search results matching tag: dare

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.004 seconds

    Videos (368)     Sift Talk (24)     Blogs (31)     Comments (1000)   

tomspeed (Member Profile)

nataaria says...

Hi
I found your (unfortunatelly deleted now) 'I dare you not to find this mind-blowing!' video. First time I found it about week ago, but it just dissappeared from the internet. It was first dance video which affected me so so so much. Could you tell me the name or send it to me? I'd be very grateful!

No single terror attack in US by countries on Trump ban list

bcglorf says...

@newtboy,

No, it's about law. Warren Jeffries people did all that, on a smaller scale. They weren't their own country, even though they got away with it for decades. Law.

Forgive my lack of familiarity with him, but your telling me he (on a smaller scale than Texas), stopped paying taxes, and instead collecting them. Started up his own legal and justice system. He created his own borders within which the police would not dare set foot because it would be a death sentence for them. And after he'd done all this the US military itself failed to remove him as well?

Or are you meaning not just scale, but severity and all the other rather meaningful extremes of sovereignty that the Taliban and Al Qaida achieved? It's the same then in the sense that me punching you is violent just me killing ten people is violent, but in another sense they are nothing alike...

No, but they couldn't indiscriminately bomb Houston and any large gatherings either....not even if Spencer might be there. The first American civilian they kill will start a war...a real, legitimate war.

Your not embracing the analogy. Spencer's terrorists are still killing American civilians every week, outside of Texas borders. The American military is just corrupt enough that as long as its democrats/republicans dying,(whomever we choose to not be in power) they let it slide because it shows the need for the military to 'protect' the country.

You need to take a harder look at Pakistani politics to see just how powerful Al Qaida and the Taliban's control over the tribal areas has been.

More over, all of the above definitions of state within a state violence and jihad doesn't require war as the response to acts of war. To invade Afghanistan to prevent another 9/11 is dubious at best. Even the Kissinger's of the world wouldn't count the value of that trade off, losing a couple thousand Americans to an attack each decade or so is 'acceptable' loses.
Call it the price of freedom and carry on. The real trick was that if the Taliban and Al Qaida were so tight with Pakistan's military and intelligence services, how concerned should America be that the Pakistani proxies in their tribal regions and Afghanistan are so keen to target Americans. That lead directly to Pakistan's nuclear arsenal being a big enough concern with that pairing that maybe it was time to tell Pakistan they had to end their little dance with terrorists hitting Americans and they had better make a choice who they are going to side with in the Jihad that was already being waged for 2 decades.

No single terror attack in US by countries on Trump ban list

bcglorf says...

If he was on America soil, I'd agree with you. If he was living in a European apartment, I'd agree with you. Heck, if he was living in Russia I'd agree with you.

The reality is he was supporting mass killing from within a lawless part of the world were no police or courts would touch him. He was living were the only force capable of serving any manner of arrest warrant was military.

And yes, he was supporting those mass killings. We know now that he was running a charity funnelling money to terrorists even before 9/11. We know that not 1, but 3 of the 9/11 hijackers attended his sermons, even spanning two different mosques. One of those being the same mosque he met with the Fort Hood shooter. It's not exactly rocket science to put together that his 'work' with the CIA, FBI and any other organisation opposing terror wasn't honest or open from the very start. It's pretty clear his jihadists teachings came first, not after.

As you say, anywhere within the reach of the law; courts, arrest warrants and due process all protect the public well enough.

Back the original CNN clip, I dare say I must at least insist that it's not disingenuous to point to Anwar as an example of terrorism on American soil by Yemeni dual citizen.

And after all that, Trumps order is still stupid. Just because you can find such examples doesn't count as me supporting his order. I just don't see what the need is to deny facts just because Trumps order doesn't look bad enough without trying to deny reality to make it even more worthless.

enoch said:

@bcglorf
you left out that anwar had worked for the CIA and NSC as a consultant,and that in his earlier days as an imam was critical of al qeada and was very pro-american.

look,i am not arguing the fact that anwar did become radicalized,nor am i denying that his shift in attitudes (which was mainly due to americas handling of the iraqi war) had become not only critical,but had gone from condemnation to calls for violence,and praise for violence.

which brings us to the fort hood shooter nidel hasan who was an avid fan of anwar al awlaki,and DID have a correspondence with awlaki.which when examined,was pretty fucking one sided.it was apparent that hasan was attempting to get in the good graces of awlaki who,evidenced by the email correspondence,had no real relationship with hasan.though awlaki did praise hasan,and his violent actions.

so i do not get where 'the emails are closed".just google nidal hasan and anwar al awlaki emails,and you can go read for yourself.

and as for these emails as justification..i really do not see your logic in this respect.

so if someone becomes a huge fan of mine,and emails me constantly because we met ONCE and now they think we are buddies and share common interests (which,maybe we do),and that person perpetrates a violent act.

am i responsible for that act?

and here is where the crux of the discussion REALLY is:
maybe i AM responsible.
maybe i am guilty of inciting violence.
maybe i should be held accountable,because not only did i keep this mans violent intentions to myself,which resulted in death,but then praised his actions afterwards as being the will of god.

there are ALL possibilities,and they are valid questions.
they are legal questions,and maybe there should be a legal accountability.

should the proper pathway to a legal conclusion be:
a.a remotely piloted drone that targets my phone and launches a missile murdering (assasinating0 me,along with innocent by-standers?

or.

b.working with the yemeni government to bring me into a secure facility to be questioned,and possibly charged with inciting violence and prosecuted in an international court of law?

do you see what i'm saying?

the question isn't if anwar al awlaki,as a prominent imam,was vocally against american foreign policy,or that he openly supported violence in the form of terrorism.

the question is:
how do you address that situation,and prosecute the legalities?

because as scahill posited:how do you surrender to a drone?

could anwar al awlaki be guilty of EVERY charge the US accused him of?
quite possibly.
but we will never know because he was assassinated,as was his 16yr old son.

even your counter argument is speculation based on loose affiliations,and tenuous connections.

you will NEVER be able to supply a concrete,and verifiable accounting of anwar al awlaki's guilt,because you CAN'T..he was assassinated.

and THAT is the point.

now let us take this a step further.
let us examine how this can be abused,and watching trump consolidate executive power by surrounding himself with departmental loyalist,loyal only to him,we can begin to see the beginnings of trumps "soft fascism".

now lets take how you made your argument,and supplant a different scenario,but using the same parameters.

do you SEE how easily the drone program could be used to quickly,and efficiently remove opposing political players from the board? dissenting and opposing voices simply painted as violent enemies of the state that were in need of removal,because of the "possibility" that they may one day actually incite or cause violence?

the state can now murder a person for simply what they say,or write but NOT what they actually DO.

anwar al awlaki didn't actually kill anyone,didn't perpetrate any acts of violence.he simply talked about the evils of american empire,the mishandling of the iraq war (which he was originally in support of) and praised those who DID engage in violent acts of terror as doing the work of god.

should he have been held accountable in some fashion?
i think there is case to be made in that regard,but instead of going through proper channels,and adhering to the protocols of international law,he was outright assassinated.

and just how easily this can be abused is incredibly frightening.

again,i understand we approach things from different angles,but you have to see the danger in this practice,and how easily it can be misused to much darker and sinister purposes.

"well,he said nasty things about us and had a lot of friends who were on the terror watch list"

is simply NOT a valid enough excuse to simply murder someone.

there are protocols and legal procedure for a REASON,and anwar al awlaki may certainly have been in breach of international law and therefor possibly SHOULD have been prosecuted under those terms.

but we will NEVER know,because he was killed.
by an american president.
a nobel peace prize winner and constitutional law professor.

anwar al awlaki was an american citizen,his SON was an american citizen,but due to those abominations:MCA of 2006 and the NDAA of 2012.obama had the power and authority to assassinate them both.

where was there right to face their accuser?
habeas corpus..gone...a legal right that dates back to 1205 a.d by the BRITISH..gone.
innocent until proven guilty....gone.
the right to provide evidence in your defense...gone.

all the president has to do..and DID in this case,is deem you an "enemy combatant" and BOOM..dead.

i really hope you reconsider your attitude in this case my friend,because this shit is fascism incarnate,and now trump has his chubby little fingers on the "fire" button.

god help us all......

Lest We Forget: The Big Lie Behind the Rise of Trump

Fairbs says...

Bob, I double dog dare you to read this and let me know what you think...

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/21/can-globe-trotting-clinton-foundation-thrive-in-populist-trump-age.html

bobknight33 said:

Utter Bull shit.-- The Liberal Left still don't get it.

Trump won because it is promising jobs and to make America great again.

No one gave a shit that Obama was 1/2 black.
The birth certificate -- fake as a $2bill.

But the left are using these as the reasons for the massive Democrat party loss.

Keep it up -- live in bubble and keep loosing.


I wanted Cruz
But it was between Trump and Clinton. A millionaire crook or a billionaire businessman. And the left blames it on racism and the Russians. Delusional.

After the huge loss the Clinton Foundation is closing it doors. Guess it had no more favors to sell.

RT -- Chris Hedges on Media, Russia and Intelligence

radx says...

29 comments, most of them rather long and more-or-less well reasoned, yet none about the content.

I get if you don't trust RT. It's a propaganda outlet of a foreign government, after all. But RT is not Chemical Ali style of propaganda: it is solid, well-researched reporting on many topics, subtly slanted on others, and completely balls-to-the-wall denial of reality on others again.

You want to take that as a reason to ignore it entirely? Knock yourself out.

I won't. Which isn't saying much, because I prefer text over video.

Anyway, they regularly offer a valuably "Korrektiv" with regards to reporting in the mainstream media. Of course I would prefer if I could get that from a less-dubious outlet like, maybe, the Indepedant, or the NZZ, but I can't.

Let's talk about the content of this clip, shall we.

Hedges references the Prop-or-Not pieces run by the WaPo. Does anyone here disagree that those were a total and utter smear job? Painting Truthout, Truthdig, Counterpunch, Alternet, BlackAgendaReport, NakedCapitalism and others as stooges of the Kremlin is such an obvious attempt to discredit dissenting voices that it's, quite frankly, rather offensive. Yves Smith and Glen Ford as mouthpieces of the Kremlin... my ass cheeks.

On the other hand, quite a lot of journalists in the US seem to have embraced the Red Scare with open arms, seeing as it gives an excuse as to why their previous HRC lost against the orange-skinned buffoon. Kyle illustrated it nicely with Rachel Maddow.

Second point: they had James Clapper present the report. Seriously? The fucker was caught lying under oath during the initial stages of the NSA revelations. Wasn't the fuckface also in charge of the satellite reconnaisence prior to the Iraq war, who could have presented imagery that debunked the claims of WMD "factories", and decided not to? He is just as trustworthy as Chemical Ali, but less entertaining.

Third: half the report was about RT. Why? I thought it was meant to outline how they "hacked" the election? What does their propaganda outlet have to do with that? And the critique they presented... has anyone read the passage about the "alleged Wall Street greed"? They are having a laugh, and people take it seriously.

Fourth: it distracts from the aspects of HRC's loss they don't want to be a subject of public discussion: class issues. They offered nothing for the working class, who got a shoddy deal over the last decades, and tried to focus entirely on identity politics, completely denying even the existence of class issues. Which is also why it's now the "white, male worker" who is to blame. Nevermind that >50% of white, female workers also voted Trump. Nevermind that significant portions of non-white working class folks also voted Trump. Can't be. According to the narrative, these people are minorities first, working-class second, and identity politics always trumps class politics. Except it didn't.

All this rage at the "deplorables", the "less educated"... it just reeks massively of class bigotry. Those plebs decided to vote for someone other than our beloved Queen HRC? How dare they...

And finally, RT's own part of this segment, about the credibility of the intelligence community's claims. Any disagreement on this? Anyone? Anyone think the torturers at the CIA are trustworthy enough to take their word without hard evidence?

Mark Steyn - Radical Islam and "the Basket of Deplorables"

RFlagg says...

Meanwhile this filth and the horrible people who voted for Trump and support the Republican party, AKA radical right Christians HATE homosexuals themselves. They don't show their hate via bombs, but via tossing stones of bigotry and laws to discriminate against them for daring to sin differently.

And there is no opinion on climate change... again it is science. No denying the science. You are entitled to your own opinions, yes, but not your own facts. Sorry, but the universe isn't only 6,000 years old, no matter what your stupid book says.

And you can think gay marriage is a sin. Nobody on the Left ever said you had to accept the sin, to accept the homosexuality, but you do have to accept them as people. It is the right who wants to deny them rights as human beings, just because they sin differently than the rest of us. Jesus said let those without sin toss the first stone, and then notably didn't toss any stones himself, who hung out with the sinners and taught love was the most important thing, but the Right is far comfortable tossing those stones against the gays, to deny them a wedding cake, to deny them a wedding and other rights, just for a sin that doesn't effect anyone but those doing it. It isn't murder, but the Right treats it as such. That isn't just stating an opinion, that is full action against another human being for being different than you, and this ass hole and anyone who agrees with him is a horrible human being for wanting to deny somebody rights for being different. Yes, we may disagree that it being a big deal, but there isn't an effort to deny you the right to speak out against homosexuality if you are so inclined, but you can't claim you are being repressed when you are the one seeking to do the repression. Apparently the Right's attitude is "my sin, isn't as gross as yours, so it's not as bad... and God isn't doing a good job of convicting you of it, so I'll do that job for Him" as He's too weak or something to do it Himself apparently.

Sodom's sin was being a land of plenty and not doing enough to help the needy and the poor in her borders, and other versus talk about how rude it was to foreigners... sounds a lot like the Republican party in the US... actually, the Republican party and Trump sound a lot like the anti-Christ system in Revelations... but I'll ignore that and assume that Christianity is still more than likely just as fake as the other 5,000 gods. Now, yes, the Bible does mention the sexual immorality of Sodom, so it likely didn't help, but it's specific sin, the thing God judged it for, was not doing enough to help the needy and the poor, though it had plenty of resources to do so. Basically the "I don't want my tax dollars going to help those [needy and poor] people" as my evangelical brother in law once said. That sums up the Right these days, fuck the poor, and help the rich, who cares what Jesus said about the rich and the poor.

Then the whole, you can't judge a whole party based on a few bad apples... yet the Right sits in judgement of all Muslims and want to deny people refuge who are trying to escape the radicals, because one or two radicals might slip in for each thousand saved... that's showing the love of Christ, "stay there you Muslim bastard, have your women raped, and you children forced into military camps and be radicalized, serves you right for daring to be having an accident of birth being born in the wrong country and being raised on the wrong faith". That is the attitude the Right sends out when they want to deny refuge to refugees.

So I sit in judgement of all Christians based on the fact the KKK, Nazis, Westboro... and frankly what seems to be the vast majority of evangelical Christians these days. If they can sit in judgement of others, I'll sit in judgement of them. I realize the hypocrisy of that, and admit it, which is FAR more than anyone on the Right ever would do. But as the Carman (famed Christian singer whom I've seen many many times live when I was a Christian) song says, their "witness could have been more than it had".

Basically this is 5:32 worth of hypocrisy that is so typical of the Right that those deep in it can't even begin to see it.

GUARDIANS Final TRAILER (2017) - Russian Superhero Movie

kceaton1 jokingly says...

So it has Susan Storm and the Winter Soldier, but who are the other two guys, any clue? Plus when did Putin start to look so ugly and get electric superpowers.

Why would Stark, after making Ultron (even though it REALLY should have been Dr. Pym, the guy that creates "Ant-Man", who should've made Ultron) dare to do such a dumb thing by implanting an energy device, especially if it causes psychopathy--with possible delusions--on top of Putin's pre-existing sociopathy (with skin mutilations and a type of really bad acne) and also make him mortally pissed off at bears instead of his natural Gaelic love for them. As we all know, Putin LOVES to ride on top of bears with his shirt off all the time (especially if he can have a gun and a bottle of vodka/whiskey too)?!?

We'll just have to wait and see if this movie (and its trailer) can reach past its natural B-Movie hopes and dreams.

Godless – The Truth Beyond Belief

RFlagg says...

...but that eternity with God is spent 24/7 praising Him for all He has done for us... basically being a slave... or doing what the angles did before one of them thought he deserved the praise (which proves angels have free will despite what some Christians seem to think) and a third of all the angles thought that was a right good idea, so God punished them and tosses them from Heaven. Then God decides to make people, so He'd have others who'd "choose" to love Him... of course for the first 4,000 years of this time with people He'll be a racist dick and have a "chosen" people.... then He'll open it to all people if they accept His Son and His sacrifice... As a reward for those who follow Him and His command to accept Jesus, eternity, thanking Him for sending Christ to save us from the Hell He created to punish those who don't accept Jesus... Meanwhile, Hell, is eternal separation from God, which is likened to a fire pit... which most Christians take as a literal place of torment (some have Satan/the Devil in charge, though it was created to be a punishment for him, not for him to rule over... what sort of punishment is being given your own kingdom?) and others take it to be the more interpretative idea of what is like to have no God around at all...

So yeah, eternity as a slave praising God for saving me from the hell He created to punish those angels who dared not praise Him and focus on one of them, or eternal separation from said God... I think I'll chose that eternal separation. Better to be free and tormented, than a slave without will.

And wow... Shiny came out... haven't seen them for awhile... now we just need whomever it was with that Mr T avatar... and of course Bob...

Anyhow, nice to see the debate go, which I figured this would do... then again I took the video to be more about discrimination against Atheist by the US and the world at large more than the subtitle about being good without God, and figured that was where the talk was going to go.

ChaosEngine said:

And "good enough" for what? To get into heaven? Thanks, but no. If it's a choice between fornication and indulgence for my mortal time or having to spend an eternity with god.... sign me up for the sex, drugs and rock'n'roll.

www.parallelthefilm.com Parallel Teaser Trailer Film Movie

THE EXPANSE | Season 2: Trailer #3 | Syfy

radx says...

Babylon's Ashes has hit the shelves last week -- a copy is waiting for me at home, but I dare not touch it. It's the most addictive sci-fi universe out there and the bloody suspense at the end of each book was killing me. It's worse than waiting for The Winds of Winter...

Mekanikal said:

Ooooo I just bought the books and have been waiting for this.

Irish People Taste Test Thanksgiving Food

ChaosEngine says...

Hipster millennials might have to put up with that shit, but I never had anything but amazing turkey in my youth.

To this day, my Xmas in july (Southern Hemisphere winter) dinners are the stuff of legend.

If you dare impugn my countrymans amazing turkey, you will have to come to NZ and I will cook a fantastic meal for you! That'll learn ya...

Engels said:

I can't believe the dry obviously commercial breastmeat slabs they gave them. Yerk. Turkey must really suck in Ireland to have that sad excuse of a lunchmeat be praised.

My Post-Election Thoughts

eric3579 says...

These comments are hardly written as if they are your "opinion".

"Cant take him seriously anyone since I realized he deletes comments that use facts to disprove him or expose his hypocrisy."

and

"Too many cases to list. I was actually a fan of him once, but then, after a few cases, realized he only takes sources that fit his agenda and does never look at the other side of the coin. He ignores other sources and facts completely. And if you dare to bring that up, or even ask why, your comment gets deleted. Politics, science, demographics, history, etc. Hes cherry picking and think people dont check for themselves."

I would be totally interested (and why I'd like you to bother) to know if he is being deceitful as ive never heard this about him. If you are going to make accusations like these you should probably show us what you know (evidence). Don't you think?

coolhund said:

I didnt write that comment to prove it to anyone. I just said my opinion. Some people wont even agree when they see the facts, since they are just like him, so why bother.

My Post-Election Thoughts

coolhund says...

Too many cases to list. I was actually a fan of him once, but then, after a few cases, realized he only takes sources that fit his agenda and does never look at the other side of the coin. He ignores other sources and facts completely. And if you dare to bring that up, or even ask why, your comment gets deleted. Politics, science, demographics, history, etc. Hes cherry picking and think people dont check for themselves.

Jinx said:

Care to elaborate?

SNL - The Librarian

tomspeed (Member Profile)

siftbot says...

Congratulations! Your video, I dare you not to find this mind-blowing!, 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 1 Badge!



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon