news.cnet.com — Two years ago, when the FBI was stymied by a band of armed robbers known as the "Scarecrow Bandits" that had robbed more than 20 Texas banks, it came up with a novel method of locating the thieves.FBI agents obtained logs from mobile phone companies corresponding to what their
Feb 11, 2010 View in Crawl 4
Closed AccountFeb 12, 2010
he's right.
Closed AccountFeb 12, 2010
Yea
maxtangentFeb 13, 2010
What rules have the terrorists agreed to? So, because they don't follow our arbitrary rules, they are in the wrong?They don't go after targets of 'military value' because they can't. Yes, you did use the fallacy. Using nuclear bombs on civilians isn't 'right' by any stretch of the imagination, nor is firebombing them. But, because civilians were targeted by sides, it is acceptable, right?And, not by my rules, but by the rules of so-called 'civilized warfare', yes, practically every country in history is guilty of war crimes. That makes it awfully Hypocritical to accuse others of not following the rules, does it not?Switzerland hasn't been attacked because of their neutrality. Attacking them would lead to worldwide outrage and consequences. Maybe they have a useful philosophy? I am not saying it is 'okay' - because war of any kind is not 'okay': IE fighting a defensive war in your country may be necessary, but it is not 'okay'.By my rules, war has outrageous events, by definition, and to claim one side is worse than the other because they play by different rules makes no sense. If your country had been meddled with by foreign powers for decades, including having your legitimate government overturned, who you cannot touch on the battlefield, , what would you do? Bend over and take it?I never said anything about 'pleasing everyone'. China has problems with Muslims attacking them? I'm not familiar with that. Iraq's fault? They have had way more problems from western interference than from Muslims. Not sure what you mean by, 'they all have the same problem'. Which Muslims attacked America? Are you referring to OBL when the FBI admit there isn't enough evidence to pin the attacks of 911 on him? There isn't enough evidence to conclude Muslims were to blame at all.It's hard to know what to do with them because we don't fully understand their motivations and because, as you say, it is impossible to stop every attack.I'm not pinning blame on any one country because there is more than enough blame to go around and until we get rid of the 'everything we do is right and everything our enemies do is wrong' mentality, we are never going to resolve the issues that lead to war and/or terrorist attacks.
bassmastrFeb 13, 2010
"What rules have the terrorists agreed to? So, because they don't follow our arbitrary rules, they are in the wrong?"They aren't arbitrary rules made by us. They are military rules set by the world to try and make sure the atrocities of WW2 never happen again. "They don't go after targets of 'military value' because they can't. "So it's okay to go blow up kids on trains and buses. It's okay for them to go and kill more muslims than the enemy?"And, not by my rules, but by the rules of so-called 'civilized warfare', yes, practically every country in history is guilty of war crimes. That makes it awfully Hypocritical to accuse others of not following the rules, does it not?"If you think blowing up trains in Spain and buses in London or night clubs in Bali are legit targets and well within the rules of war...that's on you."Switzerland hasn't been attacked because of their neutrality. Attacking them would lead to worldwide outrage and consequences. Maybe they have a useful philosophy? "There are many countries that have declared their neutrality and still been attacked. The reason Switzerland has been left out of it is b/c they hold everyone's money. I know they are neutral but thats not why they haven't been attacked.,I'm not going to try and compare the two wars b/c you can't and it's stupid if you do. WW2 was so awful a set of rules for war were adopted by the world."Which Muslims attacked America? "Jesus dude have you even been paying attention? The U.S.S. Cole, the embassies in Nairobi, the first trade center bombings...Do I really need to go on? Was this a serious question?Yes China has problem with Muslims just like every other nonmuslim country on the planet it seems. <a class="user" href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;source=hp&amp;q=china+muslim+conflict&amp;aq=f&amp;aqi=&amp;oq=" rel="nofollow">http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;source=hp&a ...</a>
bassmastrFeb 13, 2010
I forgot..."Yes, you did use the fallacy. Using nuclear bombs on civilians isn't 'right' by any stretch of the imagination, nor is firebombing them. But, because civilians were targeted by sides, it is acceptable, right?"You are operating that under the thoughts that all wars are bad...I could not agree more. However I don't think we had a choice. I am saying I have no regrets given the circumstances.
maxtangentFeb 13, 2010
We can argue all day about those arbirtrary rules set up after WW2, but I don't understand why you think they aren't arbitrary, expecially since they didn't stop a great many atrocitiies commited since - by members who drafted those very rules and seem to think they don't apply to them. The rules get broken under excuses like 'collateral damage', by iinvading sovereing nations when our own sovereignty wasn't threatened for examples.I could argue that the Japanese were beaten anyway - their airforce and navy were practically non existent by the time Tokyo was firebombed, so there were lots of options, they just were not used because we are always right, never have a choice and, bedsides, our enemies are evil so it's okay to go all Cheney on them.America may have been attacked (with the ancient tradition of false flag attacks, I'm not sure how to prove that definitively on way or the other and that is a whole other topic that is a quagmire to debate) but are you also claiming that America was attacked without cause and that America is totally innocent? Are you claiming that America has not created those enemies through illegal meddling in the governments of other countires, or are you saying that it is okay to do so because, 'we have no choice'? Are those 'attacks' or are they 'counter attacks'?So, we perform illegal activiites in other countries and then when there are consequences, we call for vengeance?Also, if your argument really is that 'we don't hhave a choice', then why is it so difficult to see that those terrorists don't believe they have a choice either?I have a lot of regrets. It is Hypocritical to try and hold the moral high ground and be outraged when we aren't the least bit innocent. To be clear, I am not condoning terrorist tactics, just like I don't condone our own. BOTH are wrong.
lavarockMar 7, 2010
You... you didn't f**king read it did you? The point is that once you establish that SOMEBODY is bad enough be thrown in a concentration camp and killed, there's no way to argue that anybody ELSE isn't a nasty enough candidate for the same treatment. They started with the serial killers, and got all the way down to the Jews.