America - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter ///M-Spec
  • 39,840 comments
  • 1,798,972 views
Now I see how I screwed up my wording.

I meant with the scary acting officer, we should be glad the therapist was there, the patient was not following any commands. The situation could have been a lot worse if the therapist wasn't there.

The police don't have any problem killing unarmed, naked people, that don't follow commands. It was local I'll find a link if needed.
 
Omnis
Nope. At that range with rifles, they would have shot center mass. You could easily shoot someone in the head if you tried. Everything about this incident suggests it was an accidental discharge. Doesn't excuse it though. They could have killed that poor guy.
Click to expand...
Except, there were three shots fired (accidentally?) and the police story now is that he was aiming at the autistic guy because he made a threatening move.

So, by their own admission it was not accidental. The cop is just an absolutely horrible marksman.
 
Omnis
I can't defend the indefensible. Thank god nobody died.
Click to expand...

Yeah, if what the media is reporting is what actually happened, the cop is done and I wouldn't be surprised to see charges filed.
 
peobryant
Yeah, if what the media is reporting is what actually happened, the cop is done and I wouldn't be surprised to see charges filed.
Click to expand...
It's the police union rep saying it was accidental. The media just passed along their statement.

Their best defense here appears to be, "Oops."
 
Chances are that the first shot fired at the autistic man must have escalated the situation, AFAIK autistic people hate loud noises.
 
You probably missed this if you didn't watch it live or you watch the soundbites on the left wing media. Here's your beloved President, being solemn and serious, talking about the terrorist attack in Germany. CNN version first. Unedited version second half of the video in which, right in the middle of the press conference, he cracks a joke and everyone laughs, about kids leaving home.
 
Milouse
That is arrogance.
Since Bush, the last one, messed in Irak, which led to the birth of Isis and ended in many deaths in my country, i do legitimately care of what is going in US elections, and i do have interest in politic anyway.
Click to expand...

So as I said, how exactly did he do this?
 
Hun200kmh
If you Google it you'll find lots of interesting stuff.

I enjoyed reading this one, seemed like a balanced analysis, but who am I to know ...

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/did-george-w-bush-create-isis
Click to expand...

That's not how it works, he made a claim and I simply asked him to show how. I nor you are the ones that should have to seek out the evidence in how he is right potentially. I moved it here because the thread it was in was the wrong thread for this course of discussion.
 
LMSCorvetteGT2
That's not how it works, he made a claim and I simply asked him to show how. I nor you are the ones that should have to seek out the evidence in how he is right potentially. I moved it here because the thread it was in was the wrong thread for this course of discussion.
Click to expand...
I don't consider this as a claim, but of common knowledge. I've watch and read a lot about the subject over the years, why should i do your homework?
Still, unless you challenge one of the three key facts:
1. Iraq used to be a stable country with no active jihadism (and, on side note, had nothing to do with 9-11).
2. Georges W. Bush led a war against Irak in 2003. The war led to the overthrow of the government.
3. Isis was primarily located in Irak before extending to Syria.
... then there is nothing to debate around my sentence.

And don't answer this is a simplistic view, the details are interesting (specially to understand how religion discrimination inside the new government created victims that then fuel troops to early Isis ; and why it could now be a never ending conflict in the zone), but this is all what is needed to "backup" my comment.
 
Chrunch Houston
1. Iraq used to be a stable country with no active jihadism
Click to expand...

That was about 150 years ago (or more), how is that relevant?

Chrunch Houston
2. Georges W. Bush led a war against Irak in 2003. The war led to the overthrow of the government.
Click to expand...

Arguably the 1991 war led to that; Saddam was left in a parlous position due to sanctions set by countries around the world.

Chrunch Houston
3. Isis was primarily located in Irak before extending to Syria.
Click to expand...

When ISIS was self-nominated it was based in Syria despite the existence of "Iraq" in the original title. Their territorial gains were not extended to Iraq until after that time.

Chrunch Houston
... then there is nothing to debate around my sentence.
Click to expand...

Apart from the facts ;)
 
Milouse
I don't consider this as a claim, but of common knowledge. I've watch and read a lot about the subject over the years, why should i do your homework?
Click to expand...

Because you made the claim, and then backing out by saying "well I shouldn't do your homework" when in reality this isn't common knowledge it's about as hyperbolic, as saying due to failed attempts by the Clinton admin to get rid of Osama Bin Laden he was indirectly responsible for 9/11.

Still, unless you challenge one of the three key facts:
1. Iraq used to be a stable country with no active jihadism (and, on side note, had nothing to do with 9-11).
Click to expand...

@Danoff just explained in length not that long ago to another foreign member exactly what was wrong with Iraq and why the war was just, your opinion for or against is beside the point. Your comment almost aligns with recent quotes of Trump saying Iraq was a stable country and Saddam though a bad man was one of the best terrorist eradicators. Now if you call a genocidal attack on innocent Kurds...
2. Georges W. Bush led a war against Irak in 2003. The war led to the overthrow of the government.
Click to expand...

Yeah took less then a week for them to basically in simple war terms conquer the country. Only due to a breach of treaty from the Gulf War.
3. Isis was primarily located in Irak before extending to Syria.
... then there is nothing to debate around my sentence.
Click to expand...

Yes they were a small rag-tag group like various other groups in the region, but never had strength there and thus their real growth came from a civil war in a neighboring country. And with various other nations the United States included, started funding weapons funneling programs with clandestine operations to said rebels fighting, but these weapons ended up in the wrong hands in many cases. This amass of weapons and then funding allowed them to go back to Iraq and destabilize the country and become an ever big threat we see today. One that is ever fluid and mobile, and implants themselves into at times innocent refugee groups to cause even more chaos first world nations.

And don't answer this is a simplistic view, the details are interesting (specially to understand how religion discrimination inside the new government created victims that then fuel troops to early Isis ; and why it could now be a never ending conflict in the zone), but this is all what is needed to "backup" my comment.
Click to expand...

No there is more needed cause you're without clue as much as you were in the U.S. presidential thread.
 
NM please remove.
Edit for context: Am I crazy or is Milous Crunch?
 
Last edited:
Milouse
I don't consider this as a claim, but of common knowledge. I've watch and read a lot about the subject over the years, why should i do your homework?
Still, unless you challenge one of the three key facts:
1. Iraq used to be a stable country with no active jihadism (and, on side note, had nothing to do with 9-11).
Click to expand...
Is this before or after Saddam genocided out of existance as many as 280,000 Kurds and 60-130,000 Shi-ites? Is this before or after Saddam instituted everything from amputation to the death penalty for corruption, theft and other offences, while exempting his own family from the same laws? Is this before or after they made anal sex an offence punishable by death? Is this before or after torture centres were discovered in police stations and security offices throughout Iraq, containing hooks for hanging people for beatings and electric shock devices?

Curious, is killing 400,000 of your own citizens considered jihad? Does it make a difference what it's called?
 
LMSCorvetteGT2
@Danoff just explained in length not that long ago to another foreign member exactly what was wrong with Iraq and why the war was just, your opinion for or against is beside the point. Your comment almost aligns with recent quotes of Trump saying Iraq was a stable country and Saddam though a bad man was one of the best terrorist eradicators. Now if you call a genocidal attack on innocent Kurds...
Click to expand...
"your opinion for or against is beside the point" => that is why i didn't give an opinion as i very rarely do, i just stuck to the facts. But then you gives an opinion, and, yes, it is besides the point, thank you.
Also, thinking that the war in Iraq is a national affair from which you had a privilege point of view is beyond me. And it is a legitimate matter to me for which i can't accept to be considered a foreigner (note: i didn't bring the subject in this thread). I remember crossing a very inamical cab driver in Los Angeles in 2003 following this anti-french* campaign by the Bush administration. On side note, the reason why France stood up so firmly against the US back then is because the country had a hi-res satellite that provided information showing without any doubt that US officials in Paris were lying - hence the interest of keeping some sort of military independence.

LMSCorvetteGT2
No there is more needed cause you're without clue as much as you were in the U.S. presidential thread.
Click to expand...
I think you don't have many clue and that you try to hide it by making such assumption. I can't even suspect you to own a mind reading device...

ryzno
NM please remove.
Edit for context: Am I crazy or is Milous Crunch?
Click to expand...
I missed the "refresh" page at right time it seams, could someone explains to me?

@Johnnypenso (and others) This debate about international interference would be very interesting but it is, like all this discussion, way beyond the meaning of my sentence, which is now totally out of context: i wrote "Since Bush, the last one, messed in Irak, which led to the birth of Isis and ended in many deaths in my country, i do legitimately care of what is going in US elections" in another thread to give an example that US politic can have impact on my life, so it is legitimate that i have interest in it despite people throwing shade onto that legitimacy.

@TenEightyOne Sorry, but you use (for the most part) right statements that don't contradict my points. Isis existed before being renamed Isis, which is why i referred to it as "early Isis" in my post.

Finally, in case someone never saw it:


*: French Fries are from Belgium, not France, give the Belges the credit on the next occasion ;)
 
Milouse
"your opinion for or against is beside the point" => that is why i didn't give an opinion as i very rarely do, i just stuck to the facts. But then you gives an opinion, and, yes, it is besides the point, thank you.
Also, thinking that the war in Iraq is a national affair from which you had a privilege point of view is beyond me. And it is a legitimate matter to me for which i can't accept to be considered a foreigner (note: i didn't bring the subject in this thread). I remember crossing a very inamical cab driver in Los Angeles in 2003 following this anti-french* campaign by the Bush administration. On side note, the reason why France stood up so firmly against the US back then is because the country had a hi-res satellite that provided information showing without any doubt that US officials in Paris were lying - hence the interest of keeping some sort of military independence.
Click to expand...

About what were they lying specifically? And keep in mind, your answer should be something that can be shown to be a lie by satellite imagery.
 
Milouse
"your opinion for or against is beside the point" => that is why i didn't give an opinion as i very rarely do, i just stuck to the facts. But then you gives an opinion, and, yes, it is besides the point, thank you.
Click to expand...

No you haven't you've yet to prove any thing. You touting something isn't a fact, and then claiming it as some common knowledge when three other members and me have all echoed the basis of ISIS origin and their build up which is vastly different from the one you've given.

Also, thinking that the war in Iraq is a national affair from which you had a privilege point of view is beyond me. And it is a legitimate matter to me for which i can't accept to be considered a foreigner (note: i didn't bring the subject in this thread). I remember crossing a very inamical cab driver in Los Angeles in 2003 following this anti-french* campaign by the Bush administration. On side note, the reason why France stood up so firmly against the US back then is because the country had a hi-res satellite that provided information showing without any doubt that US officials in Paris were lying - hence the interest of keeping some sort of military independence.
Click to expand...

No but the decisions and day by day of a National President were well on display more so for us than the international media picking it up. Also due to who joined the coalition forces, I'm sure plenty of people in their own nations were more interested in how their leaders were navigating this. As for your invested interest, which now makes more sense, but comes questionably is what proof do you have it was the Bush admin? I'm not a Bush supporter and I have reasons to feel that his presidency was a joke. However, I'm not going to go so far as to accept some of the fringe arguments because of backwater squabbles that may or may not have happened in international politics at the time.

It seems to me that yet again media/journalistic views of some were more to blame for this wave, with no real sources ever being identified just claimed from with in the DoD. I think the move pulled by then French Ambassador to the U.S. was clever to try and stop all of that: http://www.brookings.edu/research/articles/2003/07/france-vaisse

However, I don't disagree with some intelligence reports in regards to many French military and electronic manufactures doing deals with Iraq, for it was the French that helped build him a Nuclear reactor only for it to be taken out by the Israelis. Now I don't want to break this into a sub debate on that, the point is a precedence in technology between the two was set and had been going.

No you didn't bring the subject in this thread, you just brought it up as a weak defense in another thread, and basically went on this tangent.

I think you don't have many clue and that you try to hide it by making such assumption. I can't even suspect you to own a mind reading device...
Click to expand...

Have no idea what you're talking about, I've educated myself on Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen and more recently Syria and Libya when it comes to domestic policies of the U.S. I keep such interest because during times like this (election season) it is one of the more important tools of measure I use to decide who will help or hurt us. I don't need a mind reading device, what I've seen here is a person whose nation when through some turmoil against many others in the world for standing against the war, and said person probably feels that as a citizen it wasn't fair.
 
Last edited:
Danoff
About what were they lying specifically? And keep in mind, your answer should be something that can be shown to be a lie by satellite imagery.
Click to expand...
Presence of Weapons of Mass Destruction, which Colin Powell tried to expose with satellite imagery at UN.
The name of the french satellite network is Helios. (source are two TV documentaries, both in french, one being now online: a 270 minute long documentary about french secret services (link with right timecode but it's in french...) )

Danoff
keep in mind, your answer should
Click to expand...
I'll think twice next time before taking the time to find my sources if you go that way.
 
Danoff
About what were they lying specifically?
Click to expand...

In addition to @Milouse's point about the Helios team's information about a lack of ADMs at reported sites the Chilcott enquiry has proved very telling. At best there was a strong will to believe that ADMs were present but at worst it was a known lie.

Proof of a lie? I guess not.

@Milouse, for non-French speakers there's a traduction available ;)
 
Milouse
Presence of Weapons of Mass Destruction, which Colin Powell tried to expose with satellite imagery at UN.
The name of the french satellite network is Helios. (source are two TV documentaries, both in french, one being now online: a 270 minute long documentary about french secret services (link with right timecode but it's in french...) )


I'll think twice next time before taking the time to find my sources if you go that way.
Click to expand...


Here you go, our own images from around that time as well. Since multiple first world nations have this type of image gathering.

http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB88/
 
I want to just jump in and say that while I agree the US foreign policy has contributed heavily toward ISIS gaining power and the general instability of the Middle East, to blame terror attacks in France and the rest of Europe on the US ignores the actions of others in the Middle East. France, and other European countries, have had their fair share of involvement in Libya and Syria, which is where ISIS built their power base.

If the US receives blame, then so do most members of the UN and NATO.
 
FoolKiller
I want to just jump in and say that while I agree the US foreign policy has contributed heavily toward ISIS gaining power and the general instability of the Middle East, to blame terror attacks in France and the rest of Europe on the US ignores the actions of others in the Middle East. France, and other European countries, have had their fair share of involvement in Libya and Syria, which is where ISIS built their power base.

If the US receives blame, then so do most members of the UN and NATO.
Click to expand...
To be fair if US gets involved in any type of war im pretty sure they are obligated to join.
 
The Libyan fiasco was egged on by the French most all, IMO. A faux moral crusade, and against its own self-interest. Lost the oil, but gained a mortal enemy for life. A few weeks of giddy fun followed by a lifetime of regret. Pathetic and stupid; Darwin loves you.
 
Milouse
I'll think twice next time before taking the time to find my sources if you go that way.
Click to expand...

Thanks.

FoolKiller
I want to just jump in and say that while I agree the US foreign policy has contributed heavily toward ISIS gaining power and the general instability of the Middle East, to blame terror attacks in France and the rest of Europe on the US ignores the actions of others in the Middle East. France, and other European countries, have had their fair share of involvement in Libya and Syria, which is where ISIS built their power base.

If the US receives blame, then so do most members of the UN and NATO.
Click to expand...

I don't see how we're to blame for the actions of others.
 

Similar threads

Ross
  • Poll
Britain - The Official Thread
444 445 446
Replies
13K
Views
617K
Clinton Ducks
Clinton Ducks
Harley45
What did you do in GT7 today?
448 449 450
Replies
13K
Views
741K
HarVee
HarVee
The_Greaser
Forza Motorsport (2023): The Bugfest Thread
2 3 4
Replies
96
Views
19K
UKMikey
UKMikey
Dotini
Trump's Legacy: the US Space Force and conservative judges
Replies
1
Views
785
Dotini
Dotini
Joey D
High Altitude Objects Over North America
2 3
Replies
75
Views
7K
Liquid
Liquid

Latest Posts

Back