Slashdot Mirror

Including when blacks control all of the political and economic activity.

Where is that?

Haiti is a good case in point.

Haiti has been subject to American influence. America controls much of the economic activity. Try again!

- They have been shooting protesters, do they need to rape them too?

No, but they could open fire on mass demonstrations, or other means of crushing dissent.

Hama 1982 – The Syrian massacre you never heard about
In 1982 the Syrian government killed 30,000 – 40,000 of its own citizens. Assad leveled an entire city with an air bombardment followed by artillery and tank fire. Why? They were anti Baath party, and apparently in 1982 in Syria that was a death sentence

“The residents of a Syrian city named Hama had been more persistent in their criticisms of the dictator than other towns. For that reason,

Hafez Assad decided that Hama would be the staging point of the example he was to make to the Syrian people. In the twilight hours of February the 2nd, 1982, the city of Hama was awakened by loud explosions. The Syrian air force had begun to drop their bombs from the dark sky.

The initial bombing run cost the city few casualties. It's main purpose had been to disable the roads so that no-one could escape. Earlier in the night, Syrian tanks and artillery systems had surrounded Hama. With the conclusion of the air bombing run, the tanks and artillery began their relentless shelling of the town.

The cost in human lives was severe. As homes crumbled upon their living occupants and the smell of charred skin filled the streets, a few residents managed to escape the shelling and started to flee. They were met by the Syrian army which had surrounded the city ... they were all shot dead.

Hours of shelling had turned Hama into rubble. The tanks and artillery had done all that they could. The next wave of attacks came in the form of Syrian soldiers. They quickly converged onto the town killing anything that would move. Groups of soldiers would round up men, women, and children only to shoot them in the back of the head. Many other soldiers would invade homes with the orders to kill all inhabitants. ....

The final attack on Hama was the most gruesome. To make sure that no person was left alive in the rubble and buildings, the Syrian army brought in poison gas generators. Cyanide gas filled the air of Hama. Bulldozers were later used to turn the city into a giant flat area.

The Syrian government death count was place at around 20,000 people dead ... but the Syrian Human Rights Committee estimates it to be much higher, at somewhere between 30,000 to 40,000 civilians’ dead or missing”

So, yes, it can get a lot worse without rape.

That is what a genuinely brutal dictatorship looks like. Sadly, too many divert their attention and misdirect their anger at let's pretend "dictators" instead of the real thing.

Of course for mass death, it's hard to beat Mao.

Mao: The Unknown Story
"Mao Tse-tung, who for decades held absolute power over the lives of one-quarter of the world's population, was responsible for well over 70 million deaths in peacetime, more than any other twentieth century leader." Chang and Halliday claim that he was willing for half of China to die to achieve military-nuclear superpowerdom. Estimates of the numbers of deaths during this period vary, though Chang and Halliday's estimate is one of the highest. Sinologist Stuart Schram, in a review of the book, noted that "the exact figure... has been estimated by well-informed writers at between 40 and 70 million".

Saudi Arabia is disproportionately represented in terrorist groups around the world

hmmm, I wonder how could that be?

the majority of Muslims would be left alone to live in peace if that's their desire

The problem is that a "moderate Muslim" is really an oxymoron. Islamic law very explicitly says that it *must* be applied to every circumstance in life, without exception.

This situation is very well analyzed in this book. Islamic scholars like Sayyid Qutb have put the situation in the following terms:

1) One must choose between evil or good

2) If one chooses the path of good, one must be consisten in it

This is a logical argument, no one can say anything against it. The problem is when people like Sayyid Qutb and his followers assume that "good" is equal to Islam, and any deviation from the strictest interpretation of Islam is evil.

Unfortunately, this interpretation is consistent with a careful reading of the Quran.

Differently from the Bible, which is a compilation of writings from different authors from many different times and places, the Quran was written in a short time at one place. The Bible has reports of historical and legendary events, intermixed with moral teachings. The Quran is mostly moral teachings alone.

Reading the Quran leaves many people with a strong sense of duty to perform those acts, to lead a life of moral righteousness, much more than the Bible does because it's much more concentrated on the moral commandments. I have read a translation of the Quran and was impressed on how those commandments seem to be worded in such a stronger way than in the Bible.

There are also some extremely radical Christians, it's true, but they have never reached such a high number of sympathizers as radical Muslims, at least not in the last few centuries.

I believe that if someone want to be a Muslim without following the radical path, then he must make an effort to study and analyze the Quran, like the radicals have done, and try to verify in which manner the moderate interpretation can be validated by the text. It seems to me that the radicals have been more successful in putting forward their interpretation.

Yet the political conditions in Somalia have been fucked up for around two decades, if not three -- the Blackhawk Down incident occurred in 1993, and things started to fall apart in the late 70s. What changed? Fishery poisoning and depletion is the obvious one. You got a better explanation?

Population growth of a country exceeding it's ability to sustain that growth, due to reproduction and refugees from Ethiopia.

It's interesting to note that while I was researching the population growth rate of Somalia (3% or more per year), I came across an article that mentions that Somalians haven't eaten fish for centuries, due to tradition, apparently.
http://countrystudies.us/somalia/36.htm

It means that fish were more or less strictly exported, and I can pretty much figure out the problem of a country whose major export is decreasing while its population is increasing. They need to diversify, or limit the birth rate, and they need to do it by 1985 or sooner. Even if their waters hadn't become polluted, it's pretty obvious that relying on only one export (provided by Nature) is tough to sustain, even with a 0% growth rate. So, you're right, fishery poisoning and depletion is the obvious one, but there's a lot more to it than that. Why didn't their leaders figure that out and diversify? Oh, that's right, they were too busy becoming "rich and powerful" and overthrowing one another.

Anyone calling the Finns "submissive" towards the USSR has never bothered to read a history book. If the Finns were submissive, Finland wouldn't even exist as a country today. The Finns stood up to Stalin and resisted his aggressive designs

And that is when they were allied with Hitler's Germany.

Nevertheless this law is absurd as much as absurd are part of finnish costumes. A country where there is no privacy and you are eligible to get anyone's identity and tax forms with a SMS isn't a country protecting his citizens right to private life (unless they are gipsies of course).

Which Third World countries? Mine (Uruguay), and neighbouring Argentina, Chile and other South American countries not, certainly (although we're kind of "second world") - schooling is compulsory, and not only that, desired by poor parents as it's somewhere they can leave their children and they have one decent meal a day.

Close to 95% of eligible children are in primary school in my country. See for example: http://countrystudies.us/uruguay/42.htm

Similarly, there are terror attacks (successful and foiled), against countries, whose foreign policies bully no one -- like Canada or India.

Huh? Canada, while not ever experiencing a terrorist attack in response to Canadian foreign policy, hasn't experienced a terrorist attack since 1985 (Air India 182), not including violence deemed terrorist in nature against Cuban, Turkish and Indian politicians on Canadian soil, which brings me to my second point. You might want to ask Pakistan, Sri Lanka, or any Sikh about that lack of bullying thing you're claiming for India.

Maybe that has something to do with the fact that Japan was essentially reduced to mostly rubble 60 years ago while we in the U.S. deal with OSP that is both that age and has never been properly maintained.

It has more to do with population density. The US has a large population spread out over a larger area. Japan is small and has a high density compared to us. This is a great advantage when deploying new tech, as the cost/customer is dramatically lower in Japan.

To quote from this: Japan had an average of 327 persons per square kilometer in 1990, high compared with China (119) or the United States (27), but lower than in some other Asian countries, such as the Republic of Korea (South Korea), which had 432 people per square kilometer.

Yes, communists have a wonderful history of environmentally friendly policies:

http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~asiactr/haq/200301/030 1a001.htm
http://www.infomanage.com/environment/russia.html
http://countrystudies.us/germany/81.htm

This is the same tripe communist-lovers spewed before we found out what an environmental disaster the former Soviet Union is.

The only reason China is cleaning up anything is because of their prosperity brought about by relatively free trade with the United States. If China does build these cities and they are what they claim, it is a direct result of economic prosperity from free market capitalism, not because of their glorious central planning.

And I can imagine the US if the government didn't "give" (the government has no money not taken from the people) businesses money for jobs "and everything else." We would all have more money in our pockets.

http://www.indexmundi.com/indonesia/gdp.html

And as Bill Gates's personal wealth is esitmated at $46.5 billion

http://www.marxist.com/scienceandtech/bill_gates_c apitalism.htm

And Ballmer's worth is $12 billion

http://www.guardian.co.uk/microsoft/Story/0,2763,1 046102,00.html

And Paul Allen is worth $20.5 billion

http://www.guardian.co.uk/microsoft/Story/0,2763,1 046102,00.html

you have the top three at Microsoft worth approximate 9% of the entire Indonesian GDP. And Microsoft is pissed, i.e., the greedy plutocrats and lawyers who run Microsoft are pissed, that a nation where the average wage slave makes about $80 - $100 a month

http://countrystudies.us/indonesia/63.htm

has found that it makes economic sense to pirate an OS that costs more than an average month's wages?

Geee - poor babies. Greedy motherfuckers. Almost as evil as the slime moulds who run Indonesia...

RS

Smuggling was big in England too, with the fortunes of some modern day companies being founded on smuggling, Avery being one of them.

You are correct. But lets say they are going to collect that money no matter what... Then what would you rather have them spend it on? Broadband is nice and seems to fit in well with their goal of electronic government

While U.S. aid to South Korea was phased out quite a while ago-- our committment to their defense must help them to be able to do this kind of thing as well. If they were on their own against North Korea I would imagine they would be compelled to divert even more to defense. So in part the U.S. is helping to make this possible.

There are some nice facts on Korea (little dated) here

How are you using the term "pork barrel," there?

There are tons of examples of one side or another attaching amendments to bills in order to undercut their support. For example, the 1964 Civil Rights Bill eventually included provisions about gender as well as race; the usual social conservatives thought that would take the bill down because the idea was so obnoxious. (Oops! The bill passed.)

So was the proposed legislation loaded with actual "pork" -- meaning costly projects for people's home districts? It doesn't even read, in your version, like a deliberate attempt to undercut it. It sounds more like the bill was an overrreach -- "more anti-gun legislature" (legislation, right?) was on it, and it got voted down.

It's called a representative democracy. Messy process, isn't it?

Mod parent down! Romania was never soviet. Comunist at best, but not soviet.
The comment is quite offensive, considering the fact that the red army "elibered" (as in "to conquer, to pillage and burn") Romania following the second world war: http://countrystudies.us/romania/23.htm
Registering typewriters and printers was a common practice in some countries in the 70s~80s.

Err... what prominence?

According to this site, the Communists were part of the ruling coalition starting in the 1950s and members of the party were in the cabinet from 1966 to 1982, including the Minister of the Interior at one point.

It's not very surprising that many people felt the need to distance themselves from the Nazis as much as possible, even if it meant getting "closer" to the ideology of Finland's worst enemy.

If ideology was the issue, the ideology of the Stalinists was hardly an alternative. In addition, during the Cold War, Finland engaged in some fancy diplomacy to fend off Soviet subversion and the threat of a Soviet invasion. It seem unlikely that those threats from allies of the local Communists would have made people more sympathetic.

It would be silly to call the Left Alliance people "communists"

According to this site:

Practically Left Alliance is a follower of the Finnish People's Democratic League, which was an "umbrella party" uniting most of the extreme left. The largest member organization of People's Democratic League, with a share close to 90%, was Communist Party of Finland, which went bankrupt in 1990. Practically all the activities were transferred to the new party.

In other European democracies, the Social Democrats almost always avoided alliances with the Communists. One would have thought that pattern would have applied even more so in Finland given the Communists' connection to Finland's worst enemy. Instead, one sees the Social Democrats in Finland forming coalitions fairly frequently without being punished by voters in subsequent elections.

Maybe if one lives in Finland it makes some kind of sense, like the alliance between liberal Republicans in the U.S.A. with white supremists in the South. However, from the outside it is highly incongruous.

> had no idea about that one, what exactly did you guys do there?

Tried to be peacekeepers. Kinda like Somalia/US or Ivory Coast/France.