Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu

jimmyjab    

Rank #46982 on Subscribers
jimmyjab Avatar Level 204 Comments: Comedic Genius
Offline
Send mail to jimmyjab Block jimmyjab Invite jimmyjab to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
PSN: nutshot1234
Date Signed Up:2/04/2013
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Content Thumbs: 1798 total,  1904 ,  106
Comment Thumbs: 1043 total,  1163 ,  120
Content Level Progress: 98% (98/100)
Level 117 Content: Funny Junkie → Level 118 Content: Funny Junkie
Comment Level Progress: 30% (3/10)
Level 204 Comments: Comedic Genius → Level 205 Comments: Comedic Genius
Subscribers:1
Content Views:66545
Times Content Favorited:142 times
Total Comments Made:276
FJ Points:2846
I enjoy long walks in the park and the fresh crunch of freshly fallen phallus'.

latest user's comments

#194 - Wait, why were you gonna do the inside out food stomach thing …  [+] (8 new replies) 10/19/2013 on Rename anonymous 0
User avatar #197 - cdsams (10/19/2013) [-]
Considering the fact that it is 3:02 in the morning where I am at (I had not checked the time in hours), I was imagining some porn from the deepest darkest places of the internet. Too much exposure I guess I don't want to get into great detail as to what I was preparing my physiology for, the nets are fucked up at night every where you go
User avatar #200 - jimmyjab (10/19/2013) [-]
Wait, how is it 3:02 where you're at but 3:13 where I am... This raises many questions Does the time space continuum contain an alternate time zone where people are trapped 8 minutes behind a time zone?
User avatar #204 - cdsams (10/19/2013) [-]
What year is it for you? I must look further on this subject! it took me a while to write this one. I suck at spelling, but I have a huge vocabulary.
User avatar #207 - jimmyjab (10/19/2013) [-]
The year 3000... You know, I think I've met your great grandaughter, she's doing fine. Are you foreign as well?
#213 - cdsams (10/19/2013) [-]
'Are you foreign as well?' What the hell is that supposed to mean? I was born on this planet just like every other natural born human! I am not like those alien hybrid scum! I am a pure earth born human! Doctor who reference if you watch the show.
#215 - jimmyjab (10/19/2013) [-]
I mean if you wanna get all hecka technical we're all aliens since we invade different habitats and aren't born into the specific ecosystem we reside in since we have the ability to adapt we integrate but we never become natural. We're all dangerous motherfuckers... That image is a Breaking Bad reference
User avatar #219 - cdsams (10/19/2013) [-]
I am yet to watch Breaking Bad. Waiting for Netflix to have the whole show I have trouble seeing a guy in tight clothing and roller skats being on a show like that.
User avatar #221 - jimmyjab (10/19/2013) [-]
Bryan Cranston was the perfect choice for the show. His snarky attitude and sassiness brought a boatload of depth to Breaking Bad. I mean how you can have balls of steel at a drug deal and still be humorous secretly? He's like Jebus or sumthing
#188 - Atomic Anal Waffle?  [+] (10 new replies) 10/19/2013 on Rename anonymous 0
#191 - cdsams (10/19/2013) [-]
The name works for me. Your gif took a few seconds to load. In those few seconds, I had read you comment and had prepared my self to throw up on my computer; however, it was for naught.
#194 - jimmyjab (10/19/2013) [-]
Wait, why were you gonna do the inside out food stomach thing that you described? You do not enjoy atomic anal waffles to the same extent as I? I thought we had something going for us...
User avatar #197 - cdsams (10/19/2013) [-]
Considering the fact that it is 3:02 in the morning where I am at (I had not checked the time in hours), I was imagining some porn from the deepest darkest places of the internet. Too much exposure I guess I don't want to get into great detail as to what I was preparing my physiology for, the nets are fucked up at night every where you go
User avatar #200 - jimmyjab (10/19/2013) [-]
Wait, how is it 3:02 where you're at but 3:13 where I am... This raises many questions Does the time space continuum contain an alternate time zone where people are trapped 8 minutes behind a time zone?
User avatar #204 - cdsams (10/19/2013) [-]
What year is it for you? I must look further on this subject! it took me a while to write this one. I suck at spelling, but I have a huge vocabulary.
User avatar #207 - jimmyjab (10/19/2013) [-]
The year 3000... You know, I think I've met your great grandaughter, she's doing fine. Are you foreign as well?
#213 - cdsams (10/19/2013) [-]
'Are you foreign as well?' What the hell is that supposed to mean? I was born on this planet just like every other natural born human! I am not like those alien hybrid scum! I am a pure earth born human! Doctor who reference if you watch the show.
#215 - jimmyjab (10/19/2013) [-]
I mean if you wanna get all hecka technical we're all aliens since we invade different habitats and aren't born into the specific ecosystem we reside in since we have the ability to adapt we integrate but we never become natural. We're all dangerous motherfuckers... That image is a Breaking Bad reference
User avatar #219 - cdsams (10/19/2013) [-]
I am yet to watch Breaking Bad. Waiting for Netflix to have the whole show I have trouble seeing a guy in tight clothing and roller skats being on a show like that.
User avatar #221 - jimmyjab (10/19/2013) [-]
Bryan Cranston was the perfect choice for the show. His snarky attitude and sassiness brought a boatload of depth to Breaking Bad. I mean how you can have balls of steel at a drug deal and still be humorous secretly? He's like Jebus or sumthing
#140 - Atomic Anus... It's quite catchy.  [+] (12 new replies) 10/19/2013 on Rename anonymous +3
#187 - cdsams (10/19/2013) [-]
Atomic waffle can work too...
#188 - jimmyjab (10/19/2013) [-]
Atomic Anal Waffle?
#191 - cdsams (10/19/2013) [-]
The name works for me. Your gif took a few seconds to load. In those few seconds, I had read you comment and had prepared my self to throw up on my computer; however, it was for naught.
#194 - jimmyjab (10/19/2013) [-]
Wait, why were you gonna do the inside out food stomach thing that you described? You do not enjoy atomic anal waffles to the same extent as I? I thought we had something going for us...
User avatar #197 - cdsams (10/19/2013) [-]
Considering the fact that it is 3:02 in the morning where I am at (I had not checked the time in hours), I was imagining some porn from the deepest darkest places of the internet. Too much exposure I guess I don't want to get into great detail as to what I was preparing my physiology for, the nets are fucked up at night every where you go
User avatar #200 - jimmyjab (10/19/2013) [-]
Wait, how is it 3:02 where you're at but 3:13 where I am... This raises many questions Does the time space continuum contain an alternate time zone where people are trapped 8 minutes behind a time zone?
User avatar #204 - cdsams (10/19/2013) [-]
What year is it for you? I must look further on this subject! it took me a while to write this one. I suck at spelling, but I have a huge vocabulary.
User avatar #207 - jimmyjab (10/19/2013) [-]
The year 3000... You know, I think I've met your great grandaughter, she's doing fine. Are you foreign as well?
#213 - cdsams (10/19/2013) [-]
'Are you foreign as well?' What the hell is that supposed to mean? I was born on this planet just like every other natural born human! I am not like those alien hybrid scum! I am a pure earth born human! Doctor who reference if you watch the show.
#215 - jimmyjab (10/19/2013) [-]
I mean if you wanna get all hecka technical we're all aliens since we invade different habitats and aren't born into the specific ecosystem we reside in since we have the ability to adapt we integrate but we never become natural. We're all dangerous motherfuckers... That image is a Breaking Bad reference
User avatar #219 - cdsams (10/19/2013) [-]
I am yet to watch Breaking Bad. Waiting for Netflix to have the whole show I have trouble seeing a guy in tight clothing and roller skats being on a show like that.
User avatar #221 - jimmyjab (10/19/2013) [-]
Bryan Cranston was the perfect choice for the show. His snarky attitude and sassiness brought a boatload of depth to Breaking Bad. I mean how you can have balls of steel at a drug deal and still be humorous secretly? He's like Jebus or sumthing
#4 - Comment deleted 10/18/2013 on Sonic runs into a problem 0
#10 - I think it might be a pipe. You put whatever substance you wan… 10/18/2013 on WHAT IS THIS THING?! +1
#10 - Picture 10/18/2013 on Unbanned and heavily censored 0
#2 - MFW when I'm eating good food.  [+] (1 new reply) 10/18/2013 on Oh god why... +7
#10 - vampireinarm (10/19/2013) [-]
#3 - Picture 10/18/2013 on barrack obama 0
#2 - Picture 10/18/2013 on How to ground children 0
#186 - I saw that no one had the respect to post this in the first 10… 10/18/2013 on Ur penis. 0
#127 - Picture  [+] (2 new replies) 10/17/2013 on Ur penis. +14
User avatar #144 - hentaisweetie (10/17/2013) [-]
Well I didn't need to search too long for this post.
User avatar #186 - jimmyjab (10/18/2013) [-]
I saw that no one had the respect to post this in the first 100 comments so I did my due diligence. You can't deny the classics their rightful respect.
#7 - As a national toilet cleaner of Europe, I can confirm this. Th… 10/17/2013 on Comparison -1
#63 - Best episode. 10/16/2013 on Favorite episode 0
#48 - Picture  [+] (1 new reply) 10/15/2013 on Tags +7
User avatar #58 - crazycommando (10/15/2013) [-]
as a french person i found this quite funny indeed no but for realz i did thumb for you
#69 - Picture 10/15/2013 on Bone eRR +2
#301 - Washington Post only reports what certain sources say they can… 10/15/2013 on Jee Thanks Obama. 0
#299 - I know that the Mujahideen are basically a group of jihadists …  [+] (2 new replies) 10/15/2013 on Jee Thanks Obama. 0
User avatar #300 - nigeltheoutlaw (10/15/2013) [-]
I'm not accusing Reagan of treason, I'm just drawing a parallel that his actions aren't much different than Obama's, and to accuse one of treason would label the other's actions as treasonous as well.

There are some splinter cell extremists that are siding with Al Queda, but you said yourself that it's not the majority of the rebels. Everything I have seen shows that Obama is making a point to only arm and fund secularist and moderate rebels, which shows that he's not supporting enemies of the U.S.



This is the most recent article I could find. In it it says, "the Obama administration seeks to bolster moderate and secularist Syrian rebels with new weapons and training" and, "The al-Qaeda affiliates have clashed with other rebel groups, and, occasionally, with each other". So, not only is Obama not funding the terrorist cells, the terrorist cells aren't even cohesive with the rest of the rebel forces since they're hardline religious fanatics while Syria has typically been a moderate and often secular country.
User avatar #301 - jimmyjab (10/15/2013) [-]
Washington Post only reports what certain sources say they can report. Obama and whoever else was going to provide the rebels with even more weapons than they previously did only did so to further means of selfish interest. The only reason why there was even a plunge into madness in Syria is because some US backed Saudi Arabian prince sent Syrian rebels chemical weapons and the rebels didn't operate it properly and it went off. They admitted to it but it never went public because that'd be bad for the war mongers. You are right about Syria being preferably secular though, it seems that they're one of the few nations that are immune to propaganda until it's in their own backyard.
#297 - I totally ******* agree with about half the thing…  [+] (4 new replies) 10/15/2013 on Jee Thanks Obama. 0
User avatar #298 - nigeltheoutlaw (10/15/2013) [-]
That's good that we agree for the most part because that brings me to my last: just because a group is jihadist doesn't mean that it wants the downfall of America. I won't say that the Syrian rebels are a bunch of oppressed people that are perfectly good, but I will say that the jihadist nature of some of their members does not make them anti-American anymore than it made the mujahideen anti-American. The only point I'm trying to get across here is that you can't accuse Obama of treason for funding potential jihadists anymore than you could Reagan or any other president. You can think it's stupid (I do) but it's not treasonous behavior.
User avatar #299 - jimmyjab (10/15/2013) [-]
I know that the Mujahideen are basically a group of jihadists hating whoever stands in the way of Allah, but at the time Reagan had a hard on for freedom and didn't want a bunch of Ruskie Commie sumsabitches terrorizing goat herders (which is what the Russians did a lot of. They'd kill the goats and then shit on them while laughing. I'm Polish, I fucking hate the douchy Russians because they stole our invention, called it their own and then proceed to be dicks because of it). THE MAIN THING IM TRYING TO SAY IS that the Afghani Mujahideen were not the enemies of the US at the time but the Syrian rebels of last month were fighting alongside al-Qaeda. If you fight alongside al-Qaeda, you're al-Qaedas homeboy so if Obama funded them, he's funding al-Qaeda because the weapons and resources he gave will go to al-Qaeda and the guys fighting alongside them. Just because they're jihadist doesn't make the anti-American just like you said, but the Taliban/al-Qaeda are anti-American.
User avatar #300 - nigeltheoutlaw (10/15/2013) [-]
I'm not accusing Reagan of treason, I'm just drawing a parallel that his actions aren't much different than Obama's, and to accuse one of treason would label the other's actions as treasonous as well.

There are some splinter cell extremists that are siding with Al Queda, but you said yourself that it's not the majority of the rebels. Everything I have seen shows that Obama is making a point to only arm and fund secularist and moderate rebels, which shows that he's not supporting enemies of the U.S.



This is the most recent article I could find. In it it says, "the Obama administration seeks to bolster moderate and secularist Syrian rebels with new weapons and training" and, "The al-Qaeda affiliates have clashed with other rebel groups, and, occasionally, with each other". So, not only is Obama not funding the terrorist cells, the terrorist cells aren't even cohesive with the rest of the rebel forces since they're hardline religious fanatics while Syria has typically been a moderate and often secular country.
User avatar #301 - jimmyjab (10/15/2013) [-]
Washington Post only reports what certain sources say they can report. Obama and whoever else was going to provide the rebels with even more weapons than they previously did only did so to further means of selfish interest. The only reason why there was even a plunge into madness in Syria is because some US backed Saudi Arabian prince sent Syrian rebels chemical weapons and the rebels didn't operate it properly and it went off. They admitted to it but it never went public because that'd be bad for the war mongers. You are right about Syria being preferably secular though, it seems that they're one of the few nations that are immune to propaganda until it's in their own backyard.
#295 - Yes that is considered treason. Treason by definition is consi…  [+] (6 new replies) 10/15/2013 on Jee Thanks Obama. 0
User avatar #296 - nigeltheoutlaw (10/15/2013) [-]
The definition of treason is: "the crime of betraying one's country, esp. by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government." Obama could easily argue that he is furthering American interests in the Middle East by fostering goodwill among the people by aiding them against a tyrant.

See, there's the rub right there. Muhahideen in Arabic literally means means "people doing jihad" and a person engaged in jihad is called a mujahid; the plural is mujahideen. However, you just claimed that Obama is committing treason by arming rebels that have a majority claiming to support the jihadist cause. How is it treason for Obama but not for Reagan? If being jihadist automatically makes an group the enemies of America then both are guilty of treason (as are many other presidents). If it doesn't then neither are.

Not only that but both Taliban and Al Queda were formed in part by splinter cells from radical Mujahideen forces after the withdrawal of the Soviet Union from Afghanistan. Taliban was formed with aid and funding from Pakistan while Al Queda was formed from Mujahideen by Osama Bin Laden to expand operations into more of the Middle East. These were men armed and trained by Reagan, and even though Reagan had no way of knowing that this would happen, it still happened and he still holds responsibility just as Obama will hold responsibility for whatever stupid shit the Syrian rebels end up doing after the civil war.
User avatar #297 - jimmyjab (10/15/2013) [-]
I totally fucking agree with about half the things you've stated but at the time the Mujahideen could give two shits about the downfall of America. They only wanted to oust the Soviets from their land, Reagan may not have the full grasp of the situation as to them turning right around and fucking Americas shit up but at the time the tribes weren't exactly Americas enemy so that by definition did not make Reagan a traitor. As for Syrias situation Assad wasn't the tyrant as everyone made him to be. He was actually pretty fucking peaceful and nothing compared to his father or his brothers, he actually let the two major Muslim denominations, Sunni and Shia I believe to live how they want. The rebels basically were there just to stir up trouble to a majorly peaceful place, it wasn't perfect but it wasn't a warzone either.
User avatar #298 - nigeltheoutlaw (10/15/2013) [-]
That's good that we agree for the most part because that brings me to my last: just because a group is jihadist doesn't mean that it wants the downfall of America. I won't say that the Syrian rebels are a bunch of oppressed people that are perfectly good, but I will say that the jihadist nature of some of their members does not make them anti-American anymore than it made the mujahideen anti-American. The only point I'm trying to get across here is that you can't accuse Obama of treason for funding potential jihadists anymore than you could Reagan or any other president. You can think it's stupid (I do) but it's not treasonous behavior.
User avatar #299 - jimmyjab (10/15/2013) [-]
I know that the Mujahideen are basically a group of jihadists hating whoever stands in the way of Allah, but at the time Reagan had a hard on for freedom and didn't want a bunch of Ruskie Commie sumsabitches terrorizing goat herders (which is what the Russians did a lot of. They'd kill the goats and then shit on them while laughing. I'm Polish, I fucking hate the douchy Russians because they stole our invention, called it their own and then proceed to be dicks because of it). THE MAIN THING IM TRYING TO SAY IS that the Afghani Mujahideen were not the enemies of the US at the time but the Syrian rebels of last month were fighting alongside al-Qaeda. If you fight alongside al-Qaeda, you're al-Qaedas homeboy so if Obama funded them, he's funding al-Qaeda because the weapons and resources he gave will go to al-Qaeda and the guys fighting alongside them. Just because they're jihadist doesn't make the anti-American just like you said, but the Taliban/al-Qaeda are anti-American.
User avatar #300 - nigeltheoutlaw (10/15/2013) [-]
I'm not accusing Reagan of treason, I'm just drawing a parallel that his actions aren't much different than Obama's, and to accuse one of treason would label the other's actions as treasonous as well.

There are some splinter cell extremists that are siding with Al Queda, but you said yourself that it's not the majority of the rebels. Everything I have seen shows that Obama is making a point to only arm and fund secularist and moderate rebels, which shows that he's not supporting enemies of the U.S.



This is the most recent article I could find. In it it says, "the Obama administration seeks to bolster moderate and secularist Syrian rebels with new weapons and training" and, "The al-Qaeda affiliates have clashed with other rebel groups, and, occasionally, with each other". So, not only is Obama not funding the terrorist cells, the terrorist cells aren't even cohesive with the rest of the rebel forces since they're hardline religious fanatics while Syria has typically been a moderate and often secular country.
User avatar #301 - jimmyjab (10/15/2013) [-]
Washington Post only reports what certain sources say they can report. Obama and whoever else was going to provide the rebels with even more weapons than they previously did only did so to further means of selfish interest. The only reason why there was even a plunge into madness in Syria is because some US backed Saudi Arabian prince sent Syrian rebels chemical weapons and the rebels didn't operate it properly and it went off. They admitted to it but it never went public because that'd be bad for the war mongers. You are right about Syria being preferably secular though, it seems that they're one of the few nations that are immune to propaganda until it's in their own backyard.
#169 - They could try him for treason for supplying "al-Qaeda&qu…  [+] (8 new replies) 10/14/2013 on Jee Thanks Obama. +2
User avatar #174 - nigeltheoutlaw (10/14/2013) [-]
That's not treasonous activity, and there's no precedence for it even if it was. If there was then just off of the top of my head you would have had to charge Bush Jr., Clinton, Bush Sr., and Reagan with treason for doing the same thing with different people. Al Queda is only an issue militaristicaly because Reagan armed and trained them in Afghanistan back in the 80's to make trouble for the invading Soviets.
User avatar #295 - jimmyjab (10/15/2013) [-]
Yes that is considered treason. Treason by definition is considered arming or supporting the enemy and Obama publicly announced he was arming Syrian rebels who sided with al-Qaeda, granted, not all the rebels were al-Qaeda based but a vast majority of the rebels admitted that their basis for going to war with al-Assad was to further the jihadist cause. Reagan never armed al-Qaeda, he armed the Mujahideen back when they fought the Soviets in Afghanistan. The Mujahideen were never enemies of the U.S so Reagan acted on the principle of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". Eventually the Mujahideen split and formed the farmers and herders who no longer needed to fight and al-Qaeda. Either way, Reagan was a smart motherfucker and never did anything publicly impeach worthy. The Bushes were retards and didn't do anything themselves so they just dick rode and did what Reagan did.
User avatar #296 - nigeltheoutlaw (10/15/2013) [-]
The definition of treason is: "the crime of betraying one's country, esp. by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government." Obama could easily argue that he is furthering American interests in the Middle East by fostering goodwill among the people by aiding them against a tyrant.

See, there's the rub right there. Muhahideen in Arabic literally means means "people doing jihad" and a person engaged in jihad is called a mujahid; the plural is mujahideen. However, you just claimed that Obama is committing treason by arming rebels that have a majority claiming to support the jihadist cause. How is it treason for Obama but not for Reagan? If being jihadist automatically makes an group the enemies of America then both are guilty of treason (as are many other presidents). If it doesn't then neither are.

Not only that but both Taliban and Al Queda were formed in part by splinter cells from radical Mujahideen forces after the withdrawal of the Soviet Union from Afghanistan. Taliban was formed with aid and funding from Pakistan while Al Queda was formed from Mujahideen by Osama Bin Laden to expand operations into more of the Middle East. These were men armed and trained by Reagan, and even though Reagan had no way of knowing that this would happen, it still happened and he still holds responsibility just as Obama will hold responsibility for whatever stupid shit the Syrian rebels end up doing after the civil war.
User avatar #297 - jimmyjab (10/15/2013) [-]
I totally fucking agree with about half the things you've stated but at the time the Mujahideen could give two shits about the downfall of America. They only wanted to oust the Soviets from their land, Reagan may not have the full grasp of the situation as to them turning right around and fucking Americas shit up but at the time the tribes weren't exactly Americas enemy so that by definition did not make Reagan a traitor. As for Syrias situation Assad wasn't the tyrant as everyone made him to be. He was actually pretty fucking peaceful and nothing compared to his father or his brothers, he actually let the two major Muslim denominations, Sunni and Shia I believe to live how they want. The rebels basically were there just to stir up trouble to a majorly peaceful place, it wasn't perfect but it wasn't a warzone either.
User avatar #298 - nigeltheoutlaw (10/15/2013) [-]
That's good that we agree for the most part because that brings me to my last: just because a group is jihadist doesn't mean that it wants the downfall of America. I won't say that the Syrian rebels are a bunch of oppressed people that are perfectly good, but I will say that the jihadist nature of some of their members does not make them anti-American anymore than it made the mujahideen anti-American. The only point I'm trying to get across here is that you can't accuse Obama of treason for funding potential jihadists anymore than you could Reagan or any other president. You can think it's stupid (I do) but it's not treasonous behavior.
User avatar #299 - jimmyjab (10/15/2013) [-]
I know that the Mujahideen are basically a group of jihadists hating whoever stands in the way of Allah, but at the time Reagan had a hard on for freedom and didn't want a bunch of Ruskie Commie sumsabitches terrorizing goat herders (which is what the Russians did a lot of. They'd kill the goats and then shit on them while laughing. I'm Polish, I fucking hate the douchy Russians because they stole our invention, called it their own and then proceed to be dicks because of it). THE MAIN THING IM TRYING TO SAY IS that the Afghani Mujahideen were not the enemies of the US at the time but the Syrian rebels of last month were fighting alongside al-Qaeda. If you fight alongside al-Qaeda, you're al-Qaedas homeboy so if Obama funded them, he's funding al-Qaeda because the weapons and resources he gave will go to al-Qaeda and the guys fighting alongside them. Just because they're jihadist doesn't make the anti-American just like you said, but the Taliban/al-Qaeda are anti-American.
User avatar #300 - nigeltheoutlaw (10/15/2013) [-]
I'm not accusing Reagan of treason, I'm just drawing a parallel that his actions aren't much different than Obama's, and to accuse one of treason would label the other's actions as treasonous as well.

There are some splinter cell extremists that are siding with Al Queda, but you said yourself that it's not the majority of the rebels. Everything I have seen shows that Obama is making a point to only arm and fund secularist and moderate rebels, which shows that he's not supporting enemies of the U.S.



This is the most recent article I could find. In it it says, "the Obama administration seeks to bolster moderate and secularist Syrian rebels with new weapons and training" and, "The al-Qaeda affiliates have clashed with other rebel groups, and, occasionally, with each other". So, not only is Obama not funding the terrorist cells, the terrorist cells aren't even cohesive with the rest of the rebel forces since they're hardline religious fanatics while Syria has typically been a moderate and often secular country.
User avatar #301 - jimmyjab (10/15/2013) [-]
Washington Post only reports what certain sources say they can report. Obama and whoever else was going to provide the rebels with even more weapons than they previously did only did so to further means of selfish interest. The only reason why there was even a plunge into madness in Syria is because some US backed Saudi Arabian prince sent Syrian rebels chemical weapons and the rebels didn't operate it properly and it went off. They admitted to it but it never went public because that'd be bad for the war mongers. You are right about Syria being preferably secular though, it seems that they're one of the few nations that are immune to propaganda until it's in their own backyard.
#45 - Why not Knitler? 10/14/2013 on Pokemon X&Y spitting on... +6
#35 - Probably getting banned for this but...  [+] (3 new replies) 10/13/2013 on My eyes are up here! +8
User avatar #47 - mrtowelman (10/13/2013) [-]
I'm uh, gonna have to have source on that. For reasons.
#44 - Womens Study Major (10/13/2013) [-]
source?
User avatar #48 - kiermatv (10/13/2013) [-]
new girl, the Zoey Dechanel show
#95 - It's actually not from anything specific, a fan made it. Here'… 10/11/2013 on Looks like it's beginning... +1
#79 - Picture 10/11/2013 on Hungry +1
#1 - How about now?  [+] (1 new reply) 10/11/2013 on bucktoothed brunnete gets F-ed +102
User avatar #7 - realreality (10/11/2013) [-]
Drowning in pussy doesn't seem appealing, now.
[ 271 Total ]

Comments(0):

 

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
No comments!
 Friends (0)