Topic: ISIS put some more people in cages or something idk
Anonymous A started this discussion 11 years ago #40,190
TTEH !FFSTTEHV7. joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 49 seconds later[^] [v] #535,206
they are probably mad about Kobanê
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #535,208
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 9 hours later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #535,248
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 5 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #535,256
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 3 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #535,257
It seems like overkill to put them in a cage and keep them handcuffed.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 22 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #535,259
TTEH !FFSTTEHV7. replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #535,260
@535,257 (A)
The cages have no floors. They're not connected to the ground. They could just lift the cage off of themselves and walk off. I don't think ISIS get how cages work.
The cages have no floors. They're not connected to the ground. They could just lift the cage off of themselves and walk off. I don't think ISIS get how cages work.
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #535,261
@previous (TTEH !FFSTTEHV7.)
Well, were they to try that, I imagine that those fellows with the guns would object.
Well, were they to try that, I imagine that those fellows with the guns would object.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 14 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #535,262
TTEH !FFSTTEHV7. replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #535,263
@535,261 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
I would sooner take my chances being shot than staying and having my head hacked off or being burnt to death, I think.
I would sooner take my chances being shot than staying and having my head hacked off or being burnt to death, I think.
squeegee joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 9 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #535,264
@previous (TTEH !FFSTTEHV7.)
what if they refuse to shoot you and just beat you unmercifully until you comply?
I always see these videos of people being set on fire, or beheaded, or cut up with chain saws, and it's like "If you know it's coming why not just fight back and make them kill you NOW with bullets" and then it occurs to me that they don't film all of their captivity. Any amount of torture could be going on behind the scenes, and maybe they're even pumped up with drugs so they can't fight back.
idk, i like to think at the last second i'd stand up and try to bum rush the guy with the axe and at least not give them what they want for propaganda purposes... but then... what if being burned alive, beheaded or cut up with a chain saw is the fast way for them to kill you. maybe them beating you to death slowly over weeks and weeks of attempted filming is not seen as the correct choice by these folks.
very sad, when you think about it.
what if they refuse to shoot you and just beat you unmercifully until you comply?
I always see these videos of people being set on fire, or beheaded, or cut up with chain saws, and it's like "If you know it's coming why not just fight back and make them kill you NOW with bullets" and then it occurs to me that they don't film all of their captivity. Any amount of torture could be going on behind the scenes, and maybe they're even pumped up with drugs so they can't fight back.
idk, i like to think at the last second i'd stand up and try to bum rush the guy with the axe and at least not give them what they want for propaganda purposes... but then... what if being burned alive, beheaded or cut up with a chain saw is the fast way for them to kill you. maybe them beating you to death slowly over weeks and weeks of attempted filming is not seen as the correct choice by these folks.
very sad, when you think about it.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 55 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #535,271
@535,263 (TTEH !FFSTTEHV7.)
I see your point. I too would rather be shot than star in an ISIS snuff film.
I see your point. I too would rather be shot than star in an ISIS snuff film.
Anonymous C replied with this 11 years ago, 16 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #535,273
swamplights !!0lQNsDoq/ joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 1 hour later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #535,293
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #535,294
Syntax joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 38 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #535,296
About 2 years ago, I, yes I, was called by a close friend of mine, who had been n touch with Obama.
Friend had recommended me 2 Obama with plans 2 move satellite over isis approximate location.
I wood have done so, but with clients putting cold hard cash in my wallet, I had 2 turn it down.
Buttttttttt I also didn't want 2 chance that the isis find out who moved it n cum after me ME me.
So Obama calls me anddddddd tries 2 talk me in2 it, I politely refused, n he understood. We talked n laffed on phone forrrrrrrr about 2 hrs. He is full of lulz.
Friend had recommended me 2 Obama with plans 2 move satellite over isis approximate location.
I wood have done so, but with clients putting cold hard cash in my wallet, I had 2 turn it down.
Buttttttttt I also didn't want 2 chance that the isis find out who moved it n cum after me ME me.
So Obama calls me anddddddd tries 2 talk me in2 it, I politely refused, n he understood. We talked n laffed on phone forrrrrrrr about 2 hrs. He is full of lulz.
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 7 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #535,298
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 1 hour later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #535,310
@535,296 (Syntax)
> About 2 years ago, I, yes I, was called by a close friend of mine, who had been n touch with Obama.
>
> Friend had recommended me 2 Obama with plans 2 move satellite over isis approximate location.
>
> I wood have done so, but with clients putting cold hard cash in my wallet, I had 2 turn it down.
>
> Buttttttttt I also didn't want 2 chance that the isis find out who moved it n cum after me ME me.
>
> So Obama calls me anddddddd tries 2 talk me in2 it, I politely refused, n he understood. We talked n laffed on phone forrrrrrrr about 2 hrs. He is full of lulz.
nobody believes you about anything
> About 2 years ago, I, yes I, was called by a close friend of mine, who had been n touch with Obama.
>
> Friend had recommended me 2 Obama with plans 2 move satellite over isis approximate location.
>
> I wood have done so, but with clients putting cold hard cash in my wallet, I had 2 turn it down.
>
> Buttttttttt I also didn't want 2 chance that the isis find out who moved it n cum after me ME me.
>
> So Obama calls me anddddddd tries 2 talk me in2 it, I politely refused, n he understood. We talked n laffed on phone forrrrrrrr about 2 hrs. He is full of lulz.
nobody believes you about anything
Anonymous C replied with this 11 years ago, 3 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #535,315
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 1 day later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #535,664
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 4 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #535,720
Hey , look who still doesn ' t care !
Metæ joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 1 day later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #536,006
Good thing we took out Saddam. This new free, democratic Iraq is working so well.
Anonymous H replied with this 11 years ago, 29 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #536,008
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 52 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #536,010
@536,006 (Metæ)
I agree. I think we should let the extremists take over and force their fundamentalist ways on the people over there.
Really, it's just not worth it to try and stop terrorists. I mean, they aren't even that bad.
I agree. I think we should let the extremists take over and force their fundamentalist ways on the people over there.
Really, it's just not worth it to try and stop terrorists. I mean, they aren't even that bad.
Green joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #536,011
Oh daddy dear you know your'rdm
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 24 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #536,012
@536,010 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
Okay, I feel a little bad for phrasing this how I did.
Still, I feel that these are some pretty bad guys who pose a threat to both their home countries and anywhere else that happens to annoy them. Surely, there's merit in trying to stop them?
Okay, I feel a little bad for phrasing this how I did.
Still, I feel that these are some pretty bad guys who pose a threat to both their home countries and anywhere else that happens to annoy them. Surely, there's merit in trying to stop them?
(Edited 35 seconds later.)
swamplights !!0lQNsDoq/ replied with this 11 years ago, 10 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #536,019
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
Not if stopping them never helps. There are worse human rights violations going on in other countries, but we aren't storming in on those.
Not if stopping them never helps. There are worse human rights violations going on in other countries, but we aren't storming in on those.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 5 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #536,023
@previous (swamplights !!0lQNsDoq/)
Should we stop trying to stop them just because they're persistent? That sounds a bit defeatist, to me. And I am quite sure that the people who don't have to live under fundamentalist rule are helped by the opposition to these people. As are their victims.
I don't think it's an entirely hopeless battle. Progressivism is trickling into the Islamic world, bit by bit. Guys like ISIS will probably be around for a long time, but so were Christian fundamentalists. But they eventually fizzled out enough to lose their grip on the cultures of western countires (mostly).
Should we stop trying to stop them just because they're persistent? That sounds a bit defeatist, to me. And I am quite sure that the people who don't have to live under fundamentalist rule are helped by the opposition to these people. As are their victims.
I don't think it's an entirely hopeless battle. Progressivism is trickling into the Islamic world, bit by bit. Guys like ISIS will probably be around for a long time, but so were Christian fundamentalists. But they eventually fizzled out enough to lose their grip on the cultures of western countires (mostly).
swamplights !!0lQNsDoq/ replied with this 11 years ago, 11 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #536,025
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
Because what we are doing isnt helping. We end up killing innocents, and there is always another dictator to take the place of the disposed. We spend entirely too much money on our various war efforts, when worse countries exist. We arent going to war with fucking Africa, or North Korea and those are probably the worst shithole places in existence.
Because what we are doing isnt helping. We end up killing innocents, and there is always another dictator to take the place of the disposed. We spend entirely too much money on our various war efforts, when worse countries exist. We arent going to war with fucking Africa, or North Korea and those are probably the worst shithole places in existence.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
swamplights !!0lQNsDoq/ double-posted this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #536,026
@536,023 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
Also France, Sweden, and Britain are all having problems with Muslim extremists.
Also France, Sweden, and Britain are all having problems with Muslim extremists.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 13 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #536,029
@536,025 (swamplights !!0lQNsDoq/)
I think it is helping. Whatever fuck-ups might happen, ISIS or whatever else it is will do worse. They'll torture anyone they don't like to scare everyone into submission, force everyone to live under an extreme version of Islamic law, and wholeheartedly try to spread their extremism elsewhere. Not the sort of people gain ground, I think. I doubt they'll completely back off from the west even if the US, UK ect completely withdrew, either. I think that Charlie Hebdo demonstrated that.
And you do, arguably, make a good point about there being other bad places out there with bad people running them. But I would also imagine that the west doesn't have the resources or opportunity to try and sort out all of those places at once. But, I think that more guerilla forces like ISIS are a bit easier to take one, and still very bad.
On a side note, there is a very good reason why countries are reluctant to deal with North Korea. Possible immediate strikes on South Korean cities aside, destroying the Jong-Il government would mean having to look after all of the starving, shell-shocked North Korean citizens. It could be a pretty massive humanitarian crisis to have to sort all of that out, so I can see why there would be reluctance.
@previous (swamplights !!0lQNsDoq/)
Well I think that just goes to demonstrate how Islamic extremism is a more immediate issue, even without direct intervention from a given country.
I think it is helping. Whatever fuck-ups might happen, ISIS or whatever else it is will do worse. They'll torture anyone they don't like to scare everyone into submission, force everyone to live under an extreme version of Islamic law, and wholeheartedly try to spread their extremism elsewhere. Not the sort of people gain ground, I think. I doubt they'll completely back off from the west even if the US, UK ect completely withdrew, either. I think that Charlie Hebdo demonstrated that.
And you do, arguably, make a good point about there being other bad places out there with bad people running them. But I would also imagine that the west doesn't have the resources or opportunity to try and sort out all of those places at once. But, I think that more guerilla forces like ISIS are a bit easier to take one, and still very bad.
On a side note, there is a very good reason why countries are reluctant to deal with North Korea. Possible immediate strikes on South Korean cities aside, destroying the Jong-Il government would mean having to look after all of the starving, shell-shocked North Korean citizens. It could be a pretty massive humanitarian crisis to have to sort all of that out, so I can see why there would be reluctance.
@previous (swamplights !!0lQNsDoq/)
Well I think that just goes to demonstrate how Islamic extremism is a more immediate issue, even without direct intervention from a given country.
swamplights !!0lQNsDoq/ replied with this 11 years ago, 58 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #536,050
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
I dont think that we invade those places because they have less resources to plunder.
I dont think that we invade those places because they have less resources to plunder.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 7 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #536,053
@previous (swamplights !!0lQNsDoq/)
Possibly. I don't really know a lot about that angle of things, though.
Possibly. I don't really know a lot about that angle of things, though.
Green replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #536,054
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 7 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #536,056
@previous (Green)
Well, since you're now the god of the universe, I was hoping that you'd stop them.
Well, since you're now the god of the universe, I was hoping that you'd stop them.
Green replied with this 11 years ago, 4 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #536,057
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
Stop them? They are my soldiers. But I shall demonstrate my power by erupting Mt. Vesuvius.
Stop them? They are my soldiers. But I shall demonstrate my power by erupting Mt. Vesuvius.
Metæ replied with this 11 years ago, 1 hour later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #536,083
@536,012 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx) (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
Mine was dripping with sarcasm, too. I just think military interventionism and regime changing is immoral and exponentially increases violence. If Saddam had launched a war on America and was sending ships laden with troops and bombing runs on the East Coast then of course take him out and bomb Iraq into the stone age (of course for such a poor, distant country it's obviously a fantasy). But getting involved in Iraq's border disputes or preemptive war has, as far as I can see led to nothing good.
As Kook mentioned in @536,019 (swamplights !!0lQNsDoq/) it's very selective which crises the West intervenes in. Like the Rwandan genocide, almost a Holocaust-level genocide. Millions butchered. America could have shut that right down but it was ignored. It would have really been a cakewalk. But if anything happens in the Middle East we have to intervene now. John Kerry and Obama and David Cameron and the rest will stand up and beat their chests and cry loudly about democracy and human rights while propping up oppressive regimes and puppet governments (why are we giving billions to Egypt?). ISIS beheads people and we need to bomb them. Saudi Arabia beheads people and they're our BFFs and Obama solemnly mourns when their king dies. We'll happily ignore the fact that women have to wear black tents in Saudi Arabia and they'll chop your head off for homosexuality or apostasy.
How many massive genocides and human rights abuses and violent dictatorships has the US ignored because they didn't have oil or weren't in close proximity to a certain country? Or the Ukraine thing, if it was South Africa and Botswana fighting for territory no one would give half a rats ass.
So after taking out Saddam now we have ISIS. Saddam would have had them lined against the wall and shot. Not that that's a good thing but in an effort to take out a bad guy we generated a million more. We destabilized the region, killed hundred of thousands, displaced millions. The Iraqi child who lost a mother, the Iraqi parents who lost a child, the man who lost his home, how friendly are they going to be to the US? Whatever the merits of the Ba'athist state it was an Iraqi state and a problem for the people of Iraq to solve.
The US military should be used solely for the defense of US territory. America should not antagonize or favor any nation, should not support or sanction or intervene in the affairs of any other nation.
Mine was dripping with sarcasm, too. I just think military interventionism and regime changing is immoral and exponentially increases violence. If Saddam had launched a war on America and was sending ships laden with troops and bombing runs on the East Coast then of course take him out and bomb Iraq into the stone age (of course for such a poor, distant country it's obviously a fantasy). But getting involved in Iraq's border disputes or preemptive war has, as far as I can see led to nothing good.
As Kook mentioned in @536,019 (swamplights !!0lQNsDoq/) it's very selective which crises the West intervenes in. Like the Rwandan genocide, almost a Holocaust-level genocide. Millions butchered. America could have shut that right down but it was ignored. It would have really been a cakewalk. But if anything happens in the Middle East we have to intervene now. John Kerry and Obama and David Cameron and the rest will stand up and beat their chests and cry loudly about democracy and human rights while propping up oppressive regimes and puppet governments (why are we giving billions to Egypt?). ISIS beheads people and we need to bomb them. Saudi Arabia beheads people and they're our BFFs and Obama solemnly mourns when their king dies. We'll happily ignore the fact that women have to wear black tents in Saudi Arabia and they'll chop your head off for homosexuality or apostasy.
How many massive genocides and human rights abuses and violent dictatorships has the US ignored because they didn't have oil or weren't in close proximity to a certain country? Or the Ukraine thing, if it was South Africa and Botswana fighting for territory no one would give half a rats ass.
So after taking out Saddam now we have ISIS. Saddam would have had them lined against the wall and shot. Not that that's a good thing but in an effort to take out a bad guy we generated a million more. We destabilized the region, killed hundred of thousands, displaced millions. The Iraqi child who lost a mother, the Iraqi parents who lost a child, the man who lost his home, how friendly are they going to be to the US? Whatever the merits of the Ba'athist state it was an Iraqi state and a problem for the people of Iraq to solve.
The US military should be used solely for the defense of US territory. America should not antagonize or favor any nation, should not support or sanction or intervene in the affairs of any other nation.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 12 hours later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #536,183
@previous (Metæ)
I don't disagree that it's unfortunate that the west can't be more proactive against other certain oppressive powers. But, well, we can't, really. Difference between them and ISIS is that ISIS are unsanctioned rebels who are also attacking and recruiting from western countries. They're not an official state with a standing army and alliances with other counties and who want to play nice. From a practical standpoint, it makes sense that ISIS is fair game here.
But as I've said before, it's not an entirely hopeless situation. I think that progressivism can definitely be peacefully transmitted too, and this is happening slowly but steadily in the middle east (possibly other places too, but I haven't researched this). So we don't have to go to war to change things. IIRC we've agreed on this before, in fact.
As for Sadam/Al-Qaeda being replaced with ISIS, to me leaving them alone would just leave the initial bad people unchallenged and free to do as they please. Though another enemy might rise up, if they're being this agreessive, I still think it's better to take a proactive approach rather than just accept their presence because their kind is a persistent issue.
I don't disagree that it's unfortunate that the west can't be more proactive against other certain oppressive powers. But, well, we can't, really. Difference between them and ISIS is that ISIS are unsanctioned rebels who are also attacking and recruiting from western countries. They're not an official state with a standing army and alliances with other counties and who want to play nice. From a practical standpoint, it makes sense that ISIS is fair game here.
But as I've said before, it's not an entirely hopeless situation. I think that progressivism can definitely be peacefully transmitted too, and this is happening slowly but steadily in the middle east (possibly other places too, but I haven't researched this). So we don't have to go to war to change things. IIRC we've agreed on this before, in fact.
As for Sadam/Al-Qaeda being replaced with ISIS, to me leaving them alone would just leave the initial bad people unchallenged and free to do as they please. Though another enemy might rise up, if they're being this agreessive, I still think it's better to take a proactive approach rather than just accept their presence because their kind is a persistent issue.
(Edited 40 seconds later.)
Anonymous O joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 2 hours later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #536,210
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
You have all the Fuckin Answers don't u a regular Tony Mintony
Blow hard
Bich
You have all the Fuckin Answers don't u a regular Tony Mintony
Blow hard
Bich
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 24 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #536,237
Anonymous O replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #536,239
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
Yeah but you are the one who has stupid opinions not based in reality on literally everything
Yeah but you are the one who has stupid opinions not based in reality on literally everything
Anonymous O double-posted this 11 years ago, 20 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #536,240
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 7 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #536,245
@536,239 (O)
That's true. I try to base all of my opinions on things outside of this reality, usually from a few time loops over if I can.
@previous (O)
Don't put yourself down like that. You're very interesting. <3
That's true. I try to base all of my opinions on things outside of this reality, usually from a few time loops over if I can.
@previous (O)
Don't put yourself down like that. You're very interesting. <3