SudsyFist

I love you, John. *smooches*

The monkey is nodding his head with great excitement.

Adipose tissue is adipose tissue. Ick. That's exactly why I hang out with dudes like you, actually: I get the hot one, you get the gross friends. Everybody wins.

Bitch needs to lay off the Twinkies.

it's a shame that few ppl have ever listened to that whole album. It's awesome and TAINTED LOVE is a good song, but probably the least interesting and ambitious. Sex Dwarf was a much better single. If only the had figured out something to medley with that one.

If you're driving her back to your place & she reaches over & starts giving you a handjob while you're driving. Fuck yeah. I'm gettin' on the phone right now...

I disagree, and here's why. Was Iraq an Islamic theocracy? No. Why, then, did they not dispose of Hussein themselves and attempt to induce the theocracy then? They were certainly more organized and trained before the U.S. responded to 9/11. Why the activity *now*? Here's another interesting question: is the insurgent activity we're seeing now truly the work of an organized Al Qaeda, or simply the efforts of a number of splinter groups, some of whom have allied under the Al Qaeda flag? Remember, the U.S. has done some serious damage to the Al Qaeda networks, and continues to do the same on an ongoing basis. I've little doubt that the leaders of Al Qaeda wish to have a theocracy there, but I highly doubt that this is the sole reason that they're currently active and against the U.S. They want the U.S. and its influences (political partnerships, puppet governments, etc.) the fuck out of their backyard. And they use religion quite effectively to convince their followers to abandon everything (including their lives) in pursuit of their political goals. Motherfuckers, using and twisting religion to manipulate the people for their political motives. Sadly, many leaders in many religions have done and still do exactly the same, to varying degrees. Just a damn shame all the way around.

Nailed that one right on the head.

I think I just returned from the bathroom for a quickie We...

Most near anything on the Bedrock label. Pitch Black is also a favorite. Plastic Fantastic has a few gems, as well.

Who actually first dubbed thee, "sniffer?" I can't remember for the life of me whether I'm the guilty party.

*raises hand*

A couple of San Diego freeflyers have come up with a term for exactly that: SNUST

Maybe just the icing.

You name your slipstick after a female scifi character? Oh, and it's actually spelled, "Leia."

As the community grows, there will be more issues that need to be worked out with regard to sharing of information, joint ops, etc. Those are growing pains. But your statement doesn't apply to the sources, themselves. I think we've got differing definitions of the word, "source." I'm using it to refer to the method and details by which the data was actually collected (voice intercept, interrogation, imagery, contacts, etc.). That's what I'm saying needs to be protected at all costs. Your expounding has to deal with the sharing of intelligence product, not the source (by my definition above). Given current procedure, the diplomat would definitely be identified in reports and cross-referenced with operations in other agencies. Whether this is done in a timely manner is another story, based on product volume, prioritization and other factors at that particular time. I think what we have in place regarding sanitization works quite well. The problems we've been facing over the last twenty years or so are mostly dealing the skyrocketing amount of data we're collecting, thanks largely to technology and automation. Sifting through the noise alone is a huge bottleneck from which we'll be working out kinks for many years to come. Another big issue, however, is the growing need for more seamless inter-agency cooperation, 9/11 being the most prominent evidence of such. Steps have been taken (establishment of an NID, etc.) to address this issue, but it'll take time to see whether they're effective. Fortunately, intelligence professionals do take it seriously, for the most part. Most of the problems with leaks lie within the stakeholder organizations themselves, where attitudes regarding intelligence are different than those of the people whose every day job it is. It's these stakeholders who really need to get their acts together with regard to classified and leaks. I'm just glad they can't forfeit the invaluable information (sources), due to its being redacted before they even see it.

Let me reiterate what Gawain's saying: Consumers of intelligence product neither need nor should have information on sources, period. Our intelligence mechanism is not at all crippled by sanitizing sources from intelligence product; in fact, *not* sanitizing sources would deliver a crippling blow to our ability to collect intelligence. Every exposure of a source is a potential compromise to our collection capability, as sources are our most valuable intelligence assets. Consider this hypothetical example: a driver for some high-profile dignitary carries and uses a personal mobile phone whilst on the job. We intercept and DF his comms, allowing us to put together a picture that this dignitary is involved in an arms deal. Now, without sanitization, a report goes out including the fact that information was gathered through mobile phone intercept. Then some asshat leaks the report to the press. Then another asshat runs the story, including the bit about the mobile phone. What happens? Mobile phone goes bye-bye, and we lose a valuable source of intelligence. Sources are known by appropriate echelons in the analysis chain to evaluate reliability of the data. That evaluation is included with the product to assist commanders and policy-makers in their decision making. They do not need the details on how the information was gathered.

I don't recall seeing such an implication, but I agree that it would be a false assumption. "Pro-Islamic." Smacks of the good ol' term, "nigger lover." Rather than just labeling such as pro-Islamic, perhaps the motivations of some are founded less in religion and more in autonomy of a state. Many here in the U.S. prefer freedom and equality for all, but some believe that if that tenet is to evolve in the fundamentalist Muslim countries, it'd be better to see it happen from within: pro-autonomy. (Before someone goes off on a tangent, I'm referring and limiting the argument specifically to women and children's rights in fundamentalist Islamic countries, and not to atrocities such as genocide.) Remember, the U.S. pretty much lagged behind most of the Western world in terms of civil rights (slavery, women's suffrage, segregation, etc.), with many of the proponents of the oppression citing Biblical verses as justification for maintaining the status quo. Would it be accurate (or even relevant) to call someone pro-Christian for laissez faire attitudes toward letting the U.S. work these issues out on their own? Another consideration: how do you think a typical 1960's Southerner would react to a news headline about a European country's decrying racial segregation as abhorrently oppressive and immoral? What kind of reaction does such condemnation (and meddling) from the outside usually spurn in people? Just trying to help shed light on a different perspective: one of many.

T-shirt for you.

Money, bitches, and bling. In that order.

The Kim Jong-il Halloween Movie Spectacular! The man had to do something with that movie director master-class he took. Hans Brix? Oh no...

I think it's more accurate to say that servicemembers who are caught in wrongdoing *and* followed up with (whether administratively punished or reported through various channels) are being investigated, punished, and/or indicted. There is an unknown number of wrongdoings committed, acknowledged, and swept under the rug, and your statement doesn't take these into account. Remember that there's lots of room to cover up wrongdoing in military operations, and it happens a lot: part of the culture in many, many units.

Beautifully put. You have the gift of seeing through bullshit, and coming to reasonable and objective conclusions. Wow. Just wow.

Hey, you're leaving out the poo streaked jar of Vaseline...