UK Royal Marine charged with murder for killing Taliban insurgent

They are all one in the same. One is a 'network' and the other(s) are considered 'terrorist cells'. But they work hand in hand, They are worthless muslims working toward the same bullshit they were fed and believe.

 

When asked why Bin Laden is not wanted for the crime of 9/11, the Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI (Rex Tomb) said, "The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Osama bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11." When asked to explain the process, he said, "The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice then decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury . . . he has not been formally charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11." Boy, if a taped confession isn't the FBI's idea of hard evidence, then what is?

There hasn't been a single document that demonstrates that the videotape is authentic, or that it even went through an authentication process. Some have submitted Freedom of Information Act requests to the FBI, CIA, Department of Defense, and CENTCOM asking for the documentation that would prove the authenticity of the tape, like dates and the circumstances by which the videotape was discovered. CENTCOM has yet to reply to that FOIA request. The FBI responded by stating that no documents could be found to fulfill the request. The DOD said to go ask CENTCOM, saying that they have no documents concerning the FOIA request either.

PLus,two independent translators and an expert on oriental studies found the White House’s translation not only to be inaccurate, but "manipulative".

http://empirestrikesblack.com/2011/...deo-mistranslated-and-manipulated-by-the-cia/
____________________________________________________________

Not only that, but I seem to remember something about missing frames from the video, and maybe some cutting and pasting. I could be wrong, so I'll do some research just to be sure. Right now I have to go to the mall and pick up some supplies.

 

:2thumbsup:

 

That seems less real or impotant as simple competition. Those who want what you have say all kinds of good sounding things that really only matter if some idiot believes them and allows their self to be supplanted by no more than "talk". I doubt Americans care much about being the good guys or right all the time as much as they do efforts to overtake them with a bunch of talk and claims of being misunderstood. The sack o lies always says "you lier!", the loser always says "you're not the good guys!" And common sense is always greeted with "you're wrong!" ( because I am) so despite our moron delinquents dealing away their own lives and country, you can not generalise Americans like that, sit back on your loser whine bag and say you are right because you are breaking your own racecard rules. Small wonder people think all middle east people are...
I'msaying your comment was bs that "Americans" aren't buying so much anymore.

 

who are you talking to ? if its to abdul.he is not here anymore,but i am only to happy to reply for him in his absence.if you care to debate those comments.feel free ta take me on.

 

Debate is a pretty worthless pass time unless you don't have anything better to do. "Debating" this issue would imply that I have the brain of a peanut, because I idiotically think it has anything to do with Americans or people and that their opinion somehow matters. It would take about a second grade mentality to blame any of this on any "people", as if they could control anything or had any direct interest in it. You don't know anybody that it "matters what they say/think" and these things are games in the hands of inscrutable power of which everybody you know is industrial meat by product gone sour and doesn't even matter. They get tv and comforting speeches. (Heh)
Not only that, it would be giving audience to some rag about it all from someone who has the above mentioned stupidity and childishness on purpose about life, politics, people and power. We shouldn't do that unless there's a good reason.

 

There is nothing worthless about debate unless no one is presenting any facts. Where there are facts, there is learning. And that's not debatable.

 

copout!

 

I didn't copout at all, I said that you don't get away so easy anymore with saying Amricans are (loser insult of the day) because it's just stupid and the cause of what happened in the mid east is by the direct request of your leaders in a deal made with ours and with which "people" have nothing to do or even matter.
There is no "debate" opportunity for you to spout your hate speeches and do your little propaganda job. If you aren't doing that, then you have to be what we call a "lo infomashun" voter and since you were using vowels I wasn't buying you as that much of an idiot - but it's one or the other under color of a debate which might as well be "Americans are the reason we suck so much!" ie another not-true justification to talk.

 

no debate for hate speeches ha! ha! have you read the thread.its full of hate speeches and none of them came the o.p. and quite frankly i think he showed great dignity and integrity.and whats stupid is trying to imply he was talking about all american and english people.he was not.he was only talking about the ones in his expereince who don't like any truths being told.i sugest you reread the thread.in doing so you'll be able to dicpher the difference between topic discussion and hate speeches/propaganda.

 

Look what the country voted for the first time? Second time was bought as they had no chance at many scams coming out sooner. But id rather see a man dig his own hole like the current administration is doing.

Fact's are there, It which the person chooses to believe them or not is the key. It also helps to just look around and process the current situation and have common sense.

But I do agree, People choose to believe what they are told/fed and its a fucking shit load of lie's and bullshit. One honest answer cannot be asked, Without a 'disruption' in any of the 535 IIRC or whatever lowlife bastards who have nothing to loose anyway.

 

The vast mineral riches in Afghanistan - (Atleast) $1 trillion in untapped mineral deposits



Is seems partially based on recent re-evaluations of:

http://geopubs.wr.usgs.gov/open-file/of02-110/of02-110.pdf

After 2007 ?

Possibly (it was written by a journalist after all).
What it is seems to be saying is kind of back to front.
With the conclusion first then the method afterwards.
The data was 'out there' but it was not evaluated.
'The handful of American geologists who pored over the new data said the results were astonishing.'
So, it wasn't known until a few years after 2007.
Even though a: 'series of old charts and data at the library of the Afghan Geological Survey in Kabul that hinted at major mineral deposits in the country.' - was known.
Which is probably what Ms Chamberlin was referring to.
But a clear and concise evaluation (removing inconsistencies - etc - in decades old data) doesn't seem to have been known, and that was 'new'.

Since 2009/2010:

The Pentagon business development task force brought in teams of American mining experts to validate the survey’s findings, and then briefed Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Mr. Karzai.

So far, the biggest mineral deposits discovered are of iron and copper, and the quantities are large enough to make Afghanistan a major world producer of both, United States officials said. Other finds include large deposits of niobium, a soft metal used in producing superconducting steel, rare earth elements and large gold deposits in Pashtun areas of southern Afghanistan.

(...did Ms Chamberlin know about this?)

Just this month (June 2010), American geologists working with the Pentagon team have been conducting ground surveys on dry salt lakes in western Afghanistan where they believe there are large deposits of lithium. Pentagon officials said that their initial analysis at one location in Ghazni Province showed the potential for lithium deposits as large of those of Bolivia, which now has the world’s largest known lithium reserves.

(...did Ms Chamberlin know about this?)

For the geologists who are now scouring some of the most remote stretches of Afghanistan to complete the technical studies necessary before the international bidding process is begun, there is a growing sense that they are in the midst of one of the great discoveries of their careers.

“On the ground, it’s very, very, promising,” Mr. Medlin said. “Actually, it’s pretty amazing.”

“I am quite surprised that the military is announcing this as some ‘new’ and ‘surprising” discovery,’ she told Danger Room in an e-mail. “This is NOT new. Perhaps this also hints at the real reason why we would be so intent on this war.”

Isn't this slightly misleading? (...and why I keep asking you to explain it further with facts)

What does she mean by 'this'?
...and, again, what do you both think was already known?

Yes.

 

Yes, the Pentagon business development task forces validated what was already known. I believe the operative phrase there is "validated what was already known."

Just this month (June 2010), American geologists working with the Pentagon team have been conducting ground surveys on dry salt lakes in western Afghanistan where they believe there are large deposits of lithium.

And you're wondering if Ms. Chamberlin knew about what they believe? Only if they shared their belief with her. Otherwise, how would she know about another's supposition?

Pentagon officials said that their initial analysis at one location in Ghazni Province showed the potential for lithium deposits as large of those of Bolivia, which now has the world’s largest known lithium reserves.

EDIT: Initial analysis was in June, 2010. Isn't potential right up there with belief?

For the geologists who are now scouring some of the most remote stretches of Afghanistan to complete the technical studies necessary before the international bidding process is begun, there is a growing sense that they are in the midst of one of the great discoveries of their careers.

"A growing sense"? Isn't that just another way of saying a belief?

As has been stated--nothing new.

 

And here's more than a few pics that just might surprise you:

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/10/14066.html

 

Not historically known (from the 70's 80's or 90's)
What was gathered in the 2006/07 surveys.
Are you saying Ms Chamberlin knew what was within the 2006/7 reports, and evaluated it herself before 2009?
Or, again, a vague notion about minerals in Afghanistan?

It one sense, yes.

But in another sense, no.

Like I said:

' “I am quite surprised that the military is announcing this as some ‘new’ and ‘surprising” discovery,’ she told Danger Room in an e-mail. “This is NOT new. Perhaps this also hints at the real reason why we would be so intent on this war.”

What does she mean by 'this?'

'And what "initial analysis" would that be? What year was that? And isn't potential right up there with belief?'

'"A growing sense"? Isn't that just another way of saying a belief?'

Time for you to do your own research...

I recommend the USGS, AGS and the BGS websites...

And remember the parts about potential and belief is how much is there and how much it is worth.

 

When Ms. Chamberlin used the word "this," she was referring to the 2010 New York Times article. She was stating that it was nothing new.

Sorry, but the potential for something, and the belief about something, and the growing sense of something is not a fact about whatever that something is. I recommend that you research what those words mean.

____________________________

And how about those pics? Rather eye-opening, aren't they?

 

Yes, but WHAT wasn't new?

No. I knew what you were going to reference.
And I knew that you might imply the purpose was to get cocaine onto the streets etc etc...
What were you trying to imply, for the record?
What was the purpose of toleration?
Your link suggests: tolerating growing and cracking down after the farmers had been paid...to prevent X, Y and Z.
We were getting tangled in one convoluted conversation - I didn't want to start another.

 

:lurk5:

 

No, Odon, you did not know what I was going to reference; you had a growing sense.

You say you knew that I might imply that the purpose was to get cocaine onto the streets etc etc.? You should be aware that to say that you "knew what I might imply" is to say that you don't know what I will imply. I have no idea what you're going on about when you mention cocaine. Where in hell did that come from? I assume it was a belief you had about what I was thinking, or perhaps you saw a potential for my thinking what you thought I was thinking when in fact I wasn't thinking that at all . . . I think.

Why are you asking me what the purpose of toleration is? I pointed out that the military is supporting and protecting the opium production and trade. You said they weren't. The pics prove otherwise. That's all there was to this.

And I don't know what you mean by this: "Rather than tolerating growing and cracking down after the farmers had been paid..."

 

Sorry, roamy, but it's bed time.