ASD is a fairly new, evolving field, where even some basic questions are as yet unsettled. Awareness of ASD as well as the diagnostic methods have been evolving over the last 2 decades. My very vague understanding is that this is the most likely explanation for the change in diagnosis rates.
Finally, if you're the kind of person who likes to go to the sources for medical studies, I'm surprised you were not already long aware that the original study that set off the whole vaccine-autism scare was discredited. It's not like Dr. Wakefield hasn't been in the news...
You are aware that China is not a dictatorship, right? Governance is through a hierarchy of committees, from local level on up, of people from the communist party - which is (IMLU) open to all chinese. Hence the chinese political class is (TTBOMLK) open to all those who are able and interested. No doubt there is some nepotism and cronyism, just as in Western democracies (e.g. Ireland is a prime example).
The chinese people are generally, as far as I can make out, somewhat happy with their system and the vast majority do not seem to have any wish to change it significantly any time soon.
you couldn't legally redistribute your compiled Linux kernel; because the kernel is now linked against non-GPL code, making copies of it would constitute copyright infringement.
How so? People have distributed Linux with non-GPL bits many times in the past (AFS, Ubuntu provide the completely proprietary NVidia drivers even). The CDDL ZFS bits clearly wouldn't be infringing on the GPL. If you distribute the glue between ZFS and the Linux VFS As GPL, then that itself doesn't infringe either. We've had a decade or more of kernel hackers being quite happy to tolerate binary modules (even Harald Welte doesn't seem to sue anyone for shipping binary modules, only if they don't supply source to the GPL bits he has copyright in - AFAIK).
Yes, since Feb 15th Sun pretty much ceased to exist (in the USA), imlu. Though Sun had already become a wholly-owned subsidiary of Oracle even before that point.
You've got the direction wrong. The CDDL is compatible with both those licences. I.e. you won't violate the CDDL by porting it to BSD or GPL works and distributing it. The GPL and BSD licences are not compatible with the CDDL though, in the sense that the CDDL is more restrictive than those licences. Note that FreeBSD ZFS is *not* in FreeBSD core (and never will be?) precisely because of it this, last I checked. Also, Linux could easily have the *same* level of support, if someone wished. Nothing in the CDDL would prevent it.
A lot of people see Sun as having deliberately chosen this licensing situation. Whether that's really true or not, who knows - however it does seem to be the general perception.
Here, this is where you're implicitly blaming the insurgents for deaths caused by NATO forces:
taking up positions among civilians and using them as shields is cowardly and dishonourable.
You're either trying to wriggle out of that one, or else you're trying to word-parse "taking up positions" so that it only applies to the taliban and not to NATO/Afghan gov. forces when they go into civilian areas.
I'd be really really interested to read that Amnesty International report btw. The comments of theirs I've read have been condemnatory of both sides, as I would be. Whereas you seem to be trying to excuse one certain side.
Anyway, you're a hypocritical war-mongerer. I'm not being arrogant - I'm angry at the havoc and death wreaked on the lives of others that is enabled by your mind-set and support.
Which NGO reports exactly? As for reports from the armies, I've just explained why you should be sceptical of those (and you should generally be somewhat sceptical when someone tries to explain away the civilian deaths they've caused).
And you're still not answering my question. I agree with you that the insurgents may take up positions in civilian occupied areas and buildings (I would say that would sometimes be because they live there and are taking up arms against the soldiers they know are about ransack their compounds, but you would dispute that). I have not disputed that point with you at all.
The only question I'm asking you is this:
If the taliban are in civilian areas, and if the NATO forces go into those areas and engage them, then why are the civilian deaths all the fault of the taliban, and never the fault of the NATO forces? This seems to be your view, and I'm curious how you can hold this apparently hypocritical view that requires one side to stay away from civilian areas but not the other (particularly when one side are at different times both insurgent and a member of the local civilian population).
It's a reasonably simple question, which I've asked quite a few times now, and which you seem unwilling to answer.
Claiming the other side fights dirty using despicable tactics is an ancient wartime propaganda tactic. Blaming the other side for hiding amongst civilians is perhaps a modern corollary of that, particularly as asymmetric warfare tends to take place in urban areas when the other side has overwhelming aerial capabilities. Further, the Taliban dispute the human shield charges. Finally, the NATO forces do not have a good track record when it comes to reporting the other side. Not too infrequently the military reports of battles where civilians died do not turn out to quite be the truth on those rare occasions where outside parties can investigate. Groups of insurgents turn out to be wedding parties; reports that soldiers were fired on first turn out to be false. Etc.
So you can believe your side, but we can't agree that's a fact. I would say you're terribly naive to put all your trust in reports from your own military while ignoring the other side (if you would even bother listening to the other side). You can't have lived long in this world to think like that legitimately.
However, what we surely can agree on as fact, and which is confirmed by the UNAMA report, is that both sides operate in and engage each other in areas with civilians present, and this has led to civilian deaths.
We can agree on that, right?
If so, can you explain the paradox in your view that the local insurgency can be blamed for civilian deaths from NATO munitions aimed at them, while NATO can not be blamed in the reverse case? You seem to suggest this has something to do with tactics, so go on... explain.
Explain how with regard to civilian deaths, the ISAF tactics are pure and good, where the local insurgency tactics are Evil(TM).
Anyway... You're not going to answer any of my questions I'm above, I'm sure.
Your "using them as shields" part is subjective spin at best. I left it in as an example of your views. The generally agreeable part is that both sides operate and engage each other in civilian areas.
the US does not force the Taliban to use human shields or to purposely try and cause civilian casualties.
The history is quite relevant, because it speaks to what was bound to happen when the US went beyond shutting down bin Laden and tried to remould the country's governance.
again, we could have the best or worst plan for Afghanistan but this does not force the Taliban to kill civilians.
Would you say then also that extends similarly to the Taliban not forcing the occupying forces to kill civilians? And therefore the occupying powers being responsible for such deaths?
taking up positions among civilians and using them as shields is cowardly and dishonourable.
and now you're trying to disagree with a point of mine which you characterise as:
That by going into villages any fire they draw that hits civilians is their fault.
2 things:
a) You're suffering from reading comprehension failure. I am not saying that, I am saying *your* logic from earlier (which I've requoted above), surely must invites the conclusion that when NATO forces go into civilian areas they must then bear at least some responsibility if they are attacked. For if the taliban should take care to stay out of civilians areas, then surely so should the NATO forces? It's YOUR logic which leads to that conclusions - not mine.
b) In fact, I disagree with both those things.
I disagree with you that when NATO forces kill civilians that the intended targets are somehow culpable. I similarly disagree that where insurgents kill civilians when targeting NATO forces that the NATO forces are responsible (in the specifics of that instance).
However, you have a problem. You have said that taking up positions in civilian areas is cowardly, yet you only intend that to apply to the taliban and not apply to NATO forces. Now, one of those 2 groups of people are Afghani (well Pashtuns more often in the areas where the insurgency is heaviest) and have lived there for quite a long time, the other have not.
Simply put, you would seem to hold a hypocritical position. However, you havn't really written much here about your position so perhaps if you explained it more fully it would make sense.
you believe that due to the US going to Afghanistan and starting the war they are responsible for any or most of the bloodshed that occurs as a result
So you seriously think that after nearly 8 years of violence, and with a growing insurgency, that the occupying power bears not a smidgen of responsibility for this state of affairs? A state of affairs which was wholly predictable? I suspect you're young and so this doesn't apply to you, but for many of us the regular news of a superpower flailing around trying to beat an insurgency in Afghanistan, and the attendant civilian misery this causes, is like deja vu. For many of those older than me, it's like double deja-vu (though, back with the US as the bogged down superpower in that case).
They have chosen a bloodthirsty option. And the blood of this choice is on their hands.
Gah. What infantile rubbish. How old are you?
Again: What is the mission in Afghanistan? Exactly how will you know when you have bombed enough Afghanis (what is this story about again?)? Why are you there? What are the measurable, finite-time goals? Can they be achieved through military action?
If you're just there cause the other side (the side who live there) objects to your presence but you want to show you control the place and little else, then YES of course you share heavily in culpability for the civilian deaths.
if you poke a murderer and in his rage he kills several people trying to get to you - on whose hands are the blood of these people? You or the murderer?
You like analogies don't you? However, this isn't even a good one. How is it you can characterise the Afghani insurgents, who primarily draw their members and support from the local population by all accounts, as "murderers"? provide a good definition that excludes the occupying powers.
"drivers know their actions have a proven, high probability of causing such deaths".
Sigh. Strawman.
A society choosing for itself that the risks of some activity within that society to that society are worth the benefits is surely different to a society deciding that the risks of killing members of **another** society are worth the benefits (particularly when that first society is isolated from nearly all retributive risks).
What does this have to do with anything? If they are not seeking the cause civilian deaths but attacking NATO then it obviously doesn't fall under what I talked about.
Sigh. I mean that by your logic the NATO troops must bear the responsibility for civilian deaths caused by anti-gov forces attacking the NATO forces. By your logic nearly half of all known civilian deaths in Afghanistan are due to the direct actions of the occupying powers.
Air strikes also sometimes accidental kill NATO troops. Do you think that they are bombing their troops on purpose? - or not really caring one way or another if it hits some nearby soldiers?
Those soldiers at least know the risks and accept them. They accept that their military command balances their welfare and risks to it against the military objective (PS: What exactly/is/ the military objective in Afghanistan?). Even if they were conscripts, they at least are at least the sons of the society that sent them and that society approves of and has some control over their deployment to a greater or lesser degree.
By this logic any crime committed anywhere is the partial responsibly of the government in charge.
If the government's actions led to conditions for the crime or caused the levels of crime to occur, then yes. Of course!
This alone says so much about the difference between NATO and the Taliban.
I feel feel sorry for your myopic view of the world and your inability to think through more than the 1st order consequences of things. At the same time it scares me to think there are many like you who have the right the vote in the world's predominant military super-power.
Your post is crack. You're taking perhaps one resistance movement in the whole of the German occupied WWII area, a more rural and sparsely populated area at that, and extrapolating from it to all resistance movements across europe. Including more urban, populated areas of western Europe and Poland. Your conclusions therefore are quite unsafe.
The rest of your post, your casual calculating away of the deaths of wholly innocent people (1/4 of those deaths directly attributable to the occupying powers, another quarter potentially in engagements in which occupying powers were a party) is just staggering. I hope you are young, and speak this way because you havn't yet had the time to fully develop your views. Otherwise, if you're older, I am disturbed by your lack of empathy for other human beings.
You claimed they were dishonourable because they seek to cause civilians deaths. However the NATO forces cause a good number of deaths too, and they know their actions have a proven, high probability of causing such deaths. Therefore those deaths are wilful. ("Oh but the NATO forces dont/mean/ to kill civilians" - tell that to the dead, and FWIW the taliban leadership also have similar stated policies of trying to minimise civilian deaths).
Further, if you think that the Afghanis are dishonourable for fighting from their homes and villages, where they live, consider that the NATO forces sometimes put themselves into Afghani civilian settings (patrols, entering Afghani villages to search them). By your logic they therefore must share some of the blame for the 22% of civilian deaths which UNAMA attribute to anti-government actors attacking government/NATO forces.
Some 25% of the 2400 civilian deaths in Afghanistan last year were directly attributable to NATO/governmental action. The majority of those deaths from US air strikes. Further, with regard to the deaths cause by AGEs, the occupying powers bear at least some responsibility for the situation that has led to this violence simply because they are the responsible occupying powers, and have been so for *8* years now - yet the violence is getting worse.
By your (disagreeable) logic they bear an even greater responsibility for any deaths caused by their being in civilian areas and then being attacked.
So I ask again, when will you as (I presume) US voter stop trotting out war-mongering inanities like "oh they're so dishonourable, making us kill civilians" and start considering how the NATO powers involved (i.e. the US) can perhaps draw down the violence in Afghanistan? Perhaps *fewer airstrikes* might help??
Exactly how many years of this unwinnable guerilla war of attrition, how many dead Afghani children, how many dead US soldiers,/will/ it take for you change your mind?
Also, if america had the right to be extremely angry after 9/11 and had the right to act against its aggressors (i.e. Bin Laden and his followers, who are now not anywhere in Afghanistan), why do you think that, after many years and an even greater number of dead Afghani civilians, the Afghanis do not have the right to act against the occupying power which has caused a good number of those deaths?
Can you give your opinion and reasoning rather than inane, worthless sarcasm?
but taking up positions among civilians and using them as shields is cowardly and dishonourable.
Yes, while bombing civilians from afar, in between dropping off your kids to school and going back to cheer them on in their school sports, is highly honourable.
Also, supporting your country in waging a war with no defined goals on the soil of another country, causing the deaths of *multiple-9/11s worth of civilians* (in absolute terms even, despite the fact Afghanistan is a much smaller country) there, is also very honourable. Particularly honourable when you give that support from the comfort of your couch, informed by little more than the scant coverage from Fox and CNN.
And "them" have often been, and continue to be, women, children and other non-combatants. If you are a USAsian voter and you support these wars without end, these wars which seem to serve no-one but certain military-industrial and oil interests, then you are morally co-responsible.
I have updated the wiki article with a link to that, hopefully properly indicating the nature of the study, along with a section on concerns about the efficacy of back-scatter body scanners, with a link about the recent German TV demo where an expert managed to get a thermite bomb and other contraband through a demonstration of a scanner.
There are recentish studies which suggestpossible interactions with DNA not previously considered which would mean damage to DNA would be much greater than acknowledged.
Or just hide stuff in your mouth, or in a certain other orifice which anyone who knows anything about prisons will know has a long history of being used for contraband.
Collective nouns generally are plural. Some nouns are treated as singular, even when you could consider them as groupings. Where the line lies is somewhat subjective. Wrt group, it's very emphatically a collective noun and there should be very little reason to want to consider it a singular, distinct entity from its constituents.
Another example are companies. It is acceptable to consider these too as plural collectives, e.g. "My company have developed", or "ACMEs' products" (note the placing of the possessive '), indeed it was the normal usage once upon a time. However, the tendency to treat companies as singular, distinct things is becoming (has become) the norm in British english too. It seems nicer to use the plural to me, as it reinforces the idea that companies are not single-minded entities.
Slashdot Mirror
Not to mention that things like the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution are inherently harder to pull off in an open government.
You're possibly being a bit naive here in thinking that Chinese governance has not evolved since the days of Mao.
ASD is a fairly new, evolving field, where even some basic questions are as yet unsettled. Awareness of ASD as well as the diagnostic methods have been evolving over the last 2 decades. My very vague understanding is that this is the most likely explanation for the change in diagnosis rates.
Finally, if you're the kind of person who likes to go to the sources for medical studies, I'm surprised you were not already long aware that the original study that set off the whole vaccine-autism scare was discredited. It's not like Dr. Wakefield hasn't been in the news...
You are aware that China is not a dictatorship, right? Governance is through a hierarchy of committees, from local level on up, of people from the communist party - which is (IMLU) open to all chinese. Hence the chinese political class is (TTBOMLK) open to all those who are able and interested. No doubt there is some nepotism and cronyism, just as in Western democracies (e.g. Ireland is a prime example).
The chinese people are generally, as far as I can make out, somewhat happy with their system and the vast majority do not seem to have any wish to change it significantly any time soon.
Look at the hint in their user-profile, then look at your keyboard, reikk == troll
Yeo, and it is Ubuntu distributing the drivers.
you couldn't legally redistribute your compiled Linux kernel; because the kernel is now linked against non-GPL code, making copies of it would constitute copyright infringement.
How so? People have distributed Linux with non-GPL bits many times in the past (AFS, Ubuntu provide the completely proprietary NVidia drivers even). The CDDL ZFS bits clearly wouldn't be infringing on the GPL. If you distribute the glue between ZFS and the Linux VFS As GPL, then that itself doesn't infringe either. We've had a decade or more of kernel hackers being quite happy to tolerate binary modules (even Harald Welte doesn't seem to sue anyone for shipping binary modules, only if they don't supply source to the GPL bits he has copyright in - AFAIK).
So who is going to sue whom exactly, and why?
Yes, since Feb 15th Sun pretty much ceased to exist (in the USA), imlu. Though Sun had already become a wholly-owned subsidiary of Oracle even before that point.
You've got the direction wrong. The CDDL is compatible with both those licences. I.e. you won't violate the CDDL by porting it to BSD or GPL works and distributing it. The GPL and BSD licences are not compatible with the CDDL though, in the sense that the CDDL is more restrictive than those licences. Note that FreeBSD ZFS is *not* in FreeBSD core (and never will be?) precisely because of it this, last I checked. Also, Linux could easily have the *same* level of support, if someone wished. Nothing in the CDDL would prevent it.
A lot of people see Sun as having deliberately chosen this licensing situation. Whether that's really true or not, who knows - however it does seem to be the general perception.
Here, this is where you're implicitly blaming the insurgents for deaths caused by NATO forces:
taking up positions among civilians and using them as shields is cowardly and dishonourable.
You're either trying to wriggle out of that one, or else you're trying to word-parse "taking up positions" so that it only applies to the taliban and not to NATO/Afghan gov. forces when they go into civilian areas.
I'd be really really interested to read that Amnesty International report btw. The comments of theirs I've read have been condemnatory of both sides, as I would be. Whereas you seem to be trying to excuse one certain side.
Anyway, you're a hypocritical war-mongerer. I'm not being arrogant - I'm angry at the havoc and death wreaked on the lives of others that is enabled by your mind-set and support.
Which NGO reports exactly? As for reports from the armies, I've just explained why you should be sceptical of those (and you should generally be somewhat sceptical when someone tries to explain away the civilian deaths they've caused).
And you're still not answering my question. I agree with you that the insurgents may take up positions in civilian occupied areas and buildings (I would say that would sometimes be because they live there and are taking up arms against the soldiers they know are about ransack their compounds, but you would dispute that). I have not disputed that point with you at all.
The only question I'm asking you is this:
If the taliban are in civilian areas, and if the NATO forces go into those areas and engage them, then why are the civilian deaths all the fault of the taliban, and never the fault of the NATO forces? This seems to be your view, and I'm curious how you can hold this apparently hypocritical view that requires one side to stay away from civilian areas but not the other (particularly when one side are at different times both insurgent and a member of the local civilian population).
It's a reasonably simple question, which I've asked quite a few times now, and which you seem unwilling to answer.
Claiming the other side fights dirty using despicable tactics is an ancient wartime propaganda tactic. Blaming the other side for hiding amongst civilians is perhaps a modern corollary of that, particularly as asymmetric warfare tends to take place in urban areas when the other side has overwhelming aerial capabilities. Further, the Taliban dispute the human shield charges. Finally, the NATO forces do not have a good track record when it comes to reporting the other side. Not too infrequently the military reports of battles where civilians died do not turn out to quite be the truth on those rare occasions where outside parties can investigate. Groups of insurgents turn out to be wedding parties; reports that soldiers were fired on first turn out to be false. Etc.
So you can believe your side, but we can't agree that's a fact. I would say you're terribly naive to put all your trust in reports from your own military while ignoring the other side (if you would even bother listening to the other side). You can't have lived long in this world to think like that legitimately.
However, what we surely can agree on as fact, and which is confirmed by the UNAMA report, is that both sides operate in and engage each other in areas with civilians present, and this has led to civilian deaths.
We can agree on that, right?
If so, can you explain the paradox in your view that the local insurgency can be blamed for civilian deaths from NATO munitions aimed at them, while NATO can not be blamed in the reverse case? You seem to suggest this has something to do with tactics, so go on... explain.
Explain how with regard to civilian deaths, the ISAF tactics are pure and good, where the local insurgency tactics are Evil(TM).
Anyway... You're not going to answer any of my questions I'm above, I'm sure.
Your "using them as shields" part is subjective spin at best. I left it in as an example of your views. The generally agreeable part is that both sides operate and engage each other in civilian areas.
the US does not force the Taliban to use human shields or to purposely try and cause civilian casualties.
The history is quite relevant, because it speaks to what was bound to happen when the US went beyond shutting down bin Laden and tried to remould the country's governance.
again, we could have the best or worst plan for Afghanistan but this does not force the Taliban to kill civilians.
Would you say then also that extends similarly to the Taliban not forcing the occupying forces to kill civilians? And therefore the occupying powers being responsible for such deaths?
You earlier:
taking up positions among civilians and using them as shields is cowardly and dishonourable.
and now you're trying to disagree with a point of mine which you characterise as:
That by going into villages any fire they draw that hits civilians is their fault.
2 things:
a) You're suffering from reading comprehension failure. I am not saying that, I am saying *your* logic from earlier (which I've requoted above), surely must invites the conclusion that when NATO forces go into civilian areas they must then bear at least some responsibility if they are attacked. For if the taliban should take care to stay out of civilians areas, then surely so should the NATO forces? It's YOUR logic which leads to that conclusions - not mine.
b) In fact, I disagree with both those things.
I disagree with you that when NATO forces kill civilians that the intended targets are somehow culpable. I similarly disagree that where insurgents kill civilians when targeting NATO forces that the NATO forces are responsible (in the specifics of that instance).
However, you have a problem. You have said that taking up positions in civilian areas is cowardly, yet you only intend that to apply to the taliban and not apply to NATO forces. Now, one of those 2 groups of people are Afghani (well Pashtuns more often in the areas where the insurgency is heaviest) and have lived there for quite a long time, the other have not.
Simply put, you would seem to hold a hypocritical position. However, you havn't really written much here about your position so perhaps if you explained it more fully it would make sense.
you believe that due to the US going to Afghanistan and starting the war they are responsible for any or most of the bloodshed that occurs as a result
So you seriously think that after nearly 8 years of violence, and with a growing insurgency, that the occupying power bears not a smidgen of responsibility for this state of affairs? A state of affairs which was wholly predictable? I suspect you're young and so this doesn't apply to you, but for many of us the regular news of a superpower flailing around trying to beat an insurgency in Afghanistan, and the attendant civilian misery this causes, is like deja vu. For many of those older than me, it's like double deja-vu (though, back with the US as the bogged down superpower in that case).
They have chosen a bloodthirsty option. And the blood of this choice is on their hands.
Gah. What infantile rubbish. How old are you?
Again: What is the mission in Afghanistan? Exactly how will you know when you have bombed enough Afghanis (what is this story about again?)? Why are you there? What are the measurable, finite-time goals? Can they be achieved through military action?
If you're just there cause the other side (the side who live there) objects to your presence but you want to show you control the place and little else, then YES of course you share heavily in culpability for the civilian deaths.
if you poke a murderer and in his rage he kills several people trying to get to you - on whose hands are the blood of these people? You or the murderer?
You like analogies don't you? However, this isn't even a good one. How is it you can characterise the Afghani insurgents, who primarily draw their members and support from the local population by all accounts, as "murderers"? provide a good definition that excludes the occupying powers.
Please don't confuse the brutal Taliban regime with "the Afghanis" which implies a wide base of Afghans.
All the indications are that the current insurgency in Afghanistan is local and has some measure of local support.
"drivers know their actions have a proven, high probability of causing such deaths".
Sigh. Strawman.
A society choosing for itself that the risks of some activity within that society to that society are worth the benefits is surely different to a society deciding that the risks of killing members of **another** society are worth the benefits (particularly when that first society is isolated from nearly all retributive risks).
What does this have to do with anything? If they are not seeking the cause civilian deaths but attacking NATO then it obviously doesn't fall under what I talked about.
Sigh. I mean that by your logic the NATO troops must bear the responsibility for civilian deaths caused by anti-gov forces attacking the NATO forces. By your logic nearly half of all known civilian deaths in Afghanistan are due to the direct actions of the occupying powers.
Air strikes also sometimes accidental kill NATO troops. Do you think that they are bombing their troops on purpose? - or not really caring one way or another if it hits some nearby soldiers?
Those soldiers at least know the risks and accept them. They accept that their military command balances their welfare and risks to it against the military objective (PS: What exactly /is/ the military objective in Afghanistan?). Even if they were conscripts, they at least are at least the sons of the society that sent them and that society approves of and has some control over their deployment to a greater or lesser degree.
By this logic any crime committed anywhere is the partial responsibly of the government in charge.
If the government's actions led to conditions for the crime or caused the levels of crime to occur, then yes. Of course!
This alone says so much about the difference between NATO and the Taliban.
I feel feel sorry for your myopic view of the world and your inability to think through more than the 1st order consequences of things. At the same time it scares me to think there are many like you who have the right the vote in the world's predominant military super-power.
Your post is crack. You're taking perhaps one resistance movement in the whole of the German occupied WWII area, a more rural and sparsely populated area at that, and extrapolating from it to all resistance movements across europe. Including more urban, populated areas of western Europe and Poland. Your conclusions therefore are quite unsafe.
The rest of your post, your casual calculating away of the deaths of wholly innocent people (1/4 of those deaths directly attributable to the occupying powers, another quarter potentially in engagements in which occupying powers were a party) is just staggering. I hope you are young, and speak this way because you havn't yet had the time to fully develop your views. Otherwise, if you're older, I am disturbed by your lack of empathy for other human beings.
You claimed they were dishonourable because they seek to cause civilians deaths. However the NATO forces cause a good number of deaths too, and they know their actions have a proven, high probability of causing such deaths. Therefore those deaths are wilful. ("Oh but the NATO forces dont /mean/ to kill civilians" - tell that to the dead, and FWIW the taliban leadership also have similar stated policies of trying to minimise civilian deaths).
Further, if you think that the Afghanis are dishonourable for fighting from their homes and villages, where they live, consider that the NATO forces sometimes put themselves into Afghani civilian settings (patrols, entering Afghani villages to search them). By your logic they therefore must share some of the blame for the 22% of civilian deaths which UNAMA attribute to anti-government actors attacking government/NATO forces.
Some 25% of the 2400 civilian deaths in Afghanistan last year were directly attributable to NATO/governmental action. The majority of those deaths from US air strikes. Further, with regard to the deaths cause by AGEs, the occupying powers bear at least some responsibility for the situation that has led to this violence simply because they are the responsible occupying powers, and have been so for *8* years now - yet the violence is getting worse.
By your (disagreeable) logic they bear an even greater responsibility for any deaths caused by their being in civilian areas and then being attacked.
Just read the UN report on protection of civilians in Afghanistan, it's really really depressing reading.
So I ask again, when will you as (I presume) US voter stop trotting out war-mongering inanities like "oh they're so dishonourable, making us kill civilians" and start considering how the NATO powers involved (i.e. the US) can perhaps draw down the violence in Afghanistan? Perhaps *fewer airstrikes* might help??
Exactly how many years of this unwinnable guerilla war of attrition, how many dead Afghani children, how many dead US soldiers, /will/ it take for you change your mind?
Also, if america had the right to be extremely angry after 9/11 and had the right to act against its aggressors (i.e. Bin Laden and his followers, who are now not anywhere in Afghanistan), why do you think that, after many years and an even greater number of dead Afghani civilians, the Afghanis do not have the right to act against the occupying power which has caused a good number of those deaths?
Can you give your opinion and reasoning rather than inane, worthless sarcasm?
but taking up positions among civilians and using them as shields is cowardly and dishonourable.
Yes, while bombing civilians from afar, in between dropping off your kids to school and going back to cheer them on in their school sports, is highly honourable.
Also, supporting your country in waging a war with no defined goals on the soil of another country, causing the deaths of *multiple-9/11s worth of civilians* (in absolute terms even, despite the fact Afghanistan is a much smaller country) there, is also very honourable. Particularly honourable when you give that support from the comfort of your couch, informed by little more than the scant coverage from Fox and CNN.
we're bringing the war to them
And "them" have often been, and continue to be, women, children and other non-combatants. If you are a USAsian voter and you support these wars without end, these wars which seem to serve no-one but certain military-industrial and oil interests, then you are morally co-responsible.
oops, wrong article. thanks whoever fixed that :)
I have updated the wiki article with a link to that, hopefully properly indicating the nature of the study, along with a section on concerns about the efficacy of back-scatter body scanners, with a link about the recent German TV demo where an expert managed to get a thermite bomb and other contraband through a demonstration of a scanner.
There are recentish studies which suggestpossible interactions with DNA not previously considered which would mean damage to DNA would be much greater than acknowledged.
Or just hide stuff in your mouth, or in a certain other orifice which anyone who knows anything about prisons will know has a long history of being used for contraband.
Yes you're right.
Collective nouns generally are plural. Some nouns are treated as singular, even when you could consider them as groupings. Where the line lies is somewhat subjective. Wrt group, it's very emphatically a collective noun and there should be very little reason to want to consider it a singular, distinct entity from its constituents.
Another example are companies. It is acceptable to consider these too as plural collectives, e.g. "My company have developed", or "ACMEs' products" (note the placing of the possessive '), indeed it was the normal usage once upon a time. However, the tendency to treat companies as singular, distinct things is becoming (has become) the norm in British english too. It seems nicer to use the plural to me, as it reinforces the idea that companies are not single-minded entities.