That may be true, or may not, but it's certainly NOT the answer to the original post.
It was surly an answer to the question of why the U.S. is spending so much money on new technologies, which was, as I understood it, what the OP asked when he wrote
Is anyone else wondering why we are spending so much money on the missile defense system?
Is anyone else wondering why we are spending so much money on the missile defense system? This seems to have solved the problem of missile defense much more elegantly (and more cost effectively?) Maybe I'm missing something.
The military industry in the U.S. is so big and employs so many people that they will have to come up with these kinds of technologies as an addition to the already existing systems, as a justification for continued financial support and of their importance and supremacy. They will not stop spending money on that ballistic missile system, that would look as a failure. The U.S. army is not very keen on admitting failures.
The Cold War may be over. But these days, the policies remain the same, only the pretexts have changed. It is another reason why the US military budgets have been increasing year after year. It is not a defence against Russia anymore. It is against the technological sophistication of the Third World. The US believes that globalisation has deeply polarised the handful of rich and the poor worldwide. To keep the poor nations in control, you need new military systems.
It's important to note the limitations of a bitmap GUI over a vector GUI when it comes to magnifying the screen. I would mention these limitations but I haven't the time.
Well, let me fill in then.
The bitmapped GUI turns ugly when zoomed (staircase effects), while a vector based GUI presumably wouldn't.
However, there's no reason why a magnifying glass must magnify the screen. Most GUIs are already vector based, as far as I know. A window is simply a vector object with colour attributes etc., and it contains other vector objects such as buttons etc. Even fonts are vector objects nowadays.
(I'm using the word "sue" here since most merkins seems to use it as a synonym for "blame").
Most Microsoft software is manager-ware, meaning it is expensive, it looks nice, it is user friendly, and Bob Mustermann can learn how to use its basic features from a out-of-town one week course. This in turn usually means that large corporations depend upon it.
Just a thought: Have somebody heard of anyone that have tried to sue Microsoft for loss of profit (or whatever) due to faulty products? Do Microsoft have some kind of protection from this?
Other software, licensed under free licenses, always have NO WARRANTY. This means [I believe] that you ought to think before depending on it, because if it breakes, or makes something else break, you can't blame the author or ask for compensation.
Hmmm... If we don't sue Microsoft for providing us with a faulty product, who should we sue? Is it the fault of the manager that adviced us to install the crap, or is it the fault of the script kiddie that wrote the virus?
I would argue that it's not the fault of the script kiddie that wrote the virus. He (presumably a he, anyway) can't be blamed for the errors of Microsoft. Don't give me the knocking on doors parallel, because it's not the same thing. Well, partly. If Microsoft built the house. But then, why won't they fix that bloody door?
I would also argue that it's not the fault of the manager. She (this is a large corporation, they try to be PC as part of their PR) probably got a nice PowerPoint presentation and a lunch from a Microsoft sales person. Maybe even a dinner and some wine-and-cheese.
I don't know... I'm just feeling a bit random at the moment.
In the English language, quotemarks mean a verbatim quote.
And they are also used to denote metaphorical text. I had no intention of quoting the letter, why would I? It available for everyone to read. I said what I thought the text meant.
So, they make a profit by doing so, that does not make their letter to you an advertisemnet (commercial email).
No, it makes it pointless spam. If my company had anything to gain from being indexed by any particular search engine, we would see to it ourselfs, without having to be asked to by the bot of the engine.
You might have a point, but I don't think hackings by ex-employees etc. are as common as you think. Why? Well, simply because the negative impact of being found guilty of hacking a company computer cancels out the benefit from successfully blocking the company from a couple of search engines.
Of course it was from Google; another poster here was familiar with the message and told you that it had the request to modify robots.txt when you claimed it asked you to remove robots.txt.
So you're saying that the more people that read the message on tru7h.org the more true it becomes that it was Google who sent it?
Thank you sir, that was the response I wanted, earlier in the thread.
Yes, I did indeed read the full What Is Spam? page and I picked out the first line of if because it comes closes to how I define spam; something that wastes my time and annoys me, takes up space in my inbox, was not requested by me, and is sent out of greed (of any degree). I very seldom get two or more copies of any one spam, so I can't see how the "this is a one time mailing" excuse could be taken serious in any type of correspondance, spam or not.
The commercial interest of it in no way ties to the recipient of the email [...]
Many spams don't tie any commercial interest to the recipient. A letter saying "buy our product" does not tie any commercial interest to the reader. It only delivers the old "give us money" message.
The text that we're talking about follows the same lines. It says that Google can't index the site, implying that it would be a good thing if they could. So, in effect, we have a spam, something that says "you might benefit from using our product". Note that you very possibly will benefit from having your site indexed by Google but, and that's the important part, don't you think that the webmaster would be capable of figuring that out herself?
Calling any unsolicted email (which I back it is) spam is dangerous, because think of it this way: everytime you send a resume with an email to a company just to see if they have openings is the same course - yet not spam, right?
I don't quite agree. I would argue that you shouldn't send them a CV if you didn't know they had vacancies (many (most) companies publish their job openings on the web).
Will it make you happier if I said that yes, you're right, they don't acually have that phrase in the text, and that yes, I arrived at my conclusion about the removal of robots.txt a little bit too soon (after reading the text once)?
Now, explain to me exactly why it's not spam if the commercial link is "not direct"? I think that the commercial link is as direct it can be without them actually saying "give us $$$". Try to explain it without calling me a lier if you please. It might help to know that the definition of spam contains the phrase
Spam is flooding the Internet with many copies of the same message,
in an attempt to force the message on people who would not otherwise
choose to receive it.
Third point: SPAM is SPAM. Google sending one email to a site is not.
Spam doesn't need to be commercial (but I think that the message we're talking about is clearly commercial: the reader is supposed to think "of course I want my site indexed by Google", which will benefit Google commercially).
I don't believe that it is one single handcrafted message. Rather, judging from the From: header, it was sent by the bot itself in an automatic fashion. This makes the message part of a targeted mass mailing.
But we still don't know if it's really a genuine message from Google. I particularly want to see the other headers...
The email, which I don't trust 100% to be from Google, says, and this is verbatim:
[...] As a result, we have not been able to add your site to
our index and cannot point our users to your pages.
By pointing this out to the reader, they clearly show that the purpose of the message is to get people to allow the bot to crawl their site. Disguising it as an educational message about the format of the robots.txt file doesn't make it better. The intent, in the end, is to be able to index more pages.
What's your problem? My belief is that you wouldn't think Google had commercial interest in indexing more pages even if the message had said "THIS IS A COMMERCIAL UNSOLICITED MESSAGE".
I did read the email. The purpose of the email was exactly what I said it was, to get people to remove the robots.txt file from their sites. The intention of the message is to let Google expand their database.
The question you should be asking is whether the email is fake or not.
Isn't spam unsolicited COMMERCIAL email? Was Google's email commercial?
Sure. It's saying "please remove the robots.txt file from your site so that we may index the site and thereby increase the size of our search database". The number of pages in their database is clearly related to their economical gain.
How about when companies try/(is permitted) to restrict what the public can see/read/hear because they own the infrastucture which permits access? (read: the Big-Business-friendly Internet).
Hello? What do you mean "try" and "is permitted"? We are exposed to more propaganda from our western governments and from our companies today than anyone has ever been exposed to before. Not even the people of Nazi Germany and Communist Soviet were ever exposed to this much propaganda.
When you watch something on your TV, or when you're listening to radio or reading your daily newspaper, you are taking in stuff that someone has chosen for you to see/hear.
Someone with an interest in getting you to think about something, or in getting you to have a certain bias, have seen to that selected/censored information makes its way, in one form or another, to you.
Never assume everything you're being told is right. Always ask yourself who's gaining from the information that you recieve. Also assume that you're not getting the full picture. An interview or article always gives a biased view.
The Center for Media and Democracy has a publication, called PR Watch, in which these kinds of things gets poked at. Read it at www.prwatch.org.
Selling that software to an oppressive government is willingly aiding and abetting oppression and censorship.
Hmmm... All vendors that sells software to the U.S. government are doing it already.
I wasn't trying to voice opposition to the bombing in Afghanistan (in fact, I think it was too little, too late--we should have flattened Iran in 1977 after getting the hostages back; maybe then we wouldn't be in this mess).
The hostage situation took place in 1979, on November 4, and no, you should have been in a totally different mess.
Would having manufactured only insecticides made I.G. Farben less guilty for knowingly selling Zyklon B?
I believe Goldwin's law is dangerously close to being applicable here.
There is no other way to describe is then to say that the United States is slowly but surely moving into a state of "Internet communism".
No, not communism, at least not communism according to the Manifest, really (no workers have yet risen against their bosses and the oppressive state).
I would say it's just another face of capitalism. If you think about what it was that led up to this you will find that it's mostly about U.S. interests in the Middle East. What interestes does the U.S. have in the Middle East?
But I see what you mean. You're moving towards a situation in which you all become instruments of your own government. You will no longer be able to resist supporting the system. It is as if the state had taken your right to remain silent away.
Hmm. And voting for the other guys wouldn't help, would it? Because you only have two political parties, and they're mostly the same anyway (or so they seem to the innocent bystander).
Come back and post when you get a little older, and have experienced the world.
Now, this is getting personal, and I'm truly sorry about that. I just want to say that at age 28, I believe that I have had quite a lot of experience of the world. I am now, for example, as far from my birth place as I can possibly get without leaving the ground.
I don't care what they thought. I don't even care if I am wrong. If someone kills 5,000 of my countrymen, I am going to demand justice.
Sure you will. And the U.S. is going to sentence a lot of people, innocent and guilty, to death and to prison, because of public opinion. And other people, both guilty and innocent will go free, but have their lifes severly crippled by the restrictions that the U.S. will put on what they can do, what they may say and where they may go, because of public opinion.
Public opinion is what the media delivers. It's the same in all countries. The interesting bits are those that fails to reach the TV screen.
Have you ever wondered why it's so important to show crying mothers, dead babies, broken families and brave firefighters on TV? It's important so that you, the person watching the TV, thinks it's right to act against "the ones that did it". It's important to keep the citizens on the correct line of thought so that they don't stop their government from doing the morally correct thing.
Of course you want justice. After all, you are a good citizen.
The problems in Afghanistan pre-date widespread use of oil, and pre-date the times that the US even really had a foreign policy.
You're partly right. Afganistan has had problems for quite some time. But the current U.S. involvment with Aghanistan is due to the U.S. being afraid that the countries around the Persian Gulf will turn againts them and remove their access to the precious oil. The U.S. have been looking for a reason to get rid of the talibans since they took control of Afghanistan, and this crash happened to be the perfect reason to finally do it. The want to get rid of the talibans because they might influence Pakistan and other countries closer to the Gulf, turning them against the U.S.
But they don't even have to turn counties agains the U.S. It would be bad enough if they managed to somehow unite the "arab countries". One big united arab state would be very bad indeed for the U.S.
Would 5000 Swedes be a small price, or are you just another bigot?
At least try to think outside the box.
Of course you, or anyone, think 5000 of your own kind are 5000 too many, no matter if your kind happens to be Swedes or people from North America. What I'm saying is that to your country (particularly to your country), to the industries and to the system that makes everything go tick tock, 5000 people and some billion bucks are not very much. It's a small price to pay to keep everything ticking.
And if you have no sense of morals, I don't despise you. I pity you your empty life.
Thanks for your concern, but I know enough about moral to know moral is something you can't assume you know anything too much about. My life has so far been very interesting indeed.
Re:That's a global moral statement...
on
Message from Kabul
·
· Score: 1
Did we have no right to stop nazi germany from killing millions of jews?
Ask any nazi and they'll tell you that you had no right whatsoever and that they, the old nazis, were right. What makes you think you are truly right? Can't you stand it when other people hold an opposing view?
Pardon? We are in this for the money? Those 5000 people that died is just some opportunity for us? Do you realize how much money we are spending everyday being over there?
When did you last read your country's foreign policy for the middle east? 10% of the oil consumption in the U.S. comes from the Persian Gulf, and the U.S. spends between $30 and $60 billion each year on their military presence to ensure that that oil keeps flowing the right way. See e.g. http://www.igc.org/infocus/. The bombs that the US is dropping are cheap in comparison.
Re:That's a global moral statement...
on
Message from Kabul
·
· Score: 2
Do you realize that you're contradicting yourself? You're telling other people that it's wrong to tell other people what to do. Funny funny!
Nope, I believe I attacked the idea of there being some kind of moral right. I'm not telling anyone what they should do, but I'm telling them what I think. It's part of what people like to call freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is a funny thing, I agree.
Now, I'm not forcing my views upon you, because that would be contradicting myself (apart from being incredibly stupid). I'm saying that I believe that it's wrong to force ones views upon anyone else. If you feel forced to believe that, then I'm truly sorry.
According to your own statement, as a Swede you have no right to tell Americans not to interfere in Afghani relations.
Interfere in Afgani relations? You can't have a relation with less than one entity. You mean internal relations?
I have no right to stop Americans from doing anything. I have no right to say I have a right to stop anyone from doing anything. I do have the right to say I want them to stop doing whatever thay are doing, but no right to even insinuate that I have any kind of right to actually stop them from e.g. bombing Afghanistan. I can't require them to do or not do things.
There's a difference.
Many other arguments could be made againt your position, but it's disproved itself already, so I'll spare you the details.
This is not a private conversation. Other people might be interested in your arguments...
Re:Morality is not globally valid
on
Message from Kabul
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I'm 28, and you're a troll, but I'm replying nontheless.
You're a flaming asshole who eats marshmallows for supper.
No I'm not flaming. I'm pointing out stuff that can and should be viewed in another perspective if one only cares to think for a while. What I was "flaming" about was the fact that the OP (you? I didn't really take note of who wrote it) assumed that he/she had some kind of moral right towards people with a totally different way of thinking.
I haven't had marshmallows for ages. Too much sugar. And I don't have supper, I have dinner.
So you're saying it was okay to kill 5000 people in the world trade center because morals are a relative thing?
Nope, I'm not saying that it's okay to kill 5000 people. I'm saying that the U. S. of A. is using the relatively small number of deaths in the WTC crash (and in terrorist attacks generally) as a means of expanding their economical influence in (and gain from) the middle eastern region.
It's all economics. That's how countries work, and it doesn't have anything to do with moral.
There are other causes of death, some of which are directly sponsored by large industries (guns, tobacco, cars and oil), that are far more common than death by terrorist attack. The sad thing is that these other causes are all "normal" and "acceptable" due to them being part of the American way of life.
I'm also saying that the people who did the flying and they who did the planning of the WTC crash were "right". They thought they were right in just the same way as most Americans apparantly [we are told] thinks it's correct to bomb the living daylights out of Afghanistan and it's people. They would probably say, just as you are, that they had the "moral right" to do it.
Hey, I hope you get cancer. That's not wrong, because morals are all relative, and I believe that the good of the many makes it imperative that we pray to jesus, buddah, and allah that you get some horrible degenerative disease.
Did you say I was flaming?:-) Are you assuming that I am religious in any way? I'm an anarchist, I believe in my right to express myself and to think whatever thoughts I want. I don't believe in being opressed by imaginary entities.
People who do good in this world have a really strong moral compasses and understand the difference between right and wrong.
Sorry, but that is totally wrong.
People that do good doesn't need to know a thing about what's right and what's wrong for anyone. Only you can decide what's right for you.
I say to you "Grow up and join the human race".
It's a species, not a race. And I'm already part of it, thank you.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope. The reason that most poor nations are poor is that other nations wants them to be poor.
It was surly an answer to the question of why the U.S. is spending so much money on new technologies, which was, as I understood it, what the OP asked when he wrote
Here you go:
If I ever had to make that decision, I would know that the point where I made the wrong decision was when I decided to put myself in that situation.
The military industry in the U.S. is so big and employs so many people that they will have to come up with these kinds of technologies as an addition to the already existing systems, as a justification for continued financial support and of their importance and supremacy. They will not stop spending money on that ballistic missile system, that would look as a failure. The U.S. army is not very keen on admitting failures.
A quote from Noam Chomsky (interview):
The Noam Chomsky Archives
Yay! New cool technologies to scare underdeveloped countries with!
Well, let me fill in then.
The bitmapped GUI turns ugly when zoomed (staircase effects), while a vector based GUI presumably wouldn't.
However, there's no reason why a magnifying glass must magnify the screen. Most GUIs are already vector based, as far as I know. A window is simply a vector object with colour attributes etc., and it contains other vector objects such as buttons etc. Even fonts are vector objects nowadays.
I remember the days when e-mail was a text-only medium.
I wonder what went wrong?
(I'm using the word "sue" here since most merkins seems to use it as a synonym for "blame").
Most Microsoft software is manager-ware, meaning it is expensive, it looks nice, it is user friendly, and Bob Mustermann can learn how to use its basic features from a out-of-town one week course. This in turn usually means that large corporations depend upon it.
Just a thought: Have somebody heard of anyone that have tried to sue Microsoft for loss of profit (or whatever) due to faulty products? Do Microsoft have some kind of protection from this?
Other software, licensed under free licenses, always have NO WARRANTY. This means [I believe] that you ought to think before depending on it, because if it breakes, or makes something else break, you can't blame the author or ask for compensation.
Hmmm... If we don't sue Microsoft for providing us with a faulty product, who should we sue? Is it the fault of the manager that adviced us to install the crap, or is it the fault of the script kiddie that wrote the virus?
I would argue that it's not the fault of the script kiddie that wrote the virus. He (presumably a he, anyway) can't be blamed for the errors of Microsoft. Don't give me the knocking on doors parallel, because it's not the same thing. Well, partly. If Microsoft built the house. But then, why won't they fix that bloody door?
I would also argue that it's not the fault of the manager. She (this is a large corporation, they try to be PC as part of their PR) probably got a nice PowerPoint presentation and a lunch from a Microsoft sales person. Maybe even a dinner and some wine-and-cheese.
I don't know... I'm just feeling a bit random at the moment.
And they are also used to denote metaphorical text. I had no intention of quoting the letter, why would I? It available for everyone to read. I said what I thought the text meant.
No, it makes it pointless spam. If my company had anything to gain from being indexed by any particular search engine, we would see to it ourselfs, without having to be asked to by the bot of the engine.
You might have a point, but I don't think hackings by ex-employees etc. are as common as you think. Why? Well, simply because the negative impact of being found guilty of hacking a company computer cancels out the benefit from successfully blocking the company from a couple of search engines.
So you're saying that the more people that read the message on tru7h.org the more true it becomes that it was Google who sent it?
Thank you sir, that was the response I wanted, earlier in the thread.
Yes, I did indeed read the full What Is Spam? page and I picked out the first line of if because it comes closes to how I define spam; something that wastes my time and annoys me, takes up space in my inbox, was not requested by me, and is sent out of greed (of any degree). I very seldom get two or more copies of any one spam, so I can't see how the "this is a one time mailing" excuse could be taken serious in any type of correspondance, spam or not.
Many spams don't tie any commercial interest to the recipient. A letter saying "buy our product" does not tie any commercial interest to the reader. It only delivers the old "give us money" message.
The text that we're talking about follows the same lines. It says that Google can't index the site, implying that it would be a good thing if they could. So, in effect, we have a spam, something that says "you might benefit from using our product". Note that you very possibly will benefit from having your site indexed by Google but, and that's the important part, don't you think that the webmaster would be capable of figuring that out herself?
I don't quite agree. I would argue that you shouldn't send them a CV if you didn't know they had vacancies (many (most) companies publish their job openings on the web).
I see you keep on using the words you know best.
Will it make you happier if I said that yes, you're right, they don't acually have that phrase in the text, and that yes, I arrived at my conclusion about the removal of robots.txt a little bit too soon (after reading the text once)?
Now, explain to me exactly why it's not spam if the commercial link is "not direct"? I think that the commercial link is as direct it can be without them actually saying "give us $$$". Try to explain it without calling me a lier if you please. It might help to know that the definition of spam contains the phrase
(taken from spam.abuse.net ).Spam doesn't need to be commercial (but I think that the message we're talking about is clearly commercial: the reader is supposed to think "of course I want my site indexed by Google", which will benefit Google commercially).
I don't believe that it is one single handcrafted message. Rather, judging from the From: header, it was sent by the bot itself in an automatic fashion. This makes the message part of a targeted mass mailing.
But we still don't know if it's really a genuine message from Google. I particularly want to see the other headers...
Blah blah blah.
The email, which I don't trust 100% to be from Google, says, and this is verbatim:
By pointing this out to the reader, they clearly show that the purpose of the message is to get people to allow the bot to crawl their site. Disguising it as an educational message about the format of the robots.txt file doesn't make it better. The intent, in the end, is to be able to index more pages.
What's your problem? My belief is that you wouldn't think Google had commercial interest in indexing more pages even if the message had said "THIS IS A COMMERCIAL UNSOLICITED MESSAGE".
I did read the email. The purpose of the email was exactly what I said it was, to get people to remove the robots.txt file from their sites. The intention of the message is to let Google expand their database.
The question you should be asking is whether the email is fake or not.
Sure. It's saying "please remove the robots.txt file from your site so that we may index the site and thereby increase the size of our search database". The number of pages in their database is clearly related to their economical gain.
Hello? What do you mean "try" and "is permitted"? We are exposed to more propaganda from our western governments and from our companies today than anyone has ever been exposed to before. Not even the people of Nazi Germany and Communist Soviet were ever exposed to this much propaganda.
When you watch something on your TV, or when you're listening to radio or reading your daily newspaper, you are taking in stuff that someone has chosen for you to see/hear.
Someone with an interest in getting you to think about something, or in getting you to have a certain bias, have seen to that selected/censored information makes its way, in one form or another, to you.
Never assume everything you're being told is right. Always ask yourself who's gaining from the information that you recieve. Also assume that you're not getting the full picture. An interview or article always gives a biased view.
The Center for Media and Democracy has a publication, called PR Watch, in which these kinds of things gets poked at. Read it at www.prwatch.org.
Hmmm... All vendors that sells software to the U.S. government are doing it already.
The hostage situation took place in 1979, on November 4, and no, you should have been in a totally different mess.
I believe Goldwin's law is dangerously close to being applicable here.
No, not communism, at least not communism according to the Manifest, really (no workers have yet risen against their bosses and the oppressive state).
I would say it's just another face of capitalism. If you think about what it was that led up to this you will find that it's mostly about U.S. interests in the Middle East. What interestes does the U.S. have in the Middle East?
But I see what you mean. You're moving towards a situation in which you all become instruments of your own government. You will no longer be able to resist supporting the system. It is as if the state had taken your right to remain silent away.
Hmm. And voting for the other guys wouldn't help, would it? Because you only have two political parties, and they're mostly the same anyway (or so they seem to the innocent bystander).
Now, this is getting personal, and I'm truly sorry about that. I just want to say that at age 28, I believe that I have had quite a lot of experience of the world. I am now, for example, as far from my birth place as I can possibly get without leaving the ground.
Sure you will. And the U.S. is going to sentence a lot of people, innocent and guilty, to death and to prison, because of public opinion. And other people, both guilty and innocent will go free, but have their lifes severly crippled by the restrictions that the U.S. will put on what they can do, what they may say and where they may go, because of public opinion.
Public opinion is what the media delivers. It's the same in all countries. The interesting bits are those that fails to reach the TV screen.
Have you ever wondered why it's so important to show crying mothers, dead babies, broken families and brave firefighters on TV? It's important so that you, the person watching the TV, thinks it's right to act against "the ones that did it". It's important to keep the citizens on the correct line of thought so that they don't stop their government from doing the morally correct thing.
Of course you want justice. After all, you are a good citizen.
You're partly right. Afganistan has had problems for quite some time. But the current U.S. involvment with Aghanistan is due to the U.S. being afraid that the countries around the Persian Gulf will turn againts them and remove their access to the precious oil. The U.S. have been looking for a reason to get rid of the talibans since they took control of Afghanistan, and this crash happened to be the perfect reason to finally do it. The want to get rid of the talibans because they might influence Pakistan and other countries closer to the Gulf, turning them against the U.S.
But they don't even have to turn counties agains the U.S. It would be bad enough if they managed to somehow unite the "arab countries". One big united arab state would be very bad indeed for the U.S.
At least try to think outside the box.
Of course you, or anyone, think 5000 of your own kind are 5000 too many, no matter if your kind happens to be Swedes or people from North America. What I'm saying is that to your country (particularly to your country), to the industries and to the system that makes everything go tick tock, 5000 people and some billion bucks are not very much. It's a small price to pay to keep everything ticking.
Thanks for your concern, but I know enough about moral to know moral is something you can't assume you know anything too much about. My life has so far been very interesting indeed.
Ask any nazi and they'll tell you that you had no right whatsoever and that they, the old nazis, were right. What makes you think you are truly right? Can't you stand it when other people hold an opposing view?
When did you last read your country's foreign policy for the middle east? 10% of the oil consumption in the U.S. comes from the Persian Gulf, and the U.S. spends between $30 and $60 billion each year on their military presence to ensure that that oil keeps flowing the right way. See e.g. http://www.igc.org/infocus/. The bombs that the US is dropping are cheap in comparison.
Nope, I believe I attacked the idea of there being some kind of moral right. I'm not telling anyone what they should do, but I'm telling them what I think. It's part of what people like to call freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is a funny thing, I agree.
Now, I'm not forcing my views upon you, because that would be contradicting myself (apart from being incredibly stupid). I'm saying that I believe that it's wrong to force ones views upon anyone else. If you feel forced to believe that, then I'm truly sorry.
Interfere in Afgani relations? You can't have a relation with less than one entity. You mean internal relations? I have no right to stop Americans from doing anything. I have no right to say I have a right to stop anyone from doing anything. I do have the right to say I want them to stop doing whatever thay are doing, but no right to even insinuate that I have any kind of right to actually stop them from e.g. bombing Afghanistan. I can't require them to do or not do things.
There's a difference.
This is not a private conversation. Other people might be interested in your arguments...
I'm 28, and you're a troll, but I'm replying nontheless.
No I'm not flaming. I'm pointing out stuff that can and should be viewed in another perspective if one only cares to think for a while. What I was "flaming" about was the fact that the OP (you? I didn't really take note of who wrote it) assumed that he/she had some kind of moral right towards people with a totally different way of thinking.
I haven't had marshmallows for ages. Too much sugar. And I don't have supper, I have dinner.
Nope, I'm not saying that it's okay to kill 5000 people. I'm saying that the U. S. of A. is using the relatively small number of deaths in the WTC crash (and in terrorist attacks generally) as a means of expanding their economical influence in (and gain from) the middle eastern region. It's all economics. That's how countries work, and it doesn't have anything to do with moral.
There are other causes of death, some of which are directly sponsored by large industries (guns, tobacco, cars and oil), that are far more common than death by terrorist attack. The sad thing is that these other causes are all "normal" and "acceptable" due to them being part of the American way of life.
I'm also saying that the people who did the flying and they who did the planning of the WTC crash were "right". They thought they were right in just the same way as most Americans apparantly [we are told] thinks it's correct to bomb the living daylights out of Afghanistan and it's people. They would probably say, just as you are, that they had the "moral right" to do it.
Did you say I was flaming? :-) Are you assuming that I am religious in any way? I'm an anarchist, I believe in my right to express myself and to think whatever thoughts I want. I don't believe in being opressed by imaginary entities.
Sorry, but that is totally wrong.
People that do good doesn't need to know a thing about what's right and what's wrong for anyone. Only you can decide what's right for you.
It's a species, not a race. And I'm already part of it, thank you.