Jump to content
maryportfuncity

Terrorists & Topical Terrorist Targets

Recommended Posts

He's actually called "The Professor" 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 31/10/2019 at 13:25, Skinny kiltrunner said:
On 31/10/2019 at 11:30, Joey Russ said:

ISIS has a new successor. His name is Abu Ibrahim Hashimi al-Quraishi

But his friends call him Jim.


You don't tug on superman's cape
You don't spit into the wind
You don't pull the mask off that old lone ranger
And you don't mess around with Abu Ibrahim Hashimi al-Quraishi. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sir Creep said:


You don't tug on superman's cape
You don't spit into the wind
You don't pull the mask off that old lone ranger
And you don't mess around with Abu Ibrahim Hashimi al-Quraishi. 

Hmm, might have to change the instrumental tempo a bit at the end there, but it could work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Skinny kiltrunner said:

Hmm, might have to change the instrumental tempo a bit at the end there, but it could work.

Aye, an extra held whole note 'for good measure'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting news coming out of Iraq...

 

 

Qassem Suleimani and Abu Mehdi Muhandis both allegedly killed in airstrikes.

 

This might be related to the earlier news of the missile strikes at a Baghdad airport which injured civilians and potentially American officials/diplomats.

 

All very recent news so not all information is fully available yet.

 

Edit: The US admits it killed these two leaders. Uh-oh...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is quite frightening 

 

Even though I’m celebrating their deaths 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More pivotal than when they took out Bin Laden. Buckle up, it’s gonna be bumpy.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Not saying the commander was necessarily a good guy, but this should never have happened in any circumstance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While Yashar Ali is undoubtedly slanted most of the time, this thread of why Solemani being killed being major fucking news is very balanced IMO and definitely informative. If you were wondering why this is major news that could lead to actual war, this thread is a good quick primer on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Thatcher said:

More pivotal than when they took out Bin Laden. Buckle up, it’s gonna be bumpy.

 

 

Well if the only reaction is a strike that's not so bad. If we survived the miners strike we can survive this one!

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What every weak leader potentially threatened with removal from office does - start a war.

 

Get the plebs flag-waving, kill some of your military for the greater good, drag your allies along for the ride.

 

However. Do the American people really want another involvement in a far off sandy land, possibly locked in to more terrorism on US soil? Given European leaders are at odds with Trump on the Iran deal, will they get involved? You know the blibbering numpty in Number 10 more likely to agree to anything the US does (hostage to Brexit/US trade deal), and the thought of the UK becoming a proxy battleground for this insane move is very worrying indeed.

 

This is 10 times worse than Iraq. Maybe 100 times worse. Welcome to the 2020s.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think there will be a war. Iran knows they would be annihililated in no time. It is just an arrogant show of power from the US, relying on the fact there won't be actual reactions, which is probably right.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, drol said:

I don't think there will be a war. Iran knows they would be annihililated in no time. It is just an arrogant show of power from the US, relying on the fact there won't be actual reactions, which is probably right.

This won't be a war in the normal sense. Iran will attack via terrorism and proxies, gaining support from those whose grievances in the area have returned after Obama left office.

 

So there's an explosion which kills say 2000 at a football stadium in the US. How does the US prove it was Iran, justifying retaliation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Day 3 of the new decade 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, YoungWillz said:

This won't be a war in the normal sense. Iran will attack via terrorism and proxies, gaining support from those whose grievances in the area have returned after Obama left office.

 

So there's an explosion which kills say 2000 at a football stadium in the US. How does the US prove it was Iran, justifying retaliation?

There won't be attacks in the US. Will be more actions against US/Israeli troops in MIddle East.

 

Anyway it is impossible to justify these attacks. US treat a sovereign state (Iraq) as it was their backyard.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this guy was a general of the Iranian army. don't understand why you put that in terrorist thread. if he's a terrorist, let's list all of the US generals here ...

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

by the way, once again the USA breaks international UN-law. sad that most of the medias dont pick up that fact in one single sentence.

  • Like 3
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, YoungWillz said:

This won't be a war in the normal sense. Iran will attack via terrorism and proxies, gaining support from those whose grievances in the area have returned after Obama left office.

 

So there's an explosion which kills say 2000 at a football stadium in the US. How does the US prove it was Iran, justifying retaliation?

The US attacked Afghanistan in 2001 despite the 9/11 terrorists being Saudis and Osama bin Laden was known to actually hide in Pakistan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, roaming_comrade said:

The US attacked Afghanistan in 2001 despite the 9/11 terrorists being Saudis and Osama bin Laden was known to actually hide in Pakistan.

Osama bin Laden was supported by the Taliban regime. The USA didn't attacked Afghanistan also, they attacked the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan which was only recognised by Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Pakistan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Prophet said:

Osama bin Laden was supported by the Taliban regime. The USA didn't attacked Afghanistan also, they attacked the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan which was only recognised by Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Pakistan.

As I understand it the Saudis still had the majority of the responsibility, and it was definitely more justified to attack the saudis, but that obviously couldnt happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why don't y'all merge this with the Snowflake thread for fucksake.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Sir Creep said:

Why don't y'all merge this with the Snowflake thread for fucksake.   


please learn to just not talk

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×

Important Information

Your use of this forum is subject to our Terms of Use