China renews their crackdown on the internet

[kumquatq3]

Don't forget that Joseph Smith was convicted for Fraud, specifically for creating false religions before he discovered the Golden Tablets that mysteriously disappeared to found the Mormon Church.

 

dum dumdumdum dum dumdum dummmmm

[julianw]

Keep in mind that China did make a peaceful offer to the Taiwan authority.

 

If Taiwan agrees to become a province of China, they are granted complete freedom for at least 50 years just like Hong Kong. But unlike the case of Hong Kong, Taiwan's government will be free of influence from mainland since they are allowed to keep their military and maintain their current election system. So basically it's just a matter of hanging some PRC flags on the land of Taiwan, and many factions within Taiwan do agree with this arrangement.

 

If this Taiwan issue cannot be solved through peaceful means, you can't say China didn't try.

[Kaftan Barlast]

1. Jesus was a carpenter of some sort whose life before 30 was mysteriously edited out. His girlfriend was a whore and he brought his mum with him everywhere. He was also jewish.

Don't you find it amazing that nearly 2 billion people today would utter the name of a carpenter who lived two thousand years ago with love? He must have done something right.

 

Some people say.. and this isnt just some rumour that I picked up on te internet.. that he had a REALLY good PR-agent.

 

 

3. Mohammed was a confirmed epileptic who had it on with this much older woman who was like his sugarmommy. He was a bit like a gigolo. Anyways he went a little funny in the head and started seeing things because of the epilepsy but his sugarmommy told him it was god who spoke to him and made him grow a beard and take up prophetizing. He repaid her by starting up the #1 woman-repressing religion in the world.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Qu'ran states that man and woman are equal. Today's Islamic fundamentalists should go read the Qu'ran and not listen to some militant guy who never had a good understanding of the Qu'ran in the first place but decided to interpret parts of it anyway.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Say what you want about Sayed Qutuf and Ayman Al-Zawahiri, but guys who manage to write books while being imprisoned, tortured and attacked by vicious dogs deserve respect.. thats R.E.S.P.E.C.T Im talking about here, buddy "

 

 

*is taken away by the men in the black vans*

[Laozi]

3. Mohammed was a confirmed epileptic who had it on with this much older woman who was like his sugarmommy. He was a bit like a gigolo. Anyways he went a little funny in the head and started seeing things because of the epilepsy but his sugarmommy told him it was god who spoke to him and made him grow a beard and take up prophetizing. He repaid her by starting up the #1 woman-repressing religion in the world.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I alway thought Mohammed went mad from syphilis and then died. Back in the day that was the best way to go.

[Arkan]

I really thought that the Americans got some lessons after 9/11 regarding crackdowns on internet sites that may benefit terrorists and help design terrorist attacks, but I guess not.....

Recently I did a research on WMD weapons, nuclear and dirty bombs mostly. After visiting many sites, I went to this highly prominent american site ( I won't name it - otherwise, the local 'patriots' will report me   ) regarding space, weapons and science when I came across this program called -nuke a city-. So I started and it goes like this:

 

* Input weapon yield ( in kilotons or megatons) - in other words choose weapon's strength

 

* Pick an American city (I was like: WTF and there were only American cities) - I picked Chicago...

 

* After that you get a satellite image of the city, then you pick a location of the blast in or around the Chicago depending on geographical configuration...

 

* Then you get to choose the delivery method: car or an airplane....they're so nice, they think of everything

 

* After all of that you get several graphic circles in different colours showing where the widespread fires will occure, where most of the people will get killed and where buildings will be destroyed, all of that is shown on the satellite image of the city, perfect way so the terrorist can enflict maximum damage - way to go Yankees 

 

* You also get calculated values of Thermal radiation radius (3rd degree burns), air blast radius (widespread destruction), air blast radius (near-total fatalities), ionizing radiation radius (500 rem), fireball duration and fireball radius (minimum, airburst and ground-contact airburst)

 

* But that's not all folks, you even get the calculation how wind speed effects the fallout radiation and you can choose wind direction which then shows where and how the radiation spreads on the rest of the city - another way of helping cause maximum damage

 

You know this all reminds on that US documentary film after the failed 1995 WTC bombing, where the experts were saying what the terrorist did wrong, onwards saying where they should have enflicted explosions to do maximum damage....it's absolutley ludcrious, how stupid can you be posting such information, back then those and now stuff like this?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Dude, PM me this link!

[julianw]

Some people say.. and this isnt just some rumour that I picked up on te internet..  that he had a REALLY good PR-agent.

Damn! Where can I find one? I'd happy if one person can remember my name in 500 years.

 

Say what you want about Sayed Qutuf and Ayman Al-Zawahiri, but guys who manage to write books while being imprisoned, tortured and attacked by vicious dogs deserve respect.. thats R.E.S.P.E.C.T Im talking about here, buddy  "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, yes. I meant no disrespect. I just disagree with them, better?

[kumquatq3]

Keep in mind that China did make a peaceful offer to the Taiwan authority.

 

If Taiwan agrees to become a province of China, they are granted complete freedom for at least 50 years just like Hong Kong. But unlike the case of Hong Kong, Taiwan's government will be free of influence from mainland since they are allowed to keep their military and maintain their current election system. So basically it's just a matter of hanging some PRC flags on the land of Taiwan, and many factions within Taiwan do agree with this arrangement.

 

If this Taiwan issue cannot be solved through peaceful means, you can't say China didn't try.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Taiwan already has all those things that you have listed, minus the flags. And no one has to "grant" it to them.

 

None of that is the issue tho. The issue is independence, which the election of Chen Shui-bian indicates, is the popular stance in Taiwan.

 

Lets face facts, do you think that China would have not invaded yet if it wasn't for the US military?

[Kaftan Barlast]

Say what you want about Sayed Qutuf and Ayman Al-Zawahiri, but guys who manage to write books while being imprisoned, tortured and attacked by vicious dogs deserve respect.. thats R.E.S.P.E.C.T Im talking about here, buddy  "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, yes. I meant no disrespect. I just disagree with them, better?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

ID better stop this joke before I say something really offensive. I had another joke comming but I fear it was over the line by a kilometer or two

[julianw]

None of that is the issue tho. The issue is independence, which the election of Chen Shui-bian indicates, is the popular stance in Taiwan.

Chen won his first presidency with only 37% of the votes. The other two candidates who believed in one democratic China divided the rest among themselves. (Yes, they have a f******p system.)

He won his second presidency through a lot of controversy. Apparently he got shot in one of the calves (? ) and declared national emergency so half a million soldiers who happen to be the base for the opposing party couldn't vote and he won by a slim margin.

 

Lets face facts, do you think that China would have not invaded yet if it wasn't for the US military?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't know. Taiwan has a strong military. Invasion would cause a lot of damage. Not only that would not look good internationally, why would China want a Taiwan that is ravaged by War.

Btw, China not only doesn't tax Hong Kong (no plan to tax Taiwan either) but spent billions on HK to weather it through the depression that hit all of Southeast Asia. It's correct that HK has limited democracy, but it's more than they had under the British rule. Remember that Britain used to appoint the governor for HK.

Edited September 27, 2005 by julianw

[kumquatq3]

Chen won his first presidency with only 37% of the votes. The other two candidates who believed in one democratic China

 

Your correct, I should have been clear, but I want to point out:

 

"One DEMOCRATIC China", menaing unless China becomes a democracy, they won't join. Hence the "status quo", but status quo means there are thousands apon thousands of missles pointed at them.

 

The people want democracy, via the status quo or via changes in the mainland or independece.

 

I don't know. Taiwan has a strong military. Invasion would cause a lot of damage. Not only that would not look good internationally, why would China want a Taiwan that is ravaged by War.

 

Why do they have a strong military tho? .......got it? Yep, it's American arms.

 

Btw, China not only doesn't tax Hong Kong (no plan to tax Taiwan either) but spent billions on HK to weather it through the depression that hit all of Southeast Asia.

 

America (via trade and other routes) has done more than a little bit to help them as well. Doesn't mean we own them.

 

It's correct that HK has limited democracy, but it's more than they had under the British rule. Remember that Britain used to appoint the governor for HK.

 

They have had democracy for what, 20+ years? It's obvious they want to keep it. Whatever their past.

[julianw]

They have had democracy for what, 20+ years? It's obvious they want to keep it. Whatever their past.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

HK's last British governor was appointed by the Queen. Ruled till 1997. Very unpopular in HK I might add. The current governor, however, was voted in by the HK people. (Not that popular either these days.)

The people in HK want more democracy and less influence from mainland China, but China did give them more freedom than Britain did. At least for now. It's just that some factions within HK feel cheated since they believe that China promised more than they gave.

 

Also, Ender's link is a bit old. (2001 I think). A few months ago, Bush said in one speech that Taiwan is not within the US's perimeter of defense. (The Chinese government considers it a major crap-in-your-face for Chen.) Bush also supports 'one-China-policy', which basically means maintaining the current situation between Taiwan and China.

 

Without the support of US, China would definitely have taken Taiwan a long time ago. But since China progressed into the 80s, their main approach has become the peaceful one I described.

Edited September 27, 2005 by julianw

[Azarkon]

I don't understand this amazement over Chinese policy towards Taiwan/HK. With respect to HK, the country temporarily ceded the area over to the UK because it lost a war - is it really a matter of whether HK *wants* to rejoin China or not? To the Chinese government and the inhabitants of the country, HK *belongs* to China as much as any state of the US belongs to the US, regardless of the feelings of those who inhabit said state. If California were to declare independence / join Mexico, you can bet your dollars that the US military would come down and enforce martial law. When national security and unity is in question, no government ****s around with liberalism. The only independence that's ever been earned had been done so through force of arms, whether overtly military, or covertly power politics.

 

Taiwan is a slightly different issue, since technically it's led by a separatist government that never really agreed to nation-hood with the PRC. But if we are to take that stance, then technically Taiwan and the PRC are still at war, and it's really the Guomingdong that "invaded" Taiwan which had belonged to dynastic China (but not the PRC), in which case the future of the island remains a matter of military conflict.

 

Either way, the PRC has legitimate claims on both, whereby legitimate I mean as legitimate as any nation in the history of the world has ever had a legitimate claim on territory. People of a land (as opposed to immigrants) do not happily join national bodies. They conquer, or are conquered.

Edited September 26, 2005 by Azarkon

[kumquatq3]

They have had democracy for what, 20+ years? It's obvious they want to keep it. Whatever their past.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

HK's last British governor was appointed by the Queen. Ruled till 1997. Very unpopular in HK I might add. The current governor, however, was voted in by the HK people. (Not that popular either these days.)

 

The first direct presidential elections were in 1996, yes. But since 1946 Taiwan has been becoming more and more democratic (and doing alot of this by freeign up those things that help democracmy: Freedom of the press, etc)

 

The people in HK want more democracy and less influence from mainland China, but China did give them more freedom than Britain did. At least for now. It's just that some factions within HK feel cheated since they feel that China promised more than they gave.

 

They also fear what happens when they start flying the flags. China could be upset down the line if the see the idea of democracy spreading to the mainland. What of the press freedoms they currently enjoy. Alot of "what if's"

 

Bush also supports 'one-China-policy', which basically means maintaining the current situation between Taiwan and China.

 

I think he specifically supports the "status quo". I HIGHLY doubt he said he supports the "'one-China-policy". Could be wrong, but would be shocked.

 

 

Without the support of US, China would definitely have taken Taiwan a long time ago. But since China progressed into the 80s, their main approach has become the peaceful one I described.

 

They didn't want to endanger the "transfer of power" from the British. That, and America.

 

And that "peaceful approach" is about as peaceful as Taiwan offered China. So you can't say they didn't try.

Edited September 26, 2005 by kumquatq3

[kumquatq3]

People of a land (as opposed to immigrants) do not happily join national bodies.  They conquer, or are conquered.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yea....thats kinda of frowned apon nowadays.

[julianw]

Hmm... Major confusion here. So you are talking about the democracy in Taiwan. There will be negotiations but China at least offered them to keep their current election system instead of writing entire new laws (what happened in Hong Kong). The laws are drafted by Jinyong, a famous journalist but more famous for his martial arts novels btw.

Edited September 26, 2005 by julianw

[Dark Moth]

3. Mohammed was a confirmed epileptic who had it on with this much older woman who was like his sugarmommy. He was a bit like a gigolo. Anyways he went a little funny in the head and started seeing things because of the epilepsy but his sugarmommy told him it was god who spoke to him and made him grow a beard and take up prophetizing. He repaid her by starting up the #1 woman-repressing religion in the world.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Qu'ran states that man and woman are equal. Today's Islamic fundamentalists should go read the Qu'ran and not listen to some militant guy who never had a good understanding of the Qu'ran in the first place but decided to interpret parts of it anyway.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, it may interest you to know that the Quran states in certain places that women must obey men, and that the testimony of a woman is only worth 1/2 that of a man's. Unfortunately, I can't provide verses as of now, but if you don't believe me I will most definitely try to post them.

 

Oh, and Muhammad also married a woman girl who was not even ten years old (can't remember her exact age).

Edited September 26, 2005 by Mothman

[Azarkon]

Yea....thats kinda of frowned apon nowadays.

 

Only the overt military operation is (sometimes!) frowned upon, and only if the government mismanages the spread of information so that the media gets a whiff. The US is very much in the business of conquering other nations through its economic dominance and puppet government policies.

 

Don't believe me? Think about who's really in charge in the US. Why does the US pursue an aggressive foreign policy at all, and why does it push for democracy in certain countries but not others? What are the benefits of fighting a war in Iraq? Clearly it's not so that we can make the world a better place, but it's also not just for the sake of "oil" or of "getting revenge". Who put Saddam in charge, who expected him to become a lapdog of the US, and who miscalculated that and must now go back once again to depose the rebellious general?

 

Others have more eloquently outlined the imperialism of the US, but it's not until we juxtapose it with that of a far more overt power player, in this case China, that we understand the differences of policies and why the US does what it does. Simply put, it's a matter of national image. China will need to work very hard to dispel its oppressive system image in the eyes of nations, but the US can simply be let off by the excuse of a dumb president catering to conservative values. When the next election rolls around and the US happens upon a "better" candidate, all will be forgotten and forgiven.

Edited September 26, 2005 by Azarkon

[kumquatq3]

Yea....thats kinda of frowned apon nowadays.

 

Only the overt military operation is (sometimes!) frowned upon, and only if the government mismanages the spread of information so that the media gets a whiff. The US is very much in the business of conquering other nations through its economic dominance and puppet government policies.

 

Don't believe me? Think about who's really in charge in the US. Why does the US pursue an aggressive foreign policy at all, and why does it push for democracy in certain countries but not others? What are the benefits of fighting a war in Iraq? Clearly it's not so that we can make the world a better place, but it's also not just for the sake of "oil" or of "getting revenge". Who put Saddam in charge, who expected him to become a lapdog of the US, and who miscalculated that and must now go back once again to depose the rebellious general?

 

Others have more eloquently outlined the imperialism of the US, but it's not until we juxtapose it with that of a far more overt power player, in this case China, that we understand the differences of policies and why the US does what it does. Simply put, it's a matter of national image. China will need to work very hard to dispel its oppressive system image in the eyes of nations, but the US can simply be let off by the excuse of a dumb president catering to conservative values. When the next election rolls around and the US happens upon a "better" candidate, all will be forgotten and forgiven.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Meaning you frown apon it..................POINT PROVEN

[julianw]

As for Bush's stance on Taiwan. I can assure you that he repeated stated that there is only one China, which pretty much means he doesn't recoganize Taiwan as an independent state. It doesn't go against the 'status quo' you mentioned.

 

Some in Taiwan does want to become part of China and there are different reasons. Many of them are from mainland themselves and some for trade opportunities with mainland. I guess the major problem is that China doesn't approve of Taiwan independence even if Taiwan wants it wholeheartedly. But Northern Ireland also wants to break away from Britain. Does Britain allow it?

[julianw]

Well, it may interest you to know that the Quran states in certain places that women must obey men, and that the testimony of a woman is only worth 1/2 that of a man's.    Unfortunately, I can't provide verses as of now, but if you don't believe me I will most definitely try to post them.

 

Oh, and Muhammad also married a woman girl who was not even ten years old (can't remember her exact age).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Bible also contradicts itself in parts. One must read it as a whole. The Qu'ran states that you could marry four wives provided you treat them equally. The very next verse says but no one is capable of treating two humanbeings equally. A Muslim with more than one wife definitely needs to read his Qu'ran more often.

 

As for Muhammad's marriages, most of them are for political alliances. He and his followers are hunted mercilessly across the desert of Arabia. They have been driven from their own city; their women and children murdered or worse. That's when they have no other choice but to fight back. It might be hard to understand in today's world, but those marriages were tactics for them to stay alive.

Before Muhammad, the pagans lived in Middle East were uncivilized barbarians. (For example, a common practice is to bury their first-born child if it's not a son. )After Muhammad, the Ottoman Empire, advanced in culture and science rose to power under his banner and ruled the area for many centuries. I think it's a good thing that Muhammad lived to spread his teachings.

[Kaftan Barlast]

I just wish people who wrote religious manuals would have been a little more specific. Imagine what could have been avoided if they had simply written:

 

 

1. Dont kill anyone.

 

2. Dont start wars.

 

3. Dont kill/maim/beat/rape/torture/banish or otherwise harm people who dont share this religion

 

 

Then the worlds religions wouldnt have bodycounts of several million lives. But instead, they not only have things that make it possible to interpret it pretty much as you want to but they have plenty of "THIS religion is right = everyone else must be destroyed"

[EnderAndrew]

I just wish people who wrote religious manuals would have been a little more specific. Imagine what could have been avoided if they had simply written:

 

 

1. Dont kill anyone.

 

2. Dont start wars.

 

3. Dont kill/maim/beat/rape/torture/banish or otherwise harm people who dont share this religion

 

 

Then the worlds religions wouldnt have bodycounts of several million lives. But instead, they not only have things that make it possible to interpret it pretty much as you want to but they have plenty of "THIS religion is right = everyone else must be destroyed"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It wouldn't matter.

 

The Religious Right in this country is all up in arms about one passage in Leviticus giving them right to trash Homosexuals. However, they discount the countless passages that say you can't pass judgement on others. They turn a blind eye to everything else. "God says to forgive sin, so I forgive murders and rapists, but dirty Homosexuals can't get into Heaven, and they certainly aren't welcome in my Church!"

 

There are 23 "letters", small books in the New Testmanet that talk about how early Churches got the message wrong and started establishing corrupt churches after Jesus died. They are prime examples of why religion is wrong, and how it corrpupts sprituality.

 

Do anyone care or pay attention?

 

There are very specific instructions not to murder, to love your neighbor, to not pass judgement. Yet people insist the Bible validates crusades.

 

People will always read the parts they want and ignore the other parts they don't want.

[Judge Hades]

That is why I hate religion, Christianity in particular.

[Calax]

This has been bothering me, How did jesus die the second time? I know he got put on a cross and stabbed. but then he came back...

 

I wonder how jesus would have taken "Your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of Elderberries"

[Skynet]

This has been bothering me, How did jesus die the second time? I know he got put on a cross and stabbed. but then he came back...

Jesus never died a second time. After staying with his disciples for a while, he was lifted up into Heaven.