I hate disagreeing with you, but I come at things differently. When I find an individual or new outlet is willing to wilfully obstruct and manipulate the truth, I stop trusting them and rarely waste my time with listening to it anymore. In the rare instance they have a story that seems important that isn't sourced anywhere else, or something otherwise unique I'll sometimes look, but always fact checking what is said. The amount of time that can be wasted on fact checking is why I largely dismiss strongly biased sources.

Fox and MSNBC are good examples, but RT puts them to shame.

Chris Hedges I was only familiar with in name, and not reputation. The fact he was speaking on RT was enough for me to dismiss him out of hand. The fact you seemed to think he was a lone credible individual got me to look further.

On looking further I'd encourage you to read Hedges own work form Nov 8, 2001:
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/08/world/a-nation-challenged-the-school-defectors-cite-iraqi-training-for-terrorism.html

Despite the fact he's appeared earnest and genuine in the instances you've seen him, and despite him seemingly bravely standing against the American administration and it being an act of character to speak out against the war, the above article seems to reveal Chris Hedges true nature. He was a paid lackey of American propaganda to prop up the lead in to the Iraq war, but at some point afterwards Russia paid better and now he's singing the tune of the current highest bidder.

I wish I could say I'm surprised to find it, but an RT report or opinion piece on why Russia is innocent of something turns out to be being forwarded by somebody clearly willing to be completely two faced when the money is good.

I'll bite. (needless to say, spoilers)

The characters certainly had motivation.

Jyn's motivation, much like Rae in FA, is simple, daddy issues. She isn't so much invested in the rebellion as she is in enacting vengeance for her father. She is stunted emotionally and is not idealistic, but I think she uses that as a vehicle to push other characters along with her. Her last moments with Cassian aren't driven by any great romance, just the solace of two people who don't know if what they did will make a difference, but they succeeded in what they set out to do. I suspect she understood before she left Yavin that she was not going to get out of it alive, which sort of fits with her fairly nihilistic view of the universe.

Cassian was entirely driven by the fight against the Empire. He was willing to do anything, and was completely ruthless at the start, but he does mellow towards the end as Jyn makes a point of saying that he was like a stormtrooper. He is a zealot, a true believer, and is willing to sacrifice everything, even his humanity, for the cause.

Orson, the imperial commander, is a mixture of patriotism and self interest. He's a fervant believer in the imperial ethos of bringing order to the galaxy, but he is also deeply interested in recognition and commensurate rise in rank. He is so motivated that he risks his life directly to try and stop the rebels (not something you typically see bad leader types do outside of superhero movies, that's what henchmen are for) at the end.

The droid is all programming, but his comedy relief is explained by the dialogue that slicing an imp droid can affect it's personality. He is the one of the few light hearted notes (and consequently gives us a pretty poignant note when he says goodbye and get's shut down) in what is a fairly depressing movie. His bluntly honest statements are perfectly ironic and as such really do deserve the laughs they get.

The monk and the warrior were guardians of a temple but are now displaced. While it's couched in the monks mysticism, I think honestly they were happy to stand up to the big bad guys who wrecked their temple and extract some form of revenge. I think it would please both of them to know that it was worth it in the end.

The imperial defector seems to have little motivation, but he has already taken the dangerous step of defecting and getting the ball rolling for the entire plot etc, he's obviously completely displeased about the empire and willing to risk his life to do something about it.

Saul has been driven mad by the fight. The rebel leadership all seem to fit well within their established roles in the canon, as do Tarkin and Vader. Random rebel and imp personal are placeholders and who really gives a fuck what their motivations are? X D

/shrug As far as character development goes, it's certainly not a work for the ages, but to say these characters are going to get a thing because they need to get a thing seems to be nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking.

Oh yeah, and in regards to AT AT's, it's a strategic imperial world and heavily garrisoned. Likely a staging point for excursions around the galaxy as well. It has major shielding, AA and fighter complements, Star Destroyers standing guard etc. Sure, fan service is a thing (although the homages in R1 are far less clunky than FA, including things like the Hammerhead, references to the cartoons etc), but as an imp commander, I would certainly release AT AT and AT ST vehicles against an attacking force of unknown size, particularly when you see a whole bunch of landing pads explode simultaneously. Are their 10 commandos or 1,000? 10,000? Yeah, go lowball and wait for them to walk out in the open right? \= |

It's not like the AT AT's were stomping all over the archive looking for a guy hiding behind valuable Imp data infrastructure, they are roaming the outer regions and are fairly proof against ground troops. Makes sense to me.

Dunno, I think the RLM reviews are generally entertaining and thoughtful, but in this case whoever writes Plinkett has let his acerbic dislike of "new" Star Wars cloud his objectiveness imo. It was an enjoyable flick and certainly one I intend to own. I don't think it's anywhere near the best sci fi (although I kinda like it on par with Empire) movie out there, but it's far better than RLM gives it credit for, imo.

He's a traitor because he's given away state secrets to Russia and China in exchange for asylum and celebrity. He's a coward because he doesn't want to adhere to civil disobedience; I don't remember MLK or Ghandi fleeing to Russia. He's a narcissist because he could have easily revealed the misconduct of the NSA to the public anonymously instead of showboating like the second coming.

Fuck him, and I hope he suffers the fate of other Russian defectors:
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113757/snowden-case-unhappy-history-american-defectors-moscow
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/02/us-usa-security-snowden-russia-idUSBRE97114O20130802

Former ambassador Craig Murray commented on the threat of a raid at the embassy:

Not even the Chinese government tried to enter the US Embassy to arrest the Chinese dissident Chen Guangchen. Even during the decades of the Cold War, defectors or dissidents were never seized from each other’s embassies. Murder in Samarkand relates in detail my attempts in the British Embassy to help Uzbek dissidents. This terrible breach of international law will result in British Embassies being subject to raids and harassment worldwide.

The government’s calculation is that, unlike Ecuador, Britain is a strong enough power to deter such intrusions. This is yet another symptom of the “might is right” principle in international relations, in the era of the neo-conservative abandonment of the idea of the rule of international law.

The British Government bases its argument on domestic British legislation. But the domestic legislation of a country cannot counter its obligations in international law, unless it chooses to withdraw from them. If the government does not wish to follow the obligations imposed on it by the Vienna Convention, it has the right to resile from it – which would leave British diplomats with no protection worldwide.

I'm not sure if you get what he meant yet. He put forward a suggestion that iran had them killed intentionally for some unknown reason - they found themselves surplus to requirements, but found it convenient to put a western assassination spin on it. You seemed to initially think that he was claiming they were killing their much needed scientists just to harm the west's reputation.

So in his case, they weren't needed anymore. But in your case, it looked like you thought they were needed. This really has gone further than it needed. I just wanted to make sure you hadn't misunderstood him.

P.S. I know you're always vehement, but i think you're inappropriately vehement in this case. Look at it from my point of view, i'll try to parallel the situation as i see it;

You ask someone what time it is. He says 6 oclock. You think he said 7 oclock and go "It's clearly not 7 oclock cos it's broad daylight outside." I tell you that i think he actually said 6 oclock, at which point you turn to me and say "Umm well it's CLEARLY not 6 oclock either is it, einstein?"

Know what i mean? I didn't agree with his view or suggest a view at all, i just thought you misunderstood him, so a 3 point list with sarcasm on why it can't possibly be what i said either is inappropriate vehemence - it matters not to me what the answer is, merely that you understood the answer he gave you

I'm pretty hopeful this explains the situation clearly, because you're still trying to explain to me why he (and therefore myself by association) is wrong - i never expressed an opinion

In reply to this comment by GenjiKilpatrick:
You're pointing out that he didn't mean Iran assassinated its own scientist?

It doesn't matter the reason, it would still be dumb to murder the people that are leading their research.

If they were defectors, they could just hold them in prison indefinitely like they do journalist or spys or anyone else.

Anyway you slice it, the premise is lacking.

p.s. - I'm always vehement. It just comes up more on the sift.

In reply to this comment by dannym3141:
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/GenjiKilpatrick" title="member since March 14th, 2009" class="profilelink">GenjiKilpatrick

It seems to me you made a mistake in your understanding of his post, and now you're adhering to it vehemently There's no point reacting at me, i'm just pointing out he didn't mean that.

You're pointing out that he didn't mean Iran assassinated its own scientist?

It doesn't matter the reason, it would still be dumb to murder the people that are leading their research.

If they were defectors, they could just hold them in prison indefinitely like they do journalist or spys or anyone else.

Anyway you slice it, the premise is lacking.

p.s. - I'm always vehement. It just comes up more on the sift.

In reply to this comment by dannym3141:
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/GenjiKilpatrick" title="member since March 14th, 2009" class="profilelink">GenjiKilpatrick

It seems to me you made a mistake in your understanding of his post, and now you're adhering to it vehemently There's no point reacting at me, i'm just pointing out he didn't mean that.

@dannym3141

1.) They're nothing that suggests those scientists were defectors.

2.) What could they tell the US about Iran's Nuclear program that they didn't already know. ie Spy Drone, CIA said they can't build a weapon yet

3.) Iran has a pretty decent Intelligence Agency that could probably reason that CONCRETE EVIDENCE - not assumptions - is important when you're attempting to frame someone.

"See, one our guys is dead. Most have been Israel, no? " *Cool guy face*

>> ^quantumushroom:

Another defector:
Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming

If man-made global warming is really happening, then you have to agree:
1) somewhere exists a group of scientists who know the precise temperature the earth is supposed to be.
2) these scientists can somehow "set" this temperature by taxing and regulating industries.

BONUS: Do you really think there would ever come a day when the alarmists concede they were wrong, especially after establishing a world climatocracy of near-absolute power? Ha.


Second time of saying this to you - who has ever claimed to know the exact right temperature the earth is "meant" to be? It doesn't even make sense as a statement. "Meant" to be how, in what way? You must be quoting something a knowlessman has said.

Second time of saying this to you as well - you have the wrong target. The politicians are manipulating "climate change" into a money-spinner. But that doesn't mean that climate change is wrong, it means the politicians are wrong.

They and the oil barons are manipulating you and you owe it to yourself to go out and independantly educate yourself. The data is there qm, and it is abundantly clear that there is an anomalous spike in temperature which presents itself around mid 1900s. The only thing left to discuss is why it is happening, and david mitchell is suggesting that no rational human being would simply do nothing when there is even the vaguest chance that we are contributing to the anomaly.

Hate the politicians, not the science they use and abuse to manipulate you with. I hope you listen this time, but i know you won't.

1) somewhere exists a group of scientists who know the precise temperature the earth is supposed to be.
---Not the precise temperature--the average temperature.

2) these scientists can somehow "set" this temperature by taxing and regulating industries.
---Don't need to set the temperature--just try to lessen the rate of the obvious temperature rise.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Another defector:
Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming

If man-made global warming is really happening, then you have to agree:
1) somewhere exists a group of scientists who know the precise temperature the earth is supposed to be.
2) these scientists can somehow "set" this temperature by taxing and regulating industries.

BONUS: Do you really think there would ever come a day when the alarmists concede they were wrong, especially after establishing a world climatocracy of near-absolute power? Ha.

TL;DR

Fox News story about 1 scientist disagreeing with the entire community over one sentence.

Goes on to quote Fox News poll (appeal to the masses) that not surprisingly shows that dumb non-scientists think that the fact that scientists don't all agree about something is some kind of proof of something.

I N C O N T R O V E R T I B L E

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php>> ^quantumushroom:

Another defector:
Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming

If man-made global warming is really happening, then you have to agree:
1) somewhere exists a group of scientists who know the precise temperature the earth is supposed to be.
2) these scientists can somehow "set" this temperature by taxing and regulating industries.

Another defector:

Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming



If man-made global warming is really happening, then you have to agree:

1) somewhere exists a group of scientists who know the precise temperature the earth is supposed to be.

2) these scientists can somehow "set" this temperature by taxing and regulating industries.


BONUS: Do you really think there would ever come a day when the alarmists concede they were wrong, especially after establishing a world climatocracy of near-absolute power? Ha.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma#Friend_or_Foe.3F

Friend or Foe? is a game show that aired from 2002 to 2005 on the Game Show Network in the United States. It is an example of the prisoner's dilemma game tested by real people, but in an artificial setting. On the game show, three pairs of people compete. As each pair is eliminated, it plays a game similar to the prisoner's dilemma to determine how the winnings are split. If they both cooperate (Friend), they share the winnings 50–50. If one cooperates and the other defects (Foe), the defector gets all the winnings and the cooperator gets nothing. If both defect, both leave with nothing. Notice that the payoff matrix is slightly different from the standard one given above, as the payouts for the "both defect" and the "cooperate while the opponent defects" cases are identical. This makes the "both defect" case a weak equilibrium, compared with being a strict equilibrium in the standard prisoner's dilemma. If you know your opponent is going to vote Foe, then your choice does not affect your winnings. In a certain sense, Friend or Foe has a payoff model between prisoner's dilemma and the game of Chicken.

The payoff matrix is
Cooperate Defect
Cooperate 1, 1 0, 2
Defect 2, 0 0, 0

This payoff matrix was later used on the British television programmes Shafted and Golden Balls. The latter show has been analyzed by a team of economists. See: Split or Steal? Cooperative Behavior When the Stakes are Large.

It was also used earlier in the UK Channel 4 gameshow Trust Me, hosted by Nick Bateman, in 2000.

Al Jazerra nearly always has a pro-Western spin
Isn't that reaffirming my point in different wording?

2.I claimed You dismiss everything from Al Jazeera as American funded propaganda.

If you think I'm misrepresenting you with that point, surely you can't object if I claim you believe that Al Jazerra nearly always has a pro-Western spin? I don't think my second point is much altered by your rephrasing:

2(v2):You claim Al Jazerra nearly always has a pro-Western spin.

As to point 1, perhaps you want me to reword it as well?

1(v2): You dismiss all claims regarding Syria's current events from the mainstream media and citizen journalists?

You, once again, seem to have reiterated your support of this position with this: Given the circumstances and Assad's short history, I don't buy that he's ordering his army to open fire on civilians. One of the most consistently reported facts from all mainstream media and citizen journalists is Assad's forces killing unarmed peaceful civilians.

Which brings us to number 3,

3(v2): You accept Assad's version of current events within Syria.
You again have reiterated your support of this:
-I don't buy that he's ordering his army to open fire on civilians. This is Assad's story, but EVERYONE outside his regime that anyone has ever spoken to from any media outlet but Assad's own has refuted it.

-There was a story about a month ago or so, where the Syrian army was ambushed in one city and something like 120 army servicemen killed. Did unarmed civilians do that? This is also Assad's story, not verified by anyone outside his regime. The story from refugees and defectors is unanimous as reported by ALL other media, that those 120 soldiers were shot by Assad's secret police for refusing orders to fire upon unarmed protesters.

-The more likely scenario is that foreign agents dressed as Assad's security force are opening fire on civilians. Once again, this explanation isn't being posed by anyone outside Assad's regime. ALL media outlets talking to refugees and defectors are well agreed that the shooters were working on Assad's orders and that foreign agents have NO role in the uprising.

Please, if I've misrepresented what you've said clear things up. I've quoted you extensively and in good context and it is overwhelmingly clear that the story you favor is the one put forward by Assad's regime, in the face of the fact that all other media outlets, Al Jazeera included, and all refugees and defectors unanimously claim otherwise.

>> ^bcglorf: It seems silly, the link is to the page you are reading now!
Here's the quotes for the benefit of others so there's no risk of anyone falling for your foolishness.
1. I claimed You dismiss everything from CNN, BBC and citizen journalism all as pro American fabrications.
You've said the following to support this claim:
Unbiased? So no mainstream news media then? Which covers the CNN and BBC claim.
Of course they're blaming Assad, that's what foreign-funded activists are paid to say. Which covers the citizen journalism side.
2.I claimed You dismiss everything from Al Jazeera as American funded propaganda.
You've said the following to support this claim:
Al Jazeera is state owned by Qatar, the same government sending weapons to Libya's Benghazi rebels (al-Qeada) Seems that Al Jazeera is sinful by association with Qatar, which is supporting the Benghazi rebels like a good American puppet. For those new to this, the Al Qaeda claim is not only taking Gadhafi at his word, it is also stated in the belief that America or it's evil puppet masters support Al Qaeda, making Qatar's support of Al Qaeda proof it's all still part of the conspiracy.
Suffice it to say, you've soundly rejected Al Jazeera as biased against the Syrian public and part of some foreign sourced insurrection there.
3.My last claim was You ACCEPT everything from Bashir Al-Assad's regime's media outlets as truth.
You've said the following to support this claim:
Well to be fair, I'm pretty sure they kicked out all foreigners. Can't really blame them when Foreign Intelligence members are the main instigators of the rebellions.
And the best gem of them all:
The truth is we don't know who is killing the civilians.
All you seem to know is that Assad is the one making sure everyone is silenced and that no information gets out. How convenient you can then throw up your hands and say we just don't know who is killing who.
The truth is survivors and defectors that escape are all telling the same story, Assad's men are killing unarmed civilians and are shooting any soldiers refusing to fire on the unarmed civilians as well.




I didn't dismiss anything. Earlier in the thread, I made a dig at mainstream media in general when ali wanted an "unbiased" source. I've posted links from Reuters, Washington Post, New York Times, CNN, so you're not making any fucking sense.
And as far as "Assad's regime's media outlets", I have no idea what you're talking about.

In wars and armed conflicts you never know all the facts. You shouldn't accept any report from any news source at face value unless you can corroborate it with other sources. Even then you're likely only getting part of the truth. Al Jazerra repeatably makes disclaimers in this video that they don't know the facts.

Given the circumstances and Assad's short history, I don't buy that he's ordering his army to open fire on civilians. Al Jazerra nearly always has a pro-Western spin and given the fact that Qatar is openly supporting NATO in Libya, they are clearly going to be biased when reporting on Syria. There's little credibility to anything they choose to broadcast on the subject.

There was a story about a month ago or so, where the Syrian army was ambushed in one city and something like 120 army servicemen killed. Did unarmed civilians do that? I also remember first hearing about civilians being killed by snipers that were part of Assad's "secret police". So I guess it could be Assad's men, but why would he use covert police AND the military? Doesn't make any sense. The more likely scenario is that foreign agents dressed as Assad's security force are opening fire on civilians. They're probably even doing it behind the backs of the activists they recruited and organized to protest.

But even if it is Assad that's gunning down civilians, it's not our fight. It's an internal conflict. Aiding one side or the other only brings about wider conflict with more fighting and more death.

Are these also Assad's forces shooting indiscriminately from inside this car?

>> ^marbles:

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^marbles:
>> ^bcglorf:
Of course they're blaming Assad, that's what foreign-funded activists are paid to say.
BTW, Al Jazeera is state owned by Qatar
As I guessed, you consider even Al Jazeera to be a right wing funded anti-arab propaganda machine...
You are insane.
For the sane people, it's Al Jazeera interviewing Syrian refugees in Turkey and reporting that Al-Assad's forces are deliberately and systematically killing unarmed protesters. Your insistent denial of this and refusal to acknowledge it is beyond sick, it's actively harmful. It's people like you that are the paid tools and sycophants of the worst murderous dictators in the world today.

Instead of trying to characterize me into something you don't like and attacking me, try attacking my argument.

You dismiss everything from CNN, BBC and citizen journalism all as pro American fabrications. Fine.
You dismiss everything from Al Jazeera as American funded propaganda. Crazy, but if you like tinfoil hats that's your choice.
You ACCEPT everything from Bashir Al-Assad's regime's media outlets as truth...
The above is the characterization you've painted for yourself, and it's infinitely worse than anything I could try and project onto you.

Please provide a citation for any and all of your claims if you wish to be taken seriously.


It seems silly, the link is to the page you are reading now!

Here's the quotes for the benefit of others so there's no risk of anyone falling for your foolishness.

1. I claimed You dismiss everything from CNN, BBC and citizen journalism all as pro American fabrications.
You've said the following to support this claim:
Unbiased? So no mainstream news media then? Which covers the CNN and BBC claim.
Of course they're blaming Assad, that's what foreign-funded activists are paid to say. Which covers the citizen journalism side.

2.I claimed You dismiss everything from Al Jazeera as American funded propaganda.
You've said the following to support this claim:
Al Jazeera is state owned by Qatar, the same government sending weapons to Libya's Benghazi rebels (al-Qeada) Seems that Al Jazeera is sinful by association with Qatar, which is supporting the Benghazi rebels like a good American puppet. For those new to this, the Al Qaeda claim is not only taking Gadhafi at his word, it is also stated in the belief that America or it's evil puppet masters support Al Qaeda, making Qatar's support of Al Qaeda proof it's all still part of the conspiracy.
Suffice it to say, you've soundly rejected Al Jazeera as biased against the Syrian public and part of some foreign sourced insurrection there.

3.My last claim was You ACCEPT everything from Bashir Al-Assad's regime's media outlets as truth.
You've said the following to support this claim:
Well to be fair, I'm pretty sure they kicked out all foreigners. Can't really blame them when Foreign Intelligence members are the main instigators of the rebellions.

And the best gem of them all:
The truth is we don't know who is killing the civilians.

All you seem to know is that Assad is the one making sure everyone is silenced and that no information gets out. How convenient you can then throw up your hands and say we just don't know who is killing who.

The truth is survivors and defectors that escape are all telling the same story, Assad's men are killing unarmed civilians and are shooting any soldiers refusing to fire on the unarmed civilians as well.