>> ^quantumushroom:

What comparison?
NPR is taxpayer-funded liberal propaganda. LOSERS!


They're not liberal at all. Here's an example.

Some of their listeners back when the first Gulf War happened started whining that they weren't having anyone on that knew a goddamn thing...specifically Noam Chomsky. So Noam was asked if he could write something...have them read it and then record it for them...Not be on air but PRE-Record something for them so they can make sure he won't say something horribly left wing. He did it and they advertised that they during their championing of the war were going to have a 90sec dissenting opinion from Noam Chomsky.

Well some music came on and then just kept going, and no one ever heard his little bit of dissent of what he had to say. People started calling to complain, then the station manager called Chomsky explaining to him that some executive above him had decided to not have that dissenting opinion on and ordered it pulled.

This was back in the FIRST Iraq War...never heard of Chomsky being on NPR during the second. NPR is controlled VERY VERY carefully. Chomsky can be on right wing shows, he's invited to those a lot he says. Anything even remotely hinting at being left or under fire for being left CAN'T even come close. They're just too controlled.

>> ^bcglorf:

So firstly in terms of Iraq, rather than get subjective let's examine some of the facts:
Iraq's infant mortality rates are currently the highest amongst Arab countries
Iraq's life expectancy has declined (by about 7 years) since the US invasion and is the lowest amongst Arab countries.
Iraq has the second lowest purchasing power of any country in the region, only Yemen is worse,
Child malnutrition has stayed pretty similar, while education has improved.
70% of Iraq's GDP now comes from oil, it's industry and farming sectors have pretty much been destroyed.
You do realize all your comparisons there take their Saddam-era equivalents on faith from Saddam's regime, right? Life expectancy calculated in Saddam-era Iraq as an example excluded the hundreds of thousands of Kurds and Shia that were murdered, starved or killed, seeing as those creatures were barely human, let alone Iraqi.
So as horrific as Saddam's reign of terror was, it was because of America that he was allowed to be in power in the first place, and even then things were better than they are now by many measures.
Stop trying to make everything about America. America this and America that...
I've not lived my life in a hole, and am well aware of America's past support for Saddam. I don't recall saying much of anything about America though. I just pointed out how horrific Saddam was, and Iraq is better for him being gone, whether his removal came at the hands of America or the Easter bunny was besides the point.
And as stated above, there are no objective measures of Saddam-era Iraq's living conditions. There is only the official Saddam government line, and the stories of it's victims. The documented facts that we do have are mass-graves, concentration camps, a campaign to exterminate and breed the Kurd's out of existence through mass murder and systematic rape. We have the same campaign waged against Iraq's Shia, witnessed first hand by everyone involved in the 1st Gulf War as America committed perhaps it's greatest sin in Iraq and stood idly by and watched Saddam's gunships murder the Iraqi Shia populations by the tens of thousands(many estimates top 100's of thousands).
In terms of Gaddafi, you're arguing into the wind, I've never said I thought he was the better option, I'm simply saying that going by the atrocities committed by or for America in recent decades (in Chile, Vietnam, Iraq, Palestine to name a few countries), they are the last country that should be getting involved in any sort of democratization process. All that is assured by this 'victory' is that Libya's natural resources will be plundered, some rich elite will make a killing, the masses will suffer and the new leadership will be just as corrupt as the last.
Again, what's with your obsession with America? I declared it good that Gaddafi is gone. Your the one who complain about how it really wasn't because evil America was involved.
Lastly, if you're so convinced that America is in Libya to save lives
Again, I never said that. I pointed out that the UN mandate authorized the use of force to save Libyan lives. I pointed out that NATO's forces did exactly that, since without them Gaddafi was guaranteed to have succeeded in his genocide within 24 hours. What I did NOT say was that saving those lives was America or NATO's motivation. There are plenty of other places NATO could go save lives(particularly Sudan and Somalia) if that was their motivation, but it isn't. NATO, like every other global entity, is motivated by it's own self-interest. In Libya, removing Gaddafi was in NATO's interests, and seeing the Libyan opposition succeed was in NATO's interests.
Here's the bit you miss in the above piece. The Libyan civilians are no less dead because NATO stopped a genocide out of selfish interest versus out of humanitarian desires. What matters is that they are alive today, and that Gaddafi's ability to met out revenge against them has been destroyed. They are safe, and they are free. What they do with it, and how the rest of the world plays into that is yet to be seen. I won't disagree that every nation, America included, will play the new Libyan leadership to their own best advantages and interests. However, neither will I stand quietly by as ignorant people complain about Gaddafi's overthrow being meaningless because of that. The Libyan people HAVE seen a great victory here for their own freedoms, even if it's uncertain how long lived that victory may be.


I'm picturing an infomercial right about now. Buy our world class American installed dictator right now and you'll receive many happy decades of watching your wife get raped, your lawn regularly razed, and your children going without food or education. But wait! There's more! In thirty of forty years (basically whenever we feel like it) we'll send in an army and take your lawn for ourselves so you don't have to worry about the dictator razing it any more!!!! Special discounts apply if you order before Libya.

1. America put Saddam in power, his atrocities are in large part America's fault
2. America has enabled many other dictators around the world, it's what they do when a leader doesn't follow their wishes
3. Knowing full well what outcomes these dictatorships have had (as intended) in the past, how do you know we wont get similar results this time?

We're talking about a country here, it has people that want different things, of course some Libyans are going to be happy that Gaddafi is removed, many will have wanted other outcomes, neither of us can speak for them, we are not Libyan. You say a few people dieing/getting bombed is ok to save a possible genocide. Would you kill your family to save your village? The people dieing in Libya are someones family, they are real, just because you aren't Libyan doesn't mean you can't feel empathy for them. Wake up man, you and your country are not the center of the world, you can't force your will on others unfairly without at least some repercussions. Your day is coming, and it's coming faster than you might think.

So firstly in terms of Iraq, rather than get subjective let's examine some of the facts:
Iraq's infant mortality rates are currently the highest amongst Arab countries
Iraq's life expectancy has declined (by about 7 years) since the US invasion and is the lowest amongst Arab countries.
Iraq has the second lowest purchasing power of any country in the region, only Yemen is worse,
Child malnutrition has stayed pretty similar, while education has improved.
70% of Iraq's GDP now comes from oil, it's industry and farming sectors have pretty much been destroyed.

You do realize all your comparisons there take their Saddam-era equivalents on faith from Saddam's regime, right? Life expectancy calculated in Saddam-era Iraq as an example excluded the hundreds of thousands of Kurds and Shia that were murdered, starved or killed, seeing as those creatures were barely human, let alone Iraqi.

So as horrific as Saddam's reign of terror was, it was because of America that he was allowed to be in power in the first place, and even then things were better than they are now by many measures.

Stop trying to make everything about America. America this and America that...

I've not lived my life in a hole, and am well aware of America's past support for Saddam. I don't recall saying much of anything about America though. I just pointed out how horrific Saddam was, and Iraq is better for him being gone, whether his removal came at the hands of America or the Easter bunny was besides the point.

And as stated above, there are no objective measures of Saddam-era Iraq's living conditions. There is only the official Saddam government line, and the stories of it's victims. The documented facts that we do have are mass-graves, concentration camps, a campaign to exterminate and breed the Kurd's out of existence through mass murder and systematic rape. We have the same campaign waged against Iraq's Shia, witnessed first hand by everyone involved in the 1st Gulf War as America committed perhaps it's greatest sin in Iraq and stood idly by and watched Saddam's gunships murder the Iraqi Shia populations by the tens of thousands(many estimates top 100's of thousands).

In terms of Gaddafi, you're arguing into the wind, I've never said I thought he was the better option, I'm simply saying that going by the atrocities committed by or for America in recent decades (in Chile, Vietnam, Iraq, Palestine to name a few countries), they are the last country that should be getting involved in any sort of democratization process. All that is assured by this 'victory' is that Libya's natural resources will be plundered, some rich elite will make a killing, the masses will suffer and the new leadership will be just as corrupt as the last.

Again, what's with your obsession with America? I declared it good that Gaddafi is gone. Your the one who complain about how it really wasn't because evil America was involved.

Lastly, if you're so convinced that America is in Libya to save lives

Again, I never said that. I pointed out that the UN mandate authorized the use of force to save Libyan lives. I pointed out that NATO's forces did exactly that, since without them Gaddafi was guaranteed to have succeeded in his genocide within 24 hours. What I did NOT say was that saving those lives was America or NATO's motivation. There are plenty of other places NATO could go save lives(particularly Sudan and Somalia) if that was their motivation, but it isn't. NATO, like every other global entity, is motivated by it's own self-interest. In Libya, removing Gaddafi was in NATO's interests, and seeing the Libyan opposition succeed was in NATO's interests.

Here's the bit you miss in the above piece. The Libyan civilians are no less dead because NATO stopped a genocide out of selfish interest versus out of humanitarian desires. What matters is that they are alive today, and that Gaddafi's ability to met out revenge against them has been destroyed. They are safe, and they are free. What they do with it, and how the rest of the world plays into that is yet to be seen. I won't disagree that every nation, America included, will play the new Libyan leadership to their own best advantages and interests. However, neither will I stand quietly by as ignorant people complain about Gaddafi's overthrow being meaningless because of that. The Libyan people HAVE seen a great victory here for their own freedoms, even if it's uncertain how long lived that victory may be.

@NetRunner: agreed that it's not the worst, nor is my anecdote...

and certainly odd changes in policy and illogical requirements do increase bureaucracy... but i'm not certain that i can agree that there isn't any valid reason for change...

think back through the last 11 years of us elections, in particular the previous three presidential elections... claims of voter fraud, hanging chad, dead rolls, acorn, etc -- now, i don't know if or what impact wisconsin's regulatory changes have on that... but that's the nature of government: we expect incompetence, and success is generally just a fortunate coincidence

from my tale, our overseas missions weren't always as i described... they changed, radically so, post 9-11 -- i used to be able to phone my nation's consular services and be shown respect and have my questions answered... help was given freely and easily, as one should expect

not so anymore - now we're herded in like infected cattle and treated as a possible terrorist - the 'help' has morphed into a hindrance... but are the reasons for such valid? how can we say...

and no, i wasn't dealing with the department of immigration... just my embassy in filing a consular report of birth abroad (CRBA), and those policies have changed recently too... for no apparent reason

i'm an american citizen, not an immigrant - there wasn't one iota of reason to suspect my not being a citizen... and soooo many reasons to accept that i was...

my family came to north america in the early 18th century... i'm tall, blond, and blue-eyed... i speak perfect american english with a non-regional accent... i served my country for six years in the usmc and am a veteran of the persian gulf war... and this is in addition to all the documentation i presented...

instead, i was treated as 'suspect' by a foreign- and indifferent-looking woman speaking to me in broken english... quite rudely questioning ME regarding something i have always assumed was fundamental: my being a us citizen

i guess my point is that videos like this present the particular situation as being 'scandalous' ... when in fact it's commonplace... and while annoying, it's not really insulting -- try visiting a us consular mission abroad and then complain about the bureaucracy, invasion of privacy, and being treated in a demeaning way

honestly, watching the domestic situation in my home country from overseas for the last 15-odd years is amazing... the partisanship is ridiculous, and so are most of their claims -- it's like having your body (the nation) infested with two distinct groups of intestinal parasites--like an old-south, grangerford-shepherdson blood-feud--the attacks from both left- and right-leaning tapeworms have risen to the level of threatening the very health and life of the host

videos and other seeming vitriol like this appear to me as symptomatic of such an unhealthy bent: a bloody feces-laden discharge

A little too rant-y for my tastes....

I suspect this has been said elsewhere, but I haven't seen it:

For those idiots out there who doubt whether Bin Laden was killed or not, please apply your own twisted conspiracy logic.

If Obama was going to concoct this whole scam, why didn't he wait until say, oh, October 15, 2012? Isn't that a much better date for him? Doing it now doesn't buy him votes -- look at what happened to George HW Bush. Went from what, 90% approval after Gulf War I to losing the election? Much better to time this later, if the point is to game the election.

And I have seen this elsewhere, but only once -- if Bin Laden hadn't been killed, how incredibly stupid would Obama look if Bin Laden popped up saying nanner nanner boo boo? So easy to prove our government as liars; why would we do such a boneheaded move?

But then, being stupid is the balliwick of conspiracy theorists.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

Since when has CNN constituted "real" news?
http://videosift.com/video/Fake-CNN-Gulf-War-Newscast


I'm happy to put a big asterisk next to the title, with the fine print reading:

The label "real news" is not meant to describe CNN's overall behavior as a news organization, but merely in its behavior as documented by this video.

Since when has CNN constituted "real" news?

http://videosift.com/video/Fake-CNN-Gulf-War-Newscast

Believe me I'm not arguing that Saddam nor Gaddafi were nice guys. I making the distinction between a country being run by a corrupt leader, and destroying a country because of their corrupt leader. In my opinion Gaddafi didn't suddenly become more of a threat after his speech. In fact, he did what almost EVERY country on the face of the planet would do when faced with an armed uprising (this includes the US and the UK). There are other issues at play here also, such as why Burmese, Rwandan, Ivory Coast, Kenyan, North Korean, Saudi, Bahraini leaders deserve more respect than Iraqi and Libyan (oil rich) leaders.

By UN estimates the US killed 100,000 Iraqis (civilians and soldiers)in the first Gulf War. Other estimates show countless thousands died due to the sanctions in the 90s, and god knows how many in the last Iraq War disaster. The entire infrastructure of the Iraqi state has been in shambles for 20 years. In fact, they went from the most modern, secular, arab state to a destroyed wreck of a country. I strongly feel that a 70 year old Saddam Hussein was less of a threat to the Iraqi people than the US war was. In my opinion time would have been a much kinder ally to the Iraqis than the US was. Though I understand your point about the Kurds, realistically anything said about Iraq could easily be said about Turkey, one of our biggest allies.

"As for other Gulf States, would you really prefer Libya was left to Gaddafi's mercy just because that's exactly what's happening elsewhere?" I guess my answer to you is yes. Foreign policy consistency across the board would go a long way towards stopping dictators from betting that they will get away with human-rights crimes. Inconsistency is not going to help anyone.

Thanks for you civil and informed answer. Just so you know, I probably won't have the time to respond again any time soon.
>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^vaporlock:
Truthfully, I never did pay much attention to Libya. Partially because I figured a nutjob like Gadhafi had to be on the US payroll (which, apparently until recently he was (banking, oil, etc).
Anyway, thanks for the quote. I've been hearing about it for weeks now and never knew where it came from. No offense meant, but like most of the media hyped quotes from Saddam Hussein, it is probably either a bad translation, out of context, a cultural/religious way of saying things that westerners don't get, or a combination of these. Without too much analysis, I can say that the part about going "house by house" to get rid of a rebellion/uprising is pretty SOP (see Iraq).
I have many more suspicions after reading the AlJazeera blog than I had before I read it (ie. why are so many protester signs in English?), but I don't have time to get into it now. Starting a bombing campaign based on a "speech" is ridiculous to begin with and Gadhafi's actions are not too far from what all of the Arab Gulf States have been doing in recent weeks.
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^vaporlock:
I'm interested in finding out where he said this. Have you ever found an actual statement by Gadhafi saying this? It isn't something I can imagine him (an arab socialist) saying.
Wearing silk pajamas with a funny hat, yes. "I'm going to commit genocide", no.
This statement has the reak of pre Desert Storm propaganda. Most of which was proven false (ie. Iraqi troops emptying Kuwaiti baby incubators in the hospitals). >> ^bcglorf:
"Gadhafi would currently be finishing off the genocide he promised to commit against the opposition"


Are you at all familiar with Gaddafi? His speech from Feb 22 he threatened to "cleanse the nation, house by house", and warned that just as the world never came to help the victims of Tiananmen square no one was coming to help you(the opposition). Don't take my word for it. Don't take the word of any anti-Arab biased western media. Go read Al Jazeera's live blog from the day that speech was delivered.


like most of the media hyped quotes from Saddam Hussein, it is probably either a bad translation, out of context
Slow down before you dismiss Gaddafi's statements on genocide because they resemble Saddam's speechs. Nobody, and I mean nobody(Arab,Palestinian,Iraqi) denies Saddam's record on mass killings.
In his Anfal campaign against the Kurds there estimates higher than 200k murdered by Saddam. Half of the dead are from military operations against civilians including the use of chemical weapons, while the other half are mass executions complete with bulldozers to dig large enough graves on site.
The estimates of his crushing of the Shia uprisings at the end of the first gulf war exceed 100k dead as well, with gunships and tanks being used to lower the number of 'unruly' civilians to something more 'manageable'.
You are right about the similarities between Gaddafi and Saddam. It's a reason to take his threats regarding genocide of those opposing him as deadly serious.
Starting a bombing campaign based on a "speech" is ridiculous to begin with and Gadhafi's actions are not too far from what all of the Arab Gulf States have been doing in recent weeks.
It wasn't just a "speech". He followed the speech up by mobilizing his army and marching across the country killing anyone even suspected of being with the opposition. He was within a single city of having taken back full control of the country and being able to "secure" his gains. I hate having to point that "secure" in this case means systematically hunting down killing as many supporters of the opposition as it takes to be certain no-one will ever consider doing it again. Whether that can be done with 100 or 100 thousand doesn't matter to a dictator, it's just a means to an end.
As for other Gulf States, would you really prefer Libya was left to Gaddafi's mercy just because that's exactly what's happening elsewhere?

>> ^vaporlock:

Truthfully, I never did pay much attention to Libya. Partially because I figured a nutjob like Gadhafi had to be on the US payroll (which, apparently until recently he was (banking, oil, etc).
Anyway, thanks for the quote. I've been hearing about it for weeks now and never knew where it came from. No offense meant, but like most of the media hyped quotes from Saddam Hussein, it is probably either a bad translation, out of context, a cultural/religious way of saying things that westerners don't get, or a combination of these. Without too much analysis, I can say that the part about going "house by house" to get rid of a rebellion/uprising is pretty SOP (see Iraq).
I have many more suspicions after reading the AlJazeera blog than I had before I read it (ie. why are so many protester signs in English?), but I don't have time to get into it now. Starting a bombing campaign based on a "speech" is ridiculous to begin with and Gadhafi's actions are not too far from what all of the Arab Gulf States have been doing in recent weeks.
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^vaporlock:
I'm interested in finding out where he said this. Have you ever found an actual statement by Gadhafi saying this? It isn't something I can imagine him (an arab socialist) saying.
Wearing silk pajamas with a funny hat, yes. "I'm going to commit genocide", no.
This statement has the reak of pre Desert Storm propaganda. Most of which was proven false (ie. Iraqi troops emptying Kuwaiti baby incubators in the hospitals). >> ^bcglorf:
"Gadhafi would currently be finishing off the genocide he promised to commit against the opposition"


Are you at all familiar with Gaddafi? His speech from Feb 22 he threatened to "cleanse the nation, house by house", and warned that just as the world never came to help the victims of Tiananmen square no one was coming to help you(the opposition). Don't take my word for it. Don't take the word of any anti-Arab biased western media. Go read Al Jazeera's live blog from the day that speech was delivered.



like most of the media hyped quotes from Saddam Hussein, it is probably either a bad translation, out of context

Slow down before you dismiss Gaddafi's statements on genocide because they resemble Saddam's speechs. Nobody, and I mean nobody(Arab,Palestinian,Iraqi) denies Saddam's record on mass killings.

In his Anfal campaign against the Kurds there estimates higher than 200k murdered by Saddam. Half of the dead are from military operations against civilians including the use of chemical weapons, while the other half are mass executions complete with bulldozers to dig large enough graves on site.

The estimates of his crushing of the Shia uprisings at the end of the first gulf war exceed 100k dead as well, with gunships and tanks being used to lower the number of 'unruly' civilians to something more 'manageable'.

You are right about the similarities between Gaddafi and Saddam. It's a reason to take his threats regarding genocide of those opposing him as deadly serious.

Starting a bombing campaign based on a "speech" is ridiculous to begin with and Gadhafi's actions are not too far from what all of the Arab Gulf States have been doing in recent weeks.

It wasn't just a "speech". He followed the speech up by mobilizing his army and marching across the country killing anyone even suspected of being with the opposition. He was within a single city of having taken back full control of the country and being able to "secure" his gains. I hate having to point that "secure" in this case means systematically hunting down killing as many supporters of the opposition as it takes to be certain no-one will ever consider doing it again. Whether that can be done with 100 or 100 thousand doesn't matter to a dictator, it's just a means to an end.

As for other Gulf States, would you really prefer Libya was left to Gaddafi's mercy just because that's exactly what's happening elsewhere?

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Moxy Fruvous, Gulf War, Oil, Texaco, Fight' to 'Moxy Fruvous, Singing, A Cappella, Gulf War 1, Oil, Texaco, Fight, You, For, Me, Audiosift' - edited by calvados

Saddam Hussein maintained control over most of his country in spite of the no-fly zones imposed after Gulf War I. The northern no-fly zone helped the Kurds a lot, but the southern no-fly zone didn't stop Saddam from brutalizing his people in the south. There was also a no-fly zone in Bosnia during the Yugoslav war, but that didn't stop the massacre at Srebenica, or many other atrocities. So I have my doubts about the effectiveness of a no-fly zone in Libya.

And speaking as an American, I don't really feeling like getting my country into a third war. I wish the Libyan people the greatest success, but I don't know if we're really in a position to help them militarily.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Never really liked this guy but it was sad to see him in such a state. He appears at least to be a bit more humble. I guess dying tends to put everything into perspective. His notion that life is a wager though..I don't agree with that at all. That is a trap of nihilism, which makes all propositions equally valid (because nihilism negates any inherent meaning). As if we are just betting on what we hope to be favorable, without any conviction, without any truth. I think it's the height of arrogance really to pop into the long history of the world at this late date and define life that way. There is a LOT at stake, say almost 7 billion human beings, let alone all the other amazing life on planet Earth. That is something irreducible to any calculation. There is meaning everywhere, in the hearts and minds of all that we share this place with. If you don't factor any of that in, it begs the question: how self-centered are you anyway?


It is impossible to look at Hitchens' life and accuse him of believing "all propositions equally valid". The singularly most defining aspect of his very public life was his vehemence in debating the merits and superiority of numerous propositions over others. Whether one agreed with his conclusions or not, you could hardly accuse him of not taking a stand, nor being willing to put his own stands to the test, personally.

He embarrassed Charleton Heston during the first Gulf war by famously asking him to name a country neighbouring the state he was so eager to attack, Heston couldn't name one. It was one of the most championed victories of the anti-war movement, and Hitchens was bearing the standard. He then promptly went to Iraq and lived among it's Kurdish people, who thoroughly persuaded him he had been wrong, and he came back as one of the strongest supporters for Saddam's removal.

Hitchens' single biggest life goal was the deconstruction of religion hoping to in essence rid the world of it's evils. Despite this goal, he deliberately took his own children to be taught about religions by their respective leaders and representatives, to avoid poisoning their opinions with his own bias. Still wanting them to be able to make a personal, honest and well informed decision of their own.

The man is an example to us all, no matter how much we may disagree with his conclusions his loss will be a loss to us all. Very few are left in the public sphere with his breadth of knowledge and willingness to vehemently promote and defend what they believe to be true and right.

Wow, I admit that I also didn't expect this with the name "Joe Rogan" on the title.

But that was a pretty concise representation of the truly salient, and inherent problems with US Foreign policy, and with some good editing and clips to boot.

I can't say I'm in love with the building seven bit at the end though.

Operation Northwoods clearly shows it's not beyond question for nefarious plans against our own citizens to reach the highest offices of the Pentagon and even meet with approval.

But I just find it nearly impossible to believe that the same minds who could conceive and carry out a plan like this would not realize that they could've gotten away with whatever they want for far, far less than anything approaching the scale of nearly destroying downtown Manhattan.

I mean the Gulf of Tonkin Incident was some destroyer out somewhere in a sea most Americans couldn't find on a map if their lives depended on it. And that was enough of an excuse to invade south east asia!

Keep in mind that the Gulf of Tonkin Bullshit story was drafted AFTER operation Northwoods was rejected by Kennedy. They already knew that a justification to gear up the military required nearly nothing. So why would they stage this elaborate hoax to accomplish what they could do anyway? Hell, even the first Gulf War showed the American appetite for war was a lot different then what they dealt with in the late 60's and 70's.

Americans these days only need a short empty speech with zero content, a flag waving fireworks extravaganza, a country music song or two and we'd be willing to invade fucking Canada.

It wasn't needed.

Also, and probably more importantly, if building seven can only be explained by controlled demolition then where are all the engineers on this topic? Why does it only seem to be people without a professional background in such things the ones saying it couldn't have happened when the boilers exploded or whatever the official claim states.

And if destroying some sort of unique treasure trove of financial documents was the goal then it seems an awfully elaborate way to torch a building, but what do I know I guess.

I'm just typing too much.

>> ^quantumushroom:

I take no pleasure in the fact innocents have to be searched, but if you're going to piss off anyone, how about the demographic and "religion" responsible for terrorist acts 99.99% of the time? Maybe some of these fictional "moderate" Muslims might actually stop and ponder why they let jihadist vermin represent their religion.
BTW, now that you've "seen the light" about the stupidity and low qualifications of a large swath of TSAers, are you ready for the same gorogs being hired as Government Medical Techs? Same efficiency, same grace. It's only a matter of time.
>> ^Ryjkyj:
Either way you look at it QM, they've never found ONE bomb. Not one. Ever.



For "Terroristic Acts" see War in Iraq, War in Afganistan, War on Terror, Vietnam War, Gulf War, Gulf War Sanctions, Invasion of Haiti, Invasion of Grenada, Funding Militias in Nicaragua who attack soft targets.

See where I'm going here...to much of the world we are the terrorists.

Actually what he "meant" wasn't without logic, what he said was. My interpretation of his meaning is that he was trying to say that rate of friendly fire casualties have increased with each successive war since WWII, but he clearly states that each war has the same rate. In fact having now done some research into the numbers it appears that the rate has decreased. Your point is well taken though regarding the apparent significance of friendly fire deaths. As the total number of casualties becomes a very small number compared to say WWII the friendly fire numbers take on a greater apparent significance. >> ^hPOD:

Actually what he/she said isn't without logic, but you failed to think about it before posting a smarmy ass reply.
His/her point (this is just a made up example to demonstrate how %'s can swing rather easily):
If 100 people died in WWII, and 10 of them were from friendly fire: 10% died from friendly fire.
If 50 people died in VietNam, and 10 of them were from friendly fire: 20% died from friendly fire.
If only 10 people died in the Gulf War and 5 of them died from friendly fire: 50% of them died from friendly fire.
The number of friendly causalities didn't change or went down in my above examples, however, the percentage shot up each time. That was his/her point. Because less Americans are dying in modern wars, friendly fire causalities have now become a more visible percentage despite fewer overall American deaths.

>> ^nanrod:
The number one casualty of that comment was logic.>> ^Tymbrwulf:
In order to compare friendly fire statistics you'd have to compare that against actual war casualties.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that each successive war after WWII had less casualties, but the same rate of friendly fire. Mathematically this would show a statistical increase in percentage friendly fire even though the actual casualties are less and less.
I wouldn't say the problem is getting any worse, but it definitely isn't getting any better (which is still a problem).