| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 11/26 |
| 2006/1/24-26 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41505 Activity:high |
1/24 [ Preserved b/c this thread is still active ]
Domestic eavesdropping opponents have been using the misquote from
Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security
deserve neither". http://csua.org/u/er9 [nyt]
Now, this is a misquote, and the difference between the quote and
the misquote is substantial and relevant to the debate. However,
I don't recall any popular media calling the protestors on the
misquote. Why is this? Does the press not know the quote is wrong?
Do they simply not care?
\_ Isn't this entire thread an attempt to ignore the larger issue?
\_ What I wanna know is, did "those who sacrifice freedom for safety
deserve neither" motd guy participate in the rally, or it just
some place like http://democraticunderground.com that's spreading the
misquote? (anyway, http://CNN.com says it's a "paraphrase")
\_ Good for CNN. "Paraphrase" is unfair to the substantial
difference between the quote and the misquote, but that's
still better than NYT and CBS, who just ignored the error
altogether.
\_ the substantiveness of the difference between the paraphrase
and the exact quote is debatable as well
\_ only if people who can't comprehend english are debating.
\_ not in my view
\_ Is f(g(x)) ~= f(x)? Only for very few f() and g().
\_ you're entitled to your view even if it makes no
sense. welcome to america.
\_ but it does make sense, so ...
\_ http://www.ushistory.org/franklin/quotable/quote04.htm
(what Mr. Franklin actually said, and his mouth moves too)
\_ http://www.futureofthebook.com/stories/storyReader$605
Actually is "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase
a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty or Safety."
That still seems pretty close to me.
\_ IOW, the quote is silent on whether it's ok to give up liberty
for non-temporary safety. (And indeed much of government is a
trade-off between liberty and safety.) Now, did Bush buy
temporary or non-temporary safety with the eavesdropping?
Hence my claim that the difference is relevant to the debate.
\_ Also, the quote is silent on whether we should enact Daylight
Saving Time, abandon the gold standard, or legalize gay
marriage. However, while it would be a stretch to say that
the quote proposed any of the latter, it's a reasonable
extrapolation to say that the quote discourages sacrificing
liberty for any kind of safety, especially in light of a lack
of any further written material by Franklin in opposition.
More to the point, however, what he's really saying is that
cowardly people who would compromise with tyrants should be
done away with. Or, in common parlance, snitches gots to
be capped.
\_ This is a childish distraction, not a real point. He is
clearly talking about liberty and security, not any of
the red herrings you bring up. You *may* be correct when
you say he was really talking about the larger issue of
compromising with tyrants (although I personally doubt it,
it isn't an unreasonable interpretation), but the rest of
your post about unrelated issues is useless. Misquoting
the man to make some political point shows a great deal
of either ignorance or intellectual dishonesty. Which of
those is worse is left to the reader to decide.
\_ Is "People who trade dignity for a one-night stand deserves
\_ Is "People who trade dignity for a one-night stand deserve
neither" equivalent to "People who trade dignity for a
long-term relationship deserves neither"? Both statements
long-term relationship deserve neither"? Both statements
may be true, but are they equivalent? You do understand
2 true statements may still not be the same.
\_ My bringing up the admittedly ridiculous examples I did
was an attempt to illustrate the dangers of drawing
conclusions from omissions in the man's words. As the
quote says that giving up liberty for temporary safety
is not to be done, and since Franklin never followed
that up with a caveat or exception, it is reasonable to
draw the conclusion that he would have had a similar
distaste for giving up liberty for non-temporary safety.
\_ No. Giving up liberty for non-temporary safety is
called government.
\_ You're assuming that the liberties that you
purport to have given up in exchange for safety
were actually in your possession to begin with.
\_ Ref state of nature, Locke, and the social
contract.
\_ If he never followed up with any further statements
on the subject we can only conclude he had nothing
more to say on the matter. Anything else is jumping
to unfounded conclusions. By your reasoning, the
opposite of your assumption could also be said and
it would be an equally unfounded conjecture.
\_ *shrug* Invent a time machine or consult a
medium and ask him yourself, then.
\_ Well, you are the one trying to impute extra
meaning to Franklin's quote. We're saying
he said what he said, and reading anything
more into it would be unjustified. If you
go back, this subthread started with "IOW,
the quote is silent on...".
more into it would be unjustified. Looking
back, this subthread started with "IOW, the
quote is silent on..."
\_ ? I'm saying we can't know. I'm not making
any assumptions about what he meant. We'll
never know unless there's some other written
document somewhere clarifying. Why do you
think I'd need a time machine for anything?
\_ Is "People who would trade $100K up front for a monthly
payment of $5k for a year deserve neither" equivalent to
"People who would trade $100K up front for a monthly
payment of $5k for the rest of their lives deserve neither"?
payment of $5k for the rest of their lives deserve
neither"?
\_ Your analogy assumes the quantification of the
unquantifiable. Or, as WSB put it, "There are no
honorable bargains involving exchange of qualitative
merchandise... for quantitative merchandise."
\_ Which part is unquantifiable? This PP's analogy
uses only quantifiables so you must mean the phrase
"temporary" from Franklin's quote is unquantifiable?
Or you mean "essential"? Please explain.
\_ Comparing two quantities ($100K and $60K) is
easily done. Comparing two qualities (liberty
and safety) is not.
\_ Hmm, ok, then you disagree with Franklin?
\_ How about comparing 'safety' and 'little
temporary safety'?
\_ The original quote also says "essential liberty." One may
argue that essential liberty includes the liberty to
communicate, but that liberty does not cover CLEARTEXT
communications, ie the gov. can't (1) forbid you from using
public-key encryption or (2) force you give them your private
key, BUT they can listen to you conversation if you do it in
the clear.
\_ One may argue that, but it's a moronic argument. -dans
\_ One may argue that, but it's a moronic argument. -dan
\_ Why? Communicating in cleartext is basically the
same as talking in public. One must assume that
as soon as the communications leaves the confines
of one's own home, it is available to everyone.
If you don't value the privacy of your communication
to the level necessary to take precautions against
eavesdropping, you have assumed the risk that the
your communications will be intercepted.
I'm only asking whether it is an ESSENTIAL liberty
to communicate in cleartext. I can accept that it
a nice to have liberty, but I cannot accept that
it is essential.
\_ Only recently has it been possible for ordinary
people to encrypt phone conversations. Are you
saying that the government had the ability to tap
phone conversations for the last 100 years without
a warrant? Why would the courts disagreee with that?
\_ Many different ciphers/codes have existed as
long as phones have been around. Arguably OTP
has also existed since at least WW2. If you
value your privacy enough you should use the
state of the art cipher system for the era in
which you are living. Yes it slow, yes it is
inefficient and hampers communication, but
that is the price of secure communication.
It is not just the government that has had the
ability to tap and record phone conversations
for decades. Private industry has this ability
as well.
I am not arguing for an interpretation of search
under the 4th amend. I am arguing that cleartext
communication is not an essential liberty as
used by Franklin.
long as phones have been around. It is not
easy to have a two way conversation but it
is doable. If you value your security that
much, then the inconvenience is worth it.
NOTE: I am not arguing for an interpretation
of search under the 4th amend. I am arguing
that cleartext communication is not an essential
liberty w/in Franklin's use of that term.
In addition, my assertion also applies to all
forms of communication, including letters.
I think that the term essential in this context
would not cover the liberty to mail letter w/o
them being subject to review by the post office.
It is not an ESSENTIAL liberty that one have
the ability to send letters in the clear.
\_ This quote is more popularly used by libertarian nutjobs to support
things like right-to-own-machine-guns. If the media doesn't point
out the exact quote when it's used by Charlton Heston, is it an
artifact of the right-wing media? -tom
\_ URL with Charlton Heston or nutjob, media, and the quote please.
\_ not quite all your parameters, but close: -!tom
http://www.armedfemalesofamerica.com/notablequotes.htm
yes, I know it's not a misquote
here's Mr. Heston, and he doesn't misquote too
http://www.nrahq.org/transcripts/denver_close.asp
\_ http://www.twelvearyannations.com/id28.htm
(Aryan Nations World Headquarters) -tom
\_ Well, Aryan Nations isn't "libertarian nutjobs" or
Charleston Heston, and a self-promotional web site
isn't a popular media report. Otherwise you're dead on.
\_ You're a moron in several different ways, but primarily
because it's not the newspaper's job to correct the
people it's quoting, except when it's editorializing.
When it's just a news story, you report what was
said, you don't say "Charleton Heston said that
those who give up liberty for safety deserve neither,
but the actual Benjamin Franklin quote is 'those who
would give up essential liberty for safety...'".
That's simply not the job of a reporter.
And if you want to split hairs between the Aryan
Nation and libertarian nutjobs (I really don't think
the difference is significant), you can find similar
misquotes at
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1554499/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39b6b6d66946.htm
and plenty of others. -tom
\_ Your claim was specific. You said "This quote is
more popularly used by libertarian nutjobs...".
Despite your rude bluster, you still have not
substantiated your claim. 2 tries, and you still
haven't found "libertarian nutjobs" who use
"this quote". You also claimed Charlton Heston
misquoted Franklin. Again, a specific claim, and
you have not backed that one up either. OBTW, CNN
said the protestors "paraphrased" Franklin.
\_ Uh, so freerepublic doesn't count as
libertarian nutjobs? -tom
\_ Absolutely not. Nutjobs? Yes. Libertarian?
No, no, no, no, no! The freepers are a bunch
of uneducated loud mouthed morons that all
clear thinking people across the political
spectrum wish would go away, but they are
definitely not libertarians. Please get the
bare basics right before posting.
\_ Geeze, you really are nitpicking.
OK, how about
<http://http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle1996/le960801.html
(The Libertarian Enterprise)
<http://http://www.libertyforall.net/2003/archive/sept28/price.html
(Liberty For All)
<http://http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,47823,00.html
(Radley Balko, Cato Institute)
Give it up, already. -tom
\_ That was my first post in this thread.
My nit isn't your quoting, per se, it
is your gross misclassification of the
freepers which makes me think you've
either never read what they have to say
and are just repeating what you've been
told or worse, you have read the
freeper junk and can't see they aren't
libertarians at all and thus have no
idea what a libertarian is. I really
don't care what libertarians might have
misquoted Franklin. Not my game.
\_ But Tom, where is "this quote" in any
of your links? You specifically said
"this quote".
\_ Search for "liberty for safety." -tom
\_ You specified a particular quote. Also,
while the freepers are certainly nutjobs, not
even they'd tell you they are libertarians.
Strike 3.
\_ 0 for 3 isn't bad. it could've been worse.
\_ I don't know, he keeps trying. Seems to be
going for a solid 0 for 10.
\_ again, i think the real issue is not rather one should allow
domestic eardropping or not. The real issue is that as it is
right now, no one really knows the scope of domestic spying,
no check and balance is in place. So, in case of wrongfully accused
or that such program has being targeted for political purposes,
no one can turn the case over. It is all depend upon Bush Co
to decide who is 'terrorist' or not. Bush can easily use this
mechanism to spy on Democrat Party Committee. This is just like
\_ IC! DEMOCRAT__*IC*_ PARTY! You scoundrel!
You petty traitor! You villain! *IC*!
Why are you and Karl Rove always torturing
us with your vicious little RepubiKKKan
smears on the motd and your official
publications?! *IC*!
\_ Sounds like it's time to up the dosage
*again*, man. Or cut back..waaaaaay back
on the caffeine.
Watergate except it is now legal to do so.
\_ This may be a case of it has always been legal to do so, not
it is now legal to do so. The situation is different from
Watergate b/c the wiretaps in Watergate were conducted for
purely domestic purposes. Here the wiretaps are ostensibly
conducted for foreign affairs purposes. The distinction may
become impt, b/c the Pres. has far more power to act in
foreign affairs than in domestic affairs.
\_ regardless, there should be a check-n-balance mechanism
in place.
\_ Arguably the const. disagrees with you. The BoR may
not apply to executive power during a time of war,
when hostiles have been operating on American soil.
\_ So any President, on nothing more than their own
whim, can claim anyone is doing something
related to a "foreign" power, without any evidence
whatsover, and declare all Constitutional rights for
that person invalid? And no court or legislature
has any recourse? Is that your contention?
\_ There are limits to the executive power, BUT
those limits arguably only exist either (1)
during peacetime or (2) during wartime when
enemy forces are not operating on US soil.
This is clearly not peace time and this is
a wartime scenario where the enemy is engaged
in operations on US soil, therefore the BoR
may not apply.
\_ What events will signify the end of the war?
We defeated the Taliban and Saddam Hussein and
occupy Iraq and have a puppet government in
Afghanistan... Aren't we on a never ending quest
to save my girlfriend now? I mean, when will the
"War on Terror" end, and if it isn't ending
anytime soon, doesn't that mean the President
will have expanded powers for decades?
\_ I find it interesting that the balance of
government branches issue is so important
yet does anyone here not understand that
the President has always had the ultimate
power since the mid 1900s? Without anyone
else's say so they can start a nuclear war.
Is that ok? If so, then why don't we trust
the office holder with lesser responsibilities
than all human life on the planet? I'm not
arguing for/against, I just find the reasoning
that "super power over life and death with no
checks" is ok while "omg, they're going to
listen to me talk sexy to my gf!!!" is not.
\_ Just because the President was given one
important power due to military neccesity
doesn't mean that he has unlimited power
to do anything.
\_ Actually the Pres. does have unlimited
power to do anything he wants in wartime
IF habeas is suspended. [ I know that
habeas hasn't been suspended, BUT if
it were, the Pres. would have the power
to do anything he deems necessary in
order to protect the republic. ]
\_ The conditions that signify the end of the
war are clear in my post. The Pres. authority
to violate the BoR will end when there are
no longer any foreign hostiles engaged in
operations on US soil. Perhaps this will take
decades, perhaps it will take longer. I do
not know, but I feel that AQ et. al. pose
such a threat to civilization, that any and
all means must be used to vanquish them.
Re "saving my gf": I disagree, despite the
lack of domestic terrorism
since 9/11, there is no
proof that AQ et. al. are
no longer carrying out long
term operations w/in the US.
Until such proof is avail.
the emergency exists. Such
proof can be made available
by the worldwide destruction
of militant islam; thus we
do not have to rely on an
assertion of proof via the
executive branch.
\_ More people in the United States have been
struck by lightning than died in domestic
terrorist attacks in the last decade. I
think you severely overreacting to a very
minor threat and giving up our liberties
because of a very minor problem. Your
paranoia and fearfulness over a tiny
problem are not worth tearing up the
Constitution.
minor threat and are giving up our liberties
because of your paranoia and media generated
hype and fearfulness.
\_ If you receive anal pleasure 100 times
in a year, it's no big deal. If you
receive it 20 times in a morning, you
might have problems. |
| 2006/1/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:41486 Activity:moderate |
1/23 http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007276.php http://powerlineblog.com/archives/012770.php Who to believe? Can you start tapping and then have 72 hours to get retroactive FISA approval (URL 1), or does the attorney general need probable cause before even beginning to tap (URL 2)? Note Gen. Hayden today went with URL 2. \_ But they wouldn't have even done #1 \_ URL 2 says you can't do #1 without the attorney general establishing probable cause first. \_ URL 2 is disingenuous.. "We don't actually know how to fill out a warrant application, so we shouldn't have to" is a _stupid_ argument. \_ The core of the argument is that Gen. Hayden went outside of FISA to do "reasonable basis" wiretaps (calls going to / coming from suspected Al Qaeda members / affiliates), whereas FISA required "probable cause" (we have a credible source or evidence obtained through other legal means that person x has committed or is committing a criminal act) required to even begin wiretapping. Note that, if you go outside FISA, you need very little other than some NSA person saying that one end of the call may be coming from an Al Qaeda member / affiliate. "reasonable basis" << "probable cause" link:tinyurl.com/bkvuf (nytimes.com) \_ Unfortunately there's that pesky little thing called the constitution. link:tinyurl.com/bkvuf (nytimes.com) \_ Then you go back to: They could do it outside of FISA becuse the resolution passed by Congress gave Dubya the power, and also through his role as "unitary executive" (a power granted by the Constitution according to Dubya's people). \_ "could". That's the claim. The congressional research service said they can't. \_ Thanks for pointing that out. Here's the URL: http://tinyurl.com/9nosv (Wash Post) \_ [ I have not yet taken Crim Pro, but from what I understand ] The USSC has held that a wiretap is a search w/in the meaning of that term under the 4th amend. Thus a warrant to wiretap cannot issue w/o a showing of probable cause. The probable cause showing must relate to the time the search is INITIATED; evidence found after the search cannot generally be used to est. probable cause. The FISA procedures allow the AG to request the warrant upto 72 hrs after the tap is started, BUT the AG must still prove that probable cause existed at the time the wiretap was initiated. Re the assertion of unitary power to wiretap - the relevant USSC cases \_ People need to start saing that Dubya is usurping "probable cause" for unreasonable searches in the 4th Amendment, and this will promptly throw out Dubya's "unitary executive" and Congressional authorization arguments. Re the assertion of unitary power to wiretap: The argument that Congress implicitly gave the Pres. this power runs into the Marbury issue; Congress cannot give gifts that it doesn't have the power to confer - arguably a complete waiver of the 4th amend. warrant requirement is beyond Congress' power. If such waiver of the FISA is w/in Congress' power, then the Pres. will probably win this under either Curtis Wright or Youngstown. Curtis Wright "one voice" in foreign affairs is probably the better argument b/c in ever case the purpose of the wiretaps were to stop terrorism by international forces, which is a foreign affairs issue. \_ Well, if it goes to the Supreme Court, then I think that's it. 4th Amendment, "probable cause", Dubya violated it, game set match. \_ I talked to my Con Law prof about this and the real problem is getting standing to bring a 4th amend. claim. Unless the AG screws up really badly, defendants will not have a factual basis to claim that their 4th amend. rights were violated. [ The ACLU has filed a suit saying that the named plaintiffs were likely to be tapped, but this is probably not enough to show actual harm necessary to get standing ] \_ You can ask your prof what they think of this with respect to the notion that you can't get plaintiffs with standing because, by nature of the program, you can't find out if your 4th amendment rights have been breached. I.e., you can have unlimited secret wiretapping because you can't find anyone who knows if they've been wiretapped. Your prof can either say "Too bad" or "Perhaps SCOTUS will recognize the Catch-22 and review the case". \- some people are concerned about the standing issue int eh case of the ACLU suit but theirs is not the only suit. a law prof whose name i do not recall but is possible from gerogetown is representing a muslim professor who allegedly said some crazy stuff and was was suspected to have phone conversations with various unsavories located in AFGANISTAN was smacked down and he should pretty clearly have standing, but he is not a very sympathetic defendent ... that might end up being a case where there would have been probably cause but the govt just didnt bother with the warrants. the BURGER court certain carved into the exclusionary rule so that trend may continue. remember the constitution says the govt cant do warrantless searches but it doesnt mandate the exclusionary rule ... the court could conceivably have said "we will sanction the fellow who obtained the tainted evidence" or the unjustly seearched party has a right to sue the law enforcement body that violated his 4th amd or 5th amd rights for money damage rather than a right to suppress the evidence. \- update: the other suit is being led by the center for constitutional rights. their clients have a pretty good case for standing but may be less sympathetic ... e.g. have made anti-american public statements etc. but their claim is also that the lawyers of these people who are american citizens were monitored. i have to go now. Re the assertion of unitary power to wiretap: The argument that Congress implicitly gave the Pres. this power runs into the Marbury issue; Congress cannot give gifts that it doesn't have the power to confer - arguably a complete waiver of the 4th amend. warrant requirement is beyond Congress' power. If such waiver of the FISA is w/in Congress' power, then the Pres. will probably win this under either the Curtis Wright or Youngstown. |
| 2006/1/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41483 Activity:moderate |
1/23 http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/23/nsa.strategy/index.html "The general said three NSA attorneys provided independent opinions that the [eavesdropping] program was legal." \_ Major shock: the NSA thinks it's OK to wiretap without a warrant. Good enough for me! -tom \_ "Had this program been in effect prior to 9/11, it is my professional judgment that we would have detected some of the 9/11 al Qaeda operatives in the United States, and we would have identified them as such ..." -Gen. Hayden but hadn't "we" identified them anyway w/o warrantless wiretapping? but hadn't "we" identified them anyway w/o warrantless wiretapping? \_ I think the daily show (or was it colbert report) put it best: we already had all the facts about the plans and identities of the 9/11 guys before 9/11. The problem is that they were lost in a sea of too much intel. How would collecting even more have solved that? \_ For a horizon of a few weeks, the President has essentially unlimited power during wartime, at which time he is expected to advise Congress of his actions. Bush advised the Senate Intelligence committee about the wiretaps very early on. unlimited power during wartime, but is expected to ultimately advise Congress of his actions. Bush advised the Senate Intelligence committee about the wiretaps very early on. |
| 2006/1/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41482 Activity:nil |
1/23 http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N23208381.htm "President George W. Bush rejected charges his domestic eavesdropping program was illegal on Monday, while other administration officials said the war on terrorism has made the federal law on electronic surveillance outdated." So which is it? Is it against a law that the administration wants revised, or is it within the law (which would imply that the law is timely and supports the Pres.)? \_ Dubya said it's legal, from a resolution Congress passed. His people are also saying the power of the unitary executive also makes it legal. Gen. Hayden said that three NSA layers wrote independent opinions saying it was legal. \_ Uh, Dubya asked congress to include the US on the list of countries in the afghanistan resolution. congress said no. he wanted it in the patriot act. congress said no. dubya said "fuck congress". \_ So if it's legal, why are his people saying the law is outdated? \_ I think it's because of "URL 2" indicated in new post above. |
| 2006/1/19-21 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41438 Activity:nil |
1/19 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1561226/posts "Asked whether the president 'should have the power to authorize the NSA to monitor electronic communications of suspected terrorists without getting warrants, even if one end of the communication is in the U.S.?' - 58 percent of those surveyed said yes. ... Fifty percent of those surveyed called those responsible for blowing the NSA's cover 'traitors,' while just 27 percent agreed with media claims that the leakers were 'whistleblowers.'" \_ those who sacrifice freedom for safety deserve neither. \_ misquote. \_ This is the year I finally break down and buy a gun. \_ Good luck if you live in SF... \_ Where I'm moving, it's practically illegal to not own a gun. The apocalypse is coming, and I'm gonna be ready. \_ Americans don't mind sacrificing the freedom of "suspected terrorists", as long as they're not one or a close friend of one. \_ "...a Fox News Opinion Dynamics poll has found...." Try harder, young freeper_troll. |
| 2006/1/19-21 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:41437 Activity:nil |
1/19 Can someone provide a URL for: "the NSA was basically wiretapping
everyone, not just suspected terrorists, and running a massive data
mining operation on it." All I'm getting is Russell Tice saying
"could be in the millions [of Americans] if the full range of secret
NSA programs is used", and the key word is "if".
\_ This was given as the reason for why FISA wouldn't work; because
they were following from Al Qaeda guy to everyone he called to
everyone they called to everyone they called, etc. I mean, with
guilt-by-association, everyone's a suspected terrorist.
\_ url please. I want to understand what "basically" means.
\_ Do people understand that the issue is not rather government
can wire citizens or not, but rather, a check-n-balance
procedure is in place to prevent abuse and provide a channel
for those who are wrongly accused?
\_ http://www.boingboing.net/2005/12/24/nsas_domestic_datami.html
(original NYT article costs money now)
\_ Thanks, full article: http://tinyurl.com/bb2f4 (chicagotrib)
I think the source for the NYT article is Tice.
\_ Admittedly, there is a bit of conjecture in my statement... |
| 11/26 |
| 2006/1/15-17 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:41381 Activity:low |
1/15 The Dirty Dozen
http://www.divestterror.org/dirtydozen.html
\_ "In the 1980s, millions of outraged Americans succeeded in bringing
about a singular achievement -- ending South Africa's racist
apartheid policy. There is little debate as to how this was
accomplished: Where international sanctions, public condemnation
and diplomacy fell short, a nationwide American divestment campaign
triumphed. " Is this true? They cite no evidence. I recall my
parents boycotting various products because of South Africa, but
I don't recall ever hearing about one of those big companies
actually divesting. Does anyone know anything about the accuracy
of their claims?
\_ Google south africa apartheid divest
This was one of many pages I found on the subject. More research
left to you, the reader.
http://www.msu.edu/~divest/apartheid.html |
| 2006/1/9-12 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:41301 Activity:low |
1/9 Attention Trollers:
It is now illegal to post messages anonymously that annoy others via
the Internet. Basically, it's already illegal to annoy someone
anonymously via telephone. However, someone added "communications
that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet" to the
existing law. See HR3402 Sec. 113.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.03402
[click "Text of Legislation", then #6]
http://tinyurl.com/dfw9t (cornell.edu)
http://csua.org/u/ejy (news.com)
Yes, it is still legal in most cases to "annoy" someone
non-anonymously via telephone and Internet.
\_ You're annoying me.
\_ Annoying? The whole net would collapse if that was ever taken
seriously.
\_ Apparently the law requires a prosecutor to prove "intent to
annoy," which sounds laughably difficult to me.
\_ but you're wrong. -tom
\_ But isn't that what makes proving a libel case so difficult
in an American court? The need to prove "intent to cause
damage?" (aka reading defendant's mind)
\_ No, libel has no bearing on the situation. The
difficulty with libel suits is that true statements,
or statements of opinion, are not libel, so you have
to show that the statement is based in fact (as opposed
to saying "he's an asshole," which is a matter of
opinino), and that the person saying it reasonably
should have known the statement was false, and that
people reading the statement could reasonably believe
it was true.
"Intent to annoy" is easy; any reasonable person
could see that, say, repeatedly sending explicit mail
to someone after they've explicitly told you not to,
or subscribing them to hundreds of mailing lists, or
whatever, is intended to annoy. -tom |
| 2006/1/8-10 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:41294 Activity:moderate |
1/8 Re: Abramoff. Transcript of Howard Dean on with Wolf Blitzer, CNN.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0601/08/le.01.html
"There are no Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, not one,
not one single Democrat. Every person named in this scandal is a
Republican. Every person under investigation is a Republican. Every
person indicted is a Republican. This is a Republican finance scandal.
There is no evidence that Jack Abramoff ever gave any Democrat any
money. And we've looked through all of those FEC reports to make sure
that's true."
\_ I hope Howard Dean knows what is he talking about. I vaguely
remember Abramoff also paid lavish trips for Democrats as well.
\_ Replubican lies.
\_ How would you know? Do you have special insider info?
Like everything else, this will be investigated, maybe a
few people will resign from one or both parties and nothing
will change because politicians are corrupt.
\_ sheesh. take a chill pill. My point is that Republicans
have been spreading the message that Abramoff paid $$ to
Dems. And that's the reason why he "vaguely remembers"
this.
\_ You didn't have a point if you wrote "Republican lies".
That isn't a point. It is partisan noise.
\_ I expanded it in the pp. make sense now?
\_ Do you think that politicians everywhere are corrupt?
I do not. Why are politicians in some other countries
less corrupt? Could we perhaps figure out why and reform
our system to be more like theirs?
\_ I think all career politicians are corrupt. What county
did you have in mind where they are less so?
\_ I am a democrate. but i just don't think Abramoff is so
stupid that he only oil up Republicans. And Democrats
are not exactly clean neither... just that they are not
nearly as blatant as Republicans under Bush's reign.
\_ I think all career politicians are corrupt. What county
did you have in mind where they are less so?
\_ "Democrats' Travel Costs Linked to Lobbyist" [Washington Post]
http://csua.org/u/ejn
Is this a Republican plant? Reading Dean carefully, do paid
trips show up in FEC reports?
\_ http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7723344/page/2 has a lot more
details.
"Clyburn said in an interview he had never heard of
Abramoff at the time, and provided a copy of a letter
showing he was invited by the nonprofit foundation."
The sum total of both trips was ~$4.5-5k airfare and a
$227 hotel bill per Congressman. This is proof that
Abramoff paid for "lavish trips." It sounds like first
class plane travel, and a nice night in a good hotel, but
"lavish?" And I don't know about you, but I don't think
a $5k first class plane ticket buys much influence in
Washington these days.
Certainly, Dean was careful with his language, and these
were not filed with the FEC. However, "Both Clyburn and
Thompson filed House disclosure reports showing the
[nonprofit] group paid for the travel." Apparently,
these reports are now incorrect, but they were filed b/c
at the time, Clyburn and Thompson "weren't told the
foundation that invited them never put up the money."
Considering the point of lobbying is to direct money to
the congressmen in order to curry favor with them, not
telling the congressman that you gave them money doesn't
curry much favor.
Clyburn and Thompson may turn out to be Democratic
sleazeballs. Who knows? But $5,000 of disclosed money
received doesn't swing the pendulum of corruption from
red to purple.
\_ Hey, my post was only in response to the quick
"Republican lies" claim above. -pp
\_ Direct quotes from the congressmen or staff:
http://www.contrarianreview.com/lobbyist.html
Clyburn:
"The invitation was signed by a chairman of the Joint
Chiefs. What was I supposed to believe?"
- The letter said the Congressional delegations would
"be paid for by the nonprofit N.S.C. Foundation, and
they will not involve any cost to the US government."
Thompson staff:
"He received an invitation from a nonprofit group to go
down and visit the islands. It was a legitimate trip.
And once he returned from the trip, he complied with
House rules and filed the required ethics forms."
\_ Man, the spin is coming hard and fast now. Do you
\_ point A
even read your *own* source? The letter was signed
by Thomas Moorer, who was the *former* Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs. Hello, "former", as in 1970 to
1974? Meaning Moorer was a private citizen at the
time of the invitation. Since the writers of the
article knew Moorer was only the former Chairman,
and they didn't call Clyburn on it, you have to wonder
why not and where their bias lies. As to point 2,
\_ point B.
as the WaPo article said, "Greg Hilton [the director
of the group] understood at the outset that the
expenses would be covered by 'the private sector'".
Hilton was later told that the government would
cover the costs, but barring more evidence, it's
hard to say if Clyburn was told specifically if the
trip were covered by private or public funds.
\_ You're absolutely right. We should impeach and
fire all politicians who took money from
Abramoff, regardless of political affiliation.
If that ends up being more Dems than Repubs, fine.
\_ A+B: your own biases and paranoia are showing
through. You don't address the points, but rather
attack the news source as being biased. Oh, yes,
and you accuse pp of "spin" when the whole post
is pretty much direct quotes. |
| 2006/1/8-9 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41292 Activity:nil 80%like:41288 80%like:41289 |
1/7 Was Bush and the NSA wiretapping CNN?
http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/attytood/archives/002621.html
\_ http://tinyurl.com/dnbqq (Alternative Press Review)
Looks like the Administration may have been wire tapping
lots of media critics. |
| 2006/1/8 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41289 Activity:nil 80%like:41288 80%like:41292 |
1/7 Was Bush and the NSA wiretapping the motd?
http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/attytood/archives/002621.html |
| 2006/1/8 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41288 Activity:nil 80%like:41289 80%like:41292 |
1/7 Was Bush and the NSA wiretapping the media?
http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/attytood/archives/002621.html |
| 2006/1/5-7 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:41240 Activity:nil |
1/5 Grep for 'socialist motherfucker'
http://tinyurl.com/asus3 - danh |
| 2006/1/4-6 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41224 Activity:kinda low |
1/4 Hey, why pass laws at all when you have a king?
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/01/04/bush_could_bypass_new_torture_ban?mode=PF
\_ What's the big deal? He's only going to ignore the law if he wants
to ...
\_ Another reason to block alito.
\_ URL tinyfied to please annoying, anal retentive motd block warden:
http://tinyurl.com/bdj8g -John
\_ I would like to hear Bush supporter's point of view on this one.
Please enlighten us.
\_ I'm not a Bush supporter but I can guess: Protecting the American
People! War on Terror! Liberty! Freedom! 9/11! Liberty!
Freedom! Terrorists! Freedom! Liberty!
\_ If you believe in an strong executive then it follows that
the inherent emergency power of the executive is subject
only to those limits explicit in the constitution. As there
are no applicable limits (the eighth arguably does not apply
as torture is not used as a punishment in this context), it
is within the executive's discretion to employ torture. This
view also implies that the executive's decisions are above
court review except in cases where there is direct conflict
with the text of the constitution.
[ Note that there is a "fifth freedom" view which says that
even the constitution is not a limit on the executive's
power when the survival of the republic is threatened.
BUSHCO does not seem to publically adhere to this view. ]
\_ Who does adhere to that view? (There is nobody to
review if said survival is sufficiently threatened.
By some accounts, sodomy threatens the republic...)
\_ While I do not know of any prominent figures
who publicly endorse the fifth freedom view,
I would argue that people like Amd. Poindexter
implicitly accept it.
For the sake of argument I will say that the
majority of America has implicitly acquiesced
to the fifth freedom view. I think that the
framers conception of the CinC power or other
limits on the executive power cannot be reco-
nciled w/ the fact that 1st strike is basically
entrusted solely to the President's discretion.
If the President chooses to exercise this cap-
ability, there will realistically be no review.
This to me suggests that the modern Presidency
has practically unlimited powers.
In day to day terms, it probably means the
while the President can't shoot you in broad
daylight for being a democrat, he probably
can deploy any covert means against you for
the same w/o any real review.
\_ "Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Cool!"
\_ First strike and other military defense issues
I think fall under the general head-of-military
designation. For Iraq, Bush was sort of pre-authorized
to decide on war, and the same situation exists for
the nukes I guess. Some of the smaller operations
might be weaseled around by questioning the
definition "war". Anyway, I don't think we
are at a point where the Constitution does not
at least in theory grant US citizens protection
versus military operations, covert or not.
I suppose if they did their job well enough then
practically the question would not come up.
\_ I agree that the modern interpretation
is that the CinC power encompasses the
ability to deploy the nuclear arsenal.
but my point is that the framers prob.
did not intend to vest a single man w/
the power to unilaterally decide the
fate of every living thing on the
planet.
What if the President exercises this
power in circumstances (objectively)
not constituting a threat to the repu-
blic? Who really will be left to reve-
iew the decision? What remedial action
can really be taken? I think that the
answer is that no one will review and
no remedial action is available. This
to me means the President possess uni-
lateral discretion to wield almost abs.
power as the CinC.
From this one could argue that under
this power, the President could deploy
less than abs. force against arbitrary
targets w/o any limits on his power.
From this one could argue that the Pres.
could deploy less than abs. force w/o
limits on his discretion under the same
power.
Re Pre-authorized: If the President has
been preauthorized to act under certain
conditions, what happens when he acts
outside of those conditions? Will there
really be a Congressional hearing? If
not, then Congress has basically given
him unlimited discretion.
\_ Why wouldn't there be a hearing? They can
impeach the president. He could mess things
up pretty royally before then, perhaps
irrevocably, but it doesn't really nullify the
separation of powers except in the apocalyptic
sense. Basically he could destroy the other
branches of government. Maybe Nixon, instead of
resigning, could have started WWIII instead. But
outside of war, I can't see that the distinction
is noteworthy. The power to destroy isn't the
same as absolute power.
no remedial action is available.
If the President possess unilateral
discretion to wield almost absolute
power via the CinC power, is it real-
istic to say that there are limits on
his ability to deploy less than this?
not, then the President has been pre-
authorized to act in any situation and
Congress has implicitly given him abs.
power (one wonders if Congress can do
this). |
| 2006/1/2-4 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:41198 Activity:very high |
1/2 It'€™s the demography, stupid.
http://www.newcriterion.com/archives/24/01/its-the-demography
\_ Wow, what in inchoerent racist screed. I salute you sir.
\_ What's racist and/or incoherent about it? Did you have
difficulty understanding it?
\_ Just off the top of my head, the equation of Western genes
with Western culture. --!pp
\_ Except it doesn't do that.
\_ Just pulling something out at random: "Radical Islam is what
multiculturalism has been waiting for all along." It reads
like Ann Coulter or Joseph McCarthy, but less coherent. --!pp
\_ You haven't answered my question. And what is wrong with
that sentence? You seem incapable of formulating an
explanation of your ideas.
\_ Let me give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that
you're not just trolling. Probably a bad assumption,
but anyway...an example of an equally specious argument
from the other side of the political spectrum would be
something like, "Abortion clinic bombings are what
Christians are all about." Even that doesn't really
do it justice, since at least in that case some of
the bombers were (nominally at least) Christian.
[I said something much more imflammatory after this
in response to your last sentence, but then I realized
that was a bad idea and self-censored. ok tnx]
\_ You're not really doing a good job explaining
yourself here but from what I can tell you are
misinterpreting the article. As regards that
sentence, it refers to the possibility that
"multiculturalism", in equally accepting other
cultures, is susceptible to accepting a culture
which, in the author's opinion, is "bad" ('radical
Islam'), and which he notes is not politically
correct to judge and talk about as such. Note that
I could come up with various criticisms of the
article myself but yours aren't valid IMO. The
author knows that attacking multiculturalism (and
Muslims... since he implies that the "radical"
and intolerant brand of it is large and becoming
more widespread, even in Europe) is against the
mainstream and will antagonize people like you.
I'd like to see you actually explain yourself
however instead of dumbly shouting racism in
response (which the author also expects). The
two main "asshole" opinions of his are 1. "western
culture" is superior and should be acknowledged
as such and 2. "Islamist" culture should not
be tolerated. While these cultures are associated
with certain races they do cross racial boundaries
as is mentioned.
\_ I'm not the person who shouted racism. Give it
a rest.
\_ There was a specific accusation of racism. Please
post example(s) from the article to substantiate
the characterization of "racist screed". If there
are no specific example(s), please retract the claim
of racism.
the bombers were (nominally at least) Christian. It's
not that the article is difficult to understand, it's
that it's not saying anything of substance or
trying to construct any kind of coherent argument.
It's just a rant. Political arguments can be more
than just opinionated rants, ya know - or did you learn
Rhetoric 101 from Michael Moore?
\_ If you hadn't noticed, I said "!pp" in my first
post. I didn't say anything about racism - the
article is too incoherent to express an idea
that well-formed. It's possible to talk to more
than one person on the motd, ya know.
\_ 1. That some post-4 was signed "!pp" does not
not imply that the unsigned post-2 was also by
the same or some other "!pp". 2. Nevertheless
you are in a thread branched off the claim
that the quoted article as "racist screed".
3. "Racist" has a specific meaning, and
incoherence or speciousness does not mean
racism. 4. I take it that no one is able to
defend the original claim that the article is
racist.
\_ I take it that you're not able to counter
the claim that the article is incoherent,
and based a combination of strawman and
ad hominem argument.
\_ Please present examples of ad hominem or
strawman arguments from the article.
\_ I already did. Do I have to spell it
out for you even more carefully?
\_ You didn't mention why you thought
it was ad hominem or strawman.
\_ It sets up an argument against
a concept called
"multiculturalism," but doesn't
define it in any meaningful
way, other than perhaps guilt by
association with a conservative
buzzword that is used as a
hammer to beat liberals (see
also "political correctness").
I guess it is left as an
exercise for the prejudices of
the reader, but this nebulous
definition then allows him room
to assign all kinds of supposed
motives to a movement which he
has not defined. It's the old
"Liberals love terrorists,
you're a liberal, therefore you
love terrorists" argument.
\_ Are you reading the same
article? The one I'm half
way through and still reading
focusses on demographic
math, not knee jerk
conversative vs. liberal
bullshit. It seems like you
stopped on page 5. Down
here at 60 of 71 screens,
I've got 55 extra screens of
demographics I don't think
you bothered reading.
\_ So I can write whatever
bullshit screed I like,
so long as I attach a
bunch of demographics to
the bottom of it?
\_ So you didn't read it.
Ok thanks for letting
us know.
\_ What sort of
rational argument is
it that assigns
beliefs to a group
while providing not
a shred of evidence
that this belief
exists? His
argument is based
entirely on quotes
from one English
baroness, hardly
a government
authority nor a
good standin for
the "liberal
multicultural"
bogeyman his entire
article is ranting
against.
He does mention some poll purporting that _/
like 60% of Muslims in Britain would like
Sharia. (can't be bothered to look at article
again.)
\_ Thanks. I had forgotten about the 2020 Project.
\_ Looks like jblack finally figured out people won't delete his
links if he posts the direct link instead of the freeper discussion
link.
\_ Looks like the hosting service censored it.
\_ I'm guessing it was the Mark Steyn article of that title:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007760
\_ The WSJ editorial page! Shocking.
\_ While WSJ is one fine newspaper, which counts me as
as a daily reader, it's editorial page has been pure
trash as long as I can remember. - motd stock fanatic
\_ "There will only be very few and very old ethnic Germans and
French and Italians by the midpoint of this century. What will
they leave behind? Territories that happen to bear their names
and keep up some of the old buildings? Or will the dying European
races understand that the only legacy that matters is whether the
peoples who will live in those lands after them are reconciled to
pluralist, liberal democracy?"
Ah, the old "pure" Germans, French, and Italians fallacy again.
Run, little fearmonger, run!
\_ Nicely pulled out of context. He's talking about culture, not
DNA based racial characteristics. But you knew that.
\_ so why did he keep mentioning about "races"?
\_ because, duh, those "races" already have the modern
western democratic culture he's talking about.
\_ huh? if the key thing is culture, why does he
mention about races? he needs to make up his mind
what he thinks the crisis is.
\_ Are you being purposefully dense? It's specifically
about the influx of Muslims from Algeria et al who
allegedly resist western culture. If it makes you
feel better, try coming up with a better word to
differentiate the predominant "native" populations in
those countries. "Races" is proper usage even if it
triggers little kneejerk alarms in your mind.
\_ Races is the right word, and racist is the
proper description of the author. Why are you
so against the use of the term "racist"? Do not
let the PC cops define what terms you can or
cannot use. You should be proud of being a
racist.
\_ Who said I was against the use of "races"?
Learn to read. Look how stupid you are.
\_ Where did I say that? Are you stupid?
\_ Wow, you made so many edits to your
post I replied to an earlier revision
and now you claim you never said it.
It's in mehlhaff's archive. And I never
stated my own position on the subject
so have no basis to call me racist.
But all you're concerned with is
winning your little motd battle.
Why should people be proud to be
racist BTW? And again, this whole
useless diversion is completely beside
the point; you haven't shown that
anti-radical-Islam is racist. I'm
done with this thread.
\_ Yes, I haven't finished writing,
and you started spewing invectives.
\_ So, what does "self-extinction
of the races" has to do with anti-
radical-Islam? Extreme Wahabism
is a problem that stretches all
the way to Indonesia and the
Phillipines, and is a global
problem and threat to many,
including the 90% of muslims who
do not subscribe to it. Do tell us
how would a mis-characterization
of it as a threat to the survival
of the "European races" help?
\_ Yes, I haven't finished writing,
and you started spewing invectives.
\_ And similarly, racist is a proper description
of the author. Why are you so against use of
the term "racist"? It's not necessarily bad,
depending on what races you belong to.
so against use of the terms "races" and
"racist"? Do they trigger little kneejerk
alarms in your racist little brain?
\_ As I understand it the point was
1. multiculturalist tolerance
allows it to grow, 2. demographics
indicates it may become the
dominant Eur. culture. That's where
the "races" come in (under the
suggestion that these groups aren't
acculturizing to western standards)
Unfortunately we have to spend
pages of motd on the irrelevant
subject of racial purity.
\_ As I understand it, the
author is just using extreme
Islam to spread fears and
push his right wing agenda.
What's the point of mention-
ing New Zealand and
Australia's birthrate, for
instance. Do these countries
have a large muslim
population? I don't think so.
\_ Oddly enough, a friend is
dating a Persian chick from
Australia. Anyway, 2.3%
Muslim in Australia. Muslim
population growing by 40% a
year, versus 5.7% for Aus.
population as a whole.
Projecting that growth rate
linearly (so this is obviously
a simplistic and wrong
calculation), in 10 years
~1/3 of Aus. will be of the
Muslim faith.
Another example:
"Pigs are valued assets and sleep in the
living room in rural China--and next thing you
know an unknown respiratory disease is killing
people in Toronto, just because someone got on
a plane. " Talk about being irrelevant. It's
so obvious that the author just wanted to do
some "liberal"-bashing, throwing in jabs against
environmentalists, feminists, etc. I don't
understand how anyone reasonably intelligent
can fail to see through the facade unless he
has his own agenda himself.
\_ Oddly enough, a friend is
dating a Persian chick from
Australia. Anyway, 1.6%
Muslim in Australia. Muslim
population growing by 40% a
year, versus 5.7% for Aus.
population as a whole.
Projecting that growth rate
linearly (so this is obviously
a simplistic analysis), in
10 years ~1/5 of Aus. will
be of the Muslim faith. I
am too lazy to do the research
of NZ, but if Kiwis and
Islamic Kiwis are similarly
(un)fecund, the results should
not be so different. Thus is
the power of compounding.
Perhaps you shouldn't be so
sure of things you are so
sure of.
\_ I question your 40%
a year figure. Source
please.
\_ Mea culpa. I misread
in haste. It was
actually "40% in
five years, while the
Australian population
as a whole grew by 5.7%
in the same period."
http://csua.org/u/ehj
So it will be 2.9% in
10 years and 4.8% in
20 years.
\_ Since when is German/French/Italian a race?
\_ Would you deny they are ethnicities? Why wouldn't they
be races? dict race
\_ Is Chinese a race? American? How about Nigerians?
Is that a race? (Ob. I happen to know a family of
Chinese-Nigerians.)
\_ Ya know, being smug doesn't help you win arguments.
\_ Less pulled out of context than his Toynbee quote. Toynbee
would have had no use for the shrill Mr. Steyn:
"We intend to modify the violence of the fight, and to
prevent the weak being trampled under foot." -AT
\_ Then his point is doubly worthless, since the great unwashed
masses that stream into Europe and America are greater
converts to secular capitalism than most native Europeans.
\_ That's an interesting claim. While I can see a claim
that *some* immigrants are more capitalistic than the
existent population, I have trouble believing all or
even most would be more capitalistic. Do you have a
reference for the claim, or is this just invention?
\_ I agree with this article. For instance, the Great Chinese
Civilization is superior to the backward cultures you find in
Southeast Asia, or the stone-age buddhist cult culture you
find in Tibet, or the violent Islamist culture in northwest
China. We should always civilize them and not become
lazy and primitive like their backward cultures.
-gcc (Great Chinese Chauvinist)
\_ Some of the "facts" listed in the article are total bullshit,
for example the claim that the Club of Rome book Limits to Growth
predicted oil, natural gas, etc., would run out in the 1990s. The
Limits to Growth said no such thing. They just said that you cannot
grow consumption of a finite resource indefinitely, and they
theorized that many extracted resources would run out within 100
years ... Which is 2070, not 1990. They identified as oil as the
years ... Which is 2070, not 1990. They identified oil as the
first resource to no longer be able to be extracted more quickly
(peak). All they did was take the current reserves of each
resource, multiply it by 5 to account for new discoveries and
apply a yearly growth of x% and see how long the resource will
last ... Limits to *growth*.
\_ Apparently this is a common mistake re the Limits to Growth.
See "Plenty of Gloom" (Economist 12/18/1997) for example.
http://csua.org/u/eh8
Your own characterization of Limits of Growh is equally
misleading. In fact, the Limits of Growth presented 3 possible
scenerios. Scenerio 1 assumes status quo and presents the 550
billion barrel quantity. Scenerio 2 doubled that to 1.1T
barrels, and scenerio 3 5x'ed the 550B barrels. So in fact it is
true that 1 scenerio of the 3 presented in Limits of Growth
predicted the exhaustion of oil in 1990. Obviously scenerio
1 is wrong. Current world reserves is around 2T barrels I
think, so scenerio 2 is probably off. I think scenerio 2 calls
for exhaustion of oil by 2015. The jury on scenerio 3 is still
out. Fortunately we should all still be around to see even
scenerio 3 of Limits of Growth vindicated or discredited.
Again, I must say I find the general level of mischaracterization
of information (and sometimes outright deliberate deception)
both else where and on MOTD to be disappointing.
\_ OBTW, given the existence of Fischer-Tropsch et al, scenerio
3 is almost certainly also incorrect.
\_ Come to think of it, a claim that Limits of Growth predicted
the exhaustion of oil in 1990 is strictly true, and a claim
that Limits of Growth "said no such thing" is completely
false. Shameful. |
| 2006/1/1-4 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:41191 Activity:nil 88%like:41188 |
1/1 Wild predictions for 2006
http://tinyurl.com/ckllp (news.yahoo.com)
\_ From USAToday founder, actually: http://tinyurl.com/7uooe |
| 2006/1/1 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:41188 Activity:nil 88%like:41191 |
12/1 Wild predictions for 2006
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20051230/cm_usatoday/will06bringmoregoodnewsthanbad |
| 2005/12/29-2006/1/1 [Politics/Foreign, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:41167 Activity:nil |
12/29 http://www.courttv.com/onair/shows/dunne/episodes/scandal.html More proof that justice = power + privilege. \_ Why did you post this in a new thread when it's mentioned not a page down? \_ because those that have power + privileges deserve more attention on motd? \_ heh, I read the article as "Her lavish estate in Virginia's exclusive Hunt Country was a refuge for the shy woman and her beloved penises." |
| 2005/12/25-28 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:41138 Activity:high |
12/24 Surprise, surprise. The Dartmouth student Homeland security agent
visit story is a complete hoax.
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/12-05/12-24-05/a01lo719.htm
\_ Man, and we were having so much fun screaming "secret police".
Thanks for ruining Christmas.
\_ Karl Rove is an evil genius! This "22 year old kid" was clearly a
KR plant set in place as part of a nefarious plot between him, the
MBDSA, the greys, Elvis, *and* Bigfoot all in cahoots to convince
the American public that uhm, something evil! But we on the motd
have seen through this thinly veiled plot to destroy our freedoms
and will not stand for it! We shall let the world know that KR and
the greys are still out there working with Halliburton to take over
the world, one no-bid contract at a time! Thank you motd, for
bringing this story to the light of truth!
\_ MBDSA?
\_ Damn it! Now they're going to have to kill you. Dummy.
Those who know, don't tell. Those who tell, don't know!
\_ Moscow Bilingual Deaf School Association? |
| 2005/12/23-28 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:41135 Activity:kinda low |
12/23 Anyone have better pics? http://tinyurl.com/7sl9s \_ http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Wafah+Dufour%22 \_ so why isn't she veiled like a good Muslim? |
| 2005/12/20-22 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41093 Activity:nil |
12/20 Sigint specialists respond to extra-legal NSA orders.
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002032.html |
| 2005/12/20-21 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41086 Activity:very high |
12/20 Suspicious motd silence on Bush's "It's good to be the king" argument
for his NSA decision^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hlawbreaking.
\_ I thought we covered this a few days ago. Who exactly are you
suspicious of anyway?
\_ Well, remember that TIA project? Well, #$@#$#$@#132323 NO CARRIER
\_ Ask Bork about his video rentals..
\_ MSNBC covered it. That makes it a lot more mainstream:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10536559/site/newsweek
\_ Hah hah. There's been suspicious silence on the motd on any good
news on Iraq, Bush, etc. for quite a while. There was no mention of
the Iraqi election for instance.
\_ having an election is insignificant. It is mainly for the show
for USA domestic audience anyway. It is just another one of
those milestone which doesn't mean squat, along with "transfer
of soverignty," etc, etc.
news on Iraq, Bush, etc. for quite a while. There was no mention
of the Iraqi election for instance.
\_ having an election is insignificant. It is mainly for the
show for USA domestic audience anyway. It is just another one
of those milestone which doesn't mean squat, along with
"transfer of soverignty," etc, etc.
\_ A free election of a parliment, with roughly 70% turnout is
insignificant. Okay. Thanks for letting us know where you
stand. Please sign your posts in the future so I can know
which ones to ignore. -emarkp
\_ Please don't derail this with an Iraq flamewar. ok tnx.
\_ I'm not the above poster, but "Free election" is a dubious
claim. Iraq is still under occupation. I think that any
civil structure that comes to form while we are there will
be, by design, fragile. What Iraq ultimately becomes will
not take shape until/unless we leave. --scotsman
\_ Free as in speech. There were real elections with real
candidates, and the people turned out in droves. The
kind of thing people were saying would never happen.
Yes, the final state of the country won't be known until
they stand on their own, but it is a huge thing that
happened and a great beginning for the newest democracy
on the planet. -emarkp
\_ I'm not the above poster, but "Free election" is a
dubious claim. Iraq is still under occupation. I think
that any civil structure that comes to form while we are
there will be, by design, fragile. What Iraq ultimately
becomes will not take shape until/unless we leave.
--scotsman
\_ Free as in speech. There were real elections with
real candidates, and the people turned out in droves.
The kind of thing people were saying would never
happen. Yes, the final state of the country won't be
known until they stand on their own, but it is a huge
thing that happened and a great beginning for the
newest democracy on the planet. -emarkp
\_ Elections are easy. Governing is hard. -ausman
\_ I don't know... I just think this is so blatent that I am just
want to see how Bush is going to get out of this one.
\_ So blatant? Wiretaps on conversations with people outside of the
US who are associated with Al Qaeda? That's your definition of
blatant?
\_ So blatant? Wiretaps on conversations with people outside of
the US who are associated with Al Qaeda? That's your
definition of blatant?
\_ With people outside of the US that Bush et al have said are
associated with Al Qaeda.. Do you know the 4th amendment?
Do you know what FISA is? There are legal mechanisms to do
what they wanted to do. They have decided those legal
mechanisms don't apply to them.
Adding to this:
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=58437
Dem gays is a "credible terrorist threat".. mmhmm...
\_ Between US citizens, in violation of both the Constitution
and the law Congress passed to cover it. Bolton using the
NSA to spy on political opponents inside the State Dept.
The DIA spying on anti-war groups, including The Quakers
and the Catholic Worker. And this is just the stuff that
has come out so far. I am sure there is more.
\_ Oh come off it. This is no worse than having ~500 of your
political opponent's FBI files.
\_ Oh come off it. This is no worse than having ~500 of
your political opponent's FBI files.
\_ You mean that "scandal" that was investigated by an
independent prosecutor that resulted in no charges...
Okay, fine. Join me in a call for an independent
prosecutor here.
\_ That depends on what the meaning of "investigated" is
\_ That depends on what the meaning of "investigated"
is
\_ Yeah, because that's precisely the same as trying to
stop terrorism.
\_ Wow. Way to miss the sarcasm. You must be _this_
tall to post to this thread.
\_ They are both despicable, yes.
\_ Boalt law Professor John Yoo says Dubya can do whatever he wants as
Commander-in-Chief during a time of war. Go Dubya!
\_ Boalt law Professor John Yoo says Dubya can do whatever he wants
as Commander-in-Chief during a time of war. Go Dubya!
\_ You're talking about this? http://csua.org/u/edz (LATimes)
"Neither presidents nor Congress have ever acted under the
belief that the Constitution requires a declaration of war
before the U.S. can engage in military hostilities abroad."
Prof. Yoo, just because no Congress has taken a President to
task for abusing the War Powers does not grant every Pres. the
right to do so. It's a pretty justification, but it's still not
borne out by the Constitution, which means it's only as good as
your ability to stay ahead of the Congressional lynch mob.
Also, your speculation on the idea of Congress becoming the
initiator of wars is disingenuous-- no one's suggesting that
the Pres. doesn't have the authority to start conflicts, just
that he then must continue to obey the laws of the US even
after the start of conflict. We do not have a military
dictatorship.
\_ http://www.conyersblog.us/archives/00000328.htm
Congressmen calls for investigation and censure.
\- Where is Karl Rove in all this? [re: presidential summons
of nyt editors etc] |
| 2005/12/20-22 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:41084 Activity:nil |
12/20 Ok, Canadian Liberals like Islamists?
http://canadiancoalition.com/forum/messages/12071.shtml |
| 2005/12/19-21 [Politics/Domestic/911, Reference/Religion] UID:41075 Activity:nil |
12/19 This hadn't been foremost in my mind recently, so I'd forgotten
about it, but this article reminded me of some of the things
to be angry about. (The Strange Case of Chaplain Yee)
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18550
\- not to be confused with the Celebrated Case of Judge Dee |
| 2005/12/19-20 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:41073 Activity:moderate |
12/19 http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/12-05/12-17-05/a09lo650.htm No abuses of the patriot act my ass. \_ No talk of abusing your ass! \_ I'm pretty anti-US PATRIOT act, but that's pretty damn mild. They "visited" him. Oh noes! They didn't detain him, arrest him, confiscate his stuff, or anything like that that I can see. It sounded like "you a terrorist? ok, just checking, our lame computer algorithm said you might be. be good, ttyl." \_ "The student, who was completing a research paper on Communism for Professor Pontbriand's class on fascism and totalitarianism, filled out a form for the request, leaving his name, address, phone number and Social Security number. He was later visited at his parents' home in New Bedford by two agents of the Department of Homeland Security, the professors said." It doesn't scare the hell out of you that he got a visit from DoHS for checking out a copy Mao's Little Red Book? What would scare you, a 4am door-knockdown and unlawful detention? \_ This should piss off conservatives since it's such a sensless waste of taxpayer money. Of course that would be if any of them actually believed in anything but power. \_ I agree. I can't believe that first they ARE monitoring and second that they would visit him? What exactly was the purpose of the visit? To check if he is a terrorist? How is that not a violation of the kid's civil rights (undue search and siezure?). How long before it turns into secret police and arrests? -!pp \_ That's unreasonable search and seizure, and asking him a few questions is neither a search nor a seizure. Also, the 4th mostly only applies to searches of your home; they didn't search his home did they? This doesn't scare me one bit. The gov. has been doing this sort of thing for decades. Better they monitor everything, than they not monitor. If you don't like monitoring, then don't do things that will be flagged by the filters. \_ Man, I can't tell if you're being facetious or not. What causes their filters to flag you? If you're serious, I seriously hope you get visited for something you consider innocuous. They say a moderate is a conservative with an illness in the family or a liberal who's been mugged; maybe a good Q&A session will cure you. \_ I expect to be visited every single day, so it won't bother me at all if and when they do visit. In fact, I expect to be incarcerated for extended periods w/o being charged or tried. I expected this even before 9/11. I live here in full knowledge of the possible drawbacks b/c I think there is no other place in the world that is even this good. Yes, the const. says that this sort of thing shouldn't happen, but no piece of paper can stand in the way of society. \_ So you've accepted that you live in a police state. I'm happy for you but I'm not willing to throw out what makes this country great. Everyone (and I mean EVERYONE) has something to hide. That's why freedom matters. to hide even if it isn't that big of a deal. That's why freedom matters. \_ I guess the differnece between us is that \_ I guess the difference between us is that you think there is something left to throw out, and I think that is is already gone out, and I think that it is already gone and can never be regained w/o giving up all of the benefits of science/technology. I would like the words of the BoR to mean something substantial, but I accept that the very nature of civilization prevents this. the very nature of modern civilization prevents this. \_ you're a moron. -tom \_ Thank you. \_ You always add so much to the motd. Keep up the good work! \_ Yes the government obviously has a large interest in monitoring what I read/think. We wouldn't want any dangerous opinions getting around. Sarcasm aside, using a terrorist threat to completely destroy our civil liberties is worse than the occasional terrorist attack. I would rather loose 10k people a year to \_ "lose". if you "loosed" that many people each year to terrorism there'd be a helluva lot of terrorists running around loose. terrorism rather than deprive 300 million people of freedom. \_ I don't think terrorism will destroy our civil liberties, b/c I think they were lost at the start of the cold war. I also do not believe that these liberties can be effectively regained in a technological society. \_ "If you don't like monitoring, then don't do things that will be flagged by the filters." <- This is hilarious! So, if the filters include "Harry Potter" books, and you happen to be a fan, you have to abstain reading those books in fear of being "monitored" and "visited"? What a load of crap. this sort of thing for decades. Who cares? You don't wan't to be monitored, don't do things that will cause their filters to flag you. \_ You can argue about how the world OUGHT to work or you can accept the reality of how it does work and get on w/ your life. The price of retrieving any piece of info is the fact that the gov may ask you about it. If you are not willing to pay that price, don't obtain the information. \_ Or I can stop replying to trolls. \_ This was my first thought. However, the abuse is not in the visiting, it's in the broad net cast by the listening. Consider that they correlated a travel history with an interlibrary loan of "The Little Red Book". Unless the man has some previous terrorist ties, this looks a lot like abuse to me. -emarkp \_ Possibly a hoax. See http://www.boingboing.net/2005/12/18/dhs_agents_visit_stu.html \_ Updated update. The reporter stands by the story and is trying to get the student to come forward. Same URL. \_ Cool! Keep the updates coming! -pp \_ If the kid is smart, he'll go about his life and not help make some reporter win a prize. |
| 2005/12/13 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:41004 Activity:nil |
12/13 51 Terrorist Suspects Crossed Border Illegally
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1539796/posts
\_ posted by jblack |
| 2005/12/11-14 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:40959 Activity:nil |
12/11 Welcome to 12/11 (fuel depot explosions)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1538156/posts
\_ BBC, which as you may recall is a real news site, so far
mentions that it's an accident. -John
\_ news.bbc.co.uk says "Police believe it was an accident", but
earlier I was reading other news.bbc.co.uk links that said
they weren't talking about it. I'm not sure what to make of
that. They were scared it might be terrorist related, and now
they've found evidence that suggests it was an accident?
The BP oil refinery accident of Mar 23 2005 in Texas City, TX,
occurred when workers were starting a machine used to increase
gasoline octane ... at 1:23pm on a Wednesday.
This fuel depot accident occurred 6:03am local time on a Sunday
morning ... could have been an automatic process I guess.
\_ Anytime something major goes kaboom in a non-neutral Western
country the initial reaction is always to consider
terrorism as a likely possibility. -John
\_ These bastards don't seem to hold back for neutral
countries.
\_ Yeah, I will give that the longer an incident like this
goes without a credible (video evidence) claim of
responsibility or a repeat incident, it becomes more
reasonable to say it was an accident ...
\_ fyi, for posterity, I compared the BBC diagram of the accident
area (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4517962.stm and found
the location on <DEAD>maps.google.com<DEAD> (http://csua.org/u/e99 |
| 2005/12/7-9 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40902 Activity:high |
12/7 http://CNN.com: "Air marshal kills man who made bomb threat" Oh oh, you know the guy probably wasn't a genuine terrorist if they lead with a line like that. Just compare the lead to the other major web sites' (foxnews.com too) if you don't know what I'm talking about. -jctwu \_ You're kidding me, right? \_ You're kidding me, right? --scotsman \_ Did you check the other web sites yet? \_ Did you check the other web sites yet? -jctwu \_ Uh, yes. Plus a news.google check. If anything, fox's is less descriptive of the actual circumstance than all the rest. I think, perhaps, I don't know what exactly you're complaining about. about. --scotsman \_ Re-read the original post. \_ Re-read the original post. -jctwu \_ Comparing CNN's leed to http://news.google.com/?ncl=http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1517646/20051207/index.jhtml%3Fheadlines%3Dtrue&hl=en http://tinyurl.com/79ebc (news.google) makes them look in pretty good company. There seem to me to be three classes of headlines here: "Man made bomb threat, shot dead by air marshalls" "Shots fired on Miami Plane" "Air Marshalls kill crazy person" CNN and many others are in the first group, International feeds are in the second, and Fox and a number of other papers are in the third. papers are in the third. --scotsman \_ Okay, here it is, for the largest web sites: Man Shot Dead at Miami Airport (WP) Air Marshal Shoots Passenger (NYT) Marshal Shoots Suspect After Jet Lands in Miami (LAT) Deadly Confrontation (MSNBC) Air Marshals Kill Erratic Passenger (Fox) Air marshal kills man who made bomb threat (CNN) 4 of 6 make factual statements 2 of 6 also make claims which assign responsibility in addition to factual statements \_ Uh. You're insane. in addition to factual statements -jctwu \_ Uh. You're insane. --scotsman \_ Uh. I don't think so. \_ Uh. I don't think so. -jctwu \_ Okay, who do you think is being "assigned responsibility"? responsibility"? --scotsman \_ "It's the crazy dude's fault he got himself killed." himself killed. -jctwu \_ "Erratic" is accurate and does not imply blame. \_ Okay, that one I had trouble with. I'll revise that from 4 of 6 and 2 of 6 to 4.5 of 6 and 1.5 of 6 -jctwu \_ "Air Marshals Kill Erratic Passenger" assigns blaim to the air marshal, while assigns blame to the air marshal, while "Air marshal kills man who made bomb threat" assigns blaim to the passenger. \_ Uh.. No. No it doesn't. threat" assigns blame to the passenger. \_ Uh.. No. No it doesn't. --scotsman \_ As pp wrote, I had trouble with "erratic" since it can be interpreted as factual, so I'll give it a half point. point. -jctwu \_ I interpret them the completely opposite way. (And it's spelled "blame".) \_ You missed this one: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10367598 "Air marshal guns down man at Miami airport" \_ That's "Deadly Confrontation". If you went to all the sites earlier (now some of the stories have moved/etc.), you would have seen they're all the lead titles on the front-page of those web sites. of those web sites. -jctwu \_ Lessons learned: always do what armed law inforcement tells you to do. \_ ^law enforcement^* (box cutters don't count as "armed") \_ The air marshals are law enforcement, and are armed. \_ Someone doesn't know csh syntax. -pp \_ it didn't really help that Brazilian dude on the London subway -jctwu \_ It's not law enforcement's fault that the Brazillian dude didn't look white. - magneto \_ "his wife tried to explain that he was mentally ill and had not taken his medication." \_ A female accomplice of a suicidal bomber can very well say the same thing in that situation. \_ I agree. It's a tragedy if everything unfolded as Homeland Security is claiming. It's fucked up if HS or one of the air marshals isn't telling it quite like it is. air marshals isn't telling it quite like it is. -jctwu \_ Okay, http://CNN.com is now /not/ reporting that crazy dude reached into his bag, but that he approached the air marshals aggressively after refusing to put his bag down. Yippee, 0-day newz p0wnz m3. harhar, since then, the http://CNN.com story has changed from the original, to no bomb found, to now his luggage was exploded (implying there may have been a bomb but we'll never know), and back to the original story that he reached into his bag. he reached into his bag. -jctwu \_ Uh, dude. Exploding the luggage in question is standard procedure for suspected explosives. Whether there were or weren't explosive present isn't in doubt afterward. They know what they explode it with and can tell whether other/more explosive material was present. Take a nap. present. Take a nap. --scotsman \_ I know all that, "Take a nap"-dude. In terms of spin, "No bomb found" has a much different connotation than "luggage exploded" with a cool picture of a bag exploding. The former is also much more relevant. The former is also much more relevant. -jctwu \_ You're throwing a lot of epithets at CNN et al over things that are endemic to the 24 hour news cycle. If you're just discovering this, then more power to you, but seriously it's not a big deal. If you take issue with it, take note that <random event> happened and read about it the next morning. --scotsman \_ Do you know what an epithet is? -jctwu \_ You're calling them out on their journalistic cred, and sounding like an idiot in doing so. You've called them spinners and compared them unfavorably to Fox. What would you like me to use instead of "epithet"? --scotsman \_ Just say I called them out on their journalistic cred, not "throwing a lot of epithets". Congratulations you found the words. -jctwu \_ Because you're such the journalism critic... I called them epithets because they don't rise to the level of "criticism" or "allegations" --scotsman \_ So, did you bother to look up the word yet? -jctwu \_ Jeff, I know what "epithet" means. This ceased being amusing long ago. Goodbye. --scotsman \_ Ben, why did you name me? There's a reason why I didn't sign. This became an issue for me the moment you said "Take a nap", and then continued with "throwing a lot of epithets" and then "sounding like an idiot". I'm not the one who started with the personal attacks, and I'm not the one who broke the anonymity. For those following this thread, please note that scotsman and I did not sign our names until after after the "Jeff, ..." post. the "Ben, ..." post. -jctwu \- i personally also think that is a peculiar use of "epithet". --psb, pater andron te theon te \_ shrug, I'm sure scotsman is a good guy but we may have both gotten a little carried away, and probably just wasted our time more than anything -jctwu \- so no DUEL? |
| 2005/12/6-7 [Politics/Domestic/911, Computer/Companies/Google, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40877 Activity:nil |
12/6 GOOG is with the terrorists:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/06/al_qaeda_google |
| 2005/11/28 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:40744 Activity:kinda low |
11/26 A friend of a friend is being deported based on some truly jive-ass
bs. Thank you for defending us from this terrorist, Office of Homeland
Security!
http://savehuck.com
\_ If that story is true and without omissions, it seems like the
department of homeland security has nothing on him. Why is he being
deported? I have heard of non-citizens being arrested for posession
AND sale of marijuana and other drugs. The worst thing that happened
to those particular people was a probabtion period (after basically
walking away a few times) without being deported.
\_ Your friend's friend's problem is the 3 years probation he served.
He ran afoul of the IIRAIRA passed in 1996 to streamline the
deportation of aliens. The IIRAIRA defines as aggravated felony
any crime with a sentence of a year or more, including probation,
and it made the deportation of aggravated felons mandatory.
If you want to blame someone, blame Clinton. The IIRAIRA
came from a commission established by Clinton and chaired by
Barbara Jordan. I'm also surprised Huck is unaware of all this
after having consulted some number of lawyers.
\_ I fwd'ed this to my immigration lawyer friend ... who knows
maybe he'll take the case for free. - rory
\_ Warning to everyone with a green card, if you want the
protections of being a citizen, you need to actually BE a
citizen.
\- and dont be an enemy combatant. |
| 2005/11/21 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:40678 Activity:nil 60%like:40682 |
11/21 The Conspiracy Against the Taxpayers
http://www.city-journal.org/html/15_4_taxpayers.html |
| 2005/11/17-20 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40631 Activity:low |
11/17 "I know what it's like to operate in a highly charged political
environment ... people sometimes lose their cool, and yet ... you can
ordinarily rely on some basic measure of truthfulness and good faith
... the suggestion that's been made by some U.S. senators that the
President of the United States or any member of this administration
purposely misled the American people on pre-war intelligence is one of
the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city."
-VP Cheney (Nov 16, 2005)
"Well, look, ours is a country where people ought to be able to
disagree, and I expect there to be criticism. But when Democrats say
that I deliberately misled the Congress and the people, that's
irresponsible. They looked at the same intelligence I did ...
patriotic as heck to disagree with the President. It doesn't bother
me. What bothers me is when people are irresponsibly using their
positions and playing politics."
-President Bush (Nov 17, 2005)
\_ I'm looking for the interest here.
\_ ok ok, I took out Dubya. shorter now.
\_ He added "I am not a crook"
\_ Dude, isn't the like "how can we use this to hit iraq" post-9/11
meeting like on record?
\_ I don't know, can you produce it?
\_ "But the fact of the matter is that when we were attacked on
September 11, we had a choice to make. We could decide that
the proximate cause was al-Qaeda and the people who flew those
planes into buildings and, therefore, we would go after
al-Qaeda and perhaps after the Taliban and then our work would
be done ... Or we could take a bolder approach, which was to
say that we had to go after the root causes of the kind of
terrorism that was produced there, and that meant a different
kind of Middle East. And there is no one who could have
imagined a different kind of Middle East with Saddam Hussein
still in power." -Sec State Rice (Oct 16, 2005)
\_ How is this the "'how can we use this to hit iraq'
post-9/11 meeting"?
\_ Okay, what's the meaning of "this" in "how can we
use this"?
\_ We hit the trifecta! -GWB
\ |
| 2005/11/16-17 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:40608 Activity:nil |
11/15 Big news: Bob Woodward knew about Valerie Plame before any other
journalist, and was not told by Karl Rove or Scooter Libby:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007024.php
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/15/AR2005111501857.html?nav=rss_politics/administration
\_ but Libby's still a liar and obstructor, right?
did you also know that Woodward is anti-Fitzgerald, and Fitzgerald
was informed of the conversation w/Woodward a week after the
indictment?
\_ Yup. Woodward is a slime - apparently he's appeared on many
talk shows denouncing the investigation without acknowledging
his involvement.
\_ Cool! Another official who revealed classified information to
indict.
\_ More to the point, will they jail Woodward if he refuses to name
his source?
\_ He did name his source to Fitzgerald + Grand Jury + senior
WaPo managers - and they all won't be talking about it.
\_ Why wouldn't Fitzgerald talk about it? Seems to me that
he would like to get that person on the witness stand
and cross examine them.
\_ By "talk about it", I think he meant "to the press". |
| 2005/11/15-17 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:40605 Activity:nil |
11/15 Bruce Willis offers $1 million bounty for terrorists:
http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_27261601.shtml
\_ I thought the U.S. gov't had a 20 million bounty on Bin Laden
already. I could think of better ways for him to spend a million
dollars if he wants to help kill terrorists.
\_ A reality version of Die Hard? |
| 2005/11/15-17 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:40597 Activity:moderate |
11/15 Newsweek poll http://www.pollingreport.com/terror.htm "Would you support the use of torture ... if it might lead to the prevention of a major terrorist attack, or not?" Yes 58% No 35% "What if the use of torture ... makes it more likely that Americans will be tortured by our enemies? ..." Yes 36% No 57% Americans support torture if it might prevent a major terrorist attack ... yet do not support torture if it could lead to U.S. troops getting tortured ... Therefore, SECRET TORTURE FACILITIES!</troll> \- I'd like to see the results for "Would you support torturing an anti-abortion protestor who has planted a TICKING BOMB in a abortion-clinic/daycare?" \_ most pro-lifers do not support bombing of these clinics. (no one is in the abortion center at the time of the bombing) \_ "What if the torture would only be used on individuals with different religious beliefs/race than your own?" \_ Did everyone here see the "amazing stories" story in the 1980s about the broke couple who gets a visit from a man who gives them a box with a big red button. He tells them if they press the big red button "someone they don't know will die", and they will receive $100,000. They agonize about pressing the button for a long time and finally decide they need the money so they press the button. Like magic the man shows up with a suitcase full of cash immediately, and takes the box with the red button back. When they ask where the box with the red button is going, the answer is "To someone you don't know" \_ Bullshit. \_ "What if the torture would only be used on individuals with different religious beliefs/race than your own?" \_ Did everyone here see the "amazing stories" story in the 1980s about the broke couple who gets a visit from a man who gives them a box with a big red button. He tells them if they press the big red button "someone they don't know will die", and they will receive $100,000. They agonize about pressing the button for a long time and finally decide they need the money so they press the button. Like magic the man shows up with a suitcase full of cash immediately, and takes the box with the red button back. When they ask where the box with the red button is going, the answer is "To someone you don't know" \_ Yeah, I really liked that. I thought it was 'The Outer Limits', though. \_ I think it was Twilight Zone, and the ep name was "Button, Button". \_ I think it was Twilight Zone, and the ep name was "Button, Button". \_ Yeah I probably mixed up the name of the show ... Those 2 shows were very similar. \_ They were all pretty much the same basic concept. That was around the same era where "V" was such a big deal. I remember *really* liking that show (and, of course, "Something is Out There"). That was a great era of television, in some respects. \_ They were all pretty much the same basic concept. That was around the same era where "V" was such a big deal. I remember *really* liking that show (and, of course, "Something is Out There"). That was a great era of television, in some respects. \_ Along with "Tales from the Darkside" \_ Was that the show with that idiotic Crypt Keeper? \_ Tales from the Crypt. \_ Ah, right, that makes sense. Damn, so between 85 and 90 there were, what, 5 shows of that general type? At least 6 if you stretch out to 95 to catch "The New Outer Limits." Damn, so between 85 and 90 there were, what, 5 shows of that general type? At least 6 if you stretch out to 95 to catch "The New Outer Limits." \_ Freddy Kreuger was in V. \_ Right -- Willie, the semi-retarded alien. \- what was the movie that takes place in france that involves a guy paying somebody else to take his place in an execution (by the nazis?) or something like that? the tenth man or something name like that? famous movie. may have been a short story too. you may also wish to see the famous TROLLY PROBLEM. \_ Err, I'm thinking of the mid-80's scifi epic miniseries with Mark Singer about lizards that come to earth in the name of peace to steal our water, our women and our environmentalists. I don't...I don't think France was directly involved. Englund played a mostly sympathetic but rather meek alien that ends up defecting to the human side or something. \- i'm not thinking of what you are thinking of. \_ yes, I sort of got that sense :P \_ I find it funny that this political troll has turned into a discussion on sci fi shows. |
| 2005/11/11 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:40544 Activity:nil |
11/11 Terrorist attack in Oakland Chinatown?
\_ Go ahead.
\_ I mean was that what happened this morning?
\_ A quick look a google news just says there was a big
fire at a supermarket at about 6am. Maybe arson, I doubt
it's terrorism in the normal sense.
\_ Are you asking for one or asking if one happened or will happen?
The magic 8-ball says, "it can not be determined at this time". |
| 2005/11/9-11 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:40522 Activity:nil |
11/9 Congresswoman: Three Al Qaeda Caught in U.S. After Crossing
Border with Mexico
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1519110/posts -jblack
\_ Go fuck yourself.
\_ So are you annoyed about the Freep-link as an IP address
thing, at the article, or are you just jblack hater guy
again?
\_ I suspect he's just off his meds.
\_ And you can go fuck yourself as well.
\_ How would you know if I can or not? Get back on your
meds. |
| 2005/11/9-10 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:40502 Activity:nil |
11/8 Weldon to reveal new 'Able Danger' details
Able Danger still receiving near zero media coverage.
In 10+ years of following politics I have rarely seen anything
like this in Wash DC.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47310 |
| 2005/11/8-10 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:40495 Activity:low |
11/8 Oops, looks like the person who leaked the CIA secret prisons info was
a Republican senator. Guess that "investigation" won't be going
anywhere after all.
\_ If it's McCain, it might go somewhere. Oh wait, McCain just said
he hadn't heard of the sites at all before the Post story.
\_ Frist is backing off already... Gee, think the man has any
credibility left? -aspo
\_ everyone's a schadenfraudester.
\_ Hey, the Dems can still call for it (and they should--of course the
Repubs should as well). -emarkp
\_ "Hey, we're gonna get the guy who blew the whistle on our secret CIA
torture scam!" wtf??
\_ Yes, it is more important to stop the leaks than to find out more
about the US secret prisons. Trent Lott says that it was a
Republican senator because VP Cheney told them about the prisons
during a luncheon. Makes you wonder what they say over nightcaps.
\_ That's when they talk about the horse molestation chambers
\_ s/'secret prisons'/'torture chamber'/g |
| 2005/11/8-9 [Politics/Domestic/911, Reference/Military] UID:40490 Activity:moderate |
11/8 Cruise Ship Escapes Pirate Hijack Attempt
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051105/ap_on_re_af/pirate_attack
Ship's Passengers Recall Pirate Attack
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051107/ap_on_re_af/seychelles_pirate_cruise
What kind of cruise ship is it that can outrun speedboat? Or, what
kind of lame speedboat is it that can't even catch up with a cruise
ship!!?? And what kind of lame pirates would use such a speedboat?
\_ "two 25-foot inflatable boats" I suspect that heavily loaded
inflatable boats are not that fast. Probably better
acceleration, but lower top speed.
\_ Still, they can't outrun a 440-foot-long, 10,000-ton cruise ship?
That's still lame.
\_ They probably didn't outrun, per se. With no way to board or
stop the ship, when the cruise ship set out to open sea, the
pirates probably just gave up.
\_ Modern luxury liners can hit almost 30 knots. Some lame
Somali rustbucket may not make that much. -John
\_ The rigid inflatable boats the US Navy uses have
a top speed of 45 knots, but a cruise speed of
only 30 knots - and that's a boat the US military
uses. I'm gonna guess the speedboats were faster,
but not much faster and have a shorter range.
\_ Once again, khat-addled Somali thugs. Have a look
at link:tinyurl.com/9mynz -- "speedboat" is an
optimistic description. -John
\_ They went 100 miles offshore in that?
\_ Look up Thor Heyerdahl. Where there's a will
there's a way. Some of the slow freighters,
private yachts or tankers modern pirates
take are well worth it. Anda cruise ship
will not deviate course because some random
blip is near it--it will probably just try
to avoid ramming. -John
\_ The more I think about it, the more surprised I
am that the thugs got that close. A radar blip
from something on an intercept course within 10
miles of me? If I can't talk to it, I run from it.
A possible terrorist strike would be my primary
worry, especially 100 miles out on a ship full of
American/European tourists.
\_ Even more lame is that, why did the pirates fire their guns when
they approach the cruise ship if their speedboats aren't that fast?
They should have quietly approached and climbed up the ship before
waking up everybody with gunfire.
\_ The problem is that there is no easy way to "climb" up the ship.
The ships are built for easy access to docks not to those at
sea level. The shooting was probably out of frustration.
\_ The article says they were trying to disable the ship
with their shooting.
\_ It's like shooting BBs at a elephant. You need to know
where to hit and then get lucky hitting it.
\_ Eh, not so much with RPG's.
\_ I thought climbing up ships from sea level are pirates'
specialty. Isn't it their main way of hijacking ships?
\_ Most piracy deals with much smaller, slower ships. Small
frieghters, fishing boats, that sort of thing. Built much
lower and substatially easier to access.
\_ These guys are primitive thugs. Like op, they probably thought
"speed boat _must_ be faster than cruise ship." -John
\_ Per /., it looks like the cruise ship used a sonic weapon to
deter their pursuers:
http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/breaking_news/13106303.htm
\_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_range_acoustic_device
very cool. |
| 2005/11/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:40482 Activity:nil |
11/7 16 alleged terrorist arrested in Australia:
http://www.bangkokpost.com/breaking_news/breakingnews.php?id=60375 |
| 2005/11/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40476 Activity:moderate |
11/07 So psb and all other experts in Constitutional law, I just
read Section 2 of the Constitution and it seems pretty
clear that everyone in the American legal system is entitled
to a trail by jury. How did this get overturned? When did
the Executive gain the right to run its own alternative (kangaroo?)
court system?
Section. 2.
Clause 1:
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity,
arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and
Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; ...
and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States,
Citizens or Subjects.
Clause 3:
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by
Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said
Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any
State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress
may by Law have directed.
-ausman
\_ Just about the same time the supreme court has refused to hear
and/or sent back down the cases to lower courts where in the cases
where American citizens are being held without trial. The exec-
utive and judicial branches of the government are both at fault
here. Unfortunately, we are in danger of loosing our most basic
\_ "losing"
and fundamental civil rights if the supreme court chooses to ignore
logic and support the bush regime on this. If so, its only a matter
of time before we have American citizens who are "suspected terror-
ists" being held without council, trial, or indictment and with
\_ "counsel"
the new position on torture, they will be tortured too. -mrauser
\_ SCOTUS will be considering the constitutionality of military
tribunals (vs. application to be tried in the U.S. court system) for
terror suspects who are not U.S. citizens.
SCOTUS has already decided that all U.S. citizens (including those
designated terror suspects by Dubya) can be tried in the U.S. court
system. (Previously, the Bush administration had asserted the right
to indefinitely bar a U.S. citizen from accessing the U.S. court
system, if designated by Dubya as a terror suspect.)
\_ How does this explain Jose Padilla who is a US citizen "captured"
on US soil, but has not been officially processed via the courts?
\_ See: http://www.chargepadilla.org
\_ I made a mistake actually. For U.S. citizens, SCOTUS decided
that /some judge/ (even just a judge on a military tribunal)
needs to look at the case of a U.S. citizen designated as a
terrorist / enemy combatant. I was wrong when I said U.S.
court system. My bad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi_v._Rumsfeld
\_ I made a mistake actually. For U.S. citizens, SCOTUS has
already decided that /some judge/ needs to look at the case
of a U.S. citizen designated as a terrorist / enemy combatant.
I was wrong when I said U.S. court system.
I was wrong when I said U.S. court system. My bad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi_v._Rumsfeld
\_ Art 3 Sec 1 and Sec 2 cl 2 may answer your question. The original
and appellate jx of the Fed Cts is determined by Congress as per
Art 3 Sec 1 - it can refuse to set up Fed Cts or to give them any
jx over cases involving terrorists and choose instead to vest this
jx in Military Cts setup by the Exec, which I believe is the case
presently.
Although the USSC's original jx is determined by Art 3 Sec 2 cl 2,
notice that Congress can regulate and strip the USSC's appellate
jx. Congress has not restricted the USSC from hearing appeals by
terrorists yet, but conceivably it could.
As it relates to the jury trial right, a terrorist probably has
the right to trial by jury, but note this may not be the same
trial by jury right as in regular fed ct (12 ppl, unanimous ver-
dict may not be a requirement) and it is not clear to what level
the fifth and sixth amend. protections would apply.
I think the BIGGER issue is whether the writ of habeas corpus
can be used by non-citizens to challenge their detentions - note
that Hamdi does not answer this b/c he was a citizen. The other
problem is whether the writ can reach those held in Afghanistan
or somewhere else that is more than 100 miles from the nearest
Fed Dist. Ct. This is the bigger issue to me b/c under certain
circumstances the Exec. may have the pwr to strip a person of
US citizenship w/o following due process.
Fed Dist. Ct.
\- in addition to PADILLA and HAMDI, you may wish to follow HAMDAN
v RUMSFELD [which the USSC just agreed to look at, and ROBERTS
has just recused himself ... that is the OSAMA CHAUFFER CASE].
an older case [ww2] is Ex parte Quirin. in re: the checks and
balanaces issue, YMWTGF: "constitutional trifecta". |
| 2005/11/4-8 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:40440 Activity:nil |
11/4 http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20051104.html (findlaw.com, Dean) "Thus, from the outset of the investigation, Libby has been Dick Cheney's firewall. And it appears that Fitzgerald is actively trying to penetrate that firewall. ... Will Libby flip? Unlikely. Neither Cheney nor Libby (I believe) will be so foolish as to crack a deal. ... Libby's goal, meanwhile, will be to stall going to trial as long as possible, so as not to hurt Republicans' showing in the 2006 elections." \_ Any incentive for Libby to do that? It's going to be his ass regardless and Bush & Co is abandoning him... |
| 2005/11/4-6 [Politics/Domestic/911, Consumer/TV] UID:40439 Activity:low |
11/4 "Senate Sets 2009 Digital TV Deadline"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051104/ap_on_go_co/congress_digital_tv
"The move to all-digital will free valuable radio spectrum, some of
which will be allocated to improve radio communications among fire and
police departments and other first responders."
What I don't understand is: why don't they make the first responders
go digital instead? It'll impact fewer people, and the first
responders will surely appreciate clearer reception.
\_ because first responders, when the shit hits the fan, probably
prefer equipment with known behaviour where all the bugs are
either worked out or well understood. all-digital may sound
better, but I wouldn't want to be stuck with 1st gen gear in
an emergency wondering if it was goign to wig out on me.
Let the debugging cycles happen in the consumer market.
Also consider this, the big thing is not the digital but
the freeing up of radio spectrum that may be more useful
to first responders (police, fire, ems, sar). For instance
certain frequency bands perform better for low-power usage
(such as a handheld radio or even a car mounted unit) than
say for high bandwidth high power usage (d-tv), and vice
versa. Also, you still run a digital signal over that
versa. Also, you can still run a digital signal over that
"older" frequency band should you want (and someone makes
the gear, etc). We can get into a discussion of trunking
as well if you want. |
| 2005/11/4-5 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40432 Activity:nil |
11/4 Rule can head off dirty tricks at CIA
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1514509/posts -jblack
\_ http://zapatopi.net/afdb |
| 2005/11/3-4 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:40415 Activity:nil |
11/3 Osama bin Laden, new media star:
http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?id=fnj1gbnwm02kjbzy51xwsh9vhm788cgp
"If I have learned one enduring lesson from months of reflection on the
words of Osama bin Laden, it is that the best defense against World
War III is neither censoring nor silencing him but reading what he has
actually written and countering his arguments with better ones. He has
left a sufficient record that can, and should, be attacked for its
deficiencies, its lapses, its contradictions, and, above all, its
hopelessness."
\_ Good project. For whatever reason, Americans rarely get good
translations of what's actually being said in Arabic.
\-The time has come for [or came a few weeks ago for the CSUA]:
"Stupidity carried beyond a certain point
is a public meanace."
--(somewhat ironically) Ezra Pound
\_ No man hath stupidity enough that is not matured and ripened
by and made fit for God by that stupidity.
\_ And the Arab media carries everything we say faithfully?
\_ Nonsequitur. |
| 2005/11/1-4 [Politics/Domestic/President, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:40398 Activity:nil |
11/1 Kind of ironic that the American Gulag is in Eastern Europe:
"The CIA has been hiding and interrogating some of its most important
al Qaeda captives at a Soviet-era compound in Eastern Europe, according
to U.S. and foreign officials familiar with the arrangement."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/01/AR2005110101644.html?nav=rss_email/components
\_ while(bushinoffice())reasons_to_impeach++;
\_ so the actual impeachment would never happen...
\_ Of course not, you think a republican congress would ever
impeach a republican president? there is no way. It might
happen if democrats win the house in '06, but still unlikely. |
| 2005/10/31-11/1 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40350 Activity:nil |
10/31 Some stories you may have missed last week in the media's masturbatory
speculation on Rove:
UN Oil-for-Food scandal report released:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1602171,00.html
Iran President calls for Israel to be "wiped off the map"
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/31/international/middleeast/31iran.html
of Iraq is way more than the money funneled to Saddam Hussin
during UN Oil-for-Food program, right? What is the big deal
about this? Are you looking for a justification for the war?
\_ Only two American companies made money during the FFO scandal.
The Provisional Government gave money to mostly American
companies. You Es Eh! You, ese!
\_ I'm not looking for "a justification". The UN is a corrupt
organization, and this is an important report.
\_ The Bush administration is a corrupt organization.
\_ Really? The official investigation has produced a single
indictment. The UN investigation shows corruption
everywhere.
\_ Why hasn't the Senate investigation into the use of
WMD intelligence (which was promised to occur after
the 2004 election) been started yet?
\_ Yes, really. The foxes are guarding the henhouse:
http://www.amconmag.com/2005/2005_10_24/cover.html
\_ you know that the money squantered by the provisional government
of Iraq is way more than the money funneled to Saddam Hussin
during UN Oil-for-Food program, right? What is the big deal
about this? Are you looking for a justification for the war?
\_ Only two American companies made money during the FFO scandal.
The Provisional Government gave money to mostly American
companies. You Es Eh! You, ese!
\_ I'm not looking for "a justification". The UN is a corrupt
organization, and this is an important report.
\_ The Bush administration is a corrupt organization.
\_ Really? The official investigation has produced a single
indictment. The UN investigation shows corruption
everywhere.
\_ Why hasn't the Senate investigation into the use of
WMD intelligence (which was promised to occur after
the 2004 election) been started yet?
\_ Yes, really. The foxes are guarding the henhouse:
http://www.amconmag.com/2005/2005_10_24/cover.html |
| 2005/10/29-31 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:40334 Activity:nil |
10/29 Excellent collection of easy to understand points by Fitzgerald
http://csua.org/u/dv7 (someone's blog) |
| 2005/10/29 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40332 Activity:nil |
10/28 Liberal CIA trying to bring down Heroic American President:
http://csua.org/u/dv3 |
| 2005/10/28-11/5 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:40329 Activity:nil |
10/28 Contractors Plead Guilty to Illegal Donations to Texas Democrats -jblack
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1510734/posts |
| 2005/10/28-31 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40322 Activity:nil |
10/28 Libby indicted, Rove not.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/28/D8DH5FOG0.html
\_ yet.
\_ Note no one's been indicted for the actual leak yet.
\_ The leak law is very narrowly written. It's entirely possible
that the leaking was done with malice and violates the spirit of
the law, but it will be too hard to get a conviction to they
don't indict for that. Perjury is somewhat easier to prove.
\_ Note, though, that the investigation is not over. The people
named in the indictment is an impressive list. If any one of
them end up indicted as well, this will be the story for the
rest of Bush's presidency.
\- i guess it takes more than invading a country on false
pretenses, torturing people, letting osama get away,
not really caring about well connected companies looting
the public coffers.
\_ Let's be clear on what he was indicted for. If you read the
document only real two charges stand up and they are based on
hearsay. 1) Libby said Russert "asked" him about Plame, Russert
in his testimony said this never happened. In fact, Russert
himself disputes the facts as they are laid out in the indictment,
saying publicly he never received any information on Plame at
all from Libby.
2) Libby testified he qualified to Miller his statement about
Plame with the phrase "that's what reporters are telling us".
Miller disagreed in her testimony.
Just he said she said, all pretty underwhelming.
in his testimony said this never happened. 2) Libby testified he
qualified to her his statement about Plame with the phrase "that's
what reporters are telling us". Miller disagreed in her
testimony. Just he said she said, all pretty underwhelming. -jblack |
| 2005/10/28-31 [Politics/Domestic/911, Health/Disease/General] UID:40316 Activity:low 92%like:40315 |
10/29 http://csua.org/u/duq [gothamist.com] "The whole city smells like maple syrup" - anyone know what's going on? \_ There's a section of pathway in Lakeside Park where there's a burst \_ There's a section of pathway in Merritt Park where there's a burst of maple syrup smell. I'm almost positive it's from a tree. Either from the bark or the leaves. \_ Perhaps there was a big pancake breakfast at the homeless shelter, such that the usual bum/urine smell was covered over by the new sweet smelling bums. \_ I just got back from NYC and had few little bum/urine/puke/ garbage smelling experiences. Unlike the mission, where I get to smell it everyday... I'm told that east coast cities smell less than SF/SOMA because it rains more there, but I'm thinking that there's more to it. Anyone have any crazy hypothosis? \_ California pee more odiferous. It's the cheese, man. \- it may just be colder. |
| 2005/10/28 [Politics/Domestic/911, Health/Disease/General] UID:40315 Activity:nil 92%like:40316 |
10/29 http://www.gothamist.com/archives/2005/10/28/maple_sugar_smell_mystery.php "The whole city smells like maple syrup" - anyone know what's going on? |
| 2005/10/28 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:40313 Activity:nil |
10/16 DeLay's prosecutors lack a key document
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/politics/3397339 |
| 2005/10/27 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40301 Activity:high |
10/27 Looks like the Fitzgerald indictments might not turn out the
way the Democrats had hoped:
http://www.csua.org/u/cached/dua (redstate.org)
\_ http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/27/cia.leak/index.html
"Sources: Prosecutor focusing on Rove in CIA leak probe"
\_ "This sounds fishy By: Buckland"
\_ "Pobable indictments for Vallerie Plame, Joseph Wilson and one as
yet unknown high ranking Congressional Democrat."
LOL. This is a classic pipedream from the party faithful. It
only gets better if the Scooby team foils the Dems' evil schemes.
\_ More likely a troll. Whatever it is, it gave me a laugh.
\_ Hey, rightwingers can have a sense of humor -- who knew?
\_ Erm, I'd expect more a lefty going undercover... Do you
understand what a troll is?
\_ Yes but trolls usually aren't that funny. The
original article is. |
| 2005/10/19 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:40183 Activity:nil |
10/19 Excellent summary of Myths vs. Facts re Plame and Joe Wilson
http://www.thinkprogress.org/leak-rebuttal |
| 2005/10/19 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40171 Activity:nil |
10/18 22 indictments? Is it really possible?
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/012630.html
\- if this is true, i may start beliving in intelligent design.
but that post is from oct 5? |
| 2005/10/13-14 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Immigration] UID:40078 Activity:moderate |
10/13 http://michellemalkin.com/archives/003576.htm Bush learned his lesson about appointing incompetent cronies to head important government agencies, right? Oh shit, no he didn't! \_ Michelle Malkin should not be cited as an authority on anything. \_ Fortunately there are dozens of others saying the same thing all over the internet. |
| 2005/10/6-9 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:40000 Activity:nil |
10/6 Looks increasingly like US has had its first suicide bomber.
OKC Ch 9:OU Suicide Bomber Attempted Stadium Entry/5 Others
Involved, Ticket to Algeria Found -jblack
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1497375/posts
\_ Oh, you mean aside from those dozen-odd guys who rammed a bunch
of planes into things a few years ago? -John
\_ I assume he meant "home grown."
\_ This is a much more complete run-down, with links for all his
facts. http://www.zombietime.com/oklahoma_suicide_bombing
\_ they are now saying it was remote controlled and, though this
is old news, the guy tried to buy ammonium nitrate |
| 2005/10/6-7 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39996 Activity:low |
10/6 "Forty-six Republicans joined 43 Democrats and one independent in
voting to define and limit interrogation techniques that U.S. troops
may use against terrorism suspects ..."
http://csua.org/u/dn2 (Wash Post)
\- anybody know the list of senators voting against defining the
limits? i see powell spoke up too.
\_ http://csua.org/u/dn4 [senate.gov]
\_ how about just abide by Geneva Convention and allow International
Redcross inspect the suspects? we don't need new law here.
\_ Then why is the White House opposing it?
\_ because White House want to use 'all means necessary'
to extract information from those so called 'terrorist.'
\_ ^want^needs^
\_ want, not need. everyone can say they 'need' the
information. And if you put things to perspective,
Nazi Germany was a much more real threat to US
security then than so-called terrorist to US today.
\_ You misunderstand. I'm saying that the CinC
must have the option of using any and all
means, including torture, first strike, &c,
that he deems are necessary to defend the
republic.
\_ All government bodies object to restraint on their power.
\_ The geneva convention doesn't apply to non-state actors
who refuse to abide by its rules. It also doesn't apply
to the type of conflict we are involved in.
NOTE: There may be other reasons to avoid torture (ie. it
is not effective).
\_ The Geneva Convention very explicitly applies to anyone
whose status is unknown. -tom
\_ Tom is correct on this, the anon parrot quoting White House
talking points is wrong. -ausman
\_ The fun part is that nearly everyone detained by the military
in Iraq is by definition an "unlawful combatant." Heck, if
the military were able to operate legally within the US,
it would be the same unless they they are wearing some form
of ID signifying them as members of an opposition armed force.
\_ Such form of ID would be called a uniform, as required by
the Geneva Convention in order for someone to be covered.
\_ Once again, you are wrong.
"Should any doubt arise as to whether persons,
having committed a belligerent act and having
fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to
any of the categories enumerated in Article 4,
such persons shall enjoy the protection of the
present Convention until such time as their
status has been determined by a competent
tribunal." (Geneva Convention Article 5). -tom
\_ It is you who are wrong. Given that you
agree that Covention 3 governs, start w/
Part 1 Art 2 cl 1 states that the Convention
Part 1 Art 2 cl 1 which states that the
Convention
"shall apply to all cases of declared war
or of any other armed conflight which may
arise between to or more of the High Contr-
acting Parties"
Clearly this provision does not apply to
terrorist who are not "High Contracting
Parties." Unless you can show me where
AQ, &c. signed on to the convention.
Perhaps you wish to look to Part 1 Art 2
cl 3:
"although one of the Powers in the conflict
may not be a party to the present Convention,
the Powers who are parties thereto shall
remain bound by it in there mutual relations."
Clearly this provision does not apply to terrorist
who are not "High Contracting Parties." Perhaps
you wish to look to Part 1 Art 2 cl 3:
"although one of the Powers in the conflict may
not be a party to the present Convention, the
Powers who are parties thereto shall remain
bound by it in there mutual relations."
This contemplates organized state action, not
decentralized terrorist action. But even
assuming that Con 3 applies b/c of this clause,
and that we can therefore look to Art 4, A, we
find that
(1) does not apply b/c terrorist aren't part
of the armed forces of a Party in conflict
b/c they aren't part of the armed forces
of any country.
disorganized terrorist action. But even assuming
that Con 3 applies b/c of this clause, and that
we can therefore look to Art 4, A, we find that
(1) does not apply b/c terrorist aren't part of
the armed forces of a Party in conflict b/c
they aren't part of any armed forces.
(2) does not apply b/c at least requirment (b)
is not met
(3) does not apply b/c they are not members of
the regular armed forces
(4) does not apply b/c they do not accompany
armed force in any manner of speaking
(5) does not apply b/c the Party in conflict
has no crews, masters, pilots, &c.
(6) does not apply b/c they do not respect
the laws and customs of war
Having dispensed w/ that, lets us look to B,
Having dispensed w/ that, let us look to B,
where we find that this provison doesn't apply
either.
There are two major problems w/ the solace
you find in Art 5, first there should be some
doubt of which there is none (see above).
Second, the protection only lasts until a
competent tribunal - such as a US military
tribunal - makes a determination re Art 4
status. Once the tribunal makes a determin-
ation that the person does not fall w/in
Art 4, the protection afforded by the conv-
ention ends.
NOTE: This does not imply that I believe
that torture should be used, only
that there is no legal barrier to
its use against non-citizen non-
state enemy combatants.
that my understanding is that
there is no legal barrier to its
use against non-citizen enemy
its use against non-citizen enemy
combatants not formally associated
with any state and not held w/in
the jurisdiction of a US dist ct
(if the person is w/in the jx of
a US dist ct habeas and 8th amend.
relief may be available - hamdi
does not answer that question re
non-citizens).
\_ So someone who is a Pakistani
or Iraqi citizen, who is
detained...
with any state.
(it is an open question whether
habeas relief is available in
such a case).
a US dist ct habeas relief maybe
available - hamdi does not answer
that question re non-citizens).
\_ So someone who is a Pakistani or Iraqi
citizen, who is detained
\_ Ok, so I have a stupid question.
Is the Geneva Convention legally
binding under U.S. law anyway?
I.e. supposing that it could be
shown that, say, Rumsfeld was
directly responsible for an order
that was in clear violation, is
there any actual legal way to
convict him of some crime?
I would guess that for people in
uniform this would be covered in
the UCMJ, but what about civilians?
\_ The Covention is not self
executing (it cannot be
executing (ie cannot be
enforced directly in US
cts). Part 6, Art 129
executing. Part 6, Art 129
states that
"[t]he High Contracting Parties
undertake to enact any legi-
slation necessary to provide
penal sanctions for persons
committing, or ordering to
be committed"
breaches of of the Convention.
In order for Rummy to be puni-
shed, he would have to be con-
victed under any applicable
fed law executed to enforce
the Convention. This is assu-
ming that Bush would not use
his pardon pwr under US Const
Art 2 Sec 2 cl 1.
victed under the applicable
fed law. This is assuming that
Bush didn't use his pardon pwr
under Art 2 Sec 2 cl 1.
under US Const Art 2 Sec 2 cl
1.
The preferable method to deal
with something like this would
be to impeach him pursuant to
US Const Art 2 Sec 4 ("civil
officer") b/c the Pres. pardon
pwr does not apply to impeach-
ment ("except in cases of
impeachment").
ment.
One completely useless alt. is
to pursue an action in the ICJ.
\_ "to enact any legislation
necessary..." Right, but
does such legislation exist
\_ "to enact any legislation necessary..."
Right, but does such legislation exist
on the U.S. lawbooks?
\_ I believe (but am not
100% certain) that fed
laws re torture, &c.
exist that cover these
violations - note that
new laws specific to
the Convention may not
be needed if adequate
legislation already
exists.
either. Perhaps you find solace in Art 5 cl 2
"should any doubt arise as to whether persons
having committed a belligerent act and having
fallen into the hands of the enemy belong to
any of the categories enumerated in Art 4,
such persons shall enjoy the protections of
the present Convention"
Note that this is conditioned on the status of
such persons being "determined by a competent
tribunal." Even if you can prove that there is
some doubt, there is no reason to 2d guess the
determination of a US military tribunal re
whether someone falls w/in Art 4.
with any state.
\_ Ok, so I have a stupid question. Is the
Geneva Convention legally binding under
U.S. law anyway? I.e. supposing that
it could be shown that, say, Rumsfeld was
directly responsible for an order that
was in clear violation, is there any actual
legal way to convict him of some crime?
I would guess that for people in uniform
this would be covered in the UCMJ, but
what about civilians?
In order for Rummy to be pun-
ished, he would have to be
convicted under the applicable
fed law.
Art 2 Sec 4 ("civil officer")
b/c the Pres. pardon pwr does
not apply to impeachment.
ment.
violations.
\_ did they regulate that interrogators should only ask suspects
nicely, using words like 'Please' and 'thank you', and house them
only in 5-star hotel equivalent living conditions?
\_ No, but they did declare the squallor of your apartment a
violation of the Geneva Convention. |
| 2005/9/28-10/3 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39913 Activity:nil |
9/28 http://csua.org/u/djq (andrewsullivan.com) Re CPT Fishback "[Rumsfeld said:] 'Either break him or destroy him, and do it quickly.' ... The scapegoating of retarded underlings like Lynndie England is an attempt to deflect real responsibility for the new pro-torture policies that go all the way to the White House." |
| 2005/9/26-28 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:39879 Activity:high |
9/26 A few more bad apples:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1108972,00.html
\_ http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1490301/posts
\_ The third post is the best.
\_ http://csua.org/u/dii (LA Times)
"[CPT Fishback] wrote that Army guidance was 'too vague for
officers to enforce American values.' He concluded that violations
of the Geneva Convention were 'systematic, and the Army is
misleading America.'"
\_ if USA is not subject to international jurisdiction, this
thing will happen. If you guys recall, even those who
are responsible for May Lai only got a slap on the wrist.
My favorite story is IR655. They actually got metals for
shooting down an airliner.
\_ Doesn't he know there's a war going on?
\_ That's just great. We should disband the Army and use harsh
words when our enemies invade. I totally lost faith in our
military. All those people they have helped mean nothing when
they are misleading America! For shame!
\_ Did you read at all about the taxi driver who was beaten
to death in Afghanistan? The totally innocent, not a
terrorist, taxi driver. How many more taxi drivers are we
torturing? Laws aren't there just to protect the guilty.
\_ this is not few bad apples. This is systematic abuse that is
directed by people all the way to the top (recall Pentagon decided
that Geneva Convention doesn't apply to war on terror?)
\_ Your sarcasm filter is set too low. Of course it's not a
few bad apples. Of course it goes to the top.
\_ And the Geneva Convention should apply to non-state actors
who do not adhere to it b/c WHY? The executive needs the
fifth freedom in order to properly deal with the enemies
of the republic.
\_ You're one sick monkey. How 'bout you sign up and go over
there? With statements like this, I bet you'd fit right in
with the other PUC fuckers.
\_ The Geneva convention is irrelevant here, except for the
fact that it provides for the protection of civilians when
possible, which we can argue about. However, last I checked,
the US was a civilized country, and civilized countries do not
condone, defend or justify abuse of prisoners of any sort.
There is no argument about this. This is not torture to find
the location of the bomb that'll go off, or punishment, it is
wrong, I don't care what sort of scumbag is being abused. I
don't think this is a case of the military or the US "system"
or whatever being fundamentally fux0red, but there is no
excusing this at all. -John
\_ Well said!
\_ When rights are accorded to prisoners in the context of
war it is b/c there is an implicit understanding that
those same rights will be accorded to our own who are
captured. When this implicit understanding is no longer
true, there can be no claim of rights - as they reserve the
the right to use any and all means against the republic,
so too must the republic reserve that same right. The
extent to which this right is exercised is a matter solely
for the discretion of the executive.
\_ Or in other words, the "they started it!" defense.
Sorry, it doesn't fly; we are signatories to the
Geneva Convention and our treatment of prisoners of
war must be subject to those rules, even if we
think our opponent wouldn't afford us the same
protection. -tom
\_ Conventions only apply amongst those who
actually sign the convention. The provisions
of the convention do not apply to non-parties.
The non-state actors who currently oppose the
republic are non-signatories and therefore
have no claim to rights under the convention.
Furthermore, the geneva convention only applies
to conventional warfare, not this current type
of conflict.
\_ The present Convention shall apply to the
persons referred to in Article 4 from the
time they fall into the power of the
enemy and until their final release and
repatriation.
Should any doubt arise as to whether
persons, having committed a belligerent
act and having fallen into the hands of
the enemy, belong to any of the
categories enumerated in Article 4, such
persons shall enjoy the protection of the
present Convention until such time as
their status has been determined by a
competent tribunal.
[Shocking news, Gonzalez/Rumsfeld ignore this
provising. -tom]
provision. -tom]
\_ No, being a civilized country and adhering to absolute
standards of civilization is not at the discretion of
the executive. Look up "moral high ground". -John
the executive. Are you saying that "the executive"
knows of and condones (or even orders) this sort of
thing? Note that we are not even talking about Matt
Gonzalez' "torture is OK in some circumstances" memo,
but random abuse. Or are you saying that the executive
doesn't have a clue what the armed forces under its
command are up to? I am curious. -John
\_ My view is that the executive branch needs unlimited
pwr to defend the republic - the means which they
choose to employ are at their sole discretion. If
they choose to condone this conduct, then so be it.
If they choose to prosecute this conduct, then that
is okay as well. If they don't know and they choose
not to find out b/c they have something more impt.
to do that is okay as well.
I also reject the view that there is something
special about civilization that compels us to act
in a particular way w/in and w/out. Inside the
walls of civilization I agree that there must be
civilized conduct, but outside, in the jungle,
if civilized conduct is a liability then those
charged w/ the protection of civilization must
be free to dispense w/ civilized conduct.
\_ You're right, so as you're outside the walls of
my civilization, let's have GUN DUEL. -John
\_ Not sure if a gun duel is legal. How about
a StarTrek phaser duel? Is that legal? |
| 2005/9/20-22 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign/Asia/India] UID:39780 Activity:nil |
9/21 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050921/ap_on_re_as/afghanistan Karzai actually demands an end to US-led operations. How dare he talk to us like that! Looks like we need to put in a new puppet ruler \_ just promise Karzai that we will not 1. interfere opium production and 2. demand to share profit derive from opium sales should be suffice. |
| 2005/9/14-17 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39670 Activity:nil |
9/14 Tom Delay: There's simply no fat left to cut in federal budget.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050914-120153-3878r.htm
\_ Isn't this the guy who's pretty clearly been taking bribes?
\_ Apparently he's decided to go into comedy. " Asked if that
meant the government was running at peak efficiency, Mr.
DeLay said, "Yes, after 11 years of Republican majority
we've pared it down pretty good.""
\_ Yes, I'm sure his campaign donors are being rewarded
as "efficiently" as possible. |
| 2005/9/14-17 [Computer/Companies/Ebay, Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:39666 Activity:nil |
9/14 http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050913/od_nm/philippines_imelda_dc Imelda Marco is ok with being guilty but she will not allow the government to sell her precious jewelries. |
| 2005/9/12-13 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:39630 Activity:nil |
9/11 It's 9/11. Where is Bin Laden? Why isn't anyone talking about 9/11
and Bin Laden?
\_ We have taken care of that issue after we invaded Iraq, don't
you remember?
\_ Who?
\_ Give Bush at least twice as long as it took us to defeat the Nazis.
Oh wait, he won't be President anymore then. How old is bin Laden?
Maybe natural causes aren't too many decades away ...
\_ Mission Accomplished! |
| 2005/9/9-11 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:39593 Activity:nil |
9/9 remember , it's going to be 911 on sunday
\_ early happy birthday, devo |
| 2005/9/3-5 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39471 Activity:nil |
9/3 "(Al Qaeda leader Osama) bin Laden, nice and dry in his hideaway,
must be killing himself laughing [at the Bush Katrina disaster]."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050902/ts_nm/weather_katrina_reaction_dc
\_ Why would you make light of the suffering of others?
\_ Because its not as much fun when it happens to you. :(
-mrauser |
| 2005/9/1-2 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:39415 Activity:nil |
9/1 New Orleans will be rebuilt...
Where it was: .
On lots of new fill dirt:
Farther inland:
As a shadow of its former self: .
It's best as a land fill:
\_ It'll never be rebuilt. I just realized today that the levees will
be a terrorist target from now on if it is.
\_ There are no terrorists. GW Bush eradicated them, and created
a magnet for terrorists in Iraq so that instead of coming to
to the US, they go to Iraq. The fact that there hasn't been
a single attack in the US means GW Bush's plan is working. You
liberals should look around and have the guts to admit that
Bush's doing a swell job.
\_ I think Dubya's plan was that Iraq would be stable by now and
we'd be out of there. And that we would have found the WMDs.
And Osama would be captured, dead or alive. Something like
that. Well, at least we found out Saddam didn't have WMDs.
I think all the non-old people are also supposed to have
private accounts, too.
\_ We already know it will be rebuilt b/c Ben Sisko lived
there as a kid.
\_ Yes, but it was never mentioned where that New Orleans was.
\_ And why didn't the Ts blow up the levees before?
\_ Because there are easier targets out there.
\_ Possibly because no one thought of it. The whole world knows
about it now. I don't know about the energy necessary, but if
a fertilizer truck bomb could breach the levee, I can't
imagine that they could ever rebuild.
\_ Do it enough and the residents of NO would evolve into
amphibious beings who could survive on raw seweage ... it
might be the key to saving the human race! |
| 2005/8/31 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39380 Activity:high |
8/31 Ok, I thought blaming Bush for the levees breaking was stretching
things a bit, then I run into this:
"It appears that the money has been moved in the presidents budget
to handle homeland security and the war in Iraq, and I suppose thats
the price we pay. Nobody locally is happy that the levees cant be
finished, and we are doing everything we can to make the case that
this is a security issue for us."
Walter Maestri, emergency management chief for Jefferson Parish,
Louisiana; New Orleans Times-Picayune, June 8, 2004
\_ Parish is a dissent and will be going to Guantanamo Bay soon.
\_ Idiot! "Parish" is the Lousiana term for district/county;
and "Jefferson" being the name of the Parish.
\_ Hence further proof that Liberals are idiots.
\_ Illogical. If you see a stupid American, does that
mean all Americans are stupid? No. Your statement
is proof however that _you_ are an idiot.
\_ Mr. Parish is also "a dissent". |
| 2005/8/29-30 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39338 Activity:nil |
8/29 Whistleblower on Halliburton no-bid $7 billion contract demoted
http://csua.org/u/d6t (LA Times) |
| 2005/8/24-25 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:39258 Activity:nil |
8/24 See, Dubya's administration isn't totally fucking things up:
"Al-Banna has been accused of carrying out one of Iraq's deadliest
suicide bombing ... the Jordanian government and al-Banna's family said
he carried out a different suicide bombing in Iraq ... The Homeland
Security memo ... said al-Banna was carrying a valid Jordanian passport
and valid work visa [when he previously tried to enter the U.S. at
Chicago O'Hare]. But the Customs agents believed the passport was
falsified, and ultimately rejected al-Banna's entry after secondary
security screening and questioning ..."
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/24/suspicious.traveler.ap/index.html |
| 2005/8/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:39222 Activity:moderate |
8/23 It's Pat:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/23/robertson.chavez/index.html
Pat Roberson calls to have Hugo Chavez assassinated. Gee, prominent
public relig figure calling for "death to <head of state>" ... what
does that remind you of? I like the line "This is in our sphere of
influence, so we cant let this happen" ... gee, I wonder if people
in Venezuala talk about "American Black Helecopters". And I wonder
if Hugo Chavez is a bigger theat to America than activist judges".
Any bets on who the next ambassador to Venezuala might be?
\_ Jesus for Oil..
\_ I'm willing to make that trade.
\_ Huge Chavez is a clown. -- ilyas
\_ Hugo Chavez is a clown. -- ilyas
\- So? Who would you rather have as your ruler, Hugo or Pat?
\_ Well, I was gonna say you, Partha, but then I remembered you
would feed me ankles first into a woodchipper. -- ilyas
\- in spite of your psb-persecution complex, you'ld
probably be pretty low on my reeducation or beyond
reeducation, convert to fertilizer list. --psbpot
\_ I don't know, Partha, you haven't seen me with a lot
of money. -- ilyas
\- ok i'll keep my options option to have your
bones scraped with a rusty file.
\_ When Pat ran for President in the 80s I distinctly remember
him saying that one of his first acts as President would be
to nuke the USSR. So I'd rather have Chavez.
\_ We need to keep our mullahs in line ... Maybe Venezuela should
ship off Robertson somewhere, say Egypt. I love the automatic
assumption that Venezuela's oil belongs to us because it is in
our "hemisphere" ... Isn't it property of the people of Venezuela?
\_ But they are Brown and Catholic, therefore subservient to
Anglo-Saxon Jesus.
\_ Heh, yeah, it Belongs to the People. -- ilyas
\_ No, actually, it's properly owned by PDV, which is at least
majority- if not entirely owned by the government of
Venezuela, which is, at least pro forma, a democracy, so yes,
it Belongs to the People. If you want to argue that
knocking off that fucker Chavez is a good thing due to
geostrategic interests (and, well, because he's a fucker)
then that's entirely different (this is what I think we
should have done with Saddam and couple of other places if
we were honest about it). However, there is _no_ argument
that Venezuelan (or any other) oil supplies "belong" to
anyone other than whoever's got the drilling rights to
them. -John
\_ I am fairly sure the oil in Venezuela belongs to Chavez.
Personally, I am in favor of knocking off Chavez _last_
among the world's head-of-state fuckers because, hey,
at least he's funny. -- ilyas
\_ Let's see... Chavez is aligned with Iran, Ven. is becoming
a client state of China, and Chavez provides extensive
military support to the FARC narco-terrorists.
Without oil Venezuela = Zimbabwe. I'd say pat is exactly right,
but shows poor judgement to say such things in public.
\_ Fair enough. Nonetheless, the point isn't who it
belongs to, rather who it doesn't, i.e. us. And
careful, Partha "the Mulcher" is watching. -John
\_ Let's see... Chavez is aligned with Iran, Ven. is becoming
client state of China, and Chavez provides extensive
military support to the FARC narco-terrorists. I'd say
Pat is exactly right. Without oil Venezuela = Zimbabwe.
\- still crazy after all these years ...
*Boredcast Message from 'john': Thu Oct 13 15:47:45 1994
||
||ok...straw poll:
||If anyone on soda was to become the evil dictator of a small
||country, who would it be?
||(assuming I get to be chief of the secret police)
||
*Boredcast Message from 'alanc': Thu Oct 13 15:48:30 1994
||
||Probably psb
||
\_ I am pretty sure that this is an act of terrorism as defined
by the Patriot Act. I won't hold my breath waiting for him
to be arrested.
\_ Let's see... Beaner is aligned with Turbin, Venezuela is becoming
client state of Chink, and Beaner provides extensive
military support to the Turbin wearin terrorists. I'd say
Pat is exactly right. Without oil Venezuela = Bin Laden.
Fuck immigrants, blacks, and Jews. !jblack
\_ "Can anybody understand what this duck is saying?"
\_ Pat in 2003:
"How dare the president of the United States say to the duly
elected president of another country, 'You've got to step down.'"
http://csua.org/u/d55 |
| 2005/8/16-20 [Politics/Domestic/911, Science/Physics] UID:39143 Activity:nil |
8/16 Once again, the onion news story sounds no sillier than the reality:
http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4133&n=2
"Even critics of Intelligent Falling admit that Einstein's ideas about
gravity are mathematically irreconcilable with quantum mechanics. This
fact, Intelligent Falling proponents say, proves that gravity is a
theory in crisis."
\_ The differential equation on the screen is awesome.
\_ What does it read? It's too small for me.
\_ dx/dt = 1 Cor. 1:10
\_ Sweet...
\_ Haha! This shows how silly the Evangelical "scientists"
are. Gravity is related to acceleration, which is dv/dt
not dx/dt.
Oh shit! I forgot that this is The Onion!
\_ tom's axiom 1
\_ What Newton said, in his own words:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity#Newton.27s_reservations
\_ Makes sense to me. That's why people say he came up with the
"law of gravity" versus "a theory of gravity". Not saying that
a theory is a full explanation, but at least it's more in that
direction. |
| 2005/8/16-20 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:39137 Activity:nil |
8/16 http://www.itv.com/news/index_1677571.html http://observer.guardian.co.uk/focus/story/0,6903,1548808,00.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Charles_de_Menezes The innocent Brazilian killed in the tube shooting was a total fuckup by police. No baggy jacket, no jumping over the turnstile, no running until he saw a train was about to leave, probably no order to stop. \_ But you've got to admit, he did have the audacity to not look white. \_ And he wasn't one of the good shades either. \_ Okay, I'll bite -- What's a "good shade"? \_ my problem is that London police doesn't suffer any consequences as result. There are *NO* incentive for them to be careful before they unload all the rounds into one's head. |
| 2005/8/15-17 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:39126 Activity:low |
8/15 For the Able Danger pusher a few days ago...
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_08/006908.php
\_ This is the first I've seen about the source for the story. I wish
I'd known it was that shaky from the get go.
\_ I actually saw this first, even the right is getting
suspicious:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_08_14_corner-archive.asp#072960
\_ Only Democrats have credibility problems.
\_ It seems that there are 2 separate questions. One question is
whether the 9/11 commission reasonably ignore the Able Danger
information. The above links argue that it was reasonable. A
second question is whether Able Danger did have intelligence on
Atta and the Brooklyn cell. I'd hate for the 2nd question to be
ignored in our rush to discredit Weldon.
information. The above links argue that it was reasonable, since
the commission was not presented with information that highlighted
Atta. A second question is whether Able Danger did have
intelligence on Atta and the Brooklyn cell. I'd hate for the 2nd
question to be ignored in our rush to discredit Weldon. |
| 2005/8/13-15 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:39109 Activity:nil |
8/13 How Chinagate Led to 9/11
http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13516
Gorelick 'MemoGate': It Just Got Worse
http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=16201
\_ From CHRONWATCH? Wtf? I despise the Chron for having an utterly
loathsome editorial style, but this guy is beyond the pale even
for all that. Man, I wish I had all the time in the world.... |
| 2005/8/11-12 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:39102 Activity:nil |
8/11 The 9/11 Comissiong in Mortal Danger
http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_08_07_corner-archive.asp
Did DoD lawyers blow the chance to nab Atta?
http://www.gsnmagazine.com/aug_05/dod_lawyers.html
Was Berger after Able Danger documents? |
| 2005/8/9-11 [Reference/Religion, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:39074 Activity:low |
8/9 Conservative Christian group pickets military funerals:
http://csua.org/u/cz3
\_ They're not conservative Christians. They're nuts. These are the
"God hates fags" people. They protested on 9/18/2001 saying that
\_ They can be all 3.
not enough people died, and that if any rescue workers found anyone
alive they should be left to die. They're just plain nuts.
\_ Amazing. Your contortions remind me of the communists who
try to both justify Stalin and distance themselves from him
because they can't face the connection between their belief
system and pure evil. Are you going to claim that Jerry
Falwell is not a leader in the American Christian conservative
movement? Are you going to deny that the Bush whitehouse still
treats him as a friend after he came out in support of the
terrorists after 9/11? I'm not saying that all or even most
conservative christians are evil, but if you deny that there
are *some* among you who support terrorism and genocide you
are a liar and a hyporcrite.
\_ Is Jerry Falwell one of those TVangelists?
- conservative christian
\_ "And, I know that I'll hear from them for this. But,
throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal
court system, throwing God out of the public square, out
of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some
burden or this because God will not be mocked. And when we
destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God
mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the
abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the
lesbians who are actively trying to make that an
alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American
Way, all of them who have tried to secularize
America, I point the finger in their face and say
'you helped this happen.'" -Falwell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Falwell
I don't care that he apologized later to cover his ass.
The man literally sided with the terrorists *right* after
9/11, and I've actually seen him on cspan as a VIP guest
at the Bush white house since then.
\_ You don't seem to understand this quote. He's not
"siding with the terrorists" here. He's saying
something which is a long tradition in Christianity,
which is that wickedness rejects the protection of God.
He didn't say the terrorism was God's will.
\_ "Don't you associate some of those above with liberals.
We don't want them on our team." -- ilyas
\_ Who are you quoting here, yourself?
\_ I am quoting Liberal Team Management. I guess it was
a little ambiguous.
\_ You do realize that was a very silly joke, right?
\_ There is this old jungle saying in Russia:
"In every joke there is a grain of a joke."
-- ilyas
\_ There is this old saying in America:
"We are here to help ilyas, because in every
russkie, there is an American trying to get
out." |
| 2005/8/4-8 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:38994 Activity:kinda low |
8/2 International Police Chiefs Group issues Shoot-To-Kill Guidelines
for Confronting Suicide Bombers:
http://officer.com/article/article.jsp?siteSection=4&id=25126
\_ The exact text from the document:
"Lethal force is justified if the suspect represents a significant
threat of death or serious injury to an officer or others. ... An
officer need only determine that the use of deadly force is
objectively reasonable under the circumstances."
Sounds good to me!
Citizens:
Do not wear bulky clothing on warm days, do not carry backpacks
with protruding wires, do not run from people holding guns yelling
stop (who may be plainclothes officers) and board public transit,
be aware if your apartment building is under surveillance, avoid
looking nervous, and be more careful if you match a profile.
\_ Turban = terrorist hat, so avoid wearing in public.
\- for sikhs (as opposed to muslims) wearing a turban is close
to non-negotiable rather than a fashion statement. have there
been any turban-wearing terrorists in the west [a sikh fellow
assassinated I GANDHI, i dont know if he was wearing a turban
at the time ... i would certainly assume so, given the back-
ground.] --psb
\- Why dont we ask good sikhs to wear white turbans and bad
sikhs and terrorists to wear black turbans --alig
\_ And we can make *our* towelheads wear american flag
turbans (though perhaps we should make the liberal
ones wear a pink moon or something on their sleeves
for easier, uhm, identification....)
\_ As long as you don't resist arrest, you're fine. The Shoot-
To-Kill guidelines applies only if the suspect resists arrest,
as in the Britain case.
\_ Getting arrested isn't fine though. They can still push you
to the ground, kneel on you and shout at you etc. And
\_ Getting arrested isn't fine though. They can still push
you to the ground, kneel on you and shout at you etc. And
they can chain you to a chair in a cold jail cell with
flimsy clothes and a roomful of weirdos, and when you
get out the cash might be gone from your wallet.
to the ground, kneel on you and shout at you etc.
And they can chain you to a chair in a cold jail cell with
flimsy clothes and a roomful of weirdos, and when you get
out the cash might be gone from your wallet.
\_ Are you quoting from the official document, or are you
talking more about your personal opinion?
Please also note that witnesses do not remember hearing the
plainsclothes police identifying themselves as such to
the dead innocent guy from Brazil.
\_ The guy who took a running jump over a turnstile the day
after a bombing. He may have been innocent, but he
earned his Darwin Award.
\_ After being followed by suspicious looking guys
since you left your apartment who pull out guns
when you head down into the train station?
Anyway, are you quoting from the official document
or is it more about your personal opinion?
We were talking about the shoot-to-kill guidelines
from the Intl Police Chiefs Association.
\- the line about how to stop a SUICIDE BOMBER:
"destroy his brain instantly, utterly" is pretty
cold! the sort of line CHURCHILL would be
proud of.
\_ This line is not new, police snipers are
taught to hit the motion centre of the brain
taught to hit a certain portion of the brain
(the thalamus I think) which enables motion
when killing people holding hostages. -- ilyas
\_ Thank god you don't have a gun, you seem
to be very unstable sometimes.
\_ Hehehe. -- ilyas
\_ BWWWAHAHAHAHAHA! -mice
\- i think the idea of instant death/head shot
iswnt new, but the line is what is new. |
| 2005/8/3-5 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:38972 Activity:nil |
8/3 Watch freepers rant and rave about the liberal MSM and it's reporting
of the death of an Iraqi Major General while in U.S. custody
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1456310/posts
http://csua.org/u/cwq (Post) |
| 2005/7/25-28 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:38820 Activity:nil |
7/25 Not going to investigate the leak, but the committee will be
investigating the leak investigation!
http://csua.org/u/cu2 (boston.com) |
| 2005/7/23-26 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:38792 Activity:low |
7/23 Oopsiedoodle!
"We believe we now know the identity of the man shot at Stockwell
Underground station by police on Friday 22nd July 2005, although he is
still subject to formal identification. We are now satisfied that he
was not connected with the incidents of Thursday 21st July 2005. For
somebody to lose their life in such circumstances is a tragedy and one
that the Metropolitan Police Service regrets. ... The man emerged from
a block of flats in the Stockwell area that were under police
surveillance ..." -Scotland Yard
"He spotted the plainclothesmen who were following him and fled into
the nearby Stockwell subway station, one stop from the Oval station
that was the scene of one of Thursday's explosions."
"Witnesses report seeing up to 20 plain clothes police officers chase
a man into Stockwell Tube station from the street ... Police challenge
the man but he apparently refuses to obey instructions"
"He apparently tried to get on a train before he was, according to
witnesses, shot five times in the head by an officer with an automatic
pistol."
"... that officers had ordered the man to halt and had opened fire only
after he failed to obey. But none of the witnesses reported hearing
any warning."
"Another cousin, Aleide Menezes, said in an interview with Brazil's
national radio network that Mr. Menezes understood English well and
would have understood the officer's instructions. Other relatives, in
television and newspaper interviews, said the family was Roman
Catholic and that Mr. Menezes had nothing to do with Islam."
\_ He would've been 'connected' to next week's.
\_ It apparently depends on what the meaning of "challenge" is in
this case.
\_ "This tragedy has added another victim to the toll of deaths for
which the terrorists bear responsibility." according to BBC.
Yeah blame it on the terrorists!!!
\_ The terrorists made the cop fingers extra itchy.
\_ It's sad, just like the vigilantes who sat on/asphyxiated some
poor loon on airplane flights after 9/11. We don't know (yet?)
why he ran, but as easily as for being a Bad Guy it could have
been that he is your garden variety illegal immigrant or that
the plain-clothes SAS officers looked like an intimidating mob
bent on some vigilante justice. |
| 2005/7/22-25 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:38782 Activity:low |
7/22 Not bombers or insurgents, they're terrorists.
http://csua.org/u/ctp
\_ Total garbage. Don't waste your time reading this shit.
\_ I don't know, it is one opinion from someone actually there
in Iraq. I don't agree, but I don't think it is garbage. |
| 2005/7/22-25 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:38768 Activity:kinda low |
7/22 Rep. Tancredo (R-CO) says that we shouldn't rule out bombing
Mecca if the terrorists nuke us:
http://rockymountainnews.com/drmn/state/article/0,1299,DRMN_21_3937059,00.html
[ Go Crazy! ]
\_ Wow, they like to make 'em crazy up in Colorado. It's just too bad
Hunter Thompson was never elected sheriff of Aspen.
\_ If I was a Muslim who believed that there was nothing more important
than Mecca, then I would be working hard to make sure my country
was building up a big arsenal of nukes.
\_ Paul Harvey said something similar a week ago.
http://nihlist.blogspot.com/2005/06/no-one-ever-accused-paul-harvey-of.html - danh
http://nihlist.blogspot.com/2005/06/no-one-ever-accused-paul-harvey-of.html
- danh
\_ Yes but Harvey is not an elected representative of the people of CO
(or anywhere else AFAIK).
\_ The reason this is stupid is nuking Mecca is not a terrorist
deterrent. Terrorists couldn't give a shit about Mecca. If
anything, the destruction of Mecca will help them. Actual Muslim
states might care, but it's unclear how much extra pressure this
kind of rhetoric puts on them. -- ilyas
\_ If nuking xyz _was_ a terrorist deterrent, would you do it?
\_ Would I nuke something as a deterrent? Do you know what a
deterrent is? -- ilyas |
| 2005/7/22-25 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:38765 Activity:moderate |
7/22 Plain-clothes police shoot bombing suspect dead at Tube station:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4706787.stm
Hey, I'm for stopping terrorists as much as the next guy, but
plain-clothes cops putting five in the guy at close range? I mean,
way to get your man and all that, but... plain-clothes cops?
\_ "Another passenger on the train, Anthony Larkin, told BBC News
the man had been wearing a 'bomb belt with wires coming out'."
Please give your preferred method for dealing with terrorists
wearing bomb belts running into crowds of people. Also, what
does it matter what the cops were wearing? They gave warning.
\_ Peace. I don't know what the solution is, and I'm sure the
cops acted within reason. Still, plain-clothes cops creep
me out, especially since I was searched by one in Tijuana
once. I mean, how the hell do you know they are who they say
they are.
\_ Probably the poster before you is worried as he is a tall
Asian guy who wears a backpack to school/work and takes
BART and is anti-establishment - but doesn't wear bomb belts
\_ Probably op is worried as he is a tall Asian guy who wears
a backpack to school/work and takes BART and is
anti-establishment - but doesn't wear bomb belts.
op probably doesn't need to worry, though. If the guy
was innocent and just didn't understand English, this will
come out eventually - but it sounds like he wasn't innocent.
I'm not ignoring that it could be a 'spiracy and they had
one "passenger" say he had a bomb belt and the other
"passenger" say he was wearing a thick jacket.
\_ Haven't you played Max Payne? Sometimes plain clothes cops
armed w/ dual Desert Eagles or Ingrams are the only ones
who can properly deal with the situation.
\_ PAYNE!!!
\_ You can't wield dual "desert eagles" in the game, it's duel
berrettas (sp?). I have eaten the flesh of fallen angels!
\_ You can't wield dual "desert eagles" in the game, it's dual
berettas (sp?). I have eaten the flesh of fallen angels!
\_ In Fall of Max Payne, I thought they fixed it so you
could. What would have been really k3wl is dual shotguns
reloaded Terminator style a la Marathon 2!
\_ I think we've been underreacting. Time for some overreacting.
\_ I'm kind of amazed at the fact that every time something like
this happens, we hear about mass fear of repraisal attacks. It
kinda comes across as "I'm cool with Muslim terrorists blowing
up 50 people on a subway, what worries me is that some redneck
will throw an egg at my house." I hope these are the words of a
few idiots and not the general feeling. http://csua.org/u/ct2
\_ They've got a point, and it needs to addressed, if only by
the police issuing a reassuring statement. We can support
tracking down terrorists AND be worried about overreactions
at the same time.
\_ How many times have we heard about a suicide bomber blowing up
a bus or train or whatever full of innocent people and everyone
thinks "Why couldn't the cops do something to protect us?". Now
we have a story about cops blowing away one of these bastards,
probably saving at least a dozen lives, and people are UPSET? WTF?
It will be *really* obvious if the guy was a suicide bomber or
not ... If not, then it's a tragic mistake. If yes, then the cops
are heroes!
are heroes! Besides, it's a win-win situation ... The suicide
bomber gets to become a martyr with his 72 virgins and the
people who actually want to live don't die in the process.
\_ They've got a point, and it needs to addressed, if only by
the police issuing a reassuring statement. We can support
tracking down terrorists AND be worried about overreactions
at the same time.
\_ Don't you know who it works? When the cops kill an innocent
it is overreacting and police brutality - not an honest
mistake during the performance of what must be one of the
most difficult civilian jobs. When the cops kill a terrorist
it is overreacting and police burtality - obviously the
cops let their bitter hateful anti-muslim retribution rage
overwhelm them and were blinded to the fact that maybe this
was just a misguided youth how could be brought around to
the love peace dope lifestyle with enough love peace and
dope.
\_ You're an idiot and you overwrote my post. |
| 2005/7/21-23 [Politics/Domestic/911, Recreation/Food] UID:38756 Activity:nil |
7/21 My reading on London bombing 2: Terrorists screwed up this time.
Detonators went off, but explosives didn't.
Yes, it is indicative of high vulnerability if they can get chemically-
based detonators exploding in rucksacks at three subway trains and a
bus AGAIN, even with all the security, two weeks after the last attack.
\_ Also a higher possibility of copycat or amateur hour.
\_ Uh, Al Qaeda _is_ largely a "copycat" organization. Now watch
out for the disappointed-looking bearded guy sitting behind the
backpack. -John
\_ Especially that it's again three in the subway and one on a bus.
\_ Probably this was just engineered by Rove to get him off the
front page.
\_ We all dance like marionettes to the flick of Rove's chubby
fingers.
\- when you hear the price they paid
i'm sure you'll come and join the masquerade
one by one and two by two
past eight by tens in shattered frames
the players try to leave the room
frantic puppets on a string
and all the while the music sings
and still sometimes remember
the masquerade's forever |
| 2005/7/20-22 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:38744 Activity:nil |
7/20 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1702411,00.html FYI, looks like they found the actual mastermind of the London attack. Hint: It wasn't the rich Egyptian biochemistry Leeds University grad student who had just submitted his dissertation and happened to rent his apartment out to one of the suspected bombers. \_ It was Charles Clarke, seeking to ram through his ID cards? -John \_ Go Scotland Yard! |
| 2005/7/18 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Abortion] UID:38684 Activity:nil |
7/18 Which angry conservative/libertarian deleted the Plame threads?
Did the http://abcnews.com poll upset you?
\_ Why do you assume it wasn't a liberal. Restored. -emarkp
\_ The assumtion was made because the threads were deleted after
someone posted the http://abcnews.com poll. Wasn't that pretty clear?
\_ You're both wrong, a moderate deleted it. -me, moderate |
| 2005/7/18 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38681 Activity:very high |
7/18 http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/29/novak.cia http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20031001.shtml Above is the original http://CNN.com story and Novak's follow-up column from two years ago. If we assume that Rove, Libby, et al. are all innocent, it would appear that the main people to blame are Novak and his unofficial CIA source. Novak said, "According to a confidential source at the CIA, Mrs. Wilson was an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operative and not in charge of undercover operators". This is technically not true -- Plame was a NOC. The view of Novak's unofficial CIA source was that Plame worked in the U.S. most of the time as an analyst, and that Plame was also well known in Washington (probably gossipped about on the "cocktail circuit" as Joe Wilson's hot wife the CIA agent), so she therefore wasn't covert. This was a mistake by Novak and his CIA source, even with all of Novak's excuses, since the CIA did erect an entire front company for Plame and the _official_ CIA source told him not to use her name. Novak considerably broadened the number of people who knew of Valerie Plame the CIA agent: from people on the DC cocktail circuit, to anyone interested in the WMD controversy in Iraq -- which means a whole lot of people on the left and right. Again, I am assuming Rove, Libby, et al. are all innocent. (I am purposely going to ignore the http://CNN.com story's lead sentence: "while [Novak] learned the identity of a CIA operative from administration officials, there was 'no great crime' and that he was not the recipient of a planned leak".) \_ The public ain't buying it: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/PollVault/story?id=949950 \_ What does the poll have to do with the post? \_ Where is it proven that Plame was NOC at the time (or recently)? The Washington Times says that she was "outed" a decade ago: http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040722-115439-4033r.htm \_ The Washington Times is a mouthpiece for the GOP. \_ It can't be proven (by anyone here), but when the CIA asks the DoJ to launch a criminal investigation, I defer to their knowledge of the situation. And, really, washington times? \_ Oh shut the fuck up. \_ You think WT is a reputable news source? Leave now. \_ This is the same CIA that said there was WMD in Iraq? And did you defer to their knowledge then? \_ We don't know what the CIA said about Iraq's WMD. We know what the President said they said. And the inquiry into that transaction, which was supposed to happen, still hasn't. \_ I'm not the guy you're reponding to, but Duelfer's report pretty much says the CIA screwed it all up. There was also supposed to be an investigation into how the Administration used the CIA's screwed up intelligence, but that investigation didn't happen. \_ The President deferred to the CIA's judgment that WMDs were in Iraq, or at least, that's what the story is. \_ Please read the sentence, "Novak considerably broadened ..." \_ Which adds nothing. Where is it factually stated that Plame was NOC at any recent time before Novak's column? \_ It's likely not. It would be dangerous and possibly illegal to state that openly. See Blitzer's interview with Wilson. \_ No, it responds to the statement, "says that she was 'outed' a decade ago". As for "proven", it's not yet proven, but the preponderance of evidence is that it is so. This is addressed in my second post beginning, "The CIA's asking ..." later in this thread. \_ The Washington Times says Reverend Moon can cure teh gay. Ah, the joys of owning your own paper. \_ How do you know he can't? \_ It's likely not. It would be illegal to state that openly. See Blitzer's interview with Wilson. \_ 'Cos the first three mass weddings didn't stick. \_ sfchron response to this claim: "But the CIA didn't hesitate to forward the leak allegation to the Justice Department for possible prosecution. She operated a front company based in Boston and sometimes traveled overseas posing as a private energy analyst, yet she also had a desk at CIA's Langley headquarters. Some fellow agents who knew her as Val P. in training recall her proficiency with foreign languages and an AK-47, but she said her work as a spy was unknown to friends and neighbors." http://csua.org/u/cqu \_ Oh yeah, sfchron. That settles that argument. \_ Washington Times and NY Post have long, well-earned reputations for being rags. The SF Chron has a horrible writing style (and I hate it), but no one questions their journalistic integrity. \_ What? No one questions the SFComical's journalistic integrity? The other two have well-earned reputations as rags? I've barely read the NYP or WT but I've read the SFComical for years. Who exactly are these people that share this 'commonly accepted public perception' with you? Is there some web page I can find somewhere? thanks! \_ Yeah, uh, that's pretty funny. SF Chron is even worse than the LA "we only dig dirt on republican candidates" Times. -- ilyas \_ On what do you base this criticism of the L.A. Times? \_ LA Times went on record when Davis was running for governor saying they don't dig dirt on governor candidates. However, they sent most of their reporters to dig dirt on Arnold during the recall. This was a fairly big issue in LA at the time. -- ilyas \_ Can you find the URL? Even without the URL, I can tell you that what probably happened was that Davis's faults were all self-evident (look at the damn budget deficit), while Ahnold's escapades were all plausiably deniable ("oh, escapades were all plausibly deniable ("oh, it's all gossip and probably just happened when he was young and defining himself, and even if it were true, hey, it's Ahnold!"), so they sought to make his groping more evident to voters ("Yes, you are really electing someone who at the very least is a groper.") -L.A. resident and frequent L.A. Times reader who voted for Arnold anyway who voted for Arnold anyway, and will vote Ahnold out at the next opportunity since his performance has not been adequate (please don't ask me to compare to Davis -- it's like different varieties of "bad") \_ Does the blatant hypocrisy of that paper not bother you one bit, or do you just not believe me? -- ilyas \_ When the topic is Ahnold's groping, my opinion is that they did the right thing. Like I wrote before, Davis's faults were plain to all voters. Yes, I voted for someone I was pretty sure was a groper, and I knew that at the time I voted. I did so because Davis's failures could not be excused. When the topic is "blatant hypocrisy of that paper" in general, I dispute that there is a "blatant hypocrisy", but put the L.A. Times at the high-end of professional journalism. I consider myself a voracious consumer of all major Internet-accessible news outlets and referenced original sources (cia.gov) for the last five or so years. I've also been paying attention to the left- and right-wing blogs and forums. I, like Bill O'Reilly says he does, call things as I see them, preferring to identify things as accurate or inaccurate portrayals of the truth of the matter rather than "left-wing" or "right-wing". Of course, I could be totally wrong about the L.A. Times, just like I think O'Reilly doesn't get it right in many fundamental ways, but at that point it's just a matter of how solid your argument and facts are versus the other person's. \_ I think there are multiple levels of hypocrisy here. That LA Times covered Arnold's faults but not Davis' at the time of the recall is one problem (that Davis' faults were 'plain to see' is not really an excuse for a paper). But LA Times also did not dig dirt on Davis when Davis himself was running for office! And more, they claimed it was a matter of policy for them not to. The violation of their own stated policy is also hypocritical. -- ilyas \_ My contention is that Davis's problems had been well publicized, which made them widely acknowledged. They already dumped a shitload on Davis -- they just hadn't done so on Ahnold yet. Anyways, can you find the URLs? I occasionally find myself blaming a news outlet for some apparent problem but later realize that I misread what was written. \_ They were never plain to me. What were they, in your eyes? --scotsman \_ $x billion budget deficit, I forgot whether x was 21 or 40. I assume that was why Davis was voted out in such a big way -- that other people saw this ... \_ The important person here is former LA Times reporter Jill Stewart. See for instance: http://www.jillstewart.net/php/issues/issue1014.php -- ilyas \_ Thanks. I was reading that exact URL between when you posted Jill's name and when you posted the URL. This sums up my argument though: The L.A. Times staff has a bias against gropers being elected governor of California. This bias is excusable in my book. (Also, I know this undercuts my position, but I had been pretty pissed about the groping articles coming out two weeks for the election, but I've since changed my mind.) \_ Your links says: "Mrs. Plame's identity as an undercover CIA officer was first disclosed to Russia in the mid-1990s by a Moscow spy" Umm... Russia intelligence may know about or have guesses about a great number of our secret operatives, as we likely have similar knowledge or guesses of theirs. Neither party knowing that information is the same as "public knowledge." \_ Please read the sentence, "Novak considerably broadened ..." \_ The CIA's asking the DoJ to conduct a criminal investigation is the strongest evidence that Plame was NOC at the time. C'mon -- you have a special prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, bugging Dubya, Cheney, Rove, and Libby after all. Here is a non-anonymous column written by a former CIA agent: http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/7/13/04720/9340 "A few of my classmates, and Valerie was one of these, became a non-official cover officer. That meant she agreed to operate overseas without the protection of a diplomatic passport. If caught in that status she would have been executed." This is weaker than the fact there is an investigation going on now, but stronger than as if it had come from an anoymous author. \_ You know, Johnson was doing well until he started bashing Bush. \_ Let's ignore what Johnson wrote about Bush and focus on the topic at hand: What do you think about the truth of the claim (that Plame was NOC for a while and was still NOC when Novak published his column) itself? Do consider that there is an ongoing investigation with a grand jury and testimony from VIPs taking place right now. \_ Well, should I ignore what Johnson wrote about Plume's NOC status also? Are Johnson's claims re Plume credible after his partisan rant? Do I trust the CIA to know more about its employees than about Iraq? Is the CIA Justice referral more motivated by politics? My answers: yes, no, yes, don't know. \_ While you answered four questions you volunteered yourself, you forgot to answer the question that's the topic at hand in this particular thread: "What do you think about the truth of the claim (that Plame was NOC for a while and was still NOC when Novak published his column) itself? Do consider that there is an ongoing investigation with a grand jury and testimony from VIPs taking place right now." \_ What's the evidence that she was or wasn't a NOC at the time? \_ Search this thread for "strongest evidence". It's in the post right before you say, "You know, Johnson was doing well until he started bashing Bush." \_ And I asked "Is the CIA Justice referral more motivated by politics?". "Don't know," I answered. BTW, I see that you are abandoning Johnson whom you were originally touting as evidence. \_ Ah, but Novak called her an "operative" in his column two years ago. Now he claims he just knew she was an "analyst." If so, why did he call her an operative, when he good and well knows the difference. Novak is lying to try and cover for Rove. http://csua.org/u/cr2 |
| 2005/7/17-18 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:38669 Activity:nil |
7/16 Rove: "I've already said too much."
http://csua.org/u/cqf (Yahoo! news)
\_ Yeah? So? The President has been doing whatever he pleases and
nothing touches him or his staff. What's the point for fighting... |
| 2005/7/14-15 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:38621 Activity:moderate |
7/14 Why do politicians I want to like keep trying to alienate me?
http://csua.org/u/cpl (c|net)
\_ A) Because you're part of a block the doesn't vote much.
B) Hillary has been trying to pretend she has religious right
opinions.
C) Because politicians rarely know what they're talking about.
D) All of the Above
\_ The party of social liberalism, eh? -- ilyas
\_ as a libertarian, wouldn't you agree with op in this case?
\_ What, that Hillary is being venal and betraying the
\_ What, that Hillary is being unprincipled by betraying the
'principles' of her party and trying to
appeal to religious conservatives in a calculated attempt
which also involved Rvt. Graham? You don't need to be a
libertarian to agree. -- ilyas
\_ forget the politics. I was asking about policy. That
less legislation of business and markets the better. In
this case, the legislation is targetting morality.
\_ Of course I agree. I rarely agree with the democrats,
this is just one of the first times I disagreed on
social issues. -- ilyas
\_ huh? I can't parse that. You rarely agree, yet
this is one of the first times you've disagreed?
\_ Well, it could conceivably make sense as a claim
that social issues don't come up much, but that
would also be an odd assertion.
\_ It makes sense because economic issues are more
important to me than social issues. -- ilyas
\_ First times? Ilyas, you need to google Tipper Gore
and the PMRC. Democrats are definitely not new to
playing the morality-police game.
\_ "Rockstar, like many video game developers, usually encourages
so-called mod amateur programmers who create modifications for
popular games, which often give players access to special areas,
missions or abilities." Like many? Say what? |
| 2005/7/13-14 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:38604 Activity:moderate |
7/13 There's a lot we don't know yet about the CIA flap
http://hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/Comment/ByronYork/071405.html
\_ We do know that this guy is a National Review hack, however.
\_ If you don't know what "being obtuse" is, here it is.
[restored by !poster. fuck off, deleter]
\_ I deleted my own post because I didn't think it was as accurate
as I would have liked. It's maybe about 80% "being obtuse".
\_ A lot of those questions have been answered. For instance
Judith Miller was drawn into the case via phone records.
\_ I stopped reading when he didn't acknowledge that the signed waivers
were coerced and thus not authentic releases. What's the strongest
evidence of this? Matthew Cooper didn't spill until he got an
explicit release from Rove, and at the last minute too.
\_ I don't think this true. Karl Rove's attorney has denied
that Rove has contacted Cooper recently. Rover did sign
a blanket waiver a while ago letting any reporter discuss
all this crap. I think it's not really clear why Cooper
suddenly said Rove is his source, it could be for
a variety of reasons, maybe he just didn't feel like going
to jail for 18 months to protect Karl Rove. - danh
This is an opinion piece supporting Rove which dodges essential
facts like the above.
\_ FUD from the National Review. How uncharacteristic of them. |
| 2005/7/12-14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:38575 Activity:nil |
7/12 London Bombing: Further Proof We're Winning
http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=15626
\_ I wanna see you people tell the British that we're "fighting them
there so we don't have to fight them here"...
\_ Maybe if the Brits arrested people who openly called for the
overthrow of their own government they wouldn't have been bombed.
Here's a nutty idea: fighting them there doesn't matter if we're
inviting them over here.
\_ This is even dumber than the Freeper links you keep posting.
It is all one ad hominem rant vs. Senator Kennedy. Where do
you find these pearls of Conservative "wisdom"? |
| 2005/7/12-13 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:38567 Activity:high |
7/12 Today's White House press briefing
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/07/20050712-4.html
"Let's let the investigation take place, and let's let the
investigators bring all the facts together and draw the conclusions
that they draw, and then we will know the facts at that point."
Translation: Dubya buys time for Roveian general to execute on GOP
plans, with expectation that Rove will come out fine anyway since the
base doesn't really care.
In case you didn't figure it out yet: Dubya's current and future
position is he will only be firing people for illegal acts with
convictions, not for merely being "involved" in the Plame affair as
a previously reported position.
\_ I call flip-flop on them!
\_ From http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030929-7.html
(My quotes are going to be partial for emphasis. See the page above
for the full context.)
Q: has the President tried to find out who outed the CIA agent?
...
McClellan: if someone leaked classified information of this nature..
...
McClellan: the President believes leaking classified information is
a very serious matter
It's fairly clear that McClellan was saying that anoyone in the WH
who leaked classified info would be gone. It doesn't appear that
Rove did that.
\_ Why would you say that it doesn't appear that Rove didn't leak
\_ Why would you say that it doesn't appear that Rove leaked
classified info?
\_ Because saying "You know the reason he got that job is because
his wife is in the CIA" may not have revealed classified info.
\_ But that isn't what he said. He said his wife was a
CIA operative. Pretty clear cut what that means.
\_ Because the CIA is in the habit of calling for
investigations by the DoJ just because...
\_ that sounds like a leak of classified info to me.
I guess it depends on what the meanings of "leak" and
"classified" are.
"I did not leak classified info to that man, Mr. Cooper!"
\_ Is being in the employ of the CIA classified?
\_ When it is, yes. You're deliberately being obtuse.
\_ huh?
\_ When the person's affiliation needs to be
secret, it's classified. You're an idiot.
The CIA requested an independent investigation. It's
been ongoing for 2 years. if there was no there there
don't you think it would have been wrapped up with a
bow by now.
\_ I'm not being obtuse, you're being a dumbass.
We'll find out at the END of the investigation if
he violated the law. If he did, he should be out
of there. If he didn't, shut the fuck up.
\_ Yawn. The man's guilty. This is just what he's
been caught at. I say hang 'im.
\_ The END of the investigation... in 2010? 2020?
\_ Uh, I hate to be a nancy about this, but you
should write, "If he did, I should shut the
fuck up. If he didn't, you should shut the
fuck up." Are you an undergrad?
\_ Actually, no. I'm no lefty partisan, but I
also don't want someone who would leak
classified info in the WH. So if he's found
to be guilty, I'll join the chorus demanding
that he be fired.
\_...but until then, Shut the Fuck Up?
\_ Yeah, let's all stfu until the
investigation is over.
\_ Can't we complain about the
previous pronouncements that Rove
had nothing to do with the Plame
affair, and that it was ridiculous
to suggest that?
\_ He never said he had nothing to
do with it. Just that it was
a ridiculous suggestion. Maybe
he means the whole situation is
worthy of ridicule. |
| 2005/7/11-12 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38519 Activity:nil |
7/10 Rove's attorney linked to money launderers in hilarious fashion:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_07_10.php#006045
\_ Beautiful. I'm sure it's hard to find good, honest representation,
but, Shirley, you'd think they could try a little harder.
\_ Check the top post on tpm. someone in the gaggle rediscovered
their balls.
\_ Scott McClellan makes Ari Fleischer seem honest and forthright,
although I have to feel some sympathy for the "white house
press secretary." It must really suck to have to speak publicly
for these jokers.
for these jokers. -lewis
\- why do you feel "sympathy" for them again?
\_ Sort of the same "sympathy" I would feel for, say, a
Kamikaze pilot. Gee, sucks for him.
\_ But do you feel sympathy with the imperial stooge back
in Tokyo who lies to justify sending the kamikaze
pilot to his death? That is Scott McClellan, not the
pilot.
\_ Our very own Beltway Bob. Little weasel.
\- right, i feel more sympathy for the troops and some
of the mid/high level military.
\_ TalkingPointsMemo has become *the* must read blog out there. Joshua
has broken more political scandals than the Washington Post over
have broken more political scandals than the Washington Post over
the last six months. |
| 2005/7/10-11 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:38512 Activity:nil 66%like:38536 |
7/10 Real lesson of Vietnam
http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson070405.html -jblack |
| 2005/7/10-12 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38506 Activity:nil |
7/9 Rove is nailed. Wonder if any major news media will pick this up
during the week.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1440027/posts
\_ Rove can become the focus of the investigation. Fitzgerald will
be asking, "Did you know Plame was CIA at the time?" "Undercover
CIA?" "Did you know you can't expose people in this class?"
\_ Rove was already known to be disgusting and people still voted
for Bush. I guess as a politician it pays to have a scumbag
for an advisor who can do the dirty stuff and take any and all flak.
\_ Nailed? "Nothing in the Cooper e-mail suggests that Rove used
Plame's name or knew she was a covert operative" ... "'A fair
reading of the e-mail makes clear that the information conveyed
was not part of an organized effort to disclose Plame's
identity...'" I'm not defending him, but he's hardly "nailed."
He may become so in the future, however.
\_ gwbush should make him a supreme court justice so
he can declare the original law unconstitutional
\_ csua motd lawyers please correct if needed, but
i think just because you didn't mean to break the law
is never an excuse. |
| 2005/7/7-10 [Politics/Domestic/911, Reference/Religion] UID:38478 Activity:nil |
7/7 About time American Muslims made statements like this:
http://www.ing.org/latestnews/default.asp?num=23
\_ From the same site: "(San Francisco Bay Area, 9/11/01) - Joining
Muslims around the country, the San Francisco Bay Area based Islamic
Networks Group is appalled by and strongly condemns the terrorist
attacks in New York and Washington." The American Muslim community
is simply not the problem. As Thomas Friedman pointed out yesterday,
however, we're still waiting for a fatwa from any international
muslim leader condemning Bin Laden.
\_ Further proof that even a broken clock (i.e., Friedman) can be
right twice a day. |
| 2005/7/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:38468 Activity:high |
7/7 Isn't it amazing that Timothy McVeigh's 1 bomb killed 168 people in
open space, but 4 bombs in the London tunnel killed 1/4 of that? Thank
god Al Qaeda isn't compenent enough to build McVeigh-strength bombs.
\_ there's nothing complicated about a truckload of ANFO. Al queda
could easily do the same thing.
\_ Al Qaeda didn't use any bombs on 9/11.
\_ It's pretty tricky to get a Ryder truck on the subway.
\_ The IRA set of a truck bomb (with ~1 ton of fertilizer) in the
City of London in 1993. That was on a Saturday morning, and only
1 was killed. (I actually went to a meeting near Bishopsgate the
day before the bomb went off.) In comparison, the McVeigh bomb
had ~3 tons of fertilizer, and it was set off on a Wednesday
morning. The McVeigh bomb killed 168 people.
\_ I heard the IRA used to call the police to give out warning for
evacuation between when a bomb was planted and when it would go
off.
\_ Actually, the IRA would call and warn for evacuation and
sometimes there was no bomb. I was in Covent Garden for one
of these. My fellow employees explained this happened
frequently. The truth was planting actual bombs was a losing
affair for the IRA. Causing a disturbance without the negative
vibe from actually injured/killed people was working for them
pretty well. It's still FUBAR if you ask me but quite
different from my perceptions when all I knew about it was
what I learned from the news. -- ulysses
\_ The London police was in the middle of evacuating the City
when the bomb went off. I am not sure if the information
source was an illicit informer or back channel. The IRA
even used to apologize when their bombs accidentally kill
kids.
\_ If you set off a bomb it doesn't "accidentally" kill
children. Sorry, buzz. A random terrorist bombing kills
people big and small. Fuck the IRA pretending they
are better than any other terrorists.
\_ The IRA kills a lot fewer people by accident than
the US Air Force does. Fuck the Air Force pretending
they are better than other terrorists.
\_ Be careful Jim. They are watching liberals like you.
\_ Oh boo hoo, I am really fucking scared of idiots
like you, Mark. Call the FBI and tell them I
said something bad about the Air Force on the
motd.
\_ Oh fuck you with a broken broomstick. If you can't
understand the difference between war and PUTTING A
FUCING BOMB IN THE MIDDLE OF CIVILIANS INTENTIONALLY
go choke on a broken-glass sandwich.
\_ The Air Force deliberately puts bombs in the
middle of civilian places all the time. Why
is that okay, in your book of moral relavancy?
Was firebombing Dresden a war crime or not?
I am sure the IRA killed far fewer civilians
per bomb attack than the Air Force does.
\_ [insert "Dresden was transit hub for German
troops" vs. "Dresden was cultural center"
debate here]
\_ Very simple. The US Military wears
uniforms, and operates by the rules of war.
Terrorists do not. This is why you extend
Geneva to soldiers but not terrorists. This
is why civilian casualties in war is a different
animal from terrorist casualties. There is
also the matter of intent. The US Military
doesn't want to harm civilians, and is going to
extraordinary lengths (unheard of throughout
history) to avoid harming civilians, even if
this means putting its soldiers under extra
risk. Terrorists harm civilians as a goal.
There is a difference in law between
manslaughter and first degree murder for a
reason. Finally, learn to fucking spell.
-- ilyas
\_ yeah, this is why we use napalm. to
avoid civilian casualties.
\_ Napalm has its legitimate war use.
But of course you never bothered to
read or study the lengths at which
the military avoids collateral
damage. Your frame of thought is
one life accidently killed is too much.
I hope one day you are a plane with
Al-queda when it dawns on you that this
is a numbers game.
\_ I disagree. Mass civilian casualties was the
\_ Bullshit. Mass civilian casualties was the
stated intent of the firebombings of Dresden
and Tokyo. And we are discussing the IRA,
which went out of its way to avoid civilian
casualties, too, not some mythical
"terrorist" bogeyman you dreamed up.
Deliberate targeting of civilians is
always a crime. And killing civilians,
except in self-defence, always should be.
The War in Iraq was in no sense a war
of self-defence.
\_ Wait. The IRA went out of its way to
avoid civilian casualties when it
planted bombs? That's a new one on me.
What do you suppose the purpose of those
bombs was for? What was the intended
target? -- ilyas
\_ Knee-jerk uninformed "US army = teh
ghei baby kilerz" b.s. aside, he's
actually right--the IRA's main point
was to show "hey, look what we can do,
whenever we feel like it." Civilian
casualties, like at Hiroshima, were an
"oh yeah, by the way" sort of thing.
Unlike ETA, which wants to kill
civilians. And Dresden _was_ part of
a deliberate campaign to both disrupt
strategic communications and terrorize
people--a legitimate but regrettably
uninformed and ill-conceived goal at
the time. Do yourself a favor and
ignore the "everything the US does is
terrorist" trolls. -John
\_ http://csua.org/u/cn0
See table 2.
The IRA targeted the British
Army, RUC and UCR, mostly.
http://csua.org/u/cn1 (PBS)
Okay, this analysis is biased,
but it gets to the heart of it.
\_ The problem is terrorists don't kill
enough people with their bombs. The
US and its allies was able to kill
hundreds of thousands in a single
bombing run. It's like that quote:
"Kill a man, and you are a murderer.
Kill millions of men, and you are a
conqueror. Kill everyone, and you are
a god." Or Stalin: "one death is a
tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic"
In order to be legitimate, they'd need
to wipe out large chunks of cities
on a regular basis.
The IRA targetted the British
military and RUC, mostly. |
| 2005/7/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38461 Activity:low |
7/7 "We will find them. We will bring them to justice." -- Bush
\_ "If [Osama bin Laden] thinks he can hide and run from the
United States and our allies, he will be sorely mistaken."
-- Bush, 9/15/01
"I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend
that much time on him"
-- Bush, 3/13/02
\_ Oh this oft-quoted comment taken out of context.
You libs ever read the ENTIRE speech? Look it up!
You may find the 2nd half a little more interesting.
\_ It wasn't a speech. It was a press conference. He
says OBL has been marginalized which is highly debatable.
He said that we have a strategy and it's working. Do
you believe that? And if so, please explain it to us
so that we too can support this strategy.
\_ I'm sure your years of military/CT service will
help you with your Monday morning quarterbacking.
The truth is, these numbers are tiny. The enemy
is elusive and unable to directly fight.
\_ And of course we gathered our friends and allies
and took a systematic, worldwide approach to
tracking them, their money, and their associates.
Oh, wait. No. We invaded Iraq instead.
\_ The second half says that there are more important
things like 1. our soldiers are well supplied, 2.
our strategy is clear, and 3. our coalition is
strong. Well, Bush failed on all three. So how
is that "more interesting"?
"[Osama bin Laden is] either alive and well, or alive and
not too well, or not alive."
-- Rumsfeld, 10/7/02
\_ He forgot the "zombie - neither living nor dead" option.
\_ Osama the Undead! Maybe he could be the last boss in
the next Resident Evil game.
\_ Osama bin Zombie!
\_ Send more special forces! |
| 2005/7/5-6 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:38417 Activity:high |
7/5 James Wolcott talks sense on the "Freedom Tower" design.
http://jameswolcott.com/archives/2005/07/gusts_of_mastur.php
\_ I think this article is better: link:csua.org/u/clz (NYTimes)
\_ I don't really understand this criticism. "An impregnable tower
set against the outside world." What exactly are they supposed to
erect, an inviting vagina in heat? "Freedom Tower" is the stupidest
name ever though. -- ilyas
\_ No, "Freedom fries" is the stupidest name ever.
\_ Freedom Fries Tower
\_ In the rush to make the world's most inviting terrorist target
"bombproof," they've managed to make it incredibly ugly. Thus
it is a telling symbol of the state of our current national
psyche. That is the argument, at least. I guess whether you
buy that depends on whether you think architecture reflects on
the society that produces it.
\_ I do think it's ugly (or at least could be better), but I
don't understand the phrasing of the criticism. It sounds like
the objection is to the very notion that it ought to appear
impregnable. -- ilyas
\_ It is a sign of cowardance to try and build an impregnable
fortress. The real worls is a dangerous place.
fortress. The real world is a dangerous place.
\_ I agree. A cheaper, more aesthetic solution is to
deploy an active missile defense system where the
missle (hidden behind the glass building) launches
to strike unidentified targets that are flying low
and coming towards the new tower.
\_ That's pretty stupid. If you know it's going to make it
a target you should strengthen it.
\_ I think the argument is more sophisticated than that.
The argument isn't that the tower shouldn't _be_
impregnable. It obviously has to be secure, given how
much of a target it will be. The argument is that it
shouldn't _appear_ impregnable, because it sends the
wrong 'aesthetic message.' I happen to disagree with
that. -- ilyas
\_ Why? A good contrast is the Statue of Liberty,
which sends a very welcoming message, and is
generally seen as a positive symbol of America's
greatness. Do you really think that the
architectural equivalent of an Abrams Tank should
be a symbol of America? Just like the Twin
Towers, this building will have strong symbolic
value whether we like it or not.
\_ I hate to point out the obvious, but people
don't work in the Statue of Liberty. -- ilyas
\_ The point is that trying to build an impregnable
signature tower is horribly misguided; there's
nothing you can do, architecturally, to protect
against a 747 full of fuel ramming into your
signature building. Perhaps you can build it
so the building won't fall down, but you're
still talking about thousands of dead and massive
business resumption costs. The proposal is
horribly ugly, and in addition is completely
unnecessary, as vacancy rates in lower
Manhattan have skyrocketed since the attacks;
no one wants to work there anyway. -tom
\_ I don't really understand. Building anything
conspicious in a major metropolitan area in the
US will render it a target. Given that something
like that is a target, you have to take security
measures. Are you proposing either that
nothing conscpicious be built or that if
something is built it not be secured? The mind
boggles. -- ilyas
nothing conspicious be built or that if
something is built it not be secured? Ugliness
is one thing, but clearly, the criticism here
isn't just that the thing is ugly. -- ilyas
\_ I think it looks like a big toothpick, and that's okay -- except
for the base, and that's a big except. Kind of makes sense they
hid the ugliest part several clicks in, huh?
http://csua.org/u/cm0 (nytimes.com)
\_ Ugh. Gotta wonder how many cavity searches and retinal scans
you'll need to go through to get to work every day in that
thing.
\_ It looks like an anal probe. Someone I know said it looks
like NY flipping the bird, maybe that's what they were
going for. -- ilyas
\_ Or an old-fashioned syringe and hypodermic needle.
\_ Freedom Tower as Rorschach test?
\_ anyone have a url for the original Libeskind design? |
| 2005/6/30-7/4 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:38372 Activity:low |
6/30 "We need scarier troops! Call the Americans!" (in Haiti)
http://csua.org/u/ck3
\_ Why does the UN think American troops can suppress the armed gangs
in Haiti? We can't even do that in Iraq.
\_ Wow. That's so astute. Your years of military training, or
serving in a guerilla army must lead you to that conclusion.
I guess you forgot Operation Uphold Democracy.
\_ What about Operation Enduring Clusterfuck?
\_ What about it? When's the last time you went mountain
climbing daily?
\_ We have created an ever better training and breeding
ground for terrorists, says the (America hating) CIA:
http://csua.org/u/clg
\_ We will withdraw from Quagmire when the Quagmirians are
ready to clusterfuck themselves. |
| 2005/6/27-28 [Politics/Domestic/911, Academia/GradSchool] UID:38319 Activity:nil |
6/27 Not sure what to major? Now you can have a degree in
Homeland Security in University of Connecticut
http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/06/24/homeland.security.ap
\_ "Students spend five weeks of the 20-month program at UConn's
main campus in Storrs. The rest of the program will be done online."
Online... what kind of credibility can that possibly have. -mrauser |
| 2005/6/25 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/SIG] UID:38301 Activity:nil |
6/24 Media watchdog group hassled by police:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1316683/posts |
| 2005/6/25 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:38299 Activity:high |
6/24 Well, we wouldn't want our documentary to come to any conclusions
we don't like....
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1429939/posts
\_ don't you just hate it when documentary producers go in with
an agenda of supressing the African lion's evil, man-eating,
eco-system destroying predatory aspects? Such bias. |
| 2005/6/24-27 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38286 Activity:nil |
6/24 http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/23/veterans.budget.ap/index.html With support like this... \_ What the hell? So they increase the budget to make up for the shortfall. |
| 2005/6/20 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:38202 Activity:moderate |
6/19 Defend this:
http://csua.org/u/cfg
\_ Why DO you hate America?
\_ Why do you hate America?
\_ Why would anyone defend this? -conservative
\_ You'd be surprised. Or maybe not.
\_ You're sounding like a terrorist. |
| 2005/6/17-18 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic] UID:38171 Activity:nil |
6/16 Red Cross joins AI:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1292692/posts
\_ What are they talking about? The report last year?
God, freepers are unintelligible
\_ I think he is saying that the Red Cross has joined
Amnesty International in stating that the prison
conditions for terror suspects is less than humane.
\_ And is there some new story? Or is this moaning about
the report from last year?
\_ I think it is just moaning. The best thing to do
is to ignore the weirdos (on both sides) and hope
they will get bored and go away. |
| 2005/6/16-18 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38159 Activity:low |
6/16 The Man Behind the Attack on Guantanamo -jblack
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18446
\_ Any publication that has Horowitz in its nav bar...
\_ Typical Republican smear job. I am surprised they didn't
accuse him of murdering Vince Foster.
\- I killed Vince Foster ... just to watch him die. --bclinton
\_ I think that should be -hclinton
\_ mmmmmm, I can taste the bias. Delicious. -mrauser
\_ I love the Lawyer's Guild is a Communist Front
charge. Even McCarthy didn' go that far. |
| 2005/6/16-18 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:38157 Activity:low |
6/16 Questions for anti-terrorist experts. Richard the Shoe Bomber tried
to detonate the bomb by lighting up a match. Doesn't this strike
to anyone as just inconsistent with what we know about terrorists?
I mean, if you're a REAL Al-Qaeda member, wouldn't you have received
advanced trainings from wacko but intelligent Al-Qaeda members
who would teach you how to light up a damn fire? What kind of
Al-Qaeda are you if you don't know how to use a match? Secondly, why
the heck would you use a match when there are much easier and much
more reliable ways to detonate it, including using a tiny toy-rocket
lighter, fluid lighter, flint, and others that you can buy from REI?
Lastly, how much can you pack explosive power in your shoes, which
I presume is at most 12"x0.5"? That doesn't seem like a lot, or at
lease enough to bring down an entire plane. If you're a REAL
Al-Qaeda, wouldn't you use something bigger and much more effective
than just punching a hole in the window?
\_ There is no "REAL" Al-Qaeda. It's not a highly-structured network
throughout, like the IRA--it is ethnically and culturally
heterogenous, revolving around a fuzzy set of ideas. How do you
become Al-Qaeda? You say "I'm a member of Al-Qaeda." That's part
of the problem--Western countries initially tried to approach it
as an organization rather than as a phaenomenon. So while you may
have several hard cores of various degrees of professionalism,
there are also loads of more amateurish "members". -John
\_ therees also a practice of having the skilled bomb-makers
produce the bombs, and getting much more easy-to-come by
volunteers/martyrs who only need enough training on how to
set themselves off. Needless to say these people aren't the
sharpest tacks.
\_ 'Shoe bomb'? -John
\_ Doesn't it strike you as odd that he would "light up" in plain
view of other passengers who could stop him? If he went to the
restroom, then blammo. I think he wanted to get caught.
\_ Exactly. There are so many facts that make this case weird and
yet the government is still able to tie him to Bin Laden. |
| 2005/6/15 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38140 Activity:nil |
6/15 If I buy or rent movies like Control Room, Outfoxed, Bush Family
Fortunes, Fahrenheit 911, The Corporation, Rebels With a Cause, and
other similar DVDs from Amazon or Netflix will I eventually get on
the Republican black list database that they use so successfully
against their enemies from the Nixon "dirty tricks" era? |
| 2005/6/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:38021 Activity:nil |
6/7 Amusing article on how the out of control guard urine
splashed the Koran of a GITMO inmate:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05158/516835.stm - danh
\_ "Deep Throat, if you're out there please save us." Amen. |
| 2005/6/6 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:37984 Activity:low |
6/6 [From 6/3]
And I really love the "guard's urine came through an air vent" rather
than "a guard urinated through an air vent ..." It's the urine's
fault.
\_ No dumbass, a guard peed near an air vent. See:
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050604-122746-9402r.htm
\_ "I tried everything I could to keep my pee from going into the
vent. Took three steps back. Went around the corner.. It was
like a pee magnet, that vent."
\_ I was commenting on the wording in the report. It's a common
sort of passive construction that's so absurd it makes me laugh.
\_ Yes, and a wind "blew" his urine accidentally into the vent,
landing on a prisoner. Duh!!!!1! God bless.
\_ Moonie filth. |
| 2005/5/31 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:37909 Activity:nil |
5/31 "Respectable" Terrorists"
(W. Mark Felt aka "Deep Throat" sounds like a stand up guy!)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1414117/posts -jblack
\_ [ip address replaced for the thousanth time, and for the thousanth
time, fuck you.]
\_ If it bothers you that much, just nuke his stuff until he
complies or until you get shouted down. He's probably just
trying to piss you off, you know.
\_ Fuck you jblack. Go back to your Red Neck Virginia state. |
| 2005/5/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:37801 Activity:nil |
5/23 "After it happened, all the people in positions of authority went out
of their way to script this. They purposely interfered with the
investigation, they covered it up. I think they thought they could
control it, and they realized that their recruiting efforts were going
to go to hell in a handbasket if the truth about his death got out.
They blew up their poster boy." -Father of Pat Tillman
http://csua.org/u/c5u (Post)
\_ I like this quote:
``Maybe lying's not a big deal anymore,'' he said. ``Pat's dead, and
this isn't going to bring him back. But these guys should have been
held up to scrutiny, right up the chain of command, and no one has.''
\_ "Pat isn't with God. He's fucking dead. He wasn't religious.
So thank you for your thoughts, but he's fucking dead."
-Pat Tillman's youngest brother, at his funeral |
| 2005/5/22-25 [Consumer/CellPhone, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:37798 Activity:low |
5/20 At $20-30 a month (plus the VoIP box), why would anyone use
VoIP? I can get regular phone service for only $15/month.
And if I use Universal Lifeline, it's only $9/month. I just
don't see any compelling reasons to use VoIP. In addition
VoIP doesn't work when there's power outage, and if your
internet is hosed (which happens more frequently than phone),
then you're totally hosed.
\_ The VoIP box is free, dummy. You get a rebate for it if you
sign up for the service. Also, it takes five minutes to
setup a VoIP line. You have to pay about $75-$150 to setup
a phone line through Ma Bell and wait for them to install
the extra line.
\_ it's more compelling for long-distance call
\_ especially for international calling.
\_ Where can I get the rates for comparison?
\_ Well for me I would have to pay ~$59 for a phone with unlimited
long distance in WA. I dropped the unlimited long distance
and got vonage and I now have two lines which cost ~$45 total.
\_ any comment on quality, features, problems, etc?
\_ Can you please break down your prior phone cost ($59) to
stuff like basic service, carrier fee, FCC fee, tax, etc etc?
And then do the same with VoIP cost break down? I looked at the
following and they don't give me a break down and I'm afraid of
stupid catch they might put in the last minute like
"Special 911 Fee" or something like that. They NEVER tell you
these things when you sign up:
http://www.usa.att.com/callvantage/international/index.jsp?soac=64528
Also can you use a calling card on top of it? Thanks.
\_ I'm suppose to be paying only $29.99 for Verizon cell phone.
After I added text messaging ($2.99), 1000 extra minutes ($4.99),
it becomes ~$37. But my actual bill every month is $47. I don't
know what it is about cell phones but they have really weird
special fees and tax. Fuck phone companies.
\_ It is not the phone companies fault. It is the government.
\_ Yes and no: it's the govt.'s fault that the fees exist;
it's the cell phone co.'s decision whether to pass the
fees on to the user or not, and it's the cell phone co.
that's purposefully not tell you about those fees when
they advertise prices for their services. --erikred
\_ Have a look at Asterix--it's pretty stable, and a friend of
mine has it replacing his entire phone service--there are a lot
of VoIP nodes that are open. -John |
| 2005/5/20 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37785 Activity:high |
5/20 So we've solved the koran flushing problem. Okay,
how about the slightly broader torturing innocent
people problem?
\_ Start a new thread, dumbass.
\_ Okay. Here ya go.
\_ So who's innocent again?
\_ According to AI, roughly 90% of the people we round up.
Did you read the NYT article: http://csua.org/u/c4s
\_ Oh yes, I've read it. I've read people call things "torture"
that I wouldn't call torture. And then there's the question
of determining innocence without interrogation, etc.
\_ You mean the stuff that doesn't cause death or major organ
failure? Some whiners actually call that torture!
\_ I remember there was a news article that the prisoners
called female interrogators stripping, rubbing their
breasts against their backs, sitting on their laps, and
commenting on their apparent erection torture. Gee, where
can I get training to become a failed terrorist?
\_ Preach it brother! Interrogation is a wonderful tool that
should be used more often. And what does not kill them
makes them stronger, so we're helping them. Another tool
we should use is trial by fire. God will save them if they
are innocent.
\_ I remember there was a news article about someone
complaining about being raped. Gee, where can I
myself raped?
\_ well duh, that's obvious. Get the foes to fight like a real army,
wearing uniforms and all that.
\_ Do you know that we do roundups. Go into a community gathering
and grab 50 people because 1 we want _might_ be there. There's
no 4th amendment in Iraq or Afghanistan. Hell, there's no due
process at all with the people in our prisons there. We defeated
the army that wears uniforms. The people attacking us now are
regular Iraqis who we went there to "liberate". Yes yes yes,
there may be some foreign influence, but they need the support
of locals to operate. And when we do shit like this, it doesn't
help make them not want to support those foreign elements.
\_ Just because they act like psychotic thugs doesn't mean we
should. Ever heard of the moral high ground? And I believe op
said "innocent", like that Canadian dude we delivered to the
Syrian mukhabarat or whatever they're called because they
aren't so restrictive about genital-clamping people with
similar names as suspected terrorists. -John
\_ I think one aspect of this mess that's often ignored is the treatment
of American citizen prisoners in American prisons. All this stuff
that generated international outrage -- that's the stuff that
happens in American prisons every day, and passes mostly without
comment from American media. -- ilyas
\_ Prove it.
\_ This is fairly well documented, you can stroll over to
http://aclu.org, for instance. In fact, much as I am not fond of
some of the stances ACLU takes, I have to give them credit
for immediately linking prisoner abuses abroad with prisoner
abuses at home. -- ilyas
\_ Okay, I'll check it out. Thanks for the pointer (though
perhaps not for the news). |
| 2005/5/16 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:37703 Activity:high |
5/16 Newsweek lied and people died.
\_ Lied?
\_ Yes, lied. They claimed that the military confirmed something
that they didn't confirm. Now they aren't even retracting their
story.
\_ They claimed that the military confirmed something that they
will no longer confirm...
\_ So where were you when the New York Times was hyping the war
in Iraq with hundreds of lies about Saddam's huge arsenal of
WMD?
\_ You do understand that a mistake by one news organization
does not justfiy another mistake by a different
organization.
\_ I'm not defending Newsweek. I think they fucked up and
they should own up to it. However, I think all the
right wing blustering and rage about it is pretty silly
given that we got into a useless war on track to cost
more than Vietnam in constant dollars based on a huge
tissue of lies that was printed in the NYT amongst
many others. Don't hear much blustering and rage about
THAT. It seems like lies are perfectly all right as
long as they justify your desired ends.
\_ Well, I don't think NYT lied, nor did Newsweek. They
made mistakes, but so does everyone. The best they
can do is to own up to their mistakes and correct
their processes so that future mistakes are less
likely. Also, I find it somewhat sad (if it is
true) that there is only "right wing blustering and
rage". We should all be upset about the Newsweek
error, just as we should all be upset about errors
in NYT and elsewhere.
\_ Okay, what was Newsweek's mistake? They got this
tidbit from a "knowledgable source", one they had
used before. They asked two DD officials for
confirmation. The first declined to comment. The
second said another part of the article was wrong,
but didn't question the part about flushing the
Koran. So newsweek ran it. This sort of thing
used to be called journalism. Two weeks later,
their source backs out and the pentagon gets
pissed. Something's fishy. --scotsman
\_ Good journalism requires at least two sources
for a story.
\_ Sounds to me like they thought they had two:
Their source, and the official who read the
story and didn't object. It wasn't a
positive assertion that "yes, this is in an
upcoming report from an investigation", but
it certainly seems they checked it out.
It just really smells too much of shoot-the-
messenger for me.
\_ I'm not sure "no comment" and "That
sounds like something I heard once"
count as confirmations.
\_ What about "I've reviewed your piece
and you can't print this [other
unrelated part]"?
\_ That would be confusing 'not
denying' with 'positively
affirming'.
\_ Which, in an admin that funnels
all FOIA requests through the
white house, seems a line that
needs to be crossed.
\_ This would be the "it's good
enough because doing more is
hard" standard?
\_ Which is why they
apologized, but haven't
retracted.
\_ Newsweek retracted.
\_ Indeed. Sigh.
\_ We should apply this
standard to more things.
\_ And how did people die from Newsweek's lie?
\_ do you even watch any news?
\_ Oops! I read about the Quran flushing and the riot, but I
missed the news that it was a Newsweek lie. -- PP
\_ Watching the news is a big mistake. Reading the news isn't
much better but at least print media sometimes pretends to take
it's job seriously. --!pp
\_ You missed the riots and deaths?
\_ Those were terrorists, not "people"!
\_ The Afghani government claims that the riots there had
nothing to do with the Koran story. Don't know if there
were deaths elsewhere.
\_ (not a troll, really) Afghani == currency. Afghan ==
citizenship.
\_ American Newsweek writers didn't know how inflammatory "flushing
Koran down a toilet" was compared to getting nekkid CIA officers to
sit on detainees laps - otherwise they would have done more vetting.
\_ Newsweek already killed Admiral Boorda.
\_ I posted a long quote from Gen. Myers stating that the US
definitely placed Koran's on the toilet, but can't confirm yet
whether any actually were flushed, but some asshole stomped it.
You and the whole Powerline/LGF crowd are going to look pretty
stupid when it turns out Newsweek was correct.
\_ Where is the quote?
\_ The post may have just been overwritten. Why don't you
repost or post a link?
\_ http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2005/05/mil-050512-dod01.htm
\_ http://csua.org/u/c31
Important stuff is at the very bottom.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding what Myers is saying though.
What do other people take that last paragraph to mean?
\_ For the most part he seems to be denying the Newsweek
report. I have no idea what he was trying to say here
though: "There are several log entries that show that
the Koran may have been moved to -- and the detainees
became irritated about it, but never an incident where
it was thrown in the toilet."
\_ Yeah I take that to mean that the Koran was moved
to the toilet, but not flushed down it, though it
is not entirely clear that he meant that.
\_ "They have looked through the logs, the interrogation logs, and
they cannot confirm yet that there were ever the case of the
toilet incident, except for one case, a log entry, which they
still have to confirm, where a detainee was reported by a guard
to be ripping pages out of a Koran and putting in the toilet to
stop it up as a protest. But not where the U.S. did it.
... That's still unconfirmed; it's a log entry that has to be
confirmed. There are several log entries that show that the
Koran may have been moved to -- and the detainees became
irritated about it, but never an incident where it was thrown in
the toilet." -Gen. Myers
Okay, so there are logs that say the Koran was moved "to" the
toilet, which means to me on the seat (open or closed) or on top
of the water reservoir.
The point of debate is not about stomping on or putting Koran's
"on" the toilet, the latter point the military concedes there are
logs about. The issue is flushing Koran's down the toilet, for
which the military says there are no logs showing this.
\_ So they were "really disrespectful" but not "ludicrously
disrespectful"? The WH puts out a statement saying that
Newsweek is hurting America's image. I say America is
hurting America's image.
\_ You don't get people killed because of Korans moved "to"
the toilet. Flushing Korans is another thing.
Anyways, like I wrote earlier, American Newsweek writers
just didn't understand how inflammatory this was, or they
would have vetted it more.
\_ As noted above, the afghan gov't said that the report
was incidental to the violence. Not a cause. People
are pissed. at us. enough to blow up themselves and
innocents to get to us and those who are linked to us.
And you say it's because newsweek printed an article...
\_ Let's put it this way: If Newsweek's anonymous
Pentagon source didn't back down and Gen. Myers said
"Yeah, we actually do have logs of our guys flushing
down Korans", then the U.S. military would be blamed.
\_ Y'know what. The US Military is already blamed
because we are OCCUPYING THEIR COUNTRY. Because
we are holding people thousands of miles from home
in a legal limbo. The status of the qu'ran in a
gitmo prison is just another speck on our filthy
image.
\_ The one point I can agree with you on is that
Dubya's administration has committed many more
serious mistakes than Newsweek has.
\_ How many other surfaces are there in a military latrine
where one can put a copy of the Koran?
\_ Well, the issue is whether they did it on purpose to
piss off the prisoners.
\_ Is it? I thought the issue was the location of the
of the Koran. The Myers quote made no mention of
the state of mind of the military guard(s). Never
been in a military prison latrine before, but I'm
not coming up with many better locations to put a
copy of the Koran than on top of the can.
\_ Why did they bring one there in the first place?
\_ Ah, that's a different question. I don't
think I've seen any reference to *who* brought
Koran into the toilet. Was it a guard or a
prisoner? But once the book is in the toiilet,
where else better should you put it?
\_ Every prisoner gets a Bible, Koran, or whatever
holy book you want.
\_ Would they give free Playboy subscriptions
if you said you worshipped Hugh Hefner?
\_ What is inferred is that the state of mind of the
prison guards was as you stated: They were
innocently placing the Koran on the john because
it seemed like a good place.
But Myers didn't say that explicitly.
\_ These are supposed to be diaries of interrogations
remember. It makes no sense to respectfully place
the Koran "near" the toilet as an aside in an
interrogation interview. My guess is that they
threatened to flush them as a way to antagonize
the "interviewees." But that is just a guess.
the "interviewee." But that is just a guess.
\_ I don't know, the pentagon guys didn't say
the Koran was "moved to the toilet" during
interrogation, just that it was moved there.
You're assuming this was during
interrogation, but it's also possible
that a gaurd may have picked up a Koran to
get it out of the way and just used the
toilet tank as a convinent place to put it
down. Heck, I read my bible on the can, and
rest it on the tank sometimes. I can see a
gaurd doing this with a Koran inadvertantly.
It's a possibility.
\_ I assumed that it was in a cell that had a toilet in
it, like most jails.
\_ Apparently, some prisoners are kept in en suite
cells, and others are kept barrack-style, presumable
with an attached communal latrine.
\_ I don't understand this logic. Regardless
whether it happened, if the military denies
it, then they mustn't be blamed?
\_ This is hardly the first time this claim has been made:
http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=6058 |
| 2005/5/11-12 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:37637 Activity:nil 57%like:37626 |
The uncensored messages below this line is a SIMULATION of what motd would look like if it was run by moonbats with an overblown sense of their own wittiness. \_ What the fuck is a moonbat? It's self apparent that it's not funny so what is it? \_ http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=moonbat&r=f |
| 2005/4/18-19 [Recreation/Dating, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:37238 Activity:moderate |
4/18 Can we please stop it with the political correctness already?
http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/42923.htm
\_ who's being politically correct?
\_ the City Commission on Human Rights.
\_ how is defending someone's rights over popular objection
"politically correct"? -tom
\_ Allowing a man to define himself as a woman is politically
correct.
\_ It's also politically stupid, ergo being politically
correct is equivalent to being politically stupid.
Anyway, the constitution doesn't provide for equal
protection of stupidity. No matter how man fags try
to tell you otherwise, sex is a "physical" attribute.
\_ This is true for most people, but not everyone.
There's a whole range of transgendered people,
including some who were born with ambiguous gender
and some who take hormones and have had a lot of
surgery. The actual sex-changing operation is a
pretty small part of the whole process, and I'm not
sure we should define people's gender based on that.
Of course, I'm not sure we should let them pick
arbitrarily either, but it's not as unreasonable
as it sounds. Keep in mind that, in a civic sense,
gender doesn't make that much difference anymore --
gender doesn't make too much difference anymore --
nowadays it's pretty much marriage, affirmative
action, and bathrooms, and the first two seem to
be on their way out. --liberal
\_ This is great! So can I define myself as a Native American so I
can benefit from affirmative action?
\_ It worked for Ward Churchill.
\_ touche -pp
\_ Awesome, so now I can saunter into a woman's dressing room in
a store and claim I'm a woman. 50 years of civil rights and
look at the progress we've made!
\_ Well, unfortunately for you, that still only applies to
(a (woman's dressing room)), rather than to
((a woman's) (dressing room)). |
| 2005/4/14-15 [Politics/Domestic/911, Reference/Military] UID:37192 Activity:moderate |
4/14 So the media have all but ignored the Minuteman Project. There are
claims now that the Mexican Army are escorting mexicans to other
parts of the border to cross, but there's pretty much zero coverage of
this. Why isn't this being investigated?
\_ Almost as importantly is the lack of coverage that these
illegals costs in range bombing time.
\_ It's 24 miles worth of border and they have caught about 200
people so far. Of course the Border Patrol is pissed off because
the Minutemen, the activists watching the Minutemen, and the
reporters following everyone are setting off alarms and messing
with their own tracking. The Minutemen succeeded the first day
when they got their 15 minutes of free press.
\_ You obviously don't understand the project. The number of
illegals crossing the border in that section has dropped
dramatically. That's a success.
\_ Errr...You aren't really *that* dumb are you? Umm...maybe
you are...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maginot_line
\_ Because it doesn't extrapolate out nicely. 500 volunteers
over 24 miles compared to paying X professionals over the
1950-odd mile Mexican border? Toss in Canada and you've
got a bit of a budget problem. |
| 2005/4/11-13 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:37145 Activity:nil |
4/11 Bad Ass Sikh keeps terrorist body as souvenir:
http://xo.typepad.com/blog/2005/04/man_who_killed_.html
\- See also KPS Gill
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1975997.stm |
| 2005/3/30-4/3 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:36988 Activity:nil |
3/30 A critique of libertarian thought:
http://www.amconmag.com/2005_03_14/article1.html
\_ This is from a conservative perspective that the vast majority
here are not going to be in tune with. It also mischaracterizes
libertarianism on a number of fronts. Most egregiously when it
suggests that libertarianism somehow has "contempt for
self-restraint". He approaches the real problem when he suggests
that most libertarians don't realize how easy it is to infringe on
another's rights (I'm fond of pointing out that this is especially
true in densely populated areas), but the article is mostly
pandering to the "drugs and porn are bad" crowd, muddled thinking,
and the putting up of a utopian straw man. (It is a small minority
of libertarians that are utopian). I'm sure there are better
criticisms of Libs out there, as there is much to criticize.
-a libertarian
\_ Huh. Thanks for the insight.
\- libertarianism is a reasonably powerful and parsimonious
theory about government. but there is a lot more to philosophy
than the ordering of social institutions. and conclusions in
other areas in turn feed back into beliefs about the ordering
of social institutions. and that lack of a theory about
say "what we owe each other" or the right and the good,
justice, fairness etc is where libertaianism lacks in theory.
where it lacks in practice in my opinion and experience is
many adherent really are not committed to theory. they cleve
to the ideology because the conclusions are what they like
with rather than the fundamental principles and logic. the
extrme form of these are randroids. those people dont even
realize randianism isnt a philosophy any more. it is just
a bunch of prescriptions which a sham theory behind it [sic].
there are also a minority of honest libertarians who are
too obsessed with theoretical parsimony which is lacking
in some messy but probably more honest and powerful
theories [these are the nozick-heads. it is quite possible
you dont know any of these people. although if berkeley
you have some chance of meeting a few of these. they can
be worth talking to.]. --psb
\_ Interesting, though dense. Thanks for taking the time
to elucidate. It's all pretty interesting when presented
rationally without all the distracting acrimony.
\- oh there should be acrimony but maybe not distracting
acrimony toward randroids. there isnt enough acrimony
towards them. --psb
\_ agreed. -a libertarian |
| 2005/3/16-17 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:36714 Activity:moderate |
3/16 Why is Congress investigating steroid use in baseball? Were the
steroids illegal?
\_ Yes. But it seems that there might be a few things more pressing
for Congress's attention right now...
\_ My question would be: why does the Congress care about steoid use in
baseball? If it's legal, leave them alone. If it's illegal, leave
them to the judicial branch.
\_ Bread and circuses my friend. Bread and circuses.
\_ Interestingly, congress gave baseball a special exemption from
anti-trust law. So they do have special status according to
congress.
\_ Kind of like how our tax dollars are wasted policing things like
illegal MP3 and movie trading? Or for that matter, the whole
"war on drugs" which has resulted in nothing but wasted lives
and wasted money? Welcome to the world of politics, my friend.
\_ I'm not your friend.
\_ Welcome to the world of politics, you dick.
\_ I think he was being mildly patronizing and you're clearly
too stupid to pick up on that, my overly literal and rather
obtuse friend.
\_ I knew he was being patronizing and was calling him out on
that. Now who's being obtuse, friend?
\_ Hmm. No, it's still you. Train harder, grasshopper.
\_ You're a doody-head! NYAH NYAH NYAH!!!
\_ I guess this means that you're not \my\ friend
either...thank God.
\_ Just for fun, order these by how much the government spent on each:
Investigating Bill Clinton's alleged real estate fraud
Investigating why the last space shuttle tragedy happened
Investigating the 9/11 terrorist attacks
\_ Looks like you already have. |
| 2005/3/10 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36634 Activity:very high 66%like:36625 |
3/10 Violent Dems!
http://sptimes.com/2005/03/10/Hillsborough/Bumper_sticker_evokes.shtml
\_ Gosh this sucks. I wished the man had actually run down the woman
and have gotten away. That damn bitch supported an illegal war
that killed a lot of innocent lives. Fuck her.
More Violent Dems!
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1027042harris1.html
\_ Republicans do this kind of shit every day.
\_ Every day? Do tell!
\_ http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hatecm.htm#bias |
| 2005/3/10 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36625 Activity:moderate 66%like:36634 |
3/10 Violent Dems!
http://sptimes.com/2005/03/10/Hillsborough/Bumper_sticker_evokes.shtml
More Violent Dems!
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1027042harris1.html
\_ Republicans do this kind of shit every day. |
| 2005/2/28-3/2 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:36457 Activity:moderate |
2/28 Alexf, Can you please answer this? Condemning the whole organization
over Mumia seems ... overzealous:
(from yesterday)
\_ Hey, I got no problem with the concept, but once they start
defending terrorists and cop killers, the implementation is,
in my book, obviously hopeless. -pp
\_ To what are you refering? You're claiming something I
can't find any reference for. Please give some context.
</yesterday>
\_ (FWIW, I don't check the motd nearly often enough to have
time to respond before these threads get purged). Anyway,
how's this quick selection for a start:
Re Mumia:
http://www.danielfaulkner.com/Pages/amnesty.html
AI supporting the Jenin myths:
http://csua.org/u/b7d (honestreporting.com)
AI promoting ludicrous notions of moral equivalence:
http://csua.org/u/b7e (ibid.)
As far as what the rest of the thread brought up -- I
don't think them particularly in the wrong on Abu
Ghraib (the media has, though, blown it far out of
proportion IMHO), and am rather ambivalent in regard
to their involvement in the Gitmo stuff. I'll readily
admit that they've done a lot of good work in the
past, but many of the things they do now, and, yes,
the Mumia case is the most disgusting behavior of
theirs in my book, color my perception to the point
that I definitely think the world would be better off
without them (or with a monumental change in their
leadership and culture). I don't intend to continue
this debate on the motd. If you really want further
responses from me, email or better yet come to Soda
in person. -alexf
\_ ob group masturbation of hooded prisoners at abu ghraib
video; also: "I went down to Tier 1 (the cellblock where
much of the abuse is said to have occurred) and when I
looked down the corridor, I saw two naked detainees, one
masturbating to another kneeling with its mouth open," he
is quoted as saying. "I thought I should just get out of
there. I didn't think it was right, as it seemed like the
wrong thing to do. I saw Staff Sergeant Frederick walking
towards me, and he said, `Look what these animals do when
you leave them alone for two seconds.'"
\_ AlexF, I understand you want to provide a more balanced
view of the cases cited, but do you really think citing
a website devoted to avenging Daniel Faulkner and a
website devoted to denigrating any criticism of Israel
balances things in any meaningful way?
\_ Maybe they were the first things up on Google. In
any case, I hope we can all agree that the far left
has been taken for a ride on the whole Mumia thing,
and should really just let it go.
\_ "Mumia probably killed that guy. There, I said it.
...the efforts to defend him may have overlooked the
fact that he did indeed kill that cop. ...He probably
did kill that guy." -Michael Moore, from "Dude,
Where's My Country"(2003), page 189.
\_ I don't know about that. You have to remember
that the Philly police bombed a whole city block
and killed something like a dozen people to
eliminate the MOVE crowd. It was the Waco of the
80s but since it was a bunch of black people, not
that many people got upset about it. Mumia
was a good spokesperson for their efforts. This
is all tangential to his actual guilt or innocence
I know, but in the real world, this is the way
politics works.
\_ Repost the link, some ass deleted it.
\_ There was no link. Mumia is the only thing I could think of
that he could have been talking about.
\_ Amnesty International = Evil, Torturing Innocents At Gitmo = Good
\_ There are no innocents in Gitmo! They're all very bad people,
and we're not cutting off people's fingers or feeding them into
the woodchipper feet-first like Saddam.
Anyway, even if there's 1 or 2 people in Gitmo who weren't
planning an attack on the U.S., they were at least doing
something that they shouldn't have been; otherwise, they wouldn't
be in Gitmo!
If a Democrat were in charge the terrorists would be blowing us
all up by now! -typical Dubya voter who p0wn3d u liberals
\_ You forgot at least one reference to God, and your faith in
His wisdom, etc, etc. |
| 2005/2/27-28 [Politics/Foreign/Europe, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:36444 Activity:very high |
2/27 Peter Benenson died last week:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56659-2005Feb26.html
\_ Now if only Amnesty International would die with him...
\_ Fuck. You.
\_ Hey, I got no problem with the concept, but once they start
defending terrorists and cop killers, the implementation is,
in my book, obviously hopeless. -pp
\_ To what are you refering? You're claiming something I
can't find any reference for. Please give some context.
\_ Everyone in Abu Ghirab and Guantanamo Bay is a
terrorist, remember?
\_ *Everyone*?! You're kidding, right? I've been
trolled.
\_ And torture is OK as long as they're bad guys.
\_ Hey, people say there's no intellectual diversity
on liberal college campuses like Cal. The
pro-torture sysadmin faction proves that to be
false. I think there are probably a good half
dozen motd posters who genuinely support torture.
\_ I think anyone who's had to deal with a
sysadmin wouldn't be surprised by their
pro-torture attitudes.
\_ You, sir, are the terrorist. |
| 2005/2/24 [Politics/Domestic/911, Recreation/Travel/LasVegas] UID:36399 Activity:nil |
2/23 Oldie but goodie. Cheney playing poker.
http://www.thepoorman.net/archives/002789.html |
| 2005/2/24 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:36391 Activity:nil |
2/23 I love America!
http://csua.org/u/b5x
\_ John Ashcroft would love to talk to the PPP CEO. C'mon, it's
NYC, anything liberal and evil's possible. They will never sell
these things in holy places, like ummm, Texas.
\_ "If the boys had used the card, they would have ended up on a Web
site rife with the rawest closeup photos and videos of sex acts,
including intercourse and fetishes." OH MY GOD CALL A CHILD
PSYCHOLOGIST, THEY'LL BE SCARRED FOR LIFE AND JOIN A GAY AL QAEDA
SUPPORT GROUP! Jesus H. Christ. "Rife". -John |
| 2005/2/20-21 [Politics/Domestic/911, Computer/SW/Unix] UID:36338 Activity:kinda low |
2/20 Hey jwang, I have a suggestion/feature request. Rather than deleting
politics which I know you hate, how about moving them to another file,
like /etc/motd.politics? I appreciate the hard work you put into
political cleansing in the past few years as it makes motd more
compact, but it would be nice if they're moved instead of eradicated.
You got root, and/or you got ties to root to make it
happen. How about it jwang?
\_ fuck you kchang.
\_ fuck you ilyas.
\_ fuck you meyers.
\_ The above illustrates why conservatives are running the show
(cuz the other side can't get along with one another)
\_ I am on the liberal side now? Someone forgot to let me
know. I don't know (and don't care) what kchang's
politics are. Meyers' politics are irrelevant as he is
an idiot. -- ilyas
\_ Wow, it's like you've known me my whole life! Please
explain to me why foodstamps at gunpoint is bad, but
funding your research at gunpoint is good. -meyers
\_ I personally would go for that, though I think it is sort
of a solution looking for a problem. If I am not interested
in something, I just don't bother with it. I don't go
around trying to decide what is appropriate for others
to read. Actually, how about we create a motd.moderated
and a motd.unmoderated and you can be responsible for
maintaining motd.moderated. -ausman
\_ This is fucking hilarious. How many people does anyone really
think would read motd.moderated?
\_ after 911 the motd went into a lockdown and everyone
switched over to the underground motd. Search for
"underground motd peterm" in the archiver and you'll see.
It's really no big deal, people adapt quickly.
\_ I have a better idea. How about instead of doing that, jwang
gets a fucking clue? -- ilyas
\_ go libertarian go!
\_ Good idea, with one slight change: just made motd.unmoderated
a symlink to motd.public.
\_ Can we also symlink motd.moderated to /dev/null? |
| 2005/2/11-12 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:36150 Activity:high |
2/11 Anyone saying no one could have imagined terrorists using planes
as weapons is not fit to dress themselves, let alone be SecState.
I mean, c'mon, Tom CLANCY used it in Debt of Honor in '96.
\_ I would argue that this is one reason we need a few more tech people
at the top levels of government. A future "failure of imagination"
would be less likely if you had people who grew up reading/watching
sci fi and who actually understand technology calling some of the
shots.
\_ But it wasn't a failure of imagination. That's just a stupid line
of crap.
\_ Forget tech people. They need hardcore SF writers and game
designers. Hell, I'd love to do that kind of job-- spend all
day dreaming up worst case scenarios for security people to
debug.
\_ Only a sci fi geek would think that's a good idea.
\_ Wasn't this what Jerry Pournelle did/does? -John
\_ Do you people not understand that the real world works a little
bit differently than the fictional world of books and tv shows?
Sure someone could imagine that terrorist might fly planes into
buildings but the people who write these books and create these
TV shows also brought you Sam Fisher (where can I get one of
those distractions cam for my P-90?) and Dana Scully getting
abducted by Aliens.
In the real world things are far more complicated than on TV.
Think about that for a minute. These terrorist somehow managed
to get past multiple security checkpoints and then on most
planes managed to take control w/o meeting any resistance.
How likely is that? What would you have done had you been on
one of those planes? Sat idly by? Maybe try to take control?
Think about all of the variables that are present and the
behaviors of hundreds or thousands of people on 11 Sept and
tell me you still think that it was imaginable in the real
world.
\_ It's not an issue with realism or what. Of course things are
more complicated in real life. The issue is that you want
people around who have the imagination to come up with the
really odd, improbable shit--remember Sherlock Holmes? "If you
have discounted all other probabilities, whatever remains,
whatever improbable, must be the truth"? I'd welcome having
people around who can think outside of some bureaucratic,
limited, wingtip-shoe "it'll-never-happen-here" mentality.
Just having people like this on the payroll doesn't mean you
have to jump every time they predict an alien invasion or, god
forbid, a tsunami, but it might help you react a bit faster if
such a thing did come to pass. -John
\_ While I generally agree that quicker reaction may have
prevented considerable loss of life, the problem is
that the military largely lacked any basis for knowing
whether or not the crashes were due to terrorist activity.
Had these not been suicide attacks, but rather some
sort of mixup/malfunction and the military had reacted
by destroying the planes, it is highly improbable that
they could have justified the action by showing that
there was probable cause to suspect suicde airplane
attacks. In retrospect is it easy to say that the ptb
should have known, but one must consider that question
in light of what could they have reasonably done w/o
complete proof (which they did not have on 9/11) that
the situation was really as they believed it to be?
\_ This is the fundamental problem faced by people working
in corporate IT security--your very job consists of
coming up with unlikely-but-highly-destructive scenarios
and selling the most effective, least intrusive pre-
emptive measures or countermeasures capability to these
you can think of. There are wide areas of risk analysis
devoted to coming up with exactly this sort of crap--you
take _all_ imaginable scenarios, then figure out how
feasible they are and rate them in terms of how urgently
(if at all) you should do something about them. I'm not
just talking about 9/11 here, but referring to a seeming
inability or unwillingness to consider just this sort of
crackpot scenario (which apparently _was_ dreamed up by
some pretty competent and intelligent people) or even
something unlikely that a sci-fi writer might cook up
(massive earthquake + tsunami kills 150k, asteroid hits
NYC, whatever) and seriously attempt to determine (a) a
probability for it, and (b) what to do if it comes to
pass. Blowing it off out of hand does not count as
responsible under ANY circumstances. -John
\_ I agree w/ you that the way to deal w/ the
problem is (a) and (b), but I what I don't
agree w/ is that the ppl in charge blew
it off b/c a determination that the prob.
of the event is not very great can look, in
retrospect, to be blowing it off. I haven't
read about any evid that shows that a prob.
assessment of a 9/11 style attack prior to
9/11 was greater than miniscule in anyones
mind.
\_ When I first heard the news, my first thought was, "They've
finally done it." My next thought was, why the hell weren't
there contingency plans drawn up by the military, etc. to
handle just such a case. And then I heard they'd crashed into
the Pentagon, and I knew, for real, that we as a govt. are
crippled and screwed.
\_ One further point which I omitted is the fact that prior
to 9/11 a military plan which involved the destruction
of civilian aircraft w/o a clear showing of terrorist
involvement would have been impossible to implement.
Let us suppose that the military had a plan to destroy
the planes based on a suspicion that terrorist had taken
control. Could they have implemented that plan? In the
pre-9/11 world the answer is NO.
If the 9/11 incident had turned out to be an accident or
a standard hijack rather than a terrorist suicide attack,
military action that destroyed the plane in the air would
have been characterized as trigger-happy extermism, &c.
No lefty senator would have accepted an explanation that
the intelligence services felt that the planes might be
used by suicide hijackers on the basis that such as
belief was completely implausible. Prior to 9/11 this
objection would have been perfectly reasonable b/c there
was no reasonable basis (prior acts, &c.) for holding
w/ a view that such an attack was plausible.
\_ Bullshit. The Pentagon could easily have established
a no-fly zone around it that would trigger an automatic
anti aircraft response. Almost no one would object
to that. Remember when the USS Vincennes shot
down a civilian airliner for straying too close?
Very few objected to that. The Pentagon is a far
more valuable target than a carrier group.
\_ iirc, the Vincennes incident is sufficiently
distinguishable from 9/11: (1) the ship was
engaged in surface action, (2) the iran air
flight took off from a civilian/military
shared airfield and (3) the radar aboard the
Vincennes could not accurately distinguish
a commerical airliner from a military jet.
The cmdr, who was already faced w/ hostile
surface action had little choice but to
assume that the inbound was hostile as well.
9/11 is different. The Pentagon was not
"engaged" in any action, it was located near
commerical flight paths, the plane was known
to be a commerical jet, &c. If the military
had made a mistake and shot it down when
no terrorist action was involved, there is
no way a congressional commission pre-9/11
would have accepted the pentagon's threat
assessement.
\_ Disagree. 9/11 changed things in the public consciousness
but I would have assumed there would be procedures in
place for this as applied to the pentagon. Shooting down
a civilian airliner would be a tragedy even if it was
100% clear it was in kamikaze mode. But even "lefty
senators" who hate America would accept it. It really
is common sense. |
| 2005/2/8-9 [Reference/Military, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:36106 Activity:kinda low |
2/8 Is there any conspiracy theory which is most likely true?
\_ There really was a conspiracy to hide information about UFO's from
the public. The nonexistence of aliens did not stop the mindless
wheels of government.
http://www.cia.gov/csi/studies/97unclass/ufo.html
\_ um yes, gov't consipiracy to cover up UFOs are true.
\_ What do you mean? They're all true!
\_ The Warren Commission report on the JFK assassination was almost
certainly a coverup. I personally think they were covering up the
fact that they really had no idea what happened, not that nutjob
theory of your choice did it, but who really knows? |
| 2005/1/31 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35993 Activity:very high |
1/31 Is Al Qaeda ineffective? I ask this because despite spouting so
much bile and hatred they haven't really done much of anything.
As the train accident in LA showed, it's easy to stage simple
attacks and yet all they have to show are a train bombing in Spain
and the WTC. I am starting to think the WTC was more lucky than
good. Is Al Qaeda as large of a threat as most of us thought on 9/11?
\_ Oh. It's only 1300+ and counting.
\_ 1411 to be exact.
\_ Your number is old. 1435.
\_ Al Qaeda is effective in the Russian guerilla warfare sense -- they
are using very limited resources to tie up a LOT of resources of
the enemy. -- ilyas
\_ Understood, but I guess the surprise is how limited their
resources really seem to be. Even Hamas seems to be a
stronger, better-backed, and better-funded organization. They
make the most of what they have, but what they have seems to
be 'not much'.
\_ Al Qaeda may well be smaller and less funded than Hamas.
Their only claim to fame is pulling off an attack on US soil.
-- ilyas
\_ And on US embassies. And on US warships. Not to mention
MASSIVE loss of US civillian life. And the first WTC
bombing.
\_ All of this was on or before 9/11, no?
\_ Mostly, yeah -- I was responding to the notion that
WTC II was their only claim to fame.
\_ Bali nightclub bombing was after. weren't there
refinery explosions in germany or something claimed
by al qaeda? American compound in riyadh in may 03.
daniel pearl
\_ This is almost stupid enough to call troll on it, but it's dim,
so i think it's sincere. Coordinated embassy bomings in africa,
uss cole, etc. now have expanded their presence to over 60
countries. they're dispersed, and growing, and bush hasn't done
a thing to actually work on it.
\_ Wow, now THIS is a troll. Since 9/11 there hasn't been one
successful attack on U.S. soil. If your Al-Qaida was so
powerful why haven't they done even one suicide bombing in
America? Oh, I guess you're going to blame the LA train wreck
last week on some sort of government cover-up. Tinfoil hat
time.
\_ As ilyas points out above, they've done an incredible job
costing the US billions of dollars, thousands of lives,
and tying up a HUGE portion of the US's military power with a
trickle of resources. What should be obvious is that if we
didn't tie up those resources, then it's far more likely that
rather than military personnel lost in combat it would
probably be as many civillian lives somewhere else. Your
observations are accurate, but your standards of evaluation
are all wrong.
\_ You seem to be suggesting that if we had not invaded Iraq,
the US would have suffered around 14,000 civilian terrorist
casualties in the past 2-3 years.
\_ [This is now incoherent because PP backed off of his
absurd assertion]
\_ [PP was too busy trying to beat the motd spinlock
and didn't think all the details through.]
\_ Motd spinlock never happens! Someone who posts
way more than me says so! -- ilyas
\_ That claim was never made. Reread the
archive, dude. -4 hp for poor reading
comprehension.
\_ Ilya was being sarcastic. Now who's got
poor reading comprehension?
\_ Sarcastic...you keep using this word..
perhaps it doesn't mean what you think
it means.
\_ You can be sarcastic AND wrong.
Sarcasm is fun; being misquoted is
irritating. Crap. Ilyas trolled me,
didn't he? DAMN YOU ILYAS! -4 hp to
me for being gullible.
\_ Before 9/11 there hadn't been a us attack for many years.
And now there are all those nice soldiers in Iraq to blow
up instead.
\_ Attacking military targets isn't a particularly good
way to terrorize the US populace at large.
\_ You know the goal isn't terror. Terror is just one
of many tools. The goal is to further an agenda.
This isn't a Bond movie.
\_ No, but it terrorizes the Iraqi population, which makes
our job there harder, more expensive, and with higher
casualties to boot. If they hurt the populace enough,
the US may even be forced to withdraw which would be a
PR disaster (not to mention a massive ideological
failure). Also, if it gets bloody enough for our
troops, the government may even lose popular support,
which gives further validation to the effectiveness of
terrorism overseas impacting domestic policy (ie, the
US populace at large).
\_ so Saddamn didnt terrorize the iraqi populace?
\_ ??? Are you responding to the correct thread?
\_ But it is a good way to 1) drain our resources and
2) solidify and "train" their people.
\_ On the other hand, if all of the attacks happen in the Middle
East (e.g. Cole) then they fade into irrelevance. Same thing
if the attacks come decades apart. You'd think there would be
more attacks in the US, Japan, or Europe and yet nothing. To
me this indicates they have a severe lack of resources and
thus spend a lot of time planning to use them efficiently.
\_ I get the impression that they have a few smart people at the top
who move very slowly, and a lot of low level poor ignorant angry
men. Rember that 9/11 was years in planning and only then it was
the second try to destroy the WTC. I don't think they have
the resources to make chem or bio weapons, but given enough time an
a state-sponsor they could put them into use.
\_ Yeah, I'd have to agree. That's why I was and continue to be
surprised that people believe that that 9/11 has changed the world.
Staging an attack on U.S. soil is *very* hard, but anyone can
get lucky once in a while. There will not, however, be another
attack on U.S. soil of any substantial magnitude (over 50
casualties) masterminded by Islamic fundementalists in the next
15 years (you heard it hear first).
\_ I guess the idea is that they shouldn't have gotten lucky --
US had gotten too lax in its handling of terrorism. The
World Trade Center was a wake up call. It was the wake up call
that serves as the 'changed the world' part. That's just a
guess on my part though. You're probably right about the 15
years part.
\_ If Dubya didn't start the practice of scanning checked-in luggage
for bombs, you can bet there would be a synchronized commuter
plane event.
\_ Yes, but how many unsuccessful attempts at terrorism has there
been since 9/11?
\_ why make a move when the great satan imperialist is sending
its running dogs all over the place. let them run around raging
mad doing stupid things and waste money and get tired, making
their friends turn away, and making new enemies, then when they
are broke and exhausted and got kicked out of iraq with tail
between their legs, then add insult to injury and start
bombing and terrorizing them at their home again. by then their
will would be totally broken, and they will cry like girl.
\_ Wow! This r3wl5!!1!
\_ You WIN!
\_ I would suggest that the 'kicked out of Iraq' part isn't
going according to plan. |
| 2005/1/31 [Politics/Domestic/911, Reference/History/VietnamWar] UID:35988 Activity:high |
1/31 New York Times 9/4/1967:
"WASHINGTON, Sept. 3-- United States officials were surprised and
heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam's presidential
election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting."
\_ What would you identify as the Iraq equivalent to the Vietcong?
\_ VC is easy, it's the NVA that's missing. -John
\_ Iran is Cambodia!
\_ Err, stop thinking, man -- you're not very good at it.
\_ What's wrong with that? "No we're not doing anything
there, wink wink".
\_ Heh, okay -- fair enough. I take it back, then.
\_ Gyah, you're giving me hives. |
| 2005/1/28 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:35951 Activity:high |
1/28 Man I want to be a terriorist!!
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=3&u=/ap/20050127/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/guantanamo_sex_vs_faith_7
\_ If things keep going on the current path, soon posting on the motd
will make you a terrorist!
\_ Wow, so ilyas isn't nuking hte motd, he's FIGHTING TERRORISM!!
\_ So hot! I thought these things only exist in R-rated B movies. |
| 2005/1/24 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:35873 Activity:nil |
1/24 PROOF THAT DUMOCRAPS ARE VIOLENT!!!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1271455/posts
\_ The motd has gotten so goddamn stale and boring in the last few
days that I'm actually glad to see freeper troll back. Keep
up the good work!
\_ It's more like dirty than violent.
\_ Proof that the American Justice system still works:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1327414/posts |
| 2005/1/20 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:35811 Activity:moderate |
1/20 http://cryptome.org/hsomb/hsomb.htm \_ Is there some reason you can't describe this link? \_ Homeland Security warnings, for official use only, but left open to the public due to some beauracratic oversight. Interesting reading. \_ Is there some reason you can't describe this link? \_ Homeland Security warnings, for official use only, but left open to the public due to some beauracratic oversight. Interesting reading. |
| 2005/1/14 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35718 Activity:high |
1/14 Dubya interview tonight emphasizing the failure to find WMDs and
colossal CIA mistakes, where he says war was "absolutely" worth
it even if there were no WMDs.
Interview buried by Titan coverage and also Dubya's press
conference today admitting his plainspokenness may have "unintended
consequences".
Intentional? Who cares! Even if it wasn't, this is exactly how
the administration would have liked to have planned it. Burying
bad news on Friday has become a time-honored tradition for Dubya
and friends, the rationale being: The bad guys are the terrorists,
if the Dems are ever elected they'll unwittingly let the terrorists
destroy America; therefore, many actions are fine, and even heroic!
\_ Unwittingly? You must not be familiar with Ann Coulter's corpus.
\_ The interview is the "buried" news/ That's on 20/20 which is always
on Fridays.
\_ It is kind of hard to figure out exactly what you are trying to
say here, but the gist of it seems to be that you believe that
Bush traveled back in time and made sure that the Cassini probe
was launched in such a fashion as to ensure that it passed Titan
at the precise moment that scandal was erupting. I hope you
don't really believe that. And if you do believe it, please
join the other side. -Bush basher/American patriot
\_ No I don't believe that, and this was said explicitly in the
deleted thread. To sum up: "Bad news buried on Friday --
sometimes it's intentional, sometimes not, but Dubya's
people don't care either way, because they feel that they
are doing it for the greater good."
\_ Okay, then why drag poor Titan into it? And while I am sure
that Bush massages the news cycle, so has every President
since Nixon (maybe before, I dunno). |
| 2005/1/10-11 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:35631 Activity:very high |
1/10 As much as I like 24, I find its portraying of us liberals and
the mention of moore interesting. Is the producer hard core
republican? -curious 24fan
\_ Is this from yesterday's episode? Didn't you find that they
played the Sec. of Defense as a caricature too (on the right)?
Also, have the good guys stopped using Macs?
\_ yes, macs are kind of non-mainstream now.
\_ Has any past U.S. Defense Secretary been a non-republican?
Trollish, but I'm also curious.
\_ Harold Brown might have, president of Caltech at one time
Director of Lawrence Livermore. Ph.D. in physics by age 21
\_ Some of FDR's Secretary of Wars were Democrats. George Dern
for sure. Louis Johnson, appointed by Truman must have been
a Democrat, too.
\_ Was Palmer rep. or dem.?
\_ I never really watched 24 before last night. I thought the acting
and drama was good but several things left a bad taste in my mouth.
The stuff with the hacker "stealing software" was laughable. The
\_ no, concluding that someone was
"corrupting the internet" from looking
at a scrolling series of hex numbers
is laughable.
defense guy's security was incompetent. The stuff with the
terrorist's kid and his evil parents and the American chick was
ridiculous. He wants to invite her over to kill her? Like that's
\_ how did you draw this conclusion?
\_ From the "scenes from the next episode"
teaser they played afterwards.
not gonna get noticed by anybody?
\_ If you analyze it like that, then I am sure you'll find
flaws. What I like about the show is the non stop
suspense and twist and turns and the fact you have no
idea what will happen next. A lot of shows are too
predictable. I feel they've done a good job at 24.
whether they are going up hill or down hill, hard to say
at this point...
\_ Yeah I said the acting and drama was good. I can't help
analyzing stuff but I can generally overlook it. It doesn't
take that much to appease me... if for example the feds put
up even a slight bit of fight instead of getting completely
wasted, or the hacker stuff was slightly plausible.
\_ The toughest part for me to overlook has always
been that the characters never seem to notice that
something cliffhanger-ish always seems to happen
every hour on the hour. At some point you'd think
they'd look at their watches, see it's 9:59, and
brace themselves for something really really bad
to happen. It's still a lot of fun though.
\_ The part that's always funny to me is the technical
stuff. Looking at hex scrolling by is an example,
maybe they thought we geeks can read machine code
or something. Or they are so fancy/advanced I go
\_ you can't?
"you can do that?" Guess that's true with most
movies as well.
\_ I'm amazed at how quickly people can get from
place to place in LA. |
| 2005/1/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:35588 Activity:nil |
1/7 "We don't need the Americans' intervention. We know who to elect.
Not like them -- they elected a moron."
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/people_gere_dc
\_ so? We don't need the Al Qaeda intervention. We know who to
elect, not a moron. But Bin Laden came out in November and
look at all the morons voting for a moron.
\_ Somewhere there's a bridge missing its troll.
\_ Crap, I came on too strong again. I am so desperately lonely!
\_ There, there, I understand there's a trio of goats heading
your way even as we speak. |
| 2004/12/28 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35457 Activity:moderate |
12/28 http://www.msgr.ca/msgr-3/talk_of_the_town_susan_sontag.htm "In the matter of courage (a morally neutral virtue): whatever may be said of the perpetrators of Tuesday's slaughter, they were not cowards." -Susan Sontag, Sep 24 2001 issue of the New Yorker Goddamnit, I hate stupid liberals, especially those who are "smart". We're on the same team, but these people make us look like idiots. -liberal \_ Courage cannot be a morally neutral virtue in Platonian ethics, for obvious reasons. Plato is so influential in ethical philosophy, I am surprised this point isn't addressed more. Unless, of course, she's just a demagogue. -- ilyas \_ With what do you disagree? That courage can be evaluated in moral-neutral terms? What was "cowardly" about the attacks? They were horrendous, shocking, unthinkable. But cowardly? Calling them cowardly may be a salve for us here, but it's not necessarily true. \_ Killing civilians, where the idea is to kill as many as possible, is almost the purest definition of cowardice. It's discouraging that someone as "smart" as Sontag couldn't recognize this. This is no "salve" -- this is the truth, long and short of it. -liberal \_ They went after US symbols of monetary and governmental power. If they wanted to kill as many civilians as possible, they could have flown the planes into any of the nuclear plants along the route. I'm not trying to make light of the deaths, but you've forgotten what the target was. \_ Actually, the nuclear plants probably would have killed less people and would have been much harder to hit. \_ Says you and who else? \_ Read up on dirty bombs, and nuclear materials in general. As for harder to hit, are you an idiot? \_ I think Osama thought it was great to kill two birds with one stone: (1) "Spectacular" attack from killing so many innocents, and (2) the financial repercussions from taking out the WTC. I haven't forgotten anything, hombre. \_ She wasn't exactly a "liberal", more like a "rabble rouser", like just write/say crap that's total nonsense and dress it up with high-brow veneer and make it look like someone intelligent wrote it. I never liked her novels. \_ Terrorists are all cowards. \_ It's pretty courageous to drive your car into a crowd of innocent and unarmed people, which is basically what the WTC attackers did. If that's not courage then what is?! \_ how many troll points is this worth? \_ Your sarcasm meter is on the blink. \_ you needed more "?!!!" \_ "Cowards are cruel, but the brave Love mercy, and delight to save." -- John Gay "When all the blandishments of life are gone, The coward sneaks to death, the brave live on." -- Dr. George Swewll "To wish for death is a coward's part. [Lat., Timidi est optare necem.] -- Ovid (Publius Ovidius Naso) \_ Those last two quotes miss the point entirely. But agree with Sontag, willfully piloting a plane into a buildings is a lot of despicable things, but cowardly it is not. \_ I believe Sontag and you are both missing a key point. The term "cowardly" is NOT morality-neutral. http://m-w.com: "cowardice": lack of courage or resolution "courage": mental or moral strength to venture, persevere, and withstand danger, fear, or difficulty Now, if there were a morality-neutral term to use for piloting a plane into a building, killing yourself, then use that term. This is where you say: "Oh, but it says 'mental' OR 'moral' strength, and I meant mental courage, and that's morality-neutral, so there!" Then here is where I say: "The moral connotation trumps in this case; use a clear, morality-neutral term." \_ "Well, I believe [...] that the novels of Susan Sontag are self- indulgent, overrated crap." - Crash Davis, "Bull Durham" |
| 2004/12/22 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:35393 Activity:high |
12/22 Recruit is dropping, prison is overcrowded... what do you guys think
about offer prison inmate an option to serve in the military? Chinese
used to do this in the imperial time.
\_ Yeah, let's send over a bunch of rapists and murderers to Iraq.
That'll make 'em love us. Not that "normal" Americans have done better.
That'll make 'em love us. Not that "normal" Americans have
done better.
\_ Umm...I thought we did that.
\_ Actually this is done quite often, esp. when things get desperate.
Read some American/English/French war history. Convicts make very
poor soldiers, however.
\_ In Colonization, they need TWO morale upgrades just to become
free colonists!
\_ You apparently are unaware on how high-tech the army is these days.
The army needs highly motivated people to carry out its sophisticated
tactics. Modern day warfare isn't about sending a mass amount of
people to go off and die (that's what Al Qaeda does and that's why
we have something on the order of 50-to-1 casualty ratios).
Anyway, only the truly moronic will let people of questionable
morality be trained for large sums of money to wield million
dollar weapons.
\_ Your entire response is a joke, right? hi-tech army?
highly motivated people? your 50:1 casualty ratio?
moronic-vs-moral people? surely you're kidding. I think
you have a very idealized notion of our military, and
I also think you overestimate the intelligence and
moral fiber of our military leaders and government.
\_ 50:1??? Who are you kidding? Are you adding all the
civilians casualties in there? We have lost 1.2k soldiers
killed and 10k wounded. Do you think Al Qaeda has lost
60k killed and 500k wounded? Where the hell did they put
the 1/2M wounded???
\_ al Qaeda is not sending massive army. not even close. and
if anything, al Qaeda members are more motivated than us.
high-tech weaponary is not an issue, we know that because
we used to *TRAIN* those al Qaeda members in 1980's, remember? |
| 2004/12/18-19 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:35357 Activity:nil |
12/18 Really interesting article on the sociology of International
terrorists.
http://csua.org/u/af9 |
| 2004/11/30 [Politics/Domestic/911, ERROR, uid:35118, category id '18005#3.9472' has no name! , ] UID:35118 Activity:high Edit_by:auto |
11/30 Maybe one of you dickhead conservatives can explain why the "Liberal
media" don't consider the release of a new Al Qaeda tape on Arab TV
to be news.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/A4A45BBC-FB34-4E9D-A1D6-7182623B9E1F.htm
\_ Al Jazeera is a little too johnny-on-the-spot for my tastes. |
| 2004/11/29 [Politics/Domestic/911, Finance/Investment] UID:35107 Activity:nil |
11/29 Hello petro-euro, goodbye petro-dollar: http://www.csua.org/u/a4w \_ who wrote that article, a publicist for Dreamworks? i'm sorry I can't take someone who writes about the burning girders of the wtc and the dollar seriously. \_ Aside from a hit to American prestige, I dont' see how this changes anything. Exchange and interest rates are determined by the flow of goods and money, not the currencies they are denominated in. \_ Less reasons for other countries to prop up the dollar \_ If they were propping up the dollar to keep oil cheaper, they were making oil more expensive when priced in their native currency. I don't buy it. |
| 2004/11/27 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:35092 Activity:nil |
11/27 Happy Holidays everyone! And in the spirit, I present to you this
story. Teenage girl murders her mother and posts about it on her
LiveJournal. Not a hoax. Hilariously, a lot of the comments on her
blog are defending her.
http://www.glassdog.com/archives/2004/11/26/heavenly_creature.html
\_ nice web page name! - danh
http://www.livejournal.com/users/smchyrocky
http://csua.org/u/a4l (Google News search) |
| 11/26 |