Was the 9/11 World Trade Center a Controlled Demolition?
I have been studying this for about 3 years now and know without doubt that all THREE buildings were brought down by controlled demolition. The third was Building 7 and wasn't hit by a plane. Here's a 9 second video showing it's collapse: http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=US#/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A This 47 story building fell completely, symmetrically and quickly. The collapse was over in 6 1/2 seconds. I could write several pages on this because like I said, I've been studying it for 3 years. I didn't want to believe this either when I was first exposed but Americans need to understand what really happened so we can bring the REAL PERPETRATORS to justice.
Sergio Ramos intentionally injured Mo Salah. Will you sign the petition to show your support for justice to be done?
As a Barca fan I have my biases.To me it seemed like a bit of EXTRA wrestling by Ramos, as a result of which Salah got injured. In our game this Sunday, i should add, Madrid fans had a different take and thought it was inocuous.Not sure what from of justice is achievable. Possibly, sitting out a couple of games next CL season? And pay for Mr. Salah’s dinner for 10 years? :-)
Do you think Trump will destroy the world intentionally or unintentionally?
Great question. You deserve a trophy for the most obvious Trump triggered snowflake question ever.
Is USA unintentionally helping China eventually become the sole superpower?
The behavior of an individual doesn’t mean the country has the intention or the unintentional implied results. The situation that has been created is only superficial and not far reaching.At this moment an individual is intentionally or unintentionally creating this impression, but we must understand in the US there is a check and balance system. It looks although very weird that some part of the Congress is still supporting this environment without understanding the consequences, but this could be over at the next change of power.True that some individuals are blaming Alliances as the problem in the world, resulting in an unstable environment among USA allies, but it is all temporary. Most people are like the queen of the UK with her brooch approach. Of course some individuals gave the impression as if they are acting like foreign agents, but this is NOT the country USA.Did the Queen send a hidden message to Trump with her jewellery during his visit?
How will civilization survive the upcoming ravages of climate change?
The question is, How will civilization survive the upcoming ravages of climate change?It would have been nice to provide some details of the claimed “ravages” brought by the new warming cycle of our planet. What are they? Without essential facts such questions cannot be properly answered.I see someone provided this link: Harvard panelists consider worst-case scenarios for climateThe contents of the article are vague and not much like the actual figures cited by reputable sources. Again:lacking in details.The one clear citation is that, by 2100 the average global temperature will be 2ºC higher than today. Given that since 1900 the average global temperature has risen about 3º C that’s a total of 5º C rise by 2100. 5ºC = 9º F. But it’ll only be + 3.6º F by 2100. The current average global temperature is about 59º F or 15º C.59 + 3.6 = 62.6 degrees Fahrenheit. Note: the reference article is ridiculously off track from better known sources. Those sources use a longer timeline than the next 78 years for example. They use 100 to 150 years and the projected average global temperature is around 72º F. Almost 10 degrees warmer than the alarmist figure featured in the Harvard article.And even the higher projection omits: that for every 20º latitude north or south of the Equator average temperatures will be 10º F. lower than the tropic latitudes. These temperate zones will become even more favorable for human occupation with major countries like the US, Canada, Russia and much of Europe laying in the temperate zones.At least the article focuses on changing from the Big Hopeless Panic Picture to something that can be corrected (and rather easily according to recent reports in National Geographic).But even so people are still being misled about the real manmade danger: human occupation of wildlife habitat and the intentional and unintentional transport of species of plants, fish, birds and other animals (like rats). Habitat destruction is probably the greater cause of species extinction.Whatever the effects the ‘ravages’ amount to assaults on our nostalgia for places like low lying cities. The rate of increase of our population is large enough to necessitate a new good size city every year. And what can’t be protected from flooding due to rising sea levels (which are only projected to be 7 to 9 feet over the next 100 years), just moving such things to higher ground will do and it needn’t be tackled immediately.
Why is it so difficult to develop trade solutions to replace aid solutions in developing countries?
So many different factors at play here.The base of it all-as always-comes down to people. What are the people capable of producing internally that can open up trade solutions. Industrialization of a country can be very challenging if the workforce cannot be developed to meet the needs.Some creative solutions that help develop trade have been initiatives to fund small businesses, help create a better workforce (education, training, etc), and even some infrastructure development (look at China in east Africa). However, these initiatives can only go so far if they are not able to be internally supported to some degree.You see very exploitative practices (once again-see China in Africa) which boost an economy until the viability of the opportunity has been fully executed-at which point the trade development stops and often leaves a vaccuum. I saw this in Dire Dawa, Ethiopia after the railroad was completed by the Chinese. All of a sudden, people that moved to the city were out of work and away from their families with no money to get home. This is another significant reason why trade solutions fail. The right focus is not placed (intentionally or unintentionally) on developing actual economic improvement and resources are just expended to meet a short-term opportunity.Usually when you see an emerging economy start to develop trade, they have done something significant internally (often with major cultural shifts) that drove internal growth and developed an environment where trade became possible. If you look at the dichotomy between Rwanda and Burundi, you can see how Rwanda leverage aid and the global presence after the genocide to accelerate their economy as part of their recovery from the atrocity. Burundi did not get the same attention despite withstanding the same genocide, which did not allow it to accelerate development in the same manner and opened it up to further political jockeying.
Back in the days of slavery were slave owners intentionally cruel to the slaves?
Some were. There are cruel people in every era, unfortunately. But the majority of slave owners were probably not intentionally cruel, though they did not always consider the feelings of their slaves. It was quite common for children to be sold away from their parents, or husbands from their wives for instance. Many slave owners did not consider their slaves feelings. And most slaves worked very hard for very long hours. But then so did most poor free people in those days. The average slave was probably no worse off, as far as food, accomodation, work conditions etc, than the average poor free person. But slaves were subject to numerous humilations and restrictions that were not placed on free poor people. They could not marry legally for instance, and as I said above, marriages could be ended by one or other being sold, or children being taken from their parents and sold. They could not leave an owner, or move to another place. They were not allowed to learn to read or write, and would be punished if caught doing so. And female slaves were always at risk from sexual molestation by their masters - the children of slave women were slaves no matter who their father was, so male slave owners could seduce or rape female slaves with impunity.
Japanese people,what do you think about China?
The only people who are still stuck on Nanking seem to be the Chinese people, not the Japanese. Japanese people have "moved on" since WW2, and for the past 65 years, Japan has been a peaceful country without war, the Japanese people do not want or support war anymore. Japanese law prohibits offensive military actions. As for relationship between China and Japan. China and Japan are large trading partners especially when it comes to merchandising. Many Chinese people visit Japan these days for vacations (the number of Chinese have increased, Japan has relaxed some immigration requirements for Chinese to visit Japan for tourism purposes. Chinese living in Japan is Japan's number 1 foreign group. surpassing Koreans. Politically there are still many differences, Japan is an democratic country where China is a communist country, so that causes friction sometimes. I think most Japanese will say working together is better then fighting with each other.