Check it out: Armored Bulldozer Rampage. Good news is it's not a dupe.

They seized his land for not paying high property taxes levied on him so they auctioned his property away.

He then retaliates by armor plating a bulldozer trying to take out as much property he can at the location and associated properties.

whoa, whoa, whoa... i never said that YOU said that the us aided the taliban - read more carefully -- i also was not the first to bring it up... jon did with his graphic innuendo at 3:25 in the vid - when my correction of this misinformation was subsequently challenged by nebosuke, i reiterated the mistakes in the initial premise - then you came in chiding me for not providing references

but if you check carefully, you'll see that what i said to you in regards to the taliban was prefaced with:

'your cites also continue to claim...'

and

'basically what your skewed sources are claiming...'

so, am i offbase? not at all - your cites did indeed misrepresent...

'Backed by Pakistan’s military intelligence, which in turn was controlled by the CIA, the Taliban Islamic State was largely serving American geopolitical interests.'

'These organizations or movements, such as the Taliban, often foment “opposition to Uncle Sam” in a way which does not constitute any real threat to America’s broader geopolitical and economic interests. Meanwhile, Washington has supported their development as a means of disarming social movements, which it fears may threaten US economic and political hegemony.'

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/americawarterrorism/americawarterrorism02.htm

so either you don't read your own sources, or you don't believe them -- nice

a. your cites, my cites - yeah, who cares? i at least carefully read both mine and yours -- what follows in this post should satisfy your need for a higher (both in number and quality) degree of sourcing than you've provided - speaking of which, bergen doesn't provide his sources because HE is the primary source -- your cites' quotings from the likes of abdel monem said ali and ahmed rashid are what are called secondary and tertiary sources -- finally, i think when you fully peruse the citations i'll provide, you'll see that the sourcing of the state dept webpage belies your opinion of it

b. lol - if you think i agree with you, then you are pretty dense -- you probably blame hurricanes on butterfly wings

c. 'And prior history notwithstanding, without the ISI's, and through them the US, insistance on bringing in Arabs to fight with the mujahideen there would LIKELY be no Al Qaeda.'

lol, again - what makes you think that the us and isi insisted on bringing in arabs to fight? you're very misinformed -- first of all, if they did insist, then why the hell didn't the arabs fight? heh --- what both the us and isi DID want was SUPPORT, re. cash and logistics

unfortunately, along with the cash, the arab states sent us their fundamentalist troublemakers and criminals given early parole to fight for islam in afghanistan, e.g. the folks who assassinated anwar sadat, etc -- the trouble came about after the afghans won and the arab states didn't want their 'jihadists' back - lol

but anyway, here are the cites and sources for you...

'Assess for me the role of Osama bin Laden and his fellow Afghan Arabs in the victory over the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.
The Arab element of the ten year engagement in Afghanistan was fundamental to its success, but within the context of fund-raiser.'

'The Saudi Arabian government, and rich, wealthy princes ... contributed and matched dollar for dollar the US government's money in the Afghan war?

That was within the context of the program that CIA was managing. And that's the way it was funded. And that is known. Beyond that, you had Saudi Red Crescent and all forms of Gulf Arab organizations who were drawn to the only operative jihad at the time, a very major event within the world of Islam. And they were fund-raisers. And they brought additional moneys into the Afghan program, into the resistance from their own sources, and did good works.

They built orphanages, they built homes for widows of martyrs, and brought in, after the war turned to the advantage of the mujahedeen, some ... 20 to 25 million dollars a month. ... So in that regard, they played a very major role. Now, part of your question is what about the combat role. Minimal. There were some Arabs that fought with some mujahedeen groups, but not many. At any given time, inside Afghanistan, [there were] maybe 2,000 Arabs. ... But the people of Afghanistan fought that war, they bled, they died, they were driven out of their country. To suggest that others were engaged in the combat activity to any extent is just simply wrong.'

'Who were the Afghan Arabs?

Muslims from all over the world: North Africa, Persian Gulf, but from all over the world. Other than that, you had a rag tag bunch of Muslims that were taken from one jail or another, whether it's in Cairo or in Algiers or any other country in the Gulf, and put on an airplane and flown to go do the jihad with the fondest hope that they not come back. They didn't die in great numbers. They died in tiny numbers, and they did come back. And my bet is that even the Saudis were terribly happy to see the son Osama bin Laden go off to war. And some might have thought wouldn't it be nice if he didn't return.'

'Because so much of what we hear about Osama bin Laden comes out of his Afghanistan experience, I'm trying to get this straight, he was mostly a philanthropist and a financial contributor, and a minor combat figure, who happened to dabble in combat?

... I can possibly give him credit for having been present and accounted for at one major battle in ... Baktia Province in 1987. Beyond that, I simply cannot say that there is any war record at all. What I can say is that the hype that surrounds Osama bin Laden--most of it generated by the US media and backed up by statements that verge on hyperbole from the United States government--that this man was literally swinging through the valleys of the Hindu Kush with a dagger in his teeth and single-handedly driving out the Soviet army, this did not happen. The Afghan people did that. The Arab role in the combat situation on the ground was minimal to nonexistent, period. And to suggest otherwise is simply to either gloss over history or to create history for your own reasons.

I can imagine someone out there watching saying. "This is the CIA talking." You're not going to admit that you created the most dangerous public enemy in the world.

You bet I would. If I could look you in the eye and say, "Trust me, Osama bin Laden was my guy. If it wasn't for the CIA he wouldn't be anything then, he wouldn't be anything today," if I could say that with a straight face, I think that would speed up the process of removing Mr. bin Laden as a source of great, great concern for the United States. I can't say that because it's simply not true. You can find nobody who is familiar with the situation in Pakistan and Afghanistan in those years that would say bin Laden played any role other than the fund-raiser.'

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/interviews/bearden.html

'MILTON BEARDEN, AUTHOR; FORMER STATION CHIEF, CIA: That's what it was. It was a jihad, and it was a jihad for ten years. There were a million Afghans killed, a million-and-a-half wounded or maimed, and five million driven into exile. That's -- it's awfully close to 50 percent of the population of the country. So it was in fact a jihad, and our role was pretty much tandential to what everybody else was doing. The Afghans were doing the dying and the fighting. The Saudis and the Americans were paying the freight. The Chinese were ordinance. They provided an awful lot of weaponry. The Egyptians provided a lot of weaponry. And bin Laden and a lot of young Gulf Arabs and other Arabs came to do the jihad.

ADAMS: It was quite a cause for them.

BEARDEN: Of course, it was.

ADAMS: Did you meet bin Laden then?

BEARDEN: No, no. Bin Laden was one of many. Bin Laden is becoming a myth that I'm a little uncomfortable with. When bin Laden was in Peshawar in Pakistan where he spent almost all of the war, but he was a fundraiser. We are talking about money that came from Gulf Arabs in a given month could have been $20, 25 million in a given month.

ADAMS: Had you heard about this man, though, that had $250 million of his father's money from Saudi Arabia to bring to the cause?

BEARDEN: Had I heard of him? I knew bin Laden was out there. I knew that the Saudi Red Crescent was out there. I knew that all of the Red Crescent organizations of the Gulf Arab states were out there. But did I take a look and say that this tall thin ascetic-looking Saudi was special? No. To be perfectly frank, the money that they brought in relieved the United States and Saudi Arabia of going deeper into their own national treasuries for more money.'

'ADAMS: When the Gulf War starts and bin Laden says never has Islam suffered a greater disaster than this invasion, meaning the presence of U.S. forces there to defend Kuwait and to support Saudi Arabia, and you hear this, and you know these are the guys that you helped -- the CIA helped fight against the Soviet Union -- what do you think? What's your reaction at that time?

BEARDEN: Well, a couple of reactions. One, CIA, CIA as the executive instrument of the United States government, you know, three presidents beginning with Jimmy Carter were helping the Afghan people resist the Soviet invasion. It's a real stretch in my opinion to say we helped bin Laden or even cared about him. That he participated in it most certainly -- it was OK with us. It was his business and all that.

Now on the one hand, it was fundamentalist Islam that defeated the Soviet Union, and it set in play or set in motion the history that played out through 1989. November 9th, the Berlin Wall is breached, and it's all over.

Now that some of the Arabs that went to that jihad have remained problematic, sure. Am I shocked? Not really. You know, war brings strange allies together, doesn't it? I mean, if you had to worry about unintended consequences, then would we have ever helped Joseph Stalin deal with that other great acute evil, Adolph Hitler? Sure we would, even though 200 million people get subjugated for 50 years; and we spend our nation's treasure for half a century dealing with the Soviet Union.'

http://www.asms.net/facultymanaged/srou/osamabinladen/real%20Articles/Interview%20with%20CIA%20agaent.htm

'Most of the leadership and the whole ideology of Al Qaeda derives from Egyptian writer Sayyid Qutb (1906–66) and his progeny, who killed Anwar Sadat and were arrested in October 1981. President Mubarak generously allowed them to be released in 1984.

Many of the released men, harassed by the Egyptian police, migrated to Afghanistan. With the end of the Soviet-Afghan War, they continued on to jihad. These Arab outsiders actually did not fight in the Soviet-Afghan War except for one small battle at Jaji/Ali Kheyl, which was really defensive: the Arabs had put their camp on the main logistic supply line, and in the spring of 1987 the Soviets tried to destroy it. So they were really more the recipient of a Soviet offensive, but they really did not fight in that war and thus the U.S. had absolutely no contact with them. I heard about the battle of Jaji at the time, and it never dawned on me to ask the Afghans I debriefed who the Arabs were. They turned out to be bin Laden and his men at the Al-Masada (Lion’s Den) camp.

After the war, a lot of these foreigners returned to their countries. Those who could not return because they were terrorists remained in Afghanistan.'

http://www.terrorisminfo.mipt.org/Understanding-Terror-Networks-Sageman.asp

'REPORTER: Mr. Bin Ladin, tell us about your experience during the Afghan war and what did you do during that jihad?

BIN LADIN: Praise be to God, the Cherisher and Sustainer of the worlds, that He made it possible for us to aid the Mujahidin in Afghanistan without any declaration for jihad. It was rather the news that was broadcast by radio stations that the Soviet Union invaded a Muslim country. This was a sufficient motivation for me to start to aid our brothers in Afghanistan. I have benefited so greatly from the jihad in Afghanistan that it would have been impossible for me to gain such a benefit from any other chance and this cannot be measured by tens of years but rather more than that, Praise and Gratitude be to God. In spite of the Soviet power, we used to move with confidence and God conferred favors on us so that we transported heavy equipment from the country of the Two Holy Places (Arabia) estimated at hundreds of tons altogether that included bulldozers, loaders, dump trucks and equipment for digging trenches. When we saw the brutality of the Russians bombing Mujahidins' positions, by the grace of God, we dug a good number of huge tunnels and built in them some storage places and in some others we built a hospital.'

http://www.anusha.com/osamaint.htm

'Was this the origin of al Qaeda?

Yes. al Qaeda wasn't an outgrowth of Adbullah Azaam's "Office of Services," as has been suggested elsewhere. al Qaeda grew in opposition to Azzam's organization, not out of it. Azzam's organization had been becoming something like an NGO, which provided education and the like. Bin Laden didn't want to do that. He wanted to fight the Soviets by forming his own group. But this is also an early example of an interesting trait of bin Laden's: He acts on impulse and doesn't follow good advice. Azzam didn't think the Arab jihadists in Afghanistan were all that important to the anti-Soviet effort. So Azzam wanted to pepper them among different Afghan units and use them as morale-boosters. Bin Laden didn't listen. And at the end of the day Azzam was right: It was the blood of Afghans that won the war against the Soviets, along with lots of money from the United States and Saudi Arabia.'

http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/31205/

'Peter, what is the--you talk a little bit in the book about this notion of blowback, the fact that the CIA really created al-Qaeda or the entire--this sort of Muslim fundamentalism network that we're now facing and more or less put lie to that, or at least minimized the impact of the CIA and say that Osama bin Laden had a bigger part in that.

Mr. BERGEN: Well, I mean, I--just for clarity's purposes, the CIA, you know, obviously had a big role in the Afghan resistance, $3 billion they supplied, but they were basically signing checks. And it's interesting--it's a widely held view on the left that somehow CIA was involved in the founding of al-Qaeda or helped bin Laden, and conspiracy theorists around the world believe this, but there's just no evidence for it. Surprisingly, there are very few things that the US government and bin Laden agree upon, but Ayman al-Zawahiri has released statements that there was no backing from the United States. Other people within al-Qaeda--there really is just simply no evidence for that. The real story is not that the CIA knew who--you know, was helping out bin Laden 'cause they had no idea who he was until about 1995 when they first set up a unit in--specially looking at him directly in January of 1996. So really the story is not one of CIA complicity in the rise of bin Laden; it's actually ignoring the problem before it was too late.'

http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=5151657

d. i have a very open mind, but it's also quite critical - i try to check the facts that i choose to believe very carefully, and if i ever see a source that intentionally tries to deceive, well, they lose all credibility with me - that's why all these CT nuts with their tongue-in-cheek logical fallacies and faulty syllogisms hold no truck with me -- if that means i have a closed mind, in your opinion, so be it - i'm more than fine with that

the man is a real bitch. any bitch that has profited form slave trading, like founders (and the familys) of big american and british corperations sould be held resposible for these non white genocides. that means big time payments to africa, native americans and so manny south of the US border that have been terrorized for centuries by man.

if we just except these crimes and say that after time the masses will forget about this kind of shit. then we might as well start lining up,with big sings that read "go ahead screw me over because i am not part of the elite class''

this kind of white is righ reasoning is dieing out. but it can still be seen in the mid. east. where it is assumed that those who are not white enough can be bulldozed out of there homes. off corse the international view is that this has to be stopped. but the man knows how to play people against each other. in the mean time laws get taken off the books. and new laws are scribbled in.

we know the man really hates all that the non whites stands 4. but as to not be so blatant the man is now zeroing in on the have nots with promises of cheep material goods in exchange for there souls. if you are the man or want to run with the man than you will have all the junk your hart desires. beware if you are not the man but want to imitate him you may not like the clauses invalved in this type of deal. do you want to be part of the mans diversified collection.

So before you laugh at people who are in debt or in some other predicament put your self in there shoes and you will most likey find that the man is behind it all. The man is sneaky , how do you think he got away with these crimes for so long? The man wants you to scapgoat the blacks and immigrantas as crime and welfare hungry. he also wants to play blacks against immigrants. But it would be just if we all turned it around and acknowledged that the man is the one most responsible for dilemma.

You can point fingers at each other and fight and kill. or you could just look around and learn to recognize the man and those who the man has brainwashed. then your hands are clean. the forces will then be against the man and he will become weeker. Remember distinguish your self from the man. The repaymemnt for the decimation/crimes will then come naturaly.

this is no mistake the bush- heads knew that private war guys will do what ever they want. This was a direct way to bring hell to iraq. the british are good at making others do there dirty work for them. But the american powers will not even keep there transgressions low key . I think its kind of a test to watch and see how the american people will remain complacent. this bulldozer mentality will lead to the fall of the west. like Steve Malkmus said go-ahead " line up for the comfort age, dying age".

This is one of those rare times when heavy machinery can appear cute.

Yes, you're right -- this is certainly not a bulldozer, but I confess I haven't used the term skid-steer. It looks bobcat, although not made by bobcat.

Funny.

Perhaps this is just an Ontario thing, but around here we call that a skid-steer. A bulldozer is much much bigger.

Uploader description:

"Scripted like a cryptology treasure hunt and centered on the Indiana Jones-ish persona of Simcha Jacobovici€€“ of The New York Times. A Film by Simcha Jacobovici, Executive Produced by James Cameron. In 1980, a bulldozer accidentally uncovered a first-century tomb in Jerusalem. Of the ten ossuaries (stone coffins) found inside, six bore inscriptions: Jesus son of Joseph, Maria, Mariamene (the name by which Mary Magdalene was known), Joseph, Matthew, and Judah son of Jesus. Dismissed by archaeologists as coincidence, the ossuaries were warehoused and forgotten. Twenty-five years later, filmmaker Simcha Jacobovici and his team took a fresh look at this astounding cluster of New Testament names. Granted unparalleled access, they went in search of the ossuaries...and the lost tomb. What they found may well be the most controversial archaeological discovery of all time."

Wikipedia had this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_lost_tomb_of_jesus

"I dunno guys, I must admit, while I was watching I did have the unsettling feeling that they kept hammering home the clash of cultures almost to the point of ridiculousness, that one should die for freedom, one should not be a slave to a potentate of the East, etc etc etc."

Raven's point is interesting - but I haven't seen the movie yet so I can't comment. All I will say is that the release of a movie about a small number of Westerners bravely holding off the advances of the oppressive East is interesting, and anti-Iranian and anti-Islamic elements in this country are singing the film's praises.

However, what is ironic about this is that some elements in the Iranian regime tried very hard to destroy Iran's non-Islamic heritage a few years ago. Ayatollah Sadeq Khalkhali - a particularly nasty individual with a penchant for strangling cats (no I'm not lying) - tried to destroy Persepolis - the old capital of Persia, just outside modern day Shiraz - a few years ago. He turned up in Shiraz with a whole load of bulldozers with the express intention of destroying the ruins of Persepolis. However, on hearing of his intentions, the people of Shiraz surrounded the site and eventually chased him out of town - literally. He only just escaped a lynching.

However, the vast majority of Iranians are enormously proud of their non-Islamic heritage, which has taken on a particular symbolic importance for those who oppose the regime.

I once took a class on Jewish history as an elective. We watched this video in class (I'm actually not going to watch it tonight. This is the kind of thing you only need to see once to have the images permanently seared into your memory, and I've seen it multiple times already).

One of the most horrifying things about watching this in that class was actually not in the movie itself, but in the classroom. I looked around to get my classmates' reactions (and, honestly, to look away from what was onscreen at the time), and right beside me was a girl eating cheetos as we watched bulldozers being used to bury mass graves. I couldn't believe it. It is frightening how detached we can become.

Moral Equiva-what? You are talking about something that cites the following as it's factual source: ("Right to Exist: A Moral Defense of Israel's Wars", p.260)

War is war, death is death, people are people, missiles are missiles. People who blow themselves up are terrists, people who drive armored bulldozers through villages are terrirsts. People who kidnap foreign soldiers are asking for trouble. People who throw foreign citizens in jail indefinately without trials are asking for trouble.

I looked on wikipedia, and nowhere does it says Israelis or Jews have greater moral value.

"We all have our issues and to me, this is one reason why there is so much crap going on in this world, because people think that they are better then everyone else. We’re all in this together folks."

No, we're just saying that the likelihood of being murdered by an armoured bulldozer driven by a gun-toting nutcase is pretty low anywhere else in the civilised world. You don't have to look at random comments from strangers to know that; you just have to compare homicide rates (and no, suicide bombing in the Middle East is not a fair comparison).

Every country has its problems. But many of problems in the US are unique.

I remember this; stole it from a US army depot (if memory serves correctly he had at some point served in the Army, so he knew how to drive it), they stopped him when he got stuck on some embankment/railing time thing. Oh yeah, there it is. Cops climbed on top and shot him to death. (Video doesn't show that last bit, so it's still kosher for VS)

Happened about 11 or 12 years ago.

Ran over a bunch of cars in the process - oh wait, there's the photage.

[this is what happens when you write your comment while watching]
Actually, it was 11 years ago in May - there's a time stamp on the vid from the chopper.

It was the first thing I thought of when I saw this vid (the bulldozer):
http://www.videosift.com/story.php?id=6527

Morons. Yeah the rest of the world is free of insanity and violence. As long as you don't turn the TV on. In fact, those 'other countries' have laws banning bulldozers, and everyone just sits down to have a cup of tea when they're upset.

meh~

I'd ratehr see a couple of sumo wrestlers just "bulldoze" the whole thing down!