Posts by Abaddon

19

If Al Gore was elected in 2000, would 9/11 happened?

by free2beme in

jw
friends

i was thinking about this today, as al gore did win the popular vote and lost because of how the electoral college works.

so people like to blame 9/11 on bush, and fahrenheit 9/11 really tried to make it look like bush.

i remember when the movie, "the road to 9/11" came out, clinton was having a fit that it showed the problems with 9/11 started while he was in office.

Abaddon

911 would still 95% probable under Gore or any other President.

The game was in play as far as the bad guys went, there's no reason to believe another President would have achieved inter-departmental reform in time to have the inter-departmental synergy neccesary to have stopped it in planning phase, and it's unlikely ny action by another President wouldhave lead to a cancellation of the plan.

I do agree Gore would have gone into Afghanistan, but not Iraq, unless it was a far different justification, UN sanction, and constellation of allies.

262

Global Warming Hysteria

by metatron in

jw
friends

http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2007/02/quacks-cranks-and-junk-science.html.

are global warming skeptics really just cranks?

i don't doubt that we are having some effect on .

Abaddon

Shutterbug

I have a minor degree in Science Education (balanced across the three core subjects). My major is English Literature (BA Hons.), but to be honest I took 2/3 of the science major course before switching to English literature and could equally have had my final degree classified as a BSc due to the excess of points I had (due to the switch of subject I had about a third extra points for course passed). Since then I have studied evolutionary biology to an extent I'd be quite sanguine about sitting a final exam for a Bsc in Evolutionary Biology if I had a few months to review the exact syllabus.

I wouldn't say I have expert or special knowledge about other areas, but I can critically analyse quite complicated texts on biological or physical science due to my educational background.

Of course, whether this is enough for you I can't say. I can be as wrong as the next guy, but as no one's bothered actually debating the science yet and every single point raised by the anti lobby in this thread is a meaningless anecdote or provably a misconception or just plain wrong (by all means rebutt these statements), I don't feel very wrong at this moment in time.

hillary

Good luck with getting Brother Apo to come up with anything substansive. As (arguably) an arrogant bastard, I know his type. I'm just (on the evidence of all these threads I've posted on the sad obsessive has been reading) an arrogant bastard who backs up his opinions with facts. He's an arrogant bastard who is seethingly resentful towards someone who shows him up for what he is, and of anyone who has taken the trouble to educate themselves. See how he immediately seeks to undermine any claims for scientific background anyone might make? He can't stand the idea that some people are simply more qualified than him, so has to poison the well in advance. Even if someone scaned and posted documention, he'd claim it was Photoshopped. The guy's a joke, and the funniest thing is he actually seems enough of a mouth-breather to think his facade convinces people. No doubt he will do his standard C&P of my post, which I'll not bother reading (unless it looks like a decent scientific response, but I now think this is beyond him).

He now is trying to claim we are the same person; hey, hillary, I've had some great arguments with myself in the past, if that is the case, eh?

I am not sure if Abbadon has insinuated in the past that you are rather dull and stupid? If he has not done so, he has been too kind.

LOL. Now he'll be convinced we are the same people.

XJW4EVR & elderwho

You seem to have failed to notice it is the anti lobby on this thread that are refusing to substansiate their claims. From the very start they avoided getting involved in any real scientific discussion.

You can ignore this all you like, but it is true, and is a far greater indication of how things lie than the conclusions your personal bias (observed previously) draws you too.

You're free to make similar comments about me having a personal bias based on past threads, but this doesn't change the fact the anti-global warming lobby have no facts to support their claims and cannot explain the evidence that is available, and typically at this level are just parrotting claims (of a quality I think I have demonstrated) made by lobbiests with a political agenda.

If what I say is wrong, please show me.

Of course, 'empty vessels' like Bro Apo (as all three of you use Dubbie terminology in your handles I assume you're cognescent of such a scriptual allusion) make it seem like the 'pro' lobby have to prove something. Yet the argument that he and others are typically making is a vauge 'the scientists are wrong'. One can't respond to such vaugeness. I and others would be happy to respond to anything specific - I've already addressed the few specific claims made on this thread above.

Just one question; isn't it funny how not one person who was rattling on about 'they were wrong about ice ages in the 70's they're wrong bout global warming now' has conceded that the linked article proves what was actually generally thought or alternately attempted to show the article is wrong? What does this tell you? It seems facts don't play a major role in the formation of some people's opinions, so I suppose facts aren't going to dissuade them from opinions either.

Just a Creationists have no theory to explain the evidence around us (other than 'apparent' age, LOL), so to do the anti-lobby have no theory to explain current trends.

Frank

Thank you for actually giving a decent response... maybe we can drag this thread out of the slough of dispond it's fallen into with the help of hillary and others.

As I am sat in a airport departure lounge with my laptop waiting for a delayed flight, I'd rather respond later. Maybe after my daughter's asleep this evening or on Tuesday when I'm back to normal schedule? Sunday night I am planning on destroying some brain cells and I am travelling Monday evening. Hope you don't mind.

76

LOVE, ALTRUISM & EVOLUTION

by Dansk in

i'm an evolutionist.

one cannot argue that evolution isn't a fact.

however, i'd be interested in the better informed amongst us here explaining in simple terms how the feeling of love evolved.

Abaddon

Interesting conversation... I'm away this weekend but my Eurocent's worth is;

Organisms that show what we call 'altruistic' behviour do so because there was a survival benefit to the ancestral organisms for behaving 'altruistically'.

Be it vampire bats feeding other vampire bats, or wolves bringing home food to other sick wolves or cubs that are not their own, those behavious exist because in a community of such organisms the ones WITH these traits had more surviving offspring than those communities or animals without those traits; any altruistic behaviour in nature likely (i.e. we've found some and probabaly it's common when altruism is observed but has not always been documented yet) has with it a set of behaviours for dealing with cheats who don't return the favour. Read up on vampire bats.

Love? Strongest force in the Universe. Maybe it's our name for how we feel when feeling altuistic? But our big brains bend 'the rules' somewhat. Have a fun discussion guys, I gotta go.

262

Global Warming Hysteria

by metatron in

jw
friends

http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2007/02/quacks-cranks-and-junk-science.html.

are global warming skeptics really just cranks?

i don't doubt that we are having some effect on .

Abaddon

Bro Apo

Your continued evasion of issues, the lies and distortions of your perpetual ad homs might convince you. You might even be so contemptuous of others you think it'll fool them However your intent and your lack of substance are really quite noticable; the first post of yours I noticed was fallacious, why should this one be any different? E. coli has its place in nature and so apparently do you. It's about your level from what I see here.

You also seem to be under some mistaken impression that your opinion (which you have demonstrated the 'worth' of) about me is of any interest. Or that I am in any way intimidated by you posting your repetative evasions and fabrications about me. How can I be intimidated by something with all the substance of the hole in the middle of a doughnut?

So too craven to talk about the science?

That's all I need to know; Unless responding to further posts would be amusing (for me), or you actually have the balls to discuss the issues instead of attacking me, you can carry on your Onanistic relationship with your keyboard all you like.

262

Global Warming Hysteria

by metatron in

jw
friends

http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2007/02/quacks-cranks-and-junk-science.html.

are global warming skeptics really just cranks?

i don't doubt that we are having some effect on .

Abaddon

Big Tex

We can only paint with a big paint brush; details and precision is rather difficult in climate prediction. It's hard enough with short-term weather forecasting.

But the 'big brush' we have give us more than enough etail to know what is happening with a ohigh order of confidence. In some areas it will be colder. In most warmer. Some places will get more precipitation (like East Antartica). Some less. If the Gulf Stream stops, Europe gets a Canadian climate, for example (in very rough terms). I've not researched predictions for specific geographical areas thoroughly though, so there may be more data out there.

What is 90% certain is current rapid increase in average global temperatures is caused by man, and that as CO2 rises, so too will average tempratures leading to modest sea-level rises in our life times, and changes in climate that (for exaple) will push the corn belt North and make producing Champagne in Southern England possible by the time Champagne in France has a climate too hot for it to produce the drink named after it..

For most Western Europeans it will mean no need to go to the South of France, as it's coming to you. I mean, what's the fuss over climate change? Warmer summers and the beach gets closer!

For 'Westerners' the impacts in our life time are not too bad in most places. Some developed countries will probably really get it in the neck though.

It is our actions that determine what impact climate change will have in our children's life times. Of course, it's just possible many of us will live well over 100 as medical technoloy gets better, so if compacency and denial steer the actions we'll probably suffer for inaction now.

Funny thing is the anti-lobby seem to have missed the fact that now the projections are showing it costs less to limit change than to pay for the impact of unchecked change, industry and governments are begining to take this far more seriously; only last week China and India agreed to get on board emission control for the frist time.

Metatron

So, you lie about me making an ad hom and then respond with a childish retort when I call you on it. LOL. You funny... and this makes you look good how exactly?

Then you post an article... oooo... yes.... I see...

"one scientist's controversial theory"

"His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University. "And they contradict the extensiveevidence presented in the most recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report." (Related: "Global Warming 'Very Likely' Caused by Humans, World Climate Experts Say" [February 2, 2007].)"

Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that "theideajustisn'tsupportedby the theory or by theobservations."

Perhaps the biggest stumbling block in Abdussamatov's theory is his dismissal of the greenhouse effect, in which atmospheric gases such as carbon dioxide help keep heat trapped near the planet's surface.
He claims that carbon dioxide has only a small influence on Earth's climate and virtually no influence on Mars.
But "without the greenhouse effect there would be very little, if any, life on Earth, since our planet would pretty much be a big ball of ice," said Evan, of the University of Wisconsin.

So, this is your level of 'research'? LOL. You cite a scientist that the article make it very clear refuses to accept that without the greenhouse effect the Earth would be frozen (when there's pretty well established equations measuring the heat capacity of various atmospheric components, and their accuracy is measurable) and who ignores the extensive evidence that solar forcing is not resposible.

Yes, well I am sure you'll now tell me about Abdussamatov's other linked theory, ya know the mini-ice age in 100 years? What, didn't you know?

See what happens when you don't check your sources! In insisting the consenus of qualified scientists is wrong about rapid climate change you actually support by citation someone who insists that there will be rapid climate change the other way!!!!

I couldn't make you look any more silly if I tried.

262

Global Warming Hysteria

by metatron in

jw
friends

http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2007/02/quacks-cranks-and-junk-science.html.

are global warming skeptics really just cranks?

i don't doubt that we are having some effect on .

Abaddon

metatron

Firstly, my point regarding Christopher Landsea is NOT an ad hom. I actually show the blog author misrepresented things. Be careful with your sloppy accusations.

Secondly "He is wrong because he has a big nose" is an ad hom. "This is a lousy person to cite as he's hired out his opinion before and his credibility is questionable" is not an ad hom as long as it is factual, especially as I am virually pleading for people to discuss the science at the same time. My main interest is arguably discussing the science, so far the change-deniers et. al. seem to avoid it like the plauge.

So, where's your attempt to actually discuss the science?

zack

And why are they picking on carbon dioxide? We BREATHE it out, for crying out loud. Oh here's a solution the hypers of this "crisis" haven't put forward:

Yet another example of someone who has a strong opinion that nothing is happening, yet by their statements shows they don't begin to understand the scientific argument.

jaguarbass

Nice to see you use the adage 'efollow the money'. It is a good one.

Why don't you ALSO apply it to the fact all lobby groups against global warming being a fact are supported by vested interests who would lose money if we tried to limit further environmental damage?

It really is so like the tobacco industries support of 'scientists' and lobby groups who were aplogists for the damage smoking causes (which they supported as they stood to lose money if they didn't make a counter argument), but people seem unwilling to discuss the similarities.

Frank

The culprit for global warming and cooling seems primarily to be the sun.

A statement with enough science and exactness in it to respond to!

Yes, and the reason that the majority of sceintists are concerned is the current increase in temperature cannot be explained by the sun THIS TIME, even though it's role is pivotal and it has caused climsate change before.

As you seem to be interested in the science, let's cut to the chase.

If my statement that there is no forcing from the sun to account for current climatic trends is incorect, please show me.
If it is correct, please give me (with evidence) what forcing IS causing recent trends?
If you are unable to do this, please speculate on likely forcings causing curerent climatic trends.

~~

In general this thread reads like regurgitated propoganda from the 'nothing happening' lobby. The references to the 70's ice age thing is a sure sign of it, as this is as over-used by that lobby as the little puffs of debris coming out the WTC windows a few stories below the collapse is over-used by the 911 conspiracists.

I know this stuff already as I have dealt with this particular change-deniers argument before, but thought I would do a 'ground-up' approach in examining the claims that 'as scientists were saying there would be global cooling were wrong then the scientists saying there will be global warming arguement will be wrong too".

For a start, science gets stuff wrong. And?

Does anyone say "as scientists who predicted travel above 30mph in a train would tresult in aphixiation were wrong, any sttement made about scientists regarding the safety of various modes of ravel will be wrong too". No, they don't, and yes, that is a factual example. Whether you like it or not the argument is a mixture of an ad hom and a negative argument from authority. In other words, wrong, fallacious, whatever. It pretends to be a scientific argument but is not as it doesn't deal with the science that predicts further change linked to CO2 level.

Okay, but what about the specific claim; did 'scientists' make such a claim, and is it comparable to the current claims?

This popped up halfway down the page on Yahoo! wih the search string 'ice age scare global warming'. Really difficult to find reasned discusion... thus sometime my exasperation as I know how easy it is to find stuff out if you're bothered enough, or check out the veracity of claims.

To those not arsed enough to read it, the key points are;

"the results indicate that the long-term trend over the next 20,000 years is towards extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation and cooler climate" is a fair example of the claims being made by real scientists in real science mags.

The main report into it concluded

Establish National climatic research program
Establish Climatic data analysis program, and new facilities, and studies of impact of climate on man
Develope Climatic index monitoring program
Establish Climatic modelling and applications program, and exploration of possible future climates using coupled GCMs
Adoption and development of International climatic research program
Development of International Palaeoclimatic data network

... i.e. a call for more research , not a prediction.

And that with modern science examining the additonal data now available it is fair to say;

The cooling trend from the 40's to the 70's now looks more like a slight interruption of an upward trend (e.g. here). It turns out that the northern hemisphere cooling was larger than the southern (consistent with the nowadays accepted interpreation that the cooling was largely caused by sulphate aerosols); at first, only NH records were available.
Sulphate aerosols have not increased as much as once feared (partly through efforts to combat acid rain); CO2 forcing is greater. Indeed IPCC projections of future temperature inceases went up from the 1995 SAR to the 2001 TAR because estimates of future sulphate aerosol levels were lowered (SPM).
Interpretations of future changes in the Earth's orbit have changed somewhat. It now seems likely (Loutre and Berger, Climatic Change, 46: (1-2) 61-90 2000) that the current interglacial, based purely on natural forcing, would last for an exceptionally long time: perhaps 50,000 years.

So essentilly people using this argument are just like Creationists quoting from OriginoftheSpecies and using the fact ideas have changed somewhat and newe data is now available as an excuse to throw the baby out with the bathwater. You might not like that characterisation, in which case feel free to show my argument is at fault.

Note that so far, other than regurgitation of classic anti-change lobby arguments which are easily dismissed ( a bit like Creationists banging on about the 2nd Law), no anti-change supporter has really engaged in the science of the argument.

And that's the biggest clue in the book for me.

So, someone, anyone, talk to me about thescience. It seems a certain side in this discussion wants to swagger around declaiming their rightness and the foolishnehss of the other side of the argument, but aren't prepared to back it up in a proper scientific discussion.

Oh, and I'm away this weekend, so if anyonme does pick the gautlet up, me not replying until Tuesday or Wednesday is no indicator of anything other than spending time with my daughter is more interesting than this.

On my return I will gladly respond to anyone who actually talks about the sciencific arguments.

More reguritated nonsense thatasimple check online would reveal as nonsense will be treated appropriately.

262

Global Warming Hysteria

by metatron in

jw
friends

http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2007/02/quacks-cranks-and-junk-science.html.

are global warming skeptics really just cranks?

i don't doubt that we are having some effect on .

Abaddon

With the first three scientists mentioned by the unqualified political hack authoring this Blog one has to note;

The blog author doesn't know or dishonestly represent the reasons for Christopher Landsea's objections; he holds WITH global warming, and man having a part. He just objected to it saying hurricanes would be worse.
Richard Lindzen is gun for hire and will only make ludicrously safe bets that he is right.
Frederick Seitz was effectively dimissed as being of no use as an apologist by CEO of R J Reynolds due to his advanced age and cloudy thinkng.

Just Wiki their names. Or did checking the credibility of an article not occur to you BEFORE you jumped behind it?

Until you 'antis' come up with more credible references, or actually start discussing the science and showing us how informed you are and how ignorant the rest of us are (which you clearly think anyway), you're just flapping your gums, making as credible an argument as someone in 1985 saying cigarettes don't cause cancer, and listening to the same sort of apologists as trotted ut such nonsence then.

Enjoy! I'll not hold my breath. Although I would enjoy a decent debate about the scientific claims made on either side I doubt any of you will oblige me.

28

Allah... he can dish it out but can't take it.

by Elsewhere in

jw
friends

looks like the all-powerful creator of everything has to hide behind humans when confronted with opposing ideas.

sure, allah can rant on and on about how he wants to kill and torment the unbelievers, but what happens when someone simply questions allah?

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=internetnews&storyid=2007-02-22t130227z_01_l22432925_rtrukoc_0_us-egypt-blogger.xml&src=rss&rpc=22.

Abaddon

AK - Jeff

And what did BAC's do on this thread to deserve this? Wasn't it about Islam?

Ah, no off-topic slagging off of Christians please! Only factually inaccurate slagging off of Muslims is allowed in this thread!

Gill

It appears that Islam is equally ashamed of its women, as its extremists, like to have them covered from head to foot, as if they were a 'thing of shame', or in reality, to keep them in their place and censored......like non people.

Islam is not monolithic. Don't blame Islam for the extremists. Your statement is no more accurate than "It appears that Christianity is equally ashamed of its women, as its Missionariess, like to have them covered from head to foot, as if they were a 'thing of shame' was in the 19th Century based upon an indigenous person's incredulity that he human body should be covered up.

Just a Christianity was intolerent and oppressive 300 years ago and then became secularised, with increasing rapidity from about 1800 and very much from 1900, so too will Islam be secularsed with the same inputs (indistrialisation, increasing need of education, increasing need to fully educate and integrate women in society to succesfully modernise).

Just as there were reasonable Christians with modern viewpoints about racism, women, beating children, etc. in 1850, so too there are reasonable Muslims with modern viewpoints about racism, women, beating children, etc. today.

I just don't get why the idea that Islam is, in many areas, 150 years behind Western culture in its appreciation of secular society and human rights (which go hand in hand), is so hard for some people (not you Gill) to accept.

Both dish it out.....but neither can take the slightest criticism.

As Jeff illustrates nicely, not that he's a BAC neccesarily.

25

Should Britain Build a £100m Mosque for the Olympics?

by LittleToe in

a poll is being taken by the british newspaper "the evening standard" as to whether or not britain should invest 100m in a new mosque for the olympics.

i have to admit i'm a little confused as to why folks would desire to have their tax money invested in paying for a religious building, given that religions are already tax free.

i don't see a similar offfer to build a new cathedral, synagogue or hindu temple, nor would i want to.

Abaddon

By the phrasing I understand 'with piublic money', in which case yes, but only if I get a Gylosque; a structure erected in rural solitutde for spiritual pursuits comprising a Mansion house in 100 acres with a swimming pool, a menage and twenty loose-boxes, all surrounded by a 12' wall with raor wire on top.

So no then. A silly idea.

With private money? None of my business, no more than should the next church, Gudwara, Synagoge, Mithratic Cave or Santa's Grotto be built. That's what planning laws are for.

28

Allah... he can dish it out but can't take it.

by Elsewhere in

jw
friends

looks like the all-powerful creator of everything has to hide behind humans when confronted with opposing ideas.

sure, allah can rant on and on about how he wants to kill and torment the unbelievers, but what happens when someone simply questions allah?

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=internetnews&storyid=2007-02-22t130227z_01_l22432925_rtrukoc_0_us-egypt-blogger.xml&src=rss&rpc=22.

Abaddon

lowden

Unfortunately Abaddon, the religion and culture of the Hardcore Islamic World are one and the same.

Ah, so there are hardcore and softcore versions? So we agree that Islamic culture is not monolithic, but is rather, like Christian culture, a combination of different cultures united by a religious tradition?

You may have noticed my use of 'Arab' and 'Persian' to specify different Islamic cultures. And to be blunt when it comes to most violent extremism we are talking about a very specific sect of Arabian Islam, the Wahhabis, who have proselytised their sect in various places (thus it popping up in Indonesia and Afghanistan, although neither are Arabic). Other Muslims can be oversensitive but are normally only VOCAL, which I think we will both agree is their right.

Idiot Muslims banging on about how such-and-such offends Allah are just as entitled as the (smaller percentage of) idiot Christians who bang-on about how such and such offends god. And they are identical in their conceit that their feelings about their invisible unprovable friend should be taken into account by non-believers. Holy Jesus on a fricking stick (see, some Christians would complain vocally about such blasphemy); some even try to impose their religious opinions on other people's bodies; how medieval is that?

Please note I divide froth-mouthed protest from blowing people up. One is a right (no matter how silly I think it might be for people to protest about), the other isn't.

Now given you agree with that Islam is NOT a monoculture. I don't how you can then say that 'the religion and culture of the Hardcore Islamic World are one and the same'.

You disagree with me saying Islam varies according to the culture expressing it yet the very way you say it implies that there is more than one way of expressing it . Please clarify, restate or retract.

Until these two become separate and they start to advance culturally the accursed medieval law that they live by will continue to draw the utmost derision from more civilised societies.

Well, I agree some Islamic cultures are basically medieval. Some Nigerian Christians torture and even kill children because they believe they are demonised; seems medieval behaviour is not just a Christian thing or Muslim thing, but is a CULTURAL thing. I do agree that secularisation is vital, as it is the insistence on the churches (or the mosques) role in government and law that is such a retarding force to cultural development.

It is their brand of religion that gives them their beliefs, which are then turned into laws.

THEIR brand of THEIR religion, which is a result of THEIR culture.

I note you just disagree with me rather than actually demonstrating my contention (religion is expressed by culture) is false. Please by all means show where my reasoning or examples are wrong. You're free to have another opinion, but pure disagreement without any attempt at engaging with the points I made is not a really interesting conversation for either of us.

Another example of why I feel my contention is valid;

Medieval Europe: Christian, brutal and ignorant. Incapable of living side-by-side with other religions or even variations of the same religion.
Medieval Islam: End of a golden age with scientific knowledge respected, and capable of living side-by-side with other faiths.

See? The SAME religions, over time or in different places, doing different things.

To credibly disprove my contention (religion is expressed by culture) you have to actually come up with a flaw in my argument.

Many Anglicised Moslems do display a more open and lenient approach but even in the UK there is a foul and pestilent undercurrent of Islamic intolerance.

Maybe you object to my choice of words rather than what I actually mean. I say 'religion is expressed by culture' and you seemingly disagree, yet both immediately above and in another comment above addressed separately you actually agree with my point by conceding using other words that separate groups of Muslims practise Islam differently.

I cannot EVER see the Islamic world changing and that's a sad thought for human society as a whole.

What evidence do you have for this belief? I mean, the Islamic world has changed in the past, as has the Christian one. You can believe what you like, but you appear to be insisting what has happened in the past cannot happen again without a logical argument.

There is no defence whatsoever for the backward, human rights violating that these Fundamentalist Islamic nations spew onto their citizens.

Defending something ("it is okay it happens") is different to understanding why something happens. I do the latter not the former, so statements of the obvious ("There is no defence whatsoever for ... human rights violating") directed at me have limited value.

greendawn

I don't think Turkey...

Yah mean the country that had universal female suffrage two years BEFORE the UK? Seventeen years before France? 44 years before Switzerland? Damn backward Muslims... LOL

is a quasi democratic country because it is ruled by the military, they are the real power in the land and not the politics

What do you know about the recent history of Greece, Spain and Portugal? I'd review their political history in the last three decades, as you are in danger of applying different standards. Portugal joined the EU 12 years after a military coup, Greece 14 years after a coup, and Spain was a dictatorship until 1975.

There is no way that Turkey will enter the EU with this kind of political set up and it's hard to see this changing as the generals are so well entrenched, can they really give up their positions of ultimate control over the country, remove many oppressive laws (eg the laws against "insulting" turkism and the army which readily lead to suppression of freedom of speech) and allow true democracy? Time will show but if it does ever happen it will be a first.

Humph. I'd also ask what you know about the history of Turkey, specifically Ataturk and onwards. You seem to have a either a lack of information about the military in Turkey, or are applying a double standard and saying Turkey can not do what three modern European countries have done.

In 1997 it was the military that gave a warning that the then Prime Minister's Islamicism was eroding the values of the secular state, and kept on giving them until he stood down. So if Tony Blair's faith meant he risked compromising the (yes I know we don't have one this is an example) British Constitution, you would criticise the military for speaking out against the secular nature of our country being eroded? You would have the military keep faith with the Prime Minister rather than the Constitution? I think not, but please, do say...

Oh, and Greece still has active and still used Blasphemy laws, and has questionable press freedom with a similar issue over 'Macedonia' existing as the one over Armenia or Kurdistan in Turkey. What was your argument about freedom of speech exactly? Greece is an EU member. Is the illogical nature of your position due to not knowing that EU countries have freedom of speech issues and recent military involvement in their government or is bit of a double standard because Turkey is Islamic and the rest of Europe isn't?

If you are opposed to Turkey due to its Islamic background, please tell me why. Is your religious bigotry based on a belief all Islam is 'bad' in someway, or due to your beliefs about the harm that Turkey could do as a culture have facts and reasoning behind them that apply specifically to Turkey (rather than generic Islamostan fear -mongering)?