Tags for this video have been changed from 'honey badger, hunter, scavenger, cobra, bee, animals, jackal, larva, dont care' to 'honey badger, hunter, scavenger, cobra, puff adder, animals, jackal, larva, dont care' - edited by jonny

Tags for this video have been changed from 'hunter, scavenger, cobra, snake, bee, animals, jackal, larva, ew, dont care' to 'honey badger, hunter, scavenger, cobra, bee, animals, jackal, larva, dont care' - edited by jonny

Tags for this video have been changed from 'hunter, scavenger, cobra, snake, bee, animals, jackal, larva, ew' to 'hunter, scavenger, cobra, snake, bee, animals, jackal, larva, ew, dont care' - edited by ponceleon

"When friends are here, there is fine wine, but if the jackal comes, what greets it is the hunting rifle."

I don't care what the context is, that is an AWESOME line.

Who orchestrated it? Bin Laden. Ok. CIA created him. This is a fact, right? So some elements within the U.S. machine used him as a tool. Patsy Bin Laden? Possibility.


" But you jackals have to understand"

Loaded language-not unlike the news media we have been groomed not only to parrot, but to trust as a source of information.
Lippman said of journalism's duty in a republic that she should "act as a mediator or translator between the public and policy making elites"

Dewey (had a hand as well in shaping what we now know as "public education in the U.S.), on the other hand, had another opinion-He believed "the public was not only capable of understanding the issues created or responded to by the elite, it was in the public forum that decisions should be made after discussion and debate."

Using his criteria for a sound journalistic ethic as watchdogs on government, businesses etc., enabling people to make informed decisions, would you not agree that the public has been robbed in the last 9 years?

I haven't even watched this video yet but knowing how the comments tend to go, let me preemptively say that wondering about and investigating another element at play during the events of 9/11 DOES NOT equal "Bush was behind it" or "the government knew all about it" or what-have-you.

Okay? They are, in fact, not the same thing at all.

It's perfectly acceptable to apply critical thinking at all times and for all occasions. Period. But you jackals have to understand that the people applying said critical thinking are not necessarily all anti-gub'ment, anti-Bush, anti-Americans. Some can simply smell bullshit clearer than others.

Okay?

Fine. Proceed.

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.

>> ^Bruti79:

All I could think of was:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrXfh4hENKs#t=0m30s


LoL, all I could think about was the Jackal "Hold up that pack of cigarettes". Seriously, well done to the people built that for making the world just a little bit more like a hellish video game. In return I promise that if I'm ever near the scene of a suicide bombing or something, I'll be the first one in there calling "Terrorists win!"

wow that was excellent.

re: lack of empathy - part of it is the emotional numbing we have to adopt just to make it thru the day. We're bound and gagged (can't fight back, can't talk back) and thrown into a pit of rabid hyenas, jackals and wolverines (supervisors and managers) every day for 8 hours.

By the end of the day the only person i can empathize with is the guy who snaps and shoots up the place.

I'm one of the few who actually beat Bionic Commando on the NES. You know, the game that was intensely impossible to get through on certain levels? The one with no save feature? The one that took nearly six hours to play through? Yeah, that one.

But at that time, games like The Legend of Zelda, Mike Tyson's Punch Out, and Contra, were the fun games. Before that time, for computer games, was ones like Empire, Wing Commander, Space Quest, and even Zork. And before those games: Pong. While the graphics of games have improved tremdously, the game play has remained a constant.

Castlevania 2, Rescue the Embassy, Russian Attack, Jackal, JAWS, and others, were enjoyable games for their day. COD, WoW, EQ, and others, that are popular now, will soon be retired in favoror of newer, more graphic intensive games in 5-10 years.

Well the problem I have with this is the guy might have PCA, and therefore not be able to realise how to correctly put on such a garment.

It would be better if he actually looked like he was in on the joke, that he knew that was doing something wrong, just couldn't quite figure out what.

But it seems that the only thing stopping him is the limitations of the fabric, and what's more his audience is a baying crowd of jackals, and the thought of the humiliation the man would be feeling is unbearable.

It's not comedy, its just bullying, and as a fully paid up member of south park fans, I didn't think I would ever say that.

>> ^Jackal:
I think the comment of "Die in a fire, Bitch" is pretty ironic, especially considering the follow-up of defending the comment in the name of humor.

I would also like to point out, I am not a pundit. While I can understand the irony of joking about her dying in a fire, the reality is her words carry more weight.

Do you think the ignorant people shown in the West Virginia video come to their conclusions entirely on their own? Maybe Fox News, and it's speakers, have had some part to play in the delivery of such ignorance with comments such as Osama-er-Obama. I would suggest that it's for those reasons "Die in a fire, bitch" is perhaps slightly more tolerable as a joke.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

You sir, know your Halo.

In reply to this comment by Shepppard:
/sigh, do i seriously SERIOUSLY have to prove my nerdliness?

Alright, Master Chief A.K.A. John, taken as a child, raised for military, in his teens he and the other spartans were injected with controversial enhancements, those who made it would have incredible strength, stamina, bones that would nearly never break, and were made into super soldiers in the first place.

later on in I believe their twenties, they came out with the Mjonlir mark I.
The suit at the time did not have shields, only technology to enhance human performance (Running, jumping, lifting) which when tested on a regular human was so powerful and fast that just snapping a salute shattered his arm.

Later on, the suits were upgraded with shields once jackal shield technology was captured on the battlefield all the while improving the Mjonlirs capabilities, and by the time halo 2 rolled around, they were up to I believe Mjonlir Mark V.

Now, take all that into consideration, and realise the only think he ever dual weilds are pistols, alien weapons, and sub machine guns. Now, correct me if i'm wrong, but half the SMG's we can use now (Usi, Skorpion, ect) are small enough that they COULD actually be dual weilded and used...well, in some cases effectively.

So keeping that in mind, and the fact that halo takes place in the year 2517 onward, i'm sure there would have been vast advances in the sub-machine gun technology, making them lighter and more user friendly.

Now, i'm done. and yes, I am potentially the biggest nerd on the planet.

/sigh, do i seriously SERIOUSLY have to prove my nerdliness?

Alright, Master Chief A.K.A. John, taken as a child, raised for military, in his teens he and the other spartans were injected with controversial enhancements, those who made it would have incredible strength, stamina, bones that would nearly never break, and were made into super soldiers in the first place.

later on in I believe their twenties, they came out with the Mjonlir mark I.
The suit at the time did not have shields, only technology to enhance human performance (Running, jumping, lifting) which when tested on a regular human was so powerful and fast that just snapping a salute shattered his arm.

Later on, the suits were upgraded with shields once jackal shield technology was captured on the battlefield all the while improving the Mjonlirs capabilities, and by the time halo 2 rolled around, they were up to I believe Mjonlir Mark V.

Now, take all that into consideration, and realise the only think he ever dual weilds are pistols, alien weapons, and sub machine guns. Now, correct me if i'm wrong, but half the SMG's we can use now (Usi, Skorpion, ect) are small enough that they COULD actually be dual weilded and used...well, in some cases effectively.

So keeping that in mind, and the fact that halo takes place in the year 2517 onward, i'm sure there would have been vast advances in the sub-machine gun technology, making them lighter and more user friendly.

Now, i'm done. and yes, I am potentially the biggest nerd on the planet.

Jackals - impotent, rageful and naive, condemned by their nature to be unable to effect their own salvation, thus do they run about attempting to recruit one outside their ranks to give vent to their rage but the weapon of their choosing is not a weapon so much as a tool primarily used for seperation or division yet they see it as a weapon of ultimate power, if only wielded by the "right" creatue
Arabs - superior firepower gives them a false sense of innate superiority thus do they ignore the Jackals and mock by continuing to rape their land and leave them nothing to eat.

The irony is that the Arabs are furthering their own doom by marching to continual war - running in circles looking to "secure" land for themselves while laughing about the Jackals impotence. Both groups forever circle each other but only the Jackals realize the truth of the situation. Since they are unable to affect the situation directly they too are doomed to circle the effects of war. You see, the option of war is always available to the Jackals but because of their nature ( being bound by instinct to never kill for themselves) they will never exercise it. The Arabs know this and exploit it yet the Jackals know the Arabs, by their nature (being bound to paranoid wanderings ever looking to "secure" more) will forevermore leave a trail of death should they come upon a "worthy" opponant. The Arabs can feed the Jackals indirectly and the Jackals give the Arabs and excuse for their murderous trek. Neither group wants the other to stop, really, but neither group realizes they are in the same position in that way.

The European is merely a storyteller. Kafka usually had a narrator who had little to no importance directly in the story.