Braineack

iTrader: (62)

even blue states are saying no to importing terrorists into their states.


not that it matters if they go to a different one...

sixshooter

iTrader: (12)

Add Florida to the list.

Apparently we did our part during the Mariel Boatlift. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariel_boatlift

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

And my great-aunt Sofia thanks you.

stratosteve

iTrader: (1)

https://ukshootingnews.wordpress.com...osal-tomorrow/

Makes perfectly good sense. Lets take away another means of self defense. I think they should ban terrorism.....just as effective.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

how will banning gun to the people that dont own them and never will, prevent terrorists from sourcing them from lazy american presidents and shooting unarmed victims?

stratosteve

iTrader: (1)

Could be wrong, but i think semi auto rifles are legal to own at this time. The sarcasm is indeed thick in my post.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

so what if they are? how many french owned them and used them against others or to stop people using them against others who may, or most likely, may not have obtained them legally?

stratosteve

iTrader: (1)

Ya know, i am trying to build a target stand and this making me research stuff is slowing me down. Did joe hack your account?

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

me? no why?

im forming a dumb question because i like to laugh at the logic of sub-human morans.

stratosteve

iTrader: (1)

Sorry, thought you were serious.

I didnt realize how rediculous the french gun laws are. The author points out some of the flaws

Mon Dieu! A Review of French Gun Laws - The Truth About Guns

triple88a

iTrader: (2)

https://www.rt.com/news/322482-lavrov-us-isis-assad/

The US and its allies are playing a dangerous game in Syria as they count on Islamic State to weaken President Bashar Assad, but at the same time don’t want the terror group to seize power in the country, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

It doesnt matter -- Apparently (and I know this is a huge leap): terrorists dont follow laws.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

I actually failed to realize just how much power IS already wielded.

Good read: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...kes-its-money/

Cliffs: IS controls a territory about the size of the UK, and has banks (including a central bank and a mint), hospitals, schools, a police force, a court system, etc.

There's been a lot of talk as late (some by myself) about how waging war against a stateless enemy isn't the same as battling Germany or Japan. But IS is sounding less and less stateless.



Realistically speaking, the US fought one of the bloodiest and most guresome campaigns in human history against the Japanese in WWII, but we eventually made peace with them.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

+10 internet props for use of mass annailiation of enemy.


here's a good putin quote for you Joe:





problem is, putin is not our ally and if they have same goals as us (excluding obama), then something fishy is going on.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

I'd expect you of all people to be familiar with the axiom that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.




It's better than the alternative. The last time Russia hated someone we didn't hate who lived in a hot, sandy place, the US wound up arming the Taliban.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

and we are still arming those same sand people today. why stop now?

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

In general, history has demonstrated that good things happen when the US and Russia hate the same people, and bad things happen when the US and Russia do not hate the same people.

The whole Soviet communism thing was a bit of a bummer, but I think that we, as two industrialized and predominantly Caucasian nations can set aside minor squabbles about economic theory and doomsday weapons, and get back to hating people as allies.

stratosteve

iTrader: (1)

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34462867

Questions?

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

And that's the problem here.

I'm going to pause the hyperbole which I often employ in conversations such as these, and make a serious, if uncomfortable observation:

When the Allies were fighting the Axis powers during WWII, we didn't try to cultivate little cells of loyalty within the geographic boundaries of enemy nations. We (US, Britain, Russia) just bombed the **** out of everything until it simply wasn't possible for the enemy to wage war anymore. We attacked farms, power and water infrastructure, factories, railyards, airports, bridges, capitol buildings, urban housing, didn't matter. And not every German / Italian / Japanese civilian who lived and worked in the target areas was necessarily loyal to the cause, or even performing a job essential to the war. Didn't matter. Your government wants to annex Poland? Sorry, but **** all of you with bombs. If your "enemy" is able to have a stable banking system and their population isn't dropping dead by the thousands from disease due to lack of access to clean water and healthcare, you're doing it wrong.


The Korean war was the last "real" war. Sure, it ended in a draw, but what I mean is that we weren't squeamish about it. A reasonable estimate puts the number of civilian casualties at 2.5 million, and that's in a geographic area smaller than the UK (which suffered less than 70,000 civilian casualties during WW2.) But nobody really complained about it, because it just had to be done.

Then Vietnam happened; the first televised war. Suddenly, we start getting fussy about the mass-slaughter of the innocent, and you wind up with an intractable stalemate from which no victory can come because strong men are afraid to do what needs to be done. So we pussed out and ran away.


If you want to win a war, you have to want to win the war. And that means understanding that war isn't a surgical instrument.

dieselmiata

iTrader: (3)

Well worth the read.

What ISIS Really Wants - The Atlantic

TL;DR They're waaay crazier than you think and want us to kill them.