Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Why is that illegal? (Score 1) 213 213

You really are not mentally mature enough to be having this discussion, you're still desperately crying racism in a topic that has literally nothing to do with race. When you've got two groups fighting that are the same fucking race, then how exactly do you think racism even remotely factors in? Do you really think that just shouting racism at people somehow makes a legitimate argument even when it makes absolutely no sense?

And no, the Kurds don't control anything even approaching the entirety Turkish/Syrian border, and those that do live on that border aren't the ones Erdogan has been primarily targeting (though he has been targeting them). Most of those he has killed have been killed in Iraq.

You obviously have a hatred for the far right, and that's a good thing, but when you don't even understand the sorts of policies those groups have (I'll give you a hint: they don't care about brown people as you call them fighting other brown people) and make nonsensical arguments against them it doesn't exactly put you in a position of strength. People like you do more harm than good, because they can legitimately hold you up as an example of someone that throws terms like "racist" around when it doesn't make any sense and as such you devalue the term removing it's potency when it's necessary to call out real actual racists.

Comment Re:Happy, happy, joy, joy... (Score 1) 376 376

Yes... because Europe still didn't fix itself immediately after the war. It kinda takes time to rebuild a whole fucking continent.

"NAFTA being less comprehensive than the EU is a FEATURE, not a bug. NAFTA won't leave England on the hook for Mexico's bad debt."

No but it does leave us open to getting fucked by US protectionism just like Canada has with things like lumber, and fresh water.

Why be a bitch to America when we can be an equal in Europe as we are currently?

Comment Re:Why is that illegal? (Score 4, Insightful) 213 213

Erdogan has turned a blind eye to ISIS fighters and weapons using his country as a transit point into Syria whilst blocking Kurdish fighters from doing the same and has put far more effort into bombing Kurds.

It's got nothing to do with skin colour or religion, Turkey and the Kurds are both secular, ISIS is an Islamist group, and Erdogan is an Islamist leader, that's about it. Calling out a bad leader for doing more to oppress a group that has been in peace talks for 2 years and has been attacked by Erdogan's troops more than they've attacked Erdogans troops doesn't make me an Islamaphobe by any measure, particularly as there are more than enough muslim Kurds. Stop being so ignorant.

Your post really couldn't be more useless, "it's a nationalism issue", what's a nationalism issue exactly? bombing the Kurds? great, but how does that justify implicitly supporting ISIS by letting them transit fighters and weapons through Turkey? how does that make it okay to attack the Kurds more so than ISIS? It doesn't matter what the motivation issue is, it's wrong all the same. Erdogan has long held the belief that ISIS are more of a benefit than a problem, and that's really not good for the West. Only now that they've attacked Turkey proper in a slightly more brutal way has his calculus changed somewhat and even then his instinct is not to obliterate ISIS, but instead to use it as an excuse to hammer the shit out of the PKK, and hit the YPG too.

It's kind of sad how you had to see the problem as an issue of race and religion, I'm astounded that you'd then cry bigot - you obviously are wrestling with your own inability to keep religion and race out of a discussion it's wholly irrelevant to. Crying "Islamaphobe", talking about skin colour and shouting bigot wont detract from your own apparent bigotry where you jump to conclusions that bear no relevance to anything that was said.

Comment Re:shooter should have talked to owner first (Score 1) 469 469

His point is, how the fuck do you know where the owner is? How do you know the drone will even still be there by the time the cops turn up leaving them unable to act and wasting their time?

It makes far more sense as the GP suggested that the drone owner follow his drone to the houses he intends to fly it over and politely asks permission, rather than just doing it and expecting everyone else to somehow go and find him.

Comment Re:i love infrastructure (Score 1) 402 402

"Well, it sure as hell impressed opportunistic American politicians who have been expanding NATO for 20 years without seemingly any sort of awareness of the provocation towards Russia it entailed"

Oh nonsense, Russia had every opportunity to join NATO and become a modern progressive nation itself. The fact it decided to not do that because it still had dreams of an empire is not NATO's fault but Russia's. NATO is a security organisation and by increasing membership it increases security. Bringing Russia on board was a key aim because that would be the ultimate stability pact for Europe, but Putin killed all that and put the final nails in the coffin when it invaded both Georgia and Ukraine. Putin plays the victim because it suits, but NATO isn't the aggressor here.

Putin would've done what he did regardless, if anything NATO restricted how far he was able to go - certainly it blocked him from annexing the whole of Georgia proper, and places like Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and so forth would likely be stuck once more with Russian puppet governments were it not for NATO.

Putin is an imperialist, and no amount of appeasement will or would have ever changed that. He was there as a KGB agent when the USSR collapsed and he's never forgiven that. You wont change him, and you wont help him, all you can do is stand up to him and keep him in check. He believes soviet Russia was always right, and he's determined to try and rebuild the empire he believes was stolen from Russia, failing to realise it wasn't stolen, merely that the people Russia oppressed for so long were taking their freedom back.

Comment Re:Why is that illegal? (Score 4, Interesting) 213 213

Yeah if Turkey's latest actions where it's killed 260 kurds are anything to go by it's pretty obvious which side Turkey is on.

Turkey is the new Pakistan, pretending to be pro-West on one hand to get nice military funding, whilst supporting the likes of the Taliban, Al Qaeda and ISIS on the other.

All thanks to Erdogan.

Comment Re:interesting experiment (Score 1) 207 207

So if someone is driving an RC car around and you pick it up, it's yours because they left it lying around? Care to extend that to a Predator drone? If you manage to swipe it out the sky somehow with say a hack, I'm sure the government wont care because hey, they left it flying around in public airspace so tough shit. You can just take it. I imagine car theft isn't a crime in the US either, because if someone just parks their car and leaves it lying around, it's fine to just jack the engine out of it right?

Unless America's laws on property ownership are completely fucked up and broken then basically everything you say is wrong.

Here in the UK even if you find a £10 note on the floor and no one is around it's still not yours to take, you're still technically meant to hand it in to the police station, even if many people don't.

Comment Re:i love infrastructure (Score 1) 402 402

I'm not overly convinced by the Russia nuclear threat, that's not to say it's not incredibly dangerous, but I'm not convinced the Russian nuclear arsenal is even remotely world ending or similar.

The UK is struggling to afford to maintain an arsenal of 160 missiles, yet Russia's economy is drastically smaller and it's arsenal is supposedly 1600 munitions. I'd be amazed if should it come to that even a fraction of Russia's nukes actually turned out to be viable.

If you want to get an idea of the damage Russia's nukes could do, try here:

Long story short, the types of nukes Russia has, combined with it's severe corruption, it's relatively small economy, I'd be amazed if Russia's nukes could at best do much more than wipe out key cities in a few European countries leaving many more cities and many other countries intact. I believe the West could survive a Russian nuclear assault, but every last Russian on Russian soil would be well and truly finished.

It doesn't seem plausible that more than a fraction of Russia's arsenal is genuinely viable regardless of what they claim. Even America with a budget over 8 times the size of Russia's is struggling with the cost of maintaining their similar sized arsenal.

Russia has recently started spending more on it's conventional forces, it's been blowing billions on a 5th gen fighter programme that is now on the verge of collapse. Just today the entirety of it's primary Apache attack helicopter counterpart (all it's Mi28s) have been grounded probably due to low quality parts, poor maintenance.

Putin's nuclear bluff is only going to be able to get him so far. It doesn't seem even remotely plausible that much of his nuclear arsenal after 25 years of decay is even remotely much of a threat if he can't even keep his helicopters in the air, and new planes being built. Nukes ain't cheap, and Russia simply can't afford them. It's trying to grow a multi-faceted defence force without the finances to do so. Good luck with that.

Comment Re:Not going to happen (Score 1) 402 402

How many countries are the US military in against the will of the governments of those countries?

I don't believe it's any currently. I believe about the only one you can argue is Guantanamo bay in Cuba, but even there I don't believe the government believe the contract allowing them to be there is illegitimate, even if they greatly dislike it.

In contrast, how many countries are the Russians in against the will of the governments of those countries? Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova for starters:

So sorry, but Russia still loses by the metric you're claiming. They're still the bad guy. They don't get to demand consensual deployments end, whilst committing illegal deployments.

Comment Re:What's the deal? (Score 1) 469 469

I'm pretty left wing, I despite the American right (because in real, non-American terms, it's closer to far right than it is centre right).

But I'm struggling to see how your assumption that a guy from Kentucky must be anti-gay rights and living in fear of illegal immigrants.

He could just genuinely have a firm belief in the right to privacy.

I'm not terribly sure how your prejudice is in any way better than that you're complaining about. You can't fairly judge the guy if you don't know him and haven't spoken to him.

It's perfectly possible that he'd just as well be willing to hold up his gun to defend an immigrant or a gay person. Not everyone in the American south is cut from the same cloth, something I was humbled by when I visited there with the same assumption only to find that I was completely wrong - there are still plenty of sensible well meaning people there who believe in the rights of the individual, whether that's being gay or simply being able to maintain some semblance of a private life.

Comment Re:Happy, happy, joy, joy... (Score 1) 376 376

I don't know if it's that simple really, the tide of far right support has grown during the economic crisis, there's something to be said for the fact that if you can hold out against it long enough whilst combating it's lies and ideas that you can stem the tide.

I think it's probably peaked in the UK (and possibly Europe in general) now, as the economy is strengthening people are moving away from UKIP et. al. again and support for the EU is growing once more as those who want to pull out for no other reason than they hate foreigners (at least, that's all I can assume given that none of their other arguments actually make any sense, and the mask slips all too frequently) are beginning to get ignored once again.

I think really this is the problem they had in Nazi Germany, the country was suffering and far right sentiment grew, the problem is it grew just large enough to corrupt the system and cement it's hold on the country.

Effectively, I believe the situation is this, there is around 5% - 10% of a population that are genuinely far-right in most European countries, but there's another 30% or so of useful idiots who are trivially swayed by populism - they like lies that sound good and phantom enemies to hate on. The trick is to prevent that 30% from giving strength to the genuine 5% - 10% of extremists by either educating them by questioning lies and seeking facts (which the media fails hard at in the UK) or just keeping them happy and so dumb to politics, because if they're happy they just don't care about anything but themselves. These are the folks who if they're employed and earning just fine don't give a shit about politics, but if they lose their job because the economy is shit will vote purely on a single "Mexicans stole your job" type soundbite they heard on the radio in passing - more detailed explanations about why they actually lost their job, which may sometimes even include some blame on their own part, are just too long winded, and too difficult for them to hear.

Comment Re:Happy, happy, joy, joy... (Score 1) 376 376

British politics has this problem though where for some reason the noisiest minority gets to drive the whole agenda. We also really don't have much of local powerbases where they can fail hard, the closest thing are local councils, but councils don't always listen to elected councillors anyway so they typically fail or succeed in spite of who has been elected to try and tell them what to do.

Take for example the EU referendum - in the European elections, despite a favourable demographic turnout for the far right, far right parties only won about 30% of the vote. The other 70% was won by parties whose stated aim is to remain in the EU. Yet for some reason, we're having a referendum on EU membership despite there being clear overwhelming support for staying in (recent polls put it overwhelmingly in favour of the EU). Quite why we're wasting hundreds of millions on a referendum like this just because a vocal far right minority screams the loudest I've no fucking idea - they had their referendum, it was called the European elections, and despite disproportionate positive media coverage, turnout favouring their electoral base, and so on and so forth, they still lost hard.

Probably the real problem here is that the press love sensation, so they'd rather praise the far right for causing a stir, than question them for lying their way to power with populism. As such we have this problem whereby there's no one with any real voice that can expose their wrongdoing and lies on a grander scale.

Comment Re:Happy, happy, joy, joy... (Score 1) 376 376

No, not even remotely close. Before the EU, the world was massively different and the EU was in ruins from a massive war.

It's like saying "Before the fall of the British empire, Britain did better with India". Right, but we're not before the British empire, just like we're not before the EU. NAFTA isn't even remotely as comprehensive a free trade agreement as what the EU has - you still have massive customs barriers as anyone that has tried to move goods between the US and Canada vs. between European states can tell you.

Of course, the EU doesn't preclude us also having partnerships with these countries as well - it's not mutually exclusive, why limit ourselves to one just because people like Farage hate foreign people that aren't largely of British cultural descent?

Comment Re:Happy, happy, joy, joy... (Score 1) 376 376

Um, no. Milliband was too far left for the electorate and they lost hard as a result. Why do you think that going even further left will help exactly?

The centrist candidate last time was David Milliband, the centrist candidate this time is Liz Kendall. Neither were/will be elected, even though they're the only options that would have/will make Labour tolerable to the electorate.

People voted towards the right, they would probably have tolerated something slightly more the left (i.e. actual centre), but Milliband was too far to the left to be tolerable to most people. Your solution is to swing to a leader even further away from what people wanted, really?

Gordon Brown had the same problem, he was just a little too far left to be tolerable. No one wants Brownites like Milliband, Balls, and Burnham. They want people who are willing to balance state handouts with fiscal responsibility, Corbyn is the exact opposite of that - he believes that we have infinite money that we can just use to give more and more handouts to everyone.

Good luck with that, that was exactly what lost both Brown and Milliband the election, except now you want to double down with it and do it even more, as if you believe that if you throw enough fail at something it'll become success. No, just no.

Comment Re:Happy, happy, joy, joy... (Score 1) 376 376

"And this is moot anyway. British democracy allows you to select your local MP - and that's all. The PM and the government are appointed by the Queen based on the allegiances of the elected MPs."

Yes, but even that's broken. Some MPs are elected with as little as 25% of local support, the vast majority under 50%, and I believe even a majority under 30%.

So even our elected representatives aren't really our elected representatives. They're just people who represent a local minority in a vast amount of cases.

This is FWIW what AV would've fixed - it would've ensured MPs had to at least somewhat represent even if not a first choice over half of the electorate. It was rejected though as people don't want local representatives, they want proportional representation as shown by most polls, but this wasn't allowed as an option so we're stuck with what we have which is broken in both ways - it's neither nationally representative, nor is it hardly ever locally representative.

"Kill the Wabbit, Kill the Wabbit, Kill the Wabbit!" -- Looney Tunes, "What's Opera Doc?" (1957, Chuck Jones)