moulded to suit the needs of the particular individual. The possibilities are endless.

But our fucked goverments are listening to the fucked masses. And the masses are stupid. The masses resist change. So this beautiful new technology is almost completely banned. Interesting comparison: Do you think industrial revolution would have happened if the rulers had listened to the masses?

When did science turn from the saviour to the nemesis?

And good luck for trying to educate the masses. It has been tried and it won't work. You have to realize that 90% of people are just too stupid to think beyond sex and food and beer (this we could change with genetic engineering). This has always been so and probably will always be.<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The genetic manipulation of humans however is a completely different thing. Now that we know the whole human genome, we can screen for hereditary diseases. And if genetic manipulation was allowed, we could also cure the diseases by changing the faulty gene to a correct one. End of hereditary diseases and you don't have to kill or get rid of anybody.

The next step would be to IMPROVE humans. The human body could be moulded to suit the needs of the particular individual. The possibilities are endless.<span id='postcolor'>

Now you're making sense. In your previous post, the elitism (me=smart, masses=stupid) combined with the word "superhuman" simply made an alarm ring in my head.

I do agree that genetic manipulation is a far too beneficial technology to go unused. There are very serious moral dilemmas, though. Not to mention possible unforeseen risks. I would, for example, allow use of human embryos in research. The benefits are obvious, and I don't believe an embryo is no more a human than an egg or an embryo of another mammal. People are being way too sentimental and irrational in these issues.

I don't think "improving humans" is something to take lightly. In doing so, we are imposing our values on the human genome and taking huge risks. Genes work in combinations and we propably cannot even hope to comprehend all the interactions involved.

BTW have you seen the movie Gattaga?

[Oligo 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (4ntifa @ Feb. 20 2002,11:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Now you're making sense. In your previous post, the elitism (me=smart, masses=stupid) combined with the word "superhuman" simply made an alarm ring in my head.

I do agree that genetic manipulation is a far too beneficial technology to go unused. There are very serious moral dilemmas, though. Not to mention possible unforeseen risks. I would, for example, allow use of human embryos in research. The benefits are obvious, and I don't believe an embryo is no more a human than an egg or an embryo of another mammal. People are being way too sentimental and irrational in these issues.

I don't think "improving humans" is something to take lightly. In doing so, we are imposing our values on the human genome and taking huge risks. Genes work in combinations and we propably cannot even hope to comprehend all the interactions involved.

BTW have you seen the movie Gattaga?<span id='postcolor'>

Did I call myself smart? If I did, I didn't mean to. Anyway, genetic engineering would be very costly in the beginning, so it could be applied only to few humans (volunteers). From there, we could work out the risks. And if somebody had moral dilemmas with this tech, they shouldn't use it. The real problem is that they try to prevent others from using it as well.

Lets consider "imposing our values on human genome". With modern medicine we already do this, since we treat hereditary diseases by attacking the symptoms and not the cause. Thus there is no selection pressure on our genome and poor genes spread like a wildfire. We have ended our own evolution. Now we have the technology to take control of our evolution and drag it forward to a destination of our picking. We could end the deteriorating of our genome and improve it further. The risks are really not an issue, because not everybody will be engineered since it should be a volunteer thing. If something goes wrong, we always have old fashioned humans to carry on.

Of course, much research is needed before any of this can be done. But since the tech is banned, no research is being done.

I haven't seen Gattaga.

[Hilandor 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ Feb. 20 2002,11:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Lets consider "imposing our values on human genome". With modern medicine we already do this, since we treat hereditary diseases by attacking the symptoms and not the cause. Thus there is no selection pressure on our genome and poor genes spread like a wildfire. We have ended our own evolution. Now we have the technology to take control of our evolution and drag it forward to a destination of our picking. We could end the deteriorating of our genome and improve it further. The risks are really not an issue, because not everybody will be engineered since it should be a volunteer thing. If something goes wrong, we always have old fashioned humans to carry on.<span id='postcolor'>

well said =]

[4ntifa 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ Feb. 20 2002,12:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (4ntifa @ Feb. 20 2002,11:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Now you're making sense. In your previous post, the elitism (me=smart, masses=stupid) combined with the word "superhuman" simply made an alarm ring in my head.

I do agree that genetic manipulation is a far too beneficial technology to go unused. There are very serious moral dilemmas, though. Not to mention possible unforeseen risks. I would, for example, allow use of human embryos in research. The benefits are obvious, and I don't believe an embryo is no more a human than an egg or an embryo of another mammal. People are being way too sentimental and irrational in these issues.

I don't think "improving humans" is something to take lightly. In doing so, we are imposing our values on the human genome and taking huge risks. Genes work in combinations and we propably cannot even hope to comprehend all the interactions involved.

BTW have you seen the movie Gattaga?<span id='postcolor'>

Did I call myself smart? If I did, I didn't mean to. Anyway, genetic engineering would be very costly in the beginning, so it could be applied only to few humans (volunteers). From there, we could work out the risks. And if somebody had moral dilemmas with this tech, they shouldn't use it. The real problem is that they try to prevent others from using it as well.

Lets consider "imposing our values on human genome". With modern medicine we already do this, since we treat hereditary diseases by attacking the symptoms and not the cause. Thus there is no selection pressure on our genome and poor genes spread like a wildfire. We have ended our own evolution. Now we have the technology to take control of our evolution and drag it forward to a destination of our picking. We could end the deteriorating of our genome and improve it further. The risks are really not an issue, because not everybody will be engineered since it should be a volunteer thing. If something goes wrong, we always have old fashioned humans to carry on.

Of course, much research is needed before any of this can be done. But since the tech is banned, no research is being done.

I haven't seen Gattaga.<span id='postcolor'>

(emphasis added by me)

Dragging evolution forward to a destination of our picking is exactly what I ment by "imposing our values on human genome". On what moral grounds do we decide where to take evolution? Which attributes are to be considered desirable, which unwanted? Who's to decide that?

Most westerners technocrats have a naive belief that we, the people of today (especially people in the western world), are the ones who are "right" about everything. What we consider "good" or "valuable" is assumed to be some kind of absolute, rational and non-subjective truth.

You really should see Gattaga, it's a good movie which deals with the moral issues of gene technology. I fear that gene technology will be an exclusive right of the elite and will be a major factor in the success of an individual (much like in Gattaga, in which people had their genes mapped as part of job interview). It is a great threat to democracy and equality.

[Longinius 1]

"Dragging evolution forward to a destination of our picking is exactly what I ment by "imposing our values on human genome". On what moral grounds do we decide where to take evolution? Which attributes are to be considered desirable, which unwanted? Who's to decide that?"

I'd rather control evolution myself and have it take some random route and my kids suddenly grow a second set of ears or something If we can control it, why not do it? We have allready messed with evolution enough, giving ourselfs much longer lifespans through medicines and such. Just as well go all the way.

"Most westerners technocrats have a naive belief that we, the people of today (especially people in the western world), are the ones who are "right" about everything. What we consider "good" or "valuable" is assumed to be some kind of absolute, rational and non-subjective truth."

We are right in being wrong. As long as we just stick with the idea of beign right whoever, we should be OK.

"You really should see Gattaga, it's a good movie which deals with the moral issues of gene technology. I fear that gene technology will be an exclusive right of the elite and will be a major factor in the success of an individual (much like in Gattaga, in which people had their genes mapped as part of job interview). It is a great threat to democracy and equality."

Is that the one where a genetically challenged guy wants to become an astronaut?

[Oligo 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (4ntifa @ Feb. 20 2002,13:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Dragging evolution forward to a destination of our picking is exactly what I ment by "imposing our values on human genome". On what moral grounds do we decide where to take evolution? Which attributes are to be considered desirable, which unwanted? Who's to decide that?

Most westerners technocrats have a naive belief that we, the people of today (especially people in the western world), are the ones who are "right" about everything. What we consider "good" or "valuable" is assumed to be some kind of absolute, rational and non-subjective truth.

You really should see Gattaga, it's a good movie which deals with the moral issues of gene technology. I fear that gene technology will be an exclusive right of the elite and will be a major factor in the success of an individual (much like in Gattaga, in which people had their genes mapped as part of job interview). It is a great threat to democracy and equality.<span id='postcolor'>

In case you haven't noticed, people today are very inequal, since some of us have a lot of dough a.k.a. squirrel skins a.k.a. dinero and some of us have none. This is a great threat to democracy and equality, not genetech like you said. Having piles of money is an exclusive right of the elite and is a major factor in the success of an individual.

Anyway we don't have to collectively decide where we will drag the evolution. We'll just have corporations who develop genetic manipulations and offer these as products. Now if you want to have a mod for your kid, you just cough up the dinero and your offsprings evolution goes to that direction. So everybody decides for themselves what attributes are desirable and which unwanted. Since people are so different in what they want, the diversity is easily maintained.

I, as a western technocrat (genetic engineer), am insulted by your implication that we technocrats actually believe that there are such things as right and wrong. And I sure as fuck don't believe that westerners are in some way superior to other people.

Unfortunately all movies dealing with gene technology are written by people who don't know bollocks about gene technology. We're already inequal. Genetic modification won't make it better or worse.

[Dr Bibber 0]

'oh yea.. this guy also has a VERY VERY anti-US and anti-British sentament for some reason.. he thinks the US is a bunch of murderers and the British are some corrupt goverment bent on undermining the rest of the world... seriousley.."

Well, aren't they?

The US has supplied weapons to Iraq to kill the Iranians, way more than 5000 were killed.

The US also sold plutionium to Iraq wich Saddam used to test his nukes on Kurdish villagers wich has killed over 8000 Kurds.

And were was the "worlds police" in 1988 when 100,000 Kurdish civilians "disappeared" in

the so-called Operation Anfal when the Iraqi Government

implemented a program of destruction of villages and towns all

over Iraqi Kurdistan?

Their fate and whereabouts remain unknown to this date.

You're country is also responsible for killing more than 500,000 Iraqi children(by blowing up 4 nucliar powerplants and generators, not to mention DU rounds).

While Leslie Stahl asked the U.S. Secretary of Stat,e Madeline Albright,

about those deaths, calling it far worse than the death toll at Hiroshima.

Albright answered that to punish Saddam Hussein, the deaths of those

children were "worth it."

US's buttlickers aren't any better than that.

You my friend need to pull your head out of your arse and step off your horse and see whats happening in the "real" world.

Instead of listening to that corrupt CNN crap, why the fuck should i care if some other family gets siamese-twins.

When there are people STILL being slaughtered in the world, and no one hears about it?" ( The people in Rwanda).

[foxer 0]

Dr Bibber,

Muslims people have killed x amount of people and has started x amount of wars and has killed x amount of civilians,but yet we don't talk about that.You sir are anti-america,which means everything you see that is a bad thing usa has done,you will make it sound 100 times worst then it really is.Sure people say "we only hate the U.S. Government(only talking about middle-east people,not europeans)" ,if that's true why the heck you killing U.S. civilians ?

fill in the X with your number,because i don't know how many there is ,but it's alot.Also i bet more muslims has killed each otther more then america has,but heck your all muslims ,it's ok to kill a muslims ,if your a muslim right ?

Now about the websites you guys talking about ,all those sites have an angle,which each one believes in.The person is going tell you his opinion to make people jump on his bandwagon,then someone else will tell them their opinion,and blah blah blah.

[Brentk 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wobble @ Feb. 19 2002,05:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">LOL.. before anyone reads any of this SHIT you should know the following:

1 the autor is a fiction novelist, he just wires the "papers" for fun

2: his other works include:

You're all damned!>>

The devil will walk amongst you, with great wrath.

The Pope Spreads AIDS>>

The Holy Father is responsible for the deaths of thousands.  

Monibot is a giant ignorant conspiricy theorist.  Despite what he says in his article he has NO "military" contact or any other refrence..

here is how he thinks..  take for instance the pope=AIDS thing..

you know how he gets this conclusion??

A: pope is cathloic symbol

B: in catholocisim contraception is viewed as "bad"

C:ONE for of contracepting *might* help not spread AIDS (condom)

D: a devout catholic wouldent use a condom because it goes against his religion...

E: therefore he has a somewhat higher risk of getting aids..

ok now all of those are true.. but what does he get out of this?

that the Pope is responable for thousands of people dieing from aids..  quite a leap eh?

another example..  the oh so poular "the US killed 500,000 IRAQ children"

A:fathers in IRAQ join or are forced to join army.

B:Army invades Kuate

C:NATO takes action

D:US is main force in region

E: saddam refuses to withdraw from kuate

F: lots and lots of fathers die fighting US and NATO

G: women (now widows)in that country cannot support children by themselvs

H: children starve

conclusion:  US killed 500,000 children in IRAQ..  yes  very very interesting logic behind that one..

bottom line.. this guy is a certified quak. he seems to have some deacent info in his "papers' but the way he puts everything together to get his "conclusion" almost never makes any sense (see 2 examples above)

hes a moron.<span id='postcolor'>

#### yeah, this is a big piece of shit, don't ever post such a dumb link here again, we are all now more stupid for reading that dumb version of the story. fldajslaskfmladjsf!!!!!!!!!!!

[Dr Bibber 0]

"Dr Bibber,

Muslims people have killed x amount of people and has started x amount of wars and has killed x amount of civilians,but yet we don't talk about that.You sir are anti-america,which means everything you see that is a bad thing usa has done,you will make it sound 100 times worst then it really is.Sure people say "we only hate the U.S. Government(only talking about middle-east people,not europeans)" ,if that's true why the heck you killing U.S. civilians ?

fill in the X with your number,because i don't know how many there is ,but it's alot.Also i bet more muslims has killed each otther more then america has,but heck your all muslims ,it's ok to kill a muslims ,if your a muslim right ?

Now about the websites you guys talking about ,all those sites have an angle,which each one believes in.The person is going tell you his opinion to make people jump on his bandwagon,then someone else will tell them their opinion,and blah blah blah. "

First of all, i'm Dutch and many people from my family are Christian (i myself am a Atheist).

"fill in the X with your number,because i don't know how many there is ,but it's alot.Also i bet more muslims has killed each otther more then america has,but heck your all muslims ,it's ok to kill a muslims ,if your a muslim right ?"

Nonsense, did you know how many muslims and jews were killed during the crusades?

"but heck your all muslims ,it's ok to kill a muslims ,if your a muslim right ?"

You sound like a typical stereotypic guy wich is influenced by the media.

Have you ever readed a Quaran, Avesta, or a Talmud?

There is NO religion who says it's ok to kill innocents or non-belivers.

"if that's true why the heck you killing U.S. civilians ? "

A muslim can answer the same question to you.

And yes, i'm anti - US goverment.

I'm also against globalisation, capitalism.

If you don't like my posts then stop reading them.

BTW since when are Iranians or Kurds muslims?

Kurds do say they are muslims but in fact their country was conqoured by Arabs wich forced them to be muslims(Kurds are Zoroastrian and cro-magnons).

Iranians and Kurds are indo-European(also aryans) same with Brahiman-hindoes(Bharats) and Davidson Japs.

Saddam Hussein isn't a real muslim either.

[Chan 1]

lock this post!

[foxer 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Nonsense, did you know how many muslims and jews were killed during the crusades?<span id='postcolor'>

What crusade ? geez,Let go of the past,i didn't kill anyone ,i bet the jewish people didn't kill any ,And i'm sure muslims didn't kill anyone in that soo called "crusade".If people in the middle-east stop looking in the past maybe they could also get something done,When we see a german person ,do we say "hey that mofo is a nazi ,that killed all them jews" We don't do that.Why ? because the past is the past.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And yes, i'm anti - US goverment.

I'm also against globalisation, capitalism.

If you don't like my posts then stop reading them.

<span id='postcolor'>

Capitalism is the one that gave you the computer ,globalisation is where people in 3rd country gets jobs(even though they get paid in pennis,which is wrong),and us gov't is the one that let's you speak your word.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"but heck your all muslims ,it's ok to kill a muslims ,if your a muslim right ?"

You sound like a typical stereotypic guy wich is influenced by the media.

<span id='postcolor'>

It's true,you people been killing each other for years,but if another country,which is not a muslim country, tries to help you kill another muslim ,they are evil,the great satan,other.I don't see iraq getting bombed,i don't see iran getting bombed.Soo bottom line is,if you kill a muslim and your a muslim it's ok,If you kill a muslim and your not a muslim,it's not ok.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Have you ever readed a Quaran, Avesta, or a Talmud?

There is NO religion who says it's ok to kill innocents or non-belivers.<span id='postcolor'>

nope never heard of it.Sure religion says it's not ok to kill innocents,but what happened on 9/11 ? the first wtc bombing? The africa embassy bombings ? Hmm ,i'm sure theres more too.It's jsut not america gettting bomb, also,it's russia getting bomb by muslim people too,also israel.If it's not ok why do they do it ? Because bin laden says soo ? No,because they think their religion says it's ok to do it.I'm not saying all muslims are bad.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">BTW since when are Iranians or Kurds muslims?

Kurds do say they are muslims but in fact their country was conqoured by Arabs wich forced them to be muslims(Kurds are Zoroastrian and cro-magnons).

Iranians and Kurds are indo-European(also aryans) same with Brahiman-hindoes(Bharats) and Davidson Japs.

Saddam Hussein isn't a real muslim either. <span id='postcolor'>

Well,they say they are soo they must be,why not let them be what they want to be ?

These people have to learn that killing people is not going to help them.