Who'd a thunk it...?

[Mr. P]

What are the odds of a jihidist killing me in Iraq compared to the US?

Odds? Hey, dead is dead regardless of the location.

But the odds are higher in Iraq, Iran, Syria..oh hell the whole middle east than in the US.

I for one would like to keep it that way, you?

 

[Dr Grump]

This ain't Vegas, Grump.

Never said it was...

 

[CSM]

What are the odds of a jihidist killing me in Iraq compared to the US?

Need information first:

Do you fly commercial airlines a lot?

Do you work in a tall building in a large metropolitan area?

Do you work in any building or structure associated with the federal government?

Are you a Muslim?

 

[Dr Grump]

Need information first:

Do you fly commercial airlines a lot?

Do you work in a tall building in a large metropolitan area?

Do you work in any building or structure associated with the federal government?

Are you a Muslim?

In other words, not very high at all..........

 

[Bullypulpit]

So you think 200 Billion a year and over 2,500 lives so far (and that's just U.S. soldiers) is "the best use of our resources" when we were attacked by a bunch of Saudis who were trained in Afghanistan?

Funny, I think there were far better uses for our resources. Kinda proven by the fact that it took Brit intel to crack the latest plot.

And don't forget Scotland Yard...

 

[Bullypulpit]

Seems that the opener for the thread hit a nerve...The FOC's (<i>Friends O' Chimpy's</i>) went straight to <i>ad hominem</i> attacks, thus ( in their minds at any rate) negating the issues raised. Sadly typical.

 

[sitarro]

Seems that the opener for the thread hit a nerve...The FOC's (<i>Friends O' Chimpy's</i>) went straight to <i>ad hominem</i> attacks, thus ( in their minds at any rate) negating the issues raised. Sadly typical.

I'm curious Bully, when you walk around do you have your head up your ass all the way up to the neck or do you just cover your eyes, nose, ears?

 

[Annie]

And don't forget Scotland Yard...

Scotland Yard is into torture? I think not...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/leaders/story/0,,1844559,00.html

From the far right wing, The Guardian:

Liberal agonies

Leader
Tuesday August 15, 2006
The Guardian

"Why are the liberals always on the other side?" asks the fictional French military commander Colonel Mathieu when he is challenged, in The Battle for Algiers, for using torture to fight terror. The film suggests that torture works as a tool of immediate necessity, even if the consequences are a blurring of morality and so final defeat. Four decades on, Mathieu's charge against liberal scruples is still being raised, implicit in the defence of the means being used in a modern battle against Islamic terror. Old conventions and legal obligations are being portrayed as obstacles to victory in a conflict, it is said, whose scope and severity are being recklessly misunderstood. Without supporting torture, the prime minister crystalised this thinking when he asserted last year that"the rules of the game have changed". John Reid's urgent demeanour has done it again in the past week.

Article continues
Counter-terrorism and justice do not always march in step and nor is the easy response, that justice must always come first, enough of an answer. The dilemmas are more acute. The arrest of 24 suspects in connection with an alleged plot to destroy airliners over the Atlantic may have been a triumph of intelligence and policing that saved many lives. No government could be criticised for acting when it did, on the information it claims to have had. Nor have legal safeguards been broken here. Yet safeguards in other countries are less rigorous. At what point do actions abroad pollute British justice, even if in the short-term they may protect British security?

Reports from Pakistan suggest that much of the intelligence that led to the raids came from that country and that some of it may have been obtained in ways entirely unacceptable here. In particular Rashid Rauf, a British citizen said to be a prime source of information leading to last week's arrests, has been held without access to full consular or legal assistance. Disturbing reports in Pakistani papers that he had "broken" under interrogation have been echoed by local human rights bodies. The Guardian has quoted one, Asma Jehangir, of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, who has no doubt about the meaning of broken. "I don't deduce, I know - torture," she said. "There is simply no doubt about that, no doubt at all." If this is shown to be the case, the prospect of securing convictions in this country on his evidence will be complicated. In 2004 the Court of Appeal ruled - feebly - that evidence obtained using torture would be admissable as long as Britain had not "procured or connived" at it. The law lords rightly dismissed this in December last year, though they disagreed about whether the bar should be the simple "risk" or "probability" of torture.

But none of this stops governments acquiescing in torture to acquire information, rather than secure convictions, as British as well as American practice has shown. It has been outsourced to less squeamish countries and denied through redefinition: but it is still torture and still illegal. The former British ambassador to Uzbekistan has provided disturbing evidence of the uneasy boundary between benefiting from torture and encouraging it; so did the Council of Europe's report on rendition in June. The defence, to the extent that anything other than evasion has been offered, is no better than the one provided by Colonel Mathieu in Algiers: it works. But does it? Torture and other illegality can offer authorities a short-term seduction, perhaps even temporary successes. Information provided by torture may have helped foil the alleged airliners plot. But evidence provided uder torture is often unreliable, sometimes disastrously so - and its use always pollutes the broader credentials of torturers and their allies. This battle must be won within the law. So error on the side of 'perhaps not so?' I don't think so. One must, for survivals sake, error on the side of caution. Anything else is not just a form of defeat but will in the end fuel the flames of the terror it aims to overcome.

 

[sitarro]

And don't forget Scotland Yard...

So you don't think Scotland Yard is part of British Intelligence? Why would you say "don't forget Scotland Yard" in answer to Jillians equaly silly comment about Brit Intel?

That self portrait fits you.

 

[jillian]

So you don't think Scotland Yard is part of British Intelligence? Why would you say "don't forget Scotland Yard" in answer to Jillians equaly silly comment about Brit Intel?

That self portrait fits you.

How was MY comment silly? It was accurate. It's amusing to see your guy try to take credit for it, but it was Brit intel, based on info that came from Pakistan.

Oh...btw, some Brits are now complaining that Bush's pressuring them to make the arrest early may have resulted in them not having enough evidence for a conviction of at least some of the arrestees.

Interesting....

 

[Donna Cecilia]

No, it isn't. Dillo is correct.

Dilloduck gives new meaning to "Lord love a duck".

 

[Abbey Normal]

My point was: It sounded ridiculous to say a Marine killed a jihad who would kill me. Since I'm not in Iraq, that would be hard to accomplish.

BTW, Abbey Normal, a character (sort of) from one of my fav movies. So, you have at least one good point. :

I knew what you meant, Donna. But it is true that Jihadists have already killed 3,000 Americans right here on our soil, so not so ridiculous really.

You and I will now have to bond because you have shown such superior taste in movies.

P.S. I have many good points.

 

[Donna Cecilia]

I knew what you meant, Donna. But it is true that Jihadists have already killed 3,000 Americans right here on our soil, so not so ridiculous really.

You and I will now have to bond because you have shown such superior taste in movies.

P.S. I have many good points.

True enough about 3,000 souls being murdered, but the odds are extremely low. Each morning before work, I walk about 45 minutes. I think my odds of being killed by an out of control car is far higher.

That's not to say I take jihadists lightly, but the war in Iraq has opened the door even further for either jihadists to be created, or that door has been opened wide for those who have wanted and waited for years to make Iraq a theocracy. I would like to see democracy prevail, but you can't force democracy in a place where's it's not been practiced. Too many see it as more of an occupation, rather than liberation.

Even Russia, where they want or wanted democracy, is a dangerous place. Crime is through the roof. The mafia control people through fear and Putin, whom I've never trusted since the Kursk incident, seems to be slowly eroding what freedoms the Russians have gained. And this is a place where they voted for democracy. But none of them ever experienced real freedom. It's a work in progress, but it's the citenzry who must make it work, not an outside force.

If a country invaded them and attempted to force democracy, I'm sure we would see the same kind of warfare currently being raged in Iraq.

-------------------

The best line in that movie.
"YES. YES. Say it. He vas my... BOYFRIEND. " lol

 

[OCA]

True enough about 3,000 souls being murdered, but the odds are extremely low. Each morning before work, I walk about 45 minutes. I think my odds of being killed by an out of control car is far higher.

That's not to say I take jihadists lightly, but the war in Iraq has opened the door even further for either jihadists to be created, or that door has been opened wide for those who have wanted and waited for years to make Iraq a theocracy. I would like to see democracy prevail, but you can't force democracy in a place where's it's not been practiced. Too many see it as more of an occupation, rather than liberation.

Even Russia, where they want or wanted democracy, is a dangerous place. Crime is through the roof. The mafia control people through fear and Putin, whom I've never trusted since the Kursk incident, seems to be slowly eroding what freedoms the Russians have gained. And this is a place where they voted for democracy. But none of them ever experienced real freedom. It's a work in progress, but it's the citenzry who must make it work, not an outside force.

If a country invaded them and attempted to force democracy, I'm sure we would see the same kind of warfare currently being raged in Iraq.

-------------------

The best line in that movie.
"YES. YES. Say it. He vas my... BOYFRIEND. " lol

The do nothing policy, lol.

 

[sitarro]

How was MY comment silly? It was accurate. It's amusing to see your guy try to take credit for it, but it was Brit intel, based on info that came from Pakistan.

Oh...btw, some Brits are now complaining that Bush's pressuring them to make the arrest early may have resulted in them not having enough evidence for a conviction of at least some of the arrestees.

Interesting....

I'm sure there are plenty of Brits that blame Bush for their atrocious teeth, so what?

I'm sure that our people had absolutely nothing to do with the procurement of that intel, try thinking beyond the borders a bit Jilly. I know that as an attorney you really aren't required to think in a normal non-ripoff way but give it a shot, open up those peepers.

 

[CSM]

In other words, not very high at all..........

I take that to mean you dont fly, work for the government or in a Federal building and are not Muslim. Therefore, you feel pretty safe.

 

[Dr Grump]

I'm sure that our people had absolutely nothing to do with the procurement of that intel, try thinking beyond the borders a bit Jilly. I know that as an attorney you really aren't required to think in a normal non-ripoff way but give it a shot, open up those peepers.

God forbid the Brits do it by themselves!! Why would they need US input? these were home-grown alleged terrorists.

And once again, a neocon gets into personal insults..how unusual....

 

[sitarro]

God forbid the Brits do it by themselves!! Why would they need US input? these were home-grown alleged terrorists.

And once again, a neocon gets into personal insults..how unusual....

And here we have a neo-lib whining while at the very same time proving to be more naive than a three year old..... no surprise here.:tears1:

 

[jillian]

And here we have a neo-lib whining while at the very same time proving to be more naive than a three year old..... no surprise here.:tears1:

Who's whining besides you? Perhaps your boy shouldn't be trying to take credit for doing something he had no part in.

 

[Dr Grump]

And here we have a neo-lib whining while at the very same time proving to be more naive than a three year old..... no surprise here.:tears1:

Not whining, just calling you for what you are...
No, not naive. I don't blow smoke about things I don't know, unlike you...:moon4:
Oh, and I'm real liberal....