Rue

I would also contend that understanding how genetic predisposition may make us vulnerable to certain diseases is crucial. Trying to decontextualize genetic predisposition to advance theories that promote race hatred which I contend is the political agenda of the poster I have responded to should be challenged. Trying to understand why black men are arrested so disproportionately hirer then other people in Canada or why there are so many aboriginals in jail is also crucial not to create a pretext to discriminate against them or resent them but to understand what factors are leading to their criminal incarceration and we already know what a lot of it is; 1-clear indication that police officers subjectively are more likely to stop a young black man in a car or out at night then any other type of people; 2-lack of early male role models; 3-unemployment; 4-lack of recreational facilities; 5-in the case of aboriginal people-a failure to connect such people to nurturing communities so that the community as a whole can provide rather then have each of its members fragment and become alienated and floated in a cultural milieu that emphasizes individuality and materialism over holistic concepts of identity and non material values. It is not rocket science. If people want to use people's failures or short-comings to incite resentment and hate then for me, the only issue is exposing that hate agenda. No one complains about positive generalizations or using genetics to engage in positive outcomes. Most of us however agree when we use generalizations for negative generalizations and negative agenda-then there is a problem. There are no statistics, I repeat no statistics that prove blacks who live in the exact same environment as whites are more likely to commit crime or fail to thrive. There are no statistics, I repeat again, no statistics that prove when aborginal people are allowed to live in nurturing communities, they are more likely then whites to fail and commit crime. There is limited biological information as to how genetic traits csn predispose some of us with common ancestry to certain diseases but that is all. All theories and postulations about there being less intelligence in certain races has been repudiated. More to the point you will not find any mainstream geneticist or biologist who would use the social construct of race as it means nothing to them. The fact that a human may have dark skin or a flaired as opposed to narrow nose is not a genetic concept-it is a subjectively perceived concept. Kinky hair does not make one a different genetic group then another. All humans of all alleged races are inter-related and not distinct nor do our genetic traits as to hair texture or skin colour relevant factors as to what makes us genetically predisposed to certain diseases.

The debate as to whether people of certain “races” are more intelligent or less intelligent then people of other races necessarily engages in concepts that deal with psychology, anthropology, biology, economics, history, philosophy, sociology, demographics, genetics, and medicine. The actual the concept of race as a relevant factor in determining intelligence and being able to classify differences in intelligence levels between races is based on the premises there is such a thing as race, and then that the intelligence tests referred to are accurate and meaningful. I would contend that a review of biology and genetics has clearly established that the human species has no "races" in the biological sense and that the terms we use to define race are in fact social constructs, i.e., based on our subjective assumptions that flow from our culture values as to what “race” is. I would also make the same argument for how intelligence tests have been created, i.e., that while they claim to be based on objective methodology in fact contain built in cultural assumptions that then taint the statistics obtained because of those biases which will then predispose certain groups over others to do better on those tests. I would contend that medicine, psychology, anthropology and socio-biology have all proven that there is no single form or type of intelligence, and that formal education helps individuals to develop a specific variety of cognitive abilities that are most popularly used to measure i.q. but that there are other methods not considered which could also measure i.q. and are not resulting in anomalies between alleged race groups. I would contend the above sciences has sufficiently proven that BOTH one’s genetic predisposition and learned behaviour in their environment BOTH contribute equally to the level of i.q. an individual obtains, i.e., that one’s intelligence level may be based on a genetic predisposition but also such things as whether the infant is exposed to toxic chemicals wild in the womb or then whether during certain stages of its development outside the womb as an infant, then child, then teen, the subject is able to eat proper food, live in a stress free shelter and has role models that encourage that individual to develop its i.q. I would contend that the genetic predisposition and the environmental factors can be positive or negative and have nothing to do with race but everything to do with the individual genetic make-up passed on in the dna that has been proven to be found in all alleged races and that the environmental conditions I mention affect people of all the alleged races in the same manner. The text, Race and Intelligence, Separating Science From Myth, Edited by Jeffrey M. Fish, and catalogued as ISBN: 978-0-8058-3757-5 (hardback) 978-1-4106-0433-0 (electronic) and published by Routledge in the U.S. is the source for my above contentions. I would also provide the following references to counter the myths of race as a biological concept: http://www.enotalone.com/article/5043.html http://www.enotalone.com/article/5044.html http://blogcritics.org/culture/article/the...ce-and-culture/ I would provide the following references to counter the myth of black people or certain races being less intelligent then others: http://psychology.jrank.org/pages/526/Race-Intelligence.html http://www.apa.org/journals/releases/amp60146.pdf http://www.jewcy.com/cabal/will_saletans_scandalous_source http://www.wilderdom.com/personality/L4-1I...eVsNurture.html http://www.spectacle.org/1207/smart.html http://en.allexperts.com/e/r/ra/race_and_i...ontroversy).htm http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custo...;accno=ED074172 http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.o.../XT0UW7SVHY.pdf http://www.unm.edu/~jar/v55n2.html http://www.schoolracetalk.org/node/8 http://www.skepdic.com/iqrace.html

The problem is you have no clue what Liberal theory is and if you did you would realize it does not comment on or provide theories on whether genetics dictates intelligence. You misappropriate the word to use it in a manner that refers to anyone who does not agree with you that people of colour are of lower intelligence. Your agenda is to come on this board and coach your neo Nazi white supremacist agenda. You want to start a debate on why the studies that attempted to show balck people had lower i.q. levels then do it. Stop couching your racist ideology in veiled terms. Go on provide one study that proves black people have lower i.q.'s then caucasians. Can't wait.

I hate all people with beards.

Yes it appears making the generalization and assumption that 1.5 billion Muslims all want to be kings of the world, is simple for you to engage in. Your point? If your point is that its easy to make sweeping negative generalizations about an entire group of people simply because they have the same religion, then yes I would say you made your point. If you are suggesting it is simple for you to in fact prove the above supposition is not an unsustantiated subjective assumption but based on actual quantitiative analysis using an objective methodology then I would suggest, before anyone can come to that conclusion you need to provide the methodology you used so we can determine if it is objective let alone accurate. Or here let me put it in simple terms-not all Muslims have beards even though you may think they do. p.s. I am a Jew and I do not have a big nose nor do I have a beard or buy and sell things nor am I a dentist, comedian, physician, money lender, banker, financier, t.v. or movie producer and no I have not had sex with Sarah Silverman but would like to....and no I don't want to have sex with Melissa Rivers but would with the Queen of Jordan. One needs to be open minded.

This is what they have told me sitting across from the table. Sounds very familiar. Also they have told me they look for women that look frightened and scared-they say they can sense it the way they walk and carrying themselves. I have sat across from men who will tell you they know certain women they will not pick out because they think they will be more likely to fend them off or scream. Its a subjective value they get. I say that but do not mean it to say a woman is to blame if she doesn't walk all angry like or confident. As you and every other woman on this planet is well aware they also will look for woman at opportune places, i.e., Yorl University in Toronto, parking lots, places where women will be alone and can scream and no one will hear-I once prevented a rape at a well known hospital. Women in the hospital came to be and reported an employer and how he had raped an cleaning woman who was an illegal Portugese immigrant and could speak no English nor would she go to the police fearing they would deport her. I studied that sob's habits because I was representing a client he was sexually harassing. To make a long story short, he used the lay out of the hospital to know when stalk a woman and when she would be alone and when it would be dark and isolated. Only this time when he stalked my client and snuck up to her from behind in the parking lot at 5.30 a.m. one morning some of us were waiting and I will not disuss the rest other then to say I have taken an oath to uphold the law and I will leave it at that and what happened next. The point is as you point out, its about opportunity and about variables and factors that often have nothing to do with sexual attractiveness and everything to do with timing and things such as you have described. This is not a world I work in any more except as a volunteer. After years of it, it does a number on you and its time to walk away otherwise you see it in every dark corner of the city. Urban geography is a huge factor in certain crimes such as rape. Lighting and the structure of roads and buildings are today crucial factors in reducing premises liability exposures including rape and non sexual crimes of assault adn robbery.

Make no mistake with me. I know the difference between you and Argus. As much as I would debate Argus until doomsday on this topic, I know he has no malice and he is making what he thinks is a point and trying to discuss whether racial profiling is a valid method for tracking crime. You on the other hand, took this as an opportunity to call black children apes and engage in the usual neo Nazi race baiting. Don't play with me. You don't want to play with me. You read what I wrote. If you disagree with it prove it wrong. The above does not explain how your definition of curly hair and big lips and flaired noses and skin pigment is not a subjective personal preference of yours, i.e., social construct. Oh I know you. You believe the world must acknowledge your subjective preferences as fact. In my world its called sociopathic personality. You believe you can classify people according to whether you find them to your liking or not. I know you quite well. In fact I probably am tempted to profile you right now. Move on. Converse with someone else. Your using this thread to engage in white supremacist taunts has worn itself out.

The point is you do not rape. That is the point I am making and you missed. Argus to tell you the truth my past work required I climb into the head of rapists. Some like you say have a hyper sex drive. But that hyper sex drive you see in some rapists and pedophiles (children) and hebophibes (teenagers) and other sexual deviants should not be confused with all rapists. I would suprise you if I told you how many rapists will tell you they do not feel sexual lust or sexual when they are raping someone. What you are describing is one kind of rape that you may be mistaken is the same in all rapist minds. The " I feel horny I must have sex now" impulse is but one drive. In fact most of the rapists I dealt with had an impulse to hurt or control not have sex. The sex act was no different then pissing on someone or punching someone. The arousal came from the violence, fear and the pain they inflicted not the smell or appearance of the women, etc. That is the point I was making and no I do not want to generalize. Every rapist has a specific profile like a fingerprint and I am no forensic psychiatric expert so I would defer to a psychiatrist in that specialty to go into details as to how they define each one's individual profile. What I am referring to is general profiling and I said earlier it is constantly being perfected and is by no means full proof although today's computer programs allow thousands of factors to be built in and cross referenced to find common patterns of behaviour. Then again an expert hand writing analyst can see a lot too in each individual rapist's traits.

What you have expressed is a social construct you created based on your subjective assumptions. That is what you see because you set out to see it. You could have easily set out to see altruistic, wonderful, well behaved youths. The fact you only see negative and not positive, is because you choose not because only bad youths exist. What you do is precisely why I challenge this entire thread. It starts off with a social construct that sets out to see black men as raping in a different manner then white men or men raping women because they find them attractive. It becomes a self-fullfilling belief for the person originating the assumption-they literally create the vision they want to see, and so that is what they end up seeing.

Yes Oleg that is precisely what the profiles and interviews of rapists has revealed. It is also well known by those of us in the courts and who work with rapes based on what they tell us which is not scientific by any means I admit. The sex is merely the vehicle to express the need to overpower, control and/or hurt. You are dead on. A wierd man I might add, l.o.l., but dead on.

No what you consider a plain obvious truth may not be one at all and in fact require a freaking study precisely to be able to repudiate what you think as a plain obvious truth and expose it as a baseless subjective assumption you make based on your belief that a rapist is governed by a sense of what sexual attraction is let alone the same one you use. Yes this entire thread is ridiculous. It consists of people like you sharing your "plain obvious truths", which are in fact not plain obvious truths but your subjective assumptions. In fact profiling of rapists shows that only one kind of rapist stalks or choses his victims based on their actual physical appearance. No, what attracts a rapist to a victim is not whether he thinks they are sexy or not but many complicated factors that could serve as stimuli. In fact most rapists when interviewed were not sexually attracted to their victims-they did it because the victim was alone in a place that provided the opportunity and it was their beating the woman or taking control of her, not her sexiness that aroused them. If anything rapists are not aroused by sexual attrativeness but by something else. Do me a favour, before you dismiss scientific studies about forensic psychiatry and deem things obvious stop and think. It may seem obvious to you because you don't have any reference point from which to base your truth other then your own subjective opinion. What makes a simpleton is someone who finds things simple.

Here are some easier to understand articles on the subject I referred to for my previous comments. May I also warn you that forensic psychiatry and forensic psychology as well as the profiling of people who engage in sexually deviant behaviour including sexual assault is extremely complex, constantly subject to new studies and race may be used in geographic profiling of a potential rapist, the profiling of a rapist is NOT the same as establishing it is the race that caused the person to be a rapist. The rate of rape around the world reported by legal jurisdictions where there are different races, in fact indicates the characteristics of rapists such as pedophile rapists, hebophile rapists, homosexual rapists, date rapists, serial rapists remains consistent. Studies unravelling the bio-chemical profiles of rapists are in their early stages and far from definitive although patterns are emerging in terms of hormonal and other chemical imbalances that would suggest they don't occur in just one race or are condensed in one race or make that race more genetically predisposed say like a black man is to high blood pressure. More to the point if a black man can be said to be more predisposed to high blood pressure because he is black such stereotypes are not meant to be definitive or absolute and they are used for positive not negative reasons. http://www.rapereliefshelter.bc.ca/herstory/profile.html http://www.drc.state.oh.us/web/Reports/sexoffnd.pdf http://www.corpus-delicti.com/rape.html http://rapesurvivor.pbworks.com/Rapists http://www.bxscience.edu/publications/fore...es/f-psyc01.htm http://www.paloaltoonline.com/weekly/morgu..._6.RAPIST1.html http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/conten...tract/133/6/694 http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pi...165178104001106

No he is not. I vehemently disagree with this man and his theories but I must defend his integrity. He is not a neo Nazi. He is not. He genuinely believes what he says not because he hates black people and thinls they are inferior but he really believes there is a difference between how people of races engage in human behaviour. To go the next step and accuse him of hating certain races is a motive you and I should resist assuming. Its one thing to say what he SAYS is racist or contains RACIST ideology, ore accurately SUBJECTIVE ASSUMPTIONS WITHOUT SCIENTIFIC BASIS, but going the next step and calling him a neo Nazi and hate monger like the other individual who deliberately engages in insulting remarks is not fair. I detest his arguments and I would encourage you to as well but no we should not attack Argus the person. He is not the kind of person that supports institutionalizing discriminatory laws against people based on their skin colour or religion-just the exact opposite. Its hard not to make the assumotion you did and I do not blame you but Argus deliberately provokes such debates not to be hateful but because he genuinely believes he has a relevant point. Hope that helps. I know I find myself peeved with this one and not just because its personal, but because I have heard this kind of reasoning thousands of times used against Jews. Then again I know all women or gays or other groups reading this have had their identities used as social constructs in this manner as well. Hang in there and avoid going after Argus the person. Go after his words, not him. I will try hard to do the same. Lol, I think I already slipped.

Sorry I did not get back to you Tango and in retrospect given the direction this thread has turned I wish I was not so tongue in cheek about it the first time. You can check for yourself by going on google or yahoo and checking out studies and essays on sexual abuse and their origins. I did not mean to cloud the issues. Inappropriate sexual behaviour could but does not always include sexual abuse. Usually when the term inappropriate sexual behaviour is used, the context for it is using it as a POSSIBLE symptom of sexual abuse. For example, if I see a 12 year old girl wearing very sexually provocative clothes and see her very physical with boys and/or girls it does not have to necessarily include actual sex acts to trigger off a warning sign and the use of that term and the term is not used to morally judge her but to suggest, if she is doing this at inopportune times it could be a symptom her unclear sense of physical boundaries and openess might and I say might have come about because in her environment she has grown up to live in an environment where such behaviour has become second nature to her. Promiscuous children, not always, but sometimes come from homes where there are no limitations. Sometimes those limitations come about because of an absentee parent and the child searching say for the affirmation she never got from her father. It might be an attempt to get attention from her over-worked mother. It may be the child has grown up completely neglected and picked up her sense of self and physical boundaries from the street and being exposed at an early age to aggressive men or boys who had their way with her. Sometimes sexually inappropriate behaviour can be a 5 year old who constantly grab at their crotch or begin humping an object or acting out a sex act. Its very dangerous to generalize or assume what it means but usually what it means is someone is noticing behaviour that deals with the child or person's sexuality in a public exhibition of some kind. Some abused children don't appear sexual, just the opposite. They close down and try to look asexual and put on physical weight to make themselves unattractive. They may cut their hair or mutilate themselves. Its a very complex subject with numerous symptoms, factors, possibilities. However what we know about sexual assault is its not contrary to popular believe a freak one time spontaneous act act as some lawyers try suggest it is when defending rapists. The rapist learned sometime in their life through a combination of their life experiences, external environmental factors, parents or lack of parents, peers, culture and society at large how to formulate their standards as to what is right and wrong. Rape is nothing more then using sex as a vehicle to impose one's will. Contrary to popular believe no people do not rape simply because they lust. Of course not. Millions of men masterbate and do not rape for that reason. Not all men lose control of their urges. Simply having a sex urge does not mean this causes you to rape. Of course not. It is a lot more complicated then that. A man who rapes has built up to that rape. He starts off by learning he can get away with not listening when someone says no and then be builds on that defiance in many experiences and interactions with humans before be builds up to rape. That process can be accelerated if he comes from an evironment where there is a social break down say like in Somalia and there is no specific social structure any more. It is why in political conflict zones, rape comes with the guerilla wars and attacks and counter attacks by government soldiers. Or it can be accelerated by watching fathers beat mothers or treat women in a violent manner. Yes gangs can accelerate it. Joing a gang releases social inhibitions and allows violent and other social behaviour to be more easily expressed through reinforcement from the gang. Some rape is part of a hyper-sex drive in very specific cases of sexual deviants that can be related to hormonal, chromosonal or other biological factors but no its not that easy to say its caused by lust. Any act of sex depends on opportune conditions yes. There are certain rapists who stalk and are called predators. There are some who ordinarily are too inhibited to rape but when they drink or take drugs they can be come capable of it. Often it is the case rapists are sexually impotent and unable to maintain intimate or constant healthy relationships with their peers. So I did not want to mislead you or gernalize but I can tell you this-rape is a phenomena found in men and it probably relates to our testosterone more than anything else if we have to pin point one specific chemical. Here is the point. The factors that make our skin colour different or the shape of our nose different have nothing, absolutely nothing to do with the factors that make us genetically predisposed to violence including sexual behaviour. Race as we use it to describe black people, Asian people, is a social construct based on non scientific stereotyping of what we see. What we see, i.e., the amount of pigment in our skin, the shape of our nose does not predetermine whether we are violent or rape-our gender might, the chemicals we are born with might. It is absolute nonsense to suggest having dark pigment in skin causes someone to want to rape. Nonsense. Absolute piffle and I defer to any genetics scientist or medical doctor or psychiatrist to explain why. What we are really talking about here is an attempt to construct black skinned people as a social construct to then define as having higher rates of rape then people with less melanin in their skin. That is what this discussion is about. Suggesting black skin or darker skin constitutes a way to differentiate humans and that differentiation is why people then rape. No people rape not because of melanin in their skin but because of many factors. The people who choose to say it is because of the melanin in the skin, would have you believe black skinned people have different social behavioural values then white skinned people. The point is the lack of melanin does not dictate that difference in human behaviour and the very conditions that cause a person with dark skin to rape could cause a person with light skin to rape and that is what criminal statistics on rape or any other crime show. I said it before I will say it again, it is absurd to suggest the tone of one's skin or the shape of their nose predisposes them to sexually deviant behaviour. That is a social construct created by the presupposition or preconception that having a different shaped nose or texture of hair makes us genetically different and it most certainly does not. Our traits as to skin colour do not make us genetically different-what they do is make people see a difference based on superficial physical characteristics not the relevant genetic characteristics in determining our species. Let's call it what it is. Black people rape because hint hint wink wink they do drugs and they have children out of wedlock and they never get married and they are sexually loose and provocative and blah blah blah...those are all subjectively perceived social constructs and those same constructs are why if you look at Statistcis Canada's crime stats you will see that black men are arrested and charged in numbers that are higher then any other people in Canada and what they show is the sheer number of charges makes black men simply want to plead out for time served rather than defend their innocence and remain in jail and this creates a vicious cycle because the next time they are stopped the police see a criminal conviction come up and the original criminal conviction may be based on nothing more then an innocent man who pleaded guilty to get out of jail. That of course is never mentioned in the discussions of black men and crime. The concept that black men want to rape white women let alone do it because they are black are social constructs based on subjective assumptions about physical difference, no more, no less.

BC let me break this to you gently. He is a white supremacist. You probably might want to save your observations for a bleeding heart liberal like me. Lecturing a white supremacist on racism is sort of...oh let me give you an analogy, lecturing me on Israel. It probably is not resonating. You might have better luck saving your lectures for a bleeding heart like me instead.

Let's talk reality. You came on this thread to engage in racial insults of black people and ridicule people who disagree with you. You want reality-you call black children apes. You want reality-you come on this forum to to insult black women because they are black. You want reality-you make sweeping negatvie generalizations about people based on your subjective feelings as to the attractiveness of their physical features- and that makes you an ape-a primal ape who still lives in a pack and when he sees another pack of primates with different colouring he prances up and down showing his inflammed red baboon butt and making noises to sound threatening just like baboons do when they feel threatened by another back whose baboons do not have the same coloured and shaped buttox. You want reality-look in the mirror. My reality is I read the words of a hateful man who hates people because they are not a member of bis baboon pack. You want reality-this is an absurd thread and nothing more then a pretense to try justify making sweeping negative sexual generalizations about black men-no more, no less and it attracts hate mongers like you like flies to dung. You want reality-reality is me telling you that your world of hatred and taunting people is at a dead end. Some of us will pick up the dung you fling and shove it right back down your throat. You want reality-the colour of the crap you fling and its smell speaks for itself.

How about you start by reading some of the responses to this thread. "Racism" is the experience of being subject to someone engaging in subjective negative stereotypes about you designed to incite hatred and resentment. You don't think there is any, because you choose not to see any. You choose not to see any based on two reasons; 1-it doesn't suit your subjective opinion you toss out; 2-you may have never experienced it. When was the last time you were arbitrarily stopped driving your car? When was the last time you read a thread where someone refers to blacks as apes? You want me to provide you the hundreds of posts I have come across from people suggesting we Jews are genetically inferior or that blacks are inferior, etc.? Give it a rest Argus. This is without a doubt the stupidest and lamest attempt I have read trying to justify insulting all black men and inferring they are rapists and rape white woman I have ever read. The only difference between this thread and the ones in Avatar is you couch your words and try sound as if you are engaged in an intellectual exercise. I have read this crap and said nothing and now I say it-Argus did you expect any replies other then the ones this thread as evolved into-some moron engaging in race baiting against black people? Go couch your exercise with someone else.

No not at all. I am challenging your subjective assumptions that; 1-terrorism is caused by Western colonialism; 2-terrorists are insane. To start with I would contend that many cultures, nations and civilizations including the vast majority of today's humans when faced with what they consider unfair or unjust do not resort to terror and violence and that in fact terrorists are a small minority of humans. I would then contend that trying to paint terrorists as simply being caused fom a reaction to Western colonialism with due respect is defective and you transpose the excuse or rationalization terrorists use for their behaviour with why they engage in their behaviour/ I would contend that simply that in the specific case of terrorists in the Middle East and Muslim world including Thailand, the Philippines Bosnia, Albania, the Punjab, India, Malaysia, Indonesia, Mauritania, Sudan, the terror cells and their actions are deeply connected to their religion and cultural values that existed long before the West came into contact with Muslims and is not caused by Westerners although is often used as a pretext for their actions. The inter-secular wars between Muslim sects is everything to do with their culture of dhimmitude and nothing to do with the West. Sunnis and Shiites do not attack each other because of the West. Sunnis did not attack Amidyah Muslims in Pakistan because of the West. The Muslim insurgence in China is not caused by the West. The Sudanese slaughter of black Christians in its South is not caused by the West. The same can also be said as to much of the Islamic fundamentalist terrorism that has been inflicted on Hindus, Siekhs, Bahaiis, Christians, Jews, gays, women who have demanded sufferage, communists or trade unionists-the culture of dhimmitude did not come about because of the West but because of deeply held religious views as to who is superior and who is not. Your trying to lump all terrorism as simply being the result of the West is absurd. Nigerian Muslims fighting Nigerian Christians is not caused by the West. I would contend that in fact it is not easy to understand why you can have two humans come out of the exact same environment and yet one becomes a criminal or terrorist and another remains peaceful and moderate. I could contend that when you state terrorism is easy to understand you in fact are stating it is easy to accept and is the inevitable consequence of Western colonialism. That assumotion I challenge as illogical because we know that countless humans struggle to overcome impoverished and violent environments and no they do not engage in crime and terror and they are the majority. I would contend you find it easy to understand why terrorists are terrorists because you may be engaging in the fallacy that when a human is faced with obstacles, its natural for us to simply become angry and kill. I would argue the exact opposite and that a human is not designed to kill and in fact has to learn to killl. It is unusual a human can kill without learning to repress natural primal instincts. Any soldier can tell you that. They train over and over to be able to resist that primal hesitation that prevents them from killing. A soldier will tell you it is hard if not impossible to shoot a man whose eyes you can see. It is far easier to kill something you can not see. I would contend that: 1-Terrorists do not start off as terrorists and that it in fact takes years of indoctrination and learning to repress natural feelings that must first take place over an extended period of time, before someone can become a terrorist; 2-that many terrorists do not come from conflict zones or harships but in fact privileged environments like Osama Ben Laden; 3-that pursuant to 2, terrorism is often about an individual who wishes to have, enforce and safeguard their privileged status and so feels this privileged status should not be questioned. I would contend the psyche of a terrorist is volatile and not easy to understand because the psyche of a violent person is illogical and therefore not necessarily predictable and no terrorists are not insane they are quite sane. I would strongly suggest that insanity refers to the state of a human when they have a psychotic break with reality. Terrorists I would then suggest are in fact well grounded in reality-in fact too grounded and this then causes them to fixate on their present set of circumstances-so much so they they become myopic and can see no past or future-they have but one vision but immediate here and now. An insane person could not engage in protracted strategies and organization. Its tempting to state Stalin was insane or Hitler was insane or Sadam Hussein was insane. No in fact they were quite sane although clearly they were socio-pathic and psycho-pathic due to personality disorders. They knew exactly what they were doing and what the consequences of their actions would be. The closest political figure today I would describe as insane is Mummar Ghaddafi. He goes in and out of catatonic trances or prolonged states where he loses contact with the people around him and just sits and mumbles. During those episodes where he has a psychotic break, perhaps it could be argued that at those times he is insane. The leaders of Hamas, fatah Hawks, Hezbollah, are not insane nor are they or the members of their terror cells insane or victims of Western imperialism. They are in fact sane, violent men who carefully think out what they do and are born into privileged class systems based on their religious beliefs which they then seek to enforce. The Western rhetoric is simply a pretext to engage in class warfare against their own people and maintain their priority in the pecking order of Muslim society. I would contend the corupt political regimes of the Arab League nations have no one but themselves and their dhimmitude and sharia legal system to blame. I would argue it is the embrace of fundamentalism that creates terror behaviour and that terror is the necessary offspring of fundamentalist thought. I would argue that unless you can find a way to develop moderate cognitive processes, flexability in thought patterns and challenge people to be able to be critical and see more than one perspective and form collective shared cultural values of inclusiveness instead of exclusiveness which is what Muslim fundamentalists-then terrorism will arise because the lack of creativity and tolerance promotes rigid, inflexible and entrenched positions which when challenged therefore necessarily responds with violence since it has not learned to debate or reason. I would contend you confuse the primal pack behaviour of humans that results in violence including terrorism as something thatis purely the result of colonialism but has tramspired even before we learned to walk on two legs and put on clothes.

Dancing Dude here is some feed-back for you on the use of wp weapons which of course was used as part of the criticism against the IDF in Gaza.... Part of the criticism against the IDF in Gaza which I am trying to acknowledge in a candid and direct manner is the use of white phosphorous weapons. As you are more then aware, a WP explosive can release a cloud of white phosphorous dust. The dust ignites at 86 degrees will continue to burn as long as it has a supply of oxygen that necessarily means if it commons into contact with a human body it will burn right through the body until it comes out the other side causing excruciating pain. The phosphorous is of course what is needed to fuel a bomb’s explosion and its been used in conventional missiles and mortar shells since World War One and if I am not mistaken even earlier then that. I am aware of the US Army Field Artillery Magazine article on the military action by US Forces in Falluja in November of 2004 whereby a Lieutenant stated it was an effective munition weapon and the high explosive effect of these weapons psychologically led to insurgents leaving their trench lines. Using WP weapons to flush out guerillas or terrorists is not a new tactic and in particular often used in the Vietnam war to try get the Viet Cong to leave their positions and then was tried by the IAF against Hezbollah in Lebanon who interestingly engaged in the same tunnel labyrinth system the Viet Cong did complete with hidden rail systems to get their men and weapons back and forth quickly which is not surprising since the Hezbollah per capita has the most insurgents with formal engineering training. I do know the US Vietnam vets referred to them as “Willie Petes”. I am also aware the IDF used them to illuminate the areas where Hamas was suspected to be and the smoke was used to protect the IDF moving on the ground in close quarters where they would otherwise be sitting ducks for Hamas shooting at them from schools, homes, hospitals, etc. I am also aware Hamas has shot them into Israel. My issue is not why they were used specifically by Israel but why they have to be used by anyone including the U.S. and IDF and Hamas, etc. In an ideal world they would not be available for sale or manufactured. I appreciate that may be impossible and impractical but I am of the belief there are other munitions and military devices that could be used to create smoke cover and illumination instead of WP weapons. In regards to their psychological use to flush insurgents out, personally I believe if there are not civilians around, fine. So be it. I am not exactly someone who sits around worrying about causing trauma to terrorists and frying them. What I am worried about is what they do to civilians. While in fact very few did come into contact with Palestinian civilians and the majority of Palestinian civilian deaths were caused by conventional munitions, the psychological impact of witnessing a civilian slowly burn to death or live but with horrendous burns that slowly smoke and sizzle as the civilian wriggles in pain to me is something to try avoid. I come from the school of thought shared by many soldiers that if possible give them weapons that are effective but they can control and help avoid hurting civilians. As well the IDF has a tradition of challenging itself to try no matter how impossible it is to be humane so I am not sure how unrealistic it is to ask for, but I would hope they find ways other than with wp weapons to illuminate the skies or obtain smoke cover. As for being an effective use in flushing out Hamas, the psychological case in the specific case of Hamas or any Islamic fundamentalist terror cell deliberately using human shields has the exact opposite effect. It feeds into the psychology of Hamas and the terrorists. It does exactly what Hamas wants and that is to turn Hamas into A victim underground and then inflicting on civilians the same results inflicted on Hamas causing a primal emotional connection between these civilians and Hamas or other terrorists due to the immediate reaction to trauma inflicted by these weapons. The key to winning a war against terrorists is to avoid engaging in actions that cause civilians to identify with them and feel they have the same pain in common. The solution? Well the IDF is already trying its best to use night vision weapons, laser pin point precision weapons, and is continuing to try work on techniques to avoid killing civilians. The point is as long as terrorists use civilians and their homes as shields and a theatre for war these civilians will suffer. So that expresses my concern and desire they be banned but I say so keeping in mind there is no simple solution to fighting terrorists in civilian zones.

JB Globe I may disagree with you on this to a certain degree but I also very much respect what you are trying to say. Look for what it is worth, while I think the IDF had no choice but to fight Hamas, like many supporters of Israel, no I do not like to see the IDF have to go into civilian populations after terrorists and no I would not suggest they did not make mistakes-whether those mistakes were deliberate or simply in the heat of the moment I do not want to pass judgement. I am comfortable reading the first hand comments of soldiers from the IDF who were there and if they have criticisms as to what they did while they were there, yes I think such comments must be taken seriously. Israel has a very active and aggressive press and because it is a civilian army its soldiers do speak out after wars and actions. The IDF is not perfect but open discussion and criticism by its own soldiers is taken very seriously-precisely because it is a civilian army which means its citizens are members of that army until they are 65. If there was excessive or unreasonable force used, I would hope the IDF and its soldiers can constructively deal with such issues and prevent them from happening in the future. I will say this JB Globe. I think the one difference between the IDF and Hamas is IDF does not deliberately implement and advocate policies using terrorism as a tool to express political will nor does it condone using civilians to transport weapons with ambulances nor does it allow its soldiers to shoot from Israeli homes, hospitals, buildings. It is a huge disadvantage the IDF has. The IDF unlike Hamas wears a uniform and it fights in the open until it must deal with Hamas who fight from behind homes, schools, etc. Yes Palestinian civilians suffered horribly. Absolutely. It is always the case for Hamas choosing terror. Their choice of terror creates a cycle of response by the IDF which inevitably traumatizes Palestinians and probably creates the conditions for future terrorists born in the horror of the moment witnessing IDF soldiers fight back and kill their parents, etc. by accident. If I saw someone burned by white phosphorous I would have to feel the person who used that weapon is a demon. How could I not? It truly is a demon weapon. When Hamas did not engage in terror, Israel did fund its affiliated charities indirectly building roads, schools, hospitals, greenhouses. What did Hamas achieve blowing all that up and turning to terror? How has shooting missiles or suicide bombers into Israel done anything for Palestinians? How does Hamas rounding up Palestinians who did not agree with their terror tactics and accusing them of being collaborators and torturing and murdering them and setting some on fire with tires around their neck or sending some home missing eyes and limbs as a message inspire the Palestinian people? I am sorry but this is about the ego of some violent fundamentalists who could care less about Palestinians and are about demanding power and control. The IDF is not motivated by religious belief-simply the agenda of having the moral obligation to defend its citizens from harm. No the IDF soldier sent to fight is not told he is going to heaven if he dies and is a martyr. IDF soldiers do not consider themselves heroes and very few when you talk to them are religious-the best way to describe them is existentialist-they do what they do not based on anything more then trying to assure their country's citizens can exist. If I thought that was what Hamas was about then I would see it in their actions, i.e., instead of shooting missiles and sending in suicide bombers, they would embrace Israel's eforts to help it build greenhouses and homes, schools and hospitals, and allow its citizens to work in Israel. It was Hamas who blew that all up not Israel.

Thank you. I may disagree with you on a lot of things but I know you don't make stuff up. That is why I asked. O.k. I got you. Yes now I know the incidents you mean. I think it is conceivable in the heat of battle this could have happened. It is the sort of thing that happens when conventional soldiers are sent into close civilian quarters where Hamas would be within civilian clusters-I can see soldiers reacting in such a manner during the heat of the moment. Again I have stated in the past, no good can come of conventional armies going after terrorists in close civilian quarters. No soldier wants to fight in such a theatre and we know civilians get caught in the cross fire. If it happened it is truly unfortunate. It is also truly unfortunate all conventional military forces and Hamas and Hezbollah and not just the IDF use white phosphorous weapons. They are horrendous. They burn through flesh and do not stop burning until they exit the other side like sulphuric acid. Hamas and the IDF used white phosphorous weapons in their last altercation and they have been used in Afghanistan, Iraq, Chechnya, Georgia, in the civil war with Bosnia and Serbia, etc., and since World War One. I would like to see them internationally outlawed. I hate them.

Uh no. Read their manifestoes and articles and speeches. The doctrines they preach have nothing to do with being understand, or seeking mutual recognition. Try read some of them. Sounds like you are trying to re-write what terrorists are and turn them into logical, rational people. The whole point of a terrorist's existence is precisely because they do not believe in being "fair". They make no claims to being "fair". Read what Taliban, Al Quaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, fatah Hawks stand for. Read their own words. If you want to try rationalize terrorists as logical people merely interested in fairness and no different then Western governments, save that romantic notion of terrorists for someone else. Thanks. Some of us unfortunately have interacted with them. No they are not rational, no they are not interested in fairness, and no they are not reluctant defenders of the down trodden forced to engage in what they do. You are talking about people who believe anyone that does not follow what they say to the tee, is expendable. It has nothing to do with fairness and everything to do with the dhimmi culture of imposing violent methods to conquer and get people to submit. Al Quaeda and Taliban and Fatah Hawks and Hamas and Hezbollah don't have tea and cookie sessions and recruit who they do presenting visions of fairness. They appeal to brute force and violence and the belief there is only one way-their way. Fairness suggests an ability to decipher and acknowledge more than one point of view or set of interests being just as legitimate as another's. Terrorism is the belief there is only one point of view. You want to suggest Taliban or Al Quaeda or Fatah Hawks are simply a conventional army engaging in the same tactics as Canada or the U.S. please sell that to someone else.

How about moi? I have been married to a black woman for twenty years and I am a Jew dude who is what you would call one of them there red haired whiteys. I was attracted to my wife because of who she was, i.e., her sense of ethics, honesty, moral values, cleanliness, gentility. To be honest in my prime I would have slept with any woman who was beautiful and I think I tried. If a woman is gorgeous, it is the responsibility of all hetero sexual men to drool over her. There are all kinds of theories why people marry who they do and what I am saying is sometimes a cigar is only a cigar and its as simple a reason as I stated. In fact when you are married to someone of another race you forget that-it is the last thing on your mind. Its not what you see. It is true that world-wide the lighter the shade of skin, the more value was assigned to a woman. Within the black world that same mentality prevailed. In the Asian world lighter skinned Indian or Pakistani or Arab women, etc., were subject to that same caste system of beauty and in the Oriental world Korean, Japanese, Chinese women, still operate to enlargen their eyes and change the shape of their nose to look white. Its interesting. If I took a very dark skinned black or Asian woman and brought her to Scandinavia the men would hero-worship her and have. Send that same woman to Japan probably not. Send a white woman to Scandinavia, probably no reaction, send her to India or China, probably the same reaction the Scandinavians would have over the dark skinned women. We consider things attractive when they are exotic on a superficial level. We also have a primal urge to have sex outside our race precisely because we instinctually know it expands the gene pool and makes it more likely are offspring will be healthy and yet humans of many cultures and religions go out of their way to resist assimilation by in-breeding. If I was a healthy young man again, I would do what I did in the past and that is charm any woman who smells good and is cute with my brilliance and wit and I suggest if you are a young man you have an obligation to all hetero-sexuals to charm as many beautiful women as you can. I never met a black women I did not fall in love with well except Serena Williams because she is scary and also Oprah because she looks real scary these days and also Tyra Banks because her head looks like a light bulb. That said, this thread started over some defective statistics about sex crimes. I can tell you after 20 years in the court system working with sex criminals, they come in every colour, race, ethnicity, culture. Name the group, they have them. Again their are all kinds of theories but I can tell you this, the common demoniator with rape is not race but gender and an evironment where the rapist grew up without limitations, particularly those concerning physical boundaries. I can also echo what a poster said and that is most rapes are never reported and believe it or not the majority are usually done in families and by people the victim knew. Stranger rape is far less common than familiarity rape if I may use those terms. Rape is about a power imbalance and the use of violence based on that power imbalance to impose physical actions on another too physically weak to prevent it-no more, no less. To suggest it is prevalent in blacks more than whites is impossible to prove and would make no logical sense from what we see as the common behaviour in all men. There are certain genetic predispositions for such behaviour but these predispositions are not particular to any one race, i.e., a missing x chromosone. Once we are on the topic I would like to try last one night with Venus Williams. I saw her in person at the airport. The woman had the nicest buttox and legs I have ever seen although she looks like she could have beaten me up or killed me. But hey I am allowed to think such things as long as my wife does not know. I would like before I die to hace sex with women on every continent and in every country. Its one of those goals I set for myself I am not sure will come true. That and the Nobel peace prize.

I was gonna say oy but then he may have something to say about that too. Some days Lily I just want to be a whale and buzz off and hide in the ocean far from humans.

You have done more then was asked. May I thank you (as I have in the past) but respectfully ask you stay with your wife even though it is not my business or place to say so. You know what I mean dude. Its said with a sigh not a bark.