Maybe Linus needs to create a backup program like he did when he wanted a better version control system and created git? Also, why is the only copy of the changes on his local workstation and not a server with redundancy? This seems rather amateurish.
Brilliance in one domain does not imply brilliance in any other domain. Only the clueless think very successful people have all the answers. Only the delusion-ally arrogant think they have all the answer. Only the foolish think it can't happen to them.
Yep, Linus was acting as a true newb if anything more than a small number of hours worth of work was lost. Especially so given the known characteristics of SSD drives. Not very far removed from the person who types in a word processor for hours without saving.
Linus needs a personal sysadmin to protect him from this kind of calamity...
All newbs do. And newbs don't usually learn to appreciate backups until they suffer a catastrophic loss. This just proves, yet again, that brilliance in one domain does not imply brilliance in any other domain. Of course the clueless don't recognize this and think a very successful person must have all the answers, when in fact they are equivalent to newbs in many domains.
As to whether a third-party candidate could or not, guess it depends on how good he is at fund-raising.
Social media has changed things in this area. If a good 3rd party candidate with a good message appears he/she will find raising money far easier than any 3rd party predecessor. Again, its up to voters and only voters.
He participated in the 1992 debates, but was not allowed to participate in the 1996 debates.
Yes, in 1992 people did not know he was a nutcase. In 1996 they did. Perot self destructed personally and politically after the 1992 debates. In 1996 he did not have the sort of support he did in 1992. Likely voters abandoned Perot, nothing more.
You're obviously ignorant of their role in excluding third parties from presidential debates via the Commission on Presidential Debates.
Wrong. Third parties are not excluded. Candidates polling less than 15% are excluded. The likely voters are excluding the candidate not the R and D parties. Today with social media that 15% barrier is a far easier hurdle than it used to be.
If you want to criticize someone pick the correct entity, the complacent voters who are loyal to their parties. People like to falsely blame the R and D parties, the electoral college, billionaires, corporation, etc because people don't want to admit the simple truth. That the voters actually control the system but voters are failing to act and vote in a thoughtful and responsible manner.
Until voters accept that they are the single biggest problem in the system nothing will get fixed and nothing will change.
And the last hundred years of Political Science has said that it is the electoral system itself that prevents 3rd parties from getting any traction.
Its a 100 years of 3rd parties with poor candidates and poor messages combined with 100 years of voter party loyalty. People just want an excuse for why **their** favorite 3rd party candidate failed so they blame the system. The truth is that its a failing of candidates and voters. The system is still one person one vote.
Perot solved the spending problem by throwing his own wealth into the campaign - no-one not a billionaire could hope to do what he did.
Perot's wealth may have jump started his campaign but it was his message and how it was received by the voters that made him a viable candidate. With today's social media it is easier than ever for a 3rd party to get his candidacy off the ground. Recent 3rd party candidates have failed because of their message, it didn't connect with many voters. Unlike Perot who had a message that initially connected with voters on a very large scale.
If it were merely a question of money Donald Trump would have been a viable candidate. Money helps, but it takes a lot more than money.
Jesus Christ that was 20 years ago. That's literally a new generation of voters now. And don't know you 9-11 changed everything?
And 20 years ago people were saying the same thing as today. That the Republicans and Democrats and media prevent 3rd parties from getting any traction. Those people were wrong back then and those continuing to say so are wrong today. Its all about a candidate's ideas connecting with the voters. Perot made the connection, Nader and others did not.
One of the things the parties do cooperate in is making sure that no third party ever gets influential enough to threaten the duopoly at the federal level. They keep campaign spending high to maintain a financial barrier entry, and make sure that there is no media coverage for competitors by shunning any media organisation that acknowledges third parties or independents exist.
The R and D parties do no such thing. Voters do this. When voters have shown sufficient interest in a 3rd party candidate the media gives that 3rd party candidate coverage and access. In 1992 Ross Perot was leading the presidential race at one point with 39% of likely voters, an 8% lead over incumbent George Bush and a 14% lead over Bill Clinton. He not only participated in the debates but was considered by many in the media to have won the first debate. After a severely f'ed up campaign he still received 19% of the popular vote.
You are mistaken. Voters absolutely have the power and they squander it. Folks who say that money controls politics are mistaken. Money is just a tool to persuade those who have not made up their mind or are wavering in their commitment. The true political currency is ***votes***. This is easily proven, if a voter is resolute no amount of expensive TV ads can change their mind. Two examples. The National Rifle Association (NRA) and the American Association of Retire Persons (AARP). These are two of the most successful lobbying groups in American politics. Sure politicians appreciate their financial contributions but that is not the true source of power for these groups. Their true source of power are their members who do show up on election day and vote. A group that can deliver ***voters*** is more powerful than a group that can only deliver money.
The primary failing of voters is their party loyalty. If you are loyal to a particular party then that party can ignore you. They have your vote, they need do nothing to receive your vote. Similar story for a candidate. If he or she votes contrary to your wishes, yet you remain loyal because of a stance on some particular wedge issue, then he or she may ignore you, the wedge issue (guns, abortion, gay rights, etc) gets your vote so you may be ignored on anything else.
If voters showed no loyalty to a candidate and voted only on how well the candidate supported all the issues that a voter was concerned about, and voted for the other candidate if the incumbent falls short, then after a few cycles politicians will get the message and be reminded as to who is in charge, the voter. Again, the ultimate political currency is the vote, nothing is more valuable. Politicians will do whatever they need to do in order to get that vote and attain and more importantly retain elected office. Even in a D and R dominated environment always voting out candidates who severely disappoints you will eventually make candidates more accountable. Lobbyists and PACs can only save their butt if voters put aside their disappointment.
Lobbyists and PACs successfully get voters to put aside their disappointment by demonizing the opponent. Yet you claim the D and R parties/candidates are largely the same, different only cosmetically. If so then there is little risk in voting for the "other" candidate. Yet constantly voting for the "other" candidate in response to a disappointing candidate can restore accountability to the voter.
... the system, being rigged to ONLY allow D or R to get in, is the problem...
More than D and R appear on the ballots, voters ***choose*** to vote primarily for D and R.
... people like you keep perpetuating the myth that american voting system matters at the national level...
Voters ***choose*** what candidates will be representing each party in the national elections during primary elections. Voters have ***chosen*** increasing polarizing candidates in both the D and R parties. Voters have ***chosen*** not to support moderate candidates in the primaries and in the general elections.
... it does not. stop being stupid, ok? the sooner we remove this myth, the sooner we can get on with fixing THE SYSTEM.
The myth is that "voters are not to blame". As long as we have a one person one vote system voters are absolutely in charge. As long as voters are loyal to parties and/or vote for a candidate because of a wedge issue then voters can be ignored. If a voter is loyal to a party because of its platform or stance on an issue then that voter can be ignored, the party already has their vote and the candidate need do nothing for that voter.
What is stupid is failing to recognize that ***votes*** are the ultimate currency of politics, that money is just a tool to
Walmart quickly changed that. I dated a girl who did that and she got paid minimum wage with no benefits and she has worked there for 5 years. If anyone can do it included an undocumented worker then it pays to pay the least amount of money possible.
Yes and no. Tech has also changed things. Not so long ago a couple of major supermarket chains in my area went on strike. Within a couple of months my local supermarket converted 2 of 12 checkouts to self serve. You scan the bar codes yourself, swipe your debit/credit card, and RFID scanners make sure all of your items were scanned.
Self serve can not be used by everyone. It only handles packaged goods, no self bagged veggies for example. Well, most packaged goods, booze is an exception.
It's tough to get a job as a teacher unless you got your education certification while you were getting your undergrad degree. As you point out there are some programs that make some VERY LIMITED exceptions.
When I received my MS CS I was told that California has an exception to the education certification requirement for people with an Master's. Of course I never looked into it so I can't say if this is 100% accurate.
But even with those, you're always treated as a second-class teacher if you don't have certification. And it's hard to advance your career, get raises, or even keep your job until you get it.
Yes and no. A few teacher of the year awards can change that.
I read an article about a government program where retiring military officers were somehow fast tracked into teaching positions. A retiring Army Colonel became a HS math teacher and as you describe the existing teachers were angry. One exceptionally ignorant teacher literally asked the retired Colonel what he could possibly know about teaching teenagers. The retired Colonel politely explained that he has been teaching and leading teenagers for over 20 years. After a few years at the school, where he received a few awards, most of the teaching staff became converts and accepted him. The few who didn't made arguments that seemed more political than teaching related.
I had an uncle that tried to do that. Turned out that his physics degree was so esoteric that he had trouble finding a job. He ended up being a produce clerk.
Well worse case scenario he can apply to be a science teacher. Not a glamour job but almost anything fucking pays better and would give benefits than being a produce clerk. Same states even have programs for non teaching majors to enter the field. Yes you have rotten kids but at least you do not have to pay for healthcare and cost actually teach science and have a somewhat middle class salary.
It depends on the timeframe. Grocery store jobs used to pay quite well and have generous benefits. It may have been a better job than school teacher.
And when has Attorney General Eric Holder shown any care about what Congress thinks regarding his administrative and prosecutorial decisions? When has Holder shown any reluctance to take the political heat in order to shield the President?
And frankly that is his job, albeit to stay with the Constitution and the law while doing so. Once confirmed by the Senate an Attorney General couldn't care less about the Congress.
... we all know that it's got absolutely nothing to do with anything...
No, it has something quite relevant to Manning's access to the information in the first place. Isn't one of the first rules of espionage not to let people ***in the midst of*** a major personal/psychological struggle handle your classified information, and to seek out such a person handling the other side's classified information? Did Manning get a pass on his struggle due to political correctness?
Again, I emphasize "in the midst of". Once a person is happy with their preferences and identity then handling classified information should not be an issue. However a person in the midst of a major personal/psychological struggle is vulnerable to manipulation. Pose as a friend, listen, be sympathetic,... its a classic ploy. And no the nature of the struggle does not have to be preference or identity based, it can be anything.
I do believe he was struggling with gender identity issues before this whole ordeal.
Gay or straight should not matter for a security clearance. Identity should not matter for a security clearance. However ***currently struggling*** with a major psychological issue should disqualify someone from holding a security clearance. Did Manning receive a pass due to political correctness?
>So in your opinion terrorists get a pass on murdering civilians because they have a justifiable grievance?
Where do you draw the line between terrorist and freedom fighter ?
Intentionally targeting civilians. Note: "civilians" does not include combatants trying to blend in with civilians, as Al Queda fighters and leadership do.
As it happened the ANC won in South Africa and did so with the full support of the entire international community including the USA.
The ANC had political and militant components. The later did not receive support, only the former. The political component was not part of the attacks on civilians. The terrorists were a subgroup of the militant component.
I would argue that the form their armed struggle took actually prevented their revolt from turning into a full-scale civil war, which would have killed far more people (including many more civilian collateral casualties) - and probably have made it impossible to reach the peaceful negotiated settlement we ultimately did.
Attacking military, police and government infrastructure could have accomplished the same thing. What you rationalize is quite literally terrorism. Attacking innocent civilians to create a climate of fear in order to achieve a political goal.
Funny, over here, on our pro-US state radio (more pro-US than e.g. CNN), we were told that the Taliban offered to have have Bin Laden tried in court in a country that the US couldn't bully into giving the verdict the US demanded. The US refused the offer.
Nothing stopped them from detaining Bin Laden. Nothing stopped them from sending him to whatever islamic fundamentalist nation immune from US influence they had in mind.
The fact remains they protected him. Even after Bin Laden acknowledged his role in the attack.
So pretty much the same stuff that Allied soldiers from the US did in Europe and Japan during World War 2 ?
No. Rapes were rare and were prosecuted when discovered. They were not part of government policy as in Saddam's Iraq. Only the Soviet Union looked aside at the rapes committed by its troops on the Allied side.
And again in...
Irrelevant. Ignoring your exaggerations, none of this changes what Saddam did in Iraq and the fact that Saudi Arabia is "mild" in comparison.
... because the ANC used to bomb restaurants and ignore the fact that they only started doing that because the NP government liked to arrest anybody who spoke against the apartheid policies and most of those arrested were tortured and killed in prison...
So in your opinion terrorists get a pass on murdering civilians because they have a justifiable grievance?
In the entire 20th century Carter was your ONLY president who didn't find an excuse to bomb SOMEBODY.
He launched a military operations again Iran during the hostage crisis. However he micromanaged the operation and it failed.
Since Islam also uses the Old Testament, it too could conclude a 6000 year old universe.
Not all churches take the old testament literally. There are plenty that take it figuratively and have no problem with modern cosmology, nor biology and evolution either.
Remember, it was Saudis and Yemenis that carried out the 9/11 hijackings/crashes, not Afghanistanis.
The Taliban provided Al Qaeda safe haven and territory to organize, plan and train in. This includes part of the 9/11 planning. To be fair the Taliban were unaware of the 9/11 attack until after it happened. However once it became known the Taliban ***chose*** to provide safe haven and protect the people involved in 9/11 planning. If the Taliban had turned them over, or even expelled them from their territory, there would have been no invasion of Afghanistan. The Taliban made themselves accomplices after the fact by protecting the 9/11 planners.
True. Catholicism accepts the scientific method and the scientific discoveries of cosmology (universe is billions of years old), biology (evolution), etc. Basically they say that scientific discoveries describe the mechanics and methods of God's universe. Its only when the discussion turns to God's wishes and intentions and the human soul that they depart from science.
Saddam's armies had custom Soviet T-72 Lion tanks. Last I checked, Russia was responsible for that, not the US.
That's my recollection, the US backed Iran up until the revolution.
And why? It was because the Shah promised to invade the Soviet Union from the south if the Soviet Union attacked Western Europe. That is why Iran could buy equipment like the F-14 and the US backed the Shah in every way possible.
Keep in mind the ethnic/religious composition of the people living in the regions of the Soviet Union near Iran. Many of these Soviet citizens would fight along side Iranian troops to liberate themselves from Moscow. The threat to Moscow was far greater than the capability of the Iranian military.
Bullshit, he let women drive, attend university. That guy was nearly a saint compared to these assholes.
He let women drive and attend university until one of his sons thought they were cute. They he let them be forcibly taken and raped. He also used the rape and murder of women as a systematic tool to enforce obedience. He also used chemical weapons against women and children to enforce obedience.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe Linus needs to create a backup program like he did when he wanted a better version control system and created git? Also, why is the only copy of the changes on his local workstation and not a server with redundancy? This seems rather amateurish.
Brilliance in one domain does not imply brilliance in any other domain. Only the clueless think very successful people have all the answers. Only the delusion-ally arrogant think they have all the answer. Only the foolish think it can't happen to them.
Yep, Linus was acting as a true newb if anything more than a small number of hours worth of work was lost. Especially so given the known characteristics of SSD drives. Not very far removed from the person who types in a word processor for hours without saving.
Linus needs a personal sysadmin to protect him from this kind of calamity ...
All newbs do. And newbs don't usually learn to appreciate backups until they suffer a catastrophic loss. This just proves, yet again, that brilliance in one domain does not imply brilliance in any other domain. Of course the clueless don't recognize this and think a very successful person must have all the answers, when in fact they are equivalent to newbs in many domains.
As to whether a third-party candidate could or not, guess it depends on how good he is at fund-raising.
Social media has changed things in this area. If a good 3rd party candidate with a good message appears he/she will find raising money far easier than any 3rd party predecessor. Again, its up to voters and only voters.
He not only participated in the debates
He participated in the 1992 debates, but was not allowed to participate in the 1996 debates.
Yes, in 1992 people did not know he was a nutcase. In 1996 they did. Perot self destructed personally and politically after the 1992 debates. In 1996 he did not have the sort of support he did in 1992. Likely voters abandoned Perot, nothing more.
The R and D parties do no such thing.
You're obviously ignorant of their role in excluding third parties from presidential debates via the Commission on Presidential Debates.
Wrong. Third parties are not excluded. Candidates polling less than 15% are excluded. The likely voters are excluding the candidate not the R and D parties. Today with social media that 15% barrier is a far easier hurdle than it used to be.
If you want to criticize someone pick the correct entity, the complacent voters who are loyal to their parties. People like to falsely blame the R and D parties, the electoral college, billionaires, corporation, etc because people don't want to admit the simple truth. That the voters actually control the system but voters are failing to act and vote in a thoughtful and responsible manner.
Until voters accept that they are the single biggest problem in the system nothing will get fixed and nothing will change.
And the last hundred years of Political Science has said that it is the electoral system itself that prevents 3rd parties from getting any traction.
Its a 100 years of 3rd parties with poor candidates and poor messages combined with 100 years of voter party loyalty. People just want an excuse for why **their** favorite 3rd party candidate failed so they blame the system. The truth is that its a failing of candidates and voters. The system is still one person one vote.
Perot solved the spending problem by throwing his own wealth into the campaign - no-one not a billionaire could hope to do what he did.
Perot's wealth may have jump started his campaign but it was his message and how it was received by the voters that made him a viable candidate. With today's social media it is easier than ever for a 3rd party to get his candidacy off the ground. Recent 3rd party candidates have failed because of their message, it didn't connect with many voters. Unlike Perot who had a message that initially connected with voters on a very large scale.
If it were merely a question of money Donald Trump would have been a viable candidate. Money helps, but it takes a lot more than money.
Jesus Christ that was 20 years ago. That's literally a new generation of voters now. And don't know you 9-11 changed everything?
And 20 years ago people were saying the same thing as today. That the Republicans and Democrats and media prevent 3rd parties from getting any traction. Those people were wrong back then and those continuing to say so are wrong today. Its all about a candidate's ideas connecting with the voters. Perot made the connection, Nader and others did not.
One of the things the parties do cooperate in is making sure that no third party ever gets influential enough to threaten the duopoly at the federal level. They keep campaign spending high to maintain a financial barrier entry, and make sure that there is no media coverage for competitors by shunning any media organisation that acknowledges third parties or independents exist.
The R and D parties do no such thing. Voters do this. When voters have shown sufficient interest in a 3rd party candidate the media gives that 3rd party candidate coverage and access. In 1992 Ross Perot was leading the presidential race at one point with 39% of likely voters, an 8% lead over incumbent George Bush and a 14% lead over Bill Clinton. He not only participated in the debates but was considered by many in the media to have won the first debate. After a severely f'ed up campaign he still received 19% of the popular vote.
voters are not the problem.
You are mistaken. Voters absolutely have the power and they squander it. Folks who say that money controls politics are mistaken. Money is just a tool to persuade those who have not made up their mind or are wavering in their commitment. The true political currency is ***votes***. This is easily proven, if a voter is resolute no amount of expensive TV ads can change their mind. Two examples. The National Rifle Association (NRA) and the American Association of Retire Persons (AARP). These are two of the most successful lobbying groups in American politics. Sure politicians appreciate their financial contributions but that is not the true source of power for these groups. Their true source of power are their members who do show up on election day and vote. A group that can deliver ***voters*** is more powerful than a group that can only deliver money.
The primary failing of voters is their party loyalty. If you are loyal to a particular party then that party can ignore you. They have your vote, they need do nothing to receive your vote. Similar story for a candidate. If he or she votes contrary to your wishes, yet you remain loyal because of a stance on some particular wedge issue, then he or she may ignore you, the wedge issue (guns, abortion, gay rights, etc) gets your vote so you may be ignored on anything else.
If voters showed no loyalty to a candidate and voted only on how well the candidate supported all the issues that a voter was concerned about, and voted for the other candidate if the incumbent falls short, then after a few cycles politicians will get the message and be reminded as to who is in charge, the voter. Again, the ultimate political currency is the vote, nothing is more valuable. Politicians will do whatever they need to do in order to get that vote and attain and more importantly retain elected office. Even in a D and R dominated environment always voting out candidates who severely disappoints you will eventually make candidates more accountable. Lobbyists and PACs can only save their butt if voters put aside their disappointment.
Lobbyists and PACs successfully get voters to put aside their disappointment by demonizing the opponent. Yet you claim the D and R parties/candidates are largely the same, different only cosmetically. If so then there is little risk in voting for the "other" candidate. Yet constantly voting for the "other" candidate in response to a disappointing candidate can restore accountability to the voter.
... the system, being rigged to ONLY allow D or R to get in, is the problem ...
More than D and R appear on the ballots, voters ***choose*** to vote primarily for D and R.
... people like you keep perpetuating the myth that american voting system matters at the national level ...
Voters ***choose*** what candidates will be representing each party in the national elections during primary elections. Voters have ***chosen*** increasing polarizing candidates in both the D and R parties. Voters have ***chosen*** not to support moderate candidates in the primaries and in the general elections.
... it does not. stop being stupid, ok? the sooner we remove this myth, the sooner we can get on with fixing THE SYSTEM.
The myth is that "voters are not to blame". As long as we have a one person one vote system voters are absolutely in charge. As long as voters are loyal to parties and/or vote for a candidate because of a wedge issue then voters can be ignored. If a voter is loyal to a party because of its platform or stance on an issue then that voter can be ignored, the party already has their vote and the candidate need do nothing for that voter.
What is stupid is failing to recognize that ***votes*** are the ultimate currency of politics, that money is just a tool to
Walmart quickly changed that. I dated a girl who did that and she got paid minimum wage with no benefits and she has worked there for 5 years. If anyone can do it included an undocumented worker then it pays to pay the least amount of money possible.
Yes and no. Tech has also changed things. Not so long ago a couple of major supermarket chains in my area went on strike. Within a couple of months my local supermarket converted 2 of 12 checkouts to self serve. You scan the bar codes yourself, swipe your debit/credit card, and RFID scanners make sure all of your items were scanned.
Self serve can not be used by everyone. It only handles packaged goods, no self bagged veggies for example. Well, most packaged goods, booze is an exception.
It's tough to get a job as a teacher unless you got your education certification while you were getting your undergrad degree. As you point out there are some programs that make some VERY LIMITED exceptions.
When I received my MS CS I was told that California has an exception to the education certification requirement for people with an Master's. Of course I never looked into it so I can't say if this is 100% accurate.
But even with those, you're always treated as a second-class teacher if you don't have certification. And it's hard to advance your career, get raises, or even keep your job until you get it.
Yes and no. A few teacher of the year awards can change that.
I read an article about a government program where retiring military officers were somehow fast tracked into teaching positions. A retiring Army Colonel became a HS math teacher and as you describe the existing teachers were angry. One exceptionally ignorant teacher literally asked the retired Colonel what he could possibly know about teaching teenagers. The retired Colonel politely explained that he has been teaching and leading teenagers for over 20 years. After a few years at the school, where he received a few awards, most of the teaching staff became converts and accepted him. The few who didn't made arguments that seemed more political than teaching related.
I had an uncle that tried to do that. Turned out that his physics degree was so esoteric that he had trouble finding a job. He ended up being a produce clerk.
Well worse case scenario he can apply to be a science teacher. Not a glamour job but almost anything fucking pays better and would give benefits than being a produce clerk. Same states even have programs for non teaching majors to enter the field. Yes you have rotten kids but at least you do not have to pay for healthcare and cost actually teach science and have a somewhat middle class salary.
It depends on the timeframe. Grocery store jobs used to pay quite well and have generous benefits. It may have been a better job than school teacher.
Because no one in Congress wants to get Obama?
And when has Attorney General Eric Holder shown any care about what Congress thinks regarding his administrative and prosecutorial decisions? When has Holder shown any reluctance to take the political heat in order to shield the President?
And frankly that is his job, albeit to stay with the Constitution and the law while doing so. Once confirmed by the Senate an Attorney General couldn't care less about the Congress.
If you lose a billion dollars you don't jail Jon Corzine.
John Corzine was a special case. He was a close political ally of President Obama.
"Former New Jersey governor and U.S. Sen. Jon Corzine, whom President Obama once hailed as an “honorable man” and one of his “best partners” in the White House, has been subpoenaed to testify before Congress about his role in the collapse of the investment firm MF Global."
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/jon-corzine-obama-partner-and-campaign-financier-subpoenaed-on-mf-global-collapse/
... we all know that it's got absolutely nothing to do with anything ...
No, it has something quite relevant to Manning's access to the information in the first place. Isn't one of the first rules of espionage not to let people ***in the midst of*** a major personal/psychological struggle handle your classified information, and to seek out such a person handling the other side's classified information? Did Manning get a pass on his struggle due to political correctness?
... its a classic ploy. And no the nature of the struggle does not have to be preference or identity based, it can be anything.
Again, I emphasize "in the midst of". Once a person is happy with their preferences and identity then handling classified information should not be an issue. However a person in the midst of a major personal/psychological struggle is vulnerable to manipulation. Pose as a friend, listen, be sympathetic,
I do believe he was struggling with gender identity issues before this whole ordeal.
Gay or straight should not matter for a security clearance. Identity should not matter for a security clearance. However ***currently struggling*** with a major psychological issue should disqualify someone from holding a security clearance. Did Manning receive a pass due to political correctness?
>So in your opinion terrorists get a pass on murdering civilians because they have a justifiable grievance?
Where do you draw the line between terrorist and freedom fighter ?
Intentionally targeting civilians. Note: "civilians" does not include combatants trying to blend in with civilians, as Al Queda fighters and leadership do.
As it happened the ANC won in South Africa and did so with the full support of the entire international community including the USA.
The ANC had political and militant components. The later did not receive support, only the former. The political component was not part of the attacks on civilians. The terrorists were a subgroup of the militant component.
I would argue that the form their armed struggle took actually prevented their revolt from turning into a full-scale civil war, which would have killed far more people (including many more civilian collateral casualties) - and probably have made it impossible to reach the peaceful negotiated settlement we ultimately did.
Attacking military, police and government infrastructure could have accomplished the same thing. What you rationalize is quite literally terrorism. Attacking innocent civilians to create a climate of fear in order to achieve a political goal.
Funny, over here, on our pro-US state radio (more pro-US than e.g. CNN), we were told that the Taliban offered to have have Bin Laden tried in court in a country that the US couldn't bully into giving the verdict the US demanded. The US refused the offer.
Nothing stopped them from detaining Bin Laden. Nothing stopped them from sending him to whatever islamic fundamentalist nation immune from US influence they had in mind.
The fact remains they protected him. Even after Bin Laden acknowledged his role in the attack.
So pretty much the same stuff that Allied soldiers from the US did in Europe and Japan during World War 2 ?
No. Rapes were rare and were prosecuted when discovered. They were not part of government policy as in Saddam's Iraq. Only the Soviet Union looked aside at the rapes committed by its troops on the Allied side.
And again in ...
Irrelevant. Ignoring your exaggerations, none of this changes what Saddam did in Iraq and the fact that Saudi Arabia is "mild" in comparison.
So in your opinion terrorists get a pass on murdering civilians because they have a justifiable grievance?
In the entire 20th century Carter was your ONLY president who didn't find an excuse to bomb SOMEBODY.
He launched a military operations again Iran during the hostage crisis. However he micromanaged the operation and it failed.
Since Islam also uses the Old Testament, it too could conclude a 6000 year old universe.
Not all churches take the old testament literally. There are plenty that take it figuratively and have no problem with modern cosmology, nor biology and evolution either.
They FUND Al Qaeda.
Remember, it was Saudis and Yemenis that carried out the 9/11 hijackings/crashes, not Afghanistanis.
The Taliban provided Al Qaeda safe haven and territory to organize, plan and train in. This includes part of the 9/11 planning. To be fair the Taliban were unaware of the 9/11 attack until after it happened. However once it became known the Taliban ***chose*** to provide safe haven and protect the people involved in 9/11 planning. If the Taliban had turned them over, or even expelled them from their territory, there would have been no invasion of Afghanistan. The Taliban made themselves accomplices after the fact by protecting the 9/11 planners.
Don't confuse Christianity and Catholicism.
True. Catholicism accepts the scientific method and the scientific discoveries of cosmology (universe is billions of years old), biology (evolution), etc. Basically they say that scientific discoveries describe the mechanics and methods of God's universe. Its only when the discussion turns to God's wishes and intentions and the human soul that they depart from science.
Saddam's armies had custom Soviet T-72 Lion tanks. Last I checked, Russia was responsible for that, not the US.
That's my recollection, the US backed Iran up until the revolution.
And why? It was because the Shah promised to invade the Soviet Union from the south if the Soviet Union attacked Western Europe. That is why Iran could buy equipment like the F-14 and the US backed the Shah in every way possible.
Keep in mind the ethnic/religious composition of the people living in the regions of the Soviet Union near Iran. Many of these Soviet citizens would fight along side Iranian troops to liberate themselves from Moscow. The threat to Moscow was far greater than the capability of the Iranian military.
Bullshit, he let women drive, attend university. That guy was nearly a saint compared to these assholes.
He let women drive and attend university until one of his sons thought they were cute. They he let them be forcibly taken and raped. He also used the rape and murder of women as a systematic tool to enforce obedience. He also used chemical weapons against women and children to enforce obedience.