Andy Thomson on Suicide Terrorism Part 3 of 3 (Q&A)

[callmeal84]

Why did Atran change? Because he did more research.

[jackdav34]

I'd love to listen to a dialogue b/w Thomson and Scott Atran on this subject.

[hardinmichael1981]

End The Occupations Now

[DeuceDecker]

what really upsets me is that people are going to watch this and hear the comment that qutb was made in nassers prisons and take it as gospel because of the pseudo intellectual forum. not knowing what you are talking about is one thing but not knowing what you are talking about and making such a potent statement with dire consequences is nearly a crime.

[spinycrayfish]

@DeuceDecker

How do you leap to that conclusion? Neglecting the role of prison is a touch naive. It's proven fact that prison life either leads people to religion, or in this case reinforce beliefs and strengthen resolve. To simply look at a timeline and then dismiss opposing arguments seems an oversimplification.

[DeuceDecker]

@spinycrayfish

Perhaps as much of an oversimplification as dismissing the ideology of Qutb and his ilk before going to prison? If the people participating in this discussion as self described experts dismiss the factors i described they are being intellectually dishonest or simply not thinking. If you want to talk about time line and sequence lets ask how the blowhard that asserted that Qutb was "created in Nassar's prisons" leaped to his conclusion.

[DeuceDecker]

@spinycrayfish

Additionally, it takes a level of knowledge on the subject of suicide terrorism and its underlying factors to discuss the topic in a meaningful way.. Most people in this forum dont have that level of knowledge or interest in the topic of terrorism. This event is like someone to explaining economics without even the concept of math, then convincing themselves that they have a point because the audience is just as il informed as they are.

[spinycrayfish]

@DeuceDecker

I would say reached rather than leaped in this instance. These people are experts in psychology and as such understand human nature. There is the factor I've already mentioned. People fight to overcome resistance. The harder something is, especially in religion/ideology, the more determined they become. Thus being locked in a prison and tortured exacerbates the problem rather than solving it. Also, by your timeline theory, there's the fact his major works were written from prison.

[spinycrayfish]

@DeuceDecker

I would say reached rather than leaped in this instance. These people are experts in psychology and as such understand human nature. There is the factor I've already mentioned. People fight to overcome resistance. The harder something is, especially in religion/ideology, the more determined they become. Thus being locked in a prison and tortured exacerbates the problem rather than solving it. Also, by your timeline theory, there's the fact his major works were written from prison.

[DeuceDecker]

@spinycrayfish

The question is why was he sent to prison in the first place? Selling felafel without a permit? The glaring fact that he was a islamist before he ever went to prison in the first place is being ignored. The notion that his ideology was formed after he was in prison and to presume, or forward the idea, that he was no an Islamist before hand is not only ludicrous it is ignorant to the point of being dangerous as well as it is intellectually dishonest.

[DeuceDecker]

He later converted to Islam after studying the quran as a literary work and began his campaign against secular governments that he saw should be run by sharia law. He was made by islam and his interpretation of it and was a benign secular humanist at the start like every single one of these eggheads. guantanimo isnt a terrorist factory any more than its a donut factory. we dont make terrorists we punish them after they are made terrorists by their own twisted logic and religious ideology.

[DeuceDecker]

QUTB WAS A SECULAR HUIMANIST AT THE START AND HE WAS AN ISLAMIST BEFORE HE WAS EVER ARRESTED! Sayyed Qutb was not "made in Nasser's prisons" as the bespectacled fool asserts. THAT ASSERTION MUST BE PUT TO REST AS FIRMLY AS POSSIBLE. Qutb was first a secular humanist just like the bunch of high minded liberals in that room.

[SF3sfan]

I likely to see a debate between Andy Thomson and Robert Pape.

Because i just watched a video of Robert Pape named "Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism" and he claims the opposite what Andy Thomson is saying.

[Drgamedood]

@SF3sfan I'd also like to see Robert Spencer and Sam Harris take on Pape. It would be an interesting debate.

[noonesflower]

Guedingen, I agree. He's a con. He completely takes the official explanation of 9/11 a priori, as granted, questioning nothing about it. If the 9/11 attacks were proved to NOT have been perpetrated by those hijackers, then his expertise on the suicide tendencies of the alleged hijackckers loses its present relevance as in this talk.

[Guedingen]

For what it's worth, I think he's a conartist

[Shazaaming]

PKK and Tamil Tigers are Marxist groups. If you read Robert A. Pape's book, Dying to Win, you'll find a lot of answers to the questions he couldn't answer. Also, you might begin to doubt how relevant religion is suicide terrorism as a whole. Ideology and tribalism, including religion, should be looked at.

[Davesteps]

Your right I think tribalistic instinct in general has alot of influence

[rossawilson01]

I really didn't think he came out with anything other than religion is a factor in it..

Most single minded groups tend to look at everything through the same lens, the danger anti religion groups suffer is developing religious like tendencies themselves.

[MetaMorphy]

Dan Dennet is wrong. Sayyid Qutb was made by the combination of his imprisonment and his writing. Without the writing, prisoners don't really become a political force.

[notsobad]

But WHY did he start writing?

[MetaMorphy]

He started writing because of his education and his exposure to the United States.

[notsobad]

Yes, he was appalled that Americans didn't live according to Abrahamic religions' standards and that women were free.

Would he ever become both so violent and popular without being in prison tho?

It could be said that religion blocked his rationality and the crude prison experience tipped him over.

[GeorgeHowkins]

Well worth your time to watch!

[kurdistaniatheist]

kurdistaniatheists. com

[ABAisSCIENCE]

Were the 19 people of 9/11 in U.S. prisons? We love to beat the hell out of the U.S., but we should think on this concept it gains us nothing. Attacking Christianity by quotes "hating mother & father" is a bit off as well & likely to gain us nothing. Aren't we assuming suicide bombers as a subpopulation? Must we assume all religious people are psychotic? Talk about assuming all-knowing within yourself that way? Are you a God? Didn't you say terrosists are educated? How will education help?

[randall2020]

I think we can safely conclude that all religious people are psychotic to one degree or another. Those with lesser symptoms can easily move to greater symptoms - then, BOOM.

Maybe more education isn't a cure-all, but less education is not a better answer.

[ABAisSCIENCE]

You do realize highly educated people with high IQs who leave a highly restrictive environment to live in a highly free environment for a long time are the ones who were suicide bombers on 9-11? Also, to assume a fact with no experimentation or replication experiement is the highlight of ignorant people who "safely conclude." MORE

[ABAisSCIENCE]

CONCLUSION: Maybe reality is that any people with the right behavioral conditioning can BOOM and if any group is less likely it might be those who believe in a God with a high standard in regard to religion. Have you ever studied the greatest generation in war in comparison to men in war after the 60s? Perhaps you should conduct studies before you conclude something.

[teddywinroth]

FANTASTIC !!!

[Mjhavok]

Very very interesting. I enjoyed this much.

[templarart]

I believe the question of suicide bombing against Hussein was pivotal and the speaker simply shrugged it off to nationalism. The reason Hussein could stop suicide bombing is because he, like Kaiser Sosei, was willing to do what we are not willing to do.

[templarart]

In response to an assassination attempt - Hussein massacred an entire village. Imagine that a suicide bomber knows that his actions will not only kill him but his parents, his friends and everyone he knows. Quite a disincentive. Also - how much less likely is it for a Mullah to instigate suicide bombing if he's certain he and his family will die too?

[SQAguidelines]

"I think there's a difference between imitating Beckham and imitating Al Zarqawi"

lmao

[valupak]

A really wonderful lecture. Thank you so much for posting this.

[snotthetroggle]

The problem with female politicians is that they have to behave like men to get elected, and continue to behave like them to stay there. And I'm pretty sure that the old adage about women acting on their emotions was coined by a man...

[crazykb]

I don't agree.  Women DO ACT like men, and there is nothing wrong with it. What I mean is that women and men (although we do have our differences) have much in common. It's through socialization that we take on the major gender roles. The women Liberation movement had it right: women should act with more power, strength and individuality.

[snotthetroggle]

If you look at what I wrote once again, you'll realise I was saying that women don't act on their emotions as frequently as some men would like to believe. I don't think there's a gender difference in logic - just the way in which solutions are reached. Men tend to solve problems by focusing on them as an individual, and women by sharing information. Hunters and gatherers. I firmly believe that the genes still have more influence than the recent eyeblink of socialisation.

[crazykb]

Although the genes have the greatest influence, one must always consider the effects of society. I think that men and women function the same at an intellutual level. However, to say that men are 'individual' and 'women' are more 'sharing', I know lots of women that would disagree with that. If you would like to pursue this debate further we should do so though the messages, this 'reply' method is to confining

[notsobad]

This is the kind of professors I would like to have more of.

[rpgwapn]

The question concerning matriarchy:

It has been said that in pre-literate societies like the yanomami, who incidently live in large patrifocal families which are segregated into matriarchal sub-families, men participating in killing raids have more children and are socially more successful, which might be a sign-post towards sexual selection of said traits, which then would reduce the usefulness of matriarchal societies.

[Domzdream]

superb!

[ConservativeAtheist]

It was an excellent lecture!

My question: There are Palestinian Christian Terrorists and Palestinian Muslim Terrorists but why have their only been suicide bombings from the Muslim Palestinian Terrorists?

I waited the entire lecture for one of the females to get upset when he kept pointing out the differences in Males and Females.....lol!

I love women but they tend to use their emotions instead of their intellect....Now I will wait for the hissy fit over this last comment.....lol!!!

[Celtic1433]

Thank you very much for this fantastic lecture.

I will watch this again and again.

Love.

[RhondaH]

This 3 part video was extremely interesting and informative. I look forward to reading the book The Looming Tower he suggested and hearing more as the research continues.

[33115566]

Goodness, religion being relegated to psychological orientation in high school text books in 2057. Education and intellectualism won't satisfy the need for human wholeness. Pardon my presumptuousness, but Andy Thomson would benefit from a month in the wilderness.

[IamFromNeptune]

Well, you can be spiritual without being superstitious, it works for me, and I think that it is largely due to my secular upbringing. Even my great grandparents were atheists.

[Bueller007]

Hmmm... I wonder why he declined to classify religion as a mental disorder...

[Ujikaweapon1]

I think he was afraid he would be fired or something along those lines.

[Bueller007]

Doubtful. He complimented the "new atheist" crowd for their courage at the beginning of the talk, and then proceeded to discuss Islamic terrorists for the remainder. He doesn't seem as cowardly as you suggest.

[Ujikaweapon1]

Not cowardly, just cautious.

[potatopeppie]

Theres a rich history of turning various kinds of deviant behaviour or sometimes even normal behaviour into pathology. It is not helpful to rampantly label a given behaviour as a mental illness. Im sure Thomson is aware of this regrettable tradition and as a scientist will try to avoid baseless labeling, even if its just for the fun of it

[potatopeppie]

(this in response to why one would not label religion as a sociopathic phenomenon, or something)

[Bueller007]

Yes. My comment was sarcastic, and aimed at the RRS who have been going on and on about how theism is a mental disorder.

[notsobad]

a delusion it is

[FunkyJogaBonito]

Notice the honesty of admitting that our psychology is partly evolutionary, knowing full well that it will be disgracefully used against evolutionary science.

An outstanding lecture. Very interesting.

[gobbledygookie]

Thanks for uploading this. Any more from atheists alliance?

[naimad75]

I'd keep checking richard dawkins dot net if you want to see more. They're going to be producing dvds of the presentations, so I suspect that they're will be a few more tasters for you.

[gobbledygookie]

Thanks :)

[hollywodhack]

RRS thank you so much for bringing this excellent video to us from the convention. It is greatly appreciated.

[3667781]

I am surprised and dismayed that Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett are supporting the garbage this guy is spouting. It is painfully obvious that the suicide bombers, for the main part, are being blackmailed by their handlers into suicidal actions by threats against their families and loved ones. Oftentimes with the help and support of the families. The naivete of this presentation is astounding.

[doggie38]

I'm sorry, but it's not painfully obvious to me. Would you care to provide some evidence or links to some source material that supports your claim.

[82abhilash]

I do not think the suicide bombers are being blackmailed. But I agree on one point with you and that is Andy Thomason has got many things wrong.

[naimad75]

82abhilash, you keep repeating that he got many things wrong. Why? All you can take from this, is that all the evidence that this expert has studied has lead him to this conclusion. There may be evidence that he is not aware of, but the anecdotes of gun carrying women carries no weight. There is clearly more study needed, but the Thomson hardly way off base with his assertions.

[82abhilash]

Two things - one, the exception proves the rule wrong. That is why the anecdotes matter. Two, that there are evidence that he had not studied before making his conclusion, proves that he did not do as through a job as any of us would like to think. All suicide bombers fall into certain categories, OK, but are all people who fall into such categories suicide bombers? Thomson is not too way off base, but he still has a long way to go.

[naimad75]

His rule is not that ALL suicide bombers are religiously motivated, male coalitions. So, exceptions wouldn't disprove anything. Especially anecdotal exceptions. Of course, you could always argue that correlation doesn't imply causation, if you wanted to make your argument stronger. Still, I'd need to see the evidence to the contrary of I were to disagree. How's about a pattern of mentally stable, non-religious/quasi-religious suicide bombers?

[82abhilash]

I never said that everything contrary to what he said is right. All I say is that the conclusions he made from the evidence he obtained is premature. I donot start by assuming some one is correct/wrong and then looking for ways to prove/disprove it. I explore the method by which he comes to a conclusion and looks for its merits as well as its shortcomings. And there where many.

[naimad75]

I'd agree that the area clearly needs more study. But his hypothesis is formed on the basis of the evidence he has studied. It is a basic tenet of the scientific method that in order to disprove a hypothesis, you repeat the study and see if you reach the same conclusion, or you design a test to disprove it.

[82abhilash]

He might as well be right in several instances, but what was readily visible is that he did not apply his ideas over a wider range of events to check for correlation. The Irish as one questioner brought up. Someone else gave an answer, but he didn't, so that shows his idea was not well scrutinized and he was not being self-critical. There where at least two every day examples that undermined some of his core concepts. He should have studied that phenomenon in better detail, but he did not.

[naimad75]

We could go on ad nauseum here. Maybe a particular spice in Muslim cuisine triggers murderous, suicidal tendencies in young Muslim men? Maybe a lack of alcohol in their culture is the cause, maybe that's why the IRA didn't advocate suicide bombing?

I take your point, but if we wanted to contest the hypothesis, we need to produce evidence that disproves it. If it exists, it shouldn't be too hard to produce.

[82abhilash]

No we do not. All we have to show is that different conclusions can be got by examining the same set of data as he did. My claim is not to the incorrectness of his hypothesis. It is to the burden of proof. He made a claim, without fully satisfying that burden. Every word he said can be true, but as long as he is the one making it, the burden of proof is his and he did not carry it well. And that can undermine the very argument he is trying to make.

[82abhilash]

Minor edit. instead of saying Thomson is not too off base, I should have said, It doesnot look as if Thomson is too off base. The former implies that I have a complete knowledge of the situation, which is not true.

[Kajo75]

82 you keep referring to Thomson's claim and the burden of proof is on him, but you are confused and/or misrepresenting any of his claims/conclusions. The IRA example was neither here nor there, his lecture was merely an evolutionary psychology explanation for suicidal terrorism.

[82abhilash]

I got a sense that his explanation although on the right track was inadequate.

[agentorange20]

blackmailed my ass. many of these jihadist's are well educated well planned individuals. by your rationale all the people in ME burning building's down in response to danish cartoons is the result of blackmale too? nevermind all the hanious act's in the ME.

[sausage4mash]

he seems very well read on the subject ,what evidence do you have ?

[sausage4mash]

great lecture ,interesting comments at the end because evolution runs counter to a lot of feminist dogma ,anyway different subject ,great video shame the religious nuts will not watch it

[thefakeyeti]

I like that he repeats the question..

1. It lets the person know that he heard it correct

2. The camera keeps up his voice up better :)

[1DangerMouse1]

I think that this video is a clear example of why atheists need to be open about their beliefs or lack thereof. Look at the productive research and knowledge gained from taking a reasonable and naturalistic approach to life and allying with others who do as well. Rather than some rally with atheists "preaching to the choir", here we see atheists sharing ideas in a forum that is only possible through organizations like Atheist Alliance. This is why I donate to these organizations:)

[eruagnostic]

The comment about sexual depression is interesting when thinking about the differences between chimpanzees and bonobos.

[theinquisitor]

Dawkins is so funny: "Margaret Thatcher!"

'nuff said.

[JoJeck]

Thanks so much for posting this lecture. It is so informative and now we can see where the problems lie.

[Ashetheraven]

Very insightful presentation. Only wish I was there to meet Doctor Thompson, much of my Sociolgical-Theistic study was based on his material

[Benno1515]

Outstanding lecture. I just wish the religious nuts of the world would watch it.

[Zarthus]

I agreed with much of the presentation by Andy Thompson but: Females in male dominated societies do things which usually are on a level of passive aggressive behavior, which gets turned around and men display it in more equal society. Attacks by women are not always for defense. Women can enjoy combat and challenge too and girls not told to stop do sometimes play and act out war etc. A few Native American tribes have had matriarchal societies and even the Bonobos operate in such a manner.

[garouHH]

I wish I'd have been there to wedge in another question: Would/Might the inclusion of violence in education in the form of for instance martial arts have a positive influence on tampering evolutionary predispositions, i.e. by providing a safe valve for violent tendencies and exposure to the dangers and results of violence gone out of control, or would it reinforce such behaviour?

[Aegialeus]

@ garouHH

This is a good question which I would also like to see an in depth responce from him.

[82abhilash]

Did anybody else notice it? Andy's arguments started to slowly fall apart when the sophisticated audience began to ask intelligent questions. Here is my take on this. Andy Thomson discovered traits common to all suicide bombers he had studied, their society and found similar patterns in history. But that doesnot mean everyone with these traits end up as suicide bombers. But it would create an endless pool to draw such people from.

[JSResponds]

Dawkins is incredibly polite.

[82abhilash]

You can say that from this video? He hardly spoke.

[JSResponds]

I can say that he was in this video. What's with your attitude?

[82abhilash]

He was in the video, but not long enough for someone to find out he was polite. Of course if you have seen other videos of his it is a different matter. And I agree, he is a polite kind of guy.

[82abhilash]

Andy Thomson falls short on several levels. His arguments lack a sense of crystal clarity that I have go accustomed to from Dawkins, Dennett, Sam Harris and even Hitchens.

[ihatejimmypage1]

Those were some seriously difficult questions. He obviously wasn't willing to speak out about something he was uncertain of. Not everyone feels the need to think they know the answer for everything. I wish more people would share that ideal.

[82abhilash]

My problem is not that he did not know 'everything'. My problem is that the difficult questions revealed that he was falling short in his own field of expertise. Maybe an audience like this will motivate him to raise his standards.

[tieInterceptor]

scientists have no trouble admitting when they do not know something, he was lecturing on a room full of intelligent people, he is no politician, if he does not know something he will admit it , or refer to another specialist.

unlike religious bigots, who will made up simplistic 'answers' to save face. He was grown up enough to talk only about things he knows.

that is why science improves and religion stays on the bronze age frame of mind.

[82abhilash]

I agree. But this lecture was not given in a room full of peers. They where not merely exchanging ideas.

You are right -He was grown up enough to talk only about things he knows.

But I would have liked it better if he had better acquainted himself with the shortcomings of his ideas and perfected them, before he gave his speech. Maybe an audience like this will motivate him to raise his standards.

[JSResponds]

82, you apparently don't understand the field he is in well enough. Research on the topics brought up simply isn't there, and is going to take quite some time to gather. He answered the best that he could given the data.

[82abhilash]

Yes he did, he was honest. When he did not know, he said I do not know. Fair enough. But it seemed to me that he was trying to pass of as ideas, very prematurely. When people can throw simple facts from everyday lives that can undermine his idea, then that idea is wrong. It is that plain and simple. It does not matter what position he is in, it does not matter who likes him.

[Aegialeus]

@ 82abhilash

I have yet to SEE or LISTEN to any "god/dess" to come up with any clearity at all, have you?

At least with these four great men you can have a dialogue with. And as for a sense of crystal clarity is concerned, it is all within the sight/mind of the beholder.

[82abhilash]

No it is not, clarity comes because your theories and ideas are consistent with the way the world works. If there are inconsistencies between your idea and the way the world works then the idea is inadequate, at least or outright wrong.

[BurningIssue]

Part of the problem is that the questioners weren't clear and expressed their own personal bias to the topic at hand. The women who mentioned that she was the only gun owner in her house, what does that have to do with female suicide bombers?

[82abhilash]

Well one woman said, she used to play soldier with her girl friends as kids and throw rocks at the boys. Another said she owns a gun and her husband doesn't. All that undermines his core argument that women are naturally less prone to violence than men. Perhaps historically that was the case, but there could be other reasons as well.

[JSResponds]

It doesn't mean that women aren't less prone to violence, either. It means that it's a gray area and he was working with the data he had. The data he used supports his idea. This is science. Nothing is certain.

[82abhilash]

Actually what is certain in science is the extent of your ignorance. This maybe science, but I think the more appropriate term is this is the 'cutting edge of science.' Which is a fancy way of putting, at this point, there is more we donot know than we do know. OK fine, then come back when you do know more.

[82abhilash]

We donot need a scientist to tell us, something is not certain, we already know that, it is easy to not know and simple to remain ignorant. We need him to tell us what he is certain about and why. And if the why is shaky, then more research is needed. I will leave you with two videos.

watch?v=ozF5Cwbt6RY

watch?v=d1ZtRN-iGdQ

[garouHH]

Um... As Feynman says at the end of the second video himself: "We can never be sure we're right". What Thompson presented here is the best-guess theory that does conform to experimental data gathered. The discussion added two more experimental data points (three with Margaret Thatcher), but given the nature of human psychology with its enormous range of variability, that's not a Michelson-Morely to his theory. I fail to see what your point of discontent is with the lecture.

[82abhilash]

My discontentment arises from the knowledge that he did not examine the range of possibilities as thoroughly as he should have; given that he it was easily available. It was almost as if he saw exactly what he wanted. Given the enormous range of variability in human psychology, does it not fall upon him to do a more through job?

[garouHH]

I agree insofar that i.e. the cultural influence aspect would have warranted a bit more research, but I don't know of any easily accessible non-patriarchal societies whichs members perform suicide bombings with any regularity, so it's probably hard to get any data on that at all, so I believe he has been as thorough as he could have been in the time he had for the research. Still I'd like to see future research on the topic.

[82abhilash]

One more thing. To say nothing is certain in science is an exaggeration. It would be more correct to say that nothing is absolutely certain in science. There are varying degrees of certainty and some things we know enough to say that for all practical purposes, we can treat it as if it is absolutely certain. If tomorrow someone disagrees we can examine the evidence and maybe change our minds.

[garouHH]

Actually it didn't undermine his position about female and male patterns of violence as I understood his talk, though IMO his "females are off the hook" argument was put a bit too strong. What it did was provide two anecdotal instances of gender-reversed patterns which, if statistical analysis of more instances show them not to be extremely marginal, suggest that they might result from cultural conditioning rather than genetic predisposition.

[garouHH]

(By "female and male patterns of violence" I mean reciprocal bargaining and whatwasitcalled, not that they are exhibited predominantly by males or females.)

In no way is that a reason why this talk shouldn't have been given exactly as it was given, at the most it shows that even sciencific authority should always be taken with a grain of salt.

BTW: fsck this 500 character limitation.

[82abhilash]

Sometimes the 500 character limitation bothers me too. Especially when I am having an intelligent discussion. You are right scientific authority must be taken with a grain of salt. Scientists take scientific authority with a grain of salt. It is not an insult to do so. It is your supreme duty to yourself.

[82abhilash]

Foreign occupation catalyses suicide attacks makes sense from an evolutionary point of view. This is like protecting your tribe from another, you are morally driven. So to solve the Iraqi problem, we need more Iraqi soldiers on the streets, but not enough, we need Iraqis to look at them as Iraqi soldiers, NOT American stooges.

[82abhilash]

FYI - during the Sino Vietnamese war of 1979, the Vietnamese did encourage their women and children to hug Chinese soldiers with live grenades strapped on to them. It worked, the Chinese left. Vietnamese are not very religious, but they are highly nationalistic. Is nationalism just a high-tech word for tribalism?

[zbambam5]

i think so yes

[82abhilash]

Andy Thomson's answer to the woman's question about genetic predisposition was average. In the end of his book 'The Selfish gene, Dawkins had written, that humans are the only creatures known who can over come the tendencies of our selfish genes.' Which means we can overcome our genetic predispositions, if we understand the harm they cause. Education maybe the answer but it must be a different type of education, the type that is found on reason not authority.

[lobstrosity25]

Check out the kid in the audience at 18:13 lol

[Air420]

lmao

[CrucieFiction]

Good stuff. Thanks for making this very informative presentation available to all.

[tieInterceptor]

... that guy on the audience about the Spartans, seriously, what the hell was he thinking? :P

what a odd way to finish

awesome Q&A anyway.

[and7barton]

It's true though.

[illusionist1977]

Thank you RRS

[wildcard252]

suckit jesus

[tieInterceptor]

thanks for uploading this videos.