Protest fail. . THIS Every time I see this picturea all over laughing For those who ooh"! know military hardware, this is a MIMEME Patriot Surface- missile batt
x
Click to expand

Protest fail

THIS
Every time I see this picturea all over laughing
For those who ooh"! know military hardware, this is a MIMEME Patriot Surface-
missile battery. it s a tactical defense system used by the Us military to
shoot Clown aerial threats AS such. II can only attach enemy missiles {ballistic
and cruise) and hostile an ran who are actively attempting to engage Us
tomes They' re one of the test military weapons with almost zero risk. at
collateral damage. yet this moron is standing in wront of it like it' s a -
machine or something.
...
  • Recommend tagsx
+1835
Views: 63355
Favorited: 159
Submitted: 08/04/2013
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to easd submit to reddit

Comments(357):

[ 357 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#87 - monkeybrains ONLINE (08/05/2013) [-]
Also not the original.
#242 to #87 - anon (08/05/2013) [-]
Now make one with an ice cream truck... Please...
0
#262 to #161 - pulluspardus has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #74 - ogurkis (08/05/2013) [-]
It could run over someone
User avatar #250 to #74 - ihaveakeyboard (08/05/2013) [-]
that is the only way I get kills with the moblie artillery in battlefield, and that is what that reminds me about
#134 to #133 - teranin ONLINE (08/05/2013) [-]
how do you know about the machine!?
how do you know about the machine!?
#150 to #137 - commandershit (08/05/2013) [-]
have the gif version
have the gif version
#57 - schnizel (08/05/2013) [-]
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
#75 to #57 - divinedrgn (08/05/2013) [-]
Blood for the Blood God!!
#79 to #75 - atomschlumpf (08/05/2013) [-]
BLOOD GOD MY ASS
#223 to #79 - jumperzero (08/05/2013) [-]
Why would anyone want to blood god your ass?
#224 to #223 - atomschlumpf (08/05/2013) [-]
....maybe I like it....
#307 to #75 - jonthemexican (08/05/2013) [-]
I like your pic so here is mine!
#86 to #57 - thermobil (08/05/2013) [-]
Yes, brother-librarian.
#72 - blizzeh (08/05/2013) [-]
He's talking about himself
He's talking about himself
User avatar #8 - douthit (08/05/2013) [-]
We talk about our own military like they're doing some holy thing, but they fight against foreign militaries whose own people think they're also doing something holy and unquestionable.
User avatar #131 to #8 - zzforrest (08/05/2013) [-]
Similarly, many of us take to the idea that they are all baby-killers and murderous assholes fighting armies who's people also think their military is a bunch of baby-killers and murderous assholes.
User avatar #220 to #8 - welfarekid (08/05/2013) [-]
I think you are ******* retarded. No **** we look at our military like that, because it works for us. We don't act like it is holy, we act like it is fighting for us, and we don't always support it.
User avatar #241 to #8 - anusholeboner (08/05/2013) [-]
well someone is gonna be disappointed by the end of it
User avatar #260 to #8 - psychopsychedelic (08/05/2013) [-]
That's the point of war
#294 to #8 - spetsnazvymple ONLINE (08/05/2013) [-]
we take a lot of precautions to avoid killing civs, but when you are fighting a bunch of insurgent assholes who don't wear uniforms and hide in crowds of civilians it makes it very difficult. **** Ive seen an insurgent take a mother with her baby as a human shield. the guys we are fighting are either too delusional or too stupid to see that they are doing the exact opposite of what the Muslim teachings try to convey. Its a very ****** position when you think that the guy offering to have you for dinner might shoot you in the back as soon as you turn around.
#123 to #8 - skaffanl (08/05/2013) [-]
Good and evil, right and wrong and even holy are all subjective. Everyone has their own view about things and I am proud to see you understand this as there are a surprising number of people who don't.
Good and evil, right and wrong and even holy are all subjective. Everyone has their own view about things and I am proud to see you understand this as there are a surprising number of people who don't.
#76 to #8 - anon (08/05/2013) [-]
By "foreign militaries" do you mean groups like Al-Qaeda?

IF so, then you are wrong when you say "whose own people think they're also doing something holy and unquestionable." Only Al-Qaeda itself thinks that.

Considering the countries America invaded, Al-Qaeda and their likes are hated more by Iraqi and Afghan people than by Americans. Reasons for that is that:
A) Al-Qaeda has killed far more innocent people in Iraq and Afghanistan than the US military did.
B) Al-Qaeda has killed far more innocent Iraqi and Afghan people than innocent Americans.

P.S: I'm not an Amerifag
User avatar #25 to #8 - marsupilami (08/05/2013) [-]
"Patriotism is your conviction that your country is superior to all others because you were born in it."

-George Bernard Shaw
User avatar #35 to #25 - I Am Monkey (08/05/2013) [-]
I know a lot of patriotic people that immigrated.
#32 to #8 - overlordss (08/05/2013) [-]
Dang it dale
User avatar #14 to #8 - nervaaurelius (08/05/2013) [-]
War is where the young and stupid is tricked by the old and bitter into killing each other.
User avatar #65 to #14 - douthit (08/05/2013) [-]
I can't believe those red thumbs.

War is young men dying and old men talking.
User avatar #159 to #65 - nervaaurelius (08/05/2013) [-]
Funnyjunk becomes a hive mind when it comes to red thumbs sometimes. They see a red thumb and their opinion is set. Even when the comment pretty much goes along with what it's replying to/
User avatar #145 to #14 - sonicschall (08/05/2013) [-]
Isn't that quote from GTA IV?
User avatar #158 to #145 - nervaaurelius (08/05/2013) [-]
Yes it is not sure why the red thumbs
#30 to #14 - sparkysparkybooman (08/05/2013) [-]
Yeah seriously. Next time a Fascist country tries to get world dominance and commit genocide, lets just do nothing about it.
Or maybe we should just send wrinkly old people into combat, that'll get us a win.
#198 to #8 - vaporous (08/05/2013) [-]
Implying citizens in the Middle East actually like their military.
#221 to #8 - nyawgga (08/05/2013) [-]
"holy and unquestionable"   
   
anybody who uses that as reasoning behind their actions should be wiped off the face of the planet
"holy and unquestionable"

anybody who uses that as reasoning behind their actions should be wiped off the face of the planet
#20 to #8 - hoskins (08/05/2013) [-]
Your profile picture is relevant to your comment.
User avatar #125 to #8 - zorororonoa (08/05/2013) [-]
"You think you're the first person to believe their war was justified?"
-Wan Shi Tong
#105 to #8 - anon (08/05/2013) [-]
annnd youre just realizing this now?
User avatar #66 to #8 - aldheim (08/05/2013) [-]
Welcome to human history for the past 10'000 years.
User avatar #26 to #8 - makotoitou (08/05/2013) [-]
History is written by the victors.
User avatar #40 to #8 - Mahazama (08/05/2013) [-]
I have seen you post some pretty out-there libertarian stuff that I hardly agree with, but I agree wholeheartedly with this.
War itself is a fact of life, what matters is that we only fight truly necessary wars.
User avatar #67 to #40 - douthit (08/05/2013) [-]
It used to seem crazy to me, too. But as far as war, I seriously doubt we would have wars without governments, or at least they'd be much smaller. War is just world leaders who don't get along. You ask the people, and they don't have beef with one another. Few regular people are willing to send their kids off to risk their lives for the half-assed **** we go to war for now.
User avatar #23 to #8 - I Am Monkey (08/05/2013) [-]
Nobodies hands are clean, but some are certainly cleaner than others. The US Military makes every effort to avoid civilian casualties, there are some for whom you couldn't say the same. We spend billions developing smart weapons to minimize civilian deaths. Clearly they don't always work, but compare that to some savage laying down a bomb in a crowded market to blow up dozens of civilians to maybe kill one enemy and you've got some contrast.

I never buy the argument "everyone things they're right, therefore we're all equally wrong". This applies to every facet of life. Just about everyone on planet earth thinks they're in the right, that doesn't mean nobody is. If America was to jump into Darfur right now and try to put a stop to the genocide, would we not be in the right just because the other side thinks they are too? I'm not saying that's going to happen, but I just wanted to present a situation in which there can clearly be a right and a wrong.
#24 to #23 - fedexman (08/05/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #185 to #23 - primerpower (08/05/2013) [-]
Collateral Murder   Bradley Manning Leaked Video Clip not saying youre wrong because youre not. im saying that giving certain people "smart" weapons isnt always the best thing. old and worn out video but still relevant
User avatar #317 to #185 - cabbagemayhem ONLINE (08/05/2013) [-]
How is that video related to your comment? It demonstrates in two different ways how our military practices are more humane than theirs.
User avatar #325 to #317 - primerpower (08/05/2013) [-]
"im saying that giving certain people "smart" weapons isnt always the best thing."
User avatar #326 to #325 - cabbagemayhem ONLINE (08/05/2013) [-]
Some people think he was trigger-happy, but he may have just wanted to prevent them from getting away, which could save lives. I'll just forgive you for being curt.
User avatar #335 to #326 - primerpower (08/06/2013) [-]
its a good thing they didnt let those reporters get away, if only they had shot the van a few more times, those damn kids wouldnt have gotten away
User avatar #336 to #335 - cabbagemayhem ONLINE (08/06/2013) [-]
You're being ridiculous. They believed them to be holding heavy weapons. Their reactions and comm supports that. And, just because someone added a caption (i.e. "camera"), doesn't mean it's true. Unless you can show otherwise, I think it's more likely they were armed as reported, and the video was captioned to spread propaganda. How can you call someone a conniving child killer when it doesn't even make sense with the evidence? Shame on you.
User avatar #337 to #336 - primerpower (08/06/2013) [-]
There were two Rueters (spelling) reporters in that group. and the fact it was so easy for them to get the go ahead to light up a group of people without even confirmation of weapons. and when the one individual is crawling away the one pilot is begging for him to grab a weapon just so he can fire another few rounds at him
User avatar #338 to #337 - cabbagemayhem ONLINE (08/06/2013) [-]
They visually confirmed that they were holding weapons, and awaited permission to engage as per protocol. They identified the weapons specifically as AKs, and an RPG which was briefly aimed at the aerial unit! You can see the gunner's quick reaction to being aimed at, supporting the fact that they truly believed the men were armed.

You never hear anyone begging for the man to grab a weapon, but they did leave him alive while he wasn't a threat. The gunner was prepared to fire upon him again if he did arm himself, but that's standard, as it only takes a moment for him to use the weapon against the aerial unit or nearby ground forces. I think you're biased and it's keeping you from appreciating the humane protocols that they do follow, even if their enemies don't.
#108 to #23 - perapoda (08/05/2013) [-]
I would not agree that The United States are using the money to spare as many civilians lives as possible. I think it is a bit more about developing advanced weapons to be militarily superior, and winning a war with as few OWN losses as possible.

Let's use the napalm or atomic bomb as examples. Old examples, i know, but napalm, for instance, is a terrible device that makes every effort to kill as many people as possible in maybe one of the most horrible ways you can imagine. That makes no effort at all of sparing other lives than the ones in the U.S. forces.
I think the atomic bomb example speaks for itself, but it may actually be arguable that it is avoiding some civilian casualties by the atomic bomb threat, which is maybe again avoiding wars like one which would've been unevitable without it between USA and sovjet russia after the second world war.
I think these is some arguments worth a bit of consideration.
User avatar #174 to #108 - rieskimo (08/05/2013) [-]
Those aren't very good arguments to I Am Monkey's points at all, you know why? They're a style of weapons that isn't used at all today, and hasn't been developed in the last 30 years(that we know of at least).

The US is absolutely trying to develop advanced weapons systems for battlefield superiority, that kind of goes without saying as anybody who is developing any kind of weapons is doing it for that end. However, the US is also developing "smart" weapons(guided weapons systems) to get the most "bang for their buck" as in. "Hey guys, let's only make one swing at things and take them all out", that way you can target exactly what you want dead and not waste any energy on the things you don't want dead.

In the end, that kills two birds with one stone. You don't have collateral damage and you don't use any more material than you need to get the job done.

The intent may not to be angels, but it certainly isn't to be sinister either.
#171 to #108 - anon (08/05/2013) [-]
Hi. Anon here; I'm actually in the army myself. I can say that I Am Monkey is actually quite accurate. You're using old examples of operations which don't reflect the United State's current military strategy.

During a military operation, three huge things are weighed: target of operations, soldiers at risk, and civilian casualties. If any of these criteria are risked, then the operation is modified to the best of the Army's (or whatever branch) ability. Collateral damage is sometimes unavoidable, however operations will often be entirely cancelled, regardless of how many soldiers it saves or how effective it would be at killing a target, if there's doubt about civilians safety.

Of course, I can't say that it ALWAYS works this way, seeing as we live in an imperfect world and there are certain people in the army who care only for killing the target. Those people don't stay in the Armed Forces for long; at least, they don't stay in combat for long. THOSE people become recruiters. (joke)
User avatar #71 to #23 - trazan (08/05/2013) [-]
Makes every effort to avoid civilian casualties, pffft yes when there is a possibility that it will occur they just rented Blackwater. A private army that consists of many people not eligible for the real army, because when these guys kills civilians it "Wasn't the U.S fault". Thus keeping the statistics down when actually there are a lot of more casualties then offically reported through the army.
User avatar #38 to #23 - hydraetis (08/05/2013) [-]
I wouldn't exactly say "every effort" to avoid civvie casualties. US military is pretty bad for killing civilians and friendly troops, they just don't let anyone know about it.

I do agree that there is far worse though (Asian troops = THE most brutal and immoral forces in the world)
#51 to #38 - anon (08/05/2013) [-]
I agree with you. Whenever people attempt to showcase that US forces try to avoid civilian casualties, they forget that there are a lot of cases of troops killing civilians for fun, rape, etc, and they are rarely reported because of the political implications or easily ignored by people.

They might go to those countries with good intentions but it is never as black and white as them being right, wrong, more right than the other side. Such thinking is only a way for people to justify such actions so they themselves can accept it.
#44 to #38 - anon (08/05/2013) [-]
The overwhelming majority of civilian casualties in our wars in the Middle East are from indurgents not us.
#61 to #44 - anon (08/05/2013) [-]
indurgents

I'm sure we should believe you when you can't even ******* spell right.
#64 to #61 - anon (08/05/2013) [-]
Pissing yourself over a typo; the next best thing to being right.
#63 to #61 - anon (08/05/2013) [-]
Give him a break man. I mean. It's just a typo.
#60 to #23 - anon (08/05/2013) [-]
You spend so much trying to avoid civilian deaths

Because no other country causes as much civilian deaths
User avatar #178 to #60 - rieskimo (08/05/2013) [-]
I would argue that Saddam and many other totalitarian leaders that have genocidal tendencies have killed more civilians than even America.

First of all, the US's target is not civilians. US's targets use civilians as cover, so that the US can't just come in and carpet bomb the **** out of them or possibly just press a button from thousands of miles away and have a ICBM take them out. So if there is a main cause for civilian death, I'd say it's the cowards hiding amongst the civilians that are the main cause for civilian death. Most of the soldiers that I know would avoid places that are populated in a conflict not run towards them.

Second of all, the US has been in a conflict about 8/10 of the last decades. So I'd say that it would be easy that the US has racked up more casualties than your average country, because your average country doesn't export war.

Third of all, **** you if the only thing you see are the few lost and completely ignore the thousands if not millions saved.
#183 to #23 - cyanskater (08/05/2013) [-]
No man, you can't just be the judge of right and wrong like that. You are also biased, and probably a western bias at that, which is a completely set of values and beliefs as many other world cultures.    
Let me make some assumptions, you are aware that everyone thinks they're right, but you hold the belief that some can be more right than others...and therefore you believe your home military is more right than the others, right? Because that's what that sounds like.   
Now from your example it seems obvious that you don't understand how morals work. Yes, you would be right from your own perspective. But no, you would be in the wrong according to others' perspectives; you would seem like an intrusion, an obstacle impeding them from their objective.    
There's no universal morals, and judgement of what is acceptable is of course relative to the set of guidelines established consciously or sub-consciously by whatever consciousness is perceiving the act.    
   
So once again, what are your morals? Is it you can't kill people? Because then every military ever is in the bad. Is it you can't kill innocent people? Then every military is still bad. Is it.."You can only kill so many innocent people"? Well then, you have to know how many innocent people are being killed, hope the information is true, and then draw the line regarding how many is too many, and then you're putting a number on morals.   
   
Sorry for the long response but it struck me that not many look past that dogma of "us" and "them" when it's really "all of us" and "me".   
   
 inb4 red thumbs and no reply
No man, you can't just be the judge of right and wrong like that. You are also biased, and probably a western bias at that, which is a completely set of values and beliefs as many other world cultures.
Let me make some assumptions, you are aware that everyone thinks they're right, but you hold the belief that some can be more right than others...and therefore you believe your home military is more right than the others, right? Because that's what that sounds like.
Now from your example it seems obvious that you don't understand how morals work. Yes, you would be right from your own perspective. But no, you would be in the wrong according to others' perspectives; you would seem like an intrusion, an obstacle impeding them from their objective.
There's no universal morals, and judgement of what is acceptable is of course relative to the set of guidelines established consciously or sub-consciously by whatever consciousness is perceiving the act.

So once again, what are your morals? Is it you can't kill people? Because then every military ever is in the bad. Is it you can't kill innocent people? Then every military is still bad. Is it.."You can only kill so many innocent people"? Well then, you have to know how many innocent people are being killed, hope the information is true, and then draw the line regarding how many is too many, and then you're putting a number on morals.

Sorry for the long response but it struck me that not many look past that dogma of "us" and "them" when it's really "all of us" and "me".

inb4 red thumbs and no reply
User avatar #319 to #183 - cabbagemayhem ONLINE (08/05/2013) [-]
It stops being "all of us" when a section of "us" devote their free time to kill the other "us."
Also, just because sometimes people have different opinions about whether something is right or wrong, doesn't mean there is no actual right and wrong, ultimate right and wrong, or simply better right and wrong. Regardless, it's a moot point in this thread where we are debating whether our morals are good enough (hence lack of thumbs and replies). You're an ass for chiding him about his understanding of morals. I think you could learn from him.
User avatar #339 to #319 - cyanskater (08/06/2013) [-]
So you're claiming that there are Universal morals?
That is just fallacious.
You think I can learn from him? I'm sure I can learn for everyone, but your opinion means nothing without proper justification for its inference.
And well it appears your describing a circle-jerk, however there aren't even American morals, as like I said...individuals have different views of right and wrong. Some people think we should go ahead and kill every civilian. Some don't believe in funding the military. You can't just ignore this by creating this perception of "Us Americans" when it's "Us individuals", unless of course you're implying a mass consciousness which is good satire in and of itself.
User avatar #340 to #339 - cabbagemayhem ONLINE (08/06/2013) [-]
"So you're claiming that there are Universal morals?"
Use words correctly. Morals are the standard of right and wrong in different cultures, and is subjective by definition. Like opinions, there are such good ones and stupid ones. Some morals are better than others, and some morals might be perfect.

"there aren't even American morals"
While the people that form a society sometimes have different moral standards, there is usually a pervasive set of standards that are unique to the culture, and can reasonably be attributed as the moral standard of that culture. So, you are wrong.

"your opinion means nothing without proper justification for its inference"
You're getting overly wordy. Your pretentiousness is showing.
User avatar #341 to #340 - cyanskater (08/06/2013) [-]
Overly wordly? Are you using that against me? A say precisely what I mean. You justify your claims, and you justify your inference that I can "learn something" from him. Quite using ad hominem arguments, it really does no good to be calling names; it's off topic and distracting.

"Some morals are better than others, and some morals might be perfect."
Oh really? Sounds quite romantic. Care to present an example? Like you said..morals are subjective, and are in essence only perfect if they are followed perfectly by the one perceiving the morals.

Yes you're right, there's the most common beliefs, but how can you correctly measure that? We are talking about a nation here. You are that confident to know the morals of every single American?

Now, if you have faith in the existence of an omnipotent set of moral laws or characteristics that look past Man and his experience, then that would be your belief based on improbable faith.
User avatar #342 to #341 - cabbagemayhem ONLINE (08/06/2013) [-]
"Quite using ad hominem arguments"
My apologies.

"morals are subjective, and are in essence only perfect if they are followed perfectly"
Yeah. What's your point?

"there's the most common beliefs, but how can you correctly measure that?"
It doesn't matter. It doesn't need to be measured to exist.

"based on improbable faith"
You must assume a lot to be counting the probabilities already.
User avatar #343 to #342 - cyanskater (08/06/2013) [-]
I am actually taking into account a lot of variables, there is overwhelming evidence of the absence of Universal beliefs...the only support for faith is anecdotal evidence.
It doesn't need to be measured to exist....hahaha. What is the definition of existence? It is just presumed then; existence implies having some sort of effect, one that can obviously be measured. General or (Majority percentage) beliefs are presumed, and any speculation of the truth is just that..speculation with no data for support.

My point is that there is no "better" or "worse" morals. Definitely not "perfect" morals.
User avatar #344 to #343 - cabbagemayhem ONLINE (08/06/2013) [-]
That's quite the Platonistic philosophy. Consider: There is such a thing as right and wrong, there are such things as bad morals, there are such things as stupid opinions, and existence doesn't need to be questioned, it should be held as axiomatic, and independent of us, as we try to understand it.
User avatar #346 to #344 - cyanskater (08/06/2013) [-]
That just sounds naive. Of course there is a right and wrong, I don't deny your solipsistic reality. But your beliefs are only true to your perspective, not to the Universal perspective.
User avatar #347 to #346 - cabbagemayhem ONLINE (08/06/2013) [-]
It's not conjured from an ignorance of other philosophies. It's not naive. It's also not solipsistic, it's anti-solipsistic. And, it's effective. I suggest you abandon the unaccomplished "no one is right, or can be right" philosophy. It doesn't produce anything.
User avatar #348 to #347 - cyanskater (08/06/2013) [-]
Oh now you believe pragmatism is universally right? That truth must produce something ? Or that it must produce something in order to be important?

I do believe people can be right, I have been saying this all along, they can be right according to a set of criteria that is relative to the individual. I'm arguing that the set of criteria is not universal, but can be universally implemented.
User avatar #349 to #348 - cabbagemayhem ONLINE (08/06/2013) [-]
Yes. Morals are subjective, by definition, and so cannot be universal. They are, however, qualitative and can be measured by how well they achieve their human purpose. Anything else?
User avatar #350 to #349 - cabbagemayhem ONLINE (08/06/2013) [-]
I'm sorry, I'm not finished. That only considers the objective application of morals. Morals can also be qualified by how well they meet the commandments of God. While one might assume the two points-of-view will conflict, they tend to coincide. The God, who everyone I know believes in, loves people and supports society and human happiness in the long run, and our hearts are not made for other gods.
User avatar #352 to #350 - cyanskater (08/06/2013) [-]
Hahaha I had a slight feeling that you were religious. Well, this discussion has ended. And no, cabbagemayhem, some men do not believe in God. And I do, but mine is not like yours.
User avatar #353 to #352 - cabbagemayhem ONLINE (08/06/2013) [-]
I heard your flagrant assertions about moral philosophy, now you suffer one post.

Everyone is religious. It's just a question of what they choose to believe in. Most people choose arbitrarily, out of ignorance, or because they were raised so. If you don't know me by now, you know I chose diligently, with insight and understanding (and of course faith).

You know I am aware that many people don't believe in God, but I already accounted for that in my statements. I'm not judging you for believing in a different god, and I'm not saying your God is inconducive to society. I'm saying that you know your God is supportive of society, and you know it's not any other way. So do I, for that is the God that made our hearts, and none other. Have a nice day.
User avatar #354 to #353 - cyanskater (08/06/2013) [-]
Everyone (debatable) is spiritual, not religious. Religion is organized and revolving around certain dogmas. You are definitely looking for "spiritual", which is individual and varies subjectively.
User avatar #355 to #354 - cabbagemayhem ONLINE (08/06/2013) [-]
Spiritual is definitely not the word I'm looking for, because of atheists. All religion is, is a set of beliefs, a unique philosophy or understanding about our existence. Everyone has their own dogma, even atheists. It's just a question of what is true, what will carry us into our future.
User avatar #356 to #355 - cyanskater (08/06/2013) [-]
Atheists can be spiritual, I used to be a spiritual atheist. Atheists just don't believe in gods. And no, a religion is practiced by a group of people; it is a massive cult that is just perceived to be less extreme. You are definitely looking for spirituality or philosophy or even ideology. Not religion.
User avatar #357 to #356 - cabbagemayhem ONLINE (08/06/2013) [-]
"Atheists can be spiritual"
Where did I say atheists can't be spiritual? I didn't. Many atheists are often not spiritual, which is why I didn't say everyone is spiritual. You should listen to what I'm telling you instead of trying to tell me things I already know.

"a religion is practiced by a group of people"
I thought you might say that, but if we're talking about organized religion, then we're neither talking about atheists nor myself. I am not part of any organized group of people any more than anyone else, including atheists, and your original presumption that I am "religious" is false.
User avatar #351 to #350 - cabbagemayhem ONLINE (08/06/2013) [-]
cyanskater
User avatar #257 to #23 - sinclairr (08/05/2013) [-]
See your point, but I think something people need to see more often is that war is not regular every-day things (yes, war happens everyday but that's not my point). People debate over who's doing the least innocents-killing but no one ever opens there mouth to the taboo idea of killing innocents may be alright. I'm not saying we should go and randomly pop heads off civilians in a war, but in a war - in a situation were it's your life, the lives of others, the lives of your friends against that of a crowd of people who some may be innocent and some are not - morale thinking tends to get you killed.

In the military they train you to the best of their ability (making you boarder line machine) to obey rules and do away with your conscious...
#103 to #23 - traveller (08/05/2013) [-]
But there are varying degrees of right, consider - a carefully constructed plan to liberate a country, fully educated soldiers sent in following honourable rules of engagement. or pious insurgents exposed to so much divine propaganda and unfair circumstances that they don't know how to even consider an individual ideology. Right now, I believe our wars will stop when there is no clear line of wealth between the nations, and education and freedom is available to everyone.
#129 - killjow (08/05/2013) [-]
"Shoot Clown aerial threats"
#170 - xxitzchubbsxx (08/05/2013) [-]
tried my best with funnyjunk edit image so it probably looks crap.
#69 - therealtjthemedic (08/05/2013) [-]
This is photoshopped btw.
The original 'protestor' was in a different pic.
Sorry.
Bye.
User avatar #89 to #69 - doldis (08/05/2013) [-]
Is that just some random image or does it have a source?
#143 to #90 - anon (08/05/2013) [-]
Why is she playing space invaders if she has a mega futuristic space ship?
User avatar #127 to #90 - berserkilr (08/05/2013) [-]
i saw this one on EpicNetwork music channel on youtube. For example in Autolaser - Magenta 2 (which i like a lot, by the way) Electro - AutoLaser - Magenta 2 (Feat. Sigrid Zeiner)
User avatar #121 to #90 - fpsnoob ONLINE (08/05/2013) [-]
Thanks for the link. I found the wallpaper you posted earlier today, now thanks to your link I was able to get a couple more.
#120 to #89 - notstill (08/05/2013) [-]
It's a random image, it doesn't belong to any anime or anything.

But here have an actual wallpaper size, I ******* LOATHE people who post wallpapers at 1280x720
User avatar #119 to #69 - fpsnoob ONLINE (08/05/2013) [-]
Do you have the original picture then?
User avatar #175 to #69 - mistafishy (08/05/2013) [-]
I like chicks in canvas sneakers...
#102 to #69 - bobfaget (08/05/2013) [-]
Anyone else notice she's playing pokemon?
#107 to #102 - vapaus (08/05/2013) [-]
I have some bad news for you.   
   
 I like your keen eye.
I have some bad news for you.

I like your keen eye.
#109 to #107 - bobfaget (08/05/2013) [-]
What would that be?
User avatar #115 to #109 - vapaus (08/05/2013) [-]
I was poking fun at how you noticed the game on the opposite end of the image to datass. .-. Sorry, was trying to make a stupid joke.
#116 to #115 - bobfaget (08/05/2013) [-]
Oh sorry haha
#55 - roflcopterkklol **User deleted account** (08/05/2013) [-]
This thing kills 250,000 people a year.
What a great machine, we need more violence.
Too many people on this planet.
User avatar #138 to #55 - niggastolemyname (08/05/2013) [-]
You do realize that the population isn't going to go down due to normal violence right?
User avatar #139 to #138 - roflcopterkklol **User deleted account** (08/05/2013) [-]
It could if people tried harder, go kill 3 of your neighbours.
User avatar #141 to #139 - niggastolemyname (08/05/2013) [-]
It could but it won't. Realistically speaking.
User avatar #146 to #141 - roflcopterkklol **User deleted account** (08/05/2013) [-]
Yeah i know it is sad really, we only have about 40 maybe 50 years of society left if we keep expanding at the current rate.
User avatar #177 to #146 - wisdombranch (08/05/2013) [-]
America isn't growing (aside from immigrants) and Europe is shrinking.

If you dislike high population, go fuss at Asia.
#245 to #177 - horribleperson (08/05/2013) [-]
Actually, population and birth rate is not the primary problem, consumption rate is. North American/European and similar commercial countries consume much, much more than most Asian countries (something between 30 - 40 times as much).

That's not to say the high population of Asian countries is not a problem, but each birth in a North American/European country is like the birth of 35 or so children in the typical Asian/Mid-Eastern country, and likely even more for African countries.

I think roflcopterkklol is mostly correct, but I believe a nice pandemic would serve much better.
User avatar #323 to #245 - cabbagemayhem ONLINE (08/05/2013) [-]
Neither population nor consumption is a real problem. Consumption will never exceed the ability to produce, but will instead reward it. Population is far from approaching Earth's ever increasing capacity, but even if it was, living conditions might slowly diminish, but society won't collapse.
User avatar #358 to #323 - wisdombranch (08/07/2013) [-]
"Consumption will never exceed the ability to produce" <---absolute bull feathers.

Have you ever heard of a "boom-BUST" cycle? Granted, we are by no means, as a planet, experiencing a bust, but from a sustainability standpoint, we are definitely setting ourselves up for one.

[in #245] As much as horribleperson is indeed a horrible person, their assertion that the actual issue is consumption remains accurate. But, cabbagemayhem, all that needs to happen is a change in either the consumption or the production.

An examination of the reality of fixed production can be found in "An Essay on the Principle of Population" by Thomas Robert Malthus.

For whatever reason, much of mankind cannot conceive of the possibility of increasing production; they are retarded nincompoops, but their leaders' collective, proper title is teh U.N.

Malthus would have been correct about his population limits, except for one small issue. Mankind learned to synthesize Ammonia, using the Haber–Bosch process making** nitrogen rich** fertilizer. Man could now inject fertilizer into the soil rather than having to collect the poop from anything and everything.

The population boom you can see in the 2nd url is due to this discovery whose history is detailed in the 1st url.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Haber_process

You need to login to view this link
#360 to #358 - cabbagemayhem ONLINE (08/07/2013) [-]
Consumption cannot, will not, or ever be capable of exceeding production, ever.
User avatar #361 to #360 - wisdombranch (08/10/2013) [-]
how does your troll brain work?
User avatar #362 to #361 - cabbagemayhem ONLINE (08/10/2013) [-]
Hurr durr troll! Are you so mathematically disinclined that you can't perceive how it is impossible to consume more than is produced?
User avatar #363 to #362 - wisdombranch (08/10/2013) [-]
are you referring to [rate of production and rate of consumption] or [sum of production and sum of consumption]?



I have been talking about rate.
User avatar #364 to #363 - cabbagemayhem ONLINE (08/10/2013) [-]
Trivial. Consumption rate can only exceed production rate for a very short time before it is forced down. High consumption rates are justifiable as a capitalistic reward for production. I, personally, like to live far under my means.
User avatar #365 to #364 - wisdombranch (08/10/2013) [-]
"very short" is extremely relative. My earlier comments were in no way refering to an individual fiscal frame, but a global/continental existence frame.
User avatar #366 to #365 - cabbagemayhem ONLINE (08/10/2013) [-]
2 years, and the amount in excess is typically marginal, within a few percent. Consumption cannot exceed production. You cannot buy more than you are payed. You cannot acquire what has not been made. This applies more on a global scale than any other.
User avatar #267 to #245 - roflcopterkklol **User deleted account** (08/05/2013) [-]
Yeah AIDS is not working fast enough.
User avatar #153 to #146 - niggastolemyname (08/05/2013) [-]
Naw there's just going to be feudalism with guns it's just that the world needs more time to convert the land into something more arable (there's plenty of land to feed everybody it's just that agricutural growth is waay behind population growth)- and then the richest country would turn into the one with the most food and stuff
Now that's a game I would like to play

A country could try to utilize propaganda and military enforcement to get people to stop having kids, maybe. - They could start it at an early age - make you hate children and never have them etc. etc.
#179 to #55 - nordicmike (08/05/2013) [-]
This comment comes from a person that has a really easy life away from conflict and fear of losing loved ones/own life. Really easy to say that gun violence is a good thing when you are at home behind your pc in a safe country not worrying if you will be dead or alive by the end of the day.
User avatar #222 to #179 - roflcopterkklol **User deleted account** (08/05/2013) [-]
I honestly could not care less if i died tomorrow, life is a journey i am just along for the ride, im not going to know when it ends nor will history skip a beat for me when i am gone.
User avatar #286 to #222 - rockamekishiko (08/05/2013) [-]
of course you'd say that. You are STILL in the comfort of your home.
User avatar #320 to #286 - cabbagemayhem ONLINE (08/05/2013) [-]
So, are you and nordicmike, so stfu.
User avatar #321 to #320 - rockamekishiko (08/05/2013) [-]
yes and i'm not the one saying to kill people and not being afraid of death
User avatar #322 to #321 - cabbagemayhem ONLINE (08/05/2013) [-]
oh, well it sounds pretty awesome if you ask me. he probably gets paid to live in comfort and fearlessly kill people
#187 to #179 - soulterminatorm (08/05/2013) [-]
Well said. I guarantee that if anyone that said gun violence is good was actually in danger of being shot, they would rethink their words.
Pic unrelated.
#327 to #187 - cabbagemayhem ONLINE (08/06/2013) [-]
You guys are the joke. Good one, roflcopter.
#328 to #327 - soulterminatorm (08/06/2013) [-]
I never said guns were bad. In fact, I'm pro-gun. I've even said we need a way to keep the population down by murder. All I'm saying is that it's not fair to say innocent people should be killed, as long as you aren't part of those killed.
I never said guns were bad. In fact, I'm pro-gun. I've even said we need a way to keep the population down by murder. All I'm saying is that it's not fair to say innocent people should be killed, as long as you aren't part of those killed.
User avatar #330 to #328 - cabbagemayhem ONLINE (08/06/2013) [-]
I might acquiesce to your protest of innocence, but those other guys took him seriously and make joke funny. Haha.
#331 to #330 - soulterminatorm (08/06/2013) [-]
What? No offense, but is English your first language?
What? No offense, but is English your first language?
User avatar #332 to #331 - cabbagemayhem ONLINE (08/06/2013) [-]
Yes. The grammar was intentional.
User avatar #333 to #332 - soulterminatorm (08/06/2013) [-]
Well excuse me, then. The joke seems to have slipped passed me. As I said, I'm really tired.
User avatar #334 to #333 - cabbagemayhem ONLINE (08/06/2013) [-]
You're excused. Dismissed.
User avatar #329 to #328 - soulterminatorm (08/06/2013) [-]
Sorry, that was really poorly worded. I'm really tired right now.
User avatar #147 to #144 - roflcopterkklol **User deleted account** (08/05/2013) [-]
That is priceless
User avatar #264 to #144 - fredthemilkman (08/05/2013) [-]
RIP Ivan
User avatar #85 to #55 - tittentei (08/05/2013) [-]
Fun fact: For every other gun in the world, there is an AK.
#59 to #55 - jakeattack ONLINE (08/05/2013) [-]
such is life in soviet russia
#233 - xsap (08/05/2013) [-]
oh god retarded hippies like this piss me off so much...
"hurr this machine kills innocent people"

oh okay, lets just get rid of every military weapon in the entire U.S armed forces and see how well that turns out.. oh and lets not forget that guns kill people, so lets take guns away from police officers.. i'm sure nothing will go wrong because the whole world is just happiness and sunshine...

oh and the part that says "innocent people"

wtf do retards like this think the army does, just get in a tank and roll down the streets blowing up houses of innocent people?
User avatar #252 to #233 - privatepumpanickel ONLINE (08/05/2013) [-]
There are some soldiers who are unfortunately corrupt in the army who yes, kill/rape innocent people and children. I bet theres a select few who have got away with it too without being caught.
#278 to #252 - anon (08/05/2013) [-]
There are priests who kill/rape innocent people and children. There are people of all types everywhere who kill/rape innocent people and children. These types of people are unavoidable.
User avatar #279 to #278 - privatepumpanickel ONLINE (08/05/2013) [-]
I didn't suggest that soldiers in particular do that. My point was that it would be a lot easier for soldiers in desolate areas in the middle east stationed out somewhere to get away with that. I think power tempts corruption.
#200 - ltsparky ONLINE (08/05/2013) [-]
User avatar #237 to #201 - psyachu (08/05/2013) [-]
...but who's Nebel?
User avatar #253 to #237 - patriotpenguin ONLINE (08/05/2013) [-]
that guy in the photo
#197 - nocandy (08/05/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #247 to #197 - doodogger (08/05/2013) [-]
Here's the equation to make others feel stupid.

Knowledge + vanity = power to make others feel stupid.

Kn + V = P2mOfS
+4
#36 - iNirvana has deleted their comment [-]
#45 to #36 - popeflatus (08/05/2013) [-]
I can see the tragedy in that cartoons eyes...
#130 - berserkilr (08/05/2013) [-]
Well, This Machine kill commies
#181 to #130 - thegrimgenius (08/05/2013) [-]
No, no, THIS, machine kills commies.
#142 to #130 - Kanoah (08/05/2013) [-]
Well, this machine kills Zombies.
#162 to #142 - ismellnewfag (08/05/2013) [-]
This machine kills ******* .
#189 to #162 - Rammencup (08/05/2013) [-]
this machine warfs neble
this machine warfs neble
#240 to #203 - Rammencup (08/05/2013) [-]
oh you know just what to say
oh you know just what to say
User avatar #173 to #162 - iizsimon (08/05/2013) [-]
lel
#287 - padzoid (08/05/2013) [-]
"used by the Us military to shoot Clown aerial threats"
#284 - sanicdahdgehg (08/05/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#229 - bbehemoth (08/05/2013) [-]
reminded me of this...
User avatar #254 to #229 - marlton (08/05/2013) [-]
Sauce?
User avatar #259 to #254 - sketchE (08/05/2013) [-]
code geass if i remember correctly
User avatar #276 to #259 - bbehemoth (08/05/2013) [-]
guilty crown
User avatar #277 to #276 - sketchE (08/05/2013) [-]
knew it was one of those two. guilty crown just felt like a rip off of code geass though. still good with amazing music though
User avatar #280 to #277 - bbehemoth (08/05/2013) [-]
this is one of the few things I remember about this anime, and the soundtrack ... fabulous soundtrack
User avatar #282 to #280 - sketchE (08/05/2013) [-]
ive got the entire thing downloaded and even have an english cover of everlasting guilty crown. the only problem with it is the girls mike would mess up a couple of times
User avatar #295 to #282 - bbehemoth (08/05/2013) [-]
nice... source (of the cover)?
User avatar #299 to #295 - sketchE (08/05/2013) [-]
www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_vwK1Yq0uA
now im listening to it again
User avatar #304 to #299 - bbehemoth (08/05/2013) [-]
thanks
#303 to #229 - dsrtpnk (08/05/2013) [-]
Dats Gangsta
Dats Gangsta
[ 357 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)