You nitwit. Do you actually think he wrote this in english?
I don't know what language he originally wrote it in -- that's a matter for the author -- but first publication was in English, in 1955. He would have done the translation, if he wrote the original in Russian. He then co-wrote the screenplay (or at least the early drafts) to the movie with Stanley Kubrick.
To quote one of the first google pages that came up:
Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita (Putnam, $5.00)--first issued in 1955 by an unorthodox Paris press after being rejected by a string of American publishers; banned by the French government, presumably out of solicitude for immature English-speaking readers (the ban was later quashed by the French High Court); pronounced unobjectionable by that blue-nosed body, the U. S. Customs office; and heralded by ovations from writers, professors, and critics on both sides of the Atlantic.
Nabokov was a White Russian who moved to England after the revolution, and moved to the US in 1940. Given his study of languages and his other academic pursuits, I have no doubt that he could write beautifully in any language.
Please withdraw your accusation of nitwittery, Anonymous Coward.:)
only the, erm, upper half, mind you, which I don't believe the Japanese consider obscene...
Even with the 'raunchy' ones, isn't it mandated by the Japanese Gov't that the genitalia be whitened out, thus leading to odd blank spaces on otherwise quite grotesque pages? Tentacle rape and the like... hmmm.
the majority of children who have seen violent movies will not directly act upon their exposure to the violence. Otherwise, we would have some mass force or uprising of children trying to kill everyone around them (due to all types of violence found on TV, in movies, in cartoons, toys, etc).
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles? Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers? You mean you've never been attacked by a kid acting out the violence seen in the media?
Or, to pick a different timespan, kids playing Cops & Robbers or Cowboys & Indians? Seems to have been going on for a while...
No, I didn't, neither did I read the book. So most I know about it is kind of hearsay which may disqualify me in commenting this.
Putting on my amateur literary criticism hat here... BTW, I've read the book and seen the Kubrick movie, not the more recent one.
AFAIK, it illustrated a erotic relationship between a mature man and girl in a favourable way. The book was hotly discussed for the same reasons we are discussing here.
I don't think that either the book or the movie presented the relationship in a favourable way. Especially in the book, it was presented as an obsession with the 'idea' of Lolita (symptomatic of his fixation on a childhood experience of sex), to the point where he grew to quite dislike her as a person, despite his need to control and, indeed, possess her.
In other words, it was a relationship in which the interests of one party were completely dominant, which objectified the young girl to the point where she could well have been anyone. It didn't seem all that positive to me.
Also, Nabokov is a beautiful writer -- read some of his other books if you don't believe me. Seems to be that some of the people who come to English as a second language have a better ear for it as a medium... Joseph Conrad was another.
Billions in secret back payments? It's a nice story, but no.
It may not have been billions (was more likely to have been in the low hundreds of millions -- in fact I recall hearing rumours that it was around $150 million or so) but there was definitely an 'undisclosed settlement' in addition to the share deal and the IE/Office stuff. This was announced at the same time as the rest of the deal... billg as Big Brother on the screen at the Apple conference.:)
In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities. In the expert's mind there are few. --Suzuki-roshi
So being certain and closed mined makes one an expert? I don't like that quote at all!
Who wants to be an expert? I think what this means is that we should all cultivate the open-mindedness that a beginner brings to a problem, and be prepared to consider concepts that are outside our experience.
I've also heard it expressed as "The more you learn, the less you know."
Maybe it should read In the young mind there are many possibilities. In the elderly mind there are few.
The west forgave China for their massacre of Tiananmen in 1989.
Economically lucrative.
USA has also supported some revolutions. Some bloody, some less bloody. So why can't Libya and Cuba be forgiven?
Not economically lucrative enough.
Pretty simple, isn't it? Whichever attitude gains the most votes holds sway.
BTW, the US only supports "business-friendly", right-wing revolutions. Little matter if these overthrow democratically elected governments (Nicaragua? Chile?)
Gaddafi is one of the most level headed leaders in the whole Africa. I frankly don't know what went to him 10 years ago but since then the guy has really grown a brain and uses it well. I wished people would also use theirs before speculating about Gaddafi's part in the WTC attacks. That's absolutely irresponsible and repulsive.
He has previous form, basically. Remember Lockerbie?
I do think that there seems to have been a rush to judgement without too much evidence so far... if America is going to send ground troops into Afghanistan, as seems likely, it would be good to wait until enough evidence has been amassed to satisfy international observers (e.g. two-thirds of the UN General Assembly, maybe?)
Having said that, I suspect bin Laden and associated forces were actually behind the attacks, but I wouldn't want to act on that assumption without proof.
I thought the WTC attacks were pretty repulsive as well -- it pays to examine all the possibilities before determining that any one party is guilty. Someone who has ordered that a plane be blown up once could well have done it again four times over.
Either Qaddafi is an incredible actor, or he didnt' do it.
In Tuesday's paper here (which went to press last Monday night) he was offering to buy up the entire banana output of three Caribbean nations at a decent price, in order to "help them outwit the IMF," as he put it.
If he's also behind the WTC/Pentagon attacks, the man has a finely tuned sense of the ridiculous -- it sounds like something out of the pages of Illuminatus!:/
Umm... VA Linux *owns* Slashdot. It's their decision to make if they want to include it as part of OSDN or not. It's not like CmdrTaco et. al. have much say in the matter; they sold it to Andover.net, who sold themselves to VA Linux. Hope they got some cash out of the deal... that stock doesn't look as good as it used to.:/
The original post doesn't make the purpose of the foundation clear:
"...the Cantor Fitzgerald Foundation to aid the families of anybody who died in Tuesday's disaster, no matter where they worked." --Flinty Bond Trader Leads His Firm Out of the Rubble [Interview with Cantor CEO Howard Lutnick] New York Times 15 September 2001
Ah, thanks. I thought it was more of a 'help this capitalist oppressor get his top hat back', to paraphrase Marxist propaganda:)
Hehe.. You leftist simply cannot get over the fact that your point of views are no longer the only kind represented on major networks.
As someone who lives in the town the first Murdoch newspaper was started in (News Corp. is named after the Adelaide News, now defunct), let me assure you that the concepts "Rupert Murdoch" and "quality journalism" are almost completely antithetical:)
I ask all of you on/. to consider contributing to the Cantor Fitzgerald Foundation. This broker, who is the most responsible for the smooth functioning of the cash bond markets, has lost 700 of 1000 staff.
I just know I'll be modded down for this... but surely they have many friends much richer than me, right?
As far as I am aware the loyalist paramilitaries are equaly criminalised and always have been.
This may have been the group I was thinking of (from the CAIN project):
Ulster Special Constabulary (USC) ('B-Specials')
The USC, or 'Specials', were originally formed in 1920 by the British Administration in Ireland. The force was an auxiliary paramilitary force made up of three units, 'A', 'B', and 'C'. The 'A-Specials' were full-time and were housed in barracks, the 'B-Specials' were part-time and were used on patrols and check-points, and the 'C-Specials' did not perform any regular duties but held arms and could be mobilised in the case of an emergency. The 'A' and 'C' Specials were disbanded in 1925 but the 'B-Specials' were retained and were used during Irish Republican Army (IRA) campaigns in Northern Ireland. The 'B-Specials' were an entirely Protestant force and were viewed with distrust and fear by Catholics in Northern Ireland. In 1969 the 'B-Specials' were deployed in a number of areas. The 'B-Specials' were responsible for shooting dead a Catholic civilian on 14 August 1969. The Hunt Report recommended the replacement of the 'B-Specials' with a locally recruited regiment of the British Army and the Ulster Defence Regiment (UDR) became operational on 1 April 1970.
And let's hope they do... it seems like the 'Real IRA' is much smaller than the Provos were when they split away from the original IRA. Hopefully a political solution is closer to hand.
It seems to me that decomissioning of weapons is not an impossible task to overcome; if combined with a timeline for the withdrawl of UK soldiers and reforms of the RUC, so that both sides feel that they are gaining something,
As far as I am aware the loyalist paramilitaries are equaly criminalised and always have been.
I've done a bit more (Google) research here... seems like the UVF named themselves after an organization that was prepared to fight against Home Rule, but then went off and fought in WWI as part of the British forces. The modern UVF was formed in 1966. This probably contributed to my confusion... I couldn't find my book on the history of the IRA (too many books, not enough bookshelves) but if I can I'll check this further.
Most UK citizens would like to give NI back to the Irish. Most NI citizens would rather we didn't.
Is that along religious lines? Or is it an economically driven desire (the UK being richer)? (Apparently a lot of Ireland's recent recovery has been based on EU 'equalisation' grants, which have been spent well on infrastructure etc.)
In my memory (I'm 35) loyalist paramilitaries have always been regarded as criminals and murderers - same as the IRA. However, if you look further back at the history of Ireland there is a lot of stuff done in the name of the British Government which can be described as unpleasant at best.
The book I read not too long ago on this was written in the late 70s, so it covered the original IRA and the rise of the Provisional IRA, but my knowledge of anything since is gleaned from news reports and dodgy memory. (I'm 27, BTW).
Again, both sides are guilty, and should not be using violence against innocent parties in order to state their claims. Maybe wars should be held in some agreed space (e.g. Belgium?*), with willing participants, loads of weapons and firmly closed borders. Last one standing is the winner.
(* I only mention Belgium because it seems to have been pivotal for WWI and WWII -- private joke between me and some other history students at the time:)
...and I agree with your point that neither 'side' is blameless
I wasn't trying to advocate the Palestinian side there, just presenting one of the more prominent 'issues' (countering the post I was replying to) to demonstrate that, indeed, it's never one side to blame.
Suicide-bombing innocent civilians is an indefensible atrocity; so is shelling civilian homes, or shooting small children. The shame of that is that it seemed, a few years ago, that both parties were quite close to peace (well, as peaceful as things ever get in that region): then Jerusalem became a sticking point, the newest intifada started (how much of that was to do with Sharon's attempted visit to Temple Mount?), and then Barak was voted out. Now, granted, he was failing to stop the conflict, but Sharon is likely to cause problems that could take decades to resolve.
Ah well. Glad I don't live there, sorry for the people who do.
I don't believe the American People (note capitalisation of "People") much less the CIA have ever supported the IRA. I thought the funding of the IRA from people in the US was mainly by Irish Americans with a romantic view of their ancestor country who are out of touch with the realities of Northern Ireland today.
I'm sorry, I should have been clearer there. It has never been governmental policy; however there are strong networks of people who would consider themselves law-abiding Americans who have, in the past, funded activities they would not have liked to see take place on American soil.
Paying for this stuff to happen is a double-edged sword, as the CIA have found out: eventually it comes back to bite you (see Saddam Hussein, or Osama bin Laden, both of whom had many weapons provided by the US to fight common enemies).
I live and work in Belfast, N.Ireland and whilst I, like many many others, was appalled and disgusted by the attack on the US, I instinctively cringed every time an American politician or reporter said "we have to go after those who harbor or support terrorism"... what about those Americans who have turned a blind eye to fundraising for Irish terrorists for many years?
It's not only terrorism (although I'm sure there will be a strong focus on that now for years to come), but also sectarianism and separatism. People have done gruesome things on both sides, in NI as elsewhere, and the sooner people are willing to leave these things in the past, the better. It's atmospheres like these that are the breeding grounds for the terrible acts that we have seen this week (and seem to see weekly or monthly in the Middle East).
You raise an interesting point, though; will the CIA be forced to stop funding 'opposition' forces in other countries when these opposition forces act in a terrorist fashion? And will the American people take a good, hard look at their funding of Israel (where Mossad have done some, uh, legally dubious things in the past) and of the IRA and associated groups? Or will terrorism be defined as 'violence and terror used against civilians (by our enemies)' only?
From what I've read of the Northern Irish conflict, Loyalist paramilitaries used to be considered as an unorthodox, but tacitly tolerated, arm of the Establishment... however they have been locking them up now for a number of years. Does this mean that overall policy, then, has changed, and that violence is decried by the British Government whatever its origin?
Sorry, lots of questions there, and no answers... but if I had the answers I probably wouldn't be writing posts on/., I'd be out there trying to make a difference:)
Just curious, is the daylight in the footage consistent with what it would have been in the late afternoon/early evening (when the attacks happened)? I think that area of the world is at least 8 or 9 hours ahead of New York.
I remember checking, and the shadows looked pretty long, but it was still quite sunny -- maybe 90 minutes before sundown at the latest. Light conditions definitely looked more 'afternoon' than 'morning' -- also number of people on streets, etc. I don't know what time the sun goes down this time of year at that point of the planet, though...
You stood by in 1967 as Nasser, wildly cheered by wild mobs in every Arab capital in the world, vowed to drive the Jews into the sea.
Yes, but the world also stood by when Ariel Sharon ordered the massacre of around 2,000 Palestinians at refugee camps in 1982.
Neither side is blameless, and people should get out of the whole 'your father killed my father' thing and realize that it has to stop somewhere. This is true not only in the Middle East, but also in the former Yugoslavia, Northern Ireland, and many other places.
Can't everyone just relax and be nice to each other for a change?:/ (OK, this somewhat tongue-in-cheek, as I know no-one will appreciate this call at the moment, but violence begets violence. Take Gandhi as your model, not Sadam or Stalin.)
Re:emergency staircase
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 1
I've been wondering if some sort of "emergency slide" would be more effective at getting people out in a hurry... I picture something like the spiral slides in a waterpark, located in the central space of the building.
Great idea! Plus, it would have the benefit of making fire drills (those rehearsals for emergency) much more fun...:)
Re:Coordinated Efforts
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
But we as a society should make it clear that when the medium is terror, we aren't interested in the story.
I think that *all* of the people (some of whom may well become the victims of actions of people like bin Laden and others) have a right to hear both sides of the story, rather than accepting the construction of the facts disseminated by 'the authorities' (or whoever would make the decisions in your scheme). What's to stop any voice that differs too markedly from the government view being silenced with a false accusation of violent intent?
If someone wants to kill me, I'd like to know why, and judge them as a dangerous loon for myself, instead of having 'Daddy' do it for me.
The normal operations of the media are by no means completely defensible, but at least there is *some* freedom of expression there. You wouldn't want to end up like Italy, where Berlusconi controls both the government media and his own private media empire...
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know what language he originally wrote it in -- that's a matter for the author -- but first publication was in English, in 1955. He would have done the translation, if he wrote the original in Russian. He then co-wrote the screenplay (or at least the early drafts) to the movie with Stanley Kubrick.
To quote one of the first google pages that came up:
Nabokov was a White Russian who moved to England after the revolution, and moved to the US in 1940. Given his study of languages and his other academic pursuits, I have no doubt that he could write beautifully in any language.
Please withdraw your accusation of nitwittery, Anonymous Coward.
only the, erm, upper half, mind you, which I don't believe the Japanese consider obscene...
Even with the 'raunchy' ones, isn't it mandated by the Japanese Gov't that the genitalia be whitened out, thus leading to odd blank spaces on otherwise quite grotesque pages? Tentacle rape and the like... hmmm.
the majority of children who have seen violent movies will not directly act upon their exposure to the violence. Otherwise, we would have some mass force or uprising of children trying to kill everyone around them (due to all types of violence found on TV, in movies, in cartoons, toys, etc).
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles? Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers? You mean you've never been attacked by a kid acting out the violence seen in the media?
Or, to pick a different timespan, kids playing Cops & Robbers or Cowboys & Indians? Seems to have been going on for a while...
No, I didn't, neither did I read the book. So most I know about it is kind of hearsay which may disqualify me in commenting this.
Putting on my amateur literary criticism hat here... BTW, I've read the book and seen the Kubrick movie, not the more recent one.
AFAIK, it illustrated a erotic relationship between a mature man and girl in a favourable way. The book was hotly discussed for the same reasons we are discussing here.
I don't think that either the book or the movie presented the relationship in a favourable way. Especially in the book, it was presented as an obsession with the 'idea' of Lolita (symptomatic of his fixation on a childhood experience of sex), to the point where he grew to quite dislike her as a person, despite his need to control and, indeed, possess her.
In other words, it was a relationship in which the interests of one party were completely dominant, which objectified the young girl to the point where she could well have been anyone. It didn't seem all that positive to me.
Also, Nabokov is a beautiful writer -- read some of his other books if you don't believe me. Seems to be that some of the people who come to English as a second language have a better ear for it as a medium... Joseph Conrad was another.
Billions in secret back payments? It's a nice story, but no.
:)
It may not have been billions (was more likely to have been in the low hundreds of millions -- in fact I recall hearing rumours that it was around $150 million or so) but there was definitely an 'undisclosed settlement' in addition to the share deal and the IE/Office stuff. This was announced at the same time as the rest of the deal... billg as Big Brother on the screen at the Apple conference.
You are complete and utter TRASH. Crawl back into whatever nasty trailer park whore's womb that you came from.
No matter the merits of your argument (and I'm not commenting on that), descending to abuse like this makes you a lot less likely to be listened to.
In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities. In the expert's mind there are few. --Suzuki-roshi
:)
So being certain and closed mined makes one an expert? I don't like that quote at all!
Who wants to be an expert? I think what this means is that we should all cultivate the open-mindedness that a beginner brings to a problem, and be prepared to consider concepts that are outside our experience.
I've also heard it expressed as "The more you learn, the less you know."
Maybe it should read In the young mind there are many possibilities. In the elderly mind there are few.
Ageist!
So, who'll be the first to complain that it should have been called "Cracking Linux Exposed" ..?
:)
An Anonymous Coward 8 minutes before you.
The west forgave China for their massacre of Tiananmen in 1989.
Economically lucrative.
USA has also supported some revolutions. Some bloody, some less bloody. So why can't Libya and Cuba be forgiven?
Not economically lucrative enough.
Pretty simple, isn't it? Whichever attitude gains the most votes holds sway.
BTW, the US only supports "business-friendly", right-wing revolutions. Little matter if these overthrow democratically elected governments (Nicaragua? Chile?)
Gaddafi is one of the most level headed leaders in the whole Africa. I frankly don't know what went to him 10 years ago but since then the guy has really grown a brain and uses it well. I wished people would also use theirs before speculating about Gaddafi's part in the WTC attacks. That's absolutely irresponsible and repulsive.
He has previous form, basically. Remember Lockerbie?
I do think that there seems to have been a rush to judgement without too much evidence so far... if America is going to send ground troops into Afghanistan, as seems likely, it would be good to wait until enough evidence has been amassed to satisfy international observers (e.g. two-thirds of the UN General Assembly, maybe?)
Having said that, I suspect bin Laden and associated forces were actually behind the attacks, but I wouldn't want to act on that assumption without proof.
I thought the WTC attacks were pretty repulsive as well -- it pays to examine all the possibilities before determining that any one party is guilty. Someone who has ordered that a plane be blown up once could well have done it again four times over.
Either Qaddafi is an incredible actor, or he didnt' do it.
:/
In Tuesday's paper here (which went to press last Monday night) he was offering to buy up the entire banana output of three Caribbean nations at a decent price, in order to "help them outwit the IMF," as he put it.
If he's also behind the WTC/Pentagon attacks, the man has a finely tuned sense of the ridiculous -- it sounds like something out of the pages of Illuminatus!
Umm... VA Linux *owns* Slashdot. It's their decision to make if they want to include it as part of OSDN or not. It's not like CmdrTaco et. al. have much say in the matter; they sold it to Andover.net, who sold themselves to VA Linux. Hope they got some cash out of the deal... that stock doesn't look as good as it used to. :/
The original post doesn't make the purpose of the foundation clear:
:)
"...the Cantor Fitzgerald Foundation to aid the families of anybody who died in Tuesday's disaster, no matter where they worked." --Flinty Bond Trader Leads His Firm Out of the Rubble [Interview with Cantor CEO Howard Lutnick] New York Times 15 September 2001
Ah, thanks. I thought it was more of a 'help this capitalist oppressor get his top hat back', to paraphrase Marxist propaganda
Hehe.. You leftist simply cannot get over the fact that your point of views are no longer the only kind represented on major networks.
:)
As someone who lives in the town the first Murdoch newspaper was started in (News Corp. is named after the Adelaide News, now defunct), let me assure you that the concepts "Rupert Murdoch" and "quality journalism" are almost completely antithetical
I ask all of you on /. to consider contributing to the Cantor Fitzgerald Foundation. This broker, who is the most responsible for the smooth functioning of the cash bond markets, has lost 700 of 1000 staff.
I just know I'll be modded down for this... but surely they have many friends much richer than me, right?
This may have been the group I was thinking of (from the CAIN project):
They are now trying to sort the mess out finally.
And let's hope they do... it seems like the 'Real IRA' is much smaller than the Provos were when they split away from the original IRA. Hopefully a political solution is closer to hand.
It seems to me that decomissioning of weapons is not an impossible task to overcome; if combined with a timeline for the withdrawl of UK soldiers and reforms of the RUC, so that both sides feel that they are gaining something,
As far as I am aware the loyalist paramilitaries are equaly criminalised and always have been.
I've done a bit more (Google) research here... seems like the UVF named themselves after an organization that was prepared to fight against Home Rule, but then went off and fought in WWI as part of the British forces. The modern UVF was formed in 1966. This probably contributed to my confusion... I couldn't find my book on the history of the IRA (too many books, not enough bookshelves) but if I can I'll check this further.
Most UK citizens would like to give NI back to the Irish. Most NI citizens would rather we didn't.
Is that along religious lines? Or is it an economically driven desire (the UK being richer)? (Apparently a lot of Ireland's recent recovery has been based on EU 'equalisation' grants, which have been spent well on infrastructure etc.)
In my memory (I'm 35) loyalist paramilitaries have always been regarded as criminals and murderers - same as the IRA. However, if you look further back at the history of Ireland there is a lot of stuff done in the name of the British Government which can be described as unpleasant at best.
:)
The book I read not too long ago on this was written in the late 70s, so it covered the original IRA and the rise of the Provisional IRA, but my knowledge of anything since is gleaned from news reports and dodgy memory. (I'm 27, BTW).
Again, both sides are guilty, and should not be using violence against innocent parties in order to state their claims. Maybe wars should be held in some agreed space (e.g. Belgium?*), with willing participants, loads of weapons and firmly closed borders. Last one standing is the winner.
(* I only mention Belgium because it seems to have been pivotal for WWI and WWII -- private joke between me and some other history students at the time
...and I agree with your point that neither 'side' is blameless
I wasn't trying to advocate the Palestinian side there, just presenting one of the more prominent 'issues' (countering the post I was replying to) to demonstrate that, indeed, it's never one side to blame.
Suicide-bombing innocent civilians is an indefensible atrocity; so is shelling civilian homes, or shooting small children. The shame of that is that it seemed, a few years ago, that both parties were quite close to peace (well, as peaceful as things ever get in that region): then Jerusalem became a sticking point, the newest intifada started (how much of that was to do with Sharon's attempted visit to Temple Mount?), and then Barak was voted out. Now, granted, he was failing to stop the conflict, but Sharon is likely to cause problems that could take decades to resolve.
Ah well. Glad I don't live there, sorry for the people who do.
I don't believe the American People (note capitalisation of "People") much less the CIA have ever supported the IRA. I thought the funding of the IRA from people in the US was mainly by Irish Americans with a romantic view of their ancestor country who are out of touch with the realities of Northern Ireland today.
I'm sorry, I should have been clearer there. It has never been governmental policy; however there are strong networks of people who would consider themselves law-abiding Americans who have, in the past, funded activities they would not have liked to see take place on American soil.
Paying for this stuff to happen is a double-edged sword, as the CIA have found out: eventually it comes back to bite you (see Saddam Hussein, or Osama bin Laden, both of whom had many weapons provided by the US to fight common enemies).
I live and work in Belfast, N.Ireland and whilst I, like many many others, was appalled and disgusted by the attack on the US, I instinctively cringed every time an American politician or reporter said "we have to go after those who harbor or support terrorism"... what about those Americans who have turned a blind eye to fundraising for Irish terrorists for many years?
/., I'd be out there trying to make a difference :)
It's not only terrorism (although I'm sure there will be a strong focus on that now for years to come), but also sectarianism and separatism. People have done gruesome things on both sides, in NI as elsewhere, and the sooner people are willing to leave these things in the past, the better. It's atmospheres like these that are the breeding grounds for the terrible acts that we have seen this week (and seem to see weekly or monthly in the Middle East).
You raise an interesting point, though; will the CIA be forced to stop funding 'opposition' forces in other countries when these opposition forces act in a terrorist fashion? And will the American people take a good, hard look at their funding of Israel (where Mossad have done some, uh, legally dubious things in the past) and of the IRA and associated groups? Or will terrorism be defined as 'violence and terror used against civilians (by our enemies)' only?
From what I've read of the Northern Irish conflict, Loyalist paramilitaries used to be considered as an unorthodox, but tacitly tolerated, arm of the Establishment... however they have been locking them up now for a number of years. Does this mean that overall policy, then, has changed, and that violence is decried by the British Government whatever its origin?
Sorry, lots of questions there, and no answers... but if I had the answers I probably wouldn't be writing posts on
Just curious, is the daylight in the footage consistent with what it would have been in the late afternoon/early evening (when the attacks happened)? I think that area of the world is at least 8 or 9 hours ahead of New York.
I remember checking, and the shadows looked pretty long, but it was still quite sunny -- maybe 90 minutes before sundown at the latest. Light conditions definitely looked more 'afternoon' than 'morning' -- also number of people on streets, etc. I don't know what time the sun goes down this time of year at that point of the planet, though...
You stood by in 1967 as Nasser, wildly cheered by wild mobs in every Arab capital in the world, vowed to drive the Jews into the sea.
:/ (OK, this somewhat tongue-in-cheek, as I know no-one will appreciate this call at the moment, but violence begets violence. Take Gandhi as your model, not Sadam or Stalin.)
Yes, but the world also stood by when Ariel Sharon ordered the massacre of around 2,000 Palestinians at refugee camps in 1982.
Neither side is blameless, and people should get out of the whole 'your father killed my father' thing and realize that it has to stop somewhere. This is true not only in the Middle East, but also in the former Yugoslavia, Northern Ireland, and many other places.
Can't everyone just relax and be nice to each other for a change?
I've been wondering if some sort of "emergency slide" would be more effective at getting people out in a hurry... I picture something like the spiral slides in a waterpark, located in the central space of the building.
:)
Great idea! Plus, it would have the benefit of making fire drills (those rehearsals for emergency) much more fun...
But we as a society should make it clear that when the medium is terror, we aren't interested in the story.
I think that *all* of the people (some of whom may well become the victims of actions of people like bin Laden and others) have a right to hear both sides of the story, rather than accepting the construction of the facts disseminated by 'the authorities' (or whoever would make the decisions in your scheme). What's to stop any voice that differs too markedly from the government view being silenced with a false accusation of violent intent?
If someone wants to kill me, I'd like to know why, and judge them as a dangerous loon for myself, instead of having 'Daddy' do it for me.
The normal operations of the media are by no means completely defensible, but at least there is *some* freedom of expression there. You wouldn't want to end up like Italy, where Berlusconi controls both the government media and his own private media empire...