Slashdot Mirror


Feds May Soon Be Allowed To Use Cookies

fast66 writes "The White House may lift its policy barring federal Web sites from tracking users' online behavior. In place since 2000, the cookie policy issued by the Office of Management and Budget was intended to protect citizen privacy but has sparked criticism — even from White House officials — for hampering citizen outreach. On Friday, Bev Godwin, the director of online resources and interagency development at the White House's new media office, blogged on the White House Web site, 'We want to use cookies for good, not evil' — and invited the public to comment on cookies through various online channels, including the Office of Science and Technology Policy blog."

181 comments

  1. No problem by religious+freak · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you don't like cookies, block them. For those that don't even understand what a cookie is, make it clear what the government is doing and prove it through open source. Makes for a better web experience.

    What's the problem with that?

    --
    If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
    1. Re:No problem by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If you don't like cookies, block them... What's the problem with that?

      I block cookies, javascript and all plugins (with the exception of my whitelist). The problem is that more and more sites annoyingly (and uselessly) require these to work. I'm fine not having a draggable map, but ever since GoogleMaps, every map site has become reliant on Javascript. Half the random sites bitch if I have cookies off. Etc.

      Much like the "works best in [Browser X]" these annoying additions are being used in the place of, not as a suppliment to, standard webfare.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    2. Re:No problem by kindbud · · Score: 1

      If you don't like kooties, block them. For those that don't even understand what a kootie is, make it clear what the government is doing and prove it through open source. Makes for a better web experience.

      What's the problem with that?

      --
      Edith Keeler Must Die
    3. Re:No problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Obama will appoint a "Cookie Czar" and pay him $75k a year to decide IF you get one or DON'T GET ONE. I guess this is the CHANGE he was promoting during his run for President!

    4. Re:No problem by religious+freak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you choose to live in a cave, you can't bitch about not having electricity.

      (not trolling just being blunt)

      --
      If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
    5. Re:No problem by Anonymous+CowHardon · · Score: 1, Funny

      I use an open-source cootie catcher. Works every time.

    6. Re:No problem by daeley · · Score: 4, Funny

      He's not complaining about not having electricity. He's complaining about being forbidden from whacking sabertooths on the head unless he's using a newfangled club that shouts "I AM A CLUB!" while you wave it in the air and it shoots out orange and yellow flames.

      If he were asking for the Google Maps website to send him directions via telegraph, then he would be complaining about electricity.

      This post brought to you by the Mixed Metaphor Society: Keeping the Home Fires on Track since 1962.

      --
      I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
    7. Re:No problem by Falcon4 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Um, I dunno why your tin foil hat is so large, but seriously, you're living in the 90's. There is - and never was - anything wrong at all with Javascript or cookies. Flash can be annoying, but the benefits far outweigh the "risk". Java is the only thing I don't particularly trust, since it's pretty much an open gateway to malware today.

      Javascript, though? Seriously? Javascript is "standard webfare" in the modern world. Cookies are, as well. Every single modern web browser supports them, and enable developers to do some pretty cool things, like draggable maps, real-time page updates (AJAX), etc.

      Put simply, you've got more to worry about in your web history than you'd ever have to worry about in cookies. With cookies, what are you protecting yourself from? A company trying to improve their product? What about Javascript? Protect yourself against... dynamic webpages? You're doing yourself more harm than good with these old principles. Should've left them at the door with Firefox 1.0... welcome to the Internet of the 21st century.

    8. Re:No problem by CaptSaltyJack · · Score: 3, Insightful

      From the perspective of a web designer/developer who uses Javascript to enhance and optimize the user experience: people like you drive me up a frickin' wall. There's no need to disable all that stuff, unless you have a paranoid personality disorder.

      Look, it just takes some common sense. Don't surf to sites that may be malicious. 99% of the time, it's completely obvious what those sites are. Also, it helps to not use IE, which is more susceptible to attacks than Firefox and other browsers.

      Someone please give me a valid reason why anyone should be blocking cookies (1st party, NOT 3rd party) and disabling Javascript, other than paranoia and/or a bad case of nerd grump.

    9. Re:No problem by Em+Emalb · · Score: 2, Insightful

      unless he's using a newfangled club that shouts "I AM A CLUB!" while you wave it in the air and it shoots out orange and yellow flames.

      I wonder if Think Geek sells those? WANT.

      --
      Sent from your iPad.
    10. Re:No problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you don't need open source to prove it you giant faggot, just use windows like the rest of us and look at files being added to the folder they all go in.

    11. Re:No problem by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Leave cookies on, just make the directory that they go in is read only.
      The site will think you allow cookies.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    12. Re:No problem by geekoid · · Score: 3, Funny

      Your post hit that bull's-eye, and the dominoes fell like a house of cards.Checkmate!

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    13. Re:No problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Javascript is relatively (!) sparsely used for user experience improvement. It's mostly used for tracking and ad delivery. Turn off Javascript someday and be amazed how little content actually needs it. Cookies should be replaced by a standard for web page preferences, where the web page specifies which options there are and what the possible values are. Then the users can set the preferences they care about in their browser and leave others (like tracking IDs) unset. Logins should never be implemented with cookies.

      Java, btw, is a comparatively safe plugin. The much more ubiquitous Flash is not safer. Flash currently has an unpatched remote code execution vulnerability which is actively exploited in the wild.

    14. Re:No problem by geekoid · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Stop spreading those lies. Cookies can be hijacks and can be leveraged for an attack.

      I know, I was paid to do that when I did security.

      Ever see the expression on a financial CEO's face when you hand them a list of customer information, account balances and passwords you get after 30 minutes of being on the job?

      Priceless.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    15. Re:No problem by C-Dilla · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh I don't know, he's free to pick up a good old fashioned stick and do whatever he wants with it. He just can't complain if his leg gets bitten off by the sabertooth while his buddies are munching on tasty sabertooth kebabs thanks to their newfangled flame-shooting clubs.

    16. Re:No problem by CastrTroy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Simple. Just do what I do. Let cookies be saved, but only until you close your browser. I do this except for my whitelist where I let it store cookies permanently. This is really easy to set up in Firefox. I also have flash block installed, which is the only plugin I have installed. As far as Javascript goes, I let that run, but there's only so much it can do with cookies disabled, along with a good popup blocker. Never really had much of a problem with Javascript.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    17. Re:No problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      I posted a response to a comment on the parent griping about flash and javascript--they are a security risk. I'll ignore cookies--that gets a bit...difficult to explain.

      But because you don't seem to get it--let's make the javascript answer so simple even a programmer can understand it...

      1) go to www.slashdot.org
      2) hit view source
      3) search for "ad.doubleclick.net"
      4) you should see a call to document.write at a dynamic URL slashdot doesn't control
      5) understand that a LOT of these go out through resellers--who go through other resellers--and so on...and all you have to do is buy a single script that gets into an ad rotation at a site like CNN or /. to be loading content off of another site--that can edit my DOM and run the driveby exploit du-jour.

      Even if the script was safe when they checked it--it might not be safe five hours later when my browser pulls it down from a different IP address or netblock. The javascript isn't the risk--the third party javascript writing to my DOM to open an iframe with a driveby exploit is.

      (and FWIW, there are actual javascript vulnerabilities--but I figured I'd stick to the obvious in this post)

      As long as people continue to use things this way--they're a security risk.

    18. Re:No problem by Skapare · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The site I'm building now won't bitch if you have cookies off. But if you try to login, you'll find that subsequent requests will be handled as if you have not logged in. If the web ever gets a better login scheme standardized, implemented, and widely deployed, then maybe cookies won't be needed as a half-arsed way to achieve login sessions. Also, if you disabled Javascript, the site will not lay out nicely. But that will fall under the same "degrade gracefully" principle as if you disabled CSS.

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    19. Re:No problem by bluej100 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm a Javascript developer, and I use NoScript, because I'm frequently Googling for information and checking sites I haven't visited before. Almost any time a Firefox vulnerability is announced, NoScript already prevents the exploit. Besides, I don't want third-party tracking and flashy ads when I'm just browsing for information. I'm happy to add genuine web apps to my whitelist, but blog comment forms, for example, should never require Javascript to function.

    20. Re:No problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the part about making it clear to the common user that is the problem. That will NEVER happen. That's why we're all here as IT folks, believe it or not, to know how these things work and protect our users.

      They're not supposed to have to know anything about how their computer works. We can't all know everything, that's why we all have different jobs. Thought everyone already had that figured out.

      There is no need for cookies, and the government already knows more about any of us than it has any need or right to know.

    21. Re:No problem by stephanruby · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What's the problem with that?

      There is no problem with that, and may be that's the point.

      Let's be really pedantic about cookies, let's waste all our time discussing them, all the while the government (with the help of the private sector) is silently trying to archive, index, and search through all our private emails, private phone conversations, web browsing logs (and search terms), phone graph relationships, travel plans, medical drug and mental health information, dna relationships, and/or anti-war political affiliations.

      And let's not worry about the fact that all the low level city cops (at least in San Francisco) routinely do background checks and get private medical information for any random woman they're interested in dating (without any oversight, without any official reason, and without any logging that they've even accessed that information in the first place).

      Let's talk about cookies instead and let's keep on explaining what cookies mean (because here on slashdot, I'm sure that no one knows what cookies are) -- ignoring all the other ways our privacy is being violated over and over again -- without even us knowing.

    22. Re:No problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your job gets much easier if you value your own privacy and sanity. Enable popup blocking, disable cookies or limit them to the session, enable prompts for all forms of active content (IE) or install NoScript (Mozilla), disable local storage for all plugins which support it (Flash, Java), turn off the referer header, set your browser's user agent strings to something generic, turn off your browser's history. Then write your applications so that they don't annoy you with these settings.

    23. Re:No problem by maxume · · Score: 1

      You should have gone with "I'm a javascript developer and I use NoScript, because I know about all the shady crap I pull."

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    24. Re:No problem by stephanruby · · Score: 0, Troll

      Sarah Palin?? Is that you?

    25. Re:No problem by Excelcior · · Score: 5, Informative

      Cookies should be replaced by a standard for web page preferences, where the web page specifies which options there are and what the possible values are. Then the users can set the preferences they care about in their browser and leave others (like tracking IDs) unset. Logins should never be implemented with cookies.

      Not to sound trollish, but seriously, are you a web coder? Strict online security in connection with login-protected content is simply not possible without a cookie*. Cookies are so standard that ASP even places cookies without telling the coder it's doing so (the 'application' variables).
      Cookies are a necessary part of the Internet. The only problems with them is that they 1) aren't encoded by default, 2) can be set to expire whenever the coder wants, which can fill directories quickly if you do much browsing, and 3) can be made accessible to websites other than those who issued them.

      If web browsers would just encode all cookies by default, then decode them whenever sending them back to a server, that would keep spyware from reading their contents from your computer. Then, if the browsers would store a 'touched date', and automatically delete all cookies over X age (configurable by the user?), many useless cookies would go away automatically. Finally, if cookies were only able to be read/written to by their issuing server, there would be no possibility for exploit (except to track your movements through pages which contain some content served by the issuing server, such as the much beloved doubleclick.net cookies -- which could easily be done-away-with by adding the rule that cookies cannot be accessed by any page displayed within an iframe/object/etc.)
      Everyone always seems to believe that cookies are small programs or some such nonsense. Cookies are nothing but tiny databases stored on the user's computer. How much damage can that do?

      * If you think you can have strict security by only tracking a user's IP address and/or passing a variable from one page to the next, you are sorely mistaken.

      p.s. I know, I know.... ASP is m$ft. Get over it. :-P ;-)

      --
      A small comparison of interest:
      Windows: Public School. Mac: Private School. Linux: Homeschool. Assembly: Unschool.
    26. Re:No problem by Quothz · · Score: 1

      I block cookies, javascript and all plugins (with the exception of my whitelist). The problem is that more and more sites annoyingly (and uselessly) require these to work.

      The proposal specifically prohibits restricting access to information or discrimination of services based on opting out of cookies.

    27. Re:No problem by HuckleCom · · Score: 1

      This is like bitching about the "internet" requiring a browser... Do you need it, really? No, you can use telnet to port 80 - but it certainly makes the experience better.

    28. Re:No problem by tunapez · · Score: 1

      If you live in a sandbox, you can't bitch about not having functionality.

      I've used SandboxIE to surf pr0n virus free for almost two years. I will continue to do so, it's only a matter of time until FF & IE private modes get gamed.
      I do run NoScript when not sandboxed.

      --
      Imagination drew in bold strokes, instantly serving hopes and fears, while knowledge advanced by slow increments...
    29. Re:No problem by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      The main reason I don't do this is... Take that blog comment form. Yes, it should work without Javascript. However, with Javascript enabled, it shouldn't require a page reload, and could even provide realtime updates of comments other users are posting.

      And if it's a proper, gracefully-degrading website, the only way you know about that is to turn Javascript on and test it.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    30. Re:No problem by mysidia · · Score: 1

      If you ask me, what's stupid is that browsers even allow 'script' tags inside a document.write.

      Or allow script tags that refer to URLS outside the site you are visiting.

      There ought to be options to block both things.

      Both should be blocked by default.

      As should be scripting in remote frames.

    31. Re:No problem by mh1997 · · Score: 1

      What's the problem with that?

      You think they don't already track your movements on the web, cell phones, etc? I seem to remember something about illegal wire-taps recently. What other illegal activities have you not heard about yet.

    32. Re:No problem by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      He's complaining about being forbidden from whacking sabertooths on the head unless he's using a newfangled club that shouts "I AM A CLUB!" while you wave it in the air and it shoots out orange and yellow flames

      That would be true if the sabertooths and clubs were commercially-supported or government-run, running on a public trust that runs over cables owned by publicly-owned corporations that ran on a backbone originally designed and built by a government entity.

      Other than that, your metaphor is perfectly appropriate, except for every noun.

      Also.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    33. Re:No problem by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I've used SandboxIE [sandboxie.com] to surf pr0n virus free for almost two years.

      Do me a favor: When you buy a new computer, please don't sell your keyboard and mouse on eBay.

      OK?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    34. Re:No problem by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There you go again, displaying facts and ruining what might have been perfectly good flamebaiting based on suspicion, FUD and paranoia.

      If you want to surf anonymously, it's not that hard.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    35. Re:No problem by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Ever see the expression on a financial CEO's face when you hand them a list of customer information, account balances and passwords you get after 30 minutes of being on the job?

      You mean the expression that says "Who is this troublemaker, how much are we paying him, and call legal, because we have a potential blackmailer?"

      That expression?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    36. Re:No problem by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      I'm happy to add genuine web apps to my whitelist,

      See how easy that was?

      Next problem?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    37. Re:No problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Almost two years?! And here I am thinking two hours is impressive. What is your secret?

    38. Re:No problem by Brass+Cannon · · Score: 1

      What I think is interesting is that the general sentiment here seems to be:

      "I am smart enough to block cookies so it's OK that the government tracks those other "dumb" people."

      Well, those people are only dumb because they don't know enough to block cookies (or how to do it).

      BUT

      They are probably smarter than you on something else the government is doing.

      So basically you are taking the "They are not coming for me so I am not concerned" approach. This is a very dangerous philosophy.

      Oh, and if you think the government will ever make what they are doing clear, try reading the healthcare bill (HR 3200).

    39. Re:No problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There you go again, thinking everyone knows how to work their pr0n machine.

      That there are options to block cookies, and that most people here do, says a lot.

    40. Re:No problem by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      If a website has shoddy security, thats not the cookie's fault. You could do that just as easily by opening his saved passwords list. If the password is being stored locally, SUPRISE! you can retrieve it one way or the other-- even if you have to resort to sniffing.

    41. Re:No problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is so aggravating when the first response to an uncomfortable truth is a funny mod. But this seems to happen here more often than you'd think. (not the poster of the parent, btw)

    42. Re:No problem by AnyoneEB · · Score: 2, Informative

      I mostly agree with you. I would very much like a browser with the privacy settings you described. There is already the "Accept third-party cookies" option (I think all modern browser have a similar option), but I am not sure exactly what that does.

      On the other hand, cookies are not needed for logins. In fact, they are a rather insecure way to do logins as anyone who can see your cookies can take over your session. For example, if you are on an open Wi-Fi hotspot and view any website that uses cookie logins and allows viewing logged-in pages without encryption, then anyone on the same hotspot can see your cookies and hijack your session. There was an automated attack specifically for GMail a little while ago (which Google added a "require HTTPS" option to secure against), but the same principle works for any site that does not require HTTPS (so it [hopefully] won't affect your bank).

      Instead, logins should be done using HTTP digest authentication. As HTTP auth actually authenticates each request separately (as HTTP is stateless so it has to), it does not get tied to an IP, but still works without cookies. Additionally, it never sends the user's password in the clear, so even if the user is tricked into logging into a phisher's server, the phisher gets no useful information.

      Unfortunately, although all modern desktop browsers support digest auth (some more obscure mobile browsers might not), the UI is horrible. I have yet to see a browser even indicate clearly that the HTTP auth was not basic (read: send password in the clear which should come with as many click-through steps as Firefox's current setup for self-signed certificates). Also, users have been trained for years to expect login boxes to appear as part of a web page, not as part of the web browser.

      Using cookies for authentication is bad idea. They are currently the preferred solution for UI and historical, not technical, reasons. The browser vendors should be working on a sane authentication UI, so we can stop using them for that purpose.

      --
      Centralization breaks the internet.
    43. Re:No problem by asdfndsagse · · Score: 1

      Strict online security in connection with login-protected content is simply not possible without a cookie*.

      Perhaps you havn't heard of simple http authentication. Its widely used in web applications from big provider APIs, twitter, google, facebook, etc.

      I guess you have you head in a hole with MSFT stuff, and havn't taken the time to understand the underlying technologies.

    44. Re:No problem by megrims · · Score: 1

      As a web dev who avoids javascript except in the 5% of cases where it is appropriate, some reasons for disabling javascript:

      1. Higher resource usage, which can lead to frequent browser crashes

      2. Low added value from javascript

      js that tries to change the way the user interacts with the site, for example, is particularly annoying. i.e. Javascript links.

    45. Re:No problem by CaptSaltyJack · · Score: 1

      1. Extremely rare with today's processor power. Really, I'm just telling it like it is.

      2. Maybe. Depends on the site and the developer's skills. Ajax (which requires Javascript) can really add value by shortening load times by only loading necessary data, rather than doing entire page refreshes. Even if some of it is cached, there's still page rendering time involved, and sometimes there are network hiccups that prevent the page from coming up right away. When I talk about Javascript improving usability, 95% of the time I'm talking about Ajax. Specifically, I'm a jQuery advocate.

    46. Re:No problem by megrims · · Score: 1

      With respect to reliability, I frequently get crashes from ajax sites with an Athlon XP 2800+ with 1.5GB RAM. Not the highest specs, but acceptable, and higher than what I test on. When I'm being served what is mostly plain text/html, tables and navigational structures, I find crashes to be extremely frustrating. (See: any modern IC supplier)

      I appreciate the value of ajax/jQuery, for the reasons that you've stated, but I uphold that it isn't appropriate for most of the tasks in which you see it used.

    47. Re:No problem by Excelcior · · Score: 1

      I completely agree that there should be something better... but in the absense of that, the system I use is fairly secure.
      I have a server-side database with the user's login credentials, ID number, IP address, confirmation code, and logged-in-state. When a user signs in, their IP address, the fact that they're logged in, and a unique confirmation code are saved to their entry. That code and their ID # are also saved to a cookie stored on their machine. Their password, username, etc are not. Every page they visit which requires proper credentials will check their ID #, IP, & confirmation code with those listed in the database. As long as those check out correctly, they are allowed to continue their current session. If any of these do not check out, the confirmation code is reset and the logged-in-state is set to "out", thus instantly keeping anyone from highjacking their session. When a user logs out, their logged in status is also reset, as is their confirmation, and the confirmation code in the cookie is overwritten with another. The confirmation code is randomly generated at each session opening, so even if someone were to get ahold of a cookie, they would not be able to gain access later.
      While I have played around with other methods of authentication, I have yet to find anything which will match this security and functionality.

      --
      A small comparison of interest:
      Windows: Public School. Mac: Private School. Linux: Homeschool. Assembly: Unschool.
    48. Re:No problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>Put simply, you've got more to worry about in your web history than you'd ever have to worry about in cookies.

      That is horseshit. Why the hell do you need cookies to read a damn article? Or javascript to click a damn link?

    49. Re:No problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ajax (which requires Javascript) can really add value by shortening load times

      Ha ha ha. Thank you for the best laugh I've had all day. Ignoring a few honorable exceptions like Google the vast majority of script heavy websites are screaming piles of bat dung vastly slower than non-script web sites. They are fragile, slow, usually break basic and very useful functionality like the back button, don't work on mobile devices, don't work in different locales, don't work on common browsers, fail and require restart regularly, and have a "user experience" which occasionally looks okay but is actually awful when you [shudder] try to use them. Most web designers don't even know what a race condition is and how to avoid it. Incompetent clowns.

      In addition even if you're a competent web designer if you find you need to use scripting then your site design is likely to be an disorganized mess and thus not user intuitive.

      I've attempted to use hundreds of scripted web sites and almost all have pathetic "user experiences". Bring back non-scripted websites, at least then they have a better chance of actually working. e.g. I'm currently facing this problem on a holiday booking website. In theory I should be able to change the booking date. Guess what? I get a script error when I try. And that is the experience of virtually all users.

      Actually, how script heavy a web site is is generally a very good indication of how competent the web designer is and a useful rule-of-thumb to avoid dysfunctional companies.

    50. Re:No problem by severoon · · Score: 3, Funny

      You should do what I do...leave everything turned on, but to poison all the DBs in the world, spend at least 90% of your time browsing stuff that doesn't interest you. This absolutely foils their plan to get to know you through tracking. There's just no way they can get around it at all for 'em.

      I even take it to the next step beyond—90% of the money I spent on the web is for stuff I have absolutely no use for and definitely don't want. It's a brilliant, positively ironclad way to screw them over and make sure they get theirs!

      Oop...I just used up my 10% time on /. writing this post. Gotta go surf pee-pr0n...disgusting stuff. laterz!

      --
      but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
    51. Re:No problem by totally+bogus+dude · · Score: 1

      Assuming the IP address will remain the same throughout a session is, theoretically, a bit risky. Some large proxy installations can use multiple IP addresses, and a single session can move amongst them over time.

      This kind of setup is not very common, but possibly very large organisations may have multiple locations where they access the internet, and user sessions may be shuffled amongst them depending on bandwidth or availability. It's likely rare enough that you could successfully delude yourself into believing a user's IP address will always remain the same during an entire session.

      Also, I'm not sure what purpose storing both the ID number and "confirmation code" in the cookie is. It doesn't increase security any more than having a longer confirmation code/session ID would, since if an attacker is able to get either value they're able to get both.

      Finally, if you're not using SSL then anyone able to sniff the wire can probably hijack a user's session.

    52. Re:No problem by xouumalperxe · · Score: 1

      Then don't block cookies. Use something like Chrome's privacy mode (I think at least firefox is getting it too, dunno about others), and let the cookies land and get blasted as soon as you close the window. No long-term tracking, only that which is strictly necessary for the session.

    53. Re:No problem by moonbender · · Score: 1

      The problem is that more and more sites annoyingly (and uselessly) require these to work. I'm fine not having a draggable map, but ever since GoogleMaps, every map site has become reliant on Javascript.

      Google Maps works fine without JavaScript. Reduced functionality, obviously, but definitely usable.

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    54. Re:No problem by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      The problem isn't that it's the cookie's fault, it's that it can be the cookie's fault.

      Where you are failing is in the assumption that all websites will be trustworthy. The real world is that they won't be and allowing this possibility for the government to do (which it does have a history of collecting information on people through secret programs) is not something you should want.

      Because this is slashdot, I will attempt to put it in a car analogy. Cars can be used as weapons to mow down people and kill them. They aren't most of the time and we license drivers as well as the vehicles to make it more difficult to do so and get away with it. Now imagine a cookie as one of the drivers, sooner or later someone will suffer from road rage and use the vehicle as a weapon. Allowing the government to used cookies is like allowing them to use the car as a weapon except you don't know when they chose to do this.

    55. Re:No problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you have Flashblock, i take it you also have the Flash plugin installed and I guess all the other plugins that Firefox providesâ¦

    56. Re:No problem by WuphonsReach · · Score: 1

      Um, I dunno why your tin foil hat is so large, but seriously, you're living in the 90's. There is - and never was - anything wrong at all with Javascript or cookies. Flash can be annoying, but the benefits far outweigh the "risk". Java is the only thing I don't particularly trust, since it's pretty much an open gateway to malware today.

      Wow, just... wow.

      Javascript is one of the most common ways to inject code into a machine to install a rootkit / trojan / worm / botnet. There are thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of hacked websites out there with bits of Javascript inserted into their pages that will infect your machine if you visit those sites.

      The JavaScript fragments are generally inserted by breaking in via an insecure FTP login (common username coupled with poor password choice). So in order to be safe, you have to trust that *every* web page you visit is administered by someone competent enough to prevent a break-in. And hope that your browser doesn't preload pages from an infected website in order to speed up your browsing experience.

      Then there's the whole "insert malicious JavaScript / Flash ad" scheme into an ad network that allows you to do drive-by infections on anyone who is served your ad.

      Java has absolutely nothing to do with this, is fairly well sandboxed, and one of the least common methods of delivering malware.

      (I've personally seen dozens of infected sites in the wild. Small sites as mundane as Aunt Ruth's Recipe or Aunt Betty's Crafting page are especially likely to be infected. Which is why I only browse for the past few years with NoScript and FlashBlock enabled with a very small whitelist.)

      --
      Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
    57. Re:No problem by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      If you choose to live in a cave, you can't bitch about not having electricity.

      Well, in that case, you can always leech charge your mobile phone at a public place (toilet, cybercafe).... but with mapping sites' annoying reliance on arcane javascript, you can't use the phone that you just charged to browse a mapping site: neither via-michelin, nor googlemaps, nor mappy, nor mapquest.... Ok, so draggable maps and autocompletion of city and street names are nice, but why o why do these sites have to insist on making javascript mandatory, rather than to gracefully fall back on a simpler interface?

      Ok, back to the low-tech method of asking passers-by for directions.

    58. Re:No problem by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      Strict online security in connection with login-protected content is simply not possible without a cookie

      So what's wrong with HTTP authentication?

      If web browsers would just encode all cookies by default, then decode them whenever sending them back to a server, that would keep spyware from reading their contents from your computer.

      If the browser can decode them, so can spyware running on the same computer under the same user account.

      Then, if the browsers would store a 'touched date', and automatically delete all cookies over X age (configurable by the user?), many useless cookies would go away automatically.

      Well, it's not the unused cookies that are annoying, but those that are used... for instance for tracking your movements accross pages that have ad.doubleclick banners.

      Finally, if cookies were only able to be read/written to by their issuing server, there would be no possibility for exploit (except to track your movements through pages which contain some content served by the issuing server, such as the much beloved doubleclick.net cookies -- which could easily be done-away-with by adding the rule that cookies cannot be accessed by any page displayed within an iframe/object/etc.)

      They'd find another trick.

    59. Re:No problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cookies for authentication, customization, etc. = good.
      Cookies in ads (e.g., *DoubleClick) tracking you across the internet and killing anonymity = evil.

      * owned by Google, by the way, blatantly defying "don't be evil" :(

    60. Re:No problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cookies for authentication, customization, etc. = good
      Cookies for tracking across the internet (e.g., DoubleClick), killing anonymity = evil

    61. Re:No problem by Falcon4 · · Score: 0, Troll

      You must have those entirely backwards. Java is so poorly sandboxed that it can run applets without warning, it hangs the browser while it loads (again, without warning; and in that, it can crash a system by merely loading), can't be detached from a browser once it's been activated during a session (that is, closing the tab/page doesn't quit Java), program identity can be spoofed (as has been demonstrated by countless malicious Java applets like Last Measure)... it's an absolute atrocity that Java is still around (thanks to Limewire and a small handful of other dwindling Java apps).

      Javascript isn't even capable of getting outside the browser. Some creative Javascript can sniff your history, nothing more. Internet Explorer with Javascript and ActiveX unlock the ability to install malicious software - but we're talking about Internet Explorer. If you want to protect yourself while using Internet Explorer, you don't turn off Javascript and cookies. You turn off Internet Explorer.

      You didn't even make any mention of cookies, not surprisingly. Now, if you would, please get your head out of Sun's arse, and switch your Javascript back on, so I can show you this nifty little bouncing ball animation.

    62. Re:No problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Someone please give me a valid reason why anyone should be blocking cookies (1st party, NOT 3rd party) and disabling Javascript, other than paranoia and/or a bad case of nerd grump."

      For cookies: They build up quickly, just like your cache, and I like to have it remain small. In my case, I enable only first-party cookies, and will occasionally clean (ie. clear) them. Honestly, cookies can be a massive pain in the ass; only few sites actually seem to use them for a noticeable purpose, yet virtually all of them have the damn things.

      For scripts:

      1. I'm on an older machine, a 1.7GHz P4 with only 256 megs of RAM. If you seen how god damn SLOW some sites that use scripting can get (especially those that grab scripts from various servers), you would use it too. And no, Flash is not the *only* type of scripting I'm talking about, though it's a CPU hog on its own. And what about those damn sites that highlight a bunch of words in every article for no point other than to... advertise? Just a mouse-over will cause a major CPU spike, and take a few seconds just to pop up a damn advertisement window.

      2. Security. There's no denying that scripts tend to be one of the main ways for an attacker to compromise a system through a Web browser. Disable them for all sites except the ones you trust, and your security goes up. Honestly, when NoScript makes it so easy to whitelist certain sites as you come across them, I see no major reason not to... unless you just don't feel like setting up a new whitelist. In that case, "temporarily allow top-level sites by default" can be a timesaver. Then again, with whitelist backups, this may never become a problem.

      3. Advertising. Bottom line, I can think for myself. I know this little trick called "researching" and use it to determine what I want to spend my money on. I know what these advertisers want me to spend my money on, and their reasons in the end benefit them, not me. Considering many ads are done through scripting, that gets rid of a lot of them. Whatever NoScript can't get rid of, Adblock Plus will.

  2. Well... by Rewind · · Score: 5, Funny

    The Cookie monster will most certainly be displeased...

    --
    ?
    1. Re:Well... by master5o1 · · Score: 1

      I'm not so sure, at least cookie production will increase.

      --
      signature is pants
    2. Re:Well... by Naked+Jaybird · · Score: 1

      Cookies as currency is a great idea. This means that the Fed can bake more cookies to help stimulate the economy.

  3. Hmmm Cookies by Krneki · · Score: 0

    Can I have a cookie too?

    --
    Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
  4. For the computer savvy, this isn't even an issue. by the_humeister · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I delete all my cookies automatically every time I close Firefox. I run Firefox via a script such that all the Flash cookies (yes Flash cookies) are also deleted.

  5. De Ja Vooo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This story is dupe-er-icious!!!

  6. GODWIN? by Philip+K+Dickhead · · Score: 1

    "...Bev Godwin, the director of online resources and interagency development..."

    So we already know how they plan to respond to our complaints about creeping Fascism... :-)

    --
    "Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
    1. Re:GODWIN? by wallywam1 · · Score: 1

      This thread came pre-Godwinned.

  7. Slippery slope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First cookies, then muffins... what's next? websites sending cakes? pastries? quiches?
    STOP THE MADNESS!

  8. Violates Posse Cookietatus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The federal government shouldn't have standing cookies domestically.

    This will not turn out well.

  9. Cookie Monster Loves Cookies by itsybitsy · · Score: 1

    Yum.

  10. Dupe? by rsmith-mac · · Score: 2, Informative

    We already had an article about this Saturday. I don't see anything new in TFA that would not make this a dupe.

  11. What? by arizwebfoot · · Score: 2, Funny

    We want to use cookies for good, not evil' â" and invited the public to comment on cookies

    Isn't that like a double oxymoron?

    White House good.
    Public comment evil.

    --
    Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
    1. Re:What? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Yes, this is change you can believe in.

  12. Re:For the computer savvy, this isn't even an issu by bheer · · Score: 5, Informative

    > such that all the Flash cookies (yes Flash cookies) are also deleted.

    Good point. Too few people even know about Flash cookies. There's also a Firefox extension called BetterPrivacy that'll do this, for those that can't be bothered with scripts.

    I know that some shadier ad networks also use Java local storage to store tracking info, if your browser has a Java plugin. Solution: disable storing temporary files on your computer using the Java control panel icon.

    Honestly, I do all of this, but I wonder how many others would even bother. It's almost like Scott "You have no privacy. Get over it." McNealy was right.

  13. Heh by reginaldo · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I guess all this really means is don't go directly from 4chan to fbi.gov anymore, you /b/tar.

  14. We're donediddily done for by hugi · · Score: 5, Funny

    yup, now our privacy is completely gone. I heard ECHELON is mostly based on cookies.

  15. Harmless chocolate chip goodness by montulli · · Score: 1

    Cookies? Never heard of them. They are nothing, really. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain....

  16. Just so we're clear... by jav1231 · · Score: 1

    So for those at home Feds get cookies and police get donuts.

    1. Re:Just so we're clear... by buchner.johannes · · Score: 1

      Feds May Soon Be Allowed To Use Cookies

      That is an interesting interrogation technique. Maybe more efficient than torture: "Who wants a cookie! Now tell me where the your terrorist colleagues are"

      --
      NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
  17. This is ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is ridiculous! Who the hell is going to pay for these cookies? Who is going to make them? Why do I want them in my computer, I don't think crumbs all over the place is good for a computer. Plus there is a spinny thing inside the HD (right?) With all the budget problems and economy doing badly wouldn't it be better giving those cookies to people so they can be eaten, or sell them as special 'government computer cookies'? I think eating cookies is gooder than storing them in my computer to go bad.

  18. Government doing good? What are you talking about? by itsybitsy · · Score: 1

    The government thinks it's doing good while most of the time it's not doing good at all.

    It's a very bad idea to let the government folks have any more tracking capabilities than they already have.

    Every little cookie crumb you let them track about you gives them more power over your lives. Before you know it they have the entire cookie jar to themselves, including the chocolate chips of freedom! Don't let the cookie monster get all your cookies. Bake a new batch and keep them to yourself and your family and friends. The government has enough cookies.

  19. In other news... by cjb658 · · Score: 1

    ...the government spies on people who use the Internet.

  20. 'cookies for good, not evil' by Banichi · · Score: 1

    Doesn't the Dark side already have cookies?

  21. Don't really need cookies... by k0ldsh4d0wz · · Score: 1

    Cookies aren't really needed: just store your session key in the url and ur good to go.

  22. Whew, that was a close one by Hojima · · Score: 5, Funny

    Thanks for telling me this. You see, I am an inept and computer illiterate terrorist. We all are, since none of us are smart enough to get an education. Hell, I barely managed to read this web page, and all my dumb terrorist buddies simply couldn't. We go to www.I-AM-A-TERRORIST.com all the time, and if I didn't get the heads-up, we would all be in jail now. You guys were smart to allocate resources to this sure-fire way to catch us. Oh well, time to get back to using the internet for evil, not good.

  23. COMMON SENSE! by net28573 · · Score: 1

    If the whitehouse wants to use them for good then they shouldnt even try because the moment they do start using those then every hacker will wipe their cookies with exception to the other citizens then their attempt at using cookies to track good will most likely be used as a new way to spy on regular people that wastes taxpayers money! uggg i hate it when they dont see the common sense. -_-

    --
    RIP TRICERATOPS, YOU NEVER EXISTED
  24. COOKIES by tengeta · · Score: 1

    They don't have evil cookies... BUT THE TERRORISTS MAY!

    --
    "They confiscated everything, even the stuff we didn't steal!"
  25. This makes no sense by jerep · · Score: 1

    They already monitor and record phone conversations, emails, IMs and pretty much every means of communication, yet tracking cookies arent used?

    What kind of a backwards government is this, I want my vote back.

    1. Re:This makes no sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      What kind of a backwards government is this, I want my vote back.

      NO worries Slashdot user jerep (794296) [SSN: 111-222-3333], we've checked our records and your vote wasn't counted. Have a nice day, and enjoy that caramel latte you just bought.

  26. Up to date by BorgCopyeditor · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The next exciting and up-to-date town-hall meeting discussing government's use of technology will be...Webpage Layout: Tables or CSS?

    --
    Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
    1. Re:Up to date by mldi · · Score: 1
      --
      If you aren't suspicious of your government's actions, you aren't doing your job as a responsible citizen.
  27. don't care anymore by Nick · · Score: 2, Funny

    If anyone felt like tracking where I've been, eavesdropping, etc, they would be very bored.

    --
    Fuck Ajit Pai
  28. Re:For the computer savvy, this isn't even an issu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or you can change permissions on the $HOME/.macromedia directory to non-writeable. That's for Linux, I'm sure you can do something similar on Windows.

  29. Sounds familiar... by R.Mo_Robert · · Score: 1

    Hmm, this story sounds familiar...

    --
    R.Mo
  30. Re:For the computer savvy, this isn't even an issu by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 1

    Is there any app that leaves the cookies but just randomly changes a few bits in them? Seems like good clean fun to me.

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
  31. I love it by blue+l0g1c · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Tens of years ago, someone decided to name something a "magic cookie" and now we have FBI agents talking about "cookies" with solemn and serious faces.

  32. Re:For the computer savvy, this isn't even an issu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would you mind posting a copy of that script or a link to it? I'm not sure what it is flash stores those off the top of my head...

  33. is too: tech illiterate moms pay for our basements by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More seriously, the "we're invincible, so throw grandma to the wolves" approach is kind of shortsighted.

  34. Re:Government doing good? What are you talking abo by geekoid · · Score: 1

    The government does good almost all the time. Yeah, thre has been some screw ups,but overall it does good.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  35. Careful with the party tag there by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

    I see this story has been tagged 'democrats', which implies that something is being done explicitly by democrats. While indeed this could be a change driven by democrats, they are not changing something that was implemented by republicans. After all, it says that the policy began in 2000 - when Bill Clinton was president. Just because it wasn't changed during 8 years of a republican POTUS doesn't mean they didn't want to.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:Careful with the party tag there by Skapare · · Score: 1

      The Democrats promised change. So we are getting change.

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  36. Re:Government doing good? What are you talking abo by itsybitsy · · Score: 1

    Sure a soldier gets a medal for valor while the people he murdered get put in graves and their families have to figure out how to survive. Yup, your Government State Mass Murderers doing good work every day.

  37. Re:For the computer savvy, this isn't even an issu by bheer · · Score: 1

    There's this very old Perl script, but it was designed for Netscape. I think Firefox now stores its cookies in a sqlite database, but Perl should still be able to handle that.

  38. Re:For the computer savvy, this isn't even an issu by the_humeister · · Score: 1

    Now why didn't I think of that??? Someone mod this guy up!

  39. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  40. You nerds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It must be a bitch logging into your e-mail account so often. Unless you just don't close Firefox that often.

    Either way you're a nerd.

    In before "you must be new here." I know, that's the joke. Come on, lighten up.

  41. Re:For the computer savvy, this isn't even an issu by maxume · · Score: 1

    It's easy to check on them:

    http://www.macromedia.com/support/documentation/en/flashplayer/help/settings_manager07.html

    It is also possible to turn local storage off completely (I'm not sure how much that breaks things though).

    --
    Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  42. Stop the MADNESS!!! by oldhack · · Score: 1

    Another boneheaded subsidy to the dairy industry. Stop this bailout train, NOW!

    --
    Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
  43. Last Measure by tepples · · Score: 2, Informative

    Someone please give me a valid reason why anyone should be blocking cookies (1st party, NOT 3rd party) and disabling Javascript, other than paranoia and/or a bad case of nerd grump.

    The site http://paranoia.on.nimp.org demonstrates this, but do NOT visit this site unless you've turned OFF JavaScript and plug-ins for this domain.

    1. Re:Last Measure by CaptSaltyJack · · Score: 1

      But let's be realistic, who would normally visit that site, throughout their usual daily routine? I've had Javascript and cookies enabled always, for my entire time of browsing the web (15+ years?), and never had a web-based attack of any kind. And I surf a lot.

    2. Re:Last Measure by tepples · · Score: 1

      But let's be realistic, who would normally visit that site, throughout their usual daily routine?

      Someone who accidentally clicks a link posted by a not-yet-caught forum troll without already knowing about Last Measure and all its known mirrors.

    3. Re:Last Measure by WuphonsReach · · Score: 1

      But let's be realistic, who would normally visit that site, throughout their usual daily routine? I've had Javascript and cookies enabled always, for my entire time of browsing the web (15+ years?), and never had a web-based attack of any kind. And I surf a lot.

      Pure luck? Or when was the last time that you checked?

      Ever hear of the Antivirus 2009 infections? That is usually (often?) spread via JavaScript exploits where they break into a website and insert a bit of JavaScript onto every static HTML page in the site. You visit that site with JavaScript enabled and you will end up infected (assuming that you're using a browser / OS that is vulnerable).

      (We had a user get hit with the AV2009 malware / scareware. I was able to trace it straight back via the web proxy logs to a bit of Javascript added to a completely innocuous site's pages. This was a site that normal users would visit in the course of their web browsing. In this case it was hobby related; either cooking or crafting. Definitely not a "dark" corner of the net by any stretch of the imagination.)

      --
      Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
  44. Response from a prominent government official by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

    There has been some dissatisfaction with this decision, as some see cookies as an imperfect system. However one government official to whom we spoke via telephone said the resolution was "good enough for me." We had hoped to ask some further questions but all we heard was some sort of ruckus accompanied by a sound like "om nom nom" just before the phone connection was lost.

    --
    Bow-ties are cool.
  45. Re:For the computer savvy, this isn't even an issu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've always kinda wondered: if I can't have privacy and can't keep "them" away, can I overload folks trying track me for ANY reason I don't approve of with too much data to be useful? Can I purposely increase the noise in the ratio? How would I do that? Would it have any real effect?

  46. Preferences only? by AnyoneEB · · Score: 1

    If they are worried about the idea of tracking visitors (which seems reasonable), then why don't they just store the user's preferences directly in the cookies? The idea of storing user preferences server-side is just a bandwidth saving trick (because the preferences will tend to be bigger than an index into the site's users table) because cookies get sent with every request. There: nothing unique appears in the cookies, so they cannot be used for tracking people.

    --
    Centralization breaks the internet.
  47. Cookies? by pngmangi42 · · Score: 1

    What's next, brownies, vanilla cake, and candy bars? What is this world coming to?

    --
    I tried to walk into Target, but I missed. --Mitch Hedburg
  48. give me the cookies! by mldi · · Score: 1

    If you guys don't like the cookies, give them to me!!! COOOOOKIES!!! NOM NOM NOM NOM!

    --
    If you aren't suspicious of your government's actions, you aren't doing your job as a responsible citizen.
  49. Re:Government doing good? What are you talking abo by sumdumass · · Score: 1

    Umm.. That would be good. Unless you think Female genital mutilation and allowing terrorist to kill innocent people because you believe in a different god or no god at all is a good thing?

    I guess the moral of the story is that if you don't want to be the killed person, then don't support and defend bad things in life. Killing in wars is not necessarily pretty but it doesn't make it bad when the people you are fighting is worse. Without war and killing the enemy, I'm pretty sure you world would be worse off then you think it is.

  50. Come out with your hands up by mysidia · · Score: 1

    Feds: "You are completely surrounded."

    Feds: "We have a cookie, and we know how to use it"

    A few hours later..

    Feds: "We'll eat the cookie and tell Robot Santa that you were responsible."

    Feds: "Then he'll put you on the bad list, and you don't want to be on Robot Santa's bad list, if you know what I mean.. so surrender, and come out with your hands up!"

  51. Real Problem: Most Web Developers Are Incompetent by littlewink · · Score: 1

    Yes, I'm probably talking about you.

    It isn't necessary to use cookies, but they are easier to understand and use (initially) than the alternatives. Enter the Universal Incompetent Programmer (UIP) who seizes on the quickest, easiest solution and voila! - an Internet brimming over with cookies.

    You could say cookies are a standard, and they are. But cookies also violate certain more important underlying HTTP conventions (e.g., REST). I know, you don't know what REST is.

    In the end, laziness and intellectual sloppiness is what has brought us here. Most UIPs, like most people, are not in the top 10% of their group. It takes some smarts to read an RFC or a book. Most UIPs skip that to read Slashdot instead. Slashdot is OK, but sometimes you need to read something else, something more enlightening technically. Sometimes you should study; but most UIPs don't.

    Incompetence is the key.

  52. Tools are not bad, people are bad by foniksonik · · Score: 1

    Javascript, Cookies, Flash... just tools. Same as guns, knives, pens and computers.

    People who think that technology which can be used to improve your life should be banned because individuals abuse them to hurt, annoy or make life less enjoyable for others - I think we call those people luddites.

    So, for those of you who've left comments about how these tools should not be allowed - go join a bible group and get on the creationist bandwagon, you're no different than the evolution and science haters out there.

    Tools are not bad, people are bad. Don't block the tools - block the people.

    This is what blacklists aka hosts files are all about. You don't like having drive-by malware infected ad scripts mucking with the DOM of a website you frequent - block those ads and their scripts.

    Don't like ad cookies, etc. getting loaded to track you - block 3rd party cookies (it's a standard setting in all browsers).

    Feeling paranoid about a particular website? Turn on private browsing (get a browser like Safari or the latest FF or IE that has this feature)... you won't cache anything, generate a history or save cookies longer than your session.

    --
    A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
  53. Re:Government doing good? What are you talking abo by itsybitsy · · Score: 1

    No obviously I don't support such horrific practices as "female genital mutilation" however using murder, death and killing to solve it isn't the answer and in fact makes YOU a worse problem and a terrorist to them!

    No one wants to be the killed person. Yes, killing others who you consider worse than you isn't the answer not even in war as it will not make you safer for it will generate more people who consider you a terrorist that needs killing. By politically advocating the death and murder of people you're giving them political power to kill you back. Thus the cycle perpetuates itself and makes you a monster.

  54. Re:Government doing good? What are you talking abo by sumdumass · · Score: 1

    No obviously I don't support such horrific practices as "female genital mutilation" however using murder, death and killing to solve it isn't the answer and in fact makes YOU a worse problem and a terrorist to them!

    Oh, you are one of those "let's just talk about it" people. Yea, tell me how that worked out for people like Nick Burg or the numerous journalist beheaded in Iraq or the innocent civilians who were doing nothing more then attempting to live a normal life when the suicide bomb went off in the crowded market place and then when people rushed to help, another went off in attempts to kill the people giving aid to the innocent civilians. I hope you don't think that is a viable alternative to war. Of course to appease them, we would have to give up freedoms and believe like they do, perhaps you have already done that.

    No one wants to be the killed person. Yes, killing others who you consider worse than you isn't the answer not even in war as it will not make you safer for it will generate more people who consider you a terrorist that needs killing. By politically advocating the death and murder of people you're giving them political power to kill you back. Thus the cycle perpetuates itself and makes you a monster.

    Your doing pretty good at mandating what the answer isn't, so please tell me what the answer is. I'm sure you have some obvious iron clad method that no other country has been able to implement to date but will somehow work because you want it to.

  55. Re:Government doing good? What are you talking abo by itsybitsy · · Score: 1

    >Oh, you are one of those "let's just talk about it" people.

    Nope, I'm one of those people who think that killing people is the worst possible idea.

    There are many answers other than the simplistic let's kill them solution that you resort to making you one of the bad guys on the planet.

    Clearly you're blind to the horror that you unleash upon the world happily justifying it by thinking dead and murder and killing are the only answers.

    Get a brain. Learn about communication. Diplomacy. Education. Other solutions that don't involved making yourself a mass murderer.

  56. Re:Government doing good? What are you talking abo by sumdumass · · Score: 1

    There are many answers other than the simplistic let's kill them solution that you resort to making you one of the bad guys on the planet.

    And I asked you what your big plan was. So give it up, how do you deal with dictators that machingun down civilians asking for basic human rights or regularly behead people for not believing enough in the same god. Sometimes there is evil and you have to do bad things to stop it. That doesn't make you evil, it makes you serious about doing good. Get out of your fantasy land.

    Clearly you're blind to the horror that you unleash upon the world happily justifying it by thinking dead and murder and killing are the only answers.

    What? Have you been paying attention? We were giving the Taliban (b)millions of dollars in aid packages just before 9/11 happened. What in the hell else do you think we should have done that we didn't already do? Talking didn't work, Osama claimed 9/11 was in response to our support for Israel, so should we have let a 2 bit terrorist threaten us into standing by and letting good people die because they have a problem with a religion that doesn't acknowledge Mohamed the pedophile who married a 6 year old girl? Fuck dude, what else could be done?

    Seriously, what could have been done that wasn't already tried and failed? Giving up to the will of terrorist who would push their views over you with the threat of deadly force? Answer this or lose all credibility in this talk.

    Get a brain. Learn about communication. Diplomacy. Education. Other solutions that don't involved making yourself a mass murderer.

    As I said, what the fuck else could have been done that hasn't already failed? Diplomacy failed, education failed, comminication failed, What the fuck was the other options? Or are you just bitching about the impossible with no real thought to hear yourself blabber?

  57. Re:Government doing good? What are you talking abo by itsybitsy · · Score: 1

    The big plan is simple, don't kill people.

    Your plan is kill people to solve problems which makes you a mass murderer.

    When you go and kill people over there you must expect they they will attempt to kill you back there or if they can over here. The more people you kill the greater the odds that you'll create a terrorist of their families.

    That is why the not killing option works out in the long run for the better dude mass murderer.

    You're too simplistic and you buy into the death politics of your country (which ever it is).

    To solve problems sometimes you have to learn to think radically dude. Not killing is radical at this point especially for countries like the USA, Britain, Canada, etc....

    It's not up to me to come up with answers... your the one killing people... it's up to you to stop it.

    So stop killing people. Stop your government's mass murder. Stop it.

  58. Re:Government doing good? What are you talking abo by sumdumass · · Score: 1

    The big plan is simple, don't kill people.

    Your plan is kill people to solve problems which makes you a mass murderer.

    When you go and kill people over there you must expect they they will attempt to kill you back there or if they can over here. The more people you kill the greater the odds that you'll create a terrorist of their families.

    That is why the not killing option works out in the long run for the better dude mass murderer.

    So let me get this straight, You think that when all else fails, we should do nothing, even when they are killing us and our friends. You are fucking crazy if you actually think that is a viable option. You will lose your freedoms, your basic human rights, and most likely your own life.

    To solve problems sometimes you have to learn to think radically dude. Not killing is radical at this point especially for countries like the USA, Britain, Canada, etc....

    Think radically? Like what, I asked you for what else would work that hasn't already been tried and failed and you offer nothing but "don't kill dude" even though the alternative is to either sit back and let them kill us or our allies. Like I asked before and before that, Show me what this radical thinking is and tell me something other then "don't kill". What would solve our problems and keep us and our allies safe without losing basic human rights, freedoms, or our lives which hasn't already been tried and failed.

    If you cannot come up with anything, then you are just a stupid crank who isn't looking at the situation through the facts or are omitting it to keep some fallacy of a worldview.

    It's not up to me to come up with answers... your the one killing people... it's up to you to stop it.

    It is too up to you to come up with the answers. You are the one claiming it should be done differently except that different already failed. Now, if there is an effective alternative to killing, we would be more then fucking happy to use it. So either admit you are a clueless bitch or tell us what is so awesome that will work instead of failing. Neither of the two wars we are in were the results a hasty decisions. They were the product of all other options failing. So tell me, what option did we miss that hasn't already failed or admit you are a fucktard that has no clue.

    So stop killing people. Stop your government's mass murder. Stop it.

    Like I said, point out the alternative that hasn't already failed and I'm sure we would be glad to do it. Until then, stay out of the path of bullets and don't get onto the side we are shooting at.

  59. Re:Government doing good? What are you talking abo by itsybitsy · · Score: 1

    No mass murdering dude, I'm simply telling you that your path of destruction isn't the solution and that it will come back to haunt you as it already has. I lived 1 1/2 blocks from the WTC and was on foot two blocks away from it during the 1993 attack. So I do know of what I speak of. Violence and revenge isn't the answer it's the "cause" of more attacks. Just as those that attacked the WTC those two times felt their need for revenge for atrocities inflicted upon them the revenge of the USA will and has generated more death and destruction and the cycle of revenge repeats. The next time it's likely to be a loose nuke. Revenge and death and murder and killing is not the answer.

    "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." - Albert Einstein

    Your death solutions are the same kind of thinking that has caused the problems you are attempting to solve by mass murder. You must think differently and rise up above the problems otherwise you're doomed to keep repeating the same mistakes that will generate the same problems over and over and over again.

    Part of my solution is to point out to people like you who support mass murder (or who carry it out) is that it's not a viable solution and that it will beget more retaliatory strikes against you and your homeland. That is the way of the primitive emotional revenge driven brain.

    Stop the killing. That is a powerful first step.

  60. Re:Government doing good? What are you talking abo by sumdumass · · Score: 1

    Fuck man, for crying out loud! give a fucking alternative or shut the hell up. No killing people is only a solution when other solutions work. It is not one when they are trying to kill you and refused to listen or recieve diplomacy or anything else that has already failed.

    You act as if going for the gun was the first choice. You must be hiding under your bed and not paying fucking attention. It has been the last choice and is still one of the last choices. IF you don't want people to get killed, then you are going to have to point to something else that works. This entire bullshit that it will come back to you is fucking idiocy when it is already there before we started killing. You must be intentionally keeping yourself ignorant in order not to see that.

    Hell, I asked you about a solution other then killing and you don't have one. So am I supposed to gather that you think we should abandon allies around the globe and let two bit terrorist worshiping a pedophile in the name of allah which is little more then the third hashing of the jewish god force them into giving up their freedoms and human rights? Are we supposed to bow to these people too?

    People like you irritate the fuck out of me. Your only solution is to stop the killing but you don't say then do what. Well the killing wasn't the first response, it was the last in a line of responses that will have a few more. If you offered one alternative to killing that hasn't already been tried and failed, I would support you idea of not killing. But you have absolutely nothing at all. That fucking weak man. That's like saying "Can't we just get along", when obviously the answer seems to be no and we have tried. Why don't you go back to sucking that glass dick or what ever they call the bong nowadays and leave the real world to people actually paying attention.

  61. Re:Government doing good? What are you talking abo by itsybitsy · · Score: 1

    I've given you an alternative, stop killing people, it's quite simple really.

    The problem with your mass murdering methods is that your very policy of mass murdering people gives them implicit permission to mass murder you back. When you get that maybe you'll see the folly in your methods.

    Mass murderers like you deeply worry people. In fact people with your policy are considered terrorists by most governments of the world.

    Learn to think man. You've got a brain don't you?

  62. Re:Government doing good? What are you talking abo by sumdumass · · Score: 1

    I've given you an alternative, stop killing people, it's quite simple really.

    No you haven't. Stop killing people is not an alternative when killing people was the last resort. You have done nothing to address the underlying issues or the alternatives that have failed to date resulting in the killing of people. In essence, you are saying give up and give in instead of standing your ground for what is right and what you believe in. Stop doing something that is preventing that is not a fucking alternative.

    The problem with your mass murdering methods is that your very policy of mass murdering people gives them implicit permission to mass murder you back. When you get that maybe you'll see the folly in your methods.

    Actually, I believe it was the other way around. Their actions allowed ours. And quit calling killing murder. You are fucking idiot if you don't see the differences between the two.

    Mass murderers like you deeply worry people. In fact people with your policy are considered terrorists by most governments of the world.

    Like I said, offer some constructive alternatives that hasn't already failed and required killing to be part of the solution and the killing will stop. You havn't done so after 3 separate request for you to produce something because you damn well know that nothing else was working and that nothing else will work. You are simply spouting off to spout off and the rest of the world thinks your a crack whore idiot.

    Learn to think man. You've got a brain don't you?

    Actually, you learn to think. Seriously, this is the third time you have failed to provide any alternative to killing but insist on it should be stopped. Now either shut the fuck up or be constructive and add something useful to the conversation. Not doing what was the last resort is not an option that addresses any of the problem leading up to the killing in the first place. Put you dope down for a minute and fucking think further then one sentence and see what happens.

  63. Re:Government doing good? What are you talking abo by itsybitsy · · Score: 1

    Well, as they say you're doomed to be stuck in your mass murdering ways. You are no different than Charles Manson or that flesh eating Dahmerdude (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Dahmer) or the multitude of other mass murders in human history.

    Send aid not bombs.

    If someone bombed your family I'd bet you'd want revenge. Yes? Well then those that you bomb and thereby kill are really no different than you mass murdering dude.

    Someone has to break the cycle and that might mean sucking it up for a long while taking the hits without seeking revenge till the other sides see that you've really changed your mass murdering ways. Until then expect the worst to happen due to your own policies from those groups that you've killed and brought death to. It's basic raw politics dude.

    That's why I've moved away from the main target cities: NYC and DC. Heck even the USA Government is moving out of DC by building new facilities at least 50 to 75 miles away from DC. They know a nuke is coming to the capital and are getting prepared for that eventuality that they know they've brought on by their own policies of spreading death and destruction across the planet.

    So terrorist mass murdering dude change your ways or expect the worst from those who seek revenge against mass murderers like you. Duck and cover.

  64. Re:Government doing good? What are you talking abo by sumdumass · · Score: 1

    Well, as they say you're doomed to be stuck in your mass murdering ways. You are no different than Charles Manson or that flesh eating Dahmerdude (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Dahmer) or the multitude of other mass murders in human history.

    You need to get back to reality.

    Send aid not bombs.

    That failed in both Afghanistan and Iraq. If you had been paying attention, you would know that. It has historically failed and it is currently it is failing in the Palestine territory too. We send aid and they still send mortars and rockets into the neighborhoods of innocent civilians. They make bombs and go into crowded market places and blow themselves up in order to kill innocent civilians who have done nothing to them besides being alive.

    If someone bombed your family I'd bet you'd want revenge. Yes? Well then those that you bomb and thereby kill are really no different than you mass murdering dude.

    I would want revenge on the persons who bombed my family. I am not so ignorant that I would hate an entire race or class of people because of the actions of a few. Perhaps you are not that intelligent.

    Someone has to break the cycle and that might mean sucking it up for a long while taking the hits without seeking revenge till the other sides see that you've really changed your mass murdering ways. Until then expect the worst to happen due to your own policies from those groups that you've killed and brought death to. It's basic raw politics dude.

    OK, so here is you answer, we should allow the other side to attack us without a response. That line of thinking brought us 9/11 and the death of almost 3000 people in a single day.

    Here is a better idea, how about we just continue to fight and kill the people who are hostile to us or our allies and if we create one more enemy while killing 20, they will eventually run out. Then your little fear of them getting mad goes away. Either way, here is a hint, we are killing them because we already expect the worst to happen. All other forms of interaction with them has caused the worse to happen already. If we stop killing them, we are going to expect the worst to still be going to happen because it already was. Here is where you simply fail.. If you looked far enough into the situation to not be a ignorant puss, you would have already known that.

    That's why I've moved away from the main target cities: NYC and DC. Heck even the USA Government is moving out of DC by building new facilities at least 50 to 75 miles away from DC. They know a nuke is coming to the capital and are getting prepared for that eventuality that they know they've brought on by their own policies of spreading death and destruction across the planet.

    Lol.. And if a nuke gets used, then they will be used in return. Giving up and not doing anything is not a solution. BTW, 50 miles will not be very effect in guarding against a nuke.

    So terrorist mass murdering dude change your ways or expect the worst from those who seek revenge against mass murderers like you. Duck and cover.

    It just sounds to me like we need to kill more of them faster in order to stop your doom and gloom prophecy from taking place. Maybe you right, a nuke is what is needed, we should turn their homeland into a glass parking lot and be done with it once and for all. I mean how pissed can you get if you are dead alongside the rest of your family.

  65. Re:Government doing good? What are you talking abo by itsybitsy · · Score: 1

    What ever dude, obviously you'll continue your mass murdering... remember karma... that which you sow you reap...

  66. Re:Government doing good? What are you talking abo by sumdumass · · Score: 1

    Yea, it will continue because you failed to present some alternative that hasn't already fail. This goes back to my original point, sometimes you have no other options but to kill and that if not a bad or evil thing. You yourself have admitted there was no other options outside of giving up which isn't an option.

  67. Re:Government doing good? What are you talking abo by itsybitsy · · Score: 1

    No, it will continue because the likes of you on both sides choose to keep killing each other rather than giving your mass murdering revenge a pass for a change supporting life.

    You see them as your enemies, they see you the same way, thus you both need each other to support your murderous policies of destruction.

    I never said anything about giving up, that's your delusional mind set not getting what is written in front of your eyes mass murdering dude.

    The solution is to stop the killing.

  68. Re:Government doing good? What are you talking abo by sumdumass · · Score: 1

    No, it will continue because the likes of you on both sides choose to keep killing each other rather than giving your mass murdering revenge a pass for a change supporting life.

    It will keep continue because there is no workable alternatives. Fuck, how hard is that for you to understand? There needs to be a solution that hasn't already failed in order for it to fucking stop. And no, giving up or giving in to the demands of thugs worshiping pedophiles is not a solution.

    You see them as your enemies, they see you the same way, thus you both need each other to support your murderous policies of destruction.

    That happened long before the killing started. That's why you just don't fucking get it. You are a moron if you think an entire country decided to drop bombs or kill as a first resort. Both Iraq and Afghanistan were long times coming with every possible diplomatic solution being tried and failing with the exception of the first Iraq war which the goal was to protect and ally first. Stop killing does not work unless there is a viable alternative to make both agrieved sides happy enough to exist peacefully. You have failed to offer anything that could work in that reguard, you should stick with watching Saturday morning cartoon and asking your mom for spending money instead of international politics which you know absolutely nothing about.

    I never said anything about giving up, that's your delusional mind set not getting what is written in front of your eyes mass murdering dude.

    That's right, you didn't say anything at all except for quit killing. You have offered nothing constructive and just repeated that at the expense of making yourself look like an idiot. Not killing is not going to solve any of the problems or issues that brought the killing about in the first fucking place. When you offer nothing except to stop, you are in essence saying give up.

    The solution is to stop the killing.

    And here you are going back to the same damn thing, stop killing- then do what? What should we do instead of killing them that hasn't already been tried and failed? I have asked you to comment on this and you refuse to indicating that you have no fucking clue. Killing was not a first resort, it was the last resort, stopping it does nothing to the underlying problems and it is only one sides which if I remember right, they drew first blood. So what fucking solution can you offer that will make a difference that hasn't already failed. The not killing was tried long before the killing was.

    Maybe you are just that fucking stupid and think the killing started because of killing. But that stupidity won't make you right.

  69. Re:Government doing good? What are you talking abo by itsybitsy · · Score: 1

    Your delusions are deeply messing with you and your anger shows that you know deep down that killing isn't the solution.

    Give it a rest dude.

  70. Re:Government doing good? What are you talking abo by sumdumass · · Score: 1

    Delusions, what delusions? You are the one ignoring everything just to repeat stop the killing as if it was a viable option without something else happening or replacing it. If anyone is delusional, it would be you.

  71. Re:Government doing good? What are you talking abo by itsybitsy · · Score: 1

    Ok sure if that's what you really think mr. parroting is the best form of arguing you can do.

    It's clear that sumdumass name really applies to you and your mass murdering ways.

    I and many others have suggested many solutions rather than killing, it's that you sumdumass in your infinite wisdom gained from mass murder have choose to keep on with your addiction to killing people as a way of solving problems around the globe. That makes you a mass murderer who is also unwilling to stop killing. Despicable sumdumass.

    what ever sumdumass.

  72. Re:Government doing good? What are you talking abo by itsybitsy · · Score: 1

    Maybe with your mass murdering ways you'll end up like your mentor Hitler.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6omQ5JjjLsE

  73. Re:Government doing good? What are you talking abo by sumdumass · · Score: 1

    One of these days, someone is going to mass murder you if you keep up acting a stupid as fucking possible and ignoring everything relevant not only to the conversation but to the entire argument you are attempting to present.

    As I already said and you have yet to answer to, killing is the last resort in a line of actions attempting to resolve the dispute. If you can offer something that hasn't already been tried and failed, then I'm all for it. Not killing is not an answer, it has been tried and failed miserable and something else needs to replace the killing that is both effective as well as guarantees out own safety. And yes, killing them before they kill you does just that.

    Until you can bring something constructive to the conversation, you are probably best shutting the hell up.

    BTW, the Hitler reference in your other childish post shows that killing can be a good thing when it is done to the right people. Just as my premise said.

  74. Re:Government doing good? What are you talking abo by itsybitsy · · Score: 1

    Death threats are a crime sumdumass, even those made over the intertubes.

    It's funny how you put the onus on others to find solutions. That's a great way for you to stop thinking and keep up your murderous policies. Nice non-rational mind set you've got there. I'll bet you're a raging god freak too.

    Oh, and the Hitler reference was to how he ended up burned in gasoline proving his murderous plan didn't quite work out for him and his followers, and if you watch the video you'll see that and other points relevant. I don't see much if any difference between your policies and Hitler's, in both cases massive numbers of dead humans are the result of how you think.

  75. Re:Government doing good? What are you talking abo by sumdumass · · Score: 1

    Death threats are a crime sumdumass, even those made over the intertubes.

    I didn't make any death threats. I have no idea who your real identity is or where you are located and no motivation to act in any way. I'm saying that you will piss someone off and they will harm you if you don't change your ways and act in the same maner with them as you did with me. I am more then patient enough to ignore you for lack of importance. Hiding behind a keyboard somewhere is one thing, when you forget that degree of separate, someone will retaliate and you won't be around any more. That's not a death threat, that is a warning just like the ones you gave me.

    It's funny how you put the onus on others to find solutions. That's a great way for you to stop thinking and keep up your murderous policies. Nice non-rational mind set you've got there. I'll bet you're a raging god freak too.

    It's not funny at all. War, death and destruction are happening for a number of reasons, if you don't want it to happen, then you need to present an alternative to it that hasn't already failed. It's really quite simple, the onus is on you to provide an alternative because you are the one wanting to change the behavior. Stopping something that is a reaction to other actions is not a workable solution as long as the previous actions and problems remain. Your insistence to ingore that show you haven't even thought about it past some stupid chanting of murder which is a total fallacy. You cannot say I havn't thought about it because I have actually looked at the situation, understand why there is killing, and know of the attempted to avoid it which failed. You on the other hand present nothing constructive or helpful and mindlessly repeat BS lines about killing people.

    Oh, and the Hitler reference was to how he ended up burned in gasoline proving his murderous plan didn't quite work out for him and his followers, and if you watch the video you'll see that and other points relevant. I don't see much if any difference between your policies and Hitler's, in both cases massive numbers of dead humans are the result of how you think.

    Oh, so the slaughtering millions of jews was fine but hilter committing suicide and being burned by his troops rather then being killed by the troops sent to stop him is a good thing then? Do you agree that hitler needed stopped? Would you agree that in doing so, when his troops attempt to kill you, you have to kill them? I think my point stands and your is a far fetched reach into nothing.

  76. Re:Government doing good? What are you talking abo by itsybitsy · · Score: 1

    You just don't get it mass murdering dude.

    Until you renounce mass murder and actually stop doing it you're guilty of mass murder regardless of what others are doing. In fact much of what they are doing is directed at you for your past mass murders.

    No difference between Hitler and you.

  77. Re:Government doing good? What are you talking abo by sumdumass · · Score: 1

    No, you just don't get it. There is a difference between murder and killing and not all killing is bad. And there is a difference between that and hitler unless you think killing hitler before he killed all those jews or ally forced would have been a bad thing.

  78. Re:Government doing good? What are you talking abo by itsybitsy · · Score: 1

    Specifically your methods with all power over other grubbing groups is the use of death, killing and murder justified for whatever you want; and of course it's always in the name of "the greater good" that the killings are justified. The Nazi's thought they were killing for the greater good of their fatherland. You thing that you're killing for the greater good as you've said in your comments. Same thing, killing is the result, not just the killing of someone who is personally attacking you, but the mass murders of huge numbers of people in the name of your greater good. That is what makes you as evil as any despicable despot in history. Killing to support your political cause is murder and evil.

    My grandfather helped many escape out of the Nazi death machine in Hungary including jews and homosexuals before the Nazi's came after him; fortunately he escaped out the back of the apartment building.

    Face it sumdumass you're just like any other mass murdering killer out there, willing to kill to justify your sense of being right in killing and murdering people, bringing them death from the sky, obliterating people you've never even met, people you don't know anything about. Indiscriminate death from Predators whispering through the heavens dolling out death and destruction and devastation to unsuspecting people; cowardly sneak attacks that murder innocents along with your targets. People you seek vengeance on for 911 even though they had nothing to do with that and zero justice is served; in fact the justice that needs to be served is those that kill in the name of revenge, as you do, need to be the ones locked away for life for murder.

    You're just a dumb ass mass murderer with your politics sumdumass. You reap what you sow. If I was following your policies I'd make sure I had a strong defense as you'll likely need it against those who seek revenge against your murderous actions in the world.

    Fortunately I don't support murderers like you, bush, obama, castro, harper, putin, thatcher, stalin, hitler, pol pot, chavez, che, or the rest of the mass murdering despicables in history who get their way by murdering people for their political aims. If you can't achieve your political goals without murder you are inherently evil and are a war criminal committing crimes against humanity.

  79. Re:Government doing good? What are you talking abo by sumdumass · · Score: 1

    Specifically your methods with all power over other grubbing groups is the use of death, killing and murder justified for whatever you want; and of course it's always in the name of "the greater good" that the killings are justified. The Nazi's thought they were killing for the greater good of their fatherland. You thing that you're killing for the greater good as you've said in your comments. Same thing, killing is the result, not just the killing of someone who is personally attacking you, but the mass murders of huge numbers of people in the name of your greater good. That is what makes you as evil as any despicable despot in history. Killing to support your political cause is murder and evil.

    What a load of bullshit. First of all, I don't set policy that kills other people. Second, I never said that killing for the greater good was acceptable. That is something your delusional mind has inferred on it's own. I said that killing isn't the same as murder and not all killing is bad. Nothing more nothing less. Don't attempt to put words in my mouth or travel down your imaginary roads outside of the context I made.

    My grandfather helped many escape out of the Nazi death machine in Hungary including jews and homosexuals before the Nazi's came after him; fortunately he escaped out the back of the apartment building.

    This is doubtful unless your grandfather lived in one of the occupied countries and fled without defending it. Maybe there is a long line of cowardliness in your family. That would explain a lot.

    Face it sumdumass you're just like any other mass murdering killer out there, willing to kill to justify your sense of being right in killing and murdering people, bringing them death from the sky, obliterating people you've never even met, people you don't know anything about. Indiscriminate death from Predators whispering through the heavens dolling out death and destruction and devastation to unsuspecting people; cowardly sneak attacks that murder innocents along with your targets. People you seek vengeance on for 911 even though they had nothing to do with that and zero justice is served; in fact the justice that needs to be served is those that kill in the name of revenge, as you do, need to be the ones locked away for life for murder.

    And here your delusions and cowardliness rise again. I don't support killing but I am not so stupid that I can't understand how conflict ends up in it and how that result is justified in the defense of the people. Just because you cannot fathom that concept does not make it wrong. In fact, it makes you an idiot when you suggest not killing without any alternatives to resolve the conflict.

    You're just a dumb ass mass murderer with your politics sumdumass. You reap what you sow. If I was following your policies I'd make sure I had a strong defense as you'll likely need it against those who seek revenge against your murderous actions in the world.

    The strong defense isn't the problem. Attacking us or our allies are. You cannot and will not do that unfettered. And no matter how hard you wish it not to be, you will end up bringing death upon yourself when you try. In both wars we have now, it was the result of either the US directly being attacked or one of our allies in which we came to their defense. Your comment right here signifies that you just do not have a clue.

    Fortunately I don't support murderers like you, bush, obama, castro, harper, putin, thatcher, stalin, hitler, pol pot, chavez, che, or the rest of the mass murdering despicables in history who get their way by murdering people for their political aims. If you can't achieve your political goals without murder you are inherently evil and are a war criminal committing crimes against humanity.

    No, you just bury your head in the sand like your cowar

  80. Re:Government doing good? What are you talking abo by itsybitsy · · Score: 1

    Oh look, a mass murderer like you at work:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELrezD6PSbc

    There is no difference. When people insane with patriotism drop bombs which fall from the sky on people there is death and bloody murder. When a gun man insane with murder on his mind kills shooting people there is bloody murder. Same difference, dead people. Reason for it doesn't matter, not to the dead people and those that loved them for dead is dead is dead is dead.

    When you cause dead people on a mass scale you are a mass murderer regardless of the reason for killing them.

  81. Re:Government doing good? What are you talking abo by itsybitsy · · Score: 1

    "I said that killing isn't the same as murder and not all killing is bad."

    That means the thing as killing for the greater good. The dead people certainly wouldn't think it was for the greater good dumb ass.

    You can deny the facts about my grandfather all you want. That just shows that you deny objective reality. No doubt you are a god freak thinking that jesus is going to save you from death by taking you to the mythical heaven. Every time you eat meat you eat the proof that jesus the man could not rise from the dead as he was a biological being that stays dead when dead.

    I have no intention of attacking anyone except with words. It's not you that I attack either sum dumb ass... it's your murderous policies that result in the deaths of millions around the world...

    My ancestors did their part in fighting the Nazi's, more than you ever did dumb ass.

    Oh, I'm the worst kind of human, that wants to preserve life even the life of sum dumb ass like you? That makes me the worst kind of human? Ok, I'll accept being that kind of worst human that honors life over killing innocents indiscriminately. At least I'm not a mass murdering dumb ass like you.

  82. Re:Government doing good? What are you talking abo by sumdumass · · Score: 1

    Go troll somewhere else. You are nothing but an idiot blinded by your cowardliness.

  83. Re:Government doing good? What are you talking abo by sumdumass · · Score: 1

    That means the thing as killing for the greater good. The dead people certainly wouldn't think it was for the greater good dumb ass.

    No it does not mean that. It means exactly what it means, that there is a fucking difference between killing and murder and not all killing is bad.

    You can deny the facts about my grandfather all you want. That just shows that you deny objective reality. No doubt you are a god freak thinking that jesus is going to save you from death by taking you to the mythical heaven. Every time you eat meat you eat the proof that jesus the man could not rise from the dead as he was a biological being that stays dead when dead.

    I know nothing about any facts of your grandfather. All I know is what you have said and you have a big problem with reality. Here you have all the sudden inferred Jesus and heaven into the conversation as if your delusions actually have a basis in reality. Your grandfather was probably a nazi sympathizer who turned queers and jews into the SS for all I know. Judging from your grasp on reality so far, that seems way more plausible then what you have actually claimed.

    I have no intention of attacking anyone except with words. It's not you that I attack either sum dumb ass... it's your murderous policies that result in the deaths of millions around the world...

    And you are showing how fucking stupid you are. First of all, I don't set any policies. Only two people have died by my hands and they were both legally justified. Second, you are attempting to blame the actions of the entire country on my ability to see the issues surrounding the situations. So how is it that I am supposed to be responsible for other people's actions when all I have done is looked and saw what drove the conflict and who drew fist blood. Hell, you couldn't even comprehend these complexities back when I was asking you to give an alternative to the killing that hasn't already been tried and failed. You couldn't then, There is probably no way you will understand or be capably of intellectually processing it now.

    My ancestors did their part in fighting the Nazi's, more than you ever did dumb ass.

    Now you just got finished claiming your grandfather helped jews run and hide before doing it himself. Now which is it, was he on the front line fighting the enemy or was he abandoning his country and preparing to run and hide?

    Oh, I'm the worst kind of human, that wants to preserve life even the life of sum dumb ass like you? That makes me the worst kind of human? Ok, I'll accept being that kind of worst human that honors life over killing innocents indiscriminately. At least I'm not a mass murdering dumb ass like you.

    Yes, you are the worst kind of human. You want to preserve life (mainly your own) so much that you will ignore the actions of others and not take the life of people who are actually slaughtering and mass murdering others who are innocent. You are the coward who wants to complain that life sucks when you have done absolutely nothing to make it better for yourself or anyone else. You are the idiot who can't even be bothered to look at the conflict in order to understand the drivers of it in order to offer a workable alternative to the killing. You are sitting there saying "wasn't me" while blaming every one else and doing absolutely nothing but making the problems worse.

    The world will be done a favor when you shut up.

  84. Re:Government doing good? What are you talking abo by itsybitsy · · Score: 1

    "... there is a fucking difference between killing and murder and not all killing is bad." - sum dumb ass

    That is why you are a mass murderer, you can't see that there is no difference between murder and killing... your blindness to the evil of your actions is what makes you a vile evil and blight upon the planet.

  85. Re:Government doing good? What are you talking abo by sumdumass · · Score: 1

    So letting someone rape and murder your mom or sister because you can't see a difference between killing and murder is perfectly fine with you? So getting killed yourself because killing your attacker (in either situation) even though you were just attempting to make them stop is unacceptable to you.

    So tell me, if a group of terrorist were planning to blow up a crowded shopping mall with a bunch of your friends and family in it, and the attempt to stop them resulted in the terrorist shooting at you, would you support killing them before they can blow up your friends or are they just collateral damage because you can't tell the difference between killing and murder or that it isn't always bad.

    You are a fucking coward who knows nothing about real life and purposely ignores it so to not have to deal with the very real issues it presents. Go put your head back in the sand and troll somewhere else. An elementary level of thinking skills is all that is required and you obviously lack that.

  86. Re:Government doing good? What are you talking abo by itsybitsy · · Score: 1

    When you give your political will to your government or to your self to go and commit murder you're giving those who consider you their enemies (for your past murders) permission to kill you back. As long as you're happy and all right with that then fine let you and them kill each other - the world will be a better place without mass murderers like you both - you as a terrorist to them and them as a terrorist to you.

    You can't seem to get it through your head that you are the terrorists with your murderous policies.

  87. Re:Government doing good? What are you talking abo by sumdumass · · Score: 1

    Way to ignore my questions. Am I supposed to guess what your cowardly actions would be or can I safely assume that you would be the worse kind of human and ignore the events leaving your family and loved ones to die as long as you are safe?

    Lets see, you have ignored many questions in order to repeat your cowardly ramblings that don't hold up to the light of real life. You have failed to give alternatives to conflicts that have escalated into killing, you have failed to comment about your actions if your family or friends were in mortal danger, you are just a coward attempting to troll because your anonymity makes you feel more important then you really are.

    In fact, you are currently claiming that because I gave my political will to my government or to myself to go and commit murder which somehow justifies them to kill me. I have made no indication that I did anything of the sorts. But what you are seriously ignorant of and purposely hiding from is the conditions that have caused the government to enter into war and kill people in the first place. They drew first blood which according to your statement means we are justified in our killing despite you attempting to claim otherwise. Face it, you are nothing but a coward who is willing to ignore the facts and watch people die as long as you can somehow wash your hands of it. This is rarely the case in real life but your cowardliness seems to make it so in your case. As I said before, go Troll somewhere else.

  88. Re:Government doing good? What are you talking abo by itsybitsy · · Score: 1

    You have shown zero compassion for the people that you and yours blow up during your mass murder policies. No wonder there are many people around the world that wish you harm. Can you blame them for wanting revenge when you and your country attacks and murders them? Yet when they seek their revenge against you you take deep offense but don't when you're the ones doing the killing on mass scales. Your hypocrisy is stunning.

    I'm under no obligation to answer your questions even though I've answered many of them.

    I did provide solutions, you've rejected them since you prefer mass murder as it's expedient and you can do it via remote control while cowering in a control room back at home.

    Yes because you give yourself (I don't know if you are in the military or not) or your government the political permission to murder and kill and bring death to people you are directly giving those people permission to kill you and bring murder and death and destruction back to your country. Yes that is the way of the world especially in death and destruction.

    You forget that it was your country that has drawn first blood. 911 was in response to USA aggressions for example. Naturally you can ignore that but if you look you'll see that there are a number of books and many excellent articles published with the facts of the long war between the USA Terrorists and the 911 Terrorists detailed. It's a matter of the factual historic record.

    You also forget that someone has to stop the cycle of death revenge. If it's not you it's not going to be them. So step up and stop the killing. It's really that easy and the world will change; you might have to take a few bloody noses before it changes but it will change when your country (which I assume to most likely be the USA by your earlier responses) were to actually stop it's mass murder death killing policies around the world.

  89. Re:Government doing good? What are you talking abo by sumdumass · · Score: 1

    You have shown zero compassion for the people that you and yours blow up during your mass murder policies. No wonder there are many people around the world that wish you harm. Can you blame them for wanting revenge when you and your country attacks and murders them? Yet when they seek their revenge against you you take deep offense but don't when you're the ones doing the killing on mass scales. Your hypocrisy is stunning.

    What do you mean I show no compassion for those who were killed. You have no idea about the compassion I hold and I made no reference to it or the lack there of. All I said was that sometimes killing is necessary and not necessarily evil and can be good. I already said ten times that I was open to other solutions and even asked you to present some that hasn't already failed. But your cowardliness prevented you from taking a stand the might force you to realize that there isn't an easy or obvious answer to the current problems that result in killing.

    I'm under no obligation to answer your questions even though I've answered many of them.

    No you are not. However, your credibility leave just as fast as your ability to answer those questions. You should just give up now and go troll somewhere else. Your cowardliness has been shown, your inability to answer a few questions that would have supported your views if you were able to answer correctly has been demonstrated by yourself. You should just go and hid by your grandfathers grave and you both can be cowards together.

    I did provide solutions, you've rejected them since you prefer mass murder as it's expedient and you can do it via remote control while cowering in a control room back at home.

    No you did not. You said don't kill while ignoring all the reasons and problems resulting in the killing. You mentioned diplomacy as if it was some magical bullet but completely ignored it's failure and connections to the current wars. You offered nothing that has not already failed, nothing constructive, nothing but "don't kill" which is not a solution to anything when all else has already failed. Go ahead and be a coward, I know it's easier to be intellectually lazy and ignore the realities of life as long as you don't have to think about getting dirty. Your grandpa really taught you well.

    Yes because you give yourself (I don't know if you are in the military or not) or your government the political permission to murder and kill and bring death to people you are directly giving those people permission to kill you and bring murder and death and destruction back to your country. Yes that is the way of the world especially in death and destruction.

    The US government is in war as a reaction to aggression by others. We didn't give anyone political permision to kill, we expected them to defend ourselves and our allies from being killed, striped of basic human rights, and aggression from terrorist thugs who attempt to target innocent civilians because they are like you and are too cowardly to address their concerns with the military or civilian governments. All I can say if that the world will be a better place when those same people kill you if we don't get them first. But I'm sure that's ok with you because you wouldn't want to kill them before they killed you- would you? Oh yea, that's right, you aren't obligated to answer any questions, you are just a coward hell bent on keeping your world view in the fallacy you have created.

    You forget that it was your country that has drawn first blood. 911 was in response to USA aggressions for example. Naturally you can ignore that but if you look you'll see that there are a number of books and many excellent articles published with the facts of the long war between the USA Terrorists and the 911 Terrorists detailed. It's a matter of the factual historic record.

  90. Re:Government doing good? What are you talking abo by itsybitsy · · Score: 1

    You really need to give it a rest mass murdering sumdumass.

  91. Big Brother Obama by picozone · · Score: 1

    The scary part of this entire thing, is the willingness of the left, usually closer to civil libertarianism than anything else, to report citizens tot he government. I've never done anything like this but I created a little submit it type button: http://disinformation.nfshost.com/eye.html Add it to your website, and people can report you to Obama. I mean, this is where we are. I understand the DNC vs RNC going at it, but the _executive branch_? I'm not a programmer so I may have mucked the entire thing, but I was really that incensed about the disinformation fixing campaign.

  92. Re:Government doing good? What are you talking abo by sumdumass · · Score: 1

    Yea, like the coward is going to tell me what to do.

    Like I said, go troll somewhere else.

  93. Re:Government doing good? What are you talking abo by itsybitsy · · Score: 1

    Actually given your vitriolic style and screen name "sumdumass" it's clear that you're the troll latching onto my posting.

    So you claim to have killed two people, what was the context of that?

    (1) Person self defense as a civilian?

    (2) As a Cop?

    (3) In the military?

    Where? What city? What country? What war?

    How was it legally justified?

  94. Re:Government doing good? What are you talking abo by sumdumass · · Score: 1

    It doesn't matter what I have done, the fact that it was legally justified means it was justified and legal.

    However, you are trolling, you are a cowards and there is no reason for you to be bringing this up this late in the game after we both already expressed desires to end the discussion.

    And if you must know, they were in the personal self defense of myself and one other person. One was with a home invasions in which the perpetrator was specifically attempting to kill a person he was accused of rapping her just a day before. The other was during a robbery attempt at a convenient store in which the robbers already killed one person while saying something about no witnesses and I believed I would not survive the night if I didn't act.

    Now I have answered more questions then you have, go fuck off and be a coward with your grandpa.

  95. Re:Government doing good? What are you talking abo by itsybitsy · · Score: 1

    Well, I'm not trolling at all sumdumass... I'm just not obligated to answer your vitriolic acidic questions nor your pleasant questions especially when you keep asserting that I've not provided answers when the fact of the record shows that I have.

    Personal civilian self defense in the two situations that you assert happened is quite different than what I've been talking about assuming the facts are as you assert they are of course. I'm sorry to hear that you've been through such situations. I sure hope that never happens to me but I'm prepared to defend myself or others from death by an attack at an appropriate level of violence in response.

    Personal civilian self defense is quite different than murder, death and killing at the political level.

    As for being a coward... not so dude. I'm just against State Based Mass Murder and those that support it. The largest killers on the planet are Governments. Look it up.

    Oh, 911 was a revenge military style based response by Al-Qaeda to prior USA Attacks against Al-Qaeda. That is a well documented historical fact. The USA and Al-Qaeda had been at war for quite some time before 911. Al-Qaeda asserts that the USA started it with earlier attacks. From their perspective the USA started it. This is an essentially undisputed historical set of facts.

    If you fail to comprehend your enemies thinking you'll fail in ending the problem with them.

    The USA has a long history of indiscriminate killing, death and murder around the world and in Islamic countries not to mention the support of despicable dictatorships around the world and in the middle east in particular. These are facts of history.

    Death and destruction around the world won't solve the problems the world faces nor protect the USA as the violence and death that you send forth and bring down on people simply perpetuates the problem leading to the next generation of your victims taking up arms against you.

    So yes, for your support of exporting death to other parts of the world you are a mass murderer.

    For personal self defense in a civilian context where your life was in immediate danger you are not a murderer in the same way assuming your side of the story is what happened, for that you are a killer in self defense... big difference.

    Oh, just as you had a right to self defense the people the USA bombs have a right to self defense. Since they don't have the weapons they have an inherent right to attack back anyway they can. It's the same right you assert. That's the problem. Revenge isn't the solution. Stop it.

  96. Re:Government doing good? What are you talking abo by sumdumass · · Score: 1

    Well, I'm not trolling at all sumdumass... I'm just not obligated to answer your vitriolic acidic questions nor your pleasant questions especially when you keep asserting that I've not provided answers when the fact of the record shows that I have.

    You have not provide answers to my questions. I'm not sure why you even think that. However, you are right, the record doesn't lie so point to them. Troll.

    Personal civilian self defense in the two situations that you assert happened is quite different than what I've been talking about assuming the facts are as you assert they are of course. I'm sorry to hear that you've been through such situations. I sure hope that never happens to me but I'm prepared to defend myself or others from death by an attack at an appropriate level of violence in response.

    Personal civilian self defense is quite different than murder, death and killing at the political level.

    No it isn't much different. We or our allies were attacked, we responded. Did you expect us to sit there and take it, letting our own civilians die at the hands of terrorist because we support one of our allies?

    As for being a coward... not so dude. I'm just against State Based Mass Murder and those that support it. The largest killers on the planet are Governments. Look it up.

    It doesn't matter if the largest killers on the planet are government. When conflicts happen, they escalate when typical solutions do no work. If you want to end the killing, you need to resolve the conflict and provide a workable solution that has not already failed.

    Oh, 911 was a revenge military style based response by Al-Qaeda to prior USA Attacks against Al-Qaeda. That is a well documented historical fact. The USA and Al-Qaeda had been at war for quite some time before 911. Al-Qaeda asserts that the USA started it with earlier attacks. From their perspective the USA started it. This is an essentially undisputed historical set of facts.

    No it was not and it was never claimed to have been by Al Qeada or anyone involved with them. You cannot rewrite history. Bin Laden Specifically said it was because of our support for Israel. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed said the same damn thing. That was their fucking motivation comming from their own damn mouths. Whatever you have been told, you have been lied to and lacked the wherewithal to check it out on your own or are purposely lieing right now.

    If you fail to comprehend your enemies thinking you'll fail in ending the problem with them.

    And if you keep making shit up, you will never address the real problems and get peace.

    The USA has a long history of indiscriminate killing, death and murder around the world and in Islamic countries not to mention the support of despicable dictatorships around the world and in the middle east in particular. These are facts of history.

    And you point is what? We helped save Europe from the nazi's, attempted to save Vietnam and did for the most part, save south Korea from Communist invaders. We saves Afghanistan from Soviet occupation and Kuwait from a Dictator attempting to extract revenge because some Kuwaiti called Iraqi women 10 dollar whores. Now you may think it would have been better if we stayed out of those problems but judging from the actions of Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler and so on, it is likely that a lot less people die then would of if we didn't act.

    Death and destruction around the world won't solve the problems the world faces nor protect the USA as the violence and death that you send forth and bring down on people simply perpetuates the problem leading to the next generation of your victims taking up arms against you.

    So yes, for your support of exporting death to other parts of

  97. Re:Government doing good? What are you talking abo by itsybitsy · · Score: 1

    Sigh... claiming someone is a troll when obviously they are not is the last refuge of someone who has no arguments left... you keep saying that I'm a troll yet here I am asking cogent questions and making cogent and on point statements relevant to the topic at hand. None of this is intended to inflame you. Obviously I didn't know that you had killed two people in self defense until you said so (assuming your story is factual). So enough of the troll silliness... at best it's lame that's why I never use it first and then only use it to point out that from my point of view the other party could be said to be one too. So whatever, it's meaningless to me anyhow.

    I wrote: "Oh, 911 was a revenge military style based response by Al-Qaeda to prior USA Attacks against Al-Qaeda." and you foolishly replied "No it was not and it was never claimed to have been by Al Qeada or anyone involved with them. ... bla bla bla ...".

    You really do need to get some history into you sumdumass. While I don't support either Bin Laden's and his group(s) actions nor those of Bush/Cheney/Blair/Obama/Biden/... I can read the history and comprehend it. You know people can have more than one reason for doing a thing? You do know that don't you?

    "As for their accusations of terrorizing the innocent, the children, and the women, these are in the category of 'accusing others with their own affliction in order to fool the masses.' The evidence overwhelmingly shows America and Israel killing the weaker men, women and children in the Muslim world and elsewhere. A few examples of this are seen in the recent Qana massacre in Lebanon, and the death of more than 600,000 Iraqi children because of the shortage of food and medicine which resulted from the boycotts and sanctions against the Muslim Iraqi people, also their withholding of arms from the Muslims of Bosnia-Herzegovina leaving them prey to the Christian Serbians who massacred and raped in a manner not seen in contemporary history. Not to forget the dropping of the H-bombs on cities with their entire populations of children, elderly, and women, on purpose, and in a premeditated manner as was the case with Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
    Osama bin Laden, In Nida'ul Islam magazine October-November 1996"

    Here's another one more recent.

    "God knows it did not cross our minds to attack the towers but after the situation became unbearable and we witnessed the injustice and tyranny of the American-Israeli alliance against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, I thought about it. And the events that affected me directly were that of 1982 and the events that followed -- when America allowed the Israelis to invade Lebanon, helped by the U.S. Sixth Fleet. As I watched the destroyed towers in Lebanon, it occurred to me punish the unjust the same way (and) to destroy towers in America so it could taste some of what we are tasting and to stop killing our children and women.
    Osama bin Laden, Admitting responsibility for attacks on US on September 11, 2001, on videotape shown on Al Jazeera, October 29, 2004"

    So the revenge cycle is perpetuated by Osama Bin Laden and the United States of America doling out destruction and death and murder and killing on a mass scale across the globe. They are both killing machines with little or no regard for human life, that is why they and those that support their mass murderous policies are vile evil monsters. When you get that that is why you are one of these monsters you'll get what I'm saying. Until then you're a lost cause and are a member of the dark side of the forces of good and evil.

    Of course you'd believe the bullshit peddled by your media and politicians and political nationalism of the USA that you'd think that they drew first blood. How short are the memories of the foolish and dumb asses.

    You perpetuate the revenge killing cycle and THUS are THE PROBLEM especially to those that are being killed now and the families and friends of those that have been killed. You are no different than Osama Bin

  98. Re:Government doing good? What are you talking abo by sumdumass · · Score: 1

    Sigh... claiming someone is a troll when obviously they are not is the last refuge of someone who has no arguments left... you keep saying that I'm a troll yet here I am asking cogent questions and making cogent and on point statements relevant to the topic at hand. None of this is intended to inflame you. Obviously I didn't know that you had killed two people in self defense until you said so (assuming your story is factual). So enough of the troll silliness... at best it's lame that's why I never use it first and then only use it to point out that from my point of view the other party could be said to be one too. So whatever, it's meaningless to me anyhow.

    It's clear that you are a troll. You are not adding anything to the conversation and we both expressed the desire to end it and yet here you are again. You are asking inane question and refusing to answer when they are asked of you. You keep repeating yourself without ever considering anything brought up. You are a troll plain and simple.

    You really do need to get some history into you sumdumass. While I don't support either Bin Laden's and his group(s) actions nor those of Bush/Cheney/Blair/Obama/Biden/... I can read the history and comprehend it. You know people can have more than one reason for doing a thing? You do know that don't you?

    All the history in the world would be wrong if the people who did the act claimed it was for another reason. Bin Laden and the guy who developed the plan claimed it was for our support for Israel and you adding things is just revising history. You can make shit up all you want but that will not make you right. Until Bin laden or anyone involve with 9/11 says it was for different reasons, you are just making it up.

    Osama bin Laden, In Nida'ul Islam magazine October-November 1996"

    It sounds like he can speak for himself so why are you attempting to put words in his mouth. Osama bun Laden specifically said it was for our support of Israel. You are not going to be able to piece anything together the refutes his own words. What you think and what he thinks are two entirely different things and what he thinks is more valid because he was behind the fucking attacks.

    "God knows it did not cross our minds to attack the towers but after the situation became unbearable and we witnessed the injustice and tyranny of the American-Israeli alliance against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, I thought about it. And the events that affected me directly were that of 1982 and the events that followed -- when America allowed the Israelis to invade Lebanon, helped by the U.S. Sixth Fleet. As I watched the destroyed towers in Lebanon, it occurred to me punish the unjust the same way (and) to destroy towers in America so it could taste some of what we are tasting and to stop killing our children and women.
    Osama bin Laden, Admitting responsibility for attacks on US on September 11, 2001, on videotape shown on Al Jazeera, October 29, 2004"

    And there it is, Bin laden saying it was because of our support of Israel and you still missed it.

    So the revenge cycle is perpetuated by Osama Bin Laden and the United States of America doling out destruction and death and murder and killing on a mass scale across the globe. They are both killing machines with little or no regard for human life, that is why they and those that support their mass murderous policies are vile evil monsters. When you get that that is why you are one of these monsters you'll get what I'm saying. Until then you're a lost cause and are a member of the dark side of the forces of good and evil.

    And Israel struck because we were attacked and they blew up out marine barracks and embassy building. It's not like we hold their leash or anything and can stop them from acting on their own. Anyways, your missing the e

  99. Re:Government doing good? What are you talking abo by itsybitsy · · Score: 1

    "It's clear that you are a troll."

    Lame. Clearly you don't get what other people write dude sumdumass; fullfilling your screen name I guess. Whatever dude.

    "You can make shit up all you want but that will not make you right. Until Bin laden or anyone involve with 9/11 says it was for different reasons, you are just making it up."

    What? That's a good one. You think that I wrote those quotes of OBL? That's a good one. No, those are quotes attributed to him sumdumass.

    I didn't miss anything, in fact I put the quote there!

    The USA has a long history of drawing blood in the region in one way or another thinking it has impunity to do so. As the rest of the world now knows the USA doesn't have impunity in it's actions... I just wonder when the people in America will figure that out.

    Drawing of first blood is irrelevant anyhow since even if that question were settled (which it can't be due to the many claims and counter claims) it wouldn't stop the cycle of violence. What will stop the cycle of violence is those that make the decisions to conduct violence stop choosing violence as their solution to problems. Until then it'll keep going back and forth. This is a basic notion that isn't even disputed. Many disputes have been finally settled only once the violence stopped. Again look to history for examples. Sometimes it takes a long time for it to happen which is too bad for all those needlessly killed as the waring parties keep at their deadly murderous killing dance.

    I've made up no history murderous sumdumass. How do you think I've made up history? That's really funny. As for reality, I'm fully connected. You see I do actually understand your point of view, I used to hold something similar in my foolish years then this thing called wisdom happened... I value human life... clearly you don't which is why it's so easy for you to kill and murder people indiscriminately with your politics which is just an open invitation for your enemies (OBL for example) to strike back against your policies. When you get that then maybe you'll be on your way back to reality and compassion from that dark place you inhabit now.

    "sumdumbass" - you sure picked a great name that fits you.

  100. Re:Government doing good? What are you talking abo by sumdumass · · Score: 1

    What? That's a good one. You think that I wrote those quotes of OBL? That's a good one. No, those are quotes attributed to him sumdumass.
    I didn't miss anything, in fact I put the quote there!

    Those quotes say what I said, not what you said.

    The USA has a long history of drawing blood in the region in one way or another thinking it has impunity to do so. As the rest of the world now knows the USA doesn't have impunity in it's actions... I just wonder when the people in America will figure that out.

    Then the rest of the world should attempt to stop the US.

    Drawing of first blood is irrelevant anyhow since even if that question were settled (which it can't be due to the many claims and counter claims) it wouldn't stop the cycle of violence. What will stop the cycle of violence is those that make the decisions to conduct violence stop choosing violence as their solution to problems. Until then it'll keep going back and forth. This is a basic notion that isn't even disputed. Many disputes have been finally settled only once the violence stopped. Again look to history for examples. Sometimes it takes a long time for it to happen which is too bad for all those needlessly killed as the waring parties keep at their deadly murderous killing dance.

    And here is where you are showing your ignorance. This is exactly what I have been saying from day one, there has to be a viable solution other then killing that solves the problems that has not already failed and caused the violence to happen. Of course your a coward troll who comes from a line of cowards so I guess you might be dense.

    I've made up no history murderous sumdumass. How do you think I've made up history?

    You must not only have a problem with reading comprehension but you also believe the lies you told. Bin Laden and Al Qaeda themselves said 9/11 was because of our support for Israel. You have attempted to attribute it to several other things as well numerous times and that is just making shit up.

    That's really funny. As for reality, I'm fully connected. You see I do actually understand your point of view, I used to hold something similar in my foolish years then this thing called wisdom happened... I value human life... clearly you don't which is why it's so easy for you to kill and murder people indiscriminately with your politics which is just an open invitation for your enemies (OBL for example) to strike back against your policies. When you get that then maybe you'll be on your way back to reality and compassion from that dark place you inhabit now.

    If you ended up with wisdom, you sure have failed to show it in any of our conversations. As for valuing human life, I sure as hell do, but I do know the difference between evil humans over innocent humans and will not expect them to get away with murder because you are a coward who doesn't want to see us strike back.

    BTW, they are not indiscriminate killings. I think you probably need to buy a discretionary if you actually think so.

    "sumdumbass" - you sure picked a great name that fits you.

    Yea, and how does it feel to be schooled by a dumass? Go troll somewhere else coward. And yes, you said you wanted to end it, we've said our parts, you haven't changed (other then accepting my point as your own now) and I haven't changed. You should run off and have homosexual sex with your granddaddy who help Jews and queers escape the nazi's instead of defending his country from the invading army just before he ran.

  101. Re:Government doing good? What are you talking abo by itsybitsy · · Score: 1

    "Then the rest of the world should attempt to stop the US."

    Ok, clearly you can even comprehend even basic concepts put forward in a discussion.

    "Of course your a coward troll who comes from a line of cowards so I guess you might be dense. ... You should run off and have homosexual sex with your granddaddy who help Jews and queers escape the nazi's instead of defending his country from the invading army just before he ran."

    And you call me the troll, how sad.

    "... I do know the difference between evil humans over innocent humans and will not expect them to get away with murder ..."

    Very strange coming from an evil human being who supports indiscriminate mass murder. So I guess you need to not let yourself get away with murder. Arrest yourself for the mass murdering polices you support. Oh, and while you're at it it's likely that you're not telling the truth about what really happened so arrest yourself for those two murders too.

    Obviously you can't see how your own stated policy applies to yourself, but then people like you only see things from your one sided point of view and ignore the damage you do in the world only concerned with your own perceived victories.

    You've not schooled anyone except in how evil and murderous you are. I guess you got a taste for it.

    Hey, this is my thread so you go and troll somewhere else some dumb ass.

  102. Re:Government doing good? What are you talking abo by itsybitsy · · Score: 1

    "Then the rest of the world should attempt to stop the US." - sumdumass (really that's the guys appropriately self chosen handle).

    CORRECTION: Ok, clearly you [sumdumass] can NOT even comprehend even basic concepts put forward in a discussion.

  103. Re:Government doing good? What are you talking abo by sumdumass · · Score: 1

    (really that's the guys appropriately self chosen handle)

    Your going to talk smack about my chosen moniker when yours is a reflection of your penis size or mental capacity? Oh look, it's itsy bitsy

  104. Re:Government doing good? What are you talking abo by sumdumass · · Score: 1

    Ok, clearly you can even comprehend even basic concepts put forward in a discussion.

    "Of course your a coward troll who comes from a line of cowards so I guess you might be dense. ... You should run off and have homosexual sex with your granddaddy who help Jews and queers escape the nazi's instead of defending his country from the invading army just before he ran."

    And you call me the troll, how sad.

    Yes, you are a troll. You can't even comprehend what you are writing yourself and you already showed all of the above to be true except for you but fucking your grandpa.

    Very strange coming from an evil human being who supports indiscriminate mass murder. So I guess you need to not let yourself get away with murder. Arrest yourself for the mass murdering polices you support. Oh, and while you're at it it's likely that you're not telling the truth about what really happened so arrest yourself for those two murders too.

    Again, indiscriminate does not mean what you think it means. That unless you are trolling because you don't know the difference. I do not supposed indiscriminate killing, I support targeted and accurate returns of fire on the people taking up arms against us. Why you continue to get that wrong is beyond me. Oh that's right, you are a fucking troll.

    Obviously you can't see how your own stated policy applies to yourself, but then people like you only see things from your one sided point of view and ignore the damage you do in the world only concerned with your own perceived victories.

    Obviously you are a moron. I have said all along that I desired an alternative to the killing but everything else has already failed. What part of that do you not understand? Oh yea, you understand it all and are just a fucking troll making shit up.

    You've not schooled anyone except in how evil and murderous you are. I guess you got a taste for it.,/blockquote> Your right, despite all efforts, you successfully remains stupid. You can now go and brag about that to all your friends. (as if they had any doubt in you)

  105. Re:Government doing good? What are you talking abo by itsybitsy · · Score: 1

    That's not adding anything new and is simply an ad hominem troll flame attack dude.

  106. Re:Government doing good? What are you talking abo by itsybitsy · · Score: 1

    Lame troll nonsense dude.

    Again an unnecessary attack against my grandpa... such childish behavior dude. Demonstrates that you are attempting to flame, yet failing.

    If you don't support indiscriminate murderous killing then you can't support the USA Government and it's actions in doing indiscriminate murders of innocents euphemistically known as "collateral damage". By supporting them you are a mass murderer. It really is that simple.

    It matters not what you think of me sumdumass, what matters are the facts in objective reality where you are a mass murderer and a supporter of mass murder by your Government.

    SumDumAss, your desires are 100% irrelevant. What matters is what actions you take and what groups and political policies you support! By supporting mass murder you thus become, already are, a mass murderer. By supporting the mass murder of your government you are giving permission for those that they attack to attack you back - basic international law.

  107. Re:Government doing good? What are you talking abo by sumdumass · · Score: 1

    Lame troll nonsense dude.

    Again an unnecessary attack against my grandpa... such childish behavior dude. Demonstrates that you are attempting to flame, yet failing.

    Yes, I am attempting to flame you now because you refuse to leave. BTW, you are the one who said your Gandfather was a cowards helping jews, homosexuals, and himself escape.

    If you don't support indiscriminate murderous killing then you can't support the USA Government and it's actions in doing indiscriminate murders of innocents euphemistically known as "collateral damage". By supporting them you are a mass murderer. It really is that simple.

    Here is where you fail miserably. There is nothing indiscriminate about the fucking killing. You do no even know what the word means. I told you to look it up, said that there was nothing indiscriminate going on and asked you to show where there was if you though so. Like every fucking thing else of relevance, you ignored it. and you are ignoring it because your entire cowardly argument fall a fucking part as soon as you start addressing the facts.,

    It matters not what you think of me sumdumass, what matters are the facts in objective reality where you are a mass murderer and a supporter of mass murder by your Government.

    Yea, keep ignoring reality..

    Blockquote> SumDumAss, your desires are 100% irrelevant. What matters is what actions you take and what groups and political policies you support! By supporting mass murder you thus become, already are, a mass murderer. By supporting the mass murder of your government you are giving permission for those that they attack to attack you back - basic international law.

    Blah Blah Blah. Can you say that after paying fucking attention to the facts? Nope, you can only say that while ignoring everything. Like I said, go fuck your cowardly grandpa or something.

  108. Re:Government doing good? What are you talking abo by itsybitsy · · Score: 1

    That's funny, I'm the one who started this thread sumdumass so technically it's you who is refusing to leave.

    Actually your posts have devolved to flame incitement and nothing more. Just empty nothings of a person who kills people rather than coming up with other solutions. Murderer.