It's hard to have any respect for Journalists and more when so many no longer have any integrity. They have become the pawns on the front lines to propaganda machine by those who wage war and seek to pull the blinds over the eyes of the world.

I don't know enough about the situation in Palestine, or what kinds of laws are imposed from outside there, but just hypothetically, I wonder: what if they renounced all initiation of violence altogether, and just dropped the push to set up their own state? What if, instead they declared their territories to be "state-free" and "tax free havens?" Maybe they could open some casinos a la Native Americans; and provide some tax-free banking; let tech giants set up tax-free research centers there without all of the immigration restrictions that seem to impose so many unnecessary challenges.. And what if, instead of waging war or attacking Israel, they simply used any military capabilities they had to set up private security firms, and secure their banking system, maybe provide some safe gold depositories? In a generation or two, the Israelis would see that they are the ones living in a prison/tax farm, not the Palestinians. I wonder if they could get away with it...


It's interesting to me how some folks tend to (more or less) "take sides" in defense of states (or would-be states) in conflicts like this one. As if states somehow had "rights" or as if states somehow represented "the people" within each state. That is simply, prima facie, false: For one thing, I think armed conflict on any sort of large scale inflicts violence against innocent parties on both sides; who, in their own rights, have reason to see the other side's violent acts as aggression (or at least as material threats to their human rights).

So I certainly agree that Israelis have a right not to have rockets coming at them, but it also seems to me that individual Palestinians have a right not to be collateral damage in Israel's bombings. Surely the hundreds who've lost family in Gaza have reason to be angry at Hamas, but you could see why they too would want to defend themselves.

The logic of war often leads to a situation where if you can defend one side fighting, you have to see why the other side would fight as well. And so we can condemn both sides, or sympathize with the innocent victims of both sides, but I don't see any simple formulation that shows why people who happen to live on one side of an arbitrary line have more of a "right" to respond violently to attacks that threaten their lives than the other side has.

The United States commits many forms of aggression quite frequently. In revenge, terrorists murdered innocent Americans on 9/11. Those Americans had a right not to be attacked and as Americans, we have a right to defend ourselves. But if tactics our government employs hurt third parties, doesn't it seem that the logic of collective self defense could easily be used to justify perpetual war?

None of what I say relies on any assumption that Hamas is any less criminal than the Israeli state. Even if it's much more criminal than the Israeli state, it seems to me that collective defense = perpetual war, because of the innocents on both sides who seem to have no way of striking against belligerents without violence that itself puts innocent people in harm's way.

Please try and read what I am saying and not just ignoring bits I've already answered. For starters, I thought I'd been clear in declaring tribal Pakistan as already being, in every meaningful way, a separate and independent state from Pakistan. More over, tribal Pakistan has been actively waging war with Pakistan proper for a very long time now. I even already claimed that at reason number one for considering tribal Pakistan an enemy to ourselves as we'll. After all, if Pakistan isn't Islamic enough for them, we surely are inwilling to compromise as far as the extremist militants there require.

I also don't recall claiming we were at war with Yemen or Pakistan. I claimed that drone strikes are an act of war. Meaning we are, quite extensively, launcing acts of war on land claimed by Yemen and Pakistan. Despite that though, somehow neither government seems inclined to declare it war. Largely because they can't show weakness, and admitting their enemies are in fact in control of that land would be weak in the extreme. So instead you largely see silence as the respective leadership readily accepts the assistance in removing a military threat to themselves that the can't readily admit has already seized large parts of their country.

...and imagine all the ants killed with every road and parking lot and Wal-Mart and... calm down people. Ants are pretty resilient. They'll be waging wars for their queens long after they've helped compost the last of our dead.

But if you fail to meet them with force you also run the risk of ending up like Poland, and well, most of the rest of Europe in WW2.

Or like Afghanistan.

Like it or not, the Taliban are openly waging war on moderate and secular society within Pakistan and have been doing so for a long time. Malala's not the first to be shot by them, she's not the most recent. As I pointed out earlier as well and you seem to think isn't relevant.

Well, duh, because that doesn't happen. There are no gay people. That's a myth perpetuated by the American Republicans to wage war on the Middle East.

But in other news, I didn't realize this was for India at first . . . Being an American, I just assumed it was geared towards us. Dunno if "glad" is the right word, but looks like we're not the only culture that blames the woman.

Here's the long-list from a famous -hacked-to-bits and otherwise forgotten document's grievance rider which seems a poignantly appropriate reason enough to want to shove a vote up someone's ass and rotate it:

Of King George:

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Someone needs perhaps to revise the list and start hoarding ammunition and conscripting, because methinks the "vote" be fast-resembling, fuck-all. I don't vote and I am damn sure not going to be quiet any time soon...Average Joe and Jane voters have already effectively been "opted out."

So, signature strikes are those that identify 'targets' by watching for things like people who leave militant camps with guns to go cross over into Afghanistan and then come back again...

Read up on the situation in Pakistan's tribal regions before setting your position on drone strikes in stone. America is at war with the powers controlling the tribal regions of Pakistan. It's not declaring it a war because that would enrage Pakistan even further, but it is the reality. Pakistan doesn't want to admit that the tribal regions have been essentially seized from them by the Taliban and have been in all but name an independent state that is actively waging war on Pakistan by launching endless attacks on it's civilians.

The deeper truth not spoken about is that the Afghan war was never about Afghanistan, though it was about the 9/11 organizers. After 9/11, America deemed it no longer acceptable for nuclear armed Pakistan to be allied with the groups that just attacked it. The war in Afghanistan was double edged. It gave a launching ground for a land war against Pakistan if needed, and it was a direct warning to Pakistan's leadership that America fully intended to wage war and remove power any government allying itself with the jihadists behind international terrorist attacks. It's just not politically expedient to say that, so president's say more veiled things like: "Your either with us or against us".

@RedSky I would add that the Jewish laws of Leviticus, Deuteronomy etc. are the foundations for Sharia law, but that most Christians throughout history see Jesus as having repudiated Jewish law (this is of course a question of interpretation), causing it to have "lived on" almost exclusively in its Islamic form. I still hold that as far as fundamentals go, the Quran and life of Mohammed are somewhat more easily used as unequivocal justification for violence than the New Testament and Jesus. (I would reference gorillaman's comment, but... see below)

I'm glad you brought Indonesia into the picture, as it is a good example of my argument. It may be the most populated muslim country, but it has repeatedly refused to let its central gvt be encroached upon by Islam, i.e. to become an Islamic state or espouse Sharia (despite the pressure from noisy fundamentalists).
In the one part of the country where Sharia is allowed to be enforced, Aceh, you get the same amount of unethical conduct and discrimination/violence towards women, homosexuals, non-jilbab-wearers, "adulterers" etc as you'd expect in the meanest of the Islamic states. And where do they find those discriminatory laws and the "divine" authority to enforce them? The Quran of course.

@gorillaman You make a few salient points (about the life/example of M. and the fact that, unlike The Bible, the Quran is the work of one author, alive at the time of the religion's birth) but you lose all credibility by
a) using a homophobic slur as a pejorative in your first line and
b) making gross (and false) generalisations, notably the all-caps
"THIS IS WHAT ALL MUSLIMS BELIEVE" which is so easily demonstrably false (simply ask the nearest muslim). If it had read "this is what fundamentalist muslims believe" or even "this is what all muslims should believe if they want to honestly hold that the Quran is the perfect word of God" then you would be a bit closer to reality.
Finally, the hyperbole of your last paragraph does not help your credibility either. I am as antitheist as one can be, and the gross demonisation of religious believers (aka fellow human beings) as criminals and inhumane, ethic-less zombies not only made me shake my head sadly, it also reminded me of how religious extremists depict atheists.

@Babymech You do know that most of the Islamist terrorist attacks were perpetrated by middle-to-upper-class, well-to-do educated men, not poor and desperate Jean Valjeans, right?
The reason I pointed to your first comment as one of the "ignorant extremes" of attitude towards Islam and violence is that, the way I read it, it illustrated the common rebuttal that often comes from the far-left when a terrorist/mass-murderer is found out to be a Muslim extremist: "it must be other political/socio-economical factors, it can't be plain old religious fanaticism" or "it's our fault for waging war on them". While I agree that the US should never have gone a-warring in the ME, it's often a false equivalence and ignorant simplification to exclude or minimise the religious factor. In hindsight it was maybe rash of me to read that much into your comment, but I hope I have made clear what I meant.

As for Maher's stance that Islam is (in this point in history, as he stresses) worse than Christianity: for my opinion see above, and feel free to refute my "argumentum ad comparatio" to support your disagreement.

So, if this is a false flag, does that mean we are about to wage war on clouds, wind and water?

If Obama wanted to disrupt the election, wouldn't it be better to aim the HAARP blaster at conservative states like Texas or Oklahoma? Are conservatives in control of the HAARP blaster?

>> ^oritteropo:

Have you ever studied the French Revolution? Ron Paul's policies didn't go so well for Turgot, and haven't for anyone else who has tried them since.
I guess since neither of us are U.S. based we can always sit back and watch the spectacle from afar, eating popcorn, no matter what they try
In reply to this comment by coolhund:
When America picked Rome as its role model, it was destined to die the same way.
It had potential, but corruption is a constant threat and no where near enough is being done to battle it.
I am truly shocked how divided your country has become, and how much of a threat and actually enemy to the worlds freedom after 9/11.
You havent learned a bit. Still waging wars everywhere, support totalitarian regimes (and even install them) even if its just behind the curtains. You ask yourself why "terrorists" are attacking you? You should ask yourself instead why so few are attacking you.
Believe me, I really loved the US for the most of my life. I always wanted to live there. I loved having American soldiers stationed in my country. But not anymore. A few years after 9/11 I got my ignorance armor removed by force and realized youre just as bad as the other hypocrite countries that call themselves civilized, democratic and free. But since you have so much power and exploit it all the time, youre actually worse.
I really wish you would return to your former values and actually uphold them. But looking at how corrupt your country has become, my hopes are extremely low. Just by looking at how you let the perfect opportunity pass by not voting Ron Paul - again, hurts me so much. Seeing people here and elsewhere spewing out propaganda that was indoctrinated into them reminds me of myself a few years ago. I can only feel disgust when thinking about that. In an age of information theres still so much misinformation and bias... Its sad. No wonder corruption is blooming like never before.
And yes, I am pretty sure some indoctrinated individuals will jump at me now for my last 2 sentences and mentioning Ron Paul. Save your breath, I have tried to talk to people like you for years and I was one of you. You will only learn the hard way - just like me.



Looks like you have studied the french revolution, but not what Ron Paul actually wants to do, or rather will be able to do.

And yes I guess its easy to sit back and eat popcorn for people like you.

When America picked Rome as its role model, it was destined to die the same way.
It had potential, but corruption is a constant threat and no where near enough is being done to battle it.

I am truly shocked how divided your country has become, and how much of a threat and actually enemy to the worlds freedom after 9/11.
You havent learned a bit. Still waging wars everywhere, support totalitarian regimes (and even install them) even if its just behind the curtains. You ask yourself why "terrorists" are attacking you? You should ask yourself instead why so few are attacking you.

Believe me, I really loved the US for the most of my life. I always wanted to live there. I loved having American soldiers stationed in my country. But not anymore. A few years after 9/11 I got my ignorance armor removed by force and realized youre just as bad as the other hypocrite countries that call themselves civilized, democratic and free. But since you have so much power and exploit it all the time, youre actually worse.

I really wish you would return to your former values and actually uphold them. But looking at how corrupt your country has become, my hopes are extremely low. Just by looking at how you let the perfect opportunity pass by not voting Ron Paul - again, hurts me so much. Seeing people here and elsewhere spewing out propaganda that was indoctrinated into them reminds me of myself a few years ago. I can only feel disgust when thinking about that. In an age of information theres still so much misinformation and bias... Its sad. No wonder corruption is blooming like never before.

And yes, I am pretty sure some indoctrinated individuals will jump at me now for my last 2 sentences and mentioning Ron Paul. Save your breath, I have tried to talk to people like you for years and I was one of you. You will only learn the hard way - just like me.

>> ^quantumushroom:

They tried, and had every right to do so. But Lincoln and Friends, right or wrong, waged war to stop them. Now, of course, we have a gigantic, out-of-control federal leviathan, just like the South a-feared. Enjoy!
As for the rest of it, different beliefs for everyone, my friends. It would be nice for the left if the Kenyawaiian had NO ties to islam, but even though these snippets in this video lack context, why do they exist at all?
Obama is likely a closet atheist, but who knows?
Californian idiots keep voting in socialists over and over again even as their economy atrophies and illegal immigration runs rampant. There are actual numbers to demonstrate this, but they conflict with the leftist "belief system".
Intolerance is a staple of the left as much as the right. Same concept, different targets.

>> ^Locque:
If the South wants to secede, I think they should be allowed to do so.



I think equating Chuck Norris and friends' cries for secession in the modern era to the situation in the civil war is kinda silly. It would be like blaming the modern day church for the crusades.

Also, you seem to realise claims that he's a muslim are completely fucking stupid, but you are extremely consistent in refusing the acknowledge the wrongs of the right (I've been reading your posts for years dude, old hat)

I think it's fallacious to accuse the left of being as intolerant as the right. There is an unbelievable history among the left of idiocy, hypocrisy, failure, and all that other good stuff, but racism and bigotry are absolutely the territory of the right. Fascistic political correctness and a refusal to acknowledge existing problems are more the political left's tools of the trade.

On the whole though, i feel chuffed. Does being on the receiving end of one of QM's posts mean I've arrived? WILL VIDEOSIFT NOTICE ME NOW?

They tried, and had every right to do so. But Lincoln and Friends, right or wrong, waged war to stop them. Now, of course, we have a gigantic, out-of-control federal leviathan, just like the South a-feared. Enjoy!

As for the rest of it, different beliefs for everyone, my friends. It would be nice for the left if the Kenyawaiian had NO ties to islam, but even though these snippets in this video lack context, why do they exist at all?

Obama is likely a closet atheist, but who knows?

Californian idiots keep voting in socialists over and over again even as their economy atrophies and illegal immigration runs rampant. There are actual numbers to demonstrate this, but they conflict with the leftist "belief system".

Intolerance is a staple of the left as much as the right. Same concept, different targets.



>> ^Locque:

If the South wants to secede, I think they should be allowed to do so.

I somewhat agree, although I wouldn't mind a look that is less-than-realistic. The original had some unrealistic elements (explosions would look like skulls and the armor was somewhat cartoony. In fact, the opening video had a comic book style to some parts). However, the original was far darker and scarier than this version. That is what I most want them to adjust. Just look how well lit the scenes are. Maybe it's my poor memory, but I remember a much darker, almost claustrophobic feel.

I'm playing it either way though, it's been too long since I've had a good XCOM experience.

As for the quick-save comment. Well, I seem to remember loading a game would suck pretty bad on a 386, to the point where reloading was a judgement call each time.
>> ^xxovercastxx:

This looks a little more comical than I'd prefer. I loved the Lovecraftian style of TFTD and would have preferred to see more of it here.
Can't be as bad as Apocalypse, though. The Gamespot review nailed that when they said, "You'll feel as if you're waging war on the set of The Muppet Show." 15 years later and that quote is still the first thing I think of when I contemplate X-Com: Apocalypse.