"Here we have a person that is very much talented towards computers, a person who knows a lot and a person who could potentially bring big innovations and discoveries to mankind."
Yeah. And someone who wasted that talent on downloading movies and breaking into NASA computer systems.
Do you have any sense of proportion, at all?
Re:Trillian is nice, but gaim has cross platform s
on
Trillian 3.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
That and the fact that gaim is free. Trillian's free version hasn't been updated since when?
It wouldn't fly, no. Largely because you're mistaking "parody" for "anything done for a laugh," which doesn't fit the legal definition. A parody pokes fun at a work via mimicry. This guy isn't doing anything of the sort -- he's just posting some stranger's pictures.
I'm willing to bet that this does in fact constitute copyright infringement. It may even violate some states' anti-stalking laws, but that's a longshot.
Legality aside, this is reprehensible nonetheless. It's not funny, there's no punchline. And it's ethically suspect to boot -- what if the pictures are intimate? The guy posting the pictures might be well within his rights, but that doesn't make him any less of a prick.
If you don't like a type of food, do you go on a personal crusade to ensure no one ever eats it ever again? Probably not.
You do if you're the one who always has to perform the Heimlich maneuver on whoever chokes on that food. "All of us people get so bent out of shape" because many of us here play sysadmin for friends and family at times (or for ourselves, if younger siblings had used our computers), and fixing computers infected with older versions of RealPlayer was a real bitch. Sure, the new player is better, but they deserve a lot of hassle for all the trouble that the old versions caused.
Though I don't normally register with these sites, I'm not entirely opposed to it. If the sites are perfectly willing to accept fake info, I am perfectly willing to supply it.:)
You make an excellent point, one that makes me want to add you to my Friends list. It is important to remember that both the RIAA and the file-sharing contingent try to use the musicians whos work is being copied as a pawn. Neither side respects the working musician -- the RIAA just wants to be the entity with the power to control said musicians and reap their profits, and the the file-sharers just want to either profit from the wholesale copying of the musicians' work or to get some free content without paying.
Ultimately, neither side holds up. It is certainly possible to use file-sharing as a tool to experience new music that you later pay for, but the minute you choose to download and keep a song, without either paying for it in some way or deleting the work, you have abused the tool, and turned it into exactly what the RIAA claims it is.
This is a war that can and should be won in conscience, not law. A real fan pays for the music he likes, and has respect enough for the work of others to delete the material he isn't willing to pay for.
Does anyone (the EFF, for instance) keep a list documenting various Senators' and Representatives' positions on INDUCE and other recent copyright-related legislation? I'm interested to know where my congressmen stand on these issues, and I'll bet lots of other people are, too. As it stands, the only guys I know who are standing up to this sort of legislation are Boucher (R-Va) and Barton (R-Tx).
If you care about this issue, you need to get involved by writing to your representatives. I'm talking real letters, not e-mail. Send them a well-written, reasoned letter detailing your argument and I guarantee they'll take notice. Just be sure to use a spell-check.
I think that's kind of irrelevant. Clear Channel can censor, yes, but there's nothing wrong with censoring yourself. Sure, it's wrong that Clear Channel has the near-monopoly it does, and that exacerbates the issue, but I'd be hard-pressed to find self-censorship morally or ethically wrong.
When Time Warner dropped Ice-T over his "Cop Killer" single, for instance, they did so because their shareholders demanded it. It was a business decision, and was not prompted by government regulation. Time Warner was well within its rights -- no one owes Ice-T a distribution channel. Rather than a restriction of freedom, this is, in fact, an exercise of that freedom. Another example is Disney's refusal to distribute Farenheit 9/11, be it for political reasons or economic ones (I'm more apt to believe the latter, as Disney knows that its core audience is comprised of traditional family conservatives).
However, that doesn't mean the FCC is without blame here -- by imposing certain restrictions, they force businesses like Clear Channel to censor themselves or face stiff penalties upon failure to comply. This itself is a form of censorship, and it is the bad kind -- because it is government-mandated it is a restriction of freedom. So the previous poster had a point, at least.
Arguing for that "right to try" is like me asking for cars to be illegal so that I may protect my "right to try" to make a living as a cart and buggy salesmen.
That analogy still doesn't fit. People aren't still getting carts and buggies in that scenario. But people downloading music via p2p rather than buying it on CD or through iTunes are still listening to the same songs. Your analogy only works if there is a better product by comparison, and there isn't in this case. The comparison is between distribution mechanisms.
Remember, the music is the product/service, not the media it's on. As Allen pointed out, if it has no value, then why do people feel compelled to obtain/share it?
You are right to point out that p2p, and technology as a whole, will change what is economically viable. And that is what drives a free market, to be sure. But p2p and technology have done nothing to change the value of music as an experience for people. It might have changed the delivery system, it might have changed the medium through which it is obtained, but the music itself, the way it is produced and experienced, remains unchanged.
I don't want to criminalize p2p, but I don't want so many folks thinking recorded music is or should always be free for the taking. If anything, I would prefer that people pay for what they consume of their own volition, and I don't think it's so much to ask -- that people have enough respect for the work of others that they either pay the requested price for it or abstain from enjoying it. Is that really so much to ask?
Legislating said marketplace to suit your own purposes - especially through your Utah-based friends. No, that's restricting freedom.
What do you mean? That the porn industry isn't lobbying for this, too? They are, actually. In fact, Titan Media (one of the big internet porn purveyors) has been filing lawsuits much like the RIAA against individuals.
Lots of talk here about the unfairness of corporate entities like the RIAA lobbying for bad laws, but no one has really touched on the fact that they're using today's big taboo to sell it to Congress: children.
The scope of the law is nothing new, but the way it's being presented certainly is -- Hatch is arguing that p2p applications induce children to break the law, to become criminals. P2P is sullying the lives of our children. Won't somebody please think of the children?
This disgusts me. I have to agree with George Carlin that children are the new taboo in the United States. Heaven help you if you say anything against the children, and may God have mercy on your soul if you so much as depict a child in a dangerous situation in a movie (thank you, Mr. Spielberg, for ruining E.T.).
Now we have a legislator trying to use the emotional value of the children to sell a bad bill to the rest of Congress. These are similar to the tactics that were used to pass the USA PATRIOT act. Let's hope that Congress has learned its lesson and is paying more attention this time.
I just get riled when I hear someone say something that sounds like they have a right to make money from their art. I agree 100% that you have the right to try and make money from your art but no one owes you anything.
This sounds like more of a semantic argument than anything else... I mean, is the RIAA really contending that they deserve to be paid for music that sucks? I don't think so. They're contending that they deserve a fair chance to try, and I cannot dispute that.
I will agree with you, however, that this proposed legislation is the absolute wrong way to go about it.
He is not saying that musicians have the right to make money how they choose. He is saying that they have the right to try to make money how they choose. Your analogy falls apart because no one benefits from you masturbating and eating corn chips, not even weird fetishists who are into that sort of thing, if you do it behind closed doors.
All music has to be done for crowds or live now? Gee, I wonder where your sense of freedom went all of a sudden. You're advocating that musicians be forced to make music a certain way for certain people, and that's far worse than what the RIAA is trying to do.
Allen, you just made a fan. That was a very articulate explanation of an idea I've been arguing for quite some time now.
Ultimately, it just comes down to the fact that real fans pay for their music. It's one thing to download via p2p a piece of music if you're trying it out before you buy it, but it's quite another to keep said music without any sort of payment. If it's worth holding onto, it's worth paying for. If it's not worth paying for, delete it. But only an honest consumer can make that distinction.
Your e-book example is relevant, but I don't think it's the lack of a quality filter that's holding them back. The real trouble is promotion.
With the exception of a microscopic minority, the vast majority of people using p2p use it to search for material they already know. On rare occasions, they may try out something that has been recommended by a friend, but this is a similar concept. Ultimately, people don't really discover new music using p2p applications, and that's where the analogy falls down.
The music labels aren't afraid of losing power. They're afraid of losing money. As broadband connections get faster and advanced compression makes files smaller, it won't be long before you can quickly and easily get a lossless copy of a CD without paying for it. When this happens, they lose money, even moreso than they are now. They are trying to keep that from happening.
Personally, I despise their actions, as they treat their honest customers like criminals and degrade the quality of life for everyone with their lawsuits and their lobbying. The potential destruction this bill can do to the internet itself is outrageous. But I understand and sympathize with their motives.
It's one thing to download music via p2p as a way to test the quality of an album, or even to try something new. But if you keep that music and choose not to buy the CD or compensate the publisher in some other way, you are effectively stealing. Pay for what you want to keep, or delete what you've downloaded and move on.
Lots of talk here about how bad Best Buy is, and how people shouldn't or even don't shop there anymore. If you are serious about affecting change with your buying power as a consumer, you need to be prepared to pay more somewhere else.
I haven't shopped at Best Buy for two years, and I haven't looked back, but I have paid more for items that could've been bought more cheaply there. I chalk it up to the cost of better service.
I agree that the customer is not always right. Dishonest and unscrupulous "customers" will take advantage of even the most honest businessman. Best Buy, however, is the last business that deserves to judge its customers in this fashion. Their staff are underpaid and undertrained, and in some instances, pushy and insulting. No Best Buy employee has ever been able to answer my questions about the technical specification of any product. And their selection is more and more limited every day.
For instance, if I want to buy a CD, I'll get a better selection, better service, and knowledgeable staff at the local record store. I'll pay more, yes. But I will get more in return, in the long run.
If you are not willing to do the same, then there is no sense in complaining about Best Buy. Their policies, along with their prices, are a direct result of cost-cutting, and the first cost to be cut is service.
The Swiss are quite a bit wealthier than Americans.
How so? Our national budget is greater, our GDP numbers are higher -- in fact, per capita, only Luxembourg ranks higher than the U.S.
The US sticks out because US politicians meddle in just about every conflict around the world where a profit is to be made or influence to be gained.
Being a particularly influential world power is part of it, sure, but the United States still enjoys an almost mythic status as a bastion of democracy and free enterprise in the world's collective unconscious. I realize it sounds pompous to connect the U.S. with the ideals of freedom above that of other countries, but many people outside the U.S. still make that connection, deserved or not.
The Middle East (and in particular the nations where terrorism comes from) are enormously resource rich. It's exactly the disparity between their wealth of resources and the poverty of their populations that causes people to get angry.
I'm not sure what you're talking about -- do you mean oil? Yeah, they've got that, but I think you may have misunderstood me. A single resource doesn't make a region "resource-rich." The area's not exactly known for its forestry, or farming, or mining.
I'll admit I don't know a hell of a lot about the capabilities of that land, so I could easily be wrong about what other resources it has, and feel free to correct me -- but a single resource isn't enough, especially when you consider the fact that oil, though extremely profitable, is also extremely expensive to produce.
Those people want the same freedoms you want--they just happen to believe that the US is preventing them from getting them.
Absolutely -- that's my point entirely. I just happen to think that the extremists who join terrorist networks are more concerned with their economic state and use their religion as a justification to target those who have what they want. They can blame us for being devils and oppressors, and I'm sure they believe it 100%, but that doesn't change the fact that underneath it all, they see us as the rich people whose destruction would free up wealth for themselves. That we are heathens and oppressors is the rationalization they use to justify their actions.
I fail to see how the Palestinian offenses is anything other then in par with the Israeli offenses when it comes this specific issue
The Israelis are not entirely blameless, to be sure, but the vast majority of their actions do not consist of subterfuge, random violence, or the targetting of civilians. The same can't be said for most of the violence coming from the other side. I don't blame the Palestinian people as a whole for the actions of the few, but those committing acts of violence in their name are undoubtedly in the wrong.
The point I think he was trying to make is that terror is a weapon for the weak.
I think you're sugar-coating it -- He's literally saying that those who police their domain with force are as bad as those justify civilian murder civilians as retaliation against oppression. Whether he means it or not, he is effectively advocating murder.
I think terror is a weapon for the strong, only that its labeled "interventions", "search for WMD/criminals", "liberation", "terrorism perventions" (as in the case of Israel) etc instead of international terrorism.
You and I will have to disagree, then. While it is true that some of the evidence used to justify the U.S. invasion of Iraq has fallen through, you cannot liken our actions to terrorism. Our methods are vastly different -- in fact, the initial invasion of Iraq had an incredibly low civilian casualty rate, and the majority of civilian endangerment since comes from the reckless behavior of terrorists and Iraqi militants. U.S. military action is nowhere near the level of depravity of terrorism.
Ohh, and of course to point out that you boarderlining the law of Godwin in your first
reply.
Hey now, I didn't say word one about Nazis or even fascism...:P I do see your point, but if someone makes anti-Semitic remarks, I reserve the right to call him on it.
I will grant you that the anti-Semitic argument is overused, but when one compares the entire nation of Israel to a pimple, he also implies that said blemish should be wiped out.
Whether he meant it that way or not, his argument is still a logical fallacy, not to mention a defense of civilian murder.
Slashdot Mirror
"Isn't this already true for the American 'real press'?"
Isn't it already true for Slashdot?
"Here we have a person that is very much talented towards computers, a person who knows a lot and a person who could potentially bring big innovations and discoveries to mankind."
Yeah. And someone who wasted that talent on downloading movies and breaking into NASA computer systems.
Do you have any sense of proportion, at all?
That and the fact that gaim is free. Trillian's free version hasn't been updated since when?
You find it "refreshing" to see Microsoft try to capitalize on a problem they themselves caused? You don't pay very much attention, do you?
So, "geek" now includes any drunken fratboy with nothing to do on a Friday night?
Makes no difference to me, as I never refer to myself as a geek anyway, but this is how generic and overused the term has become.
AWESOME.
So, can I have my rights back, now?
It wouldn't fly, no. Largely because you're mistaking "parody" for "anything done for a laugh," which doesn't fit the legal definition. A parody pokes fun at a work via mimicry. This guy isn't doing anything of the sort -- he's just posting some stranger's pictures.
I'm willing to bet that this does in fact constitute copyright infringement. It may even violate some states' anti-stalking laws, but that's a longshot.
Legality aside, this is reprehensible nonetheless. It's not funny, there's no punchline. And it's ethically suspect to boot -- what if the pictures are intimate? The guy posting the pictures might be well within his rights, but that doesn't make him any less of a prick.
Man, I sure wish I could mod your post higher than 5. You totally belong on my friends list.
If you don't like a type of food, do you go on a personal crusade to ensure no one ever eats it ever again? Probably not.
You do if you're the one who always has to perform the Heimlich maneuver on whoever chokes on that food. "All of us people get so bent out of shape" because many of us here play sysadmin for friends and family at times (or for ourselves, if younger siblings had used our computers), and fixing computers infected with older versions of RealPlayer was a real bitch. Sure, the new player is better, but they deserve a lot of hassle for all the trouble that the old versions caused.
Though I don't normally register with these sites, I'm not entirely opposed to it. If the sites are perfectly willing to accept fake info, I am perfectly willing to supply it. :)
You make an excellent point, one that makes me want to add you to my Friends list. It is important to remember that both the RIAA and the file-sharing contingent try to use the musicians whos work is being copied as a pawn. Neither side respects the working musician -- the RIAA just wants to be the entity with the power to control said musicians and reap their profits, and the the file-sharers just want to either profit from the wholesale copying of the musicians' work or to get some free content without paying.
Ultimately, neither side holds up. It is certainly possible to use file-sharing as a tool to experience new music that you later pay for, but the minute you choose to download and keep a song, without either paying for it in some way or deleting the work, you have abused the tool, and turned it into exactly what the RIAA claims it is.
This is a war that can and should be won in conscience, not law. A real fan pays for the music he likes, and has respect enough for the work of others to delete the material he isn't willing to pay for.
Does anyone (the EFF, for instance) keep a list documenting various Senators' and Representatives' positions on INDUCE and other recent copyright-related legislation? I'm interested to know where my congressmen stand on these issues, and I'll bet lots of other people are, too. As it stands, the only guys I know who are standing up to this sort of legislation are Boucher (R-Va) and Barton (R-Tx).
If you care about this issue, you need to get involved by writing to your representatives. I'm talking real letters, not e-mail. Send them a well-written, reasoned letter detailing your argument and I guarantee they'll take notice. Just be sure to use a spell-check.
I think that's kind of irrelevant. Clear Channel can censor, yes, but there's nothing wrong with censoring yourself. Sure, it's wrong that Clear Channel has the near-monopoly it does, and that exacerbates the issue, but I'd be hard-pressed to find self-censorship morally or ethically wrong.
When Time Warner dropped Ice-T over his "Cop Killer" single, for instance, they did so because their shareholders demanded it. It was a business decision, and was not prompted by government regulation. Time Warner was well within its rights -- no one owes Ice-T a distribution channel. Rather than a restriction of freedom, this is, in fact, an exercise of that freedom. Another example is Disney's refusal to distribute Farenheit 9/11, be it for political reasons or economic ones (I'm more apt to believe the latter, as Disney knows that its core audience is comprised of traditional family conservatives).
However, that doesn't mean the FCC is without blame here -- by imposing certain restrictions, they force businesses like Clear Channel to censor themselves or face stiff penalties upon failure to comply. This itself is a form of censorship, and it is the bad kind -- because it is government-mandated it is a restriction of freedom. So the previous poster had a point, at least.
Arguing for that "right to try" is like me asking for cars to be illegal so that I may protect my "right to try" to make a living as a cart and buggy salesmen.
That analogy still doesn't fit. People aren't still getting carts and buggies in that scenario. But people downloading music via p2p rather than buying it on CD or through iTunes are still listening to the same songs. Your analogy only works if there is a better product by comparison, and there isn't in this case. The comparison is between distribution mechanisms.
Remember, the music is the product/service, not the media it's on. As Allen pointed out, if it has no value, then why do people feel compelled to obtain/share it?
You are right to point out that p2p, and technology as a whole, will change what is economically viable. And that is what drives a free market, to be sure. But p2p and technology have done nothing to change the value of music as an experience for people. It might have changed the delivery system, it might have changed the medium through which it is obtained, but the music itself, the way it is produced and experienced, remains unchanged.
I don't want to criminalize p2p, but I don't want so many folks thinking recorded music is or should always be free for the taking. If anything, I would prefer that people pay for what they consume of their own volition, and I don't think it's so much to ask -- that people have enough respect for the work of others that they either pay the requested price for it or abstain from enjoying it. Is that really so much to ask?
Legislating said marketplace to suit your own purposes - especially through your Utah-based friends. No, that's restricting freedom.
Agreed. No one is arguing with this.
What do you mean? That the porn industry isn't lobbying for this, too? They are, actually. In fact, Titan Media (one of the big internet porn purveyors) has been filing lawsuits much like the RIAA against individuals.
Lots of talk here about the unfairness of corporate entities like the RIAA lobbying for bad laws, but no one has really touched on the fact that they're using today's big taboo to sell it to Congress: children.
The scope of the law is nothing new, but the way it's being presented certainly is -- Hatch is arguing that p2p applications induce children to break the law, to become criminals. P2P is sullying the lives of our children. Won't somebody please think of the children?
This disgusts me. I have to agree with George Carlin that children are the new taboo in the United States. Heaven help you if you say anything against the children, and may God have mercy on your soul if you so much as depict a child in a dangerous situation in a movie (thank you, Mr. Spielberg, for ruining E.T.).
Now we have a legislator trying to use the emotional value of the children to sell a bad bill to the rest of Congress. These are similar to the tactics that were used to pass the USA PATRIOT act. Let's hope that Congress has learned its lesson and is paying more attention this time.
I just get riled when I hear someone say something that sounds like they have a right to make money from their art. I agree 100% that you have the right to try and make money from your art but no one owes you anything.
This sounds like more of a semantic argument than anything else... I mean, is the RIAA really contending that they deserve to be paid for music that sucks? I don't think so. They're contending that they deserve a fair chance to try, and I cannot dispute that.
I will agree with you, however, that this proposed legislation is the absolute wrong way to go about it.
To reiterate the original poster's assertion:
He is not saying that musicians have the right to make money how they choose. He is saying that they have the right to try to make money how they choose. Your analogy falls apart because no one benefits from you masturbating and eating corn chips, not even weird fetishists who are into that sort of thing, if you do it behind closed doors.
All music has to be done for crowds or live now? Gee, I wonder where your sense of freedom went all of a sudden. You're advocating that musicians be forced to make music a certain way for certain people, and that's far worse than what the RIAA is trying to do.
Allen, you just made a fan. That was a very articulate explanation of an idea I've been arguing for quite some time now.
Ultimately, it just comes down to the fact that real fans pay for their music. It's one thing to download via p2p a piece of music if you're trying it out before you buy it, but it's quite another to keep said music without any sort of payment. If it's worth holding onto, it's worth paying for. If it's not worth paying for, delete it. But only an honest consumer can make that distinction.
Your e-book example is relevant, but I don't think it's the lack of a quality filter that's holding them back. The real trouble is promotion.
With the exception of a microscopic minority, the vast majority of people using p2p use it to search for material they already know. On rare occasions, they may try out something that has been recommended by a friend, but this is a similar concept. Ultimately, people don't really discover new music using p2p applications, and that's where the analogy falls down.
The music labels aren't afraid of losing power. They're afraid of losing money. As broadband connections get faster and advanced compression makes files smaller, it won't be long before you can quickly and easily get a lossless copy of a CD without paying for it. When this happens, they lose money, even moreso than they are now. They are trying to keep that from happening.
Personally, I despise their actions, as they treat their honest customers like criminals and degrade the quality of life for everyone with their lawsuits and their lobbying. The potential destruction this bill can do to the internet itself is outrageous. But I understand and sympathize with their motives.
It's one thing to download music via p2p as a way to test the quality of an album, or even to try something new. But if you keep that music and choose not to buy the CD or compensate the publisher in some other way, you are effectively stealing. Pay for what you want to keep, or delete what you've downloaded and move on.
Lots of talk here about how bad Best Buy is, and how people shouldn't or even don't shop there anymore. If you are serious about affecting change with your buying power as a consumer, you need to be prepared to pay more somewhere else.
I haven't shopped at Best Buy for two years, and I haven't looked back, but I have paid more for items that could've been bought more cheaply there. I chalk it up to the cost of better service.
I agree that the customer is not always right. Dishonest and unscrupulous "customers" will take advantage of even the most honest businessman. Best Buy, however, is the last business that deserves to judge its customers in this fashion. Their staff are underpaid and undertrained, and in some instances, pushy and insulting. No Best Buy employee has ever been able to answer my questions about the technical specification of any product. And their selection is more and more limited every day.
For instance, if I want to buy a CD, I'll get a better selection, better service, and knowledgeable staff at the local record store. I'll pay more, yes. But I will get more in return, in the long run.
If you are not willing to do the same, then there is no sense in complaining about Best Buy. Their policies, along with their prices, are a direct result of cost-cutting, and the first cost to be cut is service.
Maxtor bought Quantum, not Seagate.
The Swiss are quite a bit wealthier than Americans.
How so? Our national budget is greater, our GDP numbers are higher -- in fact, per capita, only Luxembourg ranks higher than the U.S.
The US sticks out because US politicians meddle in just about every conflict around the world where a profit is to be made or influence to be gained.
Being a particularly influential world power is part of it, sure, but the United States still enjoys an almost mythic status as a bastion of democracy and free enterprise in the world's collective unconscious. I realize it sounds pompous to connect the U.S. with the ideals of freedom above that of other countries, but many people outside the U.S. still make that connection, deserved or not.
The Middle East (and in particular the nations where terrorism comes from) are enormously resource rich. It's exactly the disparity between their wealth of resources and the poverty of their populations that causes people to get angry.
I'm not sure what you're talking about -- do you mean oil? Yeah, they've got that, but I think you may have misunderstood me. A single resource doesn't make a region "resource-rich." The area's not exactly known for its forestry, or farming, or mining.
I'll admit I don't know a hell of a lot about the capabilities of that land, so I could easily be wrong about what other resources it has, and feel free to correct me -- but a single resource isn't enough, especially when you consider the fact that oil, though extremely profitable, is also extremely expensive to produce.
Those people want the same freedoms you want--they just happen to believe that the US is preventing them from getting them.
Absolutely -- that's my point entirely. I just happen to think that the extremists who join terrorist networks are more concerned with their economic state and use their religion as a justification to target those who have what they want. They can blame us for being devils and oppressors, and I'm sure they believe it 100%, but that doesn't change the fact that underneath it all, they see us as the rich people whose destruction would free up wealth for themselves. That we are heathens and oppressors is the rationalization they use to justify their actions.
I fail to see how the Palestinian offenses is anything other then in par with the Israeli offenses when it comes this specific issue
The Israelis are not entirely blameless, to be sure, but the vast majority of their actions do not consist of subterfuge, random violence, or the targetting of civilians. The same can't be said for most of the violence coming from the other side. I don't blame the Palestinian people as a whole for the actions of the few, but those committing acts of violence in their name are undoubtedly in the wrong.
The point I think he was trying to make is that terror is a weapon for the weak.
I think you're sugar-coating it -- He's literally saying that those who police their domain with force are as bad as those justify civilian murder civilians as retaliation against oppression. Whether he means it or not, he is effectively advocating murder.
I think terror is a weapon for the strong, only that its labeled "interventions", "search for WMD/criminals", "liberation", "terrorism perventions" (as in the case of Israel) etc instead of international terrorism.
You and I will have to disagree, then. While it is true that some of the evidence used to justify the U.S. invasion of Iraq has fallen through, you cannot liken our actions to terrorism. Our methods are vastly different -- in fact, the initial invasion of Iraq had an incredibly low civilian casualty rate, and the majority of civilian endangerment since comes from the reckless behavior of terrorists and Iraqi militants. U.S. military action is nowhere near the level of depravity of terrorism.
Ohh, and of course to point out that you boarderlining the law of Godwin in your first reply.
Hey now, I didn't say word one about Nazis or even fascism... :P I do see your point, but if someone makes anti-Semitic remarks, I reserve the right to call him on it.
I will grant you that the anti-Semitic argument is overused, but when one compares the entire nation of Israel to a pimple, he also implies that said blemish should be wiped out.
Whether he meant it that way or not, his argument is still a logical fallacy, not to mention a defense of civilian murder.