Your video, Floppotron recruits backup for “Seven Nation Army”, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

If I was designing a space ark for the perpetuation of the human race and as much of Earth's biodiversity as possible, I would go with as large seed bank as possible, frozen embryos and sperm and wherever possible female animals only. And since it would not make sense to waste payload on unnecessary males the crew would need to be female. In terms of perpetuating humanity the most valuable resource would be wombs. And since the first generation colonists would be female then it would make sense for their mental health to recruit primarily lesbians.

When you veer into talking about changing the Geneva Conventions I think your argument loses logic. Without getting into whether military action is actually justified in the first place, maybe it's worth admitting that there are some thing the US military simply can't do and therefore shouldn't try to?

To suggest that the US should forego international norms to achieve its goals feels like it's channeling the neo-conservative myth of the US as this omnipotent superpower that it never was, and certainly isn't now. What evidence is there that acting like the terrorists (which once you give up international norms you will eventually get to) would actually help achieve its objectives in the first place?

The Bush administration basically took that approach with torture (the "well they did it to us!" approach). When the news of secret rendition, Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo broke (as it inevitably would), we know that almost certainly recruited a whole bunch of new terrorists. Meanwhile torture confessions led to a whole bunch of wild goose hunts.

Civilian resistance has been around since the dawn of armies invading foreign lands. International norms geared around state v. state warfare don't really address them, not because they didn't envisage them but because occupying and pacifying foreigners was never a good idea in the first place. Drone strikes, surgical strikes on the likes of Bin Laden should be a rare exception but once you start 'normalizing' them, and giving occupying soldiers wider latitude with civilians that's when you start getting into serious trouble.

Your video, The Norwegian Navy's recruiting video, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Actually, this is probably the Norwegian Army's recruiting video...

There was an interested relating article in the Grauniad today, George Soros: Donald Trump is doing the work of Isis. This video explains exactly how Trump is helping the Daesh recruiters.

Exactly @newtboy...

These people are promising massive violence to defend people who were found guilty of violating the law, who purposely set fire to a forest... "They didn't mean for it to get out of control." Yeah, doesn't matter. I don't understand how they can't comprehend that. How it is an overreach of government to try them via a court of law, found guilty and then sentenced to the minimum?

I like how Fox spins it about how it would be if it were blacks, but I think a better example would be if they were Muslim. If they were Muslim Fox and the Republicans would all be screaming about how they are Radicalized Islamic Terrorist. Trump would undoubtedly be calling for Muslim Americans to be put into Internment Camps "temporarily" "while we can figure out what is going on with these people". He'd then say once we carefully vetted them, we'd let them go, but keep track of them, those we can't vet, we'd kick out... and his supporters would fall over themselves agreeing. They'd be mad at any Democrat or media who doesn't use the term "Radicalized Islamic Terrorist" rather than "Jihadist" or "Radicalized Jihadist".

Yet if somebody called these people for what they are, which is Radicalized Christian Terrorist, they'd blow a gasket. They'd say that their faith has nothing to do with it, though the leader said he was led by God to do this. Or they'd argue that the term can't apply here, and can't apply to the guy who murdered people at the Planned Parenthood clinic. "These people are freedom fighters, not terrorist." They are standing against the oppressive power of the Obama administration, and probably point out his middle name again.

So... we have people, driven by God and faith to promise violence if their political ends aren't met... Sounds like terrorism to me. Oh... and that particular God and faith is Christianity. So Radicalized Christian Terrorism. Pure and simple... unless we need to drop the term Radicalized if this is what Christianity is about now... though I'm fairly sure the Jesus of the Bible would object, then again he'd object to pretty much everything the political right stands for, but that's a rant I've done tons of times here.

Crazy thing is, if the government uses force, then the political right and media will feel justified, and say "see, we are being repressed". They've learned from ISIL and the rest, the best way to radicalize people is to make them fear they are being oppressed. ISIL drives up terror attacks, sold as freedom fighting to their people, which result on people turning against Islam as a whole, which is their publicly stated goal, and when that happens it makes it easier to recruit more and more people to their cause. So Radicalized Christian Terror groups like this are using the same tactics, by forcing situations where they are put down by force. Great recruitment tool, and the brain dead follow lock step into falling for it. ISIL is the bad guy (and they are, no question) and they are the good guy for doing the exact same thing? They are both evil. Both misdirected. Both missing the point we are all in this together. One world. One humanity.

I wish the so called Left Liberal Media would stop calling them militants and start using the term Radicalized Christian Terrorist as that is more apt. Of course they still call Vaccine Deniers and Climate Change Deniers, Skeptics, which they aren't. So no hope for America anytime soon.

@Jinx
here is what you are missing,and i think should be a focal point in this situation in regards to burr:

1.while we may view burr creating a game where sarkesian gets punched in the face offensive,and maybe it is to you (i just find it in poor taste).this is a perfectly acceptable position to take.

what is NOT mentioned in this video is that burr created a very similar,distasteful game,with the exact same mechanics,for the exact same REASON a few years earlier,but in that case the face being punched was jack thompson,who was seeking to legislate by using unsubstantiated claims that video games promoted actual violence,but in THAT case it was a man whose face was being punched.

so where was the moral outrage then?nobody gave two shits.

2.guthrie responded by recruiting her fairly large feminist twitter followers to barrage burr contacts and businesses who he did work for.so it wasn't just guthrie but a group of like-minded women who banded together to,dare i say..harass? a video game developer who offended their tender sensibilities.

could we call this gaggle of offended women a cabal?
meeeeh..i think that maybe stretching the meaning just a tad in that regard,but i think it safe to call them a group of offended women.

did they have a right to band together and expose a person they felt offended by?
yep.they do have that right.

do i think it hypocritical and morally inconsistent to use the victim card,when years earlier burr created a similar game for similar reasons?but in that case it was a MAN getting smashed in the face?
yep..i sure do.

but here is where it REALLY goes off the rails.
you would think the target should be burr right?
after all it was him who created the sarkesian/thompson games.so it would stand to reason that burr would be the focus ..right?

well,you would be wrong my friend.
guthrie went after elliot for having the audacity to disagree politically with guthrie.
he never threatened her.
never used violent language.
in fact he AGREED with a large portion of guthrie's position.
he just felt it counter-productive to make a federal issue out of the situation,and advised a more cautious approach.

thats it.thats all he actually did on twitter.

and guthrie's response was,and i paraphrase "elliot seems to be unaware of our power as women.should i sic the internet on him?"

"sic the internet on him"

think about that for a moment,and let the larger implications come into focus.

so this mans life is ruined.
lost his job.
80k in the hole.
and for what?
HE didnt create the offensive game,so in what context can this be viewed as justice?equality?fairness?

no.
this is a lynch mob.
this is mob rules.
this is about privilege playing the victim in a victimless crime,and utilizing the internet to silence and punish dissent.

will elliot be absolved of all charges?
most likely,and that is even after the prosecutor changed the charges in the last minutes before sentencing in order to create a broader charge.

but that does not change the fact that elliot's life as he knew it...is over.

which is why i see a real and present danger with an overly PC community and social justice warriors who wish to impose their own set of morals on all of us.

we can look back in our own history and see the dangers of institutionalized morality police (looking at you christians).

this form of social control by way of internet bullying promotes censorship,stifles debate and literally quashes dissent.the fear of speaking your mind because it may draw negative attention from those who disagree and then translate to real world consequences that are long-lasting.

and as i said in another video,this new brand of feminism has almost nothing in common with the feminism you or i are accustomed and familiar with,at all.

i urge you to watch the video i linked to from girl writes what.she breaks down this case in a most excellent way,and it will become apparent that this new breed of feminists are just that...a new breed.

I think article linked below on reading level is important to note in regards to this.
https://contently.com/strategist/2015/01/28/this-surprising-reading-level-analysis-will-change-the-way-you-write/ By keeping his language simple, he is able to reach, and have his keywords understood by a larger American audience. Of course understanding speech and reading are slightly different, but it's word choice still becomes important.

As this video notes. Trump is a salesman. And he's selling his crap expertly well. He circumvents the answer with babble that never actually answers the question. He never answered if it's un-American to have a religious litmus test to allow people to visit the US, he just says we have a problem, and implicates all the people of one faith in that, which ISIL itself said sometime ago was their goal, to turn the world against all of Islam to make it easier to recruit and radicalize more people... which is off topic. He doesn't address the point of the question, he sort of skirts it and generalizes it into his overall framework. One could argue that yes, saying there's a problem is itself an answer to the question, but it isn't a direct answer.

I don't know as if he's intentionally talking at that low a level though, or if he's just his style period.

It'd also be interesting to see if Hitler's run-up to being elected, if he used similar style. That is if he used a simple style to appeal to the masses. Not just Hitler, but other leaders of his ilk. I choose Hitler here as more an example of an elected leader gone wrong, that had mass appeal to his people, but later regretted to the point of shame.

Even if Britt's famed Warning Signs of Fascism isn't fully accurate by all scholars (and I'm aware he doesn't actually have academic scholarship) many do come close. I think most can agree that it requires at least Extreme Nationalism, warmongering, a loss of civil liberties and rights (Patriot Act, wanting to increase the spy power of the NSA, etc), corporatism a merger of the state and corporate power, racism (Britt's warning signs says sexism, but I think racism is more apt and I don't think what people normally think about sexism applies, though we need more of a racism slash something, to note those who "sin" differently than others, such as the gays).

I'm always astounded to see people who are unable to understand that this refugee crisis can't be solved by sending the refugees away. Have you people never seen a zombie movie? There are definitely similarities. They are coming and there's no way other than starting to shoot them in the head to stop this.
So, you wanna stand on any european border and kill random people (yes, random as in 'women and children too') to make sure the borders aren't crossed? Have you people never heard about East Germany? The had the most secure border on the entire planet. They had sniper towers and minefields. People died trying to cross it, they were murdered because of it. Still, some made it anyways. No border is impenetrable. Ever.

The refugees are coming. They'd rather die trying than not trying at all. They don't see any other choice.

Our only smart play is to exploit the advantages. We have people fleeing from ISIS that we can put in our mosques to stop recruiting and radicalisation. We have skilled laborers we need to identify and put to work accordingly. We have people willing to have and raise their kids here that can help us to solve our problems with a rapidly aging society.

It'll be difficult and it'll require us to change and redefine our cultural identity but if we do this right, we'll end up stronger in the future.

We can't afford the cowardice of racism much longer.

You load this page, the video title helpfully tells you that you're going to watch the English version of "No Respite", an ISIS recruitment video. You watch the ISIS recruitment video, and the description helpfully tells you when it was released and what alternative versions exist.

I understand the sentiment and i agree with it, but i don't think this is any examination or analysis. That surely would be a video or at least a description that highlighted what exactly about it was deceit, clever marketing, manipulative wording, etc. Without an analysis as part of the video i don't think any good that comes from the few who discuss it outweighs the bad that comes from rebroadcasting the message.

I personally think that whoever made it would want it to be spread and shared in as many places as possible so that it was as easy as possible to access. I don't think Liveleak should host it either.

Just what i think, and i have a lot of respect for you regardless.

bob, Trump has a point about "muslims" in the same way that Hitler had a point about "Jews".

i can agree with this sentiment,but that is not my intention.

i do not know how certain aspects of this particular situation are covered in the media by other news agencies around the world (besides a few i come across from the guardian,and a few others in europe),but here in the states there is pretty much nothing being discussed in regards to the radicalization of citizens.

i think that is a huuuge question:why are citizens of these western countries joining ISIS? why are they packing up everything and heading to syria,or yemen,to fight with ISIS? why are they planning and executing terrorist attacks on their own communities?

we can understand,if not condone,why local people from iraq to syria,to palestine become radicalized,but when it comes to western citizens joining the fray to fight for radical extremists,there really is no discussion.

so in my opinion,i think it prudent to examine the tactics that these radical extremist groups utilize in order to recruit and/or convince people to join their cause.

this video is a good example on how these people have perfected a marketing strategy in order to attract people from around the world.

this is not some shoddy work from some back water group of people.this video reveals a sophistication and cultural savvy that is quite disturbing.

and i think that aspect really needs to be examined a lot more than i am seeing in my countries so-called journalism.

Daesh...not ISIS. They are not Islamic, are not a state, and deserve absolutely zero respect. Stop using ISIS, they are nothing more than Daeshbags. ;-)

I NEVER bought that line, that they are all uneducated savages. I have said from day one that this group is doing things with thousands of people that we can't do with hundreds of thousands, are incredibly technically savvy, and know how to speak to disenfranchised people to get them on board. That's what makes them so incredibly dangerous.

Propaganda works. It works even better when there's no competing facts available to contradict the propaganda with, and I think they have effectively erased all non-propaganda media in the areas they control.

It is because they so effectively use religiosity to convince people to follow them, using it against them seems not only proper, but smart. I'm sure it wouldn't be a perfect solution, and would not solve the problem, but it might just help stop it from growing (or not). If the followers are truly devout Muslims, being denied entry to heaven should be a successful anti-recruitment plan.

Those daeshbags really know how to video edit. Too bad they don't know how to co-exist with the other 7.3 billion of us and we'll have to evaporate them.

I can't understand why we don't take a page from the fake book of Jack Black Pershing, and bury enemy combatants with pig carcasses, or better yet, the disgusting leftovers from pig carcasses, and put pigs blood in and on all their bullets. Taint the faithful so they don't 'go to heaven', and 50-75% will run away tomorrow. Only those fighting for something other than religion will be left, and they'll have lost their best recruitment method.

If we can't bring ourselves to do that, perhaps we can move to feeding all Daesh POW's only pork. Let them starve themselves to death if they don't want it. No problem for me at all.

I'm german. If you ask me, I think I want people who know exactly what it's like to be on the receiving end of islamic extremist terrorism in my country's mosques. It's the best chance to stop recruiters of such organisations in my country's muslim community. People who understand and are hopefully brave enough to stand up to them.
Four of the 9/11 hijackers came from Germany.