BruceVC

Its not too violent GD? You didnt find yourself feeling uncomfortable with some of the adult themes ? Its okay to be sensitive

Deliberately obtuse or just uninformed? Neither, he is right. Gaddafi was captured hiding in some drain and then killed by his captives a short time later....he got what he deserved. And this was the Libyan rebels....not the West who killed him When you arm, finance and offer intelligence, air and electric communication support to people that did the deed can you really say that you weren't involved? Sure if that was what supported the Arab Spring you would be right....but the West didn't arm, finance or initially support the Arab Spring. It was an ideological movement created and spread by Muslims who wanted a more equitable society in many countries in the North Africa and the ME who were tired of being ruled by families or dictators for decades But Libya's rebels were armed and supported by west in their effort to depose Gaddafi. Even if rebellion itself was not started by west, said rebellion would have most likely failed without help from west. So it is quite dubious to say that west didn't play part in Gaddafi's death. Let take hypothetical and badly fitting metaphor to give an example that resembles situation distantly. Person has been beaten and otherwise subjugated by thier spouse and then they plan to get revenge against said spouse and ask help from their neighbor who then provides them a gun, and then goes and strikes said spouse unconscious and then leaves said person with a gun to sort things out with their unconscious spouse, who then shoot their spouse. Would you say that neighbor in question is innocent and didn't partake in said murder anyway, because said person was already planning to murder their spouse? I agree that in your example about the neighbor it would mean the neighbor has to take a degree of responsibility But I don't think that happened in Libya, the people of Libya consist of tribes and they have always been armed and had access to weapons. If you can find a link that suggests the West armed the Libyan rebels in the beginning that would be interesting but the West only provided air power. At the end the Libyan rebels fought hand to hand battles with the remaining military forces in Tripoli who were loyal to Gaddafi....they found Gaddafi and then executed him but there were no Western ground troops and the West couldn't exactly dictate to the Libyan rebels. So I don't see how the West can be blamed for a decision another military group made?

Deliberately obtuse or just uninformed? Neither, he is right. Gaddafi was captured hiding in some drain and then killed by his captives a short time later....he got what he deserved. And this was the Libyan rebels....not the West who killed him When you arm, finance and offer intelligence, air and electric communication support to people that did the deed can you really say that you weren't involved? Sure if that was what supported the Arab Spring you would be right....but the West didn't arm, finance or initially support the Arab Spring. It was an ideological movement created and spread by Muslims who wanted a more equitable society in many countries in the North Africa and the ME who were tired of being ruled by families or dictators for decades

Deliberately obtuse or just uninformed? Neither, he is right. Gaddafi was captured hiding in some drain and then killed by his captives a short time later....he got what he deserved. And this was the Libyan rebels....not the West who killed him

Not familiar with this. I have just realized I think in SA we use the wrong description of Eisbein, its a crsipy pork knuckle..its looks like this http://route24pub.co.za/?attachment_id=1051

Popular uprisings seems to happen everytime a head of state wants to stop trading oil in USD/Euro and starts buying oil. It's like a virus of some sort, it's not good for your health. //edit: Trump is throwing jabs at Rubio without saying a thing: Nah, the Arab Spring was responsible for the uprising in Libya...no need for illogical conspiracy theories today my friend

Isn't that the normal outcome for benevolent and thoughtful leaders who really care about there citizens

You realize that Clinton is still the heavy odds on favorite right? Clinton 8/11 Trump 5/2 Rubio 13/2 Sanders 12/1 If America picks this: Then they might as well nominate the next candidate straight out of hell Why did you like Gaddafi? You know he was a brutal dictator who ruled his country for 40 years and didn't have ONE Democratic election Facts about Libya under Gaddafi that you probably did not know Facts you probably do not know about Libya under Muammar Gaddafi: • There are no electricity bills in Libya; electricity is free … for all its citizens. • There is no interest on loans, banks in Libya are state-owned and loans given to all its citizens at 0% interest by law. • If a Libyan is unable to find employment after graduation, the state pays the average salary of the profession as if he or she is employed until employment is found. • Should Libyans want to take up a farming career, they receive farm land, a house, equipment, seed and livestock to kick start their farms – all for free. • Gaddafi carried out the world’s largest irrigation project, known as the Great Man-Made River project, to make water readily available throughout the desert country. • A home considered a human right in Libya. (In Qaddafi’s Green Book it states: “The house is a basic need of both the individual and the family, therefore it should not be owned by others.”) • All newlyweds in Libya receive 60,000 Dinar (US$ 50,000 ) by the government to buy their first apartment so to help start a family. • A portion of Libyan oil sales is credited directly to the bank accounts of all Libyan citizens. • A mother who gives birth to a child receives US $5,000. • When a Libyan buys a car, the government subsidizes 50% of the price. • The price of petrol in Libya is $0.14 per liter. • For $ 0.15, a Libyan local can purchase 40 loaves of bread. • Education and medical treatments are free in Libya. Libya can boast one of the finest health care systems in the Arab and African World. All people have access to doctors, hospitals, clinics and medicines, completely free of charge. • If Libyans cannot find the education or medical facilities they need in Libya, the government funds them to go abroad for it – not only free but they get US $2,300/month accommodation and car allowance. • 25% of Libyans have a university degree. Before Gaddafi only 25% of Libyans were literate. Today the figure is 87%. • Libya has no external debt and its reserves amount to $150 billion – though much of this is now frozen globally. I know that some of these things are true, the rest I can't confirm. Do you have even a quarter of this? So pls, switch channels from CNN sometime mmkay? Yeah, I find most of these points extremely hard to believe Gaddafi like most African dictators ensured certain people were always well treated...like the army and security forces If things were so great in Libya why did the revolt happen?

What do you mean Barti? The elections in the USA are generally considered free and fair?

You realize that Clinton is still the heavy odds on favorite right? Clinton 8/11 Trump 5/2 Rubio 13/2 Sanders 12/1 If America picks this: Then they might as well nominate the next candidate straight out of hell Why did you like Gaddafi? You know he was a brutal dictator who ruled his country for 40 years and didn't have ONE Democratic election

I had a delicious Eisbein for dinner which I fried in oil for extra crispiness ..it was soooooooooo good

I am standing by my original prediction, Trump is riding a wave of systemic and historical Republican supporter frustration....but wait till Hilary and the wrath of the various minorities Trump has offended challenge his endeavors to be president...I shouldn't laugh but I will

I would think some of those debates you have had with Zora must be worse than this one ? I have found this one interesting But I do admire your debating fortitude and stamina

What dont you like about the series if you dont mind sharing?

We're digging it, but the main character is kind of unlikeable. Yes, he is too diffident but you can see his potential will grow ...but his girlfriend who left the school is smoking hot She use to be in Chicago PD. I'm glad you enjoying it...I found it by accident

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Magicians_(U.S._TV_series) Guys trust me this is good, it may start off looking like another " Harry Potter " copy but its compelling and there is a real dark side to the whole series around magic. If you like the whole magic school summoning thing this is for you

There has been about 5000 terrorist incidents in India between 2003-2014 according to Global Terrorism Database and those attacks have took over 5000 lives. In Sri Lanka there has been about 800 terrorist attacks that have took over 1000 lives Elerond I just wanted to let everyone know I admitted I was wrong. I hope this allows other members to admit they wrong...if they are. One of the common issues I find on forums like this where people discuss politics is that many people have an issue admitting they wrong....its like everyone has to always be right. Anyway I don't feel like a fool admitting you were right, I feel better about myself

Thanks Elerond, I appreciate as usual your studious efforts to find relevant links to make a point But I'm not sure if people are not bothering to read my posts in detail or I'm not explaining my point properly, I did say what I mean by terrorist attacks " This is a planned and orchestrated attack on a country by Islamic extremists So this is not the endless violence perpetuated by ISIS or the killings in Libya " So war ravaged countries like Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan dont count and neither does the violence we see committed by Al-Shabaab because they are involved in a civil war for decades. So its interesting but not relevant to tell me "Muslims suffered between 82 and 97% of terrorism-related fatalities over the past five years." because I know Muslims represent the majority of victims....because much of the violence and civil wars is in Muslim countries So maybe I need to clarify the question, its not about number of victims but its about attacks from foreigners or domestic people who follow extremism but not in a war ...okay now that sounds complicated Anyway my point still stands but I do think Pakistan may have actually been subjected to more terrorist attacks than the USA ? So countries like India, Thailand, Pakistan, Sri Lankka, Nigeria that also countries that aren't ravaged by war (against terrorists) suffer much more terrorist attacks both in numbers and in fatalities than USA. Which is something that next president of USA should be aware especially when those countries are their allies, important for their big companies. You right Elerond, okay I have to concede that my point is misleading but for example India hasn't had over 40 attacks or Sri Lanka? But anyway I retract my whole point because I meant to say " Western country " ...and that seems to lack empathy

I admire your wife's concern because this tells me she hasn't been exposed to this kind of violence. Its a kind of innocence that once lost is gone forever so I do admire the fact she is really worried about a terrorist attack I share your concerns but also I live in such a violent country but we are all totally desensitized to the high crime rate...its weird I know its wrong to not feel anything knowing I live in a country where we have about 50 murders a day and 350 rapes a day yet I'm fine with that fact and I love my country and I'm fine with that?

Thanks Elerond, I appreciate as usual your studious efforts to find relevant links to make a point But I'm not sure if people are not bothering to read my posts in detail or I'm not explaining my point properly, I did say what I mean by terrorist attacks " This is a planned and orchestrated attack on a country by Islamic extremists So this is not the endless violence perpetuated by ISIS or the killings in Libya " So war ravaged countries like Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan dont count and neither does the violence we see committed by Al-Shabaab because they are involved in a civil war for decades. So its interesting but not relevant to tell me "Muslims suffered between 82 and 97% of terrorism-related fatalities over the past five years." because I know Muslims represent the majority of victims....because much of the violence and civil wars is in Muslim countries So maybe I need to clarify the question, its not about number of victims but its about attacks from foreigners or domestic people who follow extremism but not in a war ...okay now that sounds complicated Anyway my point still stands but I do think Pakistan may have actually been subjected to more terrorist attacks than the USA ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHbYk2l9w-E Elerond thanks for posting this potentially interesting video but I'll be honest I cannot determine the actual number of terrorist attacks per country? I just see some map of the world with flashing lights and annoying music

Also guys the fact that over 40 attacks have been prevented by various state security institutions is something that should be celebrated as a real success story of how your various governments, Bush and Obama have been successfully keeping the US safe..just because the FBI don't announce them doesn't detract from the point that they could have been a successful attack. And I'm not suggesting living in the USA is a dangerous place that you are likely to die in a terrorist attack...no quite the opposite. It seems only homegrown attacks, more the loan wolves who don't use the Internet to plan there strategies are successful...like Boston Marathon attack And I have to add that we can't say for certain but I'm pretty confidant that systems like Prism play an instrumental role in preventing these 40 attacks?

No they aren't, since 9/11 the USA has always been the ultimate target for Islamic extremists. But to target the USA is much harder for groups like ISIS due to the logistics and distance and also as I mentioned the USA has very effective security mechanism's and information gathering that prevent these attacks...people just arent aware of it. So I am referring to attacks that were prevented. You will see from this link that 40 attacks have been prevented since 9/11 and this link is from 2011..so I am confidant that no other country has been targeted for extremist attacks this much since 2001 including any Muslim country? http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/09/40-terror-plots-foiled-since-9-11-combating-complacency-in-the-long-war-on-terror Nope, Volourn is entirely correct. Your chances of being involved in any type of terrorist attack in the US are incredibly slim. 40 attacks in 15 years in a country of this size? Color me unimpressed. I risk my life way more every day I get on the freeway to drive to work. Wow you guys arent understanding my point and I thought it was clear..okay it must be me So I stand by the statistics but maybe you guys are misunderstanding the definition of terrorist attacks. This is a planned and orchestrated attack on a country by Islamic extremists. So this is not the endless violence perpetuated by ISIS or the killings in Libya, so firstly how can Volo be right when he is comparing the entire race of Muslims to a single country, its an incomparable concept. But lets say that Volo is talking about every Muslim country in the ME I still doubt they have seem more single attacks than the USA....but you guys can find the data on individual countries in the ME. Saudi Arabia has been a high target for extremist attacks and they have only seen 20 or so https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_Saudi_Arabia So again the USA has been the country that has received the highest number of successful and prevented attacks...here is another link that says the number is 50 and this is in 2013 so we can safely add another 20? http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/nsa-director-50-potential-terrorist-attacks-thwarted-controversial/story?id=19428148 NSA chief’s admission of misleading numbers adds to Obama administration blunders Also, just for kicks, 10 Things More Likely to Kill You than Islamic Terror Okay now I have to say Im misunderstanding why you guys are objecting to this notion that the USA has prevented more terrorist attacks than any other country...okay forget that link I posted and use this one I posted earlier. 40 attacks prevented since 9/11, lets keep this simple and find me one other country in the world that has had and prevented more than 40 attacks between 2001-2011 http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/09/40-terror-plots-foiled-since-9-11-combating-complacency-in-the-long-war-on-terror

This line has been trotted out a lot by people. As someone who's doing some related research, let's make it very clear: based on publicly available evidence, the harms of programs like Prism are 'potential' - in exactly the same way that the benefits of those programs are 'potential'. I don't have time for a long post and citations, but the simple point is that you can't take one without the other. If you want to say that it's paranoia to be afraid of Prism until we know for sure that somebody's life has been ruined, then surely we must admit that there is no concrete evidence of Prism's benefits, because despite some wild claims (famously the '54 cases stopped' cited in 2013 by Keith Alexander & others), it has been shown (e.g. by the White House committee) that there are, at most, one or two cases where these programs have made a difference. And if someone wants to say, as Dianne Feinstein did in 2013, well of course Prism has actually helped stop a lot of attacks and such but we can't tell you about it because of national security - OK, so now you're imagining potential evidence. *shrug* there might just as well be secret evidence we don't know about that Prism has caused harm. The argument that you have to show Prism has specifically screwed someone over is ignorant of the structure of this entire problem as a whole. The US government has consistently used this argument as an excuse to try and shut down legal challenges and other forms of debating the problem - or even revealing details that would be relevant to the problem. See the catch-22? It's easiest to see in the case of Stingrays (devices that mimic cell tower signals to spy on your phone location): the government has a track record of pulling out of numerous court cases specifically because they did not want to reveal any details about the use of Stingray (and often the very existence of Stingray they refused to confirm). It would be narrow-sighted to just argue that the public, which is denied a lot of confidential information, must first prove that Stingrays have caused specific harm, before the state can be induced to release information or to not dodge the court cases. And we haven't even gone into the definition of harm or abuse. A rubber stamp secret court which, by its own admission, has no ability to audit the intelligence agencies: is that a problem? Or is it only a problem when we find out someone's been killed? Police officers routinely damage and purposefully obstruct the use of cameras and mics. Is that a problem? Or is it only a problem when we can concretely show that a camera was destroyed to conceal the fact that they shot an innocent man? (If you can ever concretely show that without camera footage?) I'm glad you responded to this contentious but interesting debate because I know you believe in the importance of certain liberal values and I'm sure your point and perspective is echoed by many other people. I will be honest I dont think the point I'm trying to make about the relevance and importance of Prism will be supported by any people on this forum because fundamentally most people are misunderstanding my reason why Prism and other government intervention in monitoring data should not be considered an infringement of the US Constitution or an example of " Big Brother " intervention So I'll try to make my point another way because I do agree with much of the post you are making. Do you guys in the USA accept that devices can be used to store information about a terrorist cell and if you agree with that what is your view of a potential situation in the future where the NSA arrest 3 out of 4 people in cell and now the authorities don't know where the fourth suspect is. Lets say the 3 terrorists aren't talking and the NSA find that all the 3 suspects have Apple devices which are now locked. Lets say this fourth suspect has a bomb and is now suicidal...what do you suggest the NSA do to get access to the 3 phones Now because you guys have been saying " a backdoor is a infringement on the privacy of citizens " how would they access the phones? Gromnir like most of us on these forums I love a debate in a mature way, of course I always think I'm right but I have been wrong occasionally But you are one of the few people I have decided to not engage in a debate unless I'm 100 % sure and committed...and this is not one of those cases. I agree with you that any changes to law enforcement can be abused. But end of the day the point I made with Tigranes is why I support this Federal request, what happens now if the NSA has no way to access these devices?

No they aren't, since 9/11 the USA has always been the ultimate target for Islamic extremists. But to target the USA is much harder for groups like ISIS due to the logistics and distance and also as I mentioned the USA has very effective security mechanism's and information gathering that prevent these attacks...people just arent aware of it. So I am referring to attacks that were prevented. You will see from this link that 40 attacks have been prevented since 9/11 and this link is from 2011..so I am confidant that no other country has been targeted for extremist attacks this much since 2001 including any Muslim country? http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/09/40-terror-plots-foiled-since-9-11-combating-complacency-in-the-long-war-on-terror Nope, Volourn is entirely correct. Your chances of being involved in any type of terrorist attack in the US are incredibly slim. 40 attacks in 15 years in a country of this size? Color me unimpressed. I risk my life way more every day I get on the freeway to drive to work. Wow you guys arent understanding my point and I thought it was clear..okay it must be me So I stand by the statistics but maybe you guys are misunderstanding the definition of terrorist attacks. This is a planned and orchestrated attack on a country by Islamic extremists. So this is not the endless violence perpetuated by ISIS or the killings in Libya, so firstly how can Volo be right when he is comparing the entire race of Muslims to a single country, its an incomparable concept. But lets say that Volo is talking about every Muslim country in the ME I still doubt they have seem more single attacks than the USA....but you guys can find the data on individual countries in the ME. Saudi Arabia has been a high target for extremist attacks and they have only seen 20 or so https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_Saudi_Arabia So again the USA has been the country that has received the highest number of successful and prevented attacks...here is another link that says the number is 50 and this is in 2013 so we can safely add another 20? http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/nsa-director-50-potential-terrorist-attacks-thwarted-controversial/story?id=19428148