The GeekOh-Two Crew, OmeganautRegistered User, ClubPAregular
edited February 2008
Muhammad Ali is a terrorist.
The Geek on
BLM - ACAB
0
Options
HunterChemist with a heart of AuRegistered Userregular
edited February 2008
John Adams and George Washington were terrorists too. The King should have tortured the shit out of Ben Franklin until he told him where the others were hiding.
Did... did you just compare Adams, Washington, and Franklin to muslim extremists?
How do you think the British crown viewed them? Honestly.
How about their warfare tactics? Do you understand how war was supposed to be fought back then and how we basically said fuck that noise?
Yes, if the American War for Independence ocured today, I believe their would be news reports about Minutemen terrorists attacking convoys, Muskets of Mass Destruction, Improvised Rifled Firearms, and the fact that the King was quartering troops in private homes for freedom.
Seriously, battles back then were dumb as hell. I mean, how do people just stand there fully exposed and trade shots with the other side, taking musket and cannon fire all the dooda day. Dudes back then were either hardcore or amazingly dumb.
Seriously, battles back then were dumb as hell. I mean, how do people just stand there fully exposed and trade shots with the other side, taking musket and cannon fire all the dooda day. Dudes back then were either hardcore or amazingly dumb.
It's how gentlemen did war. You also never specifically targeted officers, took breaks for tea or bad weather, and the opposing generals were known to dine together to discuss potential surrenders. It was so civilized.
however, firearms back then were blindingly innacurate
so you actually had a better chance of surviving if you stood there, let the enemy fire at you, and then went to the back of the line to reload
Most of the Americans had rifles though, while their English or Hessian Mercenary opponents had smooth bore muskets. After some time, the leaders of the American forces decided to actually use that advantage. The rest is us winning.
however, firearms back then were blindingly innacurate
so you actually had a better chance of surviving if you stood there, let the enemy fire at you, and then went to the back of the line to reload
Most of the Americans had rifles though, while their English or Hessian Mercenary opponents had smooth bore muskets. After some time, the leaders of the American forces decided to actually use that advantage. The rest is us winning.
Wait a sec I thought Americans barely had any rifles, even for the regulars. I know militia almost exclusively used muskets (mostly because they were always thrown into the front lines) but even for trained military men rifles were saved for the few established sharpshooters
Javen on
0
Options
The GeekOh-Two Crew, OmeganautRegistered User, ClubPAregular
however, firearms back then were blindingly innacurate
so you actually had a better chance of surviving if you stood there, let the enemy fire at you, and then went to the back of the line to reload
Most of the Americans had rifles though, while their English or Hessian Mercenary opponents had smooth bore muskets. After some time, the leaders of the American forces decided to actually use that advantage. The rest is us winning.
I have here a book on the history of the military rifle and it says that rifles were rare on the American side (though the English had none) and the war was won by the conventional methods of the day. The English were still scared shit less of the American rifles though and considered them unfair and ungentlemenlike.
Peter Ebel on
Fuck off and die.
0
Options
HunterChemist with a heart of AuRegistered Userregular
however, firearms back then were blindingly innacurate
so you actually had a better chance of surviving if you stood there, let the enemy fire at you, and then went to the back of the line to reload
Most of the Americans had rifles though, while their English or Hessian Mercenary opponents had smooth bore muskets. After some time, the leaders of the American forces decided to actually use that advantage. The rest is us winning.
Wait a sec I thought Americans barely had any rifles, even for the regulars. I know militia almost exclusively used muskets (mostly because they were always thrown into the front lines) but even for trained military men rifles were saved for the few established sharpshooters
No, the frontiersmen often had rifles for hunting animals for food and skins (cash). Rifles were were common enough, it's just that they were usually custom worked and not massed produced by the standards of the times. Also, large standing armies didn't need rifles for long ranged battles because that not how you fought back then.
Because the American fighters were often regular people who supplied their own weapon, they brought their rifle. They weren't issued a gun by a government or king, because they didn't have one.
On average, a rifle from that time period had nearly a 3x range advantage. It took a bit for the colonists to decide winning was more important than going toe to toe with the English like a good little soldier should. After that, it was ambush city meets picking you off across the field like retards.
I still have to say there's quite a jump between guerrilla tactics intended to defeat or route a standing military and large-scale attacks against civilian targets.
Americans had more rifles than the Brits, but they were still fairly rare. The British actually had a professional army, their average soldier was better equipped, and they had a much more ready access to artillery and naval support at the beginning of the war.
Seriously, not getting the range upgrade on riflemen? That's retarded. You'd think the English would know that, given that they invented the range upgrade for archers.
Also Mel Gibson totally learned that shit from the indians.
No, he learned it from Jesus.
Indians are totally Jew sympathizers and Mel won't have none of that shit.
We are not!
Do you see one Indian sitcom on? If we were so buddy buddy with the people who control the media, don't you think that we'd make more of an appearance in it?
Plus, it's not really a "scam" when you're honestly trying to get them to embrace the truth so they can go to heaven. It's pretty philanthropic, really.
Jews for Jesus started as a (Gentile) Christian ministry evangelizing to Jews. I do't know hoe many Jews were running it in the beginning. While it's still supported financially by many of the same people, it's now run by people who identify as Jewish Christians, mostly former mainstream Jews who converted. They tend to work mostly with non-practicing and liberal Jews because conservative and orthodox Jews have a much stronger tendency to be just happy where they are thank you very much.
Messianic Jewish congregations tend to be small and scattered, often forced to exist as a sub-group within another Christian congregation because there usually just aren't that many of them in any one place. The whole idea is uniformly rejected by mainstream Jewish leaders, for obvious reasons.
The ties between the more conservative side of Judaism and Ethiopic Orthodoxy also always intrigued me. How and why those ties are there isn't all that interesting, I just think it's neat that they are.
Posts
Secret Satan 2013 Wishlist
How do you think the British crown viewed them? Honestly.
How about their warfare tactics? Do you understand how war was supposed to be fought back then and how we basically said fuck that noise?
Yes, if the American War for Independence ocured today, I believe their would be news reports about Minutemen terrorists attacking convoys, Muskets of Mass Destruction, Improvised Rifled Firearms, and the fact that the King was quartering troops in private homes for freedom.
Secret Satan 2013 Wishlist
Virginia rilfe-men sittin in trees and sniping officers ftw.
It's how gentlemen did war. You also never specifically targeted officers, took breaks for tea or bad weather, and the opposing generals were known to dine together to discuss potential surrenders. It was so civilized.
Secret Satan 2013 Wishlist
if you broke rank, you would be executed
however, firearms back then were blindingly innacurate
so you actually had a better chance of surviving if you stood there, let the enemy fire at you, and then went to the back of the line to reload
Nah man, we totally learned all that from Mel Gibson.
Also Mel Gibson totally learned that shit from the indians.
Most of the Americans had rifles though, while their English or Hessian Mercenary opponents had smooth bore muskets. After some time, the leaders of the American forces decided to actually use that advantage. The rest is us winning.
Secret Satan 2013 Wishlist
I was just explaining the rationalization for the old way of doing it
Wait a sec I thought Americans barely had any rifles, even for the regulars. I know militia almost exclusively used muskets (mostly because they were always thrown into the front lines) but even for trained military men rifles were saved for the few established sharpshooters
No, he learned it from Jesus.
Indians are totally Jew sympathizers and Mel won't have none of that shit.
because listening to them it sounds like clinton got the nomination and mccain already won the election
I have here a book on the history of the military rifle and it says that rifles were rare on the American side (though the English had none) and the war was won by the conventional methods of the day. The English were still scared shit less of the American rifles though and considered them unfair and ungentlemenlike.
No, the frontiersmen often had rifles for hunting animals for food and skins (cash). Rifles were were common enough, it's just that they were usually custom worked and not massed produced by the standards of the times. Also, large standing armies didn't need rifles for long ranged battles because that not how you fought back then.
Because the American fighters were often regular people who supplied their own weapon, they brought their rifle. They weren't issued a gun by a government or king, because they didn't have one.
On average, a rifle from that time period had nearly a 3x range advantage. It took a bit for the colonists to decide winning was more important than going toe to toe with the English like a good little soldier should. After that, it was ambush city meets picking you off across the field like retards.
Secret Satan 2013 Wishlist
France was like our Iran or Syria.
Americans had more rifles than the Brits, but they were still fairly rare. The British actually had a professional army, their average soldier was better equipped, and they had a much more ready access to artillery and naval support at the beginning of the war.
No, just incredibly cynical and hopeless.
We are not!
Do you see one Indian sitcom on? If we were so buddy buddy with the people who control the media, don't you think that we'd make more of an appearance in it?
aren't jews for jesus just a scam to get the jewish folk to believe in the lord our god
considering Jesus was a Jew and all of his original followers were Jews, I don't know how much of a "scam" it would be
Messianic Jewish congregations tend to be small and scattered, often forced to exist as a sub-group within another Christian congregation because there usually just aren't that many of them in any one place. The whole idea is uniformly rejected by mainstream Jewish leaders, for obvious reasons.
The ties between the more conservative side of Judaism and Ethiopic Orthodoxy also always intrigued me. How and why those ties are there isn't all that interesting, I just think it's neat that they are.