Because you cam bt your ass that the US govt. won't begin actively targeting ISIS just because of this info, even though the pentagon would love for it to.
I always love how the chief argument on/. for continuing the use pf nuclear power use into eternity entails holding people hostage with the mediocrity of coal-burning and its waste. Is the argument that we're stuck with nuclear due to how crappy the alternatives are, supposed to reassure me?
Shutting down a fanmade game is one thing, but look at what became of Silent Hills. Then they went as far as insisting that the demo of it be remotely removed from people's consoles. I'm so done with console gaming. It's over.
What it does to that entity is completely irrelevant. The legislation passed a few years ago to defund ACORN was also one such bill, and it entailed no seizure of assets as well.
Even in the presidential race, only one potential candidate out of seven doesn't have friendly ties with the cable and phone industries. Good luck having better odds on the federal legislative level. I'm wondering who all you expect people to vote for on this issue when their choices are shit, since you seem so convinced that it's the voters who are the problem.
Prett hard to sever the tail while it wags the dog. Keeping drugs illegal is also the US' way of controlling countries like Mexico from two angles--we force its official leadership to comply in return for weapons and training, and then make arrangements with cartels (like the Sinaloas) in an attempt to shape their black markets as well.
Acquire evidence illegally, then use it to find something else you can burn the black guy over. The DEA is immoral and deceptive to its core, pretending to be an enemy of drugs all the while knowing damn well that if there were no drugs, there would be no DEA.
That "enviro-left" you speak of has been gradually vindicated every year on the mattee of climare change, so i'm not seeing much credibility loss. But leave it to a shill to claim that seeking responsibility as to what we put into the atmosphere just makes you a "tripping hippie"
Most examples i've read about such protests aren't even by environmentalists, but rather by unions upset with how the facility will be staffed, or locals concerned about pathogens. But if environmentalists do protest them, judging by what you've said, it must simply be due to their derangement rather than legitimate concerns, huh.
Motherless hosted CP and bestiality without any repercussions. Most obvious of all, initially its servers were located 20 minutes away from FBI's washington state headquarters.
Yes, that terrible, evil Renewables lobby, which buys politicians and pundits, hires think tanks, and pays internet trolls... oh wait, that's what the nuclear and fossil fuel industries do. The rest of us just want a less polluted world. So spare me your talk of "agendas".
You might want to hold off until you can actually win an argument before you tell someone to "read a book". Also, likely not a great idea to throw a sardonic "you win" temper tantrum at the same time. You've been around for a few years, so I figured these things would be second nature to you by now.. guess I was wrong.
You blamed the league of nations and the west drawing maps. I pointed out that the causes are much more recent than.that. You can blame people cutting off heads all you like, but then you're pretending that these things come about in a vacuum. You can say we're at war, but then you're presupposing that it's a war we did not choose, and that we do not deliberately propagate..
Finally, you can say i'm right about this, and, well, you'd be correct. Have a good day.
"pointing out where you think the fault lies does not actually make it any less a war"
I wasn't simply pointing out "where the fault lies", because that implies that this rash of fundamentalism is some sort of unintended consequence. Although you could claim that it was unintended regarding our coup of Mossadegh, it certainly is not true of our more recent targets. Saddam? Secular. Gaddafi? Secular. Assad? Secular. ISIS, on the other hand, we handled with kid gloves until Russia got around to bombing them (not to mention a lot of civilians as well).
There are plenty of examples of the pentagon struggling with this administration--having intelligence altered, targets removed from eligibility for bombing, etc.
Of course, this comes not long after our arming of Al Nusra and other extremists in Syria from 2009 onward in a continued attempt to topple Assad.
So, put simply, the idea that this is a "war" against fundamentalist islam is laughable. (You might as well try to tell me how drugs are the enemy in our war on drugs, when they're actually the war's greatest friend--without the drugs, there would be no war!) In recent times, rather, our goal has been to engender fundamentalism in the western world such that we may have an excuse to intervene. This was the most salient--since you like that word--point of my comment, which you didn't address at all. Even today the west's strongest ally is Saudi Arabia, the monarchy of which pushes Wahabism, which is just as extreme as any variety of fundamentalist islam that the US could purport to be fighting.
You act as if a rash of state-sponsored fundamentalism sparked up on its own in the Muslim world, as if through some stimuli among savages that we noble westerners could never hope to understand--a very shortsighted and deliberately simple view.
Actually, the *easy* thing to do would be to claim that those on the other side of the world have a problem, and that our government represents us or always has our best interests in mind--as if we are in the seat of power. The *difficult* thing to do would be to admit that the US' military actions are caused by ripples in a deep state which neither you nor I nor even the president has control over. So your notion that just blaming "the west" is a way of standing up and dusting off our hands is pretty silly--it actually means that WE have a problem, and that WE have work to do.
So you can spare me your "so easy to blame the west" spiel.
"It's a war." Oh really? Except In THIS "war", the US and its allies (especially Saudi Arabia) are the ones who engineered the enemy--specifically, the US sought to engender fundamentalism in the arab world in order to battle those godless soviets, and now the birds have come home to roost. All the while Turkey and the Saudis very openly arm ISIS while we look the other way. So spare me your "this is war' WWII analogy bullshit.
What that really means is, ANY. BLOODY. INVESTIGATION. Any oversight there could be of this will only sigh a meek "oh well" after its obvious misapplication.
Isn't it funny how a "privacy" bill heading through congress more often than not simply entails some destruction thereof?
What they really mean is, ANY. BLOODY. INVESTIGATION. Amy oversight that could exist will only sigh a meek "oh well" after the fact of obvious misapplication.
Implying environmentalism is never feasible, check Pandering "the facts", check Ridiculous claims about environmentalists (They hate STEM!!).. check Complaining about someone else's agenda despite the obvious presence of your own? Check
I'm actually impressed you were able to fit nearly all rhar into a paragraph. Next are you going to talk about windmills killing birds?
Slashdot Mirror
Because you cam bt your ass that the US govt. won't begin actively targeting ISIS just because of this info, even though the pentagon would love for it to.
I always love how the chief argument on /. for continuing the use pf nuclear power use into eternity entails holding people hostage with the mediocrity of coal-burning and its waste. Is the argument that we're stuck with nuclear due to how crappy the alternatives are, supposed to reassure me?
There would be no homosexuals, would there? Don't say dumb things.
Shutting down a fanmade game is one thing, but look at what became of Silent Hills. Then they went as far as insisting that the demo of it be remotely removed from people's consoles. I'm so done with console gaming. It's over.
What it does to that entity is completely irrelevant. The legislation passed a few years ago to defund ACORN was also one such bill, and it entailed no seizure of assets as well.
Even in the presidential race, only one potential candidate out of seven doesn't have friendly ties with the cable and phone industries. Good luck having better odds on the federal legislative level. I'm wondering who all you expect people to vote for on this issue when their choices are shit, since you seem so convinced that it's the voters who are the problem.
Prett hard to sever the tail while it wags the dog. Keeping drugs illegal is also the US' way of controlling countries like Mexico from two angles--we force its official leadership to comply in return for weapons and training, and then make arrangements with cartels (like the Sinaloas) in an attempt to shape their black markets as well.
Acquire evidence illegally, then use it to find something else you can burn the black guy over. The DEA is immoral and deceptive to its core, pretending to be an enemy of drugs all the while knowing damn well that if there were no drugs, there would be no DEA.
Oh look, the AGW paid shills are here on-cue. Isn't tit funny how this comes about on any thread about fossil fuel-relared disasters?
That "enviro-left" you speak of has been gradually vindicated every year on the mattee of climare change, so i'm not seeing much credibility loss. But leave it to a shill to claim that seeking responsibility as to what we put into the atmosphere just makes you a "tripping hippie"
We don't want them getting any grand ideas.
Most examples i've read about such protests aren't even by environmentalists, but rather by unions upset with how the facility will be staffed, or locals concerned about pathogens. But if environmentalists do protest them, judging by what you've said, it must simply be due to their derangement rather than legitimate concerns, huh.
Motherless hosted CP and bestiality without any repercussions. Most obvious of all, initially its servers were located 20 minutes away from FBI's washington state headquarters.
Yes, that terrible, evil Renewables lobby, which buys politicians and pundits, hires think tanks, and pays internet trolls... oh wait, that's what the nuclear and fossil fuel industries do. The rest of us just want a less polluted world. So spare me your talk of "agendas".
You might want to hold off until you can actually win an argument before you tell someone to "read a book". Also, likely not a great idea to throw a sardonic "you win" temper tantrum at the same time. You've been around for a few years, so I figured these things would be second nature to you by now.. guess I was wrong.
You blamed the league of nations and the west drawing maps. I pointed out that the causes are much more recent than.that. You can blame people cutting off heads all you like, but then you're pretending that these things come about in a vacuum. You can say we're at war, but then you're presupposing that it's a war we did not choose, and that we do not deliberately propagate..
Finally, you can say i'm right about this, and, well, you'd be correct. Have a good day.
..is what I meant
"pointing out where you think the fault lies does not actually make it any less a war"
I wasn't simply pointing out "where the fault lies", because that implies that this rash of fundamentalism is some sort of unintended consequence. Although you could claim that it was unintended regarding our coup of Mossadegh, it certainly is not true of our more recent targets. Saddam? Secular. Gaddafi? Secular. Assad? Secular. ISIS, on the other hand, we handled with kid gloves until Russia got around to bombing them (not to mention a lot of civilians as well).
There are plenty of examples of the pentagon struggling with this administration--having intelligence altered, targets removed from eligibility for bombing, etc.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/a...
http://www.usatoday.com/story/...
Of course, this comes not long after our arming of Al Nusra and other extremists in Syria from 2009 onward in a continued attempt to topple Assad.
So, put simply, the idea that this is a "war" against fundamentalist islam is laughable. (You might as well try to tell me how drugs are the enemy in our war on drugs, when they're actually the war's greatest friend--without the drugs, there would be no war!) In recent times, rather, our goal has been to engender fundamentalism in the western world such that we may have an excuse to intervene. This was the most salient--since you like that word--point of my comment, which you didn't address at all. Even today the west's strongest ally is Saudi Arabia, the monarchy of which pushes Wahabism, which is just as extreme as any variety of fundamentalist islam that the US could purport to be fighting.
You act as if a rash of state-sponsored fundamentalism sparked up on its own in the Muslim world, as if through some stimuli among savages that we noble westerners could never hope to understand--a very shortsighted and deliberately simple view.
Actually, the *easy* thing to do would be to claim that those on the other side of the world have a problem, and that our government represents us or always has our best interests in mind--as if we are in the seat of power. The *difficult* thing to do would be to admit that the US' military actions are caused by ripples in a deep state which neither you nor I nor even the president has control over. So your notion that just blaming "the west" is a way of standing up and dusting off our hands is pretty silly--it actually means that WE have a problem, and that WE have work to do.
So you can spare me your "so easy to blame the west" spiel.
This thread escalated quickly..
"It's a war." Oh really? Except In THIS "war", the US and its allies (especially Saudi Arabia) are the ones who engineered the enemy--specifically, the US sought to engender fundamentalism in the arab world in order to battle those godless soviets, and now the birds have come home to roost. All the while Turkey and the Saudis very openly arm ISIS while we look the other way. So spare me your "this is war' WWII analogy bullshit.
What that really means is, ANY. BLOODY. INVESTIGATION. Any oversight there could be of this will only sigh a meek "oh well" after its obvious misapplication.
Isn't it funny how a "privacy" bill heading through congress more often than not simply entails some destruction thereof?
What they really mean is, ANY. BLOODY. INVESTIGATION. Amy oversight that could exist will only sigh a meek "oh well" after the fact of obvious misapplication.
Implying environmentalism is never feasible, check
Pandering "the facts", check
Ridiculous claims about environmentalists (They hate STEM!!).. check
Complaining about someone else's agenda despite the obvious presence of your own? Check
I'm actually impressed you were able to fit nearly all rhar into a paragraph. Next are you going to talk about windmills killing birds?
Only it's not the same as back then, as companies now get paid for handing over the records.
100 times more cheap. Take the price, sivide by 100. Is that really so difficult?