Men have two, easily accessible: stomach and rectum. Women have three, adding in the vagina and uterus. Then you can get really creative and start surgically implanting stuff inside the abdominal cavity. For another twist, hollow out a prosthetic leg.
See? That was only a minute's thought. I assume that any terrorist with too much time on his hands can do better.
Explaining why he wrote on his Web site that Hasan was a "hero," According to Shaea, Aulaqi said: "I blessed the act because it was against a military target. And the soldiers who were killed were not normal soldiers, but those who were trained and prepared to go to Afghanistan and Iraq."
Given that, how would you guess that he'd treat Hasan's questions during his correspondence with Hasan? Do you think he'd actively discourage or encourage it? Maybe just go half way with a wink and a nod, eh? Whether or not he pushed him into it, he almost certainly blessed the action "spiritually." Unfortunately, I can't find the article where Aulaqi said he encouraged Hasan to do it, even though I know I read it, so I'll back off on it for now for lack of evidence.
Either way, in Hasan's emails, he wrote about this being "jihad" and asked how to go about it. Honestly, I'm not sure what else you need. The guy is a terrorist. Cut and dry, damned by his own written words about premeditated murder.
Sure, that particular article, but there are an awful lot more. All it takes is the willpower to google them or the discipline to pay attention as the news is coming out. Hasan's motivation was unquestionably terrorism, as was that of the Underwear Bomber, Abdul Farouk Umar Abdulmutallab.
Stop apologizing and casting doubt for these idiots. It's you they're trying to kill.
After his confession, there's very little doubt that this guy's intention was to commit an act of terrorism. It was no "firecracker." Fortunately, all it did was burn the guy's nuts.
Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born radical Muslim cleric and member of Al Qaeda in Yemen, encouraged Hasan to do it. Both acted for ideological reasons, same as any terrorists.
Other messages include questions, the official with access to the e-mails said, that include when is jihad appropriate, and whether it is permissible if there are innocents killed in a suicide attack.
"Hasan told Awlaki he couldn't wait to join him in the discussions they would having over non-alcoholic wine in the afterlife," the official said.
There's lots more there, but that's pretty indicative. Feel free to RTFA.
If you're still waiting for demonstration, you're being lazy or blind. This guy was a radical Muslim and a terrorist by any definition.
I'm guessing that the only reason he made it off alive is that he burned himself so badly, and was probably so surprised to even be alive that I doubt he struggled much. If he put up a fight, he probably would have been dismembered. Many of the passengers didn't even know what had happened because it happened so fast. Let that struggle go on long enough for people to understand what's happening, and this moron would have had no hope of survival.
Sorry, I didn't realize the size of the explosives and intelligence of the attacker made the difference.
So, let me make sure I understand the nuances.
1. "Large explosives" on an airplane are terrorists. "Small explosives" are a bunch of goofs looking for a laugh, and nothing to worry about. 2. Failed bombers are "idiots" and successful bombers are "terrorists."
Richard Reid would approve of this new distinction. Let him loose and buy him a beer. "Sorry for the mistake, Dick. Try again next year."
1. Sorry -- "in American Airspace" -- is that better, Mr. Pedantic? They were landing in Detroit, dude. 2. So... what? It's not terrorism, it's just a radical Muslim who'd been in frequent contact with radical clerics talking about the ethics of killing as many Americans as possible? Even though the cleric (Anwar al-Awlaki) who encouraged him to do it was an active member of Al Qaeda? 3. Your thinly veiled defense of Islamic radicals now requires you to be outed as the liberal Obama apologist and America-hater that you are.
Funny, yes, but you're clearly not imaginative enough. There are plenty of places a naked terrorist can hide a bomb. Not that it'd be pleasant, but, then, neither is blowing yourself up.
Right. The peaceful Taliban, Al Queda, and the charming Prince Saddam were all just sitting around in their gumdrop peace palaces until the Big Bad United States came along.
Great idea! They can publish a paper so the AGW priesthood can promptly "change the definition" of what the literature is.
"Oh, you published in that journal? Well, we don't consider that a real journal, so it doesn't count." I'm sure any journal would be *happy* to get on the wrong side of the AGW thugocracy.
Surely your cities have evolved with untaxed fuel so it has been plausible for people to drive much longer distances and hence they have a lower population density.
I'm sorry -- what now? Untaxed fuel?! The federal tax on fuel is currently 18.4 cents per gallon. State taxes are anywhere between 14 and 30 cents per gallon.
Maybe you think 50 cents per gallon tax is too little? Maybe for a European it is, but then, we're not Europeans and don't believe in being slaves to the government. Don't worry, though, we're pretty quickly donning our shackles so we can be just like you.
As a US citizen, I say "WTF Europe -- are you insane?!"
I believe in the right of every country to protect their sovereignty, and this sound like a gigantic ceding of that sovereignty, and as egregious as the formation and delegation of power to the EU. The absolute best way to avoid tyranny on a massive scale is to ensure the distribution of power to the greatest extent possible. That's why I believe in states' rights, and why I believe Europe is being a bunch of asshats right now. I'm as patriotic as they come, but I understand the capability of anyone -- Americans as much as anyone else -- to become drunk with power. In the same spirit, I applaud that no American financial data will be given to Europe. At least they got it half right.
I don't repair these for a living, but I fixed my grandmother's computer, which was regularly exposed to her cigarette smoke. That dust inside you mention? Take that and mix it with tar. It winds up being a thick, sticky, messy, paste that traps heat and even more dust until things overheat and even short out. I wouldn't be surprised if that crap even caused fires. Truly, it must be seen to be believed.
Anyway, boo on Apple for this trick. Replace the unit under warranty and keep your customers happy. God knows they paid enough of a premium and can reasonably expect better service and consideration from Apple than for some $300 Dell.
Why? Why a random sampling? If you're going to serve up 61 MB zipped, it might as well be 61 GB zipped. Why not release both sets ("the good stuff.tar.gz" and "everything including the inane 'what's for lunch today?' e-mails.tar.gz")? Why? Why a random sampling? If you're going to serve up 61 MB zipped, it might as well be 61 GB zipped. Why not release both sets ("the good stuff.tar.gz" and "everything including the inane 'what's for lunch today?' e-mails.tar.gz")?
Maybe I'm mis-reading it, but I didn't get the idea that they're cherry-picking. Rather that it was a bit of a smash-n-grab operation, and they just wound up with an eclectic mix of data.
I liked the repeated calls to "just cover it up." I'm a little surprised that they didn't see the double entendre in such a statement. I also liked how they mentioned that it "doesn't say anything about Tibet," as if that would justify what they were doing. It made me sick to watch that video, and it's for that reason that I trust governments less as they get bigger and more far-reaching. I'd love to know who the scumbags were who were clapping. If anyone knows, name and shame.
Prosecution is authorized under the Code for a variety of offenses. Depending on the level of the noncompliance, the following penalties could apply to an individual:
Section 7203 – misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.
Section 7201 – felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.” [page 3]
Nice that the caring liberals are coming up with new ways to throw people in jail and fine them extraordinary amounts of money. Yet another government hand around your throat.
One MAJOR problem that people seem to forget about the undocumented alien issue is that they do not receive the baseline vaccinations that are required of all legal immigrants. Legal immigrants must also undergo physical examinations to show that they are not bringing diseases that have been eradicated here, and to which people no longer are vaccinated.
Like most opponents of illegal immigration, I have no problem with immigrants -- just the ones that flaunt the law from the moment they cross the border and selfishly put the entire legal population at risk. Of course, there are many other reasons to have a problem with illegal immigration, but public health is one of the most significant.
Why do you think I see things in black and white? I simply refuse to delude myself by thinking that something which very clearly is human, albeit a young one, is anything but human. That's what I'm saying, and there's no logical reason I've ever heard to compromise on that.
What you're talking about is the value placed on that human life at various stages and under different circumstances. Once we've all agreed that we are, indeed, talking about taking a human life, I think we can begin to have a reasoned discussion on the value to place on it. If everyone is running around saying "it's not human," "it's a tumor," "it's a parasite," or any other number of phrases meant to avoid the guilt associated with believing what they do, then they are intellectually unfit for the conversation.
What you're saying is that, on the value continuum as applied to unborn humans of a certain age, you place a very low value on that life, or at least value it less than you value your convenience.
I'm saying I place a much higher value on that life, which is, yes, inconvenient, but I personally couldn't live with myself otherwise.
When it comes to matters of law, our society must determine where it fits between you and me. I would say that the die is already cast, but I'm not comfortable with it because it's been cast under false pretenses, which is the entire point I'm trying to make. If our society says, very clearly, "We consider human life during the first trimester to be of little to no value, and terminating it for any or no purpose is therefore sanctioned by law," then I'd at least respect the process a bit more, even though I'd still hate it. Hell, if so many people agree with you, then make it an amendment. But word it that way. Honestly, directly, truthfully.
However, that's not what's happened. What's happened is that people have been lied to, and, having turned off their bullshit detectors for the sake of their convenience, they have believed the lies and essentially decided the above while justifying it with what they know to be bullshit.
If everyone having an abortion of convenience would have to repeat, out loud, "I acknowledge that I am willfully terminating a human life for no other reason but my own convenience" before having the procedure done, I think a lot fewer people would do it. Most people instinctively know that there's a hell of a lot morally wrong with making that statement, and even more wrong with following through with it. No one likes to be laid bare that way, but if they're going to kill someone, they could at least have the guts and common decency to own up to the reality of what they're doing.
Once we've established that it is a continuum, and that various cultures may place differing values on human life at various stages and under different circumstances, I submit that we simply make this a state matter. Let conservative states outlaw it, and let liberal states have their murder. There's no point in fighting this at the federal level to force a one-size-fits-all solution on everyone, and it's only going to continue on in acrimonious, hot-headed debate from here til forever otherwise.
At least you're honest, and that was my point. We need to stop with the intellectual dishonesty of "it's not human until X weeks." It is human, it came from human, will be human, it doesn't magically become something else in between. If your priorities are consequence-free sex over someone else's life, that's your choice, and, while I personally think you should be psychologically evaluated for prioritizing your recreation over someone else's life, I can at least respect that you understand and accept the decision you're making.
Slashdot Mirror
Men have two, easily accessible: stomach and rectum. Women have three, adding in the vagina and uterus. Then you can get really creative and start surgically implanting stuff inside the abdominal cavity. For another twist, hollow out a prosthetic leg.
See? That was only a minute's thought. I assume that any terrorist with too much time on his hands can do better.
Ok, then take his own words:
Given that, how would you guess that he'd treat Hasan's questions during his correspondence with Hasan? Do you think he'd actively discourage or encourage it? Maybe just go half way with a wink and a nod, eh? Whether or not he pushed him into it, he almost certainly blessed the action "spiritually." Unfortunately, I can't find the article where Aulaqi said he encouraged Hasan to do it, even though I know I read it, so I'll back off on it for now for lack of evidence.
Either way, in Hasan's emails, he wrote about this being "jihad" and asked how to go about it. Honestly, I'm not sure what else you need. The guy is a terrorist. Cut and dry, damned by his own written words about premeditated murder.
Sure, that particular article, but there are an awful lot more. All it takes is the willpower to google them or the discipline to pay attention as the news is coming out. Hasan's motivation was unquestionably terrorism, as was that of the Underwear Bomber, Abdul Farouk Umar Abdulmutallab.
Stop apologizing and casting doubt for these idiots. It's you they're trying to kill.
In case you were genuinely interested:
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/northwest-bomb-plot-planned-al-qaeda-yemen/story?id=9426085
After his confession, there's very little doubt that this guy's intention was to commit an act of terrorism. It was no "firecracker." Fortunately, all it did was burn the guy's nuts.
Not all terrorists are men.
You're obviously not paying attention.
Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born radical Muslim cleric and member of Al Qaeda in Yemen, encouraged Hasan to do it. Both acted for ideological reasons, same as any terrorists.
From: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/major-hasans-mail-wait-join-afterlife/story?id=9130339&page=1
There's lots more there, but that's pretty indicative. Feel free to RTFA.
If you're still waiting for demonstration, you're being lazy or blind. This guy was a radical Muslim and a terrorist by any definition.
I'm guessing that the only reason he made it off alive is that he burned himself so badly, and was probably so surprised to even be alive that I doubt he struggled much. If he put up a fight, he probably would have been dismembered. Many of the passengers didn't even know what had happened because it happened so fast. Let that struggle go on long enough for people to understand what's happening, and this moron would have had no hope of survival.
Sorry, I didn't realize the size of the explosives and intelligence of the attacker made the difference.
So, let me make sure I understand the nuances.
1. "Large explosives" on an airplane are terrorists. "Small explosives" are a bunch of goofs looking for a laugh, and nothing to worry about.
2. Failed bombers are "idiots" and successful bombers are "terrorists."
Richard Reid would approve of this new distinction. Let him loose and buy him a beer. "Sorry for the mistake, Dick. Try again next year."
Hah! Now I'm a Glen Beck puppet? Nice.
1. Sorry -- "in American Airspace" -- is that better, Mr. Pedantic? They were landing in Detroit, dude.
2. So... what? It's not terrorism, it's just a radical Muslim who'd been in frequent contact with radical clerics talking about the ethics of killing as many Americans as possible? Even though the cleric (Anwar al-Awlaki) who encouraged him to do it was an active member of Al Qaeda?
3. Your thinly veiled defense of Islamic radicals now requires you to be outed as the liberal Obama apologist and America-hater that you are.
Funny, yes, but you're clearly not imaginative enough. There are plenty of places a naked terrorist can hide a bomb. Not that it'd be pleasant, but, then, neither is blowing yourself up.
Nice try to trivialize the event, but a bomb that doesn't detonate properly is not the same as a "firecracker."
Yep -- almost ten years ago. Yet we've had two terrorist attacks (Ft. Hood and now this) on US soil in the last year. Figure that one out.
One word: "NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!"
And I think that was just for lack of opportunity.
Right. The peaceful Taliban, Al Queda, and the charming Prince Saddam were all just sitting around in their gumdrop peace palaces until the Big Bad United States came along.
Get a grip.
Great idea! They can publish a paper so the AGW priesthood can promptly "change the definition" of what the literature is.
"Oh, you published in that journal? Well, we don't consider that a real journal, so it doesn't count." I'm sure any journal would be *happy* to get on the wrong side of the AGW thugocracy.
Surely your cities have evolved with untaxed fuel so it has been plausible for people to drive much longer distances and hence they have a lower population density.
I'm sorry -- what now? Untaxed fuel?! The federal tax on fuel is currently 18.4 cents per gallon. State taxes are anywhere between 14 and 30 cents per gallon.
http://www.gaspricewatch.com/usgastaxes.asp
Maybe you think 50 cents per gallon tax is too little? Maybe for a European it is, but then, we're not Europeans and don't believe in being slaves to the government. Don't worry, though, we're pretty quickly donning our shackles so we can be just like you.
As a US citizen, I say "WTF Europe -- are you insane?!"
I believe in the right of every country to protect their sovereignty, and this sound like a gigantic ceding of that sovereignty, and as egregious as the formation and delegation of power to the EU. The absolute best way to avoid tyranny on a massive scale is to ensure the distribution of power to the greatest extent possible. That's why I believe in states' rights, and why I believe Europe is being a bunch of asshats right now. I'm as patriotic as they come, but I understand the capability of anyone -- Americans as much as anyone else -- to become drunk with power. In the same spirit, I applaud that no American financial data will be given to Europe. At least they got it half right.
I don't repair these for a living, but I fixed my grandmother's computer, which was regularly exposed to her cigarette smoke. That dust inside you mention? Take that and mix it with tar. It winds up being a thick, sticky, messy, paste that traps heat and even more dust until things overheat and even short out. I wouldn't be surprised if that crap even caused fires. Truly, it must be seen to be believed.
Anyway, boo on Apple for this trick. Replace the unit under warranty and keep your customers happy. God knows they paid enough of a premium and can reasonably expect better service and consideration from Apple than for some $300 Dell.
Why? Why a random sampling? If you're going to serve up 61 MB zipped, it might as well be 61 GB zipped. Why not release both sets ("the good stuff.tar.gz" and "everything including the inane 'what's for lunch today?' e-mails.tar.gz")? Why? Why a random sampling? If you're going to serve up 61 MB zipped, it might as well be 61 GB zipped. Why not release both sets ("the good stuff.tar.gz" and "everything including the inane 'what's for lunch today?' e-mails.tar.gz")?
Maybe I'm mis-reading it, but I didn't get the idea that they're cherry-picking. Rather that it was a bit of a smash-n-grab operation, and they just wound up with an eclectic mix of data.
I liked the repeated calls to "just cover it up." I'm a little surprised that they didn't see the double entendre in such a statement. I also liked how they mentioned that it "doesn't say anything about Tibet," as if that would justify what they were doing. It made me sick to watch that video, and it's for that reason that I trust governments less as they get bigger and more far-reaching. I'd love to know who the scumbags were who were clapping. If anyone knows, name and shame.
Unfortunately, I tend to think that's by design. America-haters are running the country now.
I don't know if it made the final bill, but there was a provision as of a few days ago that there will also be jail time and hefty fines involved:
http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=153583
“Criminal penalties
Prosecution is authorized under the Code for a variety of offenses. Depending on the level of the noncompliance, the following penalties could apply to an individual:
Section 7203 – misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.
Section 7201 – felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.” [page 3]
Nice that the caring liberals are coming up with new ways to throw people in jail and fine them extraordinary amounts of money. Yet another government hand around your throat.
One MAJOR problem that people seem to forget about the undocumented alien issue is that they do not receive the baseline vaccinations that are required of all legal immigrants. Legal immigrants must also undergo physical examinations to show that they are not bringing diseases that have been eradicated here, and to which people no longer are vaccinated.
Like most opponents of illegal immigration, I have no problem with immigrants -- just the ones that flaunt the law from the moment they cross the border and selfishly put the entire legal population at risk. Of course, there are many other reasons to have a problem with illegal immigration, but public health is one of the most significant.
Why do you think I see things in black and white? I simply refuse to delude myself by thinking that something which very clearly is human, albeit a young one, is anything but human. That's what I'm saying, and there's no logical reason I've ever heard to compromise on that.
What you're talking about is the value placed on that human life at various stages and under different circumstances. Once we've all agreed that we are, indeed, talking about taking a human life, I think we can begin to have a reasoned discussion on the value to place on it. If everyone is running around saying "it's not human," "it's a tumor," "it's a parasite," or any other number of phrases meant to avoid the guilt associated with believing what they do, then they are intellectually unfit for the conversation.
What you're saying is that, on the value continuum as applied to unborn humans of a certain age, you place a very low value on that life, or at least value it less than you value your convenience.
I'm saying I place a much higher value on that life, which is, yes, inconvenient, but I personally couldn't live with myself otherwise.
When it comes to matters of law, our society must determine where it fits between you and me. I would say that the die is already cast, but I'm not comfortable with it because it's been cast under false pretenses, which is the entire point I'm trying to make. If our society says, very clearly, "We consider human life during the first trimester to be of little to no value, and terminating it for any or no purpose is therefore sanctioned by law," then I'd at least respect the process a bit more, even though I'd still hate it. Hell, if so many people agree with you, then make it an amendment. But word it that way. Honestly, directly, truthfully.
However, that's not what's happened. What's happened is that people have been lied to, and, having turned off their bullshit detectors for the sake of their convenience, they have believed the lies and essentially decided the above while justifying it with what they know to be bullshit.
If everyone having an abortion of convenience would have to repeat, out loud, "I acknowledge that I am willfully terminating a human life for no other reason but my own convenience" before having the procedure done, I think a lot fewer people would do it. Most people instinctively know that there's a hell of a lot morally wrong with making that statement, and even more wrong with following through with it. No one likes to be laid bare that way, but if they're going to kill someone, they could at least have the guts and common decency to own up to the reality of what they're doing.
Once we've established that it is a continuum, and that various cultures may place differing values on human life at various stages and under different circumstances, I submit that we simply make this a state matter. Let conservative states outlaw it, and let liberal states have their murder. There's no point in fighting this at the federal level to force a one-size-fits-all solution on everyone, and it's only going to continue on in acrimonious, hot-headed debate from here til forever otherwise.
At least you're honest, and that was my point. We need to stop with the intellectual dishonesty of "it's not human until X weeks." It is human, it came from human, will be human, it doesn't magically become something else in between. If your priorities are consequence-free sex over someone else's life, that's your choice, and, while I personally think you should be psychologically evaluated for prioritizing your recreation over someone else's life, I can at least respect that you understand and accept the decision you're making.