That idiot has funded worldwide conventional weapons terrorism for the next 20 years, at a level never seen in history, and he thinks that's just fine!
Washington (AFP) - President Barack Obama acknowledged Wednesday that Iran might use cash coming its way under sanctions relief to fund "terrorist organizations" but argued this is preferable to allowing it to develop nuclear arms.
"The truth is, that Iran has always found a way to fund these efforts," Obama said, in a speech to defend the Iran nuclear deal.
"And whatever benefit Iran may claim from sanctions relief pales in comparison to the danger it could pose with a nuclear weapon."
He could have just shipped them weapons covertly via the CIA. Ooooops....
On the other hand, we (the West) could just stop shoveling money to our good friends Qatar and Saudi Arabia for oil and military bases because they 'have ignited time bomb by funding global spread of radical Islam'. Not entirely disagreeing with your point here but with friends like these...
Realpolitik is a b*tch and always has been.
[This message has been edited by yellowstone (edited 08-05-2015).]
He could have just shipped them weapons covertly via the CIA. Ooooops....
Sorry, Fresh out. His past Attorney General already sent them all to Mexican drug lords, who then sold a lot of them to......OH MY! Where did they all go?
Under what scenario does the Islamic Republic (Iran) NOT look forward to sanctions relief and the restoration of some very sizable monies (billions of dollars) that have been frozen by the U.S. and other countries in the international effort to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon?
"Bombs Away With Curtis LeMay"..?
Synopsis: It's Obama's fault because it rained today. And it's Obama's fault because it didn't.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-05-2015).]
Sorry, Fresh out. His past Attorney General already sent them all to Mexican drug lords, who then sold a lot of them to......OH MY! Where did they all go?
Yes that was handled incredibly stupidly but I was under the impression that it was an insignificant amount of weapons as far as arming militant groups like isis goes.
Yes that was handled incredibly stupidly but I was under the impression that it was an insignificant amount of weapons as far as arming militant groups like isis goes.
Right. You and a few others think that Obama's "gunwalking" by his DOJ was just a couple of small caliber hand guns tossed in the trunk of an old "Chebby" and driven across the border at Tijuana....
or maybe even swallow the story that over the course of FIVE YEARS it was *only* "a couple of thousand weapons"...("Operation Wide Receiver" and "Operation Fast & Furious")
Right. You just stay where you're supposed to be: "under the impression"...
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 08-06-2015).]
It seems that one of the most oft-recited statements on this forum is that regardless of any actual (or hypothetical) legal restrictions on gun sales and possession, the criminals will always get around any gun laws and possess the guns that they want to have.
That being the case, what was the actual real world impact of these mishandled "gun walking" programs?
"What difference does did it make?"
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-06-2015).]
It seems that one of the most oft-recited statements on this forum is that regardless of any actual (or hypothetical) legal restrictions on gun sales and possession, the criminals will always get around any gun laws and possess the guns that they want to have.
That being the case, what was the actual real world impact of these mishandled "gun walking" programs?
"What difference does did it make?"
Are you actually saying: they would have got weapons anyway so what does it matter if we gave them to them?
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 08-06-2015).]
What difference it makes, Mr. Rinsie...is we are free born of free rights, and DO NOT answer to imaginary gods, churches, relegions, or any other excuse one human may try to have over another.
If the Muslims want to fight kill us for refusing to answer to to your bronge-age age diety....the **** you we will fight you right back
The problem is not your belief, or islam,, the problem is having it shoved up my azz at the point of a gun...
NO, it wont happen, and if ya want a fight about it....then you got one.....what part of "no" are they too fracking stupid to understand ?>?????????
It seems that one of the most oft-recited statements on this forum is that regardless of any actual (or hypothetical) legal restrictions on gun sales and possession, the criminals will always get around any gun laws and possess the guns that they want to have.
That being the case, what was the actual real world impact of these mishandled "gun walking" programs?
"What difference does did it make?"
On December 14, 2010, Customs and Border Protection Agent Brian Terry and other officers were on patrol in the Arizona desert when gunfire erupted. In the firefight that ensued, Terry and the other agents took aim at the Mexican gunmen first with non-lethal weapons and then with live ammunition. Terry was killed in the fight. Afterward, two AK-47 assault rifles were recovered from the site of the encounter –and both guns had been sold as part of Operation Fast and Furious.
Maybe you should go ask Brian Terry's family what difference it makes.
I was fully aware of what happened to Brian Terry, and of course, the impact on his family.
But doesn't your reaction here (TONY_C) illustrate something about the "criminals will always get around the laws and have their guns" argument that always comes up here whenever the topic turns to the Second Amendment? That it really isn't exactly all that cut-and-dried? That this really is not the perfect argument against every conceivable kind of legislation that would in some way restrict the lawful sale and possession of firearms?
It seems that one of the most oft-recited statements on this forum is that regardless of any actual (or hypothetical) legal restrictions on gun sales and possession, the criminals will always get around any gun laws and possess the guns that they want to have.
That being the case, what was the actual real world impact of these mishandled "gun walking" programs?
"What difference does did it make?"
Are you seriously that clueless?
It's called AIDING AND ABETTING That criminal and probable terrorist elements were ACTIVELY SUPPLIED, rather than left to their own, (limited), means, THAT is the "real world impact". They didn't have to "get around"anything to possess the weapons. What *difference* do YOU think that made?
The fact that you fail to admit the difference between that and "criminals obtaining guns despite the law", speaks volumes about either your own ignorance, your political agenda... or both.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 08-06-2015).]
Maybe I went away from the main topic here, which was about the nuclear agreement with Iran.
If so, I apologize. Sort of. But I was jolted by suddenly having an unexpected new thought, connecting the Fast-and-Furious gun-walking scandal with the history of Second Amendment discussions on this forum. Seemed like it hit me like a "bolt out of the blue".
Would you PLEASE stop trying to pimp all of your past "muslim fetish" screeds in your posts! We've READ THEM BEFORE ! No matter what YOU think they are, I assure you they are NOT "valued academic discourses" that we need to be constantly reminded of. As I told you once before, they are merely your "diatribes about a dire tribe." Get over it.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 08-06-2015).]
You thought it was necessary to bring it up first (in this thread) and before I even entered into this thread.
I mentioned your name early in this thread in JEST.
I did that because I, (correctly). predicted that anything having to do even remotely with anything *Islam*, (such as Iran and terrorism), immediately draws YOU in like a fly to fresh manure.
quote
Originally posted by randye:
rinselberg, (the Silicon Valley muslim apologist), in 5....4....3...
......and here you are.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 08-06-2015).]
Originally posted by rinselberg: I was jolted by suddenly having an unexpected new thought, connecting the Fast-and-Furious gun-walking scandal with the history of Second Amendment discussions on this forum. Seemed like it hit me like a "bolt out of the blue".
The way your thought actually does link up...is if we took away weapons from the U.S. government and military. Then expected never to need them to protect our country again, because miraculously all strife / struggle for resources / power hungry dictators / wars would end... ...and I suppose we'd have utopia.
I think you should take a step back and get over yourself.
quote
Originally posted by pokeyfiero:
Conservation blah blah legal...blah blah.
Who cares?
Some of these people are ****ing whacks man. Straight twisted in the brain freak blood lusty sociopaths. They smile an evil grin setting animals on fire as a kid.
People like that need two in the temple and let the animals have em for knawing on.
Originally posted by randye: I mentioned your name early in this thread in JEST. I did that because I, (correctly). predicted that anything having to do even remotely with anything *Islam*, (such as Iran and terrorism), immediately draws YOU in like a fly to fresh manure.
......and here you are.
Well, you may or may not believe this (randye), but I really wasn't on the verge of wading into this discussion about the nuclear agreement. It was actually your "jest" (something short of hilarious, I might add) that prompted me to come in here. If I had just decided to enter this discussion in the usual way (not having been baited with your "Silicon Valley Muslim in 3, 2, 1 ..."), I would have just started off straightaway with this:
Under what scenario does the Islamic Republic (Iran) NOT look forward to sanctions relief and the restoration of some very sizable monies (billions of dollars) that have been frozen by the U.S. and other countries in the international effort to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon?
"Bombs Away With Curtis LeMay"..?
Synopsis: It's Obama's fault because it rained today. And it's Obama's fault because it didn't. Click to show
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-06-2015).]
It's just that rinsie's muslim fetish gets VERY annoying after awhile. The sheer tediousness of a guy that admits that he has never personally experienced islam or its adherents outside of Silicon Valley, California and then proceeds to *preach* endlessly about it to some of us who have firsthand, personal experience in the middle east, is ridiculous. I refuse to allow him to get away with it.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 08-06-2015).]
The second time that I "screeded" in this thread, it was only because I wanted to reply specifically to MidEngineManiac. I thought that he jumped on my back here without any clear provocation. I felt blind-sided.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-06-2015).]
Right. You and a few others think that Obama's "gunwalking" by his DOJ was just a couple of small caliber hand guns tossed in the trunk of an old "Chebby" and driven across the border at Tijuana....
or maybe even swallow the story that over the course of FIVE YEARS it was *only* "a couple of thousand weapons"...("Operation Wide Receiver" and "Operation Fast & Furious")
Right. You just stay where you're supposed to be: "under the impression"...
So I was wrong on the amount of guns involved and it was on a comparable level with arming isis? How many guns and how much arming of isis? I really don't have the numbers.
So I was wrong on the amount of guns involved and it was on a comparable level with arming isis? How many guns and how much arming of isis? I really don't have the numbers.
The numbers that the Gooberment will *admit* to:
"Altogether, about 2,000 firearms were bought by straw purchasers during Fast and Furious. These included AK-47 variants, Barrett .50 caliber sniper rifles, .38 caliber revolvers, and FN Five-sevens. As of February 2012, the total number of recovered firearms was 710. Most of the guns went to the Sinaloa Cartel, while others made their way to El Teo and La Familia."
No numbers have ever been disclosed on "Operation Wide Receiver", however between Detty, Hernandez and Merando it appears as though a similar number of weapons is *admitted* to, "These included AR-15s, semi-automatic AK-pattern rifles, and Colt .38s"
HOWEVER
"As a result of a dispute over the release of Justice Department documents related to the scandal, Attorney General Eric Holder became the first sitting member of the Cabinet of the United States to be held in contempt of Congress on June 28, 2012. Earlier that month, President Barack Obama had invoked executive privilege for the first time in his presidency over the same documents.
(It is VERY difficult to believe that from 2006 to 2011 ONLY those 5 types of weapons listed were moved and only in the numbers admitted to.)
So just using the Gooberment's own *admitted* numbers, let's call it 4,000 AK-47 variants, Barrett .50 caliber sniper rifles, .38 caliber revolvers, AR-15s, semi-automatic and FN Five-sevens. over a 5 year period. That works out to a mere 2.19 guns per day, which given the well known drug cartel monetary resources is ridiculously low, so it isn't a logical stretch to call the Gooberment's numbers "fictional".
and with all of that, we are now WAY OFF of the original topic.....
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 08-06-2015).]
Recently, President Obama put on his Muslim-style turban (a distinctively blue-dyed turban that he keeps in his closet, if I remember an observation that was posted here some time ago by PFF's own rogergarrison) and interviewed with CNN's Fareed Zakaria about the proposed P5+1 international agreement concerning Iran's nuclear program.
This is the first 14 minutes of the interview that first aired Sunday on CNN.
My viewing was interrupted at the very start and a second time, towards the end, by brief popup commercial advertisements.
