In reply to this comment by marinara:
*promote

Thankee-sai! Ooops - wrong reference.

But - thanks very much for the promote!

Next on The Chaser's War On Everything, the loaded shotgun experiment. Chris Taylor walks into stores with a loaded shotgun in his hands. See what happens...

It's a complicated issue from a Christian perspective. Jesus said, if possible, live at peace with everyone. Overall, we should strive to avoid conflict and make peace, even at our own expense. However, this doesn't mean there is no such thing as a just war. WW2 for instance was a just war. Not everything done in WW2 was just or good, but our involvement as a nation was morally right. We had an obligation and a duty to defend the world (and ourselves) from the tryanny of the Nazi regime.

Jesus never says, go ahead and let someone kill you; don't defend yourself. Turn the other cheek means dont repay evil for evil and be ready to suffer patiently, not go ahead and let someone murder you. We are also told to follow the laws of the nation and seek after its well being. So, a case can be made for a just war, but this could only be very limited in scope. Our adventure in Iraq was very unjust and based on faulty intelligence and reasoning. I supported going after Osama bin laden in Afgahnistan, but on a limited basis and certainly not a nearly decade long conflict.

A war with Iran may be inevitable, but would it be just? Well, this is what we know..Iran is an islamic regime, and their goal is to acquire nuclear weapons. We also know that radical Islam is seeking to wipe Israel off the map, but many people don't understand why. The reason is, according to their end-times scenerio, that judgement day wont come until all the jews are killed:

"Judgment Day will come only when the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them, until the Jew hides behind the tree and the stone, and the tree and the stone say: ‘Oh Muslim, Oh servant of Allah , there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him"

So they have a religious duty, according to their hadiths, to destroy Israel. Iran possessing a nuclear weapon could make that a reality. For the sake of Israels existence, we may be committed to stopping Iran. If it happened, would the United States screw it up ever worse than Iraq? Almost certainly..but we also can't stand by and watch someone nuke Israel from the map.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^SDGundamX:
I know it is being nitpicky, but the reason Padilla could challenge was because he was an American citizen who had been designated by the president as an enemy combatant. You're right, they don't have to try every enemy combatant. I'm trying to find the actual court decision, but I could have sworn that it wasn't just a one-off thing for Padilla--the courts decided that any American has the right to challenge being put on the list in court.
As a fellow nitpicker, I don't mind when someone picks a nit. I don't contest any of what you say here. I actually thought that it went without saying that it hinged on Padilla's citizenship, and wasn't some sort of one-off decision.
>> ^SDGundamX:
As the video notes, al-Awlaki's family was indeed in the process of challenging it when the killing took place. I think that places the President in an awkward position from a legal standpoint. It'll be interesting to see where this goes if the family pursues this (sues for wrongful death or something), though I agree with you it seems like the odds are stacked in favor of the courts supporting the Presidential powers.
I don't see how they thought they might win such a challenge. All Al-Alwaki had to do was provide aid and comfort to the enemy, and it's over. And, well, his big thing was putting Al Qaeda recruitment videos on YouTube, so I'm thinking the government just plays one of those, and the case is over.
But in any case, his status when he was killed was still that of an enemy combatant. Now that he's dead, I suspect his legal status is no longer that of an enemy combatant, so there's nothing to challenge. And I suspect there's some Latin name for this, but I don't think courts are allowed to render something a crime by retroactively changing the legal status of things.
For example, say two people are getting a divorce, and the husband takes some jointly owned property with him when he moves out. Now suppose that when the divorce gets finalized, the court awards that property to the wife. The courts can't say "and it always was hers to begin with, so now we're charging you with larceny for taking it when you moved out".
You'd need to do something like that in order to make this killing a criminal act.
A wrongful death suit might fly though. But that's a civil suit, not a criminal charge.
But seriously, all this stuff is wrong. The President shouldn't have unilateral authority to declare people combatants and non-combatants. It should be uniformed members of the military of the nation we've declared war on. Everything else should be law enforcement, including chasing after terrorists.
The courts aren't going to make all that happen by fiat. That has to be a legislative effort, or it's just going to keep on going like this.


The trouble is it doesn't quite work to lump things as either law enforcement or uniformed soldiers at war. That works only in as far as it makes sense to pursue criminals through domestic and foreign law enforcement, or to make war on foreign nations refusing to enforce the rule of law. Due to myriad political bramble bushes, there are many nations like Pakistan and Yemen who claim much broader borders than those in which their actual loyal police officers can safely operate. When criminals hide in the tribal regions of Yemen and Pakistan, even willing and co-operative governments in Pakistan and Yemen are unable to enforce the law on the criminals we want prosecuted. Do we just leave those criminals be then? Do we declare uniformed soldier on soldier war against the governments in Pakistan and Yemen? Do we demand they restart the aborted civil wars that have left their tribal regions effectively autonomous independent nations?

In my opinion the tribal regions in places like Yemen and Pakistan are effectively not sovereign parts of those nations. It's not politically expedient to declare that, but it is the way Pakistani and Yemeni governments have been handling and treating the regions all along. They are for all intents and purposes independent nations, which merely pay lip service to being a part of Pakistan or Yemen while jockeying internally for a stronger position for themselves. I see American policy as effectively stepping in and treating those tribal regions as independent nations, rather than as Yemeni or Pakistani territory. Thus America is at open war with these tribal regions for their support of Al-Qaida jihadists.

>> ^SDGundamX:

I know it is being nitpicky, but the reason Padilla could challenge was because he was an American citizen who had been designated by the president as an enemy combatant. You're right, they don't have to try every enemy combatant. I'm trying to find the actual court decision, but I could have sworn that it wasn't just a one-off thing for Padilla--the courts decided that any American has the right to challenge being put on the list in court.

As a fellow nitpicker, I don't mind when someone picks a nit. I don't contest any of what you say here. I actually thought that it went without saying that it hinged on Padilla's citizenship, and wasn't some sort of one-off decision.

>> ^SDGundamX:
As the video notes, al-Awlaki's family was indeed in the process of challenging it when the killing took place. I think that places the President in an awkward position from a legal standpoint. It'll be interesting to see where this goes if the family pursues this (sues for wrongful death or something), though I agree with you it seems like the odds are stacked in favor of the courts supporting the Presidential powers.

I don't see how they thought they might win such a challenge. All Al-Alwaki had to do was provide aid and comfort to the enemy, and it's over. And, well, his big thing was putting Al Qaeda recruitment videos on YouTube, so I'm thinking the government just plays one of those, and the case is over.

But in any case, his status when he was killed was still that of an enemy combatant. Now that he's dead, I suspect his legal status is no longer that of an enemy combatant, so there's nothing to challenge. And I suspect there's some Latin name for this, but I don't think courts are allowed to render something a crime by retroactively changing the legal status of things.

For example, say two people are getting a divorce, and the husband takes some jointly owned property with him when he moves out. Now suppose that when the divorce gets finalized, the court awards that property to the wife. The courts can't say "and it always was hers to begin with, so now we're charging you with larceny for taking it when you moved out".

You'd need to do something like that in order to make this killing a criminal act.

A wrongful death suit might fly though. But that's a civil suit, not a criminal charge.

But seriously, all this stuff is wrong. The President shouldn't have unilateral authority to declare people combatants and non-combatants. It should be uniformed members of the military of the nation we've declared war on. Everything else should be law enforcement, including chasing after terrorists.

The courts aren't going to make all that happen by fiat. That has to be a legislative effort, or it's just going to keep on going like this.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'bank, chasers war on everything' to 'bank, chasers war on everything, stocking, mask' - edited by SlipperyPete

Is this the chasers war on everything? Thats a funny show, you have to wonder how these people manage to avoid picking up any general knowledge as they pass through the world.

>> ^TheFreak:

During the time I lived in Sweden the police never failed to impress me.
You get so accustomed to police in the U.S. who view every civilian as the enemy, then you encounter Swedish police who seem truely concerned with helping the public. It's culture shock to say the least.


The Freak, police used to be that way in the US too. Until the war on drugs hell the war on everything. I can't remember a time when cops in the states gave a shit about rights.

@dag:

Hmm. I mentioned before that these downfall parodies are not nearly as funny for people who speak german.
And thats not a content issue, it is just hard to tune out and pretend you can´t understand what he is really saying. It´s like once you can read an alphabet, it is impossible to not read something that is written before your eyes.

MARK WAHLBERG HAS THREE NIPPLES!

See? It doesn´t work!
It´s the same when you watch these parodies even though you try really hard to focus on just the subtitles.

That doesn´t mean I don´t see the humour in these, though. I can totally see how this is hilarious for non german speakers. Some of them are quite well done and I have even posted some here on the sift.

I also don´t think it is disrespectful of the film or the scene. Actually I think it is quite the opposite! People turning this into a meme that shows the essence of hitlers nuttyness is really an applause to Bruno Ganzs brilliant performance in this film.
Also Hitlers outrageous and globally known character is just begging for parody, so I think it only figures they chose this tantrum scene.

And on the takedown request: I think its just a bunch of corporate pricks who act like kids saying "this is mine!". (btw: It could also be that these are just being deleted alongside other Constantin clips. Might not have been a specific request for the Downfall clips!)
Apparently director Oliver Hirschbiegel did not mind them and even thinks they are funny.

I remember another example by the way, where the boys from The Chasers war on Everything put subtitles under a Osama bin Laden video. I think those were quite brilliant!

Very nicely said by mr. Stanhope..

We live in a world of fear. America is one of the leading nations in creating fear with it's 'war' on everything. And the rest of the western world like my own country The Netherlands, are just copying this same bullshit. That's why (imaginary) safety is above privacy and freedom, the things people have fought for for generations and which we are pissing away.

It makes me sad.

Thanks for the great sift rasch187!

Just watched it... damn.

#spoiler#

(turns out nuclear war devestates everything!)

I'd never considered that society & government might fall that completely apart. I've always thought of it as if a core of civilization would survive (at least in the form of people's knowledge and education), and start rebuilding industry & infrastructure after maybe a couple of years. To be literally bombed back to the stone age seems incredible...

I wonder if it would really be that hard to just spring back?

#/spoiler#

watch this - who knows - maybe there's a happy ending!

The state of the economy is not so much Mr. Obama's fault, as it is, the GOP. During the years between 2000-2008, the GOP removed a number of watch dog groups, regulators, rules, and concepts, to help make companies 'more profitable'. This as you may know, resulted in preditatory lending and grossy irresponsible business practice of companies. The downward spiral of industries, would have been hampered if not stopped, if we had regulations, rules, regulators, and watch dog groups in place. That was the lesson learned from Black Tuesday (not to be confused with Black Friday).

But, the level of irresponsiblity gets better...

Mr. Bush gave the American people (read: the upper 8%, although 'everyone' techincally got) tax cuts. I recall three, but there could have been additional ones. Paying for two wars, and everything else, did not help matters. In fact, the Iraq War costed Americans $550+ billion a year on average (alittle over $3 trillion after 6 years). Now, if Revenue = 2 and expenses = 9, 2-9= -7. So where did we make this negative funding up? That's right: DEFICIT SPENDING!

A concept used by the Reagan Administration (which ended his administration in the largest deficit at the time). Then Bush, Sr used it again (which ended his administration in the largest deficit at the time....BIGGER...then Reagan's). And then Bush, Jr, did the same again (resulting in the largest deficit to date). Now, that Tax & Spend liberal scum, Mr. Clinton, ended his administration with a surplus (meaning, we weren't going further in to debt, AND, paying off the current debt.

So really, if your going to blame some politican for the problems of the economy, why not put it squarely on the GOP's shoulders. Mr. Reagan, Mr. Bush, Sr, and Mr. Bush, Jr, where all 'Fiscal Conservatives'. So, let it be known, not to hire anyone who claims they are a fiscal conservative.

The unemployment rate is, as the video states, lower then what it actually is. The reason for this, is, there's no way to acturally measure the correct unemployment number beyond those who recieve state/federal unemployment checks. Those who are not working due to health problems, are unemployed. Those who have a job at 1/8th their previous salary, are NOT, considered unemployed.

And you've been on 12 interviews since graduating, and your complaining?!?!?!?!?!

(Plays world's smallest violin for ForgedReality)

Actually, Mr. Obama is thinking on the big picture. I could explain it, but, as you said, your too young to understand the wisdom. Maybe in a decade, you'll learn.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'chasers war on everything comedy al qaeda mormon' to 'chasers war on everything, comedy, al qaeda, mormon' - edited by EndAll

Your video, "Chaser's War on Everything" sabotage Norway, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'biggest douche in the universe, bullshit, ghostbusters, chasers war on everythin' to 'biggest douche in the universe, bullshit, ghostbusters, chasers war on everything' - edited by EndAll