Old nuclear fuel assemblies -- highly radioactive, elongated packages of metal rods that once energized some of France's 58 nuclear power plants -- are gripped by large mechanical arms. They are hoisted by cranes and placed on belts that move them along in the dim orange light. The machinery works to prepare the assemblies to be lowered into four giant pools.
There they will sit, with about 13 feet of demineralized water above them, a bath to shield and cool them, for about three years. Then more machines will lift them out, chop them up and put the pieces to be dissolved in vats of nitric acid. The fissioning of the fuel in the power plant, or the splitting of uranium atoms to release energy, has created a large family of elements, called fission products. The goal of this process is to find and recycle the ones that still contain more energy -- the plutonium and the uranium.
Spent fuel rods also contain elements that have relatively little energy, but plenty of long-lasting radiation. These include americium, curium, cesium and iodine. They are sent off to be immobilized -- hopefully for thousands of years -- by imbedding them in glass logs. Employees here monitor and operate their robotic helpers from a bank of computers housed in lime-green metal coverings.
Well, they are (construction I think is about 70% of the cost, but I forget at the moment... I work on a different energy source), but feel free to make shit up, again.
I find your lack of self-awareness of shit-making disturbing, given your assertions:citations ratio.
Here, go read something about the actual costs.
You mean nuclear industry PR? Do you also cite Halliburton on the safety of fracking?
Well it's quite a bit warmer than Russia, where a good friend works has worked as a nuclear engineer for a decade....
You could try not making shit up for a few minutes and ask your Russian friend about the value of insulation before you dismiss it out of hand.
You are a very large part of the problem. Your arguments are bunk and fail to stand up to the realities of the world, and yet on the surface sound plausible enough to convince at least three moderators to mod you up on Slashdot (which I like to think has a smarter than average population). You and your ilk will have us so paralyzed following dead end projects that we'll all end up cooked thoroughly from global warming before any one of you will even be willing to concede that you're not half as smart as you think you are.
Did you get a good look at the shark as you jumped over it?
Even if your electric bill covers all the costs of construction, refinement, and ongoing safety and maintenance issues, which is doubtful, it does not cover the storage of waste for thousands of years.
And what's the weather like in your part of France? Do you have a couple months of subzero temperatures every winter, like the northern parts of the United States, and I don't just mean Alaska?
Really? Perhaps you can explain why then where "conservation" is heavily pushed, and renewable are also being heavily pushed the price of electricity has skyrocketed. There's nothing "cheap" about that.
Because responding to massive fires across entire regions is cheap, responding to cat 4 and 5 hurricanes is cheap, dealing with drought and dehydration from two months of over 100 degree days is cheap. Because spending over a trillion a year to subsidize the oil industry with "defense spending" in the ME and around the world is cheap.
Why don't you try looking past your nose to see how your low prices have high costs.
He was in too big a hurry to jump to one of two fallacies relied on by nuclear power fanboys: that opposing nuclear power means loving coal. The second fallacy is that if you don't love coal, you must love huge hydro dams subject to failure and massive flooding.
How is it pure bullshit that nuclear energy is proven, has the lowest polution, and best carbon footprint of anything we have, and could be cheaper? Nothing you said is a refutation of that. In fact, the only thing you have said about nuclear energy directly is that the energy company should be regulated due to risk of blowing things up. Well, fucking duh. But that's not a refutation.
It's absolutely a fucking refutation as long as there is profit in nuclear power. When all nuclear power plants are run by the U.S. Navy, then you can talk about how safe it is. Otherwise everything is an expense that can be cut, like cutting back on evacuation drills or removed earthquake sensors, in order to increase profit.
Research that never makes it out of the lab isn't innovation. The only innovative things Microsoft has produced any time recently were the Kinect and Windows 8, but the latter is a shit sandwich that makes ME look good in comparison.
The tired trope that the only thing the company has going for it is marketing is trolling. Which is also a waste of time when there's a legitimate elephant here in the room: Apple's participation in a patent troll consortium.
I must tell you that you are simply wrong. Labor is not capital.
That'll be every news to every business on the planet that treats laborl as a resource just like capital.
as a PhD Economist
A PhD that needs to be revoked if you're going to Fool's Mate yourself not once, but twice over basic economics. First for arguing that workers are free to seek another job if they don't like their boss's political activities, when the same has to apply to union shops as well.
And secondly, because you can neatly swap "shareholders" and "dividends" for all your concern trolling over "unions" and "dues". If union members shouldn't have to support political actions because blah blah rights blah blah, then neither should shareholders.
Your ignorance of infants being shot in the head, among many other crimes, is not our problem.
The NSA had permission to do what they where doing.
You mean when Congress specifically defunded Total Information Awareness only for the executive branch to do it anyway under a different name?
It's congress you need to direct your Ire at, not a legally operating agency.
Garbage. That there is plenty of blame to go around does nothing to change the fact that those who actually commit an act are actually most responsible for it. And how, exactly, is Congress supposed to stop what they don't know about? More than one senator or member of Congress has said they learn about the activities of the NSA from newspapers before being briefed by the administration.
So you argument breaks down to an Ad Hom? you lose.
You wish. Dismissing whistleblowers for arbitrary reasons - in this case the 'leaking indiscriminately' lie, since the information was given to responsible media organizations - is attacking the messenger without addressing the message. And we have a term for that: ad hominem.
The NSA was acting legally.
Bad-faced lie. See above about the defunding of TIA. You might also want to read up on the 4th Amendment.
Snowden and Manning both suffer from over inflated belief that they are important.
Without Snowden or Manning we wouldn't know about any of this. "We" includes members of Congress, since they are left out of the loop.
"And how about that child sex trafficking by American contractors in Afghanistan? " and how does the pertain to this argument?
Could we get some more intelligent trolls here please? By focusing all your attention on the procedural rules violated by whisteblowers - designed to stifle whisleblowing - and not on the crimes revealed you out yourself as a mindless authoritarian hack. Because anyone who's not a sociopath would demanding that contractors that traded children to war lords to be used as sex slaves would demanding that they be prosecuted before, and for far longer terms, than any whisteblowers.
But you guys don't do that. Which is why you out yourselves as mindless authoritarian hacks.
Then this should be easy, Slick: who'd he spy for? Apparently every friendly and enemy nation in the world.
Apparently you answered the question: he's even remotely close to being a spy.
That's an impressive word salad to dodge the fundamental point: that on matters of 'national security', the U.S. media functions just like a state-run media. Claims are treated as fact. Officials are given the utmost deference. Embarrassing stories are quashed.
Pick the issue, any issue. Drone strikes, torture, black sites, evidence of Syria's chemical weapon's use that's more laugh-out-loud than Nigerian yellowcake and aluminum tubes...
Like I said, all the counter-arguments are self-defeating.
Oh... you mean the land they conquered just like every goddamn nation out there before the 20th century?
This is canard is full of holes, starting with the issue of what century was 1948 in, again? The world wasn't operating by the same rules as in 1448, and countries were no longer allowed to keep land won in aggressive wars of conquest. Other problems with your canard:
If "might makes right" is your argument, then it's no big deal for you if the A-Rabs were actually able to invade and force out the Joos, right?
If "this was done before so it's okay" is your argument, ethnic cleansing goes back a long way in human history as well. Would be as blase if you found out that some other people have been the victims of ethnic cleansing - lets say the Jews?
If your argument is "this happened too long ago, deal with it and move on" did you have the same opinion as Israel was pursuing former prison camp guards and suing Swiss banks for assets stolen in the 1930's, much less the 1940's?
The creation of modern Israel is utterly without precedent in human history. Unless you can find another example of two superpowers giving aid and support to ideologues and refugees as they conquer themselves a nation.
Self. Defeating. Finally, your argument is invalid because wrong is wrong. Conquering land from a native population is wrong when Zionists were doing it in the 40's, it was wrong when they did it for the first time thousands of years ago according to the Bible, it was wrong when English colonists were doing it to the Iroquois, it was wrong when the Spanish conquistadors were doing it to the people of Peru, it was wrong when the Romans were doing it to the people of the Mediterranean and Europe.
But there are no living Inca or Seminoles being denied the Right of Return. That is the case for Palestinians, some of whom still have keys to the houses they were forced out of in 1948, much less 1967. If we were a mere 46 years after the conclusion of Manifest Destiny, hell yes lands should be returned to the Navajo, the Apache, the Chinooks. Wrong. Is. Wrong. But not all wrongs are recent and ongoing events.
Assassination is strickly anti-zionist. Any group that claims to be zionist and assasinates is by their very nature invalidated.
That's funny, since the realization of Zionism, like it's twin Manifest Destiny, is that it was impossible to realize without violence. The assassins of Folke Bernadotte, a hero who saved thousands of Jews from Germany, included one Yitzhak Shamir, who only became prime minister of Israel. Further showing just how much Israelis really feel about terrorism, Bibi openly celebrates the Hotel David bombing while providing excuses that would be laughed out of the room the Muslim group of your choice were offering the same.
But then you go into some rhetoric about "stolen land" from some "native population". There, right there, I have to ask, are you high? Stolen from *whom*? What exactly do you know of palestine before brittish rule?
Your inability to read citations is your problem, not mine. Jews were less than 10% of the population in 1900, and only waves of European immigrants allowed them to swell to a whopping 40% of the population, who then up and declared ownership of 60% of the land. Same process that European colonists used to dispossess Native Americans of their land.
On behalf of all of zion I am truly sorry that your rosy version of history is complete and utter bullshit.
Reality has a well-known anti-Zionist bias. Again: like Manifest Destiny before it, Zionism was impossible to achieve without war, murder and ethnic cleansing.
Actually, speed limits are set based on safe driving conditions. That takes into account weather conditions, road construction/condition- curves, hills, etc., driver abilities, car condition, etc.
What part of the country is that in, so I can move there? Everywhere I've been, it's set by arbitrary zoning. Becomes noticeable when, on a single trip, you can drive through a major metro area that has higher speed limits in their construction zones than through towns with pop ~100k.
Mike McGinn has done NOTHING as you have described. He has not closed ANY business using his power. He has not closed ANY roadway using his power. He has provided a space for bicycles and cars AND people to coexist safely. This is Slashdot. A place where smarties reside.
Yes, this is Slashdot....where Randian trolls run amuck, pretending their fictions are reality.
If Israel just wants land, they have a funny way of showing it.
Like they're going to do it all at once. Then the veil would finally be lifted, and not even Daddy Amurika could keep covering for Israel's ass at the U.N. That of course hasn't stopped prominent Israelis from openly talking about wanting to engage in ethnic cleansing and murder to achieve a truly jewish Israel. And while you guys like to complain about the Hamas charter, the Likud charter lays claim to all of the West Bank.
How about places in the West Bank sacred to Jews - Hebron, Nablus, Jericho?
That's what the slow grind of Apartheid is for. The Jewish-only roads, the separation barriers, the abuse of water rights. Tearing down Palestinian villages that have existed for hundreds of years because of 'building code violations' or to make room for 'public parks'. And last but not least, Settlers Gone Wild, who shoot Palestinian farmers in the head or divert sewage from their illegal settlements into Palestinian farms. They do it slowly enough and the United States will still automatically protect their ass with it's Security Council veto pen.
They do it too much and and the POTUS makes a big show of giving Bibi a talking to, at which point Israel announces they'll stop building settlements - for a month or two - and could we please please get back to talking about those Qassam rockets.
the hypothetical village can't afford an $800 200W panel, 500 W-Hour battery, 3 AC outlet system (that's a real system) per house or hut (with a battery that will die in a few years anyway).
Because first world nations started with universal telephone and electrical service? No, they started with important buildings and people who could afford it.
Same as your third world village with solar panels. You don't start rigging every house, you start with your schools and clinics and city halls, and their 1%ers who can afford it. Early adopters start the roll-out and pave the way for latecomers, same as every other technology, ever.
The amount of electricity provided by the small scale rollout you can afford is infinitely greater than the regional power grid you cannot afford.
I'm going with the GP on this one only because this doesn't matter.
I'm going with the other AC that this is fuckwittery. Even if you're a total sociopath and think that the ongoing deaths don't matter, Al Qaeda is being armed with your tax dollars. Any bombs that the United States would drop if Decider II decides he's not happy with Assad would also be paid for with your tax dollars.
Did you not learn anything from what happened in Iraq from 2003 until the invaders stuck their fingers in their ears, sang kumbaya and made a slow motion capitulation about a decade later?
Nope. This country didn't learn a damned thing after the Iraq war. Then as now, we have no problems fostering sectarian civil wars, only now it's in Syria. Then as now, mass market media repeats claims from "unnamed senior officials" as fact. Then as now, obviously weak justifications are used to drum up support for an attack.
Actually, scratch that last one. Because the "real" evidence that Syria used chemical weapons remains classified, and the what they have told us is laugh-out-loud worse than Nigerian yellowcake and aluminum tubes. The icing on the cake is having spent the last 1.5 decades telling us that Al Qaeda is such a threat that we have to spy on every person on the planet, but it's just a crazy conspiracy theory that Al Qaeda would obtain or use sarin gas, when a small cult in Japan was able to do so 17 years ago.
if the Arabs disarm, peace would still exist, and they would still exist.
Israel doesn't want peace. It wants land, specifically the primary territory from some kingdom they had 3,000 years ago. That's why Zionist terrorists engaged in bombings and assassinations and the odd massacre before 1950. After 1950, they engaged in false flag operations and finally enacted their own Manifest Destiny when they started the 1967 War with a sneak attack on Egypt. If Israel gave a shit about peace, it would go back to the Green Line, not announce 1500 new settlements a quarter on the land they are illegally occupying. Peace would have gotten in the way of all of that.
Now, this is the point where some Zionist will come in and cry wolf again, or try to drag this down into whattaboutery, so here's a preemptive piss off. The roots of this conflict are based on 1) tiny minority of the population bringing in settlers on land stolen from the native population and 2) Israel's land grabbing in the 1967 War, which they started by attacking Egypt's Air Force. And there's no counter-argument that isn't self-defeating. Case in point: if Israel was justified in starting the 1967 war because of a blockade of a shipping route, then every Qassam rocket in response to the total blockade of Gaza is justified.
Here we go again. Just couldn't resist the itch to point the finger at them "eeval joos".
Wow, playing the antisemite card to deflect any attention from Israel's actions. Has this been done before? Now, if you can move past your wolf-crying shitweaselry, why should Israel get away with it's confirmed use of chemical weapons - the dumping of phosphorous on Gaza in Cast Lead - after threatening to bomb Syria for it's alleged chemical weapons use?
Just how long do right wing Israelis get to get away with what they accuse others of doing, anyway?
You seem to be a good little bourgeoisie who thinks those two little words form some kind of trump card. Funny how businesses are free to pool their capital (money) however they want, but workers should be barred from doing the same with their capital (labor). Almost like it's some kind of hack double standard, or something.
If a worker does not like donations made by his union, he is free to seek employment elsewhere.
And now you've destroyed your own argument, how considerate of you.
You apologists for corrupt police state criminality are so cute when you get called out for your defense of the indefensible. Unfortunately for you, facts matter, and the fact is that neither Snowden nor Manning leaked documents "indiscriminately". That's you trying to find some excuse to dismiss the messenger without addressing the message - classic ad hominem cop out.
communications between low level diplomats including some personal shots
Hey, how about those double taps striking first responders, which we call terrorism when someone else does it? And how about that child sex trafficking by American contractors in Afghanistan? You out yourself as a hack with your priorities.
Slashdot Mirror
Reduces but does not eliminate the problem:
I find your lack of self-awareness of shit-making disturbing, given your assertions:citations ratio.
You mean nuclear industry PR? Do you also cite Halliburton on the safety of fracking?
You could try not making shit up for a few minutes and ask your Russian friend about the value of insulation before you dismiss it out of hand.
Did you get a good look at the shark as you jumped over it?
Even if your electric bill covers all the costs of construction, refinement, and ongoing safety and maintenance issues, which is doubtful, it does not cover the storage of waste for thousands of years.
And what's the weather like in your part of France? Do you have a couple months of subzero temperatures every winter, like the northern parts of the United States, and I don't just mean Alaska?
Because responding to massive fires across entire regions is cheap, responding to cat 4 and 5 hurricanes is cheap, dealing with drought and dehydration from two months of over 100 degree days is cheap. Because spending over a trillion a year to subsidize the oil industry with "defense spending" in the ME and around the world is cheap.
Why don't you try looking past your nose to see how your low prices have high costs.
He was in too big a hurry to jump to one of two fallacies relied on by nuclear power fanboys: that opposing nuclear power means loving coal. The second fallacy is that if you don't love coal, you must love huge hydro dams subject to failure and massive flooding.
It's absolutely a fucking refutation as long as there is profit in nuclear power. When all nuclear power plants are run by the U.S. Navy, then you can talk about how safe it is. Otherwise everything is an expense that can be cut, like cutting back on evacuation drills or removed earthquake sensors, in order to increase profit.
Research that never makes it out of the lab isn't innovation. The only innovative things Microsoft has produced any time recently were the Kinect and Windows 8, but the latter is a shit sandwich that makes ME look good in comparison.
The tired trope that the only thing the company has going for it is marketing is trolling. Which is also a waste of time when there's a legitimate elephant here in the room: Apple's participation in a patent troll consortium.
That'll be every news to every business on the planet that treats laborl as a resource just like capital.
A PhD that needs to be revoked if you're going to Fool's Mate yourself not once, but twice over basic economics. First for arguing that workers are free to seek another job if they don't like their boss's political activities, when the same has to apply to union shops as well.
And secondly, because you can neatly swap "shareholders" and "dividends" for all your concern trolling over "unions" and "dues". If union members shouldn't have to support political actions because blah blah rights blah blah, then neither should shareholders.
Hoist on your own petard.
Your ignorance of infants being shot in the head, among many other crimes, is not our problem.
You mean when Congress specifically defunded Total Information Awareness only for the executive branch to do it anyway under a different name?
Garbage. That there is plenty of blame to go around does nothing to change the fact that those who actually commit an act are actually most responsible for it. And how, exactly, is Congress supposed to stop what they don't know about? More than one senator or member of Congress has said they learn about the activities of the NSA from newspapers before being briefed by the administration.
You wish. Dismissing whistleblowers for arbitrary reasons - in this case the 'leaking indiscriminately' lie, since the information was given to responsible media organizations - is attacking the messenger without addressing the message. And we have a term for that: ad hominem.
Bad-faced lie. See above about the defunding of TIA. You might also want to read up on the 4th Amendment.
Without Snowden or Manning we wouldn't know about any of this. "We" includes members of Congress, since they are left out of the loop.
Could we get some more intelligent trolls here please? By focusing all your attention on the procedural rules violated by whisteblowers - designed to stifle whisleblowing - and not on the crimes revealed you out yourself as a mindless authoritarian hack. Because anyone who's not a sociopath would demanding that contractors that traded children to war lords to be used as sex slaves would demanding that they be prosecuted before, and for far longer terms, than any whisteblowers.
But you guys don't do that. Which is why you out yourselves as mindless authoritarian hacks.
Apparently you answered the question: he's even remotely close to being a spy.
That's an impressive word salad to dodge the fundamental point: that on matters of 'national security', the U.S. media functions just like a state-run media. Claims are treated as fact. Officials are given the utmost deference. Embarrassing stories are quashed.
Pick the issue, any issue. Drone strikes, torture, black sites, evidence of Syria's chemical weapon's use that's more laugh-out-loud than Nigerian yellowcake and aluminum tubes...
Like I said, all the counter-arguments are self-defeating.
This is canard is full of holes, starting with the issue of what century was 1948 in, again? The world wasn't operating by the same rules as in 1448, and countries were no longer allowed to keep land won in aggressive wars of conquest. Other problems with your canard:
Self. Defeating. Finally, your argument is invalid because wrong is wrong. Conquering land from a native population is wrong when Zionists were doing it in the 40's, it was wrong when they did it for the first time thousands of years ago according to the Bible, it was wrong when English colonists were doing it to the Iroquois, it was wrong when the Spanish conquistadors were doing it to the people of Peru, it was wrong when the Romans were doing it to the people of the Mediterranean and Europe.
But there are no living Inca or Seminoles being denied the Right of Return. That is the case for Palestinians, some of whom still have keys to the houses they were forced out of in 1948, much less 1967. If we were a mere 46 years after the conclusion of Manifest Destiny, hell yes lands should be returned to the Navajo, the Apache, the Chinooks. Wrong. Is. Wrong. But not all wrongs are recent and ongoing events.
That's funny, since the realization of Zionism, like it's twin Manifest Destiny, is that it was impossible to realize without violence. The assassins of Folke Bernadotte, a hero who saved thousands of Jews from Germany, included one Yitzhak Shamir, who only became prime minister of Israel. Further showing just how much Israelis really feel about terrorism, Bibi openly celebrates the Hotel David bombing while providing excuses that would be laughed out of the room the Muslim group of your choice were offering the same.
Your inability to read citations is your problem, not mine. Jews were less than 10% of the population in 1900, and only waves of European immigrants allowed them to swell to a whopping 40% of the population, who then up and declared ownership of 60% of the land. Same process that European colonists used to dispossess Native Americans of their land.
Reality has a well-known anti-Zionist bias. Again: like Manifest Destiny before it, Zionism was impossible to achieve without war, murder and ethnic cleansing.
What part of the country is that in, so I can move there? Everywhere I've been, it's set by arbitrary zoning. Becomes noticeable when, on a single trip, you can drive through a major metro area that has higher speed limits in their construction zones than through towns with pop ~100k.
And countries like Norway, which have a lower population density than we do, debunk even that argument by having decent internet in their rural areas.
Yes, this is Slashdot....where Randian trolls run amuck, pretending their fictions are reality.
Well, it did make for a good use of the chin-scratching T-Rex meme, which of course my Google-fu isn't finding an actual link for at the moment:
'If Obama is arming Al Qaeda rebels in Syria
could be be detained under section 1021 of the NDAA?'
Maybe they'd thought no one would notice after jumping the shark with MEK.
Like they're going to do it all at once. Then the veil would finally be lifted, and not even Daddy Amurika could keep covering for Israel's ass at the U.N. That of course hasn't stopped prominent Israelis from openly talking about wanting to engage in ethnic cleansing and murder to achieve a truly jewish Israel. And while you guys like to complain about the Hamas charter, the Likud charter lays claim to all of the West Bank.
That's what the slow grind of Apartheid is for. The Jewish-only roads, the separation barriers, the abuse of water rights. Tearing down Palestinian villages that have existed for hundreds of years because of 'building code violations' or to make room for 'public parks'. And last but not least, Settlers Gone Wild, who shoot Palestinian farmers in the head or divert sewage from their illegal settlements into Palestinian farms. They do it slowly enough and the United States will still automatically protect their ass with it's Security Council veto pen.
They do it too much and and the POTUS makes a big show of giving Bibi a talking to, at which point Israel announces they'll stop building settlements - for a month or two - and could we please please get back to talking about those Qassam rockets.
Because first world nations started with universal telephone and electrical service? No, they started with important buildings and people who could afford it.
Same as your third world village with solar panels. You don't start rigging every house, you start with your schools and clinics and city halls, and their 1%ers who can afford it. Early adopters start the roll-out and pave the way for latecomers, same as every other technology, ever.
The amount of electricity provided by the small scale rollout you can afford is infinitely greater than the regional power grid you cannot afford.
I'm going with the other AC that this is fuckwittery. Even if you're a total sociopath and think that the ongoing deaths don't matter, Al Qaeda is being armed with your tax dollars. Any bombs that the United States would drop if Decider II decides he's not happy with Assad would also be paid for with your tax dollars.
Nope. This country didn't learn a damned thing after the Iraq war. Then as now, we have no problems fostering sectarian civil wars, only now it's in Syria. Then as now, mass market media repeats claims from "unnamed senior officials" as fact. Then as now, obviously weak justifications are used to drum up support for an attack.
Actually, scratch that last one. Because the "real" evidence that Syria used chemical weapons remains classified, and the what they have told us is laugh-out-loud worse than Nigerian yellowcake and aluminum tubes. The icing on the cake is having spent the last 1.5 decades telling us that Al Qaeda is such a threat that we have to spy on every person on the planet, but it's just a crazy conspiracy theory that Al Qaeda would obtain or use sarin gas, when a small cult in Japan was able to do so 17 years ago.
Israel doesn't want peace. It wants land, specifically the primary territory from some kingdom they had 3,000 years ago. That's why Zionist terrorists engaged in bombings and assassinations and the odd massacre before 1950. After 1950, they engaged in false flag operations and finally enacted their own Manifest Destiny when they started the 1967 War with a sneak attack on Egypt. If Israel gave a shit about peace, it would go back to the Green Line, not announce 1500 new settlements a quarter on the land they are illegally occupying. Peace would have gotten in the way of all of that.
Now, this is the point where some Zionist will come in and cry wolf again, or try to drag this down into whattaboutery, so here's a preemptive piss off. The roots of this conflict are based on 1) tiny minority of the population bringing in settlers on land stolen from the native population and 2) Israel's land grabbing in the 1967 War, which they started by attacking Egypt's Air Force. And there's no counter-argument that isn't self-defeating. Case in point: if Israel was justified in starting the 1967 war because of a blockade of a shipping route, then every Qassam rocket in response to the total blockade of Gaza is justified.
Wow, playing the antisemite card to deflect any attention from Israel's actions. Has this been done before? Now, if you can move past your wolf-crying shitweaselry, why should Israel get away with it's confirmed use of chemical weapons - the dumping of phosphorous on Gaza in Cast Lead - after threatening to bomb Syria for it's alleged chemical weapons use?
Just how long do right wing Israelis get to get away with what they accuse others of doing, anyway?
You seem to be a good little bourgeoisie who thinks those two little words form some kind of trump card. Funny how businesses are free to pool their capital (money) however they want, but workers should be barred from doing the same with their capital (labor). Almost like it's some kind of hack double standard, or something.
And now you've destroyed your own argument, how considerate of you.
You apologists for corrupt police state criminality are so cute when you get called out for your defense of the indefensible. Unfortunately for you, facts matter, and the fact is that neither Snowden nor Manning leaked documents "indiscriminately". That's you trying to find some excuse to dismiss the messenger without addressing the message - classic ad hominem cop out.
Hey, how about those double taps striking first responders, which we call terrorism when someone else does it? And how about that child sex trafficking by American contractors in Afghanistan? You out yourself as a hack with your priorities.