hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 1001 of 1009 FirstFirst ... 50190195199199899910001001100210031004 ... LastLast
Results 20,001 to 20,020 of 20163

Thread: Jihadist Caliphate LLC. Extremist Thunderdome's everywhere.

  1. #20001
    XenosisMk4's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 13, 2017
    Location
    More turbo-lightspeed neoliberal platitudes/virtue signaling/misplaced priorities on full display.
    Posts
    4,152
    Quote Originally Posted by Fara View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bartholomeus Crane View Post
    And, yes, I do hold Israel to a higher standard that most, if not all, other middle eastern countries. That's the price it has to pay for being so self-righteous about itself.

    what does that even mean

  2. #20002
    Timaios's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    956
    Barth, I get what you are saying, but I just wonder if the countries in the Middle East (Israel included) are too fragile to get rid of their foreign/external scapegoat. If there would not be an external enemy the an Arab (or Bibi / other Israeli hardliner) government could direct their anger towards, they might start getting angry at their own rulers and shit might go down badly.

    Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connaît point. - Blaise Pascal, Pensées, 277

  3. #20003
    Movember 2011 RazoR's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    The Motherland
    Posts
    29,354
    Quote Originally Posted by Timaios View Post
    Barth, I get what you are saying, but I just wonder if the countries in the Middle East (Israel included) are too fragile to get rid of their foreign/external scapegoat. If there would not be an external enemy the an Arab (or Bibi / other Israeli hardliner) government could direct their anger towards, they might start getting angry at their own rulers and shit might go down badly.
    That's probably because there is always someone sticking their fingers in the region ever since WW2. Can't see how saudis, muricans and jews ~pull out~ at once.

    Becaise i'm moderately sure that if that happens and your scenario goes down without interference sooner or later there are going to be some border changes and then new stable regimes. Unless they jihad each other to stone age that is which is also a win in my book.
    Last edited by RazoR; May 3 2018 at 12:52:19 PM.

  4. #20004
    Joe Appleby's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    in front of the class
    Posts
    14,000
    Quote Originally Posted by RazoR View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Timaios View Post
    Barth, I get what you are saying, but I just wonder if the countries in the Middle East (Israel included) are too fragile to get rid of their foreign/external scapegoat. If there would not be an external enemy the an Arab (or Bibi / other Israeli hardliner) government could direct their anger towards, they might start getting angry at their own rulers and shit might go down badly.
    That's probably because there is always someone sticking their fingers in the region ever since WW2. Can't see how saudis, muricans and jews ~pull out~ at once.

    Becaise i'm moderately sure that if that happens and your scenario goes down without interference sooner or later there are going to be some border changes and then new stable regimes. Unless they jihad each other to stone age that is which is also a win in my book.
    Not just since then. They were the toy of great powers for millenia. Only the Ottoman Empire brought the region any form of stability, and even that was under foreign occupation.
    nevar forget

  5. #20005
    XenosisMk4's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 13, 2017
    Location
    More turbo-lightspeed neoliberal platitudes/virtue signaling/misplaced priorities on full display.
    Posts
    4,152
    Quote Originally Posted by RazoR View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Timaios View Post
    Barth, I get what you are saying, but I just wonder if the countries in the Middle East (Israel included) are too fragile to get rid of their foreign/external scapegoat. If there would not be an external enemy the an Arab (or Bibi / other Israeli hardliner) government could direct their anger towards, they might start getting angry at their own rulers and shit might go down badly.
    That's probably because there is always someone sticking their fingers in the region ever since WW2. Can't see how saudis, muricans and jews ~pull out~ at once.

    Becaise i'm moderately sure that if that happens and your scenario goes down without interference sooner or later there are going to be some border changes and then new stable regimes. Unless they jihad each other to stone age that is which is also a win in my book.
    I like that you didn't include Russia in that list

  6. #20006
    Bartholomeus Crane's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    7,635
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Appleby View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RazoR View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Timaios View Post
    Barth, I get what you are saying, but I just wonder if the countries in the Middle East (Israel included) are too fragile to get rid of their foreign/external scapegoat. If there would not be an external enemy the an Arab (or Bibi / other Israeli hardliner) government could direct their anger towards, they might start getting angry at their own rulers and shit might go down badly.
    That's probably because there is always someone sticking their fingers in the region ever since WW2. Can't see how saudis, muricans and jews ~pull out~ at once.

    Becaise i'm moderately sure that if that happens and your scenario goes down without interference sooner or later there are going to be some border changes and then new stable regimes. Unless they jihad each other to stone age that is which is also a win in my book.
    Not just since then. They were the toy of great powers for millenia. Only the Ottoman Empire brought the region any form of stability, and even that was under foreign occupation.
    I love how often this get carted out. Drips of victimhood, doesn't it?

    Unfortunately, if by 'toy of the great powers' you're referring to Britain, France, Russia, Austria-Hungary etc., prior to, basically, WW1, it's also pretty much bullshit.

    The vast majority of what we now call the middle east was, essentially since the fall of the Byzantine empire, under the suzerainty of the Turks/Ottomans. Not even the Russian czars gave much thought to it, except to ensure access to Jerusalem for Orthodox Christians on pilgrimage. Which the Ottomans generally made sure to give them.

    The parts not under Ottoman control were the sands of the Arabian peninsula, and what is now known as Iran. The great powers didn't give a single toss about the Arabian peninsula until WW1, not least because oil hadn't been discovered there yet (and oil wasn't much of a factor for most of the period anyway). They cared even less for Iran, or, as it was known then, Persia.

    If you consider the 'great games' between the great powers (India, China/Asia, Africa, Afghanistan), it is actually surprising how little a role the middle east played in any of it/them. Given that Jerusalem is smack in the middle of the middle east (another thing the great powers (except, at times, Russia) didn't give a toss about). But that doesn't make it less true.

    Sure, the Austrians and Russians had something against the Ottomans, but that was focussed on the Balkans and the Caucasus (the Russians also longed for the Bosporus, and still do, but never made a move for it), not the middle east. Sure, the British and French (and Italians later on, even the Germans for a bit) had something against the Ottomans, but that was focussed on Egypt, the Suez Canal (later on), and North Africa. Again, not the middle east. And Britain supported the Shah in Persia, but mostly it provided a safe flank in it's great game with Russia on the northern border of India and Afghanistan. The Shah was generally happy to take the money of them.

    So what you have instead is basically the great powers happily divesting 'the sick man of Europe' from it's extremities except, you guessed it, in the middle east. Because the historical reality is that they simply could not be arsed. There was nothing in it for them. To paraphrase: not worth the bones of a single grenadier. After they got what they wanted from the Ottomans elsewhere, they were all perfectly happy to have the Ottomans have all of it, and sell it weapons and railways instead. Not even Napoleon could be arsed, ffs.

    Ofcourse, that all changed during/after WW1, but that's not 'millennia', now is it?

    'The west' has fucked around with the middle east plenty in the last hundred years. Before that? Very little actually. There's plenty the west has to blame itself for in the middle east. But let's not get overboard on this guilt-trip, shall we?

    A lot of what's fucked up now, was fucked up under the Ottomans as well. Some even before that (Arab v. Persia anyone?). And will probably be fucked up forever anyway, even if we stopped meddling right this instant.

    As for what would happen if the people in the middle east didn't have the convenient scapegoat of the west/Israel to blame everything on? Trust me: they'd invent one. Or would have. Whether it'd be the 'new Ottoman empire', the Turks, the Persians, the Kurds, or just the tribe next door (the middle east is far more tribal than most recognise/will admit to). The religion of cheeky banter was born in war, and loves a good Jihad now and then. And that's the majority in those parts.

    Would they be better off left to fight each other? What, in the nuclear age? Are you bloody insane? The history of atrocities committed by, just, the 'safe and stable' Ottoman government puts 'the west' in that period in the shade (except, perhaps, the Spanish in South America). Ask the Armenians for one. Putting a fence around the region and letting them have at each other with modern weapons is asking for the middle east to be turned in a nuclear wasteland.

    For better or for worse, 'outsider meddling' in the middle east has at least stopped that from happening. Small beer, perhaps, but not nothing. Whether the west likes it or not, in this day and age, the middle east needs a good scapegoat to fight against, and the west needs to play that role to, somehow, and certainly imperfect, keep them from, accidentally no doubt, destroying the whole fucking planet over whose fucking sky-fairy is best (or whatever).

    Maybe, if we keep the various tribes apart for long enough, they'll grow out it.

    Maybe. Though probably not.
    Quote Originally Posted by Miep View Post
    ...i have no idea whats realy going on...

  7. #20007
    Joe Appleby's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    in front of the class
    Posts
    14,000
    Quote Originally Posted by Bartholomeus Crane View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Appleby View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RazoR View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Timaios View Post
    Barth, I get what you are saying, but I just wonder if the countries in the Middle East (Israel included) are too fragile to get rid of their foreign/external scapegoat. If there would not be an external enemy the an Arab (or Bibi / other Israeli hardliner) government could direct their anger towards, they might start getting angry at their own rulers and shit might go down badly.
    That's probably because there is always someone sticking their fingers in the region ever since WW2. Can't see how saudis, muricans and jews ~pull out~ at once.

    Becaise i'm moderately sure that if that happens and your scenario goes down without interference sooner or later there are going to be some border changes and then new stable regimes. Unless they jihad each other to stone age that is which is also a win in my book.
    Not just since then. They were the toy of great powers for millenia. Only the Ottoman Empire brought the region any form of stability, and even that was under foreign occupation.
    I love how often this get carted out. Drips of victimhood, doesn't it?

    Unfortunately, if by 'toy of the great powers' you're referring to Britain, France, Russia, Austria-Hungary etc., prior to, basically, WW1, it's also pretty much bullshit.

    The vast majority of what we now call the middle east was, essentially since the fall of the Byzantine empire, under the suzerainty of the Turks/Ottomans. Not even the Russian czars gave much thought to it, except to ensure access to Jerusalem for Orthodox Christians on pilgrimage. Which the Ottomans generally made sure to give them.

    The parts not under Ottoman control were the sands of the Arabian peninsula, and what is now known as Iran. The great powers didn't give a single toss about the Arabian peninsula until WW1, not least because oil hadn't been discovered there yet (and oil wasn't much of a factor for most of the period anyway). They cared even less for Iran, or, as it was known then, Persia.

    If you consider the 'great games' between the great powers (India, China/Asia, Africa, Afghanistan), it is actually surprising how little a role the middle east played in any of it/them. Given that Jerusalem is smack in the middle of the middle east (another thing the great powers (except, at times, Russia) didn't give a toss about). But that doesn't make it less true.

    Sure, the Austrians and Russians had something against the Ottomans, but that was focussed on the Balkans and the Caucasus (the Russians also longed for the Bosporus, and still do, but never made a move for it), not the middle east. Sure, the British and French (and Italians later on, even the Germans for a bit) had something against the Ottomans, but that was focussed on Egypt, the Suez Canal (later on), and North Africa. Again, not the middle east. And Britain supported the Shah in Persia, but mostly it provided a safe flank in it's great game with Russia on the northern border of India and Afghanistan. The Shah was generally happy to take the money of them.

    So what you have instead is basically the great powers happily divesting 'the sick man of Europe' from it's extremities except, you guessed it, in the middle east. Because the historical reality is that they simply could not be arsed. There was nothing in it for them. To paraphrase: not worth the bones of a single grenadier. After they got what they wanted from the Ottomans elsewhere, they were all perfectly happy to have the Ottomans have all of it, and sell it weapons and railways instead. Not even Napoleon could be arsed, ffs.

    Ofcourse, that all changed during/after WW1, but that's not 'millennia', now is it?

    'The west' has fucked around with the middle east plenty in the last hundred years. Before that? Very little actually. There's plenty the west has to blame itself for in the middle east. But let's not get overboard on this guilt-trip, shall we?

    A lot of what's fucked up now, was fucked up under the Ottomans as well. Some even before that (Arab v. Persia anyone?). And will probably be fucked up forever anyway, even if we stopped meddling right this instant.

    As for what would happen if the people in the middle east didn't have the convenient scapegoat of the west/Israel to blame everything on? Trust me: they'd invent one. Or would have. Whether it'd be the 'new Ottoman empire', the Turks, the Persians, the Kurds, or just the tribe next door (the middle east is far more tribal than most recognise/will admit to). The religion of cheeky banter was born in war, and loves a good Jihad now and then. And that's the majority in those parts.

    Would they be better off left to fight each other? What, in the nuclear age? Are you bloody insane? The history of atrocities committed by, just, the 'safe and stable' Ottoman government puts 'the west' in that period in the shade (except, perhaps, the Spanish in South America). Ask the Armenians for one. Putting a fence around the region and letting them have at each other with modern weapons is asking for the middle east to be turned in a nuclear wasteland.

    For better or for worse, 'outsider meddling' in the middle east has at least stopped that from happening. Small beer, perhaps, but not nothing. Whether the west likes it or not, in this day and age, the middle east needs a good scapegoat to fight against, and the west needs to play that role to, somehow, and certainly imperfect, keep them from, accidentally no doubt, destroying the whole fucking planet over whose fucking sky-fairy is best (or whatever).

    Maybe, if we keep the various tribes apart for long enough, they'll grow out it.

    Maybe. Though probably not.
    Eh, I stopped reading halfway through.

    I meant the region, not the people.

    Simple geopolitics, it's the end of the silkroad and thus has been important for anyone wanting to trade with Asia or control that trade.

    Tapapapatalk
    nevar forget

  8. #20008
    Super Chillerator Global Moderator teds :D's Avatar
    Join Date
    November 9, 2011
    Posts
    7,873
    an actual good barth post

  9. #20009
    Larkonis Trassler's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    FEARLESS.
    Posts
    11,549
    Quote Originally Posted by RazoR View Post
    jews are the biggest anti-semits (since actual nazis)
    Around semites prepare for fights.


  10. #20010
    Sacul's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Location
    Hollandistan
    Posts
    6,950
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Appleby View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bartholomeus Crane View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Appleby View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RazoR View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Timaios View Post
    Barth, I get what you are saying, but I just wonder if the countries in the Middle East (Israel included) are too fragile to get rid of their foreign/external scapegoat. If there would not be an external enemy the an Arab (or Bibi / other Israeli hardliner) government could direct their anger towards, they might start getting angry at their own rulers and shit might go down badly.
    That's probably because there is always someone sticking their fingers in the region ever since WW2. Can't see how saudis, muricans and jews ~pull out~ at once.

    Becaise i'm moderately sure that if that happens and your scenario goes down without interference sooner or later there are going to be some border changes and then new stable regimes. Unless they jihad each other to stone age that is which is also a win in my book.
    Not just since then. They were the toy of great powers for millenia. Only the Ottoman Empire brought the region any form of stability, and even that was under foreign occupation.
    I love how often this get carted out. Drips of victimhood, doesn't it?

    Unfortunately, if by 'toy of the great powers' you're referring to Britain, France, Russia, Austria-Hungary etc., prior to, basically, WW1, it's also pretty much bullshit.

    The vast majority of what we now call the middle east was, essentially since the fall of the Byzantine empire, under the suzerainty of the Turks/Ottomans. Not even the Russian czars gave much thought to it, except to ensure access to Jerusalem for Orthodox Christians on pilgrimage. Which the Ottomans generally made sure to give them.

    The parts not under Ottoman control were the sands of the Arabian peninsula, and what is now known as Iran. The great powers didn't give a single toss about the Arabian peninsula until WW1, not least because oil hadn't been discovered there yet (and oil wasn't much of a factor for most of the period anyway). They cared even less for Iran, or, as it was known then, Persia.

    If you consider the 'great games' between the great powers (India, China/Asia, Africa, Afghanistan), it is actually surprising how little a role the middle east played in any of it/them. Given that Jerusalem is smack in the middle of the middle east (another thing the great powers (except, at times, Russia) didn't give a toss about). But that doesn't make it less true.

    Sure, the Austrians and Russians had something against the Ottomans, but that was focussed on the Balkans and the Caucasus (the Russians also longed for the Bosporus, and still do, but never made a move for it), not the middle east. Sure, the British and French (and Italians later on, even the Germans for a bit) had something against the Ottomans, but that was focussed on Egypt, the Suez Canal (later on), and North Africa. Again, not the middle east. And Britain supported the Shah in Persia, but mostly it provided a safe flank in it's great game with Russia on the northern border of India and Afghanistan. The Shah was generally happy to take the money of them.

    So what you have instead is basically the great powers happily divesting 'the sick man of Europe' from it's extremities except, you guessed it, in the middle east. Because the historical reality is that they simply could not be arsed. There was nothing in it for them. To paraphrase: not worth the bones of a single grenadier. After they got what they wanted from the Ottomans elsewhere, they were all perfectly happy to have the Ottomans have all of it, and sell it weapons and railways instead. Not even Napoleon could be arsed, ffs.

    Ofcourse, that all changed during/after WW1, but that's not 'millennia', now is it?

    'The west' has fucked around with the middle east plenty in the last hundred years. Before that? Very little actually. There's plenty the west has to blame itself for in the middle east. But let's not get overboard on this guilt-trip, shall we?

    A lot of what's fucked up now, was fucked up under the Ottomans as well. Some even before that (Arab v. Persia anyone?). And will probably be fucked up forever anyway, even if we stopped meddling right this instant.

    As for what would happen if the people in the middle east didn't have the convenient scapegoat of the west/Israel to blame everything on? Trust me: they'd invent one. Or would have. Whether it'd be the 'new Ottoman empire', the Turks, the Persians, the Kurds, or just the tribe next door (the middle east is far more tribal than most recognise/will admit to). The religion of cheeky banter was born in war, and loves a good Jihad now and then. And that's the majority in those parts.

    Would they be better off left to fight each other? What, in the nuclear age? Are you bloody insane? The history of atrocities committed by, just, the 'safe and stable' Ottoman government puts 'the west' in that period in the shade (except, perhaps, the Spanish in South America). Ask the Armenians for one. Putting a fence around the region and letting them have at each other with modern weapons is asking for the middle east to be turned in a nuclear wasteland.

    For better or for worse, 'outsider meddling' in the middle east has at least stopped that from happening. Small beer, perhaps, but not nothing. Whether the west likes it or not, in this day and age, the middle east needs a good scapegoat to fight against, and the west needs to play that role to, somehow, and certainly imperfect, keep them from, accidentally no doubt, destroying the whole fucking planet over whose fucking sky-fairy is best (or whatever).

    Maybe, if we keep the various tribes apart for long enough, they'll grow out it.

    Maybe. Though probably not.
    Eh, I stopped reading halfway through.

    I meant the region, not the people.

    Simple geopolitics, it's the end of the silkroad and thus has been important for anyone wanting to trade with Asia or control that trade.

    Tapapapatalk
    Barth is right and so is Joe. The huge amount of regional fighting and backstabbing has been around for literally ever. Much has indeed to do with the economical (and often environmental cycles). There have been a few good books about the inter-islamic fighting on the non-religious front and it is amazing how complex end fluid it was. The ME is basicly what you get when societies don't shed their warrior cultures.
    Schopenhauer:

    All truth passes through three stages.
    First, it is ridiculed.
    Second, it is violently opposed.
    Third, it is accepted as being self-evident..

  11. #20011
    Smarnca's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 30, 2013
    Location
    SVN
    Posts
    8,841
    btw rekking Ruski lost Su-30 yesterday




  12. #20012

    Join Date
    July 3, 2014
    Posts
    3,760
    Russian command says it was a bird hit engine that caused the crash. Interestingly enough a few months ago there was an article saying that "ISIS fighters are going to train Jihad Birds to attack Russian jets". People thought it's a joke but now not so sure anymore.

  13. #20013
    XenosisMk4's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 13, 2017
    Location
    More turbo-lightspeed neoliberal platitudes/virtue signaling/misplaced priorities on full display.
    Posts
    4,152
    Quote Originally Posted by Candy Crush View Post
    Russian command says it was a bird hit engine that caused the crash. Interestingly enough a few months ago there was an article saying that "ISIS fighters are going to train Jihad Birds to attack Russian jets". People thought it's a joke but now not so sure anymore.
    god you are thick

  14. #20014
    pesadelo's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    339
    Quote Originally Posted by teds :D View Post
    an actual good barth post
    Indeed what time to be alive.

    Enviado do meu SM-G900F através do Tapatalk

  15. #20015
    NoirAvlaa's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 12, 2011
    Location
    Liverpool, laaaa
    Posts
    4,887
    Quote Originally Posted by XenosisMk4 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Candy Crush View Post
    Russian command says it was a bird hit engine that caused the crash. Interestingly enough a few months ago there was an article saying that "ISIS fighters are going to train Jihad Birds to attack Russian jets". People thought it's a joke but now not so sure anymore.
    god you are thick
    Did you take his post fully seriously?

    Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

  16. #20016

    Join Date
    May 31, 2011
    Posts
    3,919
    Quote Originally Posted by NoirAvlaa View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by XenosisMk4 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Candy Crush View Post
    Russian command says it was a bird hit engine that caused the crash. Interestingly enough a few months ago there was an article saying that "ISIS fighters are going to train Jihad Birds to attack Russian jets". People thought it's a joke but now not so sure anymore.
    god you are thick
    Did you take his post fully seriously?
    Well, I personally haven't heard about that one and I don't think birds can be trained to the extent that they fly into a running engine of a flying jet. But than again I'm no expert on animal training and given that the Red Army in WWII trained dogs to crouch beneath moving tanks, with mines strapped on their back and that the U.S. Navy trained dolphins and sea lions for various military purposes ... mankind comes up with of all sorts of weird shit :shrug:

  17. #20017
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    10,554
    Quote Originally Posted by Hel OWeen View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by NoirAvlaa View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by XenosisMk4 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Candy Crush View Post
    Russian command says it was a bird hit engine that caused the crash. Interestingly enough a few months ago there was an article saying that "ISIS fighters are going to train Jihad Birds to attack Russian jets". People thought it's a joke but now not so sure anymore.
    god you are thick
    Did you take his post fully seriously?
    Well, I personally haven't heard about that one and I don't think birds can be trained to the extent that they fly into a running engine of a flying jet. But than again I'm no expert on animal training and given that the Red Army in WWII trained dogs to crouch beneath moving tanks, with mines strapped on their back and that the U.S. Navy trained dolphins and sea lions for various military purposes ... mankind comes up with of all sorts of weird shit :shrug:
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_bomb

    This is not a new phenomenon.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_pig
    meh

  18. #20018

    Join Date
    April 18, 2011
    Posts
    2,695

  19. #20019
    Frug's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    13,869
    Quote Originally Posted by Hel OWeen View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by NoirAvlaa View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by XenosisMk4 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Candy Crush View Post
    Russian command says it was a bird hit engine that caused the crash. Interestingly enough a few months ago there was an article saying that "ISIS fighters are going to train Jihad Birds to attack Russian jets". People thought it's a joke but now not so sure anymore.
    god you are thick
    Did you take his post fully seriously?
    Well, I personally haven't heard about that one and I don't think birds can be trained to the extent that they fly into a running engine of a flying jet. But than again I'm no expert on animal training and given that the Red Army in WWII trained dogs to crouch beneath moving tanks, with mines strapped on their back and that the U.S. Navy trained dolphins and sea lions for various military purposes ... mankind comes up with of all sorts of weird shit :shrug:
    ...


    Quote Originally Posted by Loire
    I'm too stupid to say anything that deserves being in your magnificent signature.

  20. #20020
    Dorvil Barranis's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 18, 2011
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    4,908
    It is a well trained bird, has flown in to many an infidel jet engine.
    "Those who are skilled in combat do not become angered, those who are skilled at winning do not become afraid. Thus the wise win before they fight, while the ignorant fight to win." - Zhuge Liang


Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •