who's decision was this

me, the day before project class: “i can do this. i will just show my ideas. they criticise me for my own good. if i dont get criticism i will regret later”

me, 10 minutes before project class: “i imagine death so much it feels like a memory”

anonymous asked:

I know that you think Jared is sort of submissive while Jensen is dominant. Who do you think makes most of the decisions? Like what restaurant they eat at? What they're gonna do for the day?


Jensen is probably the one who makes a handful of the decisions. Now listen, when I say that Jared is a “submissive” I’m not saying he’s a doormat that Jensen walks all over lol. What I’m saying is, based on Jared’s behavior, he’s the type of gay man that likes the person he’s dating to be more dominant than he is.

In every relationship there is usually someone more dominant than the other, regardless of your sexuality. For example, I have a friend who’s been dating this guy for about four years now. And I’d say that she’s the “Dominant” and her boyfriend is more “Submissive” and by that I mean she makes a lot of the decisions for the both of them. Whether that be where they go to eat or what their plans are for the day. To some people that’s odd because usually in straight relationships people expect the male to be the dominant one/the provider, but times are changing. 

One of my best friends is gay, and he told me a few years back that when a gay guy specifically wants to date a “Dominant” man (Not talking about D/S sex) that’s usually just another word for “Manly”.  And at first I didn’t really understand, and then slowly I began to realize what my friend was saying. Jared is the perfect example of someone who is more effeminate that wants a dominant/manly guy.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, if Jared and Jensen weren’t together. I highly doubt anyone would ever see Jared dating a feminine/flamboyant guy (like for example a man who paints their nails)….I think it’s obvious by now that Jared is attracted to masculinity. 

If he makes anymore comments about men and their muscular bodies he might as well “out” himself lol.


- K

Originally posted by redundanttanks

I’m just gonna throw a ton of prayer requests out here now

- can y’all pray for my friend who’s going through a difficult time due to relationship/school/family stuff and might be on the verge of making a bad decision

-also pray for a girl and her family who i think is about to leave an abusive situation. don’t really know her so this is kinda all i can offer to help I guess

-also idk what is going on with my one prof and her family but i feel like they need prayers too

-and pray for all the kids and people at my placement because tomorrow is my last day and I’m going to miss them and I want tomorrow to go well for them

anonymous asked:

Do you think Yuuri can hold his liquor more easily than Vitya? I Mean The dude had 12 glasses of Champaign befor becoming drunk drunk.

Well, I wouldn’t know… 

I don’t think we’ve seen exactly how many (and what type of) alcoholic beverages it takes to make Victor get drunk.

I leave this decision to the masses!

Who can hold their liquor better? Victor or Yuuri?

(Personally I think they have about the same tolerance… with Victor being slightly more of a heavy weight than his significant other…)

((for TI Week Day 5, AU/Crossover. Animorphs!!!))

None of them could believe it. An alien ship, a strange centaur-like creature with a bladed tail, speech that only formed in their thoughts, a story about an invasion. Markus’ gaze flicked over to Thog. “What do we do?” he asked.

Thog looked at all of them, and realized they were waiting for his decision. Even Inien, who always had something contrary to say. “Let’s hear him out,” he said, quietly. “These- Zeth, you said? Why are they here? What do they want?”

<Life,> the alien answered. He tried to stand, faltered. Ashe rushed forward to help support him, so he at least didn’t have to look up at all of them. <Thank you.>

Ashe nodded, also oddly silent. Thog thought she might be confused, at first, but her eyes were narrowed in concentration. “It’s nothing,” she said, her voice gentle. “Please, tell us what’s happening.”

Keep reading

The kind of person who makes a decision and convinces other people of that decision is the kind of person that wins Survivor.
—  Queen Hannah Shapiro, directly before going to tribal council where it is revealed that she convinced the rest of her alliance to go with her decision to vote out Sunday

anonymous asked:

okay,so i have like a chubby kind of face and im planning on cutting my hair real short,like a boyhair cut and im really nervous bc everyone says it won't suit me):

dude fuck what everyone else says! i mean, cutting your hair so hugely different is a massive decision but it’s 100% your decision. plus hair grows back, so who cares? dye it, cut it, shave it, whatever, it’ll grow back and you’ll learn what hair cut you like best, so just play around with it and do what you want with it!!x

The ‘Mistaken’ US Airstrike on Syrian Troops – Consortiumnews
A close reading of the report on the U.S. airstrike that killed scores of Syrian troops and helped Islamic State capture a key base leaves many doubts about the “mistake” explanation, writes Gareth Porter for Middle East Eye. By Gareth Porter

The summary report on an investigation into U.S. and allied air strikes on Syrian government troops has revealed irregularities in decision-making consistent with a deliberate targeting of Syrian forces.

The report, released by U.S. Central Command on Nov. 29, shows that senior U.S. Air Force officers at the Combined Air Operations Center (CAOC) at al-Udeid Airbase in Qatar, who were responsible for the decision to carry out the September airstrike at Deir Ezzor:

  • –misled the Russians about where the U.S. intended to strike so Russia could not warn that it was targeting Syrian troops;
  • –ignored information and intelligence analysis warning that the positions to be struck were Syrian government rather than Islamic State; and
  • –shifted abruptly from a deliberate targeting process to an immediate strike in violation of normal Air Force procedures

Last week, Brig. Gen. Richard Coe, the lead U.S. official on the investigating team, told reporters that U.S. air strikes in Deir Ezzor on Sept. 17, which killed at least 62 – and possibly more than 100 – Syrian army troops, was the unintentional result of “human error.”

The report itself says that the investigators found “no evidence of misconduct” – but it is highly critical of the decision process and does not offer any explanations for that series of irregularities.

The strikes against two Syrian army positions were the pivotal event in the breakdown of the Syrian ceasefire agreement reached between the United States and Russia in September. Both Moscow and Damascus denounced the strikes as a deliberate move by the Obama administration to support the Islamic State group and cited the attacks as the reason for declaring an end to the ceasefire on Sept. 19.

Lt. Gen. Jeffrey L Harrigan, commander of U.S. Air Forces Central Command and of the CAOC, who was the central figure in all the decisions, apparently had a motive for a strike against Syrian forces.

U.S. Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter had strongly opposed a provision in the U.S.-Russian ceasefire agreement that would have established a U.S.-Russian “joint integration center” to coordinate air strikes against both Islamic State (also known as Daesh) and the Al Qaeda-affiliated Nusra Front, which was to become active after seven days of effective ceasefire.

But President Barack Obama supported Secretary of State John Kerry’s position and overrode Pentagon objections.

In a press briefing on Sept. 13, Harrigan stated that his readiness to join such a joint operation with the Russians “is going to depend on what the plan ends up being.” He added: “[I]t would be premature to say we’re going to jump right into it. And I’m not saying yes or no. I’m saying we’ve got work to do to understand what the plan is going to look like.”

Three days later, Harrigan’s command sent a drone to investigate a site three kilometers southwest of Deir Ezzor airfield. It showed images of a tunnel entrance, two tents and 14 adult males, according to the investigation report. That move led to a swiftly moving decision process that resulted in the air strike against two Syrian army bases the following day.

Not Telling the Russians

The investigation report summary reveals that the CAOC sent misleading information to the Russians before the strike about the location of the targets. The Russians were informed that the targets were nine kilometers south of Deir Ezzor airfield: they were actually only three and six kilometers from that airfield, respectively, according to the summary of its findings.

The investigation report summary reveals that the CAOC sent misleading information to the Russians before the strike about the location of the targets.

Brig. Gen. Richard Coe, who briefed reporters on the team’s report, acknowledged that the misleading information had prevented the Russians from intervening to stop the strike. “Had we told them accurately, they would have warned us,” he told reporters.

Coe said that the provision of that misleading information to the Russians before the strike was “unintentional.” However, neither he nor the redacted summary of the report offered any explanation as to how such misleading information could have been passed to the Russians unintentionally.

From its initial position above the site three kilometers from the airfield, the drone followed a vehicle to two other positions nearby, both of which also had tunnels, as well as “defensive fighting positions”, including tanks and armored personnel carriers. All those characteristics would have been consistent with a Syrian Army position, especially in Deir Ezzor.

At the time the Syrian Army was fighting from fixed defensive positions to prevent the Deir Ezzor airport – the lifeline for the entire government-held portion of the city – from being overrun.

Nevertheless, those positions were quickly identified as belonging to the Islamic State, based primarily on the clothing worn by the personnel at the sites. The report describes the personnel at the two sites as dressed in “a mix of traditional wear, civilian attire and military style clothing that lacked uniformity.”

But a former US intelligence analyst with long experience in image interpretation in combat situations told Middle East Eye that the claim that Islamic State militants could be distinguished from Syrian army troops on the basis of their clothing “sounds completely bogus.” He said he had seen images of Syrian Republican Guards in the field who were not wearing regular uniforms or were dressed in various colors.

The report also mentions a series of what it calls “breakdowns” regarding intelligence reporting and analysis on the identification of the positions with the Islamic State that allegedly was never seen by those making the decisions on targeting.

The regional station belonging to the Air Force’s Distributed Common Ground System (DCGS) is the main source of Air Force analysis of intelligence from aerial surveillance. It responded to the initial identification of the positions as belonging to the Islamic State group by raising “concerns” that the ground force in question could not have belonged to the group. But those concerns never reached Harrigan or his staff, according to the report.

Thirty minutes before the strike was scheduled, someone called into the CAOC to report a “possible flag” in one of two target areas. The call, which contradicted the accepted identification based on the absence of flags at the site, “went unacknowledged,” according to the report.

The report also reveals that a map prepared by an intelligence agency, whose identity is redacted, that was available at the CAOC contradicted the classified map showing areas occupied by the Syrian Army and Islamic State in the vicinity of the Deir Ezzor airfield.

The classified map supported the decision to proceed with the strike. But the officials involved in targeting decisions denied any knowledge of another map.

The report and Coe’s press briefing both explained the conclusion that the positions were under Islamic State control as a result of “confirmation bias,” which means that people seek and accept information that confirms their existing biases.

But citing that concept implies that those responsible for the strike began with an interest in finding evidence to justify an action they already wanted to take.

The report is critical of the discussion on the identification issue within CAOC for focusing only on “what could be seen on the ground rather than what we knew about the ground situation” (emphasis in original report).

That language clearly suggests that Harrigan and his staff were ignoring basic facts about the positions of the Syrian army and Islamic State in the area that was well known to U.S. intelligence.

Switch to ‘Dynamic Targeting’

Journalist Elijah Magnier of the Kuwait daily newspaper Al Rai has followed the struggle between the Syrian army and Islamic State for control of Deir Ezzor closely for years.

He told Middle East Eye in an email that at the time of the air strike the defense of the airport depended entirely on four interconnected Syrian army positions on the Thardeh mountain chain.

Magnier said Islamic State forces had been carrying out “daily attacks” on Deir Ezzor airport prior to the U.S. air strikes but had failed, mainly because of the higher elevation of the four Syrian bases in relation to the positions occupied by Islamic State further south.

Fabrice Balanche, a leading French expert on Syria who is now a visiting fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said in an interview with Middle East Eye that the Syrian army had maintained continuous control over the base at Thardeh mountain from March 2016 until the U.S. air strikes, which then resulted in Islamic State gaining control of it.

The report faults those who made the decisions on the targeting of the strike for failing to follow normal Air Force procedures. Originally, the CAOC had initiated a process called “Deliberate Targeting,” which is used for fixed targets and requires extensive and time-consuming work to ensure the accuracy of the intelligence on the targets, according to the report. But that had been changed abruptly to “Dynamic Targeting,” which involves “fleeting targets” – those that are either moving or about to move — for which intelligence requirements are less stringent.

The authors of the report found that change to be improper, given that the sites being targeted were clearly identified as defensive positions and could not justify such a switch to a hastily prepared strike. But again, it offers no explanation as to why.

The report revealed more than previous investigations into U.S. military operations that resulted in embarrassment. This can be explained by the role of its co-author, whose identity was redacted as “foreign government information.” He or she is most likely a general belonging to one of the other three members of the “Operation Inherent Resolve” coalition whose planes participated in the Deir Ezzor strike, which would narrow it down to the U.K., Denmark or Australia.

The two co-authors also went through lengthy negotiations to resolve the differences in the summary report. This is indicated by the repeated postponement of the report’s release, which was originally planned for two weeks earlier, according to sources at Central Command. As a result, the report was certainly less pointed in describing the decision-making than the unidentified co-author would have preferred.

The report observes that it was “unclear who has the responsibility/authority to decide between continuing deliberate target development versus conducting a dynamic strike.” However such decisions could only have been made with the approval of the commander of CAOC – Lt. Gen. Harrigan, who is also commander of US Air Forces Central Command.

The decision to avoid identifying Harrigan as responsible for that decision may be related to the fact he was also the recipient of the report.

krullish  asked:

Send this to the 12 nicest people who you know or seem to have a good heart. If you get five back then you must be pretty awesome! ♥ (◍•ᴗ•◍)♡ ✧*









<3 <3 <3 

wukodork  asked:

All that discourse about Kylo Ran yesterday reminded me of how Legends spent a weird amount of time going "Hey Darth Vader wasn't all bad"

Yeah, I guess fandom is following old canon’s footsteps. I just wish people would just accept Kylo is a grown man who made decision and regardless of how good, bad or mediocre Han and Leia were as parents, they are not responsible for the decisions made by their son. It’s like blaming Obi Wan for Anakin going dark side.   

i just wanna shake the hand of whoever came up with the ALS ice bucket challenge. not only is it raising awareness of an important cause, i’ve also seen more damp celebrities in clinging t-shirts in the past week than i ever dreamed possible. 

I am really annoyed with the idea that Slytherins are always cool, calm and unemotional. Most of the Slytherins we see are very emotional, and make a lot of important decisions based on strong emotion, and even foil themselves because they get too emotional. They’ll absolutely tear themselves apart for whatever they love, whether that’s a person or power. You have to feel strongly about something to be truly ambitious.

I MEAN JUST LOOK AT THE EXAMPLES. Someone insulted you/your family/someone you care about? Forget the snide comebacks, it’s time to SCREAM, YELL, CURSE THEM WITH BOILS. Family doesn’t approve of your boyfriend? ELOPE, it doesn’t matter whether this turns out to be a terrible decision. Boy Who Lived refuses to be your friend? OBSESS OVER HIM FOR THE NEXT SEVEN YEARS. Telepathic Dark Lord is threatening your son/childhood friend? Lie on the spot AND RISK A TORTUROUS DEATH TO DEFY HIM. Dark Lord is threatening your house elf? DRINK POISON AND THROW YOURSELF INTO A PIT OF ZOMBIES.

Slytherin is the House of cunning, not the House of rational decision-making??


Steve/Tony + complementary qualities

PSA to all the cosplayers on my dash and in my life because a lot of you are stressing right now and my mother-hen instincts are kicking in.

  • You’re doing fine
  • The fabric you picked was the right choice, it’s going to look great
  • Yes it’s going to get delivered when it says it’s going to get delivered.
  • Put down the stitch-ripper. Walk away for ten minutes. Come back calmer.
  • Yes the color is close enough to your reference material.
  • No I don’t think anyone will notice.
  • It’s alright that you fudged authenticity on that piece.
  • It’s alright that you over-did it on authenticity on that other piece.
  • You’re not going to let anyone down.
  • I believe in you.
  • Remember to eat and sleep.
  • You’re doing fine.
  • Better than fine.
  • You’re going to be amazing.

Betrayed my their advisors.


“There has never been a heroine I have loved more than Batwoman. Her flaws, her ferocity, her struggle to rise above her own history and find a way to serve the greater good and those she loves—she’s always cut me straight to the bone. To be a queer woman and to see a queer woman as not just a part but a pillar of the Bat-family was life changing, inspiring and gave me the courage to pursue this career in comics. The opportunity to add to Kate Kane’s story and legacy is both an honor and a sincere dream come true.” — Marguerite Bennett (x)