Thank you for the voice of reason here. I have no problem showing the film, just make sure you show something from the other side and to make it fair make sure it's as extreme or non-extreme as its predecessor. Or when your teenager comes home singing the praises of Algore tell him that he can make a contribution to the environment by leading by example....take his car and tell him to walk to school:-)
Let's not forget all the "little countries" in between, like Russia, Turkmenistan, Tadzhikistan, Uzbekistan (all the other stans), Bengladesh, Georgia...Well, suffice to say, a LOT of other Asian countries.
But, ICANN is in it for the $$, so I'd be willing to bet they'll sell.asia accounts to whomever wants one. Just as has been said before,.com is no longer just for commercial sites, any more than.org is for organizations.
Ok, You're right. I misread your first line. Sorry.
But, as for the second paragraph. Sure, I may be making your point that yes in fact it COULD happen anywhere in this Country, that a TERRORIST COULD walk into a MALL and start shooting the place up, or blow himself up or cause whatever terror he may want. It also makes my point which is IT HASN'T HAPPENED SINCE 9/11/2001.
If a terrorist wanted to go into a crowded place and cause terror, sure he could do it. But my point is that Terrorists (and here again I'm talking about the kind that we are killing in Iraq and Afghanistan)are not doing those thing in the USA. Why? Because they're preoccupied with dying in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are disorganized because they're top people keep getting killed, or they don't have enough lower echelon to coordinate something like that. AND, everytime they put a cell together and activate it in the US, they get caught. So, I think they're doing a pretty good job of keeping our citizens safe. And I salute the service men and women, and the Bush Administration for letting them fight the war . Instead of trying to bind their hands like so many of the left side of this country wants to do.
Well, see now your getting into semantics. Sure he caused terror, but that was not his intent. He was obviously depressed, you can tell that by his text messages to his girlfriend, and the fact that he was feeling so guilty after he'd taken hostages and his rage was fed, and he'd calmed down. Yes, he caused terror in that mall, but in the context I was speaking about terrorist attacks prior to your reply, I was talking about real terrorists. You know the kind that blow themselves up to injure innocent people, trying to make a political statement. This kid had no political agenda and was not attacking those people to send a message to the government.
Now then, just who is it "we shot" on 9/11? It seems to me it was our innocent civilians dying in those airplanes and buildings when the TERRORISTS ATTACKED US! And yes, WE call THEM TERRORISTS. They DO NOT call themselves "freedom fighters." They are not fighting for freedom, they are killing innocent people just because they don't believe religiously in the same way that those TERRORISTS do. These are not people you can sit down and come to some sort of accord with. They just want all non-fundamentalist muslims to die, period. I suppose the Nazis called themselves "self-preservationists", but I call them MURDERERS. I suppose Stalin thought of himself as a freedom fighter, yet he killed more people than Hitler did, he too was a murderer, war criminal, tyrant...the list could go on.
You point out that "there was NO security in place to stop him BEFORE he started shooting". Well, IT'S A MALL in the USA! This is not some jack-booted thug country where people are expected to see armed guards all over the place. Especially since, and here's where you help make my point, there has been NO TERRORIST ATTACKS IN THIS COUNTRY SINCE 9/11/2001. Yes, he brought an AK-47 into the mall and started shooting the place up, but had he first robbed some store there first would you call him a gun toting thief or a terrorist?
No, the apology makes nothing better. In my opinion, even if he gave some excuse like "I was abused as a child, or I was temporarily insane" it wouldn't take away from the fact that he was responsible for his actions. But, the fact that he was apologizing even while carrying out his crime shows that his state of mind was not that he was intent on hurting people, but that he was screaming out that his life (to him) sucked, and he was going to visit that pain on someone, anyone else. That doesn't absolve him from what he did, but it certainly doesn't make him a terrorist. Fortunately there were so many witnesses and so much evidence that he WILL go to prison, hopefully for life.
The Anthrax attacks of 2002 are still only reported as "unexplained deaths of 5 people from anthrax poisoning. http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/op inion/13288512.htm" The "shoe bomb" never went off. And I just did a Google search using the terms "shooting November 20th" and looked at everything from Nov. 20th to today and there was no mention of an attack on mall shoppers. Now, locally here in the Seattle area there was a 19 year-old kid who was depressed and went into the Tacoma Mall and began shooting random shoppers. If that's what you're talking about, well you'd be hard-pressed to convince anyone he was a terrorist. Hell, he even apologized while he was holding hostages, though I doubt that will help much in the eyes of those he shot. But, it shows he's no terrorist. http://www.sequimgazette.com/article.php?sid=1435
I suspect that if these newspaper companies want to keep readership they should also quit editorializing news. Write a story fairly, present both sides without bias for either, tell the truth and let the readers think about what you wrote. You can editorialize in the "letters to the editor page." I know I go to the Net for my news because I can usually find a story or usually I have to find two (one for each side) so that I am informed. When I read a newspaper story I feel as though I'm being preached to or they think they're telling me what I should know, only to find that they are telling me what THEY think I should know.
For instance, here in the Seattle area there was a story about a girl (12 years old) who was apparently babysitting and the child she was watching died in the bathtub. The girl told authorities that while she was bathing the kid ( 3 year old I think ), the kid went unconcious. She said she shook the kid to wake her up, to no avail the kid was dead. Well, she was indicted for the death. The newspapers and TV made this girl out to be evil, only reporting that she was babysitting and shook the baby to death. When I did a little more research I got the (insert Paul Harvey voice here) rest of the story. It seems the girl was invited over by the neighbor to just visit, there was no mention of babysitting. And the girl had gone 'visiting' over there quite a lot. But the mother was just using this poor kid as free babysitting, leaving it to the girl to watch the kid while momma went to the neighborhood pub, or just sat on the porch with friends drinking and partying. The girl's parents did not know that this was happening and stated they would not have let the girl babysit at her age had they known. It also turns out, unreported by major media (newspapers/tv) that momma had another child who also died under mysterious circumstances. This girl watched the child because she felt sorry for it because the babies mother was so neglectful. So, yeah, newspapers in particular should actually investigate a story and report everything or they are going the way of the Dodo.
Yeah, the only way I can judge whether terrorism for me is affected is the fact that we have not had a terrorist incident INSIDE the Continental U.S. since 9/11/01. And if that's the short term goal, then I'll back whomever can make it happen. I'm a Libertarian, as such I don't want the Government in my life anymore than it has to be. But, the one place we need it and the one place I don't mind my tax money being spent is National Defense. Glad we could have the discussion. You have a happy holiday season. Hope to yack with you more on these boards.
Yeah, the French had colonized what is now Viet Nam (was French Indochina ) back in the 1800's and were there until the Battle of Dien Bien Phu in 1954 where they were badly defeated and pulled up stakes and left Indochina. Then in 1956 Vietnamese President Diem cancelled elections scheduled for later that year igniting the fire that was Ho Chi Minh, who had reason to believe the Communists would fare well. The ensuing skrimishes with the Viet Cong from the northern provinces of Viet Nam became too much for Diem's government to contain and they requested aid from the U.S. and we (stupidly) stuck our noses under the tent and got it bitten off (IMHO).
I have friends IN Iraq, on the frontlines rebuilding schools, oil fields, powerstations etc... They tell me the stories of Iraqis living worse off than they did when Saddam was in power is a load of crap. The majority of Iraqis are glad we are there, they are glad we came in and have done what we did and what we are doing. They know that we are not there to take their country away from them, but to provide them a good foundation from which to kick off a democracy that they are creating. It's the neighboring governments that are afraid. They are afraid their citizens will see what's happening in Iraq and demand it of their own governments.
And, you state that we (US) created terrorists due to the resentment they felt when we came "smashing our way into other countries and taking over." HMMM...while I've heard of a lot of terrorists dying (especially in Iraq). I haven't heard of alot of terror threats lately, in other countries. Sure, there is the occasional plot we hear about, but the bulk of terrorism is either tied down in Iraq trying to kill "Westerners"/US service people or hiding. They are not threatening the bulk of the world as they did throughout the 90's when we were treating them like criminals and not enemies. I don't see the US moving in and taking over anywhere. We do move in stabalize and turn the countries back over to the people of that country to govern as they see fit, without the "help" of a despot or dictator.
I'd say we saw them (Iraqis) having their food cooked dangerously wrong for them by a poisoner of foods. We kicked in HIS door, took away his utensils, kitchen help and everything else he was stealing from his people, and we are now SHOWING them how to cook for themselves. AND, they don't resent us.
Let's not forget that it was Eisenhower that sent the first Special Forces "observers/advisors" to Indochina in 1956. Kennedy just kept it at that pace. LBJ was the one who made it worse, and it was dropped in Nixon's lap where he was forced to make the decision to get out as it was much too politicized to fight effectively.
Almost everything the US has done with putting people in power and destabilizing governments has ended up worse than what was already there..."
Yeah, like Germany and Japan after WWII, they're alot worse off. Iraq looks like it's doing terribly too. I mean more infrastructure, schools, electrical power, people not dying for speaking their minds or voting their conscience. South Korea since the armistice. Yeah, they're all alot worse off, we Americans are terrible people./sarcasm
Mason County! Why the hell are they putting that there? Mason County (for all of you who don't know), is a VERY rural community, who's biggest TOWN is Shelton, WA (pop. ~9,000 (maybe pushing it)). Most of this county is forest/logging country and the rest is farming community. What the...?
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you for the voice of reason here. I have no problem showing the film, just make sure you show something from the other side and to make it fair make sure it's as extreme or non-extreme as its predecessor. Or when your teenager comes home singing the praises of Algore tell him that he can make a contribution to the environment by leading by example....take his car and tell him to walk to school :-)
Let's not forget all the "little countries" in between, like Russia, Turkmenistan, Tadzhikistan, Uzbekistan (all the other stans), Bengladesh, Georgia...Well, suffice to say, a LOT of other Asian countries. .asia accounts to whomever wants one. Just as has been said before, .com is no longer just for commercial sites, any more than .org is for organizations.
But, ICANN is in it for the $$, so I'd be willing to bet they'll sell
Ok, You're right. I misread your first line. Sorry.
But, as for the second paragraph. Sure, I may be making your point that yes in fact it COULD happen anywhere in this Country, that a TERRORIST COULD walk into a MALL and start shooting the place up, or blow himself up or cause whatever terror he may want. It also makes my point which is IT HASN'T HAPPENED SINCE 9/11/2001.
If a terrorist wanted to go into a crowded place and cause terror, sure he could do it. But my point is that Terrorists (and here again I'm talking about the kind that we are killing in Iraq and Afghanistan)are not doing those thing in the USA. Why? Because they're preoccupied with dying in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are disorganized because they're top people keep getting killed, or they don't have enough lower echelon to coordinate something like that. AND, everytime they put a cell together and activate it in the US, they get caught. So, I think they're doing a pretty good job of keeping our citizens safe. And I salute the service men and women, and the Bush Administration for letting them fight the war . Instead of trying to bind their hands like so many of the left side of this country wants to do.
I get Linux users who want to drink watching DVD's.
Well, see now your getting into semantics. Sure he caused terror, but that was not his intent. He was obviously depressed, you can tell that by his text messages to his girlfriend, and the fact that he was feeling so guilty after he'd taken hostages and his rage was fed, and he'd calmed down. Yes, he caused terror in that mall, but in the context I was speaking about terrorist attacks prior to your reply, I was talking about real terrorists. You know the kind that blow themselves up to injure innocent people, trying to make a political statement. This kid had no political agenda and was not attacking those people to send a message to the government.
Now then, just who is it "we shot" on 9/11? It seems to me it was our innocent civilians dying in those airplanes and buildings when the TERRORISTS ATTACKED US! And yes, WE call THEM TERRORISTS. They DO NOT call themselves "freedom fighters." They are not fighting for freedom, they are killing innocent people just because they don't believe religiously in the same way that those TERRORISTS do. These are not people you can sit down and come to some sort of accord with. They just want all non-fundamentalist muslims to die, period. I suppose the Nazis called themselves "self-preservationists", but I call them MURDERERS. I suppose Stalin thought of himself as a freedom fighter, yet he killed more people than Hitler did, he too was a murderer, war criminal, tyrant...the list could go on.
You point out that "there was NO security in place to stop him BEFORE he started shooting". Well, IT'S A MALL in the USA! This is not some jack-booted thug country where people are expected to see armed guards all over the place. Especially since, and here's where you help make my point, there has been NO TERRORIST ATTACKS IN THIS COUNTRY SINCE 9/11/2001. Yes, he brought an AK-47 into the mall and started shooting the place up, but had he first robbed some store there first would you call him a gun toting thief or a terrorist?
No, the apology makes nothing better. In my opinion, even if he gave some excuse like "I was abused as a child, or I was temporarily insane" it wouldn't take away from the fact that he was responsible for his actions. But, the fact that he was apologizing even while carrying out his crime shows that his state of mind was not that he was intent on hurting people, but that he was screaming out that his life (to him) sucked, and he was going to visit that pain on someone, anyone else. That doesn't absolve him from what he did, but it certainly doesn't make him a terrorist. Fortunately there were so many witnesses and so much evidence that he WILL go to prison, hopefully for life.
Have a nice day!
The Anthrax attacks of 2002 are still only reported as "unexplained deaths of 5 people from anthrax poisoning. http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/op inion/13288512.htm" The "shoe bomb" never went off. And I just did a Google search using the terms "shooting November 20th" and looked at everything from Nov. 20th to today and there was no mention of an attack on mall shoppers. Now, locally here in the Seattle area there was a 19 year-old kid who was depressed and went into the Tacoma Mall and began shooting random shoppers. If that's what you're talking about, well you'd be hard-pressed to convince anyone he was a terrorist. Hell, he even apologized while he was holding hostages, though I doubt that will help much in the eyes of those he shot. But, it shows he's no terrorist. http://www.sequimgazette.com/article.php?sid=1435
Next...
I suspect that if these newspaper companies want to keep readership they should also quit editorializing news. Write a story fairly, present both sides without bias for either, tell the truth and let the readers think about what you wrote. You can editorialize in the "letters to the editor page." I know I go to the Net for my news because I can usually find a story or usually I have to find two (one for each side) so that I am informed. When I read a newspaper story I feel as though I'm being preached to or they think they're telling me what I should know, only to find that they are telling me what THEY think I should know.
For instance, here in the Seattle area there was a story about a girl (12 years old) who was apparently babysitting and the child she was watching died in the bathtub. The girl told authorities that while she was bathing the kid ( 3 year old I think ), the kid went unconcious. She said she shook the kid to wake her up, to no avail the kid was dead. Well, she was indicted for the death. The newspapers and TV made this girl out to be evil, only reporting that she was babysitting and shook the baby to death. When I did a little more research I got the (insert Paul Harvey voice here) rest of the story. It seems the girl was invited over by the neighbor to just visit, there was no mention of babysitting. And the girl had gone 'visiting' over there quite a lot. But the mother was just using this poor kid as free babysitting, leaving it to the girl to watch the kid while momma went to the neighborhood pub, or just sat on the porch with friends drinking and partying. The girl's parents did not know that this was happening and stated they would not have let the girl babysit at her age had they known. It also turns out, unreported by major media (newspapers/tv) that momma had another child who also died under mysterious circumstances. This girl watched the child because she felt sorry for it because the babies mother was so neglectful. So, yeah, newspapers in particular should actually investigate a story and report everything or they are going the way of the Dodo.
Can I get one to keep the sk8rs away from the front of my building?
Yeah, the only way I can judge whether terrorism for me is affected is the fact that we have not had a terrorist incident INSIDE the Continental U.S. since 9/11/01. And if that's the short term goal, then I'll back whomever can make it happen. I'm a Libertarian, as such I don't want the Government in my life anymore than it has to be. But, the one place we need it and the one place I don't mind my tax money being spent is National Defense. Glad we could have the discussion. You have a happy holiday season. Hope to yack with you more on these boards.
Yeah, the French had colonized what is now Viet Nam (was French Indochina ) back in the 1800's and were there until the Battle of Dien Bien Phu in 1954 where they were badly defeated and pulled up stakes and left Indochina. Then in 1956 Vietnamese President Diem cancelled elections scheduled for later that year igniting the fire that was Ho Chi Minh, who had reason to believe the Communists would fare well. The ensuing skrimishes with the Viet Cong from the northern provinces of Viet Nam became too much for Diem's government to contain and they requested aid from the U.S. and we (stupidly) stuck our noses under the tent and got it bitten off (IMHO).
I have friends IN Iraq, on the frontlines rebuilding schools, oil fields, powerstations etc... They tell me the stories of Iraqis living worse off than they did when Saddam was in power is a load of crap. The majority of Iraqis are glad we are there, they are glad we came in and have done what we did and what we are doing. They know that we are not there to take their country away from them, but to provide them a good foundation from which to kick off a democracy that they are creating. It's the neighboring governments that are afraid. They are afraid their citizens will see what's happening in Iraq and demand it of their own governments.
And, you state that we (US) created terrorists due to the resentment they felt when we came "smashing our way into other countries and taking over." HMMM...while I've heard of a lot of terrorists dying (especially in Iraq). I haven't heard of alot of terror threats lately, in other countries. Sure, there is the occasional plot we hear about, but the bulk of terrorism is either tied down in Iraq trying to kill "Westerners"/US service people or hiding. They are not threatening the bulk of the world as they did throughout the 90's when we were treating them like criminals and not enemies. I don't see the US moving in and taking over anywhere. We do move in stabalize and turn the countries back over to the people of that country to govern as they see fit, without the "help" of a despot or dictator.
I'd say we saw them (Iraqis) having their food cooked dangerously wrong for them by a poisoner of foods. We kicked in HIS door, took away his utensils, kitchen help and everything else he was stealing from his people, and we are now SHOWING them how to cook for themselves. AND, they don't resent us.
Let's not forget that it was Eisenhower that sent the first Special Forces "observers/advisors" to Indochina in 1956. Kennedy just kept it at that pace. LBJ was the one who made it worse, and it was dropped in Nixon's lap where he was forced to make the decision to get out as it was much too politicized to fight effectively.
Yeah, like Germany and Japan after WWII, they're alot worse off. Iraq looks like it's doing terribly too. I mean more infrastructure, schools, electrical power, people not dying for speaking their minds or voting their conscience. South Korea since the armistice. Yeah, they're all alot worse off, we Americans are terrible people.
Mason County! Why the hell are they putting that there? Mason County (for all of you who don't know), is a VERY rural community, who's biggest TOWN is Shelton, WA (pop. ~9,000 (maybe pushing it)). Most of this county is forest/logging country and the rest is farming community. What the...?
So you're ashamed to be American? Well, I'm ashamed to have you in my country. Get out!
Try moving to Canada and let their government take care of you. See ya back here and all patriotic again in less than 5 years.
Give me a break. Napster is doing nothing more than stealing and so are those college kids. It's disgusting!
I used to be a SysAdmin for AMEX, believe me, they already do have your information, even if you've never had an Amex card before.