Yep - thumb your nose at the world and defy the Geneva Convention

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

If you want to spread lies, you need to go back to the board where that happens frequently.

In the meantime, you should take this opportunity to educate your ignorant self and actually READ the article rather than inventing words that don't even exist in it.

Experts fear 'endless' terror war
Analysts say al-Qaida is mutating into a global insurgency

New York and Washington. Bali, Riyadh, Istanbul, Madrid. And now London.

When will it end? Where will it all lead?

The experts aren�t encouraged. One prominent terrorism researcher sees the prospect of �endless� war. Adds the man who tracked Osama bin Laden for the CIA, �I don�t think it�s even started yet.�

An Associated Press survey of longtime students of international terrorism finds them ever more convinced, in the aftermath of London�s bloody Thursday, that the world has entered a long siege in a new kind of war. They believe that al-Qaida is mutating into a global insurgency, a possible prototype for other 21st-century movements, technologically astute, almost leaderless. And the way out is far from clear.

In fact, says Michael Scheuer, the ex-CIA analyst, rather than move toward solutions, the United States took a big step backward by invading Iraq.

'Self-sustaining' jihad
Now, he said, �we�re at the point where jihad is self-sustaining,� where Islamic �holy warriors� in Iraq fight America with or without allegiance to al-Qaida�s bin Laden.

The cold statistics of a RAND Corp. database show the impact of the explosion of violence in Iraq: The 5,362 deaths from terrorism worldwide between March 2004 and March 2005 were almost double the total for the same 12-month period before the 2003 U.S. invasion.

Thursday�s attacks on London�s transit system mirrored last year�s bombings of Madrid commuter trains, and both point to an al-Qaida evolving into a movement whose isolated leaders offer video or Internet inspiration � but little more � to local �jihadists� who carry out the strikes.

Although no arrests have been made in the London attacks, a group using al-Qaida�s name made a claim of responsibility, otherwise unconfirmed. Experts say the bombings bore hallmarks of al-Qaida.

The movement�s evolution �has given rise to a �virtual network� that is extremely adaptable,� said Jonathan Stevenson, of the International Institute for Strategic Studies� Washington office.

The movement adapted, for example, by switching from targeting aviation, where security was reinforced after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, to the �softer� targets of mass transit.

Such compartmentalized groupings, in touch electronically but with little central control, �are going to be a prototype for understanding where terrorist movements are going in the 21st century,� said the University of North Carolina�s Cynthia Combs, co-author of a terrorism encyclopedia.

Cycle of recruitment
Combs said the so-called Earth and Animal Liberation fronts in the United States are examples � if less lethal ones � of �leaderless� militant movements based on isolated cells. She also said it�s not unrealistic that another American example � far-right �militia� cells � might make common cause someday with foreign terrorists against the U.S. government.

Bruce Hoffman, the veteran RAND Corp. specialist who fears an �endless war,� dismisses talk of al-Qaida�s �back� having been �broken� by the capture of some leaders.

�From the terrorists� point of view, it seems they have calculated they need to do just one significant terrorist attack a year in another capital, and it regenerates the same fear and anxieties,� said Hoffman, who was an adviser to the U.S. occupation in Iraq.

What should be broken, he said, is the cycle of terrorist recruitment through the generations. �Here you come to the main challenge.�

He and most of the other half-dozen experts said the world�s richer powers must address �underlying causes� � lessen the appeal of radicalism by improving economies, political rights and education in Arab and Muslim countries.

Combs cited bin Laden�s use of Afghanistan as his 1990s headquarters. �If we hadn�t been ignoring Afghanistan and instead offered real assistance, would it have become a base for bin Laden?� she asked.

'Depressing' outlook
Not all agree this is an answer. Stephen Sloan, another veteran scholar in the field, prescribes stoicism.

The American, British and other target publics must give their intelligence and police agencies time to close ranks globally and crush the challenge, said Sloan, of the University of Central Florida.

�The public has to have the resolve to face the reality there will be other incidents,� he said.

Scheuer, who headed the CIA�s bin Laden unit for nine years, sees a different way out � through U.S. foreign policy. He said he resigned last November to expose the U.S. leadership�s �willful blindness� to what needs to be done: withdraw the U.S. military from the Mideast, end �unqualified support� for Israel, sever close ties to Arab oil-state �tyrannies.�

He acknowledged such actions aren�t likely soon, but said his longtime subject bin Laden will �make us bleed enough to get our attention.� Ultimately, he said, �his goal is to destroy the Arab monarchies.�

For James Kirkhope, the outlook is �depressing.�

His Washington consultancy, Terrorism Research Center, sometimes �red-teams� for U.S. authorities, playing a role in exercises, thinking like terrorist leaders. That thinking increasingly seems focused on a struggle for Islamic supremacy lasting hundreds of years, he said.

And for the moment they just �want to be kept on our radar screen,� Kirkhope said. For all the terror and carnage, he said, last week�s London attacks carried a simple message: �We�re still around.�

Democrats defy Pelosi, elect Hoyer House leader
Thu Nov 16, 2006 12:01 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A week after winning back control of the U.S. Congress, divided Democrats in the House defied incoming speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday and elected Steny Hoyer to be majority leader, a Democratic Party aide said.

Pelosi, a California liberal, had endorsed Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, who helped lead the charge against the Iraq war that was a key factor in races for the House of Representatives and the Senate.

But Democrats embraced Hoyer, a Maryland moderate who has been Pelosi's deputy while she served the past three years as minority leader. The two have had a somewhat strained relationship.

Pelosi, as expected, was officially nominated to be the first woman speaker of the House.

You may remember the incident when the war first started and a soldier threw a grenade into a tent killing several other soldiers, including, I believe an officer. This lovely show of support for the soldiers was on display at that convention.

Have you been watching the Democrat convention and what do you think so far? I watched it last night. Lots of commentaries that were a little boring. I will definitely NOT watch when both Hillary & Bill speak (they will have nothing interesting to hear), but I will watch everything else. Loved the tribute to Kennedy. His health condition is tragic. He's done so much good while in the senate. Also found Michelle to be a wonderful speaker and a very good hearted person. She grew up and was raised similar to my beliefs and how I was raised. She knows the struggles we Americans face every day. I think Barack and Michelle are just a couple of very down to earth, well grounded individuals and their daughters are simply adorable.

On the republican side I am equally anxious to watch that convention. I need to hear Cindy McCain talk before I can decide what kind of a person I think she is. I want to hear about her and John McCain's story and what their family is like.

Tired of attack politics? Don't need reporters telling you what you just saw or what to think about it? Want a one-on-one convention experience? Want to digest the content without the interference of disconcerting and distracting commentary? Want to be in charge of deciding what is and what is not pertinent during the course of the conventions? Do anchors and networks promoting their own hidden agendas get under your skin as they invent issues of no consequence, discount messages of great importance and try to stir up conflict? Do you find most coverage obnoxious, rude and insulting to your intelligence? Does their reporting look and sound like make believe? Do you think our candidates, conventions, parties, issues, policies and political process deserve more dignity than a big-top circus/carnival presentation?

because I was polite to someone, chose to give one of the "nice" ones the benefit of the doubt while finding posts like yours uninformative, childish and a pure waste of keystrokes?

I agree, given the never-ending bitterness and hatefulness you have, it will all come back to bite you in the butt some day. One usually gets back what they give.

Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA) has alleged in a letter to White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card that President Bush signed a version of the Budget Reconciliation Act that, in effect, did not pass the House of Representatives.

Further, Waxman says there is reason to believe that the Speaker of the House called President Bush before he signed the law, and alerted him that the version he was about to sign differed from the one that actually passed the House. If true, this would put the President in willful violation of the U.S. Constitution.

On February 8, 2006, President Bush signed into law a version of the Deficit Reduction Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 2005 that was different in substance from the version that passed the U.S. House of Representatives. Legal scholars have advised me that the substantive differences between the versions - which involve $2 billion in federal spending - mean that this bill did not meet the fundamental constitutional requirement that both Houses of Congress must pass any legislation signed into law by the President.

I am writing to learn what the President and his staff knew about this constitutional defect at the time the President signed the legislation.

Detailed background about the legislation and its constitutional defects are contained in a letter I sent last month to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, which I have enclosed with this letter.[1] In summary, the House-passed version of the legislation required the Medicare program to lease durable medical equipment, such as wheelchairs, for seniors and other beneficiaries for up to 36 months, while the version of the legislation signed by the President limited the duration of these leases to just 13 months. As the Congressional Budget Office reported, this seemingly small change from 36 months to 13 months has a disproportionately large budgetary impact, cutting Medicare outlays by $2 billion over the next five years.[2]

I understand that a call was made to the White House before the legislation was signed by the President advising the White House of the differences between the bills and seeking advice about how to proceed. My understanding is that the call was made either by the Speaker of the House to the President or by the senior staff of the Speaker to the senior staff of the President.

I would like to know whether my understanding is correct. If it is, the implications are serious.

The Presentment Clause of the U.S. Constitution states that before a bill can become law, it must be passed by both Houses of Congress.[3] When the President took the oath of office, he swore to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, which includes the Presentment Clause. If the President signed the Reconciliation Act knowing its constitutional infirmity, he would in effect be placing himself above the Constitution.

I do not raise this issue lightly. Given the gravity of the matter and the unusual circumstances surrounding the Reconciliation Act, Congress and the public need a straightforward explanation of what the President and his staff knew on February 8, when the legislation was signed into law.

[1] See Letter from Rep. Henry A. Waxman to Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (Feb. 14, 2006).

[2] See Letter from CBO Acting Director Donald Marron to Rep. John M. Spratt, Jr. (Feb. 13, 2006).

is this country coming to????? For goodness sake! I did not vote for Obama, but the man is human. I was nervous. Good grief!!! He is about to take a very big step in his life with responsibility that most of us in our right minds would not take. He looked nervous and excited to me coming towards the steps, and I am sure he was very nervous when he was being sworn in. I wish you people would just grow up.

Many of you sound like high school girls - - did you see Michelle's dress.... blah, blah, blah..... Bush had an embarrassed look on his face..... blah, blah, blah.....

have to be politically correct at all times. Many people are sensitive about their children with disabilities. I could see where his comment could be offensive. However, it does not personally offend me and I have an autistic son myself.

I think a lot of people need to simmer down. Yes, it was a bad joke and he probably should not have said it, but his main point was that he sucks at bowling....nothing more.

Political correctness has really hurt our country. Any time someone says anything about color, sex, or race.....certain people will jump up and scream about it. Being the president, you are under a much bigger magnifying glass.

It is my opinion that he probably shouldn't have said it....but it isn't the end of the world. However, I'm sure if this had been Bush's goof.....the liberal media and dems would all be screaming about it.

this going to boost the economy? Joe Biden said yesterday that he would tell his family not to go anywhere in confined spaces like airplanes, subways, etc. The White House had to back peddle and rephrase what he said but I personally agree with Biden. You won't see me flying anywhere, etc. until I know for sure how serious this is. Less people are flying. No one is flying to Mexico. Do you know how devastating this will be to airlines, etc. if more and more people don't fly because of this? The airlines are already hurting.

Blame Mexico? It is true that this started in Mexico, but things happen. I don't hate Mexicans. I'm just tired of paying for illegal ones. I don't blame them for this flu. It could have started anywhere, etc. and as much as people travel...something like this was bound to happen some time.

I think your post sounds more like a conspiracy theory and I don't get into those. Besides, we have no vaccine for this. Money may have been given for research into a new flu vaccine but there is currently no vaccine for swine flu. So I really don't see where you get that we got a vaccine and now all of sudden....boom....everyone has the swine flu.

This is something that cannot be blamed on the current administration. I personally don't like the idea of Obama having been in Mexico with this all going on but we didn't know at the time. I personally feel that Obama has handled this swine flu thing well. He has tried to be informative yet to keep people from panicking at the same time. I personally do not feel that this is something we can hold over Obama by saying he hasn't kept us safe because the swine flu is in the US. I think that is just insane to say. Besides, the normal flu strain kills thousands of Americans each year and no one thinks a thing about that.