search results matching tag: Honduras
» channel: learn
go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds
Videos (18) | Sift Talk (1) | Blogs (1) | Comments (40) |
Videos (18) | Sift Talk (1) | Blogs (1) | Comments (40) |
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Already signed up?
Log in now.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Remember your password?
Log in now.
Mordhaus (Member Profile)
Congratulations! Your video, Skilled pilot lands 757 in small Honduras airport, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.
This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 491 Badge!
Mordhaus (Member Profile)
Your video, Skilled pilot lands 757 in small Honduras airport, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.
Skilled pilot lands 757 in small Honduras airport
*related=https://videosift.com/video/Insane-Landing-in-Tegucigalpa-Honduras
Insane Landing in Tegucigalpa Honduras
Skilled pilot lands 757 in small Honduras airport has been added as a related post - related requested by Mordhaus on that post.
Skilled pilot lands 757 in small Honduras airport
Insane Landing in Tegucigalpa Honduras has been added as a related post - related requested by Mordhaus.
Looks Like Trump is Now Peddling Russian Propaganda
I'm basically done with defending WikiLeaks as well, after the shit they pulled with the leaks of Turkish data. Completely irresponsible, that one.
However, WikiLeaks doesn't need credibility -- the data does. And the data they published vis-á-vis Clinton/Podesta/DNC is, as of now, solid. There was one fake document, but that was shown to have been injected by someone other than WL.
"Strong bias" -- oh, I do have a strong bias. Plural, as in biases, actually. For instance, I'm disinclined to take anything the US intelligence agencies say at face value, given how they manufactured more than one casus belli. I don't put much weight into (un-)official statements in general, but especially since all the misinformation they spread about issues like the coup in Honduras or the actions of Nazi militias in Ukraine.
In this particular case, however, my argument is much simpler: Occam's razor seems much more likely than malicious intent. Propaganda outlets on both sides are run by people. Maybe the propaganda outlet Sputnik intentionally twisted the content of email, or maybe they just fucked up, like people are wont to do. Maybe someone intentionally fed Trump this bad info, maybe his people are just as incompetent as he is.
There are too many parts in this that include people who have more than once proven themselves to be utterly incompetent, or in complete ignorance of even the concept of truth. I don't think Trump gives a shit about truth or facts, he strikes me as the typical blowhard who spouts whatever shit comes to mind, and spins stories on the fly like a 4-year-old when caught red-handing.
No need for a conspiracy there, with all this incompetence, naiveté and plain disregard for facts.
So when they keep on pushing the Russian angle in this, it just seems like a desperate attempt to conjure up the old unifying enemy. Why worry about Russian propaganda when there's plenty on FOX and MSNBC/CNN? Why worry about Russian hackers when you accept the unbelievably insecure method of eletronic votes, partly without paper trails, and completely controlled by private companies?
It's just very strange to an outsider like me to see them focus on perceived external influences when the internals are a complete clusterfuck. And this presidential election is the biggest clusterfuck I've seen in 30 years, which doesn't mean much, admittedly.
That said, we can't just be looking at it from the outside with binoculars, not when people are back to full-blown Cold War rhetoric. When the ruling class in the US and/or the ruling class in Russia start their pissing contests and other forms of grandstanding, it's usually brown people who pay the price, like they have been in Syria for the last couple of years. And Libya. And Yemen. And Somalia. And Afghanistan, And Iraq. And Pakistan.
Personally, all the rhetoric about "standing up to Russian aggression" and similar nonsense makes me keenly aware that the bridge just outside my hometown was constructed with a shaft to place explosives in, to slow down advancing Soviet troops... so yes, I would very much like to bitch-slap all these warmongerers on both sides, but particularly the ones in the US since they are currently the ones racking up the highest death toll.
Edit: I should have made it clearer. Yes, WL is absolutely biased against Clinton and they do seem to act in support of Trump. Assange in particular. Which bums me out to no end, since I actually met the guy in person when they presented WL at the 26C3.
I wouldn't in any way suggest that Olberman's credibility is unassailable, however i wouldn't put it one iota above wikileaks anymore.
Your own fairly strong bias not withstanding, i completely understand why wouldn't trust government bodies. However Greenwald's article (as much as i got through) seem to hing entirely on that premise that you can't prove this all hatches from some shadowy russian agency or from the desk of Putin himself. And on that he is probably right, even if US intelligence has proof they'd like not publicly air it.
But to ignore the body of trump's comments, people who've worked for him, his own dealings and associations, isn't 'helping' either. And to do it you have to really want to believe in an organization which increasingly fails to meet its promises and seems to be operating under its own agenda, and a man who seems far more interested in promoting his brand.
To me the point of the video is to demonstrate how easily it is to manipulate Trump, and certainly nothing i saw in that article you posted dissuades me from that.
Grouper Eates Lionfish
From Wikipedia: "Aside from instances of larger lionfish individuals engaging in cannibalism on smaller individuals, adult lionfish have few identified natural predators, likely due to the effectiveness of their venomous spines. Moray eels (family Muraenidae), bluespotted cornetfish (Fistularia commersonii), and large groupers, like the tiger grouper (Mycteroperca tigris) and Nassau grouper (Epinephelus striatus), have been observed preying on lionfish. It remains unknown, however, how commonly these predators prey on lionfish. Sharks are also believed to be capable of preying on lionfish with no ill effects from their spines. Park officials of the Roatan Marine Park in Honduras have attempted to train sharks to feed on lionfish as of 2011 in an attempt to control the invasive populations in the Caribbean. Predators of larvae and juvenile lionfish remain unknown, but may prove to be the primary limiting factor of lionfish populations in their native range."
Piers Morgan Finally Fucks Off With A Great Parting Shot
More guns doesn't mean more gun violence, just ask the Serbians.
America has (or had) the most guns per capita by far (#1 at 89 guns per 100 people) but was 13th in gun deaths with 10.9 per 100000 people.
Serbia , (#2 in per capita guns at 58 per 100) had only 3.9 gun deaths per 100000 people.
Honduras only had 6.2 guns per 100, but had 64.8 gun deaths per 100000 people!
This quite clearly proves it's not the number of guns per person that's an issue, it's the culture the people live in. Guns aren't the problem, people pointing (and shooting) them inappropriately is the issue.
That said, when a populace has proven it can't be responsible with a dangerous device, it's reasonable to make it more difficult to own the device and require prior training for it's proper usage, and punishment for improper usage. Too bad reason has left the building.
Airplane Landing - Balls of Steel Edition
This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by radx.
Airplane Landing - Balls of Steel Edition
This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by kulpims. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.
Airplane Landing - Balls of Steel Edition
sorry, *dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Insane-Landing-in-Tegucigalpa-Honduras
Bill Moyers: Living Under the Gun
>> ^kymbos:
@jimnms - link for your last para?
Meanwhile, I think you're missing the point: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/22/america-is-a-violent-coun
try/
Over to you and your next move: the 'data must be wrong' argument.
Here's your source, and it didn't come out of my ass like Bill's shit.
What point I'm missing? Your linked article doesn't mention guns anywhere, it shows that America is more violent than other advanced countries, which is even more of reason to carry a gun for self defense. I think you're the one missing the point.
As for the U.S. vs other countries in gun homicides, the U.S. isn't #1:
Several other sources [1] [2] show pretty much the same data.
Chomsky dispels 9/11 Conspiracies with Logic
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^Deano:
I will say though that he's wrong to blithely dismiss the case for underlying truth. "So what" is not a reasonable response. IF it was a conspiracy born in the darkest hearts of the U.S government or some branch thereof, it would be the biggest story in modern times.
I don't think he's saying it wouldn't be a big story. I think he's saying given all the terrorism we commit around the world, this doesn't measure up and would be a mere footnote if it wasn't done to us. Because this was the one time terrorism went the other direction it's significant, other than that it wasn't really as huge of a deal as what we did to numerous countries during the 20th century.
So, America has regularly targeted civilians on purpose, and declared it a warning and magnificent act worthy of great praise?
I understood American wars and black ops to have killed a lot of civilians. I wasn't under the impression that there was wide spread practice of specifically singling out civilians for murder. Even the horrific boastful body counts of 'Nam and the carpet bombing of Cambodia had the flimsy pretense of evil done to prevent a greater evil. Which I add I condemn as one of the most evil acts done in recent history, but even that pales to what would be American officials deliberately killing everyone on 9/11 to get the policy changes they want.
Yes they deliberately ordered the attacks of "Soft Targets" in Honduras. Places like schools, hospitals, and churches but the rebel forces they trained and supported with arms. That's just one example...south and central america are littered with bodies that the US intentionally went after. Also Cambodia and Vietnam itself is a way greater crime than 9/11 ever could be. Estimates as high as 4 million dead...that's extreme.
Don't misunderstand me. I hold no argument that Cambodia and many other American atrocities were far greater crimes than 9/11.
What I am saying is from the view of an American President, killing a million people with aerial bombings in a foreign country during a war(declared or not) is one thing. Even if you did it in secret, when the secret comes out your administration might survive it by saying something about necessity. Killing 3000 American civilians, solely to trick the rest of America's civilians to support a war you want to start though, when that comes out it's worse. They are both crazy, but the important distinction is the later is also suicidal.
Which is Chomsky's point. America has done lots of horrible things, but being caught responsible for 9/11 would be far worse for the leader and party than pretty much anything in American history, ever.
9/11 may be a much lesser crime than Cambodia, but as far as picking one to be found out as responsible for, EVERY American politician will stand up and claim Cambodia as their choice before ever letting it be thought they were behind 9/11. At least Cambodia leaves the more acceptable lie of killing foreigners to protect Americans.
Chomsky dispels 9/11 Conspiracies with Logic
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^Deano:
I will say though that he's wrong to blithely dismiss the case for underlying truth. "So what" is not a reasonable response. IF it was a conspiracy born in the darkest hearts of the U.S government or some branch thereof, it would be the biggest story in modern times.
I don't think he's saying it wouldn't be a big story. I think he's saying given all the terrorism we commit around the world, this doesn't measure up and would be a mere footnote if it wasn't done to us. Because this was the one time terrorism went the other direction it's significant, other than that it wasn't really as huge of a deal as what we did to numerous countries during the 20th century.
So, America has regularly targeted civilians on purpose, and declared it a warning and magnificent act worthy of great praise?
I understood American wars and black ops to have killed a lot of civilians. I wasn't under the impression that there was wide spread practice of specifically singling out civilians for murder. Even the horrific boastful body counts of 'Nam and the carpet bombing of Cambodia had the flimsy pretense of evil done to prevent a greater evil. Which I add I condemn as one of the most evil acts done in recent history, but even that pales to what would be American officials deliberately killing everyone on 9/11 to get the policy changes they want.
Yes they deliberately ordered the attacks of "Soft Targets" in Honduras. Places like schools, hospitals, and churches but the rebel forces they trained and supported with arms. That's just one example...south and central america are littered with bodies that the US intentionally went after. Also Cambodia and Vietnam itself is a way greater crime than 9/11 ever could be. Estimates as high as 4 million dead...that's extreme.
Assume a Republican will win in 2012. Which candidate would you want it to be? (User Poll by xxovercastxx)
Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)
But why is it that always seems to be way down on the list. Taken from This site:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
>> ^dag:
At least Paul would bring home the troops and close the overseas bases.
And with the debt at incredible levels, can we afford to do anything besides that?