DUDE IT IS 92 FUCKING DEGREES OUT. it is so god damn hot! fuck shit fuck shit.

Boooooooo hot sunny weather, I like cool sunny weather. My ideal time is october in the sun, air is colder but warmed by the sun, it is a nice mix.

I am having phone issues. I litter ally am hacking my phone like a hacker to try and fix the software, if not.. then new phone time- which I can not afford. so fuck.

Mine are like this in both eyes:
http://www.barransclass.com/phys1090/circus/Gillespie_B/EyeFloaters2.jpg

I got them all 15 years ago when an insanely powerful flash discharged right in front of my eyes. (INSTANT pain ON) Over the next few days my eyes filled with them.

When I look at highly collimated light (like a powerful view in a microscope or telescope) I can see ALLLLL of them swimming in 3D.

A bright sunny day blue sky is like looking through egg whites.

You are empirically incorrect. You are proposing an impossible scenario, that somehow 1.5bn world wide are perfectly aligned, have some say over the actions of all the other people simultaneously and ergo bear some responsibility for any actions committed under the broad umbrella of "Islam"...

http://enews.fergananews.com/articles/2698

To speak of “Islam” as a homogenous phenomenon is analogous to speaking of “Christianity” as a single whole that includes Catholics and Orthodox, Protestants and Copts, and countless other sects, including such marginal ones as the Mormons, the Scientologists, and Jehovah’s Witnesses. Of course, we never do so, because we intuitively recognize that the label loses all meaning when forced on to such a diverse group. We seldom have such qualms, however, when it comes to Islam, even though the label “Islam” covers just as wide a spectrum of geographic, cultural, and sectarian diversity as the label “Christianity.” If anything, it is even more internally diverse than Christianity, which crystallized around an institutionalized Church from the very beginning. In Islam, such an institution never developed. There is no religious hierarchy and no single individual qualified to pass final judgment on questions of belief or practice. Within thirty years of the death of the Prophet, the Muslim community had split on matters of doctrine. Since then, there have been multiple and simultaneous sources of authority among Muslims. Authority is located not in church councils and such, but in individuals who derive their legitimacy from their learning, piety, lineage, and reputation among peers. This gives Islam a slightly anarchic quality: authoritative opinions (fatwa) of one expert or one group can be countered with equally authoritative opinions, derived from the same sources, of another group, or one set of practices devotional practices held dear by one group can be denounced as impermissible by another. In more extreme cases, such conflict of opinion can turn into a “war of fatwas,” fought out, in the modern age, in the press or in cyberspace. (If Islam were held in a more positive light in the West today, this diversity would be described as a “free market of ideas”!) To speak of Islam as a homogeneous entity ignores this fundamental dynamic of its tradition.

This pluralism extends to the most basic level of belief. The major sectarian divide in Islam, between Sunnis and Shi‘is, goes back to the very origins of Islam. The two doctrines evolved in parallel, and therefore it is incorrect to see in them an orthodox/heterodox divide. All Muslims share a number of key reference points (the oneness of God, loyalty to the Prophet and his progeny, the need to prepare for the Hereafter, to take a few examples), but they have been played upon in different ways by different sects and movements. Nor do the two sects exhaust the diversity, for they both have many branches and various theological and legal schools within them, while many modern ideological groups straddle the divide between the two sects.

Or
http://wasalaam.wordpress.com/2007/02/06/the-myth-of-homogeny-in-islam/

I could provide link after link, discuss Sunni vs Shia, or any one of the innumerable other sects (70+ iirc), discuss Islams war with itself throughout history etc, all demonstrating that you are wrong.

You are portraying (demonising actually) Islam in the same way the two morons in the video are, by making all Muslims responsible for any action committed by a Muslim. You talk about enlightenment, but your post reeks of bigotry, hardly the hallmark of an enlightened person, right?

Incidentally, the "popular" view of Islam is of a homogenous group of people, us vs them, a group to be afraid of, or to attack. The average person on the street (ie. plumb ignorant, much like yourself) would not be aware of just how complex it is, far more so than Christianity. It's exactly why the talking heads who got schooled kept trying to make out that Islam was homogenous, and were proved wrong...

But give it your best shot trying to shoot down the considered opinions of Phd's, scholars, philosophers etc if you want to continue to make a fool of yourself.

I'm fairly conflicted.

The issue with having an assassination program with virtually no oversight, run by a government whose people are all too willing to ignore the collateral damage it brings to foreigners is pretty obvious. You could argue that terrorists target the US because of genuine grievances (past blowback particularly from intervention during the Cold War motivated largely by opposing a communist threat over any moral considerations). From there you could argue that if only the US avoided foreign intervention, in time it would no longer be a terrorist target and have no need for such morally questionable action as using drones with significant civilian casualty risk.

I'm sceptical of this argument. For one I think the espoused goals of many terrorist organisations are often a sham. They may start as violent reactionaries to some genuinely held grievance. But mature organisations initiate a conflict with the US because notoriety brings financial support and more fighters which in turn improves their ability to project power, which is their ultimate goal. So I don't see US disengagement as a solution because terrorist attacks and beheadings of its nationals will continue to politically galvanise the US into action. At that point having being disengaged beforehand (lacking intel, ability to target leadership with drones) is just a disadvantage.

I also don't see a government other than the US capable and willing to rally a group of nations and take a leading role against a group like ISIS. It's fair to say that the US invasion of Iraq was largely responsible for destabilising an authoritarian government under Saddam that would have prevented the emergence of a Sunni group like this. But then, imagine if Saddam was still in power in reaction to the Arab Spring and the result was a situation like Syria today. It is all too possible that a similar group would have emerged in a power vacuum not caused by US intervention.

My point is, I agree it is horrible to see civilians being killed by drones and having to live under the constant terror of attack but I don't see a better solution. In fact it seems that drones are probably the solution with the least risk of civilian casualty. There is a reason why the Yemeni/Pakistani government tacitly support them even while publicly disavowing them.

Of course I would like to see them used more judiciously but I am sceptical that this is feasibly possible. I do not doubt that the CIA/Pentagon who run the program are familiar with blowback and the risks of inciting attacks on the US through the killing of innocents in these strikes. It is possible incentives for 'results' may lead to their overuse at the expense of civilian lives and the long term cost. Maybe more openness would be best. Then again more openness would serve as a rallying cry for existing terrorist organisations.

Life is beauty through and through
Life is sunny, life is cool
Life is even easy too
But if my word is to be true
Life is something to behold
But if the truth is to be told
Let us not leave out any part
Do not fear, it's safe to say it here
You will not be called a weakling nor a fraud
For feeling the pain of the whole wide world
You want to help but can't help the feeling you cannot
And it's killing you while you're just trying to smile from your heart
So go on, say it, on the same knees you're praying
Yes, life is hard

Come celebrate
Life is hard
Come celebrate
Life is hard
Our life is all we are

Celebrate it in the sun, promenade it with everyone
Elevate it in a song
And I'll be there to play it, don't get me wrong
When I feel like dying and being gone
When life is hard
There's just one thing, let's not forget
Yes! life is it!
Life is it, life is it, it's where it's at
It's getting skinny, getting fat
It's falling deep into a love,
It's getting crushed just like a bug
Life there's no love, it's getting beat into the ground
It's getting lost and getting found,
To growing up and getting round
It's feeling silence, feeling sound
It's feeling lonely, feeling full
It's feeling oh so beautiful!
Yes!

Come celebrate
Life is hard
Come celebrate
Life is hard
Our life is all we are

I'd like to see this video on a regular hot and sunny day.
It gets hot here. on a regular summer day we can easily get to 35ºC - 40ºC (95ºF - 104ºF) - inside a car, it will climb to 50ºC (122ºF) and hotter.

I've sat in a car with the windows rolled up (not even realizing), and after about four minutes, I was drenched in Sweat and burst a vessel in my nose, causing a nose bleed.

This guys example couldn't even have been on a very hot day - maybe a warm day - not a hot one though...

That self defense class I took? Where I learned some skills that are available to me to this day?

They didn't teach them to men. The class I was in was women only (except for the martial arts instructors, a mixed bag gender-wise.) But they consciously did not offer those same skills to men.

Precisely because of your advice here.Which is why they don't teach those self defense skills to men.

A little guy pushing his erect penis into my ass on a sunny day is not a physical threat to me. Hell, I could have just pushed him and sat on him, and the fight is over.

Crushing someone's genitals is not something you do unless it is NECESSARY.

It is not "either/or." It is appropriate response to the threat. It was inappropriate in that situation to physically assault that man.

Turnabout IS fair play. He did not hurt me physically. He hurt me psychically.

The appropriate response is a psychic blow back.

And if every girl was taught to stand their ground (take that, Florida!!!) with their voice, this shit would end.

That assault on the subway -- that happened to me at 11 am on a Sunday in NYC. Beautiful sunny day. Outside. I stopped to watch a street vendor with a crowd, and someone was jostling me from behind, I thought to see better.

I realized he was jostling me rhythmically and panting.

I had just finished a self defense class, so I thought I was prepared to deal with it. I turned.... and looked down. This tiny guy was standing behind me, with a tent in his pants. I was 6 inches taller than him, and outweighed him by probably 50 pounds. He just looked up at me and... shrugged. Shrugged and smiled.

I had the physical skills to decimate him, but we were taught in class to use the skills to protect ourselves, not to attack.

I wasn't in danger. So I turned on my heel and walked away. Joined my friend, laughing. I'm a tourist in NYC for six hours, and I get sexually "assaulted." How funny!

It wasn't funny 15 minutes later. I started crying, just like this woman. I spent the day with my back against the wall where ever I went. I couldn't stand to have someone behind me. I kept feeling him on my ass. All day long.

I finally asked my friend to replace the "muscle memory." So she put her hand on my butt where he had assaulted me, and said soothing words.

That worked.

For six months. Until I was standing in line for a movie back home, and the man behind me had a cold. I could hear him breathing and I internally flipped out. I kept moving so he wouldn;t be behind me, but he wanted to stay in line, and kept getting behind me.

I went into the theater, took a seat, and sobbed.

Over something that didn't physically threaten me.

I had guilt over how I handled it. I had just taken that self defense course, and I had heard a story that amused the hell out of me.

A woman was on a bus, rush hour, pressed into the crowd, when a guy started groping her.

Know what she did?

She said LOUDLY so EVERYONE COULD HEAR -- I want you all to know that THIS MAN, THIS MAN RIGHT HERE, is touching me. I did not GIVE HIM PERMISSION TO TOUCH ME.

He slunk away. He left her alone.

I wish that this video offered solutions.

It was frustrating to know that the blonde woman was in a car full of people, and she didn't have a voice. She wasn't taught to speak up and make a scene.

And it is months later, and because she didn't speak, she still carries that.

And it is months later, and she didn't offer a solution based on her experience. She is still caught.

I'll tell you one thing -- that happens to me again?

I'M SPEAKING UP. Calmly. Loudly. Assertively. With conviction.

THIS MAN. THIS MAN RIGHT HERE.

If all women did that, this crap would stop.

They count on us staying silent.

Tell this to the women you love. Tell them to speak up if they feel safe -- and a crowded bus, a crowded subway car? You are surrounded by people. Nothing is going to happen to you.

They operate in the dark. They operate in silence. They count on your embarrassment.

Turn it on them, embarrass the bloody hell out of them and this crap will end.

Before the U.S. invasion, Iraq had an integrated society, with different religions inter-marrying, and different religions working in government.
After the U.S. took over, people were chosen for state work according to religious quota (something new to iraq), and religion became a 'big deal' in regards to putting food on the table.
General dislikes turned into conflicts.

The "Shia v Sunni" thing is more hyperbole for western audiences, than it is a matter of recent history.
Saddam mostly oppressed areas rife with insurgent groups. Conflict festers and spreads. People die, their families/friends become militant, then they die, and their families/friends become militant, etc, etc, etc. Families/friends live near each other, so it spreads geographically. Eventually you find cities or regions that have managed to upturn.
Like any city/region, similar people tend to live together. So you in effect have groups/cultures vs government.
Hence why the internal conflict was by city/region (just like it is/was in Syria), and why it had a cultural flavor.
Granted, there is always some backlash that spills into a community at large, when a portion of it is identified as a 'problem'. Point is, there was not some eugenic ethnic/religious conflict going on.

The real 'oppression by religion' is happening today.
Neighborhoods have become mono-religious. Minorities have left their neighborhoods and fled to regions that are mostly 'of their own kind' - because nobody wants to stick around to see if they become the next target.

Best thing that can happen now is what happened to Syria after WW2 : Some other power steps in, chops up the country into smaller pieces, and populates each piece with a particular culture (eg. Syria was taken by Britain and France, split up, and became Syria + Lebanon + Jordan - granted the post ww2 split of Syria had more to do with the the last gasps of colonialism, and less to do with stabilization. 'Fun' note : It's the Syrian expulsion the French colonial rulers in the 1970's, and the subsequent French 'black eye', that set the tone for why France is so happy to support whoever wants to overthrow the Syrian government.).

-scheherazade

So why are Sunni and Shia fighting? a few hundred years ago, there was an argument about whether or not a non-direct relative of Mohammad could become leader.

This conflict is not simply about religion, it's also about these smaller militia groups grabbing land/money/power.

The video failed to mention that the centrally elected government in Iraq never had any real control over the Kurds (Kurdistan) in the north, which were (and still are) a self-governing state.

quagmire is an apt one-word description, used a lot around 2002. without the giggity-giggity, of course.

@newtboy,

Who'd of thought our back and forth would wind up the civil portion of the thread?

On veracity, accuracy and demonstrable evidence please note I twice provided external links beyond my own day so. The last being to a thoroughly researched and documented account from Human Rights Watch. The only claimed verbatim quote I included was italicized to make clear what was quote versus a shorten in my own words summary. I included a link to the full document so anyone questioning my summary is very to call me out on specifics. Thus far the only in accuracy in aware of has been corrected. If you believe I'm in any other way mischaracterizing events as HRW documented it ask you to point it more specifically or failing that cease insisting that my account is anything less than very thoroughly backed by very well evidenced research.

By way of declaring lesser evils, I would ask you to be specific about worst ISIS has done that you feel so trumps the million dead of the Iran Iraq war and Saddam's multiple genocidal campaigns.

Lastly on ISIL, I don't think they are specifically the ones to stay up at night over anyways. Nouri Al-Maliki's credentials as a brutal thug are underestimated quite widely IMO and I very much expect the real nastiness will come from his crushing of Sunni Iraqis in the guise of stopping ISIL. Ugly times ahead, but I fear the guys your worried about are going to be taking it more than dishing it out, sadly leaving more Sunni Iraqi civilians dead than anyone else.

Mark me now, it's not ISIS that we should be worried about in this from a humanitarian perspective. ISIS are probably the nastiest bunch, but Nouri al-Maliki has been noted and marked as nothing more than thug from day one. The entire time US forces were in Iraq they spent most of their time protecting Sunni's(ISIS is a Sunni group) from al-Maliki's forces taking revenge.

I have almost no doubts that al-Maliki can easily suppress and crush ISIS, and more over is just itching for ISIS to make themselves out bad enough that he can 'justify' brutally and totally crushing them and by proxy all Sunni Iraqis.

End game is a relatively quick and brutal move by al-Maliki to 'stabilize' the region with some truly ugly war crimes. Hopefully at least the end will also leave a new border drawn recognizing Kurdistan as separate region and at least there some semblance of law and order and decency might survive,

Shiites and Alevites are not silent. Why do you think Sunnites hate them so much and take every opportunity to kill and oppress them?
But they are such a small minority, that they are simply silenced by the public in whatever way.

Look at the Arab Spring. All the Sunnis revolting was an act of democracy, freedom, etc, blah blah, but the revolts of Alevites and Shiites against Sunni monarchs, dictators (mostly installed and/or supported by the USA) were not mentioned much and quickly dealt with lots of violence. Even sport events were still held in those countries, after and WHILE they were slaying and oppressing their minorities that dont share their extreme views.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'phd, honorary, its always sunny, nightman, speech' to 'phd, honorary, its always sunny, nightman, speech, Charlie Day, Merrimack' - edited by Sagemind