Then, you (We) are suggesting legitimizing their claim to be autonomous states by accepting that classification to be able to declare war against them. Horrible idea, and against international law.

I call bullshit. That's like saying if an American commits a crime outside of America, or inside it against a foreigner, America just declared war on that country. Absolute bullshit. if Pakistan's government didn't direct the attack, they aren't declaring war. You don't hold a nation accountable for the actions of a few criminals within their borders unless they are backed by that nation. Because they can't stop the monster(s) we made (neither can we) absolutely in no way means they yield their sovereignty...that's asinine. EDIT: your theory would mean the Bundies would be their own country now, sovereign and at war with America, because we were unable to stop them from taking over public land (repeatedly), and didn't prosecute any of them.

Bullshit again. Because they aren't a state, they shouldn't be treated as one, no matter what bullshit they claim. Duh. Maybe they claim to be one, but they don't run away from that claim, it just isn't given credence by accepting it. They mostly are illegal aliens in the countries they now live in.

Afghanistan had good reason to refuse Bush....and you might recall were fighting the Taliban and Al-Qaida already for control of their own country.

Afghanistan was not hosting the terrorists, they 'invaded' or morphed out of non government controlled militias (Al-Qaida started as a retirement unit for the 'freedom fighters' we trained to fight Russia) . The Afghan government has excellent reasons to never invite a super power to cross their borders ever again.....and empires have good reason to avoid doing so. Afghanistan did not start or declare war with us, some invaders and criminals squatting in caves there did.

Exactly, the terrorist organizations aren't the fault or beneficiary of the government's in the countries where they hide or invade, they are the fault of those that support them, oddly missing from the travel ban and our assassination plans. See how that might piss off Afghansans and Pakistani?

When asked about the innocent 8 year old girl shot through the neck, you replied 'they advocate killing children, killing them (and their children) lowers the overall body count' but really it increases it, because every child that's collateral damage creates 100+ more violent enemies bent on revenge.

Again, context, bombing a nation we are at war with is 100% a different thing from targeted assassination by multiple drone strike or assassination squad on a group. I see that's how you insist on seeing things, but it's not reality. You can't declare war on a group, it's a total intentional misapplication of the term.

If we only targeted known (not suspected) fighters and killers and didn't bomb weddings to get one guy, ok, but we attack large groups and then attack the first responders coming to their aid, then claim they are all terrorists because one of them might be one....creating more terrorists by murdering innocents and then washing our hands smugly. Can you admit that?


By your standard for designating proper targets, we should have bombed the royal family in Saudi Arabia long long ago, but that's not on the table because.....oil and cash.

If that were the ONLY reason they joined those groups, maybe, but it's not.
keep in mind, the refugees are fleeing the jihadists, they are not the jihadists (although we can push them in that direction and create more). The ones attacking those countries are mostly fighters that snuck in with the masses, not refugees that got mad and attacked. That is a big problem with having no way to stem the tide of humanity into your country, and is the only logical argument I've heard for the wall.

Really, you expect people to be reasonable just because they're Muslim? Why do you think they're so much better than the rest of us?

Really, then why were they right wing before they were attacked? They are getting more right wing for multiple reasons including confusing the terrorist attackers with the refugees, but the right didn't spring into existence in response to refugees or terrorists.

Was not Aleppo held by "moderate" rebels, not Daesh or other religious fanatics? I suppose that would mean they ARE mostly wiped out now, but only recently.

Foreign fighters on your side doesn't make your fight illegitimate for either side. Having ONLY foreign fighters on either side would mean it's no longer a civil war but is now an invasion. Thanks to targeting the local citizens first (fighters or not), that may be where we are now.

For all I know, the Syrian secessionists (if that's what the original local revolutionists should be called) are all gone and the fighters of today are nearly all foreign invaders

Given that both the government and ISIS armies both specifically targeted them first they likely are all gone. If you go back to Al Jazeera's coverage of the early Russian offensives, their airstrikes and attacks were ignoring the ISIS held territory and only hitting the moderate/legitimate rebels. Similarly, pretty much all reports of the ISIS foreign fighters coming in were that they never pretended to support the rebels, but merely replaced them demanding obedience or death.

@radx

The foreign element is fighting both sides of the war. The strongest fighting force on the 'rebel' side is ISIS and the strongest fighting force overall is the Russians fighting for Assad. If foreign support makes the rebels illegitimate doesn't it do the same for Assad?

I would be interested to know if there have been any studies (not sure how they would go about it) to see how many fighters in Syria are locals and how many are foreign mercenaries (not including the Russian army). I don't deny that you may be 100% correct, but I would like to see some figures to confirm, and to see just how bad this issue has gotten. For all I know, the Syrian secessionists (if that's what the original local revolutionists should be called) are all gone and the fighters of today are nearly all foreign invaders, I just don't know, I've never seen data about that.

Absolutely. We've had our share of - primarily Austrian and French - mercenaries as part of our internal wars. These were groups who enlisted for one of the fighting parties.

In Syria, however, you've had thousands of mercenaries who were not fighting for the government or the "rebels", but for their own. And we're not just talking about ISIS carving out pieces of Syria for their own caliphate, but also other jihadists who merely want to turn Syria into another failed state, like Libya.

To describe this as a civil war distorts the nature of this conflict, it makes it sound as if it were a struggle for control between two groups of Syrians. It may have been at some point years ago, but it hasn't been for a long time.

Mali is looking awfully similar by now, too. Lots of foreign fighters in nation states that were only ever stable on paper anyway -- a recipe for disaster.

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.

We don't know what the "molester in chief"will do.

But we know that the current/past presidents have done very well for the top.

For the last 8 years our POTUS of socially minded champion , fighter of the people has done little to help Joe and Jane Lunchbucket.

One of my best friends was an EMT, a fire fighter, and now a mental health worker... I'm just like, why dude? Why did you burn out the existence of all things good in life with your insane career path? No wonder we get black out drunk and high every time we hang out. and I get to hear the tales. I swear, I have actually feinted listening to some of his stories. The insane call to become a real life superhero is actually a void that sucks you in and never lets go. Not that living with the void is that bad if you conquer the demons spawned forth from it.

I feel more sad for the real MMA fighter. Who wants their first fight to be against an untrained opponent that you end up hurting so badly they need medical attention? You could even tell she was upset over it, after she realized how badly the idiot lady was hurt.

You can start at the entry level stuff, for like $45. That gets you the game and a starter ship. You can start off with a $45 ship, upgrade it to a bigger ship progressively paying the difference. Start at $45, jump to a $90 ship then a $130 ship to a $170 ship and so on.

Most people do that for the lifetime insurance. (LTI). This way they carry the LTI to a better ship. One of the latest snub fighters, the 85x comes with an LTI at $50. SO i bought that and will put it towards a $140 ship i want, so ill only have to pay $90 for it plus i have a 10% off coupon. That ship only has a 6 month insurance, so upgrading the 85x to the other ship it will gain the LTI.

But yes, there are people out there who have practically every ship that has been on sale so far.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OtstEypV18

This video has been flagged as having an embed that is Region Blocked to not function in certain geographical locations - declared blocked by Zawash.

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by Zawash. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

*blocked , *dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Street-Fighter-2-scene-from-Jackie-Chans-City-Hunter

Your video, Happy Beagle Sounds Like a Tie Fighter, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.