Very insightful, I hadn't thought of it that way. Combine that with the fact that actually stopping terrorism would cost the US millions of jobs and billions of dollars into our war based economy, this planet is in for a long period of bullshit:(
In actuality we are a Republic, and the difference is significant here.
Either way, I don't think the cowards are checking voter registration of their victims before dispatching them, so they are getting those against the war as well.
Bah, that's a cop-out. Israeli still occupies a lot of land, and we've been meddling in the Middle East for decades.
Yeah, land the UN gave them. I don't see any hatred toward the UN. To hear people tell it now, you would almost think the US singlehandedly created Israel and carved up the middle east (nope, that was England).
We meddle because we need their oil. We also ship metric buttloads of money over their for the oil, so it isn't like we are just screwing with them for fun. They have no problem selling their black gold to us, or accepting our meddling when we were siding with them against the USSR.
And, regarding Iraq, there was far less sectarian violence before we invaded, so yes, we certainly are partly responsible. We have indeed likely precipitated a civil war in Iraq.
Yeah, a dictator (for all of their other failings) does tend to keep pretty good order in a country. An iron fist will do that.
Simply put, Iraq should not be a country, it should have been properly divided along tribal lines but the British screwed that one up. We lost our chance to divide it (but it looks like their new government might do it anyway) and do we have groups who irrationally hate each other trying to coexist. But let's be realistic, our invasion is not directly responsible for the sectarian violence ("the US invaded, now we must kill each other for worshiping incorrectly"), we just created an environment where they had enough freedom to start killing each other.
The "Muslim" terrorists broadly want to establish Muslim governments (or governments that are more fundamentalist) in the countries where they live or operate. They target Westerners purely as a means to that end; to deter Western governments from propping up non-Muslim governments.
Yeah, that plan ain't working so well is it?
If the US withdrew from the Middle East you would probably see the domestic threat of attacks decrease or stop entirely.
Would it be ok to let them just destroy Israel then? I imagine if they didn't have the US to focus on, they would either turn towards England (the ones who carved up the area to begin with) or against each other. I guess we will find out if we ever kick out oil dependency. Without oil there is nothing really in the middle east the US needs to worry about except all out India consultants.
And the Islamic terrorists are giving their lives fighting against an enemy who wants to corrupt them, which is far worse than killing them, because it threatens to damage them forever, rather than just for the few years they're alive. So in exchange for a brief, if extreme, moment of sacrifice, they get eternal rewards. Not a bad trade at all, by their lights. Especially if your current life really isn't worth living anyway.
It seems odd to me (a westerner) that going out in this blaze of glory works just as well if you target innocent women and children than if you target your oppressors and their military might. Seems the religion teaches you get your reward as long as you kill someone, ANYONE who believes different than you.
The real issue is the beliefs and motivations of those who plan, organize and fund the attacks, and those are much more political than they are religious.
Yes, but I don't see us going after the Saudis anytime soon. At least not until we have alternate energy and at that point the middle east goes back to being the armpit of the world that nobody cares about. They won't have the money to plan, organize, and fight any kind of war.
Like the U.S. religious fundamentalists who support the same thing, hoping to fulfill the Second Coming prophesies, and Armageddon?
True.
But the US fundamentalists are not hijacking airplanes and trying to kill innocent people. Similarities can be drawn between the two groups but seriously. Aside from Pat Robertson saying some pretty stupid things regarding Chavez, when was the last time a serious religious leader called for the eradication of all Muslims? And if one did, I bet many Christian leaders would decry it. The Muslim leadership has been oddly silent.
You don't think that's how the terrorists see themselves? Look at israel in lebanon - despite clearly killing more innocents than hezbollah, they seem quite content to think of themselves as just and righteous. That's the nature of any conflict, each side always paints themselves in the best possible terms, no matter what the reality of the situation is.
I agree, and don't think I approve of what Israel is doing. However Hezbollah is not helping by effectivly using human shields and planting their rocket launch sites in heavily populated areas. Should Israel just take it then?
Oh come on, "In Islam?" Have you really bought into the propaganda so much as to believe that raping women would be considered heroic by any group of muslims?
Touche, I misspoke. However I do believe killing western woman is considered just as heoric as killing western men (they are all infadels). I refer to them as innocent civilians but it seems there is no such thing as an innocent westerner in this thinking.
They aren't killing each other for differences of religious opinion. Its simply tribalism. The "tribes" in this case are usually aligned along sunni/shia lines, but even then that's not the only defining characteristic. It certainly isn't any sort of proof that religious motivation behind terrorism.
It does however present evidence of irrational thinking. And for a non religious fight, there certainly seem to be a lot of Mosques being attacked. I will say that it was really stupid to ignore tribal bounderies when carving up the arbitrary countries in the middle east (thank you England).
Really? A couple of boxcutters has caused trillions of dollars in damage to the US. That's the whole point of asymmetric warfare -- They hit our weak points exactly the right way and inflict orders of magnitude more damage than we do when we go after their strong points. Their goal isn't necessarily "eradication of America" but it is to get the west to stop meddling in their backyards.
I understand that, but it seems to be that the religion of Islam has a lot to do with this as well. India has done pretty well for themselves despite roughly the same history. None of this explains the vicious sectarian violence either.
And you would think there would be more hatred toward England who were the ones who colonized and carved them up, not the US.
So how should a country approach a people who are at then end of their rope and want to take everyone with them, regardless of merit? I don't think destroying them is the answer, but I don't know what the answer should be. Part of that answer has to include provisions for protecting ourselves while trying to help them, too.
Intentional targeting of civilians has been a part of warfare doctrine for centuries.
Yet the geneva convention that everyone but the US is allowed to violate seems to forbid it.
The powerful insight is that civilians are the supporters of war, directly by providing service, or indirectly by tax contribution.
I wonder if anyone has noticed that support for the war goes up with every terrorist incident (or even threat of one). Left wingers have long suspected that the timing of announcements is timed to generate support for Bush and co when it is most needed. Have the terrorists not figured this out? If they want to war to become unpopular, all they need to do is cease the terrorism for a little bit and everyone will begin to wonder why the hell we are fighting?
Why do you think Israel is targeting Lebanese civilians ?
Might have something to do with the rocket launch sites being held in heavily civilian populated areas. It might also just be because Israel has had their civilians targeted more frequently than anyone else and they are just fucking sick of being the only ones who care. I don't agree with it at all, and I think Israel is acting VERY irresponsibly, but I doubt their motivation has anything to do with wanting virgins in the afterlife or killing infidels for purely religious reasons.
Riiiight... and let Israel annex their land, bit by bit, while the US, UK, etc., steal their natural resources, after invading countries under false pretense...
Umm, not quite paying attention to world politics are we? Did you know Israel just gave back significantly land?
Also, you timeline might be a little messed up. I'm not in favor of invading Iraq but that happened AFTER (as opposed to before) much of the terrorism.
We are only adding fuel to the fire. A fire which we largely started too. And we continue to label those fighting back as radicals, instead of trying to understand.
Actually the UN started it be officially carving up Palestine and creating Israel. Granted our assistance has not been helping the situation, but we didn't exactly "start the fire".
Is the sectarian violence in Iraq our fault as well? Would the various factions of Islam be living together in perfect harmony otherwise? Sorry, but many Christians were the radicals during the Crusades, and many Muslims are now. Killing each other over slight interpretations of how to worship the same imaginary friend (god) is not rational behavior.
And dying for a cause has always been upheld as being extremely honourable here in America, and other Western nations. Why the double-standard when it comes to people who we deem our enemies?
I'm not calling them cowardly for killing themselves (I will however call them stupid for that, just as I would anyone who killed themselves just to kill other people, American or not), I am calling them cowardly for targeting easy civilian targets rather than the military and government they claim to be against.
No, that would just be suicide. And, Islamic extremists do just that, ie., put on a uniform and fight as soldiers, when the situation calls for it. As it is now, that is not an option for them.
So the situation clearly calls for the killing of innocent civilians then? I don't follow...
That isn't to excuse the targeting of civilians by either side, but to say that pretending only one side is targeting civilians is beyond ignorant.
Yes it would be, fortunately that is not remotely what I was doing.
Let me spell it out, the terrorists are specifically targeting innocent civilians as a strategy of war. The WTC is not a military barracks or rocket launch site that happens to have businesses in it. The airplanes were not military transports which happened to have civilians on them, nor are the any of the sites the sectarian groups are targeting in Iraq of military significance. Now you may (some do) believe that the US and Israel are specifically targeting civilians and civilian buildings for no reason other than to kill civilians, but it seems pretty clear that when that happens it is either (a) an accident or (b) in most cases, the terrorists using human shields to protect rocket launch sites and such. The two hated militaries have nothing to gain by taking out civilians, but they do have interest in hitting rocket launch sites and military relates supply lines and such. Should they cease as soon as the terrorists move their sites to civilian areas or move civilians in? Imagine if WWII were fought that way.
Look, civilian death is the worst thing that happens in war, and should be avoided. However it does happen and it would be intellectually dishonest to pretend that there is no difference between specifically targeting civilians and hitting civilians while targeting military targets.
Interesting, where did you "imagine" that I was championing our response to Indian raids? I was simply comparing and contrasting out aversion to danger and need for safety between the two times. It was not an analogy intended to be applied to every aspect of the two issues.
And yet they have in no way improved their own lot. You would think there would be some "try to improve the situation for ourselves" angle but they seem perfectly happy to kill themselves, draw their enemies into conflicts where their homes are destroyed, and alienate those who would have otherwise supported their cause. Just exerting the effort to try and target only military targets would gain them widespread support in the world, and even quite a bit in the US. If it is a war of attrition, they are in a very bad position to last that out. Even if their goal was to turn public world opinion against the US and have us pull out on peer (and local US) pressure alone, continuing the terrorist attacks on innocent people (like this last attempt) is short circuiting that.
It is easy to call someone insane if you get to make up the proof yourself. But even then, your proof of "insanity" sure is close to western ideals. Consider all the honor reserved for "fallen heroes" who "gave their lives defending their country." It's the same damn thing, just with an ameliorative spin instead of pejorative.
I admit the concept is similar, but western heroes are generally considered to be those who gave their lives fighting against an enemy who wanted to kill them (us). No matter how you stretch it, women and children on a plane are no threat whatsoever to the Islamic nations or their people. So perhaps insane is not the right label, but certainly their is a demonstration here of utter disregard for any life (including their own) to achieve their means. We are certainly not celebrating the disgraced soldiers who murdered and raped Iraq women, while it seems in Islam they would be revered as heroes for the cause.
Furthermore, there is an effort to downplay any religious "jihad" reasoning that may be behind these attacks and portray them as intelligent and subtle masterminds of global policy. That argument flies in the face of the sectarian violence occurring in Iraq right now, where they are killing each other randomly not for worshiping the wrong god, but for belonging to the wrong subtle subgroup within Islam. It is not hard for Joe Six-pack to just assume "them islams" are just attacking us for religious reasons as well.
Sure. Seems to me their methods work exceptionally well. The response to 9/11 has been to cause self-inflicted economic wounds in the trillions of dollars. The US military doesn't call terrorism "asymmetric warfare" for nothing, its a war and so far we are losing big time. Calling the enemy insane just plays into their hands.
I would make the argument that it is hurting the regular people of the middle east more, the ones the terrorists are supposedly fighting for. Since you have obviously thought about this, what do you feel the end goal of the terrorists are? Realistically, not "eradication of America" because that is simply not going to happen with a couple of AK47s and IEDs. I have a few theories, but they lend themselves to the "insane" theory which probably does stem from my western bias. I can imagine them wanting to draw the US into full scale nuclear war where they all die in a glorious stand against the west. Or wear us down to where we say "fuck it" and leave Israel and Iraq to their own devices, but the best way to do that would be to stop the terror attacks against civilians completely and let people ask why they hell we are still fighting when they have stopped. Actions like this most recent one just play right into Bush's hands (and approval rating) by reminding people we are fighting an enemy that wants you dead for no reason other than to make a statement.
By law, if google were to ever face bankruptcy, they would be forced to sell off all assets. This holds true for every company, so privacy policies effectively mean nothing. No matter what any company says about keeping your personal data secret, that data is considered intellectual property of the company and WILL be sold to the highest bidder come chapter 11. They legally have no choice in the matter.
How about an attack every five days if we lets those cocks have free reign?
That sentence does not look right, let's fix it.
How about an attack every five days if we lets our citizens have civil liberties?
If we as a country valued safety above all else in the 1700s, we would never have broken away from England. We would have BEGGED the British to quarter troops in our homes and tax the daylights out of us just as long as the promised to keep us safe from Indian raids.
So, it is like we always have known: The terror alert mood ring is completely pointless and serves no purpose other than to make people think the government is competent and doing something about terrorism.
If desiring to kill oneself and take out innocent people to make a political point about US presence in the middle east is not insane, I don't know what is. The part about the promised virgins in the afterlife does not help either.
They have sane goals, but their methods are not. Their methods are cowardly and counterproductive.
I mis-interpreted you. I thought you were indicating that he should be keeping his clearence a secret and that revealing it was some kind of lapse in security.
Slashdot Mirror
I completely agree with everything you said, and I do not believe it discredits my point in any way.
Finkployd
Very insightful, I hadn't thought of it that way. Combine that with the fact that actually stopping terrorism would cost the US millions of jobs and billions of dollars into our war based economy, this planet is in for a long period of bullshit :(
Finkployd
In actuality we are a Republic, and the difference is significant here.
Either way, I don't think the cowards are checking voter registration of their victims before dispatching them, so they are getting those against the war as well.
Finkployd
Bah, that's a cop-out. Israeli still occupies a lot of land, and we've been meddling in the Middle East for decades.
Yeah, land the UN gave them. I don't see any hatred toward the UN. To hear people tell it now, you would almost think the US singlehandedly created Israel and carved up the middle east (nope, that was England).
We meddle because we need their oil. We also ship metric buttloads of money over their for the oil, so it isn't like we are just screwing with them for fun. They have no problem selling their black gold to us, or accepting our meddling when we were siding with them against the USSR.
And, regarding Iraq, there was far less sectarian violence before we invaded, so yes, we certainly are partly responsible. We have indeed likely precipitated a civil war in Iraq.
Yeah, a dictator (for all of their other failings) does tend to keep pretty good order in a country. An iron fist will do that.
Simply put, Iraq should not be a country, it should have been properly divided along tribal lines but the British screwed that one up. We lost our chance to divide it (but it looks like their new government might do it anyway) and do we have groups who irrationally hate each other trying to coexist. But let's be realistic, our invasion is not directly responsible for the sectarian violence ("the US invaded, now we must kill each other for worshiping incorrectly"), we just created an environment where they had enough freedom to start killing each other.
Finkployd
The "Muslim" terrorists broadly want to establish Muslim governments (or governments that are more fundamentalist) in the countries where they live or operate. They target Westerners purely as a means to that end; to deter Western governments from propping up non-Muslim governments.
Yeah, that plan ain't working so well is it?
If the US withdrew from the Middle East you would probably see the domestic threat of attacks decrease or stop entirely.
Would it be ok to let them just destroy Israel then? I imagine if they didn't have the US to focus on, they would either turn towards England (the ones who carved up the area to begin with) or against each other. I guess we will find out if we ever kick out oil dependency. Without oil there is nothing really in the middle east the US needs to worry about except all out India consultants.
Finkployd
And the Islamic terrorists are giving their lives fighting against an enemy who wants to corrupt them, which is far worse than killing them, because it threatens to damage them forever, rather than just for the few years they're alive. So in exchange for a brief, if extreme, moment of sacrifice, they get eternal rewards. Not a bad trade at all, by their lights. Especially if your current life really isn't worth living anyway.
It seems odd to me (a westerner) that going out in this blaze of glory works just as well if you target innocent women and children than if you target your oppressors and their military might. Seems the religion teaches you get your reward as long as you kill someone, ANYONE who believes different than you.
The real issue is the beliefs and motivations of those who plan, organize and fund the attacks, and those are much more political than they are religious.
Yes, but I don't see us going after the Saudis anytime soon. At least not until we have alternate energy and at that point the middle east goes back to being the armpit of the world that nobody cares about. They won't have the money to plan, organize, and fight any kind of war.
Finkployd
Like the U.S. religious fundamentalists who support the same thing, hoping to fulfill the Second Coming prophesies, and Armageddon?
True.
But the US fundamentalists are not hijacking airplanes and trying to kill innocent people. Similarities can be drawn between the two groups but seriously. Aside from Pat Robertson saying some pretty stupid things regarding Chavez, when was the last time a serious religious leader called for the eradication of all Muslims? And if one did, I bet many Christian leaders would decry it. The Muslim leadership has been oddly silent.
Finkployd
You don't think that's how the terrorists see themselves? Look at israel in lebanon - despite clearly killing more innocents than hezbollah, they seem quite content to think of themselves as just and righteous. That's the nature of any conflict, each side always paints themselves in the best possible terms, no matter what the reality of the situation is.
I agree, and don't think I approve of what Israel is doing. However Hezbollah is not helping by effectivly using human shields and planting their rocket launch sites in heavily populated areas. Should Israel just take it then?
Oh come on, "In Islam?" Have you really bought into the propaganda so much as to believe that raping women would be considered heroic by any group of muslims?
Touche, I misspoke. However I do believe killing western woman is considered just as heoric as killing western men (they are all infadels). I refer to them as innocent civilians but it seems there is no such thing as an innocent westerner in this thinking.
They aren't killing each other for differences of religious opinion. Its simply tribalism. The "tribes" in this case are usually aligned along sunni/shia lines, but even then that's not the only defining characteristic. It certainly isn't any sort of proof that religious motivation behind terrorism.
It does however present evidence of irrational thinking. And for a non religious fight, there certainly seem to be a lot of Mosques being attacked. I will say that it was really stupid to ignore tribal bounderies when carving up the arbitrary countries in the middle east (thank you England).
Really? A couple of boxcutters has caused trillions of dollars in damage to the US. That's the whole point of asymmetric warfare -- They hit our weak points exactly the right way and inflict orders of magnitude more damage than we do when we go after their strong points. Their goal isn't necessarily "eradication of America" but it is to get the west to stop meddling in their backyards.
* Finkployd looks around
Wow that plan sure fucked up.
Finkployd
I understand that, but it seems to be that the religion of Islam has a lot to do with this as well. India has done pretty well for themselves despite roughly the same history. None of this explains the vicious sectarian violence either.
And you would think there would be more hatred toward England who were the ones who colonized and carved them up, not the US.
So how should a country approach a people who are at then end of their rope and want to take everyone with them, regardless of merit? I don't think destroying them is the answer, but I don't know what the answer should be. Part of that answer has to include provisions for protecting ourselves while trying to help them, too.
Finkployd
Intentional targeting of civilians has been a part of warfare doctrine for centuries.
Yet the geneva convention that everyone but the US is allowed to violate seems to forbid it.
The powerful insight is that civilians are the supporters of war, directly by providing service, or indirectly by tax contribution.
I wonder if anyone has noticed that support for the war goes up with every terrorist incident (or even threat of one). Left wingers have long suspected that the timing of announcements is timed to generate support for Bush and co when it is most needed. Have the terrorists not figured this out? If they want to war to become unpopular, all they need to do is cease the terrorism for a little bit and everyone will begin to wonder why the hell we are fighting?
Why do you think Israel is targeting Lebanese civilians ?
Might have something to do with the rocket launch sites being held in heavily civilian populated areas. It might also just be because Israel has had their civilians targeted more frequently than anyone else and they are just fucking sick of being the only ones who care. I don't agree with it at all, and I think Israel is acting VERY irresponsibly, but I doubt their motivation has anything to do with wanting virgins in the afterlife or killing infidels for purely religious reasons.
Finkployd
And yet how many people on /. seem completely unable to grasp that concept. :(
Finkployd
Riiiight... and let Israel annex their land, bit by bit, while the US, UK, etc., steal their natural resources, after invading countries under false pretense...
Umm, not quite paying attention to world politics are we? Did you know Israel just gave back significantly land?
Also, you timeline might be a little messed up. I'm not in favor of invading Iraq but that happened AFTER (as opposed to before) much of the terrorism.
We are only adding fuel to the fire. A fire which we largely started too. And we continue to label those fighting back as radicals, instead of trying to understand.
Actually the UN started it be officially carving up Palestine and creating Israel. Granted our assistance has not been helping the situation, but we didn't exactly "start the fire".
Is the sectarian violence in Iraq our fault as well? Would the various factions of Islam be living together in perfect harmony otherwise? Sorry, but many Christians were the radicals during the Crusades, and many Muslims are now. Killing each other over slight interpretations of how to worship the same imaginary friend (god) is not rational behavior.
Finkployd
And dying for a cause has always been upheld as being extremely honourable here in America, and other Western nations. Why the double-standard when it comes to people who we deem our enemies?
I'm not calling them cowardly for killing themselves (I will however call them stupid for that, just as I would anyone who killed themselves just to kill other people, American or not), I am calling them cowardly for targeting easy civilian targets rather than the military and government they claim to be against.
No, that would just be suicide. And, Islamic extremists do just that, ie., put on a uniform and fight as soldiers, when the situation calls for it. As it is now, that is not an option for them.
So the situation clearly calls for the killing of innocent civilians then? I don't follow...
Finkployd
That isn't to excuse the targeting of civilians by either side, but to say that pretending only one side is targeting civilians is beyond ignorant.
Yes it would be, fortunately that is not remotely what I was doing.
Let me spell it out, the terrorists are specifically targeting innocent civilians as a strategy of war. The WTC is not a military barracks or rocket launch site that happens to have businesses in it. The airplanes were not military transports which happened to have civilians on them, nor are the any of the sites the sectarian groups are targeting in Iraq of military significance. Now you may (some do) believe that the US and Israel are specifically targeting civilians and civilian buildings for no reason other than to kill civilians, but it seems pretty clear that when that happens it is either (a) an accident or (b) in most cases, the terrorists using human shields to protect rocket launch sites and such. The two hated militaries have nothing to gain by taking out civilians, but they do have interest in hitting rocket launch sites and military relates supply lines and such. Should they cease as soon as the terrorists move their sites to civilian areas or move civilians in? Imagine if WWII were fought that way.
Look, civilian death is the worst thing that happens in war, and should be avoided. However it does happen and it would be intellectually dishonest to pretend that there is no difference between specifically targeting civilians and hitting civilians while targeting military targets.
Finkployd
Interesting, where did you "imagine" that I was championing our response to Indian raids? I was simply comparing and contrasting out aversion to danger and need for safety between the two times. It was not an analogy intended to be applied to every aspect of the two issues.
Finkployd
And yet they have in no way improved their own lot. You would think there would be some "try to improve the situation for ourselves" angle but they seem perfectly happy to kill themselves, draw their enemies into conflicts where their homes are destroyed, and alienate those who would have otherwise supported their cause. Just exerting the effort to try and target only military targets would gain them widespread support in the world, and even quite a bit in the US. If it is a war of attrition, they are in a very bad position to last that out. Even if their goal was to turn public world opinion against the US and have us pull out on peer (and local US) pressure alone, continuing the terrorist attacks on innocent people (like this last attempt) is short circuiting that.
Finkployd
It is easy to call someone insane if you get to make up the proof yourself. But even then, your proof of "insanity" sure is close to western ideals. Consider all the honor reserved for "fallen heroes" who "gave their lives defending their country." It's the same damn thing, just with an ameliorative spin instead of pejorative.
I admit the concept is similar, but western heroes are generally considered to be those who gave their lives fighting against an enemy who wanted to kill them (us). No matter how you stretch it, women and children on a plane are no threat whatsoever to the Islamic nations or their people. So perhaps insane is not the right label, but certainly their is a demonstration here of utter disregard for any life (including their own) to achieve their means. We are certainly not celebrating the disgraced soldiers who murdered and raped Iraq women, while it seems in Islam they would be revered as heroes for the cause.
Furthermore, there is an effort to downplay any religious "jihad" reasoning that may be behind these attacks and portray them as intelligent and subtle masterminds of global policy. That argument flies in the face of the sectarian violence occurring in Iraq right now, where they are killing each other randomly not for worshiping the wrong god, but for belonging to the wrong subtle subgroup within Islam. It is not hard for Joe Six-pack to just assume "them islams" are just attacking us for religious reasons as well.
Sure. Seems to me their methods work exceptionally well. The response to 9/11 has been to cause self-inflicted economic wounds in the trillions of dollars. The US military doesn't call terrorism "asymmetric warfare" for nothing, its a war and so far we are losing big time. Calling the enemy insane just plays into their hands.
I would make the argument that it is hurting the regular people of the middle east more, the ones the terrorists are supposedly fighting for. Since you have obviously thought about this, what do you feel the end goal of the terrorists are? Realistically, not "eradication of America" because that is simply not going to happen with a couple of AK47s and IEDs. I have a few theories, but they lend themselves to the "insane" theory which probably does stem from my western bias. I can imagine them wanting to draw the US into full scale nuclear war where they all die in a glorious stand against the west. Or wear us down to where we say "fuck it" and leave Israel and Iraq to their own devices, but the best way to do that would be to stop the terror attacks against civilians completely and let people ask why they hell we are still fighting when they have stopped. Actions like this most recent one just play right into Bush's hands (and approval rating) by reminding people we are fighting an enemy that wants you dead for no reason other than to make a statement.
Finkployd
By law, if google were to ever face bankruptcy, they would be forced to sell off all assets. This holds true for every company, so privacy policies effectively mean nothing. No matter what any company says about keeping your personal data secret, that data is considered intellectual property of the company and WILL be sold to the highest bidder come chapter 11. They legally have no choice in the matter.
Finkployd
Insightful? Jesus.
How about an attack every five days if we lets those cocks have free reign?
That sentence does not look right, let's fix it.
How about an attack every five days if we lets our citizens have civil liberties?
If we as a country valued safety above all else in the 1700s, we would never have broken away from England. We would have BEGGED the British to quarter troops in our homes and tax the daylights out of us just as long as the promised to keep us safe from Indian raids.
Finkployd
On a side note - thank christ for the reduced on board luggage rules. Why the hell does anyone need more than their book & a passport anyway?
Because there is an increasingly good chance than the airlines will lose your luggage, sometimes never finding it.
Finkployd
So, it is like we always have known: The terror alert mood ring is completely pointless and serves no purpose other than to make people think the government is competent and doing something about terrorism.
Finkployd
If desiring to kill oneself and take out innocent people to make a political point about US presence in the middle east is not insane, I don't know what is. The part about the promised virgins in the afterlife does not help either.
They have sane goals, but their methods are not. Their methods are cowardly and counterproductive.
Finkployd
I mis-interpreted you. I thought you were indicating that he should be keeping his clearence a secret and that revealing it was some kind of lapse in security.
Buy yes, clearly bragging it was.
Finkployd
So... why do you feel it makes sense to share an email address and brag to thousands of geeks that you have a clearance?
Umm, most of the people I know who have some form of DOD clearence have it in their resume.
Finkployd
I hate to burst your bubble, but the US us clearly a socialist country these days as well.
Finkployd