This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

上位 200 件のコメント表示する 500

[–][deleted] 467 ポイント468 ポイント  (20子コメント)

I never trust random photos of people holding signs on the internet.

[–]kingofbigmac 646 ポイント647 ポイント  (7子コメント)

[–]jhc1415Survey 2016 408 ポイント409 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Thanks for posting the original. Figures people would manipulate it for their own political agendas.

[–][deleted] 28 ポイント29 ポイント  (1子コメント)

[–]bibimbab111 30 ポイント31 ポイント  (0子コメント)

That one must be the original. The fact that she refers to her husband by their shared last name is a clear indicator of authenticity.

[–]Xioola 19 ポイント20 ポイント  (2子コメント)

I don't know what I was expecting.

[–]Theragon 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I for my part at least feel that if there is ever a wrong use for hastag or pound key, it is probably with this concept.

[–]gloves4222 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (5子コメント)

I know... that brown lady on the left is obviously not to be trusted.

[–]Newyauchcity 298 ポイント299 ポイント  (14子コメント)

I emphatically agree. Until the government stops doing wrong-doing of any kind, they should also stop doing good things.

/s

[–]Area206 88 ポイント89 ポイント  (9子コメント)

I'll take it one step further. If the government can't straighten itself out and stop doing anything wrong, then we should just accept our status as an evil empire and brutally invade the rest of the world. It sounds horrible, but there really isn't anything worse that a hypocrite.

[–]amaxen 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Now that's change I can believe in.

[–]Newyauchcity 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (5子コメント)

Well, to be clear I was being sarcastic. I feel that, although yes there are absolutely some atrocities happening to the Muslim community in places abroad, that hijacking an issue to make one's point is somewhat detracting to the parent issue. It's as if the guy on the right is punishing the U.S. for doing something reasonably altruistic, because of the issue they're choosing to stump for.

I may be missing something.

[–]Area206 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I agree with you! I was trying to join in on the joke ;).

[–]Brian_is_trilla 1686 ポイント1687 ポイント  (169子コメント)

Stop posting this shit to r/pics.

[–][deleted] 308 ポイント309 ポイント  (45子コメント)

That's like asking advice animals to stop posting puffins with popular opinions.

[–]FyourFeelings 120 ポイント121 ポイント  (38子コメント)

God I hate /r/gaygifs

[–]r00x 62 ポイント63 ポイント  (33子コメント)

Unsubscribe! I did, long ago. finally ditched /r/funny a few weeks ago too. Feels great!

Edit: Three hundred comments asking why I am here... because I thought we were talking about /r/AdviceAnimals, not /r/pics.

[–]omegatheory 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

The part that kills me about /r/AdviceAnimals is that if you have a good meme but not in a traditional way (IE Popular Opinion Puffin, Insanity Wolf, etc etc) you'll never get to the top. But use the confession bear to express an unpopular opinion and you're guaranteed gold!

[–]r00x 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Sure, but more than that, sometimes things just aren't meant to be categorised. I don't think cramming all the memes into a few dedicated subs really works.

I mean, it does clear other subs of the kind of pointless trash that drives people nuts (to a certain extent) but memes aren't really designed to be confined an endless list of variant posts. It sort of invalidates the point of them being memes.

In other words they might as well not exist at all, really. Squishing them all together makes them pointless but nobody wants them littering all the other subs either.

[–]MrCharlieBacon 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Eh, I'll join you with unsubbing from /r/funny. Just done.

[–]pbj192 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (14子コメント)

meh, it's more fun to get yourself banned, then unsubscribe

[–]mclaclan 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (2子コメント)

I would I get Banned?

[–]supdunez 27 ポイント28 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Yes you yes get banned.

[–]mclaclan 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Ok I Ok try

[–]Paremo 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (7子コメント)

How can I get myself banned?

[–]RudyBagels 57 ポイント58 ポイント  (6子コメント)

Posting something legitimately funny is usually the quickest.

[–]kangorr 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (4子コメント)

The cynicism is strong with this one.

[–]Greedeater 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Cynicism is just a dirty word for pattern recognition.

[–]RudyBagels 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

You are probably right. Making fun of how shitty r/funny is the lowest of the hanging fruits.

[–]Shoplift_The_Pootie 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

This was the best comment I've read today.

[–]alaska1415 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Jesus Christ what did I expect!!

[–]who-bah-stank 13 ポイント14 ポイント  (0子コメント)

yeah, it's not even funny. post it to /r/funny instead

[–]simjanes2k 47 ポイント48 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Sidebar rules: There are none! Have fun, fuckers!

[–]StickleyMan 114 ポイント115 ポイント  (28子コメント)

[–]Albaek 24 ポイント25 ポイント  (3子コメント)

I kind of want the 'Yeah' to disappear into her cleavage.

[–]Yourhero88 14 ポイント15 ポイント  (13子コメント)

Source...

[–]docforlife 15 ポイント16 ポイント  (12子コメント)

It's Taylor vixen

[–]StickleyMan 14 ポイント15 ポイント  (9子コメント)

Good...eye.

It's from the aptly titled, Lesbians in Charge 4

[–][deleted] 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I was in charge once.

It didn't make me a lesbian...

[–]vitorizzo 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Lesbians in charge, of our days and our lives

[–]esoteric_enigma 18 ポイント19 ポイント  (11子コメント)

Why? Is it in the rules somewhere that pictures can't be political in this subreddit?

[–]RExOINFERNO 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (8子コメント)

well theres a no text based pics rule and this qualifies for that

never mind

[–]FluidHips 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (3子コメント)

I don't believe so. No screenshots, pictures with added, or superimposed text.

[–]RExOINFERNO 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

oh true, just edited original comment

[–][deleted] 15 ポイント16 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Seriously. #JihadDenial

[–][deleted] 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Lolwut

[–]B0BtheDestroyer 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (19子コメント)

It fits the established rules on the sidebar. If you want a purer sub tailored to your interests, get the sidebar changed or make another sub.

[–]GimmeHugs 54 ポイント55 ポイント  (10子コメント)

You're not wrong... But let's not pretend this isn't shit.

[–]Brian_is_trilla 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (5子コメント)

There's nothing remotely interesting about this photo. Is this facebook?

[–]B0BtheDestroyer 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Then downvote it. Maybe you will outweigh the people who find it interesting.

[–]SquidwardSnowden1 785 ポイント786 ポイント  (426子コメント)

While I get what you are trying to say and acknowledge you have a point the attempt at shock value is off putting and undercuts the ability to have a constructive and meaningful dialogue. If you can't back a statement like this up with hard numbers it probably shouldn't be made in this way. Plus would you rather the White House simply ignores the kidnapped girls? I think it's unfair to attack someone for other situations like drone warfare when they are doing what I think most of us would agree is the right thing in trying to recover the missing girls. Edit:spelling

[–]cujo195 802 ポイント803 ポイント  (375子コメント)

They're trying to equate unintentional consequences of war with deliberate criminal activities. That's the same mentality that supports terrorism.

[–]B0BtheDestroyer 235 ポイント236 ポイント  (228子コメント)

You are right that there is a difference between intentional harm and unintentional harm. The collateral damage accepted for drone strikes, however, goes beyond what should be acceptable as "unintentional."

"The Obama administration classifies any able-bodied male a military combatant unless evidence is brought forward to prove otherwise."

Edit: Here is the journalistic source for the quote.

Edit 2: Source of the source, see page 3.

[–]thebretandbutter 49 ポイント50 ポイント  (18子コメント)

Far too often the argument is phrased against drone warfare when it should in fact be against the practice of targeted killings in general. Drone Warfare actually causes the least amount of collateral damage when you compare it to special force operations, surgical bombings, etc. If we're going to be killing high profile targets, we absolutely should use drones.

The question is, should we be doing targeted killings at all?

[–]B0BtheDestroyer 14 ポイント15 ポイント  (16子コメント)

True, but drone warfare has reduced the cost and U.S. risk dramatically allowing surgical strikes to be used much more frequently. They have not created a new problem, but amplified an old one.

[–]thebretandbutter 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (12子コメント)

Surgical strikes in the sense of more drone strikes, you mean right? I agree, it's lowered the threshold for violence. But then you would have to decide if the increase in drone strikes due to the lower cost ends up killing more innocents through collateral damage than a regular amount of tactical strikes/operations would.

I also think there's a general stigma around drones because it is mechanical, lifeless, etc. certainly in places where, ya know, we're killing innocent people... but in terms of sheer collateral damage, I don't think it's the worst. But again, I'm not convinced we should be doing these types of operations at all, drones or special forces or whatever.

[–]B0BtheDestroyer 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (11子コメント)

I agree. As far as weapons go, I don't have a problem with drones in theory. I have a problem with how they are being used. The fact that they are drones just makes it easier to abuse them without human cost to the U.S. American people.

I have known people who have lived in Pakistan for a few years during the drone strikes and the average civilian lives in constant terror. They don't know where the U.S.'s enemies are. As far as they know, a drone strike could come at any time to any place.

[–][deleted] 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (0子コメント)

This is the first time I have seen a reddit thread end in people agreeing with each other. You two have my respect.

[–]Meepster23 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (9子コメント)

As far as they know, a drone strike could come at any time to any place.

I think this is the big problem is that it's damn scary. Try to put yourself in the shoes of a citizen in London or something during WW2 when they were under V2 rocket attack from the Germans. That was scary ass shit at the time and is the equivalent of drones now. It's a "new" technology that people don't fully understand and it can kill people therefore it is literally terrifying.

My only issue with drones is that because they tend to be flown/controlled from bases inside the US and the drones are halfway across the world, you can end up with some less then ideal latency issues. Make naval ships house the drone operators and put them close to where the drones are operating and I'd be much more comfortable.

[–][deleted] 39 ポイント40 ポイント  (66子コメント)

That website backs up drone strikes for me.

The "other" targets are not civilian targets. So that leaves militant targets with the overwhelming majority, >76%.

The small number of high profile targets is quite obviously going to be small. There is not going to be a high number of high profile targets to even kill. That is why they are high profile.

It is unfortunate that civilians are killed however it makes no differance if it is from a manned fighter/bomber or an un manned drone.

The aircraft pilot will see almost identical information to the drone pilot (Probability less due to space restrictions) .

Another point is that the Taliban have probably killed many times more civilians than NATO forces during their consistent barrage of suicide attacks.

EDIT: Grammer

[–]Sha-WING 76 ポイント77 ポイント  (50子コメント)

It's funny how this Muslim man can so eagerly point out the US's civilian casualties, while completely unintentional, and somehow move right over the fact that suicide bombers of his own country and religion directly attack hospitals, schools, women, children and more. There was a surveillance video I remember watching of a hospital that came under attack by some terrorists in a truck. They walked up into the hospital with injured and sick and began executing the nurses and others as they walked through. I don't think anything has ever made my blood boil so hot and quickly. I wish the very worst that hell has to offer to individuals like that.

Edit: Source. You can see one man calmly walk up to a group of people and as nonchalantly as most say hello, he tosses a grenade in the middle of them. I'm normally a calm person, but I would love nothing more then to watch each one of them be executed in the most painful form.

Edit2: I was NOT generalizing all Muslims. I was merely talking about the extremists that seek to murder others in the name of religion. I was simply pointing out that the Muslim man that used the current popularity of these captured girls to try and rile up the US hate train by spewing nonsense comparing how we "murder" civilian Muslims to in the name of freedom when he should be more concerned with how his own people actively try to murder they own populace.

[–]Semajal 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Dunno why but more people should also be aware of shit like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_Bangladesh_Liberation_War

And accept that the US is really not somehow the only country that does bad shit.

[–]piyochama 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

And accept that the US is really not somehow the only country that does bad shit.

Quite frankly, I link to this article as well. Unfortunately, its hidden behind a paywall.

Essentially, the TL;DR is that like it or not, the U.S. is the only remaining global superpower that all parties internationally are (somewhat) willing to tolerate, and with that privilege comes responsibilities. One of those, is global policing power while the U.N. and other multi-national governmental organizations get their shit together.

[–]HappyCatFish 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (26子コメント)

Excuse me, but I feel the need to point out that radical extremists in any country cannot ever be assumed a representation of that country's population. Would you feel comfortable being compared to members of the KKK for being a white American? Or a fascist Neo-Nazi for being born in Germany? Even though the amount of radical Muslims hiding in the borders of middle eastern nations is enough to be a percentage of the population, there have been equal if not greater atrocities committed by groups bred out of whatever country you identify with.

[–]metans 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Right, but he didn't say that the Muslim extremists were representative of all Muslims or all people of one country or another. Nobody is saying bomb all the Muslims, nobody wants civilians to get hurt. But the extremists are killing many innocent people themselves; nobody ever seems to protest against that, and when they do they are labelled as bigoted, ignorant, racist, anti-Muslim, etc. There may well have been "equal or greater atrocities" carried out by his county, your country, or my country, but that is irrelevant. We are talking about what is going on in this picture. The comment above gives more perspective, and at least makes you think it over before just siding with the guy with the sign because military=automatically bad.

[–]piss4njoymtNOTmplymt 74 ポイント75 ポイント  (30子コメント)

Yeah? Let's just switch back to ww2 style carpet bombing. Spending billions of dollars to reduce civilian casualties is not enough?

[–]B0BtheDestroyer 35 ポイント36 ポイント  (11子コメント)

There is a big difference because we are not at war with Pakistan.

[–]subiklim 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (0子コメント)

No, we're not. Otherwise they would not allow the USA to fly their drones from Pakistani bases.

[–]clayblaster 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (0子コメント)

No. We're at war with various NGOs in Pakistan.

[–]Thisbymaster 31 ポイント32 ポイント  (8子コメント)

Really? Then why do the Taliban living in Pakistan come over the border to attack people in Afghanistan? Why did they hide the most wanted criminal for 10 years? Why do they not police or control THEIR territory just so they can try to extort money out of the west? This is a war on people holding on to a past that is no longer needed.

[–]B0BtheDestroyer 13 ポイント14 ポイント  (3子コメント)

If you think that is the case, you should start the rallying cry for war rather than justifying extensive bombing of a country we are officially at peace with.

[–]clavalle 51 ポイント52 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Trouble is, we are not at war with a country. The US would love to have something as coherent and manageable as a country to go to war with.

Instead the US is at war with a movement. That movement takes many forms and has many leaders and many allies. Some of those allies happen to have positions of power in the Pakistani government. It so happens that the US also has allies in that same government.

IOW the situation is complicated and trying to reduce it to mesh with past conflicts with nation-states is absurd.

[–]Mikeymcmikerson 17 ポイント18 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Correct. The war in Afghanistan was a war against radical Islam. You can put a soldier in ever square meter in Pakistan, Afghanistan, or Libya but that will not be enough because religion has no borders, it's not a structured government that will surrender, there is no figure head to take out.

[–]Dicond 28 ポイント29 ポイント  (61子コメント)

So guilty until proven innocent? I think they got that backward.

[–]KageStar 19 ポイント20 ポイント  (24子コメント)

Well, our Bill of Rights/Constitution only extends to citizens of our country.

[–]drewcifer1986 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Unless you're considered an enemy combatant. Isn't that how they justified drone strikes on American citizens who turned into jihadists?

[–][deleted] 16 ポイント17 ポイント  (11子コメント)

Assuming military aged males surrounding a known terrorist leader are combatants seems to be a pretty reasonable assumption to me.

[–]cujo195 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (8子コメント)

A fancy website doesn't make it legitimate.

> "The Obama administration classifies any able-bodied male a military combatant unless evidence is brought forward to prove otherwise."

If that was true, then the war would have been over a long time ago. The solution would have been very simple. But our problem is that our enemies intentionally hide among the innocent, and we have a difficult time identifying and attacking them without killing the innocent people around them.

Edit: Since my comment, I see you've added a couple of sources. Neither of them even support your accusation of "... any able-bodied male a military combatant unless..."

[–]B0BtheDestroyer 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (6子コメント)

Our enemies do hide among the innocent, but that does not absolve us of moral culpability.

[–]cujo195 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Right, that's why we take measures to prevent/minimize civilian casualties. Do you have any idea how many missions have been called off because of the risk of killing non-combatants?

Like I said, if we didn't care about the civilians, this war would have been simple. Our military could easily have destroyed their country in the blink of an eye.

[–][deleted] 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (2子コメント)

That quote is not anything from a legal doctrine. It's just something someone made up at some point that circulates through the internet.

Unless you can quote a law or administration official making this statement, it's just random internet bullshit.

It would be like me just making up whatever I thought was a persons rational and selling it as fact, then taking my opinion and putting some cute web graphics to it and pretending it's a factual statement.

[–]B0BtheDestroyer 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent.

From this article from the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.

That is not law or administration, but it is from a NY Times investigative journalist. IMO, that is a little more credible than "random internet bullshit."

[–]DoctorExplosion 38 ポイント39 ポイント  (15子コメント)

Check their website. One of their defining principles is "Reviving the Obligation of Jihad".

http://www.mpacuk.org/about-mpacuk.html

These aren't normal people we're talking about here, so of course they're going to minimize the actions of Muslim terrorists and engage in whataboutism.

[–][deleted] 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (6子コメント)

Except Jihad isn't about holy war. It is a religious word that has been bastardized first by extremists, and then in the west through these extremists. Just like the word Fatwa, it ain't what you think it means.

[–]FluidHips 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (4子コメント)

So much for giving the full definition they offered:

Jihad means the struggle for justice in the way of Allah, and MPACUK aims to empower Muslims to fulfil this Islamic obligation through intelligent political action to protect the Ummah. We believe that pro-active engagement in mainstream media and politics, as active citizens, is the most effective solution to bring about an ethical foreign policy, defend civil liberties and combat Islamophobia.

Read more: http://www.mpacuk.org/about-mpacuk.html#ixzz31QYucfqF

[–]DoctorExplosion 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (3子コメント)

I get the whole "reclaiming" jihad to just mean struggle, but given their overall inflammatory language (anyone who criticizes them is automatically an Islamaphobe or Zionist) I'm just not buying it that this is a harmless civic group. I'm not saying they're violent, I'm just saying these are probably the sort of people pushing to apply shariah to Britain's public schools- that's not an exaggeration by the way, about 5 schools were recently infiltrated by people with that agenda in Britain, and the country as a whole is full of radical Islamic civics groups like that.

[–]AliasUndercover 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Oh, so they push for Jihad to fight Islamophobia. Great tactic, there, fellas!!

[–][deleted] 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

That's all just standard religious fundamentalism. It's not in any way unique to Islam.

One of the huge flaws in religion is how hiveminded people can act if they feel they have god on their side. They can easily supersede any base human morals and herd instincts. Humans do have natural tendancies to want to contribute for the greater good, one of the best examples is how we are programmed at the most basic level to care about and protect children. It's hard to invoke more rage from a human than when you harm children, this is a genetic trait, not merely learned behavior.

Religion has the power to supersede these basic genetic moral codes due to the power of blind faith. If you truly believe in god and you are convinced he wants you to kill your child, you are obligated to kill your child. It's an odd evolution of things like burial rights into complex hierarchical beliefs which at clearly at odds with natural law.

One of the downsides of being an imaginative creature is being able to be convinced and convince others of things that disobey natural law.

[–]EltaninAntenna 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

They're trying to equate unintentional consequences of war

Not defending the stupid, trollish pic, but that's like saying "unintentional consequences of drunk driving". You may not have been aiming at crashing into an incoming van, but you're still responsible. All the consequences of war are the responsibility of those who engage in it. "Unintentional" is meaningless.

[–][deleted] 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (31子コメント)

I think that goes too easy on the Obama administration's perpetuation of the illegal drone assassination program. However, I agree that collateral deaths as a result of military action--even illegal military action--are not comparable to the kidnapping, rape, torture, and sale of children. While equally tragic, they are absolutely not morally equivalent.

EDIT - Changed "perpetration" to "perpetuation;" I meant the latter and mistyped. Once someone brought it to my attention it drove me nuts.

[–]macallen 18 ポイント19 ポイント  (21子コメント)

They're not illegal, that's the point. They are 100% within the laws written during the Bush administration, written, voted upon, and passed by our elected officials. They are the law of the land, making them legal.

They are also not unConstitutional, because the Patriot Act has been signed into law and not repealed or reversed by the Surpreme Court.

Edit: To clarify my point...WE did this. This is OUR fault. If we don't want these results, we need to elect different people to do it. Saying THEY did this is passing the buck to "someone else" when there is no one else, anywhere, who can fix this for us.

[–][deleted] 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I agree with your last point; the people of America needs to be better informed, more involved, and elect leaders that won't do these kinds of things.

However, the legality of the programs is not so cut and dried. I'm an attorney and constitutional scholar and feel qualified to make professional judgments on these issues. As such, I feel the Patriot act is unconstitutional, but it is, indeed, the law of the land and has not been repealed or invalidated by the Supreme Court. You are correct in that regard. On the other hand, the drone program is absolutely illegal under international law. It amounts to military force being used on foreign nationals within the boundaries of nations with which we're not at war without their consent. That is an illegal act of aggression which allows the offended country to retaliate militarily. Obama is well within his powers--and, I believe, his duty as commander-in-chief--to stop them, Bush-era laws be damned.

[–]Levelek 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (18子コメント)

American Law is not the only law at play. The drone strikes are unambiguously illegal under international law, and represent an infringement of Pakistan (and other nations') sovereign rights as nations. Just because some American lawmaker passed a law doesn't make something legal from an international perspective, and drone strikes perpetrated by one nation on the citizens of another nation are clearly not subject to US domestic law. These drone strikes are subject not to American law, but to Pakistani (or in the other nations where they occur) and international law. American laws are utterly irrelevant.

[–][deleted] 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (3子コメント)

I don't see the practice of killing fundamental militants who use innocents as shields as being equally as tragic as targeting children for rape.

But I do think just ignoring them would be as effective or more effective than bombing them. Our focus should be simply to secure US interests directly, not attempt to eliminate ideological beliefs with bombs. I just find that view more efficient. I'm not overly concerned with the idea that people who use innocent people as shield results in getting innocent people killed. Perhaps if the common population of these areas would learn to reject militants they would not be in harms way so often.

If you're living in the same house as a terrorist I don't have much faith in the idea that you are really all that innocent unless you are truly being held captive. If I was in a simple village and militants moved in, I'd want them removed. To be brutally honest, if that involved some of my neighbors dying, I would still consider that an action for the greater good because the militants themselves will have a negative impact on my village in so many ways and potentially for decades or centuries if they are allowed to grow and fester into society.

[–]mrbooze 41 ポイント42 ポイント  (9子コメント)

Granted, far far far far far more girls have been killed, mutilated, enslaved, etc in Muslim countries overall, but...let's not talk about that.

[–][deleted] 25 ポイント26 ポイント  (8子コメント)

Yeah, let's ignore the fucking regular stonings/beheadings/etc of young women for absolutely ridiculous reasons that happen in muslim countries EVERY fucking DAY. Shit, their culture is practically built around it!

God, the flippant hypocrisy of them never ceases to astound.

[–]rasputin777 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (2子コメント)

The very nature of these stupid printout hash tags that the white house and state Dept. keep posting is to minimize thoughtful discussion and play to emotion. Guy is just working at their level.

[–]FtMyersMuffDiver 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Imagine if hard numbers were readily available. oh wait...

[–]SquidwardSnowden1 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (1子コメント)

There are hard numbers about the amount of people boko haram have killed over the years in rural Nigeria? Please enlighten me and post a link

[–]FtMyersMuffDiver 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (0子コメント)

My bad I thought you were talking about official civilian casualty reports from drone strikes, disregard my comment

[–]czarina09 229 ポイント230 ポイント  (169子コメント)

I don't support the war in Iraq or Afghanistan, so more than Obama being held responsible it should be Bush who gets pelted for that. However in such a situation, Obama or the army haven't gone targeting women or girls specifically. It is sad that the loss of lives are part of collateral damage. However Boko Haram have targeted girls specifically. So rather than raising worldwide awareness and anger towards Boko Haram, you get fools like these rallying their personal issues. Priorities.

[–][deleted] 36 ポイント37 ポイント  (8子コメント)

Boko Haram doesn't target girls. They slaughtered all the boys in the school. Girls just have sale value in sex slavery. They target education.

[–][deleted] 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (4子コメント)

And yet nobody seems to be talking about the boys...

[–]nikobruchev 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Well, to be fair, dead is dead... the girls could still potentially be saved.

You can condemn a group till the end of the earth for slaughtering a group of people, but it won't bring them back. I'm not saying we should ignore what happened to the boys, I'm just saying I can understand why there is so much focus on the girls at this particular point in time.

[–][deleted] 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (2子コメント)

To be fair, no one is even talking about the boys. They're not even an afterthought. They're completely absent from the conversation. Why is this? Because men (and boys) are considered disposable.

[–]DelishLegalFiction 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm pretty sure this was an all girls school. They did however slaughter around 59 boys from a school in february.

[–]Jvorak 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Oh fuck I was hoping this wasn't the case...

[–][deleted] 88 ポイント89 ポイント  (89子コメント)

Thank you. I'm so fucking sick of the anit-'murica circle jerk that completely eliminates the possibility of constructive dialogue. The war in Iraq was illegal and the invasion of Afghanistan was ill-conceived, but those can't be blamed on Obama. I'm also opposed to the drone assassination program--which is also illegal under international law. However, it's idiotic to compare it to the kind of terrorism that Boka Harram is responsible for. The former is bad policy motivated by expediency and military hegemony; the latter is barbarism, pure and simple.

[–][deleted] 18 ポイント19 ポイント  (8子コメント)

I'm honestly just sick of seeing the 'anti-Obama' movement which feels more like a weird propaganda war. I feel bad for Bush, Obama, and whoever else runs next because this country is very 'anti-President' regardless of who is in the White House and they get saddled with so much shit that isn't even within their control. A good example is the Debt Limit which everyone wants to blame Obama for but if you look at the Debt Limit it's completely in the control of Congress and the President literally just is the asshole who's job it is to enforce it.

Now I'm not saying that the presidents are innocent of everything and that nothing is within their control but when the country can't decipher what power the Congress has and what power the President has they (the president) literally can never do anything right.

And I'll admit it's getting harder and harder to support Obama with the NSA problems and Snowden effect but to use something the first lady does to try to help the world to shame her husband is absolutely disgusting in my eyes. Secondly I would really like someone to do the math and see how many 'Muslim' girls Obama has killed because I highly doubt the accuracy of the claim.

anti-'merica circle jerk

Is precisely what I feel this country has come to and since people know so little about how our government works all the anti-government/president bullshit just looks like the 'flavor of the moment' when I see people post shit like this.

Even though I disagree with your position on drones and Iraq (I feel Saddam needed to be removed. I disagree with the unneeded lies that were told to get us there and feel it was handled poorly, but I do think the death of Saddam was needed) I'm pleased to see someone who hasn't fallen into this weird "the President has all power" fallacy. I wish this country had more people like you.

[–]OrkBegork 29 ポイント30 ポイント  (45子コメント)

Exactly. Acting like Obama could have just strolled in and instantly dismantled all military involvement in the middle east, is nonsense... and while there are serious issues with things like the drone program, acting like we should just ignore Islamic terror groups is stupid.

It's the kind of childish, oversimplistic thinking that's better off staying in /r/conspiracy.

[–]Semajal 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm english and I am sick of the anti America circle jerk. I saw similar pictures to this being circulated except it was the Michelle one photoshopped with "my husband has killed more girls than Boko Haram"

Of course you can't argue with the people who post it as they like to feel self righteous and edgy.

[–]bonga_fett 15 ポイント16 ポイント  (3子コメント)

If you think Bush is responsible then you're just as much on the bandwagon as everyone else. The problems in the 'stans started back in the 60s and 70s.

[–]TheOnlyPanda 14 ポイント15 ポイント  (25子コメント)

Most civilian casualties during Obama's term have been caused by poorly executed drone strikes. That's what I'm guessing the guy is talking about.

[–]mrbooze 13 ポイント14 ポイント  (15子コメント)

How many civilian casualties would there have been from traditional bombing and missile strikes?

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Obama or the army haven't gone targeting women or girls specifically.

However Boko Haram have targeted girls specifically.

Boko Hara butchered boys too.

So I guess they're targeting girls specifically by...treating them better than boys?

[–]esoteric_enigma 69 ポイント70 ポイント  (43子コメント)

You can't really equate the unintentional collateral damage of war with the very intentional criminal act of kidnapping.

[–]Mitchellonfire 83 ポイント84 ポイント  (3子コメント)

You can if you are an idiot.

So it's a fucking field day for reddit.

[–]bureX 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (3子コメント)

collateral damage

I hate this term with a goddamn passion.

Especially after seeing the footage from the July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike.

[–]maraSara 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yes, because history started yesterday and nobody fucking knew what wars were all about, or how to weight the benefit of firing a rocket into a funeral with 5 terrorists in the crowd and fifty random civilian relatives.

[–]the_one_54321 107 ポイント108 ポイント  (15子コメント)

I think that claim may be a little dubious.

[–][deleted] 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I find it hard to believe the band that recorded Whiter Shade of Pale could be responsible for such a tragedy.

[–]neutronfish 62 ポイント63 ポイント  (34子コメント)

Classic tu quoque fallacy in action. Because person X did something terrible or wrong, it excuses or at least diminishes the harm caused by person Y by comparison.

Two wrongs don't make a right, and I'm pretty sure that not everyone killed in drone strikes was an innocent bystander just minding his or her business and randomly blown up just for fun.

[–]OceansOnPluto 88 ポイント89 ポイント  (46子コメント)

Jesus the internet sucks sometimes. I get it, people have mixed feelings about Obama and the fact that his presidential record hasn't been the greatest.

But his wife was just trying to speak out on the kidnapping of nigerian school children. Does she deserve to be mocked for that? Isn't that the sort of thing that maybe, in times past, wouldn't have been made fun of and attacked so much?

I understand this man's anger but there are better places to put it, and better causes to attack. What happened in Nigeria is heinous and awful, and the fact that we're paying attention to how "gif-able" Michelle Obama's picture was than the actual KIDNAPPING OF SCHOOL CHILDREN makes me sick.

Edit: Okay, I am in no way saying this man does not have a legitimate beef with Obama or that he's not right. But there are better avenues for this.

[–]PostHipsterCool 42 ポイント43 ポイント  (12子コメント)

If this conversation is going to be about Muslim girls, how about the number of Muslim girls killed by Muslims? Over 11 million Muslims have been violently killed in conflict over the last 60 years, and 90% of them have been killed by fellow Muslims.

[–]Important_Matters 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (3子コメント)

[Citation needed]

[–]Meganick410 20 ポイント21 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Overruled. OP provided no citation.

[–]Xioola 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

You gonna back that up with a source?

[–][deleted] 50 ポイント51 ポイント  (20子コメント)

In February, about 60 boys were killed by the same group that captured these girls, yet we never heard about it. When females get captured it's all over the media(not hating on females, just making a point). If you search U.S and Nigeria on google you will get tons of hits about the capture of girls. If you search "Boys killed in Nigeria" you will still get hits about girls! and you even had to be specific in your search! And on top of that you will rarely see the word "boy". It says "children", "students", "pupils" !? what does that imply!? That men are disposable! Ouch.

[–]rodmandirect 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (2子コメント)

What about the common belief that the American media will focus on the abduction/murder of pretty white girls, but brutal crimes against minorities get ignored?

[–]its_all_moot 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

That's not a belief, that's true. Once in a while a black girl will be featured, but man, she has to be super cute though to make the cut. Sad but true.

[–]DeltaForcePanda 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Men/boys only exist as a group when they do something bad. Otherwise the word men/boys gets switched out for gender neutral titles. For example, statistics came out about work place deaths and something like 5000 deaths occurred and less than 500 of them were women. The article didn't mention that most of them were men, if those were crime statistics you can bet your ass they'd make sure the reader knew most of them were men. Likewise, if most of the workplace deaths were women, that's what the article would be focusing on.

[–]ForFUCKSSAKE_ 43 ポイント44 ポイント  (26子コメント)

Yes, Obama the famous girl kidnapper/killer.

[–][deleted] 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Good.

[–][deleted] 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I have opinions, is this the place?

[–]Phoequinox 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Blank expression and thousand-yard stare while presenting an argument that essentially says "You deserve it." in regards to kidnappings. This guy is exactly what gives Arab culture such a negative Western stigma. I know he doesn't speak for everyone, but this is the kind of shit that makes people think they're all evil rapists and suicide bombers over there. I am in no way defending anyone's right to be a judgmental twat, but both sides need to push and pull to come to an understanding. Don't give this dickhead any attention.

[–]Malfoy_Franco 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Reddit gets more retarded daily.

[–]stupuff 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I have seen them treat 'their' women worse than anyone else could with my own eyes. In North America AND in the Middle East. But go ahead, point out the flaws and sins of others when you are no better and in some ways much worse. Hypocrite anyone?

[–][deleted] 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

[–]dont_forget_canada 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (0子コメント)

get this shit off /r/pics

[–]niggajewarab 47 ポイント48 ポイント  (3子コメント)

screw this guy

[–]bebopdebs 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (2子コメント)

ur name though.

[–]I_Up_Vote_Porn 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Maybe he's tolerant to niggas, jews and arabs?

[–]bigollurch 16 ポイント17 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Lamarr Fariq Bernstein

[–]Chester2707 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Give me a fucking break with this.

[–]tinfang 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yep, Shariah law does not need help killing their women and girls. Shame on you Obama.

[–]britishimperialist 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

A good juxtaposition which, judging by the angry denunciations, seems to have struck its target.

It's often said that one shouldn't hold a country's people responsible for the wrongdoings of its politicians. Why this should apply to a democracy is unclear; as we see here, there are plenty of US citizens ready to defend terrorism when perpetrated by their government. And of course, most of them vote for it.

[–]Misc_Rodriguez 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (1子コメント)

What's "Wahhhhhmbulance" in Arabic?

[–]Trentos 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (4子コメント)

No comments about "Muslim"? That word does not need to be in there and the statement would probably be more true if it wasn't. It always surprises me when people segregate themselves.

[–]Dhcopeland 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (2子コメント)

The majority of the kidnapped girls are Christian, which the media is choosing not to mention all to often. Cause no one wants to admit it could be about religion.

[–]FleasJohnson 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Your religion has fucked over more little girls than Obama ever could

[–]StrangerInHighPlace 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Your fellow Muslims have killed more Muslim girls than any other person or country.

Go fuck yourself.

[–]mechuy 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

it's only cool when another "muslim" does it?

[–]marc120 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (0子コメント)

How is this cheap provocation so high up?

[–]Kindle282 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Muslims have been killing more of their own kind than Obama/US ever could. Including women and children. While driving their own countries into oppressive religious regimes that often times indirectly/directly support the very same types of groups blowing up Muslims in other Muslim countries.

Hate on Obama though. Such a meanie bringing awareness to yet another fanatical Muslim in yet another shithole country ravaged by fanatical Muslims who kidnapped a bunch of girls to sell in the sex trade. Should of just kept his murderous non-Muslim mouth shut!

[–][deleted] 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Okay.... So on the back side does he also say that kidnapping children and threatening to sell them into marriages just because theyve participated in Getting an education is bad?

This guy comes off like he couldnt give a fuck.

[–]gtfo-atheist-douches 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Hashtags and crying muslims. Holy shit what a horrible picture.

[–]dallasdano 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Seems to me that the there are some followers of Islam who are pretty quick to kill their own girls. Taliban anyone? Fuck this guy!

[–]willnotwashout 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

How much weight do you put on the idea that other country's proxy wars all over the middle east, northern Africa, and Afghanistan created a climate in which extremists could thrive?

[–]OFJehuty 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Maybe they should focus on making their own country less of a rampaging shithole and stop killing each other before they start pointing their fingers.

[–]bigtaterman 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (16子コメント)

TIL Obama personally killed people. Fuck off.

[–][deleted] 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Neither did Hitler.

[–]iuyfdssiytsr 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (2子コメント)

From his perspective, he's just giving orders...

From the soldiers' perspective, they're just following orders...

Nice how no one is responsible.

[–]somebuddysbuddy 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (2子コメント)

The idea that because he didn't personally do it means he's not responsible is absurd.

[–]NapoleonTheCat 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (3子コメント)

If Bush can be blamed for numerous war crimes, why is it that Obama can't?

[–]houla1218 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Because he won the Nobel Peace Prize. Remember that? That actually happened!

[–]dldoxie2195 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

This is interesting and supports his claims: http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5292312

[–][deleted] 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Hashtag #tellyourmightyjihadistpalstostopwiththehidingincivilianpopulationcentersandwiththesuicidebombingsoracceptresponsibility.

Fuck you if you hide behind women and children and then act surprised when women and children are blown up to get to you. They're human shields, it's against the Geneva convention and the laws of war, but it makes great optics for the "oh we poor innocents keep getting blown up" media storm. Just fuck you.

[–]trash-juice 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (2子コメント)

false equivalence

[–][deleted] 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Why does it have to be equal for him to make this point? And are you saying thousands literally being blow to pieces by drone strikes is not as important as (200?) girls being kidnapped? How do you even measure which is worse, its not like we can stack their corpses on the big scale of human suffering and read out the results.

[–]lordgiggles 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Spoilers: muslims have killed more muslim girls then the united states ever can and will.

Furthermore enslaved them, castrated them, mutilated them, and tortured them worse then any amount of water boarding or bombs.

Islam is a shitty religion.

[–]BRAINALISHI 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (3子コメント)

"Then don't let legitimate targets use schools and other crowded civilian buildings as human shields" would be a solid comeback.

[–]RahvinDragand 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (2子コメント)

No one seems to understand how the government works. Obama doesn't just pick up the phone and tell the army to kill Muslims.

[–][deleted] 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

lol ok. Taliban commander leads group that kill ISAF troops, execute tribal leaders who support government, use civilian houses to launch attacks with civilians in them, escape using woman and children as human shields (seen this happen often,) forces people to fight, plants IEDs that kill civilians just as much as ISAF, beheads collaborators, kills ANA/ANP, kills Pakistani troops/police, convinces 14 year olds to do suicide attacks in both countries, ETC.

Commander stays in a house with his family or others and people whine when he gets smoked by a drone missile. To bad for his family but he should have found other work, or at least not have civilians close by him.

That's kind of like being in the military and having your family in your base, you cannot whine if they get killed even if you were the intended target.

[–]ColdDuckButter 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

When is the USA gonna get a thank you for all the fucking schools, wells, hospitals and other vital services that our men and women risked their lives for an ungrateful Afghanistan? That's right, acknowledging how much good the United States does isn't "Cool" anymore.

P.S. Don't try to claim the moral high ground on the US on account of Drones when people use children to suicide Mosques, Schools, and Hospitals over there.

[–]RossBoss95 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah obama is targeting muslim girls. Just slaughtering them. Poor muslims and their religion of peace

[–]ORDub 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

For all the pro-Obama folks who say there are no hard numbers, say he's a President of peace, etc.... sorry, but this is his reality....

http://drones.pitchinteractive.com/

[–]Ror2013 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

That is known in Latin as "tu quoque".