The best defense

The best defense  | THE BEST DEFENSE AGAINST EVIL MEN ARE GOOD MEN SKILLED AT VIOLENCE | image tagged in dead or alive,memes | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
21,673 views, 151 upvotes, Made by catfish94 22 months ago dead or alivememes
Dead or alive memeRe-caption this meme
Add Meme
Post Comment
reply
[deleted]
19 ups, 1 reply
VIOLENCE IS NOT THE ANSWER. VIOLENCE IS THE QUESTION. AND THE ANSWER IS YES! | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
[deleted]
9 ups
ALL MEN ARE VIOLENT PIGS SO LET THEM IN OUR BATHROOMS | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
12 ups, 1 reply
Despite the hippy axiom. Violence does solve problems
reply
[deleted]
14 ups, 2 replies
The question of whether or not violence is the right response comes down to who begs the question: violence is NEVER the appropriate response to nonviolence. Violence is pretty much the only answer to violence. Unless you like getting slapped around, transmetaphorically speaking.
reply
8 ups, 1 reply
By its very nature evil does not have a non-violent aspect.
reply
[deleted]
7 ups
This is also true.
reply
7 ups
Certainly. Violence is not an option taken lightly. The fallout is too catastrophic.
reply
6 ups
Like!!
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
excuse me sir but what about women
reply
6 ups, 1 reply
Right you are. There are many women skilled in delivering righteous violence unto people dedicated to our demise. Indeed, in the early days in Afghanistan when there were just a few 12 man Green Beret A-Teams embedded with Northern Alliance units, there was a young female Air Force lieutenant as weapons commander on an AC-130 gunship. When the A-teams would make contact with large Taliban formations the gunship was called in to deliver ordinance. She would do more than just target them. She would talk to them, saying how they were about to be killed by a woman and that was a dishonorable death and they would be denied entry into Paradise. Then she'd lay the fire down onto them. She gained a reputation among the Talis and al Qaeda as "The Angel of Death".
reply
3 ups
I was joking but thanks for the info ( • 3 •)
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
reply
4 ups
Don't get me wrong everyone, I like the meme, but isn't that what the President of the NRA Wayne LaPierre said (I know it's not exactly the same thing), "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun." I don't hate guns at, I just think that guy is a little crazy...
reply
4 ups
Lets face it, our hashtag campaigns haven't really worked!
reply
4 ups
I'd also like to point out that there's a thin line between a good man skilled at violence and a controllable bad man skilled at violence. And some evil men are brainwashed good men skilled at violence, or good men skilled at violence who went through one or more traumatic experiences.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
reply
3 ups
Tell you the truth, Obama probably has hit upon the correct course of action... Special forces on the ground teamed with and teaching indigenous units and using precision air strikes to eliminate leadership cadres in ISIS. Would've been better if he had been doing this two years ago rather than cling to the narrative that the terrorists were contained. Still, better late than never.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
What is evil? who is evil? Does pure evil even exist? Can i fight something that i believe is evil only because it differs from my morals?
reply
5 ups, 2 replies
It's an individual choice. One can confront with force an entity trying to force you by threat of death to submit to their morals or one may simply submit. History does, however, show that pacifist reaction and submission emboldens those seeking to enslave or kill those they deem the enemy. If one cannot identify evil and confront it, one will be force to submit to evil.
reply
6 ups
I can accept it as self-defense. I can't yet agree to violence against ignorance. Still (I'm not proud of this though) I do agree to terminate violent and ignorant people that are too far from being redeemed in a respectful society. That's a last resort and only because they would bring arm to others...Always remembering it was not their own fault but just how they were raised by their background. I'd pity 'em more than hating 'em in the end.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
So we dropped bunker busters on Iraq to fight Al Queda, save the people from a dictator, and/or stop Saddam from making nukes (whichever one of these BS stories you believe) and the result was a massive influx of males joining Al Queda and fighting the U.S. now there's ISIL. Please tell me how fighting terrorism with violence has had this magic result you're speaking of?
reply
[deleted]
5 ups, 2 replies
reply
3 ups
reply
1 up, 1 reply
So to take out one guy, it was worth killing over 100k Iraqi civilians? Really? Wow... And how many people did Saddam's army kill? Was it more or less than 100k?
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
give us a nice list of links where you get your sources please. its no good trying to debate with information only you magically have.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Ok well I guess my info is outdated. A study in 2013 says 500k. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/10/131015-iraq-war-deaths-survey-2013/
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
reply
[deleted]
3 ups
reply
5 ups, 4 replies
reply
16 ups, 4 replies
Violence against terrorism is not terrorism.
reply
13 ups
Bull's eye!
reply
8 ups
Bingo. Let's not forget who is burning people alive in cages while filming it, beheading innocent journalists for a YouTube upload, mutilating the genitals of baby girls, repressing any and all opposition with fear and threats of death, and blowing up innocents in marketplaces because they don't like your ethnicity. i.imgflip.com/137l2y.jpg (click to show)
reply
3 ups, 2 replies
It is to the innocent bystanders and there is always collateral damage.
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
There is a lot less collateral damage now then in any part of wars history.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Over 100k dead Iraqi civilians cannot be overlooked. That's women and children too.
reply
[deleted]
3 ups, 1 reply
Too bad you have no tears for the victims of Saddam's [email protected] rooms, torture chambers, genocide of Kurds or the Kuwaiti people. Liberals are such flaming hypocrites.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
I'm a hypocrite because I think killing innocent people in the name of saving innocent people makes no sense?
reply
[deleted]
3 ups, 1 reply
A hypocrite and apparently, also a simplistic fool who likes to play rhetoric games with people who are a lot smarter than you. But you are just a byproduct of the Golden Age of Stupid, ushered in my the domestic enemies of the United States.
reply
1 up, 2 replies
What rhetoric games? You mean like creating memes??My point couldn't be more clear. If you think you can out terrorize a terrorist, then you're the fool. Wipe them off the face of the earth is a great idea. But if you're killing innocent people in the process, then you're just as bad as they are. I don't know what the solution is but we've been doing what you're all getting so excited over and it's not working. It hasn't worked for decades.
reply
[deleted]
4 ups, 4 replies
Let's cut to the chase, I grow weary of your schoolyard semantics. So what is your solution to the problem of terrorism? Or are you only capable of criticism of real world solutions you don't understand?
[deleted]
3 ups
So you are ONLY capable of criticism of real world solutions you don't understand, which means you should STFU and leave difficult problems to people that have the courage to face them. Next!
1 up
I have every right to voice my opinion and I understand about as much as anyone who's not out there firing guns or being shot at. I thank God I'm not out there and I pray for all the ones who are. These real world solutions of yours aren't working. Sorry if that upsets you but it's the truth.
1 up
If you actually read my comment I said I didn't know what the solution was. But seeing as how your solution hasn't worked so far, neither do you. Is that basic enough language for you or should I make another meme?
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Maybe someday we will have a smart bullet that can only hit what we want it to. The thing is that we don't. When you are combating and enemy that has no problem sending a kid at you with a bomb tied to them, you have to keep watch on everybody. When Hitler invaded Europe we sent enough troops to literally walk across the continent looking for guys in Nazi uniforms and they found them all. Even the Nazis wouldn't dress like civilians or use children as bombs. If we put enough boots on the ground in Iraq or any other middle eastern country it is our casualties that will rise the fastest. Either from thinking a child is harmless, or that every civilian you pass is a true civilian and not packing an AK under their robes. At some point you have to blame an enemy that hides behind innocence or even uses it as a weapon for their own casualties. If a man with a machine gun was hiding behind an old lady shooting your friends, at some point you have to take into consideration who you should protect. You might lose 4 friends and save the old lady, then get killed yourself later without those friends to protect you. Basically war is messy, the soldiers I know all say they are there to protect each other regardless of politics. When I think of them having to deal with those type of situations, the whole drone strike thing doesn't look so bad. If the only way to save their innocent is at the loss of more of our soldiers, I personally have to say their innocent need to stop being around terrorists if they are so innocent.
1 up
I agree with most of what you said. I'm just not sure all of the innocents are able to get away from terrorism.
reply
4 ups
No, it isn't. Truth is objective, not subjective.
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
accidentally bombing a wedding cuz you bomb first ask question later, is not terrorism?
reply
2 ups
No, these things happen when your ground spotter is a native of the country and you're not totally sure if they are friend or foe, but you use them because it is politically stylish.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
reply
1 up, 1 reply
then don`t f**king bomb it!
reply
1 up, 1 reply
That's what I'm saying
reply
1 up, 2 replies
Invest in terminators, I`m not f**king kidding. little f**king killer mosquitoes that take DNS samples before killing. Now tell me if you think terrorist will shit their pants when we do that
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
Knowing the Domain Name Server won't help. Just sayin' ... (couldn't help it)
reply
1 up
its a typo obviously S is next to A and you need 20 min to comment here so. nice observation, someone get him a medal
reply
2 ups
reply
10 ups, 1 reply
Evil and terror could be interpreted as equals but i disagree. The problem with evil is that it does not seek to negotiate and reach a non-violent resolution whereas terrorists seek change of a political nature. It's possible, albeit difficult, to reach a negotiated settlement with terrorists, whereas true evil does not care about politics or resolution or peace or anything. One may be able to make the case there is no true evil, however in some things that would be a difficult argument to win.
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
I don't call that evil. Just a brutal ignorance at its brightest. Warped morals if we may. If you learn respect for all the living, you won't even hurt a fly. if you learn you are right and everyone is wrong and evil, you end up like that.
reply
12 ups, 2 replies
That's moral relativism.
reply
8 ups, 2 replies
That is why the road to hell is paved with liberal logic...er good intentions
reply
5 ups
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
Better than you. You actually have to know what the saying literally means. You also have to know what current cultural and historical period we are in and how the bulk of the left works. Are you saying that the actions of the left are not done with good intentions? That the view of circumstance trumps over perspective isn't a modern liberal view? I can understand that you'd think their policies are awesome and therefore I must not understand the concept, but with the riding tide of disenfranchisement, a growing poverty base reliant on subsidies ID say the good intentions are having the way to hell, that within this time period the left views the decisionaking process of tioters and terrorists as s different way of looking at a situation and has developed policies that reflect those views with good intentions.... Unless you're cynical and think they're just wandering for votes?
reply
1 up, 2 replies
Its not a left or right issue. Lets start with the fact that we agree on the problem everything you listed is the problem! Moral relativism is when a gay person things he has the right to pee wherever they want and you should suck it up! And it is also when a straight person thinks gays should just stay home and f**k them! Same shit! Relativism is when you think the way you see is right and others are wrong! Universal morals would consider all parties involved! Now as far as the economy being f**ked! Tell me please do you think its OK that we paid 800 billion to bail out banks that failed? In who's f**king book is that ok? Do you know that thay paid themselves 1.9 billion in bonuses after being bailed out with tax money? THE F**K! That is the problem with the economy!
reply
3 ups
It isn't limited as you say, nor is it incorrect to point out specifics.
One Bush initially started bailouts and they were continued under the current regime, while they controlled the Congress. So culpability lies with both.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
So money is finite?
reply
1 up, 1 reply
no, its infinite, but its value isn`t. I assume you understand how inflation works. as to the bail out, I don`t give a f**k who did it. I think people need to go to prison for that shit! Do you agree or no ?
2 ups
Actually, I do. Nothing is too big to fail. However, I also think pandering to groups if people via welfare, entitlements, et al, is just as damaging, though it takes a longer time to see the outcomes.
reply
3 ups
Exactly.
reply
8 ups, 1 reply
I apologize for the graphic nature of the image, but if there is no true evil, what would you call that?
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
I think everyone should look at the images related to ISIS violence before they speak on the subject. The word "beheading" has a lot less impact than the image of a neck with no head, or the images of crucifixions, or the mangled bodies in marketplaces and cafes, shredded by bombs.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Sure if we can also look at the images of what the U.S. military has done as well...
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
I've seen them, I've also seen how we have gone out of our way more than any army in history to avoid civilian casualties. As a country we have invested more in technology to avoid this as well. This is an enemy that hides behind civilians to assure there will be some collateral deaths, so that they can play on emotions like yours. There are differences between those who line people up for mass murder by be beheading with a knife, burning people alive so they can video it for the internet and then use the innocent as camouflage. I don't want to see any innocents killed, but if you let a group like this go unchecked they will continue to kill way more on purpose than those trying to stop them will do on accident.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
I know someone from Panama who lived in Noriehas neighborhood who was given 20 minutes to pack up his life and get as far away as he could before the U.S. went in there and decimated the place. All because we wanted control of the canal. You tell me what the difference is between us and them. Noriega was someone we put in power who de used not to at ball anymore so we took him out and killed a lot of civilians in the process. Say what you will about my thought process but I'm not blind to the horrific nature of all civillian casualties. We rolled over people with tanks in Panama. That's a gruesome death too. Just because it's not plastered all over the news doesn't make it any less real. I'm not saying to leave them unchecked. I just don't think you can fight fire with fire.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Panama aside it is a different topic and a red-herring as far as the current topic goes and I refuse to chase it at this point. Although we have to learn from history or be doomed to repeat it, we still have to function in the right now. I'm not a psychopath who wants to kill kill kill, but at the same time I don't want to see that type running unchecked across the middle east invading villages and towns perpetrating the types of atrocities isis is responsible for committing. I am way open to change, but I have to HEAR something plausible to be able to go along with it. To date I have still heard nothing realistic from any source even when I come up just shy of begging someone to tell me what the better idea is.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
I'm with you on most of these points and only brought up Panama as an example of our occasional lack of benevolence in wartime. I don't want these guys to go unchecked either but I just believe that with all the technology we have, we should never have to resort to a ground war or dropping bombs that wipe out everyone. We should be above that and why we're not is a huge mystery to me.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
I disagree, with you there. A ground force is still the most efficient and cost effective way to go in and extract the bad guys with the least collateral damage. There is NO possible way to wage a war that makes everyone happy. This sounds like what you are looking for. You have alliances in other countries, peace protestors in your own, budget hawks, lawyers and the list goes on. Trying to appease everyone is why we CONTINUALLY find ourselves in Korea and Viet Nam type quagmires.
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
But the only ones who matter are the profiteers, the Halliburtons, etc. Ground wars are expensive and make certain people a lot of money. And the terrorists just keep multiplying and blowing up stuff so I'm just not seeing where it's working. If it is so effective then someone behind the scenes is letting this play out which is also wrong.
2 ups
You allow yourself to het sidetrack, there will always be someone making coin off the manufacturing of war implements, unless you just want to hand all of that over to the govt. to produce in nationalized shops and factories. We now have it so that the advisors and lawyers drag this out to line their pockets. As horrible as Hiroshima and Nagasaki were, it brought to a defined end to WWII. We do not have to go anywhere NEAR that extreme to bring an end to many situations in that region. We would only have to strike hard, strike fast and strike without mercy to a DEFINED enemy. This pissing around that is happening now is only insuring decades more of the same. I don't want to see innocents killed, but I submit a quick and lasting peace is more humane than what is happening now. Either that or pull out of the region altogether and leave it to its own devices and return to a more isolationist policy. Either way you to be willing to adapt a plan and see it through... the good, the bad and the ugly.
1 up
But that's the problem. They'll create wars to make money and they'll keep wars from being won for the same reason. And all these people are dying for nothing. It's just another in a long list of why war isn't the answer.
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Because guns are working so well? Bin Ladin was trained by the CIA in the 80's... We might as well be using water balloons because guns ain't working bruh
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
Well I dare say that there are less today than there were yesterday. True that should NOT an end game strategy. I however never hear anything better, only criticism fof those putting in at least some effort. I dare say if there wasn't so much worrying over the criticism that we would have had troops in there 2 years ago when it would have been a simple mop up mission to remove isis. In fact I would go that one better and say we would have had a status of forces agreement that would have kept troops there to prevent isis from ever gaining any ground. All of this is what happens when you don't finish what you start, like it or not.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
We shouldn't have started it in the first place.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
What is your suggestion, how do YOU see peace achieved in the region going forward?
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
I don't know the answer to that. I just don't see war as any sort of a sane solution. It makes a lot of money for a lot of big companies like Halliburton and Microsoft. But the machine keeps rolling while our soldiers keep dying and getting maimed. Maybe assassin drones are the answer. Not ones that drop bombs but ones that go in there and take people out one by one. I can't say for sure. But what we're doing now isn't working. That much I am convinced of.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Criticizing is the easy position. Having a solution and going in and applying it is the hard part. Personally I think overwhelming force and take them out without prejudice is the best option. Do it quickly and as cleanly as possible while there is still time. The current administrations efforts being half-hearted have only served to drag the situation out and fuel their resolve. From real life experience I learned a lesson at a real early age. Bullies don't get bored and quit. Unless you want to continue to be bullied, at some time you have to hit them square in the nose.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
How do you change an ideology? How do we convince these kids that grow up watching beheading videos instead of cartoons that blowing themselves up isn't the answer or that they shouldn't want revenge for the death of their brother or uncle? Im all for precision air strikes if there's no collateral damage. It is easy to criticize when we're talking about innocent people dying, that's true.
reply
2 ups
I don't think that you can change it, is what is so sad. There is a generation of sociopaths being created from the moment they leave the womb. I just don't see a deprogramming working on any kind of a large scale. I really do understand the frustration and share in it with you. I truly feel that even if we were to defeat Isis 100% right now, we wouldn't truly see the apex of their evil for another 20 years or so.
This is partly the fault to of the people in the area. Too many prefer to pack up and leave instead of fighting for their homes, and many times that number who passively watch and do nothing as Germans did pre-WWWII. Suni, Shiite and Kurds would have to stop fighting amongst themselves to be able to take on radical Islam.
The rest of the blame falls on outsiders who for decades have embraced different radical factions for their own needs, to protect their own allies and interests. It is up to the people of the region to decide the fate of the region.
reply
2 ups
reply
1 up
reply
1 up
reply
1 up, 1 reply
violence is just blood being spilled. It doesn't matter. It never will. and we will continue to murder terrorists with pieces of speedy shrapnel that come out of tubes.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Violence mattered to King George III, the Barbary Pirates, the slave holding Confederacy, Nazi Germany, imperial Japan, Manuel Noriega, usama bin laden to name a few...
reply
1 up
yeah that's cuz they're evil and they kinda have their vision blocked by their goals, they dont really have much of a say in the world
reply
[deleted]
2 ups
you don't say
Flip Settings
Dead or alive memeRe-caption this meme

Created with the Imgflip Meme Generator

Show embed codes
IMAGE DESCRIPTION:
THE BEST DEFENSE AGAINST EVIL MEN; ARE GOOD MEN SKILLED AT VIOLENCE
hotkeys: D = random, W = like, S = dislike, A = back