Free Speech question:

How is that "gloating" any different from our "high-fives"
when we drop a JDAM on Fallujah or Khandahar, which in
turn -- while killing the targeted Islamo-terrorists,
also kills women and children?

If our by our example we cheer and gloat, shouldn't
they be allowed to do so also?

To win this two-generation long war against Islamo
Fascism, let us be humble in victory and quietly give
thanks for our successes. Let us set the example.

On another note: The Wash Times is reporting that
Lebannon has officially condemned the killing of
that Marine as "irreligious, immoral and inhumane."

best regards

Free speech doesn't mean we have to tolerate some åsshole from D.U. coming in here and making intentionally obnoxious, trolling posts.

Illuminatus: the answer to your question is the rebuttal to "moral equivalency". The killing of fighters in combat, even if unintentionally some innocent people are killed, is not morally equivalent to the murder of no-longer combatant prisoners.

When the US fights, it does not do so to torture and murder its enemies. It goes to great lengths not only to minimize the casualties and damage it inflicts, but also to reduce that inflicted by those it is fighting. It seeks many different ways to stop violence, violence itself being only one such means.

Its enemies in this case, however, do wish to torture and murder, to destroy and vandalize, to hurt and enslave the innocent. It abhors civility and civilization, it is intensely xenophobic, racist, tribalist and full of hatred, contempt and fear of women and those it sees as different.

When they torture and murder, they do so in praise of their god, or in the worship of chaos and real anarchy. They see redemption in the blood and pain of others. Many reject compromise and see death as the only settlement, either their own or that of their hated enemy. They cannot be persuaded otherwise in truth, though they may offer up a bodyguard of lies to further their goals.

The US, on the other hand, and its soldiers, would prefer nothing better than to leave others to their lives, following their own dreams and paths. But ours is not an ethic widely respected in the world.
Most other nations are short-sightedly willing to profit from abusive and aggressive tyrants, until their own interests are threatened. There is no such thing as "international morality."

So the US leads the world, having learned the painful lesson that even ignorant rural peasants can strike out at what they hate and fear, killing hundreds or more random lives.

There is no moral equivalency to the policeman and the serial murderer, and we may freely and without guilt honor our police, and join with them in celebration when they have removed the threat of such people from the world.

These are Nation States that sustain and encourage such Barbaric Vermin

The comment in question was not civil or respectful. We should have the same perspective on any "gloating" over death, and we will. It's one of the reasons we're posting the banned comments, so everyone can have a better sense of where Michele and I are trying to draw the line.

And for the record, having traced the IP of the comment in question, I think assuming it's someone from DU is a bad assumption.

I applaud you Alan and Michele in this action to purge CP of the trolling and baiting as you have done with the personal attacks; i.e. ethnic and racial slurs.

Time to get rid of the cobwebs hiding in the corners.

Illuminatus: The notion of "free speech," at least in the USA, refers to the First Amendment, which states in part that "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." It says nothing about Alan and Michele. And it certainly doesn't prevent "Victory" from making his own website.

Let me understand this...
the party in question was banned for ** one ** (1) comment that was - - - obnoxious?

That's straight-out intolerance with those who have a (radically) different view. Regular censorship.

Which, by the way, those who run the site have a right to do if they want to. But really, what harm does it do to know/remember that there are those who think differently.
Sure, it can be uncomfortable to hear those who oppose you - but one can learn from it.

I also recall feeling uncomfortable about a lot of the "we're blasting the sh-t out of them" comments about a year ago.

Celebrating harm to others - on either side - is a lousy attitude.

Free speech doesn't mean free listeners. You have to earn them
with the quality of the speech. He didn't.

This is not a freedom of speech issue. It's a shaping-the-dialogue-community issue. Freedom of speech issues are always about efforts of governments to prevent the free expression of opinion. That must be resisted. Efforts of people paying for bandwidth to influence the tenor of the communication their bandwidth is used for don't raise moral issues. In other words, he or she who pays the piper, calls the tune.

FWIW, I wouldn't have banned someone for that comment unless there was more to it (some history). But I respect Alan and Michele's decision to do so.

And the Yankees suck wet noodles.

For all those who feel that the 1st Amendment relating to Freedom of Speech applies to Alan and Michele's house here are CP (that they are paying the mortgage fees on), please send me your home addresses, I have some Bush-Cheney '04 yard signs I want to put up in your front yard to ensure my free speech rights are properly exercised.

Free Speech question:
Posted by: Illuminatus at July 4, 2004 11:57 AM
******************************************
I continually see people promoting a right of Free Speech in forums such as this that does not exist.

We are guests, we can excersise the privalege of speech extended by our Hosts.

Your Freedom of Speech ends at a point just inside my front door.

I accept that our Hosts here have equal rights.

Let me understand this…
the party in question was banned for ** one ** (1) comment that was - - - obnoxious?

That’s straight-out intolerance with those who have a (radically) different view. Regular censorship.
Posted by: ed wilson at July 4, 2004 02:55 PM
******************************************
Calling the deaths of young men and women who are going in harms way to guard US from mortal danger,

only the best for "garbage" goes way past "obnoxious"

We can learn from them? Is it not apparent they want us dead and our way of life totally destroyed?

By the way there are MANY Iraqi blogs on the net from INSIDE Iraq who are NOT repeat NOT smiling about incidents such as this.

Ed Wison,

For your information, that is only one of 3 TOTALLY OBNOXIOUS comments posted by an OBVIOUS
Terrorist supporter in the last 2 days.

Any decent American should be sickened by those
types of comments! If you are not, then you need to take a long, hard look in the mirror and PRAY for change.

Another two bite the dust! Good riddance to bad rubbish…
Posted by: Victory to Iraq at July 3, 2004 10:04 AM

As you can surmise, that is a blatant violation. The comment has been edited by administration and the IP has been put on
our ban list.

Posted by Michele at July 3, 2004 12:21 PM

We have banned a reader for this comment, related to the death of the US Marine:

Only the best for the garbage. The people of Iraq are smiling tonight.
Posted by: Victory at July 4, 2004 09:19 AM

Posted by Alan at July 4, 2004 10:57 AM



How wide of a subnet net are you casting when banning an IP? Nearly all dial-up ISP connections use dynamic IP addressing, so as to free up unused addresses by allocating the limited pool to each user on a per session basis. Depending on the ISP, you can probably figure out how large of a subnet they have been allocated and ban the entire range. The odds of multiple posters from a single subnet are slim, but can be addressed on an individual basis.

On a different note, if I were running a website similar to this one, I would establish a relationship with the local branch of the FBI, and obvious jihadist comments, along with IP addresses, would be funnelled in that direction. Obviously, this is a personal decision.

Celebrating harm to others - on either side - is a lousy attitude.

Agreed.

Ed: "Victory" has posted many similarly obnoxious comments on the C-P. Now that the banning policy is in effect, A&M can finally do something about it.

..of all days to deal with such ...

I think the issue of morale has to be taken into account. No, it isn't nice to say one is glad to see a successful airstrike, or glad to see the enemy die, and it's probably in bad taste to make jokes when a would-be suicide bomber blows himself up ahead of time. But people who cheer at our military successes tend to be the same ones who want our fallen combatants treated with respect. People who insist they've a right to disrespect our fallen combatants tend also to oppose their mission in the first place. To paraphrase Tolkien, when you've got two sides in conflict, it's really no good complaining that they're working against one another.

I'd hate to see gallows humor banned here, for instance, but I don't see how you can avoid it if you're going to adopt a policy of insisting that all responses to any and all deaths be uniformly subdued and devoid of emotional bias. By the same token, if you believe there's a difference between terrorists and soldiers, I don't see why you shouldn't insist on a higher standard of respect for the latter. Just my two cents on the issue of free speech.

"And for the record, having traced the IP of the comment in question, I think assuming it’s someone from DU is a bad assumption."
============================

With all due respect, I don't think you have quite the understanding of the way the internet works that you think you do. And by "works", I refer to the way the internet works in a strictly "mechanical" way.

For instance; your comment above:
A person's IP has, literally NOTHING to do with what forums they frequent. You cannot tell if a person is "from DU" by looking at their IP, unless someone is posting from one of their servers.

DemocraticUnderground.Com is run by DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND, LLC (Limited Liability Corporation)
Their administrative contact is David Allen, who can be contacted at (202)667-2404, or at their mailing address:
1612 20th Street, NW, Suite 401
Washington DC 20009


I give you that information, which by the way is PUBLIC DOMAIN information and NOT a violation of ANYONE'S privacy, because you could in theory simply call him and see if we could at least get a better quality of troll.

I'm serious. You really could call him and see if you could work something out. I don't think he'll co-operate, but you could try, if you wanted to.


Now, getting back to what I was saying about IP addresses...

D.U. is hosted by a company called "DCANet" on two servers, a main and a hot failover named NS1.DCA.NET and NS2.DCA.NET, at IP address 204.183.80.2 and 207.245.82.2, respectively.

If someone posted from one of those two IP addresses, you could say they definitely WERE from D.U., but if they post from some other IP address, they may or may not be, and the only way to tell is their behavior.
Simply put, nobody else on the web behaves the way they do. They have a specific M.O. and it's a real obvious one.


BTW, your IP banning idea won't work. All they have to do is bounce through a proxy server, and you don't even have to know anything about the internet to do that. AOL users could do it.

Ultimately, the only real way to get control of these forums is to use real forum software that you see on BBS's all over the net.

If you don't do that, either because you don't know how or you simply don't want to, which is your prerogative of course, you will ultimately fail to achieve the desired results.

Let me weigh in here--Alan and Michelle's problem is not IPs or differing opinions, it's lies. Victory is not voicing a real opinion; what Victory has to say is the equivalent of spam. In the free speech marketplace it would be classed as "fighting words" if s/he were really expressing a sincere opinion, but Victory isn't. Calling dead soldiers "garbage" is not a viewpoint, it's a lie because Victory doesn't REALLY think that--s/he is just saying that to waste people's time in angry reaction to juvenile name-calling. Ban all such, A & M--and thanks for doing so.

And for the record, having traced the IP of the comment in question, I think assuming it’s someone from DU is a bad assumption

Could be interpreted as he recognizes the IP address, knows who it is, and know that person is not from the DU.

I checked the DU out the other day, for the first time, and I must say I have to admire their posting policy:

WHO IS WELCOME ON DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND, AND WHO IS NOT
We welcome Democrats of all stripes, along with other progressives who will work with us to achieve our shared goals.

This is a "big tent" message board. We welcome a wide range of progressive opinion. You will likely encounter many points of view here that you disagree with.

We ban conservative disruptor's who are opposed to the broad goals of this website. If you think overall that George W. Bush is doing a swell job, or if you wish to see Republicans win, or if you are generally supportive of conservative ideals, please do not register to post, as you will likely be banned.

If you have been banned from Democratic Underground, you are not permitted to log on again using a different username. Previously banned members will be immediately banned, regardless of behavior.

People who repeatedly and willfully break the rules, or who generally engage in rude, antisocial behavior, will be banned. It doesn't matter if you are a progressive or a long-term member of this board.

Now thats just "In your face" forum moderation. :o)
But I bet it keeps the discussion mono-ideolistic. That is apparently what "David Allen, who can be contacted at (202)667-2404" wants.

I think our hosts really want both sides represented here. Why else would they let flagrant anti-American posters remain daily commentators here. You know which ones I am talking about. I dont have to name them. Most other blogs that allow comments dont use fairness as a criteria for who they allow to comment, it just depends on what kind of mood they are in, to decide who gets banned and who dont.

CNN and Reuters are biased. So is Fox. There is nothing wrong with banning people who's opinion you are disgusted by, just because you feel like it. They shouldn't feel the need to justify it.


you're really scaring me eric

Who's asking them to justify that? Certainly not me. If anything, I'd like to see them be more aggressive.

Personally, I find the type of board invasion I've been watching here to be really offensive. The worst part is; these people think they're enlightened.

I don't think there's anything in our social tradition that obligates honest people to tolerate jackåsses.

All I'm pointing out is that there are certain "mechanical" realities of existing on the internet, certain ways you can do things and certain ways you can't. Think of them as the cyberspace version of the laws of physics.

The ONLY way to control access to something on a network is through an interactive process that operates ABOVE the physical layers of the internet.

However this "Celebrating harm to others - on either side - is a lousy attitude."

Scares me even more.

I picture an American Marine platoon, pinned down by enemy fire. And an AC-130 comes and levels the surrounding neighborhood. I can just see those American Marines "celebrating harm to others" in a positive way.

Eric ... we're aware of all that, but I think your primer is useful for others, so thanks. What I mean is that the IP was from an off-shore host (very off-shore, as in the other side of the planet), and I don't think it's very likely that they're quasi-official members of DU (although they could be). That's all.

CP doesn't like the opinions will reflect the mood of ordinary Arab people. Here's a deal - we'll stop coming to your site when you stop occupying our countries. And it's not just about Iraq - the US has troops in over 100 countries worldwide.

CP posters are disturbed by the open support for the resistance by ordinary people in every country outside the US and Israel - they like to gather and gloat over the deaths inflicted on the Iraqi 'terrorists' without having to hear the voice of the majority. Cowardice indeed. Well, for every cheer that your posters send over the corpse of an Iraqi - for every wedding massacre, bombed school and tortured prisoner - you are going to get jeered.

Victory to Iraq!
Get. Out. Of. Our. Homelands. Or. You. Will. Be. Attacked.
That clear enough for you?

Yo Alan, heads up. Another IP to ban.

Victory: Once and for all, YOU LOSE. You cheer the deaths of US soldiers who are working to improve the lives of Iraqis. You rejoice when hope for people is dashed.

Take it elsewhere. You and your vitriol are no longer welcome here.

You lose.

No Gus, you lose. The most sophisticated military machine in the world is no match for the will of the Iraqi people to resist. There will be others - you are losing Venezuela too. A majority of Americans now realise that this war is an affront to humanity. You want to seal this site off hygenicaly from the true opinions of the world to avoid facing all this. Well sorry, brother, but your masturbation sessions over reports of the killing annd desecration of the Iraqi people are not going unchallenged, either here or on the ground.

Actually Alan,

I would think you might take this last message from Victory more serious and take RT up on his suggestion about coordination with your local FBI office. Couldn't hurt and as someone who has worked with the local FBI in the past, you might enjoy the relationship in ways you have never imagined.

I think Michele might be in a better position to contact the FBI, seeing as how Alan is in a Land Down Under.

please, please let me feed this troll

I cant stand it. He really needs it throughly explained to him, who is "in Charge" of the planet.

Alan, it might be easier if you just changed your name.

I haven't heard you explain the 2 Alans thing but about a hundred times.

TG, that was jeffers suggestion, the FBI cant touch this "real enemy", and neither can I.

TG, that was jeffers suggestion, the FBI cant touch this “real enemy”, and neither can I.

RT, I think you might be surprised by the interchange now allowed between the FBI and CIA. In my passed life I have worked with both of them locally and Alan, you would be well advised to contact them and bring them up to speed on your enterprises. They are very well trained in monitoring activities within civil rights. They are not the spy-ders they are portrayed to be.

TG, I kinda figured you had, by the way I have seen you analyze statistical data before. Timestamps and all. If I thought the CIA could put a MOB on this trolls house, I would call them myself.

But once again, I find myself torn between defending my country, and playing within the posting rules.

Alan, you posted this thread to explain to us your criteria for what kind of "civil & respectable" conversation you want here. Please tell us, how we should respond when a "reader" like victory shows up in thread.

Should we ignore him and his slanderous bait, or should we match his level of hatred in defense of our country?

RT: Your MOB would probably be put to better use by aiming it at al-Jazeera's satellite link. "Victory" is nothing more than an annoying housefly in a bedroom at night. al-Jazeera is more like a swarm of malaria-bearing mosquitos.

this thread really gets to the heart of the commenting policy issue. civility and respect is the threshold. As an American, I think there's a difference between celebrating our successes and partying over the death of our enemies. Conversely, there is a difference between criticizing our politics, policy or implementation and partying over the death of our people. The same rules of fundamental morality should run both ways. In this forum -- and in civilized society generally -- the first is allowed (by either "side"), and the latter is not. Remember that there are people dying on both sides of this war for their countries and beliefs. The posts that gloat the destruction of the anti Iraqi fighters are no more "correct" than the posts that gloat the death of the coalition's troops. We're all people. We're killing each other. There's nothing glorious in that, either way. We have to figure out a way to live with each other, and civil, respectful discourse is the first, best start.

Alan, you posted this thread to explain to us your criteria for what kind of “civil & respectable” conversation you want here. Please tell us, how we should respond when a “reader” like victory shows up in thread

Posted by: RT® at July 5, 2004 01:52 AM
******************************************
Or maybe we should just post links to Iraqi blogs which have lists of other Iraqi and MidEast Blogs?

http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/

For example not it is true that Zeyad list any and all sites including those that he and some of us might not agree with.

You can compare their view with this pseudo Victory.

I say pseudo because while there IS a yahoo profile username of Victory it was last updated in

08/05/1996

Now who exactly had access in Iraq to the internet 8 years or so ago?

And BOY isn't his English picture perfect? ;-)

True, opinions? rotflamo

I will chime in to the VICTORY to Iraq but LOL that can take a myriad of meanings.

Zeyad: Watching the dreaded face of Saddam Hussein on tv was a climactic experience---The majority of Iraqis have expressed their desire to see him hanged publicly as soon as possible to mark an end to his era and to move on

Omar (from Iraq the Model):A very deep analysis.
I was sitting watching a program on one of the Arab channels; the program was talking about the latest wave of terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia. The host asked "what do you think is behind the increased frequency of attacks recently in the KSA?" addressing an Arab "political expert", the "expert" replied saying "Iraqi is occupied, you know and her borders are wide open for terrorists to move in and out freely".

The host looked surprised by this answer and tried to tell the "expert" that the attacks were carried out by fighters from Al-Qaeda and KSA is the original home land for this terrorist organization but the expert said once again "The Americans are now ruling Iraq and they drew the terrorists attention to the region". The host started here to look intolerant and said "But these were not the first attacks to happen, KSA was the field of a lot of violence since the 90's".

Maybe you won't believe me if I told you that our "expert's" reply was "Yes, but the Americans are occupiers and the borders are left widely open".

The host said with apparent distress "Sir, but every single human being knows that Iraq is the victim of terrorism and fighters from all over the world are coming to fight in Iraq and they cross the borders from Syria, KSA, and Iran to get INTO Iraq, not out of it".

"See!, this is the point; the borders are open and terrorists can move freely and this is why terrorist attacks increased in KSA" replied the "expert"………………!!!.

This conversation may look funny, but it's actually not that funny because, it really happened

ays (from Iraq at a Glance) :The Hospitals..Now..
During the ex-regime, the hospitals in Iraq, according to a decision from the ‘wise’ government were self-funded, i.e the poor Iraqi who’s downtrodden and plunged into poverty had to pay very high expenses to get the medicine or to be treated in the hospitals, thousands of families could not afford enough money even to buy a single item of their medicine, others could not get the necessary and important examinations to their sons and daughters cause it was so expensive, so they did not have anything but the patience and pray to God to help their parents or children
-----Then the ex-regime’s media and Arab channels show how the Iraqi children were suffering from the embargo and the lack of food and medicine and crying on the situation in Iraq while Saddam and his thugs were able to get enough money, food and medicine for all Iraqis but they kept them for themselves, it was clear that that blockade was mainly by the ex-regime, the regime who prohibited everything, the regime who intentionally impoverished and weakened the Iraqi people-------
I feel so pleased when sometimes I sit in the pharmacy room there in Basra with my colleague when someone comes and gets his medicine then says ‘how much?’.. And we reply ‘Ibbalash’! ( free).. Just look at the patient when he happily replies: ‘Thank God... thank you.. We are so grateful’.... It’s so refreshing..
Step by step, Iraqis get their human rights.. Live in prosperous and peaceful country and feel safe to raise their children


It goes on and on and on

Something that occurred to me reading DU's little manifesto - once you start banning wholesale, I imagine it gets easier to continue, in fact it might be a hard impulse to keep in check. Corruptions of power and so forth. Food for thought ;)

I really feel the need to grind an ax about humor, and not just of the gallows variety. Sometimes the banter between posters is not exactly polite but very funny all the same if you're familiar with the people involved. Someone coming into a thread for the first time might think remarks are uncivil or unfair when in fact there are times when we're just having a few laughs at one another's expense. Is that such a bad thing? You can't just contend all the time.

Diversity isn't just a matter of what we say, it manifests even more in how we say it. It goes without saying it's your call, but I hope you don't let remarks that are clearly vicious (such as the ones being banned above) drive you towards a policy that winds up restricting more points of view than it allows, if you follow me. Seriously, if the goal is to have the comment threads read like the letters page of the NY Times , IMHO you will lose more than you gain.

BTW glad to see you back RT

Alan & Michelle,

How long do you ban IP addresses for!

First of all, Alan E. Brain, from Australia, and I are different people. AEB is a regular contributor who we've asked to act as a quasi-administrator because he's 15 hours ahead of EST. I'm the Alan who created the site with Michele a year ago March.

Now, to the main point ... and I'm writing this in a rather tired and grumpy state, so I hope I don't offend: I will not ban Victory, nor anyone else, for stating their point of view, not matter how much other readers here might disagree with his / her point of view. I will ban Victory for articulating his / her point of view in a manner that I find disrespectful or lacking in civility. To J's point above, I too think there is a difference between "celebrating our successes and partying over the death of our enemies," and we don't want our comment threads used for the latter.

Now, in this thread, Victory is back under a new IP address (something that comment registration will largely solve, BTW). And in this thread, he / she says:

CP doesn’t like the opinions will reflect the mood of ordinary Arab people. Here’s a deal - we’ll stop coming to your site when you stop occupying our countries. And it’s not just about Iraq - the US has troops in over 100 countries worldwide.
CP posters are disturbed by the open support for the resistance by ordinary people in every country outside the US and Israel - they like to gather and gloat over the deaths inflicted on the Iraqi ‘terrorists’ without having to hear the voice of the majority. Cowardice indeed. Well, for every cheer that your posters send over the corpse of an Iraqi - for every wedding massacre, bombed school and tortured prisoner - you are going to get jeered.

Now, do I like that comment? Not really. Do I hold the same point of view as Victory here? Probably not. Is his voice strident? Certainly (but not any more so that most of our commentators). But has he broken the line of respect and civility? I don't think so ... he's close—very directive in tone, almost threatening—but for me (and again, it's our site), this comment isn't as disrespectful as the garbage comment.

The point of Command Post comment threads isn't to provide a forum in which our readers can discuss news or politics with other people who share their same views. For that, go to DU or its centrist or right-wing equivalents. The point of Command Post comment threads is to provide a forum in which our readers can discuss news or politics with whomever else our readers happen to be. Since we are a news site (and not an ideological site) and a global one at that, this means reading the perspectives of readers from all points of view, including, it seems, those who sympathize with the Iraqi insurgency.

To me, there would be nothing less American than to ban Victory for his stating, in a civil and respectful manner, his opinion: that he / she thinks the U.S. wrong and should leave Iraq immediately. I ban him / her for that and I'm running counter to a set of values I've held deeply since my formative years ... a set of values inspired by Voltaire and Jefferson.

So to the question of "how should we respond to someone like Victory if he / she is posting in a civil and respectful manner?" I expect everyone to make this choice for himself or herself, but if I can offer any guidance, here's my interpretive stance: I may deeply disagree with what some people here write. I may even think they support “the enemy.” And in each case I'll make a choice to ignore, tolerate, or refute their point of view ... but not ban it outright. If I'm going to support the promotion of democratic values, then by God I better live by them, and I intend to do so here.

"Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privelege to do so too," often paraphrased as "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

-- Voltaire

”I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.”

“To preserve the freedom of the human mind then and freedom of the press, every spirit should be ready to devote itself to martyrdom; for as long as we may think as we will, and speak as we think, the condition of man will proceed in improvement.”

"We are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it."

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others."

-- All Thomas Jefferson, various sources

Eric … we’re aware of all that, but I think your primer is useful for others, so thanks. What I mean is that the IP was from an off-shore host (very off-shore, as in the other side of the planet), and I don’t think it’s very likely that they’re quasi-official members of DU (although they could be).
===============================

The invader writes in excellent American Vernacular English. As I said... Proxy Server.



Some of you other folks...

This isn't a free speech issue. This is a "party crasher" issue.

Well, it appears I must first beg forgiveness of Alan.

Uhh... mmmmm.... (staring at feet, twisting toe)

Sorry.

Alan,

As a former Marine, I can agree with your sentiments.

As a practical matter, people like that Victory person could care less. They only believe in killing you NOW.

..you ever notice if you tell a child not to do something..yep they are hell bent to do just that;so folks this mentality is exactly that...maybe now the light will finally come on and realize some serious thought and discussions and yes wars;to bring honor back to the Arab world;the only honor now is the killing of westerners..the extreme element will only be eradicated by the Arab people themselves..so we ((Must)) keep our actions in check and use all our efforts to help the ones trying to bring these countries into the civilized world.And the LORD knows I am not the best at controlling my anger.Sooo patience my friends,pick our battles;sit quietly in others,good will all ways defeat evil...sic as VII statements are today; tomorrow he might have solution...dont ban for now lets see his or hers perspective; if he is nothing more than a troll so be it..but my hope he is only a person that has seen so much this is his only way to survive..it wont be easy...but do we really have any other choice.

Gus ... no worries!

eric says:
D.U. is hosted by a company called “DCANet” on two servers, a main and a hot failover named NS1.DCA.NET and NS2.DCA.NET, at IP address 204.183.80.2 and 207.245.82.2, respectively.

Not correct, eric. These are the Nameservers that host the DNS records for the DU domain. The website is hosted from these IP's:

democraticunderground.com A (Address) 216.158.28.198
democraticunderground.com A (Address) 216.158.28.196

If you wanted to find mail posted/relayed through the DU you need to look for posts coming from:

mail.democraticunderground.com A (Address) 216.158.54.195

mg: If you have a Unix system, you can look at the direct routing to those IP's with "traceroute". Can someone provide the equivalent DOS/Windows command?

FWIW, the closest I can get to the DU site is in dca.net, which is based in Delaware. Makes sense.

Thank you MG. I stand corrected.

gus3:
a tracert would be meaningless. A trace route simply identifies the routers used in sending a packet from the distant-end user's IP address to the machine used to run the trace. So seeing the route a packet takes does not yield much info other than a rough guide to which ISP's/backbone's the distant-end is connected to. This can be spoofed very easily via various means.

If we are talking about trying to find the origin of an email, examine the SMTP headers (but these can be forged as well, like spammers do).

Windows users can use the command line tracert.exe or there are plenty of 3rd-party internet tools that work well (even some graphical ones that display a world map-NeoTrace for example).

Internet based free route tracing services. There are many of them.

Anonymous proxy servers obviously defeat this method of tracing.

eric, no probs. Are your initials DES by chance?

Alan- I'm delighted to read your sentiments. However, is ViC banned or not? I agree completely with your analysis of the two comments, and I have no problem with seeing him back here later in the week, but if he has to stand in the corner for three days or whatever then that's what he has to do, yes? Does the whole thing go out the window because he manages despite your ban to post another remark that as it happens doesn't violate your policy?

Forgive me, but that is too much like the way the NHL operates. Please say it ain't so.

I mean Victory in Iraq of course. Don't ask me where the C came from ;)

Yes, I know traceroute does no good for a spoofed address. However, in the case that an address does not have a DNS record associated with it, you can use traceroute to at least find out where it connects to a backbone.

I made the comment about the DU, just to satisfy my (and anyone else's) curiosity as to the location of their website and mail server.

Alan,

When some people gloat about the death of the Iraqi resistance fighters (as ones reads on this CP every week) very few voices are raised to condemn it.

When someone gloats about the death of an American soldier there is an outcry and he is banned.

Can you explain your logic? Or are you again going to tell me as an excuse that you cannot read every posting.

For my part I find gloating about death, ANY DEATH of ANY human being repulsive. It could be a combatant killed during a war or a prisoner executed in our jails.

Should they be allowed to express their feelings on your site? You decide. But at least you should not allow double-standards.

A society under which an individual can be killed or have his property siezed without due process of law, said process voted into being by a majority of the population while at the same time respecting the individual's basic human rights, is a failed society, whether the actual failure has already taken place or is merely a preordained certainty, yet to be executed.

Cooperation is required element in any society. This is a fundamental law of nature, and there is no higher authority. Whether you choose to believe in a god, or a Supreme Court, or a gypsy fortuneteller, or a Talib's self serving fatwah, makes absolutely no difference. The results of any and all action taken in the 4 dimensional expression of space time that we call the Universe is governed by the immutable laws of that entity, with no input whatsoever by anything written by man, even if it is attributed to a supposed creator of this Universe. There is no higher authority, and therefore, cooperation is a mandate. Violate a mandate and the Universe will grind you our of existance, without any more regard than the gears of a great machine that feel nothing at all with your passing.

Israel was voted into existence by a process fitting the above description, and was immediately attacked by the surrounding Islamic nations. Twice more Israel was attacked by these same nations, and these nations had no legal basis for their behavior. Israel now exists in hyper security conciousness, and indeed, crosses the line frequently into what would be defined as "illegal" behavior by the above reasoning.

Israel's "illegal" behavior in then used by Islamic states and individuals to justify a wide range of respondant illegal behavior, including terrorism across the world at large.

The fundamental error rests with Islam, however. They made a concious decision to reject the results of due process, violating several basic tenets of the laws of nature, and have used the negative and entirely predictable results of that error to propagate countless other violations.

On this basis, we are then at war. Whether you pursue the belief that all Islam is guilty of crimes against the laws of nature or that just certain individuals within Islam, we are still at war and we have no choice in the matter.

We can refuse to fight, and they will still kill us.

Upon this broad background, we have a discrete situation at hand, here, now.

A product of the Islamic mindset has appeared here, broken the stated rules in posting, been banned, continues to post here in spite of the ban, and further still, now has threatened us all with a promise that we will be attacked, civilians and military alike, and, an occurrence I find incomprehensible, the current discussion seems to focus on the rights of this individual and what is fair for him, and what is fair for his universally illegal jihad.

I am disappointed.

I thought we were making progress.

The only chance humans have, in the long run, is to recognize the absolute power that the laws of nature impose on us, and begin to discard all other supposed sources of "authority", but in this thread we seem to be taking a giant step backwards.

"Freedom" and "democracy" do not work when the basic underlying principles are twisted to allow any individual or interest group get by with breaking the laws of nature with impugnity.

Freedom and democracy are our human and imperfect attempt to find a framwork both consistent with, and not in violation of, the laws of nature.

Freedom and democracy are successful because they more closely approximate the requirements imposed upon the human race by the universe and the realities of the planet we inhabit. Freedom and democracy are not perfect, and their very strengths rapidly dissipate when improperly applied.

When I capture a spider, and each fall, when a mouse finds its way inside after the first frost, those creatures are released outside, unharmed, even if it's the middle of the night and ten below zero.

I hate to kill.

But if Victory were standing here in front of me now, I'd put a bullet in his brain without the slightest hesitation.

If someone else were to do so, I would cheer his death.

Not because I love killing, but because his death hastens the day when we no longer have to recognize that over a fifth of the world's population embraces a theology that is in direct contradiction with the laws of nature.

In effect, the radical portion of Islam, and that portion of Islam which does not recognize the fundamental immorality of their attacks on Israel, along with their fundamental guilt in all that have ensued, which is a large percentage of the entire Islamic subset, can be mathematically and effectively thought of as a disease.

It is part of us, it is mathematically certain to kill us, and we have but two options to choose from in dealing with it.

We can accept the fact that we have to eradicate the threat to ourselves, or we can succomb to the threat to ourselves, beginning a long painful slide to human extinction.

There's a dirty job to be done. It isn't going to be fun. If we try to abdicate the responsibility, the result will be much less fun than rolling up our sleeves and getting on with the task at hand.

All the above said, this is Alan and Michelle's website. The rules here are a product of their interpretation of their values. I fully understand that to violate the rules will result in my inability to post here, and intend to remain within the rules.

Within, but not by any great margin.

I'm tired of fighting.

I've been engaged in a war of words with liberals and jihadists that heated up with the intent to invade Iraq in early 2002. It's been a long two and a half years. I'd much rather be back in my normal life, but that simply isn't mathematically possible.

I'm in for the duration, and I intend for the good guys to win. That means working and living at the absolute edge of the law's of anture's permissivity, and on each of smaller scales, within addition limits superimposed upon the real ones. In wartime, I don't give away edges or advantages.

Consider that to be yet another universal absolute.

Thank you Jeffers you are my hero. I am glad there are many Jeffers's on OUR side. If they ban you for your honest words, we will all miss your insightful Intel dumps.

If Victory does show up at your door, call me, and I will help you bury the body in my pasture. Then we can gloat and dance over his grave, because our children will be a little safer.

Every human that has values, has a double standard.

Killing a murderer is different from killing a soldier or a noncombatant.

I cannot summon up tears for those who plant bombs that kill children, and I will not be able to summon up tears for Saddam, if he is executed.

Making the life of a terrorist equal to the life of a civilian or a soldier requires 1) a lot of verbal tap-dancing--or, in rare cases, 2) an intense spiritual connection in which human life is seen as monolithically sacred, no matter what.

Most of the people who do that here appear to be of the first type.

Actually, Atilla Girl, based on thier own spoken and written words, here and on the campaign trail, it only requires a Liberal.... which means, mostly Democrats.

Jeffers,

What you call "the law of nature" is nothing but the law of the strongest, the law of the jungle.

"A society under which an individual can be killed or have his property seized without due process of law... is a failed society."

You seem to be describing perfectly the Israeli society under Sharon. Palestinians are being murdered, their property destroyed and their land stolen everyday. They resist the way they can.

The America of WB is applying the law of the jungle. We possess our mighty power so we can do whatever we like. Invade sovereign nations and dictate our will to the whole planet and serve our own interests worldwide.

No wonder we are hated by the whole world. We are fueling terrorism by our own actions. We have ourselves to blame for having "voted" these christian fundamentalists crusaders into power. Now we are suffering the consequences.

Get Real - "We are fueling terrorism by our own actions. We have ourselves to blame for having “voted” these christian fundamentalists crusaders into power. Now we are suffering the consequences." Posted by: Get Real at July 5, 2004 05:40 PM

Let's see if I follow this correctly: We voted a Republican into office (yes, WE did), and now we blame President Bush for the behavior of Islamofascists? That was some mighty Fatwah the CiC issued, ain't it? I suppose he concurred with OBL on that one as well, right? They got together over a Hookah and pipe-dreamed the whole thing.

Whew. Sweeeet Logic, there...

Get Real - You did write that the law of nature is "only" the law of the jungle, didn't you? Get real, indeed. That's the most tortured piece of silliness I've seen in a long time. For crying out loud, stop emoting and use your head.

Do you guys choose your own names or do they get assigned to you? It's striking how paradoxically appropriate they are. Somehow I don't think I'm the only one laughing either.

Cap doc,

The connections between the Bush family and the Bin Laden family are well documented.

Moreover, Get Real, you are welcome to the kind of moral certitude that requires you to minimize good and evil alike until you've hit the lowest common denominator. One of these days you're going to have to choose sides, and you're not making it any easier on yourself by thinking you're better than those of us who already have.

No wonder we are hated by the whole world. We are fueling terrorism by our own actions. We have ourselves to blame for having “voted” these christian fundamentalists crusaders into power. Now we are suffering the consequences.

Posted by: Get Real at July 5, 2004 05:40 PM
*****************************************
Get Real indeed. ;-) The best refutation I can make is the following.

Found it the link to it on

Iraq the Model Blog by Omar

LOL took me to

thequestingcat blog

Do They Know?06.27.04 posted by The Jersey Cowboy

In less than an hour I'll saddle up my humvee and head out on the road. Iraq will probably still be asleep, although I'm sure there will be a few early birds out and about. It will be later, when the mission is over and we're on our return, that I'll see all the little kids out by the road, waving.

They come out in gaggles, standing energetically by the roadside merely to wave at the passing soldiers. Some don't stray too far from the gates to their homes or the fields they tend, but others come right up to the verge of the road, waving and giving us the thumbs-up. I always try to wave back, even if I'm driving and I know they can't see my gesture very well. If there's anyone that's worth helping in this country, it's the children.

"Why do they wave?" I find myself asking silently, and as I drive I try to puzzle it out. Most of us wave back and don't give it another thought, or we see them gesticulate their pleas for food and water and merely think them needy or label them munchkins. Hell, if I was a little kid and the foreign soldiers I always wave at never threw me food, why would I still be out there waving, every day? It's not as if Americans cruising up and down their littered roads is a new sight, for they probably see us several times in a day. So what else is there?

Could mere children possibly see us as liberators? Do they know that all this time we've been fighting to excise the people among them that oppose freedom and democracy, that insist on terrorism and tyranny? Is it conceivable that these children know that we're trying to provide them with a better life than their parents had, and do they wave because they appreciate our efforts? Do they stand by the roadside because they are thankful? I can almost imagine Hadji-junior getting tucked into bed at night by one of his mothers, and her speaking to him: "Those are Americans that drive past our house every day. Americans got rid of Saddam. Americans are here to stop the fighting. They want to make our country a proud place to live. They want to help you go to school, to help you stay healthy, to give you opportunities your father never had. You should always be thankful for the Americans..." The children might be too young to understand the weight of our actions, but I doubt they're too young to be thankful, especially living with parents who can tell them how good they have it.

I do seriously doubt that's the conversation we never hear, but it's worth thinking about. Out there among these alien people I'm sure that there are those that are truly thankful for our existence. I've met them. I've been approached by lawyers and doctors and commoners that have expressed heartfelt thanks in halting English that we are here, that we are making a difference. It's an overwhelming sensation at times. One of my close friends back in Jersey recently went to an anti-war march, knowing where I am and what I'm doing, and yet these people are strangers in every sense of the word and they thank me. And the children...

Today I'll wave back, like I always do, because you're never too young to be thankful
******************************************
Yesterday was the 4th wonder if folks like Get Real know the meaning of grateful?

Cap doc,

The connections between the Bush family and the Bin Laden family are well documented.

Posted by: Get Real at July 5, 2004 06:05 PM
******************************************
I will use this as the catch paragaph and let those who chose go read the rest

Does one man's last name soil the rest? Not in America - a country practically built upon the principal that it doesn't matter where or who you came from.

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/dudewheresmycountry/question1.htm

Get Real: We have ourselves to blame for having "voted" these christian fundamentalists crusaders into power. Now we are suffering the consequences.

Um, didn't AQ begin the 9/11 mission during the Clinton administration?

The connections between the Bush family and the Bin Laden family are well documented.

Posted by: Get Real at July 5, 2004 06:05 PM
******************************************


Hey Get Real, get real. Can you post a link to this widespread documentation that does not require the wearing of tinfoil headgear? References to Orca's latest fantasy film don't count.

No really, can't you complain about the DU assigned nickname?

I can tell you exactly why Get Real is having so much trouble understanding our situation.

He is coming from the standpoint that all cultures have equal value.

They don't.

Until he really understands that, there's an entire body of knowledge that will remain beyond his grasp.

In Discretion; Arriving in from the coast to flogg away the pinks.

STUPID WHITE WALE / BY HALVAHA /| OCEANS IN MOTION PICTURES

A LAND GUIDE TO COUNTER NAUSIAISM - AVOID MICHAEL MOOR

SEEK THE SHOW

A GRIPPING SAGA OF MICHAEL MOOR HUNTED ON THE HIGH SEAS AND ON THE OPEN RANGE.
WILL OUR HERO CAPTAIN ARAB CATCH AND RENDER THE GREAT OFFENDER DOWN TO SOILENT GREEN TO BE FED TO SADAM AT HIS LAST ANTI-SUPPER FOR THE INSULTING AND UNJUSTLY SMEARING OF AMERICA? OR WILL THE VOPA SUCCEED AT WHAT EVER IT IS THAT HE'S TRYING TO DO?

SEE> STUPID WHITE WHALE

SEE> MICHAEL MOOR played by MOBY'S DICK

SEE>
A VIRTUAL CAVE
A VIRTUAL HOLE
A VIRTUOUSLESS ASS IN A HOLE played by HIMSELF

SEE>
BIN LADDEN TRAPS (cheap&baffling) ABOUND IN SPECTACULAR SETTING
ZARQ E. Hyena FARKING WITH E.HASBOLLA MAIDENS DZZs
HAMASS PIES
ARAFAT GUNS

OUR HERO CAPTAIN ARAB played by OMARR SHEREFF
HIS LOYAL SIDE-KICK KATO - by JOHN FAT
THEIR GIRL FRIENDS SEE CONTEST RULES
POTUS 1 (H) - by MEL GIBSON / POTUS II (W) RUSSELL CROW
PRIME MINISTER BLAIR by SPUD
THE NEWLY ELECTED LEADER OF IRAQ by MARLON BRANDO (4TH JULY WEEKEND 2004)

THE HAPPIRAQI - by ULLE BRENNER
HIS LOVER TRACY ULMAN
THE WAKIRQI - BUZZ BELMONDO
HIS HEART THROB - THE PRINCESS by SUPPRISE IRAQAINIAN BEAUTY

THE KING OF JORDAN by PRINCE PHILIP

ALI AL HUMPHREY SISTANI - by BEN KINGSLY

THE POPE OF IRANIA - by MICHAEL JACKSON
MO MO KADDAFFY - DANNY GLOVER

DRUMSFIELD played it by EAR by WILLIAM SHAFTNER

COLON POWELL played by LAWRENCE FISBORNE

SRGT STRIKER REPORTING TO COLON POWELL by JEFF GOLDBLUME

HIS LOYAL BOXER DOG / CALVIN

CAPTAIN ARAB'S CAMMEL / TRIGGER
HIS LOYAL CAT RA

HIS AFRICAN CONTINGENT WITH DR LEAKEES RIFLES (80.000)










FEATURING PNS FEATURES AS......THINK ......about it.......JOHN KERRY*
*played by FLIP FLOP and/or MAYBE NOT AVECWITH OUT HOLD ON LET GO
FORGET TO VOTE FOR HIM.............. UNCASTABLE ?JERRY LEWIS?


AND A WHOLE SLEW OF NAY SAYERS



Excerpts from STUPID WHITE WHALE

"THERE HE BLOWS"

"MAN THE BOATS"

"FIX BAYONETS"

"DIE MOTHERFOC*ER"

"I WANT PURINA CHAMPANIA FOR THESE DOGS"

"YOU CUT THE HEAD OF THE WRONG ONE"

"I FEAR WE HAVE ONLY WOKEN A SLEEPING WORLD"

"WOMEN'S RIGHTS ? WHAT STINKING WOMEN'S RIGHTS "


directed by El Cohen

I didn't write this:

"“A society under which an individual can be killed or have his property seized without due process of law… is a failed
society.”"

I wrote this:

"A society under which an individual can be killed or have his property siezed without due process of law, said process voted
into being by a majority of the population while at the same time respecting the individual’s basic human rights, is a failed
society..."

You had to cut out the part in boldface, because noe of your arguments will stand scrutiny from a five year old with it in place.

Why do you waste our time?

We have seen every trick you have ever come up with. The only difference between now and the rest of your life is that before 9/11, we chose to expend our time and energy elsewhere, and now we choose to call bullshit when you try to deceive.

Are you capable of changing to adapt to a new and different world?

Or are you so rooted in what has worked for so long that you've deluded yourself into believing that you were actually fooling us all along, and that you can continue to fool us if you just try a little harder or keep repeating the lies until you get your way?

re: Get Real
You obviously only know the paleo/arab version of ME history....go learn some real history before you come here and start spraying your propaganda...
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mftoc.html
http://www.palestinefacts.org/

LOL Very Good ScottsThistle ;)

OK ... I'm dealing with this in the morning, but suggestions of willingly killing another reader and suggestions of eagerness at dancing on the graves of others are beyond the pale of what I want on my site.

I'll talk to Michele in the a.m., but I'm ready to shut down the comments site-wide until we have comment registration up and running.