Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
And you have some members of the various groups who sell drugs (or protect crops/shipments) for revenue, tax shipments and so on. You also see folks get doped up before strapping on suicide vests (sometimes forced) and others who get high on various drugs prior to combat.
Introducing (more) marijuana only helps the groups further diversify revenue streams. It won't decrease violence.
And yes, I know it wasn't offered as a serious solution.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
sirlynchmob wrote: threatening america with mall violence is the dumbest thing isis can do. America is so apathetic about gun violence in the states, they'd spend the day of coverage speculating. "terrorist" or "just another random guy shooting up the place" The terrorists would probably do less damage than a random american.
gun violence is the price they pay for the second amendment, and they're glad to pay it.
The only result of such a act would be the increase of gun sales.
I'm sorry, but you can bet that IF IS or Al-Shabaab were to ever pull off an actual attack on American soil, it would most definitely end with a general glassing of their territory. America, (and indeed the entirety of the West), are only for the most part completely apathetic of the current state of affairs because right now, the threat isn't on our perverbial doorstep.
Look at 9/11 - 4 hijacked planes killed more civilians than what the Japanese Imperial military killed during the Perl Harbor sneak attack. The result? The entirety of NATO showed up on the Afghani Taliban's front lawn and blew the crap out of them.
If IS were to attack a mall or a sporting event or other large gathering, it would simply result in the same end game.
Hell, the only reason we really aren't taking definitive action right now is because of the bleeding heart Liberal socialist Left's stupidity & ignorance, and the fact that unlike Hitler & Nazi Germany's rise to global power, IS isn't even capable of building a single Panzer tank right now. (let alone building even a single armoured divison, and then somehow floating it across the ocean!)
If we didn't 'glass' over the Talibs and the AQ elements they protected after 9/11, a mall attack with even a few hundred casualties (very unlikely) won't get anyone or anyplace glassed over.
And the entirety of NATO didn't show up for what did happen in Afghanistan. Initial ops were conducted by small groups of SF working with Northern Alliance augmented by air power, and not every NATO nation participated. Even when conventional land forces were put into theater, several NATO nations provided very little actual support, and often anything they did provide came with massive restrictions on how it could be used/what it could be used for.
With Putin doing a good job of fracturing NATO cooperation lately I would not bet much on the 'entirety of NATO' ever doing much, especially against a threat like Da'Ish.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
Psienesis wrote: It is the origin of both "hashish" and "assassin".
Altair was a stoner? That explains a lot...
The assassins themselves weren't necessarily stoners, but they used drugs as a source of funding. Drugs do have a long history of being used as a form of combat aid too.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
CptJake wrote: If we didn't 'glass' over the Talibs and the AQ elements they protected after 9/11, a mall attack with even a few hundred casualties (very unlikely) won't get anyone or anyplace glassed over.
And the entirety of NATO didn't show up for what did happen in Afghanistan. Initial ops were conducted by small groups of SF working with Northern Alliance augmented by air power, and not every NATO nation participated. Even when conventional land forces were put into theater, several NATO nations provided very little actual support, and often anything they did provide came with massive restrictions on how it could be used/what it could be used for.
With Putin doing a good job of fracturing NATO cooperation lately I would not bet much on the 'entirety of NATO' ever doing much, especially against a threat like Da'Ish.
Not to mention that the response to 9/11 occurred when we had a president with balls.
These days, a mall attack would probably be met with a...less than satisfactory...response.
CptJake wrote: If we didn't 'glass' over the Talibs and the AQ elements they protected after 9/11, a mall attack with even a few hundred casualties (very unlikely) won't get anyone or anyplace glassed over.
And the entirety of NATO didn't show up for what did happen in Afghanistan. Initial ops were conducted by small groups of SF working with Northern Alliance augmented by air power, and not every NATO nation participated. Even when conventional land forces were put into theater, several NATO nations provided very little actual support, and often anything they did provide came with massive restrictions on how it could be used/what it could be used for.
With Putin doing a good job of fracturing NATO cooperation lately I would not bet much on the 'entirety of NATO' ever doing much, especially against a threat like Da'Ish.
NATO is a joke. Only the US/UK/France matters for attacks on the US.
CptJake wrote: If we didn't 'glass' over the Talibs and the AQ elements they protected after 9/11, a mall attack with even a few hundred casualties (very unlikely) won't get anyone or anyplace glassed over.
And the entirety of NATO didn't show up for what did happen in Afghanistan. Initial ops were conducted by small groups of SF working with Northern Alliance augmented by air power, and not every NATO nation participated. Even when conventional land forces were put into theater, several NATO nations provided very little actual support, and often anything they did provide came with massive restrictions on how it could be used/what it could be used for.
With Putin doing a good job of fracturing NATO cooperation lately I would not bet much on the 'entirety of NATO' ever doing much, especially against a threat like Da'Ish.
Not to mention that the response to 9/11 occurred when we had a president with balls.
These days, a mall attack would probably be met with a...less than satisfactory...response.
Gun control legislation and handwriging about how we are offending the terrorists and they need...jobs.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/25 17:58:36
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
CptJake wrote: If we didn't 'glass' over the Talibs and the AQ elements they protected after 9/11, a mall attack with even a few hundred casualties (very unlikely) won't get anyone or anyplace glassed over.
And the entirety of NATO didn't show up for what did happen in Afghanistan. Initial ops were conducted by small groups of SF working with Northern Alliance augmented by air power, and not every NATO nation participated. Even when conventional land forces were put into theater, several NATO nations provided very little actual support, and often anything they did provide came with massive restrictions on how it could be used/what it could be used for.
With Putin doing a good job of fracturing NATO cooperation lately I would not bet much on the 'entirety of NATO' ever doing much, especially against a threat like Da'Ish.
Not to mention that the response to 9/11 occurred when we had a president with balls.
The jokes about thinking with them practically write themselves.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
CptJake wrote: If we didn't 'glass' over the Talibs and the AQ elements they protected after 9/11, a mall attack with even a few hundred casualties (very unlikely) won't get anyone or anyplace glassed over.
And the entirety of NATO didn't show up for what did happen in Afghanistan. Initial ops were conducted by small groups of SF working with Northern Alliance augmented by air power, and not every NATO nation participated. Even when conventional land forces were put into theater, several NATO nations provided very little actual support, and often anything they did provide came with massive restrictions on how it could be used/what it could be used for.
With Putin doing a good job of fracturing NATO cooperation lately I would not bet much on the 'entirety of NATO' ever doing much, especially against a threat like Da'Ish.
Not to mention that the response to 9/11 occurred when we had a president with balls.
These days, a mall attack would probably be met with a...less than satisfactory...response.
let's not forget he attacked the wrong nation that had nothing to do with 9/11, which directly caused the rise of ISIS. But I guess the wrong action is better than no action right?
It takes balls all right to knowingly lie to it's citizens to drum up a war based on false pretenses.
CptJake wrote: If we didn't 'glass' over the Talibs and the AQ elements they protected after 9/11, a mall attack with even a few hundred casualties (very unlikely) won't get anyone or anyplace glassed over.
And the entirety of NATO didn't show up for what did happen in Afghanistan. Initial ops were conducted by small groups of SF working with Northern Alliance augmented by air power, and not every NATO nation participated. Even when conventional land forces were put into theater, several NATO nations provided very little actual support, and often anything they did provide came with massive restrictions on how it could be used/what it could be used for.
With Putin doing a good job of fracturing NATO cooperation lately I would not bet much on the 'entirety of NATO' ever doing much, especially against a threat like Da'Ish.
Not to mention that the response to 9/11 occurred when we had a president with balls.
These days, a mall attack would probably be met with a...less than satisfactory...response.
let's not forget he attacked the wrong nation that had nothing to do with 9/11, which directly caused the rise of ISIS. But I guess the wrong action is better than no action right?
It takes balls all right to knowingly lie to it's citizens to drum up a war based on false pretenses.
Care to rewrite your drivel so that it actually applies to what you are responding to?
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
CptJake wrote: If we didn't 'glass' over the Talibs and the AQ elements they protected after 9/11, a mall attack with even a few hundred casualties (very unlikely) won't get anyone or anyplace glassed over.
And the entirety of NATO didn't show up for what did happen in Afghanistan. Initial ops were conducted by small groups of SF working with Northern Alliance augmented by air power, and not every NATO nation participated. Even when conventional land forces were put into theater, several NATO nations provided very little actual support, and often anything they did provide came with massive restrictions on how it could be used/what it could be used for.
With Putin doing a good job of fracturing NATO cooperation lately I would not bet much on the 'entirety of NATO' ever doing much, especially against a threat like Da'Ish.
Not to mention that the response to 9/11 occurred when we had a president with balls.
These days, a mall attack would probably be met with a...less than satisfactory...response.
let's not forget he attacked the wrong nation that had nothing to do with 9/11, which directly caused the rise of ISIS. But I guess the wrong action is better than no action right?
It takes balls all right to knowingly lie to it's citizens to drum up a war based on false pretenses.
Care to rewrite your drivel so that it actually applies to what you are responding to?
What drivel? it's what bush did, he invaded Iraq on the lie that they had weapons of mass destruction. Creating the power vacuum that is now being fought over.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Not to mention that the response to 9/11 occurred when we had a president with balls.
Yeah, I was particularly impressed with Bush's testicular fortitude when he was saying he didn't really care where Osama Bin Laden was 6 months after he murdered 3,000 American citizens.
The "Obama is weak on terror" meme is my favorite when it happens literally in a thread where is is asking Congress for authorization to fight the people in the subject matter, after spending months doing so (unlawfully, in my opinion). I mean, jfc, talk about disconnects with reality.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/25 19:12:21
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Not to mention that the response to 9/11 occurred when we had a president with balls.
Yeah, I was particularly impressed with Bush's testicular fortitude when he was saying he didn't really care where Osama Bin Laden was 6 months after he murdered 3,000 American citizens.
Yeah, if you're a talking head. But if you're a rational human being, and you read the entire transcript...
Who knows if he’s hiding in some cave or not. We haven’t heard from him in a long time. The idea of focusing on one person really indicates to me people don’t understand the scope of the mission. Terror is bigger than one person. He’s just a person who’s been marginalized. … I don’t know where he is. I really just don’t spend that much time on him, to be honest with you.
...it seems to make a lot more sense, that Bush had more on his plate than Bin Ladin who, at that point, was more concerned with running and hiding than plotting and executing terrorist missions.
Bush did plenty of things wrong, but the character of his presidency was generally proactive, if overzealous and ill-conceived. Our current POTUS consistently makes it clear that he has no interest in bolstering America's influence abroad. At best, he's a pushover. At worst, he's intentionally weakening American influence abroad. Judging by his actions, it's actually hard to tell whether or not he's running the country into the ground on purpose.
And to respond to your edit, he's caving to pressure from basically the entire world. Yet he still refuses to acknowledge that ISIS (NOT ISIL, as he calls it) is an ISLAMIC terrorist group. For feth sake, his administration thinks that right-wing extremism is a bigger terrorist threat in America.
Finally, allow me to clarify: I didn't specifically state that Obama was weak on terror, though he is. I stated that he HAS NO BALLS. Jimmy Fallon agrees. Matt Damon agrees. When Hollywood starts questioning the manliness of a Democrat president, you know that he really...really has no balls.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/02/25 19:24:23
CptJake wrote: If we didn't 'glass' over the Talibs and the AQ elements they protected after 9/11, a mall attack with even a few hundred casualties (very unlikely) won't get anyone or anyplace glassed over.
And the entirety of NATO didn't show up for what did happen in Afghanistan. Initial ops were conducted by small groups of SF working with Northern Alliance augmented by air power, and not every NATO nation participated. Even when conventional land forces were put into theater, several NATO nations provided very little actual support, and often anything they did provide came with massive restrictions on how it could be used/what it could be used for.
With Putin doing a good job of fracturing NATO cooperation lately I would not bet much on the 'entirety of NATO' ever doing much, especially against a threat like Da'Ish.
Not to mention that the response to 9/11 occurred when we had a president with balls.
These days, a mall attack would probably be met with a...less than satisfactory...response.
let's not forget he attacked the wrong nation that had nothing to do with 9/11, which directly caused the rise of ISIS. But I guess the wrong action is better than no action right?
It takes balls all right to knowingly lie to it's citizens to drum up a war based on false pretenses.
Care to rewrite your drivel so that it actually applies to what you are responding to?
What drivel? it's what bush did, he invaded Iraq on the lie that they had weapons of mass destruction. Creating the power vacuum that is now being fought over.
I know right. All those calls to stop Hussein from killing Kurds and Shiites, and make them abide by UN inspections, and take out a dictator killing his own people turned out to be bad.
Moral of the story, let dictators do what they want I guess.
Who would have thought that Iraqis, now freed of oppression, would first immediately to...kill each other in great swaths of people.
Considering the US helped free entire continents and never had that happen, it was a surprise I'll admit.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/25 19:40:58
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Bush did plenty of things wrong, but the character of his presidency was generally proactive, if overzealous and ill-conceived. Our current POTUS consistently makes it clear that he has no interest in bolstering America's influence abroad. At best, he's a pushover. At worst, he's intentionally weakening American influence abroad. Judging by his actions, it's actually hard to tell whether or not he's running the country into the ground on purpose.
And to respond to your edit, he's caving to pressure from basically the entire world. Yet he still refuses to acknowledge that ISIS (NOT ISIL, as he calls it) is an ISLAMIC terrorist group. For feth sake, his administration thinks that right-wing extremism is a bigger terrorist threat in America.
Yeah, if you're a talking head. But if you're a rational human being, and you read the entire transcript...
Hear it from the man himself:
Right wing extremism is a bigger threat in america because they are already in america. ISIS is not a threat to the US.
I know right. All those calls to stop Hussein from killing Kurds and Shiites, and make them abide by UN inspections, and take out a dictator killing his own people turned out to be bad.
Moral of the story, let dictators do what they want I guess.
Who would have thought that Iraqis, now freed of oppression, would first immediately to...kill each other in great swaths of people.
Considering the US helped free entire continents and never had that happen, it was a surprise I'll admit.
I know right, you'd think a proactive president would have been able to foresee this.
it's funny though how america picks and chooses which dictators to kill when committing genocides. Look at you supporting the idea that america is the worlds police
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/02/25 20:04:18
Right wing extremism is a bigger threat in america because they are already in america. ISIS is not a threat to the US.
Fantastic and articulate point of view.
So I guess we won't have to read any more of your irrelevant comments in this ISIS topic as you'll be starting up an Evil Right Wing Extremist Threat topic, right?
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
We haven' t committed genocide since the native Americans, so your argument is kind of, well stupid.
But I agree that I've learned. We should never try to help take down any dictators no matter how much do gooders and the media whine. It only causes problems for us.
Iraq
Somalia
Libya
Egypt
Syria (the half hearted support anyway)
But on the flip side we get blamed for dictators when they stay in power.
Egypt
Nicaragua
Iran
Saudia Arabia
So whats a global super power to do?
I know. Strong fences make good neighbors.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Right wing extremism is a bigger threat in america because they are already in america. ISIS is not a threat to the US.
Fantastic and articulate point of view.
So I guess we won't have to read any more of your irrelevant comments in this ISIS topic as you'll be starting up an Evil Right Wing Extremist Threat topic, right?
And by "right wing extremist" he probably means the generic left wing definition of "anyone who owns a firearm and/or bible, eats red meat and didn't vote for Obama".
Right wing extremism is a bigger threat in america because they are already in america. ISIS is not a threat to the US.
Fantastic and articulate point of view.
So I guess we won't have to read any more of your irrelevant comments in this ISIS topic as you'll be starting up an Evil Right Wing Extremist Threat topic, right?
And by "right wing extremist" he probably means the generic left wing definition of "anyone who owns a firearm and/or bible, eats red meat and didn't vote for Obama".
What if they voted Greens Party instead of Obama, like yours truly?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/25 20:13:26
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Right wing extremism is a bigger threat in america because they are already in america. ISIS is not a threat to the US.
Fantastic and articulate point of view.
So I guess we won't have to read any more of your irrelevant comments in this ISIS topic as you'll be starting up an Evil Right Wing Extremist Threat topic, right?
And by "right wing extremist" he probably means the generic left wing definition of "anyone who owns a firearm and/or bible, eats red meat and didn't vote for Obama".
What if they voted Greens Party instead of Obama, like yours truly?
It was a "not-Obama" vote, so automatically a Right Winger.
Is that how it supposed to work?
EDIT: ninja'ed by Alex.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/25 20:16:11
Frazzled wrote: We haven' t committed genocide since the native Americans, so your argument is kind of, well stupid.
But I agree that I've learned. We should never try to help take down any dictators no matter how much do gooders and the media whine. It only causes problems for us.
Iraq
Somalia
Libya
Egypt
Syria (the half hearted support anyway)
But on the flip side we get blamed for dictators when they stay in power.
Egypt
Nicaragua
Iran
Saudia Arabia
So whats a global super power to do?
I know. Strong fences make good neighbors.
It's not that your blamed for them staying in power, it that when you beat the drums of war to go after one dictator for killing his people, yet ignore the others, america comes off as hypocrites.
The support for the syrian rebels was quite the twist. It's a good thing Obama didn't listen to Mccain and start supporting ISIS.
you also left of china and their crusade against the Falun Gong which is still ongoing, but that doesn't stop the US from having trade agreements with them, and no one is calling for sanctions against them. They even got to host the olympics.
I agree, america should stop playing "pick the dictator" As they have a habit of making poor choices. Like OBL and supporting Hussain when he was our man against iran.
Bush did plenty of things wrong, but the character of his presidency was generally proactive, if overzealous and ill-conceived. Our current POTUS consistently makes it clear that he has no interest in bolstering America's influence abroad. At best, he's a pushover. At worst, he's intentionally weakening American influence abroad. Judging by his actions, it's actually hard to tell whether or not he's running the country into the ground on purpose.
And to respond to your edit, he's caving to pressure from basically the entire world. Yet he still refuses to acknowledge that ISIS (NOT ISIL, as he calls it) is an ISLAMIC terrorist group. For feth sake, his administration thinks that right-wing extremism is a bigger terrorist threat in America.
Yeah, if you're a talking head. But if you're a rational human being, and you read the entire transcript...
Hear it from the man himself:
Right wing extremism is a bigger threat in america because they are already in america. ISIS is not a threat to the US.
There are no ISIS members / sympathizers in the US? Reeeeeally now...
Obama is wrong. You are wrong. Right wing extremism is not the threat - it's a diversion he is using to distract the public from the threat posed by militant Islam. I'm not allowed to use the word "useful idiot" on this forum anymore to describe members because apparently people here get their wittle feewings hurt, but it perfectly describes anyone who eats up this misdirection. Obama doesn't understand the truth, which is that regardless of whether or not he thinks the US is at war with Islam, Islam is very much at war with the US and the rest of Western (actually, pretty much all non-Islamic) civilization.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/02/25 20:38:13
CptJake wrote: Back on topic for a bit, here is a decent reply to Da'Ish from an imam laying out reasons why they are wrong based on the koran and hadith.
Bush did plenty of things wrong, but the character of his presidency was generally proactive, if overzealous and ill-conceived. Our current POTUS consistently makes it clear that he has no interest in bolstering America's influence abroad. At best, he's a pushover. At worst, he's intentionally weakening American influence abroad. Judging by his actions, it's actually hard to tell whether or not he's running the country into the ground on purpose.
And to respond to your edit, he's caving to pressure from basically the entire world. Yet he still refuses to acknowledge that ISIS (NOT ISIL, as he calls it) is an ISLAMIC terrorist group. For feth sake, his administration thinks that right-wing extremism is a bigger terrorist threat in America.
Yeah, if you're a talking head. But if you're a rational human being, and you read the entire transcript...
Hear it from the man himself:
Right wing extremism is a bigger threat in america because they are already in america. ISIS is not a threat to the US.
There are no ISIS members / sympathizers in the US? Reeeeeally now...
Obama is wrong. You are wrong. Right wing extremism is not the threat - it's a diversion he is using to distract the public from the threat posed by militant Islam. I'm not allowed to use the word "useful idiot" on this forum anymore to describe members because apparently people here get their wittle feewings hurt, but it perfectly describes anyone who eats up this misdirection. Obama doesn't understand the truth, which is that regardless of whether or not he thinks the US is at war with Islam, Islam is very much at war with the US and the rest of Western (actually, pretty much all non-Islamic) civilization.
Nuggz, I'd clarify this that it's Islamic Extremism is at war with the West.
