Yeah, it's quite obviously some sort of point-defense system rather then a force field, even though that was even how they advertised it. >> ^DerHasisttot:

It's not a forcefield, it's an intercepting round of ammo of some sort.

It's not a forcefield, it's an intercepting round of ammo of some sort.

The government could have intercepted the hijacked planes had they followed standard protocols.

From http://www.911summary.com/:

Director of the U.S. "Star Wars" space defense program in both Republican and Democratic administrations, who was a senior air force colonel who flew 101 combat missions (Col. Robert Bowman) stated that 9/11 was an inside job. He also said:

"If our government had merely [done] nothing, and I say that as an old interceptor pilot—I know the drill, I know what it takes, I know how long it takes, I know what the procedures are, I know what they were, and I know what they’ve changed them to—if our government had merely done nothing, and allowed normal procedures to happen on that morning of 9/11, the Twin Towers would still be standing and thousands of dead Americans would still be alive. [T]hat is treason!" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMYzwf01Z7I)

U.S. Army Air Defense Officer and NORAD Tac Director, decorated with the Purple Heart, the Bronze Star and the Soldiers Medal (Capt. Daniel Davis) stated:

"there is no way that an aircraft . . . would not be intercepted when they deviate from their flight plan, turn off their transponders, or stop communication with Air Traffic Control ... Attempts to obscure facts by calling them a 'conspiracy Theory' does not change the truth. It seems, 'Something is rotten in the State.' "

From www.washingtonsblog.com:

The military put out 3 entirely different stories about what happened on 9/11. Specifically, Norad was forced to give 3 entirely different versions of what happened that day, as each previous version was exposed as false, or as providing evidence that the government could in fact have intercepted the hijacked planes had they followed standard protocols.

The Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission, who led the 9/11 staff’s inquiry, said “I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years…. This is not spin. This is not true.”

Indeed, the falsity of Norad’s explanations were so severe that even the 9/11 Commission considered recommending criminal charges for the making of false statements.

Conan, also not to forget that the tires are still spinning and will alter the cars direction. if you push the back end to the right, even without steering correction the angle of the tires will now be intercepting the left lane.

Saddly I didnt see anything about this asshole getting caught.

If people think that other mail providers don't do this too, then they have blinders on. Do you have any idea how easy it is to intercept email on a normal email server? It doesn't have to be webmail, and it doesn't have to be Google. Microsoft (or whoever) can claim that because they don't show ads based on the context of your email it means they're not "reading it" all they want but I'm sorry, it's not true.

If you don't want people reading your email, you should be encrypting it. Period. It's foolish to think anything you do online is in any way "private".

When did I argue for the illusion of safety? I was just trying to answer honestly... Of course I would FEEL better if I didn't know someone was carrying a gun because I would have no obvious reason to fear them.

Did I say that was better then carrying it openly?

What I was arguing is that I believe I'm safer in a system where no civilians are allowed to carry guns because if I did see someone with a gun, I would immediately know they have bad intentions because they are breaking the law just to be carrying it. Thus I could take action immediately instead of having to figure out their intentions.

I find it kind of sad that you think the US 'beats' Canada on some rights because people are allowed to walk around with unloaded guns. Ya that's a great right you have there, it's really working out well for you guys.

Sorry I think I'll give up that particular right in exchange for no interception of communications without warrant, no secret military trials where me or my lawyer can't see the evidence, or no indefinite detention of foreigners etc... oh, and free healthcare.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^PalmliX:
Well technically I would feel safer because I wouldn't know they were carrying it. So I'd have no immediately obvious reason to fear them. Does that make it better? I suppose it depends on a lot of things.
In Canada there are permits to carry a weapon but it's basically to impossible to obtain one. Essentially the only time a civilian is allowed to OPENLY carry (never concealed) a weapon is in extreme wilderness areas where their life could be threatened by not having one.
So basically that leaves us with a situation where the only people who are allowed to carry guns in Canada are police officers. Personally I appreciate this approach more then the American one because if I saw a civilian carrying a gun I would immediately know it was illegal and would be able to defend myself properly.

In paragraph 1 you're arguing for an illusion of safety rather than actual safety. You might feel safer being unaware of how many guns are being carried around you, but you actually are safer if you're aware of them, because then you can respond accordingly.
Re: paragraphs 2-3...
I guess it's nice to know that the US still beats Canada on some rights, because we're not doing so well on most of them.

[redacted]

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Your video, Unbelieveable Interception!, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 1 Badge!

I disagree. I'm sure one of the gazillion freaked out people called police about car going wrong way on I-95.

It makes you wonder why no f-ing state troopers ever intercepted this lady. That means for about 10 miles or more there are no police cruisers in that lane?? And that the dispatch never sent anyone to deal with this.



>> ^Stingray:

I guess hindsight is 20/20, but it probably would have been more useful for the guy to use his camera phone to dial 911 rather than video the escapade.

Those troublesome Jews

Charles Krauthammer

Friday, June 4, 2010

The world is outraged at Israel's blockade of Gaza. Turkey denounces its illegality, inhumanity, barbarity, etc. The usual U.N. suspects, Third World and European, join in. The Obama administration dithers.
This Story

But as Leslie Gelb, former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, writes, the blockade is not just perfectly rational, it is perfectly legal. Gaza under Hamas is a self-declared enemy of Israel -- a declaration backed up by more than 4,000 rockets fired at Israeli civilian territory. Yet having pledged itself to unceasing belligerency, Hamas claims victimhood when Israel imposes a blockade to prevent Hamas from arming itself with still more rockets.

In World War II, with full international legality, the United States blockaded Germany and Japan. And during the October 1962 missile crisis, we blockaded ("quarantined") Cuba. Arms-bearing Russian ships headed to Cuba turned back because the Soviets knew that the U.S. Navy would either board them or sink them. Yet Israel is accused of international criminality for doing precisely what John Kennedy did: impose a naval blockade to prevent a hostile state from acquiring lethal weaponry.

Oh, but weren't the Gaza-bound ships on a mission of humanitarian relief? No. Otherwise they would have accepted Israel's offer to bring their supplies to an Israeli port, be inspected for military materiel and have the rest trucked by Israel into Gaza -- as every week 10,000 tons of food, medicine and other humanitarian supplies are sent by Israel to Gaza.

Why was the offer refused? Because, as organizer Greta Berlin admitted, the flotilla was not about humanitarian relief but about breaking the blockade, i.e., ending Israel's inspection regime, which would mean unlimited shipping into Gaza and thus the unlimited arming of Hamas.
ad_icon

Israel has already twice intercepted ships laden with Iranian arms destined for Hezbollah and Gaza. What country would allow that?

But even more important, why did Israel even have to resort to blockade? Because, blockade is Israel's fallback as the world systematically de-legitimizes its traditional ways of defending itself -- forward and active defense.

(1) Forward defense: As a small, densely populated country surrounded by hostile states, Israel had, for its first half-century, adopted forward defense -- fighting wars on enemy territory (such as the Sinai and Golan Heights) rather than its own.

Where possible (Sinai, for example) Israel has traded territory for peace. But where peace offers were refused, Israel retained the territory as a protective buffer zone. Thus Israel retained a small strip of southern Lebanon to protect the villages of northern Israel. And it took many losses in Gaza, rather than expose Israeli border towns to Palestinian terror attacks. It is for the same reason America wages a grinding war in Afghanistan: You fight them there, so you don't have to fight them here.

But under overwhelming outside pressure, Israel gave it up. The Israelis were told the occupations were not just illegal but at the root of the anti-Israel insurgencies -- and therefore withdrawal, by removing the cause, would bring peace.

Land for peace. Remember? Well, during the past decade, Israel gave the land -- evacuating South Lebanon in 2000 and Gaza in 2005. What did it get? An intensification of belligerency, heavy militarization of the enemy side, multiple kidnappings, cross-border attacks and, from Gaza, years of unrelenting rocket attack.

(2) Active defense: Israel then had to switch to active defense -- military action to disrupt, dismantle and defeat (to borrow President Obama's description of our campaign against the Taliban and al-Qaeda) the newly armed terrorist mini-states established in southern Lebanon and Gaza after Israel withdrew.

The result? The Lebanon war of 2006 and Gaza operation of 2008-09. They were met with yet another avalanche of opprobrium and calumny by the same international community that had demanded the land-for-peace Israeli withdrawals in the first place. Worse, the U.N. Goldstone report, which essentially criminalized Israel's defensive operation in Gaza while whitewashing the casus belli -- the preceding and unprovoked Hamas rocket war -- effectively de-legitimized any active Israeli defense against its self-declared terror enemies.

(3) Passive defense: Without forward or active defense, Israel is left with but the most passive and benign of all defenses -- a blockade to simply prevent enemy rearmament. Yet, as we speak, this too is headed for international de-legitimation. Even the United States is now moving toward having it abolished.

But, if none of these is permissible, what's left?

Ah, but that's the point. It's the point understood by the blockade-busting flotilla of useful idiots and terror sympathizers, by the Turkish front organization that funded it, by the automatic anti-Israel Third World chorus at the United Nations, and by the supine Europeans who've had quite enough of the Jewish problem.

What's left? Nothing. The whole point of this relentless international campaign is to deprive Israel of any legitimate form of self-defense. Why, just last week, the Obama administration joined the jackals, and reversed four decades of U.S. practice, by signing onto a consensus document that singles out Israel's possession of nuclear weapons -- thus de-legitimizing Israel's very last line of defense: deterrence.

The world is tired of these troublesome Jews, 6 million -- that number again -- hard by the Mediterranean, refusing every invitation to national suicide. For which they are relentlessly demonized, ghettoized and constrained from defending themselves, even as the more committed anti-Zionists -- Iranian in particular -- openly prepare a more final solution.

Like I mentioned earlier, they could have requested the UNIFIL task force to intercept the flotilla if they had any reasonable suspicion of weapons aboard.

Then again, Turkish officials say each and every person aboard was checked before they set sail, just like the vessels themselves. And now even the UN security council legitimized the convoy in their presidential statement:

The council urges Israel to permit full consular access, to allow the countries concerned to retrieve their deceased and wounded immediately, and to ensure the delivery of humanitarian assistance from the convoy to its destination.

>> ^Drachen_Jager:

...the United States NEEDS this kind of trickery ...

This is not a United States weapon, it's Russian.



^I love this propaganda from Russia Today calling it a "missile defense system". I don't see it intercepting any missiles in the demonstration.
I'm comforted though that they will only sell this to reliable end-users.