. . . his own country and conviction that it was the fount of evil in the world . . he traveled to Pakistan to inform Muslim audiences that America was planning to commit genocide in Afghanistan before it invaded to overthrow the Taliban.
Utter nonsense. Of course, maybe Chomsky is trying to over compensate for his denial of the Cambodian genocide for so many years.
One of the most disgraceful aspects of Chomsky's history as a political activist arises from his obdurate refusal to confess past sins. In his co-authored book Manufacturing Consent published in 1988, he continued to defend his refutation of the Khmer Rouge genocide. Even after demonstrable proof of crimes against humanity emerged after the 1979 Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia, Chomsky remained adamant that his initial dismissal of mass murder was justified.
And in a stunningly dishonest interview given just last October to the Phnom Penh Post, Chomsky boasted of his "accurate review of the facts". He then engaged in the most brazen prevarication on his stance towards the Khmer Rouge, falsely claiming to have "harshly condemned Pol Pot's crimes".
But the taking of such flagrant liberties with truth is par for the Chomsky course. During another scandalous episode in which Chomsky was caught fabricating quotations, historian Arthur Schlesinger remarked: "Like the squid, he covers his retreat in a cloud of black ink."
Noam Chomsky's sordid history of service as an apologist for genocidaires is part of the open public record. And this gives rise to the question why the Sydney Peace Foundation selected such a morally tainted individual as an appropriate recipient for their 2011 Peace Prize.
Why is it OK for the US to retaliate, but not others?
Are you really trying to establish the principle that random collections of people can form terrorist groups and kill large number of civilians at will, just because they are angery? If one of your posts pisses off a bunch of Asians, it's OK with you if they load up a truck bomb and go hunting for you in your village/town/city, and set it off in the mall just because you might be there? I take it that the rule of law isn't so important to you then?
...attaching "the war on" (insert boogeyman here) is nothing more than a way to suck the money into a black hole of bureaucracy and thievery, usurp constitutional powers and generally fuck with the average person's life in ways unheard of by the Founding Fathers.
Intersting take on the "War on Poverty", among others.
Not so hard to understand... or maybe for you it is.
Two can play that game, and you just did.
By the way, when the "metaphor" is shooting at you, it may not be a metaphor any more, but the thing itself.
You should watch Fox News from time to time. Been watching the real news shows again, right?
Please, tune in to the propaganda, you're getting so out of the loop.
Interesting.... you are implying that the mainstream media isn't willing to carry news of terrorist attacks and threats. So, why does it so upset liberals and progressives that Fox does? What stake do they have in suppressing that knowledge? Why does it upset them when it is covered?
Unholy Alliance offers a very serious and disturbing account of the intellectual corruption of an important segment of the American Left. Even those of us who do not identify with the Left should be worried about the kind of rationalizations for Islamic terror and terrorists that have established a foothold in its ranks. The willingness of some mainstream liberals to form alliances with apologists for and defenders of terrorism in the name of defeating President Bush or sabotaging the war in Iraq represents an ominous development in American political life. Just like the battle for the soul of liberalism in the 1940s and 1950s, during which liberal anti-communists confronted and eventually defeated popular front pro-communists, the struggle within liberalism about Islamic fundamentalism in this decade may well have a defining effect on America's future.
Horowitz makes a very strong case that significant segments of the Left have formed alliances of convenience with Islamist radicals. He notes that immediately after 9/11, a number of prominent leftists opposed any American response and blamed American policies for the tragedy. With thousands of Americans dead, Noam Chomsky was so consumed by hatred of his own country and conviction that it was the fount of evil in the world that he traveled to Pakistan to inform Muslim audiences that America was planning to commit genocide in Afghanistan before it invaded to overthrow the Taliban. Other prominent writers denounced America for its reactions more vociferously than they condemned Al Qaeda for its murderous actions.
Politically speaking, it's probably the most explosive suggestion you can make today: that the Left has joined hands with radical Islam. That it is fellow-traveling with it. Such a suggestion will get you branded a McCarthyite, immediately. But is it true (the suggestion, that is)? Afraid so. And this case is powerfully, sickeningly made in David Horowitz's new book.
At first blush, it may seem an odd alliance: the leftists and the Islamists. After all, Islamists are premodern "conservatives." Reflecting on a big anti-war rally in London, Mark Steyn pointed out that militant lesbians were marching alongside militant Muslims. Did the former care that the latter would have them dead? Not really.
What unites the Left and Islamism, above all, is a deep-seated hatred of the United States (and, secondarily, Israel). Also, an absolutist, totalist view of the world. Those are enough.
Denver: Man Arrested for Providing Material Support to a Designated Foreign Terrorist Organization
Jamshid Muhtorov was arrested by members of the FBIâ(TM)s Denver and Chicago Joint Terrorism Task Forces on a charge of providing and attempting to provide material support to the Islamic Jihad Union, a Pakistan-based designated foreign terrorist organization. Full Story
Baltimore: Man Pleads Guilty to Attempted Use of a Weapon of Mass Destruction in Plot to Attack Armed Forces Recruiting Center
U.S. citizen Antonio Martinez, aka Muhammad Hussain, pled guilty to attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction against federal property in connection with a scheme to attack an armed forces recruiting station in Catonsville, Maryland. Full Story
Washington Field: Man Pleads Guilty to Shootings at Pentagon, Other Military Buildings
Yonathan Melaku, of Alexandria, Virginia, pled guilty to damaging property and to firearms violations involving five separate shootings at military installations in northern Virginia between October and November 2010, and to attempting to damage veteransâ(TM) memorials at Arlington National Cemetery. Full Story
1.Tampa: Florida Resident Charged with Plotting to Bomb Locations in Tampa
A 25-year-old resident of Pinellas Park, Florida was charged in connection with an alleged plot to attack locations in Tampa with a vehicle bomb, assault rifle, and other explosives. Full Story
2.Baltimore: Former Army Solider Charged with Attempting to Provide Material Support to al Shabaab
A man who secretly converted to Islam days before he separated from the Army was charged with attempting to provide material support to al Shabaab, a foreign terrorist organization, and was arrested upon his return to Maryland after traveling to Africa. Full Story
San Diego: Woman Guilty of Conspiring to Provide Material Support to al Shabaab
Nima Yusuf, 25, a resident of San Diego, pled guilty to conspiring to provide material support to al Shabaab, a foreign terrorist organization. Full Story
Either someone failed reading comprehension or that is the WORST troll I've seen in a while.
War on Terror. War on Poverty. War on Drugs.
I guess you never met a metaphor you didn't misunderstand.
I'll help you out - of those three, the only one that involves a real war is the War on Terror. It isn't against an abstraction, or a tactic, as the less insightful like to style it. The purpose is spelled out at the beginning:
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
Vladimir Putin praised Cold War-era scientists on Thursday for stealing U.S. nuclear secrets so that United States would not be the world's sole atomic power, in comments reflecting his vision of Russia as a counterweight to U.S. power.
Spies with suitcases full of data helped the Soviet Union build its atomic bomb, he told military commanders.
"You know, when the States already had nuclear weapons and the Soviet Union was only building them, we got a significant amount of information through Soviet foreign intelligence channels," Putin said, according to state-run Itar-Tass.
"The were carrying the information away not on microfilm but literally in suitcases. Suitcases!"
When you write "denies", or "disbelieves", or "holds", you are essentially expressing some sort of qualification on believe. So, to be more straight forward, and I think accurate:
Atheist - A person who believe there is no god, or supreme beings. Agnostic - A person who believes we don't know or can't know if god or supreme beings exist.
Once confronted with the question, "Does God exist?", there are pretty much three options: Yes, No, I don't know.
Saying no, means you believe that God doesn't exist, since you can't really prove that in any rigorous, universal way. Realistically you can't know that.
"Atheism is the most daring of all dogmas, for it is the assertion of a universal negative." - G.K. Chesterton
There was surprise when Prof Dawkins acknowledged that he was less than 100 per cent certain of his conviction that there is no creator.
The philosopher Sir Anthony Kenny, who chaired the discussion, interjected: “Why don’t you call yourself an agnostic?” Prof Dawkins answered that he did.
An incredulous Sir Anthony replied: “You are described as the world’s most famous atheist.”
Prof Dawkins said that he was “6.9 out of seven” sure of his beliefs.
“I think the probability of a supernatural creator existing is very very low,” he added.
Since 1903 the United States has held an indefinite lease on the property, which it claimed as a prize at the end of the Spanish-American War. The 45 square miles of land and water were formally handed over to the United States in ceremonies aboard the USS Kearsarge, anchored in the bay, on December 10, 1903.
The Platt Amendment, which “granted” use of the base to Uncle Sam, was dropped in 1934, and a new treaty was signed. Although it confirmed Cuba’s “ultimate sovereignty,” the treaty stipulated that the lease would be indefinite and could be terminated only by agreement of both parties (or if the United States decides to pull out). In the original lease, the United States agreed to pay Cuba the sum of US$2,000 in gold per year.
In 1934, when gold coins were discontinued, the rent was upped to US$4,085, payable by U.S. Treasury check. The first rent check that Uncle Sam paid to Castro’s regime, in 1959, was cashed. Since then Fidel, who refuses to accept the legitimacy of the treaty, has refused to cash the checks.
I'm afraid you miss the point: Clinton, Bush, and Blair all had intelligence pointing to Iraq having current WMD. The Iraqis admitted to having WMD up until 1998 when they claim to have secretly decided it was a bad idea to keep them, and secretly disposed of what they had left. Of course I don't recall that they were able to find the disposal grounds. Also note, Saddam admitted that he had his government act as if they still had them to fool the Iranians into believing they had them. Even Saddam's generals believed he had them. There should be no surprise if Saddam managed to convince the UN, US, and the West that he did.
Of course that sort of glosses over the assistance the US provided the UK prior to entering the war as well.
You mean assistance like loaning money, loans that were only paid off a few years ago? Or perhaps assistance like allowing British nuclear physicists to work on the Manhattan Project, and then not allowing them to share any of the results with the UK after the war?
When I wrote "prior to entering the war" I meant "prior to entering the war', so the reference was to the US Lend-Lease act of 1940 and the provision of 50 destroyers to the UK and Canada. That was helpful in preventing the UK from being starved into submission by submarine warfare.
This followed the 1940 Destroyers for Bases Agreement, whereby 50 USN destroyers were transferred to the Royal Navy and the Royal Canadian Navy in exchange for basing rights in the Caribbean. Churchill also granted the US base rights in Bermuda and Newfoundland gratis, allowing British military assets to be redeployed.[13]
A total of $50.1 billion (equivalent to $647 billion today) worth of supplies were shipped: $31.4 billion to Britain, $11.3 billion to the Soviet Union, $3.2 billion to France, and $1.6 billion to China. Reverse Lend-Lease comprised services such as rent on air bases that went to the U.S., and totaled $7.8 billion; of this, $6.8 billion came from the British and the Commonwealth. The terms of the agreement provided that the materiel were to be used until time for their return or destruction. Supplies after the termination date were sold to Britain at a discount for £1.075 billion using long-term loans from the U.S. Canada operated a similar program that sent $4.7 billion in supplies to the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union.[2] The United States did not charge for aid supplied under this legislation.
With the resumption of cooperation, the first task was an updating one. The British handed over a pile of reports on the progress of their work, and General Groves supplied a copy of the progress report he had just submitted to the President. The British were amazed by the progress made in America and staggered by the scale of the American effort: the estimate of the total project cost was already in excess of one thousand million dollars compared with the British expenditure in 1943 of only about half a million pounds. Chadwick was in no doubt that the first duty of the British was to assist the Americans with their project and abandon all ideas of a wartime project in England. He concluded that this would best be achieved by sending British scientists to work in the United States. . ..
Whatever the variations in the opinions of the British contributions to the Manhattan Project, there is no dispute that their participation benefited the British considerably. The course of the British nuclear programme in the postwar period would have been very different had it not been for the wartime collaboration. While United States law prohibited international cooperation on nuclear weapon design, the British were able to undertake a successful independent nuclear weapons programme, which, despite its small scale relative to that of the American programme, succeeded in elucidating all the essential principles of both fission and thermonuclear warheads and in producing an operational nuclear weapons capability. When the two countries came together again in 1958, following a critical amendment to the 1954 United States Atomic Energy Act, the developments in nuclear weapons technology over the previous eleven years were found to be remarkably s
It has to be said, assistance that we actually only stopped repaying the US for a couple of years ago - that assistance was most certainly not free, it was infact very costly.
Sorry, but no. The fact is that the terms were quite generous.
On 31 December, the UK will make a payment of about $83m (£45.5m) to the US and so discharge the last of its loans from World War II from its transatlantic ally.
It is hard from a modern viewpoint to appreciate the astronomical costs and economic damage caused by this conflict. In 1945, Britain badly needed money to pay for reconstruction and also to import food for a nation worn down after years of rationing.
"In a nutshell, everything we got from America in World War II was free," says economic historian Professor Mark Harrison, of Warwick University.
"The loan was really to help Britain through the consequences of post-war adjustment, rather than the war itself. This position was different from World War I, where money was lent for the war effort itself." . . .
Britain had spent a great deal of money at the beginning of the war, under the US cash-and-carry scheme, which saw straight payments for materiel. There was also trading of territory for equipment on terms that have attracted much criticism in the years since. By 1941, Britain was in a parlous financial state and Lend-Lease was eventually introduced.
The post-war loan was part-driven by the Americans' termination of the scheme. Under the programme, the US had effectively donated equipment for the war effort, but anything left over in Britain at the end of hostilities and still needed would have to be paid for.
But the price would please a bargain hunter - the US only wanted one-tenth of the production cost of the equipment and would lend the money to pay for it. . . . .
But the terms of the loan were extremely generous, with a fixed interest rate of 2% making it considerably less terrifying than a typical mortgage. . . ..
Yet for Dr Tim Leunig, lecturer in economic history at the LSE, it's no surprise that the UK chose to keep this low-interest loan going rather than pay it off early.
"Nobody pays off their student loan early, unless they are a nutter. Even if you've got the money to pay it off early, you should just put it in a bank and pocket the interest."
And if it seems strange to the non-economist that WWII debts are still knocking around after 60 years, there are debts that predate the Napoleonic wars. Dr Leunig says the government is still paying out on these "consol" bonds, because it is better value for taxpayers to keep paying the 2.5% interest than to buy back the bonds.
Thai authorities charged two Iranians on Wednesday over an alleged bomb plot against Israeli diplomats, officials said, piling pressure on Teheran over accusations of a terror campaign against the Jewish state.
Authorities said they had laid criminal charges against two Iranian suspects accused of involvement in the three blasts in central Bangkok yesterday.
One of the men -- named as 28-year-old Saeid Morati -- lost both legs after he hurled an explosive device at police while fleeing an earlier blast at a house in the capital. The satchel containing the bomb, which he threw at a police vehicle, bounced off another vehicle and exploded at his feet.
A second Iranian suspect, Mohammad Hazaei, was detained trying to board a flight out of the country at Suvarnabhumi airport. A third Iranian suspect is believed to have fled to Malaysia, officials said.
"These three Iranian men are an assassination team and their targets were Israeli diplomats including the ambassador," a senior Thai intelligence official told AFP, speaking on condition of anonymity.
"Their plan was to attach bombs to diplomats' cars." . . ..
Israel accused Iran of orchestrating attacks on Israeli embassy staff in India and Georgia on Monday.
An Israeli diplomat in New Delhi suffered grave shrapnel wounds when a motorbike assailant attached a bomb to her car on Monday.
One more, then I'm going to stop since this could easily turn into a seemingly never-ending story. I've hardly touched on Iran's activities around the world. I've hardly even scratched the surface of Iran's involvement in Lebanon, and with Hezbollah, and the massive amount of arms that they've been providing. You do know that Hezbollah, aiming at the desturction of Israel, has 50,000 rockets now, right?
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia (Reuters) — A court sentenced a teacher to 40 months in prison and 750 lashes for “mocking religion” after he discussed the Bible and praised Jews, a Saudi newspaper reported yesterday.
Leaving Islam for another religion, or apostasy, has long invited reprisals from the Iranian government, forcing the likes of Illyas and his family into absolute secrecy, practicing their new beliefs only in the privacy of their home. In Iran, Christians are prohibited from seeking Muslim converts, although there has been tolerance for those who are born into Christian families.
The government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has introduced legislation before the Iranian Majlis that would mandate the death penalty for apostates from Islam, a sign that it will brook no proselytizing in the country. "Life for so-called apostates in Iran has never been easy, but it could become literally impossible if Iran passes this new draft penal code," says Joseph Grieboski, the president of the Institute on Religion and Public Policy in Washington. "For anyone who dares question the regime's religious ideology, there could soon be no room to argue—only death.''
Microsoft has been beaten up over anti-competitive / anti-trust practices many times in many jurisdictions. Someone with Longs's experience will be highly valuable for both offense against Google and defense on future claims against them. (Could anyone name all the other big PC OS/application vendors that have identifiable market share for generic PC OS sales? . . . . chrip . . . . chirp . . . )
And if your job is police officer armed up and suited for a riot, you're expected to be able to handle people yelling at you and tossing rocks without bringing out the shotguns and chemical weapons.
A rock is a dangerous weapon, either in the hand or thrown. Plenty of people have been killed by rocks. Throwing rocks is a form of execution still used in many parts of the world - maybe you've heard of stoning? (Hint: It not about the band of vaguely similar name, or getting high.)
Throwing things at the police is assault. Protesters don't have the right to assault the police. The police do have the power under law of using force to compel compliance with the law and lawful orders.
The police don't need better weapons. They need better brains. Problem is, between shitty funding, politics, and a fundamentally broken sense of justice in America, most of the police don't actually know how to handle this sort of thing.
All things considered, the police generally handle these sorts of difficult situations pretty well. It tends to be the commentators that get it wrong. For example, you seem to think it is OK to assault police officers by throwing rocks, that they just have to take it because they have protective equipment. Wrong.
Pepper spray used on non-violent, unresisting protesters is excessive.
If it is the minimal force necessary to enforce the law, it is probably reasonable, not excessive, under the law.
Given yourself enough weasel room there?
Not so much "weasel room" as qualifying it since I expected exactly this sort of reaction if I didn't, but from the other direction. "Non-lethal! what about Randy M Somebody! He was pepper sprayed and died on the spot!" Pepper spray, like tear gas, tasers, and batons, are properly known as less lethal weapons. They are unlikely to kill if used properly, but on rare occasions it happens.
Cops don't get a pass just because they're cops.
And protesters don't get a pass, even if they are non-violent, if they don't comply with a lawful order to disperse. The difference is that the police are legally entitled to use force to compel compliance with the law. Demonstrators are not entitled to use force to defy the law, and being non-violent doesn't give you a pass to ignore the law and the police indefinitely.
And no, I wouldn't use lethal force first. I'd plunk one down by their feet or off to their side; just enough to get them to duck or back off, or turn on me instead of the victim they're assaulting.
Then you are a danger to yourself and everyone around you. You start shooting, even as you describe, and it would be both reasonable and lawful for the police to shoot you. Furthermore, how much better off do you think the demonstrators will be once shooting starts? The first thing that is going to happen is the officers will draw their sidearms and shotguns. Now the possibility for real harm is just beginning. You just aren't thinking this through.
Roger that. Ghandi was a much better man than I'll ever be. Cops should worry about that. There's much worse people out there than me.
Then my advice to you is stay completely away from protests. The "worse people than you" will be taken care of, one way or another. You should be clear that the law enforcement bench is a lot deeper than the local guy you meet in the donut shop, including state and federal agencies. When needed, state National Guards, the US Army, and the US Marines have all helped settle things down in various cities. No city is going to be left under threat or control of lawless protesters indefinitely. To believe anything else is fantasy.
This is far more constructive, if ironic, than fantasies of violence: Occupy Gets Its Own PAC
Why care about what's thrown at you by civilians? It's your job to take it and react reasonably.
Arresting people who throw things at police is quite reasonable. Just because you are protesting doesn't give you the right to assault police officers. (That's what throwing things at them is.) Just because you are a citizen who happens to be a police officer doesn't give other citizens the right to assault you without consequences. Or are you thinking, what's a brick in the head between citizens?
Why any policeman would think it's reasonable conduct to pepper spray a line of kneeling civilians is beyond me.
If the protesters, the kneeling civilians, are refusing to comply with a lawful order to vacate the area, the police can generally use force of some kind. They could pick them up, or use pepper spray, or other means. Or do you think that the law should be ignored if anyone can get a mob together?
I'd be looking around for a rifle if I saw that happening.
So, you threaten to use lethal force against law enforcement officers using generally non-lethal means that nearly everyone recovers from after a short period to enforce the law? Interesting. Two reactions:
1. You would probably be setting up a police officer for a board of inquiry followed immediately by a finding of a justified shoot - target being you. 2. You don't really seem to be up to non-violent protests. Maybe you should stick to letter writing. You could use vulgar language if it makes you feel more powerful.
Microsoft has played many roles over its long history with Apple. It has been benefactor, beneficiary, competitor, and on occasion extortionist.
As a benefactor, Microsoft has invested in Apple, more than once IIRC. They have also produced many solid productivity applications, and once upon a time a number of programming tools (MS Basic, QuickBasic, Fortran) for the Mac. Apple desperately needed applications for the Mac, especially during the early years when people were wrestling with the enormous increase in complexity that programming the Macintosh interface represented at the time.
As a beneficiary, Microsoft has reaped a nontrivial amount of money from sales of Microsoft products on the Macintosh platform. It also benefited from early exposure to the GUI ideas in the Macintosh and Lisa that popularized and built upon earlier work at Xerox. It could see the many interesting things Apple was doing with object oriented programming, multimedia, and other innovations.
As a competitor, Microsoft modeled Windows after Macintosh and used it to largely drive Apple from the market for many years. Microsoft used its position as the prime application vendor to shape how Macintosh was used, making it more difficult to use Macintosh in business by withholding key applications or dropping others. (Microsoft dropped Microsoft Project and Foxbase/Foxpro for Macintosh, and never produced Access.) Apple has repeatedly aided Microsoft through brilliance in conception, idiocy in execution, and almost non-existent follow through with future products - both hardware and software. (They are doing much better over the last 10 years.)
Business being business, extortionist may be too harsh a word, but Microsoft is rumored to have forced Apple to sell its marvelous Macintosh Basic to Microsoft for $1.00 if it wanted to get another license for the Microsoft Basic in the ROMs of the Apple IIs - Apple's bread and butter money maker for years after the Macintosh was released. Funny how much Microsoft Basic -> Quickbasic improved around that time. I seem to recall that Microsoft stopped development on Macintosh applications when Apple sued them over the look and feel of Windows as being too close to Macintosh. I don't believe those were the only times that Microsoft played hardball with Apple either, although it probably went both ways at times.
Slashdot Mirror
All dissent must me silenced.
What was incorrect?
You're kidding, right?
. . . his own country and conviction that it was the fount of evil in the world . . he traveled to Pakistan to inform Muslim audiences that America was planning to commit genocide in Afghanistan before it invaded to overthrow the Taliban.
Utter nonsense. Of course, maybe Chomsky is trying to over compensate for his denial of the Cambodian genocide for so many years.
Ethical perversion, not peace, is Chomsky's raison d'etre
Why is it OK for the US to retaliate, but not others?
Are you really trying to establish the principle that random collections of people can form terrorist groups and kill large number of civilians at will, just because they are angery? If one of your posts pisses off a bunch of Asians, it's OK with you if they load up a truck bomb and go hunting for you in your village/town/city, and set it off in the mall just because you might be there? I take it that the rule of law isn't so important to you then?
...attaching "the war on" (insert boogeyman here) is nothing more than a way to suck the money into a black hole of bureaucracy and thievery, usurp constitutional powers and generally fuck with the average person's life in ways unheard of by the Founding Fathers.
Intersting take on the "War on Poverty", among others.
Not so hard to understand... or maybe for you it is.
Two can play that game, and you just did.
By the way, when the "metaphor" is shooting at you, it may not be a metaphor any more, but the thing itself.
Shall we assume you won't be demonstrating?
Interesting.... you are implying that the mainstream media isn't willing to carry news of terrorist attacks and threats. So, why does it so upset liberals and progressives that Fox does? What stake do they have in suppressing that knowledge? Why does it upset them when it is covered?
Unholy Alliance Part I
Unholy Alliance Part II
Unholy Alliance
Unholy Alliance offers a very serious and disturbing account of the intellectual corruption of an important segment of the American Left. Even those of us who do not identify with the Left should be worried about the kind of rationalizations for Islamic terror and terrorists that have established a foothold in its ranks. The willingness of some mainstream liberals to form alliances with apologists for and defenders of terrorism in the name of defeating President Bush or sabotaging the war in Iraq represents an ominous development in American political life. Just like the battle for the soul of liberalism in the 1940s and 1950s, during which liberal anti-communists confronted and eventually defeated popular front pro-communists, the struggle within liberalism about Islamic fundamentalism in this decade may well have a defining effect on America's future.
Horowitz makes a very strong case that significant segments of the Left have formed alliances of convenience with Islamist radicals. He notes that immediately after 9/11, a number of prominent leftists opposed any American response and blamed American policies for the tragedy. With thousands of Americans dead, Noam Chomsky was so consumed by hatred of his own country and conviction that it was the fount of evil in the world that he traveled to Pakistan to inform Muslim audiences that America was planning to commit genocide in Afghanistan before it invaded to overthrow the Taliban. Other prominent writers denounced America for its reactions more vociferously than they condemned Al Qaeda for its murderous actions.
All Spelled Out
Politically speaking, it's probably the most explosive suggestion you can make today: that the Left has joined hands with radical Islam. That it is fellow-traveling with it. Such a suggestion will get you branded a McCarthyite, immediately. But is it true (the suggestion, that is)? Afraid so. And this case is powerfully, sickeningly made in David Horowitz's new book.
At first blush, it may seem an odd alliance: the leftists and the Islamists. After all, Islamists are premodern "conservatives." Reflecting on a big anti-war rally in London, Mark Steyn pointed out that militant lesbians were marching alongside militant Muslims. Did the former care that the latter would have them dead? Not really.
What unites the Left and Islamism, above all, is a deep-seated hatred of the United States (and, secondarily, Israel). Also, an absolutist, totalist view of the world. Those are enough.
FBIâ(TM)s Top Ten News Stories for the Week Ending January 27, 2012
FBIâ(TM)s Top Ten News Stories for the Week Ending January 13, 2012
FBIâ(TM)s Top Ten News Stories for the Week Ending December 9, 2011
FBIâ(TM)s Top Ten News Stories for the Week Ending December 2, 2011
More here.
Apparently the power of metaphor eludes you. Why don't you read this to see whom the war is actually against?
Authorization for Use of Military Force
Somehow, I doubt it.
Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report
I guess you never met a metaphor you didn't misunderstand.
I'll help you out - of those three, the only one that involves a real war is the War on Terror. It isn't against an abstraction, or a tactic, as the less insightful like to style it. The purpose is spelled out at the beginning:
Authorization for Use of Military Force
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
Not so hard to understand, is it?
Um, no he's not a "father" of hydrogen bomb . . . Andrei Sakharov (of Soviet Union) is:
Maybe you haven't heard, but the US and USSR didn't share a lot of nuclear weapons secrets at the time, although the Soviets managed to steal US nuclear secrets with spies.
Putin praises Cold War moles for stealing U.S. nuclear secrets
Vladimir Putin praised Cold War-era scientists on Thursday for stealing U.S. nuclear secrets so that United States would not be the world's sole atomic power, in comments reflecting his vision of Russia as a counterweight to U.S. power.
Spies with suitcases full of data helped the Soviet Union build its atomic bomb, he told military commanders.
"You know, when the States already had nuclear weapons and the Soviet Union was only building them, we got a significant amount of information through Soviet foreign intelligence channels," Putin said, according to state-run Itar-Tass.
"The were carrying the information away not on microfilm but literally in suitcases. Suitcases!"
China has managed to achieve the same feat: Report Stolen data gives China advanced nuclear knowhow
When you write "denies", or "disbelieves", or "holds", you are essentially expressing some sort of qualification on believe. So, to be more straight forward, and I think accurate:
Atheist - A person who believe there is no god, or supreme beings.
Agnostic - A person who believes we don't know or can't know if god or supreme beings exist.
Once confronted with the question, "Does God exist?", there are pretty much three options: Yes, No, I don't know.
Saying no, means you believe that God doesn't exist, since you can't really prove that in any rigorous, universal way. Realistically you can't know that.
"Atheism is the most daring of all dogmas, for it is the assertion of a universal negative." - G.K. Chesterton
Richard Dawkins: I can't be sure God does not exist
There was surprise when Prof Dawkins acknowledged that he was less than 100 per cent certain of his conviction that there is no creator.
The philosopher Sir Anthony Kenny, who chaired the discussion, interjected: “Why don’t you call yourself an agnostic?” Prof Dawkins answered that he did.
An incredulous Sir Anthony replied: “You are described as the world’s most famous atheist.”
Prof Dawkins said that he was “6.9 out of seven” sure of his beliefs.
“I think the probability of a supernatural creator existing is very very low,” he added.
Collins: Why this scientist believes in God - Dr. Francis Collins
THE RELATION OF SCIENCE AND RELIGION - Some fresh observations on an old problem - by RICHARD P. FEYNMAN
The Public Face of Religion in America
Matthew Parris: As an atheist, I truly believe Africa needs God
Comic Rimshot!
Yes... I laughed. :( :)
. . .
With Labour improved MI6 being all in for diversity, the new James bond is deaf and will sign "hear", you insensitive clod!
Your post is largely bull.
U.S. Naval Base
Since 1903 the United States has held an indefinite lease on the property, which it claimed as a prize at the end of the Spanish-American War. The 45 square miles of land and water were formally handed over to the United States in ceremonies aboard the USS Kearsarge, anchored in the bay, on December 10, 1903.
The Platt Amendment, which “granted” use of the base to Uncle Sam, was dropped in 1934, and a new treaty was signed. Although it confirmed Cuba’s “ultimate sovereignty,” the treaty stipulated that the lease would be indefinite and could be terminated only by agreement of both parties (or if the United States decides to pull out). In the original lease, the United States agreed to pay Cuba the sum of US$2,000 in gold per year.
In 1934, when gold coins were discontinued, the rent was upped to US$4,085, payable by U.S. Treasury check. The first rent check that Uncle Sam paid to Castro’s regime, in 1959, was cashed. Since then Fidel, who refuses to accept the legitimacy of the treaty, has refused to cash the checks.
I'm afraid you miss the point: Clinton, Bush, and Blair all had intelligence pointing to Iraq having current WMD. The Iraqis admitted to having WMD up until 1998 when they claim to have secretly decided it was a bad idea to keep them, and secretly disposed of what they had left. Of course I don't recall that they were able to find the disposal grounds. Also note, Saddam admitted that he had his government act as if they still had them to fool the Iranians into believing they had them. Even Saddam's generals believed he had them. There should be no surprise if Saddam managed to convince the UN, US, and the West that he did.
Of course that sort of glosses over the assistance the US provided the UK prior to entering the war as well.
You mean assistance like loaning money, loans that were only paid off a few years ago? Or perhaps assistance like allowing British nuclear physicists to work on the Manhattan Project, and then not allowing them to share any of the results with the UK after the war?
When I wrote "prior to entering the war" I meant "prior to entering the war', so the reference was to the US Lend-Lease act of 1940 and the provision of 50 destroyers to the UK and Canada. That was helpful in preventing the UK from being starved into submission by submarine warfare.
You are quite wrong about the loans, the terms were quite generous: What's a little debt between friends?
The British Mission
It has to be said, assistance that we actually only stopped repaying the US for a couple of years ago - that assistance was most certainly not free, it was infact very costly.
Sorry, but no. The fact is that the terms were quite generous.
What's a little debt between friends?
Germany ends World War One reparations after 92 years with £59m final payment
Yet, they haven't shot at anyone.
Unlike certain free country which is pillaging and burning things around the world, both militarily and politically.
Stop that fucking nonsense, ok?
Since what you wrote is false, how about you first?
State Sponsors: Iran
Iranians 'targeted Israeli diplomats' - Published: 15/02/2012 at 04:35 PM
Experts: Iran's Quds Force Deeply Enmeshed in Iraq
U.S. blames Iran for new bombs in Iraq
Iran’s Quds Force was blamed for attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq
Iran's Quds Force: Supporting Terrorism Worldwide
Leader of Iran’s Al-Quds Forces Says Iraq and Southern Lebanon Are Under His Control
Iran threatens to close Strait of Hormuz over EU oil sanctions
Iranian weapons seized in Afghanistan
One more, then I'm going to stop since this could easily turn into a seemingly never-ending story. I've hardly touched on Iran's activities around the world. I've hardly even scratched the surface of Iran's involvement in Lebanon, and with Hezbollah, and the massive amount of arms that they've been providing. You do know that Hezbollah, aiming at the desturction of Israel, has 50,000 rockets now, right?
Simon Wiesenthal Center: Iranian Calls to Destroy Jewish People Unparalleled Since Nazi Germany
Frankly, I'm baffled by how people miss this. I guess it doesn't come up at the "anti-Zionist" meeting
World War II?
Are you fucking kidding me?
You acted only when it was in your own economic interest.
You mean like when Japan attacked the United States, followed about a week later by a declaration of war against the United States by Germany?
Of course that sort of glosses over the assistance the US provided the UK prior to entering the war as well.
You don't really seem to have a firm grasp on this subject.
Fucking douchenozzle.
Easily explained, I suspect.
Go to the US with a few copies of the Qur'an and see what happens.
The outcome is pretty predictable: Oh, I see you have a Quran. You must be a Muslim? There are millions of them in the US. Have a nice day.
Wow, that is pretty horrible, but not on a par with nations living under Sharia.
Saudi jailed for discussing the Bible
In Iran, Covert Christian Converts Live With Secrecy and Fear
Microsoft has been beaten up over anti-competitive / anti-trust practices many times in many jurisdictions. Someone with Longs's experience will be highly valuable for both offense against Google and defense on future claims against them. (Could anyone name all the other big PC OS/application vendors that have identifiable market share for generic PC OS sales? . . . . chrip . . . . chirp . . . )
And if your job is police officer armed up and suited for a riot, you're expected to be able to handle people yelling at you and tossing rocks without bringing out the shotguns and chemical weapons.
A rock is a dangerous weapon, either in the hand or thrown. Plenty of people have been killed by rocks. Throwing rocks is a form of execution still used in many parts of the world - maybe you've heard of stoning? (Hint: It not about the band of vaguely similar name, or getting high.)
Throwing things at the police is assault. Protesters don't have the right to assault the police. The police do have the power under law of using force to compel compliance with the law and lawful orders.
The police don't need better weapons. They need better brains. Problem is, between shitty funding, politics, and a fundamentally broken sense of justice in America, most of the police don't actually know how to handle this sort of thing.
All things considered, the police generally handle these sorts of difficult situations pretty well. It tends to be the commentators that get it wrong. For example, you seem to think it is OK to assault police officers by throwing rocks, that they just have to take it because they have protective equipment. Wrong.
Pepper spray used on non-violent, unresisting protesters is excessive.
If it is the minimal force necessary to enforce the law, it is probably reasonable, not excessive, under the law.
Given yourself enough weasel room there?
Not so much "weasel room" as qualifying it since I expected exactly this sort of reaction if I didn't, but from the other direction. "Non-lethal! what about Randy M Somebody! He was pepper sprayed and died on the spot!" Pepper spray, like tear gas, tasers, and batons, are properly known as less lethal weapons. They are unlikely to kill if used properly, but on rare occasions it happens.
Cops don't get a pass just because they're cops.
And protesters don't get a pass, even if they are non-violent, if they don't comply with a lawful order to disperse. The difference is that the police are legally entitled to use force to compel compliance with the law. Demonstrators are not entitled to use force to defy the law, and being non-violent doesn't give you a pass to ignore the law and the police indefinitely.
And no, I wouldn't use lethal force first. I'd plunk one down by their feet or off to their side; just enough to get them to duck or back off, or turn on me instead of the victim they're assaulting.
Then you are a danger to yourself and everyone around you. You start shooting, even as you describe, and it would be both reasonable and lawful for the police to shoot you. Furthermore, how much better off do you think the demonstrators will be once shooting starts? The first thing that is going to happen is the officers will draw their sidearms and shotguns. Now the possibility for real harm is just beginning. You just aren't thinking this through.
Roger that. Ghandi was a much better man than I'll ever be. Cops should worry about that. There's much worse people out there than me.
Then my advice to you is stay completely away from protests. The "worse people than you" will be taken care of, one way or another. You should be clear that the law enforcement bench is a lot deeper than the local guy you meet in the donut shop, including state and federal agencies. When needed, state National Guards, the US Army, and the US Marines have all helped settle things down in various cities. No city is going to be left under threat or control of lawless protesters indefinitely. To believe anything else is fantasy.
This is far more constructive, if ironic, than fantasies of violence: Occupy Gets Its Own PAC
Why care about what's thrown at you by civilians? It's your job to take it and react reasonably.
Arresting people who throw things at police is quite reasonable. Just because you are protesting doesn't give you the right to assault police officers. (That's what throwing things at them is.) Just because you are a citizen who happens to be a police officer doesn't give other citizens the right to assault you without consequences. Or are you thinking, what's a brick in the head between citizens?
Why any policeman would think it's reasonable conduct to pepper spray a line of kneeling civilians is beyond me.
If the protesters, the kneeling civilians, are refusing to comply with a lawful order to vacate the area, the police can generally use force of some kind. They could pick them up, or use pepper spray, or other means. Or do you think that the law should be ignored if anyone can get a mob together?
I'd be looking around for a rifle if I saw that happening.
So, you threaten to use lethal force against law enforcement officers using generally non-lethal means that nearly everyone recovers from after a short period to enforce the law? Interesting. Two reactions:
1. You would probably be setting up a police officer for a board of inquiry followed immediately by a finding of a justified shoot - target being you.
2. You don't really seem to be up to non-violent protests. Maybe you should stick to letter writing. You could use vulgar language if it makes you feel more powerful.
Microsoft has played many roles over its long history with Apple. It has been benefactor, beneficiary, competitor, and on occasion extortionist.
As a benefactor, Microsoft has invested in Apple, more than once IIRC. They have also produced many solid productivity applications, and once upon a time a number of programming tools (MS Basic, QuickBasic, Fortran) for the Mac. Apple desperately needed applications for the Mac, especially during the early years when people were wrestling with the enormous increase in complexity that programming the Macintosh interface represented at the time.
As a beneficiary, Microsoft has reaped a nontrivial amount of money from sales of Microsoft products on the Macintosh platform. It also benefited from early exposure to the GUI ideas in the Macintosh and Lisa that popularized and built upon earlier work at Xerox. It could see the many interesting things Apple was doing with object oriented programming, multimedia, and other innovations.
As a competitor, Microsoft modeled Windows after Macintosh and used it to largely drive Apple from the market for many years. Microsoft used its position as the prime application vendor to shape how Macintosh was used, making it more difficult to use Macintosh in business by withholding key applications or dropping others. (Microsoft dropped Microsoft Project and Foxbase/Foxpro for Macintosh, and never produced Access.) Apple has repeatedly aided Microsoft through brilliance in conception, idiocy in execution, and almost non-existent follow through with future products - both hardware and software. (They are doing much better over the last 10 years.)
Business being business, extortionist may be too harsh a word, but Microsoft is rumored to have forced Apple to sell its marvelous Macintosh Basic to Microsoft for $1.00 if it wanted to get another license for the Microsoft Basic in the ROMs of the Apple IIs - Apple's bread and butter money maker for years after the Macintosh was released. Funny how much Microsoft Basic -> Quickbasic improved around that time. I seem to recall that Microsoft stopped development on Macintosh applications when Apple sued them over the look and feel of Windows as being too close to Macintosh. I don't believe those were the only times that Microsoft played hardball with Apple either, although it probably went both ways at times.