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.

Kinda scary how that syncs up. Even the execution is perfectly in sync with the air strike in Jepsen's video.

Skimming through things there, things start becoming fishy. He's a social media specialist, and certainly mis-represents the lawsuit in his videos, and given he had a ghostbed email address at one point, seems to indicate a rather comfortable relationship with GB (who carefully worded the point on the email issue, leaving it open to admit that the guy did have an email with them, just doesn't presently).

At the same time, I think there is some valid concern over the powder, which I'd guess is to help release it from the mold and aid in keeping it from sticking while rolled. It'll be interesting to see some more independent lab reports than the ones we've seen so far. Also, how much of said powder actually gets out if you, like most people, don't rip off the sock and cover (aside to occasionally wash the cover)? I understand micro-beads can be unsafe to inhale, but in typical use, how much gets from the bed into the air compared to other items used on a daily basis gets in the air?

Also, not sure the Streisand Effect is going on, as Purple was really well known before. Almost every mattress commercial I've seen on the Internet has been for Purple. So I don't think this is spreading their brand... unless this about spreading his brand, in which case it could be.

Okay, so I started going on about the Streisand Effect and jumped subjects to some comments in the Reddit thread about people who've never heard of Purple, then back to the effect. I'll blame that on the fact I was running late for work.

Anyhow, as to said effect, given that Purple isn't suing because he asked about the safety issues, but is instead being sued for not disclosing his relationship with a competitor, I don't know if it applies. Now it probably is bringing far more attention to the plastic beads than otherwise would be there. Now he however is being exposed for his relationships with GhostBed, and lots of questions are being raised about him, which is why I said it might apply to him.

Meanwhile, as I noted in the original paragraph, some people are saying they never heard of Purple, so I was doubting this spreads the brand, nor improves GhostBed's standing.

I had more, but I can't recall all I was going to say as the comment system crashed beyond the point I could come back and edit.

We really don't have sufficient driver's ed to be throwing down spike strips for cars going over a hundred while driven by the typical pleb.

Typical pleb should be a much better driver before this is a policy.

Otherwise it's more risk of harm than letting the typical pleb speed with his tyres in one piece.

That is, if public safety is a priority. Not saying that it is. Maybe this is a good use case for civilian uav air strikes. A mini hellfire would work well. (sarcastic/cynical comment, yet would not be surprised if in 20 years it becomes reality. "lol").

-scheherazade

@newtboy
I admit that perhaps invading Palestine slowly was their best viable option before the war ended.....I just think it's helpful to be perfectly honest that that's what happened and not play some game about it and pretend they hold the moral high ground on that part of the issue.

I guess I just don't agree on calling it an invasion from the outset. European Jews had the doors closed to them everywhere the world over, illegal immigration or staying in what would become Nazi occupied Europe were their only options. Palestine was hands down the most attractive option, despite a hostile Arab Palestinian population. The main reason being that the Jewish Palestinian minority were basically a state within a state. The Arab and Jewish populations had both sufficiently failed to integrate already that they were operating as largely segregated and autonomous regions. Thus, Jewish Palestine was both reasonably close to Europe, and very much welcoming to the people leaving. I don't believe that's fair to be marked as an invasion from the outset. I must insist that if we get to insist all actors conduct themselves in their own self interest, that the Jewish immigration from Europe to Palestine could have been entirely peaceful, and if the Arab population had taken a live and let live approach things could have gone swimmingly. Of course humans aren't ideal or moral very often, so both sides fought and tensions arose. By the time WW2 was over it was too late, the dice were cast and another Jewish exodus from Palestine back to Germany wasn't gonna work. Neither were the Jewish people promised a thing from Germany and it would all be on a hope and a prayer. They had a better shot making their own future by standing their ground in Jewish Palestine. Truth be told, I really can't blame the Jewish side for saying enough is enough and we're gonna stand and fight. Neither can I blame the Arab Palestinian's over much as their biggest fight was really just for independence from the British. With the British gone, both the Jewish and Arab residents fought it out over who would control what, which is sadly fairly natural.

The point I DO lay blame is when the civil war took a pause and Israel declared independence on the UN mandated borders. The Arab world(not the Arab Palestinians) jointly refused to accept any Jewish portion of Palestine and swore to drive them into the sea. Worse, they vehemently called for the retreat of all Arab palestinians from the region to make it easier to clear the country out. Of course, they failed to win that fight and it's been a source of great shame and horror ever since. They didn't fail for lack of strength in arms or numbers, but because each neighbouring Arab state cared not a whit for restoring Palestine to the Arab Palestinians but instead each sought to seize a portion of it for themselves, as invaders. Luckily for Israel they exploited those divisions to come out the other side.

There's plenty of atrocities to blame on the Palestinian response, but also empathy for a displaced and, today, a decimated people still suffering horrifically, mostly for 'sins' of their grandfather's, namely the sin of fighting invaders stubbornly.

But that is all the more the tragedy, as that is very clearly the way the Israeli's started out. They remained peaceful and fled as nation after nation tried to destroy them. The most open place to them in the time probably was Jewish Palestine. For all the atrocities to blame on Israel, I also have empathy for the plight they started from. Even their whole history through today is a tight rope walk were losing any single one of the wars from then till now would have seen the end of Israel as state.

As much blame as one can put on Israel for meeting homemade rockets with professional air strikes, they aren't the only ones to be blaming. Yes, more empathy is needed for the Palestinians than blame. But their are plenty of states, mostly Syria and Iran using the Palestinians as proxies and pawns. So many Arab entities WANT to see dead Palestinians in the news because it plays well for them. I really insist they get as much or more heat than Israel for the tragedy unfolding.

Congratulations! Your comment on Air Strike Gone Bad has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 2 Badge!

Pandering more than slightly to the FPS puritan crowd. There doesn't seem to be any frilly bullshit going on - the type that drives oldschool FPS players crazy like calling in air strikes, perks, experience, head bob and realistic climbing motions, reality physics.

I mean i'm forever bitching about how most FPS these days make you feel like you're waist deep in treacle, nothing feels crisp and reactive. I complain that in the old days we didn't have crowd control effects where you'd take your hands off the mouse&keyboard for up to 5 seconds because of someone's second special attack or 'ultimate'. Or that one hero type will always beat another hero type - I was in top teams/national teams for both HLTFC and TF2, i know my stuff regarding class based team FPS, i'm not just talking shit/whining there.

They ram those statements home at the end - pure speed, pure skill, pure fps. I don't believe it for one second, but they clearly want people like me to be hyped over this.

Too many unsubstantiated assertions here. From a website titled Storm Clouds Gathering, rumor mongering isn't exactly a surprise.

John McCain does not represent US foreign policy and sounds misinformed. The 4-5 US trained fighters and provision of tactical equipment pretty much represents the degree of support/involvement the US has provided Syrian rebels. For obvious reasons that he himself points out. There's no credible opposition remotely alligned with US values, and any arms provided risk ending up with radical groups.

Just because McCain thinks it's a good idea doesn't mean it is happening, will happen or that the executive branch shares his mindset. However it is true that Russian air strikes have primarily targeted other groups over ISIS. This aligns with what I talked about elsewhere that Russia's aim is to prop up Assad. With a western coalition taking on ISIS already, this naturally leaves Assad in the strongest position.

http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/20151010_MAM922.png

>> ^chingalera:

Country's
Motto: Faith, Unity, Discipline
Last 5 empires to rule :British, Sikh, Durrani, Mughal, and Mongol.
By 2030 it is expected to overtake Indonesia as the largest Muslim country in the world (About 97% of the population) The majority are Sunni, with an estimated 5–20% Shi'a.
Between the dominant strain and the 5-20% of Shi'a throw-backs to the 4rth century,of the rest.... The Ahmadis (sect considered non-Muslim by virtue of a 1974 constitutional amendment, how fucking retarded and out-of-synch with 21st century sensibilities with a view to societal evolution is that,hello??),Quraniyoon..etc etc, and the rest of the religions or disciplines to be found on the planet.
It's an ancient seat of human society, rich on culture and heritage, unfortunately, Muslim religion dictates much of influence on government policies as well. Oh. They have the fucking atomic bomb, too. That's worrisome...nah, fuck it, they're not suicidal.
I have a silly question for y'all. How many 14-year-old kids do you know or have heard of in Canada ,the United States or Denmark who can fashion replacement parts for an AK-47 in a hut with a dirt floor and a home-made smelt?
The alternatives to not-so-'precise or humane air strikes involve equally as 'problematic and inhumane aspects. I can think of only one scenario where everybody wins.
UN-TEACH SHIT-THINK TO EACH NEW GENERATION. A similar fix would make North Korea a country full of humans being instead of robot putty husks, in just outside of 2 generations.


This is why Obama destabilizing the country by ramping up Drone attacks and soldiers in Afghanistan is stupid. We don't own the world, but we act like we do.

Country's
Motto: Faith, Unity, Discipline

Last 5 empires to rule :British, Sikh, Durrani, Mughal, and Mongol.

By 2030 it is expected to overtake Indonesia as the largest Muslim country in the world (About 97% of the population) The majority are Sunni, with an estimated 5–20% Shi'a.

Between the dominant strain and the 5-20% of Shi'a throw-backs to the 4rth century,of the rest.... The Ahmadis (sect considered non-Muslim by virtue of a 1974 constitutional amendment, how fucking retarded and out-of-synch with 21st century sensibilities with a view to societal evolution is that,hello??),Quraniyoon..etc etc, and the rest of the religions or disciplines to be found on the planet.

It's an ancient seat of human society, rich on culture and heritage, unfortunately, Muslim religion dictates much of influence on government policies as well. Oh. They have the fucking atomic bomb, too. That's worrisome...nah, fuck it, they're not suicidal.

I have a silly question for y'all. How many 14-year-old kids do you know or have heard of in Canada ,the United States or Denmark who can fashion replacement parts for an AK-47 in a hut with a dirt floor and a home-made smelt?

The alternatives to not-so-'precise or humane air strikes involve equally as 'problematic and inhumane aspects. I can think of only one scenario where everybody wins.

UN-TEACH SHIT-THINK TO EACH NEW GENERATION. A similar fix would make North Korea a country full of humans being instead of robot putty husks, in just outside of 2 generations.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'al jazeera, people, power, drones, UAV, air strikes, due process' to 'al jazeera, people, power, drones, UAV, RPA, air strikes, due process' - edited by calvados

Tags for this video have been changed from 'al jazeera, people, power, drones, air strikes, due process' to 'al jazeera, people, power, drones, UAV, air strikes, due process' - edited by calvados

>> ^renatojj:

@.


Np, glad you liked them. I'm not saying there is only one account of what went down, I'm saying that it is fact that America was most prosperous when taxes were the highest. You don't need to be a historian or theorizer to use Google and check that for yourself.

Your quick Google search brung up an article that deals only in theory, and the argument they use is that people that are taxed 0% are more motivated than people that are taxed 100% - so that the imperitive becomes to cover Govt. expenses while keeping the taxes as low as possible to maintain motivation. That makes perfect logical sense and doesn't disagree with the facts I bought to the table, that America has been most prosperous during periods of high taxation, it simply proves that low is subjective. Taxing someone who earns $10,000 50% of their income means they take home a tiny amount of money, the same tax rate on a billionaire means they still take home five hundred million dollars, more than enough don't you think? If all income was related to productivity then my argument would be different, but quite simply it's not. Look at derivatives trading or inheritence funds as a couple of examples.

Fixing tax rates is also just the beginning, there needs to be a complete overhaul of your taxation system, there is plenty of information out there that details how dozens of your fortune 500 companies are paying no tax at all (e.g. GE and Boeing), Pepco Holdings Inc had a negative 57.6% tax rate for 2010 according to this article:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/03/us-usa-tax-corporate-idUSTRE7A261C20111103

So not only are the tax rates poorly thought out, the tax system allows companies that rake in billions in profits ways by which to avoid paying any tax at all (and even get refunds).

The same goes for individuals as well, Mitt Romney, who made over twenty million in 2010, and has at least thirty million stashed in over 138 investment funds in the Caimans paid close to 15% tax in that same year. That's the same tax rate that someone earning $10,000 would have to pay.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/romney-parks-millions-offshore-tax-haven/story?id=15378566#.Tx-lKm_9PUd

Is he using this additional money he's making from not paying his taxes for productive purposes? It would appear not... His motive is profit, and to that end he's closed plants, cut employee wages, laid off American workers and outsourced their jobs to other countries, all while he and his partners have made tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars, while the companies he's invested in have often ended up going bankrupt:
http://www.romneygekko.com/mitt/

So my point is that it's a pipedream to think that lower taxes on the rich has only one effect, to make them more productive, it also carries with it a myriad of negative consequences as I've illustrated, the worst one being lobbying, which is rampant in your country. In terms of Chile, you say that all education there is state funded? Have a look at this report and you will see that the total investment in tertiary education Chile makes is probably close to about half a percent of their GDP, which is indeed lower than any other country surveyed, they are also at the very bottom of the list when it comes to actual dollars invested in public education. Meanwhile the cost of education for students is the highest of any OECD country.
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/45/48/37864432.pdf

The reasons for that come full circle back to your economic theories. Have you heard of Augusto Pinochet? America installed him as the dictator of Chile after the CIA organised a successful air strike on the palace of the existing democratically elected leader - Allende, which resulted in his death. It's well known that Pinochet relied on the Chicago boys for economic policy, who in turn were trained by Milton Friedman. Friedman was ... the major free-market economist of his time, and it's these exact same policies that still linger around today in the education system thanks to Patricio Aylwin and others. It's clear evidence that your model has flaws, and it's also clear who benefits the most from it.

Being the biggest backers doesn't mean it's being done for religious purposes.

I'm not debating some see it that way. You also have a bunch of people who didn't, too.

Where in that link did Tony Blair was quoted saying this was part of a Christian struggle?! It's loosely about believing it's a good versus evil thing. It's not about killing Muslims because Muslims are evil, or demoralizing Muslim culture to make room for Christian culture.. If you believe it was about killing Muslims, or advancing the interests of Christianity at the expense of Islam, you need your head examined. At no point was Blair ever on a Christian Crusade.

A VERY small group of evangelical Christian soldiers doesn't make the case.

Now, about Obama and Christianity. You do realize Obama at this point pretty much goes to church because it's a political liability if he doesn't. He quite possibly is the least religious president to ever be in office.

He is not intentionally trying to kill Civilians. #1. The statistics you sited are skewed concerning civilian casualties, although I'm not dismissing civilian casualties. Significant civilian casualties have been a mainstay in military action since WWII on all sides, after a brief reprieve in WWI and other wars leading up to it. You do the best you can to limit them while achieving your objectives. The reality is you won't achieve anything if you try to avoid any civilian casualties.

With that said, the article is discussing Predator drone casualties only, which is a small fraction of total casualties. And even then, you have a dispute on statistics, and I agree the US military is not going to give an unbiased number either. However, it's very difficult to tell what the accurate number is at this point.

See the above about civilian casualties as collateral damage. It would be difficult to achieve anything if the primary focus was to avoid them instead of achieving objectives.

Does all this add up to terrorism? No, for several reasons:

1. It isn't intentional, not any part of the objective in conducting them. Terrorist acts are specific explicit targeting of civilians. Often, the more civilians you kill, the better when you're a terrorist.
2. You sited bombings in Tripoli. Part of the objectives in that raid is to topple the oppressive regime in Libya, is it not? And yes, I completely accept that we're not just there for that. Libya has oil resources, etc. we're interested in, but it doesn't change the fact that part of the reason we're there is to free the Libyan people from an oppressive regime. It's pretty silly to site an operation that inadvertently killed civilians to achieve a better life for the Libyan people at large.

Extreme progressives are critical of Obama for many of the things you're siting. Obama isn't an extreme progressive, socialist, communist, etc. as much as QM and WP would love for you to believe. He's a moderate politician who leans to the left. If that's the indictment, I don't think anyone would disagree he's not the most liberal progressive politician since FDR. He's not. To say however he isn't progressive at all is not true either. Honestly, as much oil as there is in Libya, it's not worth military action. There's a bit of idealist progressivism to conduct air strikes against Libya.

And again, I fail to see how that's relevant to the debate of the religion of this guy. He is a Christian, there's no doubt about it. Granted, he's got a warped Christian ideology, but it is Christian. You can't say someone isn't Christian just because you don't agree with their interpretation.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^heropsycho:
The war on terror isn't being waged based on an overt Christian ideology. There's the difference. There are plenty of Muslims in the US military who see no problem fighting radical Islam. Not sure how you missed that, but it's pretty obvious. This guy performed terrorist acts because of his warped Christian ideology.
My second point is wtf does Obama and Progressivism have to do with any of this? Short answer: it doesn't. And yes, this guy is clearly a Christian of the super-nutty variety. Every religion, and even atheists, have their nuts. Why is this so shocking to anyone?
>> ^marbles:
>> ^heropsycho:
1. How so?
2. WTF does that have to do with anything in this video?!
>> ^marbles:
The war against terror is largely a "Christian" crusade and yet I don't see you guys up in arms about it.
Any "progressive" that supports Obama or the Democrat Party is about as much progressive as Breivik is Christian.


1. Christian war hawks bombing and invading Muslim countries. Do some research.
2. Does this video not suggest Breivik is a Christian terrorist?


And as far as the war on terror as a Christian crusade, you have:
-Conservative Christians as the biggest backers of the Iraq war (link)
-Pentagon officials that see the "war on terror" as a religious war between Judeo-Christian civilization and Satan, with Islam of course cast in the latter role (link)
-President Bush using Biblical prophesy to justify the war in Iraq (link)
-Prime Minister Tony Blair viewing his decisions to go to war in Iraq and Kosovo as part of a "Christian battle" (link)

-US Military trying to convert Arabs to Christianity (link)(link)
These examples are just the surface, they don't even really delve into the Zionist components of the wars.

As for your second point--short answer: it has everything to do with it. It exposes your own hypocritical POV. (along with many other's)
Obama is a self professed Christian. He indiscriminately kills civilians with military drones (some estimates put the civilian death rate at 90%, the other 10% are just suspects executed without due process)(link)
Is this not terrorism?
Is Obama not a Christian terrorist?
There is ongoing torture of uncharged suspects, many who are innocent civilians, many who we know are innocent civilians. (link)(link)(link)(link)
Just recently, NATO bombing runs in Tripoli would last for several hours, hitting civilian targets and killing innocents. (link)(link)
Is this not terrorism that is fully supported by Obama and progressives?