U.S. Headed for 'Heightened Alert' Stage

[Dudeskey]

Be afraid, be veeeery afraid....
http://www.sudantribune.com/IMG/jpg/Osama_bin_Laden.jpghttp://www.37signals.com/svn/images/fear_poster_med.jpghttp://www.sudantribune.com/IMG/jpg/Osama_bin_Laden.jpg

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=5420514&page=1

Exclusive: Major Events on the Horizon Prompt a Surge in Anti-Terror Efforts
By PIERRE THOMAS
July 28, 2008

Government officials have been quietly stepping up counterterror efforts out of a growing concern that al Qaeda or similar organizations might try to capitalize on the spate of extremely high-profile events in the coming months, sources tell ABC News.

Security experts point to next month's Olympics as evidence that high-profile events attract threats of terrorism, like the one issued this past weekend by a Chinese Muslim minority group that warned of its intent to attack the Games.

Anti-terror officials in the U.S. cite this summer and fall's lineup of two major political parties' conventions, November's general election and months of transition into a new presidential administration as cause for heightened awareness and action.

This is what the Department of Homeland Security is quietly declaring a Period of Heightened Alert, or POHA, a time frame when terrorists may have more incentive to attack.

According to drafts of government memos described to ABC News, the period would run roughly from this August through July 2009.

During this time, homeland security analysts will be asked to redouble efforts to study terrorism leads. And a number of agencies will be asked to review emergency response plans to a variety of attacks, from improvised explosive devices (IEDs) to biological weapons.

Officials also are being asked to make sure they are prepared for all contingencies during the transition from the Bush administration to that of the next president.

In a recent interview, FBI director Robert Mueller told ABC News of his concerns for homeland security.

"When you have a series of events like this which are very public, where you have a number of people that are congregated together, we take additional precautions," he said.

"That means identifying, focusing on the intelligence that's available and scrutinizing it to pieces and running it to ground, to putting in place the precautions to assure the particular events go according to plan and free from terrorist attacks," he said.

At the moment, the nation's public threat level will remain at yellow, or "elevated," but not orange, or "high."

The reasons: There are no specifics indicating an attack on the U.S. is imminent, and U.S. officials do not want to be accused of trying to inject themselves into the presidential campaign.

[Rigs11]

yep, be afraid. but don't ask for any details as to what to be afraid of, that would only help the ones who you should be afraid of, whoever that is..Ha!

[theAPAOps5]

There are actually specific enough threats. But not enough to warrant a full scale escalation. I think its smart not to constantly raise and lower the threat level for the nation like they have in the past. It makes the system more of a joke than it already is.

But I wonder how this couldn't have at least a little political humph to it. I mean fear is what gets people elected!

[TailgateNut]

Is it October yet?

...I've also noticed that they are once again informing the general public of the "Terror Alert Color du jour" at the airport.

What a bunch of assholes, and the people who buy into this BS need to slapped upside the head.

[Dudeskey]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZlLanEMYRtA&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZlLanEMYRtA&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Rohirrim]

Damn! I've got to check my duct tape.

[Hotrod]

Well **** I'm not one to get worried about some color coded chart bull**** but I will stock up on beer just in case something happens and the supply lines are down for a while.

[Dudeskey]

Well **** I'm not one to get worried about some color coded chart bull**** but I will stock up on beer just in case something happens and the supply lines are down for a while.

Alcohol- check
Tobacco- check
firearms- check
chips- damnit, gotta go to the store ;D

[elsid13]

Well **** I'm not one to get worried about some color coded chart bull**** but I will stock up on beer just in case something happens and the supply lines are down for a while.

Elsid13 color warning chart



1. Green - Enough Beer in the house to last the week, and no one stopping the supply

2. Yellow - I am down to only a couple of days worth of beer, and there is the potential for bad weather. Will go to the store, beat the **** out of anyone that gets in my way of buying more beer.

3. Red - I am out of beer and Spider and the rest of trucking buddies aren't delivering, time to kill the neighbors and get thier beer

[kappys]

Elsid13 color warning chart



1. Green - Enough Beer in the house to last the week, and no one stopping the supply

2. Yellow - I am done to only a couple of days worth of beer, and there is the potential for bad weather. Will go to the store, beat the **** out of anyone that gets in my way of buying more beer.

3. Red - I am out of beer and Spider and the rest of trucking buddies aren't delivering, time to kill the neighbors and get thier beer

Hasn't Baja taught you anything? Its time to get off the grid and fire up the backyard still.

[elsid13]

Hasn't Baja taught you anything? Its time to get off the grid and fire up the backyard still.

to much f'ing work. it easier to kill someone and take thier beer

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

U.S. Headed for 'Heightened Alert' Stage

Translation:

"It's election season, and fear is all the GOP has left in the tank."

[Hotrod]

U.S. Headed for 'Heightened Alert' Stage

Translation:

"It's election season, and fear is all the GOP has left in the tank."



http://www.dailypspmovie.com/images/2007/20070519-amazing-sounding-parrot.jpg

The wheels of your bus go round and round Ha!

[Meck77]

http://www.dailypspmovie.com/images/2007/20070519-amazing-sounding-parrot.jpg

The wheels of your bus go round and round Ha!

No kidding. 30+ thousand posts to say the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.

The irony is if there was an attack then he'd be saying Bush knew and didnt' warn us, Bush knew and didn't warn us, Bush knew and didn't warn us.

[alkemical]

Actually, i have to agree with LABF on this one - to SOME extenent

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN View Post
U.S. Headed for 'Heightened Alert' Stage

Translation:

"It's election season, and fear is all the GOP has left in the tank."


Although, it's not JUST the GOP.

[DenverBrit]

No kidding. 30+ thousand posts to say the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.

The irony is if there was an attack then he'd be saying Bush knew and didnt' warn us, Bush knew and didn't warn us, Bush knew and didn't warn us.

QFT.

[TailgateNut]

No kidding. 30+ thousand posts to say the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.

The irony is if there was an attack then he'd be saying Bush knew and didnt' warn us, Bush knew and didn't warn us, Bush knew and didn't warn us.


You can also look at it from the Bush Perspective: If we warn them of the possibility of DOOM, eventually, if it does come to fruition, our asses are covered, with the added benefit of continuing our "terror tour" of the citizens of the United States.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.dailypspmovie.com/images/2007/20070519-amazing-sounding-parrot.jpg

The wheels of your bus go round and round Ha!

http://blog.karmona.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/ostrich.jpg

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

No kidding. 30+ thousand posts to say the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.

11,000+ post by you just to give Bush a blowjob over and over and over......while acting like your sh*t doesn't stink.

If you had anything even remotely resembling a healthy sense of shame you probably wouldn't have the nerve to show your face around here.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

QFT.

The radical right thanks you for another reach-around. :puff:

[Hotrod]

http://blog.karmona.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/ostrich.jpg

LOL Ok I have to admit that was very nicely played Ha!

[elsid13]

While I understand there will be some skepticism to the action, we need to remember that Al-Qaeda likes to continue to use similar tactics until they are stopped. They were very successful in Spain in effecting the national elections and attempted to do something similar in both France (I think that was the country) and Algeria.

We need to at least get folks aware potential dangers as we approach the elections.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

While I understand there will be some skepticism to the action, we need to remember that Al-Qaeda likes to continue to use similar tactics until they are stopped. They were very successful in Spain in effecting the national elections and attempted to do something similar in both France (I think that was the country) and Algeria.

We need to at least get folks aware potential dangers as we approach the elections.

So if history repeats itself we can expect a "vote republican" tape from Osama in the mail around October?

[Hotrod]

So if history repeats itself we can expect a "vote republican" tape from Osama in the mail around October?

Or an attack on American soil to push the Repubs into power. Why the hell would they want to do that you ask. Because the way we are handling the war in Iraq and on terror is to their advantage.

[elsid13]

So if history repeats itself we can expect a "vote republican" tape from Osama in the mail around October?

I wouldn't be surprised to see a major Al Qaeda media release in the next month or so. If there is capture of US soldier or Marine in Afghanistan I would expect them attempt to use center piece of the message - we will release him/her if the next president will talk.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Or an attack on American soil to push the Repubs into power. Why the hell would they want to do that you ask.

Because Bush's policies have done more for al Qaeda recruitment than Bin Laden could have ever imagined in his wildest wet dream?





Do I win anything? :D

[Hotrod]

Because Bush's policies have done more for al Qaeda recruitment than Bin Laden could have ever imagined in his wildest wet dream?





Do I win anything? :D

Yes you do a piece of the bill for the Iraq invasion.

[DenverBrit]

The radical right thanks you for another reach-around.

You really need some new material. :loopy:

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You really need some new material. :loopy:

Sorry - next time I'll try to make it more Cheech and Chong for you. :D

[DenverBrit]

Sorry - next time I'll try to make it more Cheech and Chong for you. :D

Pauly Shore would be a welcome break from your monotony. Hilarious!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Pauly Shore would be a welcome break from your monotony. Hilarious!

Monotony = the transparent personal vendetta that compels you to jack thread after thread...

You are just W*GS with a bong.

[DenverBrit]

You are just W*GS with a bong.

Your repeated smears that I am a drug user are offensive.
It's all you have when you can't keep up; smears and lies.
Prove that I have ever used drugs once in my life, you pathetic little worm.
Put up or shut up.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Your repeated smears that I am a drug user are offensive.
It's all you have when you can't keep up; smears and lies.
Prove that I have ever used drugs once in my life, you pathetic little worm.
Put up or shut up.

Gee, you're right - what was I thinking?

I should have never inferred from your tenacious and impassioned defense of marijuana users that you might be one of them. :clown:

BTW, let the record show that you were the first to lose his composure and resort to name-calling. tsk tsk

[DenverBrit]

I should have never inferred from your tenacious and impassioned defense of marijuana users that you might be one of them. :clown:


You're a liar, a chronic liar.

Again, I challenge you to find one post where I did any such thing.
You made a stupid claim, and I challenged you to support it, you couldn't.
Ever since, you've smeared me as a drug user.
Now run along and find any post of mine to back up your idiotic lies.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You're a liar, a chronic liar.

Again, I challenge you to find one post where I did any such thing.
You made a stupid claim, and I challenged you to support it, you couldn't.
Ever since, you've smeared me as a drug user.
Now run along and find any post of mine to back up your idiotic lies.

I'm a "liar" for inferring from your tenacious defense of marijuana that you are a smoker?

Yeah - that makes sense. :rofl:

And I have a question for you:

I've been accusing you of being a stoner for weeks - why are you just now denying it?

[Rohirrim]

Every morning I wake up and tell my wife I'm on "heightened alert."

[DenverBrit]

I'm a "liar" for inferring from your tenacious defense of marijuana that you are a smoker?



Yes you are, your worse than a liar, you smear me to cover your own inability to back up your assertions.
Something that you've been doing to others long before I challenged your BS.
But you count on no one else bothering to check, so you lie hoping that no one will know the difference.
Go ahead, prove your not a lying smear artist and post ANYTHING I wrote in ANY thread "tenaciously defending marijuana."
You won't, because it never happened and you know it.
Post it, or man up and admit you're lying.

I've been accusing you of being a stoner for weeks - why are you just now denying it?

So you admit you've been conducting a smear campaign merely to deflect from your inability to back up your bull$hit.
As for why am I upset now? Last straw!
You've kept up your childish smear campaign for too long. Enough is enough. Now go find the evidence you keep writing about and prove that you're not the lying worm I accuse you of being.
It shouldn't take you long, after all my "tenacious defense of marijuana" should be easy to find. Right??

[alkemical]

While I understand there will be some skepticism to the action, we need to remember that Al-Qaeda likes to continue to use similar tactics until they are stopped. They were very successful in Spain in effecting the national elections and attempted to do something similar in both France (I think that was the country) and Algeria.

We need to at least get folks aware potential dangers as we approach the elections.

Just some food for thought:

http://www.roguegovernment.com/news.php?id=10768

Agence-France Presse reports:

Spain’s supreme court Thursday overturned the guilty verdicts on four of the 21 people convicted over the Madrid train bombings that killed 191 people in 2004.

It also upheld a lower court’s decision to acquit one of the alleged masterminds of the Al Qaeda-inspired attacks, Rabei Ousmane Sayed Ahmed, known as “Mohammed the Egyptian”.

And it handed down a four-year prison term to a Spaniard, Antonio Toro, who had been acquitted on charges of transporting explosives.

Note: the attack is no longer considered the direct handiwork of al-Qaeda but is rather an “al-Qaeda inspired attack.” Back in March, 2004, the corporate media resoundingly declared al-Qaeda to be responsible.

The supreme court Thursday overturned the convictions of Basel Ghalyoun and Mohamed Almallah Dabas, both condemned to 12 years in prison for belonging to a terrorist group.

It also cleared Abdelilah El Fadual El Akil, condemned to nine years for collaborating with a terrorist group, as well as Raul Gonzalez Pena, who had received five years for supplying explosives.

In other words, according to Spain’s Supreme Court, these people did not belong to a terrorist group, at least not an Islamic terrorist group. Apparently, there was not enough evidence to stay the conviction of “Mohammed the Egyptian,” said to be the ringleader, and his conviction was thrown out as well.

The court in October had handed down the heaviest sentences to two Moroccans — Jamal Zougam and Othman el-Gnaoui — and a Spaniard, Jose Emilio Suarez Trashorras.

As it turns out, Trashorras and a compatriot, Antonio Toro, were government informants, a fact reported by the New York Times and the Times Online. Toro was recently handed a four-year prison for transporting explosives.

The History Commons on the Cooperative Research website notes the following:

It is revealed that the man accused of supplying the dynamite used in the March 2004 Madrid train bombings was an informant who had the private telephone number of the head of Spain’s Civil Guard bomb squad. Emilio Suarez Trashorras, a miner with access to explosives, as well as an associate named Rafa Zouhier both regularly informed for the Spanish police, telling them about drug shipments. Trashorras began working as an informant after being arrested for drug trafficking in July 2001, while Zouhier became an informant after being released from prison early in February 2002. Shortly after the Madrid bombings, investigators discover that Trashorras’ wife Carmen Toro has a piece of paper with the telephone number of Juan Jesus Sanchez Manzano, head of Tedax, the Civil Guard bomb squad. She and her brother Antonio Toro are also informants.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Yes you are, your worse than a liar, you smear me to cover your own inability to back up your assertions.
Something that you've been doing to others long before I challenged your BS.
But you count on no one else bothering to check, so you lie hoping that no one will know the difference.
Go ahead, prove your not a lying smear artist and post ANYTHING I wrote in ANY thread "tenaciously defending marijuana."
You won't, because it never happened and you know it.
Post it, or man up and admit you're lying.


So you admit you've been conducting a smear campaign merely to deflect from your inability to back up your bull$hit.
As for why am I upset now? Last straw!
You've kept up your childish smear campaign for too long. Enough is enough. Now go find the evidence you keep writing about and prove that you're not the lying worm I accuse you of being.
It shouldn't take you long, after all my "tenacious defense of marijuana" should be easy to find. Right??

Holy crap - you really are a drug-addled, delusional nutcase!

Are you really trying to deny your defense of marijuana on that thread on the main board?

Are you really trying to deny your efforts to minimize the harmful effects of THC on that same thread?

And you never did answer my question: If you are not a pot smoker, then why did you wait until now to deny it?

[DenverBrit]

Holy crap - you really are a drug-addled, delusional nutcase!

Are you really trying to deny your defense of marijuana on that thread on the main board?

Are you really trying to deny your efforts to minimize the harmful effects of THC on that same thread?

And you never did answer my question: If you are not a pot smoker, then why did you wait until now to deny it?

First, your ability to read English and comprehend it is questionable.
I answered your last question clearly. Anyway, it's not my responsibility to prove anything, you're the one making offensive accusations that you can't substantiate.
You're a loud mouth liar, that much is clear to everyone.

Again, your baseless and easily proved lie is:
Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN
I'm a "liar" for inferring from your tenacious defense of marijuana that you are a smoker?

For the last time, prove it, or STFU.
You're fooling no one with your smear tactics and making an a$$ of yourself again. If you had anything, you would have posted it by now.
You're just spinning your way into a deeper hole of lies and deceit.
We've had this stupid argument before, and you couldn't find ONE single post to back up your lies the last time. Nothing has changed.
You're a psychotic liar, can you prove otherwise by finding a single post of mine where I "tenaciously defend marijuana"??
Stop being a weasel and address the issue.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

First, your ability to read English and comprehend it is questionable.

Gee, it's so much more convincing when you post it in color. :D


I answered your last question clearly.

No, you didn't.

It was a very simple, straight forward question:

If I have been wrong about your use of marijuana all this time, then why did you wait until now to "correct" me?


For the last time, prove it, or STFU.


"Prove" that you argued in defense of marijuana on that thread in the main forum? (The thread whose OP was about harmful effects of THC?)

You must be joking (or really high.) :laugh:

[DenverBrit]

By now it's obvious you're a psychotic liar.
The simple truth is that you've been trapped in your own web of deceit and bullsh*t.
The only reason you haven't jumped at the opportunity to offer any of my posts as evidence to back up your crazy rhetoric, is that they don't exist.
Further, posting ANY of my comments from the marijuana thread would expose you for the liar you are.
So allow me to help you out.
Here are ALL of my posts from that thread, along with your comments....untouched, unedited (one exception for brevity) and in their original sequence.
There are only a few, so this won't take long to expose your dishonesty once and for all.

My first post was a simple comment about the need to investigate the medical properties of marijuana.
It was a response to one of your comments:

Not hard at all.
The damage done by THC is more insidious (happens more gradually and over a longer period of time) and is therefore easier to deny or ignore until it's too late (and you are a 40 or 50 year-old senile softball.)
But unlike cigarettes and alcohol, cannabis doesn't cause hundreds of thousands of deaths each year.
In fact, it provides relieve for many who are terminally ill or suffer from chronic diseases like MS.
It's a natural herb that needs much more study to reveal its healing properties.
But 'Reefer Madness' is still, unintentionally, one of the funniest movies ever made. :spit:
Is THAT my...... "tenacious defense of marijuana"? Hardly!.
My next post was a rebuttal of that same comment you made above. I have edited it to show the key points; links reference the entire articles:
You reminded me of a study released last year that says you couldn't be more wrong.

LONDON - New "landmark" research finds that alcohol and tobacco are more dangerous than some illegal drugs like marijuana or Ecstasy and should be classified as such in legal systems, according to a new British study.

Nutt and colleagues used three factors to determine the harm associated with any drug: the physical harm to the user, the drug's potential for addiction and the impact on society of drug use.
Nutt and his colleagues then calculated the drugs' overall rankings. In the end, the experts agreed with each other — but not with the existing British classification of dangerous substances.

Research recently published in the medical journal The Lancet rates the most dangerous drugs (starting with the worst) as follows:
1. Heroin
2. Cocaine
3. Barbiturates
4. Street methadone
5. Alcohol
6. Ketamine
7. Benzodiazepines
8. Amphetamine
9. Tobacco
10. Buprenorphine
11. Cannabis
12. Solvents
13. 4-MTA
14. LSD
15. Methylphenidate
16. Anabolic steroids
17. GHB
18. Ecstasy
19. Alkyl nitrates
20. Khat
Source: The Lancet

Nutt called for more education so that people were aware of the risks of various drugs. "All drugs are dangerous," he said. "Even the ones people know and love and use every day."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17760130/
And more:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6429239.stm
That was landmark research that speaks for itself. The bolded sentence describes the methodology and encompasses the 'insidious' effects of each substance. Your response. The spin begins:
You're off into straw man land now.
I never claimed that there weren't more dangerous drugs than marijuana out there - I merely objected to the notion that marijuana was some harmless little herb.
Ah, the 'Straw man defence. Ha! My response:
No you didn't, you claimed:.
The damage done by THC is more insidious

Really?? (adj) insidious (beguiling but harmful)

Looks like you said 'more harmful.' Which it isn't.....not even close.
Have you ever found a statistic showing cannabis caused deaths?
Nothing is more 'insidious' than a substance sold legally for recreational use yet kills and disables hundreds of thousands in the US alone ie: Alcohol and Cigarettes.
So explain again how cannabis is 'more insidious.' The article I posted clearly explains why you are wrong. That's all.
Even though the definition of "insidious" I used was common parlance, you chose an alternative. Fair enough:
Looks like you conveniently omitted the rest of the definition:
having a gradual and cumulative effect
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/insidious
That was the sense in which I was using the word "insidious" (which is pretty clear if you read my post.)
Nowhere did I state that THC was "more harmful" than alcohol.
Either your comprehension game is jacked from smoking too much of that sh*t or you just have a penchant for strawman arguments.
Another "straw man" comment and the start of your pothead accusations. As I mention next, it doesn't matter which interpretation of insidious you use, the result is the same. You no show evidence to support your assertion. Just insults and deflections.
My response:
You seem confused, so I'll spell it out for you.....again!
Cannabis is NOT more insidious than alcohol, not matter how you wriggle and squirm on the definition.
If you think that cannabis is having a gradual and cumulative effect more so than alcohol, as you claim, show some evidence to back up your argument. You have none and you know it.
I have posted an article that demonstrates you're not only incorrect but that the opposite is true. But you chose to ignore the facts and try to gain credibility for your absurd assertion by simply ignoring the reality.
You lost the debate a long time ago, now you have nothing left but insults and denial. Try maturity as an avenue for debate.
Again, I ask you to provide evidence to support your assertion. You respond:

ROFL!
You are the one who is confused - about the meaning of the word "insidious."

My argument is that the damage done to various systems of the body by THC is more insidious than that of alcohol and other drugs of abuse. That is, the damage happens more gradually and subtly so that it's less perceptible (and thus easier for the user to deny and/or minimize.)

At no point did I say that marijuana was more damaging or more dangerous than alcohol as you continue to falsely claim.
I challenge you to produce one quote that contains any such claim.
Your continued attempts to misrepresent my argument and put a straw man in its place is too funny (and just like a stoner.) Ha!
Your third "straw man" comment (you really do need a new act) and your second accusation that I'm a "stoner." But your crowning achievement was to expand your bizarre comments about THC to include, heroin, crack, crystal methe, opium and other drugs. My response wasn't my finest hour, but your rhetoric reached new heights of absurdity and triggered a knee jerk response to your ridiculous claim:
Well the idiots have a new King! LOL LOL LOL
Produce evidence, to back up your claim. Put up or shut up.

I know, I've just resorted to name calling. I'll apologize to the idiots later.

Edit: Try using a reputable independent source, not the Gov propaganda that produced 'Reefer Madness' to show the effects of smoking Cannabis.
The end of our discussion.
So despite repeated challenges to you to produce any evidence to back up your argument,(no matter which interpretation of insidious you choose to use) you had nothing but insults and deflections....as usual.
I wasn't the only poster asking for evidence.

But the point of all this, is to show what a liar you are.
Where did I make a "tenacious defense of marijuana"?
And how the hell do you conclude I'm a "stoner"?
You merely ducked and weaved, smearing as you went, and avoided providing anything that could credibly back your rhetoric.
Facts don't play a role in your arguments, you simply, lie and insult anyone who disagrees and challenges your unfounded claims.
Your mouth writes checks your intellect can't cash. ;D

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

By now it's obvious you're a psychotic liar.

"Psychotic," eh?

I wonder if you're frothing at the mouth as you type this hyperbole? :clown:

If anything is "obvious" it is that I touched a MAJOR nerve when I accused you of being a pot head. :puff:

The simple truth is that you've been trapped in your own web of deceit and bullsh*t......blah blah blah....


:bs:

You're trapped in your own morass of misunderstanding and failed comprehension.

Your confusion (still) stems from your inability to understand the meaning of one simple word:

"Insidious."

The definition of "insidious" I had in mind in the first post you quoted is crystal clear.

Hint: Look at the words inside (and immediately following) the parentheses:

(happens more gradually and over a longer period of time) and is therefore easier to deny or ignore until it's too late...

Yet, in spite of this clarity of meaning, you chose to respond with a straw man argument with which you represented me as saying that the harmful effects of THC were worse than those of alcohol and/or other drugs:

Looks like you said 'more harmful.' Which it isn't.....not even close.

FYI, "insidious" does not imply "worse" or "more harmful."

Is THAT my...... "tenacious defense of marijuana"? Hardly!.

Whenever anyone on the thread presented evidence of marijuana's harmful effects, your response was to counter with some argument or other that marijuana was less harmful than other drugs of abuse (a question which, BTW, isn't relevant to an assessment of marijuana's harmful effects) and to post a pseudo-scientific article whose criteria for evaluating harmful effects of THC were about as vague as it gets.

In short, yours was a concerted and consistent effort to minimize the dangers or risks associated with marijuana.

How is this not a defense?

And given your position, how is it unreasonable to assume you are a marijuana user?

Moreover, if you are not a marijuana user, then why did you wait this long to deny the fact?

This behavior doesn't seem consistent with your usual "rapid response" debate style.

In fact, if memory serves me, you haven't actually denied that you use marijuana - you have merely attacked me for suggesting such a thing.

Your mouth writes checks your intellect can't cash.

Ha ha ha! :laugh:

You remind me of that redneck in the movie "Fire Down Below" who, after getting his teeth kicked in by Steven Seagal, looks up from the floor and mutters "is that all you got, boy?"

This whole thing is ending with you looking like a b*tch - and you don't even realize it.

:D

[DenverBrit]

LOL LOL LOL You really are the lying 'tool' people say you are.

This gem will go down as one of the dumbest unfounded statements on this topic. One that you have no evidence to support.
You should be proud. :spit:
Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN
My argument is that the DAMAGE done to various systems of the body by THC is more insidious than that of alcohol and other drugs of abuse.

I'm done with this "discussion,." unless you have evidence to back up your ridiculous assertion.
Have a nice day. :welcome:

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I'm done with this "discussion,." unless you have evidence to back up your ridiculous assertion.
Have a nice day. :welcome:

Get someone to explain the meaning of the word "insidious" to you - then you'll have a better chance of understanding my point (and realize how badly you've embarrassed yourself here without even realizing it.)

:clown: :puff:

[DenverBrit]

Get someone to explain the meaning of the word "insidious" to you - then you'll have a better chance of understanding my point

I understand your point, but I say it's nonsense, which is why I challenged you to prove your bizarre statement with facts.
That's what a debate is about.
Back up your rhetoric, or admit you're wrong.
I've told you many times, it doesn't matter which of the two interpretations of insidious you care use, just post your evidence.
Do you have any or not? It's a simple question.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You use the same childish Troll tactic over and over.
I've told you many times, it doesn't matter which of the two interpretations of insidious you care use(sic), just post your evidence.
Do you have any or not? It's a simple question.

Yes - it does matter.

If you understood my meaning (which was perfectly clear) when I used the word "insidious," then it's evident that your response was a straw man argument, i.e., you claimed I stated that the aversive effects of THC were 'worse' than those of other drugs of abuse when I said nothing of the kind.

The fact that you are asking for "evidence" proves that you don't even understand the basics about THC and how it works on various systems of the body (which I explained in the original thread.)

And, speaking of simple questions, you still haven't answered mine:

If you're not a marijuana user, then why did you wait this long to deny it?

[DenverBrit]

If you understood my meaning (which was perfectly clear) when I used the word "insidious," then it's evident that your response was a straw man argument, i.e., you claimed I stated that the aversive effects of THC were 'worse' than those of other drugs of abuse when I said nothing of the kind.

I understood exactly what you claimed. I'm saying that it's not true and challenged you to prove it with evidence. You've danced around ever since.


The fact that you are asking for "evidence" proves that you don't even understand the basics about THC and how it works on various systems of the body (which I explained in the original thread.)
No, the reason that I am asking for evidence is clear.
I believe your statement to be ridiculous and unsustainable.
Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN
My argument is that the DAMAGE done to various systems of the body by THC is more insidious than that of alcohol and other drugs of abuse.
I posted an article from the British Medical Journal, The Lancet (one of the world's most respected medical journals) where extensive research showed that your argument was wrong. That's how this got started. You chose to ignore it and now call it a "pseudo-scientific article." Which of course it isn't.


And, speaking of simple questions, you still haven't answered mine:
If you're not a marijuana user, then why did you wait this long to deny it?

I'm not in the habit of addressing every sophomoric insult in a forum.
As for why I chose to finally say enough? I covered that the first time you asked the question. you simply chose to ignore it. Something you do routinely when it suits you. Go look it up yourself.


Bottom line: Provide evidence to support your claim.
It's that simple, but you have to drag it out into a ridiculous run around.
This discussion would have ended long ago had you done so.
Either I would have admitted you were right, based on scientific evidence or you would have to admit you have no such evidence and you were wrong.

[elsid13]

Just some food for thought:

http://www.roguegovernment.com/news.php?id=10768

Agence-France Presse reports:

Spain’s supreme court Thursday overturned the guilty verdicts on four of the 21 people convicted over the Madrid train bombings that killed 191 people in 2004.

It also upheld a lower court’s decision to acquit one of the alleged masterminds of the Al Qaeda-inspired attacks, Rabei Ousmane Sayed Ahmed, known as “Mohammed the Egyptian”.

And it handed down a four-year prison term to a Spaniard, Antonio Toro, who had been acquitted on charges of transporting explosives.

Note: the attack is no longer considered the direct handiwork of al-Qaeda but is rather an “al-Qaeda inspired attack.” Back in March, 2004, the corporate media resoundingly declared al-Qaeda to be responsible.

The supreme court Thursday overturned the convictions of Basel Ghalyoun and Mohamed Almallah Dabas, both condemned to 12 years in prison for belonging to a terrorist group.

It also cleared Abdelilah El Fadual El Akil, condemned to nine years for collaborating with a terrorist group, as well as Raul Gonzalez Pena, who had received five years for supplying explosives.

In other words, according to Spain’s Supreme Court, these people did not belong to a terrorist group, at least not an Islamic terrorist group. Apparently, there was not enough evidence to stay the conviction of “Mohammed the Egyptian,” said to be the ringleader, and his conviction was thrown out as well.

The court in October had handed down the heaviest sentences to two Moroccans — Jamal Zougam and Othman el-Gnaoui — and a Spaniard, Jose Emilio Suarez Trashorras.

As it turns out, Trashorras and a compatriot, Antonio Toro, were government informants, a fact reported by the New York Times and the Times Online. Toro was recently handed a four-year prison for transporting explosives.

The History Commons on the Cooperative Research website notes the following:

It is revealed that the man accused of supplying the dynamite used in the March 2004 Madrid train bombings was an informant who had the private telephone number of the head of Spain’s Civil Guard bomb squad. Emilio Suarez Trashorras, a miner with access to explosives, as well as an associate named Rafa Zouhier both regularly informed for the Spanish police, telling them about drug shipments. Trashorras began working as an informant after being arrested for drug trafficking in July 2001, while Zouhier became an informant after being released from prison early in February 2002. Shortly after the Madrid bombings, investigators discover that Trashorras’ wife Carmen Toro has a piece of paper with the telephone number of Juan Jesus Sanchez Manzano, head of Tedax, the Civil Guard bomb squad. She and her brother Antonio Toro are also informants.

This is why the organization like Al Qaeda re so deadly in many aspects. The loose confederation makes them very adaptable to many tactical situations that highly central organization would struggle with. Interest book call the spider and the starfish kinda describe why thing like Al Qaeda, Napstar are dangerous to established norms.