NedimNapoleon
Weird Little Human
They're still very, very small, and I doubt they will become any more popular. They are on the margins of society, and most of them live in isolated enclaves (Maoca).
Terrorist attack in Sarajevo
- Thread starter NedimNapoleon
- Start date
Civ'ed
I ain't gotta explain a thing
but if he dies he can save himself the expenses of a lawyer.
Winner
Diverse in Unity
Another reason to bomb Saudi Arabia.
Civ'ed
I ain't gotta explain a thing
Fixed, this makes much more sense while not making sense at all
Silurian
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2010
- Messages
- 7,567
That would put up the price of oil so they would have more money to spread Wahhabism.
Reduce oil use and the oil price will fall and they will have less money to spread Wahhabism.
Winner
Diverse in Unity
Are you serious, or is this a joke?
Wahhabism is Saudi Arabia's second most important export. The Saudis sponsor islamic radicalism all over the world, and they especially took care to foster it in Bosnia during and after the war.
That would put up the price of oil so they would have more money to spread Wahhabism.
Reduce oil use and the oil price will fall and they will have less money to spread Wahhabism.
What about
a) bombing Saudi Arabia back to stone age
b) seizing its oil fields
c) using the money to sponsor anti-theist campaigns all over the world?
If we did that for at least a century, we might even undo a small part of the damage the Saudis have caused.
Completely untrue.
Civ'ed
I ain't gotta explain a thing
Joke.
But bombing Saudi Arabia would anger the Muslim world and give Al-Qaida a huge influence.
Cheetah
Deity
Except he didn't spray people with bullets.
He committed a violent attack against a US embassy. That's wrong, criminal and - the way he conducted it - foolish.
Still, did he scare anyone? Has anyone actually been terrorised by this? I simply want us to be careful with labeling every violent attack against established interests as 'terrorism'.
NedimNapoleon
Weird Little Human
Well the FBI is coming to town.
Skwink
FRIIIIIIIIIITZ
- Joined
- May 14, 2010
- Messages
- 5,688
Nice untrue statement.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
What is so completely untrue about the obvious truth? When was the last time a SWAT sniper shot even a dangerous criminal with an automatic weapon in the leg instead of executing him?
Bugfatty300
Buddha Squirrel
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
Someone who hadn't shot at anybody and was threatening to kill himself is your example of how humanitarian SWAT is in the US?
Bugfatty300
Buddha Squirrel
I dunno. I thought SWAT was about executing people but here we clearly see them likely saving a suspect's life through decisive improvisation. Quite the conundrum.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
It is not a conundrum at all that SWAT snipers almost always shoot to kill. It is a fact.
Bugfatty300
Buddha Squirrel
Well yeah. A SWAT sharpshooter typically isn't armed with a nerf gun that shoots magic rainbow tickle beams. Them big boomsticks shoot bullets. Bullets tend to be lethal. It's a fact.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
Especially when they are specifically aimed at the heart or the head.
Do you really think in a similar situation as this in the US that this individual would have been deliberately wounded in the leg by a sniper? Or would he now likely be dead?
Do you really think in a similar situation as this in the US that this individual would have been deliberately wounded in the leg by a sniper? Or would he now likely be dead?
Similar threads
