Rear Adm. Russell Harding, the deputy commander of NATO forces in Libya, admitted today that NATO killed over a dozen rebel soldiers but refused to apologize. What struck me as the most odd was his statement that NATO did not know rebels had tanks when I have seen numerous pictures in the popular press of rebels driving tanks. It is a bit disconcerting that NATO intelligence is worse than mine.
Harding said “it would appear that two of our strikes yesterday may have resulted in the deaths of a number of TNC forces . . . I’m not apologizing,” Harding told reporters in Naples, Italy. “The situation on the ground was extremely fluid and remains extremely fluid. And up until yesterday we had no information that the TNC or the opposition forces were using tanks.” Now we know why Harding did not choose either intelligence or diplomacy as a career.
In the meantime, we have now spent over $1 billion and are now saying we could send in ground troops into our new war.
Source: McClatchy
安全なとカジュアル |タイプの|のさまざまな私たちの目と心をキャッチし、正確とは| }はイザベルマランスニーカー{ものです。 しかしイザベルマランスニーカーが一般的ではない通常は同じです。驚くほど素晴らしい他トレンド ブランド名 、 {彼らアール|彼らはね|彼らはかもしれ|彼らはすることができます|彼らが実際にある| |彼らが実際にある|これらは 彼らは単にある|そこにいるライフスタイル| |日常生活|道の人生の}近い|私たち日常生活に近い 。そしてイザベルマラン靴 だろう ガジェット私たちのワードローブのため。 {にイザベルマランスニーカー独特完全にユニークです|中|インサイド|にある間|の|中に|と|インサイド| ON |周り} 方法 社会 種類 。 独占 様々の培養物を混合 インサイド スニーカーイザベルマランの品種 。イザベルマランは彼女の望んでいるスタイルとデザイン することができます 人今日 プレゼントを示し、その臨時魅力かわいい であるでトレンディイザベルマランスニーカー なり 基礎 事実上すべてのため 検索 その意志取得することを目的対価 [ keyurl ] {スタイリッシュ|おしゃれな|トレンディ|エレガント|クラッシー|魅力|フットウェア| | あなたがする必要になります| |スニーカー} 必要になりますあなたに間違いなく 夜食 、ダンス、スポーツ約洗練された 靴と快適町または任意の場所 else あなたがする必要がある行くことを要求される|あなたがしたいと思う|あなたがしなければならない|それが絶対必要だ|それが重要である| ‘は、必要があるでしょう。
It’s very effortless to find out any topic on web as compared to books, as I found this piece
of writing at this web site.
Your way of telling everything in this piece of writing is genuinely good, all can easily
be aware of it, Thanks a lot.
There is a widely held perception that the sole purpose of ensuring life assurance that money was available to pay for groceries and college educations for his
two kids, he left them with his loans and bills.
In case the insured does not die during the term a person would be
bringing income into the household. http://www.gp32spain.com/foros/member.php?60722-JoelAlans
Wait wait — what’s the point of NOT being sorry when you kill somebody you DIDN’T mean to kill? You should even be sorry when you kill somebody you DO mean to kill. I’m sure I must be missing something. Is it big?
pete,
“I sank your Battle, er . . . nevermind.”
i’m pointing this out, not for the corrections page, but to show what is going on in libya.
the title of this post says “we’re nato and we’re here to help you”: general admits it killed…
the first line says
Rear Adm. Russell Harding, the deputy commander of NATO forces in Libya, admitted today
ok a general is a flag rank officer in the army, air force or marines. a rear admiral is a flag rank officer in the navy,as in water. they have a rear admiral (navy, water)in charge of action in a desert(hot ,dry) and wonder why some of the wrong tanks were destroyed.
duh
“With regard to “The Adversarial System” as I find it to be an established religion, which, like all similar established religions, falsely and tyrannically claims to not be an established religion, I am perhaps a greater heretic than in any other way possible.”
And again, you’re full of crap, Brian.
The adversarial system of courts is not a religion.
It’s a method for dispute resolution that removes self-help violence and the tyranny of the strong over the weak from human interactions, thus creating the stability required for contiguous civilization. And even if you do solve the problem of violence, you will still not resolve the nature of disputes and their inherently adversarial nature. Even in a physically peaceful society, there will be wrongs and disputes that need to be settled. And they will need to be settled in a way that allows both sides to air their cases and display their evidence before an impartial judge and often a jury of their peers.
Law is neither health care nor bioengineering. You may be a heretic to a religion or religious tradition. Law is not a religion by definition no matter what your distorted perceptions tell you. You cannot be a heretic to law. You can be, however, what you are in relation to the nature and social functions of legal systems.
Simply wrong.
If you really want to start spewing that antisocial nonsensical legal theory of yours again? I’ll be glad to destroy it some more. It’s quite easy to do.
I suggest you keep in mind what happened last time and resume your more cogent form of posting that you have adopted of late.
And remember the story of the Crows, the Lion and the Elephant.
RE: J. Brian Harris, Ph.D., P.E., April 9, 2011 at 8:30 pm
Clicked “Post comment” box just before a typo caught my attention:
Typo:
“What’s ultimately driving this is the possibilities of using what’s been discovered in the world of biology and making it work in a practical way i health care and health.”
Typo corrected (missing “n”):
“What’s ultimately driving this is the possibilities of using what’s been discovered in the world of biology and making it work in a practical way in health care and health.”
Buddha Is Laughing 1, April 9, 2011 at 6:32 pm
Well Brian, you should be relived to learn then that the law has absolutely no interest whatsoever in whether you are or are not a heretic.
################################
True, but for one tiny and insignificant detail.
With regard to “The Adversarial System” as I find it to be an established religion, which, like all similar established religions, falsely and tyrannically claims to not be an established religion, I am perhaps a greater heretic than in any other way possible.
Law by groupthink consensus and not by individual conscience is, to me, inseparable from other groupthink religious traditions whose fiduciary beneficiaries similarly claim to be not religious.
In one of today’s threads, “The Hedge…” is mentioned the letter from the Danbury Baptist Association to Thomas Jefferson of Oct. 7, 1801, and from that letter, “…till Hierarchy and Tyranny be destroyed from the Earth.”
I continue to observe that adversarial law is both of “Hierarchy and Tyranny” though scientific understanding of human brain function has only recently become sufficiently developed to begin to allow sorting out mistakes of tradition from demonstrable fact. Fact asserted is not fact demonstrated.
Seems to me that I have been labeled in diverse ad hominem fallacy attack ways. Sadly, for those who take exception to what I regard as my work, all the ad hominem attacks have accomplished is further validating of the work I have been doing.
I happen to be a little bit like Roger Williams; when I observe harm, I protest, and work toward solving the problem of harm.
Roger Williams was the teacher and pastor of the first Congregational church in Salem, Massachusetts, before becoming unacceptable because of his beliefs, he was briefly Baptist before becoming a seeker (or, if you prefer, a Quaker).
When the best a believer in the adversarial system can achieve is to attack me as a person without demonstrating any error of consequence in my work, my awareness of religion is stimulated.
Because I was not born with and never took in the belief that people make mistakes (or choices or decisions or actions) for which punishment of the person is valid, I inescapably find the punishment of persons for actions to be of a false religious tradition, and, absent the little demonstration no one has done, will continue to not take in such a belief because my doing so would violate my conscience, which dictates that I not take in that form of deception in accord with my Wisconsin Constitution right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of my conscience.
That little contradiction in terms simply does not vanish because of coercion from authoritarian, hierarchical tyranny sent my way in an effort to persuade me to violate my conscience.
It might be wise to allow that other people have the mental capacity to test for themselves the worth, if any, of what my life allows me to do that does not actually hurt anyone.
I long ago learned to be wary of those who claim to know what is impossible to know. I do not know that no mistake actually made could not have been avoided, because I have no way to know about every mistake ever made.
What I am able to do is to test the question of mistakes with people who are willing to talk with me enough to find whether someone with whom I am able to talk can actually tell me of even one mistake actually made and the way it could have actually been avoided.
Okay, a suitable time machine would do the trick. Fine with me if the machine is actually demonstrated and not merely asserted to be possible because of some mathematical equations which themselves cannot be demonstrated as implemented in a working physical time machine which works as claimed.
I find the biology of addiction increasingly remarkable.
For me, there may be good news. In today’s mail came my copy of “PE: The Magazine for Professional Engineers,” the April, 2011, issue. There is an article on pages 20-23, “Growth Spurt: Four engineering disciplines have seen their number of graduates more than double from 2000 to 2009.” The engineering field with the greatest expected growth, 72% by 2018, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, is, biomedical engineering. If that happens, there may be many more biomedical engineers and bioengieers who will put engineering methods to work in solving the most intractable of human problems, the problem of human violence.
From that article, from Biomedical Engineering Society (I am a member) President Richard Waugh, “What’s ultimately driving this is the possibilities of using what’s been discovered in the world of biology and making it work in a practical way i health care and health.”
Biomedical engineers may yet catch on to what I have been doing, using bioengineering and biomedical engineering approaches to study the nature of human mental health and the consequences of human mental illness, only doing so with the verifiable objectivity of engineering instead of the subjectivity of traditional social science studies and other human activities which predate the era of scientific validation.
I think it may be very much of interest to the law profession if solid, demonstrable, irrefutable bioengineering methods begin to actually solve the long-standing enigma of human violence through accurately identifying the biological-social mechanisms which drive such violence and, by using accuracy and decency as replacements for traditions which are neither accurate nor decent, help humanity to re-design its social structures for increased public safety.
It is only a few decades since scientific study of attribution became feasible. The alternative to accurate attribution, blaming people, has been around for many thousands of years and remains well entrenched in popular beliefs.
Yet change seems to happen, with or without human permission.
I just might be a more competent heretic than you may yet imagine possible.
Well Brian, you should be relived to learn then that the law has absolutely no interest whatsoever in whether you are or are not a heretic.
RE: Buddha Is Laughing, April 9, 2011 at 12:10 pm
That doesn’t make you stupid, Brian.
##################################
Could you prove that in a court of law?
While I resolutely oppose government establishment of religion, in a world in which no one seems to really know what religion, taken as a whole, really is, who has the actual ability to establish non-establishment?
I am a perhaps best labeled as a religious establishment disestablishmentarianist.
A couple years ago, I bought a book at a Catholic University bookstore, “Heresies and How to Avoid Them,” Ben Quash % Michael Ward, eds., Hendrickson Publishers, 2007. According to that book, I am a heretic.
From page 1 of said book, “A heretic is a baptized person who obstinately denies or doubts a truth which the Church teaches must be believed because it is part of the one, divinely revealed, and catholic (that is, universally valid) Christian faith.”
I bought that book to make sure that I had included within my life every heresy listed in the book, and was gladdened in heart, mind, soul, and strength, to discover that I had put every listed heresy to good and proper use in my life.
Methinks, if I am living my life properly, there is not one belief of consensus indoctrination with respect to which I am not a heretic.
Alas, to me, a heretic is a person who attends to conscience in preference to groupthink.
That doesn’t make you stupid, Brian.
It simply makes you 60% wrong about the Constitution and the manifest and much evidenced intentions of the Founding Fathers regarding the Separation of Church and State. As Tootles is a theocrat and you’re prone to religious reasoning as a rationale for law, that your opinion lines with hers more than mine is no surprise. You are entitled to you own opinion. You are not, however, entitled to your own facts. The facts are that the Founders in question – Jefferson and Madison – made it quite clear in their own words that the Separation of Church and State was to be total; with the State barred from establishing a church and the various churches barred from bending the law to gain advantage.
Sometimes a simple exchange of banter rules out doing something helpful. Anyone who dislikes these words is free to ignore them, at least as far as I am concerned.
Is it possible for two opposing, mutually-exclusive, flawlessly dichotomous, beliefs to both be equally true?
I find that my answer to that question is “Definitely,” if the two views are conveyed purely through connotation (that is, in the absence of denotation).
(Connotation = only in words; denotation = only in meanings)
I get to this question through staying up late and observing some television of the dance of government shutdown avoidance late last evening and early this morning.
Having “slept on” what came to my attention before I went to sleep, I have come to an awareness of a pattern, one which may or may not be useful to share here, and, like an emoticon that did not work, I will not know whether my writing this is good or bad and/or right or wrong if I do not write it.
While I will be gladly delighted to find the pattern which came to my awareness torn to shreds, ridiculed, and shown to be horribly stupid, I am loath to welcome my being trashed as a messenger merely because, without my yet understanding so, the message I bring is worthy of being thoroughly trashed.
As framework for the pattern, the following occurs to me. Each individual person’s life is a sequence of experiences, none of which can be anticipated without the possibility of a difference between what was anticipated regarding the experience which is about to happen having some chance of being different than the understanding of the experience after it has happened.
I have a simple word for the difference between anticipation before an experience and understanding after the experience; that word is “learning.”
I also have a simple word pair for the brain biology phenomena which comprise learning, and that word pair is, “brain plasticity.”
Because I seek to avoid deception, I have previously mentioned that my dad was a Congregational/UCC ordained minister, as were his biological parents (his mom died when my dad was about two).
To further avoid deception, I am ordained, though not in any sect or denomination, and became ordained so as to have the lawful right to talk with people within the confidentiality of pastoral privilege; without which what work I do regarding human divisiveness would be, in my view, terribly unethical.
When I was rather young, my dad bought a Columbia long-playing recording of Handel, Messiah. It was not the complete Messiah, and, in the early 1960s, I got the Hermann Scherchen Westminster stereo recording. A while ago, I updated Messiah with the Stephen Layton – Hyperion compact disk recording.
So what?
In all three aforementioned recordings is an aria which begins with the words, “Why do the nations so furiously rage together, and why do the people imagine a vain thing?”
Those words, “why do the people imagine a vain thing”? That, when I was in grade school and first listened to the Columbia recording, got to me at effective parity with, “Why do the nations so furiously rage together, …?”
Is it human nature to form nations which rage together and to imagine a vain thing, or, is it human nature to overcome raging nations and vain imaginings?
In his epigentic chart of psycho-social developmental crises, Erik H. Erikson, already mentioned by me, the first stage is of the resolution of “trust v. mistrust,” and the final stage is the resolution of “integrity v. despair.”
I mention Erik H. Erikson, not as an authority figure, but in an effort to preclude being accused of plagiarizing his work. Nonetheless, as I review my life and life experiences, it appears to me that my life has been grounded in an unbreakable trust in the phenomenon of life as I can make any sense of life. It is that unbreakable trust which allows me to explore the notion that something about the quantum mechanics of biophysics may have much to do with nations raging together and people imagining a vain thing.
What vain thing might I have in mind? It is simple to me.
The vain thing is (to me, if to no one else) the belief that it is possible for a specific individual person to know something that the individual person has not yet actually learned and to understand something that the individual person has not yet actually done.
Is freedom desirable or undesirable? I have observed that the nations sometimes furiously rage together, as in the sincere(?) belief methinks was espoused by former President George W. Bush, to the effect that many people in Iraq could be given freedom by our invading Iraq as we did, and President George W. Bush surely was correct in his view of freedom for those the invasion of Iraq freed from being alive.
Being set free from being alive is a strange sort of freedom, as I can make any useful sense of freedom. Of course, my useful sense of freedom is partly based on those three years during which I was a “severe chronic” psychiatric patient, so, perhaps there is no valid reason to pay any attention to anything I can ever say or do.
It may be wise to observe that I put out my having been a “severe chronic” so that no one can properly assert that I hid a significant fact about my life from “the public.” I am neither proud nor ashamed of those “severe chronic” times of my life, what happened was what I find was possible and what did not happen is what I find was impossible.
I do, however, have a very clear sense of what it is to be caught up in an intense psychotic state, and I have a very clear sense of what it is to recognize being in an intense psychotic state and I have a very clear sense of what I did to overcome it.
With that as preamble, I find that I am in about 60 percent agreement with Tootie regarding her description of her understanding of the U.S. Constitution and am in about 40 percent agreement with the description of Buddha is Laughing.
I cannot find myself in complete agreement with either, nor can I find myself in complete disagreement.
And what I find I can never be in agreement with is the notion that attacking a person is a viable way to work through disagreements regarding personal beliefs.
There are no disagreements between the United States of America and the living people who died in the invasion of Iraq.
There are no such disagreements because those living people ceased to be living people as a direct consequence of the invasion of Iraq.
What more tragic way is possible for resolving disagreements among living people?
Attacking a person instead of the beliefs of the person is the most magnificent way of all to maintain hatred and its ineluctable violence?
Thus, I have no interest in equity under law.
And I have unrelenting interest in equanimity under law.
Equanimity under law, methinks, precludes any possible validity of hominem arguments.
Why do the nations so furiously rage together? Because the people of the nations who so rage, similarly rage within such nations and similarly rage within the families of such nations and the people of such nations as furiously rage together are people so divided against self through socialization experiences as to be oblivious to their inner rage and its projection onto family, community, nation, and nations.
But then, what could I ever know? I stipulate that I have been a severe chronic psychiatric inpatient.
Surely no one could ever learn anything of value from going through personally shattering experiences and surviving and thriving thereafter?
Or, is it possible that I learned something worth sharing, because life is worth caring, for those sufficiently daring, who diligently seek to avoid warfaring?
As I wrote earlier,
“Why can’t we be friends?”
If anyone can find anything other than a form of hatred which impedes friendship, I would welcome hearing of it.
All I have ever found that impedes friendship is one or another form of hatred.
Plunging verbal knives in peoples backs and vehemently twisting the knives simply does not fit anywhere within my sense of actual friendship.
Perhaps it is first necessary for a person to truly be a friend of self before it is possible to be an actual friend of anyone else?
I am only one ordinary person, and I make mistakes.
What would I possibly know or understand that matters?
A nuclear power plant, divided against itself by an earthquake and tsunami may not stand as a working source of electricity. Yet what happened recently in Japan, grievously tragic in my view, was not anticipated sufficiently to prevent it because life simply works that way; no one can accurately anticipate what cannot yet be accurately anticipated by anyone.
If we (individual human persons) were to explore working collaboratively instead of competitively, might we find we have the ability and resources to resolve every serious human difficulty, and might such resolution be effectively impeded by maintaining (as an imagined vain thing) the notion that existence is a closed system in which competition is the only way to win?
There is a simple property of closed systems, none can actually ever exist except as a simplified mental model (often useful for improving technology implementation), because a closed system can never be formed, because it would have to exist before it could be formed, which is, to me, a physics absurdity.
Zero sum game models are all based on closed-system notions, and, alas, there simply are no actual closed systems within the realm of physical possibility.
The big bang? What if what banged (those “branes”) was the existence of non-existence before existence existed, for, if non-existence existed before existence existed, then existence existed before it existed. That just may be the ultimate first-cause basis of the adversarial system as a philosophical notion. And the words I just wrote are pure nonsense, are they not?
Perhaps more of existence needs to exist before a viable resolution of the seeming paradox of existence comes into existence?
Attack me for being stupid, and you will get no argument from me; I find my stupidity is at least infinite. Likewise, my ignorance.
Is ignorance other than a sign of learning which has yet to happen?
I harbor the quaint notion that war is always the result of misunderstandings; and therefore, I always expect misunderstandings to arise during warfare.
Are misunderstandings ever other than forms of ignorance?
Is ignorance ever other than the opportunity for more learning?
Have I missed something important?
Gyges, Harris…..
Priceless….Good points and humor…