“ It’s your insistence that Jewish people, and the existence of Israel, have always fundamentally been invaders that I was objecting to as it is so intensely at odds with factual history.”
No…it is at odds with your position and is not what I said.
It is factual history that fighting age European Jews came armed and forcibly displaced the natives after being offered sanctuary for their most needy. It is not factual that I claimed it was ever thus. That is clearly not what I said, I said for 10+- years they were getting along as refugees, then started coming in HUGE numbers illegally and taking over.

Those are facts.

I also mentioned a native Jewish population that were not refugees or invaders. Some of them supported the invading Zionists, some didn’t. I’ve never heard of one who opposed them.

“ You gave a brief nod on not being a scholar of Palestinian history, but then proceed to just count all Jewish refugees as good as Zionist aggressors from day 1(or close enough), and the local Arab population as nothing but pure, kind caring victims of these invaders.”

Not even close to true, I said many stood behind the Zionists when they started coming en masse, and didn’t say but seemingly few to none of the native Jews opposed them. I also was clear that at the beginning the refugees acted like refugees, not invaders….I mistakenly gave them more time being grateful than you say they were, according to you Palestinians position is they began the invasion in the 20’s….and theirs is the opinion I care about. I never claimed ALL Arabs were welcoming, but the “nation” as a whole (despite being not self ruling at the time) welcomed a huge number of refugees considering their own population. Way more than elsewhere.

Edit: Britain, who facilitated this invasion, only took in 80000 European Jews in the decade before and during the war, and they were only given transit visas to stay temporarily until they found other accommodations. All of England took in fewer Jewish refugees in all pre war history than Palestine did….England took in 80000, most on temporary visas, Palestine took in 60000 permanently in 1935 alone, and 130000 in 33-36.
Pre-immigration Palestine had about 700000 people. In 1944 European Jews ignored the 1500 visa limit per year and came by the hundred of thousands per year after already completely overwhelming the native population.
Palestine was forcibly invaded by a foreign population exponentially bigger than the native population while Britain kept them too weak to oppose it physically.
That’s an invasion…not on day 1. 🤦‍♂️

“ without being able to writeoff Israel as invaders from day 1, nuance enters the calculus and suddenly the conflict is flooded with shades of grey ”

Again, I said day 3, not day 1, and went on to say that meant 10 years later. Get off your high horse and READ buddy.

I guess I’ll stop here. If you aren’t going to read what I wrote and insist on arguing red herrings you made up yourself, you can do that alone.

Nothing you’ve said changes or excuses the fact that masses of armed violent invaders came to take the land from the natives by force and were successful. The exact date this happened is not only y highly subjective, it’s completely besides the point.
Nothing you’ve said changes or excuses the inhuman treatment they’ve subjected the innocent native civilian population to for 70 years…but you’ve tried.
Nothing you’ve said changes or excuses the intentional targeting of trapped civilians by the military….serious war crimes Israel commits daily.
Nothing you’ve said even hints that you consider Palestinians worthy of consideration themselves, possibly not even human status, definitely not peaceful existence.

Bye

There you go again, insisting that if police can’t kill with impunity and immunity, then anarchy will rule, there will be no police, and crime rates will skyrocket, making the US into Thunderdome in months.

Infantile, ignorant, and asinine, police in almost every other country kill far less than American police who kill around 3 people per day on average. In many countries they don’t carry guns, without a massive jump in crime. Imagine that. Are you saying US police are so incompetent that every other nation can police itself without letting them murder over nothing but contempt of cop, but divided America is totally incapable of that type of policing?

I would remind you, in the racist, sexist fantasy time period Trumpists wish to return to, police murdered non whites routinely and without fear. Wanting to return to that is pure racism…not surprising. Also, the Uber rich payed over 90% in taxes, without going bankrupt or just shutting down. Your “capitalist utopia” doesn’t exist without taxes at 3 times what they are now without loopholes. D’oh!
(For tax years 1944 through 1951, the highest marginal tax rate for individuals was 91%, increasing to 92% for 1952 and 1953, and reverting to 91% 1954 through 1963. For the 1964 tax year, the top marginal tax rate for individuals was lowered to 77%, and then to 70% for tax years 1965 through 1981)

I would also remind you how you screamed and cried over that terrorist bitch that was shot attacking the capitol with hundreds of armed violent cohorts that had already murdered and disabled dozens of police. You absolutely wanted that officer prosecuted if not just lynched….for a good shoot of a violent attacking murderer (part of the violent murdering mob makes you a murderer). Your blatant undeniable racist prejudice and obvious hypocrisy are showing, Bobby.

If police need to murder unarmed citizens over misdemeanors, they should absolutely stand down as that makes them the murderous criminal gang, not the police.

The sound of the horse at the end is the point of the whole video: Siena is famous for an absolutely batshit horse race held in the main square every year. The practice dates back to the Middle Ages and brings people from all over the world to witness it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzkQC2zYmGU

This year, the race was not run. The last time this happened was in 1944 due to World War 2.

So pre 1944 it seems The Pledge of Allegiance of the United States was accompanied by the Bellamy salute(as seen in the video). If it wasn't for those damn Nazis co-opting it, American kids everywhere would still be doing it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellamy_salute

The simple point is that as soon as we realized the capability of the Zero we easily and quickly designed a plane(s) capable of combating it.

The Yak-3 didn't enter the war until 1944, at which point the war had massively turned in Western Theatre. For the bulk of the conflict, they were using the Yak-1.

The Mig 25 and Mig 31 are both interceptors, they are designed to fire from distance and evade. The Su 35 is designed for Air Superiority. We have held the edge in our capabilities for years compared to them.

Every expert I know of is skeptical of China's claimed Railgun weapon. As to why they would bother mounting it and making claims, why not? It is brinkmanship, making us think they have more capabilities than they do.

The laser rifle is a crowd deterrent weapon. It would serve almost no purpose in infantry combat because it cannot kill. Yes, it can burn things and cause pain, but that is all. Again, this was claimed to be far more effective than experts think during our diplomatic arguments over China's use of blinding lasers on aircraft. We have no hard evidence of it's capability.

Yes, Russia could sell such a missile to our enemies versus using it directly against us. The problem is that as soon as they do so, the genie is out of the bottle. It will be reverse engineered quickly and could be USED AGAINST THEM. No country gives or sells away it's absolute top level weaponry except to it's most trusted allies. Allies which, for all intents and purposes, know that using such a weapon against another nation state risks full out retaliation against not only them but the country that sold it to them.

Our carriers are excellent mobile platforms, but they are not our only way of mounting air strikes. If we were somehow in a conventional war situation, we could easily fly over and base our aircraft in allied countries for combat. Most of our nuclear capable aircraft are not carrier launched anyway. Even if somehow all of our carriers were taken out and somehow our SAC bombers were destroyed as well, we would still have more than enough land launched and submarine launched nuclear warheads to easily blanket our enemies.

My points remain:

1. It is in the greatest interest of our enemies to boast about weapon capabilities even if they are not effective yet.

2. Most well regarded experts consider many of these weapons to either be still in the research stage, early production stage (IE not available for years), or they are wildly over hyped.

3. There is no logical reason for our enemies to use these weapons or proliferate them to their closest allies unless the weapons can prevent a nuclear response. Merely mentioning a weapon that would have such a capability creates a situation that could lead to nuclear war, like SDI did. I don't know if you recall, but I do clearly, how massively freaked out the Soviets got over our SDI claims. For two years they started threatening nuclear war as being inevitable if we continued on the path we were, all the while aggressively trying to destabilize our relations with our allies. 1983 to 1985 was pretty fucking tense, not Cuban missile crisis level maybe, but damn scary. Putin has acted similarly over our attempts to set up a missile barrier in former satellite states of Russia, although we still haven't got to the SHTF level of the early 80's.

Trump did condemn, unlike Arnold's dad.

Truth and facts but left out that his dad was a Nazi.

His dad decided not to beat the loud and angry voices of the Nazi with louder more reasonable voices. His dad just joined them.

Military career[edit]
Schwarzenegger had served in the Austrian Army from 1930 to 1937, achieving the rank of section commander and in 1937 he became a police officer. After enlisting in the Wehrmacht in November 1939, he was a Hauptfeldwebel (Master Sergeant) of the Feldgendarmerie, which were military police units. He served in Poland, France, Belgium, Ukraine, Lithuania and Russia. His unit was Feldgendarmerie-Abteilung 521 (mot.), which was part of Panzer Group 4. Wounded in action in Russia on 22 August 1942, he had the Iron Cross First and Second Classes for bravery, the Eastern Front Medal or the Wound Badge. Schwarzenegger appears to have received much medical attention. Initially, he was treated in the military hospital in Łódź, but according to the records he also suffered recurring bouts of malaria, which led to his discharge in February, 1944.

Your video, Private Snafu in "Censored", war film from 1944, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes, and thus the presidency, to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC, by replacing state winner-take-all laws for awarding electoral votes.

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of pre-determined outcomes. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 80% of the states that now are just 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.

The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of Electoral College votes—that is, enough to elect a President (270 of 538). The candidate receiving the most popular votes from all 50 states (and DC) would get all the 270+ electoral votes of the enacting states.

The presidential election system, using the 48 state winner-take-all method or district winner method of awarding electoral votes, that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founders. It is the product of decades of change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founders in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. States can, and have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. Historically, major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed recently. In the 39 states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-83% range or higher. - in recent or past closely divided battleground states, in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.
Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

The bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 250 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

NationalPopularVote.com

Tags for this video have been changed from '2013, 1944, John Hellins Quick, Hank Green, SciShow' to '2013, 1944, John Hellins Quick, Hank Green, SciShow, technobabble' - edited by inflatablevagina

Regimes supported

Juan Vicente Gomez, Venezuela, 1908-1935.
Jorge Ubico, Guatemala, 1931-1944.
Fulgencio Batista, Republic of Cuba 1952-1959.
Syngman Rhee, Republic of Korea (South Korea), 1948-1960.
Rafael Trujillo, Dominican Republic, 1930-1961.[citation needed]
Ngo Dinh Diem, Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam), 1955-1963.
Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Iran, 1953-1979.
Anastasio Somoza Garcia, Nicaragua, 1967-1979.
Military Junta in Guatemala, 1954-1982.
Military Junta in Bolivia, 1964-1982.[citation needed]
Military Junta in Argentina, 1976-1983.
Brazilian military government, 1964-1985.
François Duvalier and Jean-Claude Duvalier, Republic of Haiti, 1957-1971; 1971-1986.[citation needed]
Alfredo Stroessner, Paraguay, 1954-1989.[citation needed]
Ferdinand Marcos, Philippines, 1965-1986.[8][9]
General Manuel Noriega, Republic of Panama, 1983-1989.
General Augusto Pinochet, Chile, 1973-1990.
Saddam Hussein, Republic of Iraq, 1982-1990.
General (military), Suharto Republic of Indonesia, 1975-1995.
Mobutu Sese Seko, Zaire/Congo, 1965-1997.
Hosni Mubarak, Egypt, 1981-2011.
Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa, Kingdom of Bahrain, 2012.
Saudi royal family, 2012.
Islam Karimov, Uzbekistan, 1991-2012.[10]
Meles Zenawi, Ethiopia, 1995-2012.[11]
Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo, Equatorial Guinea, 2006-2012.[12]

the CEO's message is quite telling (somewhere here already)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Brabeck-Letmathe

Peter Braebeck, Austrian Jew, b. 1944, worked extensively in S.A. (his wealthy connections most likely allowed his family to flee Germany after the war) in various marketing and managing oif food concerns, well-known for his human rights abuses or dis-concern, a real piece a work this one and Nestle Nazi's still own a huge chunk of the world market due primarily to the wealth they absconded with and amassed during the Nazi regime.

The same CEO sits on the Board of Directors of Credit Suisse Group, L'Oréal, and Exxon Mobil.

Nestle is complete shit, bottle your own water.

The notion that if it was deployed 3 months earlier it would have changed the outcome of the war is a bit short sighted. By 1944 things had changed significantly against the Luftwaffe. Of the many different types of problems, two are the most straightforward here, shortage of fuel and Goering's obsession with bombers.

At this stage of the war in 1944, fuel was scarce enough to force flight schools to cut their training times to less than half of what they received in 1942, receiving on average 111 hours of flight and of that only 20 hours in the combat aircraft that they were to fly, the rest would be in a trainer. To give a contemporary comparison, in the US you need an absolute bare minimum of 190 hours to earn a commercial pilot's license which is usually done in the same type of trainer the Germans used, THEN you start working on the plane your "really" going to fly. Training deficiencies were already showing in 1943, when during the first half of the year they experienced the same number of losses to accidents as they did to combat. So you can imagine that new and even experienced pilots, transitioning from the relatively lower speed of their prop driven planes to high speed jets, would have problems in tactical use and even accident avoidance. Even the Me-262 suffered from flameouts caused by aggressive use of the throttle, something that prop planes can manage much better, would otherwise cause the flameout that killed the test pilot Ziller.

Even if deployed in large numbers as a fighter-bomber, the probable use would be as a bomber. Goering was very much a part of the "cult of the offensive" in the air that meant holding to the old WW1 notion of "The bomber always gets through". Though to be fair, the technology in this aircraft might very well have helped proved him right, he pushed this notion at the cost of the defense. He refused committing more resources to the fighter wings, so while the Ho-229 might have been considered a "fighter-bomber", its use may have been predominantly focused on the bomber aspect. This is actually exactly what happened to the Me-262 in its earlier days, its capabilities as a fighter were ignored and preference as a bomber, preferred. Why does all this matter? Because at this point, Germany wasn't able to come close to stopping the bombers breaking through their lines. They needed the flow to stop since it was already disrupting their existing production to produce the "what if" fleet of Ho-229s. Goering proved that the bombers were getting through thanks to his belief that his would instead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_of_the_Reich

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Galland (The later part, when he commanded the fighter force)

>> ^Stormsinger:

>> ^marbles:
Airplanes Have Been Flown By Remote Control Since 1917
One day after 9/11, an article appeared in a top science and technology news service stating “hijackings could be halted in progress with existing technologies, say aviation researchers”. The article quoted a transportation expert as saying:
“Most modern aircraft have some form of autopilot that could be re-programmed to ignore commands from a hijacker and instead take direction from the ground . . . .”
See also this article, in which the former head of British Airways “suggested . . . that aircraft could be commandeered from the ground and controlled remotely in the event of a hijack.”
...
While some claim that remote control played a part in 9/11, a separate – but equally interesting – question, is whether remote control could and should have been used to safely land the hijacked airplanes. Given that Al Qaeda flying planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon was wholly foreseeable, and hijackings could be stopped using existing equipment, why wasn’t the equipment used to stop this type of attack? In other words, why didn’t ground control have the ability to override the hijacked airlines to safely land them and take control of the aircraft?

Which do you think is going to be more common...terrorist hijackings, or script kiddies exploiting security holes in the software?


huh?

>> ^marbles:

Airplanes Have Been Flown By Remote Control Since 1917
One day after 9/11, an article appeared in a top science and technology news service stating “hijackings could be halted in progress with existing technologies, say aviation researchers”. The article quoted a transportation expert as saying:
“Most modern aircraft have some form of autopilot that could be re-programmed to ignore commands from a hijacker and instead take direction from the ground . . . .”
See also this article, in which the former head of British Airways “suggested . . . that aircraft could be commandeered from the ground and controlled remotely in the event of a hijack.”
...
While some claim that remote control played a part in 9/11, a separate – but equally interesting – question, is whether remote control could and should have been used to safely land the hijacked airplanes. Given that Al Qaeda flying planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon was wholly foreseeable, and hijackings could be stopped using existing equipment, why wasn’t the equipment used to stop this type of attack? In other words, why didn’t ground control have the ability to override the hijacked airlines to safely land them and take control of the aircraft?


Which do you think is going to be more common...terrorist hijackings, or script kiddies exploiting security holes in the software?

Airplanes Have Been Flown By Remote Control Since 1917

One day after 9/11, an article appeared in a top science and technology news service stating “hijackings could be halted in progress with existing technologies, say aviation researchers”. The article quoted a transportation expert as saying:

“Most modern aircraft have some form of autopilot that could be re-programmed to ignore commands from a hijacker and instead take direction from the ground . . . .”

See also this article, in which the former head of British Airways “suggested . . . that aircraft could be commandeered from the ground and controlled remotely in the event of a hijack.”
...

While some claim that remote control played a part in 9/11, a separate – but equally interesting – question, is whether remote control could and should have been used to safely land the hijacked airplanes. Given that Al Qaeda flying planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon was wholly foreseeable, and hijackings could be stopped using existing equipment, why wasn’t the equipment used to stop this type of attack? In other words, why didn’t ground control have the ability to override the hijacked airlines to safely land them and take control of the aircraft?