Slashdot Mirror


Facebook, Zuckerberg Sued For $1 Billion Over Intifada Page

An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from ZDNet: "Larry Klayman, the founder of Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch, has filed a lawsuit against Facebook and its CEO Mark Zuckerberg for their role in furthering a 'radical' Facebook Page called 'Third Palestinian Intifada,' which openly advocated another uprising against the citizens of Israel. The complaint reserves the right to be amended into a class action suit and prays for compensatory and punitive damages in excess of $1 billion. ... As a quick refresher, Facebook originally said it would not remove the page but would monitor it instead. The company later pulled the page after discussions degraded into violence and hatred."

350 comments

  1. Welcome Back... by LostCluster · · Score: 1, Interesting

    As usual, this is my annual first post to the first story after the April Fools Day Denial of Service day on Slashdot. And boy do we have a good one tonight....

    Where's the dropdown box to lower the number in the story to something more reasonable than a billion?

    Facebook had it right. When the page was new there was no problem with it. When it devolved into hate speech by both sides, it was pulled. All's well, nothing to see here.

    1. Re:Welcome Back... by hedwards · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If the Israelis would stop committing crimes against humanity it might be a bit easier to take them seriously. But as it's presently war criminals against terrorists and the people they represent, it's really hard to grant either side any sort of moral authority.

    2. Re:Welcome Back... by Runaway1956 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's pretty much my opinion. I've said it dozens of times in various places: There are no "Good Guys" in this conflict. Only the naive - amend that - only the naive who live protected lives in ivory castles - can believe otherwise.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    3. Re:Welcome Back... by LostCluster · · Score: 1

      If this wasn't 1984's definition of "permanent war" then there would be a good guy and bad guy to pick from. This is only Slashworthy because it pulls in Facebook and we've got a SlowNewsDay in effect.

    4. Re:Welcome Back... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      the murder of Sabra and Shatila was made Prime Minister. The siege of Gaza is ongoing collective punishment. Israeli forces committed what would be considered piracy if civilians had done it against a humanitarian aid convoy.

      Citation needed? More like getting your head out of your ass needed.

      Like the GP said, it's war criminals against terrorists.

    5. Re:Welcome Back... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      war criminals := wealthy terrorist
      terrorist := poor war criminal

    6. Re:Welcome Back... by Immostlyharmless · · Score: 2

      Perhaps if the Palestinians hadn't thrown their hat in with their Arab neighbors during the 6 day war...then Israel wouldn't need to have war criminals?

      Just sayin'....

      Course, then I believe the best thing that could happen would be for someone to release a dirty bomb in Jerusalem that would render the whole damned place uninhabitable for 1000 years. Hopefully by that time both sides could either A) not care about the desert shit hole they live in anymore or more optimistically B) we might find proof that all religions are bunk and that all they've both been fighting for the last thousand years is a load of crap.

    7. Re:Welcome Back... by 3p1ph4ny · · Score: 3, Informative

      FYI, Israel started the 6 day war. Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident

    8. Re:Welcome Back... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Straight from Israel's Ministry of Truth.. Copy/pasta propaganda...

    9. Re:Welcome Back... by sortius_nod · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Cool, so you're saying that so long as people aren't on your side it's ok to commit war crimes?

      Maybe talk to the Jews who survived auschwitz about that one. Tell them that it's ok their families were gassed because the Jews were on the wrong side of WWII. Maybe tell the families that survived occupied France that it was just to kill off dissidents because France sided with the allies.

      Tell the families of Vietnam that their agent orange babies are cool because they sided with the USSR.

      It's easy to shrug off war crimes as "necessary" when you're siding with the ones committing the war crimes. War crimes are war crimes, there's no way to dodge the issue. No matter what an aggressor does it's never ok to commit war crimes.

    10. Re:Welcome Back... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah Wikipedia. A perfectly unbiased reliable source on any political or controversial subject.

    11. Re:Welcome Back... by sortius_nod · · Score: 1

      yeh, because the Israelis never kicked Arabs or Bedouin off their land at all. As has been said, copy/pasta propaganda.

    12. Re:Welcome Back... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you see that someone is getting ready to shoot you, do you just sit there and let them shoot you?

    13. Re:Welcome Back... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Arabs in Israel enjoy more civil rights and a higher standard of living than the Arabs living in West Bank and Gaza.

      No sh*t, few people in the world live as poorly as those who live in Israel's gutters. The ones you let vote are a minority to those of your specific religion that you've imported from around the world. Even refusing to extradite wanted criminals of Jewish decent who manages to make it 'home'.

      If Isreal gave up the "if you're Jewish you're a citizen", and started repatriating Palestinians it might just gain a little credibility. Instead, you'all are locked in a police state mentality. You just can't 'store' the Palestinians in a ghetto, they get pissy and angry, would you if you were in their place? Most of the were born there. It's like a society of angry kids you've got locked in your basement. Maybe there is some way you can come up with a final solution. You've got walls, all you're missing are some ovens.

    14. Re:Welcome Back... by Kjella · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Fair enough that there are no good guys but if we're going to count every feud back to the dawn of civilization then most of the world would be at war. For example, France and Germany did not just one but two world wars last century, and yet now they're both EU members with open borders, common currency and whatnot. At some point you need to leave the past behind you and accept that it happened, but that you don't need to get even anymore. Particularly if that "getting even" is dealing twice as much as you got, then it'll never end. Somebody have to be less bad than the one before them, then maybe hopefully over time things can heal. Yet every time there's a period of relative peace and stability, someone is ready to deal new, fresh scars...

      Personally I decided not long after both Israel accused Norway of being anti-semitic because of some writings and the Arab countries accused us of being anti-muslim because of the Muhammad caricatures. They're both anti-freedom of speech and anti-freedom of press. As far as I am concerned, I wouldn't mind at all if the entire Middle East disappeared off the face of the earth. Or at least got their head out of the dark ages.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    15. Re:Welcome Back... by geekpowa · · Score: 1

      Either you are a troll or you are so embedded in this dispute that you are completely unable to approach this issue with a rational critical mind.

      This thread of conversation has nothing to do whatsoever with making apologies for the behaviour of Palistinians or any other group that has inflicted harm upon the Jewish community. What part of "it's really hard to grant either side any sort of moral authority." are you failing to comprehend?

    16. Re:Welcome Back... by sumdumass · · Score: 1, Informative

      FYI, only under thread of it in the first place.

      Israel struck first, took a bunch of their weapons they were massing on the borders claiming to be for an invasion into Israel, then used them against them.

    17. Re:Welcome Back... by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      More Gorillas or whatever they call them now a-days.. insurgents? I don't think Israel is alone in it's share of war criminals, or lack of them being held account.

      I don't think anyone who is currently in power can be tried for war crimes. Also apparently putting a bomb on a plain is totally off, putting a bomb in a school full of kids or what-have-you is a-ok in my book, however running around with a Gun in a school full of kids is also well off the mark, as is fondeling people... unless their about to get on a plain, you a doctor or a priest.

      all very confusing.

      thank God the internet isn't a human right.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    18. Re:Welcome Back... by mfh · · Score: 1

      From the article:

      "While the Page was pulled eventually, Klayman believes it was not done quickly enough"

      I just don't think someone could win a Billion dollars because someone else was too slow at their job. Seriously. Maybe a million? But a billion? Nah that's going to be thrown out pretty quick or Facebook will settle out at a much reduced price. If Facebook settles, they will open the door to future lawsuits and also scams so they actually can't settle here. They would have to go to court over it and that will also hurt their valuation, even if they win. Good thing they are a privately company and not on the stock market.

      --
      The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
    19. Re:Welcome Back... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and israelis taking palestinian lands and killed human right protesters without worries. so much for humanities..

    20. Re:Welcome Back... by Goaway · · Score: 2

      He was not responding to "it's really hard to grant either side any sort of moral authority", he was responding to the guy who said "Perhaps if the Palestinians hadn't thrown their hat in with their Arab neighbors during the 6 day war...then Israel wouldn't need to have war criminals?"

    21. Re:Welcome Back... by Immostlyharmless · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Really? I don't believe that, it's easy to take the moral high ground when its not happening to *you*. I can sit there and say everyone should get a fair trial, yada yada yada. However, if my family were ever taken hostage, and I was given a rifle and could take a killing shot, no judge, no jury, no bullshit, there's not a chance in hell I wouldn't take that shot.

      Would you?

      Now lets look at history and revise the above scenario.

      In this case Isreal had experienced over 120 acts of terror against it in the preceding 18 months by the new PLO and had seen major troop build ups and movements by both Syria and Egypt.

      SO back to my original scenario, you see someone lurking outside your home with a gun, rapping on the windows and breaking into your car in the driveway. Do you wait until they enter the house and kidnap your family? Or do you act first?

      I know what I would I do.....

    22. Re:Welcome Back... by nomadic · · Score: 2

      Palestinians hadn't thrown their hat in with their Arab neighbors during the 6 day war...then Israel wouldn't need to have war criminals?

      "Throwing their hat in" meaning what? Fleeing their homes because they didn't want to get caught in a war?

    23. Re:Welcome Back... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If your home is on stolen property, you have no right to be there. The Zionists are the bad guys. And the old white europeans that run the kinesset should be run off.

    24. Re:Welcome Back... by Draek · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I'm not convinced there's ever been any "Good Guys" in any conflict whatsoever. People love to point out World War II as an example, but even a cursory knowledge of history would show that many of the Allies' actions were worse even than those of most modern dictators and despots.

      --
      No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
    25. Re:Welcome Back... by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

      The Arabs shouldn't have left when their leaders told them to in 1948. The Israelis said they were welcome but they chose to leave anyway. Now the Arabs are complaining because they never managed to beat them militarily. Oh, and why aren't you yelling at Jordan, or Egypt, or Syria, or Lebanon, or Saudi Arabia, who don't want anything to do with the Palestinians and who actively work to keep them out or in the case of Lebanon, in their own little area.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    26. Re:Welcome Back... by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      I gotta say that while Israel isn't guiltless that's a lot like comparing a guy who kills another guy in a bar brawl with a guy who blows up a school full of elementary students. I think I'll pick Israel's side in this one. They aren't perfect but their enemies are perfect....perfectly murderous.

    27. Re:Welcome Back... by greentshirt · · Score: 0

      Define terrorist please. The definition you're using at the moment could fit anyone who participated in the Boston Tea Party or the American War of Independence. Not to mention the Israeli attack on the flotilla last year

    28. Re:Welcome Back... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Bingo. That's the start of it. Israel began with Jews BUYING property for about 80 years until they had enough to re-establish Israel where it was before - ok, 2000 years ago. The Palestinians pretty much got along with the Jews until there were too many of them. That's when the Palestinian equivalent of the Ku Klux Klan jumped into action. Meanwhile, the Jews got pretty damned tough after living through lots of other people who wanted them dead.

      When word of a pending Jewish state got out, the surrounding Arab nations vowed to massacre them all and put an end to this Israel nonsense. The Arabs began that operation within hours of Israel raising their first flag. The Arabs suggested to the Palestinians that they should get out of the way while the Jews were being slaughtered. Many did just that and, since it didn't work out militarily for the Arabs, the Palestinians were held out of their prior lands. That's the hotly contested "right of return" and the reason they're all "refugees".

      Nobody talks about the 6-800,000 Jews expelled from their homes in surrounding Arab territories during that time. Israel absorbed most of them. Nobody talks about why the Arab neighbors who began these hostilities didn't take in the Palestinians and take care of them. I don't think the Arabs really like the Palestinians. The whole region has melted into a huge mess since then - insanity on both sides. I can't imagine living there.

    29. Re:Welcome Back... by cavreader · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Statements like yours is big reason why this conflict is still raging. As long as the conspiracy theories, omission of facts, and outright lies continue to circulate the level of animosity will continue to grow. Until the Arab's stop threatening Israel's existence there will be no peace. The Arab's initiated this conflict in 48 and then got their asses handed to them in 67 and again in 73. It was in 48 when the Arabs repudiated the UN decision to create the state of Israel and then evacuated most of the Arab's in the expected area of conflict with promises they could come back in a few days after they finished killing all the Jews. Everyone knows how that turned out. The Arab's should have paid lip service to the UN decision at least long enough to work out some type of plan before rushing the war. I'll admit I don't know whether the UN resolution was a good decision or not but time has made that irrelevant today. The fact is the resolution was passed and Israel does exist and I seriously doubt the Israeli's are going to pack up and leave anytime soon. In 48 the world was still recovering from war and the horrors associated with war. The discovery of the death camps was fresh in every ones mind at that time and that generated a lot of sympathy for the Jews and I have to believe that sympathy made a big impact when it came to passing the resolution.

    30. Re:Welcome Back... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Israeli attack? You mean Israel enforcing its borders? EVERY nation would have done what Israel did to a vessel attempting to illegally penetrate its borders. Boston Tea Party did not include any violence. The only thing that happened there was cargo getting dumped into the water. That's hardly equivalent to blowing up civilians. The DEFENSIVE war (American War of Independence) was also hardly an example of terrorism. British were on the offensive there. Colonists were not defending just their property rights. They were defending they actual lives. Stop supporting genocide. And don't even try to talk about the poverty conditions of Palestinians. The genocide in Rwanda was committed by poor people with machetes. Being poor is not a carde blanche to murder.

    31. Re:Welcome Back... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      And Miss Teacher, HE punched back FIRST!

      But he did, but he did first, but only because he did, but he said, but he ... fuck that! Is that some kind of justification?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    32. Re:Welcome Back... by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You mean, like, siding with those that fight the guys that won your home in an international raffle?

      Hey, imagine it's 200 years from now and the native Americans suddenly get a UN resolution passed that kicks you out of your home because they kinda-sorta owned the place some 100 years ago and want it back. Will you side with Canada and Mexico in their battle to kick the Indians butt?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    33. Re:Welcome Back... by Aryden · · Score: 0

      Stalin killed 23million Russians, so yeah, I'd definitely have to agree.

    34. Re:Welcome Back... by Aryden · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's not a "getting even" issue. The land belonged to the Palestinians. The British pulled out being unable to come to a happy medium and lelf it up in the air until the newly formed UN created the state of Israel and assisted in expelling the Palestinians. I'm not on either of their sides, seeing as I would prefer a happy medium to be met, but the shit of it is, the western world kicked it off this go-round after WWII and it's understandable that the Palestinian's want their land back.

    35. Re:Welcome Back... by hairyfeet · · Score: 0

      Fuck it, somebody has to say it, might as well be me...FUCK THE GAS CHAMBER BULLSHIT okay? That shit happened 70 fucking years ago, it doesn't give the Jews a permanent pass on being douchebags, kay?

      They walked into a place where other people already lived and said "My God (which you don't believe in) says this is my land so GTFO". If you wanted to give them something you should have gave the Austria, because taking Palestine would be like saying the blacks in America have been treated badly therefor everyone in the UK better be moving into a camp because we're giving England to the black folks.

      You want to know what the fucking sad part is? Why the USA puts up with their bullshit instead of walking off and leaving them to sink or swim? ';Jesus won't come back" that's right folks, your foreign policy and thousands and thousands of lives in the balance are dictated on whether a 2500 year old prophecy about a 2000 year old dead guy can come true or not.

      The hardcore right wingers truly believe if the USA doesn't pucker up and kiss Israel's butt then Jesus may not have a place to park his fluffy cloud. Sadly its true, my local college is ultra right wing conservative and gets the power mongers, heads of state and ex presidents, and frankly around their own they talk about it freely. if I hear "When the Jews return to Zion" one more damned time from someone in power I swear I'm gonna snap!

      So for the rest of the world allow me to say Fuck You Israel, you have used up your gas chamber card with decades of douchebag behavior and don't get to scream antisemitic at everyone that doesn't kiss your ass or believe in your manifest destiny.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    36. Re:Welcome Back... by Aryden · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Statements like yours is big reason why this conflict is still raging. As long as the conspiracy theories, omission of facts, and outright lies continue to circulate the level of animosity will continue to grow. Until the Arab's stop threatening Israel's existence there will be no peace. The Arab's initiated this conflict in 48 and then got their asses handed to them in 67 and again in 73. It was in 48 when the Arabs repudiated the UN decision to create the state of Israel and then evacuated most of the Arab's in the expected area of conflict with promises they could come back in a few days after they finished killing all the Jews. Everyone knows how that turned out. The Arab's should have paid lip service to the UN decision at least long enough to work out some type of plan before rushing the war. I'll admit I don't know whether the UN resolution was a good decision or not but time has made that irrelevant today. The fact is the resolution was passed and Israel does exist and I seriously doubt the Israeli's are going to pack up and leave anytime soon. In 48 the world was still recovering from war and the horrors associated with war. The discovery of the death camps was fresh in every ones mind at that time and that generated a lot of sympathy for the Jews and I have to believe that sympathy made a big impact when it came to passing the resolution.

      And if the UN stepped in and took half or more of your country away from you because a western country couldn't control the populace, you wouldn't be pissed off? I'd damn well expect my neighboring countries to step up and defend against an annexation.

    37. Re:Welcome Back... by Aryden · · Score: 1

      it's really not nice to make me laugh this hard so early in the morning. You've been watching Fox news again haven't you....

    38. Re:Welcome Back... by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      Larry Klayman is suing facebook for failing to violate another persons Freedom of Speech.

      Freedom Watch is clearly a false flag operation much like the so called "Anonymous" if someone says something you don't like, attack them. But gain supporters by pretending to support free speech.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    39. Re:Welcome Back... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      It damn well is a justification to punch another guy if he punches you, and keeps punching with a clear intent to continue until you're dead.

    40. Re:Welcome Back... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Winning wars is not genocide, but forcibly displacing ethnicities as the result of your winning the war (or for any other reason) is.

    41. Re:Welcome Back... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      While I agree that both sides are not stellar examples of morality, only one of them brainwashes their children. In my opinion, this is sufficient to make it clear-cut.

    42. Re:Welcome Back... by TFAFalcon · · Score: 1

      It becomes slightly less justified if you include the fact that you're sitting on his back, cutting off his toes.

    43. Re:Welcome Back... by Hope+Thelps · · Score: 3

      Yep, and more than that. The victorious Allies felt they had to do something about the attrocities commited in Germany against the jewish people. So they wanted to give them their own homeland. That's great. But they didn't of course offer a chunk of England, or France or the US or even of Germany. They used Britain's colonial power to give them a bit of someone else's land (which admitedly they had historical ties to and substantial moveement wanted back). And then the colonial power left. So a state was created that was surrounded by enemies. It was entirely understandable and predictable that they would be enemies. It was understanadable that the Israelis would be determined to survive. The results are everyone's fault but most of all the Allies who set it all up.

      If you live in a country where there's sometimes tensions over immigration then imagine what it would be like if you'd been under the sway of a colonial power for a long time, and that power then decided to take a part of your land and give it as a new country to a group of people who had mostly left the area hundreds of years ago. And then the colonial power left. Obviously everything would be hunky dory - everyone liveing in peace and happiness.

      --
      To summarise the summary of the summary: people are a problem. ~ h2g2
    44. Re:Welcome Back... by Hope+Thelps · · Score: 1

      They aren't perfect but their enemies are perfect....perfectly murderous.

      Complete crap. There are a whole bunch of people on both sides. Some of them are people who are really dedicated to their cause and don't care about loss of life of others (and sometimes not their own) to defend that cause. On both sides. Some of them are pretty decent people who nevertheless can't drop past conflicts, or past dreams. On both sides. Some of them genuinely want peace and a whole lot of them genuinely want not to be so close to the firing line. On both sides. Plenty of them are mothers and fathers who mostly just want a decent world for their kids to grow up in. On both sides. And, beyond that, every other sort of person too. If you genuinely honestly think that one side are "perfectly murderous" then I can only hope that you're very young and have time ahead of you to learn more about the world.

      --
      To summarise the summary of the summary: people are a problem. ~ h2g2
    45. Re:Welcome Back... by St.Creed · · Score: 1

      Displacing people isn't genocide. Look up the definition.

      That having said... the acts commited by the Irgun Stern during that time, however, were war crimes pure and simple. Sabra and Shatilah, same thing. The shelling of refugees hiding around a UN outpost, perfectly well known to the commanders that opened fire with artillery - same thing. Shelling civilians with white phosphorus - another one.

      Not genocidal, no - don't make the stupid mistake of confusing a war crime with an act of genocide. But they are war crimes, without a doubt.

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    46. Re:Welcome Back... by St.Creed · · Score: 2

      They "chose" to leave in 1948? Most were fleeing with good reason. The Irgun Stern (Stern-gang) alone was responsible for killing hundreds of man, women and children when they didn't want to leave. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre . The news of the massacre caused a lof of other people to flee (and probably rightly so). Considering this to be voluntary is... well, I'd do a comparison with the Kristallnacht but that would be a Godwin violation. I think you get the picture.

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    47. Re:Welcome Back... by St.Creed · · Score: 2

      Ah... you miss the point of the name Freedom Watch. You see, he's just Watching out so you don't get too much Freedom. :)

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    48. Re:Welcome Back... by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You risk giving the impression that the Allies suggested Palestine, to which the Jews responded "Wow, we never even considered that as a location!!!" Other locations were considered, but given Jewish history it seemed almost inevitable that Palestine would be the location. I don't think that there was a lot of enthusiasm anyway for hosting this new home, but the lucky Palestinians got volunteered. The Torah accounts are pretty amusing. Not so much a case of being given land by God, more being told by God to go kick the shit out of those people so the Jews could take their their land. A bit me giving you a $10000 for your birthday, and then handing you a gun and mask, and pointing you in the direction of the nearest bank.

      Yup, Palestine was a bad idea done badly.

      --
      -- Using the preview button since 2005
    49. Re:Welcome Back... by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 1

      Well, yeah, but context comes in to it. Slavery is illegal and considered immoral in most modern countries, yet George Washington had slaves. Washington becomes a bad guy, at least in this regard and by current standards. Discussion of specific examples is probably more useful than a vague notion. "Many" is a weasel word. It's purpose here is to indicate a large quantity of something that hasn't even been defined, but all we need to know is that it's a lot of something that's really bad.

      --
      -- Using the preview button since 2005
    50. Re:Welcome Back... by Hope+Thelps · · Score: 2

      You risk giving the impression that the Allies suggested Palestine, to which the Jews responded "Wow, we never even considered that as a location!!!"

      Hence this bit of my post:

      (which admittedly they had historical ties to and substantial movement wanted back)

      So yes, there was a substantial movement amongst the Jewish people that wanted the state of Israel there. But the blame for actually creating a country surrounded by enemies rests primarily with those that did it, not those that just wanted it.

      The fact that at least some of those who wanted it felt they had some divine entitlement to the area should have only made it more clear what a terrible idea this was.

      --
      To summarise the summary of the summary: people are a problem. ~ h2g2
    51. Re:Welcome Back... by Targon · · Score: 2

      This is where you are mixing up the facts and the discussions. The creation of Israel in the first place is not something that should be debated at this point, it was done long enough ago that arguing the existence of Israel is like debating about if the Civil War was justified. Looking at new events as they happen and then discussing who is right or wrong about their actions IS something to be debated.

      So, let's look at some of the more recent activities. Israel has made a number of gestures to try to make peace with the Palestinians, and the result was having rockets fired from Palestine into Israel, over and over and over again. Now, if your neighbor kept shooting at your house every now and then, not doing any MAJOR damage, but being a threat, how long would YOU take it before you did something serious to stop it? Would you just buy a gun, or would you go for a rocket launcher and knock down the house next door?

    52. Re:Welcome Back... by bjourne · · Score: 2

      Doesn't matter who started it. It wasn't the Palestinians but they were the ones who had to pay the price of the war. The general notion that all Arabs are the same and that the conflcit is Jews vs Arabs is wrong. The only people who have treated the Palestinians worse than the Israelis are their Arab neighbours.

    53. Re:Welcome Back... by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

      I've been of the view that WW2 was a political power transfer from Europe to Russia and North America. In the long term, the biggest loser was Britain, exiting the superpower stage to give way to the Cold War. Germany was the excuse the USA needed then, as 9/11 was the excuse USA needed a decade ago.

    54. Re:Welcome Back... by Ihmhi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't particularly like a lot of things Israel does, nor do I particularly like a lot of things anyone in their general neighborhood does. Even so, the Palestinians got their land taken.

      So?

      This is "How the World Works 101". Damn near every country in the world has both taken land and had land taken from it. Every. Country. Why is Palestine so special? Because it happened in the last 100 years?

      How come nobody's crying over Hawaii (psst, we straight up stole an entire country, albeit a small one.) The Russians pretty much stole a chunk of Georgia (South Ossetia). I don't see anyone crying over the fact that the Kingdom of Prussia isn't around anymore. And on and on and on it goes.

    55. Re:Welcome Back... by Pecisk · · Score: 1

      Well, defending != mass killing, which was in fact promised and promoted from Arab leaders. If you think that Arabs are brutal sometimes these days, you should understand how they dealt with such situations in 49. I don't think US and Jews were smart enough about engaging Arabs in such way, but more or less they didn't plan to ignore Palestinians. However, Palestinians and Arabs planned to deal with this problem old school way - devastatingly destroying their enemy. Who cares about UN or aftermath of WWII, heck, most of the Arabs where in line with Hitler because of same old antisemitism. I'm ready to bet that most Arab states around Israel saw this as perfect case to finish what their German colleague have started.

      So, in nutshell, Jews maybe guilty of many things, but Palestinians have landed themselves in this situation again, and again, and again, and again - mostly letting radicals dictate how they should fight for their freedom. Unfortunately, Jews have started to do the same, voting radicals in office to screw the country and possible peace process.

      As someone said - we need *real* peace leaders at both sides. Because leaders call the shots and they can swing popular opinion about what must be done.

      --
      user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
    56. Re:Welcome Back... by Courageous · · Score: 1

      The difference is this: if someone was born on some land, they have a better moral case than those who were not.

    57. Re:Welcome Back... by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      All people brainwash their children.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    58. Re:Welcome Back... by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 1

      (which admittedly they had historical ties to and substantial movement wanted back)

      Which in the context of the original version seems more an afterthought than an acknowledgement that the wishes and activities of the zionist groups were pretty damned relevant at the time. Had Zionist movements already been trying to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine long before the Balfour Declaration?

      So yes, there was a substantial movement amongst the Jewish people that wanted the state of Israel there. But the blame for actually creating a country surrounded by enemies rests primarily with those that did it, not those that just wanted it.

      Yes, but I get the impression that you're overstating British involvement while understating the roles of other actors. The British government made an absolutely stupid decision to support an independent Jewish state in Palestine. As well as the British government there were groups who both wanted Israel and had the ability to influence the decisions. Hell, anyone who supported the formation of Israel is responsible, even if that support was little more than moral in nature. How many people support the death penalty without ever having pulled the lever? It's one guy on the scaffold, and a lot of people stood behind him. There's also the risk in blaming the colonial masters that it hinders serious attempts to deal with the here and now. Bad shit was done back then, and is still being done now. I've no love for either side in the argument, and if I had a button that would instantly make certain regions vanish from this planet I couldn't say that I wouldn't use it. In some places the religious and tribal bullshit is so deeply ingrained that it's difficult to imagine how to bridge the gaps.

      I see some similarities between Northern Ireland and Israel. It's too late to uproot the people now, and to do so would appear to be blaming the current generation for decisions mad by earlier generations. The Israelis have got to deal with their settlers and the more rabid elements of zionism. They have to be held seriously accountable and living in a neighbourhood of butthurt nutters doesn't justify everything they do. In turn the Palestinians have to accept that in reality their neighbours don't give a shit about them. They're a convenient excuse and a lightning rod for arab butthurt, and they'd be better served by a pragmatic approach to the situation. The only way Israel is going away is if Israeli arabs manage to outbreed jews (which isn't exactly a fast process) or in a war that's likely to leave the victors with little more than a big smoking crater and far fewer mouths to feed. If they don't manage to reach some kind of understanding then I hope that they mutually annihilate one another as soon as possible. Better now with nukes than with whatever weapons we'll have in 20 years time.

      --
      -- Using the preview button since 2005
    59. Re:Welcome Back... by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Aryden - your view is fairly accurate, but you've left something out that is pretty essential to a full understanding. That would be the Balfour agreement. With Balfour in mind, yes, I'll agree that the western world kicked it off, but there was a little "persuasion" at work behind the scenes. Something a bit less than arm twisting, let's just call it "arm bending".

      Reading my own paragraph above, it almost sounds like I claim to understand it all. Well - I do, and I don't. As others have already said, it's past time for one or both sides to just grow up, swallow their pride, and make sincere peace offers.

      But, we're stuck with inbred tribals fighting each other, and there's nothing we can do about it.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    60. Re:Welcome Back... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The results are everyone's fault but most of all the Allies who set it all up.

      I wouldn't say that.

    61. Re:Welcome Back... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Brainwash their children to "annihilate Jews" and then "die as a martyr"?

    62. Re:Welcome Back... by Monchanger · · Score: 0

      And if the UN stepped in and took half or more of your country away from you because a western country couldn't control the populace, you wouldn't be pissed off? I'd damn well expect my neighboring countries to step up and defend against an annexation.

      The Arabs in Palestine were given the right to establish their "own country" beside the Jews. They rejected it. That's hardly Israel's fault.

      Privately-owned land registered with the Turkish empire did and still does belong to individual Arabs. But "the land" did not belong to what we now call "the Palestinians", it was held under the British Mandate, captured during WW1 along with all Arab lands once held by the Ottomans. Arab nations were created arbitrarily by the British and French, and handed over to various kings friendly to the crown. There was no collective identity beyond tribal among the Arabs in Palestine (or most elsewhere) at the time, and suggesting there was is a blatant rewriting of history. There was no "country". And there still isn't, because the Palestinians can't get their shit together long enough to create one.

      In 1948, Palestinians had no collective claim to the land because they had never tried to claim one. There was no annexation. There was a legal international agreement for the creation of a Jewish state on half the land following decades of Zionist work to secure a place to live in peace.

      As for "neighboring countries", they treat the Palestinians worse than Israel does. They initiated the war which created the refugees, who could otherwise have become Israeli citizens. Following that Jordan controlled the West Bank for almost two decades and didn't "return" it to the Palestinians (so, I guess there was an annexation there...), losing it when they invaded Israel yet again in 1967. None, save Jordan, are actually participating in current peace negotiations- using the conflict for suppressing their own populations, but doing nothing to solve the problem they supposedly "care" about. What's really sad is Palestinians don't even know enough to realize who they should be pissed at- their own damn people. Instead, they listen to widely-distributed propaganda like yours.

    63. Re:Welcome Back... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are two types of people in the world: people who think there are two types of people in the world and people who don’t. I’m among the first type and I think the world is divided into people who recognize the Jewish problem and people who don’t.

      In other words, the world is divided into smart people and dumb people. If you’ve got an IQ of 80, have difficulty operating a can-opener, and recognize the Jewish problem, you’re smart. If you’ve got an IQ of 180, have already won a couple of Nobel Prizes, and don’t recognize the Jewish problem, you’re dumb.

      I’ve been dumb for most of my life: it took me a long time to recognize the Jewish problem. I didn’t think for myself, I just accepted the propaganda and conformed to the consensus. Jews are good people. Only bad people criticize Jews. Jews good. Anti-Semites bad. But then, very slowly, I started to see the light.

      Recognizing Jewish hypocrisy was the first big step. I was reading an article by someone called Rabbi Julia Neuberger, a prominent British liberal. I didn’t like liberals then, so I didn’t like her for that (and because her voice and manner had always grated on me), but her Jewishness wasn’t something I particularly noticed. But as I read the article I came across something that didn’t strike me as very liberal: she expressed concern about Jews marrying Gentiles, because this threatened the survival of the Jewish people.

      That made me sit up and think. Hold on, I thought, I know this woman sits on all sorts of “multi-cultural” committees and is constantly being invited onto TV and radio to yap about the joys of diversity and the evils of racism. She’s all in favor of mass immigration and there’s no way she’s worried about Whites marrying non-Whites, because “Race is Just a Social Construct” and “We’re All the Same Under the Skin”. She’s a liberal and she thinks that race-mixing is good and healthy and Holy. Yet this same woman is worried about Jews marrying Gentiles. Small contradiction there, n'est ce-pas?

      Well, no. Big contradiction. She obviously didn’t apply the same rules to everyone else as she applied to her own people, the Jews. She was, in short, a hypocrite. But not just that – she was a Jewish hypocrite. And that’s a big step for a brainwashed White to take: not just thinking in a negative way about a Jew, but thinking in a negative way about a Jew because of her Jewishness.

      After that, I slowly started to see the world in a different way. Or to be more precise: I started to see the world. I started to see what had always been there: the massive over-representation of Jews in politics and the media. And I started to notice that a lot of those Jews – like Rabbi Julia Neuberger, in fact – gave me the creeps. There was something slimy and oily and flesh-crawling about them. And it wasn’t just me, either: other Gentiles seemed to feel it too.

      Politicians often attract nicknames based on some outstanding aspect of their character or behavior. Margaret Thatcher was “The Iron Lady”. Ronald Reagan was “Teflon Ron”. Bill Clinton was “Slick Willy”. But these are Gentile politicians and their nicknames are at least half-affectionate. Jewish politicians seem to attract a different kind of nickname. In Britain, Gerald Kaufman, bald, homosexual Member of Parliament for Manchester Gorton, is nicknamed “Hannibal Lecter”. Peter Mandelson, now Britain’s Euro-Commissioner and Tony Blair’s suspected former lover, is “The Prince of Darkness”. Michael Howard (né Hecht), the leader of the British Conservative Party, is “Dracula”.

      When I noticed this kind of thing, I started to ask questions. What was going on here? Why did Jews attract nicknames like that? And why had Gentiles reacted to them like that not just now, but a long way into the past? Shakesp

    64. Re:Welcome Back... by Penguinisto · · Score: 2

      The difference is this: if someone was born on some land, they have a better moral case than those who were not.

      Israel was recognized in 1948 (or so)... I'm willing to wager that a healthy quorum (if not majority) of Israelis were born there by now.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    65. Re:Welcome Back... by HanzoSpam · · Score: 1

      While I agree that both sides are not stellar examples of morality, only one of them brainwashes their children. In my opinion, this is sufficient to make it clear-cut.

      Are you sure about that?

      --

      Progressivism: Parasites helping parasites to help themselves - to other people's stuff.
    66. Re:Welcome Back... by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      Larry Klayman is suing facebook for failing to violate another persons Freedom of Speech.

      I wasn't aware that private businesses were required to adhere to the First Amendment.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    67. Re:Welcome Back... by bstender · · Score: 1

      As others have already said, it's past time for one or both sides to just grow up, swallow their pride, and make sincere peace offers.

      This is a common refrain, but false. US backing of Israel makes them several orders of magnitude more powerful, so why should they 'negotiate'?. Israel has routinely committed an atrocity everytime there is a threat of peace breaking out and scoffs at the entire world's opinion of it, saying basically; "what are you going to do about it?"

      we're stuck with inbred tribals fighting each other, and there's nothing we can do about it.

      Wrong! If the USA were to act as an impartial broker, starting with ending the billions in military support, this atrocity would be over tomorrow. There is no peace simply bc the Israeli leadership has the means and the cover to steal more land and terrorize with impunity, so they do.

      --
      look sig is kool
    68. Re:Welcome Back... by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      I wasn't aware that private businesses were required to adhere to the wishes of a third party.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    69. Re:Welcome Back... by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      I wasn't aware that private businesses were required to adhere to the wishes of a third party.

      Correct - they're not. However, that's a bit different than demanding rights which don't exist in the given context.

      If Klayman wants to sue, he's more than welcome to, but he's going to have to prove damages first, in court - that's not "requiring" a business to do anything.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    70. Re:Welcome Back... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope.. Fuck 'em.. I don't care about nothing except running them off. They are pirates and thieves. And when that happens we can say, there, it's done, fuck all y'all. They will have eternal war until they give back what they stole. And I'm all for it.

    71. Re:Welcome Back... by CptNerd · · Score: 2

      And a large number of "Palestinians" were born outside of the country in "refugee camps". Why didn't the neighboring countries accept the "refugees" as new citizens, integrating them into their friendly societies? Especially since the "refugees" were related by language, family (likely) and religion?

      --
      By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes
    72. Re:Welcome Back... by kubernet3s · · Score: 2

      Wow, what a supremely asinine attitude. "It's happened before, so why not let it happen again?"

      It is really not such a inconceivable moral demand of humanity that it recognize the ethical invalidity of imperialism and upholding the right of the strong to prey upon the weak. And like all ethical maxims according to which society is carried out, it indeed may not be possible that all nations and peoples act at all times according to these maxims. We can, however, avoid actively sponsoring such violations, and bathing its cause in misappropriated guilt money.

      The maintenance of some kind of "moral consistency" is a pretty piss poor reason to abandon the right treatment of people, and the same goes for any fatalist "law-of-the-jungle" rhetorics which uphold such despicable conduct by those who claim to be the more right behaving members of the species.

    73. Re:Welcome Back... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the difference is that Israel has a powerful military force (thanks to monetary help from USA), and they can easily use it to bully neighboring nations, if they're not watched carefully.

      Maybe your idea of "might makes right" has merit, but the fact is that in this day and age there are rules to obey, or else sanctions can be applied.

    74. Re:Welcome Back... by sumdumass · · Score: 2

      What country did the UN step in and take half or more of.

      I hope to hell you are not talking about Palestine as that was never a country- even. It was a territory under the control of the ottoman empire which ended up in British and french hands due to the league of nations declaration after the ottoman empire disappeared with the ending of World War One. The Balfour decree was already in place circa 1920 so there was never any expectation of Palestine becoming a country to the exclusion of the Jews.

      The jews did not lay claim to the land because of WW!!, they did not lay claim to the land because of WWI, And although they do claim it's a religious thing, the ottoman empire has been selling and marketing the land of Israel to the jews since the 1100's. The situation is a lot more complex then it appears that you are willing to examine.

    75. Re:Welcome Back... by nog_lorp · · Score: 1

      Oh! Good to know that any political movement forming via social networking can be quelled simply by inserting a couple flamebaiter sockpuppets. That sounds like a great policy for the continued freedom speech and political expression in the world.

    76. Re:Welcome Back... by nog_lorp · · Score: 1

      tl;dr:
      In 48, a tiny handful of powerful countries told the Palestinians that their homeland was no longer theirs.
      The Palestinians didn't comply, and therefore brought everything that followed on themselves.

      If they had been smart they would have followed the "4 step plan to international politics":
      1) Get order to cede homeland to Jews
      2) Comply with order
      3) ???
      4) Profit!

    77. Re:Welcome Back... by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      When did the land belong to the Palestinians? The word palestine is derived from philistine. The Philistines were a greek people. There has never been a time when the Arabs living in Palestine controlled Palestine. Before the British, Palestine was governed by the Ottoman Turks. Before that, Palestine was controlled by various outside forces going back until before the Romans. The only people in history who have ever both lived in Palestine and politically controlled it were the Jews. Until the modern founding of Israel, palestinian Arabs were just Arabs who happened to live in Palestine.
      There is no "solution" to this conflict as long as Muslims insist that Palestine (the entire area) must be under Muslim rule (shariah law). This is not something that I expect to change, since it is a tenet of Islam that any land that has once been under Islamic rule, must remain under Islamic rule. This is not to say that the Israelis are in the right. It is just that as things currently exist, there is no peaceful solution possible.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    78. Re:Welcome Back... by cavreader · · Score: 1

      I didn't say they shouldn't have attacked I am saying they should have taken the time to understand the strenghts and weaknesses of the Jews instead of assuming it would be a walk over. As far as the neighboring countries go the current "Palestinian" territory was divided up between Egypt, Jordan, and Syria at time. There were no Palestinian passports floating around until after the Arabs were defeated in 48. The entire Palestinian home land is a construct the losing Arab countries have created and used as a propaganda weapon for the past 40+ years since their military attacks were unsuccessful. The people claiming to be Palestinians today are being used and sacrificed by the surrounding arab countries. And of course the Palestinians themselves have taken every opportunity to miss every opportunity to end this conflict. From backing Sadaam Hussien's invasion of Kuwait to the happy faces displayed on 9/11.

    79. Re:Welcome Back... by Immostlyharmless · · Score: 1

      Well I suppose that would depend, did the UN in that same resolution give me a place to live? Hmmm yeah I guess as long as it was equal, sure.

    80. Re:Welcome Back... by cavreader · · Score: 1

      The only way that UN resolution would ever pass is through military enforcement. The "Palestinians" had their chances and lost repeatedly. They have been after a do-over for 30 years. International borders are drawn in blood. The Palestinians have as much a chance of getting their own country as Mexico has of regaining the US southwest.

    81. Re:Welcome Back... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Screw you! Israel fired first with their terrorist gangs stealing peoples' homes. There was nothing ever remotely peaceful about their migration into Palestine. The Israelis were/are terrorists since the beginning. That's why everybody hates them. There's a good reason to. So shitcan your propaganda bullshit.

    82. Re:Welcome Back... by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      Why? Really, why does being born somewhere somehow make you more righteous in your cause?

    83. Re:Welcome Back... by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      Wow, what a supremely asinine attitude. "It's happened before, so why not let it happen again?"

      Have you ever heard the phrase "two wrongs don't make a right"? How about "The pot calling the kettle black?"

      I didn't say "let it happen again". Land changes hands many, many times every year. It might not be written up on an "official" map, but the guys with the guns and the tanks are the ones in charge on whatever particular parcel they happen to be sitting on.

      It is really not such a inconceivable moral demand of humanity that it recognize the ethical invalidity of imperialism and upholding the right of the strong to prey upon the weak. And like all ethical maxims according to which society is carried out, it indeed may not be possible that all nations and peoples act at all times according to these maxims. We can, however, avoid actively sponsoring such violations, and bathing its cause in misappropriated guilt money.

      That's an extremely idealistic view of the world.

      I'd really, really like things to be this way, truly. I'd love it if the U.N. actually did one of its jobs and prevented disputes of this nature.

      However, just like real life it's all about who you know. Israel will have to do something majorly stupid and/or horrible for the U.N. (or anyone else halfway militarily competent) to take action against them. Why? Because of the U.S. Israel does something stupid, someone invades Israel, and the U.S. airstrikes the living piss out of whatever poor, dumb bastard went into the holy land.

      The maintenance of some kind of "moral consistency" is a pretty piss poor reason to abandon the right treatment of people, and the same goes for any fatalist "law-of-the-jungle" rhetorics which uphold such despicable conduct by those who claim to be the more right behaving members of the species.

      I think we could both agree that the treatment of a lot of people in this world has been getting better. The civil rights front alone has made leaps and bounds in the last 50 years in America and the rest of the industrialized world. 50 years from now, our kids and grandkids will crack jokes about how backwards our (and our parents) generations were about LGBT people.

      I do believe in equality and fairness. I think we should have five or six hundred fewer military bases than we (The United States) have. (We have over 700 bases around the world.) I think we should be out of Iraq and Afghanistan by Janurary 2012, that it's entirely doable, and that we shouldn't be messing in those countries at all. We shouldn't be messing in any other countries but our own, period.

      However, I am also a practical person. All your ideals in the world don't count for shit if you can't defend yourself. Law of the Jungle absolutely applies today and will probably apply for hundreds of years. It's detestable to a degree, but that's the way things work. It's very Darwinian.

      The U.S. couldn't give two shits about spreading democracy. We're not it in for spreading democracy. We're spreading "democracy" (READ: explosives dropped from huge planes several miles in the air) in countries that have things we want. I believe we're building four military bases in Iraq right now. Why are we building military bases in Iraq if the current stated mission is to be pulling soldiers out of there? Because we're going to be staying in that country for a very, very long time. We need oil, the country has oil, and its neighbors have oil. It will keep it flowing from Iraq and any other counties within airstrike range of Iraq.

      Until corruption in government is severely beaten down and we get actual idealists who believe in the mission - pretty much, people like you - in charge, the gubmint will always kowtow to corporate interests. We'll always have unjust laws that favor the profits of a business over the rights of an i

    84. Re:Welcome Back... by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      If sanctions were applied against Israel to the point where military intervention were necessary, America wouldn't get involved. The Middle East would launch, at best, some half-assed coalition mission. Russia, China, India, etc. - all the big, economically powerful Eurasian countries with competent militaries - wouldn't get involved unless it was somehow in their long-term interest. That leaves Europe, who would debate things for five years at the very least. By that time, the situation will either have gotten much worse or blown over altogether.

      Might absolutely makes right. You can't argue your point of view if you're dead.

    85. Re:Welcome Back... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow... look who's spouting propaganda bullshit. Just stop shooting at the fucking Jews and they'll leave you alone too.

    86. Re:Welcome Back... by cavreader · · Score: 1

      War by definition is killing and blowing shit up. As long as you make an effort to avoid civilian or non-combatant deaths that should be enough.The terrorists make no effort at all to spare civilians. In fact they purposely target non-combatants as a rule. The setup artillary, ammunition dumps, and rocket launchers in schools, mosques, and hospitals to make sure civilians get killed so the lefty international progressive hand wringing society have something to bleat about in the public forums.

    87. Re:Welcome Back... by RazorSharp · · Score: 1

      If you see that someone is getting ready to shoot you, do you just sit there and let them shoot you?

      Ahhh, the good old 'preemptive attack' strategy. Tell me again, when did that ever work out for the better and how exactly is it morally justifiable? Also, your analogy is flawed. It's more like: 'If you're pretty sure someone has a gun and MIGHT be getting ready to shoot you, do you MURDER them to POTENTIALLY save your own life?'

      My neighbors have guns. Maybe they're planning on shooting me. I better do something about that. . .

      --
      "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
    88. Re:Welcome Back... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, that's a lot of defamation. But as someone once said, “Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.”
      Keep up the good work! You might even get promoted to be the Minister of Propaganda.

    89. Re:Welcome Back... by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      Israel started the 6 Day War by attacking a US ship during the 6 Day War? Cool story, bro. Excellent example of racist logic.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    90. Re:Welcome Back... by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      The siege of Gaza is ongoing collective punishment.

      The blockade of Gaza is there because of the constant attacks against Israeli civilians.

      Israeli forces committed what would be considered piracy if civilians had done it against a humanitarian aid convoy.

      Israeli forces did not commit anything even close to piracy. Israel enforced a legal blockade. As long as the ships had declared that their intention was to breach the blockade, they were fair game. Israel's actions were perfectly legal.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    91. Re:Welcome Back... by hkmwbz · · Score: 1
      The land belonged to whoever happened to own the land at the time.

      And it just so happens that Jews bought land from the previous owners, or settled in parts that were not inhabited.

      There were no Palestinians in 1948. Palestinians as a group didn't exist until 1968.

      The fact is that Jews settled on available land, or bought it from the previous owners, and that was perfectly legal. Then Britain decided to give the inhabitants ownership of the land. Having a single state was impossible, so they divided it into a Jewish state, as well as massive areas that were to be two or more Arab states.

      But the Arabs wanted all the land to themselves, so they attacked Israel.

      Your knowledge if history is terrible. Please educate yourself.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    92. Re:Welcome Back... by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      They used Britain's colonial power to give them a bit of someone else's land

      This is a blatant lie. The fact is that the UN partition plan was carefully based around where people actually lived. So while the Arabs got huge areas of land, the Jews also got a small piece of land because they actually lived there (having settled on available land, or bought land from the previous owners).

      Palestine was not someone else's land. It was to become the land of those who lived there. And many of them were Jews.

      It is racist to demand that the Arabs should get everything and the Jews nothing.

      The results are everyone's fault but most of all the Allies who set it all up.

      So your suggestion is... Ignore the Jews and just create a massive Arab state where Jews would be terrorized, and once again forced to flee somewhere else?

      If you live in a country where there's sometimes tensions over immigration then imagine what it would be like if you'd been under the sway of a colonial power for a long time, and that power then decided to take a part of your land and give it as a new country to a group of people who had mostly left the area hundreds of years ago.

      Except Palestine was never a country. It was a piece of land. Please educate yourself.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    93. Re:Welcome Back... by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      No they don't. If you are born somewhere and someone buys it off you, they have the right to live there, not you. And guess what, the areas the Jews settled in were mostly uninhabited, or they bought the land off of the previous owner. Only after the Jews had turned desert and swamp into fertile land did the Arabs start flocking back (they had largely migrated into the large cities when the Jewish refugee waves started arriving).

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    94. Re:Welcome Back... by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      And if the UN stepped in and took half or more of your country away from you

      What country?

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    95. Re:Welcome Back... by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      In 48, a tiny handful of powerful countries told the Palestinians that their homeland was no longer theirs.

      What homeland? Did the Palestinians own the land the Jews were living on after mostly settling on uninhabited land, or buying land off of the previous owner?

      No, they did not. So stop spewing nonsensical garbage.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    96. Re:Welcome Back... by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      Crimes against humanity? You mean like the way Hamas uses its own civilians as human shields to successfully fend off Israeli attacks (because Israel tries to avoid civilian casualties)?

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    97. Re:Welcome Back... by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      The difference is this: if someone was born on some land, they have a better moral case than those who were not.

      No, that is not the difference. East Prussia was lost right after WW2 too, and there are still many germans alive who was born there. Same with polish borders and stuff.

      Btw. What makes Israel special is that haven't annexed Palestine, and they haven't done that because it would either force them to either commit genocide or abandoning the idea of Israel as a jewish state. Because of this logic, they are forced to be in an eternal state of war with the occupied territories to keep Israel a jewish state with a jewish majority.

    98. Re:Welcome Back... by gay358 · · Score: 1

      So, let's look at some of the more recent activities. Israel has made a number of gestures to try to make peace with the Palestinians, and the result was having rockets fired from Palestine into Israel, over and over and over again.

      Israel making number of gestures to try to make peace, like constantly expanding their illegal settlements on occupied territory. It sure shows how Israel wants to have peace and not just continue the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.

    99. Re:Welcome Back... by Courageous · · Score: 1

      I am sure this is true. I apply this principle universally, as to who ought to have the highest moral right to any piece of land. To address the matter below with regards to "Prussia" and the like, I do not use this principle to decide where the borders to a country ought to be. I.e., the principle of recent ownership applies to people, and nothing else.

      C//

    100. Re:Welcome Back... by Courageous · · Score: 1

      But you had the right to sell it.

      C//

    101. Re:Welcome Back... by Courageous · · Score: 1

      No, that is not the difference. East Prussia was lost right after WW2 too, and there are still many germans alive who was born there. Same with polish borders and stuff.

      One really oughtn't use past moral lapses to justify modern ones.

      C//

    102. Re:Welcome Back... by gay358 · · Score: 1

      Actually, Israeli soldiers very often force Palestinians civilians (including children) as human shields. This is war crime, but so far the punishments have been so negligible that this practice is almost routine nowadays. And Israel doesn't try to avoid to minimize civilian casualties as it practices so called Dahiya doctrine, which tries to cause disproportionate damage to civilians which is also war crime. Moshe Dayan said: "Israel must be a like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother.

    103. Re:Welcome Back... by 3p1ph4ny · · Score: 1

      No, Israel started the 6 day war by bombing Egypt's airbases until they had no planes that could fly (the "threat of attack" by Egypt is just an excuse, anyone know knows the power of the two countries knows that Israel would have destroyed Egypt in an all-out war). The USS Liberty incident is yet another example of Israel abusing its power (hence the use of the connective phrase "also"). Thanks for calling me a racist, though; you troll well.

    104. Re:Welcome Back... by Aryden · · Score: 1

      And it's ok to boot people off of land that they already live on? get real.

    105. Re:Welcome Back... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the point. They won't stop if they want your house. Fuck 'em. They're worse than the people they they accuse of the same thing. I dearly wish somebody had the balls to shut them up once and for all.

    106. Re:Welcome Back... by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      Sorry I wasn't trying to justify anything, on the contrary, and the various injustices mentioned all happened at the same time. I was just trying to explain why some seems resolved while other continues to resurface. The reason is obviously not about age, since they all happened at the same time, and all have living people it happened to.

    107. Re:Welcome Back... by cavreader · · Score: 1

      Tell me again, when did that ever work out for the better and how exactly is it morally justifiable? --- Pay attention. Preemptive attack was very successful for the Israeli's in 67. You know the conflict the last 300 posts have discussed. As far as morals go who are you to decide what was moral in this situation unless you were living in Israel at the time? It's easy for people to criticise others when their life and property was never being threatened.

    108. Re:Welcome Back... by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      it depends on the weapon that you opponent is using, the people doing the work of the government against you.

      If it's moving close to where you live, then their are the soldiers.
      If it's using money, then they are the soldiers.

      Anyhow... you still threw a strawman....
      a: what to gorilla fighters do?
      b: I don't believe you have evidence either way.... especially if they say blowing up the odd school is ok... well cos we killed some of the other bad guys at the same time...

      So are you saying if you kill a million people and only a 600 thousand of them are civilians it's ok... but if you just kill a few people who are unaware that they are acting as combatants for the government then it's all Gorillas for tea?

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    109. Re:Welcome Back... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Israel was Mandate Palestine there would be no problem.
        Every Arab country has offered full relations with Israel based on pre-1967 borders.

      Reacal Israel conquered its Greater Israel in 1967 and almost immediately began moving its civilians onto the conquered lands into exclusive Jewish “settlements”, showing its clear intent to permanently include so-called Judea and Samaria into Greater Israel. It did so in direct contravention of the Fourth Geneva Convention which prohibits such population transfers as well as territorial annexations by an occupying power. It did so in full knowledge of the illegality of such steps as demonstrated by the famous Judge Meron secret legal memorandum.

      There are 4 million Palestenians in the Greater Israel who have no rights in Israel. Instead of Mandate Palestine becoming an Arab state and a Jewish state, as intended by the United Nations, it became the Zionist apartheid Jewish state of Greater Israel in 1967. It remains that today

      This is why there is no peace in the Middle East and this is why the future of Israel is very much doubt.

    110. Re:Welcome Back... by Courageous · · Score: 1

      Well, regardless. I don't have a good sense of the moral situation of the ongoing Arab Israeli conflict. However, after looking at the various events over the years, and thinking about the larger scope of conflicts between nations, I'm pretty sure that annexing any bit of country just about anywhere is a pretty dubious thing to do.

      Now I'm pretty far from the situation over yonder. But when I hear about the "settlements" on Palestinian land, this does not make me happy. Sure, the Palestinians refuse to accept the legitimacy of Israel at all. This is not just cause for the further erosion of the Palestinian country in my mind.

      I did once make a quick study of "Zionism". It started one day when I started wondering why the various Arab countries throw around the term like an epithet. So I did some digging. I wasn't too happy with what I found.

      I live in San Diego. I wouldn't be too comfortable with all the Mexicans moving in everywhere (mass immigration) declaring that they achieved critical mass and deserved their own country. Not too comfortable at all.

      C//

    111. Re:Welcome Back... by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      What?

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    112. Re:Welcome Back... by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      Israel did not start the 6 day war. Egypt did.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    113. Re:Welcome Back... by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      Treating foreigners differently isn't Apartheid, dear child. And there is no "greater Israel," just areas captured by Israel after they were attacked from there.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    114. Re:Welcome Back... by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      Did you even read what I wrote? I pointed out that they bought the land off the owners, or settled in areas that were not owned by anyone else. Geez.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    115. Re:Welcome Back... by hkmwbz · · Score: 1
      Israeli courts have ruled that using human shields is illegal. Thus, it is not condoned by the military commanders. On the other hand, Hamas continues to actively and consistently use civilians as shields.

      And Israel does indeed try to minimize civilian casualties. Otherwise they wouldn't have halted attacks because of civilians gatherings.

      That mad dog nonsense seems to only be found on Nazi sites and similar racist bigot sites. Sorry, but they have no credibility. And how is Dayan relevant? He's dead!

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
  2. Fail by YodasEvilTwin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This will be tossed out instantly. #1: Where does the amount come from? #2: This random idiot can't sue on behalf of "society" or whatever the hell he's doing. The government, or possibly victims if any violence did occur, would have to do that. #3: I'd bet the farm that there's no proof. #4: Is not blocking hate speech a crime/tort? I don't think so.

    1. Re:Fail by LostCluster · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's an attempt to apply Israeli values to the American Facebook site and that's just not going to stick in an American court, and an Israeli court has no nexus to force Facebook to care about its result. They should be happy the page was pulled and go home.

    2. Re:Fail by stms · · Score: 1

      1: Where does the amount come from?

      First they said one million dollars when everybody laughed at them for demanding such a tiny amount they said one billion dollars.

    3. Re:Fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. Law of large round numbers.
      2. He's suing on his own behalf, as a Jew, since they did threaten to kill all the Jews.
      3. Plenty of proof, liability is another matter.
      4. The line between hate speech and inciting violence is a murky one, but if you want to read the pleading, it does try to make a case for a fear of assault.

      Should this suit be tossed out? Who knows? Is Facebook run by some rather shady characters? Yes. Is the internet full of Fuckwads? Sadly yes.

      Now I've got yet another reason to avoid Social Networks. As if I needed more.

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

      "It's an attempt to apply Israeli values to the American Facebook site and that's just not going to stick in an American court..."

      Um, why not? Israel wouldn't and couldn't even continue to exist without the undying and enthusiastic support of the USA. It seems to have always been a case of 'What Israel wants, Israel gets'.

      Now watch this post get down-modded into oblivion in record time.

    5. Re:Fail by b4upoo · · Score: 0

      Worse yet hate speech is frequently a very vague term. We had a local minister burning the Koran. That does not imply that he hates anyone at all. But in the minds of many Moslems they feel it is hate speech because the action offends them. Offending people does not mean that you hate them. I am reminded of that lunatic Baptist sect that turns up when soldiers lost in war funerals take place. Obviously they offend almost 100% of the population by troubling those funeral services. But they do not hate the dead soldiers nor do they hate the families of the dead soldiers. What they are against is paying attention to the dead instead of paying attention to Christ and they also try to point out that Christians may not take up arms. Yet the entire world sees them as a hate group. This stuff with special classes of people has simply gone too far. Maybe we should be telling our young never to take up arms for any reason. If it was good enough for Christ is it not good enough for all of us?

    6. Re:Fail by JadeBuddha23 · · Score: 1

      I worked with Larry Klayman for a while. He's exactly this kind of schmuck, and so painfully desperate to make a name for himself.

    7. Re:Fail by ainandil · · Score: 1

      Sort of. Random idiots can sue on behalf of society (note the lawsuit referenced in paragraph 11 in the complaint) -- but stand a chance of winning only if they have a valid cause of action. In this case, Klayman alleges damages which can neither be substantiated nor proved: an excess of one billion dollars, compensatory and punitive, plus attorney's fees and costs, for assault and negligence. IMHO, the complaint is worth reading as a welcome respite from the inane attempts at humor we've seen here on /. the past day. Best part? Paragraphs 4 and 17, wherein Klayman references "The Social Network" in substantiating Zuckerberg's "questionable business and ethical practices."

      Share and enjoy,

      Ainandil

    8. Re:Fail by Obfuscant · · Score: 0

      Then how about I go and burn a cross in front of your house, being careful to stay on public property and have a burn permit?

      The "in front of your house" bit takes it out of the generic statement of opinion category and well into the hate speech regime. Do it in your own backyard where you aren't making it clear it applies to someone specific and you'd get away with it scott free, other than for basic 'when can you burn things' laws.

    9. Re:Fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So who were those guys in the white van?

    10. Re:Fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      When in doubt, make accusations of anti-Semitism.

    11. Re:Fail by tsm_sf · · Score: 1

      We had a local minister burning the Koran. That does not imply that he hates anyone at all.

      Just literacy.

      --
      Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
    12. Re:Fail by rohan972 · · Score: 1

      Maybe we should be telling our young never to take up arms for any reason. If it was good enough for Christ is it not good enough for all of us?

      I suppose if Christ had advocated that no-one ever take up arms then Christians should consider that position authoritative. However:

      Luke 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

      So it is clear that if you are a Christian, you MUST believe that taking up arms is justified in some situations, else Christ was advocating sin.

    13. Re:Fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      meh - come burn a cross in front of my house - I'll bring marshmellows!
      or some prayer scrolls
      or a koran... (I never understood the worry about that - its just some paper with printing... we can print them BY THE MILLIONS if anyone wanted enough of them. Perhaps thats the way out of this mess - lets start printing korans and deliver them to the devout. Maybe 100,000 copies per person? Cheaper than cruise missiles! Could we make tank armor out of pristine copies? eg, you can't shoot at me, or let off an IED because you would damage the holy words)
      or a cow - well, if you want to burn a cow, let me know ahead - I don't keep that much bbq sauce in stock
      anything else you want to burn at my place?

    14. Re:Fail by LordLimecat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Um, why not? Israel wouldn't and couldn't even continue to exist without the undying and enthusiastic support of the USA

      What makes you say that? They seemed to do quite fine for all those years we didnt support them.

      You DO realize they are a first world country, with an incredible military, right? Id be interested to see in what way and for what reason you think they wouldnt "continue to exist" without our support (and what on earth makes you think our support has been "undying" historically).

    15. Re:Fail by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      > But they do not hate the dead soldiers

      Yes, they actually do.

      It would be kind of hard to prove that, as you could probably make a compelling argument that theyre really just litiguous trolls looking to countersue the first local government that tries to clamp down on them (as that IS what they do...).

    16. Re:Fail by ncgnu08 · · Score: 1

      While it doesn't change the point of your post, I believe you have the reason they are protesting the funerals wrong. And I also believe it goes against your point considering they have signs that read "God Hates You" which kind of makes me think they do hate. Of course we could be talking about different "crazy Baptist groups" after all; who knows how many of them are out there.

      http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9102443/ns/us_news-life/

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

      http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Supreme_Court/supreme-court-westboro-protests-military-funerals/story?id=13037219

      Now I hate that I have even given them attention in this discussion...

      --
      Member of American Sarcasm Society - Motto: "Like we need your help!"
    17. Re:Fail by JadeBuddha23 · · Score: 2

      In fact, Larry once sued his own mother, no really: http://www.slate.com/id/2317/

    18. Re:Fail by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      Who's this guy "Luke"? And why should I believe him? I wanna see his press pass.

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    19. Re:Fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      "You DO realize they are a first world country, with an incredible military, right?"

      Wonder if you realize this incredible military is supported by yearly hand-outs from the US...

    20. Re:Fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What years were those that we didn't support them?

    21. Re:Fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's an attempt to apply Israeli values to the American Facebook site and that's just not going to stick in an American court...

      Yes it will. I don't like it any more than you do, but the Israeli government basically has its hand down the American government's pants.

    22. Re:Fail by martin-boundary · · Score: 1

      He was a groupie of that convicted criminal, Christ...

    23. Re:Fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Go look at the position that f***g government takes when Israel is concerned, even with all their terrorist activities. You must be blind to make the statement?, YOU are a troll. Go read Noam Chomsky
      http://www.chomsky.info/

    24. Re:Fail by bmo · · Score: 3

      >It would be kind of hard to prove that,

      The Phelps' ultimate stated goal is not just the lawsuits. It's to "turn people away from God" and make them hate.

      Shirley Phelps-Roper - "Our job is laid out," she says, in comments sprinkled with biblical references. "We are supposed to blind their eyes, stop up their ears and harden their hearts so that they cannot see, hear or understand, and be converted and receive salvation."

      The Phelps are a hate cult. QED.

      --
      BMO

    25. Re:Fail by musicalmicah · · Score: 1

      The United States was the first country to recognize the state of Israel. Israel has also been the largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid since the 1970s; most of that aid is military. While US support of Israel wavered a little in the 1950s, I feel that "undying" would still be an accurate term for the overall history of these two nations' relations. The US has been afraid since the get-go of getting involved in this ridiculous ethnic conflict, but the average American's friend-or-foe meter has always been more likely to read "friend" with Israel than with the rest of the Middle East.

    26. Re:Fail by lakeland · · Score: 1

      Was there more than trivial US support for Israel from 1950 to 1969? That's about 20 years they survived on their own

    27. Re:Fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, seriously. I think they are also accusing Facebook and CEO of downloading 4 illegal songs. 4 + 250 million per song = $1 billion. See? Perfect sense if you just look at it.

    28. Re:Fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit they don't hate. They travel far knowing full well the pain and anguish they have and will cause. They *hurt* people on purpose. Excuse that how you will.

    29. Re:Fail by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      It is nothing more that a publicity hound seeking more public attention. A failed Israeli Senate candidate (really US but he definitely demonstrates far greater loyalty to Israel) is trying to gain attention for another political run and to ensure future cash flows of billions of dollars from the US treasury to Israel.

      He just got a bit confused in this instance about where the money is coming from a US company rather than the US government.

      The main reason for Facebook to not take down the page, censorship is poison to social networking sites and has been directly involved in the disastrous loss of popularity of many of them. The reality is, troublesome content is better monitored and the participators depending upon their actual efforts, identified. Only extreme content should be deleted, other than that 'it's a trap' principles should apply.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    30. Re:Fail by gilbert644 · · Score: 1

      Israel is vulnerable to being chocked to death by trade sanctions like any other country, something that the US is shielding it from.

    31. Re:Fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't take long for someone having the temerity to criticize Israel being labeled a terrorist or anti-Semitic. Got to love the Israeli "poor us" self-pity machine. Good job AIPAC.

    32. Re:Fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You realize the Palestinian refugee camps are supported by yearly hand-outs from the US...

    33. Re:Fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you really believe Israel would be a "first world country" with an "incredible military" without the fawning adoration of American blowhards?

      (History lesson: At its inception "first world country" meant the USA & its allies. I suppose you're not that familiar with the Cold War.)

    34. Re:Fail by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Luke 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

      A bunch of naked guys running around with swords. Sounds like a great way to take over the world.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    35. Re:Fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, why not? Israel wouldn't and couldn't even continue to exist without the undying and enthusiastic support of the USA

      What makes you say that? They seemed to do quite fine for all those years we didnt support them.

      Uh, which years were those?

    36. Re:Fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess it depends on what kind of literacy you're referring to.

    37. Re:Fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They seemed to do quite fine for all those years we didnt support them.

      Which years would that be? We have been supporting them since the Eisenhower Administration, which is around the time they were founded.

    38. Re:Fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny how much foreign aid they get; something no first world country should be getting. Those aipac lobbyists must be worth their weight in gold.

    39. Re:Fail by nbauman · · Score: 1

      In fact, Larry once sued his own mother, no really: http://www.slate.com/id/2317/

      That's an informative story. The guy's completely crazy. No one would take him seriously.

      Uh, except maybe Fox News.

    40. Re:Fail by Americium · · Score: 1

      Perhaps it was a honeypot for the FBI? Then it's definitely getting tossed out.

    41. Re:Fail by the_womble · · Score: 2

      They seemed to do quite fine for all those years we didnt support them.[/url]

      When was that? Israel has always been a major recipient of US aid and was the largest recipient of US aid (something like a third of total foreign aid) for about 30 years.

      You DO realize they are a first world country, with an incredible military, right?

      An incredible military certainly, but a population barely larger than Hong Kong and an economy smaller than Ireland or Egypt. In comparison the UAE alone has a bigger economy and a bigger population.

      There is no way Israel could have sustained its military without massive outside assistance.

    42. Re:Fail by JakartaDean · · Score: 1

      It will fail, but not even for the (valid) reasons you state. It is simply a publicity stunt, it's not an attempt to win a trial.

      The complaint can be downloaded http://www.freedomwatchusa.org/pdf/110331-Fbook-Complaint.pdf [pdf] but it's really just a poorly written collection of innuendo and personal slurs. No judge would bother giving it a second glance, except the clown who allegedly wrote it. It is as much about the completely irrelevant case the same clown is pursuing against the Islamic center planned for ground zero as this issue.

      --
      The subject who is truly loyal to the Chief Magistrate will neither advise nor submit to arbitrary measures (Junius)
    43. Re:Fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No actually he wasnt. He never ever met Jesus in person. He was just some Greek guy, who hanged out with that other Greek guy, Paul, who also never met this Jesus also, but claimed anyway being one of his biggest groupies.

    44. Re:Fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um...which years would those be, exactly?

      Yes a military that is primarily funded by US dollars and armed with US weapons.

    45. Re:Fail by Aryden · · Score: 2

      erm, the stockpiles of jets, munitions, vehicles, training etc the the US and other UN nations have been providing since the founding of Israel....

    46. Re:Fail by Aryden · · Score: 1

      Worse yet hate speech is frequently a very vague term. We had a local minister burning the Koran. That does not imply that he hates anyone at all. But in the minds of many Moslems they feel it is hate speech because the action offends them. Offending people does not mean that you hate them. I am reminded of that lunatic Baptist sect that turns up when soldiers lost in war funerals take place. Obviously they offend almost 100% of the population by troubling those funeral services. But they do not hate the dead soldiers nor do they hate the families of the dead soldiers. What they are against is paying attention to the dead instead of paying attention to Christ and they also try to point out that Christians may not take up arms. Yet the entire world sees them as a hate group. This stuff with special classes of people has simply gone too far. Maybe we should be telling our young never to take up arms for any reason. If it was good enough for Christ is it not good enough for all of us?

      I very nearly shat myself I laughed so hard.

      Burning someone else's religious symbols tends to show how much you "dislike" them

      It's Muslims, not moslems.

      Intentionally offending people tends to mean you "dislike" them, usually to the extent of hating them

      Right, and I haven't been called a "baby killer" by these lunatics...(and yes, I have been), told me pretty well they didn't like me not one bit.

      Paying attention to the dead instead of Christ....? So, normal run of the mill Christians don't have funerals? Amazing, maybe you should tell all those cross bearing nutjobs that block my streets with their funeral processions regularly

      ...may not take up arms... Ok so, 1st crusade, 2nd crusade, 3rd crusade, the child's crusade, (biblical reference) "An eye for an eye", more people have died in the name of "God" than for any other reason...

      So your solution to it is bury your head in the sand and hope that any bullies that come along just pass you by. So when the non-christian sects from around the world show up at your doorstep, drag you out of your house and torture you, then demand that you believe in "their faith" rather than christianity, you're just going to go with the flow and let it happen?

      and yes, i did rise to troll bait, it felt good.

    47. Re:Fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Woosh...

    48. Re:Fail by TFAFalcon · · Score: 0

      Without US support in the UNSC, Israel would be under so many sanctions that their economy would collapse.

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

      Was there more than trivial US support for Israel from 1950 to 1969? That's about 20 years they survived on their own

      Even if you consider several hundred million dollars per year (inflation adjusted) "trivial", in those years Israel got a lot of military support from France. Hardly "survived on their own".

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

      You do realize that "incredible" military receives a minimum of $3,000,000,000 of American Tax dollars right?
      You do realize Israel receives a ridiculous amount of funding from american churches and other businesses right?
      You do realize that the only country THAT EVER stands up for them at the UN is the USA. Right? And all it takes is one veto by the US to over rule every other nation's vote?

      Yes, Israel requires the support of the US so they can continue to murder palestinians and claim that it's actually Israel that is the victim.
      Nuclear power Israel is such a poor poor a victim of a bunch of people including women and children trying to live in their rundown shacks while Israel bulldozes them down to build jewish only apartheid highways and settlements.

      Look I know you think you have a clue, but you don't. So go learn something about the real fucking Israel, or keep your ignorant mouth shut.

    51. Re:Fail by rahvin112 · · Score: 2

      There is some aid in the Israel agreements, but it's a factor of the camp David accords with Egypt. Both nations are handed loads of cash each year for not fighting. The majority of the US support for Israel is in the form of loans backed by the US government to the government of Israel. The US banking sector makes a mint on those loans as Israel's never missed payment and with interest rates approximately 2-3% above the prime rate the US banks that make the loans make a TON of profit on those loans. It's been estimated that total profits have exceeded several hundred billion dollars. As the banks have essentially no risk with the US government guarantee and still get to charge above market interest rates it should be understandable why the banks support continuing the arrangement.

      Although the original poster has a point, the fact is that Israel would suffer some severe financial problems if the US aid (development and military) along with the loans were blocked. Whether they could continue funding their massive military machine without the American dollar input is fairly debatable. Most of the official independent research indicates that without the US support (in particular the loans) Israels economy would likely suffocate under the massive military spending and that collapse would probably necessitate political changes. This is essentially because the loans are primarily used to fund economic development and sustain the trade surplus they have with other nations. Without the loans the economy would lose the cash flow that provides the backbone for the trade surpluses that pay for everything else.

      The problem with the idea that if you somehow cut off the US dollars Israel will collapse is that even a cursory review of history will show that before the Camp David accords the US provided no support to Israel and they did fine. Before those accords they fought and won several wars against multiple enemies while being significantly outnumbered by every single opponent. In the first two wars every opponent outnumbered them 4-1 in manpower and 3 nations were grouped up against them at the same time and they still won.

      Contrary to the uniformed people outside the US there are several very important reasons why the US supports Israel and why that support will be very hard to crack. In order of importance.

      1. Fundamental Christians believe that Israel's existence is a precondition of the end of days. In addition the bible says that those nations/peoples that are standing with the people of Israel will be the victorious army and those on the side of God in Armageddon. As a result you would find it easier to convince a Fundie Christian that the spaghetti monster is real than convincing them that the US shouldn't support Israel. As the Fundie's currently have a grip on the Republican party and compose almost 30% of the voting public the chances of reducing or eliminating US support for Israel is very small.

      2. Israel over the years has become deeply integrated into the US defense industrial complex. They control or are essential subcontractors to several major companies and do significant research into defense technology. They are key to several areas of US defense technology. As a result they have some pretty steep bargaining leverage with the US defense agencies by threatening to sell technology and assets to the Chinese and other nations the US considers potentially hostile.

      3. Up until the Russian migration several years ago a significant portion of the people living in Israel actually had US citizenship. Before the massive Russian migration that percentage was around 20%, although I'm not sure what it is now I'm sure it's still above 5% (As an example Netanyahu actually had the opportunity to become a US citizen) . With that large of a percentage holding dual citizenship its difficult to abandon support particularly with the more than 6 million Jews in the US with family and friends in Israel.

      4. Israel has made themselves an essential intelligence gathering asset to the US intell

    52. Re:Fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do we give first world countries aide in the way that give aide to Israel though? While Israel existed before we were helping them, they weren't as easily to grab the amount of land that they did either.

    53. Re:Fail by ultranova · · Score: 1

      I am reminded of that lunatic Baptist sect that turns up when soldiers lost in war funerals take place. Obviously they offend almost 100% of the population by troubling those funeral services. But they do not hate the dead soldiers nor do they hate the families of the dead soldiers.

      Given that Westboro Babtist Church advocates praying for the death of soldiers, I think it's a reasonable conclusion that they hate them.

      What they are against is paying attention to the dead instead of paying attention to Christ and they also try to point out that Christians may not take up arms.

      Incorrect. Fred Phelps's message is that "God hates fags". I'm not sure he's ever once even mentioned Christ, much less asked people to pay attention to Him. He has, on the other hand, expressed his joy and gratitude over death of US soldiers again and again.

      Yet the entire world sees them as a hate group.

      They are a hate group. Their entire message - literally all of it - is that "God hates fags". They picket funerals, cheering for the deaths and praying for more of them. Fred Phelps actually managed to get himself disbarred as a lawyer. Even the likes of Ku Klux Klan refuse to have anything to do with them out of sheer disgust.

      Fred Phelps is a particularly over-the-top cartoon supervillain somehow given life. That's all there is to it.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    54. Re:Fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe we should be telling our young never to take up arms for any reason. If it was good enough for Christ is it not good enough for all of us?

      I suppose if Christ had advocated that no-one ever take up arms then Christians should consider that position authoritative. However:

      Luke 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

      So it is clear that if you are a Christian, you MUST believe that taking up arms is justified in some situations, else Christ was advocating sin.

      Suuuure.

      :38The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.” “That is enough,” he replied.
      :49When Jesus’ followers saw what was going to happen, they said, “Lord, should we strike with our swords?”
      :50And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear.
      :51But Jesus answered, “No more of this!” And he touched the man’s ear and healed him.

      So even if he didn't use "sword" in a metaphorical sense in Luke 22:36, he thought that 2 swords for 12 disciples was enough and cutting of an ear already excess.

    55. Re:Fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. The IAF (Israeli Air Force) is the world's best. They should be left to their own devices just to prove the point. The US spends far too much on military and foreign bases. Team America: World Police isn't the role the US should be serving.

    56. Re:Fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you kidding? I have no dog in the fight but you have to give credit where credit is due. All of the major weapons systems used by the "incredible military" of Israel are supplied by the United States. They use M-16s, F-16s, F-15s, Apaches, small diameter bombs, Hellfires, and all sorts of other great contraptions that go bam made by the US. Without this direct military support of $4 billion a year, Israel would not have the hegemony it currently enjoys in the Middle East. Israel was created in 1946. Since that time, it has enjoyed the undying support of the United States. Nowadays, the first thing a candidate does before running for President is to visit Israel and declare their support for the Jewish state. That has been the case even when, in the case of the USS Liberty, Israel attacked US ships without apology. Or when they were caught spying on us with Jonathan Pollard.

      Let's put it another way. Israel has nuclear weapons. It's an open secret. If we treated them like all the other Middle Eastern countries trying to get nuclear bombs, we'd embargo and otherwise ruin them economically. So allowing them to do their bit without reprisal is a huge boost.

    57. Re:Fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Continual 3rd world status enables delivery of aid, in the form of weapons and vehicles.
      You could try reading the memoirs of Brits who fought with the original Israelis (who lived peacefully with their neighbours) against the immigrant Israelis. Find out who suicide bombed who then. Who ethnically cleansed neighbourhoods.

    58. Re:Fail by Sun · · Score: 2

      It's an attempt to apply Israeli values to the American Facebook site and that's just not going to stick in an American court, and an Israeli court has no nexus to force Facebook to care about its result. They should be happy the page was pulled and go home.

      Just to set the record straight, I don't see such a claim succeeding in Israel either. While Israel does have laws prohibiting speech if it advocates violence, those are criminal laws (i.e. - you cannot sue yourself), and cases of anyone being successfully prosecuted with those laws are extremely rare. The Israeli laws have a mixed record of what to do when a site is sued for content uploaded by site's users, but the general consensus is that this is harder to sue in Israel than in the US. Lastly, filing a suit in Israel requires fees that are proportional to the amount sued, so filing a 1 billion dollars (or Sheqels, for that matter) suit is all but unheard of, as few people would risk several millions of dollars on a suit that has a very small chance of succeeding.

      Shachar

    59. Re:Fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And when according to you the USA did not support Israel?

      Their "incredible military" is highly supported financially by the USA.

    60. Re:Fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In point of fact on your #2, Israel HAS GIVEN China OUR TECHNOLOGY. For example, they GAVE CHINA an F-16 with live avionics on it, while selling them their Lavi fighter. There is some evidence that J-20 has come from Chinese spies and Israeli spies who gave tech to Israel which then sold it to China.

      Israel has the right to exists, however, we all need to understand that Israel is NOT a friend to the west.

    61. Re:Fail by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      It's easy to have a first rate military when you don't have to pay for it.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    62. Re:Fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was a plausible comment up until the summer of 2006 when Israel lost a war with a group of Lebanese terrorists.

    63. Re:Fail by JAlexoi · · Score: 1

      They seemed to do quite fine for all those years we didn't support them.

      US did not support Israel.... Nope,doesn't ring a bell. Pretty much ever since the establishment of the Jewish state, they had full support of US. Open or not so open.

    64. Re:Fail by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      i'm not sure that Israel infiltrating our defense industry and stealing US military technology is a point in their favor.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    65. Re:Fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What makes you say that? They seemed to do quite fine for all those years we didnt support them.

      What, you mean before the Romans threw them the fuck out? Because there isn't any time in the modern era where we weren't actively supporting Israel.

      You DO realize they are a first world country, with an incredible military, right?
      You DO realise that America mostly paid for that for them, right?

      Sorry,,Sparky, but Israel has proven to be far and away the worst enemy America has and the worst threat to peace in the region.
      AIPAC is also one of the largest lobbying groups whose only goal is to get US politicians to support Israel's interests over and above the interests of their own country.

      So, yeah, Sparky, when you want to go around supporting Nazi regimes you know little about, maybe you should just not.

    66. Re:Fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if we say that the US wouldn't exist without the zionists?

    67. Re:Fail by boreddotter · · Score: 1

      and those forced handouts are getting funded by countries like Saudi Arabia and other oil producing countries when they are forced into buying outdated tech like F15 for $60 billion

    68. Re:Fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This isn't just hate speech. It's incitement of mass murder. Incitement of violence is not protected speech.

    69. Re:Fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/fiveisraelis.html

    70. Re:Fail by Smiths · · Score: 1

      During the Israels 1967 war...where Israel pre-emptively attacked their neighbors...the US gave them military intellegence support. RFK who was outspoken in favor of Israel was assasinated for this very reason.

      Support for Israel due to a domestic lobby has been around since their founding. The book the Israel lobby details it all in depressing detail. You should read it.

    71. Re:Fail by Smiths · · Score: 1

      In Israel it is now illegal to commerate the Nakba...that is the day when Palestenians remember the villlages destoryed, etc.

      http://www.jta.org/news/article/2011/03/23/3086536/knesset-passes-nakba-law

      It is also illegal to support the worldwide BDS movement that attempts to call attention to Israels occupation.

      You would have to be in coma for the last 44 years or be reading just US media to believe that Israel is a place where freedom and democracy reside.

      mondoweiss.net

    72. Re:Fail by Smiths · · Score: 1

      There is so much hasbra there...including the US supports Israel because of Christian Zionists line...no the US supports Israel because of the Israel lobby...don't believe me...read the diary of the first Defense Secâ(TM)y from 60 years ago.

      4 September 1947 Cabinet Lunch
      At the end of the lunch [Robert] Hannegan [Postmaster General] brought up the question of the Presidentâ(TM)s making a statement of policy on Palestine, particularly with reference to the entrance of a hundred and fifty thousand Jews into Palestine. He said he didnâ(TM)t want to press for a decision one way or the other but simply wanted to point out that such a statement would have a very great influence and great effect on the raising of funds for the Democratic National Committee. He said very large sums were obtained a year ago from Jewish contributors and that they would be influenced in either giving or withholding by what the President did on Palestine.
      29 September 1947 [Conversation with president]
      I asked the President whether it would not be possible to lift the Jewish-Palestine question out of politics. The President said it was worth trying although he obviously was skeptical.. [I said] It was dangerous to let it continue to be a matter of barter between the two partiesâ¦
      6 October 1947 Cabinet Lunch
      Hannegan brought up the question of Palestine. He said many people who had contributed to the Democratic campaign fund in 1944 were pressing hard for assurances from the administration of definitive support for the Jewish position in Palestine. The President said that if they would keep quiet he thought that everything would be all right, but that if they persisted in the endeavor to go beyond the report of the United Nations Commission there was grave danger of wrecking all prospects for settlement.
      7 November 1947 Cabinet
      [Middle East is a tinder box, warns Secretary of State George Marshall] I repeated my suggestion, made several times previously, that a serious attempt be made to lift the Palestine question out of American partisan politics. I said that there had been general acceptance of the fact that domestic politics ceased at the Atlantic Ocean and that no question was more charged with danger to our security than this particular one.

      http://mondoweiss.net/2010/07/60-years-ago-first-defense-secy-said-zionist-pressure-endangered-us-security-all-the-way-to-afghanistan.html

    73. Re:Fail by Sun · · Score: 1

      In Israel it is now illegal to commerate the Nakba...that is the day when Palestenians remember the villlages destoryed, etc.

      http://www.jta.org/news/article/2011/03/23/3086536/knesset-passes-nakba-law

      That is a misleading characterization of both the article and the law. It is illegal to commemorate the Nakba using state funds. Read the article again. It says so explicitly (though not prominently).

      It is also illegal to support the worldwide BDS movement that attempts to call attention to Israels occupation.

      No, it isn't. Some random member of Knesset (not the brightest of that bunch, at that) proposed a law. The anti-Nakba law started off the same way, as broad prohibition. I realize that in the US that is, sometimes, all it takes. In Israel there is public scrutiny and refinement stages that actually change the way the law looks (most times, for the better), and I promise you that if and when this proposal turns into law, it will be much much much saner. Until then, calling this anything binding is deliberately misleading.

      Shachar

    74. Re:Fail by YodasEvilTwin · · Score: 1

      Wow, are you kidding? Those people protesting funerals hate everyone. They are evil. They're just using Jesus as an excuse to hate people (which is nonsense given that, if the Bible is to be believed, Jesus was all about love).

  3. Re:Fooled you! by LostCluster · · Score: 0

    Nope, the April Fools joke stories were all marked with the fill-in-your-own-word combo boxes. We're now past 8pm ET which means it's past Midnight GMT and we're into April 2nd in GMT and half the world. They really should program the site for the East Coast USA audience because that's where the most Slashdotters actually live, but they're geeks in love with GMT.

  4. Re:Fooled you! by YodasEvilTwin · · Score: 1

    WOOSH

  5. Come on, FFS by warp_kez · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Enough already, they are not even funny to begin with. Seriously, April Fools is overrated and the domain of the inferior intellect.

    1. Re:Come on, FFS by Zorque · · Score: 2

      A) You're a joykill.
      B) It's not a joke.

  6. Re:Fooled you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They really should program the site for the East Coast USA audience because that's where the most Slashdotters actually live...

    [citation needed]

  7. Re:Damages? by LostCluster · · Score: 1

    Most of the billion is punitive damages which basically wants to make an example of Facebook saying allowing anti-Israel speech should never be allowed. Kinda flies the the face of the US's 1st Amendment freedoms, but they have no such concept in Israel. Still, see my other post on the problems with picking a venue.

  8. Thought it was a joke at first by jbrodkin · · Score: 1

    oh we're posting real stories now? In all seriousness, this lawsuit is frivolous.

    1. Re:Thought it was a joke at first by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      So frivolous that it's kind of shocking that the founder of anything called "Freedom Watch" or "Judicial Watch" would be behind it.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
  9. April F.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    April Fo.... April... What? You mean some nutjob is suing FB because someone posted something controversial? Not going to fly. Facebook didn't post the content, its not theirs. As the blurb says, the graphics and backend belong to FB, the comments and 99.99999999% of the content belongs to the people who posted it. Whole governments don't like some of what Facebook has on it, but they know better than try to sue.

    1. Re:April F.... by Aryden · · Score: 1

      No, they just demand the personal information of the people that "may have been involved". re: Twitter, Bradley Manning, Julian Assange, Birgitte Jonsdottir et al.

  10. I also support free speech.... by calmofthestorm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...except for people I disagree with.

    "The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."
    -- H.L.Mencken

    --
    93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
    1. Re:I also support free speech.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great sound bite. Too bad he's wrong.

      "oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all"

      Why? We don't tolerate people who scream fire in movie theaters, so we should we tolerate people who advocate genocide (for example)? In what context is advocating for the extermination of large numbers of people valid?

    2. Re:I also support free speech.... by gilbert644 · · Score: 1

      Everyone should be able to chose who they do business with ... except when I disagree with that choice.

    3. Re:I also support free speech.... by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 5, Informative

      We don't tolerate people who scream fire in movie theaters

      Man, I hate that example. It comes from the Schenck case (which held, basically, that it was illegal to distribute pamphlets opposing the draft), which is no longer good law, and which, in any event, is never properly used.

      Back in the old days (the Schenck case is nearly a hundred years old) theaters were deathtraps should they catch on fire, which was not an infrequent occurrence. Not only would the fire and smoke be deadly, but the panic as people trampled one another to escape, or pushed those near the exits (assuming they could be opened) so hard that they couldn't breathe, were serious threats. (Recall the infamous Station nightclub fire some years back to get an idea) Of course, were there a fire, it would be heroic to shout that out and warn everyone, panic or no. Schenck was concerned with falsely shouting fire, and causing a panic maliciously.

      The standard in Schenck, however, was whether the speech and the circumstances surrounding it were such that there was a clear and present danger of causing some harm which could constitutionally be rendered illegal.

      The Schenck Court by its own words would not find anything wrong with even falsely shouting fire in a theater that wasn't crowded, since there'd be no real danger of a deadly panic as people fled.

      In any event the standard nowadays is that speech regarding illegal actions is not itself illegal unless it is intended to result in imminent illegal activity and is actually likely to do so. This is a much higher standard, and pretty tough to achieve.

      As an example, Tea Partiers can run around with signs implying that they advocate violence against politicians and government officials or even outright armed rebellion, but they're protected because no one really takes them seriously and they don't actually do anything but posture.

      Advocating genocide is protected speech in the US so long as there's no imminent danger of it being acted upon. Protecting that lets us protect all sorts of protests and advocacy; as usual, the First Amendment protects speech you don't like as well as speech you do. And it's important to uphold it, lest you find yourself on the unpopular end of things. Who around here would want to do time for merely talking about how it's right to pirate music or something?

      Besides, it's handy to have hateful people out themselves. It saves an awful lot of trouble in identifying them, gathering information about them, etc. What good does it do to have them go underground?

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    4. Re:I also support free speech.... by Aryden · · Score: 1

      eh actually, the 1st amendment does protect someone from being held to account for the speech itself. If there are actions taken on behalf of the speech, then the person can be held for accessory/inciting murder. See the entire issue with the Quran planned burning. The govenrment could not stop the act, nor could it stop the speech, all it could do was to counsel the minister and try to convince him that he was being a fucktard, and then add a polite "if anyone dies because of this, you will fry" on the end.

    5. Re:I also support free speech.... by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      Why do we tolerate military officers being punished for giving orders contrary to the orders they received ?

      Why do we tolerate people being punished for lying into court ?

      Why are some companies held accountable over their declarations ?

      Freedom of speech is a slight misnomer. The freedom exists to transmit information. Any information. That is the intent. But in some case people are required to transmit information accurately (the officer's case), or to authenticate an information they have (court and companies example).

      In the case of the 'fire !' shouted in the theatre, no one forbids to say there was a fire in this specific theatre at this specific time.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    6. Re:I also support free speech.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      As an example, Tea Partiers can run around with signs implying that they advocate violence against politicians and government officials or even outright armed rebellion,

      Do you, by chance, have links to reports of actual violence by Tea Partiers?

    7. Re:I also support free speech.... by Yeknomaguh · · Score: 1

      He specifically followed that up with ", but they're protected because no one really takes them seriously and they don't actually do anything but posture." Are you an idiot or an over sensitive tea partyer with a persecution complex?

    8. Re:I also support free speech.... by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      Because the freedom to do or say only what other people approve of is no freedom worth calling such.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    9. Re:I also support free speech.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We all know there are limits to speech, but this is a bit of a gray area, since it's clearly political speech. And you can't fail to see that having someone who started "Freedom Watch" working hard to limit speech as hypocritical. Then, I read the "about" page on "Freedom Watch" and it's reads like a Tea Bagger's rant. It's no where near a self-consistent political philosophy.

  11. Why is this news? by a_nonamiss · · Score: 1

    Anyone can sue anyone for any reason at any time. I could sue a random stranger in the grocery store for kidnapping the Lindbergh baby. If a verdict was awarded, this might actually mean something.

    --
    -Arthur
    Cave ne ante ullas catapultas ambules
    1. Re:Why is this news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What was it? Someone was suing a company because they had received a fake check stating that they could cash it for $30,000 or something and it was written by George Washington and they were able to go to court etc etc... The thing is that he thought he had the money so he bought a lot of stuff and then couldn't return it after he found out the check was fake and that's when he sued. As it turned out it was a chance to win a $30,000 check by participating in a drawing (similar to the ed mc mahon drawings) and it was written as such on the piece of paper that came with the check. epic fail and a waste of court time.

    2. Re:Why is this news? by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      But it involves Facebook, a famous Internet website company! IT COULD HAVE CHILLING EFFECTS FOR FREE SPEECH ONLINE.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    3. Re:Why is this news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think I will now do just that. Thanks.

      Of course, if it doesnt work out, I will then sue you.

    4. Re:Why is this news? by a_nonamiss · · Score: 1

      Fine! Just go ahead and sue me! Everybody else does! The average settlement is $68,000.

      --
      -Arthur
      Cave ne ante ullas catapultas ambules
  12. Re:Fooled you! by unity100 · · Score: 1

    They really should program the site for the East Coast USA audience because that's where the most Slashdotters actually live,

    your hypothesis is not only 'out of ass' grade, but also incorrect.

  13. Re:Fooled you! by snowgirl · · Score: 1

    Nope, the April Fools joke stories were all marked with the fill-in-your-own-word combo boxes. We're now past 8pm ET which means it's past Midnight GMT and we're into April 2nd in GMT and half the world. They really should program the site for the East Coast USA audience because that's where the most Slashdotters actually live, but they're geeks in love with GMT.

    Actually, they're not in love with GMT, they're in love with UTC...

    --
    WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
  14. Looks like our "anonymous" submitter by countertrolling · · Score: 1

    Is pimping a ZDNet editorial (propaganda piece). Sure doesn't read like a regular news story.

    --
    For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
  15. Re:Fooled you! by LostCluster · · Score: 0

    There's no multi-lingual version of Slashdot... so for the first part we have to exclude all of the world that doesn't speak English.

    Now, where's the population? Australia's big, but it's mostly unpopulated Outback areas. The UK is a densely populated, but comparatively small island. Most Canadians (even some of those who speak French) speak English, but they're due north of the USA so their time zones are mostly in sync with ours.

    Now, let's look at the US distribution. Maine is so far East that the entire state belongs in the "Atlantic" time zone that Canada has, but we lump it in with the US Eastern time zone. There are many of the most historic cities in the East Coast area, and the Eastern Time zone extends far West, and Central time is just one hour off.

    California? Important, but it doesn't bring much with it. Las Vegas isn't interested in tech when there isn't a tech convention in town. Redmond might care, but they can respond just 3 hours late to "prime time" stories.

    It's the way TV is done, and it's the way Slashdot should be too. GMT is a geek time standard left over from Unix days, but what system in the world still displays the GMT time to a user rather than the local time? And the local time of more USA/Canada population than any other is Eastern Time.

  16. Head in the Clouds by Neuroelectronic · · Score: 0

    Would it be so hard to organize a group on somewhere other than Facebook? This is not the first time a large, controversial group was shutdown on Facebook.

  17. The new cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Suing for a million dollars isn't cool. You know what's cool? Suing for a billion dollars.

  18. Re:Fooled you! by snowgirl · · Score: 1

    ...but they're geeks in love with GMT.

    No, they're geeks in love with UTC! [/pedantic]

    --
    WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
  19. Re:It's the Jews by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    I personally think all religions are to blame.
    Any freak that belongs to any of the worlds cults does nothing but damage spreading their fairy tales.
    They care more about their ridiculous stories than the lives of real humans.

  20. Re:Fooled you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tell us then, what country do you suppose has more Slashdot readers than America?

  21. Re:It's the Jews by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can we please kill them all?

  22. Re:Damages? by ebs16 · · Score: 1

    I'm a US / Israeli dual citizen. This lawsuit, and the types of people behind it, are an embarrassment. Stifling free speech goes against the values of both Israel and the United States -- and any other democratic society. These people definitely don't speak on behalf of their associated populations. (There's that old joke about there being 3 different opinions for every 2 Jews.) Furthermore, Facebook is not exactly a hotbed of intellectual activity. Why give these people any attention at all?

  23. Re:Fooled you! by unity100 · · Score: 1

    are you aware that something being 'more' than something else, does not necessitate acting on that extra amount ? what if the 'more' is just 2% more than world total, OR, maybe even the next statistical figure ?

    percentages matter.

    give us percentages.

  24. Am i the only one spotting the irony that is by unity100 · · Score: 1

    This guy being the founder of the 'Freedom Watch' ? exactly whose freedom is he watching ?

    1. Re:Am i the only one spotting the irony that is by LostCluster · · Score: 1

      "Freedom Watch"? Isn't that the title of a Fox Business Network (the minor league farm club of Fox News Channel) which is hosted by a guy they call "judge" despite the fact his only experience in that role was the one-and-done season show "Power of Attorney" where used OJ Simpson lawyers argued "People's Court"/"Judge Judy" style cases.

    2. Re:Am i the only one spotting the irony that is by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      If you ignore the 7 years as a NJ Superior Court Judge, then yes that was his only experience. That would be just a little dishonest though.

    3. Re:Am i the only one spotting the irony that is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NJ Superior Court Judge? That probably gives him more experience with ignoring crime than cleaning it up...

    4. Re:Am i the only one spotting the irony that is by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Judges have nothing to do with cleaning crime up anyway.

    5. Re:Am i the only one spotting the irony that is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The freedom of all Israelis, and Jews in general, to be racist and bigoted towards Arabs, and stifle free speech globally.

      Not that I agree with "rising up" against Israels citizens, then again, are they talking illegal settlers bulldozing homes and murdering kids?

    6. Re:Am i the only one spotting the irony that is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously those of the Israeli people, who are being threatened with murder. "Free Speech" does not make assault legal, nor conspiracy to commit murder.

  25. Re:Fooled you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's no multi-lingual version of Slashdot... so for the first part we have to exclude all of the world that doesn't speak English.

    Huh? You know we do speak English even in non-native-English speaking parts of the world, especially those of us in Slashdot's target group. (i.e. geeks)
    (Posted anonymously because I've already moderated in this thread)

  26. they arent any different. by unity100 · · Score: 1

    there is little genetic difference in between arabs and jews. actually, the people of that region are practically from the same semitic ancestry.

    moreover, their culture is totally the same. judaism, islam, christianity are only minor branches. ALL of these build upon established (thousands of years ago, even before themselves) traditions and legends and beliefs of the region.

    they are one people. but one thing you are right about is, they are indeed the source of all the problems of the world - their culture has been one of control of a single person claiming divine ancestry and belief, over all others, even before sumerians. it still goes on till this day, albeit there are more than one controllers now, in compliance with necessities of modern times.

  27. Re:Fooled you! by IgnitusBoyone · · Score: 1

    So um, maybe I just read your post wrong but does not abs(X) > abs(Y) such that abs(X)+abs(Y)= 1.0 imply X = most. I mean it has to be at least over half. I base this off your statement "2% more than the world total". So, since obviously a subset of a whole can not be larger then the whole I assumed you meant 2% larger then all other countries combined.

    --
    Momento Mori
  28. Re:It's the Jews by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

    Yes, well, clearly Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot were religious folks. Athiests cant be repressive, violent, or murderous, no sir.

    Seriously, every time someone makes this claim I wonder if they were asleep through all of their history classes. The story of mankind is one of tyranny and violence whenever the opportunity presents itself.

  29. progress by Weezul · · Score: 1

    Israeli courts have moved the course of the wall several time based upon Palestinian territorial claims, for example.

    --
    The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
    1. Re:progress by wytcld · · Score: 1

      There are orders from Israel's Supreme Court to move parts of the apartheid wall which were issued several years ago. The Israeli occupation government simply ignores them. Beyond the prosecution of several top Israeli officials for sex crimes, the Supreme Court there is not able to accomplish much, since it has no army of its own to enforce its rulings.

      --
      "with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
    2. Re:progress by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You act as if palestinians would make peace, or even merely wouldn't fire on Israeli workers if they moved the wall back (during the moving I mean) ... Palestinians (a term that confuses me since palestina, like the large majority of the middle eastern countries, has a large majority of immigrants, of course, so does Israel) demand what islam demands, that

      (translation, obviously)
      "The time* will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews [and kill them]; until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: Oh Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!"

      * the time identifies the situation that islam wants to establish : a global theocratic dictatorship, ruled by the "caliph". One that will only occur after a final holocaust on the Jews. Some of the features of this nation : capital punishment for women (we all know the details), slavery, legal, social and sexist apartheid, ... This is the ultimate goal of every muslim, one to be accomplished peacefully if possible, but always enforced manu militari. As the quran clearly states, ANY method, including setting traps for women and children, large-scale killing, raiding, ... , is acceptable to advance this goal ("acceptable" is a bad translation : acceptable implies that these things are optional, while the original does not imply any such choice on the part of muslims).

      So please tell me, why are you demanding muslims drop their religion ? (you tell them to make peace with Jews, explicitly forbidden by their religion) Why do you hate islam ?

      Oh but we HAVE treaties with islamic nations, and so does Israel. Well here's the relevant law in sharia (quoted by the king of saudi arabia on television when asked that specific question) :
      "Speaking [oral and written statements and contracts] is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible."

      In other words : according to sharia, it is perfectly permissible or "halal" for muslims to enter into a peace treaty, and even abide by it for a while. But only as long as it's a pretense, a lie, in service of the greater goal of conquest. Once the treaty no longer advances the intrest of conquering "the enemy", once there is a chance that open war will conquer the enemy, the treaty MUST (not "can", "must", there is no choice here) be broken.

      Needless to say, historically, muslims have not even been able to live up to this despicably low standard.

  30. Umm no, mass murder isn't the answer. by Weezul · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The Six Day War doesn't matte now. The old rhetoric about driving the Jews into the sea probably doesn't matter either. I think thus far the problem has been :

    (a) The Palestinians have never had a really credible peace directed leader.
    (b) Israel only rarely has leaders who credibly want peace.

    If even a significant minority of the Palestinians were following some strong Imam who preached peace, well that'd likely inspire the Israelis to elect someone sane. Instead : The PLO/PA's leadership focusses more upon their own bank accounts. Hamas' are a bunch of religious psychopaths. Israel's right wing are equally psychopathic. And Israel's moderate politicians cannot retain power without acquiescing to the right.

    The wall is helping though.

    --
    The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
    1. Re:Umm no, mass murder isn't the answer. by cavreader · · Score: 1

      Isreal will continue supporting hard line leaders because they are surrounded by people who have been trying to kill them for 60 years and have not been shy in announcing it. Isreal is safer with a hawk instead of a dove. Just look what happened when the Isreali leaders started to soften their approach towards the Arabs in 73 and Syrian and Egyption armies came running over the borders in attack mode.

  31. Re:Damages? by countertrolling · · Score: 1

    Furthermore, Facebook is not exactly a hotbed of intellectual activity. Why give these people any attention at all?

    You underestimate their (including Twitter's) value in spreading lies and propaganda, and of course advertising. The papers just reported that most of the traffic comes from very few users, many of them sockpuppets. And I would speculate more than a few bots. It's bright future ahead for this method of dispensing 'information'.

    --
    For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
  32. Oh, no... by telekon · · Score: 3, Funny

    Usually my allergy to stupid becomes more manageable around on Friday around 5pm Eastern... This just sent it flaring up again.

    --

    To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.

  33. Fucktards will be fucktards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For all the anti-free-speech "we need to limit free speech." Why not let them incriminate themselves in public? Doesn't that serve the public good? If someone is going to commit a murder they're going to do it.

  34. Re:Fooled you! by davester666 · · Score: 1

    I call for an intifada against you and Unity100!

    Death to Math Geeks!

    --
    Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  35. Re:Fooled you! by BitterOak · · Score: 1

    Nope, the April Fools joke stories were all marked with the fill-in-your-own-word combo boxes. We're now past 8pm ET which means it's past Midnight GMT and we're into April 2nd in GMT and half the world. They really should program the site for the East Coast USA audience because that's where the most Slashdotters actually live, but they're geeks in love with GMT.

    If you read the actual complaint, you will see that it is indeed an April Fool's joke. Let me quote one particularly telling passage from the complaint,

    As depicted in the award winning film “Social Network,” Defendant Zuckerberg in particular lacks strong ethical and moral character, having cheated his partners out of their shares and/or ownership in Facebook early on, for which he was forced to pay large settlements once sued.

    No one would use a fictionalized Hollywood film to back up a claim as to the character of the defendant in a legal document submitted to the court. This is a joke folks. Let's move along.

    --
    If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
  36. Needs more sauce by tmlwoodson · · Score: 1

    Only 1 billion? Facebook is worth at least 20 trillion.

  37. Facebook opened a can of worms by mr100percent · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If Facebook is going to ban one side's speech, let's see them do the same for the others. And yet Facebook pages with such titles as "mavet laaravim" (Death to the Arabs) abound...

    1. Re:Facebook opened a can of worms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure they're free to ban or not ban whoever they want from their site. They're not a government entity; people agree to abide by their terms of service when they use their site.

    2. Re:Facebook opened a can of worms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Their TOS says "no hate speech." If they're going to enforce it, they shouldn't be doing it selectively.

    3. Re:Facebook opened a can of worms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The arabs don't own and operate the majority of the US media

    4. Re:Facebook opened a can of worms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. Israeli = South Africa APARTHEID

    5. Re:Facebook opened a can of worms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just did a search for that and returned "No results found for your query." So they can't be as prominent/ existent as you seem to believe.

  38. Fool. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yet the entire world sees them as a hate group

    Uh, maybe because they are? Parading around with signs that say, "God hates $subject"... ...Yeah, sorry, I can't be civilized in the presence of such stupidity. They're a fucking hate group. Are you completely blind? By what twisted, deranged logic could you even dare to imagine these twatwaffles aren't a hate group?

  39. simple... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You mess around with Israel and you get your ass kicked.

  40. Re:Fooled you! by Calydor · · Score: 2

    Just because you can't imagine ever learning a language other than your own doesn't mean no one else will. A good portion of Europeans speak English to varying degrees, especially the younger generations.

    From my experience (I know, citation needed) English is also becoming more and more common in the former east block countries, I have several friends in Poland and Hungary who I communicate with in English.

    Myself? I'm Danish, but that doesn't mean I don't speak and understand English. Please take your opinions on only speaking one language somewhere else.

    --
    -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
  41. Re:Fooled you! by nbauman · · Score: 1

    I realize it's hard to tell, but it is on Freedom Watch's web site.
    http://www.freedomwatchusa.org/

    It's a strange-looking filing.
    http://www.freedomwatchusa.org/pdf/110331-Fbook-Complaint.pdf
    It doesn't have a stamp from the court, it doesn't have a filing number, and it doesn't cite any statutes or court cases. He says he's filing pro se.

    Doesn't look very serious.

  42. Facebook did it to themselves... by Caraig · · Score: 3, Interesting

    When they said they would not pull it, but would monitor it, they opened themselves up for litigation. This is the sort of thing that's allowed common carriers at least the illusion of immunity from persecution over what goes through their networks. As soon as Facebook said they would monitor it, that was a statement that they are not a common carrier. By "monitoring" it, they assumed responsibility for it.

    Bad move on their part, no matter what you might think of the subject.

    --
    "I am an Adept of Tantric VAX."
    1. Re:Facebook did it to themselves... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Responsibility for what? Hurting Klayman's feelings?

      Please. This is a frivolous lawsuit that will be tossed out of court. I wouldn't even be surprised if the judge awards Facebook court costs for the frivolous filing.

    2. Re:Facebook did it to themselves... by Aryden · · Score: 0

      I monitor the shit that gets played on the television and radio, that does not mean that I own the content, the MAFIAA will quite pointedly tell you that if you need a 3rd party mediator in the matter...

    3. Re:Facebook did it to themselves... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really... your going to claim that Facebook has common carrier status? I think you should do a little research about it before you make a fool of youself.

  43. Hey YOU CANT SAY THAT!! by pablo_max · · Score: 1

    I live in Germany, so I can tell you, you are not allowed to say anything against the Jews. It does not matter what they do, how many kids they kill, how many lives they destroy. You are an anti-Semite if you say anything other than, jews are awesome and can do no wrong.

    1. Re:Hey YOU CANT SAY THAT!! by Courageous · · Score: 1

      You probably *are* an anti-semite, though.

    2. Re:Hey YOU CANT SAY THAT!! by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      I doubt it, he didn't say anything negative about any of the other semitic people... like arabs.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    3. Re:Hey YOU CANT SAY THAT!! by Courageous · · Score: 1

      I understand the technical reality of what you are saying, however the commonly understood use of the expression is not as you say.

    4. Re:Hey YOU CANT SAY THAT!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live in Germany, so I can tell you, you are not allowed to say anything against the Jews. It does not matter what they do, how many kids they kill, how many lives they destroy. You are an anti-Semite if you say anything other than, jews are awesome and can do no wrong.

      And, unfortunately, that will be the death of you.

    5. Re:Hey YOU CANT SAY THAT!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You probably *are* an anti-semite, though.

      anti-Semite: a person who’s hated by Jews

    6. Re:Hey YOU CANT SAY THAT!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, it's as GP said. Zionism = Judaism, according to the modern definition of Anti-semite.

      As a Jew I can read it in the eyes of any Jewish person when I discuss Israel in a negative light.

    7. Re:Hey YOU CANT SAY THAT!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not entirely dissimilar from blacks in the US. Since they were slaves long, long ago, they are now placed on a protective pedestal compared to other races. So since the jews were persecuted during wwII, they're now placed on a protective pedestal, deserving or not. Over here, a black can get away with calling a white discriminatory names but in the reverse, there comes into being all kinds of civil and criminal prosecution potential. It's absolutely amazing. Also, you'll often find that many blacks love to 'pull the black card' whenever things aren't going their way and white people are somehow involved stating that they're being discriminated against when they really aren't. Does this happen in Germany as well with jews and non-jews? I bet it does.

    8. Re:Hey YOU CANT SAY THAT!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? You live in Germany? And you hate Jews? Wow, who wudda thunk...

      Too bad the crushing of your nazi government didn't inspire *you* to commit suicide, pablo_max (626328).

      This comment will not be saved until you click the Submit button below. You must wait a little bit before using this resource; please try again later.
        This comment will not be saved until you click the Submit button below. You must wait a little bit before using this resource; please try again later.
        This comment will not be saved until you click the Submit button below. You must wait a little bit before using this resource; please try again later.
        This comment will not be saved until you click the Submit button below. You must wait a little bit before using this resource; please try again later.
        This comment will not be saved until you click the Submit button below. You must wait a little bit before using this resource; please try again later.

    9. Re:Hey YOU CANT SAY THAT!! by doccus · · Score: 1

      *You can't say that* in my country either.. it may be a different group than your referring to, but the effect of arbitrarily sectioning off on group with no particular distinctiveness from the rest of the community, and rendering them above criticism in order to assuage namby pamby 'hurt feelings' , especially by a tribunal that answers to no-one, but has the power to sever employment, social ties and the like,, only has the effect of rendering free spech a historical curiosity.. I am pretty sure THAT is what the fellow previous was referring to.. Rendering any segment of the population 'faultless' only by accident of color, culture, or birthplace is *just* as prejudiced as rendering that segment as *less* than...

  44. Re:Fooled you! by Aryden · · Score: 1

    I have zero issues with GMT as it provides a standardization that has been agreed upon for time tracking. It wouldn't matter to me if if was titled something else and set somewhere else as long as it's agreed upon and enough people use it.

  45. Re:Fooled you! by Aryden · · Score: 0

    "America" isn't a country. The United States, Canada, Mexico, Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Honduras, Panama, Argentina, Aruba, Bolivia, Bonaire, Brazil, Chile, Columbia, Curacao, Ecuador, Falkland Islands, French Guiana, Guyana, Paraguay, Peru, Suriname, Trinidad & Tobago, Uruguay and Venezuela are all countries within North, Central and South "America". Stop thinking that the United States is the 'only America'.

  46. The new cool... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Suing for a million dollars isn't cool. You know what's cool? Suing for a billion dollars..

  47. Facebook does good? by shish · · Score: 1

    Facebook originally said it would not remove the page but would monitor it instead. The company later pulled the page after discussions degraded into violence and hatred.

    Facebook allowing free speech, only removing things once they get to the TOS (and law)-breaching point of hate-speech? It it still April 1st over there? o_O

    --
    I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
    1. Re:Facebook does good? by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      TOS (and law)-breaching point of hate-speech?

      hate speech is not against the law, it is in fact protected under the first amendment

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
  48. 75 Trillion by Aryden · · Score: 0

    At least he isn't suing for 21% more than the world's GDP...

  49. Just sue everyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In analogy, the government should be sued for maintaining the roads that bank robbers use to drive away with the money.

  50. Why stop at sueing Facebook? by waperboy · · Score: 2

    I think they should also sue the ISP used to discover/watch said page, and then also the manufacturers of both the server hardware as well as of the computer used to view it.

  51. But in the mean time by Fuzzums · · Score: 2

    it's totally all right to, for example, steal more and more land from the Palestinians...

    When will the extremists on both sides stop frustrating every step towards a solution...

    --
    Privacy is terrorism.
    1. Re:But in the mean time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong Fuzzums, under international law, the land is not stolen. Read up.

    2. Re:But in the mean time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you'll find it's extremist on ONE side. ie. The right wing racists in power now in Israel ie. the side with the missiles, jets, attack helicopter and tanks ie. the side the annually enjoys genocide and culls the Palestinian population to keep it under control.

      I think the Zionist learned the wrong lessons from WW2 ie. they just learned how to reproduce it.

    3. Re:But in the mean time by boreddotter · · Score: 2

      Why don't you read about the continuing illegal activity of settlement building?

    4. Re:But in the mean time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "Falestinians" (their word, not mine -- oddly enough, arabs do not have the letter "p" in their alphabet, causing them to mangle the roman word) are squatting on the ancestral holy grounds of the Jewish people. The "Falestinians" are the true thieves, stealing Jewish land -- and more and more of it, every day, as they continue building illegal houses....

  52. Re:Fooled you! by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 1

    I thought the same when I saw the following story:

    UN staff beheaded as Afghans rage against pastor who burnt Koran
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/un-staff-beheaded-as-afghans-rage-against-pastor-who-burnt-koran-2260108.html

    There are certain parts of the world that could be sucked in to the bowels of the earth with nothing of value being lost save some interesting lamb dishes.

    --
    -- Using the preview button since 2005
  53. about "Third Palestinian Intifada" by lagi · · Score: 1, Troll

    ah, as an Israeli it's always nice to see comments like "... If the Israelis would stop committing crimes against humanity ...", that's right "crimes against humanity" as exactly what we do here in Israel, every day in the morning i wake up and think what new crime against humanity i can do today AND how can i make Palestinians to suffer more.

    let me tell explain what "Third Palestinian Intifada" means to a regular 27 year old Israeli like me who have served in IDF for 3 years, and did NOT forget the "Second Palestinian Intifada". it means I'm gonna wake up every morning, open my TV and find out another Palestinian blow him self out in a bus/train/whatever, I'm gonna first call my parents and ask if they are OK, and then I'm gonna think witch one of my friends might have been there, and call them too, hoping they are OK too.

    I know Palestinians people did suffer a lot (so did the Israelis), but look around us, look at Egypt, Libya, Syria, Lebanon, i promise you, the Palestinians in occupied territories have a lot more rights, freedom and are safer then citizens in this countries. everyone who see in "Third Palestinian Intifada" something legitimate just don't know that this three words mean. hope Palestinians will start thinking with their brains instead their "honor" and continue building their state with the help and money they are provided with instead fighting Israeli citizens, a fight they can't really win.

    1. Re:about "Third Palestinian Intifada" by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      neither side has clean hands, but it is fact not opinion that Israel kills far more Palestinians than Palestinians kill Israelis, mostly around a ratio of 7-10:1, some years dropping to "only" a bit over 2:1

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    2. Re:about "Third Palestinian Intifada" by calmofthestorm · · Score: 1

      Playing devil's advocate for a moment, the differential bodycount could just mean they're better at the self-defense thing. More convincing figures might be civilian casualties, but the problem is that in a guerrilla war it's hard to know just who is a civilian, even after the fact.

      --
      93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
    3. Re:about "Third Palestinian Intifada" by lagi · · Score: 1

      Playing devil's advocate for a moment

      it has nothing to do with the devil, it's just the sad truth.
      Israel has high capabilities in self-defense, we unwillingly were developing them in past 60 years, HAMAS in the Gaza strip is actually not our biggest problem, we have worst, the nuclear kind (Japan worries you?), HAMAS just shoot rockets at Israel as this some kind of child game, but it's not a game. and in many cases, it's actually children who shoot the rockets (and miss, because they didn't read the manual? or don't know to read?), and then get killed, because no F-16 pilot and distinguish between a 13 y/o boy with a mask and a grow up terrorist (i'm not sure there's a difference), then it makes the news of course, and everyone sad, we are too, but at the same time, this rocket, if guided right, could land on a local kindergarten and kill 10 children. why should Israel wait for the worst to happen? predicting the near future is not hard, if you sit on a nail it will probably hurt.

    4. Re:about "Third Palestinian Intifada" by hjrnunes · · Score: 2

      I know Palestinians people did suffer a lot (so did the Israelis), but look around us, look at Egypt, Libya, Syria, Lebanon, i promise you, the Palestinians in occupied territories have a lot more rights, freedom and are safer then citizens in this countries.

      Seriously, I sometimes can't for the life of me figure if you people are just plain delusional and believe this or if you're lying consciously.

      Palestinians did suffer a lot you say. First, I would say "Palestinians do suffer a lot". Secondly, exactly how much land, or relatives have you, or any of your ancestors lost in Israel at any time? Can you provide us with that info?
      Thirdly, it's not just Palestinians we're talking about. Last time I did the math, the retribution ratio applied by the government and military of Israel has been roughly 1:400 i.e. for each Israeli casualty (civilian or otherwise), Israel makes 400 opfor casualties (civilian or otherwise). That would include mostly Palestinians and Lebanese in the recent years. Also, what kind of justification have you to give the people of Turkey for the nine Turkish citizens your IDF murdered on the assumption that they we're carrying weapons to Gaza, when all that was found in the boat was kitchen knifes and broom handles? Not to mention stripping European citizens that were on the same boat of all their property and documents, and never returning them? Or running American citizens over with bulldozers e.g. Rachel Corrie or shooting them in the head (see BBC's Dispatches on Gaza)? Were they also security threats to Israel?

      Palestinians are seeing their land colonized by foreigners. Which is what most of the Israelis really are to the land they now occupy. They are long past the thinking with brains phase. It's pretty much desperation only that drives them. The failure of your government and society to understand this and apply a suitable solution that would demand compromise of both parts is what has thrown the world into the mess it is now with terrorism. Because of that reckless atitude and the complacency of the US and Europe towards it, no one can travel anymore without being subjected to frisks and detectors and bagage restrictions and x-ray machines. Thanks a lot for that. What I find ironic though is that your heroic founding fathers, never hesitated to blow things and (their own) people up to further advance their cause. Perhaps they didn't blow themselves up like the Palestinians sometimes do. Perhaps they should've. But that's not really convenient to talk about, now is it?

      with instead fighting Israeli citizens, a fight they can't really win.

      Why don't you people just occupy the damn thing once and for all and have the courage to openly assume that that is what you really want and that you won't stop at nothing to achieve it?

    5. Re:about "Third Palestinian Intifada" by hjrnunes · · Score: 2

      HAMAS just shoot rockets at Israel as this some kind of child game, but it's not a game. and in many cases, it's actually children who shoot the rockets (and miss, because they didn't read the manual? or don't know to read?)

      Maybe it's because those rockets are about as basic as one can make them and they lack sophisticated target acquisition and navigation systems? I'm sure that if they had Tomahawks they wouldn't miss so much. Also, the allegation that it is children that fire those rockets is, as far as I've ever seen, just that: an allegation. I've never seen footage of children firing the aforementioned rockets. Or ever seen any Hamas element admitting so. Anyway, even if it is children that fire the rockets (why would people that are willing to sacrifice their lives in a suicide attack put their own children at risk before themselves is something I find mind-boggling and very hard to believe without hard proof) and that those rockets could eventually hit a kindergarten, that is no justification to kill those same children. I'm sure that with all the money Israel spends in weaponry, Israelis could find less lethal defense and deterrent mechanisms. After all, that's what 1st countries do.

      I think you (Israelis in general and the ones that govern them in particular. I don't know about you, and I know that there are exceptions - which aren't anywhere as listened to as they should and as the war hawks are) just don't give a crap about the Palestinians and their children. After all, in the diplomatic level, Israel doesn't really give a crap about anyone or anything else, be it UN resolutions or the interests of its biggest ally and financer, or of its most important regional ally, which Israel effectively managed to alienate by unjustifiably killing nine of its citizens. Anything Israel (or Israeli-linked interests) does, becomes a PR nightmare that Americans and Europeans have to scramble to contain and apply damage control to. But I guess you don't really see that, do you? Israel can get along by applying the same recipe it does always: acuse inconvenient critics of anti-semitism and Israel hating. Even falling on the absurdity of accusing Jews and Israeli citizens of that, when they voice their criticism (internationally, as the press in Israel, truth be told, is actually quite free) of how Israel behaves as a country.

      Until you people realize that what people hate is not Israel but Israel's atitude of complete disregard for anyone or anything else but their own (short term) selfish interests, or until the West and the US force you to, this is just going to keep going. And everyone, be it Palestinians, Israelis, Americans, Europeans, etc will keep suffering all the consequences of that. Once again, thanks a lot for that.

    6. Re:about "Third Palestinian Intifada" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So what is the correct approach for a Palestinian? WHAT AVENUE do the have to redress their grievances? From the time the international community decided to hand over their land to a people who had occupied it a couple thousand years ago, what should the Palestinians have done that they didn't do?

      Of course we all know the official answer from Israel - the Palestinians should have vanished from the face of the earth. Don't worry though, we've almost done it for them.

      And no, as far as I have heard, the people of Egypt, Lybia, and Syria are not being progressively forced from their homelands.

    7. Re:about "Third Palestinian Intifada" by lagi · · Score: 0

      Also, the allegation that it is children that fire those rockets is, as far as I've ever seen, just that: an allegation. I've never seen footage of children firing the aforementioned rockets. Or ever seen any Hamas element admitting so. Anyway, even if it is children that fire the rockets (why would people that are willing to sacrifice their lives in a suicide attack put their own children at risk before themselves is something I find mind-boggling and very hard to believe without hard proof) and that those rockets could eventually hit a kindergarten, that is no justification to kill those same children. I'm sure that with all the money Israel spends in weaponry, Israelis could find less lethal defense and deterrent mechanisms.

      Let me correct my self, it's NOT usually children who fire the missiles, but who ever fires them are usually young people (most of Gaza are youngsters), and they sometimes bring children to missile launch sites (or escape cars) AND IT IS all about "Palestinians and their children", why? because it's the parents who educate this next generation. since i was in middle school (the Israeli education system) i was taught about peace, palestines, even when buses were blowing up on a daily basis, no one in our schools said, "kill palestines", or encouraged use to blow our selfs on palestines. i can't say the same for the other side, they teach hate of Israel to their children, what do you think their children will do when they get older, talk peace? i don't think so, they would not know what peace is.

      believe me, the weapons and methods IDF are as non-lethal as they can be, just look how many get killed in other conflict zones around the world. tell me, why should Israel spend even more money on "less lethal defense mechanisms"? while the other side do the opposite? how will that contribute to peace? it's still weapons, and with weapons you make war, and not peace. it's the education that should change, not the weapons types.

      Until you people realize that what people hate is not Israel but Israel's atitude of complete disregard for anyone or anything else but their own (short term) selfish interests

      what you call "disregard" i call just standing for it's self, we won't take every crap US, EU or UN has to throw at us. it's only 60 years ago EU was a Concentration Camp for Jews, and about the same time ago, Black people in the US were still slaves. while the UN did very little to actually solve any conflict since it's creation. so who are you to teach us the rights and wrongs? nobody asked you to "scramble" or "apply damage control" - but it's just probably the right thing to do.

    8. Re:about "Third Palestinian Intifada" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blacks were slaves in the US in 1950? Get your head out of your fucking ass, baby killer.

    9. Re:about "Third Palestinian Intifada" by hjrnunes · · Score: 2

      what you call "disregard" i call just standing for it's self, we won't take every crap US, EU or UN has to throw at us. it's only 60 years ago EU was a Concentration Camp for Jews, and about the same time ago, Black people in the US were still slaves. while the UN did very little to actually solve any conflict since it's creation. so who are you to teach us the rights and wrongs? nobody asked you to "scramble" or "apply damage control" - but it's just probably the right thing to do.

      You won't take crap from anyone heh? Who would've said.. Oh, that's right! I said it in my post. I was apparently right. Except that what you call crap is actually called dialogue, negotiation and compromise (and also billions of dollars - is that crap you don't take also? Figured not...) in the civilized countries. But that doesn't really interest you now does it?
      So, sixty years ago there was a concentration camp for Jews you say. Well, for starters, nobody's talking about Jews. I though we were talking about Israelis. Unless you think that both are actually the same. But then I find it hard to understand how can the Palestinians live better occupied by a state and people that would never accept them as citizens, because they're not of the same race or religion or whatever it is that makes one a Jew.
      And the concentration camp wasn't only for the Jews. You seem to forget about Roma, Communists, and all the other people that also suffered with that. You don't see them occupying other people's land and resorting to violence because of that now do you? What gives you the right of hijacking those people's suffering to advance your cause?
      And don't you dare mentioning the Black people. Because they've endured suffering that you can't possibly imagine, for many times the time your country has existed as so. They have endured centuries of slavery and cultural destruction at the hands of many people and nations. Yet they aren't colonizing other people's land. Neither do they use that to make them special victims nor to extort money from others on baseless claims. Even when the ones that colonized their land and made them slaves still keep sucking out their resources they still don't act like your people and your country do. Maybe you have something to learn from them. Let me ask you this: If the Palestinians happened to be black, would that stop you from taking their land just because it was written in some book and you happened to need some? Probably not. Which makes you as bad as those that took the Black People's land.

      why should Israel spend even more money on "less lethal defense mechanisms"?

      Well, because for starters, it isn't your money. It's mostly the American taxpayers money. So you have a responsibility in spending it for productive ends and not for killing innocent children, women and men. You don't see the American taxpayers money going to Hamas do you? Perhaps that's why they have to literally manufacture their own defense mechanisms. Maybe the US should cut you off as well so that perhaps you could find more productive ways to spend the money your country can generate by itself.

      so who are you to teach us the rights and wrongs?

      And who are you to teach the Palestinians right from wrong then? Why should they bow to your will when you bow to no one's?

      But still you avoid the important issues, as most of your people do. When in doubt, call on the concentration camps and the right of Israel to do anything it wants to. Word to the wise: you now have the upper hand, and the hijacked support of the government of the most powerful superpower in the World. It would seem that nothing can stop you. But no upper hand lasts forever. And when you loose it, people will judge you for the actions you took when you had it. I can guess what judgement they will pass... But then you'll come crying that people persecute you and hate you. No shit... But I guess that's the way you like it huh? An eye for an eye right? I can only feel sorry for the Israelis and Jews that don't share your pride and selfishness and the blindness they bring. For they will also pay for the crimes you are now committing, and that is a real shame.

    10. Re:about "Third Palestinian Intifada" by lagi · · Score: 1

      I call this crap, cause no matter how you put it, when it's an issue related to state politics, it will always have some hidden or unknown motives behind it, motives you and i probably not aware of (true for US, EU and every country, and that's why i call it crap). Israel does not disregards every UN resolution, but our country has a democratic government, and it makes it's final decision based on many many internal and external factors, and usually by several government figures and not only the PM. sometimes we too don't like our gov's decisions, but it's the one we elected. and if most of us were thinking our gov acts wrong, we would've changed it, like we did in the past.

      UN wants Israel to respect it? they should do something, and that thing is probably stopping Iran first, with force if it's needed, because they gonna bomb the world with nukes with their "holy war" shit, and no body seems to care. Israel won't stand on the side, and let that happen, cause we will be first to get it, and it doesn't matter if you're the US the EU or the UN.

      And your right, i shouldn't use "concentration camps" as an excuse, nor black people, it was just a remind, horrible things happened not too long ago, why would you think it can't happen today? be cause we got the internet? be cause of freedom? i'm not so sure most of the world live in real freedom. you say Jews and Israelis are not the same, be here in Israel it is, not everyone are religious here (including me), but most Israelis know the bible, and they believe in it's ways, without any connection to God, it's a guide to the world, and to people that was written many years ago, and still most of it's principles applies now days too, and we would like to keep this tradition, because it's important to me. we have may mosques and churches, we have Muslim and Christian citizens, and Ya, we don't like when Muslims (in some cases) are so fanatic about their religion and want to apply it on everyone everywhere. you can choose be a Jew or not, no one here will tell you what to do.

      and no body comes "crying" to anyone, it's just that we are using International Relations to try and promote our wishes, because the other solutions (instead of "crying") seemed to involve guns, missiles and tanks, and we are trying to avoid it as much a we can, it's kinda hard when the other side acts the opposite.

    11. Re:about "Third Palestinian Intifada" by hjrnunes · · Score: 2

      Well, first of all, let me thank you (no sarcasm now) for a reasonable response. It seems quite more productive now to actually have a discussion with you. Which is really more than I can say about most people that take your side on this issue, if it makes sense to take a side at all.

      I think we both explained our views elaborately already and that is a good thing. Others can come, read, and make up their own mind. And your last post actually made some sense and seems to me quite reasonable. I'll therefore just address one issue I think undermines your whole line of thought. I'm not advocating that Israelis (Jews, whatever) are any worse than anyone else. Nobody's perfect. But I do really think that on this issue you're far, very far, from being right. And that worries me, because you seem quite a reasonable person, and I'm inclined to believe that you are actually being honest. So:

      UN wants Israel to respect it? they should do something, and that thing is probably stopping Iran first, with force if it's needed,because they gonna bomb the world with nukes with their "holy war" shit, and no body seems to care. Israel won't stand on the side, and let that happen, cause we will be first to get it, and it doesn't matter if you're the US the EU or the UN.

      This, my friend, is bullshit. Utter and complete bullshit. Iran is a hostile country to Israel, that much we agree. But Israel is also a hostile country to Iran, that is fact. So what? There are plenty of hostile countries to other countries. Hell, you can probably say that all countries are hostile in some way or another to all other countries. But it is one thing to say this, but another completely different thing is to say that country X wants to "nuke the whole world because they're fanatics".
      That's something I've never seen any Iranian official ever say. And I do pay attention , trust me. It's like that other issue about the president of Iran wanting to "wipe Israel off the map". That was a bad translation. Intentionally bad, as it was Memri (check it out on Google please) that produced that translation, and it's quite obvious it's purpose is to advance Israel (or maybe not, I'll explain further along) agenda.
      My point is this: You, the people of Israel (well, most people anyway) are being manipulated. By whom? By certain ones amongst yourselves, but especially abroad. What might be called "the Jewish lobby". So what is this Jewish lobby? For starters, the fact that it is Jewish is probably a coincidence, but a fact nonetheless, however, it's not composed of Jews only, many right-wing Christians also make part of it. And I'd say it's a bunch of people that actively profits from the current power and influence it has in Europe, US, and Israel. This might seem far-fetched but it's not. All you have to do is watch US foreign policy closely. But you need to put your Israeli and Jewish pride away while you do it, because that's what they feed on. So what should you look for in US foreign policy? In short: Israel.
      Let me explain. If you look closely you see that the US always takes a position supportive of Israel. But that's only an illusion. What the US (and Europe and Israel) does really, is take a position supportive of the so called American-Jewish lobby (see AIPAC). So if the Department of State wants to take a harder approach on Israel in order to force Israel to take less hard-line positions, this lobby immediately pressures the US government and Houses to change that position. But if it is Israel that decides on taking a less hard-line position by herself, guess what the lobby does? It doesn't support Israel on that! It again pressures the US gov. and Houses to make Israel take more hard-line positions. So the outcome is always the same: US putting pressure on Israel to become more and more hard-line.

      So these people want you to actually believe that the whole World hates you, Israel, the Jews, whatever it takes to further their cause. But in the long run, this is not in the i

    12. Re:about "Third Palestinian Intifada" by Smiths · · Score: 2

      Its not about clean hands...its about who has the aparthied state.

      Recall Israel conquered its Greater Israel in 1967 and almost immediately began moving its civilians onto the conquered lands into exclusive Jewish âoesettlementsâ, showing its clear intent to permanently include so-called Judea and Samaria into Greater Israel. It did so in direct contravention of the Fourth Geneva Convention which prohibits such population transfers as well as territorial annexations by an occupying power. It did so in full knowledge of the illegality of such steps as demonstrated by the famous Judge Meron secret legal memorandum.

      Why donâ(TM)t we all just cut to the chase and apply Occamâ(TM)s razor to trim as much non-reality as possible from our arguments. Here are my first proposed two Occam-like issue statement simplifications to be used to better frame our arguments:

      1. Is it possible to modify the current single apartheid state of Greater Israel such that the former Palestinian possessors/owners could gain either a separate state of their own, or a modicum of basic and essential human rights that would allow them to share equally in the benefits of Greater Israel?

      2. Are Jews entitled to an apartheid state of their own to protect them from perceived future dangers of anti-Semitism, or do past crimes against Jews provide sufficient justification alone for a Jewish apartheid state?

      3. If Jews are entitled under international law to an apartheid state of their own for either or both of the above reasons, shall this be a generally applicable international legal precedent for oppressed peoples or is it exclusive only to peoples specifically chosen, such as Jews?

      The clear reality is this: a single, apartheid state of Greater Israel has existed since 1967, now 44 years. 10 percent of Israeli Jews now inhabit 40 percent of the West Bank and East Jerusalem and have asserted total oppressive control over the lives of the remaining Palestinians who live there. The numbers of illegal settlers and settlements grow rapidly with no end in sight. Ethnic cleansing and violence toward Palestinians, with the protection and enablement of the Israeli government and military continues and expands in parallel. Arguments need to be framed around that existing reality, not hypothetical future outcomes

      This is what the Palestenians are fighting over, not hating Israel or some other made for American consumption POV.

    13. Re:about "Third Palestinian Intifada" by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

      It is sad to hear your story, it really is, we have no war here in canada, and i find that should you be able to live like us here, your views might be different, we tend to think of just, stop fighting, you need 2 to tango, etc...etc....and of course it is always different when you are actually in the middle of it all.

      We supposedly only had 1 day of no war on this globe in all human history.....and some feuds have been around for a very long time (thousands of years)....so what do we do.....kill off anyone that would raise a gun in hatred or anger...????

    14. Re:about "Third Palestinian Intifada" by lagi · · Score: 1

      i'm not naive, and if by "lobby" you mean: influence legislation on behalf of a special interest. well that's not new, that's just politics. it really depends on who's interest it is. i can tell you didn't hear much "Iranian official" then. it's not what you hear what you get, sometimes you should use your logic and do 1+1.

      So here's my advice. Know your enemy, and try to understand their motives.

      here's the thing, i got Internet and it's not filtered, there's no disinformation here if you bother to look around. i don't think i need your advice about Arabs or Muslims, i live among them many years, been in IDF too. they are not different from us, by biology or DNA, but some of them are different from us, by their belief.
      and i really think people in the EU and the US might actually be the ones who don't know who are the Arabs and Muslims really, because there's much more to that then just "Arabs" and "Muslims" and "Palestinians". i actually think with might have a real peaceful solution by the end of this year with the Palestinians, but the other side will need to show some will and courage. the problem is not the Palestinians, they are about 5-6 million people of over a billion Muslims, you need to look at the big picture and understand the Arab world and who are the Sunni and the Shi'a, and then you'll understand Palestinians in another light, you'll see they are OK really. and if they lived in other, even Arab country, they will probably be dead (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre ya, we fucked up there, but we are not the ones who killed them, we were naive then i guess)

  54. Re:Fooled you! by rednip · · Score: 1

    Many of those countries have 'long form names' which like those who call "America", calling it "Mexico" is incorrect, you should refer to it as the "United Mexican States". "Republic of Costa Rica", "Republic of Nicaragua", etc Also, I'm sure that you're insulting someone by using the English spellings. It's called a nickname, Skippy.

    --
    The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
  55. Sue them for taking it down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only legal action I could understand is someone suing Facebook for infringing free speech in taking the page down.

  56. Perfect Example of S.L.A.P.P. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLAPP
    No comment about whether the page is right or wrong, but the reaction might be considered against free speech.

    A strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) is a lawsuit that is intended to censor, intimidate and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.

    1. Re:Perfect Example of S.L.A.P.P. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holder_v._Humanitarian_Law_Project

      Facebook is guilty of providing material support to terrorists. Better be careful what you say too, Mr. "Anonymous Coward." We'll track you down and arrest you as well.

  57. related by Weezul · · Score: 1

    http://www.metafilter.com/102139/If-I-had-known-then-what-I-know-now-the-Goldstone-Report-would-have-been-a-different-document

    Summery : Israel has committed fewer war crimes than people imagine.

    --
    The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
  58. Good move to take down page by dskoll · · Score: 1

    I'm glad Facebook took down the page; it was pretty vile hatred. I do support freedom of speech, but it should be on your own dime. A corporation like Facebook is not under any obligation to serve as a platform for speech and it can and should impose rules about what can be posted.

    On the other hand, I don't think the lawsuit is a good move. The plaintiff doesn't have a leg to stand on. Facebook did the right thing; it's time to move on.

  59. Hairyfeet's "Greatest Hits" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject-line above, & these "prime examples" below via links to the originals of WHY hairyfeet shouldn't have gone to "ITT Tech" (because he clearly doesn't even understand how HOSTS files benefit you for added security, speed, and even to a degree extra 'anonymity' online):

    ---

    Static vs. Dynamic (lol, "according to hairyfeet"):

    http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35681060

    ---

    Only thing constantly changing's your "math", 3x ++ or more no less:

    http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35686444

    and

    http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35686566

    as well as this:

    http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35686630

    ---

    Hairyfeet's single solutions FAILURES? See inside:

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2064694&cid=35690260

    ---

    Your sources vs. mine (AND myself, a source on it):

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2064694&cid=35690328

    ---

    Lastly, as to your LIBEL of myself (w/ arstech):

    http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35668740

    ---

    The defeat of hairyfeet by APK videos:

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2064694&cid=35690536

    ---

    They say it all, & usually vs. hairyfeet's own words quoted!

    APK

    P.S.=> Personally though - because hairyfeet is only a "techie"? I suspect he doesn't want people to know about HOSTS files' benefits to the end-user: Why? Because if users stop getting so much "malware-in-general" which layered security (and HOSTS) give you, he's out money...apk

    1. Re:Hairyfeet's "Greatest Hits" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Looks like APK got a weekend pass from Hutchings, or escaped again.

      APK, you *know* you're supposed to take your meds three times a day, otherwise the voices start talking to you. You remember what happened the last time, right?

  60. Re:News at Eleven by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The difference here is that the oppressors are able to manipulate the contents of Facebook instead of having to block access altogether. Which makes it that much more scary.

  61. Re:Fooled you! by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

    Just as French was once the international language of diplomacy 100 years or so ago, and Latin the universal scientific language before that, English is currently the international language of business.

    My employer's corporate HQ is in the EU - yet the last time we held a quick (informal) meeting, in German, w/ a few counterparts at HQ, we'd get along just fine and get things done - then a VP gets wind of it. He promptly emails all involved, reminding us that corporate policy requires all cross-border phone/teleconferences be held in English (even if native English-speaking citizens weren't present- e.g. if it was a meeting between folks who were Germans and Spaniards).

    It ain't just Europe, either. Do business with anyone in China, and even if you bring along Mandarin speaking co-workers, the meetings will be held in English more often than not these days. Anyone requiring a commercial aircraft pilot license, anywhere on the planet, is required to speak English.

    Just the way it is at this time.

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  62. Re:Fooled you! by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

    PS: The time zone thing was a holdover from the railroad days, and was created to address serious safety problems w/ timing and multiple trains on a given track.

    Me, I wouldn't mind GMT. Just have to convince a billion or so others (at least) to use it as a single set time.

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  63. Getting Sued? by SimonUK · · Score: 0

    Why is it that Zuckerberg is continually getting sued out of his ass? There really isn't a reason, He has created one of the most powerful social tools in the history of man kind. What do people try and do? Pull him back down into the shitter. Haters gunna Hate. No one. No one, can deny how much good Facebook has done for the world. Only the assholes who ruin it, talk down.

  64. For the record... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not legal in the United States to incite people to commit violence against others. Hate speech is not protected as free speechsorry I can't figure our how to sign in!

  65. tag: idiocracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NT.

    Well, not exactly; I have a further comment: I might not be a Zuckerberg and posse fan, but Facebook should not be responsible for this.

  66. Re:Funny how this post shows when most Jews are aw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not all Israelis belong to the same religion.
    You're mixing up two different things.

  67. Re:It's the Jews by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, well, clearly Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot were religious folks. Athiests cant be repressive, violent, or murderous, no sir.

    Seriously, every time someone makes this claim I wonder if they were asleep through all of their history classes. The story of mankind is one of tyranny and violence whenever the opportunity presents itself.

    Good point, oh well, at least they don't claim the magical fairies made them do it.... they were just nuts.(well, I guess thats the same thing)

  68. Re:It's the Jews by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No shit. Every day of my life, I become more convinced the real heroes were the ones who lost WWII.

  69. Whatever. by Cazekiel · · Score: 1

    It'll never end. The fight for a bunch of sand that imaginary superheroes shat on at one point in time goes on and on, the song that never ends.

    --
    You want to know how to help your kids? LEAVE THEM THE F*&K ALONE. --George Carlin
    1. Re:Whatever. by doccus · · Score: 1

      It' not about the land anymore.. all that's left on either side is hatred

  70. It'll be thrown out instantly by one-egg · · Score: 1

    Has anybody actually read the complaint? IANAL by a long shot, but I would have no trouble whatsoever writing a better complaint. And this guy seems to have a law degree!

    The suit starts with a rambling recitation of accusations, none of which is even properly stated as an allegation, none of which is supported, and many of which are completely irrelevant to the alleged harm. Then it makes two complaints: assault and negligence. The assault charge is unsupported on its face, since it alleges damage without specifying what damage occurred. The negligence is apparently based on the same unsupported claim of damage.

    So the suit will be thrown out instantly for failure to state an actionable claim. But I doubt that it'll make the news at that point.

  71. obatalternatif.net by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a very complicated problem
    hopefully it will finish

  72. Re:It's the Jews by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  73. Good Story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your story is good; interesting and able to share; massage by Samee Ullah (http://sameeullah.co.cc)

  74. but it's still ok by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    to support israeli f-15's taking out suv's that might contain a palestinian (and his family) they don't like?

  75. Brain Washing Children by gay358 · · Score: 1

    Well, there is plenty of brain washing against palestinians as well. Like maps showing West Bank as a part of Israel, not mentioning the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and showing jews only as innocent victims and things like this: ‘Foreign Policy’ runs piece describing Israel’s ‘carnival of hate’ toward Palestinians