I gave up on Clancy when I was 16. I don't remember which book it was but there was a scene at the start where two full grown US military spook types meet in a bar somewhere in SE Asia, Bangkok maybe. They have a 'some damn fool said you were the best' type conversation then start good naturedly sparring with their knives, as you do. He describes the 'whirling, twisting' playfight -- for AGES (with a full on army boner no doubt).

Then he adds that a crowd (of natives) had gathered and were whooping and cheering them on delightedly. When the boys (let's call them JAKE and CLINT) have got it out of their system the crowd disperse, sad the fun is over. Then our heroes get back to planning who the US gov wants them to go and assassinate.

Clancy deals in right wing wet dreams. Interesting that his lot are starting to sell the same bullshit but now against US citizens - OWS. Couldn't play this game though. Pretending to shoot Castro in the head at the start of Black Ops made me feel queasy already. I mean Castro is a royal dick but millions of kids being taught to shoot real people by intellectually and morally questionable GAMES PRODUCERS?

All a bit dark.

6 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

I'm not sure what bias there would be. I seriously doubt that's the kind of thing you could easily study, so I'm not going to bother looking for data. But we all know that people on drugs, meth in particular, are/can be very paranoid and twitchy. It doesn't take but a bell to ring at the door for them to be spooked enough to pull the trigger while it's aiming at the clerk. Besides, I think that if they had access to AK-47s they'd use them the first time. It's why I go to the range as much as I can to keep my aim as good as possible. If I get the chance to draw a bead on someone who is actively and willingly endangering someone's life, they probably won't live to regret it. 15 hollow point rounds to the chest would make sure of that.>> ^Yogi:

>> ^MarineGunrock:
Anti-escalation policies can get people killed. Some robbers will just as easily shoot someone complying with their demands ans someone who tried to resist. I'd take the shot in a heartbeat.

Try this logic. Walgreens guy defends Walgreens with a hand gun...at the next Walgreens robbery a few towns over after this has made national news the robbers come in hyper aggressive with AK-47s. They don't fuck around they just shoot if they think anyone can possibly be reaching for a gun.
I remember when I used to work at Gamestop I helped out at another one...and they told me someone was just fired for leaving too many envelopes of the days earnings in the safe. I thought "That's stupid whats the big F'n deal?" They explained to me that if a robbery had happened and the thieves got away with a large haul...it could potentially put more people in danger because it would get the message out that there's a large haul to be had from Gamestop...people could die over something like that.
Also your "some robbers will just as easily shoot someone complying with their demands..." comment. Is it based on fact or a study?

i think they should have pressed her to describe the CIA milleu, how and why she became what she was, etc.

Most of if not all of the problems with conspiracy is the fact that the background of the dealings described therein seem, to put it mildly, outlandish

BUT,
If there's this guy called (for instance) Michael, who likes to cut off peoples balls and shove them into their mouths (as in some sort of torture scenario, and we know that torture happens) or if he can even calmly watch a man who is being waterboarded, THEN


we are dealing with something akin to a "subculture" that needs to be adequately described before we can make sense of the actions of people like "spooks" torturers, assets, etc....


In the end, does it strike me likely that something like this COULD have happened: sure it does. I actually think is more probable than the "official" scenario, but I still don't know

@bareboards2
Quantum mechanically, EVERYTHING is possible.

Tho which has a higher probability of occurring, Oh Queen Goddess of Tempered Reason & Logic:

1. Guy got spooked. Ran.

2. Cops felt empowered because they thought they were about to catch "a bad guy".
    (Cause.. only criminals run from police, you know)

3. They shot to wound him but killed him instead

4. They made up a story to cover their asses.

OR

1. Guy got spooked. Ran.

2. Shot backward at police.

3. From underneath his arm.

4. While running forward in a full sprint.

5. The momentum of his fall flung the gun (from underneath his arm) 15 feet away.

6a. The police saw this but failed to collect the evidence immediately.
(OR)
6b. The police never saw that the suspect was disarmed during the fall.

7. They waited 5 or 10 minutes before even approaching the body to locate the weapon.

8. Made no attempt to secure the area were the weapon was likely dropped by the suspect.

9. Let large crowds form and contaminate the scene even tho they knew the weapon was missing.

10. Days later they stumbled across video footage of the weapon being collected.

11. Found out who shot the video.

12. Found out who collected the weapon in the video.

13. Tracked that person down.

14. Retrieved the weapon without incidence.



>> ^bareboards2:

Anyway. I'm done with this.
You are going to believe what you want.
Not even a moment of doubt that that man was shooting while running?
No room for that possibility?

This scared the hell out of my cat, which was sitting in my lap.

Didn't just scare it right away either, it kind of perked up, looked around nervously, looked spooked all of a sudden, twitched around for a minute, flipped out, and ran the hell away, leaving big claw gashes in my thighs.

It's haunted all right.

Cheers, looking forward to more subtle racism in the future. Maybe we can break out the "spook" jokes. Those were good for a laugh.

"Six deer live up here on the roo.... ooooh, I think we just spooked that one that was there by the edge... five deer live up here on the roof..."

>> ^TheSluiceGate:
Well at least they kept filming and drinking - I mean I'd hate to have missed out on this because they went to help someone who'd just fallen off a horse that they had possibly just spooked.


If they had spooked it from THAT far away, you'd have to be careful of farting while riding it...

Well at least they kept filming and drinking - I mean I'd hate to have missed out on this because they went to help someone who'd just fallen off a horse that they had possibly just spooked.

Is it just me or does this start sounding a little '12 Monkeys' near the end?
Even a closet anarchist like I am can't help but be a little spooked.

Is it just me or is this pretty much the United States in a nutshell? Smoking pot is considered a sin, yet there are quiet pot smokers everywhere and everyone is worried about God or the government smiting them for smoking pot. This could apply to more countries of course but Americans seems to get spooked the most when pot is mentioned, especially if it's on T.V.

Yeah, I knew exactly who you were talking about. I think they both acted like snotty children at one point or another during that debacle and I'm pretty sure I told each of them that at the time.

I don't think consistency is really all that hard, actually. Maybe perfect consistency is unobtainable, but we could certainly do way better than we have when it comes to racial slurs. It would help if the rules would be rewritten and/or clarified when decisions are made. There was a pretty good discussion about improving the rules a while ago and I made some suggestions that several people, including dag, seemed to think would clarify the rules. The rules were never updated, though.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
Oh, I didn't mean that you were the butt hurt one. Last time, burdturgler was the one crying left and right. Consistency is hard to get in a human system, and this is certainly a human system. The admins cannot act unless they know about it and you can only assume they will know about it if someone reports it.

I've seen plenty of transgressions of different sorts around here, but I've become more of a live and let live type lately, since I transgress lots in my own way once in a while.

Anyways, happy new years.
In reply to this comment by xxovercastxx:
I don't feel all that strongly about it, either way, but some consistency would be nice.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
Because no one has been all butthurt about it this time. The whole spook thing was bull shit, I think.
>> ^xxovercastxx:

How come blankfist was suspended for saying "spook" but GorillaMan has been on a 2-year "nigger" streak with not even a finger wag?

Oh, I didn't mean that you were the butt hurt one. Last time, burdturgler was the one crying left and right. Consistency is hard to get in a human system, and this is certainly a human system. The admins cannot act unless they know about it and you can only assume they will know about it if someone reports it.

I've seen plenty of transgressions of different sorts around here, but I've become more of a live and let live type lately, since I transgress lots in my own way once in a while.

Anyways, happy new years.
In reply to this comment by xxovercastxx:
I don't feel all that strongly about it, either way, but some consistency would be nice.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
Because no one has been all butthurt about it this time. The whole spook thing was bull shit, I think.
>> ^xxovercastxx:

How come blankfist was suspended for saying "spook" but GorillaMan has been on a 2-year "nigger" streak with not even a finger wag?

I don't feel all that strongly about it, either way, but some consistency would be nice.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
Because no one has been all butthurt about it this time. The whole spook thing was bull shit, I think.
>> ^xxovercastxx:

How come blankfist was suspended for saying "spook" but GorillaMan has been on a 2-year "nigger" streak with not even a finger wag?