Frankly, I trust the US government more than my local ones, to have this information.
What I don't trust is the neutrality regarding company sensitive information and competitors. (I still trust the US government more than I would trust most any other than that, but still not much.)
There are lots of English speaking jobs with computers in most countries, including Finland. (I worked there a few years, loved the place but the allergy information was horrible).
The sad part with all this is that Scotland will certainly leave the Union now. It is like seeing two old friends getting a divorce. :-(
I saw Pan's Labyrinth with a Finn. There was a civil war about a century ago in Finland.
Her reaction was -- "Totally unrealistic -- a side in a civil war that doesn't do revenge atrocities?" She didn't have any reaction like that to the fantasy monsters or anything else.
I have problems with non serious debaters that argue dishonestly. This is a subject where people write dishonest propaganda and where I have read a bit.
I can handle a few dishonest debaters, see previous comments, but there were too many here.
I guess the hateful people won. :-)
(I don't really have any interest in the subject matter, for a few I years I followed my native media with NYT/BBC/Washington Post.)
I have found that I am easily trolled when I have the beginning of allergy troubles. It is better to not comment than to find out the hard way I need anti histamines.
You have a point, I am easily trolled when people lack arguments and start discussing person.
Regarding earlier comments... I got mainly upvotes, until an hour ago.
I have argued, a year or two ago, that this subject have to much emotional attachments and doesn't work on HN. It is twice as true today, it seems people now often have secondary accounts used for trolling when they lack answers about soemthing they find important.
So, you agree that only a pathetic loser without cohones would downvote both old and new comments a bunch of times, when losing an argument...? :-)
(And if you wan't to argue that you could answer the argument, you had a few chances already.)
Edit: The quick downvotes after a few minutes on this old story shows that justin66 really think only pathetic losers without a spine systematically downvote someones comments when they lack arguments.
Since you lack serious arguments -- the closest are that I had a ":-)" three comments ago and personal attacks -- we can close this.
(And of course it is just a coincidence that I get 7++ downvotes on old comments and 5+ downvotes on new comments just a few minutes after you get angry because you totally lack answers. :-) )
Edit: DanBC do have a point, I have a history of easily being trolled when people without arguments start discussin person instead etc. I will think about that in the future.
That was just answering a common bad argument in advance.
I wrote it INSIDE "()", AS AN EDIT. since that was the only thing you could comment on, sad...
EDIT: I used a ":-)" three comments ago as a mark of irony. Well, justin66 have no serious answer, so I end it here.
Edit 2: Justin66 seems to downvote my comments in this old discussion now, with multiple accounts... 15+ downvotes on old and new comments in 20 minutes. That is what happens when people lack both a serious argument and maturity. (Easy to find for HN mods..)
Edit 3: detaro -- The karma is irrelevant. And I should be equally ashamed as justin66 for needling whai I hope is a teenager when he have dearly held wrong opinions. Enough.
"just a matter of degree"? OK, let's look at it then:
Side A is officially antisemitic in their founding document (Hamas) and TV programs (even for children!); they literally took inspirations from the 3rd Reich. They condone murders of civilians (even children) and pay pensions to the family of killed murderers. They have expelled all members of side B. They persecute members of side B everywhere on the planet where both groups live in the same society.
Side B have racism from individuals, which is officially condemned by a democratically elected government. They throw murderers of civilians in jail. 20% (?) of the population in side B are really part of side A, with no expulsions (except once in a bad civil war, when both sides did it, almost 70 years ago).
And so on, there are lots of examples.
You can dismiss this as "just a matter of degree". But then note that there is also "just a matter of degree" in Celsius between Antarctica and Hawaii.
When do "double standards for different sides" go over the limit to the definition of stronger terms?
(Edit: If you're going to argue that persecution and hatred of Jews are excusable because of X, note that more Jews were expelled from the Muslim world than Palestinians that fled from the Nakba. And multiple times more land was stolen from them than the total area of Israel.)
So, on one side you have the Nakba in a burning civil war when populations were thrown out (both Jews and Palestinians). Civil wars are horrible.
The other side is when the Jews were thrown out of the Muslim countries and their property stolen. Not in a civil war, but just from racism -- because they had the same religion as in some other country.
Note here that more Jews fled from the Muslim world than Palestinians in the Nakba. And in the fleeing Jews' stolen property there were more land than multiple times the size of Israel.
Contrast this with that not every Palestinian fled from Israel. They are still a large part of the population today -- the Israeli Palestinians were NOT thrown out as a reaction to when the Muslims threw out their Jews.
And you are really, really upset about Israel -- but dismiss the worse things happening in e.g. your home country Tunisia...
I have to stop here -- any further comment on your opinions, moral and intellectual integrity can't be polite. Let me just say that as a Westerner, I think you should judge yourself harder than you judge others.
You are not contradicting my point. He is still going to jail.
The sympathy for due process of terrorists will wear thin in most democracies. Afaik, most countries with continuous terror problems throw out the law book.
This is a quite logical result, since the point of terror is to get a fear and horror reaction from the civilian population to influence them. Scared voters make politicians hysterical, so everything is done to stop the situation. (Democracies seems to be even worse here, since voters are more important than non democracies.)
Afaik, this goes for USA, Germany, Israel, Britain, Spain, etc. (I saw claims from some English guy that they did it different regarding IRA, then some other GB guy contradicted and listed some English laws. Let's call that example uncertain.)
So the basic problem is that the Jews and/or the democratic country are evil? Sigh... :-(
Arafat got at least two offers for a Palestinian state (at Camp David and once later), with about 91% of the West Bank iirc.
The later offer was when Barak needed Arafat's support of a peace agreement before an election (so the Palestinian side had a good negotiating position).
Arafat didn't accept either -- which was one thing. But there was no counter offer like "Give us XX and YY and customs advantages ZZ and ...". Instead Arafat started a terror campaign.
But there is no blame for all that refusal to even give a counter proposal; it is all a big Israeli conspiracy.
(Seriously, I feel a bit sick when I chat with hateful people.)
What I've read, is that the border to Gaza was open enough for commuting and shopping trips -- until the systematic attacks on civilians.
You had no problem with that description in your previous comment.
But good references to non partisan sources would be interesting?
(AGAIN: If the ones controlling an area -- including doing elections, defense, police and taxes -- put all their economy into rocket artillery against another country's civilians, the reaction will not be mild... And Gaza is not part of a city, it was a free area.)
You don't contradict that you were aware of my points..?
If e.g. Finland or Estonia started to shoot rocket artilleri towards St Petersburg, the reaction would certainly be much worse than Israel's at Gaza...
(And because of Karelia etc for Finland and generations of slavery for Estonians, they have as good reasons as the Gazans.)
The situation is:
Side A attack side B's civilians. You only complain about side B's quite moderate defense against A's attacks. (Again, installed to stop the attacks.) Then you motivate that further attacks from A are understandable, because of B's defense.
It is such a sad case of hypocritical and hateful circular logic I get vertigo. :-(