Ah - a Good Friday story.
Heāll be back on Sunday!
With eggs and chocolate!
Or, such is my understanding.
I have to say, I love the precedent for wars of the future being fought by leaders blowing each other up. As many times as necessary to kill them, and keep them killed.
Only because the less people involved in some big apes war for some other big apes stuff, the better.
Civilized wars are fought between armies, and the leaders are pretty much untouched. A āgentlemanās agreementā exists calledā¦ lets just kill the little people, so we both know weāll come out OK in the end.
Nope!
I want everyone who leads a war to be huddled in little bunkers, praying to a god they know will not answer, and holding their families tight to themā¦ wondering if they will see a tomorrow.
Just like the rest of us have to do when this shit gets goingā¦
Iām just sayingā¦ war and violence wouldnāt be such a thing if the ramifications were equally distributed.
Soooo, what youāre saying is that the god of the Muslims is able to resurrect people or shield them from bombs, eh.
It may have been The Onion that pointed out the worldās most dangerous job is ānumber three man in al-Qaeda.ā Back in the oughts, we killed the number-three man almost every week.
Oh. I thought we were looking at a quantum ISIL leader. The ones that can be in two places at once.
Spooky terrorism at a distance or something.
Wait. Whatās happening?
Is this real life?!
Still not as dangerous as rear gunner on a Londonderry milkfloat. Sorry, couldnāt resist.
Of course wars used to be fought between armies where the supreme leader actually had to take the field, and they were often killed (e.g. Richard 3rd.) And in navies it was a point of honour - far more important than any mere military effectiveness - that in battles officers had to stand on deck in full uniform, an idea of stunning stupidity that, of course, led to the death of Nelson.
Wars started to get really big when the top brass ceased to get involved. But there were other stratagems. At the Battle of Lepanto the nominal leader was Don Juan of Austria - Ritter Johann von Oesterreich - who was a minor son of Charles Vth by a German singer named Barbara Blomberg. He was given various minor lowish status jobs around the place until a figurehead leader was needed - whereupon he was given royal status and sent off to rally the troops. It worked quite well, and perhaps thatās why nowadays we have various minor royals in the armed forces to motivate the troops, while politicians stay in their armoured Mercs a long way from the sharp end.
Perhaps ISIS are doing this, and we are actually occasionally assassinating the equivalent of Prince Andrew.
Iām reminded of reading of the times during WW2 when German propaganda would announce things like, āThe glorious Kriegsmarine have sunk the British HMS Seahawk.ā much to the amusement of people who knew that this, and other āsunkā vessels were actually the names of Royal Navy Shore Establishments.
Killed him a second timeā¦ wait a minuteā¦
Yep. Itās a Buddhist.
We got a Buddhist people! I repeat, we have a Buddhist terrorist!
Ha!
Also, tragically, weāve already had lots of them (check out India and Pakistan!). Terrorism is generally far less religiously motivated than most people think and angry young people are pretty easy to convert.
Weāve even had a QUAKER terrorist! And thatās like getting murdered by a puppy!
Did he lock some guy up with like a bear and stand there with a gun saying, āI could stop the bear, but I donāt believe in violence.ā
Nah. Just like all the rest, he was broken and a little insane and the fact that he was a Quaker just wasnāt that big a part of his persona.
Kind of like all those Christians who come up with clever ways to break those commandments and act distinctly un-Jesus-like.
Maybe. But itās not like the world was an especially peaceful place when regicide was commonplace, so hard to say.
Have you been reading (holds nose, gets wooden tweezers, puts on protective glasses and rubber apron, and holds up this: āthe atheist conservativeā
Or this: āUK media watchā, actually a Zionist lobby group
Because the straw man argument is equally strong on this one.
It isnāt a straw man, its a joke.
We did kind of set that up to be a bit dry, didnāt we?
I also thought you were being goofy and was having fun with the mental image. 
I thought that was the Mary Whitehouse thing?
I expect that we will soon find out that these pictures are all from some Middle East stock photo site.
