It still doesn't justify those US actions which by the way went against international law.
The US spent hundreds of billions of dollars to oust illegitimate, genocidal and oppressive regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan and is quickly returning those nations to government by their people. If that "went against international law", then there's something wrong with international law, not US actions.
Those comments were similar to what I see about Iraq. After we bomb their cities, destroy their goverment and society...then when theres anarchy and bombings...Americans read about it and say 'oh my they are so violent! It must be because of their religion!'
Far fewer Iraqis have killed each other in the decade after the US invasion than in the decade before. Furthermore, there objectively is a high level of religiously and ethnically motivated violence in Iraq. So, don't blame America for a problem that really has its origins in the arbitrary borders that the British drew, plus the lack of a democratic tradition in the region. Bad as things seem, Iraq is probably still better off today than it was under Saddam Hussein.
You ignore the reality of whats happening while calling for them to be responsible to rule themselves to some standard that Israel...the occupier decides.
I'm not "calling them" to do anything, and I'm not saying it's right; I was simply stating the way it is.
thats not nice or legal
No, but why is that my business? I'm just saying that if the Palestinian government wants more support from me, telling me that they would chop off my head if they get their hands on me is not a good way to start.
And such violence and intolerance is not an automatic consequence of oppression; Palestinians could be following the path of Gandhi, not the path of resistance and violence.
I don't know how old you are, but seriously at some point you have to understand the difference between the image and the reality.
Yeah, so should you, instead of regurgitating European historical excuses.
the reality is slavery, no sufferage for women, genoicde of native americans.
The reality is that many of those were crimes committed by Europeans and that the US worked hard to fix them as quickly as politically possible, usually far ahead of other nations.
Its important to reconize that as its all over history and current events...Image = Operation Iraqi freedom! Reality = see wikileaks
The deaths reported by Wikileaks are mostly civilian-on-civilian violence; they are not the responsibility of the US. Even if you attribute those deaths to the US invasion, they represent a big reduction over the mass murder that Saddam Hussein perpetrated on his people over the decade before, so Iraqis are still better off.
Image= Our great democratic ally and bastion of freedom in the Middle East..Reality=Israel who has the most UN resolutions against it in the world...and who is ethnically cleansing the native people of the area.
The US supports Israel for economic reasons, domestic political reasons, and strategic reasons. The fact that Israel tends not to chop off people's heads for speaking their mind is a nice bonus, but clearly not a criterion for who the US picks as friends (viz Pakistan and Saudi Arabia). The only question as far as US voters are concerned is whether we're getting our money's worth. I'm sorry you labored under the illusion that there was anything more to it.
Seriously, turn off the TV for a few weeks and thing about the world using your own mind instead of just repeating slogans like 'Americans were fighting for liberty..."
Americans were fighting for their own liberty--nothing more--and they achieved that. That's the only liberty I was speaking about.
The liberty of other nations is not, and has never been, of primary concern to American voters or politicians; it is merely a means to an end, namely that of US liberty, security, and prosperity. Often, democratizing other nations is expedient (e.g., Germany), but sometimes it is not (e.g., Saudi Arabia). Sorry if you were confused about this point, but many American voters are not, which is why they keep voting for politicians that put America's interests first.
All true, but how is any of that relevant? I don't want my government to support regimes that imprison or kill people for their religious beliefs. And I don't buy that religious intolerance of the Palestinian government is a consequence of Israel's occupation, because the same religious intolerance exists in almost the entire Muslim world. If people want us to give our help and political support (beyond basic humanitarian aid), they need to play by our rules.
I just stated an obvious fact: Israel is not going to accept anything less, and Israel has the power to impose this condition.
I think what Israel is doing to the Palestinians is morally wrong and politically not justifiable. But frankly, responses like yours, and actions like that reported in the article make me care less and less.
I didn't ask for a "complete" separation of church and state, I said they should start separating them. Having severe penalties (death, imprisonment) for blasphemy, apostacy, or atheism is not acceptable, and it effectively doesn't exist in Western nations anymore. And for all their ideological and moral faults, Christian parties in the West tend to be opposed to the death penalty, violence, and war.
Is that the kind of bullshit and propaganda they still teach in British schools? You really are just demonstrating your ignorance.
In any case, what you wrote is totally irrelevant. It is simply a fact that Palestinians need to comply with the conditions that Israel and the West sets for them, while it is a fact that Americans were strong enough not to give a f*ck about what the British thought (or think, for that matter).
Yes, but Britain obviously couldn't enforce it while Israel can. And one reason Britain failed was because Americans were fighting for liberty and not just independence, while the Palestinians apparently are not.
What's there to think about? I'm merely stating what Israel is saying, and Israel has the power to enforce that. Whether it ought to be that way is another question.
What difference does it make what happens to his "original" papers? They have been published and are accessible to all.
With Turing, of all people, one should understand that it is the information contained in those papers that matters--which is public--not the physical artifact.
Interpreting US actions in the ME as empire building and creation of religious regimes doesn't make much sense. The US doesn't build empires in the traditional sense, but it wants military superiority to ensure free trade (which is in US economic interests) and US safety. And US foreign policy does use religion when it seems expedient, but not as an end in itself. I don't think those policies are wise, but they are a far cry from what other world powers have done to nations around the world.
Most Islamic governments have laws under which I would be imprisoned or executed for my religious beliefs. The Palestinian government apparently has the same laws. Explain to me why I should support any of those governments?
I am sorry for the Palestinian people, but before they can get more than my sympathy, they need to create for themselves governments that aren't hell-bent on killing people like me. Until they do, all I see is two right wing, intolerant governments--those of Israel and those of the Palestinians--battling each other.
Now, I don't care/what/ his motive was; the fact is, he was convicted of treason and endangering national security after he revealed confidential, strategic information. There's not much to argue about that.
Israel is a rogue state when it comes to WMDs: it clearly has WMD capabilities but has been unwilling to submit to international regulations, treaties, or inspection. Whether his treatment is justifiable within Israel's law really doesn't matter because Israel's conduct itself is illegitimate.
The West should have granted him political asylum, just like we should everybody who blows the whistle on undisclosed WMD programs.
The phrase "so help me God" is optional, and you can replace "solemny affirm" for "oath".
And, besides, who cares about swearing something by someone else's imaginary sky fairy? Whatever power the oath is supposed to have is lost when you make people swear on something that they don't give a shit about.
I would object to a public oath invoking God, not because it offends me, but because people might falsely think that I believe in idiotic ideas like "God". But as long as it's a private oath, you can add Cthulhu and the Virgin Mary to the oath, and all you'll get out of me is a chuckle.
The Israeli penal code does make blasphemy illegal (output from Google Translate):
170. Destroying, damaging, or desecrating a place of worship, or any object held sacred crowd of people, deliberately degrade their religion, or knowingly that they may see this act an insult to their religion, Dino - three years imprisonment.
173. Makes one of the following countries - one year's imprisonment; (1) Publishes advertising that injure blatantly religious beliefs or their feelings of others; (2) Makes a public place and in the hearing of a certain word or sound that may harm the faith or gross violation of religious feelings. (3) Harm our sons public tombstones
Not as severe as Islamic blasphemy laws, but they still make blasphemy illegal.
The problem is that we have no good way of dealing with these lunatics when large parts of entire societies are thinking like this. It's like the West in the Middle Ages.
We do have a good way of dealing with these lunatics--don't deal at all with them. The problem of the West vs. Islamic fundamentalists is just that these people are sitting on oil. If it weren't for that, we could just break off relations and let them figure it out for the next few centuries. Instead, we dirty ourselves by dealing with the likes of the Saudis. And to a lesser degree, we dirty ourselves by dealing with Israel as well, who seems to be rapidly picking up on the intolerance and religious fundamentalism in the region (maybe it's in the water?).
If Palestinians want to govern themselves, they have to prove to Israel that they can guarantee Israel's security, and they have to prove to the rest of the world that they can be considered a legitimate government. That's just the facts. They are failing on both accounts.
And you're right that this being an Islamic government is responsible for people in the West not supporting them, because nearly all Muslim governments are highly intolerant of other religions and intrinsically undemocratic. Why should I want to support governments that want to imprison or kill me for my religious beliefs? I will not put my support behind an Islamic government of any form because such governments have never worked. If they want my political support, these people need to start separating church and state. Frankly, I prefer an occupied Palestine to a Palestine governed by Islamic fundamentalists.
Freedom gets a much more simple and immediate meaning there than "freedom of speech on the web".
There is nothing "abstract" about government goons showing up on your doorstep in order to haul you away for your execution because of your religious beliefs. Any government that does this is not legitimate and does not deserve anybody's support.
Most people never thought Java would become a hot potato to be careful with. No one thought that Oracle would be going after people over patents. Sun put Java under the GPL2.
Well, most people are obviously fools that know little about patents, licenses, or copyrights. What has happened was totally predictable from Sun's behavior and patents.
Can you tell me how Mono is more safe being under the GPL/LGPL/MIT when it is using tech directly from a company that is in many ways a direct competitor
I can tell you that if you look at the legal situation, Mono is and has been a lot safer than Java.
Slashdot Mirror
It still doesn't justify those US actions which by the way went against international law.
The US spent hundreds of billions of dollars to oust illegitimate, genocidal and oppressive regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan and is quickly returning those nations to government by their people. If that "went against international law", then there's something wrong with international law, not US actions.
but it will teach you things that will be relevant in other languages
Like, for example, putting up with ridiculously bad error messages:
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/589
Those comments were similar to what I see about Iraq. After we bomb their cities, destroy their goverment and society...then when theres anarchy and bombings...Americans read about it and say 'oh my they are so violent! It must be because of their religion!'
Far fewer Iraqis have killed each other in the decade after the US invasion than in the decade before. Furthermore, there objectively is a high level of religiously and ethnically motivated violence in Iraq. So, don't blame America for a problem that really has its origins in the arbitrary borders that the British drew, plus the lack of a democratic tradition in the region. Bad as things seem, Iraq is probably still better off today than it was under Saddam Hussein.
You ignore the reality of whats happening while calling for them to be responsible to rule themselves to some standard that Israel...the occupier decides.
I'm not "calling them" to do anything, and I'm not saying it's right; I was simply stating the way it is.
thats not nice or legal
No, but why is that my business? I'm just saying that if the Palestinian government wants more support from me, telling me that they would chop off my head if they get their hands on me is not a good way to start.
And such violence and intolerance is not an automatic consequence of oppression; Palestinians could be following the path of Gandhi, not the path of resistance and violence.
I don't know how old you are, but seriously at some point you have to understand the difference between the image and the reality.
Yeah, so should you, instead of regurgitating European historical excuses.
the reality is slavery, no sufferage for women, genoicde of native americans.
The reality is that many of those were crimes committed by Europeans and that the US worked hard to fix them as quickly as politically possible, usually far ahead of other nations.
Its important to reconize that as its all over history and current events...Image = Operation Iraqi freedom! Reality = see wikileaks
The deaths reported by Wikileaks are mostly civilian-on-civilian violence; they are not the responsibility of the US. Even if you attribute those deaths to the US invasion, they represent a big reduction over the mass murder that Saddam Hussein perpetrated on his people over the decade before, so Iraqis are still better off.
Image= Our great democratic ally and bastion of freedom in the Middle East..Reality=Israel who has the most UN resolutions against it in the world...and who is ethnically cleansing the native people of the area.
The US supports Israel for economic reasons, domestic political reasons, and strategic reasons. The fact that Israel tends not to chop off people's heads for speaking their mind is a nice bonus, but clearly not a criterion for who the US picks as friends (viz Pakistan and Saudi Arabia). The only question as far as US voters are concerned is whether we're getting our money's worth. I'm sorry you labored under the illusion that there was anything more to it.
Seriously, turn off the TV for a few weeks and thing about the world using your own mind instead of just repeating slogans like 'Americans were fighting for liberty ..."
Americans were fighting for their own liberty--nothing more--and they achieved that. That's the only liberty I was speaking about.
The liberty of other nations is not, and has never been, of primary concern to American voters or politicians; it is merely a means to an end, namely that of US liberty, security, and prosperity. Often, democratizing other nations is expedient (e.g., Germany), but sometimes it is not (e.g., Saudi Arabia). Sorry if you were confused about this point, but many American voters are not, which is why they keep voting for politicians that put America's interests first.
All true, but how is any of that relevant? I don't want my government to support regimes that imprison or kill people for their religious beliefs. And I don't buy that religious intolerance of the Palestinian government is a consequence of Israel's occupation, because the same religious intolerance exists in almost the entire Muslim world. If people want us to give our help and political support (beyond basic humanitarian aid), they need to play by our rules.
I just stated an obvious fact: Israel is not going to accept anything less, and Israel has the power to impose this condition.
I think what Israel is doing to the Palestinians is morally wrong and politically not justifiable. But frankly, responses like yours, and actions like that reported in the article make me care less and less.
I didn't ask for a "complete" separation of church and state, I said they should start separating them. Having severe penalties (death, imprisonment) for blasphemy, apostacy, or atheism is not acceptable, and it effectively doesn't exist in Western nations anymore. And for all their ideological and moral faults, Christian parties in the West tend to be opposed to the death penalty, violence, and war.
Is that the kind of bullshit and propaganda they still teach in British schools? You really are just demonstrating your ignorance.
In any case, what you wrote is totally irrelevant. It is simply a fact that Palestinians need to comply with the conditions that Israel and the West sets for them, while it is a fact that Americans were strong enough not to give a f*ck about what the British thought (or think, for that matter).
Well, there's the bitch of it. Based on our own western rules Hamas is a legitimate government because they were elected democratically.
Merely receiving a majority of the votes does not make a government legitimate by our rules; it also has to respect basic human rights.
Democracy gives people what the (sometimes slim) majority (of voters) wants
Tyranny of the majority is not democracy.
Yes, but Britain obviously couldn't enforce it while Israel can. And one reason Britain failed was because Americans were fighting for liberty and not just independence, while the Palestinians apparently are not.
What's there to think about? I'm merely stating what Israel is saying, and Israel has the power to enforce that. Whether it ought to be that way is another question.
What difference does it make what happens to his "original" papers? They have been published and are accessible to all.
With Turing, of all people, one should understand that it is the information contained in those papers that matters--which is public--not the physical artifact.
Find me in the Israeli law code anything banning blasphemy.
Number 170 and 173:
http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%97%D7%95%D7%A7_%D7%94%D7%A2%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%9F
Interpreting US actions in the ME as empire building and creation of religious regimes doesn't make much sense. The US doesn't build empires in the traditional sense, but it wants military superiority to ensure free trade (which is in US economic interests) and US safety. And US foreign policy does use religion when it seems expedient, but not as an end in itself. I don't think those policies are wise, but they are a far cry from what other world powers have done to nations around the world.
Most Islamic governments have laws under which I would be imprisoned or executed for my religious beliefs. The Palestinian government apparently has the same laws. Explain to me why I should support any of those governments?
I am sorry for the Palestinian people, but before they can get more than my sympathy, they need to create for themselves governments that aren't hell-bent on killing people like me. Until they do, all I see is two right wing, intolerant governments--those of Israel and those of the Palestinians--battling each other.
Now, I don't care /what/ his motive was; the fact is, he was convicted of treason and endangering national security after he revealed confidential, strategic information. There's not much to argue about that.
Israel is a rogue state when it comes to WMDs: it clearly has WMD capabilities but has been unwilling to submit to international regulations, treaties, or inspection. Whether his treatment is justifiable within Israel's law really doesn't matter because Israel's conduct itself is illegitimate.
The West should have granted him political asylum, just like we should everybody who blows the whistle on undisclosed WMD programs.
The phrase "so help me God" is optional, and you can replace "solemny affirm" for "oath".
And, besides, who cares about swearing something by someone else's imaginary sky fairy? Whatever power the oath is supposed to have is lost when you make people swear on something that they don't give a shit about.
I would object to a public oath invoking God, not because it offends me, but because people might falsely think that I believe in idiotic ideas like "God". But as long as it's a private oath, you can add Cthulhu and the Virgin Mary to the oath, and all you'll get out of me is a chuckle.
The Israeli penal code does make blasphemy illegal (output from Google Translate):
170. Destroying, damaging, or desecrating a place of worship, or any object held sacred crowd of people, deliberately degrade their religion, or knowingly that they may see this act an insult to their religion, Dino - three years imprisonment.
173. Makes one of the following countries - one year's imprisonment; (1) Publishes advertising that injure blatantly religious beliefs or their feelings of others; (2) Makes a public place and in the hearing of a certain word or sound that may harm the faith or gross violation of religious feelings. (3) Harm our sons public tombstones
Not as severe as Islamic blasphemy laws, but they still make blasphemy illegal.
The problem is that we have no good way of dealing with these lunatics when large parts of entire societies are thinking like this. It's like the West in the Middle Ages.
We do have a good way of dealing with these lunatics--don't deal at all with them. The problem of the West vs. Islamic fundamentalists is just that these people are sitting on oil. If it weren't for that, we could just break off relations and let them figure it out for the next few centuries. Instead, we dirty ourselves by dealing with the likes of the Saudis. And to a lesser degree, we dirty ourselves by dealing with Israel as well, who seems to be rapidly picking up on the intolerance and religious fundamentalism in the region (maybe it's in the water?).
If Palestinians want to govern themselves, they have to prove to Israel that they can guarantee Israel's security, and they have to prove to the rest of the world that they can be considered a legitimate government. That's just the facts. They are failing on both accounts.
And you're right that this being an Islamic government is responsible for people in the West not supporting them, because nearly all Muslim governments are highly intolerant of other religions and intrinsically undemocratic. Why should I want to support governments that want to imprison or kill me for my religious beliefs? I will not put my support behind an Islamic government of any form because such governments have never worked. If they want my political support, these people need to start separating church and state. Frankly, I prefer an occupied Palestine to a Palestine governed by Islamic fundamentalists.
Freedom gets a much more simple and immediate meaning there than "freedom of speech on the web".
There is nothing "abstract" about government goons showing up on your doorstep in order to haul you away for your execution because of your religious beliefs. Any government that does this is not legitimate and does not deserve anybody's support.
In fact with each program in its own "sandbox", protected from each other, I see better security.
Well, gee, think for a minute: why might people not be doing this?
Yes, and many other sites too. But it isn't part of the Android OS, so even if Oracle has a case, Android should be safe.
Most people never thought Java would become a hot potato to be careful with. No one thought that Oracle would be going after people over patents. Sun put Java under the GPL2.
Well, most people are obviously fools that know little about patents, licenses, or copyrights. What has happened was totally predictable from Sun's behavior and patents.
Can you tell me how Mono is more safe being under the GPL/LGPL/MIT when it is using tech directly from a company that is in many ways a direct competitor
I can tell you that if you look at the legal situation, Mono is and has been a lot safer than Java.