I can't believe that is true. It may be that 80% of US citizens have a clear choice of superior ISP to use, but I would think the vast majority of people would have, at a minimum, a choice of DSL and cable. Many now have a choice between DSL/cable/fiber (sometimes same companies are involved in fiber). That also ignores choices like 4g ISPs and satellite.

Get a pet lion and let the problem solve itself.

I plan on discovering a method of practical time travel someday. Can I get an article on /. about what a genius I am?

I just hope they can make a printer that will print out money to pay my mortgage when a robot puts me out of work.

Haha, thanks for posting. That was just pathetic!!!

My feminist friends say she can do the job just as good as any man!

Yeah it is. And whites face it sometimes too. But you liberals never want to talk about that, do you? Whites are always presumed to be the evil oppressors, just like in this bullshit "experiment".

That's just the problem, though, it's really not inclusive. Ideologies and their adherents are not simple structures. Just to be clear--I'm not asking for your opinion of the following, just take it as an example--Hamas. Hamas builds hospitals. Hamas provides social services in many areas where there are no other social services. Hamas also targets civilians and kills children with suicide bombings. I have talked to many people who will condemn at least some of the suicide attacks on civilians, but refuse to condemn Hamas. The part is not the whole. Even if one was to say "I condemn the violent extremists in Hamas" you give the ideology and the belief a free pass. You ignore the elders who incite and rabble rouse while eschewing violence themselves--they act through proxies. You know the trite quote about evil triumphing when good people do nothing? Well, a lot of good people are willing to ignore an awful lot.

No, there is a very large difference between condemning an individual (and that individual's actions) and condemning an ideology. Condemning an individual is not condemning the whole. Believe me, your perspective here is not unique to me. Over the years, I've discussed similar issues (most frequently the topic comes up with Palestine) with many people who say they condemn suicide bombers, killing of innocents, etc.--and rightfully so!--but who just can't quite bring themselves to condemn the organization/ideology behind it all. As I said earlier, it's stupid to try to be an armchair psychiatrist on Slashdot, and I have no particular interest in trying. I don't know what you believe, I can only read what you write.

I'm of the general opinion that calling an ideological opponent a troll is a cheap and easy cop out. Seems that way to me now. If you're not interested in discussing the topic in a respectful way, you can just stop replying. I don't really know that much is left unsaid at this point.

Just since you didn't reply to this part of my post, but I thought it was interesting, the culprit behind the creation of modern terrorism--

Russians.

In all seriousness, Russian nihilist revolutionaries really developed the concepts behind modern terrorism. They wanted to bring about revolution by any means necessary, including spectacular assassinations and usage of explosives. They employed tactics like walking into a room full of people, walking right up to the target, putting a gun to the target's head and shooting point blank. They wanted their enemies to know that they could never be safe. Like Horatio and Lars Porsena--if you know your enemies will do literally anything to kill (including burning off a limb!) you, your decision making process is necessarily altered!

You can see how these tactics have echoed down over the last 150 years--does the method of assassination of Archduke Ferdinand show any similarities with this?

These tactics today have almost entirely been adopted by militant Islamists around the world.

There's a huge difference. You might condemn individuals (who you also excuse by nature of their "mental illness"--thus the genesis of this conversation), but you seem to be very consciously avoiding condemning the IDEOLOGY. That's what I'm curious about--how hard is it to say "I condemn militant Islamism"?

Come on, this conversation has been perfectly cordial, there's no need to resort to that kind of nonsense.

:-)

You said it better than I have. Humans by and by are a susceptible lot. That doesn't mean that militant Islamism should get a free pass!

This is the same canard you've been relying on since the beginning of the thread! You're again playing armchair psychiatrist (I've tried before--it's awfully difficult to diagnose people through Slashdot comments) and you seem to believe that since I disagree with you, it must not be an honest difference of opinion, but rather due to some deficiency in my character and experience. You don't need to make any excuses for me and my beliefs--I'm comfortable with myself!

For what it's worth, my undergraduate degree was in history with a focus on Islamic history. I speak Turkish, limited Persian (Farsi), and my Arabic has decayed to a point where I can just say I have a basic reading knowledge of the language. I also have a Master's degree in Middle Eastern studies. My primary areas of research were in the development of fiqh (Arabic for jurisprudence) in the 15th and 16th century Ottoman empire, and the interaction between colonial powers and Islamic nations/empires (again, primarily the Ottoman Empire) before 1900. I have many Muslim friends--some agree with me, some do not. I have--and would again--argue harder than anybody else that there is nothing inherent or unique in Islam that breeds violence and terrorism. Here's a bit of neat trivia--without googling, do you know where the modern concept of terrorism originated?

Despite all this, I will condemn militant Islamism completely and without reservation. Why won't you?