I live in a European state where the TiVo isn't available so I had to set up my own system. I use Perl and fetch information about shows, categories and external reviews (movies only) from the web. Each show is then assigned a value and in the end I calculate what shows to record to maximize the sum of values.
Most things are controlled with remote and I have built my computer in a nice silent black and silver box using products from NoiseControl.
Of course, the TiVo is a better choice if it's available and you don't like working with computers. But for me, setting everything up is more than half the fun so it's well worth it.
Conclusion: The TiVo is probably good, but about the same functionality can be acheived with a TV-card, Debian GNU/Linux and Perl if you're willing to put in some work.
Destroying thousands of future soldiers, exterminating another relativist culture,... does make a significant impact.
Certainly. Slaughtering conscripts does make a significant impact, if nothing else for their wifes and children. Exterminating a culture? Impact by definition.
Read your American history. Barbary pirates. Nazis. Mexican raids. Etc. A lack of response guarantees failure.
My American history tells the story of a nation that has often, with some notable exceptions, put short term gains before ideals like democracy. It has been that way, but it doesn't need to be that way. I hope the future will bring us an America that stands up for what's right rather than what's profitable in the short run. I agree with you that doing nothing isn't an alternative though.
Discussing both options like you've proposed, how does not doing anything not kill more people abroad and in the US?
I fail to see why not waging a war against the Talibans means doing nothing. Here's my suggestion for doing something:
* Release the evidence that supposedly binds Bin Laden to the September 11'th attacks. The public as well as the Taliban have the right to see that the accusations are well founded.
* Identify and bring terrorists to justice, using force if necessary. Courtrooms and jails are better than assassinations in dark alleys.
* Inform the Afghan public about democracy and how they can live a better life if they topple the Taliban.
* Increase cooperation between intelligence agencies. Think of better security measures that doesn't infringe too much on our civil liberites. Use the courts to seize terrorist funds.
* Ally with democracies, not dictators. At least, don't support totalitarian states.
Appeasement to make "other people like us" is guaranteed to fail, and furthermore, makes dirty bastards like you as guilty as the killers.
Are you saying that by suggesting an alternative strategy for combating terrorism that doesn't require the deaths of thousand of conscripted kids and fathers, as well as hundreds of innocent civilans, I'm somehow to be considered as a terrorist myself? With that definition, your quest for infinite justice will be long indeed. And if you aren't lucky, perhaps you too will succumb as part of the "unintended damage" somewhere along the way.
Again, this has been said a million times, but we have provided evidence to the Taliban before on the extradition on bin Laden and they don't really care, regardless of what they say. they didn't hand him over for the WTC
(the first time) or the USS Cole, or our embassy bombings. how many times do we have to put our intelligence sources at risk?
No, there are no published evidence that conclusively binds Bin Laden, or any other person currently in Afghanistan, to any of the terrorist attacks you have mentioned. Nor have any unpublished evidence, to the best of my knowledge, ever been provided to the Talibans. If I am mistaken here, I would very much appreciate hard evidence that proves me wrong. Not the kind of evidence that Clinton thought was enough to justify the attack on Sudan's pharmaceutical factory.
The french governemnt and german governments are not supporting the terrorists on their soil (any more than the US government supported the terrorists on our soil who actually committed the attack).
If supporting terrorist means that the European governments wouldn't extradite any terrorist unconditionally, then yes, they are supporting terrorists. But I gather from the rest of your text that you take on a broader view, and claim that they aren't supporting terrorists since they act with force to stamp out terrorism at home and abroad. I have to agree with you that it certainly seems as if the Talibans are a bit behind on this point, to say the least.
However, my argument is more hypothetical. If the Talibans were to change their mind, capture as many suspected terrorist as they can, and be ready to extradite them under reasonable conditions such as exemption from the death penalty, the west should welcome the change and try to find a peaceful solution. Stating, as Bush have, that the terrorist must be handed over unconditionally is unnecessary since there obviously are good conditions that could be imposed. War should always be avoided if good, peaceful alternatives, are available. They probably weren't in this case, but now we'll never know.
It is. He's on tape more or less tacitly giving approval to his subordinates for carrying out the attack. Not to mention that our "evidence" has been shown to several world leaders, who have indicated that it is quite enough
to convict. To my surprise Bush isn't being a fool about this, and making sure he gets the court of world opinion in order before he goes to the sentencing phase. And by releasing that videotape on Egyptian TV (and yes,
I've watched it), bin Laden has stepped up to the gallows and put his head in the noose. What I heard, coming out of his mouth, was a confession. I have no problem holding him to it.
You have no problem holding him to it. That does not mean that the evidence is anyhwere near conclusive. Rather, the evidence is inconclusive as The Economist recently pointed out. Even Tony Blair has admitted that the published evidence wouldn't hold up in a court of law. The unpublished evidence may or may not be sufficient but we don't know that. It could be no more substancial than those used to justify the attack on what turned out to be a civilian target in Sudan.
To my mind, this would be "terrorism as usual," which is to treat terrorists like some sort of protesters,
In other words, you think it is better to sacrifice innocent civilians, like the UN personnel killed today in Afghanistan, than to hold a trial in a third country.
We have a tendancy to be unconditional when we are attacked. Funny that way...
Unconditional even when a small and reasonable gesture like letting the Talibans review the evidence could perhaps have led to a peaceful solution. Very funny, but not for the innocent civilians who are sure to die in the attacks.
You will also notice how unconditionally becomes conditionally when terrorist cells are uncovered in Europe. I doubt we will see cruise missiles hitting targets in Berlin, Paris, London, Stockholm, Helsinki, Vienna, Dublin, Lisbon, Amsterdam, Brussels, Madrid, Athens and Rome if the EU insists, as it is legally obliged to do, that it can't extradite anyone without some proof of guilt and an exemption from capitol punishment.
I doubt any effort to find a peaceful solution, like say a trial in a third country, would have been successful when it comes to the Talibans. Yet, it would have been better to try all possible means of finding a peaceful way to bring the perpetrates to justice.
The Taliban wanted us to give them the evidence so that they could try bin Laden in their own country. This cannot happen for three reasons.
First, giving them evidence might compromise ongoing investigations. After all, we don't want them (al Qaeda) to know what we know, because it might help them to dodge us.
It is indeed correct that handing over the evidence probably would have made the operation more difficult. Still, it's a risk worth taking. If they are to hand over Bin Laden and a number of their own citizens, they should at least be given the oppurtunity to review the evidence.
Second, we cannot trust them to give him a fair trial. It would be a joke.
True. That's why having a trial in a third country would be such a good idea. However, this was never an option considered by the US.
Third, FUCK THEM.
It indeed seems as if they are getting fucked at this very moment, so I will only respond to this by mentioning that there are as of yet, according to The Independent, no evidence made available to the public linking Bin Laden to the September 11 attacks. The US claim they have such evidence, but they said the same when they blew up a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan, which US officials later admitted were in error. Unfortunately, this does not bring back the civilians killed in the attack. I hope the "evidence" are more substancial this time.
you do know that the taliban executes people for trivial offenses, right? These are hardly people who require strong proof and abhorr the death penalty.
Yes, I do know that. I don't think the things I mentioned would have changed anything either. The Talibans probably wouldn't have given up Bin Laden anyway. That said, I think the condition that the they hand over Bin Laden unconditionally was unfair.
What about showing the "proofs" to the Talibans and accepting certain compromises like the trial being held in a third country and an exemption from the death penalty?
I doubt any Western European state would extradite any of their citizens without first seeing at least some shreds of evidence, and receiving assurances that their would be no capitol punishment (as required by the European Convention). Why should the Talibans?
Of course, US citizens enjoy more economic freedom. What about social freedom then?
Lets concentrate on one country mentioned in the article, the Netherlands:
- Several drugs are legal, others tolerated.
- Adults are treated as adults, no "21-year and above" exceptions.
- Prostitution is legal.
- No software patents. DeCSS legal.
- Assisted suicide legal
- 100% gay rights, including marrige and adoption.
- "Asset forfeiture" virtually unknown.
I would also like to comment on some blatant errors:
- The Netherlands has softer copyright laws than the US.
- No mandatory taxes for religion in many European countries, including Holland.
- No jail sentances for nazi-auctions in Holland.
- No waiting in line for surgery *if* you have a privately funded health insurance. Minium standard of health care higher in Holland than US according to the latest OECD report.
I will conclude this comment the same way I opened it: People have more economic freedom in the US than in the Netherlands, but the opposite is true for social freedoms. Feel free to give examples if you feel this isn't true.
Slashdot Mirror
I live in a European state where the TiVo isn't available so I had to set up my own system. I use Perl and fetch information about shows, categories and external reviews (movies only) from the web. Each show is then assigned a value and in the end I calculate what shows to record to maximize the sum of values.
Most things are controlled with remote and I have built my computer in a nice silent black and silver box using products from NoiseControl.
Of course, the TiVo is a better choice if it's available and you don't like working with computers. But for me, setting everything up is more than half the fun so it's well worth it.
Conclusion: The TiVo is probably good, but about the same functionality can be acheived with a TV-card, Debian GNU/Linux and Perl if you're willing to put in some work.
Certainly. Slaughtering conscripts does make a significant impact, if nothing else for their wifes and children. Exterminating a culture? Impact by definition.
Read your American history. Barbary pirates. Nazis. Mexican raids. Etc. A lack of response guarantees failure.
My American history tells the story of a nation that has often, with some notable exceptions, put short term gains before ideals like democracy. It has been that way, but it doesn't need to be that way. I hope the future will bring us an America that stands up for what's right rather than what's profitable in the short run. I agree with you that doing nothing isn't an alternative though.
Discussing both options like you've proposed, how does not doing anything not kill more people abroad and in the US?
I fail to see why not waging a war against the Talibans means doing nothing. Here's my suggestion for doing something:
* Release the evidence that supposedly binds Bin Laden to the September 11'th attacks. The public as well as the Taliban have the right to see that the accusations are well founded.
* Identify and bring terrorists to justice, using force if necessary. Courtrooms and jails are better than assassinations in dark alleys.
* Inform the Afghan public about democracy and how they can live a better life if they topple the Taliban.
* Increase cooperation between intelligence agencies. Think of better security measures that doesn't infringe too much on our civil liberites. Use the courts to seize terrorist funds.
* Ally with democracies, not dictators. At least, don't support totalitarian states.
Appeasement to make "other people like us" is guaranteed to fail, and furthermore, makes dirty bastards like you as guilty as the killers.
Are you saying that by suggesting an alternative strategy for combating terrorism that doesn't require the deaths of thousand of conscripted kids and fathers, as well as hundreds of innocent civilans, I'm somehow to be considered as a terrorist myself? With that definition, your quest for infinite justice will be long indeed. And if you aren't lucky, perhaps you too will succumb as part of the "unintended damage" somewhere along the way.
No, there are no published evidence that conclusively binds Bin Laden, or any other person currently in Afghanistan, to any of the terrorist attacks you have mentioned. Nor have any unpublished evidence, to the best of my knowledge, ever been provided to the Talibans. If I am mistaken here, I would very much appreciate hard evidence that proves me wrong. Not the kind of evidence that Clinton thought was enough to justify the attack on Sudan's pharmaceutical factory.
The french governemnt and german governments are not supporting the terrorists on their soil (any more than the US government supported the terrorists on our soil who actually committed the attack).
If supporting terrorist means that the European governments wouldn't extradite any terrorist unconditionally, then yes, they are supporting terrorists. But I gather from the rest of your text that you take on a broader view, and claim that they aren't supporting terrorists since they act with force to stamp out terrorism at home and abroad. I have to agree with you that it certainly seems as if the Talibans are a bit behind on this point, to say the least.
However, my argument is more hypothetical. If the Talibans were to change their mind, capture as many suspected terrorist as they can, and be ready to extradite them under reasonable conditions such as exemption from the death penalty, the west should welcome the change and try to find a peaceful solution. Stating, as Bush have, that the terrorist must be handed over unconditionally is unnecessary since there obviously are good conditions that could be imposed. War should always be avoided if good, peaceful alternatives, are available. They probably weren't in this case, but now we'll never know.
You have no problem holding him to it. That does not mean that the evidence is anyhwere near conclusive. Rather, the evidence is inconclusive as The Economist recently pointed out. Even Tony Blair has admitted that the published evidence wouldn't hold up in a court of law. The unpublished evidence may or may not be sufficient but we don't know that. It could be no more substancial than those used to justify the attack on what turned out to be a civilian target in Sudan.
To my mind, this would be "terrorism as usual," which is to treat terrorists like some sort of protesters,
In other words, you think it is better to sacrifice innocent civilians, like the UN personnel killed today in Afghanistan, than to hold a trial in a third country.
Unconditional even when a small and reasonable gesture like letting the Talibans review the evidence could perhaps have led to a peaceful solution. Very funny, but not for the innocent civilians who are sure to die in the attacks.
You will also notice how unconditionally becomes conditionally when terrorist cells are uncovered in Europe. I doubt we will see cruise missiles hitting targets in Berlin, Paris, London, Stockholm, Helsinki, Vienna, Dublin, Lisbon, Amsterdam, Brussels, Madrid, Athens and Rome if the EU insists, as it is legally obliged to do, that it can't extradite anyone without some proof of guilt and an exemption from capitol punishment.
I doubt any effort to find a peaceful solution, like say a trial in a third country, would have been successful when it comes to the Talibans. Yet, it would have been better to try all possible means of finding a peaceful way to bring the perpetrates to justice.
First, giving them evidence might compromise ongoing investigations. After all, we don't want them (al Qaeda) to know what we know, because it might help them to dodge us.
It is indeed correct that handing over the evidence probably would have made the operation more difficult. Still, it's a risk worth taking. If they are to hand over Bin Laden and a number of their own citizens, they should at least be given the oppurtunity to review the evidence.
Second, we cannot trust them to give him a fair trial. It would be a joke.
True. That's why having a trial in a third country would be such a good idea. However, this was never an option considered by the US.
Third, FUCK THEM.
It indeed seems as if they are getting fucked at this very moment, so I will only respond to this by mentioning that there are as of yet, according to The Independent, no evidence made available to the public linking Bin Laden to the September 11 attacks. The US claim they have such evidence, but they said the same when they blew up a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan, which US officials later admitted were in error. Unfortunately, this does not bring back the civilians killed in the attack. I hope the "evidence" are more substancial this time.
Yes, I do know that. I don't think the things I mentioned would have changed anything either. The Talibans probably wouldn't have given up Bin Laden anyway. That said, I think the condition that the they hand over Bin Laden unconditionally was unfair.
>Really, what would you have us do?
What about showing the "proofs" to the Talibans and accepting certain compromises like the trial being held in a third country and an exemption from the death penalty?
I doubt any Western European state would extradite any of their citizens without first seeing at least some shreds of evidence, and receiving assurances that their would be no capitol punishment (as required by the European Convention). Why should the Talibans?
Of course, US citizens enjoy more economic freedom. What about social freedom then?
Lets concentrate on one country mentioned in the article, the Netherlands:
- Several drugs are legal, others tolerated.
- Adults are treated as adults, no "21-year and above" exceptions.
- Prostitution is legal.
- No software patents. DeCSS legal.
- Assisted suicide legal
- 100% gay rights, including marrige and adoption.
- "Asset forfeiture" virtually unknown.
I would also like to comment on some blatant errors:
- The Netherlands has softer copyright laws than the US.
- No mandatory taxes for religion in many European countries, including Holland.
- No jail sentances for nazi-auctions in Holland.
- No waiting in line for surgery *if* you have a privately funded health insurance. Minium standard of health care higher in Holland than US according to the latest OECD report.
I will conclude this comment the same way I opened it: People have more economic freedom in the US than in the Netherlands, but the opposite is true for social freedoms. Feel free to give examples if you feel this isn't true.