US Elections 2012 Obama v Romney Official Thread
Discussion
Guam said:
Actually more b
ks from you, usually <not always> the IRA <or whoever> would call with a pre agreed codeword. Having spent time in Northern Ireland including Night patrols in belfast and being in the OP on the top of the Diviss Flats they knew often as not ahead of time who the organisation was <and usually very soon afterwards if the pre notification failed>.
Any more crap you want to bring up?
Interesting, there's a guy on another forum I frequent spent time atop Divis. Wonder if you know eachother.ks from you, usually <not always> the IRA <or whoever> would call with a pre agreed codeword. Having spent time in Northern Ireland including Night patrols in belfast and being in the OP on the top of the Diviss Flats they knew often as not ahead of time who the organisation was <and usually very soon afterwards if the pre notification failed>.Any more crap you want to bring up?
GavinPearson said:
don't recall when I was using Damascus's bus system in the heart of the tourist area as a teenager in the midst of an FSA bombing campaign that there were any rules at all. They were quite happy to kill civillians too. And lots of people from outside of Syria were bankrolling them to do so without bothering to think about the consequences of their actions.
Couldn't resist..Art0ir said:
GavinPearson said:
don't recall when I was using Damascus's bus system in the heart of the tourist area as a teenager in the midst of an FSA bombing campaign that there were any rules at all. They were quite happy to kill civillians too. And lots of people from outside of Syria were bankrolling them to do so without bothering to think about the consequences of their actions.
Couldn't resist..
No-one has asked what happens to the millions of non Sunni's who currently support Assad. For another thread obviously.
Here's a Republican who really does know something about foreign policy and the military - and he's endorsing Barack Obama for President.
We salute you, General Colin Powell.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/25/po...
We salute you, General Colin Powell.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/25/po...
unrepentant said:
Here's a Republican who really does know something about foreign policy and the military - and he's endorsing Barack Obama for President.
We salute you, General Colin Powell.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/25/po...
Good for Colin. Has he ever been wrong about anything in the past? We salute you, General Colin Powell.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/25/po...
I predict BHO will be on 'his' bike come election day.
unrepentant said:
Here's a Republican who really does know something about foreign policy and the military - and he's endorsing Barack Obama for President.
We salute you, General Colin Powell.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/25/po...
>> Champions support of Colin PowellWe salute you, General Colin Powell.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/25/po...
>> Expects people to take him seriously
Interesting article about the Benghazi attacks here by a former CIA military analyst.
Like I said ad nauseum it's correct protocol to establish the facts before going public with them.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/25/opinion/maller-cia-b...
Tara Maller said:
People have questioned why the administration didn't immediately report that the Benghazi attack was the work of terrorists. But we don't know whether analysts had enough credible intelligence on hand at the time to be absolutely sure of the nature of the attack. Reports indicate that the intelligence community's evaluations evolved in the following days and weeks as information came in, and policymakers were briefed as assessments changed and solidified. This is common practice.
Claims such as these need to be corroborated. Sometimes multiple groups claim responsibility after attacks; obviously claims of responsibility are often false. It's also possible that the attackers had ties to multiple groups, or had different motives. Expecting policymakers to publicly examine and go through every conflicting piece of intelligence collected in the hours before and after an attack would be unreasonable and potentially even damaging to national security.
Well bugger me, an expert agreeing with exactly what I said. Claims such as these need to be corroborated. Sometimes multiple groups claim responsibility after attacks; obviously claims of responsibility are often false. It's also possible that the attackers had ties to multiple groups, or had different motives. Expecting policymakers to publicly examine and go through every conflicting piece of intelligence collected in the hours before and after an attack would be unreasonable and potentially even damaging to national security.
Like I said ad nauseum it's correct protocol to establish the facts before going public with them.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/25/opinion/maller-cia-b...
unrepentant said:
Interesting article about the Benghazi attacks here by a former CIA military analyst.
Like I said ad nauseum it's correct protocol to establish the facts before going public with them.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/25/opinion/maller-cia-b...
The intelligence leading up to 9/11 had similarities, all we had after the attacks was years of 'blame Bush'. Tara Maller said:
People have questioned why the administration didn't immediately report that the Benghazi attack was the work of terrorists. But we don't know whether analysts had enough credible intelligence on hand at the time to be absolutely sure of the nature of the attack. Reports indicate that the intelligence community's evaluations evolved in the following days and weeks as information came in, and policymakers were briefed as assessments changed and solidified. This is common practice.
Claims such as these need to be corroborated. Sometimes multiple groups claim responsibility after attacks; obviously claims of responsibility are often false. It's also possible that the attackers had ties to multiple groups, or had different motives. Expecting policymakers to publicly examine and go through every conflicting piece of intelligence collected in the hours before and after an attack would be unreasonable and potentially even damaging to national security.
Well bugger me, an expert agreeing with exactly what I said. Claims such as these need to be corroborated. Sometimes multiple groups claim responsibility after attacks; obviously claims of responsibility are often false. It's also possible that the attackers had ties to multiple groups, or had different motives. Expecting policymakers to publicly examine and go through every conflicting piece of intelligence collected in the hours before and after an attack would be unreasonable and potentially even damaging to national security.
Like I said ad nauseum it's correct protocol to establish the facts before going public with them.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/25/opinion/maller-cia-b...
Quite a difference now BHO is in charge...
Muntu said:
unrepentant said:
Interesting article about the Benghazi attacks here by a former CIA military analyst.
Like I said ad nauseum it's correct protocol to establish the facts before going public with them.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/25/opinion/maller-cia-b...
The intelligence leading up to 9/11 had similarities, all we had after the attacks was years of 'blame Bush'. Tara Maller said:
People have questioned why the administration didn't immediately report that the Benghazi attack was the work of terrorists. But we don't know whether analysts had enough credible intelligence on hand at the time to be absolutely sure of the nature of the attack. Reports indicate that the intelligence community's evaluations evolved in the following days and weeks as information came in, and policymakers were briefed as assessments changed and solidified. This is common practice.
Claims such as these need to be corroborated. Sometimes multiple groups claim responsibility after attacks; obviously claims of responsibility are often false. It's also possible that the attackers had ties to multiple groups, or had different motives. Expecting policymakers to publicly examine and go through every conflicting piece of intelligence collected in the hours before and after an attack would be unreasonable and potentially even damaging to national security.
Well bugger me, an expert agreeing with exactly what I said. Claims such as these need to be corroborated. Sometimes multiple groups claim responsibility after attacks; obviously claims of responsibility are often false. It's also possible that the attackers had ties to multiple groups, or had different motives. Expecting policymakers to publicly examine and go through every conflicting piece of intelligence collected in the hours before and after an attack would be unreasonable and potentially even damaging to national security.
Like I said ad nauseum it's correct protocol to establish the facts before going public with them.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/25/opinion/maller-cia-b...
Quite a difference now BHO is in charge...
unrepentant said:
Muntu said:
unrepentant said:
Interesting article about the Benghazi attacks here by a former CIA military analyst.
Like I said ad nauseum it's correct protocol to establish the facts before going public with them.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/25/opinion/maller-cia-b...
The intelligence leading up to 9/11 had similarities, all we had after the attacks was years of 'blame Bush'. Tara Maller said:
People have questioned why the administration didn't immediately report that the Benghazi attack was the work of terrorists. But we don't know whether analysts had enough credible intelligence on hand at the time to be absolutely sure of the nature of the attack. Reports indicate that the intelligence community's evaluations evolved in the following days and weeks as information came in, and policymakers were briefed as assessments changed and solidified. This is common practice.
Claims such as these need to be corroborated. Sometimes multiple groups claim responsibility after attacks; obviously claims of responsibility are often false. It's also possible that the attackers had ties to multiple groups, or had different motives. Expecting policymakers to publicly examine and go through every conflicting piece of intelligence collected in the hours before and after an attack would be unreasonable and potentially even damaging to national security.
Well bugger me, an expert agreeing with exactly what I said. Claims such as these need to be corroborated. Sometimes multiple groups claim responsibility after attacks; obviously claims of responsibility are often false. It's also possible that the attackers had ties to multiple groups, or had different motives. Expecting policymakers to publicly examine and go through every conflicting piece of intelligence collected in the hours before and after an attack would be unreasonable and potentially even damaging to national security.
Like I said ad nauseum it's correct protocol to establish the facts before going public with them.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/25/opinion/maller-cia-b...
Quite a difference now BHO is in charge...
Muntu said:
unrepentant said:
Here's a Republican who really does know something about foreign policy and the military - and he's endorsing Barack Obama for President.
We salute you, General Colin Powell.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/25/po...
Good for Colin. Has he ever been wrong about anything in the past? We salute you, General Colin Powell.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/25/po...
I predict BHO will be on 'his' bike come election day.
As for the bike... I suspect that it will be a gold plated device with a lackey doing the pedalling and a punkha wallah running alongside. And it will be conveying Romney back to whichever home he's planning to retire to.
unrepentant said:
Muntu said:
Try NYT, amongst others.
Linky please.k me, you are bone idle http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&...
6th one down
Muntu said:
unrepentant said:
Muntu said:
Try NYT, amongst others.
Linky please.k me, you are bone idle http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&...
6th one down
unrepentant said:
Powell is one of the few characters from the Bush administration that is genuinely respected by pretty much everyone.
As for the bike... I suspect that it will be a gold plated device with a lackey doing the pedalling and a punkha wallah running alongside. And it will be conveying Romney back to whichever home he's planning to retire to.
Sounds a bit racist to me.As for the bike... I suspect that it will be a gold plated device with a lackey doing the pedalling and a punkha wallah running alongside. And it will be conveying Romney back to whichever home he's planning to retire to.
/leftist
Muntu said:
unrepentant said:
Powell is one of the few characters from the Bush administration that is genuinely respected by pretty much everyone.
As for the bike... I suspect that it will be a gold plated device with a lackey doing the pedalling and a punkha wallah running alongside. And it will be conveying Romney back to whichever home he's planning to retire to.
Sounds a bit racist to me.As for the bike... I suspect that it will be a gold plated device with a lackey doing the pedalling and a punkha wallah running alongside. And it will be conveying Romney back to whichever home he's planning to retire to.
/leftist
Well..... technically I voted for that twunt Tony Baldry but you know what I mean...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff