Randomness thread, part two.

[spoonitnow]

I'm sure FTR could throw together funds for a hotel room if you two want to really settle this once and for all.

Also, atheist is virtually synonymous with agnostic atheist, meaning acknowledging the lack of evidence to prove or disprove the existence of one or more deities.

[OngBonga]

I always thought the difference between atheist and agnostic was basically there is no god vs I haven't a fucking clue.

[spoonitnow]

I always thought the difference between atheist and agnostic was basically there is no god vs I haven't a fucking clue.

Atheist and agnostic describe two different things that aren't mutually exclusive:

1. Theist vs atheist is whether or not you believe there is a god.
2. Gnostic vs agnostic is whether or not you think existence (or lack thereof) of a god can be proven.

The vast majority of atheists are agnostic.

It's worth noting that there's a very strong argument that to be a "true" Christian that you must also be agnostic (ie: agnostic theist compared to agnostic atheist) because multiple scriptures point to having faith in god instead of needing prove that there is a god.

Gnostic theists in general are what I was referring to earlier in this thread. Agnostic theists are w/e. Agnostic atheist is probably optimal for people who are educated. Gnostic atheists are also annoying.

I want to point out that there are some pretty major practical benefits for a certain set of agnostic atheists to consciously and intentionally switch to being agnostic theists because of the effects it can have on your emotional responses to dealing with stressful situations.

It's also possible to have an agnostic god complex, which I think is interesting. I wonder if it could be used as a practical way to cope with certain mental illnesses.

I saw something once about comparing having a gambling problem to having a gnostic god complex, which seems ridiculous at first but could have some merit.

[OngBonga]

1. Theist vs atheist is whether or not you believe there is a god.
2. Gnostic vs agnostic is whether or not you think existence (or lack thereof) of a god can be proven.

Ok, so I neither believe nor disbelieve in a god.
Clearly, the existence of god is unprovable, at least currently, and can probably never be proven to not exist.

What's the term for someone who doesn't give a flying fuck if god exists or not?

[spoonitnow]

Ok, so I neither believe nor disbelieve in a god.
Clearly, the existence of god is unprovable, at least currently, and can probably never be proven to not exist.

What's the term for someone who doesn't give a flying fuck if god exists or not?

The word you're looking for is likely apatheist.

[OngBonga]

I'm sure if god does exist, he'll forgive me for not caring. I've gotta have a better chance of being on his good side than those crazy fuckers who believe in him and shoot random people to please him.

[a500lbgorilla]

Only fools let themselves get labeled. Duck that shit, ong!

[OngBonga]

Only fools care about getting labeled. Duck that shit, ong!

fyp

[a500lbgorilla]

Don't be so labelist.

[OngBonga]

Wait, you went from being labelist to anti-labelist in the space of three minutes. I think you're conused about labelism.

[a500lbgorilla]

Nah, you're talking about first-wave labelism where things were described by shape, color, and purpose. I'm talking about third-wave labelism where everything has to be some fiction about the equality of all labels.

[OngBonga]

Now I'm confused.

Where's my king skins?

[Luco]

Now I'm confused.

Where's my king skins?

just stick a couple of the smaller ones together

[spoonitnow]

[wufwugy]

i prefer mat inspector to ground hugger. she never got ko'd, she made a last minute decision to change careers after she needed to investigate where the smell of feet was coming from.

[OngBonga]

just stick a couple of the smaller ones together

amateur

[OngBonga]

just stick a couple of the smaller ones together

If I need a roll up, I tear a king skin down to size.

[aubreymcfate]

Recommended reading: Point Counter Point by Aldous Huxley

I particularly have rilla and wuf in mind with this one.

And a shoutout to all our grandmothers. Mine is slowly on her way to the other side right now.

(thanks, Ronda, for adding more intensity to my already overwhelming weekend, lol. Was just looking for a feel good 15 second win)

[a500lbgorilla]

Huxley's my boy. But he's gonna have to fall in line. I just started into Lolita.

[aubreymcfate]

Huxley's my boy. But he's gonna have to fall in line. I just started into Lolita.

Really?? That's the origin of my username. I read Lolita when I was 15 and it was like a psychedelic experience -- completely transformed my perception of language and writing. It's hard to have a "favorite book" but when asked, Lolita is always my answer. It's a fucking masterpiece. same with "favorite author," Nabokov would have to be number one on my list. Brilliant and fascinating man.

I have so much to say, but I'll withhold. You know where to find me if you feel inspired to discuss Lolita and/or Nabokov further.

[aubreymcfate]

Also -- Huxley had a profound sensitivity to music. Inner images via his mind's eye, however, were a dull affair for him, even on mescaline (he goes into detail about this lack of visual interior in Doors of Perception). He did not have a rich inner visual world. Nabokov, on the other hand, had synesthesia. He could conjure extremely vivid imagery behind closed eyelids at will and thought in images, not words. He had very little sensitivity to music.

This difference between the two is evident in their writing, in my opinion. Just wanted to point that out here since you're clearly familiar with Huxley.

[a500lbgorilla]

3 paragraphs in and I remember thinking to myself this book was dessert. I'll keep an eye out for your name inspiration.

[MadMojoMonkey]

What's the term for someone who doesn't give a flying fuck if god exists or not?

Cool. The word you're looking for is cool.

Fear of labeling is absurd. Every word is a label. Every number is a label. We communicate with symbols.
A label is not the thing. It is a pointer to the concept of the thing.
Labeling a thing is the first step in distinguishing it from other things, enabling the comparison to other things.

Labelist for life! Labels for a smarter tomorrow!

***
Gnosis means knowledge (in ancient Greek, IIRC).

It may help to remember the meaning if you mentally replace the 'g' with a 'k' and realize that gnosis is the root of the modern word knowledge. They vaguely sound like each other if you say them aloud.

Gnostic means "with knowledge" and agnostic means "without knowledge."

[OngBonga]

River floods beer garden. Men shout at river and continue drinking.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/articl...or-pint-anyway

[a500lbgorilla]

2 and its kin

[MadMojoMonkey]

I just met another SLU grad who is doing research here at Wash U. He showed me a meteorite that is over 4.5 billion years old.
I was like, "That's pushing at the age of the solar system."
He said, "The date of this rock is the reason we have that date for the solar system."

MIND BLOWN

I love my job.

[MadMojoMonkey]

River floods beer garden. Men shout at river and continue drinking.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/articl...or-pint-anyway

"It was a little surreal but it just became normal," he adds. "It was nice."

Kinda like FTR, amirit?

[oskar]

I fucking love the news lately. Nothing like jihadists getting completely fucked. They're the new nazis/zombis. It's comical how hard it is to sympathize with any of their motives. They're like real life movie villains.

rape [x]
drug trafficing [x]
human trafficing [x]
child molestation [x]
mass murder [x]
concentration camps [x]
preachy [x]

If ISIS didnt exist and they made them the villains in the new bond movie, people would complain about how over the top they are.

[JKDS]

Volunteered at a homeless shelter today. It started with a prayer for the people in France...and also for ISIS because everybody needs saving.

:eyeroll:

I believe that there are a lot of things you can come back from. Stealing, assault, and others...you can find redemption and become a better person and what not. But when you start mass killing people, just no. Its a good thing im not in charge of foreign policy, because I'd have just bombed every terror camp I could find without a second thought.

[wufwugy]

the only way to stop them from winning is to make them lose. seek and destroy every last one.

[wufwugy]

on that note, im a little confused and intrigued by how so many of the intellectuals that i tend to agree with on most things have such a divergent view on this issue. the meme that problems in the middle east are created by meddling from the west is so powerful that it captures the hearts of many all over the spectrum. too bad the idea is powerfully wrong.

[boost]

Wuf, your metaphor was pretty cool. I think I just read it and the Deepak centered diss popped into my head and fuck if I was going to let my filter get a hold of that one.

I do think there is a fight to be fought, and while I appreciate the work of Dawkins, Harris, et al, I do find myself gravitating away from believing a confrontational style on this issue is healthy for the average person's day to day life. It's not that you need to keep silent, but I'm trying my best to take on more of an agree to disagree approach and switch subjects to a point of mutual interest.

So, yeah, again, despite appearing to be at each other's throats, I think we more or less agree.

[OngBonga]

the meme that problems in the middle east are created by meddling from the west is so powerful that it captures the hearts of many all over the spectrum. too bad the idea is powerfully wrong.

Question. If the UK were using its military might to enforce its economic will on a weaker America, would you accept it? Your ancerstors didn't accept it in 1776.

Our meddling in Middle Eastern affairs is exactly the reason they are attacking us today. We bastard well created ISIS by arming and funding anti-Assad rebels. Why is Assad, along with all the others we've removed from power, so important to us? Why are we using so much of our militarty resourses trying to remove someone who isn't a direct threat to the West? There's plenty of arseholes out there who need "dealing" with, if we want to be like that. Why have we sat back and allowed Mugabe to violently evict white people from their farms in Zimbabwe, while telling Assad that he can't be in charge of Syria? Maybe because Zimbabwe has no strategic value to us.

We go over there and bomb the shit out of their towns, resulting in the greatest movement of people since WWII. Do you really think this won't radicalise people? Our efforts are creating the conditions for war.

[rong]

I don't see what's wrong with only choosing to help those with strategic value. We don't have the resources to help everyone.

[OngBonga]

Ok, fair enough. So why is Syria strategic while Zimbabwe is not? Are you accepting that it's ok to bully other nations into submitting to our economic demands, so long as it's in our interests to do so?

I'm attempting to point out that we're not there for moral reasons. If that were the case, we wouldn't be doing business with the likes of Russia and China, while simultaneously fighting a proxy war against them. We're in this because of economics. Zimbabwe's economic value is negative, when considering the cost of toppling Mugabe. The economic value of the Middle East, on the other hand, is immense.

[OngBonga]

Meanwhile, in my home town...

What started out as a suspected minor methane leak at a school escalated into a "bomb scare" thanks to the quick thinking teacher who sent those words in a text to all the parents, who consequently went into meltdown.

Teacher of the year award right fucking there.

[spoonitnow]

Ok, fair enough. So why is Syria strategic while Zimbabwe is not?

Oil. Israel. Iran.

[a500lbgorilla]

“Let me let you in on a little secret,” said [Condoleezza] Rice, a Stanford Graduate School of Business professor. "There is no such thing as an international community. There are self-maximizing, self-interested states that will push their interests as far as possible.”

[a500lbgorilla]

[a500lbgorilla]

Volunteered at a homeless shelter today. It started with a prayer for the people in France...and also for ISIS because everybody needs saving.

:eyeroll:

Strikes me as the exact opposite as the dude that refused to repent and renounce Satan on his deathbed because "now isn't the time to be making enemies." Like they want to live in a world where they have no enemies.

[wufwugy]

Question. If the UK were using its military might to enforce its economic will on a weaker America, would you accept it? Your ancerstors didn't accept it in 1776.

Our meddling in Middle Eastern affairs is exactly the reason they are attacking us today. We bastard well created ISIS by arming and funding anti-Assad rebels. Why is Assad, along with all the others we've removed from power, so important to us? Why are we using so much of our militarty resourses trying to remove someone who isn't a direct threat to the West? There's plenty of arseholes out there who need "dealing" with, if we want to be like that. Why have we sat back and allowed Mugabe to violently evict white people from their farms in Zimbabwe, while telling Assad that he can't be in charge of Syria? Maybe because Zimbabwe has no strategic value to us.

We go over there and bomb the shit out of their towns, resulting in the greatest movement of people since WWII. Do you really think this won't radicalise people? Our efforts are creating the conditions for war.

A few things, this might be slightly long.

Britain's "meddling" didn't create the desire of sovereignty in the states. It can be argued that its meddling created the desire to fight against the British, but this is a fundamentally different scenario than Islamic terrorism, where there is a very clear right side and wrong side. In Britain vs the states, the right side and wrong side isn't so clear, although I side on the states.

Without and before attention to the Middle East from the West, Islamic extremism is powerful and has a driving philosophy of civil rights and civil liberties abuses as well as violent subjugation of all non-believers. Meddling from the West has not created these bad people with bad intentions. What intervention has done is galvanized a proportion, but that's the small mistake made to avoid the big mistake, where not intervening would allow the bad guys with bad intentions to run roughshod over many more innocents. The solution to stopping the small mistake isn't to make the big mistake instead.

Jihadists want the right to murder and rape any who do not bow. Western states have historically said they will not allow this. Given the discrepancies in technology and know-how, you'd think that this would have stopped jihadists already, but many in the West have pushed back due to a fundamental misunderstanding of what jihadists are. This can be seen in how many in the West hold beliefs that jihadists are jihadists for a different reason other than their beliefs, that they've been created by the Big Bad Man or that they don't have jobs. It has surprised me how over the top many in the West are in their defenses of Islamic extremism. They don't even know they're doing it because they're rationalizing away the extremism by attributing the cause of the extremism to victimization.

Okay that wasn't as long as I thought. Kudos.


An important takeaway is that this isn't like traditional conflicts, where neither side is "right". When neither side is right, it's a terrible policy to go in and put every combatant to the sword. But when one side is right and the other side is wrong, you have to do it. When a group wishes to commit mass genocide on innocents, you stop them by committing mass genocide on them. The horrible shame of this reality is that most of the time that mass genocide is committed, it isn't for these reasons, so even suggesting it seems unconscionable.

[OngBonga]

Oil. Israel. Iran.

Exactly. Fuck all to do with morals. We're there for our own selfish ends. We're not there to defeat ISIS. We fucking created them. Just like we created al-Qaida. Our funds, our weapons, getting into enemy hands when it should be obvious that would happen. We let it happen because it suits our agenda. Our agenda is to put in place puppet governments sympathetic to Western economic interests.

I don't really understand why it's not obvious to everyone, I mean 9/11 was so over the top bullshit, but the masses actually fucking buy it. Pancakes, ffs. The only way this ever ends is when the people say enough, but it won't happen in my lifetime. People are happy to work themselves to old age while their government goes to war with nations for economic reasons under the pretence of fighting terrorism.

You know how to beat terrorism? Don't be afraid.

[wufwugy]

As heartwarming as this is, it shows a denial of reality that gets us into these kinds of messes in the first place.

Flowers don't stop guns. Flowers are what you do when you don't need guns. When you need guns, well, it's time to lock and load. The child has the common sense that hasn't yet been beaten out of him by fairy tales.

I like the True Detective quote: "The world needs bad men. We keep the other bad men from the door." It seems all too apparent that French society believes that when the bad man is coming through the door, you stop him by not stopping him. Even American society largely believes this. When Ben Carson said the most reasonable thing anybody has said on the issue of responding to domestic terrorism in forever, he got nothing but hate from people who think its best to perpetuate a society that has so deeply internalized its victimhood that it can't shake the false reality that laying down is the best way to stop violent force.

[wufwugy]

Exactly. Fuck all to do with morals. We're there for our own selfish ends. We're not there to defeat ISIS. We fucking created them. Just like we created al-Qaida. Our funds, our weapons, getting into enemy hands when it should be obvious that would happen. We let it happen because it suits our agenda. Our agenda is to put in place puppet governments sympathetic to Western economic interests.

I don't really understand why it's not obvious to everyone, I mean 9/11 was so over the top bullshit, but the masses actually fucking buy it. Pancakes, ffs. The only way this ever ends is when the people say enough, but it won't happen in my lifetime. People are happy to work themselves to old age while their government goes to war with nations for economic reasons under the pretence of fighting terrorism.

You know how to beat terrorism? Don't be afraid.

The reasons for the interests listed by Spoon are moral ones.

We didn't create al-Qaida or ISIS. No expert agrees with the idea that we did. Not a one.

The puppet government agenda has to do with limitations of capabilities. It's not the best policy.

Get serious on 9/11.

The wars in the Middle East aren't primarily for economic reasons.

So, your prescription to terrorism is to not be afraid? What planet are we living on?

[OngBonga]

Planet ong. Let's talk about pancakes. I mean honestly, I think anyone who believes that those buildings collapsed in that manner due to fire is living on another planet. I can understand dumb people believing what they're told, but there's tons of smart people who accept this shit.

[OngBonga]

The reasons for the interests listed by Spoon are moral ones.

Israel is a moral reason to fight wars in the ME? Get fucking real. Israel are part of the fucking propblem. They're a big problem, in fact, what with their relentless seige of Gaza, and their relentless attempts to isolate a nation of people, and their relenltess landgrabs, and their relentless accusations of anti-Semitism for anyone who opposed the Israeli regime.

Iran is a reason? Iran are now our friends, aren't they? Not that we're ever actually their enemy, more Saudi Arabia's enemy, which made them our enemy while Saudi Arabia were our oil friends, but since they're running out of oil fuck them, let's steal other oil and be friends with Iran now because they're friends with Russia and China and basically we haven't got a chance of telling them what to do.

Oil is not morality, it's economics.

[wufwugy]

Planet ong. Let's talk about pancakes. I mean honestly, I think anyone who believes that those buildings collapsed in that manner due to fire is living on another planet. I can understand dumb people believing what they're told, but there's tons of smart people who accept this shit.

the people who have by far the most knowledge on the subject do not question it. maybe you should rethink the idea that smart people are believing unsmart things and that your smart buddies are actually dumb.

[OngBonga]

The wars in the Middle East aren't primarily for economic reasons.

Of course they are. It has fuck all to do with religion, except those who are running the show want everyone to think it's a holy war because it helps with recruits.

[wufwugy]

Israel is a moral reason to fight wars in the ME? Get fucking real. Israel are part of the fucking propblem. They're a big problem, in fact, what with their relentless seige of Gaza, and their relentless attempts to isolate a nation of people, and their relenltess landgrabs, and their relentless accusations of anti-Semitism for anyone who opposed the Israeli regime.

Iran is a reason? Iran are now our friends, aren't they? Not that we're ever actually their enemy, more Saudi Arabia's enemy, which made them our enemy while Saudi Arabia were our oil friends, but since they're running out of oil fuck them, let's steal other oil and be friends with Iran now because they're friends with Russia and China and basically we haven't got a chance of telling them what to do.

Oil is not morality, it's economics.

it's like you believe the cause of the problem is trying to stop the cause of the problem.

[wufwugy]

Of course they are. It has fuck all to do with religion, except those who are running the show want everyone to think it's a holy war because it helps with recruits.

this just isnt factually accurate. i dont know what to say other than to stop listening to people who know nothing.

[OngBonga]

the people who have by far the most knowledge on the subject do not question it.

This is an interesting point. Demonstrate this to me. Who has the most knowledge of the subject? If you could find me an example of a skyscraper that totally collapsed at near freefall speed due to fire, and the subsequent reports, that would be excellent. I can then see what the authors of said reports have to say about 9/11.

Assuming that 9/11 was the first example of such an event, that is a reinforced skyscraper collapsing totally due to fire, and I have a feeling it was, then there are no fucking experts on the matter. Because it doesn't fucking happen.

[OngBonga]

Alright I'm bored already. I've done this to death for over a fucking decade now, I just haven't got it in me any more.

You're all fucking stupid.

[wufwugy]

physicists. many phd's have said the collapse makes sense. i dont know of any working researchers who say otherwise, and even if they do, a tiny proportion like 1% of them doesn't make statistical significance.

the case is shut until physicists and engineers start coming to the same conclusions. it's not like your pot dealer has a better idea.

[wufwugy]

Alright I'm bored already. I've done this to death for over a fucking decade now, I just haven't got it in me any more.

You're all fucking stupid.

you're a smart person who behaves stupidly.

[OngBonga]

I'd actually prefer to believe it's me who's stupid. It's a nicer world to live in.

[OngBonga]

you're a smart person who behaves stupidly.

Better than being a stupid person who acts stupidly. At least I can play chess.

[MadMojoMonkey]

you're a smart person who behaves stupidly.

Aren't we all?

I mean...

SHUT UP!

[wufwugy]

Aren't we all?

I mean...

SHUT UP!

if we're going that route, i think being human means being really really really dumb. evolution ain't no engineering.

[OngBonga]

Is this a controversial avatar?

I'd just like to state for the record that I'm all for wimmin's rights and whatnot, and I'm totally against violence of any sort, especially men beating women.

There is a small chance she deserved it, but it's small. Like, maybe if she was trying to posion him, or make him watch X-Factor.

[MadMojoMonkey]

if we're going that route, i think being human means being really really really dumb. evolution ain't no engineering.

Well, I mean... dumb is a comparative term. We're dumb compared to a hypothetical ideal, sure.

Feels pretty smart to be an economist, though, right?

(Feels pretty smart to be a physicist, too. )

[Luco]

This is an interesting point. Demonstrate this to me. Who has the most knowledge of the subject? If you could find me an example of a skyscraper that totally collapsed at near freefall speed due to fire, and the subsequent reports, that would be excellent. I can then see what the authors of said reports have to say about 9/11.

Assuming that 9/11 was the first example of such an event, that is a reinforced skyscraper collapsing totally due to fire, and I have a feeling it was, then there are no fucking experts on the matter. Because it doesn't fucking happen.

You sound like Luco from about 11 years ago. Please do some further research.

[spoonitnow]

Ong is like a real life meme.

[OngBonga]

You sound like Luco from about 11 years ago. Please do some further research.

This is interesting. At what point in your life did you accept that freefall collapse of a skyscraper is possible as a result of fire near the top of the building? What caused you to change your mind?

If you can show me some youtube footage of burning kerosene melting steel, I might be willing to step back. Good luck with that, I've tried.

[OngBonga]

Ong is like a real life meme.

I'm trying to find a way of being insulted by this, but I'm struggling.

[OngBonga]

How the fuck does Stephen Hawking outlive Jonah Lomu?

[Luco]

How the fuck does Stephen Hawking outlive Jonah Lomu?

Better kidneys.

[Luco]

This is interesting. At what point in your life did you accept that freefall collapse of a skyscraper is possible as a result of fire near the top of the building? What caused you to change your mind?

If you can show me some youtube footage of burning kerosene melting steel, I might be willing to step back. Good luck with that, I've tried.

Freefall collapse: I no longer think that the collapse speed was 'near freefall'. A portion of the collapse was approaching those speeds, but the initial collapse was slow enough for chunks of debris to get some 20-30 stories ahead of the tower top and this is evident from any (every?) collapse video.

Controlled demolitions dont destroy every single support structure, they just take out the key supports and gravity does the rest. Once floor 90 or so collapsed with the weight of 15 stories bearing down on it there was little chance that the rest of the tower would have stood, as with each floor collapsing the floor below it gets a bigger and bigger slam of kinetic energy from above. If the tower top had twisted out a little more and transferred enough of the kinetic energy outside of the column as it fell, we *may* have seen the lower tower survive, but once those first couple of floors caved a complete collapse was the only outcome imo.

Melted steel: Prove the the molten metal is steel. I presume you mean the flowing molten metal from the WTC just before its collapse? Kerosene can definitely melt aluminium, like this air france runway fire:



And several floors of the wtc were full of aluminium as they'd just been slammed by a boeing made from the stuff.

It was WTC7's collapse that first got my mind racing on conspiracy theories, but when you're forced to rule out controlled demolition (something that takes literally months of planning, kilometres of wire rigging etc) and the first hand firefighter accounts saying they were pulled from wtc7 a few hours before it came down because of structural stability fears (including creaking, groaning, raging fires, all sorts) then a natural collapse doesn't seem so unlikely.

Also, NORAD was a big thing for me for a while. Slow to act, ever changing official timeline of events, nothing made sense. But a government department showing signs of ineptitude isnt far fetched at all, unfortunately it's pretty standard.

EDIT: can't have this discussion without including this pic

[Luco]

So apparently one in every two and a half men have HIV

[JKDS]

So apparently one in every two and a half men have HIV

I thought you were dumb, then I crawled out of my cave and read the news

[OngBonga]

I thought you were dumb, then I crawled out of my cave and read the news

I thought "that's gotta be a Charlie Sheen joke that I don't get".

Was he in Two and a Half Men? Because that sounds like it might have been a thing over there in your funny country.

[spoonitnow]

I thought you were dumb, then I crawled out of my cave and read the news

lol that's pretty funny.

[oskar]

As heartwarming as this is, it shows a denial of reality that gets us into these kinds of messes in the first place.

Flowers don't stop guns. Flowers are what you do when you don't need guns. When you need guns, well, it's time to lock and load. The child has the common sense that hasn't yet been beaten out of him by fairy tales.

I like the True Detective quote: "The world needs bad men. We keep the other bad men from the door." It seems all too apparent that French society believes that when the bad man is coming through the door, you stop him by not stopping him. Even American society largely believes this. When Ben Carson said the most reasonable thing anybody has said on the issue of responding to domestic terrorism in forever, he got nothing but hate from people who think its best to perpetuate a society that has so deeply internalized its victimhood that it can't shake the false reality that laying down is the best way to stop violent force.

What you tell a child and what you really believe can be two different things. I'm pretty sure the father understands that flowers are nice, but carpet bombing is more effective. What sense is there in telling a three year old: we're going to fly over there and when we're done, all that will be left of them will be a short burst of red mist.

[Luco]

BTW ong, here's PROOF that 9/11 was caused by obesity and not by terrorists

http://imgur.com/Q0mpbWk

[MadMojoMonkey]

BTW ong, here's PROOF that 9/11 was caused by obesity and not by terrorists

http://imgur.com/Q0mpbWk

Its fyziks

[Luco]

Its fyziks

Yeah it was the release of all that stored energy that the landwhale had put into the spring, or something

I guess we can't rule out terrorism completely, apparently if you watch the vid with sound she yells ADMIRAL ACKBAR just before she lets go