Slashdot Mirror

"Tensions Over Hormuz Raise Ugly Possibilities For War"

It's no wonder the Iranians are deeply upset by the sanctions. Surely some people do realise that economic sanctions will likely kill an awful lot of the poorest people in Iran and the sanctions are in themselves, a declaration of war. Theses sanctions worked so very well in Iraq with estimations of up to 1.7 million civilian deaths as a direct result of these sanctions by 1995. http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq17.html.
Like with Iraq, there is no direct evidence of a reason for war and we have already seen the political posturing and powers that be, who already have Iraqi blood on their hands are still lying to us with articles such as this http://www.adl.org/main_International_Affairs/ahmadinejad_words.htm.

For people who don't see how sanctions can kill so many people (taken from UNICEF report 1995 (sorry original link to the report is no longer working ) “Sanctions are inhibiting the importation of spare parts, chemicals, reagents, and the means of transportation required to provide water and sanitation services to the civilian population of Iraq... What has become increasingly clear is that no significant movement towards food security can be achieved so long as the embargo remains in place. All vital contributors to food availability - agricultural production, importation of foodstuffs, economic stability and income generation, are dependent on Iraq’s ability to purchase and import those items vital to the survival of the civilian population.”

That wouldn't work, no "enviro-nazi" would dump that much carbon and other pollutants into the air. They'd probably bury it or send it to China or something.

Oh really? http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/ecoterrorism.asp

Prescott Bush.

Convicted war profiteer, indicted for trading with the enemy.

So it doesn't look like that is true at all. He was never convicted and the funds frozen during the war were given back. Get your facts straight

http://www.adl.org/Internet_Rumors/prescott.htm.

That is a giant myopic self-serving load of unbelievably biased crap. You sound like one of those who believe the only land the Israelis deserve is below ground. Let's look at your arguments:
"occupy a people"- who are they occupying? The palestinians have their own government(s), as usual selected by violence. In Israel, where many 'palestinians' live comfortably and peacefully, there are palestinians elected to office- where else in the middle east can you find that (with a real election)? I'll check back for your answer.
"deny their rights"- The Israelis don't care wtf they do in the palestinian territories, as long as it doesn't involve shooting at Israel. If they shoot at Israel, Israel will shoot back, duh. There are terrible abuses taking place in the palestinian territories, but they're being done by Fatah and Hamas. Complain about that for once if you want to sound credible.
  "imprison them arbitrarily, starve them, terrorize them"- see above.
"steal their water"- wtf are you talking about? IIRC, fresh water flows into Israel from Syria or Jordan, and they basicly dump raw sewage and chemical waste just before it crosses the border. Is that ever mentioned, or is it not a problem because it's happening to Israel?
"and land"- If the palestinians would stop shelling civilian areas, stop trying to blow up school buses, and stop sending terrorists over to
murder children and pregnant women and then gloat about it (see the article about murdering children again, no seriously) then Israel wouldn't feel the need to have a buffer zone. If none of that happened and Israel took land then you would have a right to complain.
"deny them entry to their own country if they visit medical resources outside of occupied territories"- Reference please, sounds like BS unless they're on a terrorist list. Not that the 'medical resources' was probably a free clinic or hospital in Israel. The rest of the arguments in that paragraph are just crap in that they're thoroughly discredited or outright false.

One other point- you keep portraying Israel as the aggressor, and the poor palestinians as the ultimate victims. Do you know that part of the charter of Hamas is to destroy Israel, killing every Israeli man, woman, and child in the process? Admittedly Israel is not perfect, but how can you solely blame them for the continuing violence with a straight face? You say you would defend Sweden, and rightfully so. But if Norway were to start launching artillery into Sweden, and declared they wanted to murder all Swedes, would you just stand at the border and give them the finger? If Denmark decided they wanted Malmo and sent in terrorists to murder women and children who lived nearby, would you just sit there wishing they would stop? Think about how you would react, and how Israel has reacted to a very similar situation. Are you still going to be as critical?

We knew blacks were human, for instance.

"We" did?

"We" do?

Author: William Pierce (as Andrew Macdonald), leader of the neo-Nazi National Alliance
Published: 1978

http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/Turner_Diaries.asp?xpicked=5&item=22

you can find it posted in stormfront too, total drek

ADL: http://www.adl.org/presrele/IslME_62/4153_62.asp

IMRA: http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=13110

Buddhists would say that the meaning of the icon lies in the mind of the one ascribes the meaning to it. Therefore the icon has no intrinsic meaning in and of itself and thus they would have no problem finding another meaningless icon to use in its place.

That cuts both ways - you can count on the neo-nazis just using other symbols in response to the ban too.

The Tzar Lazar Guard aren't protestants though, I was looking specifically at protestant radicals because that's the the KKK is and the bulk of the militant anti-immigration, Christian Identity and anti-birthcontrol groups are protestants.

The ADL estimates the Christian Identity movement to be at the low end of the 25-50,000 range, of course Christian Identity includes the KKK's 6-8000 members

http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/Christian_Identity.asp?xpicked=4&item=Christian_ID

Now why would the Serbs muster a militia of 5000 men? Well there was the whole Bosnia/Kosovo/Croatia/Albania thing going on that influences regional politics in Serbia.

The fact is, the American Christian Identity movement has been able to kill a few doctors, blow up one building killing 168 people and have some armed stand offs with the Feds that have killed about 100 more people in the last 20 years.

Meanwhile the small Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades killed 768 in the same period.

While the protestant militants have some numbers, they don't show nearly the same level of active members, motivation or capabilities that Islamic militants do.

Are you honestly telling me that if some group decided that the wiretapping laws Bush made were "going too far" and the decided to start an armed uprising against the president the military would have trouble finding people willing to go and shoot every last one of them dead?

Obviously not. Nobody did that when Bush did order wiretapping. However there was the Waco seige, the Oklahoma City bombing supposedly in response to Waco, and Ruby Ridge. Those were just in the '90s. In the '80s a number of militias sprang up. The Weather Underground began in 1969. Or look at the Senate race in Nevada. The republican candidate is appealing to militia types. Or look at the Tea Party movement. The Jewish ADL or Anti-Defamation League has this on the militia movement in the US. Let's see what the "Telegraph" in the UK says: " The truth behind America's 'civilian militias' Armed and extremely... patriotic. Why a growing number of Americans are preparing for a war against their government." Along a similar vein Foxnews, the conservative news outlet, has the article Militia Accused of Plotting War on U.S. Gov't.

Just look how quickly rumors are spread, then are corrected on the net, even if they don't die. Look at wikileaks, and all those reports from Afghanistan being released. Today it's foolish to believe the US government can get away with military action against it's own citizens. Hell people still denounce McCarthyism. And while you may not know or recall it yourself there still are people who recall J Edgar Hoover and COINTELPRO. Of course Bush did pretty good at rolling back the checks that were put in place to stop stuff like that again. But just as then people will rise up again to denounce and protest it.

Falcon

All very good and patriotic.

Not particularly. I value freedom of speech no matter what the country, and have no particular loyalty to my own.

But first you are going to have to explain how not drawing Mohammed and publishing it on the internet is a threat to any of your freedoms or beliefs.

That depends very much on the reason why not. If we don't do so simply because we were threatened, that is a threat.

Look up the history of the KKK here. There was a landmark case in which they were allowed to have their own local public access TV show. Hate speech may be reprehensible, but you are not allowed to censor it.

Where we draw the line is actions. The KKK

You say yourself that it is to "demonstrate our ideals and our courage". Who is it supposed to be "demonstrating" to, if not Muslims?

Viacom, for one -- the company which recently caved to Muslim death threats and self-censored out of cowardice.

Why should Muslims have to 'prove' anything?

Because when moderate Muslims remain silent, the extreme voices speak for you, and they are increasingly barbaric and intolerant. Prove that the average Muslim is more like this guy and less like this guy.

Who are these people who have decided that they determine who and what enters the 'modern world' and what is permissible there?

The people who built it.

You see, it's not only ideas and discourse that benefit from a lack of censorship, but scientific progress as well. The computer you are using is a product of those values -- of scientific inquiry and the free exchange of speech, thought, and ideas.

Yeah, cos drawing rude pictures of people and passing them around is very mature and grown up.

Much more so than censoring and blowing shit up, yes.

If we're lucky this will progress to calling each other poopy-pants and arguments about who started it.

None of which results in people dying, or in multiple networks being blocked to silence the voices of a minority.

This is trolling. Trolling is not free speech because it's sole purpose is to offend.

Sorry, yes, trolling is free speech. Again, freedom of speech is worthless unless it is all speech, even speech you personally find offensive.

Is that what the Constitution is for? The framework for deciding who is responsible and who is not has been written, and it's simply a matter of interpretation to decide which is which.

The key is to define one's liberty, and take action against those who restrict the daily freedom of Americans in the name of dissent. A simple negative opinion on a blog should be left as is, while someone who decides that burning down a ski lodge in the name of animal rights should be targeted.

I guess Rathakrishnan will be sued by the ADL next.

The symbol of a noose isn't merely a random piece of art that someone interprets. It is an icon which was used to represent a threat.

Since racists can't just go out and say, "hey, let's kill some black people", they just show the image of a noose. It's a historical reference, and everyone gets the point.

Except you apparently. Frankly, I find your whole, "a noose is an inanimate object" argument ridiculous. Just because you don't get it doesn't mean that people don't use it that way: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/01/05/chernoff.noose/index.html

http://www.adl.org/hate_symbols/racist_noose.asp

I still find your argument bewildering

You can use all of your own arguments against your arguments!

It was a symbol of "We kill horse thieves" before racism. And of "Don't fuck with the king" before that. Big jump from scary to racism.

You can ban speech, but not hate, so since a racist can't say "let's kill some black people" they pick another way to say it. And you quote a story where the racist said "let's go hang Russel up there" and the ADL as sources. I can do that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hangman's_knot Nothing about racism. (Now anyway... In 10 minutes, who knows...)

And let me boil it down for you... Communication is ambiguous. Hitting someone is not. There are plenty of real racists in the world, and mostly they aren't subtle. Read your own article. The noose was disturbing, but the comments were shocking. No need to worry about the noose when he threatened to hang someone.

And just because someone chooses to take offense at a statement I made, it does not make me a racist. Right now people are being called racist for being against the current health plan. Stuff like that just makes real racism harder to fight.

The symbol of a noose isn't merely a random piece of art that someone interprets. It is an icon which was used to represent a threat.

Since racists can't just go out and say, "hey, let's kill some black people", they just show the image of a noose. It's a historical reference, and everyone gets the point.

Except you apparently. Frankly, I find your whole, "a noose is an inanimate object" argument ridiculous. Just because you don't get it doesn't mean that people don't use it that way:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/01/05/chernoff.noose/index.html

http://www.adl.org/hate_symbols/racist_noose.asp

I still find your argument bewildering

Actually, a consequence of these laws is that you cannot "spot them" on sight.

please elaborate. You keep repeating that it's impossible to identify bad people without absolutely free speech, yet you failt to explain why.

Don't be so glib. The US legal tradition of free speech goes back many centuries.

And that is relevant to what I said how? I pointed out that it's possible to talk about Nazis without allowing them themselves to talk. To use another analogy: Chemical weapons are illegal to own and there are treaties restricting them on the nation level. Yet we can talk about them and we'd be able to identify them, even though people are not allowed to use them freely. Because knowing something and experiencing something are two different things.

Germany doesn't just prohibit "hate speech", it prohibits speech based on whether it may offend particular groups.

Can you point me to the corresponding laws? Right now I only find 185, 166 and 130 StGB.
185 prohibits insults - however, insults under 185 need to be libellous (the direct translation would be "reputation-violating", so the meaning is that they need to be aimed at damaging the victom's reputation). Merely making a statement someone doesn't agree with doesn't apply.
166 prohibits the "insulting of denominations, religious communities and ideological communities" but only if the insult occurs "in a way fit to disturb public peace". Again, I can say anything I want about a religion as long as I don't cause an uproar. The paragraph isn't one of our best but it's not quite as restrictive as you make it look like.
130 prohibits "agitation of the people" and targets (to quote this translation of the StGB) "[w]hoever, in a manner that is capable of disturbing the public peace incites hatred against segments of the population or calls for violent or arbitrary measures against them; or assaults the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously maligning, or defaming segments of the population", plus people who disseminate/publicly display/offer to people under 18 writings doing the same, plus people who deny the Holocaust. Apart from the last bit that's a pretty average hate speech law and it doesn't cover "might offend". While the USA doesn't have a similar federal law, many states have similar state laws. The Anti-Defamation League has a nice map.

So, you're saying its certain then? The reason Americans enjoy free speech rights is not because the Constitution says so, it's because people constantly fight for them.

That's funny, I must've looked somewhere else when they repealed the First Amendment so they could stop people talking about sex.

And the fact that these politicians think this helps them politically tells you a lot about German voters, as does the fact that you and others don't seem to think it matters much.

So the Americans are okay with a constitutional amendment denying healthcare benefits to same-sex couples? Because Sarah Palin said she supports it and I didn't see anyone physically attacking her over it. Oh, there was an outrage? Funny, same thing happens over here (on a smaller scale, though, because people aren't quite as touchy about gaming).

Just because I'm not surprised that politicians are trying everything to profile themselves doesn't mean I just sit there and take it in. I just know that nothing big is going to come out of this one and I care more about the politicians with a lower profile, a real malicious agenda and actual power over what they talk about. Of course this teacup-sized storm doesn't alarm me much; I know it's not going anywhere and won't be talked about once the election's over.

So I follow the same course of action that sa

I suppose we'll have to forget about the domestic terrorism in OK City.

but that was Christian terrorism, by a fella that was probably trained in a US Christian terrorist training camp called Elohim City, and therefore DID NOT HAPPEN.

C'mon, get with the program! It's only terrorism if non-christian brownish people do it. Didn't you get the talking points?

Hamas has presumably endorsed Barrack Obama due to the fact that he belonged to a church for 20 years that supports Palestine over Israel. Despite Obama's claims that he'll support Israel, you have to think that years of indoctrination to the contrary could have an effect on him.

But don't take my word for it, check the Anti-Defamation League's story. Note that this isn't something that can just be tied to Reverend "God damns America" Wright, this is the dogma of his denomination of Christianity itself. Obama may be able to distance himself from Wright, it's a bit harder to say "those core beliefs of the church I was a member of for 20 years aren't mine."

But that'd be my guess why Hamas would support Obama - his religion's leadership explicitly supports Hamas.

But it's not surprising that Hamas would endorse Obama. Obama's religion (by which I mean his denomination of Protestant Christianity) is notoriously antisemitic. No, not his pastor, this is completely unrelated to that, believe it or not.

Anti-Defimation League article
israelinsider article

You can find more via Google, but since Obama's religion goes by the extremely generic name "United Church of Christ" (and is frequently called the UCC) you need to check to make sure that article is actually referring to the UCC and not some other religion.

Again, this has absolutely nothing to do with Wright, the antisemitism comes from the leadership of the denomination itself by consensus. It's the entire religion, so Obama can't just "denounce Wright" and be done with it. The only way he could distance himself from it would be to leave the religion itself.

The article you posted is from an Oklahoma news organization but makes no reference to anything in the state. We really don't have too many polygamists in these parts, nice try though.

Now anti-semites and racists, that's another story: http://www.adl.org/learn/Ext_US/Elohim.asp?xpicked=3&item=13

A brief glance reveals that the link you gave is not a list of calls to destroy Israel. Here is one of the quotations on the page: "They [the United States] think they are the absolute rulers of the world." Israel is not even mentioned. The list would be better described as a list of things said by Ahmedinejad that the Defamation League doesn't like. Now, you yourself came up with that URL, so you must have known of its contents. How should I interpret the discrepancy between what you claimed it was and what it actually is? The most obvious conclusion is that you are a bald-faced liar, but I might go with the maxim "Never assume malice when stupidity will suffice" on this one.

Your quotation, if you care to pay attention, actually starts off with the same sentence that I quoted. The difference is that I quoted the original Persian with an accurate translation, whereas you quoted just a fanciful translation.

Let's read it again: "een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e Qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad." Where in there does the word "Israel" even appear? Only Qods ("Holy One", the Arabic/Persian name for Jerusalem) is mentioned. And, as already pointed out, there is no mention of maps or use of violent metaphors. The expression "wipe off the map" does not even exist in Persian.

It is no good finding dodgy websites that repeat, with many variations, fabricated quotations in English. Ahmedinejad does not speak English. He speaks Persian, and what he said in Persian means what it means. You can't make it mean something else just by repeating lies again and again.

You can't even claim accidental ambiguity, because the Iranian government has even stated that "[n]obody can remove a country from the map. This is a misunderstanding. [...] How is it possible to remove a country from the map? He is talking about the regime. We do not recognise legally this regime."

Now, you can find plenty of quotations from Ahmedinejad in which he severely criticises the racist state of Israel, and argues that it will inevitably end when the refugees return to their own lands and vote Israel away, removing it from the page of time. You will also find Ahmedinejad saying stupid stuff. What you will not find is any talk of Iranian military aggression against Israel.

You will, however, find plenty of talk in Israel and the US about military aggression against Iran. You will find out that the US has rehearsed attacks on Iran in the Gulf. You will find that the US has organised economic sanctions on Iran to hurt its people. You will also discover that the US has actually invaded the countries to either side of Iran and is currently occupying them, having murdered well over half a million citizens, and admitted that they plan to keep troops there for ever.

Brazil is indeed not known to have threatened map-wiping in recent history, but then neither is Iran, so you have failed to make any point there.

A convenient listing of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's calls to destroy Israel, including this gem that directly addresses 'map wiping':

"Israel must be wiped off the map ... The establishment of a Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world ... The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of the war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land." -- Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, October 26, 2005

An explanation of our search results.

If you recently used Google to search for the word "Jew," you may have seen results that were very disturbing. We assure you that the views expressed by the sites in your results are not in any way endorsed by Google. We'd like to explain why you're seeing these results when you conduct this search.

A site's ranking in Google's search results relies heavily on computer algorithms using thousands of factors to calculate a page's relevance to a given query. Sometimes subtleties of language cause anomalies to appear that cannot be predicted. A search for "Jew" brings up one such unexpected result.

If you use Google to search for "Judaism," "Jewish" or "Jewish people," the results are informative and relevant. So why is a search for "Jew" different? One reason is that the word "Jew" is often used in an anti-Semitic context. Jewish organizations are more likely to use the word "Jewish" when talking about members of their faith. The word has become somewhat charged linguistically, as noted on websites devoted to Jewish topics such as these:

http://shakti.trincoll.edu/~mendele/vol01/vol01.17 4
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/jonah081500. asp
Someone searching for information on Jewish people would be more likely to enter terms like "Judaism," "Jewish people," or "Jews" than the single word "Jew." In fact, prior to this incident, the word "Jew" only appeared about once in every 10 million search queries. Now it's likely that the great majority of searches on Google for "Jew" are by people who have heard about this issue and want to see the results for themselves.

The beliefs and preferences of those who work at Google, as well as the opinions of the general public, do not determine or impact our search results. Individual citizens and public interest groups do periodically urge us to remove particular links or otherwise adjust search results. Although Google reserves the right to address such requests individually, Google views the comprehensiveness of our search results as an extremely important priority. Accordingly, we do not remove a page from our search results simply because its content is unpopular or because we receive complaints concerning it. We will, however, remove pages from our results if we believe the page (or its site) violates our Webmaster Guidelines, if we believe we are required to do so by law, or at the request of the webmaster who is responsible for the page.

We apologize for the upsetting nature of the experience you had using Google and appreciate your taking the time to inform us about it.

Sincerely,
The Google Team

p.s. You may be interested in some additional information the Anti-Defamation League has posted about this issue at http://www.adl.org/rumors/google_search_rumors.asp . In addition, we call your attention to Google's search results on this topic.

In the early 80s Bayan, Ghassan and Hassan Elashi had a little company that made computers for the royal Suadi family. My boss was Jewish and he and I were the only white guys there

I guess the term white guys could include Jews for large values of white, but some people might disagree. Then, again, Arabs and Jews can both be characterised as Semites, but that might upset other folks and offend the sensibilities of the politically correct who really don't know WTF they're saying (if anything).

Either way, you're screwed. You'd appeal to larger groups if you use more specific terminology or, as an alternative, use ethnic humour to make the point. If it was me, I'd opt for ethnic humour route, and offend everyone you possibly can. ;-)

"Yea, let's big up the US who were the ones who were the ones who funded the Nazis with their economic aid to Germany"

The US government provided essentially zero economic aid to Germany after the Nazis came to power. The US still had trade relations with them, but so did France, England, USSR, etc. Germany had far more trade within Europe than outside of Europe.

"as well as being the biggest Nazi appeasers who were willing to surrender the whole of Europe to avoid fighting the fascist regime they built up because they were so afraid of communism."

The US wanted to stay out of European wars in general. Given that we had gone into The Great War with the promise of "fighting to end wars" the cynical political maneuvering and general lack of good will after the war helped to create a climate of isolationism in the US. A lot of people couldn't see how US involvement in Europe had really made the world better, so why not stay out? The countries that were actually _in_ Europe consistently had appeased Germany for many years. Why would the US be more guilty of appeasement than Mexico or Brazil? Perhaps they simply viewed it as not their business.

"Even as Nazi bombs fell on London, US companies still sold arms and machine parts to Germany, and Ford motor company built tanks for Germany."

Control of Fordwerke, the German subsidiary of Ford, had passed to the German Government by WWII. An article at the ADL website, http://www.adl.org/Braun/dim_13_2_ford.asp/, gives a good overview.

"The USA never even declared war on Germany, it was Germany that declared war on the US first."

Interesting but a weak criticism. The US had just been bombed by Japan, declaring war on them was the logical response. Immediately declaring war on Germany would have been...quite odd actually.

when they are happy to endorse the exact same kind of defamation they claim to oppose

Who modded that up?
Did you even read the links you provided, or do you just like to defame an organization as you whine about about defaming others?

And as to your misleading comments implying they only care when Jews are harassed, here's one of many examples of ADL condemning anti-Arab and anti-Muslim violence after 9/11.

The Anti-Defamation League are a bunch of anti-Nazi Nazis.

The Anti-Defamation League are a bunch of anti-Nazi Nazis.

What exactly is an "interface Nazi"? Is that someone that develops a GUI that encourages concentration?

They acted completely appropriately for the first one. What they did next is what infuriated everyone.

They found the first one at 9 (story). At noon they announced to the public that it was a false alarm. Consequently, we can infer that they likely knew it was a false alarm no later than 11. Then they find another at 1pm. Might you expect the bomb squad to notice a trend and act accordingly - maybe tone down the paranoia? They had 2 hours to think about it! THAT's the thinking that I expect public officials, the ones in the know, to do. Call the chief of police and say, "hey, let everyone know that these things are harmless."

Instead, they scream their heads off comparing Turner Broadcasting's Lite-Brite stunt to actual terrorist bombings that actually kill people, and that they got SCARED (by Lite-Brites), and that they spent $750,000 (blowing up Lite-Brites) and ohmygod who's gonna pay for it?

Land of the brave, indeed.

Environmental extremists are extremely bad for the real environmental reform.
So there was no smile on my face because I was dead serious.

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4780

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=13367

http://www.fff.org/comment/com0512c.asp

http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/Ecoterrorism.asp?L EARN_Cat=Extremism&LEARN_SubCat=Extremism_in_Ameri ca&xpicked=4&item=eco

During the past two decades, radical environmental and animal rights groups have claimed responsibility for hundreds of crimes and acts of terrorism, including arson, bombings, vandalism and harassment, causing more than $100 million in damage. While some activists have been captured, ecoterror cells - small and loosely affiliated - are extremely difficult to identify and most attacks remain unsolved.

http://www.cdfe.org/conference.htm
Washington (CNSNews.com) - As concerns about eco-terrorism mount on Capitol Hill, there is more finger-pointing aimed at People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), which admits to having provided financial support to a group allegedly connected to the terrorism.

But while PETA acknowledges that some of its money has in the past gone to the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), and to the legal defense funds for several Animal Liberation Front (ALF) members, the organization denies that any of its money "goes toward illegal activities."

http://www.adl.org/hate_symbols/peckerwood.asp

Though I was personally unoffended.

Whenever a story like this is posted, there's always someone like you who posts about how horrible medical researchers are and how they should be ridiculed. It's just that the rest of us are smart enough to ignore you or tell you to STFU. The world you want to live in doesn't have a long life expectancy, but I certainly won't mind if you seek out cruelty-free medical treatment.

Cosmetics testing has certainly been gratuitously cruel to animals (I'm thinking of "Night of the Mary Kay Commandos," from Bloom County back in the day) but you obviously have no clue what you're talking about regarding medical research. Sure, all life is precious--to some degree--but the people who ought to be ridiculed are the PETA jackasses who compare cooped chickens with Jews in concentration camps, not the medical researchers who have very strict standards about animal treatment.

As a coagulated heart liberal, I have some real problems with the reactions to Borat. Specifically, the ADL (Anti Defamation League). It took them a while to get the point about Sacha Cohen, their first comment showed the bewilderment of an ideologue, but they did sort of come around (somebody must have explained it to them) by the time they issued their second comment.

But, they really show their own bigotry by endorsing his humor - I am pretty confident that if all the Kazakh references in his jokes were swapped with Israeli or Jewish references, the ADL would have a collective aneurysm. Instead they merely state that the use of Kazakhstan as the straight man of his jokes is "unfortunate."

I have long thought the ADL to be excessively anti-free speech in a very biased manner, their hypocrisy regarding Cohen's act has only cemented that belief for me.

As a coagulated heart liberal, I have some real problems with the reactions to Borat. Specifically, the ADL (Anti Defamation League). It took them a while to get the point about Sacha Cohen, their first comment showed the bewilderment of an ideologue, but they did sort of come around (somebody must have explained it to them) by the time they issued their second comment.

But, they really show their own bigotry by endorsing his humor - I am pretty confident that if all the Kazakh references in his jokes were swapped with Israeli or Jewish references, the ADL would have a collective aneurysm. Instead they merely state that the use of Kazakhstan as the straight man of his jokes is "unfortunate."

I have long thought the ADL to be excessively anti-free speech in a very biased manner, their hypocrisy regarding Cohen's act has only cemented that belief for me.

Thanks. There used to be a bunch of links to similar stuff here but I couldn't find it.

... The Al-Manar and Al-Nour Web sites were designated as Specially Designated Global Terrorist entities by the U.S. Treasury in March 2006 - it is illegal for U.S. companies or individuals to do business with, or supply services to, these entities. The U.S. previously designated Hezbollah's Al-Manar TV as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist Entity in December 2004, stating that the "television station is an arm of Hezbollah terrorist network." Other Hezbollah sites, such as its official online newsletters, are not specifically designated and continue to use U.S.-based services legally. In 2005, at least ten Hezbollah-associated Web sites either moved from or were shut down by Web-hosting companies in the U.S. and Canada.

... The Al-Manar and Al-Nour Web sites were designated as Specially Designated Global Terrorist entities by the U.S. Treasury in March 2006 - it is illegal for U.S. companies or individuals to do business with, or supply services to, these entities. The U.S. previously designated Hezbollah's Al-Manar TV as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist Entity in December 2004, stating that the "television station is an arm of Hezbollah terrorist network." Other Hezbollah sites, such as its official online newsletters, are not specifically designated and continue to use U.S.-based services legally. In 2005, at least ten Hezbollah-associated Web sites either moved from or were shut down by Web-hosting companies in the U.S. and Canada.

http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/Ecoterrorism.asp

Apparently you don't read the cartoons.
Quick someone protest!

Haulocaust? Is that when a dump truck spills its contents all over the highway?

There have been Holocaust video games.

Unfortunately they have been produced to show a Pro-Nazi point of view and reward people for their efficiency.

LK

Already on the market!.

"It's really the Jew Marxists who see the nigger as their instrument, as their bullets, by which to destroy our society."- The Sun (Wichita, KS), April 23, 1975

"Your ignorance. When was the last time Christians murdered someone for being homosexual? I seem to recall a mass murder a few weeks ago. How many forums ban the word "gay" even though there is nothing wrong with it aside from Christian oppression" Goolge mathew Shepard and I think this guy dissagree's. He wanted to place a plaque where he died that said ".. on this date Matthew Shepard entered hell".

He is in favor of stoning all homosexuals to death in all his sermons and is quite powerful in Kansas city. His website is www.godhatesfags.com (not linking because its offensive)

Hate crimes are in essence thought crimes too. Think about it.. hate is a thought. Your reasons for feeling a certain way are thoughts. So in essence you can be subject to more severe penalties purely based on your personal opinions while performing a crime. Not only that you can be convicted of a hate crime alone where your sole criminal act was an expression of hatred for something.

Again, in general, you can't be convicted of a hate crime simply because you hate some class or group. You can only be convicted of a hate crime if you allow your hatred of that class or group to spur you to commit an otherwise ordinary crime (murder, assault and battery, destruction of private property, etc.) against that class or group. If you have a hatred of Jews, for example, and you set fire to a halal grocery becuase the owners wanted to collect the insurance money, it would awfully hard to charge you with a hate crime. You could still be charged with arson, but since you don't have any animosity towards Muslims, you are pretty much clear on the hate crime issue.

If all you do with your hatred is sit and stew, or even if you engage in non-criminal overt acts (writing a web page, for example), you are not, in general, subject to hate crime statutes. Federal hate crime statutes seem particularly limited in scope, only covering certain sorts of criminal acts (e.g. arson or violent crimes) and only under certain circumstances (e.g. interfering with a federally protected activity).

Hate crimes are in essence thought crimes too. Think about it.. hate is a thought. Your reasons for feeling a certain way are thoughts. So in essence you can be subject to more severe penalties purely based on your personal opinions while performing a crime. Not only that you can be convicted of a hate crime alone where your sole criminal act was an expression of hatred for something.

Again, in general, you can't be convicted of a hate crime simply because you hate some class or group. You can only be convicted of a hate crime if you allow your hatred of that class or group to spur you to commit an otherwise ordinary crime (murder, assault and battery, destruction of private property, etc.) against that class or group. If you have a hatred of Jews, for example, and you set fire to a halal grocery becuase the owners wanted to collect the insurance money, it would awfully hard to charge you with a hate crime. You could still be charged with arson, but since you don't have any animosity towards Muslims, you are pretty much clear on the hate crime issue.

If all you do with your hatred is sit and stew, or even if you engage in non-criminal overt acts (writing a web page, for example), you are not, in general, subject to hate crime statutes. Federal hate crime statutes seem particularly limited in scope, only covering certain sorts of criminal acts (e.g. arson or violent crimes) and only under certain circumstances (e.g. interfering with a federally protected activity).

This lawsuit has some really strange bedfellows.
First you have greenpeace which is afraid that its fellow members in ELF are bein listened in on.
Then you have Council on American-Islamic Relations who has said that terrorist suspects should have unlimited access to thier supporters back home.

There are plenty of worthwhile groups that looking into wiretapping and if it was legal, this lawsuit is not going to do anything. The only reason for the ACLU to do it is for the publicity; after all it is coming up to 1 year when they filed a suit saying that the US Government has no right to pick up and deport illegal aliens.

Apparently the main outrage comes from ICAAN reassigning control of the little used .iq Iraq domain from two Palestinian immiagrants living in the US, currently in jail after being convicted on a variety of charges resulting from their supporting terrorists organizations, and giving control to the Iraqi government (which just had an electionwith unexpected support). This seemed to have fairly strong support on Slashdot just a few months ago. It was viewed as a positive thing in Iraq.

I'm finding it difficult to get worked up about this.

No, 88 is already reserved for Nazi propaganda: http://www.adl.org/hate_symbols/numbers_88.asp