Lets get all countries to organize their institutions in such a way that idealistic moral imperatives and vows are binding. No cheating, not even lying. Ever. Yes you too, Saddam. And Vladimir. And Pooh too. I mean Xi Jinping. I am sure if we ask them all nicely or sign a petition or demonstrate in front of the Indian and Pakistani embassies 24/7 surely they will come around.

If we disarm now, how do we divert that asteroid when we need to?

to quote Colbert “if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck.. why is it goose-stepping?”

See, I don’t give a fuck if you’re Pakistani, your comments are still racist. It would be racist of me if I did.

Ah that didn't take long, only 2 comments in. Classic lefty.

I'm Pakistani BTW......

EDIT: And for the 3rd time:

Religion is not race.

And I mentioned in my first comment, that the world needs fewer racists lol

Indian/Pakistani relationship fixer *spam

So the privately run "family detention centers" like the one set up in Dilley, Texas, by the Obama administration were acceptable, but this is a step too far?

This shit didn't magically appear out of thin air. You can trace it throughout the entire history of the US: the separation of children from their parents during slavery, the forceful removal of children from reservations and their placement into "Indian schools", the mass incarceration of primarily minority youths for the crime of being poor, and physical removal of parents in foreign nations by incinerating them in drone strikes, etc.

This shit is despicable, but it's not a deviation from previous actions -- it's just the next step. And for Maddow to "break down" over this... There are Syrian refugees living in the apartment building across the street from me. How many Syrian, Libyan, Somali, Pakistani, Afghani and Yemeni children have been separated from their parents by US bombs and missiles? Never stopped Maddow from warmongering.

@newtboy,

No, it's about law. Warren Jeffries people did all that, on a smaller scale. They weren't their own country, even though they got away with it for decades. Law.

Forgive my lack of familiarity with him, but your telling me he (on a smaller scale than Texas), stopped paying taxes, and instead collecting them. Started up his own legal and justice system. He created his own borders within which the police would not dare set foot because it would be a death sentence for them. And after he'd done all this the US military itself failed to remove him as well?

Or are you meaning not just scale, but severity and all the other rather meaningful extremes of sovereignty that the Taliban and Al Qaida achieved? It's the same then in the sense that me punching you is violent just me killing ten people is violent, but in another sense they are nothing alike...

No, but they couldn't indiscriminately bomb Houston and any large gatherings either....not even if Spencer might be there. The first American civilian they kill will start a war...a real, legitimate war.

Your not embracing the analogy. Spencer's terrorists are still killing American civilians every week, outside of Texas borders. The American military is just corrupt enough that as long as its democrats/republicans dying,(whomever we choose to not be in power) they let it slide because it shows the need for the military to 'protect' the country.

You need to take a harder look at Pakistani politics to see just how powerful Al Qaida and the Taliban's control over the tribal areas has been.

More over, all of the above definitions of state within a state violence and jihad doesn't require war as the response to acts of war. To invade Afghanistan to prevent another 9/11 is dubious at best. Even the Kissinger's of the world wouldn't count the value of that trade off, losing a couple thousand Americans to an attack each decade or so is 'acceptable' loses.
Call it the price of freedom and carry on. The real trick was that if the Taliban and Al Qaida were so tight with Pakistan's military and intelligence services, how concerned should America be that the Pakistani proxies in their tribal regions and Afghanistan are so keen to target Americans. That lead directly to Pakistan's nuclear arsenal being a big enough concern with that pairing that maybe it was time to tell Pakistan they had to end their little dance with terrorists hitting Americans and they had better make a choice who they are going to side with in the Jihad that was already being waged for 2 decades.

Then, you (We) are suggesting legitimizing their claim to be autonomous states by accepting that classification to be able to declare war against them. Horrible idea, and against international law.

I call bullshit. That's like saying if an American commits a crime outside of America, or inside it against a foreigner, America just declared war on that country. Absolute bullshit. if Pakistan's government didn't direct the attack, they aren't declaring war. You don't hold a nation accountable for the actions of a few criminals within their borders unless they are backed by that nation. Because they can't stop the monster(s) we made (neither can we) absolutely in no way means they yield their sovereignty...that's asinine. EDIT: your theory would mean the Bundies would be their own country now, sovereign and at war with America, because we were unable to stop them from taking over public land (repeatedly), and didn't prosecute any of them.

Bullshit again. Because they aren't a state, they shouldn't be treated as one, no matter what bullshit they claim. Duh. Maybe they claim to be one, but they don't run away from that claim, it just isn't given credence by accepting it. They mostly are illegal aliens in the countries they now live in.

Afghanistan had good reason to refuse Bush....and you might recall were fighting the Taliban and Al-Qaida already for control of their own country.

Afghanistan was not hosting the terrorists, they 'invaded' or morphed out of non government controlled militias (Al-Qaida started as a retirement unit for the 'freedom fighters' we trained to fight Russia) . The Afghan government has excellent reasons to never invite a super power to cross their borders ever again.....and empires have good reason to avoid doing so. Afghanistan did not start or declare war with us, some invaders and criminals squatting in caves there did.

Exactly, the terrorist organizations aren't the fault or beneficiary of the government's in the countries where they hide or invade, they are the fault of those that support them, oddly missing from the travel ban and our assassination plans. See how that might piss off Afghansans and Pakistani?

Trying split up addressing your points and enoch's here, forgive me if things bleed over between a bit.

Large terrorist networks like Al Qaida were and still are using your definitions against your country. They operated with impunity and effectively as their own autonomous state within the borders of Afghanistan and Pakistan. The question is whether acts of war launched from that region then are classed as an act of the Afghan or Pakistani state. If they are, then Afghanistan and Pakistan are to be held to account as states launching the act of war. If they are not, then they have for intents and purposes yielded the sovereignty of that territory to a new independent state waging it's own independent war.

The jihadists are trying to hard to live in an international loophole where they are operating with the autonomy of a state right up until another nation state wants to wage war back against them and then suddenly they are just citizens of the larger state they are technically within the borders of.

When the Bush admin pushed back hard, the Afghanistan government refused(more on this in my reply to Enoch) while the Pakistani government extremely begrudgingly agreed to at least pretend they weren't friendly with them in back channels anymore. Thus act of war met with war in Afghanistan, and yes, I would insist a war that Afghanistan initiated and NOT GW.

As for Saudi Arabia, they are more responsible for Jihadi ideology and funding than any other state, and yes the west largely has ignored it so long as they sold their oil and then used the money to buy back top of the line American made military hardware. I have to say I think it's a bit shortsighted to have made Saudi Arabia number 3 on the global military budget charts... You won't find my hypocritically trying to defend them, they are the ones sending most of the money into Pakistan's mountains to build the madrasa's that don't seem to teach anything after how to fire and assemble your AK.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/pakistani-christian-couple-burned-alive-kiln-torching-quran-n240751

@billpayer tell me again how all religions are equally bad.

It's not fringe when a good chunk of muslims around the world (not just the middle east) have extremist points of view:


Muslims in most countries surveyed say that a wife should always obey her husband." (including 93% in Indonesia and 65% in Turkey).

Only 32% of Muslims in Indonesia say a woman should have the right to divorce her husband (22% in Egypt, 26% in Pakistan and 60% in Russia)

1 in 3 Muslims in Austria say it is not possible to be a European and a Muslim. 22% oppose democracy

21% of Muslim-Americans say there is a fair to great amount of support for Islamic extremism in their community.

61% of British Muslims want homosexuality punished

Turkish Ministry of Education: 1 in 4 Turks Support Honor Killings

WZB Berlin Social Science Center: 65% of Muslims in Europe say Sharia is more important than the law of the country they live in.

Pew Research (2013): 81% of South Asian Muslims and 57% of Egyptians suport amputating limbs for theft.

Pew Research (2013): 72% of Indonesians want Sharia to be law of the land

Pew Research (2010): 82% of Egyptian Muslims favor stoning adulterers
70% of Jordanian Muslims favor stoning adulterers
42% of Indonesian Muslims favor stoning adulterers
82% of Pakistanis favor stoning adulterers
56% of Nigerian Muslims favor stoning adulterers

MacDonald Laurier Institute: 62% of Muslims want Sharia in Canada (15% say make it mandatory)

Pew Research (2013): 39% of Muslims in Malaysia say suicide bombings "justified" in defense of Islam (only 58% say 'never').

Pew Research (2013): 76% of South Asian Muslims and 56% of Egyptians advocate killing anyone who leaves the Islamic religion.

Pew Research (2010): 84% of Egyptian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam
86% of Jordanian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam
30% of Indonesian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam
76% of Pakistanis support death the penalty for leaving Islam
51% of Nigerian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam

Pew Global: 68% of Palestinian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
43% of Nigerian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
38% of Lebanese Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
15% of Egyptian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
13% of Indonesian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
12% of Jordanian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
7% of Muslim Israelis say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.


CLEARLY, what we need is more Islam in the world. Such a force for good...

I'm fairly conflicted.

The issue with having an assassination program with virtually no oversight, run by a government whose people are all too willing to ignore the collateral damage it brings to foreigners is pretty obvious. You could argue that terrorists target the US because of genuine grievances (past blowback particularly from intervention during the Cold War motivated largely by opposing a communist threat over any moral considerations). From there you could argue that if only the US avoided foreign intervention, in time it would no longer be a terrorist target and have no need for such morally questionable action as using drones with significant civilian casualty risk.

I'm sceptical of this argument. For one I think the espoused goals of many terrorist organisations are often a sham. They may start as violent reactionaries to some genuinely held grievance. But mature organisations initiate a conflict with the US because notoriety brings financial support and more fighters which in turn improves their ability to project power, which is their ultimate goal. So I don't see US disengagement as a solution because terrorist attacks and beheadings of its nationals will continue to politically galvanise the US into action. At that point having being disengaged beforehand (lacking intel, ability to target leadership with drones) is just a disadvantage.

I also don't see a government other than the US capable and willing to rally a group of nations and take a leading role against a group like ISIS. It's fair to say that the US invasion of Iraq was largely responsible for destabilising an authoritarian government under Saddam that would have prevented the emergence of a Sunni group like this. But then, imagine if Saddam was still in power in reaction to the Arab Spring and the result was a situation like Syria today. It is all too possible that a similar group would have emerged in a power vacuum not caused by US intervention.

My point is, I agree it is horrible to see civilians being killed by drones and having to live under the constant terror of attack but I don't see a better solution. In fact it seems that drones are probably the solution with the least risk of civilian casualty. There is a reason why the Yemeni/Pakistani government tacitly support them even while publicly disavowing them.

Of course I would like to see them used more judiciously but I am sceptical that this is feasibly possible. I do not doubt that the CIA/Pentagon who run the program are familiar with blowback and the risks of inciting attacks on the US through the killing of innocents in these strikes. It is possible incentives for 'results' may lead to their overuse at the expense of civilian lives and the long term cost. Maybe more openness would be best. Then again more openness would serve as a rallying cry for existing terrorist organisations.

It's officially known as a report on the "Measurement of the Duration of a Trendless Subsample in a Global Climate Time Series." In lay-speak, it's a study of just how long the current pause in global warming has lasted. And the results are profound:

According to Canadian Ross McKitrick, a professor of environmental economics who wrote the paper for the Open Journal of Statistics, "I make the duration out to be 19 years at the surface and 16 to 26 years in the lower troposphere depending on the data set used."

In still plainer English, McKitrick has crunched the numbers from all the major weather organizations in the world and has found that there has been no overall warming at the Earth's surface since 1995 - that's 19 years in all.

During the past two decades, there have been hotter years and colder years, but on the whole the world's temperatures have not been rising. Despite a 13 per cent rise in carbon dioxide levels over the period, the average global temperature is the same today as it was almost 20 years ago.

In the lower atmosphere, there has been no warming for somewhere between 16 and 26 years, depending on which weather organization's records are used.

Not a single one of the world's major meteorological organizations - including the ones the United Nations relies on for its hysterical, the-skies-are-on-fire predictions of environmental apocalypse - shows atmospheric warming for at least the last 16 years. And some show no warming for the past quarter century.

This might be less significant if some of the major temperature records showed warming and some did not. But they all show no warming.

Even the records maintained by devoted eco-alarmists, such as the United Kingdom's Hadley Centre, show no appreciable warming since the mid-1990s.

Despite continued cymbal-crashing propaganda from environmentalists and politicians who insist humankind is approaching a critical climate-change tipping point, there is no real evidence this is true.

There are no more hurricanes than usual, no more typhoons or tornadoes, floods or droughts. What there is, is more media coverage more often.

Forty years ago when a tropical storm wiped out villages on a South Pacific Island there might have been pictures in the newspaper days or weeks later, then nothing more. Now there is live television coverage hours after the fact and for weeks afterwards.

That creates the impression storms are worse than they used to be, even though statistically they are not.

While the UN's official climate-scare mouthpiece, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has acknowledged the lack of warming over the past two decades, it has done so very quietly. What's more, it has not permitted the facts to get in the way of its continued insistence that the world is going to hell in a hand basket soon unless modern economies are crippled and more decision-making power is turned over to the UN and to national bureaucrats and environmental activists.

Later this month in New York, the UN will hold a climate summit including many of the world's leaders. So frantic are UN bureaucrats to keep the climate scare alive they have begun a worldwide search for what they themselves call a climate-change "Malala."

That's a reference to Malala Yousafzai, the Pakistani schoolgirl who was shot in the head by the Taliban after demanding an education. Her wounding sparked a renewed, worldwide concern for women's rights.

The new climate spokeswoman must be a female under 30, come from a poor country and have been the victim of a natural disaster.

If the facts surrounding climate-disaster predictions weren't falling apart, the UN wouldn't such need a sympathetic new face of fear.

You're right - it's a British institution if we're to take the books as they come. But let's look at it from a J K Rowling point of view - from a brief scan of wikipedia, she went to an average british school with presumably average british children probably around 30 years ago - vastly different from the stats quoted above in 2011. There weren't many africans, pakistanis, etc. nor were there many gay, bi, transgendered people when i went to school about 20 years ago (1 black girl and everyone was "straight"). What she wrote came from imagination based on her own experiences and why on earth would people chastise her for the sheer happen-stance of her life experiences? She didn't write a book to exclude people, she wrote a book that just happened to not include every type of person in a fantasy world where there existed entirely different sorts of people. Are we to expect another video from professional-offence-takers about how JRR Tolkein - another FANTASY writer - didn't represent the diversity of humanity in any of his books?

And that's selling her short; there are elements of the books that make allusions to homophobia, racism, etc. - "Mudblood," is a xenophobic term used by characters in the book and it's not accepted by any of the extended main characters, and people really should think long and hard before placing their own expectations and values on other people and judging them for it.

Whether you like the books or not, they are popular and i think their popularity stems from the belief she has in her characters and story. Sure, she could have replaced Ron with an albino lesbian transgendered midget who would have lived happily ever after with Hermione, but would the books have been as good with a character that didn't come from Rowling's heart, someone that Rowling felt like she understood? What if she wrote a gay part for someone and got it wrong, is she then liable to take an ear bashing from the gay community for misrepresenting gay people? Where do you draw the line? Do we - at the expense of the story - put one gay person in and then suddenly we're taking abuse for including a "token" gay person?

It should not be the responsibility of anyone to compromise their art to appease someone else's sense of right or wrong, especially when it seems that their right or wrong is balanced on "is there someone like me in there?" In my opinion, if you come away from a story like Harry Potter with the burning question "Where were all the gay/whatever people?" then it's probably you that has the problem with diversity.

I say this - homophobia and racism are dead when no one even considers the issue any more. Now you can't do that in the workplace and stuff, because there are genuinely racist people out there who we try and keep in check. But this is the absolute worst place to direct your anger - no one was hired or fired based on their creed, no one did anything wrong here, all this woman has done is draw attention to what i consider to be her own contradiction. We want to encourage the idea that "Everyone is equal; there is no black or white, straight or gay, everyone is simply the same - we're just people!" And quickly follow that up with "Hey, where are all the GAY people in this fictional story?"

And finally, how the fuck does she know that every character in the book was straight? Isn't it a bit strange (i want to say homophobic) for her to expect gay people to act differently to the degree that she can spot them in a crowd? 95% of the people in Huffelpuff could be single and gay for all anyone knows. The main 3 characters are straight, all of their parents had to be straight for them to be their parents, but all the rest of them we never need to know about their sexuality, so why should they stand out, why should we even discuss it in a kids book anyway? There's only about 4 relationships in 7 books and some of them happen to the same characters.

These are just some of the problems i have with this nonsense and i've written an entire page.

Really? I understand racial insensitivity, but is this a fair expectation of diversity in a fictional place that takes place in Scotland? Sure, the name is completely off, but it feels like the rest of this anger is misplaced on an author who is not trying to tell a story on themes of racial diversity.
To top it off, crowds react strongly and positively to enthusiastic and impassioned anger, further building the bravado of this poetic "slam" piece.
If Rowling is trying to tell and cast a story reflective of the local demographics, it doesn't appear inaccurate.
Scotland isn't the same type of "melting pot" America has come to be. Again, perhaps the expectation has been created that all cultures must have the demographic diversity that America has established. Remember, the character she is referring to is actually Scottish.

Scottish population by ethnic group (Scotland 2011 Census)

Percentage of total
White Scottish - 84.0%
White Other British - 7.9%
White Irish - 1.0%
White Gypsy/Traveller - 0.1%
White Polish - 1.2%
Other White ethnic group - 1.9%
White Total - 96.0%

Pakistani - 0.9%
Indian - 0.6%
Bangladeshi - 0.1%
Chinese - 0.6%
Other - 0.4%
Asian Total - 2.7%

Caribbean - 0.1%
Black - 0.0%
Caribbean or Black Other - 0.0%
Caribbean or Black - 0.1%
African - 0.6%
African Other - 0.0%
African Total - 0.6%

Mixed or multiple ethnic groups - 0.4%
Arab - 0.2%
Other - 0.1%
Other ethnic group Total - 0.3%

I don't think any imagination is required to know the American reaction if an enemy unilaterally declared war on America and blew up buildings in American cities from the skies. You and might disagree who set that precedent first though.

There is good news though on this front. There haven't been any new Drone strikes in 2014 and the Pakistani military has stepped in using heavier and more conventional bombardment of the TTP. It'll mean increased casualties, but if we are really lucky they will stick it out with boots on the ground and enforce a long term enforcement.