LoveForPriscillaChan

 

 

if the UN peacekeepers did that, then what they did is wrong. but that does not excuse the US government from doing the same thing; what they did was wrong and constitutes of torture, be a man, step up, admit to it

 

So the US is regularly raping women and children in Iraq and Afghanistan?

 

I love it when people try to equate the US to terrorists in the acts a few idiots do.

 

I could be wrong, but I think PChan is referring to using methods similar in nature (i.e. inhumane); I don't think he meant the US was literally raping women and children. He'll probably post here later to clarify what he meant.

 

 

Monk is correct.

(as per UN):

 

Do you mean the same UN that is regularly responsible for the rape and abuse of children in the countries that they are supposed to be "peace keeping?" I've been reading these stories since the 1990's and have never seen anything done about it. For the UN to speak of mental torture when they refused to do anything in Iraq until we stepped in and to do anything about their own "peace keepers" abusing the women and children in the countries that they are staying in is ridiculous to the extreme.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/7420798.stm

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=42088

 

I saw an article just the other day about the UN doing this.

if the UN peacekeepers did that, then what they did is wrong. but that does not excuse the US government from doing the same thing; what they did was wrong and constitutes of torture, be a man, step up, admit to it

Noone has had charges brought on them for those thing, the only charges were brought on account of gaurds putting womens underwear on the prisoners, stripping them naked and then taking pictures of the rediculousness. I'm not here as an advocate of the idiot gaurds, but I am saying that they weren't tortured. They were mistreated. Where in the heck did you get all that crap? Sometimes I wonder what color your world is.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3763806.stm

"Among other things, Frederick admitted to ... punching one man so hard he needed resuscitation."

so we got freaking iron mike tyson here; and that's just one instance.

and people died under abuse, but nobody was charged, let alone convicted for that murder; does that mean it did not happen? cause i bet the families have a freaking body to prove that it did

I have read and I'm sorry but humiliation is not torture. Noone had fingernails ripped out, noone was beaten, noone was electrocuted and noone had their heads removed while the others watched even if they themselves did that before being captured.

 

I think that our rich nation has made a ton of bleeding hearts that have no real clue of the reality of these evil men. It's easy for the rich to be socialists, environmentalists and and activists who fight for the rights of evil men. The rest of us just want our families safe, we want to make it to work without worrying about a suicide bomber or contaminated water supplies and most of all we want to know that the people we have in power are doing everything possible to keep us safe, even if that means other nations and peoples must be put in line by force.

 

The naivete of the folks here some times astound me.

torture is not limited to physical torture; there is also mental torture as well

(as per UN):

"1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."

now, even excluding acts of "mental" torture in abu ghraib:

shooting prisoners for minor misbehavior, venomous snake bites, stoning, forced sexual relations between prisoners, sodomy by the guards, rape, continual physical attack on a wounded limb of a prisoner, random beatings in general, stress physical positions

i think its time for me to say the phrase "The naivete of the folks here some times astound me."

Even that uproar of Abu Grav prison wasn't torture, these folks have probably eaten and slept in better conditions while being held than they ever had prior. My thoughts on it is this, if their own countries will not take them back, even as criminals, then what the heck do we do with them? We don't want them here, where so ridiculous liberal judge might set them free out of some statement against the Bush administration only to have them blow up a school bus in Ohio or poison the water supply somewhere. The reason for Gitmo in the first place was to hold them till after the conflict and then decide where to put them. No matter what I don't want them here, I would rather see the whole lot of them executed than that, and I don't wish for that. It's a quandary that must be addressed but drastic legal action is less important than patience.

you don't really understand the meaning of torture do you?

you should re-read the incidents at abu ghraib before you make that statement again

and no, it is never right to hold an innocent man in detainment, just for the fear that he may have become a bad guy because he mingled with terrorists. this is not freaking minority report. the US has values; one of them is to not subject an innocent man to punishment; another is never to torture; for hte people at gitmo, either charge them and give them a fair trial or let them go; if the evidence is so compelling against them, why not put it in a fair trial?

i was watching daily show the other day and jon stewart said something very real about all this:

what kind of values do we have if we get rid of the values while they are being tested? they are then not values...but rather hobbies.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

National Academy of Sciences

American Meteorological Society

American Geophysical Union

American Association for the Advancement of Science

all say that human activities is affecting the climate

In the journal Science in 2004, Oreskes published the results of a survey of 928 papers on climate

change published in peer-reviewed journals between 1993 and 2003. She found that three-quarters of

the papers either explicitly or implicitly accepted the view expressed in the IPCC 2001 report that

human activities have had a major impact on climate change in the last 50 years, and none rejected it.

But hey, what do these scientists know? even if it is their job and expertise to find out what is going on

There are hundreds of scientists who disagree with the notion that Global Warming or whatever it is called this month is man made. There is absolutely no proof of it. Sure, there is evidence that the temperature of the earth goes up and down yet those who say it is man-made completely ignore the sun's affects. But hey, what do I know; I only posted a dozen or more links and sources showing a cooling yet you want to argue against the numbers.

now you just went with the statement that "hundreds of scientists" disagree that this is man-made; can you name them? can you reference to a several peer-reviewed papers? can you name some prominent scientific groups that say this?

Somebody told me this was a "Hot Deal"

http://www.amazon.com/Sharp-Aquos-LC46D65U...7397&sr=8-2

Sharp Aquos 46" 1080p LCD HDTV

MSRP (According to Amazon): $1500

Now: $1077

Also, you get free shipping + "White-Glove Delivery"

In fact, on Amazon, if you search for "Sharp aquos 46", the first three search results (including the one I just posted) all have around 25-30 percent off MSRP.

The Snip Tool is sort of like doing Command+Shift+4 on the Mac. The difference is that you can immediately "ink" in the captured area before you save the screen captured zone.

what does that mean? you can "ink" in the captured area?

In other news, Santa Claus's house was found on the north pole and a unicorn is now showing at the NY zoo.

 

 

 

I am packing my bags now.

 

 

 

 

 

Shaftiel

i'm afraid you may be in for a disappointment

http://i43.tinypic.com/wgt2ys.jpg

what is DM?

the only thing that comes to mind is if your config file or your autoexec file is set to readonly

The one thing being overlooked here is that Israel tries to avoid civilian casualties. That's the purpose of all the high tech weaponry. Hamas on the other hand target civilians and use their own people at shields. They are even stealing international aid to their own people so they can instead sell it to them. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3651783,00.html

Using high-tech weaponry to avoid civilian casualties? I will even use an Israeli news site to disprove this.

"The ground invasion was preceded by large-scale artillery shelling from around 4 P.M., intended to "soften" the targets as artillery batteries deployed along the Strip in recent days began bombarding Hamas targets and open areas near the border. Hundreds of shells were fired, including cluster bombs aimed at open areas."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1052331.html

"The cluster rounds which don't detonate on impact, believed by the United Nations to be around 40% of those fired by the IDF in Lebanon, remain on the ground as unexploded munitions, effectively littering the landscape with thousands of land mines which will continue to claim victims long after the war has ended."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/761781.html

Looking for these unexploded munitions is a long, expensive, and difficult process. They continue to blow up civilians even after the conflict is over.

EDIT: Actually, the entire second article, although this applies to the conflict vs Lebanon several years ago, will shed a light as to how Israel will use weapons prohibited by international law, and are known to cause "Excessive injury and unnecessary suffering."

I do not support Hamas' actions. I also do not support Israel's.

how they came into power == democracy; they were voted into office in a fair and undisputed election;

 

what they do in office == policy; whether this keeps them legally in office can only go by what is in accordance to PLO laws;

 

Honestly, what's your point here? Because Hamas was elected into power they are good? I hope you know they are a radical terrorist organization. They used religion to win votes and also use religion to persuade people into becoming suicide bombers. Oh, and did I mention they pay the families of suicide bombers a monthly salary as a way to "thank them."

 

I still cant understand why you are defending Hamas.

1.) they are terrorists

2.) they provoked Isreal into this mess by shooting rockets at them

3.) they hate America

etc

etc

I have not defended Hamas' actions in anyway.

Also, hating America isn't a crime, and given the US' actions in the Middle East, they have reason to.

Hi, maybe you forget how Hamas came into power in the Gaza Strip in first place? It happened during June of 2007 and when Hamas wounded over 550 people and killed over 100.

 

 

Whoa, let's not illegitimize Hamas' rule by making false statements. Hamas came to rule via a fair and democratic election in 2006, an election that has be lauded to be more legitimate than the US 2000 election (the last part was stated by some random dude in some seemingly important position so i cannot really provide a reference should you ask for it, but trust me on this!)

 

Are you serious? You think Hamas coming into power was "cleaner" than George W. Bush? Yes, I know about the election that officially brought them into government, but that doesn't justify their radical past, nor the fact that they killed or jailed any Fatah members who opposed them in power.

 

The US equivalent is if George W and the Republicans jailed and killed all of the Democrats after they were elected into power. So, you honestly still think Hamas's election into power was cleaner than the the United States Republican's in 2000?

how they came into power == democracy; they were voted into office in a fair and undisputed election;

what they do in office == policy; whether this keeps them legally in office can only go by what is in accordance to PLO laws;

to put it in perspective for you and give you something to relate to, the current director at al jazeera english is tony burman, who was editor in chief for CBC from 2002-2007

Ok, please put this into "perspective" for me; Am I to believe that Al Jazeera English is non biased because a man with a 35 year career at CBC is working there?

Or am I to believe that CBC is unbiased because Tony Burman worked there?

i am not asking you to believe in anything; i have never watched CBC during/after his directorship; i thought you wanted something that you would be familiar with; since you are from canada, i thought you would know about the CBC's journalistic qualities; if you thought his leadership at CBC is bad, then you can safely carry that belief when viewing al jazeera english broadcasts

Hi, Israel broke the cease fire. It was the original breaking story, but in a Jewish controlled media, don't be surprised if you have a hard time validating that story. I'd cite the story from Al Jazeera, but that's pointless in a crowd like this. If you seriously believe Israel is any less a terrorist organization than Hamas, you're choosing what to believe. Congratulations. Obama nearly lost my vote with statements he said about blindly supporting Israel, but since McCain was in the same position, it still boiled down to the lesser of two evils.

 

Have any of you thought about the timing Israel is exploiting? For the past ~40 years, we've been Israel's tougher bigger brother, which, to an extent, has put us in a peace keeping role. A transitional executive with a weakened defense is a great time to ignore previous US requests for a peaceful cease fire. How do you think this would be playing out differently if any President, left, right, or middle, was mid-term? Coincidence or not (guess where I stand), It's exploitative, and if you can't recognize that, well, you're pretty well convinced that God should our source of political reason. I can't rationalize with that. Apparently neither can 2,000 years of continuing Israeli-centric controversy. When was the last time the Israeli people were not directly involved in some sort of military conflict? The events of the Holocaust most certainly should NOT be overlooked, but neither should the rest of history.

I'm curious about where this is coming from. Where do you get this information? I do not get Al Jazeera on my cable but it is a well known fact they are biased towards muslims

is it not? I'm not trying to poke fun here, but your accusations of us constantly getting biased information on the conflicts in the middle east seems a little steep. In Canada

our news tends to be a little less, shall we say, "extravagant" But I have yet to see Hamas painted in any other image than terrorists. Am I saying we are getting all of the truth?

Absoloutely not! Am I saying that we are not being biased? Again, absoutely not! But if I am reading this post corectly, then I am to believe all of the news we are getting is being

controlled to be biased in a paticular direction on a topic that really does not affect us directly. Private news stations that are in compitition with each other. I know beyond any doubt

that there are things going on behind the scenes that "influence" matters in the middle east. But what your suggesting here is a common "movement" to give us the slanted side

of a story, and with our freedom of the press, I just can't understand that. Again, if I am missing a news source, please let me know, though if it is on the

internet, it's source could be from anywhere.

to put it in perspective for you and give you something to relate to, the current director at al jazeera english is tony burman, who was editor in chief for CBC from 2002-2007

EDIT: al jazeera is funded mainly by the ruler of Qatar, who's country contains one of the main bases used by the US towards the invasion of iraq

Hi, maybe you forget how Hamas came into power in the Gaza Strip in first place? It happened during June of 2007 and when Hamas wounded over 550 people and killed over 100.

Whoa, let's not illegitimize Hamas' rule by making false statements. Hamas came to rule via a fair and democratic election in 2006, an election that has be lauded to be more legitimate than the US 2000 election (the last part was stated by some random dude in some seemingly important position so i cannot really provide a reference should you ask for it, but trust me on this!)

The Bible says that anyone who is against Israel is against God Himself.

 

The bible also said "Thou shalt not kill." Want to guess what Israel's missiles are doing?

 

 

If your back is against the wall and someone is coming towards you with the intend to beat you senseless, do you just stand there and take it or do you fight back?

 

 

People also have to remember that Hamas is basically a finger on the arm that is Iran. This is a proxy war.

I believe the bible's natural response would be to "turn the other cheek." Also, in the end, it says do not kill, regardless of intention.

The Bible says that anyone who is against Israel is against God Himself.

 

The bible also said "Thou shalt not kill." Want to guess what Israel's missiles are doing?

 

No the Bible says you should not "murder".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandme...en_Commandments

"(Roman Catholic) You shall not kill / (Lutheran) You shall not murder"

more discrepancies within the bible, but ignoring that issue, i'll take the more popular phrase "thou shalt not kill" over "thou shalt not murder"

also, sj should post cite the story, since Al Jazeera is a legitimate, highly accomplished tv station; other mainstream media uses Al Jazeera broadcasts regularly when reporting on the Middle East

The Bible says that anyone who is against Israel is against God Himself.

The bible also said "Thou shalt not kill." Want to guess what Israel's missiles are doing?

In what way?

I never touched Javascript but I knew C# so picking up Javascript was a piece of cake.

It's like Portuguese and Spanish. Similar but different.

C/C++ is more dangerous, has more traps, etc.; some stuff is just crazy, such as template meta programming; a lot of stuff that .NET libraries support for you, you have to do manually; when i was in uni, my partner and i started a C# project with him having no experience in C#, and me having extremely minimal experience in it. in one short session, we got our networking + threading framework up and running; at the end of the year, our group of 2 ppl had a project that was much better than another group doing the same project, who had 3 ppl but coded in C

I already know the language (generally) for C because I do C# right now.

 

What would you say I need to learn to do instead?

knowing C# does not mean you know C/C++; in fact, far from it

during your time off, i would highly suggest you pick up C/C++; it will open up a lot more doors for you, even doors that lead to jobs that do not use C/C++

can somebody post the IP of the CS server? I cannot find it anywhere.

Could you imagine what would happen to us if countries like China called our debts due?

Don't pick up the phone and let the machine take it.

Just saw a short preview of this clip on the news. I was pretty sure it was going to end up here too.

 

That journalist was whipping those shoes pretty hard. If he had more than a 2 round clip, he probably would have kept firing.

 

"This is a farewell kiss, you dog." - quoted by one of the commentators in that youtube video as to what the guy was saying. And Dana Perino, press secretary, apparently got hurt too. Not quite the reception Bush was looking forward to from Iraq as he exits the White House...

if that was monk, he'd have 50 shoes, just like the P90