By distributing the kernel ( here ) SCO have infringed Linus' copyright and are liable to punitive damages because they knew to continue to distribute would be illegal, thats why they pulled their distro's.
Why none of the kernel authors haven't sued for copyright infringement I don't know.
SCO have either infringed copyright deliberately or libelously described the kernel team as thieves.
"It is safest to attach them to the start of each source file to most effectively convey the exclusion of warranty; and each file should have at least the "copyright" line and a pointer to where the full notice is found."
Presumably the copyright and pointer must be placed on each file by the legitimate copyright holder. The crucial word is 'placed' and I'm sure SCO can demonstrate that every source file with infringing code in it was received by them with such a notice already in place. If it was already there I cannot imagine how you would go about arguing that SCO 'placed' it there.
SCO has never claimed that IBM ever put any of their code into Linux.
SCO claims that IBM improperly, in breach of contract, used SCO's trade secrets to improve Linux.
SCO, now, claims that the kernel source was contaminated with their code before IBM became involved and that they have only just discovered this. As this is a copyright issue, and they recognise the terms of the GPL would make it illegal to distribute a GPL program that contains non-GPL code, they have pulled their distro's.
They are still distributing it ( here ) in blatant, knowing (=punitive damages) breach of the GPL, unfortunately.
'If SCO hadn't knowingly published those pieces under GPL, Linux could've been in SERIOUS trouble.'
'0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License.'
To publish any piece of code under the GPL it must have a GPL notice placed in it BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER.
Assuming that SCO are indeed the copyright holders in this instance they have not placed a GPL notice in the disputed code (it would make it easy to find) and have therefore NOT distributed it under the terms of the General Public Licence.
They are still distrubuting it ( here ) in blatant, knowing (=punitive damages) breach of the GPL.
0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License.
The absence of the notice means that the code cannot be covered by the GPL.
The code is still copyrighted.
Everything that SCO distributed falls under the GPL now IF SCO added the above mentioned notice to it. I presume they have not.
0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License.
Clearly any misappropriated sections of kernel code do not have notices 'placed by the copyright holder' and are therefore not covered by the GPL.
What this means is that you do not have any rights to copy, modify or redistribute those sections of code. However SCO are still as far as I know supplying copies of the kernel ( here ) which would give you the right to own a copy but not to modify or redistribute it.
All of the rest of the kernel remains untouched and can be modified/redistributed freely under the GPL.
I suspect a case could be made that all the other copyright holders that own sections of the kernel are having their rights infringed by SCO. By refusing to reveal which sections of the kernel belong to SCO they make it impossible for anyone else to legally distribute the kernel. I'd sue them for loss of business damages as I can no longer sell my own copyrighted code. In fact now that I think about it nobody is allowed to distributed a modified GPL program that contains non-GPL code even if that code belongs to the distributor.
'You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.'
'4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.'
So SCO have knowingly broken the law by distributing a GPL program that they claim contains copyrighted code, belonging to them, that they refuse to licence under the GPL.
By not including their copyrighted notices in the disputed code they have made it impossible for the GPL to apply to those sections should it be proven that said sections do indeed belong to SCO. Thus all copies of the kernel that SCO has subsequently distributed, since making these claims, are deliberate, knowing, breaches of the copyright's of the other kernel authors. Everyone else distributing the kernel does not know, beyond a reasonable doubt, that they are breaking the law, SCO on the other hand is threatening to assert in open court that it knows for a fact that it is currently breaking the law.
And I will once again state, as the author of the article failed to, SCO has make NO PATENT OR COPYRIGHT CLAIMS AGAINST IBM!!!!!!!!!!!
SCO HAVE CLAIMED THAT THE KERNEL AUTHORS, PRIOR TO IBM'S INVOLVEMENT, HAVE BREACHED THEIR COPYRIGHTS.
THEY HAVE NOT BROUGHT ANY COURT CASE OR PRESENTED ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THAT CLAIM.
I may put that in my sig, because it seems to be beyond the comprehension of almost everyone participating in these threads.
I think their position is that the licence that they originally received the source under, and that everyone else distributes under, is not valid as it contains 'infringing' code. Whoever put that code in the kernel had no right to do so and it therefore isn't covered by the GPL. SCO is the only entity with a right to introduce Bell Labs code into the Linux Kernel and that is why they have stopped distributing it.
1. Read the Position Paper. SCO haven't a leg to stand on in the IBM case.
2. Prove it. I cannot understand why Linus, Alan Cox, et al haven't filed some sort of libel suit against SCO. If they'd called me a thief in public like that you can bet I'd be having my lawyer call them straight away and suggest that they retract their accusations or have their arses sued off.
As to SCO withdrawing their versions of Linux, if they did that to avoid being trapped by the GPL then they should have taken the source of the FTP site before they sent out the letters.
I'm tempted to email Darl and officially accept the terms of the GPL pertaining to the copy of kernel-source-2.4.19.SuSE-152.nosrc.rpm that SCO distributed to me the day after they sent those letters out.
By pulling their Distro they have plainly stated that they know how the GPL works and how it would prejudice their position. By failing to stop distributing they have given away any code they claim had been stolen.
Even so they should still reveal what they claim has been stolen from the Bell Labs code. It should be noted that this code is copyrighted, NOT a trade secret, and has nothing to do with the IBM case and SCO has no excuse for not revealing the proof.
1. SCO are suing IBM for breach of contract in allowing SCO trade secrets to influence the development of Linux.
2 SCO are spreading FUD letters around the business community alleging that the Linux Kernel Source contains some of the Bell Labs code that SCO currently owns the copyright to. SCO have withdrawn their versions of Linux on the grounds that now that they know that the Kernel contains stolen code, that they own, to continue to distribute it under the GPL would give all of us an irrevocable licence to use/modify/distribute that code.
If there is one thing that fu*ks me off (more than argument based on logical fallacy) its innaccurate analogies.
In this instance the one about the burglar is rubbish. In fact it borders on being a Troll.
If SCO want me to stop using/distributing code that I acquired in good faith because they claim it belongs to them they can bloody well prove it or shut up and fu*k off.
If SCO damages the reputation of my business by making such baseless (cos they refuse to back them up with evidence) accusations then they shouldn't be surprised to find themselves facing a libel charge.
If I were Redhat, et al, then I'd sue and bloody make sure that SCO were restrained from saying another word on the subject until their accusations have been proven in a court of law.
BTW IANAL. Yet. This is exactly the sort of destructive (as opposed to creativity, the virtue that IP laws are supposed encourage) BS that has inspired me to return to University and take a bloody Law Degree. These Fuc*ers need to be taken down and if we don't do it, who will?
'we're not going to give up support of the only true democracy in the region, Israel.'
"Arab rejection was...based on the fact that, while the population of the Jewish state was to be [only half] Jewish with the Jews owning less than 10% of the Jewish state land area, the Jews were to be established as the ruling body - a settlement which no self-respecting people would accept without protest, to say the least...The action of the United Nations conflicted with the basic principles for which the world organization was established, namely, to uphold the right of all peoples to self-determination. By denying the Palestine Arabs, who formed the two-thirds majority of the country, the right to decide for themselves, the United Nations had violated its own charter." Sami Hadawi, "Bitter Harvest."
I would, I occasionally drive a taxi for extra cash and trust me if my GPS were inaccurate to +/- 300m I'd lose money hand over fist.
Our system has to accurately place cars inside zones, 75+ of them, many of much are a good deal smaller than 600m across. If that level of inaccuracy were introduced to the signal I could find myself jumping between zones (and losing my place in the queue for work) in a STATIONARY vehicle.
Kinda makes the conversation a bit disjointed, sorry.
I've never understood the need to be nasty in these discusions. The point is not to 'win' but to learn and to inform. I cannot force you to my point of view but I can give you the opportunity to learn things that change your mind.
I've always felt that if one is not willing to change ones opinion based on new information one should not bother taking part in debate.
Resolution 1441, cunningly constructed by all parties to be so ambiguous that neither side can be proven to be correct.
The 'allies' can attack Iraq and France can denounce them but neither side can be proven to be in the wrong. Kinda looks like a face saving excercise by France, saber, saber, rattle, rattle...
My thoughts are also with your friends and with anyone else out there reading this.
Hopefully casualties will be as small as last time or smaller (assuming friendly fire protocols have improved since last time, thats even worse than VX 'cos the families go through hell, on both sides.) and the people of Iraq will see a distinct improvement in their standard of living.
Legal or Illegal it doesn't matter its the right thing to do. Admittedly we are ignoring many other 'right things' for whatever reasons but that doesn't make this one less right.
Trouble is Palestine is such a popular and effective rallying call to fundamentalist causes because it is an outrage.
Really, once you have acquainted yourself with the facts of what is really going on in Palestine it is nearly impossible to be anything other than fu*king outraged.
I can see why Mulsim youths join Hamas and al Queda, I bloody would too!
Like I already said about firing rockets into Catholic Belfast, the PUBLIC behaviour of Israel is a disgrace, fu*k knows what they get up to behind closed doors.
As someone else suggested I googled 'vanunu' and I'm about ready to wet myself in fear.
The attitudes of some Orthodox Jews towards non-Jews make the Nazis look like the Boy Scouts. These are views that are popular in the Israeli military, and they are the lunatics with up to 500 nuclear warheads under their control.
What sort of Government extorts aid from the US by threatening its neighbours with nuclear weapons?
True al Queda will still be a pain in the arse once we kick Israel and all its illegal settlers out of Palestine but it will be a damn-sight smaller pain than it is now.
Without Palestine as a recruiting tool these organisations will have much more trouble recruiting young men willing to die for the cause.
It also recalls that the ceasefire specified in 687 is conditional on Iraqi compliance with the disarmament program set out in 687.
So assuming that Iraq is not in compliance the original war is back on.
We don't need the security council to OK war in Iraq, technically we are still at war with Iraq and have been for 12 years.
There has been an extended ceasefire but 1441 makes it clear that that ceasefire will end if Iraq fails to use this 'final' opportunity to comply.
The second resolution authorising the use of force was never needed. However 1441 makes it plain that it is up to the security council to declare that Iraq is not in compliance.
However IANAL (yet) so YMMV.
What amazes me, in reference to 242, that this situation was allowed to continue for so long. According to 687 we should have gone back and destroyed Iraq's WMD program by force in 1998.
The UN has clearly (here and in Kosovo) been demonstrated to be toothless. It amazes me that the original Gulf war had UN backing not that this one doesn't.
I didn't know that about the chapters. Amazing how ill informed we all are about international politics even when said politics are a manifest risk to our own lives.
If 242 isn't chapter VII then it bloody ought to be. If Israels illegal occupation of Palestine had been ended in 1967 as Iraqs occupation of Kuwait was ended the WTC would probably still be standing.
It amazes me how the media portrays Israels attacks on civilian Palestinians.
If the 1st Battalion of the 227th Aviation Regiment were to fly their Apaches over residential, Catholic, areas of Belfast and start indescriminately firing UNGUIDED rockets in retaliation to Real IRA attrocities would it be reported in the same way?
I fuc*ing doubt it.
(BTW whoever it was that posted the link to http://www.cactus48.com/truth.html last week thank you. Always wondered what was going on there, although I fear I was happier in my ignorance, certainly less worried for my life.)
Al Queda has ably demonstrated the sort of resolve that won Scotland its independence
'for, as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom -- for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.'
this is spirit that won the US its independence.
Whether we agree with their methods or not it is undeniable that they are willing to die for freedom from perceived oppresion.
(As a side note the techniques Bruce used during the Wars of Independence were brutal and definitely in contravention of the Geneva convention, I imagine it was little better during the American War of Independence.)
The cause of these attacks was Israel.
Israels flagrant disregard for international laws, treaties and opinion has placed our citizens in untimely graves. It is time Israel was put in its place. Israel is a child state and needs to be soundly spanked and sent to its room before its behaviour spirals completely out of control.
Don't get the impression that I condone terrorism, I do not (my sister lives in Belfast), however the pragmatist in me recognises that trying to swat thousands of flies (terrorists) is futile, far more effective to remove the steaming pile of dog sh*te (Israels illegal occupation of Palestine) that is attracting them.
As to the 'Brit' thing, I felt uncomfortable, as a Scot, lumping myself in with the English like that even though it was the appropriate way to phrase it.
A bit like Texans don't like to be lumped in with the rest of America. Or, God forbid, calling a Canadian an American....
Having watched most of yesterdays parliamentary debate and spent some time reading the relevent resolutions of the security council it seems quite clear to me that 1441 was not intended to allow this sort of action.
The French and Russians insisted the phrase 'by any means necessary' be removed from 1441 before it was removed.
1441 requires the isssue to be brought back before the security council should Iraq fail to comply. This has not happened.
This war is not being prosecuted with the full backing of the United Nations. Just ask the Secretary General...
On the other hand...
Some of the argument made yesterday was particularly convincing. The point that has swung my opinion is that the war in Kosovo was undertaken illegally without UN support and nobody gives a sh*t because it was the right thing to do and has resulted in the situation in the former Yugoslavia measurably improving.
Invading Iraq is probably the right thing to do and backing of now is definately the wrong thing to do.
However many of us 'Brits' (puke) are extremely pis*ed of for a couple of reasons.
1. The majority of the British people stood up in protest (largest ever demonstrations in modern times) and were completely ignored. Not a good re-election strategy...
2. Resolution 242 still lies unenforced after something like 35 years. All this bleeding hearts guff about the plight of the Iraqi people sticks in my craw when nobody seems to give a fu*k about the plight of the Palestinians. Israel is in breach of UN resolutions and the Geneva convention and needs to be forced to comply one way or another.
Slashdot Mirror
I assume they already have.
By distributing the kernel ( here ) SCO have infringed Linus' copyright and are liable to punitive damages because they knew to continue to distribute would be illegal, thats why they pulled their distro's.
Why none of the kernel authors haven't sued for copyright infringement I don't know.
SCO have either infringed copyright deliberately or libelously described the kernel team as thieves.
Good point.
"It is safest to attach them to the start of each source file to most effectively convey the exclusion of warranty; and each file should have at least the "copyright" line and a pointer to where the full notice is found."
Presumably the copyright and pointer must be placed on each file by the legitimate copyright holder. The crucial word is 'placed' and I'm sure SCO can demonstrate that every source file with infringing code in it was received by them with such a notice already in place. If it was already there I cannot imagine how you would go about arguing that SCO 'placed' it there.
SCO has never claimed that IBM ever put any of their code into Linux.
SCO claims that IBM improperly, in breach of contract, used SCO's trade secrets to improve Linux.
SCO, now, claims that the kernel source was contaminated with their code before IBM became involved and that they have only just discovered this. As this is a copyright issue, and they recognise the terms of the GPL would make it illegal to distribute a GPL program that contains non-GPL code, they have pulled their distro's.
They are still distributing it ( here ) in blatant, knowing (=punitive damages) breach of the GPL, unfortunately.
'If SCO hadn't knowingly published those pieces under GPL, Linux could've been in SERIOUS trouble.'
'0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License.'
To publish any piece of code under the GPL it must have a GPL notice placed in it BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER.
Assuming that SCO are indeed the copyright holders in this instance they have not placed a GPL notice in the disputed code (it would make it easy to find) and have therefore NOT distributed it under the terms of the General Public Licence.
They are still distrubuting it ( here ) in blatant, knowing (=punitive damages) breach of the GPL.
'they've continued to listen to legal advice and got out of distributing the source'
They are still distrubuting it ( here ) in blatant, knowing (=punitive damages) breach of the GPL.
Some engineer' in IBM doesn't have that right to relicense it'
SCO has never claimed that IBM ever put any of their code into Linux.
SCO claims that IBM improperly, in breach of contract, used SCO's trade secrets to improve Linux.
'According to SCO, IBM did.'
SCO has never claimed that IBM ever put any of their code into Linux.
SCO claims that IBM improperly, in breach of contract, used SCO's trade secrets to improve Linux.
'SCO now claims that some of that proprietary code was improperly incorporated into Linux'
WRONG.
SCO has never claimed that IBM ever put any of their code into Linux.
SCO claims that IBM improperly, in breach of contract, used SCO's trade secrets to improve Linux.
0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License.
The absence of the notice means that the code cannot be covered by the GPL.
The code is still copyrighted.
Everything that SCO distributed falls under the GPL now IF SCO added the above mentioned notice to it. I presume they have not.
Unfortunately he would appear to be correct.
0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License.
Clearly any misappropriated sections of kernel code do not have notices 'placed by the copyright holder' and are therefore not covered by the GPL.
What this means is that you do not have any rights to copy, modify or redistribute those sections of code. However SCO are still as far as I know supplying copies of the kernel ( here ) which would give you the right to own a copy but not to modify or redistribute it.
All of the rest of the kernel remains untouched and can be modified/redistributed freely under the GPL.
I suspect a case could be made that all the other copyright holders that own sections of the kernel are having their rights infringed by SCO. By refusing to reveal which sections of the kernel belong to SCO they make it impossible for anyone else to legally distribute the kernel. I'd sue them for loss of business damages as I can no longer sell my own copyrighted code. In fact now that I think about it nobody is allowed to distributed a modified GPL program that contains non-GPL code even if that code belongs to the distributor.
'You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.'
'4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.'
So SCO have knowingly broken the law by distributing a GPL program that they claim contains copyrighted code, belonging to them, that they refuse to licence under the GPL.
By not including their copyrighted notices in the disputed code they have made it impossible for the GPL to apply to those sections should it be proven that said sections do indeed belong to SCO. Thus all copies of the kernel that SCO has subsequently distributed, since making these claims, are deliberate, knowing, breaches of the copyright's of the other kernel authors. Everyone else distributing the kernel does not know, beyond a reasonable doubt, that they are breaking the law, SCO on the other hand is threatening to assert in open court that it knows for a fact that it is currently breaking the law.
And I will once again state, as the author of the article failed to, SCO has make NO PATENT OR COPYRIGHT CLAIMS AGAINST IBM!!!!!!!!!!!
SCO HAVE CLAIMED THAT THE KERNEL AUTHORS, PRIOR TO IBM'S INVOLVEMENT, HAVE BREACHED THEIR COPYRIGHTS.
THEY HAVE NOT BROUGHT ANY COURT CASE OR PRESENTED ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THAT CLAIM.
I may put that in my sig, because it seems to be beyond the comprehension of almost everyone participating in these threads.
I think their position is that the licence that they originally received the source under, and that everyone else distributes under, is not valid as it contains 'infringing' code. Whoever put that code in the kernel had no right to do so and it therefore isn't covered by the GPL. SCO is the only entity with a right to introduce Bell Labs code into the Linux Kernel and that is why they have stopped distributing it.
Now that I've made that clear.
1. Read the Position Paper. SCO haven't a leg to stand on in the IBM case.
2. Prove it. I cannot understand why Linus, Alan Cox, et al haven't filed some sort of libel suit against SCO. If they'd called me a thief in public like that you can bet I'd be having my lawyer call them straight away and suggest that they retract their accusations or have their arses sued off.
As to SCO withdrawing their versions of Linux, if they did that to avoid being trapped by the GPL then they should have taken the source of the FTP site before they sent out the letters.
I'm tempted to email Darl and officially accept the terms of the GPL pertaining to the copy of kernel-source-2.4.19.SuSE-152.nosrc.rpm that SCO distributed to me the day after they sent those letters out.
By pulling their Distro they have plainly stated that they know how the GPL works and how it would prejudice their position. By failing to stop distributing they have given away any code they claim had been stolen.
Even so they should still reveal what they claim has been stolen from the Bell Labs code. It should be noted that this code is copyrighted, NOT a trade secret, and has nothing to do with the IBM case and SCO has no excuse for not revealing the proof.
This whole thread will be backwards.
1. SCO are suing IBM for breach of contract in allowing SCO trade secrets to influence the development of Linux.
2 SCO are spreading FUD letters around the business community alleging that the Linux Kernel Source contains some of the Bell Labs code that SCO currently owns the copyright to. SCO have withdrawn their versions of Linux on the grounds that now that they know that the Kernel contains stolen code, that they own, to continue to distribute it under the GPL would give all of us an irrevocable licence to use/modify/distribute that code.
3. 1 and 2 are not related.
Precisely.
If there is one thing that fu*ks me off (more than argument based on logical fallacy) its innaccurate analogies.
In this instance the one about the burglar is rubbish. In fact it borders on being a Troll.
If SCO want me to stop using/distributing code that I acquired in good faith because they claim it belongs to them they can bloody well prove it or shut up and fu*k off.
If SCO damages the reputation of my business by making such baseless (cos they refuse to back them up with evidence) accusations then they shouldn't be surprised to find themselves facing a libel charge.
If I were Redhat, et al, then I'd sue and bloody make sure that SCO were restrained from saying another word on the subject until their accusations have been proven in a court of law.
BTW IANAL. Yet. This is exactly the sort of destructive (as opposed to creativity, the virtue that IP laws are supposed encourage) BS that has inspired me to return to University and take a bloody Law Degree. These Fuc*ers need to be taken down and if we don't do it, who will?
Lucky?
;)
Exhausted more like.
Squeek!
Assuming you live in a jurisdiction that allows algorithms to be patented.
'we're not going to give up support of the only true democracy in the region, Israel.'
"Arab rejection was...based on the fact that, while the population of the Jewish state was to be [only half] Jewish with the Jews owning less than 10% of the Jewish state land area, the Jews were to be established as the ruling body - a settlement which no self-respecting people would accept without protest, to say the least...The action of the United Nations conflicted with the basic principles for which the world organization was established, namely, to uphold the right of all peoples to self-determination. By denying the Palestine Arabs, who formed the two-thirds majority of the country, the right to decide for themselves, the United Nations had violated its own charter." Sami Hadawi, "Bitter Harvest."
Quoted from here
Israel? Democracy? ROFLMFAO!
If you are an Muslim Israel must be the least democratic place on the entire fu*king planet to live.
'Civilian users will hardly notice a difference.'
I would, I occasionally drive a taxi for extra cash and trust me if my GPS were inaccurate to +/- 300m I'd lose money hand over fist.
Our system has to accurately place cars inside zones, 75+ of them, many of much are a good deal smaller than 600m across. If that level of inaccuracy were introduced to the signal I could find myself jumping between zones (and losing my place in the queue for work) in a STATIONARY vehicle.
I think I might 'notice' that.
"I've just marked you 'friend'"
Cool, I think I'll do the same.
I posted again above before I read this.
Kinda makes the conversation a bit disjointed, sorry.
I've never understood the need to be nasty in these discusions. The point is not to 'win' but to learn and to inform. I cannot force you to my point of view but I can give you the opportunity to learn things that change your mind.
I've always felt that if one is not willing to change ones opinion based on new information one should not bother taking part in debate.
Resolution 1441, cunningly constructed by all parties to be so ambiguous that neither side can be proven to be correct.
The 'allies' can attack Iraq and France can denounce them but neither side can be proven to be in the wrong. Kinda looks like a face saving excercise by France, saber, saber, rattle, rattle...
My thoughts are also with your friends and with anyone else out there reading this.
Hopefully casualties will be as small as last time or smaller (assuming friendly fire protocols have improved since last time, thats even worse than VX 'cos the families go through hell, on both sides.) and the people of Iraq will see a distinct improvement in their standard of living.
Legal or Illegal it doesn't matter its the right thing to do. Admittedly we are ignoring many other 'right things' for whatever reasons but that doesn't make this one less right.
'al Queda would still be blowing shit up'
You're not wrong there, interesting article.
Trouble is Palestine is such a popular and effective rallying call to fundamentalist causes because it is an outrage.
Really, once you have acquainted yourself with the facts of what is really going on in Palestine it is nearly impossible to be anything other than fu*king outraged.
I can see why Mulsim youths join Hamas and al Queda, I bloody would too!
Like I already said about firing rockets into Catholic Belfast, the PUBLIC behaviour of Israel is a disgrace, fu*k knows what they get up to behind closed doors.
As someone else suggested I googled 'vanunu' and I'm about ready to wet myself in fear.
The attitudes of some Orthodox Jews towards non-Jews make the Nazis look like the Boy Scouts. These are views that are popular in the Israeli military, and they are the lunatics with up to 500 nuclear warheads under their control.
What sort of Government extorts aid from the US by threatening its neighbours with nuclear weapons?
True al Queda will still be a pain in the arse once we kick Israel and all its illegal settlers out of Palestine but it will be a damn-sight smaller pain than it is now.
Without Palestine as a recruiting tool these organisations will have much more trouble recruiting young men willing to die for the cause.
BTW are you really a French-Canadian Texan?
That would be just far too bizarre a coincidence.
It also recalls that the ceasefire specified in 687 is conditional on Iraqi compliance with the disarmament program set out in 687.
So assuming that Iraq is not in compliance the original war is back on.
We don't need the security council to OK war in Iraq, technically we are still at war with Iraq and have been for 12 years.
There has been an extended ceasefire but 1441 makes it clear that that ceasefire will end if Iraq fails to use this 'final' opportunity to comply.
The second resolution authorising the use of force was never needed. However 1441 makes it plain that it is up to the security council to declare that Iraq is not in compliance.
However IANAL (yet) so YMMV.
What amazes me, in reference to 242, that this situation was allowed to continue for so long. According to 687 we should have gone back and destroyed Iraq's WMD program by force in 1998.
The UN has clearly (here and in Kosovo) been demonstrated to be toothless. It amazes me that the original Gulf war had UN backing not that this one doesn't.
I didn't know that about the chapters. Amazing how ill informed we all are about international politics even when said politics are a manifest risk to our own lives.
If 242 isn't chapter VII then it bloody ought to be. If Israels illegal occupation of Palestine had been ended in 1967 as Iraqs occupation of Kuwait was ended the WTC would probably still be standing.
It amazes me how the media portrays Israels attacks on civilian Palestinians.
If the 1st Battalion of the 227th Aviation Regiment were to fly their Apaches over residential, Catholic, areas of Belfast and start indescriminately firing UNGUIDED rockets in retaliation to Real IRA attrocities would it be reported in the same way?
I fuc*ing doubt it.
(BTW whoever it was that posted the link to http://www.cactus48.com/truth.html last week thank you. Always wondered what was going on there, although I fear I was happier in my ignorance, certainly less worried for my life.)
Al Queda has ably demonstrated the sort of resolve that won Scotland its independence
'for, as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom -- for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.'
this is spirit that won the US its independence.
Whether we agree with their methods or not it is undeniable that they are willing to die for freedom from perceived oppresion.
(As a side note the techniques Bruce used during the Wars of Independence were brutal and definitely in contravention of the Geneva convention, I imagine it was little better during the American War of Independence.)
The cause of these attacks was Israel.
Israels flagrant disregard for international laws, treaties and opinion has placed our citizens in untimely graves. It is time Israel was put in its place. Israel is a child state and needs to be soundly spanked and sent to its room before its behaviour spirals completely out of control.
Don't get the impression that I condone terrorism, I do not (my sister lives in Belfast), however the pragmatist in me recognises that trying to swat thousands of flies (terrorists) is futile, far more effective to remove the steaming pile of dog sh*te (Israels illegal occupation of Palestine) that is attracting them.
As to the 'Brit' thing, I felt uncomfortable, as a Scot, lumping myself in with the English like that even though it was the appropriate way to phrase it.
A bit like Texans don't like to be lumped in with the rest of America. Or, God forbid, calling a Canadian an American....
My point is that France tends to do whatever it pleases regardless of the opinion of the EU or anyone else for that matter.
Having watched most of yesterdays parliamentary debate and spent some time reading the relevent resolutions of the security council it seems quite clear to me that 1441 was not intended to allow this sort of action.
The French and Russians insisted the phrase 'by any means necessary' be removed from 1441 before it was removed.
1441 requires the isssue to be brought back before the security council should Iraq fail to comply. This has not happened.
This war is not being prosecuted with the full backing of the United Nations. Just ask the Secretary General...
On the other hand...
Some of the argument made yesterday was particularly convincing. The point that has swung my opinion is that the war in Kosovo was undertaken illegally without UN support and nobody gives a sh*t because it was the right thing to do and has resulted in the situation in the former Yugoslavia measurably improving.
Invading Iraq is probably the right thing to do and backing of now is definately the wrong thing to do.
However many of us 'Brits' (puke) are extremely pis*ed of for a couple of reasons.
1. The majority of the British people stood up in protest (largest ever demonstrations in modern times) and were completely ignored. Not a good re-election strategy...
2. Resolution 242 still lies unenforced after something like 35 years. All this bleeding hearts guff about the plight of the Iraqi people sticks in my craw when nobody seems to give a fu*k about the plight of the Palestinians. Israel is in breach of UN resolutions and the Geneva convention and needs to be forced to comply one way or another.