Slashdot Mirror

It seems particularly relevant that Google recently bowed to pressure from the Thai government to remove criticism of their monarch due to lese majeste laws. It's a shame...

Thanks, I've already added a couple of those sites to my bookmarks, too bad they don't have RSS feeds. Ill look at some of the rest of them in a bit.

As for me, being Canadian, (but living in Europe) and using a lot of politics with my teaching (English teacher), I try and keep a diversified list. I'll try and list them more by theme than amount visited.

Canadian:
The CBC - Dissapointing RSS feed, they don't have too much/day, but it's always good to see what they have to say on Canadian politcs.
The Globe and Mail - The best site for at least a bit thoughtful Canadian news.
The CTV - OK, pulp, but once in awhile it's interesting to see what pulp has to say about things.
TSN - Sports, got to keep up with hockey and curling, none better.
Macleans - The Canadian equivalent of Time, some of their stuff is really great.

International:
The BBC - Probably the best English language news in the world, enough said.
The Guardian - Better analysis than the BBC, but not the sheer volume.
Al Jazeera - More balanced than what you'd think, at least the English version ... well, except for the editorial cartoons.
NY Times - Amazingly crummy RSS feed, seeing as it's one of the biggest newspapers in the US (but probably still better than the CBC).
Deutche Welle - Not the best site, either, but as I'm living in Germany ...

For actually thinking:
The Christian Science Monitor - I'm not religious, and except for a few things (see their "about us"), neither are they. What they are is the most balanced news in the US I've ever seen. They are thoughtful, honest and as far as I can see don't pander to any particular point of view.
Sign and Sight - This is only if you want to spend some time actually reading, as it's not meant for the masses. It takes articles by thinking people from across Europe and translates them into English.

Others: The Register - Tech news with a British sense of humour, and people think they are biased because of it.
Neil Gaiman's Blog - Not as interesting as it used to be, but I've learnt a lot about the book/publishing world through his blog.

Yes, I'm an information hound, and I like to see as many points of view as possible. I've tried fox news a couple of times, but most of the topics I'm interested in they've just taken things off the wire, so nothing new. What I also do is search google news when I find an article I want to get more points of view on. I don't use the service itself, but they are great for finding out who is saying what about a particular topic - you might even find a new angle that hadn't been said 100 times before.

For all the talk here, every single one of those in power in Sweden in obliged to abide by the laws of Sweden & Europe. If you don't like what they're doing or have done, don't complain here, go after them. They broke the laws they are liable to arrest, prosecution, prison.

Software patents are dead, your voices did that. Compulsory DRM is dead, you voices did that. You would be surprised at how powerful the voices of pissed off people are.

Britain doesn't like it's Prime Minister?
He's being investigated in cash for peerages scandal.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4812822.stm

US thinks Bush lied?
His people are being arrested one by one, libby being the latest.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/07/washington/07lib by.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Israel moderates thinks it's prime minister planned the 'surprise' Lebanon war ahead of time?
Investigation into his government are ripping his story apart.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/BF690E95-D2 97-45CD-942F-A3D6E18B05D2.htm

Voices no different from yours or mine did that. If you don't like what Sweden are doing, every single one of those politicians is vulnerable. So go after them.

Can you quote a source where a US Government official has said "we don't give a shit about international treaties"? I'd like to see it, because it doesn't exist. See, some treaties would deny the US its sovereign powers, and give more power to the fine leaders of Iran, like President Ahmadinejad who says Israel should be wiped off the map. Can you offer a link to a quote where Bush, Cheney or any government official ever said "we don't give a shit...?" If the US refuses to be part of any treaty preventing the "militarization" of space, it's in our best interest because it must mean Iran or other non-democratic states will have more power.

Israel was never a signatory.

The NTP doesn't give Iran to secretly enrich uranium to weapons grade or attempt to produce plutonium, which is the problem that's currently being dealt with.

On a tangential note, Israel has also never threatened to wipe Iran off the map, despite its obvious capability to do so.

Oh, it's no big deal, at least in your world. Where is that, by the way?

They do, don't they?
Iran has freedom of the press....well, if you only read the government approved press,sure.
Iran has freedom of religion.... sure, if you're Muslim..otherwise, you're dead.
Iran has freedom to assemble with your friends....as long as they all agree with the Mullahs.
Iran has freedom for women to be educated, manage their own lives and.... hmmm...never mind.

Can you quote a source where a US Government official has said "we don't give a shit about international treaties"? I'd like to see it, because it doesn't exist. See, some treaties would deny the US its sovereign powers, and give more power to the fine leaders of Iran, like President Ahmadinejad who says Israel should be wiped off the map. Can you offer a link to a quote where Bush, Cheney or any government official ever said "we don't give a shit...?" If the US refuses to be part of any treaty preventing the "militarization" of space, it's in our best interest because it must mean Iran or other non-democratic states will have more power.

Oh come on. Really? Al Qaeda?

Hey, have I got a conspiracy theory for you: Apparently, 19 men spent a few years crawling through Afghani fox-holes and learning the latest box-cutter kung fu. They then all made their way to America, eluding several major civil and Federal authorities tasked with preventing their entry. They then coordinated an attack on airliners, once again evading the FAA, the CIA, the FBI, the NSA, the police, and the TSA. They then took over these fully loaded planes with extremely rudimentary and un-threatening weapons.

Pretty crazy, huh?

They then took their modicum of flight training (flight training allegedly done by recent Arab visitors/immigrants) and used it to fly some very complex planes on very precise trajectories exactly into their targets of intention (most of their alleged targets, anyway).

Anyways, we were obviously busy with other things. http://english.aljazeera.net/news/archive/archive? ArchiveId=18646

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/archive/archive? ArchiveId=15816

"The establishment of the Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world," the president told a conference in Tehran on Wednesday, entitled The World without Zionism.

"The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land," he said.

"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," said Ahmadinejad, referring to Iran's revolutionary leader Ayat Allah Khomeini.

At this point, it's fairly evident that people will listen to the media of their choosing. If a large segment of the population is out of touch with reality because they think one source has it right and alllll the others are insane, it's really their fault, and our obligation to have to defend their right to speak and vote in a free society where their votes count just as much as ours. We just have to deal with it.

The politicians can try, but I don't see the solution coming from Washington no matter how well-intentioned its proponents may be. Do you want fair and balanced coverage and have some time to spare? Read a larger variety of news sources, from multiple countries, from multiple points of view. You will gain a sense of who's biased how, and make first-hand decisions about who is being more reasonable and honest.

I have my own sites that I follow. Some air a specific point of view, but listening only to the echo chamber will weaken your perspective. Here is one site that I think does a fantastic job of presenting a wide range of views for your consideration.

And then, here are the rounds I usually make:

BBC world news
Google News
The Daily Star, an English-language Lebanese newspaper
The New York Times
The Guardian, a British news source
Le Monde, the English edition
Al Jazeera's English language page, like it or hate it
World Net Daily, if you want to know what the Christian Right is up to

Now, good luck.

I say this as someone who really likes Kucinich and would vote for him anyday.

He's full of crap. Much like the Bush Administration he doesn't let the truth stand in the way of a good argument. Here's a link to the Al Jazeera English language page. Try it from a home browser and see if it is blocked. His employer might be blocking it, but the US Government isn't.

If we could find a way to convert the oil from all the pubescent teens into fuels! We would cure acne and energy sustainability in one fell swoop.

All our oil reserves are dwindling...that is until new oil reserves are discovered: http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/48651C0F-DC 3F-4A52-B544-24EF22343774.htm

The terrorists were already in place by then attacking us for Bill Clinton's policies during his term.

Bin Laden claims he got his first revelation in 1982, because of US support for Israeli involvement in Lebanon:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79C6AF22-98 FB-4A1C-B21F-2

Please remind me, but I think it was the conservative hero Reagan running the show at that time. Bin Laden is also a bit upset about the first Iraqi war (which is kind of ironic considering he volunteered to help defend Saudi Arabia from Iraq in the same way he considers himself to have expelled the Soviets from Afghanistan), and none too happy about Israel.

You can say Clinton was ineffective at eliminating the terrorist threat, either by the Bush-style double strategy of war abroad and removing civil liberty at home, or by other means. But to say that the 9/11 terrorists attacked because of Clinton's policies is very, very close to being completely wrong.

At least you don't agree with Bush, who claims the attacks were because they hate our freedom:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20 010920-8.html

We played right into their hands. Al Qaeda even endorsed Bush for the 2004 elections.

You can read the article here, here or here.

It is so humane!!! Ahhhh! Tell that to an Iraqi that lost EVERYTHING (wife, children, parents)

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/DB17388F-0D A1-4F56-A029-B83BBB551037.htm

It depends on who's figures you are reading and which media you are listening to.

How about years and years of killing that have been going on in Israel by Hizballah and Hamas terrorist organizations?

The Arab view is that it was Western guilt over the death of 6 million Jews that led to the creation of Israel. It involved displacement of local Arabs and Palestinians and they are still pissed over it. I don't blame them. Besides, the ratio of the numbers dead in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict runs at 6:1 (thats 6 palestinians dead for each Israeli casualty). You may want revise your position that it is Israel that suffers from Hamas bombs. 'Terrorism', i.e., wanton destruction of civilian lives happens both ways. Its an acquired skill that both the sides have had a lot of time to hone.

Hizballah and Hamas terrorist organizations

Hizbollah and Hamas that are known only as terrorist organizations to Americans are popularly known as resistance movements and social organizations in the non-American parts of the world. At slashdot I would expect you to be a little more balanced in your approach to world affairs. For example, Hezbollah runs schools, hospitals, and provides Medicare coverage to the poor in Lebanon.

use civilians AND UN folks as living shields on the battlefield

Thats an old ploy of the Israeli army as well. In war neither side is good. Read the reports by the UNHCR and the Red Cross. Wilfull shooting at kids by Israeli soldiers is often blamed by popular media to be a Palestinian 'strategy'. Read this at the Amnesty International website and not this.

As a sidenote, make a regular habit of visiting the english version of Al-Jazeera [http://english.aljazeera.net]. You may find that it is the wrong point of view - but when half the world follows the 'wrong' point of view it is no longer 'wrong' - it is 'relevant'.

the first page on google is your friend (or maybe foe)
Israelis accused of 'human shields' tactic : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/52128 70.stm
Israel's supreme court says the use of Palestinian human shields in arrest raids violates international law : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/43148 98.stm
A five-year-old boy is shot dead in Gaza as Israeli human rights activists condemn troops for the alleged use of "human shields : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/21951 55.stm
.. the young man, who was said to have had no political affiliations, was used as a "human shield" by the Israelis: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/21937 59.stm
Use of Palestinian Civilians as Human Shields by the Israeli Army: http://www.adalah.org/eng/humanshields.php
Israeli soldiers who took over the buildings used the occupants as human shield: http://www.btselem.org/english/Human_Shields/20060 720_Human_Shields_in_Beit_Hanun.asp
The Human Shields of Nazareth : http://www.antiwar.com/orig/cook.php?articleid=933 3
The Israeli army has signalled its intention to keep using Palestinian civilians as human shields in operations : http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/8431605A-2F 44-4282-8037-E8B53A529EB9.htm

>And imagine that the people doing this (the Zapatistas, say) won the next Mexican presidential >election. Now they're the Mexican government. Then they fire some more rockets. Since they're the >government, that's now an act of war.

I believe the problem at the root of all this is that Israel is occupying Palestine (the place that was there before Israel was created). Of course the people who were there before, and got ejected from their land..don't like it, and want their land back..

So the above example would be like if the US took over all of Mexico and kicked out most of the mexicans who are now living there who are now refuged in Guatamala, firing rockets once in a while, so they can get their land back..

That is the situation really.

The bias in the news doesn't help much either..

ie. when Israelis bomb an arab residential area full of families & kids it reads
"Army today destroyed a terrorist outpost in Gaza killing 3 militants"

while when the arabs do the same thing to Israel, it reads
"terrorists attack residential area, 5 families and 6 children killed"

And, when the Israeli's do a 'kidnapping' of someone from the arab side, it reads
"Arab militants were detained and are being held today after a raid into a militant stronghold" (actually, indefinately, there are like 1000 arabs or more "kidnapped" and in Israeli jails)

And we worry about Iran "supporting" Hezbolla... and who is supporting Israel, and giving them their whole army for free, and all their bombs for free, and paying a very big hunk of their national budget so they can just go and terrorize everyone living around them? We are..the USA, with our tax dollars... shheeeh... no wonder we got 9/11... wake up people, and stop believing the stuff you see on CNN..

Go see
http://www.aljazeera.net/ (see what non pro-Israeli news bias looks like..this is the arab CNN,
  press 'English' for English)

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/history/origin.html

All the 9/11, "war on terror".., crazy NSA and domestic spying stuff now happening in the is a direct result of *this* issue...so best to learn what is at the root of it all... its the above..

Guess what, there's going to be a few morons in every bunch. Do you really believe these dozen or so people out of an active military of 1.4 million (not including 860,000 in the guards) [wikipedia.org] are representative of our military? If they were, you'd have a lot more evidence. What is also important to note is that several of these soldiers have had trials, been found guilty, and are serving time. We take care of our problems unlike our enemy.

Like you are taking care of Iraq? Sorry, but you are asking us to go on faith here. The US federal government has seen fit to lie to the entire world about Iraq, Iran, Afganistan, Saudi Arabia, WMDs and of course $(cat /usr/share/dict/words). To say that there's not a whole lot of credibility left is a bit of an understatement.

And do you really know what goes on in Guantanamo Bay?

Yes. They are processed, which includes a medical checkup by the best doctors in the world.

The best doctors in the world work in Guantanamo Bay? What on God's green earth have you been smoking? You don't find the best doctors in the world in concentration camps that are in blatent violation of the Geneva Convention. Maybe by "the best" you mean "the best at keeping their mouths shut".

They get to send a postcard to their family to let them know where they are and that they're safe.

I wonder what the SS were saying when they first started rounding up Jews. I would imagine they said whatever the hell they fucking wanted because there was no one to say otherwise. When international observers are allowed unimpeded access to Guantanamo (when hell freezes over) and THEY tell me that prisoners there are allowed to send a post card to their families then I'll believe it.

They get clean laundry, prayer mat, soap, shampoo, a toothbrush, toothpaste, and a one-quart canteen. Each detainee is given a Koran in their language, and a surgical mask.

Don't forget food and water. Lots of water!

The surgical mask is used as storage for the Koran.

Maybe you should give them something a little more solid to keep their Korans in. You know, so nothing bad happens to them.

There is a recorded call to prayer that is broadcast five times a day. Detainees receive three culturally appropriate meals a day. 64% of the detainees get "comfort items" that inclue perfume oil and prayer beads.

"Comfort items." I'm glad they are so comfortable over there.

There's plenty more, but you get the idea.

I'm sure there is and I'm sure I do.

How our our captured soldiers treated? We've had very few, but the enemy has gone out of their way to violate the Geneva Convention, has tortured and left beheaded bodies in the street [mypetjawa.mu.nu], burned and left bodies hanging from a bridge [cnn.com]. Do I need to go on?

Really?! It's shocking that they would engauge in such sick acts when they have such a wonderful role model in the US Federal Government.

We're not perfect but we sure as hell are doing our best to protect ourselves from an enemy who won't be happy until we're living under sharia law.

This asshole seems to just want the US to quit killing his countrymen. He's probably not representative of those you are fighting though, is he? Have you ever actually listened to what he has to say? He is an asshole because he answered violence with violence. Does that sound like anyone you know?

Hot Shuttle on Plane action!
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/rdonlyres/AC54784F -7FCF-4BFA-A6D4-7AE971827141/88259/E09F248469A847F EA75E7F52BD46AF39.jpg

Actually, Bin Laden and many others have had a long-term vision for how to turn the United States into an Islamic state... but perhaps that's one of those "details" you're considering as trifling. Here, and plenty of other places if you bother to look.

And the "wipe Israel off the map" thing is deliberate disinfomation, no one in power ever said that.

O RLY?

Say Iran does get the bomb. What does that change?

Well, see, here's a word you need to look up: "apocalyptic". In this case, Iran's leadership actually has an uncommon extremist Muslim attitude that the end of the world isn't really a bad thing, and helping it along would be Allah's work. They don't mind triggering it. I know that in your little fantasy world, it's nice to think that they're just perfectly rational, Western-thinking people who just want to do what's best for their country; it's simply not the case. That's why it's relatively safer, for instance, for Israel or India to have the bomb - they truly care about self-preservation. Iran's leadership does not. Ignorance FTL.

No, thinking that invading was an improvement was lunacy.

Well, Saddam's regime killed somewhere between 300,000 and 600,000 people, depending on which mass graves you count, over a period of around 25 years. That's 12,000 - 24,000 people a year. Right now, around 35,000 people have died over three years, the majority of whom died in the initial invasion... and that's if you ignore the lack of state-run torture chambers and the numbers of dead we simply haven't found. So actually, the death rate is lower (if you take the best-case numbers for Saddam) and, in fact, far lower (if you take a more realistic tally) than it was during Saddam's regime. That's right, the war there is killing fewer people than peace was. Learn2Count. And, if you've been paying attention, people who commit atrocities there (including some coalition soldiers) are being taken to task for crimes - this is new for Iraq, on any level. (Please spare me the "put Bush on trial" obvious inane response.)

And the history books don't have that many examples of an occupied country "making it".

Germany, Japan, the Phillipines, dozens of colonial countries thanks to England and France, some of which are doing well and others of which are not. Kuwait, however, I agree - they suffered under occupation. Good point.

Complete conjecture. Would Iran being communist be any worse than the current state of affairs? Without a time machine we cannot answer that.

Great - according to your argument here, it is impossible to discuss what would have happened if anything in the past had happened differently. So why discuss the past at all? You can dismiss anything people say like "NATO won the cold war" by saying "not necessarily - that's your interpretation" but as soon as anyone tries to discuss what would have happened had we not done what we'd done, you say "you can't prove that!" May as well just stick your fingers in your ears and scream so you don't have to hear what other people are saying; it's a toddler's conversational tactic.

If you want to sound smart, don't tell other people they're stupid when you can't spell "hypocrisy" or "sentence" (not to mention "agree", "asinine", "parallels", "aside", and a number of other grade-school words. We'll forgive your butchering of "Reichstag". That's a hard one.)

Nobody's saying that the U.S. has behaved well, either in the past or now, but at least some people are debating it with at least a decent grasp of both sides of the issue; you're just another grandstanding underinformed U.S.-hater, just as bad as the pro-America yahoos.

Yes, exactly! First I read about the article on the digg, then on slashdot and then even on Tom's hardware! How redundant is that?

That's just like Bush's surprise visit; I can read about it on CNN, the BBC, Al Jazeera and on Xinhua. Imho they should all spice up things and report different news, make up stuff if need be...
</sarcasm>

From IRAQ, guys, we're being whipped over there

Events on the ground there dispute this. Go GDub!

We are going down guys. Sooner or later, we'll be at the bottom of the pack.

And yet we continue to outpace developed nations in GDP growth. You keep the programming prize and I'll keep my large home and SUV.

The Internet is also a better source of what I call controlled bias, where the bias is strong and clear enough that you can easily take it into account by reading something clearly biased the other way. For example, reading both rnc.org and dnc.org will provide a better picture than a news anchor who is trying (but invariably failing) to be neutral.

The closer to the horse's mouth, the better. english.aljazeera.net is great for an Arabic perspective. I get sports news directly from my teams' web sites. I get entertainment news directly from local venues' mailing lists. I read and sometimes watch the video of the white house press briefings.

It sounds like a lot of effort, but it isn't. In the half hour I would have wasted waiting for the one story in the newscast that interests me, I can use my laptop to google the subject from the teaser commercials and get to the other news I want more quickly, while I am watching a show I like.

You think so? Never materialized? Huh?

The floods in central Europe broke records lasting hundreds of years. Repeatedly in 1998,1999, 2002 and now 2006. Just try searching for floods in Central Europe. Or prehaps for heavy snowfall this year. Or perhaps about the wild-fires in recent years. No. Never happened. In your basement.

If you haven't been hearing about the dozens of deaths reported per day, then I'm afraid you've been watching the American media (and why are they so lax about Iraqi deaths and report the American ones more?). Go read Al Jazeera or watch Mosaic TV. The death toll from the suicide bombing at a mosque has now reached 80, and there have been recent mass graves found of people killed this year, not to mention the dozens of Sunnis found executed or the dozens of Shia killed in a similiar fashion, or the outrage when the US bombed a Shia mosque. If you're finding it hard to keep up with these events, I'd recommend Informed Comment (voted best expert blog).

if it wasn't for their natual resources that we are so addicted to, we would just walk away. Actually, we never would have invaded in the first place. If we actually had good intentions, we would be trying help places like Africa

I never claimed we invaded for good reasons. Honestly, I think the biggest reason we went to war was Bush's personal animus against Hussein for attempting to assassinate his father.

Whatever the reason we invaded, we're there now and having created a vacuum of power that invites civil war, we'll be responsibled for hundreds of thousands more deaths if we leave too soon.

You seem to go along with the belief that people can't take care of themselves without our input.

You're putting words in my mouth. Don't do that. Especially when they're wrong.

People can and will take care of themselves, aggressively so. And in the absence of any existing power structure, the most ruthless and violent will end up on top, after destroying the not quite as ruthless and violent, and wiping out lots of others in the process. This is particularly true when you have a builtin division based on religious and/or ethnic differences. And even more true when one of the sides has exercised control over the other, brutally, in the recent past. There's a lot of builtup distrust and resentment there.

And of course there's Israel. That little hot button will keep the war going indefinitely. We will be "stuck" there as long as we continue to unconditionally support them.

Agreed. The US needs to back way off on the Israeli issue. The Israelis are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves.

What we have now is a really big(and getting bigger) group of people that hate us.

Obviously. The question is which expands the group faster: staying or leaving? The vast bulk of the Iraqi people appreciate our presence, and don't want us to leave yet. You won't see that in the news reports (because it's not exciting or interesting enough), but spend some time talking to people who have been there and you'll get a more accurate picture. The radicals who are angered by our presence already hate us; leaving is just going to convince them that not only are we despicable, dangerous infidels, but that we're also weak-willed. Leaving too soon and dropping the country into a civil war, on the other hand, will convince the *rest* of the Iraqis and other middle-eastern moderates, that we really didn't want anything but their oil, and sacrificed them to get it.

Addressing the oil question head-on: If the purpose of the invasion was to get the Iraqi oil... (a) why hasn't the US done a good job of maintaining oil production in Iraq (oil production is well below what it was in pre-war Iraq) and (b) why isn't the US taking the oil revenues (the oil revenues are going to the Iraqi government, and the US is actually investing more US taxpayer dollars into Iraq's reconstruction than Iraq is bringing in with oil sales).

The "blood for oil" argument doesn't hold water. That's not to say Bush didn't think it would, but it doesn't work as a reason for staying.

I just made another post, so in the hope that you'll see one or the other: http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79C6AF22-98 FB-4A1C-B21F-2BC36E87F61F.htm

Peace be upon he who follows the guidance: People of America this talk of mine is for you and concerns the ideal way to prevent another Manhattan, and deals with the war and its causes and results.

Before I begin, I say to you that security is an indispensable pillar of human life and that free men do not forfeit their security, contrary to Bush's claim that we hate freedom.

If so, then let him explain to us why we don't strike for example - Sweden? And we know that freedom-haters don't possess defiant spirits like those of the 19 - may Allah have mercy on them.

No, we fight because we are free men who don't sleep under oppression. We want to restore freedom to our nation, just as you lay waste to our nation. So shall we lay waste to yours.

No one except a dumb thief plays with the security of others and then makes himself believe he will be secure. Whereas thinking people, when disaster strikes, make it their priority to look for its causes, in order to prevent it happening again.

But I am amazed at you. Even though we are in the fourth year after the events of September 11th, Bush is still engaged in distortion, deception and hiding from you the real causes. And thus, the reasons are still there for a repeat of what occurred.

Are you trying to prove my point posting such emotion raising links, my friend?

The media makes and sells emotions. Hate here, a little sympathy there. For example: You may not think much about it, but your government is torturing people. They are bombing innocent people. You probably don't care alot because you believe they deserve it for probably being terrorists anyway, or you let it pass as collatoral damage for a bigger cause. But people being tortured or killed are someone's wife, someone's child, someone's father... Who cares if we beat someone a bit if we can get info to avoid terrorism, right? This makes you evil in their eyes. Like: "How can you be letting this continue? Why don't you do something about it?" (Hint: This is what is in their media, and just as you are thinking that Afghanistan needed more bombing, they are thinking 9/11 was an understatement. Hate sells.) A quote from your link:

But the bigger problem confronting the president is that an overwhelming number of ordinary Afghans appear to believe Mr Rahman has erred and deserves to be executed.

Same thing there to. They don't think much about it. It is the norm over there, just as your norm is that anything that can be done to avoid terrorism should be done, even if it means war, bodycounts, torture, collatoral damage, loss of freedoms...

One of the Iranians I know coverted to marry a christian friend of mine. She didn't hesitate at all, although she knew returning home would stop being an option. Her parents took it surprisingly well IIRC. She converted so 'without fuss' it made me think if I would be as open minded to convert to a muslim if I was in the same situation.

A bit offtopic: When you see inflammatory stories on the news for no good reason, check for something they are trying to pass while our backs are turned. 9 times out of 10, this is the case... ;)

Cheers!

Are you trying to prove my point posting such emotion raising links, my friend?

The media makes and sells emotions. Hate here, a little sympathy there. For example: You may not think much about it, but your government is torturing people. They are bombing innocent people. You probably don't care alot because you believe they deserve it for probably being terrorists anyway, or you let it pass as collatoral damage for a bigger cause. But people being tortured or killed are someone's wife, someone's child, someone's father... Who cares if we beat someone a bit if we can get info to avoid terrorism, right? This makes you evil in their eyes. Like: "How can you be letting this continue? Why don't you do something about it?" (Hint: This is what is in their media, and just as you are thinking that Afghanistan needed more bombing, they are thinking 9/11 was an understatement. Hate sells.) A quote from your link:

But the bigger problem confronting the president is that an overwhelming number of ordinary Afghans appear to believe Mr Rahman has erred and deserves to be executed.

Same thing there to. They don't think much about it. It is the norm over there, just as your norm is that anything that can be done to avoid terrorism should be done, even if it means war, bodycounts, torture, collatoral damage, loss of freedoms...

One of the Iranians I know coverted to marry a christian friend of mine. She didn't hesitate at all, although she knew returning home would stop being an option. Her parents took it surprisingly well IIRC. She converted so 'without fuss' it made me think if I would be as open minded to convert to a muslim if I was in the same situation.

A bit offtopic: When you see inflammatory stories on the news for no good reason, check for something they are trying to pass while our backs are turned. 9 times out of 10, this is the case... ;)

Cheers!

Are you trying to prove my point posting such emotion raising links, my friend?

The media makes and sells emotions. Hate here, a little sympathy there. For example: You may not think much about it, but your government is torturing people. They are bombing innocent people. You probably don't care alot because you believe they deserve it for probably being terrorists anyway, or you let it pass as collatoral damage for a bigger cause. But people being tortured or killed are someone's wife, someone's child, someone's father... Who cares if we beat someone a bit if we can get info to avoid terrorism, right? This makes you evil in their eyes. Like: "How can you be letting this continue? Why don't you do something about it?" (Hint: This is what is in their media, and just as you are thinking that Afghanistan needed more bombing, they are thinking 9/11 was an understatement. Hate sells.) A quote from your link:

But the bigger problem confronting the president is that an overwhelming number of ordinary Afghans appear to believe Mr Rahman has erred and deserves to be executed.

Same thing there to. They don't think much about it. It is the norm over there, just as your norm is that anything that can be done to avoid terrorism should be done, even if it means war, bodycounts, torture, collatoral damage, loss of freedoms...

One of the Iranians I know coverted to marry a christian friend of mine. She didn't hesitate at all, although she knew returning home would stop being an option. Her parents took it surprisingly well IIRC. She converted so 'without fuss' it made me think if I would be as open minded to convert to a muslim if I was in the same situation.

A bit offtopic: When you see inflammatory stories on the news for no good reason, check for something they are trying to pass while our backs are turned. 9 times out of 10, this is the case... ;)

Cheers!

Seconded, it is actually quite a respectable and independant news source run by many ex-BBC reporters who were sick of the censorship. I don't know why people take the FUD that this administration throws out, try reading it sometime. I find their articles to be quite indepth and comprehensive (though I read mostly just their international articles).

FYI, Hamas has christian party members as well:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/ACC5E814-DB 9A-4C8C-9C5C-D2F5795720BA.htm

The conflicts in the middle east have a lot more to do with other factors than religion.

Check out government newscasts from the Middle East (translated to English). It's like watching the other side's version of Fox News. al-Jazeera is way ahead.

The US should be encouraging al-Jazeera, not complaining about it. The US has little to fear from an honest press. (Bush may, but that's a personal problem.)

http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage it's always interesting to see how the news is reported by the "arab cnn".

" You did not see them mention that the most offensive cartoons were not drawn by the Danish"

Do you mean an article like this one?
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/F0E1F392-A5 DA-499F-BF8B-9BACA4D471EC.htm

How are you on this whole cartoon thing ?

Killing people about a drawing isn't exactly winning hearts and minds of people like me, who consider themselves tolerant and liberal.

I suspect that it is as likely that Western agitators are stirring up unrest as much as Muslim extremists.

I had always considered historic Islam a peaceful system, respecting science and education but that seems to have been subverted.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/7591BA01-A2 DB-4269-93A2-CB1D73295B22.htm

"No more than 10,000 books were translated into Arabic over the entire millennium"

The Taliban's disdain for culture and women turns my stomach and if such powers took hold in my country I think I would be prepared to take up arms to defence our freedoms.

Keeping respect for such people and maintaining my tolerance is becoming increasingly difficult.

I'm not trying to troll you or be flamebait but open a dialog with someone with somethign to contribute.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/80C89E7E-1D E9-42BC-920B-91E5850FB067.htm

Weird. Did anyone else notice the black vans with government plates pull up outside their houses when they clicked on th

Here's the site devoted to peakoil: http://www.peakoil.net/

A huge chunk of Saudi exports come from one gigantic field. This means our eggs are in this one basket. Here's an article that discusses that field, and the chance that the Saudis might have screwed it by over-extracting. If you do that, you limit how much you can get out later; you might lose the reserves. [I'm guessing you might damage it, but that some future technology might make it recoverable -- just at a higher cost]

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/80C89E7E-1D E9-42BC-920B-91E5850FB067.htm

Apparently this was shown on Australia TV. The American press has had this stuff for several years, but still do not show it (or talk about it). I assume that CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, and FOX are now all conservative press and protecting the president by not showing it?

Can you say the word censorship?

From a secular, liberal Arabic point of view Al Jazeera kicks much ass.

You're right. Thanks for the link. I can't find any real news that is published in the US. Also, the readers are smarter than americans too. Look at this poll: http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/890500CB-E8 4E-4E17-ACB5-768A7FBF3670.htm

Specifically the question "Is it acceptable to curb civil rights in the name of fighting terror?"

a) Al Jazeera.net is not the same as Al Jazeera broadcast.

Aljazeera.net is the online version of the same Aljazeera.

That's a quote from their "About" page.

From a secular, liberal Arabic point of view Al Jazeera kicks much ass. This is what we are saying we'd like to encourage over there, and I'm totally baffled that people over here dislike it. The alternative is state-run religious content, and I'm sure they'd totally leave the US out of their commentary (he said sarcastically).

Check out their web site sometime, instead of taking FOX's word for everything.

You mean like this for example?

Where is the HQ of Al-Jazeera? Doha, Quatar.

Where was the HQ of Operation Iraqi Freedom? Doha, Quatar.

FWIW, I think they probably meant the TV channel headquarters.. I've watched it a couple of times, and it seemed pretty much like any news channel to me. I don't remember it being that political nor extremist. I don't understand Arabic, or course, but they also broadcast news in English.

They 've got a home page, too.

Some people are saying "It's all economics, they're poor / unemployed so they are fighting against the Man the only way they can", while others are saying "It's all religion, they're all middle-eastern, its what they do".... but those are just the talking points of the far Left and far Right. The issue, as always, is more complicated.

What you have are immigrant population from French colonies in North Africa (who happen to be of middle-eastern and african descent) who have entered France through their weaker immigration laws. The French are traditionally very nationalistic (see their Language boards), and the immigrants were discriminated against and were not assimilated into mainstream cultures. Secondly, the middle-eastern culture itself is very prideful, mainly becase of their religious practices and family customs. The net result was that the immigrants self-segretated themselves into comminities of like-minded peoples.

So, the dominant european ethnics (through prejudice) resisted their assimilation, which had the net result of limiting the earning potential of the middle-eastern ethnics. The immigrants resist learning the French language and culture, and because of French law, are denied representation in their governments. When the government does try to "help" them with social programs, their culture see it as insulting / condescending. The net result of this is a hatred of a government that is constantly trying to patronize them and force them to give up their heritage.

So, these neighborhoods tend to have less governmental police prescence than other suburbs of Paris, which tends to lead to more criminal elements. It had gotten so bad, representatives of the federal government of France were claiming that they would "clean up the scum", which didn't go so well with the locals. In the latest chain of events, there were two youths who were fleeing police, hid in a utility station and accidentally electrocuted themselves. The immigrant cultures see this as police brutality & oppression, something denied by the authorities.

Finally, there are now criminal elemnts in the immigrant culture that are rising up and causing damage around the suburbs, fighting their "battle" against the government for making them the way they are... Yet, these people do not see that a share of that responsibility is theirs.