You seem to be missing out the part when the US helped overthrow the democratically elected government in 1953 and installed a brutal despot.
Uhm, not quite, not quite... This is oft-asserted by anti-Americans, but is not quite true. First of all, the man (Mohammad Mossadegh) was "elected" by the Iranian parliament (Majlis) — not "democratically" (by the people).
Yes, he was quite popular (yet another item in support of the GP's idea — about Iranians deserving of their government), but was a loon — giving media interviews in bed, for example. (Khm, was that why "300" pictured Persian ruler the way they did? Most unfair to the ancient king, BTW, but...)
And third, the CIA's action has, in all likelihood, prevented the appearance of the Soviet Army on the stage — which was exactly the point of the GP, who was now moderated down to oblivion by the same anti-Americans and victims of their propaganda. Even Iran's current and past misfortunes are better than the political repressions and economic degradation of becoming the 16th Soviet Socialist Republic would've entailed... Even without USSR appearing, Mossadegh's claiming "temporary" emergency powers foretold, what he had in mind for his country. One only needs to look at Syria and Egypt to realize, what fate did the British (and the CIA) helped Iran to avoid.
This was all obvious to most Americans at the time, BTW — when Socialism was still bad and Communism was still evil, and before the generations of victims of our education system worked their way through America-haters like that infamous "professor" from Chicago...
No, we don't. We are talking about, whether creators — of movies, music, literature, software, fashion designs — have the inherent rights to control their creations, or whether whoever happens to be able to copy their work has the same rights to it as the creator.
The Scientologists hated Cult Awareness Network with good reason [...]
So, you seriously consider law-suits brought against a private entity by another private entity to be comparable to government shutting down web-sites to minimize anti-government protests?!..
Some might argue that the real atrocity is the beating and killing of peaceful, unarmed students. [...]
Changing the topic, eh?..
When it comes to the important stuff like using Twitter and watching Britney's twat [...] U.S.A. is still way ahead of the communist bastards from China.
Twitter is used by anti-government protesters and yet the government does not attempt to close it, not even during the spikes of protests (such as around Iraq-invasion date). Chinese web-sites, which might be used to organize a protest are being shut down proactively. In this respect we are (and always have been) way ahead China's communist bastards, yes.
Take a good look at what happened to Cult Awareness Network for a stunning example of political censorship.
Which aspect of Cult Awareness Network's history do you consider "a stunning example of political censorship"? I skimmed the article briefly, but could not find anything particularly outrageous in what happened to them...
Ah, so you agree there are obligations that exist towards captured prisoners that exist independent of the Geneva convention.
Yes.
(And presumably the convention against torture, which Japan hadn't signed either.)
No, not necessarily. The treatment ought to be "humane". What that means is rather stretchable. 50% mortality rate is not humane, that's fairly obvious...
If someone is charged with intoxication and public disorder
Intoxication is not a misdemeanor. One can not be charged simply with it. But if one engages in public disorder, his being intoxicated is duly noted as aggravating circumstance... Similarly, carrying a (licensed) weapon is not by itself wrong, but using one in a commission of a crime is a separate charge.
So you agree that waterboarding is mistreatment.
Depending on the circumstances it may or may not be.
Simulated drowning was treated as a crime. It was not treated solely as 'evidence of intent', but an actual crime in and of itself.
Amazingly, there remain people, who would argue, that the US is either "the same" or "not much better", and deny, that China's human rights record is particularly bad.
I mean, just imagine, the US government shutting down Twitter or any Leftist web-site at around, say, Iraq-invasion anniversary...
husband and wife should be a team, but the details of any such arrangement should be worked out based on the needs and skills of each couple, rather than by preassignment of culturally constructed roles.
Sorry, the above nice-sounding statement makes no sense, because some (most important) roles are "constructed" by biology. Once you accept, that only the wife is to give birth (and you better), you accept, that some things can not be "worked out based on the needs and skills". And so the question comes right back to what's determined merely by culture (and can be changed, if desired), and what's handed over to us by evolution (and is thus very hard/useless to fight)...
For example, there is a fairly strong argument, that women are better at handling many small chores at once (perhaps, because they were gathering and tending to babies) — which may explain, why most secretaries are female, while men excel at big projects (but only one project at a time — "context switch" being more expensive for the male brain) — because, able to develop more muscle, they used to concentrate on hunting, which requires concentration.
Of course, unlike child-bearing, the above example talks only about statistical differences — there certainly exist wives, who happen to exceed their husbands in some things, that are usually deemed "manly". But statistics is all, that the article is about...
And you're about to invent a distinction between 'enemy combatants' and 'POWs', but let me cut you off at the knees and point out that the Japanese had not signed the Geneva convention and thus had not pledged to treat 'prisoners of war' in any manner whatsoever.
Japanese' not signing something or other does not eliminate the distinction between non-state combatants and a state's military. Contrary to your implications, that distinction was not created by Geneva Conventions — it was merely reflected in it.
We concluded that torture wasn't legal to do to anyone, period
(How clever of you to stealthily substitute "simulated drowning" for "torture". Let's not try to broaden the scope again, Ok?) Regardless. We have not executed Japanese for waterboarding — we tried them for (gross) mistreatment of detainees. So bad was the mistreatment, that 50% of the prisoners have died. It is awfully convenient for you (and other foes of the previous President) to concentrate on the waterboarding part of that verdict, but it is not any more instrumental to that case, that, say, intoxication is to a charge of "public disorder".
The high percentage of the dead — and waterboarding was simply evidence, that the mistreatment was deliberate — is the crime "regardless of treaty of domestic law".
to stop a completely biased party (oh, like your ISP or MediaSentry) from gathering evidence against you for a trial?
Sorry, this is plain retarded. The entire judicial system is based on two "completely biased" parties gathering (and presenting) evidence and otherwise arguing their points in front of judges/jurors.
I'm not a lawyer but it sounds like this lawyer finally did his homework and will probably stop the trial altogether due to lack of any evidence at all.
You aren't a lawyer, that's for sure. You've never even read a detective story, it seems. Illegally-obtained evidence is inadmissible, only when police do it. Because — it was decided long ago — it is more important to keep the government from illegal actions (since they have vast powers over our daily lives as it is) than to convict a particular person.
The case in question is not a criminal one (brought about by the government), but a civil one. Two private parties,equal before the law, are in dispute... The standards for evidence are different, because RIAA does not have the same powers as police. (The standards for jury verdicts are more relaxed too, BTW, but that may be too much information for you at this point.)
I hope the RIAA learns its lesson and stops these frivolous lawsuits.
Right, because defending one's legitimate interests in court is frivolous...
Doing him any harm was a war crime under what law? The Japanese were not a party to the Geneva Convention.
So some other law was found under which plenty of Japan's war-criminals were tried and convicted as such. You really ought to stop beating around this bush — there were seven people captured by the Japanese along with lieutenant Chase Jay Nielsen. Four of them (50% !!) died in captivity. No civilized country has treated whomever they captured this way in decades — waterboarding has nothing (or very little) to do with the case.
Sexism will take no less time and will most likely take more because it is deeper ingrained
You seem to agree with article's premise, that the rising percentage of women in science is simply due to the diminishment of sexism. What if it is (at least partially) explained by the Affirmative Action instead?
Colleges do seek out female applicants for science majors — that's a very well known fact. So much so, female applicants are advised to specify Math major in their applications to improve their chances, whatever their actual interest — it is easy to switch major once you are in... Other things being equal, a girl will be admitted to Science program over a boy. I'm not saying here, whether that's good or bad in my opinion — only that it does affect the statistics.
Che Guevara's terrorism was intended to free Cubans from the constant capitalist attacks, it was accepted that this would require killing some people, the intent was to minimize the loss of Cuban live!
Right here there are two mistakes. Major ones. First, you equate Communism — an evil regime, that always brings about both mass murder and economic stagnation, in addition to petty human rights violations — with Capitalism, that brings fantastic benefits even to the least successful of the participants. The two aren't equal at all — fighting for Communism makes one an enemy of mankind. Fighting against it is a noble cause.
Second, you are, apparently, unaware, that Che's attempt to terrorize New York was well after the Cubans were already "liberated". He got bored with executions and was eying other activities.
On these two reasons you lose with gusto and demonstrate yourself to be a useless idiot. Have a nice day, if you can.
And i have enough distrust of the western governments setting the sanctions to suspect that their definition of evil is based on financial factors rather than how the regime treats its people.
This is ridiculously naive. So, you don't believe, North Korea is evil — both to its own people and the neighbors (unlike Myanmar, BTW)? You honestly suspect, the "Western governments" may be unfairly targeting Mr. Kim because he owes us money?
When you put official sanctions on a regime you don't stop them trading...
That's an argument against sanctions in general. There is some truth to it, but, unfortunately, the alternatives are often worse:
Do nothing...
Go to war with them
Or:
If you want to hurt an "evil" regime, don't isolate them, encourage trade and communication...
Indeed, your naivete is stunning. Encouraging trade makes them richer and communications help them educate their people and obtain better equipment. They will remain just as hostile, but richer and better educated (and thus better armed). Look at Russia — no sanctions against them, and yet they hate America's guts (much more so than right after their loss of the Cold War) and dream of revanche for losing.
Look at Israel — they used to be uber-liberal just like you. They believed, educating their Arab neighbors would make them accept Israel's existence and begin valuing life and prosperity over death and war. And what they got is enemy just as (or more) hostile than before (make no mistake — this is not about "settlements" or anything particular — Hamas wants to destroy Israel completely). They use the education to make better suicide vests and Quassams...
I doubt, I'll change your opinion here and now. But — if you have a brain — you'll change on your own in a few years.
Which part of the: "The Pentagon plans [emphasis mine] to create a new military command for cyberspace, administration officials said Thursday, stepping up preparations by the armed forces to conduct both offensive and defensive computer warfare," — did you miss? I mean, come on, it is the first paragraph of your own link!
right...and the never US [sic] funded & armed people who attacked cuba killing ~5k people!
Why the Cuban government fears USA is a different topic from why the American government is wary of Cuba.
I take it, you accept my point on the original topic, and wish to switch to this new one. Obliging.
Your attempt to equate Che Guevara's terrorism with America-supported military action/coup is ridiculous. Che intended to scare (terrorize) millions by killing (intentionally with multiple bombs) as many as he could. On contrast, the US intended to free Cubans from Communist choke-hold. No deaths were intended — although it was accepted, that there will be casualties — A la Guerre comme à la Guerre — the intent was to minimize them.
Because our first Chicago-elected President was just as strikingly naive as the second one, that operation failed, and Castro's regime has, by now, killed many more, than would've died in the properly-executed attempt to depose him...
Um, tell that to the people who waterboarded Lieutenant Chase Jay Nielsen.
He was a Prisoner of War. Doing him any physical harm was a war crime — something, the Japanese were pretty awful at in general. Of the British and US troops captured by Germans, only about 4% have died. That figure is 27% for the Americans captured by Japan.
Do you guys in the USA still seriously believe that Cuba is going to invade and conquer you / subvert your citizens and turn them into communists / invite Putin to set up ICBMs pointing at you?
Yes, we do. They did get Hruschev's missiles once, and they (Che Guevara in particular) did try to blow-up New York landmarks — FBI and New York Police Department managed to disrupt that operation by planting a young police cadet in the "Black Liberation Army".
As long as the same people and the same ideology are in charge in Cuba, we will keep trying to keep them down as much, as an 800-pound gorilla can keep down a snake. Thanks for asking.
its the difference between riding out into the countryside and battening down the hatches on the castle. its a lot easier to secure a castle than police the entire countryside
Your analogy is flawed... Although you are right, that "policing the countryside" is difficult, securing the castle is very hard too, when you aren't allowed to pursue the repelled attackers. And, as far as I know, most of the military's tactics and doctrines rely on retaliating (or a threat thereof) as a deterrent.
And yet, retaliating on the Internet is something, that's not widely practiced, and, generally, frowned upon... So, without risking anything for each mistake they make, sooner or later the unpunished (and unpunishable) hackers find a way — and they only need to do it once to become famous.
I think, I'd love to work in a data-center of this caliber belonging to a company like Apple... Too bad, their job listings don't mention anything on the East Coast...
Slashdot Mirror
Here are the questions for you with the increasing difficulty levels. The correct answer to all three is "no":
No. See "Common Carrier". You really don't want the phone companies to be able to refuse service to anybody...
The real problem is the government's indifference — took millions of complaints over years for them to enforce the law...
Uhm, not quite, not quite... This is oft-asserted by anti-Americans, but is not quite true. First of all, the man (Mohammad Mossadegh) was "elected" by the Iranian parliament (Majlis) — not "democratically" (by the people).
Yes, he was quite popular (yet another item in support of the GP's idea — about Iranians deserving of their government), but was a loon — giving media interviews in bed, for example. (Khm, was that why "300" pictured Persian ruler the way they did? Most unfair to the ancient king, BTW, but...)
And third, the CIA's action has, in all likelihood, prevented the appearance of the Soviet Army on the stage — which was exactly the point of the GP, who was now moderated down to oblivion by the same anti-Americans and victims of their propaganda. Even Iran's current and past misfortunes are better than the political repressions and economic degradation of becoming the 16th Soviet Socialist Republic would've entailed... Even without USSR appearing, Mossadegh's claiming "temporary" emergency powers foretold, what he had in mind for his country. One only needs to look at Syria and Egypt to realize, what fate did the British (and the CIA) helped Iran to avoid.
This was all obvious to most Americans at the time, BTW — when Socialism was still bad and Communism was still evil, and before the generations of victims of our education system worked their way through America-haters like that infamous "professor" from Chicago...
No, we don't. We are talking about, whether creators — of movies, music, literature, software, fashion designs — have the inherent rights to control their creations, or whether whoever happens to be able to copy their work has the same rights to it as the creator.
So, you seriously consider law-suits brought against a private entity by another private entity to be comparable to government shutting down web-sites to minimize anti-government protests?!..
Changing the topic, eh?..
Twitter is used by anti-government protesters and yet the government does not attempt to close it, not even during the spikes of protests (such as around Iraq-invasion date). Chinese web-sites, which might be used to organize a protest are being shut down proactively. In this respect we are (and always have been) way ahead China's communist bastards, yes.
Which aspect of Cult Awareness Network's history do you consider "a stunning example of political censorship"? I skimmed the article briefly, but could not find anything particularly outrageous in what happened to them...
Yes.
No, not necessarily. The treatment ought to be "humane". What that means is rather stretchable. 50% mortality rate is not humane, that's fairly obvious...
Intoxication is not a misdemeanor. One can not be charged simply with it. But if one engages in public disorder, his being intoxicated is duly noted as aggravating circumstance... Similarly, carrying a (licensed) weapon is not by itself wrong, but using one in a commission of a crime is a separate charge.
Depending on the circumstances it may or may not be.
Citation needed.
Amazingly, there remain people, who would argue, that the US is either "the same" or "not much better", and deny, that China's human rights record is particularly bad.
I mean, just imagine, the US government shutting down Twitter or any Leftist web-site at around, say, Iraq-invasion anniversary...
Sorry, the above nice-sounding statement makes no sense, because some (most important) roles are "constructed" by biology. Once you accept, that only the wife is to give birth (and you better), you accept, that some things can not be "worked out based on the needs and skills". And so the question comes right back to what's determined merely by culture (and can be changed, if desired), and what's handed over to us by evolution (and is thus very hard/useless to fight)...
For example, there is a fairly strong argument, that women are better at handling many small chores at once (perhaps, because they were gathering and tending to babies) — which may explain, why most secretaries are female, while men excel at big projects (but only one project at a time — "context switch" being more expensive for the male brain) — because, able to develop more muscle, they used to concentrate on hunting, which requires concentration.
Of course, unlike child-bearing, the above example talks only about statistical differences — there certainly exist wives, who happen to exceed their husbands in some things, that are usually deemed "manly". But statistics is all, that the article is about...
Japanese' not signing something or other does not eliminate the distinction between non-state combatants and a state's military. Contrary to your implications, that distinction was not created by Geneva Conventions — it was merely reflected in it.
(How clever of you to stealthily substitute "simulated drowning" for "torture". Let's not try to broaden the scope again, Ok?) Regardless. We have not executed Japanese for waterboarding — we tried them for (gross) mistreatment of detainees. So bad was the mistreatment, that 50% of the prisoners have died. It is awfully convenient for you (and other foes of the previous President) to concentrate on the waterboarding part of that verdict, but it is not any more instrumental to that case, that, say, intoxication is to a charge of "public disorder".
The high percentage of the dead — and waterboarding was simply evidence, that the mistreatment was deliberate — is the crime "regardless of treaty of domestic law".
No, we have not.
Sorry, this is plain retarded. The entire judicial system is based on two "completely biased" parties gathering (and presenting) evidence and otherwise arguing their points in front of judges/jurors.
You aren't a lawyer, that's for sure. You've never even read a detective story, it seems. Illegally-obtained evidence is inadmissible, only when police do it. Because — it was decided long ago — it is more important to keep the government from illegal actions (since they have vast powers over our daily lives as it is) than to convict a particular person.
The case in question is not a criminal one (brought about by the government), but a civil one. Two private parties,equal before the law, are in dispute... The standards for evidence are different, because RIAA does not have the same powers as police. (The standards for jury verdicts are more relaxed too, BTW, but that may be too much information for you at this point.)
Right, because defending one's legitimate interests in court is frivolous...
So some other law was found under which plenty of Japan's war-criminals were tried and convicted as such. You really ought to stop beating around this bush — there were seven people captured by the Japanese along with lieutenant Chase Jay Nielsen. Four of them (50% !!) died in captivity. No civilized country has treated whomever they captured this way in decades — waterboarding has nothing (or very little) to do with the case.
You seem to agree with article's premise, that the rising percentage of women in science is simply due to the diminishment of sexism. What if it is (at least partially) explained by the Affirmative Action instead?
Colleges do seek out female applicants for science majors — that's a very well known fact. So much so, female applicants are advised to specify Math major in their applications to improve their chances, whatever their actual interest — it is easy to switch major once you are in... Other things being equal, a girl will be admitted to Science program over a boy. I'm not saying here, whether that's good or bad in my opinion — only that it does affect the statistics.
And what does the "Hope" button do?
Right here there are two mistakes. Major ones. First, you equate Communism — an evil regime, that always brings about both mass murder and economic stagnation, in addition to petty human rights violations — with Capitalism, that brings fantastic benefits even to the least successful of the participants. The two aren't equal at all — fighting for Communism makes one an enemy of mankind. Fighting against it is a noble cause.
Second, you are, apparently, unaware, that Che's attempt to terrorize New York was well after the Cubans were already "liberated". He got bored with executions and was eying other activities.
On these two reasons you lose with gusto and demonstrate yourself to be a useless idiot. Have a nice day, if you can.
This is ridiculously naive. So, you don't believe, North Korea is evil — both to its own people and the neighbors (unlike Myanmar, BTW)? You honestly suspect, the "Western governments" may be unfairly targeting Mr. Kim because he owes us money?
That's an argument against sanctions in general. There is some truth to it, but, unfortunately, the alternatives are often worse:
Indeed, your naivete is stunning. Encouraging trade makes them richer and communications help them educate their people and obtain better equipment. They will remain just as hostile, but richer and better educated (and thus better armed). Look at Russia — no sanctions against them, and yet they hate America's guts (much more so than right after their loss of the Cold War) and dream of revanche for losing.
Look at Israel — they used to be uber-liberal just like you. They believed, educating their Arab neighbors would make them accept Israel's existence and begin valuing life and prosperity over death and war. And what they got is enemy just as (or more) hostile than before (make no mistake — this is not about "settlements" or anything particular — Hamas wants to destroy Israel completely). They use the education to make better suicide vests and Quassams...
I doubt, I'll change your opinion here and now. But — if you have a brain — you'll change on your own in a few years.
Which part of the: "The Pentagon plans [emphasis mine] to create a new military command for cyberspace, administration officials said Thursday, stepping up preparations by the armed forces to conduct both offensive and defensive computer warfare," — did you miss? I mean, come on, it is the first paragraph of your own link!
Why the Cuban government fears USA is a different topic from why the American government is wary of Cuba.
I take it, you accept my point on the original topic, and wish to switch to this new one. Obliging.
Your attempt to equate Che Guevara's terrorism with America-supported military action/coup is ridiculous. Che intended to scare (terrorize) millions by killing (intentionally with multiple bombs) as many as he could. On contrast, the US intended to free Cubans from Communist choke-hold. No deaths were intended — although it was accepted, that there will be casualties — A la Guerre comme à la Guerre — the intent was to minimize them.
Because our first Chicago-elected President was just as strikingly naive as the second one, that operation failed, and Castro's regime has, by now, killed many more, than would've died in the properly-executed attempt to depose him...
He was a Prisoner of War. Doing him any physical harm was a war crime — something, the Japanese were pretty awful at in general. Of the British and US troops captured by Germans, only about 4% have died. That figure is 27% for the Americans captured by Japan.
Yes, we do. They did get Hruschev's missiles once, and they (Che Guevara in particular) did try to blow-up New York landmarks — FBI and New York Police Department managed to disrupt that operation by planting a young police cadet in the "Black Liberation Army".
As long as the same people and the same ideology are in charge in Cuba, we will keep trying to keep them down as much, as an 800-pound gorilla can keep down a snake. Thanks for asking.
Well, maybe in the future. But in the past they have not — contrary to your earlier posting.
Your analogy is flawed... Although you are right, that "policing the countryside" is difficult, securing the castle is very hard too, when you aren't allowed to pursue the repelled attackers. And, as far as I know, most of the military's tactics and doctrines rely on retaliating (or a threat thereof) as a deterrent.
And yet, retaliating on the Internet is something, that's not widely practiced, and, generally, frowned upon... So, without risking anything for each mistake they make, sooner or later the unpunished (and unpunishable) hackers find a way — and they only need to do it once to become famous.
Waterboarding civilians is certainly a crime. Enemy combatants — that's a different story...
I think, I'd love to work in a data-center of this caliber belonging to a company like Apple... Too bad, their job listings don't mention anything on the East Coast...