Org Mobile Site
Thread: Terror Attack: 130 Dead in Paris
On the other hand, if there was a live agent (someone as of yet unknown to security or intelligence forces) waiting to trigger the explosion, then why get the fall gal into a situation in which police evacuate an area and approach her with extreme caution? Why not just move her into some crowded place and take another 10 or 20 civilians out. It would definitely exacerbate tensions coming so soon after the main attack.
As for the possibility that she was set up with time-locked or preprogrammed explosives long before time, well, I'm pretty sure only European terrorists or corporate megalomaniacs go for that sort of thing.
As for the possibility that she was set up with time-locked or preprogrammed explosives long before time, well, I'm pretty sure only European terrorists or corporate megalomaniacs go for that sort of thing.
Originally Posted by Husar:
As much as I also have a soft spot for women, I do not believe them to be incapable of doing such things.
I am just starting to realise what kind of seriously radical people I am surrounding myself with here - thinking the unthinkable.As much as I also have a soft spot for women, I do not believe them to be incapable of doing such things.
Originally Posted by Husar:
As much as I also have a soft spot for women, I do not believe them to be incapable of doing such things.
Ironically, women like that spot as hard as possible.As much as I also have a soft spot for women, I do not believe them to be incapable of doing such things.
Originally Posted by Montmorency:
On the other hand, if there was a live agent (someone as of yet unknown to security or intelligence forces) waiting to trigger the explosion, then why get the fall gal into a situation in which police evacuate an area and approach her with extreme caution? Why not just move her into some crowded place and take another 10 or 20 civilians out. It would definitely exacerbate tensions coming so soon after the main attack.
As for the possibility that she was set up with time-locked or preprogrammed explosives long before time, well, I'm pretty sure only European terrorists or corporate megalomaniacs go for that sort of thing.
I assume the surprise, but I was more thinking of the other terrorist guy who died rather than some secret mastermind. The explosion may have blown the trigger out of the window or so. Seems more likely that she triggered it herself though, no argument from me.On the other hand, if there was a live agent (someone as of yet unknown to security or intelligence forces) waiting to trigger the explosion, then why get the fall gal into a situation in which police evacuate an area and approach her with extreme caution? Why not just move her into some crowded place and take another 10 or 20 civilians out. It would definitely exacerbate tensions coming so soon after the main attack.
As for the possibility that she was set up with time-locked or preprogrammed explosives long before time, well, I'm pretty sure only European terrorists or corporate megalomaniacs go for that sort of thing.
Originally Posted by Viking:
I am just starting to realise what kind of seriously radical people I am surrounding myself with here - thinking the unthinkable.
The radicals are everywhere, even talking about other radicals. I suggest you migrate to the US, that country is boringly average.I am just starting to realise what kind of seriously radical people I am surrounding myself with here - thinking the unthinkable.
Also: https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.n...fc930c5bc78829
"Remember - France is run by an aristocratic elite." I am now fully confident in your sources of knowledge and powers of analyse. For more insight, can you give the names of this elite?
Originally Posted by Brenus:
"Remember - France is run by an aristocratic elite." I am now fully confident in your sources of knowledge and powers of analyse. For more insight, can you give the names of this elite?
Isn't it a bit premature to be asking for a prosopography?"Remember - France is run by an aristocratic elite." I am now fully confident in your sources of knowledge and powers of analyse. For more insight, can you give the names of this elite?
Originally Posted by Brenus:
"Remember - France is run by an aristocratic elite." I am now fully confident in your sources of knowledge and powers of analyse. For more insight, can you give the names of this elite?
I think the correct quote was "Remember - France was run over by a non-aristocratic elite rugby team 62-13""Remember - France is run by an aristocratic elite." I am now fully confident in your sources of knowledge and powers of analyse. For more insight, can you give the names of this elite?
Originally Posted by Brenus:
"Remember - France is run by an aristocratic elite." I am now fully confident in your sources of knowledge and powers of analyse. For more insight, can you give the names of this elite?
A rather surprising number of French Presidents and other senior politicians are members of either the class of landed gentry or the lower aristocracy. Mostly recently Sarkozy, though in his case the aristocrats were Hungarians. Even in the case of Hollande, though hardly nobles or gentry his parents were wealthy and he has a privileged background."Remember - France is run by an aristocratic elite." I am now fully confident in your sources of knowledge and powers of analyse. For more insight, can you give the names of this elite?
I'll grant you these are not the sons of Kings, even their illegitimate ones, but they're not bastards born out of wedlock of the sons of school teachers, or members of an ethnic minority subject to prejudicial linguistic legislation either.
So, when I said "aristocratic elite" I did not mean they were all blue blooded, perhaps "intellectual and social elite" would have been more apt.
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus:
A rather surprising number of French Presidents and other senior politicians are members of either the class of landed gentry or the lower aristocracy. Mostly recently Sarkozy, though in his case the aristocrats were Hungarians. Even in the case of Hollande, though hardly nobles or gentry his parents were wealthy and he has a privileged background.
I'll grant you these are not the sons of Kings, even their illegitimate ones, but they're not bastards born out of wedlock of the sons of school teachers, or members of an ethnic minority subject to prejudicial linguistic legislation either.
So, when I said "aristocratic elite" I did not mean they were all blue blooded, perhaps "intellectual and social elite" would have been more apt.
Isn't that the case for most countries though? Among the post-war UK PMs, I can only think of Major who wasn't from the traditional academic (and thus social, cf. Cameron) powerhouses.A rather surprising number of French Presidents and other senior politicians are members of either the class of landed gentry or the lower aristocracy. Mostly recently Sarkozy, though in his case the aristocrats were Hungarians. Even in the case of Hollande, though hardly nobles or gentry his parents were wealthy and he has a privileged background.
I'll grant you these are not the sons of Kings, even their illegitimate ones, but they're not bastards born out of wedlock of the sons of school teachers, or members of an ethnic minority subject to prejudicial linguistic legislation either.
So, when I said "aristocratic elite" I did not mean they were all blue blooded, perhaps "intellectual and social elite" would have been more apt.
Originally Posted by Fragony:
live in it
Not that it counts for anything, I may be an idiot but I can recognise what I see. Times are changing mia muca, and you live in it
chinese proverb: may you live in interesting times
I wouldnt trade 20 Stfts from single frags.Frags is a real man with his flaws, while strike is just a coward with his issues.When did you exactly got under bomb threat Strike?live in it
Not that it counts for anything, I may be an idiot but I can recognise what I see. Times are changing mia muca, and you live in it
chinese proverb: may you live in interesting times
Not calling anyone a coward as I don't know anyone here but Frag is definitely a gentleman. I actually feel for his "Islamophobia," unlike others...
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name:
From my recollection, we armed Syrian rebels to undermine Assad, and Iran has been doing the same to us in Yemen. Also, the Syrian civil war was in large part driven by climate change causing a devastating drought from 2006 to 2009. You can't say that Assad screwed everything up by itself.
Yes but Assad has been receiving aid from Russia, Iran and Hezbollah, I doubt the aid the rebels receive from the US has been enough to prevent Assad from ending the war.From my recollection, we armed Syrian rebels to undermine Assad, and Iran has been doing the same to us in Yemen. Also, the Syrian civil war was in large part driven by climate change causing a devastating drought from 2006 to 2009. You can't say that Assad screwed everything up by itself.
Climate change may have been a factor but the brutality and corruption of the Syrian government shouldn't be discounted either. And if Assad hadn't chosen to try quelling the uprising by shooting unarmed protesters the civil war might never have happened.
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr:
Will ISIS ever be that strong? The impression I got is that they are starting to be forced back a bit now, for all their pretensions of being a state they're still a pretty lightly-armed army in the tens of thousands. Could they really fight a conventional war against a rival state?
Recently they've lost Shingal in Iraq, and al-Hasakah and al-Hawl in Syria. I think they've lost their momentum and are now on the defensive, their last major gain that I remember/heard about was Palmyra which was clear back in May. I've heard that most of the tanks and heavy weaponry they captured from the Iraqi Army have already been destroyed and I don't think they could ever take on the likes of Turkey or Iran. Will ISIS ever be that strong? The impression I got is that they are starting to be forced back a bit now, for all their pretensions of being a state they're still a pretty lightly-armed army in the tens of thousands. Could they really fight a conventional war against a rival state?
Originally Posted by Strike For The South:
I just noticed this. Point of fact, the psychopathic rapist-killers don't care what you call them. Liberal clap trap, no doubt thought up by someone who has "the pen is mightier than the sword" embroidered on *his/her/their/its* free trade duvet.
Some people have been calling them Daesh already for a while now, it's the transliteration of their Arabic acronym.I just noticed this. Point of fact, the psychopathic rapist-killers don't care what you call them. Liberal clap trap, no doubt thought up by someone who has "the pen is mightier than the sword" embroidered on *his/her/their/its* free trade duvet.
Originally Posted by Kagemusha:
I wouldnt trade 20 Stfts from single frags.Frags is a real man with his flaws, while strike is just a coward with his issues.When did you exactly got under bomb threat Strike?
Thanks but Strike really doesn't deserves to be called a coward. I am not a real man I am a total softyI wouldnt trade 20 Stfts from single frags.Frags is a real man with his flaws, while strike is just a coward with his issues.When did you exactly got under bomb threat Strike?
Originally Posted by Tuuvi:
Yes but Assad has been receiving aid from Russia, Iran and Hezbollah, I doubt the aid the rebels receive from the US has been enough to prevent Assad from ending the war.
Climate change may have been a factor but the brutality and corruption of the Syrian government shouldn't be discounted either. And if Assad hadn't chosen to try quelling the uprising by shooting unarmed protesters the civil war might never have happened.
Recently they've lost Shingal in Iraq, and al-Hasakah and al-Hawl in Syria. I think they've lost their momentum and are now on the defensive, their last major gain that I remember/heard about was Palmyra which was clear back in May. I've heard that most of the tanks and heavy weaponry they captured from the Iraqi Army have already been destroyed and I don't think they could ever take on the likes of Turkey or Iran.
This is as close to "mission accomplished" since PVC [sorry, I keep forgetting your new name]. Look, if you want to reclaim the vast majority of ISIS territory, you will need a large force. The West cannot do it because it simply fuels more ISIS fighters and disorder. To be frank, even after Paris, the US does not have the will to tackle Iraq again for a long time. Russia and Iran cannot do it because the West wouldn't accept such a presence in the region. The only solution to ISIS that is permanent is for the Arab countries to get their hands dirty. And they won't. Yes but Assad has been receiving aid from Russia, Iran and Hezbollah, I doubt the aid the rebels receive from the US has been enough to prevent Assad from ending the war.
Climate change may have been a factor but the brutality and corruption of the Syrian government shouldn't be discounted either. And if Assad hadn't chosen to try quelling the uprising by shooting unarmed protesters the civil war might never have happened.
Recently they've lost Shingal in Iraq, and al-Hasakah and al-Hawl in Syria. I think they've lost their momentum and are now on the defensive, their last major gain that I remember/heard about was Palmyra which was clear back in May. I've heard that most of the tanks and heavy weaponry they captured from the Iraqi Army have already been destroyed and I don't think they could ever take on the likes of Turkey or Iran.
I have not read any convincing argument in this thread that gives a long term solution for deescalating and deradicalizing the region. Hence why the person that makes the most sense is Monty and his assertion that the only way it will get better is for the area to turn into even more of a bloodbath.
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name:
This is as close to "mission accomplished" since PVC [sorry, I keep forgetting your new name]. Look, if you want to reclaim the vast majority of ISIS territory, you will need a large force. The West cannot do it because it simply fuels more ISIS fighters and disorder. To be frank, even after Paris, the US does not have the will to tackle Iraq again for a long time. Russia and Iran cannot do it because the West wouldn't accept such a presence in the region. The only solution to ISIS that is permanent is for the Arab countries to get their hands dirty. And they won't.
I have not read any convincing argument in this thread that gives a long term solution for deescalating and deradicalizing the region. Hence why the person that makes the most sense is Monty and his assertion that the only way it will get better is for the area to turn into even more of a bloodbath.
I'm coming round to a boots on the ground solution. In Iraq, Western forces always had the toughest time in the big cities like Baghdad and Basra, neither of which are controlled by IS. Raqqa and Mosul are the only big urban areas they control (afaik) and would be much more manageable. Only about 20% of Iraq's population is Sunni and corresponds largely with the IS-controlled areas, and I remember reading there's about 8-10 million people in the IS across Iraq and Syria, compared to about 40m in Iraq or 18m in Syria. This is as close to "mission accomplished" since PVC [sorry, I keep forgetting your new name]. Look, if you want to reclaim the vast majority of ISIS territory, you will need a large force. The West cannot do it because it simply fuels more ISIS fighters and disorder. To be frank, even after Paris, the US does not have the will to tackle Iraq again for a long time. Russia and Iran cannot do it because the West wouldn't accept such a presence in the region. The only solution to ISIS that is permanent is for the Arab countries to get their hands dirty. And they won't.
I have not read any convincing argument in this thread that gives a long term solution for deescalating and deradicalizing the region. Hence why the person that makes the most sense is Monty and his assertion that the only way it will get better is for the area to turn into even more of a bloodbath.
Also, the Western public had no appetite for taking down Saddam, but that appetite is there for taking down IS. Plus even the Sunnis are less happy with IS than they were with Saddam.
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr:
I'm coming round to a boots on the ground solution. In Iraq, Western forces always had the toughest time in the big cities like Baghdad and Basra, neither of which are controlled by IS. Raqqa and Mosul are the only big urban areas they control (afaik) and would be much more manageable. Only about 20% of Iraq's population is Sunni and corresponds largely with the IS-controlled areas, and I remember reading there's about 8-10 million people in the IS across Iraq and Syria, compared to about 40m in Iraq or 18m in Syria.
Also, the Western public had no appetite for taking down Saddam, but that appetite is there for taking down IS. Plus even the Sunnis are less happy with IS than they were with Saddam.
Well, they also control Ramadi and Falloujah. Also, I disagree with Basra and Baghdad being the most difficult to control Iraqi cities. Basra is clearly located in a Shia majority region and the only opposition were Shia partisans, like the Sadr Army.I'm coming round to a boots on the ground solution. In Iraq, Western forces always had the toughest time in the big cities like Baghdad and Basra, neither of which are controlled by IS. Raqqa and Mosul are the only big urban areas they control (afaik) and would be much more manageable. Only about 20% of Iraq's population is Sunni and corresponds largely with the IS-controlled areas, and I remember reading there's about 8-10 million people in the IS across Iraq and Syria, compared to about 40m in Iraq or 18m in Syria.
Also, the Western public had no appetite for taking down Saddam, but that appetite is there for taking down IS. Plus even the Sunnis are less happy with IS than they were with Saddam.
Baghdad was the site of really lethal attacks, but it was mostly bombing against the Shias.
On the Contrary, Ramadi, the capital of Anbar is full of sunni extremists, while the US army paid a really big price to manage to control Falloujah, which was the first to be captured by ISIL.
From a friend in Facebook:
In case you don't know what's happening in the middle east. ��
President Assad ( who is bad ) is a nasty guy who got so nasty his people rebelled and the Rebels ( who are good ) started winning ( Hurrah!).
But then some of the rebels turned a bit nasty and are now called Islamic State ( who are definitely bad!) and some continued to support democracy ( who are still good.)
So the Americans ( who are good ) started bombing Islamic State ( who are bad ) and giving arms to the Syrian Rebels ( who are good ) so they could fight Assad ( who is still bad ) which was good.
By the way, there is a breakaway state in the north run by the Kurds who want to fight IS ( which is a good thing ) but the Turkish authorities think they are bad, so we have to say they are bad whilst secretly thinking they're good and giving them guns to fight IS (which is good) but that is another matter.
Getting back to Syria.
So President Putin ( who is bad, cos he invaded Crimea and the Ukraine and killed lots of folks including that nice Russian man in London with polonium poisoned sushi ) has decided to back Assad ( who is still bad ) by attacking IS ( who are also bad ) which is sort of a good thing?
But Putin ( still bad ) thinks the Syrian Rebels ( who are good ) are also bad, and so he bombs them too, much to the annoyance of the Americans ( who are good ) who are busy backing and arming the rebels ( who are also good).
Now Iran ( who used to be bad, but now they have agreed not to build any nuclear weapons and bomb Israel are now good ) are going to provide ground troops to support Assad ( still bad ) as are the Russians ( bad ) who now have ground troops and aircraft in Syria.
So a Coalition of Assad ( still bad ) Putin ( extra bad ) and the Iranians ( good, but in a bad sort of way ) are going to attack IS ( who are bad ) which is a good thing, but also the Syrian Rebels ( who are good ) which is bad.
Now the British ( obviously good, except that nice Mr Corbyn in the corduroy jacket, who is probably bad ) and the Americans ( also good ) cannot attack Assad ( still bad ) for fear of upsetting Putin ( bad ) and Iran ( good / bad) and now they have to accept that Assad might not be that bad after all compared to IS ( who are super bad).
So Assad ( bad ) is now probably good, being better than IS ( but let’s face it, drinking your own wee is better than IS so no real choice there ) and since Putin and Iran are also fighting IS that may now make them Good. America ( still Good ) will find it hard to arm a group of rebels being attacked by the Russians for fear of upsetting Mr Putin ( now good ) and that nice mad Ayatollah in Iran ( also Good ) and so they may be forced to say that the Rebels are now Bad, or at the very least abandon them to their fate. This will lead most of them to flee to Turkey and on to Europe or join IS ( still the only constantly bad group).
To Sunni Muslims, an attack by Shia Muslims ( Assad and Iran ) backed by Russians will be seen as something of a Holy War, and the ranks of IS will now be seen by the Sunnis as the only Jihadis fighting in the Holy War and hence many Muslims will now see IS as Good ( Doh!.)
Sunni Muslims will also see the lack of action by Britain and America in support of their Sunni rebel brothers as something of a betrayal ( mmm, might have a point.) and hence we will be seen as Bad.
So now we have America ( now bad ) and Britain ( also bad ) providing limited support to Sunni Rebels ( bad ) many of whom are looking to IS ( Good / bad ) for support against Assad ( now good ) who, along with Iran ( also Good) and Putin ( also, now, unbelievably, Good ) are attempting to retake the country Assad used to run before all this started?
So, now you fully understand everything, all your questions are answered!!!!
In case you don't know what's happening in the middle east. ��
President Assad ( who is bad ) is a nasty guy who got so nasty his people rebelled and the Rebels ( who are good ) started winning ( Hurrah!).
But then some of the rebels turned a bit nasty and are now called Islamic State ( who are definitely bad!) and some continued to support democracy ( who are still good.)
So the Americans ( who are good ) started bombing Islamic State ( who are bad ) and giving arms to the Syrian Rebels ( who are good ) so they could fight Assad ( who is still bad ) which was good.
By the way, there is a breakaway state in the north run by the Kurds who want to fight IS ( which is a good thing ) but the Turkish authorities think they are bad, so we have to say they are bad whilst secretly thinking they're good and giving them guns to fight IS (which is good) but that is another matter.
Getting back to Syria.
So President Putin ( who is bad, cos he invaded Crimea and the Ukraine and killed lots of folks including that nice Russian man in London with polonium poisoned sushi ) has decided to back Assad ( who is still bad ) by attacking IS ( who are also bad ) which is sort of a good thing?
But Putin ( still bad ) thinks the Syrian Rebels ( who are good ) are also bad, and so he bombs them too, much to the annoyance of the Americans ( who are good ) who are busy backing and arming the rebels ( who are also good).
Now Iran ( who used to be bad, but now they have agreed not to build any nuclear weapons and bomb Israel are now good ) are going to provide ground troops to support Assad ( still bad ) as are the Russians ( bad ) who now have ground troops and aircraft in Syria.
So a Coalition of Assad ( still bad ) Putin ( extra bad ) and the Iranians ( good, but in a bad sort of way ) are going to attack IS ( who are bad ) which is a good thing, but also the Syrian Rebels ( who are good ) which is bad.
Now the British ( obviously good, except that nice Mr Corbyn in the corduroy jacket, who is probably bad ) and the Americans ( also good ) cannot attack Assad ( still bad ) for fear of upsetting Putin ( bad ) and Iran ( good / bad) and now they have to accept that Assad might not be that bad after all compared to IS ( who are super bad).
So Assad ( bad ) is now probably good, being better than IS ( but let’s face it, drinking your own wee is better than IS so no real choice there ) and since Putin and Iran are also fighting IS that may now make them Good. America ( still Good ) will find it hard to arm a group of rebels being attacked by the Russians for fear of upsetting Mr Putin ( now good ) and that nice mad Ayatollah in Iran ( also Good ) and so they may be forced to say that the Rebels are now Bad, or at the very least abandon them to their fate. This will lead most of them to flee to Turkey and on to Europe or join IS ( still the only constantly bad group).
To Sunni Muslims, an attack by Shia Muslims ( Assad and Iran ) backed by Russians will be seen as something of a Holy War, and the ranks of IS will now be seen by the Sunnis as the only Jihadis fighting in the Holy War and hence many Muslims will now see IS as Good ( Doh!.)
Sunni Muslims will also see the lack of action by Britain and America in support of their Sunni rebel brothers as something of a betrayal ( mmm, might have a point.) and hence we will be seen as Bad.
So now we have America ( now bad ) and Britain ( also bad ) providing limited support to Sunni Rebels ( bad ) many of whom are looking to IS ( Good / bad ) for support against Assad ( now good ) who, along with Iran ( also Good) and Putin ( also, now, unbelievably, Good ) are attempting to retake the country Assad used to run before all this started?
So, now you fully understand everything, all your questions are answered!!!!
Originally Posted by Brenus:
So, now you fully understand everything, all your questions are answered!!!!
Welcome to (Middle East) politics!So, now you fully understand everything, all your questions are answered!!!!
What he forgot to mention was that the NWO (good) has planned all of this.
Oh, yeah, he did forget a lot of things, i.e. Saudis (good) having links with IS (bad) bombing Yemen insurgents (bad) allied with Iran (new good). Turkey (good) sells oil from IS (bad) to Europe (good) and US (good) market.
France (good) is now going to Russia (bad becoming good) to put boots on the grounds (if not yet done) and French (good) fleet is now co-operating with Russian (bad becoming good). This of course cannot be achieved with Assad (lesser bad becoming relatively good) agreement...
Hezbollah (the one that blew-up Marines and French Paratroopers and executed hostages in Lebanon) is becoming good, following Iran. Well, history is marching...
France (good) is now going to Russia (bad becoming good) to put boots on the grounds (if not yet done) and French (good) fleet is now co-operating with Russian (bad becoming good). This of course cannot be achieved with Assad (lesser bad becoming relatively good) agreement...
Hezbollah (the one that blew-up Marines and French Paratroopers and executed hostages in Lebanon) is becoming good, following Iran. Well, history is marching...
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr:
Also, the Western public had no appetite for taking down Saddam,
That's absolutely false, 100%. Also, the Western public had no appetite for taking down Saddam,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popula...vasion_of_Iraq
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name:
That's absolutely false, 100%.
Even I thought at the time that taking out Saddam was not a bad idea.That's absolutely false, 100%.
Of course I also wasn't as old and wise yet as I am now.
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name:
That's absolutely false, 100%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popula...vasion_of_Iraq
Fair enough, I guess I was just thinking of the protests over here.That's absolutely false, 100%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popula...vasion_of_Iraq
Originally Posted by Husar:
Of course I also wasn't as old and wise yet as I am now.
You are lucky I just got older.Of course I also wasn't as old and wise yet as I am now.
Might become a busy day if anominous's is right
Just for caution http://www.ibtimes.com/anonymous-say...sunday-2194926
Just for caution http://www.ibtimes.com/anonymous-say...sunday-2194926
"You are talking about single cases of high born men reaching high rank in the military"
I missed this one during my week of the org. The General Dumas was slave, as he was the child of a slave and the father being the owner of his mother. When the father having no son with the regular wife, he decided to take his son out of slavery (there were soooo nice this slavers, weren't they!)... High born indeed...
I missed this one during my week of the org. The General Dumas was slave, as he was the child of a slave and the father being the owner of his mother. When the father having no son with the regular wife, he decided to take his son out of slavery (there were soooo nice this slavers, weren't they!)... High born indeed...Kinda funny, the alledged brain of the attacks was apparently a frequent guest at gay-bars. Could be nonsense of course.
Originally Posted by Husar:
Even I thought at the time that taking out Saddam was not a bad idea.
Of course I also wasn't as old and wise yet as I am now.
A bit of sarcasm mixed with reality... I echo this.Even I thought at the time that taking out Saddam was not a bad idea.
Of course I also wasn't as old and wise yet as I am now.
Turkey Shoots down Russian plane: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-34907983
Possibly with F-16's.
Possibly with F-16's.
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus:
Turkey Shoots down Russian plane: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-34907983
Possibly with F-16's.
And probably not in Turkish airspace, bit of a problem then if soTurkey Shoots down Russian plane: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-34907983
Possibly with F-16's.
edit, comfirmed that two Turkish F16 shot it down, and that they knew it was a Russian plane. Oh my. Russian pilot is ok by the way before you ask.
extra edit, one pilot certainly isn't ok
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO