Please describe how pointing out that one particular group in politics is intolerant, hypocritical and has ridiculous arguments is either hypocritical, intolerant or ridiculous in itself?
BTW, I'm no democrat either, but the right wing take the cake in this arena.
First, your idea that the right is "hypocritical, intolerant or ridiculous" is soundly disproved by the fact that only the Democratic Party has a former KKK member within its ranks. It doesn't help that he is considered a "respected member" of the party.
Let's see, "ridiculous arguments"... Well, "The Surge is a Failure" comes to mind. More recently, "Drilling for oil won't help for 10 years" is another doozie. Instead, they prefer alternative energy which won't help for 30 years. We send kids to school every year that won't graduate for 13. Besides, that is exactly what they said 10 years ago.
Intolerant? How many times to you see people on the right celebrating when someone opposite the aisle gets cancer? I can't find anyone who is happy that Elizabeth Edwards has cancer. Take a look for yourself for a find example of the tolerance of the left. Then, of course, there was the rioters throwing snow balls at Bush's motorcade on his way to his first Inauguration. How many of these people apologized when it was proven that he actually won the election? If you need more examples, they are easy to find. Check out The Daily KOS, Huffington Post or Democratic Underground.
Finally, Nancy Pelosi, who promised, "We will work with Republicans in Congress and the Administration in the spirit of partnership, not partisanship." Is that what she meant when she turned the lights out on them? Maybe she was referring to her quote, "The American people voted for a New Direction to restore civility and bipartisanship in Washington, D.C. Democrats promise to work together in a bipartisan way for all Americans." when she refused a vote to allow offshore drilling. How about her saying, "Democrats are ready to lead, prepared to govern and absolutely willing to work in a bipartisan way." and then saying that Bush is a "Total Failure"?
Hypocritical? There John Edwards winning "Father of the Year". Also, what did Milosovich do that Saddam Hussein didn't? Why was it OK to overthrow the government in Bosnia, but the Senate approved and funded war in Iraq is somehow "illegal"?
Now look, I'm not saying the Republicans are perfect, but don't ignore the sins of one party in order to bash the other for doing the exact same thing!
...for example, when he made fun of Michael J. Fox's Parkinsons Disease...
No, Rush pointed out that MJ Fox didn't take his medication before the taping to make is condition look worse. Also, Rush pointed out that MJ Fox supported three Democrat candidates because they favored embryonic stem cell research. MJ stated that Jim Talent wanted to criminalize the research could cure his disease. That was simply not true. What Talent opposed was a bill that inaccurately called "The Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative", because it allowed for human cloning. Jim Talent supports stem cell research from adult lines or the lines that were in place before Bush's executive order. Saying that Talent wanted to "criminalize" research was simply not true. Fox used the team "Stem Cell Research" and never attempted to clarify that he meant "EMBRYONIC Stem Cell Research". Instead, he made it seem as if Republicans were against all stem cell research, which, again, is not true.
So, it's not that MJF has Parkinsons, or even that he supported three Democrats (he is a free man, after all), but the fact that MJF didn't know learn the facts before doing the commercials. Of course, I'm giving him the benefit of doubt and assuming that he didn't know better as opposed to being dishonestly partisan.
I'd put my money on Ventura in a Governator v Ventura v Regan brawl...providing all members were still alive.
Well, as for those that are still alive, we've already seen it. Ventura won the CGI version, but refused to fight for real when the Family Feud guy pissed him off.
The big question is can it climb stairs. I mean how can you conquer the Universe if you can't even climb stairs. I have to say that this really creeps me out.
It takes the elevator or brings the top floor to ground level.
To test our new weapons and show the Chinese how we roll.
That's half of it. While there was a possibility of hydrazine rain, I think we also have to consider that this was state of the art spy satellite which was part of a much larger network of spy satellites. If this thing were to make it to the ground even partially intact, it would be a treasure trove of information concerning the US spy satellite ability and could possibly show a way to counter the shiny new spy network we spent so much money deploying.
thanks to the Google Maps graphic accompanying a story about Russian incursions into Georgia â" the nation-state in the Caucasus, not the Caucasian-pride-ridden state in the southern U.S
likewise the US military doesn't give a shit who they target so long as all they have to do is *appear* remorseful afterwards
You're knowledge of the US military appears as if it comes from Al Jazeera. As a veteran, I can tell you that you're wrong. I've seen us let targets go because civilians were present. Don't believe me? Look at how many mosques are still standing in Iraq. How many schools that were packed with ammo and AAA were not blown apart. I can honestly say that you are full of shit. You are a politically motivated, partisan hack who will say or do anything to justify your hatred of all those that think differently.
Now before you go getting your panties in a wad
Too late. I don't deal with liars well.
I am not a pacifist and believe that violence can be a means to an end, but in the words of General Smedley Butler, "the only 2 things worth fighting for are our homes and the Bill of Rights". The USA military's current endeavours are nothing more than acting as enforcers for powerful financial interests.
Yeah, we're making so money from Iraq right now that I don't have to pay taxes. And the money we're squeezing out of Afghanistan is amazing! Don't even get me started on the coin we are making from Germany and Japan! Didn't you know that Mercedes and Toyota are wholly owned by the US Govt!
To quote the most retarded president of the USA ever "either you are with us or you are with the terrorists"...
And to bring this back on topic, that "retarded" president was loosely quoting Orwell. You'd know that if you were keeping up with this thread. So, was Orwell retarded too?
...well GW, I think you're BOTH insane and will fight to the death to protect myself and my family from both groups.
First, you won't need to fight to the death from GWB. However, that is the goal of the terrorists. The US Servicemen and women will, however, fight to the death to protect you. Nothing is more important to the US Serviceman or the President than protecting the lives of Americans. Second is their freedoms. Third is the lives and freedoms of innocent people around the world. It makes me sad to think that so many are so willing to bite the hands that protect them. Don't worry, if you don't want the protection, that's fine. I hear Mexico is nice this time of year. Rest assured that the second you get past Laredo, you are free from the tyranny of GWB. I'm not saying "love it or leave it", but as long as you are within these borders, you are protected, want it or not. Your only escape is to leave the country. Good luck.
As far as "moveon.org" goes, it's a freaking social club for Democrats. That's all it is. They have bake sales to raise money to put ads defending their candidates on the TV. The Republicans have lots of those organizations too. One of them is called "Freedom's Watch". Now THOSE are some creepy dudes, and their name sounds like it was taken directly from another certain black arm band wearing militia. Code Pink has a dramatic name, but their reasoning is that they believe the Iraq War to be an illegal and Unconstitutional occupation that is causing the deaths of US soldiers for entirely unclear, vague reasons. And they have plenty of evidence to back up that claim that the Bush Administration cannot refute. ANSWER? CAIR? All more of the above.
Of course! MoveOn and Code Pink are just active in the community holding bake sales while any equivalent group on the right are just brownshirts. Nice, open mind you have there.
What I'm gathering you're trying to say, however, is that in the US, the attempt to repress the struggle between two sides by way of the so called "War on Terror" is Orwell's definition of pacifism. Therefore, you are likening Bush to Hitler as a result of his stating on numerous occasions that if "you're not with me, you're against me".
I think his point was to berate those Americans that do things like block military supplies from entering a port. Who do you think that helps? How is blocking the supplies different from, say, sinking the ship that was carrying them in reference to the conflict? And I'm sorry, but you have to be a complete fucking moron to not understand what he means when he says:
If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, 'he that is not with me is against me'.
Sure, you can try to spin it however you want, but you are either being dishonest of just downright stupid if you think he means something he didn't say.
Thank you! That is one of the finest examples of the moral equivalence bullshit arguments I was talking about.
What else makes a terrorist evil? I suppose torture and kidnapping, but the US does that too.
So, you equate the capture and interrogation of combatants to the kidnapping, torture and beheading of civilians, journalists and aid workers? How many captured terrorists have been executed by the US? How many by the terrorists (I can list two by NAME!)? Like I said, perfect example.
If you think the high-altitude bombing of civilians especially of a nation that never overtly or covertly attacked us is some how morally superior to ramming planes into buildings, then you are a moral relativist of the worst sort. Bush and bin-Laden are both mass murdering war criminals that should be brought to justice, using force if necessary, and tried for their crimes.
What you fail to consider is the target and the reaction. Bin Laden targeted civilians. He wanted to kill men, women and babies and the more, the better. When he killed 3000+, there was dancing in the streets in the Arab world. The US, on the other hand, targets military targets exclusively. The US military actually goes out of its way to avoid civilians and even misses some targets because of it. When civilians die as a result of a US action, the US is quick to apologize.
But, I guess it's all the same to you. Intent makes no difference and the US Soldier is the same as Mohamed Atta in your eyes.
You'll note there is no moral dimension to Orwell's argument, he's point is about patriotism and putting your country before your ideals or your political fantasies. In this situation, where the US is not faced by an existential by a superior military force bent on its destruction, but is instead waging an unprovoked war of aggression, it's the closet fascists in the pro-Iraq war faction that have (this time successfully) betrayed their country.
Uh, yeah. Because the US was never attacked on 9-11. Iraq did not violate 17 UN resolutions, fire on US and NATO forces and attempt to murder a former US president. The USS Cole was never attacked and no one shot down BlackHawk helicopters that were there trying to feed the starving.
Like I said, a perfect example of the moral equivalence bullshit argument and you are exactly the type of batshit-crazy pacifists that Orwell was talking about.
Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, 'he that is not with me is against me'. The idea that you can somehow remain aloof from and superior to the struggle, while living on food which British sailors have to risk their lives to bring you, is a bourgeois illusion bred of money and security. Mr Savage remarks that 'according to this type of reasoning, a German or Japanese pacifist would be "objectively pro-British".' But of course he would be! That is why pacifist activities are not permitted in those countries (in both of them the penalty is, or can be, beheading) while both the Germans and the Japanese do all they can to encourage the spread of pacifism in British and American territories. The Germans even run a spurious 'freedom' station which serves out pacifist propaganda indistinguishable from that of the P.P.U. They would stimulate pacifism in Russia as well if they could, but in that case they have tougher babies to deal with. In so far as it takes effect at all, pacifist propaganda can only be effective against those countries where a certain amount of freedom of speech is still permitted; in other words it is helpful to totalitarianism.
Now, apply that to today. If you haven't figured it out yet replace "fascist" with "terrorist", "Germany and Japan" with "Al Qaeda and Iran" and "freedom station" with "ANSWER", "MoveOn.org", "Code Pink" or "CAIR". Also, pay close attention to "he that is not with me is against me". Where have I heard that before? (and don't say 'Revenge of the Sith"!)
This is something a lot of slashdotters really need to read
Why?
I thought that was perfectly clear when he quoted:
...Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writings of younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States...
How many times a day to read on/. someone saying something like, "Iran has a right to the bomb" or "US invades countries. Hitler invaded countries. Coincidence?" or my favorite, "Terrorists kill civilians. So does the US!". That moral equivalency bullshit is exactly what Orwell is calling out here.
Any time the US gov't does things that/.'ers don't like, they start screaming Big Brother. Orwell wrote 1984 (where the Big Brother references come from). I think the GP used this quote to explain how Orwell feels about pacifists or the blame America first crowd.
Get a grip... better yet.... get a book and please, READ IT
I've done better. I served and went to the Mid-East and got to see the gratitude first hand. I have met with many Japanese and not one a single one is still bitter over WWII (which I guess we started by bombing Pearl Harbor?) What you see on TV or read in books is at best second hand and tainted by the opinions of the producer.
I think that the point here is that Afghans did not ask to be invaded. The US invaded Afghanistan (and, alas, this time they actually had good cause... not something that happens a lot with the US and wars) not to benefit afghans but to benefit itself.
And thats the truth. Nobody "liberated" Afghanistan from anything because that was not the objective.
So, since it wasn't the objective, it didn't happen?
The objective was to kill the talibans and, by the way, the US failed MISSERABLY in that.
Yes, because they are still in power and those elections we saw were produced in Hollywood.
And thats the truth. IF it makes you feel a nicer person to think that the US army is the liberator of Asia, then by all means, keep lying to yourself.
I'm not lying to myself. The Japanese, Philippinos and S. Koreans I have met must be lying to me when they say they are quite liberated when compared to N. Koreans, Tibetans, Vietnamese, Chinese, Burmese and so on (you know, the countries we have NOT liberated).
First of all, the Taliban were not the official govenment of Afghanistan. They were not recognized by the US as a government and they did not have an extradiction treaty with the US. They were just the most powerful faction in a drawn out civil war. I'm not sure they would've been able to capture and deliver Osama Bin Laden.
Secondly, the US provided no proof of the involvment of Bin Laden. Most countries do not extradict people without proof.
I guess you are right. I mean, unless we had a VIDEO TAPE of Osama Bin Laden admitting to planning 9-11, I guess we shouldn't have gone in.
(Source is NPR, so take with salt):
According to a translated transcript issued by the Pentagon, bin Laden says the attacks on the World Trade Center did more damage than expected. "...we calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy, who would be killed based on the position of the tower," he says, according to the transcript. "We calculated that the floors that would be hit would be three or four floors. I was the most optimistic of them all. (...Inaudible...) due to my experience in this field, I was thinking that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building and collapse the area where the plane hit and all the floors above it only. This is all that we had hoped for."
What should we have done when the Taliban didn't hand Osama over? The obvious thing -- send in special forces to assassinate him. Why is our first reaction to clumsily overthrow the entire government of the country? The Taliban weren't terrorists, just a corrupt, fundamentalist regime (like the Bush administration). The Taliban couldn't have handed us Osama even if they wanted to.
First, if the Bush "regime" were like the Taliban, as you suggest, you would not be able to read this reply as you would already be dead. Next, is your girlfriend... I mean mom or sister... allowed to leave the house "uncovered" and without male (relative or husband) escort? How about vote?
Finally, we didn't overthrow the Taliban alone. First, we had NATO support. Next, we merely assisted the Northern Alliance in ending a civil war that has been raging for decades. I guess you would prefer that we let innocent men, women and children continue to die as a result of that civil war.
Oh, and "assassination" truly is forbidden by US law. Unlike war, which is perfectly legal. I find it ironic that so many who want Bush impeached for breaking non-existent laws suggest that maybe he should have broken REAL laws instead. Do you really not see the irony there?
What kind of an evil coward do you need to be to steer bombs into peoples cities from the other side of the planet?
I agree. When I'm killing wasps in my yard, I don't bother with the spray. Nope! I dive right into the next, killing them all by hand. Using the spray would be... how did you put it... evil and cowardly.
I'm saying they didn't play ball with the US, so we took their goodies that we couldn't get cut-in on.
Didn't play ball? I'd say. They harbored Osama Bin Laden. You remember him, right? The guy that planned and ordered the deaths of 3000+ Americans in the largest attack on American soil? Am I ringing a bell here?
What would you have had the US do?
GWB: Give us Bin Laden. Taliban: No, bitch! GWB: Well, we tried. Sorry to bother you guys. Have fun blowing up ancient art.
So, they constructed a generation ship in orbit, disassembled all traces of their civilization and vamoosed. They're out in the OORT cloud somewhere, trying to decide whether they're going to continue on to Proxima or return to Earth and whoop ass.
I hope they come back. I get bored sometimes.
They left the planet long ago The elder race still learn and grow Their power grows with purpose strong To claim the home where they belong...
Microsoft has reacted to this security exposure by launching a new version that puts the OS out of reach and is guaranteed attack-proof: Vista for Vacuums.
Then Vista would really suck.
No, if you put Vista on a vacuum, it would probably blow!
They also don't point out whether this breaks out of the IE sandbox or not. This makes a big difference, as if they can't break out of the sandbox, it makes any attack fairly useless on a correctly configured machine using IE. More details would have been nice.
From TFA:
By taking advantage of the way that browsers, specifically Internet Explorer, handle active scripting and.NET objects, the pair have been able to load essentially whatever content they want into a location of their choice on a user's machine.
From/. Summary:
They have attacks that let them load chosen content to a chosen location with chosen permissions.
I think it's pretty clear that it is out of the sandbox and has full access to the backyard and house, regardless of how Vista is configured.
More to the point, Energy can be gotten from other sources besides oil. Whereas plastics (A medical revolution) may not be, and can be recycled.
My point is this. There will be higher priorities to use crude oil than energy because there are alternatives to produce said energy where there might not be in others.
While plastic can be recycled, I'm not sure that I'd want my medicinal grade plastic coming from recycled sources. The temperatures needed to completely sanitize plastic is higher than the burning point of plastic. In other words, if you were to try to heat plastic to the point of sanitation, it would burst into flames before reaching that point. This is why recycling plastic is done with chemical methods. Another reason I don't want my medicinal plastic recycled.
(Yes, I'm aware that hot soapy water cleans plastic forks or whatever well enough for most uses, but not medicinal.)
Slashdot Mirror
Please describe how pointing out that one particular group in politics is intolerant, hypocritical and has ridiculous arguments is either hypocritical, intolerant or ridiculous in itself?
BTW, I'm no democrat either, but the right wing take the cake in this arena.
First, your idea that the right is "hypocritical, intolerant or ridiculous" is soundly disproved by the fact that only the Democratic Party has a former KKK member within its ranks. It doesn't help that he is considered a "respected member" of the party.
Let's see, "ridiculous arguments"... Well, "The Surge is a Failure" comes to mind. More recently, "Drilling for oil won't help for 10 years" is another doozie. Instead, they prefer alternative energy which won't help for 30 years. We send kids to school every year that won't graduate for 13. Besides, that is exactly what they said 10 years ago.
Intolerant? How many times to you see people on the right celebrating when someone opposite the aisle gets cancer? I can't find anyone who is happy that Elizabeth Edwards has cancer. Take a look for yourself for a find example of the tolerance of the left. Then, of course, there was the rioters throwing snow balls at Bush's motorcade on his way to his first Inauguration. How many of these people apologized when it was proven that he actually won the election? If you need more examples, they are easy to find. Check out The Daily KOS, Huffington Post or Democratic Underground.
Finally, Nancy Pelosi, who promised, "We will work with Republicans in Congress and the Administration in the spirit of partnership, not partisanship." Is that what she meant when she turned the lights out on them? Maybe she was referring to her quote, "The American people voted for a New Direction to restore civility and bipartisanship in Washington, D.C. Democrats promise to work together in a bipartisan way for all Americans." when she refused a vote to allow offshore drilling. How about her saying, "Democrats are ready to lead, prepared to govern and absolutely willing to work in a bipartisan way." and then saying that Bush is a "Total Failure"?
Hypocritical? There John Edwards winning "Father of the Year". Also, what did Milosovich do that Saddam Hussein didn't? Why was it OK to overthrow the government in Bosnia, but the Senate approved and funded war in Iraq is somehow "illegal"?
Now look, I'm not saying the Republicans are perfect, but don't ignore the sins of one party in order to bash the other for doing the exact same thing!
"The United States can, should, and will BLOW UP THE MOON!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHpX5aa5Lz4
NO WAR FOR....water?
...for example, when he made fun of Michael J. Fox's Parkinsons Disease...
No, Rush pointed out that MJ Fox didn't take his medication before the taping to make is condition look worse. Also, Rush pointed out that MJ Fox supported three Democrat candidates because they favored embryonic stem cell research. MJ stated that Jim Talent wanted to criminalize the research could cure his disease. That was simply not true. What Talent opposed was a bill that inaccurately called "The Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative", because it allowed for human cloning. Jim Talent supports stem cell research from adult lines or the lines that were in place before Bush's executive order. Saying that Talent wanted to "criminalize" research was simply not true. Fox used the team "Stem Cell Research" and never attempted to clarify that he meant "EMBRYONIC Stem Cell Research". Instead, he made it seem as if Republicans were against all stem cell research, which, again, is not true.
So, it's not that MJF has Parkinsons, or even that he supported three Democrats (he is a free man, after all), but the fact that MJF didn't know learn the facts before doing the commercials. Of course, I'm giving him the benefit of doubt and assuming that he didn't know better as opposed to being dishonestly partisan.
Conservative views are ridiculous though.
Every time a repub is allowed to speak they come out with hypocrisy and intolerance.
Pot, meet kettle.
I'd put my money on Ventura in a Governator v Ventura v Regan brawl. ..providing all members were still alive.
Well, as for those that are still alive, we've already seen it. Ventura won the CGI version, but refused to fight for real when the Family Feud guy pissed him off.
The big question is can it climb stairs. I mean how can you conquer the Universe if you can't even climb stairs.
I have to say that this really creeps me out.
It takes the elevator or brings the top floor to ground level.
To test our new weapons and show the Chinese how we roll.
That's half of it. While there was a possibility of hydrazine rain, I think we also have to consider that this was state of the art spy satellite which was part of a much larger network of spy satellites. If this thing were to make it to the ground even partially intact, it would be a treasure trove of information concerning the US spy satellite ability and could possibly show a way to counter the shiny new spy network we spent so much money deploying.
thanks to the Google Maps graphic accompanying a story about Russian incursions into Georgia â" the nation-state in the Caucasus, not the Caucasian-pride-ridden state in the southern U.S
I take it you've never been to Atlanta!
likewise the US military doesn't give a shit who they target so long as all they have to do is *appear* remorseful afterwards
You're knowledge of the US military appears as if it comes from Al Jazeera. As a veteran, I can tell you that you're wrong. I've seen us let targets go because civilians were present. Don't believe me? Look at how many mosques are still standing in Iraq. How many schools that were packed with ammo and AAA were not blown apart. I can honestly say that you are full of shit. You are a politically motivated, partisan hack who will say or do anything to justify your hatred of all those that think differently.
Now before you go getting your panties in a wad
Too late. I don't deal with liars well.
I am not a pacifist and believe that violence can be a means to an end, but in the words of General Smedley Butler, "the only 2 things worth fighting for are our homes and the Bill of Rights". The USA military's current endeavours are nothing more than acting as enforcers for powerful financial interests.
Yeah, we're making so money from Iraq right now that I don't have to pay taxes. And the money we're squeezing out of Afghanistan is amazing! Don't even get me started on the coin we are making from Germany and Japan! Didn't you know that Mercedes and Toyota are wholly owned by the US Govt!
To quote the most retarded president of the USA ever "either you are with us or you are with the terrorists"...
And to bring this back on topic, that "retarded" president was loosely quoting Orwell. You'd know that if you were keeping up with this thread. So, was Orwell retarded too?
...well GW, I think you're BOTH insane and will fight to the death to protect myself and my family from both groups.
First, you won't need to fight to the death from GWB. However, that is the goal of the terrorists. The US Servicemen and women will, however, fight to the death to protect you. Nothing is more important to the US Serviceman or the President than protecting the lives of Americans. Second is their freedoms. Third is the lives and freedoms of innocent people around the world. It makes me sad to think that so many are so willing to bite the hands that protect them. Don't worry, if you don't want the protection, that's fine. I hear Mexico is nice this time of year. Rest assured that the second you get past Laredo, you are free from the tyranny of GWB. I'm not saying "love it or leave it", but as long as you are within these borders, you are protected, want it or not. Your only escape is to leave the country. Good luck.
As far as "moveon.org" goes, it's a freaking social club for Democrats. That's all it is. They have bake sales to raise money to put ads defending their candidates on the TV. The Republicans have lots of those organizations too. One of them is called "Freedom's Watch". Now THOSE are some creepy dudes, and their name sounds like it was taken directly from another certain black arm band wearing militia. Code Pink has a dramatic name, but their reasoning is that they believe the Iraq War to be an illegal and Unconstitutional occupation that is causing the deaths of US soldiers for entirely unclear, vague reasons. And they have plenty of evidence to back up that claim that the Bush Administration cannot refute. ANSWER? CAIR? All more of the above.
Of course! MoveOn and Code Pink are just active in the community holding bake sales while any equivalent group on the right are just brownshirts. Nice, open mind you have there.
What I'm gathering you're trying to say, however, is that in the US, the attempt to repress the struggle between two sides by way of the so called "War on Terror" is Orwell's definition of pacifism. Therefore, you are likening Bush to Hitler as a result of his stating on numerous occasions that if "you're not with me, you're against me".
I think his point was to berate those Americans that do things like block military supplies from entering a port. Who do you think that helps? How is blocking the supplies different from, say, sinking the ship that was carrying them in reference to the conflict?
And I'm sorry, but you have to be a complete fucking moron to not understand what he means when he says:
If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, 'he that is not with me is against me'.
Sure, you can try to spin it however you want, but you are either being dishonest of just downright stupid if you think he means something he didn't say.
Thank you! That is one of the finest examples of the moral equivalence bullshit arguments I was talking about.
What else makes a terrorist evil? I suppose torture and kidnapping, but the US does that too.
So, you equate the capture and interrogation of combatants to the kidnapping, torture and beheading of civilians, journalists and aid workers?
How many captured terrorists have been executed by the US? How many by the terrorists (I can list two by NAME!)? Like I said, perfect example.
If you think the high-altitude bombing of civilians especially of a nation that never overtly or covertly attacked us is some how morally superior to ramming planes into buildings, then you are a moral relativist of the worst sort. Bush and bin-Laden are both mass murdering war criminals that should be brought to justice, using force if necessary, and tried for their crimes.
What you fail to consider is the target and the reaction. Bin Laden targeted civilians. He wanted to kill men, women and babies and the more, the better. When he killed 3000+, there was dancing in the streets in the Arab world.
The US, on the other hand, targets military targets exclusively. The US military actually goes out of its way to avoid civilians and even misses some targets because of it. When civilians die as a result of a US action, the US is quick to apologize.
But, I guess it's all the same to you. Intent makes no difference and the US Soldier is the same as Mohamed Atta in your eyes.
You'll note there is no moral dimension to Orwell's argument, he's point is about patriotism and putting your country before your ideals or your political fantasies. In this situation, where the US is not faced by an existential by a superior military force bent on its destruction, but is instead waging an unprovoked war of aggression, it's the closet fascists in the pro-Iraq war faction that have (this time successfully) betrayed their country.
Uh, yeah. Because the US was never attacked on 9-11. Iraq did not violate 17 UN resolutions, fire on US and NATO forces and attempt to murder a former US president. The USS Cole was never attacked and no one shot down BlackHawk helicopters that were there trying to feed the starving.
Like I said, a perfect example of the moral equivalence bullshit argument and you are exactly the type of batshit-crazy pacifists that Orwell was talking about.
This is something a lot of slashdotters really need to read
Why?
Maybe this one will help explain it better:
Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, 'he that is not with me is against me'. The idea that you can somehow remain aloof from and superior to the struggle, while living on food which British sailors have to risk their lives to bring you, is a bourgeois illusion bred of money and security. Mr Savage remarks that 'according to this type of reasoning, a German or Japanese pacifist would be "objectively pro-British".' But of course he would be! That is why pacifist activities are not permitted in those countries (in both of them the penalty is, or can be, beheading) while both the Germans and the Japanese do all they can to encourage the spread of pacifism in British and American territories. The Germans even run a spurious 'freedom' station which serves out pacifist propaganda indistinguishable from that of the P.P.U. They would stimulate pacifism in Russia as well if they could, but in that case they have tougher babies to deal with. In so far as it takes effect at all, pacifist propaganda can only be effective against those countries where a certain amount of freedom of speech is still permitted; in other words it is helpful to totalitarianism.
Now, apply that to today. If you haven't figured it out yet replace "fascist" with "terrorist", "Germany and Japan" with "Al Qaeda and Iran" and "freedom station" with "ANSWER", "MoveOn.org", "Code Pink" or "CAIR". Also, pay close attention to "he that is not with me is against me". Where have I heard that before? (and don't say 'Revenge of the Sith"!)
This is something a lot of slashdotters really need to read
Why?
I thought that was perfectly clear when he quoted:
...Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writings of younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States...
How many times a day to read on /. someone saying something like, "Iran has a right to the bomb" or "US invades countries. Hitler invaded countries. Coincidence?" or my favorite, "Terrorists kill civilians. So does the US!". That moral equivalency bullshit is exactly what Orwell is calling out here.
Any time the US gov't does things that /.'ers don't like, they start screaming Big Brother. Orwell wrote 1984 (where the Big Brother references come from). I think the GP used this quote to explain how Orwell feels about pacifists or the blame America first crowd.
What's not to understand?
Just Friggin Great!
Now my kid's going to want one of THESE tied to her wrist!
Get a grip... better yet.... get a book and please, READ IT
I've done better. I served and went to the Mid-East and got to see the gratitude first hand. I have met with many Japanese and not one a single one is still bitter over WWII (which I guess we started by bombing Pearl Harbor?) What you see on TV or read in books is at best second hand and tainted by the opinions of the producer.
I think that the point here is that Afghans did not ask to be invaded. The US invaded Afghanistan (and, alas, this time they actually had good cause... not something that happens a lot with the US and wars) not to benefit afghans but to benefit itself.
And thats the truth. Nobody "liberated" Afghanistan from anything because that was not the objective.
So, since it wasn't the objective, it didn't happen?
The objective was to kill the talibans and, by the way, the US failed MISSERABLY in that.
Yes, because they are still in power and those elections we saw were produced in Hollywood.
And thats the truth. IF it makes you feel a nicer person to think that the US army is the liberator of Asia, then by all means, keep lying to yourself.
I'm not lying to myself. The Japanese, Philippinos and S. Koreans I have met must be lying to me when they say they are quite liberated when compared to N. Koreans, Tibetans, Vietnamese, Chinese, Burmese and so on (you know, the countries we have NOT liberated).
First of all, the Taliban were not the official govenment of Afghanistan. They were not recognized by the US as a government and they did not have an extradiction treaty with the US. They were just the most powerful faction in a drawn out civil war. I'm not sure they would've been able to capture and deliver Osama Bin Laden.
Secondly, the US provided no proof of the involvment of Bin Laden. Most countries do not extradict people without proof.
I guess you are right. I mean, unless we had a VIDEO TAPE of Osama Bin Laden admitting to planning 9-11, I guess we shouldn't have gone in.
(Source is NPR, so take with salt):
According to a translated transcript issued by the Pentagon, bin Laden says the attacks on the World Trade Center did more damage than expected. "...we calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy, who would be killed based on the position of the tower," he says, according to the transcript. "We calculated that the floors that would be hit would be three or four floors. I was the most optimistic of them all. (...Inaudible...) due to my experience in this field, I was thinking that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building and collapse the area where the plane hit and all the floors above it only. This is all that we had hoped for."
What should we have done when the Taliban didn't hand Osama over? The obvious thing -- send in special forces to assassinate him. Why is our first reaction to clumsily overthrow the entire government of the country? The Taliban weren't terrorists, just a corrupt, fundamentalist regime (like the Bush administration). The Taliban couldn't have handed us Osama even if they wanted to.
First, if the Bush "regime" were like the Taliban, as you suggest, you would not be able to read this reply as you would already be dead. Next, is your girlfriend... I mean mom or sister... allowed to leave the house "uncovered" and without male (relative or husband) escort? How about vote?
Finally, we didn't overthrow the Taliban alone. First, we had NATO support. Next, we merely assisted the Northern Alliance in ending a civil war that has been raging for decades. I guess you would prefer that we let innocent men, women and children continue to die as a result of that civil war.
Oh, and "assassination" truly is forbidden by US law. Unlike war, which is perfectly legal. I find it ironic that so many who want Bush impeached for breaking non-existent laws suggest that maybe he should have broken REAL laws instead. Do you really not see the irony there?
What kind of an evil coward do you need to be to steer bombs into peoples cities from the other side of the planet?
I agree. When I'm killing wasps in my yard, I don't bother with the spray. Nope! I dive right into the next, killing them all by hand. Using the spray would be... how did you put it... evil and cowardly.
I'm not saying better under Taliban.
I'm saying they didn't play ball with the US, so we took their goodies that we couldn't get cut-in on.
Didn't play ball? I'd say. They harbored Osama Bin Laden. You remember him, right? The guy that planned and ordered the deaths of 3000+ Americans in the largest attack on American soil? Am I ringing a bell here?
What would you have had the US do?
GWB: Give us Bin Laden.
Taliban: No, bitch!
GWB: Well, we tried. Sorry to bother you guys. Have fun blowing up ancient art.
They left the planet long ago
The elder race still learn and grow
Their power grows with purpose strong
To claim the home where they belong...
Expect a return sometime around 2112.
Microsoft has reacted to this security exposure by launching a new version that puts the OS out of reach and is guaranteed attack-proof: Vista for Vacuums.
Then Vista would really suck.
No, if you put Vista on a vacuum, it would probably blow!
That didn't take long. Not bad for a Friday morning.
The one linked in the summary works for me, but if you are having problems you can see the original, non plagiarized article HERE
They also don't point out whether this breaks out of the IE sandbox or not. This makes a big difference, as if they can't break out of the sandbox, it makes any attack fairly useless on a correctly configured machine using IE. More details would have been nice.
From TFA:
By taking advantage of the way that browsers, specifically Internet Explorer, handle active scripting and .NET objects, the pair have been able to load essentially whatever content they want into a location of their choice on a user's machine.
From /. Summary:
They have attacks that let them load chosen content to a chosen location with chosen permissions.
I think it's pretty clear that it is out of the sandbox and has full access to the backyard and house, regardless of how Vista is configured.
More to the point, Energy can be gotten from other sources besides oil. Whereas plastics (A medical revolution) may not be, and can be recycled.
My point is this. There will be higher priorities to use crude oil than energy because there are alternatives to produce said energy where there might not be in others.
While plastic can be recycled, I'm not sure that I'd want my medicinal grade plastic coming from recycled sources. The temperatures needed to completely sanitize plastic is higher than the burning point of plastic. In other words, if you were to try to heat plastic to the point of sanitation, it would burst into flames before reaching that point. This is why recycling plastic is done with chemical methods. Another reason I don't want my medicinal plastic recycled.
(Yes, I'm aware that hot soapy water cleans plastic forks or whatever well enough for most uses, but not medicinal.)