# Regarding Reichstag911's political threads



## Joe Blow

I see that they have caused somewhat of a mini controversy here on the forums with some wanting him to be banned and/or his threads removed.

It's a difficult issue for me because I'm a free speech advocate and I am reluctant to ban people unless they are causing real problems on the forums. I know that polite people don't talk about politics or religion but is that the way we want it here at ASF? 

What should be allowed in the 'General Chat' forum and what shouldn't? I guess this discussion had to happen one day so I thought now would be the perfect time.

In one of his recent threads I requested that Reichstag911 reduce the amount of political threads to a couple a week, to avoid flooding the 'General Chat' forum with them, but it seems that even one is too many for many ASF members.

So let me know how you feel. Don't be afraid of disagreeing with me. It's never bothered me before and it's not about to now. I'm interested in the views of everyone, both his detractors and supporters.... and those who couldn't care less.


----------



## sam76

Hi Joe,

He seems to have cut back his posting after he was asked. 

I'm of the opinion that if you don't like it, don't open the thread.

As long as it stays to one a week.

Regards,

Sam.


----------



## Dan_

Joe,

I'm yet to use it, but isn’t there an ignore feature on this forum for those who don't wish to view people's posts?

In my opinion most people are aware of the content of these kinds of posts and if they are not interested then simply don't read them.

If majority of participants of this forum aren’t interested then surely the old supply and demand theory would apply. This will result in a self censorship which reflects the general consensus of the participants.

How many posts will someone make when no one's reading them?


----------



## Smurf1976

In short, I think that nothing should be done about this "problem". 

Whilst I acknowledge that ASF is a STOCK forum and not a political one, General Chat ought to be just that. If someone were inciting hatred or making threats then that would be different but in general I can't see a problem. Just use the "ignore" function if it bothers you but personally I have no intention of ever using that function.

Some stocks are inherently political. For example, most energy stocks are affected by political decisions at a state, national or international level. I do think that in the discussion of such stocks it is reasonable to point out, for example, that (I'm just using this as an example so if anyone wants to disagree with this then please start a separate thread) the Kyoto Protocol has implications far beyond reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The fact that emissions would actually rise significantly under Kyoto and the direct links with the nuclear industry being amongst the points. Now, if you're going to be investing in coal, uranium or whatever then I think you ought to know about these things. If Kyoto was abandoned then holding nuclear or renewable energy stocks isn't what I would want to be doing. Likewise the coal industry is booming worldwide (on a total basis) only whilst China isn't affected by Kyoto. If China were included, that would change everything BIG TIME. I think such a discussion is very relevant in the context of relevant stocks.

With some stocks it goes beyond this. FOR EXAMPLE (start a thread if you want to discuss!) GNS (Gunns) is not only affected very heavily by political decisions, it is one of the few (only?) stocks directly involved with an activity which could well decide an election outcome. It is by no means an overstatement to say that the fate of the Tasmanian Government is substantially tied to public perception over a single project being promoted by GNS. It's reached the point where we now have both the government (Labor) and the defacto campaign centre of the Greens, The Wilderness Society (TWS) both driving buses around Tasmania for no purpose other than supporting / opposing a single GNS proposal. And the Liberals are publicly backing Labor so all the parties are in some way involved. We have one of the three major political parties in Tas actively running what amounts to an international campaign to permanently shut down part of Gunns' operations. It has reaced the point of directly targeting Gunns' customers with the intent of terminating contracts etc. Now, in any discussion of GNS I think it would be foolish in the extreme to ignore this...

So, I do think that politics has a place on ASF. That said, non-stock market related posts can get a little boring after a while, so perhaps Joe could put them all in a separate folder in the General Chat section? Just a thought.


----------



## GreatPig

Joe,



			
				Joe Blow said:
			
		

> What should be allowed in the 'General Chat' forum and what shouldn't?



Perhaps you first need to define what the word "chat" means, and whether simply posting a pile of provocative articles written by other people constitutes "chat".

In other words, does Reichstag911 hang around to discuss the articles he posts and to give his own views and opinions on the topic concerned?

Otherwise I think it's just a political form of spam.

GP


----------



## mit

I think it is annoying that a new thread is opened for each one. So if you are looking for the latest posts you might get two or three of these pushing other things off the main page. Let him stay but post in one thread called Reichstag911's rants or something.

MIT


----------



## tech/a

*???????*


----------



## Julia

I quite like MIT's suggestion of "Reichstag911's Rants".  They do seem to have been somewhat reduced in quantity since you suggested that, Joe.
I don't mind them being there.  I don't usually give them more than a cursory glance but dislike censorship unless it is necessary to prevent someone being damaged in some way.

What I don't like, as someone else said, is that his posts are just lengthy quotes of what someone else has said.  It would be much more valid if he were to post his own thoughts about whatever the issue is.  If he feels strongly enough about a subject, then he should be prepared to articulate those feelings in his own words which hopefully would be of somewhat shorter length than his copied posts.


I really don't mind either way.  I don't have to read them.

Julia


----------



## RichKid

I like to be open to different views and find some of Reich's stuff interesting. But I agree with GP's and Julia's comments about Reich needing to at least discuss some of the stuff (he has occasionally) instead of just dumping stuff and leaving (as GP suggests, it can be like spam).

I also see Smurf's point very clearly, most things are related, if some people are unfamiliar or disinterested in global/political issues then they need not read it, they can just stick to the local news or national papers. Having said that, it is good to see the frequency of these types of posts dropping to a more reasonable level, maybe Reich will be more selective in future. I have come across some interesting articles in the past due to Reich, including views which affect the stock markets, you don't have to agree with it all but it is thought provoking.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin

7. Posts that contain spam, affliliate links, links to inappropriate content or contain any kind of obscene language or images will be either edited or deleted by moderators.

I consider these to be spam like material. 

There is no personal content in these spams, so why are they allowed?


----------



## DTM

Personally I think general chat is just that, general chat.  From topics about shoes to conspiracy theorists.

I don't mind what Reich has to say because some things I find some of it interesting eg The day of the London bombings they happen to have the terrorist bombing simulation at the same time and at the same venues etc.  I would like to keep an open mind because you may be able to make some deductions for yourself the political ramifications of some actions. eg Brits withdrawing from Iraq etc.  I'm just reading about Jesse Livermore and some of his best trades were because he could forsee ramifications of political actions.

I do think however, that maybe the information could be be contained within certain topics ie have fewer threads so that there can be some kind of topic/topics people can follow rather than posting new things all the time.  That way you can't pollute the general chat and would therefore have less complaints IMO.


----------



## andrew_c2o

I have to agree with GreatPig it's just posting complete articles from somewhere else, it's not his own discussion. Perhaps he could just post links to the articles where they are held, in the same topic not in new topics


----------



## Happy

From what saw, R….1 method is simple and always the same plot.

Whatever happened in the world was a blunder, or done by their own (US, UK and if it happens here it will be ours) intelligence agents. Intriguing and provocative and disturbing and upsetting.

Ignore button is sweeping things under the carpet.

Free speech should not be allowed to be abused, and here in Australia too many are allowed to do too many things under the FREEDOM umbrella. 
(Remember one cleric saying that girls not properly dressed are ‘eligible for rape’? Comment kind of retraced later as ‘taken out of context’, and it was sort of accepted, whch is beyond me as rape is rape, but looks that authorities did not take it any further). 

And since this ‘revealing posts’ are not only posted on this forum, I agree this is SPAM BIG TIME and owner of this Forum inadvertently takes part in PROPAGANDA MACHINE, to me scary, but luckily I am not alone with my concerns.

Remember fellow peddling, that Holocaust never happened? Same crap, different century.


----------



## TjamesX

Political issues are related to financial markets, so should be discussed.

I have a problem with 3rd party information linked to that is just plain unuseful, especially without any personal comment supplied. If their is no follow up discussion from the poster (as GP indicated) then it is just a form of spam. If the quality of Reich's linked info was a bit more than just propaganda for the anti US type agenda then it might promote discussion.

I don't like a lot of things the US has done/does, but when people just create ill informed, lacking in facts propaganda it doesn't help in their position against the US.


----------



## doctorj

I don't see any problem with political discussion on this forum.  Different views expands our understanding of the world and allows us to consider things we might otherwise have not.

For those that find the threads offensive, you do not have to read them.  If you'd prefer that ASF stay about trading - read every section except this one.  This world already has too many rules and restrictions around what we can and cannot say and do.  I'd like to think that we're all capable of exercising our own self moderation if we find something distasteful rather than having to establish even more rules.

I would like to see some kind of standard created where by people who are posting articles simply post a link to the article and then add their opinion underneath.  Posting the whole article is messy and unnecessary.

And finally, if you disagree with something in a thread say so!  Support your arguements and have a healthy discussion.  And as long as everyone remembers that when it comes to religion, politics and Israel, you're never going to convince the other person of anything they don't already believe, it should be carried out in good spirit.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin

doctorj said:
			
		

> And finally, if you disagree with something in a thread say so!  Support your arguements and have a healthy discussion.  And as long as everyone remembers that when it comes to religion, politics and Israel, you're never going to convince the other person of anything they don't already believe, it should be carried out in good spirit.




Why do you mention Israel? Why not Samoa?


----------



## doctorj

It was a very abstract point.  Israel seems to embody both religion and politics.  Don't read too much into it.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin

doctorj said:
			
		

> It was a very abstract point.  Israel seems to embody both religion and politics.  Don't read too much into it.




Hi Doc,

Not only Israel, but other countries. The difference is they are still in a survival mindset after the holocaust, and now what is happening with suicide freaks.


----------



## Smurf1976

I'm just thinking out loud here but a few ideas...   

How about we just have a proper place on ASF for political discussions (except those that correctly belong in the the threads for specific stocks) and keep the general chat non-political/religious.

I do think it's a good idea to just post links to articles rather than posting the whole article though. This is what's done on some other forums. I think there might be some copyright issues with posting the whole article too.

An approach that I've seen elsewhere that seems to work is that off topic posts are allowed to be put in the "main" discussion on the understanding that the moderators will move them to the "off topic" forum once they cease to attract new posts. 

Perhaps if someone wants to make these posts then they just post links to the articles with a brief description and Joe moves them into an off topic area after a day or two (or is that making too much work?).


----------



## Happy

Looks that this is well beyond our little community to decide what to do with this poster.

Surely this is a good case for reporting to authorities, maybe they can have closer look at that person’s activities.
I met R……1 posts on several forums, so there is agenda in these activities.

From memory phone is 1800 123 400 if owners of this Board would like to do the right thing.


----------



## Joe Blow

Happy said:
			
		

> Surely this is a good case for reporting to authorities, maybe they can have closer look at that person’s activities.
> I met R……1 posts on several forums, so there is agenda in these activities.




What exactly has Reichstag911 done to justify reporting him to the 'authorities'? Has he committed any crime?

I didn't realize Australia was a police state where people can be reported and investigated for their political views, as unorthodox or as unpopular as they might be.

My only concern has ever been the effect of his posts on the forums. As far as I'm concerned he is entitled to hold whatever political views or support whatever conspiracy theories he wants. That is the essence of a free society. 

In the words of Voltaire, "I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it."


----------



## Porper

Happy said:
			
		

> Surely this is a good case for reporting to authorities, maybe they can have closer look at that person’s activities.
> I met R……1 posts on several forums, so there is agenda in these activities.
> 
> From memory phone is 1800 123 400 if owners of this Board would like to do the right thing.




I think talking about reporting him is going a bit over the top, no worse than people constantly ramping a stock in my opinion.

However I like this forum for what it is .................... a stock forum.As long as we aren't overrun by these types of posts I couldn't care less.I will however never contribute or get enticed into debates politically or religiously motivated.Always ends in bitterness or worse.If you don't like it, ignore it, I do.


----------



## Happy

Don't be alarmed, be alert.

If R...1 is OK, nothing should happen, but how do you know we haven't got something interesting on our hands?

Of course not everybody with backpack will disintegrate, but some do.

Better be safe than sorry, but don't let me run your show, do what you think is best for your site.
(I didn't think I'll rub the owner of this site wrong way before making dozen of posts, sorry)


----------



## GreatPig

Joe Blow said:
			
		

> I didn't realize Australia was a police state where people can be reported and investigated for their political views



While I agree with your stance with regard to Reichstag911, I'm afraid Australia has long been a country where people can be reported and investigated for their political and religious views.

Just ask a few former members of the Australian Communist party, or take a wander through Auburn or Lakemba in Sydney and talk to a few Moslems.

However, I think someone simply regurgitating articles of this nature would quickly drop off the radar, with the classification "mostly harmless". :

GP


----------



## Joe Blow

Happy said:
			
		

> Better be safe than sorry, but don't let me run your show, do what you think is best for your site.
> (I didn't think I'll rub the owner of this site wrong way before making dozen of posts, sorry)




Happy, you haven't rubbed me the wrong way at all. I don't take this sort of stuff personally. I just don't think we should be reporting anybody to the authorities unless we believe they have committed or are plotting to commit a criminal act.

I am concerned with the amount of threads he is starting on the forums and I agree that if he does continue to post any political threads he needs to insert his own views into his posts instead of just cutting and pasting from other websites.

I don't want want anyone flooding the forums with any type of spam be it commercial or political.

If Reichstag911 wants to start a political thread with the genuine intention of stimulating some serious discussion on a topical issue then I'm all for it. But I agree that if all he wants to do is cut and paste divisive articles and conspiracy theories from other websites with no personal input then we are going to end up butting heads.

I'm hoping he wil come across this thread and get the message.


----------



## GreatPig

Happy said:
			
		

> Of course not everybody with backpack will disintegrate, but some do.
> 
> Better be safe than sorry



As a regular carrier of a backpack, all I can say is I'm glad you're not police minister!

Better safe than sorry leads to innocent people being shot seven times in the head.

GP


----------



## Joe Blow

GreatPig said:
			
		

> While I agree with your stance with regard to Reichstag911, I'm afraid Australia has long been a country where people can be reported and investigated for their political and religious views.




GP, you are absolutely correct and I consider it a great shame. Thankfully, we are no worse in this area than any other other western democracy.

My view is that we shouldn't allow hard won civil liberties to be eroded because of a few miserable extremists bent on violence.


----------



## Happy

Just happens that 50 few murdered recently in London were innocent too and scores of injured, suppose collateral.

As Bob Carr said just last week before he decided to pull the plug, that he has the same right to go about his business in safety as civil libertarian has the right to his privacy.


----------



## excalibur

Smurf1976 said:
			
		

> I'm just thinking out loud here but a few ideas...
> 
> How about we just have a proper place on ASF for political discussions (except those that correctly belong in the the threads for specific stocks) and keep the general chat non-political/religious.




Hi Smurf,

It`s an account when an article anti-religious is. But politics?
You ain`t got any buisness without politics and vice-versa.
I share usually articles found online, to inform other people, to see their reactions and know if the one opinion or the other is shared or not.
If the majority is pro or contra to a certain matter, this knowledge may be vital in making a certain investment. I don`t want to say that ASF is an exclusively buisness forum, forgetting human or everyday matters. We gotta be open minded, just as DTM quoted.
If you pertain to your ideals to hard, before dealing with money, you`ll be broke before you open your wallet.

No hard feelings everybody


----------



## Smurf1976

With these last few posts we're actually getting a bit of a political debate going here... No problems with that IMHO and it sure beats just posting articles from other sites.

For my 2 cents worth, why don't they just use dogs to sniff for explosives etc at train stations and the like since this would be a reasonably quick mass screening method I would have thought. You can still have your backpack (just imagine all those legal cases for back injuries if back packs are banned) but the dog will need to check. 

Fine with me though I suppose we're going to need quite a few dogs so there will need to be a "Pal tax" or "Good-O tax" or something like that on tickets probably. Dogs eat quite a lot... :


----------



## excalibur

Smurf1976 said:
			
		

> For my 2 cents worth, why don't they just use dogs to sniff for explosives etc at train stations and the like since this would be a reasonably quick mass screening method I would have thought.  :




That was a political question:
Ask the politicians for the answer


----------



## Smurf1976

excalibur said:
			
		

> Hi Smurf,
> 
> It`s an account when an article anti-religious is. But politics?
> You ain`t got any buisness without politics and vice-versa.
> I share usually articles found online, to inform other people, to see their reactions and know if the one opinion or the other is shared or not.
> If the majority is pro or contra to a certain matter, this knowledge may be vital in making a certain investment. I don`t want to say that ASF is an exclusively buisness forum, forgetting human or everyday matters. We gotta be open minded, just as DTM quoted.
> If you pertain to your ideals to hard, before dealing with money, you`ll be broke before you open your wallet.
> 
> No hard feelings everybody



Agreed with you there excalibur. I was just thinking though that it seems that some people want the general chat to be non-serious stuff like cars, shoes etc. and IF that's the case (it may not be) then we could just have serious general chat for the politics etc. and non-serious general chat for the cars, shoes etc and that ought to keep everyone happy.

Or it could just stay as it is. Doesn't really bother me personally - I'm just raising possibilities here to see what others think.


----------



## doctorj

Happy, if I didn't think you were taking the p!ss, I'd be very angry.

As you alluded to terrorism is a very serious matter and it is very poor form to joke about it in the manner you do.

Also, its sad to see people have been misled by the media to assume anti-govt sentiment is equivalent to terrorism.  There are plenty of legitimate reasons to be critical of the Australian or US governments - none of which qualify you as a terrorist.  The central element of democracy is the right to be able to disagree with the actions of the government and voice that opinion through protest, discussion or otherwise.  

"Those who are willing to sacrifice their basic liberties to assure their security deserve neither."  
-- Benjamin Franklin


----------



## Julia

Reichstag911,

You obviously read this forum regularly given the number of posts you have made on it.  So how about offering us your reaction to the controversy you have provoked?  While the thread makes really interesting reading with its divergent views, It would be good to hear in your own words, yes really, how you feel about the suggestions that have been made.  Show us you are more than a copy artist and have genuine, clearly thought out views of your own.

Julia


----------



## GreatPig

Happy said:
			
		

> Just happens that 50 few murdered recently in London were innocent too and scores of injured



So shooting more innocent people helps remedy that how exactly?

I shudder to think what it would be like if police started shooting dead anyone they thought might be about to commit a terrorist act. How long would it be before the death toll from police shootings far outweighed the death toll from terrorist attacks?

GP


----------



## Hanrahan

R911 seems to have unlimited access on HC so if you can limit him here that's OK with me. 

Joe Blow is pro free speech so he is correct in not banning him. Such posts serve a useful purpose, if only to demonstrate the depth of feeling many have and how nothing could change their minds. An interesting exercise in psychology  

Of course they fail to realise that their rants won't change anyone else's minds either LOL


----------



## Happy

If he stopped and obeyed Police instructions he would be OK

Couple of guys on the balcony, obeyed instructions and are OK
One even asked several times: Are you going to shoot me?

He was reassured, and is OK and even will be able to assist with the investigations.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin

It's always easy and cowardly to blame the Police Force for being heavy handed. But, if you have any intelligence at all you would realise what a difficult job it is and sometimes accidents and mistakes happen. These mistakes could be mitigated if people simply cooperated with the police and heeded their intructions.


----------



## GreatPig

Happy said:
			
		

> If he stopped and obeyed Police instructions he would be OK



Well yes, it certainly demonstrates that it's dangerous to disobey police instructions there now.

But then many people guilty of minor offences (the guy's visa had expired) try to evade authorities. It seems now though that resisting arrest (or whatever evading capture is called) can result in summary execution.

Actually I could see that approach might work well here to prevent accidents from high-speed car chases. When chasing a suspected stolen vehicle, the police could just fire a grenade into the rear window and blow it up. Problem solved.

GP


----------



## GreatPig

Snake Pliskin said:
			
		

> and sometimes accidents and mistakes happen



I agree, it is a tough job and mistakes like that will happen, especially in heightened circumstances like those. That's not what I'm talking about.

What I disagree with is that "better safe than sorry" is a good general approach to take.

GP


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin

GreatPig said:
			
		

> Well yes, it certainly demonstrates that it's dangerous to disobey police instructions there now.
> 
> But then many people guilty of minor offences (the guy's visa had expired) try to evade authorities. It seems now though that resisting arrest (or whatever evading capture is called) can result in summary execution.
> 
> Actually I could see that approach might work well here to prevent accidents from high-speed car chases. When chasing a suspected stolen vehicle, the police could just fire a grenade into the rear window and blow it up. Problem solved.
> 
> GP


----------



## reichstag911

*Regarding Reichstag911's important threads*

Wow - just call me Mr. Popularity  : )

To those free thinking and open minded people who have provided support for my 'rants' - many thanks.

To those other individuals who wish to censor me and who clearly fail to understand that the posts are indeed very relevent to investing AND our lives in general - please continue to ignore me - all will become clear eventually...

I am shocked and disturbed that presumably intelligent traders at this forum can be so naive and short sighted in relation to what is REALLY happening under their noses.

Denial is an excellent self-defence mechanism for those who refuse to accept unpleasant information and who are clearly threatened when their belief systems are challenged. 

Some refer to these individuals as 'sheeple'.

Don't blame the messenger guys ...

Cheers.


----------



## reichstag911

*US CONSTITUTION SUSPENDED FOR 10 YEARS.*

Here's another silly rant : )


*US CONSTITUTION SUSPENDED FOR 10 YEARS.*

The US Congress has passed legislation which re-authorises the
Patriot Act for another ten years. Patriot Act I, which Congress
approved without reading, trashed the Bill of Rights. It also laid
the foundation for a full internal Surveillance State in the sad
guise of the new Department of Homeland Security. Since
then, Executive power has run rampant inside the United States.
More sober second thoughts in Congress led to some sunset
clauses in the first Patriot Act, but as these deadlines
approached, the Bush White House engaged in a massive
campaign to retain them. They have now succeeded beyond
their wildest dreams in Patriot Act II.

The New "Normalcy":

All of the obnoxious and dangerous clauses have been retained.
They all have an effective ten further years to run. In the
nearly four years since the passage of Patriot Act I, Americans
stand in a political situation where large and important parts of
their Constitution have been made void until 2015. Here lies
the big danger. The danger is that Americans will become used
to this situation. They will become used to having their drivers
licences function as internal passports. They will become used
to presenting their papers to any official on demand. They will
become used to an unrelenting electronic and human
surveillance tracking their every individual move. They will
become used to having their private possessions searched at the
beck and call of any official who wants to. They will become
used to such officials pawing all over their bodies. And they
will become used to a situation in which resistance, even mere
verbal resistance, is an invitation for officials to engage in even
further outrages.

Ten years from now, there will be people in their early twenties
who have never known anything else. To them, it will all seem
like "normal" life.

The Defence Of FREEDOM Is Both Direct And Indirect:

For as long as there is freedom of speech, the battle for
individual Freedom and Liberty must be fought solely in the
intellectual realm, in the field of ideas. Leave it to the real
opponents of freedom to be the first to use either political force
or actual force. If and when they do that, they have conceded
that their ideas are indefensible in reason. By acting with force,
they lose the central moral advantage. That is the direct
defence of freedom. In extremely dangerous times, this defence
is best done indirectly and one of the grand masters of this was
Voltaire. He was once asked if he had ever asked God for
anything (an entrapment question in his times). Here is his
answer: "Yes - to make my enemies look ridiculous." Then
he waved his arms around in all directions and laughter filled the
hall. Now, here's a quote from President Bush: "They hate us
because of our freedom." Then re-read the top paragraph on
this page. If you are laughing, look out! They might think
you're a terrorist.

You Really Do Live On A Battlefield:

The US is under de facto internal martial law. In a courthouse
in Richmond, Virginia, a government attorney has declared that
in the war on terror, the United States is a battlefield, so
President Bush has the authority to detain enemy combatants
indefinitely. This was said in a case before a court dealing with
the US Supreme Court's previous ruling that people held by the
US Federal Government had the legal right to seek habeas
corpus in US Federal Court, meaning that the Bush
Administration had to show the legal justifications for holding
these people in custody. Habeas corpus means to have to
present the body. This means that the person accused must
appear before a competent US court and a valid justification
must be shown for having taken that person into custody.
Here, this principle was denied by the US Federal Attorney,
who held forward the argument that the President's powers
were singular and that he, the President held in his own hands
the power to hold all people he calls enemy combatants
indefinitely.

When The Military Power Supercedes The Civil Power:

Having declared in open court that the United States is a
battlefield, this US Federal Attorney is attempting to elevate
the Presidential powers as Commander in Chief of the US
Armed Forces ABOVE the real and actual power of the
Presidency. The President is subject to the Constitution. But if
the President is acting directly as Commander In Chief and if
the United States is itself a battlefield, then and only then does
this claim have even partial legal standing. If it does, then the
US is under martial law!

In terms of the actual United States Constitution, the civil
powers of the Presidency stand above the secondary powers the
President also has as Commander In Chief of the US armed
forces. The reason for this is to assure that the civil power is
superior to the military power. This US Federal Attorney has
reversed the order. He does this by the means of declaring the
United States to be a battlefield. If that is taken as given, then
the US military is the supreme power inside the US. From
there, it follows inescapably that all of the United States is under
military control until this state of war ends.

Then - All Our Screens Went Blank:

We admit this openly and freely. Being way down under in the
Land of OZ, and trying with might and main, all reporting about
this assertion in the Richmond courthouse fell into a black hole.
Suddenly, a sequence of court moves we have been tracking for
close to three odd years vanished. All reporting by US state
media went blank, as did the broader US media, in regard to
these legal moves in Richmond.

We have tried contacting Congress, news media galore, direct
connections, and have gotten exactly nowhere. But what we do
know is that the authority given to President Bush, by
Congress, to launch his attack upon Iraq was so broad and
vague that it could be turned in other directions. That made us
nervous, in intellectual and political terms. That's why we have
been tracking, as closely as we can from Australia, all these
many cases rolling through the US legal system. These cases
and their outcomes will make clear to us WHAT individual
RIGHTS Americans still might have. Constitutionally as well as
historically, as the Supreme Court itself said during the Civil
War - on the battlefield - THE COURTS ARE SILENT! The
US Supreme Court has never retreated from this since the Civil
War, except to say that where the civil courts can re-establish
themselves - they have supremacy and the military power does
not. If all of the United States is now a battlefield - then -
except at the State level, where some judges and some States
might dispute the situation, the main US Federal Courts are all
silent. They are silent wherever or whenever the President of
the United States asserts his Commander In Chief voice.

The CENTRAL Issue:

Either the United States IS a battlefield, and therefore under at
least de facto martial law, or it is not. If the "Global War On
Terror" (GWOT as they call it) IS being fought out INSIDE the
US, then Americans have LOST their individual rights and have
NO access to senior courts of law to defend them.

An Economy In A State Of War:

It is well documented in US history that during both WWI and
WWII, the Presidency and the Federal Government stepped
right into the civil economy and almost literally conscripted it for
the duration. If the plan is to do the same in the so-called
Global War On Terror, then the Federal Government has again
stepped into the US civil economy for the purpose of war.

During Wars - The Markets Are Suspended:

That means that the US economy is no longer a MARKET
economy. It is instead a fully regulated economy, regulated for
the purposes of war. Throughout WWI and WWII, when
Congress did in fact declare war, prices were controlled and the
stock market was "stabilised" for the duration. The entire US
monetary and financial system was placed under federal control
which effectively controlled interest rates to ease passage of
more money created through Treasury debt into the US
financial system.

But as is well known to economic and political practice, the first
thing that is corrupted during wars is the price mechanism. The
entire civil economy relies on prices to signal what to produce
and in what quantity and quality. When prices no longer send
real signals, the civil economy is flying blind. It ends up
producing more or less what it produced before the war began.
After both WWI and WWII ended, there were great fears inside
the US that a renewed state of peace inside the civil economy
would cause it to go through a convulsive phase of readjustment
- along with the stock, bond and financial markets - as the
broader markets responded to the peace time price signals.

At the end of WWI, after strenuous debates both public and
behind closed doors, Americans still had a vast confidence in
freedom and in the free market economy. That ensured that
most of the wartime controls were rolled away fairly fast. The
American economy did have a massive shakeout, but it was
over by 1921 and the US civil economy surged forward. The
latent problem was that the wartime controls had been lifted but
NOT abolished. Most of them were still there, as were most of
the wartime Federal Agencies. First amongst these was the new
Federal Reserve, created at the end of 1913.

To "assist" in the transition to a peacetime economy, according
to Federal Reserve Governor Benjamin Strong, the Fed held US
interest rates artificially below the market rate. This launched
an accelerating internal US credit expansion which, in turn,
swung the economy into the "Roaring Twenties". US stock
markets surged into a historic blow-off, peaked in September
1929, and then abruptly reversed in October 1929 with the great
stock market crash after the Fed had belatedly stepped on the
brakes.

After the end of WWII, there were the same worries about the
post-war period. But this time, instead of the downscaling of
the military as had happened after WWI, the US Military was
not only maintained but expanded to fight - the "Cold War".
The external enemy was the Soviet Union.

The result was that after WWII, the US economy never had an
economic correction of any magnitude. It did not respond to
prices freely set in the markets. The other consequence was
that the US maintained a wartime economy throughout the
decades of the Cold War. In effect, in economic and historic
terms, the US economy has not really had a chance to respond
to free market real price signals since it had a short and sharp
recession after WWI in 1920-21. That this is so can be seen
from the fact that the US never demobilised its armed forces
after the end of WWII. The US maintained them to face the
new enemy, the Soviet Union. In effect, the US has had a
wartime economy since WWII, that economy supporting the
US military, intertwined with a partial US peacetime economy
which had to pay the economic costs of the US military. In
1991, the Soviet Union fell into a heap and the external enemy
was no longer there. Voices were heard in the US talking about
a "peace dividend". It was obvious that the scale of the US
military could finally be lowered, followed by the taxes to pay
for it.

It was not to be. A "new" enemy was found in Iraq. Now, the
Global War On Terror has followed.

The Direct Costs Of War:

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have already cost the US
taxpayers $US 314 Billion. The Congressional Budget Office
projects additional expenses of perhaps $US 450 Billion over
the next ten years. That could make the combined campaigns,
especially the war in Iraq, the most expensive military effort in
the last 60 years. The Pentagon says that the "burn rate" (the
operating costs of the wars) has averaged $US 5.6 Billion per
month in the current fiscal year. That does not include the
costs of maintenance and replacement of worn out military
equipment. President Bush has chosen to pay for his wars with
supplemental appropriations outside the normal budget process.
The costs of war are not seen directly in the US budget deficits.
But the costs are embedded in the climbing US Treasury debts.

A Long Look Backwards:

One of the truly central problems today is that most people have
never in their lives experienced real peacetime standards, such
as existed before WWI. For that reason, present wartime
standards have become "normal". "Normal" had a very
different meaning before WWI. There were only two nations
which required passports for foreigners to cross their borders,
the Czar's Russia and the Ottoman Empire. Everywhere else,
people rolled up to the border posts, presented themselves and
happily proceeded onwards as tourists or, if they were on
private business, to buy, sell or invest.

Great Britain was the bulwark of free trade. Anybody could
sell, buy or invest there. Even the Kaiser's Imperial Germany
stood in a freer trade position than the United States, which was
hiding behind tariff walls. Entire people wanderings took place
with millions peacefully crossing borders to make their lives in
other countries. The United States received more than most,
though a secondary wave of people from all over the world
travelled to all the many nations of the extended British
Commonwealth.

The last three decades before the year 1900 were years of an
immense human optimism which, today, is next to impossible to
describe. Apart from the Franco/German War of 1871 and the
Crimean War, the Western world had been at peace, to the full
extent of that term, since 1815. Peacetime standards were not
only well known, they were normal. And what were peacetime
standards? They were sound money with Gold at its centre and
a hard commercially orientated credit and banking system.
They were private businesses. It was no business of
government to set any kinds of standard or to regulate anything.
All governments were small-scaled to the economies of those
days. Taxes were so low as to make any sane person weep
today. There were no welfare systems, except in Germany
where Bismarck was setting up the start of today's welfare
state. Not having such a welfare state anywhere else, people
saved for their old age. As real savers, they had a distinct
interest in having their saved money maintain its purchasing
power over the years ahead. That's why they watched the
height of taxes with an eagle eye. They knew that government
was not an economic benefactor, but a cost. These
innumerable streams of saved money fuelled immense waves of
investment in capital through those years.

It is this vast, and real, knowledge of what it means to live
under peacetime standards which has been lost. The generations
since 1914 have never had the real experience. By the mid
1950s, the last of the generations which had experienced it were
departing the scene. With them went knowledge of peace.

Today, this knowledge of what living in a state of real peace in
a really free economy is like and what living in freedom and
liberty is like can only be found in two places. It can be found
in old (pre WWI) history books and it can be found in the
personal writings of the people who lived back it those times.
Today there is nothing more important than the rediscovery of
peacetime standards. If the West in general and the United
States in particular are ever to begin travelling back to a
peacetime standard, this is the knowledge required to be
grasped. It will tell us whether we are travelling the right way
because we can already know, in advance, what it will look like
when we get closer - and eventually get there.

To discover how we have travelled the other way - read, or
reread, Hayek's The Road To Serfdom.


----------



## excalibur

Hi Reichstag,

Could you please try to bring over the articles in a more "place sparing" form? There are some articles that I would like to print out for my records and sometimes there are too many pages requested, because of the format.

Thanks


----------



## reichstag911

*Defamatory Post by HAPPY.*

Happy,

Your suggestion that my posting activity should be reported to the
National Security Hotline is immature, ludicrous in the extreme and defamatory and actionable.

I have sent a screen grab of your defamatory post to my solicitors for his advice.

No I am not joking.

Your conduct is beyond comprehension. 

My thought provoking posts clearly threaten you own insular and ignorant belief system.  That's your problem.

I require an APOLOGY from yourself for your appalling and totally irresponsible
conduct ASAP.

Moderator: please remove his offensive and defamatory post.
Thankyou.

--------------------------------------------------------



			
				Happy said:
			
		

> Looks that this is well beyond our little community to decide what to do with this poster.
> 
> Surely this is a good case for reporting to authorities, maybe they can have closer look at that person’s activities.
> I met R……1 posts on several forums, so there is agenda in these activities.
> 
> From memory phone is 1800 123 400 if owners of this Board would like to do the right thing.


----------



## excalibur

*Re: Defamatory Post by HAPPY.*



			
				reichstag911 said:
			
		

> Happy,
> 
> Your suggestion that my posting activity should be reported to the
> National Security Hotline is immature, ludicrous in the extreme and defamatory and actionable.
> 
> I have sent a screen grab of your defamatory post to my solicitors for his advice.
> 
> No I am not joking.
> 
> Your conduct is beyond comprehension.
> 
> My thought provoking posts clearly threaten you own insular and ignorant belief system.  That's your problem.
> 
> I require an APOLOGY from yourself for your appalling and totally irresponsible
> conduct ASAP.
> 
> Moderator: please remove his offensive and defamatory post.
> Thankyou.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------




Hi Reichstag,

I assume Happy has rosen your blood pressure  a bit...
Well there is a difference between what a person says and what someone does.
God gave us two eyes to see, two ears to hear and thank goodness only one mouth .(so that we do not tell to much idiocies).
Unfortunately Bill Gates gave us the computer, we are now using two fingers, on top of that to write letters. Oh well; nobody is perfect.
I am not trying to defend anybody, but there is something like freedom of speech.
It is his comment to involve the authorities and his right to do so.
But who tells me that he doesn`t aleady have the cops on his back?
Everyone on this board has the choice of using a so-called ignore button and this alternative is valid also for you.
Keep cool


----------



## Porper

*Re: Defamatory Post by HAPPY.*



			
				reichstag911 said:
			
		

> Happy,
> 
> Your suggestion that my posting activity should be reported to the
> National Security Hotline is immature, ludicrous in the extreme and defamatory and actionable.
> 
> I have sent a screen grab of your defamatory post to my solicitors for his advice.
> 
> No I am not joking.
> 
> Your conduct is beyond comprehension.
> 
> My thought provoking posts clearly threaten you own insular and ignorant belief system.  That's your problem.
> 
> I require an APOLOGY from yourself for your appalling and totally irresponsible
> conduct ASAP.
> 
> Moderator: please remove his offensive and defamatory post.
> Thankyou.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------




reichstag911,

I don't really care what you post, but please don't post exactly the same thing in two different threads, I know you feel passionately but some of us come on here to exchange views, information on stocks and don't want bombarding with double posts.


----------



## Joe Blow

*Re: Defamatory Post by HAPPY.*

Reichstag911,

Happy's post is not defamatory. Nobody is reporting anyone.

It's ironic that while others are calling for your censorship that you could turn around and call for the censorship of someone else.

I'm going to merge this thread with the one I originally started about this topic.

Please note that while you are welcome to start the odd political thread in the General Chat forum, you are not to simply create threads just to cut and paste long articles into them. If it's a really long article, please just cut and paste the first few paragraphs and then add a link to the whole article. 

Also, I want to see your own commentary - a short paragraph will do - in any thread you start.


----------



## DTM

Happy said:
			
		

> If he stopped and obeyed Police instructions he would be OK




I thought the news said that they held him down and then shot him in the back of the head.  They said something about shooting him in the head so that he didn't detonate "the bomb".  In my view, if they had him pinned down, there was no way he could detonate anything.  Shoot first ask questions later?  Cold blooded murder comes to mind.  

Unfortunately a series of unfortunate events may have contributed to his death.  It was reported that he was beaten up by english hooligans two weeks before and that having armed men in civilian clothes chase him with guns probably sent him running scared.  Try listening to someone chase you with a gun wouldn't be high on the be able to do list whilst trying to preserve your own life.  The victim had also rung work to say he was running late and may have been running to the station to get to work on time.  Wearing a jacket didn't help his cause.




			
				Happy said:
			
		

> Couple of guys on the balcony, obeyed instructions and are OK
> One even asked several times: Are you going to shoot me?
> 
> He was reassured, and is OK and even will be able to assist with the investigations.




Probably didn't want to make the same mistakes as above, especially when cameras were there.


----------



## DTM

Just an update on the victim from the Age:




> UK police say sorry for slain Brazilian
> August 2, 2005 - 6:49AM
> 
> 
> British police on Monday visited the family of the Brazilian electrician mistakenly shot dead in London to apologise and discuss compensation for the killing.
> 
> Jean Charles de Menezes, 27, was shot eight times by plainclothes police on July 22 at a London underground train station when they mistook him for a possible suicide bomber.
> 
> "The main purpose of the meeting was to express the British government's condolences and regret," said Richard Barlow, a spokesman for the British embassy in Brasilia.
> 
> "My understanding was that compensation was only touched on."
> 
> British newspapers said police could offer the family up to $US1 million ($A1.32 million) in damages when visiting the poor farming town of Gonzaga, where many earn less than Brazil's minimum wage of $US126 ($A167) a month.
> 
> Family members left the meeting at Gonzaga's town hall without speaking to reporters.
> 
> "The family, the mum and dad, came in sad and they left sad," said Ana Lucia Ferreira, a Gonzaga town hall official.
> 
> She said the family had requested that no details of the compensation talks be released. The British officials included Scotland Yard Deputy Assistant Commissioner John Yates.
> 
> Banners near the town hall read "Terrorism will not be stopped by invasions and killings" and "The pain of Jean Charles' family is the pain of Gonzaga, we are mourning."
> 
> The de Menezes family and the Brazilian government have demanded punishment for the police responsible for the killing.
> 
> About 10,000 local residents filed past de Menezes' coffin before he was buried in the town's hilltop cemetery on Friday.


----------



## tech/a

I find most with fanatical views to be more interested in other peoples lives than taking care of their own!

If they had a life they wouldnt have a need to be fanatical! Its their way of being noticed----through someone elses opinions/veiws generally.

Best avoided I think.


----------



## reichstag911

*Brazilian did not wear bulky jacket.*



			
				DTM said:
			
		

> Wearing a jacket didn't help his cause.






> *Brazilian did not wear bulky jacket.*
> Relatives say Met admits that, contrary to reports, electrician did
> not leap tube station barrier.
> 
> By Mark Honigsbaum
> 07/28/05 "The Guardian" - - Jean Charles de Menezes, the Brazilian
> shot dead in the head, was not wearing a heavy jacket that might
> have concealed a bomb, and did not jump the ticket barrier when
> challenged by armed plainclothes police, his cousin said yesterday.
> Speaking at a press conference after a meeting with the Metropolitan
> police, Vivien Figueiredo, 22, said that the first reports of how
> her 27-year-old cousin had come to be killed in mistake for a
> suicide bomber on Friday at Stockwell tube station were wrong.
> 
> "He used a travel card," she said. "He had no bulky jacket, he was
> wearing a jeans jacket. But even if he was wearing a bulky jacket
> that wouldn't be an excuse to kill him."
> Flanked by the de Menezes family's solicitor, Gareth Peirce, and by
> Bianca Jagger, the anti-Iraq war campaigner, she condemned the shoot-
> to-kill policy which had led to her cousin's death and vowed that
> what she called the "crime" would not go unpunished.
> 
> "My cousin was an honest and hard working person," said Ms
> Figueiredo who shared a flat with him in Tulse Hill, south
> London. "Although we are living in circumstances similar to a war,
> we should not be exterminating people unjustly."




http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1537457,00.html


----------



## Happy

My sincere apologies to R…1

And please please do not start deflagmatory case; I didn’t think I’d get up your nose that bad.

Grandma used to say that truth hurts most, not sure why she said something like that.
Could we get the poster on ‘Copy Rights’ ground?


----------



## reichstag911

Joe Blow said:
			
		

> My view is that we shouldn't allow hard won civil liberties to be eroded because of a few miserable extremists bent on violence.




I agree and have been *attempting* to show that this IS happening already -despite denial by certain individuals who clearly have their heads buried in the sand.

Do people know that humans are ALREADY being micro chipped like pets ?

Just wait ...


----------



## Bloveld

A quote  from the testimony of Hermann Goering at the Nuremberg  trials, not long before Hitler's Vice-Fuehrer poisoned himself in his jail cell:

"...  It is always a simple matter to drag people along  whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a  parliament, or a communist dictatorship.  Voice or no voice,  the people can always be brought to the bidding of the  leaders.  This is easy.  All you have to do is tell them  they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack  of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.  It works  the same in every country."


----------



## reichstag911

*Brazilian murder cover up continues ...*



> New claims emerge over Menezes death:
> · Brazilian was held before being shot
> · Police failed to identify him
> · He made no attempt to run away
> 
> Rosie Cowan, Duncan Campbell and Vikram Dodd
> Wednesday August 17, 2005
> Guardian.
> 
> The young Brazilian shot dead by police on a London tube train in mistake for a suicide bomber had already been overpowered by a surveillance officer before he was killed, according to secret documents revealed last night.
> It also emerged in the leaked documents that early allegations that he was running away from police at the time of the shooting were untrue and that he appeared unaware that he was being followed.
> 
> Relatives and the dead man's legal team expressed shock and outrage at the revelations. Scotland Yard has continued to justify a shoot-to-kill policy.
> 
> Jean Charles de Menezes died after being shot on a tube train at Stockwell station in south London on July 22, the morning after the failed bomb attacks in London.
> 
> But the evidence given to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) by police officers and eyewitnesses and leaked to ITV News shows that far from leaping a ticket barrier and fleeing from police, as was initially reported, he was filmed on CCTV calmly entering the station and picking up a free newspaper before boarding the train.




http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1550565,00.html


The U.S.economy: a train wreck coming to a station near you :Ãž


----------



## Happy

Mistakes do happen, they happen at the workplace and people die, innocent people die on the roads in plane crashes, so it is only natural that innocent person might die in anti-terrorist operation.

Joe,
If this Independent Guardian is copyrighted, shouldn’t we have written explicit permission to publish it on our board?

Wouldn’t link alone be more appropriate?

But I suppose they don’t mind to spread the poisonous agenda ridden innuendos, it actually serves somebody’s purposes, so probably they will be more than happy, more than I am.


----------



## Joe Blow

Happy said:
			
		

> Joe,
> If this Independent Guardian is copyrighted, shouldn’t we have written explicit permission to publish it on our board?
> 
> Wouldn’t link alone be more appropriate?




I have shortened the quote for brevity but posts with just links and nothing else are not allowed on the forums. It is common practice for excerpts from other news sources to be posted on forums. As long as the source is credited and a link is included I see no problem.


----------



## Happy

Joe,
That ‘smurfed’ version looks better, thanks.


----------



## DTM

Happy said:
			
		

> Mistakes do happen, they happen at the workplace and people die, innocent people die on the roads in plane crashes, so it is only natural that innocent person might die in anti-terrorist operation.




Mistakes are different from accidents.  Mistakes are different from calculated murder, just ask the bombers (aren't we supposed to be better?).  They had obviously overpowered him but chose to execute him even though the arresting police had no idea who he was.  He was wearing no bulky jacket as previously stated (he was wearing a denim jacket from the pictures), he wasn't chased as previously stated by the police (cameras showing him walking through the gates) etc etc.  Pure incompetence in my opinion and shooter should be sent to jail.

How many more mistakes must there be before it becomes inexcusable?  

From the Age today:




> Police version of tube shooting challenged
> By Annabel Crabb
> Age Correspondent
> London
> August 18, 2005
> 
> 
> London's police forces and their "shoot-to-kill" policy for terrorists were under acute pressure yesterday after leaked documents revealed a chilling series of blunders that led to the killing of innocent Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes.
> 
> Documents and photographs, obtained by Britain's ITV news network, appear to wholly contradict plain-clothes police claims that Mr de Menezes was dressed and acting suspiciously, and ignoring police warnings when he was shot seven times to the head on July 22 in front of horrified fellow passengers on an Underground train.
> 
> They also suggest that an unscheduled toilet break taken by a London plain-clothes police officer may have cost Mr de Menezes his life.
> 
> When the 27-year-old Brazilian electrician left his Scotia Road apartment building at 9.30am that day, he was unaware he was being covertly watched by a police surveillance team monitoring the flats.
> 
> The team was waiting, according to the leaked documents, for Hussain Osman, a young Ethiopian-born man suspected of having attempted just a day earlier to blow up a train at nearby Shepherds Bush.
> 
> The officer charged with photographing the suspect, however, was answering a call of nature when Mr de Menezes emerged and did not have a free hand to operate his video device.
> 
> As a result, no reliable visual identification was made; the officer reported that a male of the appropriate age had left the building but advised that it would be worth someone else having a look to obtain a positive identification.
> 
> The commander of Scotland Yard's operation nevertheless declared a Code Red, and placed a team of heavily armed officers on high alert, authorising them to intercept a subject and take a critical shot if the subject did not comply with a challenge.
> 
> Officers trailed Mr de Menezes as he boarded a bus to the Stockwell tube station.
> 
> Contrary to subsequent reports, he was not wear- ing a bulky coat or carrying a bag.
> 
> The leaked material includes photographs of Mr de Menezes' bloodstained body inside the train carriage, from which it can clearly be seen that he is wearing a close-fitting denim jacket and a light T-shirt.
> 
> 
> And on arrival at the Underground station, he did not vault the ticket barriers ”” as subsequently claimed ”” to evade his plain-clothes pursuers.
> 
> Instead, he used his season ticket to get through the barrier, collected a free newspaper and proceeded calmly down the escalators, breaking into a run only when he saw that a train was preparing to depart.
> 
> On boarding the train, he was approached by pursuing plain-clothes police officers. One seized him while a second discharged 11 shots from a pistol at point-blank range.
> 
> A witness statement from one of the officers on the train claims that he grabbed Mr de Menezes around the body, pinioning his arms, while another officer fired at the man from a distance of about 30 centimetres.
> 
> The officer's statement, perhaps the most damaging of all for Scotland Yard, invites the conclusion that the eight bullets that hit Mr de Menezes ”” seven of which hit him in the head ”” were an overreaction to a suspect who had already been overpowered.
> 
> Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair, a popular London figure who told reporters after the shooting that Mr de Menezes was challenged and refused to obey police instructions, was not available for comment yesterday.
> 
> Despite the release of closed-circuit TV footage showing the July 7 and July 21 bombing suspects, police have never released images of Mr de Menezes to support their claims that he had been wearing a bulky jacket and running from police. Scotland Yard and the Blair Government both remained silent on the revelations last night.
> 
> HOW THE EVIDENCE IS STACKING UP
> WHAT POLICE SAID v WHAT THE EVIDENCE SAYS
> 
> - Jean Charles de Menezes identified as suspect after leaving block of flats.
> - Surveillance officer unable to make accurate identification because he had been relieving himself when de Menezes left.
> 
> - Wearing bulky jacket and/or belt.
> - Wearing only a thin denim jacket.
> 
> - Acted suspiciously on way to Stockwell station.
> - Nothing odd in his behaviour.
> 
> - Ran from police when challenged at station and refused to obey instructions.
> - Challenged for first time while seated on train.
> 
> - Vaulted ticket barrier to escape.
> - Did not vault. Ran only to catch train.
> 
> - Eight shots fired into him.
> - Eleven shots fired, three missed (seven to head; one elsewhere).




http://www.theage.com.au/news/war-o...ting-challenged/2005/08/17/1123958126875.html


----------



## Happy

‘London's police forces "shoot-to-kill" policy for terrorists’ –
WAS SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO PREVENT SUICIDE BOMBER TO DETONATE THE EXPLOSIVES

An explanation which followed, that as long as a SUICIDE BOMBER is conscious he can detonate the explosives is a good enough explanation to me.

The only problem was they’ve got the wrong person, and even if this mistake-error happens again I am happy to live with that.

This was not intentional, stakes were high, and it was known that suicide bombers were at large, area was under surveillance and it was unfortunate coincidence, it was all in the name of saving lives.

Police men and women are human too, they have emotions and fears and it was highly emotional time.

If amongst them was a trigger happy Rambo, if anything there would need to be a little bit of re-training, that’s all.


----------



## Knobby22

Pretty big mistake.


----------



## Happy

Big mistakes happen too, I think bigger one not so recently was Chernobyl.

It was just unauthorised test, which gone horribly wrong.


----------



## GreatPig

Happy said:
			
		

> The only problem was they’ve got the wrong person, and even if this mistake-error happens again I am happy to live with that.



Even if the victim was your wife/son/daughter or other loved one?

Could you then stand up and say you're happy with the police's actions because at least they're keeping the country a safer place in which to live?

Safer for most people, that is...

GP


[And no, my current avatar is coincidental ]


----------



## Happy

Proverbial Mother-in-law would be my preferred choice, sort of two birds with one stone, but hardly anybody is that lucky.

Your avatar is OK, but wrong skeleton inside.


----------



## DTM

Happy said:
			
		

> Proverbial Mother-in-law would be my preferred choice, sort of two birds with one stone, but hardly anybody is that lucky.




Hahahahahaha...... LOL, sort of like winning the lotto.


----------



## Smurf1976

Happy said:
			
		

> Joe,
> That ‘smurfed’ version looks better, thanks.


----------



## Happy

Have problem with that? 

Grow up then, ha ha ha.


----------



## reichstag911

*The ugly truth about Iraq.*

08/19/05 "Daily News" -- -- Last week, we wrote about the unspeakably sad story of Gennaro Pellegrini Jr. -- Philly cop, welterweight boxer, and National Guardsman. The 31-year-old's life was hitting full stride when he received a fateful phone call ordering him to serve in Iraq, just two weeks before his hitch was supposed to end. Pellegrini was quite unhappy, but he went -- and he paid with his life, along with three of his Pennsylvania National Guard colleagues who were killed in a ruthless ambush near the Iraqi town of Beiji.

Also slain in that Aug. 9 attack was one of Pellegrini's brothers-in-arms, a Whitpain Township firefighter named John Kulick. Kulick -- a 35-year-old from the suburbs, an avid fisherman who loved too much mustard on bologna sandwiches and was called "Johnny K" -- had become had become fast friends with Pellegrini, the tough, tatooed city cop from a rowhouse block of Port Richmond. But the road that these two salt-of-the-earth guys had taken to Beiji could not have been more different.

As a professional firefighter, Kulick was devastated by the loss of so many colleagues at the World Trade Center in the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. That sense of duty is what prompted him to joined the Pennsylvania National Guard, even though he was already on the far side of 30 and the devoted and involved divorced dad to his daughter, Amanda, who is in grade school. And when his Guard unit from Northeast Philly was called up last December, he told his worried family that he wanted to go, to fight terrorists "over there."

In fact, Kulick's brother Jim -- in a radio interview this morning -- said they watched the movie "Blackhawk Down" just days before his departure for Iraq. After the end of the movie (which depicts the 1993 Somali insurgent attack that killed 18 U.S. troops), John Kulick declared, echoing his commander-in-chief and without irony, "Bring 'em on."

We heard Jim Kulick this morning on the Michael Smerconish show on WPHT-1210. The reason Smerconish invited him on was to talk about the emails that John Kulick had sent home from northern Iraq in the months before he was killed. Over the eight months that the Philly-area firefighter served in Iraq, his opinion of the mission changed radically.

As described by his brother, John Kulick's emails tell the story of a patriotic American who was betrayed -- by his own government. Because it was John Kulick's government that -- after spending more than $100 billion on Iraq -- sent him into hostile territory without the proper armor. And it was John Kulick's government that sent him into a war that lacked a strategy, and that, as a result, not only eliminated the enemy but was waged in a way that created new enemies every day.

Jim Kulick said his brother's emails showed a man who was becoming more and more worried. John Kulick said the insurgents were using increasingly sophisticated IEDs -- improvised explosive devices -- and were firing rocket-propelled grenades, or RPGs, into their camp. "They had to hide under their cots -- there was nothing they could do," Kulick's brother said. "The Humvees weren't armored, or lightly armored -- they were basically useless. At first they were sending them out in pickup trucks. They weren't really equipped to fight this war."

Kulick told his family that troops were taking police vests that had been donated to them and putting them on the floor of the Humvees instead of wearing them. Jim Kulick noted that at the same time his brother was reporting this, two of his friends who are area police officers serving in Iraq told him they had needed to bring their own sidearms. In his emails, John Kulick had begun to describe the war as "a quagmire."

As disturbing as those reports were, what Kulick had to say about the conduct of the war was even more troubling. He told his family that the Iraqi police "were corrupt and inept and there was no way they could ever train them to the degree where they could keep order." And when his unit went out after insurgents, far too many innocent iraqis were killed in the crossfire. And, Kulick reported home, "the more hate that created." When the Americans left an area, the insurgents came back the next day.

Eventually, when Kulick saw Iraqi citizens kneeling in the street in prayer, his interpreter would tell him they were praying for the Americans to leave. "They would rather live with evil they knew rather than live with us," Kulick said in his emails. "We were killing them as much as the insurgents were."

Kulick and his fellow Guardsmen were riding in a Humvee, reportedly armored, on night patrol on Aug. 9 when a large bomb -- containing as much as 25 to 30 pounds of explosives -- that was hidden in a drainage culvert under the roadway exploded and killed them. Just hours earlier, Kulick had called his father to tell him where his will was located and that he would want a full military funeral.

It's too early to say whether the tumultuous events of the last few weeks -- the deaths of so many Guardsmen from Pennsylvania and Ohio, the groundswell of support for grieving anti-war mom Cindy Sheehan -- will be remember as a turning point. Jim Kulick said this morning that the U.S. needs to set a timetable for getting out, and host Smerconish -- a political conservative who supported the war from early on -- was surprisingly sympathetic. Said Smerconish: "We're adrift."

Yesterday, John Kulick received the type of funeral he had asked for. His flag-draped funeral procession along York Road in Montgomery County drew firefighters from 61 local departments, and featured all the pomp and circumstance that is appropriate for a true hero like John Kulick.

But today, the cameras are gone, and flags are folded up -- and Kulick's family will continue to live with the loss. Jim Kulick said his family is "devastated" by what happened in Iraq.

None worse than his 9-year-old daughter. "Amanda is in denial," Jim Kulick said. "She said her father promised her he would come back from the war, and she still believes that."

Amanda Kulick doesn't understand what happened to her father.

Neither do we.

All contents  ©2005 by The Daily News


----------



## sam76

Happy said:
			
		

> Proverbial Mother-in-law would be my preferred choice, sort of two birds with one stone, but hardly anybody is that lucky.




that reminds me of a joke.

Q: What's the definition of a mixed feeling?

A: Watching your mother-in-law drive of a cliff in your new porsche!


----------



## Happy

Joe,
I think time comes to tighten the screw a bit. 
R…1 had a request from our B Board owner and was asked to make a short quotation and a comment.

Do I remember it right?

What we get is as always v. long quotation and no input from the poster. 
Stubborn, cannot follow the orders, or just down right arrogant.
Reminds me some recent comments that some young people will never integrate.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the time slowly comes to pull the plug.

Cannot play by the rules, go and play somewhere else.


----------



## Joe Blow

Happy said:
			
		

> Joe,
> I think time comes to tighten the screw a bit.
> R…1 had a request from our B Board owner and was asked to make a short quotation and a comment.
> 
> Do I remember it right?
> 
> What we get is as always v. long quotation and no input from the poster.
> Stubborn, cannot follow the orders, or just down right arrogant.
> Reminds me some recent comments that some young people will never integrate.
> 
> Correct me if I am wrong, but the time slowly comes to pull the plug.
> 
> Cannot play by the rules, go and play somewhere else.




Reichstag911 will be taking a break from the forums for a while. Lets just leave it at that.


----------

