Fun with politics and news! Covering Lol Politics and Lol News. Breaking news — lol-style.
 

« Previous | Next »

There’s a fine line between being a bad ass and a douchebag…



Obama Pictures and McCain Pictures

There’s a fine line between being a bad ass and a douchebag…

Who is that in the picture? Tell us in the Comments

picture: dunno source, via our lol builder. lol caption:

» Recaption This

» See All Captions

Incorrect source or offensive?

Add this to your blog:
(Copy & paste code)

You May Like:

» 497 comments

  1. First King says:

    FIRST !

  2. rhorho says:

    Not to split hairs, but shouldn’t that be douche nozzle?

    • n8 says:

      I’ll just stick with “bastard.” ;-)

    • G. Crizzy says:

      I can’t believe someone else is using “douche nozzle”. I started that up forever ago. I’ve used the term everywhere and I see it seems to be catching on. Either that, or I’m clearly not the only one on the planet who realizes that it isn’t the douche BAG that is the part that gets “dirty”. It’s actually the “nozzle”. But, I begin to think that you heard it from a long line of people that begin from hearing it from me because of the use of the word “nozzle” as opposed to someone saying douche “tube” or otherwise.
      Anyway, whether you essentially got that from me or not, I’m just really excited that it’s spreading. The knowledge of the nozzle is officially spreading! Woo!

      • zetsumei says:

        Eh, and this seems to be a post from a “Douche Nozzle” who thinks he is the only one in the world with a brain. chances are, you’re not the first one that started saying it. I think it is more liable that the thrid or fourth person that heard the term “Douche bag” used in a derogotory fashion may have thought “Why bag and not nozzle?”

        • zetsumei says:

          Eh, and this seems to be a post from a “Douche Nozzle” who thinks he is the only one in the world with a brain. chances are, you’re not the first one that started saying it. I think it is more liable that the thrid or fourth person that heard the term “Douche bag” used in a derogotory fashion may have thought “Why bag and not nozzle?”

        • G. Crizzy says:

          Why does the world have to start hate? I was excited about something. Clearly, from rereading it now, I seemed a bit TOO excited. But, that’s no reason to be rude to me about it. I don’t even use that term anymore. A lot has changed in a year. Calling people names doesn’t give me the same satisfaction it used to. I’m sorry I ever even posted that. And, I’m a she. Not a he.

  3. Lilith says:

    The mother’s facial expression is perfect ^^

    • Captain Wow says:

      I know. Countdown to epic screaming tackle in 3… 2…1…

      • Kia says:

        followed by an uber bashing from the father and being sent to guantanamo bay for being a “terrorist”. and finally ending with the family broken torn and the child leterally joining al-qaeda to take revenge for his father.

        the facial expression could use a lil more suprise mixed with a pinch of shock though

        • Chris says:

          Too bad that’s obviously a U.N. peacekeeper and not a U.S. soldier.

          ACCURACY and ANTI-AMERICA FAIL

          • kia says:

            im not anti american…… wtf made u think that?

            and still wat diffrence does it make? cyrus kar got arrested in iraq because he was middle eastern. did i mention he was a marine?

  4. Heh says:

    Because pointing your gun at gravel is not nice.

    • blal says:

      He’s pointing it at the kid.

      • SilentJ says:

        Actually, not only is he NOT pointing the gun at the kid, but the stock isn’t on his shoulder (as it would need to be to avoid having the rifle fly back into his face), but that’s not the correct firing position for either of his hands (most rifles are fired right-handed) and his finger isn’t on the trigger.
        -
        This is a depth of field illusion. From the soldier’s point of view, the kid is off to his right, not directly in front of him.
        -
        It looks to me like he’s checking the scope.

        • Jack Squat says:

          It might actually be set up for a lefty; you shoot with whatever eye’s dominant.

          Also, it being the military, he probably wouldn’t have access to a lefty-friendly AR (not that it matters, they’re fairly ambi and the casings are ejected forwards)

          But yes, it’s not pointed at anyone; even assuming the picture is right in where he’s pointing, he’s either aiming at the bags next to the kid or the shins of the lady that’s carrying them, not the kid. Plus, finger’s off the trigger; in addition to everything you mentioned, he’s nowhere near capable of firing the rifle at the time the picture was taken.

          • BattleCry says:

            Actually, with that angle, I’m going with “Making sure the weapon is safe/loaded”

            Looks like he looking at the ejector chamber to me

            • herb says:

              Come to think about it, maybe with that picture of Bush he *wasn’t* sucking the kid’s brains out…

              • GiganTick says:

                Or maybe we could, you know, not disect the picture and pretend it’s funny again. ):

                • BattleCry says:

                  Heavy on the “pretend”, cuz as far as LoL’s go, this one’s a bit of fail for me.

                  • mothergoose says:

                    Yeah…as a parent, I find the fact that the soldier is pointing his rifle anywhere near the child is a difficult thing to view. That being said, they are in a war zone, or somewhere close to one (I’m assuming) and I’m fairly certain after viewing the pic that the soldier isn’t actually pointing the weapon at the child, nor is he “postured” as if to fire…so I think we need a “lighten up factor” on this one…

                    • mothergoose says:

                      *looks again at pic*
                      Then again…given the situation and the look on mom and dad’s face…hmmm…

                      • dropping in says:

                        I think it is a pretty threatening posture- even though all the guys are correct about this not being a shooting position, etc- the little kid, and probably the parents do not know that-they see a big weapon pointed in their general direction. Douchebag.

                        • Mr. Ko says:

                          The standards of civilized behaviour have officially
                          reached rock bottom: “his finger’s off the trigger”. Big, fat, hairy deal.

                        • Stormy says:

                          No kidding. It doesn’t matter if his finger’s off the trigger.
                          He’s terrifying the poor child.

                    • Jewish mama says:

                      First of all, this picture is of an Israeli soldier pointing at Palestinians.
                      As a Jewish mother who has spent lots of time in Israel/Palestine…I have
                      seen many Israeli soldiers not only point their guns/tanks etc.
                      at children, but actually fire upon them.

                      check out http://www.electronicintifada.org for more info.

                      • lako says:

                        first of all, it’s not an israeli soldier, and they are not palestinians. the snow in the background kinda ruins your false claim. second, i’m quite doubtful you saw israeli soldier point guns at children, and even less confident you saw them shooting at them. i would like to see some proof.
                        third, even in this pic, the soldier is not pointing the gun to the child, as mentioned by comentators above me.

          • teh penguin of doom says:

            This was probably taken from a video and the guy was either checking the rifle or lowering it.

        • Tibs says:

          And I am sure that little boy was thinking just that as he crapped himself in fright.

        • grisgris says:

          It’s pretty clear that subby crossed the line to douchebag. Good Job!

        • Uncle Fester says:

          I think the pic is flipped… also, and I could be mistaken here, but I think the gun is set to single not safe (the little lever on the side, above the soldier’s hand)

          • sprent says:

            no that’s the magazine release the selector switch is on the other side.

            • Uncle Fester says:

              The selector on the AR-15 is actually above the soldier’s hand, almost resting on the knuckle. but you’re right, I was looking at the magazine release. It’s been a long time since I needed to know about the AR-15 body…

              • Charlie Foxtrot says:

                Well, to beat an almost dead horse into the ground, it is not an AR 15, it is an M-16A2, it is not flipped, the selector switch is above his hand, the magazine ejector is on the other side, along with the ejector port and left handed firers either deal with hot brass ejected into their face or use an adaptor that sends the brass forward. But then again, what do I know?

                • … Is that a horse or modern art?

                • Dana says:

                  Holy s?!t, you’re right. That has got to be an American soldier, then. Nobody else would touch the M16 with a ten-foot pole. Especially not in Iraq where one grain of sand already jams the friggin’ thing.

                  I just didn’t recognize it with the scope on it. Also? It’s been a long time since I got out. O_O

                  • sprent says:

                    it’s only been a little over a year since I got out. and I can say the weapon may be right but the uniform is all wrong and I’ve yet to see an american soldier with out a kevlar cover. Odds are its one of the countries we helped supply who will probably use the equipment on us in the long run.

                  • AS says:

                    The soldier is IDF. The Israelis have had M-16’s in their
                    arsenals for years. The sling attached with paracord is a dead
                    giveaway. I wouldn’t blame the guy for being a little on edge, as
                    it’s well documented that the various radical muslim groups sometimes
                    strap bombs to women and children. It’s a rather sad situation.

      • Jet says:

        yeah, the kid that lies on the pavement

  5. Rafiq of the many says:

    I don’t know. I believe the Soldier is justified. You never know, that kid looks pretty dangerous.

  6. Sanja says:

    this picture made me cry. just toooooooooo horrible

    • n8 says:

      Won’t somebody think of the CHILDREN!? *sob*

    • James says:

      Israeli “defence”.. what did you expect? good thing the kid survived.. other kids aren’t always this lucky

      • Doubts says:

        Yeah. Many of the kids are used as human shields by terrorists.

        • n8 says:

          No no, they’re “martyred”, get it right. It kind of gives me hope that even Hizballah is backing off from HAMAS’ particular brand of crazy. Even the Lebanese are saying “Dude, what did you THINK was gonna happen?”

          • James says:

            I wouldn’t really agree with you about the human shields issue.. the IDF just bombed a UN school where hundreds of civilians were taking shelter. even afer the UN gave them co-ordinates of all the humanitarian buildings and missions so that they should be avoided. 48 were killed, all of em civillians and children.

            I saw this pic in an album about israeli war crimes. the rest of the set is just too gruesome..

            • Blarg says:

              If the UN decided to not pull it’s people out of an area they knew was about to be invaded by ground forces, then they took the risk of having their people killed in collateral damage. This is the simple reality of war: people die, lots of people, sometimes not the enemy. If those UN people decided to stay in an area that was about to be invaded by ground forces, then they put themselves at risk of being killed by collateral damage. Again, the reality of war.

              Please cite the aforementioned “album of Israeli war crimes,” or your point has no validity.

              • BattleCry says:

                And more to the point. If Hammas had not launched rockets at Israel, then the UN school would have never been hit.

                This is simple cause and effect theory.

                • PortlandMark says:

                  And, if Israelis hadn’t come and kicked indigenous Palestinians out of their homes 60 years ago, the Palestinians wouldn’t be launching rockets at Israelis.

                  That wheel, she just keeps spinning around.

                  • BattleCry says:

                    Show me ANYWHERE prior to 1940 that references to ANY group of people called Palestinians. These people are from Jordan. They were offered a place to live after the UN, the US, and all major Muslims states (see pakistan and jordan) signed off on the creation of Israel. They decided to hang around anyways. And then they started killing the Jews…a lot of whom still had numbers tattoo’d on the inside of their arms…spin that wheel for a few years, enter the 6 Day War, and 60 years later we’re here.

                    Israel was NEVER the aggressor. They were busy BUILDING. 6 million jews died in WWII at the hands of a madman. In order to prevent that from happening, they were given a homeland. Now whether that was a good idea or not I don’t know, but I’d say it was a pretty compasionate one. The fact that NO ONE in the middle east can grasp that and instead preach genocide warrants not only mine, but the world’s wrath.

                    • rhorho says:

                      I’m not arguing against you, but, according to Wiki:

                      The first widespread use of “Palestinian” as an endonym to refer to the nationalist concept of a Palestinian people by the local Arabic-speaking population of Palestine began prior to the outbreak of World War I,[7] and the first demand for national independence was issued by the Syrian-Palestinian Congress on 21 September 1921.[8] After the exodus of 1948, and even moreso after the exodus of 1967, the term came to signify not only a place of origin, but the sense of a shared past and future in the form
                      of a Palestinian nation-state.[7]

                      [LINK] to full article

                      • PortlandMark says:

                        More to the point, I don’t think the label they used was important. They were living there, then some strangers with a funny religion showed up and told them they’d all have to move, the strangers now owned this land. If it happens to me, I guarantee the strangers will have to look over their shoulders as long as I live.

                        • BattleCry says:

                          “Their land” was part of Jordan, Jordan signed off on it, alotted land for them to move to, they didn’t want any part of it. The onus is on them

                        • rhorho says:

                          Are you a Native American?

                        • rhorho says:

                          above was @PM–sorry!

                        • PortlandMark says:

                          Nope, and worse, my ancestors all came over btwn 1920 and 1933. Nevertheless, *I* was born here, and this is my home. I will die before I cede the rights to it to any outside group. And yes, your point about native americans is a valid one- for the period 1492 to about 1900 or so. Once the Europeans finally pacified the continent, the genie was pretty much out of the bottle, and too late to give the country back.

                        • lako says:

                          actually… those “strangers” inhabitted the land of israel consecutively for about 3000 years, long before the arab conquest of the 7-8th centuries. the country was sparsely populated by arabs when big waves of jews begun coming back their homeland, and only then big waves of arabs from neighboring countries begun coming also, in search for jobs (after the jews started developing the land). nobody told arabs to move – lands were bought legaly, and the arabs were also given a big chunk of land (about 75% of what was originally promised to the jewish country) to have their own state. that country is called jordan today, btw.

                    • Rami says:

                      Those are cheap lies. Every single world except the 6 millions died in WW2. But Israel has nothing to do with those people.

              • Guppy says:

                Um… isn’t that the whole point of the United Nations to begin with? Peace-keeping, humanitarian aid, all that stuff? Sticking around in a war zone to try to offer aid and shelter to civilians?

              • AC says:

                It wasn’t UN people who were killed. They were civilians taking shelter in a UN school.
                And describing the avoidable deaths of innocents as “collateral damage” is exactly the sort of thinking that allows people to do this sort of thing.

                • Uncle Fester says:

                  Welcome to the world of ‘Nineteen-Eighty Four’…

                • lako says:

                  first of all, even the UN admitted that the school wasn’t bombed, and those were false accusations.
                  second, there was mortar fire from the vicinity of the school – so i think you should point your finger to those who fire in proximity to civilian. even international law states that when fired upon, you can return fire, whereas the use of human shield is considered a war crime.
                  and what is “this sort of thing”? firing rockets at civilians? well, the palestinians were great at doing this for 8 years.

              • Uncle Fester says:

                Please cite the aforementioned “album of Israeli war crimes,” or your point has no validity.

                Hard to do with the Anti-Defamation League’s reach and power to airbrush history. When you have an organisation who can make a Genetics journal withdraw a peer reviewed article on the Genetic markers between Palestinian Jews and Palestinian Arabs (bottom line – there are none) you’re not going to find many smoking guns outside of Neo-Nazi sites that would be an insanity to cite.

                Some of us are old enough to remember 1983-86 and the camps… Thousands of people, in winter, in tents, with limited food and no sewerage… but, of course, the Israelis would be a lot more sensitive about herding people into camps and starving them, so I’m just making it all up…

                • BattleCry says:

                  And some of us have read about the Yom Kippur War and the attempted genocide of all Jews by the militant/fundamental muslims of the time and realize that there was no such thing as a palestinian state until AFTER Israel was created.

                  I find it hard to have compassion for those countries in the middle east that partook of that movement and as far as I’m concerned, they deserve everything coming to them.

                  And as far as the genetic marker debate goes….are you a christian? If so, are you willing to admit that Jesus was not white and, in fact, probably looked a lot more like Osama Bin Laden than he looked like any Pope to assume the title?

                  • AC says:

                    UF, a christian?
                    :)

                  • AC says:

                    They deserve everything coming to them
                    Oh, is that why the US wouldn’t vote for a ceasefire?

                    • BattleCry says:

                      Nah,
                      Truman pushed for the creation of an Israeli state after the Holocaust, Israel is our creation more so than anyone else’s. Since no one else, even if they thought it, will support Isreal, we have to play the bad guy and give them support when no one else will.

                      It used to be that our role was to protect Israel. Considering that they have over 250 nuclear warheads, our role has is now to protect the rest of the muslim world from them. Had we not intervined during Sharon’s administration…..well, at least we wouldn’t have had to go into Iraq.

                      • Uncle Fester says:

                        And who didn’t shut them down when they ’stole’ the technology?

                        The UK had its hand in the founding, since a lot of the problems inthe region date back to protectorate days… but nice to see someone in the US for taking some credit for the monster of the Med…

                        • BattleCry says:

                          Well, if you’re talkinf back in the protectorate are you saying the Pre-Holy Roman empire one or later? Cuz if it’s pre then the Germans are just as much to blame.

                        • Uncle Fester says:

                          I was thinking the British Empire… but yes, Austro-Hungarians and the Germans had a hand, as did Czarist Russian and America…

                        • BattleCry says:

                          Ah, I’d never heard of the Brit Empire called the protectorate…proabably a result of me being here in the state. That and I tend to look at the Middle East and all of the problems there dating back to before the Crusades

                        • rhorho says:

                          *pops popcorn, awaits Unc’s answer*

                      • AC says:

                        we have to play the bad guy and give them support when no one else will.
                        Yeah, remain loyal to countries you have a “special relationship” with: not to humanity in general.

                        • Uncle Fester says:

                          Translation: We let them have the nukes, but we don’t want irradiated oil…

                        • BattleCry says:

                          Humanity? Seriously? You’re going to play the HUMANITY card in an Israel vs the Middle East fight? Really? Honor Killings? Women and men being stoned to death for holding hands in public? Cutting the heads of of christians that are their own countrymen? State sanctioned rape? Open declarations of Genocide against Jews and anyone else they have a beef with (deserved or not)?
                          Humanity INDEED.

                        • AC says:

                          They’re still being needlessly murdered. Not even your broad brush can change that.

                        • AC says:

                          Sorry, take out needless. Otherwise it’s tautology.

                        • LB says:

                          Take into comparison that Hamas’ rockets are aimed (as best they can) to kill /any Jew at all/. Including women, children, the elderly, etc. They’ve been launching rockets into Israel since forever, hitting schools, churches, etc, injuring and/or killing several people.

                          Israel’s just now getting fed up with it, although its attacks are targeted towards Hamas. The motives are different here. But of course it’s war and of course innocent people are going to get hurt. I’m not saying I support that and yes it’s unfortunate but it happens. It’s just because that some people don’t have the entire story and because Israel isn’t shooting /bottle rockets/ BACK at Hamas, people cry ‘overreaction!’ and Hamas cries ‘They started it!’

                          If you’ve ever had a younger sibling, think of it this way: You’ve been stuck sitting next to your little brother/sister in this forever long road trip with no end in sight and no where to move away from them because you’ve been stuck there with no real other option. The least they could do is keep quiet and make it /somewhat/ bearable but no, they’ve taken to entertaining themselves by poking you repeatedly. You’ve tried to ignore it, but they won’t stop and it’s grating on your nerves really fast. Finally you get fed up with it and what do you do? You punch your sibling in the face. But of course /you/ look like the bad guy because you’re bigger and more powerful.

                        • LB says:

                          How’s that for humanity for ya?

                        • PiMan says:

                          It is an over reaction because Isreal’s rockets have killed more innocent people (let alone the less than innocent) than Hamas has killed total (innocent or not).

                        • BattleCry says:

                          @LB

                          I raise a a shot of JD to you sir

                          @PiMan…..and what ELSE are they supposed to do? They’ve gone through ceasefire after ceasefire and dialouge after dialouge, frankly, they have no other choice. It’s not like “we didnt’ have a choice” with Iraq…they literally have no other option. And they’ve had their ground troops sitting there for a week ready to move in, giving Hamas every opportunity to stop being asshats and Hamas doesn’t care. 72 virgins in heaven is more important than peace in their own backyard I guess.

                        • LB says:

                          (*Ma’am, just for the record) Hehe thanks, I try. I have no patience for the ignorant.

                      • Ansha Wednesday says:

                        yeah… we’re just “supporting them” if by supporting you mean giving them the weapons to do our dirty work. The US cant go in and take everything in the middle east (read: Oil) without looking like we’re trying to shoot the moon (hearts, anyone?). So we get Israel to do it, because everyone hates them anyway but cant/wont do anything about Israel because it’s “anti-semetic” (though IMHO its more anti-zionism than anti-semitism. I have no problems with jews, i have lots with israel).

                        • BattleCry says:

                          Give weapons? I’ll have you know Israel pays out the nose for those F-15s. We’ve stopped Israel from attacking and “Palestine” since the 70’s. Less bumpersticker reading, more history.

                      • lako says:

                        protect the muslim world from israel? are you refering to the same more than 1 billion people-third of the countries in the world-having vast amounts of oil-muslim world? from a 7 million (20% arabs) state, smaller the new jersey country? and when did u need to intervene during the sharon’s administration exactly? and don’t know what iraq has to do with it.

                    • PortlandMark says:

                      News reports today we abstained becaus Olmert phoned Bush (Olmert claims he brought Bush out of a public appearance for this dressing down) and demanded the US not back the ceasefire that Condi had written.

                  • hrise1841 says:

                    Well that’s just ridiculous. Jesus was Jewish, so he looked like a Jew of that time period. Of course he looked more Middle-Eastern than a Polish guy does.

                    He probably didn’t have light skin, long hair, a beard, or a skinny face with blue eyes, either.

                    And for the record, I’m a Christian.

                  • Uncle Fester says:

                    1) I’m not a Christian.

                    2) Far as I’m concerned, loading the place with European Jews as a huge mistake

                    3) How nice, you read something… did it have pictures?

                    • BattleCry says:

                      Yes, of Muslims getting it handed to them and Israel holding 3 times the land it started with after just 7 days. If that’s what happens when they declare a Jihad, then by all means they may delcare another one.

                    • lako says:

                      guess jews staying in europe was a great success. 2000 years of persecutions really was a lot of fun.
                      anyway, jews have more claim to that country then anyone else, and just for the record – jews got there also from asia, america and africa.
                      btw, you know why almost no jews in muslim countries? they were driven away, in bigger numbers than the palestinians (who most ran away even before seeing any israeli troops, since they were expecting victory by arab countries over israel in 1948, planning to go back afterwards).

                  • Rami says:

                    WTF?! There was always Palestine!! What was the name of the land before Israel was created?!!?!?!?

                    • lako says:

                      wow, you’re very ignorant. the country was called palestine, due to the name romans gave it after the jewish revolt in 132-136. it was called after the philistines (nothing to do with muslims/arabs – they were invaders of european origins, that disapperad long before even the romans got there). there was never an arab or muslim state that went by that name, and anyone who lived here (including jews) under the british mandate was a “palestinian”. the palestinians took their name from the country, and even that they did only in the 20th century. the word palestine, of course, have no origin in arab language, and of course no mention of “palestine” or “palestinian people” until the 20th century.

                • James says:

                  “Please cite the aforementioned “album of Israeli war crimes,” or your point has no validity.”

                  Here’s one of the lot. be warned it’s quite graphical.
                  http://donthidethetruth.blogspot.com/2009/01/israels-crimes-against-palestinians-war.html

                  Geneva convention states that under no circumstances should humanitarian or aid workers be subjected to any harm or prevented from operating. Israel just bombs them.

                  I’m not really convinced that the current offensive is justified because of the rockets being fired from gaza. those rockets injured under 12 israelis over the past THREE years, where the gaza operations have resulted in over 950 deaths in the past two weeks alone. and oh yeah, over half of those were women/children.

                  So basically, 500 innocent civillians dead is acceptable because it’s just defense against terrorism? I don’t like it when one side is constantly “justified” no matter how bad things become or how much blood is spilled. Human life should have the same value no matter which side we’re talking about. and please don’t get talking about who started it again, this isn’t preschool here.

                  • the_original_shortright says:

                    trying to stay out of this one for the most part… but what makes you think that all those women and children were innocent? as far as i’m concerned a child is a child until 18… however i was well aware of what was going on in the world from about 15 onward. with that in mind, if i were living in a state of war (like israel and palestine) i’m pretty sure that at 15 i’d be taking a pacifist or militaristic stance. so if you take into account all the “children” who might be partaking in the war, i’m sure your number of “500 innocent civilians” goes down. also, what’s to stop a woman from being a militant? can’t she throw a bomb or fire a rocket launcher just as well as any man can? count in those women who are militant and that’ll take your “500 innocent civilians” even lower. now, i’m sure there are some men who aren’t militant who will make up some of those 500… but the idea and basic acceptance that all women and children killed are simply innocent bystanders who did nothing wrong and should be raised on a pedestal and mourned for years is ridiculous.
                    yeah, innocents die. but that’s war. it’s sick. it sucks. but that’s war.

                    • FaileV says:

                      would women be allowed to be militant? i see where you’re going with that, if it were another place where women had more rights it would make perfect sense but, depending on the force, wouldn’t a woman not have the chance to be militant, that would be…a man thing. I don’t know enough about how they feel about fighting to say for sure, but if it is something to do with honor, that they’re being martyrs, it seems like women would not be accepted as fighters.

                      • the_original_shortright says:

                        i think for the majority they’re not “allowed” to fight. but (and this is my own assumptions) i also get the feeling that when they’re in the middle of a shit storm like they are right now, they’re a little more willing to let “the womens” fight.
                        -
                        could be wrong. but my rant up there was not directed 100% at this exact situation. anytime people die everyone’s all “not the women and children!!! NOOOO!” but no one gives a crap if the men die. i think it sucks if anyone dies in war, but a woman or a child is no more important than a man dying, in my eyes.

                  • slan agat says:

                    Yes, the results are terrible to look at when genocidal zealots take refuge and hide their weapons among mosques, schools and civilian family homes. Calculatedly terrible. It’s part of the Hamas strategy to put as many civilians in the line of fire as possible – you take a look at detailed reports and you’ll see references to “secondary explosions” when homes and mosques get hit. Those secondary explosions are caches of Hamas weapons. All of which makes for lots more splashy redness and small bodies to carry out for the viewing of the international media.

                    Innocents? Sitting on top of terrorist weapons depots?

                    Hmmmmm.

                  • lako says:

                    israel doesnt just “bomb” them. but of course, even if you’re firing a rocket, you’re humanitarian aid. also, the geneva convention states that when fired upon, you can return fire, and that the use of human shield is a war crime – and any civilian hurt due to exchange of fire, is therefore the responsibility of the side using human shields.

                    also, your claim about the amount of injured/dead is wrong (and i don’t even refer to the number of casualties, which is also wrong) – this is clearly and act of agression, and it is aimed at killing people. the only reason preventing a lot of casualties, is the lack of advanced of technology by the palestinians, and preventive measures taken by israel and israelis. reaction to this kind of agression, is also allowed by international law. also, what you basically say is – “well, if a lot of jews are dead, it’s ok if israel react. as long as someone just tries to kill israelis, it’s ok, and you shouldn’t do anything against it”. dunno, seems kinda weird statement to me…
                    and actually, it DOES matter how it started. 2 dead kidnappers is better than one dead hostage, even if lives are equal.

                • slaggingham says:

                  What’s sad is the Palestinians could have had their own unoccupied nation for the last 40 years or so if they and their fellow Arabs hadn’t resorted to douchebaggery, and then gotten their asses handed to them.

                  Several times.

                  And kept listening to leaders who promised even more douchbaggery, instead of a negotiated peace settlement.

                  It’s hard to feel pity for people that collectively stupid.

                  • FaileV says:

                    stupidity and pride go hand in hand. If there was a force that kicked Americans out of the USA and all you got was texas and new mexico, the a large amount of people would be chopping at the bit to do something stupid and violent, and it would take a few generations before a large voting population would be okay with just everything of the mason dixon line, via peaceful agreement. It isn’t an exact example, but you get the idea, when a whole group of people feels slighted they will do dumb things.

                • lako says:

                  of course, you’re just exaggerating, taking things out of context, and making an uneven and unjust parallel between israel and nazi germany… it would be a bit more fair if you would specify about what incident you’re talking about.
                  of course these kind of things happen in most wars, but only israel is “like the nazis”. due to the fact that the number of palestinians just grows in time, and that a lot of them seek jobs and medical care in israel, i find it hard to claim that israel is trying to perform genocide. but then again, maybe i’m just making it all up.

              • L'homme says:

                where do u want them to go ?
                it is the only war in the world u just cant run away.

                One secular state, the only solution…

                • blue says:

                  they are ethnic arabs. When my entire jewish community was forced out of Iran, we found a new home (as did my yemeni friends, Iraqi friends, european friends before that…). The problem is that the surrounding Arab nations do not want to absorb the ‘palestinian problem.’

            • Ravi says:

              There was actually a video showing rockets being fired from that school…
              Either way, Israel can do w/e they want after they were bombed for 8 years.
              If it were any other country gaza strip would’ve been long gone.

            • Israel says:

              No no no! They never kill civilians!

              Not unless they were being used as human shields by cowardly, inhuman enemies, in which case hey, it’s not their fault anyway, amirite?

              Get your propaganda straight!

              • PiMan says:

                War is a lot easier to wage if you define your opponent as not human.

                • Rami says:

                  Oh, there are too much people from israel who is talking about inhumans! the same as the Germans did in WW2. I will stop respect Holocaust memory from today. because Israel today is not respecting people of other natioan the same as did germans with them some day. Israelis are not better.

                  • lako says:

                    you’re funny. then what would you say about muslims? 10 million muslims died by hand of other muslims. the vast majority of the others have died by hands of christians (mainly russia, US and UK).
                    and the growing number of palestinians just makes your claim about israel trying to do ethnic cleansing absurd. the numbers of palestinians seeking jobs and medical care in israel also tells a different story… and anyway, it doesn’t have anything to do with respecting the memory of the holocaust. but i don’t think these things actually bother you, or that you ever had any respect to the victims of the nazis (after all, mein kampf is a best seller in most muslim countries, as well as in the palestinian authority).

        • AC says:

          According to civilians who survived being sent to a building and shelled, men were separated from their families and made to stay with Israeli soldiers “in case Hamas come.”
          Did “terrorists,” refer to Israeli forces?

        • Rami says:

          They are useless as shields. Israel still bombing them all.

          • lako says:

            that’s why u have one of the lowest ratios of civilians/armed men deaths in recent history of wars and military operations… (even using the numbers quoted by palestinians…). yes, seems reasonable.

      • n8 says:

        Are you certain that it’s an Israeli soldier pictured? I don’t see any identifying insignia… not saying it’s not, just wondering how you recognized him as such.

      • sara says:

        You know, it never snows in gaza…
        It rarely does in the west bank either, and it hasn’t snowed this year yet
        in Israel.

        Maybe, just maybe this is not an Israeli soldier?

        There are many conflicts in the wrold.

      • Dana says:

        You sure it’s Israel? He’s holding an M16.

  7. Kelly says:

    i´m thinking the picture caught him while he was raising or lowering the gun, but who knows? just remember that pictures are manipulative.

    • n8 says:

      One good sign is that his finger is outside of the trigger guard. He’s at the ready, but doesn’t seem intent on firing. Even having the gun pointed anywhere near the kid seems like jackwad behavior to us, until you realize that quite a few people in that neck of the woods would have no qualms about using their toddler as a bomb delivery system.

      • Uncle Fester says:

        their toddler as a bomb delivery system.

        You say that like it’s a bad thing…

      • crisp kraws says:

        that idea is pretty offensive, unless you happen to know someone who lives there and uses their toddler as a bomb delivery system… I can understand the idea that someone could use A toddler as a bomb delivery system, or brainwash their teen, so that in his late teen years he chooses to suicide bomb, but saying something like that takes the humanity out of the enemy, thus making them an animal, and making it o-k for us to kill them…. including toddlers, which is disgusting. so, n8, perhaps you could either be more obvious that you’re being sarcastic, or phrase your statements in a way that doesn’t seem to justify viewing another human as sub-human.

        • Uncle Fester says:

          It doesn’t stop Ann Coulter…

        • Or he was just stating something that happens in that part of world more often than it happens here… If anything, I found his statement to have sarcasm as a coping mechanism to hold back the total horror of using kids as bombs.

          Then again, I am probably projecting so that is my mileage showing. I would be rather twitchy too if I thought anybody or thing could be a bomb. Nothing really justifies this picture. In a sane world, there is never a need to have a gun pointed in the remote vicinity of a kid. However, this is not a sane world.

          So yes, the idea is offensive and I think that was n8’s point.

          • Uncle Fester says:

            The gun isn’t pointed… it’s being checked over. If it was being pointed, the stock would be against the man’s shoulder, as has been pointed out elsewhere.

            • The business end is facing the general direction. I caught the above about it not being readied. However, I am a paranoid man and take into acccount one of the rules of gun safety. “Don’t point it in the direction of something you don’t want dead.”

              So yea, I think about misfires, accidental fire, etc. I wasn’t saying it was intentional. I was saying that a gun is out, loaded, and facing the general direction of a kid. It’s a parent paranoia thing.

              • Uncle Fester says:

                AR-15 hasn’t been that prone to misfire since the did the redesign in the 1960s…

                The standard issue precursor would go off, with the safety on, if a roach broke wind.

                One other thing about the ‘genral area’ thing… it’s tricky in a war zone to run 100% safety rules. Looking at the depth of field (of focus) we’re looking at a lonf lens photo. Thus the soldier could be anywhere from 4 to 24 feet away (I’d favour 8 to 10 feet) from the family group.

                Safety is on. Finger is NOT on the trigger. Now, if this were the Super bowl I’d say we were on dicey ground. However, it’s some cold, third world hell, where some mad SOB is trying to kill other mad SOB over dirt and history, so I’d say he was making the best of a bad situation. Saying the kid ’shouldn’t’ be there, or that the soldier ’shouldn’t’ be checking his gun just means you really don’t have any idea what you’re talking about…

                Life doesn’t tend to be like movies, nor is it terribly neat when ’safety procedures’ that work in civilisation (as much as the americas can be called ‘civilised’) are applied to war zones…

                • That all stated and already understood. Simply saying, I don’t like guns being near children. That’s all. I am not condemning him or stating he can’t do it or anything of the sort.

                  So by all means, keep getting your panties in a twist over not comprehending my meaning. It’s cute because I already agreed with you above. I am simply stating I don’t like guns around kids. Not saying anything about how he needs to run his war. As a matter of fact, I posted in the soldier’s defense about an hour ago so you are pretty much preaching to the choir. I already know the sermon but your consideration is appreciated.

                  Care to add something relevant/non-redundant now or will you degenerate to insults as your usual course? Or shall we continue to aggressively agree with each other?

                • me says:

                  Then lets have them point it at someone YOU love.

                  If you saw that thing pointed at you, would you grow up loving the US?
                  And if they pointed one at your kid, would you love US troops?

                  • Taking my point a bit personally but ya, that was the basis of my paranoia. Then again, the soldier isn’t doing anything so that is all it is, my projected paranoia and the parents do seem to share it.

                    • ubr says:

                      i’ve been walking into a mall and been drawn on by the dudes working the armored car. i did not hate them nor what they stood for. i knew they were doing their job and doing it properly. as long as i did not threaten them in any way i was just as safe as if they had not pointed a gun at me.
                      .
                      so, your argument does not really meet the test. just because someone points a gun at you does not mean that you have the right to hate them.

                      • Um… When did I say hate? I just said I don’t like having guns pointed at me because I am paranoid. Soldiers are just doing their job, even if I don’t like it. I don’t hate soldiers. I’m just paranoid.

                        You guys are making me into a broken record here… Or was your post for “me” above my own post?

                      • Uncle Fester says:

                        i’ve been walking into a mall and been drawn on by the dudes working the armored car.

                        It’s been a while since I was in the US. They have martial law there now?

                        • Yes, Walmart was the last straw… Action had to be taken. I, for one, am glad to have our caring overlords watch us with disdain from gunpoint while we go about doing our Worker Bee lives.

                        • Uncle Fester says:

                          The M16 and Night stick comfort me.
                          Yea, though I walk through the valley of perceived menace
                          I know thou art with me,
                          watching through cameras and pointing your gun…

                        • Uncle Fester says:

                          FIRST!

                        • No, you missed that by a few kilometers. Like a few dozen.

                        • n8 says:

                          No Unc, not the M16. For you, it’ll be the MI-6. And 5. And Scotland Yard. And the plethora of surveilance cameras… ;-)

                        • And a Tally Ho before the hunt is joined to catch dissidents.

                        • Uncle Fester says:

                          I think my Special Branch file is closed now…
                          I’ve been inactive too long to be a real ‘person of interest’ anymore…

                          One good thing about the Cams… they now have so much data they can’t process it. All well and good taking it, but there’s now too much.

                        • n8 says:

                          Aye, that’s the hope of us all. Drinking from the firehose is a very difficult proposition, though you’d be surprised what “data mining” techniques can reveal.

                        • Uncle Fester says:

                          Not much surprises me… I’m pretty au fait with the leading edge of various techniques, and the volume, even using a distributed net and evolvoing algoritms type analytics the volume for complex data is still just too high.

                          simple stuff, like a cam that spots a car tag records it, and logs car’s direction and speed is easy. Crowd monitoring and control is a lot harder, since you’re mapping facies (that need hi res) and contexts of actions… that’s warm bodies on seats using video kit and a lot of time…

                        • Drinking from a firehose… I am now reminded of things best left unmentioned that I have seen in my internet travels.

                      • PortlandMark says:

                        If the armored car rent-a-cops pulled a gun on me, I would make sure they lost their jobs at a minimum, and get a big fat settlement out of the company, maximum. There are laws about when it’s allowed to Menace someone with a gun in the US, and “just ’cause I have a lot of money I don’t want you to steal” is not one of them.

                        • PM, I assumed from the casual nature of ubr’s comment that he realized when it happened that he’d inadvertently done something to make them think he was a threat. (Ubr, feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.) Haven’t done armored car work myself (and have never actually had to draw my gun doing security work) but I can tell you if you think you’re in a situation where you might be facing an armed robber or something you really don’t want to be the last person to draw. It’s a distinct disadvantage.

                        • PortlandMark says:

                          Maybe UBR’s in the habit of walking armed. I’m not, and any response of a drawn weapon, when I’m unarmed, is an inappropriate response. I’m sure any trained professional in the US armored car industry will agree.

                        • It’s possible to mistake other items for a weapon; it’s possible for someone to approach in an erratic or aggressive manner that suggests they may be armed; there’s situations in which it would (IMO) be appropriate to unholster a weapon (note that I didn’t say shoot anyone!) without verifying that they had a weapon pointed at you. I suspect we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one, though.

                        • PortlandMark says:

                          Actually, security companies have procedures they have to follow, and those procedures walk the fine tightrope of protecting the things they are hired to protect, and not getting the company into a public relations or legal nightmare. Those procedures vary from company to company, but I’m pretty sure all of them adhere to a “no draw unless weapons are visible” rule. I respect the way you argue, Diss, but I think this is a question that actually has a right and a wrong answer, not just a difference of opinion.

                        • I would imagine it varies from state to state & from company to company. Like I said, I have never worked armored cars, but I do have my license as armed security & pick up a couple of shifts a week. When you get your license (in my state, anyway) you are trained & have to pass a (pretty easy) test; basically it comes down to you can draw if you feel like you could be in danger and you can shoot if your life is threatened. Rules @ the company I work for can be boiled down to: 1) Don’t get shot, please, somebody will have to cover your sift 2) Don’t get us sued. 3) Don’t piss off the customers. 4) Show up for your shift on time and in uniform. 5)Oh, yeah…don’t piss off the customers. Seriously.

                          I asked when I started if there was anything I should avoid if I got into a physical altercation with somebody on the job (have to break up a fight, get jumped myself, whatever) and was told “You’re tiny. Do whatever you have to do. Bite ‘em, hit ‘em with your cuffs, poke ‘em in the eye…try to avoid shooting them, though.”

                          I haven’t had to draw my weapon on the job *knocks wood*, and I’d prefer never to have to, but I do know (from conversation) that when guards assigned to check out a location where an alarm has gone off are searching the premises, they most certainly have thier guns drawn. Again, I’m sure armored car procedures are probably somewhat different.

                        • Or if ubr was even in America going to a mall… Malls exists in other countries too, if I remember correctly.

                        • *sigh*…#1 should read “shift”…Also, a disclaimer, should I sound like a certain person who always has relevant personal history that posts here occasionally: I’m trying to pay off my student loans, hence the second job.

                        • rhorho says:

                          LOL and three points!

                        • :o ) No points! I did not summon it! Noooo!

                        • Jane St.Clair says:

                          He has a point rho, he didn’t summon.

                        • rhorho says:

                          Those were POINTS, not demerits!! :-)

                        • rhorho says:

                          …and diss is a lovely lady, bringing up 2(?)
                          very lovely girls, I believe.

                        • dissimilitude says:

                          Thank you rho; it’s 3 girls and 1 boy, but the oldest 2 girls are out on their own (more or less) at this point. But, yes, I’m definitely female!

                        • ubr says:

                          here’s how the armored truck thing went…
                          five friends and i were walking up to the mall door where the armored car was parked. this was several years ago and we all looked a little bit… um… dirty? I guess? I was in college at the time so we definitely did not look like upstanding citizens. It was winter so we were bundled up too… as we were about 100ft from the armored car the two guards with the money bags came out of the mall and as soon as they saw us they drew their pistols and placed them behind the money bags in a gesture that means “don’t come near us, we have guns.” The dude who was watching the door of the armored truck turned and pulled out his gun too. When we all saw the guns come out our first instinct was to put our hands up and stop walking towards the truck.
                          This was in the united states in orange county california no less…
                          And if we had tried to get these guards into trouble for pulling on us it wouldn’t have gotten anywhere. The guards have permitted guns and as long as they are not menacing, i.e. threatening to shoot you, then you really don’t have much of a case…

                        • Thanks for the expanded explanation, ubr! They do sound a bit…paranoid.

        • n8 says:

          I suppose you’ll just have to be offended then. What -ever- will I do? *yawn*
          In the meantime, why don’t you click on my name to see exactly the regard these people have for their children.

        • ubr says:

          really? they strap up teenagers with bombs and for some reason you don’t think they would do it with a toddler? a teenager has had nourishment and food for at least a decade… that’s a lot of investment when they just blow them up… toddlers make way more economic sense.

  8. Kelly says:

    now that i look at it more closely, the guy doesn´t even really seem to be aiming and it isn´t really pointed at the kid. more like at the ground or those bags.

  9. rick says:

    First off those who have not been there can’t judge……………..Second we were taught to never raise a weapon from the ground unless we are going to be killing something………… He’s not pointing it at the child……….

    Former SGT McKinney
    US Army
    Kuwait/Iraq 02/03, Iraq 05

  10. Itamar Mushkin says:

    The soldier may have no insignia visible in the picture, but the equipment looks like IDF’s.

    Apart from the fact that he’s not aiming at the kid and that his finger is out, the family looks disgruntled, not terrified. Meaning the soldier is probably urging them to move along or something.

    Also, I don’t think it’s snowing in Gaza, so it was probably taken in the west bank, where there’s no operation.

    • ubr says:

      no one else noticed that the helmet the guy is wearing is not an israeli issue helmet? and neither are the bdus he’s wearing?

      • GiganTick says:

        No. Despite my extensive knowledge of warfare regalia, I failed to notice the incline on the forehead of the helmet, let alone the way it falls to the ears.
        /sarcasm
        AHUR.

  11. Beth says:

    Just another “hate the military” post.

  12. icemyst01 says:

    To me the woman looks to be from one of the Balkan countries the man on the other hand looks Egyptian or Iraqi and the woman with the bags has a headscarf on, so who knows where… But the soldier definitely is not aiming at the kid, though he could still be a douche bag…

    looks to me he may be lowering the weapon as to not have the muzzle cross over a civ…. only a guess though

  13. Trainwreck Chaser says:

    Other then for slugs, why in the world is there a scope on a shot gun?

  14. alleee says:

    …because men in full uniforms with guns raised, in front of people being forced from their homes, you don’t know, they might be nice people and stuff, pointing their rifles on the ground or something. Guy. He’s lowering his weapon. Those people scared for their lives and leaving their homes with whatever they can carry, they’re just whiners. You don’t know.

    rolleyes.

  15. One Skunk Todd says:

    FWIW, it looks like selector is set to safe. Also, although the gun is pointed somewhat away from the camera, as others have mentioned it doesn’t seem turned far enough to be pointing at the child. To me the soldier really looks like he’s examining his gun for whatever reason and not looking at the people at all. I can’t tell if the bolt catch is popped out which would allow him to check the chamber and magazine. I know it’s overanalysis and I don’t mind calling a douchebag a douchebag but there doesn’t seem to be enough here to merit it.

    • Uncle Fester says:

      you’re right… I was looking at the wrong bit…

      For those not familiar with the AR-15 and variants (and people like me, who’ve not handled one in 20 some years)

      (excuse the bad ASCII representation)
      .
      .
      .
      Fully auto

      If the lever is vertical, then it’s Semi/single shot…

      That gun is safe (The lever is immediately above the soldier’s knuckle)

  16. SSgt. Somebody says:

    Hey, if you saw the loads MY kid used to leave in diapers, you’d think they were WMD’s too!

  17. Uncle Fester says:

    ()))))–> Fully Auto

  18. hoosier says:

    So….how do you know they are being “forced from their homes” in this pic? Are they carrying signs? No…you don’t know. Maybe they voluntarily left their homes as refugees to escape the conflict, and this man is there to guard a long line of these people from the assholes-at-large who indiscriminately kill women, children, old people, dogs, mice, and anything else who is in the way and doesnt follow their particular brand of religion. His gun is pointed safely away and down, but at the ready to defend these peole he doesnt know with his own life if necessary.
    But then again he may be a douche tryn to make the kid cry. Who knows? Just the guy with the gun and the guy takin the picture.

  19. Breesus says:

    Quoting the master, Jon Stewart, “To be fair, nobody knows what that kid said first…”

  20. Ha ha I like this pic. Especially after dealing with some bratty kid who can’t behave in public.

  21. slaggingham says:

    Clinton-Era photo. That kid is Elian Gonzalez.

  22. Jmz says:

    For those who are fooled, this photo is a composite. Load it up in any viewer with zoom capabilities and look at the outline of the soldier, who is part of the original photo. Then, zoom in on the outlines of the man, woman and child and notice how pixellated the edges are, especially compared to the soldier. These elements were pasted into the original so nothing was harmed, indeed, nothing was even threatened in this photograph. The real douchebag is the author of this composite. And for those who keep calling the weapon an AR-15, it’s actually an M-16.

    • ubr says:

      jmz, i’m glad someone (besides me) pulled the old “it’s photochopped” charge… the pic does look rather fake to begin with… but there are a couple things you didn’t point out…
      1. ar15 is an m16… just like an m9 is a beretta 92… manufacturer model # vs us miliary model #.
      2. the dude’s helmet is not israeli issue, but rather a PASGT which is used by the us military as well as many other governments around the world. israel issues their soldiers Orlite helmets….
      3. the m16/ar15 the dude is holding has a knockoff ACOG scope, modified cheek plate and what looks like a harris bipod… i’ve never seen a pic of anyone in the IDF carrying such a weapon… they are switching over to the new TAVOR bullpup rifle made my IMI (the made the UZI and the Desert Eagle) but i don’t think it’s made it all the way down the chain to every unit yet…

    • Uncle Fester says:

      The M-16 is a gun built in the Colt AR-15 body.

      The gun pictured is an M-16

      Give it a different flash guard and a collapsible stock and you have the M-177 commando…

      Both are AR-15 actions… Dolt.

  23. Unknown says:

    OH MY GOSH!!! If that guy actually wanted to shoot the kid, screw him!

  24. SmileyBat says:

    Stupidest pic ever. reference Jmz’s post, about a screen up. Damn I hate anti-militants.

  25. FrowneyBat says:

    God I hate gun nuts.

    • ubr says:

      well… us gun nuts actually like you…
      .
      and remember, the revolutionary war was fought by gun nuts too…

      • FaileV says:

        huh i always thought it was a bunch of coffee drinkers that thought standing in lines was silly

      • Uncle Fester says:

        well… us gun nuts actually like you…

        Moving targets that no-one will miss are hard to find…

      • somebody says:

        People really forget that, don’t they? We wouldn’t have a USA in the first place if the people hadn’t been armed and able to resist the opression.

        Some people think I am strange because I have no interest in actual guns but I support the NRA. I am no “gun nut” but I am a “second amendment nut”.

        If you support the US constitution, you don’t get to pick and choose which parts of it you support or interpret as intended. If you think that the second amendment is outdated and no longer needed, then push to get it repealed. I will think you are wrong and I will tell you why, but I will have more respect for you than I do for those who try to put words in the mouths of the writers of the constitution and think we can just do an end-run around ANY of the amendments, the second or otherwise.

        But there are so many things about the republican party I don’t agree with, I find myself in a difficult spot. I voted for Bob Barr.

  26. Snad says:

    Spot on caption. Well done.

  27. dan says:

    I don’t think the soldier is US… He’s in all olive drab, no camo. Rifle is too nonstandard. And those mag pouches definitely aren’t US issue.

  28. aaryn says:

    Regardless of whether he’s pointing the gun at the kid or not, there is absolutely nothing funny about this picture. The whole thing makes me sick to my stomach.

  29. christopher rocchetti says:

    This picture really breaks my heart. There is enough good people in this world that care we need to come together as one and really take a look at what is unfolding, this pic,is the perfect example of why. These poor familys are suffering “FOR WHAT ” NOBODY has the right to take live!! there is enough people to make the world a better place…….

    • Kelly says:

      don´t trust the picture. i have a feeling there is more to this than meets the eye. look at how the guy is holding the gun… he is not aiming for the kid, he´s not even aiming at all.

  30. Anderson says:

    Ahem…

    That’s not Israeli uniform/weapon. And the people look Turkish, not arabs.

    I know, I live in the West Bank.

    • Galina says:

      That was my thought too.
      I saw this lengthy discussion, and nobody there knows how an Israeli uniform looks?

      I live in Israel, and kinda didn’t return some of my uniform.

  31. neurotype says:

    That’s stupid. He should be aiming for the people who might live to tell the story.

    But seriously, why are there no iconic images like this of what’s going on in Gaza right now? Where is the media?

  32. Kosake says:

    I would think, the picture is from Georgia or that new State of Ossetia. The uniform is not russian, so it is a Georgian soldier. The M4-Car just supports that thesis. They got several hundred thousands of them half a year or so before they attacked.

    About Gaza: There are no pictures, because the Israelian military does not want shitheads to run around their tanks and getting stuck in the tracks. Do you even know, what a horrible job it is, to get the tank clean afterwards??? I would not let anyone run around my armor too.

  33. Froob says:

    Good job on catching this attempt at trying to slander Israel by point out that that is a Georgian soldier not Israel, Kudos. By the way you might want to change your name, it sounds all too similar to the genocidal Cosack.

  34. Brianna says:

    I don’t find it funny. And neither do the kids parents evidently. They seem like they feel highly threatned.


Your comment

 

 

Search

Get Daily Lol News Emails


EmailSubscribe
Enter your email address:
 

TwitterFollow us
on Twitter »
FacebookBecome a
Facebook fan »
RSSRSS Feed »
  • Recent Comments

    oɹɹɐɥɔ on Let’s imagine the look o…
    oɹɹɐɥɔ on Let’s imagine the look o…
    oɹɹɐɥɔ on Vladurday: FACT
    Wino on Let’s imagine the look o…
    oɹɹɐɥɔ on “No Child Left Behi…
    Andy who was once di… on Let’s imagine the look o…
    pittypat on Let’s imagine the look o…
    pittypat on Let’s imagine the look o…
    Jane St.Clair is ver… on KINDNESS
    Jane St.Clair is ver… on KINDNESS
  • Tag Cloud

  • The National Archives

  • Most Popular Pictures

  • RSS Cheezburger Network Blog

  • Even More Lulz