[Jimmy]

Yeah Hendricks, I mean, obviously you have never listened to NoFX.

I actually quite like that billboard. It's true. However, for reference, I think every president we've had way back until JFK were shithead assholes. Theodore Roosevelt was my dog.

[wayskobfssae]

Captain Awesome, on 30 July 2012 - 12:26 PM, said:

I actually quite like that billboard. It's true.

Retarded is what it is.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/

Of all the things Republicans could be whining about and make an honest point about...

...death tolls are NOT one of them.

[Mad Max RW]

Hendricks266, on 30 July 2012 - 10:37 AM, said:

Really? The two parties are not symmetrical. The Democratic Party is a neutered 15-year old dog. You just don't see this kind of shit coming from the left, especially since the left does not have the same fear-mongering, hate-spewing, and sometimes grammar-incapable fan base as the right. I remember vivid criticisms of George W. Bush while he was in office from liberals, but he was never compared to Hitler, Mao, Stalin, or chimpanzees. Obama hasn't really done anything wrong. You could argue that Obamacare et al was problematic (and I would agree) but at least it was in the interest of the people and not lying your way into a bogus war that cost a lot of money and killed 2000+ of our finest fresh adults.

This is a joke post, right? Is today opposite day? You must have amnesia or something to explain what you just said. I'll skip the rest of the idiocy because it's too easy to refute and go straight to the wars. You know who was one of the biggest supporters of the war in Iraq? Hillary Clinton. Obama didn't vote against it because he was too much of a coward to vote at all. The whole time he spoke about how much he was against the war he had no problems voting to continue funding it. Forget what these knuckleheads say and look at their actions. THEY ARE ALL LIARS! Not just Republicans. Every single one of them.

Obamacare has nothing to do with the interest of the people. They've been writing it for 50+ years, waiting for a moment to seize control of a huge chunk of our economy and cementing their power and control over the people. It's always about power. Saying something is in the "interest of the people" or their "civil liberties" or whatever are buzzwords used to gain support in the press, which is then used to trick the people into supporting it. These are the same tactics we saw to generate support for the Iraq war. I'm still amazed their are people in the world who can't or won't open their eyes and see through the bullshit. And you know what's gonna happen? Reality will hit you the hardest of all when you're suddenly broke and wondering what happened.

[Hendricks266]

Damn, proven wrong again. Still, you don't see these people making mass demonstrations with this stuff. That's like saying OWS is just the liberal Tea Party. It's not. Let me refocus my idea:

And for the record, I don't think "one party right, one party wrong". I think "one fucked up party, one really fucked up party". They're not all liars (duplicitous), they are just panderers, too self-concerned and too locked into groupthink. Change can't happen unless everyone else agrees. It's a feedback loop.

On the topic of the billboard, it's not completely fair to blame Obama because it's not "his" foreign policy, more his lack of changing the existing foreign policy. Of course he could change it, and that is a fair criticism, but the establishment (i.e. Congress) is against him and he's just one guy, president or not. Meanwhile, turning the Colorado theater shooting into a jab at Obama is shitty. It's not like any Republican or Tea Party would be different. The defense contractors are too busy profiting off of military spending, it's their livelihood.

Mad Max RW, on 30 July 2012 - 01:21 PM, said:

This is a joke post, right? Is today opposite day?

I'm not one for conspiracy theories. You don't need anything more than TX's post back on the first page to see that Obamacare helps people, despite the accumulated financial results. See you on your next alien abduction before you get home to drink water with plant DNA viruses in it while a black helicopter hovers overhead.

[wayskobfssae]

Mad Max RW, on 30 July 2012 - 01:21 PM, said:

Obamacare has nothing to do with the interest of the people. They've been writing it for 50+ years, waiting for a moment to seize control of a huge chunk of our economy and cementing their power and control over the people. It's always about power. Saying something is in the "interest of the people" or their "civil liberties" or whatever are buzzwords used to gain support in the press, which is then used to trick the people into supporting it.

You mean like how that "Protecting Children from Internet Pornographers Act" made everyone jump up and support it? Oh, wait...

[Mad Max RW]

wayskobfssae, on 30 July 2012 - 01:26 PM, said:

You mean like how that "Protecting Children from Internet Pornographers Act" made everyone jump up and support it? Oh, wait...

Or how about Occupy Oakland, lead by Obama's buddy Van Jones,protested at an anti-sex trafficking conference. You'd think fighting to stop women and children being forced into slavery is a no-brainer, right?

[wayskobfssae]

Mad Max RW, on 30 July 2012 - 01:31 PM, said:

Or how about Occupy Oakland, lead by Obama's buddy Van Jones,protested at an anti-sex trafficking conference. You'd think fighting to stop women and children being forced into slavery is a no-brainer, right?

*sigh* Why is it that EVERY time I see a protest video, I can't figure out what the heck they're chanting? Unless its being spoken, I see nothing in this video to indicate it was Occupy. The only "evidence" I see is one hatefully-charged comment that got a lot of likes and found its way to the top.

Youtube title says "incident at conference." Title in video says "Sex Worker Solidarity Activists." Nothing about Occupy.

But considering how many times Anarchists have taken over protests and made it about them instead of whatever the protest was originally about...

[Mad Max RW]

Occupy Oakland's facebook page.

An article explaining what happened.

Another Occupy Oakland website summarizes.

Satisfied?

[wayskobfssae]

Mad Max RW, on 30 July 2012 - 02:12 PM, said:

Occupy Oakland's facebook page.

An article explaining what happened.

Another Occupy Oakland website summarizes.

Satisfied?

Yep... and confirms EXACTLY what I was saying about the Anarchists before.

The main featured article at Bay of Rage.

Occupy Oakland is Dead. Long Live the Oakland Commune.

[Mad Max RW]

And that confirms what I've always been saying. When the public opinion turns against them they pick a new name.

[wayskobfssae]

Mad Max RW, on 30 July 2012 - 02:49 PM, said:

And that confirms what I've always been saying. When the public opinion turns against them they pick a new name.

That'd only make sense if they were using a different name while doing the same thing. Anarchy has absolutely NOTHING to do with Occupy, beyond the fact that both groups dislike something to do with the status quo. Anarchy has used Occupy to springboard their own agenda, while not giving a shred of a damn about Occupy's, and has completely rewritten the image of Occupy into something far more terrifying.

[Jimmy]

wayskobfssae, on 30 July 2012 - 01:18 PM, said:

Retarded is what it is.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/

Of all the things Republicans could be whining about and make an honest point about...

...death tolls are NOT one of them.

I don't care about the Republicans. I care more about ending pointless wars that kill people. This isn't a game or a movie. This shit needs to stop. How do you expect domestic tragedies to stop if massive killings for political sake are "okay"? Fuck the war.

wayskobfssae, on 30 July 2012 - 02:36 PM, said:

Yep... and confirms EXACTLY what I was saying about the Anarchists before.

The main featured article at Bay of Rage.

Occupy Oakland is Dead. Long Live the Oakland Commune.

wayskobfssae, on 30 July 2012 - 02:55 PM, said:

That'd only make sense if they were using a different name while doing the same thing. Anarchy has absolutely NOTHING to do with Occupy, beyond the fact that both groups dislike something to do with the status quo. Anarchy has used Occupy to springboard their own agenda, while not giving a shred of a damn about Occupy's, and has completely rewritten the image of Occupy into something far more terrifying.

The fuck are you on about with the 'Anarchists', exactly? You are aware we anarchists are not all made equal? What exactly is 'terrifying' about anarchy to you? Responsibility, perhaps? Or perhaps you're talking about those "I believe in chaos! Woo lets burn shit!" dolts. They are not true anarchists.


EDIT: I was going back and trying to get some reference to this whole anarchy thing, no dice, but Achenar mentioned that I seemed to be an anarcho-syndicalist, and I guess you could apply that to me. I'm just a bunch of used parts from whatever garbage pails I read out of. I identify as an anarchist, and I agree with many of the sub-factions or whatever you might wanna call them. I do however realise how unlikely anarchy would be to work in this day and age, and it would only regress into chaos. However, we are all allowed our ideals, and anarchism isn't that incompatible with democracy or a free market. It's all about freedom.

[wayskobfssae]

Captain Awesome, on 30 July 2012 - 03:01 PM, said:

I don't care about the Republicans. I care more about ending pointless wars that kill people. This isn't a game or a movie. This shit needs to stop. How do you expect domestic tragedies to stop if massive killings for political sake are "okay"? Fuck the war.

Blaming Obama for the Iraq war is no different than blaming him for the recession. Both are messes that already existed when he took office. He's brought roughly 90000 troops back from Iraq. And as for war itself... when Bush wanted to get rid of a war criminal, he staged an invasion. When Obama wanted to, he did it with a single Seal team and a whopping 5 casualties.

Death is atrocious, but for F***'s sake...

Quote

What were you saying about the 'Anarchists', exactly? You are aware we anarchists are not all made equal?

Is there any point in even analyzing the different kinds of anarchists until AFTER they have successfully abolished government?

[Jimmy]

wayskobfssae, on 30 July 2012 - 03:11 PM, said:

Blaming Obama for the Iraq war is no different than blaming him for the recession. Both are messes that already existed when he took office. He's brought roughly 90000 troops back from Iraq. And as for war itself... when Bush wanted to get rid of a war criminal, he staged an invasion. When Obama wanted to, he did it with a single Seal team and a whopping 5 casualties.

Death is atrocious, but for F***'s sake...



Is there any point in even analyzing the different kinds of anarchists until AFTER they have successfully abolished government?

I don't blame him for the war. However, it doesn't seem like he's actively doing anything to stop the war in Afghanistan. And arguing that he took out Osama ain't gonna fly here. We should have NEVER killed Osama. Why kill the worlds 'greatest' criminal? Wouldn't you want to capture that guy and set an example through the justice process? As an anarchist I shouldn't even be required to explain this shit, I don't get why so many people don't get this shit, yet they clamor for their democracy and justice and all that stuff. He should have been captured and given due process, just like we did with the Nazis.

And yes, there is a point in it. The dolts won't ever get anywhere. Us true anarchists actually work for change, and are usually pretty damn active in our communities. We do a lot more good than these idiots who give us a bad name by busting up a Starbucks and starting a riot. It's just a classic example of them labeling us all the same. Most of us are anti-war pacifists. I'm no pacifist myself, but I don't go out actively trying to start violence and shit like the morons do. Discourse is much more precious than violence.

[Mad Max RW]

wayskobfssae, on 30 July 2012 - 03:11 PM, said:

When Obama wanted to, he did it with a single Seal team and a whopping 5 casualties.

That only works if you ignore the endless bombs we dropped and drone attacks on Pakistan throughout Obama's presidency. Technically illegal acts because they were never authorized by Pakistan's government and never declared.

As for the Anarchists, ask yourself this: If you are successful in collapsing the whole system, how many innocent deaths to follow will you consider OK? Seriously think about it. If everything stopped for several weeks what number is acceptable in your opinion? And people will die, either through starvation or a breakdown in security or no medication and many more things you probably didn't consider.

[Jimmy]

It's less about collapsing the system, and more about breaking it down block by block over time. Collapsing the system won't work, for the reasons you've stated as well as others. It's definitely a utopian idea. However, like I said, it is not incompatible with democracy. You break the system down as much as possible, thereby making society freer. The only problem is the whole loving your neighbor part, we gotta figure that out before true utopian anarchy is even attainable. It probably won't happen.

EDIT: And I do recognize that this will look stupid to some people, and I'll even admit holding onto such an ideal is stupid. It's just my beliefs, what can I say. But at least I'm not going out and blowing shit up and killing people. You don't even have to be an anarchist to do all that, to boot. Everything I do has a positive motive, and usually a positive outcome. I don't try to pull anything out of left field and hurt people or regress society. I only want things to get better. As long as things are better when I die, I can be completely happy even if there isn't any anarchist revolution or whatever.

[wayskobfssae]

Captain Awesome, on 30 July 2012 - 03:16 PM, said:

I don't blame him for the war. However, it doesn't seem like he's actively doing anything to stop it. And arguing that he took out Osama ain't gonna fly here. We should have NEVER killed Osama. Why kill the worlds 'greatest' criminal? Wouldn't you want to capture that guy and set an example through the justice process? As an anarchist I shouldn't even be required to explain this shit, I don't get why so many people don't get this shit, yet they clamor for their democracy and justice and all that stuff. He should have been captured and given due process, just like we did with the Nazis.

The problem with NOT killing Osama is it would have led to even more deaths in the long run. A prisoner kept alive is someone for everyone else to stage rescue attempts, sieges, ransom demands, etc. "Every minute you keep him locked up, we kill a kitten" type of scenarios. Comparing it to the Nazis is irrelevant because the Nazis had a completely different philosophy. It's probably not as good of an example as the Cold War though. Just imagine for a moment that we're back in the arms race between the U.S. and Russia. But we're in a parallel universe, and Russia was a nation of extremist Muslims. Earth's atmosphere would be black with nuclear ash right now. The Nazis still had fear. The Russians still had fear, which is how "mutually assured destruction" prevented a nuclear apocalypse. But not those Osama followers. Their quest for ethereal virgins would make the flashing red button of doom look pretty darned friendly. The last thing we need in the U.S. is to dangle a carrot high overhead that attracts those kind of people and give them an objective more focused and specific than anything they've had since 9/11.

Quote

And yes, there is a point in it. The dolts won't ever get anywhere. Us true anarchists actually work for change, and are usually pretty damn active in our communities. We do a lot more good than these idiots who give us a bad name by busting up a Starbucks and starting a riot. It's just a classic example of them labeling us all the same. Most of us are anti-war pacifists. I'm no pacifist myself, but I don't go out actively trying to start violence and shit like the morons do. Discourse is much more precious than violence.

For those kind of people though, I wouldn't fly under the banner of Anarchy. Disliking government policies does not make one an Anarchist, or at least makes it a rather pointless label to use. Wouldn't it technically be Humanitarianism?

And on a little side-note: I'd welcome Anarchy if it were actually feasible (even if there WERE no government that needed toppling first). But humanity in general has proven both historically and in my lifetime, that they are far too selfish and gullible for Anarchy to ever work. It has the same flaws as Communism. Both imply a perfect social system. But both also require a perfect species. We're as far from that as it gets. And this is the same reason that free-trade scares me. Why would anyone who acknowledges that humans can not sustain an Anarchistic society, suggest that humans could ever hope to sustain an Anarchistic economy?

[Mad Max RW]

How many siege attacks or rescue attempts has Al Qaeda pulled off at Guantanamo? If anything Bin Laden's death made him a martyr for radical Muslims and a legend for conspiracy theorists.

[wayskobfssae]

Mad Max RW, on 30 July 2012 - 03:49 PM, said:

How many siege attacks or rescue attempts has Al Qaeda pulled off at Guantanamo? If anything Bin Laden's death made him a martyr for radical Muslims and a legend for conspiracy theorists.

They already have a million martyrs to inspire them. A live Osama would be both a martyr AND an objective.

[Jimmy]

wayskobfssae, on 30 July 2012 - 03:42 PM, said:

The problem with NOT killing Osama is it would have led to even more deaths in the long run. A prisoner kept alive is someone for everyone else to stage rescue attempts, sieges, ransom demands, etc. "Every minute you keep him locked up, we kill a kitten" type of scenarios. Comparing it to the Nazis is irrelevant because the Nazis had a completely different philosophy. It's probably not as good of an example as the Cold War though. Just imagine for a moment that we're back in the arms race between the U.S. and Russia. But we're in a parallel universe, and Russia was a nation of extremist Muslims. Earth's atmosphere would be black with nuclear ash right now. The Nazis still had fear. The Russians still had fear, which is how "mutually assured destruction" prevented a nuclear apocalypse. But not those Osama followers. Their quest for ethereal virgins would make the flashing red button of doom look pretty darned friendly. The last thing we need in the U.S. is to dangle a carrot high overhead that attracts those kind of people and give them an objective more focused and specific than anything they've had since 9/11.

Baloney. Plus, isn't this supposed to be the home of the brave? I'm not scared if some pussy wants to come over here and try and blow something up or free another terrorist. Try me, assholes! See, terror doesn't work on me. I'm not scared of them or their pussy tactics. By doing so, I would be giving them exactly what they wanted. In fact, things like the wars and the Patriot Act and our receding rights is precisely what they wanted to do to us. We played right into their hands. And it's not irrelevant either. We're supposed to send a message, they want us to kill them and ravage their land and peoples. That way their children grow up parentless and pissed off, and continue the good fight when they're indoctrinated by some asshole with religion on his side. We need to lock them up, not kill them. Death is but a favour. Life in a cell is torture and dishonorable in many cases. Resorting to effective non-violent measures is the last thing they want us to do.

Funny you brought up the USSR and these radical muslims together though. Our government could have helped the USSR kick their ass in the 70's, but instead we opted to arm and train them. Then later they used that training and stuff to attack us. Wonderful!

wayskobfssae, on 30 July 2012 - 03:42 PM, said:

For those kind of people though, I wouldn't fly under the banner of Anarchy. Disliking government policies does not make one an Anarchist, or at least makes it a rather pointless label to use. Wouldn't it technically be Humanitarianism?

And on a little side-note: I'd welcome Anarchy if it were actually feasible (even if there WERE no government that needed toppling first). But humanity in general has proven both historically and in my lifetime, that they are far too selfish and gullible for Anarchy to ever work. It has the same flaws as Communism. Both imply a perfect social system. But both also require a perfect species. We're as far from that as it gets. And this is the same reason that free-trade scares me. Why would anyone who acknowledges that humans can not sustain an Anarchistic society, suggest that humans could ever hope to sustain an Anarchistic economy?

You may not, but the media portrayed them as so. The 1990 WTO Protests were pretty chill. There were anarchists there, but there were also everything from environmentalists, unions, students, and religious groups there. Things were pretty peaceful. I don't find it a coincidence at all that suddenly some "anarchists" from Eugene, Oregon show up and start a riot.

Anarchy, like democracy, capitalism, and any other social system/government/economic system, requires an interested, well informed, critical thinking, and intelligent populace. Because let's face it, our system is ending up to be a complete fucking disaster. What makes our system so much better than the USSR's? And I'm not saying that their system was great. I'm just pointing out that neither system works as well as either country says it does.

[Mad Max RW]

Captain Awesome, on 30 July 2012 - 04:17 PM, said:

Funny you brought up the USSR and these radical muslims together though. Our government could have helped the USSR kick their ass in the 70's, but instead we opted to arm and train them. Then later they used that training and stuff to attack us. Wonderful!

We just did it again by supplying weapons and training for the rebels in Libya and Egypt. Both are now run by the Muslim Brotherhood, the grand daddy of all terrorist organizations based in radical Islam. You think maybe it will come back and bite us in the ass? Egypt's new president is on tv openly talking about crushing the West. Our government (with help from the inept media who said it was about democratic freedom and civil rights) helped put him there.

[wayskobfssae]

Mad Max RW, on 30 July 2012 - 03:18 PM, said:

As for the Anarchists, ask yourself this: If you are successful in collapsing the whole system, how many innocent deaths to follow will you consider OK? Seriously think about it. If everything stopped for several weeks what number is acceptable in your opinion? And people will die, either through starvation or a breakdown in security or no medication and many more things you probably didn't consider.

Not sure how I missed this before... how did you infer from everything I've been saying that I actually thought eliminating government was a good idea?

[wayskobfssae]

Captain Awesome, on 30 July 2012 - 04:17 PM, said:

Baloney. Plus, isn't this supposed to be the home of the brave? I'm not scared if some pussy wants to come over here and try and blow something up or free another terrorist. Try me, assholes! See, terror doesn't work on me. I'm not scared of them or their pussy tactics. By doing so, I would be giving them exactly what they wanted. In fact, things like the wars and the Patriot Act and our receding rights is precisely what they wanted to do to us. We played right into their hands. And it's not irrelevant either. We're supposed to send a message, they want us to kill them and ravage their land and peoples. That way their children grow up parentless and pissed off, and continue the good fight when they're indoctrinated by some asshole with religion on his side. We need to lock them up, not kill them. Death is but a favour. Life in a cell is torture and dishonorable in many cases. Resorting to effective non-violent measures is the last thing they want us to do.

So you still have a 5th grade mentality when it comes to courage? "I'm not scared." "Try me!" "I triple-dog-dare ya!"

Do you leave your door open at night just to show how unafraid you are of intruders, whether they be human or otherwise? Bravery is just idiocy in disguise if you feel the need to prove it. Needing to prove it is actually a sign of cowardice. It means you're afraid of what everyone else thinks and are incapable of living your life as you see fit.

Anyway, the abolition of rights are good examples of America cowering before terrorism. Choosing to not give the terrorists a new "quest" is not a good example. Our rights as Americans never had anything to do with their beef against us in the first place. But if you want to tick them off just to show them that they don't scare you, that's just ridiculously childish.

[Mad Max RW]

Perhaps it wasn't clear enough I was responding to Captain Awesome. He made a pretty well thought out reply, btw. I don't necessarily agree with it, but he at least is thinking which is more than can be said for the Anarchists who took over Occupy.

[Hendricks266]

Zaxtor said:

Found that on an ebay like site, i copy N paste it

Up for your consideration is this beautiful human skin rug. Measuring 72 inches from heel to scalp, this exotic item will bring you an abundance of joy or make a perfect gift for that special someone. Imagine having something dead spread out across your floor to feed your insatiable human vanity! This wonderful life-sized mummified corpse will bring hours of ego fondling as you brag and show it off to your vain facade of fair weather friends! Let everyone know how devoted you are to vulgar commercialism and how little you value a respect for life! With this unique and amazing human skin rug you'll be the envy of barbarous hairless monkeys everywhere!

This human skin rug is in excellent condition. The human from whom it was made was healthy and vital at his death. He was an outfitter/guide who was "accidentally" shot in the head during an Alaskan wolf hunt. I felt it would be a shame to just leave the corpse to rot. Few animals will bother eating human flesh because of the foul odor, so I brought it home and tanned it with special salts and herbs. The foul odor of decay found on most human beings is not present on this rug, so there's no need to fear any unpleasant odor. The eyes are missing, unfortunately damaged by the trauma inflicted by the fatal wound, but a good taxidermist should be able to provide replacements.

I hope you have found this rug of interest. If you have any questions please be sure to contact me before the end of the auction. Thanks for looking!



Starting bid: US $295.00

No humans were harmed in the making of this listing.

[Jimmy]

wayskobfssae, on 30 July 2012 - 05:49 PM, said:

So you still have a 5th grade mentality when it comes to courage? "I'm not scared." "Try me!" "I triple-dog-dare ya!"

Do you leave your door open at night just to show how unafraid you are of intruders, whether they be human or otherwise? Bravery is just idiocy in disguise if you feel the need to prove it. Needing to prove it is actually a sign of cowardice. It means you're afraid of what everyone else thinks and are incapable of living your life as you see fit.

Anyway, the abolition of rights are good examples of America cowering before terrorism. Choosing to not give the terrorists a new "quest" is not a good example. Our rights as Americans never had anything to do with their beef against us in the first place. But if you want to tick them off just to show them that they don't scare you, that's just ridiculously childish.

I'm gonna have to call baloney again. I don't live in fear of these guys. They're clownshoes. I've got better things to do with my life than live with fear. It's not a matter of "ticking them off". It's about taking a stand and telling them we're not going to give into their bullshit, we will seek them out and prosecute them as the criminals they are. Terrorists are not enemy combatants in a war. They are not worthy fucking adversaries. They are criminals who should be in prison. They don't want us thinking like this, because this tears down their house of cards.

Mad Max RW, on 30 July 2012 - 05:50 PM, said:

Perhaps it wasn't clear enough I was responding to Captain Awesome. He made a pretty well thought out reply, btw. I don't necessarily agree with it, but he at least is thinking which is more than can be said for the Anarchists who took over Occupy.

Thanks. It really is a fringe way of thinking, but it's just a natural extension of freedom and democracy to me, as well as the way I try to live my meager life. Unfortunately the idea of "Chaos!!!" ala SLC Punk is just too tempting for most kids looking for something lash out with. Rebellion calls troubled youth. It called me anyway. I was lucky and actually read into it instead of taking it at the face value some dummy presented it to me. It also triggered an interest in politics I didn't know I had.

[wayskobfssae]

Captain Awesome, on 30 July 2012 - 07:03 PM, said:

It's about taking a stand and telling them we're not going to give into their bullshit, we will seek them out and prosecute them as the criminals they are. Terrorists are not enemy combatants in a war. They are not worthy fucking adversaries. They are criminals who should be in prison. They don't want us thinking like this, because this tears down their house of cards.

Captain Awesome, on 30 July 2012 - 04:17 PM, said:

We're supposed to send a message, they want us to kill them and ravage their land and peoples. That way their children grow up parentless and pissed off, and continue the good fight when they're indoctrinated by some asshole with religion on his side.

You have just put us in a "damned if we do, damned if we don't" scenario.

[Jimmy]

How exactly? The more we kill them, the more we strengthen their resolve.

[wayskobfssae]

Captain Awesome, on 30 July 2012 - 07:11 PM, said:

How exactly? The more we kill them, the more we strengthen their resolve.

Same goes for capturing them. And in either scenario, capturing OR killing, we risk casualties. If some of ours get killed, they see us as weak. If some of their civilians get killed, they see us as monsters.

That's the suck of religious extremists. There really is nothing that demoralizes them. Dogmatic systems tend to be designed that way.

[Jimmy]

When education rises, religion tends to downturn.