Don't worry i'm just being overly pedantic.
I honestly appreciate you giving me that info though.
But yeah, everyone know the U.S navy has 'air assets' too...
BLAHBLAHJAH wrote:... If you're ever in a burning building and you see smoke and smell fire, maybe it's worth getting
out...
Sometimes?alphacat wrote:You have the corniest sense of humor sometimes

Pkay what the fuck are you doing? You know you can't expect people on this forum to have actual background information about the shit they're talking about. Tsk tsk.pkay wrote:Our navy is not simply bound to the sea... as i mentioned marines (part of the navy) perform a large portion of our ground based actions. Navy also have air assets as well.cityzen wrote:@Pkay or anyone who can answer: Sorry, I must have phrased the about question poorly (it's now neither here nor there since we both agree the picture is a fake) but what I was driving at is do all sections of the U.S armed forces wear the flag that way round?pkay wrote:2) The Marines are part of the Navy. They have historically charged in everywhere since their inceptioncityzen wrote:Also, that link says about the army. Is it the same rules for the Navy? I mean, they never (historically) 'charged' into battle.
And, just to extra specially pedantic, how does one 'charge' on a ship?
But I guess to help make sense of it... ship bound navy do not wear BDU's so someone on a boat would never have that on their person. Same as when I was in the air force I did not have it on my flight line suit until I was forward deployed or unless i was put in a role where I was off the flightline and no longer in a support capacity. You don't wear that unless you're going to battle.
Stateside army, air force, marines, navy do not wear that flag for that reason.
On the contrary, I was using the information that he'd supplied.borrowed wrote:Pkay what the fuck are you doing? You know you can't expect people on this forum to have actual background information about the shit they're talking about. Tsk tsk.
BLAHBLAHJAH wrote:... If you're ever in a burning building and you see smoke and smell fire, maybe it's worth getting
out...
upstateface wrote:Mr. Frodo Bassbins,King of useless threads.![]()
alphacat wrote:"Statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception."
---Mark Twain, Chronicle of Young Satan.
Dub_freak wrote:FAKEAyatollah wrote:http://twitpic.com/4su0feparticle-jim wrote: source?
its taken from a movie
i really don't see any change in consciousness at all. a good portion of americans would like to see the middle east wiped out completely. "why don't we just nuke the place, haha," as a few people have joked to me. the americans who are truly concerned about the welfare of middle eastern people (and could see past the making it safe for democracy PR) were probably against the wars all along. if anything, more americans who had no opinion on middle easterners have turned against them because of the massive amount of propaganda.sd5 wrote: The favourable side of his legacy imo
is that we who have benefitted, mindlessly,
from historic commercial/political exploitation of Arab resources and corruptibility,
have had to confront our consciences about it's impact on middle-eastern people.
Ultimately
buildings had to be destroyed and lives lost
for us to wake up to our obligation to treat fellow human beings equitably,
whatever their percieved vulnerability, weaknesses or conditioning.
How many more buildings and bodies,
murders, atrocities and frustrated terrorists
will it take for all to be treated with respect?
BLAHBLAHJAH wrote:... If you're ever in a burning building and you see smoke and smell fire, maybe it's worth getting
out...
If he isn't an American agent.Mr Hyde wrote:I don't really need to see the pictures, think it would be inflammatory.
If he was still alive you can be pretty sure he'd be recording a video to prove it and embarrass the US.
BLAHBLAHJAH wrote:... If you're ever in a burning building and you see smoke and smell fire, maybe it's worth getting
out...
Yeah I guess there is that. Or that he could have been dead for ages (in which case a photo could still have just been taken ages ago).cityzen wrote:If he isn't an American agent.Mr Hyde wrote:I don't really need to see the pictures, think it would be inflammatory.
If he was still alive you can be pretty sure he'd be recording a video to prove it and embarrass the US.
Or so the argument would go.
uhh this was a Navy SEALs operation not a peoples militianoam wrote:they blatantly tortured him to fuck
im guessing he's missing an eye
cigarette burns to the face
no teeth
cityzen wrote:So, they might not release the picture evidence.... Their reason being that the gruesome nature of the pictures may be 'inflammatory'....
There was NO live video feed that Obama watched.
OBL was not armed.
Source - BBC News.
BLAHBLAHJAH wrote:... If you're ever in a burning building and you see smoke and smell fire, maybe it's worth getting
out...
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests