Slashdot Mirror

Apple pursued lawful tax evasion, so it is acceptable. It does not matter if Apple use exploited labor to achieve their goals, harmful DRM, (lawfully) evade taxes, and not thank their biggest customer (USA) by establishing a larger manufacturing presence. http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/activate/2011/09/201194144739197637.html http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/activate/2011/09/20119994239791675.html Apple are not much different from Walmart, who harm US national interests by their practices: http://vimeo.com/52359213 Consumers do not care. Ideally, a well informed populace would take Apple and any other corporate entity who harms US interests to tasks. They could boycott, organize protests. Instead, consumers reward this behavior, so why should Apple not do whatever it wants?

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/01/201311071754973439.html

http://www.texasobserver.org/seeds-of-discontent/

http://www.motherearthnews.com/homesteading-and-livestock/farmers-sue-monsanto-over-seed-contamination.aspx

http://rt.com/usa/monsanto-court-plaintiffs-seed-747/

It is a spectator sport.

"most oil nations are so corrupt that social scientists argue over whether there is an inherent bondâ"a âoeresource curseââ"between big petroleum deposits and political malfeasance" link

That's because the 'democratic' west have made it their business to keep these countries corrupt, so as to maintain control of the OIL.

The Secret of the Seven Sisters

wars are not declared with photos of the president and a map behind him showing "squadrons of airplanes" attacking the US .. from N.Korea ( http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia-pacific/2013/03/2013328222926559483.html )

this is just a trick to pressure the west into giving hem MOARRR aid. none is stupid enough to destroy his own chain of power. There's only one case he must be "that stupid" : he's already agreed with the west ( recruited during the switzerland studies years ) to provoke an event from which the regime will collapse.

P.S. WILL THE FUCK SOMEONE DO ANYTHING WITH THIS MORONIC 10 PAGES LONG AUTOMATED POSTS BY BOTS? CAN'T JUST A MOD DELETE THEM ?

You seriously have to be joking. If you want to read http://mediamatters.org/ then go there, if you want to read http://foxnewslies.net/, if you want to read http://www.politifact.com/ then go there, if you want to read http://crooksandliars.com/ then go there. Don't waffle on about Fox not-News and demand people provide examples of Fox not-News blatant propaganda on slashdot, just bloody google it yourself there are thousands of examples, a regular daily act of corporate propaganda.

The reality here Fox not-News dresses up opinion as news whilst the other news channels are clear about what is opinion and what is news.

Here is a couple of links, just so can can go a bit rabid, http://rt.com/ and http://www.aljazeera.com/, go for it ;D.

The political environment added with each countries customs and beliefs will not let them just say "oh hah.. lol sorry, forgot it's the interenetz!"

Afghanistan/Iran and other countries already censor. Many will follow. It's the only logical, but unfortunate, recourse a country has over something they cannot otherwise control. Or, you just make your own state-sponsored trucks 'n tubes

Last year in an IAEA report they said that iran doesn't refine its uranium to weapon's grade but to a metallic form that can be used in reactors but can not be refined further. Now Aljazeera writes: The IAEA's report showed "no evidence of diversion of material and nuclear activities towards military purposes,"
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/02/2013221224353882956.html

It seems that the IAEA has in all their reports strong indications that the nuclear program is peaceful. So IAEA officials have been denied access to military installations which are not covered by the Nuclear non proliferation treaty. And even then, Iran has allowed inspections at a later date even though the IAEA has no right to do so (it wouldn't have in any other nation as well).
I have the distinct feeling that western media is very biased. But it was with Iraq's WMDs (or lack thereof) as well.

You're right, more gun laws would just turn America into a police state.

You know, that almost sounds like an endorsement for suicide which is probably one of the most disgusting and vehement posts I've read here so far. There is nothing rational nor sane about taking one's own life. When I was 16 one of my friends committed suicide...

Your incredibly selfish view is that everyone MUST continue living, no matter what suffering they are currently undergoing and/or what horrors they are facing, simply because it might make their loved ones & acquaintances sad? While I do not empathise with suicidal thoughts, and I would try to help someone like Aaron escape the twisted shithole the status quo was shoving him into in lieu of his choice to end his life, it is a gross and despicable suggestion of yours that it is only insanity and irrationalism that causes people to choose suicide. You obviously have no way of empathising or even sympathising with terminally ill people or those who face a life that is arguably worse than death (in their perception). That you would label such people as insane is shameful on your part, and your entire rational is centered around your (or in the case of those unfamiliar to you, others') outright selfishness and inability to understand that maybe for some people, their own independent choice to end their life is in some cases a superior option than the physical and/or psychological terrors (in Aaron's case, both) that exist in life. From your boot-licking of all laws the US government has ever passed, I would guess that you have never faced the prospect of going to (or been incarcerated in) a federal US prison. You have a clear inability to empathise with someone facing or currently in prison. If Bradley Manning wanted to end his life, and I could help him do so (but could not help him escape), I would be glad to provide assistence. If you do not know the feeling of being in a prison (and never being able to leave, for most or all of your life), or being terminally ill, or any of the other legitimate reasons why someone chooses to end their OWN life, then you have no just cause to force your skewed vilification of suicide on others, especially if your best reason is that it might make those living sad. You also display an utter lack of understanding about what insanity is, if you think every person in the past who has commited suicide is insane.

Did you know he was a Fellow at Harvard University's Center for Ethics? What do you think this meant for his career to be indicted on such charges? How would you, as a student, listen to a lecture on ethics from someone who had broken laws and evaded police?

While some may agree with you that suicide implies insanity, this is where you really show your utterly pathetic and slavish perspective: to suggest that all laws and every member of the police is in on the ethical side of all arguments and issues shows a level of rueful obsequiousness and brainwashed authoritarianism on your part that induces disgust in me. You write as if you agree with the bus driver who called the police to have Rosa Parks arrested: after all, they are just enforcing the law. Surely those police were ethical, in your skewed viewpoint? Or surely it is ethical for the government to behead a woman for practising sorcery? Or is it only the government of the country *you* were born in that is magically always on the superior side of ethics? If

Yes: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/01/2013189218755379.html

When that pretty blond western journalist was brutally raped in Cairo during the Egyptian uprising against Mubarak, Al Jazeera deleted all posts that mentioned it.

I assume you're on about Natasha Smith, who's recently published a piece on sexual harassment in Egypt, and the wider area. Other outlets cover the problem more generally BBC, Guardian

I'll have to take your word about Al Jazeera's censorship, but it's interesting that there's surprisingly little coverage of this case. The BBC doesn't have any mention of a british citizen being attacked in this way. it's cropped up in reputable sources (the independent and CNN), as well as the sensationalist tripe that is the daily mail. The coverage that Lara Logan got 15 months earlier was much more extensive coverage world wide, but it appears Al Jazeera didn't cover it. They later ran a story on sexual violence in Tahir Square in general, mentioning both women, linking to abc news for the Logan assault.

A lot of the blame can be put at the backwards society that prevails in the middle east and south asia, men are brought up to think of women as objects to be possessed and conquered, and they're asking for it if they're not hiding under a blanket, or dare to go out on their own. Sadly this society is infiltrating the more enlightened parts of the world, like Europe and the U.S.

We can only hope that main stream muslims will eventually grow out of these views, like christians eventually stopped genocide in south america and burning "witches"

Watching Al Jazeera as TV is somewhat wasteful of time, but it's worth reading their site. Today's important item: trouble is brewing in the Balkans again.

Other viewpoints to watch:

• Russia Today. It's the official line, but it's worth seeing what that line is. (Russia Today, which is more of a tabloid, is less biased than Pravda.) Important item from Pravda: Russia is building a new generation of bigger ICBMs, in case the US builds missile defenses.
• Xinhua the semi-official paper of the China. Important item today: "Yuan to strengthen mildly in 2013: analysts". The US has been lobbying for a weaker yuan. Not going to happen.
• South China Morning Post, Hong Kong's top newspaper. If something important appears in People's Daily, they'll have some good commentary on it. Important item today: multiple stories on trying to figure out what Xi Jinping is going to do now that he's taken over.

It's hard to find any coverage of those subjects in US dailies.

Just pointing out a Troll here folks.

People. Don't be willfully ignorant. Check out Al Jazeera for yourself and decide:
http://www.aljazeera.com/watch_now/
http://www.aljazeera.com/

I will tell you first off a little bit about myself to point out any biases that I may have: I am a white Canadian man who is in his 40's who hates Muslim zealots and Jewish zealots. Yes I can't stand Christian religious fundamentalists either. I'm also a highly analytical person. I hate political correctness, and I hate yellow journalism. I'm finding a lot of ignorant and prejudiced comments here, so I'll start off with this Troll who proclaims to be knowledgable about Al jazeera, and who seems to imply that it is NOT so much a news company but rather a propaganda organ for religious extremists. Think moderators: before you up-moderate Trolls!

Parent said:

If you look at their English edition and track the history of reporting on different countries you'll notice that articles about the US are far more likely to have the comment system enabled, while articles about Middle East countries, Russia, or China almost always have the comments disabled.

OK I admit I don't track the history of comments. Lets be serious though; nobody except for somebody with an agenda would track comment history. Even if the parent's comment is true, it is still a Troll because it implies malfeasance without any proof but the authors own speculations. Also realize that people often see patterns where there are none (this is a psychological phenomena of the mind). Also notice that this person gives no statistics and doesn't back up his claim in any way. Most people who would do this kind of research, even on an amature basis would at least post their details on a public Website: and there are lots of free services to do this.

For that matter, who cares? Not having comments enabled has NOTHING to do with journalistic standards. This is a red herring argument.

Also: think of the logic here. Al Jazeera English WANTS to have a Western audience. This is because it is a business that is owned by a businessman. It doesn't make business sense for them to post Islamic religious propaganda because they know that they will be very carefully scrutinized by the Right Wing in the West and especially the Christian Fundamentalists in their largest potential market: the United States.

Also, look at Al Jazeera's journalists. They have quite a few award winning journalists that have (and had) worked for prominent Western news agencies like the BBC, CBC, etc. These professionals are not going to ruin their careers and reputations by working for a propaganda organ of the Muslim Brotherhood or some other political or religious organization. Of course, and for some perspective, politics will always play a role in journalism, for example Al-Jazeera English journalists protest after being ordered to re-edit UN report to focus on Qatar emir's comments on Syria. But at least there is transparency here. And lets not lie to ourselves or be hypocrites: Western news agencies, especially the for-profit ones like CNN and Fox News have their own biases and are subject to the editorial control of their commercial sponsors.

When you see that most of the comments are anti-US and anti-Jewish, you will wonder whether it's an underhanded way of maintaining a veneer of neutrality while still guiding opinion.

You mean like on Slashdot, and on many Canadian and European news sites?

And YES I know what you mean by "anti-Jewish": anybody who criticizes Isreal or Zionism is an anti-semite according to Christion Fundamentalists. Using "hate crime" language to try and stifle speech and to censor news is wrong. I've seen Al Jazeera report bad things about Isreal, and I've seen Al Jazeera report bad th

Just pointing out a Troll here folks.

People. Don't be willfully ignorant. Check out Al Jazeera for yourself and decide:
http://www.aljazeera.com/watch_now/
http://www.aljazeera.com/

I will tell you first off a little bit about myself to point out any biases that I may have: I am a white Canadian man who is in his 40's who hates Muslim zealots and Jewish zealots. Yes I can't stand Christian religious fundamentalists either. I'm also a highly analytical person. I hate political correctness, and I hate yellow journalism. I'm finding a lot of ignorant and prejudiced comments here, so I'll start off with this Troll who proclaims to be knowledgable about Al jazeera, and who seems to imply that it is NOT so much a news company but rather a propaganda organ for religious extremists. Think moderators: before you up-moderate Trolls!

Parent said:

If you look at their English edition and track the history of reporting on different countries you'll notice that articles about the US are far more likely to have the comment system enabled, while articles about Middle East countries, Russia, or China almost always have the comments disabled.

OK I admit I don't track the history of comments. Lets be serious though; nobody except for somebody with an agenda would track comment history. Even if the parent's comment is true, it is still a Troll because it implies malfeasance without any proof but the authors own speculations. Also realize that people often see patterns where there are none (this is a psychological phenomena of the mind). Also notice that this person gives no statistics and doesn't back up his claim in any way. Most people who would do this kind of research, even on an amature basis would at least post their details on a public Website: and there are lots of free services to do this.

For that matter, who cares? Not having comments enabled has NOTHING to do with journalistic standards. This is a red herring argument.

Also: think of the logic here. Al Jazeera English WANTS to have a Western audience. This is because it is a business that is owned by a businessman. It doesn't make business sense for them to post Islamic religious propaganda because they know that they will be very carefully scrutinized by the Right Wing in the West and especially the Christian Fundamentalists in their largest potential market: the United States.

Also, look at Al Jazeera's journalists. They have quite a few award winning journalists that have (and had) worked for prominent Western news agencies like the BBC, CBC, etc. These professionals are not going to ruin their careers and reputations by working for a propaganda organ of the Muslim Brotherhood or some other political or religious organization. Of course, and for some perspective, politics will always play a role in journalism, for example Al-Jazeera English journalists protest after being ordered to re-edit UN report to focus on Qatar emir's comments on Syria. But at least there is transparency here. And lets not lie to ourselves or be hypocrites: Western news agencies, especially the for-profit ones like CNN and Fox News have their own biases and are subject to the editorial control of their commercial sponsors.

When you see that most of the comments are anti-US and anti-Jewish, you will wonder whether it's an underhanded way of maintaining a veneer of neutrality while still guiding opinion.

You mean like on Slashdot, and on many Canadian and European news sites?

And YES I know what you mean by "anti-Jewish": anybody who criticizes Isreal or Zionism is an anti-semite according to Christion Fundamentalists. Using "hate crime" language to try and stifle speech and to censor news is wrong. I've seen Al Jazeera report bad things about Isreal, and I've seen Al Jazeera report bad th

Here's the web url for watching if you don't want to use mplayer or vlc:

http://www.aljazeera.com/watch_now/

Furthermore, your comment is also a composition fallacy (or a hasty generalization fallacy, I'm not sure which), like declaring feminists man-haters, or men's rights advocates to be misogynists. Just because SOME are, does not mean ALL are. Just because he's an Sheik doesn't mean he holds certain viewpoints, nor does it mean that he's using his news service to further those beliefs. In fact, many powerful Arabs are using their power to further democracy in their culture and countries.

Just a few examples I found, using site:aljazeera.com in google, all of which seemed pretty straightforward, factual reporting (granted, I read them quickly, but nothing leapt out at me, and none of the topics seemed verboten):

Coverage of anti-gay-conversion-therapy law in California being struck down, which seems pretty balanced in terms of coverage, quoting people on both sides and devoting roughly the same page space (which is a damn sight better than my local city newspaper; they routinely bias a story and then throw 1-2 lines in about the other viewpoint, as a sort of token gesture. I live in a very progressive, liberal city/state): http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2012/12/2012122223728233995.html

Coverage of the gay pride parade in India, with a dozen photos, including of someone identified as being transgender: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/inpictures/2012/11/20121126205837449408.html

Coverage of Church of England lifting ban on gay ministers: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2013/01/2013156028132292.html

Women in the Arab world:

Editorial by Arab woman: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/04/201142412303319807.html

"Although there may be resistance to this process of emancipation, Tahrir Square and Qasaba are now part of the psyche and formative culture of Arab women. Indeed, they are finally given a voice to their long-silenced yearnings for liberation from authoritarianism - both political and patriarchal."

Furthermore, your comment is also a composition fallacy (or a hasty generalization fallacy, I'm not sure which), like declaring feminists man-haters, or men's rights advocates to be misogynists. Just because SOME are, does not mean ALL are. Just because he's an Sheik doesn't mean he holds certain viewpoints, nor does it mean that he's using his news service to further those beliefs. In fact, many powerful Arabs are using their power to further democracy in their culture and countries.

Just a few examples I found, using site:aljazeera.com in google, all of which seemed pretty straightforward, factual reporting (granted, I read them quickly, but nothing leapt out at me, and none of the topics seemed verboten):

Coverage of anti-gay-conversion-therapy law in California being struck down, which seems pretty balanced in terms of coverage, quoting people on both sides and devoting roughly the same page space (which is a damn sight better than my local city newspaper; they routinely bias a story and then throw 1-2 lines in about the other viewpoint, as a sort of token gesture. I live in a very progressive, liberal city/state): http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2012/12/2012122223728233995.html

Coverage of the gay pride parade in India, with a dozen photos, including of someone identified as being transgender: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/inpictures/2012/11/20121126205837449408.html

Coverage of Church of England lifting ban on gay ministers: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2013/01/2013156028132292.html

Women in the Arab world:

Editorial by Arab woman: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/04/201142412303319807.html

"Although there may be resistance to this process of emancipation, Tahrir Square and Qasaba are now part of the psyche and formative culture of Arab women. Indeed, they are finally given a voice to their long-silenced yearnings for liberation from authoritarianism - both political and patriarchal."

Furthermore, your comment is also a composition fallacy (or a hasty generalization fallacy, I'm not sure which), like declaring feminists man-haters, or men's rights advocates to be misogynists. Just because SOME are, does not mean ALL are. Just because he's an Sheik doesn't mean he holds certain viewpoints, nor does it mean that he's using his news service to further those beliefs. In fact, many powerful Arabs are using their power to further democracy in their culture and countries.

Just a few examples I found, using site:aljazeera.com in google, all of which seemed pretty straightforward, factual reporting (granted, I read them quickly, but nothing leapt out at me, and none of the topics seemed verboten):

Coverage of anti-gay-conversion-therapy law in California being struck down, which seems pretty balanced in terms of coverage, quoting people on both sides and devoting roughly the same page space (which is a damn sight better than my local city newspaper; they routinely bias a story and then throw 1-2 lines in about the other viewpoint, as a sort of token gesture. I live in a very progressive, liberal city/state): http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2012/12/2012122223728233995.html

Coverage of the gay pride parade in India, with a dozen photos, including of someone identified as being transgender: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/inpictures/2012/11/20121126205837449408.html

Coverage of Church of England lifting ban on gay ministers: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2013/01/2013156028132292.html

Women in the Arab world:

Editorial by Arab woman: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/04/201142412303319807.html

"Although there may be resistance to this process of emancipation, Tahrir Square and Qasaba are now part of the psyche and formative culture of Arab women. Indeed, they are finally given a voice to their long-silenced yearnings for liberation from authoritarianism - both political and patriarchal."

Furthermore, your comment is also a composition fallacy (or a hasty generalization fallacy, I'm not sure which), like declaring feminists man-haters, or men's rights advocates to be misogynists. Just because SOME are, does not mean ALL are. Just because he's an Sheik doesn't mean he holds certain viewpoints, nor does it mean that he's using his news service to further those beliefs. In fact, many powerful Arabs are using their power to further democracy in their culture and countries.

Just a few examples I found, using site:aljazeera.com in google, all of which seemed pretty straightforward, factual reporting (granted, I read them quickly, but nothing leapt out at me, and none of the topics seemed verboten):

Coverage of anti-gay-conversion-therapy law in California being struck down, which seems pretty balanced in terms of coverage, quoting people on both sides and devoting roughly the same page space (which is a damn sight better than my local city newspaper; they routinely bias a story and then throw 1-2 lines in about the other viewpoint, as a sort of token gesture. I live in a very progressive, liberal city/state): http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2012/12/2012122223728233995.html

Coverage of the gay pride parade in India, with a dozen photos, including of someone identified as being transgender: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/inpictures/2012/11/20121126205837449408.html

Coverage of Church of England lifting ban on gay ministers: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2013/01/2013156028132292.html

Women in the Arab world:

Editorial by Arab woman: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/04/201142412303319807.html

"Although there may be resistance to this process of emancipation, Tahrir Square and Qasaba are now part of the psyche and formative culture of Arab women. Indeed, they are finally given a voice to their long-silenced yearnings for liberation from authoritarianism - both political and patriarchal."

Found stories like

Are US evangelicals exporting anti-gay views?
"A new report reveals conservative American Christian groups behind efforts to criminalise homosexuality in Africa." and

What is Obama risking by backing gay unions?
"We ask if the US president should go a step further by offering constitutional protection for gay and lesbian couples."

Al Jazeera is far from conservative.

Found stories like

Are US evangelicals exporting anti-gay views?
"A new report reveals conservative American Christian groups behind efforts to criminalise homosexuality in Africa." and

What is Obama risking by backing gay unions?
"We ask if the US president should go a step further by offering constitutional protection for gay and lesbian couples."

Al Jazeera is far from conservative.

knife attack in China
20 dead in knife attack. You want to compare body counts, is that it? Proving that gun bans won't eliminate crazies killing people isn't enough for you?
lots of bodies here. 168 dead, including 19 children under the age of 6. lots here too. 52 dead, don't know how many were children. Maybe you'd like to know how Australia's gun ban is working out?
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The only people affected by a gun ban are the victims.

Bin Laden is dead Good job...but any president would have given the "go ahead"...and this hunt was started long before Obama got into office. Not really that big a trophy for him IMHO. Glad he did it..good job, but not the biggest trophy, he certainly had little personally to do with it overall.

Coming from Bush "I don't really think about Bin Laden much", that's a little hard to say with a straight face.

Not they way they did it...and the amount of new taxes involved in all of this, is going to start really hit the middle class in the next year or so

As opposed to flat out bankruptcies that were hitting more and more families as the cost of healthcare soared? Ask someone without healthcare which they'd rather have, lower taxes, or healthcare. You might be surprised if you step out of the bubble of FOX. And small businesses will LOVE this. Why? Because now they can offer plans competitive with big business that they couldn't before, thus attracting more skilled employees. Which since small business is the main job creator is a good thing isn't it?

Remember how they said this would be a 'job killer'? Pure FUD. The lower 'jobs' are because people would be able to retire earlier due to better healthcare options. And, hey, that's now an open job, so wouldn't that actually be 'creating' jobs since there's one open now that wouldn't be open for years?

Being denied coverage over pre-existing conditions. Again ask someone who had that problem, believe me, they'll take slightly higher taxes to get coverage.

Just like Romney who was totally against HCR, but then said, well I'll keep some of it, by which he meant most of it, nothing is free, but sometimes initial investments pay off through lower health care costs down the road.

Ending of Don't Ask Don't Tell? Didn't care before, don't care now...don't see how this is really a positive for the military, and from those I know in it..they don't seem it as a net positive.

Funny how below you mention how discrimination hasn't been legal for a long time...except this example that you "don't care" about. Says volumes. They said it would ruin our military; it flatly hasn't. And since dozens of other countries allow it and haven't had any issues, it speaks to the true motivations of those decrying it...or if not that then their ability to understand the military. Neither paints them in a good light.

Wall Street Reform Needed, but I'm not fully sure what good and bad was done here. Oversight needed, sure, but don't need to shackle with restraints that don't actually address the problems that caused the meltdown.

And just who was obstructing this reform hmm? Oh yes, the GOP. Was it perfect? No, doesn't go far enough. But you can't deny it was needed and was accomplished.

Iraq war ended I'll be believe that when all our troops are out of there..I think it is ended in 'name only' at this point.

Aljazeera seems to think we're out. That liberal US loving outfit that they are.

Saved Auto industry Sure...gave it a bailout and mostly gave control to the Unions, which were largely responsible for the bad shape the industry was in to begin with, AND bypassed laws that should have paid off people that were owed the debts first...there was a huge snafu on who got paid in what order and who got left out. I would have been better to let them go through controlled bankruptcy, and shed all the old contracts and start afresh. The auto industry is slowing movinig, but still shackled with unreasonable contracts with labor unions. Obama's bailout of the industry was nothing but a huge GIMME to the unions. It also represented a very uncomfortable intrusion of the Federal Govt into private business....bad precedent.

Pure FU

JA knows about the freedom of press? This program about Assange is rather amusing.

Maybe Syria doesn't need to come back, or if it does, maybe not with a full block. IPv4 addresses are valuable!

They just didn't want this news to get around:
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/inpictures/2012/11/201211271842890427.html

The colonies are explicitly approved by the Israeli government. Most so-called "outposts" are promoted to full "settlement" status. There is nothing tacit about it. Their plan is to colonize and annex as much territory as possible with as few non-Jews as possible. So they can preserve their precious Jewish majority that was created by force. Jewish settlers receive assistance from the Israeli government, protection from the army, special roads that only they can drive on, and are under the Israeli legal system. The indiginous non-Jews can't drive from town to town, are under martial law, and suffer from malnutrition while their crops wither in their fields because they are unable to leave their homes to harvest them. In Gaza, Israel counts their calories and prevents the importation of food leading to stunted growth of children. Israel even prevents the export of food and goods, ensuring that the Palestinians remain under the thumb of Israel. All of this has been going on for decades prior to the establishment of Hamas.

But hey, they shoot rockets back at Israel so it's all OK, right?

Obviously just a PR stunt for promoting the game. Also serves USA PR interests carrying on myth of that whole bin laden complex raid and mysterious sea burial malarkey!

the sheeple are so dumb they believe anything with no evidence if it is official enough.

This from Aljazerra:

Al-Qaeda vows revenge for bin Laden death. Group confirms death of its leader in an online posting and says it will continue attacks on the West.

No terrorist has ever shown more media-savvy then bin Laden

The propaganda value of a bin Laden audio tape or video produced after the US announced his death can't be possibly underestimated.

None has ever surfaced.

Nuke zealots actually think that their Magic Power Source has never killed anybody.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-07-17/fukushima-radiation-may-cause-1-300-cancer-deaths-study-finds

There's also the people who weren't hurt, but can never return to their homes or land:

http://www.japantoday.com/smartphone/view/opinions/pure-land-lost-for-fukushima-evacuees

And then there's the contamination issue:

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia-pacific/2012/10/2012102510561941251.html

So how does this compared to the health problems created by the mining and burning coal? You realize that coal pollution is very slightly radioactive itself? Fun trivai fact - if you extracted the uranium from 1 ton of coal and used it in a reactor, it would produce more energy than burning the coal itself.

Nuke zealots actually think that their Magic Power Source has never killed anybody.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-07-17/fukushima-radiation-may-cause-1-300-cancer-deaths-study-finds

There's also the people who weren't hurt, but can never return to their homes or land:

http://www.japantoday.com/smartphone/view/opinions/pure-land-lost-for-fukushima-evacuees

And then there's the contamination issue:

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia-pacific/2012/10/2012102510561941251.html

We have bases in many countries because of treaties with them. They agree to have us there.

The problem is "They" so often refers to a dictator rather than the people. Particularly in the Middle East, the people of those countries do not want US bases on their soil, but they have no choice is the matter. Then of course there is the case of Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. Guantanamo Bay was granted to the US by a Godfather-style "offer they can't refuse" treaty with the Cuba while the country was occupied with US troops.

And for the last time, we did not get any of Iraq's oil so stop pushing that big lie

International Oil companies including Exxon Mobile,BP, Shell etc are all over Iraq's oil fields now. If Iraq was never invaded, that would not be the case. Strategic control of oil reserves in the Middle East has been part of US foreign policy since at least World War 2.

Who is talking about Israel? They're a military outpost. They do what we tell them.

Western oil firms remain as US exits Iraq

According to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), Iraq's oil reserves of 112 billion barrels ranks second in the world, only behind Saudi Arabia. The EIA also estimates that up to 90 per cent of the country remains unexplored, due to decades of US-led wars and economic sanctions.

"Prior to the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq, US and other western oil companies were all but completely shut out of Iraq's oil market," oil industry analyst Antonia Juhasz told Al Jazeera. "But thanks to the invasion and occupation, the companies are now back inside Iraq and producing oil there for the first time since being forced out of the country in 1973."

Juhasz, author of the books The Tyranny of Oil and The Bush Agenda, said that while US and other western oil companies have not yet received all they had hoped the US-led invasion of Iraq would bring them, "They've certainly done quite well for themselves, landing production contracts for some of the world's largest remaining oil fields under some of the world's most lucrative terms."

But don't let reality change your worldview. See if there's any more western friendly propaganda in the rabbit hole you live in.

The first part is easy to verify, there are hundreds if not thousands of sources. This was the top one on my google search right now. Check out the spin, it's a very pro-us story, but if you actually read it you will find Bush quoted saying "There's no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he's guilty" and the Taliban spokesman is still asking for evidence, and even offering to hold him over to a third party. They were desperately trying to get rid of him. That particular story is quite late, this went back many months earlier, even before the attack in 2011 in fact.

Yes, it was difficult for them to do so, because of the importance of hospitality and protecting guests in Pashtun society, and because Bin Laden originally came to Afghanistan back in the 80s, spent his personal fortune and millions more from the CIA arming, training, and organising the Afghans against the Soviets, making him a bona-fide Afghan war hero, even though he was a foreigner. Yet they were clearly not just willing but eager to do so - they offered to turn him over directly given some evidence, and even offered to turn him over to a third party just to get the hot potato off their laps. They wouldnt have been making such offers if they didnt want to get rid of him, and honestly their offers seem reasonable enough. The US administration was just determined not to dignify them with any sort of actual negotiation, they stuck to a blunt ultimatum followed by bombing and invasion. Thjs is a pretty thorough condensed version of the whole saga, which contains quite a few choice quotes with original sources listed. I will leave you with a single telling paragraph.

At least twice before 9/11 Bush repeated Clintonâ(TM)s warning to the Taliban that the US would hold Taliban responsible for an al Qaeda attack. (Washington Post 1/20/02) March 2001, a Taliban envoy offered to turn over bin Laden to a third country. A CIA official later said, âoeOurs was, âGive up bin Laden.â(TM) They were saying, âDo something to help us give him up.â(TM) I have no doubts they wanted to get rid of him.â The envoy also proposed holding bin Laden long enough for the US to locate and destroy him. (Village Voice 6/6/01) Offers regarding bin Laden continued until 9/11. (Washington Post 10/29/01) Taliban offered to surrender bin laden after 9/11 âoeif proof was offered of his involvement in the 9/11 attacks.â(The Guantanamo Files, Andy Worthington, Pluto Press, London, 2007)

Question:

Do we really have more freedom in the U.S., or do we just permit freedom for ideas we believe in? Are we smug, hypocritical American exceptionalists?

Javed Iqbal was sentenced to 5 1/2 years for offering Al Manar on his cable TV system.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2009/04/2009423233919457969.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Manar#Banning_of_broadcasts

Occupy Wall Street wasn't allowed to express its First Amendment rights to assembly.

I'll take support for human rights whether it comes from the left or right. Freedom House seems to be the latter. I do wish they would show more concern about attacks on freedom of people like Javed Iqbal in their own backyard, but that may be an unreasonable request when you consider the source of their funds,

Here's what Chomsky said about Freedom House. Fair?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_house#Criticism

Chomsky and Herman argue that the group's history has been characterized by excessively criticizing states opposed to US interests while being unduly sympathetic to those regimes supportive of US interests. The authors suggest this can be most notably seen by the way it perceived the US ally El Salvador in the early 1980s, a government that used the army for mass slaughter of the populace to intimidate them in the run-up to an "election", but Freedom House found these elections to be "admirable". Chomsky further claimed in 1988 that Freedom House "had interlocks with AIM, the World Anticommunist League [sic], Resistance International, and U.S. government bodies such as Radio Free Europe and the CIA, and has long served as a virtual propaganda arm of the (U.S) government and international right wing."

Very wise point posting that anonymously! People have been killed for less.

However , do not forget that an insult does not have to be untrue just to be an insult.

I can call you a fat kid posting from your mothers basement. Maybe you are fat... it may be true, it is still an insult.

To balance it out: I call your USA president a Child murderer and you might still feel insulted. ... But it is allowed by free speech.

Well we know that a substantial amount was broken up by dispersants and adsorbed into substrata and being slowly re-released. More rapidly of course when hurricanes stir up the sediments. Of course added to this was in fact that it was crude-oil and comprised a range of toxic elements many of which simply evaporated away creating a more toxic atmosphere at those locales. Much was absorbed into enormous fish and animal kills which were buried at closed to the public locations.

Of course some media sites don't tow the government line http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2012/03/20123571723894800.html but nasty foreigners who can trust them. Now with enormous pressure on, often of the directly threatened lethal kind, people are required to talk up the regional fishing tourism and general beach recreation of the region, regardless of actual fish catches and their general condition.

As for the toxic carcinogens contained within crude oil and normally contained and not released into the environment, bacteria 'er', 'um', just assume that the bacteria also ate them and made them, 'woosh', disappear.

Losses?

You are counting Islamists and Christians. I'm counting dollars and barrels (and poppies). You talk about 'rights' and 'democracy'. I'm discussing percentages and distribution charges. You mention citizens and representatives, Me? Buyers and traders... As the old cliche goes: War is very good business. The more, the better... I see no loss. The house always wins.

Besides science discoveries, what of any importance is reported by the news?

War. Pestilence. Famine. Death.

The four horsemen of the apocalypse are already abroad in the world. And it matters that you know it. The electoral choices made by American people cast a long shadow - over the Middle East in particular, but over the world as a whole. And yet the US electorate is quite frighteningly ignorant of what happens beyond their borders. OK, I appreciate that part of the reason you don't read the news is that the principal news media available to you are on the whole dishonest, corrupt and trivial. But there are other news media (and news aggregators). The BBC, and many of the UK 'broadsheet' sites (e.g. Guardian, Telegraph) are English language, well informed and honest (note: I did not say 'unbiased' - nothing human is unbiased). Al Jazeera seems to be well informed and honest, too, and provides a usefully different perspective.

If we carry on as we're going, global warming and with provoking conflict, war, famine and pestilence will arrive in the United States in your lifetime. You have a duty to be informed - a duty to yourself, as much as to anyone else.

Watch: http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/witness/2012/08/2012823616123717.html

I think you need to watch this before drawing false conclusions about what happened:

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/witness/2012/08/2012823616123717.html

Yes, it seems the closer one looks, the more there is to find with dirty deeds in the banking industry. And it's not just what has been done, but the scale of it.

"In 2010, Wachovia, now owned by Wells Fargo, settled out of court for the largest violation of the Bank Secrecy Act in US history. They paid a fine of $160m for laundering a whopping $378.4bn from Mexican currency exchange houses between 2004 and 2007. Much of this cash is thought to have been drug money, moved without proper documentation from Casa's de Cambio in Mexico to US banks. "

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2012/06/201261515312418850.html

No civilized country has ever stormed an embassy that I can think of, other than the Iranian revolutionaries storming the US embassy, and that was in response to 25 years of living under the Shah who had been forced on them by the US.

The Israeli embassy in Egypt was stormed just last year:
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2011/09/201199225334494935.html

You hurt us, you kill us. You silence us, you torture us. You deny us basic human rights.

We aren't asking you to "bow down" to us. We are making you stop hurting us. The second we can live our life "like all the heterosexuals do," we'll stop bothering you. Asshole.

is it me or did the class get it wrong, it was never about destroying an asteroid, it was about splitting it up in pieces or nudging it out of the earth direction

Indeed drilling a hole to the center of the asteroid and blowing it from inside is inefficient and stupid. The best way would be to aply force to the side of the asteroid, so its trajectory would change to non-coliding with earth. It can be some king of one-time explosion, or it could be small but perpetual force like ion-drive powered space-craft pushing to the side, or even series of mirrors orbiting the asteroid and reflecting sun-shine to its side for prolonged period of time.

See http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/03/201232110854436189.html for some interestig ideas.

More than that I want to know if he read the unbiased/mistranslated/misquoted news.

Depends on the story. I was thinking of this one:

Aan was arrested earlier this year for posting "There is no God" on the social networking website Facebook.

According to another source, he was also charged for posting blasphemous cartoons. There are other threads here with links to news from Indonesia; might be the same incidents, might not - I didn't peruse those.

The recent news about Indonesian man jailed was not because he is an atheist, but religious defamation.

The links I found (on the *first* Google page if you're reading this dbIII) state otherwise, but even if that were the case, my point stands. "Piss Christ" didn't get Mapplethorpe jailed roughly two decades ago during Bush 41's presidency, and he wouldn't be jailed now. Equating the US with Indonesia in this area is hyperbole, and dbIII went beyond that to write that the US government is *more* religious.

- T

Syria IS an oil producing nation. It's one reason (apart from weapons sales, military bases, and Iran's backing) that Russia refuses to support any intervention. Stop with the nonsense about the US doing stuff for oil. Even in Iraq we didn't have any more opportunities than anybody else for oil contracts. If you repeat nonsense over and over and over it doesn't make it true. Don't blame Israel either since they recommended against intervention (they argued it would destabilize the region, and it did). Whatever the reasons we went into Iraq were, they were not those two.

Honestly I've found some of the best news and in-depth segments can be found on Al Jazeera which has free live streaming. Many of their English-speaking reporters/presenters are ex-BBC people and it's proper news (not the fluff found on most US "news" channels). There's even a plugin for integration with XBMC (and possibly others)... Definitely worth a look!

Getting government sponsorship of cams in some places to see that people are appropriately dressed, and then using recognition on them so that nearby billboards display targeted ads at those passing?

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2012/06/2012614123018114938.html

Some go a bit far with the parenting type things.

I brought you in this world and I can take you out! - Bill Cosby

Read the English-language Al Jazeera. They are a fantastic source for whenever you are worried that your views on the Middle East are being colored by Western propaganda.

The killing of the 17 year old was unintended damage as the missile was fired at al-Qaeda leader Ibrahim al-Banna and the minor happened to be there. By the way, even in the US 17 year olds have been tried and executed as adults.
To those who say innocent people are being killed as collateral damage is unacceptable I say that they or their parents/guardian chose to be close to a known target of the US government and thereby chose to put their life in danger. No one put a gun to their heads and forced them into a building with an al-Qaeda leader. It was their choice and they bore the grave consequences. Do we really want to encourage al-Qaeda leaders to use children as human shields?