RugbyRebels

Trumps travel ban comes into effect today, at last, common sense prevails, maybe America won't suffer the same fate as Europe after all.

Lord Lucan wrote:Trumps travel ban comes into effect today, at last, common sense prevails, maybe America won't suffer the same fate as Europe after all.

Yeah they just kill themselves and if that don't kill you being ill might
If I'm not mistaken John aren't you from N Wales living in Canada doesn't that make you an immigrant? Plus, of course, you are full of hate, much more hate than any of the immigrants coming in to the US

caldeyrfc wrote:

Lord Lucan wrote:Trumps travel ban comes into effect today, at last, common sense prevails, maybe America won't suffer the same fate as Europe after all.

Yeah they just kill themselves and if that don't kill you being ill might
If I'm not mistaken John aren't you from N Wales living in Canada doesn't that make you an immigrant? Plus, of course, you are full of hate, much more hate than any of the immigrants coming in to the US

You lefties use the word hate far to often to push your agenda, Trump has every right to seek to protect his own citizens from any possible outside threat. Putting a temporary ban on people travelling to the US from war torn islamic countries is common sense, its not a muslim ban as you lefties would have us believe, otherwise he would have made it a blanket ban on all islamic countries.
Its a ban to stop would be jihadists from entering the USA and causing the type of incidents we saw in Nice, where a truck driven by an islamic radicalized madman, deliberately smashed through a packed crowd of people, killing 86 and injuring 434, and the Paris attack where 130 were killed and 368 injured by some equally radicalized islamic lunatics, not to mention the atrocities committed in Blighty. Who wouldn't want to stop that happening in their own country? and the way to do that is to target islamic people, put them under the strictest scrutiny and make sure you know who is coming in and be as certain as you can that they are not a threat.
Most of the muslims affected by the ban would not want to kill and maim innocent people, but how do you sort out the weed from the grass in this respect? we haven't been able to do it here in Europe. I would put more pressure and responsibility on the muslims themselves to out the radicals and hate preachers and to help the police and security services as much as they possibly can. They are being made to suffer because of the action of these radicals so I would have thought it would be in their own interests to see these nutters taken off our streets.

Lord Lucan wrote:

caldeyrfc wrote:

Lord Lucan wrote:Trumps travel ban comes into effect today, at last, common sense prevails, maybe America won't suffer the same fate as Europe after all.

Yeah they just kill themselves and if that don't kill you being ill might
If I'm not mistaken John aren't you from N Wales living in Canada doesn't that make you an immigrant? Plus, of course, you are full of hate, much more hate than any of the immigrants coming in to the US

You lefties use the word hate far to often to push your agenda, Trump has every right to seek to protect his own citizens from any possible outside threat. Putting a temporary ban on people travelling to the US from war torn islamic countries is common sense, its not a muslim ban as you lefties would have us believe, otherwise he would have made it a blanket ban on all islamic countries.
Its a ban to stop would be jihadists from entering the USA and causing the type of incidents we saw in Nice, where a truck driven by an islamic radicalized madman, deliberately smashed through a packed crowd of people, killing 86 and injuring 434, and the Paris attack where 130 were killed and 368 injured by some equally radicalized islamic lunatics, not to mention the atrocities committed in Blighty. Who wouldn't want to stop that happening in their own country? and the way to do that is to target islamic people, put them under the strictest scrutiny and make sure you know who is coming in and be as certain as you can that they are not a threat.
Most of the muslims affected by the ban would not want to kill and maim innocent people, but how do you sort out the weed from the grass in this respect? we haven't been able to do it here in Europe. I would put more pressure and responsibility on the muslims themselves to out the radicals and hate preachers and to help the police and security services as much as they possibly can. They are being made to suffer because of the action of these radicals so I would have thought it would be in their own interests to see these nutters taken off our streets.

I'm sure all the families and loved ones of victims that have been murdered in the United States lately are over the moon that the person(s) responsible for taking away someone they loved was not a muslim

Why didn't Trump want to protect those people from the readily available and easily accessible guns? Who on earth needs an assault rifle for personal reasons?

I understand your point about preventing the Nice and Paris attacks from happening again, but I suppose in your world it's fine for someone to take an assault rifle into a public place, school or place of work and kill and injure people indiscriminately as long as they're not radicalised muslims?

Who wouldn't want to stop that happening in their own country?

More to the point, why isn't Saudi Arabia on the list of countries?

More dignified conduct by the leader of the orange world today. Well done him.

morepork wrote:More dignified conduct by the leader of the orange world today. Well done him.

He's a modern president...

and one with prehistoric views when it comes to women, race, religion and tolerance.

morepork wrote:More dignified conduct by the leader of the orange world today. Well done him.

Harsh on Arlene Foster

WaspInWales wrote:

Lord Lucan wrote:

caldeyrfc wrote: Yeah they just kill themselves and if that don't kill you being ill might
If I'm not mistaken John aren't you from N Wales living in Canada doesn't that make you an immigrant? Plus, of course, you are full of hate, much more hate than any of the immigrants coming in to the US

You lefties use the word hate far to often to push your agenda, Trump has every right to seek to protect his own citizens from any possible outside threat. Putting a temporary ban on people travelling to the US from war torn islamic countries is common sense, its not a muslim ban as you lefties would have us believe, otherwise he would have made it a blanket ban on all islamic countries.
Its a ban to stop would be jihadists from entering the USA and causing the type of incidents we saw in Nice, where a truck driven by an islamic radicalized madman, deliberately smashed through a packed crowd of people, killing 86 and injuring 434, and the Paris attack where 130 were killed and 368 injured by some equally radicalized islamic lunatics, not to mention the atrocities committed in Blighty. Who wouldn't want to stop that happening in their own country? and the way to do that is to target islamic people, put them under the strictest scrutiny and make sure you know who is coming in and be as certain as you can that they are not a threat.
Most of the muslims affected by the ban would not want to kill and maim innocent people, but how do you sort out the weed from the grass in this respect? we haven't been able to do it here in Europe. I would put more pressure and responsibility on the muslims themselves to out the radicals and hate preachers and to help the police and security services as much as they possibly can. They are being made to suffer because of the action of these radicals so I would have thought it would be in their own interests to see these nutters taken off our streets.

I'm sure all the families and loved ones of victims that have been murdered in the United States lately are over the moon that the person(s) responsible for taking away someone they loved was not a muslim

Why didn't Trump want to protect those people from the readily available and easily accessible guns? Who on earth needs an assault rifle for personal reasons?

I understand your point about preventing the Nice and Paris attacks from happening again, but I suppose in your world it's fine for someone to take an assault rifle into a public place, school or place of work and kill and injure people indiscriminately as long as they're not radicalised muslims?

Who wouldn't want to stop that happening in their own country?

More to the point, why isn't Saudi Arabia on the list of countries?

You are comparing two completely different things, one is an ideology another one is gun ownership, totally different. In fact if the jihadis tried to do in the US what they did in Paris I'm sure they would have been gunned down by civilians carrying their own weapons, long before the old bill turned up, depending on where in the US you are of course, I don't think you can carry a gun around New York, in Houston, Texas, and Phoenix, Arizona, the law might be quite different.

Saudi should be on the list, we all know why they are not, the majority of hate preachers spreading their hate around the world come out of Saudi.

Arizona and Texas have pretty liberal laws....open carry in fact so you can do shit like shoot a politician in the head at a public meeting. The largest shootings in the US are by far from domestic perpetrators. The biggest terrorist attack used planes and Saudis, the next biggest was McVeigh in Oklahoma. I'm not saying the potential for individuals from any one of the countries Trump cannot find on a map and bans can be ruled out, but lets face it, the greater immediate effect by far are local nutters that believe the government is evil. I am far happier injecting stiff firearm regulation into the equation in order that one of these fuckwits doesn't shoot people down in the street when the voices start yelling too loud to bear.

Lord Lucan wrote:

WaspInWales wrote:

Lord Lucan wrote:
You lefties use the word hate far to often to push your agenda, Trump has every right to seek to protect his own citizens from any possible outside threat. Putting a temporary ban on people travelling to the US from war torn islamic countries is common sense, its not a muslim ban as you lefties would have us believe, otherwise he would have made it a blanket ban on all islamic countries.
Its a ban to stop would be jihadists from entering the USA and causing the type of incidents we saw in Nice, where a truck driven by an islamic radicalized madman, deliberately smashed through a packed crowd of people, killing 86 and injuring 434, and the Paris attack where 130 were killed and 368 injured by some equally radicalized islamic lunatics, not to mention the atrocities committed in Blighty. Who wouldn't want to stop that happening in their own country? and the way to do that is to target islamic people, put them under the strictest scrutiny and make sure you know who is coming in and be as certain as you can that they are not a threat.
Most of the muslims affected by the ban would not want to kill and maim innocent people, but how do you sort out the weed from the grass in this respect? we haven't been able to do it here in Europe. I would put more pressure and responsibility on the muslims themselves to out the radicals and hate preachers and to help the police and security services as much as they possibly can. They are being made to suffer because of the action of these radicals so I would have thought it would be in their own interests to see these nutters taken off our streets.

I'm sure all the families and loved ones of victims that have been murdered in the United States lately are over the moon that the person(s) responsible for taking away someone they loved was not a muslim

Why didn't Trump want to protect those people from the readily available and easily accessible guns? Who on earth needs an assault rifle for personal reasons?

I understand your point about preventing the Nice and Paris attacks from happening again, but I suppose in your world it's fine for someone to take an assault rifle into a public place, school or place of work and kill and injure people indiscriminately as long as they're not radicalised muslims?

Who wouldn't want to stop that happening in their own country?

More to the point, why isn't Saudi Arabia on the list of countries?

You are comparing two completely different things, one is an ideology another one is gun ownership, totally different. In fact if the jihadis tried to do in the US what they did in Paris I'm sure they would have been gunned down by civilians carrying their own weapons, long before the old bill turned up, depending on where in the US you are of course, I don't think you can carry a gun around New York, in Houston, Texas, and Phoenix, Arizona, the law might be quite different.

Saudi should be on the list, we all know why they are not, the majority of hate preachers spreading their hate around the world come out of Saudi.

I'm comparing two things that result in the needless loss of life.

Why does the fear of one type of incident overshadow the fairly frequent occurrence of the other?

Why isn't there a big fuss about Christian extremism in the US? Some people believe that God is on their side and they, as a nation are constantly being blessed. How's that for indoctrination?

As for your comment about civilians gunning down terrorists on a potential attack...pfft. A lot of help that has done to the many, many people killed in mass shootings and gun related murders in public. That is a pathetic ideology adopted by NRA nuts used to convince people that guns are their friends and that one day, they may just be an all American hero by shooting first and asking questions later.

YEW-ES-AY!

The absence of Saudi Arabia on the ban list makes a mockery of the ban list and shows Trump for the two-faced piece of shit that he really is. It's ok to sell weapons to one side of radicals that have a piss poor record of human rights and state-sponsored terrorism, but as for the countries that the US have bombed the shit out of, or want to bomb the shit out of...well, they're the only threat that matters to white people's God.

WaspInWales wrote:

Lord Lucan wrote:

WaspInWales wrote:
I'm sure all the families and loved ones of victims that have been murdered in the United States lately are over the moon that the person(s) responsible for taking away someone they loved was not a muslim

Why didn't Trump want to protect those people from the readily available and easily accessible guns? Who on earth needs an assault rifle for personal reasons?

I understand your point about preventing the Nice and Paris attacks from happening again, but I suppose in your world it's fine for someone to take an assault rifle into a public place, school or place of work and kill and injure people indiscriminately as long as they're not radicalised muslims?

Who wouldn't want to stop that happening in their own country?

More to the point, why isn't Saudi Arabia on the list of countries?

You are comparing two completely different things, one is an ideology another one is gun ownership, totally different. In fact if the jihadis tried to do in the US what they did in Paris I'm sure they would have been gunned down by civilians carrying their own weapons, long before the old bill turned up, depending on where in the US you are of course, I don't think you can carry a gun around New York, in Houston, Texas, and Phoenix, Arizona, the law might be quite different.

Saudi should be on the list, we all know why they are not, the majority of hate preachers spreading their hate around the world come out of Saudi.

I'm comparing two things that result in the needless loss of life.

Why does the fear of one type of incident overshadow the fairly frequent occurrence of the other?

Why isn't there a big fuss about Christian extremism in the US? Some people believe that God is on their side and they, as a nation are constantly being blessed. How's that for indoctrination?

As for your comment about civilians gunning down terrorists on a potential attack...pfft. A lot of help that has done to the many, many people killed in mass shootings and gun related murders in public. That is a pathetic ideology adopted by NRA nuts used to convince people that guns are their friends and that one day, they may just be an all American hero by shooting first and asking questions later.

YEW-ES-AY!

The absence of Saudi Arabia on the ban list makes a mockery of the ban list and shows Trump for the two-faced piece of shit that he really is. It's ok to sell weapons to one side of radicals that have a piss poor record of human rights and state-sponsored terrorism, but as for the countries that the US have bombed the shit out of, or want to bomb the shit out of...well, they're the only threat that matters to white people's God.

When Christians start killing people on the scale that radical muslims do there will be a fuss.

Why not compare it to drink driving as well? they are needless deaths also.

"white people's God" I hope you realise that all colours and creeds worship God, not just white people, you racist.

Lord Lucan wrote:

WaspInWales wrote:

Lord Lucan wrote:
You are comparing two completely different things, one is an ideology another one is gun ownership, totally different. In fact if the jihadis tried to do in the US what they did in Paris I'm sure they would have been gunned down by civilians carrying their own weapons, long before the old bill turned up, depending on where in the US you are of course, I don't think you can carry a gun around New York, in Houston, Texas, and Phoenix, Arizona, the law might be quite different.

Saudi should be on the list, we all know why they are not, the majority of hate preachers spreading their hate around the world come out of Saudi.

I'm comparing two things that result in the needless loss of life.

Why does the fear of one type of incident overshadow the fairly frequent occurrence of the other?

Why isn't there a big fuss about Christian extremism in the US? Some people believe that God is on their side and they, as a nation are constantly being blessed. How's that for indoctrination?

As for your comment about civilians gunning down terrorists on a potential attack...pfft. A lot of help that has done to the many, many people killed in mass shootings and gun related murders in public. That is a pathetic ideology adopted by NRA nuts used to convince people that guns are their friends and that one day, they may just be an all American hero by shooting first and asking questions later.

YEW-ES-AY!

The absence of Saudi Arabia on the ban list makes a mockery of the ban list and shows Trump for the two-faced piece of shit that he really is. It's ok to sell weapons to one side of radicals that have a piss poor record of human rights and state-sponsored terrorism, but as for the countries that the US have bombed the shit out of, or want to bomb the shit out of...well, they're the only threat that matters to white people's God.

When Christians start killing people on the scale that radical muslims do there will be a fuss.

Why not compare it to drink driving as well? they are needless deaths also.

"white people's God" I hope you realise that all colours and creeds worship God, not just white people, you racist.

Lol. Being called a racist by someone with your moral compass is hugely rewarding.

When the US and allies merrily invade other countries and drop countless number of bombs in said countries, killing innocent people whose only crime is being born in said countries, all under the name of God, you don't consider that to be related to Christianity at all? I suppose you see it as peace and humanitarian missions, just like the powers that be want you to believe. What does YouTube tell you to believe about that? Does it get a mention for irony at your clan meet ups?

Drink driving is a pointless comparison. Yes, it sometimes causes needless deaths, but it's hardly in the same league as pointing a loaded weapon at someone else and pulling the trigger, or detonating a bomb somewhere. Drink driving also considered socially unacceptable, unlike gun ownership which is encouraged by some quarters.

It seems rather apt to compare the intentional killing of someone with a weapon purely designed to do that very thing, and a terrorist wanting to kill others.

Perhaps you could mention the needless deaths that are attributed to lawnmower accidents next?

WaspInWales wrote:

Lord Lucan wrote:

WaspInWales wrote:
I'm comparing two things that result in the needless loss of life.

Why does the fear of one type of incident overshadow the fairly frequent occurrence of the other?

Why isn't there a big fuss about Christian extremism in the US? Some people believe that God is on their side and they, as a nation are constantly being blessed. How's that for indoctrination?

As for your comment about civilians gunning down terrorists on a potential attack...pfft. A lot of help that has done to the many, many people killed in mass shootings and gun related murders in public. That is a pathetic ideology adopted by NRA nuts used to convince people that guns are their friends and that one day, they may just be an all American hero by shooting first and asking questions later.

YEW-ES-AY!

The absence of Saudi Arabia on the ban list makes a mockery of the ban list and shows Trump for the two-faced piece of shit that he really is. It's ok to sell weapons to one side of radicals that have a piss poor record of human rights and state-sponsored terrorism, but as for the countries that the US have bombed the shit out of, or want to bomb the shit out of...well, they're the only threat that matters to white people's God.

When Christians start killing people on the scale that radical muslims do there will be a fuss.

Why not compare it to drink driving as well? they are needless deaths also.

"white people's God" I hope you realise that all colours and creeds worship God, not just white people, you racist.

Lol. Being called a racist by someone with your moral compass is hugely rewarding.

When the US and allies merrily invade other countries and drop countless number of bombs in said countries, killing innocent people whose only crime is being born in said countries, all under the name of God, you don't consider that to be related to Christianity at all? I suppose you see it as peace and humanitarian missions, just like the powers that be want you to believe. What does YouTube tell you to believe about that? Does it get a mention for irony at your clan meet ups?

Drink driving is a pointless comparison. Yes, it sometimes causes needless deaths, but it's hardly in the same league as pointing a loaded weapon at someone else and pulling the trigger, or detonating a bomb somewhere. Drink driving also considered socially unacceptable, unlike gun ownership which is encouraged by some quarters.

It seems rather apt to compare the intentional killing of someone with a weapon purely designed to do that very thing, and a terrorist wanting to kill others.

Perhaps you could mention the needless deaths that are attributed to lawnmower accidents next?

Point me to where it says they invade countries in the name of God or Christianity? they do it in the name of oil and power brokering. You are just trying to tar God and Christianity with the same brush as islam, so that when I point out what the crazy islamists are doing, you will say well look what Christians are doing in the name of God, which is total nonsense.
Link me to what killings Christians have been linked to in the last 30 days, and it must be clear that they did it for Christianity and in the name of God, and I will link you to what islamists have done in the name of allah, in the same time frame, we shall see who is the more blood thirsty.

Lord Lucan wrote:

WaspInWales wrote:

Lord Lucan wrote:
When Christians start killing people on the scale that radical muslims do there will be a fuss.

Why not compare it to drink driving as well? they are needless deaths also.

"white people's God" I hope you realise that all colours and creeds worship God, not just white people, you racist.

Lol. Being called a racist by someone with your moral compass is hugely rewarding.

When the US and allies merrily invade other countries and drop countless number of bombs in said countries, killing innocent people whose only crime is being born in said countries, all under the name of God, you don't consider that to be related to Christianity at all? I suppose you see it as peace and humanitarian missions, just like the powers that be want you to believe. What does YouTube tell you to believe about that? Does it get a mention for irony at your clan meet ups?

Drink driving is a pointless comparison. Yes, it sometimes causes needless deaths, but it's hardly in the same league as pointing a loaded weapon at someone else and pulling the trigger, or detonating a bomb somewhere. Drink driving also considered socially unacceptable, unlike gun ownership which is encouraged by some quarters.

It seems rather apt to compare the intentional killing of someone with a weapon purely designed to do that very thing, and a terrorist wanting to kill others.

Perhaps you could mention the needless deaths that are attributed to lawnmower accidents next?

Point me to where it says they invade countries in the name of God or Christianity? they do it in the name of oil and power brokering. You are just trying to tar God and Christianity with the same brush as islam, so that when I point out what the crazy islamists are doing, you will say well look what Christians are doing in the name of God, which is total nonsense.
Link me to what killings Christians have been linked to in the last 30 days, and it must be clear that they did it for Christianity and in the name of God, and I will link you to what islamists have done in the name of allah, in the same time frame, we shall see who is the more blood thirsty.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa

Lord Lucan wrote:

WaspInWales wrote:

Lord Lucan wrote:
When Christians start killing people on the scale that radical muslims do there will be a fuss.

Why not compare it to drink driving as well? they are needless deaths also.

"white people's God" I hope you realise that all colours and creeds worship God, not just white people, you racist.

Lol. Being called a racist by someone with your moral compass is hugely rewarding.

When the US and allies merrily invade other countries and drop countless number of bombs in said countries, killing innocent people whose only crime is being born in said countries, all under the name of God, you don't consider that to be related to Christianity at all? I suppose you see it as peace and humanitarian missions, just like the powers that be want you to believe. What does YouTube tell you to believe about that? Does it get a mention for irony at your clan meet ups?

Drink driving is a pointless comparison. Yes, it sometimes causes needless deaths, but it's hardly in the same league as pointing a loaded weapon at someone else and pulling the trigger, or detonating a bomb somewhere. Drink driving also considered socially unacceptable, unlike gun ownership which is encouraged by some quarters.

It seems rather apt to compare the intentional killing of someone with a weapon purely designed to do that very thing, and a terrorist wanting to kill others.

Perhaps you could mention the needless deaths that are attributed to lawnmower accidents next?

Point me to where it says they invade countries in the name of God or Christianity? they do it in the name of oil and power brokering. You are just trying to tar God and Christianity with the same brush as islam, so that when I point out what the crazy islamists are doing, you will say well look what Christians are doing in the name of God, which is total nonsense.
Link me to what killings Christians have been linked to in the last 30 days, and it must be clear that they did it for Christianity and in the name of God, and I will link you to what islamists have done in the name of allah, in the same time frame, we shall see who is the more blood thirsty.

I was being slightly facetious, but successive US presidents, many politicians, army generals and other world leaders have referenced God in relation to ME invasions. No doubt this is for the benefit of the Bible fearing masses back home and gives everyone a warm fuzzy as they're dropping non-lethal democracy delivery bombs on people.

Interesting point about oil and power brokering. I do wonder whether that is the cause of the issues many western governments are facing today. Nah, that's far too obvious.

Back to my point above, I still don't get the irrational fear of something that may happen over the very real and frequent occurrence of something that does happen. The US has accepted gun violence and mass shootings as part of life. There's outrage and vigils, but it's soon forgotten until the next time. Some suggest, like yourself did that if more people are armed, they could take the baddies out. Wow.

How much damage could have been done by the London terrorists if they were armed with assault rifles? In that situation, how many innocent people could have been injured or killed by some idiot with a private firearm returning fire and not hitting the target?

Whilst its not much fun having to hide from a terrorist armed with a van and knife, its far less dangerous than a mass shootout between adrenaline pumped people in the dark, particularly if the police then cant identify terrorists from armed members of the public. And the more firearms there are in circulation, the easier it is for a terrorist to acquire a deadly weapon.

Frankly this argument is infantile. The NRA push it only because they fear and oppose any potential action that could undermine their own importance. Allowing the public to carry firearms in public places will only increase the instances of other incidents involving their use, and greater casualties as a result. How many domestics will end up in a shooting? How many neighbourhood disputes will see a firearm used, or threatened? Road rage incidents? Its a recipe for thousands of deaths, and we only need to look at the US for the evidence of this.

Responding to a terrorist attack is the job of the authorities. Arming the public makes that response more difficult, not less.

WaspInWales wrote:

Lord Lucan wrote:

WaspInWales wrote:
Lol. Being called a racist by someone with your moral compass is hugely rewarding.

When the US and allies merrily invade other countries and drop countless number of bombs in said countries, killing innocent people whose only crime is being born in said countries, all under the name of God, you don't consider that to be related to Christianity at all? I suppose you see it as peace and humanitarian missions, just like the powers that be want you to believe. What does YouTube tell you to believe about that? Does it get a mention for irony at your clan meet ups?

Drink driving is a pointless comparison. Yes, it sometimes causes needless deaths, but it's hardly in the same league as pointing a loaded weapon at someone else and pulling the trigger, or detonating a bomb somewhere. Drink driving also considered socially unacceptable, unlike gun ownership which is encouraged by some quarters.

It seems rather apt to compare the intentional killing of someone with a weapon purely designed to do that very thing, and a terrorist wanting to kill others.

Perhaps you could mention the needless deaths that are attributed to lawnmower accidents next?

Point me to where it says they invade countries in the name of God or Christianity? they do it in the name of oil and power brokering. You are just trying to tar God and Christianity with the same brush as islam, so that when I point out what the crazy islamists are doing, you will say well look what Christians are doing in the name of God, which is total nonsense.
Link me to what killings Christians have been linked to in the last 30 days, and it must be clear that they did it for Christianity and in the name of God, and I will link you to what islamists have done in the name of allah, in the same time frame, we shall see who is the more blood thirsty.

I was being slightly facetious, but successive US presidents, many politicians, army generals and other world leaders have referenced God in relation to ME invasions. No doubt this is for the benefit of the Bible fearing masses back home and gives everyone a warm fuzzy as they're dropping non-lethal democracy delivery bombs on people.

Interesting point about oil and power brokering. I do wonder whether that is the cause of the issues many western governments are facing today. Nah, that's far too obvious.

Back to my point above, I still don't get the irrational fear of something that may happen over the very real and frequent occurrence of something that does happen. The US has accepted gun violence and mass shootings as part of life. There's outrage and vigils, but it's soon forgotten until the next time. Some suggest, like yourself did that if more people are armed, they could take the baddies out. Wow.

Maybe a bit too obvious, but probably one of the biggest factors. Would the West five a toss about the ME if not for oil? Compare some of the strife in Africa where we have been far slower to get involved, if at all in any meaningful way. Keeping the oil flowing is the bedrock of our current way of life. Unfortunately.

Erik Prince did a pretty good Crusade impersonation via Blackwater security. Gunz and Jebus do tend to ride the same train to work in the USA.

But enough of that. We are here to mock The Orange One. His latest comments regarding N Koreas latest missile test, via a social media platform of course, are flavoured with a healthy dose of WWE and liberally peppered with irony. We all know he is full of shit, ignorant, and frankly not very bright, but surely someone close to him would have a word about advertising all this in neon lights?
A heavy move. On ya.

cashead wrote:What a remarkable lack of understanding about anything.

Fixed

Digby wrote:

morepork wrote:More dignified conduct by the leader of the orange world today. Well done him.

Harsh on Arlene Foster

Quick round of Quotation:. 'Who famously said, "Give us the fookin money"..?'.

It's somewhat alarming that such a potentially dangerous situation arrives at a time when a key player is so underwhelming.

Sandydragon wrote:It's somewhat alarming that such a potentially dangerous situation arrives at a time when a key player is so underwhelming.

So, diplomacy, possible sanctions or will Trump go straight to the launch codes?

The ROK knows very well that

A. Any war would cause huge damage to the South and cost a lot of lives and money.
B. Any reunification with th north would cost a fortune and probably wouldn't be of any economic benefit for generations.

The ROK doesn't mind the North being a prison camp dictatorship, provided they don't get too carried away with their own rhetoric and cause any real damage.

WTF?
https://www.buzzfeed.com/juliareinstein ... .tne86GYQB

NPR Tweeted The Declaration Of Independence And Some Trump Supporters Were Offended
...

Pig ignorant fuckheads. Unbelievable.