-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
very disturbing video that the gov. will do nothing about
- Thread starter tyler34
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
El Cazador
Expert
Oh, good grief, another one of these.
By "We", I hope you mean the British and the French, because the nations that went to Iraq and the whole Arabian peninsula to develop the oil reserves first weren't American oil companies. You DO know Iraq was a British protectorate from the end of WWII to the early 60's right?And Sharia law is part of the Wahhabi sect of Islam, not mainstream Islam. We didn't "enable" anything. It's spreading through indoctrination of the young in schools, and ignorance, greed and mental laziness from many in the populace. They remind me of the socialists in charge right now, except they're overtly aggressive to further their goal instead of the passive-aggressiveness of the socialists here. Both want absolute control, with only their "religion" in place, their speech is the only "free speech" allowed, intimidation through both mob rule and their "law", their ideas and version of history only taught in schools...yep, except for the level of overt violence to achieve what they both want, they seem awfully alike.
I'd make fun of your Strawman example/analogy, but that would be mean. I could point you to a really good history teacher that could help you out with some remedial world history, though.
Barack? Is that you, buddy? Really? We really need to talk. Call me!
Ha! It IS you, isn't it? So tell me, really, were you just bowing, or were you really reaching for his hand to kiss the ring?
Paco Bedejo
Master
Oh, good grief, another one of these.
And Sharia law is part of the Wahhabi sect of Islam, not mainstream Islam. We didn't "enable" anything. It's spreading through indoctrination of the young in schools, and ignorance, greed and mental laziness from many in the populace. They remind me of the socialists in charge right now, except they're overtly aggressive to further their goal instead of the passive-aggressiveness of the socialists here. Both want absolute control, with only their "religion" in place, their speech is the only "free speech" allowed, intimidation through both mob rule and their "law", their ideas and version of history only taught in schools...yep, except for the level of overt violence to achieve what they both want, they seem awfully alike.
I'd make fun of your Strawman example/analogy, but that would be mean. I could point you to a really good history teacher that could help you out with some remedial world history, though.
Barack? Is that you, buddy? Really? We really need to talk. Call me!
Ha! It IS you, isn't it? So tell me, really, were you just bowing, or were you really reaching for his hand to kiss the ring?
So...the USA is blameless? Hrm, is it hard to read with your head in the sand?
Nobody is blameless. Humans are humans, and nations will always have conflicts with other nations, even if one nation decides to become a libertarian fairy land. Do you honestly think that if the US pulls out of world affairs that every other nation in the world will play nice and follow the golden rule? Please.
Conflict is eternal. Pick a side. I'll stand by my countrymen. I guess I was vaccinated from liberal guilt at an early age.
El Cazador
Expert
Show me where I said or inferred the USA is completely blameless. I was merely pointing out the fallacy of your insistence that the US is to blame for everything that's happened in the Mideast for the last 50 years. Over oil. If you were honest, you'd note that the US gets less than 30% of our crude oil from the Mideast, so the Left's boogeyman of "American Big Oil" being the end-all and cause-all of the strife in the Mid-East is ridiculous.
And how the US "enabled" Sharia law, when it actually came out of Saudi Arabia, a supposed ally of the US, and enjoyer of our largesse, and is being spread because of ignorance, greed, and fear of losing control of power by those accepting it. I think you need to hit the books a bit more before spouting off half-truths and hyperbole that's easily disproven.
Paco Bedejo
Master
You're right...I guess they really do hate us for our freedom... All along I thought it was because of our interference in their liberties. Thanks for setting me straight.
For the record, "we" did include most of Europe as well as the USA. WE are the ones who decided how to split the region after WWII. WE are the ones who impose our will upon them. WE are the ones who invade their countries. All for self-defense, right? I suppose your neighbor won't resent you for installing a webcam in his house so you can keep on eye on him for self-defense.
Liberty, it's not just a statue.
So now everybody who disagrees with you is somehow one of my deceptive disciples?
I understand you are a lawyer. I hope you don't argue cases in front of a jury like this. "wahh, he's a liar!
& if you agree with him you're a liar too. I don't have any facts to back it up though, 
hhh! I'm the only one allowed to be right, waahh!."I feel kind of sorry for you.
I'm sure the jihadi's will appreciate your understanding while the kill more civilians. Whether you agree with how we got into this situation or not you need to accept we are in this together now. It may be your family that is killed in the next attack, how understanding will you be then? These people don't want liberty or to be left alone, they want to exterminate us and our way of life that includes you bone heads. You may not have had a hand in picking this fight but your in it now. Either accept it, pick up arms and stand shoulder to shoulder with your fellow Americans or apply for Swiss citezenship and shut up.
This is the reason why the US needs to keep all of it's nuclear weapons. If I were President and this type of attack happened my response would be very simple. I would exhaust half of our weapons on the middle east, instantly. In one fell swoop I would end the "radical islam" problem. There would be no more Islam. Gone.
No one would be left to be enraged because their fellow believers had been hunted down. No more suicide bombers. No more terrorism. They'd all be gone.
The other half of our stockpile would be kept, on a hair trigger alert, as testament to what would happen to any other aggressor to the United States.
No one would be left to be enraged because their fellow believers had been hunted down. No more suicide bombers. No more terrorism. They'd all be gone.
The other half of our stockpile would be kept, on a hair trigger alert, as testament to what would happen to any other aggressor to the United States.
Unless we Americans also desire eternal conflict, we have to be careful to extend a hand of friendship and understanding to those Muslims who are not completely against us even as we fight those who are. We have to be willing to accept that they will have grievances they want addressed, and we have to be willing to address them in whatever way we can, even if it means swallowing some pride to do it.
That said, there's no making friends with rabid dogs. The ones who cannot be reasoned with need to be eliminated, no question. But we have to be very careful as we try to identify which is which.
That said, there's no making friends with rabid dogs. The ones who cannot be reasoned with need to be eliminated, no question. But we have to be very careful as we try to identify which is which.
I appreciate the sentiment but radical Islam is by no means relegated to the middle east it is truly everywhere Asia, Europe, Africa and yes even the US. The only way to Nuke this problem away is to destroy the earth. This can only be dealt with by rough men who stand ready in the night to do harm to those who would visit the same onto us.
The nuclear time may be coming sooner rather than later:
Does Pakistan's Taliban Surge Raise a Nuclear Threat?
AFP – An armed Pakistani Taliban chats with residents in Buner district of the troubled Swat Valley. Pakistan …
By MARK THOMPSON / WASHINGTON Mark Thompson / Washington – Fri Apr 24, 9:40 am ET
When asked last year about the security of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Admiral Mike Mullen didn't hesitate: "I'm very comfortable that the nuclear weapons in Pakistan are secure," he said flatly. Asked the same question earlier this month, his answer had changed. "I'm reasonably comfortable," he said, "that the nuclear weapons are secure."
As America's top military officer, Mullen has traveled regularly to Pakistan - twice in just the past two weeks - for talks with his Pakistani counterpart, General Ashfaq Kayani, and others. And like all those who have risen to four-star rank, Mullen chooses his words with extreme care. Replacing "very comfortable" with "reasonably comfortable" is a decidedly discomforting signal of Washington's concern that no matter how well-guarded the nukes may be today, the chaos now enveloping Pakistan doesn't bode well for their status tomorrow or the day after. The prospect of turmoil in Pakistan sends shivers up the spines of those U.S. officials charged with keeping tabs on foreign nuclear weapons. Pakistan is thought to possess about 100 - the U.S. isn't sure of the total, and may not know where all of them are. Still, if Pakistan collapses, the U.S. military is primed to enter the country and secure as many of those weapons as it can, according to U.S. officials.
The U.S. has been keeping a watchful eye on Pakistan's nukes since it first detonated a series of devices a decade ago. "Pakistan has taken important steps to safeguard its nuclear weapons, although vulnerabilities still exist," Army General Michael Maples, chief of the Defense Intelligence Agency, told the Senate Armed Services Committee last month. Then, he immediately turned to the threat posed by al-Qaeda, which, along with the Taliban, is sowing unrest in Pakistan. "Al-Qaeda continues efforts to acquire chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear materials," he said, "and would not hesitate to use such weapons if the group develops sufficient capabilities."
The concern in Washington is less that al-Qaeda or the Taliban would manage to actually seize Pakistan's nuclear weapons, but instead that increasingly-radicalized younger Pakistanis are finding their way into military and research circles where they may begin to play a growing role in the nation's nuclear-weapons program. Pakistani officials insist their personnel safeguards are stringent, but a sleeper cell could cause big trouble, U.S. officials say.
Nowhere in the world is the gap between would-be terror-martyrs and the nuclear weapons they crave as small as it is in Pakistan. Nor is their much comfort in the fact that Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal who was recently ordered freed from house arrest by the country's supreme court, was the Johnny Appleseed of nuclear proliferation, dispatching the atomic genie to Iran, Libya and North Korea. But U.S. and Pakistani officials insist it is important to separate Pakistan's poor proliferation record with what is, by all accounts, a modern and multilayered system designed to protect its nuclear weapons from falling into the wrong hands.
For starters, according to U.S. and Pakistani officials, there is no way a complete nuclear weapon can be plucked from Islamabad's stockpile, which is protected by about 10,000 of the Pakistani military's most elite troops. The guts of the nuclear warhead are kept separate from the rest of the device, and a nuclear detonation is impossible without both pieces. Additionally, the delivery vehicle - plane or missile - is also segregated from the warhead components.
Over the past decade, Pakistan has created the National Command Authority and the Strategic Plans Division to manage the nuclear infrastructure from day to day, and the U.S. has given Pakistan an estimated $100 million since 9/11 to bolster the security of its arsenal. While much of that has been spent on bringing Pakistani nuclear personnel to the U.S. for training, it has also been spent on hardware, including various surveillance and security systems.
Then, there's the touchy area of "permissive action links" - the electronic "locks" on nuclear weapons that must be "opened" for a nuclear detonation to take place. Washington doesn't share its own PALs with other countries for fear of losing control of the technology and surrendering key elements about U.S. weapons design (although installing PALs on another country's nukes - with a secret "kill" capability that could remotely render the weapons impotent - has always been a tempting option). "Permissive action links are custom-made devices based on the design and configuration of the weapons," former senior Pakistani nuclear official Naeem Salik told TIME 16 months ago. Until late 2005, he had served as director of arms control and disarmament affairs at Pakistan's National Command Authority, created in 1999 as the command and control center for Pakistan's nuclear weapons. "Unless one is willing to share the technical configuration of the weapon, a permissive action link cannot be developed. We did not share these secrets, so we never asked for the permissive action links - our people have developed our own."
That may all be well and good, Mullen seemed to suggest to NBC during a Wednesday interview in Afghanistan, just before he headed across the border to Islamabad. But, he cautioned, it may not be good enough, given the turmoil racking Pakistan. "My long-term worry," Mullen said, "is that descent - should it continue - gives us the worst possible outcome there."
Does Pakistan's Taliban Surge Raise a Nuclear Threat?
AFP – An armed Pakistani Taliban chats with residents in Buner district of the troubled Swat Valley. Pakistan … By MARK THOMPSON / WASHINGTON Mark Thompson / Washington – Fri Apr 24, 9:40 am ET
When asked last year about the security of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Admiral Mike Mullen didn't hesitate: "I'm very comfortable that the nuclear weapons in Pakistan are secure," he said flatly. Asked the same question earlier this month, his answer had changed. "I'm reasonably comfortable," he said, "that the nuclear weapons are secure."
As America's top military officer, Mullen has traveled regularly to Pakistan - twice in just the past two weeks - for talks with his Pakistani counterpart, General Ashfaq Kayani, and others. And like all those who have risen to four-star rank, Mullen chooses his words with extreme care. Replacing "very comfortable" with "reasonably comfortable" is a decidedly discomforting signal of Washington's concern that no matter how well-guarded the nukes may be today, the chaos now enveloping Pakistan doesn't bode well for their status tomorrow or the day after. The prospect of turmoil in Pakistan sends shivers up the spines of those U.S. officials charged with keeping tabs on foreign nuclear weapons. Pakistan is thought to possess about 100 - the U.S. isn't sure of the total, and may not know where all of them are. Still, if Pakistan collapses, the U.S. military is primed to enter the country and secure as many of those weapons as it can, according to U.S. officials.
The U.S. has been keeping a watchful eye on Pakistan's nukes since it first detonated a series of devices a decade ago. "Pakistan has taken important steps to safeguard its nuclear weapons, although vulnerabilities still exist," Army General Michael Maples, chief of the Defense Intelligence Agency, told the Senate Armed Services Committee last month. Then, he immediately turned to the threat posed by al-Qaeda, which, along with the Taliban, is sowing unrest in Pakistan. "Al-Qaeda continues efforts to acquire chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear materials," he said, "and would not hesitate to use such weapons if the group develops sufficient capabilities."
The concern in Washington is less that al-Qaeda or the Taliban would manage to actually seize Pakistan's nuclear weapons, but instead that increasingly-radicalized younger Pakistanis are finding their way into military and research circles where they may begin to play a growing role in the nation's nuclear-weapons program. Pakistani officials insist their personnel safeguards are stringent, but a sleeper cell could cause big trouble, U.S. officials say.
Nowhere in the world is the gap between would-be terror-martyrs and the nuclear weapons they crave as small as it is in Pakistan. Nor is their much comfort in the fact that Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal who was recently ordered freed from house arrest by the country's supreme court, was the Johnny Appleseed of nuclear proliferation, dispatching the atomic genie to Iran, Libya and North Korea. But U.S. and Pakistani officials insist it is important to separate Pakistan's poor proliferation record with what is, by all accounts, a modern and multilayered system designed to protect its nuclear weapons from falling into the wrong hands.
For starters, according to U.S. and Pakistani officials, there is no way a complete nuclear weapon can be plucked from Islamabad's stockpile, which is protected by about 10,000 of the Pakistani military's most elite troops. The guts of the nuclear warhead are kept separate from the rest of the device, and a nuclear detonation is impossible without both pieces. Additionally, the delivery vehicle - plane or missile - is also segregated from the warhead components.
Over the past decade, Pakistan has created the National Command Authority and the Strategic Plans Division to manage the nuclear infrastructure from day to day, and the U.S. has given Pakistan an estimated $100 million since 9/11 to bolster the security of its arsenal. While much of that has been spent on bringing Pakistani nuclear personnel to the U.S. for training, it has also been spent on hardware, including various surveillance and security systems.
Then, there's the touchy area of "permissive action links" - the electronic "locks" on nuclear weapons that must be "opened" for a nuclear detonation to take place. Washington doesn't share its own PALs with other countries for fear of losing control of the technology and surrendering key elements about U.S. weapons design (although installing PALs on another country's nukes - with a secret "kill" capability that could remotely render the weapons impotent - has always been a tempting option). "Permissive action links are custom-made devices based on the design and configuration of the weapons," former senior Pakistani nuclear official Naeem Salik told TIME 16 months ago. Until late 2005, he had served as director of arms control and disarmament affairs at Pakistan's National Command Authority, created in 1999 as the command and control center for Pakistan's nuclear weapons. "Unless one is willing to share the technical configuration of the weapon, a permissive action link cannot be developed. We did not share these secrets, so we never asked for the permissive action links - our people have developed our own."
That may all be well and good, Mullen seemed to suggest to NBC during a Wednesday interview in Afghanistan, just before he headed across the border to Islamabad. But, he cautioned, it may not be good enough, given the turmoil racking Pakistan. "My long-term worry," Mullen said, "is that descent - should it continue - gives us the worst possible outcome there."
Yes, radical Islam is not concentrated in the middle east. I am saying we concentrate our bombs on the middle east. The stragglers throughout the rest of the world will get the picture.
There have been 2056 nuclear detonations in the world since 1945. A few thousand more won't make a hill of beans of a difference. So we might have a little more Strontium in our milk for a couple of years. I will take that over radical Islam anyday.
Oh, and no offense to the rough men that do stand gaurd. They are the best.
There have been 2056 nuclear detonations in the world since 1945. A few thousand more won't make a hill of beans of a difference. So we might have a little more Strontium in our milk for a couple of years. I will take that over radical Islam anyday.
Oh, and no offense to the rough men that do stand gaurd. They are the best.
Of course. Charles Martel should have just conceded at the Battle of Tours. (You do know who Charles Martel is, don't you? And the significance of this reference? No fair Googling it.)
You are aware, are you not, that Sharia Law runs (with the single exception of Turkey mostly--Gemal Ataturk doesn't get anywhere near the credit he deserves) wherever Islamic is the primary political power (and once it becomes "primary" it swiftly becomes "only").
Excuse me, but I don't see where we fought the Saudi Military in an invasion. Our troops are there because one Islamic power invaded another one and the allies of the invaded power asked for help. And since then? Perhaps you can point me to just when and where the Saudi government asked for the US troops to leave. I can't seem to find it on my Google searches.
As for the "oil" bit: the oil was worthless to them until Western companies came in and did the exploration, drilling, and development--for which they paid handsomely (by the standards of the people who were sitting on the land at the time). Oh, but later they came to regret the decision and decided they could make more money by stealing it back (if you sell something, then later decide you don't like the price you sold it for and take it back, that's stealing) and selling the oil under their terms.
Unlikely, actually. From many of those "good ol' boys" perspective that's already what's happened. Many if not most of the politicians in Washington could just as well be taking orders from the Kruschev era Kremlin for all the policies they advocate. And yet, strangely enough, "terrorist" acts are few and far between, and the few that do happen are roundly condemned by the very "good ol' boys" you are slandering above.
You really want to equate the two? Please tell me which riots there were over the "art" piece "**** Christ"? Which writers critical of Christian religion have had to live years in hiding because of an actual sentence of death--with legal force behind it--was passed by a Christian leader on that author because of those writings? Which embassies have been burned down because of artwork "insulting Christianity"?
I am not a Christian, but there's an interesting bit in their holy book about not being able to see the mote in another's eye because of a beam in one's own. Here's you're trying to get folk to ignore the beam in the other's because of the mote in our own.
As guilty as:
1930-40's Germany
1930's Soviet Union ("Bitter Harvest")
1940's Japan ("Rape of Nanking")
1970's Kampuchea
1970's Uganda
1994 Rwanda
As guilty as those (and many, many more)?
Try again.
So it's been 18 months since you first
. Not many can point to the moment with such certainty.Yes.
Islam, by its very tenets, seeks dominion of the world. Christianity, although it went through periods of aggressive military expansion, has at its core conversion through persuasion.
And if they denounce us as the great evil (whether as "capitalist pigs" or "the Great Satan") don't be surprised if he doesn't want to do business with you.
Unfortunately, that fails because there has never been a time when Islam was not aggressively expansionist. There's a reason that Islam spread through the Middle East, across northern Africa, through Afghanistan and into Pakistan and India, and up into China and it wasn't peaceful missionaries carrying a message of forgiveness and new life. They expanded by the sword until they met someone who could stop them--and then continued worrying at the edges ever since.
The US's first encounter with Islamic aggression goes back to the beginning of the 19th Century and the Barbary Pirates. We weren't exactly doing much of "imposing our will" on them then.
So they're not a high priority target because they have bigger fish to fry (as it were). It doesn't mean what you want to imply. Even the Nazis left the Swiss alone--partly because they wanted the Swiss banking, but partly because the Swiss were a tough nut to crack.
Do you think they're going to mess much with the Swiss when Swiss banks are a major clearing house for funds for their "jihad"?
Site Supporter
Members online
- Lee11b
- bloodandgutsmurphy
- Twinks46975
- AnthonySC
- Jimbo74
- Knight Rider
- BR8818
- Bowhunter34
- brchixwing
- Gabriel
- sadclownwp
- rdbs505
- VostocK
- krvincen
- fishbass62
- KoopaKGB
- Liberty Sanders
- Meatstick
- sapthol
- 2tonic
- Timjoebillybob
- cedarhillfarms11
- jason867
- Noble Sniper
- Pitbull72
- Bybo
- Redd55
- d.kaufman
- texkev
- SheepDog4Life
- wildcatfan
- ditcherman
- Rafterman
- ranger391xt
- Nicu757
- pokersamurai
- Dentoro
- BigMoose
