Your video, Why ISIS attacked Brussels, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Misleading - maybe not many are current generation migrants but most are second or third generation offspring of north african and middle east muslim migrants brought up inside muslim communities in Europe. Not your traditional Europeans.

Why ISIS attacked Brussels? Logistics - they have a huge support network there. Effect - seat of many European institutions. Who would care if they attacked Brno?

There is no reason to believe that second or third generation offspring of current migrants will be any different. And I dont mean Syrian war refugees - I mean the other two thirds of whoever has come to Europe recently.

The hilarious thing is that all of this is completely unnecessary.

Firstly, it's of questionable value anyway. I have seen little evidence that Farook wasn't acting pretty much alone. Even if the unlock his phone, they'll probably just find he likes ISIS on facebook or follows some well known twitter accounts.

But more importantly, all of the data on the phone would have been backed up to iCloud, which Apple does have access to and was willing to turn over to the government.

But then some muppet in the FBI changed the password

Yeah, these are really the kind of geniuses we want deciding how companies should write secure software.

And forget taxes, Apple should use some of their $18 billion profit (for a quarter!!!!) and pay their workers in China a decent wage. Seriously, it works out at just a few percent of their profits.

Your video, Animated Map Of ISIS Sweeping Over The Middle East, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

What I find interesting from this interview is that the logic he applies to ISIS applies equally to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Why did the U.S. invade Iraq?

Because it could.

Honestly, who could have stopped it? The U.S. has a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council meaning that the U.N. was powerless to stop them even if it had tried. Neither Russia nor China, the only two other countries in the world that might militarily give the U.S. pause, gave a strategic fuck about Saddam Hussein.

It didn't matter that there was no hard evidence. They did it because they thought they'd get away with it--and frankly I think they did get away with it. The people most responsible for the war are all free, not facing any charges, and making more money in their twilight years than the rest of us will make combined over the course of our entire lives. The worst they have to contend with is snarky late-night hosts.

EDIT: Meanwhile, U.S. college students are too busy protesting white girls dressing up as Pocahontas for Halloween and other "micro-aggressions" to get angry about any of this. Truly America is fucked.

Italy:
Renzi is creating the conditons for a new bubble? Through deficit spending on... what? Unless they start building highways in the middle of nowhere like they did in Spain, I don't see any form of bubble coming out of deficit spending in Italy. The country's been in a major recession for quite some time now, with no light at the end of the tunnel and a massive shortfall in private spending. But meaningful deficit spending requires Renzi to tell Germany and the Eurogroup to pound sand -- not sure his balls have descended far enough for that just yet.

Referendum in Switzerland:
"Vollgeld". That's the German term for what the initiators of this referendum are aiming for: 100% reserve banking. It's monetarism in disguise, and they are adament to not be called monetarists. But that's what it is. Pure old-fashioned monetarism. Even if you don't give a jar of cold piss about all these fancy economic terms and theories, let me ask you this: the currency you use is quite an important part of all your daily life, isn't it? So why would anyone in his or her right mind remove it entirely from democratic control (even constitutionally)?
If you want to get into the economic nightmares of it, here are a few bullet points:
- no Overt Monetary Financing (printing money for deficit spending) means no lender of last resort and complete dependence on the market, S&P can tell you to fuck off and die as they did with PIIGS
- notion that the "right amount of money in circulation" will enable the market to keep itself in balance -- as if that ever worked
- notion that a bunch of technocrats can empirically determine this very amount in regular intervalls
- central bank is supposed to maintain price stability, nothing else -- single mandate, works beautifully for the ECB, at least if you like 25% unemployment
- concept is founded in the notion that the financial economy is the source of (almost) all problems of the "real" economy, thereby completely ignoring the fact that decades of wage suppression have simply killed widescale purchasing power of the masses, aka demand

Visegrad nations:
From a German perspective, they are walking on thin ice as it is. The conflict with Russia never had much support of the public to begin with, but even the establishment is becoming more divided on this issue. Given the authoritarian policies put in place in Poland recently and the utter refusal to take in their share of refugees, support might fade even more. If the Visegrad governments then decide to push for further conflict with Russia, Brussels and Berlin might tell them, very discreetly, to pipe the fuck down.

Turkey:
Wildcard. He mentioned how they will mess with Syria, the Kurds and Russia, but forgot to mention the conflict between Turkey and the EU. As of now, it seems as if Brussels is ready to pay Ankara in hard cash if they keep refugees away from Greece. Very similar to the deal with Morocco vis-a-vis the Spanish enclave. As long as they die out of sight, all is good for Brussels.

I would add France as a point of interest:
They recently announced that the state of emergency will be extended until ISIS is beaten. In other words, it'll be permanent, just like the Patriot Act in the US. A lof of attention has been given to the authoritarian shift of politics in Poland, all the while ignoring the equally disturbing shift in France. Those emergency measures basically suspend the rule of law in favour of a covert police state. Add the economic situation (abysmal), the Socialist President who avoids socialist policies, and the still ongoing rise of Front National... well, you get the picture.

Regarding the EU, I'll say this: between the refugee crisis (border controls, domestic problems, etc) and the economic crisis, they finally managed to convince me that this whole thing might come apart at the seams after all. Not this year, though, even if the Brits decide to distance themselves from this rotten creation.

Its much simpler actually: The circle of violence. It started when the west thought it could bring their ideology to those countries. But Sunnis didnt want to live together with Shiites (the forming of Iraq and others). They didnt want to have foreign soldiers on their soil and adapt western lifestyle (especially Saudi Arabia). They didnt want Jews to get Israel, they didnt like to get invaded (Iraq and others), they didnt like the western coup detats (Iran and others), they didnt like to be afraid of being struck by a drone or cruise missile strike any minute (pretty much the whole region), and they didnt have the means to defend against their corrupt governments established or supported by the west or the attacks by the west.
Before this they were living at relative peace. Much more peaceful than we did live together in Europe in the last 600 years for sure.
Its pretty much desperation and has turned into normality now. They are also filled with hate due to their way of life, which puts honor very high and which the west doesnt understand. But you would be too if you have seen your culture get destroyed by other completely different cultures and seen your family and friends die by their hands for hundreds of years.
ISIS only struck that nerve better than any before. And thats why so many people are leaving to join them who are even living in Europe. Yet the west created them with their despicable foreign policy. And instead of learning from it, they are only making it worse by using these people for their own goals in Syria (that includes Turkey) and not changing their foreign policy.

A smart man once said: We shouldnt be wondering why they bomb us, we should be wondering why they dont bomb us much more.

I never said we should kill them.

It's not an analogy, that's a straight 1 to 1 comparison I made.

To your points.

1) I don't think you have any idea what sovereign means. ISIS could claim sovereignty (debatable, I'd say no, but it's debatable) the militiamen absolutely cannot.

2) What's your point?

3) Ha! Then what are the guns for?

4) That's not really a point.

I'd deal with it by arresting them. Blockade the preserve, when they leave, arrest them. Don't allow any food in. Shut off their electricity and water. Tell them they're welcome to come out, unarmed, whenever they're ready.

@Drachen_Jager

thats a pretty piss poor analogy.
while i can agree (and did in my original comment) that the militia is,by definition,engaging in terrorism.

i cannot agree to killing these men.

and to compare them to ISIS is a bit of a stretch.

1.they are american citizens.they are sovereign.ISIS are not.
2.while there has been an occupation of land,there has been no evidence of violence nor brutality.ISIS is notoriously brutal and violent.
3.while violence may be implied.they have consistently called this a protest against government over-reach and do not seek a violent resolution.ISIS not only threatens violence but engages on a daily basis.
4.when we consider incidents such as waco or ruby ridge,where there WAS government over-reach with tragic results.the federal governments tactics of standing down makes sense,and is fairly non-controversial and prudent.these nimrods are about to be run out of town by the very community they are proposing to be standing up for.

so how would YOU propose to deal with the situation in oregon?

ISIS takes over land that isn't theirs, tromps around with guns threatening anyone who comes near and destroys priceless historical artifacts.

Oregon Militia takes over land that isn't theirs, tromps around with guns threatening anyone who comes near and destroys priceless historical artifacts.

Can you see the difference?

There was an interested relating article in the Grauniad today, George Soros: Donald Trump is doing the work of Isis. This video explains exactly how Trump is helping the Daesh recruiters.

look up at my original post. I said this video was click bait, as I found everything the video listed as "banned"

then gorillaman mentioned i'd probably get crazy recommendations now Which I do, at least until my recent searches overwrite these lookups.

there's isis paraphernalia also I bet some Amazon webmaster is thinking wtf? a rape game, nazi, confederate, italian, japanese, isis, christian extremist ? /mindmelts

Some bits it glosses over :

Puppet dictatorship is basically a description of every US and Soviet backed b-list nation on earth back then. The fact that it's a puppet state shouldn't be used to imply anything.
For example, the U.S.S.R. had modernization programs for its satellite states, building power plants, roads, hospitals, universities, etc, in an attempt to fast forward development and catch up with the west asap. They also did this while spouting secular rhetoric.
In a general attempt to undermine soviet efforts (*both sides tried to contain each other's influence world wide), the U.S. looked for any groups within the U.S.S.R. satellite nations that would be an 'in' for U.S. power/influence. For Afghanistan, this was the people most offended by the U.S.S.R.'s [secular] agenda, and most likely to make good on foreign anti-soviet backing - the religious Jihadists. Everyone knew very well what it would mean for the local people if Jihadists took over Afghanistan - but at the time, the soviets were considered a bigger problem than Jihadists (possibility of nuclear annihilation), so better to have Jihadists in power than soviets.

Also, Assad's release of prisoners was officially part of an amnesty for political prisoners - something the people and foreign groups were asking for.
Saying that Assad tolerated AQ or Isis is misleading. These groups gained power during the Arab spring, when a large portion of the civilian population wanted a new government, but lacked the military power to force change. Militants stepped into the situation by /graciously/ offering their military strength, in exchange for economic/resource/political support to help make it happen. After a short while, these groups coopted the entire effort against Assad. Once they were established, they simply put the people under their boot, effectively replacing Assad with something even worse within the regions they held. Assad lacked/lacks the military power and support to expel the militant groups, so they fight to a stalemate. But a stalemate is by no means tolerance.
One similarity that Syria has to Afghanistan, is that the anti-government kernel within the population that birthed the revolt, did so for anti-secular reasons. In Syria's case, it was in large part people from the region that had earlier attempted an Islamist uprising during Assad's father's reign (which was put down by the government, culminating in the 'hama massacre', leaving some intense anti-government sentiment in the region).
In any case, the available choices for power in Syria are 'political dictatorship' or 'religious dictatorship'. Whoever wins, regular people lose. It's not as if regular people have the arms necessary to force anyone to listen to them. Anyone with any brains or initiative knows that their best option is neither, so they leave (hence all the refugees).

The video also omits the ambiguous alliances in the region. Early on, you had the UAE, Saudis, and Turks supporting ISIS - because an enemy of your enemy is your friend. It wasn't until ISIS started to encroach on them that they tempered their support. Turkey remains ambiguous, by some accounts being the gateway/laundromat for ISIS oil sales... because ISIS is a solution to the 'Kurdish problem' for Turkey.
If you watch some of the VICE documentaries, you can see interviews where locals on the Turkish border say that militants and arms cross form Turkey into Syria to join ISIS every night.
Then you have countries like Iran and Syria fighting ISIS, but by official accounts these countries are the west's enemy. Recently, French leadership (after the Paris bombings) has stated that they are done playing politics, and just want to get rid of ISIS in the most practical manner possible, and are willing to work with Russia and Assad to do it.

It's worth noting that ISIS' main enemy/target is 'non Sunni Islam'. U.S./Europe tend to only mention ISIS attacks on their persons/places, and it leaves western people thinking that ISIS is against the west - but in fact the west is merely an afterthought for ISIS. For every one attack on a western asset/person, there are countless attacks on Shia, etc.

-scheherazade

Your video, The rise of ISIS, explained in 6 minutes., has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Just wanted to respond to show that I'm not ignoring this, but mainly just nodding my head. I don't consider myself a feminist, but I think that feminism is needed despite some of the excesses of its adherents, just like I don't consider myself a civil rights activists, but think that it's a needed movement despite some of the excesses of its adherents (I'm too lazy to be either a feminist or a civili rights activist).

I completely agree that the wage gap is real but incredibly hard to isolate, define and quantify, and that a lot of the intended measures to adress it can end up fucking over individuals while failing to adress the core issues. That, to me, means that we have to work smarter and harder, which some economists are doing. I just don't think CHS is the one leading that field forward, unfortunately.

And finally, death threats and threats of violence seem to me like they are almost synonymous with the internet. I find I can't draw any conclusions from the existence of threats of violence online, because if I did I would conclude that the following are all toxic cultures of death and violence: feminism, gaming, conservatism, progressivism, ISIS, Harry Potter, men's rights activism and environmentalism, to mention just a few. Of all of those I'm pretty sure it's only ISIS that actually represents a toxic culture of death.