The mixture of valid points, exaggerations, ignorance of context and completely false information makes it a bit... difficult to digest.

Generally speaking, a lot of errors were made regarding Cologne.

The police fucked up entirely and basically was unable to maintain control of the square in front of the central train station where shitloads of theft, sexual harassment and even a few rapes were committed.

The public media did not report on it properly. They did, in fact, refuse to report it at all at first. But that doesn't stem from an obession with PC nor is it special treatment for refugees/immigrants -- it's good old-fashioned pro-government bias. A few days later, they were all playing the same tune again: bad immigrants, bad muslims, need more law-and-order, close the borders, need new laws, etc. Same shit as always.

And yes, you cannot expect all these refugees to be model citizens from the get-go. Different culture, different language, segregation, no work permit, no familiy, maybe first-hand experience with war -- they are bound to commit crimes, assuming otherwise would be naive.

And accepting a million refugees might have been a bad idea after cutting down public personnel and services for two decades straight. But what's done is done. The question now is what can be done to improve the situation for everyone involved. What doesn't help is further segregation (refugee camps), private security (aka mobs hunting brown people, happened in Cologne already) or downplaying the massive problems.

As for that wierd tirade from 1:07 onwards about true Germans: except for all the people from Bohemia, Prussia and Silesia, aka Poland; or the millions of immigrants from Italy and Turkey; or the folks from former Yugoslavia; etc. Two thirds of the bloody country has family names that mark them as n-th generation immigrant. Half of my extended family is from what is now Russia (Kaliningrad) while my family name is distinctively Dutch. "Paid German taxes" gives a hint to his motivations. Folks in East Germany didn't pay German taxes: do they count? Refugees from former German enclaves ("Russlanddeutsche") didn't pay German taxes, nor did they speak proper German: do they count?

All in all a very misguided rant, too eager to abuse real fuck-ups for his own ideology. Rape culture, SJW, PC -- doesn't apply in this case. It's small government, media with establishment bias, a general inability for open discussion of problems, and a shitload of incompetent arseholes in positions of power (e.g.: chief of police in Cologne, gone now).

By the way, he forgot to mention the hundreds(!) of refugee shelters that were set on fire during the last few months. Bands of immigrants committing crimes are a problem, bands of Germans committing crimes are a problem.

We had a six digit number of prime suspects for trouble already: young, male, unemployed, un(der)educated, no fucking hope. It's the main cause for the persisting problems with Nazis in East Germany: no hope. Adding a million additional people, lots of them with equally bad prospects, without any serious effort to integrate them is bound to blow up in our faces eventually.

The best thing that can happen for the entire Eurozone would be a massive integration program in Germany. And by massive I don't mean a meagre billion Euros. We're talking 15-20 billion a year, for at least five years. The more the better. Even in the current economic regime, it would be much cheaper than the repercussions from staying the current course: doing fuck all.

Sadly, I feel like if you made this video in America today, you would be investigated as a terrorist for pretending to blow up a building.

Uh, isn't the song an homage to the first film when Kirk steals the car and drives it off a cliff (pretty sure this was the song playing in the background)?

Look, this is the 3rd movie in the rebooted franchise. Do people really not get the idea of a "reboot"? They're not re-making Star Trek, they're taking it in an entirely different direction. The first one clearly showed they wanted to go in the blockbuster action film direction and the second one re-affirmed that. So, it completely baffles me as to why anyone at this point would still think the rebooted franchise is going to be anything like the original Star Trek movies (let alone the TV series, which had far more time to build the characters and establish the universe than the movies do).

Now, as to the particulars of this trailer... they're going to blow up the Enterprise, again?!? We haven't "been there, done that" enough yet? And so much for their 5-year mission--looks like that is going to get cut a little short.

Still the idea of the main cast members getting stranded on a hostile planet is pretty good for allowing some cool between-character interaction and does in fact harken back to all of the TV series versions (where it seemed to happen on a fairly regular basis).

Will wait and see. Probably will be a good action popcorn flick (which is clearly what they want the series to be).

Looks so terrible. Look at that obvious set @ 0:23s; though not quite as bad as their technology design. The assault rifles look horrible. Unless they blow up Earth, this is going to be a trainwreck.

It sure did blow up good.
Real good.

Influence is different than belief. People believe in God. People were influenced by many evil men. In this case it is the same. Lie detectors are "mystical" and "fun." Much in the same way Ouija boards are fun as when you are a kid. Yeah, a few take it to the next level, but again it is not "massive amounts of people."

And look at this. "You are not the father," followed by massive antics. "The lie detector determined that was a lie," followed by massive antics. Again, no one gives two shits about the test, they want to see the bullshit. Let me pose this (and answer it please,) do you think people would watch pop culture if it was bland just because it had a lie detector test? Of course not, because no one gives...two shits

In this regard I am actually insulting American intellect far more than if they believed in a pseudo science, lol. Those people are pathetic, just like Springer people.

And I can see the value--if it makes you happy by all means. I am just justifying why I downvoted it (for blowing up the numbers and shifting blame.)

Also, Adam even disagrees with you! Lol; he says at the end about police departments using it to obtain confessions and it not being real, and the police say "yeah we know that!" Ie., police use it as a tool of influence to scared people. What people do fear is the jury not caring that a detector is inadmissible, they fear it won't matter because perception is 9/10ths of the law.

Yes, an apology is more than most countries offer when they do this kind of thing....just ask Russia.
That said, an apology is NOT accountability, explanation, or even honesty. Independent investigation is needed every time something like this happens, otherwise there basically is NO international rule of law, and we should stop pretending there is.
But...the president is certainly NOT the person who gave the go ahead to bomb a known hospital. He would likely not have charges levied against him no matter what.

It is a sign of guilt when any organization insists they, and only they, can investigate their own clearly bad actions....I'm looking at the cops here....and 'self investigation' is no investigation.

I said it on the other video on this topic, and I'll say it again....we won't accept self investigation when a major hospital in the US blows up. Not for a second. If it's not good enough for us, how can we pretend it's good enough for everyone else? That's just plain self serving BS.

We're really going to have a hard time explaining this one away. We knew full well this was a hospital, and inexplicably we bombed it anyway. Even if the claim that someone was shooting from the hospital were true (and it seems it's not) there's absolutely no excuse for bombing it. None.
30 minutes of bombing?!? While being begged to stop bombing a hospital?!? In self defense (I note there's been absolutely zero evidence that there was a single insurgent there, no bodies, no guns)?!? And it went through the 'vetting' process and they still said, 'yep, go ahead and bomb a hospital into dust'?!?
Sweet Zombie Jesus! I actually DO hope everyone involved, from the guy on the ground (if they actually exist) to the general that gave the go ahead, is indicted for war crimes and convicted. If that doesn't happen, we can definitely expect this to happen again, and we can expect repercussions....we won't be so lax and relaxed about things if a major hospital in America blows up, will we?

EDIT: Also consider, this hospital was in what's now Taliban held territory, so we WON'T be rebuilding this, the only hospital in the area.

I see your point, fair enough.

It's just that some people who exclusively take the "dolphin pack" approach devolve into overgeneralizing or demonizing, which can be counter-productive since the people that really need convincing--the religious adherents--are going to tune out since they're going to assume they are not the ones being talked about. After all, they don't stone people to death or blow up planes etc. so what's wrong with them practising their religion?

But honestly, I'd say all three approaches are equally necessary. Thanks for clarifying what you were saying.

That basically means that the only way an action scene can be good is via realism, and that's not true.

I would agree so much as to say that I don't think that Avengers scene was necessarily great, but it is good. I want to preface this first with I'm not a huge Avengers fan. I'm honestly not a big comic book fan either, so this isn't coming from a fan boy.

Why was it good? First off, it is very plot connected. It demonstrated Tony Stark being forward thinking and anticipating the Hulk potentially going Hulk and hurting/killing people... It's the same for his motivation to construct what became The Vision. It stays within both his and Hulk's character. Stark maintains his wise cracking self, even when it's not probably appropriate.

Immortality? Hardly. It conveyed how much damage could be done. IE, buildings and stuff didn't just get destroyed because, LOOK! STUFF BLOWING UP! The scene actually demonstrates the flaws/vulnerabilities of both Stark and the Hulk. Stark didn't just beat him, and that was that. They were very lucky nobody died (admittedly pretty conveniently). It took a bit of good luck for Stark to stop the Hulk that there was a huge building under construction nearby. It shows that even just the Hulk could potentially overpower whatever Stark cooks up to stop him, let alone whatever actual Supervillian comes along who is actually scheming to destroy/enslave the world, and he can make mistakes despite his best attempts (which is brought about Ultron as well). It demonstrated the Hulk's fragility of setting him off. Yet it also demonstrated that without Stark, the Hulk would have continued smashing and destroying. That was one of the themes in the movie, that technological innovation is something we need, yet can destroy us all.

Was it potentially overdone and there was some stuff that they could have toned down to keep with that darker ethos? Sure. The scene ain't perfect, but it's really damn good.

It sure did blow up good. Real good.

Mosdef.

But so is shooting up a church or Marine recruiting center or any number of other places or blowing up a marathon or flying airplanes into buildings...

Um, you’re still overthinking it. I don’t think comedy and jokes are worth dissecting, like we’re at some seminar with Powerpoint slides showing intersecting circles and flowcharts and phylogenetic trees showing comedy lineage, trying to extract the "why".

I don’t think men are “threatened” by her comedy (as someone here wrote) any more than I’m threatened by seeing a video of Miley Cyrus shouting “eat my pu**y” into the mic and then gyrating against a blow up doll. I’m sure somebody out there must find that very shocking and sexy.

Didn’t mean to hit Pause on the laugh track, I just don’t find her funny for no other reason than she doesn't make me laugh. To each his own.

Terrorist attacks are more multifaceted.

First, they are an opportunity to generate work for the defense industry.

Second, they are usually for a reason. Often some angst over our own actions in foreign countries. For example, the news says AQ is a bunch of crazies that hate freedom, however AQs demands prior to 9/11 were to get our military out of the holyland. While that's not an offense that deserves blowing up buildings, it is definitely not the same as some banal excuse like hating freedom.

Thirdly, they are often perpetrated by some persons/groups that we had a hand in creating. We install the mujahedin in Afghanistan, knowing full well what they'll do to women, and then use their treatment of women as one excuse to later invade. Saddam worked for us, was egged on to fight Iran, was egged on to suppress insurgents (the 'own people he gassed'), and we later used his actions as one excuse to invade.

At the time, the mujaheddin was useful for fighting Russia as a proxy. At the time, Saddam was useful for perpetuating a war where we sold arms to both sides. Afterwards, they were useful for scaremongering so we could perpetuate war when otherwise things got too quiet and folks would ask about why we're spending big $$$ on defense.. (In the mean time hand-waving the much more direct 9/11 Saudi connection).

... Plus if on the off chance things do 'settle down' in areas we invade, that creates new markets for US companies to peddle their wares. You can reopen the Khyber pass for western land trade with Asia, you can build an oil pipeline, and you can prevent a euro based oil exchange from opening in the middle east. All things that benefit our industry.

So in practice, as far as big industry is concerned, there's a utility in 'fighting terrorism' (and perpetuating terrorism) that just doesn't exist with internal shootings. As such, unless another 'evil empire' shows up, the terrorism cow is gonna get milked for the foreseeable future.

Sure, there's a rhetoric about preventing terrorism, but our actions do nothing to that effect. It's just a statement that's useful in manufacturing consent.

There's a particular irony, though. That is, that while such behavior is 'not very nice' (to put it mildly), it does however provide for our security by keeping our armed forces exercised, prepared, and up to date - such that if a real threat were to emerge, our military would be ready at that time. While that seems unlikely, when you look back in history at previous major conflicts, most were precipitated rather quickly, on the order of months (it takes many years to design and build equipment for a military, and the first ~half a year of any major war has been fought with what was on hand). So in a round-about, rather evolutionary way, perpetuating threats actually does make us safer as a whole.

To clarify the word 'evolutionary' : Take 10 microbes. All 10 have no militant nature. None are made for combat. It only takes 1 to mutate and become belligerent in order to erase all the others from existence. If some others also mutate to be combative, they will survive. The non combative are lost, their reproductive lines cut off. As there's always a chance to mutate to anything at any time, eventually, there is a combative mutation. So, all life on earth has a militant nature at some layer of abstraction - those that exist are those that successfully resisted some force (or parried the force to its benefit. Like plants that use a plant eater's dung to fertilize the seeds of the eaten fruit).

The relationship holds true at a biological level, interpersonal, societal, national, and international level. Societies that allow the kind of educational and military development that leads to victory, are those that have dominated the planet socially and economically. For example, Europe's centuries of infighting made it resistant to invasions from the Mongols, Caliphates, etc, and ultimately led to the age of colonialism. For the strengths built with infighting, are later leveraged for expansion. As such, the use of "terrorism" to perpetuate conflict, is ultimately an exercise in developing strength that can later be leveraged.

Our national policy is largely developed in think tanks, and those organizations are planning lifetimes ahead. So these kinds of considerations are very relevant.

TL/DR : Yes, agreed, the terrorism thing is B.S. on many levels.

-scheherazade

It sure does blow up good. Real good.
*promote