Slashdot Mirror


Western Union Blocking Money Transfers to Arabs

lowrydr310 writes "Western Union is blocking money transfers to people with Arab names. They have delayed or blocked thousands of cash deliveries on suspicion of terrorist connections simply because senders or recipients have names like Mohammed or Ahmed. 'In one example, an Indian driver here said Western Union prevented him from sending $120 to a friend at home last month because the recipient's name was Mohammed.' Western union claims they are merely following U.S. Treasury Department guidelines that scrutinize cash flows for terrorist links. I agree that Western Union shouldn't allow anyone supporting terrorism to use their service, however I'm fairly certain there are millions of people named Mohammed or Ahmed who aren't terrorists. I wonder if any other financial companies such as banks are doing the same thing."

904 comments

  1. Racism by TheSpoom · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Remember, folks, racism is A-OK if it's trying to prevent terrorism or 419 scams.

    </sarcasm>

    --
    It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
    - E. Debs
    1. Re:Racism by MustardMan · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Hell, bigotry in general is A-OK with this administration. You don't even have to have dark skin... if you're a homosexual it's perfectly alright to limit your rights and treat you like a second class citizen. Redneck government at it's finest.

    2. Re:Racism by FooGoo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not all muslims are terrorists but most terrorists are muslims. Well atleast the current crop.

      --
      People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them
    3. Re:Racism by mrxak · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Think of it this way, if the terrorist watch list had a whole lot of John Smiths on it, then every John Smith in the world would have the same problem. It's a problem with repetative names, not necessarily racism. Obviously there needs to be a better system, but what kind of system would work?

    4. Re:Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Not all muslims are terrorists but most terrorists are muslims.

      I don't believe for a second that you have any stats to back that up.

    5. Re:Racism by Sique · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Last time I checked the Irish-Republican Army was claiming to be catholic. And the basque ETA is catholic as well.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    6. Re:Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How does denying money transfers to Arabs imply a belief in superiority of one race over another?

      Maybe you should consult a dictionary before posting?

    7. Re:Racism by MustardMan · · Score: 1

      Wow.

      No, seriously, that's all I can possibly think of to reply to such a fucking crackhead statement....

      Wow.

    8. Re:Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hell, bigotry in general is A-OK with this administration. You don't even have to have dark skin... if you're a homosexual it's perfectly alright to limit your rights and treat you like a second class citizen. Redneck government at it's finest.

      As much as you seem to dislike the current administration, homosexuals currently have just as many rights (if not more) as they did under Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Kennedy, etc.

    9. Re:Racism by PB_TPU_40 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I resent that, I'm a redneck and not a biggot. Besides releating rednecks to the government is disgraceful to rednecks, now parisites on the other hand, leaches, and any other disgusting foul creature. They're politicians for crying outloud, compairing them to anything else, drags that something else down, there's no escaping it.

      PS, we're all rednecks, its just to what extent are you one. And if some how you are not, then you are related to someone who is, there is NO escape from it.

      --
      -PB_TPU_40 The trick to flying is to throw yourself at the ground and miss.
    10. Re:Racism by roman_mir · · Score: 0, Troll

      Correction: most terrorist acts within the past 20 years were commited by muslim extremists.

    11. Re:Racism by Sique · · Score: 1

      Because all arabs belong to a single race (the semitic one) and are by far the largest group there.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    12. Re:Racism by JebusIsLord · · Score: 0

      Right, and the current administration certainly hasn't taken it upon themselves to change that, have they? Wait...

      --
      Jeremy
    13. Re:Racism by cunina · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I guess your distaste for racism isn't enough to stop you from using terms like "redneck."

    14. Re:Racism by pluther · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, most terrorists in the United States have been white Christians.

      If by the "current crop" you mean the "terrorists" who are fighting against our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, yeah, those are mostly Arab and Muslim, but there's a good reason for that.

      If you mean the terrorists on TV and in movies, then, yeah, I'll grant you that. Almost exclusively Muslim these days.

      --
      If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
    15. Re:Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IRA doesn't exist. Do you mean Provisional, Continuity or Real IRA or are you just another stupid Irish American?

    16. Re:Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I hadn't already posted in this discussion, you would've gotten one of my mod points...

    17. Re:Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, it's called discrimination, not racism. Many of those who are so quick to use the 'R' word wouldn't appreciate that the two are not synonyms.

    18. Re:Racism by lixee · · Score: 1

      Nothing new here. Banks are under pressure from the US to prevent the democratically elected government of Palestine from getting vital foreign aid money. http://mondediplo.com/2006/06/03hamas/

      --
      Res publica non dominetur
    19. Re:Racism by EGSonikku · · Score: 4, Interesting

      racism isn't just about believing one race to be superior, it's also about stereotyping;

      i.e. all arabs are terrorists
      or
      all Jews have big noses and run banks

      It is quite racist to assume based on name alone that someone might be a terrorist. Or have we forgotten Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, Theodore Kaczynski, or Eric Robert Rudolph?

      --
      - "Scientia non habet inimicum nisp ignorantem"
    20. Re:Racism by Don853 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Not that I agree with his remark, but IIRC, one (of many) reasons that same-sex couples wanted to be able to marry was to be afforded the same tax shelter of marriage granted to heterosexual couples, which certainly involves the state.

      Presumably this is what was meant by "normal" marriages.

    21. Re:Racism by eln · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Maybe a system where you gather a little more information about suspected terrorists other than their name before throwing them on some sort of list that prevents anyone with that name from doing all sorts of normal tasks.

      It seems like instead of gathering actual evidence of a crime or a conspiracy to commit a crime, we are now just rounding people up that seem suspicious (or have the same name as someone who seems suspicious). This is not only lazy, but also ineffective, since out of all of the pieces of information that can be used to identify a person, his name is probably the one that's most easily falsified. So, instead of doing some actual police work and gathering some actual evidence against an actual person, we decide to cast a wide net, and end up catching a lot of innocent people while actually decreasing our chances of catching the actual bad guy. Great plan there.

    22. Re:Racism by MindStalker · · Score: 1

      Have your religious ceremony if you want. Strangly enough marriage in the legal sense is tied it a bunch of rules, one of which requires insurance companies, taxes, and a host of other services to treat it as a special case with special legal rights. I think a lot of the issue is bankrolles by insurance companies and whatnot, though some insurance companies do offer these partnerships services as well. Demanding that these partnerships recieve all the benifits, many of which are designed to encourage procreation is a whole nother ballpark.

    23. Re:Racism by Sique · · Score: 1

      Ok. Let me rephrase that: *IRA claims to be catholic. Ok? (I am neither american nor irish.)

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    24. Re:Racism by kolobcreek · · Score: 0

      "Sometimes it isn't racism it just damn fine police work"

    25. Re:Racism by 955301 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      oklahoma city bombing?
      IRA bombings?
      Bask Separatists?

      --
      You are checking your backups, aren't you?
    26. Re:Racism by MindStalker · · Score: 1

      -1 spellcheck :(

    27. Re:Racism by EGSonikku · · Score: 1


      On US soild? I think not.

      yea, like Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, Theodore Kaczynski, or Eric Robert Rudolph?

      --
      - "Scientia non habet inimicum nisp ignorantem"
    28. Re:Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually heterosexual marriages should receive no economic incentive. They are breeding rug rats that are drain on the system. Why should we reward them for popping puppies? They should have to pay a very large tax to get married and have kids.

    29. Re:Racism by krell · · Score: 1

      It's hard to think of any good reason for it.

      --
      Where were you when the voynix came?
    30. Re:Racism by roman_mir · · Score: 0, Troll

      within 20 years and around the world. I wasn't talking about specifically the US.

    31. Re:Racism by plantman-the-womb-st · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      I take it you aren't married, we who are know that this "tax shelter" is a total myth. My wife and I file separately so that we don't get soaked. Married people in this country pay higher taxes than single people.

      --
      Say bad words about my book, in cold oatmeal, or I shall sue!
    32. Re:Racism by Moofie · · Score: 3, Informative

      OK, what ethnic group is uniquely and specifically identified with the epithet "redneck"?

      (Hint: None of them. It's a stereotype, but not a racist one.)

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    33. Re:Racism by MustardMan · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Nope, it's not - because I don't legislate that rednecks can't get married. I don't think hillbillies should be prevented from flying on a plane because they are chewin' tobacco. I don't give a fuck if people have opinions... I have a problem with a government run by people who are so ignorant that they believe that stereotypes give them the right to treat some people differently.

    34. Re:Racism by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Well, except for those Japanese whack jobs in the subway. And a certain Timothy who blew up a big building with a day care in it. Some dude who lived in the woods and sent letter bombs. Some guys sending around anthrax laced letters....

    35. Re:Racism by nEoN+nOoDlE · · Score: 1

      but what kind of system would work?

      The kind where before you do anything you have to verify your fingerprint, which will call up your criminal record and all of the calls you've ever made in your life before you could send $100 bucks to your buddy - which will also have to do the same thing before he gets the money.

      --
      Don't trust a bull's horn, a doberman's tooth, a runaway horse or me.
    36. Re:Racism by TheSpoom · · Score: 3, Interesting

      My thoughts exactly. This plan is infringing on the freedom of people who have not committed (or who have even been accused of) a crime.

      Perhaps the people involved in this should actually do their job and investigate rather than simply assuming Arab == terrorist.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    37. Re:Racism by roman_mir · · Score: 0, Troll

      Who is saying anything about the US soil? In the world within the past 20 years.

    38. Re:Racism by InternetVoting · · Score: 1

      It is a problem with repetitive names, but "Mohammed" (and varios spellings) is the most common name in the world. (ref)
      The question I ask is, are we not wasting time on such a large grouping of people, that maybe no enough time is spent on other more viable candidates for scrutiny?
      The story said the dollar value was $120? How about we use some sort of formula of frequency, amount, and throw in a few "risk factors," if you feel like name similarity would really be useful.

      PS. There are a number of Smiths listed as an alias on federal watch lists. Western Union does not put a hold on every transaction to or from someone named Smith.

    39. Re:Racism by rwven · · Score: 1, Informative

      Trust me, those things you just listed don't even come CLOSE to being in the category of "most." Those represent probably less than 1% of the terrorist attacks over the past 20 years.

    40. Re:Racism by xerph · · Score: 2, Informative

      1) There is no country named Palestine.
      2) It's amazing that people think that just because a government is democratically elected that it must be given a free pass by the rest of the world to do as it pleases.

      The palestinians elected a brutal terrorist organization to power, which has the destruction of Israel written into it's charter. They were certainly free to do so, it was their right as a society to elect whomever they wish to govern them. HOWEVER, there are consequences to every action, and in this case a consequence of electing murderers to power is that other nations will then refuse to associate with them until they renounce their violent methods.

    41. Re:Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      define normal asshat.

      Pretty obvious in that context, you imbread fuckwit.

      Oh, and learn some grammar too, you redneck. What was that? You
      want me to define a "normal asshat"? OK, go look in the mirror
      and you'll see one.

    42. Re:Racism by cunina · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Redneck" is a racially linked epithet used to describe southern or rural white people. It is a stereotype, and it is by definition racist.

    43. Re:Racism by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Obviously there needs to be a better system, but what kind of system would work?

      What makes you think that ANY system could work?

      Some beauraucrat comes up with a lame-ass policy that, by the way, goes against the grain of everything America claims to stand for and even the people smart enough to realize it is a lame-ass policy are still brainwashed into believing that it is somehow necessary?

      Here is a system that would work - don't waste my tax dollars on useless anti-american shit. Spend it on emergency services instead.

      No matter how many tax dollars you throw at the problem, terrorism is a tactic that can not be fully countered. So instead of fucking with people - 99.999% of whom have nothing to do with terrorism - spend it on the infrastructure that minimizes the damage. Better hospitals, better fire departments, better "first responder" teams. That way, we get the benefit of the money spent regardless of if a terrorist blows up a building or an earthquake knocks it down.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    44. Re:Racism by Don853 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Hmm.. Correct, and interesting. I'll have to remember that when the time comes.

    45. Re:Racism by B3ryllium · · Score: 1

      Netiher was the post you just replied to! IRA and Basque folks are external to the US, as are/were November 17 and a host of other "fun" groups.

    46. Re:Racism by lucabrasi999 · · Score: 5, Informative
      within 20 years and around the world. I wasn't talking about specifically the US.

      The last time I checked the IRA operated in Ireland and the Basque Separatists operated in the Basque region of present-day Spain. But, we could go on about other groups:


      Aum Shinrikyo?

      Communist Party of the Phillipines?

      Kach and Kahane Chai?

      Kurdistan Workers' Party?

      Shining Path?

      Revolutionary Armed forces of Columbia?

      17 November?

      ELA?

      Tamil Tigers?

      While Islamic groups get most of the press, there are many, many non-Islamic terrorist groups.

    47. Re:Racism by EatHam · · Score: 1

      They should all change their names to Ahab. Then instead of being discriminated against, they would be immortalized in song.

    48. Re:Racism by cunina · · Score: 1

      So as long as I don't infringe on the rights of a group, it's okay to use racial epithets to describe them? That's a novel perspective.

    49. Re:Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's amazing that people think that just because a government is democratically elected that it must be given a free pass by the rest of the world to do as it pleases.

      They were certainly free to do so, it was their right as a society to elect whomever they wish to govern them. HOWEVER, there are consequences to every action, and in this case a consequence of electing murderers to power is that other nations will then refuse to associate with them until they renounce their violent methods.

      Now, I wonder to which country that could be referring? Hint: It's in North America, and is neither Canada nor Mexico.

    50. Re:Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HA! Good one. Damn mods have no sense of humor. At least not the one that got you.

    51. Re:Racism by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      I sponsor the above response. ;^)

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    52. Re:Racism by Moofie · · Score: 1, Troll

      You may define it as racist, but that doesn't make it so.

      There are white people who are not in any meaningful way "rednecks". I'd venture to say there are non-white people who could be described as "rednecks".

      So, there you have it. Not racist.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    53. Re:Racism by Scarblac · · Score: 1

      If there were a few John Smiths on the list, it would never occur to them to block every John they saw, because that's a familiar, non-foreign name.

      --
      I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
    54. Re:Racism by wiggles · · Score: 3, Funny

      Your taxes are high to encourage you to have children. Once you start having tax deductions, err, I mean children, things will be much better.

    55. Re:Racism by roman_mir · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I said most acts in the past 20 years (and I mean around the world,) where did I say that no terrorist acts happened without muslim connection?

      see for yourself don't forget that pakistan, serbia, chechnia acts have muslim connections

    56. Re:Racism by ehrichweiss · · Score: 1

      .....and some would want us to believe that only rednecks are prejudiced bigoted heathens, thanks for proving that wrong.

      --
      0x09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
    57. Re:Racism by godscent · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're forgetting that Christians outright and publically denounced the IRA's methods and actions.

      All Christians or only some Christians? Or do you think there is some head Christian authority that speaks for all Christians?

      Muslims have never denounced the actions of Muslim Extremism.

      All Muslims or only some Muslims? Or do you think that there is some head Muslim authority that speaks for all Muslims?

    58. Re:Racism by Aardpig · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      But the IRA bombings weren't in the US. They were just sponsored by the US. You stupid cunt.

      --
      Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
    59. Re:Racism by Abcd1234 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, there are plenty of reasons, and the financial ones are, I think the least of them. For example, if your spouse is critically ill, you want to be able to make decisions on their behalf. Not possible for homosexuals married in a civil ceremony.

    60. Re:Racism by roman_mir · · Score: 0, Troll

      sure it was - the oklahoma bombing happened in the US. Just another guy in this thread gave examples of US terrorist attacks only, I want to make it clear: in the world.

      See for yourself.

    61. Re:Racism by cunina · · Score: 1, Insightful

      And yet, I find it extremely unlikely you'd make the same statement with the word "redneck" replaced by "nigger."

      I suggest you think about that a bit.

    62. Re:Racism by PB_TPU_40 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Buddy, pull your head out of your ass. I did not in any way INSULT you. Just because you dont like NASCAR doesn't mean you have to insult those who do. Just because I like working under the hood of a car in my free time isn't a reason to insult me. Many rednecks actually live in nice houses too you jack ass. I dont live in a moblie home, you're a stereo typical retard. Why dont you go back to your flat, or where ever the hell it is you live. Only reason you're willing to post that crap is because you're not saying it to my face.

      The catch-22 of the internet, even retards and cowards have voices, and often they voice their jack ass opinion insulting anyone they can, the reason because no one can break their nose.

      Oh and I hope some time you whip your little sports car infront of my truck, cause it aint gonna be my truck thats damaged. Gotta love having railroad ties for bumpers.

      --
      -PB_TPU_40 The trick to flying is to throw yourself at the ground and miss.
    63. Re:Racism by plantman-the-womb-st · · Score: 1

      Exactly, you see, claiming gay people want to be married as a tax selter is bogus. No kids, no selter.

      --
      Say bad words about my book, in cold oatmeal, or I shall sue!
    64. Re:Racism by michrech · · Score: 5, Informative

      Speaking as a homosexual, it has more to do with spousal rights (right to visit your spouse in the hospital, getting on your spouses health insurance if you have none/job does not offer any/job has insurance that sucks and/or is more expensive than your spouses, right to say what happens upon death, etc)...

      Right now we have no control over any of this unless whatever state we are in specifically grants such rights outside of marriage.

      We want to be treated equally. We don't want any "extra' benefits that heterosexual people wouldn't have. Hell, if the religious don't want us having "religious" marriage, I (and many others) would be perfectly happy with a state official conducting the ceremony.

      There is no "agenda" here, despite what the religious right-wingers would have you belive.

      I'm sure the issue is a bit more indepth than I've stated here, but you could look at hrc.org to read up on it.

      --
      bork bork bork!
    65. Re:Racism by xerph · · Score: 1

      Now, I wonder to which country that could be referring? Hint: It's in North America, and is neither Canada nor Mexico.

      Althought I obviously wasn't referring to the US, the point still stands. If other nations dislike the government we democratically elected, they are free to choose not to associate with us as a response. But turning back to my original point, to imply that any elected government must be granted impunity is absurd.

    66. Re:Racism by roman_mir · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      See for yourself. Muslim extremists are responsible for most terrorist acts compared to any other group within the past 20 years.

    67. Re:Racism by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      Obviously there needs to be a better system, but what kind of system would work?

      One that doesn't tolerate terrorism from either side. We are very selective in the terrorists that we disparage. And quite hypocritical about it also. Remember, terrorists that work on "our" side are called "freedom fighters".

      --
      What?
    68. Re:Racism by Abcd1234 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Muslims have never denounced the actions of Muslim Extremism.

      Really? Google seems to have come up with a few examples. But, hey, it's so much easier to paint billions of people with the same brush than it is to attempt to actually comprehend the complexity of the situation, eh?

    69. Re:Racism by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      You have a wooden bumper?

      Jaysyn

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    70. Re:Racism by Aardpig · · Score: 2, Informative

      Where was the warning for Omagh? Or Enniskillen?

      --
      Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
    71. Re:Racism by postmortem · · Score: 1

      List of terrorist organizations...
      (Wikipedia) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_organizatio ns#Religious_Terrorists

      Note the large number of orgazniations from single religion.

    72. Re:Racism by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Um, no, because the ol' N-bomb is a racist term. What sort of logical gymnastics leads you to conclude that "redneck" is similar?

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    73. Re:Racism by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1, Funny

      but, many rednecks want to marry their sister and someone said they couldn't. So they are just as second class as any other group who isn't allowed to get married.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    74. Re:Racism by roman_mir · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      You are a stupid cunt, fucking retard. Oklahoma bombing was in the US, and since other's in this thread already replied that in the US most terrorist acts were done by other than Muslims, I wanted to make sure that the rest of the world is included in all my replies, you little rotten piece of human waste.

      See for yourself anyway.

      ----
      (this is not a flamebait, this is a totally reasonable reply that is totally in line with the tone set in the parent post.)

    75. Re:Racism by Philip+K+Dickhead · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hell, I believe in calling a peckerwood a peckerwood.

      --
      "Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
    76. Re:Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's see...

      There are black people who are not in any meaningful way "niggers". I'd venture to say there are non-black people who could be described as "niggers".

      Hmm... I don't think he'd make it either, because it's nonsensical. "Nigger" means "black person".

      His point is that "redneck" is only loosly connected to white people, so it's not racist. It's a stereotype, and it's possible to be bigoted against rednecks, and it's probably rude and not accepted in polite conversation (although not to the degree that "nigger" is unacceptable), but that doesn't mean it's racism because it's not race.

    77. Re:Racism by mrxak · · Score: 1
      What makes you think that ANY system could work?
      I don't, actually. If somebody wants to give money to terrorists enough, they will undoubtably find a way.
      No matter how many tax dollars you throw at the problem, terrorism is a tactic that can not be fully countered.
      Exactly. Terrorism is a tactic. You can't fight a war against terrorism any more than you can fight a war against air superiority or naval bombardment. You can discourage it, you can make it ineffectual, you can go after the people who use the tactic, but a tactic is not something you can fight. It always drives me nuts when I hear "war on terror". It should be "war on x group of terrorists", if anything.
    78. Re:Racism by benjamin264 · · Score: 1

      75% of terrorists have first names that start with a 'T'! You going to call Western Union or should I?

    79. Re:Racism by PB_TPU_40 · · Score: 1

      Actually mine's 1/4 steel. A sports car is no match for a full ton pickup. Friend of mine however has the railroad tie bumpers. They work well and if he's rear ended, the ties protect his truck and he just replaces it in 5 minutes. I saw one of the ties after he was hit, you could see where the wood pressed into the frame, however all the energy was put into the bumper and car, no damage to the rest of the truck. The car that rear ended him however was FUBAR. Its funnier because its a 90s style truck, I'd really expect to see it in the south on a 50's pickup, but this is in Washington state, near Seattle no less.

      --
      -PB_TPU_40 The trick to flying is to throw yourself at the ground and miss.
    80. Re:Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are a "stereo typical" redneck.

    81. Re:Racism by cunina · · Score: 1

      A racial epithet is a term used to describe an ethnic category with a negative connotation. Hence both "redneck" and "nigger" are racial epithets. I doubt you would have used the word "redneck" in your original post were this not the case. Yet you seem to want to arbitrarily label one word as racist and not the other - apparently because it suits your argument.

    82. Re:Racism by roman_mir · · Score: 0, Troll

      I like it how you insist that I should trust you. Sure they are less than 1%, the rest are terrorist attacks that take place within Israel and Iraq, you were just too lazy to follow the links, but the links are there, for each year in their own categories.

    83. Re:Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you.

    84. Re:Racism by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

      Racism isn't just mere identification based on a race. It's an opression based on race. As far as I am aware, rural white Southern people are kept "down" because they are poor, not because they are white.

      Therefore, redneck is not properly a term of racial oppression, desipite the fact that it mainly refers to white people. It's a term of economic oppression.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    85. Re:Racism by AlecLyons · · Score: 1

      I think the (faulty|irrelevant|stupid) thinking behind this nonsense is probably more like:

      Pick one guy with an Arab name. Pick one guy without. Statistically the guy with the Arab name is more likely to be a terrorist.

    86. Re:Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats ridiculous, there is no need to call up the entire criminal record and calls every time you try to do something, make it a nightly batch job. remember people, your tax dollars pay for the computers to do this.

    87. Re:Racism by Don853 · · Score: 1

      It wouldn't be if they could easily adopt, which I'm sure many would want to. [I understand the key word, easily, is likely a long way off]

    88. Re:Racism by PB_TPU_40 · · Score: 1

      Well at least someone got the joke....

      --
      -PB_TPU_40 The trick to flying is to throw yourself at the ground and miss.
    89. Re:Racism by cunina · · Score: 1

      His point is that "redneck" is only loosly connected to white people

      So the term is only loosely racist, then? That's reassuring.

    90. Re:Racism by mcmonkey · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Partially, but also your taxes are high because the government wants your wife barefoot and pregnant. When only one spouse has significant income, spreading the tax burden for that income over two people by filing jointly will save you money.

      The closer two spouses are in income, the worse it gets. Rather than getting the advantage of sharing the tax burden, you've taken two smaller incomes and combined them into a large income in a higher tax bracket.

    91. Re:Racism by TheGreek · · Score: 1
      For example, if your spouse is critically ill, you want to be able to make decisions on their behalf. Not possible for homosexuals married in a civil ceremony.
      Very possible for homosexuals with a durable power of attorney.
    92. Re:Racism by Don853 · · Score: 1

      I wasn't trying to say that the taxes were the only issue, I was just of the undestanding that they were an issue. My above post didn't give my personal viewpoint but probably insinuated that I was anti-gay marriage, which I'm not. I was just trying to translate another post from 'Asshat' to 'English'.

    93. Re:Racism by lucabrasi999 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Of course. A Wikipedia article! Yeah, that's a trusted resource. Especially when the top of the Wikipedia page says:
      This article or section does not cite its references or sources. You can help Wikipedia by introducing appropriate citations.

      That is a highly subjective and very incomplete list. Contact me again when you have a complete list.

    94. Re:Racism by rbanffy · · Score: 1

      I don't believe there are that many banks ;-)

    95. Re:Racism by Stalyn · · Score: 1

      Yes the parent poster reminds us of the great sacrifices that our redneck forefathers have made in order for redneck racism to be a thing of the past. God Bless you Jeff Foxworthy! I'll never be ashamed of stacking my new TV on top of my old broken TV again!

      --
      The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend
    96. Re:Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dirka Dirka Mohammad Jihad!

    97. Re:Racism by roman_mir · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      That is a highly subjective and very incomplete list. Contact me again when you have a complete list. - why? What do I care if you have 'the complete' list or not?

    98. Re:Racism by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're forgetting that Christians outright and publically denounced the IRA's methods and actions.

      So did quite some muslims about the 9/11 attacks. Ah,but some supported them also? lemme telll you what, the USA has for decades financially supported IRA.

      The IRA also gave several hours warning before attacks which allowed time to remove people from the vicinity of any explosions.

      At times they did, at times they didn't. I seem to recall the house of a protestant family being burned down and kids being killed as a result. I seem to recall an attack on a pub with no warning whatsoever. I seem to recall random 'protestants' being attacked and lynched on the street...

      It was purely for political reasons that the IRA did what they did. They wanted and want to be in control of Ireland independantly and without british intervention and presence. They resorted to seemingly terroristic tactics simply because they lacked the resources to wage a full scale war.

      It is only for political reasons that Hamas does what it does. They want to be in control of Palestina independently and without Israelian intervention and presence. They resorted to seemingly terroristic tactics simply because they lacked the resources to wage a full scale war.

      And this statement can be repeated with only some minor changes about many supposed terrorist groups.

      If such people are freedom fighters/rebels or terrorists does not depend on their actions, it completely depends on your position.

      They have also now denounced their violent past, laid down their arms and are seeking a peaceful solution.

      After both sides got tired of violence and got a lot of external preasure on top.

      Their war was not of a religious nature. They just happened to be "devout" catholics so that obviously played a role in the politics of it all.

      Yep, and their enemy just happened to be devout protestants...

      The violent actions of Christians/Catholics have ALWAYS been denounced and condemned by Christianity as a whole.

      Oh really?

      I actually think christianity as a whole does not have a consistent opinion on such matters. Rather, they tend to fight petty wars about religion among themselves (read up on 30 years, 80 years and 100 years wars in Europe for a bit on that) just as easily as against other religions (does the word crusade ring any bell?), some such wars have been mandated and even called for by the then only official Christian church.

      Get a fucking clue here please.

    99. Re:Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're obviously misinformed as to how the economy works.

    100. Re:Racism by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      I apologize, you are right, that was a poor example. This article does a better job of covering the issues faced by civilly married homosexual couples.

    101. Re:Racism by rcamera · · Score: 1
      Married people in this country pay higher taxes than single people

      only if both partners work... if only one partner works, the benefit becomes quite apparent.
      --
      Wave upon wave of demented avengers March cheerfully out of obscurity into the dream
    102. Re:Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I take it you aren't married, we who are know that this "tax shelter" is a total myth. My wife and I file separately so that we don't get soaked.

      I take it you like to make broad generlizations based on a single datum.

      Married people in this country pay higher taxes than single people.

      My parents have been separated for ten years but still file jointly because it is cheaper. And, no, they can't claim any dependants.

    103. Re:Racism by DrXym · · Score: 1

      I'm not American, but my understanding of the term "redneck" is that it refers to a certain underclass of uneducated, criminally inclined, trailer park dwelling white folks. Doesn't sound very racist to me.

    104. Re:Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right now we have no control over any of this...

      That's because the more powerful among you choose to remain in the closet, and lead a double life. It's almost funny that the most strident anti-gay people get caught doing the nasty with those of the same sex. Expose them and you'll get all the control you'll need. And remember, vote for gay money...er...marriage.

    105. Re:Racism by Lehk228 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      there are two reasons to oppose gay marriage: bigotry and political pandering to bigots

      just like pot gay marriage is an issue which has no actual impact on those opposed to it.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    106. Re:Racism by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's hard to think of any good reason for it.

      One meager comfort, you are obviously not alone in finding thinking hard.

    107. Re:Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's play a logic game
      given.
      (1) All foo's are Bars
      (2) Not all Bazzes are Bars

      can we conclude that at least on of (1) and (2) is wrong?

      because that is what you just tried to do

    108. Re:Racism by Moofie · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And if "redneck" were an ethnic category, you might have a leg to stand on. But, since it's not, it's not. But hey...whatever floats yer boat.

      "Yet you seem to want to arbitrarily label one word as racist and not the other"

      You started the discussion with your arbitrary reasoning that "redneck" were somehow correlated with race, and you've not done a bit to convince me that the correlation exists anywhere but in your brain.

      "apparently because it suits your argument"

      And, you know, some observable facts, but don't let that stop you.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    109. Re:Racism by Nimey · · Score: 1

      Different connotations. I use the term "redneck" to describe people with certain attitudes, not necessarily poor white Southerners. To me, a redneck is someone who is ignorant and bigoted. The ones around here are generally homophobic, xenophobic, jingoistic, [insert term for religious bigotry], and/or racist.

      I suppose in a way it's a racist term because I'd probably only use it on whites[1], but I don't think it counts because /I'm/ white. Compare black-to-black versus white-to-black usage of "nigger", or geek-to-geek versus mundane-to-geek usage of "geek".

      [1] Just because I don't personally know any blacks or Latinos or whatevers with redneck attitudes, though I'm certain they exist. My area's pretty whitebread.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    110. Re:Racism by hometoast · · Score: 1

      It's simple: if they weigh the same as a duck, they must be a terrorist!

    111. Re:Racism by rho · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Maybe a system where you gather a little more information about suspected terrorists other than their name before throwing them on some sort of list that prevents anyone with that name from doing all sorts of normal tasks.

      Well, we tried that, and the NY Times decided to nullify it by publicizing it. We also tried to find patterns in international calls, but boy, that was just as awful as Watergate. As I understand it, the only thing left to government to catch terrorists before they blow themselves up for the glory of Allah is to hire psychics. And then the Slashdot crowd would make endless Miss Cleo jokes.

      Which is why Slashdot political discussions are less than worthless. Unless you're into mockery.

      --
      Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
    112. Re:Racism by roman_mir · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Ha-ha, what else is new. Troll and flamebait moderations in this thread. Who could have predicted THAT!?

    113. Re:Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear sir by equating "redneck" with words like "nigger" you greatly trivialize the nature of racism.

    114. Re:Racism by Danga · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Actually, most terrorists in the United States have been white Christians.

      Of course most terrorists inside the US will be white Christians since approximately 70% of the US population is white non-hispanic and about 80% of the population is Christian. We are talking about ALL terrorist attacks against the United States and if you consider that then you will see the majority (and quite large majority) were carried out by militant Islamists. Take a look here: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html

      It is also true that the majority of terrorist attacks carried out worldwide are done by militant Islamists. They are violent by nature and it is no suprise that they are the leaders of most terrorist attacks.

      If by the "current crop" you mean the "terrorists" who are fighting against our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, yeah, those are mostly Arab and Muslim, but there's a good reason for that.

      If you mean the terrorists on TV and in movies, then, yeah, I'll grant you that. Almost exclusively Muslim these days.


      This is because it is actually true that the majority of terrorist attacks against the US (at least for the last ~30 years) were carried out by Muslims/Arabs. Of course there have been attacks that are exceptions to this rule but not many. If you have proof showing another group that has indiscriminately gone after Americans more often then I would love to see it.

      As far as the article goes, I do think that filtering based on either first or last name is a bad idea but using both together from a list of known terrorists to do a little more checking doesn't seem bad to me. In the article it mentioned there are other ways to send money so if it is too much of a hassle then don't use the service.

      --
      Hey, there is only one Return and it's not of the King, it's of the Jedi.
    115. Re:Racism by Gorshkov · · Score: 1

      Remember, folks, racism is A-OK if it's trying to prevent terrorism or 419 scams.

      It's not racism, it's idiocy
      From FTA:
      Western Union routinely delays or blocks transfers between customers whose names even PARTIALLY MATCH names on the Treasury list. The money is usually released once suspects show identity documents that prove they are not on the list, the executive said.

      Let's see how racist it's considered when somebody named "Bob" gets added to the terrorist list.

      What freaking bloody idiot decided to to PARTIAL matches? geeze......

    116. Re:Racism by 15Bit · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Err, why is this +5 moderated? Ignorance attracts positive moderation?

      Racism, noun:

      1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
      2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

      Stereotype, noun

      1. A conventional, formulaic, and oversimplified conception, opinion, or image.
      2. One that is regarded as embodying or conforming to a set image or type.

      I'm sorry, but you seem to be confused. Redneck is "by definition" NOT racist for the simple reason that there is no race called the "rednecks": No-one can be termed "ethnically redneck". The term is certainly derogatory, insulting and undoubtedly offensive, but it is definitely not racist.

    117. Re:Racism by rmunaval · · Score: 1

      You are assuming a white caucasian cannot be "Mohammed". Not all Mohammeds are Arabs. Racism isn't the right word.

    118. Re:Racism by wenit · · Score: 1

      You forget about Northern Ireland? Or perhaps you meant religious extremists and not just muslims.

    119. Re:Racism by michrech · · Score: 3, Insightful

      there are two reasons to oppose gay marriage: bigotry and political pandering to bigots

      Those are not "reasons", those are excuses, and should be treated as such.

      --
      bork bork bork!
    120. Re:Racism by roman_mir · · Score: 0, Troll

      If the Parent is offtopic, then the GP is offtopic, then this entire thread is off-topic, just as well as this entire article. Let's post this in the "News for Nerds", but let's not discuss the news.

    121. Re:Racism by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So instead of fucking with people - 99.999% of whom have nothing to do with terrorism - spend it on the infrastructure that minimizes the damage.

      It makes the country stronger instead of turning it into a state of panic, that simple fact alone counters terrorism better then any amount of military action and senseless monitoring and checking will ever do.

    122. Re:Racism by cunina · · Score: 1

      You haven't provided any observable facts, merely your repeated assertion that "redneck isn't racist." So here's your big chance: find me a [i]single instance[/i] in the mainstream media where anyone non-white is referred to as a "redneck." Because, of course, if "redneck" doesn't apply exclusively to white people, as you claim, then we should find all kinds of ethnicities described with that word, right?

      Go ahead, I'll give you plenty of time.

    123. Re:Racism by Chowderbags · · Score: 1

      Or there's artificial insemination for lesbians, or surrogate mothers for gay men.

    124. Re:Racism by Chowderbags · · Score: 1

      Until family gets involved and it becomes a big issue for the courts (and probably a media circus). Then again, this is just as true for marriage (see the entire Schivo case, for example).

    125. Re:Racism by Frankie70 · · Score: 1

      Remember, folks, racism is A-OK if it's trying to prevent terrorism or 419 scams.

      And don't forget about protecting the kids.

    126. Re:Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The differences is idealogies I think. Islam idealogy is very explicit about what to do with nonbelievers (kill them). Christian idealogy forbids murder and does not endorse war. If a government declares war on another government, it does not have the explicit backing of the Bible; however it would have the explicit backing of the Quran (if it were a Muslim state).

      That being said, the Islam faith inherently declares war on non-believers. Why the US government keeps saying "it's not a war on Islam" is beyond me; Islam has declared war on the US, we should defend ourselves.

    127. Re:Racism by mcmonkey · · Score: 0, Troll
      The violent actions of Christians/Catholics have ALWAYS been denounced and condemned by Christianity as a whole.

      Wow, that is so not true. So very, very, very, very not true.

      Catholic politicians in the USA who support our invasion of Iraq have not been denounced and condemned. In contrast to the Catholic politicians who support a woman's right to have some say over her body.

      The violent actions of (so-called) Christians/Catholics against doctors, nurses, and patients at health care facilities in some crazed crusade against abortion have NEVER been denounced and condemned by Christianity as a whole. BTW, "you really shouldn't take the law into your own hands and go around shooting doctors, but those doctors should have known the risks when they agreed to treat women" doesn't count as "denounced and condemned."

      Don't try to paint Christianity as some religion of peace tainted by a few bad apples. You have about 1500 years of history working against you.

    128. Re:Racism by MustardMan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, it's ok. See, this country has this great thing called free speech... it's OK for carlos mencia to go on tv and talk about every race under the sun, it's OK for chris rock to talk about how he loves black people but hates niggers, and it's OK for archie bunker to talk trash on the jeffersons. It's also OK for you to think they are assholes for doing so.

      It's NOT OK for the government to use bigotry to determine policy. It's not ok to take someone's rights away because you dislike their way of life or the color of their skin. What part of your brain is malfunctioning to take away your ability to differentiate the two concepts?

    129. Re:Racism by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      I forgot nothing. Muslim extremists are responsible for more terrorist acts than any other terrorist organization in the past 20 years.

      This is no troll, it's not a flamebait, it's a fact.

    130. Re:Racism by ad0gg · · Score: 1

      Bashing on culture is lot different than bashing on race. One can change their culture, one can't change their race. If you don't want to be redneck, move to city and become a metrosexual which would be the exact opposite of a redneck. Then you get jokes about being a metrosexual.

      --

      Have you ever been to a turkish prison?

    131. Re:Racism by gilroy · · Score: 1

      Protecting the homeland doesn't have involve illegality, despite the current efforts of the administration to convince you otherwise. Warrants aren't technicalities; they're safeguards of freedom. Legislation (as opposed to executive order) is not surrender; it's the linchpin of democracy. Oversight by the other two branches isn't a handicapping of homeland security -- it's at the heart of what we're fighting to protect.

      There are legitimate tools available that preserve both the efficiency of the investigators and the rights of citizens. Just because the current yahoos in power are too lazy to use them, relying instead on a neo-monarchist theory of the "unitary executive", doesn't mean we should abandon several centuries of the rule of law and the habit of democracy.

      It's not about the terrorists, it's about us and what sort of people we want to be. What has been offered to the American people is a false dichotomy between safety and liberty, used to lend authenticity to a failed paradigm. We are stronger than that. We are smarter than that. We are better than that.

    132. Re:Racism by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      "Only reason you're willing to post that crap is because you're not saying it to my face.

      The catch-22 of the internet, even retards and cowards have voices, and often they voice their jack ass opinion insulting anyone they can, the reason because no one can break their nose."

      Amen.

      You forgot to add name calling "you're a stereo typical retard" and threatening "I hope some time you whip your little sports car infront of my truck, cause it aint gonna be my truck thats damaged" to the list though..

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    133. Re:Racism by anagama · · Score: 4, Informative

      "Redneck" is racist, it just happens to be acceptably racist. The basis for the term is that white guys working in the sun all day will get a sunburned neck. So it relates to skin color/social class, has negative connotations, and is thus racist.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    134. Re:Racism by Bemopolis · · Score: 1

      Yeah, remember when after the Oklahoma City bombing we put all of them Jimmy Joe-Bob's McGillicuddy's on the no-fly list?

      Bemopolis

      --
      "I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
    135. Re:Racism by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      "Remember, terrorists that work on "our" side are called "freedom fighters"."

      I always thought they were called US Military Personel.

    136. Re:Racism by (A)*(B)!0_- · · Score: 1
      "There is no "agenda" here, despite what the religious right-wingers would have you belive."
      Pardon me? You just outlined all the things you want changed. How is that not an agenda?
    137. Re:Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Irrelevant. None of those people are in power now and the poster was discussing the current state of affairs and how current leaders are handling them.

      Typical right-wing lying garbage. Try to sneak some irrelevant but shifty-looking commentary into the discussion about unrelated things and people and hope readers aren't smart enough to see it for the empty BS it actually is.

    138. Re:Racism by rawtatoor · · Score: 1

      I can't confirm this for sure, but what I was told when I got out of the army was that I would be on the terrorist watch list for 4(?) years afterword. This was due to the nature of my job (combat engineer, ie explosives. Timothy Mcveigh had engineer training.) Now my name is far from Mohammed and there are plenty of others in the same boat. It makes me uneasy to know that I may be tracked like that. I wonder if any slashdotters have any access to the actual "list"

    139. Re:Racism by Omestes · · Score: 1

      Wonder what they would think?

      Most terrorist attacks of the last 20 years were commited my American imperialists, or Zionist zealots.

      Yes, this ignoring a huge slice of terrorism too, the IRA has done a fair deal of terrorism in their day. The problem comes from defining terrorism. In the anglophone world we have our view, but it still is a slippery word to define. Are the Israelis terrorists? Common thought in the wsst says "no", but I think vast swaths of the world (mainly Muslim, but not exclusively) think otherwise. In a strictly technical definition you could say the opening salvos of the current Iraq war were terrorism, as well. "Shock and Awe" seem to infer wanting to drive terror or fear (awe) into the hearts of the local populance.

      I really hate the word terrorism, it is a rhetorical term we leverage against our enemies, and not really a valid objective point. As pointed out "one man's terrorists is another's freedom fighters"

      I think we should just call anyone who deliberatly targets civilian populations for ideological or political reasons a "blood-thristy asshat", or a "sociopath", this way we can remove some the the western-centric bias, and perhaps see the motivating factors behind asshatery.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    140. Re:Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its called a Power of Attorney. Get one and stfu

    141. Re:Racism by TheGreek · · Score: 1

      If she'd had a living will or durable power of attorney, it wouldn't have happened.

      Both are vital documents—even for married spouses—that lay out what you want to have happen to you and who you want to be in charge of having it happen.

    142. Re:Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty obvious in that context, you imbread fuckwit.

      Oh, and learn some grammar too, you redneck.


      We should all aspire to your mastery of the language.

    143. Re:Racism by koreaman · · Score: 0

      I suggest you go look up the meaning of "catch-22".

    144. Re:Racism by michrech · · Score: 1

      Pardon me? You just outlined all the things you want changed. How is that not an agenda?

      I was thinking about that after I had posted. It seems those who saw fit to mod me up understood what I meant.

      What I meant to type was that there was no "hidden" agenda, as has been mentioned in many "news" articles I've read WRT this subject.

      --
      bork bork bork!
    145. Re:Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I call bullshit - The IRA were nothing more than thugs with a gun and an excuse, sorry "a cause". I have no doubt that there was a cause somewhere in history, but it long since passed away. The modern IRA were just men who like to exercise power over others. With the laying down of arms the only real change is that they don't shoot people. Beatings, extortion and drugs smuggling are ok - we have "peace" so long as no-one is shot...

    146. Re:Racism by Pippen101 · · Score: 1

      I am patiently waiting for some idiot Senator to go on the air and say "This is wrong because most of the people named Mohammed or Ahmed are poor cab drivers and they need to have their money transfers go through"

    147. Re:Racism by Scrameustache · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Muslims have never denounced the actions of Muslim Extremism.

      You ignorant piece of shit.

      Seriously. Who's modding up your blatant lies?

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    148. Re:Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, it's not - because I don't legislate that rednecks can't get married.

      I'm not sure where you're from, but nowhere in America is it against the law for any group to marry.

      If you're referring to gays, gays are allowed to marry in any state in the US, and many gays do get married. Many produce offspring. Its just that for the last hundred thousand years, "marriage" is between people of the opposite sex.

      If a man can't find a woman to marry, that's his problem, not mine. Well, actually it IS mine, because even though I'm hetero I can't find a woman to marry. I'm not playing victim and screaming "discrimination" despite the fact that because I'm single I AM being discriminated against. The discrimination has nothing to do with sexuality, it has to do with marital status.

    149. Re:Racism by lixee · · Score: 1
      If other nations dislike the government we democratically elected, they are free to choose not to associate with us as a response.
      I think it's pretty clear your government's viewpoint is not shared by many countries when it comes to the middle-east. But, you have the mighty veto power. http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_whyusa03.html/
      How about Iraq? Did you even care what the others had to say? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_of_the_200 3_invasion_of_Iraq/
      And the evidence of the pro-Israeli lobby grip on the US government? http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/r wp/RWP06-011/
      On the other hand, kudos to the American media for keeping even the smart and educated ones out of touch with the real world.
      --
      Res publica non dominetur
    150. Re:Racism by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      You have to provide us with information on the terrorist acts committed by Israel against civilian Muslim population within the past 20 years, please.

      Oh, and many people are forgetting what is happening in Chechnia, and in other cases in Russia (Nord Ost, Nalchik, Beslan etc,) Serbia, what is happening in Iraq right now, what has been happening in Israel, Europe, Africa for years.

    151. Re:Racism by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The palestinians elected a brutal terrorist organization to power, which has the destruction of Israel written into it's charter.

      Actually, they voted into power a bunch of people who were actually providing with things like basic healthcare, education and so on where very few others are. Yes, those are the same people who launch missiles into Israel and so on. What you should realize however is that quite a few people voted against being occupied by Israel, most voted for the only party whom ever provided them with some tangable enhancements to their life. Very few actually voted for Hamas to vote for the destruction of Israel.

      As you may have noticed, Hamas is under substantial preasure to actually recognize Israel, and part of that preasure is comming from those same people who voted them into power.

      Or, to make it short, you give an extremely simplistic picture of Hamas and the people who voted for them. What you do is like saying all Americans are war mongering christian fundamentalists because their ruling party which they democratically elected. Ah, you didn't know what you would be getting? That is because you didn't look.... Don't know abotu you but I personally find that reasoning to be a clear sign of utter lack of thought.

    152. Re:Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      do you think there is some head Christian authority that speaks for all Christians?

      George Bush?

    153. Re:Racism by mpe · · Score: 1

      No matter how many tax dollars you throw at the problem, terrorism is a tactic that can not be fully countered. So instead of fucking with people - 99.999% of whom have nothing to do with terrorism - spend it on the infrastructure that minimizes the damage.

      At best the former is utterly useless, at worst it actually creates more terrorism.

    154. Re:Racism by MustardMan · · Score: 1

      I already argued that there's a difference between government sanctioned abuse of a person based on a stereotype, and using that stereotype, but now I'm going to come after you for your moronic statement that "redneck" is racist.

      Who uses the term redneck to describe rednecks? WHITE PEOPLE. How the fuck can a white person be racist against a white person?

      Quoth wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redneck):

      "In colonial times, they were often called Rednecks and "crackers" by English neighbors."

      White people calling white people rednecks. Damn, that sounds racist to me. And, maybe it's just my life, but I associate with a lot of people from other countries, and I've heard a friend from Spain refer to other Spaniards as rednecks, a girl from Taiwan refer to Chinese rednecks back home, and so on.

      In summary, you're a jackass, and the people who modded you up are jackasses. Now that there was an ad hominem attack, spend ten posts whining about that - it's what slashdotters do best.

    155. Re:Racism by Danse · · Score: 1
      My parents have been separated for ten years but still file jointly because it is cheaper. And, no, they can't claim any dependants.

      Do both of them work? If not, then yes, they'll pay less taxes by filing jointly. If they both work, they'll probably pay more.
      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    156. Re:Racism by trigonalmayhem · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The violent actions of Christians/Catholics have ALWAYS been denounced and condemned by Christianity as a whole.


      Yup, especially that whole business of the crusades. All the christians denounced those, but damned if that stopped anyone!

    157. Re:Racism by aramael · · Score: 1

      Islam idealogy is very explicit about what to do with nonbelievers (kill them).

      Jews were not oppressed in Spain until the Catholics took control again (which had the benefit of giving the Netherlands Erasmus, but still). The oppression of non-Muslims in the Ottoman Empire was largely limited to tax penalties. In contrast, oppression of non-Christians (and even the wrong sort of Christians) in Europe became official policy in the fourth century. The current mood of tolerance, while certainly trendy, is more of a social phenomenon than a scriptural directive.

      Christian idealogy forbids murder and does not endorse war.

      Have you actually read the Bible?

      PS: Ideology.

      --
      Be true and faithful like your dog; but don't eat vomit like your dog
    158. Re:Racism by chyne · · Score: 1

      I can't find a single instance in the mainsteam media where anyone non-white is referred to as "President of the United States". Oh my god! Calling someone "President of the United States" is racist!

    159. Re:Racism by mpe · · Score: 1

      It always drives me nuts when I hear "war on terror". It should be "war on x group of terrorists", if anything.

      Especially given that the governments making all the fuss frequently support or ignore all sorts of terrorists.

    160. Re:Racism by Slightly+Askew · · Score: 1
      --
      Public use of any portable music system is a virtually guaranteed indicator of sociopathic tendencies. -- Zoso
    161. Re:Racism by koreaman · · Score: 0

      Even if all rednecks are whites, not all whites are rednecks. Fuck, isn't this sort of logical prowess the thing most people are supposed to be born with? Is there some sort of remedial class you can take or something?

    162. Re:Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Karl Malone was referred to as a "redneck" often by the media...

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Malone

    163. Re:Racism by Omestes · · Score: 4, Insightful

      First, you are a good, but transparent troll.

      Second, didn't you just invalidate your point?
      "
      The catch-22 of the internet, even retards and cowards have voices, and often they voice their jack ass opinion insulting anyone they can, the reason because no one can break their nose."


      So, in theory someone should break your nose too? Seems like a jackass opinion to me.

      The second point, where is the point in calling yourself an uneducated, bigoted, moron? Isn't that what redneck actually means? People actually embracing their ignorance, it seems strange to me. Not that I have anything against people people fixing their cars, or such, it seems the term redneck has broader (and less desirable) implications. Its like black kids in the hood calling themselves "niggas" or "gangstas", they are deliberately embracing ignorance, idiocy, and violence. Since when did these characteristics become a badge of honor, or even desirable?

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    164. Re:Racism by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

      The Sears Tower plot was foiled the old-fashioned, and effective way -- by infiltration.

      Mass eavesdropping has been proven to harm homeland security. The problem is that it doesn't "gather a little more information about suspected terrorists", it gathers information about all 300 million people in the US.

      Targeted eavesdropping is still available just like it's always been -- just name the target and get a rubber-stamp FISA warrant, even after the fact.

      And blocking Western Union transfers to people with Arab names doesn't do one single solitary blasted thing to make anyone any safer.

    165. Re:Racism by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The differences is idealogies I think. Islam idealogy is very explicit about what to do with nonbelievers (kill them).

      Some parts of the Quran do, and some forbid it. Pick whichever you like.

      Christian idealogy forbids murder and does not endorse war. If a government declares war on another government, it does not have the explicit backing of the Bible; however it would have the explicit backing of the Quran (if it were a Muslim state).

      The old testament is part of the bible, however, it is also recognized as a holy text and explicitly refered in the Quran. Muslims refer to Alah as the god of Abraham, just like Christans and Jews do. All three of them share the 10 commandmends and the 'thou shall not kill'. So murder is forbidden in all three based on the exact same bit of text.

      This is the same old testament that talks about war, killing off entire tribes, rules for slavery and so on.

      In all three cases you can come to almost any conclusion you like by selective reading of their religious texts.

      That being said, the Islam faith inherently declares war on non-believers. Why the US government keeps saying "it's not a war on Islam" is beyond me; Islam has declared war on the US, we should defend ourselves.

      You may have noticed muslims blowing up other muslims in this place called Iraq. You might even have noticed from that that there are actually some different groups within the muslim world and that they are not a unity. It is beyond me how you can fail to notice that and treat them as a single group with a single opinion.

    166. Re:Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess we have all now forgotten about the Crusades....

    167. Re:Racism by mpe · · Score: 1

      Correction: most terrorist acts within the past 20 years were commited by muslim extremists.

      If you went by terrorist acts you'd probably find "animal rights" or anti-abortionists at the top of the list in somewhere like the US. It all depends on exactly how you define a "terrorist act".

    168. Re:Racism by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Because non-white guys never work in the sun, and never get sunburned necks, right?

      Redneck describes a set of preconceptions and attitudes. It does not describe a race.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    169. Re:Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rednecks aren't a race, any more than dumbasses are.

      So I'm not being a racist by calling you a dumbass.

      When, exactly, did right-wingers decide that rednecks constitute some kind of racial group, as opposed to a generic title for people who live and work a particular type of unsophisticated lifestyle?

    170. Re:Racism by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      I see, so when I use RAID to get rid of some ants, I am actually involved in genocide, yes?

    171. Re:Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know people that call themselves rednecks and are proud of it. What I am getting at is this: it is only racism when used as such.

    172. Re:Racism by Omestes · · Score: 1

      the term "redneck" has nothing to do with race. Well in a way it does, since you must be white. So I guess, as used, all rednecks are white, but not all white people are rednecks. For "nigger", it is applied to ALL black people. See the difference? Redneck is a word aimed at socioeconomic status (including lifestyle and education level), and not at just the ethnicity of a person. Hence it isn't racial, it is akin to calling one "bourgeoisie".

      Not getting intot the debate that it is an undesirable term, though. I think people should lighten up, though. Words only have power if we choose for them to. There is no offence, or victims in language, unless someone chooses to be.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    173. Re:Racism by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      I always thought they were called US Military Personel.

      There's no need to single them out. All military is terrorist.

      --
      What?
    174. Re:Racism by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >This is not only lazy, but also ineffective
      >...
      >catching a lot of innocent people while actually decreasing our chances of catching the actual bad guy

      Ineffective?

      There's an old cowboy joke about the cowboy who was target shooting and landed far from the bullseye. Everyone hooted at him for missing. He said "Don't be a-sayin' that, 'lessn ya know what I was aimin' at".

      Occam tells me this is probably bureaucratic blindness at work along with a dose of "Don't just stand there, do something stupid!". But there have been so many initiatives with the same effect...

    175. Re:Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think many gay people believe they deserve the health care through their significant other. I disagree with this. The church and most of society has realized how difficult it is to raise children. Marriage is a way of committing to the long term act of raising children properly. This requires a parent to be around, not at work with the child in daycare. The purpose of spousal health care is to allow one spouse to work, and the other to raise children. Since gay couples do not have children, and both are capable of working, I do not think they should be allowed to receive spousal benefits.

      As for hospital priveleges, and power of attorney, marriage is not required for either of these.

      As a christian, I have had gays tell me I hate them. God loves everyone, and for the most part, all christians love everyone. I will admit that I don't understand, but it's not for me to understand. I hate nobody. There are a small number who are anti gay and just nuts in general. I think the rest of the population is just trying to keep the signifigance and purpose of marriage in mind.

    176. Re:Racism by mpe · · Score: 1

      Netiher was the post you just replied to! IRA and Basque folks are external to the US, as are/were November 17 and a host of other "fun" groups.

      Since the IRA was funded from the US it is hardly "external to the US". Even in the US all the fuss about "Islamic terrorists" just does not reflect reality, there are plenty of terrorists and terrorist groups which are non Islamic (even anti-Islamic) active in the US.

    177. Re:Racism by whec32 · · Score: 1

      "Comparing rednecks to parasites, leaches, and any other disgusting foul creature is an insult to parasites, leaches, and any other disgusting foul creature." I suppose being an American born Chinese and considered a redneck by many, I should take offense at this. That statement alone is a statement of bigotry.

    178. Re:Racism by cunina · · Score: 1

      The argument is whether "redneck" is a racist term - and by pointing out that "all rednecks are whites," you have conceded my point.

    179. Re:Racism by Omestes · · Score: 1

      First, to clarify my point, I don't quite agree witht hese sources, but it shows the western-centric bias that only "those guys" do terrorism, and that our allies can do no harm, or do valid military strikes. Our terrorism, isn't their terrorism.

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3772609.stm
      http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq22.html
      http://www.musalman.com/palestine/index.html

      I don't support these views, but they support my point.

      And how is what is happening in Iraq even CLOSE to terrorism? People fighting against us ARE NOT TERRORISTS, that is a misuse of the term. Its a war, they are fighting for their counbtry and beleifs. In WWII, were the germans terrorists? Were the Viet Cong terrorists in Vietnam? No, they were enemies in a conflict. The same goes for Iraq. To say otherwise admits a VERY racist view, "they are arab, they are fighting us, they are terrorits" whereas in the case of WWII, "they are white, they are fighting us, they are not terrorists". What is the only difference in those statements? It underlines my point, "terrorist" is empty rhetoric.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    180. Re:Racism by greengrocer · · Score: 1

      somebody please mod the parent up!

    181. Re:Racism by FurryFeet · · Score: 1

      Bashing on culture is lot different than bashing on race. One can change their culture, one can't change their race.

      Michael Jackson?

    182. Re:Racism by Stalyn · · Score: 1
      The UN definition of racism is..
      any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, color, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life..

      The word 'nigger' has been used for such discriminating purposes. Redneck has not. That is why redneck is not racist. People who could be called rednecks were not marginalized or segregated, had their rights taken away, enslaved, and punished for being who they are.
      --
      The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend
    183. Re:Racism by kneeslasher · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yeeeeeees. Finally someone had the guts to come up with the "real" facts.

      When were Jews allowed to enter the House of Commons? The 19th century, the first being Lord Rothschild. Indeed the Rothschild story is interesting because the _father_ of the Rothschild business dynasty lived in the Jewish Ghetto in Munich. Where every Jew had to pass under the arch of the ghetto entrance which had a picture on it. Of a pig. With little Jewish children suckling at its teats and a Rabbi eating its excrement. And its only one example out of many.

      Gee-whizz. It seems Christian Europe didn't outright "kill" those Jews, but it sure made their lives interesting.

      When were Jews allowed to hold high office in the Muslim Empire (Caliphate)? Well, blimey, for more than a thousand years, be it in academia, goverment, the Caliph's own purveyors, etc. Indeed when the Spanish threw out all their Jews, they went to the Caliphate and quite a few became involved in the goverment there (if one recalls correctly, Spanish power more or less declined not too long afterwards and they were supplanted by the Dutch and the English).

      And why were those dastardly Muslims (remember those curvy swords) being so compassionate to the Jews? Well it seems that, apart from plain decency, the Quran tells them so.

      "Lo! Those who believe (in that which is revealed unto thee, Muhammad), and those who are Jews, and Christians, and Sabians -whoever believed in Allah and the Last Day and did right- surely their reward is with their Lord, and there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve."

      Seems to me, that if Muslims are so het up about the Quran being the Word of God, and God sort Smiles upon those mentioned above, that Muslims would do well not to go round killing them, y'know? And the historical record of more than a millenium bears that out. Even Bernard Lewis, whom Said criticised, holds this view.

      Now there are verses which are used by the ignorant repeatedly, notably the one about "Slaying unbelievers where ye might find them" and "Do not take Unbelievers as friends" (or something similar), so we shall deal with those:

      You will actually find that the lines: "And magnify Mohammed and his followers as thou didst magnify Abraham and his followers..." "And bless Mohammed and his followers as thou didst bless Abraham and his followers..." are recited (at least) thirteen times _per day_ in the compulsory Muslim five daily prayers. Now what use would these lines be if you didn't know whom Abraham or his followers were? The key is context, in order to find out what those lines are teaching, you have to go and do a little bit of historical homework on Abraham and why he was such a good pal of God's, to the extent that people living thousands of years after Abraham are still being taught to behave like him and his congregation.

      Similarly, for the "slaying" and "friends" verses mentioned above, context is needed otherwise the lines can easily appear to be contradictory. The verse about not taking Jews and Christians as friends is very often misused by Muslims and non-Muslims alike. But the actual historical reference (remember, that history homework again is needed), actually refers to when the northern Arabian tribes were becoming politically unified through their common adherence to Islam. Just as the Vatican or Israel would hardly trust its affairs to, eg, Iran or Saudi Arabia, and not necessarily because of antagonism but merely due to sensible political considerations, the same was true at the time for the fledgling Arab-Muslim state. Similarly, the slaying refers to a _state_ breaking its treaty and taking it as a call to exterminate non-Muslims is downright silly. Political Islam, or indeed Christianity or Judaism, is somewhat divorced from how you should treat your neighbour: it is how one nation should treat another. The verse about taking Christians as friends is the non-political way in which Man should deal with his brethren in the world, holding up the pious Christians of the time as an example to be followed. One can therefore easily ascertain how consistency is not lacking between the two verses, merely that people do not do their homework.

      The parent is a learned genius. Mod appropriately, someone!

    184. Re:Racism by mpe · · Score: 1

      I like it how you insist that I should trust you. Sure they are less than 1%, the rest are terrorist attacks that take place within Israel and Iraq, you were just too lazy to follow the links, but the links are there, for each year in their own categories.

      It's unlikely that 99% of the world's terrorist attacks would take place in just two countries.

    185. Re:Racism by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      And how is what is happening in Iraq even CLOSE to terrorism? - what are you talking about? You have totally missed the events when Iraqi population is being destroyed in terrorist attacks, haven't you?

    186. Re:Racism by EvilMagnus · · Score: 1

      You're forgetting that Christians outright and publically denounced the IRA's methods and actions.

      You've never been to South Boston have you? Ever heard of NORAID?

      The IRA is a CATHOLIC para-military organisation. It stands to reason that it has Christian supporters.

      Some Christians support PIRA. Some Christians denounced PIRA. Some Christians don't care either way. Beware generalities.

      --
      -EvilMagnus
    187. Re:Racism by sholden · · Score: 1

      Those examples do not invalidate the stereotype/assumption.

      If I claim all fish swim, then saying that "Whales swim, and whales aren't fish" is irrelevant.

      Of course picking one of the Mohammeds who isn't a terrorist would be a better counter example - though you need it to be an Arab named Mohammed of course - it's not exactly an uncommon name.

    188. Re:Racism by swv3752 · · Score: 1

      Heck, at least some rednecks manage to get thier own tv show. Actually, I think Foxworthy has managed to get two based on the premise of him being a redneck.

      --
      Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
    189. Re:Racism by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      So it relates to skin color/social class, has negative connotations, and is thus racist.

      I think you meant: "So it relates to skin color and is thus racist."

      Racism is discrimination based on race. Positive, negative, and social class don't play into it.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    190. Re:Racism by PB_TPU_40 · · Score: 1

      Actually redneck came from the fact that those who worked on farms and in fields usually have a sunburn on their neck. I worked on a farm many summers while growing up, and then spend a lot of time in the woods and back country. Depends on how you look at it, anyone can be a redneck, I call my self a redneck because I grew up in a hick town, and I relate it to as Jeff Foxworthy said, "A glorious absence of sophistication, it can be full time or part time."

      Now on that note, part time, meaning it doesn't have to be often, and I admit there are time's I'm less sophisticated than I could be.

      "Hand me a wrench."

      "What size?"

      "Don't matter I'm gonna use it for a hammer."

      Also buying a car that doesn't run because I want to spend the time working on it to turn in into a hotrod. Also by most counts now days if you watch or follow NASCAR or any motor sport you get qualified as a redneck. We'll I follow NASCAR and NHRA (Funny Car and ProStock).

      I find it ironic that I'm attacked, looked down upon, and do nothing more than respond, and state the reason he probably feels he can do this. I make a statement that's true; he probably drives around in a highly urban area and drives a little dinky car. Which most people are more than willing to whip out in front of pickups in urban areas forgetting it takes more for them to stop. I'm out in a farming community; it's a college town, but a farming community non-the less. I'm an electrical engineer, but I also hunt, work on cars, and camp. As I hunt again, some would say that's unsophistocated. This list goes on. Am I your deep south redneck that lives in a trailer, no, however you can find renecks everywhere, there are those willing to admit it and others who wont. You say I'm a troll in disguise, please. I did nothing but fire back at an insult fired at me. I didn't ask any of you to post, that guy posted an unnecessary insult for no other reason than he could and nothing would happen. Guess the fact that I avoid insulting people and but still react in self defense is what I get for being from a small town. You have done nothing but pull out the stereotype and defined everyone by it. Do I embrace my ignorance, hell no, however I admit I'm not the smartest person in the world, and that learning is a continious process that never ends. If I said every black person was going to steal my car, I'd be a racist biggot, however that's not ture, I have many friends who are black. However you say that all rednecks are racist biggots, same deal there man.

      Just because I'm willing to make someone accountable for their insults doesn't make me an jerk. Most people now days don't take responsibility for what they say or do, I do, and yes I said it. Freshman year of highschool, a junior insulted me and threw food on me, I busted his nose and jaw, never happened again. Amazing what happens when you hold people accountable for derogatory insults, they don't do it again. Believe me if I could I would.

      One final note, you sir are the troll, by following stereotypes and blanketing everyone.

      --
      -PB_TPU_40 The trick to flying is to throw yourself at the ground and miss.
    191. Re:Racism by jridley · · Score: 1

      That appears to be a woefully incomplete list, both historically and recently. I don't see ANY of the planned parenthood clinic shootings on it, just to think of one right off the bat, and that's clearly (IMHO) a terrorist tactic, intended to persuade by fear.

      I also don't see as much in the 1800s as there should be; there were several in the early 1800s, and in the mid-century, the entire U.S. policy against native americans should be counted as thousands of acts of terrorism with tens of thousands dead.

      Even within the last 20 years, I bet there are dozens, perhaps hundreds of things not on that list.

      It would also be interesting to see a list of terrorism activities that were funded by the US or other western countries, though they may not have been directly carried out by them.

    192. Re:Racism by Bryansix · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As a "right-wing" Christian I would have no problem granting all of these rights through civial union. In fact I would encourage the government to do that. I also do not think civial unions should be only for homosexual couples. If two heterosexual guys want to live together and share finances then they should be able to. Historcally men had closer relationships but now homophobia prevents a lot of guys from socializing to that kind of depth.

      The only thing I have a problem with is calling it marriage. At no time in history has a union between two men or two women been called a marriage. Because that is not what it is. It's just a union. And like I said unions should have all the same rights from taxes to healthcare to authority over the other in life threatening situations.

    193. Re:Racism by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      You didn't. This story is about a Homeland Security policy though (along with the no fly list). So the relevant statistic is how attacks on the American homeland break down. The other way is like saying that virtually all of the violence in the American Civil War was perpetrated by Americans. It's true, but not really meaningful.

    194. Re:Racism by mpe · · Score: 1

      The problem comes from defining terrorism.

      It's a common problem to the point of all sorts of linguisting hoop jumping to call "good terrorists" something else.

      In the anglophone world we have our view, but it still is a slippery word to define. Are the Israelis terrorists? Common thought in the wsst says "no", but I think vast swaths of the world (mainly Muslim, but not exclusively) think otherwise.

      Even using a "duck" definition the number of Israeli terrorists is almost certainly longer than just Dr Goldstein. However Israeli "settlers" shooting unarmed Palestinians dosn't appear to get much coverage in the Western (Mainstream) media.

      In a strictly technical definition you could say the opening salvos of the current Iraq war were terrorism, as well. "Shock and Awe" seem to infer wanting to drive terror or fear (awe) into the hearts of the local populance.

      Followed by an occupying army. I don't think there has been a military occupation in history which hasn't included an element of terrorising the occupied population. (As well as the occupiers bad mouthing any resistance.

      I think we should just call anyone who deliberatly targets civilian populations for ideological or political reasons a "blood-thristy asshat", or a "sociopath", this way we can remove some the the western-centric bias, and perhaps see the motivating factors behind asshatery.

      That dosn't work up will come terms like "collateral damage" together bad mouthing "militiamen" for "hiding" in amongst civilian populations and those populations for "shielding" some "bad people".

    195. Re:Racism by and+ladders · · Score: 1

      I think you are missing the point. The argument is not that redneck only applies to whites, indeed from the OED:

      redneck: A member of the white rural labouring class of the southern States

      so, yes, the use of the term redneck historically refers to whites. But it is a subset of whites who do not necessarily share a common descent, as necessary to be a race. Again from the OED:

      race: A group of persons, animals, or plants, connected by common descent or origin.

      Compare this with nigger (again OED):

      nigger: A dark-skinned person of sub-Saharan African origin or descent

      Notice the use of "origin or descent", thus constituting a race, and the entire race, not just a geographic subset of the race. I am from the south and, yes, my family includes individuals that would be labeled "rednecks." Their descent includes French, English, German and others; "southern US" is not a race, any more than "yankee" is. As was mentioned previously, I subscribe to the point-of-view that redneck is a term of economic oppression resulting from the high poverty rates in the South, which this President has no interest in addressing (sorry to editorialize).

    196. Re:Racism by Omestes · · Score: 1

      Keep on missing my point.

      Let me restate: TERRORISM IS IN THE EYES OF THE BEHOLDER. To be more specific, in the rhetoric of the beholder, and it is used to deliniate bad guys.

      Those in Iraq to are, in their eyes, freedom fighters fighting against an illegal, and unwanted, occupying army. Yes, civilians are being killed (by us and them), but why should they be the only terrorists if we are doing the same thing albeit with more sophisticated technology? I'm sure if you polled Iraqis, some would accuse the US of terrorism, and how is their point less valid than us calling them the same? The conclusion could be one of two things, both sides are terrorists (both labels correct), or that the use of the term is meaningless (both wrong). I guess there is a third path too, that they are terrorists because the US says so, which is nonsensical at best, and racist at worst.

      Ignore feelings and CNN/Fox/MSNBC's use of the word, and look at the actual GLOBAL use of the word, it is biased and hence used only towards causes that the US doesn't agree with.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    197. Re:Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      If you have proof showing another group that has indiscriminately gone after Americans more often then I would love to see it.

      Well, I'd start with the long list of anti abortion activists that terrorize american's every day.

      Such as:

      http://www.rickross.com/groups/abortion.html

      I don't have time to dig up more, but goggle it, there's more than enough info out there.

    198. Re:Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He hasn't conceded anything. You are just twisting his argument in order to make your own point, which says something about the validity of your argument.

      It is very simple to determine whether a term is racist by analyzing the original common usage of the word. "Nigger" was/is used as a derogatory term for anyone of African descent, no matter their socio-economic status. Therefore, "nigger" is racist since it is based entirely on race. OTOH, "redneck" has been used as a derogatory term to refer mainly to lower class whites by *other whites*. It is not racist even if it is used almost exclusively for white people.

      My personal experience supports this. I have lived my whole life in Alabama, so I know quite a bit about both rednecks and racists. Nobody I have ever known, white or black, has considered "redneck" to be a racist term, including those to which it is usually applied. Most people around here don't even consider it to be that offensive.

    199. Re:Racism by hackstraw · · Score: 1

      just like pot, gay marriage is an issue which has no actual impact on those opposed to it.

      Sure it does, it makes those opposed question if they are "right".

      [ bold comma added for clarity ]

    200. Re:Racism by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Those in Iraq to are, in their eyes, freedom fighters fighting against an illegal, and unwanted, occupying army. Yes, civilians are being killed (by us and them), but why should they be the only terrorists if we are doing the same thing albeit with more sophisticated technology? - they are targetting the civilians on purpose in order to increase the general level of uncomfort with the US occupation (I am Canadian, so I didn't vote for the W.)

      In my eyes, when you target civilians for any purpose, you are a terrorist.

    201. Re:Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      to imply that any elected government must be granted impunity is absurd

      Agreed. But I think that holds for the elected Israeli government as much as for the elected Palestinian government. Neither has the right to dress their actions in a false legitimacy, just because they assert the status of a government.

    202. Re:Racism by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Even within the last 20 years, I bet there are dozens, perhaps hundreds of things not on that list. - you can follow the links given in that list for more lists.

    203. Re:Racism by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      You didn't. This story is about a Homeland Security policy though (along with the no fly list). So the relevant statistic is how attacks on the American homeland break down. The other way is like saying that virtually all of the violence in the American Civil War was perpetrated by Americans. It's true, but not really meaningful. - it is meaningful, depends what meaning you are looking for. I see this meaning: religion is used as a pretext for various attrocities around the world directed at civilian population. Today Muslim extrimists use Muslim religion as a pretext, but it could be any other religion. Religous ideology is the best tool for justification of extremism because it only requires blind faith not logic and reason. The real reasons behind terrorism of-course have nothing to do with religion, they always have to do with power, control and resources.

    204. Re:Racism by Danga · · Score: 1

      Well, I'd start with the long list of anti abortion activists that terrorize american's every day.

      While what you linked to is informative I don't designate it as indiscriminate since it is terrorists going after Americans who support abortion in some way. Islamic militants don't care about anything except that some of their targets have to be Americans. You don't see abortion activists blowing up airplanes or attacking US embassies, for the most part they go after the abortion clinics and workers at the abortion clinics. It is terrorism, but not indiscriminate terrorism and it still pales in comparison to the terrorism of Islamic militants.

      --
      Hey, there is only one Return and it's not of the King, it's of the Jedi.
    205. Re:Racism by p3d0 · · Score: 1
      Marriage is a way of committing to the long term act of raising children properly.
      Are you against childless marriage then?
      --
      Patrick Doyle
      I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
    206. Re:Racism by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Have you followed the terrorist attacks that took place within the past 2.5-3 years? Most of it is happening in Iraq and is directed at the civilians by various militarist groups.

    207. Re:Racism by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      "Don't matter I'm gonna use it for a hammer."

      Hey, man. Every tool is a hammer. Unless it's a chisel, in which case it's a screwdriver.

      On this whole subject, though: I'm always highly amused when my Ivy League friends call me a redneck and my country cousins call me a yuppie.

      I drive a large SUV... to the datacenter, where I keep my server farm. My dogs have been known to ride along.

      I kill critters with any of my many guns... and then serve them up to friends with a shrewdly chosen wine based on decades of caring about wine and refining my tastes.

      I've got friends from all over the world, and the nicest ones I've ever met are the local versions of "rednecks" - from across Europe, from Africa, from Peru. I now use that word to mean "down to earth," "not scared to get your hands dirty," "can shovel/plow your own driveway," "can start a fire without it involving an iPod battery," and, most importantly, "polite." In my experience, small town folk can be far kinder, more thoughtful in their discourse, and generally just less shrill than their metrosexual counterparts.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    208. Re:Racism by Omestes · · Score: 1

      In my eyes, when you target civilians for any purpose, you are a terrorist.

      I said the same thing, except called them "asshats" and "sociopaths". "Terrorist" as a term has been rendered meaningless by politicians and sensationalist media outlets.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    209. Re:Racism by linuxrocks123 · · Score: 1

      IAANAL and this is not intended to be legal advice.

      However, I think you should talk to a lawyer. I have personally worked on legal documents that allow a person to receive medical records about someone (HIPAA authorization). Hospitals look at those to see whom outside family is allowed to visit someone in the hospital.

      As far as the "right to say what happens upon death", well, spouses don't have that power anyway. That's what a last will & testament is for. You name a person "executor" in your will, which allows that person to make decisions about your estate after you die, but only in accordance with the will.

      I don't know anything about the health insurance thing, but afaik you're stuck with whatever contract they give. Unless you want a special regulation against the insurance companies, marriage won't help you, because the insurance companies will just specify, "opposite sex marriage" in the health insurance contracts. However, I don't think they would anyway, because there is no business reason. It's probably just inertia in drawing up the contracts that they don't recognize some special "same-sex partnership" in the contracts already.

      By the way, I did this in a very red state, so I don't think state laws will be a problem.

      --
      vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
    210. Re:Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really?

      I think you need to look into that a bit further.... from dictionary.com

      racism
      n

      1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.

      2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race

    211. Re:Racism by Jim_Callahan · · Score: 1

      Most of Hamas' militant activities are "seemingly terrorist" because they are terrorist. Other than that, no arguments with your post.

      --
      ...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
    212. Re:Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, racism really is just the belief in the superiority of some races over others. The additional stuff you are describing is as stereotyping is just that, stereotyping. Closely related to both is prejudice, which is coming to a conclusion about someone else based on, for instance, race or a stereotype rather than observing what they actually are.

    213. Re:Racism by unix_core · · Score: 1

      Most terrorists are also men, why not block transfers for all men?

    214. Re:Racism by Tony · · Score: 1

      Marriage is a way of committing to the long term act of raising children properly.

      My wife and I do not have children, nor do we ever intend to have children. Our marriage is not about raising children. Nor do I believe you really mean this is what it's about.

      Otherwise:

      Shouldn't gay people get married if they intend to raise children (either through adoption or, in the case of a good friend of mine, through artificial insemination)? If the entire point of getting married is to raise children, shouldn't there be a law banning people like my wife and I, two childless heterosexuals? If the entire point is raising children, shouldn't marriage wait until one of the involved is pregnant?

      The statement that marriage is about raising children is hypocritical rationalisation. Otherwise, we'd all shut our pie-holes and let gay people marry, adopt, and raise kids with our complete blessing.

      --
      Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
    215. Re:Racism by Fastolfe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ... using both together from a list of known terrorists to do a little more checking doesn't seem bad to me. In the article it mentioned there are other ways to send money so if it is too much of a hassle then don't use the service.

      So you admit that since most of the people committing these crimes are of a certain racial or regilious heritage, that it's OK to subject them (and those with names that suggest they belong to those heritages) to additional inconvenience and scrutiny, and to prevent them from using certain services that other people enjoy without a problem, because... there are alternative services they can use? "Separate but equal." I like it!

      I wonder if there is a racial or religious correlation to crime rates in the US. We could use that logic there too! Why hasn't anyone thought of that yet? Brilliant!

    216. Re:Racism by markedmann · · Score: 1

      Pot does affect other people. There's no standardized test to prove/disprove someone was smoking pot prior to driving... The legalization of marijuana isn't a black and white issue.

    217. Re:Racism by AkAkADak · · Score: 4, Informative

      Muslims have never denounced the actions of Muslim Extremism. . Check this out: http://www.cair-net.org/html/911statements.html

    218. Re:Racism by killjoe · · Score: 4, Informative

      "were carried out by militant Islamists."

      Nice choice of words there. I noticed that you failed to mention that MOST "militant islamists" arrested in the US were african american.

      If you are going to racially profile for terrorism then african americans should be your number one if not number two target group.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    219. Re:Racism by DarkSarin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is position I have held for a while.

      Gay "marriage" is not marriage at all. I understand what the legal issues are, so lets get rid of those stupid laws by allowing civil unions that have all the benefits of what is called marriage by the state and reserve marriage as a religious ordinance that is private in nature. Thus two persons could be married by definitions of their personal religious beliefs (and marriage is essentially a religious construct between a man and a (or in a few cases multiple) woman.

      As another poster stated: "what does the government have to do with marriage?"

      I suppose that the only clear way out of this issue is to make religious marriage have no meaning to the law and allow civil unions to have the full legal meaning that marriage now does. This would clear up several other legal issues as well I think, and I see no compelling reason to do otherwise. It also strengthens the concept that family and marriage are a deeply personal decision and ultimately a matter of commitment between man, woman and their concept of deity. If they care nothing for deity, then a civil union should be sufficient. If not, then I am sure that a church of atheism will gladly perform marriages that look and feel like a traditional wedding without the references to any deity at all-and with the good reason of making a public commitment.

      The legal side of it all has been rather shallow and short-sighted, and for the most part angers me greatly, since both homosexuals and heterosexuals are making a political war out of an issue that could have been intelligently resolved.

      I have to confess, however, that I am very much a "right-wing" Christian in the sense that I strongly believe that homosexuality is morally objectionable. The few folks I know that are gay (and I don't ask, so there may be others) who know me know that I feel this way and that I still like them as a person and a decent human being. I see no moral quandary there: it is perfectly possible to like a person without liking everything they do. In fact, I think it is very naive to claim that this can ever be anything but the actual situation. If anyone claims that they like everything that all of their friends do, I will say that they have no friends, not even themself. Let me put it this way: I have a moral code by which I try to live. I constantly fail, but I keep trying. If I cannot like everything that I do, then why should anyone expect me to like everything someone else does? This is true whether the person is homosexual or a liar or whatever. I can still like a person despite feeling that they could become a better person according to what I believe is right and good. I can also recognize that the beliefs and ideals of others, though different, are just as valuable and sacred as my own. I respect that right, and thus, cannot see why anyone should be discriminated against because of their beliefs (and that goes for the atheists as well, for what many of them have is as much a belief that there is no God and my assertion that there is).

      Okay, I am officially off-topic. So I will talk about what is happening in this situation: WU is being stupid. This is their right, as it is our right to not use their services because of it. If you object to this practice you should a)stop using WU and b) tell them why. This, not Congress, will be a much more effective way to get them to change or to get rid of them.

      --
      "We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)
    220. Re:Racism by Jim_Callahan · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And christians and Jews never wear turbans, right? Good to know "towelhead" isn't targetting Arabic muslims.

      And White people never have deep tans, right? So 'darkie' isn't a racist epithet either!

      The fact that the association doesn't make sense doesn't mean there isn't one. "Redneck" is equivalent to the less popular epithet "white trash". Therefore, in the infinitely wise laws of comedy, only white people may use the term.

      --
      ...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
    221. Re:Racism by FurryFeet · · Score: 1

      I'll indulge you, because you obviously have some sort of mental handicap.

      There are a lot of Arab Muslim freedom fighters/terrorist in Iraq and Afghanistan because they're freaking Muslim Arab countries. Just like, of someone were to invade Indiana, there would be a lot of White Christian freedom fighters/terrorist. Because that's the majority of the state's population.

      I hope that clears the matter up. But please, feel free to let me know if you still can't get it. I can get out a couple of sock puppets and explain it with apples and oranges.

    222. Re:Racism by twistedcubic · · Score: 1

      This reminds us why so many Jews changed their surnames after fleeing from the Nazis-- to avoid bullshit like this.

    223. Re:Racism by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 1
      Actually, most terrorists in the United States have been white Christians.

      Actually, most terrorists in the US have been southern white Christians (I mean, if you count that whole Civil War thing). Damn Johnny Reb traitors.

      --
      That is all.
    224. Re:Racism by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      I'm not American, but my understanding of the term "redneck" is that it refers to a certain underclass of uneducated, criminally inclined, trailer park dwelling white folks. Doesn't sound very racist to me.

      Yeah, and "nigger" used to refer to a certain underclass of uneducated, criminaly inclined, barn dwelling black folks. I'm sure slave owners thought the term wasn't racist at all, if they even knew was "racist" meant.

      Ofcourse, I understand what your real point was. What you meant to say is "it's not racist if you're talking about white people".

    225. Re:Racism by Don_dumb · · Score: 1
      Even using a "duck" definition the number of Israeli terrorists is almost certainly longer than just Dr Goldstein. However Israeli "settlers" shooting unarmed Palestinians dosn't appear to get much coverage in the Western (Mainstream) media.
      Not only that, but as I am reading this stroy I have noticed that on this list of terrorist events - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_inc idents#1980s the 17th October 2001 assasination of Israeli tourism minister Rehavam Zeevi by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine is in the list but the far more important http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Yitz hak_Rabin assasination of the Prime Minister of Israel by an Israeli is not. Why? They are both assasinations (murders) of Israeli ministers.

      This just fuels my suspision that in the west we consider anything commited by an arab as terrorism but something commited by someone of another group as simply a criminal matter and this has allowed us to just become prejudiced about the mindset of Islam.
      --
      If this were really happening, what would you think?
    226. Re:Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "There's no standardized test to prove/disprove someone was smoking pot prior to driving"

      Oh, just like there isn't a standardized test to prove/disprove someone was drinking alcohol prior to driving?

      Why do you automatically equate smoking pot with driving under the influence? Sure, some idiots will do that. That's why you treat them the same as drunk drivers.
      What is so strange and alien about pot-induced inebriation rather than alcohol-induced inebriation? No one said it was a black and white issue. Your argument regarding driving while high doesn't hold water.

    227. Re:Racism by FurryFeet · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You know, I thought quoting Ann Coulter would be the most pathetic thing ever. But I was wrong. The most pathetic thing on the world is tryin to pass of an Ann Coulter quote as yours.

      It's like, evil and stupidity PLUS plagiarism. I don't know how much lower you can get (but I'd guess not much).

    228. Re:Racism by Tony · · Score: 1

      (and marriage is essentially a religious construct between a man and a (or in a few cases multiple) woman.


      What if you follow a religion that allows same-sex partnerships? Could the religious construct then be between, say, a man and a man and their God? In that case, what's the real difference between the currently-politicized situation and your suggested resolution?

      --
      Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
    229. Re:Racism by SocietyoftheFist · · Score: 1

      Ironic isn't it? It is OK if he demeans somebody different from him, just isn't OK the other way.

    230. Re:Racism by sheimers · · Score: 1

      Not all right handers are terrorists but most terrorists are right handers. Well atleast the current crop.

      Not all male humans are terrorists but most terrorists are male. Well atleast the current crop.

      Maybe Western Union should stop payments to male right handers.

    231. Re:Racism by Squirmy+McPhee · · Score: 5, Informative

      We are talking about ALL terrorist attacks against the United States and if you consider that then you will see the majority (and quite large majority) were carried out by militant Islamists. Take a look here: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html [infoplease.com]

      Your list is woefully incomplete. What about Eric Robert Rudolph, who bombed abortion clinics in Birmingham and Atlanta, a gay nightclub in Atlanta, and a concert given during the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta? What about the vast number of attacks on Americans -- kidnappings, hijackings, bombings -- in and around Columbia over the past several decades? I'm rather certain those attacks far outnumber attacks against Americans by "militant Islamists" prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq (assuming you classify all the suicide bombings in Iraq as terrorist acts, as opposed to acts of war). What else can I come up with off the top of my head? The Hutu rebels who attacked tourist camps in Uganda in 1999. The disgruntled FedEx employee who, sometime in the '90s, attempted to hijack a FedEx 747 on takeoff and crash it into the company's headquarters in Memphis (he was stopped by the pilot and copilot, but not before he cracked their skulls with an axe). The rocket-propelled grenade fired through the window of the U.S. embassy in Moscow in 1995. The Catalan rebels who bombed a bar full of U.S. servicemen in Barcelona in the late '80s. For that matter, it's missing the world's first bombing of an airliner, which was committed in the '60s by a man from Missouri in an insurance scam.

      Heck, with a little research I might really be able to make a list. If you think Muslims are the only significant perpetrators of terrorism in the world, you aren't paying attention. Your point of view is precisely why the idea of racial profiling is so popular these days. The more fact-based approach is the reason security experts say racial profiling not only doesn't work, but makes us less secure by focusing our attention in the wrong places.

    232. Re:Racism by c6gunner · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Speaking as a homosexual, it has more to do with spousal rights (right to visit your spouse in the hospital, getting on your spouses health insurance if you have none/job does not offer any/job has insurance that sucks and/or is more expensive than your spouses, right to say what happens upon death, etc)...

      Just out of curiosity, if you realy only want equal rights, then why was there such an uproar about the terminology? I remember there being a debate about giving homosexuals the right to a "civil union" which would be the same as a marriage except without the religious implications or the name. Yet that seemed to be an unacceptable compromise.

      I'm in Canada and I know that homosexuals here had Civil Union rights long before we legislated to allow same-sex marriage. Same sex partners in civil unions had the same rights as married couples. Yet when the same-sex marriage debate came up, and people pointed out that we already had civil unions, most homosexuals complained that using a different name was discriminatory in and of itself.

      I'm not trying to suggest that you're a liar...but if you beleive what you wrote then it certainly seems like you're an exception to the rule.

    233. Re:Racism by FurryFeet · · Score: 1

      Of course most terrorists inside the US will be white Christians since approximately 70% of the US population is white non-hispanic and about 80% of the population is Christian. We are talking about ALL terrorist attacks against the United States and if you consider that then you will see the majority (and quite large majority) were carried out by militant Islamists.

      Then use your own logic. Of course most terrorist attacks against the United Stated that occurred in Muslim countries were carried out by Muslims. I don't know wheter you're dense, or just racist.

      They are violent by nature and it is no suprise that they are the leaders of most terrorist attacks.

      Well, that answers my question. You're both.

    234. Re:Racism by laffer1 · · Score: 1

      My father is gay. He came out during my freshman year of high school. His homosexuality had no ill impact on my upbrining aside from the normal pains of divorce. Actually I wish my parents never would have been married. It would have simplified things and if my father was in a steady relationship, he would have been the better parent to live with. I find the church views rediculous. I was actually ex-communicated from the missouri synod lutheran church because my dad is gay and I didn't marry a christian. They kicked my dad out first after my mother told the pastor in a counseling session!

      I've met several others with gay parents. They can be great just like many straight people who raise children. I've also noticed that in many (but not all) cases, christians who are against it on moral grounds often dislike abortion. Imagine all those gay parents ready to adopt children who are shunned. Perhaps less abortions would occur if someone adopted children?

      I think my father is entitled to the same rights I have as a married person. I believe in equal rights for all americans regardless of race, gender, religion or sexual orientation.

      And before you disregard my post as crazy liberal talk, I'd like to point out i'm a pre-911 republican. That means I voted republican prior to 911, but not i'm not radical enough to be apart of their party. The right went extreme and the left moved closer to center.

      Also, my wife doesn't want to have children so you've tried to challenge my right to marriage as well. I have a problem with that. As for gay hating, I don't know if you hate gays but you certainly don't understand them. Georgia and New York apparently hate gays.

    235. Re:Racism by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 1

      Most of Hamas' militant activities are "seemingly terrorist" because they are terrorist. Other than that, no arguments with your post.

      According to most definitions of terrorism that I am aware of, yes. So were the people from IRA, PKK, ETA, but also those whom started the American revolution, those fighting in the French (and other European) resistance during world war 2, and many others.

      If they actually get called terrorists depends on the person talking about them.

    236. Re:Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think there is anything good ("good reason") about Muslim terrorists blowing up crowded marketplaces (or your hypothetical Christian terrorists doing something similar, like blowing up a mall in Indiana), all in the name of exterminating infidels, you've got some sort of problem. If you think that either is any sort of "freedom fighter", you've got a serious problem.

    237. Re:Racism by twistedcubic · · Score: 1


      It is also true that the majority of terrorist attacks carried out worldwide are done by militant Islamists.

      I disagree strongly. Most terrorist attacks are committed by the U.S. government. If your definition of terrorist includes Arabs only, then yes, you're right. But if you're definition of terrorist defines the act without regard to race, religion, or ethicity, then you need to think about it more. It's telling that Americans think a government-sponsored bomb killing innocent civilians is just (we have a good reason for being in Iraq?), while an individual killing innocent civilians with a bomb is not. Dude, more innocent Iraqis have died by U.S. bombs than the sum total deaths by Arab terrorists in the past several decades. Do you even give a shit? Tens of thousands of Iraqis were killed in the first year of the "liberating" of Iraq. Do you honestly believe all these people were guilty of any crime against the U.S., other than their thoughts?

    238. Re:Racism by Barlo_Mung_42 · · Score: 1

      It's true that some moderates denounce specific terrorist acts. It's also true that not much if anything is being done to address the source of the attacks. Polling data world wide shows that in the parts of the world where Islam is the dominant religion, the concept of martyrdom is widely accepted. Until Muslims agree to change their holy texts that are the basis for martyrdom the fringe actions of a few moderates will not be seen as a genuine call for change.

    239. Re:Racism by AaronHorrocks · · Score: 0

      Domestic Partnerships and other "unions" in EVERY STATE, already grant all the tax benefits and legal rights (like right to visit your spouse in the hospital) that marriage can. It might be more paperwork, but it's easier and less costly than marriage!

      Thing is it just lacks the term "married"...

      I hate hearing this same excuse over and over for gay marriage, when it doesn't hold any water. Get educated on some laws first, and make a worthwhile debate, rather than spewing the same dribble again.

    240. Re:Racism by belal1 · · Score: 1

      I don't think it has anything to do with religion. The thing is, if homosexual marriages were allowed then some people think friends might marry each other just for benefits like adopting a kid just for the earned income credit, or leeching gov't money from other "help." Imagine if all of a sudden people who paid insurance as a single suddenly married their friends just to show they are married and switch to a family coverage. The insurance industry would be hit very hard. And i'm sure there are other industries that would be hit and basically the economy would be affected.

      just my 2 cents. feel free to start bashing me.

    241. Re:Racism by Moofie · · Score: 1

      "And christians and Jews never wear turbans, right?"

      To a good approximation, no.

      "And White people never have deep tans, right?"

      And such people would not have red necks, either. You're doing a good job of making my case.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    242. Re:Racism by PB_TPU_40 · · Score: 1

      THANK GOD!!! I'm NOT alone!!!!

      --
      -PB_TPU_40 The trick to flying is to throw yourself at the ground and miss.
    243. Re:Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's true. Yore leavin out hillbillies, crackers and okies.

    244. Re:Racism by natophonic · · Score: 1

      Your taxes are high to encourage you to have children. Once you start having tax deductions, err, I mean children, things will be much better.

      Nice try, Mr. wiggles, but you're not fooling me; you're just encouraging people to have children so as to sell more DVDs.

    245. Re:Racism by xero314 · · Score: 1
      Who uses the term redneck to describe rednecks? WHITE PEOPLE. How the fuck can a white person be racist against a white person?
      So what you are saying is that "nigger" is not a racist term. I mean after all "Who uses the term nigger to describe niggers? BLACK PEOPLE. How the fuck can a black person be racist against a black person?"

      You are confusing "race" with "color." Here are a couple references you might do well to read.
    246. Re:Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fyi, israel kills *MANY* more palestinians than palestinians kill israelites.

      i think it is on the order of 2-1 or 3-1.

      i guess its one of those definition of is issues.

      i don't support either side b/c they are *both* screwed up. putting it *all* on one side, though, is 100% intellectually dishonest or ignorant.

      take your pick.

    247. Re:Racism by hdh · · Score: 1

      Because marriage is a legal contract as well as a religious tradition, genius. Separation of church and state refers to the government's ability to tell you what religions you can practice, not, as commonly thought, that politics should be godless. You're confused with communism, but that's what I'd expect from a sheep that believes every bumper sticker that they read. Are you a fish without a bicycle or what? Loser.

      --
      I like toast!
    248. Re:Racism by twistedcubic · · Score: 1


      The statement that marriage is about raising children is hypocritical rationalisation.

      Just curious, but why in the world would a man get married if not to have children? Are there benefits? I've heard the various reasons why women want marriage, but none of them seem to apply to men, other than having children. Maybe you get married in case you have a child by accident?

    249. Re:Racism by PB_TPU_40 · · Score: 1

      I was quickly running out the door from home. But yes, that is usually what I equate to rednecks, every small town I've gone through is full of them and everyone of them I've met are in my book of nicest people to meet and work with. When I was a kid I loved getting dirty, as I started college for some reason that changed, but thank god I'm back to normal and love getting covered in grease. Most people would call them blue collar, but the truth is deep down their one in the same.

      I wrote that long spiel and the best thing I could think of was just the line from Foxworthy. Thank you though, I think it worked better that it came from someone else instead of me.

      The town I grew up in grew as well, and its now part of the greater Seattle area. When I moved to Pullman it was like moving back into my early child hood. Small, quiet, at least when WSU is out, and really friendly. Some don't like it, but I love it, I'm a hick, redneck, whatever you want to call it, I don't think of it as being negative, I just look at is as my upbringing and outlook on life as being different from the "norm".

      --
      -PB_TPU_40 The trick to flying is to throw yourself at the ground and miss.
    250. Re:Racism by NereusRen · · Score: 2

      > Redneck is "by definition" NOT racist for the simple reason that there is no race called the "rednecks"

      By that logic, neither is "towel-head" racist. After all, anyone could wear a towel on their head, right?

      You "only minorities can be discriminated against" people crack me up.

    251. Re:Racism by Chmcginn · · Score: 1
      Thus two persons could be married by definitions of their personal religious beliefs (and marriage is essentially a religious construct between a man and a (or in a few cases multiple) woman

      So, what you saying is, me (a recovering Catholic) and my wife (a non-practicing Jew) can't call ours a marriage, because there was no religion involved in it? Gee, thanks.

      --
      Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
    252. Re:Racism by Chmcginn · · Score: 1
      Georgia and New York apparently hate gays.

      Please don't make the mistake of confusing the government of a state with the people of it.

      Or, at least, all the people of it.

      --
      Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
    253. Re:Racism by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 1

      the majority of terrorist attacks carried out worldwide are done by militant Islamists. They are violent by nature and it is no suprise that they are the leaders of most terrorist attacks.

      If you're suggesting that they're "violent by nature" because they're militant, I would concur.

      If you're suggesting that they're "violent by nature" because they're Islamists, I would recommend that you die in a fire.

    254. Re:Racism by Chmcginn · · Score: 1
      If she'd had a living will or durable power of attorney, it wouldn't have happened.

      Depending on how explicit the will was, it probably still would have happened. The (intial) legal avenue the Schindler's appeals were based on was the fact that Mr. Schiavo publicly admitted to being in a relationship with another woman - they wanted to remove him as legal guardian.

      --
      Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
    255. Re:Racism by lucabrasi999 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      What do I care if you have 'the complete' list or not?

      Uh, maybe we should start over. You said in an earlier post that most terrorist acts within the past 20 years were commited by muslim extremists.. That is YOUR claim. Not mine. So, if you are making such a claim, you better be damn sure you can back that claim up with facts. When you pointed to the Wikipedia article, you at least made an attempt. However, as most Slashdotters know, Wikipedia is not necessarily a trusted source. It is a nice reference, but since anyone can change the entries at any time, you cannot trust the data source.

      So, what you have only shown so far is that you are, at best, completely misinformed. The next time you make such a wild claim, then back it up with facts. Oh, and also don't forget one other thing: One person's Terrorist is another persons Freedom Fighter. So, while you may consider a list to be accurate, someone else will view that same list as being completely wrong.

    256. Re:Racism by Chowderbags · · Score: 1

      If someone has no living will or has not granted power of attourney to a third party, then their spouse automaticly has the power to make medical decisions for them. The family has no legal right to step in.

    257. Re:Racism by dreamlax · · Score: 1

      Doesn't Nigeria mean "Land of the Black(s)"? If so, shouldn't we rename it accordingly, if the term 'nigger' is now politically incorrect? The term 'redneck' is not racist either, because often people of the same ethnicity AND nationality are the ones using the term, this makes it stereotypical discrimination.

    258. Re:Racism by DamnStupidElf · · Score: 1

      Speaking as a homosexual, it has more to do with spousal rights (right to visit your spouse in the hospital, getting on your spouses health insurance if you have none/job does not offer any/job has insurance that sucks and/or is more expensive than your spouses, right to say what happens upon death, etc)...

      The extreme conservatives aren't really against homosexual marriage, either. They're actually, fundamentally against homosexuality itself. Thankfully, they are also extremely forgetful and ignorant, so once the media frenzy dies down they'll be surprised in 20 or 30 years when "all those homo couples" are everywhere. Then they'll die, and their children will hopefully have a much lower percentage of prejudice. It's unfortunate, but almost all major social changes take a generation or two to really be accepted.

      I've always thought the government should give up trying to tax married people and single people and people with kids differently. Instead, they should simply base taxes on household units which could include everyone in a dorm room, partners, multiple partners, kids, whatever. Just base the tax break on how many dependents are actually supported.

    259. Re:Racism by BlackApple · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Folks we need to take a very sharp look at this subject and realize that we are in a spoon fed society. During the 9/11 attack there was no hard proof of the the parties involved and there was an immediate call for an identity to be revealed as the nationality not persons involved with the attack, and unfortunately it happened to be the people of middle eastern descent. Certainly the television news has become an entertainment forum where word play can deceive a simple mind into thinking an opinion is a fact. I certainly am a person that values national security but how does a name, nationality, or sexuality speak of a person and their intentions. I think it is a better stand if Western Union stated that all transactions over an extreme amount or several successive transactions are evaluated for all customers. Timothy Mcveigh was one of our own countrymen and there was no increase of security for those with the same last name, same birthplace, or same color eyes for that matter. Why because it is stupid to do so! Somehow hate is a bias depending on those who are doing the finger pointing and usually aren't for something that is a little more solid. If the government has placed this sanction against Middle Eastern people then Minorities (women included), Religious Groups, Foreigners, Homosexuals, "Rednecks" and others that are all labelled all can potentially be subjected to the same treatment and diminished civil rights.

    260. Re:Racism by Intron · · Score: 1

      So what prevents heterosexual couples from doing that? Or doesn't that bother you for some reason?

      --
      Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
    261. Re:Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks, that's the best laugh I've had today (I've been to some funny places lately or I'd say it was the best this week). Unfortunately, I already see one reply that requires sock puppets...

    262. Re:Racism by Da_Weasel · · Score: 1

      But...a marriage IS a union. You just think it has some special higher meaning. People have been commiting themselves to life long unions with others long before Christianity came along.

      Over the years people have married for many different reasons. Hell even love is a new commer to the marriage scene. It wasn't until the mid 1500's that this concept of love and marriage became common.

      It wasn't that long ago that interacial marriages were illegal in most of the US, or that African slaves and their offspring were recognized by the state or the church in their marriages. You probably don't even realize that your using the same tired old arguments to support your views that were used to oppress the black population of the US for so many years. I've heard all kinds of crap from the conservative radio stations down here in the south. One of my favorite arguments is "well if we let two men marry then where do we stop. What do we do when someone decides they want to marry their dog, or horse, or child?" As if beastiality and pedophiles has anything to do with gay marriage! The key here is "two consenting adults".

      http://www.nbjcoalition.org/about/supporters.html

      I shouldn't have even responded to this...i'm all worked up and pissed off now!

      What was this article about again? :P

      --
      If you must!
    263. Re:Racism by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      So, what you have only shown so far is that you are, at best, completely misinformed. The next time you make such a wild claim, then back it up with facts. Oh, and also don't forget one other thing: One person's Terrorist is another persons Freedom Fighter. So, while you may consider a list to be accurate, someone else will view that same list as being completely wrong. - that is a load of low grade BS, by your definition I can never prove anything to anyone, however by MY definition of a terrorist (anyone at all who attacks civilian population on purpose in order to create general sense of fear,) Muslim extremists are on top of the terrorist list within the past 20 years. I used the wiki page in this particular case, and I claim that it has a good sample of what is actually going on in the world [it has extra links to the terrorist acts that are happening in Iraq and Israel year by year, and Iraq is where most terrorist activity is happenning at this moment, again by my definition - civilians are being attacked by various militarist groups in order to increase general feeling of panic/fear/lack of security.)] That wiki page describes a significant number of the terrorist acts, that are proportionate to the actual number, which is probably somewhat greater.

      You on the other hand are operating completely without any facts and claiming that you have better information.

    264. Re:Racism by gatsby0121 · · Score: 1

      I think the confusion here comes from what that guy in the original post felt was a redneck, and what you felt was a redneck. Before becoming offended at the comment, it may be wise to ask him what he defines as a redneck. And just to clarify here, I'm avoiding taking sides, just simply trying to give a different perspective on things. Because to be quite honest, I've always thought of rednecks as ignorant white people who make sweeping generalizations about everthing in life, and see things only in black and white, just to turn around and do something hypocritical and similar to what they are against... The type of person ready to bear arms and head out to war, and make stupid comments like "we should just nuke them and get it over with", or "if I were running things, you wouldn't find no "insert non-white race here" in my Country! You guys who declare yourselves as rednecks, do not fit my version of the term, and maybe that's what this guy was talking about. Just my 2 cents.

    265. Re:Racism by pinkocommie · · Score: 1

      How about telling me which other group as a whole has suffered more because of the US? The US supports numerous dictators amongst the muslim world (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, most of the oil-rich small sheikhdoms in the Middle East, Pakistan, until 1990 Iraq so on and so forth). Not to mention the countless CIA managed coup's against democracies instilling dictators (Iraq used to be a democracy way back in the day). People tend to have long memories and rarely forget atrocities committed against them.

      Yes violence especially violence against innocent civilians is wrong in every way possible (and is condemned / forbidden by Islam) but there will always by a certain percentage of nuts out of every population. By rapidly ramping up the percentage of people that hate America the percentage of nuts correspondingly also increases. Not to mention people like Bin Laden are largely impotent without a large replenishable supply of foot soldiers which we conveniently provide Iraq creating new breed of jihadists, says CIA

      Most of the current generation of foot soldiers have been trained and bred by the CIA during their operations for the Afghan war in the 70's and 80's, cue Iraq war and we're creating a whole new generation...

      To summarize
      1) To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction
      2) An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind - Mahatma Gandhi

    266. Re:Racism by demigod · · Score: 3, Informative

      If you have proof showing another group that has indiscriminately gone after Americans more often then I would love to see it.

      What about clinic bombings or don't you consider that terrorism? What about the KKK?

      The most thorought treatment of terroism in the US I could find with a quick google was pdf. FYI, the tables are at the end of the document.

      --
      "The last thing I want to do is deal with a bunch of people who want something."
      Major Major
    267. Re:Racism by the+Brightside · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You said it yourself: They wanted equal rights, and the government attempted to force a compromise. The US legal standard that seems apropos (though odds are not to Canadians, but given my grasp of Canadian case law is utterly pathetic, it's what I've got): Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, KS, "Separate but equal is inherently unequal."

    268. Re:Racism by kimba · · Score: 1

      This is the list of people blocked by Treasury. I am sure they are matching names against that, not just picking up on people with a particular first name. Unfortunately, the risk of overlap is not entirely out of the question, but people are just playing things for political gain if they say they block everyone with the name Mohammed.

    269. Re:Racism by Nutria · · Score: 1
      Hell, bigotry in general is A-OK with this administration. You don't even have to have dark skin...

      And how is what W.U. is doing any worse than the racist hysteria raised by Democrats regarding the Dubai ports deal?

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    270. Re:Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really.

      If only straight marriage has benefits, it will encourage bisexuals to live with someone of the opposite sex when they have a choice. In turn, this increases the chances they'll have kids, which helps replenish the workforce when the bigots retire.

      Forbidding pot encourages people to be working hard instead of being lazy, which increases wealth and decreases crime. This reduces the chance bigots will get mugged on the streets.

      So these things do impact bigots, albeit indirectly. It's called a societal choice.

    271. Re:Racism by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      If you're not a bigot, by definition, you're not a redneck..

    272. Re:Racism by Chmcginn · · Score: 1
      Well, just cause it happens one time doesn't mean that the world world could do it.

      I mean, that'd be like fifty percent of the population being plastic surgeons, and just operating on each other all the time... creepy...

      --
      Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
    273. Re:Racism by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · · Score: 1

      I never heard about Enniskillen (and I lived there for a few years) but Omagh was an accidental detonation by amateur couriers. Or amateur bomb makers. Which is what you get when you add breakaway factions from the main IRA to the mix. Said faction is currently expired, due to the efforts of aforementioned IRA.

    274. Re:Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ". It's not ok to take someone's rights away because you dislike their way of life or the color of their skin."

      Actually, this happens every day. We often put these socially devient people in prison. Nice try attempting to lump actions with traits.

    275. Re:Racism by Britz · · Score: 1

      Not all muslims are terrorists but most terrorists are muslims.

      To the average American. But it is simply not true: The conflict in Sri Lanka is heating up (Hindu vs. Buddhists), they have siucide attacks (one side accuses the other) and blow up busses.

      The average American probabley also has never heard of the Basque conflict in norther Spain. Then there is Indonesia with Muslim vs. Christians. And all sorts of terror going on. Have you checked on the DRC lately? When child soldiers whipe out another village some would speak of rebel attacks, but what is the difference between a rebel and a terrorist when they take out civillian targets?

      There was a terror attack by foreing terrorists on American soil. Unfortunately it took many lives in a single stroke. But you get this number of people about every other week in the DRC. So it actually is not such a big deal when you look at the whole world. But for the average American the whole world consists of 50 states. And the threat to the US was and is blown way out of propotion by DC and the media. Thanks to that the US budget is also blown way out of propotion threatening the dollar and the world economy and those little things like Guantanmo, torture, Patriot Act, NSA spygames, you name it.

      Thank you for reinforcing another one of my beloved stereotypes.

    276. Re:Racism by PB_TPU_40 · · Score: 1

      I was the first one to reply to the guy calling the administration a redneck one. I posted a reply, that was fitting, I didn't really take offense, it was more of just to point out that he's casting down people that he probably didn't mean to.

      Then if you continue down you notice some very rude and insolent comments, to which I replied, and then someone else posted looking down on me. This thread is from that first serious bashing of rednecks. If you goto any rural area you find people that are "rednecks" and many will refer to themselves as such, espeically if they farm. It is the highly urban areas which have taken the term and twisted it. A good example is the difference between a "hacker" and a "cracker". Most here know the difference, however the media uses "hacker" often where they should really be using "cracker".

      I thank you for at least staying in the middle ground instead of just jumping towards being negative like a lot of people so far, as well as being open enough to see at least where I'm coming from and see another side.

      --
      -PB_TPU_40 The trick to flying is to throw yourself at the ground and miss.
    277. Re:Racism by belal1 · · Score: 1

      Females are much more unlikely to just commit to a marriage without any true feelings. Although many may simply because the other party will pay a large sum, but the majority of females won't commit just for the money. Personally, I don't care if there are homosexual marriages. I feel that if we are living in a Free country, freedom should extend to all citizens regardless of their sexual orientation. But i'm a new yorker so I don't expect non-new yorkers to agree (but they should).

    278. Re:Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what you are saying is that two heterosexual guys are much more likely to 'fake' a gay marriage just to get tax benefits than a man and a woman. Really? With so many people such as yourself disliking the idea of even OTHERS in a real loving relationship marrying, I think it is highly unlikely fake gay marriages will ever be a problem.

    279. Re:Racism by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      You said it yourself: They wanted equal rights, and the government attempted to force a compromise. The US legal standard that seems apropos (though odds are not to Canadians, but given my grasp of Canadian case law is utterly pathetic, it's what I've got): Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, KS, "Separate but equal is inherently unequal."

      But does that really extend to changing the definitions of words? Marriage has always been the union between a man and a woman. So now we change it's definition to just "a union". What's next? Isn't it sexist to call a man a "man", and a woman a "woman"? Sure both are technicaly equal, but they're seperate! Hell, while we're at it, where do we get off classifying people as Caucasian or Middle Eastern, or African American? Might as well get rid of all those words too, or just change their meanings so they're all the same.

      I really don't see how the Brown v. Board of Education case has anything to do with the gay marriage debate. One is a case based on (if I remember correctly) physicaly segregating individuals based on race. The other is a matter of using two different terms to describe two different types of relationships. There's really no similarity.

      Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against reckognizing that homosexuals have the same rights as the rest of us. But I DON'T see the need to go around changing the definitions of words. Especially when there's more important things to focus on. For instance, the age of consent here has always been 14, but for anal sex it's 18. Now that IS discriminatory. There's absolutely no reason why the age at which you can legaly engage in sexual activities should be varied based on sexual orientation. Things like that need to change. Why try to rewrite the dictionary when you can instead focus on changing discriminatory laws?

    280. Re:Racism by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      1) This isn't racism; it's discrimination at best.

      2) Western Union is one of many competing companies. If you don't like how they do business, don't do business with them. It's that simple, people. If Western Union loses business over time, they'll either change this policy or go bankrupt-- either way, you get what you want. If they continue to be successful, well then I guess what enough people don't care.

      Or, in short, vote with your wallet.

    281. Re:Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most terrorists in Spain are white basque separatists.

      The UK went through 30 years of AMERICAN "i'm Irish, go Ireland even though I've never been there or know fuck about the country, it's situation or politics, or Northern Ireland, but hey, don't fucking ask me how to grow potatoes" funded terrorism perpetuated by white catholics.

    282. Re:Racism by PB_TPU_40 · · Score: 1

      Actually they're two formal definitions for redneck.

        Used as a disparaging term for a member of the white rural laboring class, especially in the southern United States.In the past couple years it has become synonymous with hick which refers to small towns and rural areas. As I'm from a small town and in the middle of freaking nowhere, people call me a redneck when I visit family on the other side of the state. Do I mind because they're using it to refer to the fact I live in a small rural town. Might I remind you that this is the english language and is full of jargon and slang, much of which isn't documented.

      --
      -PB_TPU_40 The trick to flying is to throw yourself at the ground and miss.
    283. Re:Racism by Danga · · Score: 1

      So you admit that since most of the people committing these crimes are of a certain racial or regilious heritage, that it's OK to subject them (and those with names that suggest they belong to those heritages) to additional inconvenience and scrutiny, and to prevent them from using certain services that other people enjoy without a problem, because... there are alternative services they can use? "Separate but equal." I like it!

      I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I meant that using both the first and last name of known terrorists to filter people is OK in my opinion, just not only one or the other. If someone named Osama Bin Laden is supposed to receive a money order I see no reason why some extra checking is not warranted since that is the name of a known terrorist. So, if your name is Osama Bin Laden and you don't like waiting a little longer to use a service then use another service that does not check the names. It is not like there are no other options available and this is a good way of making it harder for known terrorists to receive funds.

      --
      Hey, there is only one Return and it's not of the King, it's of the Jedi.
    284. Re:Racism by Intron · · Score: 1

      Do you realize how many generalizations you are making in this and your earlier post?

      Females v. males
      Straights v. gays
      New Yorkers v. normal people (joke!)

      Would you also assume a difference in terrorist threat between someone named Mohammed and someone named Brittany?

      --
      Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
    285. Re:Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      where's the court ruling that says what is being done is illegal? all we have right now are a bunch of amateurs on blogs yapping that they think it is. they do not have the proper authority to say whether it is or not. That is the courts' job.

    286. Re:Racism by vought · · Score: 1

      I saw one of the ties after he was hit, you could see where the wood pressed into the frame, however all the energy was put into the bumper and car, no damage to the rest of the truck.

      Good lord. How often does your friend get rear-ended?

      You may wish to remind your friend that wood is not a suspension medium, except when you are talking about big boats. While I realize that a full-sized truck may qualify for some as a "boat"....oh, whatever.

    287. Re:Racism by doctortofu · · Score: 1

      Just because it's always been done doesn't mean it's the fair thing to do. Basically, defining marriage as between a man and a woman denies access to certain men to equal recognition by the state. Some states require in their constitutions that men and women are treated equally, denying access to a certain class of people based on their gender and the gender to which they're attracted is unfair. Basically it's an issue of civil rights because men and women are supposed to equal in the eyes of the law. A fair comparison would be miscegnation laws of years past - races were not allowed to intermarry.. but why not? Because of tradition (racism, in this case). Different rights is not equal rights. We could define (again) that marriage should only be between people of the same race. That's the equivalent of the constitutional amendment being proposed by the republican leadership.

    288. Re:Racism by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 1

      Its you who is more deserving of moderator attention I believe. Thanks, that was an informative read even if I already knew part of it.

    289. Re:Racism by MustardMan · · Score: 1

      You, sir, are an idiot... the term "nigger" started being used by white people, and was later used by black people to describe themselves to try to take away the impact of the term. Redneck is MOSTLY used by random white people describing other random white people. It's a statement of lifestyle and social standing, not race.

    290. Re:Racism by Danga · · Score: 1

      I disagree strongly. Most terrorist attacks are committed by the U.S. government. If your definition of terrorist includes Arabs only, then yes, you're right. But if you're definition of terrorist defines the act without regard to race, religion, or ethicity, then you need to think about it more.

      My definition of terrorism is groups that kill solely out of hatred of other human beings. The US government is not in Iraq because we hate Iraqi's, we are their because we took a dangerous man out of power who was not adhering to the agreements in the treaty from the first time we invaded Iraq.

      Do you even give a shit? Tens of thousands of Iraqis were killed in the first year of the "liberating" of Iraq. Do you honestly believe all these people were guilty of any crime against the U.S., other than their thoughts?

      Yes, I do give a shit but it is not like they did not know an attack was coming. If I knew where I lived was about to be bombarded with gun fire and bombs I would get the hell out of there until things settled down. It is very unfortunate innocents were killed but you also have to remember that a lot of them were killed because the Iraqi military specifically located themselves close to civilians in places such as hospitals and mosques. That is evil in itself right there and the US tried to limit collateral damage but it is impossible to not have any.

      --
      Hey, there is only one Return and it's not of the King, it's of the Jedi.
    291. Re:Racism by MustardMan · · Score: 1

      We put people in prison (in theory) when their actions hurt others. Nice try attempting to lump sex between consenting adults with genuine crimes. Asshat.

    292. Re:Racism by teal_ · · Score: 1

      Sometimes words take on a life of their own and become taboo. For instance, "Chinaman" is considered racist, yet "Englishman" is not. These days even, you get a funny look from people when you say "Mexican" to describe someone whereas when you say "Swedish" you get nothing.

      "Redneck" is definitely taboo and should be avoided in polite society, since it refers to the working poor in the Appalachia region, white people whose necks have become red due to working in the sun all day. If that's not racist, I don't know what is, since if the people it targets were not white, the term could not exist.

      However, this word (redneck) has also taken on a life of its own: it has become synonimous with fat, uneducated, tobacco chewing, wife beating, negro lynching, ignorant white man. Similarly, the word "nigger" has taken on a life of its own too, synonomous with a person of limited vocabulary, who commits crimes in greater numbers, smokes marijuana, drinks 40 ounce bottles of beer, dresses and behaves in an immature fashion. These two words, with these meanings, can apply to anyone, of any race, but they are rooted with a specific race, and hence are still racist.

    293. Re:Racism by An.+(Coward) · · Score: 1
      Please don't make the mistake of confusing the government of a state with the people of it.
      Yeah, the people of Georgia probably hate gays even more than the government.
    294. Re:Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speaking as a homosexual...

      May I assume you program in LISP?

    295. Re:Racism by belal1 · · Score: 1

      No, why don't you tell me about the generalizations I am making? Or is it you that is making the assumptions that I am generalizing? Females vs Males? Do you see me taking a side between the two like it's some kind of a fight? I simply stated the ways females feel towards certain situations is different than males. That's not a opinion. That's a fact buddy. If you have a problem with that statement don't take it out on me. Straights vs gays? What about em? New Yorkers vs normal people? Seems like you're the one that's generalizing that new yorkers aren't normal. And yes there IS a difference in terrorists when there is a terrorist named Mohammed and a terrorist named Brittany. The terrorist named Brittany simply clogs your kids heads with sexual images which makes them think it is ok. That terrorist terrorizes the parents. No one cares about a terrorist named Brittany. But they sure as hell care if there is someone named "Mohammed" or "Abdul" or "Hasan" or "Sheik" or "Hamza". The fact of the matter is, majority of americans and westerners are ignorant. Go see how white individuals from the south feel vs the white people from the north feels on the same situations. There's a very big difference. The only common ground you'll find in america is association of arabs/muslims to terrorism. That's all.

    296. Re:Racism by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Heh, we're going in circles now. I never said we shouldn't have equal rights, but why does that mean we need to change words? We have different words to describe the male and female gender, but both genders have the same rights. We have different words to distinguish between races, but all races have the same rights. And we also have different words to distinguish between different sexual orientations, while still having (at least in Canada) the same rights. So why can't we have different words to distinguish between types of relationships, but still have the same rights? Why can't one be a "marriage" and the other a "civil union", but still have equal standing in the eyes of the law and government?

      Hell, many (heterosexual) people don't even bother with marriage these days and instead simply become "common law partners". I don't know if it's the same in the US, but a common law couple here has the same rights as a married couple. I certainly don't see any of my friends who are in that type of relationship complaining that they're not allowed to call their relationship a marriage. So why does a homosexual relationship HAVE to be called a "marriage"?

    297. Re:Racism by Intron · · Score: 1

      Thanks for clearing that up.

      --
      Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
    298. Re:Racism by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      First of all Christianity is the final chapter so to speak of Judaism. Judaism has existed since people recorded history so good luck with that. Marriage has seen some different cultural views. In some cultures just having sex means people are married. Sex and marriage have always been linked. So this brings up the acceptability of MSM. Personally I think it is morally objectionable. But then so it looking at Porn and I've been known to on occasion. So it's not worse then anything else and some people think it's ok. There is one good reason to outlaw MSM (Men having sex with Men) though. That is because rashes of MSM activity lead to outbreaks of sexually transmitted diseases and we the taxpayers have to pay for it in the end. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/diseases/hepatitis/msm/i ndex.htm However if MSM remains legal I could care less. I'm not here to force my views on other people. Just here to give all the facts. So Gay Marriage though would be linked with MSM (in the case of two men marrying). I don't know if that is a good idea. But people are going to do what they want anyways. And like you said it is two consenting adults. But why do homosexual people have a fixation with this word marriage? Like I said Civil Unions should include all of the rights. Why can't you be happy with that? Is there some kind of adjenda here?

    299. Re:Racism by PB_TPU_40 · · Score: 1

      Not that often, but since he usually drives it in rush hour traffic in Seattle, he doesn't care if someone just taps him, or for parking lot accidents. He started after he had a couple in his back yard and someone backed into his truck. It mangled the bumper and he needed a quick replacement. He's never looked back. I have to admit at times I'd like to put on railroad ties for when I'm up in the mountains. Its cheaper than getting a new steel bumper.

      --
      -PB_TPU_40 The trick to flying is to throw yourself at the ground and miss.
    300. Re:Racism by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      I'm one of those evil "right-wingers" that are so often lambasted here on teh intarweb.

      Your comment was highly moderated so I saw it before the its parent post. I apologize if these points were raised by someone else.

      I don't have a problem at all with gay partners being able to do things like inherit property, make medical decisions, visit a sick or dying partner in the hospital, adopt and live lives of peace and tranquility.

      What I do have a problem with is equating a same sex union with a traditional heterosexual marriage. Namely the tax benefit & health insurance. I don't like the possibility of a state like MA or CA being able to force a state like TX or UT to recognize as a "marriage" a homosexual union.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    301. Re:Racism by mindstrm · · Score: 1

      Differnet but equal is not equal, according to several provincial supreme courts. That seems logical.

      Alternatively, your argument could be turned on it's head... if it's JUST about terminology, why oppose it at all?

      If you start discriminating against one minority, what protects the next one?

    302. Re:Racism by mindstrm · · Score: 1


      Because differnet but equal is not equal. Because that one piece of legislation in some state that says "marriage" instead of "Civil Union" ends up screwing someone.
      And mostly.. because if the end result is the same, and the rights are identical, hten the terms ARE identical.... and hence, interchangeable.

      Common-law marriage is irrelevant.. several places have now decided that common-law does not necessarily equate to being married... as there is a conscious choise NOT to get married.

    303. Re:Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ..and I see one more that actually thinks that unprovoked, entirely unjustified atrocities aggression from Muslim terrorists is a "good" thing. You know where you can put those sock puppets? Oh never mind. Just stretch them out and you can make some new burka's for your wives.

    304. Re:Racism by EEJD · · Score: 1

      Many of my best friends are lumberjacks and only a few of them are transvestites!

    305. Re:Racism by the+Brightside · · Score: 1

      We need to redefine the words because the words are important. Attaching labels is a matter of the socialization process. That there is so much resistance to applying the word "marriage" equally is proof of the point--that the word transmits status, that the word is what is special.

      It wasn't enough to repeal the laws that enshrined segregation as a concept, we had to redefine our vocabulary, as well. Prior to the end of segregation, there were colored folk, and then there were folk. If they were white, you didn't need to mention it, because white was the construct that applied to the majority (or at least the empowered). Whiteness was the background against which coloredness stood out, and so the label became a stigma and a means of differentiation.

      It's become the same scenario with homosexuals. Excluding homosexuals from marriage is just that, a means of exclusion, and the word "marriage" has now become the term by which to connote special privileged status. And because marriage is no longer solely a religious institution, but instead one involving benefits extended by the state to married persons, then I don't see there being reasonable ground for objection to the proper extension of marriage to all citizens.

      If marriage should be restricted to certain groups of individuals, and denied to others, as a symbol of social status, then marriage should be removed from legal recognition. Do what another poster had said--get married in a church if you want, but if you're after insurance benefits and the rest, go file for a certificate of civil partnership in the state courthouse. In the States, at least, the 14th Amendment doesn't provide a legal leg to stand on for blocking the extension of marriage to homosexuals without already redefining marriage.

      Common-law couples have similar obligations in the event of dissolution, but I'm not entirely sure if the same benefits are enjoyed without a state-sanctioned marriage certificate. In any case, I would suggest the majority of the common-law couples that exist have no problems with not having a typical "marriage" because they didn't want one to begin with.

      ("Male" and "female" aren't genders, by the way, they're sexes. "Masculine" and "feminine" are the adjectives that describe gender.)

    306. Re:Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Afghanistan because they're freaking Muslim Arab countries"

      I'm amazed that anyone who thinks that Afghanistan is really populated by ARABS can actually spell the name of the country. I think the spelling is about the only thing you got right in your stating that unjustified crimes and atrocities committed against innocent human beings by Muslim terrorists are "good". I guess the electrical supply in that cave is good enough to be able to enter and post to Slashdot, right Osama?

    307. Re:Racism by king-manic · · Score: 1

      "Redneck" is a racially linked epithet used to describe southern or rural white people. It is a stereotype, and it is by definition racist.

      Being Rural is not a race. Being Chinese or black is a race. You can also be black and rural.

      --
      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
    308. Re:Racism by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1
      >I will never understand why the "right wing" is concerned with homosexuals

      I agree it doesn't make sense - If you're 'right wing' you should believe that the govt. shouldn't get involved in other's lives, therefore they shouldn't care about homosexuality. Where it falls down, however is Christian groups who believe (in my opinion wrongly) that homosexuality is a sin. These Christian groups also vote for the right-wing parties. Therefore, the right-wingers must oppose homosexuality in order to please their electorate.

    309. Re:Racism by Fastolfe · · Score: 1

      I see no reason why some extra checking is not warranted

      But this goes beyond extra checking, doesn't it? This was an outright denial of service, so to speak.

      What about the Muslim equivalent to "John Smith"? Many deeply religious societies reuse the same names, to the point where people will change their names to honor someone else.

      If this were just a little "extra checking", because someone was trying to send money to someone whose name was on a terrorist watch list, that's one thing. That's the whole point of the watch list, after all (and I'm not going to debate the merits of that). You see something interesting, you investigate. But when a private company starts preventing people from doing things just because it happens to involve a name similar to someone on a terrorist list, I have more of a problem with that. Companies wouldn't unilaterally do this by themselves. The government is "suggesting" it, and at that point, you are depriving someone of their rights without due process. Our justice system isn't intended to work that way.

    310. Re:Racism by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      The closer two spouses are in income, the worse it gets. Rather than getting the advantage of sharing the tax burden, you've taken two smaller incomes and combined them into a large income in a higher tax bracket.

      You must be doing pretty well - the 28% tax bracket tops out at $180k combined.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    311. Re:Racism by xero314 · · Score: 1
      Since you refused to read the articles I posted reference to, I figure it may be easier for you to understand if I cut and pasted one of the many definitions of race directly from The American Heritage Dictionary:
      • 2. A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution.
      Anyone with even basic understanding of english will see that the term race can be used to reference any group of people that have similar traits be it physical, regional or even historical. The is no scientific consensus as to what makes up a race among humans, or if there even are different races among humans. Personally I don't make much distinction between one form of discrimination and another, but if you are going to argue semantics with people it is best to actually know all the officially accepted meanings of the words you are using.

      I have also seen many white people call other white people "nigger" but that doesn't make the word any less racist.
    312. Re:Racism by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      The (intial) legal avenue the Schindler's appeals were based on was the fact that Mr. Schiavo publicly admitted to being in a relationship with another woman - they wanted to remove him as legal guardian.

      Well, that's only understandable - arter your wife's been dead five years, it's time to move on.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    313. Re:Racism by pjp6259 · · Score: 1

      Have you never heard of love?

      --
      Computers don't make mistakes. What they do, they do on purpose.
    314. Re:Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot Asian Dawwwwwn?

    315. Re:Racism by king-manic · · Score: 1

      By that logic, neither is "towel-head" racist. After all, anyone could wear a towel on their head, right?

      You "only minorities can be discriminated against" people crack me up.


      The term redneck is commonly used to refer to anyone who is uncouth, and lacks civility or has an attitude commonly associated with rural peoples. Towel head is a derogatory term for someone who for commonly religious reasons wears a turban. Towel head is also not really a racist term as it is a religious derogatory term. Your point is moot.

      --
      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
    316. Re:Racism by Aron+S-T · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Basically the poster is arguing that we need to increase the public health infrastructure. This is an excellent idea not only because it is a more effective tool at "countering terrorism" but it will be more effective for society overall, because it will reduce the number of deaths from real public health threats which kill far more people than terrorists.

      What I find so absolutely infuriating is that the same political party (and its dumbass supporters) that has been fighting to destroy the public health system over the past several decades (and doing a great job at that), by using the argument that "government is inefficient" sees no problem in pouring multi billions of dollars in government spending on a useless and ineffective "war". Of course when it comes to building out the public health infrastructure, mega-business can't profit and actually stands to lose (if we dealt with diabetes properly through prevention programs, drug companies stand to lose etc. etc. etc.). But war always mean big bucks for big business, hence the "war on crime" the "war on drugs" and now the "war on terrorism." Follow the money and it all makes sense. Smedly Butler's "War is a Racket" is still the most intelligent and insightful commentary on war ever written, and it applies to all of the above "wars" not just the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    317. Re:Racism by mcmonkey · · Score: 0, Troll

      Yeah...and? What does the 28% bracket have to do with it?

      For filing single, 25% tops out at 71,950. For filing jointly, 25% tops out at 119,950, not 2x71,950. Two people making $70k each who get married and filing joint will pay about $600 extra above what they paid as two single tax payers.

    318. Re:Racism by michrech · · Score: 1

      I'm one of those evil "right-wingers" that are so often lambasted here on teh intarweb.

      Your comment was highly moderated so I saw it before the its parent post. I apologize if these points were raised by someone else.

      I don't have a problem at all with gay partners being able to do things like inherit property, make medical decisions, visit a sick or dying partner in the hospital, adopt and live lives of peace and tranquility.

      What I do have a problem with is equating a same sex union with a traditional heterosexual marriage. Namely the tax benefit & health insurance. I don't like the possibility of a state like MA or CA being able to force a state like TX or UT to recognize as a "marriage" a homosexual union.

      LK


      To this, I say, "Tough Shit". It isn't my problem that you don't like it. My problem is that you would exert your will upon me, and for doing so, you are in the wrong.

      What's worse, you haven't even given any sort of reason as to WHY you think we shouldn't have this mystical tax "benefit" or be on our partners health insurance.

      Not one person has come up with a good reason to either point (let alone any others that have come up), and I doubt anyone will.

      --
      bork bork bork!
    319. Re:Racism by MustardMan · · Score: 1

      And again, you're an idiot.

      There are rednecks in Spain, there are rednecks in the southern US, there are rednecks in canada and alaska and pennsylvania and hawaii. They have no common history, they have no common nationality. What they have in common is, as one comedian put it, a "glorious lack of sophistication".

    320. Re:Racism by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Well, for it to matter, you need to make over 120k combined, at which point the difference is about $1k in taxes until you hit 150k. Basically, you need to be both working well paying jobs before it makes a difference. If I married someone making what I make, we'd pay an extra $2k/year, but that isn't much - it's the difference between getting my porsche in 2 years and getting it in 3.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    321. Re:Racism by jrumney · · Score: 1

      How about telling me which other group as a whole has suffered more because of the US?

      Latin Americans. Same deal with the dictators, CIA managed coups etc.

    322. Re:Racism by koreaman · · Score: 0

      I didn't concede your point. I said that even if all rednecks are whites, blah blah blah. Add "reading" to "logic" in the things it would service you well to learn. Even if (!) I had conceded that all rednecks are white, how does that automatically make it a racist term? I think you're using some profound definition of racism that less enlightened minds haven't come up with (standard /. sarcasm disclaimer goes here, etc.). By your reasoning the words "white", "black", etc. are "racist".

      In other news, I'm white (my name may be "koreaman", but I'm not Korean, it's a long and stupid story...), and I call people "white trash" all the time, and I mean it to be offensive in every way. If you can't figure out why this isn't racist, you haven't been following the thread, or you're brain-dead.

    323. Re:Racism by Danga · · Score: 1

      But this goes beyond extra checking, doesn't it? This was an outright denial of service, so to speak.

      Outright denial of service is wrong, but that is not what always happens. Most of the time they just do some extra checking, I wanted to mention that in case you didn't read the article.

      What about the Muslim equivalent to "John Smith"? Many deeply religious societies reuse the same names, to the point where people will change their names to honor someone else.

      If there is a John Smith on the watch list then hell yeah I think anyone with that name should be investigated further. What these companies are doing is wrong by not using both first and last name and also by flat out denying service, if they don't deny service unless they determine for sure that the person is the one on the list then I don't see anything wrong however.

      On another note, I know names like Muhhamed,etc. are religious in nature but how many people change their full names because of religious reasons? I am curious since I do not know of any.

      --
      Hey, there is only one Return and it's not of the King, it's of the Jedi.
    324. Re:Racism by jrumney · · Score: 1

      fyi, israel kills *MANY* more palestinians than palestinians kill israelites.

      i think it is on the order of 2-1 or 3-1.

      It's more like 4-1. But if you think that's bad, the US:Iraq ratio is of the order of 1000-1. Didn't we go there to protect the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein?

    325. Re:Racism by cianduffy · · Score: 1

      The IRA actually operated almost solely in the United Kingdom; not Ireland. And have always had close to no support from anyone in Ireland, no support from the government of Ireland, etc. Unfortunately, they use the name of a country that doesn't want them and people assume theres a connection.

    326. Re:Racism by jrumney · · Score: 1

      As far as the article goes, I do think that filtering based on either first or last name is a bad idea but using both together from a list of known terrorists to do a little more checking doesn't seem bad to me.

      Scottish gentlemen called Timothy might disagree with you there.

    327. Re:Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But its only racism in America if it affects the Jewish, blacks, or latinos!

      Its not racism if its against Asians or Arabs or Indians or Caucasians or ....

    328. Re:Racism by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      No it isn't. There's no reason a Chinese guy or a black guy can't be a redneck.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    329. Re:Racism by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Yep, and their enemy just happened to be devout protestants...

      Yes, that's what happened. Go read a history book.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    330. Re:Racism by whec32 · · Score: 1

      Can someone explain to me why hasn't the term "Democrat" been attributed to bigotry and slave owners. Instead, it is almost synonymous with being champions of the minority. The American Civil War has become a symbol for the end of slavery in the United States, and yet the Democrats essentially were the leadership of the Confederacy. Most of the people in the south were farmers and for the most part they didn't care about the fate of the slaves since they couldn't afford to own any in the first place. It was the Democratic congressmen and senators who ultimately cared about keeping slavery since many of them owned slaves. After the Civil War, the Democrats fought to prevent the reconstruction of the south which also meant fighting to prevent the Federal government from enforcing the laws that protected the freed slave's right to vote. With the failure of reconstruction, so went the protection in the south of the freed slaves' vote. This remained the case well into the 20th century. So why is it that the "Democrat" is considered champion of the minority instead of racist slave owner?

    331. Re:Racism by edbarbar · · Score: 1

      This isn't racism. It is nameism.

      Racism would be blocking money transfers to arabs. Instead, they are blocking money to people with the same names as terrorists. So if terrorists start calling themselves "George Bush," his Western Union transfers will be blocked too.

      --
      Ed Barbar, President and General Manager, Furnit USA
    332. Re:Racism by darkonc · · Score: 2, Informative
      Well, if you go back a little more than 20 years, you will find a huge shitload of terrorism by the KKK, who killed a teenager for saying 'hi' to a white girl, and killed people for registering blacks to vote, and ...... Serious terrorists.

      Menachem Begin was a well-known terrorist leader before he was elected prime minister of Israel.

      As others have mentioned, Timothy McVeigh and his friends commited the second worst terrorist act in US history.

      And, of course, Israel bombing civilian infrastructure to force the release of a soldier (who could be considered little more than a prisoner of war), is at least arguably an act of terrorism. -- I mean, how many innocent civilians have to be killed by Israel in the name of freeing these two soldiers? -- Oh, yeah, that's right. They're members of a different ethnic group, so they don't count.

      Where do you think terrorism comes from?

      --
      Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
    333. Re:Racism by Chmcginn · · Score: 1

      True that. This would have gotten take care of long ago, but he didn't have the option of having her feeding tube removed under Florida law until 1998(?).

      --
      Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
    334. Re:Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You get a civil union as well. If you're gay, or irreligious, you're a second-class citizen in GWB's USA.

    335. Re:Racism by Aardpig · · Score: 1

      You should have written "others". You seem to be laboring under the misconception that an apostrophe is used to announce an upcoming "s". You fucking retard.

      --
      Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
    336. Re:Racism by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      If you want to be abrasive, that's no problem for me.

      My problem is that you would exert your will upon me, and for doing so, you are in the wrong.

      You're attempting to exert your will upon the rest of society. For that you are as wrong as you accuse me of being. Polygamists, who can claim a long history of existance, have more of a claim of legitimacy than crybaby shitpackers.

      What's worse, you haven't even given any sort of reason as to WHY you think we shouldn't have this mystical tax "benefit" or be on our partners health insurance.

      Homosexual men are more likely to be sick than the rest of society. Why should we have to subsidize your medical treatment?

      Not one person has come up with a good reason to either point (let alone any others that have come up), and I doubt anyone will.

      Something tells me that nothing that anyone comes up with will ever be good enough for you. In a free society, you have every right to be a sexual deviant but you don't have the right to be accepted.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    337. Re:Racism by Aardpig · · Score: 1

      In case you're interested, Wikipedia has an article discussing the Enniskillen bomb. It appears there wasn't a warning in that case. Whereas, the Wikipedia article on Omagh reports three warnings. In any case, as you point out Omagh was the actions of a breakaway faction.

      --
      Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
    338. Re:Racism by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      so because the government has a hard time punishing those who abuse it, is should be illegal?

      i suppose wireless internet and internet pseudonyms should be illegal as well. also payment in cash without a registered government ID should be illegal.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    339. Re:Racism by michrech · · Score: 1

      More, quite predictable, homophobic babble. "Shitpackers"? Have to resort to name calling because you don't really have any point to make?

      I'd feel sad for you, however, one of these days you'll probably do something stupid and end up dead. Chlorine in the gene pool, and all that.

      --
      bork bork bork!
    340. Re:Racism by paedobear · · Score: 1

      Perhaps because the Republicans have done so well over the past 40 or so years in courting the racists and evangelicals, and rejecting their old minority support base (With the well-known exception of the Cubans-in-exile)

    341. Re:Racism by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      Have to resort to name calling because you don't really have any point to make?

      I didn't "have to", I wanted to as a response to your "tough shit" line.

      You seemed quite anxious to make this a rancorous confrontation, I merely obliged you.

      I'd feel sad for you, however, one of these days you'll probably do something stupid and end up dead. Chlorine in the gene pool, and all that.

      I smoke 10-13 cigarettes per day, I'll probably die sooner than I otherwise would have. I'm sure that's comforting to you.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    342. Re:Racism by mjeffers · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure where you're from, but nowhere in America is it against the law for any group to marry...

      If a man can't find a woman to marry, that's his problem, not mine. Well, actually it IS mine, because even though I'm hetero I can't find a woman to marry.


      Here's an idea, move to Boston and find a nice guy (or is marrying someone who's not of your preferred gender not a good option for you).

    343. Re:Racism by jc42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      My definition of terrorism is groups that kill solely out of hatred of other human beings.

      That's not even close to any dictionary definition of "terrorism". Rather, it has names like "mass murder" and "genocide", which are different kinds of evil.

      Most definitions of "terrorism" are variants on the original (French) definition: Attacking civilian noncombatants in order to put pressure on their government.

      Of course, most governments carefully tweak the definition so that it doesn't apply when their own people do it.

      For instance, one of the most clear-cut examples of (state-sponsored) terrorism in recent years went by the name "shock and awe". That was a clear statement that the perpetrators' intent was to instill terror in the population, in order to have an effect on the government. You might remember who it was that used that slogan. This point may have been missed by American media, but it did have a strong effect on the victims of the shock-and-awe campaign: It pushed many of them into the newly-formed resistance that has been so much in the news lately.

      In any case, using your own idiosyncratic definition of words is not a good thing if you're trying to communicate. But I suppose it's good if you're trying to confuse the discussion.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    344. Re:Racism by whec32 · · Score: 1

      I suppose that's one possibility. However I have serious doubts about it. As far as I can tell, there is no real evidence that the Republicans were ever really for supporting minorities. In fact the Irish immigrants still got shafted in the North during the Civil War, leading to the draft riots in New York city and the US Navy shelling the rioters. As it was, Lincoln wasn't exactly for freeing the slaves either (at least not directly), especially if it meant leading to a civil war. However, the Democrats painted him as such. Even when he did free the slaves, it was only the slaves in the south that were freed. In northern states like Marland and Kentucky where slavery still existed, they were not included in the Emancipation Proclomation. From an even broader point of view, unless you were of anglo saxon origin, you were pretty much shafted. Germans, Irish, Italians, Eastern Europeans all got the short end of the stick when they came to the US. To further complicate matters, the Democrats in the south purposely courted the freed slave votes for the purpose of keeping them under their thumbs.

    345. Re:Racism by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 1

      Yes, that's what happened. Go read a history book.

      Oh, I like reading them, but no need in this case.

      Its mostly that the religious conflicts that consumed substantial parts of Europe in the 1600s never really ended in Northern Ireland, and yes, that conflict was brought to Ireland by protestants.

    346. Re:Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The quote which points out the fact of the significant majority of terrorists being Muslims has been around for years, long before Ann Coulter came on the scene. She's said many wise things, but you can't credit her with this one.

    347. Re:Racism by Boolio · · Score: 1

      I SERIOUSLY doubt that this is a case of racism. It is more likely to do with the fact that the intended recipient of the funds either matched or came close to matching a listing on OFAC http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/ or another government list. The Office of Foreign Asset Control requires that transactions involving known or suspected persons on the officials lists are blocked.

    348. Re:Racism by k_187 · · Score: 1

      that's ok, it hurt bush in the polls.

      --
      11 was a racehorse
      12 was 12
      1111 Race
      12112
    349. Re:Racism by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Sometimes they have to do with past atrocities, meddling, power struggles, etc. too. Curious that most of the leaders of the "muslim extremists" were trained by either the US, USSR or both as pawns in the cold war....

      Those terrorists don't consider themselves terrorists. They think they're fighting to free their homeland, overthrow oppressors, whatever. Sure their tactics are disapproved of by the current powers that be, but that's true of most rebellions, including a certain one that happened some 230 years ago.

      Really, you can't count them unless they commit terrorist acts on your own soil. For anything else you have to wait and see who wins before you can decide whether they're terrorists or freedom fighters, legitimate governments or cruel oppressors.

    350. Re:Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree.

      AIDS is a reason. And, yes, it started in homosexuals and is documented .

      Face the facts, such as the one about the Center for Disease Control and Prevention statistics stating that 70 percent of AIDS victims in America acquired the disease through homosexual relations or intravenous drug use. 13 percent of all cases are alleged to be from heterosexual contact.

      Now, these are based on the victims reporting how they got AIDS. It is more likely that a person will lie about getting AIDS from homosexual contact or drug use, saying that they got it from heterosexual contact, than a heterosexual lying and saying they got the disease from homosexual sex or drug use.

      Facts, people, facts. Being that /. is supposedly a "scientific" group of people, as evidenced by the evolution arguements, I would expect a "scientific" approach to AIDS, terrorism, who is most likely to kill you, etc...

      Such ignorance and neglect of the facts will get you killed.

    351. Re:Racism by Hadean · · Score: 1

      Check out http://www.tkb.org/ and get back to us when you have proof of your statement.

    352. Re:Racism by toddestan · · Score: 1

      How about making the statement with the word "yuppie" replacing "redneck"? The words redneck and yuppie are both generally used as derogatory terms describing a group of people in a specific social-economic class that tend to be (but not always) white. Does this make the word "yuppie" a racist term?

    353. Re:Racism by taxevader · · Score: 1

      Are those pro-muslim quotes from google, the same site that claims anything anti-muslim is racist? Google dumps news sites that criticize radical Islam Search engine giant Google has cut off its news relationship with a number of online news publications that include frank discussions of radical Islam - the New Media Journal becoming the latest termination, as its owner just discovered. Frank Salvato, who began the agreement with Google News last September, said he received a reply from the company's help desk indicating there had been complaints of "hate speech" on his site, as first reported by media watchdog Newsbusters.org. Newsbusters says it has observed a pattern of intolerance toward conservative sites that deal with radical Islam and terrorism. Rusty Shackleford, owner of The Jawa Report, received a similar e-mail message March 29 informing him: "Upon recent review, we've found that your site contains hate speech, and we will no longer be including it in Google News." Two weeks later, Jim Sesi's MichNews.com was cut off, with Google providing three examples of "hate speech" by conservative writer J. Grant Swank, Jr. Newsbusters commented: "At first blush, one can easily ignore such business decisions by the most powerful company on the Internet as being routine. However, on closer examination, such behavior could give one relatively small technological corporation (when measured by the size of its workforce) a degree of political might that frankly dwarfs its current financial prowess." The media watchdog noted columnist and blogger Michelle Malkin wrote in February 2005 her difficulties in becoming part of Google News. Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs had a similar complaint. When Google News launched its beta site in April 2002, it said its mission was to construct an unbiased news engine free of human intervention using new methods of aggregating news from sources worldwide. According to the April Nielsen/NetRatings report, 49 percent of all searches conducted in the U.S. in March 2006 were carried out on Google. Along with the dropping of conservative news providers, Google has received other complaints of liberal bias. Last June, a conservative book publisher said Google rejected his ad for a book critical of Bill and Hillary Clinton while continuing to accept anti-Bush themes. Eric Jackson, CEO of World Ahead, said his ads for "Their Lives: The Women Targeted by the Clinton Machine" were rejected, without further explanation, due to "unacceptable content." As WND reported, 98 percent of all political donations by Google employees went to support Democrats, and as a matter of fact, Al Gore is now a senior adviser to Google. Google CEO Eric Schmidt gave the maximum legal limit of donations to Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry and to primary candidate Howard Dean. Schmidt also contributed the maximum amount to Sen. Clinton, whose role in helping her husband intimidate his female accusers is addressed in the new book. In May 2005, Google rejected an attempt by the conservative activist group RightMarch.com to run ads critical of Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., while continuing to run attack ads against besieged House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas. Also, Google agreed to allow the communist Chinese government to have the search engine block "objectionable" search terms such as "democracy." In addition, the company came under fire for an editorial decision to rank news articles in search results by "quality," giving preferential placement to large and predominately liberal media outlets such as CNN and the BBC over conservative news sources, even if they are more recent or pertinent. thought so.. fucking idiot.

      --
      -Copyright law #69:Whenever Mickey Mouse is about to enter the public domain,copyrights get extended by 25 years.
    354. Re:Racism by graikor · · Score: 1

      Good point, how exactly is "Shock and Awe" a whole lot different from blitzkrieg?

      I guess we'd need to ask both the Poles and Iraqis...

      (Is this my first Godwin? I think it is!)

    355. Re:Racism by markedmann · · Score: 1

      Yes of course, because it's so easy to physically harm someone else using wireless internet and payment in cash. Oh wait...

    356. Re:Racism by xero314 · · Score: 1
      According to wikipedia (which may or may not be a definitive source):
      In modern usage, the term redneck predominantly refers to a particular stereotype of individuals living in Appalachia, the Southern United States, the Ozarks, and later the Rocky Mountain States.

      "Rednecks" are largely descendants of the Ulster-Scots and Lowland Scots immigrants who travelled to North America from Northern Ireland and Scotland in the late 17th and 18th centuries.

      "Redneck", like the word nigger, has two general uses: firstly, as a pejorative for outsiders, and secondly as a term used by members within that group. To outsiders, generally, it is a term for those of Southern or Appalachian rural poor backgrounds, or more loosely, rural poor to working-class persons of rural extraction.
      I would say, descendant from scotland and ireland, is more geographically similar than descendant from Algeria, Ethiopia, Egypt, Arabia, Australia (yes there are native people of black skin in Australia), some smaller island nations and the rest of africa

      Just because you and some others do not know the meaning of the word does not mean that it is not racist.
    357. Re:Racism by tpr · · Score: 1

      You're forgetting that Christians outright and publically denounced the IRA's methods and actions.
      Really? You must have missed the approval and support expressed by various nasty people then. Selective hearing is a depressingly common condition amongst religionists.

      The IRA also gave several hours warning before attacks which allowed time to remove people from the vicinity of any explosions.
      Really? Funny, I seemed to have been left out of the advance warning on the two occasions the bastards bombed me....

      It was purely for political reasons that the IRA did what they did. They wanted and want to be in control of Ireland independantly and without british intervention and presence. They resorted to seemingly terroristic tactics simply because they lacked the resources to wage a full scale war.
      Really? So the drug running, gun running, murder and torture, bank jobs etc were merely political expression. Hmm, try that one on the FBI or your local serious crime squad.

    358. Re:Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The terr'rists are creation of United States itself. They were created to fight russians in Afganistan, which caused immense damage to India also.

    359. Re:Racism by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      wireless internet used to run a child porn ring hurts people

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    360. Re:Racism by NereusRen · · Score: 1

      Not a single dictionary.com result allows redneck to refer to a non-white.

      redneck
      n. Offensive Slang
            1. Used as a disparaging term for a member of the white rural laboring class, especially in the southern United States.
            2. A white person regarded as having a provincial, conservative, often bigoted attitude.

      redneck
      n : a poor white person in the southern United States [syn: cracker]

      Furthermore, I have never heard it refer to a non-white, so don't claim that the definitions are out of date with actual usage... The original poster clearly intended to refer to the stereotypical ignorance of southern whites with his jab at the Bush administration.

      You can't just make up definitions to words in order to win an argument. Since I was defending the point that "redneck is a racist term," I think the evidence stands quite clear.

    361. Re:Racism by Ochu · · Score: 1

      Well, the IRA and ETA (the biggest Basque group) have both renounced violence recently. But the others still exist...

    362. Re:Racism by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · · Score: 1

      1987 is a bit before my time in the north. I do recall all sorts of allegations going around at the time of the Omagh bombing though. Nyeh it was always one fucked up faction or another.

    363. Re:Racism by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Remember, folks, racism is A-OK if it's trying to prevent terrorism or 419 scams.
      </sarcasm>


      Errr, you missed the "start sarcasm" "<sarcasm>" tag there. Didn't you?

      Oh dear. Oh very dear.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    364. Re:Racism by locofungus · · Score: 1

      They have also now denounced their violent past, laid down their arms and are seeking a peaceful solution.

      "After both sides got tired of violence and got a lot of external preasure on top."

      And after 11th September they were unlikely to continue to get the financial support from the US that they needed to continue their campaign.

      Tim.

      --
      God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
    365. Re:Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Or there's artificial insemination for lesbians, or surrogate mothers for gay men.

      This is impossible, because the rights of the newborn take precedence over the desires and indulgence of lesbians and arse-fucker males. It is natural for a child to be raised in a family, which is by definition composed of a female mother and a male father and possibly broters/sisters at the minimum. Therefore allowing non-heterosexuals to adopt kids or produce children under microscope and raise them in non-family setup, that would amount to psychological torture against the children.

      Children cannot fend for themselves, so it is the duty of the society to protect them against abnormal people. Same sex attraction is abnormal because it exterminates itself via infertility and it shall remain so.

      BTW, there are no homosexuals. Lesbian females and arse-fucker males have nothing in common. Lesbianity is nothing more than mutual masturbation, while men fucking each other in the arse is desecrating the human body. There is good reason Moses ordered to stone them to death but said nothing about lesbianity, which has minuscule significance.

    366. Re:Racism by the_womble · · Score: 1

      The problem is that marriage intrinsically gives approval to certain family arrangements and not others.

      You are presumably in favour of allowing homosexual marriage. Are you also in favour of allowing polygamous and polyandrous marriages? What about group marriages.

      If not are you not imposing your own views of what a family unit should be, just as much as those who oppose homosexual marriage? Is that not equally bigotry?

      Of course you might say that you know that homosexual marriages are a good thing are a good thing, and that polygamous marriages are a bad thing, but there are plenty of people who disagree - many even on both counts.

    367. Re:Racism by PinkyDead · · Score: 1

      The problem with free speech is that some people don't know that just because you have a right to speak freely, doesn't mean that you have a obligation to do so.

      Seemingly innocuous comedy remarks are (potentially) the start of something more sinister. When you want to commit genocide or subjugate a people (this is not a HOWTO) - you don't start by building concentration camps, you start by pointing how someone's nose is a slightly different shape or that their accent has an odd twang. Add in some (freely available) stupid people and Tom's your uncle.

      --
      Genesis 1:32 And God typed :wq!
    368. Re:Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I simply stated the ways females feel towards certain situations is different than males. That's not a opinion. That's a fact buddy.

      You wouldn't know a fact if it bit you on the butt - what a confused life you must lead. You didn't simply state that, or it might have been a reasonable statement. You presumed to know how the different genders would feel towards a specific situation - which, let's face it, you actually have no idea about. You haven't studied it - you're just making an assumption based on your dear little preconceptions of life. That, in case you're still confused, is not the definition of 'fact'.

    369. Re:Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe every Jeff Foxworthy joke ever? Mr. Foxworthy defines redneck as being, "a glorious absence of sophistication" which does not preclude its application to non-white persons.

      some redneck jokes:
      http://www.fortogden.com/foredneck.html

      a lot of the scenarios can be filled by persons who are black, latino, asian, etc.

      None of the jokes start out like; "You might be a redneck if you're poor and white....

    370. Re:Racism by JonathanR · · Score: 1
      ...there are many, many non-Islamic terrorist groups.

      Wot? You mean the US Army, the USAF and the USMC, amongst others?
    371. Re:Racism by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      The basis for the term [Redneck} is that white guys working in the sun all day will get a sunburned neck
      I always understood that "redneck" referred to shaving the back of your neck as part of a crew cut, the inference being that short/shaved hair is the physical opposite of long-haired hippy/intellectual, and that therefore the wearer has non-liberal and anti-intellectual views.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    372. Re:Racism by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      As far as the article goes
      Are you mad? Talking about TFA in the middle of a good argument?
      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    373. Re:Racism by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      Line breaks, Bub.
      I ain't reading huge blocks of text: Line breaks, paragraphs, these are essentials, not frivolities.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    374. Re:Racism by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      That's not even close to any dictionary definition of "terrorism". Rather, it has names like "mass murder" and "genocide", which are different kinds of evil.

      Absoluetely agree. Most people do not use the word, "terrorist", properly...I believe this is on purpose by law enforcement and it's simply translating to the press and the man on the street. Law enforcement is trying to use it whenever possible because it often enables additional power, harsher sentences, and less rights for those they accuse. This is bad for everyone as *everyone* is now considered a terrorist. This will ultimately delute their power when people pull their heads from their asses and realize the police have been very abusive here.

      Most definitions of "terrorism" are variants on the original (French) definition: Attacking civilian noncombatants in order to put pressure on their government.

      I would say you're 95% there with your definition. I would reword it as: Attacking civilian, noncombatants, in order to create choas and disfunction within society by creating mass fear within the affected population, thereby forcing pressure on the assciated government. In other words, people do bad things that may scare others, but if the INTENT is not squarely aimed at causing political change, it most certainly is NOT terrorism.

    375. Re:Racism by jc42 · · Score: 1

      Good point, how exactly is "Shock and Awe" a whole lot different from blitzkrieg?

      Similar concepts, of course, but one could make some picky distinctions. "Blitzkrieg" literally means "lightning war", not really so much a terrorist sloan as an arrogant assertion that "We'll win so fast they won't even know what hit them". "Shock and awe" is talking directly about the psychological impact on the victims, so it better qualifies as a terrorist slogan.

      (Is this my first Godwin? I think it is!)

      Maybe, but it's on topic, so it might not really qualify. We are rapidly reaching the point where "terrorist" just means "anyone that I don't like". It could help to clarify such terms by discussing who qualifies and who doesn't. In the case of Hitler and his minions, the term "terrorist" probably doesn't really apply. They weren't trying to terrify people; they were trying to exterminate some of them and rule the rest with an iron fist. This isn't really the same thing as terrorism, whose goal is to persuade people to do your bidding by making them afraid of not following your suggestions.

      Also, Godwin's comment was about the fact that mentioning Hitler or Nazis tends to bring a discussion to a halt. But in cases where it's relevant, this can occasionally lead to useful discussions. Thus, I've seen a few cases where someone has called George Bush a Nazi, and someone else replies "No, he's really more of a Fascist, because ...". People tend to use such terms as mere insults, without knowing what they actually mean. If a discussion of the meaning of such terms follows, it can be educational.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    376. Re:Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is natural for a child to be raised in a family, which is by definition composed of a female mother and a male father and possibly broters/sisters at the minimum. Therefore allowing non-heterosexuals to adopt kids or produce children under microscope and raise them in non-family setup, that would amount to psychological torture against the children.

      So... if a woman's husband dies, her children should be taken away from her as well, because with their father dead, they will no longer be part of a family, and are therefore being psychologically tortured?

      Hey, you're the lunatic spouting this crap, not me. I'm just pointing out the glaring holes in your logic.

      Lesbianity is nothing more than mutual masturbation, while men fucking each other in the arse is desecrating the human body.

      What about blowjobs? Either those desecrate the human body, in which case the majority of heterosexual marriages are as blasphemous as any gay relationship, or they count as masturbation, in which case the primary sexual activity in most gay relationships is A-OK.

      Geeze, you really don't know very much about the world, do you?

    377. Re:Racism by Hrodvitnir · · Score: 1

      For those that don't want to read the article, let me say that the Demographic Characteristics Table lists all U.S. terrorist groups as 60% white and 40% non-white.

      --
      "There are more important things than stopping terrorism. Upholding the Constitution is one of them." - Ars Forumer.
    378. Re:Racism by N3wsByt3 · · Score: 1

      I've answered this to your 'debate-oponent' (replying to you because otherwise you might not get any notification):

      My, this thread got whiny ;-)

      Look, it's not too difficult to comprehend: you can both be right (and wrong). This happens when you do not give a clear definition of what one means with 'racism'. Even official definitions don't help always, because sometimes there is more then one meaning to a term too. And then one person has one definition in mind, and the other another.

      redneck ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rdnk)
      n. Offensive Slang
      1)Used as a disparaging term for a member of the white rural laboring class, especially in the southern United States.
      2)A white person regarded as having a provincial, conservative, often bigoted attitude.

      So, you are claiming more in the lines of 1), while he is taking 2) as reference. So you are both right. But is it racism?

      racism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rszm)
      n.
      1)The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
      2)Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

      According to these definitions (dictionary.com - which I still find a bit more reliable then wikipedia, frankly), one can not come to the conclusion 'redneck' is a racist term, so I'm inclined to say the former poster was rather correct in his earlier claim.

      That said, I do not doubt that somewhere, somehow, another dictionary will give a more broad interpretation, which might lead some substantiation that 'redneck' is (also) a racist term. However, in its original meaning, the word 'racist' invariably and inherently refers to 'race' - and I don't think redneck specifically refers to a race, nor to any ethnical group (anymore).

      Thus, you both could argue something else, and to some degree be both right. All in all, I think the former poster was more right then you, however.

      --
      --- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
    379. Re:Racism by N3wsByt3 · · Score: 1

      "The problem with free speech is that some people don't know that just because you have a right to speak freely, doesn't mean that you have a obligation to do so."

      That may be thye problem, but it's far outweighted by its benefits.

      And even if it weren't; the real solution is not muffling free speech; it's forbidding taking actions based on racism or other forms of discrimination. The line should be drawn THERE, not by 'free speech'.

      Arguments about something that *could be* the 'start' is fairly useless, when that start isn't illegal on itself. Dicussions and open debates about virtually anything that is currently illegal (for instance, drug-use) could be seen as a 'start', otherwise. It's the actions that should be punished, not the speech.

      (And sometimes, I think it can be warranted even to disregard 'illegal' actions, in some specific cases. See http://newsbyte.blogspot.com/2006/06/lawand-why-to -say-bullocks-some-times.html

      --
      --- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
    380. Re:Racism by lucabrasi999 · · Score: 1

      The IRA usually attacked in the United Kingdom. But, when I refer to 'Ireland', I am including Northern Ireland in that geographical reference. I realize that Northern Ireland is legally and technically a part of the UK, but, it is part of the Island of Ireland. (I admit that I am letting some of my own political preferences leak out when I refer to Northern Ireland as being part of 'Ireland').

      Also, note that the IRA did not limit it's attacks to the UK/Northern Ireland/Ireland. It also operated throughout Europe and sometimes in other parts of the world.

    381. Re:Racism by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      It's true that some moderates denounce specific terrorist acts.

      No, the official position of most religious authorities is to denounce terrorist acts. There's a fatwa against terrorism.
      If you paid any attention to what the muslims say, instead of what people who hate them say they say, you would know that.

      the concept of martyrdom is widely accepted

      How far would you have to go to find a monument dedicated to those who have given their lives fighting for a cause that is dear to your nation? I can reach a good number of such martyr-worship shrines by foot. And most of them have crosses on them.

      Until Muslims agree to change their holy texts

      Yeah, riiiiight. That sounds fair!

      the fringe actions of a few moderates

      Moderates are the majority, extremists are the fringe.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    382. Re:Racism by ryanov · · Score: 1

      Why not call it marriage then? The issue here is that it makes gay folks who want to get married feel as if we are discounting the value of their marriage just because they are different. If it's essentially marriage, why the need to call it anything but marriage? Who cares what it has been called?

    383. Re:Racism by ryanov · · Score: 1

      Which does make you an evil bigot. No need to out-right articulate it -- we're smart enough to figure it out.

    384. Re:Racism by tsobo · · Score: 1
      It is quite racist to assume based on name alone that someone might be a terrorist. Or have we forgotten Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, Theodore Kaczynski, or Eric Robert Rudolph?
      Who? ;-)
    385. Re:Racism by tbannist · · Score: 1

      Nope, those are the reasons. I think most of us agree that they're really bad reasons, but they are the reasons.

      The excuses take the form of:

      The Bible says...
      Children need to have...
      We need to defend the moral...

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    386. Re:Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not Racism.

      Sex is behavior.
      Some is abhorrent, abnormal behavior.

      Behavior is the result of environment,choice.

      Sexual "preference".

      There is no genetic marker.
      It remains A Preference, a behavior.

      Proof of the against nature abnormalcy of the chosen behavior is shown in the costs including vastly higher levels of medical, emotional,and psycholigical issues.

      Death,disease,abuse and suffering.

      The censored, shouted down fact is that the mere thought of this makes the vast majority of people cringe. In the same life preserving manner that we react when encountering a rotting corpse.
      "Not Food"

      Life preserving Gag reflex. Stay away. Truth.

      Histrionics and name calling will not change this currently unspoken truth.

      Behavior can change. Happens every day.

      My skin, yours will not change. Black is not a preference.

      "Lifestyle, alternate lifestyle, preference," all the phrases we use to describe this behavior, reflect the truth that this is a behavioral issue.

      Behavior that can change, and behaviors and patterns are in fact shown to vary greatly in folks lives.

      The gag reflex remains,in spite of the repressed, politically incorrect unspoken truth. You waste your time, your life. It is your choice.

      Get a life, find a cause.
      Or save yourself,
      your behavior, your choice.

      Meanwhile, you waste our time, with many more pressing matters needing attention.

    387. Re:Racism by N3wsByt3 · · Score: 1

      "It is only for political reasons that Hamas does what it does. They want to be in control of Palestina independently and without Israelian intervention and presence. They resorted to seemingly terroristic tactics simply because they lacked the resources to wage a full scale war.

      And this statement can be repeated with only some minor changes about many supposed terrorist groups."

      Well...I doubt the latter. Al-quada isn't trying to establish their own country, after all.

      But, for arguments' sake, let's say I accept your argumentation for Hamas. Your analogy was quite right in that respect, then: the IRA and Hamas DO have quite a lot in common.

      But, could it not also be said that they are both NOT terrorists?

      I mean, what, then, constitutes a terrorist? When the americans revolted against their english 'oppressors', weren't they terrorists too? Weren't many of the countries and people who liberated themselves in fact terrorists?

      The notion that any side when waging war does not commit attrocities towards civilians is misplaced, so that can't really be a measure to decide neither. What's left?

      --
      --- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
    388. Re:Racism by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 1



      I mean, what, then, constitutes a terrorist? When the americans revolted against their english 'oppressors', weren't they terrorists too? Weren't many of the countries and people who liberated themselves in fact terrorists?

      yes, and that is exactly what they are being called by their opponents usually.

      The notion that any side when waging war does not commit attrocities towards civilians is misplaced, so that can't really be a measure to decide neither. What's left?

      Attrocities towards civilians can make for war crimes, but in themselves they do not make for terrorism.

      Terrorist as used today is mostly a label used to stip the 'hunamity' from people it is applied to, so that any action against them can be justified without having to mind annoying things like basic human rights.

    389. Re:Racism by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      for the purposes of law joining more than two people is problamatic in many ways, should medical decisions when one member of a group marriage be decided by a vote? or should there be a ranking where certain partners are lesser than others?

      also it would eliminate insurance for families because no insurance company would want to deal with that.

      a simple law can cover "any one unmarried person may marry any other unmarried person" without creating all sorts of problems for other institutions which recognize married couples in one way or another.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    390. Re:Racism by SirPavlova · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily... if they were just trading stuff already available, it hurts noone. And anyway, even if they do make the vids &c. themselves, it's not the wireless internet sharing it about that hurts people, it's the acts depicted in the crap they're sharing.

      Just being a pedant...

      --
      Yar.
    391. Re:Racism by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      We need to redefine the words because the words are important. Attaching labels is a matter of the socialization process.

      I see. In that case, why don't we just stop referring to homosexuals as homosexuals? By your line of logic, isn't it discriminatory to have one word to describe those who sleep with the opposite sex, while having a different word for those who sleep with the same sex? We'll just call everyone "whateversexual". While we're at it we'll drop the words "man" and "woman", and just refer to everyone as a person. Then we could redefine the meaning of marriage to be "a union between a person and a person". Maybe we could have the announcement made on TV by David Letterperson. While we're at it we'd also have to drop such silly words as "fiancé", "girlfriend", "boyfriend", "wife", and "husband". They're discriminatory because they're all different. We'll just call anyone involved in a romantic relationship a "partner".

      Gee, once you get started on changing words, it's rather difficult to stop eh? Maybe we'll form a committee to rewrite the entire English language, making sure than no term anywhere could possibly be seen as discriminatory.

      Prior to the end of segregation, there were colored folk, and then there were folk.

      We still HAVE "colored folk", we just call them "African Americans" now, which is even worse since the majority of them aren't from Africa. Or we call 'em blacks. And then we do surveys all the time to see how they identify themselves, and how they think the white man is treating them. Plus we provide them with opportunities based on nothing other than their race. So we've gone from using a stupid term to describe them, and systemically discriminating against them, to using an even stupider term to describe them while individually discriminating against them and systemically discriminating FOR them. Yeah, we've made some progress, but a lot of mistakes too. And the change in wording had little to do with it.

      It's become the same scenario with homosexuals. Excluding homosexuals from marriage is just that, a means of exclusion, and the word "marriage" has now become the term by which to connote special privileged status.

      Alright, and? Calling you a "man" is a means of excluding you from the group associated with the word "woman". So what? Does that make you upset too?

      It's this kind of thing that makes me think we're (as a society) going overboard with the "equality" thing. Equality doesn't mean making everyone the same! Otherwise I'd be able to use a women's washroom in a restaurant, and get hired as a newscaster for the Black Entertainment Television network. We ARE different, and sometimes those differences are important. Acknowledging our difference isn't discrimination. It's not discrimination until you start USING those differences as a basis to treat one group worse than another. Refusing to acknowledge the differences between us is pure foolishness; a self induced blindness rather like the proverbial ostrich with it's head in the sand.

      If marriage should be restricted to certain groups of individuals, and denied to others, as a symbol of social status, then marriage should be removed from legal recognition.

      Now THAT is something I can absolutely agree with. Marriage should be a cultural thing left up to the individuals and their faiths. The government should simply be in the business of contract enforcement. If 5 people all want to have a relationship together, no problem, they draw up a contract stating the terms and duration of the arrangement, as well as repercussions for violating the terms of the contract. They can call their relationship whatever they want. For the government it then becomes a simple matter of ratifying and enforcing the terms of the contract, and figuring out how the benefits would be shared.

      The morality of such a system would be...interesting to debate. However, it gives people maximum freedom, and avoids excluding any group(s), so I'm all for it. But I still maintain there's absolutely no justification for changing the definition of the word "marriage".

    392. Re:Racism by toad3k · · Score: 1

      From what I understand, a hundred years ago or so the two parties switched roles. Democrats used to be the conservatives and republicans (along with lincoln) were the liberals. Of course that doesn't prevent current day repubs from citing lincoln as a champion of their party, even though the republican party was actually disolved and rebuilt from the ground up since he was president.

      I should probably research this to make sure it is correct but instead I'll put a disclaimer, I am no historian.

    393. Re:Racism by whec32 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's pretty tough to follow. In fact the parties tend to switch places almost once every century. Of course prior to the Civil War, things were a lot more different in terms of the political climate. The present two party system didn't exist. In fact there were nearly half a dozen prominent political parties. This kind of leads to my belief that both the Republican party and Democratic party have become too big to effectively run. They swallowed up too many other ideologies and interests that one good idea within one party can't pull through because it has an attachment that really sucks.

    394. Re:Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better yet, support systems like fairtax and no one gets tax benefits from marriage. Or just learn to deal with your issues and stop being gay.

    395. Re:Racism by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

      I'd rather have the trade center still standing, 3000 people still alive, and a little less "liberty" instead of death and destruction.

      Unnecessary liberty destroys essential security.

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    396. Re:Racism by Moofie · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure the locals didn't name Nigeria Nigeria.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    397. Re:Racism by king-manic · · Score: 1

      The term is slang, in the common usage it's a reference simply to a rural subclass. The definitions you state do refer to race btu location and attitude seem to be defining point and not race.

      --
      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
    398. Re:Racism by king-manic · · Score: 1

      To clarify, While white is a part of the definition of the slang word, it's not a racial slur because it'd not race that determines the victim. It's their class and location. Chink refers to any asian regaurdless of what else they are but Redneck refers only to a subclass of poor rural folk or igrnorant conservative folk. The initial usage refered mainly to white rural folk however the meaning of the word has morphed into any rural minded convervative biggot. For instance I am chinese and my uncle is too, however many peopel refer to him as a red neck because he has very conservative and biggoted views. You could not how ever refer to him as a nigger. Since he is not black. If a term is no longer race specific can it be a racial slur? no. BTW this is slang. The definition of slang words run alogn common ussage. The word Fuck has about a dozen meanings when used as slang but is officially refers to intercourse. The word coolie is no longer in ussage btu refered to a subclass of immigrant workers and was a racial slur but is no longer since any labouring immigrant in china is now refered to as a coolie.

      --
      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
    399. Re:Racism by Barlo_Mung_42 · · Score: 1

      "There's a fatwa against terrorism."
      Are there not also fatwas in support of terrorism? The one against Salmon Rushdie comes to mind. I know it's been reversed but while it was in place even liberal minded Muslims like Cat Stevens (I forget his new name) would not renounce it.

      "And most of them have crosses on them."
      I agree that the christians have a great deal of blood on their hands too and their holy texts are just as intolerant and in need of change. My statements as such has fallen on deaf ears with them as well. My point here is really that it's disingenuous to claim to be a moderate of a religion where the holy texts that support the religion are not moderate at all.
      If the moderates really want to distance themselves from the extremists they need to change the books. As it stands it's just that the extremists really read and believe all the parts that moderates are willing to skip over.

      Take for example the christians who want the ten commandments posted in court and schools. Even many moderates will say they believe our laws in the USA are based on these commandments. When I ask them if they also feel the punishments proscribed in the bible should be applied as well they falter. Many seem to have forgotten that the penalty for most, if not all of them is death.
      The simple fact is that most moderate christians have to skip over most of the old testament and read selectively from the new testament to maintain their "moderate" frame of reference. So they should just change the books. It's no worse than selectivly reading them anyway.

    400. Re:Racism by kz45 · · Score: 1

      Remember, folks, racism is A-OK if it's trying to prevent terrorism or 419 scams

      if a black, asian, hispanic, or white person has committed a serious crime, people should be aware of it. Race can narrow down suspects and I don't see it as "racial profiling" or any other kind of PC bullshit.

      when a large portion of scams are coming out of nigeria or a large amount of terrorist groups are of a certain race, people should be aware.

      Check out http://www.419eater.com/ and look through their gallery. Tell me how many of them are of african descent.

    401. Re:Racism by B3ryllium · · Score: 1

      ... Al-Queda was funded (and TRAINED) by the CIA ... but you probably know that already.

    402. Re:Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey now let not discount the hilarity of Ms. Cleo jokes!

    403. Re:Racism by Da_Weasel · · Score: 1

      It seems to me that allowing the transactions to complete would provide the government with more intelligence where as not allowing it would only cause the alleged terrorist to go looking for another way to transfer the funds and leave our government clueless as to what they are doing. If these people are dedicated enough to their cause to give their lives for it, then what makes you think they aren't dedicated enough to get a job for a few months or years and save the money they need. Maybe their next plot won't be destruction, maybe they will come up with some crazy indirect scheme to take from us what we treasure the most, our freedom, liberty, and life style. Oh wait...nevermind....

      --
      If you must!
    404. Re:Racism by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      I don't know if homosexuality is a choice. I didn't choose to be attracted to big breasted women, I have friends who didn't choose to be attracted to small breasted women. We just are. I suppose that it's possible that someone is just attracted to members of the same gender.

      None of that changes that there is no such thing as a "same sex" marriage.

      It doesn't exist and all of the politicking and lobbying won't change it. What they're doing is the logical equivalent of trying to force the government to legally recognize Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    405. Re:Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most definitions of "terrorism" are variants on the original (French) definition: Attacking civilian noncombatants in order to put pressure on their government.

      Which, and I forget which academic did the study, tends to happen when a group feels they are being occupied by a democratic foreign power with more military resources, there is a religious difference and there have been no prior concessions. It is obvious and logical: the only way to fight back against a larger democratic state who can pound you with weapons and is occupying you is to hit them where only a democratic state hurts: citizens.

      Honestly, Im so sick of this terrorism bullshit. Sure, 9/11 was wrong. A few thousand died, yes. Lets get the man responsible....Saddam? Um..whatever. That has gotten out of hand. Like others have said, the majority of terrorists attacking the US have been WHITE CHRISTIANS. Palestine vs Israel? The so-called classic terrorisms. Hmmm...lets see....the western powers took territory and handed it to Israel. Now maybe they did deserve it, maybe it was their homeland...but what the fuck do you think AMERICANS would do if someone handed back the USA to the NATIVE AMERICANS? You better believe there would be fighting and 'terrorism'.

      Point is, terrorism is only slightly worse than war itself. It is the byproduct of the little guy fighting back. I don't see how the loss of life from a roadside bomb is any worse than the loss of life from a so-called contained strikes? Citizens die in regular war too, somehow it is less important because "we didn't mean to". I mean, was Hiroshima terrorism? I'd sure as hell say so.

    406. Re:Racism by epee1221 · · Score: 1

      Because, of course, if "redneck" doesn't apply exclusively to white people, as you claim, then we should find all kinds of ethnicities described with that word, right?
      You've built a very nice straw man here.
      As far as I can tell, the word "nigger" is meant to apply to all blacks. However, "redneck" is not generally considered a racist term because it takes more than being white for "redneck" to apply. It generally includes other things, such as education level, economic status, and location.

      --
      "The use-mention distinction" is not "enforced here."
    407. Re:Racism by epee1221 · · Score: 1

      Very possible for homosexuals with a durable power of attorney.
      I don't really know a whole lot about this situation, but that sounds like you're bringing a lawyer in -- and that sounds expensive.

      --
      "The use-mention distinction" is not "enforced here."
    408. Re:Racism by TheGreek · · Score: 1
      I don't really know a whole lot about this situation, but that sounds like you're bringing a lawyer in -- and that sounds expensive.
      $100ish. DPAs are pretty cookie cutter so it only takes one billable hour to draw it up and do the signing.

      How much are marriage licenses?
    409. Re:Racism by Fastolfe · · Score: 1

      I think your concept of first/last name is a little too Americentric. The point I was trying to make was that not everyone can be uniquely identified with a traditional American-style first and last name. If someone has a very distinctive combination, a reaction to their appearance on a watch list might seem justified. But if someone has a very common combination of first and last name, that starts to become a very significant burden on your society (thousands of false matches looking for one). You're saying the latter is justified, simply because their first and last names match. I'm saying that a person's name does not matter. The policies are targeting a racial and/or religious minority and potentially affecting a large portion of that minority. Whenever you have policies like this that are likely to affect a large number of people innocent of any crime (and some would argue a single person is too much), you really need to reconsider your approach. Denying someone the right to conduct business simply because their first and last names match the first and last name of someone on a watch list is unfair to that person. Denying a large segment of a racial/religious minority as a consequence of that policy is, IMO, crossing an unacceptable line. The person's name doesn't matter. The effect is what matters.

    410. Re:Racism by rho · · Score: 1

      I invite you to prove the illegality of the international wiretaps and the financial record mining. Please. If you do, you'll be the first.

      --
      Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
    411. Re:Racism by rho · · Score: 1

      Nice, Schnier's argument is that data-mining leads to a lot of dead ends. Bravo! What brilliant logic? Seeing as how most people are NOT terrorists, you're going to run into a lot of dead ends no matter what you do.

      Also, the data-mining did not gather information on 300 million US citizens, unless 300 million citizens were making international phone calls.

      --
      Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
    412. Re:Racism by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      This is not really to you...

      I would love to know what retarded mod, moderated my other post as offtopic. Some metamod, please fix what some retarded mod horribly screwed up. Is it really that hard for moderators to use their brain... One can hope that metamods didn't actually mod my post as it would only show how broken metamods have become. /. has really gone down hill in quality of moderators and users in general over the last couple of years...shesh...

    413. Re:Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Strange... I always thought chink was specific to Chinese, not Asian in general.

  2. Wow by BenjyD · · Score: 0, Troll

    That goes beyond stupidity into the realms of absolute idiocy, assuming it's an accurate report.

    1. Re:Wow by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      That goes beyond stupidity into the realms of absolute idiocy, assuming it's an accurate report.

      And therein lies the major flaw of Slashdot summaries which leads to vast amounts of whining and hand wringing and the spoiling of undergarments over something that didn't actually happen like the summary claims.

  3. Mohammed eh? by lecithin · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "Western Union prevented him from sending $120 to a friend at home last month because the recipient's name was Mohammed"

    Not true. They prevented him from sending the cash because his name was Sahir Mohammed. A bit of a difference.

    Perhaps a Sahir Mohammed has some links to 'bad guys'?

    Well, it happens here in the US too. There are plenty of stories regading people being put on the 'do not fly' list due to circumstances like this as well.

    --
    It could be worse, it could be Monday.
    1. Re:Mohammed eh? by gid13 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The phrasing in the article implies that you're wrong:

      "In one example, an Indian driver here said Western Union prevented him from sending $120 to a friend at home last month because the recipient's name was Mohammed."

    2. Re:Mohammed eh? by apparently · · Score: 1

      It's $120 fucking dollars; unless the recipient is under suspicion for smurfing, it's rather pointless to be worried about $120.00 based on a name. Maybe Mohab was trying to take the wife and kids to the movies, but came up $120 short when Mo Jr. (MoJay, to his friends) wanted to munch on some Goobers.

    3. Re:Mohammed eh? by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, it happens here in the US too. There are plenty of stories regading people being put on the 'do not fly' list due to circumstances like this as well.

      My personal favorite was Jonathan Linden, better known as Johnny Rotten from the popular punk band, the "Sex Pistols." He was detained because "Linden" is phonetically similar to "Ladin." When you have so many absurd false positives as identifying a British punk rocker as a potential arabic criminal mastermind, the noise is certainly enough to hide real positives. Anyone with any faith in these efforts to stop "terrorism" as anything more than scare tactics designed to win votes, is a moron.

    4. Re:Mohammed eh? by CodeArtisan · · Score: 1

      My personal favorite was Jonathan Linden, better known as Johnny Rotten from the popular punk band, the "Sex Pistols." He was detained because "Linden" is phonetically similar to "Ladin."

      Jonathan Linden ? Have you youngsters no idea about the old days ? It's John (Joseph) Lydon dammit, Lydon !

    5. Re:Mohammed eh? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The phrasing in the article implies that the person who wrote it is a moron. The guy's full name was Mohammed? We're not given enough information to know if his name would likely be on a watch list, whereas if the guy really did send the thing to just "Mohammed", I'd probably block it too :P

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:Mohammed eh? by juan2074 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Buttle?
      Tuttle?
      Who cares?

    7. Re:Mohammed eh? by vertinox · · Score: 1

      Well, it happens here in the US too. There are plenty of stories regading people being put on the 'do not fly' list due to circumstances like this as well.

      I got pulled aside at an airport once because my name matched a guy who had the first and last name as mine who was on the "do not fly list". However, once they realized I had a different middle initial and was 20 years younger than the suspect, they put me back on the flight.

      I don't really feel violated and I kind of expected the TSA to do these kind of things, but it was kind of a hassle.

      Perhaps a Sahir Mohammed has some links to 'bad guys'?

      To be fair 'bad guys' is the politically correct euphamism for 'untermensch' these days.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    8. Re:Mohammed eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention no-voters list. Part of the voting fraud in 2000 and 2004 was to find one person with a criminal record and then mark everyone with a similar name as criminals.

    9. Re:Mohammed eh? by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      Y wuld a punker kare aboot speeling? And me a whisky an we can go kick sum strate edgers!

    10. Re:Mohammed eh? by steronz · · Score: 1

      I call bunk on this. Aside from getting the name wrong (John Lydon), I couldn't find any news stories about Johnny Rotten getting detained anywhere for anything, terrorist related or not. Surely someone would have found that newsworthy.

    11. Re:Mohammed eh? by bogie · · Score: 1

      Last time I flew I was delayed because someone with my name is on a "watch list". My name is generic as can be(think Dan Smith etc). They warned me that I should now get to the airport even earlier because this might happen every time I fly. Fuckers. I can't believe the xenophobic idiots we have running this country.

      I don't know why anyone from the Middle East would possibly live here.

      --
      If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
    12. Re:Mohammed eh? by Chrax · · Score: 1

      Mistakes? We don't make mistakes.

    13. Re:Mohammed eh? by dan828 · · Score: 2, Informative

      My personal favorite was Jonathan Linden, better known as Johnny Rotten from the popular punk band, the "Sex Pistols." He was detained because "Linden" is phonetically similar to "Ladin."

      Your favorite, huh? To bad that it never happened. Several stories have noted that the airlines use software which uses and algorithm derived from an indexing system known as "Soundex" first used in the 1880 census, and that the last name of Johnny Lydon of Sex Pistols fame, has the same value under this system is Laden, of terrorist fame. However, Johnny Lydon has never been detained because of this.

      http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2 003/06/08/MN253740.DTL

      http://www.csoonline.com/read/010104/briefing_name .html

    14. Re:Mohammed eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Judging by the US government's rate of expansion over the past century, measured both in revenue and power over the people, I tend to think it's more about simply making government bigger than winning votes.

      Then again, winning the election is the first step to making government bigger. Isn't organized coercion great?

    15. Re:Mohammed eh? by kalirion · · Score: 1

      I don't know why anyone from the Middle East would possibly live here.

      Because it's still better than living in the Middle East? This reminds me of that American Dad two-part episode where Stan gets transferred to Saudi Arabia.

    16. Re:Mohammed eh? by shrubya · · Score: 2, Informative

      Corrections: it's John Lydon, and he didn't actually get snared by the list, but he would have been.

    17. Re:Mohammed eh? by tabdelgawad · · Score: 1

      From the article:

      "Western Union routinely delays or blocks transfers between customers whose names even partially match names on the Treasury list" - That's a pretty wide net to cast.

      My real question is whether this is in *any* way effective. It seems that the worst that could happen to a real terrorist is that once they're blocked, they'll realize they're on a watch list and act accordingly - ie send their money some other way.

      Since it doesn't make sense as an anti-terrorism policy, I'm guessing Western Union is just trying to prevent having egg on their face again after it was discovered that one of the 9/11 hijackers used them twice. I want to hold them accountable for this 'profiling' but the fact is their business in the Arab world is probably suffering because of this policy - they're stuck between the 'rock' of US government and public pressure, and the 'hard place' of losing millions of dollars in the Arab world.

      --
      Imposing Libertarian views on everyone online since 1992.
    18. Re:Mohammed eh? by ForemastJack · · Score: 1

      I would actually regard this as an unintended benefit of the system. Anything that keeps me from having to sit next to Johnny Rotten during a cross-country flight is Good Thing®.

    19. Re:Mohammed eh? by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 5, Insightful

      My favorite was Senator Edward Kennedy. It's hard to imagine a good reason to put him on the no-fly list, unless they were afraid he was going to seize the controls over water.

      Scary part being, with all the power of one of the most senior Senators, it took him a long time to get removed from the list. Bureaucratic inertia, or public display to show that they can push absolutely anyone around?

    20. Re:Mohammed eh? by infestedsenses · · Score: 1
      Well, it happens here in the US too. There are plenty of stories regading people being put on the 'do not fly' list due to circumstances like this as well.

      Not only in the US. Paypal did this to me in January 2005, because I have an arab last name. My first name isn't even anything like "Sahir", it's Jerome and I live in Germany, and all I've ever used my account for is buying stuff like DVDs und subscribing to online services. Now if that ain't suspicious...

      The paranoia policies effect more than just the US, they have global effects since we are constantly dealing with US companies. I might add that I was blocked because someone with my last name was on some terrorist list issued by the Bank of England. I don't want to know what other financial disadvantages this could have for me in the future.


      In fact, here's the mail they sent me after I sent in a complaint:

      Thank you for contacting PayPal.

      Access to your PayPal account has been denied because your name is similar to or a match to an entry on the Bank of England List. This measure is unrelated to your management of your PayPal account. We are required to further verify your identity. In order to regain access to your account, please provide the following documentation:

      1. A copy of a government issued photograph identification (i.e. passport, driver's license).
      2. A copy of a utility bill verifying your address.
      3. A copy of a document verifying your date and place of birth.

      And I'm supposed to send this to some place in Omaha. I don't intend to provide them with such personal information. I'm not going to be a marionette to paranoia, so no more business from me.

    21. Re:Mohammed eh? by Jim_Callahan · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that would be kind of like trying to wire money to Santa Claus.

      --
      ...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
    22. Re:Mohammed eh? by Yamaha2000usyahoo.co · · Score: 0

      The Office of Foreign Assets Control in the US frowns upon sending money to people who are found on a SDN (Specially Designated Nationals) list. They will fine you large chunks of money if you do this without having some kind of controls in place. (Do not send money to Cuba or the Bank of Tehran). Some vendors have written software to 'Help' you do this but the problem is that the lists contain names and possible addresses that are old and useless. Does anyone know the middle eastern equivalent of John Smith? One software package I evaluated contained a rule that kicked out everyone that had Mohammed in the name regardless of the full name or address.

      --
      Anger has its uses. Here, let me show you.
    23. Re:Mohammed eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly, never send anything to PayPal! There have been repeated stories that they just keep requesting more and more information in order to make it harder for you to open another account in the future.

      Never leave money in your PP account. If they lock your account and "steal" money from you by taking it into the negatives and start harassing you, just ignore them.

      PayPal is the biggest piece of shit company ever.

    24. Re:Mohammed eh? by doctortofu · · Score: 1

      There are plenty of people in the world with one name. It's unusual here in the west, perhaps, but not elsewhere in the world.

    25. Re:Mohammed eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      afraid he was going to seize the controls over water.

      Did no one else see the comic genius in this statement?

    26. Re:Mohammed eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Scary part being, with all the power of one of the most senior Senators, it took him a long time to get removed from the list.

      Even scarier, if not at all surprising, if an average member of the public could not get removed from the list like he could. Elected officials are supposed to be equally subject to the laws of the land, compared to their public - they should not have the 'power' to influence that.

    27. Re:Mohammed eh? by jbash · · Score: 1

      Some people on the No-Fly List have names similar to Irish Republican Army members. That could be what it is in your case.

    28. Re:Mohammed eh? by darkmeridian · · Score: 1

      My favorite was Senator Edward Kennedy. It's hard to imagine a good reason to put him on the no-fly list, unless they were afraid he was going to seize the controls over water.

      That's kind of like the goons at TSA making the pilot of a flight take off his shoes. The pilot correctly noted that he would not need a shoe bomb to take the plane down. Of course, this was perceived as a threat and the pilot was taken into custody and eventually reprimanded. Bureaucracy sucks when people do things just because they were told to do it without regard for the reason they were told to do it.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    29. Re:Mohammed eh? by okmijnuhb · · Score: 1

      You've just proven how people can get it wrong; it's John Lydon.

    30. Re:Mohammed eh? by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      Jonathan Linden, better known as Johnny Rotten
      You mean John Lydon. "Lydon" also sounds a lot more like "Laden".
      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    31. Re:Mohammed eh? by Da_Weasel · · Score: 1

      Me too. Either it was newsworthy and you would have found it (or should i say google would have found it) or it wasn't newsworthy and this idiot 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF would have never heard about it. Either way it sounds like complete crap...

      --
      If you must!
    32. Re:Mohammed eh? by vistic · · Score: 1

      that was a juicy bug

  4. Not just Arabs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was denied a WU transfer when my buddy, Billy Hitler, had a car wreck.

    1. Re:Not just Arabs by Random+Destruction · · Score: 1

      they realize Hitler is dead, right?

      --
      :x
    2. Re:Not just Arabs by lucabrasi999 · · Score: 1
      I was denied a WU transfer when my buddy, Billy Hitler, had a car wreck.

      Billy Hitler? That's nothing. My given name is Brutus Judas Iscariot Benedict Arnold Fawkes.

    3. Re:Not just Arabs by lucabrasi999 · · Score: 1

      Damn HTML. I meant to put BR in the brackets, not B.

    4. Re:Not just Arabs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benedict_Arnold
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Fawkes
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judas_Iscariot

      had no idea who benedict arnold was, and i didnt know judases last name was iscariot
      v for vendeta informed me about guy fawkes :)

  5. Mohammed Jihad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The article mentions that person in question's name is actually Mohammed Jihad. I can certainly understand why someone with that name would be blocked from doing money transfers.

    It seems like Muslims are even worst at naming their children than celebrities.

    1. Re:Mohammed Jihad by flibuste · · Score: 1

      "Mohamed Jihad" in arabic culture is problaby as common as "John Dalton" in USA. Would you find it acceptable to have a US bank block your funds because you are called "Dalton", although everyone who reads Lucky Luke knows that the Daltons are a bunch of western terrorists.

      There is a limit to discrimination and this one has been blown off by far. Your remark is also totally misplaced. US government should start thinking with its brain again (provided there is anyone with a brain in there) and stop the nonsense.

    2. Re:Mohammed Jihad by Chanc_Gorkon · · Score: 1

      I would have said John Smith but the point is that you can't restrict merely by name because it's very possible to have the same name associated with two people....one who is a terrorist and one who isn't.

      --

      Gorkman

    3. Re:Mohammed Jihad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The article mentions that person in question's name is actually Mohammed Jihad.

      Bak. Derk-derk-Allah. Derka derka Mohammed Jihad. Baka sherpa sherka abaka-la!

      Terrorist your game is through 'cuz now you have to answer to America.

      Fuck, yeah!

    4. Re:Mohammed Jihad by ryanov · · Score: 1

      Has Jack Meoff gotten onto the list yet? If so, and there are any TSA personnel reading this, please let him know I have a lot of his mail back at home next time he comes through the security gates.

  6. wow, just wow. by 192939495969798999 · · Score: 1

    Has it come to this? Why not just take anyone that "looks like a terrorist" and shuffle them off to camps, like we unfortunately did with thousands of Asian Americans in WWII? I know they're just a company, but it is alarming to see any action that just blankly denies access to their systems based on something as generic as a name. It's not like blocking all Adolf Hitler's either, there are TONS of people named Mohammed, it is a very common name. I had two of them in my grade school classes, both exact same name of Mohammed Ali.

    --
    stuff |
    1. Re:wow, just wow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny
      I had two of them in my grade school classes, both exact same name of Mohammed Ali.
      When those two got in playground fights, did they float like a butterfly, and sting like a bee?
    2. Re:wow, just wow. by 192939495969798999 · · Score: 1

      Interestingly, one was from Kuwait and spoke almost no english, the other was Kuwait/English bilingual. This was before the Gulf War.

      --
      stuff |
    3. Re:wow, just wow. by lgw · · Score: 1

      You do realize that the Geneva Convention only applies when both sides in a conflict have adopted it? The penalty for abusing the other guys soldiers is that your soldiers are allowed to be abused in return? How is it then that we could possibly be bound by the Geneva Convention in this case? Still scratching my head over that one. That the Geneva Convention places no restriction on the handling of captured brigands (soldiers without uniform or nation) at all?

      Whether torture camps exist, or are a good idea in the first place, are seperate discussions.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  7. Sucks if you're an ex-boxer . . . by cashman73 · · Score: 5, Funny

    with the name of, "Muhammed Ali," you might have a problem here,... Never mind the fact that you've got a major building in the U.S. dedicated to the cause of peace,...

    1. Re:Sucks if you're an ex-boxer . . . by TheBogie · · Score: 5, Funny

      Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee. Write down Cassius Clay when sending me money!

    2. Re:Sucks if you're an ex-boxer . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your post reminds me of a funny story.

      Shortly after 9/11, the Mohammedans drug out Cassius Clay to do a PSA about how Islam was a religion of peace.

      Even the person the Mohammedans use to demonstrate their "religion of peace" was someone who BEAT PEOPLE UP for a living.

    3. Re:Sucks if you're an ex-boxer . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are a fucking moron, you know that, right!?

  8. Cryptome by Robber+Baron · · Score: 3, Informative

    Cryptome had a related article...

    http://cryptome.org/western-union.htm

    --

    You're using her as bait, Master!

  9. The world's most common name by Kelson · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The statistics may have changed, but I remember one of those trick/trivia questions from when I was younger (in the 1980s): What's the most common name in the world?

    It turned out it was, if you include all the variations, Mohammed. Throw in Mahmet, Makhmoud, Mahmoud, and various other spellings and transliterations.

    Somehow, I doubt a large enough percentage of them are liekly to be terrorists for the name to be worth checking.

    1. Re:The world's most common name by lixee · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And that name is there to stay at the top. Islam's often cited as the fastest growing religion in the world. http://www.religioustolerance.org/growth_isl_chr.h tm/
      Monotheists are upgrading slowly but surely.

      --
      Res publica non dominetur
    2. Re:The world's most common name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Mahmoud is not the same as Mohamad. Now Mohammad, Mohamad, Muhamad, Muhammad, and Mehmet (turkish, mostly) are all different spellings of the same name.

    3. Re:The world's most common name by Moraelin · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of: Mohammed is the most common first name in the world. Chang is the most common family name. Therefore there must be a lot of people named Mohammed Chang.

      --
      A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    4. Re:The world's most common name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right.... in the same way that web developers have been "upgrading" from Perl to PHP.

    5. Re:The world's most common name by g2devi · · Score: 1

      What's funny is that Mohammed is automatically called Arabs.
      Mohammed Ali ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Ali ) certainly wasn't an Arab any more than Pat Robertson can be called a citizen of the Vatican.

    6. Re:The world's most common name by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Somehow, I doubt a large enough percentage of them are liekly to be terrorists for the name to be worth checking.

      However, you can narrow the odds a bit by having a matching first name AND last name, and then shipping money - funded by cash - overseas to a destination that itself further greatly reduces the odds.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    7. Re:The world's most common name by twifosp · · Score: 1
      Isn't that kind of the point? Justification to check everyone!

      America where everyone is innocent and guilty at the same time. The burden of proof is on... wait, who is it on these days anyway?

    8. Re:The world's most common name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're upgrading to atheism!

    9. Re:The world's most common name by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      His birth name was Cassius Marcellus Clay, Jr. He converted to Islam and took the name Muhammed Ali. Would you call someone named Cassius an Arab?

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    10. Re:The world's most common name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He took the name Muhammad Ali when he converted to Nation of Islam, which is not the same thing as Islam... Muslims don't believe that Wallace Fard Muhammad was the Mahdi, for example. (Ali later converted to orthodox Islam, but he didn't change his name again at that point.)

  10. sad times.. by tont0r · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Welcome to American during WWII.

    Hooray for typecasting. :(

    1. Re:sad times.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Do you mean...

      • static_cast<Terrorist*> - All Arabs are terrorists
      • dynamic_cast<Terrorist*> - Some Arabs may be terrorists
      • reinterpret_cast<Terrorist*> - Everyone is a terrorist

      How do you recompile the world with RTTI enabled? Would that make it much slower?

    2. Re:sad times.. by lgw · · Score: 1

      See, this is the problem with typecasting - everyone always forgets to handle the exceptions.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  11. or outsourcing of software development by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    lol slashdot

  12. Ridiculous procedures by DirtyFly · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Thats another case of ridiculous procedures, One of the most ridicule stuff I found on WU was that when using the persons description when making a MO the form omits (to be politicaly correct im sure) the persons skin color. Cmon one of the MOST obvious diferences on fisionomy is skin color, please quit the politicly correctnesses.

    1. Re:Ridiculous procedures by kailoran · · Score: 1

      C'mon, you still don't get it? Picking someone out because of his skin color, even mentioning his skin color = BAD, RACISM. Doing the same because someone "looks like na Arab" = GOOD, FIGHTING TERRORISM.

    2. Re:Ridiculous procedures by Osiris+Ani · · Score: 1
      All of this is starting to remind me of a scene from my favorite Shakespeare play, Titus Andronicus.


      TITUS ANDRONICUS

      What dost thou strike at, Marcus, with thy knife?
      MARCUS ANDRONICUS
      At that that I have kill'd, my lord; a fly.
      TITUS ANDRONICUS
      Out on thee, murderer! thou kill'st my heart;
      Mine eyes are cloy'd with view of tyranny:
      A deed of death done on the innocent
      Becomes not Titus' brother: get thee gone:
      I see thou art not for my company.
      MARCUS ANDRONICUS
      Alas, my lord, I have but kill'd a fly.
      TITUS ANDRONICUS
      But how, if that fly had a father and mother?
      How would he hang his slender gilded wings,
      And buzz lamenting doings in the air!
      Poor harmless fly,
      That, with his pretty buzzing melody,
      Came here to make us merry! and thou hast
      kill'd him.
      MARCUS ANDRONICUS
      Pardon me, sir; it was a black ill-favor'd fly,
      Like to the empress' Moor; therefore I kill'd him.
      TITUS ANDRONICUS
      O, O, O,
      Then pardon me for reprehending thee,
      For thou hast done a charitable deed.
      If one is in a position to simply change the context of a given wanton offense, however troublesome, then one can essentially control the definition of "right" and "wrong." Casting an excessive, prohibitively wide net and trampling the rights and basic privileges of thousands of innocents is perfectly noble, so long as it's done in the name of fighting terrorism.
  13. They do by mapkinase · · Score: 5, Informative
    I wonder if any other financial companies such as banks are doing the same thing.


    From here:

    Without explanation, Fleet sent letters to five Muslim customers in November 2002 indicating the bank was closing their accounts, the two groups that waged the campaign said Wednesday.
    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    1. Re:They do by Pyrowolf · · Score: 1

      Also, the US Treasury - Office of Foreign Assets Control provide an "OFAC report" with a comprehensive list of names, SSN, aliases, and other data to financial insitutions, which are prohibited by law to NOT extend credit to identified individuals and to report any information you have for them back to OFAC.

      I work for a financial institution and we are requred to run this report against our customers every time they release a new report. We have an automated process that does it now, but it used to be insanely difficult because they provided the data in a PDF in a completely unstructured manner. Anyway, surprisingly we have had a few hits where we basically give up the collateral to spare the legal headaches associated with recovering it or being in violation. That's saying quite a bit considering what we finance, and we just throw away.

      So yes, it's more common than you think.

    2. Re:They do by bitterfun · · Score: 1

      What's funny is that people never really knew that the financial institutions have been following this edict long before 9/11. The stories I hear from our wire-transfer dept. are usually interesting.

      --
      The most merciful thing in the world is the inability of the human mind to correlate its contents.
  14. This is idiotic by eln · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This sort of heavy-handed behavior in the name of "the War on Terror" just reinforces the idea that this is not just a war on terrorism, but a war between cultures, a holy crusade. This is the sort of rhetoric that these terrorist organizations use to recruit new members, it hardly does us any good to give them evidence to support their case that the West is conducting an all-out war on Islam.

    The more we marginalize Arabs (and sometimes people that just look sort of Arab) and Muslims, the more likely they are to align themselves with terrorist organizations out of desperation or righteous indignation. We need to fight terrorist cells based on real intelligence, not knee-jerk reactions.

    1. Re:This is idiotic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The more we marginalize Arabs (and sometimes people that just look sort of Arab) and Muslims, the more likely they are to align themselves with terrorist organizations out of desperation or righteous indignation.

      This it's our own fault that they hate us and we must change to aplease them mentality is exactly how al Qaeda wants you to react and why they do what they do.

    2. Re:This is idiotic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "We need to fight terrorist cells based on real intelligence, not knee-jerk reactions."

      Hey smart guy, where do you think "real intelligence" comes from? Its not from fricken James Bond agents going undercover. Its mainly survelliance, money monitoring, communications monitoring, payoffs, and informants.

      You idiots just keep on taking away the government's tools to keep you safe. Then when another 9/11 occurs, you can all try to blame Bush again. We may lose thousands more American lives, but at least we didn't profile people. 'Cause profiling...well thats just wrong, even if it does work remarkably well. A few thousand lives lost is nothing compared to warm fuzzy feeling we get from our own sense of political correctness.

    3. Re:This is idiotic by Abu+Hurayrah · · Score: 1
      This sort of heavy-handed behavior in the name of "the War on Terror" just reinforces the idea that this is not just a war on terrorism, but a war between cultures, a holy crusade. This is the sort of rhetoric that these terrorist organizations use to recruit new members, it hardly does us any good to give them evidence to support their case that the West is conducting an all-out war on Islam. The more we marginalize Arabs (and sometimes people that just look sort of Arab) and Muslims, the more likely they are to align themselves with terrorist organizations out of desperation or righteous indignation. We need to fight terrorist cells based on real intelligence, not knee-jerk reactions.

      I think you're hitting on an outstanding point here, but from the wrong angle. In all the news reports, FUD, and "released" audios, rarely, if ever, has the treatment of Muslims or Arabs in the West been cited as a reason nor justification for their actions. Rather, it has been the treatment of Muslims and their territories in the East by foreign forces - along with the partnering of Western forces with the corrupt dictators of the Eastern nations (mostly in the Middle East) that is mentioned in their demands. They are far too busy with their own local problems to worry about the Muslims and Arabs in the far away & wealthy Western nations.

      --
      Kindness is not to be found in anything but that it adds to its beauty...
    4. Re:This is idiotic by moracity · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You're exactly right. This IS is a holy crusade...started by Islamic extremists. We will continue to marginalize Muslims until Muslims who don't support terrorism start standing up.

      If someone who was marginalized ends up joining a terrorist organization, that only proves that the marginaliztion was justified. It blows my mind that you can even attempt to justify it.

      Using your reasoning, if a black person breaks into my house and kills my wife, I would be justified in starting an anti-black terror group and randomly targetting black people with bombs and beheadings. If caught, the ACLU would then support my defense and refer to me as a heroic insurgent in the fight against black on white crime.

      Sounds pretty absurd doesn't it? That's exactly what you sound like to me.

      I personally have no problem with any type of profiling. I oppose discrimination laws imposed on private business. There's no need for them anymore. If you restrict your customer base, you're not likely to succeed. The free market will see to this. Legislating morality and belief is counter to the principals the U.S was founded on. We have too many stupid laws in the U.S...from drinking ages to seat-belt laws to bans on same-sex marriage...it's all absurd. Laws are supposed to protect us, not shackle us.

    5. Re:This is idiotic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it's all backwards. Sure, Western Union is being a bit overzealous in their measures, but how often to you hear an Arab say " Damn that al-Qaeda, now I can't even send money home to my mom because of their actions. "

      I imagine not often. It's just easier to point a finger and be oppressed.

      All Western Union is doing is trying to cover their ass. Perfectly understandable.

    6. Re:This is idiotic by anicca · · Score: 1

      It's a war on freedom... yours.

      --
      A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both. Dwight D. Eisenhower
    7. Re:This is idiotic by FurryFeet · · Score: 1

      Using your reasoning, if a black person breaks into my house and kills my wife, I would be justified in starting an anti-black terror group and randomly targetting black people with bombs and beheadings. If caught, the ACLU would then support my defense and refer to me as a heroic insurgent in the fight against black on white crime.

      Except, in this case, the U.S. are the black person butting into Muslim countries, installing and toppling governments and placing military installations against the will of the majority.

      Really, read a book or two, and try to catch up. The World Trade Center wasn't the start of it. It, apparently, was the first you heard of it, and you assume nothing ever happened before. It's a very common mistake, and that makes me very sad.

    8. Re:This is idiotic by idsofmarch · · Score: 1
      Your analogy is made to be confusing and your implication about the ACLU is not only distracting, but wrongheaded. You yammer on about some psuedo-Libertarian ideology, but at the same time believe that large-scale profiling of nearly one billion people is a good idea. Not only has this program created thousands of false positives, but while do so has failed to make us safer. Yes, failed, not only do you have the potential to further marginalize people and therefore driving them towards insane and yet seductive people, but you make so much work for the various agencies using this profiling that the likelihood of this ever working becomes a statistical blip.

      As for your analogy, if profiling were to assume that every person with the word 'city' in their Slashdot 'nick should be watched, or that every person who opposes discrimination laws should have their Western Union money frozen, than I can't help but think you'd be upset. I think if you were picked out of a line every time you went to fly based on your 'profile' and then searched, questioned, all the while your accounts were frozen or closed you'd think differently.

      Lastly, the free market is great, but it needs to have rules. It's like playing poker, everyone should be playing the same game.

      --
      Anyone who whines about being modded down should be.
    9. Re:This is idiotic by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      Nice libertarian-drivel troll at the end, but as to your main point.
      We will continue to marginalize Muslims until Muslims who don't support terrorism start standing up
      So it's also OK to marginalise all the non-Muslims who haven't 'stood up' and publicly denounced terrorism?

      Well, that's me marginalised then, as I don't remember standing on a box at Speaker's Corner and shouting out that I don't support terrorism, or signing a petition, or anything...

      Oh...

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  15. I believe it by jlechem · · Score: 1

    With this US administration's beliefs and attitudes towards this sort of thing I fully believe this is happening. Ahmed sending 50 bucks to Utah shouldn't matter. Bubba from Georgia sending thousands or more to a middle eastern country should. And the block shouldn't happen unless it's a very large amount of money for smaller amounts the transaction deserves a closer look by someone in black sunglasses.

    --
    Hold up, wait a minute, let me put some pimpin in it
    1. Re:I believe it by Chanc_Gorkon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What does the US administration have anything to do with on this? Apparantly this is Western Union Policy right?? Western Union might be using a list provided by the government, but I don't think that the US has a law against this. Also, with ID theft being mor eprevelent plus the fact that there CAN be many people with the same NAME! There was a Mohammed Atta who was a Terrorist and I BET there's another Mohammed Atta somewhere elsse on the planet. Also restricting a transfer because of a name won't stop the terrorists. They'll just use Paypal.

      --

      Gorkman

    2. Re:I believe it by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The 7/7 attacks in the UK cost less than £3000 to plan and execute. Do you really think that it's possible to track that little money effectively? Someone could take it from a cash register at the end of a day. The group that organised it could, between them, have withdrawn the money from cash machines in one day without raising any alarms.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    3. Re:I believe it by ennadaiit · · Score: 1

      Valid points. Assuming that the management of Western Union is reasonably intelligent, why would they have to profile anyone or delay transactions if it wasn't warranted by regulation? After all, heck some guy GAVE them money to GIVE someone else. Last time I tried to pay at WU with my credit card, they politely informed me that wouldn't be possible. So, I doubt its anything do with credit/identity theft. I agree in that something has to be done to prevent terrorism and terrorists. Profiling certain communities is a way, but not an intelligent way. Not only does it cause frustration, but those within the community feel that they aren't being understood correctly. Not a good feeling if you've been there.

    4. Re:I believe it by TubeSteak · · Score: 1
      What does the US administration have anything to do with on this?
      The Treasury Dept instituted this policy.
      Apparantly this is Western Union Policy right??
      Only if you didn't RTFA

      Just so you know, every aspect of "War on Terror" that touches on banking or money is the Treasury Department's domain. They like to work with the other branches of Gov't, since the policing of dirty money ties directly into the intelligence games the FBI, CIA & Police have to play.

      I'm sure the Department of Homeland Security ties into the above mess too.
      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    5. Re:I believe it by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

      What does the US administration have anything to do with on this? Apparantly this is Western Union Policy right??

      Wrong. The simple fact is, once companies become large enough, they effectively become an unoffical branch of government. This goes double if you're a telco. Check it, the world over. Big companies in every country kow-tow to government policy, especially when their backs get subsequently scratched with cash cow government contracts.

      AT&T, BP, General Motors, any large bank. The fact is, Western Union knows, if it wants to curry favour with government, it has to start roughing up some innocent people. The "right kind" of innocent people, i.e. persons of middle eastern descent. It's like a gang wannabe that has to mug an old ladies handbag or rob a house before he gets any respect.

      So the bank simply puts any closet racists it has to work on this little side project. People to code it, people to run it, and people to administrate it. I can just imagine the smug glee some southern bigot working at Western Union has every time they close some joe show's account because of his name. There's a tool for every task, and a task for every tool.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    6. Re:I believe it by jfengel · · Score: 1

      Indeed; I've always wondered why we don't see more attacks like this. Killing people can be extremely cost-effective; you can shut down tens of millions of dollars worth of economy for a few thousand dollars.

      Arguably, the only way to prevent that is precisely these sorts of draconian measures, designed to provide every single opportunity to catch them. That would effectively destroy the US, not just in spirit but literally: we achieve what we have achieved by encouraging people to invent and invest.

      So I wonder why they haven't done it yet. They've got plenty of opportunity.

    7. Re:I believe it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your wrong dude. Just because a company is large means NOTHING. COmpanies are just like people as far as the law is concerned.

    8. Re:I believe it by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

      >They'll just use Paypal.

      They'll just use Hawala networks like they always have, along with millions of innocent people.

    9. Re:I believe it by rgbscan · · Score: 1

      Actually the office of foreign asset controls has a list called the SDN (specified designated nationals) that is a list of both countries and individuals that banks are specifically prohibited from having any association with. The fines are severe for any infractions.

      You can search it at: http://www.instantofac.com/

      Chris

    10. Re:I believe it by pimpimpim · · Score: 1
      So I wonder why they haven't done it yet. They've got plenty of opportunity.

      Maybe because they don't have to, as most of the freedom-limiting and privacy-infringin terror is now done by your very own state.

      More on why money-tracking doesn't really work can be found in this interesting article. Furthermore, in europe it seems that western union is probably the main/only company for sending money to foreign countries, so a lot of people will be hurt by these rather retarded regulations. But, from what I've heard, western union wasn't a very costumer-friendly company already way before this (could lose your money without really knowing where it went, etc.).

      --
      molmod.com - computing tips from a molecular modeling
    11. Re:I believe it by John+Meacham · · Score: 1

      So I wonder why they haven't done it yet. They've got plenty of opportunity.

      Well, the obvious conclusion is that they arn't nearly as prevalant as one thinks. Not to say terrorists don't exist. A lot of people hate one another for various reasons. but for the most part, people are not willing to kill inoccent bystanders or anyone actually. People willing to do so are few and far between.

      Because for the most part, humans are decent folks to each other. We evolved as social creatures, we naturally follow social norms like not killing each other.

      --
      http://notanumber.net/
    12. Re:I believe it by jfengel · · Score: 1

      I concur that the vast majority of people are good and decent. But the situation in Iraq demonstrates that it is possible to mobilize a few thousand people willing to look civilians directly in the face and then kill them. Even in the US, many people every day kill and injure others in the name of money; why not in the name of a political or religious cause?

      We slashdotters generally look at security as an all-or-nothing sort of deal: if there's a way around, we assume somebody will find and exploit it. And yet it doesn't appear to be happening in this instance, and I'm not sure why.

  16. Sigh :( by spykemail · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Wow, why don't they just hire some mercenaries to round up every Arab American and put them in detention camps? Or the government could do it just like we did to Japanese Americans during WWII...

    When will we ever learn?

  17. In other news... by hnile_jablko · · Score: 2, Funny

    Local goverments are receiving countless requests from those of Arab descent for name changes to Smith, Jones, Jackson, Bush, etc.

  18. Doesn't suprise me by ColourlessGreenIdeas · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I know of a charity that works with (mostly christian) organisations in the west bank. Their usual way of getting money to their partners is to fly into Israel with a big bundle of money. Otherwise it tends to get massively delayed by US banks.

    --
    In soviet russia stale jokes recycle you!
    1. Re:Doesn't suprise me by CompSci101 · · Score: 1

      This is *very* illegal. How do they manage customs?

      --
      The Sun is proof that we can't even do fire properly.
    2. Re:Doesn't suprise me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      Their usual way of getting money to their partners is to fly into Israel with a big bundle of money.

      If I remember correctly, the most that can be sent with Western Union is $3,000 and there's no way that customs is going to be able to detect someone with 30 $100 bills in their wallet (in fact, it's not even clear that it would be illegal to have $3,000 in one's wallet).

      In countries that have ATM's, a good way to transfer money is open a shared bank account in the USA and then just withdraw money from the ATM in the foreign country whenever you need it. I suppose that wouldn't work if you had a prohibited name but if you were really a terrorist then you could just have a friend open the shared bank account and withdraw the money for you.

      All in all, I'm not sure what it really accomplishes to have Western Union harass people with Arab names who want to send relatively small amounts of money.

    3. Re:Doesn't suprise me by BoiseAlf · · Score: 2, Informative

      Illegal where? You have to declare to respective Customs if you are in possession of "monetary instruments" > $10,000 USD or > 80,000 Shekels - but it certainly isn't illegal, and certainly not *very* illegal. http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/travel/vacation/kbyg/mo ney.xml - US Customs http://www.mof.gov.il/customs/eng/mainpage.htm - Israeli Customs

  19. And the slope just gets more slippery.... by Newer+Guy · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I just hope there's a country LEFT by the time Bushie boy's term is over...

  20. However by Mononoke · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They'll be glad to send money for you to someone with a nice Anglo name, such as Timothy McVeigh.

    --
    NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
    1. Re:However by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ann Coulter is on record saying that the New York Times should be bombed. Should you be allowed to wire her money?

    2. Re:However by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      McVeigh? Anglo!?

      Why, that's a dirty Irishman name, not a decent Anglo-Saxon name!

    3. Re:However by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Calling McVeigh an Anglo name is even worse than mistaking my Anglo-Saxon surname as German.

    4. Re:However by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      McVeigh is a Celtic name. The "Mc" is short for "Mac", which means "son of" in Gaelic languages used by the Celts.

    5. Re:However by ray-auch · · Score: 1

      "Coward" is french isn't it ?

  21. Do you really mean that? by Joey+Vegetables · · Score: 3, Insightful

    From the summary:

    I agree that Western Union shouldn't allow anyone supporting terrorism to use their service, . . .

    But aggressive war waged on civilians is the worst form of terrorism, and anyone who votes for pro-war Republicans or pro-war Democrats is actively supporting this terrorism. That includes the great majority of those who vote in the U.S.

    Therefore, for Western Union to stop supporting terrorism, it would effectively have to stop doing business in the U.S.

    1. Re:Do you really mean that? by cunina · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Okay, getting off topic here, but is it absolutely necessary to dilute the definition of terrorism to "something that's bad?" Terrorism is "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion." War is a state of armed conflict, generally to achieve a political objective. There's a difference, so let's not sling the word "terrorism" around just because it sounds dramatic.

    2. Re:Do you really mean that? by Joey+Vegetables · · Score: 1

      I believe that aggressive warfare fits your definition of terrorism, as well as your definition of war.

    3. Re:Do you really mean that? by Sique · · Score: 1

      The tactic known as 'Shock and Awe' comes pretty close to this definition, don't you think?

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    4. Re:Do you really mean that? by AppyPappy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You need to get out more. Your phobias are controlling your perception. Pretty soon, little George Bush's will be climbing out of your kitchen drawers with knives, seeking to slash your quilts and behead your stuffed animals. Little Bush gnomes will be prancing gaily through your lawn, pawing and raping the snapdragons.

      Repeat after me: Terrorism is when you fly planes into skyscrapers, not when you allow free elections. Turn off your television and use your mind. That's why it is there.

      --

      If you aren't part of the solution, there is good money to be made prolonging the problem

    5. Re:Do you really mean that? by cunina · · Score: 1

      Not unless you believe that "Shock and Awe" was designed to somehow coerce the civilian populatiuon of Iraq, which it was not.

    6. Re:Do you really mean that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what do you call it when you allow pretend free elections, like in Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004?

    7. Re:Do you really mean that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But aggressive war waged on civilians is the worst form of terrorism, and anyone who votes for pro-war Republicans or pro-war Democrats is actively supporting this terrorism.

      I'm confused.

      At what point is removing a government noted world-wide for using chemical weapons on it's own citizens a war on those citizens?

      At what point is trying to help the citizens rebuild their country a war on those citizens?

      At what point is trying to help the citizenry learn to defend themselves, and trying to get them to take responsibility for doing so a war on those civilians?

      I think you have allowed someone else's political agenda to take control of your mind, because you are viewing things though some very narrow blinders.

      Whether we SHOULD have gone in and removed Saddam's government or not, how can anyone claiming to care about the citizens of Iraq resolve that with demands that we leave immediatly, without helping them rebuild their country and lives before we go?

      Other questions raised form that one sentence:

            When is war NOT agressive?

            Terrorism is defined by having civilian targets. Need proof? How many diplomats and military members died as targets of the same tactics our populace recognizes as terrorist tactics today? As long as the dead weren't civilians, no one cared, especially not the press.

            You should spend a little time doing research on the international Laws of Armed Conflict. People who violate those are international criminals. People who can make a legal case that they operated within them while other people disagree should be ready for a legal battle, but those challenging them need to be prepared for the accused to be vindicated . . ..

    8. Re:Do you really mean that? by Damvan · · Score: 1

      "At what point is removing a government noted world-wide for using chemical weapons on it's own citizens a war on those citizens?"

      When we (USA) supplied them with both the chemical weapons and the delivery system for those chemical weapons. By supplying that material to Saddam, we declared war on Iraq's citizens.

      "At what point is trying to help the citizens rebuild their country a war on those citizens?"

      When we (USA) were the ones that destroyed their country and infrastructure in the first place. If we didn't destroy it, they wouldn't have to rebuild it.

      "At what point is trying to help the citizenry learn to defend themselves, and trying to get them to take responsibility for doing so a war on those civilians?"

      When we (USA) created the situation that requires the citizenry to now learn how to defend themselves.

    9. Re:Do you really mean that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [Quote]
      "At what point is removing a government noted world-wide for using chemical weapons on it's own citizens a war on those citizens?"

      When we (USA) supplied them with both the chemical weapons and the delivery system for those chemical weapons. By supplying that material to Saddam, we declared war on Iraq's citizens.

      "At what point is trying to help the citizens rebuild their country a war on those citizens?"

      When we (USA) were the ones that destroyed their country and infrastructure in the first place. If we didn't destroy it, they wouldn't have to rebuild it.

      "At what point is trying to help the citizenry learn to defend themselves, and trying to get them to take responsibility for doing so a war on those civilians?"

      When we (USA) created the situation that requires the citizenry to now learn how to defend themselves.
      [/quote]

      So, by this logic, no one can ever atone for actions they may have been involved in, right?

      After all, the act of restitution is still part of the initial act of violence. This is what you have claimed above.

      You also claimed a couple of other VERY specific argumentative political positions that I'm not going to spend time arguing about. Why not? Because I'm not trying to justify whether we SHOULD have gone in or not. I'm not trying to justify whether we did things wrong previously or not.

      I'm talking about trying to extend a hand today to help people rebuild.

      Your statements lead to the conclusion that the USA should be forbidden from helping by the international community, whether anyone else is willing to help clean up the mess or not.

      Yep, you certainly are siding with the people who need help.

      Quit worrying so much about blaming political leaders that you had a hand in putting into power, and start worrying about the people you CLAIM to be concerned about. They need help now, today, and they will continue to need help for several years to come. Yes, you can take the moral high ground that we should never have been there, so we need to leave immediatly, but not without taking moral responsibility for extending the current problems.

      You don't clean up a mess by walking away from it.

    10. Re:Do you really mean that? by Peet42 · · Score: 1
      Repeat after me: Terrorism is when you fly planes into skyscrapers, not when you allow free elections.
      What's your definition of a "Free" election? Does it include the person who actually received the most votes being declared the winner? Voting machines not being rigged? Insert your own punchline [HERE].
    11. Re:Do you really mean that? by TexasDex · · Score: 1

      So what if, the freely elected of Germany decides that the United States is a threat to it's national security, based on lots of threats and a massive buildup of force in the Mediterranean sea, plus stockpiles of chemical weapons. And then what if they decide to pre-emptively invade the United States to neutralize this threat?

      You might laugh because neither Germany nor any other nation except maybe China has the military power to actually do anything about the U.S., but there's nothing funny about starting a war because you know the other guy doesn't like you, which is exactly what we did. "Terrorism" may not be the exact right label for it, when a government does it, I believe they call it a "war crime".

      --
      The Cheese Stands Alone.
    12. Re:Do you really mean that? by greengrocer · · Score: 1

      Repeat after me: Hydrocarbon fires do not bring down modern concrete-reinforced skyscrapers. Jet Fuel at 800 F does not raise steel to its 3000 F melting point.
      Repeat after me: Guys who can hardly fly Cessna's don't have the skill to hit skyscrapers anyway.

    13. Re:Do you really mean that? by Scrameustache · · Score: 1
      Repeat after me: Terrorism is when you fly planes into skyscrapers, not when you allow free elections.

      Main Entry: terror
      Pronunciation: 'ter-&r, 'te-r&r
      Function: noun
      Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French terrour, from Latin terror, from terrEre to frighten; akin to Greek trein to be afraid, flee, tremein to tremble -- more at TREMBLE
      4 : violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands
      synonym see FEAR

      Shock and Awe
      The basis for Rapid Dominance rests in the ability to affect the will, perception, and understanding of the adversary through imposing sufficient Shock and Awe to achieve the necessary political, strategic, and operational goals of the conflict or crisis that led to the use of force.


      Terror is terror, wether you comandeer a plane or you use guided missiles.
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    14. Re:Do you really mean that? by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      Here is a punchline for you. Only stupid people think a republic is a direct democracy and only stupid people expect elections to be decided AGAINST the contents of the constitution.

      But, I guess the U.S. Constitution doesn't mean anything if your candidate didn't get elected.

      Do the world and yourself a favor and learn why the Electoral College exists and how it works, which you should have learned in Civics. You can start with the following:
      http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constituti on.articleii.html#section1
      http://www.fec.gov/pages/ecmenu2.htm
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Electoral_Colleg e
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    15. Re:Do you really mean that? by hackstraw · · Score: 2, Informative

      Terrorism is "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion."

      Isn't there a rule about using a word in the definition of a word?

      "Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."

      -- US Federal Bureau of Investigation

      The key word is "unlawful", otherwise the US federal government would fit the bill.

    16. Re:Do you really mean that? by AppyPappy · · Score: 1

      "And then what if they decide to pre-emptively invade the United States to neutralize this threat? "

      Bring it on. But first they need to get the US to agree to inspections and then wait for the US to blow off the inspections. And the US will have to inventory their supply of chemical and bio weapons and then refuse to account for it under UN rules.

      Which ain't going to happen. We need a better dictator than Bush to pull this off.

      --

      If you aren't part of the solution, there is good money to be made prolonging the problem

    17. Re:Do you really mean that? by AppyPappy · · Score: 1

      "So what do you call it when you allow pretend free elections, like in Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004?"

      Easy. The toys that inhabit the playground-like mind of the foot-stomping crazed moonbat. I didn't like it when Clinton won twice without a majority of the votes cast but I moved on like an adult should. I got a job, had kids and fished for trout even when my guy didn't win. It was easy. Try it.

      But before you go, let me taste your salty tears of feverish disappointment. Mmmmm.... delicious

      --

      If you aren't part of the solution, there is good money to be made prolonging the problem

    18. Re:Do you really mean that? by AppyPappy · · Score: 1

      Repeat after me: The most obvious answer is almost always the right answer.
      Repeat after me: People who can hardly fly Cessnas also cannot weave complicated and precisely timed conspiracies
      Repeat after me: "National Treasure" was not a documentary

      --

      If you aren't part of the solution, there is good money to be made prolonging the problem

    19. Re:Do you really mean that? by Peet42 · · Score: 1

      It's also possible that only stupid people assume that because someone posts in English on Slashdot that they are American. Despite Bush's constant harping on about "Democracy" those of us out here in the rest of the World are all to aware that you don't practice it in your own country. That's what I was trying to point out.

      Peet McKimmie
      Aberdeen, Scotland

    20. Re:Do you really mean that? by AppyPappy · · Score: 1

      I have yet to see any President who can figure out the difference between a Republic and a Democracy. The whole concept completely befuddled Bush 1 and Clinton.

      --

      If you aren't part of the solution, there is good money to be made prolonging the problem

    21. Re:Do you really mean that? by ray-auch · · Score: 1

      Repeat after me: Terrorism is when you fly planes into skyscrapers, not when you allow free elections

      Nope, the two are completely unlinked.

      Freely elected governments can, and sometimes do, engage in terrorism, and terrorists can be, and are, freely elected into government (both Jews and Arabs in recent Israeli/Palestinian history).

    22. Re:Do you really mean that? by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      The most obvious answer is almost always the right answer.

      And the GP is right - Jetfuel burns at around 550C on up to 800C if properly contained, so it can't melt steel, nor could that explain how the WTC fell in its own foundation at nearly freefall speeds, or why the debris is more consistent with demolition than damage. The most obvious answer leaves too many questions open.

      People who can hardly fly Cessnas also cannot weave complicated and precisely timed conspiracies

      You mean people like me? I can't fly a cessna (well, I can't land one).

      "National Treasure" was not a documentary

      The Davinci Code was poorly cribbed fiction. heh heh.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    23. Re:Do you really mean that? by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      let's not sling the word "terrorism" around just because it sounds dramatic
      Well it works for the US and UK governments, so what the hell.
      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    24. Re:Do you really mean that? by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      And the GP is right - Jetfuel burns at around 550C on up to 800C if properly contained, so it can't melt steel,

      A minute with Google finds lots of discussion of this, mostly by conspiracy nuts, (It was the Jews! Aliens! Mormons! Opus Dei! Dick Cheney!) some by real metallurgists, eg: The "Deep Mystery" of Melted Steel:

      A eutectic compound is a mixture of two or more substances that melts at the lowest temperature of any mixture of its components. Blacksmiths took advantage of this property by welding over fires of sulfur-rich charcoal, which lowers the melting point of iron. In the World Trade Center fire, the presence of oxygen, sulfur and heat caused iron oxide and iron sulfide to form at the surface of structural steel members. This liquid slag corroded through intergranular channels into the body of the metal, causing severe erosion and a loss of structural integrity.
      Yes, it's "mysterious". But it was a unique situation, no one had really crashed a jumbo into a skyscraper before. Also, I saw some documentaries on the WTC's construction; it was very carefully designed, to build it at all required they not have any unnecessary weight. Which would have been fine in the normal course of events.
  22. Race baiting in the war on terror by amightywind · · Score: 1, Informative

    A quick search on the author ANJAN SUNDARAM shows him to be a bit of a rabble rouser. His article is completely anecdotal and short on facts. Perfect for this forum. Seems reporting from the Congo is not as beneficial to his career as race baiting in the war on terror.

    --
    an ill wind that blows no good
    1. Re:Race baiting in the war on terror by UnanimousCoward · · Score: 1

      Did people mod this parent up without checking the validity of the parent's claim? I'm not saying I know who the hell ANJAN SUNDARAM is, but I couldn't find any rabble-rousing stuff 'quickly.' But then again, maybe my definition of rabble-rousing is different from the parent's...

      --
      Twelve-and-three-quarter inches. Unyielding. This wand belonged to Bellatrix Lestrange.
    2. Re:Race baiting in the war on terror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
      His article is completely anecdotal and short on facts.

      "Mohammed and Ahmed have become problematic names because they are so common on the list of terrorists," said Nixon Baby, who runs a Western Union franchise in Bur Dubai, a neighborhood packed with South Asian businesses. "These are regulations that Western Union is required to obey. We have no control."

      At another Western Union office, an executive who deals with security measures said about 1 percent of the store's 30,000 daily money transfers -- about 300 a day -- are delayed or blocked because of suspected terrorist links. Thus far, all have proven false, the executive said on condition of anonymity, because she wasn't permitted to speak to a reporter.

      Yes, anecdotes from people who work at Western Union. I guess one person's "rabble rouser" is another person's "investigative journalist". Oh I did that quick search. Wtf were you talking about? Taking pictures of gorillas is rabble rousing?
    3. Re:Race baiting in the war on terror by wfberg · · Score: 2, Informative

      His article is completely anecdotal and short on facts.

      It's a news article, of course it's anecdotal, that's what news is - stuff that happens, not necessarily repeatable experimental observations that support a hypothesis.

      Having said that, the article is full of facts. Facts that can be checked. Like quotes from sources, most of which are identified clearly.

      Of course, it's easier to just disparage the writer (and with him, the Associated Press, not a source well known for being unreliable) than to check those facts. Or to entertain the possibility that they might be true.

      --
      SCO employee? Check out the bounty
    4. Re:Race baiting in the war on terror by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      A quick search on the author ANJAN SUNDARAM shows him to be a bit of a rabble rouser.

      The article has all kinds of verifiable facts with sources -- if even half of them are true, then this is exactly the kind of story that ought to get the rabble roused.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    5. Re:Race baiting in the war on terror by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      "Mohammed and Ahmed have become problematic names because they are so common on the list of terrorists," said Nixon Baby
      "Nixon Baby" thinks "Mohammed" is a problematic name? I know who'd I'd trust more.
  23. Wonderful... by oahazmatt · · Score: 1

    So if I wanted to help out my childhood friend from New York who has the last name 'Ahmad' I'm out of luck.

    Well, considering his dad has been an airline pilot fo years, they've probably moved since he was released after 9/11 for security measures.

    --
    Those who believe the Internet is private,
    find their privates are on the Internet.
  24. Come to Canada by mr.cbaker · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Where blatant racism, rights violations, and stereotyping are a bit more uncommon. Maybe im just generalising, but it's hardly surprising. Just another day in the modern USA.

    1. Re:Come to Canada by Richthofen80 · · Score: 1

      Rights violations? What right do you have to use Western Union? It's a private company and they can choose who they do business with.

      Besides, I would gladly exclude ten-thousand Muslims from Western Union, along with their hurt feelings, in exchange to prevent one payment that goes to a hijacker or suicide bomber. I would offend ten-thousand men to have one less death from 9/11.

      Not being able to fly on an airplane or transfer money is NOT the same as imprisonment/internment.

      --
      Reason, free market capitalism, and individualism
    2. Re:Come to Canada by cunina · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But whatever you do, don't criticize the government in your blog, say anything that someone else might find "hateful," question the historical details of the Holocaust, or commit any other anti-Canadian thought crimes. Then you'll wind up in prison.

    3. Re:Come to Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Holy crap, are you *totally* blind and deaf to the faults of your own nation? Just start with the obvious bigotry against the USA and it's diverse population as demonstrated by your own useless post.

      No wonder no one considers Canada a real country.

      Seriously, you people out in the rest of the world: are you even dimly aware of the extreme hypocrasy in your anti-USA blatherings? Stop following the "pile on the USA" fad and start thinking.

    4. Re:Come to Canada by popsicle67 · · Score: 1

      So, You would spank your kid for something a kid in Ohio did because they're the same age. You would arrest your wife and put her in jail because a woman with her eye color was seen selling drugs. You would starve your mother because she is the same age as a woman caught speeding in Hawaii. You are advocating the abuse of innocent people on the off chance that one or two just might be guilty. THAT IS WHAT THAT DICKHEAD SADDAM IS ON TRIAL FOR YOU JACKASS!!!!! What does it take to get that through your heads. We are suffering under a regime with the same philosophy as the regime it ousted. I am sure that a majority of Iraqis felt the same way you do when Saddam was torturing shiites. They went about their business without a second thought to the fact that there were people who could get a job or food or money or housing or education simply because they had the wrong name or religion. People that worried from day to day if the country they lived in would allow them to live. That is what you are so proudly hailing as reasonable to protect your sorry ass. You don't deserve to live in this country. Ijust hope you haven't mated yet, your existence putrifies the gene pool.

    5. Re:Come to Canada by Potor · · Score: 1
      You seem to mirror the general American fear of liberty these days.

      America is tearing itself apart.

  25. Is this still News for Nerds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm missing the tech angle on this. Oh they used computers to do the wire transfers.

    Sheesh, I'm going over to digg.

  26. Re:World War II by lucabrasi999 · · Score: 1
    Back in WWII the Japanese-American citizens were jailed because of the possibility that they were a spy. During times of war drastic measures are taken to ensure victory and minimize risk.

    Obviously, you are just Trolling, but I'll bite anyway. If the Japanese-Americans were jailed in WWII, why weren't the German-Americans jailed? Or the Italian-Americans (at least until 1944)? come on, if we were trying to protect ourselves, why did we leave ourselves open to spying from the two European Axis powers? Oh, that's right, it must have been those commie-pinko liberals....

  27. Arab /. usernames by aymanh · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    And the next thing you know, /. will block Arab usernames.

    Oh wait...

    --
    python>>> q="'";s='q="%c";s=%c%s%c;print s%%(q,q,s,q)';print s%(q,q,s,q)
    1. Re:Arab /. usernames by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the clueless who mod'ed this flamebait, "ayman" is an Arab name.

    2. Re:Arab /. usernames by Kamel+Jockey · · Score: 4, Funny

      And the next thing you know, /. will block Arab usernames.

      I never had that problem!

      --
      In case of fire, do not use elevator. Use water!
  28. Just a few thousand? by joshERR · · Score: 1

    I think there may be more then just a few thousand people with that name who are not terrorists. It is the 23rd most popular name in England alone. That would be a lot of terrorists!

    1. Re:Just a few thousand? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but 95% of the male population (and 12% of the female population) of England are called "John", so being 23rd could mean that only four people share this name.

  29. Re:Every Muslim is a terrorist by flibuste · · Score: 1

    I surely hope you are joking. Otherwise, the right adjective to describe what you are is not "evil" but "stupid" (dimwitted maybe?). Attaching any word relating to some people in some part of any place would be an insult to said people.

  30. Re:World War II by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good point. So tell me again why we didn't "protect ourselves" against German or Italian Americans during WWII? C'mon, you racist twit, let's see whatcha got.

  31. Blocked in both directions? by MECC · · Score: 4, Funny

    I wonder if they'll block transfers from arab sounding names to George Bush (not senior). Hate to stop all that Saudi cash headed to republican pockets.

    --
    "We are all geniuses when we dream"
    - E.M. Cioran
    1. Re:Blocked in both directions? by rosie_bhjp · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They use front companies for that, like Halliburton did under Dick Cheney. They set up a shell corporation in the Cayman Islands and have all the transactions go through the shell corp. This way Halliburton was able to secure contracts in Iran in violation of US federal law.
      http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2005/s299.html

      --
      A radio maverick jumps to internet only. The Future of Rock n Roll
    2. Re:Blocked in both directions? by forgotten_my_nick · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the link. I was aware of Halliburton working in Iran despite the embargo but never knew how they did it.

      On a somewhat related topic I saw recently that Cheney is now dumping all his money in areas which will protect his earnings from any potencial economy crash in the US?

      http://www.palmbeachpost.com/opinion/content/opini on/epaper/2006/06/18/m10a_blackburncol_0619.html

      I haven't seen the magazine in question but the information (that I Could find) seemed to tie up.

  32. WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now how am I suppose to by that camel? I need a date for this weekend.

  33. FUD by bwcarty · · Score: 4, Informative

    I work for a division of a large financial firm, and we are required to download a list of Specially Designated Nationals from the Treasury Department and compare names from it against new accounts and transfers. The list includes lists of suspected terrorists, and they're not all Arabic (think Irish Republican Army).

    1. Re:FUD by rhsanborn · · Score: 5, Informative

      Bingo. They aren't blocking people because they have some generic Arab name. They are blocking people who have names that match the Federal list of suspected terrorists. As someone mentioned above, something like Sahir Mohammed. Probably a perfect match for the list.

      We too have to run periodic checks against the names in that database. If a match comes up, we have people individually check other information to confirm that it is an actual match (e.g. same name, different birthday).

      We have open accounts with these people though, so we have a significant amount of time to deal with these. Western Union has a very short period of time because it is a one time transaction that happens relatively quickly.

    2. Re:FUD by kalidasa · · Score: 1

      It's entirely possible that either the government official explaining the new policy to the Western Union consuls, or the Western Union consuls themselves, either misunderstood the policy or decided to enact their own draconian version of the policy for the sake of simplicity. That said, I'm glad the IRA bastards are on the list, too. If we're going to have a war on terrorism, we should really have a war on *terrorism*, not just on the terrorists we happen to have issues with at home.

    3. Re:FUD by tarogue · · Score: 1

      Well, then I hope they also include the "Reverend" Ian Paisley, the Ulster Volunteer Force, the Ulster Defence Association, the Ulster Freedom Fighters, the Loyalist Volunteer Force, and the Orange Order, and the British Army. They've killed far more civilians with vastly superior guns and money than the IRA could even dream of.

      --
      Life sucks, but death doesn't put out at all. -- Thomas J. Kopp
    4. Re:FUD by ch-chuck · · Score: 1

      Hey, stop ruining perfectly good slashdot tabloid government bash fests with the facts.

      --
      try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
    5. Re:FUD by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Bingo. They aren't blocking people because they have some generic Arab name. They are blocking people who have names that match the Federal list of suspected terrorists.

      But since that list reads like the Big Book of Baby Boy's Names (Mid East Edition), that's kind of a moot point.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    6. Re:FUD by mikenar · · Score: 1

      I actually work at a very small Pawn shop, and we also have to comply with this, its actually not that big of a deal, what happens with us if a name comes up its called a "hit" (the makers of the pawn program we used had something made up that checks names when we put them into the computer) when we get a "hit" a screen pops up with the name match, the name match usually has additional info on it like where was the suspect born, birthdate, things like that, all you have to do then is ask the person "where were you born" and if they dont answer the same as whats on the name match, its a false hit, and you can continue on with what your doing, if it matches, just ask more questions until you can either get a false hit, or if all the answers are the same, you cant help them, but we give them a number they can call to get an ok from the treasury department. Ive never had a hit go past 1 question.

    7. Re:FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last time I flew the woman checking me in told me I was on the watchlist. My name is "Conor Maguire". Hardly going to be mistaken for an muslim terrorist. I will however be mistaken for a now dead member of the Irish People's Liberation Organisation named Conor Maguire. I can't say I think the watchlists are an effective way to run things but they do have more than just muslims on them.

    8. Re:FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really?

      Funny, I search that rather large txt file for 'ireland' and got exactly one hit for an individual person. When I search for 'irish" I get six hits on organizations.

      Most of what I saw on the list, as far as nationality goes, was Sudan, Palistine, Columbia, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Malaysia, Jordan, Syria, Cuba, Algeria, Balkans, Mexico, United Arab Emirates (is that a nationality?), Islamabad, Pakistan, Liberia, Panama, India, Kenya, Japan, Korea....

      I also found some instances of United States and United Kingdom, however the names of individuals associated with those places did not appear to be in any way an Anglo surname. Lots of groups claiming to be humanitarian aid or "innocent" organizations in several countries, tho. Like KINDHEARTS FOR CHARITABLE HUMANITARIAN DEVELOPMENT, INC. or FARMERS BANK FOR INVESTMENT & RURAL DEVELOPMENT, and the United Kingdom KASSALA ONION DEHYDRATION FACTORY (which is in Sudan, btw).

      Oh, and apparently no one suspected of terrorism lives in, is from, has contacts with, does buisness in, or sends money to/from Isreal. Maybe I'm not spelling it correctly when I search.

      At least my name isn't on that list, so I can relax knowing that I don't have to get a fake ID if I want to send money somplace bad. Thanks for the link. Of the names that I did browse, I thought it curious how extensive the information is for some and so vauge for others. There's either a persons name followed by a lot of aliases and their DOB, sometimes multiple DOB, and even fewer times the person's ID number of some kind and maybe even a home address, or there is just a name and some kind of acronym/mark about what terrorist thing it is to which the person is tied. Just a name.

      But, wait... If we have the home address of known terrorists, why doesn't someone just go arrest them?

      OH NO! Andres CARRILLO FUENTES is on that list and there's an Andres Fuentes who works in the shop here in California! Maybe it's the same person. Age seems about right, and place of origin is the same.... The guy in the shop says he's from Mexico, at least; I cannot verify whether or not he's lying about that, and he's never told me his middle name. Where do I send his immigration ID number so that the list is updated and he can no longer send a portion of his minimum wage to, as he claims, the rest of his family that wants to immigrate with him? The local Western Union needs to know! Clearly, he's lying and is actually a terrorist who's funding a dirty bomb being built in Mexico since his name is on this list. Or maybe he's illegal in some other way, too. He is an immigrant, after all. That alone makes him suspicious - right?

      Wow. Some names are listed multiple times. Not as aliases, but as individual entries. Same DOB and same list of aliases, too. I guess that's in case Nasir KHAN tries to use his real name more than once when he makes a transfer of funds.

      Waitaminute.... I know a Naheem KHAN. Maybe that's an unlisted alias for Nasir KHAN who is on this list many times with many aliases. Heck, their both (all?) from Pakistan. Maybe they're the same person! The name Naheem must be a new alias and this list hasn't been updated, but at least someone has it right. Perhaps that's why he couldn't buy a gas station franchise like he wanted, and is back to being just a manager. KHAAAAAAN!

      FUD indeed.

    9. Re:FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other news, Islamic terrorists start calling their children 'John Smith'.

    10. Re:FUD by rgbscan · · Score: 0, Troll

      If anyone wants to search the list...

      You can search it at: http://www.instantofac.com/

      Chris

    11. Re:FUD by Don_dumb · · Score: 1

      As an Englishman I must point out that I hate taking sides in the 'Northern Ireland issue' as I have never visited and dont consider it directly 'my business', it always infuriates me that people only think that either the IRA or the Unionists are the 'bad guys' when both are obviously doing the Tango.
      While you rightly point out that 'Rev' Paisley and others are just as culpable of being patrons of terror as Republicans, as the article is about US money transfers to terrorists then the gp is right to only mention the IRA as I cant imagine the UVF getting a great deal of funding from Boston.

      --
      If this were really happening, what would you think?
    12. Re:FUD by larien · · Score: 1

      Hrm, so if I'm a terrorist in a pawn shop and someone asks me where I was born, I say I was born somewhere else? Gotcha...

    13. Re:FUD by Haenk · · Score: 1

      Nice one - however I wonder, why they would state addresses in Germany that have been outdated for a decade now (4-digit ZIP, instead of the current 5-digit ZIP).
      My conclusion: one it's on the list, it will never be removed.

    14. Re:FUD by jmv · · Score: 1

      They are blocking people who have names that match the Federal list of suspected terrorists.

      I sure hope there's no terrorist named John Smith.

    15. Re:FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, and apparently no one suspected of terrorism lives in, is from, has contacts with, does buisness in, or sends money to/from Isreal. Maybe I'm not spelling it correctly when I search.

      Well, it is spelt 'Israel'.
      Try it. You'll get several hits...

    16. Re:FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I would be surprised by any demonstration that the PIRA and the other post-1922 variations of the IRA have *not* killed more Irish civilians than all the Ulsterist terrorists put together, AND the British Army, in that time. The COMINTERN-inspired Irish Civil War should be laid squarely at the feet of the bastards who are drumming up money in Boston, not the Ulsterists. Oh, and by the way: I'm an Irish Catholic (born in the US, but from a family that left because of the troubles).

  34. Racism. by keyne9 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Absolutely disgusting.

  35. This is not Western Union's fault! by RexRhino · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is the U.S. government's fault. The U.S. government and the U.S. Treasury department create a whole bunch of "anti-terrorism" rules with some pretty extreme penalties for non-compliance. Western Union is simply complying with a bunch of bad regulations.

    The real problem is that people don't understand that there will be lots of unintended consequences to any legislation or regulations. ALL regulation or legislation hurts innocent people to some extent. People love to scream for laws and regulation to solve all the worlds problems, without ever dreaming that the laws or regulations can cause more harm than good. People have absolute faith in laws to do what they are intended and only what they are intended.

    That, and people think it is the government's job to protect them from every single possible thing that can harm them (from terrorists, or iTunes DRM, or corn sweeteners, or whatever people are making hysterical calls for legislation on). In this case, the cost of having a free society where people aren't profiled by race or religion, is that it might be easier for a terrorist to attack the U.S. If you are one of those people screaming for the government to do more to stop terrorism, you are responsible for this. If you are one of the people crying "Bush didn't do enough to stop 9/11 and terrorism", then you especially guilty of supporting racial profiling (even if you claim not to support it), because how the hell else is anyone supposed to stop a crime BEFORE IT HAPPENS unless they are profiling potential criminals?

    Western Union is just the innocent victim of the laws and policies that you most likely support!

    1. Re:This is not Western Union's fault! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Western Union is just the innocent victim of the laws and policies that you most likely support!

      Bullshit.

      First Data tied to post-9/11 terror sweep
      Company gave FBI access to credit-card records, author says

      In the days after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, First Data Corp. and its Western Union unit volunteered itself for the U.S. government's war on terror.

      FBI agents happily turned the Greenwood Village-based company into a "deadly weapon" to fight terrorism, according to a new book by Pulitzer Prize winner Ron Suskind.

      At the same time, however, the Bush administration used First Data to create a "vast search-and-seizure machine" that sifted through millions of Americans' credit-card purchases and wire transfers, unbeknownst to congressional overseers or the secret court designed to rule on matters of domestic surveillance, Suskind reported.


      Innocent victim, my ass. It's practically another arm of the government.

    2. Re:This is not Western Union's fault! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, by that logic, the Nazis were "just following orders".

    3. Re:This is not Western Union's fault! by RexRhino · · Score: 1

      Uh, by that logic, the Nazis were "just following orders".

      Bad analogy... saying that Western Union is guilty of aiding the U.S. government because it follows anti-terrorism laws is like saying that the Jews were guilty of aiding the Nazis because they followed Nazi orders in labor camps. After all, the Jews were most certainly "just following orders".

      Western Union is a victim, because they are spending millions of dollars enforcing these policies, and losing millions of dollars from potential customers. No company wants to throw money away. If Western Union does not follow these laws, the people responsible in the company will GO TO JAIL!!

  36. Perhaps they should have asked...A NINJA. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



    For weeks, my leathered feet have grown weary, my hands blistered, searching beneath every valley's flower, every hillside's tree and mountaintop's goat, for karaguchi ah-nowakadesu ...the ultimate pancake. One afternoon, while resting near a stream shaded by a great oak, I fell asleep..and dreamed.

    I dreamed of a great number of plates of pancakes swirling, dancing before me in the air, as if suspended from threads of the finest spider's silk---a giant golden wheel of crisp and fluffy goodness, overflowing with the finest of syrups, Maine blueberries, and unsalted lightly sweetened Land-O-Lakes butter...playfully turning, and tumbling before me, revealing their perfection to me -- Their uniform golden surface with edges the color of ivory, a perfect string of bubbles within the edges...pats of butter and small pitchers of syrup, chasing eachother in the sky like summer doves. I watched in amazement, weightless, in a sparkling, peaceful trance. Then suddenly, descending from the clouds above came two obese American women of color, each wearing an apron, proclaiming in unison with the voices which shook the earth:

    "Rest, young Ninja. We are the handmaidens of your indestructible triumvirate. The fulfillment of your quest will come soon. Rest, and become one with the pancake. The butter will surely follow."

    Rising once again into the clouds, a clap of thunder was heard, and I awoke...to find a fork in my hand...!
     
    Was this not a dream? Was this a vision? An intervention of nature, to guide me on my quest?

    Sword in sheath, I rose, dusted off my pants, and continued along the banks of the river.

  37. Re:Americans are ALL about racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WTF does racism have to do with this discussion. But since you brought it up.... I'll assume you are talking about "white" racism cause we all know blacks and browns can't be racist. If America is so damn racist why do many browns and blacks around the world want to go to America. I guess their brown and black leaders treat them worse that the bad old racist whites in America. And the blacks in America whose ancestors were brought there against their will should take a moment to contemplate what life would be like for them if their ancestors weren't sold into slavery by their homies in Africa. They'd be living in the third world trying to survive on dust and air instead of kicking back in their cribs sipping a 40 waiting for their food stamps while blaming all their shortcomings on bad old whitey. racism my ass. the only racists that i see are idiots who think some white guys are keeping them oppressed. drop the victim attitude and do for yourself and fuck all the racists.

  38. Banks and Homeland Security by grnchile · · Score: 2, Informative

    I don't know if banks are using the same lists. I suspect that they are. I do know that banks put an extended freeze on transactions over $10,000, to allow for "Homeland Security" review. This applies even to activity totally within the United States, regardless of your name.

  39. OFAC List by broohaha · · Score: 1

    If you want to view the list of names financial institutions are required to reference, you can go ahead and peruse them here at the Office of Foreign Assets Control website, updated quite regularly. You'll find the list is dominated by Arabic (not necessarily Muslim) and Latin American names.

    OFAC's mission as quoted on their website:

    The Office of Foreign Assets Control ("OFAC") of the US Department of the Treasury administers and enforces economic and trade sanctions based on US foreign policy and national security goals against targeted foreign countries, terrorists, international narcotics traffickers, and those engaged in activities related to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. OFAC acts under Presidential wartime and national emergency powers, as well as authority granted by specific legislation, to impose controls on transactions and freeze foreign assets under US jurisdiction.

  40. Not simply "Mohammeds." by neatfoote · · Score: 2, Insightful

    From TFA: [i]In Washington, U.S. Treasury spokeswoman Molly Millerwise said foreign banks have used the department's list of terrorist names to freeze $150 million in assets since Sept. 11. Millerwise didn't know the value of money transfers blocked using the list, but said frustrations endured were regrettable but necessary. "We have an obligation to do all we can to keep money out of the hands of terrorists," Millerwise said. The list of names, available on the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control Web site, contains hundreds of Mohammeds. [/i] So this is not, as the summary and a few sentences in the article implied, simply a question of racists indiscriminately blocking all people with Arab-sounding first names. If that were the case, I doubt Western Union would be able to afford to do it, since, as others have mentioned, there are an awful lot of Mohammeds out there in the US. What the article says, however, is that the sum total of transactions affected in this way is in the 1000's-- most only delayed by a few hours-- with far fewer actual blocks made on transactions. That suggests that the ostensible explanation-- that for a customer who happens to have the exact same first and last name as a terrorist, Western Union takes a little time to make sure they're dealing with somebody else-- is actually the correct one. And is it really such a bad policy? Back in the Unabomer days, if my name was Ted Kaczynski and I asked someone to wire me money, I'd sure as hell expect the company to take some time to check out my identity, and I wouldn't follow up by alleging racism against people of Polish descent.

  41. Re:Relating by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    Nope, it's disgraceful to parasites, leeches, and any other "disgusting foul creature", too... but then so is calling those creatures "disgusting foul creatures"

  42. This is NOT a War by spykemail · · Score: 0, Redundant

    This is not a war. You can't have a war on terror, any more than you can have a war on good table manners or abstract thought. There is no need to criminalize law abiding US citizens because of their government's complete and utter failure to maintain security. When the NSA fails to do its job it turns to our Executive leaders begging for more power, but even once they get it and the other branches of government look the other way they continue to display their incompetence.

    If this were war, it could not be won. You cannot defeat terror. We would be dooming ourselves to spending the rest of eternity in a state of constant war for absolutely no reason.

    We HAD a war with Iraq. War's over (though the violence will no doubt continue for decades). If you enjoy this state of war so much feel free to invade Cuba, Iran, or North Korea. Hell why not take the shortcut on that last one and attack China and Russia?

    1. Re:This is NOT a War by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      This is not a war. You can't have a war on terror, any more than you can have a war on good table manners or abstract thought.

      And I'd like to be the first to support this war on good table manners, for the sake of the children. Food fights are needed to relieve stress, provide exercise, prevent overeating, and consume food to help our struggling agricultural sector. For the sake of the children's safety and our economy and the American way of life, please support the ban on good table manners so desperately needed to keep America great. Those who promote "table manners" are replacing our proud, American heritage with French and Jewish styles of eating and it is downright ungodly and un-American!

      I appreciate your bringing this struggle to my attention and will write my congresscritter immediately.

    2. Re:This is NOT a War by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't have a war on terror, any more than you can have a war on ... abstract thought.

      Yes you can. It's called Fox News.

    3. Re:This is NOT a War by Damvan · · Score: 1

      "We would be dooming ourselves to spending the rest of eternity in a state of constant war for absolutely no reason"

      Maybe this state of constant war is the whole point? Rule by Fear. Look at the expanded presidential powers Bush is claiming because he is a "war time president." This way, those expanded presidential powers will remain forever, or at least as long as the "War on Terror" lasts. It should end shortly after the previously declared "War on Drugs" and the "War on Poverty" are won.

    4. Re:This is NOT a War by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We would be dooming ourselves to spending the rest of eternity in a state of constant war for absolutely no reason.

      We're 22 years overdue.

    5. Re:This is NOT a War by cr0sh · · Score: 1
      We HAD a war with Iraq. War's over (though the violence will no doubt continue for decades).


      Are you sure about that? No doubt something happenned over there (that was called by the media and others "the Gulf War"), but was what we were shown on television the same as what actually happenned over there?

      Some people don't think so...

      We live in a world where what is real is filtered through so many different forms of media and messengers, or worse, outright made up and presented as "real" (for example, what is the flavor of Gatorade Frost?) - that our minds, in an effort to maintain stability and sanity, begin to accept everything as "real", and stop questioning what is hyperreal. Even when we do question it, some of us just "go along" and pretend that the actions in the hyperreal landscape have no bearing on what we perceive as "real" (which is why places like Las Vegas and Disneyland "work" - that is, make money).

      Explore the concept of hyperreality. Convince me we aren't living in a weird, Bladerunner-esque dystopia. We may not have fembot replicants running around trying to convince everyone they are humans, but just give it some time...

      --
      Reason is the Path to God - Anon
  43. Re:World War II by Joey+Vegetables · · Score: 1

    Probably because a large fraction of white Americans were of at least partial German ancestry. Plus, during the "Great War" (now known as World War 1), significant anti-German prejudice did occur, with one result being that many German-Americans altered their last names, to sound less German. (For instance, my great-great grandfather changed our family name from "von Adam" to "Adams.")

  44. Latishas , Moesha's need not apply either..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Walk in with a name shown above and you too can join the "I get no respect crowd" Latishas link

  45. In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the terrorists are using identity theft to forge fake ids with normal American sounding names.

  46. Actually, this is effective, but still unfair by karlandtanya · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Terror is fear caused by the perception of danger.
    The solution is, of course, the perception of security.

    The crippling effect of terror is that people are afraid to do things they normally would if they did not perceive a danger.
    Actual protection from the hazard (if there was an actual hazard) would not necessarily remove the perception of danger.
    Citizen 1: I'm stayin' home. There's terrorists out there.
    Citizen 2: Have you seen one?
    Citizen 1: Nope, but nobody's doing anything about it. I'm not leaving the house till this is over!

    To combat the terror, we present the appearance of security measures. Going overboard and causing outrage is just part of the salesmanship.
    Citizen 1: A real terrorist would never get through--they're bustin' guys just for lookin' like terrorists!
    Citizen 2: Woohoo--we whupped them terists good. Let's go down to the Winn-Dixie. We're out of beer!
    C1 & C2 hop in the car and immediately put it in the ditch because they're hammered. But they were wearing seatbelts, so they're OK!

    --
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
    1. Re:Actually, this is effective, but still unfair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you feel safe, an actual danger will have much graver consequences.
      Also, the government does not try and create a feeling of safety, but is steadily presenting the "danger" of terrorism to the populace so it just accepts whatever the government is proposing - because the government is "trying to make them safer", what would not be possible if you already felt safe.

  47. What fun! It's like googling your self! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are any of your names on the list?

  48. names by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

    There are just too many people in this world to address us all with names. I was once at a party where two other peole had my same name: first and last. If any of them were to be put on a terrorist watch list, I'm sure I would have trouble transfering money.

    And it seems to me that the muslim world has some of the least-creative names. If there really IS a terrorist named Mohamed al-Whatever, the 1,000 other people in the world with the same name are all going to have problems. Could this be what is causing problems here?

    What could solve this problem? I propose the UN establishes a database to assign everyone in the world a unique serial number. That way, we will never have name-collision problems. And everyone who works with databases would have much to be happy about.

    If such a system were put in place, the world's financial institutions would likely eventually require it for business transactions, and it would catch on without needing any official enforcement.

    --
    A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
  49. Most common first name in the world by Lijemo · · Score: 1

    Exploring the Guniess Book of World Records sometime back in the 80's, I read that "Mohammed" was the most common first name in the world. (The most common last name was "Chang"-- we were speculating as to how many "Mohammed Chang"'s there might be...)

    So, it's essentially like blocking payments to everyone in the English-speaking world named "Smith", because you once encountered someone named "Smith" who was a crook.

    1. Re:Most common first name in the world by popsicle67 · · Score: 1

      Smith is the name a terrorist would use

  50. When nothing you've tried is working by sizzzzlerz · · Score: 1

    always fall back on the knee-jerk reaction. It won't work either but it has that crunchy mouth-feel that makes its seem like you're biting down on something substantial when, in fact, you're only eating rice cakes.

  51. Re:World War II by DaggertipX · · Score: 1

    Wow. This is certainly the most shortsighted moronic post I have ever read on Slashdot. I truly hope I just missed the sarcasm. Or no, maybe you want to start repeating other mistakes the US Government has made? I'm becoming less and less sure that we aren't actually the terrorists in this whole affair. (Not to imply that there aren't some bad men doing bad things over seas, just that we don't seem to be much better, and in some cases, actually worse.)

  52. Predicted in 'BlackAdder Goes Forth' by ProteusQ · · Score: 2, Funny

    How do find a German spy? Check to see if their last name begins with 'Von'! ("General Hospital")

  53. Re:World War II by Compholio · · Score: 1

    If the Japanese-Americans were jailed in WWII, why weren't the German-Americans jailed? Or the Italian-Americans (at least until 1944)? come on, if we were trying to protect ourselves, why did we leave ourselves open to spying from the two European Axis powers?

    Because Japanese-Americans are easier to spot and a lot of people are racist, you should watch (or read) Snow Falling On Cedars.

  54. Re:What's the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We need to keep money away from Farrakhan then.

    He's a bigot and a lunatic. Just check out the entry in wikipedia about him.

    Remember: Bigots wear bowties. It sure makes for easy identification of the Nation of Islam.

  55. Not all bigotry is racism. by krell · · Score: 1

    Names like "Muhammad" are found on individuals of the black race (think of a famous boxer) and individuals of the Caucasian race (think Arabs). There does not seem to be a racial element here. Out in the real world, there's plenty of bigotry that is not race-related.

    --
    Where were you when the voynix came?
    1. Re:Not all bigotry is racism. by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      Prejudice, then. I apologize if I used the wrong word. In the end, it's just as evil.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
  56. Names by Itninja · · Score: 2, Funny

    This is a bit OT but I find it interesting that Mohammed is most common first name in the world, and Wong is most common last name in the world. And yet, there are no Mohammed Wong's. At least none that have graced the cover of Tiger Beat magazine (I have a subscription).

    --
    I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
  57. Re:Relating by PB_TPU_40 · · Score: 1

    From my post:

    They're politicians for crying outloud, compairing them to anything else, drags that something else down, there's no escaping it.

    I know it is, but thats about the lowest thing I could think of. Though a misquito carrying west nile, malaria, and numerous other diseases, now that I think about it is probably as close as you can get to a good comparision, even then, I still would feel sorry for the misquito comparing it to a politican.

    To remove further confusion, I here by appologize to all parasites, leeches, and any other creature that could be considered "disgusting and foul" as well as their fans for comparing them to a politician, I did not mean to smite those stupid creatures in any way.

    PS thank you Kevin Smith!

    --
    -PB_TPU_40 The trick to flying is to throw yourself at the ground and miss.
  58. If arabs would stop being terrorists.... by teshuvah · · Score: 0, Troll

    Then we wouldn't have this problem. Seriously, there is a reason for what is happening here. Arabs performed terrorist attacks on US soil, and they have made it their life's mission to bring down the USA, and kill all the jews. Until this group of people can clean up their own house, how do they expect us to take any of them seriously? Stop performing jihad and attempting genocide, and maybe we will start treating you like human beings.

    1. Re:If arabs would stop being terrorists.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who are "we" that you seem to be speaking for?

    2. Re:If arabs would stop being terrorists.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, effectively the same thing can be said about US-Americans and, to a somewhat lesser extent, about any other nation.
      Perhaps you should think of them as individual people instead of a big, faceless mass which is bound on destroying your culture? Yes, people are stupid, but there are no more arab terrorists than western ones - you just tend to accept the terror being spread by your culture as justified.

    3. Re:If arabs would stop being terrorists.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You failed to ask yourself the simple questions of "Why do Arabs do terrorist activities?". I am sure you can find the answer unless you are lazy bum and know nothing about what goes on the Arab world. May be exercising some justice in the Middle East and change in policies would help.

    4. Re:If arabs would stop being terrorists.... by kuwan · · Score: 1

      You failed to ask yourself the simple questions of "Why do Arabs do terrorist activities?".

      And I'm sure the answer to that question in your warped mind is - Because the U.S. made them do it. Or maybe it's because the Devil made them do it, or Mohammed, or Jesus or Cartman. Any excuse you can come up with to blame anyone but the people directly responsible for carrying out terrorist activities. It's not their fault, it's because of someone else.

    5. Re:If arabs would stop being terrorists.... by pinkocommie · · Score: 1
      Or how about maybe killing 40,000 of their countrymen. You may argue that it was a war of liberation or perhaps that the Iraqi terrorists did it. To the average person on the street that just lost a child/parent/sibling the cause and effect of a US invasion and mass deaths is crystal clear (regardless of the accuracy of his perception). And thats without the people exhorting him to DO something to save his country against the 'evil' invaders (One would presume Al qaeda n its ilk actively recruit).

      And no i'm not saying they were mistreated in their childhood poor them we must 'understand' them, it wasn't their fault. Murder is murder is murder but that swings both ways (be it state sponsored individual or a 'terrorist' organization)

      The only way to prevent people from taking up arms against you is to not give them a reason to do so. Try spending the hundreds of billions a year we spend on war on elimination of hunger on creation of jobs and on propping up democratic institutions (encouraging checks and balances in other countries and the like) and watch the difference it can make.

      Violence begets violence and we're the only ones with the means to break the cycle

    6. Re:If arabs would stop being terrorists.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Putting words in mouth is copout. I never meant to justify terrorism and no one can. I was only trying to set your "warped" mind straight. Hatred breads hatred, killing breads killing, and you reap what you plant.

          For the other poster "Or how about maybe killing 40,000 [iraqbodycount.net] of their countrymen"

          These are the seeds the British empire deviously with cleverness planted, not only in the Arab world, but everywhere they ruled (Africa). "Divide and conquer". Does that ring a bell in your empty heads? I guess not, it is a vacum.

  59. Gee, how effective by hurfy · · Score: 1

    So they only delayed around a half million transfers and found a grand total of 0 terrorists. Private sector is now trying to emulate gov't ?

    I assume terrorists for some reason are unable to get fake ID for John Smith, right ?!?

    I swear the world gets dumber by the day.

    1. Re:Gee, how effective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would delay all transfers. If you delay all the business for n hours then after 24 hours you would have a floating sum of money representing n hours of business to gamble with.

  60. Western Union are enforcers of the law, now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't agree at all that Western Union, or for that matter, anything or anyone else but commissioned enforcers of the law, can be expected or even required to distinguish who they may accept business from based on such a vague notion. If there is an objective measure such as government issued identification, then you can require them to ask for such. But anything else is asking for false positives and false negatives, that is false results and public outrage, in batches.

    No matter how grave you can imagine it would be if Mr. Evil Mastermind walked up to Western Union to send $100k to "my beloved grandmother", (nevermind that if it was important he'd send a trusted courier of his own with a stuffed envelope, not let imperialist pig eaters do it), panicking and trying to push what really is law enforcement off to random others is asking for trouble.

    Here, apparently the US treasury is to blame for requiring Western Union to even consider screening (potential) clients in such a way, and Western Union for not protecting their clients' interests enough. Yes, I understand Western Union probably didn't have a choice, but that hardly matters. It'd be nice if we all stopped panicking, so we can deal with any problems that might be left after the smoke clears in an effective way.

  61. Really Stupid by PenGun · · Score: 0

    Uh huh another recruitment drive for Osama. I guess the one in Iraq is just not producing enough terrorists fast enough.

        PenGun
      Do What Now ??? ... Standards and Practices !

  62. Security Hole by boatboy · · Score: 1

    I would suspect this works by routing transactions meeting certain criteria (ie source/destination state, name, etc.) through a monitoring system of some sort. From a security standpoint, there is a flaw in this system in that a potential terrorist could know he/she is being monitored. Even if the process is completely manual, a timing attack could determine the criteria being used. The attackers would simply initiate a bunch of transactions with varying names & locations, and record the time each takes. With that data, the attacker could determine a 'safe' location and name, or DoS the system by initiating a large number of unsafe transactions. A more secure approach (from Western Union's perspective) would be to delay all transactions for an equal amount of time, though I doubt that would go over too well. An alternative would be to randomly delay a "non-flagged" transaction for each "flagged" transaction.

  63. Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Viva la fear mongering that has triggerd this kind of reaction. How much further do we have to go in the name of anti-terrorism.

  64. Unsubstantiated article by amightywind · · Score: 1

    Let me put it like this: You should be wary of an unsubstantiated article by a newbie foreign journalist with no legitimate affiliation written in a political atmosphere where the liberals have an axe to grind.

    --
    an ill wind that blows no good
    1. Re:Unsubstantiated article by UnanimousCoward · · Score: 1

      Let me put it like this: You should be wary of an unsubstantiated article by a newbie foreign journalist with no legitimate affiliation written in a political atmosphere where the liberals have an axe to grind.

      Let ME put it like this: it is equally important to validate a claim in post, especially when you've proven that you have your own ax to grind as displayed in your post AND reply. Hopefully, the moderating system here will prove its worth.

      --
      Twelve-and-three-quarter inches. Unyielding. This wand belonged to Bellatrix Lestrange.
  65. The most common name by indiancowboy · · Score: 1, Informative

    Mohammad (spelt in a lot of different ways) is the most common name in the world. Yes, it is more common than Jack or Smith or Jones.

  66. Doesn't look like it by grahamsz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    No Mohamed Sahirs on the SDN list
    http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/sd n/sdnlist.txt

    Lots of Sahirs and Mohameds but i dont see that combination.

  67. And this was implemented by Clinton administration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    I do know that banks put an extended freeze on transactions over $10,000, to allow for "Homeland Security" review. This applies even to activity totally within the United States, regardless of your name.

    This was not even a Dubya deal. You can thank Bill Clinton for this one back in the early 1990's. It was because all people who made large bank deposits were automatically assumed and made guilty of laundering drug money... until proven otherwise.

  68. They may not be terrorists... by Ant+P. · · Score: 1

    ...for long, at this rate.

  69. Here's a crazy thought... by TrentC · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ... instead of closing the accounts of and blocking the money transfers to these allegedly "suspicious" individuals, why not report them to the FBI and let them do the investigating and/or arresting?

    Stupid corporate vigilantism -- almost worse than the amateur stuff.

  70. This is so stupid. by JustNiz · · Score: 1

    All this does is to make life more annoying for innocent individuals.

    You think Al-Quada don't have some work around for this in place already? e.g. buying/selling gold for example. Chances are they probably don't blatantly wire money around anyway.

  71. Block Mexico as well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They need to block off the entire country of Mexico as well. That will make it more difficult for the illegals to send money back home and keep 6 billion dollars here in the US.

  72. What is a terrorist? by dada21 · · Score: 1

    I'm not saying anyone should support the promotion of someone who is out to kill for no reason. I'm fairly pacifistic, and I also do not wish to support killing for ANY reason. My fear here is that our government really has no right to tell us where to put our money.

    Had Western Union existed 300 years ago, would England have prevented them from financing a bunch of "anarchists" in the New World? There are many freedom fighters all over the world who are considered "terrorists" by our government, and I am one to believe that individuals have the right and freedom to do what they please with their money -- especially in foreign support. Some of the countries, maybe even many of the countries that we support financially with illegal and unconstitutional foreign aid dollars are considered terrorist to me.

    If you want to sponsor someone with your money that you earned with your time, it is your choice. No government should have the right to prevent you spending your money as you please in ANY way (campaign finance, rebel funding, vacation, retirement, drugs, prostitutes, schooling, whatever). Money is nothing magical, money is merely a store of your time to be redeemed to save you time in the future. That is all money is, time saved up for another day. Why should there be barriers on how you use your time, if you personally aren't hurting anyone?

    1. Re:What is a terrorist? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quote: Money is nothing magical, money is merely a store of your time to be redeemed to save you time in the future. That is all money is, time saved up for another day. Why should there be barriers on how you use your time, if you personally aren't hurting anyone?

      So, if you want to use your invested time to purchase all the kiddie porn (or snuff porn) you can find, and then stand on a street corner an dpass it out, I should support your right to do so?

      After all, nothing you are doing DIRECTLY harms anyone. Yes, your money eventually flows into the pockets of people who harming others, but, that's not your fault, right?

      You pay people for harming others, you are responsible for that harm. Direct first-person involvement is not required.

    2. Re:What is a terrorist? by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1
      If you want to sponsor someone with your money that you earned with your time, it is your choice. No government should have the right to prevent you spending your money as you please in ANY way (campaign finance, rebel funding, vacation, retirement, drugs, prostitutes, schooling, whatever). Money is nothing magical, money is merely a store of your time to be redeemed to save you time in the future. That is all money is, time saved up for another day. Why should there be barriers on how you use your time, if you personally aren't hurting anyone?

      Interesting idea. Let's see how well it holds up.
      1. Paying for the production of, buying, and selling kiddie porn and snuff porn doesn't necessarily involve personally hurting anyone. You didn't kill anyone or have sex with an 8yo.
      2. Paying someone to rape, torture, and/or murder a third party doesn't necessarily involve personally hurting anyone. You didn't beat, stab, poison, etc. anyone.
      3. Providing money so a third party can bribe a public official doesn't necessarily involve personally hurting anyone.
      4. Paying someone to commit arson doesn't necessarily involve personally hurting anyone, even is someone is hurt or dies. You didn't set the fire, right?

      I don't think your statement holds up very well. Using your logic, someone could pay to have you killed, and said someone would not have done anything wrong because they did not personally hurt anyone.
      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    3. Re:What is a terrorist? by dada21 · · Score: 1

      It is sort of a straw man argument, but I'll take the bait. If you're attempting to label me the brigand, though, you won't be supported if you consider the logical outcome of the "government saves us from child porn" fallacy.

      First, I don't support child porn, and I believe that most pornography is addictive and something that needs a stronger family, home and faith in order to overcome. Yet I don't believe I am able to be the one to tell one person what is considered child porn and what is not. In my view, an adult who takes naked pictures of a child is guilty of child abuse and should be punished. Chasing the viewers is not going to make a hill of beans of difference, and if you think government can control it, it will only get worse. Encrypted distribution systems on the Internet will soon make it impossible track. Child porn can only be solved when people are free to realize their problems. I truly believe that houses of worship are on the decline because of government intrusion in so many aspects of our lives (such as in welfare, family counseling, and other areas that the church or the faith handled in the past). If I catch one of my brothers in faith having a problem with porn, I'll deal with it with our entire family of faith.

      Second, I only believe in direct physical harm and fraud as actual crimes. If I tell you to kill someone and you kill someone, it is between you and the person you murdered. While I believe that telling another person to commit a crime is sinful, I don't believe that government has any right to control my speech with another person. Expression is non-violent UNLESS it physically harms someone or their property or restricts their actions on their property. If I want to sit on my property and yell racial slurs out loud, I'm hurting no one.

      If I pay someone to commit arson, the person who actually burns the property is guilty of the crime. If someone offers you money to commit a crime, don't do it. End of the problem. If someone offers you money to kill someone, don't do it! Notify the person who is the target to let them know that they're in danger. End of problem, at least from your perspective.

      Has government helped in ANY of these situations? I don't think so. The expansion of government in our lives has made these problems WORSE -- how many familes in the world sell their children into prostitution because of excessive taxes and the inability to save money because government devalues it through inflation? It is all one big loop of coercion and force. I look at what happened in India when they made child labor illegal in some states, so parents sold their children to monsters. Government at its finest.

    4. Re:What is a terrorist? by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      If I tell you to kill someone and you kill someone, it is between you and the person you murdered...how many familes in the world sell their children into prostitution because of excessive taxes...
      I am coming round to the conclusion that you are the most successful troll on /. recently, in terms of causing me to bang my head against my desk in bewilderment and frustration at human stupidity.

      You simply cannot be serious.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    5. Re:What is a terrorist? by dada21 · · Score: 1

      The "invisible hand" of the market opens up many "opportunities" for people all over the world -- in response to other gains and losses. I truly believe that most governments of the world are oppressive in the financial sense -- they create poverty with all their various schemes that are supposed to help people.

      Minimum wage laws create unemployment -- they set the bar at which point some people can't be hired because they're not worth the minimum wage to an employer. I believe that minimum wage laws are the most racist and age-prejudice law around, and create huge cycles of poverty around the world.

      Labor laws also create problems -- if you look at India's example of child prostitution, you can see that the child labor laws were 100% responsible for the rise in children being sold by poor families into prostitution; children that used to work for their family's food. I just visited India in March and I visited many poor families that hate the decision to force children to go to school. I have seen it with my own eyes, and I know that the liberal and conservative media both lie about the problems.

      Society's problems are never fixed by government programs -- I believe they're always made worse. You don't see the mess made with the invisible hand of the free market when you create paternalism and cronyism for the elite or select few -- for everyone helped by government you have many more people who are hindered or hurt. Many more.

  73. Ummm, I must disagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    arabic criminal mastermind,

    Arabic, yes, mastermind, yes, criminal, not really.

    Al-Qeida (or however it is spelled) has publically declared war on the US years ago, on that note, the 9/11 incident is considered an act of war and thus, nto criminial in the eyes of internationl law. A lot of innocent people died in the WTC disaster, (including a close family friend) but to call Osoma Bin-Laden, who by the way was never actually connected directly to the desctuction, a criminal is just ignorant.

    Remember folks, just becasue it is on FOX news does NOT make it a fact.

    1. Re:Ummm, I must disagree by jafac · · Score: 1

      ...but to call Osoma Bin-Laden, who by the way was never actually connected directly to the desctuction, a criminal is just ignorant.

      Firstly; bin Laden connected himself to 9/11 - in statements he made in more than one video.

      Second: There's plenty of valid arguments for 9/11 being a criminal act. His "soldiers" weren't wearing uniforms, etc. He does not represent a sovereign nation recognized by the UN (Islamic Republic of Afghanistan - ie. Taliban, was not recognized officially by the UN either) - so therefore, he doesn't get the legal "benefit" - and indemnification, of a formal declaration of war. Also, there are formal rules of engagement and other considerations, where the techniques of attack used on 9/11 are clearly illegal - including the killing of civillians.
      Finally - bin Laden is also internationally wanted in connection with fraud charges in his financing of operations.

      Too bad he's too convenient for the neocon war profiteering assholes for them to actually put any effort into catching him and making him pay for his crimes.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
  74. Just getting more funding for terrorists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you were trying to raise money for a terrorist attack, knowing the blatantly racists policies of some U.S. companies would only help your efforts. It's the perception that the U.S. is anti-Arab that fuels extremism. This just adds more fuel to the fire.

    Now would be the time to do an action of good faith and stop this ridiculousness.

  75. Agreed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Want us to stop making cartoons of your prophet, casting you as radical nutjobs in movies and TV shows, and blocking your money transfers? Here's an idea - stop bombing shit.

    1. Re:Agreed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it's safe to say that many more Arabs have died from U.S. bombing than Americans who have died in terrorist attacks...

    2. Re:Agreed by kuwan · · Score: 1

      And it's probably also safe to say that many more Arabs have died at the hands of their own people than by the U.S.

    3. Re:Agreed by teshuvah · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      And it's also safe to say that the only reason arabs are dying from American bombings is because the arabs attacked us first. They started the mess, and we'll finish it, even if it means making the Middle East a giant sheet of glass.

  76. Lip Service by Oxyrubber · · Score: 1

    If we are trying to win the "hearts and minds" of those innocents in the Middle East (who may or may not hate us or our foreign policies), I don't think that preventing their friends/relatives in the US from sending home money that they probably need to survive. Why don't they try something useful like requiring these financial institutions to scrub a list of specific names (first and last) of actual people (or actual aliases) which are known, or at least strongly suspected, of having terrorist ties (other than having a Muslim name). Also, a "mule" (as in the drug traffiking sense of the word) with an Anglo (or simply non-muslim) name in a country in the Middle East could be used to clear the transaction then pass off the money once it's in the country, bypassing the name thing altogether. I don't think there's an easy solution to "the war on terror", but we certainly aren't going to make things any better for our kids if we isolate all Muslims (with blanket policies like these).

    --
    "If God had wanted us to vote, he would have given us candidates." - Jay Leno
  77. About 20 years to late to matter. by pcguru19 · · Score: 1

    I hardly think Western Union is a major funding stream for terrorism anymore. I'm sure you can find an exaple to the contrary, but in the era of paypal and other e-payment systems that allow peer-to-peer payments for minimal transaction fees I don't see people shuffling money with Western Union. This is just another example of companies and governments doing stupid things because of what's happened in the past instead of anticipating what will happen in the future and deal with it instead.

    --
    STFU & GBTW
  78. Your tax dollars at work by popsicle67 · · Score: 1

    The Government can't protect you so they're going to deputize thousands of work-a-day joes to do the dirty work of scaring you silly so they can take more of your rights away.

  79. Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    n/t

  80. Windmill jousting by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Just another "we do something against the terror" bubble. Nothing else. As if that would change anything.

    So you're not allowing WU to transfer to Mohammeds? Great. Next thing you know we'll get some sons of terrorists named Billy-Bob and the transfer is made to them instead. With the dad, as their custodian, cashing in. "Problem" solved.

    Window dressing for the naked emperor, I'd call it.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  81. Re:World War II by mantar · · Score: 2, Insightful

    As a 4th generation Japanese-American I am familiar with the internment of my grandparents' generation during WWII. My grandfather fought in the 442d Combat Batallion for the US while his sister was interned in Tulelake, CA. It seems like the selective internment of a group of people was a harsh response to the threat... my grandfather was dodging bullets in Italy trying to protect the country that temporarily imprisoned his sister, but you'll be hard pressed to find a Japanese-American who complains about this event.

    I guess my point is this... it wasn't all Japanese-Americans that were relocated, just those living on the West Coast after Pearl Harbor. And my grandfather's generation of Nissei (2nd Generation Japanese-Americans) were never bitter about their treatment... they understood, as so few do today, that war can bring out the best in people, as well as the worst.

    BTW... there was never a formal internment of German-Americans because 2nd or 3rd generation Germans looked just like a typical white American. Japanese-Americans were much easier to identify. I suspect that if Al Queda was a primarily European organization, we wouldn't have companies like Western Union selectively rooting out potential terrorists.

    And finally, I think it is hilarious that people (and by that I mean white, middle-class liberals) get up in arms about the treatment of my family during WWII, when I have never heard them get angry or even complain about it. The past is the past, and our future in this great country exists because of the sacrifice of people like my grandfather.

    --
    # man tar
  82. Ok, we finally did it by dilvish_the_damned · · Score: 1

    We jumped the shark.

    I think I speak for the collective when I say "Fucking Jerks".
    I am not normally a "Can't we all just be friends?" kind of guy, but this crap has to end and I think we could really use a self evaluation right about now. We owe it to ourselves and everyone else.
    You heard me.

    Besides just throwing this rant, I am also never using Western Union again. For anything. I am so sick of this rediculous bullshit and I am embarrased to be associated with fucks like this in any way. I am certainly not going to give them any of my money.
    They wont miss me, and I wont miss them.

    Besides, everyone knows that terrorists get all their money from working taxis in New York.

    --
    I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
  83. Five Things To Consider re Terrorism by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 3, Interesting

    1. al-Qaeda receives more than 90 percent - even today - of its funding directly or indirectly from Saudi Arabian citizens.

    2. Most people using Western Union with Arab names are not from Saudi Arabia.

    3. Requiring a Passport of someone wiring money with an Arab name, and just checking to see if they're citizens of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, or Egypt would work much more effectively.

    4. Fake passports and name changes are easy to buy, usually costing less than $25 on downtown streets of any major port city (or even Detroit, Michigan).

    5. Fake patriotism, like concern for non-existent flag-burning rampages, is very easy to do, and highly ineffective.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  84. Tucker Carlson? by Valdrax · · Score: 1

    Remember: Bigots wear bowties. It sure makes for easy identification of the Nation of Islam.

    Hey, man. I won't hear one bad word from you like that about Tucker Carlson.
    Though, it does explain a lot about Pee Wee Herman.

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  85. Did anyone actually READ THE ARTICLE? by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1, Troll
    Dubai-based representatives from Western Union Financial Services, an American company based in Colorado, and Minnesota-based MoneyGram International said their clerks are simply following U.S.
    Treasury Department guidelines that scrutinize cash flows for terrorist links. Most of the flagged transactions are delayed a few hours. Some are blocked entirely.


    Gee, a U.S. company is following U.S. law and flagging financial transactions that may be related to terrorism. Most of said transactions are delayed a short time, some are blocked entirely. Yeah, lots to get upset with there.

    Profiling you say? Profiles are like stereotypes, they exist because the is truth to them.

    Racism you say? You do not know if the list only covers Muslims. Is it still racist if the list contains the known aliases for members of the IRA, or Red Dawn, or the other terrorist organizations?

    "Western Union told me that if I send money to Sahir Mohammed, the money will be blocked because of his name," said 36-year-old Abdul Rahman Maruthayil, who later sent the money through UAE Exchange, a Dubai-based money transfer service.

    Sounds to me like the Western Union employee didn't understand what actually happens, that or he was deliberately misleading people.
    --
    There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    1. Re:Did anyone actually READ THE ARTICLE? by Scrameustache · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Gee, a U.S. company is following U.S. law and flagging financial transactions that may be related to terrorism.

      Did YOU RTFA?
      First paragraph:
      DUBAI, United Arab Emirates - Money transfer agencies have delayed or blocked thousands of cash deliveries on suspicion of terrorist connections simply because senders or recipients have names like Mohammed or Ahmed, company officials said.

      Oh yeah, you're named "Mohammed", you therefore may be related to terrorism! Does that make sense to you? It's a stunningly common name! And that's from a company official, not some cashier.

      Sounds to me like the Western Union employee didn't understand what actually happens

      Sounds to me like you didn't understand what actually happened.
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    2. Re:Did anyone actually READ THE ARTICLE? by FurryFeet · · Score: 1

      Profiling you say? Profiles are like stereotypes, they exist because the is truth to them.

      Thank you! I knew those damn, big-nose Jews were drinking the blood of Christian babies!

  86. Re:World War II by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    who cares anyway? they're japs? it's not like they complain

  87. this is totally normal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nothing to worry about here. now back to baseball.

  88. The leftist junta who guard this site ceaselessly by amightywind · · Score: 1
    Hopefully, the moderating system here will prove its worth.

    If you mean the leftist junta who guard this site ceaselessly to staunch alternative points of view, you may be right. The first readers wisely modded it up. It may creep back up once the junta has moved on. But I am not discouraged about presenting a minority point of view. The author is not a credible journalist.

    --
    an ill wind that blows no good
  89. names... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Our government seems to love lists, most of which are useless. A list that is nothing but a name serves no purpose. Just look at the no fly list that stopped a 3 year old from boarding a plane or senator Kennedy from going to washington. Just think of the fun terrorists could have if they started adopting american names like john smith or george bush.

  90. Should I change my name yet ? by rcastro0 · · Score: 1

    *looks around suspiciously*

    --
    Quem a paca cara compra, paca cara pagará.
  91. I'm all for profiling, but. . . by kimvette · · Score: 1

    I'm all for profiling (in the forensic science sense), but this is simply ridiculous!

    --
    The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
  92. agree? by Tom · · Score: 1

    I agree that Western Union shouldn't allow anyone supporting terrorism to use their service,

    Then I'll agree that you're an idiot. Maybe we should start scrutinizing everyone for potential violence before we sell them a hammer, or check everyone if they're a sex offender before selling them a condom. Or not sell computer to hackers, and of course we'll have to screen everyone buying a computer whether they are a hacker. Or know a hacker. Or know someone who might have sent them to buy a computer for their hacker relative.

    This is totally ridiculous. You can either put everyone under suspicion and total surveilance, or you can make them fill out a form saying "my money does not support terrorism" - which is, of course, total nonsense because your terrorist supporters will simply lie.

    There is no fucking way to prevent Western Union, or your bank, or cash or the Internet or any other device or service that offers a generic service like information or money transfer from being used by people with an agenda you don't like without building a police state.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    1. Re:agree? by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      There is no fucking way to prevent Western Union, or your bank, or cash or the Internet or any other device or service that offers a generic service like information or money transfer from being used by people with an agenda you don't like without building a police state.

      Won't somebody please think of the children! If we don't build a police state, the terrorist win! Why do you hate America? And so forth.

      9/11 was the single biggest boon to American fascists since the red scare.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

  93. OFAC by heck · · Score: 2, Informative

    Most likely they're blocking money transfers as part of their compliance with OFAC

    The rules are supposed to be you check relevant information (including but not limited to name) against the watch list, and then hold any monies which are associated with a positive hit on the watch list until it is resolved whether the recipient is a false positive or truly on the watch list. Most financial companies which I have worked with try to resolve within 24 hours, but my experience is limited to a small small number of companies.

    It does sound that Western Union is having an issue properly identifying and resolving OFAC positives.

    OFAC is a legal compliance requirement. Much like another of our favorites, SOX.

  94. Re:You are a whiny loser pussy by spykemail · · Score: 1

    You're luck I have disabled slashdot's rating system or I wouldn't even have been able to read your post :(.

  95. In Soviet Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    In Soviet Russia people had passports for everyday identification purposes and they were required to carry them along all the time. Among other data there was a place to write down one's ethnicity. Will that be the dream of today?
    Here's an example of the passport. One can see just below the blank line there's space to state ethnicity. In this odd case, moronic officer from Soviet Udmurtia has written "negro". However, more common words included Russian, Ukrainian, Uzbek or Georgian.

  96. Only on /. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    tinfoil hates, hyperbole, and other such bullshit is insightful.

    perhaps it should be changed to inciteful.

    1. Re:Only on /. by Ender+Ryan · · Score: 1

      God help you, Mr. AC. The Bush family has been doing business with the Sauds for decades. In fact, Junior didn't need his father's money to start his own (failed) businesses, he received millions in funding from the Sauds. But they're not the only ones receiving fucktons of Saudi investment... also on the list... Haliburton.

      WAKE THE FUCK UP.

      --
      Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
  97. correction by jbeaupre · · Score: 1

    Oddly, it wasn't the US that provided the chemical or conventional weapons to Iraq. Conventional weapons were mostly of the Warsaw Pact variety or of French origin (AK47,T60,Exocet, etc). Chemical weapons depended heavily on German and Dutch sources. Delivery systems were home grown variants of Soviet design.

    The US did provide satellite intellegence and agricultural loan guarantees to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. We made things easier for them to get conventional weapons, but we didn't supply them.

    --
    The world is made by those who show up for the job.
    1. Re:correction by Damvan · · Score: 1

      Just a quick Google search came up with this:

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename= article&contentId=A52241-2002Dec29&notFound=true

      Some excerpts:

      "The story of U.S. involvement with Saddam Hussein in the years before his 1990 attack on Kuwait -- which included large-scale intelligence sharing, supply of cluster bombs through a Chilean front company, and facilitating Iraq's acquisition of chemical and biological precursors"

      "The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague."

    2. Re:correction by jbeaupre · · Score: 1

      Or how about an actual affidavit? http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14 13.htm Nothing pretty about that.
      But ... note that most chemicals are poisonous. Feedstocks have lots of uses. No sinister revelation there. It's not like we custom designed and built chemical plants for chemical munitions in Iraq like some European countries. The biological sources were a dumb mistake, and not authorized. There's a biological supply company that would sell to anyone with a credit card for legitimate research. Obviously that was a stupid loophole, but not a special one for Iraq. I'm not disputing the US was involved. But it seems peculiar that the US seems to be the only nation taking any blame. And we certainly weren't the ones getting rich selling to them (cough France & USSR cough).

      --
      The world is made by those who show up for the job.
  98. I guess.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "you are either one of us.." part of the idea may be heading to a whole new level.

  99. Both Moral and Economical by thebigo195 · · Score: 1
    The Arab community must share some of the responsibility for this sort of policy (and we'll be seeing this more and more). They have not done a good enough job of discouraging terrorism among themselves and if you have been to a pro-Arab protest you are bound to see a large number of burning American flags along with general anti-Western vitriol.

    The bottom line: if United Airlines had been pulling aside and inspecting every single Muhammed that was in line to board, they would have caught a certain Muhammed Atta and saved themselves billions. From an economic standpoint therefore this is a prudent policy.

  100. Racist, No! by CardboardBox · · Score: 1

    Just kidding, actually in my High School in Canada there are 6 Mohamed's and 3 Ahmad's, my school is almost 1/2 Arab, it would be a cool fight (Arab's vs. Whites & Blacks).

    This is sad because most terrorist's in the US are probably homegrown americans.

    --
    "Go suck your head." - Edward Runey
  101. It use to be hard on white folks as well by aplusjimages · · Score: 5, Funny

    Remember after the Oklahoma City bombing how hard it was for a white person to rent a Ryder truck or any type of moving truck? I had to go rent moving trucks for my white friends because they were getting spit on and turned away.

    --
    Can I bum a sig?
    1. Re:It use to be hard on white folks as well by susano_otter · · Score: 0

      Remember how after Oklahoma, and before Oklahoma, thousands of white Americans, many of them named "Timothy" and "McVeigh", attacked embassies, warships, police stations, malls, restaurants, and churches; and routinely hijacked airplanes for the purposes of hostage-taking and wholesale slaughter?

      The funny thing is, I'd actually understand why it was so hard for me to rent a truck, if my name were Joe McVeigh and every day a different McVeigh was in the news for driving a truck bomb into a building full of civilians.

      I wouldn't bitch about being discriminated against. I'd change my name. What's in a name, if it's going to be associated with a bunch of asshats whose primary life skill seems to be to turn the hand of everyone else against them and anybody even superficially like them?

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

  102. Do you actually know any rednecks? by MikeRT · · Score: 1, Troll

    The rednecks I have always known aren't big on PC things like raping our political and legal systems to accomodate potential terrorists. They'd rather just shoot the fuckers that our military catchs abroad than subject everyone, including Muslims, to police state type tactics in the United States. Bush is not a redneck. You can't be a redneck and go to Yale for a MBA. Many of the people that Bush represents, probably most of them are country club dads and soccer moms, not your average yeehaw redneck.

    And btw, dumbass, there is nothing "ignorant" about the Bush Administration. They know EXACTLY what they are doing. The word your PC mind is groping for is "evil," not "ignorant." Idiots and ignorami don't get elected to the Presidency. Evil people, well, that's a compeletely different matter, ain't it?

    I guess I must be a redneck because I agree with them. No trials for people caught carrying explosives to a terrorist attack. Line them up and shoot them dead like they're an enemy soldier. No stasi-style surveillance state. A nice 0.50 round to the head is just fine with me.

    1. Re:Do you actually know any rednecks? by MustardMan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The rednecks *I* know (I live in Georgia) ARE ignorant, and they DID vote for Dubya, because he "hates them damn queers" and panders to their bigotry. Yes, Bush is pure evil, and yes, he understands exactly what he's doing. Ignorance is still the REASON he's in office in the first place.

      Bush doesn't represent the folks who voted for him - he represents the folks who financed his corrupt ass. That doesn't take away from the fact that his pretending to be a redneck is why he's in power. He's a faux-redneck figurehead for a redneck nation.

      And, since you're so keen on calling ME a dumbass, I guess I should call you a dumbass for being too fucking stupid to realize I was making a simple generalization to express my disgust with the way our president got elected, and not trying to go into a deep political discussion.

      Oh the irony, to have you whining that I'm PC, and another jackass whining that I'm a big bad racist for using the word redneck.

      Oh and one more thing... NO FUCKING TRIALS? Holy shit, idiocy like that is EXACTLY why this government has the power it does to take away our rights. Hey, you criticized El Presidente, they can line you up and shoot you, and say "this guy was carrying explosives". Of course, since they don't actually have to PROVE that you were doing so, no one would be the wiser.

      Ignorance like yours is exactly why this country is in the shithole mess it's in right now.

    2. Re:Do you actually know any rednecks? by koreaman · · Score: 0

      You're dumb beyond dumb. You want to make Joe Sixpack Soldier the judge and jury? OK,

      1) How do you know they actually had explosives? Maybe Joe Sixpack Soldier (JSS from now on) is just a liar and/or stupid?
      2) What if JSS begins to abuse his far-reaching "license to kill"?
      3) "Line them up and shoot them dead like they're an enemy soldier." -- No, when captured, enemy soldiers are not "lined up" and "shot dead". They are put in prisoner of war camps and (usually) treated properly under the Geneva Conventians and other relevant international law.

    3. Re:Do you actually know any rednecks? by orasio · · Score: 1

      But not in Cuba!

      If you happen to get caught, and send to Guantanamo bay, there is a #4 , and it is not covered by the Geneva conventions.

    4. Re:Do you actually know any rednecks? by koreaman · · Score: 0

      That's why I said "usually". I certainly want to get the bullshit that's happening in Guantanamo Bay abolished. The GGP wants to move in the opposite direction.

    5. Re:Do you actually know any rednecks? by Stalyn · · Score: 1

      And btw, dumbass, there is nothing "ignorant" about the Bush Administration. They know EXACTLY what they are doing.

      They sure have a funny way of showing it.

      --
      The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend
    6. Re:Do you actually know any rednecks? by Tesen · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh and one more thing... NO FUCKING TRIALS? Holy shit, idiocy like that is EXACTLY why this government has the power it does to take away our rights. Hey, you criticized El Presidente, they can line you up and shoot you, and say "this guy was carrying explosives". Of course, since they don't actually have to PROVE that you were doing so, no one would be the wiser.

      Here! Here! I totally agree! Why are people so insistent on letting their government tell them how to live? If you're caught carrying explosives or suspected of terrorist plots and there is evidence, a trial will only determine your guilt. Being held in Cuba for an undetermined amount of fucking time is not a fair trial and those that agree with the Bush administration's policy on that do not consider what could happen to them.

      I had one idiot at work tell me, you only go to Gitmo if you've held unsavory connections to terrorist groups or suspected terrorists. In the eyes of Bush administration (as stated by them in justification of their spying on fellow Americans) anyone could be a terrorist. My point to him and question was, if suddeny Homeland Security came busting down his door and hauled his ass off to Gitmo, would he have a problem with that? Of course his first reaction was, "That is insane, why would they come after me?!?! That isn't realistic." My response was, "Sure it is realistic, people make mistakes, you're mistakenly taken away to Gitmo for no reason, would you be okay with that? Being held without legal representation, being held against your will, no contact with Family or Friends." After much prodding, he admitted he would not like that. Gosh? Really?

      What is my point? Treat others how you want to be treated! Everyone always says, "Hey! I am no terrorist! They won't come after me!" I retort, "Prove it! Prove to me right now you're not a terrorist!" - They can't! No one can! That IS the point of terrorism, that IS the problem with preventing terrorism. You do not need to be Arab to be a terrorist, the idea of terrorism is about terror! And guess what? Groups that have committed terrorist acts prey upon the terror and fear they have caused, just as much as our politicians prey on the same.

      Question everything! Especially question those that claim they are acting in your interests!

      Tes

    7. Re:Do you actually know any rednecks? by Percent+Man · · Score: 1

      Question everything!

      Why?

    8. Re:Do you actually know any rednecks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy shit you are an moron. In the first place, a Yale MBA is not in the least impressive. The business school is a joke.Trust me, I come from a long line of Yalies. In fact, my father was good friends with Johnny Bush, GWB's uncle and benefactor. Johnny bankrolled GWB's business and political career. Ed Meese was also in their circle of friends. In the second place, GWB did not get an MBA there. Yale didn't even have a business school until a year after GWB graduated from HARVARD business school. In the third place, his Harvard and Yale professors and peers agree GWB was a spoiled brat whose father engineered his admission to both institutions. I am proud to say that when Johnny Bush invited my father to a meet and greet with GWB at the White House my dad refused on principle.

    9. Re:Do you actually know any rednecks? by sgt_doom · · Score: 1
      Bravo and well said - and yes, there are simply far too many "dumbed down" - highly ignorant people in the US today, especially beginning with all those fake newsies out there - who blithely report that misinformation they claim to be the news, while keeping completely ignorant of the news.

      Case in point: several years ago, Cokie Roberts on that Sunday morning national news program, made a stupid and silly joke about "black helicopters" and the "black helicopter crowd." Just one week prior, the Pentagon held a news conference, apologizing for their screwup in Memphis, Tennessee, several days earlier. Seems the Army's Special Activity Group -- without contacting the mayor or governor -- had performed a simulated attack on the business section of Memphis (using their normal black-painted helicopters - mostly Apaches, I believe) and causing such an uproar the mayor phoned the national guard, believing them to be under terrorist attack. They also mentioned that they had held such simulated attack games in 23 cities over the past 5 years. "Black helicopter crowd, my American a**.

      Such incidents can be reported on a daily basis. These all stem from highly overpaid, insipid, airheaded newsies (there are a few, very few exceptions) but a nation this size cannot depend upon those very few..

      Just the other week, the failure of the US Congress - having given themselves consecutive payraises over the preceding 8 years - did vote down a raise in the national minimum wage rate - which should, if still tied to production as it used to be - would justifiably be over $20.00 today. That should have been front page news of EVERY major newspaper in the USA, but of course it wasn't....and given the national record of wrongfully jailing people in this country -- from both prosecutorial incompetence, corrupt police and FBI behaviors -- why would ANYBODY possible believe that the US would correctly and ethically jail people on the sayso of Pakistani, Afghani bounty hunters!!*^#&*

    10. Re:Do you actually know any rednecks? by Tesen · · Score: 1

      Why?

      If you have to ask, then you won't understand. But since you ask why and I am taking that as you believe everything, so I am going to say this: "Tesen is always right."

      Tes

    11. Re:Do you actually know any rednecks? by Percent+Man · · Score: 1

      Why?

      If you have to ask, then you won't understand. But since you ask why and I am taking that as you believe everything, so I am going to say this: "Tesen is always right."

      Tes


      No, no, you missed the subtlety of my point. Think about it for a minute: "Question everything." "Why?" It's the same tongue-in-cheek response one should give whenever confronted with a bumper sticker ordering you to Question Authority.

  103. This is a crock by u-235-sentinel · · Score: 1

    "Western Union told me that if I send money to Sahir Mohammed, the money will be blocked because of his name,"

    I'm not muslim nor is my name anything similar to Mohammed or anything. I've bumped against this recently. After taking out a home loan with one leader we decided it would be easier to have the money in our local bank when making payouts for home improvements. Boy were we wrong. It took nearly two weeks before the dust settled. We ended up calling our bank to find out the problem.

    We were told it's standard procedure to investigate the money flow when they see "unusual" patterns (such as a large deposit of cash). Eventually they figured out we weren't terrorists and our contractor would like to get paid like anyone else.

    --
    Has Comcast disconnected your Internet account? Same here. You can read about it at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com
  104. You mean Muslims, not Arabs. by mosel-saar-ruwer · · Score: 1


    racism isn't just about believing one race to be superior, it's also about stereotyping; i.e. all arabs are terrorists

    Like the submitter & the editor of this article, you are using the word "Arab" incorrectly.

    There are Arab Jews, Arab Christians, Arab Zorastrians, Arab Animists, Arab Agnostics, Arab Atheists, etc, etc, etc.

    The ones we are worried about, however, are the Arab MUSLIMS.

  105. Excellent Karma by roman_mir · · Score: 1

    I want to make sure more people get to read this subthread and decide for themselves, independently from the moderation system here what's what.

    Restating the parent post there: Within the past 20 years on this planet, muslim extremists have committed more terrorist acts than any other terrorist organization (or any other individual.) For a list (not a complete list, but a good start) see this wikipedia entry. It has links to many other sub-lists of terrorist acts that for example happen in Israel and Iraq.

    Also you have to figure out what 'muslim extremist connection' means. Chechnia, serbia, pakistan....

    1. Re:Excellent Karma by jjohnson · · Score: 1

      What's your point? That this justifies racial profiling on the flimsiest grounds and to the weakest effects?

      --
      Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
    2. Re:Excellent Karma by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Racial profiling is not going to help actually, it has to be religion-based profiling, but it's harder to do.

      Muslim is not a race, it's religion or an ideology. Muslim extremist is not a religion, it's a pretense, it's a tool used to drive the sheep to slaughter.

      We have to identify who is a Muslim extremist, it's more difficult that just profiling Muslim names. Have to figure that one out.

  106. Zorastrian = Zoroastrian by mosel-saar-ruwer · · Score: 1


    Sorry about that; apparently I hit "Submit" instead of "Preview".

    1. Re:Zorastrian = Zoroastrian by Jagasian · · Score: 1

      I thought Zoroastrians were Iranian, i.e., not Arab.

    2. Re:Zorastrian = Zoroastrian by dcam · · Score: 1

      That is correct. To be precise they were persian.

      --
      meh
  107. language problem by jbeaupre · · Score: 1

    Not to debate your logic, but the problem lies in that the only word Americans know for a broad conflict is 'war'. War on Poverty, War on Terror, Cold War, Flame War, etc. You further compound the mistake by attacking the conflict because it doesn't fit the fundimental definition of 'war.' Get past the semantics.

    --
    The world is made by those who show up for the job.
    1. Re:language problem by spykemail · · Score: 1

      That's not really true. The "wartime" powers we're talking about were intended for wars - as in, country declares war on you, you declare war on country, or both. They're supposed to go through Congress too.

      After WWII we just started attacking people - no declaration of war, nothing. Now it's at the point where they call fighting terrorists a war, even though none of these "wars" were formally declared by Congress and, as you and I both point out, in some cases are not really wars at all.

      The problem is very similar to the one you point out. It's not that we don't other words, it's that the Executive branch of our government (and the media) is trying to convince us that these conflicts qualify as wars - in which case all of the wartime powers arguments remain valid.

    2. Re:language problem by jbeaupre · · Score: 1

      Oh, they get blame for smearing the definition too.

      --
      The world is made by those who show up for the job.
  108. The zero percent strategy by FridayBob · · Score: 1
    I think this is part of Cheney's zero percent strategy: even if there's a 1% chance that terrorists will take advantage of a certain situation, something has got to be done about it (people need to be questioned, perhaps arrested). We're seeing this a lot these days. Recently, I saw a telling description that went something like this:
    • It used to be that we'd often set people free who were 100% guilty, in order to minimize the chance of convicting someone innocent. Now we don't care if innocent people are sometimes convicted, just as long as those who are 100% guilty are never set free.
    The result is that our freedoms are being eroded and replaced by a false sense of security. Maintaining security is never an easy task, but five years ago Bush and Cheney were not paying attention.
  109. This war on terror is fake! by ShaunC1000 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Seriously, look at the numbers for 2001: 2001 Statistics (2004 Almanac) Disease / Condition Annual Deaths 1) Heart Disease 700,142 2) Malignant Neoplasms (Cancer) 553,768 3) Stroke (cerebrovascular disease) 163,538 4) Chronic Lower Respiratory disease 123,013 5) Accidents (Car Accidents* (2002) - 44,000) 101,537 6) Diabetes Mellitus 71,372 7) Pneumonia & Influenza 62,034 8) Alzheimer's Disease 53,852 9) Kidney disease (Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, & nephrosis) 39,480 10) Septicemia (toxins in the blood - known as "blood poisoning") 32,238 Total Deaths per Year** 2,400,000 taken from: http://www.ritecode.com/aerobicgardening/topkill.h tml So.. even if you round the number up to 3,000 for the 9/11 attacks.. that's still nothing to the number of people who die of disease every year. Why are we wasting billions on wars in the middle east to "stop terrorism" when its not even that big of a problem anyway. Wouldn't that money be put to better use by providing better healthcare to people, on programs that encourage healthier lifestyles, cleaning up the air and water. These wars DO NOT BENEFIT anyone in the US except oil and weapons companies. The US no longer has any credibility, and we are being hated more and more by the global community. 9/11 should have been treated like a criminal investigation, arrests should have been made immediately to anyone who aided in the attacks, and that would have been the end of it. But no, lets all be racists towards Arabs because 19 of them attacked us, and their ring leader is still in a cave somewhere. This racism only encourages more wars in the middle east and will only result in more soldiers getting killed, Americans loosing more rights, and more profits to oil and weapons companies.

  110. OT by Scrameustache · · Score: 1, Troll

    there are two reasons to oppose gay marriage: bigotry and political pandering to bigots

    #3:
    Dude, marriage means one thing, and changing it to mean a new thing is not something I approve. Let 'em get civil unions and change the laws to include benefits and visitation right to civil unions, instead of changing marriage, change the technicalities that make marriage a necessity.

    Fuck, don't pigeonhole people in your lil' prejudiced categories just because they disagree with you on one issue.

    P.S. Couldn't care less about the sanctity of marriage or any of that, it's been one thing since it has existed, and changing it is not a move. Ancient greeks weren't opposed to homosexuality, but they had the same meaning for marriage that we have now.

    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

    1. Re:OT by metamatic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you want marriage to be defined by what your religion says, then detach it from all the benefits previously enumerated. Make it so that people get married in church if they want, and then if they want legal recognition they also get a civil partership, or whatever you want to call it.

      Until then, you can't expect people not to want marriage.

      --
      GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
    2. Re:OT by Tony · · Score: 1

      Dude, marriage means one thing, and changing it to mean a new thing is not something I approve.

      And what does marriage mean? Is it not the joyous union of two people who love each other, and are publicly declaring their willingness to bind to each other? Is it not the promise of friends and family to support the couple in their quest for happiness together?

      There is no special definition of marriage to exclude people of the same sex from getting married. Your marriage (should you presently be in such a union) is in no way diminished by homosexuals marrying. Your life is in no way changed or altered by allowing others to enjoy the priveleges gained by marriage. The world is not going to change for the worse because same-sex couples publicly and enthusiastically declare their love for each other, and bind their lives together.

      There *is* a definition of marriage. By that definition, there's no reason homosexuals shouldn't get married.

      --
      Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
    3. Re:OT by stinerman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I believe Michael Badnarik had the best idea. Namely, seperating the state instiution of marriage from the religious instiution of marriage.

      1) If you would like to get married, go to your church, temple, mosque, etc. Since we have freedom of religion and a seperation of church and state, your church can marry you and whomever (or whatever) you'd like to marry.
      2) If you would like the benefits that the state provides to a couple that is more or less a family, then you can go down to the courthouse and get a civil union certificate, which doesn't depend on any such religious ceremony you went through. The state should recognise the joining of any two people because of the 14th amendment.

      Perhaps its just me, but I don't understand why some people are for homosexual civil unions, but not homosexual marriage, even when they are functionally the same. To me, marriage implies a religious ceremony, and no one has seriously advocated that church X has to marry a homosexual couple.

    4. Re:OT by colanut · · Score: 1

      Ever been married? Look at the certificate. Legally it is issued by the County (ours is, maybe for some it is the state). We were not "married" in a church nor was it officiated by a religious person. So dude, marriage does mean more than one thing and it has very little to do with religion. It is a financial and social construct. The current debate (and there have been many over the centuries) is that one group of bigots want to withhold from a subset of people, much like bans on interracial marriages in years past. So yes, the meaning of marriage has changed over the years and will continue to change as our concepts of society and self do.

    5. Re:OT by VanessaE · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Dude, marriage means one thing, and changing it to mean a new thing is not something I approve.

      Care to explain who, in your opinion, has the right to define exactly what "marriage" means?

      If you want to take the religious angle, then perhaps G-D had the right, but He never bothered to actually define it, man took that liberty. Just remember that the words in your bible (and in mine) were customarily said to be written by Moses, who proved himself to be as imperfect as any other human (re: the water-from-the-rock incident).

      Otherwise, here's what I found just from one quick search of a more or less authoritative non-religious source... According to the American Heritage Dictionary (via dictionary.com; leaving out the parts that don't apply to this discussion):

        • The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
        • The state of being married; wedlock.
        • A common-law marriage.
        • A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.
      1. A wedding.

      Merriam-Webster agrees with only the first part of the first definition, and says very little about other possible definitions as they apply here. In other words, even the freakin' dictionaries can't settle on what it really means. Furthermore, who really gives a shit what you think about it?

      Fuck, don't pigeonhole people in your lil' prejudiced categories just because they disagree with you on one issue.

      I suggest you practice what you preach, since you are clearly and in no uncertain way trying to pigeonhole all nonstandard marriages into the same narrow religious definition (which sounds awefully Christian-based to me).

      P.S. Couldn't care less about the sanctity of marriage or any of that...

      Ok then, so what specifically DO you care about?

      I'll give you a personal example of why I care (and why I bothered to reply). I'm pre-operative transsexual, and married to a man. Technically, that makes us a same-sex couple until I get the surgery.

      Do he and I being married somehow damage your marriage? How? Did I call the court and demand they revoke your license? Did I come over to your house and demand you end your marriage? Am I trying to redefine what your marriage means to you and your spouse? Let's see...no, no effect, no, no, and no.

      ... it's been one thing since it has existed, and changing it is not a move.

      In your opinion maybe. Excluding religious reasons, marriage has always been man-and-woman for just one reason: How else do you expect the ruling majority of the society to behave but to specifically marry man to woman? Just because it's been some certain way for centuries doesn't mean it's being done entirely right. I mean, hell, we have a 70% divorce rate in the USA alone, and you're worried about supposedly redefining marriage?

      Ancient greeks weren't opposed to homosexuality, but they had the same meaning for marriage that we have now.

      Who gives a shit what the ancient Greeks considered to be "normal"? Last time I looked, most of us here lived in 21st century CE America (which in and of itself isn't much to speak of these days), not 10th century BCE Greece.

      A thousand years ago, we thought the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around it... of course we know better now.

      A hundred years ago, we had no concept of transmitting moving pictures and sounds by wireless. Nowadays, the television is as commonplace as a pair of socks.

      Around ten years ago, we thought homosexuality and transsexualism were psychological/mental problems, now we're starting to realize that it's biological/physical and determined some time before birth.

      One year ago, we thought it impossible fuse a prostethic device to the bone a

    6. Re:OT by HBI · · Score: 0, Troll

      No, i'm not changing my society because you want me to. It's just fine as is.

      How's that for simple?

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    7. Re:OT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      do you really think any of the worlds regional societies are fine as they are?
      what are you fucking stupid?

    8. Re:OT by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      No, i'm not changing my society because you want me to. It's just fine as is.

      No it isn't. Gays want equal protection under the law, and I can't see a reason to deny it. The secular institution of marriage can be defined as two people just fine. I don't care if you want to ban gays from marrying in your church - that's your choice.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    9. Re:OT by pipegeek · · Score: 1

      How about you change your society because that's what's fair? Because, as has been emphatically stated above, it isn't "just fine" as is. As long as gay "unions" are in a different legal category from straight "unions", they will continue to be unequal (this country's recent history proves that 'separate but equal' treatment doesn't work). If "civil union" is fine for gay people, then it's fine for straight people as well. If it's unacceptable to straight people, then you can't claim that it's acceptable for us gays.

      Personally, I think that marriage, as such, shouldn't be a legal status at all. If it is such a sacred thing, then leave it to the religious institutions to decide on its meaning. Frankly, I don't *want* something like that being legislated; the concept of marriage is so steeped in religion that it seems inappropriate for what is supposed to be a secular government to play any part. Assign the legal benefits that currently come specifically with marriage to some new, more neutral category, and the whole controversy is solved.

      I see a parallel to the term "dependent" here. One refers to one's sons and daughters as "dependents" (rather than children) on one's taxes, because that term describes one's *legal* relationship to them. The term is also general enough to include others which share a similar role. It's a sterile, precise phrase which describes a particular legal standing, which in turn encompasses certain rights, benefits, and responsibilities--- nothing more. For instance, nobody (to my knowledge) complains that the term lumps adopted children in with genetic children (even though some religions prohibit adoption) because "dependent" implies nothing about the nature of parenthood itself; it's just a simple way of stating that certain rights and responsibilties will apply to both adoptive and genetic parents. It's a category into which both genetic and adoptive children fall.

      So, why not have a similar term for the legal status associated with marriage? This seems like a simple way of resolving the marriage dispute for good. If your problem lies in the desire to preserve the notion of the institution of marriage you grew up with*, why not seperate it from the state entirely (thus seperating religion and politics further, which is all to the good) and leave that decision in the capable hands of your church? Meanwhile, us gay folks will at last get the legal equality we've been fighting for for years. We'll be able to share medical insurance, see our loved ones in the hospital, and raise our own children in the unthinkable event that our partner dies. We'll be able to stop worrying that whatever legal status we have might be suddenly and callously kicked out from under us (as happened in San Fransisco). And, if our faith allows it (and many don't---in any case, I'm an atheist, and obviously wouldn't qualify) we can have our newfound legal status sanctified in some form as well (as is already possible in many churches).

      *Sorry if I'm setting up a straw man here; I'm just following the general drift of this thread

    10. Re:OT by king-manic · · Score: 1

      #3:
      Dude, marriage means one thing, and changing it to mean a new thing is not something I approve. Let 'em get civil unions and change the laws to include benefits and visitation right to civil unions, instead of changing marriage, change the technicalities that make marriage a necessity.

      Fuck, don't pigeonhole people in your lil' prejudiced categories just because they disagree with you on one issue.

      P.S. Couldn't care less about the sanctity of marriage or any of that, it's been one thing since it has existed, and changing it is not a move. Ancient greeks weren't opposed to homosexuality, but they had the same meaning for marriage that we have now.


      Yes, and god damn it it should remain a legally binding contract between a man and a brides family?

      --
      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
    11. Re:OT by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      i afree with that postion most of all, unfortunately it is the least likely to be done because it is well thought out and reasonable

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    12. Re:OT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have to admit that it is strange that a libertardian has actually come up with something that is workable.

    13. Re:OT by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      Yes, and god damn it it should remain a legally binding contract between a man and a brides family?

      Well, if they're not allowed to enter into a contract, it can't be between a man and a woman. However, since those uppity suffragettes got their way, I think that the detail of the signatory party of the contract has gotten simplified, allowing the object of the contract to enter into it without outside representation.
      The goal is still the same: sexual exclusivity to ensure a patriarchal line.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    14. Re:OT by Scrameustache · · Score: 1
      Fuck, don't pigeonhole people in your lil' prejudiced categories just because they disagree with you on one issue.
      I suggest you practice what you preach, since you are clearly and in no uncertain way trying to pigeonhole all nonstandard marriages into the same narrow religious definition (which sounds awefully Christian-based to me).

      Hahahahaha! Me, spouting christian crap! Lol! DUDE! FUCK OFF WITH THE PIDGEONHOLING ALREADY!

      f you want to take the religious angle

      Wow, my opinion differs from yours, I MUST BE one of the religious right types! I must, I say, I must!

      Do he and I being married somehow damage your marriage?

      And I must be affraid that, contrary to what I specifically SAID, your acts would teint "my" marriage. Even though I'm not married, nor do I plan to be.

      Society changes, and if there's any amount of true intelligence and compassion in that society, it's norms and what it expects of it's citizens should also change eventually.

      1- Your "progress" argument is utter bullshit. Scientific and technological progress has nothing to do with redefining societal constructs.

      2- Why the fuck do you hold on to an outmoded tradition that specifically excludes you? Fuck marriage, let it alone, it's not meant for you, deal, and live your fucking life instead of trying to desperatly fitting in by redefining the damn thing to include you.

      You want progress, move beyond marriage instead of obsessing over it.

      Who gives a shit what the ancient Greeks considered to be "normal"?

      And bravo for entirely missing the point in your fucking rush to pidgeonhole me into your damn simple-minded black and white "if x oposes y, he must be part of z who also oppose y" bullshit.
      The point, my deluded, close-minded slasdotter, is this: How else do you expect the ruling majority of the society to behave but to specifically marry man to woman? Just because it's been some certain way for centuries doesn't mean it's being done entirely right.

      Even when homosexuals WERE NOT EXCLUDED FROM SOCIETY marriage was still between a man and a woman. Shit, you dismiss my point and then ask for an example of my point! Get off your fucking high horse and THINK for just once second instead of spewing the same old tired rethoric.
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    15. Re:OT by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      So dude, marriage does mean more than one thing and it has very little to do with religion. It is a financial and social construct.

      1- Bravo, pidgeonholer, you have assumed that I oppose it for religious reasons because "religion" in the hole into which you... pidgeoned... ah crap my metaphor is falling appart. Anyway...

      2- I've been telling other pidgeonholers exactly hat: It's a construct.

      So yes, the meaning of marriage has changed over the years and will continue to change as our concepts of society and self do.

      Nope, the DETAILS have changed, and btw, I wasn't only referring to one society, I mean marriage is the same, excluding details, all over: A man getting exclusive reproductive rights to a woman.

      I'm not opposed to polygamy, I'm not opposed to arranged marriages, as long as all parties involved keep the right to free will and to refuse to enter into the contract.
      I really don't care about the sanctity of marriage, as I stated. It's the intent to change the meaning of marriage from "exclusive reproductive rights in exchange for material compenastion" to "a token of love" that I abhor.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    16. Re:OT by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      Perhaps its just me, but I don't understand why some people are for homosexual civil unions, but not homosexual marriage, even when they are functionally the same.

      It's about the word, and what it means.

      A civil union is fine by me, because I'm not all "t3h gheys are t3h evil". I'm not opposed to the legal functions of marriage to apply to gay couples, I can see how your partner would want to come see you at the hospitals, and the hospital has rules against roomates visiting, but I don't think the solution is to redefine something that has a basic meaning throughout the world. I think the solution is to provide an alternative that will serve the same purpose.

      Me, I don't understand why some people are for homosexual marriage, but not satisfied with homosexual civil unions, even when they are functionally the same.
      Well, I see it, I lied. I see it and I don't agree with it: They want to be told they're normal: "See, we get maried and have white picket fences!".
      I support the right not to be normal. The civil union would do juuuuuust fine for all intents and purposes, except one: It wouldn't be something to throw in the face of people who hate fags. I don't think that's valid.

      P.S. I got about ten replies to this (whoa!), and you're the first rational one to date. You deserve a cookie :)

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    17. Re:OT by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      If you want marriage to be defined by what your religion says

      BOOM! Pidgeonholing! Name my religion (hint: I don't have one).

      detach it from all the benefits previously enumerated. Make it so that people get married in church if they want, and then if they want legal recognition they also get a civil partership, or whatever you want to call it.

      That... could work, except it's an increase in paperwork, and I happen to oppose the spread of bureaucraties.
      Like I said, civil unions are fine, but I don't think that to give it to gay couples you need to remove the legal power of religious institutions to make their marriages legally binding.

      And you certainly will not get support from any religious types if you want to take something away from them to give something to people they don't like!
      So, no, I don't think your solution will work.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    18. Re:OT by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      And what does marriage mean? Is it not the joyous union of two people who love each other, and are publicly declaring their willingness to bind to each other? Is it not the promise of friends and family to support the couple in their quest for happiness together?

      No, and no.
      That's just nice fluff that can come with. There's tons of loveless, joyless mariages, and marriages opposed by the families of the enlopers.
      Marriage has nothing to do with mushy feelings. It's nicer when these things are there, but they're just an added bonus.

      There is no special definition of marriage to exclude people of the same sex from getting married.

      Mariage is a legally binding contract granting exclusive sexual (reproductive) rights for a man to a woman, in exchange for financial compensation. Its purpose is to ensure a patriarchal line.

      The world is not going to change for the worse because same-sex couples publicly and enthusiastically declare their love for each other, and bind their lives together.

      I know, 's why I say they should go and get all the civil unions they can handle.

      Marriage is one thing, and it exclude them. They should find their bliss without obsessing over something that isn't necessery to their lives and from which they are excluded by definition, and by function.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    19. Re:OT by metamatic · · Score: 1

      Of course religious types won't support taking away their ability to interfere with government on religious grounds. So what?

      The point is, either marriage is a religious process defined by the church, or it's a civil process defined by law. So far we've been using the same word for both and just ignoring the question. The question can't be ignored any longer.

      As for paperwork--it's easier to get married than to buy a car, so I think we could stand a little more paperwork.

      --
      GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
    20. Re:OT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, that's pretty simple. Much like what the Southerners were saying right about 1860.

    21. Re:OT by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      I'm not releasing my slaves because you want me to. They're just fine as they are.

      How's that for simple?

      Over the top? Not really. You advocate denying people opportunities based strictly on their sexual preference. In my book, that's just as wrong as denying them their human rights based on other factors like the colour of their skin.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
  111. Here is a profile they'll never use by StreamCipher · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If profiling has to be done, then the rules should be established upfront so that no single race or religion can get a free pass--that is, if safety is really a priority.

    I seriously doubt Western Union has, or will deny money transfers to recipients who fit this profile of a famous terrorist:

    American citizen, White, short-haired, male, Irish-American, Catholic, who had been Republican or Libertarian, had been also been a member of the NRA, and is a veteran who saw combat.

    The above was taken from a description of Timothy McVeigh--you remember what he did, and the following outrage against white people who might be terrorists, right?

    On a serious note, I wonder how many Americans fit the above profile compared to Americans with Arab-sounding names. I'm guessing the above profile, matching Timothy McVeigh, would be able to filter out all but a tiny fraction of Americans. And who knows if it might prevent another similar incident?

    If you currently favor biased profiling that favors the predominant race or religion, would you feel the same way if America becomes predominantly non-White?

    I personally think profiling *might* prevent harmful incidents, but refusing to profile one race (white) or the political party in power (Republican) is not the way to go about preventing terrorism. There should be no free rides if profiling is going to be implemented. Do it right, do it for best results, or don't do it at all.

    1. Re:Here is a profile they'll never use by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      At this point I would like you to show where it says white terrorist are not on the list provided by the U.S. Government to West Union for the flagging of financial transactions.

      And, while I am at it, in this case the "profiling" is done using names. Now, let us say that Timothy McVeigh were still on the loose. The Feds might request all financial transactions for anyone with that name and all known aliases be flagged for investigation. Would that be wrong?

      How about if it is the name Mohammed Younis al-Ahmed al-Muwali? He is a former Baath Party member accused of funding and leading terrorist operations with a US$1 million bounty on his head by the Iraqi governemt.

      How about if it is the name Rashid Taan Kadhim, who has $1 million bounty. He leads insurgent operations in Anbar and is responsible for funding terrorist operations in Diyala.

      How about Abu Marwan, real name is Khalaf Muhammad Mukhlif al-Dulaimi, who funds, organizes and smuggles terrorists and weapons to Iraq.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    2. Re:Here is a profile they'll never use by StreamCipher · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure how your reply relates to my original post.

      Perhaps I did not make my points clear or you did not understand them. Or maybe a little of both.

      I carefully read your reply twice, asked myself how it rationally relates to the points I raised, and see a huge disconnect--like two separate conversations that have a couple of phrases or words in common to create the illusion of relevance but the main points raised are unrelated.

      Best of luck to you.

    3. Re:Here is a profile they'll never use by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      The problem is that you are using physical characteristic profiling when the article is about financial transactions being delayed or blocked because of the receipient's name. My reply is more germain to the actual article than your original comment.

      My reply first examine's your initial claim in the context of the article. I then go on to show you how your whole post doesn't work as the financial institutions are working of a list of names as opposed to physical characteristics. If the receipient has a name that is similar to, or matches the name or alias of a terrorist, the transaction gets flaged. If it is believed that the receipient is a terrorist, then the transaction is blocked.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    4. Re:Here is a profile they'll never use by hackstraw · · Score: 1


      For better or worse, the darker your skin the more prejudice is against you. That is true, even in primarily darker skinned societies.

      No, there will never be a prejudice against a white, christian, republican in a society made of white, christian, republicans.

      Americans put Japanese in prison camps during WWII, but not German derived folks. Japanese are typically darker than Germans.

    5. Re:Here is a profile they'll never use by StreamCipher · · Score: 1

      >> The problem is that you are using physical characteristic profiling I'm confused by your response yet again...what physical characteristics do republicans, libertarians, NRA members, and veterans share? Are you responding to specific words and phrases you choose to pick out from the original post or actually considering the main points before responding? Never mind, I'll just move on to conversations that stick to the point.

    6. Re:Here is a profile they'll never use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I could be wrong, but I don't think he wired money out of the country; he bought explosives. Small difference.

  112. Re:This is idiotic but not new. by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

    I don't even know if it is really racism.
    It happened to myself and a friend of mine. We where on a bussiness trip in Ireland in the 80s and was going to vist some distant family in Northern Ireland. My family is from Northern Ireland around Belfast so I wanted to meet my great uncle and aunt.
    When I got to the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland I was let through with no problem. My friend in the car behind me was just about strip searched. The Britsh seached every bag he had and grilled him for about an hour about why he was going to Northern Ireland.
    The differences between he and I where.
    My last name is German and I am from Florida.
    My friend's last name was O'Shay and he was from Boston, he was also wearing a crucifix.
    It didn't help that a police station was blown up just that morning. Of course the funny thing is that I was the one that had family in Northern Ireland, my friend didn't know a soul in Ireland and just going with me to have something to do for the weekend. Frankly if I was going to be suggling guns into Northern Ireland the last thing I would do is wear a crucifix.

    To be honest this story sounds like somebody at Western Union being stupid.
    The goverment wouldn't want to prevent that money from being sent. It would want to track it.
    If the story is true I want to change my name. I figure after it goes to court I will never have to work again. The lawyers for Western Union must be jumping for joy over this. They will make mint trying defend this case.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  113. Worse than useless by quantaman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    From what I can gather from the article this policy is actually harming security.

    They say Treasury guidelines are sending more people to informal money transfer networks called "hundis" or "hawalas" that have been used by gangsters and terrorists because they circumvent such scrutiny.

    "Sending money by hawala is cheaper and it does not get checked by banks, so it is quicker," said a Pakistani taxi driver who called himself Munir Ahmed. "They say it is not legal, but it is a reliable alternative to Western Union."


    If law abiding people are avoiding official institutions what makes them think that terrorists are stupid enough to use them?!?

    More than that by driving additional people to the hawalas it circumvents existing security measures. For starters it means that more money (even the legit stuff) is moving around and they have no idea where it went, also the additional people using the hawalas will mean they are more developed for the terrorists use them. Additionally when you uncover a hawala network it will be that much harder to pick out the terrorists since you've added all these false positives, and finally for the terrorists who would have used official institutions in the past since it was easy and the hawalas weren't developed, now you no longer have a money trail you can inspect later on.

    All this security measure does is inconvenience and alientate a whole bunch of people while making the world a little less safe.

    --
    I stole this Sig
    1. Re:Worse than useless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If law abiding people are avoiding official institutions what makes them think that terrorists are stupid enough to use them?!?

      Or, since the list is publicly available, all any terrorist on the list has to do is say, "Oops, looks like I'm on the list, better have the money sent to my friend here who isn't."

    2. Re:Worse than useless by skeptictank · · Score: 1

      Think about what you have written, what are the practical implications of moving money in and out of a country without using wire transfer? It should be fairly obvious.

  114. Coming up in next week's show! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    PayPal block transfers to people with French-Sounding names and beréts, incase they're involved with the revolution.

    Watch out Piérre, they're coming for you!

    Zut alors!

  115. Re:The leftist junta who guard this site ceaseless by 2short · · Score: 1

    "The first readers wisely modded it up."

    It is "wise" to mod "informative" a post without information?

    "The author is not a credible journalist."

    Why? You say a "quick search" reveals this. How? I don't know if the guy is a decent journalist or not, but you have'nt provided any argument other than not liking what he has to report. He claims he interveiewed a bunch of Western Union employees and customers, and reports on this policy. Do you assert he is lying? Do you have any reference for someone claiming this is not Western Union policy? What information do you have for us besides the facts presented not fitting with your world view?

    Oh, I see, this asking you to actually have some reason for your claims is all a leftist conspiracy. Reality has a well known liberal bias. Damn commie "facts".

  116. Re:And this was implemented by Clinton administrat by forgotten_my_nick · · Score: 1

    Actually it came in around just after 9/11. Because prior to 9/11 I had routinely moved money from my US bank to my bank in Ireland. After 9/11 my bank were reluctant to wire money as they said they would have to go through a whole range of procedures that would delay them. At that time me turning up and getting a cheque wouldn't (but I was in no mood to fly back to the US to get the cash, and don't trust postal service).

  117. In other news by HockeyPuck · · Score: 1

    Suspected terrorists change their name to Bob Smith.

  118. While we're offtopic by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 2, Insightful

    My dad is pretty conservative, grew up in a red state, all that kind of thing. He is, however, also smart and insightful.

    He asked the simple, and obvious in hindsight, question: "What's the government got to do with marriage anyway?".

    Prior to Social Security, about the only legitimate answer would have been inheritance laws.

    1. Re:While we're offtopic by Twanfox · · Score: 1

      As the grandparent posted, it's the legal rights as defined by the state that is "what the government has got to do with marriage". Nominally, only direct family may have any rights to do the things as listed previously, such as visit you in the hospital outside normal hours or whatever. With marriage, they become direct family, and gain those legal rights.

      When the government decided to extend rights over another to those within a marriage, the government became involved. It is now their pandering that tries to control it further, pushing their own agenda (on whatever false pretenses it might have).

  119. Agreed, Headline is misleading... by kuwan · · Score: 1

    I agree the headline is horribly misleading. First of all, Western Union is just not blocking transfers outright, they are delaying or blocking some transfers. From the article:

    Most of the flagged transactions are delayed a few hours. Some are blocked entirely. [Emphasis mine]

    Second, it isn't just Western Union that is doing this, other financial institutions do it as well as the parent points out.

    Third, they're not specifically targeting Arabs, it's just that many of the names of Arab terrorists are extremely common in the Arab world. And since it was Arab terrorists that struck on Sept. 11th then they are the ones that are currently under the most scrutiny.

    Really this was just a loaded Slashdot headline.

    1. Re:Agreed, Headline is misleading... by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      So if Joe Smith blew up congress, would it be okay to flag all money going to a guy named smith and ban Mr. Smith from flying?

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
  120. Here we go again..... by IHC+Navistar · · Score: 0

    Has anyone stopped to think that the anxiety about Arabs and Middle Easterners is simply human nature? The terrorists that conducted the 9/11 attacks WERE either Arab, Muslim, or of Middle Eastern origin or descent, so the fear of someone with any of those characteristics IS rational, although the appropriate degree is relative to the individual. People are forgetting that is someone is harmed, then that person will naturally fear anyone similar to their attacker.

    First of all, we need to dispense with the clearly politically motivated claims of 'racism'. I am getting pretty sick and tired of people calling this "racism"- It is NOT. There are only 3 true "races": Caucazoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid. There is NO such thing as a Latino race, American Indian race, Filipino race, etc. Race is NOT based on ethnicity. Race is also NOT based on geografic location. I'm sorry, but African-American is in reference to a REGION (as in FROM AFRICA, so technically speaking, white people with ancestors in South Africa, are just as much African-American as Jesse Jackson). Pacific Islander-, African-, Puerto Rican-, Taiwanese-, Latin-American, etc., are referring to the geographic region and are not races. People need to get rid of the political connotations associated when they hear 'race' and understand that politics gives incorrect definitions, especially to anthropologically-based terminology. Ethnic 'activist' groups are just being ignorant by claiming the they are a race just because they come from the same geographic area, or are of the same religion. So, when someone calls fears about terrorists 'racist' or predjudiced, just ignore them and be thankful that their ignorance isn't influencing you.

    Stereotypes only exist because there is some truth to them. Has anyone stopped to think that the anxiety about Arabs and Middle Easterners is simply human nature? The terrorists that conducted the 9/11 attacks WERE either Arab, Muslim, or of Middle Eastern origin or descent, so the fear of someone with any of those characteristics IS rational, although the appropriate degree is relative to the individual. People are forgetting that is someone is harmed, then that person will naturally fear anyone similar to their attacker. Natural reaction like this are perfectly resonable, and HUMAN NATURE. If you don't agree with human nature, then maybe you should try being human.

    First of all, we need to dispense with the clearly politically motivated claims of 'racism'. I am getting pretty sick and tired of people calling this "racism"- It is NOT. There are only 3 true "races": Caucaziod, Mongoloid, and Negroid. There is NO such thing as a Latino race, American Indian race, Filipino race, etc. Race is NOT based on ethnicity. Race is also NOT based on geografic location. I'm sorry, but African-American is in reference to a REGION (as in FROM AFRICA, so technically speaking, white people with ancestors in South Africa, are just as much African-American as Jesse Jackson). Pacific Islander-, African-, Puerto Rican-, Taiwanese-, Latin-American, etc., are referring to the geographic region and are not races. People need to get rid of the political connotations associated when they hear 'race' and understand that politics gives incorrect definitions, especially to anthropology-based terminology. Ethnic 'activist' groups are just being ignorant by claiming the they are a race just because they come from the same geographic area, or are of the same religion.

    Stereotypes exist because there is some truth to them. Stereotypes don't exist for no reason. The may not be entirely true when referring to EVERY SINGLE MEMBER, but when referencing any number less than 100% of a demographic, the reasons for the existance of a particular stereotype starts to emerge. I know that may be a difficult pill for people to swallow, but the truth hurts. People who say that negative fears of Muslims are unfounded and harmful don't quite understand that there are people out the that are trying to KILL US because we are not Muslims. The Liberals don't quite

    --
    Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
  121. Or you could just give up your bigotry. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know, whichever works.

    1. Re:Or you could just give up your bigotry. by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      You first.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

  122. Shows how little you know by tokenhillbilly · · Score: 1

    No self respecting hillbilly chews tobacco. We dip snuff.

  123. Swiss Bank by einar2 · · Score: 1

    I work for a bigger Swiss bank. How do we do it? Well, there is a list of persons who cannot open an account. And the list does not include any wildchars but is a list of existing defined persons. So lets say you are the prime minister of Dictaturstan; your are on the list. There is also a list where we first have to check with the legal and compliance departement if it is ok to serve this customer.

    If you want to open a bank account with us, we do need your ID. It is the law. Any James Bond ideas of just depositing a suitcase full of money and giving a pass phrase to retrieve money are just plain shit. The often cited "numbered accounts" just mean that your ID is stored separately from your account information. Normal bank employees never see the identity of the account holder. Yet, even such account holders were showing an ID when opening there numbered account and we do have their data.

    Ok, I am biased but the Swiss banking regulation is extremly strict. Money laundry is rather easy in Britain.

    1. Re:Swiss Bank by AriaStar · · Score: 1

      My ex-fiancé and I were in the process of opening a Swiss bank account (more or less simply to say we had one), and came up against road block after road block. Drivers licenses, birth certificates, passports, oh my gods so much information, and in the end, we got a letter citing some stupid new American law that assisted in blocking us from opening the account as of March 31st of 2005, I think it was. If I can recall right, the gist was something about how accounts must have a certain amount in them to be worth it for the banks there to accept them because of the US somehow forcing information out of them regarding American accounts to prevent tax evasion. It's simply a wild fantasy that anyone can open up an account, get a random number, and no one in the world but that person knows what illegal assets are hidden. It's more difficult to get an account in Switzerland for legit purposes than it is here.

  124. You should move to the UK by orasio · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    They had some success implanting the practices you like.
    A backpack in the subway? Brown skin? Kill the fuckin' nigga^H^H^H^H^Htowelhead^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hterroris t!

  125. This is specified by OFAC by cs668 · · Score: 1

    The Office of Foreign Assets Control specifies a list of Specially Designated Nationals. Banks and other organizations are required to freeze accounts of people on this list until their real identity can be verified.

    You can see the list here:

    http://www.treas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/sdn/

    My favorite is the guy with the a.k.a. of Foopie. His other a.k.a is AHMED THE TANZANIAN which is a little more intimidating than Foopie.

  126. not the speaker by jefu · · Score: 1

    By his own words, George Bush is no the speaker for Christians (though he does claim to speak to God on a regular basic). He is however "The Decider" - and evidently became the decider because he himself decided to.

  127. Perfect war: We can't win it if there is no war. by karlandtanya · · Score: 1
    Listen--this is salesmanship at its most basic. Create a need and fulfill that need.
    Soon, people will look to you to have their needs met--without even realizing that the needs are imaginary or that they could meet those needs without your help.

    We can't win this war because there is no war to win.

    --
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
  128. This isn't new. by bitterfun · · Score: 1

    This has been happening long before 9/11. All financial institution that provide wire transfer service have a watch list that is first identified by location of the wire (both to and from) then by the send/recipient. Wires can also be denied if validity of the person cannot be proved. You can't just send a wire to John Doe, Joe Schmoe or Mohammad Mohammed with no background in a listed country with possible terrorist ties. It's funny that most of these people have been block before 9/11, but it's not until after 9/11 that the rascism card is pull.

    --
    The most merciful thing in the world is the inability of the human mind to correlate its contents.
    1. Re:This isn't new. by mapkinase · · Score: 1
      but it's not until after 9/11 that the rascism card is pull.


      May be because after 9/11 it became just a part of many other things that started to happen to those people?
      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  129. These posts 'do as leaches do' by WgT2 · · Score: 1

    I guess I shouldn't be surprised by the pessimism belched out in these posts; it's like all the helpless bitterness rotting in the gut of the hopeless spilled out into those pages remotely polical.

    My complaint is that while having every low-down and 'I-know-better', dirty generalization to puke onto these pages there are no solutions belond not-Bush.

    Now, the most I can expect from this crowd is as list of bogus accusations against this administration. To counter them would to stoop to the level of those accusations. But, to head some of you off at the pass, here are a couple:

    • WMDs: found - more in Syria
    • (therefore: Bush didn't lie
    • the above was only one of at least a dozen reasons why we rightly remove Sadaam for not complying with the armistice he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War
    • this last move into Iraq was not unilateral
    • enough said
  130. Cold War? Terorists? by gedeco · · Score: 2

    Everyone believed the cold war is over and the USA won it.
    Wrong

    Actually Rusia is free, but it looks the people in America find themselfs suddenly on the wrong site of the iron curtain. The USA is slowly shifting to a police state worse then the USSR ever has been. Just fearing terorists.

    Not allowing money transfers, just because someones name is Mohammed is one of the stupid things I ever ever heard. Who the fuck is actualy in charge in the USA? Pipo the clown? Kafka?
    More likely denying people to use the service will turn them into terorists.
    Besides the story was talking about transfers out of the USA. I would suspect a terorist should being interest in transfering money INTO the US.
    In the short run, this aproach might annoye the real terorist, but not stop them.
    In the long run, you'll have more of them.

    And they still wonder where terorists come from?
    Terorists aren't born, they are created by other (forgive me the word) humans.

    I do hope the parent story is fud or a hoax.

    1. Re:Cold War? Terorists? by Etcetera · · Score: 1

      Actually Rusia is free, but it looks the people in America find themselfs suddenly on the wrong site of the iron curtain.

      Russia may be "free" (highly debatable) but it's a) dying (check out the birth rates, somewhere around 1.2 right now?) and b) incredibly corrupt if you're trying to do any actual business. And don't get me started on Putin's dismissal of the regional governors.

      America (and a few other parts of "the West") has a shot at staying around "as we know it".... I can't say the same for Russia and most of Western Europe though.

      Check out a few of the demographic essays by Mark Steyn for more background...

  131. Boycott Western Union by limeginger · · Score: 1

    It's that simple.

  132. children by Phantom+of+the+Opera · · Score: 1

    Would you wish to deny marriage to couples that do not want to (or cannot) have children?

    Some people want to get married because they want to spend the rest of their lives together, not merely for procreation.

  133. So... by Tony · · Score: 1

    So what exactly is marriage? Can you define it without specifically stating it is between a man and a woman?

    --
    Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
    1. Re:So... by Senzei · · Score: 1
      So what exactly is marriage? Can you define it without specifically stating it is between a man and a woman?
      Why should anyone have to? As far as I can tell marriage has always been a religious process that acknowledges the monogomous relationship of a man and a woman. The problem is not in the definition of marriage, but the rights and benefits given by the state to married couples. Marriages should be recognized by the state as a form of civil union and given rights/benefits through that.
      --
      Slashdot: Where anecdotes and generalizations can be freely substituted for facts, logic, or intelligence
    2. Re:So... by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      So what exactly is marriage? Can you define it without specifically stating it is between a man and a woman?

      How nonsensical can you get? You're asking him to define a word without using it's definition.

      Can you define dictionary without saying "word" or "book"?

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    3. Re:So... by king-manic · · Score: 1

      Why should anyone have to? As far as I can tell marriage has always been a religious process that acknowledges the monogomous relationship of a man and a woman. The problem is not in the definition of marriage, but the rights and benefits given by the state to married couples. Marriages should be recognized by the state as a form of civil union and given rights/benefits through that.

      Actually it's most often been a legal contract between a man and the family of the bride. you stating a fairly modern idea of marriage.

      --
      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
    4. Re:So... by Senzei · · Score: 1
      Actually it's most often been a legal contract between a man and the family of the bride. you stating a fairly modern idea of marriage.
      Meh, true, but I feel the point still holds in the correct context.
      --
      Slashdot: Where anecdotes and generalizations can be freely substituted for facts, logic, or intelligence
    5. Re:So... by king-manic · · Score: 1
      Actually it's most often been a legal contract between a man and the family of the bride. you stating a fairly modern idea of marriage.

      Meh, true, but I feel the point still holds in the correct context.


      I think thats the crux of the problem. Opponents of Gay marriage/civil union often state they're defending the tradition but the tradition isn't what they think it is. They are a purely reactionary group who aren't aware of the details. The whole issue is more of a red herring to keep a large section of the populace to vote against their economic and civil interests. Teh republicans in power now are neither fiscally conservative or "christians" in any real sense of the term but have done a great job of convincing conservative christian republicans that they represent them. They do not in any sense.
      --
      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
  134. Re:419 by limegreen · · Score: 1

    If they really wanted to get a grip on the 419 scams they should stop money being sent to anyone in Nigeria.

  135. NOT Racist. NAMEist. by Chapter80 · · Score: 1
    The broad assumption that everyone named Mohammed is the same race is racism. All you who are calling this issue a racist action are racists. It is YOU who are acting on the assumption that everyone named Mohammed is the same race.

    What Western Union is doing is NAMEist: Making judgement based on someone's name. By making it a race issue, you are committing an act of racism.

    More pretzel logic in upcoming messages. ;-)

  136. get used to it by jt418-93 · · Score: 2

    won't be long before you have to show your internal passports at the road checkpoints. the no work list is coming soon brought to you by the same ppl who gave you the no fly and no transfer money list. but you upstanding citizens will have your universal id card to prove who you are.

    but don't start protesting too much, or your name goes on the list. then you can say bye bye to that house car and life. isn't facism cool? tony the tyrant says 'It's GRRRRRRRREAT!

    t

    --
    -.no
  137. Alias by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so... what about Ahmed Mohammed Ackbar A.K.A. William Smith?

    Is it just me, or are these people so incredibly stupid that they automatically assume that everyone else has the I.Q. of a turnip?

    And just how, in the name of all that's unholy, did these people get into power, in the first place, if they're actually that damn stupid?

    </vent>

  138. Re:World War II by hackstraw · · Score: 1


    Japanese, like Jews, forgive and forget, because they accept personal responsibility and move on vs place blame and stagnate.

    Now, your whitey hating gangster in his Escalade might disagree.

  139. Well... by Chmcginn · · Score: 1

    I guess patronizing racism is better than belligerent, repressive racism. I mean, ish.

    --
    Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
  140. With a drift-net, you catch a lot of unwanted fish by rev063 · · Score: 1
    Think of it this way, if the terrorist watch list had a whole lot of John Smiths on it, then every John Smith in the world would have the same problem.
    Well, the terrorist watch list does have the name David Smith on it, which is almost as common. I know that because it's my name, and until I figured out I should put my middle name on every travel booking I was unable to check in online and had to go through a screening call when checking in in person.

    That's the whole problem with this "War on Terror". Everyone agrees that catching terrorists is a good thing, in the abstract. But what about the cost? Is it really worth inconveniencing thousands of people with a common name (whether it be Smith or Mohammed) to add a 0.0000001% probability that you might detect an actual terrorist? I can't say what the answer is, but I sure get the sense that no-one in power is asking the question.

  141. Not always even status by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (posting anon so as to not undo moderations elsewhere in this topic)

    Redneck is a word aimed at socioeconomic status (including lifestyle and education level)

    To add to that, I'm guessing you get different milage with the word Redneck depending on where you are or are from. It can also be used to described somebody's mentality and/or interests. I have both a friend an co-worker and a friend who have referred to themselves as Redneck because they were farm-raised and have an interest in guns, hunting, and other hobbies that would be considered Redneck'ish around here. They're also rather intelligent with decent education, lifestyle, and an interest in technology. For that reason we've come up with the label of "Heek" for my friend (Hick Geek), which is used in humour rather than as offence. But really, I haven't seen many people around here who would find the Redneck term as globally encompassing and/or offensive as ni**er or other similar terms.

  142. Office of Foreign Assets Control by mr_zorg · · Score: 1

    I suspect this is a grossly simplified attempt to honor the Office of Foreign Assets Control's Specially Designated Nationals list. I work for a company providing services to the financial industry, and one of our requirements was to flag transactions possibly involving individuals on this list. It's a very difficult problem, to be sure, but you're supposed to try. We've implemented some fairly sophisticated pattern matching routines to try and minimize false hits, but I'm sure some get through. On the other hand, because we only provide services to the financial industry (and we're not the banks themselves) we only raise a red flag when a potential match is found, it's up to the institutions to do something with that information. :-)

  143. In our neck of the woods, that guy is called... by just+fiddling+around · · Score: 1
    ... the Pope.

    Of course there are the Protestant Christians which, quite like the Muslims, recognise no superior earthly authority for their Church. And that's how you get kooks that speak for "the Christians" and officially voice extreme (and diverging) opinions, while there is just one kook that edicts conservative views for the all the Catholics... which are christians too.

    Ah, the joys of secular Church leadership :D

    --
    You're not old until regret takes the place of your dreams.
    1. Re:In our neck of the woods, that guy is called... by teal_ · · Score: 1

      Speaking of central authority for faiths, it's amazing to me how Mecca, the holiest site for Muslims in the world, is the scene of chants calling for the destruction of Israel and America, lead by Imams. Can you imagine if something similar went on at the Vatican? With the pope leading a crowd to call for the destruction of Mecca?!

    2. Re:In our neck of the woods, that guy is called... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It not hard to imagine since it already happened during the middle ages and it ended up causing the crusades.

  144. Re:The leftist junta who guard this site ceaseless by swv3752 · · Score: 1

    And you have been demonstrated to be an unreliable person. Freaking Troll.

    --
    Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
  145. Paypal closes accounts used from arabs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hear Paypal closes accounts if they're used from, for example, Syria.

  146. Who Cares? by WiseWeasel · · Score: 1

    Don't you have anything more important to worry about? Who cares if gays get married? Does it affect you in any way whatsoever? Get over it and find something more relevant to spend your time worrying about...

    --
    "I like systems, their application excepted", George Sand (French)
    1. Re:Who Cares? by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Don't you have anything more important to worry about? Who cares if gays get married? Does it affect you in any way whatsoever? Get over it and find something more relevant to spend your time worrying about...

      I'm going to play devils advocate for a second.

      Who cares if brothers marry sisters? Or fathers marry daughters? Does it affect you any way whatsoever?

      What do you care if some men like to lure 12 year old girls over the internet and have sex with them? Don't you have anything more important to worry about?

      It's not about what "affects you". It's about morals and what we perceive as right and wrong. In roman times, having sex with 10 year old boys was perfectly acceptable. They didn't see any harm in it. Today you can spend 20 years in jail for doing the same thing. Muslims today still have arranged marriages, and 11 year old brides. They don't see any harm in that either. Our society seems to feel differently.

      Morality may change from society to society and from time to time, but it's just as important to a society as any purely logical decisions based only on an assesment of benefit vs. harm.

    2. Re:Who Cares? by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      Don't you have anything more important to worry about? [...] Does it affect you in any way whatsoever? Get over it and find something more relevant to spend your time worrying about...

      Ok, would you use the same "it doesn't affect you" argument over the fact that I, say, oppose a war between foreign nations? You know what, I get to care about things that aren't about me.

      Anyway, yes it does affect me, redefining the language, redefining the laws under which I'm governed, these things affect me. Gays can live in bliss and have all the gay sex they want in their bedrooms (between consenting adults), THAT I don't care, that is their lives.

      And I'm not worrying about it, it just gets thrown in my face all the time. Even OT in a /. thread! Like I said, if it's about the legal rights that come with mariage, civil unions will do JUST fine. Redefining marriage, on the other hand, is more than that. It's an effort to "fit in", to be told they're normal, to force society to validate their lives, and I opppose that. You don't redefine something as old as civilisation, you just don't.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

  147. Re:World War II by Eudial · · Score: 1
    BTW... there was never a formal internment of German-Americans because 2nd or 3rd generation Germans looked just like a typical white American. Japanese-Americans were much easier to identify. I suspect that if Al Queda was a primarily European organization, we wouldn't have companies like Western Union selectively rooting out potential terrorists.


    I think you will find that most first generation German-Americans looked a lot like your average Americans.
    --
    GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
  148. Dirka Dirka! by AaronHorrocks · · Score: 0

    Dirka Dirka Mohammed Allah Jihad!

  149. Fixed that for you by Chmcginn · · Score: 1
    Okay, but what you're doing isn't natural. How can you think that the exact opposite of what is needed for human cooperation is right?

    Keep it hidden, keep it secret.

    Your public acts of asshattery really disgust many people, and if you had any morals you would just scream at yourself in the mirror. But no, you need to show off (for a bigger thrill?) and make people sick with what they see as assholish.

    It is not your place or right to say, "Well, too bad. If you don't like it don't look." It's confusing for our kids to see, and again ends up seeming as though all you have is one giant, inflamed rectum, spewing your diarhea all over creation.

    --
    Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
    1. Re:Fixed that for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, you screwed it up.

      Two men in a romantic relationship are breaking the laws of nature.

      They are sick in the head.

      Noone is born gay.

  150. Especially considering.... by Chmcginn · · Score: 1

    that in most states, even if the breathalzyer says "0.00", you can still be arrested (and convicted) for DUI if you fail the manual dexterity and memory tests.

    --
    Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
  151. Re:World War II by mantar · · Score: 1

    True... but I think the accent might be a pretty good clue as to their origins. As an aside, the German immigration movement occurred in the last half of the 19th century, placing them at generation 2-4 during WWII. Definitely enough time for the accent to be minimized for most of these people.

    --
    # man tar
  152. Re:NOT Racist. NAMEist. by PB_TPU_40 · · Score: 1

    Umm, this thread started by someone talking about the current political administration and being negative towards "rednecks." We never said anything about everyone being the same race. Technically bias in any form is racisim, as Mohammed is usually found in Islamic families and that is a religion and where by you can be racist towards a religion. Not only that its discrimination which again is racisim. I sincierly suggesst that you heed what Lincoln once said, "It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool then to open it and remove all doubt." I am NOT trying to offend you or look down my nose at you, however I and the poster of the comment are both confused by your statement, doubly so as it is off topic in the thread which you posted your reply. If you think we're condoing this BS please get real.

    --
    -PB_TPU_40 The trick to flying is to throw yourself at the ground and miss.
  153. Re:World War II by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bullshit!! The Jews motto - forgive but never forget. not so sure about the forgive part these days... ask David Irving or Ernst Zundel. rotting in jail for expressing an opinion.

  154. The only result of profiling.. by DamnStupidElf · · Score: 1

    ..will be just like WWI and WWII where people start dropping their family names in preference for good Western names like Smith and Jones. The next generation of Islamic terrorists will be Brads and Jennifers...

    1. Re:The only result of profiling.. by Kojiro+Ganryu+Sasaki · · Score: 1

      Like Jennifer Government...

  155. Seriously, do some reading comprehension... by Chmcginn · · Score: 1
    While what you linked to is informative I don't designate it as indiscriminate since it is terrorists going after Americans who support abortion in some way. Islamic militants don't care about anything except that some of their targets have to be Americans.

    What part of only going after Americans isn't being discriminate?

    Non-pedantically, though, when one burns down a building that's part of a strip mall, and destroys several other buildings at the same time, that kinda starts pushing the bounds of being discriminate.

    --
    Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
    1. Re:Seriously, do some reading comprehension... by Danga · · Score: 1

      What part of only going after Americans isn't being discriminate?

      I meant the reasons for the attacks of the violent anti-abortion groups are not indiscriminate, they are specifically targetting places/people that support abortion while many Islamic militant attacks just go after Americans in general. I know you are being pedantic but this is a stupid place to do that since it makes sense for these relatively small groups based in America to go after American targets. People with the same mindsets attack abortion clinics in other country's as well so if you group them together by reason of attack they are not specifically going after American targets. This is not so for Islamic militants, they specifically go after American's and anyone who does not hold the same beliefs they have.

      Non-pedantically, though, when one burns down a building that's part of a strip mall, and destroys several other buildings at the same time, that kinda starts pushing the bounds of being discriminate.

      I would compare this to the military's term of collateral damage, if they could only damage the abortion clinics/people then they surely would but in some cases that is very hard to do. There still is a big difference between wanting to cause harm to ALL Americans (indiscriminate) and only wanting to cause harm to abortion supporters (discriminate).

      --
      Hey, there is only one Return and it's not of the King, it's of the Jedi.
    2. Re:Seriously, do some reading comprehension... by hondo77 · · Score: 1

      There still is a big difference between wanting to cause harm to ALL Americans (indiscriminate) and only wanting to cause harm to abortion supporters (discriminate).

      Terrorist gets on a bus in Egypt and orders all non-Americans off the bus. He then blows up the bus with just Americans on board. Discriminate enough for you?

      There is no difference between the two and you're an ass for thinking there is.

      --
      I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
    3. Re:Seriously, do some reading comprehension... by Danga · · Score: 1

      There is no difference between the two and you're an ass for thinking there is.

      What the hell are you talking about? Next time read the context of my post, if you had you would see your example holds no water since I was talking about the indiscriminate killing of Americans versus the discriminate killing of only certain American's which for my example I used Americans who support abortion. The reason for the attacks on abortion supporters is because of what they believe, not their nationality. The violent anti-abortion groups could give two shits about what nationality the abortion supporters are while Islamic militants only care that you are American or support America in some way. Therefore one group is discriminately killing American's (violent anti-abortion groups) while the latter is indiscriminately killing American's (hijacking planes, bombing US embassies, etc).

      Get your head out of your own ass next time before calling other people asses when you can't comprehend what they are saying in the first place.

      --
      Hey, there is only one Return and it's not of the King, it's of the Jedi.
    4. Re:Seriously, do some reading comprehension... by Murasaki+Skies · · Score: 0

      No, they are both discriminately killing PEOPLE.

      --
      Waiiii!!!!!! I have bad karma!
    5. Re:Seriously, do some reading comprehension... by Danga · · Score: 1

      You are a fucking dumbass because I was specifically talking about a subset of people being AMERICANS. So I was comparing the indiscriminate killing of AMERICANS versus the discriminate killing of AMERICANS, not the whole human population. At least you got modded to zero where your stupidass comment belongs.

      --
      Hey, there is only one Return and it's not of the King, it's of the Jedi.
    6. Re:Seriously, do some reading comprehension... by Murasaki+Skies · · Score: 0

      You can talk about whatever you want, but I hope you understand what I and likely the former "fucking dumbass" mean: Killing people from a larger group is proportionately less discriminate, not indisciminate. Killing Americans is not the same as randomly going berserk with a flamethrower.

      --
      Waiiii!!!!!! I have bad karma!
    7. Re:Seriously, do some reading comprehension... by Murasaki+Skies · · Score: 0

      Before you jump on me, yes, I meant "indiscriminate", with the "r".

      --
      Waiiii!!!!!! I have bad karma!
    8. Re:Seriously, do some reading comprehension... by Danga · · Score: 1

      Killing people from a larger group is proportionately less discriminate, not indisciminate.

      Less discriminate is the same thing as indiscriminate, you are just making yourself sound uneducated. Here we have one group that only wants to harm Americans who support abortion, they are discriminate whose definition is:

      To make a clear distinction; distinguish: discriminate among the options available.

      Next we have a group of people who only wants to hurt Americans and supporters of Americans, they don't go around blowing up only abortion clinics but crash planes full of Americans into buildings full of Americans to kill as many Americans as possible along with anyone else who happens to be on the planes and in the buildings who are supporting America. That is being indiscriminate whose definition is:

      Random; haphazard: indiscriminate violence; an indiscriminate assortment of used books for sale.

      Killing Americans is not the same as randomly going berserk with a flamethrower.

      I know this since it is obvious and the topic I had was only talking about Americans and supporters of America so by mentioning this you and the other poster were going off topic.

      Here is an example that might get you to understand what I am saying with an example using animals (and the type of animal can be compared to nationality in my original message) and the subset of animals will be seals. Discriminately killing seals could be only going after the babys and clubbing all of the babies to death while indiscriminately killing seals would be machine gunning every seal to death on the beach instead. Would you argue that that is not being indiscriminate in relation to type of animal? What you said before would be changed to "Killing baby seals is not the same as randomly going berserk with a flamethrower on a forest full of animals." and would be off topic since I was not talking about all animal types I was only talking about seals.

      --
      Hey, there is only one Return and it's not of the King, it's of the Jedi.
    9. Re:Seriously, do some reading comprehension... by Danga · · Score: 1

      change: Would you argue that that is not being indiscriminate in relation to type of animal?

      to: Would you argue that that is not being indiscriminate in relation to kind of seal?

      --
      Hey, there is only one Return and it's not of the King, it's of the Jedi.
    10. Re:Seriously, do some reading comprehension... by Murasaki+Skies · · Score: 0

      I don't really care about non-Americans less than I do Americans, so I'm not excluding them from consideration. Also, I don't sound uneducated, at least not for the reason that you propose. Look up indiscriminate and tell me again that it means the same thing as less discriminate (i.e. still discriminating, only to a lesser degree).

      --
      Waiiii!!!!!! I have bad karma!
  156. Just making money on the float by chaffed · · Score: 1

    They are making money on the float. Any excuse to delay funds and keep the money in their accounts means more money on the float for them. Same thing with PayPal. They could have a 48hr turnaround with deposits into your account. However it can take up to a week. Really no reason for it other than to maximize the use of your money for their profit.

    In this case they are using a very bad excuse.

    --
    What could possibly go wrong?
  157. Sahir Mohammed is not in the list by DamnStupidElf · · Score: 1

    Did they already clear this guys name, or is the search far too broad? Does anyone else think that most money launderers already knew where to get this list *before* they found it on slashdot?

  158. Re:NOT Racist. NAMEist. by plague3106 · · Score: 1

    Mmm, pretzel.

  159. Smokism by abb3w · · Score: 1

    just like pot

    Actually, as someone with asthma, I'm more bothered by pot smoking. Of course, pot smoke doesn't bother me any more (or less) than the generally legal tobacco smoke.

    --
    //Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
    1. Re:Smokism by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      And interestingly, THC, in small doses, is used by some as a method of controlling asthma, thanks to it's bronchodilating effect. 'course, I'm not disputing your experiences (I'm an asthmatic myself, though I have no strong reactions to marijuana smoke), just pointing out an interesting finding. :)

    2. Re:Smokism by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      i meant pot in the privacy of one's home

      i would probably get an asthma attack if i tried smoking pot (or anything else)

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
  160. I've got it! by Chmcginn · · Score: 1

    Why don't we just mandate that everyone have their name tattooed on them at birth! Or, even better, let's go ahead and put a machine-readable barcode, right on their forearms! That should work, right?

    --
    Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
  161. Hey wait a minute! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At what point is removing a government noted world-wide for using chemical weapons on it's own citizens a war on those citizens?
    At what point is trying to help the citizens rebuild their country a war on those citizens?
    At what point is trying to help the citizenry learn to defend themselves, and trying to get them to take responsibility for doing so a war on those civilians?


    Let's not forget that this war was not about spreading democracy or empowering the Iraqi people. It was based on alleged weapons of mass destruction. Here's how the propoganda/excuses changed with time:

    WMDs -> Connections with Al Qaeda -> Removal of an "evil" dictator -> Spread of democracy

    Based on the same rationale, the US should be invading North Korea, Ukraine and Pakistan for their WMDs because they are at a risk of falling into the wrong hands. Based on the same rationale, the US should be invading Burma for spreading democracy.

    All that I'm trying to say here is that there is NO IDEAL that the war on Iraq is based on. It's just hypocritical hindsight to say that spreading democracy was the main cause.

    If the US had given Hans Blix more time, 40000 Iraqi civilians and 2500 US troops would not have died in vain. (And don't tell me that back then, time was running out and the US had to invade Iraq. That was, and still is, BS. Coming from the only country in the world with the dubious distinction of using WMDs.) Of course, now that the damage is done, there is no turning back. You've got to clean up the mess you created.

    But the main point I'd like to make is that causing the deaths of 40000 civilians, directly or indirectly, through recklessness is nothing to be proud of. Whether you like to admit it or not, it is terrorism in a shameful class of its own.

  162. Re:NOT Racist. NAMEist. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That makes bugger-all sense, mate. You are suggesting that any form of discrimination is racism. By what logic do you arrive at this conclusion?!

    Some useful definitions:

    Racism: a form of discrimination based on race, especially the belief that one race is superior to another. Racism may be expressed individually and consciously, through explicit thoughts, feelings, or acts, or socially and unconsciously, through institutions that promote inequality between races.

    Religious bigotry is prejudice or discrimination against one or all members of a particular religious group based on negative perceptions of their religious beliefs and practices or on negative group stereotypes.

    Technically, bias in any form is bias. Dictionaries exist for a reason, laddie. I sincerely suggest that you heed what Lincoln said, eh?

  163. Re:False positives are unreliable by symbolic · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well, it happens here in the US too. There are plenty of stories regading people being put on the 'do not fly' list due to circumstances like this as well.

    I'd say with a fairly high degree of certainty that any system capable of producing so many false positives, is pretty much worthless. But then, this is the US government, and I'm sure they know exactly what they're doing.

  164. Barney Fife by bdwoolman · · Score: 1

    At it again. I sure am sick of this boneheaded confiscate-the-nail-clipper mentality. Does anyone have any idea when this idiocy is going to stop? Feh.

    --
    "No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
  165. Re:And this was implemented by Clinton administrat by forgotten_my_nick · · Score: 1

    thought I'd add to this. Clinton did implement some law (I forget which) but there was a law passed after 9/11 that made the transfer of money a bit more restrictive (in regards to what triggers HLS).

  166. millions of people by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    "millions of people named Mohammed or Ahmed who aren't terrorists" are you sure? are you REALLY sure?

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  167. It happened to me by GooseKirk · · Score: 0

    Well, not the Arab name thing, exactly. But I sent money to a girlfriend in Colombia once via Western Union, and it got blocked because her name was similar to a name on a terrorist block list. Sometime last year, I downloaded a list of people on some US government watch list (can't remember where it came from, but I think it was linked from /.), and sure enough, someone with a similar name is on it.

    What sucks is, I couldn't get any info from Western Union at all. I sent the money for her to buy a plane ticket, so it was fairly time-critical. I told her the control number and she went to Western Union to get the money, but they said the control number wasn't valid and there wasn't any money for her. She thought I was jerking her around. I spent about two hours on the phone with Western Union trying to figure out where my money went - it just disappeared into a black hole and it took that long to find someone who knew what was going on and how to fix it, and even they couldn't or wouldn't explain what exactly happened.

    Western Union blows.

  168. idiots by toy4two · · Score: 1

    Mohammed is the most popular name IN THE WORLD.

  169. #3 is bullshit by Chuck+Chunder · · Score: 1
    Dude, marriage means one thing, and changing it to mean a new thing is not something I approve. Let 'em get civil unions and change the laws to include benefits and visitation right to civil unions, instead of changing marriage, change the technicalities that make marriage a necessity.
    Marriage does not mean one thing, it has and does mean different things in different places and different times. For example marriage has sometimes been considered insoluble (and probably still is in some places). However for most of us it isn't. In some times and places men have been allowed multiple wives. In some cases marriages are arranged between people who have never met. Ttradition alone is no argument because it could equally be used to support slavery or deny women the vote.

    Funnily enough when homosexual people in Australia did get civil unions recognised in the Australian Capital Territory the federal goverment overturned it because (get this) our constitution gives the federal goverment jurisdiction over marriage. So even if homosexual people do call it a different name to avoid 'offending' people's sensibilities the opponents of homosexual unions will still call it marriage if it suits their position.

    I think it's sad. I see these old men trying to hang on to the status quo but to me it seems senseless. My generation has grown up alongside "out" gays. We've had them as friends, bosses, workmates etc etc and know we have nothing to fear from them. As such I think state recognised homosexual unions are only a matter of time and these tired old people in power hanging onto their prejudices will soon be history. In the mean time they are just denying people equality.
    --
    Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
  170. I got married because... by Tony · · Score: 1

    My wife and I married after 11 years because we decided it was time to declare to our friends and family that we intended to live out our lives together, as a single family group. Meaning: I love her very much, and I don't see spending my life with anyone else. She loves me very much, and claims she doesn't want to spend her life with anyone else.

    So, we got married in front of friends and family. Part of our ceremony involved the gathered friends and family, and asked for their pledge to provide emotional support to us.

    Marriage is supposed to be about one thing: two people loving each other to the point where they decide to build a life together, to make decisions together, to create a future together. Children are completely optional. (And, incidently, same-sex couples can raise kids, too, so if that's what marriage is about, there's still no reason to exclude them.)

    So, as the other reply said, it's about love. Sure, that's kinda shmaltzy, but what the hell.

    --
    Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
  171. The unspoken point by Cervantes · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The unspoken point is much more disturbing. They aren't just holding the transaction for a few hours and letting it sit there. They're holding the transaction, calling or notifying a government agency, and saying "Mohammed Everyman is sending $500 to some guy names Jimmy James, is it ok?" and then waiting for the government to check it out and get back to them.

    Helloooooo, data mining.

    Seriously, what an absolute load of shit. How can you people stand for this? Because it's foreigners??
    I say the EU passes a new law, requiring banks and transfer institutions to hold and check all activities by guys named "Bob" and "Mike". But it's ok, it's for security purposes.

    You know what? I could rant all day, but there's a much better way to express myself:

    *boggle*

    *bangs head on desk*

    --
    If I knew the wedgies I gave you back in 6th grade would have resulted in this . . . I might have taken a moments pause.
  172. tricky area by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 1

    There exists a dangerous problem with no ideal solution - if any solution at all. All this does solution does is perpetuate more hate. Next idea please.

    --
    Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
  173. those who are really connected by dindi · · Score: 1

    ... to any terrorist organization which is serious enough, are flying in and out of any country freely, carrying money in their pockets with student visas, or are handed large sums in cash ...

    Yeah right they would use Western Union or Paypal so it would be easily traceable ... and especially transfers of $100 .. wow that is a serious sum, maybe for someone out of the us, but for sure you would not make it to the US on that amount from any asian country, even if you tried to swim over ...

    oh well stupidity wins over common sense again ...
    I understand, that your banks asks you why you received that 15K from abroad, but to ristrict $100 transfers to India ? Screw Western Union ...

    1. Re:those who are really connected by Dr.+Sp0ng · · Score: 1

      Yeah right they would use Western Union or Paypal so it would be easily traceable ... and especially transfers of $100 .. wow that is a serious sum, maybe for someone out of the us, but for sure you would not make it to the US on that amount from any asian country, even if you tried to swim over ...

      You're right about Paypal, but Western Union is one of the few remaining ways to transfer money anonymously (if you go about it correctly), at least up to a sum of several thousand (the exact number eludes me at the moment).

  174. Gotta love fark by mcmonkey · · Score: 0, Troll
    The violent actions of Christians/Catholics have ALWAYS been denounced and condemned by Christianity as a whole.

    http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-abort0 6.html/

    Priest who axed abortion clinic gets Elgin post

    July 6, 2006

    BY TOM POLANSEK Courier News

    A priest who used an ax to hack up a Rockford medical clinic where abortions are performed has been assigned to a top position at an Elgin church.

    The Rev. John P. Earl began serving July 1 as parochial administrator at St. Joseph Catholic Church, 272 Division St.

    In an interview Wednesday, Earl declined to discuss his arrest and subsequent guilty plea for the attack on the Northern Illinois Women's Clinic.

    Instead, he urged a reporter to begin an investigation into whether DNA from the "blood and guts'' found at abortion clinics matches the DNA of people who enter and leave the clinic. Until he sees such a report, Earl said he had "no interest in talking to . . . any newspaper.''

    Scared off by owner's shotgun

    Earl's entanglement with the law began Sept. 30, 2000, when he was arrested after he admitted to crashing his car into a garage at the clinic and using an ax to break doors, windows and surveillance cameras on the building, according to police reports. He was charged with two counts of criminal damage to property.

    Earl never actually made it inside the medical office, which performs abortions. He stopped his attack after the building's owner fired two warning shots from a shotgun, the reports stated.

    The clinic was closed at the time of the incident, and no one was injured.

    Earl pleaded guilty to the charges Feb. 14, 2001, and was sentenced to 30 months of probation and ordered to pay restitution and fines.

  175. US Government = Terrorist by Jason+Mark · · Score: 1

    terrorist |?ter?rist| noun a person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims. terror |?ter?r| noun 1 extreme fear : people fled in terror | [in sing. ] a terror of darkness. Anyone who's seen the news in the past few years, and watched the look of terror on people's faces when US troops go into their houses must realize that we're using terror on civilians to fight terrorism. Why look so far outside of the US for non-muslum terrorists?

  176. I don't see a problem!!! by p51d007 · · Score: 1

    I hope they are doing this! If you look at the names of those who flew the planes into the buildings, they ALL had arab sounding names. When people who's names sound like (insert your own preference) start flying planes into buildings, or blowing stuff up, we should look at those also. Part of the reason for the terrorist ability to strike the USA was because of all the politically correct crap that has gone on in the USA over the last 30 years. If you want to see how screwed up things are, rent the UNCUT version of "Blazing Saddles" and if you are under 30, you will get a serious education on how the "PC" crowd has screwed things up! You can't say anything anymore without "offending" someone. Well, grow up, get a backbone and GET OVER IT!

  177. Terrorism is: Any Killing We Don't Like by darkonc · · Score: 1
    Osamma Bin Laden was trained and armed by the CIA. Do you really think he suddenly changed his tactics when his focus changed from Russians in Afghanistan to Americans?

    The only real difference is that when he was blowing up Russian buildings and killing Russian kids, the US called him a freedom fighter. It's only now that he's turned on his old trainers and suppliers that he's called a bad man.

    Similarly for Argentina's 'dirty war', El Salvadoran and Guatmamalan death squads, Chili's right wing government which overthrew a recently elected (oops, socialist) government killed the country's former leader and brutally tortured and murdered all sorts of people asociated with the (overthrown) elected government.

    Democracy? Oh. that's any process that brings in a government that we like.

    --
    Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
  178. Banking in today's world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Every time I see news like this make me feel depressed. The technological development and great business ideas of many (often American) companies and individuals contrasts sharply with the current drive by the world's governments to implement extreme measures to fight what they call terrorism, money laundering, tax evasion, etc. I don't know how many criminals and terrorist they catch in the process, but I suspect the vast majority of these measures do nothing except inconvenience millions of perfectly innocent people.

    Let me give you an example. I have a bank account in South Africa, a country I used to live in, but left about 5 years ago. It comes with Internet banking so that I can keep an eye on the few small transactions the account receives each months. Suddenly, about a year ago, I noticed a big banner on the bank's web site requiring all clients to "reconfirm their account". This came as a result of the government's new "Financial Intelligence Act", which, it claimed, brought the monitoring of financial transactions and prevention of crime up to international standards. To maintain my access to the account I was required to fax a certified copy of my ID book, utility bill (a major hassle since I now live in a country which uses a non-Latin writing system (no, it's not Arabic)), and some declaration form to the bank.

    In other words, I became a criminal until I proved that I was innocent!

    Eventually I managed to comply with the new "act". Despite that, I still have no access to the money. The bank refuses to send their plastic card overseas, while the South African exchange control regulations make it impossible to transfer the money out of the country (without excessive paperwork and personal presence). I should point out that all this money came from legitimate sources while working for legitimate companies and paying taxes according to the law. Yet, due to the government regulations, all I can do with MY LEGITIMATELY EARNED MONEY is to look at it on the Internet!

    I have many other examples that demonstrate that international banking and finanacial transactions are becoming harder and harder to do. Until about a few years ago, it was relatively easy for a foreigner to open a US checking account. Later, however, I was kicked out from two US banks (I am not a US resident and have never been to the US), I had business clients in the US who were prevented from doing wire transfers to pay for services, and I had a number of international bank account applications turned down for silliest reasons imaginable (that's another long story I won't go into now).

    I am not a criminal and I run an ordinary service-oriented business with many international customers, but I find that it's harder and harder to do cross-border financial transactions. Many governments use all kinds of excuses to impose restrictions on their citizens and you have to be constantly on alert to identify new opportunities or loop holes that by-pass the new regulations. It's a battle between the technology that made it possible to receive money from just about anywhere in the world and the governments' attempts to regain control over their citizens - all in the name of fighting terror and crime, and, of course, to finance their massive budget deficits.

    I don't mind so much if some government wants to go through my SWIFT transactions or if they want to keep an eye on my banking activity (it would be nice if they didn't, but I am not stupid enough to believe that they won't try to snoop around). What I do mind, however, is when they make things difficult. When they demand that I prove my existence. When they made me submit complicated forms. When they create inflexible rules that make it impossible to comply with and any explanation meets with a clerk's indifference. I am pretty sure that many of you who have read this far have experienced similar inconveniences over the past couple of years.

    On a positive note, things are still not too bad. It wasn't long ago that I received my paycheck in cash, which I put u

  179. Re:NOT Racist. NAMEist. by PB_TPU_40 · · Score: 1

    Yeah and you posted as a coward surprise, surprise eh? Dictionaries do exist and they don't always work. Reason being English is highly mobile and constantly changing, slang usage along with interpretation constantly change definitions. On top of that the media also twists and mispronounces and uses words. If you don't believe me, look at the prefix for Giga.

    I made a slight mistake in wording it should have been Technically racism in any form is bias.

    Bias is a preference to one side of an argument or person over another. Racism is the execution of that bias towards race, religion as well due to ethnic connections. Such as being racist towards Jews. Maybe you should also read the whole thread and actually understand what's being discussed and what's going on before attacking someone.

    Also I would be rude if I called you a Mick by profiling your language usage which would be racist by profiling your ethnicity. This falls along the same lines as profiling by name.

    --
    -PB_TPU_40 The trick to flying is to throw yourself at the ground and miss.
  180. Just use different words ... by freaker_TuC · · Score: 1

    it's not towel-head but conehead,
    it's not white but extremely good washed,
    it's not lesbian but woman with comfortable shoes,
    it's not gay but extremelecious,
    it's not a lunatic but someone with a memory leak,
    it's not a sexaddict but a drive-n-go,
    it's not a pedophile but someone who likes children too much,
    it's not a chinese but engrish,
    it's not engrish but english (you insensitive clod)
    it's not cunt but big butt
    it's not fat but horizontally challenged (or big boned)

    it's 7:30 am without sleep .. no more comments ;) be creative yourself

    --
    --- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
  181. 10 reasons why gay marriage should be illegal by Rastan_B2 · · Score: 1

    shamelessly taken from the best of craigs list: http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/pdx/102351114 .html
    --
    10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is Wrong

    01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

    02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

    03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

    04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

    05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

    06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

    07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

    08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

    09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

    10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

    Re-post this if you believe love makes a marriage.

    1. Re:10 reasons why gay marriage should be illegal by HeroreV · · Score: 1

      Well actually, the main definitions of marriage I've read specifically mention that it is recognized by law, and they don't say anything about love. So if two people (even a man and woman) love each other, agree to live their lives together, commit to keeping their relationship going, have a wedding, but don't go to the court house and get entered into the government's files, they would not technically be married since their marriage wouldn't be recognized by law.

      But I do feel that love and commitment is most important, not whether your government declares you are or aren't something. I think it's ridiculous in South Park and Family Guy where people act like gay people can't get together if the government doesn't recognize it. Can't have a wedding without an okay from Uncle Sam, no way.

      If the government recognized marriage between people of the same sex, I'm all for calling that marriage. But what are you supposed to call marriage that isn't recognized by the government?

  182. Money Laundering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Amazing. It took only one reply to get this topic off into neverneverland...

    The issue at hand is actually not specifically anti-terrorism, but money laundering. The EU and US financial authorities have used the terrorist agenda to move the anti-money laundering mechanisms firmly in place. In order to move money between banks, a bank must be able to vouch for the legitimacy of the customer. In general, for banks this is not that big of an issue as most banks will only do an inter-bank money transfer if the sender is a customer of the bank. Some banks do however provide off the street money transfer services. In this case, the bank must be able to determine who the individual is and that the money sent is actually legitimate. The same also applies to Western Union. The EU and US authorities, as well as most other fincnacial authorities prepare blacklists which financial institutions must use.

    Every interbank - especially international money transfer must be checked against these lists and in case of a match, the transaction must either be stopped or supporting documentation must be compiled to justify transferring the funds. If the transfer gets stopped, the funds can be held in limbo indefinitely until either it is cleared of suspicion by the bank or is handed over to a relevant financial or criminal prosecution authority for further evaluation.

    In the case of Western Union, which controls both ends of the pipe, they limit their risk by outright refusing to transfer suspicious money. They are not going to spend the time identifying both ends of the transaction. If the issue is with the recipient, then they will refuse to process the transaction. Assuming they take the transaction, if the recipient is unable to prove his legitimacy, what happens with the money - especially if it turns out the sender can no longer be located to return the funds? Second, if after the transaction is completed, the US govt finds that the recipient or sender were really really bad, Western Union will get smacked. HARD. for aiding and abbetting terrorists. Sanctions include freezing the institutions accounts and placing the institution on a blacklist. If Western Union goes on the US blacklist, no US financial institution is permitted to handle any money on behalf of Western Union - anywhere for any reason.

    One $120 transaction will not be a problem. But if it turns out that there is a pattern of problematic transactions _and_ it is determined that no reasonable methods were in place to limit and control suspicious transactions... Blamo.

    The US govt monitors nearly all international and all USD related transactions directly. All EUR transactions are monitored by at least one european financial authority, if not two. USD requirements are the most strict. Western Union will not take a risk, and for the commission it could get from a $120 transfer it would rather not bother. Come to them with $12,000 and they will spend the time to check both ends.

  183. Very few terrorists in Iraq or Afghanistan by billstewart · · Score: 1
    Attacking civilians is terrorism; fighting back against invading armies is not, even if you're using guerilla tactics like IEDs or suicide bombers.


    There were almost _no_ terrorists in Iraq before the US invasion - Saddam Hussein didn't like anybody who might be a threat to his power. When the US invaded, lots of people started fighting back, but fighting against an invading army isn't terrorism, it's just resistance. After the US invaded, a number of foreign terrorists decided that helping the Iraqi resistance was a good way to fight their enemy, the US, and Saddam was no longer there to keep them away, so there are now some terrorists in Iraq, but not a lot.

    There weren't a lot of terrorists in Afghanistan, either, though there were more than Iraq. The Taliban weren't terrorists - Afghanistan was a conflict zone between a bunch of warlords, and the Taliban were a warlord gang that were a bit more religiously ideological than some of their competition, and they mostly won the civil war and became what passed for a central government - the US even gave them ~$43million to thank them for their suppression of the opium growers. They did have some ideological alignment with the Al Qaeda terrorists, and allowed them to operate, but they weren't terrorists, just hardliners. And Afghanistan was also chaotic enough that it was easy for Al Qaeda to operate there, especially since bin Laden spent a lot of money on public infrastructure. The US attack on Al Qaeda may have been reasonable; the US attack on the Taliban was not very reasonable, and their continued attack against Taliban and holding of Taliban prisoners in Gitmo after the defeat of the Taliban government is extremely unreasonable. It's pretty much like the British not only bombing Massachusetts because the IRA raised funds there, but continuing to hunt down and kill any Democrats they can find after the fall of Kennedyism.

    Some of the people that the US is attacking in Afghanistan are terrorists, but they're mostly Taliban holdouts, or other locals who aren't cooperating with Karzai's central government.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  184. Hey, Ann Coulter plagiarizes too by billstewart · · Score: 1
    Fair is fair - if she's going to plagiarize other people, then it's fair to plagiarize her, even if it's only to avoid admitting that you can read more than a paragraph of her obnoxious writing without screaming and throwing your book/newspaper/laptop/television at the wall. Think of it as Free Bitchware.

    The real problem is that if you propagate her memes, she wins...

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  185. Stupider Than Usual Racist Stupidity by billstewart · · Score: 1
    So Western Union is targeting people who have Arabic-sounding names. But they're sending money to Arab countries, where almost everybody has Arabic-sounding names! They're just catching the more popular Arabic names; if they were actually consistent about this stupid racist policy, they'd have to stop doing business in those countries entirely. Most of people there who *don't* have Arabic-sounding names are immigrants or people with non-Arabic ancestors - and it's the foreigners who are more likely to be terrorist.

    If they want to be racist about who they send money to in non-Arabic countries, that's just the usual level of offensiveness and stupidity that goes with racism - but this is egregiously stupid racism.

    Of course, if they start refusing to send money to people in the US with Muslim sounding names, they're going to find a Million Man March of Black Muslims in front of their headquarters.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  186. Bullshit. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    There are millions of people in those countries with the means to emigrate but that are happy to remain where they are.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
    1. Re:Bullshit. by kalirion · · Score: 1

      That can be said about almost any place.

  187. That's an ethnic one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The conflict in the Ulster provinces of the United Kingdom have a root cause in the Irish etnnic minority wanting to dominate and suppress the non-Irish ethnic majority. There's even an element of imperialism too: some Irish support this non-Irish land being forcibly annexed to Ireland. It is a little misleading to call the area "northern Ireland": it is the north of the island of Ireland, but is not part of the nation of Ireland at all.

    1. Re:That's an ethnic one by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 1

      The conflict in the Ulster provinces of the United Kingdom have a root cause in the Irish etnnic minority wanting to dominate and suppress the non-Irish ethnic majority. There's even an element of imperialism too: some Irish support this non-Irish land being forcibly annexed to Ireland. It is a little misleading to call the area "northern Ireland": it is the north of the island of Ireland, but is not part of the nation of Ireland at all.

      So tell me, how did Ulster become a province of the UK?

      You see, history is full of talk about the brittish empire, there is no such talk about a Irish empire, rather, there are some stretches of history that show a Brittish occupied Ireland. If you'd study those specific times, yoiu'd start getting a clue about how there used to be an extremely good reasons for the Irish to not want to be ruled by Brits.

  188. ETA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ETA has not actually renounced violence. They have not killed / could not kill anybody in last three years and they are in a "permanent ceasefire" since March (I think).
    The Spanish government will talk to them in the next months. ETA has not renounced its weapons and there are claims that ETA still extorts businessmen and promote street violence.

  189. A word about banks... by proudhawk · · Score: 1

    the original writer asked if banks were doing the same thing western union did.
    well the answer is: yes (AND NO!).

    Here in Arizona, banks are not only attempting to cater to the local hispanic
    population, they are also offering to "send money to mexico for free!"
    (this was the latest Bank of America Advertisement posted on a sign outside
    a branch at the fry's food store in west phoenix).

    so, here it is, banks and other financial institutions will block or delay
    payments to middle eastern folks, but give away the whole how to illegal aliens.
    I can't really figure that one out (It just doesn't add up!).

    --
    Understanding is much like a 3-edged-sword. in this: there are always 2 sides and the truth.
  190. Expulsion of the Jews by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (if one recalls correctly, Spanish power more or less declined not too long afterwards and they were supplanted by the Dutch and the English).

    Sort of.
    On 1492, Spain expels the Jews, many of which migrate to the Ottoman Empire.
    On 1492-12-10, a guy hired by the Crown of Castile discovers a New World. In the following decades, Spain becomes the major power in the world, including the wedding of Philip II with Mary Stuart of England and the subjection of the Lower Countries to the Spanish Crown.

    Later the English (who would not take Jews until Cromwell), the Dutch who happily took Sephardic Jews, the French, the Protestants and half of Europe battled the Spaniards. By the end of the 17th century, Spain's place is being taken by those more active countries.

    The loss of the Jews and their baptised descendants was one of the factors in the decadence (see also the expulsion of Moriscos). But not so immediate.

  191. Re:The leftist junta who guard this site ceaseless by amightywind · · Score: 1

    Twerp.

    --
    an ill wind that blows no good
  192. Politician's bullsiht by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

    Marriage does not mean one thing, it has and does mean different things in different places and different times. For example marriage has sometimes been considered insoluble (and probably still is in some places). However for most of us it isn't. In some times and places men have been allowed multiple wives. In some cases marriages are arranged between people who have never met.

    Marriage is the legally binding contract ensuring sexual exclusivity between a man and a woman in exchange for material compensation. It's a tool of a patriarchal society, because you can never be sure who the father is unless there's only one candidate (and even then, you still have to trust the mother that there's only one candidate).
    Details like these do not change that.

    Ttradition alone is no argument because it could equally be used to support slavery or deny women the vote.

    I'm not arguing tradition, I'm arguing definition.

    Funnily enough when homosexual people in Australia did get civil unions recognised in the Australian Capital Territory the federal goverment overturned it because (get this) our constitution gives the federal goverment jurisdiction over marriage. So even if homosexual people do call it a different name to avoid 'offending' people's sensibilities the opponents of homosexual unions will still call it marriage if it suits their position.

    Ah, that's political bullshitting that ALSO abuses definition. I don't like that either.

    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

  193. What's you're pint; was Re:Racism by GooberToo · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    What about Eric Robert Rudolph

    Terrorist. Most everyone else you mention are simply nut jobs. The word terrorist is tossed around far, far, far too often often, especially by law enforcement. I believe you're making the same mistake.

    Let's be realistic here, which I believe was your intent...there are non-Arab and non-Muslim terrorists in the world. That, no one doubts. Having said that, right now, at this point in time, they are the *most likely* source of terrorist activity. Like so many things, profiling is woefully misunderstood by the press and especially the public at large. Sadly, this often translates poorly to the enforcement officier on the street that has taken it on themselves to do just that.

    Think of profiling as a list of check boxes. If you have a lot of check boxes checked, some of which may include nationality, then that person should be further interrogated. Sadly, your average TSA agent or policeman on the street simply use a one check box system, which screws everything up. Profiling is a PROVEN technique...it's the layman's interpretation and common street implementation which is completely screwed up. Profiling, especially by agencies like the FBI, CIA, and NSA have been extremely successful at catching people. And yes, that profiling often includes race and/or religion. Saying it's ineffective is simply ignorant of the facts and the reality of the situation.

    I do agree that untrained people which attempt to implement their own form of self trained profiling is ineffective and often wasteful of law enforcement resources. But let's be clear here and not give the wrong impression. The problem here is one of stupid people doing stupid things...not that profiling is bad or ineffective. Again, to be clear, profiling is an awesome and excellent tool...*if used properly by properly by trained, intelligent people*.

    1. Re:What's you're pint; was Re:Racism by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      In what way is this off topic? Where are these retarded mods and how do they keep getting access to a computer!? Shesh! Metamods, please fix what the incompetent mods have rated. My reply is most certainly on topic for this thread of discussion!

  194. OFAC by Dralithi · · Score: 1

    The OFAC - Office of Foreign Assets Control provides companies with an SDN - Specially Designated Nationals List which provides names, countries and entities that have to be monitored and/or blocked.

  195. Very Poor taste by parent.. on the anniv of July 7 by SenseiLeNoir · · Score: 1

    VERY poor taste.. considering the day it is..

    One year on from the July 7TH bombings.....

    Actually i am proud to be a Londonner.. they shown a LOT of courage and strength.

    Oh and i am Asian (brown/sri lankan)... and am well respected...

    --
    Have a nice day!
  196. Whinism by N3wsByt3 · · Score: 1

    My, this thread got whiny ;-)

    Look, it's not too difficult to comprehend: you can both be right (and wrong). This happens when you do not give a clear definition of what one means with 'racism'. Even official definitions don't help always, because sometimes there is more then one meaning to a term too. And then one person has one definition in mind, and the other another.

    redneck ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rdnk)
    n. Offensive Slang
    1)Used as a disparaging term for a member of the white rural laboring class, especially in the southern United States.
    2)A white person regarded as having a provincial, conservative, often bigoted attitude.

    So, you are claiming more in the lines of 1), while he is taking 2) as reference. So you are both right. But is it racism?

    racism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rszm)
    n.
    1)The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
    2)Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

    According to these definitions (dictionary.com - which I still find a bit more reliable then wikipedia, frankly), one can not come to the conclusion 'redneck' is a racist term, so I'm inclined to say the former poster was rather correct in his earlier claim.

    That said, I do not doubt that somewhere, somehow, another dictionary will give a more broad interpretation, which might lead some substantiation that 'redneck' is (also) a racist term. However, in its original meaning, the word 'racist' invariably and inherently refers to 'race' - and I don't think redneck specifically refers to a race, nor to any ethnical group (anymore).

    Thus, you both could argue something else, and to some degree be both right. All in all, I think the former poster was more right then you, however.

    --
    --- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
    1. Re:Whinism by xero314 · · Score: 1
      I don't disagree that this is entirely a semantic issue. But I think this issue is really not with an understanding of "Redneck" but instead with the understanding of race. If you look back a few posts you will see I reprinted one of the definitions of race from, also from dictionary.com. Which is "A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution." If we put this together with the definition of racism that you provided we get:
      Discrimination or prejudice based on a group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution.
      My point is that you could probably find a definition that made even the word "nigger" a non-racist term (in some definitions of race it is not racist because it can be used to refer to all people of dark skin regardless of race), but that would be looking at a very narrow definition and would miss the larger meaning. Just because "blue" can be used to mean "low in spirits" it doesn't mean that the sky is not blue.
    2. Re:Whinism by N3wsByt3 · · Score: 1

      "But I think this issue is really not with an understanding of "Redneck" but instead with the understanding of race."

      Well, both, I would say.

      "Race", on itself, does not even apply to humans (exept as a whole 'the human race') in a true scientific context. someone of the 'black race' is not a different race at all; he's also of the human race. since the extinction of the Homo Sapiens Neanderthalis we don't have different human races anymore.

      Dictionary.com says the same at the bottom when you look up 'race', in fact. which is why I thought your analogy with the 'blue' was a bit weak; context-related there are some things that are easy to spot, and some things that aren't. Race is one area which, even according the dictionnary.com itself is a higly subjective term, which, even in a given context, can cause confusion.

      But, let's move on to 'redneck'.

      Even there it's not really clear if it should be considered racist, EVEN when using your specific definition (and, as said, different definitions are possible, and contrary to your blue example, even within the same context it can lend itself to different interpretations without one being 'wrong' per sé).

      "Discrimination or prejudice based on a group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution."

      Now, 'common history'...while originally the biggest part of the american rednecks may have been scottish, I do not think that is true anymore, and even if it were, they aren't the only rednecks in the world (and no, they aren't/weren't all scottisch, far from it). Nationality: idem dito. In my country we have 'rednecks' too (though translated in our language, of course ;-); much as in america, they describe people who are...how shall I put it?... 'simple'. A bit like: stupid, ignorant 'folkstown' people, conservative and bigottory, who are mostly proud of being so. And as others have said, there are rednecks in Spain, in Italy, etc.

      So anyway, it's not limited to the USA, thus nationality doesn't cut it.

      Geographical location: well, it follows out of what I said above, that this is not applicable neither.

      I think the basic misconception is, that the term 'redneck' is mostly used in connection with the southern part of the USA. Coppled with the fact that there is tendency (especially with rednecks ;-) to consider the USA is pretty much the world, one could conceivingly get the impression it is only about a group of people in a distinct country, or geographical location.

      Since dictionary.com is american (well, at least anglo-saxon), they have a tendency to focus on this use too (though, one should not, they do explicitly not claim it is ONLY a term used for the geographical area of the southern USA. My own dictionary has no trouble giving the 2) meaning as the first, and doesn't even mention the southern of the USA.

      Thus, once one agrees that 'redneck' is not solely confined to location of the southern part of the USA, nor to one country, nor to one common history...

      - then logic dictates 'redneck' can not be considered a racist term.

      If one refutes the above premise, of course, it's perfectly possible to argument it it.

      --
      --- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
    3. Re:Whinism by xero314 · · Score: 1
      "Race", on itself, does not even apply to humans (exept as a whole 'the human race') in a true scientific context.
      This is highly debated in scientific circles, as was clearly shown in the wikipedia articles I linked to. Some scientist, biological and anthropological, believe that there are separate "races" of humans, and there may even be sub species. The point is the term "redneck" can be interpreted as racist based on modern english definition and science, so to say that it is not racist is an incorrect statement. If the statement was that "redneck" does not need to be used in a racist way I might give a little, but in fact it was used at the beginning of this thread to reference a government lead by a ex-resident of "the southern part of the USA".
      Thus, once one agrees that 'redneck' is not solely confined to location of the southern part of the USA, nor to one country, nor to one common history...- then logic dictates 'redneck' can not be considered a racist term.
      But this goes back to what I have said already about it's comparison to the word "nigger" (damn I have not used that word as much in my whole life as I have in this thread). In current usage "nigger" has been used as a reference to a close friend, as in "my nigger", regardless of race. Does this mean the word "nigger" is not racist? (It doesn't matter if you pronounce it with a hard "r" or an "a" the only official word is "nigger" not "nigga"). "Nigger" is also used to reference many people with dark skin, not just those of a particular geographic area. Read the prior wikipedia articles and you will see that, of the scientists that define race, only one group considers Africans and aboriginal Australians to be of the same race.
    4. Re:Whinism by N3wsByt3 · · Score: 1

      "This is highly debated in scientific circles, as was clearly shown in the wikipedia articles I linked to. Some scientist, biological and anthropological, believe that there are separate "races" of humans, and there may even be sub species. The point is the term "redneck" can be interpreted as racist based on modern english definition and science, so to say that it is not racist is an incorrect statement."

      Well, I can't seem to find much substantiation for that claim, really. I can find the following on the wikipedia:

      "Since the 1940s, evolutionary scientists have rejected the view of race according to which a number of finite lists of essential characteristics could be used to determine a like number of races. Many evolutionary and social scientists think common race definitions, or any race definitions pertaining to humans, lack taxonomic rigour and validity. They argue that race definitions are imprecise, arbitrary, derived from custom, and that the races observed vary according to the culture examined. They further maintain that "race" as such is best understood as a social construct, and conceptualize and analyze human genotypic and phenotypic variation in terms of populations and clines instead. Other scientists, however, have argued that this position is motivated more by political than scientific reasons."

      So, we have a social construct, and political reasons, but not an objective scientific claim of 'race'. You will always have a lunatic claiming something else, or one could reference to some misguided theories during WW2, but in modern science, one would be hard-pressed to find a scientist claiming there were actual different races of humans, as is defined in biology. In that sense, there is clearly only one species of humans left on this world.

      "If the statement was that "redneck" does not need to be used in a racist way I might give a little, but in fact it was used at the beginning of this thread to reference a government lead by a ex-resident of "the southern part of the USA". "

      I simply can not agree to your conclusion; it is illogical. If a reference to the southern part of the USA is substantiation for calling something racist, then every reference to any part of a population could be argued to be racist. The term would completly loose any value. We both know that the usual usage of a racist term, is a reference towards genetical difference, which are mostly visible (as with the color of skin, like with the word 'nigger' at one time during it's usage).

      "In current usage "nigger" has been used as a reference to a close friend, as in "my nigger", regardless of race. Does this mean the word "nigger" is not racist?"

      Logic would dictate it is, within that context, not racist in nature.

      ""Nigger" is also used to reference many people with dark skin, not just those of a particular geographic area."

      In this context, it is racist in nature. But I fail to see your argument here: no-one argued the only variable was 'geographical location'. In fact, that was merely one of the possibilities I analysed, based on the definition you yourself gave.

      The fact that 'nigger' in this particular context, is racist, is not due to the geographical location (africa or austrialia), but due to the first definition given by dictionnary.com:

      "A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics."

      The perceived similar characteristic here being the black colored skin.

      Alas, with 'redneck', you neither have a distinct geographical location (yes, he might have referenced to the southern USA, but this is neither distinct, nor is the term only used for a particular geographical location - contrary to the 'german race' as the wikipadia gives as an example). But you also don't have a genetically transmitted physical characterstic: the difference claimed is one of sophistication, level of conservatism, etc., NOT genetics. (Though one could claim such with Bush,

      --
      --- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
  197. more of the same... by FiberOPtic · · Score: 1

    Guilty till proved innocent.

    Another company to not use the services of.

    ---

  198. Re:Very Poor taste by parent.. on the anniv of Jul by orasio · · Score: 1

    The comment was strictly responding to the original poster.
    Of course, I'm against killing civilians, in any context, and of course in London, too.

    But the fact that London police officers killed a brazilian guy for carrying a backpack is an example of how the OP ideas can go wrong.

  199. Slashdot censorship by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

    Ironic, on a pro-civil liberties site, that I got a message saying anonymous posting was banned, and that logged in posting could get banned too.

    Guess moderation idn't enough, and censorship is in effect.

    Say anything pro-US, pro-gov't or anti-Mac and no longer do people want to protect unpopular speech.

    --
    Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
  200. My experience... by sheepoo · · Score: 1

    I have the personal experience of having seen a Western Union booth display (under the counter, of course , where only the employees could see it) a piece of notice which said "Please ensure that you take driver's license number and phone number from anyone looking like to be of Middle Eastern descent and trasnfering more than $500".
    I never went back to Wester Union. And ,no, I am not an Arab

  201. Racism by digitalgimpus · · Score: 1

    Perhaps white people shouldn't be allowed to rent vans, or park need federal buildings. I've got 168 reasons why that's a 100% valid and respectable law.

    I'm sure I could come up with a bunch more...

    All veterans should be on the do-not-fly-list

  202. Re:World War II by avatar4d · · Score: 0

    It wasn't a troll/flamebait but I should have known better than to post a conservative view on a one sided communist site. I love how a factual event from history gets modded down as flamebait. Seriously.

    It is definitely easier to spot a Japanese person than someone with my background (German). Don't fool yourselves into thinking this is the only reason the Japanese were jailed. They did bomb Pearl Harbor, our HOME! Where did the Europeans bomb us on homeland? I know the terrorists hit us in NYC, but I can't recall where the Europeans did in WWII. Go figure we're trying to stop money from going to terrorists.

    I love how liberals automatically claim that this is racism. Seriously:
    "The six primary organizers among them were Khalid al-Mihdhar, Nawaf al-Hazmi, and the pilots (Mohammed Atta, Marwan al-Shehhi, Ziad Jarrah, and Hani Hanjour)."

    How exactly is it racist to profile people with names like this? I don't see a George, Dick or Harry listed in there and I want to make sure that my family is safe from the enemy. It isn't racism, paranoid maybe, cautious definitely, but NOT racism. I guess my spellchecker is racist too since it pointed out all of those names. Damn you spellchecker!!!

    I have an idea. How about if we just bring all our troops back and disband our military. If we just love everyone who could hate/attack us? Seriously.

    --
    Confucius say: "Man who associates with smarter men than himself is smarter than the men he associates with."
  203. Re:The leftist junta who guard this site ceaseless by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
    the leftist junta who guard this site ceaselessly to staunch alternative points of view

    Try posting some "leftist" sentiments and you'll discover there are at least as many in the right-wing junta who will mod you down.

  204. Re:NOT Racist. NAMEist. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    HAHA you were PWNED! Dumbass

    people post in high threads to get their comment noticed! Common tactic. If you admit to being confused, you also admit to being stupid. And you do it with a Lincoln quote. CLASSIC!