Slashdot Mirror

None of the abductees held at Quantanamo Bay have been convicted of a crime.

That's completely irrelevant. The alternative to their ending up in Guantanamo was death, and any other country (except, maybe, Israel) would've shot them on the spot — and you wouldn't have cared... Indeed, you didn't care when we were doing just that with a certain Nobel Peace Prize laureate at the helm.

From this article on fire safety:

What is the proper way to use a Class ABC, multi-purpose, dry chemical fire extinguisher? ...
The horizontal range of the dry chemical stream will reach a distance from 5 to 20 feet. ...
The approximate discharge time for 10 to 20 pounds of dry chemical ranges from 10 to 25 seconds.

I wish the chemical stream reached farther than 5 to 20 feet. If it did, then an ABC dry chemical fire extinguisher might be used against a shooter.

And someone like me, who can't stand the idea of shooting someone, would be more willing to use the fire extinguisher, rather than shooting a gun at the attacker. (Although if I were trying to protect school children, I'd certainly be willing to shoot the attacker.)

Because we have idiot politicians that tell the police to not intervene. If the cops were allowed to keep the two groups separate and put down any violence

Unfortunately, "putting down violence" requires violence. Some times brutal violence.

The brutal violence, which, however necessary and unavoidable, would be on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube within seconds — shot from the angles and edited for emphasizing the brutality while hiding, what made it necessary and unavoidable.

We are the idiots, and our politicians reflect that... Especially, Democratic politicians, I might add...

My concern, as I said, is an approach to fundamentalist Christian theocracy, as that looks like the most likely religious danger to the US

This fear of Christians — however "fundamentalist" — is not substantiated by any facts. Unlike the fear of Islam, which strikes world-wide near-daily.

there's a lot of secular law in the early part of the Old Testament

Only the 10 Commandments are part of the scripture. And even those come without the punishment part — people violating them will be punished in the next life, but nothing compels Christians to punish them on this Earth.

On contrast, Allah is quoted calling for killing of both those who sodomize and who lets it done to them.

The main scientific wedge issue, evolution, was decades in the future.

Wow! That's the "main scientific wedge" issue? Is it really, what keeps you up at night? What foolishness! You can continue debating evolution with "fundamentalists" for generations — no Christian will try to kill you for it! Now try to mock the Prophet...

Nobody's proposing that Mozilla have executives who argue for killing homosexuals

You propose, we should welcome more immigrants, whose religion argues for killing homosexuals. You propose, that folks, who oppose recognition of homosexual coupling as marriage, are more dangerous, than those, who argue for killing them in the first place.

There will always be stooges in any movement

Well, the opposition to the Korean war — as I outlined from the get-go — never rose to anywhere the same pitch. Not while the war was running, not later. Soldiers returning from Vietnam war were "baby-killers", but those who came back from Korea were not. The "peace-movement" being infested by stooges is a confirmed theory that explains all of the known facts. It may be difficult for you to accept, probably, because you and/or your parents participated — without knowing, who got the ball rolling, of course, being sincere useful idiots — but that's what it is.

Yeah, I'm Canadian and I'm quite certain neither of my parents really participated in the peace movement. I would point to this fact as evidence to the fact that you're over-extrapolating from limited data and reaching erroneous conclusions.

The currently-existing "disaster" was not at all inevitable

All I can say is I consider Marc Theissen to be a terrible analyst, though going into that would be a needless diversion.

and it did not become a disaster for any of the reasons known at the time.of those coordinated protests.

I'm confused, why did you link to quotes of people supporting the war as evidence that the opponents were wrong?

Well, you may not like Michael Savage, but he certainly is not "a fringe"... And the already mentioned Justin Raimondo has his loyal following.

I don't know, I think I'd still call Savage as being on the fringe. Sure he's got a following but he's so far out that he can't even enter the UK.

There you go! NATO was meant to check USSR's advancement further into Europe — without it more countries would've shared the fate of Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and others. Because while NATO membership was voluntary, membership of the Warsaw Pact was not. And the Pact invaded those, who tried to get out. What's "unclean" about NATO, I'll never know.

Remember the Cuban missile crisis? The US isn't particularly amendable to countries in its sphere of influence allying with Russia either.

And as you just said NATO was meant to counter the USSR (ie Russia), of course they're going to react with hostility when neighbouring countries start joining a military alliance literally designed to oppose them.

Huh? If they weren't NATO-members, Baltic states would've been taken over by the same "polite" troops long ago. Moldova and Georgia were invaded before Ukraine.

Though Georgia was invaded while trying to join NATO. And the initial situations with South Ossetia and Transitivia happened in the fairly messy aftermath of the collapse of the USSR. My understanding is that the NATO expansion was interpreted by Russians as an aggressive act, and that's been responsible for the subsequent rejection of Western liberalism and the return to an adversarial mindset.

But, it is interesting... So, in your peace-loving opinion, NATO should've rejected Eastern Europe's attempts to join it to please Russia... Just how do you justify this? What sort of ethical standards do you have? What books did momma read to you? Should the wisest of the Three Pigs have rejected his brothers' attempts to hide in his masonry house — so as not to aggravate the Wolf? Wow!

There will always be stooges in any movement

Well, the opposition to the Korean war — as I outlined from the get-go — never rose to anywhere the same pitch. Not while the war was running, not later. Soldiers returning from Vietnam war were "baby-killers", but those who came back from Korea were not. The "peace-movement" being infested by stooges is a confirmed theory that explains all of the known facts. It may be difficult for you to accept, probably, because you and/or your parents participated — without knowing, who got the ball rolling, of course, being sincere useful idiots — but that's what it is.

Meanwhile, I noticed, that every post I make here gets marked as "Troll" within minutes and I'm getting tired of it. So I'm not posting again — you aren't going to admit it and the anonymous collective with too many mod-points are too cowardly to speak-up.

As it turns out it was actually a very well informed protest movement as the invasion of Iraq was by any metric a disaster.

The currently-existing "disaster" was not at all inevitable, and it did not become a disaster for any of the reasons known at the time.of those coordinated protests.

but I doubt many [Russians] are actually backing the invasion

Yes, unfortunately, many are. Though Putin's support is nowhere near he enjoys in Russia (86%), plenty in the diaspora approve of him or outright like him.

Fringe opinion-makers whom I'd never heard of. I don't think they're really affecting anything.

Well, you may not like Michael Savage, but he certainly is not "a fringe"... And the already mentioned Justin Raimondo has his loyal following.

It should be noted that the West's hands aren't completely clean in this. NATO was started as an anti-Russia alliance

There you go! NATO was meant to check USSR's advancement further into Europe — without it more countries would've shared the fate of Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and others. Because while NATO membership was voluntary, membership of the Warsaw Pact was not. And the Pact invaded those, who tried to get out. What's "unclean" about NATO, I'll never know.

expanding into former Warsaw pact countries after the end of the Cold War was absolutely moronic. Without that expansion there's a decent chance that everyone is still on relatively good terms.

Huh? If they weren't NATO-members, Baltic states would've been taken over by the same "polite" troops long ago. Moldova and Georgia were invaded before Ukraine.

But, it is interesting... So, in your peace-loving opinion, NATO should've rejected Eastern Europe's attempts to join it to please Russia... Just how do you justify this? What sort of ethical standards do you have? What books did momma read to you? Should the wisest of the Three Pigs have rejected his brothers' attempts to hide in his masonry house — so as not to aggravate the Wolf? Wow!

Again remember many grew up in the USSR, people are going to naturally defend their side.

I grew up in the USSR too, you insensitive clod.

But in a fight between Russia and Ukraine many will be drawn to defend the entity they identify more with from their youth.

Point is, their propaganda works

Oddly enough, when American citizens are killed by the thousands as a response to direct actions of their freely elected democratic government, its called "terrorism"

"Terrorism" is a method — targeting (rather than accidentally hitting) enemy civilians has been frowned upon since shortly after the WW2.

What you're saying is that anyone that suffered directly from decisions made by the US governments has the legitimate right of shooting down *any* american

I am saying nothing of the kind. My point was not, that Gazans all "deserved to die" because of their vote — I was simply responding to mrspooni's claim, that "Palestinian people as a whole are not Hamas". They are Hamas or Hamas-sympathizers and do deserve the burdens of war. Any other country in the region would've summarily killed (Syria, Iraq) or expelled (Kuwait, Jordan, Saudi Arabia) such people — Israel's restraint is, if anything, inhumane.

And now we can go back to those "direct actions" of our freely elected government, which, in your opinion, justify killing Americans. Which actions are those? Bin Laden's major grief with the US, for example, was — America's desecration of the holy soil of Saudi Arabia, which we defiled with our infidel boots. Is that a good reason for you?

Its not the hater's portrayal when you have western media covering it [...] Are you really convinced that Hamas has a super-duper propaganda machine that is bigger and more efficient than Israel's/US machine

Hamas has inherent propaganda-advantages:

• they are the underdog, whom "low-information" spectators always prefer;
• their non-military policies (inasmuch as they are known at all) are Socialist, bringing every "low-information" bum with a Che Guevara T-shirt on their side;
• Western countries have a much bigger share of Arabs and Muslims now, than even 20 years ago — who all sympathize with their "brethren"

After starting — and loosing — several "real" wars in the 20th century, Arabs have given up on the "honest" battlefield success. They've switched all their efforts into terrorism on one hand and propaganda whining on the other. They are succeeding.

Shit happens when you bomb one of the most densely populated areas in the world, and they don't care.

Retaliation will hit any area in the world, from where thugs shoot at somebody. Israel's retaliation will try to hit the thugs only, but it is not, of course, guaranteed... That the area is "densely populated" should be the concern of the shooters, not of those, who defend themselves and their country.

Saddam never gassed his own citizens, you probably mean Kurdish insurgents.

Assad never gassed his own citizens, you probably mean rebels.

Both strongmen considered their victims to be their citizens and subjects. In the state of rebellion, but citizens nonetheless. Bullshit propaganda much?

How are they NOT "citizens"?

How are they citizens?

Those people have lived within the territorial boundaries their whole lives.

So? The "boundaries" have Israel on one of the sides — why aren't you claiming them to be citizens of Jordan and Egypt? At least, those two neighbors actually once occupied the entire West Bank and Gaza respectively — for twenty years...

The Israeli government is being run by far-right reactionaries

Israeli government has changed many times since the country's establishment — swinging from Left to Right and anything in between. Never once have PLO or Hamas changed their official goal of destroying Israel.

but that won't make it any less true.

Nothing your wrote is true — except for the obvious fact, that downmodding will not make it any less so.

Oh, so it's a separate nation that Israel recognizes?

No, they are not a nation — not in Israel's opinion, not in their own, not in that of the rest of the world. When the UN split the former British mandate into two parts, Jews proceeded to establishing their own state. The Arabs, instead of likewise establishing theirs, declared war... That was because — in their own opinions — they weren't separate nations (Jordanians, Iraqis, Syrians), but simply Arabs. They lost that war — and the subsequent ones. By the end of the 20th century, Arabs have given up attacking Israel openly and switched to terrorism on one hand and propaganda whining on the other.

That tactics seems to be succeeding...

Not a territory they claim?

No, Israel has no territorial claim to Gaza strip. Are you not embarrassed over being wrong so often?

Easy: with a strong probability, the viewer itself has been a victim (or witness) of sexual abuse in his past.

Social constructionists want to believe this; however, it is probably not true. The great unspoken alternative hypothesis which is too controversial to be even mentioned in most of academia almost certainly explains why there is a small correlation between abuse and history of abuse. What is true or not is a complex question that I do not see being addressed anywhere on this issue.

If you want to understand how liberals deny science, then social constructionism is the best place to start. (Radical environmentalism is not a mainstream liberal view -- but would also qualify.)

I agree 100% with you on the psychological projection bit. This history of abuse part -- not so much.

conquer all the prime farming and building land

Have you seen Israel on the map? You can't — not without looking hard — it is so small. To assert, that the troubles are due to "land grab" is to show ignorance or dishonesty...

People kind of resent it if you do that and tend to attack you to take the land back.

Nice theory, but contradicted by facts: there was no "conquering" until 1967, but the hatred was just the same, if not worse.

They'll stop that after a few dozen years if you stop taking land, usually, if we may believe history.

They'll also stop if you kill them, you know... And not just "usually", but always. How about that? Or, less bloodily, how about the rest of the world stops treating descendants of Arab refugees as refugees in their own right (only the first generation is considered refugees in all other cases)? That, too, should do wonders in a generation or two — there are no Germans today shooting rockets at Russia over their (grand)parents being kicked out from Königsberg as a result of their country losing an unjust war.

Maybe that's a practice Israel should consider

Or, maybe, Israel — and the rest of the "civilized" world — should just consider ending the economic help to the barbarians surrounding Israel? As things currently stand, Gaza has a higher standard of living, than Egypt. Perhaps, when their government (be it Hamas or whoever) has to concentrate on the actual governing — schools, sewers, roads, electricity — instead of relying on foreigners (including, inhumanely, Israelis themselves), they'll be forced to bury their murderous hatchets?

..you mean to say that directly it doesn't affect the motivation of people to stay in a country with instability all around?

The two Israelis I personally know, who immigrated to the US, are quite patriotic and eager to defend their country. Both served in the military and one actually participated in live shooting. They were sad to move, but the opportunities offered to them were too enticing (both were scientist-engineers married to lovely scientist ladies)...

while occupying parts of your neighbors...

Please... Israel was not "occupying" anyone between 1948 and 1967 — but the neighbors' hatred was the same or worse.

I'm pretty sure one could try them in civilian courts, considering 'terrorism' is a criminal act, not an act of war. But that would be hideously inconvenient, considering how many of them ended up there.

Not just inconvenient — impossible: we don't even have jurisdiction in most of those cases. Consider pirates for another — less politically-charged — example... Whenever NATO captures them — off the coast of Somalia, primarily — they are let go...

expanded Gitmo to house people who he thought didn't deserve the rule of law.

There are only two alternatives to detaining prisoners in Gitmo:

1. release them to go free;
2. kill them on the spot.

Guess, which of the two Obama has chosen to expedite closing of the camp? All things considered, I prefer Bush's approach — it is far less bloody.

you went off the deep end and claimed that Obama would like to kill all the detainees.

Oh, no, I'm sure, he would not like to do it. As I said, I don't think, he is particularly bloodthirsty. But, I'm quite certain as well, if he thought he could get away with it in order to "Close Gitmo", he'd do it... Without liking it...

The whole hoopla about Guantanamo has made the poor SOBs' fate much worse — it is now more politically palatable to kill the alleged scumbags than to detain them... It started before Obama took office, but he and his participated in making it so.

The sentiment is also the reason, the SEALs were ordered by the President to kill bin Laden, even if taking him alive were possible (which it were — at least, according to the official story).

Bush would have killed him too.

Bush would've killed him, if it were the only way to get rid of him, sure. But, given an opportunity to capture the scumbag alive, Bush would've gone for it, no doubt — if only for the intelligence value... Unfortunately, the outcry over detaining people in Guantanamo has made the other option far more palatable for the cynical (like Obama) and their short-attention span supporters (like yourself).

Only a minority of men are involved in a disproportionate number of rapes. David Lisak has done some very eye-opening research, finding that most rapes are committed by about 5% of men, who rape again and again and again.

It turns out that if you ask these men questions like "Did you force someone to have sex with you, even though they didn't want to?" they are happy to say yes, and they think other men will too, and they don't think that forcing somebody to have sex is rape. When people talk about "rape culture," this is what they mean. Rapists don't think that they are doing anything unusual, because they get repeated cues from the men around them that rape is OK. The vast majority of men who laugh at rape jokes, or otherwise sexist jokes, are not actually believing the ideology behind it, but the 5% of men in the group see that laugh and think "that person is just like me, my attitudes and actions are not exceptional." Rape culture is real and has real, devastating consequences.

More to the point of TFA, or at least one of its points, when men overstep women's boundaries without actually raping them or sexually assaulting them, that reinforces the belief in the rape-y and assault-y minority of men that disrespecting women's boundaries is OK.

I'm not a lawyer, but if we're just talking about what the word "rape" means in English, then you're absolutely right that it does have a specific definition: non-consensual sexual contact. It doesn't have to be a stranger jumping out of a bush for it to be rape. It doesn't have to involve a knife or a gun or a fist to be rape. If an individual says she (or he) is not ok with any kind of sexual activity, including sex without a condom, and you proceed to engage in that activity (by force or deceit or whatever), then it is rape.

By arguing that only some kinds of non-consensual sexual activity count as rape, you're contributing to a culture that turns a blind eye to the kind of rape (non-stranger, little or no physical force involved, etc.) that is most common. This gives rapists cover from their peer group and license to think that what they do is not really rape; David Lisak, for example, has built a research career out of interviewing rapists, and 6% of men will self-report as rapists as long as the word "rape" is not used. Please stop.

Although I'd rather everybody were coming to American companies for such technology — rather than to Russia, as the Indians did for this fighter — a strong India is good for US.

Their values are the closest to ours in that neighborhood and it is good to have a counterweight to the ambitious China.

And, hey, maybe, the Indians will share some of the load world-wide, that Americans (and the British) are currently managing almost entirely on our own. Perhaps, people will even begin blaming them (and burn their flag), when they screw up...

You might want to catch up on the climatology research a bit.

Did you mean scientology? Just as sound, and just as tolerant of the doubters...

Yeah, 2008 was really cool, being hotter than any year before 2000 save (super-hot) 1998

Actually, the hottest year on record was 1934. NASA screwed up its own methodology, apparently. But even based on your own facts, how do you explain the cool down of the last decade — China and India (and the US, of course) have all only grown their contributions over the years...

Wanna bet what'll happen when that sucker turns the corner and heads back up?

Which "sucker"? The Sun? Oh, no, are you saying, something other than humanity may be responsible? So responsible, that despite rapidly growing contribution by humanity, the climate cooled down anyway?..

Face it, the theory we are urged to follow is full of holes and gives ample ground for perfectly reasonable skepticism. And yet, a vastly expensive initiative is about to forced down our throats based on it.

Heck, Bush's theory of "WMDs in Iraq" had much more going for it (and was less expensive too), but you would burn at the stake anybody, who accepted his argument, wouldn't you? And so, if your requirements or so much less rigorous now, one must suspect, you have some other goal in mind...

but how long before a scared poorly trained sailor has emptied that clip?

Or a good-shooting sailor discharged it — with perfectly respectable kill-ratio — at innocent fishermen? A real Navy made that mistake last November, for example.

That shit you link to in your sig is utter racism.

No, it is not... There is, no doubt, the thing called "Arab identity" and "Arab culture". Discussing such things in positive light is always welcome (i.e. "Black History Month"). Logically, criticizing them ought to be valid too.

Lumping all Arabs in as one group and making them liable for the crimes of a few is no better than saying all Caucasians are responsible for Hitlers crimes.

(

Your comparison with Hitler, actually, disqualifies you immediately, but I'll pretend, Bush is still president, and that Godwin's Law is still suspended.)

It is not "few" — I'm talking about the vast numbers of murderous rapists calling themselves Janjaweed, of the overwhelming majorities freely electing and otherwise supporting Hamas and Hezbollah, and the "civilized elites" comprising the Arab League — one which instructs member countries to not give citizenship to the Palestinians.

There is simply no denying, that Israel is held to the very high standards, even by the people, who apply such standards neither to themselves (like Hamas) nor to others. "The shit" you were referring to is simply pointing out the hypocrisy — with very concrete examples. I'm glad it struck your nerve.

I am a Caucasian, but I have Jewish and Arabic friends

Sure, sure. No problem with particular representatives of any demos. If you, actually, read "the shit", you would've found out — from the very first sentence — that it is talking about Arab states, not your friendly Halal meat seller.

I've read the link in your sig, and if for some reason you're concerned that there will be a difference in the Middle East policy of the Obama administration

Which part of the my current sig could possibly be related to Middle East policy or any other aspect of foreign policy at all? Yes, there may or may not be concerns — as with any new President — but nothing on that page talks about anything remotely related to anything abroad...

I assure you there won't be.

Barack Hussein? Is this you?! No?.. Then what the fook am I to do with your worthless "assurance"?

Yeah, they don't like Israel, we get it. But I honestly think that most would

I would've asked for facts to back up this opinion, but it is unrelated to "hypocrisy" charge, so whatever...

It would've been, if "the rules" were unrelated (orthogonal). They aren't --

Someone else already pointed out the silliness of that argument.

No, they didn't: "Tell me, how does opposing the establishment of Israel incompatible with opposing its unlawful expansion or its treatment of Palestinians?"

The answer is very simple and was already given in this thread. Israel's enemy's reject the country's right to exist, and is actively working on ending this existence. That existence was brought about by, among other things, a UN resolution — the very first one on the subject of Israel. It is perfectly logical, clean, legal, and moral for Israel to pay no attention to subsequent UN-resolutions, which concern Israel's interaction with its enemies, until the said enemies accept that very first UN-resolution.

A particular aspect of Israel's policy over the decades of war may or may not be right. But UN-resolutions remain irrelevant to that, until, once again, Israel's enemies accept the very first one.

As long as you follow only the rules you want to, you have no right to insist that anyone else follow them, period.

That's childish nonsense. This is not a game, but a matter of life and death — for Israel. If the enemy wants you dead, you'd be an idiot to grant him any quarter. Israel's inhumanity is a sign of such idiocy, but they aren't totally crazy. Their enemy cares not for UN or similar bullshit — just look at what's happening in Sudan and Afghanistan, while the Arab League and other "respectable" enemies of Israel look the other way. Having lost "fair and square" on the battlefields of several wars in the 20th century, the Arab regimes are now trying to win with terrorism on one hand and propaganda on the other. Judging by your posts, they aren't doing so bad — despite being utterly and obviously insincere.

... but it seems quite one-sided.

Yeah, right. "One-sided" is bad, because everything has two (and equal) sides to it — or so your humanities professors told you, didn't they...

Well, sometimes, you know, life presents not "shades of gray", but a perfectly distinguishable contrast between evil black and honest white. Even if, after trying hard, you can find a spec of white on the black side, or some marring dust on the white side, it does not change the whole story. Israel's moral high ground is sky high. Unlike the enemies, they aren't out to kill anybody, they just wish to survive and prosper on their side of the border.

Do you think that most Europeans' (and others') views on this conflict are completely crazy, or just very misinformed?

Very large Arab and Muslim minorities in Europe vs. vocal and strong Jewish lobby in the US is what explains the differences in attitude. Neither is and indicator of truth in itself.

I'm not posting any more here. We are done with "hypocrisy" nonsense, and the larger conflict itself will settle only — as Golda Meyer predicted decades ago — "when the Arabs begin to love their children more than they hate ours ".

And many Palestinians would say the same thing - if Israel left the West Bank and stopped blockading Gaza most of them would be content to leave Israel alone, even if they weren't happy about the situation.

"Many" is weaselese, which can not be substantiated. Most Palestinians would not say that, as evidenced by their overwhelming support for Hamas in the most recent elections. You see, all those subsequent UN-resolutions, some of which Israel refuses to obey, call on the State of Israel to do this-and-that. However, according to Hamas and its friends, there is no "State of Israel" — there is an evil "Zionist Entity", which temporarily occupies Northern Palestine.

Right, because demanding that other people follow the rules while at the same time violating those rules isn't hypocrisy.

It would've been, if "the rules" were unrelated (orthogonal). They aren't — until you recognize my right to exist, I'm going to ignore pleas on your behalf, even those pleas comes from the same entity, that granted my existence.

And from the other side, there's a bunch of Palestinians and an occupying military force.

Bzzz, false. 2004 called and wanted that non-argument back. In 2005 Israel left Gaza completely — and nothing has changed for the better. Nothing... Evidently, you are one of those, who (knowingly?) misunderstand, what occupation means in Hamas-speak...

But let's not get distracted from the hypocrisy of Israel's enemies, demanding the country obeys UN-resolutions, while rejecting the very first resolution establishing the country itself.

And you might notice those girls were Palestinians.

That's the point. Had I linked to any Israeli victim of terrorism, some dumbass would've come out from somewhere to debate, that it is all Israel's own fault, that they shouldn't have built the country in "somebody else's desert", or that they should've just died in the face of opposition, etc. This way, there is no such distraction.

Or, at least, it is much harder to make — blaming the deaths of Palestinian girls from a Palestinian-fired rocket on Zionist Entity is, of course, possible — had it not been for the occupation, there would've been no need for rockets, so there — but stretches credulity beyond most people's BS-meters. I'm sure, this explanation is being offered inside Gaza and, maybe, West Bank, but it would not work elsewhere. Or so one hopes...

And you might notice those girls were Palestinians.

That's the point. Had I linked to any Israeli victim of terrorism, some dumbass would've come out from somewhere to debate, that it is all Israel's own fault, that they shouldn't have built the country in "somebody else's desert", or that they should've just died in the face of opposition, etc. This way, there is no such distraction.

Or, at least, it is much harder to make — blaming the deaths of Palestinian girls from a Palestinian-fired rocket on Zionist Entity is, of course, possible — had it not been for the occupation, there would've been no need for rockets, so there — but stretches credulity beyond most people's BS-meters. I'm sure, this explanation is being offered inside Gaza and, maybe, West Bank, but it would not work elsewhere. Or so one hopes...

Heinlein, I see that once again you are posting from beyond the grave. Please stop, Slashdot is for the living.

I seem to remember, Bush's critics foaming at the mouths over the idea of sending Republicans and their children to Iraq... Heck, I even wrote something about it back then.

Um, why for cripes sake? I know a guy who voted for Bush [...]

Here is why I I supported Bush. (I don't mention there, that I strongly dislike Socialists and any talk of "income redistribution" — because it was not Bush-specific.)

Then I clicked on his sig link... So either the whole account is just for trolling, or he really is serious.

Which part of my current sig do you disagree with?

To clue you in, dufus... Although I am, indeed, foreign-born (gives me an insight, that you'll never get, especially on the subject of Russia), I've been an American for over a decade. I also voted for Bush — twice, although I would've preferred McCain in 2000...

Historians are saying his presidency will be remembered as the worst presidency to date.

Only in jest they are — and only the most partisan Lefties among them. The presidency of the Great Depression was surely far worse. That little incident, when the British/Canadians burned (what then became known as) White House, would ruin a presidency — in the eyes of an objective student of history — too... Vietnam War? Eeew... Enough, I suppose...

You think Americans suck, and are apathetic?

No, only you, dear. Only you and your band of fellow Illiberals...

The people who lived in that area were given an offer they couldn't refuse by the western nations who had conquered those lands.

Right. Conquered. But not from the "Palestinians". The previous "occupier" was Ottoman Empire, which waged war on the "western nations" and lost. The Arabs had no sovereignty over what's now Israel, just as they did not have it over all other today's Arab countries. Yet the land of Israel — its size less than 1% of the Arab world, BTW — is today the only point on which "western nations" are being accused of "Moral Relativism" (and other bullshit accusations).

Right back at you, in other words...

Somehow it was Ok for those "western nations" to create — with non-refusable offers — (Trans)Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, etc. — but not Israel...

Most people don't look at signatures, but in this case it makes a large difference.

The parent post has link to this page: http://www.cs.umb.edu/~mi/th/occupation.html

And, without apparent irony, writes:
"Terrorism" is not just a dirty word -- it refers to a very specific tactics to achieve ideological/political goals: violence targeting civilians.

Taking a look at the image on the lower right corner of the page, one can see that all one has to do is claim that the enemies are hiding behind civilians (or baby carriages) in order to avoid accusations of targeting civilians.

P.S. Your anti-Arab biases are showing.

America's founders did not do that...

No, but they did engage in "dishonorable" guerrilla warfare instead of fighting in open fields as was the fashion of the time. You can be certain that the British were complaining that those backwards Americans were not fighting properly; that is, fighting in a way that the British would win. Instead the Americans fought on their own terms in a way that gave them a chance to win. Even though the Americans could offer little to the colonists of the time until they took ownership of the land away from the British.

Thereaer more parallels here than you might be comfortable contemplating.

What Arabs mean by "occupation".

I find the whole Palastinian/Israeli conflict, or rather the typical Westerner's view on it as an exercise in selective blindness, regardless of perspective. The cartoon on that page is instructive as a case in point. Of the Palestinian side, you have individual acts of senseless killing (and suicide); on the Israeli side, you have centrally organised counterstrikes when there is little effort to minimise collateral damage. The cartoon is seeking to justify a practice that is borderline indefensible by saying that the other side is worse. Yet only one side is acting on the basis of centrally premeditated policy.

The side that you come down upon mostly comes down to one's attitude to authority together with some personal factors.

he initially promised to destroy those (in)famous WMDs within 12 months, for example, but still had them in 1997 and some remnants were even found in 2003-4.

Nothing was found. There were no weapons.

I wonder, if you worked for the Iraqi government... Let me roast your lying stomach on the burning rays of facts:

1997 The UN disarmament commission concludes that Iraq has continued to conceal information on biological and chemical weapons and missiles (Oct 23). Iraq expels American members of the UN inspection team (Nov. 13).

And then:

Jan. 16, 2003 UN inspectors discover 11 undeclared empty chemical warheads in Iraq.

And then, post-invastion:

Since 2003 Coalitions forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent.

Didn't you just post: "Nothing was found"? Oops...

We now proceed to the cold void darkness of your knowledge of Economics:

What triggered the invasion was the decision Saddam made in 2000 to stop using the US dollar as a reserve currency. The whole US economy is based on the US dollar being the world reserve currency and that status was threatened by Saddam.

Khmm, it does not even puzzle you, what we were objecting to before 2000, huh? I don't just mean the battles of 1991, but also those later Clinton-style operations... But, whatever, the truth remains is that as long as that euro (or yen) currency remains freely convertible into dollars, we don't really care. As long as those Kuwaitis and Saudis continue to spend their earnings (in whatever currency) investing in our companies, on our planes and automobiles, we don't care. And even if they chose to Japanese electronics or a Mercedes — that's fine too. As long as nothing threatens the free markets, America will prosper along with the better part of humanity.

It is now threatened by Iran and Venezuela... Expect "regime change" of some sort in both countries fairly soon. Coup, revolution, civil war or perhaps even invasion.

Both are rather overdue for regime change. If you dislike Bush, you should abhor Chavez. But to "earn" an invasion, they have to be messing (or threatening to mess) with the neighbors militarily. Iran does, and may, indeed, get it... Chavez tried to (help FARC), but stopped years ago and now confines himself to domestic matters — such as removing term-limits on (his) Presidency...

I like your solution. It's too bad the people that took these pictures didn't think like you. I mean, losing half of the last century's photographic history is nothing compared to all the souls that wouldn't have been stolen by the camera.

I would take it one step further & propose that since I have no choice but to appear in public occasionally, that no one look at me or at least not retain any memory of it until they ask permission. I for one, look forward to our camera-shy overlords.

Whatever wrong you can accuse Bush of doing, Chavez has verifiably done . I should add arm-twisting of the media to that list...

Excellent link!

Whatever wrong you can accuse Bush of doing, Chavez has verifiably done . I should add arm-twisting of the media to that list...

Except waging an actual war — Venezuela is too weak for that... He is the curse of the country — as soon as the oil price comes back down (and it will), Venezuela will turn into Zimbabwe.

Ohh sure, try selling that to the conservative crowd.

I am a Bush-endorsing conservative. You were saying?..

I can see the headlines already: "Swingers going to the heavens"

Yep, would be a fun, would not it? All those personal-illiberals drowning in their anger, while secretly wishing, they were up there themselves... But there'll be no such headlines, because the very term "swinger" would require an adult-rated explanation...

Astronauts' personal lives will not be detailed one way or the other.

Yeah, we know it's not just one. It's more like a billion and three.

I challenge you to name TWO Acts of Terror, for which Israel (not pre-Israel Zionists of 60 years ago) is responsible. FYI, "terrorism" is defined as: terrorism, act of terrorism, terrorist act -- (the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear)

There's plenty of blame to go around to all sides for the huge mess in the middle east.

You are equating the sides, which is a sign of a very short attention span... They are not equal, and — however elitist it sounds — Israel is far better. Inhumanely so...

America's current regime fits none of your three items. If anyone, Chavez is a much better candidate.

The only reason people the word is used is to insult — just like calling Bush "idiot" or "baboon" does not mean, he has mental degradation or is not a human, "Fascism" is used as a dirty word.

Fascism does not necessarily point to racism. It can - and belligerent nationalism often does. But that doesn't mean it has to.

Genocidal racism is the only thing, that makes Fascism as disgusting as, say, Communism. Absent the racism, there is no justification for the use of the dirty word.

the economy of Germany absolutely skyrocketed and was doing awesomely while hitler was in charge.

We are doing pretty well under Bush too, thank you very much. The growth is not as dramatic as Hitler's Germany's was, but that's because they started from a much lower base (a loser of WWI, devastated by reparations to the victors). Not that that's relevant...

If you dislike Bush, you should abhor Chavez

Sure, Chavez's the one [...]

The ample reasons are listed in the link. Why invent your own strawmen?

We now know that electronic technology has no more to contribute to computing than the physical equipments. We now know that programmable computer is no more and no less than an extremely handy device for realizing any conceivable mechanism without changing a single wire, and that the core challenge for computing science is hence a conceptual one, viz. what (abstract) mechanisms we can conceive without getting lost in the complexities of our own making.

E.W. Dijkstra

As far as money goes, when John Dillinger was asked why he robbed banks, he said "because that's where the money is."

The reason football teams have booster clubs is because they work. The same thing will work for high tech, and they have more money. Try to get some local company with smart people to get involved. They will have financial resources and expertise that you don't. I answered an ad in the local newspaper to help the students at my local high school organize a computer club. Organize the club, get local businesses to contribute, get local developers/database guys to come and lecture. Pretty soon, you'll have a club with enough going on to ask for a real class.

The club also answers your question: "If I can't get technology education in school, then what would be the best way to teach myself?" Working on learning something with a group is a great way to learn things. Get the club going, and then say "this month we're going to learn foobar!"

You're on your way.

They've obviously never visited University of Massachusetts at Boston's website or Northeastern University's School of Professional and Continuing Studies. Just try to find a course listing on these pathetically designed sites; I dare you. Note especially how you need to look up a code that corresponds to "Fall 2006" on the UMass site before you can even search for a fall course, and you have to go through this horrific Peoplesoft data entry screen. I am sure that the average high school student could have designed a simpler, more usable site than either of these.

Fooey on bad web sites, made by multimillion dollar organizations, that cause hundreds of people to have to call up the institution and ask how to navigate to the information they need. Simpler and more cost effective would have been to simply put the university's logo and a phone number, since you're going to have to call them anyway.

Nonsense! There is nothing wrong linking linking as often as Wikipedia does

I need to know what the greatest lie is and who will be honored for it... from the justification for war and the [non-existent] WMDs

Scooter Libby's lies about that CIA agent

The war was justified using fabricated claims of WMDs and terrorist strongholds, neither of which were true, it turns out.

No, they expected to see their words confirmed (the invading troops were training in chemical and bacteriological defence), and it was a very good guess on their part -- most in the Iraqi army believed in some super weapons too. And even the UN's top inspector (despite his annoyance with Americans) could not vouch for Iraq.

I may agree with you, that the WMD-aspect was, overstressed. Even if he had them, Saddam would, probably, never used them...

But such is today's world -- Saddam's overthrow was the greatest show of international aid of our times, but who is ever going to credit US for it? Maybe, the next generation of Iraqis will, if we find the guts to stay there long enough...

Back to the subject, the Shuttle was intended as a nationalist pride -- a show off even more ambitious (and even less practical) than Concorde, and ended up benefitting the science a little bit, but did significantly improve any lives...

Even if you make a couple of thousand a year, that's still 6k of debt. And depending on where you get the loan, the interest could mean you're paying it off for decades. How many parents can afford 8k per year? I know that slashdot is generally full of rich kids, but in the real world, many families are lucky to have 1k a year spare after living costs.

A commonly-bandied figure is that the average lifetime income increase from a college education is a million bucks or so. Paying back $8,000 over ten years at an average of 5% a year interest leads to a total of about $13,000, or $1,300 a year. The median income differential between having and not having a bachelor's degree is more than ten times that.

Unless one is a goddamned idjit, one will also take advantage of the subsidized Stafford loans offered by the feds, which currently have an interest rate of 3.37%, which isn't exactly extortionate.

I'm afraid I don't know about this community college thing. If it's as good as a normal university then why not stay the whole time at the community college? How much does it cost in comparison?

Learn. Community colleges only provide the first two years of education; they don't do all four years. And, indeed, many low-income students attend community college for the two years that they can. Community colleges are somewhat like extended high schools.

In comparison, community college costs about (random sample here) $100 a credit. Which is $300 a course, I would reckon, or about $1500 a semester. On the other hand, it looks like those particular guys waive tuition for in-state students.

Then why does anyone bother going to the private ones?

Beats me. I got a tuition waiver to state school---my state has a free-ride program for anyone graduating in the top five percent of their class with above a 1400 SAT score or something like that, so I just paid for fees, room and board. They also have programs where they'll pay half tuition for high school graduates in the top ten percent with scores above 1200 and so forth.

I suppose that's not particularly helpful for the other ninety percent of high school graduates, however.

But no, I can't give you a damned reason why anyone would choose to go to, say, Boston University ($29k/year not including room and board) instead of UMass Boston ($4k/year; I don't think they have dorms).

--grendel drago

I don't recall Clinton ever proposing that we invade Iraq (why?).

"One way or another, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop WMD and the missiles to deliver them." -- BILL CLINTON FEB 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed my Iraq's WMD program." -- BILL CLINTON FEB 17, 1998

There is more by Senator Clinton, Vice-President Al Gore, Madeline Albright (and other Clinton administration officials), Senator Kerry, Representative Pelosi, others. Quite a war-mongering bunch...

AMD needs THIS!

Suggestion: Do a 'Google-image-search' for the term- "Intel Outside"; as used by many proud to not use Intel!
'Results 1 - 20 of about 199. Search took 0.18 seconds'
.