Jetrell Fo

oojason said:

Jetrell Fo said:

oojason said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Napolitano wrote on March 16: “Sources have told me that the British foreign surveillance service, the Government Communications Headquarters, known as GCHQ, most likely provided Obama with transcripts of Trump’s calls.”

Notice he uses the words “most likely”. That is not him saying “it was absolutely” what happened. If anyone here thinks for one second that there is absolutely NO possibility beyond a doubt, that this couldn’t happen between close allies, you’d be kidding yourself. I never said it happened this way either but I do believe that the possibility that it did is far more likely.

There is no way allies would tell the world they committed a “treaty violation” to help out another nation. They would not want anyone to be considering such a thing that is why they wouldn’t want someone saying it publicly … it would put them in a spot they were trying to stay out of by being quite about it.

“Jetrell Fo said:
Why did they deny it vehemently when the story first broke but now they own up to it?”

Then there is nothing to own up to then at all, no? Despite your words clearly claiming ‘but now they have own up to it’)…

Well mate … there’s these … what do you make of them?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/17/andrew-napolitano-legal-analyst-first-claimed-gchq-asked-wiretap/

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/13/british-spies-first-to-spot-trump-team-links-russia

Well, one of those articles was one of the three I posted originally. So what are you asking exactly?

I am only asking your opinion on their content, nothing more.

oojason said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Napolitano wrote on March 16: “Sources have told me that the British foreign surveillance service, the Government Communications Headquarters, known as GCHQ, most likely provided Obama with transcripts of Trump’s calls.”

Notice he uses the words “most likely”. That is not him saying “it was absolutely” what happened. If anyone here thinks for one second that there is absolutely NO possibility beyond a doubt, that this couldn’t happen between close allies, you’d be kidding yourself. I never said it happened this way either but I do believe that the possibility that it did is far more likely.

There is no way allies would tell the world they committed a “treaty violation” to help out another nation. They would not want anyone to be considering such a thing that is why they wouldn’t want someone saying it publicly … it would put them in a spot they were trying to stay out of by being quite about it.

“Jetrell Fo said:
Why did they deny it vehemently when the story first broke but now they own up to it?”

Then there is nothing to own up to then at all, no? Despite your words clearly claiming ‘but now they have own up to it’)…

Well mate … there’s these … what do you make of them?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/17/andrew-napolitano-legal-analyst-first-claimed-gchq-asked-wiretap/

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/13/british-spies-first-to-spot-trump-team-links-russia

He did say that ISIL/Al-queda/ISIS needs to go.

😃

SilverWook said:

Yes, there is.

http://originaltrilogy.com/announcement/Updated-OTcom-Forum-Rules-and-Guidelines-Applies-to-all-forums-including-Off-Topic/id/52717

Specifically:
6. Do not harass other members, either publicly or via PM. Any unwanted contact after a request to stay away will be considered harassment.

Funny no-one rolls this one out when I mention the same thing. A bunch of folks start whining about me and how much everyone hates me because of it. If this rule is that strict then I it should be evenly leveled, not just when it suits certain members (mods and admin not included).

Jeebus said:

Jetrell Fo said:

TV’s Frink said:

Please stop posting in my thread, especially since you have nothing of value to contribute to it other than telling someone he doesn’t have to post in it.

Funny you mention this because the same kinda crap happened in a thread of mine and it got locked while I was away … and guess who was a part of that debacle? Hmmmmmmmm, I wonder.

Isn’t there a rule about unwanted contact after a request to stay away?

I’ve tried this when it happens to me and none of you give a f&%k to defend it (mods and admin not included), why use it now?

“Because everybody hates you Fo so that makes it okay for us to ignore that rule.”

😦

oojason said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Napolitano wrote on March 16: “Sources have told me that the British foreign surveillance service, the Government Communications Headquarters, known as GCHQ, most likely provided Obama with transcripts of Trump’s calls.”

Notice he uses the words “most likely”. That is not him saying “it was absolutely” what happened. If anyone here thinks for one second that there is absolutely NO possibility beyond a doubt, that this couldn’t happen between close allies, you’d be kidding yourself. I never said it happened this way either but I do believe that the possibility that it did is far more likely.

There is no way allies would tell the world they committed a “treaty violation” to help out another nation. They would not want anyone to be considering such a thing that is why they wouldn’t want someone saying it publicly … it would put them in a spot they were trying to stay out of by being quite about it.

“Jetrell Fo said:
Why did they deny it vehemently when the story first broke but now they own up to it?”

Then there is nothing to own up to then at all, no? Despite your words clearly claiming ‘but now they have own up to it’)…

I get it mate. We all know it is what it is … politics.

And here comes the posse, right on cue, again. Stop exaggerating, there was no attack.

😃

You’re such a backseat mod …

You know what Spuffure … I’m sorry, I was wrong. Don’t do anything unless Frink approves it. Do whatever he tells you to because it’s him. He is in charge of the forum now apparently.

I’m not in the mood for whiny crybaby mood swings.

😦

TV’s Frink said:

Please stop posting in my thread, especially since you have nothing of value to contribute to it other than telling someone he doesn’t have to post in it.

Funny you mention this because the same kinda crap happened in a thread of mine and it got locked while I was away … and guess who was a part of that debacle? Hmmmmmmmm, I wonder.

TV’s Frink said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Spuffure said:

How about a batman thread then? 😕

Spuff, if you feel you have an interesting idea for a thread, just create one that is reasonable. There is no prerequisite that you have to ask permission from this thread to do it.

😃

Please don’t try to undermine this thread.

No-one is trying to undermine your thread. If you were a mod here I’d say the same thing as the rules don’t require him to get prior approval from this thread for him to start one of his own. Yeesh.

CatBus said:

oojason said:

Jetrell Fo said:

oojason said:

Jetrell Fo said:

oojason said:

Jetrell Fo said:

oojason said:

‘British spies were first to spot Trump team’s links with Russia’:-

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/13/british-spies-first-to-spot-trump-team-links-russia

&

GCHQ ‘told US security services about meetings between Donald Trump’s team and Russia’:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/13/ex-british-spy-chief-sir-richard-dearlove-suggests-donald-trump/

&

‘Ex-MI6 chief says Donald Trump may have borrowed money from Russia to keep his empire afloat’:-

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/ex-mi6-chief-says-donald-10217616

Why did they deny it vehemently when the story first broke but now they own up to it?

Sorry mate - could you be a little more specific on what they denied - and what they are now ‘owning up to’?

That British Intelligence apparently gave the U.S. Intel they gained from surveillance of Trump Staff/Russia ties. Sorry that wasn’t clear. This information was clearly available weeks ago here in the States and some people got tossed under the bus for even insinuating that British Intelligence had or shared any such Intel with the U.S… Now they’ve owned up to it after the fact.

Ah, right - I get you.

I thought the accusations from weeks ago were of British Intelligenece spying on Trump/ Trump Towers on behalf of the American Security Services? Whereas the news linked by me is of the British giving a heads-up to their US counterparts after trailing/spying on Russian counterparts and possible Russian agents - going back some time - and as to a pattern emerging over meetings with Trump’s people (along with article that has the ex-MI6 Chief thinking that Trump may have borrowed money from Russia to help keep his empire afloat around the time of the financial crisis in 2008(-ish)).

I think they are two very different things - and the British Services were correct in denying that were spying on Trump/Trump Towers on behalf of the US Services.

The US and Brits, along with other allies often keep each other abreast of information and goings on (though likely keep the really interesting stuff from each other 😉)

Personally, I would not doubt the possibility of the U.K. doing the footwork for the U.S. overseas like this. Admitting it would be a far different matter of course.

http://rare.us/rare-politics/so-was-judge-andrew-napolitano-right-all-along-about-obama-and-the-brits-spying-on-trump/

It’s a possibility - though quite unlikely given the size of the UK security services these days - due to the cuts they have suffered over the past few years. It’s more likely we’d be getting more of our info ‘2nd hand’ from the US and our other allies than before - and concentrating our resources more on anti-terror (Middle East & North Africa) and the Russians.

I doubt we even spy on the US and other allies much these days…

Anyway, the rare.us article is stretching at best - and ignores the fact that it was the UK spying on the Russians that incidentally came up with a pattern of meetings by Trump’s people with those Russians - to which the US Security Services (along with our other European allies) was tipped off about. There is no proof in that story of anything apart from some very loose conjecture to try and give some semblance of credence (in the form of a question in the editorial title) to what Judge Andrew Napolitano mistakenly stated and inferred ‘from his source’ that we were spying on Trump (for ourselves or for the US).

If this is all we’re talking about, GCHQ denied what Judge Napolitano said simply because it was flat-out wrong. Not only wrong, but so outrageously wrong it would have been a treaty violation if true, which is why there was the raft of apologies afterwards. It wasn’t merely a matter of some talking head making shit up–it was a diplomatic incident. I’m sad to see some people (rare.us) insist on pursuing the imaginary storyline even now that the evidence proving it false is out there for everyone to see.

I posted it as a reference, not some top secret black op undercover treaty violation that needs to be pursued, no need to be cryptically dramatic about it.

😉

Napolitano wrote on March 16: “Sources have told me that the British foreign surveillance service, the Government Communications Headquarters, known as GCHQ, most likely provided Obama with transcripts of Trump’s calls.”

Notice he uses the words “most likely”. That is not him saying “it was absolutely” what happened. If anyone here thinks for one second that there is absolutely NO possibility beyond a doubt, that this couldn’t happen between close allies, you’d be kidding yourself. I never said it happened this way either but I do believe that the possibility that it did is far more likely.

There is no way allies would tell the world they committed a “treaty violation” to help out another nation. They would not want anyone to be considering such a thing that is why they wouldn’t want someone saying it publicly … it would put them in a spot they were trying to stay out of by being quite about it.

Spuffure said:

How about a batman thread then? 😕

Spuff, if you feel you have an interesting idea for a thread, just create one that is reasonable. There is no prerequisite that you have to ask permission from this thread to do it.

😃

oojason said:

Jetrell Fo said:

oojason said:

Jetrell Fo said:

oojason said:

‘British spies were first to spot Trump team’s links with Russia’:-

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/13/british-spies-first-to-spot-trump-team-links-russia

&

GCHQ ‘told US security services about meetings between Donald Trump’s team and Russia’:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/13/ex-british-spy-chief-sir-richard-dearlove-suggests-donald-trump/

&

‘Ex-MI6 chief says Donald Trump may have borrowed money from Russia to keep his empire afloat’:-

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/ex-mi6-chief-says-donald-10217616

Why did they deny it vehemently when the story first broke but now they own up to it?

Sorry mate - could you be a little more specific on what they denied - and what they are now ‘owning up to’?

That British Intelligence apparently gave the U.S. Intel they gained from surveillance of Trump Staff/Russia ties. Sorry that wasn’t clear. This information was clearly available weeks ago here in the States and some people got tossed under the bus for even insinuating that British Intelligence had or shared any such Intel with the U.S… Now they’ve owned up to it after the fact.

Ah, right - I get you.

I thought the accusations from weeks ago were of British Intelligenece spying on Trump/ Trump Towers on behalf of the American Security Services? Whereas the news linked by me is of the British giving a heads-up to their US counterparts after trailing/spying on Russian counterparts and possible Russian agents - going back some time - and as to a pattern emerging over meetings with Trump’s people (along with article that has the ex-MI6 Chief thinking that Trump may have borrowed money from Russia to help keep his empire afloat around the time of the financial crisis in 2008(-ish)).

I think they are two very different things - and the British Services were correct in denying that were spying on Trump/Trump Towers on behalf of the US Services.

The US and Brits, along with other allies often keep each other abreast of information and goings on (though likely keep the really interesting stuff from each other 😉)

Personally, I would not doubt the possibility of the U.K. doing the footwork for the U.S. overseas like this. Admitting it would be a far different matter of course.

http://rare.us/rare-politics/so-was-judge-andrew-napolitano-right-all-along-about-obama-and-the-brits-spying-on-trump/

Knock it off you two. No poking the sleeping bear, unless of course, you’d prefer to go rounds.

Thank you.

oojason said:

Jetrell Fo said:

oojason said:

‘British spies were first to spot Trump team’s links with Russia’:-

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/13/british-spies-first-to-spot-trump-team-links-russia

&

GCHQ ‘told US security services about meetings between Donald Trump’s team and Russia’:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/13/ex-british-spy-chief-sir-richard-dearlove-suggests-donald-trump/

&

‘Ex-MI6 chief says Donald Trump may have borrowed money from Russia to keep his empire afloat’:-

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/ex-mi6-chief-says-donald-10217616

Why did they deny it vehemently when the story first broke but now they own up to it?

Sorry mate - could you be a little more specific on what they denied - and what they are now ‘owning up to’?

That British Intelligence apparently gave the U.S. Intel they gained from surveillance of Trump Staff/Russia ties. Sorry that wasn’t clear. This information was clearly available weeks ago here in the States and some people got tossed under the bus for even insinuating that British Intelligence had or shared any such Intel with the U.S… Now they’ve owned up to it after the fact.

CatBus said:

Jetrell Fo said:

CatBus said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Money and power have always been the basis of her rhetoric.

I think we’re all clear on what you think of Trump. There is a little wonderment, though, about what noises you may hear when Clinton moves her lips.

^Same could be said for you and the others.

At least in this case, I heard more or less the same thing coming from Clinton as you. It’s the thought that Trump is less of a warmonger hell-bent on money and power causing the head-scratching around here.

I don’t believe him to be as much of a warmonger but I never said he couldn’t or wouldn’t become more of one.

oojason said:

‘British spies were first to spot Trump team’s links with Russia’:-

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/13/british-spies-first-to-spot-trump-team-links-russia

&

GCHQ ‘told US security services about meetings between Donald Trump’s team and Russia’:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/13/ex-british-spy-chief-sir-richard-dearlove-suggests-donald-trump/

&

‘Ex-MI6 chief says Donald Trump may have borrowed money from Russia to keep his empire afloat’:-

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/ex-mi6-chief-says-donald-10217616

Why did they deny it vehemently when the story first broke but now they own up to it?

CatBus said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Money and power have always been the basis of her rhetoric.

I think we’re all clear on what you think of Trump. There is a little wonderment, though, about what noises you may hear when Clinton moves her lips.

^Same could be said for you and the others.

TV’s Frink said:

Alderaan said:

TV’s Frink said:

Than god we didn’t put that warmongering Hillary in the White House. Also her emails.

Hillary is more pro war than Trump. She was literally quoting Dick Cheney propaganda on the campaign trail.

I guess that doesn’t fit your narrative though.

I guess you missed the point.

You may well have missed his point as well. If Clinton would be in office this would have escalated far sooner and possibly at an even higher price. She’s a warmonger, no getting around it, because war makes money. Money and power have always been the basis of her rhetoric.

Another group of serial liars for people to admire.

http://constitution.com/shock-news-obama-admin-knew-syria-still-chemical-weapons-still-lied-america/

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2017/04/11/wapo-susan-rices-comments-on-syrian-chemical-weapons-was-a-total-lie-n2311825

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/5/susan-rice-lies-will-haunt-liberals/

I dislike saying this but God has nothing to do with what’s going on in the world.

http://blogs.cfr.org/zenko/2017/01/05/bombs-dropped-in-2016/

How Many Bombs Did the United States Drop in 2016?

In President Obama’s last year in office, the United States dropped 26,172 bombs in seven countries. This estimate is undoubtedly low, considering reliable data is only available for airstrikes in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Libya, and a single “strike,” according to the Pentagon’s definition, can involve multiple bombs or munitions. In 2016, the United States dropped 3,028 more bombs—and in one more country, Libya—than in 2015.

Most (24,287) were dropped in Iraq and Syria. This number is based on the percentage of total coalition airstrikes carried out in 2016 by the United States in Operation Inherent Resolve (OIR), the counter-Islamic State campaign. The Pentagon publishes a running count of bombs dropped by the United States and its partners, and we found data for 2016 using OIR public strike releases and this handy tool.* Using this data, we found that in 2016, the United States conducted about 79 percent (5,904) of the coalition airstrikes in Iraq and Syria, which together total 7,473. Of the total 30,743 bombs that the coalition dropped, then, the United States dropped 24,287 (79 percent of 30,743).

To determine how many U.S. bombs were dropped on each Iraq and Syria, we looked at the percentage of total U.S. OIR airstrikes conducted in each country. They were nearly evenly split, with 49.8 percent (or 2,941 airstrikes) carried out in Iraq, and 50.2 percent (or 2,963 airstrikes) in Syria. Therefore, the number of bombs dropped were also nearly the same in the two countries (12,095 in Iraq; 12,192 in Syria). Last year, the United States conducted approximately 67 percent of airstrikes in Iraq in 2016, and 96 percent of those in Syria.

CarboniteSolo said:

Does anybody have this particular photo or the Star Wars Insider magazine issue?
https://www.dropbox.com/s/oibexlc4maoe5xh/T43degX2.bmp?dl=0

Which issue is this one? I know I have a good number of Insider Magazines in storage but the picture doesn’t show the issue number.

I know that the Rebirth of Mothra III got a letterboxed showing on Sci-Fi. I’ve seen a ??? generational copy of it that’s floating around but I had always hope to find something a little better, maybe a bit closer to the original VHS recording source.

Mike O said:

RicOlie_2 said:

If you ever want to talk about the whole God/religion thing, shoot me a PM. I also went through a period of extreme doubt, including a few months of (secretly) identifying as agnostic. During that time I really dug into the meatier questions, which eventually convinced me to become fully Catholic again.

I wish I could give you a quick run-down in one forum post, but I’m afraid there’s too much to talk about for that to really help…

Thanks, man. I think maybe I will soon.

Sorry for the tantrum, everybody. Just wanted to get some stuff out.

Stick with what works and if it helps to vent then you go right ahead. I fully support you.

I’m tired.

Finally picked up Rogue One, 3 disc Bluray. It was the last one on the shelf.

YAY!!!