News Stories

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by Kuea

http://www.itworld.com/government/65...et-piracy-pact

Is this the end for Animesuki?

"[...]the countries involved have been discussing how to deal with criminal enforcement of each others' copyright laws."

So if the US starts "enforcing" Japan's copyright... then ....

This has been in the works since at least 2006, so I wouldn't hold my breath about it getting passed anytime soon. Even if it does, at worst, animesuki stops listing torrents. The site itself only links to the trackers, it doesn't host anything itself, so animesuki would be more or less int he clear. Traffic might take a hit, but I for one come here for the forums more than anything else.

Originally Posted by Fipskuul

Not surprising to see the free of guilt psychology the Americans share here. But it is my mistake to even question that. If the Iraq civilians killed because of the invasion cannot make the people behind that admit their responsibilities, then of course I cannot expect from people living in the same community something that requires even a higher level of understanding.

Ok, let's try this as a thought experiment...

As an American, I find your comments offensive. If as a result of that I were to go out and beat up someone who happens to be the same nationality as you are, I've clearly committed a crime and should be punished for it, correct? How about you though? Did you do anything wrong by saying that? Should you have been prevented from it because some crazy American might read it, took offense, and beat someone up because of it? Should you be held accountable for my actions there in any way?

[Sazelyt]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

Ok, let's try this as a thought experiment...

As an American, I find your comments offensive. If as a result of that I were to go out and beat up someone who happens to be the same nationality as you are, I've clearly committed a crime and should be punished for it, correct? How about you though? Did you do anything wrong by saying that? Should you have been prevented from it because some crazy American might read it, took offense, and beat someone up because of it? Should you be held accountable for my actions there in any way?

Apply this thought process on the majority of the people that you feel representing you, and if you get the same answer as the one you come up with, then yes, I should have a responsibility in that result.

[WanderingKnight]

Got to agree there. A unilateral dismantling of the US nuclear arsenal would be disasterous for preventing nuclear proliferation.

So what? Should the US dictate everyone to trash their nukes while they keep their deadly arsenal? Considering they're the most powerful country on the planet (and they're dictating the lifestyle and economic course of most of the world)?

Fucking hypocrites. It's almost like they're laughing at the rest of the world.

It is true that the United States led by Obama would like to abolish nuclear weaponry

Please, don't eat the crap that's coming at you from your president. He's the US president, and that means he wants to keep controlling the world like the US have been doing for the past century.

There's no real change. The powerful always act towards maintaining the status quo, because that's what made them powerful in the first place.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by Fipskuul

Apply this thought process on the majority of the people that you feel representing you, and if you get the same answer as the one you come up with, then yes, I should have a responsibility in that result.

Ok, how about if you made that comment on a non-english forum where you never expected an American to read it at all, but someone reposted it on an english forum without your consent and added a few lines, making it far more offensive? Do you still think you should have any responsibility?

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

So what? Should the US dictate everyone to trash their nukes while they keep their deadly arsenal? Considering they're the most powerful country on the planet (and they're dictating the lifestyle and economic course of most of the world)?

Fucking hypocrites.

Except that he's well... not doing that. Obama is continuing with an arms reduction treaty with Russia, and is quoted in that very article as saying he would meet with Russia later on this year to negotiate further cuts. The US and Russia have both been steadily reducing their nuclear arsenals since the 1980s.

Please, don't eat the crap that's coming at you from your president. He's the US president, and that means he wants to keep controlling the world like the US have been doing for the past century.

Yes, the US really dominated the world back in 1909.

Besides, the US can control the world even better if no one has nukes. No need to worry about MAD, and there's not much chance of anyone the US goes to war with winning a conventional fight.

[Terrestrial Dream]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

Except that he's well... not doing that. Obama is continuing with an arms reduction treaty with Russia, and is quoted in that very article as saying he would meet with Russia later on this year to negotiate further cuts. The US and Russia have both been steadily reducing their nuclear arsenals since the 1980s.




Yes, the US really dominated the world back in 1909.

Besides, the US can control the world even better if no one has nukes. No need to worry about MAD, and there's not much chance of anyone the US goes to war with winning a conventional fight.

But are they really going to get rid off all their arsenal? I really can't see US getting rid off their nuclear weapon.
And well in 1909 US's policy and today's policy haven't really changed much, both have sphere of influence or type of sphere of influence in part of the world. And do try to impose their policy on to other nations. But I am disagree that Obama is going to have the same policy from the past, imo the US' current policy are not going to work and having negative effect on them. So I think to improve US' image in the world and to better his country I think he will bring some change.
Also if US lost their nuke then imo it wouldn't really help the US as they would lose one of their bargaining cheap.

[ClockWorkAngel]

I would definitely advocate for not getting rid of nukes, nukes are basically a failsafe. If both sides have nukes, they take one another as hostages, they can't fire a nuke, it'll spell doom for them, in this way the balence of power is somewhat maintained. The big reason everyone doens't want other countries to get nukes is that the nukes cause problems. Especially in the hands of a deranged lunatic.

[SeedFreedom]

Originally Posted by Kuea

http://www.itworld.com/government/65...et-piracy-pact

Is this the end for Animesuki?

"[...]the countries involved have been discussing how to deal with criminal enforcement of each others' copyright laws."

So if the US starts "enforcing" Japan's copyright... then ....

Im... actually surprised that this isn't getting much attention. Most of the time when an anti-piracy news post gets put up theres a whole thread for it but this one seems to be slipping into oblivion. I don't see why this isnt any less legitimate than the other concerns.

[yezhanquan]

Originally Posted by SeedFreedom

Im... actually surprised that this isn't getting much attention. Most of the time when an anti-piracy news post gets put up theres a whole thread for it but this one seems to be slipping into oblivion. I don't see why this isnt any less legitimate than the other concerns.

The negotiations for enforcement would be akin to the Doha round of trade talks. It would take them forever to reach agreement.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by ClockWorkAngel

I would definitely advocate for not getting rid of nukes, nukes are basically a failsafe. If both sides have nukes, they take one another as hostages, they can't fire a nuke, it'll spell doom for them, in this way the balence of power is somewhat maintained. The big reason everyone doens't want other countries to get nukes is that the nukes cause problems. Especially in the hands of a deranged lunatic.

The trick is to have a sufficient number but no more than that. With the new weapons, if we could get everyone down to a few hundred that would be enormous -- saving money, maintenance, potential for accidents, items vanishing, etc ...

Estimates (culled from wiki on Bulletin of Atomic Scientists):
United States 4,075 / 5,535
Russia (former Soviet Union) 5,200 / 8,800
United Kingdom 160
France <350
China 160-400
India 100-140
Pakistan ~60
North Korea 0-10
Israel 100-200 (based on warhead material)

[Shadow Kira01]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

So what? Should the US dictate everyone to trash their nukes while they keep their deadly arsenal? Considering they're the most powerful country on the planet (and they're dictating the lifestyle and economic course of most of the world)?

Fucking hypocrites. It's almost like they're laughing at the rest of the world.

You see.. It is either you are misinformed or that you are reading and hearing the news wrong. Since when is the United States dictating everyone to abolish nukes? The term "dictating" implies that the United States is either threatening or intimidating other nations to do as they are told but that is definitely not the case. In fact, the United States don't even have such a capability to do so in the first place. The United States is seeking the cooperation of other nations to abolish nukes together. It is absolutely ridiculous to ask the United States to throw away their nuclear arsenal when more problematic nations have no intentions to do so. The only way for the US to lower their weapon, the others must also do so at the same time. Otherwise, it would only be an act of foolishness.

Please, don't eat the crap that's coming at you from your president. He's the US president, and that means he wants to keep controlling the world like the US have been doing for the past century.

There's no real change. The powerful always act towards maintaining the status quo, because that's what made them powerful in the first place.

The United States is not trying the control the world by the concept of world dominance but rather that they are trying to maintain balance and order in the world, so that rogue nations won't try to cause troubles for the rest of the world who seeks peace and prosperity.

What change is it that you seek? If the United States is not suitable to lead the world in a direction of peace and prosperity, while maintaining balance and order, which nation or nations are fit to do the job? Any suggestions??

The term "teamwork" cannot be applied directly to the world because "teamwork" never works well without leadership to begin it, even if it goes down to the line of individuals and groups, not mentioning that it is even more true when it comes to nations. Thus, which nation are you nominating to replace the United States?

[Hage-bai]

Originally Posted by Fipskuul

That kind of grouping, I believe, is not fair. Many people living in those dictatorships suffer more than you can imagine. And, in many cases, there is nothing those people can do, because the governments of those freedom-lovers all around the world support those dictatorships. And, those people may be the ones that would show tolerance towards another religions, but of course cannot do anything because of the consequences. If you start hurting those people, it will only help you strengthen those dictatorships, by giving them the argument they need to limit that tolerance. And in the current religiously polarized world I doubt that is something you would want to encourage.

It is those so called dictatorships that are pushing their agenda in the UNHRC, not the people, hence they should think twice about their agenda.

The people of IRAN voted for their current leadership post Shah. You probably blame the U.S and Britain for this. Oh jolly, those yankee doodle doos angered those poor iranians and now they gone and elected those darn islamist woman beater, gay hangers. While america's actions may have laid the path, the iranians had destiny in their hands. They failed.

After the Russians left Afghanistan. Who filled the void? Ultra-religious Taliban islamists. I'm sure it was the CIA's fault for paving their path to power. Islam as an ultra conservative political/religious ideology has no bearing on this.

America stops propping up the Pakistani establishment..i'm sure those open minded moderates will take over...not. Same with the Saudis. You can blame the western world for the state of the middle east in many ways. But the western world merely loaded the gun. Political islam and its constituents chose to pull the trigger. Obviously they are no "minority" over there.


The British have a large role in the destitution seen in Africa. Why did we not see an exponential increase in non-muslim african terrorists? America has had a grip on South America for years as part of its self interest. Many South Amercians are surely angry. Other than drug trafficking, and localized militia why do we not give a shit compared to dealing with Osama's whackjobs? The western world has loaded the gun. Why has the trigger not been pulled? Why do mere Danish cartoons allow people to so easily pull the trigger? Political islam. The true root and source of anger. The true conflict in ideologies is what has set this in motion irrespective of what the western world has or has not done in the past.

These countries in the UNHRC are fighting an ideological war. Where our ideologies collide, there is a battleground..be it Iraq, Afghan, Palestine etc. One such battleground is now being waged over the right to criticize one ideology by the other.

[Nosauz]

Originally Posted by Fipskuul

Of course it is not your fault. It is all Saddam's fault. Anything happens in the region is never US's fault. God bless them all, pure white silky angels sent by the God to the all humanity to erase all dirt in the world on God's orders. Zzzzz

Get over yourself... because clearly you have zero abilities to read. How the fuck is it my fault that Islam restricts women from going to school and then extremists go blow up innocent school girls in iraq and afghanistan? thats a problem with the inherent religion which imo is outdated.

[Shadow Kira01]

'Down with Communism!'

Nice!!

This is what happens when politicians try to get away with a "rigged" poll and hope that its citizens would pretend to be blind. Obviously, the Communists don't have the slightest clue as to what they are doing.

I just hope that none of the rioters get hurt in the process. Hope their "coup d'etat" will succeed!!

[NakedAngelX]

Well this could be a breaking news for today
Marie Moore shoots Mitchel Moore her son in the head then suicide.
Mad World it is~ But expect to see more of these throughout the year~

[Sazelyt]

Originally Posted by Hage-bai

America stops propping up the Pakistani establishment..i'm sure those open minded moderates will take over...not. Same with the Saudis. You can blame the western world for the state of the middle east in many ways.

Yes I can. Turkey is touched by those countries the least, and there is a significant difference between them and the others sharing the same religion. And, the current shift in Turkey away from the secular regime is also the result of US trying to mess up with the country. Of course I can say the same thing for Europe. They hailed the current Prime Minister as the bringer of real democracy, whereas he was a replica of the modern Taliban. I wish the kiss of death to govern the resources while colonizing and slavering the people in that region by the western countries would have stopped very long time ago. Of course, it doesn't always have to be that way, see Turkey.

The British have a large role in the destitution seen in Africa. Why did we not see an exponential increase in non-muslim african terrorists?

Because those people were most likely have been destroyed and sucked out of their resources beyond help very long time ago. And, forget about the terrorism, there is a maniac ruling in Africa, who calls himself a Muslim and kills at will.

The western world has loaded the gun. Why has the trigger not been pulled?

Maybe because they are from the same religion, and originated from the same region. They understand the need to colonize others being a colonists themselves. The weak gets swallowed by the strong. And who knows maybe they were thinking we are paying what we did to the people living here when we came here.

Why do mere Danish cartoons allow people to so easily pull the trigger? Political islam. The true root and source of anger. The true conflict in ideologies is what has set this in motion irrespective of what the western world has or has not done in the past.

I am not in that group, and I am still offended. It is not like I am going to take a weapon and start screaming. But with the low education level, the hatred towards other westerners in the region, it is not hard to believe what you see.

These countries in the UNHRC are fighting an ideological war. Where our ideologies collide, there is a battleground..be it Iraq, Afghan, Palestine etc. One such battleground is now being waged over the right to criticize one ideology by the other.

Iraq has been turned into what it is by US, include in that the significant support US gave to Saddam when he was with US, and the wars coming afterwards. Afghanistan is made into what it is by US, to create a stronghold against the Communists. And is there even need to discuss about Palestine, and the ongoing oppression there, even the children deprived of food and medicine, not by only the extremists there, but by also the country that has to carry the western beliefs.

Originally Posted by Nosauz

Get over yourself... because clearly you have zero abilities to read. How the fuck is it my fault that Islam restricts women from going to school and then extremists go blow up innocent school girls in iraq and afghanistan? thats a problem with the inherent religion which imo is outdated.

Man grow up. If you cannot, lock yourself in the anime section to avoid showing your level. The source of the problem is not only Islam. The root lies in your country's and other westerners desire to keep control of the region no matter what the consequences. They supported those extremists, as long as they get the benefits. This is a long-lasting problem strengthened by the politics of yours and other countries sharing similar beliefs. How long did it take for your country to consider African Americans as equal humans, despite living together with them so long. Multiply that view and project onto a Middle East, where your politics showed zero care of the people living there. This is a result you should watch closely to remind you of how messed up politics can turn a region into a hell.

Let me also tell you another thing. A religious leader who wants to turn Turkey into an Islamic regime, kind of like Humeyni, has been given long-lasting permission to stay in US. And the witnesses that person used to seal that permission were people from your government, like the CIA leader. And, by the acts of the same religious person, and his people forging documents, right now, people who has strong Westerner beliefs are being put into jail, the media is being oppressed at a level that has never been seen before. People who carries strong beliefs against those radicals in Turkey has been turn into terrorists with those forged documents. Many of those documents came from a place called Utah, where that religious leader currently stays. Do you really want me to believe your country have nothing to do with anything. Your country still continues to mess up other countries to create regimes that he feel like he can control. The same thing has been going on for age

[Xellos-_^]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/09/wo...irates.html?hp

Hours after pirates commandeered a United States-flagged container ship with 20 American crew members off the coast of Somalia on Wednesday, the pirates and crew appeared to be in a standoff, with the ship under control of its crew once again but the skipper a captive of the pirates.

Someone want to explain to me why ships passing through this area don't carry guns?

[Nosauz]

Pick and Choose, pick and choose. You avoid the whole entire point of my argument. Islam restricts women to be subservient to men which is not true, yet radicals continue to enact violence against women who seek to become educated. A religion that says that women are nothing more than servants to men is flawed because innocent people are still being butchered over what most of the DEVELOPED world considers fact that men and women are equal in mental capacity, and it is not genetic that men are superior to women.

[danin8r44]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

Someone want to explain to me why ships passing through this area don't carry guns?

If you carry guns on a boat in international waters it doesn't look like a merchant vessel anymore now does it? It either looks like a pirate vessel or some kind of a government military/intelligence vessel. Governments are very picky about this.

[Shadow Kira01]

Olympics: Tokyo Gov. Ishihara spells out reasons for hosting Olympics+

TOKYO, April 8 (AP) - (Kyodo)?Tokyo Gov. Shintaro Ishihara believes that the Japanese capital is the most appropriate to host the 2016 Summer Olympic Games because of its long commitment to peace.

"The Olympics are the world's biggest event aimed at promoting peace and harmony for all humankind. In that sense, Tokyo is better qualified than any other city," Ishihara said in a press conference on Wednesday in Tokyo hosted by the Foreign Correspondents' Club of Japan.


The International Olympic Committee will conduct a formal on-site visit to Tokyo for four days from April 16 after offering a glowing assessment of Chicago, the first city observed by the IOC inspection team.

"Japan has never been in any kind of war or conflict since the end of World War II. That's why Tokyo is the most appropriate city to stage the Olympics," the outspoken governor said.

Ishihara also introduced Tokyo's work on tree-planting and emission control projects and said, "I'm confident we are doing the best job among the four candidate cities in tackling environmental issues."

In addition, Ishihara revealed that Tokyo plans to join the International Carbon Action Partnership by the end of this month.

ICAP is made up of countries and regions that have implemented or are actively pursuing the implementation of carbon markets through mandatory cap and trade systems.

Madrid and Rio de Janeiro have also made bids. The IOC will select the host city on Oct. 2 in Copenhagen.

Under the leadership of Ishihara-san, I am certain that Tokyo will be a great place for hosting the Olympics of 2016. However, 2016 is definitely a very long time away..

[Nosauz]

i"d prefer madrid or rio de janeiro, those locals are really lovely, and really asia has gotten quite a couple of wins from the olympics commitee the past two decades so europe or sa actually would be a nice change, because you can't really just forget nagano was a decade ago.