Face it. Every attempt to eradicate or exile a given group
within a population of humans has failed since the dawn of
history*.
Face it. Charlemagne eradicated the Avars with some help from
the Bulgarians....the Avar people the language the civilization....all gone.
Chandragupta II also did his share of ethnic cleansing. Also
known as "Vikramaditya, he "unburdened the sacred earth
of the Barbarians
like the Shakas, Mlecchas, Kambojas, Yavanas, Tusharas, Parasikas, Hunas,
etc. by annihilating these sinners completely."
I wouldn't advocate such public policy here, but never
underestimate what your fellow humans are capable of doing to
your other fellow humans.
If you stop the behavior mildly, then the child will be forced to reevaluate his own internal mindset, and behaviorally change will result. Some of you are already saying "That will not work on a 5 year old," but it does. Children learn these things incredibly early on.
I must have missed the part specifically about how you "stop the behavior mildly"....and I'll try not to complain about the solution when I see it.
Anyway, guys, please stop this whole beating the child thing. It's not cute, it's not macho, and it's not good parental advice. There are so many ills within our society already that we don't need people going around and blatently advocating the advancement of another one.
You do have kids, right?
Allow me to re-phrase. Are you raising one or more 5-year old children at present?
1. The RIAA and MPAA are NOT ARTISTIC ASSOCIATIONS!
This merits repeating. The RIAA and MPAA are NOT ARTISTIC ASSOCIATIONS!
Come to think of it, neither is Sony.
Admittedly, they are "industry" organizations, but this also implies that they represent industry interests, which are not always the same as artists' interests. In both cases, you've got lawyers and legal staffers, who serve the interests of distribution companies, financiers, studios, you get the idea.
2. The RIAA and MPAA exist in large measure to perpetuate and protect obsolete business models. It's partially driven (obscured?) by goals of being able to exact revenue from each viewing, each session, each "show". In their minds, this was the way it's supposed to work. I'd like to think they're bright enough to realize they can't keep doing business in quite the same way, but they can't even see which way they are going. It isn't only the technology they don't understand, but those "suits" don't understand the nature of offering the sort of entertainment that makes audiences want to see more, but not necessarily more of the same.
Maybe they're beginning to see that they can't keep fooling all of the people all of the time. Maybe they realize that they can't stay in business by suing their customers and hitting them up every time they try to fairly use something they already have a receipt for. Maybe they're beginning to get the hint that taking a buck for every nickel the artist gets is kindasorta wrong. Maybe their consciences are actually beginning to bother them.
Maybe that was too many "maybe's" for one post.
3....lest we forget, the entertainment industry moved to California first to dodge their creditors in the east, secondly to avoid paying tax debts, but also to avoid paying royalties to Thomas Edison. Edison and company invented the production and post-production equipment on which the American film and sound recording industries modified to their own specifications.
Of course the less polite version alleges that they ripped off Edison outright....can't be as morally reprehensible as copyright infringement, right?
"You seem to think I'm justifying terrorism which I'm not..."
I am the world's foremost expert on what I think. That's not what I thought.
It seems to me that you're trying to describe a possible rationale, world-view or perhaps
mind-set of terrorism in an effort to understand terrorists. I've done something like that in my
own research and discussions on the subject, but I think I came to rather different ideas about
realistic and appropriate solutions compared to yours.
Human beings make decisions and live with the consequences. Personally, I believe that human
beings can decide to behave in a civilized/civilised manner even when they disagree with each
other and when they do, civilized people ought to remain within the bounds of law.
...and when civilized behavior (or the agreed-upon idea of it, I suppose) becomes too much to
ask of anyone who acts upon their less civilized impulses, I believe the punishments should fit
the crimes.
"...but terrorism takes many forms and saying "it's regrettable" when civilians die is no
excuse whatsoever to those who have lost their families."
Let's define our terms a little better. Do you count terrorists as civilians or something
other than civilians? In places like Iraq, Afghanistan and Gaza, they tend to be good at blending
in with people who don't blow things up when they don't get their way. I myself refuse to
acknowledge any terrorist as a soldier or a warrior of any kind because it insults other
soldiers.
...and again, can you think of ways to implement military or legal policies (when necessary of
course), that do no harm to life, limb or property of the truly innocent?
"There was very little justification for the Iraq war, and although I'm glad Saddam is
gone, I still remember who were his greatest supporters - my government and yours, none of whom
will stand trial alongside him. "
Again, democracies aligning themselves with dictatorships is nothing new to history. As a
rule, neither governments nor corporations cannot choose their allies as easily as individuals
can. Is Saddam any worse than, say perhaps, Stalin was before Hitler turned on him in 1941?
Prior to the war, Stalin's government directly caused the wrongful death of millions in the
counter-revolution, forced migrations and purges. He also invaded eastern Poland and the Baltic states. Yet the Allies sent him advisers, weapons and
munitions anyway.
Of course, hindsight is always 20/20, and if Hitler were able to stay in power past 1946, he
might have been able to develop and deploy nuclear weapons. What if you only have a few choices
and every last one of them conflicts with your fundamental beliefs?
The trouble with the victimisers is that they tend to be pretty much untouchable.
...and again, that does not justify killing innocent people any more than when governments do
the same thing. Admittedly one man's terrorist is another's "freedom fighter", but I can't think
of one terrorist who cares all that much about freedom.
Don't you think there might be better ways of fostering meaningful change without
injuring or killing working class people who might be more receptive to the plight of victimized
people anyway?
You think a terrorist could get anywhere near the US President or the UK Prime Minister?
Four US presidents were successfully assassinated....you knew that, right?
Perhaps if there was a truly independent World Court that the victims could bring suit in
then it would be different, but there isn't so what alternative do the weak have. Take it and shut
up?
No.
It's rather easy for us, living in countries where people enjoy government-recognized rights
and freedoms to discuss possible solutions to oppression. I don't have the answers, but I am
willing to look for them.
I think we probably do agree on a lot of these issues, but there are a few differences and they're important to me, otherwise I wouldn't bother posting them.
"Of course I want bin Laden brought to justice. Of course I'm happy to see Saddam in prison. However I don't see why those who were happy to support them and how are happy to commit their own atrocities by proxy shouldn't also be standing trial."
My own country does have a long sad history of doing business with despots and dictators going back to Louis XVI and Napoleon. Your country as well as mine sent weapons and other equipment to Stalin, who over time ended up killing more people than the Nazis did. During that war, the UK sent troops to support a Greek government that was nothing more than a military dictatorship.
Come to think of it, neither DeGaulle, Chiang kai-shek, nor Mao tse-tung were democratically elected either (though DeGaulle was later). We don't always choose our allies wisely during wartime, but if we applied your suggestion, we might end up trying a LOT of people who were faced with tough decisions during tough times.
We can't always pick and choose who we buy petrol from either.
"Terrorism is wrong but terrorism isn't just madmen blowing themselves up in crowded tube stations, it's also 'security' forces killing civilians throwing stones..."
...gotta disagree with you there.
1. There are legal and moral differences between those "madmen blowing themselves up in crowded tube stations" and not-so-madmen who civilized society depends upon to uphold law and order. You yourself told me what sort of measures you thought should be resorted to only when all others fail. "Security forces" as you call them don't usually resort to violence first, not that I've ever heard of anyway. Do they take things too far on occasion?...definitely. Are they the same legally and morally? ...absolutely not! Terrorists don't try to negotiate before they blow people up or take them hostage.
2. A man who throws stones at other people or damages property is committing an act of violence. I'd like to think there are other solutions than merely killing violent people in the act of committing violence, but the "story" is never that simple.
Also, I myself have never been in the position of trying to persuade large numbers of violent people to find ways to protest that does not endanger people or property.
Have you?
"... and superpowers dropping cluster bombs on farmers."
See above remark. Also, bomber pilots don't deliberately target farmers. Can you think of realistic ways of implementing military policies that spare the lives and property of the truly innocent?
" The strong preying on the weak may well be a fact of life, but you shouldn't be surprised if the weak then turn round and give you a black eye."
...and even "the weak" must focus their disagreement on their victimizers, not innocent people or private property. Civilized people by definition, are obliged to comply with certain standards of behavior.
We might be drifting off-topic a bit, but we should learn from history to avoid repeating mistakes. It
seems to matter to you as much as it does to me anyway.
And you seem to think that I don't think that a military solution can ever work.
I won't presume to tell you what you think since you should be the world's foremost expert on that
topic.
However as in the WWII conflict it should be a last not a first resort.
The Allies could have let Hitler (and Stalin) have Poland in much the same way they let him have the
Sudetenland. I think declaring war on the Germans was the right thing to do. Was it the last resort solution?
No.
The problems in Ireland sprang from the British screwing them for several hundred years.
The strong victimize the not-so-strong. It's not right, but it's also not news.
But do you think Irish terrorists were thinking rationally or morally when they were bombing department stores where working class people go to shop?
Likewise the problems in the Middle East spring from the West with the US in particular screwing
them.
You might have forgotten about that pro-Israel policy. Americans also have dealings with despots and
dictators who give us good deals on relatively inexpensive petrol. We tend to buy much more so we get a
better deal than European buyers. American military involvement in the Middle East is still a very recent development.
...none of which is a moral nor logical justification for terrorist acts. If that's the way they see
it, then they don't reason well to begin with. If they commit terrorist acts based on such faulty judgment,
then public safety, moral imperative, and justice requires that they be stopped, apprehended and/or
penalized.
I despise the scum that killed US, UK and Spanish civilians, but I also see that it was a reaction
against the deaths of Arab civilians over the past fifty years or more.
See above remark. The British have a much longer history of involvement in the Middle East as do the
Spanish. The French and Italians have been there for a while too, haven't they? All of the above have a history of
doing business with the same despots and dictators. More recently, they (save for the French and Italians) were attacked specifically because they supported the Americans in the recent unpleasantness.
How complicated is the concept that you don't stop Arabs killing Americans by killing more
Arabs?
Of course, the correct solution is more complicated as is the problem to begin with.
Let me guess. You thought I was in favor of going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Just for a moment, imagine that you aren't reading a message written by a war-mongering fundamentalist
whacko who wants to unilaterally kill 'em all and let God sort them out while we drain them of petrol.
There are other ways of dealing with international terrorists and other criminals than trying to reason
with people who don't reason well to begin with. "Declaring war" on them isn't the answer either because
the guilty parties are not nation states, they're criminals no matter how well-funded they are. In fact, it
rather dignifies them with higher status. We Americans use euphemisms such as "war on poverty", "war on
crime", and "war on terrorism" to make solutions to complicated issues more understandable to folks who
don't have enough information to have informed opinions.
Unfortunately, you seem to have fallen for it. Law enforcement officers do NOT negotiate with criminals. They apprehend them, then the courts deal with them.
Soldiers implement the military policies of nations. If we mean for them to apprehend the
guilty, they should be trained and supported when doing so. I understand the differences between what
soldiers do and what law enforcement does. The goals should be to stop, apprehend, and punish the guilty, doing what is necessary to those ends. I understand what should be done and what should have been done
up to this point. I voted for and supported knowledgeable people who also know better, thusly my conscience
is quite clear.
Your own government decided to fight Irish terrorist criminals as if fighting a war and then negotiated with criminals who will over time, return to crime if the Irish prosperity doesn't hold out.
"You know how the UK stopped Irishmen blowing up our cities. We spent nearly 30 years of getting ever more draconian and then after actually negotiating with the terrorists we've had virtually no trouble with them at all in the last 10."
My own conscience would bother me a lot if I condoned negotiating with folks who blew up cities and the people in them. Then again, I actually have a conscience to bother me about that sort of thing.
"It may turn some people's stomachs to see Gerry Adams being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize... "
...my own stomach included.
"...but up until our ass-kisser leader dragged us into a pointless war, UK citizens didn't have to worry about being blown up anymore."
Yes, but you're kindasorta making it look as if he kissed the wrong ass as if "ass-kissing" ought to have anything to do with how civilized people deal with terrorists.
Two years ago, the Chinese and their space program were dismissed as repeating missions accomplished back in the early '60s. Back then it was
redundant, not progressive, not scientific or just not necessary to a lot of Americans, including a few Slashdotters.
Visions of faulty foam panels aside, I just thought it was interesting that this particular mindset is running late this morning.
In an urban environment, the attack squad is easy pickings, because you have a lot of umm... ammunition. By ammunition, I mean cars. And buses. And the burned-out wrecks of already downed helicopters. Tossing around major artifacts of western civilization may sound complicated, but it really isn't.
This "game" as you call it is targeted towards the young and the impressionable who are prone to emulate what they see in violent movies and video games such as this.
It's true. During the weeks following the nationwide release of "The Karate Kid", enrollment in karate schools increased substantially. When the movie "Top Gun" was showing in the theaters, enlistment in the Navy overwhelmed recruiters.
Scientific studies suggest that exposure to violence in the media increases aggresive and violent behavior in young people, especially adolescents. Can you imagine what chaos would be wrought by kids throwing around buses and downed helicopters emulating a poor role-model, who clearly has impulse-control issues? Think of the children. Won't someone please think of the children?
It is interesting how we attack Iraq for being totalitarian (official excuse) and we embargo Cuba decade after decade for the same reason. China however is totalitarian and we not only encourage investment there we allow our companies to aid and abet their oppression. Nice set of double standards we have.
60 years ago, the U.S. also sent tanks, planes, guns, and munitions out the wazzoo to Stalin, a dictator responsible for the slaughter of millions, yet not to other dictators in power at the time.
Come to think of it, neither Chiang kai-Shek or Charles DeGaulle were democratically elected either.
The U.S. attacked Iraq because they invaded Kuwait (the first time around), and then for something else no one can really prove the second time around, not because they were "totalitarian". Where do you get this "official excuse" stuff?
The Cubans were embargoed for hosting Soviet missiles, so it wasn't for the same incorrect reason.
By the way, both people and nations employ double standards because everyone plays favorites one way or another.
1. The MPAA and RIAA are NOT ARTISTIC ASSOCIATIONS!
This merits repeating. The MPAA and RIAA are NOT ARTISTIC ASSOCIATIONS!
Admittedly, they are "industry" organizations, but this also implies that they represent industry interests, which are not always the same as artists' interests. In both cases, you've got lawyers and legal staffers, who serve the interests of distribution companies, financiers, studios, you get the idea.
2. The MPAA and RIAA exist in large measure to perpetuate and protect obsolete business models. It's partially driven (obscured?) by goals of being able to exact revenue from each viewing, each session, each "show". In their minds, this was the way it's supposed to work. I'd like to think they're bright enough to realize they can't keep doing business in quite the same way, but they can't even see which way they are going. It isn't only the technology they don't understand, but those "suits" don't understand the nature of offering the sort of entertainment that makes audiences want to see more, but not necessarily more of the same.
3....lest we forget, the entertainment industry moved to California first to dodge their creditors in the east, secondly to avoid paying tax debts, but also to avoid paying royalties to Thomas Edison. Edison and company invented the production and post-production equipment on which the American film and sound recording industries modified to their own specifications.
Of course the less polite version alleges that they ripped off Edison outright....can't be as morally reprehensible as copyright infringement, right?
1. The MPAA and RIAA are NOT ARTISTIC ASSOCIATIONS!
This merits repeating. The MPAA and RIAA are NOT ARTISTIC ASSOCIATIONS!
Admittedly, they are "industry" organizations, but this also implies that they represent industry interests, which are not always the same as artists' interests. In both cases, you've got lawyers and legal staffers, who serve the interests of distribution companies, financiers, studios, you get the idea.
2. The MPAA and RIAA exist in large measure to perpetuate and protect obsolete business models. It's partially driven (obscured?) by goals of being able to exact revenue from each viewing, each session, each "show". In their minds, this was the way it's supposed to work. I'd like to think they're bright enough to realize they can't keep doing business in quite the same way, but they can't even see which way they are going. It isn't only the technology they don't understand, but those "suits" don't understand the nature of offering the sort of entertainment that makes audiences want to see more, but not necessarily more of the same.
3....lest we forget, the entertainment industry moved to California first to dodge their creditors in the east, secondly to avoid paying tax debts, but also to avoid paying royalties to Thomas Edison. Edison and company invented the production and post-production equipment on which the American film and sound recording industries modified to their own specifications.
Of course the less polite version alleges that they ripped off Edison outright....can't be as morally reprehensible as copyright infringement, right?
Try Robert Fripp. He's a freak and he's training others to be freaks, too. He's like the Neal Peart of guitar: deadly frickin' accurate every single time. Very spooky. He's the only guitarist I could see being able to play with the Philip Glass Ensemble.
Fripp has played with King Crimson off and on.
I think he's like 60 years old. I hope he can train at least a few more.
If someone's written work is devoid of some common rules of grammar and usage, does it matter if you completely and unambiguously understand what they are saying/writing?
Surely that just makes you an idiot for using "armor-piercing" ammunition when there was no need to
Both rifles and pistols recoil (kick) differently when firing harder rounds.
We also take aim at different points on any target, even if they're made of paper when using ammunition that depends more on penetration than expansion or fragmentation.
I do find it amusing when folks who want to impose further restrictions on people they don't know or things they don't know about need to resort to childish name-calling.
in the united states, it's legal to sell armour-piercing ammuniction -- bullets whose sole purpose of design is to go through bullet proof vests; obviously a device designed to kill or maim human beings. the manufacturers to do not even make the pretense of proposing other uses for said ammunition. this activity is all fine and legal
I have personally fired hundreds of rounds of ammunition that was touted/reputed to have been "armor-piercing".
...funny thing is that not one of the rounds that I shot ever went through a "bullet-proof" vest. Every last one o' those bullets ended up lodged in a big ol' sand berm backstop.
If we applied your own "single-purpose" logic to my situation, then there must be something seriously wrong with my armor-piercing bullets as not one of them ever pierced armor.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, because Saudi Arabia is an Oasis of secular humanism now. The very model of a modern enlightenment.
Saudi Arabia has lots of money, but it's not distributed very broadly or fairly. Only a few Saudis are actually wealthy.
So they don't really have either prosperity or equality or enlightenment in that part of the world.
Face it. Every attempt to eradicate or exile a given group within a population of humans has failed since the dawn of history*.
Face it. Charlemagne eradicated the Avars with some help from the Bulgarians. ...the Avar people the language the civilization. ...all gone.
Chandragupta II also did his share of ethnic cleansing. Also known as "Vikramaditya, he "unburdened the sacred earth of the Barbarians like the Shakas, Mlecchas, Kambojas, Yavanas, Tusharas, Parasikas, Hunas, etc. by annihilating these sinners completely."
I wouldn't advocate such public policy here, but never underestimate what your fellow humans are capable of doing to your other fellow humans.
That sentence does not look right, let's fix it.
...indeed.
How about an attack every five days if we lets our citizens have civil liberties?
Absorbent and yellow and porous is he!!!
...yyarrrrgghhh!
If you stop the behavior mildly, then the child will be forced to reevaluate his own internal mindset, and behaviorally change will result. Some of you are already saying "That will not work on a 5 year old," but it does. Children learn these things incredibly early on.
I must have missed the part specifically about how you "stop the behavior mildly". ...and I'll try not to complain about the solution when I see it.
Anyway, guys, please stop this whole beating the child thing. It's not cute, it's not macho, and it's not good parental advice. There are so many ills within our society already that we don't need people going around and blatently advocating the advancement of another one.
You do have kids, right?
Allow me to re-phrase. Are you raising one or more 5-year old children at present?
1. The RIAA and MPAA are NOT ARTISTIC ASSOCIATIONS!
This merits repeating. The RIAA and MPAA are NOT ARTISTIC ASSOCIATIONS!
Come to think of it, neither is Sony.
Admittedly, they are "industry" organizations, but this also implies that they represent industry interests, which are not always the same as artists' interests. In both cases, you've got lawyers and legal staffers, who serve the interests of distribution companies, financiers, studios, you get the idea.
2. The RIAA and MPAA exist in large measure to perpetuate and protect obsolete business models. It's partially driven (obscured?) by goals of being able to exact revenue from each viewing, each session, each "show". In their minds, this was the way it's supposed to work. I'd like to think they're bright enough to realize they can't keep doing business in quite the same way, but they can't even see which way they are going. It isn't only the technology they don't understand, but those "suits" don't understand the nature of offering the sort of entertainment that makes audiences want to see more, but not necessarily more of the same.
Maybe they're beginning to see that they can't keep fooling all of the people all of the time. Maybe they realize that they can't stay in business by suing their customers and hitting them up every time they try to fairly use something they already have a receipt for. Maybe they're beginning to get the hint that taking a buck for every nickel the artist gets is kindasorta wrong. Maybe their consciences are actually beginning to bother them.
Maybe that was too many "maybe's" for one post.
3. ...lest we forget, the entertainment industry moved to California first to dodge their creditors in the east, secondly to avoid paying tax debts, but also to avoid paying royalties to Thomas Edison. Edison and company invented the production and post-production equipment on which the American film and sound recording industries modified to their own specifications.
Of course the less polite version alleges that they ripped off Edison outright. ...can't be as morally reprehensible as copyright infringement, right?
"You seem to think I'm justifying terrorism which I'm not..."
I am the world's foremost expert on what I think. That's not what I thought.
It seems to me that you're trying to describe a possible rationale, world-view or perhaps mind-set of terrorism in an effort to understand terrorists. I've done something like that in my own research and discussions on the subject, but I think I came to rather different ideas about realistic and appropriate solutions compared to yours.
Human beings make decisions and live with the consequences. Personally, I believe that human beings can decide to behave in a civilized/civilised manner even when they disagree with each other and when they do, civilized people ought to remain within the bounds of law.
"...but terrorism takes many forms and saying "it's regrettable" when civilians die is no excuse whatsoever to those who have lost their families."
Let's define our terms a little better. Do you count terrorists as civilians or something other than civilians? In places like Iraq, Afghanistan and Gaza, they tend to be good at blending in with people who don't blow things up when they don't get their way. I myself refuse to acknowledge any terrorist as a soldier or a warrior of any kind because it insults other soldiers.
...and again, can you think of ways to implement military or legal policies (when necessary of course), that do no harm to life, limb or property of the truly innocent?
"There was very little justification for the Iraq war, and although I'm glad Saddam is gone, I still remember who were his greatest supporters - my government and yours, none of whom will stand trial alongside him. "
Again, democracies aligning themselves with dictatorships is nothing new to history. As a rule, neither governments nor corporations cannot choose their allies as easily as individuals can. Is Saddam any worse than, say perhaps, Stalin was before Hitler turned on him in 1941? Prior to the war, Stalin's government directly caused the wrongful death of millions in the counter-revolution, forced migrations and purges. He also invaded eastern Poland and the Baltic states. Yet the Allies sent him advisers, weapons and munitions anyway.
Of course, hindsight is always 20/20, and if Hitler were able to stay in power past 1946, he might have been able to develop and deploy nuclear weapons. What if you only have a few choices and every last one of them conflicts with your fundamental beliefs?
The trouble with the victimisers is that they tend to be pretty much untouchable.
Don't you think there might be better ways of fostering meaningful change without injuring or killing working class people who might be more receptive to the plight of victimized people anyway?
You think a terrorist could get anywhere near the US President or the UK Prime Minister?
Four US presidents were successfully assassinated. ...you knew that, right?
Perhaps if there was a truly independent World Court that the victims could bring suit in then it would be different, but there isn't so what alternative do the weak have. Take it and shut up?
No.
It's rather easy for us, living in countries where people enjoy government-recognized rights and freedoms to discuss possible solutions to oppression. I don't have the answers, but I am willing to look for them.
I think we probably do agree on a lot of these issues, but there are a few differences and they're important to me, otherwise I wouldn't bother posting them.
"Of course I want bin Laden brought to justice. Of course I'm happy to see Saddam in prison. However I don't see why those who were happy to support them and how are happy to commit their own atrocities by proxy shouldn't also be standing trial."
My own country does have a long sad history of doing business with despots and dictators going back to Louis XVI and Napoleon. Your country as well as mine sent weapons and other equipment to Stalin, who over time ended up killing more people than the Nazis did. During that war, the UK sent troops to support a Greek government that was nothing more than a military dictatorship.
Come to think of it, neither DeGaulle, Chiang kai-shek, nor Mao tse-tung were democratically elected either (though DeGaulle was later). We don't always choose our allies wisely during wartime, but if we applied your suggestion, we might end up trying a LOT of people who were faced with tough decisions during tough times.
We can't always pick and choose who we buy petrol from either.
"Terrorism is wrong but terrorism isn't just madmen blowing themselves up in crowded tube stations, it's also 'security' forces killing civilians throwing stones..."
1. There are legal and moral differences between those "madmen blowing themselves up in crowded tube stations" and not-so-madmen who civilized society depends upon to uphold law and order. You yourself told me what sort of measures you thought should be resorted to only when all others fail. "Security forces" as you call them don't usually resort to violence first, not that I've ever heard of anyway. Do they take things too far on occasion? ...definitely. Are they the same legally and morally? ...absolutely not! Terrorists don't try to negotiate before they blow people up or take them hostage.
2. A man who throws stones at other people or damages property is committing an act of violence. I'd like to think there are other solutions than merely killing violent people in the act of committing violence, but the "story" is never that simple.
Also, I myself have never been in the position of trying to persuade large numbers of violent people to find ways to protest that does not endanger people or property.
Have you?
"... and superpowers dropping cluster bombs on farmers."
See above remark. Also, bomber pilots don't deliberately target farmers. Can you think of realistic ways of implementing military policies that spare the lives and property of the truly innocent?
" The strong preying on the weak may well be a fact of life, but you shouldn't be surprised if the weak then turn round and give you a black eye."
We might be drifting off-topic a bit, but we should learn from history to avoid repeating mistakes. It seems to matter to you as much as it does to me anyway.
And you seem to think that I don't think that a military solution can ever work.
I won't presume to tell you what you think since you should be the world's foremost expert on that topic.
However as in the WWII conflict it should be a last not a first resort.
The Allies could have let Hitler (and Stalin) have Poland in much the same way they let him have the Sudetenland. I think declaring war on the Germans was the right thing to do. Was it the last resort solution? No.
The problems in Ireland sprang from the British screwing them for several hundred years.
The strong victimize the not-so-strong. It's not right, but it's also not news.
But do you think Irish terrorists were thinking rationally or morally when they were bombing department stores where working class people go to shop?
Likewise the problems in the Middle East spring from the West with the US in particular screwing them.
You might have forgotten about that pro-Israel policy. Americans also have dealings with despots and dictators who give us good deals on relatively inexpensive petrol. We tend to buy much more so we get a better deal than European buyers. American military involvement in the Middle East is still a very recent development.
I despise the scum that killed US, UK and Spanish civilians, but I also see that it was a reaction against the deaths of Arab civilians over the past fifty years or more.
See above remark. The British have a much longer history of involvement in the Middle East as do the Spanish. The French and Italians have been there for a while too, haven't they? All of the above have a history of doing business with the same despots and dictators. More recently, they (save for the French and Italians) were attacked specifically because they supported the Americans in the recent unpleasantness.
How complicated is the concept that you don't stop Arabs killing Americans by killing more Arabs?
Of course, the correct solution is more complicated as is the problem to begin with.
Let me guess. You thought I was in favor of going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Just for a moment, imagine that you aren't reading a message written by a war-mongering fundamentalist whacko who wants to unilaterally kill 'em all and let God sort them out while we drain them of petrol.
There are other ways of dealing with international terrorists and other criminals than trying to reason with people who don't reason well to begin with. "Declaring war" on them isn't the answer either because the guilty parties are not nation states, they're criminals no matter how well-funded they are. In fact, it rather dignifies them with higher status. We Americans use euphemisms such as "war on poverty", "war on crime", and "war on terrorism" to make solutions to complicated issues more understandable to folks who don't have enough information to have informed opinions.
Unfortunately, you seem to have fallen for it. Law enforcement officers do NOT negotiate with criminals. They apprehend them, then the courts deal with them.
Soldiers implement the military policies of nations. If we mean for them to apprehend the guilty, they should be trained and supported when doing so. I understand the differences between what soldiers do and what law enforcement does. The goals should be to stop, apprehend, and punish the guilty, doing what is necessary to those ends. I understand what should be done and what should have been done up to this point. I voted for and supported knowledgeable people who also know better, thusly my conscience is quite clear.
Your own government decided to fight Irish terrorist criminals as if fighting a war and then negotiated with criminals who will over time, return to crime if the Irish prosperity doesn't hold out.
"...peace in our time", eh Deaddrunk?
"You know how the UK stopped Irishmen blowing up our cities. We spent nearly 30 years of getting ever more draconian and then after actually negotiating with the terrorists we've had virtually no trouble with them at all in the last 10."
My own conscience would bother me a lot if I condoned negotiating with folks who blew up cities and the people in them. Then again, I actually have a conscience to bother me about that sort of thing.
"It may turn some people's stomachs to see Gerry Adams being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize... "
...my own stomach included.
"...but up until our ass-kisser leader dragged us into a pointless war, UK citizens didn't have to worry about being blown up anymore."
Yes, but you're kindasorta making it look as if he kissed the wrong ass as if "ass-kissing" ought to have anything to do with how civilized people deal with terrorists.
Two years ago, the Chinese and their space program were dismissed as repeating missions accomplished back in the early '60s. Back then it was redundant, not progressive, not scientific or just not necessary to a lot of Americans, including a few Slashdotters.
Visions of faulty foam panels aside, I just thought it was interesting that this particular mindset is running late this morning.
In an urban environment, the attack squad is easy pickings, because you have a lot of umm ... ammunition. By ammunition, I mean cars. And buses. And the burned-out wrecks of already downed helicopters. Tossing around major artifacts of western civilization may sound complicated, but it really isn't.
This "game" as you call it is targeted towards the young and the impressionable who are prone to emulate what they see in violent movies and video games such as this.
It's true. During the weeks following the nationwide release of "The Karate Kid", enrollment in karate schools increased substantially. When the movie "Top Gun" was showing in the theaters, enlistment in the Navy overwhelmed recruiters.
Scientific studies suggest that exposure to violence in the media increases aggresive and violent behavior in young people, especially adolescents. Can you imagine what chaos would be wrought by kids throwing around buses and downed helicopters emulating a poor role-model, who clearly has impulse-control issues? Think of the children. Won't someone please think of the children?
I want to stop typing now.
It is interesting how we attack Iraq for being totalitarian (official excuse) and we embargo Cuba decade after decade for the same reason. China however is totalitarian and we not only encourage investment there we allow our companies to aid and abet their oppression. Nice set of double standards we have.
60 years ago, the U.S. also sent tanks, planes, guns, and munitions out the wazzoo to Stalin, a dictator responsible for the slaughter of millions, yet not to other dictators in power at the time.
Come to think of it, neither Chiang kai-Shek or Charles DeGaulle were democratically elected either.
The U.S. attacked Iraq because they invaded Kuwait (the first time around), and then for something else no one can really prove the second time around, not because they were "totalitarian". Where do you get this "official excuse" stuff?
The Cubans were embargoed for hosting Soviet missiles, so it wasn't for the same incorrect reason.
By the way, both people and nations employ double standards because everyone plays favorites one way or another.
...Disgruntled Goat?
...Ku Klux Klam?
Is there such a thing?
...if not, why not?
1. The MPAA and RIAA are NOT ARTISTIC ASSOCIATIONS!
This merits repeating. The MPAA and RIAA are NOT ARTISTIC ASSOCIATIONS!
Admittedly, they are "industry" organizations, but this also implies that they represent industry interests, which are not always the same as artists' interests. In both cases, you've got lawyers and legal staffers, who serve the interests of distribution companies, financiers, studios, you get the idea.
2. The MPAA and RIAA exist in large measure to perpetuate and protect obsolete business models. It's partially driven (obscured?) by goals of being able to exact revenue from each viewing, each session, each "show". In their minds, this was the way it's supposed to work. I'd like to think they're bright enough to realize they can't keep doing business in quite the same way, but they can't even see which way they are going. It isn't only the technology they don't understand, but those "suits" don't understand the nature of offering the sort of entertainment that makes audiences want to see more, but not necessarily more of the same.
3. ...lest we forget, the entertainment industry moved to California first to dodge their creditors in the east, secondly to avoid paying tax debts, but also to avoid paying royalties to Thomas Edison. Edison and company invented the production and post-production equipment on which the American film and sound recording industries modified to their own specifications.
Of course the less polite version alleges that they ripped off Edison outright. ...can't be as morally reprehensible as copyright infringement, right?
1. The MPAA and RIAA are NOT ARTISTIC ASSOCIATIONS!
This merits repeating. The MPAA and RIAA are NOT ARTISTIC ASSOCIATIONS!
Admittedly, they are "industry" organizations, but this also implies that they represent industry interests, which are not always the same as artists' interests. In both cases, you've got lawyers and legal staffers, who serve the interests of distribution companies, financiers, studios, you get the idea.
2. The MPAA and RIAA exist in large measure to perpetuate and protect obsolete business models. It's partially driven (obscured?) by goals of being able to exact revenue from each viewing, each session, each "show". In their minds, this was the way it's supposed to work. I'd like to think they're bright enough to realize they can't keep doing business in quite the same way, but they can't even see which way they are going. It isn't only the technology they don't understand, but those "suits" don't understand the nature of offering the sort of entertainment that makes audiences want to see more, but not necessarily more of the same.
3. ...lest we forget, the entertainment industry moved to California first to dodge their creditors in the east, secondly to avoid paying tax debts, but also to avoid paying royalties to Thomas Edison. Edison and company invented the production and post-production equipment on which the American film and sound recording industries modified to their own specifications.
Of course the less polite version alleges that they ripped off Edison outright. ...can't be as morally reprehensible as copyright infringement, right?
After seeing something like that, I tend to stop reading the ends of sentences.
Try Robert Fripp. He's a freak and he's training others to be freaks, too. He's like the Neal Peart of guitar: deadly frickin' accurate every single time. Very spooky. He's the only guitarist I could see being able to play with the Philip Glass Ensemble.
Fripp has played with King Crimson off and on.
I think he's like 60 years old. I hope he can train at least a few more.
If someone's written work is devoid of some common rules of grammar and usage, does it matter if you completely and unambiguously understand what they are saying/writing?
We teach by example whether or not we intend to.
We should decide to set a good example.
Surely that just makes you an idiot for using "armor-piercing" ammunition when there was no need to
Both rifles and pistols recoil (kick) differently when firing harder rounds.
We also take aim at different points on any target, even if they're made of paper when using ammunition that depends more on penetration than expansion or fragmentation.
I do find it amusing when folks who want to impose further restrictions on people they don't know or things they don't know about need to resort to childish name-calling.
It's funny watching 'em jump to conclusions too.
in the united states, it's legal to sell armour-piercing ammuniction -- bullets whose sole purpose of design is to go through bullet proof vests; obviously a device designed to kill or maim human beings. the manufacturers to do not even make the pretense of proposing other uses for said ammunition. this activity is all fine and legal
I have personally fired hundreds of rounds of ammunition that was touted/reputed to have been "armor-piercing".
...funny thing is that not one of the rounds that I shot ever went through a "bullet-proof" vest. Every last one o' those bullets ended up lodged in a big ol' sand berm backstop.
If we applied your own "single-purpose" logic to my situation, then there must be something seriously wrong with my armor-piercing bullets as not one of them ever pierced armor.
"...it's just a show."
"I really should relax."
Granted that it couldn't play your mp3's or DVD's or pr0n avi's, but at its time, it was state of the art.
OTOH, its battery never needed re-charging. Its hard drive never crashed. ...no blue dump screens. ...no M$ tax.
Also, in kung-fu movies, their rate of fire rivaled assault rifles on full auto.
1. ...for use of my hardware
2. ...especially for wasting my hard drive space with junk that I did NOT order.
3. ...for use of bandwidth that I paid for when I downloaded that other stuff I did not order. ...you think this is a free ride?
4. ...for thinking they can get away with it.
5. ...because they won't.