Pakistan is blockading NATO due to an air strike that kill two dozen Pakistani soldiers at a border outpost. The Pakistanis reportedly made the unfortunate "mistake" of firing at US and Afghan commandos which they sometimes do when they forget which side they are supporting. Pakistan is demanding an apology for the incident, and is also using it as an excuse to try to jack up the transit fee from $200 to $5,000 per truck.
The overwhelming majority of non-combatants being killed in Afghanistan are being killed by road-side bombs placed by . . . guess who. . . the Taliban. The Taliban also visit murder and massacre on the various tribes and villages. Unlike NATO, the Taliban deliberately targets innocent non-combatants.
Major-General Ghayur Mehmood spoke to a group of Pakistani reporters on a rare trip to Miran Shah, the administrative center of North Waziristan.
The Pakistani general says that information the military has gathered from its sources suggest most of those killed in drone attacks are hardcore militants, and the number of innocent people being killed is relatively low.
The official paper distributed among reporters says that there have been 164 drone strikes in the militant-dominated region of North Waziristan since 2007, killing 964 "terrorists". There were 171 al-Qaida fighters among those killed, mostly belonging to central Asian and Arab countries.
Send your comments to the author noted at the link. It does zero good to complain to me as I merely quote it, I didn't write it. I hope you are still able to focus on the important information here. It would be quite embarrassing to end up wounded some day because you were so busy correcting the grammar on a terrorist's protest sign that you didn't run from the suicide vest.
Nidal Hasan, Abdulmutallab and Humam al-Balawi are jihadists who were educated and came from privileged middle- and upper-class backgrounds. Hasan was an American-trained U. S. Army doctor, Abdulmutallab was a London engineering student and the son of a wealthy Nigerian banker, and double-agent Dr. Humam al-Balawi was a member of the Jordanian professional class.
Many Westerners are confused by the willingness of university-educated middle-class Muslims to perpetrate barbarous acts of terrorism. It appears to be a reversal of the usual process: typically college students raised in religious households become more secularized by exposure to the humanities and sciences, and the rationalist values of the European Enlightenment. Yet when embryonic jihadists attend Western universities they graduate with their faith intact: 9/11 terrorists Mohammed Atta and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed were both beneficiaries of Western university educations. These men, who sought to advance themselves with Western training and technical skills, ultimately turned against, and attempted to destroy, the very society that provided them with the means to that advancement. Instead of employing their newly acquired learning and knowledge to improve the lot of their fellow countrymen and co-religionists, they turned this very learning and knowledge against their Western benefactors.
This phenomenon begs the question: How do jihadists reconcile such hypocrisy and ingratitude in their own minds?
As the 1989 fatwa against Salman Rushdie proved, the list of Jihad’s grievances against the West is subtle and inventive. The exquisite sensitivities of the faithful guarantee the manufacture of injury and insult without end, providing inspiration for Islam’s perennial street theater; for no sooner does the Arab street grow tired of one threadbare grievance, e.g. Israel, than it discovers another in an irreverent Danish cartoon. . . ..
In Leaderless Jihad: Terror Networks in the Twenty-First Century, Marc Sageman notes that eruptions of terrorist violence have little to do with economic social conditions; terrorist movements evolve slowly, spike quickly, and disappear with unexpected suddenness, and “cannot be explained through slow-moving societal forces and cultural templates.” Sageman disputes the popular notion that terrorists are mentally ill, poor, uneducated sociopaths: most of the 9/11 terrorist were, like Mohammed Atta, well-educated, many of them university graduates, i.e. psychologically stable individuals from middle-class families. Most telling of all, four fifths of these jihadists were expatriates, or the offspring of expatriates, who had immigrated to the West. In a word, they were members of the intelligentsia, confirming Arnold Toynbee’s observation that this class is fertile ground for revolutionary violence. . . . More
In the wake of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, policymakers, scholars, and ordinary citizens asked a key question: What would make people willing to give up their lives to wreak mass destruction in a foreign land? In short, what makes a terrorist?
A popular explanation was that economic deprivation and a lack of education caused people to adopt extreme views and turn to terrorism. For example, in July 2005, after the bombings of the London transit system, British Prime Minister Tony Blair said, “Ultimately what we now know, if we did not before
So the camel jockeys of Pakistan care more about freedom of speech/expression than the 'home of the free'? LOL. I'm guessing they also don't submit people to grope sessions just to fly planes either.
We understand. You just go ahead and keep telling yourself whatever it takes to get you out of bed in the morning.
Our guys have been asleep at the wheel for the last 10 years. I'm pretty sure at this point that most of the U.S. Justices don't even know there *is* a 4th Amendment, much less what it says.
I'm pretty sure there is another possibility - that they in fact do understand it, as applied, and you don't. One of the big stumbling blocks is people keep refusing to acknowledge the difference between procedure under ordinary criminal law, and the law of war, or national security law more generally. Most people here have a better understanding of cheese, which still baffles them, than they do of how the Constitution applies to armed conflict.
You missed a great opportunity there. The post contains specific facts that are fairly easily checked. You could have easily provided either a better source or tried to provide new facts to try and show they are wrong (good luck). Instead you called names and whined about the sources.
Since you don't like Fox News (which I don't cite) I'll throw you a bone. . . maybe you'll like this.
Not to mention you'll at most catch absolute morons who at their best would simply win a Darwin Award because the kind of bozos these "stings" catch are frankly the same gullible dipshits that fall for 419 scams and other stupidity.
Civilization, in fact, grows more and more maudlin and hysterical; especially under democracy it tends to degenerate into a mere combat of crazes; the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.
I very much doubt that Menken would approve of his words being put to your apparent meaning.
But, if you want to pretend that Menken's quote applies to the problem with Islamist terrorism, then tell me: Whom are you going to believe, your lyingeyes, or the misuse of Menken's words? It appears most people commenting on this story will go with the misuse of Menken. No surprise I guess. Those whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad, which makes his next quote apropos:
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.
You don't seem to grasp the terms of the discussion. Maybe this will help - terrorists turn lots of living, breathing people into lots of dead bodies in a short period of time, such as minutes or seconds. Passing laws isn't terrorism. Lobbing isn't terrorism. Making bank loans isn't terrorism. Does this help?
You seem to be confusing "bankrupt" or some such with dead or destroyed.
I was only able to take in parts of Attorney General Eric Holder’s just-completed Senate testimony. But that was enough to see that “Bush did it” is going to be the Democrats’ excuse for the inexcusable “Fast & Furious” operation conducted by ATF on the Obama administration’s watch.
On the Obama administration’s watch. That is the biggest problem with the Democrats’ strategy. Fast & Furious did not begin until 2009, months after the end of the Bush administration. Given that, one might think that even today’s Democrats would be unable with a straight face to lay this disaster at the feet of Obama’s predecessor. But then one wouldn’t know today’s Democrats.
The key to their strategy is conflating two very different programs: Operation Fast & Furious and a Bush era ATF initiative known as “Operation Wide Receiver.”
Anyone with a brain and a passing familiarity with the news knows your post is nonsense. Three weeks ago a notorious Russian arms dealer was convicted in US Federal court. Guess how they got him? If stings are good enough to take down experienced international arms traffickers, and organized crime figures, public officials, embezzlers, and others, they are good enough to take down potential terrorists. If you don't think so, please tell us why? And please, please tell us that you really believe that everyone taken down in a sting is no brighter than a hick good 'ole boy complaining about the "gubermint" and that it never works on anyone more sophisticated, and what your "reasoning" is?
Viktor Bout, a Russian arms dealer* caught in an undercover sting by U.S. agents posing as Colombian guerrillas seeking weapons, was sentenced to 25 years in prison on Thursday by a U.S. judge in New York. . . .
Two DEA informants who posed as FARC leaders testified for the prosecution at Bout's trial. A former Bout business associate, Andrew Smulian, also testified for the government after pleading guilty to participating in the FARC deal.
According to prosecutors, in a meeting at a Bangkok hotel with the supposed FARC representatives, Bout agreed to sell the 100 advanced man-portable surface-to-air missiles or the approximately 5,000 AK-47 assault rifles that were discussed.
Bout was charged only in connection with the suspected arms deal, but U.S. authorities have said he has been involved in trafficking arms since the 1990s to dictators and conflict zones in Africa, South America and the Middle East.
Said to be the inspiration for one of the chief bad guys in Act of Valor
So go ahead shrieking "9/11 NEVER FORGET!" To remind us how we let the terrorists win.
Because they did.
Actually no, the terrorists haven't won, not even close. You'll know the terrorists have won when you are offered the choice of convert to their brand of Islam or die, the Constitution has been replaced by Sharia law, and the Muslim Caliphate (which existed until 1924) is reinstated. That is what they are fighting for, not to inconvenience your air travel by forcing people to wait a bit longer in line. They keep announcing their intentions, and people keep ignoring it as if in denial.
Why shouldn't this be forgotten?
I think it's high time we got over it.
You are apparently the type that thinks that the time to get out of the boat is once you are half way across the river. Tell us, when did Al Qaeda withdraw their declaration of war against the US, Europe, and various other places? If they didn't withdraw their threat, their declaration of war, they are going to continue to try to kill people. They are still very active in Chechnya, Pakistan, Yemen, the Philippines, North Africa, and plenty of other places. To drop one's guard against Al Qaeda and its maniacs is a stupendously bad idea.
I also think it's high time we got rid of the Patriot Act and the TSA
Yes, just like that - a stupendously bad idea.
Try not to feel like a criminal the next time you undress yourself at the airport while waiting in line to get your nads zapped with a healthy dose of radiation.
This, on the other hand, is the right place to insert that line of yours: "I think it's high time we got over it." Searches and screenings have been going on since at least the late 1960s - they aren't going away anytime soon. Get over it.
Since there is some room at the end of the post, lets throw in some recent legal activity:
Denver: Man Arrested for Providing Material Support to a Designated Foreign Terrorist Organization
Jamshid Muhtorov was arrested by members of the FBI’s Denver and Chicago Joint Terrorism Task Forces on a charge of providing and attempting to provide material support to the Islamic Jihad Union, a Pakistan-based designated foreign terrorist organization. Full Story
Baltimore: Man Pleads Guilty to Attempted Use of a Weapon of Mass Destruction in Plot to Attack Armed Forces Recruiting Center
U.S. citizen Antonio Martinez, aka Muhammad Hussain, pled guilty to attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction against federal property in connection with a scheme to attack an armed forces recruiting station in Catonsville, Maryland. Full Story
Washington Field: Man Pleads Guilty to Shootings at Pentagon, Other Military Buildings
Yonathan Melaku, of Alexandria, Virginia, pled guilty to damaging property and to firearms violations involving five separate shootings at military installations in northern Virginia between October and November 2010, and to attempting to damage veterans’ memorials at Arlington National Cemetery. Full Story
1.Tampa: Florida Resident Charged with Plotting to Bomb Locations in Tampa
A 25-year-old resident of Pinellas Park, Florida was charged in connection with an alleged plot to attack locations in Tampa with a vehicle bomb, assault rifle, and other explosives. Full Story
2.Baltimore: Former Army Solider Charged with Attempting to Provide Material Support to al
Rather, the terrorists rolled a 20 on their "save vs get America to destroy itself from within" roll.
Critical hit.
Not really, no. The United States has been able to largely overcome the resistance of "progressives" to defending itself, and has destroyed the majority of the Al Qaeda leadership and infrastructure that was in place before 9/11. They scored, at most, a glancing blow. Of course the "progressives" and Islamists keep trying.
. . . that and dry-rot from w/in due to a dis-affected population (a huge majority of which were slaves) which wearied of being manipulated so as to make the wealthy and powerful, wealthier and more powerful (seem familiar).
In short, Romans lost their willingness to fight, to go to war to protect Rome. Seem familiar?
You, and some moderators, are confused. The problem isn't Saudis, per se. The problem is Islamist extremists who are willing to take up arms and engage in terrorism. If you know much of anything about what is going on, you must know that the US has been fighting Islamist extremists from around the world in Afghanistan and formerly Iraq. It is these very same Islamists extremists who have killed most of the 100,000 people killed in Iraq. That is part of what ultimately made Iraq so deadly for them: their wanton killing undermined their support in the Muslim world, and it resulted in many ordinary Iraqis that might otherwise have backed them to turn against them.
Not only did you get this wrong, but you seem to be picking the one move that could inflame the entire Muslim world against the US - an unprovoked attack against Saudi Arabia, home of Mecca and Medina, the holiest places of Islam, that killed large numbers of innocent Muslims. Was this deliberate on your part? Is that what you want to see? The entire Muslim world waging war against the US? You should keep in mind that even if you aren't American, the results of that might not be pretty for many countries.
Since the vast majority of the dead in Iraq were killed by Islamic extremists doing things like setting off truck bombs in city markets, you might not have the best insight to their thoughts. As it was, the death toll was no worse than Saddams' long term average, and now its done. In the best case, if Saddam had stayed in power, he still be killing. In one of the worse cases, Saddam would have turned over rule to his own sons, the very same sons that he restrained at times as being too cruel, crazy, and blood thirsty. Think of that - what would have been Iraq's future rulers were once held back by Saddam for being too cruel.
Precisely why I chuckle darkly every time I hear the phrase, "We must do X or the 'terrorists' will win!"
Obviously, they already have.
If you believe that then you obviously don't know what you are talking about.
You'll know the terrorists have won when you are offered the choice of convert to their brand of Islam or die, the Constitution has been replaced by Sharia law, and the Muslim Caliphate (which existed until 1924) is reinstated. That is what they are fighting for, not to inconvenience your air travel by forcing people to wait a bit longer in line. If you are "chuckling darkly", thinking the terrorists have won, you aren't getting it. They keep announcing their intentions, and people keep ignoring it as if in denial.
If you recall, Zimmerman did call the police, that is how the series of events started. Eventually he gave up, ended the call, and headed back.
It was shortly after that Martin allegedly surprised Zimmerman, punched Zimmerman in the face dropping him to the ground, and then started pounding his head into the concrete. There are photos showing Zimmerman's head bleeding, and the police report noted that Zimmerman was bleeding from both his nose and the back of his head. Witnesses have stated that they saw Martin on top of Zimmerman.
Now, are you thinking that as Zimmerman lay underneath Martin, having his head pounded into the concrete, that instead of trying to fight back and try to escape, Zimmerman was going to dial the police and call for help that might arrive in, what, 5-10-15 minutes? Really? You think that might be a reasonable option as he faced the immediate threat of severe or fatal injury from continued beating from the 190cm tall Martin? I'll save you the trouble - no, that was not a reasonable option in any way. Of course you can adopt that as your personal survival strategy when you are assaulted if it still seems like a good idea. I'm betting you won't - you'll try to fight back and escape. . . just like Zimmerman. Either that, or you'll be dead or a vegetable.
So, Mr. White Guy gets the right to follow around people with a gun,
First off, he is a Hispanic man with an interesting history:
The 28-year-old insurance-fraud investigator comes from a deeply Catholic background and was taught in his early years to do right by those less fortunate. He was raised in a racially integrated household and himself has black roots through an Afro-Peruvian great-grandfather - the father of the maternal grandmother who helped raise him.
Second, he had a concealed carry permit, so he could carry a concealed firearm, period.
Third, are you saying Zimmerman should not have called the police?
A criminal justice student who aspired to become a judge, Zimmerman also concerned himself with the safety of his neighbors after a series of break-ins committed by young African-American men.
Though civil rights demonstrators have argued Zimmerman should not have prejudged Martin, one black neighbor of the Zimmermans said recent history should be taken into account.
"Let's talk about the elephant in the room. I'm black, OK?" the woman said, declining to be identified because she anticipated backlash due to her race. She leaned in to look a reporter directly in the eyes. "There were black boys robbing houses in this neighborhood," she said. "That's why George was suspicious of Trayvon Martin."
harrass them and finally shoot them for the deadly threat of walking around while black and carrying skittles,
"Walking around while black" . . . like Zimmermans great grandfather? And one more interesting bit -
“You will recall the incident of the beating of the black homeless man Sherman Ware on December 4, 2010 by the son of a Sanford police officer. The beating sparked outrage in the community but there were very few that stepped up to do anything about it. I would presume the inaction was because of the fact that he was homeless not because he was black. Do you know the individual who stepped up when no one else in the black community would?
while the black boy should have called the police.
Zimmerman did call the police - he spent a considerable amount of time on the phone with them. And yes, it would have been a much better idea for Martin, who had a phone with him and was chatting on it, to have called the police if he was worried, instead of apparently assaulting Zimmerman.
I get it, "standing your ground" is . .
Stand your ground doesn't have anything to do with this.
. ..only for your fellow Stormfront members, you racist fucker. You are so full of it, one day you gonna explode in a quite dramatic crapageddon.
Don't you claim to be a biochemist? Do you have any ability to engage in a rational, fact based discussion on this matter? You certainly haven't demonstrated that you do. You might want to talk to a counselor, you seem to have some issues.
While Portugal’s experience shows that rapid progress is achievable, it also highlights the price of such a transition. Portuguese households have long paid about twice what Americans pay for electricity, and prices have risen 15 percent in the last five years, probably partly because of the renewable energy program, the International Energy Agency says.
Although a 2009 report by the agency called Portugal’s renewable energy transition a “remarkable success,” it added, “It is not fully clear that their costs, both financial and economic, as well as their impact on final consumer energy prices, are well understood and appreciated.”
Indeed, complaints about rising electricity rates are a mainstay of pensioners’ gossip here. Mr. Sócrates, who after a landslide victory in 2005 pushed through the major elements of the energy makeover over the objections of the country’s fossil fuel industry, survived last year’s election only as the leader of a weak coalition.
I'll bet this will be really popular among progressives:
To force Portugal’s energy transition, Mr. Sócrates’s government restructured and privatized former state energy utilities to create a grid better suited to renewable power sources. To lure private companies into Portugal’s new market, the government gave them contracts locking in a stable price for 15 years — a subsidy that varied by technology and was initially high but decreased with each new contract round. . . .
Portugal’s venture was driven by necessity. With a rising standard of living and no fossil fuel of its own, the cost of energy imports — principally oil and gas — doubled in the last decade, accounting for 50 percent of the country’s trade deficit, and was highly volatile. The oil went to fuel cars, the gas mainly to electricity. Unlike the United States, Portugal never depended heavily on coal for electricity generation because close and reliable sources of natural gas were available in North Africa, and Europe’s carbon trading system could make coal costly.
I think you are far too modest in your description, and you started to misspell it. They are no longer the USSR, but Russia. As the world's most heavily armed nuclear state, Russia does indeed have a history of adventurism, but it stretches back far longer than 20 years, and they specialize in this sort of activity, and know how to treat their helpers.
Slashdot Mirror
Your facts are not in order.
Pakistan is blockading NATO due to an air strike that kill two dozen Pakistani soldiers at a border outpost. The Pakistanis reportedly made the unfortunate "mistake" of firing at US and Afghan commandos which they sometimes do when they forget which side they are supporting. Pakistan is demanding an apology for the incident, and is also using it as an excuse to try to jack up the transit fee from $200 to $5,000 per truck.
The overwhelming majority of non-combatants being killed in Afghanistan are being killed by road-side bombs placed by . . . guess who. . . the Taliban. The Taliban also visit murder and massacre on the various tribes and villages. Unlike NATO, the Taliban deliberately targets innocent non-combatants.
As to drone strikes . . .
Pakistan Says Drone Strikes Have Been Effective
Send your comments to the author noted at the link. It does zero good to complain to me as I merely quote it, I didn't write it. I hope you are still able to focus on the important information here. It would be quite embarrassing to end up wounded some day because you were so busy correcting the grammar on a terrorist's protest sign that you didn't run from the suicide vest.
We aren't talking rocket scientists here. . . . . The "terrorist" are middle east versions of neo-nazi rednecks.
I'm afraid you've got things quite wrong in some important ways.
The Educated Muslim Terrorist
What Makes a Terrorist
So the camel jockeys of Pakistan care more about freedom of speech/expression than the 'home of the free'? LOL. I'm guessing they also don't submit people to grope sessions just to fly planes either.
We understand. You just go ahead and keep telling yourself whatever it takes to get you out of bed in the morning.
Our guys have been asleep at the wheel for the last 10 years. I'm pretty sure at this point that most of the U.S. Justices don't even know there *is* a 4th Amendment, much less what it says.
I'm pretty sure there is another possibility - that they in fact do understand it, as applied, and you don't. One of the big stumbling blocks is people keep refusing to acknowledge the difference between procedure under ordinary criminal law, and the law of war, or national security law more generally. Most people here have a better understanding of cheese, which still baffles them, than they do of how the Constitution applies to armed conflict.
Good catch.
You missed a great opportunity there. The post contains specific facts that are fairly easily checked. You could have easily provided either a better source or tried to provide new facts to try and show they are wrong (good luck). Instead you called names and whined about the sources.
Since you don't like Fox News (which I don't cite) I'll throw you a bone. . . maybe you'll like this.
Not to mention you'll at most catch absolute morons who at their best would simply win a Darwin Award because the kind of bozos these "stings" catch are frankly the same gullible dipshits that fall for 419 scams and other stupidity.
So when the FBI uses stings to catch international arms traffickers, organized crime figures, corrupt public officials, and embezzlers, are they "morons" too, or just would-be terrorists? Your post is nonsense.
The full quote is this:
I very much doubt that Menken would approve of his words being put to your apparent meaning.
But, if you want to pretend that Menken's quote applies to the problem with Islamist terrorism, then tell me: Whom are you going to believe, your lying eyes, or the misuse of Menken's words? It appears most people commenting on this story will go with the misuse of Menken. No surprise I guess. Those whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad, which makes his next quote apropos:
You don't seem to grasp the terms of the discussion. Maybe this will help - terrorists turn lots of living, breathing people into lots of dead bodies in a short period of time, such as minutes or seconds. Passing laws isn't terrorism. Lobbing isn't terrorism. Making bank loans isn't terrorism. Does this help?
You seem to be confusing "bankrupt" or some such with dead or destroyed.
>In case you haven't heard one of Obama's admins was selling guns to drug dealers in Mexico,
In 2006.
When Obama was secretly President.
God damn him and his time machine.
--
BMO
Predictable.
Fast & Furious Was . . . Bush’s Fault
F&F Keeps Getting Worse
. . . but now the DEA can just publish a new drug schedule and tada, they've outlawed some new drug without congress even voting on it.
Apparently you find that quite the bitter pill to swallow.
Anyone with a brain is immune to this nonsense.
Anyone with a brain and a passing familiarity with the news knows your post is nonsense. Three weeks ago a notorious Russian arms dealer was convicted in US Federal court. Guess how they got him? If stings are good enough to take down experienced international arms traffickers, and organized crime figures, public officials, embezzlers, and others, they are good enough to take down potential terrorists. If you don't think so, please tell us why? And please, please tell us that you really believe that everyone taken down in a sting is no brighter than a hick good 'ole boy complaining about the "gubermint" and that it never works on anyone more sophisticated, and what your "reasoning" is?
Russian arms dealer sentenced to 25 years in prison
Said to be the inspiration for one of the chief bad guys in Act of Valor
Publicly Held Debt Set to Skyrocket
federal spending
The Ryan Budget: Confronting the Nation’s Spending Crisis
Committed as ever to the 1st Amendment: Liberal journalists suggest government censor Fox News
Scratching the surface: Terrorism and the Soviet Union
Review of The Black Book of Communism
So go ahead shrieking "9/11 NEVER FORGET!" To remind us how we let the terrorists win.
Because they did.
Actually no, the terrorists haven't won, not even close. You'll know the terrorists have won when you are offered the choice of convert to their brand of Islam or die, the Constitution has been replaced by Sharia law, and the Muslim Caliphate (which existed until 1924) is reinstated. That is what they are fighting for, not to inconvenience your air travel by forcing people to wait a bit longer in line. They keep announcing their intentions, and people keep ignoring it as if in denial.
Why shouldn't this be forgotten?
I think it's high time we got over it.
You are apparently the type that thinks that the time to get out of the boat is once you are half way across the river. Tell us, when did Al Qaeda withdraw their declaration of war against the US, Europe, and various other places? If they didn't withdraw their threat, their declaration of war, they are going to continue to try to kill people. They are still very active in Chechnya, Pakistan, Yemen, the Philippines, North Africa, and plenty of other places. To drop one's guard against Al Qaeda and its maniacs is a stupendously bad idea.
I also think it's high time we got rid of the Patriot Act and the TSA
Yes, just like that - a stupendously bad idea.
Try not to feel like a criminal the next time you undress yourself at the airport while waiting in line to get your nads zapped with a healthy dose of radiation.
This, on the other hand, is the right place to insert that line of yours: "I think it's high time we got over it."
Searches and screenings have been going on since at least the late 1960s - they aren't going away anytime soon. Get over it.
Since there is some room at the end of the post, lets throw in some recent legal activity:
FBI’s Top Ten News Stories for the Week Ending January 27, 2012
FBI’s Top Ten News Stories for the Week Ending January 13, 2012
Rather, the terrorists rolled a 20 on their "save vs get America to destroy itself from within" roll.
Critical hit.
Not really, no. The United States has been able to largely overcome the resistance of "progressives" to defending itself, and has destroyed the majority of the Al Qaeda leadership and infrastructure that was in place before 9/11. They scored, at most, a glancing blow. Of course the "progressives" and Islamists keep trying.
. . . that and dry-rot from w/in due to a dis-affected population (a huge majority of which were slaves) which wearied of being manipulated so as to make the wealthy and powerful, wealthier and more powerful (seem familiar).
In short, Romans lost their willingness to fight, to go to war to protect Rome. Seem familiar?
When did we kill 100,000 Saudis?
You, and some moderators, are confused. The problem isn't Saudis, per se. The problem is Islamist extremists who are willing to take up arms and engage in terrorism. If you know much of anything about what is going on, you must know that the US has been fighting Islamist extremists from around the world in Afghanistan and formerly Iraq. It is these very same Islamists extremists who have killed most of the 100,000 people killed in Iraq. That is part of what ultimately made Iraq so deadly for them: their wanton killing undermined their support in the Muslim world, and it resulted in many ordinary Iraqis that might otherwise have backed them to turn against them.
Not only did you get this wrong, but you seem to be picking the one move that could inflame the entire Muslim world against the US - an unprovoked attack against Saudi Arabia, home of Mecca and Medina, the holiest places of Islam, that killed large numbers of innocent Muslims. Was this deliberate on your part? Is that what you want to see? The entire Muslim world waging war against the US? You should keep in mind that even if you aren't American, the results of that might not be pretty for many countries.
Since the vast majority of the dead in Iraq were killed by Islamic extremists doing things like setting off truck bombs in city markets, you might not have the best insight to their thoughts. As it was, the death toll was no worse than Saddams' long term average, and now its done. In the best case, if Saddam had stayed in power, he still be killing. In one of the worse cases, Saddam would have turned over rule to his own sons, the very same sons that he restrained at times as being too cruel, crazy, and blood thirsty. Think of that - what would have been Iraq's future rulers were once held back by Saddam for being too cruel.
Precisely why I chuckle darkly every time I hear the phrase, "We must do X or the 'terrorists' will win!"
Obviously, they already have.
If you believe that then you obviously don't know what you are talking about.
You'll know the terrorists have won when you are offered the choice of convert to their brand of Islam or die, the Constitution has been replaced by Sharia law, and the Muslim Caliphate (which existed until 1924) is reinstated. That is what they are fighting for, not to inconvenience your air travel by forcing people to wait a bit longer in line. If you are "chuckling darkly", thinking the terrorists have won, you aren't getting it. They keep announcing their intentions, and people keep ignoring it as if in denial.
If you recall, Zimmerman did call the police, that is how the series of events started. Eventually he gave up, ended the call, and headed back.
It was shortly after that Martin allegedly surprised Zimmerman, punched Zimmerman in the face dropping him to the ground, and then started pounding his head into the concrete. There are photos showing Zimmerman's head bleeding, and the police report noted that Zimmerman was bleeding from both his nose and the back of his head. Witnesses have stated that they saw Martin on top of Zimmerman.
Now, are you thinking that as Zimmerman lay underneath Martin, having his head pounded into the concrete, that instead of trying to fight back and try to escape, Zimmerman was going to dial the police and call for help that might arrive in, what, 5-10-15 minutes? Really? You think that might be a reasonable option as he faced the immediate threat of severe or fatal injury from continued beating from the 190cm tall Martin? I'll save you the trouble - no, that was not a reasonable option in any way. Of course you can adopt that as your personal survival strategy when you are assaulted if it still seems like a good idea. I'm betting you won't - you'll try to fight back and escape. . . just like Zimmerman. Either that, or you'll be dead or a vegetable.
So, Mr. White Guy gets the right to follow around people with a gun,
First off, he is a Hispanic man with an interesting history:
Second, he had a concealed carry permit, so he could carry a concealed firearm, period.
Third, are you saying Zimmerman should not have called the police?
Why might Zimmerman have had an interest?
harrass them and finally shoot them for the deadly threat of walking around while black and carrying skittles,
Carrying skittles? Do you think this is the bag? -> Zimmerman Injuries Seen in Exclusive Photo
"Walking around while black" . . . like Zimmermans great grandfather? And one more interesting bit -
while the black boy should have called the police.
Zimmerman did call the police - he spent a considerable amount of time on the phone with them. And yes, it would have been a much better idea for Martin, who had a phone with him and was chatting on it, to have called the police if he was worried, instead of apparently assaulting Zimmerman.
I get it, "standing your ground" is . .
Stand your ground doesn't have anything to do with this.
. . .only for your fellow Stormfront members, you racist fucker. You are so full of it, one day you gonna explode in a quite dramatic crapageddon.
Don't you claim to be a biochemist? Do you have any ability to engage in a rational, fact based discussion on this matter? You certainly haven't demonstrated that you do. You might want to talk to a counselor, you seem to have some issues.
Everyone should be aware of the costs and driving factors as well. It wasn't done "just because".
Portugal Gives Itself a Clean-Energy Makeover
I'll bet this will be really popular among progressives:
I think you are far too modest in your description, and you started to misspell it. They are no longer the USSR, but Russia. As the world's most heavily armed nuclear state, Russia does indeed have a history of adventurism, but it stretches back far longer than 20 years, and they specialize in this sort of activity, and know how to treat their helpers.