I think that is probably true. Not that I believe that deserves a medal or anything, but I am willing to believe that for a normally adjusted human, killing someone, even by remote control, is very destructive to the pysche.

I watched a video a of person dying because I thought it was a very important event, that her death ought to be witnessed by as many people as possible. It was far more intense than I ever expected, even though it was no hollywood shoot-out or anything like the way death is portrayed in video games or movies. Even today I still get broken up any time I think about it.

So not only do I think that it is entirely possible for drone operators to be affected by the things they do, I think it is a good thing. It means that we haven't been able to completely take the humanity out of war, not yet at least.

First verse 9:5 is specific to one group of treaty breakers, not everyone as specified in 9:4 "Excepting those of the idolaters with whom ye (Muslims) have a treaty, and who have since abated nothing of your right nor have supported anyone against you. ..."

The following verse 9:6 says "If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure. ..." In other words, don't hurt the guy, preach to him and then let him go.

I expect you've got your twisted reasons for saying the verses before and after 9:5 don't count. So I've got more:

2:256 "There is no compulsion in religion"

--That's pretty straight-forward.

18:29 "so let whosoever will believe, and let whosoever will disbelieve"

-- Looks like even atheists are welcome.

6:108 "Do not revile those unto whom they pray beside God, lest they wrongfully revile God through ignorance"

-- Basically the golden rule for religion - treat others religions as you would your own religion. Hardly a recipe for religious subjugation.

60:8 "God does not forbid you to be kind to those who do not take arms against you. God loves those who are just"

-- Also pretty straight-forward. If people aren't attacking you, you should not attack them.

Abrogation - that's a new one since I last ran into your brethren. If you can't dispute the text, pretend it doesn't count. Looks like that AC had you pegged on that one. But, unsurprisingly even that newest form of delusion doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

You've listed Yusuf Al-Quradhawi and the al-Azhar University as sources of proof that verse 9:5 is the real deal that over-rides everything else, that all of the other verses about freedom of religion don't count. Al-Qaradawi is a pretty popular islamic theologian, he even has a show on al jazeera, kinda like glenn beck had a show on fox. While al-Azhar University in Egypt is arguably the "chief centre of Arabic literature and Islamic learning in the world." So when those two say something it must be true, right? They are your go to guys in this argument.

So, here's what al-Qaradawi actually has to say about 9:5:

• "...aggression on Muslims and not disbelief is the basis for Muslim warfare... There is disagreement on the so-called Sayf aya (the verse of the sword). Some claimed that it abrogated 200 verses of the Quran among which are the forgiveness and tolerance. But there are those who say that the Sword verse itself is abrogated."
  Who is an authority on Islam Robert Spencer or Al Qaradawi?

And here is the official position of al-Azhar University on the freedom of religion. Not just one or two professors who might be cranks, this statement has the full force and standing of the authority of al-Azhar itself.

1. Freedom of belief and the right connected to it of full citizenship (muwatana) for everyone, based [in turn] on absolute equality in rights and duties, is considered the cornerstone of the modern social order. This freedom is guaranteed by diriment and ever valid religious texts and by explicit constitutional and juridical principles. The Omnipotent in fact says, be He exalted and magnified: 'No compulsion is there in religion. Rectitude has become clear from error' (2:256); 'so let whosoever will believe, and let whosoever will disbelieve' (18:29). It follows that any form of compulsion in religion, persecution or discrimination in its name, is condemned as a crime. Each individual in society has the right to embrace the ideas he prefers, provided it does not harm the right of the society to preserve the heavenly faiths. In fact, the three divine religions have their own holy character (qadasa). Individuals are free to practise their own rites without offending the sensibility of others, violating the sacredness (hurma) of the three religions in word or in facts, and without making an attempt on public order.

   Since the Arab fatherland is the cradle of the heavenly Revelation and the protector of the divine religions, it is particularly committed to safeguarding their holy character, to respecting their rites and to protecting the rights of their faithful, in freedom, dignity and brotherhood. From the right to religious freedom derives the recognition of the legitimacy of pluralism (taâaddud), the protection of the right to difference as well as to each citizen's duty to respect the sensibility of others and their equality, on the solid basis of citizenship, participation and equal opportunities in rights and duties.
   Declaration by al-Azhar and the intellectuals on the legal ordinances of fundamental freedoms

Even the christian churches in Egypt endorsed Al-Azhar's statement:

• Egypt's three major churches and the Maspero Youth Union have come out in support of Al-Azhar's proposed basic freedoms document, which lays out a basic framework for respecting freedom of belief and expression in Egypt."
  Egyptian churches embrace Al-Azhar basic freedoms document

I didn't say they were ignorant. I said they did not sign a contract with monsanto nor did the grain elevator they purchased them from advertise them as monsanto seeds. In other words there was no conspiracy.

No, you don't get to just link to so some random website and say "that is my argument." You want to cite proof for your claims about 9:5, that's fine. But until you make a straight-forward testable claim, then there is nothing to debate.

Put all your cards on the table and we duke it out right here.

Because you have not held up your side of the deal yet.

Answer the question - why is 9:5 evil? Not what evil things did Mohamed do, not what evil things did Osama do, not what evil things are in some other verse or some other hadith. Stay focused and make a specific point.

You are free to give up and walk away if you are unable to fulfill the requirements of the deal.

No, when farmers purchase Monsanto seeds from MONSANTO they sign a contract like that. This case has nothing to do with that scenario.

This guy bought seed from the local grain elevator - seed that was sold on the open market without Monsanto's involvement and no advertising that the seed was monsanto tainted seed. He had no contract with Monsanto for those seeds or any of their precursors.

The terms of the deal are you pick a verse that you think is indisputably evil. Claiming that something that so many people argue over is self-evident is ridiculous.

If you can't articulate why it is evil, then you can't complain when nobody pays you heed. If you aren't all about hate, then you sure need to be about the persuasion.

That sort of functionality has seemed like a no-brainer to me for about a decade. I desperately want something that runs on my home router that monitors all connections, in and out, with both real-time in a user-friendly interface (not just a eyeball destroying table of ip addresses and port numbers but some sort of graphical summary) and generates reports on a hourly/daily/weekly basis. It should also incorporate a nice high-level way to kill off some behaviours - don't make me manually write a bunch of iptables rules for each case.

So far everything I've seen that comes close in either native firmware or any of the DD-WRT variants is still terribly painful to use, if it is functional at all.

Makes me wonder if they only bought Slashdot for its pagerank.

Being a private organization does not exclude it from working on behalf of government. ICANN was created by the Dept of Commerce and continues to perform its work under contract to the Dept of Commerce. making it effectively just another part of the US Government.

Would you quit with the blather and just make your point? This is like pulling teeth.

At least now you've actually cited a single verse. But so what if it is the justification for "jihad" (and especially "cultural jihad" when you claim to have no problem with "cultural muslims"). Be specific as to what you think verse 9:5 means that is evil because I sure as shit am not going to argue with on multiple points - you don't get to cite 9:5 and when you lose that one weasel about the definition of jihad.

Why is 9:5 evil?

That is not true.

One-in-Five Adults and One-in-Three Under Age 30 Have No Religious Affiliation. This kind of stuff are the death-throes of religious conservatism. As the more normal people leave formalized religion, the crazies are left behind. Without a moderating influence, they get even crazier than before.

Most cases all the user wants from a progress bar is an indication that progress is being made. The trick is to make sure that it really does indicate progress and isn't something like an hourglass cursor that just runs on a timer independent of work happening in the background - e.g. if the network is hung the progress indicator better hang too.

Pick ONE verse, not an entire chapter and quote it.

No it won't - because everyone you have to deal with using that name will specifically remember you because you have a famous name but aren't that person.

No YOU haven't read them. About 6-7 years whenever a nutbag like you showed up on slashdot I engaged. I read the links they posted and then I went and googled on my own. Every single time there was more to the story. Evil people like you selectively quote and deliberartely ignore contradicting evidence.

I applied thorough research and critical thinking and none of your fellow dhimmi-wannabes' claims could stand up to that. NONE. How do you think I know what a dhimmi is suppossed to be? This ain't my first rodeo. But after a year of seeing nothing but idiocy from guys like you, I learned my lesson - you are all just idiots.

Look, I'll make you a deal. You pick ONE verse from the Quran that you think proves the absolute evil of Islam. Something that you think is indisputable. If I can't tear it down, I'll concede - the mooslims really are evil. But if I am able to show that there is more to the story, that the verse has context that you are ignoring, or that you've picked a misleading translation, something like that then you shut the fuck up about islam forever. Deal?