• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Europe submits voluntarily

Status
Not open for further replies.
DrZoidberg said:
The desperate acts of Islamists prove it. No army about to win uses terrorism.
Click to expand...
Why not? Think of the bombing of Dresden, using lots of incendiary bombs, which was designed to produced lots of civilians casualties and misery to convince people to stop supporting Hitler; then the drop of two atomic bombs on populous cities in Japan, intended to convince the Japanese they should surrender sooner rather than later; then the terrorism carried out by at least some Zionist agents against the Palestinian population, resulting in a mass exodus that made Israel a possible proposition, not to mention the heavy-handed nature of the bombing of the Gaza strip a couple of years ago. The French did it quite a lot too in North-Africa. Think of the carpet-bombing of Hanoi during the Vietnam war. So I think terrorism is used not just as a last resource, which seems to be your suggestion, but also as an effective short-cut to victory, even if that doesn't always work. Of course, "we" never called it terrorism but that's still very obviously what it was.
EB
 
Speakpigeon said:
DrZoidberg said:
The desperate acts of Islamists prove it. No army about to win uses terrorism.
Click to expand...
Why not? Think of the bombing of Dresden, using lots of incendiary bombs, which was designed to produced lots of civilians casualties and misery to convince people to stop supporting Hitler; then the drop of two atomic bombs on populous cities in Japan, intended to convince the Japanese they should surrender sooner rather than later; then the terrorism carried out by at least some Zionist agents against the Palestinian population, resulting in a mass exodus that made Israel a possible proposition, not to mention the heavy-handed nature of the bombing of the Gaza strip a couple of years ago. The French did it quite a lot too in North-Africa. Think of the carpet-bombing of Hanoi during the Vietnam war. So I think terrorism is used not just as a last resource, which seems to be your suggestion, but also as an effective short-cut to victory, even if that doesn't always work. Of course, "we" never called it terrorism but that's still very obviously what it was.
EB
Click to expand...

1) Dresden. I'll give you that one. But it's questionable if that counts. The object wasn't to terrorise Germany to surrender. Dresden was more just savage and base revenge. They didn't give a fuck if Germans got scared. They just wanted to see the Hun bleed.
2) Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Again... yeah. I'll give you that one as well. But I also think this one was a special case. Japan just wasn't accepting the inevitable.
3) Irgun and Haganah in Israel. Yes, anti-colonial terrorism is examples of terrorism were it's worked. So, yes. I'll give you that.
4) Bombing of Hanoi... well. they lost. So much for that example.

Good work finding examples of terrorism being successful. But if you analyse these you'll see that none of them have anything in common with ISIS or Al Qaeda making attacks in the west. It's just a completely different playing field.
 
Jayjay said:
angelo said:
If someone is born now, think they'll live to 150 years of age by then?
Click to expand...

The chances are, that some of them will.
Click to expand...

I doubt it. Mortality spikes dramatically once you reach about 90 years; None of the nearly 8 billion people alive today have made it past 116, and nobody ever made it to 123. The number of people who make it even to 110 is tiny.

For even the most long-lived to reach 130 would require a major medical breakthrough. I won't say it's impossible, but it's very implausible indeed. Human somatic cells simply reach their replication limit at circa 100 years, and extending their viability by as much as 50% would be a massive breakthrough. In recent years, mortality in the developed world for the over 90s has actually increased - likely due to the success in reducing mortality at younger ages, which has led to more people making it to their 90s in worse health than before. The small size of this group tends to amplify minor changes in mortality amongst the very old.

Here are the figures for the percentage of Australians who are deceased by a given age:
[table="width: 500"]
[tr]
[td]%[/td]
[td]Age (Female)[/td]
[td]Age (Male)[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]50%[/td]
[td]87[/td]
[td]83[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]60%[/td]
[td]89[/td]
[td]85[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]70%[/td]
[td]91[/td]
[td]88[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]80%[/td]
[td]93[/td]
[td]91[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]90%[/td]
[td]96[/td]
[td]94[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]95%[/td]
[td]98[/td]
[td]96[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]99%[/td]
[td]103[/td]
[td]101[/td]
[/tr]
[/table]

By the age of 109, only 28 of 100,000 (0.028%) males and 61 of 100,000 (0.061%) females remain alive - the Australian Government Actuary doesn't even bother to calculate mortality above 109 years, as the numbers are too small to yield significant results. Of the 89 per 200,000 who survive to 109, more than 53 of them will likely not see their 110th birthday, and fewer than 10 will see 112.

Even if everyone in the world got modern medical care from birth, the chances of anyone out of a population of 10 billion making it to 130 are minuscule; and 150 is simply out of the question, absent some major new medical technique with a dramatic effect on the replication abilities of somatic cells.





(Figures calculated based on the AGA tables available here).
 
Last edited:
bilby said:
Even if everyone in the world got modern medical care from birth, the chances of anyone out of a population of 10 billion making it to 130 are minuscule; and 150 is simply out of the question, absent some major new medical technique with a dramatic effect on the replication abilities of somatic cells.
Click to expand...
100 years is a long enough time that such a breakthrough isn't that far-fetched.
 
DrZoidberg said:
Speakpigeon said:
Why not? Think of the bombing of Dresden, using lots of incendiary bombs, which was designed to produced lots of civilians casualties and misery to convince people to stop supporting Hitler; then the drop of two atomic bombs on populous cities in Japan, intended to convince the Japanese they should surrender sooner rather than later; then the terrorism carried out by at least some Zionist agents against the Palestinian population, resulting in a mass exodus that made Israel a possible proposition, not to mention the heavy-handed nature of the bombing of the Gaza strip a couple of years ago. The French did it quite a lot too in North-Africa. Think of the carpet-bombing of Hanoi during the Vietnam war. So I think terrorism is used not just as a last resource, which seems to be your suggestion, but also as an effective short-cut to victory, even if that doesn't always work. Of course, "we" never called it terrorism but that's still very obviously what it was.
EB
Click to expand...

1) Dresden. I'll give you that one. But it's questionable if that counts. The object wasn't to terrorise Germany to surrender. Dresden was more just savage and base revenge. They didn't give a fuck if Germans got scared. They just wanted to see the Hun bleed.
2) Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Again... yeah. I'll give you that one as well. But I also think this one was a special case. Japan just wasn't accepting the inevitable.
3) Irgun and Haganah in Israel. Yes, anti-colonial terrorism is examples of terrorism were it's worked. So, yes. I'll give you that.
4) Bombing of Hanoi... well. they lost. So much for that example.

Good work finding examples of terrorism being successful. But if you analyse these you'll see that none of them have anything in common with ISIS or Al Qaeda making attacks in the west. It's just a completely different playing field.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I cannot let the Israel case slide without comment and fact! The fact was that the Arab nation
Attacked the newly declared state of Israel by a UN mandated degree with the intention of extermination of every single Jew!
 
angelo said:
Sorry, but I cannot let the Israel case slide without comment and fact! The fact was that the Arab nation
Attacked the newly declared state of Israel by a UN mandated degree with the intention of extermination of every single Jew!
Click to expand...

From a different perspective, the Jews who came to Israel were refugees from the war in Europe, and were not particularly welcomed by the local population already living there.

Now, what does that remind me of?
 
faded_Glory said:
angelo said:
Sorry, but I cannot let the Israel case slide without comment and fact! The fact was that the Arab nation
Attacked the newly declared state of Israel by a UN mandated degree with the intention of extermination of every single Jew!
Click to expand...

From a different perspective, the Jews who came to Israel were refugees from the war in Europe, and were not particularly welcomed by the local population already living there.

Now, what does that remind me of?
Click to expand...

Oh... I know I know. Is it the European refugees to Syria during WW2? No, wait. they were welcomed.

http://www.globalpost.com/article/6...ean-refugees-fled-syria-heres-what-camps-were
 
bilby said:
Jayjay said:
The chances are, that some of them will.
Click to expand...

I doubt it. Mortality spikes dramatically once you reach about 90 years; None of the nearly 8 billion people alive today have made it past 116, and nobody ever made it to 123. The number of people who make it even to 110 is tiny.

For even the most long-lived to reach 130 would require a major medical breakthrough. I won't say it's impossible, but it's very implausible indeed. Human somatic cells simply reach their replication limit at circa 100 years, and extending their viability by as much as 50% would be a massive breakthrough. In recent years, mortality in the developed world for the over 90s has actually increased - likely due to the success in reducing mortality at younger ages, which has led to more people making it to their 90s in worse health than before. The small size of this group tends to amplify minor changes in mortality amongst the very old.

Here are the figures for the percentage of Australians who are deceased by a given age:
[table="width: 500"]
[tr]
[td]%[/td]
[td]Age (Female)[/td]
[td]Age (Male)[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]50%[/td]
[td]87[/td]
[td]83[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]60%[/td]
[td]89[/td]
[td]85[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]70%[/td]
[td]91[/td]
[td]88[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]80%[/td]
[td]93[/td]
[td]91[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]90%[/td]
[td]96[/td]
[td]94[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]95%[/td]
[td]98[/td]
[td]96[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]99%[/td]
[td]103[/td]
[td]101[/td]
[/tr]
[/table]

By the age of 109, only 28 of 100,000 (0.028%) males and 61 of 100,000 (0.061%) females remain alive - the Australian Government Actuary doesn't even bother to calculate mortality above 109 years, as the numbers are too small to yield significant results. Of the 89 per 200,000 who survive to 109, more than 53 of them will likely not see their 110th birthday, and fewer than 10 will see 112.

Even if everyone in the world got modern medical care from birth, the chances of anyone out of a population of 10 billion making it to 130 are minuscule; and 150 is simply out of the question, absent some major new medical technique with a dramatic effect on the replication abilities of somatic cells.





(Figures calculated based on the AGA tables available here).
Click to expand...

Incredibly off topic, but here it goes. Genetic manipulation of humans is going on at full speed. I happen to have inside information and know the laws prohibiting it are completely worthless. It is already happening, and has happened. Right now this field has explosive growth and we've seen nothing yet. It's just a matter of time before genetic modification of humans becomes socially acceptable (it already is in some cases). And when that happens we'll get lots of weird things happening. The next one if uploading our brains. If that counts as life is for philosophers to sort out. But it is feasible that people living now will be able to upload their brains. That assumes that we do, in fact, figure out how the brain works. And that's anyone's guess as to when that baby is cracked.
 
DrZoidberg said:
bilby said:
I doubt it. Mortality spikes dramatically once you reach about 90 years; None of the nearly 8 billion people alive today have made it past 116, and nobody ever made it to 123. The number of people who make it even to 110 is tiny.

For even the most long-lived to reach 130 would require a major medical breakthrough. I won't say it's impossible, but it's very implausible indeed. Human somatic cells simply reach their replication limit at circa 100 years, and extending their viability by as much as 50% would be a massive breakthrough. In recent years, mortality in the developed world for the over 90s has actually increased - likely due to the success in reducing mortality at younger ages, which has led to more people making it to their 90s in worse health than before. The small size of this group tends to amplify minor changes in mortality amongst the very old.

Here are the figures for the percentage of Australians who are deceased by a given age:
[table="width: 500"]
[tr]
[td]%[/td]
[td]Age (Female)[/td]
[td]Age (Male)[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]50%[/td]
[td]87[/td]
[td]83[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]60%[/td]
[td]89[/td]
[td]85[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]70%[/td]
[td]91[/td]
[td]88[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]80%[/td]
[td]93[/td]
[td]91[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]90%[/td]
[td]96[/td]
[td]94[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]95%[/td]
[td]98[/td]
[td]96[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]99%[/td]
[td]103[/td]
[td]101[/td]
[/tr]
[/table]

By the age of 109, only 28 of 100,000 (0.028%) males and 61 of 100,000 (0.061%) females remain alive - the Australian Government Actuary doesn't even bother to calculate mortality above 109 years, as the numbers are too small to yield significant results. Of the 89 per 200,000 who survive to 109, more than 53 of them will likely not see their 110th birthday, and fewer than 10 will see 112.

Even if everyone in the world got modern medical care from birth, the chances of anyone out of a population of 10 billion making it to 130 are minuscule; and 150 is simply out of the question, absent some major new medical technique with a dramatic effect on the replication abilities of somatic cells.





(Figures calculated based on the AGA tables available here).
Click to expand...

Incredibly off topic, but here it goes. Genetic manipulation of humans is going on at full speed. I happen to have inside information and know the laws prohibiting it are completely worthless. It is already happening, and has happened. Right now this field has explosive growth and we've seen nothing yet. It's just a matter of time before genetic modification of humans becomes socially acceptable (it already is in some cases). And when that happens we'll get lots of weird things happening. The next one if uploading our brains. If that counts as life is for philosophers to sort out. But it is feasible that people living now will be able to upload their brains. That assumes that we do, in fact, figure out how the brain works. And that's anyone's guess as to when that baby is cracked.
Click to expand...

There is still a lot of research required in this area. Our knowledge is limited so the brain is still a grey area.
 
Scientific discoveries come thick and fast. Who's game enough to predict what happens in even just a decade, let alone a century!
 
It was Obama who in a speech said that the moslem call to prayer is the most beautiful sound on earth. I'll bet you $100 that alarm clock wasn't invented by or in a moslem country. Singapore and Malaysia excluded because of the British influence.
 
angelo said:
It was Obama who in a speech said that the moslem call to prayer is the most beautiful sound on earth. I'll bet you $100 that alarm clock wasn't invented by or in a moslem country. Singapore and Malaysia excluded because of the British influence.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if someone with a hangover will agree with Obama.

When I first went to Abu Dhabi the Mosques used to individually call for prayer, and it seems some got their timings wrong as the wailing went on for several minutes. Nowadays just a main mosque with giant speakers (more modern tech) is sufficient

In case you want to buy a few clocks for your friends, here's ALIBABA. Of course China is still the main place for purchasing items online.

https://www.alibaba.com/showroom/mu...lac=&netw=g&device=c&ptscode=0110202060010001
 
angelo said:
It was Obama who in a speech said that the moslem call to prayer is the most beautiful sound on earth. I'll bet you $100 that alarm clock wasn't invented by or in a moslem country. Singapore and Malaysia excluded because of the British influence.
Click to expand...

What I would like to know is the spiritual or theological significance of a shitty sound system in Islam. All the call-to-prayer sound systems I've heard in the Muslim world are god awful. They all look a bit like a megaphone, and sound like it to. Even in Topkapi palace where all of Muhammed's surviving personal stuff (including his beard) was kept. An Imam was constantly praying in that smallish room and you guessed it... a shitty sound system. I'm sure money wasn't an issue here.

I understand them having a shitty sound system, strapped to a minaret, in some backwater village. Not in a wealthy and affluent city. They're all like this. It boggles me anyway.
 
In true islam according to the koran, good sound, music, [especially rock], musical instruments, Hi-Fi systems, dancing, and any other form of entertainment, except fornicating with goats, is strictly forbidden!
 
angelo said:
In true islam according to the koran, good sound, music, [especially rock], musical instruments, Hi-Fi systems, dancing, and any other form of entertainment, except fornicating with goats, is strictly forbidden!
Click to expand...

Angelo's imaginary True MuslimsTM bullshit again.
 
bigfield said:
angelo said:
In true islam according to the koran, good sound, music, [especially rock], musical instruments, Hi-Fi systems, dancing, and any other form of entertainment, except fornicating with goats, is strictly forbidden!
Click to expand...

Angelo's imaginary True MuslimsTM bullshit again.
Click to expand...

You have just proven that you know Jack Shitt about fundamental islam.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom