(August 12, 2017 at 4:50 pm)Industrial Lad Wrote:(August 12, 2017 at 4:40 pm)Astonished Wrote: I'm aware of that, I was merely pointing out how stupid it is to think that anyone on our side should be afraid. We've got things in place to stop incoming projectiles before they get here, and tragic as it may be, retaliation would likely result in that place being annihilated. It's just too bad the people there are largely indoctrinated not to see the Dear Leader for what he truly is. Even if we killed only him, they're all primed to just continue worshiping the next asshole to come into power. If their lives are truly as miserable and devoid of hope as the picture paints it, it's almost like a mercy killing. Even if they were to be liberated, would that work? Or is that battered spouse mentality too deeply ingrained to ever be excised?
My guess would be the younger they are the better the likelihood they can get out of it.
But I don't think we should invade either.
In general, I think military action should be defensive.
Sorry if I'm barely coherent compared to usual. I haven't had much sleep.
I don't think I've conversed much with you so I wouldn't know any difference one way or the other.
One would hope the younger ones would see through it like they did in Iran, but aren't the younger ones in the throes of indoctrination?
Religions were invented to impress and dupe illiterate, superstitious stone-age peasants. So in this modern, enlightened age of information, what's your excuse? Or are you saying with all your advantages, you were still tricked as easily as those early humans?
---
There is no better way to convey the least amount of information in the greatest amount of words than to try explaining your religious views.
---
There is no better way to convey the least amount of information in the greatest amount of words than to try explaining your religious views.
