mooeypoo

I would hope not. In my opinion, and with my experience, a fight against terrorism (like the one that is attempted at in the Middle East) does not require large numbers, but a strong intelligence and percise reaction. I don't think a draft should be needed. But then.. I don't know the U.S.A, I just state if I think it's necessary, not if I think it WILL be done. That is, obviously, the president's choice. I must wish you all that this won't be done, though, ever again. ~moo

Okay, I accept your correction. I was trying to show it isn't as bad as people made it.. It seems like people on this thread are quite in panic from the mere thought of their foreskin (or an innocent baby's foreskin, for that matter) is cut off. I can truely understand it, but the discussion about health is moot; there ARE no proofs either way, so the debate - if any - should be about Ethics. I personally see no troubles with this operation if it is done correctly with a person that is qualified to do that. I think that if people are to argue Ethics it is one thing, but arguing I am wrong because it's unhealthy is just the unnecessary repetition of an unbased claim.. that was my point. ~moo

Yup, pretty much, when your proof are not proof (since it's not really proven) and when you ignore my proof to the other side, I do. You said yourself that your facts are not 100% proven, and that the issue of health in circumcision is controversial. Do you want me to accept your controversial proofs just because you insist on posting them? I can give you many proofs against what you are saying, actually stating that circumcision lowers the chances for Cancer. I am trying to be fair in the argument, and not argue on something that cannot be decided within the scientific community (so obviously won't be decided here). Because a person believes that the risks are not only negligeable, but the gain is much higher in terms of health. Yes, it is based on belief. No, it's not proven. I do believe I explained what my take is on Ethics and social standards, too. If you'd have read my posts properly, you'd get that too. If I BELIEVE something to be good for my child, for whatever reason, and the proof is nonexistant -- I carry proof FOR it, and you carry proof AGAINST it, but ultimately, it's undecided -- then why is it so unethical for me to use it.. Ethically, there shouldn't be anything wrong with that. If the health benefits would've been proven, then I'd be proven right. If the health issues would've been shown to be harmful, you'd be right, but the issue is undecided even after many years of study. Ethically, I may be right, and there's no proof against me being right, therefore I may perform this procedure if I believe I am right hard enough. And you should have no ETHICAL trouble with this, unless you have ultimate proven non-controversial proof in the scientific community stating I am hurting my child. Which you don't. True, but not everything is done for medical reasons. And as I said before, it is - at least in israel - proven to be healthier in terms of preventing cancer and other conditions. Even if this is not definitive, it is surely ethical for me to do this for my son if I believe this is something that will benefit him. You think it doesn't, don't do it. I seriously fail to see a problem here. We're not hurting children, we believe that we are performing them great justice; you not only are incapable of proving us WRONG, you are also admitting that the subject is undecided, which means it may well BE good for someone.. why is that a bad thing. Yes, it's cultural, but it's HARMLESS at worst, and BENEFITIAL at best. Where's the problem? Something strikes me as extremely odd. You are the second one in this threat to tell us that you almost (or did) performed circumcision for MEDICAL REASONS... and yet people claim it to be harmful.. Is it possible that the Jewish Nation is right on this one, and this is not only NOT BAD for the child, but actually is good in preventing medical problems that may require it being performed at a later age? Have you ever heard of someone saying "I had a circumcision, but almost had a skin implant for health reasons?" I actually looked it up online (or, "googled it", now that its a verb), and found none. Maybe I'm bad at googling though, try and see if you find anything, I'd love to see it Oh wait, it deals with the phallic symbol, and you men have this ISSUE with that who here is sane enough to admit cutting his weewee off is healthy, right? ;-) ~moo

Maybe I was misunderstood. By saying ignorant, I didn't mean as an ignorant person, but as a specifically not knowing THIS subject. Which is why I said I respect Severian dearly, which I do. I also wrote that in THIS case, he is ignorant. It's far from being name calling, but if it sounded like it, it wasn't my intention. ~moo

Also, in programming, it is very useful to take existing open source snippets, see what they do, and tweak them to see how they work and learn their structure. I personally use www.planetsourcecode.com for that goal, it's very useful for all languages, and all skill levels. ~moo

Is it just me, or did no one read the history summary I posted? ORIGINALLY is a too broad of a term.. how originally? 4000 years ago? it belonged to tribes that no longer exist today. 3500 years ago? It was the "Israelites" territory which would later be made the Jewish Nation. 50 years ago? Yah, the British. How far back? The point, however -- and concider the fact that I actually AM for giving out land for peace --is that the land of Israel (in fact, historically, stretching up to modern day Iraq, but no sane person even suggests we should reclaim that land "historically" we do have boundries yaknow) was "originally" jewish, and only later on Arabic. The bigger fact is that the jews - though not lacking in their own flaws and mistakes - usually tended to be more flexible and compromizing (again, view history about compromizes and signed agreements in the area) while the arab countries' goal, throughout all the wars, was to innihilate the State of Israel from the map. How far originally do you want me to go? ~moo

I have prepared an entire reply to Severian's claims, full of my opinions and views. But then, I read his replies, and everyone else's again, and decided I shouldn't waste my time. Severian, I respect you as a person dearly, but you are utterly ignorant in the matter. Before you make utterly ignorant claims, I would suggest you check and cross refference your information. Claiming Terrorists don't want you dead is beyond ignorance, it's burying your head in the sand. I am not going to bring you any of my refferences, seeing as you don't trust anything I -- as an Israeli -- will give you. So I will trust your own sense of logic, and urge you to go check some history on bombings in WTC (were those people insulting Islam?) or the US Embasies, or many other terrorist acts that were not in israel, or against Israel, or against the Jewish Nation. I will ignore your insinuations about my people's actions, since you obviously have no practical knowledge on the matter. You can - and probably will - argue with me, but you just seem to be giving out claims that are just mistaken and unbased. There is no country in the world that claims terrorism doesn't touch it. If you do, you have no idea about the world affairs. Go check yourself, and your sources. Don't believe me, as a western person who lived in the middle of a conflict that just now starts touching your own country. Don't. Go read for yourself on the meaning of "Jihad of the Sword". Go watch some El Manar, El Jazera, go read some of the Arabic Newspapers, see how they portray "Infidels", how they burn the American flags, how they selebrate on rooftops when the WTC happened (and each year after). Go listen to Arabic Radio Stations, go study these yourself. Don't believe the horrible soldier. I am not going to waste my time arguing with someone who is reffering to me and the friends I have lost on the fight against terrorism as heartless killers, while he sits in his comfortable chair in front of a computer, safe from bombings, or exploding schoolbusses, or shootouts in malls that kill a few babies, chatting about affairs he knows nothing about. How utterly comfortable, and incredibly condecending of you. You want to ignore the situation? Go bury your head in the sand, but don't dare reffer to me as a murderer, without you knowing what is going on in my country. Good luck to you. ~moo

btw, we can just say that "regular users" can only add experiments they've done, and experts can add all experiments, including ones that are only in theory. Adding a User Points system, say, to grade the quality of a user so that he may end up helping us in the process, may end up to be helpful, no? ~moo

I did, and failed (again this is not the first system I'd do) but do you guys know an existing system that allows customized database fields? I'll look it up.. hmmmm... now that "google" became an official verb, i can tell you guys I am going to google it, and still stick with proper english ~moo

I completely understand what you're saying. The feeling in Israel is that at least until 9/11th' date=' it was Israel who did the "dirty work" for the world, fighting terrorism in the emmediate vecinity in the Middle East - terrorist cells that spawned the attacks on the twin towers and links to El Qaeda. I completey understand. I still think, however, that dealing with Syria before Iran would be wiser, concidering the fact Iran wouldn't get into syria's help, and the operation shouldn't take too long or too dificult. Also, Syria is holding so many terrorist cells, that destroying them would give a much better base and foundation for a war with Iran. Iran is far from being an easy target; it is VERY advanced, and ironically, it is quite western in its technology. I once read in a book something very true: In terms of Current Days Islam, we are now dealing with 14th century fundamentalists that have access to 21st century weaponary. I really do believe, sadly, that Iran has horrible weapons: if not operational nuclear warheads, then chemical/biological weaponary. I doubt they will be an easy target at a full blown war. Knowing the situation, though, I doubt it will START one either.. at least not officially.. this also explains who gives orders to the Hizbullah, and why they do it like THIS... imho. Iran would be a horrible opponent. I think it might be wiser to set the grounds with Syria first.. but it's my own opinion, of course It's worse than cowards, it's blindness. Many of the european countries are being filled with muslim cells. It is becoming a safe haven for Muslim Fundamentalists, and the countries that ignore it (like France, is the best example) will end up being Iranisized. I just hope the countries wake up soon, without waiting for the terrorism to reach their grounds in order to convince them.. ~moo

Thanks for your comments guys, I was hoping I managed to give you info without sounding too condencending Well, this is my view from experience and knowledge of the area (not a political-proven theory) so take it as it is -- I actually would guess that the "lebanese government", is not even an issue. Since before Hizbullah was in the government, Syria was a major player in the country, and Iran (and this actually is a well known fact) is the one pulling the strings behind Hizbullah operations. Ever since the Hizbullah entered the government officially, though, the government is unable to react, or even DO anything on the matter.. I don't think anyone in the government will go publically against the actions, but they do HINT against it, which is the best that they can do without losing their lives, I would imagine. Yeah, sadly you are right. This is also why in israel, the UN is called "OOM SHMOOM", OOM is the pronounciation of the hebrew abbreviation "U.N", and "shmoom" is like "noth'n". The U.N is very good at handing out papers and very bad at practically keeping any kind of fairness or peace in the area, so it really isn't working. As for solutions, well.. there are solutions, but they aren't to be made in the battleground. The solution against a militant terroristic cells are Intelligence and Direct-Response-Strike teams. You don't fight militant terrorist cells like you fight a country, obviously. What I truely hope is that Israel itself finally realizes that the Hizbullah is not as "old fashioned" and "unorganized" as it used to be. So far, it made a grave amount of damage that seems to be well planned. No doubt someone is pulling their strings, and I could bet it's Iran. Someone at work today said in half irony (seeing as Israel has many wars, each with its own colorful name), that he wonders how this war would be called. I said I truely hope that it wouldn't be called "War World III". It seems that if the situation gets bad enough, it might aswell pull the entire region into a very very bad situation. No doubt we have to get rid of the militant cells in southern lebanon, but they are not only the problem. Syria, for taht matter, is a huge incubator for terrorists including Hammas, El Qaeda and Hizbullah, and they are not going to fight those. Personally, I would hope the United States, in its fight against terrorism, would take Syria BEFORE it takes on Iran, since a war with Iran (with its capabilities) would DEFINATELY draw a third world war, or at least something quite similar to that. There is also, in my view, another thing worth understanding: There is a BATTLE that is done in Lebanon and Israel, but the war has already commenced around the entire world. What israel is fighting right now are the same people who branched out of the cells that attacked Embasies, blew out planes and taken down the Twin Towers in the name of Islam. This battle should be won, but the war itself would demand much more work from many other countries other than israel.. ~moo

Is it just me or are we debating in circles? Didn't we agree that there ARE NO PROOF either either way towards the health ramifications? I can also mention to you that the ENTIRE JEWISH NATION -- the oldest nation in the western world -- has performed this since its birth, and no harm was done to its male population. We can twist and turn this forever, having no progress. The debate on health issues is MOOT. There are no proofs. Let's move on, shall we? ~moo

Okay, uhm, no. Let me give you a brief brief history of the area. The name "Israel" comes from the name of Abraham, who had 12 sons, each had a section of the land of israel at about 1300 BCE after their exodus from Egypt. They eventually formed into the Jewish Nation, recieving the name from Judah (Yehuda), one of the 12 sons, who reigned the area. The rule of the israelites in the land starts with the conquests of Joshua (1250 BCE), and the period after that is concidered "The Period of the Kings". Most notable king is King David (1010-970 BCE), who made Jerusalem the Capital of Israel (up until then the city of Shiloh was concidered a semi-capital to the center of israel). He also built the first Temple in jerusalem, in the Temple Mount. In 587, babylonian Nebuchadnezzar's army captured Jerusalem, destroyed the temple and exiled the jews the babylon (modern day Iraq). This is also the most notable year in jewish history, since it was the first and most widespread exile, one from which the jewish nation was striving to get back to its biblically-promised land and rebuild the temple. Brief History on the Reign of Israel 587 BCE, Babylonian Empire: Distruction of the First Temple. 538-333 BCE, Persian Emprie: Return of the exiled Jews to Israel, and the construction of the second Temple. 333-63 BCE, Hellenistic: The army of Alexander the Great conquests the area. The greeks generally allow the Jews to run their state, but during the reign of king Antiochus IV, the Temple was desecrated. 63 BCE - 313 CE, Roman Empire: Titus conquered Jerusalem and destroyed the second Temple at 70 CE, dispersing the Jewish people to the diaspora. This, by the way, is the origins for the Hanukka holiday, the revolt of the Jews (which is up to this day VERY VERY controversial) and the situation in Massada. Whatever remained from the Jewish communities in israel at that time moved up to the northern parts of the Galilee, where the jewish law - the Mishna - was created. 313-636, Byzantine: Same situation. 636-1099 Arab Empire: Dome of the Rock was built by Caliph Abd el Malik, on the same ground that the long lost Temple of the Jews was once built, starting the most bloody and horrible conflict in the area, one that stays up to this day. 1099-1291, Crusaders: Those came from Europe to capture the holy land and massacared the non-christian population. Later Jewish community in jerusalem (ironically enough) immigrated to Europe aswell, creating the communities there. 1291-1516, Mamluk: Same situation. 1516-1918, Ottoman Empire: Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent rebuilt the walls of the Old City in Jerusalem. The population in Jerusalem increased during that time. Note, that this was a muslim reign. Quite ironic 1917-1948, British Empire: Great Britain recognizing the rights of the Jewish people to establish their own state, following the horrible ramifications of the holocaust. They declare the state of Israel as cut in two: Half to be handed to the Arabs (what is Jordan today), and half to the Jews. At the same day Israel celebrated its independance, the neighboring arab states commenced a bloody war against it, trying to retake the territory of the Jews to be their own. The jews prevailed. 1968, The Six Day War: Arab terrorists begin a massive campaign against Israeli civilian cities, following by a Syrian artillery attack, and Egyptian troops moving in towards Israel through the Sinay Desert, forcing israel to defend itself in war. After six days of fighting, Israel not only wins the war, but also conquests massive territories, one of which is the gaining back of Jerusalem and the Wailing Wall, but also "gains" a heavy burden in the shape of the Sinay Desert, Gaza Strip, The West Bank and the Golan Hights. Relative quiet leads israel to take a notion of grandness, and leading it to face its worst war yet: 1973, Yom Kippur War: Though some heavy intelligence reports suggesting the neighboring countries are about to strike a massive attack against israel simultaneously, the government decides to ignore the threat, concidering the fact it is Yom Kippur - "Day of Atonment", the holiest holiday for Jews, where all is quiet, no Radio is heard, and many citizen are in deep 24 hour fast, in synagogues. The Arab nations take advantage of this obvious weakness and invades israel in a full blown coordinated conquest attack. Two weeks of horrible fighting and terrible losses followed. Israel, however the gravest odds against it, aventually came out with the military upper hand (up to this day, the israelis do not concider this war to be "won", since the toll of death was so heavy). Crossing the Suez Canal and advancing within 20 miles from Damascus on the other front. Two years of difficult netotiations between Egypt and Israel led to a disengagement agreement, according to which Israel withdrew from parts of the territories captured during the war. Egypt refused completely to accept the Gaza Strip. 1982, Operation Peace for Galilee: This is the "Lebanon War", as it is called in israel, and I will not write too much about it, since it is a long long long lonnnnnnnnng story, with many faces to it. Up to this day, many of us israelis argue the pros and cons of this affair; in short, the terrorists in the area commenced heavy artillery fire on israeli civilian cities. Israel decided to commence an operation to stop the fire; this operation lasted way too long (and this is a personal view, obviously, to get the unbiased one, please look it up online ). If you wish, this is a nice site that explains the history of the Jewish in the region. http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Facts About Israel/History/Facts About Israel- History As you can see, however, this location was NOT arabic before it was jewish. The jews did not conquest the area from the arabs, and the UN did not give this land to the arabs; the U.N SPLIT IT. The arabs didn't agree to honor the split, and wanted to accept the ENTIRETY of the land. The arab nations, in fact, were the hostile ones. The Jews wanted merely to exist in their land, and they accepted in 1948 in dancing and merry celebration the little country they were given, without trying to fight their way towards the territories that biblically were "supposed" to be theirs. It were the Arabs that didn't agree to this. Now, while may of these wars are debateable, and in israel it is being debated up to this day in schools regularly, the main general "feel" of the wars is that they were DEFFENSIVE. The IDF is called "Israeli Defense Forces". Israel's army is striving for peace, and fighting for its survival against enemy neighbors. If you think I am biased - and I may be, heck, I am an israeli - please look up the history of israel online, but try not to state any facts without checking; I am one of those people who claim we actually SHOULD give out land for peace, but this is not as simple as it should be for two main reasons: 1. The palestinians do not WANT the territories; it was offered to them -- even HALF OF JERUSALEM - which is the holy city for the jews -- and not only did they refused, they started the Intifada in 2000. The Arabs proved also that they do not want ANY jews in the area, after 1948 fighting, where they wouldn't even agree to "the split in half" of israel. 2. The arabic mentality is a lot different than the western one, and this is DEFINATELY for another debate, but the important thing to remind you all, is that we are not talking about Democracy, we are talking about conquesting-nations. I am not saying there is no hope for peace, I am saying that in order to HAVE peace, we need to change our way of thought, and our way of conduct towards them. Of course we are not to kill everyone, but speaking in democracy-terms just doesn't work. The americans are sadly learning this in Iraq. I just hope I gave you a bit of extra knowledge about Israeli past. I've seen some people talk about the Israelis taking territories from the Arabs and felt strongly about correcting this. We did take territories, but out of self defense, and we are now discussing about returning these BACK to them. The areas they are currently attacking, however, were always Jewish. From the beginning of this land. The claims of Jewish people conquesting the land from the Arabs in 1948 struck a nerve. We might have had our share of warfare errors, and we conquested land, but we were not the only state doing that. Look back at the wars of America, and the European nations, calculate the number of yards conquested FROM OTHER NATIONS -- that belonged ot other nations -- and you will see Israel was one of the "gentle" ones in conquesting. I will stress again, that this fact doesn't mean we are to just keep the lands we conquested; we were one of the only countries in the world to RETURN a land conquested in war. How much of the land conquested in European wars, or in general wars around the world was NOT EVER RETURNED to their "rightful"owners? plenty. Other than that, claiming that one can understand why a nation has a "grudge" against another nation is just absurd. Even if there is a grudge (and if anything, the israelites should have one against the Arab nations, for STEALING the temple mount, read some history), it does NOT explain the lack of desire for talking on a compromise. Over the span of history, specifically that of the Israel State, the arab nations almost never had the desire to speak about a compromise on the area, while the Israel State tried its best to achieve such talks (again, read some history). The peace of Jordan was a move that Israelis concidered one of the GREATEST moves in the history of the nation, more so than the "peace" with egypt, since the peace with egypt is a cold one that came only as a response to the 1973 war (theEgypt peace came at 1978). The "grudge" -- and this is PRECISELY the problem - goes both ways. Israel is TRYING to get rid of that grudge, that spans many years before the beginning of the sate, but has great difficulties doing that, seeing the violent responses of Arab nations and Arab Terrorists. I just wanted you guys to have the right facts on the matter.. ~moo

I keep noticing specific things to comment, sorry for my flood here.. this is an emotional topic for me. Padren, let me remind you that in 2000, three israeli soldiers were kidnapped into lebanon in a much similar way than today. In the investigation, UN Soldiers (those specific soldiers that are posted in the area are mostly from india and arabic states, may i remind you) actually helped and looked the other way AS THE INCIDENT took place. Also, we have found a few red cross ambulettes travelling from and to the Gaza Strip carrying explosives inside them. This had to happen with the "shutting eyes" of the U.N. They didn't "help them", they just didn't bother stopping the terrorists. We don't trust the UN if our lives depend on it. Sadly, our lives do depend on it. Which is why the U.N stays off this one. ~moo

By the way, and this answers also a few other questions on the matter: it is true many of the civilians in Lebanon are sympathetic, but it is worse than that, since many of those who actually ARENT simpathetic (concider the fact Lebanon has a huge christian community, which is what led to their civil war in 1981) are just afraid out of their witts to do or say anything, seeing how anyone who does say anything against hizbulla is being shot for being a spy. This makes the situation worse, since we know that many of these civilians are being coerced - either by forceful education through the terrorist cells abusing the religion and convincing people to blow themselves up, or their 2 year old babies to dress up like Shahid Suicide Bombers for haloween - or by just killing off anyone who hints anything against them. Much worse trying to battle people that you know are not completely responsible for the situation (and are just living in a very bad place) than to battle a place that you know is against you full heartedly. I cried for an hour, seeing that little boy a few months ago on the Gazza Strip wearing a bomb around his waist. The boy carried a suicide belt, trying to smuggle it past the gates. The people who sent him told him that he is only delivering, but by the looks of the belt, they planned to detonate around our soldiers. He was only 12, when our soldiers found the belt, took a safety precaution distance, and called from a distance for him to cut the explosive off his shoulders. He cried miserably, changing his mind and yelling he does not want to die. Every soldiers there - and I happen to have a friend who was present - cried. If they'd come close to him to help, they would've died for sure, and he would have too. They had to yell from afar, and try to control their rising emotions at the sight of a crying young boy with a death trap on himself. The cynical use of innocent people in this horrible situation is just heart devastating, and it is something that a person has great difficulties handling. I spent three years of my life trying to deal with those decisions, being in the heart of the matter, commanding a group of soldiers that were about a year younger than me. I can't even begin to explain how life changing this experience is. We have a shitty situation there, and we try our best to solve it as ethically as we can... but sometimes we just have no other choice. ~moo

Okay, against my better judgement, I will comment only a very very little thing, on my knowledge. Before you scream and lash out on me, I want you all to take into account three things: 1. I have lived my life in Israel. 2. I have served in the IDF, the israely military, as a Lieutenant, for three years. 3. I am far from belonging to the "right wing", let alone the extremists. I usually am greatly in support for peace, even for the price of giving out lands. Now, unfortunately, and I will not get into specific stations and networks, most Media Companies, specifically in Europe, but also in the United States, are biased. Not as much "against israel" as they are "pro palestinians", portraying them as weak, poor, innocent people, and quite justly so, but up for to a point. The problem in israel is not as simple as people make it sound. The problem is not "Israelis vs. Palestinians", and the war we've been having ever since the birth of the state is NOT against palestinians. I get this argument a lot: "Why are you fighting the palestinians?? They are innocent people, they want their free land." Ignoring the fact that many of these innocent people are cooperating with terroristic groups and sending out their children to explode in busses and kill many israelis, this is just a wrong way of putting things. Israel has no fight with Palestinians. Israel has a fight with terrorists. Take this into account: Israel is a very powerful state, with a strong and powerful army, smart intelligence and good navy. We have faught many wars against incredibly bad odds and won, this says a lot. If we wanted to "fight the palestinians", or, for that matter, if we actually were at war with them, it would have taken us exactly three weeks to flatten out the entire territory, similarly to what the united states has done in the entire of afganistan and iraq. We didn't do that, we don't do that, and we don't even concider doign that. Moreover, every attack we do is an attempt to be as calculated as possibly possible, and if we didn't try as much as we do, many more innocent people woudl've died. But the world, my dear friends, is not as easily dealt with as we would've hoped. Let me give you a scenario: You know right this instant that there is a terrorist cell working in Washington D.C., that is so well planned and determined, that it is already almost done preparing an attack that will kill about 200 people in an office building with 3 simultaneous terrorist suicide bombings going off at a minute or two difference. You know that the place this squad is located contains civilians at the other floors, but the cell itself is working at the 5th floor at a specific room, where the bomb is done. This is a great discovery for your intelligence, and a very difficult one to obtain, as you might see as evidence of 9/11th. Now, you face this decision: You have good weapons that can cause damage only to this specific room on this specific building, kill those terrorists - since there is no other way to stop them - BUT this bomb you have carried by your best helicopter is not 100% accurate - as everything military isn't. It's only 90% accurate, and there is a slight chance that while hitting this specific location, you will also hit innocent people. What do you do? You wait 'till nightfall, when the office building is as empty as possible. You then send your chopper, with your most accurate way of response, and you act. And you are successful. And you just saved 200 people, at the cost of 5 terrorists. The unfortunate deal, is that these terrorists were hiding amongst civilians, to use them as human shield. 2 women die as a result. In any other fundamentalist country, this would be ignored. 2 women is a "small price to pay" for the lives of 200 people. But not in Israel. In israel, the news, the society, the court, the military, the government - everyone deal - and deal harshly - with the death of these civilians. Whether it was able to prevent, or whether this type of action should be done, or how, with who, when, and why. The fact we even have this type of debate when our country have absolutely no other option than to perform these direct prevention acts means we are trying our best to preserve our sanity and our ethics despite a lousy situation. Now. About lebanon. May I remind you that Hizbulla is a terrorist organization. In the late 1980s, it was the one responsible for 3 simultaneous bombing of U.S embasies around the world and the killing of many people in the name of Islam. In this incident, the Hizbulla were not engaged first, they were not taunted or tried at, they were not even shot at. At the late afternoon, the Hizbulla started firing at Israeli cities. CIVILIAN CITIES, not army posts, not army bases, not military vehicles: Civilian Cities. The military reacted by bombing the ORIGINS of the hizbulla missiles. A hummer with israeli soldiers patrolled the borders, when a missile emerged from the bushes and blew it up. Following that incident, terrorists jumped the fence within seconds, activating a further alarm, picked two wounded soldiers, carried them away. This is not even "prisoners of war" situation, it is a full blown kidnapping. I understand that many of you watch the news and see the damage done to the Lebanese people and their city and think about the horrible way Israel is dealing with the situation, but I would like to ask you to take a step back and think about how your own country would deal with a similar situation, where your country would've been bombed out of no provocation, then soldiers would've been kidnapped FROM within your own territory. Israel attacked the airport and the means of transportation, to prevent the terrorists from taking our soldiers to Iran, where we will not be able to free them. We could've destroyed Lebanon. We could've flatten 40 km radius from our border, to prevent the missiles from reaching our cities -- we don't do that. We thre pamphlets from aircrafts above Lebanese cities calling people to avoid going out to the airport, before we hit it. We called out to people to get into shelters outside the Hizbulla headquarters before we bombed it.. we are not as bad as the media loves to show us. I just wanted you all to think about how your own countries react to such horrific warmongering act. Tak into account that a third of the israeli population is right now inside shelters. Can you imagine it? A THIRD OF A COUNTRY. This is a call for war, and it did not come from Israel. Israel faced bombings for the past 6 years without going to war, and only reacting specifically to the point, to avoid hurting innocent civilians.. but there is a time - such it is now - that such privilege is no longer available. It is very different - and I am the biggest witness for that, being in America nowadays - to see the situation from afar and critisizing it, than to be IN THERE, knowing what is happening, knowing how much critisizm is going on inside israel to prevent the hit on innocent people, and to prevent war. We don't want war. Trust me. I lost 5 people to terrorist attacks, and only 2 of them were soldiers in action. The rest were bystanders in restaurants and bus stops that got hit by a suicide bomber. If anyone should "want to kill off the people that help terrorism" it should be me, but I don't. I don't want anyone to get hurt, not even the ones who educate people to hate the jews. I don't want a war, I want peace. I want to be able to change their education so that we will have a peaceful existance. I wish, with all my heart, that life were that simple. And I hope you have a slightly better view on what it is like on the other side. Even if just a small one. It was just important for me to show you the view of someone who actually lived there, and knows the situation from within. On a more personal note: ecoli, I hope your family is okay. If you want to tell me where your mother is, I can tell you what the situation is exactly at that location and the surrounding area. Be well, and don't worry, people are very well in shelters, and if she is in the middle of israel, she is certainly not affected by any bombings yet. ~moo

True, it is the bottom line of what we have, and it is also the ethical question. Is performing this action on a non-concenting child an ethical act? That is the question. I have to say that even though I am a jewish person, I too (and many of us) deal with this type of question. I think, however, that the situation in israel, for instance, and the fact that it is so widespread and common and concidered to be such an obvious action to perform even within the secular jewish communities, that this question - though dealt with - seems different than if asked within a society that is not used to performing it. I'm not saying this makes it more ethical, I am just trying to show the difference in cultures, as we discussed in many other "ethics-dealing" threads. Ethics comes mainly from society and upbringing, and when something is being past down through generations as being the healthy thing to do to a child (over the fact that it is passed down through religious groups as being the bond with god), and since no proof AGAINST this has been produced, it is - currently - concidered the ethical thing to do to a baby. I agree that this still has some very fundamental ethical issues within it, but we also need to remember that ethics is not "black and white". Like my example with the babies that have their ears pierced; in Russia it is more than common to do, and after this is done, by the time a child with earings in her ears grows up to have any kind of sense of self awareness to decide if she wants ones or not, her earing holes will not heal anymore. Is that ethical to do to her without her concent? In my view, it is the same type of situation. Since both are "body mutilation", or can be viewed as such, but either one has strong proof against (or for) the health benefits, it all comes down to social ethics. While I wouldn't do that to my baby, I might very well commit circumcision to my baby, for social ethical background that I was raised to believe in. This, pretty much, sums up my 2 and a bit more cents on the matter. ~moo

Okay, I have a practical question. I am a PHP/mySQL programmer. Though I don't have all the time in the world, I am willing to put effort into building a new engine using PHP and mySQL to power up a site that allows easy posting of experiments from users, sifting and approving those experiments and showing them in a comfortable way that allows searching. From what I can see, wiki style is not the right style for such a project, since it requires a different set of thinking. But if I do this, I will require - obviously - help. Mainly in styling and building the idea of a site, maintaining the data in it, and having people approving and adding experiments. Do you think we can do this, or do you think we need to stick to wiki? Can wiki (more than save the time of programming a new engine) FIT the goal of such site can give us, or should we build a new engine? BTW, I've done things like this before - programmed a large DB-Oriented Specific-Field search site with approval systems, comment section and such. It takes some effort, but it's not the end of the world, specifically if I have conceptual help. What do you guys think? Can we make this project? Enough people want this? ~moo

You can use yourself as the "reader" -- Take fingerprinting the "old fashioned way" - with ink and paper, and show how easy it can be to have 2 similar images on the paper. You can also explain HOW these machines work (comparing what types of points on the print) and show how you can fake it in theory.. you don't have to use a real fingerprint reader for that.. But you can probably find a cheap fingerprint reader that can be hooked up to a computer, it might be great for you, since you can program something to show a comparison of two different prints its getting. ~moo

Yeah, we wouldn't want an experiment on how to build an atom bomb... that would be stealing from all these other sites about this but seriously - yeah, there shouldn't be a free-posting mentality on that kind of site, but an approval method.. can that be done in wiki? or should we find another method? ~moo

It sounds like it would be a gold addition to the site in any case, seeing how those build the basis for experiments (if i understand correctly). It can be added as another section.

It seems to me that we're kind of trying forcefully to make the idea fit wiki, while it probably doesn't. Do you think we can make a DB-oriented site for this idea? ~moo

And if many people do it, you have a lot more info coming in than if only one person publishes his own experiments. Plus, I was also thinking about a way to get science closer to both young kids and adult lamens in a fun way - so if you have a bit of time, and you want to see or create something cool, you can look up some easy to do experiment with day-to-day items and get your brains working while having fun.. I am not sure wikistyle is the best way, though, after thinking about it. Wiki is more to people who know what they are looking for - the SEARCH for definitions, for instance. We need something that allows people to look up "fit for 12 year olds" and find all the experiments that fit the criteria, or "chemistery" in subject, and "takes 20 minutes" in another criteria, and find all the experiments that fit.. I am not sure wiki can do that.. ~moo

WiSci is supposed to be DEFINITIONS... I'm talking about "How To Conduct Experiments". Maybe the idea for WIKISTYLE is not that good, btw, in light of the contents. It should be based on categories/search in a permanent Database Style (steady recurring fields like "materials", "difficulty", "ammount of time", and so on). WiSci, which is a great site aswell, as much as I am quite bad in contributing to it, is not what I mean. ~moo