ZNAK SAGITE — više od fantastike — edicija, časopis, knjižara...

nije sad važno koju od 10-15 kolonijalnih sila uzmemo kao primjer, činjenica je da svuda ima kradenih cigli, i ne može to da se krije iza neke kvazifilozofije Džona Loka po kojoj nova generacija, odnosno sinovi, nemaju obavezu da vraćaju dug koji ima stalno stoji pod nogama. Dakle, cigle nisu vaše i tačka.

Afrika nije gladovala prije nego što su došli Evropljani, tek to ne računamo, da su napravili kolonije u kojima je inače živio mali broj ljudi jer klima nije mogla da proizvede dovoljno hrane, Englezima i ostalima je trebala radna snaga pa su uvozili hranu i podsticali visok natalitet da bi povećali broj robova, i onda kada su se povukli ostavili su stanovništvo koje ne može na toj zemlji da se izdržava.

Dakle, za sve ove gladne u Africi dobro se zna ko je krivac, Evropljani čak licemjerno govore da imaju višak hrane koji bi dali Africi, ali da afričke zemlje plate troškove transporta, što ove naravno ne mogu jer nemaju čime da plate.

Tako da Lomljavino, dosta više tih kvaziliberalnih priča, nešto je mnogo trulo u EU i to je vrlo jasno.

Ok Mac, a koliko je samo nepreciznih izjava bilo s druge strane pa ništa.

ALBEDO ne sporim ja to, ali današnje generacije su nešto sasvim drugo.
Kakvu oni imaju krivicu?
Ja sam na ovu temu jako osetljiv jer imam jednog čukundedu, koji je ubio čoveka i bio na robiji dugo.
Ja s tim nemam veze.

- Inače Srbija nije bila ničija kolonija. Dug koji imamo uzeli smo za vreme Tita i trošili smo sami. Ko ti može biti kriv za tvoj soptveni dug?

KOLONIJE
Za to su jednostavno krive sve belačke nacije.
Nema nikog ko je nevin.
Rusija je pokorila sve sibirske narode, a Britanija s obzirom da je ostrvo morala je da osvaja preko mora.
U to vreme to je bilo legitimno i bilo je samo reč o tome ko će više da osvoji.
Belgija uzela Kongo, Francuska Obalu Slonovače, Englezi Ganu, Portugalci Angolu...
Holanđani celu Indoneziju.

U to vreme je to tako.
Kao što će se ljudi budućnosti možda čuditi što mi jedemo životinjsko meso i držimo ih u malim kavezima i mučimo ih.

U pećinskom dobu i kanibalizam je bio legitiman.

U antici bilo je legitimno da zarobiš u ratu neprijatelja i pretvoriš ga u kućnog roba, kome možeš da radiš šta god hoćeš.

Do pre nekoliko vekova mogao si da uvatiš bilo koju ženu, koja nema oca i braću da je štite i da je siluješ bez problema.
U pećinskom dobu toljaga ženi na glavu, pa drugi put neće da se buni.

Koncept ljudskih prava je nešto sasvim NOVO i kad je već tako to treba podržati,
ali ne može se to primeniti retroaktivno, a naročito ne može za potomke nekih predaka.

Čak i zemlje, koje u prošlosti nisu imale kolonije, nisu bile ništa bolje već jednostavno nisu mogle jer su bile premale.
Kao da Srbija ne bi imala kolonije da može. Da se nalazimo tamo gde i Portugal i mi bi smo možda imali Brazil.

AFRIKA:
Što se Afrike tiče nemojte zaboraviti da je ona bila skoro potpuno prazna van Nila, roga Afrike i tropskih krajeva.
Veliki porast ljudi oni beleže tek danas zahvaljujući natalitetu.

Južnoafrička Republika je bila skoro potpuno pusta pre dolaska Evropljana.

I crnci, koji žive tamo su doseljenici iz nizijskih i tropskih predela Afrike.
Ova zemlja gotovo da nije ništa više nije crnačka nego belačka.

Njen sused Zimbabve imao je 1,3 miliona ljudi na ogrom,noj teritoriji.
Belci su uzeli jedan deo, ali to se kasnije preprodavalo.

Ne zanima nas odakle belac u nekom delu Afrike jer ima i crnaca u Evropi.
Umesto istorije valjda se gleda PRAVO I USTAV.

Crnac u Nemačkoj ili Francuskoj kad kupi legalno kuću i imanje to je njegovo.
Nema otimanja. On je građanin te zemlje i gotovo.

U Zimbabveu se dešava da belci imaju sve moguće papire.
Kupio nekome deda kuću i njivu.

Dođe gomila, podržana od strane vladajuće partije Mugabea.
Istera belce iz kuće i kaže: I ovo je deda nekog belca (od koga je tvoj deda) kupio
kuću uzeo tek tako...

I nema nikakvih prava.

A pre belaca nit su postojale kuće, nit su postojale zgrade, nit je postojala industrija, nit je narod imao pismo... Niti su znali kako se sadi voće i povrće.

Nema nikakve PRAVNE LOGIKE da se krše prava belaca iz 18.generacije, koja poseduje te papire, ali to se dešava.

I onda mi bez poređenja predaka samo reci da li je bolja sadašnja generacija Evropljana, koja crncima daje jednaka prava ili sadašnja generacija Zimbabveanaca, koja ne bi da poštuje ni zakon ni prava ni išta.

I navedi mi šta je to Evropljanin mogao da opljačka od Afrikanca, kad Afrikanci pre dolaska Evropljana nisu imali ništa. Ni gradove ni industriju.
Bocvana i Namibija imale su dijamante i to jeste pljačka,
a ostali?
Alžir je imao naftu, ali nemoj mi reći da Francuzima stoji ta nafta u rezervi 40- godina? To je potrošni materijal.

Nit su švapske kuće vaše.

Meni je žao tih banatskih Nemaca, koji su proterani, ali nemoguće je da se isteraju novi doseljenici u tim kućama.

U tom slučaju nastradale bi te nove sirote generacije Srba, koje nisu krive što im je pradeda ušao u napušteno imanje naroda, koji je proteran.

Šta bismo radili sa 100 000 novih Srba bez kuća, ako bi sve to moralo Nemcima da se vrati?

Ja sam za to da svaka generacija odgovara za sebe.
Ne možeš praunuka kazniti za greh pradede.

Ako praunuk - bilo da je Srbin iz Banata ili belac iz Zimbabvea ima dokument, koji kaže da je ta kuća njegova, onda je njegova.

A država POTOMCIMA proteranih Nemaca može da da obeštećenje, ali u nekom drugom vidu.

Kako da ne.Ova država je i poznata po tome da je vratila sve opljačkano.Možda,ali samo bradonjama iz džipova.

U svakom slučaju bilo bi zanimljivo čuti odgovor Albeda na ovu temu.

Ako se zalaže za to da neke kolonijalne sile vrate nešto bivšim kolonijama, kojima su svojevremeno učinile nešto nažao, da li onda i Srbija treba da vrati sva imanja, koja ima podunavskim Nemcima, koji su proterani odavde?

Ovde bi postojao i razlog više jer zu ,,bele zemlje'' ipak kasnije poprimale milione ljudi iz bivših kolonija, dok Srbija podunavskim Nemcima nije nikad ništa vratila.

Jugoslavija i Nemačka su sklopile dil. Nemci ne daju pare za logoraše, Jugoslavija ne daje pare za folksdojčere, niti se Nemci vraćaju nazad.

Dakle isto ko i Francuzi sa svojim bivšim kolonistima.
Primamo more Arapa, crnaca i Haićana, dajemo im život i radna mesta, ali nema otplaćivanja starih dugova.

kao što reče mac...

Lomljavino, imaš li ti, kako da to nazovem, drugi sprat u glavi?

Ono tipa Vojvodina nije isto što i Etiopija, pa imamo dva nivoa analize?

Jesu li Srbi napali Vojvodinu i okupirali je, ili su AustroUgari napali Srbiju i okupirali je pa ispušili?

Njemci su izgubili svoja imanja kada? Pa zna se kada, opet ih niko nije zvao ali oni vole tako da dođu, što reče Andrić ako ih ugostiš kako treba, kao domaćin što se kaže, oni se ne zahvaljuju nego smatraju da im to kao superiornoj rasi i sljeduje.

Jebiga, nacizam je nacizam, nije drang nach osten srpska spoljnopolitička deviza.

Došli su nepozvani i u Srbiju i u Zimbabve. Srbija naplatila, Zimbabve nije.

A to koliko su Francuzi divni prema svojim Arapima vidimo po paljenju automobila i neredima u Parizu prije par godina.

Quote from: Lomljavina on 02-09-2010, 18:44:13
Kakve veze ima današnji stanovnik SAD sa indijanskim ratovima od pre više vekova, naročito ako znamo da više pola građana SAD ima pretke, koji su se naselili u SAD uveliko psole tog vremena.
U toku najvećih istrebljenja indijanaca tamo je bilo 10 miliona belaca,
a sad SAD ima 310 miliona. Ko je tamo uopšte potomak tih generacija kauboja kad većina ima pretke, koji su došli kasnije, a i da je potomak, šta s tim?

Ма, хајде! Од последњих крљања са Апачима и Сијуксима није прошло ни 150 година, а камоли неколико векова...и какав је то податак о 10 милиона белаца у време највећег покоља Индијанаца? Које је то време? Током 19. века непрестано су стизали и стизали нови досељеници, ко их може избројати? Могло би се поставити и питање чему то све крљање када сад огромна већина становништва америке живи на обалама и југу, а средњи запад је и даље слабо насељен? но све је ово мање-више небитно у овим економским причама...

Bojim se da će zatezne kamate na 'naplaćeno' dolaziti, sve u ratama, još podosta godina.

ma neka je i bilo 10 miliona bijelaca, tih deset miliona su danas onih 1% prljavo bogatih ljudi u SAD-u. Tih 1% posjeduju oko 40-50% sveukupnog bogatstva u SAD.

20% posjeduje 80% bogatstva a 80% stanovništva je raspodjelilo preostalih 20%.

Tako da ne brine Lomljavina za tih 10 miliona ubica, od njih i treba da se naplati.

Quote from: Albedo 0 on 02-09-2010, 21:53:35
kao što reče mac...

Lomljavino, imaš li ti, kako da to nazovem, drugi sprat u glavi?

Ono tipa Vojvodina nije isto što i Etiopija, pa imamo dva nivoa analize?

Jesu li Srbi napali Vojvodinu i okupirali je, ili su AustroUgari napali Srbiju i okupirali je pa ispušili?

Njemci su izgubili svoja imanja kada? Pa zna se kada, opet ih niko nije zvao ali oni vole tako da dođu, što reče Andrić ako ih ugostiš kako treba, kao domaćin što se kaže, oni se ne zahvaljuju nego smatraju da im to kao superiornoj rasi i sljeduje.

Jebiga, nacizam je nacizam, nije drang nach osten srpska spoljnopolitička deviza.

Došli su nepozvani i u Srbiju i u Zimbabve. Srbija naplatila, Zimbabve nije.

A to koliko su Francuzi divni prema svojim Arapima vidimo po paljenju automobila i neredima u Parizu prije par godina.

Albedo budi pristojan!
Odbijaš da odgovoriš na konkretno pitanje.
- Etiopija nikad nije bila ničija kolonija osim jednog malog severnog dela, koji je bio pod Italijanima.

Osim toga pokazuješ i neznanje, koje verovatno i drugi uviđaju, ali pošto su protiv moje, a ne protiv tvoje pozicije ne reaguju.

Čekaj bre, ko je to Nemce pozivao i ugošćavao?

Pa teritorija na kojoj su živeli bila je Austro-Ugarska država, a oni kao Austrijanci (iliti Nemci, ak ose tako osećaju) državotvoran narod?

Nije to bila Srbija nikad (pre 1918. godine) pa da ih Srbi pozovu da se nasele, pa im posle ukažu gostoprimstvo.  

Vojvodina nikad nije bila srpska pre 1918.
Srbija je iskoristila i ćapila tu teritoriju u momentu kad se Austro-Ugarska raspala, a sama Mađarska bila jako slaba.
To isto su Mađarima uradili i Rumuni sa Erdeljom.

Nije fer da polemišemo tako što ćemo nekima zameriti jedno isto, a sopstvenom narodu ništa ne zamerati. Ni uzimanje teritorija, ni osvajačke ratove... Ni šta...

Bez OBJEKTIVNOSTI polemika nema smisla.

uzgred Albedo otvaraš 100 tema.
Sad si otvorio i temu da mali broj Amera drži Ameriku.
Pa ok, ali i u Rusiji jako mali broj Rusa drži većinu bogatstva,
i u Srbiji mali broj Srba drži većinu bogatstva.
U Kini je na pomolu najveće raslojavanje.
Šta ćemo s tim?

Savatajp evo linka porasta stanovnika u SAD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_the_United_States

1830. Amerika je imala samo 12 miliona ljudi
1850= 23 miliona,
a 1860 = 31 milion.

Danas SAD ima 310 miliona.
Najveći broj Amerikanaca doselio se u 20.veku jer je jedino tad USA bila zemlja, koja obećava.

Uzmi prosečnog Amerikanca i pitaj ga kad su mu preci došli. Većini je upravo u novom veku. Od četvoro deda i baba, bar troje su potomci onih, koji su došli kasnije.
A čak i da je većina potomaka onih kauboja, koji su počinili genocid, šta s njima?
Treba li da nose krivicu za 6 kolena unazad?

ne trebaju da nose krivicu, trebaju da vrate pare. Ne znam šta je tu toliko komplikovano da ti ne možeš da shvatiš. Ako je nešto ukradeno treba i da se vrati, kao npr mnoge grčke statue koje stoje u engleskim ili francuskim muzejima, da ne pričam o egipatskim statuama koje zagledaju građani Londona (niđe veze), a koje su ukradene iz Egipta, plain and simple.

To nisu neke spiritualne stvari da tamo neko ''osjeća'' krivicu, hic statua, hic vraćaj!

Venecijanski konji - ukradeni iz Carigrada. Vraćaj.
Zlatni krst u tamonekom njemačkom amanastiru - ukraden iz Carigrada. Vraćaj.

Šta ima tu toliko komplikovano? Vrlo opipljive stvari.


Pričaš kao da je Mađarska tetošila Srbe od 1916. do 1918.
da ne govorimo i ranije
U BiH je sto hiljada ljudi bilo u radnim logorima, Mađari su dali odriješene ruke Stranci prava, budućem stožeru Ante Pavelića, pa su ne samo trpali ljude u logore (iz kojih se 15 hiljada nije vratilo), već su palili srpske škole i sve ostalo što ima veze sa Srbima u BiH.

Izgubiš rat, e onda dođe red da se plate računi. I izgubili su suverenitet nad Vojvodinom, nisu tada uzeta imanja Njemaca već nakon Drugog svjetskog rata, dakle još jednog genocida. Neki od vojvođanskih Njemaca su podržavali Hitlerov režim a neki nisu, ali šta im ja tu mogu, nisam ja počeo rat.

I jebala te Etiopija, da li je bila nečija kolonija ili ne, ne može se nijedna afrička zemlja porediti sa Vojvodinom.

Dakle, stvar je sasvim objektivna, niko ih nije tjerao da komadaju Srbiju DVA PUTA U XX vijeku, a možda i tri ako računaš devedesete, i ne znam što bi se neko čudio što je dobio po zubima, ako se Srbi opamete, što se sudeći po tebi vrlo teško može dogoditi, dobiće ponovo po zubima.

Quote from: Lomljavina on 02-09-2010, 22:30:29
Savatajp evo linka porasta stanovnika u SAD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_the_United_States

1830. Amerika je imala samo 12 miliona ljudi
1850= 23 miliona,
a 1860 = 31 milion.
Danas SAD ima 310 miliona.
Najveći broj Amerikanaca doselio se u 20.veku jer je jedino tad USA bila zemlja, koja obećava.

добро, бре, то је опште познато...мој циљ је био у томе да се су Индијанце скењали ипак већином у 19. веку, а не неколико векова уназад(мада је то био постепен процес, паралелан са померањем границе на запад), као и да је у то време било више од 10 милиона људи, и то је све! Савајат Четири Ока Ерп је рекао!

Ok, ok. Slažem se za statue.

No daj. Pa statue su najmanji problem.
I da se proda jedna vredna statua, od tih para 10 ljudi mogu da jedu 365 dana i to je sve.
To je novčano premalo.
Njihova vrednost je kulturne prirode. Ne može zemlja da osiromaši ili se obogati zahvaljujući statuama.


Mogu da se složim da su Mađari bili jako loši, ali čekaj, pa Ante Pavelić se pojavio kasnije.
Prvo su Mađari ostali bez svojih rubnih područja, koja su pripala Srbiji, Rumuniji, Slovačkoj i nešto malo Ukrajini pa tek onda nastaje fašizam.

No recimo da se ti i ja ovde potpuno i složimo, da li vidiš paralelu između mađarske sudbine u Vojvodini i srpske sudbine na Kosovu?
Ja je vidim.

Poraženma Mađarska izgubila teritorije,
poražena Srbija takođe izgubila teritorije.

Inače ja ne vidim da je Srbija ikad i igde komadana osim u slučaju nezavisnosti Kosova.
Srbija nikad nije imala Vojvodinu, sa

Izgubili tamo Mađari, a mi se povukli s našeg juga.

Evo kako je izgledala Kneževina Srbija.



Bila je bez Vojvodine, bez Kosova i bez Sandžaka.
Danas ona ima i Vojvodinu i Sandžak.

Kosovo nema, ali to nije krivica moje i tvoje generacije.
Najveću krivicu nosi režim Josipa Broza Tita, koji je dopuštao Albancima da se naseljavaju u ogromnom broju.
Osim Tita krivicu snose i Srbi, koji su odatle žudeli za životom u Beogradu i prodavali svoja imanja, a deo krivice snose i Milošević i Šešelj jer su nasilno krenuli da proteruju Albance, čime smo izgubili ugled u svetu i pravo da održimo suverenitet.

Quote from: Lomljavina on 02-09-2010, 23:32:54
Ok, ok. Slažem se za statue.

No daj. Pa statue su najmanji problem.
I da se proda jedna vredna statua, od tih para 10 ljudi mogu da jedu 365 dana i to je sve.
To je novčano premalo.
Njihova vrednost je kulturne prirode. Ne može zemlja da osiromaši ili se obogati zahvaljujući statuama.

ovo je možda i najgluplja izjava koju sam ikada čuo.

ne moraš da je ponavljaš 4 puta, glupa je i ovako jednom

Srbija se upravo i bori za Kosovo da ne bi morala posle da se bori za Vojvodinu i Sandžak. Zadržimo se na Američkoj propasti, postoje druge teme za Kososvo.

Jeste,evo imaju novu mastnu mrlju.Kad je neko alav na naftu...

Томас Фридман: Америчку спољну политику мења недостатак пара            
среда, 08. септембар 2010.

Током последњих година често сам својим пријатељима Евопљанима говорио отприлике ово: вама се, изгледа, не свиђа што је Америка прејака? А шта мислите да би се десило да је она преслаба? У геополитичком театру европског региона управо се одвија такав спектакл.

Да, Америка је превалила тај пут: главни победник у Другом светском рату (топови и кајмак сваком), једна од две суперсиле конфронтиране у хладном рату, незамењива држава која је победила у том рату – данас је ,,штедљива суперсила". Навикавајте се. Амерички пацифисти више немају разлога за секирацију због ,,ратова по избору". Готово је, ми сада немамо пара ни Гренаду да нападнемо.

Од самог почетка Велике рецесије 2008. године било је јасно да се у Америци суштина лидерства мења, било да је реч о политичком или корпоративном. У већем делу епохе после Другог светског рата опстајати као лидер у целиније значило - давати. Данас, а и у наредних десет година, у Америци бити лидер значиће – узимати.

Наравно, ни на који начин није могуће да амерички лидери, принуђени да узимају од сопствених бирача, не покушају уштедети на спољној политици и ратовима. Спољна и одбрамбена политика су закаснели индикатор. На многим стварима почиње се и унапред штедети. Министар одбране Роберт Гејтс већ износи упозорења. А штедљива суперсила Америка ће – то је нови квалитет – безусловно изазвати ефекат заразе широм света.

,,Штедљива суперсила, или светско лидерство Америке у епохи помањкања пара", то је у ствари наслов веома савремене књиге коју је написао мој учитељ и пријатељ Мајкл Манделбаум, стручњак за питања спољне политике из института Џона Хопкинса. Манделбаум пише: ,,У 2008. години све врсте државних пензија и олакшица у здравству (укључујући Medicaid) чинило је четири одсто ПДП Америке". Уколико се задрже садашње тенденције (а поколење послератне тзв. бејби-бум генерације ускоро ће почети добијати средства по програму Social Security и Medicare), до 2050. године ,,у те ће сврхе одлазити читавих 18 одсто укупног БДП Америке".

Ако се то сабере са свим трошковима за ,,самооткуп" из рецесије, онда ће то ,,на фундаменталан начин променити друштвени живот у САД, па према томе и спољну политику земље". У последњих седам деценија, према мишљењу Манделбаума, и на спољном и на унутрашњем фронту најкарактеристичнија реч била је реч ,,више". ,,Детерминишућа чињеница спољне политике у другој деценији 21. века и даље ће у будућности бити реч  ,,мање", пише он даље.

Једина суперсила у свету слаби, притиснута дуговима (унутрашњим и спољним), а то ће осетити сви. Како? Тешко је рећи. Али знам само да је уникатна и значајна особеност спољне политике САД у последњем столећу било то до које су мере били потребни не само нама него и многим другима америчке дипломате и америчка флота, авијација и армија (од отворених мора до отворене трговине, од сузбијања комунизма до борбе против тероризма). Сила САД била је главни фактор светске стабилности и гарант мирног управљања у последњих седамдесет година. Та наша улога неће нестати, али ће се свакако смањити.

Велике државе и раније су одлазиле ,,у пензију". То се, на пример, догодило са Великом Британијом. Али, како наглашава Манделбаум, ,,када је Велика Британија престала да излази на крај са управљањем светом, САД су заузеле њено место. Ни једна земља није спремна да заузме место САД, тако да ће губици са аспекта општег мира и просперитета због одласка Америке потенцијално бити већи од оних који су настали после одласка Велике Британије".

Европљани јесу богати, али су слабашни. Кина је богата као држава, али, рачунајући по глави становника, гола је као миш, а то значи да ће се морати сконцентрисати на унутрашњи и регионални развој. Опијена нафтом, Русија може да се прси, али не и да искаже праву снагу.

,,Према томе, свет ће постати несређенији и опаснији", каже Манделбаум.

На који начин амортизовати ту тенденцију? Малделбаум наводи три начина: Прво, ми се морамо вратити на пут стабилног економског развоја и реиндустријализације, и да, без обзира на све жртве, улажемо максимум напора и пристајемо на све политичке компромисе који за то буду потребни. Друго, треба бити начисто шта су приоритети. Са аспекта спољне политике ми смо целих сто година имали и оно што нам је било од животне важности и оно што смо једноставно желели. На пример, претпостављам да бисмо победили у Авганистану да смо на располагању имали бесконачну резерву људи и пара. Али, поставља се питање: да ли је то оно што нам је од животног значаја? Наравно, то јесте пожељно, али има ли животне потребе за тим? Најзад, ми би требало да ојачамо свој буџет и ослабимо буџет наших непријатеља, а најбољи начин да се то учини јесте да се драстично повећа порез на бензин".

Америка мора да усвоји једну тешку поуку: у краткорочном периоду може се обогатити захваљујући позајмљеним средствима, али се тим средствима неће омогућити дугорочна геополитичка моћ. За то је потребан функционишући и растући економски мотор. А краткорочни период се за нас, у сваком случају, одавно завршио. Била су времена када озбиљна размишљања о спољној политици САД нису захтевала озбиљна размишљања о економској политици. То време је прошло.

Према томе, код нас више неће бити кочоперних ,,јастребова". Или ће их бити, али такве нико неће узимати за озбиљно.

New York Times

Lomljavina je baš zajebao ovaj topik s ovom slikom. Šta radi ovaj Zakk? Šta radi uprava???

Američki apelacioni sud smatra da tužbe za mučenje nisu dovoljan razlog za reagovanje, pogotovo što postoji opasnost da se otkriju nacionalne tajne:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100909/ap_on_bi_ge/us_boeing_cia_lawsuit

QuoteSAN FRANCISCO – A sharply divided federal appeals court on Wednesday threw out a lawsuit challenging a controversial post-Sept. 11 CIA program that flew terrorism suspects to secret prisons.

The complaint was filed by five terrorism suspects who were arrested shortly after 9/11 and say they were flown by a Boeing Co. subsidiary to prisons around the world where they were tortured. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals cited national security risks when it dismissed the men's case in a 6-5 ruling Wednesday.

The case could have broad repercussions on the national security debate as it makes its way toward the Supreme Court, and it casts a spotlight on the controversial "extraordinary rendition" program the Bush administration used after 9/11.

The Obama administration subsequently said it would continue to send foreign detainees to other countries for questioning, but rarely — and only if U.S. officials are confident the prisoners will not be tortured.

The appeals court reinforced the broad powers of the president to invoke the so-called "state secrets privilege" to stop lawsuits involving national security almost as soon as they are filed.

"The attorney general adopted a new policy last year to ensure the state secrets privilege is only used in cases where it is essential to protect national security, and we are pleased that the court recognized that the policy was used appropriately in this case," Justice Department spokesman Matthew Miller said.

President George W. Bush invoked the privilege at least 39 times during his administration, the most of any president in history, according to according to research by University of Texas, El Paso, political science professor William Weaver. Critics of the practice had hoped President Barack Obama would curtail its use and were disappointed when his administration continued defending the lawsuit after Bush left office.

The terror suspects sued Boeing subsidiary Jeppesen Dataplan in 2007, alleging that the extraordinary rendition program amounted to illegal "forced disappearances." They alleged that the San Jose-based subsidiary conspired with the CIA to operate the program.

A trial court judge quickly dismissed the lawsuit after the Bush administration took over defense of the case from Chicago-based Boeing and invoked the state secrets privilege, demanding a halt to the litigation over concern that top secret intelligence would be divulged.

A three-judge panel of the appeals court reinstated the lawsuit in 2009, but the full court overturned that ruling Wednesday.

"We have thoroughly and critically reviewed the government's public and classified declarations and are convinced that at least some of the matters it seeks to protect from disclosure in this litigation are valid state secrets," Judge Raymond Fisher wrote for the majority. "The government's classified disclosures to the court are persuasive that compelled or inadvertent disclosure of such information in the course of litigation would seriously harm legitimate national security interests."

Judge Michael Daly Hawkins wrote for the five dissenting judges, who said the lawsuit was dismissed too quickly and that the men should be allowed to use publicly disclosed evidence to prove their case.

"They are not even allowed to attempt to prove their case by the use of nonsecret evidence in their own hands or in the hands of third parties," Hawkins wrote.

Ben Wizner, the American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who represents the five men, said he will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to take the case.

"If this decision stands," Wizner said, "the United States will have closed its courts to torture victims while extending complete immunity to its torturers."

The Bush administration was widely criticized for its practice of extraordinary rendition — whereby the CIA transfers suspects overseas for interrogation. Human rights advocates said renditions were the agency's way to outsource torture of prisoners to countries where it is permitted practice.

Three of the five plaintiffs have been released from prison, Wizner said.

Hvala Zakku na intervenciji!!!

Ajmo sad malo o Americi da vidimo kako tretiraju sopstvena ljucka prava.

Osam stvari koje poslodavac ne sme da vas pita tokom intervjua, jer mu to brani zakon:

QuoteThe rough economy has made many people desperate for a job. In their eagerness for gainful employment, many people may overlook improper interview questions. Depending on how they are asked, questions about personal topics such as marital status, race and health are more than just poor manners - they are illegal under federal and some state and local laws. These types of questions can be used to discriminate against applicants, and it is your right not to answer them. Here are eight questions your employer cannot ask you.

1. How old are you?

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), protects individuals who are 40 or older from being discriminated against in the workplace in favor of younger employees. There is no federal protection in place to protect workers younger than 40 from age discrimination. To determine if you are legally eligible to perform a job, employers are allowed to ask if you are over the age of 18.

2. Are you married?

Questions about marital status are prohibited. Employers might be tempted to ask this question to find out if your relationship could have a negative impact on your work. For example, if you are married you might be more likely to leave the company if your spouse gets a job transferred to a different city. Even a question as seemingly innocent as "Do you wish to be addressed as Mrs., Miss, or Ms.?" is not allowed.

3. Are you a U.S. citizen?

Citizenship and immigration status cannot be used against a potential employee during the hiring process according to The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA). Employers must wait until after a job offer had been extended to require a worker to complete the Employment Eligibility Verification (I-9) Form and submit documentation that proves identity and employment authorization. It is lawful for an employer to ask an interviewee if they are authorized to work in the US.

[See Important Skills Every Worker Needs Now]

4. Do you have any disabilities?

This question might seem necessary to determine if a job applicant can perform the required duties, but it is illegal to ask under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Employers cannot discount anyone from a job because of a physical or mental disability. In fact, the law requires that they accommodate disabilities unless they can prove it would cause significant difficulty or expense to do so. Employers also cannot ask you if you have had any past illnesses or operations.

5. Do you take drugs, smoke or drink?

Concerns about drug, alcohol or nicotine addictions are valid as they can impact an employee's quality of work and the rates of a company's health insurance coverage. However, an employer might find themselves in legal trouble if they don't frame questions about these potential problems in a careful manner. They are allowed to ask if you have ever been disciplined for violating company policies about the use of alcohol and tobacco products. They can also ask directly if you use illegal drugs, but an employer can't inquire about your use of prescription medications.

6. What religion do you practice?

Inquires about religious beliefs are a sensitive issue. An interviewer might be curious for scheduling reasons such as holidays that an employee might need off, or if the candidate will be unavailable to work on weekends because of religious obligations. It is illegal to intentionally discriminate against an employee or harass them based on their religious beliefs. Employers are required to accommodate an employee's religious beliefs or practices in regards to things such as dress and grooming policy and flexible scheduling.

7. What is your race?

There is no situation in which questions about an employee's race or skin color should be use to determine their eligibility for a job. This protection is granted under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Employers are permitted to ask an employee to reveal their race on a voluntary basis for affirmative action purposes.

8. Are you pregnant?

Questions about family status tend to affect women the most, but they can also pertain to men in certain situations. Employers might have concerns about an employee taking time off work for pregnancy leave or not having child care arrangements during work hours. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act states that an employer cannot refuse to hire a pregnant woman because of her pregnancy, because of a pregnancy-related condition, or because of the prejudices of co-workers, clients or customers.

It is, however, lawful for employers to ease their nerves about an employee's availability or commitment to a position by asking about long-term career goals or the ability for an employee to work overtime and travel.

The Bottom Line
It is important to know your rights as an employee. Unlawful questions are not acceptable on applications, during the interview process or in the workplace. Although improper questions by employers might be simple mistakes, they could also be intentional cases of discrimination that should be reported.

Prilično kul. Suviše sam lenj da pročitam naše antidiskriminacijske akte da vidim kako bi ovo kod nas izgledalo.

A, evo dalje, američka armija će izgleda morati da se otrese kontroverznog (i debilnog) Don't ask, don't tell pravila.

Judge: Military's ban on gays is unconstitutional

QuoteLOS ANGELES – A federal judge on Thursday declared the U.S. military's ban on openly gay service members unconstitutional and said she will issue an order to stop the government from enforcing the "don't ask, don't tell" policy nationwide.

U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips said the ban violates the First and Fifth Amendment rights of gays and lesbians.

The "don't ask, don't tell" policy prohibits the military from asking about the sexual orientation of service members. Under the 1993 policy, service men and women who acknowledge being gay or are discovered engaging in homosexual activity, even in the privacy of their own homes off base, are subject to discharge.

In her ruling, Phillips said the policy doesn't help military readiness and instead has a "direct and deleterious effect" on the armed services by hurting recruiting during wartime and requiring the discharge of service members with critical skills and training.

The Log Cabin Republicans, a 19,000-member group that includes current and former military members, filed a lawsuit in 2004 seeking an injunction to stop the ban's enforcement. Phillips will draft the injunction with input from the group within a week, and the federal government will have a week to respond.

The U.S. Department of Justice can file an appeal but there was no immediate word of that. After-hours e-mails and calls requesting comment from government attorney Paul G. Freeborne and from the Pentagon were not immediately returned Thursday evening.

Government lawyers said the judge lacked the authority to issue a nationwide injunction.

The lawsuit was the biggest legal test of the law in recent years and came amid promises by President Barack Obama that he will work to repeal the policy.

The ruling is the second major court decision this summer to come from a California judge and hand a major victory to gay rights advocates.

In August, U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker overturned Proposition 8, the ballot proposition that banned gay marriage in California. His ruling is on hold pending appeal.

"This decision will change the lives of many individuals who only wanted to serve their country bravely," said the group's attorney, Dan Woods.

The Log Cabin Republicans said more than 13,500 service members have been fired since 1994.

Woods argued during the nonjury trial that the policy violates gay military members' rights to free speech, open association and right to due process as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.

He said the ban damages the military by forcing it to reject talented people as the country struggles to find recruits in the midst of a war. Lawyers also submitted remarks by Obama stating "don't ask, don't tell" weakens national security.

Woods used Obama's remarks and those of top military commanders as evidence that the policy should be overturned.

The lawsuit is unique because it wasn't based on one individual's complaint about a discharge. Instead it made a broad, sweeping attack on the policy.

The case moved forward slowly at first because it was assigned to a judge who had health problems and later retired, Woods said. In late 2008, it was reassigned to Phillips and went to trial in July.

Freeborne had argued the policy debate was political and that the issue should be decided by Congress rather than in court.

In his closing arguments he said the plaintiffs were trying to force a federal court to overstep its bounds and halt the policy as it is being debated by federal lawmakers.

The U.S. House voted in May to repeal the policy, and the Senate is expected to address the issue this year.

That makes the trial unnecessary, and the testimony and documentary evidence presented by the Log Cabin Republicans irrelevant, Freeborne said.

"We do not believe the court has the authority to issue a nationwide injunction," he said.

Government attorneys presented only the policy's legislative history in their defense and no witnesses or other evidence.

Six military officers who were discharged under the policy testified during the trial. A decorated Air Force officer testified that he was let go after his peers snooped through his personal e-mail in Iraq.

The officers who participated in the trial were "reacting emotionally because they're so proud that they were able to play a part in making this happen," Woods said after the ruling.

"It'll be an interesting decision for our president to decide whether to appeal this case. He's said that 'don't ask, don't tell' weakens national security, and now it's been declared unconstitutional," he said. "If he does appeal, we're going to fight like heck."

Nije bitno šta kod nas poslodavac ne sme da pita, bitno je što kandidat ne sme ništa da pita. (Mada, ne treba verovati ni postovima na engleskom.)

Ne treba, ne treba. Ali jeste interesantno.

Legislativa im je solidna, ali su im gasne instalacije kurac:

1 dead, 53 homes destroyed in California fire

QuoteSAN BRUNO, Calif. – Firefighters poured water on flaming and smoldering wreckage early Friday after a massive explosion sent blazes roaring through a neighborhood in the hills south of San Francisco, killing at least one person, destroying more than 50 homes and damaging dozens of others.

Thursday night's explosion shot a fireball more than 1,000 feet in the air and sent frightened residents fleeing for safety and rushing to get belongings out of burning homes, witnesses said.

Utility officials said a gas line ruptured in the vicinity of the blast, which left a giant crater and sent flames tearing across several suburban blocks in San Bruno just after 6 p.m.

At least one person was confirmed dead, San Bruno Fire Chief Dennis Haag said. There was no word on injuries.

"It's going to take us until at least until tomorrow into the afternoon to do a full search," Haag said late Thursday.

Resident Connie Bushman returned home to find her block was on fire. She said she ran into her house looking for her 80-year-old father but could not find him. A firefighter told her he had left, but she had not been able to track him down.

"I don't know where my father is, I don't know where my husband is, I don't know where to go," Bushman said.

After the initial blast, flames reached as high as 100 feet as the fire fueled itself on burning homes, leaving some in total ruins and reducing parked automobiles to burned out hulks. At least 120 homes also suffered serious damage.

The fire had spread to 10 acres and was 50 percent contained late Thursday, said Jay Allen, spokesman for the California Emergency Management Agency.

California Lieutenant Governor Abel Maldonado, acting governor while Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger was in Asia on a trade mission, declared a state of emergency in San Mateo County.

The declaration frees up funds to help with firefighting costs.

"If it is ultimately determined that we were responsible for the cause of the incident, we will take accountability," Pacific Gas and Electric Co. said in an e-mailed statement Thursday evening.

But later Thursday the company's president, Christopher Johns, said he didn't know what sparked the explosion.

"I don't have any details about if there was any work going on, Johns told KTVU-TV. "That will be part of the investigation as we go forward."

Between 150 and 200 firefighters remained at the scene through the night, according to Haag. More than 100 people were being sheltered at nearby evacuation centers, but no estimate of the number of residents missing was available, he said.

San Bruno Fire Capt. Charlie Barringer said the neighborhood was engulfed by the time firefighters arrived, even though the fire station was only a few blocks away. He said the blast took out the entire water system, forcing firefighters to pump water from more than two miles away.

Haag said firefighters initially had trouble getting close enough to the ruptured gas line to shut it down because of the flames.

Victims suffering from serious burns began arriving at San Francisco Bay area hospitals shortly after the blast. An estimate of the number of injured wasn't immediately available. Hospitals reported receiving about 20 injured patients — several of whom were in critical condition — and they anticipated getting more.

Jane Porcelli, 62, said she lives on a hill above where the fire was centered. She said she thought she heard a plane overhead with a struggling engine.

"And then you heard this bang. And everything shook except the floor, so we knew it wasn't an earthquake," Porcelli said. "I feel helpless that I can't do anything. I just gotta sit by and watch."

Stephanie Mullen, Associated Press news editor for photos based in San Francisco, was attending children's soccer practice with her two children and husband at Crestmoor High School when she saw the blast at 6:14 p.m.

"First, it was a low deep roar and everybody looked up, and we all knew something big was happening," she said. "Then there was a huge explosion with a ball of fire that went up behind the high school several thousand feet into the sky.

"Everybody grabbed their children and ran and put their children in their cars," Mullen said. "It was very clear something awful had happened."

Several minutes later, Mullen was near the fire scene, about a half-mile away in a middle-class neighborhood of 1960s-era homes in hills overlooking San Francisco, the bay and the airport. She said she could feel the heat of the fire on her face although she was three or four blocks away from the blaze. It appeared the fireball was big enough to have engulfed at least several homes.

"I could see families in the backyards of the homes next to where the fire was, bundling their children and trying to get them out of the backyards," she recounted.

She said people in the neighborhood were yelling, "This is awful" and "My family is down there."

Judy and Frank Serrsseque were walking down a hill away from the flames with a makeshift wagon carrying important documents, medication and three cats.

Judy Serrsseque said she heard an explosion, saw that fire was headed toward their home and knew they had to leave. As they fled, they said they saw people burned and people struggling to get their things out of burning houses.

"We got everything together, and we just got out," Judy Serrsseque. "Mostly we're wondering if we have a house to go back to."

I šta kažu oni iz Crkve, pale sutra Kuran na 11.septembar ?
Biće zanimljivo.

Ne, odustali su.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100910/ap_on_re_us/quran_burning

QuoteGAINESVILLE, Fla. – As thousands of Afghans protested a tiny Florida church's plan to burn the Muslim holy book, the church's pastor said he won't follow through on the plan if he's able to meet Saturday with the organizers behind a mosque planned near ground zero in New York. In Afghanistan, at least 11 people were injured Friday in protests.

Police in the northern province of Badakhshan say several hundred demonstrators ran toward a NATO compound where four attackers and five police were injured in clashes. Protesters also burned an American flag at a mosque after Friday prayers.

In western Farah province, police said two people were injured in another protest.

Speaking to NBC's "Today" show, the Rev. Terry Jones said if he meets with the imam in New York, he won't burn the Quran. It wasn't clear if he meant the burning would be halted indefinitely or just for Saturday.

Imam Muhammad Musri, the president of the Islamic Society of Central Florida, told CBS' "The Early Show" he had a commitment for Jones and himself to meet in New York with the imam there.

Earlier, Jones and Musri had disagreed sharply on the terms of the agreement.

Jones said Thursday he would call off the planned burning of Qurans based on a deal negotiated with the president of the Islamic Society of Central Florida that the location of a mosque planned near ground zero in New York would be changed.

But Musri said he was clear on Thursday when he told Jones that he could only set up a meeting with planners of the New York City mosque, whose leader said he had spoken to neither the pastor nor Musri. Jones responded by opening the door, if only a crack, that he would go forward with his plan on Saturday.

"We are just really shocked," Jones said of Musri. "He clearly, clearly lied to us."

For U.S. political leaders and Muslims around the world who have been outraged by Jones' antics, the on-again, off-again threat bred even more angst and frustration.

Cleric Rusli Hasbi told 1,000 worshippers attending Friday morning prayers in Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim country, that whether or not he burns the Quran, Jones had already "hurt the heart of the Muslim world."

"If he'd gone through with it, it would have been tantamount to war," the cleric said in the coastal town of Lhokseumawe. "A war that would have rallied Muslims all over the world."

Muslims consider the book the sacred word of God and insist it be treated with the utmost respect.

In Afghanistan, where tens of thousands of U.S. troops are in harm's way, President Hamid Karzai said he heard Jones had perhaps abandoned his Quran-burning plan.

"The holy book is implanted in the hearts and minds of all the Muslims," Karzai said. "Humiliation of the holy book represents the humiliation of our people. I hope that this decision will be stopped and should never have been considered."

Jones announced earlier Thursday — with Musri at his side — that they had a bargain and that he would call off the Quran-burning. Later he accused Musri of lying and said the burning was only suspended, not canceled.

Musri, countered that Jones wasn't confused or misled and that "after we stepped out in front of the cameras, he stretched my words" about the agreement. The imam in charge of the New York Islamic center and mosque project also quickly denied any deal was made.

Musri said Jones had instead caved into the firestorm of criticism from around the world and that his announcement might have been a ploy to try to force Muslim leaders' hand on the Islamic center.

Jones said later that he expected Musri to keep his word and "the imam in New York to back up one of his own men." Musri said he still plans to go ahead with the meeting Saturday.

In New York, the Islamic center project leader, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, said in a statement that he was glad Jones had backed down but that he had spoken to neither the pastor nor Musri.

"We are not going to toy with our religion or any other. Nor are we going to barter," Rauf said. "We are here to extend our hands to build peace and harmony."

Opponents argue it is insensitive to families and memories of Sept. 11 victims to build a mosque so close to where Islamic extremists flew planes into the World Trade Center and killed nearly 2,800 people. Proponents say the project reflects religious freedom and diversity and that hatred of Muslims is fueling the opposition.

Moving the mosque is not why Jones canceled his threat, Musri said. Instead, he relented under the pressure from political and religious leaders of all faiths worldwide to halt what President Barack Obama called a "stunt." Musri said Jones told him the burning "would endanger the troops overseas, Americans traveling abroad and others around the world."

"That was the real motivation for calling it off," Musri said.

Jones had never invoked the mosque controversy as a reason for his planned protest at his Dove World Outreach Center. Instead, he cited his belief that the Quran is evil because it espouses something other than biblical truth and incites radical, violent behavior among Muslims.

Obama urged Jones to listen to "those better angels," saying that besides endangering lives, it would give Islamic terrorists a recruiting tool. Defense Secretary Robert Gates took the extraordinary step of calling Jones personally.

Jones' church, which has about 50 members, is independent of any denomination. It follows the Pentecostal tradition, which teaches that the Holy Spirit can manifest itself in the modern day.

News of the cancellation also was welcomed by Jones' neighbors in Gainesville, a city of 125,000 anchored by the sprawling University of Florida campus. At least two dozen Christian churches, Jewish temples and Muslim organizations in the city had mobilized to plan inclusive events, including Quran readings at services, as a counterpoint to Jones' protest.

Jones said at the news conference that he prayed about the decision and concluded that if the mosque was moved, it would be a sign from God to call off the Quran burning.

"We are, of course, now against any other group burning Qurans," Jones said. "We would right now ask no one to burn Qurans. We are absolutely strong on that. It is not the time to do it."

Despite Jones' words, in the Gaza Strip, Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh said to a crowd of tens of thousands of Muslim faithful that they had come "to respond to this criminal, this liar, this crazy priest who reflects a crazy Western attitude toward Islam and the Muslim nation."

"We came to say, the Quran is our constitution, we are committed to God and his holy book," he said to those holding the texts in their hands at a stadium in the northern town of Beit Lahiya. "God willing, should they try to carry out their crime against the Quran, God will tear their state apart and they will become God's lesson to anyone who tries to desecrate the holy book."

Part of the pressure exerted on Jones came from Gates who briefly spoke to the pastor before his first announcement to call it off. Gates expressed "his grave concern that going forward with this Quran burning would put the lives of our forces at risk, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan," said Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell.

Morrell said earlier that the decision to issue a personal appeal was not easy because it could provoke other extremists "who, all they want, is a call from so-and-so." Earlier, Jones had said if he was contacted by the White House that he might change his mind. After Gates' call to Jones, Morrell said the secretary's "fundamental baseline attitude about this is that if that phone call could save the life of one man or woman in uniform it was a call worth placing."

Ali ovo jeste zanimljiva tema za razmatranje. U prvom redu, naravno da ja smatram svakoga ko misli da se išta rešava paljenjem knjige pre svega budalom a onda i nevaspitankom, bez obzira da li je hrišćanski prozelita, nacionalsocijalista ili taliban. U drugom redu, naravno, teško mi je da ne pomislim da je ovo samo neki muljator koji koristi priliku da dođe na televiziju i tamo jede govna i uživa u pet minuta slave. Mislim, njegova crkva ima PEDESET sledbenika a svakome sa pola mozga je jasno da paljenje Kurana po posledicama nije ko kad biste zapalili Bibliju - ima dovoljno muslimana koji takve stvari shvataju vrlo ozbiljno i američke trupe i civilna lica u Avganistanu se sigurno ne bi lepo provodila tokom narednih dana... Dakle, ovaj baja je dobro znajući kakvo će sranje da napravi SVOJIMA krenuo da talasa iako je objektivno značajan koliko i dlake na sapunu koje ostaju posle kupanja. Nije to baš lepo.

Bogme,ima knjiga koje se ubiše za užgat.

Ima, ali demonstriramo nivo svoje mudrosti i zrelosti time što ih i pored toga ne diramo.

A i čime je to Kuran zaslužio da ga onaj protestant spaljuje? 

Pa, ideja je sledeća: oni hoće baš tamo da naprave džamiju, iako su zamoljeni da to ne čine zbog osećanja svih onih kojima je neko poginuo jedanaestog septembra, ali eto, oni hoće i po zakonu imaju na to pravo, i onda i ovaj hoće da spali Kuran, iako bi to povredilo osećanja Muslimana, jer eto, nije zakonom zabranjeno.

Tako nekako.

Naravno, treba se i setiti da oni neće da naprave samo džamiju nego da se "tamo" pravi islamski omladinski i kulturni centar koji će imati i košarkaške terene, i biblioteke i još gomilu stvari pored te džamije, kao i da to "tamo" nije baš "tamo" nego generalno u istom delu grada gde je nekad bio WTC.

Да виде деца како се Амери уче памети.

Quote from: Meho Krljic on 10-09-2010, 19:15:50
Naravno, treba se i setiti da oni neće da naprave samo džamiju nego da se "tamo" pravi islamski omladinski i kulturni centar koji će imati i košarkaške terene, i biblioteke i još gomilu stvari pored te džamije, kao i da to "tamo" nije baš "tamo" nego generalno u istom delu grada gde je nekad bio WTC.

Udaljeno je nekoliko blokova, što baš i nije malo, ako sam ja dobro shvatila.

samo nek se oni kolju...

Niko od klanja,bilo čijeg,profitirao nije,pa nećeš ni ti.

nemam ni namjeru da profitiram, bar ne materijalno.

A od klanja je naravno profitirala Amerika i to više puta. Od Prvog svjetskog rata pa na dalje.

Neka,uljuljkuj se i uživaj.

Quote from: wg on 10-09-2010, 22:01:26
Niko od klanja,bilo čijeg,profitirao nije,pa nećeš ni ti.

A industrija mesa Matijević?

Quote from: wg on 10-09-2010, 23:02:02
Neka,uljuljkuj se i uživaj.

pa kad je Joca ispao iz nikad prežaljene kolijevke...

Da,da,bio je to starozavetni pokusaj humora,kao i uvek britak do malo iznad korišćenog tariguza.

čini ti se, to nije vic, ja ozbiljno mislim da ti je djed bio infantilni kompleksaš, a krv nije voda.

Evo ga opet onaj usrani... Ostaćeš načisto bez tariguza pa ćeš morati guzicu potokom. Do duše, u pravu si, krv nije voda, tako su i tvoji stari pa što nebi i ti. Nego, opravi li ti ono tvoje traktorče? Ajde, ajde, požuri polako, još malo pa je vreme, da ne arčimo stare slanine na šine...

ja koliko znam, Drina teče ka Vojvodini, ne ka moru. Tako da se moraš zabrinuti ako mi ponestane tariguza...

UBIO SE AMERIČKI PILOT KOJI JE BOMBARDOVAO SRBIJU I REPUBLIKU SRPSKU

Utorak - 21.09.2010
Američki borbeni pilot, potpukovnik Harold F. - Huč Majers, nije mogao da izdrži pritisak savesti i stalne noćne more, koje su ga mučile od 1999. godine i bombardovanja SRJ.



Jedan od onih čije su bombe, između ostalih, ubile i malu Milicu Rakić iz Batajnice, prislonio je pre nekoliko dana pištolj na slepoočnicu i izvršio samoubistvo, postavši još jedan u dugom nizu američkih vojnika koji su na ovaj način, pošto im je proradila savest, prekratili sebi muke.
Majers je pre nekoliko meseci penzionisan uz dijagnozu posttraumatskog stresnog sindroma, poznatog i kao ,,vijetnamski sindrom", i teške depresije, koje je ,,pazario" nakon bombardovanja SRJ. Tog 12. septembra, kako je izjavila njegova supruga Elizabet, ništa nije slutilo na najgore.
- Iako su se u medijima pojavile informacije da je njegovom samoubistvu prethodila naša svađa, to nije istina! Proveli smo predivan dan zajedno, bili smo na ručku, uživali... Ali je on ćutao više nego obično. Takav je bio stalno poslednjih nekoliko godina... A kada smo došli kući, ovde u Santa Barbari izvukao je iz fioke pištolj i rekao: ,,Izvini, ne mogu više da izdržim", a onda ispalio hitac u slepoočnicu... A ja ne želim takvog da ga pamtim, već kao pravog, istinskog heroja, što on i jeste bio ne samo meni i porodici, već i mnogim drugim ljudima - rekla je uplakana Elizabet.


Kako su izjavili njegovi prijatelji kojima se poveravao, Majers je imao konstantne noćne more, koje nije mogao da odagna ni jakim lekovima.
- Sanjao je ljude kako gore od bombi... Čuo je njihovu vrisku, jauke... Pokušavali smo da ga smirimo pričajući mu da su to samo snovi, da on kao pilot ne može da vidi šta je bomba pogodila i da sigurno nije bilo tako kako je sanjao, ali je on stalno pričao da zna da je sve to istina. Sanjao je decu, starce, raskomadana tela... Najgore je bilo kada nije mogao da se probudi i pored takvih snova. To mu je očigledno došlo glave - rekao je jedan od njegovih prijatelja.
Majers je učestvovao u bombardovanju brojnih ,,kriznih tačaka" u svetu. Pre NATO operacije nad SRJ, radio je na ,,neutralisanju srpskih pretnji" u Bosni i Hercegovini, kao i u nekoliko misija u Iraku i Avganistanu. Za ove ,,zasluge" je više puta nagrađivan i odlikovan.



Padaju kao muve!
Procenat samoubistava vojnika koji su učestvovali u ratnim dejstvima vojske SAD među pešadincima zvanično iznosi 24 na 100.000 vojnika, a avijatičarima 13,7. Čak 90 odsto samoubica čine muškarci bele rase.
Interesantno je da je, iako zvanični podaci ne postoje, u Iraku tokom prve polovine 2009. godine broj samoubica prešao broj vojnika koji su poginuli u vojnim akcijama - 817 prema 761.




E. A.

ALO.RS

24 na 100.000? Premalo...

October 5, 2010 (CROWN POINT, Ind.) (WLS) -- Police say a gunman who fatally shot a construction worker and wounded three others in Illinois and Indiana remains on the run.

1 dead, 2 wounded in south suburban shooting spree
View all 5 photos
"We have a very dangerous situation. The suspect is still at large and armed and dangerous," said Lake County, Ind., Sheriff Rogelio "Roy" Dominguez.
Anyone who spots the suspect should seek safety and call 911.

Police say the suspect- described as a heavyset, 5'8" tall, 230 pound white male in his 40s with short brown hair who is wearing a light green windbreaker, baseball hat and jeans- approached a construction crew with Rich Construction of Dyer, Ind., at a home at 3200-block of Stony Island Ave. in Washington Township, which is near Beecher, Ill., and shot three of the workers around 10:30 a.m. Forty-five-year-old Rolando Alonso of Hammond, Ind., died and 19-year-old Joshua Garza of Dyer, Ind., was critically injured and airlifted to Loyola University Hospital in Maywood, Ill.

"He's not doing so well. Hopefully he'll put through. He's a strong kid, he's a fighter," said Tom Mattingly, friend. "He got shot in the head."

A third construction worker fled to a nearby cornfield.

"The suspect was at the house twice. He had come one time to see if they were going to sell, the residents who were apparently rehabbing a burned out residence. He then left and returned to the house and talked to them about some materials like paneling or plywood at which time he opened fire," said Will County Sheriff Paul Kaupas.

The suspect is believed to be driving a light-colored, older model pickup truck- possibly a Ford F150 or Chevy Cheyenne. He then crossed the state line from Will County, Ill., into Lake County, Indiana, where he shot a farmer, identified by officials as 64-year-old Keith Dahl, in the town of Lowell near Cline Avenue and Route 2 around 11:30 a.m. Dahl, who was hit by three bullets in the arm, elbow and shoulder, is hospitalized in stable condition and expected to recover.

The suspect, who is considered armed and dangerous, had a conversation with Dahl before shooting the farmer.

"Apparently he said he raised bees and he wanted a location in that general location to raise hives," said Sheriff Kaupas of the suspect. "The farmer agreed he would entertain the thought and asked for the guy's name and phone number and wrote it on a scratch piece of paper and handed it to the farmer and opened fire."

"Why did they stop here and shoot him? That doesn't make sense. What's here? What would possess a guy to shoot somebody here on Cline Avenue?" said Rich Oostman, resident.

"This was totally random. It does not appear that anyone at the scene knew him," sheriff spokesman Pat Barry said in a published report.

"Obviously we have no motive. It doesn't look like there's any correlation with motive even if there was one at this location (in Illinois) versus Indiana. Looks like a random shooter," said Sheriff Kaupas.

Sheriff Dominguez said his officers were engaged in a "massive manhunt" for the suspect and an All Points Bulletin was issued.

"We've got all the doors locked, shades drawn, making sure we're a little more cautious about who's coming up and down the road," said Joe Dewes, neighbor.

The suspect is believed to be using a revolver- a Colt 38 or 357- because there are no shell casings at either of the scenes, Sheriff Dominguez said.

Tri-Creek Schools put all five of its schools-- a high school, middle school and three elementary schools-- on lockdown as a precautionary measure after receiving a call from the Lake County Sheriff's Department.

"We were told to lock the schools as a precaution," Tri-Creek Superintendent Alice Nea said to AP. "No one has tried to get into any of our buildings."

"Our principal said there is somebody dangerous in the area and we need to be really cautious. They had teachers stay by the doors to make sure no one would come in," said Brigitte Dewes, Lowell High School senior.

Sheriff Dominguez wants residents to know "24/7, we will be out looking for him& We are making every effort to apprehend this person. All of our police equipment and personnel is out to apprehend him."

Sheriff Dominguez said residents should take precautions and call 911 if they see something suspicious or think they know who this may be.

"Everybody is talking about it in the line and that. And some people said they weren't going home and just going to go elsewhere until they knew that it was safe," said one parent. "We're going home. We'll let the dog protect us."

(Copyright ©2010 WLS-TV/DT. All Rights Reserved.)

Panel: Gov't blocked scientists on spill estimate

QuoteWASHINGTON – The Obama administration blocked efforts by government scientists to tell the public just how bad the Gulf oil spill could become and committed other missteps that raised questions about its competence and candor during the crisis, according to a commission appointed by the president to investigate the disaster.

In documents released Wednesday, the national oil spill commission's staff describes "not an incidental public relations problem" by the White House in the wake of the April 20 accident.

Among other things, the report says, the administration made erroneous early estimates of the spill's size, and President Barack Obama's senior energy adviser went on national TV and mischaracterized a government analysis by saying it showed most of the oil was "gone." The analysis actually said it could still be there.

"By initially underestimating the amount of oil flow and then, at the end of the summer, appearing to underestimate the amount of oil remaining in the Gulf, the federal government created the impression that it was either not fully competent to handle the spill or not fully candid with the American people about the scope of the problem," the report says.

The administration disputed the commission findings, saying senior government officials "were clear with the public what the worst-case flow rate could be."

In a statement Wednesday, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration chief Jane Lubchenco and White House budget director Jeffrey Zients pointed out that in early May, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen told the public that the worst-case scenario could be more than 100,000 barrels a day, or 4.2 million gallons.

For the first time, the documents — which are preliminary findings by the panel's staff — show that the White House was directly involved in controlling the message as it struggled to convey that it, not BP, was in charge of responding to what eventually became the biggest offshore oil spill in U.S. history.

Citing interviews with government officials, the report reveals that in late April or early May, the White House budget office denied a request from NOAA to make public its worst-case estimate of how much oil could spew from the blown-out well. The Unified Command — the government team in charge of the spill response — also was discussing the possibility of making the numbers public, the report says.

The report shows "the political process was in charge and science really does not have the role that was touted," said Christopher D'Elia, dean of environmental studies at Louisiana State University.

The White House budget office has traditionally been a clearinghouse for administration domestic policy. Why exactly the administration didn't want to emphasize the worst-case scenario is not made clear in the report.

However, Kenneth Baer, a spokesman for the Office of Management and Budget, said the budget office had concerns about the reliability of the NOAA estimates.

"The issue was the modeling, the science and the assumptions they were using to come up with their analysis. Not public relations or presentation," he said. "We offered NOAA suggestions of ways to improve their analysis, and they happily accepted it."

Jerry Miller, head of the White House science office's ocean subcommittee, told The Associated Press in an interview at a St. Petersburg, Fla., scientific conference on the oil spill that he didn't think the budget office censored NOAA.

"I would very much doubt that anyone would put restrictions on NOAA's ability to articulate factual information," Miller said.

The explosion in the Gulf of Mexico killed 11 workers, spewed 206 million gallons of oil from the damaged oil well, and sank the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig.

BP's drilling permit for the well originally estimated the worst-case scenario to be a leak of 6.8 million gallons per day. In late April, just after the spill began, the Coast Guard and NOAA received an updated worst-case estimate of 2.7 million to 4.6 million gallons per day.

While those figures were used as the basis for the government's response to the spill — they appeared on an internal Coast Guard situation report and on a dry-erase board in NOAA's Seattle war room — they were never announced to the public, according to the report.

However, they were, in fact, announced, as news stories from May 2 to May 5 show, though the figures received little attention at the time.

For more than a month after the explosion, government officials were telling the public that the well was releasing 210,000 gallons per day. In early August, in its final estimate of the spill's flow, the government said it was gushing 2.6 million gallons per day — close to the worst-case predictions.

The documents also criticize Carol Browner, director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy, saying that during a series of morning-show appearances on Aug. 4, she misrepresented the findings of a federal analysis of where the oil went and incorrectly portrayed it as a scientific assessment that was peer-reviewed by inside and outside experts.

"I think it's also important to note that our scientists have done an initial assessment, and more than three-quarters of the oil is gone," Browner said on NBC's "Today" show.

But the analysis never said it was gone, according to the commission. It said it was dispersed, dissolved or evaporated — meaning it could still be there. And while NOAA administrator Jane Lubchenco was more cautious in her remarks at a news conference at the White House later that day, the commission staff accuses the two senior officials of contributing to the perception that the government's findings were more exact than they actually were.

Florida State University professor Ian MacDonald, who has repeatedly clashed with NOAA and the Coast Guard over the size of the spill, the existence of underwater plumes and oil in the sea floor, said he felt gratified by the report.

From the beginning, there was "a contradiction between discoveries and concerns by academic scientists and statements by NOAA," MacDonald said in an interview with the AP at the oil spill conference.

And he said it is still going on. MacDonald and Georgia Tech scientist Joseph Montoya said NOAA is at it again with statements saying there is no oil in ocean floor sediments. A University of Georgia science cruise, which Montoya was on, found ample evidence of oil on the Gulf floor.