so in a roundabout way you agreed with what i've been saying then...![]()
I guess, if you agree with what i said....

so in a roundabout way you agreed with what i've been saying then...![]()
Sounds like a false flag to me.Yea, basically that. They tried to kill Ferdinand with a grenade but the throw wasn't accurate and it ended up injuring people behind his car. Then, he wanted to visit all the people in the hospital who were injured by the blast. So there was confusion and traffic due to security, and Ferdinand's car ended stopped right by where Princip was eating at a Cafe. Princip sees the royal couple and walks up to them subsequently shooting them.
false equivalence b/c said ant can't do that kind of damage. Which is is exactly the point im trying to make.Imagine an ant whos bite requires you to chop off the effected limb friend. Lets take threats more seriously.
I guess, if you agree with what i said....
![]()
I think you just wanted to use the word equivalence, friend. The point is, while these people may not be that meaningful, ignoring them can lead to alot of harm and potentially one big job that can really hurt an incredibly high amount of people. Lets not pretend we dont understand these things, friend.false equivalence.
![]()
![]()
- I Made a thread questioning who really benefits from terrorism
-You made a post about how the military industrial complex "benefits" from it.
-Right before that you were saying terrorist cause debt and waste taxpayer money
which is it bruh??
-You made a post about how the military industrial complex "benefits" from it.
-Right before that you were saying terrorist cause debt and waste taxpayer money
which is it bruh??
Equivalence is an apt description of what you did though. And going by the parallel that you painted, I remarked that an ant couldn't do that kind of damage. You are analyzing it on a micro level. I'm not. If we are going to look at the military industrial complex as an entity, wouldn't be fair to say that their efforts are futile?I think you just wanted to use the word equivalence, friend. The point is, while these people may not be that meaningful, ignoring them can lead to alot of harm and potentially one big job that can really hurt an incredibly high amount of people. Lets not pretend we dont understand these things, friend.
Terrorists cause debt? Didn't u just say that the govt use terrorism as an excuse to increase military spending? Thats 2 conflicting statements though.Yes terrorist cause debt because of them taxpayer money gets spent on the military industrial complex .
Didn't u just say that the govt use terrorism as an excuse to increase military spending?
It takes serious money to fight these types of people and these acts have the power to bankrupt a nation depending on the target so no i cant say this is just like fighting a local weed dealer friend. Not at all. The nation spends billions to combat these people. Thats not what you do for light work.Equivalence is an apt description of what you did though. And going by the parallel that you painted, I remarked that an ant couldn't do that kind of damage. You are analyzing it on a micro level. I'm not. If we are going to look at the military industrial complex as an entity, wouldn't be fair to say that their efforts are futile?
Terrorists cause debt? Didn't u just say that the govt use terrorism as an excuse to increase military spending? Thats 2 conflicting statements though.
going by what you said... If govt use terrorism as excuse, wouldn't you say that terrorists hold no control over whether defense spending increases or not ? So how do they cause debt?Yes that military spending causes US debt, so that's how terrorist cause debt.
going by what you said... If govt use terrorism as excuse, wouldn't you say that terrorists hold no control over whether defense spending increases or not ? So how do they cause debt?