AlexCrowley

I really don't think there's an easy or fast solution. In my opinion the only way to combat an ideology is with an alternate, more positive replacement that goes far enough towards resolving conflict that you can capture the moderates and weaken the power base of the extremists. In any country it is something that would need to be done over time with a lot of investment, possibly generations. The CIA have shown a lot of skill over the years in performing these types of operations, so there are precedents. Between programs like that and some measured use of covert ops to take down whatever part of the structure you can, preferably without inflaming the population and undoing the rest of your work, all the better. Unrealistic in the real world, but the most logical model in my mind for the following reasons: - people are people, most want freedom of thought, basic comforts and food/jobs, perhaps a luxury or two. This is true of any culture, not all people who profess a belief in a religion have the same amount of fervor or extremism. - as argued earlier, overt aggression merely plays into the hands of the extremists (of any stripe, anywhere.). It's harder for someone to foam at the mouth about the enemies evils if they're making positive change while not randomly shooting innocent civilians. - just like Ron and EB3B(sorry, can't recall the full name) are unwavering in their positions, shouting at someone and telling them that everything they have built their personal and cultural identity around is wrong and evil simply pisses people off and makes them even more sure that you're evil and/or ignorant and/or mentally defective in relation to their standards. Now, I realize I said that it would take time, and the costs would be great, but this - to me - is the difference between a true war on terrorism and simply using it as an excuse to publicly justify military actions which would be unjustifiable in any other situation. I realize that I'm walking on shaky ground here in the eyes of some, but based on publicly available data from resources both domestic and foreign since early 2002, it is my opinion that justifying the war in Iraq as part of the War on Terror is not only grossly deceptive but something that will damage the US and the world's perception of it for a long time. Having sat through some interesting evenings of karaoke I feel that to answer that question would be in really poor taste. ;-) TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

Absolutely, someone is always going to scream about a cardboard box telling them to sodomize monkeys, but I wasnt trying to discuss blame of a few crazies. I believe my intent was clear when taken in context with the rest of my post. At which point does a religious leader start to be considered an influence? I followed up with information regarding the KKK and Christian Identity, both major hate groups who have a history of criminal behavior, both of which are organized to some extent (the KKK far more than CI), and as such have rallys and talk about their God given right to their ideology (I have listened to several speeches given at these types of rallys, without exception the rhetoric included a heavy dose of fire and brimstone christian preaching). I realize that to consider a perversion of something you hold to be deeply true and used for hate must be a difficult thing to understand or even want to acknowledge. I would imagine that many muslims feel similar (actually they do, I asked them). That was my intent, not the lone wacko theory. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

Ok please dont bring this up, it's a weird argument. SS was designed to withstand the current situation. Clinton said 'SS is in crisis!' and Bush is just using that to his advantage. Both sides would appear to be incorrect when looking at unbiased information (at least according the articles I have read, I do not have any background in economics, so there's a posibility I've been duped into reading information devoid of both spin and real content - as usual hoping someone else may have read a similar article over the last 18 months). SS is and was doing just fine once you strip away all the BS spin from BOTH sides. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

Actually I was trying to have a bit of fun given the reaction of some of the more incendiary posters on the forum. It surprised me that "the left" hadn't jumped on the democratic thing as evidence of a conspiracy. I was also wondering if democratic CEOs were as bad as republican CEOs, or if their position cancelled out party affiliation and made them evil in the eyes of the anti-corp guys here. Disclosure: I dont believe corporations are evil. I simply believe that some have major ethical issues that should be dealt with. (and from what I know of the new SOX stuff it seems to be getting under control on the finances side). TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

Doubtful, Worldcom's boss Shows was a democrat. OF course, now everyone will start screaming that out of all the corp scandals this was the only one thats led to jail time, and the only one that involved a democrat voting CEO. heh heh heh. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

Post 9/11 when everyone was considering security issues related to everything I remember a long thread on slashdot.org discussing the feasibility of using lego robots to deliver charges at key critical pieces of infrastructure. There was a similar one on kuro5hin.org discussing the best way to release bioagents.....a few days later there was another thread on the fact that the poster was visited by the secret service while at work and got fired :) But yeah, nucular weapons are a bit of a stretch for your cost conscious, security minded, stealth and secrecy loving terrorist out and about on the town. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

Yeah, the suitcase bomb had been pretty thoroughly debunked in security and physics circles shortly after the meme hit the public mind. In fact, I wasnt going to comment until the Bible Codes thing. And if its what i think it is (finding messages within the text of the bible), I would just like to say: that is awesome. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

Fast, I'm in full agreement. I discussed issues about giving up rights for the illusion of freedom in the Iran/Iraq thread - feel free to check it out. Perhaps we should have a Hugging constitutional amendment. ;) TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

I really do want to respond at length about this, but today is not that day due to outside concerns. Condensed: 1. my intention was to question at which point a religious leaders convictions are considered influential to his flock and at what point is it considered leading terrorism. Vehemently pro-life ministers influencing his congregation and it leading to a parishoner going out and killing a doctor who performs abortion (could someone please explain prolifers killing people please.). While the majority of religious leaders and teachers of every stripe are going to be what they should be (supportive, loving, etc). But it's easy enough to watch TV to see some "Christians" who are not teaching the same Christianity of love and peace that many in the world were bought up with. While your personal experience at your parish is a purely positive one (which is how you would wish it) there will always be bad leaders of any religion. Some because people can just be bad (the child abuse within the Catholic church), and some because the sect or cult preach hatred. For example, while you may not feel that preaching racism and white supremacy is outright terrorism there are some that would feel that any religious leader who held the values of the KKK and used biblical scripture to defend their position would appear to be little better than an extremist muslim Iman telling his congregation to kill the infidel. 2. Yeah, my apologies for not being clearer, my intention wasnt to bury anyone in statistics, but to show real incidences, which is why I suggested reading through the slpcenters list of incidents and looking at the map. The data from the FBI just shows raw data that isnt really useful except to say 'yeah, it does go on and the FBI consider it domestic terrorism' which is where I wandered into the discussion. 3. Well, the KKK and it's offshoots for one, given it's influence during the 20th century, the neo-nazi groups (post ww2, although the roots were sown in the US before that). In fact, worldwide there is growing interest in the structure of extreme right wing neo-nazi parties both here in the US and western europe. With the rise of the internet enabling secure communications the game has been taken to another level. What used to be lone nuts running around causing small amounts of damage has turned into a worldwide gathering, whcih while small is not insignificant. "Who is sponsoring terrorism?" Perhaps an equally fair question would be: "what is the percentage of muslims leaders who sponsor terrorism and actively speak out against the west?" In otherwords, I dont know if that data is publicly available. What is sponsoring terrorism? We know that groups such as Christian Identity are practicing Christians and obviously hold weekly services - I would imagine that their church/ministry would provide assistence, or at least moral and spiritual support. This site: http://www.kingidentity.com/ and I tried to prove this was a parody site but didnt discover anything in the short time - maybe I'll check into it further. They also have a little webstore for tapes, videos and books. Maybe its a hoax. http://www.apologeticsindex.org/c106.html http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/identity.html Great link! http://www.newsleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050709/NEWS01/50709002 article from 7/9/2005 recounting an extremist terrorist act. Looking up "christian violence terrorist" will bring up a whole list of interesting articles to read regarding the rise of the Christian Extreme Rights use of violence against gays and all things pro-abortion. "PAUL JENNINGS HILL - 2nd to fully defend the innocent against future acts by an active aggressor who was clearly unjust; a cold blooded murderer. A former Presbyterian minister on death row who killed two abortion providers " - yeah, pulled from a pro-life page where they have an honor roll of people who have performed violent crimes against abortion clinics and doctors. There's a lot of this stuff out there, Google will unearth things that you wouldnt believe existed. There's more than one Christianity just as there is more than one form of Islam. Forgive me, but “the vast majority of world citizens respect the Christian people and the Christian faith. After all, there are millions of peace-loving Christian Americans.” As for your final question, I'm sorry I dont understand: are you asking if I think the priests who collected for the IRA didnt realize that they were supporting a terrorist organization who killed innocent Englishmen by planting bombs in public places? or are you saying that you're sure they didnt realize what they were doing and can I think of any American priests who have handled weaponry and helped terrorism that way? Hopefully I've answered the latter, I can't really speak for the former. Hell, this was the condensed version!? TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

Hi Jen, interesting point. But I'm not sure I understand you correctly. Are you saying you trained to be a teacher and started teaching in the 80s, or that you started going to school in the 80s and have trained to be a teacher but do not yet have any long term experience within the MA school system. I'm a big hug person too, I think it's an essential part of being human. At the least I'll greet people with a handshake at the dropzone, and I generally try to catch everyone I can (of course, I've just started at Jumptown, so maybe I'll check out your theory on hugging people this weekend). The four teachers with whom I've spoken most often. One is a high school english teacher who has been teaching in the NH public school system for 25 years. Another are a married couple, one a director of music, the other an comp sci teacher at a prestigious school in North MA now, and with 16 years in the system. The other is a junior high music teacher out of Southern MA for 6. Along the way I've also had the opportunity to discuss the situation with other teachers (including my childs over the last few years) to find out their views of their jobs (not just hugging but standardized testing, discipline, parental involvement, career support from government, funding issues and grants etc). The initial conversation started with the English teacher, and it's been something I try to ask all teachers about. So while I dont claim to speak as someone involved in the system I do base my opinion on first hand information from multiple parties. Neither was I commenting on the rule being stupid, only that the school itself must be in a difficult position. With regards to teachers calling parents, it helps if the parents care and this seems to be based mostly on demographics. The couple who work in the private sector deal with pupils from moderately affluent areas, who's parents are involved in their child's development and are supportive, mostly educated professionals. The english and music teachers both teach in areas that are poorer and have a higher crime rate, their schools less funding and more overcrowded and their pupils are, on the whole, the sons and daughters of people who work blue collar jobs and are less likely to have had any college time, their experience in the public system is that a large segment of the parents display little to no guidance to their children and can both give several personal accounts of both being verbally abused by parents who refused to hear that their son/daughter might have actually done something wrong; and stories of parents who they've never spoken too and appear to provide zero support to their kids. You're right that it may have been a repeat hug, without details its tough to say. My initial post was simply trying to understand why a school might implement a zero tolerance policy and issues that might have contributed. As for me finding it funny? I guess being off-kilter lets you view things from a different angle, it just read funny to me, if asked what I felt my inalienable rights were I can't imagine at which point I'd consider hugging to be one of them. Plus it's school. It's supposed to suck!!! TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

I'm sorry, but thats gotta be the funniest thing I've read so far today. Well, I dont read enough humor I guess. This is an incredibly complex problem that sits out in the open pretending to be incredibly simple. Of course kids should be able to hug! From talking to friends who've worked in the education system in NH and MA over the last 20 years, it would seem that while parents have passed more and more of the onus on teachers to raise their children for them, they have managed to reduce a teachers ability to both teach effectively and, far more importantly, made it almost impossible for a teacher to instill discipline without them getting fired or sued for attempting to do so. At which point should a school cut off public shows of physical affection? At 12 + where both children and their parents are thinking about sexual issues (from the 'i wonder if I will' to the 'i bloody hope they dont' perspectives) it doesnt surprise me that a zero tolerance policy would be put in place. When does hugging become more than that? Is it a hug if it lasts more than 5 minutes? How does one police hugging? do staff time each hug that they happen to notice while walking by? It's just such a sticky place to be for the teachers. It's a little like the recent report suggesting doctors recommending more and more tests to heart patients who dont need them, in some cases tests which can cause further damage. Why? because these doctors are concerned that in the case of something going wrong they will be sued. The US has become a litigious society, where anyone seems to be able to shout 'physical/mental/emotional damage! $$$$' at any point. While these claims rarely have any merit, it is the firestorm of publicity which will damage the schools reputation and future. So, stupid rule? perhaps. Do I understand it? absolutely. Do I still think "blindly accept these fundamental rights being taken away from them" is the funniest damn thing I've read so far today? you betcha. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

To hell with that, I'd just like to get current! TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

I hit reply on the last post, this is in no way a rebuttal to Mockingbirds post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A40012-2003Oct3?language=printer http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A24144-2003Sep30¬Found=true Both these pieces were written in 2003, 6 months after the scandal originally broke. Without access to premium sections of most of the dailies or access to lexis nexis this was probably the best source I could find, most of the 2003 stuff can be found on heavily left leaning blog style sites. I would be very interested to read articles from that time period from conservative leaning papers, simply to see if it jibes with the facts as they're being discussed now. With regards to the often quoted 'Wilson was lying' and 'Nukes *were* discussed!' threads I've seen around, it's my understanding, from reading some italian and british papers over the last couple of years, that Italian intelligence was heavily implicated in the production of the original forged documents - which was publicized widely by the journalist who was the original target of the 'leak', and that the intelligence pointing to previous talks was manufactured after the fact by these same individuals to cover up the forgeries released a couple of years later. This might be something someone would want to follow up on. I recall reading the article online from the original source. If anyone can find information confirming or refuting it please let me know, as I dont have time to trawl thru google right now. With regards to sourcing, I do not consider links to political blogs or discussion forums reliable primary sources. As far as media outlets with obvious political biases (of either stripe) carry far less weight with me vs major media outlets - who, over the balance of things, provide as centrist a viewpoint as possible (with some exceptions). Multiple sources are prefered, preferably from both a domestic and international source. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

I am in no way good with economics, certainly not at a level where I could defend an alternate position. However, the criticisms of the way the tax cuts were structured, from my possibly incorrect recollection of various pundits at the time, was that they would be damaging over the long term, and that a short term measurable gain might be seen. Of course, I'm not sure what a 'short term measurable gain' might include either. Perhaps someone with a better memory of the original criticisms (from educated sources) or grasp of the economics can provide some additional insight or correct my recollection in a way that someone without a degree in accounting can understand :) TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

As a new guy here I was perhaps being optimistic that I'd find something more interesting than just 'arguing on the internet for the sake of it'. My apologies if I'm misinterpreting what you've said here. Actually there's a couple of places from here we can follow. 1. At what level is clergy helping out? There are clergy that preach hate and intolerance regarding abortion and sexual orientation. We just had a group of them protesting local churches. I haven't read anything about affiliation with any particular hate group with violent histories, but then I've not really done any background reading on them. Does sharing a philosophy with hate groups make them part of infrastructure? It's an interesting thread of thought and brings up some good freedom of speech/thought issues. 2. I'm not in a position to quote statistics, but here's some resources. Before we get into the next bit. Hate Crime is a very hot button issue, it's also a term that can cover a great deal of ground. From calling someone a fag all the way to covering someone in gasoline and setting them on fire with a cigarette. I bring them up simply because the FBI and military consider domestic hate groups to also be terrorists (according to the referenced docs below). I am not saying they are as dangerous as AQ at this point, nor that calling someone a bad name is equal to blowing up a bus. There are also some groups listed who may be here somewhat unfairly because the 'hate' term is flexible. However, as you go through the various violent crimes that *are* present and numerous (especially check the current list of incidents from the splcenter link). First, the FBI's 2000 report on domestic terrorism http://www.cesnur.org/testi/FBI_004.htm Second, from Maxwell AFB, a guide to US domestic terrorism. It's a little out of date... http://www.au.af.mil/au/aul/bibs/tergps/tgdom.htm A resource listed in this document points towards the following organization for further information of hate groups within the US. http://www.splcenter.org/intel/hatewatch/fortherecord.jsp A list of hate crimes that have been reported, not all are violent, but a significant portion are. http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp The same project's 2004 map of hategroups in the US And finally, here are the 2003 (latest available) hate crime statistics domestically: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/03hc.pdf Do they have leadership? yes they do. Do they have infrastructure? yes, albeit limited at this point. (although arguable given the history and penetration into society some of those groups have achieved) All that limits their effectiveness at this point is a) good intelligence work by the US Gov, b) an apathetic mostly moderate society that on the whole is not looking for a cause to fight, c) a catalyst/martyr. It's not difficult to imagine how much worse things would be if they did have the man power and resources that would become available after a catalysing incident. Thanks for your thought provoking response. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

For that I should apologize. It's simply that the content of this paragraph showed a level of ignorance of Spains dealings with terrorism, plus the common 'increasing security by limiting freedom is rational' stance that is commonly (not usually) seen by American posters who think they are knowledgable about security and international terrorism from watching the evening news and believing it. The previous was not a backhanded insult to any poster here. It was simply an observation made from my experiences talking to Americans since 9/11/01 when a significant percentage of people became experts in security methods and international terrorism by watching CNN and Fox news for a few days. Whereas I am posting as someone who has been involved in the security field for over 15 years. [ disclosure: I work in information|technology security and study public security and intelligence as a by-product/side-line of that, as my work brings me into contact with those agencies] With respect Tom, just as you'd think I was an idiot if I tried pass myself off as someone who could make authoratative statements about skydiving (actually at this point if I tried to discuss *anything* about skydiving), I have a similar reaction when I read something as obviously inaccurate as falxori's post. I have bolded out the comments that led me to write the post below. Of course, I shouldnt jump to conclusions about the nationality of a poster on an international board and apologize for that. From the security industrys perspective (from the crypto and anti-virus guys on up thru physical security and counter terrorism) there is much concern about the quality of information that is broadcast to the public, because most of it is over simplified when it's correct, or dangerously innaccurate when it's incorrect or simply political spin - and post 9/11 there have been plenty of examples of both. As far as Falxori's knowledge of terrorism from an Israeli point of view, I do not know, but I would be interested to hear. But as usual, my meds wear off and I read a single post that gives me a place to jump off and go with it to see what happens. Falxori, I apologize for calling you an american. "i've just returned from Madrid this morning, i was amazed to see that in a city that have experienced terror recently there is almost no security what so ever. this includes metro stations and the airport in which you can go almost go where ever you want unchecked. its often said that the US took security checks to the extreme (although checking you 5 times before flight is not very useful imho), but europe is still in a state of denial. there is a new force in the world. it seeks destruction and it will hit with out the need for an obvious reason. and this force is not israel... " TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

I'm sorry Tom, I wasn't attacking Deuce or Christianity. I read Deuces post, thought it was pretty good and said I agreed with him. It wasn't even the attacking him about his statement regarding muslims, only his comment about the weird and terrifying thing of muslims being sent home to terrorist school. The rest of my post was an attempt to illustrate the fallacy that all terrorists are muslims (please review the current terrorist posts on this forum, but in my review of the threads I only saw mention of AQ and Muslims), and talk a little about ideology not having racial, nationalistic or religious limitations. As I stated within my post, I apologized for the examples using only Christianity as a representative religion, but being of British decent I grew up around Christianity and studied it I felt able to discuss what *I* consider to be perversions of Christianity. I also stated that I was sure people with knowledge of other faiths could discuss extremists there. Personally I dont know all the Jewish holidays so discussing Jewish extremism would be difficult for me to grasp or cover at any length. As for the rest of the post, it was just me seeing where things went.. Again, my apologies if you had misunderstood my intent or use of Deuces post as a springboard. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

Yup, the meds are wearing off again...... I found the rest of your post very interesting and I share a lot of the same thoughts about the illusion of difference between left and right. Those with power use it for their own means, the polarization of the followers simply allows their continued existence. But with the greatest respect, I do feel strongly that this comment. I apologize to anyone who feels offended by the content of the rest of this post, it isnt intended to instigate but to generate discussion. I apologize for the length of it too. It may be true that muslims are sending their western raised children to be trained as terrorists but that is simply one side of the looking glass. There are as many white folks in the US, UK and Western Europe that are teaching their children similar values of hate and intolerance in the name of god. Sure, the vast majority are simply learning basic bigotry 101, be afraid of the unknown and turn that fear into aggression. BUT there are a hardcore group who are teaching their kids extremism of every stripe, these parents are part of every race, religion and nationality. Christian, Jewish, agnostics - the ideology differs but the hatred remains the same. My first memory of being in the US was driving down Main Street in Cheyenne Wy and seeing what I thought was a family church group having a picnic. On closer inspection they were holding signs with "AIDS KILLS FAGS" "AIDS -GODS MESSAGE TO FAGS" "GOD HATES FAGS". Nice and tolerant :-/ I mentioned on a previous thread: Olympic Bomber Eric Rudolph was a fundie christian who travelled in white supremacist circles and bombed abortion clinics because he believed it was against God. If your religion is a 'religion of peace and love' (tm George Bush) of *any* stripe does it not strike you as obscene that those who are in power would pervert those teachings into symbols of hate? Would you like to explain to the gay community that Christian politicians aren't preaching intolerance and bigotry but are simply telling us what God really meant? When Christian politicians equate gay marriage with marrying housepets or farm animals (yup, happened). Creationism? 60% of americans do not believe in Evolution as it is 'too complicated'. yes, an overwhelming majority of this 60% of respondents called themselves Christian. There are fights in several states courts over the need to teach Creationism/Intelligent Design in schools to balance out Science. Kansas has gained most of the press on this one. what does this have to do with the subject? The belief of a large cross section of society in one thing while another section whole heartedly rejects it. To someone outside of American religion (and trust me, its very different than european christianity) it's extremism. If you consider extremism to be holding a belief fanatically, often in the face of compelling evidence to the contrary. Lets look at something that Christians are very hot on: pornography and family values. These values include the protection of children from sexual images, and a way to protect children is to protect everyone from sexual images on broadcast television. Islam also has very strong rules on what is acceptable for a woman to show in public. The argument that censoring TV is different does not hold up once you consider that TV shapes the public conciousness and dictates taste and styles. How many generations would it take for Americans to have women dressing conservatively in public in its push for family values? Could it happen? The extreme christian right would like it that way because it is what they believe God intended. I do not mean to victimize Christianity here, but it's a religion that I have both been part of and know enough to talk about. I'm sure others could provide equal information regarding Jewish, Pagan and whatever-else extremism. Moving away from religion to political ideology: "If you want to insult the US then get out!" "Liberals are traitors!" or whatever else you see on political blogs nowadays. There are people on this forum who will argue until death that Rove is an evil criminal who exposed a CIA agent during a time of war. There are others who believe as passionately that Rove is innocent. Each of them is unable to dispassionately view the other argument, or to even hold it in their head long enough to take a second look, it's an immediate knee jerk "How the hell could anyone think that! They must be in league with bush|kerry". If a bunch of skydivers can be as passionate about something as trivial as some guy sending an email (I make no judgement as to the situations importance, only the respective sides reactions of defense and offence) can we begin to understand how someone half a world away, or half a state away can really feel about us? Each side is as guilty as the other. The west have standing armies to fill with their xenophobes and religious crusaders (certainly not the majority, but I think there have been enough propoganda reel footage of John Boy from AL talking about fighting for god and country - doesnt matter the truth of it, terrorists see it too without the mental filters we decode it with, they see weapons and someone talking about God and assume that he's not talking about Allah). The middle east, for thousands of years a tribal society, never cohesive enough to provide a united front have their terrorists. For *anyone* to claim that America was innocently sat there minding its own business as a superpower when it was heinously attacked has no knowledge of America's involvement in the middle east. Now, please note, I did not say 'America deserved being attacked' because I do not believe anyone deserves getting killed for any particular reason. However, the 'why me' syndrome that seems to be Joe Public's response to the attack with zero followup work by either press or public galls me no end. "They hate our freedoms" is a fairy tale told to children who refuse to grow up. "they" are not brown skinned, black skinned, yellow skinned or white skinned. They are all. There are many reasons Bin Laden and the middle east hate America, some perhaps justified, others definitely not, the majority - the ones that motivate terrorism, are - by and large, the intangibles, the ideologies rather than the acts. With the advent of Iraq this has changed somewhat, but even so it is seen simply as physical evidence of everything Bin laden et al were talking about in the first place. The english (at least until the British Government censored the news reports more and more) understood why the IRA committed its acts of terrorism. They didnt' sympathise with them, they didnt agree with them, but they were aware that there was a counter argument to the reality they saw. Look at the history of Ireland, where most dont even know the true history of the conflict understand why they were fighting, its something that they're ingrained to know. As much as the air you breathe you absorb your countries values and personality through osmosis, and it isnt until you leave that space that you start to understand that layer you filter through. I can't speak for Spain, but I'd ask a Spaniard if he knew what the seperatist movement was about. Americans, in conversations about terrorism, are quick to point to other nations that we need to take terrorism seriously, that in a post 9/11 world we can't be too careful, that we need to stop these evil people. Perhaps we could start by stopping the demonization of Islam and realize that terrorism is a world wide problem that is based on differences in ideology, and that includes more than just religion. Yes, there are dangerous Islamic extremists, and they're getting our front pages. But there are also dangerous Catholic/Baptist/Protestant/Fundie christian extremists who commit acts of terrorism as often (bombing/burning abortion clinics, killing doctors) albeit with a smaller, less headline grabbing bodycount - or such dramatic visuals. Just as there are terrorists based on blood lines (Basque seperatists, the situation Bosnia/Serbia). It is everywhere, our reaction to that threat is a measure of both our awareness and maturity as a society. In a true sense American society (in other words, the man in the street) is having to catch up with the rest of the world, who've lived through their own struggles in their own countries, who understand from recent and past histories that nothing in life is certain and that while we hope for peaceful happy lives there is always a risk it could end in an instant due to the actions of a madman. I speak only from my experience of being an outsider around groups of Americans during both the Olympic bombing and 9/11 and sharing information and getting reactions from them, and my observations of American society in the last 4 years post 9/11 in comparison to European culture. I'm sorry to take this topic on a little joyride across varying tangents but I wanted to see where that was going. My main point was how tiring it is to see the arab world and muslims being singled out by people at the expense of thinking about the real issues in play with regards to terrorism, their ideologies and training, because my major concern is that while we're all paying attention to the little dark guy with the turban we're going to miss blue eyed blond haired Billy Bob who's fighting the US because of the injustices of Waco and the Oklahoma bombing "martyrs". TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

Actually mr2mk1g is correct, without the Russian weather and people draining nazi resources (and Hitler's stubbornness) the conflict might have lasted a lot longer or gone a totally different course. We tend to forget the horrific losses the Russians suffered, and it's impact on the course of the war. This was one of the main reasons why the Cold War was much worse than most imagined in the West. The Russian psyche would have accepted mutual destruction a lot more readily than those in the west. Britain had been requesting US help for a long time, but most Americans did not care enough to allow the politicians of the time to lend aid. To brag 60 years later that you bailed out the Brits leads to the question: WHAT TOOK YOU SO BLOODY LONG? Now, I can't answer that, because while my family was on the front lines (my grandfather was rescued at dunkirk, the other flew in the battle of britain and didnt make it back) I dont have full knowledge of the circumstances that led to the US rescue. Tcnelson, perhaps you could let me know exactly what led the US to mobilize and 'save europe' at the point in time that they did, as you're obviously better read on WW2 history than I am based on your refutation of mr2mk1g's previous post. Actually, the US reaction to WW2 and it's slow entrance into the conflict is an interesting review of politics, propaganda and molding public opinion. Plus, Americans have all those Westerns where the cavalry comes in during the last reel. You expected anything else from those guys ? ;) TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

Respectfully I have to disagree with you here. Europe is not in a state of denial about terrorism, and to suggest so does a major disservice to the european public, their politicians and their intelligence services. I realize that most Americans have not paid attention to the rest of the world, which is part of your news culture (I grew up in europe and have spent 10 years in the US so I speak from personal experience having witnessed this). While Arab terrorists are a hot button issue for the US the rest of Europe has faced terrorism for many decades. Spain in particular has a long history of dealing with ETA seperatists, who have been responsible for many bloody attacks over the last 40 years in Spain. http://www.teror.gen.tr/english/organisations/eta.html What Spain, the UK and the rest of Europe discovered is that beyond vigilence there is no way to ensure that terrorist attacks can be stopped beyond long term intel gathering and awareness of the population. It isnt done by reducing the rights of the population, gathering data on every human being in your borders, or writing draconian bills that allow for secret police, secret searches and secret detentions. The US have taken this approach towards a terrified, isolated and psychologically delicate populace and whipped them into a frenzy of fear with the use of repeated warnings, mistrust and propoganda to allow the passing of many laws that provide no real security. 1. Security checkpoints on planes and the removal of shoes, nail files do not prevent terrorism or attacks. - In the vast majority of airplane hijackings over the last 40 years, weapons have been smuggled on board by the cleaning crew. Hijackings are rarely a 'spur of the moment' thing, they are carefully planned. Airplane cleaning crews are minimum wage jobs with companies being (usually) contracted third parties that hire minorities. It's never been too tough to infiltrate these crews and then leave weapons on the plane for someone to pick up later. 2. National ID cards - This law was just passed recently, your drivers license will now carry a lot more info about you. This will ensure safety for everyone. - Um no it wont. Each of the hijackers on 9/11 had valid identification. Some were known terrorists, several were trained here in the US to fly. But they did have valid identification. Putting things on computer just makes it far easier to compromise the system and for people to have their identities stolen (and recycled for criminals and/or terrorists). 3. Threat warning system. - Ummm. Definitely no help here, except to scare people even further, and maybe sell a little duct tape. Terrorism and threats to the public are a daily occurrence, its why we have intelligence agencies. The public doesnt need to know about anything until there's real information. For instance: how does it help me knowing that its situation orange, i mean in real terms? Do I hide in bed under my sheets? Do I get the day off work? Do I not go shopping? how exactly is this a help to me in any real and tangible way? 4. The Patriot act. Wow, you want to discuss Europeans not having a clue? This cobbled together piece of legislation that runs hundreds of pages just happens to be ready to be signed a few days after a major terrorist attack. What luck! Actually the patriot act is nothing more than a compilation of several scary bills which had been rejected previously because they were seen as unconstitutional infringements of our civil liberties. The fact that it passed in a few days without any review is something that shocked everyone who was paying attention. Under the new ruling: secret search and seizure, little oversight on wiretaps and surviellence, severe weakening of the Bill of Rights, spying on citizens, etc etc http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/default.html Europe in denial? No, the public in europe accept that there are risks to breathing and that security cannot be legislated, and that life happens. The public, on the whole, tend to be more involved in politics and world events, which gives them a more realistic perspective with regards to security. Sharing borders and having several thousand years of history, wars, invasions, expansions allows for a cultural awareness that cannot be found in the US. America is a very young country that is still finding its identity, as a society it looks to its government to provide security and protection from the outside world. It has no real history and due to its size and self-sufficiency has little reason to look outward to gain perspective. From the rest of the worlds perspective it is the US and its populace who 'do not get it' and are 'living in denial' because they believe that enacting some laws will protect them, and by bombing as many dark skinned desert countries as possible will protect them. When Bush announced that the US was starting a War On Terror I wondered if the US public would fall for it, or would ask questions. What is terror? (this was part of the other discussion on an earlier thread about AQ). A War against Terror is like a War Against Drugs, unwinnable. Terrorism is everywhere. Telling the world that you're shopping because you dont want the terrorists to win while asking your governement to restrict everything you do in the name of an illusive and impossible to get security seems to be a state of denial to me. In very basic terms: Security is exactly like skydiving. You can spend every waking hour worrying about the dangers and decide that you need to legislate against jumping out of planes, or you can pack carefully, take reasonable safety precautions, train well, and know what to do in an emergency and realize that while you've lowered the odds as much as you can there is still a significant risk by taking part - but thats the charge for admission. [edited for spelling] TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

I'm sorry, but as someone who's read as much public information as is available, researched each theory (including the main conspiracy ones) I find that statement incredibly hard to swallow. I cannot speak for 7/7, but 9/11 being a Jewish plot? I know where you're coming from on this, but I would strongly argue that while there may be some circumstantial evidence that Isreal/Mossad knew beforehand about 9/11 there is little reason to assume active participation. I have seen little publicly documented evidence beyond 2nd hand hearsay and rumor, if you have reliable source material to the contrary I would appreciate links to it as 9/11 research is of continuing interest to me. Remember, Mossad is commonly regarded as the best intelligence agency in the world. I wouldnt rule out their knowledge of either attack. On the other hand, I wouldnt rule out MI6 or the CIA having had knowledge of either 9/11 or 7/7 beforehand either. I dont say that from a conspiracy theory perspective, simply that there is a high probability that both agencies had enough pieces of the puzzle to see either attack...........once 20/20 hindsight was available. Eaglenrider, I would agree that there are many questions left unanswered, and more than a few inconsistencies with the official story of 9/11. However, Isreal being responsible for 9/11 is a charge as well founded and realistic as 'the CIA used remote control planes' theory. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

Actually, as Lawrocket stated, the law would make the owners of dz.com liable for carrying the content, the same issue my company is going to face. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

Sorry, wasnt trying to suggest that. I meant that the FBI had done pretty much exactly the same thing to Richard Jewell 8 years ago. They also started it rolling w/regards to the anthrax mailings and the scientist who's name I dont recall right now (rumor mongering about his political background and mental state from what i recall, never seemed to catch on in the mainstream press tho). Character assassination and demonization with leaks to the media seems to be SOP when the FBI need a bogeyman. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

The FBI leaked a whole mess of things about Richard Jewell when he was suspected for the Olympic Bombings (which were actually done by christian fundie terrorist Eric Rudolph.) TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

With the greatest respect, there are some major flaws in this law for the following reasons: The previous laws in place required keeping records of the ages of all models. It had been used successfully. This new law impacts *any* site that touches on sex, nudity or erotica. In fact, it can be used to any site that shows any skin. My problems with this? My site (which, as I said before, is not porn, but is positive about sex) has over 300k members. We gain 7000+ members per week. These aren't models, they are normal people like you and me. These people submit pictures to their profiles. Under this new law we are now in a position where we will have to approach our members and get proof of who each person is, because our members can show skin if they want. Let alone the fact that this is going to be an administrative nightmare (how can I prove that someone on their computer is really over 18? you can now get credit cards at 16), who's going to handle and store all this paperwork? In addition, I'm demonizing my members, who value their privacy, I am removing their ability to be anonymous on my site. This isnt a business issue, it's about privacy. A large part of our service is allowing our members access to various health groups from all over the US and the world (currently my boss is in Europe after delivering a small presentation to a world medical conference), and a large part of that success is because our users can use these resources anonymously. It's a bad law. Child pornographers are breaking many laws that have nothing to do with these silly rules. No adult content house would use underage models for THAT reason, not because some chick had to show her drivers license before disrobing. Child pornographers will commit their crimes regardless of the penalties imposed because they know what they're doing is illegal. It's not like they're going to look at this law and realize what a horrible mistake they just made. This is another case of a law that makes people think that they're safe. Like removing your shoes at the airport and no longer being able to take your nail file on the plane. Just illusions to make people believe that the lawmakers are cracking down hard on illegal child porn. As far as your quote about the 14 year old......yeah it's icky but those kinds of comments always seem kinda juvenile troll remarks on those kinds of sites. And as sick as it may be to you or I, if a model is over 18 it does not matter if she looks 8 on film (an exaggeration, but you understand my meaning) it is not an offence. Child pornography and law is a very intense and difficult subject to untangle once you get rid of the obvious - which is child endangerment/abuse. Just because the vast majority of society would find an image or thought or comment distasteful or disgusting does it make it illegal? There have been several cases in courts in recent years regarding these free speech issues - times when the content endangered no living child but appeared to show a criminal act (from memory I think one was a written text and the other was photoshop trickery). Can any free society start to prosecute based on someone's thoughts? And if the answer is yes, then obviously you've never said 'he got me so mad I could have killed him'. It's ugly and distasteful but nonetheless a thorny issue. Sorry to jump off topic there, but again, this law does not protect against these situations either. It's my understanding that the law has been put on hold until at least September while various issues are worked out (like how incredibly stupid the entire thing is), there's a good chance that it'll be killed before ever being enforced - it really is that bad to mainstream sites outside of the adult industry, while providing absolutely no real positive gain. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.