Login or register


Last status update:
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:12/08/2011
Last Login:7/01/2016
FunnyJunk Career Stats
Content Ranking:#6765
Comment Ranking:#5452
Highest Content Rank:#5858
Highest Comment Rank:#4788
Content Thumbs: 0 total,  13 ,  13
Comment Thumbs: 1025 total,  1625 ,  600
Content Level Progress: 8.47% (5/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 0% (0/10)
Level 188 Comments: Anon Annihilator → Level 189 Comments: Anon Annihilator
Content Views:3482
Total Comments Made:875
FJ Points:946

latest user's comments

#47 - WoW is Azeroth 06/29/2016 on Map Sizes 0
#33 - Nope there's 7 which was like blazing sword or something in Ja… 06/26/2016 on ron emblem 0
#39 - That's gross  [+] (1 new reply) 06/21/2016 on Zarya's day off -2
#52 - forestkoyama (06/21/2016) [-]
You're gross.
#60 - well yea nothing is as simple as 1 explanation and I have only… 06/16/2016 on Brits you gotta leave UK 0
#53 - lol a debate on here would almost certainly be conservatively … 06/15/2016 on Brits you gotta leave UK 0
#41 - I mean they can't legally do anything about it. But nothing is…  [+] (2 new replies) 06/15/2016 on Brits you gotta leave UK 0
User avatar
#59 - dislikinator (06/16/2016) [-]
They can't because the opposite is just as true.
Not just that, but putting sanctions on the UK would show the rest of the world how childish they are. This would hurt them economically, and they can't take that hit because out of all economic superpowers, the EU has by far the lowest growth rate.

If sanctions are in place, it brews distrust through all other EU countries and others, like Liechtenstein, Sweden and Denmark would break off, maybe even causing a chain reaction completely dissolving the EU.
#60 - zenethe (06/16/2016) [-]
well yea nothing is as simple as 1 explanation and I have only read into it a little bit. It all depends on what thing is going to actually happen
#40 - If you're from the UK you should take 20 minutes to get a vagu…  [+] (2 new replies) 06/15/2016 on Brits you gotta leave UK 0
User avatar
#51 - Saundazzz (06/15/2016) [-]
Yeah I totally agree with you mate, it's just hard to find opinions that aren't at least slighty biased! I am leaning toward voting out, just want to make sure I am sure!
I was kinda hoping for a bit of a debate on here to make my mind up!
#53 - zenethe (06/15/2016) [-]
lol a debate on here would almost certainly be conservatively biased. I have no idea how biased The Week is but it didn't seem too bad. A quick google search said it was either center or slightly left so I would take that and just try to recognize anything they might be spinning.
#36 - I was in mostly average classes with a few AP classes here and… 06/14/2016 on time 0
#6 - Have they remained silent? My preconceived notion would be tha…  [+] (19 new replies) 06/13/2016 on ISIS: Lol no +48
User avatar
#11 - downhillGuy (06/13/2016) [-]
ISIS claimed it almost straight away and are urging more people in the west to copy the attack
User avatar
#22 - robinwilliamson (06/13/2016) [-]
User avatar
#26 - lolollo (06/14/2016) [-]
Source on which?
User avatar
#49 - robinwilliamson (06/14/2016) [-]
"ISIS claimed it almost straight away"
All I'd seen was the weak statement in al-Amaq after the news had already been talking about it for a while, and I've heard zero word directly from ISIS, just ISIS supporters/sympathizers celebrating it in a pretty milktoast fashion compared to their usual squawking.
#50 - lolollo (06/14/2016) [-]
You want ISIS to call your cell phone or some shit?

Is that what's gonna do it for you?
User avatar
#51 - robinwilliamson (06/14/2016) [-]
What are you assuming is "it"?

I'm saying there's pretty clear difference between:
-this attack where ISIS is pretty quiet and the only noise was a late, weak statement that came from an ISIS-linked news outlet,


-other attacks where ISIS was very quick and had direct public statements

To get a better sense what I mean, look at this
User avatar
#58 - lolollo (06/14/2016) [-]
It is what's supposedly gonna convince you that this was some ISIS thing. There was a call during the attack from the guy claiming allegiance to ISIS. He was on FBI watch lists because of alleged connections to terrorist cells. ISIS directly claimed responsibility, even if after the fact.

And when you say "after the news had already been talking about it for a while, and I've heard zero word directly from ISIS" it calls to question just what magical news outlet you're waiting for. A "credible" one? Right, because there's a lot of confidence that "credible" isn't just supposed to be synonymous with "says what I want".
User avatar
#52 - downhillGuy (06/14/2016) [-]
That is ISIS' online media news outlet. And yes the statement is different since the gunman acted alone and the attack wasn't planned by the ISIS leaders. Look at the other statements they make, 90% are in the same style as this (the recent Kenya, Somalia, Libya attacks) and only the major attacks where ISIS leaders are involved get a direct statement from those same leaders. It is a different style of terrorism from AL-qaeda. I wouldn't call it a weak statement, and it was made very quickly after the attack and directly to the public.

As for urging more people to preform random attacks of terror, it is written throughout their propaganda, including in the statement they released.

#7 - masterpenguin (06/13/2016) [-]
Basically the shooter claimed he was doing it "for ISIS" but there is no evidence as of yet to prove that ISIS was directly behind it. Either way, it is radical Islamic bullshit
#8 - masterpenguin (06/13/2016) [-]
Meant to include that ISIS did claim responsibility for it but there is no proof...
#12 - useroftheLOLZ (06/13/2016) [-]
You know, despite the dude being muslim, watched by the FBI and apparantly having traveled to the Middle East before and ISIS saying, "Yep, one of our guys. Get fucked Americucks."


You don't need the ISIS brand exclusive decoder ring in order to fight for them.
#15 - justanotherblablab (06/13/2016) [-]
There's no proof he has been in actual contact with ISIS. Terrorist organisations have a habit of claiming to be responsible for everything that looks like an terrorist attack, even if they haven't actually done it. There's a distinction between being a member of ISIS and a ISIS sympathizer.

My bet is that he has been in contact with ISIS, but only time will tell if it can be proven.
User avatar
#16 - useroftheLOLZ (06/13/2016) [-]
Except, you know, the FBI watching him for the past 5 years because they had strong suspicions that he had connections to ISIS?
User avatar
#38 - elcreepo (06/14/2016) [-]
Can I get sauce on that?
#17 - justanotherblablab (06/13/2016) [-]
Except what? I think he has been in contact with ISIS or at least some other terrorist organisation, as I said before.
#13 - dudulli (06/13/2016) [-]
That retard also claimed ties to Hezbollah AND Al Quaida.
As of right I think he is a single guy, trying to impress ISIS-senpai and they gladly take the "glory"
User avatar
#14 - useroftheLOLZ (06/13/2016) [-]
He traveled to Saudi Arabia twice which has known ISIS and Al Qaeda cells.

It wouldn't be that far outside the realm of possibility he connected with them online, went there for it to be "officiated" and came back while keeping in contact.

Especially since that sort of thing has, you know, already happened multiple times.
#19 - dudulli (06/13/2016) [-]
I'm not saying it's impossible but, as of right now with the info I read, I think it's unlikely. Especially after he claimed he belongs to Al Quaida and Hezbollah who aren't really big buddies.

Same with the travels. I mean he was Saudi Arabian.

I don't want to say this guy was definitely solo, but if anything similar happens and the credits slightly leans towards a Islamic terrorist group, they will gladly take it.
User avatar
#10 - gragasvlad (06/13/2016) [-]
Regardless of if he did it for ISIS or not he supposedly yelled Allahu Snackubar!
#10 - So do muslims because they get free things under the liberals.… 06/13/2016 on Today summed up in a picture. 0