I wish we were like the Brits in this regard. I think their system makes a hell of a lot more sense.

I hope the title of this is in jest, because if not then that's actually more scary.

Sadly, it really doesn't matter what they call them, because the term terrorist has become meaningless. I've said this all the way back when GWB "declared war on vague abstract concept"

The definition stated earlier is not wrong, but you can use that term for just about anything. Americans were terrorists against the British when we revolted. We also had the audacity to not march shoulder to shoulder against the Brits as was the standard for every "civilized" army back then.

The only difference is who wins and who loses. if you win, you're a revolutionary. if you lose, you're a terrorist. and if you're white, you're a militia group.

This was a calculated move by the terrorists though. I think they deliberately picked some piece of shit building of no value that no one cared about and was unused, made sure they didn't kill anyone but yet still forcibly occupied it with weapons. It's a dare...it's an attempt to goad. They want the feds or police to go in guns blazing. They want suicide by cop because it will ultimately benefit them and gain sympathy for them. They took something that is completely inconsequential other than it was owned by "the gub'mint"

The Fox pundit thinks they're peaceful? armed occupation is peaceful now? Just because they haven't physically hurt anyone doesn't make them peaceful. They stopped being peaceful the instant they picked up their weapons.

Love all the usual buzzwords and sound bites from the fox pundit without any actual specifics. Once again, who specifically is this "left wing media?" They never actually say who. more accusations of "big gov't" without any specifics. They keep talking about these intrusions into our lives, but yet, can't seem to name them.

All fear, no concrete issues. Standard geriatric (that means old, bob) Fox audience.

I hadn't really thought about it before, Statham could definitely work, action and badassery are his bread and butter. And he's a Brit to boot, he doesn't quite look like Butcher though, he looks more like The Frenchman, that might work too.

The extreme case I thought of here wasn't about the balloon, it was about the air. Imagine the air was a lot denser... like water, or jelly.

I wasn't familiar with the term 'extreme cases' but use this all the time when making logical arguments, and think of it as exaggeration to help illustrate a point.

Unfortunately, while I think it makes it easier for me to visualize the point, people are often blinded by the comical nature of the exaggeration

"What do you mean if there were 10 zillion Chinese people on the island of Malta and 3 Brits had the Americas to themselves? The world should still learn English!"

(Someone trying to argue that even if Chinese was predominant, English would still be used in a larger geographical area, and me attempting to use exaggeration to illustrate that it's besides the point).

She isn't exactly as smooth with it though. The brit at least manages to keep his flow going as if he was just saying birmingham or some other simple name!

it makes it sound like a Brit not getting at timely brew is equivalent to defcon 1

It's funny how language works really. 'Ass' is not a nice word? In my UK experience we tend towards 'ass' being the PG version of 'arse' - when we are using Americanisms such as 'kick my ass'. I thought this might be because we don't use 'butt', but we do have 'bum'. 'Kick my bum' just has no impact with that round b - u- m ending. At least the 'tt' in butt give it a sharp ending.

Incidentally, I don't think I've ever heard a Brit unironically say 'kiss my ass'. If it is sincere it is always 'arse'. But Assholes are generally less unpleasant than arseholes. Assholes are when your mates are dicks. Arseholes are strangers that are cunts.

Those were both interesting to see and helped me establish some of the pros/cons of the goalie playing aggressively like that -- thanks!

It is quite similar in many ways to NHL goalies. In hockey, an aggressive goalie will skate relatively far out of their net to cut down the angle on shots from the periphery -- but that can go very wrong if the opposing team can sneak in behind them and get a shot on an essentially empty net. Like the hockey equivalent of the second video there.

And some hockey goalies pride themselves on being able to play the puck; accurately pass it up and out of their half of the ice, contributing to offense (but usually 2-3 or more passes removed from a shot attempt), etc. Some goalies *want* to be good at that, but end up just getting themselves into trouble. In that first video, Neuer looks like one of the NHL goalies that likes to play that way AND is actually good at it -- I'll think of him as the football equivalent of Martin Brodeur from the NHL, maybe.

Thanks again for going out of the way to enlighten me. I've got lots of friends here in Thailand (native Thais as well as Brits and Europeans) that are big into football while I'm usually pretty clueless. I tend to relate to football through the lens of hockey, as I'm sure you can tell. But it is good to get a bit better informed.

Sadly this Brit can't comment on those Brits commenting on a documentary about an American's giant ball sack because Channel 4 have blocked it.

He probably would have had a stern word with you about all the assumptions you're making too.

You've said the guy was unarmed as if it was an established fact when he was shot when it wasn't. You have said he was non-violent but his movement and demeanour certainly weren't submissive, and one really has to wonder what he was planning to do when he got close enough to the officer, kiss him?

My position in all this is that as a Brit I think it's madness that police have to go around with guns all the time. This simply couldn't happen in the UK so as far as I'm concerned it's a fully avoidable situation, just put all the fucking guns down.

However, it's really not that easy. Guns are everywhere in America so the police have to act accordingly. It's really easy with hindsight to say all the things you're saying but in the heat of the moment that cop has to assume the guy is armed and dangerous. That's the effect of having guns everywhere.

They're on the edge of a highway at night, the guy is lit with flashing lights and car headlights going past. This makes seeing bulges or anything like that that might indicate a weapon very difficult and yet you think the officer should have been able to tell this and be happy to risk his life on it? Bullshit.

People are suggesting that under the same circumstances it's a simple job to aim for an extremity and it's a guaranteed hit. Really? It's that easy? So easy you'd stake your life on it?

The guy committed suicide by cop. Plain and simple. He wasn't a compliant victim, he was a threat to the officer. His shuffling was strange and that in isolation isn't threatening, but shuffling closer and closer to an armed officer is a different story.

Maybe the cop should have pulled a tazer first? That wouldn't help much if the guy came out of the car with a gun. Or would it? I don't know. If a tazer would have worked in that situation please put me right, I'm no expert. To me it seems if a guy comes out of the car with a gun and points it at the officer then a gun would be more use in defence than a tazer. Same with pepper spray.

So maybe the officer should put the gun away as soon as he's established that the guy isn't armed? That's fine, I'm all in agreement there. But nowhere in the video is he able to establish that as fact. So if he started with a gun he sure as hell should still have it drawn all the way through this video.

I'm really fucking glad I don't have to deal with anything like this in the UK. It's shit that this happens. But given the prevalence of guns in the US I can't see any way this could have gone differently without risking the situation becoming like the videos reiwan posted.

I think she does it here because that is her experience -- to random people that she meets, they immediately identify her as "Asian", but nothing more specific than that. Plus, the talk seems to be delivered to a group of mostly, well, Asians. There are massive cultural differences between subgroups for sure, but on the other hand I'm sure they do share some common experiences due to being someone readily identifiable as "Asian" in a Western country.


...And I think you're wrong about no-one referring to Germans, French, Italians, English, etc. as "Europeans". I think LOTS of Americans do that if they see someone who is white and doesn't have an American accent, but they can't identify their particular home country.

And as an example on the other side of the coin, as a white American living in Thailand, I get Thais asking me these same sorts of questions ALL THE TIME. "Where are you from", etc., just like Nat described as happening to Asians in the west. Heck, in Thai the word for any western foreigner (non-Thai) is "farang", which most likely has roots in the way Thais heard and tried to repeat the word "France" as said by early French visitors, who were some of the first westerners to visit the country. In Thai, "France" is said like "fah-rang-sey" or "fah-rang-set", and most people think that the word "farang" for any westerner comes from that. So, if I go out with my British friends, the Thais will refer to all of us as "farang", which is basically like calling us "Frenchie". My Brit friends tend to take a bit more offense to that than I do...

But in all seriousness, I don't find being called a "farang" offensive. It is basically never meant as an insult, and in my opinion westerners calling Chinese / Japanese / Thai "Asian" isn't either. It can get annoying, but annoying isn't exactly the same thing as offensive.

Reminds me of this A-10 strafing run that fell close to Brit troops.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAkzrxN5Jn0

It's amateur night in Afghanistan, yeehaw!

Unsurprising, really, considering the first Iraq war, 3/4ths of the American casualties were "friendly" (American) fire.

I talked with some Brit soldiers not long after they came back from Iraq #1, they said their Colonel went to liaise with his American counterpart in a Scorpion light tank. The American Colonel stared at their vehicle in amazement, "What the hell kind of Bradley is that?"

God the US will miss Chomsky when he's gone.

So will the ROW (the 19 out of 20 people on Earth that US power considers disposable meat..)

BTW from the outside it looks like the last days of Rome.. crazy all round, torture, non-judicial murder, mobs burning things, unchecked power, total obfuscation and confusion sown all around by rogue members of the powerbase for their own reasons, xenophobia, public statements of religious eschatology.. ..

Take it from a Brit - the end of total global power does not HAVE to be an apocalypse.. you guys need to get into tea and cricket, stat..

We already have had a case of it. American and British television are like chalk and cheese - we don't have televised spelling bees (and they would seem crazy to us), we don't have angry talking heads telling us what to think like bill oreilly.. we're actually pretty good when it comes to this sort of thing. Might be because we're a relatively old nation, we've absorbed a bunch of different invasions into our populace, wars, fires, famines and plagues.. there's something called the spirit of the blitz; brits don't like to panic, we're not good at outrage and yelling. Keep calm and carry on!