"In a real democracy you need all of the voters to get together to vote on all of the issues. "
You appear to have confused 'real democracy' with 'pure democracy', which is generally only ever real for a short time with a very small group of people.
Of course, the concept of 'democracy' is irrelevant to the US elections that were being discussed, as the US is elegedly a representative republic that in fact acts as a hereditary feudal confederacy with delusions of electoral integrity.
"If you get a copy of Windows 2000 from a friend, it only costs you $0.40 for a CD-R."
It is that sort of logic that led us to the sorry state we are in, where MicroSoft has a bogus lead in the desktop market share, not because they had software people were willing to pay MicroSoft's price for, but because they were willing to steal from MicroSoft.
When people complain that it doesn't make sense for so many people to still be running '98, and "don't they know better", they should realize the timing of MicroSoft's attempts to crack down on "software piracy".
In the meantime, enjoy your stolen operating system, but please stop whining about the defects, afterall, you didn't even pay for the damn thing.
"Seems openoffice.org is slashdotted, anyone has a mirror of the release (Linux binaries, Solver tree and sources)?"
They don't seem to be entirely/.'d. I was able to navigate their site enough to find this URL for mirror sites, and load the page of mirrors.
Now I'm downloading a copy from Mexico.
Notice that the build642 directory was last touched Mar 9, while the build641d was last touched Mar 29, so it isn't entirely clear which version to get. However, if you are getting the source you should plan to do a cvs update anyway, so it doesn't matter that much.
Re:Why did it take so many posts?
on
Abusing the GPL?
·
· Score: 2
"However, do you have a plan in the case that they still continue full speed ahead? Resign? Notify the FSF? Post anon here again divulging the details?"
Or allow them to continue with their plans, then help insure they eventually have to release the non-obfuscated code for the entire product, as required by the GPL.
Re:The GNU GPL has a clause against this
on
Abusing the GPL?
·
· Score: 2
"What if a bunch of Burmese programmers take the Linux kernel and convert all the variable and function names and comments to Burmese (which should make it easier for them to work on). Then, after adding all sorts of whizzo features, they release UltraLinux and sell it in the US. Since it's GPL'd they obviously release the source too."
That would be perfectly legitimate, as the Burmese version of the source would be their preferred form of the source code.
Unless the company associated with the original anonymous poster actually has a collection of coders who prefer to work directly with the obfuscated code, the GPL would require that the source code that company releases be the version of the source code used by the coders, which would not be the obfuscated version.
"This seems like a good way to sell more bricks. After all, if you use these bricks to make actual text, you'd have to buy more sets to get the letters you need then if they distribute them in the same frequency in which they're used..."
He said he was buying them from other people. He probably wound up with letters that other people hadn't used, and presumably purchased bags of different letters based on availability and price. Given that he was working with leftovers it would have been surprising if the distribution were not way out of line with normal usage.
This complaint misses an important point. The store would just submit a list of IDs, claim the losses, collect insurance, and move on. Meanwhile, the IDs would be marked as stolen, and if the theif didn't spend it all right away they would be likely to be caught.
The people the thief purchases things from would be likely to be hassled and have the money taken away from them because it had been stolen.
This entire concept is likely to be implemented in a way that rewards those that register their transactions and penalizes those that do not.
Consider the social implications of that.
Re:Demo: no go on Slackware 8.0
on
Uplink
·
· Score: 2
Try `ldd/home/kira/uplink/uplink`. This should
tell you which library is missing.
"As for innocent people being killed, that is a part of every WAR, which is what this is."
You keep saying that, but it isn't technically true, and your repetition won't fix that. Every death the United States causes in the current attacks is a seperate crime. Of course, the deaths of the non-military personal are quite a bit more offensive to me than the fact that some alleged terrorist are being killed, but it is all a series of criminal actions, just as blowing up the world trade centers were.
"As for the US using chemical and biological weapons, that is a vicious lie. If it were true, do you think we'd have the support from our allies that we do now?"
I didn't say 'chemical and biological weapons'. I said 'chemical and biological warfare'.
The disinction is important because biological warfare includes activities that promote suffering and death as a result of biological agents, even if those biological agents are not delivered directly.
The example I'm thinking of is the fact that the United States arranged to insure that the citizens of Iraq have been unable to provide clean drinking water for the last ten years by imposing sanctions that make it imposible to aquire the supplies to fix the infrastructure that the United States destroyed. The resulting desease and death has killed hundreds of thousands of innocent citizens.
Here's a sample site about US use of biological warfare.
An example of chemical warfare is the use of depleated uranium ammunition during battles.
Here's a sample site about US use of chemical warfare.
If you care to look, there is a lot of detail available on both these issues.
"As for recognizing evil, if September 11 didn't make things crystal clear for you, I shudder to think what would? Maybe L.A. getting leveled by a nuke?"
It is my belief that the course of action the United States is undertaking makes such an attack more likely, not less likely.
"That is the future we are facing if we don't fight to stop terrorism now."
Terrorism will never be completely stoped. I'm not at all convinced that the United States will even reduce it anytime soon. The 'wars' on drugs and poverty weren't successful, why should we expect this 'war on terrorism' to be successful?
I haven't heard anyone worrying about Geneva or Amsterdam being leveled by a nuke, have you? Why do you suppose L.A. is a more likely target?
The United States has been working to impose continued sanctions on Iraq which prevent them from fixing the infrastructure that allows them to supply potable water to their citizens. As a result hundreds of thousands of innocent citizens have been dying of proventable deseases such as cholera.
"Plus, there is the incy bitty point of that we were attacked, and we have the right to defend ourselves."
From their perspective, the United States has been engaged in biological warfare against the middle east for the last ten years.
"First, we (the USA) are at war. When members of one nation attack another nation, that is an act of war."
No.
When members of one nation attack another nation, that is a criminal act.
The United States military is currently engaged in a prolonged series of criminal acts. Most of the soldiers have probably been told they are at war, and are not knowingly engaged in criminal acts.
Those military personel who understand the meaning of 'war' and know that the United States has not formally declared war are ciminals fully responsible for the deaths they are causing. The fact that they are simply fallowing orders does not matter.
The fact that the United States is killing people in foreign countries without having declared war makes it more likely that United States citizens will be killed in retaliation. There will be no moral high ground for the United States to take, because the leaders of the United States have made it clear that killing foreign citizens 'acceptable'.
"Now, lawyers and judges don't run wars. Presidents and generals do. There is no "due process" or "burden of proof" involved."
My objection is due to the fact that Bush promised us that those involved would be brought to justice. My idea of justice involves a court system, not the slaughter of innocent civilians who happen to have been somewhere in the vacinity of the person accused of a crime.
I want justice just as much as anyone else, but what the United States military is doing is not just.
"We are at war.
Here is a company that for whatever reason we think is helping the enemy." [...]
"B) Shut down the connection to that company until the crisis is over, playing it safe rather than sorry."
You've started with a flawed conclusion. We are not at war. War's have a definate beginning, a clearly set and obtainable goal, and an eventual end. This 'War on Terrorism' does not have an attanable goal, and it will not have a successful conclusion.
Doing anything 'until the crisis is over' is equivelent to doing it for ever (or until the United States decides it's time to chase some other phantom menace).
"We are fighting to destroy al-Qaida and those (especially the Taliban) who harbor them. Calling our actions "terrorism" is disgusting."
Killing innocent people is always disgusting. Your suggestions that it is acceptable when we do it is particularly disgusting.
"This war is to ensure the security of our homeland. We didn't start the fighting, they did, right in the heart of New York City!"
It is amazing niave to believe that this conflict started on 2001-09-11. The United States is responsible for far more deaths in the middle east over the last ten years, including the use of chemical and biological warfare.
"P.S. If you hate the US so much, nobody is forcing you to stay."
I'm not in the habit of running away from my problems. I'd rather stay here and try to correct the fact that our governemnt has been making some really lousy choices for a fairly long time. If I left, there would be one less person to tell you that your point of view is seriously messed up.
"I do know when it is time to stand together against evil."
Glad to hear it. Now if you could just learn to recognize evil when you see it you'd be all set.
"You are mistaken. They are irrational. They want you dead and me dead. It is their desire for America to cease to exist"
First off, I'm going to assume you mean the United States, not America. I'll grant you that it would be irrational to hope that two continents simple stop existing.;-} When you mean the United States you should use the phrase "The United States", not "America", otherwise your careless use of language causes confusion.
Do you really expect us to believe that there are thousands or millions of people who share the same psychotic delusions? Isn't is possible that they have some motivation that makes sense to them?
Osama bin Laden has ask Muslims to fight until the
foreigners are out of Saudi Arabia and there is peace in Palistine. That isn't the same thing as saying the United Sates should be 'cease to exist'. It is intirely possible that this conflict could be resolved without their destruction or your death.
When two parties set themselves up in a conflict without any chance of understanding the motivations of the other side they are likely to keep fighting until one side is completely destroyed.
At least one side (probably both) have access to weapons of mass destruction (nuclear weapons, biological weapons, and chemical weapons). Are you really suggesting that this conflict be 'won' quickly by doing "what it takes to win"? Are there any limits you would place on this conflict, any actions you would not advocate?
"Nevertheless, America will outlast them. This means, WE WIN -- THEY LOSE. simple."
Again, I'm assuming you mean "the United States", not "America". If I'm wrong, and you mean the continents, not the country occupying a portion of North America, you are probably right that this geographical feature will outlast them.
Anyway...
Why will we win? Because we want it we can make it happen, eh? Will the 'War on Terrorism' be more successful than the 'War on Poverty' or the 'War on Drugs'?
Are you able to contemplate the idea of an 'unwillable war'?
Can you tell me how many innocent lives it is worth to insure that the United States continues to have military troops stationed in more than half the countries in the world, and why that goal is worth any innocent lives at all?
"The UN Security Council Resolution 1373 [un.org] appears to authorize cutting Somailia off from the net.
Some key paragraphs from the UN Security Council Resolution:"
The UN Security Council is composed of representatives from four Christian countries and one Confusion country. It is imposing sanctions on mostly muslum countries at the moment. Any one of these five countries can veto whatever another country attempts to propose or pass in the UN.
The structure of the UN, particularly the Security Council, leave a lot to be desired. Suppose the five Security Council seats were randomly reassigned. Do you suppose this might completely change the sort of motions the UN passes? If so, that the Security Council is really in charge.
At the moment, the United Satets can veto whatever
UN motion they please. Do you suppose the United Nations would pay attention to anything the UN passes if they no longer had the ability to veto anything they choose?
"This war, people. This is not an intellectual excercise. This is not a point-counterpoint trial where each person has time to prove their allegations in an organized manner. This is a war. We are the targets. Without quick thinking and quick action, we will all be dead. We are under a very real threat at this very moment."
We are not at war. We are killing people in random locations around the world, which is wrong.
I feel less safe now than I did the day before we started bombing. I feel I am more likely to be targeted by some future terrorist act than I was before we started bombing. We are creating more enemies than we are killing.
I look forward to the war crimes trails after which the former leaders of the United States are hunted down and brought to justice.
The United States is actively engaged in terrorism. I am embarrased to be a citizen.
"The USofA has only succeeded in driving out
the Taliban regime.
Who (btw) did [and for all practical matters-DO] support terrorist behavior."
I've yet to see a definition of "terrorist behavior" that includes the Taliban regime but not the United States. Can you provide one? Can you point at a class of actions that the Taliban has ingaged in but the United States has not ingaged in?
Please understand the the implementation details don't distingish a class of actions.
As an example, piloting a metal cylinder full of jet fuel into the side of a building containing innocent civilians has the same effect as dropping a metal cylinder full of explosives into a building containing innocent civilians, at least as far as the innocent civilians are concerned.
What has the Talinan regime done that the United States has not also done, perhaps to a greater degree?
"If Somali's *WORKING* in the US don't have proper ID then they aren't here legally are they! If they aren't here legally then what the hell are they doing working?"
You misunderstood. This company was prefered because the recipients of the wire transfers don't have IDs. People who want to receive a wire transfer will now need an ID, but if they can't get one, they will not be able to receive a wire transfer. Apparently it is quite common to not have an ID.
"If these companies are washing money for terrorist groups they are obviously corrupt."
So if the dry cleaner down the street cleans a shirt for a terrorist, then the dry cleaner is obviously corrupt as well, right? If not, why not?
In both cases, the company might be involved and complicit, or they might not be. This is a dicision for a court system. That is what court systems are for. Snap judgements by concerned parties with an emotional attachment to the issues are often wrong.
The damage to society caused by ignoring the legal systems will be larger than the damage inflicted by the terrorists.
"Folks, get over yourself. America is at war, really at war, not just scratching an itch. For the first time since 1945."
No, we aren't at war. That's part of the problem.
In order to be 'really at war' congress must declare war. This is a really important point.
One of the reasons this is important is so that everyone know who we are war with, who we intend to kill, and when the killing will stop.
We have placed to restrictions on the killing, but somehow we expect to make things better, to recude the number of deaths.
Instead of formally declaring war we are killing people in foriegn countries, and claiming it is justified because we suspect that someone else killed some of our people.
Don't you see the flaw in Bush's logic? He is
effectively saying 'If someone from country A kills people in country B, that is terrorism.', then proceeding to have people killed in another country and claiming it is justice.
When our citizens are killed in our country (elligedly by someone who doesn't live here) we call it terrorism. When we kill Afgans in Afganistan without declaring war it is also terrorism.
The difference is only that we've managed to kill more people, and we are broadcasting reports of how well we are doing the job. We are responding to terrorism with more terrorism, but trying to hide that fact behind some hand wringing and tears.
Bush promised us justice. What is being done is not just.
The United States is engaged in terrorism. Bush is the leader of the United States. Bush is a terrorist leader. Bush is telling us that he will hunt down and kill terrorist leaders. Doesn't it bother you that our president has a death wish? We need a suicide watch for Bush. He is insane.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like it's time to get my CD's out of the closet, dust off the cases, and reencode with a different format.
That's easy to fix. Just pull the ISO image of the warcraft CD to your harddrive and mount it with the loopback device.
Oh, that's right, you don't get to do that, do you?
You appear to have confused 'real democracy' with 'pure democracy', which is generally only ever real for a short time with a very small group of people.
Of course, the concept of 'democracy' is irrelevant to the US elections that were being discussed, as the US is elegedly a representative republic that in fact acts as a hereditary feudal confederacy with delusions of electoral integrity.
It is that sort of logic that led us to the sorry state we are in, where MicroSoft has a bogus lead in the desktop market share, not because they had software people were willing to pay MicroSoft's price for, but because they were willing to steal from MicroSoft.
When people complain that it doesn't make sense for so many people to still be running '98, and "don't they know better", they should realize the timing of MicroSoft's attempts to crack down on "software piracy".
In the meantime, enjoy your stolen operating system, but please stop whining about the defects, afterall, you didn't even pay for the damn thing.
It was like there were maybe 16 there, what with the proxy. ;-}
When this helps the police track a stolen car back to a warehouse with other stolen cars, this can help them solve crimes.
The existance of 'bait cars' can also lead to a decrease in crime by raising the risks associated with stealing cars.
They don't seem to be entirely /.'d. I was able to navigate their site enough to find this URL for mirror sites, and load the page of mirrors.
Now I'm downloading a copy from Mexico.
Notice that the build642 directory was last touched Mar 9, while the build641d was last touched Mar 29, so it isn't entirely clear which version to get. However, if you are getting the source you should plan to do a cvs update anyway, so it doesn't matter that much.
Or allow them to continue with their plans, then help insure they eventually have to release the non-obfuscated code for the entire product, as required by the GPL.
That would be perfectly legitimate, as the Burmese version of the source would be their preferred form of the source code.
Unless the company associated with the original anonymous poster actually has a collection of coders who prefer to work directly with the obfuscated code, the GPL would require that the source code that company releases be the version of the source code used by the coders, which would not be the obfuscated version.
He said he was buying them from other people. He probably wound up with letters that other people hadn't used, and presumably purchased bags of different letters based on availability and price. Given that he was working with leftovers it would have been surprising if the distribution were not way out of line with normal usage.
The people the thief purchases things from would be likely to be hassled and have the money taken away from them because it had been stolen.
This entire concept is likely to be implemented in a way that rewards those that register their transactions and penalizes those that do not.
Consider the social implications of that.
Try `ldd /home/kira/uplink/uplink`. This should
tell you which library is missing.
I wouldn't advocate not responding. I simply think that the response was one of the worst possible, perhaps 2 or 3 on a scale of 10.
You keep saying that, but it isn't technically true, and your repetition won't fix that. Every death the United States causes in the current attacks is a seperate crime. Of course, the deaths of the non-military personal are quite a bit more offensive to me than the fact that some alleged terrorist are being killed, but it is all a series of criminal actions, just as blowing up the world trade centers were.
"As for the US using chemical and biological weapons, that is a vicious lie. If it were true, do you think we'd have the support from our allies that we do now?"
I didn't say 'chemical and biological weapons'. I said 'chemical and biological warfare'.
The disinction is important because biological warfare includes activities that promote suffering and death as a result of biological agents, even if those biological agents are not delivered directly.
The example I'm thinking of is the fact that the United States arranged to insure that the citizens of Iraq have been unable to provide clean drinking water for the last ten years by imposing sanctions that make it imposible to aquire the supplies to fix the infrastructure that the United States destroyed. The resulting desease and death has killed hundreds of thousands of innocent citizens. Here's a sample site about US use of biological warfare.
An example of chemical warfare is the use of depleated uranium ammunition during battles. Here's a sample site about US use of chemical warfare.
If you care to look, there is a lot of detail available on both these issues.
"As for recognizing evil, if September 11 didn't make things crystal clear for you, I shudder to think what would? Maybe L.A. getting leveled by a nuke?"
It is my belief that the course of action the United States is undertaking makes such an attack more likely, not less likely.
"That is the future we are facing if we don't fight to stop terrorism now."
Terrorism will never be completely stoped. I'm not at all convinced that the United States will even reduce it anytime soon. The 'wars' on drugs and poverty weren't successful, why should we expect this 'war on terrorism' to be successful?
I haven't heard anyone worrying about Geneva or Amsterdam being leveled by a nuke, have you? Why do you suppose L.A. is a more likely target?
Yeah, let's talk about scale of magnitude.
Perhaps you've missed the headlines like UN sanctions on Iraq lead to deaths of 500,000 children. That was five years ago.
The United States has been working to impose continued sanctions on Iraq which prevent them from fixing the infrastructure that allows them to supply potable water to their citizens. As a result hundreds of thousands of innocent citizens have been dying of proventable deseases such as cholera.
"Plus, there is the incy bitty point of that we were attacked, and we have the right to defend ourselves."
From their perspective, the United States has been engaged in biological warfare against the middle east for the last ten years.
No.
When members of one nation attack another nation, that is a criminal act.
The United States military is currently engaged in a prolonged series of criminal acts. Most of the soldiers have probably been told they are at war, and are not knowingly engaged in criminal acts.
Those military personel who understand the meaning of 'war' and know that the United States has not formally declared war are ciminals fully responsible for the deaths they are causing. The fact that they are simply fallowing orders does not matter.
The fact that the United States is killing people in foreign countries without having declared war makes it more likely that United States citizens will be killed in retaliation. There will be no moral high ground for the United States to take, because the leaders of the United States have made it clear that killing foreign citizens 'acceptable'.
"Now, lawyers and judges don't run wars. Presidents and generals do. There is no "due process" or "burden of proof" involved."
My objection is due to the fact that Bush promised us that those involved would be brought to justice. My idea of justice involves a court system, not the slaughter of innocent civilians who happen to have been somewhere in the vacinity of the person accused of a crime.
I want justice just as much as anyone else, but what the United States military is doing is not just.
Here is a company that for whatever reason we think is helping the enemy." [...]
"B) Shut down the connection to that company until the crisis is over, playing it safe rather than sorry."
You've started with a flawed conclusion. We are not at war. War's have a definate beginning, a clearly set and obtainable goal, and an eventual end. This 'War on Terrorism' does not have an attanable goal, and it will not have a successful conclusion.
Doing anything 'until the crisis is over' is equivelent to doing it for ever (or until the United States decides it's time to chase some other phantom menace).
Killing innocent people is always disgusting. Your suggestions that it is acceptable when we do it is particularly disgusting.
"This war is to ensure the security of our homeland. We didn't start the fighting, they did, right in the heart of New York City!"
It is amazing niave to believe that this conflict started on 2001-09-11. The United States is responsible for far more deaths in the middle east over the last ten years, including the use of chemical and biological warfare.
"P.S. If you hate the US so much, nobody is forcing you to stay."
I'm not in the habit of running away from my problems. I'd rather stay here and try to correct the fact that our governemnt has been making some really lousy choices for a fairly long time. If I left, there would be one less person to tell you that your point of view is seriously messed up.
"I do know when it is time to stand together against evil."
Glad to hear it. Now if you could just learn to recognize evil when you see it you'd be all set.
First off, I'm going to assume you mean the United States, not America. I'll grant you that it would be irrational to hope that two continents simple stop existing. ;-} When you mean the United States you should use the phrase "The United States", not "America", otherwise your careless use of language causes confusion.
Do you really expect us to believe that there are thousands or millions of people who share the same psychotic delusions? Isn't is possible that they have some motivation that makes sense to them?
Osama bin Laden has ask Muslims to fight until the foreigners are out of Saudi Arabia and there is peace in Palistine. That isn't the same thing as saying the United Sates should be 'cease to exist'. It is intirely possible that this conflict could be resolved without their destruction or your death.
When two parties set themselves up in a conflict without any chance of understanding the motivations of the other side they are likely to keep fighting until one side is completely destroyed.
At least one side (probably both) have access to weapons of mass destruction (nuclear weapons, biological weapons, and chemical weapons). Are you really suggesting that this conflict be 'won' quickly by doing "what it takes to win"? Are there any limits you would place on this conflict, any actions you would not advocate?
"Nevertheless, America will outlast them. This means, WE WIN -- THEY LOSE. simple."
Again, I'm assuming you mean "the United States", not "America". If I'm wrong, and you mean the continents, not the country occupying a portion of North America, you are probably right that this geographical feature will outlast them.
Anyway...
Why will we win? Because we want it we can make it happen, eh? Will the 'War on Terrorism' be more successful than the 'War on Poverty' or the 'War on Drugs'?
Are you able to contemplate the idea of an 'unwillable war'?
Can you tell me how many innocent lives it is worth to insure that the United States continues to have military troops stationed in more than half the countries in the world, and why that goal is worth any innocent lives at all?
Some key paragraphs from the UN Security Council Resolution:"
The UN Security Council is composed of representatives from four Christian countries and one Confusion country. It is imposing sanctions on mostly muslum countries at the moment. Any one of these five countries can veto whatever another country attempts to propose or pass in the UN.
The structure of the UN, particularly the Security Council, leave a lot to be desired. Suppose the five Security Council seats were randomly reassigned. Do you suppose this might completely change the sort of motions the UN passes? If so, that the Security Council is really in charge.
At the moment, the United Satets can veto whatever UN motion they please. Do you suppose the United Nations would pay attention to anything the UN passes if they no longer had the ability to veto anything they choose?
We are not at war. We are killing people in random locations around the world, which is wrong.
I feel less safe now than I did the day before we started bombing. I feel I am more likely to be targeted by some future terrorist act than I was before we started bombing. We are creating more enemies than we are killing.
I look forward to the war crimes trails after which the former leaders of the United States are hunted down and brought to justice.
The United States is actively engaged in terrorism. I am embarrased to be a citizen.
Who (btw) did [and for all practical matters-DO] support terrorist behavior."
I've yet to see a definition of "terrorist behavior" that includes the Taliban regime but not the United States. Can you provide one? Can you point at a class of actions that the Taliban has ingaged in but the United States has not ingaged in?
Please understand the the implementation details don't distingish a class of actions.
As an example, piloting a metal cylinder full of jet fuel into the side of a building containing innocent civilians has the same effect as dropping a metal cylinder full of explosives into a building containing innocent civilians, at least as far as the innocent civilians are concerned.
What has the Talinan regime done that the United States has not also done, perhaps to a greater degree?
You misunderstood. This company was prefered because the recipients of the wire transfers don't have IDs. People who want to receive a wire transfer will now need an ID, but if they can't get one, they will not be able to receive a wire transfer. Apparently it is quite common to not have an ID.
So if the dry cleaner down the street cleans a shirt for a terrorist, then the dry cleaner is obviously corrupt as well, right? If not, why not?
In both cases, the company might be involved and complicit, or they might not be. This is a dicision for a court system. That is what court systems are for. Snap judgements by concerned parties with an emotional attachment to the issues are often wrong.
The damage to society caused by ignoring the legal systems will be larger than the damage inflicted by the terrorists.
No, we aren't at war. That's part of the problem.
In order to be 'really at war' congress must declare war. This is a really important point. One of the reasons this is important is so that everyone know who we are war with, who we intend to kill, and when the killing will stop.
We have placed to restrictions on the killing, but somehow we expect to make things better, to recude the number of deaths.
Instead of formally declaring war we are killing people in foriegn countries, and claiming it is justified because we suspect that someone else killed some of our people.
Don't you see the flaw in Bush's logic? He is effectively saying 'If someone from country A kills people in country B, that is terrorism.', then proceeding to have people killed in another country and claiming it is justice.
When our citizens are killed in our country (elligedly by someone who doesn't live here) we call it terrorism. When we kill Afgans in Afganistan without declaring war it is also terrorism.
The difference is only that we've managed to kill more people, and we are broadcasting reports of how well we are doing the job. We are responding to terrorism with more terrorism, but trying to hide that fact behind some hand wringing and tears.
Bush promised us justice. What is being done is not just.
The United States is engaged in terrorism. Bush is the leader of the United States. Bush is a terrorist leader. Bush is telling us that he will hunt down and kill terrorist leaders. Doesn't it bother you that our president has a death wish? We need a suicide watch for Bush. He is insane.