Which is a tactic that is abused even more than the interstate commerce clause. They take our money as federal tax and then ransom it back to us to make us do things we don't want to do.
Sorry for going grossly offtopic, but if anyone is interested - this is one of the primary issues surrounding Quebec sovereignty. Our money is extracted from us by the federal government, and (mostly) sent back to us with conditions attached. What's the point of so called "transfer payments" if all they're doing is taking our money, and returning (most) of it with a set of spending requirements?
I was charged with contempt of court (violating an injunction). In his papers to the judge, the Seargent claimed that I had refused to leave the bridge. If I hadn't kept my camera running, I probably would have been convicted (his word against mine). Faced with my video, charges against me were dropped.
Let me guess. He wasn't arrested for perjury, was he?
They're not having sex without our permission, they're raping each other.
They're not a militia, they're terrorists.
They're not a government, they're a regime.
They're not citizens defending their homes, they're enemy combatants.
It's not a sovereign nation, it's a rogue country.
It's not a protest, it's a tax evasion.
You're not a public urinator when drunk coming home from a bar, you're a sex offender.
Drunk drivers, abortionists, and food companies are murderers.
Cigarettes kill everyone.
The plague could strike your family.
Osama Bin Laden wants to kill you.
Christianity is better than Islam.
Criminals, birth control, and science are bad. Evolution is unholy.
Drugs are bad, except caffeine, alcohol, nicotine, etc. But especially marijuana, stevia are bad.
Nature has been around a hell of a lot longer than any of our laws. Should we be listening more to Nature? (Is there a biologist/doctor in the house who can shed some light on this?)
I still think it should be illegal to pass a law against a group of people if they don't have the right to vote. Under-age drinking laws should be unconstitutional, because the people who are affected by them can't vote.
Perhaps it should be illegal to sell booze to someone under 18 (or 21, whatever), but the idea that you can be charged with underage drinking is asinine. "You're too young to understand that you can/can't drink - so here's a ticket." Wtf? If someone is too young to make a decision, how is it THEIR fault?
I feel that many (most?) laws on the books today have little to do with protection, and more to do with enforcing social "mores." In this view it's easy to pass laws against teenagers, because they can't vote to oppose them!
I work for a Canadian company recently bought out by an American one, and I was asked to travel to the US to meet everything there. I had to refuse, and it may eventually result in my firing.
It would be a shame, but a job is a job, and I'm just not willing to take a risk.
I agree with everything you say, and would like to add:
Closer inspection, however, would glean that 1/2 of them are of the 18 and got caught with a pre-legal crowd. No forced intent, nothing unwilling nor, in fact, unnatural.
Another large portion are the post 18, got caught with a younger person crowd. (The "victims" in this case were 15+.) While unseemly, this is still, in general, not unnatural.
If we had all these quirky little hangups 1000 years ago, we wouldn't be here as a species to fret about it.;)
I always felt the "rape" part in "statutory rape" to be unbelievably mislabled.
I think you may be a little naive.:)
There are MANY words that are chosen specifically to imply something that would not otherwise be obvious. The naming of the law was chosen to imply that it IS rape, because those who supported it at first were those who wished to control other peoples' lives. Preying on teenagers (who can't vote) is an easy way to do this...
How many people would support a crime called "unauthorized sex?"
If you're religious or raised with religious values, you might feel that sex is the worst thing that can happen to you. Believe it or not, there are people "out there" (and yes I've spoken to some) who actually would prefer their child die, over them having sex, because sex condemns them to hell, where dying does not.
It should be noted that desperation comes in several forms, amongst them psychological and real. That is some one can feel they are in a desperate situation based on the influences around them (the classic tin-foil hat person or average teen-ager) and the other can be in a real desperate situation where the issues are there, like sanctions on their country, limited right of freedom, racial discrimination, etc - the later may or may not be perceived by the person in question. Knowing the subtlties involved will affect how you deal with the situation.
A homicide bomber is just as much a guided bomb as a JDAM. One is walked in to its target by a human, the other is flown in by a laser. Guided is guided, regardless of the level of sophistication of the guidance system.
True. I still have less a problem with a desperate person (someone without a high speed flying, fighting an occupation) blowing themselves up in a market than a pilot using a high tech jet (which could target militants with impugnity) using it to drop bombs on that same market. A suicide bomber can't just walk into a military barracks and destroy it (generally speaking), but an F16 pilot has a choice.
Besides, most bombers are NOT poor and desperate, they are middle class with a real chance at a happy and fulfilling life. They are the exact opposite of the poor, oppressed masses who should be desperate.
Don't equate income or wealth to lack of desperation. Desperate can mean many things - if you don't have a strong artillery, nuclear weapons or anti-tank missiles, no amount of education or personal income is going to save you in battle. You are desperate.
The 9/11 hijackers weren't poor or desperate.
Again, you said two things there. One is true, and the other is debatable. I would argue that if they weren't desperate, they wouldn't have given their lives. For example, if they had magic buttons they could press to make the twin towers fall without flying planes into them, they would have done that instead.
Neither Amrozi bin Nurhasyim nor Imam Samudra, the two convicted in the Bali bombing, are, by any report I can find, poor or destitute or ignorant. In fact, quite the opposite they are described as being well educated and living comfortably. These are not anomalies, this is how it is with islamic terrorists.
An ninjas flip out all the time, and kill people non-stop. I know. They're just evil, like communists and homosexuals. They can't be reasoned with. No amount of talking will stop them from hating it when we invade and occupy their countries.
Anyway. As an atheist I really don't see much difference between all the religions. They all seem generally the same to me.
Sorry. I meant as a general statistical trend. Of course there were people who knew what was happening - yourself one of them - but I believe the percentage of informed people has been increasing since the explosion of the Internet.
It wasn't meant as a attack.
1. The numbers don't lie.
2. An act of desperation by a suicide bomber cannot be compared to a fighter jet dropping guided bombs on UN outposts, schools, mosques and downtown apartment blocks.
3. If you think no one cares when a suicide bomber blows up a market,.. well. I think we live in different spaces.
Well, with Lieberman now part of the Israeli government, calling for the.. "expulsion" of all Arab-Israelis, perhaps they need to seek a "final solution?" I'm sure one could google for manufacturers in Germany that produces gas chambers and internment camp gear.
How 'bout it Olmert? Peretz? Lieberman? Why not complete the circle? Your people were so injured in WW2 (almost as much as the Russians)! That justifies ethnic cleansing, doesn't it?
I think one point they're really missing is crucial.
There are a lot of us that are just so tired of "business as usual." We are sick to death of the war on this, the sanctions on that, the backdoor business deals, the pandering and "moral outrage," the manipulation... all of it. The Internet gives us a way to:
- Communicate (with each other) outside regulated channels
- Disseminate information around the world (ie. cameraphone pics - see recent UCLA tasering incident) without censorship
- Effectively inform the busy, everyday, "influenceable mass" when reality is inconsistent with the dominant political opinion
As a simple example - 10 or 20 years ago, very few westerners realized what was happening in the Middle East. We all saw the reports on CNN, or the blurry graphics as American tanks rolled through the desert. Now, we have camera phone pictures coming back from places like Lebanon, showing the devastation caused to people just like us, by our weapons.
The Internet brings people together from places around the world. It makes us, as individuals, realize that we're all the same. We all want to live productive and enjoyable lives in peace, without the overburdening influence of others. When you talk to someone from Iran, and realize that they're basically just like us... it gets difficult to swallow the "end of the world" scenario, used by our governments to justify mass killings.
Mr. Taylor, people are waking up. It's only going to get worse. You will either learn to deal with the fact that lying and manipulation is going to get harder every day, or you will be replaced.
Ironic, isn't it, that the tool that can ultimately be used to control and restrain our governments was created by a government agency.
Still, this morning I took on a new optimism; the answer in Iraq is to send more troops. An overwhelming amount. And stop restricting what our troops can do. If terrorists are shielding themselves in Mosques, we blow it up first and can rebuild it later - it'll be cheaper in American and Iraqi lives and financially in the long run.
Oh and by the way - you coward, why don't you pick up your shit, leave your comfortable home, fly to Iraq, and start bombing mosques? People like you have no trouble sending OTHER people's kids to die in a war. Why don't you fight the good fight you believe in? You fucking hypocrite.
But if the dog is all bark and has no teeth, everything gained will be lost.
Your comment enrages me. I don't really know what to say other than it pleases me to know that your country will lose this war.
Your caustic arrogance, ignorance and paranoia is what is ruining your once great country.
One thing you should know about yourself is that people like you tend to rally together for a "noble" cause (like liberating another nation). When you perceive that you have defeated your enemies, like the Mujahideen, you tend to turn on each other. You see hate everywhere, and you project it.
Watch your back. Someone YOU know and align yourself with will very likely become your enemy. It's the way you people work.
You mirror my thoughts completely and you write them eloquently. But I believe this running-around-like-chicken-with-head-cut-off for-profit self-centered politically motivated rabble-rabble moral-retard spew that catches the headlines today will begin to fade as the next generation, having grown up with uncontrolled communications, takes power. Let us hope.
A simple question - simply requiring critical thinking skills - and I ask this fully aware that those fascists in the White House (USA) are morally, ethically, and legally wrong to invade and occupy Iraq. Query: Just why are those Sunnis and Shi'a killing one another in such a focused fashion? And in what other religions do such great numbers of suicide bombers occur? None of the Benedictine nuns nor Jesuit brothers ever suggested I suicide for Christ.....
Excellent questions. Here are my observations:
Sunnis and Shiites are battling for control of Iraq, in much the same way that North and South Korea battled for control of Korea after the fall of Japan (the occupying force) in the 40s. The Americans have chosen to support the Shiites after the Sunni dominated provinces rejected the new constitution. Now, the Sunnis are fighting the Shiites because the American troops are more difficult to target.
As we're all geeks here, watch the latest Battlestar Galactica season.. pay attention to the tension that forms between the Human police force recruited by the Cylons and the insurgents. It's good entertainment, yes.. but surprisingly insightful.:)
Religions themselves don't dictate whether or not suicide bombers are common. Situations which cause desperation are the catalyst for suicide attacks. For example, Japan used "suicide bombs" in the form of Kamikazee attacks against American naval vessels during WW2. They also had man-guided torpedos which had no escape mechanism - a naval suicide bomb.
Many allies fighting during WW2 engaged in suicide tactics, where they would give their lives to save a commander or lay a costly strike against enemy forces, knowing that they would not survive.
No one gives their lives for a cause when they believe there is a better, more effective way. When you massacre people in a mosque or school (US-Afghanistan bombing campaigns, Israel-Lebanon campaigns, Pakistan-Pakistan strikes, etc), a percentage of those who survive will have lost loved ones and will be willing to end their life as long as it means those he/she feel responsible are injured or killed as well. This is an evolved trait - tribes which allowed attacks against them to occur without retribution were statistically less likely to survive than those tribes which raised the cost of assaults against them by employing revenge attacks).
And rest assured that many involved in the Christian Crusades committed horrendous crimes, massacres, raping and pillaging, and yes - attacks where the perpetrator knew in advance that the result of the attack would be their death (ie. suicide attack).
And there you have it. In my estimation, it is desperate people - outgunned, with no hope of a "fair fight" - that perform these attacks. The most effective way to stop the attacks is to make them less desperate (ie. by not massacring their loved ones, setting up checkpoints, toppling their democracies, etc).
I will watch that video later tonight, though frankly I'm skeptical; everything you've said is inconsistent with real HUMANS that I have met from Iran, Kuwait, Egypt, Lebanon, Tunisia, Montreal, New York, Toronto, France and recently Iraq, who consider themselves to be Muslim. Some are Sunni, and some are Shia/Shiite, but most are quite "religions" (as in they pray several times a day, partake in Ramadan, and plan to make a pilgrimage.
As an Atheist I find them silly sometimes, but never have I encountered one who was hampered by "radical Islamism." Ever. Many were furious, and actually two lost relatives in American bombing campaigns against their homelands, but I have never heard any of them actually say things which are consistent with your writing (and many westerner's writings).
Just as radical Jews, Christians and Atheists exist and do kill exclusively to promote their religion/lack of religion, so do radical Islamists. But there is no sense in developing foreign policy based on this fact; they exist in such a minority as to be statistical noise.
The real threat is that they'll sell components to terrorists who will smuggle them into the U.S. across our porous southern borders, then detonate them in a big city ala Jericho.
This threat is a lot more real than any other we face, IMHO.
I would tend to agree. It may be in the interest of everyday Americans to learn to control their government's military, assassination and anti-democratic excursions (Iraq, Iran, NK, all over south america, Vietnam, Panama, Israel/Lebanon, Afghanistan, etc, etc, etc). This way, the amount of hatred harboured towards the US will decrease, and the terrorists will instead go about their everyday lives.
Ok I'll give the religious/sin argument some merit. However, what is wrong with wanting to work. I want to be found dead in my cubicle (hopefully office by then) at 80. Now, a 40 hour work day is a good idea because it allows you time to start your own business and do non traditional work (charity and open source projects). However, anything less than that is just damn lazy IMHO.
Well there are two things here - one is a question (what is wrong with wanting to work?). Of course, nothing is wrong with that. I work a good 40-50 hours a week on average as a sysadmin. I know a few coders who work 70. You can work to your heart's content.
But the other is a statement. "Anything less than that is just damned lazy" Well.. everyone has the right to their own opinion. But in general here, we don't frown upon people who choose to do things other than work their asses off (unless they become a burden on society). My boss works 30 hours a week so he can spend more time with his family. He makes a decent living. Can't complain about that, and he's the last person in the world I would call lazy.
Slashdot Mirror
Which is a tactic that is abused even more than the interstate commerce clause. They take our money as federal tax and then ransom it back to us to make us do things we don't want to do.
Sorry for going grossly offtopic, but if anyone is interested - this is one of the primary issues surrounding Quebec sovereignty. Our money is extracted from us by the federal government, and (mostly) sent back to us with conditions attached. What's the point of so called "transfer payments" if all they're doing is taking our money, and returning (most) of it with a set of spending requirements?I was charged with contempt of court (violating an injunction). In his papers to the judge, the Seargent claimed that I had refused to leave the bridge. If I hadn't kept my camera running, I probably would have been convicted (his word against mine). Faced with my video, charges against me were dropped.
Let me guess. He wasn't arrested for perjury, was he?They're not having sex without our permission, they're raping each other.
They're not a militia, they're terrorists.
They're not a government, they're a regime.
They're not citizens defending their homes, they're enemy combatants.
It's not a sovereign nation, it's a rogue country.
It's not a protest, it's a tax evasion.
You're not a public urinator when drunk coming home from a bar, you're a sex offender.
Drunk drivers, abortionists, and food companies are murderers.Cigarettes kill everyone.
The plague could strike your family.
Osama Bin Laden wants to kill you.
Christianity is better than Islam.
Criminals, birth control, and science are bad. Evolution is unholy.
Drugs are bad, except caffeine, alcohol, nicotine, etc. But especially marijuana, stevia are bad.
Ugh. Make it stop. :(
Life, Liberty, and the Persuit of Happiness*!
* Void where prohibited.Nature has been around a hell of a lot longer than any of our laws. Should we be listening more to Nature? (Is there a biologist/doctor in the house who can shed some light on this?)
I still think it should be illegal to pass a law against a group of people if they don't have the right to vote. Under-age drinking laws should be unconstitutional, because the people who are affected by them can't vote.
Perhaps it should be illegal to sell booze to someone under 18 (or 21, whatever), but the idea that you can be charged with underage drinking is asinine. "You're too young to understand that you can/can't drink - so here's a ticket." Wtf? If someone is too young to make a decision, how is it THEIR fault?
I feel that many (most?) laws on the books today have little to do with protection, and more to do with enforcing social "mores." In this view it's easy to pass laws against teenagers, because they can't vote to oppose them!This is my situation as well (also a Canadian :)
I work for a Canadian company recently bought out by an American one, and I was asked to travel to the US to meet everything there. I had to refuse, and it may eventually result in my firing.
It would be a shame, but a job is a job, and I'm just not willing to take a risk.I agree with everything you say, and would like to add:
Closer inspection, however, would glean that 1/2 of them are of the 18 and got caught with a pre-legal crowd. No forced intent, nothing unwilling nor, in fact, unnatural.
Another large portion are the post 18, got caught with a younger person crowd. (The "victims" in this case were 15+.) While unseemly, this is still, in general, not unnatural.
If we had all these quirky little hangups 1000 years ago, we wouldn't be here as a species to fret about it.I always felt the "rape" part in "statutory rape" to be unbelievably mislabled.
I think you may be a little naive. :)
There are MANY words that are chosen specifically to imply something that would not otherwise be obvious. The naming of the law was chosen to imply that it IS rape, because those who supported it at first were those who wished to control other peoples' lives. Preying on teenagers (who can't vote) is an easy way to do this...
How many people would support a crime called "unauthorized sex?"If you're religious or raised with religious values, you might feel that sex is the worst thing that can happen to you. Believe it or not, there are people "out there" (and yes I've spoken to some) who actually would prefer their child die, over them having sex, because sex condemns them to hell, where dying does not.
I guess the idea here is that.. oh I dunno.
We are a strange species..It should be noted that desperation comes in several forms, amongst them psychological and real. That is some one can feel they are in a desperate situation based on the influences around them (the classic tin-foil hat person or average teen-ager) and the other can be in a real desperate situation where the issues are there, like sanctions on their country, limited right of freedom, racial discrimination, etc - the later may or may not be perceived by the person in question. Knowing the subtlties involved will affect how you deal with the situation.
Well said.A homicide bomber is just as much a guided bomb as a JDAM. One is walked in to its target by a human, the other is flown in by a laser. Guided is guided, regardless of the level of sophistication of the guidance system.
True. I still have less a problem with a desperate person (someone without a high speed flying, fighting an occupation) blowing themselves up in a market than a pilot using a high tech jet (which could target militants with impugnity) using it to drop bombs on that same market. A suicide bomber can't just walk into a military barracks and destroy it (generally speaking), but an F16 pilot has a choice.
Besides, most bombers are NOT poor and desperate, they are middle class with a real chance at a happy and fulfilling life. They are the exact opposite of the poor, oppressed masses who should be desperate.
Don't equate income or wealth to lack of desperation. Desperate can mean many things - if you don't have a strong artillery, nuclear weapons or anti-tank missiles, no amount of education or personal income is going to save you in battle. You are desperate.
The 9/11 hijackers weren't poor or desperate.
Again, you said two things there. One is true, and the other is debatable. I would argue that if they weren't desperate, they wouldn't have given their lives. For example, if they had magic buttons they could press to make the twin towers fall without flying planes into them, they would have done that instead.
Neither Amrozi bin Nurhasyim nor Imam Samudra, the two convicted in the Bali bombing, are, by any report I can find, poor or destitute or ignorant. In fact, quite the opposite they are described as being well educated and living comfortably. These are not anomalies, this is how it is with islamic terrorists.
An ninjas flip out all the time, and kill people non-stop. I know. They're just evil, like communists and homosexuals. They can't be reasoned with. No amount of talking will stop them from hating it when we invade and occupy their countries.
Anyway. As an atheist I really don't see much difference between all the religions. They all seem generally the same to me.Well obviously that is a natural consequence. :)
How is this: since the explosion of the Internet, the number of people who are absorbing information about the middle east conflict has increased.Sorry. I meant as a general statistical trend. Of course there were people who knew what was happening - yourself one of them - but I believe the percentage of informed people has been increasing since the explosion of the Internet. It wasn't meant as a attack.
1. The numbers don't lie. .. well. I think we live in different spaces.
2. An act of desperation by a suicide bomber cannot be compared to a fighter jet dropping guided bombs on UN outposts, schools, mosques and downtown apartment blocks.
3. If you think no one cares when a suicide bomber blows up a market,
Well, with Lieberman now part of the Israeli government, calling for the .. "expulsion" of all Arab-Israelis, perhaps they need to seek a "final solution?" I'm sure one could google for manufacturers in Germany that produces gas chambers and internment camp gear.
How 'bout it Olmert? Peretz? Lieberman? Why not complete the circle? Your people were so injured in WW2 (almost as much as the Russians)! That justifies ethnic cleansing, doesn't it?
I think one point they're really missing is crucial.
There are a lot of us that are just so tired of "business as usual." We are sick to death of the war on this, the sanctions on that, the backdoor business deals, the pandering and "moral outrage," the manipulation... all of it. The Internet gives us a way to:
- Communicate (with each other) outside regulated channels- Disseminate information around the world (ie. cameraphone pics - see recent UCLA tasering incident) without censorship
- Effectively inform the busy, everyday, "influenceable mass" when reality is inconsistent with the dominant political opinion
As a simple example - 10 or 20 years ago, very few westerners realized what was happening in the Middle East. We all saw the reports on CNN, or the blurry graphics as American tanks rolled through the desert. Now, we have camera phone pictures coming back from places like Lebanon, showing the devastation caused to people just like us, by our weapons.
The Internet brings people together from places around the world. It makes us, as individuals, realize that we're all the same. We all want to live productive and enjoyable lives in peace, without the overburdening influence of others. When you talk to someone from Iran, and realize that they're basically just like us... it gets difficult to swallow the "end of the world" scenario, used by our governments to justify mass killings.
Mr. Taylor, people are waking up. It's only going to get worse. You will either learn to deal with the fact that lying and manipulation is going to get harder every day, or you will be replaced.
Ironic, isn't it, that the tool that can ultimately be used to control and restrain our governments was created by a government agency.
Still, this morning I took on a new optimism; the answer in Iraq is to send more troops. An overwhelming amount. And stop restricting what our troops can do. If terrorists are shielding themselves in Mosques, we blow it up first and can rebuild it later - it'll be cheaper in American and Iraqi lives and financially in the long run.
Oh and by the way - you coward, why don't you pick up your shit, leave your comfortable home, fly to Iraq, and start bombing mosques? People like you have no trouble sending OTHER people's kids to die in a war. Why don't you fight the good fight you believe in? You fucking hypocrite.
But if the dog is all bark and has no teeth, everything gained will be lost.
Your comment enrages me. I don't really know what to say other than it pleases me to know that your country will lose this war.
Your caustic arrogance, ignorance and paranoia is what is ruining your once great country.
One thing you should know about yourself is that people like you tend to rally together for a "noble" cause (like liberating another nation). When you perceive that you have defeated your enemies, like the Mujahideen, you tend to turn on each other. You see hate everywhere, and you project it.
Watch your back. Someone YOU know and align yourself with will very likely become your enemy. It's the way you people work.
Where's mod points when you need them...
You mirror my thoughts completely and you write them eloquently. But I believe this running-around-like-chicken-with-head-cut-off for-profit self-centered politically motivated rabble-rabble moral-retard spew that catches the headlines today will begin to fade as the next generation, having grown up with uncontrolled communications, takes power. Let us hope.
Ok I just watched the movie. If I wasn't so afraid of the effects it might have on ignorant people, I would call it a comedy.
What a sad piece of fiction.A simple question - simply requiring critical thinking skills - and I ask this fully aware that those fascists in the White House (USA) are morally, ethically, and legally wrong to invade and occupy Iraq. Query: Just why are those Sunnis and Shi'a killing one another in such a focused fashion? And in what other religions do such great numbers of suicide bombers occur? None of the Benedictine nuns nor Jesuit brothers ever suggested I suicide for Christ.....
Excellent questions. Here are my observations:
Sunnis and Shiites are battling for control of Iraq, in much the same way that North and South Korea battled for control of Korea after the fall of Japan (the occupying force) in the 40s. The Americans have chosen to support the Shiites after the Sunni dominated provinces rejected the new constitution. Now, the Sunnis are fighting the Shiites because the American troops are more difficult to target.
As we're all geeks here, watch the latest Battlestar Galactica season.. pay attention to the tension that forms between the Human police force recruited by the Cylons and the insurgents. It's good entertainment, yes.. but surprisingly insightful. :)
Religions themselves don't dictate whether or not suicide bombers are common. Situations which cause desperation are the catalyst for suicide attacks. For example, Japan used "suicide bombs" in the form of Kamikazee attacks against American naval vessels during WW2. They also had man-guided torpedos which had no escape mechanism - a naval suicide bomb.
Many allies fighting during WW2 engaged in suicide tactics, where they would give their lives to save a commander or lay a costly strike against enemy forces, knowing that they would not survive.
No one gives their lives for a cause when they believe there is a better, more effective way. When you massacre people in a mosque or school (US-Afghanistan bombing campaigns, Israel-Lebanon campaigns, Pakistan-Pakistan strikes, etc), a percentage of those who survive will have lost loved ones and will be willing to end their life as long as it means those he/she feel responsible are injured or killed as well. This is an evolved trait - tribes which allowed attacks against them to occur without retribution were statistically less likely to survive than those tribes which raised the cost of assaults against them by employing revenge attacks).
And rest assured that many involved in the Christian Crusades committed horrendous crimes, massacres, raping and pillaging, and yes - attacks where the perpetrator knew in advance that the result of the attack would be their death (ie. suicide attack).
And there you have it. In my estimation, it is desperate people - outgunned, with no hope of a "fair fight" - that perform these attacks. The most effective way to stop the attacks is to make them less desperate (ie. by not massacring their loved ones, setting up checkpoints, toppling their democracies, etc).
I will watch that video later tonight, though frankly I'm skeptical; everything you've said is inconsistent with real HUMANS that I have met from Iran, Kuwait, Egypt, Lebanon, Tunisia, Montreal, New York, Toronto, France and recently Iraq, who consider themselves to be Muslim. Some are Sunni, and some are Shia/Shiite, but most are quite "religions" (as in they pray several times a day, partake in Ramadan, and plan to make a pilgrimage.
As an Atheist I find them silly sometimes, but never have I encountered one who was hampered by "radical Islamism." Ever. Many were furious, and actually two lost relatives in American bombing campaigns against their homelands, but I have never heard any of them actually say things which are consistent with your writing (and many westerner's writings).
Just as radical Jews, Christians and Atheists exist and do kill exclusively to promote their religion/lack of religion, so do radical Islamists. But there is no sense in developing foreign policy based on this fact; they exist in such a minority as to be statistical noise.The real threat is that they'll sell components to terrorists who will smuggle them into the U.S. across our porous southern borders, then detonate them in a big city ala Jericho.
This threat is a lot more real than any other we face, IMHO.
I would tend to agree. It may be in the interest of everyday Americans to learn to control their government's military, assassination and anti-democratic excursions (Iraq, Iran, NK, all over south america, Vietnam, Panama, Israel/Lebanon, Afghanistan, etc, etc, etc). This way, the amount of hatred harboured towards the US will decrease, and the terrorists will instead go about their everyday lives.Sure, we may have a justification to attack Iran,
What is wrong with you? Will you not be satisfied until all of the world allies in a war of aggression against you?Ok I'll give the religious/sin argument some merit. However, what is wrong with wanting to work. I want to be found dead in my cubicle (hopefully office by then) at 80. Now, a 40 hour work day is a good idea because it allows you time to start your own business and do non traditional work (charity and open source projects). However, anything less than that is just damn lazy IMHO.
Well there are two things here - one is a question (what is wrong with wanting to work?). Of course, nothing is wrong with that. I work a good 40-50 hours a week on average as a sysadmin. I know a few coders who work 70. You can work to your heart's content.
But the other is a statement. "Anything less than that is just damned lazy" Well.. everyone has the right to their own opinion. But in general here, we don't frown upon people who choose to do things other than work their asses off (unless they become a burden on society). My boss works 30 hours a week so he can spend more time with his family. He makes a decent living. Can't complain about that, and he's the last person in the world I would call lazy.