And Democrats aren't corrupt? Someone needs to come down from that tower.

I'm referring to a system that lends itself to corruption. See Philip Zimbardo's Lucifer Effect.

Netrunner, I can think of one thing. The 1913 Federal Reserve act. Woodrow Wilson member of the Democratic Party. How about the repealing of the Glass Steagall Act, President Bill Clinton?

How about the current president and Habeus Corpus for Bagram Airforce base detainees? Preservation of extraordinary rendition? Escalation of Afghanistan? Violations of Pakistani sovereignty?

You know what don't answer those questions. I don't want to see any more rationalizations for the two parties today. Freedom of choice be damned.

You seem to be implying that if we don't fight military scrimmages abroad that we're isolationists. But, it's not like we wouldn't be trading with nations abroad.

Refusing to ever deploy your military abroad is isolationist. Tell me, exactly what kind of help were we able to offer civilians in Afghanistan through trade? We couldn't even give free schools away without the requirement that girls be barred from attending.

It's not ignoring genocide when our interventionism may stop that 1% of the time, and cause needless destruction and death the other 99% of the time.

And it's not stopping genocide by criticizing the 1% of interventions that actually have done some good for our world.

The very simple fact of the matter is this: nothing we do in Afghanistan, militarily, will make things better for the people of Afghanistan.

You are forgetting to include Pakistan in your assessment. As I pointed out in my previous post, there is far more at play than Al-Qaeda having a safe haven in Afghanistan. The problem is the influence of Islamic jihadists being allowed to fester and grow in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. They aren't only our enemies, they are equally the enemies of all moderate muslims.

The war in Afghanistan is showing huge progress in marginalizing these extremists. Afghan civilians haven't seen much improvement yet. Without a continued military investment from the UN, they face another civil war when we leave. The Taliban will without a doubt come back in force and it's doubtful the ANA can win against them. It most certainly will be a close enough thing that there will be a lot more blood than there is now. And if the Taliban triumph, the blood will continue to flow for awhile as the 'consolidate' their position. That sounds bad, alot like what you've been saying I suppose. Disagree with the assessment if you wish, but please point out details.

Pakistan is a much better story. Before the war in Afghanistan, the extremists had support within Pakistan's government, all the way to the top. They were using that influence and power to crush and suppress the moderate majority. Today, they are recognized throughout Pakistan as an enemy to the country, rather than just another part of the tapestry. I claim that as a positive gain. The Pakistani people and military are actively routing out and defeating the extremist militants and are claiming victory in many regions the government was never able to operate before. That is a positive gain. There are even editorials appearing in Pakistani papers criticizing their own intelligence agencies for not matching the success of the hated American drone attacks. The hate for the drones is more nuanced than any western media protrays it. The majority of Pakistani's hate the affront to Pakistan's sovereignty they represent. At the same time, they don't mourn the deaths that result, they actually have begun to cheer them. Over the last 6 months in particular several leaders known to have encouraged suicide bombings throughout Pakistan have been taken out by the drones. The Pakistani people are themselves claiming that as a major positive gain, so I feel comfortable to do the same.

I've given here many positive gains that I claim are a direct result of America's intervention and influence in the region. Tell me were it's wrong, and explain why simply ignoring the situation is better.

>> ^kymbos:
Good point on the irony of those very quick to proclaim racism assuming that all dark skinned people are African Americans.


Hi Kymbos

It's not so much an assumption, more so an assignment of race (and accompanying stereotypes) based purely on colour of skin. If it had been portraying a Pakistani (Pakistan being the other touring cricket team this season) supporter group the race assignment from American critics (and accompanying sterotypes) would have been just as inappropriate.

The good thing is I realise not all Americans are that ignorant, and TBH it's been a media beatup to a certain extent. There seems to be a distinct lack of news in news today......Thanks Rupert.

Related ???
http://www.videosift.com/video/Pakistani-kids-kill-a-lil-Alien

The idea that banning guns to make the country safer is NOT laughable when you have a civil society that enjoys its freedoms and doesn't have guerilla forces as part of a rebellion. The reason those people exist is basically to "Fight the Man" and last time I checked, the U.S.A. doesn't exactly have that problem.

Hi Shepppard! Thanks for completely ignoring the factual basis of my post. Here it is for you AGAIN, stated more simply for you:

1: Firearms have been smuggled into prisons. They can be smuggled into a country. If they are illegal then by definition the only private citizens that can get their hands on them are criminals.

(hurp hurp, it's the old "if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns" bit.)

2: Weapons are assembled in the middle of nowhere (jungle camps, Pakistani villages, etc) and do not require extremely specialized machinery to make. Even if they could not be manufactured openly, and even if they could not be smuggled in, criminals would still have no trouble manufacturing firearms and ammunition. To put a stop to this, you'd have to ban or regulate a lot of tools and materials that have many constructive uses.

This is why it's vital that private citizens retain the right to carry firearms. Because you can't stop them from getting them.

Private citizens require firearms to make sure they can defend themselves against criminals? Seriously? you don't think people carry guns when they break into peoples houses? That's just naive.

Where did you get the idea that most break-ins are committed by people packing heat? I don't doubt it happens that some do have guns, but from all the break-in cases I've heard, the usual burlger/rapist is armed with something that's less obviously a weapon (and not as expensive as a gun), like a heavy pipe, wrench, or a knife.

If you're that worried that someone's gonna break into your house, sleep next to a bat. If neither side has a gun, it's basically which ever one has the bigger melee weapon wins, and last time I checked, if you're breaking into someones house, you don't take a claymore, They draw a knife, you pick up the bat. Problem solved.

Well, I guess we'll all have to yield to your vast experience and/or research in the field of "home defense melee combat".

1: Failing that, saner people will realize that someone breaking into your house is going to have the advantage of surprise and will probably be stronger than you (as an expert in this field I'm surprised you didn't mention strength as a deciding factor in melee combat). Making you SOL.

It's much less of a problem if you have a gun though. You might be terrible at baseball bat fencing after being woken up midway through your sleep cycle and fighting someone on nocturnal sleep cycle, but that is less of an issue with a gun, nor do guns care how strong you are.

2. If he brings friends, then you're almost certainly SOL.

A gun solves the issue of being outnumbered nicely, since fights end sooner it's less likely you'll end up fighting two people at the same instant, and makes you more or less immune to being immobilized by one while the other attacks (because you can kill them before they get that close).

Last but not least this has nothing to do with someone "breaking into our house". The chances of someone being a victim of any kind of robbery are very low, and in any case it's not robbery that's the problem.

This has to do with your personal safety wherever you are. If there was a way to tell a burglar from a rapist or murderer, I'd be all for letting them take whatever they want and letting the police sort things out, or not. Even if I don't get my stuff back, it's not worth killing someone over. Unfortunately, the only way to tell ahead of time is let them rape or murder you.

In addition to all the other terrible flaws with your "baseball bat" idea, it's utterly useless when you're anywhere other than at home or home base. Last I checked, people also get mugged, and you'll get funny looks carrying a baseball bat around, in addition to it being completely ineffective against a decent mugger/rapist/murder/gang, which again will have the advantage of surprise.

Again, this has nothing to do with my personal worries. The chances that any of this happens to anyone are very low, but should it happen you're completely utterly fucked without a gun.

I contend that passing a law forbidding private citizens from carrying firearms leads to situations where one person can kill many, with the many helpless. This is unconscionable.

oh, and as for your "Extra lols", Really? Do you think that the secret service doesn't care that there's loaded firearms at a rally for the president?
are you THAT naive? your country has a bit of a track record for assassinations and attempted assassinations. If there's ANY person carrying a weapon at a rally, you can bet your ass they're being watched like a hawk.

Yeah, except if you read the article you'd know the secret service wasn't worried because
A) the rallies took place well away from where the president was and they of course had that area secured (no firearms are allowed in a federal venue). As for our track record for assassinations, I can't recall one that had the assassin carrying openly while loudly demonstrating. Assassins like to keep a low profile, but I guess you wouldn't know that since you majored in "home defense melee combat" and not "underhanded techniques of murder for hire".

"There's a reason that the police force was invented, and contrary to common belief, no, it was not to go around tazing people."

Not relevant, even if true.

The police can't protect you unless they're aware that you're in danger, and they're near enough to help. Those two facts mean there would have be many, many more police to make them an effective means of self defense. As it is, they are not an effective means for the defense of your person.

Fun fact: retired police officers and military love carrying and owning firearms. I wonder why?

Really, your post shows that you're about as in touch with reality as the right wing idiots that watch fox news.

>> ^moodonia:
/\ I believe they are pashtun, not arabs


Thank you.

And this story isn't a ?yay? with question marks but a Yippee Ki Yi Yay!

The Pakistani Taliban needs to be destroyed. There is no couching this in politically correct terms. They are pushing the most extreme form of Islamic extremism there is on Pakistan and it's people. That is not just bad and horrific for the people of Pakistan. It also bad for anyone that doesn't want Pakistan's nuclear arsenal in the hands of jihadists. Virtually the sole reason for Afghanistan's importance was that it was a safe haven for Al-Qaeda and similar extremists like the Taliban to launch attacks to further destabilize Pakistan.

Here are a few videos I would consider must sees for anyone wanting to better understand the world we are in, and the terrible choices every foreign policy maker is faced with. I suppose this would be my own, current, top 5.

Between the Mullahs and the Military:
Pakistani born journalist Ziauddin Sardar returns to his country in 2007 and reports on the state of the nation and speaks to many influential people in the country and travels to some of the most unstable and dangerous parts of it. If you care about the war in Afghanistan, you really must watch this film to appreciate it's significance.

Inside North Korea:
The sift version of this is currently dead, I'll change both links if/when it comes back.
National Geographic manages to get a film crew into the country as aides to a surgeon that was allowed to work in the country for a short time. The commentary might seem over the top to some, bordering on propaganda. As you watch the documentary you will start to realize that it isn't hyperbole and the situation in North Korea is simply so awful there are hardly words to describe it.

George Galloway and Christopher Hitchens debate Iraq:
This isn't a documentary of course, it is instead a debate between two of Britain's best debaters. They are also both people who have visited and spent time in Iraq under Saddam and seen what it was like. Galloway was even able to personally meet with Saddam in the mid 1990's. I'm not sure if this is more informative or entertaining, but it's worth your time for both reasons all on their own.

Al-Anfal Campaign:
This video accounts victim testimony's from one of the worst genocides of our time. As the Iran-Iraq war ended Saddam set out to exterminate the Kurdish population in Northern Iraq, this video provides a brief glimpse of that tragedy.

Ghosts of Rwanda:
This is the single most important video I would recommend for anyone convinced that the world would be better with zero American intervention. The absolutely horrific account of what happened in Rwanda while the entire world agreed on non-intervention is vitally important to be remembered. Be warned, it is extremely difficult to watch some of this. It is like watching a recounting of the most brutal slasher/horror film ever produced, but where the 800,000 victims were real live human beings in our own world.

Just for fun, I read the crawl this time.
I wonder if the juxtaposition of text with the interview is ever planned or if its mostly just random news bites...



(...)PHARMACIST WHO SHOT A WOULD-BE ROBBER ON MAY 19... 57-YR-OLD JEROME ERSLAND SHOT 16-YR-OLD ANTWUN PARKER ONCE IN THE HEAD INSIDE HIS STORE, THEN CHASED A SECOND ROBBER OUT THE DOOR... PROSECUTORS SAY ERSLAND WAS NO LONGER DEFENDING HIMSELF WHEN HE RETURNED AND SHOT PARKER FIVE MORE TIMES AFTER HE WAS ALREADY UNCONSCIOUS

NEBRASKA LAWMAKERS APPROVE BILL CHANGING STATE'S METHOD OF EXECUTION FROM ELECTROCUTION TO LETHAL INJECTION... NE HAS BEEN WITHOUT A MEANS OF EXECUTION SINCE FEB 2008 WHEN THE STATE SUPREMEME COURT RULED THAT THE ELECTRIC CHAIR AMOUNTED TO CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT... NE WAS THE ONLY STATE WITH ELECTROCUTION AS ITS SOLE MEANS OF EXECUTION

THREE SONS OF AN AL QUAEDA-LINKED CLERIC JAILED IN LONDON FOR RUNNING A CAR THEFT RING... THE MEN, ALL IN THEIR 20S, WERE SENTENCED ALONG WITH FOUR OTHERS TO PRISON TERMS RANGING FROM 2-4 YEARS. THE SCHEME INVOLVED STEALING LUXURY CARS FROM LONG-STAY PARKING LOTS, THOUGH THE MEN DENY FINANCING TERRORISM THROUGH THE SALES OF THE VEHICLES... THE MEN'S FATHER, 50-YR-OLD CLERIC ABU HAMZA, IS IN JAIL IN LONDON AND FACES EXTRADITION TO THE U.S. FOR ALLEGEDLY TRYING TO SET UP A TERROR TRAINING CAMP IN O

EXPLOSION IN A SHIITE MOSQUE KILLS 15, INJURES 50 IN SE IRAN NEAR THE PAKISTANI BORDER... IRAN'S SISTAN-BALUCHISTAN PROVINCE IS PLAGUED BY LAWLESSNESS AND IS A KEY ENTRY POINT FOR DRUGS... A SUNNI TERROR ORG CALLED JUNDALLAH IS ACTIVE IN THE PROVINCE, KILLING 11 SOLDIERS IN 2007 IN THE CITY WHERE TODAY'S BOMBING OCCURRED

AMERICAN JOURNALIST ROXANA SABERI, WHO SPENT FOUR MONTHS IN AN IRANIAN PRISON ON ESPIONAGE CHARGES, SAYS SHE INITIALLY CONFESSED TO BEING A SPY AFTER COMING UNDER PSYCHOLOGICAL PRESSURE... SABERI: "MY CONFESSION WAS FALSE AND I THOUGHT I TO (...)

(...)TO KEEP PRODUCTION QUOTAS AT PRESENT LEVELS, SAYING WORLDWIDE OIL INVENTORIES AT THE END OF LAST MONTH WERE AT 20-YR-HIGH... PRODUCTION CUTS COULD HAVE BACKFIRED ON OPEC BY BOOSTING PRICES AND MAKING IR MORE DIFFICULT FOR COUNTRIES TO PAY FRO CRUDE... PRICE OF A BARREL OF CRUDE IS CURRENTLY OVER $60, UP FROM APPROX #30 FOUR MONTHS AGO, BUT STILL FAR FROM 2008 HIGH OF $147

WHAT'S IN A NAME?... WINNING TICKET IN WED NIGHT'S $232 MIL POWERBALL JACKPOT WAS SOLD IN WINNER, SD... IT'S THE NINETH-LARGEST POWERBALL JACKPOT AND THE BIGGEST EVEN IN THE STATE. WINNER IS LOCATED IN SOUTH-CENTRAL SD AND HAS A POPULATION OF ABOUT 2,800

A TAX ON EVERYTHING?... THE PROSPECT OF A VALUE ADDED TAX (V.A.T) COULD BE GAINING TRACTION AS THE GOVT LOOKS FOR WAYS TO PAY FOR THE STIMULUS, BAILOUTS AND POSSIBLE HEALTH CARE REFORM... THE V.A.T AMOUNTS TO A NATL SALES TAX, AN IDEA THAT'S BEEN SUPPORTED BY SOME CONSERVATIVES, BUT ONLY AS A REPLACEMENT FOR THE INCOME TAX SYSTEM... HOWEVER A SR WHITE HOUSE OFFICIAL TOLD THE WASH POST IT'S "UNLIKELY" THE V.A.T. WOULD BE USED AS A NEW SOURCE OF REVENUE

This is blatant propaganda, but I can't see where it's wrong.

If anyone familiar with Pakistani people or government can disagree, I'm happy to accept their authority, but from familiarity with the American media, I can't disagree with the ambassador.

I can't see where the problem is in opposition to the Taliban or Al Qaeda or other totalitarian groups.

The Mexican restaurants here are all run by Pakistanis. I can tell the difference.

Someone wanna go halvsies with me and open an El Cholo in London?

>> ^kagenin:
>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
The idea was to have trained militias
No - the idea was to have an armed population capable of quickly becoming a militia able to resist tyranny (foreign or domestic).

Let me repeat myself:
[Your's] is an INSANE place to argue from, as it seems pretty un-American to even consider firing upon your own military. We should not even give any legitimacy to such arguments.
In addition, I strongly urge you to talk to a mental health professional. You come off as a ranting, paranoid-delusional-schizophrenic, and I fear for the safety of those around you.


I propose that YOU are coming off as a ranting, delusional person who makes degrading attacks disguised as mental health advice.
I am sad for you and those around you, fear is the mind killer.
These arguments are what created this country, do you consider Washington's arguments (and actions based on those arguments) insane and illegitimate?
If you disagree with the written words of the founding fathers, the proper course of action is to petition your representatives to modify the constitution, not mock and degrade the ideals this great country was founded on, and not creating laws that are in complete opposition to any logical reading of the constitution. Another option would be to move to England and submit yourself to monarchical rule instead of living under constitutional law.
When written, it was certainly sane to believe that a well ARMED militia could not only fire on "their own" military (the British military was "their military" until the revolution) but win against "their own" military. Today, it is much less likely that such action would be victorious, but there are certainly possibilities of instances where it would not be "insane" to consider it. Just 5 years ago, it may have seemed insane for a Pakistani to think of fireing on their own military, today it happens daily. (I am not in any way supporting those people or their actions, just stating that what may "seem" insane today from one point of view may seem completely rational tomorrow from another point of view, and so should not be dismissed because you disagree and degrade another viewpoint.)
If the carefully thought out and debated written words were considered, instead of the attempting to legislate based on the ever changing, unknowable "intentions" of the founding fathers, we would be far better off and the constitution would be in far better shape.
I repeat... The founding fathers knew the definition of the words they put in the constitution, the bill of rights, and the amendments. It is disgusting that they are so often ignored or twisted...(to serve an agenda).

One of the leaders of the Pakistani Taliban is Sufi Muhammad. He was jailed in 2001, but released in 2008 after promising not to return to the organisation. There must be something more to this story. If anyone has any additional information I'd be very interested in hearing it (looking your way, Farhad...)

The question she asked was, "Do you think Pakistan is maintaining safe havens for these so-called terrorists?" She garbled it a bit, but the meaning is clear. Are there elements in the Pakistani government that are actively supporting the Taleban? The answer is obvious, and everyone knows it, but it is an incredibly tricky thing for the President to answer, because while we need to pressure Pakistan to stop doing that, we also don't want to destabilize such a fragile government.

Her second question, "Do you know of any country in the middle east that has nuclear weapons?" was worth criticizing. But, of course, there's no chance BillO or anyone would touch that with a ten foot pole.

Seems we were both wrong. It wasn't DJ Khaled either. He happens to be some random Pakistani business dude.

They said he was rushed to the hospital for a self inflicted gunshot wound, but he didn't make it and died five hours later.

http://cbs2.com/local/Bentley.pursuit.chase.2.931277.html

I wonder what the boatloads (literally) of Pakistani construction workers are going to do now?

They should film the next Resident Evil movie there. all the half-finished buildings as a background would make a pretty cool set. But then again, all the r-tards will protest about the zombies looking arab.