In a world quickly changing to favor technology, it is people like me who will shape humanity within the next few centuries.
No, it won't be people like us. It will be people like my daughter who has managed have the skills without the cost. And I, as must you, recognise that there is a cost.
As in all things, balance is needed. The best (not me!) have both social and technical skills. Setephen Hawking, Carl Sagan, Albert Einstein and many many more.
Thanks a lot, Geoff [mailto], you fucking sanctimonious git. Thanks for being such a shining example of why Lee-nucks will never catch on with the desktop set.
You posted my adress with mailto: link as an anonymous coward and you call me a sanctimonious git?
FWIW, I don't use Linux and never, ever have. In fact I still call it L-i-nux.
The person claimed NOT to be a newbie (and so should have a good idea where to look for help).
The instructions came with the package.
As you can see from other posts, some meaningful dialog has emerged (not this obviously).
The only person you have put down has been yourself.
The README for scanssh-1.6b.tar.gz
is only 826 bytes and don't say much.
Which README were _you_ referring to ?
That's the one. The one that says run./configure and then make.
It's late at night (I'm in Europe), I'd rilly like to make it go before beddie-bye, but as I said in my original post, the stuff I downloaded is way cryptic. Luckily some posters filled in the gaps.
Well, it is early afternoon in Australia, and the liquid lunch may have much to do with my acerbicity, but I have trouble seeing why you have had any trouble at all. All the information is presented. Whoa to go too about five minutes including compile time. The following worked for me:-
gunzip scanssh-1.6b.tar.gz; tar xvf scanssh-1.6b.tar ; cd scanssh ;./configure ; make ;./scanssh 127.0.0.1
Since your reports a low version number an update is called for OR put the line "protocl 2" or in sshd_config
I download the tgz and I build it and I scan around some web pages but I can't find a decent example of how to compile it and make it do something informative.
Hmm... Pity you didn't just check the README. It gave explicit instructions on how to build the executable. I worked first time on my system and I don't even run Linux.
Takes me a while to find out that I need to do is (1) run nsslookup to get a real, live IP address and then (2) run "/usr/local/bin/scanssh 207.F00.bar", and then (after much mucking about
Hmm... What was wrong with "scanssh -h" to find out how to use it? You do understand what a Domain Name and an Internet Address are?
I get nice cryptic output "SSH-1.5-1.2.21"...
so does the host need an upgrade or NOT ?
and where do I find said upgrade ?
Okay. You didn't read the README. You didn't read the help, and now you didn't read the Advisory - or you would know the answer to your first two questions, and to answer the third, well, you don't even say what system you use.
no wonder people go for Micro$oft. they ain't so snotty. they BS you around the block, but they have hyperlinks and installers, and I don't hafta be a damned rocket scientist.
You know, before you drive a car, you have to learn how. MS specialise in 'automatic transmissions'. Trouble is, it doesn't extend to an 'automatic steering wheel' or an 'automatic throttle control'. So, you still have to learn how to drive. People go for MS to avoid having to learn to drive. It doesn't work.
p.s. This IS NOT A TROLL, been runnin' Linux and Java for years now.
A troll is atroll, is a troll. How have you been running Linux and Java without learning to drive?
It would be great if common email programs had a function for that - for example, right clicking on a spam mail, choosing "spam", the mail would be moved to a "spam folder" and the relevant info about that email would automatically be submitted to an anti-spam institiution of that kind. This would make handling spam a lot easier IMHO.
Suppose you send me mail with the exact text in your post. Now, I don't actually get any spam, but it's not a problem. BUt let's say I reply, and leave the original text. SUddenly, my mail meets every single criteria that you're filtering.
Have you ever heard of regular expressions?
When you reply there will be a "Re:" in front.
When you forward, a "FWD:". So all you need to do is match on the Subject and correctly anchor your regular expression.
In this way I never get the same piece of spam twice. It works very well and does not do what you claim. One moment's thought should have dismissed this. Instead it is a +2. Weary, weary...
Seems like everyone hates spam with a passion, except maybe the spammers themselves, and from what I've gathered they're generally pretty clueless. Why would people mess up one of the few effective lines of defense?
Maybe I'm just being naive, but I think this could actually work.
I use kmail and spam (filter selected) gets piped through ricochet (also Vipul's) and I have recieved on 'specially crafted' spam which caused my box to send off about a thousand false complaints. That spammer was not incompetant.
Not according to the bench tests that IBM has been doing on the function calls that are used. And since everything above the kernel is pretty much the same, (i.e. gnu tools and compliers) then whoever has faster kernel calls wins. Linux has the faster kernel, since 2.2. 2.4 just widened the performance gap.
Faster than what? FreeBSD 4.4? FreeBSD 5.0? FreeBSD doesn't use the same progression as Linux. Your tossoff comment is just "
Linux FUD
". The enemy (if we have one) is MS. Lets not feed on our own fleah.
>Yeah, we gave plenty of advance notice, and then we starting bombing military targets like power stations and SAM sites. Hate to break it to you, but there is a big difference between targeting 50,000 innocent people and targeting a airport/power plant/ etc.
Err... How and to whom did you give notice? The people of Afghanistan do not have access to western media. That's one mistake. You have not notified the victims either.
>They killed three people I went to high school with, asshole. They also killed 5 of my local volunteer fire department, who were full time FDNY- a common thing in the suburbs of NY.
I understood that that was an act by some terrorists, not the Taleban military. That's a second mistake. No one has claimed that the Taleban organised or had any knowlege of the WTC.
>I want Osama Bin Laden standing tall before a federal judge in a courthouse in NYC. If found guilty, I want him stood up against a wall and shot.
Do you think he could get an honest trial there? Considering the mentality he must have, he's probably legally insane anyway. But at least you said "If found guilty..."
>Taliban had the chance to hand him over. They didn't.
You want them to hand him over without due process just because you think he is guilty? Swap the country names and you would be screaming if he was turned over. Has evidence been presented to the Taleban? They are still willing to talk about it. Bush is not. Bin Ladin is still claiming he is innocent. That's your third strike. It would be wrong to be bullied into handing over a possible innocent man to a wolfpack, wouldn't it?
>I gotta disagree here. There is a time when force is neccesary. There is a time when killing innocent civilians in neccesary. There are not, "ALWAYS" other options.
That is seldom true and I don't believe it true in these circumstances.
>Cant we say that yes, killing is horrible, but potentially, the best response to certain situations?
That's giving up, giving in. It just leads to another round.
>There are people in this world who are intent on harming us. Once a suicide bomber is on his way, it is next to impossible to stop him. So if you wish to stop them, your recourse is to destroy the organizatinos that support him. The US gave afghanistan the chance to hand over Bin Laden. Afghanistan refused. So, it becomes incubant upon the US goverment to defend its citizens from an organization intent on causing us harm. Afaghanistan chose to stand between the US government and that goal. There is then, not so much choice. How else will we get to the training camps? How else to you root out these people and orgnizations intent on our harm? Does that make what we must do less horrible? I dont think so. But does the horror of what must be done, make it less neccesarry?
You are not quite right here. The Taliban has continued to offer to negotiate. It is Bush who has been obdurate. Like the Taliban, we should remember that there is, as yet, no public evidence to link Bin Ladin to these events. Given that he is an Afghani resident and maintains his innocence to the Afghani govt. (the Taleban) it would not be reasonable to 'hand him over' to another country without evidence being produced. I mean, do you think that Bin Ladin could get a fair trial in America?
The way to handle this better might have been to make war on Afghan problems not Afghanis. Start at the Pakistani border, just build new towns, farms, roads, schools, hospitals, the infrastructure they need and let 'wealth' do the invading. Sure it is slow. But is less costly in lives and would gain America immense respect in the eyes of the entire world, particularly Muslim countries. Bin Ladin would be isolated and eventully picked up. Undetermine his power base. Instead of ten years of war, a ten year Marshall Plan. Spread a little good...
>hmmm ok, first lemme just make a line of logic so I can call the WTC attacks attacks by afghanistan...Osama bin Laden under protection of Taliban == consent of taliban for any actions of osama bin laden...taliban == afghanistan. Ok.
> Now, How much warning have we given the area? 3 weeks? How much warning were we given before the WTC attacks? none. Had we gotten warning, I doubt the towers would've been occupied (hell, I bet the entire area would've been evacuated!). Now, 3 weeks...plenty of time for everyone to leave possible target areas if they wanted to. So, everyone who didn't leave obviously didn't want to. Thus, they are supporting the taliban, thus they are NOT INNOCENT BYSTANDERS! support by action or inaction is still support.
On the same basis then, the American people are responsible for the policies of America, therefore the people killed in the WTC were not innocent but fully complicit legitimate targets...
Sorry, but I am not going to accept that. On either side All civilian casualties are 'terrorism'. You win by destroying the will to fight. A better way to destroy the will to fight is to help rather than hinder.
As to how much warning America had - I'd say at least thirty years. No one else in the world is suprised this happened. Shocked, yes, surprised, no.
>So then you do think that slavery should be a personal choice?
Maybe you should first agree on what slavery is? The concept of slavery in Rome was very different to that of the Cnfederate states. In times of hardship, selling oneself into slavery and buying out of it later was an acceptable social strategy.
I'm not an expert here, but I think you should specify what you are talking about. There are types of "slavery" that could be considered moral. There are other forms where it could never be considered so.
Face regognition? Ha, ha! (says the terrorist) what will they do to a woman wearing a burqua? Prevent her from flying? Make her expose her face? Either will be percieved (possibly correctly) as religious persecution.
So, they get some more publicity and support, then they train some very expendable women to to the same thing as soon as the towers are rebuilt.
Face recognition is no solution. It might be useful, but it is not a solution and will raise other issues (above).
It is more exciting for the media. It gives scope to people who seek power.
>If Jihaad is indeed mentioned in the Quran, what are the circumstances surrounding it and what are the justifications.
Jihad is the personal religious struggle that one goes through (or ignores) in life. A sutra in the Q'uran says that religion should NOT be forced on people. A religious war is only permissible (by the Q'uran and religious law) in the case of pysical invasion that exterminates muslims.
>I understand that many Muslims are saying that Bin Laden has hijacked TRUE Islam but where did he get the ideas for Jihaad? Where did this all start?
I'm not sure where the idea originated but it was probably a heritage of the crusades where jihad was permissible because the crusaders were invading muslim lands and slaughtering muslims indiscrimately.
With respect to how THIS started, it started in Pakistan. Pakistan set up Islamic schools for Afghani refugees, which provided free food if you studied the Q'uran using their (Pakistan's) teachers originally. The then sent these people back to Afghanistan to 'liberate' it. These people became the Taliban and conquered the country (Afghanistan) fairly (relatively) peacefully (they went in waving white flags). The reason that such fundamentalism was accepted was that it seemed the only way to obtain peace and physical safety.
The problemis not the Afghanis, per se, it is the people who are using them.
>Nice... but it probably wouldn't work. At best, you'd end up with a "president" who would have to be propped up with billions in aid each year, while the terrorists continued their business around the countryside. Kind of like that country, um, what was it called? The one the former USSR invaded. Oh, I remember: Afghanistan.
Yes, but that was an armed invasion, I'm talking about something where the 'invaders' are armed with food and construction equiptment, not military weapons.
>At worst, you'd end up with a different crew, with the same tendencies. And again, terrorists would continue about on their merry way.
If that eventuates, then at least we can say we tried. But I don't think that it is true. I don't think you are seeing the same documentaries that we are. Women risking death in secret 'make up' parties. Teaches risking death for teaching girls.
>If there's anything we (by which I mean much of the world, not just the US) need to learn, it's that democracy requires a certain social structure, or it will not work. Just putting in a voting system and a piece of paper with a constitution does not turn a place into a democracy, else Haiti, Serbia and Moldavia would be the most democratic countries on earth. Said social structure must be developed and grown by the people in question, it can't just be created in a vacuum.
But building hospitals, schools and roads will take time. It will also take the employment of many, many Afghani. Here is an opportunity for them to see western culture working - not failing.
>Lastly, most Afghans are being squashed by the Taliban. They don't like it. They put up with it partly out of fear of the Taliban, partly because they fear the West, and the Taliban promise protection from the West. A little respect and discrimination (in the sense of "discerning between various groups", not in the sense of "excluding certain groups for no good reason") would go a long way towards alleviating that fear. The Afghani people haven't, I think, forgotten the help they received against the Russians. They may be bitter that they received no followup after driving the Russians out, but one shouldn't underestimate the character of a people, based on the actions of a lunatic who's from another country entirely. I think the character of a people who have withstood incursion after incursion must be extraordarily strong.
That's my point. Going in 'in peace' with the whole world watching means that the US cannot 'misbehave' and *will* leave (after reconstruction is complete). Use Japan, Germany and the Marshall Plan as an example of what has been done before. They *will* want that. Tell them in their own terms that it is the charity that Islam requires of us.
>In summary, I think invasion, in the name of peace or otherwise, would harden them against reason. They might make allowances for a time, if it were understood to be a quick and swift attack to root out those responsible for last Tuesday. But trying to impose an outside order on them, then expect them to like us? Arrogance disguised as benevolence. Patronizing. Let's learn from history, people, that's what it's for.In summary, I think invasion, in the name of peace or otherwise, would harden them against reason. They might make allowances for a time, if it were understood to be a quick and swift attack to root out those responsible for last Tuesday. But trying to impose an outside order on them, then expect them to like us? Arrogance disguised as benevolence. Patronizing. Let's learn from history, people, that's what it's for.
It isn't patronising if the U.N. does this. The U.N. is not a nation, it's the closest we have to a world government. It isn't imposing an outside order, it is ensuring that they get to choose one in a threat free context. No factions playing with guns permitted, only factions playing with words.
Also, if you send in essentially unarmed construction workers (with a quick strike force available do deal with those who initiate violence) then they haven't got much if any excuse. Islam requires both that charity be given and be *accepted*. There are enough Arab Americans (>3M) so that you could could do this with people who really understand their culture. Even iff it took a long time and cost a lot of money, remember that Bin Ladin and his ilk are not far from having access to nukes. If these problems can't be solved now, then we are all history. Flood the place with supplies, keep on giving until their attitudes change. Then let them arrest the criminals for you.
>(Sorry for the strong reaction, it's not just to the replied-to post, it's sort of pent up in reaction to many posts in the last several days)
It's hardly surprising that you feel so. But I din't feel your reaction excessive. Be at peace.
But one last thing, your media do not serve you well. Every person I know who has visited the United States is amazed at the ignorance of Americans to what is happening outside it's borders. This isn't because Americans are ignorant, it is because you media 9as does everyones media) tells you want they think you want to hear. In other countries we have more benefit of "over-the-border" opinions.
You really should take an active look at what your country is doing in the rest of the world. But, God bless you all.
>The real tragedy of WTC is that this may have been avoided if the US financial system wasn't so terribly myoptic and had instead placed a higher priority on things like Philo Farnsworth's intertial confinement fusion technology and Gerard O'Neill's proposals for space based solar energy.
Have you though how vunerable spaced based installations are?
I've read a vast number of posts about what has happened, and many tempers are flaring high (understandably). What I have to offer is a proposed solution to this type of problem. Yes thre are some difficulties with it, but those can be dealt with.
Solve this problem by declaring peace, not war. There are many innocents in Afghansitan, just as in the US. To slaughter them is to behave in the same way as the terrorists. So, don't declare war on Afghanistan, declare peace;
Get the UN support (would be easy at the moment) to invade Afghanistan with a "peace" force. Announce to Afghanistan and the world that the purpose of this is to have a free and open election to elect a government. It is unlikely that it will re-elect the Taliban. Admit that this is a violation of national sovereignty and say in recognition of that fact, schools, hospitals and roads will be built for their use before they leave.
Instead of enemies, you will have made friends - and picked up Bin Ladin as small change.
Re:What can be done about terrorism?
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 1
>we should seriously consider having armed air marshells on every fligt.. armed with maybe not regular guns but something which'll not harm an aircraft if fired.
And in about two weeks Bn Ladin et al. have a list of theose who work as air marshalls, their photographs, the adresses of their families - and they know where they can get a gun on an aeroplane.
>People should give up some of their convinences for the safety of everyone. Together we can prevent this from happening again
No, you simply can't stop this happening anymore than you can stop someone building a nuke (its getting easier as technology increases). You have to stop people wanting to do things like this. And threats or violence won't do it.
Re:What can be done about terrorism?
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 1
You asked who has helped you? Why don't you do some research. Not so long ago you had some huge fires in California. Firefighters came all the way from Australia to help you. Local firefighters, everyday people who have normal jobs when they are not fighting fires and our best professionals to boot. They weren't paid to do it.
But of course you don't remember this. We don't expect it. After all you are Americans. and don't need help from anybody. Selective memeories.
And that is despite the fact that you (your CIA) manouvered the overturn of our government in 1975.
Re:What can be done about terrorism?
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 1
>1) I don't think you can effectively defend the liberty of others. They've really got to do it for themselves.
That can be a bit hard when the CIA is willing to conive the overturn of your government (Australia 1975)
>2a) How? How can you "reign in corporate greed"? How can you reign in greed? Is "corporate greed" worse than "regular old greed"? How do you provide incentives for the non-greedy? Award the blue ribbon to the second place contender, or the guy who comes in last?
>No. The answer is responsibility, or more precisely a lack of value placed on it. It is really too bad that the proponents of "corporate responsibility" are generally not proponents of "personal responsibility" (and vice versa, perhaps). Unfortunately real responsibility does not come in flavors.
That's dead right. Unfortunately you also have to take responsibility for what the people you vote for do in your name.
>2b) "Globalization" is getting the "thumbs up" from many political leaders, including many who probably shouldn't. Remember to inquire about the opinions of those you vote for, and for heavens sake VOTE!
Much as I agreewith you, er, how many of you was it that voted for Bush?
Slashdot Mirror
No, it won't be people like us. It will be people like my daughter who has managed have the skills without the cost. And I, as must you, recognise that there is a cost.
As in all things, balance is needed. The best (not me!) have both social and technical skills. Setephen Hawking, Carl Sagan, Albert Einstein and many many more.
Bringing UNIX to the desktop is a new approach and a novel idea. It may well work. If it does, then maybe MS will have a competitor.
It is certainly worth a try. Considering pending legislation in America and the way things are going there, this may be what saves open source.
FWIW, I don't use Linux and never, ever have. In fact I still call it L-i-nux.
The person claimed NOT to be a newbie (and so should have a good idea where to look for help).
The instructions came with the package.
As you can see from other posts, some meaningful dialog has emerged (not this obviously).
The only person you have put down has been yourself.
Should be:-
Since your reports a low version number an update is called for OR put the line "protocol 2" or "UseLogin no" in sshd_config.
That's the one. The one that says run ./configure and then make.
It's late at night (I'm in Europe), I'd rilly like to make it go before beddie-bye, but as I said in my original post, the stuff I downloaded is way cryptic. Luckily some posters filled in the gaps.
Well, it is early afternoon in Australia, and the liquid lunch may have much to do with my acerbicity, but I have trouble seeing why you have had any trouble at all. All the information is presented. Whoa to go too about five minutes including compile time. The following worked for me :-
gunzip scanssh-1.6b.tar.gz; tar xvf scanssh-1.6b.tar ; cd scanssh ; ./configure ; make ; ./scanssh 127.0.0.1
Since your reports a low version number an update is called for OR put the line "protocl 2" or in sshd_config
Good Luck...
Hmm... Pity you didn't just check the README. It gave explicit instructions on how to build the executable. I worked first time on my system and I don't even run Linux.
Takes me a while to find out that I need to do is (1) run nsslookup to get a real, live IP address and then (2) run "/usr/local/bin/scanssh 207.F00.bar", and then (after much mucking about
Hmm... What was wrong with "scanssh -h" to find out how to use it? You do understand what a Domain Name and an Internet Address are?
I get nice cryptic output "SSH-1.5-1.2.21" ...
so does the host need an upgrade or NOT ?
and where do I find said upgrade ?
Okay. You didn't read the README. You didn't read the help, and now you didn't read the Advisory - or you would know the answer to your first two questions, and to answer the third, well, you don't even say what system you use.
no wonder people go for Micro$oft. they ain't so snotty. they BS you around the block, but they have hyperlinks and installers, and I don't hafta be a damned rocket scientist.
You know, before you drive a car, you have to learn how. MS specialise in 'automatic transmissions'. Trouble is, it doesn't extend to an 'automatic steering wheel' or an 'automatic throttle control'. So, you still have to learn how to drive. People go for MS to avoid having to learn to drive. It doesn't work.
p.s. This IS NOT A TROLL, been runnin' Linux and Java for years now.
A troll is atroll, is a troll. How have you been running Linux and Java without learning to drive?
I do precisely this with kmail and ricochet.
Have you ever heard of regular expressions?
When you reply there will be a "Re:" in front.
When you forward, a "FWD:". So all you need to do is match on the Subject and correctly anchor your regular expression.
In this way I never get the same piece of spam twice. It works very well and does not do what you claim. One moment's thought should have dismissed this. Instead it is a +2. Weary, weary...
I use kmail and spam (filter selected) gets piped through ricochet (also Vipul's) and I have recieved on 'specially crafted' spam which caused my box to send off about a thousand false complaints. That spammer was not incompetant.
Faster than what? FreeBSD 4.4? FreeBSD 5.0? FreeBSD doesn't use the same progression as Linux. Your tossoff comment is just " Linux FUD ". The enemy (if we have one) is MS. Lets not feed on our own fleah.
Err... How and to whom did you give notice? The people of Afghanistan do not have access to western media. That's one mistake. You have not notified the victims either.
>They killed three people I went to high school with, asshole. They also killed 5 of my local volunteer fire department, who were full time FDNY- a common thing in the suburbs of NY.
I understood that that was an act by some terrorists, not the Taleban military. That's a second mistake. No one has claimed that the Taleban organised or had any knowlege of the WTC.
>I want Osama Bin Laden standing tall before a federal judge in a courthouse in NYC. If found guilty, I want him stood up against a wall and shot.
Do you think he could get an honest trial there? Considering the mentality he must have, he's probably legally insane anyway. But at least you said "If found guilty..."
>Taliban had the chance to hand him over. They didn't.
You want them to hand him over without due process just because you think he is guilty? Swap the country names and you would be screaming if he was turned over. Has evidence been presented to the Taleban? They are still willing to talk about it. Bush is not. Bin Ladin is still claiming he is innocent. That's your third strike. It would be wrong to be bullied into handing over a possible innocent man to a wolfpack, wouldn't it?
That is seldom true and I don't believe it true in these circumstances.
>Cant we say that yes, killing is horrible, but potentially, the best response to certain situations?
That's giving up, giving in. It just leads to another round.
>There are people in this world who are intent on harming us. Once a suicide bomber is on his way, it is next to impossible to stop him. So if you wish to stop them, your recourse is to destroy the organizatinos that support him. The US gave afghanistan the chance to hand over Bin Laden. Afghanistan refused. So, it becomes incubant upon the US goverment to defend its citizens from an organization intent on causing us harm. Afaghanistan chose to stand between the US government and that goal. There is then, not so much choice. How else will we get to the training camps? How else to you root out these people and orgnizations intent on our harm? Does that make what we must do less horrible? I dont think so. But does the horror of what must be done, make it less neccesarry?
You are not quite right here. The Taliban has continued to offer to negotiate. It is Bush who has been obdurate. Like the Taliban, we should remember that there is, as yet, no public evidence to link Bin Ladin to these events. Given that he is an Afghani resident and maintains his innocence to the Afghani govt. (the Taleban) it would not be reasonable to 'hand him over' to another country without evidence being produced. I mean, do you think that Bin Ladin could get a fair trial in America?
The way to handle this better might have been to make war on Afghan problems not Afghanis. Start at the Pakistani border, just build new towns, farms, roads, schools, hospitals, the infrastructure they need and let 'wealth' do the invading. Sure it is slow. But is less costly in lives and would gain America immense respect in the eyes of the entire world, particularly Muslim countries. Bin Ladin would be isolated and eventully picked up. Undetermine his power base. Instead of ten years of war, a ten year Marshall Plan. Spread a little good...
> Now, How much warning have we given the area? 3 weeks? How much warning were we given before the WTC attacks? none. Had we gotten warning, I doubt the towers would've been occupied (hell, I bet the entire area would've been evacuated!). Now, 3 weeks...plenty of time for everyone to leave possible target areas if they wanted to. So, everyone who didn't leave obviously didn't want to. Thus, they are supporting the taliban, thus they are NOT INNOCENT BYSTANDERS! support by action or inaction is still support.
On the same basis then, the American people are responsible for the policies of America, therefore the people killed in the WTC were not innocent but fully complicit legitimate targets...
Sorry, but I am not going to accept that. On either side All civilian casualties are 'terrorism'. You win by destroying the will to fight. A better way to destroy the will to fight is to help rather than hinder.
As to how much warning America had - I'd say at least thirty years. No one else in the world is suprised this happened. Shocked, yes, surprised, no.
Maybe you should first agree on what slavery is? The concept of slavery in Rome was very different to that of the Cnfederate states. In times of hardship, selling oneself into slavery and buying out of it later was an acceptable social strategy.
I'm not an expert here, but I think you should specify what you are talking about. There are types of "slavery" that could be considered moral. There are other forms where it could never be considered so.
So, they get some more publicity and support, then they train some very expendable women to to the same thing as soon as the towers are rebuilt.
Face recognition is no solution. It might be useful, but it is not a solution and will raise other issues (above).
It is unwise to crtitise that which that of which you have little understanding and knowlege. Even Bushie hasn't done that (yet).
It is more exciting for the media. It gives scope to people who seek power.
>If Jihaad is indeed mentioned in the Quran, what are the circumstances surrounding it and what are the justifications.
Jihad is the personal religious struggle that one goes through (or ignores) in life. A sutra in the Q'uran says that religion should NOT be forced on people. A religious war is only permissible (by the Q'uran and religious law) in the case of pysical invasion that exterminates muslims.
>I understand that many Muslims are saying that Bin Laden has hijacked TRUE Islam but where did he get the ideas for Jihaad? Where did this all start?
I'm not sure where the idea originated but it was probably a heritage of the crusades where jihad was permissible because the crusaders were invading muslim lands and slaughtering muslims indiscrimately.
With respect to how THIS started, it started in Pakistan. Pakistan set up Islamic schools for Afghani refugees, which provided free food if you studied the Q'uran using their (Pakistan's) teachers originally. The then sent these people back to Afghanistan to 'liberate' it. These people became the Taliban and conquered the country (Afghanistan) fairly (relatively) peacefully (they went in waving white flags). The reason that such fundamentalism was accepted was that it seemed the only way to obtain peace and physical safety.
The problemis not the Afghanis, per se, it is the people who are using them.
>it's unfortunately very applicable
I thought I was refering to George Bernard Shaw.
Yes, but that was an armed invasion, I'm talking about something where the 'invaders' are armed with food and construction equiptment, not military weapons.
>At worst, you'd end up with a different crew, with the same tendencies. And again, terrorists would continue about on their merry way.
If that eventuates, then at least we can say we tried. But I don't think that it is true. I don't think you are seeing the same documentaries that we are. Women risking death in secret 'make up' parties. Teaches risking death for teaching girls.
>If there's anything we (by which I mean much of the world, not just the US) need to learn, it's that democracy requires a certain social structure, or it will not work. Just putting in a voting system and a piece of paper with a constitution does not turn a place into a democracy, else Haiti, Serbia and Moldavia would be the most democratic countries on earth. Said social structure must be developed and grown by the people in question, it can't just be created in a vacuum.
But building hospitals, schools and roads will take time. It will also take the employment of many, many Afghani. Here is an opportunity for them to see western culture working - not failing.
>Lastly, most Afghans are being squashed by the Taliban. They don't like it. They put up with it partly out of fear of the Taliban, partly because they fear the West, and the Taliban promise protection from the West. A little respect and discrimination (in the sense of "discerning between various groups", not in the sense of "excluding certain groups for no good reason") would go a long way towards alleviating that fear. The Afghani people haven't, I think, forgotten the help they received against the Russians. They may be bitter that they received no followup after driving the Russians out, but one shouldn't underestimate the character of a people, based on the actions of a lunatic who's from another country entirely. I think the character of a people who have withstood incursion after incursion must be extraordarily strong.
That's my point. Going in 'in peace' with the whole world watching means that the US cannot 'misbehave' and *will* leave (after reconstruction is complete). Use Japan, Germany and the Marshall Plan as an example of what has been done before. They *will* want that. Tell them in their own terms that it is the charity that Islam requires of us.
>In summary, I think invasion, in the name of peace or otherwise, would harden them against reason. They might make allowances for a time, if it were understood to be a quick and swift attack to root out those responsible for last Tuesday. But trying to impose an outside order on them, then expect them to like us? Arrogance disguised as benevolence. Patronizing. Let's learn from history, people, that's what it's for.In summary, I think invasion, in the name of peace or otherwise, would harden them against reason. They might make allowances for a time, if it were understood to be a quick and swift attack to root out those responsible for last Tuesday. But trying to impose an outside order on them, then expect them to like us? Arrogance disguised as benevolence. Patronizing. Let's learn from history, people, that's what it's for.
It isn't patronising if the U.N. does this. The U.N. is not a nation, it's the closest we have to a world government. It isn't imposing an outside order, it is ensuring that they get to choose one in a threat free context. No factions playing with guns permitted, only factions playing with words.
Also, if you send in essentially unarmed construction workers (with a quick strike force available do deal with those who initiate violence) then they haven't got much if any excuse. Islam requires both that charity be given and be *accepted*. There are enough Arab Americans (>3M) so that you could could do this with people who really understand their culture. Even iff it took a long time and cost a lot of money, remember that Bin Ladin and his ilk are not far from having access to nukes. If these problems can't be solved now, then we are all history. Flood the place with supplies, keep on giving until their attitudes change. Then let them arrest the criminals for you.
>(Sorry for the strong reaction, it's not just to the replied-to post, it's sort of pent up in reaction to many posts in the last several days)
It's hardly surprising that you feel so. But I din't feel your reaction excessive. Be at peace.
But one last thing, your media do not serve you well. Every person I know who has visited the United States is amazed at the ignorance of Americans to what is happening outside it's borders. This isn't because Americans are ignorant, it is because you media 9as does everyones media) tells you want they think you want to hear. In other countries we have more benefit of "over-the-border" opinions.
You really should take an active look at what your country is doing in the rest of the world. But, God bless you all.
Have you though how vunerable spaced based installations are?
Solve this problem by declaring peace, not war. There are many innocents in Afghansitan, just as in the US. To slaughter them is to behave in the same way as the terrorists. So, don't declare war on Afghanistan, declare peace;
Get the UN support (would be easy at the moment) to invade Afghanistan with a "peace" force. Announce to Afghanistan and the world that the purpose of this is to have a free and open election to elect a government. It is unlikely that it will re-elect the Taliban. Admit that this is a violation of national sovereignty and say in recognition of that fact, schools, hospitals and roads will be built for their use before they leave.
Instead of enemies, you will have made friends - and picked up Bin Ladin as small change.
Not when you tell people to 'vote' it isn't.
And in about two weeks Bn Ladin et al. have a list of theose who work as air marshalls, their photographs, the adresses of their families - and they know where they can get a gun on an aeroplane.
>People should give up some of their convinences for the safety of everyone. Together we can prevent this from happening again
No, you simply can't stop this happening anymore than you can stop someone building a nuke (its getting easier as technology increases). You have to stop people wanting to do things like this. And threats or violence won't do it.
But of course you don't remember this. We don't expect it. After all you are Americans. and don't need help from anybody. Selective memeories.
And that is despite the fact that you (your CIA) manouvered the overturn of our government in 1975.
That can be a bit hard when the CIA is willing to conive the overturn of your government (Australia 1975)
>2a) How? How can you "reign in corporate greed"? How can you reign in greed? Is "corporate greed" worse than "regular old greed"? How do you provide incentives for the non-greedy? Award the blue ribbon to the second place contender, or the guy who comes in last?
>No. The answer is responsibility, or more precisely a lack of value placed on it. It is really too bad that the proponents of "corporate responsibility" are generally not proponents of "personal responsibility" (and vice versa, perhaps). Unfortunately real responsibility does not come in flavors.
That's dead right. Unfortunately you also have to take responsibility for what the people you vote for do in your name.
>2b) "Globalization" is getting the "thumbs up" from many political leaders, including many who probably shouldn't. Remember to inquire about the opinions of those you vote for, and for heavens sake VOTE!
Much as I agreewith you, er, how many of you was it that voted for Bush?