11–20 of 55 posts
No parrots were involved in an accident on the M-1 today when a Lorry carrying High-octane fuel was in collison with a bollard. That's a BOLLARD and NOT a PARROT. A spokesman for parrots said he was glad no parrots were involved.””
This is a long political editorial with no new reporting in it. There are better places to discuss pieces like this than HN.
If you have been a techie for many years you would understand that techies are very much united by political engagement and the issues of our time
This is a long political editorial with no new reporting in it. There are better places to discuss pieces like this than HN.
Honestly, I don't see the reason why this shouldn't be brought to attention of smart people. What better places do you have in mind?
I find it curious how the only name of a victim cited in this article - is of a westerner!
“ Good evening. Here is the news for Parrots: No parrots were involved in an accident on the M-1 today when a Lorry carrying High-octane fuel was in collison with a bollard. That's a BOLLARD and NOT a PARROT. A spokesman for parrots said he was glad no parrots were involved. ”” http://www.montypython.net/scripts/news.php
One day.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you have been a techie for many years you would understand that techies are very much united by political engagement and the issues of our time
I don't know about "techies", but I've certainly been a member of this community for many years, and I'm pretty sure the guidelines of the site ask us not to post things like this here.
Yes, it's horrible that sometimes your only choice to kill a high-ranking terrorist is by taking innocent lives with him. But granted how many innocent lives you can save by it, it's more horrible not to do it.
There's never been a war where a victory didn't cost civilian lives, regardless how just was the cost. I really wish western governments would talk about this openly and have a serious discussion about these issues though, instead of awkwardly trying to hush it.
This is a long political editorial with no new reporting in it. There are better places to discuss pieces like this than HN.
Is the author seriously suggesting to view deliberate terror attacks against civilians the same as military strikes (drones or planes — I don't see a difference) performed against enemy combatants, by people who are trying to minimize civilian casualties as far as they can? Yes, it's horrible that sometimes your only choice to kill a high-ranking terrorist is by taking innocent lives with him. But granted how many in…
Why not?
Let’s that the countries of Xanadu (“X”) and Yalü (“Y”) are at war with each other. Isn’t it meaningful to compare the number of X and Y citizens killed by each other, regardless of how it is carried out?
If X says “We’re careful to minimize killing Y’s civilians,” shouldn’t we judge X by how successful it is in minimizing those casualties? Or should we say, “Oh, well, X is trying their best, so no need to keep count or compare the counts.”
Quite obviously “terror” attacks and “military” attacks are different things. But it’s perfectly legitimate to compare them by the number of civilians killed. It shouldn’t be the only way in which we compare them. But it’s still informative to compare them.
I find it curious how the only name of a victim cited in this article - is of a westerner!
From TFA: “Today, if Nabila or Zubair or many of the civilian victims, if they are watching on TV the president being so remorseful over the killing of a Westerner, what message is that taking?”