NorthSideSox72 Posted January 25, 2010 Share Posted January 25, 2010 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 25, 2010 -> 02:16 PM) Just to change topics a bit, I get the feeling, between this attack, the general sense of things overseas, and the Brits raising their terror alert level without discussing why, that there's at least a belief that something big is in the works for the near future. The Pentagon has literally said that is the case. Not really a secret. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted January 25, 2010 Share Posted January 25, 2010 Something big happened in Baghdad today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 25, 2010 Author Share Posted January 25, 2010 QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 25, 2010 -> 03:26 PM) Something big happened in Baghdad today. That's only really big based on the last 12 months standard. That's puny compared to the last 5 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted January 27, 2010 Share Posted January 27, 2010 (edited) QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 24, 2010 -> 01:06 PM) So about this not really being Al Qaeda... http://nwitimes.com/news/world/article_e66..._medium=twitter It's inappropriate for me to comment in too much detail about this specific incident, but like I said earlier in the thread, just because someone claims they did something on behalf of al-Qaida doesn't mean they are actually al-Qaida, and just because they claim credit for something doesn't mean they directed it (hell, they believe they single-handedly caused the subprime mortgage crisis and that they're locked into an eternal struggle with our civilization, and they're on the right side of us and our civilization is in decline, so take their more grand claims with a grain of salt). There's different layers of al-Qaida and then there's a whole bunch of wannabes out there. Now, I'm not saying whether or not Great Balls of Fire was actually working for al-Qaida, but everything I said in the previous paragraph should be considered in all circumstances. Besides, we shouldn't really be getting too hung up on what basically amounts to petty details. I personally believe UBL himself doesn't even really matter, in terms of the global jihadist movement. He's not even close to what he was 10 years ago. Edited January 27, 2010 by lostfan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted January 27, 2010 Share Posted January 27, 2010 QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 26, 2010 -> 06:56 PM) It's inappropriate for me to comment in too much detail about this specific incident, but like I said earlier in the thread, just because someone claims they did something on behalf of al-Qaida doesn't mean they are actually al-Qaida, and just because they claim credit for something doesn't mean they directed it (hell, they believe they single-handedly caused the subprime mortgage crisis and that they're locked into an eternal struggle with our civilization, and they're on the right side of us and our civilization is in decline, so take their more grand claims with a grain of salt). There's different layers of al-Qaida and then there's a whole bunch of wannabes out there. Now, I'm not saying whether or not Great Balls of Fire was actually working for al-Qaida, but everything I said in the previous paragraph should be considered in all circumstances. Besides, we shouldn't really be getting too hung up on what basically amounts to petty details. I personally believe UBL himself doesn't even really matter, in terms of the global jihadist movement. He's not even close to what he was 10 years ago. Awesome. Thank you for the rest of the post, too. We've got two sources of information here: the US intelligence agency and (supposedly) Osama Bin Laden. I'm not going to give credibility to either of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted January 27, 2010 Share Posted January 27, 2010 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 26, 2010 -> 08:45 PM) Awesome. Thank you for the rest of the post, too. We've got two sources of information here: the US intelligence agency and (supposedly) Osama Bin Laden. I'm not going to give credibility to either of them. lol, figured you'd like that. We had a US attorney in today talking to us about prosecuting terrorists (summary of what he said: there is almost no black and white and there's tons of shades of grey and different reasons for each shade being what it is) and he was saying how, as a prosecutor, he doesn't care if Mutallab was Mirandized or if he loses admissions of guilt in court because he got caught red-handed. Then he stopped and said "well, actually it was another body part, but..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted January 27, 2010 Share Posted January 27, 2010 QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 27, 2010 -> 01:56 AM) It's inappropriate for me to comment in too much detail about this specific incident, but like I said earlier in the thread, just because someone claims they did something on behalf of al-Qaida doesn't mean they are actually al-Qaida, and just because they claim credit for something doesn't mean they directed it (hell, they believe they single-handedly caused the subprime mortgage crisis and that they're locked into an eternal struggle with our civilization, and they're on the right side of us and our civilization is in decline, so take their more grand claims with a grain of salt). There's different layers of al-Qaida and then there's a whole bunch of wannabes out there. Now, I'm not saying whether or not Great Balls of Fire was actually working for al-Qaida, but everything I said in the previous paragraph should be considered in all circumstances. Besides, we shouldn't really be getting too hung up on what basically amounts to petty details. I personally believe UBL himself doesn't even really matter, in terms of the global jihadist movement. He's not even close to what he was 10 years ago. UBL is like tom cruise Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 4, 2010 Author Share Posted February 4, 2010 This is sorta a remarkable storyline presented here from ABC. The Administration lately is running with this basic premise, to counter the people who say that the guy should not be tried by our judicial system or that we should have started electrocuting his balls. Their argument is that the guy has been talking and providing intelligence without being tortured. How is that happening? Well, for starters, its happening because they got his family involved and let them work with him. Why was his family willing to get involved to help the U.S. government? Because his family believed he would be treated fairly by the DOJ and not tortured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted February 4, 2010 Share Posted February 4, 2010 it's like in the wire season 2 or 3 when dude was gonna snitch and then they brought his momma in to talk him out of it. Except it's the opposite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cknolls Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 Rumors flying all over the place as to what Iran will do on Thurs. I have heard anything from announcing that they raised their uranium enrichment to 20% to seizing the British Embassy, to the latest from Debka.com, that there will coordinated attacks on the French, Italian, and Dutch embassies by Basijj militia dressed in civilian clothes. Maybe get long a little USO in case something happens. It certainly cannot hurt and maybe we make a few shekels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 I find something ethically wrong with trying to make a buck on a situation like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cknolls Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 9, 2010 -> 12:44 PM) I find something ethically wrong with trying to make a buck on a situation like that. LMAO!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 9, 2010 -> 12:44 PM) I find something ethically wrong with trying to make a buck on a situation like that. So... you think people should only be allowed to make bets on markets going up? Doesn't really work as a model. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 (edited) No, but I find that different than "betting" on an Iranian revolution and likely bloodshed to make yourself wealthier while providing no value to the actual situation. edit: I should have said morally wrong, not ethically. I do not believe it is an unethical or dishonest action. Edited February 9, 2010 by StrangeSox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 9, 2010 Author Share Posted February 9, 2010 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 9, 2010 -> 02:00 PM) So... you think people should only be allowed to make bets on markets going up? Doesn't really work as a model. Didn't the banks keep trying to ban short selling on bank stocks in late 2008? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 9, 2010 -> 01:01 PM) No, but I find that different than "betting" on an Iranian revolution and likely bloodshed to make yourself wealthier while providing no value to the actual situation. edit: I should have said morally wrong, not ethically. I do not believe it is an unethical or dishonest action. I thought you were responding to me about the housing markets thing - my bad. QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 9, 2010 -> 01:07 PM) Didn't the banks keep trying to ban short selling on bank stocks in late 2008? There was indeed a ban on shorts in certain financial stocks, for a few weeks, in 2008. That was a temporary move to help prevent the situation from getting worse. Do you seriously think that was a bad idea? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 What could go wrong? Claims on behalf of authorities that naked body scanner images are immediately destroyed after passengers pass through new x-ray backscatter devices have been proven fraudulent after it was revealed that naked images of Indian film star Shahrukh Khan were printed out and circulated by airport staff at Heathrow in London. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 9, 2010 Author Share Posted February 9, 2010 That was faster than I expected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 9, 2010 -> 04:53 PM) That was faster than I expected. Really? I am thinking once wide spread here, the Enquirer would have a photo in their next edition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 10, 2010 Author Share Posted February 10, 2010 QUOTE (Tex @ Feb 9, 2010 -> 06:26 PM) Really? I am thinking once wide spread here, the Enquirer would have a photo in their next edition. Exactly. They're not even close to widespread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts