How indeed.

Draghi's ECB has just made a move and I don't understand why. Come Feb 11th, they will no longer accept Greek bonds as collateral, effectively cutting off one of Greece's last two sources of credit. What remains is the Emergency Liquidity Assistance (ELA) provided to the Greek Central Bank, through which the entire banking system must now get most of its credit.

Why did they do it? Why now? I don't think it has something to do with the Advocate Generals opinion piece the other day, declaring the ECB's membership in the troika to be a conflict of interest and that fiscal policy is not to be used as a tool to influence poltical decision-making.

Could it be pure idiocy like the time they pulled to plug on Cyprus only to backpeddle shortly after? Or might they be trying to force a move on part of Germany and Greece? "Stop messing around and get your ducks in a row NOW." -- that sorta thing? Is it mere posturing of sorts, a shot across the bow of Greece?

-------
Edit #1

I really don't like this. It looks like disaster, smells like disaster and tastes like disaster. And it's entirely too close for comfort. Are they truly going to turn Greece into a failed-state over principle? The way they casually discuss the lives of nearly 11 million people, and the future of the European Union as well, is bone-chilling.
-------


In the meantime, Schäuble's meeting with Varoufakis went just as expected, reports indicate. Schäuble won't budge a bit. Negotiations with the troika are mandatory, and fiscal waterboarding must be resumed at once. There will be no compromise, not with him in charge. He'll push Greece off the cliff without blinking even once. Convictions worthy of a Templar, that one. Worth remembering that he admitted taking 100k in bribes from an arms dealer in '94 and still managed to become Minister of Finance. A living legend, just not the kind I'd prefer.

With regards to hyperinflation, most folks over here seem to have forgotten, or maybe they never learned, that Chancellor Brüning's austerity regime led to deflation in 1930-32, pushing unemployment to 23%. What followed was a massive influx in membership and infuence for parties at both ends of the political spectrum, similar to Greece. Except in our case, it wasn't the left (KPD) who won the elections in '32...

If you ever wanted to see mounted Templar Knights charge across a frozen lake into a line of Novgorodian pike infantry, Alexander Nevsky is just what you're looking for.

It might also be the cheesiest thing you've ever seen.

So, for people who know the story of the AC series...what do you think?

Were America's founding fathers Assassins or Templars?

My money's on Templars. May the Father of Understanding guide us.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^ponceleon:
Actually I have no problem with motive. I heard Ron Paul say at the debates that we are spending 20bil to air-condition tents for soldiers in Afghanistan... that 20bil is making SOMEONE really rich, so there is definitely a LOT of profit to be made in war.
I guess I should've been more clear. I agree that there's a full array of means, motive, and opportunity for Bushclan/Templars/Majestic 12, etc. to conspire to make the whole 9/11 attack happen in the first place.
What I don't understand is the way that suspicion has transformed into a decade-long attempt to prove that demolitions brought down the various WTC building. I simply can't fathom why anyone would do that, especially if you were a super-capable secret cabal concocting the entire scenario to manipulate people.
If it was an evil organization who could secretly wire the building with explosives, then why wouldn't they just pop the explosives and blame Al Qaeda for it? Why would they hire/manipulate Al Qaeda into flying airplanes into the building, and then demo the building Hollywood style? It seems like it'd be a huge risk (what if someone found the explosives early or evidence of them after?) for no apparent reward.
The buildings fell because of the planes that got flown into them. The real questions to be asking if you're looking for a conspiracy would be "did anyone seem to know about it in advance who shouldn't have?" or more damningly, "did anyone seem to disregard advance information about it who shouldn't have?"
You know, like someone who ignored intelligence briefings with titles like "bin Laden determined to strike in the US"...


Netrunner, what's your thoughts on Operation Northwoods?

Northwoods was a false-flag operation plan by the CIA in 1962. It called for terrorist attacks like hijacking planes, disguising US fighter jets as Cuban MIG fighters, and killing US citizens.

Journalist James Bamford summarized Operation Northwoods in his April 24, 2001 book Body of Secrets:
"Operation Northwoods, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war."


The plan was on the desk of JFK and he refused. JFK was later assassinated. The following year LBJ used the staged Gulf of Tonkin incident to go to war in Vietnam. The people that questioned that incident were called conspiracy nuts. But the truth eventually came out, and it will for 9/11 also.

The point is false-flag attacks and government manipulation of evidence is nothing new. And is certainly nothing our government hasn't done before.

>> ^ponceleon:

Actually I have no problem with motive. I heard Ron Paul say at the debates that we are spending 20bil to air-condition tents for soldiers in Afghanistan... that 20bil is making SOMEONE really rich, so there is definitely a LOT of profit to be made in war.

I guess I should've been more clear. I agree that there's a full array of means, motive, and opportunity for Bushclan/Templars/Majestic 12, etc. to conspire to make the whole 9/11 attack happen in the first place.

What I don't understand is the way that suspicion has transformed into a decade-long attempt to prove that demolitions brought down the various WTC building. I simply can't fathom why anyone would do that, especially if you were a super-capable secret cabal concocting the entire scenario to manipulate people.

If it was an evil organization who could secretly wire the building with explosives, then why wouldn't they just pop the explosives and blame Al Qaeda for it? Why would they hire/manipulate Al Qaeda into flying airplanes into the building, and then demo the building Hollywood style? It seems like it'd be a huge risk (what if someone found the explosives early or evidence of them after?) for no apparent reward.

The buildings fell because of the planes that got flown into them. The real questions to be asking if you're looking for a conspiracy would be "did anyone seem to know about it in advance who shouldn't have?" or more damningly, "did anyone seem to disregard advance information about it who shouldn't have?"

You know, like someone who ignored intelligence briefings with titles like "bin Laden determined to strike in the US"...

This project has been fictionalized in the novel The Templar Legacy by Steve Berry. The fictional construction of Givors in this novel is based on the project at Castle Guedelon.

isn't it strange that if the attacker would have written islamic propaganda to justify his acts the whole news would eat on that but as the fact is that he justified his acts with some fucked up CHRISTIAN morale (named himself a templar in a war on another religion to defend christianity) that is just a footnote. this is religious terrorism period. just because it's YOUR religion doesn't make that fact go away.

I find it funny that prior to the suspect being identified everyone was sure this was Islamic extremism.

How ironic that it's the Justicar Knight Commander of the Knights Templar of Norway.

To be believed or not, I find these sorts of stories to be a lot of fun.

If you agree, I suggest getting hold of a copy of Gabriel Knight 3, one of the last classic Sierra adventure games from 1999. It deals heavily with the themes of the Knights Templar, Bérenger Saunière, and Rennes-le-Château.

Oh, and vampires.

4 years later a <sarcasm>largely unknown</sarcasm> book would appear with a very similar plot: The Davinci Code.

Stirring the pot for no reason. If you don't like a video, downvote it, or avoid it. People have difference of opinion, this is not a little pond, you have to deal with it.

The reason the sift is a good place to be, is because we are so different people. If you don't like it and want to change it to only include your version of reality, then this is not the place for you. I don't think any of the internet really is, when you think about it.

Videosift has a fine filtering mechanism - or well, IS a filtering mechanism, to sift out the crap from the internet. Sometimes things get through that you may not like. Plenty of stuff on here annoys the crap out of me, but I just go around it or even downvote it.

A finishing note is, everything does not revolve around you. I certainly didn't promote that one to attack you or any of the women of the sift - I did it because I like boobs in motion and the video is fun if stupid, and to piss off all the white knights templar who have all the right opinions on the sift.

The cunt punching video is not sexist. The topless chair jousting (http://videosift.com/video/Topless-Chair-Jousting-New-Olympic-Sport-for-2012) video is not sexist. They are no more sexist than all the Old Spice commercials with Isiah Mustafa flexing his pecks to sell deoderant.

Every change they made from DAO to DA2 was bad. In DA2, Combat is a confusing mess. Crafting, runes, armor, and even weapon mods are all completely pointless, tacked on as an after thought, and you can easily complete the game without any of that stuff. The interface was overkill. The DA:O interface is as easy to use as wikipedia, the DA2 interface felt like someone wrote a crappy and unnecessary flash overlay for wikipedia.

The change most people seemed to enjoy the most was the fact that the player character has a voice in this game. And yet oddly, I am more satisfied with the lack of voice in DA:O, because it required some imagination on my part. I felt attached to my Warden, where as in DA2 I felt detached, like I was watching a fictional character play out a story. Worse yet there are no maps in DA2, even though all the locales are attached o one another. The lack of geography added to the detachment.

Which brings me to comparing stories. DA2 had a very linear story. There were no game changing decisions to be made until half way through act 3, where you have to decide on Mages vs Templars, and that would decide what ending you get. DAO had half a dozen major decisions, and a couple a dozen minor ones, and new story arcs always opened up depending on your choices. In DAO, I controlled the fate of Ferelden, and in DA2 I was forced to surrender to fate.

Bottom line, DA2 did not really feel like a true RPG. Its like they left the RP part out and I was playing just a G (video game). Had they kept the DAO engine, and DAO combat, and DAO crafting, and NPC customization, and just made some graphic improvements, the game would have been a hell of a lot more fun.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
I appreciate you taking the time to point that out. I am pretty Knight Templar in my fight against organized religion, but as battles come, I think it's a worthy one.
In reply to this comment by enoch:
my first comment concerning shiny was after his initial comment.
which was rife with dogmatic doublespeak but i did not feel worthy of people ganging up on him.
i do not tolerate bullying of any kind (even with someone i may disagree with).
of course shiny then promptly threw me under the bus after my comment to prattle away is dogma-speak to passive-aggressively attack those who disagreed with him.

so.
i stand by my original comment due to the lack of information shiny had provided and the reaction of some people.
but you are spot on due to the fact that he had contracted diarrhea of the mouth soon after.prattling on like a preacher convinced of his own righteousness.

my comment was to defend shiny's right to be who he is and to point out that some people were being a tad hypocritical.
and it worked...at least it did for many of the commenting sifters who changed their tone concerning shiny.
shiny on the other hand just kept inserting his foot in his mouth.
and the sifters dealt with him accordingly.
i warned him but i have a feeling it made no impact.
a fundamentalist is convinced of his/her own righteousness because the cherry picked verse/chapter tells them so.
sad really...shiny let a good opportunity slip by him and he didnt even notice (another side affect of fundamentalism).

also..
if you scroll a bit further down on that thread you may notice that i call shiny out for that very thing.
missing an opportunity and to stop being preachy.
sighs..some people never learn.

anyways.
you know i think your a righteous dude but i just wanted to clear up my intent(which sometimes gets lost in text)and it was not directed at you.
you always deal with the content of the comment and i rarely see you deal with the commenter.
some people made it personal based on pretty much nothing but presumption.that shows a weak intellect and i felt obligated to point that out.

knights templar///snickers
nice reference.
they did obtain a new understanding of doctrine which placed them at odds with the church..hence friday the 13th and their utter obliteration perpetrated upon them by the church.
i am in total agreement with you concerning organized religion and the institutions therein.
i probably come across as schizophrenic to those that dont know me considering my disdain and abject rage towards organized religion but i will fight anything that seeks to dominate and suppress my fellow man.
and most of my atheist friends agree.
prolly why we get along bud.

I appreciate you taking the time to point that out. I am pretty Knight Templar in my fight against organized religion, but as battles come, I think it's a worthy one.
In reply to this comment by enoch:
my first comment concerning shiny was after his initial comment.
which was rife with dogmatic doublespeak but i did not feel worthy of people ganging up on him.
i do not tolerate bullying of any kind (even with someone i may disagree with).
of course shiny then promptly threw me under the bus after my comment to prattle away is dogma-speak to passive-aggressively attack those who disagreed with him.

so.
i stand by my original comment due to the lack of information shiny had provided and the reaction of some people.
but you are spot on due to the fact that he had contracted diarrhea of the mouth soon after.prattling on like a preacher convinced of his own righteousness.

my comment was to defend shiny's right to be who he is and to point out that some people were being a tad hypocritical.
and it worked...at least it did for many of the commenting sifters who changed their tone concerning shiny.
shiny on the other hand just kept inserting his foot in his mouth.
and the sifters dealt with him accordingly.
i warned him but i have a feeling it made no impact.
a fundamentalist is convinced of his/her own righteousness because the cherry picked verse/chapter tells them so.
sad really...shiny let a good opportunity slip by him and he didnt even notice (another side affect of fundamentalism).

also..
if you scroll a bit further down on that thread you may notice that i call shiny out for that very thing.
missing an opportunity and to stop being preachy.
sighs..some people never learn.

anyways.
you know i think your a righteous dude but i just wanted to clear up my intent(which sometimes gets lost in text)and it was not directed at you.
you always deal with the content of the comment and i rarely see you deal with the commenter.
some people made it personal based on pretty much nothing but presumption.that shows a weak intellect and i felt obligated to point that out.

[redacted]

>> ^necrontyr:

>> ^gwiz665:
Needs subtitles.

The youtube cc is actually correct.


Heh, like an idiot, I didn't know to put those on.