2461
3DHS / Re: From Forkem About Iranian Jurisprudence
« on: September 21, 2006, 09:15:58 AM »
No idea what she was hanged for?
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
2462
3DHS / Re: Is the Hitler analogy outdated?
« on: September 21, 2006, 02:24:33 AM »Quote
Another excellent hypothetical, Plane
You've got to be kidding.
2465
3DHS / Jerusalem? Never heard of it
« on: September 20, 2006, 11:50:53 AM »
Jerusalem? Never heard of it
JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Something always gets lost in translation, but usually not an entire city.
"Jerusalem. There is no such city!" the Jerusalem municipality said in the English-language version of a sightseeing brochure it had published originally in Hebrew.
The correct translation: "Jerusalem. There is no city like it!"
Carrying a photograph of the brochure, Israel's Maariv newspaper said Wednesday tens of thousands of flyers had been distributed before city hall realized its mistake.
JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Something always gets lost in translation, but usually not an entire city.
"Jerusalem. There is no such city!" the Jerusalem municipality said in the English-language version of a sightseeing brochure it had published originally in Hebrew.
The correct translation: "Jerusalem. There is no city like it!"
Carrying a photograph of the brochure, Israel's Maariv newspaper said Wednesday tens of thousands of flyers had been distributed before city hall realized its mistake.
2466
3DHS / Re: This is the essence of Aquinas
« on: September 19, 2006, 11:45:25 PM »Quote
I have heard no one in the Muslim community denounce the resulting reactions, in which Muslims demonstrate their commitment to reason and civilization by: calling for the assassination of the Pope; gunning down a nun on the steps of the free clinic she and her order operated; burning down churches.
I have. I have seen reports of Muslim leaders calling for calm during the current crisis.
Are you sure you are listening?
2467
3DHS / What rights are you willing to give up to government scaremongering?
« on: September 19, 2006, 05:36:08 PM »
Substitute terrorism for gun crime, then decide what you are willing to give up.
The Real Crocodile Dundee
by Vin Suprynowicz
A few days ago, the Review-Journal – along with a lot of other metropolitan dailies – gave prominent coverage to the death of Steve Irwin, the popular Australian zookeeper who charmed international audiences with his enthusiastic animal-chasing on the Discovery Network's Animal Planet channel.
Irwin, widely known as "the Crocodile Hunter," was killed Monday by a stingray that rose and stabbed him in the chest with its spine while the 44-year-old was at work filming a television segment, swimming at Australia's Great Barrier Reef.
Irwin's enthusiasm was infectious. His manner of death was certainly noteworthy. All doubtless sympathize with his wife and two young children.
Still, Irwin died doing what he loved. And without diminishing his memory or his family's loss, perhaps we can draw a distinction between a death that is merely unfortunate and fascinating and one that is significant.
It could be an interesting exercise to compare the prominent coverage of Irwin's death with the slim few paragraphs (at most) devoted by the America news media on or about Aug. 4, 1999, to the death of 44-year-old Rodney William Ansell. The 1988 Australian Northern Territory Man of the Year – so honored in part because he was widely acknowledged to be the real-life character on whom Paul Hogan, Ken Shadie, and John Cornell based their movie character "Crocodile Dundee" – was killed in a shootout with police.
Yes, the circumstances surrounding Ansell's death took a little more time to put together. The question is: Did anyone in the press ever bother, and if not, why not?
Ansell was just 21 when he became lost for two months in the bush west of Darwin. He'd been on a fishing trip near the mouth of the Victoria River, accompanied only by his two cattle dogs, when his boat was capsized and sunk, possibly by a whale. He managed to board his tender vessel, a small dinghy with only one oar, and retrieve his dogs and a small amount of equipment including his rifle, knives and bedding – but no fresh water.
Alone, far from any shipping lanes, Ansell traveled up the Fitzmaurice River over the next 72 hours, becoming severely dehydrated before finally finding fresh water above the tide line. He then managed to survive for two months by hunting and shooting cattle for food, before being rescued by a small party of drovers. (Presumably it wasn't their cattle he'd been shooting, or our tale might be much shorter.)
Ansell, blond and bearing an uncanny resemblance to actor Paul Hogan, wrote a book and starred in a documentary about his exploits, both called "To Fight the Wild." The story sparked the interest of actor Hogan and his co-writers, who scored a major hit with their 1986 film "Crocodile Dundee."
Seven years ago, Ansell was killed in a shootout with police just south of Darwin. An Australian police sergeant also died. Why?
In a June 2000 essay, physician, author, and Cuban émigré Dr. Miguel Faria asks what was going on in Australia in the late 1990s that could help explain the timing of this famous Australian survivalist shooting it out with authorities:
"Although Ansell was no angel and had had previous run-ins with police, he had been named 1988 Australian Northern Territory Man of the Year for inspiring the movie and putting 'the Australian Outback on the map,'" Dr. Faria notes.
"What motivated this shooting? In 1996, Australia adopted Draconian gun control laws banning certain guns (60 percent of all firearms), requiring registration of all firearms and licensing of all gun owners. 'Crocodile Dundee' believed the police were coming to confiscate his unregistered firearms.
"In Australia today, police can enter your house and search for guns, copy the hard drive of your computer, seize records, and do it all without a search warrant," Dr. Faria reports. "It's the law that police can go door to door searching for weapons that have not been surrendered in their much publicized gun buy-back program. They have been using previous registration and firearm license lists to check for lapses and confiscate non-surrendered firearms."
It all began with the Port Arthur (a Tasmanian resort) tragedy on April 28, 1996, Dr. Faria recalls, "when a crazed assailant opened fire and shot 35 people. Australians were shocked, and the government reacted quickly.
"Draconian gun legislation was passed in the heat of the moment. ... As a result of stringent gun laws (really a ban on firearms) in Australia, all semiautomatic firearms (rifles and handguns) are proscribed, including .22-caliber rabbit guns and duck-hunting Remington shotguns.
"At a cost of $500 million, out of an estimated 7 million firearms (of which 2.8 million were prohibited), only 640,000 guns were surrendered to police. What has been the result? Same as in England. ... Crime Down Under has escalated.
"Twelve months after the law was implemented in 1997, there had been a 44 percent increase in armed robberies, an 8.6 percent increase in aggravated assaults, and a 3.2 percent increase in homicides," reports Dr. Faria, a retired Georgia neurosurgeon who wrote "Medical Warrior" and "Cuba in Revolution: Escape From a Lost Paradise," and served until recently as editor-in-chief of "The Medical Sentinel," the journal of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.
"That same year in the state of Victoria, there was a 300 percent increase in homicides committed with firearms. The following year, robberies increased almost 60 percent in South Australia. ...
"Two years after the ban, there have been further increases in crime: armed robberies by 73 percent; unarmed robberies by 28 percent; kidnappings by 38 percent ... according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics.
"And consider the fact that over the previous 25-year period, Australia had shown a steady decrease both in homicide with firearms and armed robbery – until the ban. ...
"The ban on firearms and the disarmament of ordinary Australians has left criminals free to roam the countryside as they please.
"Bandits, of course, kept their guns. ... Yet the leftist Australian government has responded by passing more laws; in 1998 Bowie knives and other knives and items including handcuffs were banned.
"Licensing is difficult. Self and family protection is not considered a valid reason to own a firearm. The right to self-defense, like in Great Britain and Canada, is not recognized in Australia. ... A way of life has ended. Please, don't tell me it cannot happen here!"
Did the real-life Crocodile Dundee die because his own government left him with no choice but to "use his guns" – guns which had saved his life – "or lose them"?
If so, why did we hear so little about it? Because many in the press are loath to report the "bad outcomes" of victim disarmament? It certainly doesn't seem to be because Americans don't care about the fate of famous, good-looking Australian crocodile hunters.
September 19, 2006
http://www.lewrockwell.com/suprynowicz/suprynowicz48.html
The Real Crocodile Dundee
by Vin Suprynowicz
A few days ago, the Review-Journal – along with a lot of other metropolitan dailies – gave prominent coverage to the death of Steve Irwin, the popular Australian zookeeper who charmed international audiences with his enthusiastic animal-chasing on the Discovery Network's Animal Planet channel.
Irwin, widely known as "the Crocodile Hunter," was killed Monday by a stingray that rose and stabbed him in the chest with its spine while the 44-year-old was at work filming a television segment, swimming at Australia's Great Barrier Reef.
Irwin's enthusiasm was infectious. His manner of death was certainly noteworthy. All doubtless sympathize with his wife and two young children.
Still, Irwin died doing what he loved. And without diminishing his memory or his family's loss, perhaps we can draw a distinction between a death that is merely unfortunate and fascinating and one that is significant.
It could be an interesting exercise to compare the prominent coverage of Irwin's death with the slim few paragraphs (at most) devoted by the America news media on or about Aug. 4, 1999, to the death of 44-year-old Rodney William Ansell. The 1988 Australian Northern Territory Man of the Year – so honored in part because he was widely acknowledged to be the real-life character on whom Paul Hogan, Ken Shadie, and John Cornell based their movie character "Crocodile Dundee" – was killed in a shootout with police.
Yes, the circumstances surrounding Ansell's death took a little more time to put together. The question is: Did anyone in the press ever bother, and if not, why not?
Ansell was just 21 when he became lost for two months in the bush west of Darwin. He'd been on a fishing trip near the mouth of the Victoria River, accompanied only by his two cattle dogs, when his boat was capsized and sunk, possibly by a whale. He managed to board his tender vessel, a small dinghy with only one oar, and retrieve his dogs and a small amount of equipment including his rifle, knives and bedding – but no fresh water.
Alone, far from any shipping lanes, Ansell traveled up the Fitzmaurice River over the next 72 hours, becoming severely dehydrated before finally finding fresh water above the tide line. He then managed to survive for two months by hunting and shooting cattle for food, before being rescued by a small party of drovers. (Presumably it wasn't their cattle he'd been shooting, or our tale might be much shorter.)
Ansell, blond and bearing an uncanny resemblance to actor Paul Hogan, wrote a book and starred in a documentary about his exploits, both called "To Fight the Wild." The story sparked the interest of actor Hogan and his co-writers, who scored a major hit with their 1986 film "Crocodile Dundee."
Seven years ago, Ansell was killed in a shootout with police just south of Darwin. An Australian police sergeant also died. Why?
In a June 2000 essay, physician, author, and Cuban émigré Dr. Miguel Faria asks what was going on in Australia in the late 1990s that could help explain the timing of this famous Australian survivalist shooting it out with authorities:
"Although Ansell was no angel and had had previous run-ins with police, he had been named 1988 Australian Northern Territory Man of the Year for inspiring the movie and putting 'the Australian Outback on the map,'" Dr. Faria notes.
"What motivated this shooting? In 1996, Australia adopted Draconian gun control laws banning certain guns (60 percent of all firearms), requiring registration of all firearms and licensing of all gun owners. 'Crocodile Dundee' believed the police were coming to confiscate his unregistered firearms.
"In Australia today, police can enter your house and search for guns, copy the hard drive of your computer, seize records, and do it all without a search warrant," Dr. Faria reports. "It's the law that police can go door to door searching for weapons that have not been surrendered in their much publicized gun buy-back program. They have been using previous registration and firearm license lists to check for lapses and confiscate non-surrendered firearms."
It all began with the Port Arthur (a Tasmanian resort) tragedy on April 28, 1996, Dr. Faria recalls, "when a crazed assailant opened fire and shot 35 people. Australians were shocked, and the government reacted quickly.
"Draconian gun legislation was passed in the heat of the moment. ... As a result of stringent gun laws (really a ban on firearms) in Australia, all semiautomatic firearms (rifles and handguns) are proscribed, including .22-caliber rabbit guns and duck-hunting Remington shotguns.
"At a cost of $500 million, out of an estimated 7 million firearms (of which 2.8 million were prohibited), only 640,000 guns were surrendered to police. What has been the result? Same as in England. ... Crime Down Under has escalated.
"Twelve months after the law was implemented in 1997, there had been a 44 percent increase in armed robberies, an 8.6 percent increase in aggravated assaults, and a 3.2 percent increase in homicides," reports Dr. Faria, a retired Georgia neurosurgeon who wrote "Medical Warrior" and "Cuba in Revolution: Escape From a Lost Paradise," and served until recently as editor-in-chief of "The Medical Sentinel," the journal of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.
"That same year in the state of Victoria, there was a 300 percent increase in homicides committed with firearms. The following year, robberies increased almost 60 percent in South Australia. ...
"Two years after the ban, there have been further increases in crime: armed robberies by 73 percent; unarmed robberies by 28 percent; kidnappings by 38 percent ... according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics.
"And consider the fact that over the previous 25-year period, Australia had shown a steady decrease both in homicide with firearms and armed robbery – until the ban. ...
"The ban on firearms and the disarmament of ordinary Australians has left criminals free to roam the countryside as they please.
"Bandits, of course, kept their guns. ... Yet the leftist Australian government has responded by passing more laws; in 1998 Bowie knives and other knives and items including handcuffs were banned.
"Licensing is difficult. Self and family protection is not considered a valid reason to own a firearm. The right to self-defense, like in Great Britain and Canada, is not recognized in Australia. ... A way of life has ended. Please, don't tell me it cannot happen here!"
Did the real-life Crocodile Dundee die because his own government left him with no choice but to "use his guns" – guns which had saved his life – "or lose them"?
If so, why did we hear so little about it? Because many in the press are loath to report the "bad outcomes" of victim disarmament? It certainly doesn't seem to be because Americans don't care about the fate of famous, good-looking Australian crocodile hunters.
September 19, 2006
http://www.lewrockwell.com/suprynowicz/suprynowicz48.html
2468
3DHS / Re: Is the Hitler analogy outdated?
« on: September 19, 2006, 01:07:16 PM »Quote
...widespread domestic wiretapping...
Who has the reading comprehension problem?
Where did I say it was widespread?
It may only be calls to and from overseas locations, in this case specifically the Middle East. My point is the government has no business monitoring them at all. CIA is prohibited by its charter from operating domestically, and NSA is prohibited by its charter from monitoring domestic phone calls. Those prohibitions were written into the charters of those organizations when they were founded to prevent exactly what Bush is doing now. That is why there was such a big stink a few years ago when NSA tried to get around it by making agreements with Britain and Canada to monitor our domestic calls, then turn the results over to NSA.
The FISA panel is there to provide warrants for such wiretaps, if cause can be shown why such warrants need to be issued. By bypassing them and usurping their power to himself, Bush is operating illegally.
2469
3DHS / Re: Is the Hitler analogy outdated?
« on: September 19, 2006, 09:16:24 AM »
Poor Sirs.
I guess he hasn't read any reports of librarians, book sellers, phone companies, etc being asked to turn over customers records. Hardly anyone has. Why? Because those folks are then served with papers prohibiting them from disclosing to anyone, even the customer involved, that the government has been checking up on them. I've seen a couple such reports make the news over the last few months, usually when the person who was forced to turn over the records refused or went to an attorney to sue over the government's methods, which then of course put them in violation of the law because they told someone what had happened.
Haven't seen anywhere yet where only incoming calls are monitored. I would imagine, though, it is possible someone I know in, say, Lebanon is on some sort of watch list, and their calls to me could be monitored, which would then theoretically give the government snoops cause to monitor my outgoing calls to see who else I associate with. Or flash an FBI badge to my boss and start asking questions about me, with no explanation why, which could cost me my job.
Go to a judge, show cause, and get a warrant. Otherwise it's an invasion of privacy and an unlawful search.
I guess he hasn't read any reports of librarians, book sellers, phone companies, etc being asked to turn over customers records. Hardly anyone has. Why? Because those folks are then served with papers prohibiting them from disclosing to anyone, even the customer involved, that the government has been checking up on them. I've seen a couple such reports make the news over the last few months, usually when the person who was forced to turn over the records refused or went to an attorney to sue over the government's methods, which then of course put them in violation of the law because they told someone what had happened.
Haven't seen anywhere yet where only incoming calls are monitored. I would imagine, though, it is possible someone I know in, say, Lebanon is on some sort of watch list, and their calls to me could be monitored, which would then theoretically give the government snoops cause to monitor my outgoing calls to see who else I associate with. Or flash an FBI badge to my boss and start asking questions about me, with no explanation why, which could cost me my job.
Go to a judge, show cause, and get a warrant. Otherwise it's an invasion of privacy and an unlawful search.
2470
3DHS / Re: Is the Hitler analogy outdated?
« on: September 18, 2006, 11:54:40 PM »
Here's the thing I don't like about the government looking into my private affairs.
Many years ago, when I went into the Army, I needed a Top Secret Crypto clearance to be able to do my job. In order to get that, I had to have a background investigation. Before that happened, I had to acknowledge that I knew that was a condition of my being able to get the clearance and be trained in the specialty I had chosen, and sign off on paperwork giving my consent for the BI.
Some months later, while I was home on leave, I had people I had known for years - schoolteachers, classmates, even relatives - ask me what kind of trouble I was in. When I asked what they were talking about, they mentioned visits by men with FBI badges, asking questions about me. When asked why they were asking about me, they wouldn't say why, which led folks to believe I might be in some sort of trouble.
Flash forward to now. I have a job in the transportation industry, where I have to have access to government facilities from time to time; specifically, to the local Marine Terminal, where military equipment and weapons are gathered, stored and shipped overseas. It is none of the government's business what overseas calls I make, or what web sites I visit, or what books I buy or check out at the library, or what my interests run to aside from my job. But what do you think my boss would do if some FBI agent showed up at my job, asking questions about me and refusing to say why, based on information the government gathered illegally about my phone contacts, reading habits, and web browsing habits?
That's why they are supposed to get a warrant. They are supposed to have to go to a judge and show just cause why they should be able to invade my privacy and gather that information. They are supposed to have a compelling reason why that should be allowed, some proof that there is some sort of activity going on that they need to investigate - not just some guy who has friends overseas, in the Middle East, from his travels there over the years; not just some guy who has always had an interest in the subjects I mentioned earlier, and checks out books in the library or buys books or visits web sites to pursue his interest in those subjects.
Many years ago, when I went into the Army, I needed a Top Secret Crypto clearance to be able to do my job. In order to get that, I had to have a background investigation. Before that happened, I had to acknowledge that I knew that was a condition of my being able to get the clearance and be trained in the specialty I had chosen, and sign off on paperwork giving my consent for the BI.
Some months later, while I was home on leave, I had people I had known for years - schoolteachers, classmates, even relatives - ask me what kind of trouble I was in. When I asked what they were talking about, they mentioned visits by men with FBI badges, asking questions about me. When asked why they were asking about me, they wouldn't say why, which led folks to believe I might be in some sort of trouble.
Flash forward to now. I have a job in the transportation industry, where I have to have access to government facilities from time to time; specifically, to the local Marine Terminal, where military equipment and weapons are gathered, stored and shipped overseas. It is none of the government's business what overseas calls I make, or what web sites I visit, or what books I buy or check out at the library, or what my interests run to aside from my job. But what do you think my boss would do if some FBI agent showed up at my job, asking questions about me and refusing to say why, based on information the government gathered illegally about my phone contacts, reading habits, and web browsing habits?
That's why they are supposed to get a warrant. They are supposed to have to go to a judge and show just cause why they should be able to invade my privacy and gather that information. They are supposed to have a compelling reason why that should be allowed, some proof that there is some sort of activity going on that they need to investigate - not just some guy who has friends overseas, in the Middle East, from his travels there over the years; not just some guy who has always had an interest in the subjects I mentioned earlier, and checks out books in the library or buys books or visits web sites to pursue his interest in those subjects.
2471
3DHS / Re: Is the Hitler analogy outdated?
« on: September 18, 2006, 11:15:04 PM »Quote
A long time ago somebody figured out that democracy is fine, but the government does NOT have to know everything about you. They are NOT as benevolent as some of our right-wing friends seem to think. They are not above making lists and figuring out who is their kind of people and who is not. So the right to privacy is fiercely guarded by those who care about real political freedom - - and tossed to the winds by those who do not.
Perzactly.
2473
3DHS / Re: Is the Hitler analogy outdated?
« on: September 18, 2006, 08:54:29 PM »Quote
Don't turn me in either, but should the FBI be prevented from looking ?
To the point that they begin invading my privacy, no. When they begin monitoring my phone without a warrant or telling the library (or bookstore) they have to turn over records about what books I've checked out (or bought), or tell my internet provider they have to turn over records of my internet use, without a warrant, then it becomes a privacy issue.
You may be willing to give that up without a fight, in the name of security; I'm not.
2474
3DHS / Re: The Pope and Muslims
« on: September 18, 2006, 08:48:15 PM »
My questions remain - why bring the subject up the way he did, using as an example that Muslims, specifically, spread their religion at the point of a sword (as if the Catholics didn't - look at the history of the conquest of the 'New' World for examples of their humanity toward their fellow man)?
As for saying it was a quote from an earlier text, did he specifically distance himself, and the Catholic church, from the belief expressed in the quote? Where did he specifically say that this is not the belief or teaching of the Catholic Church today?
He didn't, until the uproar began.
As for saying it was a quote from an earlier text, did he specifically distance himself, and the Catholic church, from the belief expressed in the quote? Where did he specifically say that this is not the belief or teaching of the Catholic Church today?
He didn't, until the uproar began.
2475
3DHS / Re: Is the Hitler analogy outdated?
« on: September 18, 2006, 03:02:17 PM »Quote
The best some of these BDS folks can come up with in trying to rationalize Bush = Hitler, is that we can no longer talk to foreign terrorists, without the call possibly being monitored, or red flags going up at the FBI if we were to check out a horde of Jihad made Easy, Bombmaking for Dummies , & How to hide among your neighbors 101 books.
So, let's see, I know this guy who has traveled extensively in the Middle East and makes calls overseas to Arabs in the Middle East; he visits web sites and checks out books at the library on subjects such as exotic weapons, poisons, explosive devices, organic chemistry, and firearms; he has a collection of books he picked up over the years from Palladin Press on the same subjects, as well as survival, urban warfare, sniping, terrorism, security, and several other subjects related to warfare or surviving after the apocolypse or whatever you want to call it.
Think I should call the FBI and turn myself in?