Syria reported to have use Chemical Warfare

[Suu]

So they found them trying to cross into Canada.

Those don't sound like terrorists, those sound like refugees who don't want to go home.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Where do you think you live, some kind of surveillance state?

Sorry, we're aren't the UK.

  Of course we aren't.   

Our cameras are privately owned. 

[Suu]

Where do you think you live, some kind of surveillance state?

Sorry, we're aren't the UK.

  Of course we aren't.   

Our cameras are privately owned.

And let's face it, the defense budget doesn't have enough money to pay for the tapes.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Where do you think you live, some kind of surveillance state?

Sorry, we're aren't the UK.

  Of course we aren't.   

Our cameras are privately owned.

And let's face it, the defense budget doesn't have enough money to pay for the tapes.

No, that's what DHS is for.  They just tap into the private cameras, or grab them if they feel the need.  With the full cooperation of the private security firms that installed the cameras in the first place.

So it's like England, only without any oversight.

[Suu]

Oh.

But then you get the DHS involved. 



I'm sorry, I'm having a WEIRD day. The thinking part isn't firing correctly over here.

[Cain]

Actually...

Most CCTV in the UK is privately owned.  Like, 90% of it.  Our government was just far quicker to pass legislation allowing the police virtually unlimited access to such cameras while investigating crimes or suspected crimes.

[Junkenstein]

Does this mean we're winning?

[Cain]

We're bombing Iraq.  Again.

Probably Syria too.  Dominic Grieve made a decent legal case for it....though dont be surprised if our relationship with Iraq sours suddenly after.  One way in which we can legally justify attacking Syria is by a clause whereby Iraq has the right to attack in order to repulse an invading force.  Iraqi allies can then "assist" in such an exercise.

Problem 1: The Iraqi Army is a sham.  All army positions are up for grabs to the highest bidder.  Competent officers tend to be death squad leaders...or of suspect loyalties.  Their advanced weaponry was captured by ISIS.

Problem 2: This essentially involves Iraq going to war with Syria.  But Iraq are currently allied with Syria against ISIS.

So we'll have to twist their arm to get them to give us the legal grounds for invasion.

[GlompChomp]

So they found them trying to cross into Canada.

Those don't sound like terrorists, those sound like refugees who don't want to go home.

RUNNING FROM THE GLORIOUS WAR ON TERROR IS TERRORISM CITIZEN. YOUR COWARDICE BOLSTERS THE MORALE OF THE TERRORISTS. YOU'RE EITHER WITH US OR WITH THEM. STAND AND FIGHT.

This is a message from the NRA.

[Faust]

We're bombing Iraq.  Again.

Probably Syria too.  Dominic Grieve made a decent legal case for it....though dont be surprised if our relationship with Iraq sours suddenly after.  One way in which we can legally justify attacking Syria is by a clause whereby Iraq has the right to attack in order to repulse an invading force.  Iraqi allies can then "assist" in such an exercise.

Problem 1: The Iraqi Army is a sham.  All army positions are up for grabs to the highest bidder.  Competent officers tend to be death squad leaders...or of suspect loyalties.  Their advanced weaponry was captured by ISIS.

Problem 2: This essentially involves Iraq going to war with Syria.  But Iraq are currently allied with Syria against ISIS.

So we'll have to twist their arm to get them to give us the legal grounds for invasion.

But the war in Iraq was won, I saw it on the TeeVee, they killed the end boss and everying.

[Cain]

Heh.  So both conservative media and Glenn Greenwald (but I repeat myself) are claiming that either Khorasan don't exist or are massively overhyped if they do exist.

To which I can only reply "heh".  Not that I've done the research yet, mind you.  But if ISIS did not exist, al-Nusra (whom Khorasan are allegedly a cell of), would be the biggest security threat in the region.

Maybe I've got something wrong, or need to do more reading on the topic (which I'm currently undertaking).  But all I'm saying is that FOX News has a terrible track record when it comes to conspiracy theories, and Glenn "Mr Responsible Whistleblower who sold NSA secrets to a libertarian billionaire in return for his own news organisation" Greenwald doesn't inspire much confidence either.

Edit: Oh LOL.  The FOX "terrorism expert" is Andy McCarthy.

[Junkenstein]

I've clearly missed something, Khorasan means absolutely fuck all to me. Seems like interesting reading material, any group who's apparent existence is debated usually tends to be.

[Cain]

Its who the US has been bombing in Syria, instead of ISIS.

[Junkenstein]

Ah, ignore the above. Brief bout of idiocy.

[Junkenstein]

Remember we were laughing about Turkey?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29504924

Reports that UK jihadists were involved in a prisoner swap between Islamic State (IS) and Turkey are "credible", Whitehall officials have told the BBC.

The Times alleges that Shabazz Suleman, 18, and Hisham Folkard, 26, were among as many as 180 IS fighters traded for 49 Turkish hostages.

They were taken prisoner from the Turkish consulate in Mosul, Iraq, in June and released last month.

Officials confirmed Mr Suleman, from High Wycombe, disappeared in Turkey.

The Foreign Office is providing consular assistance to his family but there has been no confirmation that he was one of the Turkish government-held prisoners.

The Times said it was passed a leaked list of those handed over to IS and the two Britons were among the names.

Along with the two Britons, the newspaper alleges the list also included three French citizens, two Swedes, two Macedonians, one Swiss and one Belgian.

So the source is somewhat questionable and the exchange ratio seems a little, shall we say, in favour of one side? I'm sure there's no other  considerations or backroom promises that justify such behaviours. It's just shrewd business to trade over 3 hostages for one in return.

Oh, and please don't get confused or forget - We never negotiate with terrorists. It seems that the missing word is "well". "We never negotiate well with terrorists" makes much more sense.