Happy Face

http://www.thenation.com/blog/dod-investig...and-contractors If the US military has been (or were to be) infiltrated by terrorists, isn't it dangerous for Obama to trust the intelligence they filter through to him irrespective of evidence?

You're sounding more like Leazes every day. I think he's taking the piss. it's all you can do tbh with those who don't live in the real world I assumed he meant he's taking the piss out of you. Like Mike Yarwood.

ah. Alex will no doubt slate me for agreeing with you but thats probably right. If we send our women out wearing that sort of shite will it prevent reprisals I wouldn't have thought so....i think the continuously intensified bombing on their villages is a more pressing concern than our fashion choices.

You're sounding more like Leazes every day.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11432849 http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/na...0,3795924.story Reprisals of little concern to the US?

Leazes' entire argument seems to be nothing more than "no surrender to the IRA"

Well, as an example I reckon that the security services will have a very good idea who's behind the increased republican threat from NI BUt unfortunately we (the UK) won't have the balls to take them out, which would be right, before some real innocents get killed. Even if they got the right people, dp you believe that would that be the end of it? Would killing them mean victory and safety for all the innocent civilians? Or would it radicalise more people who's sympathies had never previously been with terrorists, making the security services jobs harder and the threat more potent? what would you prefer 1. Just let them get on with murdering people 2. Assuming the scumbags are shot first, insist on the names and addresses of those who do the dirty deed in the name of Freedom of Information ? I'd prefer they're dealt with like any murderers.

While I see what you're saying I'm talking longer term. The problem is how the the cause a terrorist originally purported to be fighting changes for the following generations. Osama Bin Laden's cause of 2001 was a lot different (and a lot less prevalent) to a lot of the Jihadists he radicalised by provoking a middle eastern invasion by the US.

Rob's? While I hope the Supreme Court will reject it, I'm not as naturally optimistic. Elena Kagan (who just replaced the most liberal judge in the court) is supposed to be liberal, but she's pushed for further expansion of presidential power in areas such as extraordinary rendition, executive privilege, state secrets, and indefinite detention in the past. I personally don't see it going through but we'll have to wait and see. If it does then we can start going crazy. Would be more interesting to talk about someone like Kissinger with regard to this but people insist on blathering on. I think the brief is noteworthy in itself, whether or not it is rejected. Feel free to take the debate where you like....rather than having a pop at opinions while refusing to state your own.

Well, as an example I reckon that the security services will have a very good idea who's behind the increased republican threat from NI BUt unfortunately we (the UK) won't have the balls to take them out, which would be right, before some real innocents get killed. Even if they got the right people, dp you believe that would that be the end of it? Would killing them mean victory and safety for all the innocent civilians? Or would it radicalise more people who's sympathies had never previously been with terrorists, making the security services jobs harder and the threat more potent?

Rob's? While I hope the Supreme Court will reject it, I'm not as naturally optimistic. Elena Kagan (who just replaced the most liberal judge in the court) is supposed to be liberal, but she's pushed for further expansion of presidential power in areas such as extraordinary rendition, executive privilege, state secrets, and indefinite detention in the past.

Obama clearly had concerns about the mouse. Had him whacked in Wartburtons.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-11419498 Seventeen grand? Should have been charged extra for the meat.

At least it wasn't the people in the talks trying to sabotage it..... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11422065

Don't by naive. It's just a muslimer.

You can say this and it's a fair point, but it is necessary for the intelligence services to do it, it is where modern communcations take place now. They don't put parcels and notes in holes in trees anymore. You know this Parky ? aye. Just adding a bit of homour to these anti-west rants You certainly are. Arguing in favour of justice & democracy = anti west

You can say this and it's a fair point, but it is necessary for the intelligence services to do it, it is where modern communcations take place now. They don't put parcels and notes in holes in trees anymore. You know this Parky ? So you fully support the UAE and Saudi Arabia's ban on Blackberry's because they can't monitor individual use? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-10830485

your ignorance of National Security issues is amazing. I realise you and one or two others perceive yourselves to be "scholarly" or whatever, but the President of the USA surrounds himself with people far more switched on than you, fortunately. He wouldn't take such advice from them lightly. You can bleat on as much as you like about the indignity of being left out of his circle that find out these things, but you aren't going to change the system. National security eh ? How to beat the whining clueless liberals. Fantastic I'll take that as a yes. If the president/military/police know what's best for us, why do the US bother with courts at all Leazes? Whole lot of expense for nothing following your logic. Should they be closed down? Since October 2001, of 775 Guantanamo detainees, 3 have been charged with crimes. If the intelligence is right 0.4% of the time that's good enough for you to go ahead and kill suspects? Something specific on the subject would be nice, rather than a generic personal attack without any facts to support it. the point about "National Security" is nothing is as straightforward as being either black or white. So far as I'm concerned, and this is to tooner as well, killing IS justified in certain cirumstances, but I suppose on that particular point, we will have to disagree. I agree, killing can be justified in certain circumstances. During a war anyone on the battlefield can be deemed an enemy combatant and has to accept that being on that battlefield taking up arms means they're at risk. But that's not what's happened here. In these circumstances the US are defining the battlefield as the whole planet and saying the justification for assassination need not be provided by them....actually it must be kept secret. How are we as individuals to know under which circumstances we will be killed if the US will not charge their victims with a crime or present evidence of their guilt? You said it yourself...it's "justified in certain circumstances"...these circumstances have to be be defined and met. The US are refusing to do that. How are we to know as individuals ? Basically, as I said, the answer to that is you aren't going to find out because someone has deemed there is an issue of National Security involved and on that basis they aren't going to tell you. Every case is based on its own merits, this is the point of National Security. There is fuck all you can do about it. You don't have a "right" to know everything concerning what governments do and why, whether you like it or not. If they shoot the fuckers, then there is a reason for it and I for one will be pleased they have found something to justify getting rid of one more scumbag. Exactly. If it's allowed, then they become a military dictatorship. Where the leader is accountable to no-one and the rights of it's citizens to their day in court no matter how heinous the crimes becomes just lip service. The fact you'll be pleased about it doesn't change the basic fact.

your ignorance of National Security issues is amazing. I realise you and one or two others perceive yourselves to be "scholarly" or whatever, but the President of the USA surrounds himself with people far more switched on than you, fortunately. He wouldn't take such advice from them lightly. You can bleat on as much as you like about the indignity of being left out of his circle that find out these things, but you aren't going to change the system. National security eh ? How to beat the whining clueless liberals. Fantastic I'll take that as a yes. If the president/military/police know what's best for us, why do the US bother with courts at all Leazes? Whole lot of expense for nothing following your logic. Should they be closed down? Since October 2001, of 775 Guantanamo detainees, 3 have been charged with crimes. If the intelligence is right 0.4% of the time that's good enough for you to go ahead and kill suspects? Something specific on the subject would be nice, rather than a generic personal attack without any facts to support it. the point about "National Security" is nothing is as straightforward as being either black or white. So far as I'm concerned, and this is to tooner as well, killing IS justified in certain cirumstances, but I suppose on that particular point, we will have to disagree. I agree, killing can be justified in certain circumstances. During a war anyone on the battlefield can be deemed an enemy combatant and has to accept that being on that battlefield taking up arms means they're at risk. But that's not what's happened here. In these circumstances the US are defining the battlefield as the whole planet and saying the justification for assassination need not be provided by them....actually it must be kept secret. How are we as individuals to know under which circumstances we will be killed if the US will not charge their victims with a crime or present evidence of their guilt? You said it yourself...it's "justified in certain circumstances"...these circumstances have to be be defined and met. The US are refusing to do that.

your ignorance of National Security issues is amazing. I realise you and one or two others perceive yourselves to be "scholarly" or whatever, but the President of the USA surrounds himself with people far more switched on than you, fortunately. He wouldn't take such advice from them lightly. You can bleat on as much as you like about the indignity of being left out of his circle that find out these things, but you aren't going to change the system. National security eh ? How to beat the whining clueless liberals. Fantastic I'll take that as a yes. If the president/military/police know what's best for us, why do the US bother with courts at all Leazes? Whole lot of expense for nothing following your logic. Should they be closed down? Since October 2001, of 775 Guantanamo detainees, 3 have been charged with crimes. If the intelligence is right 0.4% of the time that's good enough for you to go ahead and kill suspects? Something specific on the subject would be nice, rather than a generic personal attack without any facts to support it.

Why are the cups wobbling?

Still haven't watched the last episodes. Must get round to it. Probably says something about the shows lack of direction.

Uswitch venturing into the overseas property market?

Well, isn't that a shame. You are absolutely clueless HF, in your knowledge and awareness of the importance of National Security issues. I'm sure you haven't lived in the real world..... Aye, your trust in the infallibility of leaders shows up my naiveté in the political arena and no mistake. you've been reading the wrong books mate. Get into the real world. The same stock response in EVERY thread, no matter what the topic. Search for "real world" by poster "LeazesMag" returned 63 results If you're not going to explain why you think a leader needs to be able to kill citizens of his choice without providing any evidence of their crimes, I don't know what you get out of participating in the thread. Does having your ignorance exposed arouse you sexually or summat?