Ah, see, with that line of reasoning you get into the "why can't I download music without paying for it when it's not harming anyone" line of argument. Which has some merit to it, sure, but it's hard to blame the companies for trying to make a buck. Anyway, I have made digital copies of old material in the past, I'm just curious why people seem to think that they've bought the song instead of the physical medium containing the song. The music companies make it quite clear that you have no real right to the song itself, other than being able to play it from the original medium which you bought it on.
Isn't that rather like arguing that you never really owned your record player, because you were forced to buy an iPod in order to keep up with technology?
You can still play your old beatles records on an LP player. That's what you bought originaly - an LP to play on an LP player. And it still works exactly as advertised. If you want to enjoy it on a different player, buy a different version. If it wears out and no longer works, such is life. When your car wears out, you don't complain that you should have had the right to a backup copy, you go out an buy a new car. Why is music (or movies, or even books for that matter) any different?
Yes, they've had their countries taken over. Mainly by religious zealots who couldn't care less about their own people. If you're suggesting that the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq is what's motivating them, I'll remind you that 9/11 happened before either of those two events, as did many other acts of terrorism.
And the oil issue? You're telling me they're pissed because we buy their oil? I don't know man, the US keeps buying Canadian lumber, beef, and some oil, but I don't see any Canadians flying airliners into buildings. If they don't want us buying it, all they have to do is stop selling it.
If your actions change someone from "dislikes the west, but is peaceful and law-abiding" to "hates the west and will attack when given the opportunity", then congratulation, you've just created a terrorist.
Getting investigated or arrested is unlikely to do that. Terrorists are generaly motivated by their ideology, not by any wrongs they feel have been directed at them personaly. They're pushed into action by things like reading that 9/11 was done by the government and just blamed on Muslims in order to attack Iraq. Or by hearing that Jews use the blood of muslim children to make pastries. Idiotic nonsense that seems laughable to most of us, but is quite effective at motivating a certain type of individual.
Ah. Roger that. Your post was easy to misunderstand, mainly due to to the number of times I've read similar statements followed by the conclusion "so we should just, like, leave them alone, and we'll all live hapily ever after". Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Terrorism exists because people are desperate because of the situation they are in, and fighting a war against them is certainly not going to improve that situation.
Really? I'd love to know exactly what "situation" makes them so "desperate". As far as I can tell, they're motivated by messed up religious indoctrination, brainwashing, and lies about their enemy. Not by any "desperate situation". But please, enform me of what plight motivates these poor desperate suicide bombers.
Yes, because we have policies in place to ensure that terrorism fails most of the time. So what are you suggesting, that because they keep failing we should just say "screw it", and not bother trying to stop them? That'd be the equivalent of reducing the fatality rate in accidents due to seatbelts and airbags, and then saying "oh, well, not that many people are dying, let's make seatbelts and airbags optional". Or saying "hey violent crime is pretty low these days, let's get rid of the police!".
You've GOT to be kidding. Have you READ any of their manifestos? The majority of these whackjobs won't be happy untill all the world is under muslim control. There's a reason why (for instance) pro-hezbollah demonstrators like to carry pictures of Muslim flags flying over the white house, or the UK parliament building. Yeah, you're right, they want us out of the middle east. They want us out so that they can have time to rearm, reorganize, and then attack in force. A perfect example is a quote by Ahmadinejad:
"Although the main solution is for the elimination of the Zionist regime, at this stage an immediate cease-fire must be implemented,"
In other words, let's stop fighting now so we can destroy those dirty Zionists LATER. Yep, sounds like a great idea.
But they understand better than Bush and Blair that one way of wiping out the western world is to make it break down the very basics of society that it always has declared as its base of existence: freedom of the individual, free trade and commerce, etc.
I think you give them too much credit. Nothing in their modus operandi has suggested that they posses the ability to be that....complex. And anyway, it's not really an attainable goal. Look at how long Israel has been dealing with terrorism, while staying a democratic and free society. And even if they could achieve it, what does it gain them? If they could turn us into a paranoid tyranny, it'd just make it easier for us to attack and kill them. Then we could wipe out most of the Muslim without having to worry about bad press, or protests, or even elections. So how would any of that help them?
We heard that "over there" everyone was monitored when travelling, and now so are we.
You're exaggerating. There have been some limitations placed on our freedoms, but comparing that to the USSR is ludicrous.
Yes terrorism is real an Israel, where they have been oppressing muslims for decades.
Oppressing eh? Then how do you account for the fact that Muslims living in Israel have more rights and freedoms than Muslims living in any other Middle Eastern nation? Seems like a strange way to oppress someone.
Please refute the facts surrounding the topic and stop trolling.
Refute the facts? Well, we would, if you could actually list any relevant facts. Pretty much all of the 9-11 denial movement is based on mis-quotations, logical fallacies, and outright lies. Things like claiming that some of the hijackers are still alive, or that flight controlers beleived that flight 77 must have been a military aircraft. Lies which have been disproven hundreds of times, yet continue to resurface every time some whackjob pokes his head into a forum. Enough already. Show us some facts and we'll have a discussion. Untill then, go play with the other lunatics over on the Loose Change forums.
What do statistics have to do with it? I can control the way I drive in order to avoid getting into accidents. Yeah, there's still a possibility that I'll be involved in some freak crash that I had no control over, but I can limit that chance to almost zero simply by not speeding, observing the traffic around me, and maintaining a safe distance between my vehicle and the one in front of me. Terrorist attacks, on the other hand, I have absolutely no control over. There's nothing I can do to decrease the chance that I'll be the victim of one, short of avoiding all public places. So the statistics really don't matter. It's about what you can do to make yourself safer, and how much you're willing to sacrifice in order to achieve that level of safety.
First off, "a 3% success rate" doesn't neccesarily mean that the other 97% didn't do anything wrong. It just means there wasn't enough solid evidence to succesfully drag them through the legal system. And I'm rather skeptical of those statistics anyway, a source would be nice.\
As for how much "ill will" this is causing, I'd say not much. Most of those being "harrased" in this manner have no love for western society in the first place. How much harm can you really create by harrasing people who would be quite happy to make your nation part of a Global Caliphate?
I'll bet you also beleive that the moon landing was faked, the holocaust never happened, and 9/11 was done by the mossad so we could build an oil pipeline in afghanistan.
Saying that something is "the truth" doesn't make it so. You need to present a LOGICAL theory, and then back it up with some sort of evidence. As it is, the "Gas Conspiracy" has no logic to it's basic premise, nor is there any evidence to back these absurd accusations. So no, it's NOT the truth, it's the product of a paranoid mind combined with ignorance of basic economic principles and an utter inability to employ basic critical thinking skills.
Instead of taking the time to debunk this nonsense (especialy the idiotic lean-burn conspiracy theory), I'll just provide a quick quote and link you to a relevant website:
In any case, things are rapidly changing in the US. Thanks to rapidly-rising fuel prices, consumers are switching in droves from more thirsty vehicles (typically SUVs and pickups from US manufacturers) to those that get better gas mileage (typically small and medium saloon cars from Europe and Japan). Partly as a result, the big American manufacturers are losing sales and profits - for example, GM lost over ten billion dollars in 2005. Yet the conspiracy theorists believe Ford and GM have "miracle" gas-saving technologies under their control, which would greatly increase profits at a time when they are sacking workers and closing factories due to huge financial pressures - but they keep these technologies hidden because their friends in the oil companies ask them to. Does that seem at all plausible?
Then again, there's this book out by some guy named Chris Paine "Who Killed the Electric Car?" - he owned (well, leased) an electric car from GM, which he was very happy with. But after a year GM took it back, not even offering him the opportunity to buy it. Weird.
Yeah and the guy's a conspiratoid freak who just wants his purdy wittle car back. If my memory serves right, his book was turned into a movie recently. He blames the demise of the car on every conspiracy he can come up with. Meanwhile GM lost a billion dollars trying to build the damn thing, and then had to scrap it because the technology wan nowhere near ready, only to endure years of bad flack from anti-capitalism whackjobs who are convinced Da EEEEVil Corporations are out to ruin the planet.
BTW, if GM was willing to take a billion dollar hit in order to research the electric car, explain how that meshes with your "not want to rock the boat too much" theory. Also, realize that even though GM lost a lot of money in the deal, much of the technology developed for their electric car continues to be used to this day. There's a reason why GM is the leader in hybrid technology.
I don't normaly reply to AC's, but for you I'll make an exception.
1) The politicians don't do the selling. Whereases if they funded a government program to develop new fuels, they'd have first access to new technology which could put the oil industry out of business. So they'd go from selling your hypothetical guy 0 gallons of fuel for 0 dollars, to selling him several gallons a day at $1.25 (by your prices). And they'd practicaly have a monopoly for the first few years at the very least.
2) As for the oil companies themselves, they're in a similar situation. SOMEONE is going to invent alternate fuels and alternate fuel vehicles. If an American company doesn't do it, a European or Japanese company will. What makes more sense: be the first and try to put your competition out of business, or sit on your hands and do nothing, praying that nobody will manage it in your lifetime?
It amazes me how people like you and the poster above you can hold such amazingly contradictory views at the same time. On the one hand you beleive the government and the corporations are evil, horrible men, who are motivated only by profits and are capable of suppressing any new research into whatever field they desire. At the same time, you think they'd turn down the possibility of putting their competition out of business and placing their own company ahead of the game, and are stupid enough not to see the opportunity that they're missing. Christ man, as much as I hate stereotypes, if you're going to beleive in them yourself the least you can do is pick one and stick to it.
I mean, other than the obvious reason that the government as a whole is in the pockets of the oil industry.
Yeah, ofcourse. That they could make 10 times as much money if they develop a viable alternative to oil is, ofcourse, not an incentive to them. They're only in the "pockets of the oil industry" because....what exactly? The oil company CEO's have the whole government brainwashed? Or maybe they just give the worlds best blow-jobs?
Whoever manages to be the first to bring a viable alternative to the market will be an overnight billionaire. The millitary contrat alone would be enough to quadruple Bush's family fortune. So what possible reason would any politician have to oppose (or refuse to support) research into alternative fuels? I just can't understand how some people can hold such simplistic world views. While there may be quite a few corrupt politicians, it takes a special kind of paranoid to beleive that they've all been bought off, and a special kind of ignorant to beleive that they're not intelligent enough to realize the profits (and political advantages) that could be made by developing alternate fuel sources.
Yeah, because as a resident of Michigan, that has allows allowing you to carry concealed weapons, crime rates in cities like Detroit and Flint have dropped so much since those laws passed and citizens started carrying concealed weapons
Actually you got it exactly right. Statisticaly speaking, wherever concealed carry laws have been passed all sorts of crimes have gone down. The only exception seems to be in the "shall issue" districts as opposed to the "may issue" ones. Selectivness in issuing is important; not everyone should be able to get a concealed carry permit, and I don't think everyone should have "the right to bear arms" either. Anyone with a serious crime on their record shouldn't even be allowed to obtain a gun, let alone carry it concealed. Law obiding citizens who wish to do so should have to pass a mandatory training program in order to obtain a licence. If you have to pass a test before we'll trust you to drive a car, it's beyond stupid to hand out weapons to people who have no training and no certification. I know that I personaly am knowledgable and well trained enough that I could safely carry a concealed weapon and know how and when to use it. Some of the people I know on the other hand, I wouldn't trust with a concealed butter knife.
Yeah, you just proved squat. Your link shows absolutely ZERO random arrests. It shows zero intentional murders. And it shows no cases of systematic torture. What it DOES show is that guards get out of hand sometimes, abuse prisoners, and then get caught and punished for it. It also shows that death do occur in jails, mostly as a result of prisoners resisting the lawful authority of the guards. Both of those happen in civilian jails a lot more often than they do in military prisons, so you're simply blowing smoke here. Misrepresenting the facts doesn't help your case.
Back then, going after Israel would have made sense. Nowdays though, the situation is quite different.
And as for Ariel Sharon being convicted of war crimes, I'm not impressed. Most international bodies such as the Glorious And All Knowing United Nations are so heavily biased against Israel that their rulings are absolutely useles. When the UN can, on a regular basis, table as many resolutions against Israel as it does against all other nations combined, they've pretty much waived the possibility of their opinion being taken seriously.
And the majority of Germans voted for Hitler. Doesn't change the fact that removing him when he first got elected would have saved millions of lives. I don't particularily care whether the people of Algeria want the FIS, and whether the majority of Palestinians want Hamas. They're welcome to be as democratic as they like. If we were willing to force a regime change on a democraticaly elected German government, I certainly have no problem supporting the overthrow of a democraticaly elected Algerian or Palestinian government which happens to be composed of terrorists and criminals.
Slashdot Mirror
And once upon a time we walked 20 miles to school in a blizzard in june, uphill both ways :)
Although I did find this part interesting:
"Today, you are saved from this DIY attitude by laws that forbid you from fixing your car "
Where the heck are YOU living?
Ah, see, with that line of reasoning you get into the "why can't I download music without paying for it when it's not harming anyone" line of argument. Which has some merit to it, sure, but it's hard to blame the companies for trying to make a buck. Anyway, I have made digital copies of old material in the past, I'm just curious why people seem to think that they've bought the song instead of the physical medium containing the song. The music companies make it quite clear that you have no real right to the song itself, other than being able to play it from the original medium which you bought it on.
Isn't that rather like arguing that you never really owned your record player, because you were forced to buy an iPod in order to keep up with technology? You can still play your old beatles records on an LP player. That's what you bought originaly - an LP to play on an LP player. And it still works exactly as advertised. If you want to enjoy it on a different player, buy a different version. If it wears out and no longer works, such is life. When your car wears out, you don't complain that you should have had the right to a backup copy, you go out an buy a new car. Why is music (or movies, or even books for that matter) any different?
I'd love to see you point out just where I stated that all Muslims or only Muslims are terrorists.
Go ahead. I'm waiting.
You might also want to see if you can quote the exact line in which I state that "searching Muslims and jailing them....for no reason at all".
Yes, they've had their countries taken over. Mainly by religious zealots who couldn't care less about their own people. If you're suggesting that the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq is what's motivating them, I'll remind you that 9/11 happened before either of those two events, as did many other acts of terrorism.
And the oil issue? You're telling me they're pissed because we buy their oil? I don't know man, the US keeps buying Canadian lumber, beef, and some oil, but I don't see any Canadians flying airliners into buildings. If they don't want us buying it, all they have to do is stop selling it.
Actually, slashdot cut off the rest of that sig for some reason, and I just haven't bothered to go delete it. Thanks anyway though, coward.
If your actions change someone from "dislikes the west, but is peaceful and law-abiding" to "hates the west and will attack when given the opportunity", then congratulation, you've just created a terrorist.
Getting investigated or arrested is unlikely to do that. Terrorists are generaly motivated by their ideology, not by any wrongs they feel have been directed at them personaly. They're pushed into action by things like reading that 9/11 was done by the government and just blamed on Muslims in order to attack Iraq. Or by hearing that Jews use the blood of muslim children to make pastries. Idiotic nonsense that seems laughable to most of us, but is quite effective at motivating a certain type of individual.
Ah. Roger that. Your post was easy to misunderstand, mainly due to to the number of times I've read similar statements followed by the conclusion "so we should just, like, leave them alone, and we'll all live hapily ever after". Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Terrorism exists because people are desperate because of the situation they are in, and fighting a war against them is certainly not going to improve that situation.
Really? I'd love to know exactly what "situation" makes them so "desperate". As far as I can tell, they're motivated by messed up religious indoctrination, brainwashing, and lies about their enemy. Not by any "desperate situation". But please, enform me of what plight motivates these poor desperate suicide bombers.
Yes, because we have policies in place to ensure that terrorism fails most of the time. So what are you suggesting, that because they keep failing we should just say "screw it", and not bother trying to stop them? That'd be the equivalent of reducing the fatality rate in accidents due to seatbelts and airbags, and then saying "oh, well, not that many people are dying, let's make seatbelts and airbags optional". Or saying "hey violent crime is pretty low these days, let's get rid of the police!".
You've GOT to be kidding. Have you READ any of their manifestos? The majority of these whackjobs won't be happy untill all the world is under muslim control. There's a reason why (for instance) pro-hezbollah demonstrators like to carry pictures of Muslim flags flying over the white house, or the UK parliament building. Yeah, you're right, they want us out of the middle east. They want us out so that they can have time to rearm, reorganize, and then attack in force. A perfect example is a quote by Ahmadinejad:
"Although the main solution is for the elimination of the Zionist regime, at this stage an immediate cease-fire must be implemented,"
In other words, let's stop fighting now so we can destroy those dirty Zionists LATER. Yep, sounds like a great idea.
But they understand better than Bush and Blair that one way of wiping out the western world is to make it break down the very basics of society that it always has declared as its base of existence: freedom of the individual, free trade and commerce, etc.
I think you give them too much credit. Nothing in their modus operandi has suggested that they posses the ability to be that....complex. And anyway, it's not really an attainable goal. Look at how long Israel has been dealing with terrorism, while staying a democratic and free society. And even if they could achieve it, what does it gain them? If they could turn us into a paranoid tyranny, it'd just make it easier for us to attack and kill them. Then we could wipe out most of the Muslim without having to worry about bad press, or protests, or even elections. So how would any of that help them?
We heard that "over there" everyone was monitored when travelling, and now so are we.
You're exaggerating. There have been some limitations placed on our freedoms, but comparing that to the USSR is ludicrous.
Yes terrorism is real an Israel, where they have been oppressing muslims for decades.
Oppressing eh? Then how do you account for the fact that Muslims living in Israel have more rights and freedoms than Muslims living in any other Middle Eastern nation? Seems like a strange way to oppress someone.
Please refute the facts surrounding the topic and stop trolling.
Refute the facts? Well, we would, if you could actually list any relevant facts. Pretty much all of the 9-11 denial movement is based on mis-quotations, logical fallacies, and outright lies. Things like claiming that some of the hijackers are still alive, or that flight controlers beleived that flight 77 must have been a military aircraft. Lies which have been disproven hundreds of times, yet continue to resurface every time some whackjob pokes his head into a forum. Enough already. Show us some facts and we'll have a discussion. Untill then, go play with the other lunatics over on the Loose Change forums.
What do statistics have to do with it? I can control the way I drive in order to avoid getting into accidents. Yeah, there's still a possibility that I'll be involved in some freak crash that I had no control over, but I can limit that chance to almost zero simply by not speeding, observing the traffic around me, and maintaining a safe distance between my vehicle and the one in front of me. Terrorist attacks, on the other hand, I have absolutely no control over. There's nothing I can do to decrease the chance that I'll be the victim of one, short of avoiding all public places. So the statistics really don't matter. It's about what you can do to make yourself safer, and how much you're willing to sacrifice in order to achieve that level of safety.
First off, "a 3% success rate" doesn't neccesarily mean that the other 97% didn't do anything wrong. It just means there wasn't enough solid evidence to succesfully drag them through the legal system. And I'm rather skeptical of those statistics anyway, a source would be nice.\
As for how much "ill will" this is causing, I'd say not much. Most of those being "harrased" in this manner have no love for western society in the first place. How much harm can you really create by harrasing people who would be quite happy to make your nation part of a Global Caliphate?
Read up on it. Google is your friend.
Or try this if you want the official lowdown.
I'll bet you also beleive that the moon landing was faked, the holocaust never happened, and 9/11 was done by the mossad so we could build an oil pipeline in afghanistan.
Saying that something is "the truth" doesn't make it so. You need to present a LOGICAL theory, and then back it up with some sort of evidence. As it is, the "Gas Conspiracy" has no logic to it's basic premise, nor is there any evidence to back these absurd accusations. So no, it's NOT the truth, it's the product of a paranoid mind combined with ignorance of basic economic principles and an utter inability to employ basic critical thinking skills.
Read the rest.
Then again, there's this book out by some guy named Chris Paine "Who Killed the Electric Car?" - he owned (well, leased) an electric car from GM, which he was very happy with. But after a year GM took it back, not even offering him the opportunity to buy it. Weird.
Yeah and the guy's a conspiratoid freak who just wants his purdy wittle car back. If my memory serves right, his book was turned into a movie recently. He blames the demise of the car on every conspiracy he can come up with. Meanwhile GM lost a billion dollars trying to build the damn thing, and then had to scrap it because the technology wan nowhere near ready, only to endure years of bad flack from anti-capitalism whackjobs who are convinced Da EEEEVil Corporations are out to ruin the planet.
BTW, if GM was willing to take a billion dollar hit in order to research the electric car, explain how that meshes with your "not want to rock the boat too much" theory. Also, realize that even though GM lost a lot of money in the deal, much of the technology developed for their electric car continues to be used to this day. There's a reason why GM is the leader in hybrid technology.
I don't normaly reply to AC's, but for you I'll make an exception.
1) The politicians don't do the selling. Whereases if they funded a government program to develop new fuels, they'd have first access to new technology which could put the oil industry out of business. So they'd go from selling your hypothetical guy 0 gallons of fuel for 0 dollars, to selling him several gallons a day at $1.25 (by your prices). And they'd practicaly have a monopoly for the first few years at the very least.
2) As for the oil companies themselves, they're in a similar situation. SOMEONE is going to invent alternate fuels and alternate fuel vehicles. If an American company doesn't do it, a European or Japanese company will. What makes more sense: be the first and try to put your competition out of business, or sit on your hands and do nothing, praying that nobody will manage it in your lifetime?
It amazes me how people like you and the poster above you can hold such amazingly contradictory views at the same time. On the one hand you beleive the government and the corporations are evil, horrible men, who are motivated only by profits and are capable of suppressing any new research into whatever field they desire. At the same time, you think they'd turn down the possibility of putting their competition out of business and placing their own company ahead of the game, and are stupid enough not to see the opportunity that they're missing. Christ man, as much as I hate stereotypes, if you're going to beleive in them yourself the least you can do is pick one and stick to it.
I mean, other than the obvious reason that the government as a whole is in the pockets of the oil industry.
Yeah, ofcourse. That they could make 10 times as much money if they develop a viable alternative to oil is, ofcourse, not an incentive to them. They're only in the "pockets of the oil industry" because....what exactly? The oil company CEO's have the whole government brainwashed? Or maybe they just give the worlds best blow-jobs?
Whoever manages to be the first to bring a viable alternative to the market will be an overnight billionaire. The millitary contrat alone would be enough to quadruple Bush's family fortune. So what possible reason would any politician have to oppose (or refuse to support) research into alternative fuels? I just can't understand how some people can hold such simplistic world views. While there may be quite a few corrupt politicians, it takes a special kind of paranoid to beleive that they've all been bought off, and a special kind of ignorant to beleive that they're not intelligent enough to realize the profits (and political advantages) that could be made by developing alternate fuel sources.
Yeah, because as a resident of Michigan, that has allows allowing you to carry concealed weapons, crime rates in cities like Detroit and Flint have dropped so much since those laws passed and citizens started carrying concealed weapons
Actually you got it exactly right. Statisticaly speaking, wherever concealed carry laws have been passed all sorts of crimes have gone down. The only exception seems to be in the "shall issue" districts as opposed to the "may issue" ones. Selectivness in issuing is important; not everyone should be able to get a concealed carry permit, and I don't think everyone should have "the right to bear arms" either. Anyone with a serious crime on their record shouldn't even be allowed to obtain a gun, let alone carry it concealed. Law obiding citizens who wish to do so should have to pass a mandatory training program in order to obtain a licence. If you have to pass a test before we'll trust you to drive a car, it's beyond stupid to hand out weapons to people who have no training and no certification. I know that I personaly am knowledgable and well trained enough that I could safely carry a concealed weapon and know how and when to use it. Some of the people I know on the other hand, I wouldn't trust with a concealed butter knife.
Yeah, you just proved squat. Your link shows absolutely ZERO random arrests. It shows zero intentional murders. And it shows no cases of systematic torture. What it DOES show is that guards get out of hand sometimes, abuse prisoners, and then get caught and punished for it. It also shows that death do occur in jails, mostly as a result of prisoners resisting the lawful authority of the guards. Both of those happen in civilian jails a lot more often than they do in military prisons, so you're simply blowing smoke here. Misrepresenting the facts doesn't help your case.
Back then, going after Israel would have made sense. Nowdays though, the situation is quite different. And as for Ariel Sharon being convicted of war crimes, I'm not impressed. Most international bodies such as the Glorious And All Knowing United Nations are so heavily biased against Israel that their rulings are absolutely useles. When the UN can, on a regular basis, table as many resolutions against Israel as it does against all other nations combined, they've pretty much waived the possibility of their opinion being taken seriously.
And the majority of Germans voted for Hitler. Doesn't change the fact that removing him when he first got elected would have saved millions of lives. I don't particularily care whether the people of Algeria want the FIS, and whether the majority of Palestinians want Hamas. They're welcome to be as democratic as they like. If we were willing to force a regime change on a democraticaly elected German government, I certainly have no problem supporting the overthrow of a democraticaly elected Algerian or Palestinian government which happens to be composed of terrorists and criminals.