PDA

View Full Version : 3 American doctors killed in YEMEN.


zarathustra
Dec 30, 2002, 10:48 AM
It was a "cleansing".

Not much to add... I am very sad.

Read article. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2614091.stm)

wdlove
Dec 30, 2002, 11:10 AM
My prayer goes out to the families.

No respect for human life, aim to follow their agenda. The doctors were their to offer humanitarian aid regardless of politics!

TimDaddy
Dec 30, 2002, 11:28 AM
If this keeps up, these humanitarians are going to be afraid to do the work that they do. Then thousands of innocent babies, women, and peaceful civilians in the middle east will be without adequate medical care. Why do these people insist on hurting themselves?

zarathustra
Dec 30, 2002, 11:35 AM
Don't bite the hand that feeds you - even though not literally, but when will these nations realize that the humanitarian aid rendered by Americans, or "westerners" is not done out of propaganda or with alterior motive, but with compassion and caring for fellow human beings!

Monroe doctrine. That's what we need, I guess.

mymemory
Dec 30, 2002, 02:04 PM
No good.

Killing is now the new way of disagree with policy.

The same is happening here. People are protesting against the govermente and 3 feets in front are the poeple protesting in favor the govermente, just yieling and saying nonsenses stuff. The problem is when 3 individuals come in to the bunch of people (3 individuals infiltrated by the govermente) and start to throw bottles to the other side.

The reason of that is to turn a pacific protest in to a violent one. Little by little people start to imitate that and in a period of time political protest would mean "shoot the other one that doesn't think like you". And people with lower education are easy to manipulate that way.

I see that somalian guy and I know where everything started and the direction that it takes. That is why I'm so desperate with the venezuelan case because that kind of things never happend here before and we know Venezuela was the first country to be dominated by terrorism, the secund is Brasil. And the target is the US. In 2 or 3 years I do not want to imagine. All the terrorist are moving to Venezuelan islands where no one are gonna bother to look for them with the support of the actual goverment.

wdlove
Dec 30, 2002, 04:15 PM
Mans inhumanity to man, a terrible thing. The terrorists have no regard for human life. Christian organizations will continue to send out missionaries. God himself will protect them, Emmauel "God with us." No one wants to die. The belief of Christians is that to die for Jesus means, eternal life with him. I believe that those doctors are now with the Lord, they have earned their reward.

skunk
Dec 31, 2002, 07:26 AM
Originally posted by wdlove
Mans inhumanity to man, a terrible thing. The terrorists have no regard for human life. Christian organizations will continue to send out missionaries. God himself will protect them, Emmauel "God with us." No one wants to die. The belief of Christians is that to die for Jesus means, eternal life with him. I believe that those doctors are now with the Lord, they have earned their reward.
But that's what Muslims believe as well. Proselytising Christians are a threat to Islam, just as proselytising Muslims would be seen as a threat to Christians. The same applies to Capitalists and Communists, and any other anthropocentric religion. "God" is not "with us" any more than with bacteria.

zarathustra
Dec 31, 2002, 07:35 AM
I think let's not go off on a tangent. I believe in God, but not in the churches - I am mostly disillusioned by the way they selectively apply rules from the Bible/Qaraan/Torah.

Once a comedian said, and I agree: Starting a holy war in the name of a god, is much like starting a war for an imaginary friend. If you're gonna fight, just admit that you fight for money, land or for your desire to get out of the house.

I respect people who are deeply religious, but I just dislike how they make it their goal to show me the way, and give up my sinful way of life. I would start a religious thread, because it is very interesting on a philosophical level, but I am afraid it would turn into a name calling.

skunk
Dec 31, 2002, 07:41 AM
The question is more "Does God believe in you?"
What was he or she doing to while away the billions of years until you showed up?

zarathustra
Dec 31, 2002, 08:02 AM
Well, let's ask ourselves - who/what is God. I believe God is the all encompassing universe. To illustrate: Our earth is an electron in an atom that makes up a molecule that makes up a cell that makes up an organ of the body of God. in a weird way, what if you yourself were a god for a uncountable number of races living on planets that you think are atoms of your body....

Passing away simply releases you from the physical plain, and you can move from planet to electron, from dimension to dimension. Until you decide with the help of guides and angels that it's time to experience a new life/existence. But that's just somthing I've been thinking about.

skunk
Dec 31, 2002, 08:32 AM
Originally posted by zarathustra
Well, let's ask ourselves - who/what is God. I believe God is the all encompassing universe.
As long as you are not claiming God=Good, or that humans have a greater claim on godhead than bacteria or a grain of sand.....

zarathustra
Dec 31, 2002, 09:21 AM
Originally posted by skunk

As long as you are not claiming God=Good, or that humans have a greater claim on godhead than bacteria or a grain of sand.....

Whaaaa?? *makes Conan O'Brien suprised face*

skunk
Dec 31, 2002, 09:36 AM
Your reference to "races" returned us to colours, creeds and species. Dangerous territory, especially when many races claim exclusivity or pre-eminence for "their" god, "their" ethics, "their" morality, "their" species.

zarathustra
Dec 31, 2002, 10:04 AM
Originally posted by skunk
Your reference to "races" returned us to colours, creeds and species. Dangerous territory, especially when many races claim exclusivity or pre-eminence for "their" god, "their" ethics, "their" morality, "their" species.

OK, first of all my reference to races is by no means to refer to races as we know it. Maybe species would have been a better word. And after rereading my old post I don't think I was controversial in any way about the way I used the term races. Lighten up, skunk, and please don't take my lofty and half baked ideas so literally.

skunk
Dec 31, 2002, 10:08 AM
OK Lofty, just checking. :)

zarathustra
Dec 31, 2002, 10:11 AM
I am hopped up on caffeine and hydroxycut (metabolism speeder-upper) and I can't shake the monkey off my shoulder. ;)

britboy
Jan 1, 2003, 05:17 AM
In a way it's not very surprising that this has happened. There have been christian hospitals in Yemen for years now (i visited a couple of them myself in the mid-80's), with no real problems between the staff and patients. It was perhaps just a matter of time before there was trouble, particularly with the heightened tension in the middle-east these days. As i understand it though, some of the staff there were trying to evangelise where possible. That was a mistake. It's not so much that christianity is hated, but the attempt to spread it. There's a church in the southern capital of Aden, which doesn't encounter any problems, because those attending just keep their religion to themselves. Anyway, this is going off on a tangent. This still shouldn't have happened.

What i find even more shocking about this is that my father is still going to fly back to Yemen next week, to continue his work in the port of Aden....

macfan
Jan 6, 2003, 01:51 AM
Originally posted by skunk

As long as you are not claiming God=Good, or that humans have a greater claim on godhead than bacteria or a grain of sand.....

While it is possible to for God to exist without good, it is not possible for there to be a sense of good without God.

The question is not whether God is with us, it is whether we are with God.

skunk
Jan 6, 2003, 04:29 AM
Any reasoning here, or am I supposed to take this as fact?

macfan
Jan 6, 2003, 04:59 PM
Originally posted by skunk
Any reasoning here, or am I supposed to take this as fact?

Not at all! As a mac owner, you are supposed to think a little for yourself, not just listen to the Windows clones, ;) but I'll elaborate a little...

The concept of "good" implies the concept of an absolute morality. (But there is a big difference between thinking that such a morality exists and thinking that one has total knowledge of that morality). Without the concept of "God" or a higher power porviding an inherent right and wrong in the universe, the concept of good is reduced to mere opinion. In such a case, your opinion is no better than mine, and if I decide that sacking your village, killing you, and taking your wives and children into slavery is morally right, then your opinion that this action would be immoral is just that--an opinion no more valid or moral than my opinion.

We can all see that you believe that good exists--that there is actually right and wrong in the world, good and evil--(we know from your posts stating that certain actions are "bad," implying that there is a "good" to which they may be compared). I'm merely pointing out that while you seem to want to say one shouldn't equate "God" with "good," is seems quite all right with you for you to endow certain views with being "good" and others with being "bad."

The existance of good and evil, it seems, points to the existance of God in the broad sense of a power higher than humanity. Again, without the concept of that higher power, then there is no right and wrong other than what individual humans decide to call right an wrong. People can and do justify virtually every behaviour known--from cheating on book reports to raping children.

I do think we should be honest and admit that the concept of such a higher power is required for any humans to have any right to call the actions of any other humans wrong.

skunk
Jan 6, 2003, 05:10 PM
I do not classify any actions as "morally bad" or "wrong", merely foolish, ill-advised, dishonest or corrupt. These are not judgments which require belief in a higher being. Mostly they require nothing but the willingness to imagine being at the receiving end.

macfan
Jan 6, 2003, 05:30 PM
Originally posted by skunk
I do not classify any actions as "morally bad" or "wrong", merely foolish, ill-advised, dishonest or corrupt. These are not judgments which require belief in a higher being. Mostly they require nothing but the willingness to imagine being at the receiving end.

If you don't think that "foolish, ill-advised, dishonest or corrupt" can be called "morally bad" or "wrong," then what are you complaining about? Dishonesty, honesty, integrity, and corruption are moral concepts. The involve moral judgments. In your case, you are saying that it is morally right to imagine being at the receiving end and base your decisions on this. It is clear that you believe this is the morally correct way of thinking! Doubtless you would rightly say that the refusal to take the perspective of someone on the receiving end is not morally correct. You are simply applying the principle that consideration for your fellow human beings is morally correct. However, without the concept of an absolute morality, what if I came up with the opinion a la eugenics that killing off certain groups of people--diseased and impoverished for starters--in order to have better "stock" in the human gene pool was morally correct? Your opinion that one should take the perspective of the one on the business end of the stick, and mine that you should kill off "inferior stock" would be indistinguishable without the concept of an inherent moral rightness or wrongness.

skunk
Jan 6, 2003, 06:59 PM
If I claim to be something which I know I am not, this is dishonesty. If I claim to be something which I mistakenly believe I am, this is foolishness. Neither of these assessments requires reference to a higher being.

macfan
Jan 6, 2003, 07:19 PM
The assessment that a particlar thing you say is dishonest or foolish indeed doesn't require reference to a higher being. It merely requires that you say something is dishonest or foolish. The very concepts of dishonesty and foolishness, of corruption and integrity, however, require reference to a moral right or correctness and, by extension, a higher power.

If you wish to abandon the concept of morality, then you should merely state that you don't like such and such because it doesn't take the perspective of the person at the business end of the stick without all the judgemental rhetoric about dishonesty, corruption, and the like, but keep in mind that you provide no rational reason why someone else couldn't come along and suggest that killing off certain groups is justified to improve the gene pool and be just as "right" as you are.

skunk
Jan 6, 2003, 07:23 PM
Yup, that's how it is in this world :rolleyes: