"Amanda Angelika" <manic_mandy@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:hY5Yg.21006$Fx4.20370@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net: 

In news:Xns985CBAEACC52Akiwilovesomewherenz@203.109.252.31,
Harvey@NZ <kiwilove@co.nz> typed:

"Amanda Angelika" <manic_mandy@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:T2ZXg.16528$L.13436@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net:

In news:Xns985C833F466ABkiwilovesomewherenz@203.109.252.31,
Harvey@NZ <kiwilove@co.nz> typed:

Hilary <hilary.crabtree@hotline.com> wrote in
news:r4kli2p6fe45fqhcmpes1u2f5etgtp49dl@4ax.com:

On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 22:08:58 GMT, "Amanda Angelika"
<manic_mandy@hotmail.com> wrote:

In news:1158545070.850102.68990@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com,
Noah's Dove <noahdove7@lightspeed.ca> typed:

Who defines good or evil?
If man is one with the cosmos or some impersonal concept of God
there cannot be a basis for truth or ethics. The impersonal, as
such, is silent about such things. There is no basis for saying
anything is right or wrong if all is one with God. What you are
left with is total relativism or the arbitrary absolutes of the
controllers who ever they may be. "If All is One , good and evil
are reconciled, then one can can do nothing bad; thus Manson was
only acting logically....the fact that Manson's followers knew
him as both Satan and Christ highlights the collapse of
distinctions between good and evil under moral relativity".13

That's total bunk. There are pleasant experiences and there are
bad experiences, there is creation and there is destruction.
There is night and there is day, there's darkness and there is
light. You can be nasty to others or one can be nice, you can
love or you can hate. There are universal absolutes in our
Universe on which to base a conception of good and evil.

That remains true whether the individual gets their sense of
morality second hand from organised religion or from their direct
experience as a child and aspect of the Universe itself. The only
difference is whilst the member of an organised religion may be
lulled into some sense of false security by the concept of
redemption, and feel he she has a licence to perpetrate evil in
the name of his or her religion a god has to take full
responsibility for all his or her actions knowing there is no
redemption and that as a god you can create your own Heaven or
you can create your own Hell. You cannot be a higher being
without taking on the full responsibility of godhood :)

Tony Blair took the UK to war with a fairy tale. People will
believe anything dear, it's a fact.

Politicians speak the same language, no matter what country, no
matter what party. They avoid responsibility and claim anything
they can get away with. We don't need them at all - they need us.
How much of what we are told, is actually true at all?

It's odd that most acts of terrorism and indeed war are against the
ordinary civilian population or involve territorial invasion. When
logically rather than go to war, it would seem to make more sense to
kill the politicians and leaders.

I wouldn't go as far as killing the politicians - but they should
be made an example of, for sure.

Well I'm not suggesting we kill our own leaders and politicians.
Although obviosly under certain curcumstances like for example if 911
were really found to be perpetrated by elements in the US government
itself that would be an act of treason and with a crime of that
magnatude the death penalty would have to be considered.

Well we could have a public execution of our politicians, and say
we don't want any more of this lot. Just my dry dry humour....

There are a lot of unsubstantiated rumours about 9-11, like Bush's
brother being in charge of the security of the Twin Towers, and the
cleaning up/disposal of the 9-11 debris, etc.
Also of the day of 9-11 so kind of warning about staying away, for
some people - Israelis?

There is something entirely screwy about 9-11 -- how Norad and the
US Military being so s-l-o-w in doing anything on that day, Bush's
own behaviour at the exact time, he was first told of the first
plane crash (why would he carry on reading to the children? in the
classroom, who were unaware of the events happening then...).
This is just a sample of the oddness surrounding 9-11, there are lots
more details which are as peculiar.
 

The invasion by the US of Iraq - shows how inadequate they did their
homework? It was simple minded of the US government to ever think
that removing Saddam and installing Democracy would bring peace and
prosperity to that country.

It might have worked better IMO if it had been done in a more covert
way. Instead of as a highly dramatic show of strength for the benefit
of television. The results certainly could'n't have been any worse and
in terms of minimising civilian casualties and indeed military
casualties to it would have seemed a better strategy IMO.

No - the covert way does not work either. Would you greet someone and
then stab them in the back. So much for a civilised country and a world
leader? It's been done before, and failed.
Of course, if there were any successes using this method of treachery and
deceit, etc -- no doubt, we'll say how good it is to do.

Or that the Russians could outfight the Afghans (did they know that
the Afghans loved fighting - it was their hobby) when they invaded.

Of course the scary thing about the Russian Afghanistan war is it was
a major factor in the collapse of the Soviet Union. The other thing is
attempting to impose Western style democracy on these countries seems
a contradiction in terms because imposing something regardless and
against the will of the people is not democracy it's a form of
oppression. If the people of a county want to live in a way that we in
the West would see as little more than savagery that should be their
right. 

The fact that the Afghanistan economy practically runs on supplying
the world with the raw materials to make Heroin is only a problem
because we have made drugs illegal and therefore removed a freedom of
choice from our own citizens and thereby created a whole black-market.

It just boils down to money - and so, if there were any alternate
crops for the farmers to produce instead, that generated as much cash
for them - they would of course, switch over.
 

I'm not saying people should take heroin, it's a kind of poison. But I
think in a free society the individual should have the freedom to
decide whether or not to poison themselves and prohibition doesn't
stop people getting addicted to heroin or any other drug, in fact most
people who get addicted to drugs are doing something against their own
will.  The fact that governments remove the validity of that free will
in the first place and legislate against the freedom of choice of the
individual is the very thing that creates the drug problem and the
whole sub culture surrounding drug abuse.

The whole answer to the drugs problem, is of course education.
If there weren't the need for drugs in the first place, no one would
want to use them. We have all manner of legal drugs, which create
problems in their own right - and then you have the illegal drugs which
is another industry altogether.
For me - there is no purpose for recreational drugs in the first place.
Why bother? It's just a black hole, in which time and money is wasted,
including one's life. And why bother with wine at all? For it's taste?
Obviously if you remove the alcohol, you'll reduce the harmful effects
of having too much wine. Would you drive a car that potentially could
kill you? Like having a door that's loose, or something that could kill
you present? So, why bother with wine at all? You can switch over to
something non-alcoholic.
It's all plain common sense.
I say - shown all the implications of taking legal drugs, the worse
case scenarios, as well as the 'norm' for this sector of the population,
so that people can see what effects it really has.
Then, why bother with illegal drugs? Unless you like taking a revolver
to your head and playing Russian roulette?
When you have educated the population, the consequences of taking legal
and illegal drugs - only the foolhardy will then proceed taking them.
Maybe then less than 1%? will then take the drugs - thereby eliminating
the market for them.

However if we removed all restrictions on drugs. We would remove a
major source of funding for terrorism at the stroke of a pen and there
wouldn't actually be any need to kill people.

If people are educated - then maybe terrorism will not attract any 
terrorists?
Do not have a way out, for terrorists to justify their actions.
All religions should take the stand - that suicide bombers are never
justified, and any that approve --- should be eliminated.
Terrorists should be open to dialogue, so that the cause for their
actions to be addressed. If it is a just cause, like Chechen ---
then this should be in the open, opened up to public awareness and
scrutiny.
I do believe in Understanding Unified Universal laws - been thinking
of how to label it as? Universal understanding of the universe?
These laws are so plain common sense, yet are obviously ignored or
walked over today, but is obviously the way to peace and understanding.
If you understand, there would be no fighting, no conflict, therefore
peace.

Harvey