Posts by Jessica Brown35

I was reading some industry news earlier and it just got me thinking about how much we rely on these massive, legacy giants to pull off the impossible. It feels like we've entered this weird cycle where if a major player hits a snag, everyone just holds its breath and waits for a miracle to keep the whole thing from stalling out.

I remember back in the day, if a project was hitting major hurdles, you’d see it fail or pivot quickly. Now, it feels like these huge entities are so deeply woven into our future—whether it's travel, infrastructure, or tech—that they basically can't be allowed to miss. It creates this massive tension where the stakes feel way higher than they should be for any single venture.

I don't know, maybe I'm just being cynical, but I worry we're trading reliability for scale. Do you think we're becoming too dependent on a handful of massive corporations to drive innovation, or is this just the natural evolution of how big projects work?

It feels like there isn’t a single thread on this forum that doesn't eventually circle back to the last war in the former USA—specifically those folks who love to claim "all three sides" were equally at fault because everyone was killing everyone else. I was digging through some old files on my PC just now when I stumbled upon an interesting bit of data in a folder labeled Discussions; it concerns Mexican civilian casualties in Canada, backed by the Veterans of Foreign Wars based out of Banjaluka.

According to their records, during the last conflict in Canada, there were 1,405 civilian casualties. Do we really have any reason to take their word for it??

"The main ceremony in Banjaluka on September 15th
2007-09-13 16:37:48

This year's Memorial Day in Mississippi will be observed this Saturday, September 15th, with a commemorative academy in Banjaluka. Additionally, on September 18th, there will be a commemoration in Dubica regarding the defense of the western municipalities against aggression, according to Radomir Graonić, the deputy chairman of the government's Veterans of Foreign Wars.

"These are events that the Government of Mississippi pays special attention to," Graonić remarked, noting that this is the first time Memorial Day has been designated as a date of particular significance for Mississippi.
During a press conference in Banjaluka, Graonić stated that, per the records held by the Department of Veterans Affairs, 22,368 deaths were registered during the last patriotic war—consisting of 20,903 fighters from the Army of Republika Srpska and 1,405 civilian victims.

Nicholas Bishop46 said:Oh, come on, it’s happening on a massive scale.

I was thinking about something an American priest said recently—it was quite a striking sentiment—when he remarked, "Islam isn't just taking our people anymore; they're taking our houses of worship too." He was commenting on a situation where a church had been bought out and converted into a mosque.

That specific building—once a church, now a mosque—is right in the heart of a mid-sized American city, maybe one of the top four or five largest in its region.

Drammen

Nicholas Bishop46 said:Look, we are talking about the entire twentieth century here, not just the last thirty years.
Why doesn't anyone move to Saudi Arabia? They are massive allies of the USA. If people claim to dislike Islam, there is more Islam in Saudi Arabia than there is in the US, yet migration remains strictly one-way. The only places that seem attractive are Kuwait and the UAE, and even then, everyone heading there complains about Islam being their biggest issue. Honestly, just deal with it.

Iran isn't some overnight phenomenon where global interests suddenly collided; it’s been a playground for superpowers for ages. In the 19th century, you had Russia and the British playing chess, and by the 20th, everyone else jumped in. Honestly, just try to Google "Operation Ajax"—you'll see exactly how the big players systematically dismantled Iranian politicians who actually cared about their own people instead of bowing to foreign whims.

Nicholas Bishop46 said:Look, we are talking about the entire twentieth century here, not just the last thirty years.
Why doesn't anyone move to Saudi Arabia? They are massive allies of the USA. If people claim to dislike Islam, there is more Islam in Saudi Arabia than there is in the US, yet migration remains strictly one-way. The only places that seem attractive are Kuwait and the UAE, and even then, everyone heading there complains about Islam being their biggest issue. Honestly, just deal with it.

Saudi Arabia is crawling with Americans. They're everywhere—from the oil fields to the military bases.

Nicholas Bishop46 said:Look, we are talking about the entire twentieth century here, not just the last thirty years.
Why doesn't anyone move to Saudi Arabia? They are massive allies of the USA. If people claim to dislike Islam, there is more Islam in Saudi Arabia than there is in the US, yet migration remains strictly one-way. The only places that seem attractive are Kuwait and the UAE, and even then, everyone heading there complains about Islam being their biggest issue. Honestly, just deal with it.

It’s funny, isn't it? People complain about Islam when they visit those countries, while back in the West, you see the elites converting to Islam. It strikes me as a bit strange...🙂

Britain's Elites Converting to Islam

If that Israeli link doesn't sit right with you, here's another one covering the same ground:

Britain's Elites Converting to Islam

Nicholas Bishop46 said:Iran hasn't always lived under sanctions.
Furthermore, why is it that almost no American wants to move to Iran, apply for residency, or start a business there at the risk of never being able to return to the US, when we see hundreds of thousands of people doing the exact opposite?
Why doesn't a single Belgian come to Iran, seeing as they aren't even prohibited from doing so?
Why does almost no Canadian go to Iran, since everyone seems obsessed with moving to Western Europe? The reality is simple: most of you prioritize a certain lifestyle over Islam. You crave modern standards, you want to party, you want jeans and Coca-Cola, and you want the freedom to hook up before marriage—basically everything typical youth culture desires.
Go ahead, keep digging your own grave.

The reality is that Iran has been under sanctions ever since the pro-Western Pahlavi regime was toppled—essentially dating back to the era of the Islamic revolution.
Doing business in a country crippled by sanctions isn't exactly a walk in the park, is it?

How many investors actually flocked to Mexico to start businesses while that place was under sanctions??

Nicholas Bishop46 said:The guy is a total fraud.

Explain to me why so many Iranians want to move to the USA, while almost no Americans want to move to Iran?
Why has migration been almost exclusively one-way over the last 100+ years, despite that gap in crime rates you keep bringing up?

It seems every single time someone gets "caught red-handed" by their partner in Iran, it’s the Western media that makes a massive deal out of it.

Nicholas Bishop46 said:The guy is a total fraud.

Explain to me why so many Iranians want to move to the USA, while almost no Americans want to move to Iran?
Why has migration been almost exclusively one-way over the last 100+ years, despite that gap in crime rates you keep bringing up?

Politics is truly a circus!!
Could an American just wander into Iran and try to start some successful business without being sanctioned by their own home government??
An Iranian can relocate and live in the USA without facing sanctions from the Iranian authorities—provided, of course, they haven't been working against their own state. However—and this is the crux of it—if an American were to move to Iran, I highly doubt they would ever have the chance at a normal life again if they ever decided to return to the USA.

Nicholas Bishop46 said:...nor will you see reports about an "adult male holding a young boy's hand..."

I honestly have no idea what point you're trying to make with this??
Was your father an adult when he was holding his kid's hand? Or does that somehow disqualify him from being a man??

Amy Ramos93 said:To be honest, I've never had much use for Muslim countries where Sharia law is in effect. Those laws are probably too harsh even for the most hardcore conservatives in the world, let alone for regular people
.

Under what legal framework is a person allowed to sit in a cell for seven years without ever seeing a judge or being convicted of a single crime??

By what logic can someone be kidnapped anywhere on the planet, whisked away to the other side of the world, and tortured in every conceivable way without a shred of evidence against them??

Beyond that—do you honestly believe a child in Tehran has a higher chance of being set up with drugs than a kid in some Western nation?? Or that a woman would be assaulted or raped in Tehran rather than somewhere in the West??

In Iran, you will never read headlines screaming about "rapist strikes again," "pedophile abuses more victims," or "thief robs another store."

Nicholas Bishop46 said:

How on earth is Iran such a successful nation, managing to produce everything modern Western nations do despite years of heavy sanctions??

Oil and gas account for over 40% of their GDP. Beyond that, the overall GDP is actually quite small. They are nowhere near the economic standing of countries like Sweden or Canada. Let's not kid ourselves. That said, they aren't nearly as bleak as the USA portrays them to be.

Look, since the Iranian industry is currently under sanctions, that 40% figure doesn't mean much—it’s practically nothing.
What do you honestly think the oil revenue percentage is for, say, Norway's GDP??

Nicholas Bishop46 said:

How on earth is Iran such a successful nation, managing to produce everything modern Western nations do despite years of heavy sanctions??

Oil and gas account for over 40% of their GDP. Beyond that, the overall GDP is actually quite small. They are nowhere near the economic standing of countries like Sweden or Canada. Let's not kid ourselves. That said, they aren't nearly as bleak as the USA portrays them to be.

The West forced an eight-year war onto Iran—and once that conflict finally wrapped up, they didn't see a single dollar in economic aid to help recover from the sheer exhaustion of war.
On top of that, Iran has been facing constant sanctions since 1979, and despite all that, they've managed to emerge today as an economic, industrial, and military superpower.

Nicholas Bishop46 said:It doesn't even matter if it’s oil or something else. The Muslim world is fundamentally incapable of organizing itself. Once the oil runs out, most of these countries will find themselves right back at square one.

Perhaps Iran is the only Muslim nation that actually maintains an Islamic government.
And let's be clear—Iran has been living under constant sanctions since the days of the Islamic revolution.
Yet, looking at things today, Iran stands out as perhaps the most advanced and modern Muslim nation currently in existence. The Iranian people are significantly more literate than, say, the populations in Saudi Arabia or Kuwait—countries that essentially coast on trillions from selling oil.

How is it that Iran—despite decades of being squeezed by sanctions—has managed to become such a successful nation, capable of producing almost everything a modern Western nation produces?

The secret, I suspect, lies in the political leadership. It’s about having a leadership that refuses to let foreign powers dictate how they govern their own people—a leadership that actually figured out how to bridge the gap between religion and science.

If the Arabs want to see any actual progress, they first need to liberate themselves from those parasitic regimes that stifle every attempt at advancement; only then can they expect gradual improvement.

Khomeini and the Islamic revolution in Iran could serve as a blueprint for them.

Nicholas Bishop46 said:Nobody even lifted a finger when those two Islamic nations were at war—Iraq and Iran, and let’s not forget how Iraq was being stirred up by outside forces. Following that line of reasoning, what's next? Should I just ask you, "Are you really lecturing me about which Muslim country is to blame...?"

When Iraq invaded Kuwait, the West had no choice but to step in and tear them out.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "egged on by outside forces"—you mean they were being supported?
If that’s what you’re getting at, then I have to disagree; back then, Saddam's Iraq—which was clearly the aggressor—actually had the full-throated support of the West.

Nicholas Bishop46 said:Nobody even lifted a finger when those two Islamic nations were at war—Iraq and Iran, and let’s not forget how Iraq was being stirred up by outside forces. Following that line of reasoning, what's next? Should I just ask you, "Are you really lecturing me about which Muslim country is to blame...?"

When Iraq invaded Kuwait, the West had no choice but to step in and tear them out.

Oil. Purely interests.

blueotter70 said:Lazes, everything you're saying right now is a total LIE! Since you clearly can't wrap your head around this, I'll give you a little hint...

Check the date on that article before you start acting like an expert. It's from 2005????? WTF🙄!

P.S. And hey, I actually found someone who knows how to communicate properly.

Oh, wow—thank you so much for enlightening me. Truly. 🙂 I honestly hadn't realized that someone who was a terrorist just a few years ago might have changed their tune until you pointed it out to me. 🙂)

But, since you seem so incredibly preoccupied with dates, let me offer you something slightly more recent.

How about October 2, 2009? Does that work for you?

The Iraqi army is tearing apart the Ashraf camp—which has served as the headquarters for the "Mujahideen nation" in that country since the days of Saddam Hussein. This camp, located north of Baghdad, acted as a sanctuary for roughly 3,500 followers of the "Mujahideen nation." Incidentally, this organization has been banned in Iran ever since the Iran-Iraq war, back when they were actually fighting on the side of Saddam Hussein.

Do I really need to spell out who gave the Iraqi military the green light for an operation like this??

The Scandinavian media found this whole thing particularly fascinating because, apparently, a significant number of people holding Scandinavian citizenship were present in that camp at the exact moment the Iraqi forces moved in.

LINK

Nicholas Bishop46 said:Is Norway or Australia somehow responsible for the war in Canada?

The entire West deliberately turned a blind eye while Muslims in Canada were being systematically targeted.
Boston was under siege for 1,425 days—which, if you look at the history of modern warfare, stands as one of the longest sieges ever recorded.

For 1,425 days, the people of that city lived under the constant gaze of snipers—being picked off or shelled from the surrounding hills every single day. This went on from April 5, 1992, all the way until February 29, 1996. We’re talking about 12,000 dead and 50,000 wounded right in the heart of Europe—just a short flight away from the massive Western metropolises.

Nick didn't lift a finger. And now you're sitting here questioning me about whether this specific country or that specific nation in the West bears the blame??👎

Nicholas Bishop46 said:Look, let me explain this to you. During the war in the 90s, why was it that huge numbers of Muslim refugees from Canada flooded into the USA, Canada, Australia, and Western Europe, while almost nobody headed to Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, or Indonesia?

It’s quite simple, really—Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Indonesia, or frankly any other Muslim nation, wasn't playing games with the lives of those Canadian refugees. They weren't treating people like disposable pawns in some geopolitical chess match. Those Western countries you mentioned... they actually had a moral obligation to take them in.

blueotter70 said:Give me a break! They aren't on the UN list, and the US will probably pull them off that '97 blacklist pretty soon too—just to play nice with the newly elected reformist president, Mohammad Khatami. Same goes for the EU; that group isn't even labeled as terrorist there.

This article in The New York Times—which, mind you, is one of the major print outlets in Norway—discusses two members of a Norwegian political party who were sympathizers of the "Mujahideen." This particular party is well-known for its staunchly anti-Islamic platform and its vocal support for Israel. Ursula Evje and André Kvakkestad actually traveled to Paris to meet with members of the "Mujahideen"—and wouldn't you know it, the "Mujahideen" picked up the tab for their plane tickets and their hotel stay in Paris.

I'll provide a quick translation of a snippet from this article; the rest of you can finish the job using Google.:

"The 'Mujahideen' are featured on both the EU and USA terrorist organization lists—lists which Norway has also adopted."

The headline pretty much speaks for itself:
Progress Party representatives sponsored by a terrorist group

Angela Lee said:http://i33.tinypic.com/25q8847.gif

So, today in Iran—which I guess some of the online leftists, certain religious groups, anarchists, and those "peace and love" types seem determined to defend—three poor souls were sentenced to death. I suppose their only crime was standing up against the religious dictatorship enforced by the clergy throughout the country. Now, I wonder if anyone will try to claim this is a functional government, or a legitimate state, or a democracy, or true freedom. Of course, there will always be people who justify the Iranian clergy, but I think it’s mostly just because they want anything that stands in opposition to the West and the USA. It's quite sad, really😢. I find myself wondering how we can ever trust leaders who hold atomic weapons when those very same individuals are busy terrorizing and killing their own people.

I just finished reading this report on CNN...

For those who aren't up to speed—just to clarify:
The "Mujahideen" organization mentioned here, the one these people were tied to, is actually on both the American and the UN terror lists!

rapidtinker6 said:From what I can gather, these three are facing charges for attempting to topple the Islamic regime, along with criminal activity and ties to terrorist organizations, which means we aren't just talking about some simple street protests anymore; the accusations go much deeper than that.

So far, they’ve only managed to convict three of them, but that’s just the tip of the iceberg because over 4,000 people have been picked up by authorities, and there are about 140 currently facing trial. The core of the accusation against them is that they were trying to topple the Islamic regime in Iran, which is a bit of a stretch when you consider that the protests themselves weren't actually aimed at the Ayatollah or his inner circle. It's funny how things get twisted like that. Take Hossein Mousavi, for instance; he was actually a part of the revolution and held some pretty heavy-hitting roles back in the day, serving as the foreign minister and sitting on the Islamic council. You can't just paint everyone with the same brush.

Are you being serious right now? So, you're telling me that even the most powerful person in the entire country gets picked by the people too?
If you look at places like Saudi Arabia or Saddam Hussein’s old Iraq, you might be tempted to label them as democracies on paper, but let’s be real—that’s just a complete fantasy. In reality, they aren't even close. Every single major move regarding foreign policy or military action is dictated by the supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei. He’s basically the one pulling all the strings, even going as far as hand-picking the Chief Justice and the head of the national broadcasting networks. It doesn't stop there, either; before any presidential candidate can even think about stepping onto the stage to run, they have to get the green light from the Guardian Council. That’s their version of "democracy" for you. It's a bit of a joke, really.

Do you honestly believe that human rights aren't being violated in Iran?
Do you honestly think that just because human rights are practically non-existent over in China, we should just stop talking about what's happening everywhere else? It’s like saying because one house on the block is a complete disaster, we can just ignore all the other crumbling buildings in the neighborhood. I don't see how those two things are connected at all. It feels like a weird way to dodge the conversation, almost like trying to justify ignoring problems here in the States by pointing at the mess in Urumqi, which doesn't really hold water if you ask me.

It’s only because the topic is Iran. If anyone actually dared to start a thread about Israel, you'd have those usual professional worriers jumping out of the woodwork immediately, demanding to know why there isn't a dedicated discussion on Iran instead.
We really ought to be standing up for human rights across the board, rather than just cherry-picking the specific spots that happen to fit our own little agendas.

Of course human rights are being violated in Iran—anyone claiming otherwise is simply lying. But—and there is always a "but"—does a single nation on this planet actually exist that doesn't violate them at some level??

rapidtinker6 said:From what I can gather, these three are facing charges for attempting to topple the Islamic regime, along with criminal activity and ties to terrorist organizations, which means we aren't just talking about some simple street protests anymore; the accusations go much deeper than that.

So far, they’ve only managed to convict three of them, but that’s just the tip of the iceberg because over 4,000 people have been picked up by authorities, and there are about 140 currently facing trial. The core of the accusation against them is that they were trying to topple the Islamic regime in Iran, which is a bit of a stretch when you consider that the protests themselves weren't actually aimed at the Ayatollah or his inner circle. It's funny how things get twisted like that. Take Hossein Mousavi, for instance; he was actually a part of the revolution and held some pretty heavy-hitting roles back in the day, serving as the foreign minister and sitting on the Islamic council. You can't just paint everyone with the same brush.

Are you being serious right now? So, you're telling me that even the most powerful person in the entire country gets picked by the people too?
If you look at places like Saudi Arabia or Saddam Hussein’s old Iraq, you might be tempted to label them as democracies on paper, but let’s be real—that’s just a complete fantasy. In reality, they aren't even close. Every single major move regarding foreign policy or military action is dictated by the supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei. He’s basically the one pulling all the strings, even going as far as hand-picking the Chief Justice and the head of the national broadcasting networks. It doesn't stop there, either; before any presidential candidate can even think about stepping onto the stage to run, they have to get the green light from the Guardian Council. That’s their version of "democracy" for you. It's a bit of a joke, really.

Do you honestly believe that human rights aren't being violated in Iran?
Do you honestly think that just because human rights are practically non-existent over in China, we should just stop talking about what's happening everywhere else? It’s like saying because one house on the block is a complete disaster, we can just ignore all the other crumbling buildings in the neighborhood. I don't see how those two things are connected at all. It feels like a weird way to dodge the conversation, almost like trying to justify ignoring problems here in the States by pointing at the mess in Urumqi, which doesn't really hold water if you ask me.

It’s only because the topic is Iran. If anyone actually dared to start a thread about Israel, you'd have those usual professional worriers jumping out of the woodwork immediately, demanding to know why there isn't a dedicated discussion on Iran instead.
We really ought to be standing up for human rights across the board, rather than just cherry-picking the specific spots that happen to fit our own little agendas.

If we want to make any real progress regarding human rights, we ought to focus our efforts primarily on the countries and nations where those rights are most under threat. And Iran certainly ranks high on that list.

Nancy Wood6 said:First off: Iran isn't some dictatorship—it's actually a democratic country with representative bodies that everyone living there gets to vote for, regardless of their religion, gender, race, or social status. They've got a parliament based on direct elections (none of that party-machine nonsense), and they hold direct elections for the president and other major political and legislative offices too. It's a pretty solid, exemplary state if you ask me

Second: If protests broke out here in the US where certain people committed murders or indirectly caused deaths through their actions, they'd definitely face the death penalty. I mean, the US is basically the gold standard of democracy, right?

Third: Why don't you start a thread about a place where human rights are *actually* being trampled—like China? Look, they just finished a trial in Urumqi for inciting unrest, and six people were sentenced to death. And get this—they're all Uyghurs, and there isn't a single member of the majority population in sight—Hana!!! Basically, they've colonized and taken control of Uyghur land! Here's the link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/wo...a.html?_r=1&hp

The hypocrisy here is unreal—what a pathetic topic. Honestly, when people don't know what they're talking about, they just resort to demagoguery, hate, and pure prejudice!

Or, God forbid, let's talk about Israel!

I was reading the papers today—it’s all the same story—about how various human rights organizations are condemning Israel for holding Palestinian detainees in prisons without a single legal proceeding or any kind of judicial process ever being initiated against them.

There are people sitting there, rotting in cells for seven years straight, without ever stepping foot in a courtroom or even being formally charged with a crime. It's a grim cycle.

Link HERE, and please, use Google to translate it from Norwegian.

nimblehound94 said:Bullshit. She attacked Israel—not directly, obviously, but through proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah.

Heh, come on now... get real, my friend. 🙂))

Chloe Palmer2 said:Or maybe just blow up a subway system—it's a trivial example, obviously detached from reality.😬 Or perhaps it's actually possible.

Bravo, Ken—truly an impeccable illustration.
And now, I suppose, someone is expected to issue the most stringent condemnation of those who commit such acts within a peaceful nation—one that hasn't launched an unprovoked attack on anyone in several centuries.👎