hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 1002 of 1010 FirstFirst ... 2502902952992999100010011002100310041005 ... LastLast
Results 20,021 to 20,040 of 20183

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

  1. #20021
    Movember 2011 RazoR's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    The Motherland
    Posts
    29,389
    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.

  2. #20022
    Bartholomeus Crane's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    7,636
    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
    Seriously? The silkroad?

    Yeah, no.

    The importance of the silkroad evaporated the moment the western powers 'invented' long distance sea travel. I.e., at the very beginning of the 'great powers' period (in fact, the birth of the period). The moment the Spanish, Dutch, and English started direct sea-based trade with 'Asia' is also the moment the importance of the Ottomans on the geopolitical scale declined, and with it with the importance of/meddling in the ME.

    The historical fact is that after the crusades until WW1 'the west' couldn't care less about the ME, and as such they couldn't be bothered meddling there either. In geopolitics, and in history, it was by most definitions an ignored sub-continent.

    So unless you still want to blame 'the west' for the crusades (ridiculous, but it does pop up from time to time), give the `millennia of meddling` spiel a rest, please ...

    'The west' (and this includes the USSR/Russia, BTW) has fucked things up a plenty during/since WW1 ... no need to overdo it on the guilt-peddling ...
    Quote Originally Posted by Miep View Post
    ...i have no idea whats realy going on...

  3. #20023
    evil edna's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    5,410
    Quote Originally Posted by teds :D View Post
    an actual good barth post
    Its a ramadan miracle

  4. #20024
    Joe Appleby's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    in front of the class
    Posts
    14,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Bartholomeus Crane View Post
    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
    Seriously? The silkroad?

    Yeah, no.

    The importance of the silkroad evaporated the moment the western powers 'invented' long distance sea travel. I.e., at the very beginning of the 'great powers' period (in fact, the birth of the period). The moment the Spanish, Dutch, and English started direct sea-based trade with 'Asia' is also the moment the importance of the Ottomans on the geopolitical scale declined, and with it with the importance of/meddling in the ME.

    The historical fact is that after the crusades until WW1 'the west' couldn't care less about the ME, and as such they couldn't be bothered meddling there either. In geopolitics, and in history, it was by most definitions an ignored sub-continent.

    So unless you still want to blame 'the west' for the crusades (ridiculous, but it does pop up from time to time), give the `millennia of meddling` spiel a rest, please ...

    'The west' (and this includes the USSR/Russia, BTW) has fucked things up a plenty during/since WW1 ... no need to overdo it on the guilt-peddling ...
    I wasn't saying the West was meddling with it nor limiting myself to CE. Prior to the Romans the region was repeatedly conquered by neighboring empires. The Romans and Byzantines brought some stability, but remember that Palmyra in Syria once threatened the Roman Empire as a whole. The Persians were always just on the brink of invasion or worse. It was never super quiet in the region until the Muslim conquests. Once the Crusades were done with, you had the Mongols come in and then the Ottomans took over. The Ottomans brought 400 years of stability (excluding friendly visits by the Persians etc) or so.

    Please take your Christian goggles off, there were people there before Jesus.
    nevar forget

  5. #20025
    Lief Siddhe's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 15, 2011
    Location
    Zagreb, Croatia
    Posts
    6,169
    well truth be told go 2000 years back and any fucking place on the planet was a plague invested warridden shithole that everyone fucked up

    edit: i'm in the camp "yeah europeans fucked it up there in 20th century with the middle east but the middle easterners have been fucking it up much longer"
    I was somewhere around Old Man Star, on the edge of Essence, when drugs began to take hold.

  6. #20026
    Bartholomeus Crane's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    7,636
    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 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
    Seriously? The silkroad?

    Yeah, no.

    The importance of the silkroad evaporated the moment the western powers 'invented' long distance sea travel. I.e., at the very beginning of the 'great powers' period (in fact, the birth of the period). The moment the Spanish, Dutch, and English started direct sea-based trade with 'Asia' is also the moment the importance of the Ottomans on the geopolitical scale declined, and with it with the importance of/meddling in the ME.

    The historical fact is that after the crusades until WW1 'the west' couldn't care less about the ME, and as such they couldn't be bothered meddling there either. In geopolitics, and in history, it was by most definitions an ignored sub-continent.

    So unless you still want to blame 'the west' for the crusades (ridiculous, but it does pop up from time to time), give the `millennia of meddling` spiel a rest, please ...

    'The west' (and this includes the USSR/Russia, BTW) has fucked things up a plenty during/since WW1 ... no need to overdo it on the guilt-peddling ...
    I wasn't saying the West was meddling with it nor limiting myself to CE. Prior to the Romans the region was repeatedly conquered by neighboring empires. The Romans and Byzantines brought some stability, but remember that Palmyra in Syria once threatened the Roman Empire as a whole. The Persians were always just on the brink of invasion or worse. It was never super quiet in the region until the Muslim conquests. Once the Crusades were done with, you had the Mongols come in and then the Ottomans took over. The Ottomans brought 400 years of stability (excluding friendly visits by the Persians etc) or so.

    Please take your Christian goggles off, there were people there before Jesus.
    So we're now all the way back in antiquity?

    Sorry, I must have misunderstood then when you mentioned that the ME was the toy of the great powers. Because I took that to mean the, you know, the great powers. I.e., as the commonly understood great powers that constituted the concert of Europe since the post-Napoleonic era. As far as I'm aware they didn't include such 'great powers' as the Romans, the Byzantines, or the Mongols.

    What's next? Biblical times? Babylon? Egyptian mythology?

    When will it ever be, at least in some part, their own fault? How far are you, and they, willing to take this back to blame someone else for the shitty state their region is in?

    The west meddled more than enough since WW1, and the second Iraq war was, obviously, a mistake. But, damn, they haven't done themselves any favours either now, have they ...
    Quote Originally Posted by Miep View Post
    ...i have no idea whats realy going on...

  7. #20027
    Joe Appleby's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    in front of the class
    Posts
    14,036
    Well when have they ever governed themselves really?
    nevar forget

  8. #20028
    Keckers's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31, 2012
    Posts
    16,542
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Appleby View Post
    Well when have they ever governed themselves really?
    Has anyone?
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Mason
    It is absurd that we are capable of witnessing a 40,000 year old system of gender oppression begin to dissolve before our eyes yet still see the abolition of a 200 year old economic system as an unrealistic utopia.

  9. #20029
    Joe Appleby's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    in front of the class
    Posts
    14,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Appleby View Post
    Well when have they ever governed themselves really?
    Has anyone?
    France has for centuries. The UK has since 1066. The US since 1776. Germany since 1990 (well, actually well before that, but there have been various interruptions over the centuries.)
    nevar forget

  10. #20030
    Keckers's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31, 2012
    Posts
    16,542
    They've been governed by a small ruling class, is that really a nation governing itself?
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Mason
    It is absurd that we are capable of witnessing a 40,000 year old system of gender oppression begin to dissolve before our eyes yet still see the abolition of a 200 year old economic system as an unrealistic utopia.

  11. #20031
    Dorvil Barranis's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 18, 2011
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    4,917
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Appleby View Post
    Well when have they ever governed themselves really?
    Has anyone?
    The Illuminati lizard people secret overlords of the world.
    "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


  12. #20032
    Joe Appleby's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    in front of the class
    Posts
    14,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    They've been governed by a small ruling class, is that really a nation governing itself?
    In the historical context that would be totally fine and the Middle East for the most part didn't even get that much.

    Never make the mistake of judging the actions of a historical person by your standards. Always apply the standards of the time (that's why Thomas Jefferson gets a pass for owning slaves, Jefferson Davies doesn't -- debatable example, I know).
    nevar forget

  13. #20033
    jimmychrist's Avatar
    Join Date
    August 31, 2011
    Posts
    754
    The dinosaurs ruined the middle east

  14. #20034
    Donor Spawinte's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    6,333
    Trump is pulling out of the Iran deal and Israel is ramping things up over Iran. I hope America is not about to get bounced into another stupid war.



  15. #20035
    Caldrion Dosto's Avatar
    Join Date
    November 19, 2011
    Posts
    2,133
    Quote Originally Posted by Spawinte View Post
    Trump is pulling out of the Iran deal and Israel is ramping things up over Iran. I hope America is not about to get bounced into another stupid war.


    Wow.. He basically declared war on Iran.

  16. #20036
    Movember 2012 Stoffl's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    The original viennese waffle
    Posts
    21,733
    Lolus Mk 2018 the Iranian diet coke burgering
    2/10/17 Greatposthellpurge never forget
    23/10/17 The Greatreposteninging ?

  17. #20037
    Donor Spawinte's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    6,333
    Israel pls stop


  18. #20038
    Caldrion Dosto's Avatar
    Join Date
    November 19, 2011
    Posts
    2,133
    Quote Originally Posted by Spawinte View Post
    Israel pls stop
    They really donīt have any incentives to do so. Trump has showed them he got their backs.

  19. #20039
    Smarnca's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 30, 2013
    Location
    SVN
    Posts
    8,857
    Why havent the S-400s been triggered yet? I think little tiny show of force would be enough

    Or maybe "DA JOOS" do control everything???



  20. #20040
    Caldrion Dosto's Avatar
    Join Date
    November 19, 2011
    Posts
    2,133
    Quote Originally Posted by Smarnca View Post
    Why havent the S-400s been triggered yet? I think little tiny show of force would be enough

    Or maybe "DA JOOS" do control everything???
    Cause Russia don't want their hardware bombed?

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
  •