Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment So, what response would you support? (Score 1) 1067

Should Israel return fire with unguided rockets into Palestinian civilian areas on a 1 to 1 basis? Maybe an artillery shell?

Should Israel just randomly round up and kill a few Palestinian civilians and execute them every time a Palestinian rocket randomly kills one of its civilians? Is this justice?

A body count is a lousy way of measuring proportionality. Even the means used aren't a reliable method.

As to what a "military target" is, it is, of course, part of the law of war that once a building is used for the purpose of making war on an enemy, it loses any and all protection. If HAMAS uses a hospital as a weapons cache, a mosque as a command post, or a school as a firing position, the building becomes fair game. The purpose of these laws is to encourage reciprocity and to protect civilian populations from unnecessary harm. It's a shame HAMAS has decided not to follow the law.

The HAMAS government has supported and sponsored these attacks for years. That they are now getting their just deserts will hardly cause me to shed a tear. It is unfortunate that civilians are caught in the crossfire, as is almost always the case in war, and I do hope that civilian casualties are minimized. But HAMAS' own decisions to mix among civilian populations and ignore the laws of war have placed their own civilian population in grave danger. Should the Palestinian people ever have the opportunity to vote again, I hope they remember that.

Comment Oh, it's just typical kdawson (Score 0, Flamebait) 377

Conspiracy theory angle? Check.
Coming from the crazy wing of the left? Check. (Why can't we have more crazy wing of the right stories on Slashdot? Where are all the stories concerning the gold standard? Where?)
Write-up worded in a way to encourage crazy conspiracy talk? Check.

Good ol' kdawson. So dependable.

Comment And why so boolean in your logic? (Score 1) 656

Why must it be that every person who dares question the "climate change" movement wants worse environmental conditions?

Is it not possible for one to question the amorphous "climate change" hypothesis and work for a better environment? Or is the world so simple that we are all either Prius or Hummer drivers in your view?

There are a great many people - myself included - who do take measures to use less energy (I have a virtually all CFL home, just redid all the insulation on the doors and windows, etc. and try to be as environmentally friendly as possible - I live in a valley, the air sucks, and it should be cleaned up) without buying into the "climate change" argument?

Even if it's not man made, I'm doing my bit. But I'm not a believer. What, I ask, is so wrong with that?

United States

Submission + - The Soviet Empire, Again?

reporter writes: "In a stunning report about the demonstrations in Russia, the "Telegraph" states, "A young male protester, covering his face in a futile attempt to stop the blows being rained upon him, was dragged on to a police bus. Another lay on the pavement nearby, his face covered in blood . A female pensioner waved an Orthodox cross as a line of helmeted officers, their arms interlinked, marched towards her. She implored God to forgive them ..." A "Telegraph" photographer captured the entire incident in a shocking photo. It shows a Russian special-forces policeman using a billyclub to bash the head of a protestor who is falling to the ground."
Music

Submission + - iTunes to Offer EMI Tracks Without DRM

Y-Crate writes: Apple and EMI have apparently inked a deal to offer "significant amounts" of EMI's catalog on iTunes without any copy protection whatsoever — a first for iTunes and something Steve Jobs claimed he would do if a label allowed him to. EMI is also considering making their content available to other online retailers under similar terms.

Slashdot Top Deals

Money is the root of all evil, and man needs roots.

Working...