| User | Comment |
|---|
| cody | | posted 11-Jan-2003 6:40pm |
They all proved to be wrong. There is some (limited) truth to "the governments of us and britain are using the..."... but as stated it isn't true. |
Zang  | | posted 11-Jan-2003 7:39pm |
I only picked the first one: "Osama bin Laden is winning the war on terrorism." I think that is a totally absurd statement. There is no war on terrorism. That's just a buzz word some speech writer cooked up. In the context of the actions which have taken place under the banner of "war on terrorism" there is no possibility of Osama bin Laden winning. The cards aren't stacked that way. He doesn't even have a hand. He isn't even in the game. The only possible outcomes are:
1. The power structure wins. They achieve their goal of greater hegemony at home and abroad.
2. The power structure loses. They don't achieve their goal of greater hegemony at home and abroad.
I don't see how Osama bin Laden fits into this picture at all! |
| BrightBlue | | posted 12-Jan-2003 3:24am |
None seem to have been proven wrong. |
| Enheduanna | | posted 12-Jan-2003 10:09am |
I don't see the extracts--only the voting options.
Nobody is "winning" the war on terrorism.
Everyone is having some rights abused; I don't think most Muslims and Arabs are having them greatly abused for the most part.
The US and Britain are killing innocents, but I don't think the war on terror is a disguise for a quest for power.
The US and Britain are using 9/11 to reinforce many of the policies which caused the problem in the first place. |
| Enheduanna | | posted 12-Jan-2003 10:11am |
Oh, and pretty much every policy of the Bush Administration needs to be addressed. |
| southernyankee | | posted 13-Jan-2003 6:10pm |
in my opinion, none of these have been either proven wrong or right.
whose winning this war is a very vague question, speiclly considering this a differnt type of war where each side has different goals as opposed to conventially war (defeat the enemy, conquer the land in question).
the rights abused thing is probably highly meida sensentallized. i am sure there are some instance and a higher scrity of these people, but most of the discrimatory acts come from private citizens. the few individual cases where some guy rode in a pick up truck into a mosqe was way over amplifed (and for a good reason). also these pariotic comercials telling us to unite dispite of religion were also used to an ecess just to prevent future incidents.
define innocents and difine "killed by us and britan" and how in the hell can you objectivly question ones motive.
in what way??
|
| Biggles | | posted 14-Jan-2003 7:24am |
I wouldn't say that bin Laden is winning the war on terrorism, because I don't think anyone is winning it. I'm not sure if it's even winnable.
I think that there is some truth in all of the others even if they aren't necessarily entirely true. |
jettles  | | posted 14-Jan-2003 8:35am |
no one is winning the war on terrorism or winning because of it. i think there is some validity to the rest of them!!!! |
| mandy | | posted 14-Jan-2003 11:40pm |
I'm on heroin |
| utahblaine | | posted 16-Jan-2003 8:38pm |
they all wrong person who wrote this must be osamas son or bi sexual camel |
| Biggles | | (reply to Locutus) posted 19-Jan-2003 10:01am |
Sorry to go completely off topic, but remember this survey: http://surveycentral.org/survey/12586.html where we were discussing whether evolution could explain the very origin of life? Well, I've been set an essay about the change from prokaryotic cells to eukaryotic cells and came across the most accepted theory about the evolution of the earliest cells of any kind. It starts out with chemical reactions that are competing with each other for resources - the most successful cause the others to "die". You ought to be able to read about it here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?call=bv.View..ShowSection&rid=cell.section.d1e45 (in an online version of the most popular text for the study of cell biology). If you can't see it, and are still interested, let me know and I can copy and paste the relevant bits for you - I may only be able to view it because I'm looking at it on the university network (the uni could well have a subscription to the site or something). |
Kristal_Rose   | | (reply to Biggles) posted 20-Jan-2003 8:41am |
Prokaryotic cells are primordial mineral life, like archea (w/ ADH enzymes) and sulfolobus solfataricus specimens, right? So, in that survey where Locutus asks "so what did it evolve from, rocks?" - the answer is yes. |
| Biggles |
I wouldn't say rocks. The earliest organic molecules probably came from reactions involving gases in the atmosphere. Some could have involved gases trapped in pores of rocks I suppose but it would still be the gas rather than the minerals that formed the basis.
Not too sure what you mean by "primordial mineral life" - prokaryotic cells are cells that don't have a nucleus, like bacteria.
What's sulfolobus solfataricus? |
| Kristal_Rose | | (reply to Biggles) posted 21-Jan-2003 1:05am |
It's a mineral life form that thrives on sulphur & high temperatures (175f) and doesn't require oxygen, and has proteins and DNA. It was discovered in 1972. It's thought to have preceeded open and closed cell biological life. It has been modified as a tool for DNA testing, and is used industrially to convert starches into fructose syrup. so I've read. |
| Biggles |
So no membrane? |
| Kristal_Rose | | (reply to Biggles) posted 21-Jan-2003 11:40am |
I presume not. I never thought about that before. |
| Biggles |
I'm not sure quite where the line falls between something being a chemical reaction and being a cell. I presume a cell would have a membrane, but I think even things without might be considered organisms. I'll have to read more about it!  |
| Kristal_Rose | | (reply to Biggles) posted 22-Jan-2003 1:18am |
It should be of particular value as nanotechnology matures. As I understand it, we are already using genetics as program carriers for materials formation. If we get to the point where we can build adult mammals at light speed from sub-atomic particles of clay, the distinction seems to me to have vanished. Already we consider the seed of anything biolical to be biological. |
