EPTOn October 16 2026 16:40 oBlade wrote:
You have concocted in your head that because you or someone else hysterically thinks it's the end of the world if it's broadcast, that I must think that it's the end of the world if it isn't broadcast. (And therefore that if it ends up not being broadcast, that I have to change what I believe.) I don't think that, and for related reasons I never said so.
You are reading newspapers with a strawman of a random internet poster in your brain, that behavior is pathological. I'll be clear for you. Executing the convicted terrorist Nidal Hasan on a live broadcast is a good idea. Meaning your random, obsessed, fucked up prediction was completely incorrect.
Show nested quote +
On October 16 2026 14:46 Acrofales wrote:
He might've been arguing for the sake of arguing. Which is what he does most of the time, but he was arguing pretty hard with people who thought it was a bad idea:
Sounds like approval to me.
No u
On October 16 2026 08:58 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
Has he actually expressed approval of the proposed livestream previously?
I would not be surprised if he genuinely always thought it was a bad idea and was opposed to it.
More baffling, is why the Secretary of Defense thought it was appropriate for the Department ofDefense War to start acting like a Cartel.
On October 16 2026 08:31 Acrofales wrote:
Trump taco'd the livestream of the firing squad. Queue oBlade coming to tell us how bad an idea it was, and he always opposed it.
Trump taco'd the livestream of the firing squad. Queue oBlade coming to tell us how bad an idea it was, and he always opposed it.
Has he actually expressed approval of the proposed livestream previously?
I would not be surprised if he genuinely always thought it was a bad idea and was opposed to it.
More baffling, is why the Secretary of Defense thought it was appropriate for the Department of
He might've been arguing for the sake of arguing. Which is what he does most of the time, but he was arguing pretty hard with people who thought it was a bad idea:
On October 10 2026 00:15 oBlade wrote:
The fact that certain people are going "buh entertainment" and even as far as "huehue fetishization" speaks only to the limits of their own understanding of violence.
You apparently believe a mass murderer has the natural right, or civil right, to have a private death, when sentenced to the death penalty. I disagree and don't believe the former exists. I believe the latter has largely not been adjudicated in US law. The reason it never caught on is just for content you could never broadcast an execution on public TV airwaves, which have been the dominant medium for most of a century. Before that, public executions were not abnormal. We do have audio tapes from some. But we have more diverse media now and aren't limited by the fact that you can't put certain mature content on public airwaves. Like you could have executions broadcast to the internet, or on a cable "Justice" channel, just like all the police body cam videos, of shootings, of police officers and criminals alike DYING, which are released in high quality regularly. You can pull up youtube right now and see the bodycam footage of human garbage executing a police officer in his car, after he stopped to help him on the side of the road. You can hear his last breaths. I don't remember that police officer being asked to consent to that.
For last meals, you have to eat food anyway, last meals are capped at like $40, it doesn't matter in any grand scheme of things.
Like the guy we are talking about, he has had 17 years of life that he denied to over a dozen people. He has had that much due process. In 2 years he will have lived LONGER SINCE the mass murder he perpetrated, than his youngest victim had lived until the day he SHOT THEM. You have misfiring compassion. The only reason we are talking about this now is he wasn't shot after a summary trial a maximum of one month after it happened, which is how these things should be handled.
In most jurisdictions and at the federal (and military) level you don't even have a right to choose the method. Many people have wanted firing squads but couldn't get them because they aren't done where they were convicted. That's interesting, but it plays no role in what I think. I am not guided by compassion for convicted mass murderers.
I legitimately don't know what this means. I don't know how a televised execution is anonymous or what a "silent death" is.
On October 09 2026 23:49 Acrofales wrote:
Knowing and agreeing are different things.
Do you think it's okay for someone's final moments to be used as entertainment (I was going to be charitable and say warning, but we can drop that charade, I hope?) without their consent? They can request a final meal, but not the dignity of a private death?
On October 09 2026 22:30 oBlade wrote:
I've never heard voyeurism described as horrific so the horrificness must be something else. Also voyeurism is when the people don't know they're being watched. Everyone involved here will probably be aware. This thread's penchant for weird sexual allusions continues to rear its head though I see.
We already have military released wartime footage. Like people in gunfights with the Taliban. Drone strikes on infantry soldiers. That could be called horrific, but war is horrific, that's life. The videos are public interest because the public has a right to know and understand the information in its true form rather than just a bland euphemistic sentence "Convicted terrorist executed today." Part of the government's job is killing people we have sentenced to death. The people should know what that looks like. Especially an asshole whose crimes are as high profile as this guy's were. The minute I ever break the oath of my uniform and murder over a dozen unarmed colleagues, please consider my right to have a private execution void. There is a public interest here.
On October 09 2026 21:47 dyhb wrote:
On October 09 2026 20:59 oBlade wrote:
I don't find that to be a big deal. You can just not watch it.
For example, you brought up ISIS. The main factor (for me, others might disagree) that made ISIS's jihadist media so evil was the torture and the murder. Not the fact that it was filmed and disseminated. They murdered thousands of people that they never filmed and uploaded and that wasn't better.
There’s something horrific about a televised execution, period. Voyeuristic. Firing squad, but limited to base personnel and military chain of command avoids that. On October 09 2026 20:43 Biff The Understudy wrote:
The point is not the execution it’s the live-streaming, Einstein.
On October 09 2026 20:11 oBlade wrote:
You very likely still do not even understand the relationship between the deficit and the debt.
That guy should have been executed years ago. Hopefully Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is next.
On October 09 2026 01:06 LightSpectra wrote:
We showed you hard data about the federal deficit over time that you didn't want to talk about, and now you're confounded about why you're getting "toxic one liners." I mean, the simplest answer for that is if you act like an animal, you'll get your meals served in a dog bowl.
We showed you hard data about the federal deficit over time that you didn't want to talk about, and now you're confounded about why you're getting "toxic one liners." I mean, the simplest answer for that is if you act like an animal, you'll get your meals served in a dog bowl.
You very likely still do not even understand the relationship between the deficit and the debt.
On October 09 2026 19:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Oh so the Nidal Hasan guy that went on a rampage a while ago will be executed by firing squad and apparently Pete the drunk Hegseth decided it would be live-streamed.
Because yeah, you know, public executions on the internet are not disturbing at all and a totally decent and normal thing to do. Doesn’t make you look like Isis or something.
I know we live in an era of ultrapartisanship where people’s brains shut off when their tribe is involved, but one has to be a real cunt to not be appalled by that clown.
Oh so the Nidal Hasan guy that went on a rampage a while ago will be executed by firing squad and apparently Pete the drunk Hegseth decided it would be live-streamed.
Because yeah, you know, public executions on the internet are not disturbing at all and a totally decent and normal thing to do. Doesn’t make you look like Isis or something.
I know we live in an era of ultrapartisanship where people’s brains shut off when their tribe is involved, but one has to be a real cunt to not be appalled by that clown.
That guy should have been executed years ago. Hopefully Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is next.
The point is not the execution it’s the live-streaming, Einstein.
I don't find that to be a big deal. You can just not watch it.
For example, you brought up ISIS. The main factor (for me, others might disagree) that made ISIS's jihadist media so evil was the torture and the murder. Not the fact that it was filmed and disseminated. They murdered thousands of people that they never filmed and uploaded and that wasn't better.
I've never heard voyeurism described as horrific so the horrificness must be something else. Also voyeurism is when the people don't know they're being watched. Everyone involved here will probably be aware. This thread's penchant for weird sexual allusions continues to rear its head though I see.
We already have military released wartime footage. Like people in gunfights with the Taliban. Drone strikes on infantry soldiers. That could be called horrific, but war is horrific, that's life. The videos are public interest because the public has a right to know and understand the information in its true form rather than just a bland euphemistic sentence "Convicted terrorist executed today." Part of the government's job is killing people we have sentenced to death. The people should know what that looks like. Especially an asshole whose crimes are as high profile as this guy's were. The minute I ever break the oath of my uniform and murder over a dozen unarmed colleagues, please consider my right to have a private execution void. There is a public interest here.
Knowing and agreeing are different things.
Do you think it's okay for someone's final moments to be used as entertainment (I was going to be charitable and say warning, but we can drop that charade, I hope?) without their consent? They can request a final meal, but not the dignity of a private death?
The fact that certain people are going "buh entertainment" and even as far as "huehue fetishization" speaks only to the limits of their own understanding of violence.
You apparently believe a mass murderer has the natural right, or civil right, to have a private death, when sentenced to the death penalty. I disagree and don't believe the former exists. I believe the latter has largely not been adjudicated in US law. The reason it never caught on is just for content you could never broadcast an execution on public TV airwaves, which have been the dominant medium for most of a century. Before that, public executions were not abnormal. We do have audio tapes from some. But we have more diverse media now and aren't limited by the fact that you can't put certain mature content on public airwaves. Like you could have executions broadcast to the internet, or on a cable "Justice" channel, just like all the police body cam videos, of shootings, of police officers and criminals alike DYING, which are released in high quality regularly. You can pull up youtube right now and see the bodycam footage of human garbage executing a police officer in his car, after he stopped to help him on the side of the road. You can hear his last breaths. I don't remember that police officer being asked to consent to that.
For last meals, you have to eat food anyway, last meals are capped at like $40, it doesn't matter in any grand scheme of things.
Like the guy we are talking about, he has had 17 years of life that he denied to over a dozen people. He has had that much due process. In 2 years he will have lived LONGER SINCE the mass murder he perpetrated, than his youngest victim had lived until the day he SHOT THEM. You have misfiring compassion. The only reason we are talking about this now is he wasn't shot after a summary trial a maximum of one month after it happened, which is how these things should be handled.
In most jurisdictions and at the federal (and military) level you don't even have a right to choose the method. Many people have wanted firing squads but couldn't get them because they aren't done where they were convicted. That's interesting, but it plays no role in what I think. I am not guided by compassion for convicted mass murderers.
On October 09 2026 23:49 Acrofales wrote:
Alternatively, the guy agrees to be publicly executed, do you feel they should be granted whatever twisted satisfaction/goals they are aiming for? Or, should they, especially if they agree to televised execution, be granted an anonymous and silent death?
Alternatively, the guy agrees to be publicly executed, do you feel they should be granted whatever twisted satisfaction/goals they are aiming for? Or, should they, especially if they agree to televised execution, be granted an anonymous and silent death?
I legitimately don't know what this means. I don't know how a televised execution is anonymous or what a "silent death" is.
On October 10 2026 13:50 oBlade wrote:
Decency towards whom? I stand up when someone joins the table. This guy shot 40 unarmed innocent people. I don't think "heckin' decency" applies. A society that executes mass murderers can afford to see how the sausage is made.
On October 10 2026 08:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I don’t expect you to find turning putting someone to death into a morbid spectacle on the internet indecent.
You have demonstrated time and time again that you don’t understand decency.
On October 09 2026 20:59 oBlade wrote:
I don't find that to be a big deal. You can just not watch it.
For example, you brought up ISIS. The main factor (for me, others might disagree) that made ISIS's jihadist media so evil was the torture and the murder. Not the fact that it was filmed and disseminated. They murdered thousands of people that they never filmed and uploaded and that wasn't better.
On October 09 2026 20:43 Biff The Understudy wrote:
The point is not the execution it’s the live-streaming, Einstein.
On October 09 2026 20:11 oBlade wrote:
You very likely still do not even understand the relationship between the deficit and the debt.
That guy should have been executed years ago. Hopefully Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is next.
On October 09 2026 01:06 LightSpectra wrote:
We showed you hard data about the federal deficit over time that you didn't want to talk about, and now you're confounded about why you're getting "toxic one liners." I mean, the simplest answer for that is if you act like an animal, you'll get your meals served in a dog bowl.
We showed you hard data about the federal deficit over time that you didn't want to talk about, and now you're confounded about why you're getting "toxic one liners." I mean, the simplest answer for that is if you act like an animal, you'll get your meals served in a dog bowl.
You very likely still do not even understand the relationship between the deficit and the debt.
On October 09 2026 19:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Oh so the Nidal Hasan guy that went on a rampage a while ago will be executed by firing squad and apparently Pete the drunk Hegseth decided it would be live-streamed.
Because yeah, you know, public executions on the internet are not disturbing at all and a totally decent and normal thing to do. Doesn’t make you look like Isis or something.
I know we live in an era of ultrapartisanship where people’s brains shut off when their tribe is involved, but one has to be a real cunt to not be appalled by that clown.
Oh so the Nidal Hasan guy that went on a rampage a while ago will be executed by firing squad and apparently Pete the drunk Hegseth decided it would be live-streamed.
Because yeah, you know, public executions on the internet are not disturbing at all and a totally decent and normal thing to do. Doesn’t make you look like Isis or something.
I know we live in an era of ultrapartisanship where people’s brains shut off when their tribe is involved, but one has to be a real cunt to not be appalled by that clown.
That guy should have been executed years ago. Hopefully Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is next.
The point is not the execution it’s the live-streaming, Einstein.
I don't find that to be a big deal. You can just not watch it.
For example, you brought up ISIS. The main factor (for me, others might disagree) that made ISIS's jihadist media so evil was the torture and the murder. Not the fact that it was filmed and disseminated. They murdered thousands of people that they never filmed and uploaded and that wasn't better.
I don’t expect you to find turning putting someone to death into a morbid spectacle on the internet indecent.
You have demonstrated time and time again that you don’t understand decency.
Decency towards whom? I stand up when someone joins the table. This guy shot 40 unarmed innocent people. I don't think "heckin' decency" applies. A society that executes mass murderers can afford to see how the sausage is made.
On October 10 2026 20:38 oBlade wrote:
I know you don't care about him. You care more about the random person on the internet that disagrees, because I am proximal to you, you can talk to me, you can put all your performative indignation into me. The mass murderer doesn't matter. It wasn't even in your country.
You are stuck on the fallacy of "entertainment." It's not. You fundamentally don't get anything. Moving on.
Level zero of decency and morality: Don't do mass murder
Bin Laden is a great one to bring up (again). He was shot with no trial. Want to do that more? If Obama had televised that he could have won a third term.
He was buried at sea so his GRAVE wouldn't become a holy place for jihad. Because he was the founder and leader of Al-Qaeda. Nidal Hasan isn't. He was a lone wolf. This guy has no movement behind him.
On October 10 2026 18:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I don’t care about him it’s you, and your country that are being degraded. You are the ones looking like medieval ghouls with the basest instincts to the rest of the world. He is gonna be dead either way. Turning his death into broadcasted entertainment is hurting you not him.
On October 10 2026 17:01 oBlade wrote:
See these weak, boring insults are what you think about a random person on the internet who disagrees with you. Imagine what I feel about someone who SHOT forty of my and his own countrymen, while they were serving their country and unarmed, while he was IN THE MEDICAL CORPS.
On October 10 2026 15:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Decency towards yourself. Not to be a God awful human being.
On October 10 2026 13:50 oBlade wrote:
Decency towards whom? I stand up when someone joins the table. This guy shot 40 unarmed innocent people. I don't think "heckin' decency" applies. A society that executes mass murderers can afford to see how the sausage is made.
On October 10 2026 08:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I don’t expect you to find turning putting someone to death into a morbid spectacle on the internet indecent.
You have demonstrated time and time again that you don’t understand decency.
On October 09 2026 20:59 oBlade wrote:
I don't find that to be a big deal. You can just not watch it.
For example, you brought up ISIS. The main factor (for me, others might disagree) that made ISIS's jihadist media so evil was the torture and the murder. Not the fact that it was filmed and disseminated. They murdered thousands of people that they never filmed and uploaded and that wasn't better.
On October 09 2026 20:43 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
The point is not the execution it’s the live-streaming, Einstein.
[quote]
The point is not the execution it’s the live-streaming, Einstein.
I don't find that to be a big deal. You can just not watch it.
For example, you brought up ISIS. The main factor (for me, others might disagree) that made ISIS's jihadist media so evil was the torture and the murder. Not the fact that it was filmed and disseminated. They murdered thousands of people that they never filmed and uploaded and that wasn't better.
I don’t expect you to find turning putting someone to death into a morbid spectacle on the internet indecent.
You have demonstrated time and time again that you don’t understand decency.
Decency towards whom? I stand up when someone joins the table. This guy shot 40 unarmed innocent people. I don't think "heckin' decency" applies. A society that executes mass murderers can afford to see how the sausage is made.
Decency towards yourself. Not to be a God awful human being.
See these weak, boring insults are what you think about a random person on the internet who disagrees with you. Imagine what I feel about someone who SHOT forty of my and his own countrymen, while they were serving their country and unarmed, while he was IN THE MEDICAL CORPS.
I don’t care about him it’s you, and your country that are being degraded. You are the ones looking like medieval ghouls with the basest instincts to the rest of the world. He is gonna be dead either way. Turning his death into broadcasted entertainment is hurting you not him.
I know you don't care about him. You care more about the random person on the internet that disagrees, because I am proximal to you, you can talk to me, you can put all your performative indignation into me. The mass murderer doesn't matter. It wasn't even in your country.
You are stuck on the fallacy of "entertainment." It's not. You fundamentally don't get anything. Moving on.
On October 10 2026 18:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:
The fact you don’t understand is just jaw dropping. It’s like you don’t even understand level zero of decency and morality.
The fact you don’t understand is just jaw dropping. It’s like you don’t even understand level zero of decency and morality.
Level zero of decency and morality: Don't do mass murder
On October 10 2026 20:25 r00ty wrote:
I miss the times when we didn't give want to be martys the biggest stage possible. It's not only barbaric it is incredibly stupid. I can already hear him shout Allahu Akbar before they pull the triggers. There were very good reasons for Bin Laden being dealt with with the way was, discarded at an undisclosed location in the mediterranean. Or how we try not to give mass shooters the attention they often crave.
This is free advertisement for any dshihadist movement on the planet.
I miss the times when we didn't give want to be martys the biggest stage possible. It's not only barbaric it is incredibly stupid. I can already hear him shout Allahu Akbar before they pull the triggers. There were very good reasons for Bin Laden being dealt with with the way was, discarded at an undisclosed location in the mediterranean. Or how we try not to give mass shooters the attention they often crave.
This is free advertisement for any dshihadist movement on the planet.
Bin Laden is a great one to bring up (again). He was shot with no trial. Want to do that more? If Obama had televised that he could have won a third term.
He was buried at sea so his GRAVE wouldn't become a holy place for jihad. Because he was the founder and leader of Al-Qaeda. Nidal Hasan isn't. He was a lone wolf. This guy has no movement behind him.
On October 10 2026 22:47 oBlade wrote:
Yes. I might not catch it live, I'm not moving my schedule for him.
On October 10 2026 20:45 r00ty wrote:
They'll claim him and profit from that, just wait and see.
Edit: Are you gonna watch it? Just out of curiosity.
On October 10 2026 20:38 oBlade wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +
I know you don't care about him. You care more about the random person on the internet that disagrees, because I am proximal to you, you can talk to me, you can put all your performative indignation into me. The mass murderer doesn't matter. It wasn't even in your country.
You are stuck on the fallacy of "entertainment." It's not. You fundamentally don't get anything. Moving on.
Level zero of decency and morality: Don't do mass murder
Bin Laden is a great one to bring up (again). He was shot with no trial. Want to do that more? If Obama had televised that he could have won a third term.
He was buried at sea so his GRAVE wouldn't become a holy place for jihad. Because he was the founder and leader of Al-Qaeda. Nidal Hasan isn't. He was a lone wolf. This guy has no movement behind him.
+ Show Spoiler +
On October 10 2026 18:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I don’t care about him it’s you, and your country that are being degraded. You are the ones looking like medieval ghouls with the basest instincts to the rest of the world. He is gonna be dead either way. Turning his death into broadcasted entertainment is hurting you not him.
Show nested quote +
On October 10 2026 17:01 oBlade wrote:
See these weak, boring insults are what you think about a random person on the internet who disagrees with you. Imagine what I feel about someone who SHOT forty of my and his own countrymen, while they were serving their country and unarmed, while he was IN THE MEDICAL CORPS.
On October 10 2026 15:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Decency towards yourself. Not to be a God awful human being.
On October 10 2026 13:50 oBlade wrote:
Decency towards whom? I stand up when someone joins the table. This guy shot 40 unarmed innocent people. I don't think "heckin' decency" applies. A society that executes mass murderers can afford to see how the sausage is made.
On October 10 2026 08:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I don’t expect you to find turning putting someone to death into a morbid spectacle on the internet indecent.
You have demonstrated time and time again that you don’t understand decency.
On October 09 2026 20:59 oBlade wrote:
I don't find that to be a big deal. You can just not watch it.
For example, you brought up ISIS. The main factor (for me, others might disagree) that made ISIS's jihadist media so evil was the torture and the murder. Not the fact that it was filmed and disseminated. They murdered thousands of people that they never filmed and uploaded and that wasn't better.
On October 09 2026 20:43 Biff The Understudy wrote:
The point is not the execution it’s the live-streaming, Einstein.
On October 09 2026 20:11 oBlade wrote:
You very likely still do not even understand the relationship between the deficit and the debt.
That guy should have been executed years ago. Hopefully Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is next.
On October 09 2026 01:06 LightSpectra wrote:
We showed you hard data about the federal deficit over time that you didn't want to talk about, and now you're confounded about why you're getting "toxic one liners." I mean, the simplest answer for that is if you act like an animal, you'll get your meals served in a dog bowl.
We showed you hard data about the federal deficit over time that you didn't want to talk about, and now you're confounded about why you're getting "toxic one liners." I mean, the simplest answer for that is if you act like an animal, you'll get your meals served in a dog bowl.
You very likely still do not even understand the relationship between the deficit and the debt.
On October 09 2026 19:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Oh so the Nidal Hasan guy that went on a rampage a while ago will be executed by firing squad and apparently Pete the drunk Hegseth decided it would be live-streamed.
Because yeah, you know, public executions on the internet are not disturbing at all and a totally decent and normal thing to do. Doesn’t make you look like Isis or something.
I know we live in an era of ultrapartisanship where people’s brains shut off when their tribe is involved, but one has to be a real cunt to not be appalled by that clown.
Oh so the Nidal Hasan guy that went on a rampage a while ago will be executed by firing squad and apparently Pete the drunk Hegseth decided it would be live-streamed.
Because yeah, you know, public executions on the internet are not disturbing at all and a totally decent and normal thing to do. Doesn’t make you look like Isis or something.
I know we live in an era of ultrapartisanship where people’s brains shut off when their tribe is involved, but one has to be a real cunt to not be appalled by that clown.
That guy should have been executed years ago. Hopefully Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is next.
The point is not the execution it’s the live-streaming, Einstein.
I don't find that to be a big deal. You can just not watch it.
For example, you brought up ISIS. The main factor (for me, others might disagree) that made ISIS's jihadist media so evil was the torture and the murder. Not the fact that it was filmed and disseminated. They murdered thousands of people that they never filmed and uploaded and that wasn't better.
I don’t expect you to find turning putting someone to death into a morbid spectacle on the internet indecent.
You have demonstrated time and time again that you don’t understand decency.
Decency towards whom? I stand up when someone joins the table. This guy shot 40 unarmed innocent people. I don't think "heckin' decency" applies. A society that executes mass murderers can afford to see how the sausage is made.
Decency towards yourself. Not to be a God awful human being.
See these weak, boring insults are what you think about a random person on the internet who disagrees with you. Imagine what I feel about someone who SHOT forty of my and his own countrymen, while they were serving their country and unarmed, while he was IN THE MEDICAL CORPS.
I don’t care about him it’s you, and your country that are being degraded. You are the ones looking like medieval ghouls with the basest instincts to the rest of the world. He is gonna be dead either way. Turning his death into broadcasted entertainment is hurting you not him.
I know you don't care about him. You care more about the random person on the internet that disagrees, because I am proximal to you, you can talk to me, you can put all your performative indignation into me. The mass murderer doesn't matter. It wasn't even in your country.
You are stuck on the fallacy of "entertainment." It's not. You fundamentally don't get anything. Moving on.
On October 10 2026 18:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:
The fact you don’t understand is just jaw dropping. It’s like you don’t even understand level zero of decency and morality.
The fact you don’t understand is just jaw dropping. It’s like you don’t even understand level zero of decency and morality.
Level zero of decency and morality: Don't do mass murder
On October 10 2026 20:25 r00ty wrote:
I miss the times when we didn't give want to be martys the biggest stage possible. It's not only barbaric it is incredibly stupid. I can already hear him shout Allahu Akbar before they pull the triggers. There were very good reasons for Bin Laden being dealt with with the way was, discarded at an undisclosed location in the mediterranean. Or how we try not to give mass shooters the attention they often crave.
This is free advertisement for any dshihadist movement on the planet.
I miss the times when we didn't give want to be martys the biggest stage possible. It's not only barbaric it is incredibly stupid. I can already hear him shout Allahu Akbar before they pull the triggers. There were very good reasons for Bin Laden being dealt with with the way was, discarded at an undisclosed location in the mediterranean. Or how we try not to give mass shooters the attention they often crave.
This is free advertisement for any dshihadist movement on the planet.
Bin Laden is a great one to bring up (again). He was shot with no trial. Want to do that more? If Obama had televised that he could have won a third term.
He was buried at sea so his GRAVE wouldn't become a holy place for jihad. Because he was the founder and leader of Al-Qaeda. Nidal Hasan isn't. He was a lone wolf. This guy has no movement behind him.
They'll claim him and profit from that, just wait and see.
Edit: Are you gonna watch it? Just out of curiosity.
Yes. I might not catch it live, I'm not moving my schedule for him.
Sounds like approval to me.
On October 16 2026 12:11 oBlade wrote:
You are completely gone.
On October 16 2026 08:31 Acrofales wrote:
Trump taco'd the livestream of the firing squad. Queue oBlade coming to tell us how bad an idea it was, and he always opposed it.
Trump taco'd the livestream of the firing squad. Queue oBlade coming to tell us how bad an idea it was, and he always opposed it.
You are completely gone.
No u
You have concocted in your head that because you or someone else hysterically thinks it's the end of the world if it's broadcast, that I must think that it's the end of the world if it isn't broadcast. (And therefore that if it ends up not being broadcast, that I have to change what I believe.) I don't think that, and for related reasons I never said so.
You are reading newspapers with a strawman of a random internet poster in your brain, that behavior is pathological. I'll be clear for you. Executing the convicted terrorist Nidal Hasan on a live broadcast is a good idea. Meaning your random, obsessed, fucked up prediction was completely incorrect.
Oooh, going against the grain on this one. Let it be known that oBlade WILL disagree with dear leader. In this case, dear leader isn't fetishizing violence enough. Clearly.
But seeing as you're in a rebellious mood, maybe you want to go on the record and state who won the 2020 elections?
