Welcome to ECCIE, become a part of the fastest growing adult community. Take a minute & sign up!

Welcome to ECCIE - Sign up today!

Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!

Go Premium

Go Back   ECCIE Worldwide > General Interest > Diamonds and Tuxedos
test
Diamonds and Tuxedos Glamour, elegance, and sophistication. That's what it's all about here in ECCIE's newest forum which caters to those with expensive tastes, lavish lifestyles, and an appetite for upscale entertainment.

Most Favorited Images
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
Most Liked Images
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
Top Reviewers
cockalatte 649
MoneyManMatt 490
Still Looking 399
samcruz 399
Jon Bon 398
Harley Diablo 377
honest_abe 362
DFW_Ladies_Man 313
Chung Tran 288
lupegarland 287
nicemusic 285
Starscream66 282
You&Me 281
George Spelvin 270
sharkman29 256
Top Posters
DallasRain70819
biomed163628
Yssup Rider61234
gman4453341
LexusLover51038
offshoredrilling48794
WTF48267
pyramider46370
bambino43216
The_Waco_Kid37390
CryptKicker37228
Mokoa36497
Chung Tran36100
Still Looking35944
Mojojo33117

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-28-2011, 09:33 PM   #31
I B Hankering
Valued Poster
 
I B Hankering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 3, 2010
Location: South of Chicago
Posts: 31,214
Encounters: 9
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazomaniac View Post
You are. I'm not talking about the first attack on the reporters. That was clearly inside the rules of engagement and consistent with Geneva principles.

I have never seen nor heard of a “second video,” so you are arguing hearsay without proof.

Unfortunately, some civilians are killed during wars. It’ s been that way since the beginning of time. The U.S. military has made a focused effort to keep civilian casualties to a minimum—it’s in our best interest to keep it that way. The result is that the U.S. has inflicted fewer civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan than any previous army in history engaging in comparable military actions.
I B Hankering is offline   Quote
Old 01-28-2011, 09:45 PM   #32
I B Hankering
Valued Poster
 
I B Hankering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 3, 2010
Location: South of Chicago
Posts: 31,214
Encounters: 9
Default

[quote=Mazomaniac;976246]Iran-Contra was, in fact, a government "secret". In fact, most of the material surrounding the actual arms transactions is still classified. We won't fully know what happened - and whether Reagan was or was not aware of it - until the archives are declassified in 20-30 years or so.

The initial transactions of the Teapot Dome scandal were also kept secret under the guise of government interest. At the time the oil fields were initially leased the Secretary of Interior sealed the non-competitive bids he gave out on the leases in an attempt to hide his involvement the affair. It's one of the things that led to open-bid contracts in government.

Finally, Watergate was all about secrecy. Nixon didn't get in trouble for burglary, he got in trouble for using the resources of the government to try and hide what was going on.

All of these incidents involved the use of government secrecy mechanism in one form or another. All of them also involved individuals who leaked information to the media in order to end the corruption. Seems pretty on-point to me.

[quote]

All true. But they did manage to keep the secret about the “party girl” killed by a flying whiskey bottle during one of Charlie Sheen’s, I mean Warren Harding’s, office parties.
I B Hankering is offline   Quote
Old 01-28-2011, 09:55 PM   #33
NinaBrooke
Account Disabled
 
User ID: 59709
Join Date: Dec 14, 2010
Location: stars
Posts: 3,680
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MyKindaParty View Post
I my opinion yes they are. I simply was raised that way. I keep my mouth closed about what my neighbor does and pay the penalty for what I get caught doing. Whistleblower's typically are trying to get out of what they done such as Wiki's owner. Which of course is manipulation itself. Therefore as Thomas Jefferson said " What business is it of mine what my neighbor does?" The iran contra scandal and watergate had zero effect on my life.
That is the problem i have with liars. Looking the other way was what happened also when Jews were put in concentration camps and everyone claimed to be free from responsibility simply because they looked the other way. Supporting lies and looking the other way are dangerous. I still prefer whistle blowers to hypocrites. Because then you can`t at least not say you did not know. To quote you: Liars or hypocrites try to get out of what they`ve done, which is taking responsibility for their actions. Which of course is manipulation itself. I do neither support liars nor whistleblowers. But i think the first is a natural opposite of the last and therefor a neutral dynamic is kept. Give a little, take a little. As long as the medium calculation is right.
And i always want to know when republicans who claim to be against sexwork - like Spitzer - consumate said things who they are against. Some wise philosopher used to say that "Knowledge is Power". No one has the right to put obstacles against achieving of knowledge.
NinaBrooke is offline   Quote
Old 01-28-2011, 10:02 PM   #34
discreetgent
Valued Poster
 
discreetgent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 31, 2009
Location: Even with a gorgeous avatar: Happiness is ephemeral
Posts: 2,003
Default

Umm, Nina, Spitzer is a Democrat.
discreetgent is offline   Quote
Old 01-28-2011, 10:27 PM   #35
Sa_artman
Valued Poster
 
Sa_artman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 13, 2010
Location: Utah
Posts: 1,080
Encounters: 7
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bebe Le Strange View Post
I think it is naive of you to think we have real checks and balances with our government. Not in the way you would like to think. It is far too large and too much corruption already exists within it.
Seriously? I think it naive of you to think you have the insight into how the government runs unless you've been a part of it. Everyone's an expert when they read a few blogs and then 'believe' anything. If I had a dime for everyone conspiracy nut running around I could buy...well.
Sa_artman is offline   Quote
Old 01-28-2011, 10:31 PM   #36
I B Hankering
Valued Poster
 
I B Hankering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 3, 2010
Location: South of Chicago
Posts: 31,214
Encounters: 9
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ninasastri View Post
That is the problem i have with liars. Looking the other way was what happened also when Jews were put in concentration camps and everyone claimed to be free from responsibility simply because they looked the other way. Supporting lies and looking the other way are dangerous. I still prefer whistle blowers to hypocrites. Because then you can`t at least not say you did not know. To quote you: Liars or hypocrites try to get out of what they`ve done, which is taking responsibility for their actions. Which of course is manipulation itself. I do neither support liars nor whistleblowers. But i think the first is a natural opposite of the last and therefor a neutral dynamic is kept. Give a little, take a little. As long as the medium calculation is right.
And i always want to know when republicans who claim to be against sexwork - like Spitzer - consumate said things who they are against. Some wise philosopher used to say that "Knowledge is Power". No one has the right to put obstacles against achieving of knowledge.
I had a good Edmund Burke quote:

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

But I just found out, Edmund Burke didn't say it--author is unknown. Oh well, it's still a good quote.
I B Hankering is offline   Quote
Old 01-28-2011, 10:34 PM   #37
Mazomaniac
Valued Poster
 
Mazomaniac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 31, 2010
Location: 7th Circle of Hell
Posts: 520
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by I B Hankering View Post
I have never seen nor heard of a “second video,” so you are arguing hearsay without proof.
Uh, Hank, I think you need to recheck your background on this. As painful as it is to watch, you should go back to the collateral murder website and see the thing.

I don't know where you're getting your news but you are seriously ill-informed about this incident and the video.

Quote:
Unfortunately, some civilians are killed during wars. It’ s been that way since the beginning of time. The U.S. military has made a focused effort to keep civilian casualties to a minimum—it’s in our best interest to keep it that way. The result is that the U.S. has inflicted fewer civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan than any previous army in history engaging in comparable military actions.
OK, now I'm really interested in how you're going to back this one up.

According to the US military there were greater than 66,000 civilians killed between 2004 and 2009. That doesn't include the actual invasion and the whole of 2003 so the real number is going to be way, way above that. Most total estimates run to between 100,000 and 150,000 civilian deaths and given our official estimates that seems pretty much on target.

That means that we killed 4 to 5 times more civilians than soldiers in this thing.

Are you seriously suggesting that's an acceptable ratio?

We devastated Germany and Japan in WWII with mass air raids on cities and only killed half as many civilians as soldiers in that conflict.

You've got be kidding on this, right?

Mazo.
Mazomaniac is offline   Quote
Old 01-28-2011, 10:35 PM   #38
Sa_artman
Valued Poster
 
Sa_artman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 13, 2010
Location: Utah
Posts: 1,080
Encounters: 7
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ninasastri View Post
I disagree. Potential military information is spread out already no matter what. What did not happen is that potential abusers of power were not handled correctly. I personally think its outrageous what happens and under what circumstances things happen. But i see the point in harming lives. I do see that and i agree with you. But Assange is no more attention seeking than anyone else. ANd yes - me the masses have the right to know certain things that happen in my government. I have a right to know what i support with my taxes and my votes. I am personally outraged that my country sells weapons to Iran. Its simply outrageous. Not because they sell it to Iran but because they sell it anyway.
And so to what end does that information benefit you? I'm sure any decisions concerning the matter are made beyond the grasp of any voting public.
Sa_artman is offline   Quote
Old 01-28-2011, 10:38 PM   #39
Mazomaniac
Valued Poster
 
Mazomaniac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 31, 2010
Location: 7th Circle of Hell
Posts: 520
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sa_artman View Post
If I had a dime for everyone conspiracy nut running around I could buy...well.
I'd start with 200,000 hours of Ansley's time and still have enough to purchase my own country.

Cheers,
Mazo.
Mazomaniac is offline   Quote
Old 01-28-2011, 10:40 PM   #40
Sa_artman
Valued Poster
 
Sa_artman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 13, 2010
Location: Utah
Posts: 1,080
Encounters: 7
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazomaniac View Post
We devastated Germany and Japan in WWII with mass air raids on cities and only killed half as many civilians as soldiers in that conflict.

You've got be kidding on this, right?

Mazo.
Well if you count Hiroshima and Nagasaki I wonder what numbers you get.
Sa_artman is offline   Quote
Old 01-28-2011, 10:44 PM   #41
Mazomaniac
Valued Poster
 
Mazomaniac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 31, 2010
Location: 7th Circle of Hell
Posts: 520
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sa_artman View Post
Well if you count Hiroshima and Nagasaki I wonder what numbers you get.
That's in there.

Mazo.
Mazomaniac is offline   Quote
Old 01-28-2011, 11:32 PM   #42
I B Hankering
Valued Poster
 
I B Hankering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 3, 2010
Location: South of Chicago
Posts: 31,214
Encounters: 9
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazomaniac View Post
Most total estimates run to between 100,000 and 150,000 civilian deaths and given our official estimates that seems pretty much on target.

That means that we killed 4 to 5 times more civilians than soldiers in this thing.

Are you seriously suggesting that's an acceptable ratio?

We devastated Germany and Japan in WWII with mass air raids on cities and only killed half as many civilians as soldiers in that conflict.

You've got be kidding on this, right?

Mazo.
It seems your numbers are about right, but you are mistaken about the perpetrators.

Iraq Body Count project An independent U.K./U.S. group, the IBC project compiles "reported" Iraqi civilian deaths resulting from the invasion and occupation, including those caused directly by coalition military action, those caused directly by the Iraqi insurgency, and those resulting from excess crime (the IBC project asserts that the Occupying Authority is responsible to prevent these deaths under international law). It shows a minimum of 99,004 and a maximum of 108,076 as of December 2, 2010.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

I picked the four worst instances during the 4 years the U.S. was involved:
1. Tokyo fire bombings 97,000 dead
2. Hiroshima 66,000 dead
3. Nagasaki 39,000 dead
4. Dresden 100,000 dead
TOTAL: 302,000 dead (this is "half as many"?)

But, if you count WWII the same way that you are doing above and add in the civilian casualties inflicted by the enemy, then the total rises to 40 to 60 million civilians dead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

Counting the same way, over 2,000,000 civilians died during the Vietnam War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War_casualties
I B Hankering is offline   Quote
Old 01-29-2011, 07:26 AM   #43
NinaBrooke
Account Disabled
 
User ID: 59709
Join Date: Dec 14, 2010
Location: stars
Posts: 3,680
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by discreetgent View Post
Umm, Nina, Spitzer is a Democrat.
he is...ooops....my bad.....
NinaBrooke is offline   Quote
Old 02-02-2011, 12:00 AM   #44
Camille
Pending Age Verification
 
User ID: 511
Join Date: Apr 3, 2009
Location: Europe
Posts: 883
My ECCIE Reviews
Default More wikileaks drama

WikiLeaks: FBI hunts the 9/11 gang that got away

The FBI has launched a manhunt for a previously unknown team of men suspected to be part of the 9/11 attacks, the Daily Telegraph can disclose

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-got-away.html


Secret documents reveal that the three Qatari men conducted surveillance on the targets, provided “support” to the plotters and had tickets for a flight to Washington on the eve of the atrocities.

The suspected terrorists flew from London to New York on a British Airways flight three weeks before the attacks.

They allegedly carried out surveillance at the World Trade Centre, the White House and in Virginia, the US state where the Pentagon and CIA headquarters are located.

Ten days later they flew to Los Angeles, where they stationed themselves in a hotel near the airport which the FBI has now established was paid for by a “convicted terrorist”, who also paid for their airline tickets.

Hotel staff have told investigators they saw pilot uniforms in their room along with computer print outs detailing pilot names, flight numbers and times and packages addressed to Syria, Afghanistan, Jerusalem and Jordan.


On September 10 they were booked on an American Airlines flight from Los Angeles to Washington, but failed to board. The following day the same Boeing 757 aircraft was hijacked by five terrorists and crashed into the Pentagon.


But, instead of boarding the American flight, the Qatari suspects – named as Meshal Alhajri, Fahad Abdulla and Ali Alfehaid - flew back to London on a British Airways flight before returning to Qatar. Their current location is unknown.
Investigators are also hunting a fourth man, Mohamed Al Mansoori, who they say supported the alleged terrorist cell while they were in the US.
The man, who is from the United Arab Emirates, previously lived in Long Beach, Los Angeles. His current location is also unknown, and US officials recommended that he is put on an international terror watch list because he “may pose a threat to aviation in the US and abroad”.
The details of the secret 9/11 team have emerged in a secret American government document obtained by the Wikileaks website and passed to The Daily Telegraph. It was sent between the American Embassy in Doha and the Department for Homeland Security in Washington.
The document, sent on 11th February 2010, states: “Mr Al Mansoori is currently under investigation by the FBI for his possible involvement in the 11 September 2001 attacks. He is suspected of aiding people who entered the US before the attacks to conduct surveillance of possible targets and providing other support to the hijackers.”
Details of the unknown 9/11 alleged plotters has never previously been disclosed. An official inquiry into the 9/11 attacks, which killed nearly 3,000 people, indicated that the hijackers may have received assistance in Los Angeles but investigators did not publicly provide more details.
The 9/11 Commission report, published in July 2004, states that at least two of the hijackers previously visited Los Angeles but, at the time, investigators appeared to have little information on their movements. The report states they had a "brief stay in Los Angeles about which we know little".
Only one person – Zacarias Moussaoui - has been tried and convicted over involvement in the 9/11 attacks as all the terrorists died in the crashed planes. Moussaoui, accused of being the twentieth hijacker, was sentenced to life in prison.
The secret American document contains detailed information about the movements of the three alleged Qatari plotters.
They took BA flight 185 from London to New York on 15th August, 2001, and the memo alleges that they subsequently conducted “surveillance” on potential targets ahead of the 9/11 attacks. It states: “They visited the World Trade Centre, the Statue of Liberty, the White House and various areas in Virginia.”
They then flew on an American Airlines flight from Washington to Los Angeles, arriving on 24th August and checking into a single room at a hotel near the airport. They paid for the room with cash and during the last few days of their stay requested that their room should not be cleaned.
The cable states: “Hotel cleaning staff grew suspicious of the men because they noticed pilot type uniforms, several laptops and several cardboard boxes addressed to Syria, Jerusalem, Afghanistan and Jordan in the room on previous cleaning visits.
“The men had a smashed cellular phone in the room and a cellular phone attached by wire to a computer. The room also contained pin feed computer paper print outs with headers listing pilot names, airlines, flight numbers, and flight times.”
While in the US, they were aided by Mohamed Ali Mohamed Al Mansoori. The secret document also states that the three Qatari men spent a week travelling with Mr Al Mansoori to “different destinations in California”.
The Qatari men were scheduled to board American Airlines Flight 144 on September 10th from Los Angeles to Washington but did not turn up.
They instead boarded a British Airways flight to London, before flying back to Doha on another BA flight.
The following day the same American Airlines aircraft, flying on route AA77, was hijacked as it returned from Washington and crashed into the Pentagon, killing 184 people.
It is not known whether the FBI believe that the men were simply assisting the hijackers or were a fifth cell who pulled out at the final moment. Alternatively, they may have been planning an attack on the West Coast of America or even London which was abandoned or went wrong.
Mr Al Mansoori has never been publicly named in connection with the 9/11 attacks. The three Qatari men were included on an FBI list of more than 300 people who were wanted for questioning in connection with the 9/11 attacks, which was leaked in 2002.
At the time, the FBI stressed it was not a list of suspects, but merely parties they thought might have information useful to the investigation.
The US embassy cable obtained by the Daily Telegraph was written by Mirembe Nantongo, the deputy chief of mission in Doha. It was marked “priority” and sent to the office of Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI and the CIA.
Mr Al Mansoori’s visa was revoked after the information about him came to light, but “his name was not watchlisted in the class system”, suggesting he may have managed to leave America.
A spokesman for the FBI declined to comment

Followed by this annoying article in the "Guardian"
He is suddenly supposed to be allowed to use his "British by descent" lineage? I vote the UK do not clean this shit up. They need to keep out of it.

Bradley Manning is UK citizen and needs protection, government told

Amnesty International asks government to intervene on behalf of soldier suspected of having passed US secrets to WikiLeaks


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...ing-uk-citizen


The British government is under pressure to take up the case of Bradley Manning, the soldier being held in a maximum security military prison in Virginia on suspicion of having passed a massive trove of US state secrets to WikiLeaks, on the grounds that he is a UK citizen.
Amnesty International tonight called on the government to intervene on Manning's behalf and demand that the conditions of his detention, which the organisation calls "harsh and punitive", are in line with international standards.
Amnesty's UK director, Kate Allen, said: "His Welsh parentage means the UK government should demand his 'maximum custody' status does not impair his ability to defend himself, and we would also like to see Foreign Office officials visiting him just as they would any other British person detained overseas and potentially facing trial on very serious charges."
Clive Stafford Smith, director of Reprieve, which provides legal assistance to those facing capital punishment and secret imprisonment, likened the conditions under which Manning is held to those in Guantánamo Bay.
"The government took a principled stance on Guantánamo cases even for British residents, let alone citizens, so you would expect it to take the same stance with Manning."
Manning is a UK citizen by descent from his Welsh mother, Susan. Government databases on births, deaths and marriages show she was born Susan Fox in Haverfordwest in 1953.
She married a then US serviceman, Brian Manning, stationed at a US base near the city, and they had a daughter, Casey, in the same year. Bradley was born in Oklahoma in 1987.
Born in the US, he is a US citizen. But under the British Nationality Act of 1981, anyone born outside the UK after 1 January 1983 who has a mother who is a UK citizen by birth is British by descent.
"Nationality is like an elastic band: it stretches to one generation born outside the UK to a British parent. And that makes Bradley Manning British," said Alison Harvey, head of the Immigration Law Practitioners' Association in London.
So far, however, Manning's British status has not impinged itself upon the UK authorities. The British embassy in Washington said it had not received any requests to visit Manning in jail. "It hasn't crossed our path yet," an official said.
The issue of the soldier's nationality has been bubbling furiously on Twitter in recent days and has been taken up by the UK branch of the Bradley Manning supporters network.
He has been held in the brig of Quantico marine base in Virginia since last July, having been arrested in Iraq, where he was stationed as a US army intelligence analyst two months previously.
He is alleged to have been the source of several WikiLeaks exposés of US state secrets, including the massive trove of cables released in November.
He has been charged with illegally obtaining 150,000 secret US government cables and handing more than 50 of them to an unauthorised person. Yet campaigners say the conditions in which he is being held are wholly disproportionate.
He was recently put on suicide watch for two days, in which he was stripped to his underpants, against the advice of prison psychiatrists. He remains on a regulation that keeps him alone in his cell 23 hours a day and requires him to be checked every five minutes, and he is shackled hand and foot when he has visitors.
In December the UN began an investigation into his treatment to see if it amounted to torture. The Foreign Office said that it was unable to release any information on an individual's nationality without that person's consent.
In general terms, the government normally will not intervene in cases of dual nationality where the person is held in the other country, but there are exceptions on humanitarian grounds, including claims of inhumane treatment.
Camille is offline   Quote
Reply



AMPReviews.net
Find Ladies
Hot Women

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright © 2009 - 2016, ECCIE Worldwide, All Rights Reserved