Slashdot Mirror

Call your non-profit "American Freedom Overseas" and wait for the fund money and volunteers to come flowing in. And those volunteers know some shit. They could set up a self-contained command center in Cuba in 5 minutes! The only problem is that they'll try to convince everybody else they talk to how the free market will fix things and how their leader Erik Prince got the Order of Merit recently which fairly recently was posted and quickly taken down from Cryptome.

Oh well, at least we know that delusional idiots either believe in or are exploiting other delusional morons who believe in imaginary gods, like in the crusades, but now! This hot on the heels of the Rabbis who have blessed female Mossad agents to Fuck the enemy.

-- Ethanol-fueled

(which is true, we see a rise again today; one cannot be racist but it is perfectly acceptable in polite society, politics and academia these days to demonize all Israelis without considering individuals - if you are doing this you are in fact a racist; please stop being racist).

Uh... no. Please quit abusing the English language in this way. The word you're looking for is "bigoted". The word "racist" is much more narrow, and has exactly one meaning—prejudice against a race. Demonizing Israelis cannot be considered racist because:

• Israeli is not a race; it's a nationality. So demonizing people from that country is not racist. It is nationalist.
• Jewish isn't a race, either. It's a religion.

That last point bears further explanation. Although Israelis are predominantly from a single racial group, that racial group also contains a lot of people who are not Jewish. Israeli Jews are genetically very similar to the Palestinian Arabs (source: fieldofscience.com), Kurds (source: haaretz.com), Turks, and Armenians. So if you're talking about people who hate all Jews, Palestinians, Kurds, Turks, and Armenians, you might legitimately use the word "racist". Otherwise, that's definitely not the right word. :-)

Slashdot should stop the Iran bashing already

So, when the Iranian government imposes yet another new repressive measure to build on its existing repressive measures against the Iranian people that result in death, mutilation, torture, and other atrocities, your concern is that people on Slashdot don't criticize - don't say harsh things against the Iranian government? I think there is a word for that, Mr. Liberty.

If you think the Iranian government is for peace, you aren't listening carefully.

All Iran is saying,
is give cutting people into pieces a chance.

Iranian Women Prisoners Detail Torture

Iran as continual regional menace
Iran's Menace in Azerbaijan
15,000 Elite Iranian special-ops 'head' to Syria ---- Iran confirms it has forces in Syria ...
Gulf states lash out at Iran 'interference'

The six members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) said in a statement that Tehran's actions were threatening regional security and stability.
The GCC said it "rejects and denounces" Iran's "continued interference" in their internal affairs and Tehran must "immediately and completely stop these actions and policies that increase regional tension and threaten security and stability".

Iranian Bomb Suspects 'Targeted' Israelis, Thai Police Say
Report: Turkey thwarts Iran weapons shipment to Hezbollah
      Why Hezbollah is sitting on 40,000 rockets and missiles ...
            Iran and Hezbollah: The Balance of Power Shifts in Lebanon
Afghanistan war logs: Iran's covert operations in Afghanistan
Iran Steps Up Threats to Rub Out Israel

Discussing the record of Iran's actions and behavior doesn't constitutes "warmongering."

El Al Airlines is notable for telling the TSA to shove it and retained their enhanced airport security screenings in the USA. http://www.haaretz.com/news/el-al-wants-to-do-its-own-bag-screening-at-newark-airport-1.187412

It is criticized as too west in the Arab world.

Quite, and partly because Al Jazeera has shifted a bit over the years and become more mainstream. More careful about offending western powers. Al Jazeera actually bought Al Gore's channel because everyone (almost) refused to take them so with their own channel they hope to get around that. There will be a lot of opposition to this. Because people are concerned about fairness and balance(note that I manage to keep a straight face.).
This one came in a few days back: Incursion.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/u-s-jewish-leaders-express-concern-about-impending-al-jazeera-incursion-into-millions-of-american-homes.premium-1.491978

Note that the proposed law gives the power to censor to the Israeli justice minister. Yaakov Neeman, the current justice minister, is kind of weird. News articles:

• "A glimpse at the life of Israel's controversial justice minister" (Haaretz)
• "Yaakov Neeman, Israeli Justice Minister, Says Jewish Law Must Become Binding " ""Step by step we will bestow religious law upon the citizens of Israel and transform religious law into the binding law of the state,"
• Israel's justice minister advises rightists on how to seek pardons for Jewish terrorists (Haaretz)

There's a sizable ultra-orthodox faction in Israel which wants a political system where rabbis run things. Neeman is from that faction. Israel already has rabbinical courts, but they're currently restricted to ruling on religious issues and divorces. Neeman has said he wants to expand the authority of rabbinical courts, which in Israel are dominated by ultra-othodox rabbis.

Ultra-orthodox groups are very anti-Internet. This goes way beyond censoring pornography. There are special censored ISPs that only allow a list of 400 approved sites, most of which are religious.

So that's where this may be going, or at least where one faction would like to go. (Israel politics is currently deadlocked worse than US politics. There are many parties, none with a majority, and shifting coalitions. Different factions control different ministries as part of the deals made to put coalitions together. Just because the Justice Minister wants something doesn't mean the Government does.)

Note that the proposed law gives the power to censor to the Israeli justice minister. Yaakov Neeman, the current justice minister, is kind of weird. News articles:

• "A glimpse at the life of Israel's controversial justice minister" (Haaretz)
• "Yaakov Neeman, Israeli Justice Minister, Says Jewish Law Must Become Binding " ""Step by step we will bestow religious law upon the citizens of Israel and transform religious law into the binding law of the state,"
• Israel's justice minister advises rightists on how to seek pardons for Jewish terrorists (Haaretz)

There's a sizable ultra-orthodox faction in Israel which wants a political system where rabbis run things. Neeman is from that faction. Israel already has rabbinical courts, but they're currently restricted to ruling on religious issues and divorces. Neeman has said he wants to expand the authority of rabbinical courts, which in Israel are dominated by ultra-othodox rabbis.

Ultra-orthodox groups are very anti-Internet. This goes way beyond censoring pornography. There are special censored ISPs that only allow a list of 400 approved sites, most of which are religious.

So that's where this may be going, or at least where one faction would like to go. (Israel politics is currently deadlocked worse than US politics. There are many parties, none with a majority, and shifting coalitions. Different factions control different ministries as part of the deals made to put coalitions together. Just because the Justice Minister wants something doesn't mean the Government does.)

Any politician who dared sign the release papers wouldn't only be out of a job, he'll be lucky to make it through the next year without an angry mob destroying his house.

Israel releases 429 Palestinian prisoners in gesture to Abbas
Israel releases another 550 prisoners
Israel approves release of 250 prisoners
The Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange followed an agreement between Israel and Hamas to release Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit in exchange for 1,027 prisoners
Hezbollah released the remains of two captured Israeli soldiers in exchange for Samir Kuntar (described here)

Of the politicians responsible, Olmert resigned on corruption charges and Netanyahu is still Prime Minister.

If the Israeli government wants them back, theyll be searching every cargo container that goes out of the country for them, along with every truck that crosses the border. Like I said Israel is a security state. The government can do whatever it wants, no matter how intrusive, and the people will tolerate it because it's part of their war on terrorism or can be cast that way.

They'll either find these engines or we'll know they moved them to some Israeli company to be studied, disassembled, copied and perhaps improved upon.

Imagine how important military hardware is guarded in a country constantly beset by the likes of Hamas and with potential hostiles across every border. There's no way these engines were stolen by any outside group without help from insided the IDF and no way they're getting out of the country without that and help from the government itself.

And what do you think would happen to somebody in Israel caught going rogue with military weapons of this magnitude if they were caught?

Seriously, if anybody trusts the Israelis to not do everything in their power to get their hands on military technology they want, consider:

• Stewart Nozette
• Jonathan Pollard
• Ben-ami Kadish
• It has been suspected for decades that Israel stole nuclear weapons tech and uranium from the USA
• Even the Israeli press suspects and inside job: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/f-16-engine-parts-stolen-from-iaf-base-inside-job-suspected.premium-1.483073

SOME GAMES SUCK.

As an analogy, Israel lost its game against the world vs Palestine.

Now, that game continues.

http://www.thepiercecountytribune.com/page/content.detail/id/269807/Israel-moves-to-build-3-000-new-settlement-homes-.html?isap=1&nav=5040

"Israel responded swiftly Friday to U.N. recognition of a Palestinian state, revealing it will build 3,000 more homes for Jews on Israeli-occupied lands that the world body overwhelmingly said belong to the Palestinians. The plans also include future construction in a strategic area of the West Bank where critics have long warned that Jewish settlements would kill hopes for a viable Palestinian state. Israel's moves served as a harsh reminder to Palestinians — euphoric over the U.N. upgrade — that while they now have a state on paper, most of it remains very much under Israeli control. "This is a doomsday scenario," Daniel Seidemann of Ir Amim, a group that promotes coexistence in Jerusalem, said of the building plans. Israel's decision was bound to embarrass the United States, which was among just nine countries in the 193-member General Assembly to vote against accepting Palestine as a nonmember observer state. "

WTF?

"Israel's decision was bound to embarrass the United States"

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/clinton-calls-on-israel-to-embrace-moderate-palestinians-negotiations.premium-1.481733

"U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned on Friday that without progress toward peace, Israel will be forced to choose between "preserving democracy and the Jewish identity of the state." "

Ok, Israel wants to fuck the US, once more, despite the support? Yet, for how long?

You can't fool a game between humans, forever.

"Why are devs trying this rather risky way of financing, anyway?"

Exactly! Apparently because it pays off! Israel fucks the US, and it pays off.

Hence, screw any fucked up until they bleed or die.

Well, since Iron Dome appears to be working, the Gaza terror groups are changing tactics. They are now firing volleys of rockets hoping to saturate Iron Dome's ability to intercept, and targeting areas uncovered by Iron Dome. The new tactics worked, as Iron Dome was only able to intercept five out of seven rockets on Saturday, letting on through to explode in a residential area, killing an unarmed civilian. I guess it wasn't one of those "unarmed" rockets we hear so much about. It's amazing how incompetent Palestinians can be when it comes to creating a peaceful, prosperous society, and so ingenious and industrious when it comes to killing Jews.

b) About all the instances the defenses failed to work?

Well, at least one instance of malfunction was openly divulged.

There are many other reports, just google for "iron dome malfunction three deaths"

Oooh, how do I join? Do drink dead Christian, I have to go to communion. The blood is great, but the raw Jesus flesh is usually dry, and a bit salty.

Sorry. The IJC (and world domination) is just for the chosen people. However, aside from the monthly magazine, I don't get much for the dues I pay. You'd think I'd get a fat check every month or at least wholesale pricing since we're running the world, eh?

Not just dead Christian. It's Christian babies. We have our own dry stuff (see the link), but it's not salty.

It is pretty amazing that people actually believe that stuff. I mean, what with the Lubavitchers mostly on welfare and the other Hasidim in the US and the Haredi in Israel also not working for a living, you'd think the complaint would be about those lazy Jews sitting around reading the Torah all day.

But I guess it's easier to hate the Jews if you delude yourself into thinking they're running the world. Damn, bigots are dumb!

I see you like being bombed to Middle Ages so that your jewish rulers could have happy life: P.M. Interior Minister Eli Yishai on Israel's operation in Gaza: "The goal of the operation is to send Gaza back to the Middle Ages. Only then will Israel be calm for forty years."

Israel is aiming at weapon caches and missle emplacements. How is that not defense?

Israel's government has stated: "The goal of the operation is to send Gaza back to the Middle Ages"

That's not defence, that's annihilation.

That's just laughable. Every goddamn nation in the world knows that Israel has nukes.

Incoming U.S. Defense Secretary tells Senate panel Israel has nuclear weapons

Incoming U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates told a Senate committee on Thursday that Israel has nuclear weapons, and that this partially explains Iran's motiviation to acquire nuclear weapons.

"They are surrounded by powers with nuclear weapons - Pakistan to their east, the Russians to the north, the Israelis to the west and us in the Persian Gulf," he told the Senate committee during his confirmation hearing.

...

What has changed over the years is the perception of Israel's nuclear capabilities. In 1986, Mordechai Vanunu, a former technician at Israel's main nuclear reactor, gave pictures and documents to the London Sunday Times that led experts to conclude that Israel has a sizable nuclear weapons arsenal, ranking it sixth in the world. Vanunu served an 18-year prison term for his disclosures.

Then, we don't even have a proof that Iran has a program for nuclear weapons, we only know they are working on nuclear power.

Allow me to draw your attention to Section H of the IAEA director general's report dated 30 August 2012 on Iran's nuclear program, where it states, among other things: "39. The Annex to the Director General's November 2011 report (GOV/2011/65) provided a detailed analysis of the information available to the Agency, indicating that Iran has carried out activities that are relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device." In short, they have found nuclear weapons related activities. I will also drawn your attention to this, where at least seven activities related to nuclear weapons development carried out by Iran are noted. And last, but not least, the UN Secretary General is calling for Iran to come clean on its activities. So the bottom line is, yes, we have proof that Iran has been pursuing a nuclear weapon.

Why is it that USA should be the police of this world? Who gave them this authority?

I'm afraid you're badly confused on this point. It is European Union members that are taking the lead in trying to turn Iran around diplomatically, and the UN Security Council that is holding Iran accountable, as stated in my post above. (Among other things: "The UN Security Council has passed multiple resolutions demanding that Iran halt its uranium enrichment activities.")

My question to you is, how do you get this so wrong? How do you confuse Europe for the United States? Are you trying to claim that the United States is not equal to European powers? Why do you have this prejudice against the United States? Do you post without reading? (Silly me, this is Slashdot.)

The United States has acted in its interests, just like other powers. To pretend that the United States is unique in that is silly and against the facts.

Excuse me, who started it? That would be the Iranian government with their covert nuclear weapons program

I'm sorry, but this doesn't work with me.

I'm not surprised, but I'll work with you on this one - what did Stuxnet attack? Parts of the nuclear weapons program. If the nuclear weapons program didn't exist, would Stuxnet have exited? No, why would it - there would be nothing to attack. Nuclear program is action, Stuxnet is counter-action, AKA blowback. See, very simple when you think about it.

USA admittedly has enough nuclear weapons to destroy earth multiple times. And it's been more than half a century this happened. Why didn't Iran go after USA then?

That is a pretty silly attempt at moral equivalency. I'm amazed that you would try it. But I'll throw in a history lesson for free - the US and Iran were allies until 1979, and World War 2 ended in 1945. Just think about it.

Now, here are a few reasons why Europeans and others might have some concerns about Iran:

Iran Threatens To 'Freeze' Europe for Backing Sanctions (Would have sent you to the old Copt news site that hosted that as well, but for some reason it seems to be off-line. Ideas ?)
State Sponsors: Iran

You are badly misinformed, on more than one subject.

Allow me to draw you attention to Section H of the IAEA director general's report dated 30 August 2012 on Iran's nuclear program. In it you will see that Iran has carried out a number of weapons related activities, and that there are serious open questions. An earlier report referenced here found seven categories of activity aimed at nuclear weapons production, and rather damning ones at that. And if you can trouble yourself to read, the UN Secretary General is urging Iran to come clean.

Neither the US nor Israel want war with Iran as it would be both an enormous waste of resources, and a dangerous development for the world, including the economy. But the US, Israel, Europe, and most of Iran's neighbors want a nuclear armed Iran even less than war.

You are also wrong about the coup. It was a counter-coup that restored the Shaw to power - that would be the Shaw that was the lawful head of government in Iran prior to the coup that pushed him out and the counter-coup that restored him to power. So, your point there is also nonsense, particularly in light of the ambitions of the radical Shia who formed Iran's government.

And I'll throw in a bonus since you get so much else wrong: State Sponsors: Iran

Excuse me, who started it? That would be the Iranian government with their covert nuclear weapons program, and continuing threats against the Gulf states and other neighbors, Europe, the US, and Israel. Stuxnet was the blowback, these attacks are escalation. Stuxnet wouldn't have existed without the nuclear program - you'll notice it was apparently aimed at centrifuges, not at sewage treatment. The current attacks by Iran are just a part of their pattern.

Nuclear

The UN Security Council has passed multiple resolutions demanding that Iran halt its uranium enrichment activities. In 2009, concerns over Tehran's nuclear program increased when Iran revealed to the IAEA that it was constructing a second enrichment facility close to the city of Qom, now known as the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant. [7] In November 2011, tensions escalated further when the IAEA released a report with a 14-page annex outlining the "possible military dimensions" of Iran's nuclear program, though most activities described dated to the pre-2003 period. [8] While Iran questioned the evidence in the report and the IAEA's legal authority to investigate non-nuclear activities, the report provoked a series of new sanctions imposed by the United States and the European Union.

UN chief to Iran: Prove nuclear program is peaceful, cease verbal attacks on Israel

UN chief Ban Ki-moon met Iran's president and supreme leader in Tehran on Wednesday and urged them to take concrete steps to prove the country's nuclear program is peaceful. He also called on all states to stop supplying arms to the conflict in Syria, Ban's spokesman, Martin Nesirky, said.

He told reporters in New York that in separate meetings with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the secretary-general further said that he considered their latest verbal attacks on Israel to be offensive, inflammatory and unacceptable. . . .

"On the nuclear question ... he said that he regretted that little tangible progress has been achieved so far," Nesirky, speaking by telephone from Tehran, told reporters in New York.

"He said that Iran needed to take concrete steps to address the concerns of the International Atomic Energy Agency and prove to the world that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes," Nesirky said.

STAKES ARE HIGH FOR EU DIPLOMACY IN IRANIAN NUCLEAR CRISIS

In the last six months, the enduring tension between the international community and the Islamic Republic of Iran over its nuclear program has escalated dangerously. Tension notched up last November with a report released by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA): the report by the UN nuclear watchdog marked a break with past findings by expressing in very stark terms, and through extensive documentation, its serious concern that Iran had previously pursued nuclear weapons work. . .

“ – The so-called E3, the U.K., France and Germany: All three are much more inclined than the U.S. to believe that Iran is seeking to weaponize its uranium stockpiles. They have more experience negotiating with Iran as well, and that experience has taught them not to allow Tehran any wiggle room. France in particular has been pushing for a hard line: a full and complete halt to Iran’s nuclear program and the surrender of all of its uranium. “Even if they agree to hand over their 20% enriched uranium, some in Europe will argue to keep up the pressure – to not take down any of the sanctions — until the

I don't get why we are so quick to defend people we support otherwise when accused of criminal activities, and be so sure about their innocence. Even nerds can be douchebags.

You're right - we don't really know what happened. Maybe he did it. Maybe he didn't. But the situation that led up to this point is complicated by the fact that the original prosecutor said that whatever Assange is alleged to have done wasn't a crime and he was free to leave Sweden. Also there is the issue of his alleged victim apparently no longer cooperating with the prosecution. There is the issue that she gave consent for him to continue after she asked and he confirmed that he wasn't using a condom. There is the whole issue of Interpol getting involved in what would usually be a non-Interpol matter. There is the issue that, once in Sweden, Assange could be extradited or otherwise renditioned into the hands of the U.S. government - the Swedish government has never denied that it would extradite Assange once he is back in Sweden - isn't that kind of weird? They could've ended this whole thing at any time by announcing that there would be no subsequent extradition to the US government. And yet they haven't done it.

- and if the consent is clearly dependent on condom, you don't have consent if you drop it.

Actually the issue of predicated consent in sexual activity is tricky and controversial - for example, in Israel it is considered rape if a woman thinks a man is Jewish and has sex with the man, but later finds out that he is a non-Jew (eg Sabbar Kashur and an unknown Israeli Air Force officer). A similar issue is prosecutions against HIV carriers who have unprotected sex but don't inform their sexual partner - is this actually rape? Most times the man will be charged with assault, but under some legal systems, yes, that would be considered rape. Is it rape if a man has sex with a woman, then she falls asleep, and he begins to have sex with her again? Technically it may be, as she is unconscious and has not affirmed her consent to sex again, and yet this happens often, even in relationships. Can a man rape his wife? Yes, obviously (though some legal systems would disagree). What about a man who has sex with his sleeping wife? Maybe.

I don't get why we are so quick to defend people we support otherwise when accused of criminal activities, and be so sure about their innocence. Even nerds can be douchebags.

You're right - we don't really know what happened. Maybe he did it. Maybe he didn't. But the situation that led up to this point is complicated by the fact that the original prosecutor said that whatever Assange is alleged to have done wasn't a crime and he was free to leave Sweden. Also there is the issue of his alleged victim apparently no longer cooperating with the prosecution. There is the issue that she gave consent for him to continue after she asked and he confirmed that he wasn't using a condom. There is the whole issue of Interpol getting involved in what would usually be a non-Interpol matter. There is the issue that, once in Sweden, Assange could be extradited or otherwise renditioned into the hands of the U.S. government - the Swedish government has never denied that it would extradite Assange once he is back in Sweden - isn't that kind of weird? They could've ended this whole thing at any time by announcing that there would be no subsequent extradition to the US government. And yet they haven't done it.

- and if the consent is clearly dependent on condom, you don't have consent if you drop it.

Actually the issue of predicated consent in sexual activity is tricky and controversial - for example, in Israel it is considered rape if a woman thinks a man is Jewish and has sex with the man, but later finds out that he is a non-Jew (eg Sabbar Kashur and an unknown Israeli Air Force officer). A similar issue is prosecutions against HIV carriers who have unprotected sex but don't inform their sexual partner - is this actually rape? Most times the man will be charged with assault, but under some legal systems, yes, that would be considered rape. Is it rape if a man has sex with a woman, then she falls asleep, and he begins to have sex with her again? Technically it may be, as she is unconscious and has not affirmed her consent to sex again, and yet this happens often, even in relationships. Can a man rape his wife? Yes, obviously (though some legal systems would disagree). What about a man who has sex with his sleeping wife? Maybe.

Almost certainly they are NOT developing nuclear weapon, as was repeatedly confirmed by Israel and US intelligence agencies, among others.

There was a recently published book Legacy: A Genetic History of the Jewish People By Harry Ostrer Oxford University Press. Read more: http://forward.com/articles/155742/jews-are-a-race-genes-reveal/ It was widely heralded as showing "Jews Are a 'Race,' Genes Reveal" http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/dna-links-prove-jews-are-a-race-says-genetics-expert-1.428664 I did not see comments calling the book extremist or hateful words being used about the author. This man had a genetic test and he is some sort of devil. The same sort of tests are carried out on Jewish people are this is fine and dandy Why the hypocrisy? I see lots of anti-racist rhetoric. But it does make me wonder. Why is it bad for the politician to investigate his race but good for Jewish people to investigate theirs. It almost make me think there is denial of the White race. It makes me think this anti-racist rhetoric is really anti-White. I've seen posted: Anti-racist is a code word for anti-White. Looks like it is true for lots of posters here.

What has Iran done -- not talked about, not nationalist tough guy rhetoric, I'm talking real military action -- that suggests they are irrational enough to attack Tel Aviv under the clear and present threat of getting twice what we gave Saddam?

OK, I'll bite. How about financing proxies Hezbollah and Hamas to conduct terrorist attacks against Israel? They are pretty brazen about this. See for example here. So yeah, they have been attacking Israel for a long time and getting away with very light consequences.

Nah. I get my news all over. Pretty much everything is better than the BBC, though. Well, they have some good shows, but their news is biased, evil shit masquerading as truth. Seems you're too dense to see it.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/islamic-movement-head-charged-with-incitement-to-racism-violence-1.238209
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/29/sheikh-raed-salah-arrest-london
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3733099,00.html
http://www.middleeastmonitor.org.uk/news/europe/3629-leader-of-egypts-muslim-brotherhood-congratulates-sheikh-raed-salah

If you want an example (from today)contradicting the 'religious zealots' thinking: IDF chief of staff Bruno Gantz http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/idf-chief-to-haaretz-i-do-not-believe-iran-will-decide-to-develop-nuclear-weapons-1.426389

As long as its facilities are not bomb-proof, "the program is too vulnerable, in Iran's view. If the supreme religious leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei wants, he will advance it to the acquisition of a nuclear bomb, but the decision must first be taken. It will happen if Khamenei judges that he is invulnerable to a response. I believe he would be making an enormous mistake, and I don't think he will want to go the extra mile. I think the Iranian leadership is composed of very rational people. But I agree that such a capability, in the hands of Islamic fundamentalists who at particular moments could make different calculations, is dangerous."

The claim that Khamenei would decide to build nukes if given the chance is weak, but at least Gantz says Khamenei is very rational.

As ar as I know, Hezbollah is military force which is not very concerned about modesty issues etc, unlike so called Jewish Talebans:

• Silence! Jerusalemâ(TM)s Jewish Taliban want women to refrain from singing in public
• Jewish Taliban Attacks Elderly Woman for... Something...
• The Jewish Taliban
• Thousands in Israel protest against Jewish extremists
• Haredi teargases woman for using 'men only' sidewalk

Not a big risk, compared to having a Muzzie drive up on a scooter and shoot you

Among the killer victims are both members of the Jewish AND Muslim communities.

US intelligence
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/25/world/middleeast/us-agencies-see-no-move-by-iran-to-build-a-bomb.html

and Israeli intellence, first paragraph
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/israel-iran-still-mulling-whether-to-build-nuclear-bomb-1.407866

Both saying Iran has not made any decision to make a bomb. And yes, I know you expected another angle :)

The consensus is that Iran has not made any decision to build a bomb.
This may sound incredible because this kind of statements only is made in a low key fashion so they are mostly going unnoticed.
Sometimes they appear as little throwaway lines in articles with a general thrust that is always very anti-Iran.
Panetta, Dempsey, Clapper, and in Israel Barak, Dagan, Pardo are on record as confirming this.
It is becoming more visible because of the current tension between those pushing for war and those trying to avoid it.

Panetta on CBS news. Odd inconsistency in his tough talk about Iran.
www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57354647/face-the-nation-transcript-january-8-2012/

Israeli intelligence report
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/israel-iran-still-mulling-whether-to-build-nuclear-bomb-1.407866

Barak
http://consortiumnews.com/2012/01/19/israel-tamp-down-iran-war-threats/

Even the NYTimes has picked up on it now.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/22/world/middleeast/in-din-over-iran-echoes-of-iraq-war-news-analysis.html?_r=3

Now it's always possible that Iran goes as far as possible within the NPT limits and then suddenly locks the IAEA out and starts making a bomb. It is always possible with every nuclear capable country. But that would be a very visible and costly move. And there is no indication they want to take that step. The assessment can be colored a bit "still mulling creating a bomb", but all that is behind it is there is no intent. It's not as if they're on the edge of taking a decision.

British montage
I have no fixed British paper currently I use this to find them. I look for ones with high online presence who are not pernicious asses about subscribing and who keep the tabliod pablum low. I choose one and read it for a week if I can stand it then pick another. Newspapers that are not professional are ignored. I don't provide a list as others may like ones I would not. I also pick single British news articles off google news if it looks like it wasn't written by a rabid wombat.
ahref=http://www.wrx.zen.co.uk/britnews.htmrel=url2html-7729http://www.wrx.zen.co.uk/britnews.htm>

The Times of India in English.
Good articles and better written than most US news sources. Their RSS feeds are fine and there are enough choices to be daunting at first.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/

Middle east
The Israeli newspaper Haaretz in English.
http://www.haaretz.com/
and Al Jazeera in English
http://www.aljazeera.com/
Picking the peanuts out is trying. Read these together and make comparisons between them and other sources.

Pravda in English.
I've read enough stories they've written that provide a lot more information than other news sources that has shown to be accurate. I'm more impressed with them than propaganda would lead me to believe. They cannot be as free about in country reporting but international reporting can be very good. You have to read them with an eye to government propaganda but where they can they do fine original work.
http://english.pravda.ru/

Japan
I don't have one.

Some of the rest.
Finding a newspaper that is not censored or self-censoring to protect itself in some areas is difficult. A lot of newspapers have no choice. If I see an article I find interesting that occurred in a country known for censorship I also check surround countries news sources and others in country. I don't rigorously do this as I can only dedicate a fixed amount of time to being a news junkie.

If anyone has a pointer to a small, well written, non-tabloid, smart Australian online news source post it. I'm not seeing much I care about as most of it is cut and paste from others or is tabloid pablum.

No, I did my own research.

As to the retarded question of whether or not I'm retarded: you've never met me, so you have no idea and don't for one fucking minute try and convince anybody that you do - it makes you look stupid and brands you the liar that you are. My last WAIS-III composite, assessed four years ago, was 223. Make what you will of that.

A quick google search shows that indeed Israel does openly threaten other countries. I haven't heard the specific threat to exterminate all Arabs, but threatening to invade another country, is of similar severity, in my opinion. The difference between US/Israel vs. Iran is that the US and Israel often back up their threats with actual force.

Slashdot aught to do better than rate this as a informative piece. This sickens me to think people see this as rational discussion.

I suggest you shove your JIDF Propaganda piece exactly where you pulled out most of that rhetoric. This hypocrisy is disgusting, you claim others are bigoted but you end with parting shots calling the other side barbarians and random indiscriminate slaughterers of women and children.

"[...] last I recall, citizens in other countries don't fear being blown up, shot, kidnapped, and tortured by Israelis."
Blown up:
Your government even has a name for the act "sikul memukad."
Kidnapping:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordechai_Vanunu
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/un-official-israel-kidnapped-palestinian-engineer-from-ukraine-1.348413
Shot and or Torture:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Israeli_assassinations

I think the citizens of the West Bank and Gaza live in much more real fear of Israeli bombs and missiles than Israeli citizens. Israeli deaths from mortar fire 2001-2011 = 28. Palastinian civilian deaths in the same timeframe = 6183. Comparing these numbers against the general populations, I come up with the average innocent Palastinian is over 400 times more likely to be blown up by an Israeli warplane, tank, or soldier than an Israeli dying to a Palestinian mortar.

Oh, speaking of child shields, I think I have some video of it around here somewhere... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXq57XK2L0A ... yes, this demonstrates the clear moral superiority of the average Israeli soldier.

You speak of "do realize that the enemies of Israel such as Egypt [...] the aforementioned peace with Egypt looks like it may be dissolved by the "democractic" Muslim theocracy that looks like it will seize control of Egypt."

So I would like to point out that
a) Israel is a theocracy (a Jewish nation)
b) peace =! enemies
c) democratic elections are hardly 'seizing control'

Your desire to showcase your countries achievements in the response to being called unjust and bloodthirsty only go to show the world your arguments are paper thin.

I am secular, have many jewish friends and co-workers, but find the nation of Israel on the wrong side of many moral issues. I also take issue to your perceived message that opposing the actions and policies of the nation of Israel is anti-Semitic.

This is the original article that the linked articles are attempting to paraphrase:
Israel vows to hit back after credit cards hacked

While it doesn't add too much information, it might have slightly better wording.

You are assuming that this is a religious issue. In fact, it is entirely logical for the Iranian government to want nuclear weapons. Look at it from their point of view: You have regional enemies, several of which already have nuclear weapons, and some of which have called for attacks on your country. An aggressive and powerful foreign government is allied with these enemies, and has recently invaded and occupied two of your neighbors, rounding up and executing the leaders. Wouldn't you want nuclear weapons under those circumstances? Of course you would.

On your eastern border, the United States has 100,000 troops serving in Afghanistan. On your western border, the US has been occupying Iraq since 2003 and plans to retain a small force of military contractors and CIA operatives even after its official withdrawal next month. Pakistan, a nuclear-armed nation, is to the south-east; Turkey, America's Nato ally, to the north-west; Turkmenistan, which has acted as a refuelling base for US military transport planes since 2002, to the north-east. To the south, across the Persian Gulf, you see a cluster of US client states: Bahrain, home to the US Fifth Fleet; Qatar, host to a forward headquarters of US Central Command; Saudi Arabia, whose king has exhorted America to "attack Iran" and "cut off the head of the snake".

Then, of course, less than a thousand miles to the west, there is Israel, your mortal enemy, in possession of over a hundred nuclear warheads and with a history of pre-emptive aggression against its opponents. The map makes it clear: Iran is, literally, encircled by the United States and its allies.

If you lived in Iran, wouldn't you want the nuclear bomb?

Israel doesn't even consider Iran to be an existential threat:

Tamir Pardo says Israel using various means to foil Iran's nuclear program, but if Iran actually obtained nuclear weapons, it would not mean destruction of Israel.

Mossad chief: Nuclear Iran not necessarily existential threat to Israel

Israeli policy is to use all means in self-defence (since they never acknowledge whether they have nukes or not) if WMD have been used against them. In short they have stated a posture of strategic deterrence in the hope that enemies are smart enough never to try.

Who the fuck are you? Netanyahu?

First of all, since they don't make it clear that they in fact do have nukes, which they got from the US, why isn't the IAEA all over their backs investigating dilligently?

Second of all, what do you think they want to move with this, leaflets?

To help you out: they feel the should attack Iran first and let someone else ask questions later.

Idiot.

Currently I believe the ethnic cleansing is at its most obvious in the capital city of Jerusalem with a little in the West Bank, but historically speaking the entire country was founded on systematic ethnic cleansing and some members of the Knesset would quite like to see it make a more widespread return.

There is nothing I would rather wish for than the end of the occupation of the west bank, especially as a reserve soldier, but if it was so simple it would have been over a long time ago.

The simple fact of the matter is that Israeli governments since it began wanted it to continue and have systematically made sure it won't be by building increasing numbers of Jewish settlements deeper and deeper into the West Bank, slicing it up like swiss cheese and making any kind of end to the occupation less and less practical.

There is no such thing as an evil nation, that's just racist.

Why yes, Israel is just racist at pretty much every level.

There goes the "plausible denial"

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/u-s-says-no-indication-iran-shot-down-reconnaissance-drone-1.399519

http://www.innworldreport.net/inn/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4850&Itemid=1%20ForceRecrawl:%200

Islamic terrorists are by far the most common sort in the modern world

Most terrorist acts in Europe are still carried out by Christian Europeans, like the Catalonian separatists in Spain, or the Catholic separatists on Northern Ireland. The most recent major act of terrorism, Anders Breivik's bombing of the Norwegian parliament with 8 dead and subsequent shooting of another 77 people, was...

...on the 22nd of July. Five months ago.

The most recent incident of Islamic terrorism was today:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/8931171/Suicide-bomb-attack-on-Afghan-Nato-base.html

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/lebanese-media-idf-bombed-espionage-devices-uncovered-by-hezbollah-1.399257

...and yesterday:

http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/343369/bomb-gunmen-kill-18-iraq-marks-us-withdrawal

...and the day before:

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/somali-soldiers-killed-suicide-bomb-attack-15054747

...and the day before that:

http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=247407

There were probably more, but that was just a cursory search. I could go back further - but the point is the word "common" in my statement. By far the vast majority of attacks are committed by islamic terrorists. Do other terrorists exist? Sure. ...but they're not committing attacks every day.

> But is it really temporary?

I'd say that is entirely in the hands of the PA. They have been offered pretty much EVERYTHING they publicly profess to desire, see Clinton's effort. They turned it down because they want it all, from the river to the sea.

Not quite everything, if you look into the details, though I suppose that was a pretty good offer. At least that's the way the Israeli negotiators describe it. Since then there was a change at the Palestinian helm, though, and both sides have changed their positions.

Thought experiment for you to see if you are an honest debater or just a pro terror apologist.

Let me ask you about a real-life fact to determine if you're an honest debater or just an apartheid apologist: what might be the long-term vision of successive Israeli governments as they keep approving settlements in the depth of the west bank? Do you suppose they plan to spend billions to later uproot the same people they are now sending to live there? Do you have any idea how politically difficult it is to evacuate Israeli settlements after they have been built?

Imagine tomorrow Abbas announced his desire for a two state solution (something he publicly denounces btw, and he is the moderate)

That's news to me - unless you're referring to Israel's precondition that they recognize it as a "Jewish" state - which was an attempt to get the Palestinians to compromise the "right of return" as a precondition to negotiations. If you mean something else, please provide a citation.

and to live in peace with Israel. That it is time to end this terrible bloodshed and finally have peace and a future.

Note that the tiny enclaves ruled by Abbas already live in de-facto peace with Israel. While the Israelis certainly enjoy the great reduction in violence, I see no sign that they have come any closer to recognizing the Palestinians' human and national rights.

Now imagine he not only lived through the next twenty four hours but that the people were finally tired of the fighting and rose up in public demonstrations of support so profound that Hamas went to ground. The suicide and mortar fire ceased and it really looked like THIS time they meant it. How long could an Israeli politician hold out against signing a treaty? That is what I mean, it is all up to them, they will have peace the second they decide they have to settle for it instead of the total victory they keep dreaming is coming real soon now. Now explain how I'm totally wrong.

Did you know that something similar has actually happened in real life? So far Netanyahu is holding out just fine and doesn't seem like he ought to be concerned in the least about peace talks. So based on what has actually happened - the Palestinian authority denouncing and actively fighting terrorism, and publicly stating very clearly that it is interested in a two-state solution - I'd say that your thought experiment does not lead where you think it leads.

> Either way, it does not annex the land and make it a part of the legal definition of Israel. The legal terms that apply to the west bank
> are the same terms that applied to Japan after its defeat in 1945. Would you say that the occupied Japan was part of the US and
> that its post-war status was an internal matter? If you would, then you have a very peculiar definition of "internal".

Yes, exactly the same. Except for the detail that Japan was administered by the Allied Forces instead of just the U.S. That is why half of Japan uses 60Hz electricity and the othe

There has not been control of sugar. You're just making stuff up because you can't imagine that Israel would do the things it does.

Two sources for the quote are ynet and Haaretz. The NYT passed it along too. The BBC reported on documents obtained by Gisha from the Israeli government detailing the blockade and containing estimates of the calories required by Gazans to stay alive.

It took five minutes to Google this up. Open your eyes and see that what has been happening for decades now is real and not just some "narrative." Of course, I'm sure you can cook up some explanation of why it's a military necessity to prevent food from entering Gaza.

I'm not sure where you took that quote from. It fits with neither anything I'm aware that Israel has done, nor anything I'm aware that my (not always smart) leaders have said. Care to give the precise origin?

According to Haaretz it was Dov Weissglas who said it.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/as-the-hamas-team-laughs-1.180500

I support the troops. I guess that makes me a soldier.

Hamas writes:

"Attacking settlers is a natural thing," al-Rashk told Al-Hayat on Saturday, saying the "Zionist settlers are the occupation's first reserve military force."

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/hamas-official-israeli-settlers-are-a-legitimate-military-target-1.312108

Well guy, I guess your statements ring out the truth for at least one of the players on that team.

It cannot pssibly be well infromed if you havent recognised the war crimes Israelis regularly commit.

I supported Israel strongly 30 years ago. Their OWN actions have eroded that support to the point where I would happy to see Israel disappear from the planet and become a multi faith democratic state.

I suggest you look at examples like this:

  http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/barbarity-wielded-in-the-name-of-israel-s-eternal-capital-1.364876

The rest of the world is rapidly waking up to the constant lies and propaganda of Israel, except apparently you!

All of this does not matter to the question of artists canceling appearances. If an artist does not want to appear in Israel, that's fine. An artists who cancels is being suckered into making a political statement under the guise/threat of avoiding making one.

More so than other artists that cancelled, I think Gil-Scott Heron would have delivered strong messages in his performance. As much as any performer I can think of, he has a long history of fighting racism. I'm not sure Santana and Elvis Costello would have delivered significant messages in their music had they not cancelled.

It's unfortunate that Gil-Scott Heron won't be around to perform either for the troops or general public there at some future date.

I can appreciate that the rest of the world may underestimate how difficult some policy decisions can be when we mostly lack diverse and in depth news sources. (showing more violence isn't showing more depth) I think it would be to Israels advantage to make LBA and/or other English language broadcasters more widely available (direct streaming, livestation etc.) While some internal political conflict and problems may seem an embarrassing thing to show internationally, those who have seen conflicts between political parties and groups elsewhere might at least be a little more sympathetic to the political pressure (suicide?) that sometimes cripples major policy changes.

The high level of activity in the middle-east is motivated more people to try and look a little deeper than the 'short on facts, long on pundit posturing' coverage we're mostly handed.

There are some serious issues that should at least be discussed widely. Failure to do so erodes credibility. Even friends question friends.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/report-44-of-israeli-jews-support-rabbis-edict-forbidding-rentals-to-arabs-in-safed-1.333825

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/23/world/la-fg-israel-intolerance-20110123

http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=219464

http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20Editorials/2010/July/12%20o/Deteriorating%20Conditions%20for%20Israeli%20Arab%20Citizens%20By%20Stephen%20Lendman.htm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/yermi-brenner/learning-from-the-rabbis-_b_821393.html

One of the posts in the linked thread goes to some Israeli biz-pub.

The Ha'aretz article about RMS' decision doesn't mis-attribute "Linux Founder" to RMS.

The error is in another publication

"pre-internet-media days" But not pre networking days. When the West German gov was very hesitant to talk about Chernobyl in 1986 , the Chaos Computer Club did help the press.
Many gaps in what was known at the time where filled via hacking a German government computer.
Other footage may exist via a networked security system that was installed high up and may not be damaged.
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/israeli-firm-which-secured-japan-nuclear-plant-says-workers-there-putting-their-lives-on-the-line-1.349897

Granma is the same source the poster here had cited as no coverage of the "January 25th revolution" (yet) on January 29th, linking to the english version. The earliest link you have shown (January 31), so it may be a matter of Granma not starting coverage until later. There doesn't seem to be any coverage after Feb 7th either. Hardly extensive coverage. For most bias would be a bigger issue.

Anyway, that wasn't even what my post was about, only what got me to notice the Cuban tech / YRO related story - Their fears of and response to blogger accessible smuggled-in satellite fed WiFi.

There's no confirmation that the proposed unfiltered satellite linked WiFi that the Cuban presenter was concerned about was actually set up. As something that is generally supportive of democracy and the flow of information both directions, I can see how that is something we might be supportive of.

I found it interesting to note that a suggested countermeasure was basically state blogging (what amounts to propaganda given a grass-roots look).
Unfortunately disinformation from behind contrived faces isn't just a Cuban concept. I'm probably not alone in wondering to what extent we're seeing government and corporate driven blogging and forum posts etc..
That's in addition to things like the fake media person (also a porn site operator) that fed President Bush friendly questions, and things like the front group the did the 2004 smear campaign with misinformation about candidate Kerry's time in the military. With the corporate "free-speech" spending decision by the Supreme Court it seems likely we'll see more domestic misinformation that isn't all that different from tactics that might be used to disrupt a foreign government. Internet abuses are no-doubt harder to fully analyze and tie to those ultimately responsible than t.v. ads are.

There was a very revealing piece about the "April 6th" protest group aired hours ago that clearly shows how some using protest methods elsewhere did help train some key people in Egypt. That's not to say that the agenda was foreign, but it clearly shows impact of information from outside.

(People and Power - Seeds of Change)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrNz0dZgqN8

And in other news Anonymous Facebook group calls for uprising against Hamas rule in Gaza Strip tomorrow
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/anonymous-facebook-group-calls-for-uprising-against-hamas-rule-in-gaza-strip-tomorrow-1.342349