Steely Dan

flying, on Yesterday, 11:51 , said:

I do not agree with you on much, but this is the exception. Without victory, telling the enemy when your troops will be withdrawing in advance is the height of stupidity.

folium, on Yesterday, 10:17 , said:

The French saw a minimal amount of action in Afghanistan  As such, they have a moral responsibility to support the 3 allies that bore the brunt of action in AFghanistan during the draw down.  Sentiment is very strong in the USA, UK and Canada to withdraw all troops, yet these governments are honouring their commitments to ensure an effective transition. The French  retreat is sheer cowardice and an attempt to curry favour with certain vocal interest groups in France.  For the record, the death toll for the 3  countries that carried the bulk of fighting were as follows; United States 1,886, UK 395 and Canada 158.
Yes, it is tragic that 86 French soldiers died in Afghanistan, but it is telling that many other countries paid a much higher price per contingent. Poland, Australia, Denmark, the Nederlands all took it harder (as a % of personnel)  than the French and yet none of these countries abandoned their allies. The French, Italians and Germans sought out the least dangerous areas to place their personnel and left the nasty zones of Kandahar to the UK, Canada and USA. Kandahar was the killing zone and the French wouldn't go there. The Australians  were  not afraid of Kandahar and provided their special ops teams to provide cover to the Canadian and US forces stationed there, while the French and some other Europeans stayed safe.  And now the French leave. They won't even provide  protection for NGOs. This speaks volumes.
I am sorry, but I have absolutely no use for the current French government and its position on this matter. As usual, the responsibility for keeping  the EU safe in future  will once again fall upon the weary shoulders of the UK,  Nederlands and Denmark. It is so typical. Some things never change. I suppose when  the national psyche is influenced by standing up to totalitarian bullies in the past, it influences the political policies of future generations.

How about a generic warning that life is filled with danger and death is inevitable?

Quote

I am surprised it is such a big deal with voters. They should have been swayed to vote against Obama by his record alone.

GentlemanJim, on 2012-05-24 15:49:24, said:

Your own link from The Guardian says this:

Dumfries and Galloway police said only a court could properly consider this material, and supported previous criticism of Megrahi's decision to release his appeal papers by Elish Angiolini, the lord advocate. "We will not be taking part in any discussion or debate concerning the selective publications made by Mr Megrahi," a statement said.

"We have nothing more to add other than to echo the lord advocate's recent comments pointing out that Mr Megrahi was convicted unanimously by three senior judges and his conviction was upheld unanimously by five judges, in an appeal court presided over by the lord justice general, Scotland's most senior judge. Mr Megrahi remains convicted of the worst terrorist atrocity in UK history."

In short, his conviction stands.

Your second link is nothing more than a regurgitation of the American Buddha link previously provided in post number 26.

Please permit me to quote one of our learned members, Mr. Folium, in another thread.  It rather sums up my feelings about these links.
____________________________________________________

"To be uber-pretentious I could just have quoted the late Christopher Hitchens:
"that which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence".

http://www.thaivisa....on/page__st__25

____________________________________________________

davehowden, on 2012-05-23 15:13:01, said:

i wish not as rather like Thailand's "war on drugs" killed many people with nothing/little to do with drugs, the Iranian love of capital punishment enables it to sweep up minorities (Afghans & Sunnis) and political opponents and dispose of them.

Also the Iranians are being assisted by other nations in their zealous treatment of "drug traffickers", see below:

"In March 2011, as Iran was ramping up its executions, the UN drug agency adopted a multilateral technical co-operation programme “to support national efforts on drugs and crime by promoting United Nations standards and international best practices”. The European commission, European Union member states and several other governments including Japan, Norway, Australia and Canada, provide money, technical assistance and legislative support to Iran under the programme."

Yet more evidence that this ridiculous "war on drugs" is utterly futile and causes far too much grief, at far too high a price in lives and capital, and only serves to undermine countries across the world. Time for a rethink....

Steely Dan, on 2012-05-22 12:58:27, said:

Yes, selectivity is a strange beast to be sure. Yesterday more than 90 young men were killed in Yemen by an Al Qaida terrorist bomb, with the predictable howls of condemnation from the confused usual suspects, Obama, Clinton, Hague etc. Al Qaida terrorists in Yemen = bad, Al Qaida terrorists in Libya and Syria = good.

tlansford, on 2012-05-21 13:35:14, said:

So you reckon that the Socialist Government In the UK in the 70s was a success ?, I suggest you Google up the "Winter of discontent" were Inflation Spiked at 26.9% and averaged 16,were the top layer  Income tax was 97% which led to "the brain drain" ,were the dead were not buried, were there was thousands of tonnes of rotting garbage left uncollected ,were pickets stood outside hospitals and in many cases only emergency's were admitted ,  were the IMF refused to lend us any more money ,this culminated in the Labour party being wiped out at the GE thanks in no part to the left wing Unions .

I don't want my government to tell individuals how they must think, that they must accept every different lifestyle/religion out there. Everybody is at least a little prejudiced against somebody. BUT, just because a government doesn't tell you how to think, doesn't mean they shouldn't protect their citizens from people who want to ACT  on their prejudices. I have no problem with the USA telling countries that we give or lend money to that we are going to hold back funds as long as they turn a blind eye to physical harm caused to their citizens out of some silly prejudice. What if stoning people to death is part of their culture? Reply that it is a part of our culture not to give money to support people who don't protect their own. If a country wants to throw people in jail for being gay, don't give them any money. I have no problem with that.

Jingthing, on 2012-05-20 05:57:50, said:

To compare Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation which was an executive order he issued freeing over 3 million slaves to Obama saying that while he is personally for same sex marriage but will leave it to the States to decide is ridiculous and even offensive. Obama won't even make it part of his party's platform in the upcoming election, but instead will leave it to someone else to decide. Lincoln and Obama couldn't be more different.

Jingthing, on 2012-05-20 03:38:16, said:

Uh, the family lawyer admitted it in TV yesterday morning.

You miss my point.  The point is DA made a valid decision and that should be the end of it.  I don't judge quilt or innocence, only whether evidence supported DA's decision and whether appoint of independent professor undermined our judicial process.

Here is where you are naive.  The real world is not like the OJ trial.  9 times out of 10 prosecution can get a conviction regardless if the evidence.

Zimmerman could never get a fair trial.  The media circus has seen to that.  No juror pool in Florida will be untainted and the kind if people who say they will be impartial regardless of what they heard are the kinds that will have an agenda and seek attention.

Everytime we get a case that gets absorbed in a media frenzy, we get crazy verdicts.  After Casey Anthony and all of the death threats to jurors and defendant after not guilty verdict, it will be interesting to see what a jury's mentality will be in same area in a more publically charged trial.

This is no longer about the case or the parties.  Heaven help us if not guilty.  That could lead to more riots ala LA riots.

They will continue to flock in whilst the government is standing there with all the goodies, free housing, jobs, medical all the things that the Australians have to work for and most could only dream of.  Everything thing is free for those that want to gatecrash and hey the aussie taxpayer will even pay for the phone call back home to all the mates to come over and live like parasites

Just the Obama trying to insure the Muslim Brotherhood gets in power as soon as possible.

Jingthing, on 2012-05-17 17:35:10, said:

I don't suppose you can provide a link to a website or to a TV post showing that the above isn't just part of your vivid imagination? Because I have NEVER heard that from anywhere. It is becoming clear that as the evidence slowly comes to light, everything you have been raving about since March is all very likely BS. You invested yourself so deep in those lies that you must start making things up to convince yourself that you weren't taken in by the lowlifes using this tragedy to further their own agenda.

Jingthing, on 2012-05-17 12:59:06, said:

You are the one being disingenuous. I even made the original sentence about supporters in bold red text and you still left out the important part.

Quote

People support him today not because he shot and killed someone and got away with it. They support him because he himself is a victim of a race-baiting witch hunt by the usual suspects and their useful idiots.