100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Paris Attacker Identified | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
I wonder if they will be releasing more names,,,,, they have made several arrests at this point,,, Hollande seems to be like O, absolutely no idea what to do!! All shadow targets. He was in the football stadium!! where did you expect him to be? On the Barricades? 
H could've declared that "France's Muslim community must accept the Syrians on same lines like France accepted them (the earlier Muslim immigrants) OR ELSE..." Instead: He declares war on ISIS - which does not 'exist on French soil'; just French Shia's network. So instead of the F_Shia community opening up & weeding out the anti-Syrians the declaration closed ranks among all Shia's. As i said, H has absolutely no idea on governance. Malarkey! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
They have also identified someone they are looking for who is still on the loose in Paris who's considered armed and extremely dangerous and they also have found out who the mastermind is, I am guessing with American and British help...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So no one wants to blame the Muslims, cause we'll hurt their feelings, and allegedly demonize them unfairly. It would be 'Islamophobic' in terms of current politically correct thinking.
So when someone is going to be stupid enough to accuse me of being 'phobic' about Islam, I simply provide them with facts. 1) Since 9/11 there have been over 27,000 terrorist attacks committed by Muslims. 2) Islam purports to be a religion of peace, and it's 'only a few misguided souls' who are perverting the religion. So let's look at the reality. Words of Muslims themselves. We do that by reviewing the information provided by polls taken of Muslim thoughts and attitudes. - 25%of British Muslims thought the 7/7 suicide bombers were justified. - 31% of Turks support suicide bombings against westerners that are in Iraq - 32% of Palestinians support the killings of Israeli families, including their children. - The following stats reflect the number of people who support attacks on Americans around the world Egypt 61% Indonesia 32% Pakistan 41% Moroccans 38% Palestinians 83% Jordanians 62% - Muslims who think that suicide bombings are acceptable to defend Islam Indonesia 15% Nigeria 34 Brits 35% French 42% German 22% Spain 29% and finally 26% of American Muslims. Of note is that American Muslims, who say they identify strongly with their religion are THREE HUNDRED PERCENT more likely to feel that suicide bombings are justifiable. All stats are from Pew Research 2007-2010. There is no reason to believe Muslims have become any less agreeable in their thinking on these topics since then. So when someone wants to try and bamboozle you with the all Muslims are peaceful, the religion is peaceful, we don't think violence is a solution, we are tolerant of other religions and societies position, it is demonstrably false, and the biggest pile of horse*hit you will ever be fed in your lifetime. The mother of one of the suicide bombers is now saying her son never wanted to be a suicide bomber. Obviously he was suffering from 'stress' and that's why he shot up and suicide bombed a Paris cafe on Friday night. The grand mufti in Australia says the bombings are against Islam, but that it was caused by racism, Islamophobia, heightened societal security procedures, foreign policy, and military intervention. Islam had NOTHING to with it. Proof however of how unfocused the fight against Islam is can be shown in the following. Democratic candidate for Minnesota state legislature Dan Kimmel tweeted out on Saturday night during the Democratic debate "ISIS isn't necessarily evil. It is made up of people doing what they think is best for their community." Following the uproar over his post, he walked it back, and then retired from the race at the request of the Democratic Party. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So no one wants to blame the Muslims, cause we'll hurt their feelings, and allegedly demonize them unfairly. It would be 'Islamophobic' in terms of current politically correct thinking. So when someone is going to be stupid enough to accuse me of being 'phobic' about Islam, I simply provide them with facts. 1) Since 9/11 there have been over 27,000 terrorist attacks committed by Muslims. 2) Islam purports to be a religion of peace, and it's 'only a few misguided souls' who are perverting the religion. So let's look at the reality. Words of Muslims themselves. We do that by reviewing the information provided by polls taken of Muslim thoughts and attitudes. - 25%of British Muslims thought the 7/7 suicide bombers were justified. - 31% of Turks support suicide bombings against westerners that are in Iraq - 32% of Palestinians support the killings of Israeli families, including their children. - The following stats reflect the number of people who support attacks on Americans around the world Egypt 61% Indonesia 32% Pakistan 41% Moroccans 38% Palestinians 83% Jordanians 62% - Muslims who think that suicide bombings are acceptable to defend Islam Indonesia 15% Nigeria 34 Brits 35% French 42% German 22% Spain 29% and finally 26% of American Muslims. Of note is that American Muslims, who say they identify strongly with their religion are THREE HUNDRED PERCENT more likely to feel that suicide bombings are justifiable. All stats are from Pew Research 2007-2010. There is no reason to believe Muslims have become any less agreeable in their thinking on these topics since then. So when someone wants to try and bamboozle you with the all Muslims are peaceful, the religion is peaceful, we don't think violence is a solution, we are tolerant of other religions and societies position, it is demonstrably false, and the biggest pile of horse*hit you will ever be fed in your lifetime. The mother of one of the suicide bombers is now saying her son never wanted to be a suicide bomber. Obviously he was suffering from 'stress' and that's why he shot up and suicide bombed a Paris cafe on Friday night. The grand mufti in Australia says the bombings are against Islam, but that it was caused by racism, Islamophobia, heightened societal security procedures, foreign policy, and military intervention. Islam had NOTHING to with it. Proof however of how unfocused the fight against Islam is can be shown in the following. Democratic candidate for Minnesota state legislature Dan Kimmel tweeted out on Saturday night during the Democratic debate "ISIS isn't necessarily evil. It is made up of people doing what they think is best for their community." Following the uproar over his post, he walked it back, and then retired from the race at the request of the Democratic Party. you're not being very PC with this post... the liberals will get you |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So no one wants to blame the Muslims, cause we'll hurt their feelings, and allegedly demonize them unfairly. It would be 'Islamophobic' in terms of current politically correct thinking. So when someone is going to be stupid enough to accuse me of being 'phobic' about Islam, I simply provide them with facts. 1) Since 9/11 there have been over 27,000 terrorist attacks committed by Muslims. 2) Islam purports to be a religion of peace, and it's 'only a few misguided souls' who are perverting the religion. So let's look at the reality. Words of Muslims themselves. We do that by reviewing the information provided by polls taken of Muslim thoughts and attitudes. - 25%of British Muslims thought the 7/7 suicide bombers were justified. - 31% of Turks support suicide bombings against westerners that are in Iraq - 32% of Palestinians support the killings of Israeli families, including their children. - The following stats reflect the number of people who support attacks on Americans around the world Egypt 61% Indonesia 32% Pakistan 41% Moroccans 38% Palestinians 83% Jordanians 62% - Muslims who think that suicide bombings are acceptable to defend Islam Indonesia 15% Nigeria 34 Brits 35% French 42% German 22% Spain 29% and finally 26% of American Muslims. Of note is that American Muslims, who say they identify strongly with their religion are THREE HUNDRED PERCENT more likely to feel that suicide bombings are justifiable. All stats are from Pew Research 2007-2010. There is no reason to believe Muslims have become any less agreeable in their thinking on these topics since then. Proof however of how unfocused the fight against Islam is can be shown in the following. Democratic candidate for Minnesota state legislature Dan Kimmel tweeted out on Saturday night during the Democratic debate "ISIS isn't necessarily evil. It is made up of people doing what they think is best for their community." Following the uproar over his post, he walked it back, and then retired from the race at the request of the Democratic Party. "There is no reason to believe Muslims have become any less agreeable in their thinking on these topics since then." I absolutely agree with this and the numbers are to be taken seriously and have probably increased. and I also re-iterate what I have said earlier...- the work needs to be done to fasten actions....specially here in Europe. It's for that reason France has put the country into "emergency"... I don't feel security has increased specially because police doesn't or can't take actions. The laws are pretty loose... On the other hand...all those figures also show that not ALL muslims are terrorists or potential terrorists...and phobia is not going to help. Those Daech members should also stop being regarded as "smart" and "having any culture" at all...not more than any other violent gang member...they are desperate and suicidal people trying to find a cause. Someone said they are not mass-murderers ? I'm sorry...they are. What makes a mass murderer better ? They all snap... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The liberals can come after me all they want. I usually don't have to worry about them blowing themselves over two acres of wallpaper. They just spew rhetoric, and not a kidney at mach two.
I watched part of the Obama statement from the economic summit today. He's done. He's lost his nerve, and has no capacity to make critical decisions on the prosecution of a military campaign that will inflict the losses required to shut ISIS down. He has tempered his decision making based on his trips to hospitals to see injured vets. Obviously this has affected his decision making. I'm not saying he can't feel empathy and sympathy for them, and that he can't feel bad that they were injured. He knew when he took the job, that sending people to war means they die and get maimed. Now he's trying to make war 'safe' again. The following will be VERY CONTROVERSIAL, but read it a couple times to let it percolate. In order to WIN this fight, not just contain or degrade ISIS, we are going to have to be prepared to kill...innocent civilians. Before you flip out, read the WHOLE post. The reason why the fight against ISIS and al-Qaeda and Hamas and Hezbollah is taking so long is that post WW2 we took the total inhumanity of the strategic bombing campaigns that were engaged in, and tried to make war 'safer' for non-combatants. In WW2 we flattened entire cities to destroy factories capable of making weapons. We flattened train stations, bus depots, and ports for ships in order to deny the enemy war making capabilities. When we did that, we killed the workers at those locations, and bombed nearby housing with the 'misses'. After the war, countries proclaimed such wholesale killing had to stop. So, we worked on 'smart' bombs. Drop fewer bombs, have higher rates of success hitting the intended targets, and fewer civilians would have to die. Yea for technology! We then tried to leverage that thinking into other facets of military strategy. 'Smart' artillery shells, mortar shells, even 'smart' bullets. War-fighting was supposed to become this clean, clinical, lest we say surgical expression of state sanctioned violence and was meant to eradicate the enemy with a minimum of fuss. Problem is, we wound up fighting urban warfare campaigns in areas where the buildings were still standing. Where we might be able to task a tank to hit a building, but surely couldn't level entire neighborhoods anymore. THAT would be a war crime, right? So now, ONE of the reasons why you have PTSD is that soldiers were forced to fight in a much more restricted battle space in which the enemy held the upper hand of terrain. The enemy also held the advantage of using the civilian population as human shields through which we were not allowed to engage them. You forced young men and women to be constantly exposed to an enemy that they weren't allowed to kill or even engage. All the while, the enemy itself had no rules. Car bombs, truck bombs, roadside bombs, bike bombs, even child bombs. They would shoot at you by lying on the ground and firing from under the burka of a woman who could only stand still or be shot by the terrorist, or have her family be killed because she failed to help the terrorist. Make an 18 yr old American kid decide that he has to shoot the woman in order to flush out the terrorist. Nope, that won't mess you up. Again, we made the mistake of trying to fight an enemy 'by the rules' for whom the rules DON'T EXIST. We prided ourselves in saying that because we don't kill civilians we were the better people. We were more civilized. We were morally superior. So, how's that worked out for ya? Huh? Seriously. Have we actually 'won' a war in the last oh say 25 years? Now. If you want to DEFEAT ISIS you issue an ultimatum. Civilians have 48 hours to leave. The military will establish checkpoints to validate those leaving. After that, the real WAR begins. Any place that is ISIS controlled is eligible to be wiped off the map. If the wives, old folks, and kids didn't leave town, that's no longer on us. You use cluster munitions to attack large tracts of battle space, and you use land mines to deny ISIS the ability to run in all directions. You use snipers to take out ISIS members trying to clear the minefields, and you can starve them out if you want to be more 'civil' about it. Less civil is you simply carpet bomb ISIS into oblivion. They will only understand stark, utter and brutal violence when it comes to visit them in the dead of night and turns their world upside down. Since Obama has already decided that the U.S. will not deploy ground troops in any significant number, he will be left with the choice of either walking away, or ACTUALLY killing terrorists on a wholesale level. If that means killing their families as well, you'll do it knowing that you gave them more of a chance to survive than they would ever have given you. This is the fastest way to get *drops mic* |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The liberals can come after me all they want. I usually don't have to worry about them blowing themselves over two acres of wallpaper. They just spew rhetoric, and not a kidney at mach two.
I watched part of the Obama statement from the economic summit today. He's done. He's lost his nerve, and has no capacity to make critical decisions on the prosecution of a military campaign that will inflict the losses required to shut ISIS down. He has tempered his decision making based on his trips to hospitals to see injured vets. Obviously this has affected his decision making. I'm not saying he can't feel empathy and sympathy for them, and that he can't feel bad that they were injured. He knew when he took the job, that sending people to war means they die and get maimed. Now he's trying to make war 'safe' again. The following will be VERY CONTROVERSIAL, but read it a couple times to let it percolate. In order to WIN this fight, not just contain or degrade ISIS, we are going to have to be prepared to kill...innocent civilians. Before you flip out, read the WHOLE post. The reason why the fight against ISIS and al-Qaeda and Hamas and Hezbollah is taking so long is that post WW2 we took the total inhumanity of the strategic bombing campaigns that were engaged in, and tried to make war 'safer' for non-combatants. In WW2 we flattened entire cities to destroy factories capable of making weapons. We flattened train stations, bus depots, and ports for ships in order to deny the enemy war making capabilities. When we did that, we killed the workers at those locations, and bombed nearby housing with the 'misses'. After the war, countries proclaimed such wholesale killing had to stop. So, we worked on 'smart' bombs. Drop fewer bombs, have higher rates of success hitting the intended targets, and fewer civilians would have to die. Yea for technology! We then tried to leverage that thinking into other facets of military strategy. 'Smart' artillery shells, mortar shells, even 'smart' bullets. War-fighting was supposed to become this clean, clinical, lest we say surgical expression of state sanctioned violence and was meant to eradicate the enemy with a minimum of fuss. Problem is, we wound up fighting urban warfare campaigns in areas where the buildings were still standing. Where we might be able to task a tank to hit a building, but surely couldn't level entire neighborhoods anymore. THAT would be a war crime, right? So now, ONE of the reasons why you have PTSD is that soldiers were forced to fight in a much more restricted battle space in which the enemy held the upper hand of terrain. The enemy also held the advantage of using the civilian population as human shields through which we were not allowed to engage them. You forced young men and women to be constantly exposed to an enemy that they weren't allowed to kill or even engage. All the while, the enemy itself had no rules. Car bombs, truck bombs, roadside bombs, bike bombs, even child bombs. They would shoot at you by lying on the ground and firing from under the burka of a woman who could only stand still or be shot by the terrorist, or have her family be killed because she failed to help the terrorist. Make an 18 yr old American kid decide that he has to shoot the woman in order to flush out the terrorist. Nope, that won't mess you up. Again, we made the mistake of trying to fight an enemy 'by the rules' for whom the rules DON'T EXIST. We prided ourselves in saying that because we don't kill civilians we were the better people. We were more civilized. We were morally superior. So, how's that worked out for ya? Huh? Seriously. Have we actually 'won' a war in the last oh say 25 years? Now. If you want to DEFEAT ISIS you issue an ultimatum. Civilians have 48 hours to leave. The military will establish checkpoints to validate those leaving. After that, the real WAR begins. Any place that is ISIS controlled is eligible to be wiped off the map. If the wives, old folks, and kids didn't leave town, that's no longer on us. You use cluster munitions to attack large tracts of battle space, and you use land mines to deny ISIS the ability to run in all directions. You use snipers to take out ISIS members trying to clear the minefields, and you can starve them out if you want to be more 'civil' about it. Less civil is you simply carpet bomb ISIS into oblivion. They will only understand stark, utter and brutal violence when it comes to visit them in the dead of night and turns their world upside down. Since Obama has already decided that the U.S. will not deploy ground troops in any significant number, he will be left with the choice of either walking away, or ACTUALLY killing terrorists on a wholesale level. If that means killing their families as well, you'll do it knowing that you gave them more of a chance to survive than they would ever have given you. Sorry if reality is getting in the way. *drops mic* |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The liberals can come after me all they want. I usually don't have to worry about them blowing themselves over two acres of wallpaper. They just spew rhetoric, and not a kidney at mach two. I watched part of the Obama statement from the economic summit today. He's done. He's lost his nerve, and has no capacity to make critical decisions on the prosecution of a military campaign that will inflict the losses required to shut ISIS down. He has tempered his decision making based on his trips to hospitals to see injured vets. Obviously this has affected his decision making. I'm not saying he can't feel empathy and sympathy for them, and that he can't feel bad that they were injured. He knew when he took the job, that sending people to war means they die and get maimed. Now he's trying to make war 'safe' again. The following will be VERY CONTROVERSIAL, but read it a couple times to let it percolate. In order to WIN this fight, not just contain or degrade ISIS, we are going to have to be prepared to kill...innocent civilians. Before you flip out, read the WHOLE post. The reason why the fight against ISIS and al-Qaeda and Hamas and Hezbollah is taking so long is that post WW2 we took the total inhumanity of the strategic bombing campaigns that were engaged in, and tried to make war 'safer' for non-combatants. In WW2 we flattened entire cities to destroy factories capable of making weapons. We flattened train stations, bus depots, and ports for ships in order to deny the enemy war making capabilities. When we did that, we killed the workers at those locations, and bombed nearby housing with the 'misses'. After the war, countries proclaimed such wholesale killing had to stop. So, we worked on 'smart' bombs. Drop fewer bombs, have higher rates of success hitting the intended targets, and fewer civilians would have to die. Yea for technology! We then tried to leverage that thinking into other facets of military strategy. 'Smart' artillery shells, mortar shells, even 'smart' bullets. War-fighting was supposed to become this clean, clinical, lest we say surgical expression of state sanctioned violence and was meant to eradicate the enemy with a minimum of fuss. Problem is, we wound up fighting urban warfare campaigns in areas where the buildings were still standing. Where we might be able to task a tank to hit a building, but surely couldn't level entire neighborhoods anymore. THAT would be a war crime, right? So now, ONE of the reasons why you have PTSD is that soldiers were forced to fight in a much more restricted battle space in which the enemy held the upper hand of terrain. The enemy also held the advantage of using the civilian population as human shields through which we were not allowed to engage them. You forced young men and women to be constantly exposed to an enemy that they weren't allowed to kill or even engage. All the while, the enemy itself had no rules. Car bombs, truck bombs, roadside bombs, bike bombs, even child bombs. They would shoot at you by lying on the ground and firing from under the burka of a woman who could only stand still or be shot by the terrorist, or have her family be killed because she failed to help the terrorist. Make an 18 yr old American kid decide that he has to shoot the woman in order to flush out the terrorist. Nope, that won't mess you up. Again, we made the mistake of trying to fight an enemy 'by the rules' for whom the rules DON'T EXIST. We prided ourselves in saying that because we don't kill civilians we were the better people. We were more civilized. We were morally superior. So, how's that worked out for ya? Huh? Seriously. Have we actually 'won' a war in the last oh say 25 years? Now. If you want to DEFEAT ISIS you issue an ultimatum. Civilians have 48 hours to leave. The military will establish checkpoints to validate those leaving. After that, the real WAR begins. Any place that is ISIS controlled is eligible to be wiped off the map. If the wives, old folks, and kids didn't leave town, that's no longer on us. You use cluster munitions to attack large tracts of battle space, and you use land mines to deny ISIS the ability to run in all directions. You use snipers to take out ISIS members trying to clear the minefields, and you can starve them out if you want to be more 'civil' about it. Less civil is you simply carpet bomb ISIS into oblivion. They will only understand stark, utter and brutal violence when it comes to visit them in the dead of night and turns their world upside down. Since Obama has already decided that the U.S. will not deploy ground troops in any significant number, he will be left with the choice of either walking away, or ACTUALLY killing terrorists on a wholesale level. If that means killing their families as well, you'll do it knowing that you gave them more of a chance to survive than they would ever have given you. Sorry if reality is getting in the way. *drops mic* it's the liberals that are getting in the way... i think it's the fact obarry knows he started all this crap when he gave the Syrian rebels all the weapons and money, trying to stick his nose in Syrian business when trying to remove Assad, which was democratically elected... the guy is a born loser |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The liberals can come after me all they want. I usually don't have to worry about them blowing themselves over two acres of wallpaper. They just spew rhetoric, and not a kidney at mach two. I watched part of the Obama statement from the economic summit today. He's done. He's lost his nerve, and has no capacity to make critical decisions on the prosecution of a military campaign that will inflict the losses required to shut ISIS down. He has tempered his decision making based on his trips to hospitals to see injured vets. Obviously this has affected his decision making. I'm not saying he can't feel empathy and sympathy for them, and that he can't feel bad that they were injured. He knew when he took the job, that sending people to war means they die and get maimed. Now he's trying to make war 'safe' again. The following will be VERY CONTROVERSIAL, but read it a couple times to let it percolate. In order to WIN this fight, not just contain or degrade ISIS, we are going to have to be prepared to kill...innocent civilians. Before you flip out, read the WHOLE post. The reason why the fight against ISIS and al-Qaeda and Hamas and Hezbollah is taking so long is that post WW2 we took the total inhumanity of the strategic bombing campaigns that were engaged in, and tried to make war 'safer' for non-combatants. In WW2 we flattened entire cities to destroy factories capable of making weapons. We flattened train stations, bus depots, and ports for ships in order to deny the enemy war making capabilities. When we did that, we killed the workers at those locations, and bombed nearby housing with the 'misses'. After the war, countries proclaimed such wholesale killing had to stop. So, we worked on 'smart' bombs. Drop fewer bombs, have higher rates of success hitting the intended targets, and fewer civilians would have to die. Yea for technology! We then tried to leverage that thinking into other facets of military strategy. 'Smart' artillery shells, mortar shells, even 'smart' bullets. War-fighting was supposed to become this clean, clinical, lest we say surgical expression of state sanctioned violence and was meant to eradicate the enemy with a minimum of fuss. Problem is, we wound up fighting urban warfare campaigns in areas where the buildings were still standing. Where we might be able to task a tank to hit a building, but surely couldn't level entire neighborhoods anymore. THAT would be a war crime, right? So now, ONE of the reasons why you have PTSD is that soldiers were forced to fight in a much more restricted battle space in which the enemy held the upper hand of terrain. The enemy also held the advantage of using the civilian population as human shields through which we were not allowed to engage them. You forced young men and women to be constantly exposed to an enemy that they weren't allowed to kill or even engage. All the while, the enemy itself had no rules. Car bombs, truck bombs, roadside bombs, bike bombs, even child bombs. They would shoot at you by lying on the ground and firing from under the burka of a woman who could only stand still or be shot by the terrorist, or have her family be killed because she failed to help the terrorist. Make an 18 yr old American kid decide that he has to shoot the woman in order to flush out the terrorist. Nope, that won't mess you up. Again, we made the mistake of trying to fight an enemy 'by the rules' for whom the rules DON'T EXIST. We prided ourselves in saying that because we don't kill civilians we were the better people. We were more civilized. We were morally superior. So, how's that worked out for ya? Huh? Seriously. Have we actually 'won' a war in the last oh say 25 years? Now. If you want to DEFEAT ISIS you issue an ultimatum. Civilians have 48 hours to leave. The military will establish checkpoints to validate those leaving. After that, the real WAR begins. Any place that is ISIS controlled is eligible to be wiped off the map. If the wives, old folks, and kids didn't leave town, that's no longer on us. You use cluster munitions to attack large tracts of battle space, and you use land mines to deny ISIS the ability to run in all directions. You use snipers to take out ISIS members trying to clear the minefields, and you can starve them out if you want to be more 'civil' about it. Less civil is you simply carpet bomb ISIS into oblivion. They will only understand stark, utter and brutal violence when it comes to visit them in the dead of night and turns their world upside down. Since Obama has already decided that the U.S. will not deploy ground troops in any significant number, he will be left with the choice of either walking away, or ACTUALLY killing terrorists on a wholesale level. If that means killing their families as well, you'll do it knowing that you gave them more of a chance to survive than they would ever have given you. This is the fastest way to get *drops mic* Doubt if he ever had any Nerve to be CIC of the US! A stolen Shape that's all he is! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
JOHNN111
on
Mon 11/16/15 11:16 AM
|
|
The armchair mingle no star generals are hard at work i see lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gotta love Obama logic.He asks why we should put 50,000 troops in Iraq to use in fighting ISIS if there is an attack that could be initiated say in Yemen? He says the local population won't support it as well.
Wow. Really? Let's apply that stunning logic on a historical level shall we..... Gee, why should we fight Germany, cause there might be an attack from Japan or Italy. Should we then go to Italy or Japan and fight them too? Yes Mr. Hitler, the Americans have invited you, and Emperor Hirohito, along with Mr. Mussolini to discuss how you would like to divide the western world up between you....... Yeah. Obama is DONE. He's simply lost his nerve. By law, there should be an examination done to see if he is mentally and physically capable of discharging his duties. I would posit that he is clinically depressed, and is mentally incapable of making strategic decisions to ensure the safety of Americans. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The armchair mingle no star generals are hard at work i see lol
We Are Borg: Resistance is Futile (Complete): http://youtu.be/ljjFE0sTNeg/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The armchair mingle no star generals are hard at work i see lol
We Are Borg: Resistance is Futile (Complete): http://youtu.be/ljjFE0sTNeg/ 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The armchair mingle no star generals are hard at work i see lol
We Are Borg: Resistance is Futile (Complete): http://youtu.be/ljjFE0sTNeg/
 Welcome to assimilation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The armchair mingle no star generals are hard at work i see lol
We Are Borg: Resistance is Futile (Complete): http://youtu.be/ljjFE0sTNeg/
Welcome to assimilation
I'm not there yet... in the meantime, watch this http://www.facebook.com/UniversalFreePress/videos/1109286879117550/ Agree or no? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/260800/after-paris-obama-sends-isis-reinforcements-daniel-greenfield
After Paris, Obama Sends ISIS Reinforcements by Freeing 5 Al Qaeda Terrorists How thoughtful of Barack. November 16, 2015 Daniel Greenfield |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/260800/after-paris-obama-sends-isis-reinforcements-daniel-greenfield After Paris, Obama Sends ISIS Reinforcements by Freeing 5 Al Qaeda Terrorists How thoughtful of Barack. November 16, 2015 Daniel Greenfield he's also getting ready to impose another EO to close Guantanamo... seems to fit in with his muslim standards... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Who thought we'd ever see the day where France were the 'war mongers', and the U.S. were the 'peaceniks' pulling back on the reins?
|
|
|
|
|
