Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Her name was Neda, which means “voice” in Farsi. Iran 2009 election.
Even though this may be gratuitous, I think it's important for everyone to viscerally understand why the U.S. should get behind these protestors, hell or high water.
Bush would have stood up for the protestors far more than Obama's weak response.
However, in the end it doesn't matter who is president of Iran. As long as the religious leaders are in charge, the Iranians will not be free, and the Israeli/Palestinian conflict will continue because Hamas, Hezbollah, and other terror groups are funded, armed, and take their orders from the Iranian government.
Technorati Profile
9kmqw3azhn
Bush would have stood up for the protestors far more than Obama's weak response.
However, in the end it doesn't matter who is president of Iran. As long as the religious leaders are in charge, the Iranians will not be free, and the Israeli/Palestinian conflict will continue because Hamas, Hezbollah, and other terror groups are funded, armed, and take their orders from the Iranian government.
Technorati Profile
9kmqw3azhn
Should We Torture? - By Dhruva Aliman
If someone is trying to stab you with a knife, it is perfectly acceptable for you to knock that aggressor down and twist his arm in such a painful way that he loses his will to hold onto the weapon and drops it. He also loses his will to keep attacking you. You tortured him into submission, and no reasonable person would fault you for doing it because that's called SELF-DEFENSE. Torture has such a nasty connotation, but what is it really? It is just force, and force is either used for self defense or aggression, depending on intent. Intent is the root of all ethical or unethical actions.
Now, what if we capture a terrorist, and he's just sitting in an interrogation room, smiling at you like Hannibal Lector, while his well laid plans are in motion to kill thousands? Is it NOT acceptable to use force to get him to stop the attack just because he isn't physically moving his body in an aggressive manner? According to Obama and the far left, this is exactly right. However, according to logic and reason, it's preposterous. Why is it alright to torture the guy with the knife by cranking his arm, causing painful submission in order to get him to cease his attack, but it's not alright to torture a terrorist to get him to stop his attack?
Every Law enforcement officer and every military operator has tools to force opponents to comply with their demands. Cops have pepper spray, club and tasers to inflict a level of pain to gain compliance.
Just because you have a terrorist in custody doesn't mean they are no longer at war with you.
Their well laid plans and their operations are still rolling. Just because you have them in custody doesn't mean they now are going to call off their operations. Again, torture is just force.
The question is not whether to use painful force, the question is whether the force is being used ethically for defense, rather than maliciously, abusively, neglectfully or for no good reason.
President Obama's position on torture is clear. By his decree, the United States will no longer torture captured terrorists, it is against "our values". My question is- Since when is self defense against our values? One thing I've noticed about Obama (from his obtuse denial of the utility of the surge strategy in Iraq and surveillance at home, which he eventually realized was right, to his cutting of missile defense funding and naive desire to negotiate unconditionally with our enemies), is that he seems to have a very loose grasp of the basic concept of self defense. However, as I am about to demonstrate, his idyllic notions that we should be torture free, are not just unrealistic, but downright foolish. Not only that, but it is a promise that we could never possibly keep.
Some might make the argument that if you torture an innocent person they will tell you anything. That is true, but it doesn't change the fact that if you torture the guilty, they will tell you what their plans are. All 3 detainees that were waterboarded by our government were self-proclaimed enemies of the U.S. We knew by their own actions and admissions that they were not innocent. So for those who want to say we should never use force on detainees because they might be innocent, that is an issue that is easily sorted out by the terrorists themselves. We just don't use force on those who aren't self-proclaimed enemies, pretty damn simple. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed said another attack was coming but he refused to help stop it. So he was waterboarded, and the intel gleaned from that led to the capture of a terrorist planning to take down the Brooklyn Bridge. Investigators found his acetylene torch and his diagrams of where to cut the main cable. That attack would have killed almost 10,000 during rush hour. TORTURE WORKS ON PEOPLE WE KNOW ARE TERRORISTS.
Among those who vouch for the effectiveness of waterboarding are former CIA directors Michael Hayden, George Tenet, and Leon Panetta, former Clandestine Service head Jose Rodriguez and former head of MI5 Eliza Manningham-Buller.
And we also know information about Usama Bin Laden's courier was also obtained from KSM after he was forced into a cooperative state through waterboarding. The questions the CIA asked KSM during waterboarding were questions the CIA already knew the answers to. That is how they were able to determine that KSM was in a cooperative state or not, by seeing if he was giving the right answers to questions the CIA already knew the answers to. So the left-wing argument that waterboarding may get us bad information is a non sequitur because they do not use waterboarding to get information, they use it to see if the terrorist is starting to cooperate or not. KSM confirmed the courier's name while in that cooperative state. That critical piece of intel led to the exact location of UBL.
Now, lets say because of good surveillance we hear a terrorist talking on his phone about a nuclear device that will explode in 25 minutes. He also mentions that he knows where it is and he could disarm it. Lets also say that he's on the phone long enough for us to zero in on his position and nab him. Should we just let this soon to be mass murderer just sit in the back of a squad car without any harsh interrogation, until some U.S. city goes up in a mushroom cloud?
Even if we were wise enough to force this terrorist to talk, this is hardly a waterboarding situation, there's no time. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times before he spilled the beans. We only have 6 or 7 minutes to get down and dirty if we have any real shot at saving at least some lives. We would have to get some bolt cutters and start taking off the guys fingers or something more precious. He may be ready to die, but there may be something won't want to to live without. If hundreds of thousands are about to be snuffed out and WWIII is about to be catalyzed, I would argue that "our values" demand that we try everything we can to prevent a disaster. If we get this jerk to talk we would only have minutes to start an evacuation, probably no time to disarm the weapon. However, while hundreds of thousands would still die, the intel we get in those few minutes of torture would save tens, if not hundreds of thousands more.
Everything we do to a prisoner is torture. Just throwing them in a cell is mental anguish, nobody wants to be in a cell. The question is not- Should we torture or not torture? The question is- What is the proper escalation of force for every situation? What is the gradient of torture or force that we should use on those that would do us harm? From the most minimal to the most extreme. A cop can taser an old lady if she is unruly and won't let the police handcuff her. That's perfectly acceptable all across America. But if an interrogator just threatens the self proclaimed enemy and mass murderer Sheikh Mohammed with electricity, Obama's special prosecutors would be all over that interrogator like stink on a monkey.
When police arrest someone, first they put their hands on the suspect. If the suspect resists, they tackle him or use pepper spray. If that doesn't work they use the Taser or baton. If that doesn't work, and the suspect is coming at them with deadly force, then the police shoot him. There is a proper, JUSTIFIED, escalation of force outlined to use to stop a criminal from harming the innocent. If Obama was smart enough, he would get his lawyers together (like Bush did), as well as get some ethicists and experts together to figure out what are the appropriate contingencies regarding forceful persuasion for every type of situation when you have a preponderance of intelligence pointing to clear and present danger, imminent or otherwise. That is the only honest, and practical way to deal with this issue. We are not immoral or unethical if our intent is purely self-defense and not aggression. Nor are we reckless or neglectful of human rights if we methodically and transparently set the parameters of how we use force based on our best intelligence.
Someday in the future, technology may present us with less painful ways of extracting information from terrorists, like a more effective truth serum. We now have brain scans that can detect the amount of electrical energy that is activated in the part of the brain that we use for lying. Perhaps that sort technology can somehow be used in the future to help us leverage precise information from suspects without hurting them, but until that day comes, we need a strong leader in the White House, not an ideologue pandering to his base.
And for those who want to still make the argument that by using force on selected prisoners will somehow put our soldiers and citizens in more danger, is on it's face absurd, since the whole reason we are fighting these savages is because they have no humanity or decency in the first place. They were killing and torturing innocent Americans and others long before Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, and rendition. No amount of appeasement to our detractors is going to help us. This is not a popularity contest, this is a war. The sooner we win it, the better.
Union Civil War General William Tecumseh Sherman said, "War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it..." He was an incredibly effective general that understood that tough action saves lives by shortening the conflict itself.
According to the United Nations Convention Against Torture (an advisory measure of the UN General Assembly) torture is defined as:
"...any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions."
To this, I simply ask: Is defending the innocent not a lawful sanction?
Now, what if we capture a terrorist, and he's just sitting in an interrogation room, smiling at you like Hannibal Lector, while his well laid plans are in motion to kill thousands? Is it NOT acceptable to use force to get him to stop the attack just because he isn't physically moving his body in an aggressive manner? According to Obama and the far left, this is exactly right. However, according to logic and reason, it's preposterous. Why is it alright to torture the guy with the knife by cranking his arm, causing painful submission in order to get him to cease his attack, but it's not alright to torture a terrorist to get him to stop his attack?
Every Law enforcement officer and every military operator has tools to force opponents to comply with their demands. Cops have pepper spray, club and tasers to inflict a level of pain to gain compliance.
Just because you have a terrorist in custody doesn't mean they are no longer at war with you.
Their well laid plans and their operations are still rolling. Just because you have them in custody doesn't mean they now are going to call off their operations. Again, torture is just force.
The question is not whether to use painful force, the question is whether the force is being used ethically for defense, rather than maliciously, abusively, neglectfully or for no good reason.
President Obama's position on torture is clear. By his decree, the United States will no longer torture captured terrorists, it is against "our values". My question is- Since when is self defense against our values? One thing I've noticed about Obama (from his obtuse denial of the utility of the surge strategy in Iraq and surveillance at home, which he eventually realized was right, to his cutting of missile defense funding and naive desire to negotiate unconditionally with our enemies), is that he seems to have a very loose grasp of the basic concept of self defense. However, as I am about to demonstrate, his idyllic notions that we should be torture free, are not just unrealistic, but downright foolish. Not only that, but it is a promise that we could never possibly keep.
Some might make the argument that if you torture an innocent person they will tell you anything. That is true, but it doesn't change the fact that if you torture the guilty, they will tell you what their plans are. All 3 detainees that were waterboarded by our government were self-proclaimed enemies of the U.S. We knew by their own actions and admissions that they were not innocent. So for those who want to say we should never use force on detainees because they might be innocent, that is an issue that is easily sorted out by the terrorists themselves. We just don't use force on those who aren't self-proclaimed enemies, pretty damn simple. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed said another attack was coming but he refused to help stop it. So he was waterboarded, and the intel gleaned from that led to the capture of a terrorist planning to take down the Brooklyn Bridge. Investigators found his acetylene torch and his diagrams of where to cut the main cable. That attack would have killed almost 10,000 during rush hour. TORTURE WORKS ON PEOPLE WE KNOW ARE TERRORISTS.
Among those who vouch for the effectiveness of waterboarding are former CIA directors Michael Hayden, George Tenet, and Leon Panetta, former Clandestine Service head Jose Rodriguez and former head of MI5 Eliza Manningham-Buller.
And we also know information about Usama Bin Laden's courier was also obtained from KSM after he was forced into a cooperative state through waterboarding. The questions the CIA asked KSM during waterboarding were questions the CIA already knew the answers to. That is how they were able to determine that KSM was in a cooperative state or not, by seeing if he was giving the right answers to questions the CIA already knew the answers to. So the left-wing argument that waterboarding may get us bad information is a non sequitur because they do not use waterboarding to get information, they use it to see if the terrorist is starting to cooperate or not. KSM confirmed the courier's name while in that cooperative state. That critical piece of intel led to the exact location of UBL.
Now, lets say because of good surveillance we hear a terrorist talking on his phone about a nuclear device that will explode in 25 minutes. He also mentions that he knows where it is and he could disarm it. Lets also say that he's on the phone long enough for us to zero in on his position and nab him. Should we just let this soon to be mass murderer just sit in the back of a squad car without any harsh interrogation, until some U.S. city goes up in a mushroom cloud?
Even if we were wise enough to force this terrorist to talk, this is hardly a waterboarding situation, there's no time. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times before he spilled the beans. We only have 6 or 7 minutes to get down and dirty if we have any real shot at saving at least some lives. We would have to get some bolt cutters and start taking off the guys fingers or something more precious. He may be ready to die, but there may be something won't want to to live without. If hundreds of thousands are about to be snuffed out and WWIII is about to be catalyzed, I would argue that "our values" demand that we try everything we can to prevent a disaster. If we get this jerk to talk we would only have minutes to start an evacuation, probably no time to disarm the weapon. However, while hundreds of thousands would still die, the intel we get in those few minutes of torture would save tens, if not hundreds of thousands more.
Everything we do to a prisoner is torture. Just throwing them in a cell is mental anguish, nobody wants to be in a cell. The question is not- Should we torture or not torture? The question is- What is the proper escalation of force for every situation? What is the gradient of torture or force that we should use on those that would do us harm? From the most minimal to the most extreme. A cop can taser an old lady if she is unruly and won't let the police handcuff her. That's perfectly acceptable all across America. But if an interrogator just threatens the self proclaimed enemy and mass murderer Sheikh Mohammed with electricity, Obama's special prosecutors would be all over that interrogator like stink on a monkey.
When police arrest someone, first they put their hands on the suspect. If the suspect resists, they tackle him or use pepper spray. If that doesn't work they use the Taser or baton. If that doesn't work, and the suspect is coming at them with deadly force, then the police shoot him. There is a proper, JUSTIFIED, escalation of force outlined to use to stop a criminal from harming the innocent. If Obama was smart enough, he would get his lawyers together (like Bush did), as well as get some ethicists and experts together to figure out what are the appropriate contingencies regarding forceful persuasion for every type of situation when you have a preponderance of intelligence pointing to clear and present danger, imminent or otherwise. That is the only honest, and practical way to deal with this issue. We are not immoral or unethical if our intent is purely self-defense and not aggression. Nor are we reckless or neglectful of human rights if we methodically and transparently set the parameters of how we use force based on our best intelligence.
Someday in the future, technology may present us with less painful ways of extracting information from terrorists, like a more effective truth serum. We now have brain scans that can detect the amount of electrical energy that is activated in the part of the brain that we use for lying. Perhaps that sort technology can somehow be used in the future to help us leverage precise information from suspects without hurting them, but until that day comes, we need a strong leader in the White House, not an ideologue pandering to his base.
And for those who want to still make the argument that by using force on selected prisoners will somehow put our soldiers and citizens in more danger, is on it's face absurd, since the whole reason we are fighting these savages is because they have no humanity or decency in the first place. They were killing and torturing innocent Americans and others long before Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, and rendition. No amount of appeasement to our detractors is going to help us. This is not a popularity contest, this is a war. The sooner we win it, the better.
Union Civil War General William Tecumseh Sherman said, "War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it..." He was an incredibly effective general that understood that tough action saves lives by shortening the conflict itself.
According to the United Nations Convention Against Torture (an advisory measure of the UN General Assembly) torture is defined as:
"...any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions."
To this, I simply ask: Is defending the innocent not a lawful sanction?
The Missing Secrets Of Nikola Tesla- 48 mins.
One of the greatest scientists in history.
Goofy music but great content.
Goofy music but great content.
Everyone should see- De La Guarda
Even though this clip is narrated in Japanese, its a good peek at a show I think everyone should see, and there are interviews in English.
Why is this woman our Secretary of State? By Dhruva Aliman
People like to say all politicians lie. Well, one politician I can think of that has been in the senate for over 20 years has never been caught in a lie, Jonn McCain. In fact, Democratic lawyer Robert Bennett, who investigated McCain during the Keating 5 scandal, said that after an exhaustive investigation the only conclusion he could come to was that McCain was a very honest man. So, not all politicians lie. At least, not any more than average. On the other hand, not all of the real lying politicians are crazy enough to lie like Hillary Clinton. Another sketchy Obama appointee. To be fair and balanced I posted a second video which has an opposing view about this situation.
Zeitgeist Debunked Part 1 & 2
A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes.
~Mark Twain
I knew there was something wrong with Zeitgeist when I saw it pushing the 9/11 conspiracy crap, but I still was intrigued by the first religion segment. So, I investigated Zeitgeist's claims on that. It said that Krishna was a virgin birth and was crucified like Jesus. I lived in an Ashram as kid (been to India 4 times) and was taught a lot about Krishna, but I never heard that. However, I still did the research to be sure. It turns out Krishna's mom, Devaki, had several kids before him. Also, according to 2 Version's of the Mahābhārata, Krishna retired into the forest to meditate. Vyasa's Mahābhārata says that Krishna ascended to heaven and Sarala's Mahabhārata says that a hunter mistook Krishna for a deer and shot an arrow, killing him. Zeitgeist also claims Horus was a virgin birth (comparing him to Jesus) but his mother, Isis, had sex with Osiris before giving birth to Horus, who died from a scorpion and was not crucified. Zeitgeist makes many other claims about deities that simply do not match their mythical stories.
So, basically Zeitgeist just straight up lies. Maybe the film maker thinks that his mostly young hipster/hippie audience is too slack to do their own research and he can get away with it. Zeitgeist is a stylized, slickly produced piece of propaganda.
Here's a video that exposes Zeitgeist.
It's not as entertaining as Zeitgeist, and it doesn't have as good production value. However, it has something Zeitgeist does not have, substance.
~Mark Twain
I knew there was something wrong with Zeitgeist when I saw it pushing the 9/11 conspiracy crap, but I still was intrigued by the first religion segment. So, I investigated Zeitgeist's claims on that. It said that Krishna was a virgin birth and was crucified like Jesus. I lived in an Ashram as kid (been to India 4 times) and was taught a lot about Krishna, but I never heard that. However, I still did the research to be sure. It turns out Krishna's mom, Devaki, had several kids before him. Also, according to 2 Version's of the Mahābhārata, Krishna retired into the forest to meditate. Vyasa's Mahābhārata says that Krishna ascended to heaven and Sarala's Mahabhārata says that a hunter mistook Krishna for a deer and shot an arrow, killing him. Zeitgeist also claims Horus was a virgin birth (comparing him to Jesus) but his mother, Isis, had sex with Osiris before giving birth to Horus, who died from a scorpion and was not crucified. Zeitgeist makes many other claims about deities that simply do not match their mythical stories.
So, basically Zeitgeist just straight up lies. Maybe the film maker thinks that his mostly young hipster/hippie audience is too slack to do their own research and he can get away with it. Zeitgeist is a stylized, slickly produced piece of propaganda.
Here's a video that exposes Zeitgeist.
It's not as entertaining as Zeitgeist, and it doesn't have as good production value. However, it has something Zeitgeist does not have, substance.
How to take a gun away from an attacker
I teach Jared from www.break.com a couple of moves. Jared is a pretty funny guy, a good sport, and really great at what he does. I liked working with him. This is actually an out take from a commercial we did.
The leader of the Palestinians and Hitler
Not a lot of people know that during WWII, The Grand Mufti Of Jerusalem, THE LEADER OF THE "PALESTINIAN" ARABS made a deal with Hitler.
He would take a Muslim army to eastern Europe to help Hitler wipe out Jews and win the war. In exchange, after the war was won, Hitler would grant the Mufti control of the whole "Palestine Area". Hitler agreed to this, and made the Mufti an SS General (to the confusion of many Nazi officers). The Mufti then led 30,000 Muslim soldiers in Nazi uniforms that stormed through Eastern Europe slaughtering and displacing Jews.
This happened before there was a state of Israel. "Palestinian" Arabs left their own country to wipe out Jews that were not Zionists, and that were living in a totally different part of the world. When the Palestinians complain about being refugees they conveniently forget about the Jews that were made refugees (if they were luckily not killed) by the Leader of the Palestinians. This happened BEFORE the Jews created Israel and BEFORE the Palestinians became refugees. What does the Palestinian-Arab leadership owe the hundreds of thousands of eastern European Jews for helping Hitler murder them and steal their assets?
In 1947 there were approximately 500,000 Jews and 400,000 Arabs in the Israel/Palestine area.
In 1948 when Israel declared statehood and the 1st war began, 100,000 Arabs joined with the Jews to become citizens of Israel. The other 300,000 sided with the invading Arab armies and they were displaced because the Arabs attacked, starting the war.
Also, 900,000 Jews that were living in Syria, Egypt, Iraq, and what is now called Jordan were also displaced by the Muslim governments of those lands.
These 900,000 were not Zionists, they had no intention of living in Israel because they had roots in those other lands, most going back over a thousand years,
but because the Arabs started a war, those Jews were kicked out of their homes and their assets were stolen.
So not only were 300,000 Arabs made refugees in 1948, but 3 times as many Jews were made refugees by Arabs starting a war.
This, after what the Grand Mufti did with Hitler did to eastern European Jews before there was a state of Israel.
Since 1948 the the population of Palestinian Arabs has grown from 300,000 to over 5 million.
That is biologically impossible to do by mating. The reason for the population growth is because The P.L.O. with the help of the U.N. imported migrant workers to live in the refugee camps, and after one year the Palestinian Authority gave these workers an I.D. that says they have been there since "Time Immemorial" The migrants accept this deal because they can get more U.N. welfare money living there than for example, herding sheep in Morocco or Syria for a dollar a day.
To learn about this read the excellent book From Time Immemorial: The Origins of the Arab-Jewish Conflict over Palestine is a 1984 book by Joan Peters
He would take a Muslim army to eastern Europe to help Hitler wipe out Jews and win the war. In exchange, after the war was won, Hitler would grant the Mufti control of the whole "Palestine Area". Hitler agreed to this, and made the Mufti an SS General (to the confusion of many Nazi officers). The Mufti then led 30,000 Muslim soldiers in Nazi uniforms that stormed through Eastern Europe slaughtering and displacing Jews.
This happened before there was a state of Israel. "Palestinian" Arabs left their own country to wipe out Jews that were not Zionists, and that were living in a totally different part of the world. When the Palestinians complain about being refugees they conveniently forget about the Jews that were made refugees (if they were luckily not killed) by the Leader of the Palestinians. This happened BEFORE the Jews created Israel and BEFORE the Palestinians became refugees. What does the Palestinian-Arab leadership owe the hundreds of thousands of eastern European Jews for helping Hitler murder them and steal their assets?
In 1947 there were approximately 500,000 Jews and 400,000 Arabs in the Israel/Palestine area.
In 1948 when Israel declared statehood and the 1st war began, 100,000 Arabs joined with the Jews to become citizens of Israel. The other 300,000 sided with the invading Arab armies and they were displaced because the Arabs attacked, starting the war.
Also, 900,000 Jews that were living in Syria, Egypt, Iraq, and what is now called Jordan were also displaced by the Muslim governments of those lands.
These 900,000 were not Zionists, they had no intention of living in Israel because they had roots in those other lands, most going back over a thousand years,
but because the Arabs started a war, those Jews were kicked out of their homes and their assets were stolen.
So not only were 300,000 Arabs made refugees in 1948, but 3 times as many Jews were made refugees by Arabs starting a war.
This, after what the Grand Mufti did with Hitler did to eastern European Jews before there was a state of Israel.
Since 1948 the the population of Palestinian Arabs has grown from 300,000 to over 5 million.
That is biologically impossible to do by mating. The reason for the population growth is because The P.L.O. with the help of the U.N. imported migrant workers to live in the refugee camps, and after one year the Palestinian Authority gave these workers an I.D. that says they have been there since "Time Immemorial" The migrants accept this deal because they can get more U.N. welfare money living there than for example, herding sheep in Morocco or Syria for a dollar a day.
To learn about this read the excellent book From Time Immemorial: The Origins of the Arab-Jewish Conflict over Palestine is a 1984 book by Joan Peters
Bob White Object Story, (Supposed Artifact from UFO) Part 2
Fascinating laboratory analysis of alien object.
Bob White Object Story, (Supposed Artifact from UFO) 1 of 2 parts
This guy got his hands on a real interesting artifact.
Obsession- Radical Islam's war against the west
An excellent documentary on Radical Islam. If you want to understand this issue, this is the movie to watch.
Debunking the "missile hitting the Pentagon/ no plane" crap
The video I'm posting below has actual video of the plane strike from the Pentagon guard booth. It starts with animation so you can understand the video it then shows.
One of my friends believed a missile hit the pentagon instead of a plane. He said there was a small 14ft. hole in the pentagon and then after a collapse, a bigger hole appeared. I said alright, put your money where your mouth is.
I bet you $100 that-
1. You will never be able to produce a picture of this small hole in the pentagon without the 75ft hole on the 1st floor.
2. You will never be able to produce the full name of just one REAL person who was there at the scene who is a witness to this small hole existing without a much bigger hole below it. I'll call him and talk to him if you can find him.
I'll give you 3 months to produce either one of those things. If you do, I'll give you a hundred dollars, if you can't within 3 months, you give me a hundred dollars. 3 months later he gave me a crisp hundred dollar bill. But he said he still believes it's an inside job conspiracy...Amazing.
As far as the light poles getting knocked down, maybe that zig zagging bullet that hit JFK took down the poles, because it sure as hell wasn't a missile...they don't zig and zag. But maybe, just maybe, people were so distracted by the missile exploding that they didn't notice Paul Bunyan chopping down the light poles and then running away really fast
One of my friends believed a missile hit the pentagon instead of a plane. He said there was a small 14ft. hole in the pentagon and then after a collapse, a bigger hole appeared. I said alright, put your money where your mouth is.
I bet you $100 that-
1. You will never be able to produce a picture of this small hole in the pentagon without the 75ft hole on the 1st floor.
2. You will never be able to produce the full name of just one REAL person who was there at the scene who is a witness to this small hole existing without a much bigger hole below it. I'll call him and talk to him if you can find him.
I'll give you 3 months to produce either one of those things. If you do, I'll give you a hundred dollars, if you can't within 3 months, you give me a hundred dollars. 3 months later he gave me a crisp hundred dollar bill. But he said he still believes it's an inside job conspiracy...Amazing.
As far as the light poles getting knocked down, maybe that zig zagging bullet that hit JFK took down the poles, because it sure as hell wasn't a missile...they don't zig and zag. But maybe, just maybe, people were so distracted by the missile exploding that they didn't notice Paul Bunyan chopping down the light poles and then running away really fast
A combat/surveillance system that can save lives abroad and at home- by Dhruva Aliman
This is an idea to improve combat efficiency for our ground forces' operations, as well as provide a solution to the challenge of securing our borders here at home. It is a surveillance/weapons system like the predator with a hellfire. However this system may be more practical and useful in many ways than the Predator or Global Hawk.
First, let's describe the combat implementation of this system, then go into homeland security.
Some time ago, some of our marine snipers in Iraq were setting up on a roof top when, unbeknownst to them, some insurgents took a position on a nearby roof top and before our snipers knew it they were fired upon and shot dead. Not to mention the loss of life, it takes a lot of treasure and time to produce soldiers like these and we should never have to lose assets like that to the kind of enemy we have in Iraq. In situations like these, any type of soldier should be afforded protection from such a lesser fighting force. So here it is.
This is a powerful ground force weapon system that interfaces an individual soldier with an aerial surveillance mechanism like a balloon (or blimp).
Since we have complete air superiority over Iraq, whenever a unit or platoon, etc. goes out on a mission they should be followed by an unmanned surveillance balloon (Some of these balloons can be manned for specific purposes and would be a lot bigger, but for right now let's discuss the unmanned). In the balloon's basket should be at least 3 types of cameras, hi res, full light spectrum, and night vision. There should also be a directional RF jammer and RF link/transmitter for the troops. This is an amount of equipment that a Predator cannot carry but a balloon can. You may recall, during major combat ops., we lost dozens of soldiers when some units tried to take a couple of bridges in Nasiriya. They took a wrong turn, were ambushed and could not communicate their situation and position because some major power towers were interfering. A balloon directly over head could have gotten their signal and relayed it to command. Our own A-10s eventually destroyed our vehicles on the ground. It was a disaster and could have been avoided with this proposed balloon system.
Lets look at the sniper scenario again. As those guys are setting up, an adjunct team member on the ground nearby would have a small lap top type device on his chest. When folded, it is flush with his chest, out of the way. When unfolded, 90 degrees from his torso, the soldier can look down at the screen and have a bird's eye view of the area of operations. He has the ability to zoom in and switch camera modalities to perceive the battlefield in different ways.
Now, lets say he sees that insurgents are collecting on a rooftop for an attack on his snipers. Besides being able to inform our snipers of this, he can take a pen like device and X the spot on the screen where the enemy is. The computer in the system knows exactly where that location is in GPS terms. Then the soldier looks down the touch screen at a series of symbols each delineating a type of ordinance, ie. smoke bomb, explosives, tear gas, etc. On the ground, with the soldier, is a vehicle with a weapons launching system for mortars or artillery or missiles etc. that is part of the system so that the instant our soldier touches, lets say, the explosive mortar symbol, that chosen ordinance is delivered to the enemy within seconds. Also, if he wants to zoom in for a better look at a certain area he can just use the pen and circle the area he wishes to scrutinize and he'll immediately get a close up.
Also, when the soldier draws an X to target an area, the computer can ask the soldier if he wants to target the moving objects in the area of the X or just the area itself. If he wants to, for example, destroy a building or destroy a parked airplane, he can choose "Target Area". However, if the soldier wants to, for example, target moving insurgents in vehicles or on foot that are in the area but may be moving out of the area, then he can choose "Target Movement". Then, the weapon system will follow the targets and continue firing on them until they stop moving.
Also, aerial drones with machine guns and/or missiles can be used as attack mechanisms with this system, in conjunction with the ordinance launcher mechanism on the ground.
Of course, targets are limited to what we can see from above and out in the open. Unless we use microwaves or T-rays to penetrate and perceive aggressors inside of buildings. However, so many ambushes and attacks happen out in the open that this system would be extremely useful. Also the balloon itself should be fitted with with a missile or bomb so that if it picks up a time sensitive target that is out of range from the launcher on the ground then we still have a shot. Fitting the balloon with a weapon like this shouldn't be that difficult because it does not have to be exceptionally aerodynamic like a Predator or Global Hawk. These are slow moving vehicles with a small propulsion systems, just to follow our troops and go where we need them. The idea is to have enough of them that they cover the entire theater of operations. Every branch of the armed services can use them for something, from Coast Guard drug interdiction to disaster relief.
The implications of the use of this system for border security are, I guess pretty obvious. We don't need the offensive part of this system, just the surveillance part. Less than 100 of these could watch the entire U.S.-Mexico Border and inform the border patrol (using GPS) exactly where people are crossing. All the border patrol has to do is intercept. There would be no need for the National Guard, fences, sensors on the ground, minute men, etc. Also, stationary, tethered balloons that stretch extremely high in the sky can observe many miles of border. The cable that connects them to the ground can deliver electric power and even the lighter-than-air-gas to keep them up there for very long periods of time.
Also these balloons can be fitted with airborne pathogen detectors and can be programmed to do regular sweeps over U.S. cities. They can also support NEST operations and help city planners.
The multi-purpose aspect of this system as well as the uniformity production aspect of the balloon design may lend itself to make a good argument that defense budget funds would be wisely applied to the development of this system.
First, let's describe the combat implementation of this system, then go into homeland security.
Some time ago, some of our marine snipers in Iraq were setting up on a roof top when, unbeknownst to them, some insurgents took a position on a nearby roof top and before our snipers knew it they were fired upon and shot dead. Not to mention the loss of life, it takes a lot of treasure and time to produce soldiers like these and we should never have to lose assets like that to the kind of enemy we have in Iraq. In situations like these, any type of soldier should be afforded protection from such a lesser fighting force. So here it is.
This is a powerful ground force weapon system that interfaces an individual soldier with an aerial surveillance mechanism like a balloon (or blimp).
Since we have complete air superiority over Iraq, whenever a unit or platoon, etc. goes out on a mission they should be followed by an unmanned surveillance balloon (Some of these balloons can be manned for specific purposes and would be a lot bigger, but for right now let's discuss the unmanned). In the balloon's basket should be at least 3 types of cameras, hi res, full light spectrum, and night vision. There should also be a directional RF jammer and RF link/transmitter for the troops. This is an amount of equipment that a Predator cannot carry but a balloon can. You may recall, during major combat ops., we lost dozens of soldiers when some units tried to take a couple of bridges in Nasiriya. They took a wrong turn, were ambushed and could not communicate their situation and position because some major power towers were interfering. A balloon directly over head could have gotten their signal and relayed it to command. Our own A-10s eventually destroyed our vehicles on the ground. It was a disaster and could have been avoided with this proposed balloon system.
Lets look at the sniper scenario again. As those guys are setting up, an adjunct team member on the ground nearby would have a small lap top type device on his chest. When folded, it is flush with his chest, out of the way. When unfolded, 90 degrees from his torso, the soldier can look down at the screen and have a bird's eye view of the area of operations. He has the ability to zoom in and switch camera modalities to perceive the battlefield in different ways.
Now, lets say he sees that insurgents are collecting on a rooftop for an attack on his snipers. Besides being able to inform our snipers of this, he can take a pen like device and X the spot on the screen where the enemy is. The computer in the system knows exactly where that location is in GPS terms. Then the soldier looks down the touch screen at a series of symbols each delineating a type of ordinance, ie. smoke bomb, explosives, tear gas, etc. On the ground, with the soldier, is a vehicle with a weapons launching system for mortars or artillery or missiles etc. that is part of the system so that the instant our soldier touches, lets say, the explosive mortar symbol, that chosen ordinance is delivered to the enemy within seconds. Also, if he wants to zoom in for a better look at a certain area he can just use the pen and circle the area he wishes to scrutinize and he'll immediately get a close up.
Also, when the soldier draws an X to target an area, the computer can ask the soldier if he wants to target the moving objects in the area of the X or just the area itself. If he wants to, for example, destroy a building or destroy a parked airplane, he can choose "Target Area". However, if the soldier wants to, for example, target moving insurgents in vehicles or on foot that are in the area but may be moving out of the area, then he can choose "Target Movement". Then, the weapon system will follow the targets and continue firing on them until they stop moving.
Also, aerial drones with machine guns and/or missiles can be used as attack mechanisms with this system, in conjunction with the ordinance launcher mechanism on the ground.
Of course, targets are limited to what we can see from above and out in the open. Unless we use microwaves or T-rays to penetrate and perceive aggressors inside of buildings. However, so many ambushes and attacks happen out in the open that this system would be extremely useful. Also the balloon itself should be fitted with with a missile or bomb so that if it picks up a time sensitive target that is out of range from the launcher on the ground then we still have a shot. Fitting the balloon with a weapon like this shouldn't be that difficult because it does not have to be exceptionally aerodynamic like a Predator or Global Hawk. These are slow moving vehicles with a small propulsion systems, just to follow our troops and go where we need them. The idea is to have enough of them that they cover the entire theater of operations. Every branch of the armed services can use them for something, from Coast Guard drug interdiction to disaster relief.
The implications of the use of this system for border security are, I guess pretty obvious. We don't need the offensive part of this system, just the surveillance part. Less than 100 of these could watch the entire U.S.-Mexico Border and inform the border patrol (using GPS) exactly where people are crossing. All the border patrol has to do is intercept. There would be no need for the National Guard, fences, sensors on the ground, minute men, etc. Also, stationary, tethered balloons that stretch extremely high in the sky can observe many miles of border. The cable that connects them to the ground can deliver electric power and even the lighter-than-air-gas to keep them up there for very long periods of time.
Also these balloons can be fitted with airborne pathogen detectors and can be programmed to do regular sweeps over U.S. cities. They can also support NEST operations and help city planners.
The multi-purpose aspect of this system as well as the uniformity production aspect of the balloon design may lend itself to make a good argument that defense budget funds would be wisely applied to the development of this system.
Credible scientists say Global Warming is NOT man made...it happens naturally
"The Great Global Warming Swindle" exposes the falsehoods in Al Gore's movie...and much more.
The root and cause of political polarity- by Dhruva Aliman
Why is it that far left folks, especially creative types, like actor Tim Robbins or Sean Penn, never cried out publicly about the mass slaughter and torture of innocent Iraqis during Saddam's reign, but immediately ooze sympathy for innocent Iraqis caught in the crossfire of the U.S. led war from it's outset?
Why seemingly, are they so concerned for innocent Iraqis only after we invade?
Why does Brian De Palma make a movie about a bad U.S. soldier raping an Iraqi girl and killing her family to make his point that the U.S. invasion of Iraq is bad, when in fact, the U.S. invasion stopped the mass institutionalized rape of innocent Iraqis? Why does he show concern only for a victim of a bad U.S. soldier, but makes no large statement for all Iraqis raped by Saddam's henchmen and sons, which the invasion stopped?
Iraq was the only Government in the world that had "Rapist" as an official government job. The rapists had government issued business cards that identified them as such. Whole families of dissidents were thrown into rape rooms and were brutalized on video. The cassette was then given to the dissident as a reminder.
Why does De Palma or any far left individual, focus more on the mistakes of our government than what it has accomplished?
Well, here's a theory...
There are two ends of the spectrum of creative expression. Creative expression in and of itself is a way of life, a way of finding what is right and good. Not all, but probably most Conservatives tend to express their creativity in a very structured way through business, finance, corporate deal making, and perhaps military sciences. They are interested in security, stability and tradition. As traditionalists they also tend to be religious and therefore dogmatic. This mode of creative expression is completely antithetical to Liberal creative expression. So much so, that far left people can't even recognize conservative creativity AS creativity.
The actor Matt Damon once said (in an Actor's Studio interview), something to the effect of, that George Bush didn't have a creative bone in his body, and therefore was useless as a leader. Of course, Matt Damon doesn't have a clue how much creativity goes into running a state or country. Nevertheless, management and decision making doesn't seem to qualify as creativity to those with an "artistic" mind. Why? Because artistic minds, by their very nature abhor structure and are in perpetual rebellion against tradition, dogma, and nuts and bolts thinking. Artistic minds always want to color outside the lines, break out, experiment (some with drugs), find new vistas (which goes against the grain of conservatives trying to CREATE security and stability). Far left people resonate more with this type of creative expression and are instinctively repulsed by the stodgy ways of the conservatives. Their dogmatic structure suffocates the free ways of the leftist minds.
Because expression is so crucial to life and happiness, the left mind will view the conservative way, not just as an imposition, but a killer.
The left resents the right. You hear it in every hippie's voice. It's the most common denominator of all liberal minded people. Absolute loathing of conservative views. And because conservatives tend to be in positions authority and are authoritative (even as parents) the leftists also have a victim complex, and of course a general mistrust toward anything conservative.
Now, you may say. "Wait a minute, conservatives aren't the only lovers of tradition, Liberals are more multicultural and are lovers of all traditions". Yes, all traditions except their own. They are bored by their own. They love all others because they are new and different, therefore stimulating the liberal creative mind. They'd much much rather listen to Guru Rajneesh (Osho) than Pat Robertson or some Rabbi.
Now what happens when you marry the leftist victim complex and mistrust, with their love for other cultures...?
Bush is the archetype symbol of conservative authority. He is the devil that imposes death on creativity and anything good. The far left can not see, nor understand Bush's deep felt intentions to CREATE security and stability. Because they don't understand him and his actions, in their minds, his actions can only be driven by sinister intentions or sheer stupidity. They simply cannot see Bush's perspective. They don't think like that.
So when Bush invades a country like Iraq, because they already feel victimized by him on some level, subconsciously, they have automatic identification and sympathy for those Iraqis that are hurt by Bush's actions.
Where before, Tim Robbins and De Palma have no identification with Iraqis before the war, all of a sudden when Bush enters the equation, NOW THEY CARE.
This is part of what some people like to refer to as Bush derangement syndrome.
One of my Hippie friends said, "We don't trust Bush because when he Invaded Baghdad the only building they secured was the Oil ministry". To the conservative creative mind , that makes perfect sense- Iraq's only major economy is oil. In order to rebuild the country and CREATE stability, oil infrastructure has to be priority #1. However, to the left creative mind the Baghdad museum may be more important, not practical governing implications.
This is why, when it comes to the war on terror, Liberals are much less hawkish. The potential for danger by terrorists is obfuscated by Leftist resentment toward Conservative authority on the one hand, and identification and sympathy toward people that Bush is going after on the other.
The funny thing is, the terrorists are far, far more conservative, stodgy, rigid, and repressive than any bible thumper in the U.S. Yet, some far left loons like Cindy Sheehan (the ultimate victim, who lost her son in Iraq) will go so far as to call Iraqi insurgents "Freedom Fighters" just because they oppose Bush.
Of course, she doesn't care about the hopes and dreams of the Iraqis that are fighting her "Freedom Fighters". Why? Because they are in concert with Bush. It's that simple.
Why seemingly, are they so concerned for innocent Iraqis only after we invade?
Why does Brian De Palma make a movie about a bad U.S. soldier raping an Iraqi girl and killing her family to make his point that the U.S. invasion of Iraq is bad, when in fact, the U.S. invasion stopped the mass institutionalized rape of innocent Iraqis? Why does he show concern only for a victim of a bad U.S. soldier, but makes no large statement for all Iraqis raped by Saddam's henchmen and sons, which the invasion stopped?
Iraq was the only Government in the world that had "Rapist" as an official government job. The rapists had government issued business cards that identified them as such. Whole families of dissidents were thrown into rape rooms and were brutalized on video. The cassette was then given to the dissident as a reminder.
Why does De Palma or any far left individual, focus more on the mistakes of our government than what it has accomplished?
Well, here's a theory...
There are two ends of the spectrum of creative expression. Creative expression in and of itself is a way of life, a way of finding what is right and good. Not all, but probably most Conservatives tend to express their creativity in a very structured way through business, finance, corporate deal making, and perhaps military sciences. They are interested in security, stability and tradition. As traditionalists they also tend to be religious and therefore dogmatic. This mode of creative expression is completely antithetical to Liberal creative expression. So much so, that far left people can't even recognize conservative creativity AS creativity.
The actor Matt Damon once said (in an Actor's Studio interview), something to the effect of, that George Bush didn't have a creative bone in his body, and therefore was useless as a leader. Of course, Matt Damon doesn't have a clue how much creativity goes into running a state or country. Nevertheless, management and decision making doesn't seem to qualify as creativity to those with an "artistic" mind. Why? Because artistic minds, by their very nature abhor structure and are in perpetual rebellion against tradition, dogma, and nuts and bolts thinking. Artistic minds always want to color outside the lines, break out, experiment (some with drugs), find new vistas (which goes against the grain of conservatives trying to CREATE security and stability). Far left people resonate more with this type of creative expression and are instinctively repulsed by the stodgy ways of the conservatives. Their dogmatic structure suffocates the free ways of the leftist minds.
Because expression is so crucial to life and happiness, the left mind will view the conservative way, not just as an imposition, but a killer.
The left resents the right. You hear it in every hippie's voice. It's the most common denominator of all liberal minded people. Absolute loathing of conservative views. And because conservatives tend to be in positions authority and are authoritative (even as parents) the leftists also have a victim complex, and of course a general mistrust toward anything conservative.
Now, you may say. "Wait a minute, conservatives aren't the only lovers of tradition, Liberals are more multicultural and are lovers of all traditions". Yes, all traditions except their own. They are bored by their own. They love all others because they are new and different, therefore stimulating the liberal creative mind. They'd much much rather listen to Guru Rajneesh (Osho) than Pat Robertson or some Rabbi.
Now what happens when you marry the leftist victim complex and mistrust, with their love for other cultures...?
Bush is the archetype symbol of conservative authority. He is the devil that imposes death on creativity and anything good. The far left can not see, nor understand Bush's deep felt intentions to CREATE security and stability. Because they don't understand him and his actions, in their minds, his actions can only be driven by sinister intentions or sheer stupidity. They simply cannot see Bush's perspective. They don't think like that.
So when Bush invades a country like Iraq, because they already feel victimized by him on some level, subconsciously, they have automatic identification and sympathy for those Iraqis that are hurt by Bush's actions.
Where before, Tim Robbins and De Palma have no identification with Iraqis before the war, all of a sudden when Bush enters the equation, NOW THEY CARE.
This is part of what some people like to refer to as Bush derangement syndrome.
One of my Hippie friends said, "We don't trust Bush because when he Invaded Baghdad the only building they secured was the Oil ministry". To the conservative creative mind , that makes perfect sense- Iraq's only major economy is oil. In order to rebuild the country and CREATE stability, oil infrastructure has to be priority #1. However, to the left creative mind the Baghdad museum may be more important, not practical governing implications.
This is why, when it comes to the war on terror, Liberals are much less hawkish. The potential for danger by terrorists is obfuscated by Leftist resentment toward Conservative authority on the one hand, and identification and sympathy toward people that Bush is going after on the other.
The funny thing is, the terrorists are far, far more conservative, stodgy, rigid, and repressive than any bible thumper in the U.S. Yet, some far left loons like Cindy Sheehan (the ultimate victim, who lost her son in Iraq) will go so far as to call Iraqi insurgents "Freedom Fighters" just because they oppose Bush.
Of course, she doesn't care about the hopes and dreams of the Iraqis that are fighting her "Freedom Fighters". Why? Because they are in concert with Bush. It's that simple.
Meet your Meat
The harsh reality of meat production. If you did any of this to a cat or dog you'd be thrown in jail for animal cruelty.
Coral Castle
One, small, Lativian mason moved hundreds of thousands of tons to build a stone castle over many years. He did this all by himself.
Wim Hof (the Iceman) does yoga on the ICE.
Wim Hof (the Dutch Iceman)- It is said, he is a tantric practitioner of Tumo and is the only non-Tibetan in the world to have mastered this art.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
