in a strange example of viral marketing gone wrong
I'd hate this practice too, if it affected me, but why is it any more wrong, than any other children-targeted marketing (like advertising action-figures in between cartoons)?
George W. Bush's administration has shielded the terrorist organization, Mujahidden-e-Khalq from prosecution and attack by Iranians and Iraqis.
He has not committed, nor ordered to have committed a single act of terror. That's what I said. Stop changing the subject.
Bush also ordered the destruction of the city of Fallujah, where he's reported to have announced "Let heads roll!"
Attack on Fallujah (which was not destroyed, but even if it were), was not an Act of Terror. You are, again, confusing it with an Act of War. The troops were neither ordered to, nor actually did target non-combatants. Bush's alleged "Let heads roll!" applied, of course, to armed enemies — nothing wrong with that.
Hardly the features of "the greatest terrorist" anyway...
There's one MAJOR difference here, China will be an *economic* superpower
I'm not sure about this at all... I think, there are some major social calamities looming for them — too many people remain in dire poverty. If they emerge from those as a dictatorship, they will not be an economic superpower either. If they become decently democratic, I would not mind them becoming economically powerful — same as India or Brasil, BTW.
Yes, I do share this "Polyannish" belief, that a country can not be really strong economically without being decent internally — not in this day and age, when slave labour is woefully inefficient.
Five? That's it? There are hundreds of ISPs, but you could only find five, who chose to charge extra for enhanced service?
You are also way too selective, BTW. You forgot to mention all those cases, where bandwidth was flat-out cut off to certain customers. If you are so bent on preventing people from prioritizing traffic through their pipes any way they want, be prepared for spammers suing them too...
then why don't firms simply offer it, instead of proposing to offer it?
I don't know — to get feedback from would-be major customers (like Google)? Whatever — it is not currently illegal to prioritize traffic passing through your pipes in any way you want. Heck, some people base it on spamming activity even...
Those imposed by competition, however limited it currently is.
If we don't let the businesses compete in a particular market freely, they'll, naturally, slow its development. Then we'll say, wait a minute, how come South Korea has so much better broadband penetration than US?
The next President (and Congress) will then push for something well-named, like "Universal Broadband Access". They will, likely, even impose new fees to subsidize broadband's reach in "rural areas" and hand the responsibility over to one (or a select few) big telcos as a monopoly after setting some price-caps.
What happens next is just as well known. The AT&T debacle is a perfect demonstration...
OK, to simplify your position - attacking civilians is terror, acting non-civilians and infrastructure is not, no matter what the underlying cause of the attack?
Yes, what makes something terrorism is the intent -- the intent to target civilians.
For example, the recent Palestinian raid on the Israeli Army post was an Act of War (although they now seem to be committing a War Crime of holding the captured POW hostage). Their lobbing the rockets at Israeli towns (rather than military bases) have no military purpose whatsoever and are Acts of Terror.
it seems a bit simplistic and extreme,
Change "simplistic" to its equivalent "simple" and I'll agree:-) Don't know, what's so "extreme", though...
(Yes, moderation is funny on these subjects. I'm an insightful overrated troll too...)
while China will be a superpower by the end of this century, at that time India will still be a third world country by far
USSR was a "superpower" for decades. Life in it sucked big time. Living in Italy, the UK, France, or even India, would've been much better — if only for the possibility to leave, if you wanted.
That's all, the forced "net neutrality" would amount to... Another government agency interfering with the market.
The only valid argument is telcos pessimizing traffic of companies, competing with them on something else. Against that there already are anti-monopoly laws...
Every country's laws define "fairly explicitly" what is, for example, "murder". Yet a person can not be credibly called "murderer", until a court of law rules him to have committed a murder.
As for a "reasonably intelligent person" and their judgements, I like this standard. According to it we were in a perfect clear resuming the war on Saddam. In fact, we should've done it many years earlier.
But it is not the standard, war's opponents are using, when they condemn US for attacking without UN's (explicit) authorization. I'm just rejecting their attempts to have it both ways...
I soundly refuted both possible interpertations of your posting. I just happened to start with the wrong one.
Oh, it is laws of the acting side, that you are concerned about? Well, then, none of those suicide bombers, the Bali-bombing planners, nor, indeed, the 9/11 perpetrators are terrorists, because whatever cause they were answering to gave them fully qualified permission and encouragement to commit these Acts.
Which internationally recognized sovereign state of laws were they acting on the behalf of? Not any, as far as I can tell.
This does not make a difference — it is irrelevant. For example, Lybia's attack on that PanAm flight was an Act of Terror, even though it was authorized (ordered) by Quaddafi.
Oh, and "they did it first" is a good defense up until about the second grade. It doesn't fly when you are in charge of the most powerful nation on Earth.
I never used that defense. Don't invent strawmen...
1. Terrorism : the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.
You forgot to post their definition of "terror".
2. Bush took the U.S. to a pre-emptive war without the approval of Congress.
Congress' approval (or lack thereof) is irrelevant to whether or not any Acts of Terror were committed (by Bush or on his orders) during the war.
3. Shock and Awe was used to corce Iraqis into civil war.
WHAA? "Shock and Awe" was used to "coerce" Iraqi military into surrendering, which they promptly did years ago. Iraqis' sliding into a civil war is something, Bush is trying very hard to prevent for it will embarass him even further.
It[terrorism -mi]'s the perfectly rational and justifiable response to the "just" action that unjustly affects an innocent party... who later becomes a terrorist.
There you go. A fully stereotypical anti-American (your sig at the time of this writing says: "Stop America Now"), justifying terrorism... Despite all the seriousness, this is, actually, funny.
I'm sorry, but that's just a ridiculous, impossible standard. Security Council resolution? USA is ON the security council. Permanently. With a VETO.
So are China and Russia, who blocked an explicit UN's authorization for our resumption of hostilities against Iraq, leaving us "only" with the numerous earlier implicit ones.
However "ridiculous" or "impossible", there is no other standard. None... The very term "illegal war" is largely meaningless in an international context because of that, whenever the war is waged by one of the veto-holding powers.
More detailed: wars suck. Big time. Having to kill people — even armed enemies — sucks. But as long as the enemy wants to do that to you or your allies, you must be able to overcome your revulsion and make sure, you are better at it, than he is.
And even if you don't get it yet, it should still be clear, that Acts of War are different from Acts of Terror. If only because the intent is different, as your imaginary Conservative and Leftie (whom you call "Normal Person") were discussing.
And we are getting a lot better at it. Korean War costed 54K American lives, and many hundreds of thousands (confirmed) Korean deaths (plus hundreds of thousands Chinese and some Soviets)...
1) Technically this isn't a war as congress has yet to declare war.
This is irrelevant to the subject. Even if the war is undeclared, we are fighting it without committing Acts of Terror.
2) Your unequivocal statement that Bush has done no wrong is, to put it simply: stupid. You are not in a position to know whether the president has done such things or not.
His accusers — those calling him "terrorist" — have to present evidence. His defenders can simply point out, that no such evidence was ever presented.
Next time stick to FACTS.
Next time stick to THE TOPIC. That Bush is disliked by many, or that he has been wrong, does not mean, he is a "terrorist" — unless, of course, you use that term as a slur, ignorant of its meaning.
According to the Wikipedia, the US defines terror as "...the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives" (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85). I suppose the keyword here is "unlawful."
BS. Any Act of War is "unlawful" according to the laws of the target. It is still an Act of War. Killing enemy troops qualifies. Destroying enemy's infrastructure qualifies — it has military purpose (actually, Clinton's bombing campaing against Serbia is a bit suspect, but I would not call it terrorism either).
Targeting enemy's civilians (like blowing up a pizza parlor, an office building, or a discotheque) does not qualify — it is an Act of Terror... It may be all, they can do — for whatever reason, but Acts of Terror those still are.
Congress gave him the authority to pursue by force those responsible for 9/11.
Oh, it is laws of the acting side, that you are concerned about? Well, then, none of those suicide bombers, the Bali-bombing planners, nor, indeed, the 9/11 perpetrators are terrorists, because whatever cause they were answering to gave them fully qualified permission and encouragement to commit these Acts.
So, Bush & Co. are either terrorists, or they are an incompetent bunch of chicken hawks. Either way, are these the guys you want in charge of defending the US?
Actually since the "war" was never formally declared and never sanctioned by the UN
It was formally declared in 1991. And never, formally, ended.
it's more like terrorism then war.
Sorry, this is flat-out illogical... I understand, that you dislike and disapprove it, but is still a war.
Before you go on with the "illegal war" rants, I advise you to search hard for UNSC resolution(s) condemning it as such...
And still it would not be terrorism — even an unjust war is not terrorism, and a just one is not insurance against it either. These are perfectly orthogonal.
Slashdot Mirror
You are not really answering the question in the subject, are you?
I'd hate this practice too, if it affected me, but why is it any more wrong, than any other children-targeted marketing (like advertising action-figures in between cartoons)?
The attack on WTC (unlike that on Pentagon) had no military purpose whatsoever... All 3000+ victims of it, where victims of an Act of Terror.
He has not committed, nor ordered to have committed a single act of terror. That's what I said. Stop changing the subject.
Attack on Fallujah (which was not destroyed, but even if it were), was not an Act of Terror. You are, again, confusing it with an Act of War. The troops were neither ordered to, nor actually did target non-combatants. Bush's alleged "Let heads roll!" applied, of course, to armed enemies — nothing wrong with that.
Hardly the features of "the greatest terrorist" anyway...
You are confusing tourism with immigration...
Did China's firewall add this last statement to your posting, or would you sincerely prefer Chinese leadership over Bush?
Knowing where you are, though, I know, what the posted answer will be, of course...
I'm not sure about this at all... I think, there are some major social calamities looming for them — too many people remain in dire poverty. If they emerge from those as a dictatorship, they will not be an economic superpower either. If they become decently democratic, I would not mind them becoming economically powerful — same as India or Brasil, BTW.
Yes, I do share this "Polyannish" belief, that a country can not be really strong economically without being decent internally — not in this day and age, when slave labour is woefully inefficient.
Count me with the neo-Cons like Thomas Friedman.
Five? That's it? There are hundreds of ISPs, but you could only find five, who chose to charge extra for enhanced service?
You are also way too selective, BTW. You forgot to mention all those cases, where bandwidth was flat-out cut off to certain customers. If you are so bent on preventing people from prioritizing traffic through their pipes any way they want, be prepared for spammers suing them too...
I don't know — to get feedback from would-be major customers (like Google)? Whatever — it is not currently illegal to prioritize traffic passing through your pipes in any way you want. Heck, some people base it on spamming activity even...
Those imposed by competition, however limited it currently is.
If we don't let the businesses compete in a particular market freely, they'll, naturally, slow its development. Then we'll say, wait a minute, how come South Korea has so much better broadband penetration than US?
The next President (and Congress) will then push for something well-named, like "Universal Broadband Access". They will, likely, even impose new fees to subsidize broadband's reach in "rural areas" and hand the responsibility over to one (or a select few) big telcos as a monopoly after setting some price-caps.
What happens next is just as well known. The AT&T debacle is a perfect demonstration...
Leave the market alone.
Yes, what makes something terrorism is the intent -- the intent to target civilians.
For example, the recent Palestinian raid on the Israeli Army post was an Act of War (although they now seem to be committing a War Crime of holding the captured POW hostage). Their lobbing the rockets at Israeli towns (rather than military bases) have no military purpose whatsoever and are Acts of Terror.
Change "simplistic" to its equivalent "simple" and I'll agree :-) Don't know, what's so "extreme", though...
(Yes, moderation is funny on these subjects. I'm an insightful overrated troll too...)
USSR was a "superpower" for decades. Life in it sucked big time. Living in Italy, the UK, France, or even India, would've been much better — if only for the possibility to leave, if you wanted.
Oh, the ignorance. No, it is not... Its proponents want the government to start mandating it pre-emptively.
They even have devised the special fear-mongering term like: "the great plug-pulling".
For Internet access. Same as happened when AT&T was tasked with delivering universal telephone service...
YouTube appeared and succeeded without the government-mandated "net-neutrality".
Can't you find an example to, like, support your argument?
That's all, the forced "net neutrality" would amount to... Another government agency interfering with the market.
The only valid argument is telcos pessimizing traffic of companies, competing with them on something else. Against that there already are anti-monopoly laws...
Every country's laws define "fairly explicitly" what is, for example, "murder". Yet a person can not be credibly called "murderer", until a court of law rules him to have committed a murder.
As for a "reasonably intelligent person" and their judgements, I like this standard. According to it we were in a perfect clear resuming the war on Saddam. In fact, we should've done it many years earlier.
But it is not the standard, war's opponents are using, when they condemn US for attacking without UN's (explicit) authorization. I'm just rejecting their attempts to have it both ways...
I soundly refuted both possible interpertations of your posting. I just happened to start with the wrong one.
This does not make a difference — it is irrelevant. For example, Lybia's attack on that PanAm flight was an Act of Terror, even though it was authorized (ordered) by Quaddafi.
I never used that defense. Don't invent strawmen...
You forgot to post their definition of "terror".
Congress' approval (or lack thereof) is irrelevant to whether or not any Acts of Terror were committed (by Bush or on his orders) during the war.
WHAA? "Shock and Awe" was used to "coerce" Iraqi military into surrendering, which they promptly did years ago. Iraqis' sliding into a civil war is something, Bush is trying very hard to prevent for it will embarass him even further.
"Informative" my shiny behind...
Of course there is... Unless all militaries are terrorists, in your opinion.
Sorry, this is irrelevant.
This, too, is irrelevant — an "illegal" war is not necessarily terrorism, and a "legal" one is not necessarily free of Acts of Terror either.
The big and important difference is the intent...
Of course, they are wrong. As are a number of other things. But we are talking about one particular wrong thing — terrorism. Don't change the subject.
There you go. A fully stereotypical anti-American (your sig at the time of this writing says: "Stop America Now"), justifying terrorism... Despite all the seriousness, this is, actually, funny.
So are China and Russia, who blocked an explicit UN's authorization for our resumption of hostilities against Iraq, leaving us "only" with the numerous earlier implicit ones.
However "ridiculous" or "impossible", there is no other standard. None... The very term "illegal war" is largely meaningless in an international context because of that, whenever the war is waged by one of the veto-holding powers.
In a word: YES .
More detailed: wars suck. Big time. Having to kill people — even armed enemies — sucks. But as long as the enemy wants to do that to you or your allies, you must be able to overcome your revulsion and make sure, you are better at it, than he is.
And even if you don't get it yet, it should still be clear, that Acts of War are different from Acts of Terror. If only because the intent is different, as your imaginary Conservative and Leftie (whom you call "Normal Person") were discussing.
And we are getting a lot better at it. Korean War costed 54K American lives, and many hundreds of thousands (confirmed) Korean deaths (plus hundreds of thousands Chinese and some Soviets)...
This is irrelevant to the subject. Even if the war is undeclared, we are fighting it without committing Acts of Terror.
His accusers — those calling him "terrorist" — have to present evidence. His defenders can simply point out, that no such evidence was ever presented.
Next time stick to THE TOPIC. That Bush is disliked by many, or that he has been wrong, does not mean, he is a "terrorist" — unless, of course, you use that term as a slur, ignorant of its meaning.
BS. Any Act of War is "unlawful" according to the laws of the target. It is still an Act of War. Killing enemy troops qualifies. Destroying enemy's infrastructure qualifies — it has military purpose (actually, Clinton's bombing campaing against Serbia is a bit suspect, but I would not call it terrorism either).
Targeting enemy's civilians (like blowing up a pizza parlor, an office building, or a discotheque) does not qualify — it is an Act of Terror... It may be all, they can do — for whatever reason, but Acts of Terror those still are.
Oh, it is laws of the acting side, that you are concerned about? Well, then, none of those suicide bombers, the Bali-bombing planners, nor, indeed, the 9/11 perpetrators are terrorists, because whatever cause they were answering to gave them fully qualified permission and encouragement to commit these Acts.
Do not change the subject. Wipe your mouth.
It was formally declared in 1991. And never, formally, ended.
Sorry, this is flat-out illogical... I understand, that you dislike and disapprove it, but is still a war.
Before you go on with the "illegal war" rants, I advise you to search hard for UNSC resolution(s) condemning it as such...
And still it would not be terrorism — even an unjust war is not terrorism, and a just one is not insurance against it either. These are perfectly orthogonal.