⟱⟱⟱⟱⟱⟱⟱⟱⟱
https://onwatchly.com/video-9800.html?utm_source=giova.blogia
⇧⇧⇧⇧⇧⇧⇧⇧⇧
Tara Grammy. release Year - 2019. Countries - USA. scores - 148 Vote. 
. writer - Stephanie Wu, Sara Zandieh. A simple wedding menu. OMG you are wearing so much of makeup while using face Pack pls come up with out make up so that we can decide whether ur skin is glowy or not... Be real don't think ur subscriber r fool. A simple wedding full movie 2018.
I believe that there's nobody for anyone. Same Keanu, same. I don't know why people are so concerned about the demonstration she gave while wearing makeup. plz guyz just concentrate on the DIY that she suggested and appreciate her to share this with us. Nd most importantly she can demonstrate however she wants to, keep that in mind. A simple wedding. A simple wedding movie full. A simple wedding trailer deutsch. A simple wedding full movie. Could you link the rug that you bought on RugsUSA? Thanks. Debina aap makeup kr ke Soti ho Kya🤣🤣🤣🤣. My wife and I rented this on-demand and it was pretty good. we both enjoyed it.
A simple wedding فیلم. A simple wedding 2018 movie. It depends on financial capacity. A Simple wedding planner. A Simple wedding photographer. Id like to get married in a field or wooded area as well. Can you tell me more about how you got permission to use this area? Did you pay for it? Was the land owned by someone you know. A simple wedding where to watch. A simple wedding march. A Simple wedding planning. Something went wrong, but don’t fret — let’s give it another shot. A simple wedding movie netflix. A simple wedding trailer full movie. A simple wedding movie. A simple wedding netflix. A simple wedding subtitles. This couldn't be coincidental that the trailer was shown in the midst of the current war between the US & Iran. A simple wedding clip.
A simple wedding movie streaming
A simple wedding ceremony. A simple wedding movie where to watch. Death penalty cases especially interest me, because although I do not disagree with the death penalty, I question the way it is applied and the fact that without DNA, there is no way to prove 100% guilt. Recently, I became familiar with one mans case, Rigoberto Avila of Texas. Taken from the Austin chronicle “Rigoberto Avila was in the living room of the small two-bedroom apartment on El Paso's west side watching a basketball game on TV when he looked up and saw 4-year-old Dylan Salinas standing in the hallway, looking frightened. Avila, then 27, a former Navy man with no criminal record, was babysitting Dylan and the boy's 19-month-old brother, Nicholas Macias, at the request of the boys' mother, Marcelina Macias. Avila and Marcy, as she was known, had become friends less than a year before, while both were employed at Roto Rooter, and Avila, and sometimes his mother, helped Macias, then 25, care for her four children; Macias was studying for her GED and whenever he was free, Avila helped out. That's what he'd agreed to do the night of March 29, 2000. After Macias left the house sometime after 6pm, and the two young boys moved off to a shared bedroom to play (their older siblings were at a relative's house), Avila settled in to watch the game. It was less than an hour later when Avila looked up and saw Dylan in the hall. Dylan called Avila's name; Nicholas wasn't breathing, the child reported. Avila, father to a 5-year-old son of his own, could see Dylan was scared. He went quickly to the back bedroom. Nicholas was lying on his back on the floor, his eyes halfway open, Avila would later tell police. Avila picked up the toddler, carried him to the living room and called 911. He was given instructions on how to perform CPR and he did the best he could, he later testified in court, but it didn't work. Avila paged Macias and told her to come home right away. When she arrived, the paramedics were there, working on the lifeless body of her youngest child. Hours later, just before 1am, doctors at Providence Memorial Hospital told Macias that her son was dead, from massive internal injuries – including a severed pancreas and a colon torn from its blood supply. A year and a month later, Avila was on trial – facing the death penalty for what the state deemed the cold-blooded killing of Nicholas by Avila's stomping on the toddler's belly. Nicholas "knows the person who's... supposed to be taking care of him and making sure he's safe is hurting him, " El Paso Assistant District Attorney Gerald Cichon told jurors during closing arguments: "He's on his back... he's looking up. He sees [Avila] with a nice, big size 11 shoe... over his stomach and it comes down, straight down on [Nicholas'] stomach; that's exactly what happened, " Cichon continued. "He saw it all.... He watched himself get murdered. He is lying there, holding his little tiny tummy after it's been shredded, torn apart... and he's bleeding from the inside. He just holds it and lays there, afraid, alone, not even his mother to call. " That description of the last minutes of Nicholas' life was dramatic and apparently effective: Avila was convicted of killing Nicholas and then sentenced to die. But whether Cichon's story was an accurate portrayal of what actually happened that evening is another matter altogether. Now, more than 12 years later, and with the aid of a newly passed, groundbreaking state law that allows for the reconsideration of convictions in which science – or so-called science – played a key role, Avila hopes that modern analysis done by physicists and doctors specifically trained in the mechanics of injury to children will help him finally to prove his innocence. Avila, Dylan, and even Macias told officials that Dylan and Nicholas often played roughly, and that Dylan liked to mimic the wrestlers he saw on TV. That's what the boys had been doing when something happened to Nicholas, Dylan told officials that night in a videotaped interview. That's also what Dylan told Avila while the pair were riding together to the hospital, following the ambulance where Macias rode with her baby, Avila told police. And that's what Macias told Child Protective Services, which conducted its own inquiry into Nicholas' death. But that account of events was quickly dismissed after doctors, including the county's longtime medical examiner, Juan Contin, said Nicholas' extensive internal injuries were not "consistent" with damage that could be done by his roughly 40-pound brother. At trial, George Raschbaum, the pediatric surgeon who worked on Nicholas that night at the hospital, testified that the baby's injuries were like what he'd seen previously on a patient who "jumped out of a vehicle going 60 miles an hour. " Avila has maintained that he is innocent, did nothing to harm Nicholas, and doesn't know what happened to the baby that night. But that single medical determination – that Dylan's initial account of what happened couldn't be true – set in motion the series of events that led to Avila's conviction. It caused police and prosecutors to consider that Avila, as the only adult in the apartment, had intentionally harmed Nicholas, and it led to Avila's attorneys' incoherent defense of their client. They eschewed the notion that this was a tragic accident caused by innocent play, instead suggesting that Nicholas' death was the result of Avila's clumsiness, or that Macias, before she left for the evening, had intentionally injured the boy. The problem, however, is that the initial conclusion reached by the doctors who treated Nicholas was not a scientific one, and did not take into account the principles of physics, and specifically biomechanics – put simply, the study of the effect of force on tissue. Biomechanics has long been relied on for injury prevention and repair – the development of air bags in vehicles, of helmets to protect football players' heads, of replacement hips and knees – but only recently has biomechanics been incorporated into a criminal law context, to describe with scientific certainty the force needed to cause specific injury. Biomechanical engineering is pivotal to the reconsideration of cases of so-called "shaken baby syndrome, " or SBS, and has demonstrated that simple shaking by an adult cannot create the force necessary to kill a child. "Many if not most non-physicians assume that physicians, skilled in the art of medicine, must have particular knowledge of injury mechanisms. This assumption is wrong, " John Plunkett, a veteran pathologist and expert in the diagnosis of child injuries who has been a vocal critic of SBS, wrote in an affidavit filed along with a new appeal in Avila's case. For the most part, physicians, such as Raschbaum, "need not know or apply injury mechanics if they are responsible for diagnosis and treatment, " Plunkett continued. "However, if a physician ventures from diagnosis and treatment to speculation of the ultimate force, stress, or energy required to cause injury, he/she must understand mechanics... and perform or refer to the appropriate experiments. " At the time of Avila's trial, and first appeals, biomechanics was not being applied to criminal cases involving child abdominal injuries, a leading cause of death in children, Plunkett and other experts say. Now, Plunkett wrote, such an analysis prior to deciding whether an injury is criminal or not would be "mandatory. " The argument that Avila's conviction was based on faulty, pseudo-scientific conclusions is at the heart of a new appeal filed in September. The appeal cites passage this spring by state lawmakers of Texas' first-in-the-nation law to allow for appeals based upon relevant and newly ascertainable, or evolved, science that contradicts evidence used at trial. The new statute took effect Sept. 1, and is an acknowledgment that criminal law – rigid and, importantly, wedded to finality – must evolve to keep pace with scientific advances. ” This story is from 2013, and in 2018, a judge recommended he be given a new trail, but I was unable to find out if that trail has even been scheduled yet. Now, I’m not convinced either way of his innocence or guilt. It is clear, however if outdated science was used, he deserves a fair trial. So, do you all think he’s guilty? Are there any other cases where “junk science “ may have been used?
A simple wedding movie release date. A simple wedding movie full online. A simple wedding film. A simple wedding key west.
A Simple wedding. A simple wedding دانلود فیلم. A simple wedding trailer. A simple wedding movie showtimes. A Simple weddings. A simple wedding 2019 trailer. A Simple wedding photography. Gusto ko yan diary of pulubi. So beautiful. Hey everyone! Although I technically posted a version of this thread earlier, the original version didn't have all the information (it somehow got cut out). Therefore, here is a better version. Credits to: u/GenghisKazoo (for the findings about Azor Ahai's similarities to a mythological demon) u/HyaedesSing (for the Euron, Azor Ahai, and Bloodstone Emperor connection) Whoever came up with this theory: (for inspiring my theory) INTRODUCTION TO THEORY ''The words gave her a chill, as they always did. The Stark words. Every noble house had its words. Family mottoes, touchstones, prayers of sorts, they boasted of honor and glory, promised loyalty and truth, swore faith and courage. All but the Starks. Winter is coming*, said the Stark words. Not for the first time, she reflected on what a strange people these northerners were. '' -* Catelyn Stark I think it's very interesting that House Stark's motto essentially talks about the coming of winter. While one could simply take this to mean ''prepare for hard times'', which is certainly great advice for a medieval society in general (especially one that deals with winters that last for years, which is true of winter in ASOIAF), what if there is more to it? Catelyn Stark's reaction prompts me to ask this question. Catelyn, who has lived with the Starks, is a fairly intelligent woman (enough to outwit Tyrion ''at every turn'') and knowledgeable of their customs. If Winter is Coming just meant ‘’prepare for hard times’’ or ‘’prepare for the Long Winter which comes a few years or so’’, it would be pretty easy for her to appreciate that idea. However, even in spite of the danger of winter being common knowledge in Westeros, GRRM chooses to – through her – question the meaning of her new house’s slogan. Catelyn finds it surprising that House Stark's words are not a boast, threat, or motto like the others - like, say, ''Hear Me Roar'' or ''Ours Is The Fury''. However, what if that is…exactly what this is? What if ''Winter is Coming'' is indeed a boast, motto, or warning in its own right - to the enemies of House Stark? What if winter is not the enemy or some obstacle Starks have to overcome but rather the threat House Stark can bring to the table against foes? A reminder of the powerful ally that is there to back them up against threats, if necessary? Yep, that's right. I'm suggesting that the ancient Starks, at least at some point, were in fact the Others. They did not necessarily start that way, and I certainly believe they were enemies at first. But at some point, things changed. PART I: WAR AND PEACE WITH THE OTHERS Now, what do we know about the history of the Others? We do not know where they came from, as of yet. Let’s directly quote a Wiki of Ice and Fire: According to legend, the Others came from the Lands of Always Winter six or eight thousand years ago, and brought with them cold and darkness that lasted a generation: the Long Night. They resurrected dead men and animals to serve them. In the Battle for the Dawn, they were finally defeated, by the first men of the Night's Watch and the children of the forest, an alliance made possible by the last hero. I believe the Starks and Others were enemies at first, but after fighting a war which the former won, created a peace and forged an alliance of sorts. Yes, I believe this is the same war where the humans and Children joined forces under the Last Hero to defeat the Others and end the Long Night. According to Old Nan, the Night’s King may have been a Stark (she seems insistent that this is exactly the case), and we know this guy consorted with a female Other. That alone constitutes proof of ''positive'' relations between a Stark and Others at some time, in some capacity. Right now, we know the Night’s King to be some evil dude who made sacrifices to the Others and was punished for his crimes later on. While I believe there is more to the story than what we are told, we'll return to that. What we are told is that the Others, who came from the Lands of Always Winter beyond the North, attacked humanity and started what we call the Long Night. They then lost to the first men of the Night’s Watch as well as the Children of the Forest, in an alliance made possible by the Last Hero. So, in effect, the Last Hero – we know – united these two factions and got them to take on as well as down the big bad Others from their scary winter land. Seems simple enough. That's what the books say. However, what’s also interesting is…what’s not said. First of all, why did the Others attack in the first place? Were they just trying to kill humanity because they’re evil, or were they trying to kill humanity because humanity is evil, or something else entirely, such as wanting more land like humans do and simply choosing to expand their territory – albeit with no concern for human life, just like real life colonizers. In short, they may have been evil but not mindless chaotic evil. Or again, not evil at all, maybe they had a justifiable reason. We'll return to this. Secondly, we know that humanity and the Children of the Forest allied to fight the Others and defeat them. However, it’s important to realize humans and the Children of the Forest did not start as allies. In fact, we know for a fact the two were enemies, and humans destroyed weirwoods as well as killed many of the Children. We know the Children responded by breaking the Arm of Dorne and engaging in other attacks. The fact the Last Hero needed to get the two sides to ally implies they were not allies earlier, and may even have continued to be enemies or on bad terms till he did countless Others. He was also a dealmaker, even a peacemaker who unites two disparate and possibly even enemy factions to take on a greater foe. THAT was his real achievement. He was a peace broker. In real life, when one faction loses a war, they generally have some terms imposed upon them as part of a deal or a treaty by the victorious power. For instance, Germany was severely restricted from building its military by the Allied powers after WWI under the Treaty of Versailles. Before that, the Treaty of Paris came after Napoleon’s loss in Waterloo. There are many more examples in history, and considering that the Last Hero was at least part diplomat (plus GRRM's respect for history and peace), I think this is very important when it comes to answering the question of who the Others are and what they want. So, one thing that I find interesting is how it’s never mentioned what the Others’ end of the deal was. We know they lost, but it's clear as day they weren't all wiped out - they're still very much alive and kicking today, like centuries later. Why not? If they were so dangerous the last time (seemingly a planetary threat), you'd think that humanity would literally exterminate them instead of just... letting them be, behind a Wall of Ice. Humanity came close enough to doing that to the Children and the Children weren't even a threat to them in the first place (not to the same extent). So why just let them be? The Wall isn't perfect - pretty much everyone there thinks the Others coming to the other side is a matter of when, not how. It's a temporary solution, and if some idiot decides to bring it down (difficult but not impossible), the Others can come across. And how can you even build a Wall if the Others keep attacking you during the process? They would just kill or attack those building it unless for some reason they allowed you to do it. And why is the Wall made of ICE, of all things? I posit the Others must have been part of a peace deal, which explains why they're still alive. A Wall would never be enough on its own to hold them off, something even men today know. Exterminating the Others, if less humane, would be a far more permanent end and arguably easier to achieve than building The Wall and letting some of them live - that is, unless they agreed to let the Wall be built in exchange for being left unscathed. The Wall is made of ice to reflect the fact that the Others agreed to the deal, as opposed to humans and Children making a deal by themselves without their input. ''Ruling is hard. This was maybe my answer to Tolkien, whom, as much as I admire him, I do quibble with. Lord of the Rings had a very medieval philosophy: that if the king was a good man, the land would prosper. We look at real history and it’s not that simple. Tolkien can say that Aragorn became king and reigned for a hundred years, and he was wise and good. But Tolkien doesn’t ask the question: What was Aragorn’s tax policy? Did he maintain a standing army? What did he do in times of flood and famine? And what about all these orcs? By the end of the war, Sauron is gone but all of the orcs aren’t gone – they’re in the mountains. Did Aragorn pursue a policy of systematic genocide and kill them? Even the little baby orcs, in their little orc cradles? '' - George Martin Considering that GRRM outright talked about Aragorn just leaving the orcs around as opposed to wiping them out and that the Others are even more threatening than orcs (the Last Hero's like Aragorn), I think that quote may shed some light on what really happened. I posit that what happened is that the Others were in fact subject to a peace treaty or deal. This is why they weren't just killed; this is why they didn't just attack anyone building The Wall and prevent it from ever being built; this is why the Wall is made of Ice. The ice symbolically conveys the Others' agreement to the deal. To peace. And they accepted it. Maybe they had no choice but to do so, but either way, they held to it. Now, for the fact of the Others' intelligence - they would obviously have to be intelligent enough to accept this peace treaty. They certainly were smart enough to let Craster live in exchange for taking his babies and turning them into new Others. This alone suggests that even if they are evil, they're not mindless pure evil like orcs. What's to say they couldn't have accepted a peace treaty? They can be reasoned with, like humans. This is very interesting. Now let's look at what GRRM says. ''Much as I admire Tolkien, and I do admire Tolkien — he’s been a huge influence on me, and his Lord of the Rings is the mountain that leans over every other fantasy written since and shaped all of modern fantasy — there are things about it, the whole concept of the Dark Lord, and good guys battling bad guys, Good versus Evil, while brilliantly handled in Tolkien, in the hands of many Tolkien successors, it has become kind of a cartoon. We don’t need any more Dark Lords, we don’t need any more, ‘Here are the good guys, they’re in white, there are the bad guys, they’re in black. And also, they’re really ugly, the bad guys. '' - George R. R. Martin, Assignment X Interview, 2011 We officially know our man does not like random villains, especially random pure villains - intelligent or otherwise. It is extremely unlikely that the Others are unintelligent based on their dealings with Craster and GRRM's distaste for ''Dark Lords'' pretty much eliminates the possibility of the Others just being evil orcs with more power. At least, the evil part. Some of them might be evil, but not all. They're like humanity. But wait, there's more. The Wall has one magical property we know - it deters dragons from flying to the other side. My theory is that the Others were part of the peace treaty involving humanity and the Others. They, the losing party, had to consent to the construction of The Wall in exchange for humanity not giving them more trouble. One interesting thing you’ll notice is that the Wall doesn’t actually stop people from going to the other side, but it DOES stop dragons from doing so. Queen Alysanne tried to cross The Wall thrice on her dragon's back - the dragon refused to do so each and every time. What gives? Why didn't the dragon cross The Wall? Is it fear? What does a dragon have to fear? Fire melts ice and snow, and the Others of the books actually seem to dislike fire. As Sam notes, fire will ''dismay'' them. And that's REGULAR fire - dragons are capable of destroying cities and towers like Harrenhal. The guy who built Harrenhal thought it would keep him safe from being burned alive. He was wrong. And here I think we have more insight into the Others' motives, including HOW the humans fought them and defeated them the first time (Valyrian swords can only go so far, and it is extremely unlikely the surviving Children were sufficient in number to directly fight). I believe the Others agreed to stay on the other side of The Wall in exchange for not being annihilated by the dragons. They are aware of dragonfire and see it as an actual threat (keep in mind even normal fire ''dismays'' them). They fear dragons and in exchange for safety from being exterminated by them, they stayed in the far North. As for the dragons, how did they encounter the Others to begin with? My theory is that the Last Hero was a dragonrider, or at least had one on his side. While this might sound odd as you seemingly need Targaryen blood to ride a dragon (and even that's not a guarantee), take another look at who the Last Hero's allies were. Even if he or some other human could not ride the dragon, the Children can. They are wargs, after all, and they could easily possess a dragon as well as weaponize one against Others. It is also theorized that dragons existed pretty much everywhere in the past, INCLUDING Westeros. ''In Septon Barth’s Dragons, Wyrms, and Wyverns, he speculated that the bloodmages of Valyria used wyvern stock to create dragons. Though the bloodmages were alleged to have experimented mightily with their unnatural arts, this claim is considered far-fetched by most maesters. And Maester Vanyon’s Against the Unnatural contains certain proofs of dragons having existed in Westeros even in the earliest of days, before Valyria rose to be a power. '' TWOIAF As for the Children being involved in controlling dragons, or even teaching the Last Hero to: ''Claiming to have consulted with texts said to be preserved at Castle Black, Septon Barth put forth that the children of the forest could speak with ravens and could make them repeat their words. According to Barth, this higher mystery was taught to the First Men by the children so that ravens could spread messages at a great distance. It was passed, in “degraded” form, down to the maesters today, who no longer know how to speak to the birds … Ravens are amongst the cleverest of birds, but they are no wiser than infant children, and considerably less capable of true speech, whatever Septon Barth might have believed. '' TWOIAF If ravens, why not dragons? The fact that this higher mystery was ''degraded'' over time strongly suggests that the Children taught people something genuinely magical. There you go. The Children helped humanity and the Last Hero fight the Others by either weaponizing dragons themselves or teaching humanity to, and the dragons wrecked the shit out of the ice beings. They were essentially medieval nukes being dropped on the Others, and the latter quickly lost. By lost, I meant they gave up after some of them died and decided to let The Wall be formed in exchange for not bothering humanity and the Children again. They're smart enough to realize dragons > them. TLDR: The Last Hero, with the help of the Children of the Forest (who either brought dragons to the battlefield or taught the Last Hero to use them), and humanity, fought and defeated the Others. A peace treaty was signed between both sides. A Wall was constructed as an agreement, made of ice to reflect that the Others agreed with this treaty. They would leave man in peace, and in return humanity would not bother them or exterminate them with dragonfire. PART II: THE NIGHT'S KING Now comes the issue of The Night's King. The Stark who consorted with a female Other. The man whose name was erased from history, the guy who apparently made the NW his private army. He was also apparently the 13th commander of the Night's Watch. ''[The Night’s King] had been the thirteenth man to lead the Night’s Watch, [Old Nan] said; a warrior who knew no fear. “And that was the fault in him, ” she would add, “for all men must know fear. ” A woman was his downfall; a woman glimpsed from atop the Wall, with skin as white as the moon and eyes like blue stars. Fearing nothing, he chased her and caught her and loved her, though her skin was cold as ice, and when he gave his seed to her he gave his soul as well. He brought her back to the Nightfort and proclaimed her a queen and himself her king, and with strange sorceries he bound his Sworn Brothers to his will. For thirteen years they had ruled, the Night’s King and his corpse queen, till finally the Stark of Winterfell and Joramun of the wildlings had joined to free the Watch from bondage. After his fall, when it was found he had been sacrificing to the Others, all records of the Night’s King had been destroyed, his very name forbidden. ”Some say he was a Bolton, ” Old Nan would always end. “Some say a Magnar out of Skagos, some say Umber, Flint, or Norrey. Some would have you think he was a Woodfoot, from them who ruled Bear Island before the ironmen came. He never was. He was a Stark, the brother of the man who brought him down. ” - Old Nan First of all, there's a lot of stuff going on. The Night's King was apparently a relatively normal human at first, but fell in love with an Other woman (the Others are explicitly said to be white, hence the alternative name ''White Walker'', and have blue eyes) at some point became an Other himself or the like. That is what Old Nan's words about him losing his soul imply. But wait! Isn't the Night's Watch the same organization that participated in defeating the Others before? And speaking of that number know the Last Hero was not alone. He had 12 companions. That would make 13 men in total. We know the Night's King ruled for... 13 years. Why is this number recurring like that? It’s almost as if it’s important somehow. And this leads me to ask... what if the Last Hero IS the Night's King? What if the Night's King himself the 13th commander of the Night’s Watch, in honor of his 12 companions who fell in battle (we know the Night’s Watch as a whole fought the Others)? What if the Last Hero grew to fall in love with the people he originally fought in combat? Think Jon with the Free Folk. He grew to love her so much that he let her turn him part Other, so they could be together. Also, before we go further, notice one curious thing. Azor Ahai is known in some legends as the hero who fought the Others and saved humanity from the Long Night. However, does that make sense? Just like The Wall being made of ice and the strong possibility that there was SOME sort of peace deal between the Others and the alliance of humanity as well as Children, we have to assume there is much more to the story. And I’m gonna say something a lot should know. The Others hail from the far North, yet there is absolutely no evidence that lighting activity is different there from anywhere else. Days and nights seem to function more or less normally beyond The Wall, otherwise the Free Folk and Jon would likely have noticed. That sounds quite weird, considering that the Others are supposed to bring darkness to the world - yet their OWN home isn’t dark. Even Bran’s vision, terrifying as it is, does NOT say that their home is dark. Finally he looked north. He saw the Wall shining like blue crystal, and his bastard brother Jon sleeping alone in a cold bed, his skin growing pale and hard as the memory of all warmth fled from him... North and north and north he looked, to the curtain of light at the end of the world, and then beyond that curtain. He looked deep into the heart of winter, and then he cried out, afraid, and the heat of his tears burned his cheeks. - Brandon Stark the Broken, King of the Seven Kingdoms You know what is dark, though? Asshai. The home of Azor Ahai. It’s perpetually dark. ‘’The nights are very black in Asshai, all agree, and even the brightest days of summer are somehow grey and gloomy. ’’ - TWOIAF Woah. That’s not just dark, it’s super creepy. Between the buildings and the ‘’Ash’’, Asshai looks far more like the place where the Long Night still is. And there’s more. Azor Ahai killed his own wife. He killed his own wife to obtain a flaming sword, which he used to kill the Others. While one could argue that this was a necessary sacrifice to save the world, was it though? This is what Davos has to say about it. Davos is one of the book’s more moral characters, btw, so I do think it means something for him to consider a price too high to pay. ‘’A true sword of fire, now, that would be a wonder to behold. Yet at such a cost... When he thought of Nissa Nissa, it was his own Marya he pictured, a good-natured plump woman with sagging breasts and a kindly smile, the best woman in the world. He tried to picture himself driving a sword through her, and shuddered. I am not made of the stuff of heroes, he decided. If that was the price of a magic sword, it was more than he cared to pay. ’’ - Ser Dadvos Seaworth I think Davos’s doubts are more than just passing thoughts we are meant to ignore. I doubt that Azor Ahai was right to kill Nissa Nissa, or at the very least he did so for the good reasons. My theory (something I hope to work on in detail later) is that Euron is in fact trying to become the next Azor Ahai, or even the next Bloodstone Emperor. This person made an excellent thread about how this is possible: Thanks to GenghisKagoo, I learned there is the symbolic clue of his name, Azor Ahai. Probably inspired by the words "Asura Ahi, " Sanskrit for "demon serpent. " Ahi, better known as Vritra, was an Asura (similar to a demon, although a bit more morally ambiguous) with a flaming weapon who among other terrible deeds blocked out the stars in the sky. ‘’Like arrows released in the four directions, the demon's body grew, day after day. Tall and blackish, he appeared like a burnt hill and was as lustrous as a bright array of clouds in the evening. The hair on the demon's body and his beard and moustache were the color of melted copper, and his eyes were piercing like the midday sun. He appeared unconquerable, as if holding the three worlds on the points of his blazing trident. Dancing and shouting with a loud voice, he made the entire surface of the earth tremble as if from an earthquake. As he yawned again and again, he seemed to be trying to swallow the whole sky with his mouth, which was as deep as a cave. He seemed to be licking up all the stars in the sky with his tongue and eating the entire universe with his long, sharp teeth. Seeing this gigantic demon, everyone, in great fear, ran here and there in all directions. ’’ And what does ‘’licking up all the stars’’ do? Create a darker night than normal. Yep. I’m suggesting that the Others in fact did not cause the Long Night. Azor Ahai did it, and the Others reacted in fear. Note the parallels between the Others and the Lion of Night. Both apparently attacked humanity in response to something, and now we know what that is. However, the Others overreached and attacked all of humanity, as opposed to just Azor Ahai. Between their cold and Azor Ahai’s darkness, the Long Night we know happened. The Last Hero, uniting the Night’s Watch and Children and dragons, drove the Others back. What happened to Azor Ahai himself is a mystery, and not the point of this theory. My theory is that the Last Hero eventually became the Night’s King. However, I believe he has been framed. He was not in fact an evil dude, but a hero who eventually realized that the Others weren’t evil or threatening at all and probably understood later that humanity provoked the conflict, not the other way around. Think Jon and the Free Folk, in a sense. Out of love and to make amends, he took an Other wife, in addition to his earlier diplomacy, and sired children by her. It is said that he had been ''sacrificing'' to the Others. What if that isn't true? What if he had children, like Craster did, that were half human and half Other? They weren’t sacrifices but they were raised at The Wall, the dividing line between humanity and Others – and both parents. They may even have represented the hopes of a union. I believe the Night’s King was trying to befriend the Others beyond the initial but tense peace. If Old Nan is right about the Night’s King being a Stark, I think it’s worth remembering that the guy who built The Wall…was also a Stark. Brandon the Builder. The founder of House Stark as we know it. What if Brandon the Builder was the Night’s King…who was the Last Hero? Is there anything stopping him from being all three of these things? I think not! Keep in mind that Brandon the Builder once sought assistance from the children of the forest, even learning the ‘’True Tongue’’…for what reason? We don’t know. We do know the Last Hero did the same thing, though – and we know why he did it. To seek aid against the Others. Both Starks were allied with the children of the forest as well as allies of the Night’s Watch. Unfortunately, Brandon the Builder’s hopes of amity among humans and Others came to an end…when he was slain by Brandon the Breaker, a Stark like him. Why did the Breaker kill his own kin? Well, imagine if he knew as much about the Others as we all do, as much as Jon Snow does even – and then saw his kinsman actively in league with them. A race that as far as ‘’everybody’’ knows, tried to destroy humanity. Would it be so hard to believe that the Breaker, either out of understandable fear or more selfish motives, would take up arms against his kin? I believe the Stark of Winterfell, either fearing the power of the Last Hero or seeing him as a threat, manipulated Joramun to aid him in destroying the Last Hero. We know that Brandon the Breaker allied with Joramun – his enemy – to take down the Night’s King aka the Last Hero aka Brandon the Builder. It’s also interesting to note the man’s epithet. Brandon is called the Breaker. Why is that? We know why Brandon the Builder is called the Builder, because he built a Wall and Winterfell too. Brandon the Shipwright was a ship man, Brandon the Burner burned ships, Brandon the Broken is disabled and ‘’broken’’ or so the people of Westeros think, and Brandon the Bloody Blade was a fierce warrior whose blade shed plenty of blood. But what did THIS Bran break? Was it just the Free Folk’s advances? Or did he break something far greater – something forgotten to history? An oath, a pact of nonviolence? Between humanity and Others? My theory is that the Breaker killed the Night’s King, killed his Other wife, and therefore violated the non-aggression pact between humans and Others. Also, here’s some food for thought. Why did Brandon the Breaker remove EVERY record of the Night’s King’s existence? "When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar; you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say. " - Tyrion Lannister Sounds like Brandon didn’t remove his kinsman’s records for a good or benevolent reason, but rather a nefarious one. My guess is that Brandon wanted to ensure he’d be painted as the hero and his kinsman, the Last Hero aka the Night’s King aka also Brandon, the villain. This ensures he won’t be remembered as a vile kinslayer who broke an ancient oath (and oaths are really important in Westeros) but rather the man who killed a monster to save humanity and the Night's Watch. Alternatively, he may have done so to protect House Stark’s reputation – wouldn’t be good if people found out your house was in bed with a race that allegedly tried to destroy humanity. That would suck. Either way – Brandon the Breaker was really the wrong one in this scenario, and the Night’s King was basically a medieval Jon Snow. At best, the Breaker was a medieval Bowen Marsh who thought he was in the right (but wasn't). At worst, he was a medieval Tywin Lannister who was okay with kinslaying. But what about Brandon the Builder’s children? The Other kids? My theory is that the Breaker did not kill the children but rather adopted them – for possibly a variety of reasons. The kids are of no threat, they’re not the big buff Last Hero or his Other wife. They could easily be adopted as normal human children (they were the children of a human and Other and perhaps resembled one side more than the other), enticed to stay quiet. The Breaker may not have wanted to commit kinslaying a second time and not seen it as necessary anyway, thinking he could raise them to be ‘’better’’ like the Night’s Watch with Mance Rayder (who defected to the Free Folk anyway). Finally, the Breaker may have seen the value in having part-Other kids who could theoretically make House Stark very powerful. We’ve seen that the Others are beastly, and so did the Breaker. He did kill an Other woman, after all. He knows what they're capable of. Adopting these kids as his own, they gave birth to their own children, who then gave birth to more children. Then you get the current Stark generation – Jon, Rickon, Robb, Bran, Sansa, and Arya. All of them have Other blood in them, and this Other blood is what I believe gives them the power to warg. You’ll notice that the Others’ power of controlling wights isn’t too different from warging, and I suspect the two are related but one is a weaker version of the other. The only ones who would know the truth would be the Night’s Watch, sworn to secrecy in exchange for their lives or the like (and basically isolated from most of Westeros anyway). The rest were cowed with the help of Joramun – he ensured history would be written in his favor, and not that of his kinsman. Of course, the Others - who do know the truth, and who knew the oath was broken - did not forget. They never did. They are now out for revenge on humanity for killing their kin (and I'm sure killing more Others didn't help, as Sam did). While I do not exactly know why they are stirring only very recently, I believe that might have to do with the flux and flow in magic. As magic gets stronger, they do too. This means they are in the best possible position to assault humanity and this time - end them. They tolerated one defeat in a war humanity provoked. This time, they won't be stopped so easily. TLDR: 1) The Night's King is the Last Hero is Brandon the Builder. 2) The Night's King was not evil at all and in fact realized that the Others weren't so bad at all, even marrying and wedding one of them and having children by her out of love as well as to honor peace. 3) Brandon the Breaker was either an idiot or a bastard who murdered his own kinsman and his wife either out of horror at seeing his kinsman fraternize with ''the enemy'' or seeing him as a threat to power, but adopted the children who were part Other - who are the ancestors of modern House Stark. The Breaker probably realized this and this is why he destroyed all records of the Night's King. 4) Azor Ahai is evil - he is the one who caused the Long Night, not the Others. Euron Greyjoy either is Azor Ahai or trying to become the next one. PART III AND CONCLUSION: JON SNOW, THE SON OF ICE AND FIRE Finally, take Jon himself. He is supposed to be the ‘’song of ice and fire’’. We know he is part Targaryen. The Targaryens are connected to fire for sure, but what about the ice part. One might assume at first ‘’direwolf’’, but really? Direwolves have nothing to really do with ice, whereas dragons do with fire. Enter: the Others. They are beings of ice, just as dragons are beings of fire. Now if Jon is part Other and part Targaryen (we know Targaryens are known to have ''dragon blood''), he has the blood of ice and fire - literally. He represents the fact that while fire and ice are opposing forces, NEITHER is necessarily evil and both need to come together. He represents the ideal of hope, of peace, of unity among opposites and rivals and enemies. Something GRRM, an anti-war writer, likely thought about. Only if these two opposing forces can unite, can humanity survive what's coming. Humanity will win not by destroying the Others, but by finding and keeping to a new peace with them. The real enemy is NOT the Others, but Azor Ahai himself - who will take the form of a certain Euron Greyjoy. A Song Of Ice and Fire is what will slay the demonic serpent that devours the stars. Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.
Cheakpeas flour or besan same hay. A simple wedding in key west. Much love,every thing looks beautiful. A simple wedding trailer 2019. Watched it! I Laughed so much lol 😂😂 The movie was centered on The both of them and i was not bored 😂. A simple wedding 2019. A simple wedding cast.
This is awesome! Thank you for sharing. I have a huge huge family, and my bf too! But I dream to have a small intimate wedding. A simple wedding movie online. A simple wedding dress. A simple wedding 2020 trailer.
A simple wedding release date
A Simple wedding gowns. A simple wedding cake. A simple wedding movie tickets. I like how I finally understand everything in a movie 😂😂. A simple wedding toast. 
A simple wedding movie trailer. A simple wedding ceremony bakersfield ca. This feels very weird. his persona. It's like Keanu thought they were doing a John Wick movie, and the entire crew didn't have the guts to tell him it was something else entirely.
Critics Consensus No consensus yet. 47% TOMATOMETER Total Count: 15 Coming soon Release date: Mar 6, 2020 Audience Score Ratings: Not yet available Hope Gap Ratings & Reviews Explanation Hope Gap Videos Photos Movie Info The intimate, intense and loving story of HOPE GAP charts the life of Grace (Annette Bening), shocked to learn her husband (Bill Nighy) is leaving her for another after 29 years of marriage, and the ensuing emotional fallout the dissolution has on their only grown son (Josh O'Connor). Unraveled and feeling displaced in her small seaside town, Grace ultimately regains her footing and discovers a new, powerful voice. Rating: PG-13 (for some thematic elements and brief strong language) Genre: Directed By: Written By: In Theaters: Mar 6, 2020 limited Runtime: 101 minutes Studio: Roadside Attractions/Screen Media Films Cast Critic Reviews for Hope Gap Audience Reviews for Hope Gap There are no featured reviews for Hope Gap because the movie has not released yet (Mar 6, 2020). See Movies in Theaters Hope Gap Quotes Movie & TV guides.
So is anybody else gonna remember the one episode from The Boondocks or... Part 9 looks bizzare. Directly from the creepypasta. FARM' lol. Spiral farm free movie youtube. Spiral Farm Free movie reviews. Spiral farm free movie schedule.
Spiral farm free movie cast. Spiral farm free movie maker. Spiral farm free movie free. Nice video. Nope... I've only watched this trailer and I'm balling my eyes out, not a chance I'd survive a whole movie.😭😭😭. Spiral farm free movie songs.
9 of 10 Elem Klimov Genres=War. The scene where he's back at the village wondering where his family is and all you hear is flies in the background... @shota541 russian. Idi i smotri Box Office. idi i smotri movie download in hindi … #Idiismotri full movie 123movies english.
Idi i smotri Movie watchers. Kind of like my IEDs in Iraq, but no girl.
I think the other boy here embodies the maincharacter. in the beginning of the film he has very similar clothes, hat etc. its like it starts from the beginning just with another young soul to be destroyed... Idi i smotri Movie. This is a masterpiece of war movies. Come and See takes us with the main character, Florya, to another "world. We can feel those character pains and struggles. Come and See is the warranty that we fight for no reason, and while in war our life have no meaning, and we give up our lives in order to fight for reasons that "have no reason. The psychologist horror is more painful to watch than the physical violence. The movie is so real and "touches" all of the audience senses that we forget that we are actually just watching a movie. In my opinion, the end of the movie is absolutely brilliant, superb. Watching the "flashback" of Hitler's life until his picture as a baby, a baby just like many other that died because of him and his Nazi's ideals.
Idi i smotri movie watch streaming.
I watched Idi i Smotri (Come and See) in the cinema last year, the new remastered/restoration quality, and as they have done this amazing work on that cult film, I wonder does anyone know if it is about to be released by Criterion? It's a typical Criterion type of movie I think. Sorry for my poor english and/or if this was a stupid question. But I thought someone here would maybe know more. So they have this new improved image quality version now but it has been shown here and there without having an upcoming bluray release? Maybe someone here knows more? Thanks.
