Who are the fascists that were buying communist munitions? Can't really think of any right-wing groups that were based in East/Southeast Asia during the mid-1970's.
@Timb0NZ i heard that the there are KMT leftovers in southeast asia that are far-right enough to be considered facists. than again the world isnt free from facists at all, tribal warefare exists on some phillipeano islands and im sure there are ethnic cleansings in africa (rewanda)
@sgtbadasss You do, obviously. Or else you had stop writing a long time ago. Anyhow, I dont want to use more time to educate a fool as yourself, so dont bother to write back. I am done with you.
@sgtbadasss Of course this is a fact. Like in this movie, the US has always involved itself with other people affairs, funding wars in several places. One example is; operation TPAJAX conducted in Iran in late 1950's, where you guys got rid of a democratically elected leader. This is an issue mentioned by sen. Ron Paul, also. If I am not making any sense, I recommend you to actually read your foreign military history.
@sgtbadasss " I don't even know what you want." That doesnt supprise me at all. After all, you havnt exactly displayed high level of intelligence. Blaming the free world? First of all, you arnt that free, but I guess it is easier to see this when you arnt blind for everything else. Second of all, I am not blaming, but clearifying the facts, that you so conviently have closed your eyes for. Take it or leave it, it doesnt matter. Over and out.
@sgtbadasss No, you dont. You have shown grand delusion, as well as misinformation. I guess O'reiley is the one to blame for that. The sad part is, the things mentioned above isnt even classified as "conspiracy theory", because it is a blunt facts. That makes you retarded, when you dont comprehend this. Uneducated? Funny, when it comes from a retard with the nickname "sgtbadasss". What are you trying to say? That you cannot run a farm and have responsibilities, without being a redneck?
@sgtbadasss And the worst part? You are commenting on a movie you havnt understand at all. That is ust sorry, but as expected from an redneck idiot, as yourself.
@sgtbadasss Osama bin Laden didnt create al quida. I have my fact corrects, but you dont. That the problem with only relying to Bill O'reiley on having an ass for a brain. It was never for freedom. You are like the leader of the free world? You dont even have freedom yourself, especially after 9/11. Forgot about the patriotic act? And you are broke. China owns all of your debt. Mujarraf wasnt elected democratically, but seized power through the military. And Karzai are corrupt as fuck.
@sgtbadasss Wow. You are really brain dead, arnt you? 1) The US (George Bush sr. especially) supported Saddam to power. Why? Because you didnt like the Shah in Iran. The reason to go over there was never to save his own people, but for WMD, which was falsified. Second, why didnt you take him down decades ago, when he gassed the Qurds? 2) You did create Al quida. Why? Because the could fight the Soviet in the cold-war. That is well known fact.
Partly true. We had sold WMD's to them in the past, so there was a reason to believe that they still had them.
We didn't take him down, because there was nothing to gain from it. People die all the time, it's not like the qurds were the only opressed people in the world.
2) We didn't create Al Qaeda. They were formed in retaliation to american influences in the middle east, especially oil drilling in Saudi Arabia. We supplied the mujahideen which later became taliban
@Ko252 The Taliban never became Al Qaeda. The only thing the Taliban did for Al Qaeda was to be a state sponsor. There were members that were once mujahideen, but not all of Al Qaeda were ex mujahideen.They were completely different entities. I keep getting the feeling that you are asserting that the taliban created Al Qaeda, which they didn't. If you are trying to say that some members from the Taliban JOINED Al Qaeda, than i agree with you.
@Ko252 It was british intelligence that said Saddam attempted to buy uranium from Niger, not american intelligence. Besides, even if Saddam didn't have "WMD"s, he still had munitions that violated UN security council resolutions 686, and 687. Which were the cease fire agreements that ended the Iraq -Kuwait conflict. By that standard the US had the right to invade Iraq regardless.
@revolution94ful "It was british intelligence that said Saddam attempted to buy uranium from Niger, not american intelligence." Yes, but that wasnt the issue. It was a statement by the US ,that Saddam did have WMD that started it all. Further on, if Saddam had munitions that violated the UN security council resolutions, it should have been the UN, and not the US that should had "invaded" Iraq. It has always been about the oil and war (since the us the depended on both).
@Ko252 "if Saddam had munitions that violated the UN security council resolutions, it should have been the UN, and not the US that should had "invaded" Iraq." The UN? The UN is historically incompetent. Right now in Libya, the US is providing the most support. Even if Ghaddafi is not deposed, it's not like there was a better chance with the help from other countries. Most of europe is contributing hardly anything. The only valuable ally the US had in Iraq was the UK. It's not much different now
@revolution94ful Yes, the UN is historically incompetent (very much because of the security council). Historically speaking, the US has been involved in almost every single war the last 80 years. Your country is like war machine. Without these wars, you cannot survive. Neither economically, nor morally. You are talking about history; who supported Saddam in the first place? Who supported and trained Taliban? Who intervened and removed the leadership in Iran in the 50's?
@Ko252 That's absolutely normal thing in diplomacy - friends become enemies as soon as they turn weapons
(ironically bought by you) against you. Or more precisely - not friends, but enemies of your enemy. US supported Taliban/Saddam/whatever only because Taliban/Saddam/whatever was fighting against someone US didn't like. And today, enemy of US enemy simply became enemy of US from religion reasons. That's international diplomacy.
@Ko252 Because the concept of human nature is complicated, there is good and evil in everyone of us, such as love, compassion, tolerance are being natures of goodness, and examples of hatred, jealousy, intolerance are being the natures of evil, so mankind tended to solve problems violently when we could not get them through peaceful and intellectual and reasonable processes.
@Ko252 The idea is also related to the concept of "Fight or Flight" in Psychology, which is the idea that a human being only has two choices when confronted with any threat: 1) to stay and fight it out and WIN in order to reduce the stress presented, or 2) to run away and ESCAPE to reduce the stress presented.
@Ko252 Of course this concept has to do with Diplomacy, because in Diplomacy, you can either be aggressive or concussive, which is similar to "Fight or Flight".
@ttsux13 There is difference between being aggressive and fighting. It is like saying; to play the guitar aggressively, is similar to smashing it into pieces.
@Ko252 And that's the beauty of the invention of the languages, English language to be specific in this case, words can be used to describe many different things or objects in many different ways and forms, so the example of "Aggressive guitar playing" you are given does not relate to the topic we are discuss here, the term "Aggressive" I used in here, is to describe the the form of "War of aggression" in this case, of the Military science, and the Psychology I have mention before.
@sgtbadasss For freedom? Right. So says al quida. How was the cold-war ever a fight for peace? The Iraq- war had nothing to do with oil, right? If the US are so much against dictatorship, then why the hell did you guys support Saddam in the first place? Why did you create al quida and taliban in the first place? Why you guys support Mujarraf? Why do you guys support Karzai?
@sgtbadasss And the US dont? Who is the most feisty country in the world? The Korea-war, Vietnam-war, Cold-War, war in Somalia, Iraq 1+2, Afghanistan, etc. People die.
Canada is not Angel country anymore. Our violent crimes equals or surpass american stats, especially when you look at our cities. Too bad for you american anti-guns, you cannot use us anymore as an example, we suck. Even better, since we don't have access to guns to defend ourselves against armed criminals, we're told by our government to surrender and not to resist when attacked. If someone wants that kind of life, just call your local canadian embassy.
Submitted for your recognition, The Nation of Switzerland. Where Every Male Citizen between the ages of 18 and 34 is a member of the Swiss Armed Forces. It is a REQUIREMENT for a weapon to be in Every Home with a ready Supply of Ammunition. This Nation has not Been to War in 496 years and the Homicide rates are low they do not even keep Statistics. Your Inherent Violence theory Is invalid.
Whilst it is true that people kill people, giving every impulse-driven person a gun would make them potentially homicidal. If someone is pissed off one day for what even reason, provided with a gun he could loose control of himself and go on a killing rampage WITHTOUT any initial intention of killing anyone.
@Spencer7631 would you rather have an angry man with a gun, or without a gun? A desperate man with or without a gun? Your statement would make guns more available and increase crime.
@Spencer7631 Nah I prefer things the way they are; In Britain, it's hard to get guns. They're hard to get, and require balls and brains, but not impossible; Meaning chavs never get a hold of them.
@PeakOfAwesome In Britain there is more petty crimes then there is in America. Because if people have guns other people are more than likely going to stay the hell away, a lock is only an honest man's barricade a gun is a barricade for everyone. I don't mean any hate towards you or Britain I'm just stating common sense
@AmericanGuys100 That in and of itself has absolutely no significance on the arm/disarm argument. Don't get me wrong; I personally agree that non-criminals should have the right to arm themselves. Its just that there's no causal data to support either side of the argument, and there never will be (unless a country intentionally arms/disarms to see what happens to their crime rate). We're welcome to our opinion, but no one can say we're right or wrong. Even us.
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people". Hmm. Well the guns help, don't they? I mean I think you'd do more damage with an AK47 than just running round pointing your finger at things saying "bang, bang".
@KampfKiewi245 If you make a law banning weapons only the people that follow laws will be weaponless making them vulnerable, Plus it will create a new source of income for the underground as people will have to go to them for weapons to protect themselves. Ive never understood how people think making new laws will hurt crime, it only creates new avenues of profit for them and makes more people resort to them, Only the lawful are ever stopped by laws.
Not really, I mean if you give anyone (including law abiding citizens) weapons, provided that they're pissed off that they, the gun's they're holding would make them potentially homicidal. It's the same reason why you don't give children chainsaws to play around with, because they cannot control their impulses.
@eier I think he may just be making an example contrasting his different sales. I don't think what he says pertains exactly to what's happening on camera. I could be wrong tho. Cause remember the movie is him reflecting on what happened.
@ToniMontana4000 It sounds like they're speaking Mandarin, so Taiwan would make sense, although I wouldn't call them fascist. Burma maybe, since it borders China?
nope, some kind of spend shells, but the angle won't let you jugde size too well - but since they don't appear to necked down and are tall judged by their base diameter they are probably artillery shells.
well, look up 75mm pack howitzers like the M116 or simialar guns and how their cases look like. Slightly necked down cases which about 1ft long like the M5A1 look just the same as those in the video.
besides, why should they have silencers in the first place and if, why dumping them in the sand like like spend shells?
@Sideshowbobx Fundamentalist groups have been known to bury weapons in the sand. I've heard stories where operatives in Hizbullah or Fatah talked about burying arsenals of Katyusha rockets like they're tulip bulbs.
So, what's your point - these are expended shells with no further use for now, seen here in Lord of War. If I dig in a weapon stash I will take preparation to protect my arms from the eliments, so I won't dump them straight into the sand.
And Katyushas, as this is a 90% BP fuel to 10% warhead ratio design, it takes volume to gain little effect - it is only logic that they stockpile this junk. And it a sorry match to what the IDF stockpiles in Israel, so stop the weeping.
@flikkerlicht care to back that up with some facts? If its true why are people who lawfully carry a concealed weapon 50 times LESS likely to commit ANY crime than a person who does not have a CCW permit? quit with the bogus emotional response "ewww guns are bad" and you might make it in this world
@flikkerlicht do you know the old saying? When guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns.
Britain is a fine example for this. You can be sentenced and jailed for using a fake gun to scare away some burglar. Criminals don't give a fuck. They will have guns and since they know for sure that who ever they are robbing, whose ever house they are breaking in, there's no gun. And they are increasingly willing to use it.
@Deadman1709 I understand your way of view, and i'm not going to argue with you.
I'm just saying when sombody has a gun... why do they have it? to kill, that's why guns are invented.
wether it's in self defence or to commit a crime...
When you don't have a gun you can't shoot anybody and nobody would have to think "I need a weapon for self defence 'cause he has one" you need a gun because everyone else has. it would be better (and I know it's impossible) when NO ONE has a gun.
@flikkerlicht and here's a simple mind game. What room would you like to be in?
Room 1: 30 people. None can legally have a gun but one or two actually have one. However, you don't know who has the gun or will he ever pull out the gun and shoot it. The police is about 5 minutes away. If that SOB actually want to start shooting .... well SHTF.
Room 2: 30 people. Some of them have gun and everyone knows this for a fact. Would you like be the first shooter?
@Deadman1709 You are right, i rather have room 2 also, but i'd much rather be in room three with no guns at all.
I know thats hippie- ish but yeah it's the ideal world. the only reason why guns aren't banned completely is because they are invented.
from that point it was impossible to get rid of them again. but I'm still against it, even tough I know they will always exist. I'm just not going to be a part of it. the only way to make it as save as possible is to keep regulation.
@flikkerlicht since room 3 is non-existent. It's much better to have room 2.
And it's worthless to actually try to a achieve a room 3 situation. You will certainly end up in a room 1 situation.
And finally to top the point, if I really want to kill somebody, there are many many ways to kill him. I don't' like to use gun to kill someone: it's loud, noisy, with tons of evidence. I think it's too sloppy. A simple drug overdose or throw him of a 10 story building then scream "SUICIDE!".
@Deadman1709 I know room 3 will unfortunately never exist...
and i know people will still kill eahother, and I know room 2 is the better option and the only way to keep it (rather) safe. But all of this will never change the fact I kind of hate guns and that I want a room 3.
And I'm sure if there were no guns, there would be less murders. so when the regulation tightens I would be quite happy it did :) .
@flikkerlicht Two problems: One, guns aren't the only way to kill people (did you see the video of the Japanese politician being assassinated by being run through with a sword?) and two, guns are like drugs. Just because they're highly regulated and often illegal doesn't mean they're going away.
People who want guns will find ways to get them, period. Someone who actually follows the law winds up getting screwed because the criminal has a gun and they don't.
@hoax4254 not necesarrily. I mean UK has very strict gun laws, and few gun murders. Canada has somewhat restrictive gun laws and very few murders. But state laws in the US vary drastically, and we have a ton of murders.
It is far from a black and white issue on either side for total regulation and for those for de regulation. The key to reducing gun violence is not to reduce guns, but to change the moral character of individuals.
@SuperBooyah123 While GUN deaths might go down, have a look at the statistics for other forms of homicide.
Anyway, I agree with what you're saying overall. The problem isn't guns or a lack thereof, but it's also EXTREMELY hard to change someone's moral character, and it would simply be impossible on a large scale. What really needs to be addressed are the underlying social and socioeconomic issues that cause violence of this type. Look at the poverty rates in the US and % of pop. in prison.
Everyone says that. Until they've seen a crossfire. Or been in a situation where friend and foe wasn't easily distinguished (as in, a fight where not everybody is wearing their team's uniform)
When arming everybody, if that distinction isn't perfectly clear, and if just one person doesn't pay attention to line of fire or potential ricochets, you've got a catastrophe on your hands that's going to spiral into a bloodbath.
@flikkerlicht care to back that up with some facts? If its true why are people who lawfully carry a concealed weapon 50 times LESS likely to commit ANY crime than a person who does not have a CCW permit? quit with the bogus emotional response "ewww guns are bad" and you might make it in this world
If you want to take guns away from anyone you should take them away from police and military. Guns and uniforms where the leading cause of unnatural death in the 20th century.
for me what i took from this movie is that for all the bluster and worrying over nuclear weapons, honestly day-to-day life in 3rd world u are more likely to be killed by landmines, small arms fire, and machetes.
@crazy4sian ironicaly, its true. manny gun dealers did not want to sell osama, bechose he was know to cheat. allso ultimate irony is that when soviet union fought with al qaida, usa armed the terrorist groups, including al qaida.
@gooddarkjedi Well yes and no at the time it was the Mujahadeen who our still the allies of the coalition but the Taliban was part of the Mujahadeen who broke way and now are ultimatley fighting againest the US with there weapons.
@gooddarkjedi it was the whole my enemy enemy is my friend deals at the time the soviets were our enemy so the groups and the US had a common ground.we did it before at WW2 before the war the US was still kindof iffy about the soviets but since we had common ground against hitler they became allies just for the war
@gooddarkjedi do you mean mujahideen? Im sure the the CIA never sent weapons to the islamic foreign voulenteer units..and only to the mujahideen fighters..since the islamic mercenraies had their own money..?
@gooddarkjedi Wrong. The fact that you have 24 upvotes proves that the average YouTube viewer is a child who doesn't know shit.
al-Qaida didn't exist until AFTER the Soviets abandoned Afghanistan. How could they? Osama recruited entirely from Muj who had nowhere to go. They had no real power until the early 90s, after the Soviet Union had already collapsed.
You seem to be an expert at the Internet. Try using it as a source of information instead of merely a source of gay porn, you stupid fuck
@gooddarkjedi actually you are partly right and wrong and this is something many people get confused with. Firstly the Mujahideen, not al-Quaeda, were the rebels fighting the soviets as depicted in the movie. Osama did belong to the group fighting the soviets and recieved US arms along with many other fighters, including Ahmed Sha Masud who would later fight the Taliban and al-Queada in the 90's civil war. US backed Taliban and al-Queada 5 years later against Masud, not the soviets.
The Russian and Chinese government support and supply weapons to dictators like Muammar Gaddafi, Omar al-Bashir, Hugo Chavez, Bashar al-Assad, Than Shwe, Idi Amin, Kim Sung il, Kim Jong il, Fidel Castro, Mao Zedong, & other dictators you supply them weapons. Dictators are far more worst than terrorist. So your word mean-less.
That is real funny because the US government has a long history of propping up repressive regimes, the ones in the Phillipines, the one at home with the Japenese internment camps, the support for the Saudi dictatorship, the Sha of Iran, the military dictatorship in Pakistan, Bahrain, Yemen, the numerous African dictators. It is the pot calling the kettle black.
No American should ever die for the borders of another country, we should defend America, not provoke attacks.
@RyanR3volution Don't forget overthrowing democratically elected regimes in Iran and (attempting to do so) in Nicaragua. Its little wonder why the US ain't exactly that popular, they step on people and expect them to be grateful for it.
@lorrr55 It sure would. The people convicted of violent crimes would kill all those convicted of non-violent crimes. Murderers for example would mow down people doing time for computer-related crimes, possession of pot or not paying alimony. Great idea!
@aarrcchhoonntt well maybe there should be a system that seperates the murderers from those who've commited a petty crime... oh wait there already is.
@ste887 Man, use your head. Don't reply with a stupid comment like that. What he means is that a gun is simply a tool and an inanimate object and only a person can control it. Yes, the gun is a tool made for the purpose of killing but it is a tool nontheless. Unless theres some big toast conspiracy where toast was given free will and an overwhelming directive to toast bread then I don't think your argument holds any water.
Fantastic movie!
JasonVladimir 3 months ago
我比較喜歡打JJ
gabl8a89 3 months ago
Music compliments the monologue nicely.
viewer3412 5 months ago 3
Who are the fascists that were buying communist munitions? Can't really think of any right-wing groups that were based in East/Southeast Asia during the mid-1970's.
ThePyro3825 5 months ago
Ja ja ja ja ja ja j aj aj aja ja ...
Trigger Happy??
JA JA JA JA AJ AJ AJ AJA AJ AJA AJ
SrDonCosmo 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
1:05 thats the sound of how much money you're saving by switching to AK
crysis90war 7 months ago
song?
Amstaf777 8 months ago
who where he selling to when he was stopped by the chinese?
Timb0NZ 8 months ago
@Timb0NZ i heard that the there are KMT leftovers in southeast asia that are far-right enough to be considered facists. than again the world isnt free from facists at all, tribal warefare exists on some phillipeano islands and im sure there are ethnic cleansings in africa (rewanda)
powereater 6 months ago
@Timb0NZ North Korea
Tigerman1138 6 months ago
"I'm kind of trigger happy."
LOL
aznrogerazn 9 months ago
@sgtbadasss You do, obviously. Or else you had stop writing a long time ago. Anyhow, I dont want to use more time to educate a fool as yourself, so dont bother to write back. I am done with you.
Ko252 9 months ago
@sgtbadasss If you dont, then stop writing, retardo.
Ko252 9 months ago
@sgtbadasss Of course this is a fact. Like in this movie, the US has always involved itself with other people affairs, funding wars in several places. One example is; operation TPAJAX conducted in Iran in late 1950's, where you guys got rid of a democratically elected leader. This is an issue mentioned by sen. Ron Paul, also. If I am not making any sense, I recommend you to actually read your foreign military history.
Ko252 9 months ago
@sgtbadasss " I don't even know what you want." That doesnt supprise me at all. After all, you havnt exactly displayed high level of intelligence. Blaming the free world? First of all, you arnt that free, but I guess it is easier to see this when you arnt blind for everything else. Second of all, I am not blaming, but clearifying the facts, that you so conviently have closed your eyes for. Take it or leave it, it doesnt matter. Over and out.
Ko252 9 months ago
@sgtbadasss No, you dont. You have shown grand delusion, as well as misinformation. I guess O'reiley is the one to blame for that. The sad part is, the things mentioned above isnt even classified as "conspiracy theory", because it is a blunt facts. That makes you retarded, when you dont comprehend this. Uneducated? Funny, when it comes from a retard with the nickname "sgtbadasss". What are you trying to say? That you cannot run a farm and have responsibilities, without being a redneck?
Ko252 9 months ago
@sgtbadasss And the worst part? You are commenting on a movie you havnt understand at all. That is ust sorry, but as expected from an redneck idiot, as yourself.
Ko252 9 months ago
@sgtbadasss Osama bin Laden didnt create al quida. I have my fact corrects, but you dont. That the problem with only relying to Bill O'reiley on having an ass for a brain. It was never for freedom. You are like the leader of the free world? You dont even have freedom yourself, especially after 9/11. Forgot about the patriotic act? And you are broke. China owns all of your debt. Mujarraf wasnt elected democratically, but seized power through the military. And Karzai are corrupt as fuck.
Ko252 9 months ago
@sgtbadasss Wow. You are really brain dead, arnt you? 1) The US (George Bush sr. especially) supported Saddam to power. Why? Because you didnt like the Shah in Iran. The reason to go over there was never to save his own people, but for WMD, which was falsified. Second, why didnt you take him down decades ago, when he gassed the Qurds? 2) You did create Al quida. Why? Because the could fight the Soviet in the cold-war. That is well known fact.
Ko252 9 months ago
@Ko252 1) you are right.
Partly true. We had sold WMD's to them in the past, so there was a reason to believe that they still had them.
We didn't take him down, because there was nothing to gain from it. People die all the time, it's not like the qurds were the only opressed people in the world.
2) We didn't create Al Qaeda. They were formed in retaliation to american influences in the middle east, especially oil drilling in Saudi Arabia. We supplied the mujahideen which later became taliban
revolution94ful 9 months ago
@revolution94ful Still had them? The point was that he made new ones. And seriously, who havnt you guys sold weapons to?
You did more than just supply the mujahideen. You trained them. This ramified into taliban, which further ramified into al qaeda.
Ko252 9 months ago
@Ko252 The Taliban never became Al Qaeda. The only thing the Taliban did for Al Qaeda was to be a state sponsor. There were members that were once mujahideen, but not all of Al Qaeda were ex mujahideen.They were completely different entities. I keep getting the feeling that you are asserting that the taliban created Al Qaeda, which they didn't. If you are trying to say that some members from the Taliban JOINED Al Qaeda, than i agree with you.
revolution94ful 9 months ago
@Ko252 It was british intelligence that said Saddam attempted to buy uranium from Niger, not american intelligence. Besides, even if Saddam didn't have "WMD"s, he still had munitions that violated UN security council resolutions 686, and 687. Which were the cease fire agreements that ended the Iraq -Kuwait conflict. By that standard the US had the right to invade Iraq regardless.
revolution94ful 9 months ago
@revolution94ful "It was british intelligence that said Saddam attempted to buy uranium from Niger, not american intelligence." Yes, but that wasnt the issue. It was a statement by the US ,that Saddam did have WMD that started it all. Further on, if Saddam had munitions that violated the UN security council resolutions, it should have been the UN, and not the US that should had "invaded" Iraq. It has always been about the oil and war (since the us the depended on both).
Ko252 8 months ago
@Ko252 "if Saddam had munitions that violated the UN security council resolutions, it should have been the UN, and not the US that should had "invaded" Iraq." The UN? The UN is historically incompetent. Right now in Libya, the US is providing the most support. Even if Ghaddafi is not deposed, it's not like there was a better chance with the help from other countries. Most of europe is contributing hardly anything. The only valuable ally the US had in Iraq was the UK. It's not much different now
revolution94ful 8 months ago
@revolution94ful Yes, the UN is historically incompetent (very much because of the security council). Historically speaking, the US has been involved in almost every single war the last 80 years. Your country is like war machine. Without these wars, you cannot survive. Neither economically, nor morally. You are talking about history; who supported Saddam in the first place? Who supported and trained Taliban? Who intervened and removed the leadership in Iran in the 50's?
Ko252 8 months ago
@Ko252 unfortunately, us, my friend. for some reason we have the urge to meddle in everyone's affairs. sort of like spreading the seeds of war
BarryProvolone 8 months ago
@BarryProvolone I know. And who is paying for this, with blood and money? The average American.
Ko252 8 months ago
@BarryProvolone we hate as much as you do
BarryProvolone 8 months ago
@Ko252 That's absolutely normal thing in diplomacy - friends become enemies as soon as they turn weapons
(ironically bought by you) against you. Or more precisely - not friends, but enemies of your enemy. US supported Taliban/Saddam/whatever only because Taliban/Saddam/whatever was fighting against someone US didn't like. And today, enemy of US enemy simply became enemy of US from religion reasons. That's international diplomacy.
RayPall 6 months ago
@RayPall War is the opposite of diplomacy, and what you're describing isnt diplomacy, but politics.
Ko252 6 months ago
@Ko252 Well, actually, war is the last solution of diplomacy for human being.
ttsux13 5 months ago
@ttsux13 How can war be a solution for diplomacy? It is more the solution for lack of diplomacy.
Ko252 5 months ago
@Ko252 Because the concept of human nature is complicated, there is good and evil in everyone of us, such as love, compassion, tolerance are being natures of goodness, and examples of hatred, jealousy, intolerance are being the natures of evil, so mankind tended to solve problems violently when we could not get them through peaceful and intellectual and reasonable processes.
ttsux13 5 months ago
@Ko252 The idea is also related to the concept of "Fight or Flight" in Psychology, which is the idea that a human being only has two choices when confronted with any threat: 1) to stay and fight it out and WIN in order to reduce the stress presented, or 2) to run away and ESCAPE to reduce the stress presented.
ttsux13 5 months ago
@ttsux13 What the hell has fight or flight anything to do with diplomacy?
Ko252 5 months ago
@Ko252 Of course this concept has to do with Diplomacy, because in Diplomacy, you can either be aggressive or concussive, which is similar to "Fight or Flight".
ttsux13 5 months ago
@ttsux13 There is difference between being aggressive and fighting. It is like saying; to play the guitar aggressively, is similar to smashing it into pieces.
Ko252 5 months ago
@Ko252 And that's the beauty of the invention of the languages, English language to be specific in this case, words can be used to describe many different things or objects in many different ways and forms, so the example of "Aggressive guitar playing" you are given does not relate to the topic we are discuss here, the term "Aggressive" I used in here, is to describe the the form of "War of aggression" in this case, of the Military science, and the Psychology I have mention before.
ttsux13 5 months ago
@revolution94ful Mabye coz the decision to bomb Libya was fakking retarded. Good thing you dont blame UN for your stupid decisions thew. ;)
Osiwaw 7 months ago
@sgtbadasss For freedom? Right. So says al quida. How was the cold-war ever a fight for peace? The Iraq- war had nothing to do with oil, right? If the US are so much against dictatorship, then why the hell did you guys support Saddam in the first place? Why did you create al quida and taliban in the first place? Why you guys support Mujarraf? Why do you guys support Karzai?
Ko252 9 months ago
@sgtbadasss And the US dont? Who is the most feisty country in the world? The Korea-war, Vietnam-war, Cold-War, war in Somalia, Iraq 1+2, Afghanistan, etc. People die.
Ko252 9 months ago
Canada is not Angel country anymore. Our violent crimes equals or surpass american stats, especially when you look at our cities. Too bad for you american anti-guns, you cannot use us anymore as an example, we suck. Even better, since we don't have access to guns to defend ourselves against armed criminals, we're told by our government to surrender and not to resist when attacked. If someone wants that kind of life, just call your local canadian embassy.
shawn13ca 11 months ago 2
BANG! *Ka-ching!* BANG! *Ka-ching!* BANG! *Ka-ching!*
RavieKulay 1 year ago 65
@RavieKulay imagine if they actually made that sound!
c00lb0y10 10 months ago
@c00lb0y10 They do in the minds of people that sell bullets!
zildjianuo7 10 months ago
@RavieKulay bullets = profit
ArbiterMike666 8 months ago
lmao happy trigger :D
azx1995azx 1 year ago
Submitted for your recognition, The Nation of Switzerland. Where Every Male Citizen between the ages of 18 and 34 is a member of the Swiss Armed Forces. It is a REQUIREMENT for a weapon to be in Every Home with a ready Supply of Ammunition. This Nation has not Been to War in 496 years and the Homicide rates are low they do not even keep Statistics. Your Inherent Violence theory Is invalid.
Arderas811 1 year ago
does anyone know who the facists were? Burmese? chinese?
aussieblackhawk123 1 year ago
@aussieblackhawk123 Or could be the Khmer Rouge of Cambodia.
ttsux13 5 months ago
@ttsux13 they do have the darkish skin....i think your right... thanks! forgot about that fag pol pot
aussieblackhawk123 5 months ago
That AK fired off like 90+ rounds.... Thats some magazine he's got! Not that I'm complaining, I can think of few sounds more pleasing.
CullTheLivingFlower 1 year ago
i supplied every army but the salvation army
651555666 1 year ago
I wish my AK went CHA CHING
geiswiteb 1 year ago
Whilst it is true that people kill people, giving every impulse-driven person a gun would make them potentially homicidal. If someone is pissed off one day for what even reason, provided with a gun he could loose control of himself and go on a killing rampage WITHTOUT any initial intention of killing anyone.
dycarbon1 1 year ago
@Spencer7631 would you rather have an angry man with a gun, or without a gun? A desperate man with or without a gun? Your statement would make guns more available and increase crime.
DragomirJtac 1 year ago
@DragomirJtac
Agreed!
dycarbon1 1 year ago
Comment removed
jribs 1 year ago
@Spencer7631 Nah I prefer things the way they are; In Britain, it's hard to get guns. They're hard to get, and require balls and brains, but not impossible; Meaning chavs never get a hold of them.
PeakOfAwesome 1 year ago
@PeakOfAwesome In Britain there is more petty crimes then there is in America. Because if people have guns other people are more than likely going to stay the hell away, a lock is only an honest man's barricade a gun is a barricade for everyone. I don't mean any hate towards you or Britain I'm just stating common sense
AmericanGuys100 1 year ago
@AmericanGuys100 That in and of itself has absolutely no significance on the arm/disarm argument. Don't get me wrong; I personally agree that non-criminals should have the right to arm themselves. Its just that there's no causal data to support either side of the argument, and there never will be (unless a country intentionally arms/disarms to see what happens to their crime rate). We're welcome to our opinion, but no one can say we're right or wrong. Even us.
Lusankya 1 year ago
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people". Hmm. Well the guns help, don't they? I mean I think you'd do more damage with an AK47 than just running round pointing your finger at things saying "bang, bang".
mankytoes 1 year ago
@mankytoes fucking pacifist
ieatcement 1 year ago
weapons don't kill people
People kill people... ehh with weapons.
And what is a weapon made for? For killing people...
KampfKiewi245 1 year ago
@KampfKiewi245 If you make a law banning weapons only the people that follow laws will be weaponless making them vulnerable, Plus it will create a new source of income for the underground as people will have to go to them for weapons to protect themselves. Ive never understood how people think making new laws will hurt crime, it only creates new avenues of profit for them and makes more people resort to them, Only the lawful are ever stopped by laws.
nighthade1 1 year ago
@nighthade1
Not really, I mean if you give anyone (including law abiding citizens) weapons, provided that they're pissed off that they, the gun's they're holding would make them potentially homicidal. It's the same reason why you don't give children chainsaws to play around with, because they cannot control their impulses.
dycarbon1 1 year ago
Kalashnikov(AKA47) making ZING ZING ZING rocks
seshade 1 year ago
hehe gun make money sound
mercyfulbill 1 year ago
@eier I think he may just be making an example contrasting his different sales. I don't think what he says pertains exactly to what's happening on camera. I could be wrong tho. Cause remember the movie is him reflecting on what happened.
Arialace201 1 year ago
the facist asian country is ?
ToniMontana4000 1 year ago
@ToniMontana4000 It sounds like they're speaking Mandarin, so Taiwan would make sense, although I wouldn't call them fascist. Burma maybe, since it borders China?
eier 1 year ago
@eier
Borneo ?
ToniMontana4000 1 year ago
@eier It's supposed to be Borneo...I think
victorrain 1 year ago
$katshiing$, $katshiing$, $katshiing$ ...
xD
daylyskater 1 year ago
the guy at the end who is firing the type 56-1 at what is he firing or he is just testing his new toy ?
and that is a uzi or a mini uzi ? and black Muslims ?
ToniMontana4000 1 year ago
@ToniMontana4000 that's an Israeli mini UZI sold to the muslims ..(notice that MANY muslim are black)
pablytuzz 1 year ago
@pablytuzz
Nah, thats a normal UZI without the stock.
timebmb757 1 year ago
Comment removed
victorrain 1 year ago
He's probably firing at Russians or a rival tribe. It's an Uzi. Yes they are black Muslims, probably Sudan, Somalia, etc.
victorrain 1 year ago
Cool!
numba1stunna4269 1 year ago
@Spencer7631
Correction, only sane people (with preferably more intellect than a monkey) should be allowed firearms.
rock3tcat 1 year ago
so the things burried in the dirt, are they silencers?
AHighPwner 1 year ago
@AHighPwner
nope, some kind of spend shells, but the angle won't let you jugde size too well - but since they don't appear to necked down and are tall judged by their base diameter they are probably artillery shells.
Sideshowbobx 1 year ago
@Sideshowbobx they are way to skinny to be artiliarry shells. they gotta be silencers or something else.
AHighPwner 1 year ago
@AHighPwner
well, look up 75mm pack howitzers like the M116 or simialar guns and how their cases look like. Slightly necked down cases which about 1ft long like the M5A1 look just the same as those in the video.
besides, why should they have silencers in the first place and if, why dumping them in the sand like like spend shells?
Sideshowbobx 1 year ago
@Sideshowbobx Fundamentalist groups have been known to bury weapons in the sand. I've heard stories where operatives in Hizbullah or Fatah talked about burying arsenals of Katyusha rockets like they're tulip bulbs.
victorrain 1 year ago
@victorrain
So, what's your point - these are expended shells with no further use for now, seen here in Lord of War. If I dig in a weapon stash I will take preparation to protect my arms from the eliments, so I won't dump them straight into the sand.
And Katyushas, as this is a 90% BP fuel to 10% warhead ratio design, it takes volume to gain little effect - it is only logic that they stockpile this junk. And it a sorry match to what the IDF stockpiles in Israel, so stop the weeping.
Sideshowbobx 1 year ago
@Sideshowbobx No point at all. I'm not weeping, just saying.
victorrain 1 year ago
the best things in life for free :-)
pawnmaniak 1 year ago
@Spencer7631
if people have guns they are more likely to commit a felony...
guns only have one purpose and that is to kill...
it's your right to have your opinion but i'm just saying mine
flikkerlicht 1 year ago
@flikkerlicht care to back that up with some facts? If its true why are people who lawfully carry a concealed weapon 50 times LESS likely to commit ANY crime than a person who does not have a CCW permit? quit with the bogus emotional response "ewww guns are bad" and you might make it in this world
defcon6280 1 year ago
@defcon6280 Having a gun in your reach gives an extra opportuninty to use it for crime or murder.
If you don't have a gun, you can't shoot someone.
if you are really mad at someone the urge to use violence is bigger and it becomes more dangerous when that person has a gun.
And I'm just talking about HAVING a gun, not about legal permits.
Having a gun is just a gateway to possibly commiting a crime in the future, it creates an opportunity.
(what is your source?)
flikkerlicht 1 year ago
@flikkerlicht do you know the old saying? When guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns.
Britain is a fine example for this. You can be sentenced and jailed for using a fake gun to scare away some burglar. Criminals don't give a fuck. They will have guns and since they know for sure that who ever they are robbing, whose ever house they are breaking in, there's no gun. And they are increasingly willing to use it.
Deadman1709 1 year ago
@Deadman1709 I understand your way of view, and i'm not going to argue with you.
I'm just saying when sombody has a gun... why do they have it? to kill, that's why guns are invented.
wether it's in self defence or to commit a crime...
When you don't have a gun you can't shoot anybody and nobody would have to think "I need a weapon for self defence 'cause he has one" you need a gun because everyone else has. it would be better (and I know it's impossible) when NO ONE has a gun.
flikkerlicht 1 year ago
@flikkerlicht and here's a simple mind game. What room would you like to be in?
Room 1: 30 people. None can legally have a gun but one or two actually have one. However, you don't know who has the gun or will he ever pull out the gun and shoot it. The police is about 5 minutes away. If that SOB actually want to start shooting .... well SHTF.
Room 2: 30 people. Some of them have gun and everyone knows this for a fact. Would you like be the first shooter?
I would pick Room 2 any day.
Deadman1709 1 year ago
@Deadman1709 You are right, i rather have room 2 also, but i'd much rather be in room three with no guns at all.
I know thats hippie- ish but yeah it's the ideal world. the only reason why guns aren't banned completely is because they are invented.
from that point it was impossible to get rid of them again. but I'm still against it, even tough I know they will always exist. I'm just not going to be a part of it. the only way to make it as save as possible is to keep regulation.
flikkerlicht 1 year ago
@flikkerlicht since room 3 is non-existent. It's much better to have room 2.
And it's worthless to actually try to a achieve a room 3 situation. You will certainly end up in a room 1 situation.
And finally to top the point, if I really want to kill somebody, there are many many ways to kill him. I don't' like to use gun to kill someone: it's loud, noisy, with tons of evidence. I think it's too sloppy. A simple drug overdose or throw him of a 10 story building then scream "SUICIDE!".
Deadman1709 1 year ago
@Deadman1709 I know room 3 will unfortunately never exist...
and i know people will still kill eahother, and I know room 2 is the better option and the only way to keep it (rather) safe. But all of this will never change the fact I kind of hate guns and that I want a room 3.
And I'm sure if there were no guns, there would be less murders. so when the regulation tightens I would be quite happy it did :) .
flikkerlicht 1 year ago
@flikkerlicht Two problems: One, guns aren't the only way to kill people (did you see the video of the Japanese politician being assassinated by being run through with a sword?) and two, guns are like drugs. Just because they're highly regulated and often illegal doesn't mean they're going away.
People who want guns will find ways to get them, period. Someone who actually follows the law winds up getting screwed because the criminal has a gun and they don't.
hoax4254 1 year ago
@hoax4254 not necesarrily. I mean UK has very strict gun laws, and few gun murders. Canada has somewhat restrictive gun laws and very few murders. But state laws in the US vary drastically, and we have a ton of murders.
It is far from a black and white issue on either side for total regulation and for those for de regulation. The key to reducing gun violence is not to reduce guns, but to change the moral character of individuals.
SuperBooyah123 1 year ago
@SuperBooyah123 While GUN deaths might go down, have a look at the statistics for other forms of homicide.
Anyway, I agree with what you're saying overall. The problem isn't guns or a lack thereof, but it's also EXTREMELY hard to change someone's moral character, and it would simply be impossible on a large scale. What really needs to be addressed are the underlying social and socioeconomic issues that cause violence of this type. Look at the poverty rates in the US and % of pop. in prison.
hoax4254 1 year ago
@flikkerlicht I guess what I'm trying to say is that the world is a pretty screwed up place, but we shouldn't make it any worse than it already is.
hoax4254 1 year ago
@Deadman1709
Everyone says that. Until they've seen a crossfire. Or been in a situation where friend and foe wasn't easily distinguished (as in, a fight where not everybody is wearing their team's uniform)
When arming everybody, if that distinction isn't perfectly clear, and if just one person doesn't pay attention to line of fire or potential ricochets, you've got a catastrophe on your hands that's going to spiral into a bloodbath.
CorporateG0th 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@flikkerlicht care to back that up with some facts? If its true why are people who lawfully carry a concealed weapon 50 times LESS likely to commit ANY crime than a person who does not have a CCW permit? quit with the bogus emotional response "ewww guns are bad" and you might make it in this world
defcon6280 1 year ago
If you want to take guns away from anyone you should take them away from police and military. Guns and uniforms where the leading cause of unnatural death in the 20th century.
bmays002 1 year ago 2
for me what i took from this movie is that for all the bluster and worrying over nuclear weapons, honestly day-to-day life in 3rd world u are more likely to be killed by landmines, small arms fire, and machetes.
Kingdom007Hearts 1 year ago
Guns don't kill people, I do.
safwan94 1 year ago
@Spencer7631 Move to Texas. Wish granted.
Elkotend 1 year ago
@Spencer7631 what if they commit a felony after they get the gun i.e shoot someone
KTtunstall89 1 year ago 2
guns like the ak-47 have killed 3000 americans since 1990 abortionists have killed 4000 americans since yesterday
ToniMontana4000 1 year ago
@ToniMontana4000 oh shit. that was a clever comment i hav to admit
TheSkankyBanana 1 year ago
"I never sold to Osama Bin Laden; not on any moral grounds. Back then he was always bouncing checks."
That line gets me all the time.
crazy4sian 1 year ago 40
@crazy4sian ironicaly, its true. manny gun dealers did not want to sell osama, bechose he was know to cheat. allso ultimate irony is that when soviet union fought with al qaida, usa armed the terrorist groups, including al qaida.
gooddarkjedi 1 year ago 35
@gooddarkjedi Well yes and no at the time it was the Mujahadeen who our still the allies of the coalition but the Taliban was part of the Mujahadeen who broke way and now are ultimatley fighting againest the US with there weapons.
thebritish25 11 months ago
@thebritish25 possibly the simplest and best way of explaining Afghanistan from 1980-2000
PaddyK293E 11 months ago
@gooddarkjedi it was the whole my enemy enemy is my friend deals at the time the soviets were our enemy so the groups and the US had a common ground.we did it before at WW2 before the war the US was still kindof iffy about the soviets but since we had common ground against hitler they became allies just for the war
lestat1591 10 months ago
@gooddarkjedi USA made al quida.
Ko252 9 months ago
@gooddarkjedi do you mean mujahideen? Im sure the the CIA never sent weapons to the islamic foreign voulenteer units..and only to the mujahideen fighters..since the islamic mercenraies had their own money..?
aussieblackhawk123 8 months ago
@gooddarkjedi Wrong. The fact that you have 24 upvotes proves that the average YouTube viewer is a child who doesn't know shit.
al-Qaida didn't exist until AFTER the Soviets abandoned Afghanistan. How could they? Osama recruited entirely from Muj who had nowhere to go. They had no real power until the early 90s, after the Soviet Union had already collapsed.
You seem to be an expert at the Internet. Try using it as a source of information instead of merely a source of gay porn, you stupid fuck
EntropicMisanthropic 7 months ago 27
@gooddarkjedi actually you are partly right and wrong and this is something many people get confused with. Firstly the Mujahideen, not al-Quaeda, were the rebels fighting the soviets as depicted in the movie. Osama did belong to the group fighting the soviets and recieved US arms along with many other fighters, including Ahmed Sha Masud who would later fight the Taliban and al-Queada in the 90's civil war. US backed Taliban and al-Queada 5 years later against Masud, not the soviets.
RyanRileyFilm 5 months ago
@RyanRileyFilm
The US gov is arming the Libyan rebels who are allied with Al Queda, it's all bullshit.
The US gov funds supposed enemies and supposed friends, all nonsense.
RyanR3volution 5 months ago
@RyanR3volution
The Russian and Chinese government support and supply weapons to dictators like Muammar Gaddafi, Omar al-Bashir, Hugo Chavez, Bashar al-Assad, Than Shwe, Idi Amin, Kim Sung il, Kim Jong il, Fidel Castro, Mao Zedong, & other dictators you supply them weapons. Dictators are far more worst than terrorist. So your word mean-less.
SilentEagles 3 months ago
@SilentEagles
That is real funny because the US government has a long history of propping up repressive regimes, the ones in the Phillipines, the one at home with the Japenese internment camps, the support for the Saudi dictatorship, the Sha of Iran, the military dictatorship in Pakistan, Bahrain, Yemen, the numerous African dictators. It is the pot calling the kettle black.
No American should ever die for the borders of another country, we should defend America, not provoke attacks.
RyanR3volution 3 months ago
@RyanR3volution Don't forget overthrowing democratically elected regimes in Iran and (attempting to do so) in Nicaragua. Its little wonder why the US ain't exactly that popular, they step on people and expect them to be grateful for it.
Significantpower 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RyanRileyFilm
The US gov is arming the Libyan rebels who are allied with Al Queda, it's all bullshit.
The US gov funds supposed enemies and supposed friends, all nonsense.
RyanR3volution 5 months ago
roflcopters at the ka ching
idk2say 1 year ago
Cha ching cha ching cha ching :D
ShaneFrakes 1 year ago
Muslim's invented Algebra I thought they'd be making guns by now, not buying them!
IMFDB 1 year ago
@IMFDB they didn't invent shit. greeks came up with algebra and geometry. arabs only gave us arabic numbers.
tubebellator 1 year ago
@Spencer7631 I think convicts should definately have guns in prison, it would clean out our society.
lorrr55 1 year ago 5
@lorrr55 AHHAA WOOOOO im right with ya there... might help us out of a recession if we didnt have to house thousands of dumb ass prisoners
Xominer 1 year ago
@lorrr55 It sure would. The people convicted of violent crimes would kill all those convicted of non-violent crimes. Murderers for example would mow down people doing time for computer-related crimes, possession of pot or not paying alimony. Great idea!
aarrcchhoonntt 1 year ago
@aarrcchhoonntt well maybe there should be a system that seperates the murderers from those who've commited a petty crime... oh wait there already is.
lorrr55 1 year ago
@lorrr55 they'd just kill the cops and get out
Nuggetams 11 months ago
@southsydney cash. guns. women.
davian911 1 year ago 2
@southsydney agreed. until we witness our guns killing children. then again, we coud always sell to people who don't kill children. lol.
davian911 1 year ago
@Spencer7631 everyone i know HAS guns...howcome you dont have any guns?
mrsinister03 1 year ago
thats what I want >:(
Nerwik 1 year ago
U.S.A go :D!
reptileboy9111 1 year ago
"Not on any moral grounds, he was always bouncing checks" haha. Love it.
skitsofrantic 1 year ago
what is the name in the backgound?
adriandragan 2 years ago
@adriandragan
The Flying Lizards - Money
lpolak77 1 year ago
I love that Slow Motion AK with cash register sounds part at the end
adriandragan 2 years ago 13
"I'm kind of trigger happy." XD
TheCrazyFinn 2 years ago 5
Yuri Orlov had mad game through this scene<3
xGirlPlay 2 years ago
When Yuri sells Communist made ammunition to facists in Borneo, one of the facist soldiers is seen manning an FN MAG-58.
ToniMontana4000 2 years ago
the weapons dont kill people
PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE
ToniMontana4000 2 years ago 76
@ToniMontana4000 People with small willys kill people.
flute4hire 1 year ago
@flute4hire Guns don't kill people, husbands who come home early do.
Meirstein 1 year ago
@ToniMontana4000 yeah but people don't realise how easy killing is when they have guns
freddykisback123 1 year ago
@ToniMontana4000
so if people kill people.
does this mean that toasters dont toast toast, so toast toasts toast?
ste887 1 year ago
@ste887 Man, use your head. Don't reply with a stupid comment like that. What he means is that a gun is simply a tool and an inanimate object and only a person can control it. Yes, the gun is a tool made for the purpose of killing but it is a tool nontheless. Unless theres some big toast conspiracy where toast was given free will and an overwhelming directive to toast bread then I don't think your argument holds any water.
kevinrocks2323 1 year ago
@ToniMontana4000
But guns sure do help.
qw56q 1 year ago
@qw56q better killed by a gun, then killed by bare hands...
NoelDeKiller 1 year ago
@NoelDeKiller How could that be prooven.
XXGDUBSXX 1 year ago
@ToniMontana4000 Weapons are a tool to kill people though. And it's actually the bullet that kills people when it comes to fire-arms.
SoldierTechnique 1 year ago
@SoldierTechnique you can beat a guy to death with a gun.
XXGDUBSXX 1 year ago
@XXGDUBSXX That's true.
SoldierTechnique 1 year ago
@ToniMontana4000
guns dont kill people, uh uh
ng416 1 year ago
@ToniMontana4000 and what do people use to kill other people?
mu5ic1 1 year ago
@mu5ic1 And who makes the things to kill other people ?
thebritish25 1 year ago 2
@thebritish25 beter, do they kill more easiley if they have such weapons?
mu5ic1 1 year ago
@mu5ic1 I'd probably use my hands.
I might strangle my victims, so they don't die that fast and painless.
or even better: I beat them up, so they're ought to bleed slowly to death, unable to scream, cause none of their rips ain't broken...
what I mean is dying by a bullet in your head is much more humane then most other possibillities.
daylyskater 1 year ago
@ToniMontana4000
Yeah you know ... I think the weapon helps.
kazath 1 year ago
@kazath
"if you wana make the job fast"
ToniMontana4000 1 year ago
@ToniMontana4000
weapons don't kill people, it is the dangerous minorities that do.
LokiG36 1 year ago