Many so-called conservatives just can't stand dissent - and I'm supposed to believe that they actually want Democracy in Iraq!
Given your statements above, and given the fact that most conservatives support the war and its objectives, I'd have to say that you're proof positive all by yourself of at least one "left of center" slashdotter. However, you almost certainly consider yourself a "centrist" as do most people when comparing their political views to others. Hitler considered himself a "centrist" when comparing himself to, say, Josef Stalin, and Stalin considered himself a "centrist" when comparing himself to Hitler. It is all in the eye of the beholder.
However, if you want more proof, just look around/. a bit. You'll find pretty much anything that smacks of conservative philosophy is modded down as "troll," "flamebait," or anything else that hurts someone's mod points. On the other hand, comments like "Bush is stupid," "Bush is Hitler," or similar is frequently modded up as "Insightful." Since many left-of-center people are the ones screaming so loudly that dissent is a patriotic virtue, I find it quite funny to see what lengths they'll go to to silence (or at least mod down) those with opposing viewpoints. The virtue of Diversity, I guess, does not apply to political viewpoints.
Indeed, this very thread you're responding to has been modded down as "flamebait" simply because I pointed out that there is very little "news for nerds" in the story content. It reads more like "Microsoft is bad, Bush is bad, therefore Harriet Miers is bad." Sorry, I don't find anything insightful, interesting, funny, or informative about the story. But I suppose that if you think Bill Gates is Satan and George Bush is Hitler then making such a deduction is entertaining to those who "think" similarly.
Look, I know/. readership is overwhelming left-of-center, but to post an article about Bush's lawyer being "related to Microsoft" is kind of silly. At some point the Bush-bashing just becomes pointless partisanship. So she made an argument for Microsoft back in the DOS 6.2 days. She also used to be Democrat and contributed to Al Gore's campaign fund. Big deal. Is this what passes for "News for Nerds"?
Agreed. Strongly agreed. However, a stable, democratic nation is rarely concieved through invasion and occupation.
So I guess Germany and Japan are just total flukes then, huh? Yes, just because they happen to represent the last two times America invaded, occupied, and restructured a nation successfully should be absolutely no reason to consider them valid examples. Be sure to throw away any data that conflicts with your pre-conceived notion, as that would probably destroy your argument. And we both know you can't let that happen.
In America, the President surrounds himself with yes-men and loyalists. Elsewhere in the world you get advisors who have been with gov't for years and years and who aren't afraid to actually *gasp* speak the truth.
Yes, that's right, every other nation on the planet has altruistic, truth-speaking, infallible advisors to their top leaders, whereas America is merely a haven for thuggish yes-men who are intent on raping the helpless, pillaging the poor, and eating babies. My God, you are the most amazingly naive person I've ever conversed with.
Why, oh why, would politicians agree with what the public believed and with what the Administration (fasely) stated was true.. What a tough question!
Oh, so when the Administration believes the intelligence reports it's a "lie," but when everyone else (including Bill Clinton) believes it, they're just being hoodwinked. Are you truly this blind to your own double standards here?
Maybe you need to get a clue, go read the current draft constitution and actually DISPUTE what I'm claiming here. Iraq is going to turn into an Islamic Socialist paradise, on YOUR dollar, according to their constitution. I'm glad you're so supportive of that.
Hmmm...looking over the draft Iraqi Constitution, I see provisions for popular elections, women's rights as citizens guaranteed, proportional representation of the various religious groups, free speech, no mandatory religion, right to property, right to public gatherings...yep, it's a veritable classless, godless, Commie state! I'm so glad I have you around to pull these things out of thin air, otherwise I'd just be totally ignorant. Now if you'd care to rejoin reality...oh, but the Kool-Aid is so sweet, isn't it?
Oh, and you forgot to tell me where you bought your infallible crystal ball. You know, that device you keep using to tell me exactly how the future is going to unfold. I really would like one since you seem to be making such good use of yours. Then I can be smug and self-confident of my future predictions of gloom and doom just like you! As they say, imitation is the sincerest form of...well, you know the rest.
It's a tough battle to win, seeing as the West has shat on the heads of Middle Easterners since colonial times.
Ah, yes, the problems in the Middle East are all totally the fault of the Westerners, aren't they? I mean, the fact that billions of American dollars go into Saudi Arabia every year it totally responsible for the huge unemployment rate there. It certainly has nothing to do with a corrupt monarchy, or a Muslim mindset that automatically attributes every slight, every inconvenience, and every disadvantage into some sort of Western oppression. And Iran's exclusion from the rest of the world has nothing to do with its religious intolerance of anyone else. Nope, no matter where you look in the Arab world, they are totally blameless for their current situation. Why, it's as if the crusades are still going on, with bloodthirsty Christians hacking women to pieces and throwing babies into the fire! One wonders how you sleep at night with such attrocities going on!
Is that why Tony Blair's staff told him that the old UNSC resolutions weren't enough justification for the war?
Oh, I get it. Tony Blair's staff says it, so it must be so. I must remember to update my list of canonical sources to reflect this.
On top of that, the no-fly-zone was never a part of the original UNSC resolution. Iraq violating that has no bearing whatsoever on the invasion.
Again, you are being disingenous, purposefully ignoring a fact that blows your argument to smithereens. The no-fly zone was part of the original cease-fire, and the cease-fire was a part of the UNSC agreements. So Iraq's violation of it violated the cease-fire, which in turn violated the UNSC resolution. Sorry, it was a nice try.
The spin begins. Everyone hated when Clinton claimed he didn't "lie" because he asked the judge to define "sexual relations." You're just re-defining terms for your own purposes.
I figured you would take this tack, but your analogy is not only out of place, it's factually wrong. Here, let me educate you slightly. The relevant entry in Merriam-Websters online dictionary defines the word "lie" as follows:
1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
I have italicized the important portion fo this definition that distinguishes it from what might be more appropriately termed an "error." A lie requires that the person speaking it be doing so with the knowledge that it is not true and with a purpose to deceive. If George Bush had the head of the CIA, the head of British Intel, and the combined intel of France, Germany, and Russia all saying Saddam had WMD's, and if he acts on that intel, it is not a "lie," it is making the best judgement you can on the best data you have. You're only calling it a lie because it serves your political ideology to do so.
Yes, he found them in breach, but he also said that the Iraqi nuclear program was never capable of restarting and their general WMD program was probably dead.
Post-invasion intelligence has revealed that Saddam had instructed his weapons researchers to be ready to restart its WMD programs the instant UN sanctions were dropped and inspectors left. Also, would you trust your safety to a WMD program that was "probably" dead? If you were wrong and someone used such a device to kill you, would you be "probably" dead yourself? You're going to absurd lengths to minimize the dangers involved here.
Also, if there was no danger of WMD's, why did John Kerry vote for the war? Why did Bill Clinton say he believed Saddam had WMD's (but failed to do much about it)? Funny how your criticisms are only being aimed at Republicans but Democrats who share(d) the same views are given a free pass. One would almost think you're being partisan.
You make it sound like the Iraqis were weeks away from The Bomb.
True, a nuclear program would be difficult to implement in a short period of time. Biological and chemical weapons, however, can be made in the back of a tractor-trailer rig lab. Iraq has an area of over 437,000 square kilometers, and that's not counting things that can be buried under the desert. The idea that Blix & Co. could reliably find any such lab if the owner of said lab was intent on hiding it is laughable, yet you seem extremely willing to place your safety in such an assumption. You're also completely ignoring the fact that the UNSC resolutions called on Hussein to divulge all materials regarding WMD's and allow unfettered inspections anywhere in the country. Even Blix admitted that Iraq had not lived up to its part of the bargain. Therefore it was immaterial whether or not Iraq had WMD's at all, the fact that Iraq failed to comply with the cease-fire was reason enough to invoke military action.
That's my biggest problem. Any dissent (including asking "WTF is going on over there?") leads to people shouting "Hey, everything is fine, what are you trying to do, HELP T
If W. had been President in 1941, he would have declared war on sneak-attackism, and then invaded Mexico.
It's funny that you mention this because during WWII, Germany did make secret overtures to the Mexican government. The Nazi's offered Mexico all sorts of incentives to invade the U.S. If it had seemed like Mexico would have been inclined to accept the German proposal, what would you have done? Waited until Mexico attacked or would you have attacked first? Knowing your stance thus far, you would've done neither. You would've just sat there and wailed about how unjustified the Mexican attack was when it came, and how awful it was that people were dying, and blaming everyone on the failures of democracy. You would've engaged in a witch-hunt to find anyone (except yourself) responsible for not heading off the attack before it happened, even though it would've been you (and people like you) that caused a delay in the first place.
In the meantime, the Mexicans would have opened up a second front for the U.S. and possibly changed the course of the war in Nazi Germany's favor. But, hey, your conscience would've been clear, right? That's what's important here, that you don't feel bad.
I'm amazingly glad folks like you (a) aren't in a position of power and (b) aren't likely to get there anytime soon.
You are being disingenous here. Iraq did not attack the U.S., but it did violate a cease-fire agreement. A cease-fire is not a peace treaty. When a cease-fire is violated, the shooting can start again. This "Gulf War II" is really no such thing, it is a long overdue continuation of Gulf War I, which was fully, legally sanctioned by the U.N. Security Council by unanimous vote.
Fighting the insurgency in Iraq has cost more than the Marshall plan.
I'd like to see you prove that. You can't, but I'd like to see you try.
Lying about the reasons for going to war was mistake number one.
It seems you are unaware of the definition of the word "lie." A lie is a statement made with the knowledge that it is not true. Bush made his decision based upon the intelligence data available at the time, data that indicated WMD's were present in violation of the 1991 cease-fire agreement and U.N. Resolution 1441. The U.N. report from Hans Blix and Baradei specifically found Iraq in "material breach" of its agreements, which was all the pretext needed in order to bring military force to bear. So your accusation of a "lie" is in and of itself a lie, or at least a fabrication based upon ignorance. I'll be generous and just call it a mistake on your part.
I have not seen the leadership in this country articulate a plan for victory.
That's funny, because just last week Bush announced "we will stay the course and finish the job." What do you want, flow charts and diagrams? We're going to stay as long as needed and do whatever is needed in order to see Iraq through. You want details? That's laughable. "No plan survives first contact with the enemy" said Napoleon Bonaparte, and it remains true today. You want a solid "plan" now just so you can carp and moan later when the plan has to be altered because conditions change. The only "plan" that really matters is the one Bush has said, namely that we will stay until we're done.
Oh, is that what we were supposed to have spent it on? When do we get it?
Impatience is the hallmark of your generation, it seems. Go look up The Marshall Plan for post-WWII Europe. You'll see that over $100 billion was spent in 4 years in inflation-adjusted dollars, but that is merely financial aid. Military costs of occupation were significantly higher than that. Similar costs were borne to help rebuild Japan as well. Both plans took over a decade to even be considered reasonably complete.
War is not like some 30-minute TV sitcom. Things are not wrapped up neatly by the last commercial break. These things take time, and you should give us (I'm a Marine who's done a tour in Iraq) time to do our jobs. The more you carp and moan about how long things are taking, the more incentive you give insurgents to keep making bombs. After all, they know they can't defeat us militarily, so their only recourse is to try and get Americans at home to declare this war a "quagmire" and demand the troops come home. If they succeed at that, they will have won not because they defeated us but because we defeated ourselves. Attitudes like yours, whether you intend it or not, are helping the enemy.
Better some anarchist out smashing a few windows than a fascist, cop-apologist, lickspittle like yourself polishing someone's jackboots.
The fact that you can't recognize a grey area anywhere outside of your own black-and-white preconceived notions is evidence enough that you're incapable of actually thinking about this subject. For you, your higher brain functions have been wasted. A brain stem -- an organ that cannot think but merely reacts and functions in a monotonous, predictable, and unchanging way -- would have sufficed.
Availability of mods
on
Ask Sid Meier
·
· Score: 1, Redundant
Games like Half-Life have shown that phenomenal sales can be maintained for a prolonged period of time if the game is designed from the beginning with mods in mind. To date, HL is still one of the most popular online games, having spawned a number of variations that are essentially entirely new games in their own right.
With this in mind, do you plan on offering a robust and flexible method for fans and enthusiasts to modify and extend the game? The trend in FPS games is to offer a toolkit or SDK that facilitates this. Could we expect something similar in Civ IV?
Taking picture in a public place is not a reason to be appraoched by police.
That depends on why you're taking the picture. Tourism? Fine. Scouting out targest for a suicide mission? Not fine. But I suppose the difference between those two situations is lost on you.
And it's a good thing bad grammar and spelling isn't illegal. You'd have been sent to the chair long before now. But, as you're obviously a product of our wonderful public education system since your reasoning skills are so deficient, I suppose it's the best you can manage. Fear not, I will pity you so you don't feel so inferior.
are we on the verge of something big that will make fusion a practical reality in a much shorter time frame than the often quoted '30 years away, and always will be'?
Certainly! That time period is now down to 20 years away and always will be. See what progress we've made?
You'll note you've been scored "Troll," as have I, for making these statements. Funny how these liberals -- who always claim to love diversity -- can't stand anyone diverse enough to have a different perspective than their own, is it not?
Thank you for your kind words. It does a lot for those of us who serve, or have served. Being away from my family was not easy, but my employer kept paying me during my tour regardless so that helped a lot. I was (and still am) a reservist and could be recalled. But if I am, I'll still keep posting on/. anyway.
Okay, how about I back it up by saying: "I have much greater fear of living in a society where it's a crime to be male, or young, or dark-skinned, or muslim, than a society that suffers very rare and mild terrorist attacks. (Killing Americans at 0.001% the rate of common car accidents.)"
To quote Ronald Reagan, "there you go again." Did I say it was a crime to be male, young, or dark-skinned, or Muslim? No, I did not. Nobody is even remotely close to advocating concentration camps, death squads, or segregation, although you certainly act like it. But to deny the fact that the vast majority of terrorist are Muslim, are male, and are young is just silly because it is a fact.
When seeking to stop a crime, it is useful to know what the perpetrator looks like, acts like, sounds like, or whatever. To have a heightened sense of awareness of individuals who match this template is not illegal, it is prudent. If young, male Muslims don't like being categorized in this fashion, perhaps they ought to address the problems in their own culture a bit and perhaps change this image of themselves. Oops! I went and said something politically incorrect. Gosh, I hate it when that happens, but every now and then the crude, callous, unvarnished truth just spills out into the open without going through the PC filter.
But you go on making mountains out of molehills. You go on making up scenarios where Muslims are rounded up and shot in mass graves (Oops! Sorry, that was Muslims killing Muslims in Iraq a few years ago. My mistake). You go on conjuring up wild situations where whites steal the land from blacks after murdering them in their beds (Oops! Sorry, it was blacks who murdered whites and stole their land in Zimbabwe, all with the tacit approval of ruling black leader Mugabe). You go on attributing all the horrible, disgusting, inhumane treatments that man can inflict on man to the United States and GB, while ignoring the gulags of North Korea, the "honor killings" of females in Pakistan, the stoning of "immodestly dressed" women in Saudi Arabia, the slavery still endemic to Africa (the only continent where it is still practiced widely), and much, much more. Yes, all that pales in comparison to someone having their knapsack rummaged through on the tube.
You know what you need? You are in dire need of a dose of perspective in your life, son. Perhaps then you'll realize just how pampered and restrained the world is around you. It's kept that way by the very people you despise the most: the police, the military, and so forth. Try remembering that next time you see a policeman or soldier, because one of these days, if you keep it up, they just might decide you're not worth protecting anymore. And that would be a bad thing...not for me, mind you, but for you.
1 person arrested without cause is worthy of a riot.
That's right, let it all out. Free your inner anarchist! Yessir, the best solution to any problem is a riot, isn't it? Nothing like a good bit of destruction of property to show The Man that you don't like being oppressed.
You should be so proud of yourself. What a pinnacle of society you represent, the thug who feels himself the vigilante. Go on, lecture me some more on how you would solve these "injustices" with a judicous application of your own type of violence. You are, after all, the only "right" person in the world and thus automatically exempt from any moral judgements on your actions.
Yes, you have clearly outwitted me "and other like me". Pure genius!
I'm happy to humble you, but really, it was no effort. Now I must go. I quickly tire of poking idiots like you with a stick as there is no challenge in it.
Now, if you were trying to make some clever witticism about my mispelling the word "others," I will (a) inform you that this is Slashdot, where the routine mangling of English grammar is high art, and (b) if the best you can do is to criticize a typo, you're really, really grasping at straws. But I'm sure that's all you're capable of at this point so I will leave you to ponder your own inadequacies.
I hope that you manage to actually orgasm during the experience?
Alas, none of the screeners thus far have been 5'9" blondes, blue eyes, 36D-24-36 nymphomaniacs with questionable sexual morals, so I have not. Sorry to disappoint you. I have, however, heard that you are a big fan of body cavity searches by 300lb male TSA employees with immense hands and gigantic wrists and forearms. You really shouldn't keep begging to have a deep anal probe when you're standing in line. It's degrading and it makes your fellow travelers rather uncomfortable to be on the same continent as you.
Thanks for your insightful post.
Thank you for your equally "insightful" rejoinder.
Hundreds of people have been detained during the latest crackdown in London, with no one actually charged.
The population of London, according to the most recent 2001 census data, is roughly 7.1 million people. Let's assume your "hundreds" figure is the absolute maximum of 999 (anything higher would be in the "thousands" category, you see). That would mean that, after the worst terrorist incident in London history,.014% of the population has been inconvenienced by the "crackdown." My God, what an epidemic of rights-bashing!
"All over the place"? Methinks thou dost protest too much.
Over eighteen hundred people were arrested and held for well over a day in New York City -- based on charges that were overwhelmingly found to be based on perjured testimony by the police.
Accepting your figures assuming they're true, then that proves: -of the 21 million people of New York City, 99.92% of the population has not been inconvenienced in this manner. Why, there ought to be riots! -since you claim many were released due to findings of perjured testimony, it proves the system works. The officers involved have no doubt had it so noted in their records and will carry them for the rest of their careers, if they still have them. However, to presume that all of your 1,800 arrestees were just innocent bystanders, totally caught up in events not of their own making, is stretching it a bit far, don't you think?
You're proving adept at making mountains out of molehills here. You do it with such fervor that one would suspect you might have an ulterior motive. Say, perhaps, an agenda? Nah, I'm sure you're just a conscientious, lily-white-morals citizen with centrist political philosophies who's only interested in the common good, right? Oops, better hide that "Bush is Hitler and Tony Blair is his minion!" T-shirt.
Rudeness is no substitute for reasoning.
Rude? I'm sorry. I didn't mean to be rude. I did, however, mean to insult your intelligence, since you seem to be studiously avoiding using it.
We are, however, talking about a man sitting in a train station, minding his own business. Now, exactly how does your so-called "logical analogy" apply?
OK, since you insist on acting like a simpleton here, I will humor you. The analogy is as follows: -in both cases, a situation exists that makes police feel like it needs to get involved. -in both cases, circumstantial evidence exists that looks suspicious. It may be nothing, but the police don't have enough information to make a firm conclusion of that. -therefore, it is logical to assume the worst (and thus be prepared for it) and then try to prove or disprove that assertion.
Now, I'm sure you're going to say something about how he was just minding his own business and looking all non-threatening and such. No doubt the tube bombers a few months ago looked similarly non-threatening. Please, since you are God of all knowledge here, explain to me how you can immediately and unequivocally tell the difference between a suicide bomber with a knapsack and a Guardian reporter with a knapsack when viewed from across the train station? The answer, in case you are having trouble arriving at it, is that you can't. Therefore you have to go on observed behavior, assumptions, perhaps even third-party intelligence sources, or just a hunch.
If your hunch is wrong, you've inconvenienced someone. Big deal, they'll get over it. If you're right, you may have just saved hundreds of lives. The benefits hugely outweigh any of these massively-exaggerated slights you're so busily carping about.
Yes, I did. I was hoping you (and other like you) would fall into this trap of thinking I didn't because I said "he wasn't arrested." But what I said was true: he was not arrested...for being suspected terrorist. He was arrested for being a "public nuisance," which means he was probably verbally abusive with the police. That took place after he was singled out for a search, not before, which means the decision to search him was not a contributing factor to the arrest. If he was arrested, it was his own damned fault.
So, to sum it up, you didn't understand TFA to being with, so it would appear you're not only the "loser" here in this argument but you're also stupid as well.
Really? How? You're going to make the statement, you should be required to back it up.
Here's some sobering facts: -All of the 9/11 hijackers were male -All of them were between the age of 20 and 33 -All of them were Muslim -All of them came from Arabic nations or states
Furthermore: -Nearly all suicide bombers in Israel have been young Arabic Muslim males
Now, to see the absurdity in ignoring these common traits, imagine the following:
Police Commissioner: "There's been a murder downtown today but the murderer got away. We are currently searching for this murderer and would like the public to report anyone matching the murderer's description." Reporter: "What can you tell us about the murderer?" Commissioner: "Nothing at all. We can't reveal the person's ethnicity, height, weight, age, sex, national origin, or any other distinguishing features because that might encourage the public to look suspiciously at anyone meeting any of these criteria. And that would be profiling! And since that is not allowed, we won't be telling our officers how to find this murderer either because we won't want them concentrating on anyone meeting these criteria." Reporter: "But how will anyone be able to help find this murderer if you don't look for distinguishing characteristics?" Commissioner: "We can't, but that is unimportant. What's really important is that no one feels offended. Yes, the murderer may get away. The murderer might even kill someone else. If that happens, we will issue a public statement expressing our regrets, but we will highlight that at least nobody was offended. Well, except perhaps the dead person..."
RTFA. You could suppose that the author is lying all the way through, but it appears as if the initial officers came close to letting him go until other officers showed up.
I did RTFA. I'm not saying the author lied all the way through because he obviously was arrested and so forth. However, it's perfectly within his ability to leave out "but I started shouting at the police, waving my hands around, screaming that they were imperialist pigs supressing the downtrodden classes of the world, praise Allah and his wrath be upon you all!" Now, that's a likely exaggeration, but to say that this guy got arrested for no reason at all is silly. The police do not just single innocent people out for this kind of treatment, otherwise it'd be happening all over the place. It is not, ergo there is something about this guy that is out of the ordinary. Since the author is trying so desperately hard to make his case seem ordinary, it is logical to assume that there's more to the story than what's being told by the author. Remember, the first rule of being a criminal (or, in this case, of being thought to be a potential criminal) is to immediately proclaim one's innocence and pure-hearted motives. Seldom is that the case.
What does this have to do with the article in question? What crime was committed? What "corpse" is there?
(sigh) It would appear logical analogies are beyond your ability to grasp. Sorry, I can't make it simple enough for you to understand.
These are the first of 144 hits I found doing a routine Google search. I'm not going to waste my time posting them all, but suffice to say that The Guardian's left-wing credentials are solidly in place no matter where you look. You would have to be amazingly disingenous to see it any other way, but you've already proven that's not outside the boundaries of what passes for intellectual honesty from you.
(I remember they got so much flak when they were dubious about those WMDs in Iraq... hope you aren't dubious about THAT!)
Not dubious at all. The following WMD's or WMD components have been discovered in Iraq, all of which are in violation of the U.N. Resolutions banning WMD's and WMD development in Iraq:
-500 tons...that's right...TONS...make that 1 million pounds of yellow cake uranium. It was found at Saddam's nuclear weapons facility (Al-Tuwaitha)
-1.8 tons of partially enriched uranium found at the same place. You know, the stuff you need to make nukes.
-Hidden centrifuge parts and blueprints.
-Two dozen artillery shells loaded with Sarin and mustard gas.
Just because the news organizations haven't been trumpeting the finds doesn't mean they don't exist. But then, I guess if you've already made your mind up to disregard plain evidence, my pointing it out isn't going to change your mind. Please, don't let me distract you from ignoring anything that conflicts with your pre-existing opinion of America, it's policies, or its President.
So, they do have his DNA on file and they have created a police record for him. Lovely.
But you insist on ignoring why he was arrested. He was not arrested for being a susecpted terrorist. He was arrested for being a "public nuisance" which would seem to indicate he was belligerent with police. That is not the same as being picked up for looking suspicious, and it's a perfectly valid reason for being arrested. If he didn't want to be arrested, he could've cooperated with the search and kept his mouth shut during the process. Then the search would've been over, he'd have had his things back, his flat wouldn't have been searched, he wouldn't have been arrested, and he wouldn't be writing this bleeding-heart story about how the big, bad, bootnecked police are trampling all over his lily-white innocence.
After it was clear that he was completely innocent, he was arrested
You left out why. One of the charges was "public nuisance." Now, I'll be the first to admit that this could be a trumped-up charge. On the other hand, we must also consider the possiblity that the author was confrontational with the police, something that will quite easily get you arrested. You would immediately assume the author is always innocent and the police are always a bunch of jackbooted brownshirt thugs looking to thump some heads.
As for his flat, if you were to catalogue the contents, things like maps, radio scanners, and so forth can look quite suspicious to someone suspected of not being all that cooperative with police. This in and of itself is not evidence of any guilt, but it is quite logical for the police to make such a connection. If you come into a room with one live person, one dead person, and one smoking gun, it's logical to believe that the live person killed the person lying dead on the floor. That doesn't mean that's what happened (the person could've committed suicide, or someone else could've been in the room but subsequently left, or it could've been an accident, etc.) but you'd be foolish not to immediately arrest the person in the room until an investigation is completed.
The Guardian is a staunchly left-wing liberal newspaper with a history of making wild-eyed claims with little to back them up. I can't help but think there's a lot more to this chap's arrest than he's letting on. More likely he's only telling the version of the story that makes him look like the innocent angel and everyone else the minions of Satan. With respect to terrorism, I'd rather the police err on the side of caution.
If we believe that "all men are created equal," do mean that non-Americans are lesser beings?
Absolutely not. If that were the case, why is the U.S. expending the lives of its soldiers abroad helping people that, by and large, have no effect whatsoever on the U.S. economy or U.S. policy? We do it because we want to spread democracy abroad, but also because we know that the fledgling democracy of today is tomorrow's trading partner and next year's ally. It's a curious thing because the cause is essentially selfish but the effects are essentially altruistic.
As you can see from my sig, I'm a big believer in "the ends justify the means." If I knew that the only way I could save ten million people would be that I had to kill ten thousand people, I would have to kill the ten thousand. I would examine every alternative, try every possible other course of less-destructive action, but as soon as it was clear that there was no other way, I'd do it. It would seem cruel and inhumane, yet it would be amazingly humane to those ten million who were saved, would it not? I'd hate to be a person put in such a situation as that, weighted with such a decision. Such things our President is weighed with every day, no doubt.
So it's okay to detain someone, subject them to arrest, search, DNA profiling, and having a police record, even though they have done nothing.
Must you invent events in order to push your point? The writer was not arrested, DNA profiled, and he didn't incur a police record. He was searched, plain and simple, because either something he did or something he had seemed conspicuous. You're all about blowing this up into some grand violation of human rights when nothing of the sort is going on at all.
Look, if you see someone prowling around after dark like they're scoping out a house to rob, you call the police. The police pick the guy up, search him, check his records for arrests or other violations, find nothing wrong, and let him go. That is not a violation of rights, that is prudence.
When we come up with the perfect terrorist detector that never misses a real terrorist and never picks up an innocent civilian, then you can bitch about people being randomly searched. In the meantime, we have to do the best we can with what we've got, and that means (a) we're occasionally going to search someone who isn't a terrorist and (b) we're likely going to miss a few real terrorists in the meantime. But the alternative you're proposing -- namely that we don't search anyone that isn't a terrorist -- is absurd. You might as well ask that someone give you a spam filter than never misses any spam but never gives any false positives. So what are you proposing instead? That we give up searching altogether? If so, I hope the first person killed with a bomb is you, because Darwinism has a way of weeding out the stupid in this world and you seem to be prime candidate.
Slashdot Mirror
Many so-called conservatives just can't stand dissent - and I'm supposed to believe that they actually want Democracy in Iraq!
/. a bit. You'll find pretty much anything that smacks of conservative philosophy is modded down as "troll," "flamebait," or anything else that hurts someone's mod points. On the other hand, comments like "Bush is stupid," "Bush is Hitler," or similar is frequently modded up as "Insightful." Since many left-of-center people are the ones screaming so loudly that dissent is a patriotic virtue, I find it quite funny to see what lengths they'll go to to silence (or at least mod down) those with opposing viewpoints. The virtue of Diversity, I guess, does not apply to political viewpoints.
Given your statements above, and given the fact that most conservatives support the war and its objectives, I'd have to say that you're proof positive all by yourself of at least one "left of center" slashdotter. However, you almost certainly consider yourself a "centrist" as do most people when comparing their political views to others. Hitler considered himself a "centrist" when comparing himself to, say, Josef Stalin, and Stalin considered himself a "centrist" when comparing himself to Hitler. It is all in the eye of the beholder.
However, if you want more proof, just look around
Indeed, this very thread you're responding to has been modded down as "flamebait" simply because I pointed out that there is very little "news for nerds" in the story content. It reads more like "Microsoft is bad, Bush is bad, therefore Harriet Miers is bad." Sorry, I don't find anything insightful, interesting, funny, or informative about the story. But I suppose that if you think Bill Gates is Satan and George Bush is Hitler then making such a deduction is entertaining to those who "think" similarly.
Look, I know /. readership is overwhelming left-of-center, but to post an article about Bush's lawyer being "related to Microsoft" is kind of silly. At some point the Bush-bashing just becomes pointless partisanship. So she made an argument for Microsoft back in the DOS 6.2 days. She also used to be Democrat and contributed to Al Gore's campaign fund. Big deal. Is this what passes for "News for Nerds"?
Agreed. Strongly agreed. However, a stable, democratic nation is rarely concieved through invasion and occupation.
So I guess Germany and Japan are just total flukes then, huh? Yes, just because they happen to represent the last two times America invaded, occupied, and restructured a nation successfully should be absolutely no reason to consider them valid examples. Be sure to throw away any data that conflicts with your pre-conceived notion, as that would probably destroy your argument. And we both know you can't let that happen.
In America, the President surrounds himself with yes-men and loyalists. Elsewhere in the world you get advisors who have been with gov't for years and years and who aren't afraid to actually *gasp* speak the truth.
Yes, that's right, every other nation on the planet has altruistic, truth-speaking, infallible advisors to their top leaders, whereas America is merely a haven for thuggish yes-men who are intent on raping the helpless, pillaging the poor, and eating babies. My God, you are the most amazingly naive person I've ever conversed with.
Why, oh why, would politicians agree with what the public believed and with what the Administration (fasely) stated was true.. What a tough question!
Oh, so when the Administration believes the intelligence reports it's a "lie," but when everyone else (including Bill Clinton) believes it, they're just being hoodwinked. Are you truly this blind to your own double standards here?
Maybe you need to get a clue, go read the current draft constitution and actually DISPUTE what I'm claiming here. Iraq is going to turn into an Islamic Socialist paradise, on YOUR dollar, according to their constitution. I'm glad you're so supportive of that.
Hmmm...looking over the draft Iraqi Constitution, I see provisions for popular elections, women's rights as citizens guaranteed, proportional representation of the various religious groups, free speech, no mandatory religion, right to property, right to public gatherings...yep, it's a veritable classless, godless, Commie state! I'm so glad I have you around to pull these things out of thin air, otherwise I'd just be totally ignorant. Now if you'd care to rejoin reality...oh, but the Kool-Aid is so sweet, isn't it?
Oh, and you forgot to tell me where you bought your infallible crystal ball. You know, that device you keep using to tell me exactly how the future is going to unfold. I really would like one since you seem to be making such good use of yours. Then I can be smug and self-confident of my future predictions of gloom and doom just like you! As they say, imitation is the sincerest form of...well, you know the rest.
It's a tough battle to win, seeing as the West has shat on the heads of Middle Easterners since colonial times.
Ah, yes, the problems in the Middle East are all totally the fault of the Westerners, aren't they? I mean, the fact that billions of American dollars go into Saudi Arabia every year it totally responsible for the huge unemployment rate there. It certainly has nothing to do with a corrupt monarchy, or a Muslim mindset that automatically attributes every slight, every inconvenience, and every disadvantage into some sort of Western oppression. And Iran's exclusion from the rest of the world has nothing to do with its religious intolerance of anyone else. Nope, no matter where you look in the Arab world, they are totally blameless for their current situation. Why, it's as if the crusades are still going on, with bloodthirsty Christians hacking women to pieces and throwing babies into the fire! One wonders how you sleep at night with such attrocities going on!
Oh, I get it. Tony Blair's staff says it, so it must be so. I must remember to update my list of canonical sources to reflect this.
On top of that, the no-fly-zone was never a part of the original UNSC resolution. Iraq violating that has no bearing whatsoever on the invasion.
Again, you are being disingenous, purposefully ignoring a fact that blows your argument to smithereens. The no-fly zone was part of the original cease-fire, and the cease-fire was a part of the UNSC agreements. So Iraq's violation of it violated the cease-fire, which in turn violated the UNSC resolution. Sorry, it was a nice try.
The spin begins. Everyone hated when Clinton claimed he didn't "lie" because he asked the judge to define "sexual relations." You're just re-defining terms for your own purposes.
I figured you would take this tack, but your analogy is not only out of place, it's factually wrong. Here, let me educate you slightly. The relevant entry in Merriam-Websters online dictionary defines the word "lie" as follows:
I have italicized the important portion fo this definition that distinguishes it from what might be more appropriately termed an "error." A lie requires that the person speaking it be doing so with the knowledge that it is not true and with a purpose to deceive. If George Bush had the head of the CIA, the head of British Intel, and the combined intel of France, Germany, and Russia all saying Saddam had WMD's, and if he acts on that intel, it is not a "lie," it is making the best judgement you can on the best data you have. You're only calling it a lie because it serves your political ideology to do so.
Yes, he found them in breach, but he also said that the Iraqi nuclear program was never capable of restarting and their general WMD program was probably dead.
Post-invasion intelligence has revealed that Saddam had instructed his weapons researchers to be ready to restart its WMD programs the instant UN sanctions were dropped and inspectors left. Also, would you trust your safety to a WMD program that was "probably" dead? If you were wrong and someone used such a device to kill you, would you be "probably" dead yourself? You're going to absurd lengths to minimize the dangers involved here.
Also, if there was no danger of WMD's, why did John Kerry vote for the war? Why did Bill Clinton say he believed Saddam had WMD's (but failed to do much about it)? Funny how your criticisms are only being aimed at Republicans but Democrats who share(d) the same views are given a free pass. One would almost think you're being partisan.
You make it sound like the Iraqis were weeks away from The Bomb.
True, a nuclear program would be difficult to implement in a short period of time. Biological and chemical weapons, however, can be made in the back of a tractor-trailer rig lab. Iraq has an area of over 437,000 square kilometers, and that's not counting things that can be buried under the desert. The idea that Blix & Co. could reliably find any such lab if the owner of said lab was intent on hiding it is laughable, yet you seem extremely willing to place your safety in such an assumption. You're also completely ignoring the fact that the UNSC resolutions called on Hussein to divulge all materials regarding WMD's and allow unfettered inspections anywhere in the country. Even Blix admitted that Iraq had not lived up to its part of the bargain. Therefore it was immaterial whether or not Iraq had WMD's at all, the fact that Iraq failed to comply with the cease-fire was reason enough to invoke military action.
That's my biggest problem. Any dissent (including asking "WTF is going on over there?") leads to people shouting "Hey, everything is fine, what are you trying to do, HELP T
If W. had been President in 1941, he would have declared war on sneak-attackism, and then invaded Mexico.
It's funny that you mention this because during WWII, Germany did make secret overtures to the Mexican government. The Nazi's offered Mexico all sorts of incentives to invade the U.S. If it had seemed like Mexico would have been inclined to accept the German proposal, what would you have done? Waited until Mexico attacked or would you have attacked first? Knowing your stance thus far, you would've done neither. You would've just sat there and wailed about how unjustified the Mexican attack was when it came, and how awful it was that people were dying, and blaming everyone on the failures of democracy. You would've engaged in a witch-hunt to find anyone (except yourself) responsible for not heading off the attack before it happened, even though it would've been you (and people like you) that caused a delay in the first place.
In the meantime, the Mexicans would have opened up a second front for the U.S. and possibly changed the course of the war in Nazi Germany's favor. But, hey, your conscience would've been clear, right? That's what's important here, that you don't feel bad.
I'm amazingly glad folks like you (a) aren't in a position of power and (b) aren't likely to get there anytime soon.
Iraq never attacked the United States.
You are being disingenous here. Iraq did not attack the U.S., but it did violate a cease-fire agreement. A cease-fire is not a peace treaty. When a cease-fire is violated, the shooting can start again. This "Gulf War II" is really no such thing, it is a long overdue continuation of Gulf War I, which was fully, legally sanctioned by the U.N. Security Council by unanimous vote.
Fighting the insurgency in Iraq has cost more than the Marshall plan.
I'd like to see you prove that. You can't, but I'd like to see you try.
Lying about the reasons for going to war was mistake number one.
It seems you are unaware of the definition of the word "lie." A lie is a statement made with the knowledge that it is not true. Bush made his decision based upon the intelligence data available at the time, data that indicated WMD's were present in violation of the 1991 cease-fire agreement and U.N. Resolution 1441. The U.N. report from Hans Blix and Baradei specifically found Iraq in "material breach" of its agreements, which was all the pretext needed in order to bring military force to bear. So your accusation of a "lie" is in and of itself a lie, or at least a fabrication based upon ignorance. I'll be generous and just call it a mistake on your part.
I have not seen the leadership in this country articulate a plan for victory.
That's funny, because just last week Bush announced "we will stay the course and finish the job." What do you want, flow charts and diagrams? We're going to stay as long as needed and do whatever is needed in order to see Iraq through. You want details? That's laughable. "No plan survives first contact with the enemy" said Napoleon Bonaparte, and it remains true today. You want a solid "plan" now just so you can carp and moan later when the plan has to be altered because conditions change. The only "plan" that really matters is the one Bush has said, namely that we will stay until we're done.
Oh, is that what we were supposed to have spent it on? When do we get it?
Impatience is the hallmark of your generation, it seems. Go look up The Marshall Plan for post-WWII Europe. You'll see that over $100 billion was spent in 4 years in inflation-adjusted dollars, but that is merely financial aid. Military costs of occupation were significantly higher than that. Similar costs were borne to help rebuild Japan as well. Both plans took over a decade to even be considered reasonably complete.
War is not like some 30-minute TV sitcom. Things are not wrapped up neatly by the last commercial break. These things take time, and you should give us (I'm a Marine who's done a tour in Iraq) time to do our jobs. The more you carp and moan about how long things are taking, the more incentive you give insurgents to keep making bombs. After all, they know they can't defeat us militarily, so their only recourse is to try and get Americans at home to declare this war a "quagmire" and demand the troops come home. If they succeed at that, they will have won not because they defeated us but because we defeated ourselves. Attitudes like yours, whether you intend it or not, are helping the enemy.
Better some anarchist out smashing a few windows than a fascist, cop-apologist, lickspittle like yourself polishing someone's jackboots.
The fact that you can't recognize a grey area anywhere outside of your own black-and-white preconceived notions is evidence enough that you're incapable of actually thinking about this subject. For you, your higher brain functions have been wasted. A brain stem -- an organ that cannot think but merely reacts and functions in a monotonous, predictable, and unchanging way -- would have sufficed.
Games like Half-Life have shown that phenomenal sales can be maintained for a prolonged period of time if the game is designed from the beginning with mods in mind. To date, HL is still one of the most popular online games, having spawned a number of variations that are essentially entirely new games in their own right.
With this in mind, do you plan on offering a robust and flexible method for fans and enthusiasts to modify and extend the game? The trend in FPS games is to offer a toolkit or SDK that facilitates this. Could we expect something similar in Civ IV?
Taking picture in a public place is not a reason to be appraoched by police.
That depends on why you're taking the picture. Tourism? Fine. Scouting out targest for a suicide mission? Not fine. But I suppose the difference between those two situations is lost on you.
And it's a good thing bad grammar and spelling isn't illegal. You'd have been sent to the chair long before now. But, as you're obviously a product of our wonderful public education system since your reasoning skills are so deficient, I suppose it's the best you can manage. Fear not, I will pity you so you don't feel so inferior.
are we on the verge of something big that will make fusion a practical reality in a much shorter time frame than the often quoted '30 years away, and always will be'?
Certainly! That time period is now down to 20 years away and always will be. See what progress we've made?
You'll note you've been scored "Troll," as have I, for making these statements. Funny how these liberals -- who always claim to love diversity -- can't stand anyone diverse enough to have a different perspective than their own, is it not?
/. anyway.
Thank you for your kind words. It does a lot for those of us who serve, or have served. Being away from my family was not easy, but my employer kept paying me during my tour regardless so that helped a lot. I was (and still am) a reservist and could be recalled. But if I am, I'll still keep posting on
Okay, how about I back it up by saying: "I have much greater fear of living in a society where it's a crime to be male, or young, or dark-skinned, or muslim, than a society that suffers very rare and mild terrorist attacks. (Killing Americans at 0.001% the rate of common car accidents.)"
To quote Ronald Reagan, "there you go again." Did I say it was a crime to be male, young, or dark-skinned, or Muslim? No, I did not. Nobody is even remotely close to advocating concentration camps, death squads, or segregation, although you certainly act like it. But to deny the fact that the vast majority of terrorist are Muslim, are male, and are young is just silly because it is a fact.
When seeking to stop a crime, it is useful to know what the perpetrator looks like, acts like, sounds like, or whatever. To have a heightened sense of awareness of individuals who match this template is not illegal, it is prudent. If young, male Muslims don't like being categorized in this fashion, perhaps they ought to address the problems in their own culture a bit and perhaps change this image of themselves. Oops! I went and said something politically incorrect. Gosh, I hate it when that happens, but every now and then the crude, callous, unvarnished truth just spills out into the open without going through the PC filter.
But you go on making mountains out of molehills. You go on making up scenarios where Muslims are rounded up and shot in mass graves (Oops! Sorry, that was Muslims killing Muslims in Iraq a few years ago. My mistake). You go on conjuring up wild situations where whites steal the land from blacks after murdering them in their beds (Oops! Sorry, it was blacks who murdered whites and stole their land in Zimbabwe, all with the tacit approval of ruling black leader Mugabe). You go on attributing all the horrible, disgusting, inhumane treatments that man can inflict on man to the United States and GB, while ignoring the gulags of North Korea, the "honor killings" of females in Pakistan, the stoning of "immodestly dressed" women in Saudi Arabia, the slavery still endemic to Africa (the only continent where it is still practiced widely), and much, much more. Yes, all that pales in comparison to someone having their knapsack rummaged through on the tube.
You know what you need? You are in dire need of a dose of perspective in your life, son. Perhaps then you'll realize just how pampered and restrained the world is around you. It's kept that way by the very people you despise the most: the police, the military, and so forth. Try remembering that next time you see a policeman or soldier, because one of these days, if you keep it up, they just might decide you're not worth protecting anymore. And that would be a bad thing...not for me, mind you, but for you.
1 person arrested without cause is worthy of a riot.
That's right, let it all out. Free your inner anarchist! Yessir, the best solution to any problem is a riot, isn't it? Nothing like a good bit of destruction of property to show The Man that you don't like being oppressed.
You should be so proud of yourself. What a pinnacle of society you represent, the thug who feels himself the vigilante. Go on, lecture me some more on how you would solve these "injustices" with a judicous application of your own type of violence. You are, after all, the only "right" person in the world and thus automatically exempt from any moral judgements on your actions.
Yes, you have clearly outwitted me "and other like me". Pure genius!
I'm happy to humble you, but really, it was no effort. Now I must go. I quickly tire of poking idiots like you with a stick as there is no challenge in it.
Now, if you were trying to make some clever witticism about my mispelling the word "others," I will (a) inform you that this is Slashdot, where the routine mangling of English grammar is high art, and (b) if the best you can do is to criticize a typo, you're really, really grasping at straws. But I'm sure that's all you're capable of at this point so I will leave you to ponder your own inadequacies.
I hope that you manage to actually orgasm during the experience?
Alas, none of the screeners thus far have been 5'9" blondes, blue eyes, 36D-24-36 nymphomaniacs with questionable sexual morals, so I have not. Sorry to disappoint you. I have, however, heard that you are a big fan of body cavity searches by 300lb male TSA employees with immense hands and gigantic wrists and forearms. You really shouldn't keep begging to have a deep anal probe when you're standing in line. It's degrading and it makes your fellow travelers rather uncomfortable to be on the same continent as you.
Thanks for your insightful post.
Thank you for your equally "insightful" rejoinder.
Hundreds of people have been detained during the latest crackdown in London, with no one actually charged.
.014% of the population has been inconvenienced by the "crackdown." My God, what an epidemic of rights-bashing!
The population of London, according to the most recent 2001 census data, is roughly 7.1 million people. Let's assume your "hundreds" figure is the absolute maximum of 999 (anything higher would be in the "thousands" category, you see). That would mean that, after the worst terrorist incident in London history,
"All over the place"? Methinks thou dost protest too much.
Over eighteen hundred people were arrested and held for well over a day in New York City -- based on charges that were overwhelmingly found to be based on perjured testimony by the police.
Accepting your figures assuming they're true, then that proves:
-of the 21 million people of New York City, 99.92% of the population has not been inconvenienced in this manner. Why, there ought to be riots!
-since you claim many were released due to findings of perjured testimony, it proves the system works. The officers involved have no doubt had it so noted in their records and will carry them for the rest of their careers, if they still have them. However, to presume that all of your 1,800 arrestees were just innocent bystanders, totally caught up in events not of their own making, is stretching it a bit far, don't you think?
You're proving adept at making mountains out of molehills here. You do it with such fervor that one would suspect you might have an ulterior motive. Say, perhaps, an agenda? Nah, I'm sure you're just a conscientious, lily-white-morals citizen with centrist political philosophies who's only interested in the common good, right? Oops, better hide that "Bush is Hitler and Tony Blair is his minion!" T-shirt.
Rudeness is no substitute for reasoning.
Rude? I'm sorry. I didn't mean to be rude. I did, however, mean to insult your intelligence, since you seem to be studiously avoiding using it.
We are, however, talking about a man sitting in a train station, minding his own business. Now, exactly how does your so-called "logical analogy" apply?
OK, since you insist on acting like a simpleton here, I will humor you. The analogy is as follows:
-in both cases, a situation exists that makes police feel like it needs to get involved.
-in both cases, circumstantial evidence exists that looks suspicious. It may be nothing, but the police don't have enough information to make a firm conclusion of that.
-therefore, it is logical to assume the worst (and thus be prepared for it) and then try to prove or disprove that assertion.
Now, I'm sure you're going to say something about how he was just minding his own business and looking all non-threatening and such. No doubt the tube bombers a few months ago looked similarly non-threatening. Please, since you are God of all knowledge here, explain to me how you can immediately and unequivocally tell the difference between a suicide bomber with a knapsack and a Guardian reporter with a knapsack when viewed from across the train station? The answer, in case you are having trouble arriving at it, is that you can't. Therefore you have to go on observed behavior, assumptions, perhaps even third-party intelligence sources, or just a hunch.
If your hunch is wrong, you've inconvenienced someone. Big deal, they'll get over it. If you're right, you may have just saved hundreds of lives. The benefits hugely outweigh any of these massively-exaggerated slights you're so busily carping about.
You obviously didn't RTFA. Loser.
Yes, I did. I was hoping you (and other like you) would fall into this trap of thinking I didn't because I said "he wasn't arrested." But what I said was true: he was not arrested...for being suspected terrorist. He was arrested for being a "public nuisance," which means he was probably verbally abusive with the police. That took place after he was singled out for a search, not before, which means the decision to search him was not a contributing factor to the arrest. If he was arrested, it was his own damned fault.
So, to sum it up, you didn't understand TFA to being with, so it would appear you're not only the "loser" here in this argument but you're also stupid as well.
I consider my time my single most valuable posession. Followed by my privacy.
Good. I'm glad you consider time and privacy more valuable than your life. That explains a lot about your opinion on this subject.
It works, but the price is too high.
Really? How? You're going to make the statement, you should be required to back it up.
Here's some sobering facts:
-All of the 9/11 hijackers were male
-All of them were between the age of 20 and 33
-All of them were Muslim
-All of them came from Arabic nations or states
Furthermore:
-Nearly all suicide bombers in Israel have been young Arabic Muslim males
Now, to see the absurdity in ignoring these common traits, imagine the following:
Police Commissioner: "There's been a murder downtown today but the murderer got away. We are currently searching for this murderer and would like the public to report anyone matching the murderer's description."
Reporter: "What can you tell us about the murderer?"
Commissioner: "Nothing at all. We can't reveal the person's ethnicity, height, weight, age, sex, national origin, or any other distinguishing features because that might encourage the public to look suspiciously at anyone meeting any of these criteria. And that would be profiling! And since that is not allowed, we won't be telling our officers how to find this murderer either because we won't want them concentrating on anyone meeting these criteria."
Reporter: "But how will anyone be able to help find this murderer if you don't look for distinguishing characteristics?"
Commissioner: "We can't, but that is unimportant. What's really important is that no one feels offended. Yes, the murderer may get away. The murderer might even kill someone else. If that happens, we will issue a public statement expressing our regrets, but we will highlight that at least nobody was offended. Well, except perhaps the dead person..."
RTFA. You could suppose that the author is lying all the way through, but it appears as if the initial officers came close to letting him go until other officers showed up.
/ story/0,14259,1229376,00.html0 ,14676,1335307,00.html4 4,00.htmle GbeJsHXV.0@.685ea08b
I did RTFA. I'm not saying the author lied all the way through because he obviously was arrested and so forth. However, it's perfectly within his ability to leave out "but I started shouting at the police, waving my hands around, screaming that they were imperialist pigs supressing the downtrodden classes of the world, praise Allah and his wrath be upon you all!" Now, that's a likely exaggeration, but to say that this guy got arrested for no reason at all is silly. The police do not just single innocent people out for this kind of treatment, otherwise it'd be happening all over the place. It is not, ergo there is something about this guy that is out of the ordinary. Since the author is trying so desperately hard to make his case seem ordinary, it is logical to assume that there's more to the story than what's being told by the author. Remember, the first rule of being a criminal (or, in this case, of being thought to be a potential criminal) is to immediately proclaim one's innocence and pure-hearted motives. Seldom is that the case.
What does this have to do with the article in question? What crime was committed? What "corpse" is there?
(sigh) It would appear logical analogies are beyond your ability to grasp. Sorry, I can't make it simple enough for you to understand.
Link as to those "wild-eyed claims"?
Try these:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/comment
Claiming Bush didn't serve his ANG term when his records clearly show otherwise
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguide/tvradio/story/
Wondering why someone doesn't assassinate Bush
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,12216
Blames Bush for people who were murdered by terrorists
http://politicstalk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?50@225.qQ
Title: "Is it time to assassinate Bush"
These are the first of 144 hits I found doing a routine Google search. I'm not going to waste my time posting them all, but suffice to say that The Guardian's left-wing credentials are solidly in place no matter where you look. You would have to be amazingly disingenous to see it any other way, but you've already proven that's not outside the boundaries of what passes for intellectual honesty from you.
(I remember they got so much flak when they were dubious about those WMDs in Iraq... hope you aren't dubious about THAT!)
Not dubious at all. The following WMD's or WMD components have been discovered in Iraq, all of which are in violation of the U.N. Resolutions banning WMD's and WMD development in Iraq:
-500 tons...that's right...TONS...make that 1 million pounds of yellow cake uranium. It was found at Saddam's nuclear weapons facility (Al-Tuwaitha)
-1.8 tons of partially enriched uranium found at the same place. You know, the stuff you need to make nukes.
-Hidden centrifuge parts and blueprints.
-Two dozen artillery shells loaded with Sarin and mustard gas.
Just because the news organizations haven't been trumpeting the finds doesn't mean they don't exist. But then, I guess if you've already made your mind up to disregard plain evidence, my pointing it out isn't going to change your mind. Please, don't let me distract you from ignoring anything that conflicts with your pre-existing opinion of America, it's policies, or its President.
So, they do have his DNA on file and they have created a police record for him. Lovely.
But you insist on ignoring why he was arrested. He was not arrested for being a susecpted terrorist. He was arrested for being a "public nuisance" which would seem to indicate he was belligerent with police. That is not the same as being picked up for looking suspicious, and it's a perfectly valid reason for being arrested. If he didn't want to be arrested, he could've cooperated with the search and kept his mouth shut during the process. Then the search would've been over, he'd have had his things back, his flat wouldn't have been searched, he wouldn't have been arrested, and he wouldn't be writing this bleeding-heart story about how the big, bad, bootnecked police are trampling all over his lily-white innocence.
After it was clear that he was completely innocent, he was arrested
You left out why. One of the charges was "public nuisance." Now, I'll be the first to admit that this could be a trumped-up charge. On the other hand, we must also consider the possiblity that the author was confrontational with the police, something that will quite easily get you arrested. You would immediately assume the author is always innocent and the police are always a bunch of jackbooted brownshirt thugs looking to thump some heads.
As for his flat, if you were to catalogue the contents, things like maps, radio scanners, and so forth can look quite suspicious to someone suspected of not being all that cooperative with police. This in and of itself is not evidence of any guilt, but it is quite logical for the police to make such a connection. If you come into a room with one live person, one dead person, and one smoking gun, it's logical to believe that the live person killed the person lying dead on the floor. That doesn't mean that's what happened (the person could've committed suicide, or someone else could've been in the room but subsequently left, or it could've been an accident, etc.) but you'd be foolish not to immediately arrest the person in the room until an investigation is completed.
The Guardian is a staunchly left-wing liberal newspaper with a history of making wild-eyed claims with little to back them up. I can't help but think there's a lot more to this chap's arrest than he's letting on. More likely he's only telling the version of the story that makes him look like the innocent angel and everyone else the minions of Satan. With respect to terrorism, I'd rather the police err on the side of caution.
If we believe that "all men are created equal," do mean that non-Americans are lesser beings?
Absolutely not. If that were the case, why is the U.S. expending the lives of its soldiers abroad helping people that, by and large, have no effect whatsoever on the U.S. economy or U.S. policy? We do it because we want to spread democracy abroad, but also because we know that the fledgling democracy of today is tomorrow's trading partner and next year's ally. It's a curious thing because the cause is essentially selfish but the effects are essentially altruistic.
As you can see from my sig, I'm a big believer in "the ends justify the means." If I knew that the only way I could save ten million people would be that I had to kill ten thousand people, I would have to kill the ten thousand. I would examine every alternative, try every possible other course of less-destructive action, but as soon as it was clear that there was no other way, I'd do it. It would seem cruel and inhumane, yet it would be amazingly humane to those ten million who were saved, would it not? I'd hate to be a person put in such a situation as that, weighted with such a decision. Such things our President is weighed with every day, no doubt.
So it's okay to detain someone, subject them to arrest, search, DNA profiling, and having a police record, even though they have done nothing.
Must you invent events in order to push your point? The writer was not arrested, DNA profiled, and he didn't incur a police record. He was searched, plain and simple, because either something he did or something he had seemed conspicuous. You're all about blowing this up into some grand violation of human rights when nothing of the sort is going on at all.
Look, if you see someone prowling around after dark like they're scoping out a house to rob, you call the police. The police pick the guy up, search him, check his records for arrests or other violations, find nothing wrong, and let him go. That is not a violation of rights, that is prudence.
When we come up with the perfect terrorist detector that never misses a real terrorist and never picks up an innocent civilian, then you can bitch about people being randomly searched. In the meantime, we have to do the best we can with what we've got, and that means (a) we're occasionally going to search someone who isn't a terrorist and (b) we're likely going to miss a few real terrorists in the meantime. But the alternative you're proposing -- namely that we don't search anyone that isn't a terrorist -- is absurd. You might as well ask that someone give you a spam filter than never misses any spam but never gives any false positives. So what are you proposing instead? That we give up searching altogether? If so, I hope the first person killed with a bomb is you, because Darwinism has a way of weeding out the stupid in this world and you seem to be prime candidate.