[QUOTE=SilverScoober02]That is wicked.....[/QUOTE]

Yup, I've heard cases of SF guys sneaking up on waiting fighers, stabbing them to death and leaving their calling cards on their dead bodies. The enemy has no idea there is someone dead set on killing them and that they know exactly where they are laying, what type of cigarette they may be smoking and how many rounds are in their magazine. It's a sick technology and literally leaves people nowhere to hide if the surveillance is available at the time.

And for the record, the calling cards are things each group prints up like playing cards or business cards. They leave their ID and a sick comment or something on them to mess with the enemies head. Psychological warfare is a ****.

By Lisa Myers & the NBC Investigative Unit
NBC News
Updated: 6:26 p.m. ET Sept. 14, 2005

MSNBC TRANSCRIPT
"The unveiling of the Mardi Gras Fountain was celebrated this year in typical New Orleans style. The cost of $2.4 million was paid by the Orleans Levee Board, the state agency whose main job is to protect the levees surrounding New Orleans -- the same levees that failed after Katrina hit.

"They misspent the money," says Billy Nungesser, a former top Republican official who was briefly president of the Levee Board. "Any dollar they wasted was a dollar that could have went in the levees."

Nungesser says he lost his job because he targeted wasteful spending.

"A cesspool of politics, that’s all it was," says Nungesser. "[Its purpose was to] provide jobs for people."

In fact, NBC News has uncovered a pattern of what critics call questionable spending practices by the Levee Board -- a board which, at one point, was accused by a state inspector general of "a long-standing and continuing disregard of the public interest."

Beyond the fountain, there's the $15 million spent on two overpasses that helped gamblers get to Bally's riverboat casino. Critics tried and failed to put some of that money into flood protection.

There was also $45,000 for private investigators to dig up dirt on radio host and board critic Robert Namer.

"They hired a private eye for nine months to find something to make me look wacko, to make me look crazy or bad." says Namer. "They couldn’t find anything."

Namer sued and the board then spent another $45,000 to settle.

Critics charge, for years, the board has paid more attention to marinas, gambling and business than to maintaining the levees. As an example: of 11 construction projects now on the board's Web site, only two are related to flood control.[2]

"I assure you," says Levee Board President Jim Huey, "that you will find that all of our money was appropriately expended."

Huey says money for the levees comes from a different account than money for business activities and that part of the board’s job is providing recreational opportunities.

And despite the catastrophic flooding, Huey says, "As far as the overall flood protection system, it's intact, it's there today, it worked. In 239 miles of levees, 152 floodgates, and canals throughout this entire city, there was only two areas."

But those two critical areas were major canals and their collapse contributed to hundreds of deaths and widespread destruction.

Lisa Myers is NBC’s senior investigative correspondent."

Pundita notes that Jim Huey, the levee board's president, doesn't mention that the levees are now so weakened they can be breached by even a tropical storm surge. And according to an earlier reports, the levees were breached in at least seven places; the two breaches mentioned by Huey were only the major ones.

Nor does Mr. Huey volunteer the information that in addition to levees, floodgates and canals there are floodwalls. It is on the question of the New Orleans floodwalls that much hangs.

[QUOTE=1reguL8NSTi]Yup, I've heard cases of SF guys sneaking up on waiting fighers, stabbing them to death and leaving their calling cards on their dead bodies. The enemy has no idea there is someone dead set on killing them and that they know exactly where they are laying, what type of cigarette they may be smoking and how many rounds are in their magazine. It's a sick technology and literally leaves people nowhere to hide if the surveillance is available at the time.

And for the record, the calling cards are things each group prints up like playing cards or business cards. They leave their ID and a sick comment or something on them to mess with the enemies head. Psychological warfare is a ****.[/QUOTE]


mmmm.......death cards

[QUOTE=svxr8dr]mmmm.......death cards[/QUOTE]

Yup, and thanks for pointing out that article. Considering the fact that it would have taken about $50,000 to prevent the breaks in the areas they happened this is totally the fault of the local officials. Thanks for looking at the facts and not falling victim to the typical administration bashing. Put the criticism where it's due.

[QUOTE=svxr8dr][b]The pre-emptive strike "mentality" blame you speak belongs to JFK, it was a right he held in regards to Cuba during the missle crisis in 1962. A right he told the world in a televised speech.[/b][/QUOTE]

You seem like a smart enough guy, but this is the most e-tarded sentence I have read in awhile.

I digress... JFKs situation with Cuba was entirely different. We were in the middle of the Cold War and the Soviets were stockpiling WMDs right off our shore on the island of Cuba. Their action was both aggressive and real. We had confirmed satellite proof of their existence. The difference? Kennedy used the pressure of intl politics and the threat of retaliation. He did not start a war.

A far better example would have been the Bay of Pigs disaster in '61. We tried to sneak down there and put the whoopin on the Commie Cubans, but ended up getting our a$$es handed to us.

[QUOTE=dub2w]You seem like a smart enough guy, but this is the most e-tarded sentence I have read in awhile.

I digress... JFKs situation with Cuba was entirely different. We were in the middle of the Cold War and the Soviets were stockpiling WMDs right off our shore on the island of Cuba. Their action was both aggressive and real. We had confirmed satellite proof of their existence. The difference? Kennedy used the pressure of intl politics and the threat of retaliation. He did not start a war.

A far better example would have been the Bay of Pigs disaster in '61. We tried to sneak down there and put the whoopin on the Commie Cubans, but ended up getting our a$$es handed to us.[/QUOTE]

We're in the middle of the War on Terrorism because WE WERE ATTACKED and the Al Qaeda supporting insurgents/rebels/Taliban are attempting to attain WMDs from nations who support them and have or have had access to them. The President as well as the American public were presented with "evidence" of WMDs in Iraq and VOTED to attack them as a "pre-emptive measure". Entirely different? Not in my book.

[QUOTE=1reguL8NSTi]We're in the middle of the War on Terrorism because WE WERE ATTACKED and the Al Qaeda supporting insurgents/rebels/Taliban are attempting to attain WMDs from nations who support them... [/QUOTE]

Wow, you're still clinging to that nonsense? Ties between Al-Queda and Saddam? Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but our CIA had much stronger ties with both respective parties than they had with one another.

Before we invaded Iraq most recently, Saddam had long held a position to not deal with religious extremists, as those fringe parties threatened his own totalitarian rule.

Saddam was a sick bastard, but his actions did not merit in any way a pre-emptive strike against his sovereign nation.

[QUOTE=dub2w]Saddam was a sick bastard, but his actions did not merit in any way a pre-emptive strike against his sovereign nation.[/QUOTE]


Alright, well lets assume for a second that there was 100% postively, absolutely no possible way for him to have even had the potential to possess WMDs. He was still a sick bastard that used submissive, terror rule over his people and committed genocide on a scale rarely uncovered. Hitler was a sick bastard too.

Comparing Saddam to Hitler is a stretch and makes you lose a considerable amount of credibilty. The United States assisted one of the most ruthless murderers into power: Augusto Pinochet, ex-dictator of Chile. He came close to Hitler's ruthlessness.

Like I said, Saddam was a sick bastard. That doesnt justify a pre-emptive strike on a sovereign nation.

[QUOTE=dub2w]Comparing Saddam to Hitler is a stretch and makes you lose a considerable amount of credibilty. The United States assisted one of the most ruthless murderers into power: Augusto Pinochet, ex-dictator of Chile. He came close to Hitler's ruthlessness.

Like I said, Saddam was a sick bastard. That doesnt justify a pre-emptive strike on a sovereign nation.[/QUOTE]

If you can't see a comparision between the two then I think it says something about your credibilty so touche to that. You do realize that just a body count and a few well established death camps was all that seperated them right? Had Saddam built a death camp instead of trenches as his means of murder other than a body count what would have been different. He even went as far as to skip the camp and just gas whole cities outright. Getting the picture.

[QUOTE=1reguL8NSTi]a body count and a few well established death camps was all that seperated them...[/QUOTE]

I understand where you are coming from, but only in so far as the fact that both men were and are ruthless dictators.

Hitler attempted to wipe out an entire ethnicity. He murdered over 6,000,000 Jews and wouldnt have stopped there.

When Bush and his chronies were trying to stir up anti-Saddam sentiment in the US, myriad Jewish groups vehemently objected to the comparison of Saddam to Hitler.