abbamouse
Rodent
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2002
- Messages
- 177
Koh and Cyberchrist: Hindus still get some health from cows' milk, but they have to wait until refrigeration and supermarkets. I always felt that the initial health bonus was eating the meat, as it is with pigs and deer. The second health bonus, on the other hand, is from being able to ship milk throughout the empire due to refrigeration. (Local milk consumption is already accounted for by the tile bonus).
On Zoroastrianism: I'll look into the health effects of the Parsees' disposal of the dead. I'm sure there's an article or two somewhere in the research literature.
On Terrorism: I give my students an assignment which asks them to define terrorism (nature of the acts involved, whether motive matters, whether who commits the act matters, whether the civilian/military nature of the target matters, whether there is a peacetime/wartime distinction, etc) and then consistently apply the definition to historical summaries from which I have removed the proper nouns. Their grade depends only on being consistent with their own definition. They routinely describe the US as committing terrorist acts (support for the Nicaraguan contras always makes the cut, and sometimes the Boston Tea Party does as well -- vandalism of corporate goods because the hated government was favoring the corporation to the detriment of consumers), as well as Syria (sponsorship of some attacks in Lebanon), Israel (the King David Hotel bombing, the assassination of Gerald Bull), Russia (sponsorship of a Bulgarian exile's assassination), and France (bombing of the Greenpeace ship Rainbow Warrior). Oh, and many of them say that wife-batterers are also terrorists (use of violence to provoke fear), as are animal rights and abortion-clinic arsonists. I'm sure if I had more examples I could get them to label virtually any country as terrorist because if you apply a definition consistently it will almost always sweep in more than you expect.
And as for CyberChrist's definition of terrorism, it he has defined resistance in such a way that every act of resistance is an act of terrorism (but not necessarily the other way around). Resistance is a subset of terrorism under this pair of definitions -- a violent attack to force someone to evacuate your country ("meet specific demands").
My definition of terrorism focuses on target choice (civilians), methods (threat of physical harm, not mere property destruction), and goals (political or social change -- i.e., not the mafia trying to extort money or some guy trying to keep his girlfriend from leaving him). This does exclude things like the bombing of the USS Cole, however, which makes some people uncomfortable.
On Zoroastrianism: I'll look into the health effects of the Parsees' disposal of the dead. I'm sure there's an article or two somewhere in the research literature.
On Terrorism: I give my students an assignment which asks them to define terrorism (nature of the acts involved, whether motive matters, whether who commits the act matters, whether the civilian/military nature of the target matters, whether there is a peacetime/wartime distinction, etc) and then consistently apply the definition to historical summaries from which I have removed the proper nouns. Their grade depends only on being consistent with their own definition. They routinely describe the US as committing terrorist acts (support for the Nicaraguan contras always makes the cut, and sometimes the Boston Tea Party does as well -- vandalism of corporate goods because the hated government was favoring the corporation to the detriment of consumers), as well as Syria (sponsorship of some attacks in Lebanon), Israel (the King David Hotel bombing, the assassination of Gerald Bull), Russia (sponsorship of a Bulgarian exile's assassination), and France (bombing of the Greenpeace ship Rainbow Warrior). Oh, and many of them say that wife-batterers are also terrorists (use of violence to provoke fear), as are animal rights and abortion-clinic arsonists. I'm sure if I had more examples I could get them to label virtually any country as terrorist because if you apply a definition consistently it will almost always sweep in more than you expect.
And as for CyberChrist's definition of terrorism, it he has defined resistance in such a way that every act of resistance is an act of terrorism (but not necessarily the other way around). Resistance is a subset of terrorism under this pair of definitions -- a violent attack to force someone to evacuate your country ("meet specific demands").
My definition of terrorism focuses on target choice (civilians), methods (threat of physical harm, not mere property destruction), and goals (political or social change -- i.e., not the mafia trying to extort money or some guy trying to keep his girlfriend from leaving him). This does exclude things like the bombing of the USS Cole, however, which makes some people uncomfortable.
Jews don't actually control the world at all. They have a strongly disproportionate effect on it compared to their numbers, but they have zero influence outside the Middle East and a bare few Western nations (the U.S. being the principal example). The United States' support for Israel, furthermore, has a lot more to do with Christians (80% of America, substantial percentage views Israel as the Holy Land and Jews as the former Chosen People of God) than Jews (2% of America, although disproportionate influence as noted).
