Slashdot Mirror

Ethics @ Google?

Yes

They are one of the biggest UK/EU tax dodgers. They don't give back to society. Ever hear about the Double Dutch Sandwich?

You mean unlike other ethical companies like Microsoft?

I am an employee for one of the biggest American ex-HF/Bank in London, but from a moral perspective I feel Google is as transparent as the banks.

Then clearly you have never worked @ Google.

Use your head.

Google are common thieves and are like all the fat cats we love to hate, but really if we look inside things we all know how they can afford to give you free swimming pool or pay you 500K USD per year...

I dunno, maybe because we put out high quality products that people actually like using?

Just don't go around like a peacock as the typical American who likes to show his salary, thinking you really are paid with don't be evil money.

Of course, the reason I posted anonymously is because I want to show off my salary. BTW, I am NOT American.

When you know the true reality about all this huge Ponzi scheme which is the global economy, and know Google is part of it, then probably I guess you'd feel a bit ashamed.

This is rich coming from a guy who admits he works for an American financial institution. Clearly, as everyone knows, Google is responsible for the state of the global (and US) economy, and not the American financial institutions .

What a sad sad world we live in.

I agree, which is precisely why I am thankful that I can work for a company like Google. Maybe you should consider not working for an American bank in London?

http://archive.arabnews.com/?page=1&section=0&article=13448&d=13&m=3&y=2002&pix=kingdom.jpg&category=Kingdom

Oh well, we'll just pump oil now for whatever we can get and look, we are making billions! Yes, that's true, eventually though it will not be true, then they got *bupkis*. Anyone can see that, it is *by far* the easiest of futurist trends to see.

You made a great post, but I'm going to single out the above snippet because either you or I are wrong about this. I'm not saying that the spending of wealth in osme of the Arab countries hasn't been profligate. It certainly is by my standards. But it's wrong to imply that there's no re-investment going on. In fact, a lot of that money is coming back to the West in exchange for bargain sales of irreplacable things such as part-ownership of the NASDAQ and the London Stock Exchange: Link. There are plenty of other significant examples of investment, but those are the most dramatic ones, I think. And it's not entirely wrong for greater cities to be built in those countries. People should live in nice places, yes? A lot of future business will be of a non-manufacturing kind - financial work or intellectual property for example. Very little of London's revenue is from manufacturing I should imagine. The key question is whether the cities are maintainable long-term due to natural resource issues. Water may be one of the most strategic issues in the future, but if these countries invest in nuclear power, then they may be okay. Of greatest concern is whether some of the money is invested into Education. After all, purchases of things like the LSE do little to benefit the mass of people in Qatar, for example.

At least once a week, I try to visit ArabNews.com, MoscowTimes.ru, xinuanet.com, francedaily.com, and japantimes.co.jp. The point of a World-Wide Web, it seems to me, is to encounter things from all around the world. ArabNews often has the most amazing cartoons, such as this one: http://www.arabnews.com/cartoon/2003/07/06.jpg.

Another interesting source is WatchingAmerica.com, which has English translations of articles from foreign sources. Many sites have different material for locals than they have for foreigners, and it's interesting to see what they say in their own languages.

Every week or so I also hit a few political sites, such as thenation.com and amconmag.com, again to get different views on different issues.

For general knowledge, I hit The Numbers Guy at the Wall Street Journal, Bruce Schneier's blog at schneier.com and TheStraightDope.com.

However, IAAM (I am a Muslim), and I can assure you that it is not an instruction to kit up and start shooting the day a treaty expires.

I accept that this is your honest belief, but there seems to be an abundance of Muslims who think it is.

Specifically, if it says you must fight Pagans just because they are Pagans, then I don't see how in the following sentence it can say to grant them asylum and assist their passage into a safe area without forcing their conversion.

Perhaps it is not the consistent and truthful text you have come to believe. I'd be interested to know why you believe the Quran, and how this belief came about. Are you a convert, or a Muslim by birth? I'm not saying this to challenge you, I am actually interested.

Please remember that I am far from a Quranic scholar, there are people who devote decades to this stuff, much of which cross-relates to chapters and verses in other places in the Quran so I may be missing something.

Well, here's a problem I have with the Quran. It says in as many words ...

But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.

... to kill pagans if they don't establish regular prayers, and to require tribute from non-muslims under threat of violence, specifically for the purpose of bringing them low. I hope you can see why non-muslims would have some objection to this. For our freedom, we require to be in a society which never has more than a small minority of muslims.

The fact that someone who has studied the Quran for decades says it doesn't really mean this doesn't help much because there are so many Muslims who think it does. If the Quran can only be understood as not promoting violence under the instruction of such teachers, then surely it should not be available outside classes held by them.

Don't get me wrong, I've worked with Muslims, had business dealings with Muslims, worked together on charitable works with Muslims and none of them ever tried to do me harm. However, I also know a man that is under death sentence in his homeland for "blasphemy". His crime? Preaching Christ. If The legal system of whole countries purportedly under Islamic law passes death sentence on Christians who preach (a requirement of Christianity) then Islamic tolerance may as well be a sham. Maybe it's not true Islam, but it is widespread.

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=1&section=0&article= 86719&d=18&m=9&y=2006: Saudi Arabia's Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al-Asheikh ... said Muhammad had never chosen war as his first option. "He [Muhammad] gave three options: Either accept Islam or surrender or pay tax and they will be allowed to remain in their land, observing their religion under the protection of Muslims,"

Should I not accept Saudi Arabia's Grand Mufti as knowledgable about Islam? He seems to say I have three options, convert, pay the dhimmi tax or be killed. The idea of a purely defensive jihad is also hard to reconcile with the phenomenal military expansion of Islam in its first 100 years.

I was told a story by a man who had visited a church in Indonesia: Some Muslims were carrying out a Jihad, and were coming to this church, where 50 families of refugees were being held (may have been 50 refugees, not 50 families) to

I guess the question is "who controls the cameras?" Is the footage made available to the public? Or, if the cops start beating the shit out of some Critical Mass bicyclists do the cameras suddenly all go on the fritz?

He wasn't wearing a heavy jacket. He used his card to get into the station. He didn't vault the barrier. And now police say there are no CCTV pictures to reveal the truth.

The police returned the three CCTV tapes saying that they were blank and no good to the investigation. But London Underground officials and transport unions have challenged this claim suggesting that the tapes have either been lost or erased.

The first officers on the scene after Mr de Menezes was shot took away all CCTV tapes but allegedly found them blank. .... The IPCC has already protested that the police have compromised their investigation by taking away vital evidence, including the tapes,

Extracts from a police report, however, claimed that examination of the platform cameras had produced no footage. It said: "It has been established that there has been a technical problem with the CCTV equipment on the relevant platform and no footage exists."

Still won't be able to compete with the sheer density of colored symbols on A4 paper.

Getting a terabyte of data onto a DVD is easy. You simply render the bits using little colored shapes instead of traditional laser-beam pits and valleys.

No. The article says a 45 second video clip. It does not say the size of the video clip. The 432 pages of foolscap (single sided, in 10pt courier with 1 inch margins) could fit onto a four square inch piece of paper at just over 2200 pixels per inch.

A 2400 PPI printer on letter size paper with 1/4" margins could put 8*10.5*2400*2400=483840000 bits, or 57 megabytes onto the page (twice that if you use both sides of the page). That's enough for a 45 second video clip, especially if you don't use a full screen for the video.

If you assume an 8.5 x 10 inch sheet of paper (85 square inches), 300 x 300 dpi x 256 colors, you end up with 1.95 billion bits of info you can put on a page. Divided by 8 (to get bytes), you end up with something like 244GB of potential info. But you'll need to have some good error correction and registration. if you look at the original link (which is a link from tfa), it basically looks like a colorful, 2D bar code. I guess the color could make it a 3D barcode.

So despite the "fake" and "scam" tags on this article, there's no reason IMHO to doubt the theory, although I don't know if the application would be super practical.

Sainul says a CD or DVD consumes 16 grams of polycarbonate, a petroleum by-product. While a CD costs Rs.15 (SR1.25), his paper or plastic-made RVD will cost just about Rs.1.50 and has 131 times more storage capacity.

The ultimate backup solution. With acid free paper & some stable color inks, you can back up your entire hard drive on a regular basis.

I wonder how... low the data density can go in terms of DPI & resolution and how that would compare to 2D barcodes.

BTW - TFA is really just a summary of this article
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=4&section=0&article= 88962&d=18&m=11&y=2006

They may have not invented it, but they certainly mastered it.

http://www.arabnews.com/9-11/?article=32&part=2

Aww... look! An annoymous coward that is more interested in sounding like a tough guy instead of bothering to take a 30 second look through Google News on the subject! How cute!

Well- since you obviously need the help (in more ways then one) I'll put together a list of links for you. Let me know if any of the words are too big.

http://www.sorrynorwaydenmark.com/

http://www.thecouriermail.news.com.au/common/story _page/0,5936,18086537%255E954,00.html

Here is one article that proves my point that the violence gets headlines. You need to scroll down to the ned to see that thousands of people came together peacefully to protest the cartoons:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/artic le343940.ece

Here are three from Saudi Arabia asking for calm:
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7&section=0&article= 77536&d=9&m=2&y=2006
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7&section=0&article= 77534&d=9&m=2&y=2006
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7&section=0&article= 77532&d=9&m=2&y=2006

I would link more, but I'm not sure how much reading you can take in one sitting. And this involves reading and understanding. Much more difficult. Takes more brain power then you've shown so far.

Aww... look! An annoymous coward that is more interested in sounding like a tough guy instead of bothering to take a 30 second look through Google News on the subject! How cute!

Well- since you obviously need the help (in more ways then one) I'll put together a list of links for you. Let me know if any of the words are too big.

http://www.sorrynorwaydenmark.com/

http://www.thecouriermail.news.com.au/common/story _page/0,5936,18086537%255E954,00.html

Here is one article that proves my point that the violence gets headlines. You need to scroll down to the ned to see that thousands of people came together peacefully to protest the cartoons:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/artic le343940.ece

Here are three from Saudi Arabia asking for calm:
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7&section=0&article= 77536&d=9&m=2&y=2006
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7&section=0&article= 77534&d=9&m=2&y=2006
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7&section=0&article= 77532&d=9&m=2&y=2006

I would link more, but I'm not sure how much reading you can take in one sitting. And this involves reading and understanding. Much more difficult. Takes more brain power then you've shown so far.

Aww... look! An annoymous coward that is more interested in sounding like a tough guy instead of bothering to take a 30 second look through Google News on the subject! How cute!

Well- since you obviously need the help (in more ways then one) I'll put together a list of links for you. Let me know if any of the words are too big.

http://www.sorrynorwaydenmark.com/

http://www.thecouriermail.news.com.au/common/story _page/0,5936,18086537%255E954,00.html

Here is one article that proves my point that the violence gets headlines. You need to scroll down to the ned to see that thousands of people came together peacefully to protest the cartoons:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/artic le343940.ece

Here are three from Saudi Arabia asking for calm:
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7&section=0&article= 77536&d=9&m=2&y=2006
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7&section=0&article= 77534&d=9&m=2&y=2006
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7&section=0&article= 77532&d=9&m=2&y=2006

I would link more, but I'm not sure how much reading you can take in one sitting. And this involves reading and understanding. Much more difficult. Takes more brain power then you've shown so far.

Nursing homes

I think they have a little more respect for the elderly, but there are probably some.

Elderly Parents Abandoned at Hospitals.

Free websites for the most part

Here are the sites in my News pull down
http://www.drudgereport.com/
http://www.slashdot.org/
http://www.jpost.com/
http://www.maarivintl.com/index.cfm
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/
http://www.arabnews.com/
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/
http://news.google.com/
http://www.kcna.co.jp/index-e.htm
feed://newsrss.bbc.co.uk/rss/newsonline_world_ed it ion/front_page/rss.xml
http://www.globalsecurity.org/

I also hit CNN.com, some of the other British papers on the web, occasionally the local news TV station's websites.

My focus is on the Middle East, so I hit alot of Israeli papers. I go to about 1 blog everyother day, other than Fark.

shortly after that article came out the kingdom enacted new laws and regulations on hacking.

The forums on ZDNet are filled with pro-Microsoft trollers. People like "No Ax To Grind", "Mike Cox", and "Loverock Davidson" have become infamous with their bizarre pro-Microsoft, anti-Linux messages. They're so out of touch with reality, they come across like some of the pro-terrorist commenters on Saudi Arabia's official news site about 9/11.

The rejection of guest workers is a carefully considered policy in Japan. There are some disadvantages to losing a common culture, as the Dutch, the Germans, and the French are discovering. Can't say I blame the aging Japanese for not wanting to deal with cultural strife or learn Tagolog or Mandarin in their dotage. But pardon me, I'm off to my Spanish class...

camera phones is not banned anymore in Saudi Arabia, http://www.arabnews.com/?page=1&section=0&article= 56187&d=17&m=12&y=2004/

With a camera phone, of course.

I assume you're referring to them firing on our airplanes in the no-fly zone (if not, please correct me, but I'm aware of no other attack by Iraq on us since the end of GWI). Certainly that's true, but I think the point is that he wasn't a threat to U.S. soil, particularly in comparison to the ones who actually did attack us, al Qaeda.

Yes, that is what I was referring to. But don't forget that he also tried to assasinate a former US president, attack the US run Radio Free Europe in Prague, and according to Russia, he was plotting a direct attack on our homeland.

But the biggest threat from Iraq was not a direct attack- it was their known connections to terrorist groups.

The threat from Al Qaeda is also significant- probably moreso than Iraq. Thats why we are fighting them also.

Mmm, well, that's true, but what matters is percentages.

And the percentages are:

AGI of 1-10,000 18.5% 8.1%
AGI of 10,000 to 20,000 16.5% 74.2%
AGI of 20,000 to 30,000 13.5% 44.9%
AGI of 30,000 to 50,000 18.5% 15.1%
AGI of 50,000 to 10,000 22.2% 10.1%
AGI of 100,000 to 500,000 9.4% 6.5%
AGI of > 500,000 0.5% 4.4%

The group affected the most were people making between $10k and $20k, while people making over $500k saw the smallest decrease. (note- this article is about the tax increase that different groups would see if the Bush tax cuts were repealed. In my mind this should be the same as the amount their taxes were reduced by the tax cut. If you disagree with that logic, let me know).

Are you on drugs, or have you simply been in a news blackout since "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED"?

By any measure, the military victory in Iraq was a resounding success. In comparison to other modern wars, it is amazing what we have accomplished in such a short amount of time with so few casualties. It has not been perfect, and we have made some mistakes (like disbanding the Iraqi army), but give credit where credit is due.

As a side note, here is an article by Amir Taheri, who knows a hell of a lot more about what is going on there than you or I do. The article is about 2 months old, but its a pretty even assesment of the situation.

slowing the rush to Bagdad to a multi-week crawl.

I got a kick out of this- multi-week, eh? Have you lost all perspective?

3/4 of the iraqi population identify themselves with a tribe.

iraq is not unique in this respect. strong tribal influences exist today in SA, the saudi minister of defense emphasized their importance to the kingdom.

pakistan today is rife with tribal problems.

If you are offended by the facts, that's your problem.

Donald Rumsfeld justifies the abuse of Iraqi prisoners because "they are criminals".

What the hell are you talking about? Nobody in the administration, from the field commanders to Donald Rumsfeld to George Bush has tried to justify the abuse of Iraqi prisoners. Did you convienently stop listening when Rumsfeld apologized for the abuse and vowed to punish the people involved? Do you not realize that the only reason we know about the abuses now is because the Pentegon issued a press release in January that said they were investigating the crimes?

And you might want to read this opinion piece. It is written by an Iranian born journalist who is considered an expert on the middle east. I think he knows more about what is going in in Iraq than the hate-filled drones like you that are just looking for a political advantage.

Iraq is not a battle against terrorism. It's a family feud combined with a financial transaction.

Bull crap. The removal of Saddam has made the world safer, and we can cross another country off of the list of states that sponser terrorism.

There are no Saddam loyalists.

Bullcrap.
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7&section=0&article= 36512&d=16&m=12&y=2003
http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/specia l_packages/iraq/7511113.htm
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2003580992,00 .html

The freedom fighters are just that - fighting for control of their own country.

They don't have to fight- Iraqis get control of the country at the end of June.

You can't dismiss as everyone who is anti-US as an Islamic terrorist

I didn't, and on the same note, you can't dismiss the entire nation of Iraq as anti-US. We are doing a lot of good in Iraq, and they are appreciative (unlike some countries)

you, like 99.9% of the world's entire population, are absolutely unable to understand and/or see some very basic concepts and facts of international policy related to Iraq.

Let me refresh your memory. Over 10 years ago, when France, Germany, U.S. and all other U.N. constituants voted for the embargo on Iraq, they essentially signed the death certificates of thousands upon thousands of starving Iraqi children every single month. For 10 fucking years this has been going on and NO ONE, ABSOLUTELY NO ONE, has done ANYTHING concrete to put an end to this. People see bombs, planes, tanks and "the big invasion" as the worst thing Iraq has endured over the last 10 years, WAKE THE FUCK UP, you clueless masses, IRAQ, HAS ALREADY been at war for over 10 years.

You may agree or disagree, approve or disapprove, hide behind the same old rehashed conspiracy theories behind the U.S.'s motives for going there. But in the end, this invasion is the very very first chance for Iraq at a brighter future. Even if only U.S. companies obtain Iraqi contracts, guess where that U.S. money is guna go? The Iraqi PEOPLE. Not to some dictator who constantly remains eager to build himself new pools and palaces, while his children starve.

This is not about getting rid of all oppressive regimes in the world. This is about fixing a mess that the U.S. and Europe started over a decade ago, it is about bringing closure to a campaign that had been started back in 1989 that may have ephemerously freed the Kurds, but has also immediately thrown the Iraqi People in the middle of economic sanctions and subsequent starvation, under a dictator that never ever gave a shit about his People, all to see the U.N. bitch, moan, and do absolutely nothing concrete for 10 years to hold saddam accountable and lift sanctions. For 10 years, the Iraq situation has been a can of worms no leader in the world has been willing to open, while U.S. and Europe enjoyed a prosperous economic expansion.

Even if saddam was never himself involved with terrorist activities, his regime has set the stage to feed extremist Muslim movements with the hate, anger and desperation they so direly need to formulate their anti-Occident brainwash and bring-in new recruits. Until now, if you're an Iraqi struggling to make ends meet to feed your family, here were your only two options at a better life:

• join saddam's army and be guaranteed 3 meals a day.
• join bin laden's army and guarantee your family a hefty reward after your death.

Why would young, strong Iraqi Men NOT choose one of those two routes? For all they knew, they'd be fighting the western cultures that oppress them.

My guess is these are the real reasons why we went to war with Iraq. Sure this administration's lack of credibility sticks out like a sore fucking thumb in this whole mess, what fucking WMD? what fucking 9/11? But this all goes back to what i started this post with: 99.9% of people in the world are clueless numbnuts who just LIVE for hair-brained conspiracy theories to make simple sense out of a complicated mess. From there, it isn't hard to see why the U.S. administration tried to rally their citizens and the rest of the world with simple concepts simpletons could grok: "WMD, 9/11".

How did we get here? Simple. For decades Arab countries have been the bitch to either one of two entities: Capitalist Factions and Communist Factions. Since Arab countries never evolved to even simple forms of democracy, no ruler of Iran or Iraq ever was truly accountable for their actions, and was therefore free to more or less secretely broker deals with the U.S., Europe or the USSR. Russians were racing for oil interests thru Iran, Americans thru Iraq, who all sat back and watched Arab Brothers kill oneanother, while feeding them weapons.

Arab countries have GOT to demo

Anti-establishment psychology also comes into play: for example, you don't see anti-business graffiti on your local coffee shop, you see it at Starbucks. When people want to make a statement about animal cruelty and food, they often picket at McDonald's - not the local Mom & Pop restaurant. Why? Because it's perceived as cool to go after the big business.

People picket Starbucks and McDonald's because it attracts attention. Be sure not to confuse "getting attention" with "getting actual results," however. If you look at the recent Pesticide problems with Coke and Pepsi, you will see that the underlying problem is not the fault of Coca-Cola/PepsiCo. The local water is the actual problem. Groups went after those two companies in order to attract attention. Look at the search results for "coke pesticide" to see how much attention it has gotten.

Coca-Cola and PepsiCo could drop that segment of the market with very little loss in direct profits. However, their image goes down. As a result of the attention, PepsiCo has announced they will use mineral water instead of tap water in all of their fountain drinks.

Problem solved, right? Wrong. The water in India is not getting any cleaner as a result of this attention. All that happened is that the two companies targeted cleaned up their act. Have you heard anything in the news about the dirty water in India that doesn't talk about Coke or Pepsi?

I originally misread the parent post. So this should pretty much support what was said now that I have realized my mistake. In closing, getting more attention than everyone else is perceived as cool by the script kiddies; that is why they target Windows.

As for this being another "Vietname" or "quagmire", check the body count since Bush claimed the war was "over".

I suggest you check out this insightful article on ArabNews regarding "another Vietnam".

"America now rules the world, either directly or by proxy; and there is nothing anyone can do about it."

Sen. Daschle suggested that Bush's diplomatic failure made war inevitable. He was attacked as if he were a refusenik during the Soviet era. Senator Kerry, a man who fought for his country and was decorated for it, urgently calls to vote this president out of office only to find himself fighting a war of survival as a politician. Sen. Kennedy, an elder statesman whose American lineage needs no proof, was clear that Bush did not make a convincing case for a war in Iraq. Al Gore, who actually won the popular vote in 2000, did not see any reason to go to war to achieve the objectives of the UN resolutions. We all know where President Carter, who perhaps is the most deserving of the Noble Prize winners this past century, stands.

These people and many more are neither Arab nor anti-American. They are the leaders (chosen and elected) of the United States. They have been silenced, sidetracked, and even accused of being un-American. The one-dimensional clique that rules the White House these days is not only killing our children in Iraq but also polarizing America in a dangerous precedent that might set that country on a track of belligerence, conquest, and lethal unilateralism."

"America now rules the world, either directly or by proxy; and there is nothing anyone can do about it."

"Who can defeat the beast?"

While the concept of `anticipatory self defense' is well-enshrined in international law, this is rather beside the point in Iraq, where the ceasefire ending the first gulf war explicitly authorized military action if Iraq did not comply with the UN resolutions demanding disarmament. Of course, you chose not to respond to this point. Were the UN Security Council to issue a resolution withdrawing this authorization (and withdrawing resolution 1441's explicit call for `serious consequences' if Iraq did not `immediately' comply), then you could talk about this war going against the will of the UN. Until then, we are doing exactly what the UN called for in seventeen resolutions over twelve years.

We are also, of course, acting to disarm a tyrant armed with WMD who has well-documented ties to those who attacked us on September 11.

But let's go through the alleged `lies' you point to, anyway:

• Aluminum tubes -- your source for the claim that the Bush administration lied is ... Madeleine Albright?! That doesn't even pass the laugh test, but if you want the other view, go read the testimony of David Kay, former head of the nuclear inspections program in Iraq.
• weeks not months -- even the article you point to notes that Cheney said `weeks, not months if no complications arise', and of course the administration has never said that the war would be easy, or necessarily short. On the contrary, the administratin has repeatedly said that `the only sure thing in war is sacrifice', and that the war will go on `as long as it takes'. On the other hand, since it has currently been less than two weeks, you are mighty quick to assert the war will take `months' in any case.
• `Iraq was actively trying to acquire uranium' -- again, go read Kay's testimony above, and go read Hans Blix's statements to the UN, which confirmed that Iraq was indeed attempting to acquire uranium. No one, not even the UN is denying that Iraq has tried to get uranium. Initial reports that they had gotten some from South Africa turned out to be incorrect, sure, but even Iraq's own declaration to the UN on December 7, 2002 acknowledges their attempts to get uranium.
• the coalition -- again, dozens of nations have quite vocally voiced their support for Operation Iraqi Freedom, not least eighteen of the nations of Europe in open letters. Over two dozen have provided hard support, including the UK, Spain, Australia, the Netherlands, Denmark, Poland, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman, and many more. Dozens more have voiced support openly for the war. So what, exactly, are you claiming is `a lie'? Eh?
• the 51st division -- in the early days of the war, the entire senior leadership of the 51st surrendered to allied troops, and the rest of the division disbanded. Since then, many troops from the division have re-appeared in fighting, often against their own will, propelled by Fedayeen officers with guns to their heads and to the heads of their families. Even the Arab media are reporting that many of those fighting are being forced to do so under threats to themselves and their families. So again, what are you claiming was `a lie'?
• Umm Qasr -- likewise here, allied troops took control of this town very early, but later Fedayeen militiament dressed as civilians opened fire at several points in the town. Although existing only in cut-off pockets, some of these units took a few days to clear out, primarily due to our own concern to minimize harm to bystanders and to the town. What are you claiming is `a lie' about this?

Perfect! Now the government can censor Al Jazeera and Arab News with the touch of a button!

So is this Saudi news site not good enough?

http://www.arabnews.com

This series from a reporter that managed to get inside of Iraq is pretty interesting. That link is to part 2 of the daily series. Notice that no matter how critical that guy is about the US, when the bullets start flying, there is no doubt in his mind who the good guys and the bad guys are.

So is this Saudi news site not good enough?

http://www.arabnews.com

This series from a reporter that managed to get inside of Iraq is pretty interesting. That link is to part 2 of the daily series. Notice that no matter how critical that guy is about the US, when the bullets start flying, there is no doubt in his mind who the good guys and the bad guys are.

www.arabnews.com had an article comparing al-Jazeera and CNN.

CNN portrayed as lying, deceitful, mouthpiece of the US administration.

al-Jazeera portrayed as a font of wisdom and truth.

Both statements are crap CNN may well sanitise its stories, and portray the US side (hey..it's a US company)

But al-Jazeera is at least equally as bad.

In reference to the current fighting...
Does AJ show pics and video of Iraqi troops hiding among civilians and using them as shields? No
Does AJ show report on the Iraqi troops using a hospital for a weapons cache? No
Does AJ report on the use of explosives at the oil well heads? No.
Does AJ report on the ecological disaster of lighting oil filled trenches on fire? No

If you want to say CNN is not reporting 'fairly', OK..that may well be true.

But please do NOT hold up AJ as the bastion of truth and objectivity.

I know...I've been waiting for this for a long time. I try to read as much as I can from a variety of viewpoints. There's not too much in the way of english language arab news. Well, there is the Arab News of saudi arabia. But al Jazeera seems to be quite popular and it would have been interesting to see what all the fuss is about.

It does make you wonder who the attackers are.

(One thing I like about news sources like the "Marxist Workers Journal" is that it's pretty easy to see where their bias lies...)

If you just want the opposite bias, just go here.

I found this from Google News on Arab News:

My Dear Americans
Tariq A. Al-Maeena, clsencounters@hotmail.com

US President Bush has declared a war on Iraq. He calls it "Operation Iraqi Freedom." In a televised address to the nation he said, "These are opening stages of what will be a broad and concerted campaign." But the truth is far from it. It is not a war. It is willful and premeditated murder, and should be dubbed Operation Iraqi Slaughter.

With each weapon of mass destruction landing in Iraq, Bush is condemning thousands of innocent Iraqis to death. And his stated purpose? To set them free of tyranny. But the horrors of what Bush has unleashed on the civilians of Iraq will undoubtedly leave few of them around to enjoy the so-called freedom Bush so grandly envisages.

The preliminary missile and bombing attacks on Iraq were just a taste of what will soon be unleashed on a weary and helpless population. As the US secretary of defense grandly announced in Washington last Thursday, "What will follow will not be a repeat of any other conflict. It will be of a force and scope and scale that is beyond what has been seen before."

Hundreds of cruise missiles, to give just one example, are to be launched in the first days of the attack. Those who survive the initial onslaught will be struggling to survive in cities from which there is no escape, and in which the water supplies, the sewage systems, and the electrical grids, have been deliberately destroyed. Diseases will be rampant, and death multi-fold.

American and British forces will use thousands of depleted uranium (DU) shells -- widely regarded by 1991 veterans as the cause of Gulf War syndrome as well as thousands of child cancers in present-day Iraq -- to batter their way across the Kuwaiti-Iraqi frontier. The long-term health effects of this invasion will not be determined for decades.

And once the soldiers are in combat, you will be expected to unite behind the war. Images showing "smart bombs" exploding while Mr. Rumsfeld assures you that civilian casualties are being kept to a minimum will dominate the TV screens of a country far removed from the horrors.

You can be assured too that you will be spared the bloody realities of the dead and wounded of Iraq, as the human tragedy unfolding in Iraq will be told in numbers, in abstractions, in brief video clips, and not in the stories of real human beings, real children, real mothers and fathers. But remember that those abstractions were living flesh and blood.

And in defending their purpose to continue with this mass slaughter should any horrific incident be exposed, your government will be sure to pacify your consciences with apologies such as: "The death of this family was an accident," "We apologize for the dismemberment of this child," "This was an intelligence mistake," "A radar malfunction" -- and perhaps even some more imaginative ones.

Then the US will conveniently find the weapons of mass destruction that supposedly provoked this bloody war. In the journalistic hunt for these weapons, any old rocket will do.

Why? To get rid of Saddam, a tyrant, a threat to the world? To defend ourselves? To destroy his mighty arsenal? Then how come the rest of the world, much closer to Iraq, does not want war? If indeed he had such an arsenal under his control, shouldn't we wonder why he isn't using it now, when he risks being destroyed himself?

Why, for God's sake, this sudden urgency to create a threat where hardly any existed? Why were the inspections not allowed to continue? Was anybody being threatened during the inspection process? Were bodies being blown to bits? Just a couple of weeks ago, Hans Blix told the Security Council that the key remaining disarmament tasks could be completed within months.

Or is it that Bush, in pursuit of his own agenda, was afraid that a vote against war by the Security Council would have formally declared the United States

I found this from Google News on Arab News:

My Dear Americans
Tariq A. Al-Maeena, clsencounters@hotmail.com

US President Bush has declared a war on Iraq. He calls it "Operation Iraqi Freedom." In a televised address to the nation he said, "These are opening stages of what will be a broad and concerted campaign." But the truth is far from it. It is not a war. It is willful and premeditated murder, and should be dubbed Operation Iraqi Slaughter.

With each weapon of mass destruction landing in Iraq, Bush is condemning thousands of innocent Iraqis to death. And his stated purpose? To set them free of tyranny. But the horrors of what Bush has unleashed on the civilians of Iraq will undoubtedly leave few of them around to enjoy the so-called freedom Bush so grandly envisages.

The preliminary missile and bombing attacks on Iraq were just a taste of what will soon be unleashed on a weary and helpless population. As the US secretary of defense grandly announced in Washington last Thursday, "What will follow will not be a repeat of any other conflict. It will be of a force and scope and scale that is beyond what has been seen before."

Hundreds of cruise missiles, to give just one example, are to be launched in the first days of the attack. Those who survive the initial onslaught will be struggling to survive in cities from which there is no escape, and in which the water supplies, the sewage systems, and the electrical grids, have been deliberately destroyed. Diseases will be rampant, and death multi-fold.

American and British forces will use thousands of depleted uranium (DU) shells -- widely regarded by 1991 veterans as the cause of Gulf War syndrome as well as thousands of child cancers in present-day Iraq -- to batter their way across the Kuwaiti-Iraqi frontier. The long-term health effects of this invasion will not be determined for decades.

And once the soldiers are in combat, you will be expected to unite behind the war. Images showing "smart bombs" exploding while Mr. Rumsfeld assures you that civilian casualties are being kept to a minimum will dominate the TV screens of a country far removed from the horrors.

You can be assured too that you will be spared the bloody realities of the dead and wounded of Iraq, as the human tragedy unfolding in Iraq will be told in numbers, in abstractions, in brief video clips, and not in the stories of real human beings, real children, real mothers and fathers. But remember that those abstractions were living flesh and blood.

And in defending their purpose to continue with this mass slaughter should any horrific incident be exposed, your government will be sure to pacify your consciences with apologies such as: "The death of this family was an accident," "We apologize for the dismemberment of this child," "This was an intelligence mistake," "A radar malfunction" -- and perhaps even some more imaginative ones.

Then the US will conveniently find the weapons of mass destruction that supposedly provoked this bloody war. In the journalistic hunt for these weapons, any old rocket will do.

Why? To get rid of Saddam, a tyrant, a threat to the world? To defend ourselves? To destroy his mighty arsenal? Then how come the rest of the world, much closer to Iraq, does not want war? If indeed he had such an arsenal under his control, shouldn't we wonder why he isn't using it now, when he risks being destroyed himself?

Why, for God's sake, this sudden urgency to create a threat where hardly any existed? Why were the inspections not allowed to continue? Was anybody being threatened during the inspection process? Were bodies being blown to bits? Just a couple of weeks ago, Hans Blix told the Security Council that the key remaining disarmament tasks could be completed within months.

Or is it that Bush, in pursuit of his own agenda, was afraid that a vote against war by the Security Council would have formally declared the United States

I found this from Google News on Arab News:

My Dear Americans
Tariq A. Al-Maeena, clsencounters@hotmail.com

US President Bush has declared a war on Iraq. He calls it "Operation Iraqi Freedom." In a televised address to the nation he said, "These are opening stages of what will be a broad and concerted campaign." But the truth is far from it. It is not a war. It is willful and premeditated murder, and should be dubbed Operation Iraqi Slaughter.

With each weapon of mass destruction landing in Iraq, Bush is condemning thousands of innocent Iraqis to death. And his stated purpose? To set them free of tyranny. But the horrors of what Bush has unleashed on the civilians of Iraq will undoubtedly leave few of them around to enjoy the so-called freedom Bush so grandly envisages.

The preliminary missile and bombing attacks on Iraq were just a taste of what will soon be unleashed on a weary and helpless population. As the US secretary of defense grandly announced in Washington last Thursday, "What will follow will not be a repeat of any other conflict. It will be of a force and scope and scale that is beyond what has been seen before."

Hundreds of cruise missiles, to give just one example, are to be launched in the first days of the attack. Those who survive the initial onslaught will be struggling to survive in cities from which there is no escape, and in which the water supplies, the sewage systems, and the electrical grids, have been deliberately destroyed. Diseases will be rampant, and death multi-fold.

American and British forces will use thousands of depleted uranium (DU) shells -- widely regarded by 1991 veterans as the cause of Gulf War syndrome as well as thousands of child cancers in present-day Iraq -- to batter their way across the Kuwaiti-Iraqi frontier. The long-term health effects of this invasion will not be determined for decades.

And once the soldiers are in combat, you will be expected to unite behind the war. Images showing "smart bombs" exploding while Mr. Rumsfeld assures you that civilian casualties are being kept to a minimum will dominate the TV screens of a country far removed from the horrors.

You can be assured too that you will be spared the bloody realities of the dead and wounded of Iraq, as the human tragedy unfolding in Iraq will be told in numbers, in abstractions, in brief video clips, and not in the stories of real human beings, real children, real mothers and fathers. But remember that those abstractions were living flesh and blood.

And in defending their purpose to continue with this mass slaughter should any horrific incident be exposed, your government will be sure to pacify your consciences with apologies such as: "The death of this family was an accident," "We apologize for the dismemberment of this child," "This was an intelligence mistake," "A radar malfunction" -- and perhaps even some more imaginative ones.

Then the US will conveniently find the weapons of mass destruction that supposedly provoked this bloody war. In the journalistic hunt for these weapons, any old rocket will do.

Why? To get rid of Saddam, a tyrant, a threat to the world? To defend ourselves? To destroy his mighty arsenal? Then how come the rest of the world, much closer to Iraq, does not want war? If indeed he had such an arsenal under his control, shouldn't we wonder why he isn't using it now, when he risks being destroyed himself?

Why, for God's sake, this sudden urgency to create a threat where hardly any existed? Why were the inspections not allowed to continue? Was anybody being threatened during the inspection process? Were bodies being blown to bits? Just a couple of weeks ago, Hans Blix told the Security Council that the key remaining disarmament tasks could be completed within months.

Or is it that Bush, in pursuit of his own agenda, was afraid that a vote against war by the Security Council would have formally declared the United States

These were useful during the Afghan invasion: Lebanon, Jordan, Arab News, Gulf News

The way I like to look at things is that no one source will ever be the actual truth. "Actual truth" probably can't be written down anyways. I will be looking at sites that are at total opposites of the spectrum. Check out the following eclectic list:

Iran
India
Switzerland
Russia
Saudi Arabia

For those who would like to read some of how the Saudi Arabians see things:

arabnews.com

I always find this site quite interesting.

It is presumptuous and insulting to suggest that a whole region of the world -- or the one-fifth of humanity that is Muslim -- is somehow untouched by the most basic aspirations of life. ... In our desire to be safe from brutal and bullying oppression, human beings are the same. In our desire to care for our children and give them a better life, we are the same. For these fundamental reasons, freedom and democracy will always and everywhere have greater appeal than the slogans of hatred and the tactics of terror.

In an interesting spin on the story [arabnews.com], it turns out the US is trying to create a "death star" in space. I suppose it is another "real-life follows hollywood" thing.

Text of above link is as follows:

---

Israeli, US astronauts die in shuttle blast over Palestine

By Barbara Ferguson, Arab News Staff

WASHINGTON, 2 February 2003

All seven crew of the American space shuttle Columbia, including the first ever Israeli astronaut, were killed yesterday when the craft disintegrated in flames just minutes before it was scheduled to land.

In a tragic irony, the Columbia exploded with its Israeli astronaut on board over a city named Palestine in the state of Texas.

The cause of the disaster was not immediately clear, but residents in north Texas heard a loud boom as Columbia passed overhead.

"I could see two bright objects flying off each side of it," said Gary Hunziker. "I just assumed they were chase jets."

Another, John Ferolito, heard a noise "like a sonic boom" as Columbia went over Dallas.

Television footage showed a bright light followed by smoke plumes streaking through the sky. Debris appeared to break off into balls of light as it continued downward. Residents of Nacogdoches, Texas, found bits of metal strewn across the city.

Officials in Washington said there was no indication of terrorism. The disaster, said the National Aeronautical and Space Administration, occurred when the craft was flying at 12,500mph, at a height of 203,000ft, far too high for any ground-to-air missile.

Investigations of technical malfunction may first center on the fact that a piece of insulating foam on the craft's external fuel tank came off shortly after lift-off on Jan. 16.

Whatever the cause, the accident dealt a powerful shock to American confidence and throws into doubt the entire manned space program.

But President George W. Bush vowed the space program would continue. "The cause in which they died will continue," he said. "Our journey into space will go on."

Bush raced back to the White House from the Camp David presidential retreat in response to the tragedy. Earlier, he spoke to the families of the astronauts.

On board Columbia were six Americans and Israel's first astronaut, Ilan Ramon, a former air force colonel. The commander of the shuttle was Rick Husband, 45, an Air Force colonel from Amarillo, Texas, who was selected as an astronaut in 1994 on his fourth try. Among his crew were William McCool, 41, a navy commander from Lubbock, Texas, and father of three sons; Kalpana Chawla, 41, one of the two women on the flight, who emigrated to the US from India in the 1980s and became an astronaut in 1994; and Laurel Clark, 41, the flight surgeon, who became an astronaut in 1996 and who has an eight-year-old son.

The mission was the 113th flight in the shuttle program?s 22 years and the 28th flight for Columbia, NASA's oldest shuttle. The disaster came 17 years, almost exactly to the day, after the shuttle Challenger exploded shortly after lift-off, killing all seven of its crew. In 42 years of human space flight, NASA has never lost a space crew during landing or the ride back to orbit.

As the Columbia's crew prepared for re-entry, astronaut David Brown joked with mission control: "Do we really have to come back?" As the rising sun burned off the early morning fog the controllers in Houston gave the seven astronauts clearance to begin the run for home. "I guess you've been wondering," they radioed Columbia, "but you are now to go for the de-orbit burn." Those words marked the beginning of the descent to doom.

"Once again we see that space technology can fail," Bruce Gagnon, international coordinator for the Global Network against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space, told Arab News last night. "I'm troubled because the Bush Administration has recently announced a program called the 'Nuclear Systems Initiative', a $1 billion research and development program to expand the launching of nuclear power into space. The problem is that as you increase the numbers of launches carrying nuclear payloads into space, but you are also going to dramatically increase the chances of a catastrophic Chernobyl in the sky."

Asked why NASA was advising extreme precaution at the crash sites, Gagnon said: "We haven't heard that there was a nuclear payload on this shuttle, but one of the great hallmarks of the Bush administration is increased secrecy. I must admit that when NASA said no one should go near a site because of the toxic potential of the fuels and 'other reasons,' I couldn't help but wonder what those reasons are."

Due to cuts in NASA's budget in recent years, NASA has been forced to turn to the Pentagon for increased funding, said Gagnon. The result is that the space shuttles are now also NASA missions and carry both military and civilian technologies. "What you have now is the military takeover of the space program. NASA is not just about gazing at the stars, it now also has a political and military agenda." What is of concern, he said, is that the Pentagon in now working on a program called the "Space Based Laser." "Its nickname is the 'Death Star,' and its job is to destroy other country's satellites, and also hit targets on the Earth below. NASA hopes to have the first operational tests by 2016 or 2017," Gagnon explained.

"This would give the US full control and domination of space and the earth below, because whoever controls space will control the Earth." (Additional reporting by David Randall of The Independent in New York)

In an interesting spin on the story, it turns out the US is trying to create a "death star" in space. I suppose it is another "real-life follows hollywood" thing.

Text of above link is as follows

Israeli, US astronauts die in shuttle blast over Palestine

By Barbara Ferguson, Arab News Staff

WASHINGTON, 2 February 2003

All seven crew of the American space shuttle Columbia, including the first ever Israeli astronaut, were killed yesterday when the craft disintegrated in flames just minutes before it was scheduled to land.

In a tragic irony, the Columbia exploded with its Israeli astronaut on board over a city named Palestine in the state of Texas.

The cause of the disaster was not immediately clear, but residents in north Texas heard a loud boom as Columbia passed overhead.

"I could see two bright objects flying off each side of it," said Gary Hunziker. "I just assumed they were chase jets."

Another, John Ferolito, heard a noise "like a sonic boom" as Columbia went over Dallas.

Television footage showed a bright light followed by smoke plumes streaking through the sky. Debris appeared to break off into balls of light as it continued downward. Residents of Nacogdoches, Texas, found bits of metal strewn across the city.

Officials in Washington said there was no indication of terrorism. The disaster, said the National Aeronautical and Space Administration, occurred when the craft was flying at 12,500mph, at a height of 203,000ft, far too high for any ground-to-air missile.

Investigations of technical malfunction may first center on the fact that a piece of insulating foam on the craft's external fuel tank came off shortly after lift-off on Jan. 16.

Whatever the cause, the accident dealt a powerful shock to American confidence and throws into doubt the entire manned space program.

But President George W. Bush vowed the space program would continue. "The cause in which they died will continue," he said. "Our journey into space will go on."

Bush raced back to the White House from the Camp David presidential retreat in response to the tragedy. Earlier, he spoke to the families of the astronauts.

On board Columbia were six Americans and Israel's first astronaut, Ilan Ramon, a former air force colonel. The commander of the shuttle was Rick Husband, 45, an Air Force colonel from Amarillo, Texas, who was selected as an astronaut in 1994 on his fourth try. Among his crew were William McCool, 41, a navy commander from Lubbock, Texas, and father of three sons; Kalpana Chawla, 41, one of the two women on the flight, who emigrated to the US from India in the 1980s and became an astronaut in 1994; and Laurel Clark, 41, the flight surgeon, who became an astronaut in 1996 and who has an eight-year-old son.

The mission was the 113th flight in the shuttle program's 22 years and the 28th flight for Columbia, NASA's oldest shuttle. The disaster came 17 years, almost exactly to the day, after the shuttle Challenger exploded shortly after lift-off, killing all seven of its crew. In 42 years of human space flight, NASA has never lost a space crew during landing or the ride back to orbit.

As the Columbia's crew prepared for re-entry, astronaut David Brown joked with mission control: "Do we really have to come back?" As the rising sun burned off the early morning fog the controllers in Houston gave the seven astronauts clearance to begin the run for home. "I guess you've been wondering," they radioed Columbia, "but you are now to go for the de-orbit burn." Those words marked the beginning of the descent to doom.

"Once again we see that space technology can fail," Bruce Gagnon, international coordinator for the Global Network against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space, told Arab News last night. "I'm troubled because the Bush Administration has recently announced a program called the 'Nuclear Systems Initiative', a $1 billion research and development program to expand the launching of nuclear power into space. The problem is that as you increase the numbers of launches carrying nuclear payloads into space, but you are also going to dramatically increase the chances of a catastrophic Chernobyl in the sky."

Asked why NASA was advising extreme precaution at the crash sites, Gagnon said: "We haven't heard that there was a nuclear payload on this shuttle, but one of the great hallmarks of the Bush administration is increased secrecy. I must admit that when NASA said no one should go near a site because of the toxic potential of the fuels and 'other reasons,' I couldn't help but wonder what those reasons are."

Due to cuts in NASA's budget in recent years, NASA has been forced to turn to the Pentagon for increased funding, said Gagnon. The result is that the space shuttles are now also NASA missions and carry both military and civilian technologies. "What you have now is the military takeover of the space program. NASA is not just about gazing at the stars, it now also has a political and military agenda." What is of concern, he said, is that the Pentagon in now working on a program called the "Space Based Laser." "Its nickname is the 'Death Star,' and its job is to destroy other country's satellites, and also hit targets on the Earth below. NASA hopes to have the first operational tests by 2016 or 2017," Gagnon explained.

"This would give the US full control and domination of space and the earth below, because whoever controls space will control the Earth." (Additional reporting by David Randall of The Independent in New York)