Man shot by police

[point]

Welcome to Debate Politics!

Hi! :smile:

By the way I am no native speaker. I hope I won't make too many mistakes in my posts...

 

[Busta]

Yes, the "war on terror" does stir up more terrorist violence. You could say that their cute little "Jihad" stirs up more U.S. violence.
Violence begets violence, right?

Though the invasion of Iraq could be argued as wrong, it was not illegal.
That is a sad fact that everyone needs to get past in order to be ready for what is coming.

 

[cnredd]

Hi! :smile:

By the way I am no native speaker. I hope I won't make too many mistakes in my posts...

Welcome to Debate Politics!

As long as your points come accross clearly, no one should critcize you if your comments are not grammatically or semantically perfect.

Have fun!

 

[Arch Enemy]

Point of the story:

If you are stopped comply otherwise be shot!

Here in NYC they are checking bags etc... if you don't like it take a cab.... screw you wacko's for crying out b/c its against your civil rights. The greater good is at stake and you have other options for travel.

If you act suspicious, you should be treated as such and appropriate action taken. Ignorace is bliss when your dead!

Sorry if this has already been said.

Checking bags aren't going to help lower the amount of casualties when a bomb blows up. The security causes lines and lines are formed by people, possibly many people.
Now if you were some freak wanting to kill as many people as you can in a suicide bomb attack, would you not just blow yourself up at the line?

Great.. now instead of suicide bombing attacks on subways, we'll have suicide bombing attacks at subway's security guards.

 

[Busta]

"Sorry if this has already been said.

Checking bags aren't going to help lower the amount of casualties when a bomb blows up. The security causes lines and lines are formed by people, possibly many people.
Now if you were some freak wanting to kill as many people as you can in a suicide bomb attack, would you not just blow yourself up at the line?

Great.. now instead of suicide bombing attacks on subways, we'll have suicide bombing attacks at subway's security guards."

Good point! Well said.

 

[Alastor]

from what I heard is that he had just tripped.
Apparently he was running from the undercover cops, and he had a real bulky coat on, and I don't know what the weather's like in London, but there's no way a non terrorist would be wearing a bulky coat now in Chicago!

That's crap and I don't even have to be in Chicago to know it. I'm in Denver, where we've had 100+ degree weather for the last 10 straight days and I've seen kids wearing trench coats in the mall. It's the fashion, especially for the "goths."

70 degrees? Come now. That's lower than most people keep their house temperatures set here for most of the year. Sure, it's rare, and it's usually a result of fashion choice rather than common sense, but it happens.

As it turns out the guy was indeed perfectly innocent and didn't even have a weapon, and had nothing to do with anything at all. I suspect that he may not have understood the language and got scared and bolted, and when he tripped they fired on him (which makes no sense, why not jump on him and restrain him?).

In any case, I agree with the statement that it will cause more violence, and ultimately it aggravates their already precarious situation in London.

Checking bags aren't going to help lower the amount of casualties when a bomb blows up. The security causes lines and lines are formed by people, possibly many people. Now if you were some freak wanting to kill as many people as you can in a suicide bomb attack, would you not just blow yourself up at the line?

Or the grocery store, or the gas station, or in a crowded public building that has a big lobby... Let's not forget that some of the 9-11 hijackers didn't even go through security. They went around it by having inside help that got them through the screening areas. Security only does any good if one has to walk through it - and as pointed out in the quote above, one need not go through it to cause fatalities. In fact, the lines it creates makes targeting large groups even easier.



On the tangent conversation of being apprehensive of police... I don't blame you. And I have been one before, and will be one again shortly (possibly - likely even). It's smart to be that way. Not all cops are good people, not all are bad people - why take the risk? Besides, I've seen cases where people that did absolutely nothing connected to what we were looking for got nailed just by giving a statement when they accidentally mentioned something else they did.

Here's an example:

In the military, I had two buddies that were standing a post. They'd been smoking clove cigarettes, I suppose to be cool and different. Well, we all know what cloves smell like, and they've got a unique scent to them. Apparently someone unfamiliar with cloves was near them, and thought it smelt of marijuana, and appropriately reported it.

The two guys said, "No, we weren't smoking pot. Yeah, sure, we'll take a pee test. We'll co-operate. Here's our statement, of course! We were on duty on our posts, and we stepped outside to have a smoke. We had cloves, so we smoked them. It wasn't pot."

And they did indeed pass the pee test. No problem-o, right?

Wrong: "We stepped outside to have a smoke."

BAM - Article fifteen and loss of a stripe to both of them for abandoning their post despite that they were in fact five feet from their post and were in complete control of the area they were guarding. No joke. They were there to guard an entry point, and they went to the entry point to smoke. It's not humanly possible for someone to get past them there. Yet, the fine print of the instructions states that they must remain within ten feet of their alarm systems and so forth - and they had to walk fifteen feet to reach the doors they could smoke at.

I kid you not.

Here's another:

Once, at the end of my military career, a supervisor of mine was under investigation over AWOL charges. I was shocked to find that the person that had gone AWOL was... me!

I had a TON of leave saved up. I had to use some of it or lose it. I worked the midnight shift, so my supervisor, flight sergeant and I did the paperwork and did what we always do; slipped it under the door of the appropriate person so they'd find it in the morning. I then went on leave.

For whatever reason, the paperwork never hit the system and I wasn't charged for leave. I left for two weeks. When I came back, my first shirt called me and told me to come in for a pee test. I was like, "Man... I'm feeling really lazy, and I got nailed the last three quarters in a row, shirt. I'm on leave, doesn't that get me off the hook?"

He checked, and I was not on leave according to his records. The guy also hated my supervisor and was out to get him. The next thing I know, I'm being asked to come in and write a statement regarding my AWOL status.

Having learned from my two friends above, I promptly declined to give a statement and asked for an attorney - although you can't actually do that in the military, but I did refuse to give a statement and told them I'd make one when I got council.

Had I given a statement I am 100% certain that my supervisor would have been fried for dereliction of duties; he'd have lost his 19.5 year career (he was due to retire in 6 months), his stripes, his retirement, and he'd have gone to jail for a few months at least. Technically, yeah, he should have put it in the box instead of under the door - but we didn't have a key to the office, and we'd always done it that way. None of us wanted to wait around an extra three hours to find someone to hand it to.

Because I did not give a statement they had to eventually let it drop. Had I given a statement, they'd have screwed my sup out of 19.5 years of honorable service through a war.

That's but two of many examples of what can happen. And it's not like the cops always have a choice, either. Once you write it, they have to act on it if they see it.

Never give a statement without a lawyer, even if you're innocent. Never agree to a polygraph test - especially if you're innocent. Don't say a damned word. JUST GET A LAWYER. Always. No exceptions.

Especially if you're innocent.

 

[point]

Welcome to Debate Politics!

As long as your points come accross clearly, no one should critcize you if your comments are not grammatically or semantically perfect.

Have fun!

Hi! :2wave:

Though it would be fine if you corrected my grammar or semantic mistakes because I want both to discuss and improve my English.

 

[cnredd]

Hi! :2wave:

Though it would be fine if you corrected my grammar or semantic mistakes because I want both to discuss and improve my English.

Then here is your first English lesson...

Conservatives=good

Liberals=bad

There will be a quiz....

 

[point]

Then here is your first English lesson...

Conservatives=good

Liberals=bad

There will be a quiz....

But actually I've learned something different. :shock:

Are you sure you are right? :mrgreen:

 

[cnredd]

But actually I've learned something different. :shock:

Are you sure you are right? :mrgreen:

I am sure. Here's lesson two...and you can research ANY post on this website for proof...

Conservatives=positive outlook

Liberals=negative outlook

Seriously, look at any comment made...The Liberals are the ones who attack...The Conservatives are the ones that defend.

Of course, I'm generalizing...you will find exceptions.

 

[Naughty Nurse]

I am sure. Here's lesson two...and you can research ANY post on this website for proof...

Conservatives=positive outlook

Liberals=negative outlook

Seriously, look at any comment made...The Liberals are the ones who attack...The Conservatives are the ones that defend.

Of course, I'm generalizing...you will find exceptions.

Fortunately Point appears to be far too intelligent to be fooled by your tactics.

Welcome, Point. Your English has been excellent so far, and your contribution very enjoyable.

 

[Urethra Franklin]

I am sure. Here's lesson two...and you can research ANY post on this website for proof...

Conservatives=positive outlook

Liberals=negative outlook

Seriously, look at any comment made...The Liberals are the ones who attack...The Conservatives are the ones that defend.

Of course, I'm generalizing...you will find exceptions.

Can you explain to us why your avatar appears to be the Christmas turd?
Is it related to the stuff you write in your posts?

 

[debate_junkie]

Can you explain to us why your avatar appears to be the Christmas turd?
Is it related to the stuff you write in your posts?

Mr Hanky (the christmas turd) was a beloved regular for a time on the show South Park. You'd have to watch to understand, I suppose.

 

[Urethra Franklin]

Mr Hanky (the christmas turd) was a beloved regular for a time on the show South Park. You'd have to watch to understand, I suppose.

Thank-you. Not being a big TV watcher, I've never seen South Park. I'm not even sure it airs in France.

 

[Urethra Franklin]

no one, I don't call the cops. With my experiences, with both cops and criminals, I'd take the criminals any day of the week. The crooks are just after money, while the cops are just trying to be cruel.

This is very sad.
I lived through a burglary in the UK and the police were bastards.
I also lived though a mugging and the police were wonderful.
Are there not good and bad cops?

 

[Calm2Chaos]

There are, I've met some cool cops, but sadly they're the vast minority.
Keep in mind that in my entire life I've only been arrested once, and that was for driving on a suspended license, and I was aquitted.
I have had MANY run ins with the police, even though only once have they proven any sort of justifiable cause for such run ins. I've been beaten, (for lack of a better word) tortured, abused, I've watched them beat my friends and taunt them as they cried while they bled on the sidewalk. All just for the hell of it.
I've never met a criminal who does **** that cruel just for the hell of it.

Then you haven't met many criminals. Papers are full of sadistis SOB's out there that just love to hurt people. My own expierence with polie seems to be the complete opposite. I have never been arrested, but I have had run in's with the police. I have never had a problem with them. Don't know why you seem to have such bad luck with them though

 

[Pacridge]

I am sure. Here's lesson two...and you can research ANY post on this website for proof...

Conservatives=positive outlook

Liberals=negative outlook

Seriously, look at any comment made...The Liberals are the ones who attack...The Conservatives are the ones that defend.

Of course, I'm generalizing...you will find exceptions.

Well that's complete BS. If it were true we wouldn't have threads like "liberals are sick!" "Liberalism is a mental disorder!"

 

[cnredd]

I know a lot more, and then petty weed and coke dealers, I know a lot of, and then most of my friends are users, to one degree or the other.

Please explain how you consider drug dealers "petty"...Is it the fact that these are ONLY people at the end of a pipeline that is illegal and destroys lives? They ONLY affect tens of people instead of thousands?

 

[Stinger]

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!
Just like the conservatives, lying to foreigners!
Just like "We know for a fact that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction"
HAHA! The truth hurts!

From the Dr. Kay's interim report
**************************************************************
We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and
significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United
Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. vities that ISG has discovered that should have been declared to the
UN......................
A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi
Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring
and suitable for continuing CBW research.


A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW
agents, that Iraqi officials working to prepare for UN inspections were
explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN.


Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's
home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons.


New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean
Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin
were not declared to the UN.


Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists' homes, that would have
been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and
electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS).


A line of UAVs not fully declared at an undeclared production facility
and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to
a range of 500 km, 350 km beyond the permissible limit.


Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only
for prohibited SCUD variant missiles, a capability that was maintained
at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists
have said they were told to conceal from the UN.


Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges
up to at least 1000 km - well beyond the 150 km range limit imposed by
the UN. Missiles of a 1000 km range would have allowed Iraq to threaten
targets through out the Middle East, including Ankara, Cairo, and Abu
Dhabi.


Clandestine attempts between late-1999 and 2002 to obtain from North
Korea technology related to 1,300 km range ballistic missiles --probably
the No Dong -- 300 km range anti-ship cruise missiles, and other
prohibited military equipment.

***************************************************

The only thing we didn't find were stockpiles of ready to go chemical and biological agents.

And as Kennth Timmerman report in Insight Magazine

"Douglas Hanson was a U.S. Army cavalry reconnaissance
officer for 20 years, and a veteran of Gulf War I. He
was an atomic demolitions munitions security officer and
a nuclear, biological and chemical defense officer. As a
civilian analyst in Iraq last summer, he worked for an
operations intelligence unit of the CPA in Iraq, and
later, with the newly formed Ministry of Science and
Technology, which was responsible for finding new,
nonlethal employment for Iraqi WMD scientists.........

But another reason for the media silence may stem from
the seemingly undramatic nature of the "finds" Hanson
and others have described. The materials that constitute
Saddam's chemical-weapons "stockpiles" look an awful lot
like pesticides, which they indeed resemble. "Pesticides
are the key elements in the chemical-agent arena,"
Hanson says. "In fact, the general pesticide chemical
formula (organophosphate) is the 'grandfather' of
modern-day nerve agents."

The United Nations was fully aware that Saddam had
established his chemical-weapons plants under the guise
of a permitted civilian chemical-industry
infrastructure. Plants inspected in the early 1990s as
CW production facilities had been set up to appear as if
they were producing pesticides - or in the case of a
giant plant near Fallujah, chlorine, which is used to
produce mustard gas.

When coalition forces entered Iraq, "huge warehouses and
caches of 'commercial and agricultural' chemicals were
seized and painstakingly tested by Army and Marine
chemical specialists," Hanson writes. "What was
surprising was how quickly the ISG refuted the findings
of our ground forces and how silent they have been on
the significance of these caches."

Caches of "commercial and agricultural" chemicals don't
match the expectation of "stockpiles" of chemical
weapons. But, in fact, that is precisely what they are.
"At a very minimum," Hanson tells Insight, "they were
storing the precursors to restart a chemical-warfare
program very quickly." Kay and Duelfer came to a similar
conclusion, telling Congress under oath that Saddam had
built new facilities and stockpiled the materials to
relaunch production of chemical and biological weapons
at a moment's notice.

At Karbala, U.S. troops stumbled upon 55-gallon drums of
pesticides at what appeared to be a very large
"agricultural supply" area, Hanson says. Some of the
drums were stored in a "camouflaged bunker complex" that
was shown to reporters - with unpleasant results. "More
than a dozen soldiers, a Knight-Ridder reporter, a CNN
cameraman, and two Iraqi POWs came down with symptoms
consistent with exposure to a nerve agent," Hanson says.
"But later ISG tests resulted in a proclamation of
negative, end of story, nothing to see here, etc., and
the earlier findings and injuries dissolved into
nonexistence. Left unexplained is the small matter of
the obvious pains taken to disguise the cache of
ostensibly legitimate pesticides. One wonders about the
advantage an agricultural-commodities business gains by
securing drums of pesticide in camouflaged bunkers 6
feet underground. The 'agricultural site' was also
colocated with a military ammunition dump - evidently
nothing more than a coincidence in the eyes of the ISG."

That wasn't the only significant find by coalition
troops of probable CW stockpiles, Hanson believes. Near
the northern Iraqi town of Bai'ji, where Saddam had
built a chemical-weapons plant known to the United
States from nearly 12 years of inspections, elements of
the 4th Infantry Division found 55-gallon drums
containing a substance identified through mass
spectrometry analysis as cyclosarin - a nerve agent.
Nearby were surface-to-surface and surface-to-air
missiles, gas masks and a mobile laboratory that could
have been used to mix chemicals at the site. "Of course,
later tests by the experts revealed that these were only
the ubiquitous pesticides that everybody was turning
up," Hanson says. "It seems Iraqi soldiers were obsessed
with keeping ammo dumps insect-free, according to the
reading of the evidence now enshrined by the
conventional wisdom that 'no WMD stockpiles have been
discovered.'"

At Taji - an Iraqi weapons complex as large as the
District of Columbia - U.S. combat units discovered more
"pesticides" stockpiled in specially built containers,
smaller in diameter but much longer than the standard
55-gallon drum. Hanson says he still recalls the
military sending digital images of the canisters to his
office, where his boss at the Ministry of Science and
Technology translated the Arabic-language markings.
"They were labeled as pesticides," he says. "Gee, you
sure have got a lot of pesticides stored in ammo dumps."

So to believe Saddam did not have his hands in WMD is shear folly.

 

[Alastor]

So to believe Saddam did not have his hands in WMD is shear folly.

That he wanted them is not in dispute. That he would likely have tried to get them again had we allowed him the chance (by lifting sanctions and returning Iraq to an autonomous entity) is not in dispute.

But that he had no WMD of any kind, not since the first Gulf War, is also not in dispute.

And any argument to the contrary, either implied or explicit, is shear folly.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

And as Kennth Timmerman report in Insight Magazine

A lovely old chestnut.

Here's the link for those of you who are interested

Investigative Report
Saddam's WMD Have Been Found
Post April 26, 2004
By Kenneth R. Timmerman


From the vaults:


This craptacular piece again?

Let's examine this here and then just link back to it the next time it comes up to save the effort.

First, before I begin, I hope that you're not being disingenuous with this post. I hope that you really think the WMDs have been found.

"Key assertions by the intelligence community that were widely judged in the media and by critics of President George W. Bush as having been false are turning out to have been true after all."
​

Most of these 'key assertions' weren't by members of the Intelligence Community, which is a specific set of organizations, but rather by politicans and their political appointees.

"In virtually every case - chemical, biological, nuclear and ballistic missiles - the United States has found the weapons and the programs that the Iraqi dictator successfully concealed for 12 years from U.N. weapons inspectors"
​

No relevant chemical weapons have been found, (yes, I know about the handful of pre-Gulf War remnants), no biological weapons have been found, (yes, I know about the 'reference strains' of botulism, which is naturally occuring in most of the world), it's not a stockpile of the microbes, nor is it a weapon, the toxin has to be processed out of large quantities of microbes to make a weapon), no nuclear weapons have been found, (not even a nuclear program).
So no chemical weapons, no biological weapons, and no nuclear weapons- that leaves just the missiles.
So, Mr. Timmerman belives that 1 out of four is accurately characterized as 'virtually every case.'
I'd bet that if, as a child, Mr. Timmerman came home from school and told his mom that he'd gotten 'virtually every' answer on his test right and she looked at the test and saw that he'd only asnwered 25% of the questions correctly, (that's 75% wrong for those of you playing along at home), he'd get his ass beat for lying.
I'm not saying that he's a liar, mind you, just that I'd bet his mom would in the situation described.

Stinger if you child pulled this sort of stunt, (calling 25% 'virtually every case') would you consider that honesty?

"hundreds of cases of activities that were prohibited"
​

Activities does not equal weapons. Therefore finding 'activities' does not equal finding weapons. I hope that's all the commentary necessary for this one.

"But while the president's critics and the media might plausibly hide behind ambiguity and a lack of sensational looking finds for not reporting some discoveries, in the case of Saddam's ballistic-missile programs they have no excuse for their silence"
​

Actually the missiles were reported. If you'll recall, there was even a shipment of missiles that Iraq paid NK for but couldn't get delivered because NK didn't want to risk breaking the sanctions.

"violating United Nations resolutions"
​

Violating United Nations resolutions does not equal weapons. Therefore finding violations does not equal finding weapons. I hope that's all the commentary necessary for this one too.

New research on BW-applicable agents, brucella and Congo-Crimean hemorrhagic fever
​

Notice the use of the phrase "BW-applicable agents"? That's because these weren't research into BW weapons. Both of these are indigenous to Iraq and have to be dealt with by the health officals there.
And, of course, research does not equal weapons.

continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin that were not declared to the United Nations
​

I don't know what is meant by 'work,' but if it's anything like the missile 'designs' on the back of notebook paper...
And, of course, 'work' does not equal weapons.

A line of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), or drones, "not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 kilometers [311 miles], 350 kilometers [217 miles] beyond the permissible limit."
​

Again, these are not weapons. Nor, according to the USAF, are they capable of being weapons delivery systems. They were for recon.

"huge warehouses and caches of 'commercial and agricultural'
​

From export.gov "Iraq has abundant resources of land and water, which makes agriculture one of the largest sectors of the country’s economy"

As I go on I realize that the dearth of actual weapons mentioned in the article is sad and depressing.
Mr. Timmerman is either very confused as to what the word weapon means, or he's hoping that his readers are.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

From the Dr. Kay's interim report
The only thing we didn't find were stockpiles of ready to go chemical and biological agents.

Oh, weapons. The only thing we didn't find were weapons. I see.

 

[cnredd]

The thing I always hate about the WMD thing is that some people don't understand that we could not afford to have Saddam hang around; weapons or not...I recall the Dulfer Report saying that Saddam had everything BUT weapons stockpiles. He had the recipes, the scientists, the infrastructure, and the intent to build WMD once the sanctions were lifted. And thanks to his Oil-for-Food bribes, the sanctions were being eroded in the UN Security Council every year. Dulfer concluded that Saddam was actually more dangerous than we had anticipated before the war.

 

[Pacridge]

The thing I always hate about the WMD thing is that some people don't understand that we could not afford to have Saddam hang around; weapons or not...I recall the Dulfer Report saying that Saddam had everything BUT weapons stockpiles. He had the recipes, the scientists, the infrastructure, and the intent to build WMD once the sanctions were lifted. And thanks to his Oil-for-Food bribes, the sanctions were being eroded in the UN Security Council every year. Dulfer concluded that Saddam was actually more dangerous than we had anticipated before the war.

According to Team Bush Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Not only did he have stockpiles of them we knew exactly where they were. It was a slam dunk. The Dulfer report states Saddam clearly did not have stockpiles of WMDs. So how could he be more dangerous without them then with them? I'm completely lost on that logic.

If your conclusion is/was that Saddam needed to be removed whether he had the WMD's or not, I can accept your opinion and can understand your reasoning. I don't agree with it, but I understand it. But Team Bush clearly made the WMD's issue the focal point of his argument for going to war. And it's now clear that Saddam did not have stockpiles of WMDs. So team Bush was just plain wrong. It's a pretty big issue to be wrong about, isn't it? Now whether he knew he was wrong is another issue altogether. And I honestly have no idea what he knew or what he believed.

 

[cnredd]

If your conclusion is/was that Saddam needed to be removed whether he had the WMD's or not, I can accept your opinion and can understand your reasoning. I don't agree with it, but I understand it. But Team Bush clearly made the WMD's issue the focal point of his argument for going to war. And it's now clear that Saddam did not have stockpiles of WMDs. So team Bush was just plain wrong. It's a pretty big issue to be wrong about, isn't it? Now whether he knew he was wrong is another issue altogether. And I honestly have no idea what he knew or what he believed.

Firstly, thank you for the above statement in bold...

I wrote this to prohibit(inhibit? stop? counter?) posts like this...

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!
Just like the conservatives, lying to foreigners!
Just like "We know for a fact that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction"
HAHA! The truth hurts!

EVEN if they believe we should be there anyway, it's the one thing that some people hang their hats on because of their hatred of GWB.

Me - "Tough luck for them Phillies tonight, eh?
Certain Libs - "No WMDs!!!!"
Me - "Should I bring an umbrella to work tomorrow?"
Certain Libs - "No WMDs!!!!"
Me - "Call 911...I'm having chest pains..."
Certain Libs - "No WMDs!!!!"

See how tiresome that can get day after day after day after day. WTF do they want from me? Notarized apology?

If you care, here's my thoughts...there were two of them...

1)Saddam was a prick with WMDs who should be removed...

2)Saddam was a prick without WMDs who should be removed...

Notice the two common denominators?