[besson3c]

Originally Posted by mojo2

JUST because some women can be an effective, let's say, law enforcement officer doesn't necessarily mean that all, most or many women could serve effectively in that role. When I make generalizations they are UNDERSTOOD to be generalizations subject to evidence that a particular woman happens to be an exception to that generalization.

I could kick most women's butts. Not all but more than 50%, easily.

I'd say I would be safe in assuming that of the two of us, (meaning me and ANY of the women I've ever known) I would be the one better left to the job of protecting the family.

I like girly girls. Sweet. Smart. Golden hearted. Capable. Sexy. Talented in her own right. Just jealous enough to let me know she cares. Pretty. Funny. Smart asses. Patient. Good natured. Family loving. Church going. Look good in a formal evening gown, sun dress, a pair of jeans and a sweater, shorts, swim suit, my oversized shirt or nothing. Think Donna Reed in, "It's a Wonderful Life" or Claire Huxtable in The Cosby Show.

I don't GENERALLY expect the kind of women I like to be able to protect the family.

OK?

Protect the family from WHAT?? That is the question...

You are attracted to girls who can't beat you up. Who the hell cares? How is this relevant? How is it the man's job to protect the family?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by segovius

No I really do, they are evil.

The trombone is the plonkety-plonk one with black and white keys right?

I think you are thinking of the (Mo)-ban-jo.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by mojo2

I could kick most women's butts. Not all but more than 50%, easily.

When was the last time you got in a fist fight?






Is this some kind of argument against lesbian marriage? That with no strong man in the house, they would be utterly defenseless?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Protect the family from WHAT?? That is the question...

You are attracted to girls who can't beat you up. Who the hell cares? How is this relevant? How is it the man's job to protect the family?

Intruder. Burglar. Gang banger. Rapist. Drunk. Kidnapper. Murderer. Anyone who is willing to go beyond the norms of society to get their jollies, or take from you what they want have the thought process going on before they encounter you. Are you thinking about THEM before they get to you? No?

That means when the time comes THEY already know what they want and how far they'll go to get it and they generally have a game plan of sorts.

YOU will be caught off guard, hoping to defuse or neutralize the situation using words. He will know this and will not pay attention to your words until he has neutralized your ability to harm him.

You lose.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Intruder. Burglar. Gang banger. Rapist. Drunk. Kidnapper. Murderer. Anyone who is willing to go beyond the norms of society to get their jollies, or take from you what they want have the thought process going on before they encounter you. Are you thinking about THEM before they get to you? No?

That means when the time comes THEY already know what they want and how far they'll go to get it and they generally have a game plan of sorts.

YOU will be caught off guard, hoping to defuse or neutralize the situation using words. He will know this and will not pay attention to your words until he has neutralized your ability to harm him.

You lose.

Wow... you are completely and utterly paranoid. Let me guess, you are over 40? This sounds very Charles Atlas-like, or maybe some twisted Archie comic strip.

The weapon of choice that all the kids are using is called a "gun". G-u-n. Murderers, terrorists, and other baddies use them, and women, believe it or not, have hands that are strong enough to pull the trigger to defend themselves, if they feel such protection is necessary.

Assuming your terrorist or baddie is not toting a gun with him/her, and you and your wife didn't have one of your own, it would take a great deal for this terrorist/baddie to murder or rape your wife in your presence using his/her bare hands. It would have to be in your presence, because you'd be the one protecting her, right?

Hint: this doesn't happen outside of the movies. The chances are probably as remote as being struck by lightening. There are too many other weapons that make life easier for terrorists and baddies.

P.S. I was reading an article the other day saying that duct tape is a powerful line of defense against terrorists and baddies. You should RUN, not walk, to your closest store and buy some NOW. Apparently, if you have duct taped the outside of your house, the terrorist/baddie will know that you are serious about your security and protecting your family, and will find another victim. You better tape up your house yourself, it is YOUR job to protect your family, so stop screwing around and git r done! What are you, some terrorist loving commie? You're either with us or against us, stop being un-American.

P.P.S. Meet me outside of the soda shoppe, and prepare to put your dukes up! Jughead saw you looking at my girl...

P.P.P.S. Your thinking is outdated.

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Intruder. Burglar. Gang banger. Rapist. Drunk. Kidnapper. Murderer. Anyone who is willing to go beyond the norms of society to get their jollies, or take from you what they want have the thought process going on before they encounter you. Are you thinking about THEM before they get to you? No?

That means when the time comes THEY already know what they want and how far they'll go to get it and they generally have a game plan of sorts.

YOU will be caught off guard, hoping to defuse or neutralize the situation using words. He will know this and will not pay attention to your words until he has neutralized your ability to harm him.

You lose.

i think you should consider moving...

[gadster]

Hey mojo, you should google 'bin laden bush' just for a heads up. Or 'bin laden freedom fighter reagan' for instance. you guys created him and his ilk to get access to the Caucasus oil fields, you deal with him. and DON'T DO IT AGAIN! i'm sick of the erosion of my civil rights.

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by gadster

Hey mojo, you should google 'bin laden bush' just for a heads up. Or 'bin laden freedom fighter reagan' for instance. you guys created him and his ilk to get access to the Caucasus oil fields, you deal with him. and DON'T DO IT AGAIN! i'm sick of the erosion of my civil rights.

Australia ain't what it used to be, eh?

New terrorism laws getting pushed through, so our PM hints at an immediate terrorist attack.

Guess who can't keep a secret? PM in hot water
By Marian Wilkinson and Tom Allard
November 4, 2005

The Prime Minister, John Howard, has been accused of jeopardising a year-long operation by state and federal police targeting terrorist suspects in Sydney and Melbourne.

The Government used an extraordinary Senate sitting yesterday to pass an amendment to anti-terrorism law to tackle what Mr Howard described as a "potential threat" to the nation.

While declining to give details on operational grounds, Mr Howard said the move had been prompted by "specific intelligence and police information this week which gives cause for serious concern".

Labor supported the amendment but the shadow attorney-general, Nicola Roxon, said the Prime Minister needed to assure the public that "oper- ational matters have not been compromised as a result of the actions the Government took".

The move is believed to have taken some senior police by surprise. The investigation into the threat has been under way for many months, police sources say, and the blanket media coverage given to Mr Howard's announcement may have alerted some suspects.

The operation is believed to be related to an investigation into the Pakistani terrorist group Lashkar e-Toiba and its associates. In June and July this year, ASIO and police conducted raids in Sydney and Melbourne and brought in several suspects for questioning. Among them was a man who had trained with Lashkar e-Toiba before it was listed as a terrorist organisation.

Also raided in Melbourne was Abdul Nacer Benbrika, a radical Algerian sheik who holds significant influence over a group of young students. Several Sydney suspects had travelled to Melbourne to meet Benbrika and his students.

The sheik later publicly denounced the ASIO raids and in a separate incident claimed he had been abducted and assaulted by unknown assailants. He was also charged in late August with fraud offences.

Labor's homeland security spokesman, Arch Bevis, was briefed on the Government's intelligence and said the Government was justified in rushing through yesterday's legal amendment.

But he, too, questioned whether Mr Howard's announcement was wise from a "purely operational security perspective".

Mr Bevis also said that, whether deliberate or otherwise, the announcement "maximised the Government's political benefit".

"We offered to push the amendment through last night," he said. "That meant the authorities could have done their arrests by this morning."

Intelligence sources also expressed their surprise at Mr Howard's tactics.

Typically, when alarming information is gleaned, a well-rehearsed set of procedures is put into place. These normally involve high-level meetings among senior intelligence personnel, government officials and law enforcement officers.

"That certainly didn't happen," said one source. "No one was called back into the office. The proper procedures weren't followed."

Mr Howard also did not order any increase in the terrorism alert level.

Mr Howard's revelation of the threat, on which he briefed the NSW and Victorian premiers, Morris Iemma and Steve Bracks, did, however, swing the states behind his whole package of controversial counter-terrorism laws, including preventive detention and control orders.

Sound familiar?

[tie]

Here is some solid evidence from today's NY Times:

Report Warned Bush Team About Intelligence Doubts

A top member of Al Qaeda in American custody was identified as a likely fabricator months before the Bush administration began to use his statements as the foundation for its claims that Iraq trained Al Qaeda members to use biological and chemical weapons, according to newly declassified portions of a Defense Intelligence Agency document.

The document, an intelligence report from February 2002, said it was probable that the prisoner, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, “was intentionally misleading the debriefers’’ in making claims about Iraqi support for Al Qaeda’s work with illicit weapons.

The document provides the earliest and strongest indication of doubts voiced by American intelligence agencies about Mr. Libi’s credibility. Without mentioning him by name, President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Colin L. Powell, then secretary of state, and other administration officials repeatedly cited Mr. Libi’s information as “credible’’ evidence that Iraq was training Al 8Qaeda members in the use of explosives and illicit weapons.

Among the first and most prominent assertions was one by Mr. Bush, who said in a major speech in Cincinnati in October 2002 that “we’ve learned that Iraq has trained Al Qaeda members in bomb making and poisons and gases.’’

A few more selections:

At the time of his capture, Mr. Libi was the most senior Qaeda official in American custody. ...
In outlining reasons for its skepticism, the D.I.A. report noted that Mr. Libi’s claims lacked specific details about the Iraqis involved, the illicit weapons used and the location where the training was to have taken place.

“It is possible he does not know any further details; it is more likely this individual is intentionally misleading the debriefers,’’ the February 2002 report said. “Ibn al-Shaykh has been undergoing debriefs for several weeks and may be describing scenarios to the debriefers that he knows will retain their interest.’’

Mr. Powell relied heavily on accounts provided by Mr. Libi for his speech to the United Nations Security Council on Feb. 5, 2003, saying that he was tracing “the story of a senior terrorist operative telling how Iraq provided training in these weapons to Al Qaeda.’’

At the time of Mr. Powell’s speech, an unclassified statement by the C.I.A. described the reporting, now known to have been from Mr. Libi, as “credible.’’ But Mr. Levin said he had learned that a classified C.I.A. assessment at the time stated “the source was not in a position to know if any training had taken place.’’
...
“Saddam’s regime is intensely secular and is wary of Islamic revolutionary movements,’’ the D.I.A. report said in one of two declassified paragraphs. “Moreover, Baghdad is unlikely to provide assistance to a group it cannot control.’’ ...

I think this report provides what this thread has been missing, solid evidence from a credible source about Iraq/Al Qaeda links, and also about Bush's lies.