Popular Culture

The Weird Wide Web: ISIS Supporters Tweet About Robin Williams' Death

|

BagoGames, Foter

Behold, ye mighty, but don't despair. The Internet is weird and wonderful place where you can see things once unimaginable (and, no, I'm not talking about 4chan, you sickos). As you almost certainly know by now, legendary comedian Robin Williams died on Monday, likely having committed suicide.

By Tuesday, everybody found an angle to capitalize on, from suicide awareness to indignation about the media not respecting Williams' privacy to critiques of celebrity worship. In the other corner, we have supporters of the militant jihadist group ISIS, also known as "the Islamic State," commenting. Many of them are glad that Williams is dead, citing some jokes he made 12 years ago about jihad. But, check this out (below right).

BuzzFeed screencap

Do you see that? It's a crack in the throat-slitting, black-flag-waving façade. To be sure, Abdullah, a.k.a. "@mujahid4life," is a "19-year-old British-born fighter" and "ISIS supporter" and he's serious about it. He's anti-democracy, pro-theocracy. He's got no time for "humanitarian international law" because in his mind, sharia law is number one. So, there's not much anyone from the West, a.k.a. the Great Satan, would normally have in common with this kid.

But right now he's bummed about the death of an American actor just as so many Americans are, and it became a channel for non-ideological, civilly-conducted, cultural dialogue. Instead of falling back on the war-ready rhetoric of his leaders or the United States', individuals communicated directly, asking him what other movies he likes.

The attention seems to have made Abdullah a bit giddy. He later tweeted:

They think i grew up somewhere in a mud hut so i never saw a movie whereas i've seen most of the flicks they ask. lol.

Now I'm actually worried that people will start to follow me because they wanna hear about my favorite movies instead of reporting jihad.

The world would much rather hear about your favorite movies, Abdullah. 

These Twitter talks won't stop wars, but they could help individuals pause, recall that the fighters on both sides of wars are young people who grew up laughing at the same films, and catch a glimpse of their humanity. It's hard to hate people up close. We'll never agree on a lot of things, and we don't have to try living together in kumbaya b.s., but if we really want to win the hearts and minds of our enemies, maybe we should drop copies of Mad magazine or DVDs of Disney movies instead of bombs.

Oh, and cheers to the radicals for publicly whining about Williams' anti-politically correct standup, thereby introducing it to a whole new generation of viewers.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

116 responses to “The Weird Wide Web: ISIS Supporters Tweet About Robin Williams' Death

  1. … recall that the fighters on both sides of wars are young people who grew up laughing at the same films, and catch a glimpse of their humanity.

    This makes it much more comforting for their victims, catching a glimpse of their humanity. I think this probably better illustrates the banality of evil.

    1. Without a doubt, it does that too.

    2. It’s the common ground we need to forcibly convert them to Quakerism.

      1. I love the Quakers! Their oats are without equal.

  2. Is this real life?

    1. Is this just fantasy?
      Caught in a landslide
      No escape from reality

        1. Look up to the skies and see!

  3. In all seriousness, Williams was at least partially a victim of our horrible family court system. One of the main reasons he was depressed and took his own life was because he was bankrupt. He was bankrupt because he had two ex wives take him to the cleaners in court.

    Williams was the guy who made the money. Yet, his wives who did nothing to earn any of it, got to take half or more of everything he ever earned and after two of them were through left him bankrupt. How is that fair or just? I am not saying they should have gotten nothing. But I fail to see how justice demands that every woman who marries a rich man should be guaranteed to be wealthy for the rest of her life on money her husband made.

    1. I guess that’s why they have prenup agreements…

      Though I could totally understand why someone — even someone as rich as Williams — wouldn’t want to distill a marriage into a financial arrangement. His battles with depression may have also deluded him into thinking the ex-wives completely loved him and would never try to financially destroy him and/or that it was his fault that the marriage ended and he deserved to lose the money. Depression is a f**ked up thing.

      1. It is. But I really don’t think it is just that a partner of either sex be able to take a huge chunk of money their partner legitimately made. It is just wrong.

        1. Reminds me of a bit Chris Rock (I think) did, along the lines of “Really? You’re accustomed to the lifestyle my money provided? Well I’m accustomed to fuckin’ you three time a week! Why should I have to keep payin’ for the pussy if I ain’t getting it anymore?”

        2. California. Pre-nups don’t mean shit. Community property.

          1. And pre-nups have no effect on “child support”, which can be used to nullify even a very strong pre-nup.

          2. This is wrong.

            Pre-nups are generally fully enforceable in California, as long as they’re entered into fairly (i.e., both sides have a lawyer). They can define separate and community property.

            1. You sure about that?

            2. He should have gone to Miles Massey.

              “Only love is in mind if the Massey is signed.”

          3. Lorne Malvo costs much less than a divorce attorney.

    2. He got married in California. A community property state. He should have known exactly what he was in for. I feel bad for the dude.

      The wife and I were discussing Williams yesterday. Our conclusion; it’s cheaper to keep her.

      1. He got bad legal advice and made poor decisions given the law. His inability to avoid the law, however, does not make the law any more just.

        1. Agreed.

        2. I doubt if it was bad legal advice. It was probably more like “Give me $X million dollars or I tell the press what you did when you were on your latest coke binge.”

      2. If they have no fault there, then he wouldn’t have even had that option.

    3. The law sucks, and is moving in the wrong direction. It made some more sense when divorce was rare and women weren’t generally expected to work and had fewer career opportunities. With easier divorce (which I think by itself is a good thing) there should have come less of an assumption that marriage is a lifelong financial commitment.

      1. The only contract where the party in breach of said contract can reap a windfall.

        Absurdly fucked up.

    4. I agree that the system is messed up, but if these women were just gold diggers there were probably signs early on before they got married. He could have had a pattern of poor judgment.

    5. Williams had coke and alcohol abuse problems. So my bet is that (A) the marriages were a mess and his wives divorced him with good reasons, and (B) they had a lot of leverage over him having probably witnessed and experienced his drinking and coke-binging.

      I wouldn’t be surprised if one or both of them had an abuse story they were threatening to release to the press.

      1. And I’m sure all those years of substance abuse had profound neurological effects. The kind that don’t re-wire one’s brain for the better.

        Based on the one time I met him, and every account of his behavior, he was a very kind person.

        He should have had a better end than this.

  4. I saw a picture yesterday of a pile of dead children, all between the ages of 4 and 8, left behind by ISIS in Iraq. Those bastards don’t pass my requirement for inclusion in humanity. Breeding true with h. sapiens is not a sufficient condition for being human.

    1. Sadly, doing that sort of thing to people who are not part of the tribe is all too human of a thing to do, as history shows.

    2. Breeding true with h. sapiens is not a sufficient condition for being human.

      This!

      1. So few have faced the gom jabbar at the appropriate age, so how can we be surprised?

        1. I failed the gom jabbar the first couple of times I took it. Then I got “Gom Jabbar for Dummies” and aced it.

          1. I objected at first that the Gom Jabbar was a “girl’s test”, but they assured me that I needed it to get into Business School.

  5. While this is a nice feel-good story, the fact is that cultural similarities can’t overcome political/ideological/religious differences.

    The German and Allied soldiers on the Western Front in WWI both loved to smoke tobacco and to watch Chaplin’s latest flicks. Heck, they’d (according to stories whose accuracy I don’t know) sometimes do these things together during lulls or ceasefires.

    Even today, many young Iranians — especially those in cosmopolitan areas — share far more in common culturally with their contemporaries in New York or Los Angeles than the mullahs. That wouldn’t stop them from calling for the destruction of the West if America ever attacked Iran, however.

    1. Considering Americans would be calling for the destruction of the Middle East if Iran attacked the continental US I don’t see how young Iranians are any worse than Americans in this regard.

      1. In that regard, no. We are different in that few Americans I know of are calling for the destruction of Iran regardless of whether they attack us. In contrast, Iran’s political leaders and presumably a good chuck of their population is calling for the destruction of America right now.

        1. America is currently enforcing a multitude of punitive sanctions against Iran for its alleged support of organizations labeled by America as “terrorist”. Whether that can be considered “attacking” Iran is a matter of opinion. I know I’d be kind of pissed.

          1. I am pretty sure the people Iraq are pissed that Iran is supporting terrorists who bomb their country. Moreover, Iranian special forces attacked and killed multiple American soldiers in Iraq and supported the insurgency there. Say what you want about the American invasion of Iraq, but it wasn’t an attack on Iran. So what gives them the right to get involved?

            Beyond that, if Obama were going around promising to wipe China off of the map, wouldn’t you as an American be a bit concerned by that? Wouldn’t you want to tell him to shut the fuck up and stop threatening countries with nuclear weapons? Or would you get angry at China for taking him at his word and taking actions to defend himself?

            1. So what gives them the right to get involved?

              Seriously? I mean… seriously?

          2. Iran’s “alleged” support of Hezbollah, which is only “terrorist” and not simply terrorist? Dude….

          3. “Alleged?”

            I don’t think anybody either in the Middle East or the West denies that a)Hezbollah is a terrorist organization and b)they get money and weapons from the Iranian government.

        2. This is incorrect. America’s “political leaders” want an endless war. This is why we have been at war since WWII. War is the health of the State. Sadly, the State has also brainwashed many Americans into believing that the commies are coming again. As well as the Muslims. They will crawl out from under your bed at night and slit your throat unless you let us carpet bomb them all. All one needs to do is look at any blog on politics that doesn’t have mostly libertarians posting to see this is true: The US is a blood thirsty nation.

          1. Yeah, the US was totally responsible for the cold war and the war on terror. No one else had anything to do with it. The world would be at peace if it wasn’t for blood thirsty America.

            Jeffrey, that is so fucking retarded it makes Shreek and Tony’s posts on here seem thoughtful and erudite. Go back to DU or Lew Rockwell or whatever fever swamp you came from.

            1. Red Tony brings out a one-two punch of straw man and ad hominem! KA-POW!

            2. You seem to be suggesting that the people at Reason want the US government to have armies of occupations throughout the world as it currently does, as well as terrorize the Middle East and fight the commies.

              I believe that YOU are at the wrong site, Sir. You are clearly out of your element here.

              1. No, not correct at all. John is absolutely right that you are framing the issue as if the United States is completely in control and the only nation that has any free will; the rest of world events are simply causal reactions to what “we” choose to do.

                And that is, to be nice, pretty unintelligent.

                1. If the US is not in control of itself then it should not be a “super power”. Nobody made the US invade Iraq and occupy it for a decade, even though Iraq never attacked the continental US. Sure, Iraqis attacked US soldiers that were occupying Iraq, however, this is no different than the founders attacking British troops that occupied America prior to the Revolutionary War.

                  To suggest otherwise is just plain silly.

                  1. f the US is not in control of itself then it should not be a “super power”.

                    Nobody said the US is not in control of itself. They just said other governments are also in control ot themselves. They are not inanimate objects, they have free will too.

            3. Yeah, the US was totally responsible for the cold war and the war on terror. No one else had anything to do with it.

              I do think that the US has made some very stupid foreign policy decisions since WWII, and that a lot of our problems are caused by those bad decisions.

              I don’t believe the US is “blood thirsty.” I think the same mistakes are being made in our foreign policy as with our domestic policy. We are a slave to the status quo. American society became bloated during the 20th century because the country was doing so well. All the perks that came with American society became “American interests” which all of sudden needed to be defended and preserved around the globe.

              Instead of saying to ourselves, “hey, we’re attracting a lot of smart people with good ideas. I’m glad because now our country can continue to find new solutions to problems.” we said “We’ve found a solution to most of our problems. I pray to God that those solutions are never taken away from us.”

              We started clutching to the status quo instead of adapting to whatever new problems were presented.

              1. I agree JEP. If you believe that our federal government is run by insane sociopaths when it comes to domestic policy you can’t argue that they magically transform into angelic beings when it comes to foreign policy. If they lie to you about the economy, unemployment, the FED, etc. then you can’t trust them when it comes to the wars that are created by the US government.

                All of them (politicians in D.C) should be water boarded continuously. Then thrown into prison for the crimes they committed against the individuals of this country.

                1. “If you believe that our federal government is run by insane sociopaths when it comes to domestic policy you can’t argue that they magically transform into angelic beings when it comes to foreign policy. “

                  The only people on this site you’ll find making any argument like that are the Obamapologist trolls who learned to stop worrying and love the drone. So kindly stow the straw men.

                  All the counter arguments made to your initial post above are tearing into your idiotic notion that Communism and Islamisn are somehow benevolent ideologies that only ever hurt anyone because Big Bad America MADE them do it.

            4. I don’t think he was saying that so much as saying the government engages in fear mongering to keep the public agreeable to a certain level of warfare. You can’t really deny that they have definitely been doing that since 9/11 at least.

              Saying we’re a blood thirsty nation is so much ridiculous hyperbole though.

              1. Saying we’re a blood thirsty nation is so much ridiculous hyperbole though.

                Goat herders on the receiving end of drone attacks might disagree. And I do remember people cheering while watching CNN when Bush the Elder started blowing shit up in Iraq. It’s all a matter of perspective I guess.

                1. Very good point Sarcasmic. We were told to cheer the incineration of innocent Iraqi woman and children. We were to have a Bob Hope special in celebration of the event.

                  BTW – Russell Kirk, considered by many to be the leading conservative thinker in the 20th Century, stated that Bush the elder should have been strung up on the White House lawn for war crimes because of what he did in Iraq.

              2. It started long before 9/11. If you remember we were told that the commies were coming to get us. Supposedly we won the Cold War without firing a shot, yet what were the Korean and Vietnam wars about if not a fight against communism and against the USSR, if only indirectly.

                Perhaps I was wrong to suggest that the US is a blood thirsty nation. I will take that back (if by US we are talking about the populous and not the government). However, no one can deny that the government is blood thirsty. And the government supposedly represents us. It kills in our name. This is unacceptable and cannot be defended, even by the most ardent neocon.

                1. I don’t think there’s a question that the powers-that-be are gaga about war. I just don’t necessarily see the US gov being any more so than anybody else, they just have the tools to actually carry out their fever dreams. (Basically war is the health of ALL states, as long as they are the aggressor and winning.)

                  1. No. The powers-that-be ARE gaga about war. These countries aren’t attacking the US. I guess it could be claimed that they are attacking “US interests” when our army of occupation is attacked. I’m sure the king of England thought the same thing when our founders attacked the British standing army here in the states.

                    Also, just because other countries want to concur and occupy the world, but don’t because they don’t have the capability to do so, doesn’t mean that our government should just because it can.

                    1. Also, just because other countries want to concur and occupy the world, but don’t because they don’t have the capability to do so, doesn’t mean that our government should just because it can.

                      And I said or defended that where?

                2. It kills in our name.

                  That’s what it’s supposed to do. You know..the whole things from George Orwell about “You sleep soundly in your beds knowing that somewhere rough mean stand ready to do violence on your behalf.”

                  The problem is that it stopped asking for permission.

                  1. cont.

                    It was a Republican Eisenhower who first warned of a Military Industrial complex (at least from a mainstream source). It was Republicans who wanted to stay the hell out of WWII. There’s a reason a goodly number of Founders warned of getting involved in foreign intrigues. But the necessity (to pay for domestic welfare) for a form of mercantilism has turned a need for a preparedness for defense into an endless use of offense. The US now acts as an empire. And it is slowly losing its grasp as all empires inevitably do.

                    We all want to believe in mom, and apple pie, and Suzy waiting back home for her dough boy to come home as the causes we fight for. But it stands that “war” is now fought by an entity which is separate from “the people” and wages hostile action in measured amounts for specific effects, and it does not have the feel of real protection to us citizens. It has more a feel of tactical strikes to benefit certain interests in a short run.

                  2. the comment two down should be read first, then continue below…

            5. There’s nothing like the waging of war for those who hate the USG to suddenly find virtue in what it does. Sort of like the death penalty – hate cops and prosecutors and judges etc, see corruption in terms of greed for power (DA’s), and yet thirst for the death penalty at the end of it.

              At the end of the day, I certainly want a level of government to provide for a common defense from aggressors. History shows that you have to defend yourself against aggressors who will try to lay hands on the assets and resources of other countries, so you need to be able to defend yourself. The act of laying their hands will likely come wreathed in a self-righteous cause to boot. It’s a dangerous world. But the trick is to not become werewolves in pursuit of defending against vampires.

              I certainly take some of the things I read on Lew Rockwell with a grain of salt (sometimes a salt lick is required), but it’s not just Lew Rockwell that discusses the connection between Welfarism and Warfarism. That it’s no coincidence that the US has made so many unfunded promises to their own people, beyond its productive capacity, that it has turned to smoke and mirrors to begin with, and is now required to us a great amount of broadcast Force to make the balance sheet even remotely balance.

          2. We have not been perpetually at war. Unless you count technicalities like the lack of a permanent peace treaty with N Korea, or Baathist Iraq afterDesert Storm. We had over a decade between Korea and Vietnam. And fifteen years between Vietnam and Desert Storm. Also over a decade between hostilities in Iraq

      2. True. It goes both ways. And the ones in power rely on the energy of the young (preferably not theirs, of course) to do the fighting and dying, of course…

      3. They’re not, but it’s a fairly intractable problem that throwing a feel-good “we’re all in this together” message an a couple of comedy films won’t solve.

    2. Sadly, ^this^.

    3. “Live and Let Live” wasn’t uncommon in the trenches depending on where the soldiers came from. Most people, spared the state’s manipulation and coercion, won’t kill. But I’m sure Hobbes would disagree.

  6. “but if we really want to win the hearts and minds of our enemies, maybe we should drop copies of Mad magazine or DVDs of Disney movies instead of bombs.”

    Sorry, I’m with Mark Steyn on this:

    It’s perfectly possible to find Robin Williams funny and still want to saw your head off. It’s always been like that: Saddam Hussein liked Frank Sinatra LPs and English “Quality Street” toffees. Hitler’s favorite operetta – “The Merry Widow” – was the “Cats” of its day in London and New York, complete with merchandising boom.

    Patsies like Bill Shorten think “assimilation” is about wearing baseball caps and listening to the same crappy pop songs as everybody else. It’s not. It’s not enough, and it never has been. A Robin Williams fan interrupting his decapitation of an Iraqi Christian to reminisce about “Jumanji” is both a tribute to pop-cultural imperialism and a reminder of its limitations.

    1. I am with Steyn as well. The 911 hijackers went to a strip club the night before their attack. These people don’t live by the rules they want everyone else to live by. So what? Fanatics almost never do.

    2. The Soviets were huge fans of American culture up until the Cold War, and tried to emulate large aspects of it.

      Evil is not so far removed from good in its aesthetics that the victory of our aesthetics guarantees a victory in our morality.

      1. The Immaculate Trouser|8.13.14 @ 11:29AM|#
        “The Soviets were huge fans of American culture up until the Cold War, and tried to emulate large aspects of it.”

        I wouldn’t use the term “culture” here; they were trying to emulate the economic success without the culture required to do so.
        They truly believed they could tell someone to be a Henry Ford at the point of a gun and he’d take the risks that Ford did.

    3. “Stalin inherited Goebbels’s movie library after the war; he loved Chaplin and films such as In Old Chicago (1937) and It Happened One Night (1934). In the archives, I found a document requesting Tarzan the Ape Man (1932).”

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cul…..-shot.html

  7. JUMANJI? Of all the Robin Williams films…

    1. See? Evidence of their evil.

    2. What year is it!?

  8. Actually it is pretty easy to hate people up close. I pretty much hate members of the left and those that support them. Thieving lying B@$T@RD$ that talk like socialists but act like fascists.

    They redistribute taxpayer money to their constituents, basically stealing from one group to give to another.

    Just about everything the seems to be designed to weaken the US; from their energy policy, regulations, immigration, and the failed welfare state they support.

    Class warfare is their trademark all designed to keep them in power. Problem is that this could blow up in there face… One day some people will be pushed to the edge and then the guns are going to come out.

    1. Relax, dpb. Armed revolution is still pretty far away.

  9. Romanian treasure hunter finds what could be oldest forged coins in history worth ?120,000 – and he’s going to spend it on a new metal detector

    Paul Croituru and 13-year-old son Alexandru dig up 300 ancient Greek coins
    Experts say each piece is worth ?400, making total hoard worth ?120,000
    But father told the authorities and will now only be given ?12,000
    He could have sold coins abroad but wanted to set ‘good example for son’

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..ector.html
    He thought he’d show a good example to his son by reporting the find to the local government which then took 90% of it for themselves, because fuck you that’s why. What is he trying to teach his son? To be a chump?

    1. I would hope they turned in the location where the coins were found so an archaeologist could do a proper dig, but after RTA I think my hope might be in vain

      1. “It belongs in a museum!”

        -Indiana Jones

    2. Wow, ancient Greek coins are very rare. Ancient Roman coins are quite affordable: http://www.dirtyoldcoins.com

      1. Thank you very much for that link.

        1. Isn’t that cool?

          1. By the end of the Empire it wasn’t worth squat. Damon fiat currency!

            1. They kept diluting the silver content.

  10. From the film Three Kings:

    Captain Said: Michael Jackson is pop king of sick fucking country.

    Sargeant Barlow: That’s bullshit, he did it to himself.

    Captain Said: You are the blind bullshit my main man. It’s obvious, a black man make the skin white and the hair straight, and you know why?

    Sargeant Barlow: No.

    Captain Said: Your sick fucking country make the black man hate hiself just like you hate the Arab and the children you bomb over here.

    1. “You shocked Santa’s Balls.”

      http://southpark.cc.com/clips/…..t=playlist

    2. It’s funny when members of vicious, violent, ignorant, backwards, intolerant, bigoted, genocidal cultures try and lecture Americans about tolerant behavior.

      Especially the ones that were in cahoots with Hitler during the war.

  11. Thanks for this, Jesse. Going back to your “The Audacity Of Friends” piece back in 2008, you’ve always seemed to get it.

    1. Hmmm, I saw Jesse tweet it, and I thought it was his. It’s that sort of attention to detail that something something.

  12. if we really want to win the hearts and minds of our enemies, maybe we should drop copies of Mad magazine or DVDs of Disney movies instead of bombs.

    I took exactly the opposite message from this. Obviously, many of these homicidal fanatics have been exposed, pretty thoroughly, to Western culture.

    Yet there they are, crucifying people, decapitating people, leaving piles of dead children behind.

    Why anyone would take this as suggesting that exposure to Western culture is some sort of prophylactic to being a homicidal fanatic, I have no clue.

    1. Cops are steeped in Western culture.

      1. Cops view you and I as enemy combatants.

    2. Recalibrate the sarcasm meter there, RC.

      Steyn’s point is that the things that made Western Culture great have been replaced by pop culture and promptly forgotten. So “Western Culture” is no longer about Liberty and the Rule of Law but about movie stars and reality TV.

      1. I’m not objecting to Steyn.

        I’m objecting to Jesse’s happy-clappy Pollyannaish statement that exposure to Western entertainment will convert barbarian killers into peace-loving cosmotarians, or something.

        On account of this story seems to comprehensively refute, not support, that idea.

        1. Ah, I thought your comment was strange. It was my interpretation of it that was off.

  13. British born fighter? How can we get more of these angels here?

    1. Immigration never has any drawbacks! It’s wrong to think one religion is worse than any other!

  14. “It’s hard to hate people up close.”

    I think I still hate this savage fuckstick, so…

    1. But all the FEELZ! He’s, like, a REAL PERSON. I didn’t know that before.

      Can we track his cell phone and do a surgical strike on this M*F*er?

    2. I suppose I need to insert a comment that you’re not *supposed* to hate your enemies, period.

      But loving justice sometimes requires doing harsh things, like killing people who are waging an unjust war. But you’re not supposed to get excited about it. At least that’s what I think the Pope would say.

      1. “I suppose I need to insert a comment that you’re not *supposed* to hate your enemies, period.”

        Oh, he isn’t my enemy. ISIS isn’t coming to the US in any significant way no matter what future FPS’s may jizz themselves speculating about. He’s an enemy of justice and basic human decency.

  15. People combine lots of things in their brain – love of American pop culture *and* a desire to kill infidels if they don’t spill their jizya all over your lap.*

    I don’t think, in itself, this means he’s any less head-choppy than his colleagues.

    I would like to imagine, however, a scenario in which this guy makes it to age 40 (a long shot, I admit) and says, “wow, I sure was dumb as a kid! I should have stuck to Robin Williams movies!”

    *OMG that was awful, I’m so sorry!

    1. You know, some people have youthful indiscretions that are like drinking too much booze, or getting really into political activism. Then once they get thrown in jail for a night after punching someone in the face or chaining themselves to a tree, they smarten up.

      For people like THIS? The rude awakening isn’t a night in jail, they either wake up when they get blown up, in the last 2 seconds of consciousness, or not at all. People this far out don’t come back.

  16. It’s hard to hate people up close.

    I’ve been informed that one is more likely to be murdered by a family member than a stranger.

    1. I’m a Marine. I hate lots of people on a daily basis that are close to me.

      Probably a cultural thing though.

  17. If watching robin Williams movies about mythical games and Vietnam can’t dissuade you going jihad then there really is no alternative to droning you and your whole family.

  18. Well Peace, Love, and Good Vibes then. Oh. And. Kill the infidels.

  19. dropping Mad Magazines would, I think, start WWIII and is one of the signs of the Apocalypse in the Gospel of John

  20. Well. There are so many points that we may find agreeing upon like for example environment.

  21. just a thought on the present movement, the so called Islamic caliphile cannot possibly be successful without the support of all islam. 1.6 billion muslims represent a force to deal with. Yahweh tells us of the impending conflict in Daniel. All previous caliphile movements have failed. caliph means the successor to Muhammad. If baba ala baba wants to succeed he needs to supply the world with a blood sample for genetic testing as to quantify his relationship to muhammed. My research indicates that he may indeed be related to muhammed, but on the wrong side of the family. Muhammed successor has to be on the patriarchal side of his family not of the matriarchal side as I believe is the case. Give us a sample of your blood to justify your behavior or no none will be able to support you.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.