Pakistan's Bhutto Killed in Attack by deadlockvictim

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
Damned Romans, what have they ever done for us. "All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?"

Orgies, toga parties, great subject matter for movies, the word "decimate", and large scale sports venues.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 31, 2007 9:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Your argument wouldn't hold up in court, councilor...

Not in the face of countless evidence to the contrary...hmm...must have misplaced the evidence to the contrary.

Tell me, when was the last successful terrorist attack on American soil? Oh, thats right, back in September...of 2001.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 31, 2007 9:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

Tell me, when was the last successful terrorist attack on American soil? Oh, thats right, back in September...of 2001.

So that proves interrogation techniques work? Laughable logic, I could say it proves that a butterfly farted in Siberia 1,000,000 years ago with the same assured thinking.

Apart from video documentation (Ooops, they accidentally got rid of that, didn't they?) linked to captured or killed terrorists, you assertion is hearsay at best.

Case dismissedisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 31, 2007 9:21 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
Damned Romans, what have they ever done for us. "All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?"

They certainly know how to keep order. Let's face it. They're the only ones who could in a place like this.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 31, 2007 9:27 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
in most cases I'd agree. If you're going for evidence leading to charges and a trial, then of course. If you're attempting to stop an attack in progress, not so much. Also not sure how you could get a warrant for, say, NSA computers doing keyword, voiceprint and voice-stress analysis of all international phone calls.

But our courts and laws make a distinction between foreign agents (spies) and citizens. So you can do all the spying you want on foreigners but not on citizens.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 31, 2007 10:10 AM

And here I was set to read about Bhutto's deathandall. Silly me,

Bad_karma

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 31, 2007 10:27 AM

As for spying on citizens, none of which even touches the fact that they were doing so, illegally, dragnet-style, at least 7 months prior to 9-11, so that excuse falls flat right there.

Nor has anyone else raised the proven history of such agencies spying on, harrassing, murdering and railroading american citizens nonstop throughout their entire existance, trafficking drugs, meddling in foreign governments (WHO originally financed OBL, I ask you?) and yet somehow, never ever managing even once to perform their primary, supposedly-intended purpose.

So umm, tell me again who the terrorists are ?

I have yet to see even one whit of evidence proving exactly which organisation or collective thereof committed the acts on 9-11, every bit of it has totally come apart... a so called pilot who couldn't fly a cessna, so called hijackers later found alive and well somewhere else, we have been offered NO proof whatever, just a pack of assumptions strung together by folks with utterly no credibility (and how bout them WMDs, eh?) spinning us some story blaming some jackass on their own payroll (Tim Osman, look it up) who denies any involvement in the only interview confirmed to be the dude in question, followed by some laughable tapes of some yutz who can't even speak the language properly and doesn't even look like him claiming the opposite... uh huh, suuure.

And let's not even go there about trusting MEMRI to translate anything for you...

So, no evidence, and six tons of bullshit from known liars with a history of backstabbing the people they work for more than anything else, and I am just supposed to buy this shit cause F*X news and so-called journalists who ADMITTED to taking bribes to write shill pieces tell me to ?

Get REAL.

And yet, on the other hand...

AJAX
NORTHWOODS
GARDEN PLOT
REX 84
CONPLAN 300/400
MKULTRA
BLUEBIRD
ARTICHOKE
MONARCH
CHATTER
COINTELPRO
GRANITE SHADOW
ECHELON
CARNIVORE
OMNIVORE

Oh my, the list goes on and on, hard, solid courtroom quality evidence, of our own so-called "protectors" fucking us over again and again far worse than any pathetic terrorista 3000 miles away could ever DREAM of.

Always holding up some "scare" that in the end has ALWAYS turned out to complete and total bullshit.

From the "Bugbears" of the post revolutionary era, to the spectre of the unions collapse, through both red scares and HUAC and now terrorism, subbing in drugs or financial meltdown when they have no other horror to scare us into submission with, yeah, right, such nice guys, always on our side, suuuure.

So on the one hand I am looking at a pack of jerks who are a KNOWN, PROVEN threat with a history of terrorism against american citizens, pointing the finger at some other bunch of jerks with a KNOWN, PROVEN history of terrorism against prettymuch everybody, and shovelling a story that fell apart as concocted bullshit almost immediately, and I am supposed to believe either set of these shitheads ?

And now they wanna be allowed to use tactics right out of the damned inquisition to get confessions, on anyone they damn well please ?

Are you NUTS ?

Name ONE major threat or attack these agencies have EVER stopped... go on, TRY.

And please note the laughable ones they've held up in the press, almost exclusively plain fiction or cooked up by an intel agent in the first place... or even executed by one, eh ?

How bout asking where the perps who bombed the WTC basement got the plans and the explosives eh ?
That'd be a start and my-oh-my, where does THAT trace back to, hmm ?

FACE THE EVIDENCE.

The jerks begging for permission to do this crap are in fact the single worst threat of terrorism on american soil, against american citizens, on the freakin planet, and if yer gonna question someone via waterboarding, it oughta be THEM you start with.

Does anyone else see the utter STUPIDITY of paying these yucks huge amounts of tax money and letting them run wild in spite of the fact that they do not, can not, or will not, perform their intended function, and commit more horrors against the citizens than the bastards they are supposed to be protecting us from could ever hope to ?

You wanna fight terrorism, and ensure the safety and protection of the people, how bout starting with serious, known, proven threats closer to home...

You know, like Langely, VA, for starters.

I know if I bought a guard dog that ignored intruders and mauled my kids, I'd be kickin it's ass over the fence in a damned hurry, that's for sure.

-Frem
Long road trips suck, btw.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 31, 2007 10:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Apart from video documentation (Ooops, they accidentally got rid of that, didn't they?)

Yeah, like they'd ever have allowed those videos out for you to see. You folks can't stomach people being tasered. Your delicate sensibilities would never be able to handle watching interrogations.

Quote:

linked to captured or killed terrorists, you assertion is hearsay at best.

Actually its known as Circumstancial evidence. Legally that type of evidence is very effective.

For example, direct evidence can show a person had a blood alcohol level over the legal limit and the person was found behind the wheel of a wrecked car, that person can be found guilty of drunk driving despite the fact nobody saw them driving.

Another legal example is used by the Judges to explain this type of evidence to the Jury. If you go into the building at noon and its all dry outside and you go out at 1pm and its all wet, then you can assume based upon circumstancial evidence that it rained between 12 and 1.

9/11 happened, then we started doing the things we do to stop stuff like that, no successful attacks since (and a number of high or no profile failures). Unless you can prove otherwise a reasonable person (good luck finding one on the left these days) can find that the anti-terrorist programs have been largely responsible for preventing further attacks.

So before you go dismissing your case how about some evidence these programs are not working.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 31, 2007 11:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
As for spying on citizens, none of which even touches the fact that they were doing so, illegally, dragnet-style, at least 7 months prior to 9-11, so that excuse falls flat right there.

Yeah right. And what flavor cool aid do you mix your crazy with?

Januay 20, 2001.
Bush- "Ok, first order of business, lets start spying on all the people in America. How soon can we have that up?"

Condi- (Pushes button on laptop) "Done, what are we looking for?"

Bush- "Oh, all the really dangerous stuff. Make sure they flag referrences to Little League Baseball on the White House lawn, any mention of No Child Left Behind, how people are spending their tax rebate check...oh, and make sure to pay special attention to attractive female Democratic
Congressional Interns on the off chance any go missing."

Condi- "What about Islamic Jihadists?'

Bush- "No, Clinton took care of all those, nothing to worry about there. Thank goodness Bill Clinton managed the hard stuff like the Oil shortage, terrorism, and left us a robust economy and military capable of fighting off just about any war he could imagine."

Condi- "Yeah, makes our job easy."

Bush- "Oh, and make sure to put that special detail on that PirateNews fella...Queen Elizabeth wants him to meet one of those Gangsta Govt Commie-Jew Nazi Death Squads we have posing as the Tennessee State Highway Patrol...don't kill him though...just give him a speeding ticket. That should REALLY confuse him."

Quote:

So umm, tell me again who the terrorists are ?

They are most distinguishable by the vests they wear.

Quote:

I have yet to see even one whit of evidence proving exactly which organisation or collective thereof committed the acts on 9-11, every bit of it has totally come apart...so called hijackers later found alive and well somewhere else

So called Crazytalkers talkin crazy and then being cited by other Crazytalkers as proof because nobody bothers to refute the absurd.

Quote:

So, no evidence, and six tons of bullshit from known liars with a history of backstabbing the people they work for more than anything else, and I am just supposed to buy this shit cause F*X news and so-called journalists who ADMITTED to taking bribes to write shill pieces tell me to ?

Are you an Obama supporter? Maybe not you...one of your other personalities.

Quote:

AJAX
NORTHWOODS
GARDEN PLOT
REX 84
CONPLAN 300/400
MKULTRA
BLUEBIRD
ARTICHOKE
MONARCH
CHATTER
COINTELPRO
GRANITE SHADOW
ECHELON
CARNIVORE
OMNIVORE

Not to mention VIAGRA and CHICK FIL'A (which are oddly good when mixed together).

Quote:

And now they wanna be allowed to use tactics right out of the damned inquisition to get confessions, on anyone they damn well please ?

HEY! This is the 21st Century. We're much better at this then the inquisition. Its digital.

Quote:

Name ONE major threat or attack these agencies have EVER stopped... go on, TRY.

Well there's...

Quote:

And please note the laughable ones they've held up in the press, almost exclusively plain fiction or cooked up by an intel agent in the first place... or even executed by one, eh ?

Ok, so you only want me to name ones that have not been released. Ok, there is the plot to [CENSORED]. There, THAT one is undeniable.

Quote:

You wanna fight terrorism, and ensure the safety and protection of the people, how bout starting with serious, known, proven threats closer to home...

You know, like Langely, VA, for starters.

Ok. Everybody in Langely pack it up and go home. There, now America is safe...for terrorists. Thanks.

I note for the record that if America is the evil you think it is you'll be dead by morning...death squads. Should you survive to rant again, then you prove my argument...that your just a bit off base as to who the enemy is. Should you in fact be tracked down and murdered by a death squad dispatched from Langley...then I promise to reconsider the arguments you have made. If you survive the night, I would ask the same consideration.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 31, 2007 12:17 PM

All Righty then! Just a brief commercial break in the ongoing debate on whether America is really Amerika, (it isn't but I promised not to say that, oops, I said it, but I didn't mean to, does that count?)

Anyway, suddenly there's a lot of hoopla (is that a word, btw?) over medical reports and such like in Bhutto's death. And I noticed that before the body is cold, both her husband and son have offered themselves up as replacements for her.

Now it seems that the Bhutto government was *gasp* corrupt in some small ways, like lining their pockets with money that wasn't strictly there's and such like.

So, is she dead, or isn't she? And ain't is odd that a woman who knew she was being targeted was standing in the sunroof of an armored vehicle? Doesn't that sort of defeat the purpose of HAVING an armored vehicle?

In all honesty, I don't know that I'm really caring about this, since no 'democratic' Muslim government that I know of has ever been anything more than a dictator with an electoral college. And Omar Shariff was keeping a lid on the Paki's pretty well. . . . .no, it was Mumar Osharif. . .no that's not right either. ANyway,

What difference does it make, anyway? These people live in a barbaric culture, and have been killing each other in droves since. . .well, since. It won't matter who's in charge, that won't change, IMO.

We, as in the US, will never be friends with these people. We may be friends TO them, witness the tsunami relief, where a man with a shirt that said "I LOVE OSAMA" was videoed unloading relief supplies from a US NAVY chopper.

But they will never be OUR friends, no matter what we do, or don't do. Period. ANyone who thinks they will? Two words for ya;)

Crack Kills.

Bad_karma

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 31, 2007 12:20 PM

Damn Hero, when I try to make you look foolish, dogmatic, or blinded by your own biases - it really takes all the freakin fun out of it when you help me build the case!

Get off my side, curse it... it's MY job to make you look bad, and if ya keep leaving me nothin to do, I may be downsized from the ministry as a surplus position and prolly outsourced to china!

You don't want some chinese dude flaming you in broken english do ya ?

Quit helpin me make ya look like a twit then.

Oh.. yeah...

Happy New Year.
..Berk.

-F
*Get back to me when you can actually refute any of it, eh ?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 31, 2007 12:24 PM

BK, I may not necessarily agree with your entire assessment, but I think we can find the common ground here in the fact that sticking OUR nuts in that wringer is a damn stupid thing to do and we should worry about more important issues since it's not our country nor are we responsible for it, or to it.

Trade with em, sure... stick our necks out to meddle in their internal affairs ? hell no.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 31, 2007 12:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

So before you go dismissing your case how about some evidence these programs are not working.

First give me the evidence that you stopped beating your girlfriend.

I'm sure some attacks that could have actually killed some folk have been stopped, but not because of some sweeping "War On Terror"; it was through good intel- you don't need a nation stirred up into a pro-torture frenzy to accomplish that.
Biped.

Mean Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 31, 2007 12:50 PM

MAL4PREZ

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Biped.

*snort*

Fred - Yeah, I'm lovin how I accuse Hero of mistaking TV for real life, then he uses a TV show as a statement about real life. (Was he serious? Really? It's just not possible...)

Happy New Year all. May we make it through the next one with a little more sanity up top.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 31, 2007 12:51 PM

Actually, I will amend my argument on Paki for one reason, and that is the fact that have a nuclear arsenal. I really feel better with Umbar Whazitstuf in charge, than a woman dumb enough to ride around with her head out the sunroof, knowing she's a target. It's in our best interest to ensure stability in these Islooney countries that have the neither confirm nor deny ability. Other than that, I'll stand by the other.

No nukes? No cares;)

Bad_karma
Great and Exalted Grand Pooba, International Brotherhood of Moonshiners, Rednecks, and Good Old Boys.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 31, 2007 3:44 PM

While I realize that the thread has somewhat drifted, I did find this rather interesting news article a little while ago.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080101/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_pakistan

Seems that Mister Bhutto, who was, interestingly enough, in charge of security for the 'little woman', had recieved not only credible intel from the US about an attempt on the Queen, or whatever she was, but had ALSO been given some rather sage advice by both brit and us officials concerning security measures that should be taken if Mrs Pakistan was intent on keeping up her schedule.

And now he and the son, who says that the "Bhutto name is everything to me now", are volunteering themselves as the new 'leaders' of Mrs Democracy, But Not Really's party.

Curiouser and Curiouser

Bad_karma
Great and Exalted Grand Pooba, International Brotherhood of Tailgaters, Gator Haters, Fried Taters, and good, cold, beer

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 31, 2007 4:08 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

I note for the record that all US Special Forces troops are subject to waterboarding during their training process and that captured military personel are lucky if waterboarding is the least they get. In the words of a Special Ops guy I know...waterboarding isnt something worth losing your head over...especially when the alternative is losing your head.

H

Hello,

The torturous impact of waterboarding might possibly be mitigated by the following factors in the case of a SpecOps candidate:

1) You volounteered to be waterboarded.
2) Friendlies are doing the waterboarding.
3) You know the waterboarding will end soon.
4) You know the people waterboarding you want you to live intact through the experience.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 1, 2008 9:09 AM

Yet another very interesting story on Bhutto's death,

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/pakistan-backtracks-on-sunroof-claims/200
71230100409990001

I'm telling you, when it's all said and done, the husband did it.

And now he's crying that he want American to help him find who killed his wife. Just like the 'normal' wife killers scream at the police to quit pointing the finger at him, and find the real killers.

Course, sometimes they're innocent, but then, they don't stand to inherit a political party, and a wave of sympathy votes on the eve of a national election.

I've already broken one of my new year's resolutions, and it's still new year's day. I'm hopeless.

Bad_karma
Great and Exalted Grand Pooba, International Association of New Year's Resolution Breakers and Political Cynics

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 1, 2008 12:44 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Iyt' beginning to look like Bhutto was assassinated government-style by the ISI.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 1, 2008 1:22 PM

Anything's possible, of course, but I don't see it. Umar, or whatever the GeneralPresidente for life's name is, stike's me as smarter than that.

Also, Bhutto wasn't predicted to win, as many of the Pakistanis were reported as remembering her 'regime' as a corrupt one.

Still, maybe Omar saw her as a threat, and had her taken out, I don't know for sure. I DO know that if I was investigating it, I'd be taking a long look at the hubby, after some of the things I've been reading.

He ignored a great deal of sound advice from British and US officials about Bhutto's security arrangements, as well as several private firms. And he was in charge of her security.

And, before the body is cold, he and the son are stepping up to 'take charge' of the political party she headed. Added to that, it was the hubby who absolutely refused to allow an autopsy on the body.

Reports from the cursory exam where that she died from a blow to the head, which left a cranial depression some six to eight inches in diameter. That is not a bullet wound.

COuld have been debris, since I understand a bomb was involved, though I haven't seen any footage of the event, so I can't form a real opionion.

I suppose we'll never really know, but any unrest in a militant muslim country with Nukes is cause for concern, not just in the US, but everywhere.

Of course, unrest in ANY country with nukes is cause for concern, so it's not something that is unique to muslim countries. I'd laugh here, but it's not really funny.
Maybe a little ironic laugh. Or a snort, like. Yeah, an ironic snort.

Bad_karma
Great and Exalted Grand Pooba, International Association of Cynics, Psychics, and Beatnicks

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 2, 2008 7:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Iyt' beginning to look like Bhutto was assassinated government-style by the ISI.

Yeah, and they did it leaving no evidence.

Matter of fact its also starting to look like Bhutto was assassinated by Jay Leno's striking comedy writers. And this sort of killing is exactly the sort of thing we've come to expect from the radical Canadian Historical Association / Société historique du Canada.

And there is every indication this was another tiger attack...but she was taunting it with a slingshot (perhaps a higher wall really is needed).

Or, it could be those Islamic Militants who have been trying to kill her for months using exactly these tactics and taking advantage of lax security and Bhutto's own disregard for her safety. Naw...no evidence of that.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 2, 2008 9:44 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
...Or, it could be those Islamic Militants who have been trying to kill her for months using exactly these tactics and taking advantage of lax security and Bhutto's own disregard for her safety. Naw...no evidence of that.

Fra. Ockham, Hero found your razor.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 2, 2008 9:48 AM

Saw this story a little while ago, where Mustardish, or whatever, is asking Scotland Yard for help in the investigation

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080102/ap_on_re_as/pakistan

To my mind, if he had anything to do with Bhutto's death, he wouldn't be asking for outside assistance from a fairly competent source. He'd be asking for, say, the FBI, lol.

My money is still on the husband, for reasons already mentioned. But I'm honest enough to admit that I don't know, at the moment.

Bad_karma
Great and Exalted Grand Pooba, International Brotherhood of Moonshiners, Rednecks, and Good Old Boys.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 2, 2008 10:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Fred - Yeah, I'm lovin how I accuse Hero of mistaking TV for real life, then he uses a TV show as a statement about real life. (Was he serious? Really? It's just not possible...)

Apparently you feel the need for some sort of response.

Polls have constantly showed that while Americans do not generally support torture, they do support the need for aggressive interrogation tactics such as waterboarding (which simulate an act like drowning which is actual torture) and other methods that cause discomfort to the subject.

Those polls skyrocket on the subject when the question includes qualifiers such as the subject having direct information that could stop attacks and save lives or if there is a time constraint.

Add to that the fact that among the most popular television characters in recent history is a character who regularly uses torture, murder, blackmail, etc.

I think that a compelling argument can be made that people want the information those folks have and they understand that they may not like or approve of the methods needed to get the information, but the exigent circumstances are such that the methods have the implied approval of law and the American people. Its one of those things they just don't want to know too much about. Thats why they elect folk to make these decisions for them. It insulates them from the guilt.

Thus, like all good Americans, I abore torture and think it should NOT be legal, but I want our officials to use it if necessary and applaud the results of the use demonstrated in the prevention of attacks and the arrest or killing of terrorists, but should I learn of the use of those illegal methods by members of the government I expect those persons to be prosecuted and jailed, but I understand that places the intellegence persons in an untenable position of having to suffer for doing a job I expect them to do and that must be done for the good of everyone, thus I expect every measure to be taken to prevent me from knowing the things I don't want to know. Its complicated, but that is the mindset of most Americans on this subject.

Your's is different. You agree that torture should be illegal. You also agree that those who use it should be prosecuted. You just think that its better for innocents to die in unprevented attacks and you WANT the rest of us to know the things thatwe really don't want to know so that the rest of us are forced to act to prevent the torture rather then acting to prevent the terror.

Your opinion is complicated as well and I appreciate it. Unfortunately your opinion results in terrorist attacks being more likely to happen and the arrest and prosecution of those often in the best position to prevent them. That is a recipe for disaster and I urge you to reconsider.

Its better to debate the finer points of moral argument over coffee on a peaceful morning then it is during the funeral of a loved one killed in a preventable terrorist attack.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 2, 2008 10:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by badkarma00:
To my mind, if he had anything to do with Bhutto's death, he wouldn't be asking for outside assistance from a fairly competent source. He'd be asking for, say, the FBI, lol.

To be fair, the FBI is probably better at this then just about anybody. That 'just about anybody' is probably Scottland Yard so I think his pick is good because SY has a much lower political flag and Britain has a decent rep in the area.

Quote:

My money is still on the husband, for reasons already mentioned. But I'm honest enough to admit that I don't know, at the moment.

I don't doubt there were a lot of folks, like the husband, who'd be happy to benefit from all this. That goes to things like failure to have good private security, failure of the police to do a good job, and even a little thing like pulling her down and saying "lady, don't be standing up like that..."

But my money is on the Jihadists. They were coming its their fault. Bhutto could have been walking around without any security at all and it would have been fine without all the folks out there trying to kill her.

Its like the tiger killings in San Fransisco, some folk want to ignore the tiger and its history, but the tiger is the one who did the killing...low wall, slingshot, alcohol...whatever, the tiger killed that teenager.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 2, 2008 7:16 PM

"preventable terrorist attack."

No. Such. Thing.

And until damn fools realize this, were stuck in the idiotic cycle the same way we were with prohibition, and now are with the war on (some) drugs... and now GWOT, yeah, right.

Best way to prevent it is not shitting on and pissing off the rest of the world any more than you have to in order to ensure your own interests inside your own borders.

Alternatively, you could consign us all to rubber rooms after taking our shoes and belts away, but I would bet you even THAT would not make us "safe", just unfree.

Give me back my freedom and let ME deal with these assholes, worst they can do is kill me, and if they fumble that ball, I'll be returning the favor.

REALLY scary thought of the day ?

When mainstream newsies are saying the same thing your resident anarchic type is... I kid you not.

THIS post,
(BAH, I can't figure how to direct link it, but it's above in this thread, the one flaming our intel agencies)

and then THIS editorial.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucru/20080103/cm_ucru/anironfistinavelvetglove
;_ylt=AveCQFLnHcfM1.Di_1Ocqu_9wxIF

Freaky, innit ?

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 3, 2008 5:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
"preventable terrorist attack."

No. Such. Thing.

And until damn fools realize this, were stuck in the idiotic cycle the same way we were with prohibition, and now are with the war on (some) drugs... and now GWOT, yeah, right.

Then how do you explain PREVENTED terrorist attacks?

Or is it your contention that aside from successful attacks NO other attack have ever been attempted? Cause I think that's a pretty difficult conclusion to reach.

Since 9/11 there have been no successful attacks in the United States. Is it your contention that aside from 9/11 there have been no attempted attacks in this country that have failed because of one reason or another?

Your contention seems to be that we are at the mercy of terrorists who can strike at their whim (since you say their attacks can't be prevented) and yet they choose not too...why?

Sorry, I just can't see how you can claim that terrorist attacks can't be prevented.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 3, 2008 6:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

Then how do you explain PREVENTED terrorist attacks?

Okay, imma break it down for ya. 9-11 was their summer blockbuster, and it didn't make the expected bucks- in fact, it lost them $. So, no sequel.
Small independents were certainly released, but they made no impact as they found no audience.

Now Hero, take your blue pill.

Simplifying Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 3, 2008 6:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Okay, imma break it down for ya. 9-11 was their summer blockbuster, and it didn't make the expected bucks- in fact, it lost them $. So, no sequel.

I disagree.

Nearly everybody bought a ticket to 9/11, although few liked what they saw (kinda like a Michael Moore movie). The reason for no sequel is because they couldn't line up the actors (who are all dead or in Gitmo...except Bin Ladden who's in rehab), the financing hit a snag, no studio support, and there's a lot of counter programming.

Not to mention that everytime somebody floats a script...it bombed by the critics.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 3, 2008 6:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
The reason for no sequel is because they couldn't line up the actors (who are all dead or in Gitmo...except Bin Ladden who's in rehab), the financing hit a snag, no studio support, and there's a lot of counter programming.

Hey, LOL, not bad, H!

But I'm lookin' forward to Bin Laden starring in the remake of Scanners when he gets out of rehab- I really wanna see the dude's head explode.

MovietalkChrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 3, 2008 7:36 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Did anyone hear Bhutto's interview by (Sir) David Frost? In it, she clearly names one person as being involved in bin Laden's murder. Funny, but Frost never followed up on that.

FREM: Scary article. I think everyone should read it.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 3, 2008 8:15 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Freaky, innit ?

I especially love this part.

"People who hate The People never sleep. In 2006 Congress passed the National Defense Authorization Act, which overturns the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which prohibited the use of combat troops on the soil of the United States. For the first time in 128 years, the president can declare martial law in case of a hurricane, riot or terrorist attack."

So, after bitching about how Pres. Bush didn't use the military to help during and after Katrina, despite the fact that he was constrained by law from doing so, they're now bitching because Congress is allowing him the power to do what the Katrina bitchers wanted him to do in the first place.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 3, 2008 8:51 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I think you have it wrong Geezer. People didn't complain so much about not using the "military" as much as they bitched about not using the National Guard... which is a different matter altogether.

But it's very much in keeping with this President's MO to use an incident to push forward unrelated limits on our freedoms.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 3, 2008 9:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

So, after bitching about how Pres. Bush didn't use the military to help during and after Katrina,

Oh yeah, you can go back to the Katrina threads and see that we all wanted martial law declared in NO...why I myself bitched about how if the military was allowed to shoot at the rising water level, it would have receded- yeah, Army, Navy- we wanted it all.
Biped.

Derogatory Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 3, 2008 10:26 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Meanwhile... The current Administration was looking pretty hard to dump Musharraf in favor of someone more cooperative. I doubt that Benazir Bhutto would have made much of a difference to the average Pakistani; her earlier government was marked by corruption and stagnation. But she was Bush's choice* and would have relied on/ allowed a freer foreign hand, possibly even so far as to allow the USA to rout the Pakistani Interservice Intelligence (ISI), which has been coddling fundamentalist groups for decades in return for a cut of the opium trade.

I think that either Musharraf or the ISI -or both- figured that their days were numbered and that Benazir was a serious threat.

* If our administration had not been for her, the press reaction to her death would not have been weeping and wailing. It would have been a celebration.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 3, 2008 12:08 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I think you have it wrong Geezer. People didn't complain so much about not using the "military" as much as they bitched about not using the National Guard... which is a different matter altogether.

The President couldn't use the Federalized National Guard within the US prior to this legislation. That was reserved for the States.

Here's the section of the legislation, just so you know.

Quote:
SEC. 1076. USE OF THE ARMED FORCES IN MAJOR PUBLIC EMERGENCIES.

(a) Use of the Armed Forces Authorized-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 333 of title 10, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

`Sec. 333. Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law

`(a) Use of Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies- (1) The President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to--

`(A) restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that--

`(i) domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order; and

`(ii) such violence results in a condition described in paragraph (2); or

`(B) suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrection, violation, combination, or conspiracy results in a condition described in paragraph (2).

`(2) A condition described in this paragraph is a condition that--

`(A) so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or possession, as applicable, and of the United States within that State or possession, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State or possession are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or

`(B) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

`(3) In any situation covered by paragraph (1)(B), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.

`(b) Notice to Congress- The President shall notify Congress of the determination to exercise the authority in subsection (a)(1)(A) as soon as practicable after the determination and every 14 days thereafter during the duration of the exercise of that authority.'.

(2) PROCLAMATION TO DISPERSE- Section 334 of such title is amended by inserting `or those obstructing the enforcement of the laws' after `insurgents'.

(3) HEADING AMENDMENT- The heading of chapter 15 of such title is amended to read as follows:

`CHAPTER 15--ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAWS TO RESTORE PUBLIC ORDER'.

(4) CLERICAL AMENDMENTS- (A) The tables of chapters at the beginning of subtitle A of title 10, United States Code, and at the beginning of part I of such subtitle, are each amended by striking the item relating to chapter 15 and inserting the following new item:
331'.

(B) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 15 of such title is amended by striking the item relating to sections 333 and inserting the following new item:

`333. Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law.'.

(b) Provision of Supplies, Services, and Equipment-

(1) IN GENERAL- Chapter 152 of such title is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

`Sec. 2567. Supplies, services, and equipment: provision in major public emergencies

`(a) Provision Authorized- In any situation in which the President determines to exercise the authority in section 333(a)(1)(A) of this title, the President may direct the Secretary of Defense to provide supplies, services, and equipment to persons affected by the situation.

`(b) Covered Supplies, Services, and Equipment- The supplies, services, and equipment provided under this section may include food, water, utilities, bedding, transportation, tentage, search and rescue, medical care, minor repairs, the removal of debris, and other assistance necessary for the immediate preservation of life and property.

`(c) Limitations- (1) Supplies, services, and equipment may be provided under this section--

`(A) only to the extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession concerned are unable to provide such supplies, services, and equipment, as the case may be; and

`(B) only until such authorities, or other departments or agencies of the United States charged with the provision of such supplies, services, and equipment, are able to provide such supplies, services, and equipment.

`(2) The Secretary may provide supplies, services, and equipment under this section only to the extent that the Secretary determines that doing so will not interfere with military preparedness or ongoing military operations or functions.

`(d) Inapplicability of Certain Authorities- The provision of supplies, services, or equipment under this section shall not be subject to the provisions of section 403(c) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170b(c)).'.

(2) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

`2567. Supplies, services, and equipment: provision in major public emergencies'.

(c) Conforming Amendment- Section 12304(c)(1) of such title is amended by striking `No unit' and all that follows through `subsection (b),' and inserting `Except to perform any of the functions authorized by chapter 15 or section 12406 of this title or by subsection (b), no unit or member of a reserve component may be ordered to active duty under this section'.{/quote]

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 3, 2008 4:56 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Under the U.S. Constitution, each state's National Guard unit is controlled by the governor in time of peace but can be called up for federal duty by the president." ... including for natural disasters. Blanco wanted to keep control of the Guard, Bush wouldn't order them to duty unless she caved on (Consitutional) state control.

It's that littel word 'MAY' within the text of the quote "The President 'MAY' employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service ..." In other words, Bush used an emergency (yet again) to take greater executive control outside of his explicit constitutional authority.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 3, 2008 5:46 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
In other words, Bush used an emergency (yet again) to take greater executive control outside of his explicit constitutional authority.

Interesting. So you think that any laws passed by Congress are unconstitiounal unless YOU approve of them?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 4, 2008 10:49 AM

Posse Comitatus refers to them being used to keep order, assist the police, whatever...

Ain't nothin whatever that prevents the Guard (or the Militia*) from laying sandbags to stem flooding and protect houses, or handing out relief supplies, nor aid reconstruction and cleanup efforts - something a lot of National Guard troops kinda grind their teeth over when this is prevented.

Whatever one might think of the MI Militia, they can be counted on to assist in search and rescue or disaster relief, and can field a lotta folk in a hurry, especially after some hard lessons during the big blackout about the importance of secondary communication.

As for the military however, they have completely destroyed their own reputation with Katrina, instead of laying sandbags to stem the tide, the primary image most folk have of them are seizing peoples weapons and forcibly evicting them.

Given what happened with that, thanks, but no thanks, I will call upon the Wolverines FIRST, cause they'll actually assist instead of taking the opportunity to abuse.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 4, 2008 10:56 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

There is no part of the Legislation that doesn't scare the crap out of me.
It should have been written as

Quote:
(1)The President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to--

Provide aid and assistance in times of emergency under the direction of the responding disaster agency, including but not limited to transportation, medical and food supplies, engineering, evacuation services, and temporary housing.

Period.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 5, 2008 8:15 AM

MAL4PREZ

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Polls have constantly showed that while Americans do not generally support torture, they do support the need for aggressive interrogation tactics such as waterboarding (which simulate an act like drowning which is actual torture) and other methods that cause discomfort to the subject.

Turn away from Fox news for a spell. The debate contains the question of whether waterboarding is torture. You assume here that it is not. I think a majority of Americans believe that it is.

I have no hard numbers handy to back that up, but I'll throw this at you: http://waterboarding.org/torture

Quote:
Add to that the fact that among the most popular television characters in recent history is a character who regularly uses torture, murder, blackmail, etc.

OK... pay attention... Fiction. It's a work of fiction. Entertainment.

Hey - I cheered on Neo when he stormed the lobby of the building in the first Matrix, but that doesn't mean I'm cheering that shit on real life!

Really - please, Hero, this is the first point where I'm wanting a response from you. You do understand that fiction and real life are not the same thing? Right?

Quote:
I think that a compelling argument can be made that people want the information those folks have and they understand that they may not like or approve of the methods needed to get the information...

That is your argument. That is not the public's opinion. Is the popularity of a TV show like 24 the only thing you have to back up your claim that the public wants a wide blanket of persecution and torture cast over the world by a secretive and unaccountable government?

Quote:
You just think that its better for innocents to die in unprevented attacks...

You must be getting desperate to avoid real debate, to resort to misrepresenting my argument so inanely. Or are you simply incapable of reading and absorbing my posts?

Quote:
...and you WANT the rest of us to know the things that we really don't want to know so that the rest of us are forced to act to prevent the torture rather then acting to prevent the terror

Huh?

Um... stick your head in the sand if it makes you happy. Live in your fictional TV world. It only makes it easier for me to tear your posts up.

Quote:
Unfortunately your opinion results in terrorist attacks being more likely to happen

And I could say that your opinion results in terrorist attacks being more likely happen because you, sir, create the terrorists. Because you think like one and you uphold that mentality as something noble.

Which leads to the #2 thing you haven't responded to. Let me jog your memory.

Hero: "I note for the record that in war sometimes the only way to tell the good guys from the bad guys is that the good guys regret what they have to do."

Me: "[This] shows the assumptions you make. The other side feels no guilt, right? YOU and those on your side are the only ones who feel noble emotions? ... In case you aren't seeing it, my point is not to defend this man [who killed Bhutto]. It's to stress how similar your mentality is to his. Your reasons to torture are no better than his reasons to murder."

So, Hero, how exactly is your willingness to torture and kill different than the willingness of some guy in Pakistan to kill Bhutto?

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 5, 2008 10:01 AM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
So, Hero, how exactly is your willingness to torture and kill different than the willingness of some guy in Pakistan to kill Bhutto?

Methinks you are generalizing far too much IMHO.
Correct me if I'm wrong but you see no difference between aggressive ingterrogation of POW's and deliberate acts of terrorism against civillian targets? Does the fact that the POW's had AK-47's in their hands at one time where as Bhutto did not make any difference to you? Is context really that unimportant to your worldview?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 5, 2008 11:30 AM

MAL4PREZ

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
So, Hero, how exactly is your willingness to torture and kill different than the willingness of some guy in Pakistan to kill Bhutto?

Methinks you are generalizing far too much IMHO.
Correct me if I'm wrong but you see no difference between aggressive ingterrogation of POW's and deliberate acts of terrorism against civillian targets? Does the fact that the POW's had AK-47's in their hands at one time where as Bhutto did not make any difference to you? Is context really that unimportant to your worldview?

Oh geez. We've been over this. I can't quote the entire thread every time I post! OK, but I was out for a few days. So I'll sum up.

Hero said that "maybe a little harsh interrogation could have prevented this." He suggests we should cast a broad net - regarding the people we should interrogate harshly:

"I'm not saying they were involved in the attack. I'm saying that they know somebody, who knows somebody, who knows Kevin Bacon, who knows the bomb maker."

Though he hasn't admitted to changing his mind, Hero seems to be backing off the 'broad net' a bit. He's now leaning toward sticking to specific cases, like when we know the bad guy holds a specific bit of information, such as the oft occurring case of Mr. Spy beating the nuclear bomb's deactivation code out of the villian. Oh wait - was that on TV? Silly me, it doesn't matter! TV, real life... same thing!

Anyway, Hero has made the following claims:
- if waterboarding makes you sick, you are childish
- the bad guys are easily recognizable because they feel no remorse
- if you are not willing to die and to kill for your cause, your cause is destined to fail

Is this not what the leaders of any terrorist organisation would preach?

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 5, 2008 7:03 PM