#1
Some of the police look like FOB rats with all their gear on. It is a bit over the top, all black gear, blacked out truck, tanks, They need to get over themselves and back to work.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
04/18/2014 14:54 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Militarized? Fine. There's an office in every state for that, the National Guard Adjutant General. Move all such teams to their control and for the establishment of ROEs and 'Mother May I's (approval authority to carry out missions consistent with the ROEs).
#3
Want some neat kit, like to kick in doors, shoot big guns, see lots of action? Visit scenic highway 611 and Kajaki dam, Helmand Province, AFG. Might be a few Marines still there who point you in the right direction. If not, then FOAD u wanker.
#5
Let's be honest, these people are playing dress-up. Albeit with live ammo. I would also assume that a few of them are trying to get to where they almost got but didn't because it was toooooo damn scary.
#6
Exactly the point Ship. They are all the gear and ego, without a clue. Makes them dangerous to themselves and society. And to Besoeker's point, posers would never go against a real enemy. They prefer going after moms and kids...
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
04/18/2014 18:43 Comments ||
Top||
#7
3,000 swat raids across the country in the 80s, last year 50,000.
Something has gone seriously wrong with our country. Especially when the militarized police go against little old ladies and non-violent law breakers.
#8
Well the SWAT teams of the world have proven themselves to be "all hat and no ranch" many times when in the face of a hostile activity and innocents to rescue, they dither and fiddle and spend more time worrying about their casualties than they do about the innocent dead.
And every time I see a film of SWAT teams in action, I laugh, who in the hell taught them that centipede move was a tactic?
They are a bunch of wankers playing dress up like little kids putting on their daddy's old uniform to play soldier.
Posted by: Bill Clinton ||
04/18/2014 21:37 Comments ||
Top||
#9
As per FREEREPUBLIC Artic, the Bundyland standoff is interpreted as the Fed Govt. now asserting de facto joint or quasi ownership of any + all PRIVATE = NON-GOVT-PUBLIC LANDS IN THE USA.
"LEGALISM" = By extension, the Fed should legally be able to not only confiscate any + all Private or non-Govt. properties at its leisure widout benefit of eminent domain = public condemnation proceedings or compensation, BUT CAN NOW USE THESE NEWLY BEGOTTEN "FEDERAL/GOVT." ASSETS TO PAY OFF AMERIKA'S EVER-INCREASING NATIONAL DEBT.
The zealous or manic protection of the Welfare-Nanny State in America = Amerika at the expense of everything else Americana is reaching its full or logical conclusion.
We saw a hint of this in the UK-EU already when UK Courts ruled that the National Govt. has the right to engage in fracking operations on private property widout need of OWNER-LANDLORD CONSENT OR COMPENSATION.
Lest we fergit, UNO OFFICIAL = "COMMUNISM" IS THE IDEAL/PREFERRED METHOD OF INTERNATIONAL RESOURCES PLANNING + EXCHANGE.
* OWG-NWO + "GLOBALISM" = ORGANIZING + PREPPING THE WHOLE OF PLANET EARTH + RESOURCES FOR DEEP SPACE EXPLORATION + HABITATION = NO MORE CIVIL LIBERTIES OR PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF EVERYTHING-N-ANYTHING???
Aren't you glad Americans = Amerikans voted for it!
Vladimir Putin happily allowed the Kiev authorities to shoot a few pro-Russian demonstrators while keeping his military forces on ice across the border. I predicted (and am sticking to my story) that Russia will not seize more territory in Eastern Ukraine--not for the time being, in any case. Russia will stand back and watch Ukraine implode, the way Egypt did during the two years following the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak. Note the new management is very friendly with Russia
Before the Maidan coup, Putin was willing to sit on $15 billion in arrears to Gazprom and put up $18 billion in new money. Now he wants $35 billion in back gas bills, on top of Ukraine's $15 billion a year current account deficit. The IMF wants massive cuts in subsidies, which will make the Kiev government an object of hatred without putting a dent into the problem. Western taxpayers won't cough up $50 billion for Ukraine, not even a small fraction of it.
Yankee Doodle went to Maidan, stuck a feather in his hat and called it democracy. Our foreign policy ideologues are like UFO cultists who are so convinced that space aliens are invading the earth that they see moon men in every glare of swamp gas. In this case, it isn't moon men, but aspiring republicans. First Tahrir Square, then Maidan, were glorious proof of the Manifest Destiny of Western democracy.
A Google search with the terms "Putin" and "genius" yields over 10 million hits. If I hear another pundit's panegyric to Putin's great intellect, I'll lose my lunch. Putin is not that smart; the trouble is that we are complete idiots. When Ukraine imploded, our leaders--from Victoria Nuland at the State Department to the neo-conservatives--rather assumed that we would reverse Ukraine's polarity to the West, and humiliate Russia with the loss of Crimea. Putin called our bluff, and we had no viable military options.
Putin doesn't need to send the Red Army into Ukraine. Every Ukrainian officer above the rank of major came up through the ranks in the Red Army. Ukrainian commanders won't fight the Russians. They are the Russians. Yesterday we watched Ukrainian paratroopers turn their armored vehicles over to Russian separatists. Maybe John McCain can send them more weapons to hand over to Moscow.
#3
White House bluff and bluster, threats of sanctions, are all diplomatic theater and a convenient distraction. Victoria Nuland's attitude toward the EU might indicate a calculated early assessment pointing toward a EU 'do nothing, hands off approach' toward events in the Ukraine. Without our EU partners, our response is conveniently reduced to talking points and meaningless rhetoric.
When Champ pulled the missile defense, the deal had been cut. Not entirely certain what Champ got out of the package, assistance with the AFG withdrawal could have been one element.
#4
I can't argue one wit with Spengler's assertion that American leaders are complete idiots.
However, while Putin may not be a 'genius', he's quite shrewd. He's confident as a man can be when he knows the cards he's holding in his hand and also the cards his opponents are holding. Putin has a clear understanding of what "Russia" should be even if he doesn't care one fig about ordinary Russians.
That alone makes him the smartest man in the G8.
Posted by: Steve White ||
04/18/2014 9:10 Comments ||
Top||
#5
No US president has done so much to advance Russian ambitions since FDR.
A surprise deal has been reached at the Four Party talks in Geneva, which the president touted as his diplomatic option. Nothing had been expected to come of the talks and the standoff had been predicted to continue. The Daily Telegraph reports that a decisive movement occurred instead. "Vladimir Putin has secured key concessions from Ukraine and its Western supporters as the Kremlin was offered a central role in determining the future of its neighbour and former client state."
In return the West gets to send observers who can watch as Russian agents relinquish their hold on public buildings. The price: Russian say-so over the future of Ukraine.
...Obama was trying to manage expectations, probably to inoculate the public against harder and heavier tidings to follow. The Washington Post quoted the president as having misgivings about the deal, even as his emissaries embraced it.
...This doesn't sound very victorious. But the president's style is to bluff his way to victory. Recently he claimed that the Obamacare debate was over even though he's ordered the census bureau to revise its metrics so nothing can be measured. He's even reserved the right to make changes to the program, claiming the Republicans have no right to input until they change their attitude.
Too bad that doesn't work with Putin.
But he's always winning -- or so you would think if you listened to his hagiographers. The low information voters think he's the baddest and smartest puncher on the planet, who doesn't even have to fight, just point out that it is pointless to fight him, to emerge triumphant. Why, only two days ago he said that it was not in Russia's interest to carve up the Ukraine, a process for which he has just provided the carving-knife. Perhaps the only conclusion to draw is that anyone who hands Obama the slicer is subconsciously a turkey.
[DAWN] ON April 4, the prime minister ordered the release of 19 'non-combatant' TTP prisoners. By recognising the non-combatant status of such prisoners the release implicitly recognised the presence of Taliban 'combatants' in Pakistain. Later, the National Assembly passed the Protection of Pakistain (Amendment) Bill, 2014 (PPO). This time round, the law has explicitly recognised the category of 'combatant enemy'.
While many in the media have lamented the PPO's draconian nature, it is the resulting categorisation of TTP as 'combatant enem[ies]' which is problematic considering further that negotiations with organised gangs of non-state actors (NSAs) moves them closer towards attaining the coveted status of belligerents under international law, especially when such militias exercise territorial control.
Under Article 1 of the Additional Protocol II (AP II) to the Geneva Conventions, a Non-International Armed Conflict (NIAC) encapsulates a typical civil war situation. While Pakistain has not ratified AP II, most of its provisions have attained the status of customary international law and are binding upon Pakistain. Furthermore, AP II codifies Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions which binds every state to provide at all times certain minimum human rights ...which are often intentionally defined so widely as to be meaningless... protections and guarantees.
Historically, Pakistain has denied the presence of an NIAC, probably because such an admission would result in an international recognition of the conflict which, consequently, would result in certain privileges, guarantees and treatment required to be meted out to NSAs -- such as endeavouring to grant amnesty.
Interestingly, even under AP II, NSAs fighting the state are classified as 'persons' rather than as 'combatants'. This is because, at the time of the AP II's promulgation, most nations held serious reservations over according NSAs combatant status, thus granting them combatant immunity. States felt that providing such status would be an infringement of their own illusory sovereignty, as a fighter with combatant immunity is immune from prosecution under the domestic criminal justice system and can only be tried for crimes violating the international laws of war.
Therefore, if TTP forces are categorised as enemy combatants, and any violence on their part against Pak armed and paramilitary forces and objects or civilian persons and objects is compliant with international humanitarian law (IHL) when conducted in the pursuance of a military advantage and necessity respectively, then under IHL there is a strong argument that TTP forces are immune from criminal prosecution. This would mean that TTP cannot be tried for using lethal force so long as it is complying with IHL norms in the pursuance of a military advantage not just in Fata but also in major urban centres of Pakistain.
Posted by: Fred ||
04/18/2014 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under: TTP
[The Nation (Pak)] How does the government expect to curb rising sectarianism when it allows sectarian elements to operate with impunity? Does it really expect to be deemed credible when it expresses its resolve to counter sectarian violence simply for public consumption and simultaneously forms alliances and accommodates those who pose the greatest threat? This co-operation takes many forms; from sending monthly stipends to the family of an infamous sectarian leader as he faces a murder trial to securing a seat in the Parliament for an equally infamous individual. All this is done for a few votes from cities like Jhang where sectarianism sells while jeopardizing the security of the increasingly vulnerable minority communities of Pakistain. The entire state machinery appears to be complicit in the exercise. The Election Tribunal, which declared the runner-up Mr Ahmad Ludhianvi as a member of the Parliament after the disqualification of the winner, did so by following rules unknown to anyone. Usually under similar circumstances, a by-election is announced and the people vote once again. But this was not the case here. Why is everyone, including the government, the judiciary and the media, silent on the issue?
The system is so incredibly flawed that even a child could well exploit it. Take Sipah-e-Sahaba's (SSP) story for example. The sectarian organization was banned and thus barred from carrying out any activities, both political and apolitical. How did the SSP beat the 'system'? It changed its name to Ahl-e-Sunnat Wal Jamaat (ASWJ). That's it. The same easily identifiable people with the same extremist and divisive ...politicians call things divisive when when the other side sez something they don't like. Their own statements are never divisive, they're principled... agenda are working under a new name. And somehow, that is acceptable. SSP wasn't banned because of its name, but due to its ideology and its willingness to resort to violence in order to enforce it. So why then, is the ASWJ allowed to operate freely and even contest general elections (as they did last year)? The media's role with regards to the issue is no less shameful. Rather than calling a spade a spade, it has looked to circumvent critical issues and goes a step further by giving airtime to hate-mongers. Members of the ASWJ, full of malice, sit before talk show hosts on national television in obscene displays of hypocrisy, all the while chanting slogans against minorities before their supporters. Of course, it is difficult and risky to be blunt and just here. But if this means the difference between the life and death for a member of the minority community, it must be said.
Posted by: Fred ||
04/18/2014 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
This is the aging of the dawn of Aquarius: new blasphemy laws for progressive pieties. In the New Statesman, Sarah Ditum seemed befuddled that the 'No Platform' movement a vigorous effort to deny public platforms to the British National party and the English Defence League has mysteriously advanced from silencing 'violent fascists' to silencing all kinds of other people, like a Guardian feminist who ventured some insufficiently affirming observations about trans-women and is now unfit for polite society. But, once you get a taste for shutting people up, it's hard to stop. Why bother winning the debate when it's easier to close it down?
#1
Why bother winning the debate when it�s easier to close it down?
That is the crux of what is going on now. There is no debate--only political correctness. Next, there will be re-education camps to get your head straight and to get back in line? The left will reap what it sows. Things follow cycles--soon the left will fade into obscurity--it has nothing to offer other than name calling, no freedoms, lies, and shrill diatribes.
#2
Well, there were too many words in the English language anyhow. Maybe when we get it down to 500 allowable words, we'll communicate better. And grade school test scores would go up!
Posted by: Bobby ||
04/18/2014 11:28 Comments ||
Top||
#3
The slow death of free speech in the US has already started and was signed into law...
Posted by: Black Charlie ||
04/18/2014 12:59 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
[The Nation (Pak)] How does the government expect to curb rising sectarianism when it allows sectarian elements to operate with impunity? Does it really expect to be deemed credible when it expresses its resolve to counter sectarian violence simply for public consumption and simultaneously forms alliances and accommodates those who pose the greatest threat? This co-operation takes many forms; from sending monthly stipends to the family of an infamous sectarian leader as he faces a murder trial to securing a seat in the Parliament for an equally infamous individual. All this is done for a few votes from cities like Jhang where sectarianism sells while jeopardizing the security of the increasingly vulnerable minority communities of Pakistain. The entire state machinery appears to be complicit in the exercise. The Election Tribunal, which declared the runner-up Mr Ahmad Ludhianvi as a member of the Parliament after the disqualification of the winner, did so by following rules unknown to anyone. Usually under similar circumstances, a by-election is announced and the people vote once again. But this was not the case here. Why is everyone, including the government, the judiciary and the media, silent on the issue?
