Do you honestly think your meager little Glock is going to take down the next tyrannical government?
lol
SHOOTING IN PROGRESS AT YOUTUBE #
- Thread starter Tetra
- Start date
lol
everyone hates anyone pro gun. are you stupid in no way am i comparing them im merely comparing the idea that backlash will be a result of any parliamentary change.
also william wilberforce during the slave trade decided he'd speak out even though everyone was pro slavery.
- Staff
- #83
Hearing fellow Britbongs and Eurofags talk about gun control being needed in america when you dont live there and you aren't actually affected by guns in america at all.
Meanwhile in london:
But guns are restricted here! This cant be happening?
Welcome to London, The city that disproves the theory that gun control creates peaceful utopias.
Meanwhile in london:
But guns are restricted here! This cant be happening?
Welcome to London, The city that disproves the theory that gun control creates peaceful utopias.
When was the last UK school shooting?Hearing fellow Britbongs and Eurofags talk about gun control being needed in america when you dont live there and you aren't actually affected by guns in america at all.
Meanwhile in london:
But guns are restricted here! This cant be happening?
When was the last UK mass shooting in general?
UK gun deaths are not in anyway comparable to the USAs gigantic sum and even then you can't compare because of the population difference. The UK doesn't have a problem even with recent news headlines.
Police state, of course. Are you mixing USA with DDR? You're actually saying that there are secret cameras everywhere in apartments? USA isn't a totalitarian society, don't mix the government with the goverments in 1984 by Orwell.
The destruction of middle east, huh? In the cold war Russia was invading Afghanistan to spread communism by force. The US didn't like it, so they offered to help and train the Mujahadeen. The Mujahadeen had weapons from 1914-1918 before the US came in. Later they became Al Qaeda, and people seem to blame the US for arming them.
The situation in the middle east has more to do with Iran and Saudi arabia, and less with the US. Don't blame the US for what's going on down there
"everyone hates everyone pro gun"
Who the fuck is "everyone"?
Most of the republicans are pro gun. You're telling me pro gunners also hate other pro gunners? Stop generalising
but also pedophiles like other pedophiles? you're point is becoming more and more invalid.
"Everyone hates pedos. Don’t compare them lmao "
Are you actually telling me that the USA had less of a responsibility with the DESTRUCTION of Syria, Iraq and the TRAINING of ISIS in them and Afghanistan than SAUDI ARABIA?
THE USA has been training these "REBELS" for as long they have existed in there. First, they came in and then they caused hardship on millions of Iraqis then they just leave? It wasn't a surprise that now, these "REBELS" that the Americans funded turn out to be ISIS extremists?
Are you also washing your hands of American imperialism in South America and the complete and utter failure of that was to depose of Castro? Are you also washing your hands of the "INTERVENTION" then ABANDONMENT of Vietnam and Cambodia which lead to huge tragedy?
The justification of the war of Terror was a fallacy, it was a meagre imperialistic grab of power and it lead to a lot of backlash and hatred against the Americans in the region in which they raped, which has ended up in not so surprisingly terrorist attacks in the West.
Its a joke to try and justify American actions in the Middle East which has been the sole cause of the current hardship. I'd prefer a dictatorship over 47 militias.
- Staff
- #89
Right, because multiple stabbings a day, Terrorism, Political dismay, acid attacks, And mass grooming gangs isn't at all a problem innit?
So this attributes to gun control how?
"your" point is not even making sense. What are you even trying to say? My point is that pro gunners are accepted in society, not pedophiles.
Daigestive
Professional Stripper
Closed. Go shitpost somewhere else.
Saudi Arabia and Iran have always had conflicts witch eachother, rather than fighting directly. They support proxy wars in Iraq, Syria and Yemen. This was when the Shah of Iran was overthrown in the Iranian revolution, because the muslim population didn't support the Shah's politics and the secularisation of Iran.
Saudi Arabia claimed to be the "muslim state" because of Mecca and Medina, but Iran said that they were because of the revolution of IRan. The threats were also caused because of Saudi Arabia being Sunni, and Iran being Shia. This went fine until Saudi Arabia found out that Iran was exploiting the revolution by supporting shia militants trying to overthrow governments from Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan.
Saudi Arabia later started an alliance with USA making the GCC. Iraq later invaded Iran. It was going good for Iraq, but Iran's technology was superior, and quickly regained the land they had lost. Saudi Arabia became afraid so they decided to send them a lot more lend leases including weapons and money to reinforce their borders. Around million civs died.
While I don't agree why the US invaded Iraq, I'm glad they did. Saddam Hussein was a war criminial who didn't care about others. He committed thousands of war crimes including the genocide of the kurds. Iraq in taht time was still funded by the US. The Americans couldn't replace a leader, so the country fell into civil war. Sunni militias were funded by the Saudis and the shia's were funded by the Iranians.
Let's not forget that Saudi Arabia is literally starving out Yemenis, and Iran still supporting the houthis still hoping to take down Saudi Arabia. The same thing is happening in Syria. Turkey has more influence in the middle east than US, so yeah. I'd say Iran and Saudi Arabia caused most of the warfare there.
- Staff
- #94
Oh boy. Here's a history lesson for you:
ISIS Weren't US Trained, The Taliban were not trained by the US directly. Various militant organisations who self identified as the Mujaheddin were. The Mujaheddin were trained and armed by the US, The Saudis, and Pakistan to liberate there country from Soviet invaders after the soviets invaded Afghanistan to ensure the Afghan communist party got into power by force.
About 7 years after the soviets pulled out of Afghanistan, The Taliban is formed and take control of 2/3rds of the country, fighting the Mujaheddin fighters who didn't join the Taliban.
So, the US Didn't even directly Train the Taliban, Let alone ISIS. They trained organisations that were to fight off soviet oppressors, and about a decade later, Organisations formed against the US in which some members were formerly in organisations trained to fight for there own freedom. Nobody at the time could have predicted this would happen, and the only reason it seems obvious now is because it had already happened before we were born.
The Taliban emerged as an opportunistic militia using the countries weakened state to gain control and enforce a strict Islamic regime. The Taliban actually fought many organisations trained by the US And won.
ISIS also was a similar story. Organisations that presented no threat to the west were trained and armed during programmes backed by US Funding to fight Gaddafi and Asaad and individuals amongst those went and joined the islamic state, fighting there previous organisations.
The middle east was fucked before America intervened, sure, its not much better now, but NATO Intervention allowed the establishment of Highly trained and well armed security forces in Afghanistan and Iraq to help fight off insurgency and establish themselves as a legitimate nation. Had America not intervened in the first place, then the USSR Would most likely held control over Afghanistan and other nations for several more years to the point where NATO boots on ground intervention against the Soviets would have most likely occurred and caused a third world war.
So please, if you're gonna take a gun control debate and turn it into a platform for you to spill anti American propaganda, at least put some time, Thought and effort into it.
I've already read through your contradictory post. But for the sake of argument, I want to stick to Naked Snake who was the one I was actually debating/arguing with before you started to join in with your superior history which on the pretense of you giving me a lesson is infact the dumbest thing I've read especially the last part.
Last edited:
Theres absolutely no doubt that Saudi Arabia is responsible for a lot of mischief and tragedy in Yemen. Not only this, but they along with the terror-state of Israel have caused a lot of problems in the region as a whole, jumping on this crisis that the Americans left to pull some deadly strings (along with Iran)
However, I was arguing that the whole cause of the destruction was the imperialistic interventions of Bush and the pre-ambles of The Soviet Union . However when it comes to meddling in political affairs the USA won that ball-game a long time ago, the Soviets had no right in Afghanistan but nor did the Americans in South America supporting authoritarian dictatorships simply because they thought it was better than the other guy, nor did the Americans have a right to dictate affairs in Asia. This attitude of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" has done a lot to help the world. The American invasion of Aghanistan was the match to the powder-keg the Soviets had left behind.
You say you are glad for the Iraq war. Do you know how much death came as a result? The amount of hatred sparked against the West which along with the American support of the insurgents lead to what we had a few years ago a big bloody mess. The Americans themselves created al Qaeda and ISIS. Either they were too bloody stupid or knew what they were doing in supporting these factions.
Its very clear that the Americans are responsible for ISIS, they trained Syrian rebels under "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" logic. Then, soon after they joined ISIS! This trend of stupidity can't go on further can it? Oh no it goes on again, when the Iraqis were running from ISIS they just ditched all the American equipment and armament behind them so the Americans armed ISIS as well. Common sense shows you that the Americans have dumped billions of dollars into interventionist policies in the Middle East, and Wylde seems to think that none of this money went to the terror organizations that we see today and hear today on the news responsible for the suicide attacks.
Saddam kept things in control at least. He was a tyrant and had to go at some time, but in the way they did it and the reasons for why they did it was nothing short of a cash-grab. Bush and Blair are the two people who should be in the Hague for war-crimes.
If the interventionism hadn't of happened, I doubt we would be having walled off our pavements and have armed police all over public places, this hatred of the West has been fuel for the terror empire.
EDIT: SA and Terror-State of Israel would have no strings to pull if America hadn't of swooped in.
Wylde also seems to think that if the Soviets had been left unchecked in Afghanistan they would have went onto conquer the rest and more than just Afghanistan, also that after there would be a third world war. I don't know what to say to that. If the Soviets followed their own ideology they would know that Imperialism is not a Communist principle and if he knew his own history he would know that the Soviets could not financially maintain what they had been doing even if they went on a smooth road.
Last edited:
Daigestive
Professional Stripper
- Staff
- #98
Hearing fellow Britbongs and Eurofags talk about gun control being needed in america when you dont live there and you aren't actually affected by guns in america at all.
Meanwhile in london:
But guns are restricted here! This cant be happening?
Welcome to London, The city that disproves the theory that gun control creates peaceful utopias.
A story like that wouldn't make the news in the US because it happens every single day. Just saying.
reopened by order of his majesty exrobite
