Slashdot Mirror


Google Earth Highlights Darfur

jc42 writes "Google Earth, in cooperation with the US Holocaust Memorial Museum now presents details of the growing disaster in Darfur. They give a virtual tour of the area, with details of events in many villages in the words of local residents. So in addition to their "Do no evil" motto, they apparently now have a policy of exposing evil. Needless to say, the Sudan government didn't exactly cooperate with this project."

328 comments

  1. "Do no evil" by essence · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It's time to give up on the "do no evil" crap. Google helps censor the Chinese for a start. They have a mountain of data from logging all their users, definitly a tool for the future Big Brothers of the world.

    Lots of large corporations do good things, usually to make it seem as if they 'do no evil'. As Google gets larger, we will see them commit more evil.

    1. Re:"Do no evil" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yeah, they're already hiding the effects of Katrina on New Orleans. Also, they got North and South Carolina to pony up several hundred millions in tax breaks by playing them off against each other. Typical amoral public corporation.

    2. Re:"Do no evil" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If only now they would investigate the monstrosity that is my neighbor's backyard, it smells pretty bad.

    3. Re:"Do no evil" by Criffer · · Score: 4, Insightful
      The motto isn't "Do no evil" in the wise-monkey "See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" sense.

      "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
      -Edmund Burke (almost)
    4. Re:"Do no evil" by Southpaw018 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Disagree. Injustices cannot be corrected by ignoring them, or even passively allowing them to continue. Neither you or I should simply ignore what is happening in Darfur. In fact, we have a responsibility to understand what is going on, even if we as individuals sitting somewhere far removed from it can do next to nothing about it (save our governments considering involvement themselves or vis the UN, in which case we could urge our representatives to make that happen).

      Google is doing good by raising awareness of the atrocities being committed in Darfur. Yes, they do evil. They're a friggin' corporation and they exist to make money; no one is a saint. But they are doing some good here.

      --
      ACs are modded -6. I don't read you, I don't mod you, I don't see you. Don't like it? Don't be a coward.
    5. Re:"Do no evil" by yada21 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Participation in the Darfur media circus IS exactly EVIL.
      I agree. As I say on my increasingly popular speaking engagements. If there's a solution to the Darfur problem the market will find the best one in the least time.
      --
      I will have a sig when the market demands it.
    6. Re:"Do no evil" by Goaway · · Score: 1

      They have a mountain of data from logging all their users, definitly a tool for the future Big Brothers of the world.

      Yes, and in much the same fashion, the US is guilty of massive genocide because it has an arsenal of nuclear weapons, definitely a tool for the future nuclear holocaust.

    7. Re:"Do no evil" by Goaway · · Score: 1

      PS: I hope you don't own a knife or gun, or else you're a murderer!

    8. Re:"Do no evil" by Goaway · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Participation in the Darfur media circus IS exactly EVIL.

      On what planet does this statement make any kind of sense? You're really going to have to back up that reasoning if you want anyone to take you at all seriously.

    9. Re:"Do no evil" by Goaway · · Score: 5, Funny

      Wait, never mind. I read your other posts, and you are raving lunatic. Carry on.

    10. Re:"Do no evil" by Short+Circuit · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If there's a solution to the Darfur problem the market will find the best one in the least time. Am I missing a joke? Capitalism has never been a valid substitute for a normal political process. We call that "corruption."
    11. Re:"Do no evil" by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      Unless you assume unnecessary taxes are evil, in which case it was perfectly fine.

    12. Re:"Do no evil" by odourpreventer · · Score: 3, Funny

      If there's a solution to the Darfur problem the market will find the best one in the least time.

      WTF are you talking about? What market? Google is trying to increase awareness and you (and others) say it's a bad thing? What is wrong with you people?

    13. Re:"Do no evil" by stokessd · · Score: 1

      >Yes, and in much the same fashion, the US is guilty of massive genocide because
      >it has an arsenal of nuclear weapons, definitely a tool for the future nuclear holocaust.

      Well let's get on with it, somebody go give Slim Pickens a call. I've got a list of places that need a good bombing around here somewhere...

      Sheldon

    14. Re:"Do no evil" by qwijibo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think the implied joke/dark humor is that the free market would enslave all of these people. The problem right now is that there is no market effect of genocide. If these people were made someone's property and worked for the man, the man would send merceneries to kill the people who want to kill his slaves. Either that, or he's suggesting that the market has determined that these people are non-essential, or even worse, non-consumers, and need to be removed to make room for future consumers.

    15. Re:"Do no evil" by odourpreventer · · Score: 1

      Newbie got PWNed! When you read any post on the internet, always check for hidden <sarc> tags.

      So he's not a fascist, he's a sociopath. Big diff.

    16. Re:"Do no evil" by abner23 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Um? Katrina pictures?

    17. Re:"Do no evil" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So he's not a fascist, he's a sociopath. Big diff. Better than a moran...
    18. Re:"Do no evil" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reporting on Darfur is not a media circus, and it is not a political issue, it is a moral issue. Why would it be best if companies ignored ongoing genocide?

    19. Re:"Do no evil" by AlecC · · Score: 5, Insightful

      On the Chinese problem: at least they mark their pages where censorship has occurred, unlike Yahoo and MSN who do it silently. And censoring the pages of google.cn was the only way they could get inside the Great Firewall. The Chinese language version of google.com is uncensored - but residents of China with insufficient net-fu cannot see it. IMO, the path Google chose was the least evil in an evil world. Either Google with censorship visible, or other search engines (particularly including Chinese government ones) with censorship hidden. At least the Cjhinese paople can wonder what is being hidden.

      As for collecting data: it is not evil until they use it for Big Brotherish purposes. Like fire, data is neutral. You can use it to warm yourself, or to burn heretics. If Google start selling personal data, or using it in house for intrusive purposes, they are not guilty of evil. Not all people who buy guns do so to shoot their wives.

      --
      Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
    20. Re:"Do no evil" by MrMarket · · Score: 1

      Participation in the Darfur media circus IS exactly EVIL.
      I agree. As I say on my increasingly popular speaking engagements. If there's a solution to the Darfur problem the market will find the best one in the least time.
      Too bad Sudan's biggest oil revenue stream (China) doesn't really believe in a free market.

      Loads of cash + huge appetite for oil + complete disregard for human rights = on-going genocide.
    21. Re:"Do no evil" by antikronos · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Despite their undoubtedly noble intentions, Googles' rather naive and geekish management does not realize that in fact, by logging and storing everyones personal details, behavior and habits they have created the ultimate foundation for the next Holocaust. The reason why the identification of Jews in some European countries like the Netherlands was so effective and fast, was because of the quality of the (paper)archives with personal records. With the electronically available and very detailed records that Google maintains, identification of people to be prosecuted will be a matter of days, not years. No matter if it is about Jews, Arabs, 'terrorists', anti-republicans or any other group of people that share characteristics that are disliked by the people with power. Assuming that future governments or hackers can be fully trusted to respect current copyright and privacy legislation is a complete denial of history. Larry and Sergey, maybe it is an idea to sit down in your library and read this book that you have scanned yourselves: 'National Identification Systems: Essays in Opposition'

    22. Re:"Do no evil" by thegnu · · Score: 1

      When you read any post on the internet, always check for hidden tags.

      Dude, can I get help? I can't find them anywhere

      --
      Please stop stalking me, bro.
    23. Re:"Do no evil" by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      I guess you are as sure of definition of what is evil as you are full of yourself

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    24. Re:"Do no evil" by mapkinase · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      That part should not involve anyway anti-Muslim governments of US, UK, Israel, etc - those who deliberately blow off the propaganda machine on this issue. US interference in the affairs of Vietnam, Iraq and other countries cost dearly to people of those countries.

      And only the blind cannot see that the recent hoopla is part of the propaganda machine.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    25. Re:"Do no evil" by zoney_ie · · Score: 1

      Just because it was extremely ill-advised and lead to thousands of Iraqi, US and other deaths, does not mean that Iraq wasn't a problem pre-invasion. I for one didn't expect the invasion to lead to anything other than chaos, most of those "anti war" protestors here in Ireland were of a similar opinion. I think that today there are few options as regards Iran, and I worry about a similarly ill-considered US reaction to the country. But it is folly to stick ones head in the ground and believe the situation is entirely OK, and that either Iran isn't trying to get nuclear weapons, or it's "no big deal" if they do get them, "sure everyone else does".

      It's no good kidding yourself that the situation in Sudan is any better than it is portrayed here (in fact it's frequently brushed over and not focussed on enough by the Western media) just because you have a grudge against those speaking out about it.

      --
      -- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
    26. Re:"Do no evil" by mapkinase · · Score: 0, Troll

      I explained it in my other comments on this article.

      1. The conflict is between Muslims, so Muslims should resolve it. In nowadays situation EVERYTHING that US and Europe does towards Muslims on the government level is anti-Muslim, anti-Islam.

      2. Europe and US have no credibility in Africa after centuries of colonial exploitation, after South Africa, after Rodesia. Sheesh, former Soviet Union had more credibility in Africa.

      Your post is obviously overblown by politically engaged moderators.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    27. Re:"Do no evil" by mapkinase · · Score: 1, Troll

      Iraq was a problem, but it was much much less of a problem after the Gulf war.

      I did not say it is OK. It is a civil war, not genocide. War is not ok. Particular twist of Western media labeling it a genocide and de facto undermining the Sudanese government tells me that there is something else behind recent hoopla.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    28. re: "do no evil" by ed.han · · Score: 1

      er...you're assuming that the government will get their paws on google's data, which i just don't see happening.

      ed

    29. Re:"Do no evil" by Bastard+of+Subhumani · · Score: 2, Insightful

      US interference in the affairs of Vietnam, Iraq and other countries cost dearly to people of those countries.
      I'm sure most South Koreans are very resentful at being forcibly separated from the paradise to their North. As for the West Germans, take it from me that they really really really wanted to absorbed into the Soviet Union, and those wicked horrid Yanks wouldn't let them.
      --
      Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
    30. Re: "do no evil" by Lockejaw · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I suspect all that this is waiting for is a country whose law would require it. Google tends to follow the laws of countries where it operates -- it's not big on civil disobedience.

      --
      (IANAL)
    31. Re:"Do no evil" by Clever7Devil · · Score: 1

      WTF are you talking about? What market? Google is trying to increase awareness and you (and others) say it's a bad thing? What is wrong with you people? Yes, Google is in no way latching on to this Flavor-of-the-Month tragedy in order to spotlight its Google Earth software.
      --
      "By the time they had diminished from 50 to 8, the other dwarves began to suspect 'Hungry.'" -Gary Larson
    32. Re:"Do no evil" by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      There were good actions of US government in the past and saving Europe from communism was one of them.

      Europe and US had much more common than Europe and communist ideology of Russians.

      Intervention in the Sudan of US will be exactly the opposite type of intevention because Western ideology is foreign.

      You are not that naive. You KNOW how Sudanese, Somalis, Egyptians feel towards West.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    33. Re:"Do no evil" by mstahl · · Score: 1

      *whoooosh!*

    34. Re:"Do no evil" by bcattwoo · · Score: 1

      This guy is obviously playing on free market evangelist dad21.

    35. Re:"Do no evil" by stry_cat · · Score: 1

      What's going on in Darfur is a localized war. Like all war it's not pretty and lots of people die. By participating in the Darfur media circus, Google is helping the side that wants the US and other governments to intervene. Intervention will only serve to widen the war to a regional or global conflict instead of a local one. It will be another Vietnam or Iraq, only it has the potential to be a lot worse given the amount of violence we've already seen there. So basically the interventionists want to increase the amount of strife and death in the world. If that isn't evil I don't know what is. I agree with the person who said "Participation in the Darfur media circus IS exactly EVIL."

    36. Re:"Do no evil" by hobo+sapiens · · Score: 1
      Good comments. I probably wouldn't have replied to that comment. Anyone who complains about the Darfur "media circus" is obviously a racist and/or a troll. In this case, the media is doing what it should -- exposing a government's utter and deliberate failure to do what governments should exist to do, namely, to protect it's constituents. Seriously, how can anyone justifiably complain about that being reported on? Am I missing something?

      we could urge our representatives to make that happen
      Why should governments *have* to be urged to do something about this?

      The thing that I find interesting is that governments in developed lands are normally unaware (or so we are told) of genocide until after the fact (ww2, croatia, Rwanda, allegedly Iraq). After the fact, mass graves turn up and all of the politicians say "Oh, if only we knew!" Well, this situation has fortunately received media attention but nobody is really doing anything but talking about it. This has been going on for what, three years now?. Look, if massive deposits of oil were discovered in Darfur, you can bet that the US and everyone else would be over there to "liberate the people". It's sad since there is no monetary incentive, nobody wants to stand up to help these people. It really exposes all of the "If only we'd known" talk for what it is: empty rhetoric.
      --
      blah blah blah
    37. Re:"Do no evil" by Ced_Ex · · Score: 3, Funny

      Who says you can't warm yourself by burning heretics?

      Seems to me that's the more efficient use of fire

      --
      Live forever, or die trying.
    38. Re: "do no evil" by antikronos · · Score: 1
      Maybe you don't see it happening but your children will. The moment you see it happening you are too late. Maybe this reference provides you with an alternative insight.

      If I would live in the states this scare the shit out of me because the next...and the next...and the next...and the next presidents would have the same rights.

      It is easier and much cheaper for Google not to store the data and exclude even the option of their data being abused beyond their power. This is exactly the difference between not being evil (and ignore what you know) and being good. Or the difference between buying a gun to protect yourself and not buying a gun to protect others (and eventually yourself)...

    39. Re:"Do no evil" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Despite their undoubtedly noble intentions, Googles' rather naive and geekish management does not realize that in fact, by logging and storing everyones personal details, behavior and habits they have created the ultimate foundation for the next Holocaust.

      Uh.. they're not doing that. They're storing and indexing web pages. If you put your personal details up on a web page, you get what you deserve -- you made them publicly available, after all.

      Also, I invoke Godwin's Law. You lose the argument. Sorry.

    40. Re:"Do no evil" by gum2me · · Score: 1
      A Civil War can involve ethnic cleansing. Look at what the Serbs did to the Kosovars a decade ago. We don't do anything about Darfur because it's so far removed from our daily life, and because Khartoum is using oil as a defense against international sanctions. Their government seems to have figured out that as long as it sticks to killing people within its own borders, the international community won't be prompted to move as quickly.

      So basically, we impose some sanctions on Sudan, and feel good about ourselves for doing something. Meanwhile, people are getting raped and murdered every day.

      michel

    41. Re: "do no evil" by PJ1216 · · Score: 1

      Take your foil hat off for a second and recall that Google opposed the government on that request and instead gave them a lot less information then they wanted, plus it was all unidentifiable information at that.

      It's true that once you see that it's happening, it's too late. However, that doesn't mean you should automatically assume it will happen.

    42. Re:"Do no evil" by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1

      You're a dick. Apparently you've not heard of GMail. Or GTalk. etc. etc. etc.

    43. Re:"Do no evil" by enjahova · · Score: 1

      What do you want them to do? Not log data, forgo technological progress? You want them to stop doing what they do best? They organize the worlds information.

      That's what they DO. They make it easier to find information. That is their entire business. The fact that their entire business could be subverted for the purposes of evil is somewhat shortsighted. In fact, the very article is an example of how their business can be utilized for the forces of good. Like any other technology it's how we use it, not what it does. I suppose there is still a debate about nuclear power, but that isn't stopping us from having the technology.

      What EVERYONE needs to think about is how to readjust society to deal with new technology. The only thing that gave us a sense of privacy in the past was the lack of surveillance technology. It's here now, and not just in the hand of the government, cameras, mics and communication networks are cheaply available to anyone. So how do we deal with this new paradigm? You don't have privacy in public, someone could be filming or recording. Someone can post it to the internet, and it will never truly disappear.

      In a way it makes sense that we don't really have laws to protect privacy. Of course if you ask anyone if they like privacy they will say yes, but what if you frame the question a little bit differently? Do you want to know what happened to soandso? Do you want to see what happened to soandso? People will quickly forget about privacy when they are violating somebody elses. Furthermore, I challenge anyone to put forth a solid definition of privacy. There are no clear boundaries as you will find if you try.

      --
      "how can they call it a MINE if everything here is THEIRS?!?!" -Straight Jacket
    44. Re:"Do no evil" by Goaway · · Score: 1

      Intervention will only serve to widen the war to a regional or global conflict instead of a local one.

      Too bad this statement is pure conjecture and has nothing at all backing it up. Kind of makes your argument fall apart.

    45. Re:"Do no evil" by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      And about data collection : They are not collecting data. People are happily giving data to them and they are taking really the minimum amount that they could. We should not trust them, but for now, they have really not been evil to the people who gave them datas without asking questions.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    46. Re:"Do no evil" by jc42 · · Score: 1

      Look, if massive deposits of oil were discovered in Darfur, you can bet that the US and everyone else would be over there to "liberate the people".

      Um, try googling for "Darfur oil". Right now, the first couple of hits explain the situation pretty well. This is not news; the information has been around for anyone to learn about it. You can bet that the people in power around the world are thinking about this. If you dig into the online info, you'll eventually learn about what those people have been doing.

      Maybe the problem is that the US government is currently too distracted by a disastrous intervention in another oil-rich area. When they have time, they'll probably work on pretexts for bringing Democracy to Darfur, too. Of course, by then they may find that they're facing people with a bit more clout than the poor folks in those Darfur villages.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    47. Re:"Do no evil" by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      A civil war CAN involve ethnic cleansing. ANd there is probably some ethnic cleansing involved from BOTH sides in Sudan. But it is not a genocide.

      Genocide could happen only when there is an overwhelming superiority of one of the sides.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    48. Re:"Do no evil" by budgenator · · Score: 1

      We didn't save Europe from Communists in WWII, the Commies were our allies, we saved Europe and Northern Africa from the German Nazis. The Nazis and the Soviets were bitter enemies and many atrocities were committed by each side on the other; the Nazis knew full well the the Soviets hated them so much that it was very likely that what the Nazis did to the Jews and Gypsies would pale in comparison to what the Soviets would do the the Nazis.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    49. Re:"Do no evil" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fine, I'll accept that if we go in and kill all the bastards that are murdering innocent civilians we are being anti-islamic. I can live with that. So let's go kill those fuckers.

      And in case I haven't offended enough people: "Koran, now available in two-ply."

    50. Re:"Do no evil" by Simon+Garlick · · Score: 1

      Can someone please provide a definition of "evil" that has any meaning at all? Seriously.

    51. Re:"Do no evil" by Atario · · Score: 1

      They just need an emergency "quick, the feds are coming, destroy the records" button.

      --
      "A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
    52. Re:"Do no evil" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ACs are modded -6. I don't read you, I don't mod you, I don't see you. Don't like it? Don't be a coward.

      Fuck you, asshole.

    53. re: "do no evil" by ed.han · · Score: 1

      you're arguing slippery slope, antikronos. sorry, but i don't see what you're describing as anywhere near inevitable.

      ed

    54. Re: "do no evil" by antikronos · · Score: 2, Informative
      I never said it would be inevitable. The whole point is that that it has happened more than once in the past fifty years and companies with a big responsibility like Google should think about and act on these issues, especially when they link themselves to organizations like the US Holocaust Memorial Museum!

      Over the past few years they have done the exact opposite and these are not conspiracy theories or Google bashing but just plain facts:

      • Collect your data without permission, not even opt out! and use a permanent cookie that expires in 2038
      • Log every click you make on any website via the Google tool bar
      • Link hits on Google analytics scripts to your ID (via the cookie)
      • Censor information on behalf of various governments, including the US
      • Censor independent news sources
      • Not make any statements about which data they collect or what they do with it

      If a local law would force Google to hand over the data of people I am confident that they will. You are confident that it they wont't, which from my point of view is naive. It's the difference between the real world and the Truman Show.

    55. Re:"Do no evil" by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      I was talking about American occupation of Western Europe after WWII

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    56. Re:"Do no evil" by budgenator · · Score: 1

      We occupied the west with the British, the Soviets the East. The dividing line was approximately where the Eastern Allied Army, predominately the Soviets but there were others, and the Western Allied armies such as the British, the Americans and the Canadians met. The western allies ended up with more because the German armies aided in the conquest of their country by the western allies, while still fighting the Eastern allies. I'm not sure the occupation is officialy over, but it was effectively over when the "iron curtain" came down, actually I was a part of it.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    57. Re:"Do no evil" by gum2me · · Score: 1

      The Sudanese government does have OVERWHELMING superiority, and they are using it to destroy a population group. Anyway, we're arguing over a matter of degree. I think we can both agree that Ethnic Cleansing and Genocide both really suck hardcore. gum2me

    58. Re:"Do no evil" by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      I agree. I am against the hoopla. The whole campaign is orchestrated and used to diminish religious stronghold of Muslims in Sudan.

      Look at obvious cases: Somali. The Union of Courts was the only force unifying the country. They one it. Ethiopia get let go from the West and they invaded the country establishing unpopular, weak and ineffective puppet government of warlords. And the West applauded under laughable pretext that Union of Courts harbors terrorists.

      You think after that Muslims are going to trust the West?

      The only way to resovle this conflict is by international islamic organizations. Too bad they are not up to it now, given bad shape of the belief in Muslim countries, rampant nationalism, consumerism and corruption of rulers.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  2. And Irak? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Next step? What about showing the destruction of Irak by US troops?

    1. Re:And Irak? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *Yawn* How cliché.

    2. Re:And Irak? by dlt074 · · Score: 1

      better yet how about showing the destruction of Europe and Japan during World War II by US troops!? far more people killed and far more things destroyed. boy i wish we could go back and stop the US troops from doing all those bad things!

      you're a idiot.

      by the way it's spelled Iraq

    3. Re:And Irak? by AnswerIs42 · · Score: 1

      As soon as you show us where this "Irak" is.

    4. Re:And Irak? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or troops from:

      Afghanistan, Albania, Angola,Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Palau, Panama, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, South Korea, Spain, Tonga, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uzbekistan

      for that matter.

      And now we can blame the whole UN for thinking Iraq had a nuclear program in 2002...

    5. Re:And Irak? by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      And the glorious rebuilding by Haliburton!

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    6. Re:And Irak? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better yet, how about showing the destruction of Irak by Irakkis? By this point I think we're about even. The only difference being that we actually *aim* when we blow shit up, while they adopt more of a "school? orphanage? old-folk's home? Aah, fuck it... ALLAAAAHU SNACKBAR!" baWHOOOM! sort of approach.

    7. Re:And Irak? by Ididerus · · Score: 1

      ...or how about the destruction of innocent lives and property by insurgent forces? Who, btw, also happen to be "invaders", as most of them are not Iraqi civilians. I would think this to be quite a bit more widespread, as rebels are much more likely to detonate an explosive device than peace-keepers.

      --
      I'm fighting The War on Drugs!
    8. Re:And Irak? by baboo_jackal · · Score: 1

      And they could also highlight areas where Saddam Hussein committed acts of genocide against the Kurds. Though, given that he used chemical weapons I guess there might not be that much visible destruction from a satellite photo...

    9. Re:And Irak? by toQDuj · · Score: 1

      And they could show Dresden and the result of the incessant bombing of that city... oh wait, it's been rebuilt.. never mind.

      --
      Every experiment which ends in a big bang is a good experiment.
    10. Re:And Irak? by Skevin · · Score: 1

      It's just west of Eyerann, southeast of Cirrhea, and just to the north of Soddy Arabia.

      It used to be part of a region known as Purgeia.

      Solomon

      --
      "Twice half-assed makes an ass whole." --Solomon K. Chang
    11. Re:And Irak? by superyooser · · Score: 0, Troll

      Shi'a Muslim terrorists blow up a building, killing 20 people.

      Satellite pictures of carnage show up on Google.

      Leftist editor labels it: "US troops destroy Iraq"

    12. Re:And Irak? by WrongMonkey · · Score: 1

      Since Arabic doesn't use the same alphabet, any phonetic spelling is equally correct. "Iraq" is more of a US convention. Interestingly "Osama" is not the most accepted way to spell bin laden's name. "Usama" is more phonetically correct, but isn't used because it would start with "USA", and might lead to confusion with common government acronyms.

    13. Re:And Irak? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Yup. Excellent parallel, since Iraq had one of the most powerful armies in the world, and was poised to conquer the Eurasian landmass, and the U.S. was responding to a direct attack by the "Axis of Evil".


      If the destruction of Darfur merits special attention by Google, why doesn't the destruction of lives and infrastructure in a once-sovereign Iraq merit such attention?

  3. anti-christ by otacon · · Score: 3, Funny

    Next thing you know, google will be bringing peace to the middle east and set up a one world government...then we'll know Google is the anti-christ.

    --
    In a world of acronyms, the words are the real victims.
    1. Re:anti-christ by Cyberax · · Score: 3, Funny

      At least it's a COMPETENT antichrist. As opposed to US government...

    2. Re:anti-christ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or you.

    3. Re:anti-christ by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      Don't flatter me, I'm not incompetent enough to be the real antichrist :)

      It's funny, but my second name can be translated from Russian as "demon expeller".

  4. Imperialists hands off Sudan! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    US/UN out!

    1. Re:Imperialists hands off Sudan! by JonathanR · · Score: 1

      And if google earth had been 'round in 1940's?

    2. Re:Imperialists hands off Sudan! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about the holocaust caused by US/Israel in Iraq?

    3. Re:Imperialists hands off Sudan! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What should be brought to the public view are your disgusting views.

      In particular, on more than one occasion you've expressed the opinion that there is a need to execute homosexuals for their immoral behaviour, the given reason for this: to please your lovely god

      I can't be bothered to trawl through the festering cess-pit that is your history of posts on /. to find evidence of this, but its there for all to see.

      Yes its more of the same "my imaginary friend is better than your imaginary friend type" type crap. Piss orf and keep your delusions to yourself matey. Dont inflict them and your twisted versions of morality on others.

  5. Amazing by Kleokat · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I spent some time surfing the Darfur area.
    It speaks it's own language.
    I'm not good enough at English to find the right words (English is not my primary language).

    However, this is an amazing tool, which other could use to document the horrors of history. Study the Scandinavian history 500 years ago, and you can make a similar map over the southern tip of present Sweden. Check it out for yourself: http://www.scania.org/facts/poster/index.html

    Maybe som Palestinian group can make a similar map over, what Israel did to many Palestinian villages from 1947 until today. That would start up a *real* debate, and hopefully we can end the bloodshed there, that once raged Scandinavia.

    1. Re:Amazing by Kleokat · · Score: 1

      By the way: It's nothing new:

      1276 - 1710 :
      When the Swedish and Danish kings went to war against one another, Scania always was their battleground. Between 1276 and 1710, Scania was ravaged over and over again. During this period, every single Swedish regent made war, burned and pillaged Scania.

    2. Re:Amazing by Das+Modell · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Maybe som Palestinian group can make a similar map over, what Israel did to many Palestinian villages from 1947 until today. That would start up a *real* debate.

      There can be no real debate about the subject. There is only the Concensus, and anyone outside the Consensus is a troll.
    3. Re:Amazing by Kleokat · · Score: 1

      That's exactly why I make a point of the situation in Scandinavia 500 years ago.
      We can understand, that people were stiff-minded back then, but today there isn't really a good excuse, especially when there is so much information at hand.
      I am sick and tired of seeing countries behave like little children. Bwahh, you stole my ice cream, now I will beat you to a pulp ....

    4. Re:Amazing by lucabrasi999 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I am sick and tired of seeing countries behave like little children. Bwahh, you stole my ice cream, now I will beat you to a pulp ....

      Actually, here in the US, we do things a little differently. We don't like to wait for the actual THEFT of ice cream:

      "We don't have any proof, but we think you, (insert country name here), are building a weapon of ice cream destruction. See, our satellite photos show all this activity going on outside of a building in the north-east corner of your country. That is obviously related to the construction of an ice cream destruction device. And, we hear a rumor that you tried to steal yellowcake ice cream from Nigeria. As a result of what we THINK you are going to do, we will now invade you."

      Just look at our recent success stories.

    5. Re:Amazing by Kleokat · · Score: 1

      Actually, you are right.
      Luckily, the north-east corner of the Danish territory is water and only some very small islands.
      You can nuke it, but then you will have to fight our fishermen afterwards.
      But maybe you will hit Sweden instead ... then you can just say, that they were in on it too!
      PS: I wouldn't recommend being unfriendly with the Danish fishermen :-)

    6. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You cannot stop muslims from killing eachother. It says so in the quran (9:111). All muslims have to be murderers.

      Let's just hope they provide a balanced opinion including ALL major events. So that it can be made very clear that muslims killed jews for the fun of it. The Jenin Massacre. The fact that muslims kept firing FOR AN HOUR on an ambulance where a white flag was sticking out of at hadassah hospital.

    7. Re:Amazing by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Its a good thing we aren't actually talking about ice cream then because then what you describe would be truly ridiculous. But since we're talking about weapons of mass destruction that could kill millions I think the level of action the US is taking is wholly appropriate.

      --
      Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
    8. Re:Amazing by lucabrasi999 · · Score: 1
      But since we're talking about weapons of mass destruction that could kill millions I think the level of action the US is taking is wholly appropriate

      Since when has a 'preventive' war ever been deemed appropriate by someone other than the person(s) starting the war?

    9. Re:Amazing by Jaeph · · Score: 1

      Maybe som Palestinian group can make a similar map over, what Israel did to many Palestinian villages from 1947 until today. That would start up a *real* debate, and hopefully we can end the bloodshed there, that once raged Scandinavia.

      -------------- ...and then maybe some Jewish group will make up there map of 60 years of violence. Then people will debate whose map started it all, and we'll just end up continuing the feud in another venue.

      The issue in Palestine/Israel is amazingly simple in many ways, if you stop worrying about who did what to whom in response to...whatever. There are two peoples living side-by-side right now. Only blood will move them. On a small scale this is acceptable and unavoidable, e.g. Israel gives up a mile of territory to clean up the border, and has to forcibly remove some settlers for the greater good.

      The question is how to get there. The answer is that Palestine recognizes Israel as a nation. As soon as they do this, they "win". Israel at that point has to negotiate, has to give up territory (and they have shown a number of times they will do this for peace), and it's simply a matter of time at that point.

      Maybe it will take a generation, I don't know. But once the Palestinians commit whole-heartedly to a peace process, they can't lose. Then we can let future generations make a map.

      -Jeff

      --
      Please learn the difference between a dissenting opinion and a troll before you moderate.
    10. Re:Amazing by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      But since we're talking about weapons of mass destruction that could kill millions I think the level of action the US is taking is wholly appropriate.

      The problem is that justification used to push the war turned out to be based on falsified intelligence and selective use of intelligence. If there was a real threat, then fine, but it wasn't. The White House has been involved in a very major campaign to convince congress and the American people of something that was not true. They all said that they knew where it was, but none of it could be found during the occupation despite the supposed fantastic intelligence gathering agencies they tapped. To date, the White House has not produced evidence of any programs in Iraq to develop WMDs between the Gulf Wars. At the same time, the White House missed the programs in Iraq and North Korea. Right now, we are down over 3,000 troops, a half a trillion dollars, lost credibility and we made Iraq another breeding ground of hate.

    11. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I feel sorry for anyone who has a period in their history called "The Herring Era"

    12. Re:Amazing by Kleokat · · Score: 1

      Hehe :-)

    13. Re:Amazing by cdrguru · · Score: 1

      Why would the Palestinians ever recognize Israel when there are UN folks that want to keep the refugee camps open? Why would there ever be recognition when this would mean "defeat" for the Palestinian cause of wiping the scourge of Jews off the face of the Earth?

      Unless someone forces the Palestinians to realize they can never defeat Israel, it will continue. The Arab nations with their boycott and propaganda reinforce the "no retreat, no surrender" idea constantly. Nobody on Israel's side will do anything overtly because that would mean war with the Arabs openly. And again, it would be the same Christians vs. Muslims war to end all wars.

      Israel took a strip of desert land and made one of the richest and most productive nations out of it. The Palestinians took over Gaza and turned it into a toliet in a matter of months. And yet people continue to say that Israel should let the Palestinians "return" and become the majority in Israel. Wouldn't you think it highly likely that they would just turn Israel into the toliet Gaza is now?

      Sure, it would make sense if Palestinians turned Gaza into a modern Arab city and showed the world they were ready to be civilized. Unfortunately, the people in charge like to have it as a toliet so they can stir up the youths to go blow something up. After all, they have nothing to lose living in a toliet like they do. Peace has no chance as long as the people in charge have something to gain from continuing the struggle.

    14. Re:Amazing by lucabrasi999 · · Score: 1
      If there was a real threat, then fine,

      I disagree with that. Assuming that you can actually have such a thing as a "Just War", then the Catholic Church says that a pre-emptive war is NOT just. (For the record, I was raised a Catholic, but I have since drifted to becoming a Committed Agnostic).

  6. history will remember by circletimessquare · · Score: 1, Interesting

    that the less well-off areas of the world experienced genocide while the rich (that means you, if you have the free time and resources to be reading this on slashdot right now, you are a rich person, really) played videogames

    you say you can't do anything about it?

    you can

    or alternately, if you don't care, do nothing. and don't vote in the next presidential election. and loudly proclaim various opinions on world events. go ahead, be completely hypocritical and useless

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:history will remember by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How is it hypocritical? I have a productive life, one that I rightfully earned and I give back to my fellow breathern in society who show the same altruism.

      The problem in Darfur is theirs, not mine. I didn't start it. I didn't contribute to their suffering. I am not going to adjust my life just to make a few people with bleeding hearts feel better.

    2. Re:history will remember by couchslug · · Score: 1

      Why is this a US problem? BUSH didn't initiate Darfur.

      How about providing a linky so we can annoy the EU and THEY can flex THEIR peacekeeping muscles? It does not take the US or US participation to field a UN force or enforce a no-fly zone. France has considerable experience doing COIN ops in Africa, has the Foreign Legion available, etc. Most of the EU forces don't have large overseas commitments. There are of course MANY other members of the UN in the rest of the world. Many of those are rich.

      The reason they don't waste their time in futile African adventures is that Africans doing things to Africans are not the business of non-African colonials. When said colonials show up, the locals adapt, fight, shoot them up, and make examples of their dead to hammer the point home.
      Africans are tough (note the Somalis who, unarmed, ran TO the fight in Mogadishu!) and they DO NOT like invaders. Let them settle things themselves.

      If you want to do something, enlist as a merc or join an NGO on your side of choice and do it yourself.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    3. Re:history will remember by hyperstation · · Score: 0

      france can't even control the muslim extremists in their own country, what makes you think they can solve darfur?

    4. Re:history will remember by p0tat03 · · Score: 1

      "First they came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up,
      because I wasn't a Communist.

      Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up,
      because I wasn't a Jew.

      Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up,
      because I was a Protestant.

      Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left
      to speak up for me."

      - Pastor Martin Niemöller

    5. Re:history will remember by dreddnott · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's not actually how it goes. Pastor Niemöller was quite the anti-Semite, actually.

      --
      I may make you feel, but I can't make you think.
    6. Re:history will remember by p0tat03 · · Score: 1

      Oh yes, that quotation has been altered and changed to death, really. But nonetheless, it speaks true.

  7. The Weasel Rule by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Carl Sagan [warning. PDF]did a piece on various "rules", like the Golden Rule, Silver Rule, Iron Rule, etc. Essentially showing that the Golden Rule, "Treat others like you would like them to treat you" is unworkable. It lacks a reward-punishment mechanism. Then the silver rule, "treat them like they treat you", is a very stable, good strategy. But it leads to endless feuds. A little, but not too much of, forgiving is needed. The Iron rule is be a jerk to every one. That is known to be very bad.

    Sagan then defines, what he would call, "The Weasel Rule". Be nice to strong people and be a jerk to weak people. Google caved in easily to strong governments like China and is currently exposing the evil in Darfar. So looks like, Google's motto is "Follow the Weasel Rule" not "Do no evil".

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:The Weasel Rule by TempeTerra · · Score: 1

      I'm too lazy to read the link, but that sounds a lot like the prisoner's dilemma, which I'm sure many slashdotters are at least passingly familiar with. One of the interesting things about prisoner's dilemma tournaments is that it matters a lot what kind of strategy other players are using. If all your opponents are jerks (iron rule) you can't do any better than to be a jerk too; but if there are a population of co-operators (golden rule) then the using the golden rule becomes a better strategy as the number of co-operators increases. Not that I think that relates to the Google situation, I just thought it was worth mentioning.

      --
      .evom ton seod gis eht
    2. Re:The Weasel Rule by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a little confused here. Did Sagan totally anticipate all of this before the game theory people proved it, or did he just pass all of that off as his own?

    3. Re:The Weasel Rule by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      You are correct. Infact Sagan references Axelrod's paper and the prisoner's dilemma. I read this piece, in Parade Magazine, of all places. Dawkins added a whole chapter titled "Nice Guys Finish First" to his book "The Selfish Gene" in the second edition to explain Axelrod's work. This edition book too predates the Sagan piece. Axelrod's work is the fountainhead. Both Dawkins and Sagan explained it to the masses.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    4. Re:The Weasel Rule by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      Game theory work by Axelrod, univ of Michigan dated around 1980 is the real fountainhead of this kind of analyses. Dawkings popularized it in the second edition of the book "The Selfish Gene" and brought it to the masses from academia. Sagan's piece in Parade Mag was dated around 1990s. This must be after me coming to US, because Parade Mag has no circulation outside US. I remember reading hawks and doves theory in New Scientist way back in 1986. Dawkins credits another researcher for anticipating the ideas brought out by Axelrod. Dont remember his name.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    5. Re:The Weasel Rule by hey! · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The practical problem with the silver rule is that it is only stable under the conditions where actions have a clear measurable impact that is judged impartially.

      When it comes to actions that bear on harm and benefit to self, people are very poor judges. They overestimate harm to themselves and underestimate harm to others. You cut me of in traffic, I feel threatened, so I pull my gun out and shoot you. It's self defense, right? You look at my girl, I beat the crap out of you. Sounds even to me.

      It happens in subtler ways too. Some psychologists did a simple study in which one subject pushed another using a mechanism that measured the force of the push. While the first subject was pushing, the second subject was supposed to push back at the same time, matching the force of the first subject. Consistently the second subject underestimated the the force he was pushing back with. The researchers speculate that many shoolyard fights start this way.

      The classic pattern of revenge is not rational tit for tat, but irrational escalation. Escalation eventually leads to a stable, but undesirable result: a feud.

      So, perhaps we need an "electrum" rule: Start by treating people as you wish to be treated. When mistreated, respond in kind, but with restraint. Periodically try different levels of golden rule behavior and evaluate the results. This provides negative feedback which enables other equillibria to be reached.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    6. Re:The Weasel Rule by the-few · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Carl Sagan was an educated fool. His criticism of the Golden Rule that you describe is based on the erroneous assumption that there is not a righteous omnipotent God.

    7. Re:The Weasel Rule by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      That makes assumptions that there is a god, and that that is righteous, omnipotent and metes out rewards and punishment based on behavior. The problem is that no one has demonstrated that any of these is true, never mind all of them.

    8. Re:The Weasel Rule by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      OK, Go ahead and practice the Golden Rule, I have no problems. Please do not insist that I practice the Golden Rule as well. In fact if you believe in the Golden Rule and you want me to practice the Golden Rule, you should practice the Golden Rule whether or not I practice it

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  8. Re:Darfur by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... There is no "genocide",

    You sir should be put against the wall and shot in the face.

  9. i agree to a point by someone1234 · · Score: 1

    You should have said: Google is nice to strong evil people and a jerk to weak evil people.

    --
    Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
    1. Re:i agree to a point by PhoenixAtlantios · · Score: 1

      Morality is a point of view, the measure of one's power is (arguably) more solid. The Weasel Rule will apply to many more things than a mere "evil company" so using that example was likely more beneficial.

    2. Re:i agree to a point by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      jerk to just people. There are two sides in the conflict in Darfur, labeling one of them evil and the other "good" is stupid and juvenile. Wake up!

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  10. Re:Darfur by de_valentin · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Do you actually have ANY idea what is going on there???

    maybe genocide is the wrong word but hundreds of thousands dying and even more fleeing for their lives and living in refuge-camps is not something that is pushed by western governments.
    There never was a reason to televise some Africans kill other Africans (in fact one party consists of muslim nomads)
    To be specific the whole Darfur crisis is allready several years old most people don't give a damn because there is no oil.

    I'm not saying Bush should have led the world in an war in Sudan but it would have probably been more usefull (not counting the oil) and saved more lives.

    I'm sorry for not being very eloquent.
    But the bottomline is this, the more people know what is going on out there the bigger the chance that something gets done.

    --
    It's no big deal some of my best friends are M$ certified engineers
  11. Yahoo by Threni · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Is Google about to show where the prisons were the Chinese torture people who try and spread democracy?

    1. Re:Yahoo by heytal · · Score: 1

      Ah.. Finally, someone using the term Yahoo to mean anything other than Yahoo!

    2. Re:Yahoo by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      You know what's sad? Ignoring the validity of your claim, the actions of the US government and their misguided attempts to force democracy on countries unprepared for it, particularly Iraq, has resulted in my developing a kneejerk negative reaction to any claims about "spreading democracy" anywhere. It just sounds so blindly dogmatic, as if, right now, I can picture you wrapping yourself in the American flag and chanting the pledge of allegiance with your fingers in your ears. And *that*, I think, will be the sort of legacy Bush leaves behind.

    3. Re:Yahoo by Threni · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm not sure where you get the idea that the US is attempting to spread democracy. That's what they say they do, sure, but you don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to take a look at the last 50 odd years of US foreign policy and see that they tend to do the opposite.

    4. Re:Yahoo by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      Oh, I never said they actually did what they claim, or achieved those supposed goals. Simply that their dogma has tainted any legitimate attempt to discuss the idea of promoting the growth and development of democratic governments.

    5. Re:Yahoo by flyingsquid · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Damn you nailed that one.

      I'm a centrist Democrat, but I was cautiously in favor of the Iraq war. I didn't believe that Saddam was a threat, or that he was linked to Al Qaeda, but I believed that, where possible, American military power should be used to make the world a better place. I figured, if invading resulted in fewer Iraqi deaths than not invading, then even if the reasons for going to war were bullshit, it was arguably the right thing to do. I don't buy into the knee-jerk liberal sentiment that war is always wrong: intervening in Kosovo, for instance, killed a lot of people, but otherwise it probably would have been a bloodbath. There was even a term for people like me: "liberal hawk", leftists who were in favor of using American military power abroad, where it had the potential to make things better.

      But Bush and his hacks have basically discredited that idea. They've given ammunition to the far left, who maintain that war is always the wrong option (war is always a bad option, but sometimes not going to war is worse). They've given ammunition to the isolationists to the right, who say that even though we have the power to change the world for the better, we shouldn't try. He's destroyed the U.S. army, such that even if we wanted to intervene in places like Darfur, we'd have a much harder time. And for the next generation, any time the U.S. tries to apply pressure to human rights violators, they'll look back at us and say, "what about Abu Ghraib, and Guantanamo? Who are you Americans to lecture us about human rights and due process?"

    6. Re:Yahoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find some of your opinions refreshing; specifically, that war isn't always wrong. Sometimes simply talking with or putting sanctions on non-peaceful people isn't enough.

      > And for the next generation, any time the U.S. tries to apply pressure to human rights violators, they'll look back at us and say, "what about Abu Ghraib, and Guantanamo? Who are you Americans to lecture us about human rights and due process?"

      Though many might make this argument, I think it's bogus. Would the human rights violators in question all of a sudden answer the accusations were it another country (not USA) making the criticisms? I doubt it. Nor would they if USA was "without sin": no Abu Ghraib, no Guantanamo, no black lynchings, no slavery, no civil war, no bad treatment of natives, and so on. Tu quoque is used here to deflect criticism. We Soviets kill millions of civilians, but America lynches black people! Obviously this doesn't absolve the Soviets, nor would it absolve Americans were the argument reversed.

    7. Re:Yahoo by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If we'd attacked Iraq during Saddam's war against the marsh arabs I would've been sympathetic. But we stood by and supported his bloody war against Iran and did nothing while he committed the crimes (gassings, etc) that were supposedly so horrible. We did nothing during Rawanda either. Our record has long been one of intervention for power or money (Spain, Guatemala, Vietnam) not for moral reasons. We only fought the Japanese when they attacked Pearl Harbor, not when they'd already been slaughtering the Chinese for many years. I'd say the Korean war was justifiable though as it was an invasion and Stalin's support was behind it.

      We also need to learn to stay the hell out of civil wars unless genocide is taking place. You just end up with both sides hating you. You can bomb all you want but unless you address the root cause it'll never go away (Palestine).

      BTW, Liberal Hawks were actually the norm in the 30-40s. Anti-fascist sentiment supported the use of military force.

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    8. Re:Yahoo by rawtatoor · · Score: 1

      American military power should be used to make the world a better place.

      The American military should be used for the defense of America. Any other use, however noble is illegitimate.

    9. Re:Yahoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I'd say the Korean war was justifiable though as it was an invasion and Stalin's support was behind it. ...
      We also need to learn to stay the hell out of civil wars unless genocide is taking place.


      How the hell can say both of those and keep a straight face? Stalin's support? Russia didn't put a single troop in Korea, and you're claiming it was fine to take part in what was, in essence, a civil war? Tell me then, aside from a little French Imperialism early on, what was so different about intervening in Vietnam that made it so morally repugnant to you? The fact that we did it badly? That more Americans died? That is ex post facto justifaction and has no basis in logic. The problem with those conflicts wasn't the justification, it was the relative difficulty. So it is also in Iraq. If we could've gotten in and out in a year, and made a stable democratic Iraq, people would be lauding Bush, not complaining that it wasn't our right to do it.

    10. Re:Yahoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only democracy, but Christianity as well. Friends of mine went to China and were planning on preaching at a small church (to which they were invited) out in the country when (government sponsored) anti-Christian rallys broke out the day before. In the (government controlled) newspaper for the area, headlines were made that weekend when over 400 (Hindu-converted) Christians were (forcibly) converted back to Hindus. When my friends spoke to local (underground) Christians, they found out that these people were beaten and dragged out of their homes and lead to an empty field where they were told to convert or be executed. How many points on a map will there be for these types of events?

    11. Re:Yahoo by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

      Korean War (from wikipedia): "The principal support on the side of the North was China, with limited assistance by Soviet combat advisors, military pilots, and weapons."

      It was technically a civil war but the Korean War had large amounts of foreign troops ("The Chinese made contact with American troops on October 25, 1950 with 270,000 PVA"). Sorry but I consider Stalin no differently than Hitler and anything he supported was worth blocking. It was fought by conventional armies with little if any grassroots support. Vietnam was fought pretty much by Vietnamese with an intense guerrila war unlike Korea.

      Don't know why you are bringing up US casualties since I never mentioned them. But since you bring them up the time spent fighting does make a difference (it is the misery caused that is one of major moral issues).

      Your saying "[but if it] made a stable democratic Iraq" is as pointless as saying "what if aliens landed and freed Iraq". It wasn't going to happen and any reasonable person knew it.

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    12. Re:Yahoo by SEE · · Score: 1

      Hmm.

      I look that the last 50 years of history, and I see the most powerful country in the world during that time saying it's trying to spread democracy.

      I also see that, in fact, democracy has been spreading during that time, and the spread accelerated once the most powerful rival to that country during that period collapsed in upon itself.

      Perhaps it is actually possible that said country followed a foreign policy designed to genuinely promote democracy overall, even if there were some deviations and errors, both real and merely superficial?

  12. Pull the other one by Don_dumb · · Score: 1

    Do you really think that people dont know you were the grand parent ac you are agreeing with? The very next thread is by you and making the same crazy argument that "there is no 'genocide'"

    And by the way a five character post that has more in the title than the comment is not insightful.

    --
    If this were really happening, what would you think?
    1. Re:Pull the other one by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      Umm, I read it as sarcasm...

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    2. Re:Pull the other one by Don_dumb · · Score: 1

      Read his other posts on this thread first. This guy is either a supertroll or crazy.

      --
      If this were really happening, what would you think?
  13. Re:Darfur by lucabrasi999 · · Score: 1
    There is war in Sudan that should be resolved internally. There is no "genocide", applying this term is deliberate and malicious exaggeration of inevitable civilian casualties in the armed internal conflict. For the same purposes one could have called Americian Civil War a "genocide".

    Obviously, you are trolling.

  14. Censorship by LarsWestergren · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Google Earth (and all similar satelite imagery tools) are just amazing... How long before, for instance, China bans its citizens from using it you think?

    In a similar area, Slashdot posted before about maps overAmerican strip mining. Others have collected other links to deforestation, coral reefs, etc.

    --

    Being bitter is drinking poison and hoping someone else will die

    1. Re:Censorship by CaseyB · · Score: 1

      How long before, for instance, China bans its citizens from using it you think?

      Why would they? Google works with them to ensure that China's citizens see exactly what their government wants them to.

    2. Re:Censorship by LarsWestergren · · Score: 1

      Why would they? Google works with them to ensure that China's citizens see exactly what their government wants them to.

      Good point... I guess what I meant was that more governments will try to use carrots and sticks on Google to make them present data in the way they want. Swedish company Eniro for instance, have edited away Swedish military bases from all their satellite images. Yep, nothing to see here, just forests and lakes... unless you compare it side by side with Google Earth. Oops! :D

      --

      Being bitter is drinking poison and hoping someone else will die

  15. Recent news Microsoft will be highlighting Darfur by unity100 · · Score: 1, Funny

    Too !

  16. liberal communists from cnn take over google??? by Adult+film+producer · · Score: 0, Troll

    next thing you know google will be showing pictures of iraq and blaming bush for the disaster that happened there, fukken democrats. you google people need to show patriotism and stop blaming bush, all you libs got is hate for bush. cut & run is not a strategy.

    The south will rise again, let freedom reign!!

    1. Re:liberal communists from cnn take over google??? by Kleokat · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Is this a joke?

    2. Re:liberal communists from cnn take over google??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Since it flew right over your head, yes.

  17. Yahoo are not a winning brand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Do not let the cartoon like Yahoo logo deceive you. Yahoo is a word that existed long before the internet company and will forever be associated with rednecks.

    Many consider revealing private user information to a totalitarian regime with an illustrious history of human rights violations to be distasteful. But remember, Yahoo operate globally and also co-operate with the Chinese communist party.

    The Yahoo homepage is a vomit-inducing light blue pastel and red with two tone yellow buttons. Such a tasteless design can only be the result of Indian labor. Clearly Yahoo could employ a western design agency to create a winning design. Unfortunately, such action would not be consistent with the Yahoo ethos.

    In conclusion, we can say that by association or action, Yahoo endorse:
    • Exploiting cheap third world labor
    • Revealing the identities of dissident Chinese bloggers to their government
    • Slaughter of indeginous species (eg: American Indians)
    • Lynching blacks (redneck term: "niggers")

    I'm sure you all agree that Yahoo is not a winning brand.
  18. Re:Darfur by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 4, Informative

    Even if it is some pointless war, someone should put an end to it, because the government there is obviously not willing to do it.

    If you've got a plan, you should share it. But for a lot of people, it will be a tough sell. Pretty much everyone is aware of what happened when the US intervened in Iraq. Many people still remember Somalia. Why would this turn out differently if "someone put an end to it"? That's a serious question.

    --
    I am not a crackpot.
  19. Realistically by rlp · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The UN, the EU, and the Arab League say it's not a problem. The US says it is a problem, but is stretched pretty thin right now. So, nothings going to change any time soon.

    --
    [Insert pithy quote here]
    1. Re:Realistically by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 1

      The UN, the EU, and the Arab League say it's not a problem.

      Got anything to back that up with (all parties, not just the arab league)? Or are you talking out of your ass?

      --
      There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
    2. Re:Realistically by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The US says it is a problem, [...]

      Well, this is not surprising... Darfur is close to some nice oil resources. Just like the US helped and liberated Iraq, there are good reason to help the nice people of Darfur.

      If you want to convince everybody that some US action is urgently needed in Darfur, why not start by showing images of the war that is taking place there? Sure, there is a war there and as with all wars, it is not nice at all. But calling it a genocide is going a bit far. And Darfur is unfortunately not the only place in the world where people are killing each other. Iraq had twice as many casualties so far. Why don't we focus on that first? Because it does not serve the political interests of our US government? (not anymore)

      Please take a look a this insightful comment posted in the blog linked in the article:

      Piper Apr 11th, 2007 - 23:43:33

      This is not an apolitical move. Darfur is located on top of some large oil reserves that a Chinese oil company currently has dibs on. Sudan geography alone makes it an important strategic point. (it's connection to the read sea, important rivers, relation to Mideast and Africa etc.) The US government wants the ability to create a pretense to get its hands in Darfur, just as it did in Iraq. The demonstration against the genocide last year included speakers from congress and the state department. The amount of people killed is really quite smaller than those killed in Iraq. (about 200,000 vs. 655,000-900,000 deaths) Genocide has only been an issue for our government when money and power are at stake. The Sudanese government is supporting the massacres in order to push rebels and the communities that support them off the oil rich land. Given our government's record, there's no reason to think this would stop if they stepped in to get the oil themselves. Most likely the violence would increase because the political pressure to stop the killing would disapear. That a holocaust museum is involved isn't suprising. Most holocaust institutions (not to mention Jewish institutions) have been taken over by a leadership that actively collaborates with American imperialism. Instead of drawing real lessons from the holocaust that could prevent another one (such as the need for a working class movement, the threat a collapsing capitalist system poses, and the need Jews have to align ourselves with workers and oppressed nationalities (including and especially Palestinians) in order to build a new world etc.) Holocaust rememberance has been primarily used to bolster the image of American imperialism and shield it's junior parters in the Israeli government from attack. (Just one instance: The entire justification for war in Iraq was basically: Saddam=Hitler) This Darfur propaganda is only the latest installment.
    3. Re:Realistically by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should it be our problem? We didn't start the war. I don't think our men and women need to go out and put their lives on the line just to deal with somebody's pathetic tribal squabbles.

    4. Re:Realistically by lucabrasi999 · · Score: 1

      If you read this(and it is filled with diplomatic language), you will see that the UN Security Council is at least trying to say something. Considering how slow diplomacy is, this might be the strongest language you will see on the subject. Also, the UN has this organization involved. The African Union is also at least attempting to do something. I think ALL of these organizations need to do more, but exactly what and how much more, I can't say. Nation-building is a treacherous exercise (just ask George W. Bush).

    5. Re:Realistically by smilingman · · Score: 1

      I think you need a little lesson in geopolitics (and some spelling wouldn't hurt either). Yes, Sudan has oil. So what? Unlike Iraq, it's geographically isolated and unindustrialized. Besides, Iraq is a financial drain and political and military nightmare for the US, and hasn't even paid off for the companies who got the oil contracts. The US isn't even thinking about invading Sudan right now, believed me. The post you quote is just an anti-semitic screed.

      "Most holocaust institutions (not to mention Jewish institutions) have been taken over by a leadership that actively collaborates with American imperialism."?

      ...Seriously. Paging Hamas...

  20. Huh? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Is there oil in Sudan, or why...

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:Huh? by FunWithKnives · · Score: 1
      --
      "We may face a scorched and lifeless earth, but they're accountable to their shareholders first."
    2. Re:Huh? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Ah, ok, then it makes sense.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  21. Re:Darfur by lucabrasi999 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Actually, Sudan most definitely has oil. Oil rights were one of the primary causes of the recent civil war between the Sudanese government and the Christian/Animist south. (As a reminder, THAT civil war has been settled and was a different conflict than the events in Darfur.) I do not know if the Darfur region of Sudan has oil.

  22. Bosnia a good counterexample by BitterAndDrunk · · Score: 1
    Clinton/UN intervened in Bosnia/Kosovo as well, and helped stop a genocide.

    Obviously the situation is complicated, but a lack of intervention will ultimately be worse for the region than any meddling of "imperialist powers". It's really tragic what's happening there and the idea that not doing anything is a better alternative "because of Iraq" is a sad approach.

    It's intellectually repugnant, as well.

    --
    You better watch out, there may be dogs about . . .
    1. Re:Bosnia a good counterexample by Cyberax · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes? What sort of Kool-aid do you drink?

      About a quarter million of serbs were forced to move after the end of "humanitarian bombings" ("After the war ended, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1244 that placed Kosovo under transitional UN administration (UNMIK) and authorized KFOR, a NATO-led peacekeeping force. Almost immediately returning Kosovo Albanians attacked Kosovo Serbs [1], causing some 200,000-280,000[20] Serbs and other non-Albanians[21] to flee"). But that's not a genocide, sure. That's just a "normal migration".

      And now Kosovo is the major center of drug trafficking in Europe and poverty levels there are highest in Europe.

      Maybe you should read transcripts of Milosevic's trial? Have you ever wondered why such prominent trial was not widely published? My brother did a research for his term paper and found that the court found sufficient evidence for exactly ONE case of war crimes.

    2. Re:Bosnia a good counterexample by lucabrasi999 · · Score: 2, Informative
      Maybe you should read transcripts of Milosevic's trial? Have you ever wondered why such prominent trial was not widely published?

      Not widely published? Did you ever actually search on the subject? I count 31 references in the Wikipedia article alone. I imagine a Google search would pull up thousands of articles.


      My brother did a research for his term paper and found that the court found sufficient evidence for exactly ONE case of war crimes.

      Not to disrespect your family, but I will not accept "My brother's term paper" as a valid source for the trial of Slobodan Milosevic. Maybe we could all start by reading some of the references in the Wikipedia article I linked to above. On top of that, considering that international law is such a convoluted subject, it's a miracle the Milosevic was ever extradited.


      About a quarter million of serbs were forced to move after the end of "humanitarian bombings" ("After the war ended, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1244 that placed Kosovo under transitional UN administration (UNMIK) and authorized KFOR, a NATO-led peacekeeping force. Almost immediately returning Kosovo Albanians attacked Kosovo Serbs [1], causing some 200,000-280,000[20] Serbs and other non-Albanians[21] to flee"). But that's not a genocide, sure. That's just a "normal migration".

      As for your worries about the Serbs and the Kosovo problems, now maybe the Serbians will understand what happened when their proxies (the Bosnian Serbs) performed "ethnic cleansing" on Bosnian Muslims. In other words, the Serbs ended up receiving the same treatment they had been giving everyone else in the Balkans.

      If the Serbs want respect, maybe they should have been respectful of others.

    3. Re:Bosnia a good counterexample by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      Compare Milosevic trial with Saddam's trial. Do you see any difference?

      Oh, and do you remember photo of concentration camp with poor starving Albanians? Which turned out to be a holding center for Serb refugees?

      So are you saying that genocide of Serbs is OK since they did that to Albanians earlier? Maybe we should use biological weapons on the USA population because US did that to native Americans earlier?

      Do you realize that almost every war results in war crimes? Why don't we see Albanian warlords tried for their crimes?

    4. Re:Bosnia a good counterexample by treat · · Score: 3, Informative
      Maybe you should read transcripts of Milosevic's trial? Have you ever wondered why such prominent trial was not widely published? My brother did a research for his term paper and found that the court found sufficient evidence for exactly ONE case of war crimes.

      That trial was the biggest injustice I've ever seen, after reading a lot of the transcripts. For example, a witness would testify against him for more than a day, and he would be "allowed" to cross examine, but given no time to do so - after one or two questions, he's told his time is up.

    5. Re:Bosnia a good counterexample by lucabrasi999 · · Score: 1
      So are you saying that genocide of Serbs is OK since they did that to Albanians earlier? Maybe we should use biological weapons on the USA population because US did that to native Americans earlier

      A couple of points in reply

      One -- I never mentioned Albania. I mentioned Bosnia. Those are two different wars. In Bosnia, you had the events in Srebrenica. And, Serbia has been held responsible for those genocidal events.

      Two -- You appear to be confusing the term genocide with refugee. In short, Genocide is the murder of an entire people. Refugee is someone that flees from danger. In your OP, you mention that about 250,000 Serbs were displaced. Displacement is NOT genocide, they are refugees. Someone being forced to leave their home and live in a camp some distance away is a horrible event. But it is NOT genocide. So, you cannot compare the displacement of the Kosovo Serbs with the events in Srebrenica.

      Yes, I know the history of the United States. The peoples who settled this country were probably guilty of genocidal acts to the Native Americans, although no one has ever been formally accused of these acts by the UN. If the Albanians have permitted genocide to take place, they should be put on trial. But, based on your evidence, you are referring to displacement. Again, that is NOT genocide and, as far as I know, it is not illegal according to the UN.

    6. Re:Bosnia a good counterexample by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      Clinton/UN intervened in Bosnia/Kosovo as well, and helped stop a genocide.

      Sorry, but the UN had nothing to do with it. Remember, Milosovich has the Russians in his pocket and Russians wield veto power. No, the UN was as powerless in Kosovo as it is anywhere else. Kosovo was a NATO operation.

      Otherwise, your post is 100% correct.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    7. Re:Bosnia a good counterexample by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I've overlooked 'Bosnia'. Yes, the role of NATO and UN in the resolution of Bosnia conflict was more successful than the later conflict.

      I'm not confusing 'genocide' with 'refugee', I'm confusing 'genocide' with 'ethnic cleansing'. Albanians permitted large scale ethnic cleanings which are also prohibited by international law.

    8. Re:Bosnia a good counterexample by toQDuj · · Score: 1

      "Compare Milosevic trial with Saddam's trial. Do you see any difference?"

      Oh, absolutely. Whilst the Saddam trial was quite the political show-trial which could only have one outcome to save a certain president's face, the Milosevic trial was a proper trial. The latter was much less of a political statement than the first.

      I was honestly appalled by a US-led government blatantly ignoring human rights to a fair trial and decapitating (!) him. Is that the example the US wants to make? As in "Don't like your enemies? Here's what `civilised' people do:...". Yes, sure, that will show them.

      B.

      --
      Every experiment which ends in a big bang is a good experiment.
    9. Re:Bosnia a good counterexample by Domini+Canes · · Score: 1

      Hi, I will interject in your interesting discussion with just one, nitpicking comment -
      we are talking about serious things here and any additional insight helps :)

      Performing genocide on some people and (forcibly)displacing some people are two closely related activities,
      and their moral standings are not that different - forced displacement is only slightly better than genocide
      (of course everything depends on the details - the conditions of the people after displacement;
      heh, there is not much variation in condition of the people after genocide :/).

      In the displacement case displacing people strips the displaced people of the resources,
      lowering their living std, causing (some number of)deaths.

      what follows below are hypothetical/theoretical/historical examples, not related
      to the Balkans conflict in any way. I do not have much info about the conditions, under
      which displacements occurred in Balkans conflict hence do not have my opinion on these

      E.g. tribe A displaces tribe B from their homeland into the desert. Tribe B
      dies of because of the thirst (die-off may be slow, stretching for several generations).
      (by the way, I've read that in israeli/palestinian conflicts there were some dirty
      games played with access and use of water - very relevant)

      E.g. soldiers show up at the doors of people in some region, and give you 5 minutes to
      pack their items and get out. Its winter outside and maybe 50% of the displaced people
      (especially children & elderly) freeze to death during the first night of their march
      on foot out of the region.

      Even in the most benign cases of displacement, displaced people are stripped of their
      homes and their socio-economic fiber (jobs, shops, schools, hospitals etc) is ripped apart.
      And there will be deaths - from the environment (freeze - mentioned above), from the
      food (ok, starvation is rare, since man can go for a couple of weeks with no food at all,
      but water issues are more acute), from diseases (dysenteria in the refugee camps),
      from criminal murders (crime level jumps).

      Compare this to the genocide, where there is a deliberate and targeted murderings
      of some group of people. The result is also some (albeit much higher) percentage
      of deaths of people in the target group.

      Hell, it could even be argued that genocides/memecides performed by the soviets
      and nazis in the 20th century were not genocides but "displacements" -
      people were displaced into the concentration camps, where they died "naturally"
      because of too little food and too much work.
      Direct executions were comparatively rare - it is economically profitable to
      work people to death instead of wasting 9grams of lead on them. Cold fact of life :/.

      So, I do not see many sharp qualitative differences between the two; difference is mostly
      quantitative. There is a continuum between the two and rather benign displacement might
      smoothly mutate into a fully fledged genocide.

    10. Re:Bosnia a good counterexample by lucabrasi999 · · Score: 1

      Good points. And, I must correct an earlier post. I did a search and forcibly displacing a peoples IS indeed a crime against humanity. This link explains what are considered to be crimes against humanity. It also explains the difference between "genocide" and "displacement".

      Now, what does that mean for Kosovo? In the UN's defense, they have set up the UNMIK to help administer the region. They even set up a court system that is staffed by international judges. One of the goals in using international judges is to try an limit the claims of ethnic bias.

      Will that resolve the issues? Will that make all Serbians happy given their claims against the Albanians? Probably not. But, at least the UN is trying to do something about it. It isn't a perfect solution, but it's better than NOT doing anything. The UN will be in Kosovo for years, hopefully, they will bring justice when justice is required.

  23. Re:Darfur by jandrese · · Score: 1

    You might want to lay off of the Arab media there. I think it's damaging your brain.

    --

    I read the internet for the articles.
  24. Economic Benefit by Brian+Cohen · · Score: 1

    At first, it surprises me a little that Google is now highlighting the Darfur genocide, because I usually don't see Google participation in humanitarian efforts. But this does generate a lot of good press at very little cost, and that doesn't surprise me that Google would take this easy opportunity to reaffirm their "Do no evil" corporate mantra. Have your PR department post it to Slashdot to reach the IT industry and other likely potential customers.

    1. Re:Economic Benefit by brian_tanner · · Score: 2, Informative
      C'mon. They have the Google.org charity which has been planned from the start and is apparently described in their IPO. It was big news about a year ago...

      There is a story about it here: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2005-10-12-googl e-charity_x.htm

      From the article:

      Among its goals, the online search giant will fund for-profit start-ups that also aim for social good, such as a program promoting entrepreneurship in western Africa. Overall, Google executives said Tuesday, its philanthropy will target three areas worldwide: poverty, the environment and energy.
  25. Is it bad? by hernyo · · Score: 1

    I don't think it's definitely bad showing people what's going on in the world. The Darfur disaster is not a popular one - everyone knows about Iraq, but few people know about Darfur. Inventing a tool which would encourage people to read / care more about this issue is just a good thing, resulting in higher chance for future actions to solve the problem (foundations, donations, lobby, etc).

    1. Re:Is it bad? by drgonzo59 · · Score: 1
      You've nailed it. It is in fact all about the media. What we see and care about and talk about is what the media lets us see and hear. For instance, think of a smaller scale. How come when a cute blonde girl gets kidnapped the whole country in an uproar? But do you know that there are hundreds of girls that are not blonde and cute that also get kidnapped killed and raped but the media never bothers to make it a story and consequency we as a society never "bother to care".


      Same thing in Darfur, we know about it only as much as the media tells us. If CNN decided to make Darfur the main news item for a whole week, you'd be surprized how you'd have all this charity effort, everyone would be collecting money, sending aid, before you know the government will get involved and so on. Even though I despise hollywood and it's puppets but I admire the few actors (like Clooney for ex.) who bother to go to Africa, even if just to atract attention to the problem.


  26. Well then I have a question for you... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If intervention in Sudan will stop the genocide, who the hell cares what the motivation is?

    1. Re:Well then I have a question for you... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I think that the anonymous gp was just pointing out that Darfur/Sudan == the next Iraq.

      Or at least there are some strong hints of manipulation of the public opinion in a way that is very similar to what happened before we started to "free the Iraqi people". Remember all these atrocities in Iraq that were reported on TV and in the press? Remember how the Iraqi people were suffering under the rule of Saddam (not to mention the WMDs)? Doesn't this exposure of "genocide" in Darfur look surprisingly similar?

    2. Re:Well then I have a question for you... by rcs1000 · · Score: 1

      I think you'll find there were atrocities committed in Iraq by Saddam and his cronies. Long before he became a Bush target, leftist-liberal organisations like Amnesty here in the UK made terrible revelations about his regime. Indeed, these organisations lambasted the US government for supporting Saddam's regime at the time. It is terribly misleading to claim that all these stories were plants by the right wing media.

      Indeed, six months after the fall of Saddam The Spectator (a broadly right wing, in the UK sense, yet anti war magazine) commissioned a poll of Iraqis. The poll basically said: we'd like the Americans to leave as soon as possible. But when asked what they'd prefer, only a few percent saif they'd like the return of Saddam. And the vast majority of people said they were glad he'd gone.

      This does not make the war right or just. To quote British anti-war politician Charles Kennedy, there is something profoundly disturbing about the concept of regime change. (And how right he was to question it.) But it is utterly misleading to think that Saddam's regime was anything but murderous and brutish.

      It is similar in Dafur. Forget the oil. Unless you think organisations like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty, and newspapers like The Guardian, are in the pockets of the CIA, then you must admit there is terrible and nasty stuff going on there. Whether it is right for the US to intervene is another matter all together. To quote philosopher Michael Waltzer: '[T]he campaign against the war should never have been only an antiwar campaign. It should have been a campaign for a strong international system, designed and organized to defeat aggression, control weapons of mass destruction, stop massacres and ethnic cleansing, and assist in the politics of transition after brutal regimes are overthrown.'

      --
      --- My dad's political betting
    3. Re:Well then I have a question for you... by jcnnghm · · Score: 1

      The real problem is that there is so much hypocrisy in the Left. The liberal media is in favor of stopping the genocide in Darfur, but also in favor of causing one by pulling out of Iraq. If the United States pulled out today, Iraq would be pretty likely to fall into a state of anarchy, followed by civil war and potential genocide.

      Worse yet, if we were to intervene in Darfur, as soon as we get there the left would insist that we leave. It's a lose lose proposition, especially for the poor bastards that are gonna die over it.

      --
      You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer. - Winston Churchill
    4. Re:Well then I have a question for you... by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      There is already a civil war in Iraq by pretty much all objective definitions that I've seen. Ostensibly, the White House doesn't want to call it a civil war because it evokes the US civil war, but the dissimilarities of circumstances don't prevent it from being called a civil war, and that we are policing it by putting our troops and our resources on the line. Stability cannot justly be achieved through military might alone, and I don't see any credible non-military effort to stabilize the country. It's really a war of ideas and ideologies, and that are not properly fought with guns.

      I think the blood is currently on "W"'s hands because it's almost the most mismanaged US conflict I am aware of, and the primary reasons for invading turned out to be lies, distortions and FUD. Vietnam might be worse because it was over a decade of mismanagement by several administrations, W has managed to compress that into four years and one administration.

      Basically, the current plan is to keep troops there forever. No one will admit it, but it's basically true. For example, we still keep active bases in Germany, and the reasons to stay has mostly evaporated. The animosities in Iraq existed before the US was founded and will probably go on until after the US is long gone from the earth.

  27. Intervention doesn't happen. by kahei · · Score: 0, Troll


    Nobody intervenes to help the Ingush, nobody intervenes to help the Ossetes, nobody intervenes to help the Karens. Look them up.

    Nobody intervened to help the Tibetans, nobody intervened to help the Karelians, nobody intervened to help the Andamanese. Look them up too, the Andamanese are fascinating.

    Nobody intervened to help the entire population of North America when they were overrun by Europeans and nobody intervened to help the entire population of north-east Asia when they were overrun by Han and Russians and nobody intervened to help the entire pre-Islamic world from Spain to India when it was overrun by Arabs.

    Nobody intervened to help the Beaker Folk, the Picts, the Achaean as opposed to Dorian Greeks, the Helots, or the pre-Cro Magnon subspecies of humans.

    BUT YES LET'S ALL INTERVENE IN DARFUR. That'll make it all OK.

    --
    Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
    1. Re:Intervention doesn't happen. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because it's always better to let things go as they've always went.

      wait, shouldn't this site be pro-innovation ?

    2. Re:Intervention doesn't happen. by Kleokat · · Score: 1

      If a rich oil source is found, then things might change ...

    3. Re:Intervention doesn't happen. by garett_spencley · · Score: 1

      BUT YES LET'S ALL INTERVENE IN DARFUR. That'll make it all OK.

      No one has said anything about making it "all OK". But it's never too late to start doing something, and something is better than nothing so long as what you're doing is actually accomplishing something and not making things worse.

      Sure. We can be judged for our past actions, or past inactions. That hardly means that we can't start doing things now.

    4. Re:Intervention doesn't happen. by Abcd1234 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wow. Great strawman. Very well built, and you really knocked it over with verve.

      But the problem, you see, is that no is claiming that "That'll make it all OK"... that's where your strawman becomes embarassingly obvious to anyone paying attention. The point isn't to somehow atone for all of "our" past sins by aiding the people of Darfur, the point is to *aid the people of Darfur*.

      But, you go on feeling all self-righteous and smug about your spectacular knowledge of the dead and persecuted peoples of the world. Meanwhile, others will actually try and do something in the hopes that such things will be stopped or outright prevented in the future.

    5. Re:Intervention doesn't happen. by DanQuixote · · Score: 2, Insightful


      Your point is solid, but non-compelling.

      Past sins do not command future performance. Let's learn already!

      --
      "We think people rightly feel that once they buy something, it stays bought," --Suw Charman, Open Rights Grp
    6. Re:Intervention doesn't happen. by The+Cydonian · · Score: 1

      Andamanese?

    7. Re:Intervention doesn't happen. by dmartin · · Score: 1

      Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

    8. Re:Intervention doesn't happen. by Pyrrhic+Diarrhea · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up. Mod strawman down.

    9. Re:Intervention doesn't happen. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      buy/rent/download whatever the movie blood diamond, it does a good job of humanifying the strugle over that issue. great emotional movie that makes you think (i hope, my girlfriends sister just laughed when i asked if they still liked diamonds) i hope it will make people think at least more than it did since it has been out for a while.

    10. Re:Intervention doesn't happen. by sarathmenon · · Score: 1

      Nobody intervened to help the Tibetans, nobody intervened to help the Karelians, nobody intervened to help the Andamanese. Look them up too, the Andamanese are fascinating.
      What's wrong with the Andamanese? They are part of India, and I haven't heard any racial/political conflicts there since independence. Do you have a link somewhere?
      --
      Microsoft: "You've got questions. We've got dancing paperclips."
  28. Darfur is about oil - again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    If you do a search on "darfur oil sudan" you will find some speculations, that this genocide is clandestinely orchestrated by western agents. Behind the scene it seems to be a covert struggle between China, Europe and US interests for these resources. The humanitarian efforts seem to be misused for gaining leverage. Of course this will be labeled as a conspiracy theory, but a grain of truth is always at the core of such speculations. Also notice how this aspect is not reported by the media.

  29. Where is Armenian Genocide?Chinese Political camps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Armenian Genocide will be also highlighted?

      How about Chinese political camps?

    Sorry~ more of political "fell good move" on things that very few can argue about it, Google is all like flexing its muscles. Good for them, but too cowardly to deal with other where it might lose money.

      Fake brawado on Google part.

  30. Sources please? by BitterAndDrunk · · Score: 1

    You have cites, yet no sources indicating where they were cited from. I'm interested in exploring your points, but can't without any sort of credible source.

    --
    You better watch out, there may be dogs about . . .
    1. Re:Sources please? by Cyberax · · Score: 2, Informative

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo#Kosovo_after_t he_war - this article cites a lot of credible references (see the list below). There is much more material in Russian. You can google for it yourself.

      It was publicized a bit by Russian TV and newspapers, but Europe completely is silent about the whole Kosovo situation. Small wonder, because number of misplaced Serbs exceed number of Albanian refugees misplaced by evil Milosevic.

  31. Re:Darfur by Dachannien · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you don't know anything about American history, don't start spouting off about it. While the total numbers of deaths in the American Civil War and the Darfur ethnic cleansing are similar, most of the deaths in the ACW were soldiers, and the deaths were in the same range on each side (around 300k). Most of the deaths in Darfur are civilians. The Confederacy proclaimed independence and was willing to fight to back it up. They had the resources and technology to wage a strong battle, though they eventually lost, in part due to international assistance provided to the Union.

    A better comparison would be the killing of native Americans throughout the 19th century, where hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed and many more displaced from their homes. While the native Americans certainly tried to fight back (as I'm sure the civilians of Darfur are trying to do against the Janjaweed soldiers), it was largely a slaughter due to the overwhelming technology, tactics, numbers, and government support of the United States military.

    And guess what? It was wrong then, and such things are still wrong now.

    If the independent Islamic government of Sudan doesn't wish to be undermined, it should stop supporting the extermination of civilians and actually resolve this "internal conflict". They do nothing to prevent it - to the contrary, they support the killing - and that's why much of the West is pushing the issue.

  32. Newsflash: Tony Blair commits Thoughtcrime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  33. golden rule by bug1 · · Score: 1

    I thought the golden rule was "who has the most gold makes the rules", but i guess thats the same as the weasel rule if you are the strongest.

    1. Re:golden rule by Manchot · · Score: 1

      What is usually referred to as "The Golden Rule" is the basic principle found in all major religions:
      "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
      "None of you truly believes until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself."
      "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself:"
      "What you do not wish upon yourself, extend not to others"
      "This is the sum of duty; do naught unto others what you would not have them do unto you."
      "One should seek for others the happiness one desires for one's self."

      The saying that you're referring to ("Whoever has the gold makes the rules") is basically a satirical take on the original Golden Rule.

    2. Re:golden rule by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering that it predates all major religions, it is not surprising that it found its way into all of them.

  34. Fire icons by Dersaidin · · Score: 0

    When I saw the number of fire icons littering the region I was horrified. Then I was amazed at how horrific icons can be.

    1. Re:Fire icons by mattatwork · · Score: 1

      The number of icons/landmarks really puts into perspective how serious the situation has been and currently is. It's been nice that they've added pictures that put a face to this conflict. In some of the areas where villages have been attacked, it's difficult to zoom in and really see the devastation(a great deal of Sudan appears to be old satellite photos). Hopefully Google/USHMM can add more to each site so that it's more clear what's happened, to whom and the full extent of the conflict. Prior to this most of what I knew was from a few friends from Africa and protests covered on the news....

      --
      I've refrained from profanity, racial/ethnic epitaphs and am 5'11" - how can I be ranked as troll?
  35. Bad Stuff visibile from space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    On the note of things being visible from space, you can peer into Israel and see how the settlements relate to the Palestinian held land.
    Israel holds the high ground! Strategery aside, beneath those hills lies the water supply. The palestinians can order water via telephones and big trucks will come to deliver it. Israelis turn on the tap.

    While it isn't genocide, the israeli treatment of palestinians sure is malicious. And their walls and settlements are visible from space. Also, with all the uploadability of google earth you can see pictures from ground level of many structures and settlements.

  36. are you a human being? by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Interesting

    then it is your responsibility

    why care about rwanda? why care about iraq? why care about tiananmen square? why care about auschwitz?

    why care about any human tragedy? better to just say "not my problem", right?

    solves the problem, doesn't it? just stop caring, "not my problem"

    "I am not going to adjust my life just to make a few people with bleeding hearts feel better."

    good for you. enjoy your life. remember your statement above, when you ask anyone to care about anything you think is important. society is predicated on the fact we look out for each other. if we don't, those who mean ill will succeed: they pick us a part, one by one

    so you better care, now, when it is starving people in a third world country being butchered. tomorrow, it is something happening in your neighborhood

    poverty and suffering breeds and spreads. it must be fought in all of it's forms, now, today, or that means you only fight it tomorrow, when it is a larger problem. it does not go away on it's own, the sort of problem plaguing darfur. it grows, and spreads. you WILL deal with it, one way or another. when it is small and distant, now, or later, when it is huge and at your doorstep

    we live in a world where what happens in kandahar matters in downtown manhattan. what did you learn from 9/11?

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:are you a human being? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You avoided the question. How is it my responsibility and how does that make me hypocritical to not want to interfere?

      why care about any human tragedy? better to just say "not my problem", right?

      solves the problem, doesn't it? just stop caring, "not my problem"


      The human tragedy is the pathetic philosophy of global interventionism and meddling in foreign conflicts. I feel sorry for these people, but they will not gain anything by having someone else fight their battles for them. There is no peaceful utopia and there will never be. They have more to lose by being forever dependent on a helping hand than they do learning how to fend for themselves. Thats how evolution worked, you know.

      good for you. enjoy your life. remember your statement above, when you ask anyone to care about anything you think is important. society is predicated on the fact we look out for each other. if we don't, those who mean ill will succeed: they pick us a part, one by one

      Sudan and Darfur are not part of my society. The people are fundamentally different ethnically, racially, and culturally. I respect others outside of my nationality and ethnicity to the point where I believe they should be allowed to have their own culture and affairs. Their conflicts are not mine and getting in the middle of them tends to result in things like 9/11.

      poverty and suffering breeds and spreads. it must be fought in all of it's forms, now, today, or that means you only fight it tomorrow, when it is a larger problem. it does not go away on it's own, the sort of problem plaguing darfur. it grows, and spreads. you WILL deal with it, one way or another. when it is small and distant, now, or later, when it is huge and at your doorstep

      How will Darfur poverty become my poverty? That doesn't make sense. The success of any society is determined by the people who make up that society.

      we live in a world where what happens in kandahar matters in downtown manhattan. what did you learn from 9/11?

      I learned that getting involved in other people's affairs, such as in the middle east, tends to piss off (rightfully) other people. I don't view the act in high regard, but I understand why it happened and how it could have been easily avoided.

      War and conflicts are part of live. Get over it. Not all peoples and their cultures are equal. If some groups of people are capable of creating prosperity and defending themselves while others are not, then too bad. I don't like what is happening in Darfur, but its none of my goddamn ed business. My conscience is clear as long as I know that I am not supporting any particular side in the conflict and that my country's foreign policy is not trying to change the outcome of the situation. If it is, then I want to know about it so I can make some noise and tell them to stop.

    2. Re:are you a human being? by Kelbear · · Score: 1

      U.S has enough problems of its own, by it's own hand or otherwise. We don't have the resources to stabilize Iraq, for that matter, how's Afganistan doing? Go ask China to police the world. Once we manage to fix the problems that are over here, then we can talk about fixing things halfway around the world. If we can't fix what's over here, we sure as hell can't do jack over there.

      American resources should go to American problems first.

    3. Re:are you a human being? by baboo_jackal · · Score: 1

      Wait a minute... Raising awareness of something is generally a good thing. The more informed people are about their choices and the world around them, the better off we are. But don't romanticize this as something it's not: it's consumer marketing, any way you slice it.

      And just how people have beliefs of which beer tastes better, or which diet book will make them less fat, people also have different beliefs about what "bad things" in the world are more important to stop than others.

      The key is choice, and you shouldn't villify people just because they don't agree with your personal choice of "the worst thing in the world" to prevent.

    4. Re:are you a human being? by FishWithAHammer · · Score: 1

      Can you start caring about a shift key?

      --
      "You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
  37. i asked you to help by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    i didn't know my only choice was to shoot people. yes, the ANC should be at the forefront of any military action, which is required. however, military action is not the only way to help the situation, and in that cacapcity, the "colonials" can prove useful

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:i asked you to help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Listen up little idealogical liberal. When someone's shooting at you, or hacking your wife to bits with a machete after raping her in front of you; yes, the only course of action that WILL DO ANYTHING is to shoot/fight back. Open a history book once in a while, the proof is in the pudding.

      Oh, and since you brought it up (in another thread), Rawanda wasn't stopped by diplomacy. It wasn't stopped by humanitarian aid. It only ended when one side (the 'good' side in this case) militarily defeated the bad guys. That involves shooting people. The UN could have done the same, only much quicker. That's the only thing that would've stopped that horror. Period.

      I'm sorry, but evil doesn't stop for words. Evil won't stop and have a cup 'o tea with you to discuss why it's so pissed off and killing your family. The only way to stop evil is to destroy it and those who belong to it.

      Should we have tried diplomacy against Hitler, after a million Jews had already been gassed and a few countries were being occupied? Yea, that would've worked.

      It's absolutely morally reprehensible that the UN and the West in general does nothing about Africa, I agree. But to pretend that anything can be done there without military force is absurd and ignorant. These people (the Evil ones, not Africans) are subhuman, and there's only one way to deal with them.

      I have a question. While you're out playing "big humanitarian," out there in the shit in Africa, or where ever, helping refugees; how do you find time to post to slashdot? Oh, that's right, you're just another spoiled rich ( and probably white ) Westerner like the rest of us.

      Talk is cheap kiddo. Get off the computer and go save some refugees if your heart is bleeding so fucking much.

    2. Re:i asked you to help by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "i didn't know my only choice was to shoot people."

      If you RTFP, I included the peaceful option of "join an NGO on your side of choice".

      Doctors Without Borders, for example, are a courageous bunch of activists who make a difference.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    3. Re:i asked you to help by Jussi+K.+Kojootti · · Score: 1

      The only way to stop evil is to destroy it and those who belong to it. Yeah, kill all the fanatics (nuke from the orbit if possible)... and this is is Insightful, according to moderators.

  38. Of course Sudan's government didn't approve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're muslims, this is a jihad against infidels, and thus there is nothing morally wrong with what is happening in darfur. See quran 9:5, 9:111 and others. Also note that rape is explicitly permitted in these circumstances on 4:54.

    Note also that other muslim governments, such as Eritrea, Saudi and Egypt are delivering weapens to them to carry this out.

  39. Re:Darfur by treat · · Score: 0, Troll
    And guess what? It was wrong then, and such things are still wrong now.

    You really wish for a United States where we didn't wipe out the natives? We would now be in a position similar to Israel. We are lucky we took our chance when such things were considered acceptable, because we would never get away with it now. It would be constant and perpetual civil war. We wouldn't have had the strength to win World War II. Germany, the USSR, and Japan would have divided up the world. We would be living as subjects of one of those empires.

    Great plan guy. Real humanitarian you are.

  40. Trying To Make Up For New Orleans Footshot by saudadelinux · · Score: 0, Troll

    Google did evil by posting pre-Katrina shots of N.O. long after the storm went through: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/30/google_reb uuilds_new_orleans/ so now, they're trying to make up with coverage with a different disaster.

    --
    I didn't think the house band in Hell would play this badly.
  41. Re:Darfur by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    From wikipedia:

    Genocide is the mass killing of a population of people as defined by Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."


    According to this definition, what is happening in Darfur is genocide. One ethnic group (arabic nomads) are attempting to displace another ethnic group (black african farmers) with support from the Sudanese government. Unlike the conflict in South Sudan, both ethnic groups are Muslim, so religion is not an issue - arable/grazeable land and water is.

    The reaction of most Western governments so far has been to deny genocide is happening, because that would oblige them to intervene, which they don't want to do.
  42. Re:Darfur by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 2, Informative

    AARGH can people PLEASE start actually making an effort to see the conflict ?

    It's ARAB muslims (the "Janjaweed") on horses that kill the non-ARAB BLACK "abdels" (black slaves), who are both muslim and christian. The government of Sudan describes it as a jihad, and as a result, is getting support, people and weapons, from muslims world-wide.

  43. Re:Darfur by k1e0x · · Score: 1

    It's the government there thats DOING the raping murder and burning the villages of the farmers. The rebel groups are fighting to stop the government.

    --
    Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
  44. Re:Darfur by Tom · · Score: 1

    Even if it is some pointless war, someone should put an end to it, because the government there is obviously not willing to do it. Because as we all know, sending more soldiers is how you put an end to wars, right?
    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  45. If you've got a plan... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you've got a plan, you should share it. But for a lot of people, it will be a tough sell. Pretty much everyone is aware of what happened when the US intervened in Iraq. Many people still remember Somalia. Why would this turn out differently if "someone put an end to it"? That's a serious question. How was the Bosnian conflict resolved? IIRC it went something like this:
    • First the "international community" tried diplomacy which went nowhere because the parties that stood to gain the most from a civil war saw no threat on the horizon that might compel them to stop escalating the conflict.
    • Next the "international community" tried an arms embargo which didn't work either because the Yugoslav government and it's Bosnian Serb militias were sitting on a mountain of small arms left over from the cold war along with most of the sophisticate weapons including guided anti-tank and air to ground missiles, heavy artillery, modern tanks, helicopter gun ships and jet fighters and large warships while the Croats and the Muslims had mostly only small arms and much fewer high end weapons systems. Basically the arms embargo mostly hurt the Croats and Bosinans but hurt the Bosinas Serb militias to a much lesser extent. The end result of this was that the Bosnian Serb militias gained massive amounts of territory at the expense of the other two factions and they promptly set about ethnically cleansing these areas making the Bosnias Serbs even less reluctant to end the war since there was still no threat on the horizon that compelled the to do so. Nobody wanted to put ground forces into this mess and so the diplomatic solution circus continued while innocent civilians of all three factions, Serbs, Croats and Muslims endured years of ethnic cleansing.
    • Finally a few no-nonsense oriented members of the "international community" grew tired of the whole mess (Waaaaaaaaaay to late if you ask me) and decided to turn a blind eye while the Croats and Muslims bought tanks and jet fighters on the black market, thus achieving a degree of military parity with the Bosnian Serbs. When the Croat/Muslim factions then launched an offensive against the Bosnian Serb armies who were softened up by the Nato air forces while Croat/Muslim ground forces did they grunt work. The Serbs lost massive amounts of ground as well as military equipment and alluvasudden they became very conciliatory now that dark clouds were on the horizon and the opposing factions in the civil war had finally grown much bigger and sharper teeth.

    Basically Sudan will not stop allowing it's Arab militias to have fun ethnically cleansing Darfur until the "international community's" gloves come off when dealing with Sudan. Conflicts like this are hard to resolve at the best of times but the Bosinan experience, where a lot of different approaches were tried, shows us that the relaistic only hope we have of resolving a situation like this even if the solution is only to bring about an uneasy peace with loads of peace keepers to keep the factions apart, seems to be to stiffen up the Darfur insurgents to the point they can kick the Arab militias out of Darfur. It would probably be possible to organize some military help from neighboring African countries who are them selves already suffering badly from cross border raids by Sudanese Arab militias and might see a neutral Darfur as a useful buffer against Sudan. This would eventually allow the UN to impose a solution roughly similar to the ones used in Bosnia and the Kosovo. Of course this relies upon somebody ironing out the internal conflicts among the insurgents as well as uniting the neighbors under a single command and organizing the whole thing. Somebody would also have to cough up a couple of billion dollars for arms and training and possibly provide air support to neutralize the Sudanese air force.
  46. Re:Darfur by Bastard+of+Subhumani · · Score: 1

    I do not know if the Darfur region of Sudan has oil.
    With all those dead bodies, give it time and it will have. So look on the bright side, maybe one day someone will care.
    --
    Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
  47. Re:Darfur by N8F8 · · Score: 1

    And this is the basic problem with the Liberal cause today. In the late 1990's the US was evil because sanctions were killing millions of Iraqi babies. Now the sanctions are gone the the US is evil for finally deposing the despot who was starving his own people to build castle after castle. Never climb into a life raft with a guy who you know is gonna poke hole in it just to spite you.

    --
    "God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
  48. Hooray for Windows! by gary+gunrack · · Score: 1

    Must be nice.

  49. Game. Set. And Match. by arcite · · Score: 1

    Slashdot shows its maturity once again. :)

  50. Re:Darfur by maxume · · Score: 1

    That's the most bizarre interpretation of history I have ever seen.

    --
    Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  51. OH and don't forget the most important part by arcite · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Sudan's best buddy is China (long term contracts for cheap oil and timber and anything else they can rip out of the ground) , which will continue to use their VETO in the UN to prevent any foreign intervention.

  52. Are you really this gullible? by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 1

    You are actually wrong. Poverty and suffering does not spread because some parts of the world have their heads screwed on right and others don't. September 11th was a ONE OFF event. It hasn't happened again in 6 years and its not like that attack was so sophisticated to begin with.

    The problem in Darfur really IS Darfur's problem. The violence there isn't going to spread here and even if it were going to then all we would have to do is stop/kill the perpetrators, not help rebuild the country.

    If you want to live a decent life then its up to you to make that happen, same as for everyone else. I don't know why certain folks like you keep insisting that we solve every crisis on planet Earth. When we try to do that we get labelled "imperialist." So who's right? The folks who want us to stay out of their business or the folks who want us to get into other people's business? What gives you the position of moral superiority here?

    Also, here's some advice. When you tell people that they're letting others die via genocide when they play video games you aren't making any friends or achieving progress. You just piss people off and lead people to conclude that folks with your position are just stark raving mad lunatics.

    By the way, what are you doing to stop gang violence in US cities? What about rural poverty in the US? What are you doing to to combat homelessness in the US? Or does Darfur only rate on your radar because George Clooney and Noah Wylie deem it important to them?

    --
    Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
    1. Re:Are you really this gullible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You honestly think gang violence and poverty in the US can be compared in scale to Darfur? The reason it warrants larger concern is that it is a much larger problem, regardless of any celebrities involved. I don't watch too much mass media, so I haven't even seen George Clooney speak out on the issue. I am still concerned because suffering concerns me. It obviously doesn't concern you.

  53. Re:Darfur by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Khartoum and Darfur armies have comparable military power. Darfur started the current conflict by attacking Khartoum, after Khartoum had stalemated in the civil war in southern Sudan (where Darfur and Khartoum were allies in trying to put down a Christian and Animist uprising). Khartoum's solution is to try and annihilate the people of Darfur, by giving the militias free reign and arms.

    In short, both sides are evil.

  54. Re:Darfur by mapkinase · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Well, something has to be done by Muslims, without inclusion of Americans and Europeans. They lost their credibility circa XVII century and they keep losing it...

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  55. the biggest lie in this world by circletimessquare · · Score: 2, Funny

    is that problems solve themselves, or that you aren't involved, or that you can make things better by not being involved

    no

    you must get involved, or problems like darfur spreads. look at the geopolitical environment around darfur. you ask me what the men who are perpetrating the crimes would do next were they to consolidate a base there and take their agenda to the next level. do you think people with ill will and global amibtions don't exist?

    0/11 was a one off?

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    how blind are you? ever hear of bali? madrid subway bombing? 7/7 in britain? how about what goes on in iraq on a daily basis? who is perpetrating these things?

    one off?

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. thanks for the comic relief. for all of our sake i really hope you aren't as naive as you present yourself

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:the biggest lie in this world by DeadChobi · · Score: 4, Funny

      Dear sir, or madam,

      I am writing to inform you that you have infringed on my Patent #1120395830A, How to Be A Complete Asshat Over The Internet. I hereby request that you cease and desist at once or face legal action. Please note that part of the methodology outlined in my patent covers laughing at people, as well as not bothering to pass links to information so that they can educate themselves.

      Cease and Desist infringing my patents, immediately.

      Thank You,
      Chobi

      --
      SRSLY.
  56. if you will take a moment to think for 0.5 seconds before responding to me, you will find that my words don't match the stereotype you seem to responding to. kindly make sure that the people you target your words with are the actual people who deserve those words

    i happen to be all for the military invasion of darfur. as of yesterday. and zimbabwe. and myanmar. we don't invade though, because the willpower isn't there, even though it is the right thing to do. there will be a greater cost for NOT invading these countries than the body bags that will inevitably come home for invading the basketcases of the world

    http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2006/9/5/172111/7190

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  57. Re:Darfur by mapkinase · · Score: 1

    I am presenting an unpopular but legitimate opinion. I am not going to shut up just because there is no such button.

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  58. understand what's happening, and our contribution by aggiefalcon01 · · Score: 1

    In addition to the information about what's happening in Darfur, why not also give facts about our contribution to it? For example, how many millions of $US go to Sudan each year? How much non-profit money goes to Sudan? After all, if the Sudan is corrupt, then the majority of the money going into it - for any purpose - is quite likely to go to nefarious purposes.

    --
    Global warming is neither science, nor politics. It is a religion.
  59. Re:Darfur by mapkinase · · Score: 0, Troll

    I am pretty sure I am reading less Arabic media than I am using Google News and definitely less than you listening to Fox News, jihadwatch, free republic and similar crap of a media.

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  60. Re:Darfur by mapkinase · · Score: 0, Troll

    If the independent Islamic government of Sudan doesn't wish to be undermined, it should stop supporting the extermination of civilians and actually resolve this "internal conflict"
    I have seen no evidence of government of Sudan supporting extermination of civilians except obvious fact of ethnic affiliation w/ one of the sides.

    Again, as I said in my other comments: West has no credibility in Africa. Period. After slavery, after South Africa, after what French imperialism did to Maghrib, they just should keep mum as fishes.
    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  61. your philosophy is broken by circletimessquare · · Score: 2, Insightful

    the people in al qaeda, evil as they are, they still understand two things about the world you live in better than you:

    1. in the age of jet air travel and the internet, there are no borders for anything

    2. you are a human being. you therefore count (in their agenda: you can live under global sharia)

    there is no morally or intellectually defensible opinion on any issue anymore except a global one. your attitude made sense once, when spanish galleons plied the oceans. those days are over, and so is your worldview

    what killed it? globalization. you, reading my words, right now, on the internet, is all the proof i need to show you you are wrong: i could be sitting in calcutta, yogyakarta, or kandahar. it doesn't matter who i am, or what ethnicity, or what nationality: i am impacting your thoughts and ideas

    reflect upon the world around you, and how it is changing, and how the way you view your world has been made obsolete

    what happens in kandahar matters in downtown manhattan. no one can think like you after 9/11 and expect to have a valid intellectual or moral compass. welcome to the 21st century. re configure your way of thinking. it is obsolete

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  62. Re:Darfur by lucabrasi999 · · Score: 1
    I am presenting an unpopular but legitimate opinion. I am not going to shut up just because there is no such button.

    Slashdot is all about opinion. But, I wouldn't call you a Troll if 1) You used less inflammatory language and 2) If you included at least a few links that supported your claim. I could easily point you to about 2,000 links supporting the majority point of view. I want to see a few links (outside of the Sudanese government web-site) where there is another point of view.

  63. So why is the inter-national community not by JBoelke · · Score: 1

    stopping the salughter in Daufer? What has happened to the idea of "Never "Again? If countries want to say they are moral, with Moral leadership they must act in a moral way. Yes I am talking to you American Republicans, and Isreal. Call your representives and demand of them you want military action to stop the slaughter in Daufer. Ask why no action is being taken, because they are black, and have no oil?

    1. Re:So why is the inter-national community not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Darfur has oil.

      (I like it when I blow up conspiracy theories.)

    2. Re:So why is the inter-national community not by cdrguru · · Score: 1

      The victims are Christian, the aggressors are Muslim. The Muslims want a nice clean Islamic country and will do whatever level of "ethnic cleansing" required to get it.

      Anyone that steps in starts WW III, aka Islam vs. Christens : The Final Smackdown.

      Anyone motivated to step in can easily be tied to the Christian side. You don't see the Saudis trying to stir up support, do you?

      Why are NATO and others not on the ground here like they were in Bosnia? Because the West was supporting the Muslims in Bosnia, not the Christians. In Sudan it would be the West against the Muslims and that wouldn't be properly multicultural.

      Have no doubt, between Thailand, Sudan and a few other places simmering away we are going to see some really large battles that the West is going to just have to sit out. Europe would be in real trouble because in some cities a significant part of the population are Muslim immigrants. You want peace in France and Germany? Stay the heck out of Sudan's local problems.

      I seriously doubt we can keep this bottled up for very long. Iran vs. Israel is likely to be either a delaying action (Israel attacks but doesn't get a decisive victory) or a draw (both exchange nukes) but is something that cannot stand long term. Pakistan with an Islamic government would likely side with Iran and combine nuclear forces so we want to see that government remain secular as long as possible. Should a war come, and it probably will, you can expect any country siding with the Christians to have substantial problems with their Muslim population. It won't be anywhere near as clear as WW II or the Cold War were. This could easily turn into neighbor against neighbor in a lot of places in the world.

      Don't think current goverments understand the stakes? Why didn't France call out the Army to put down their rebellion? Why is Germany adopting Sharia-friendly legal policies? Why is Australia giving police special training on Muslim customs like wife beating? No, the current crop of "world leaders" know full well what might come and how ill-prepared everyone's military is for a neighbor-vs-neighbor war.

    3. Re:So why is the inter-national community not by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "Ask why no action is being taken, because they are black, and have no oil?"

      Because our military is a shrunken shell of its Reagan Era self, and sparing the troops for another Mogadishu scenario (Africans HATE interlopers) isn't smart. Military common sense says going is a bad idea for the US. There is no moral imperative to military failure.

      (OTOH, the EU have plenty of forces sitting home. France is good at African ops, and any country not engaged in Iraq and/or A-stan should be able to join the adventure.)

      By the way, if you're going to call a representative to ask them to deploy ME to Darfur, howsabout going YOURSELF in some capacity??

      During the Cold War I enlisted because I oppose Communism, and stay in because I oppose pan-Islamism. If people are going to espouse a cause they ought to be very willing to pitch in! If you are not physically fit enough to do military ops, peaceful NGOs could use help.

      P.S.
      The inexpensive way to really solve the problem would be to arm and train the blacks to defend themselves.

      The Janjaweed and their horses aren't bulletproof. The UN could hire a military contractor (UN forces are of variable quality) to help create a black anti-Muslim defense force. ComBloc weapons are a good, simple, robust standard for low-tech forces. Kalashnikovs, some anti-personnel RPGs (buy them new from Basalt), some heavy machine guns, and some commo equipment would let the locals kill the Janajweed and control their own destiny.
      People appreciate freedom when they fight for it.

      No UN rescuers will be able to watch over everyone, but if every non-Janjaweed is packing a battle rifle the odds are better.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  64. Typical by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    You pick 1947 as the date. Why not 1945, because that might just show what arab/muslim forces did to the jews who had lived there for hundred of years? And why just that region, why not the entire middle east, so that it would also show the larger number of jews who were driven from arab/muslim countries, some of whom resetled in british controlled areas (what Israel was before it became independent) and of whom nobody seems to speak. If palestinians have the right to return why not jews who fled from arab countries?

    And would your project also show that many of the palestinians did something roughly similar to this. April 1940, germans and their sympathisers leave The Netherlands, May 1940, german forces attacked The Netherlands. June 1940, in move that shocks the world, dutch forces not just repel the german attack but are halfway to berlin. 1941 to present, dutch/germans who "fled" holland to not be caught in the attack of their allies with the idea that they would go back and claim everything after the dutch had been wiped of the face of the earth, now want compensation.

    Sorry, nope.

    Learn some real history about the area first.

    Oh and remeber, in darfur, it is those lovely muslims that never hurt anyone and follow a peacefull religion that are just defending themselves against the nasty black people, by killing them before they can do anything. Makes sense.

    It is kinda funny that the same african (black african nations) that are against america for its role in northern africa at the same time want the US to intervene in Darfur, were the problems are caused by the those same north african nations.

    Africa: "Evil US is killing our muslim brothers, Nice US please kill those muslims that are killing our black brothers."

    You got to laugh.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:Typical by Kleokat · · Score: 1

      I don't really see, what you mean by "Typical", my opinion is typical or something ..
      Again please remember, that English is not my primary language. I could maybe have chosen my words more precisely.

      I don't want to start a political debate. The situation in the Middle East can only be understood by studying thusands of years of history. What did the Romans do to the jews, for example. Should we call it typical Italian behaviour?

      The situation in Darfur is about ressources, as the borders of Sahara is moving, so do people.

      I don't want to start a debate about people's feelings about what the US military can do. That's not the point.
      The point is, that Google Earth has a very nice and interesting feature, which can be used for other purposes as well.
      Another point is, that we haven't learned a lot from history - what is currently happening in Darfur and other places is nothing new.
      The now peaceful Scandinavia has had peace for 150-200 years, depending on the point of view. But we have a *LONG* history of internal warfare.

      Was there ever war in Scandinavia? Yes
      Was there hatred, burning of villages, rape, plunder, murder and genocide? Yes
      Did it last for centuries where there were no hope for a change? Yes
      Could it happen again in Scandinavia? No.
      Who made the first terror bombardment of a city using rocket-propelled devices (primitive missiles)? The british, when attacking Copenhagen in a PRE-EMPTIVE WAR - the Danes should NOT be allied with Napoleon, let's burn their capital just to be sure. What do the Danes think about England today? We love them. Have we learned something? Maybe.

      Conclusion: War is a temporary stage in the process of becoming an advanced civlized nation :-)
      Pre-emptive wars can occur by mistake, most often because of inaccurate intelligence.
      Now THAT's a typical Scandinavian attitude!

  65. Is it just me? by Buckaduck · · Score: 1

    I guess I misunderstood the topic. I was hoping that Google Earth had actually captured images of some of the atrocities. Maybe THAT would finally attract people's attention.

  66. But I do care by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just not in the way you think. Muslims and blacks are fighting and killing each other. So?

    It is extremely hard to see why a white european should care OR for that matter even if he cared what the fuck he could do about it.

    Who exactly do you propose we shoot?

    Because that is the only way to deal with this kinda situation, go in and kill the most agressive party and basically enforce "don't fight or we will kill you".

    At the moment some claim that it is the black population that is receiving the worsed of it, so are you saying, in 2007, that the US (because the EU is to chicken shit) should start another war against muslims?

    Even americans aren't that insane. *me looks at the americans*

    Well, they might be that insane but they can't afford another war that you can't win.

    Because the sad fact is this, you CANNOT end a force by conflict UNLESS you use extreme force and that is no longer acceptable. If the US intervenes and just one muslim child is claimed to have been killed (it is well known that muslims claims in this area are about as trustworthy as ANY propaganda claim has been in the whole of human history) the shit will hit the fan and it will face the exact same problems as in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    The website you linked to reminds me an awfull lot of similar sites urging the western leaders to save the poor koerds. That went awfully well remember? Do you promise this time to remember what your bleeding heart cried out today when next week a US plane drops a bomb and some photographer show the corpse of a child (and again at another bombsite, several days later?)

    No you won't and western leaders know this. They rather take the short, easily forgotten critisim of doing nothing. Because they know people like you, can't be counted upon to accept what needs to be done.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:But I do care by docrmc · · Score: 1

      The rule of thumb for writing to impress is to open and close strongly. That said, I had a good idea what to expect from your opening sentence - "Muslims and blacks are fighting and killing each other" ...these are opposing ethnic groups? Is none of these Muslims Black? Far from that fact, the Janjaweed, to which i believe you were referring, are (largely) Black Muslims, as indeed many Muslims are Black.

      "The White European" is quite selective. "The Westerner" is more like it- it includes all the shades of people who don't care, or don't care enough to act. (I deliberately do not specify what that action may be.) Indeed the target of speeches I have heard\seen from the "Inside the Al Qaeda"-type reporting is "The West", or "America & The West" (to be redundant). Interesting how The West seems less stirred up by some forces as the forces are about them....

      I will not even bother to point-form address the "shoot what you don't like" policy espoused here, but i will say that it has worked so well for us recently... I will add though, that while I tend toward non-violence, I will not blanketly say that smacking a bully on the chin isn't a worthwhile method. Governments need to walk the line between doing nothing and going buckwild crazy in dealing with such matters, because either end doesn't pay. We need only look to recent, global, political scenarios to establish that.

      --
      "Moral indignation is just jealousy with a halo."
  67. Re:Darfur by Bastard+of+Subhumani · · Score: 1

    I think it's damaging your brain.
    I think a more likely cause is that he spends long periods sitting.
    --
    Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
  68. Re:Darfur by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Well, something has to be done by Muslims, without inclusion of Americans and Europeans.

    And as per tradition, that "something" will be murder. And *lots* of it. WALLYHOO SNACKBAR and OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!

  69. Re:Darfur by mapkinase · · Score: 1

    You want links exposing anti-Islamic bias of American government? Are you crazy?

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  70. Re:Darfur by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "just keep mum as fishes."

    That's tough to do though. When the West (argue later about just who the "West" is) ignores an area, the world gets angry. They say "You've got all that power, money, all those resources, you should do something to help XYZ. You're doing nothing, you must be evil because you're not stopping out problem. We hate you!"

    So politicians turn around and try to DO something, and the world gets angry again. "That is none of your business. You're just being imperialistic. Leave us alone."

    Politicians turn around yet again and leave them alone. The lack of "official" scrutiny prompts SOME (by no means all) people to take that as permission to take advantage of their neighbors, and atrocities happen all over again. Now the West is again accused of allowing them to happen. (return to paragraph 1, repeat ad infinitum, ad nausium)

    No matter where "The West" turns, it's in the wrong. So, since they're wrong anyway, they might as well be wrong while trying to help someone. Yes, there have been extremely evil things done in the past. The important part of that statement is "in the past." We should recognize those evil things, acknowledge them, apologize for them, and then move on. The past should teach us, yes. It should NOT hobble us so we can't do better in the present and in the future.

  71. HA! HA! HA! by weierstrass · · Score: 1

    how funny, there are troops from all these countries in Iraq! Ethiopia and Eritrea!

    those brave boys from the Solomon Islands, which doesn't even have a government (for any accurate use of the word) or a police force, let alone an army. from the CIA world factbook:

    Ethnic violence, government malfeasance, and endemic crime have undermined stability and civil society. In June 2003, Prime Minister Sir Allen KEMAKEZA sought the assistance of Australia in reestablishing law and order; the following month, an Australian-led multinational force arrived to restore peace and disarm ethnic militias.
    yes, that's right, while the brave boys of the Solomon Islands International Rescue Peacekeeping Force were restoring democracy to Iraq, the Australian army was forced to invade the Solomon Islands to restore law and order.

    [more information about the Solomons] Legal system: English common law, which is widely disregarded

    you must be trippin if you think that these countries, some of which i've never even heard of, have sent troops to iraq. Palau?

    [same source on Palau] Area: total: 458 sq km Area - comparative:slightly more than 2.5 times the size of Washington, DC Population: 20,579 (July 2006 est.)
    nice try, buddy. it's must be quite a source of amusement to the people running your country that there are people out there who actually believe the things they say.
    --
    my password really is 'stinkypants'
  72. priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ask why no action is being taken, because they are black, and have no oil?
    More likely because they have no oil and they are black.
  73. ... and history has shown... by baboo_jackal · · Score: 1

    ...that it's awfully difficult to stop murder, hardship and suffering of human beings everywhere on the planet. Every "good thing" we do in the world is offset by another good thing we won't be able to do somewhere else. People who criticize the world's involvement in Iraq (predominantly the U.S.'s involvement now) by highlighting the other things we're *not* doing clearly understand this. It's a matter of optimizing our efforts to cause the most good with the resources we have available. It could be argued that by striking at the global nexus of militant Islam in the Middle East, we can indirectly affect things like Darfur all over the world. It could also be argued that we're fighting in Iraq to ensure a nice flow of oil to the U.S., and we ought to focus our efforts elsewhere, like Darfur. If a U.S. Citizen were to believe the former, the choice to conserve their own personal resources would be a completely justifiable course of action. I don't think we can dismiss people unwilling to contribute resources as simply "not caring about Darfur."

  74. Re:Yes....we can read by certain+death · · Score: 0

    You know what is funny?!?!? This is the first fucking score on a comment I have made in at least 6 goddamn months! The only time you bother to score my comments is when I make on you feel is out of order, fuck you!!!

    --
    "My immediate reaction is "WTF? What kind of moron doesn't make things 64-bit safe to begin with?" Linus
  75. A Lot of Self Righteousness here by LS · · Score: 1

    I'm as uncomfortable as anyone about what is happening in Darfur, but I'm not gonna get on people's cases for not taking action. There are uncountable horrors happening around the world as you read this, and unless you take a buddha-like oath to never rest until all human suffering has ended, then you are currently not helping resolve some tragedy somewhere. I wouldn't be surprised to discover that every single highly-modded preacher in this thread is not doing a single thing to remedy the situation in Darfur.

    LS

    --
    There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
    1. Re:A Lot of Self Righteousness here by rfc1394 · · Score: 1

      Personally, I have no capacity to do anything about the fighting in Darfur. I am neither a combatant nor does it have an effect on me. What bothers me, more than anything, is how the actions of white people being murdered in Bosnia-Herzegovina was deserving of moral outrage but when (what is probably) a hundred times more negroes are murdered in Africa the response from the world community is virtually nil. It happened back in Rwanda, and other situations there (Uganda, etc.), and nobody cares. I comment about this on my Blog, about why nobody cares about it. To quote Mel Brooks in Blazing Saddles, "They darker than us!" The moral outrage among nations that occurred when white people were slaughtered in Bosnia is conspicuously absent.

      --
      The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
    2. Re:A Lot of Self Righteousness here by LS · · Score: 1

      So what bothers you, more than anything, is not the actual murders, but the fact that there is a lack of outrage over the murders? So you are outraged at the lack of outrage? I don't see the point to any of this outrage. I don't think the man with a knife on his throat cares whether we were outraged when he was being murdered. That's why I commented on the Slashdot preachers - the outrage is not about the suffering people but about themselves; it's about their egos. They aren't planning to do anything about it.

      --
      There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
  76. Oh no, moral relativism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People making vein statements about their opposition to genocide just makes me want to puke. Ever since man found a pointy stick there has been conflict and yes large numbers of people do get killed, maimed and wounded. It's a fact of life, get used to it. For many thousands of years these conflicts happened with next to no attention from the rest of the world. Every time a phony internationalist feel-good organization intervenes, they only interfere in the natural order of things and make matters worse. Zimbabwe (Rhodesia) has been made universally worse off for everyone living there thanks to western moral posers, as has Serbia. The war on poverty actually makes more poverty through supporting an unsustainable population that nature would otherwise take care of. People need to start seeing the world for how it actually IS, rather than how they'd like it to be.

    1. Re:Oh no, moral relativism by Mockylock · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Nobody realizes the fact that half of the places pictured have people starving with 30 children, in which they KNEW would probably not survive but did it anyway because they don't believe in birth control. You also never see any men in these documentaries. They're at mosques and such, rather than being at home getting their wives pregnant again. If everyone in a major country decided to go and have children with no sense of wrappin' the rascal, we'd all be poverish.

      --
      "Please, shut up. Just when I think you can't say anything more stupid, you speak again." -Archie Bunker.
  77. Re:Of course Sudan's government didn't approve by FunWithKnives · · Score: 3, Informative

    You're quite obviously trolling. The Qur'an says absolutely nothing of the kind. In fact, until recently, Islamic states were seen as places of refuge for Jews and non-orthodox Christians (those who did not believe in the "Holy Trinity") due to the religous tolerance there. Instead of being persecuted as they were by orthodox Christians, they were allowed to practice their own religion with the stipulation that they not attempt to convert anyone. Muslims saw Jews and Christians as fellow "People of The Book." The differences came about because Muslims believed that all prophets before Muhammad had been misunderstood, and that God had directly visited Muhammad to establish a "corrective." This corrective became the Qur'an.

    This is not about Islam or the Qur'an itself. It is about whacked out religious nuts and their crazy interpretations. Unfortunately, we seem to get these nutcases with every religion.

    I apologize for being somewhat off-topic with this post, but I could not bring myself to ignore the parent, even if it is a trolling AC.

    --
    "We may face a scorched and lifeless earth, but they're accountable to their shareholders first."
  78. Has the United States expanded? by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 1

    I'm sorry. What part of the following areas are in the United States? "how blind are you? ever hear of bali? madrid subway bombing? 7/7 in britain? how about what goes on in iraq on a daily basis? who is perpetrating these things?"

    From the way I recall things, Sept 11th happened in the US, and all the things you just stated happened outside of the US. If I have it wrong please correct me. In the 6 years since 9/11 not another event in the US has taken place.

    "you must get involved, or problems like darfur spreads. look at the geopolitical environment around darfur. you ask me what the men who are perpetrating the crimes would do next were they to consolidate a base there and take their agenda to the next level. do you think people with ill will and global amibtions don't exist?"

    As for this, we're talking about Africa here. The continent's combined military might (were it ever to competently combine) is not enough to threaten ANY OTHER CONTINENT militarily. Not Austraila, not Europe, not Asia, not South America, not even Central America and certainly not North America. They can't even threaten Antarctica because Africa doesn't have enough coats to survive the invasion.

    I would like to know whats your plan for bringing the crisis in Darfur. You said in another post that military options aren't the only way so I'd like to know whats your non-military plan for stopping the warlords in Darfur. Enlighten us.

    --
    Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
  79. Re:Darfur by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Yes it's quite strange how so many people are worked up about Iraq, yet don't really care about Darfur. The worldwide protests sound so hollow since their silence on Darfur is even more deafening.

  80. This is just a third-party mashup, right? by Animats · · Score: 1

    This is just another overlay on Google Earth by a third party, right? It doesn't seem to be in the standard Google Earth. I'm looking at downtown Nyala in Google Earth now, and I'm not seeing any special markings.

    There may not be any Google involvement with this at all.

  81. Re:Of course Sudan's government didn't approve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    well oddly enough, where in the entire muslim world are there places like this left? and if such places in the past weren't idealisations, what happened?

  82. Re:Darfur by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

    You want links exposing anti-Islamic bias of American government? Are you crazy?


    No, that's not what he asked for. He asked for links, or at least some sort of evidence that is not a Sudanese government mouthpiece, that shows that said government is *not* participating in the mass slaughter in Darfur.

    Chris Mattern
  83. Re:Darfur by hobo+sapiens · · Score: 1

    In Stupid-land, you probably make lots of sense. Heck, you might even be their leader. Here, you sound uninformed at best. Are you as ignorant of history as you are current events?

    In one of your other posts you agreed with someone else that the US is an imperialist force. By that logic, if this were some conspiracy the US would have moved in two years ago. The Sudanese government would be hiding in a cave with the Taliban planning their next move. That, or some CIA guys would have installed a US puppet government there. Neither has happened, so your conspiracy theory is just a bunch of twaddle.

    This is a blatant assault on human rights. Governments lie. Refugee camps and mass graves don't.

    Go back under your bridge, troll.

    --
    blah blah blah
  84. Re:Darfur by lucabrasi999 · · Score: 1
    You want links exposing anti-Islamic bias of American government? Are you crazy?

    No. I am not.

    First of all, I asked you for links that supported your original claim that "Darfur is not genocide. That it is purely an internal civil war". What that has to do with the bias of the American government, I have no idea.

    Secondly, the US Government is probably already monitoring any site that you link to. The National Security Agency is more powerful than most of us can imagine. So, posting a link on Slashdot probably isn't going to make one bit of difference.

    Third, your statement above is STILL trollish. Start by giving me facts, not opinion. Then, I'll take back the claim that you are a Troll.

  85. Re:Of course Sudan's government didn't approve by FunWithKnives · · Score: 1

    You seem to have missed my point here. I'll repeat myself for you:

    This is not about Islam or the Qur'an itself. It is about whacked out religious nuts and their crazy interpretations.

    The original AC blamed the war in Darfur on Islam and the Qur'an, which is fallacious. The people behind these massacres are not practicing true Islam in any sense. They are extremist nutjobs. A reading of the Qur'an will make this abundantly clear. These people have twisted the religion into what they want it to be, rather than what it actually is. This is a perpetual problem with many religions. There are plenty of whacked out Christian groups in the United States. "Christian Scientists" are an example, and they are but one of many.

    Incidentally, and just for shits and giggles, here is a virtually unknown fact: Muslims did not practice the veiling or complete covering of their women traditionally. This was adopted much later. Where did the idea come from? The Byzantine Christians.

    --
    "We may face a scorched and lifeless earth, but they're accountable to their shareholders first."
  86. Re:Of course Sudan's government didn't approve by hyperstation · · Score: 0

    * defending islam
    * terrorist dot net email
    * claims that muslim states welcome jews (?!?!)

    sure says a lot about you, now doesn't it?

  87. Re:Darfur by Mockylock · · Score: 1

    I agree that it's pretty much the point of every media person, including actors, to try and make themselves seem like a better person by promoting anti-genocide Darfur garb. That said, I still don't think what is happening, is right. It's labeled "genocide" mostly because the majority of deaths are on civilian tribes, in REALLY aweful ways. Unlike the "American" civil war, where people faught against slavery, unity and other issues.. these people are killing because they just don't like the other half. It's not just with guns, or one army against the other. We're talking militias going in with machetes, chopping people up, killing by blunt force trauma, killing children and women with NO sense of mercy whatsoever. Like somalia, they're taking the food and blocking shipments of medical goods to starve and sicken those who they don't like. Granted, it's a lot like world politics nowadays... BUT, it's still not right. It's actually an easier solution than the pandora's box in the middle east. On a different subject, more along the lines of the original story. Screw Google. They want to fight for Darfur and pledge themselves for the occasion, but you're right.. it's a publicity stunt. Why do I say this? Google does NOT, under any circumstances, celebrate VETERANS DAY or MEMORIAL DAY. They want soldiers to go in and stop the fighting in Darfur, but they're against war and those who are in it. Even those who fight for their rights to say the bullshit. Soldiers and veterans aren't to blame as much as it is the government. Why would you not support them? That is why it's a publicity stunt. This isn't a flame toward the replied poster. Just my point of view.

    --
    "Please, shut up. Just when I think you can't say anything more stupid, you speak again." -Archie Bunker.
  88. Re:The Electrum Rule by jc42 · · Score: 1

    So, perhaps we need an "electrum" rule: Start by treating people as you wish to be treated. When mistreated, respond in kind, but with restraint. Periodically try different levels of golden rule behavior and evaluate the results.

    Actually, the game theory folks have done extensive tests of such strategies, and have written a lot on the subject. Their tests usually consist of collecting programs that implement various strategies, and pitting them against each other under the control of a "game master" program that then produces the appropriate statistics.

    One of the favorite games has been variants of the "prisoner's dilemma", which you can google for. In a lot of tests, the overall winners have been the programs that implement the described algorithm. Or more simply: Cooperate with a stranger, remember the stranger's actions, and treat them the same way in the next encounter. Interestingly, the best strategy seems to be to have a short memory, forgiving transgressions after one friendly interaction or a long time without any interaction. It seems that the "players" that implement this sort of "tit-for-tat" strategy tend to form stable populations of winners at prisoner's-dilemma games, and players with different strategies tend not to win against these "nice guys with poor memories" players.

    Various writers have pointed out that a lot of economic interactions have a prisoner's-dilemma aspect, in which cooperation pays off in the long term, but being a lone jerk pays off even more in the short term.

    Of course, in politics we seem to have a lot of situations that are long-term stable disasters. This may be because politicians tend to do what the US government has done recently: Hit strangers with pre-emptive attacks. This has led to the results that we're all too familiar with, and these results may be long-term stable.

    --
    Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  89. Google.. by Mockylock · · Score: 1

    I agree that it's pretty much the point of every media person, including actors, to try and make themselves seem like a better person by promoting anti-genocide Darfur garb. That said, I still don't think what is happening, is right. It's labeled "genocide" mostly because the majority of deaths are on civilian tribes, in REALLY aweful ways. Unlike the "American" civil war, where people faught against slavery, unity and other issues.. these people are killing because they just don't like the other half. It's not just with guns, or one army against the other. We're talking militias going in with machetes, chopping people up, killing by blunt force trauma, killing children and women with NO sense of mercy whatsoever. Like somalia, they're taking the food and blocking shipments of medical goods to starve and sicken those who they don't like. Granted, it's a lot like world politics nowadays... BUT, it's still not right. It's actually an easier solution than the pandora's box in the middle east. All US bashing aside, it's still a bad situation.

    On a different subject, more along the lines of the original story. Screw Google. They want to fight for Darfur and pledge themselves for the occasion, but you're right.. it's a publicity stunt.


    Why do I say this?

    Google does NOT, under any circumstances, celebrate VETERANS DAY or MEMORIAL DAY. No "google" logos for the occasion or even a mention of it. You can search to see exactly what I mean.

    They want soldiers to go in and stop the fighting in Darfur, but they're against war and those who are in it. Even those who fight for their rights to say the bullshit. Soldiers and veterans aren't to blame as much as it is the government. Why would you not support them? That is why it's a publicity stunt.

    This isn't a flame toward the replied poster. Just my point of view. Great convo, nonetheless.

    --
    "Please, shut up. Just when I think you can't say anything more stupid, you speak again." -Archie Bunker.
    1. Re:Google.. by rfc1394 · · Score: 1

      That said, I still don't think what is happening, is right. It's labeled "genocide" mostly because the majority of deaths are on civilian tribes, in REALLY aweful ways. Unlike the "American" civil war, where people faught against slavery, unity and other issues.. these people are killing because they just don't like the other half. It's not just with guns, or one army against the other. We're talking militias going in with machetes, chopping people up, killing by blunt force trauma, killing children and women with NO sense of mercy whatsoever.
      Except that these militias that are killing people are operating with Sudanese government support. That makes the actions which are occurring in Darfur the equivalent of many repetitions of the same thing, from what happened in Rwanda in the 1980s, or to what happened to Jews, gypsies and homosexuals in Germany in the 1930s, to what Stalin did around the same time and Mao did in the 1950s-'70s: ordering millions starved to death due to Marxist central-planning-based farming schemes, or what the U.S. Government did to the American Aborigines ("Indians") back in the 1800s, (Veil of Tears, etc.), to what Slobodan Milovich did in Bosnia-Herzegovia in the 1980s, etc. It's targeting a specific population based on its characteristics. It's a crime against humanity same as genocide; arguing it isn't is essentially making a distiction without a difference.

      I also discuss the article on my Blog, about why nobody cares about it. To quote Mel Brooks in Blazing Saddles, "They darker than us!" The moral outrage among nations that occurred when white people were slaughtered in Bosnia is conspicuously absent.

      --
      The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
  90. Re:The Electrum Rule by hey! · · Score: 1

    I'm actually aware of this research.

    My point is consistent with that research, but somewhat different.

    Economic models are based on either perfect information, or perfect meta-information: you either know what's going on, or at least you are aware of how much you know.

    My point is that sometimes -- in fact often -- we believe things which are not true.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  91. Please Mod Parent by ObiWonKanblomi · · Score: 1

    I'm simply amazed and appalled, with exception to the parent post, all the posts so far about China have to do with respect to censorship. Talk about a bunch of babble from lemmings.

    Doing a quick google search uncovers Sudan is in China's pocket: http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/sudan1103/26.htm

  92. Responsibility for Screwing by EgoWumpus · · Score: 1
    From a certain point of view, you're correct; we have no immediate need to concern ourselves in Darfur. But there is some very good evidence out there that countries with large disparities in wealth suffer all sorts of problems. A prime example is Brazil, wherein the rich are largely housed behind reinforced steel because crime is so prevalent.

    We don't need to intervene, but it is a good idea for us to stabilize these regions before they spin out of control. I don't think military intervention is the best idea; I think that people are most peaceful when they have the most to lose. Instead, we let their infrastructures get destroyed, large itinerant populations to arise, and wealth to be suspiciously dealt to only a few. Wealth, like power, is best distributed as evenly as possible. The result of allowing wealth to concentrate in one place is that it creates a class of dispossessed; never as easy to deal with as we'd like to think. Any sane person would pay attention to these issues for their own long-term interest, if not for their humanitarian nature; especially if they're hands-down the richest country in the world.

    In short, of course we shouldn't gut our way of life in an ill-aimed crusade to save the world. But we should share the wealth, and we should never believe that we are somehow more worthy of the wealth than the poorest of the poor in the backwater countries that are experiencing such strife. Realize you did not work for your wealth; you were born into it.

    --

    [Ego]out

  93. Easy to weasel out of by Buskaatt · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I've seen tons of complaints here and attached to the original article page demanding why google maps doesn't highlight [insert favorite genocidal nightmare here]. Remember that what they're doing is free. They didn't have to do anything at all -- which I bet is what 99.9% of all the bitchers have done about [insert favorite genocidal nightmare here] or Darfur. So quit your bitching and learn. Maybe ... just maybe google plans to expand what it's doing to other issues. They didn't add a "Global Awareness layer" to the application just to highlight one issue did they?

  94. What about katrina? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Didn't google replace the new images of New Orleans with katrina damage with the previous images to hide the devisation?

    1. Re:What about katrina? by General+Wesc · · Score: 1

      No, they replaced the new images because the old ones were higher resolution. The new images are still available. Here's an explanation on Google's blog. It would be nice if they had it show the old images when you zoom in and otherwise show the newer ones, but that would probably be a pain to implement.

  95. Does this apply to Iraq? by unassimilatible · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    Injustices cannot be corrected by ignoring them, or even passively allowing them to continue

    Does this include Iraq under Saddam? And no, not everything you disagree with is a "troll." This is a serious question. How is the Darfur civil war, albeit horribly tragic, any more fixable than the Shia-Sunni conflict in Iraq?

    or vis the UN

    The UN? You must be joking. That impotent, decadent, cowardly organization has done zero (or worse) for human rights, and has only made it harder for the few honorable brave countries (like the US) to take action on anything.

    --
    Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
  96. The Eternal Crusade Against Socialism by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 1

    It can get wearying at times the constant battle against the socialists on this site but here I go once more unto the breach....

    There's a difference between stabilizing an area and just outright transferring wealth to an area. If I have slandered you by calling you a Socialist then I most humbly apologize and offer to reimburse damages to your Slashdot persona by paying you 500 digital simoleans, but if I am correct then at least let me hope that you have everyone's best interests at heart.

    You are correct that nations with huge amounts of economic inequality that there is less stability. The way you worded your solution however makes me cautious and suspicious. Its definitely a problem that needs to be worked on. The gap between rich and poor does need to be kept as small as possible. But how do we get there? Outright transfers of wealth from the wealthy to the poor? Or rather should we provide more education and opportunities for the poor to enrich themselves and build their own wealth? If you word it one way it sounds like SOCIALISM which well in my book = BAD, but if you word it another way it sounds like a slow evolution towards a freemarket economy and away from centrally planned socialist economies which = GOOD.

    If you'd like to know which method is more likely to prevail and achieve success then take a look at this talk given at the TED Conference about the "Debunking Myths About the Third World" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUwS1uAdUcI

    --
    Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
    1. Re:The Eternal Crusade Against Socialism by EgoWumpus · · Score: 1

      It can get wearying at times the constant battle against the socialists

      You know, you're not a good patriot unless you never tire of fighting the Commies. ;)

      There's a difference between stabilizing an area and just outright transferring wealth to an area.

      Absolutely. But note that we are doing neither currently; most money given in foreign aid by the United States is spent on US companies working in the area. It is not necessarily going into any actual infrastructural investment, which is the key, I think, to - as you put it - provide opportunity for poorer regions. I do not believe handing out cash is useful, but projects like Kiva can actually target the people struggling against the number biggest thing you need to succeed in a free market economy: capital.

      That is, after all, why they call it 'Capitalism', and while there are many good parts to capitalism, total free reign to exploit a worker base is not one of them. In the United States we made huge strides forward through the implementation of worker's rights and unions; simply because the power of corporations became more distributed - unions held some and the government held some. Note that this is distinct from Socialism, where the Party holds all the core power. Those checks and balances are required outside of the government itself.

      The video you posted is very interesting. I somewhat disagree with the constant use of logarithmic scaling, because it reduces the precision of the visual display. The spread is actually a lot farther than it seems, but he is right in that it is ground that can be covered, and is trending in that direction as free markets spread. I am exceedingly happy that such technological movements are occurring.

      By and large, technology is really the key to all of this. The Scientific American issue on the Millenium Goals talks a lot about bringing microtechnology to countries - like the $100 computer, or the treadle pump, that reduces their need to rely on a government to provide huge, resource-intensive, monolitic infrastructure. Rather, it gives individuals the ability to cross the barriers in small numbers and of their own volition - and not by providing them, simply, with money, but rather by ensconcing them in the financial and obligation-driven customs of civilization. The "Teaching A Man To Fish" philosophy. If our national enterprises followed a similar common-sense approach of helping the populace instead of concerning itself entirely with government, I think we'd make a lot more headway in stabilizing those regions.

      In short, I don't think we actually disagree, though I'm probably somewhat more liberal in terms of how many resources I think we should be putting towards bringing the rest of that pack with us.

      --

      [Ego]out

  97. Ethnic cleansing is largely accepted by sita · · Score: 1

    Albanians permitted large scale ethnic cleanings which are also prohibited by international law.

    International law is not comparable to national laws. It is comprised of a large number of international treaties and traditions, which are not free of contradictions.

    Ethnic cleansing, while forbidden in the Geneva Convention (and similar treaties), is largely accepted by the world community. The recent history is full of exchanges of population. 12 million Germans were forced to leave Eastern and Central Europe in the aftermath of WW2. The partition of India led to an exchange of a similar amount of people. A large number of Greeks were forced out of minor Asia in the 1920's, and Turks left Greece. These were all horrible events, and certainly not bloodless. But no mainstream politician suggest that they should be reversed. The reason is of course that these events are assumed to have significantly lessened the ethnic tensions and reduced the risks of war and genocide. Greeks and Turks have probably been happier as a net result. Those are effects on a statistic level, and are of course difficult to commensurate with personal experiences of expulsion.

    1. Re:Ethnic cleansing is largely accepted by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      OK, so ethnic cleansing (i.e. burning people's houses and forcing them to move or starve to death) is now OK?

      And it will be OK for Iran to force Israel (using nuclear and biological weapons threat) to move somewhere else so Palestinians can live freely? If a wrong thing has been done several times it doesn't stop being wrong.

      You might notice, that such cleanings rarely solve problems: India and Pakistan, Israel and Palesting, Georgia and Abkhazia, etc.

    2. Re:Ethnic cleansing is largely accepted by sita · · Score: 1

      OK, so ethnic cleansing (i.e. burning people's houses and forcing them to move or starve to death) is now OK?

      I didn't pass a moral judgement. I just told what "international law" says on the matter. And they seem to be quite fine with most cases of ethnic cleansing. There aren't really any yearly resolutions passed in the UN on the rights of the Volksdeutsche of the East. The interests of the pieds noirs to get back their property in Algeria doesn't seem to break many hearts either. And so on.

      You might notice, that such cleanings rarely solve problems: India and Pakistan, Israel and Palesting, Georgia and Abkhazia, etc.

      As we only have one world it is difficult to make experiments. But I claim that ethnic cleansings often reduce tensions and lessen the total suffering (however that is measured). India and Pakistan are actually a good example of this. Without the exchange of population, a much larger portion of the area would have been like Kashmir. And India and Pakistan are not trying to reverse the population exchange. So that problem is solved. Kashmir is just an unfinished job.

      All the same, in the real world, you rarely "solve problems", you make them smaller and try to live with what remains.

      Again this is not a moral judgement. And I am not particularly arguing for ethnic cleansings as a method to solve problem. But I definitely can see how people can arrive at ethnic cleansings as the lesser of two evils (where the larger evil is genocide or major war).

      And it will be OK for Iran to force Israel (using nuclear and biological weapons threat) to move somewhere else so Palestinians can live freely?

      Where did I suggest that? (And no, I think the Palestinian can live freely right now, if they choose to do it. But that is a different discussion.)

  98. i'm not talking about beer choices moron by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    i AM talking about the worst thing in the world! are you telling me people are of mixed opinion on genocide? are you telling me there is something more pressing than mass extermination and murder?

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:i'm not talking about beer choices moron by baboo_jackal · · Score: 1

      are you telling me there is something more pressing than mass extermination and murder?
      No, there isn't. But think about it this way: Imagine you're mayor of a small town that's recently been suffering from a rash of what look to be intentionally set fires. You've got a limited resources to spend on emergency services. Do you put more resources behind the fire department, to fight the fires, or do you put more resources behind the police department to stop the fires from being set?

      Likewise, global, militant Islam (not the religion, not the moderates, the violent political movement) is behind the genocide in Darfur. Can we justify putting out the fire in Darfur when, by allocating resources to do that, we have less to go after the arsonists supporting it all? I'm not saying it's an either-or decision. But it's definitely a trade off, and you can't flippantly disregard people who consider it as such.
  99. bullshit by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    america's problems are trivial as compared to hot spots in the world, and even from a purely selfish point of view, 9/11 proves that they matter domestically. in other words, welcome to the 21st century: there are no such thing as american problems, or chinese problems, etc: there are only world problems

    furthermore, that china or europe doesn't help is not an excuse for america not to help. if america helps and the others don't it is to america's credit, and china and europe's shame. so yes, i agree with you: hey you fucking euros and chinese, help!

    but not helping because others don't is akin to not helping a pedestrian being hit by a car because no one else walking by the dying man is helping him. is that a valid excuse you can live with? do you have a conscience? because others don't have conscience it is ok for you to disavow your humanity? pffffffft

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  100. Genocide is not just killing a lot of people by sita · · Score: 1

    Genocide is the killing of a significant portion of an ethnic group with the intent of wiping the said group out. It is killing a culture, not killing the individuals. Ethnic cleansing which kills a lot of people, but where it is clear that the ethnic group will survive and be able to sustain its culture is clearly different from genocide.

    E.g. tribe A displaces tribe B from their homeland into the desert. Tribe B
    dies of because of the thirst (die-off may be slow, stretching for several generations).
    (by the way, I've read that in israeli/palestinian conflicts there were some dirty
    games played with access and use of water - very relevant)


    Is your implication that the Israelis are somehow involved in a genocide on the Palestinians? It must be a very ineffective genocide. Over the past 60 years the numbers of Palestinians have at least quintupled.

  101. Re:"Do no evil" - Do you know evil? by docrmc · · Score: 1

    It's time to give it up... agreed! So why was it brought it up?

    This extension of Mizaru, Mikazaru & Mazaru has the same problem..evil is subjective. Google will always be doing something evil according to somebody. One person is glad for the kind of search optimizations and experience that Google offers, using said same data collection, and another cries "Big Brother". By _my_ concept of evil, had Google kowtowed to requests to turn over its info, I would have dubbed it so. By yours, it seems, that Google, a search engine, is so because it *gasps* collects search data. Or is it evil because it is good, no, the best at it?

    But since we are defining... anyone ever bothered to remember Google's own use of "evil"? It was used solely w. respect to how they use\display ads, not this wide ascription to everything it does. Large corporations, like itself, will do a great many things. (And when we say large we're really saying multi-national multi-tasking.) Someone cited Google China under another parent, as an example. Well, multi-national players are subject to multi-national regulations. What? Did no one notice China censors (everything) heavily before Google came to town? Because Google is so large it gets to ignore them in the name of "the Greater Good"? Nay. It has to play by them or seek to change them.. legally. Because when they do ignore them *coughsoftwarecopyrightinfringementcough* there is someone in the wings waiting to cry "Evil!" once again.

    So no, Google can't please every person, but at the same time, persons should cease throwing "evil around". It is not excused by Google introducing the word in the first place.

    --
    "Moral indignation is just jealousy with a halo."
  102. sauce for the goose by judd · · Score: 1

    Is this the same Google that's no longer displaying NOLA photos showing damage from Katrina?

  103. Re:Darfur by mapkinase · · Score: 1

    Accuser should prove the accusations.

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  104. Re:Darfur by mapkinase · · Score: 0, Troll

    You prove Sudanese government participation in this. I do not have to prove anything.

    Genocide is a systematic extermination. There is no systematic extermination like it was in Bosnia, with camps. There are attacks on civilians, there are civilians deaths, like deaths in any dangerous area of a conflict.

    The term "genocide" is deliberately used by Western propaganda spear headed by Zionist masters instead of milder terms.

    I frankly could not care less how you and your neocon moderator friends label me. So you can take it back or to your back. I do not care.

    Now get lost.

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  105. Re:Darfur by Dachannien · · Score: 1

    Then be enlightened:

    http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/03/02/darfur10228 _txt.htm
    http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/07/19/darfur9096. htm

    By the way, most Africans who were sold as slaves to Europeans in the Americas were captured by other Africans from neighboring tribes. Their treatment by Europeans was wrong, but according to your faulty logic, their African captors did nothing wrong.

  106. Re:Darfur by hobo+sapiens · · Score: 1

    ethnic cleansing and genocide are roughly the same thing. If a systematic programme of rape, systematic killing of children and babies, and regular attacks on noncombatant civilians is taking place, it's the same thing. That is what is reported as happening by all kinds of human rights groups, and not just the western media.

    As to the involvement of the Sudanese government...ok, let's visit stupidland where you apparently live. The janjaweed are just in Darfur because they have nothing better to do. Khartoum has nothing to do with it. Nope, not a thing. A government that stands by and watches when its citizens are slaughtered is just as culpable as one who is actively supporting it. Silence is tacit approval.

    I am sure the truth is probably somewhere in between what is actually being reported by the media and your perspective, which apparently is that all is peachy in Sudan and the world just wants a pretext to invade Sudan. I am sure other nations have ulterior motives in wanting to get involved in Sudan. But in the end, if a government is *that* negligent, or worse yet, that evil, then they have to be accountable.

    You are probably a muslim. I am not. But what say you about the fact that these are Muslims killing Muslims? Doesn't the Koran condemn that sort of thing? And if you say it doesn't, you have been brainwashed by some militant cleric and are ready to blow something/someone up. And if so, what makes you different than a "christian" who condones the killing of more Muslims in the middle east? Killing in the name of religion is the same thing no matter what your religion.

    --
    blah blah blah
  107. Re:Darfur by lucabrasi999 · · Score: 1

    You prove Sudanese government participation in this. I do not have to prove anything. Genocide is a systematic extermination. There is no systematic extermination like it was in Bosnia, with camps. There are attacks on civilians, there are civilians deaths, like deaths in any dangerous area of a conflict. The term "genocide" is deliberately used by Western propaganda spear headed by Zionist masters instead of milder terms. I frankly could not care less how you and your neocon moderator friends label me. So you can take it back or to your back. I do not care. Now get lost.

    Nah, I don't think I will. I'm kind of enjoying pissing you off. You deserve it after being nothing but a fucking troll all day.

    Zionist masters? Western Propoganda? You really are a fucking idiot. What about the government of Chad? Chad isn't exactly in the 'back pocket' of either Israel or anyone in the West, but they blame the Sudanese for for supporting the Janjaweed when the Janjaweed crosses from Sudan INTO Chad and attacks Chadian citizens!! Yeah, that's western propoganda.

    How about the fucking African Union? They CERTAINLY aren't supported by ANYONE in the west. But, if you actually click the fucking link you will see they have humanitarian troops in Sudan. And, the AU is complaining that the Sudan Army is attacking those troops! Why? Those troops certainly aren't doing anything in the Civil War

    How about the Central African Republic? Most of the citizens in the Western World couldn't even find the country on a map. But CAR blames Sudan for unrest on the border between the two countries.

    How about the United Nations? The UN, which, if anything, is actually anti-Israel & anti-US, has a major humanitarian program going on in Sudan. The humanitarian effort is focused on three areas: East Sudan (home of thousands o Ethiopian and Erirtrean refugees, South Sudan and Darfur. If you have the fucking guts to read my link, you will see that one of the primary goals of the Sudanese Refugee mission is to PROTECT the refugees from intimidation. And their chief problem is armed conflict.

    Now stop spouting your conspiracy theories. You trolled for a response, now I'm going to stick around and continue to annoy the fuck out of you. Give me FACTS! Don't just spout off talking points that were distributed by your local mosque.

    As for me begin a "neo-con", you should realize that I am a proud Democrat. I voted against that idiot George Bush two times. I dislike George Bush. I dislike his policies. I was against Iraq before THAT war even started.

  108. Re:Darfur by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hmm your now spreading half truth's, please read something (for instance the Wikipedia article) about the Darfur conflict before spreading more misleading information. You will see that what you just said isn't exactly accurate (not wrong per sé, but still misleading).

  109. Re:Darfur by rossz · · Score: 1

    Either that or it ends when one side is exterminated.

    --
    -- Will program for bandwidth
  110. Re:Darfur by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's it! I tried to stay silent and not feed the troll, but the last comment was enough."Zionists", "Neocons"??? Why not go ahead and say what you really mean? You want to blame it on "teh Jooz", which is a form of covert antisemitism that has become quite typical of the far-left/Islamist propaganda machine. You people slaughter innocents like cattle and teach children to hate before you teach them to read, and then find a way to tacitly blame it all on "Zionists" and "Neocons" and what have you through numerous association fallacies, sophisms and other BS that is characteristic of the perorations of fanatic Muslims and their moonbat allies Then you expect the civilized world to take you seriously? Please! Put your tinfoil turban back on and slink back into your madrassah, we're all stocked up on crazy here on slashdot. And don't expect any sympathy from a non-westerner non-"Zionist" like me when a missile with your name on it sends you to the Dargha where you belong. Khuda Hafiz!

  111. Don't expect others to defend you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't expect others to defend you.

    It's quite reasonable to expect people to defend to the death their lives and the lives of their loved ones.

    One thing that has always bothered me about Haitian, Cuban, and other nationalist protesters in the U.S. has been that, rather than staying and fighting to change their country, they come to the U.S. and stage large rallies to attempt to pressure the U.S. government to send U.S. troops to their former countries to die in their stead.

    I imagine that a lot of the recent immigrant strife in France has struck the majority of the French people, particularly those descended from families whose members gave their lives in the French revolution, the same way.

    If you want your country to be free, be willing to stay there and, if necessary, pay for that freedom with your life.

    I expect that this is something only citizens of countries which have lived through a revolutionary war, and won their freedom at heavy cost, can understand.

    - X

  112. Of course Tripoli's government didn't approve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "This is not about Islam or the Qur'an itself. It is about whacked out religious nuts and their crazy interpretations."

    Of course they are.

    "...that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise."

  113. Re:Of course Sudan's government didn't approve by FunWithKnives · · Score: 1

    * defending islam

    What, exactly, is wrong with defending Islam? It has been skewed radically by extremist whackos and the West alike.

    * terrorist dot net email

    It is referred to as being facetious. The intent is to piss off those who buy into the "neo-Red Scare" of "The Terrorists." It would seem that it works rather well.

    * claims that muslim states welcome jews (?!?!)

    You are turning my comment into something which it is not. I explained that, until recently, Islamic states were tolerant when it came to other religions "of The Book." At no point did I say that this is predominant today. Unfortunately, extremist nutcase contingents have taken over in quite a few cases. I have a personal opinion as to why this is happening, but it is not relevant to this discussion.

    sure says a lot about you, now doesn't it?

    Yes, I believe it does. It says that I am a rational, logical human being who weighs issues and bases inferences upon facts rather than hype or propaganda.

    --
    "We may face a scorched and lifeless earth, but they're accountable to their shareholders first."
  114. Re:The Electrum Rule by jc42 · · Score: 1

    My point is that sometimes -- in fact often -- we believe things which are not true.

    Indeed. And some of the game theory research has dealt with this. For example, in a number of the tests with humans or software, the testers would lie to the subjects about the actions of their opponents. In some cases, this altered slightly the rankings of strategies.

    It's a fun topic to read about, and there's a lot to read about it.

    --
    Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  115. How about Metalaw instead? by tlambert · · Score: 1

    How about Metalaw instead?

    "Do unto others as they would have you do unto them".

    Reference:
    Andrew G. Haley
    "Space Law and Metalaw - A Synoptic View."
    Rome: Associazione Italiana Razzi
    Proceedings of the Seventh International Astronautical Congress, 1956.

    -- Terry

  116. Re:Darfur by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You deny that it was a possible outcome? Please elaborate.

  117. Re:Of course Sudan's government didn't approve by x_codingmonkey_x · · Score: 1

    What about religions not of the book? How did they treat Hindu's, etc? Hmm? Also, the thing is, Mohammad said many times that Muslims must fight and die in the name of god, that they will be rewarded with 72 virgins and that they should kill infidels. Just because Christians and Jews were considered people of the book, doesn't mean this same "tolerance" was extended to other religions.

  118. Re:Darfur by mapkinase · · Score: 1

    First link is BS, second is worth looking at.

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  119. Re:Darfur by mapkinase · · Score: 1

    What are you smoking? I said there is civil war over there, period. The international media guided by American imperialism is playing on one side, the side of the rebels. That is what my comments about, not about "rosy".

    Now, please continue arguing with the strawman.

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  120. Re:Darfur by hobo+sapiens · · Score: 1

    You think civil war and ethnic cleansing are mutually exclusive? Come on.

    What this boils down to is that you are saying that 1) people are not really being massacred in Darfur, or 2) that they are and it's all OK because it's civil war.

    Which is it? Honestly? Am I missing a third option? Please, educate me.

    --
    blah blah blah
  121. Re:Of course Sudan's government didn't approve by FunWithKnives · · Score: 1

    What about religions not of the book? How did they treat Hindu's, etc? Hmm?

    Muhammad himself was a pagan for roughly half of his life. After founding Islam, though, he and his followers were persecuted by the pagan tribes of Mecca, resulting in their immigration to Medina. There was then a war waged between Muhammad's followers and the pagan tribes of Mecca. The Muslims were vastly outnumbered by the tribes, but eventually they were victorious. Afterward, Muhammad walked into Mecca and, instead of pillaging, raping, and murdering, as victors were wont to do at that time, he invited them into the Umma. The problems arose once Muhammad died, and the caliphs took over as leaders of the Umma. This is when Muslims really began to spread Islam beyond the Arabian Peninsula, encountering resistance and launching invasions, as in the case of India. It definitely did turn into a crusade at that point.

    ... the thing is, Mohammad said many times that Muslims must fight and die in the name of god, that they will be rewarded with 72 virgins and that they should kill infidels.

    This is completely, utterly untrue. I am unsure exactly where you got this from, but I suggest not using it as a source of information any longer, because it is painfully biased.

    I'll assume that you are speaking of Jihad, which has been, as usual, horribly misinterpreted (whether intentionally or not) by portions of the West, as well as Islamic extremist contingents. Jihad, in the context of the Qur'an (in other words, the correct context), is mainly about nothing more than self-improvement; the effort exerted to change oneself. There is also "Jihad of the Sword," but it is nothing like what you are assuming. "Jihad of the Sword" is only to be used against oppressors and those who persecute Muslims. It is about self-defense, not offense. Since everyone has come out of the woodwork with out-of-context snippets of the Qur'an, I'll attempt to negate them with one that is actually within context:

    God does not forbid you, regarding those (pagans and other non-Muslims) who did not fight you because of your religion, and who did not drive you out of your land, that you be good to them and treat them justly. Allah only forbids you regarding those who fought you because of your religion and drove you out of your homes, and came to the help of those who drove you out, that you should befriend them. Any of you who befriend them (and be their allies) are transgressors. [60:8-9]

    I am not attempting to slight you with a history lesson here. I just find the level of misunderstanding in the West regarding Islam to be simply ludicrous. If an atheist like myself must defend the true meaning of a religion, then something is terribly wrong with the situation.

    --
    "We may face a scorched and lifeless earth, but they're accountable to their shareholders first."
  122. Re:Darfur by mapkinase · · Score: 1

    I said what I said. Calling it a genocide is an exhaggeration. It is nowhere near genocide.

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  123. Re:Darfur by hobo+sapiens · · Score: 1

    hmm...I, like you, have no way of verifying what is happening in Darfur firsthand. Both of us rely on secondhand knowledge (making what I believe to be a safe assumption). However, I have to go with the human rights groups, charity aid organizations, UN reports, and then the media on this one. If it were just the media saying this, then I might have to agree with you. But it's more than that. In fact...

    To wit, there is nobody saying what your are saying, except those who have some political interest in keep the status quo in Sudan. It seems you are taking their stance. Why is that? Is it because the government in Khartoum is an Islamic one? Is your religion blinding you to what appear to be the facts? I ask that sincerely.

    Every Muslim should understand how disaster results when religion and politics get intertwined. That has been the problem with so-called "christianity" for centuries now, and often Muslims have been the target of their hate campaigns. Now Islam is just as bad. It's a classic example of someone long-oppressed becoming just like the oppressor. Sad.

    --
    blah blah blah
  124. Re:Darfur by mapkinase · · Score: 1

    I am not pro-Sudanese government. If you know both sides of the conflict are Muslims. That is why the conflict should be resolved by international islamic community.

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  125. Re:Darfur by hobo+sapiens · · Score: 1

    That is why the conflict should be resolved by international islamic community.

    Interesting idea, and I see your point. Do you see that happening? Is there some movement to do so that you are aware of?
    --
    blah blah blah
  126. Re:Darfur by mapkinase · · Score: 1

    There are moves but they are inadequate.

    For a Muslims losing the faith is much worse than losing the life. That is what going to happen. As a result of Western intervention may be less people die in the armed conflict (though we know it is not true - take Iraq: Saddam killed less people than the number of people were killed during the Iraq war), but more people will die (naturally or else) not in a state of Islam, led astray from the right path by Western consumerism, capitalism and all other isms.

    Death is short, even shorter than life, but the afterlife is eternal.

    Muslims do not mourn death but we are requested to weep on the fate of those who died not in the state of Islam. THAT fate is horrible.

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  127. Re:Darfur by hobo+sapiens · · Score: 1
    Thanks for the replies. It certainly is interesting hearing your perspective on this.

    Muslims do not mourn death but we are requested to weep on the fate of those who died not in the state of Islam. THAT fate is horrible.

    I am not so ignorant as to say that all Muslims agree or are just like the few who engage in terrorism, like many here in the US would like to believe. With what you just said, though, how then do you think terrorists can justify killing non-Muslims? To be fair, I wonder how "christians" (note my use of quotes) can justify killing others too.

    As a Christian, I believe that we should not get involved in the wars and politics of the day. Jesus didn't when he was here on earth, and that's the example we should follow. He taught love for neighbor. Europe and the US are not and have never been Christian. It's always been a bastardized form of it, mingled with politics and the pursuit of corrupting power. It's unfortunate that people judge a religion and it's text (the bible) based on the mountain of misdeeds performed by those who claim to follow it.

    Why do I say that? Because there are Christians who hate injustice and the greed and commercialism that they live in the midst of. I think that sometimes just as Muslims are labeled as terrorists in the west, all claiming to be Christian are lumped together as greedy commercialists. I just want you to know that not all Christians are in support of the what you call imperialism. There are a few of us who stay out of these conflicts, trusting that God will deal with these things in time, and will do so far better than we ever could. We stay out of these things. As Jesus said, we are no part of the world. We have to fight against the corrupting influences around us all of the time.
    --
    blah blah blah
  128. Killings by mapkinase · · Score: 1

    With what you just said, though, how then do you think terrorists can justify killing non-Muslims?
    First of all, I do not know their REAL justification they carry in their hearts, the REAL intention. This knowledge is not to us humans, not even angels. This knowledge is only available to the One who created us with every second of our lives and fates we are discovering second by second.

    Second, Allah, subhanahu wa ta'ala, says in the Noble Qur'an that unjust killing of a one person is equal to killing the whole humanity (there is no indication that by "person" He meant only Muslims). The exegesis of this part of Qur'an says, in particular:

    (that if anyone killed a person not in retaliation of murder, or (and) to spread mischief in the land - it would be as if he killed all mankind, and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind.) The Ayah states, whoever kills a soul without justification -- such as in retaliation for murder or for causing mischief on earth -- will be as if he has killed all mankind, because there is no difference between one life and another.
    I do not know who is really performing those acts, whether they are Muslims or not, but I cannot find justification of killing obvious civilians. The only phrase from Allah's words that some people could use for justification of killing civilians (who are not obviously legally convicted murderers) is "spreading mischief on earth". This phrase is very general and it might be explained deeper in the Sunnah of the Prophet, sal Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam. I am not a scholar, but to my knowledge I do not see any examples of military activities of the Prophet, sal Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam, His Companions, radi Allahu anhum, including Four Rightful Khalifas (abu Bakr, Umar ibn Khattab, Uthman and 'Ali), that can be used as analogy for bombing civilians. But, again, I am not a scholar. I can surely say that there is no consensus of scholars on these matters, which (disunity) is a big test for Muslims, or/and big punishment for disobeying orders of Allah.

    In another Hadith (the authentic report of the saying of the Prophet, sal Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam), He, sal Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam, said that three types of people are most hated by Allah and He mentioned among them a murderer.

    May be some people do not realize, that Islam is quite organized religion, encompassing all aspects of human life, but the enforcement of Islamic code on many of those aspects is contingent on the presence of Islamic rule in the land, Khailifa. This, to my knowledge, include all the military actions, because the first ever organized military action happened when the Prophet, sal Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam, has already formed first Islamic city-state in Madinah. There was one isolated killing of a non-Muslim by a Muslim before that, in Makkah, but that was self-defence, as far as I remember the history of this event.

    Everything that I said wrong is from me and me alone, and everything that I said right is from Allah.
    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    1. Re:Killings by hobo+sapiens · · Score: 1
      Interesting points.

      One who created us with every second of our lives and fates we are discovering second by second.

      Do Muslims believe that every event in our lives is pre-ordained? I didn't think so, but from that statement it appears you do. Just curious...if you believe that every event is predetermined, then what is the justification for punishing criminals? And do you believe in the concept of free will?

      Hopefully you are not tiring of our discussion. I am enjoying it. I hope /. doesn't lock this story down today.
      --
      blah blah blah
    2. Re:Killings by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      "Do Muslims believe that every event in our lives is pre-ordained? " Yes. This is one of six cornerstones of Islam. The person who does not believe in predestination is not Muslim.

      "what is the justification for punishing criminals". We do not need justification when there is order of Allah to punish criminals. People do have free will, because of what they do not know and because it is the only way to advance along the time axis, by applying free will. So concerning "And do you believe in the concept of free will", I do not have to believe, I know that I have a free will, it is kind of an obvious fact. Philosophically the relationship between free will and preordainment is very complex and hard to grasp, but we do not have to grasp it "completely" (which is impossible anyway), the Word of Allah is enough.

      I am tempted to add this, so I am adding on my own: one can think of application of free will this way. We do not know our future and most importantly where do we go after death - Heaven or Hell, but it is in a human nature (which we call it Fitra) to be positive about our future. I do not want to end up in Hell very much, so I try to act as if I am not going there, which means I have to obey the orders of Allah and then I rely on the All-Encompassing Mercy of the Creator to be saved from the Hellfire (there are many beautiful and moving examples from the Sunnah illustrating the magnitude of this Mercy). That is the only thought that saves us from hardship of the test called life.

      There is also a Prayer, in which the worshipper addresses God directly for what he needs. Prayer in Islam is considered the most powerful weapon of a man. Prayer can change what it seems to us as our fate, when all the signs around us point to a doomsday fate, when everything around tells us - you are not going away with what you have done. At that existential moment, the sheer sincerety of our prayer reaches Allah and He grants our wish, things start happening out of nowhere. So it is a very important aspect of our lives, really powerful. I have experienced the sheer application of this law in my own life couple of times. It is quite powerful feeling that fills you up, when you realize what just happened.

      The fate of a human being changes suddenly and unpredictably. Autocratic ruler that did not give much about religion, a merciless murderer, becomes powerless and penniless prisoner but with a firm belief in Allah, that allows him a dignified death at the hands of the executioners that tried their best with their camera cellphones and shouting to take away the dignity of the moment. Poor become rich. Famous scholars of Islam end up in deepest Hell. People who used to spit in the face of the Prophet, sal Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam, become people who compete in catching his spit in their hands.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    3. Re:Killings by hobo+sapiens · · Score: 1

      Philosophically the relationship between free will and preordainment is very complex and hard to grasp, but we do not have to grasp it "completely" (which is impossible anyway), the Word of Allah is enough.

      As a Christian, I don't believe in predestination (some claiming to be Christian do -- but I do not believe that the Bible teaches that). Not that that detracts from God's power; he certainly can tell the future and has done so in the past. Just because he can doesn't mean he does in every case. Think of a very strong man -- just because he can pick up heavy things, does he do it just to do it? No. Just because we have some ability doesn't mean we use it everywhere and in every case. In my mind, there is no cognitive dissonance from believing that an omniscient God can *choose* not to foreknow and foreordain everything. He does this when the need arises.

      Since we have free will, He allows us to make our own decisions. I believe that we were created with free will, else, how could God have justly punished Adam and Eve and the devil for rebelling? Conversely, why a reward for doing good? After all, we were just doing what our program told us to do. But He did give us free will, and I do not believe He intended for man to rebel as they did. In fact, as it says in Exodus 32:4 or 5 (I think its 32:4, but going from memory here, but I know Muslims do believe in the Torah and thus Exodus, right?) of the straying nation of Israel that "the defect is their own". Anyhow, the short of it is that God created mankind perfect but *we* deviated. According to my understanding of God, it's contrary to His nature to give us free will and then punish us for using it. The Bible teaches that one of His cardinal qualities is justice. All of His works are justice, as scripture says.

      How's this for your atypical /. conversation? News for Nerds, Theology, whatever. I guess we are so deep in the thread the trolls are ignoring us. I figured by now we'd have been attacked by all the athiest trolls.
      --
      blah blah blah
    4. Re:Killings by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      "How's this for your atypical /. conversation?" Well, this is definitely "stuff that matters" to me... I will try to answer later on today.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    5. Re:Killings by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      Allah has created everything, every material object with its history, everything in this world has start and end in time. He created space and time. Creation of time means that He created every single moment of the bullet flight. So there is no past or future for Him, those are for us trapped in four dimensional cells. Your analogy between God and man is dangerous, He does not like Him comparing to any of His creations. This analogy does not work here. His motives are known to Him, what is known to us is only what He wants us to know and what is sufficient for us to make right choices in our lives.

      The foreordainment is a logical consequence of the fact of creation and omnipotence of the Creator. Your example resemblance of a tradional fallacy of an atheist who says: "If God is omnipotent, can He create something that is stronger than Him?" The fallacy of all kinds of arguments is in ascribing to Allah antropogenic attributes or materialistic attributes (enumerability, e.g.. There is no enumerability in "God is one", because one here is not a numbe, there is no comparability as well).

      "I believe that we were created with free will, else, how could God have justly punished Adam and Eve and the devil for rebelling?" This is approach to punishment from a human to another human, parents to the child, man to his wife, judge to the criminal. The Justice of Allah is an axiome, not a theorem. It is a starting point. We do not discuss or question His judgement. Clearly Adam and Eve KNEW NOT TO DO what they have done, when Allah DIRECTLY told them not to do so. They applied their free will. They chose to listen to the Iblis, Shaitan, the Devil. And for that there is a punishment.

      "Why the reward?" We are rewarded eventually not because we did good, but because of His infinite Mercy (but we won't be punished more than we deserved to be punished, not a single million years more). All people that believed in One God will eventually get into the Paradise, even if they had to spend long long time in Hell as a purification. There is no question of "why the reward". The severity of Hell exceeds all imagination. The skin of the people will be burned off (you can easily google up images of severely burned people) in a great pain and once it looses the sensitivity, new skin will be given that will be burned off again and again and again. There is no relief of loss of consciousness, no relief of shock, no relief of dumbness, no relief of dullness of getting used to pain, not even relief of death. An inhabitant of Hell will wish that he is dead million times a second, but there will be no escape, it will be billion times scarier than the scariest nightmare one can imagine. His pain will be physical, physiological, biological, chemical, mental and in all other possible scientific ways imaginable. In normal life a person in pain may find solace in release of suffering from guilt and vice versa. Not in Hell. And that could last million of years. So there is no question of "why the reward", because we WANT the reward very much, you want the reward very much, a man wishes very much that he is chosen to get into Paradise.

      Umar ibn Khattab, radi Allahu anhu, said that if even only one person will be decreed by Allah to go to Hell, he will be fearful to be that person and if even only one person will be saved from the Hellfire, he will be hopeful very much that that person will be he.

      If you are a thirstiest person on Earth amidst the largest desert and you are promised a sip of water as a "reward", would you be answering "why me"? You will just do whatever it takes to get it.

      "it's contrary to His nature to give us free will and then punish us for using it". Not for using it, but misusing it. We are punishable only if we know what is right and what is wrong. The insane are not punishable, the children that did not reach the puberty are not punishable (if they die before puberty they go to Heaven). So there is no question of using your Free Will between vanilla ice cream and cinnabon bun. It is a choice betw

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    6. Re:Killings by hobo+sapiens · · Score: 1

      Your analogy between God and man is dangerous, He does not like Him comparing to any of His creations.
      The Bible uses various anthropomorphisms. I intend no disrespect.

      What I believe from the Bible tells me that God's purpose is for humans to live on earth, just where he put Adam and Eve. The notion of all good people going to heaven or hell is a bit foreign to me. I believe that God's purpose is as stated in Jeremiah 45:18 "...[he] created the earth to be inhabited...". As for the notion that God burns people in a burning hell, the Bible doesn't teach this either. The Bible teaches that God is love. Let me preface this next statement so that it's not offensive to you: I am not a Zionist. God's favor left Israel 2000 years ago. I do not believe that the physical nation of Israel has any special favor with God, nor do people of the Jewish faith any more than anyone else. I honestly have no idea why the US, a "christian" nation backs Israel so fervently. Anyhow. Now, God said he would displace the nations around Israel and give them some land. Why? Partially because of the practices of many of the people (who clearly at the time were not Muslims). They sacrificed their children by burning them alive. They engaged in sex worship (sound like anyone today?). God hated their practices. So I don't personally think it is very consistent with His personality to have such a place as a tortuous hell. If God is love, justice, etc, I personally believe that he doesn't want to torment people. So what is the deterrent from doing bad, you may well ask? Well, if we do bad we don't get to live. We die. In fact, the Bible teaches that the dead are unconscious. The hebrew word for soul, "nephesh" literally means "one who breathes". And according to the original Hebrew, the soul can die. In fact, in the Christian scriptures the Bible says "the soul that is sinning, it will die". So death is the ultimate punishment. That's because we serve a loving God who gives us the choice to serve Him or not.

      Organized religion has corrupted itself so badly. It is responsible for most of the wars of the last millennium, maybe even before. It is responsible for mankind being so divided. And yet, you make a good point. How have we, since becoming such a secular society progressed? Technologically, sure. In the US, equal rights are *starting* to get a foothold (though worldwide there are more slaves than ever, as I recently read). But our moral relativism helps nobody and leaves people feeling empty. As Jesus said, "happy are those conscious of their spiritual need". People who give no attention to this need cannot possibly be happy.

      About the shooting...I totally agree with you. People feel they have the right to do anything. Everyone is accountable, though, whether they want to acknowledge it or not.

      Anyhow, I gotta run now. Hope to hear from you...

      --
      blah blah blah
  129. Christianity and Jesus; economy by mapkinase · · Score: 1

    Muslims rever and respect Jesus Christ. We believe that He will return back closer to the end of times (that will constitute one of what we call Major Sings of the Judgement Day) to establish Islamic rule on Earth. We also believe that after Jesus, 'alaihi wa salaam, returned to his Creator, the Christianity was deformed, and people followed not what he taught, but their own innovations. That is why Allah sent down the Prophet Muhammad, sal Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam, the last Messenger, and revealed through him the Noble Qur'an addressing the whole humanity and all life forms with free will.

    All the Prophets told us and gave us example on that, that we should live not for the worldly things, but only to please the Creator. That definitely excludes the rule of rampant materialism we observe in so called civilized world: the rule of money and greed, that caused feminism (through the need of exploitation of cheeper labor), moral ambivalency in consumerism (homosexuals as a consumer group), okhlocracy (catering to the mob, which is wrongfully called democracy) and many other deseases of society.

    Muslims are not communists and lawful trade and business are allowed and the private property of the owner is protected by the decree of Allah. But the business has to be lawful: merchants and manufacturers should not involve in businesses that corrupt the society (the industry of indecency: movies, games, art, rap, fashion, business of tobacco products and alcoholic beverages) and they should be honest in their business transactions (that covers a lot of YRO topics).

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.