Slashdot Mirror

During the tsunami. Freezing the account until someone can check out that it's okay, is better than some other bastard walking away with money scammed from blood before they can catch him.

Some people might complain that this is delaying aid money, but if immediate aid was the issue, WTF aren't they giving directly to the Red Cross or other agencies rather than collecting freebee points on SA?

Keep in mind that during the tsunami aftermath, scammers popped up claiming to be established organizations (MercyCorps) and tried to scam people into contributing money via PayPal accounts. The FBI busted a guy, who told agents "he thought it would be OK to keep the money to fix his car and pay bills, if he gave some of it to charity".

So bet your ass that this time around, they're watching accounts for aid money for anything slightly dodgy and freezing them. SA has vast supplies of slightly dodgy, and I'd take any report of what went down from them and run through a heavy duty reality distortion field compensator.

It seem incredulous to me that after hearing some of the major breaches or loss of customer data within the past 60 days or so (Wachovia, Bank of America, DSW, Lexis-Nexis) I have the right to be a bit concerned about giving my social security number to any financial institution. If these large financial institutions and data warehouses can't keep my information secure, why should I give it to them?

The lady at the local bank started looking at me funny after I asked her if my SS# was required to open an account, and started giving me some "post 9/11" corporate response. (Meanwhile, I'm thinking 'yeah, exactly. that's why you shouldn't have it.') And who cares about "128-bit SSL/DES encryption/armed-guard data centers" when you ship unencrypted records via public-class shipping services?

Where's that bit of legislation about returning the social security number to an SSA-only internal identifier when you need it... Maybe we can get some support for some of that now..

So what a great way to prevent a future terrorist attack. Remove those freedoms so they (theoretically) have no reason to hate us anymore.

Getting them to not hate us has never been an objective of the war on terrorism. You liberals have been contemplating strategy for a battle that is not being fought. Bush is not into the psychology of terrorists. He knew that there was NO justification for 9/11 that could possibly exist. All we have to do is stand up and say, "I'M MAD AS HELL AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE!", and the terrorists will sit down and shut up no matter how they feel about us.

"They" hate us now more than ever.

They are dead now more than ever. The ones still alive respect us now more than ever. Syria is turning over terrorists. Palestinians are giving Arafat the boot.

Who cares if they hate us more than ever? Let them steam and fume and pout and kick the sides of their caves. As long as the world opposes terrorism, they will remain powerless. It is always a pity to see people mad all the time, but their anger is misdirected.

On the day THE statue fell, the myth of the "Arab street" was exposed. The reasons that the Arab street seems to be monolithicaly anti-American is because (1) their governments' state-controlled media wildly distort reality and (2) America (and its close allies) is the only thing that the dictatorships allow the people to criticize. Sure, they hate their own governments and other Arab institutions, but they're not allowed to say it. They end up funnelling ALL the hate and disgust they have for everybody else and focus it at America. The media's propaganda tells the people that America is the source of all their problems. America serves as the dictator-sanctioned shooting target for everything they're dissatisfied with.

What is the Arab street saying? No, not just any Arab street. The Arab street is meaningless except in the few places where they are free to say what's really in their hearts, mainly Iraq. And it's really no different than the American street. Or the street of any other free country. They're saying anything and everything! What a surprise that even in Iraq, when the fog of false propaganda is blown away and the real truth about the world becomes known, people have widely opposing individual opinions. Some are kissing U.S. soldiers and putting flowers in their hair. Others are yelling at them to leave. Maybe individualism is not just an American thing. Maybe freedom is a universal thing. It looks that way to me. Bush was right.

Well, I am not Iraqi, nor could I ever claim that I speak for all Iraqis, but, in my judgment, your Iraqi is atypical.

Obviously, neither of us can "prove" the other wrong, but I will offer you an alternative Iraqi perspective. An Iraqi ex-pat named Mohammed recently called into the Bryan Suits radio talk show (based in Seattle), and debated Andrea Buffa, a representative of the group "United for Peace and Justice." You can download the mp3 here.

I thought it was very convincing, although, as I've already pointed out, it's just one man.

Check it out..ask taken from here

An Iraqi Exile confronts and anti-war protester.

No, of course wars are not funny.
And wars are not wanted.
But unfortunately sometimes they are necessary. There's only so far you can get with "Stop! Or I'll say 'stop' again!"
This is a concept that many of the anti-war crowd find impossible to grasp.

No, I'm sure you are feeling pretty self-righteous typing your post from your comfy padded chair, but ever wonder how the people of Iraq would have felt about us just leaving Saddam alone?

Why don't you listen for yourself?

The truth is, unfortunately, is that it is certain that innocent Iraqis will die. The only question will be whether they die in a war to liberate their countrymen or, for example, in machine designed to shred plastic, or with their son's limbs in the jaws of wild dogs. Sorry for the harsh language but if you can't distinguish this as evil, the problem is with you.

Oh, by the way: show me the Iraqis in your anti-war protests. Better yet, listen to this Iraqi on the subject. And while you're at it, show me the other country that has ever pledged to avoid civilian casualties at all turns. China? Russia? And while I'm at it, imagine a world in which either of those lovely fellows dominate the world. Having trouble? Ask a Tibetan or Hungarian (that thought courtesy of John Derbyshire).

Finally, you are factually incorrect about no consensus in the U.N. We absolutely have a consensus; it is simply that there are countries that oppose us and possess veto power.

Why do you cry only now, when Hussein's regime has caused the death of more than 2 million Iraqis? Note sadly the innocents that will die in this conflict, and then weep with joy at the lives they will be free to live when this is over.

Listen to this mp3 and tell me how Bush is just as bad as Saddam. You'd have your sorry ass murdered for equating Bush to Saddam if you were in Baghdad and your family would be billed for the bullet (unless of course the Iraqis decided to kill you with their human shredder).