User Controls
Feral nigger throws 8 year old boy into train (Germany)
-
2019-07-31 at 12:46 AM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2019-07-31 at 2:23 AM UTC
-
2019-07-31 at 3:03 AM UTC
-
2019-07-31 at 3:08 AM UTC
-
2019-07-31 at 5:22 AM UTC
Originally posted by mmQ A. Why did the innocent shopper unsheath the knife?
B. Either way, if I were him I would probably have an alibi and if i didnt I would find the CCTV footage in the store that showed me handling and putting back the knife.
1- because when normal people want to buy knives they pick them up and examine them closely, swing them around or make stabbing/slashing actions to stimulate actual use condition to get how the knives feel like and their weight etc etc.
thats what normal people do before buying kitchen knives.
2- most stores have non functioning cctvs or limited retention time. -
2019-07-31 at 5:25 AM UTC
Originally posted by Common De-mominator And also, fingerprints don't just chill on a handle, how the fuck are you gonna stab someone with it using a paper sheath without smudging the fingerprint? It's just your finger oils that has been depressed to different levels… It's hard enough as it is to get a clean set of prints off an otherwise untouched surface, people naturally smudge them to shit because you're not generally holding anything specifically to leave good prints.
look at your kitchen knives handles and most or them wont have flat smooth surfaces for extra grips.
your fingerprints will still be left in the valleys after someone pick it up with a gloved hand. -
2019-07-31 at 10:44 PM UTC
Originally posted by Common De-mominator Ah yes how will the English ever tell their comrades apart from black negro African Boer guerillas unless they have bright red uniforms?
I'm sure all those dusty, smoky, ashy, sooty environments faced by soldiers in modern camo must just make them shoot each other in the face m I rite.
Lmao.
If you want to ignore history and the truth it doesn't make me look stupid. -
2019-07-31 at 10:51 PM UTC
Originally posted by Speedy Parker If you want to ignore history and the truth it doesn't make me look stupid.
Wearing bright red suits was a decision made because red dye was cheap as fuck. This is an actual historical fact. Not whatever bullshit retardation about gunpowder smoke you are trying to push.
No, wearing red coats wasn't they only way to tell friend from foe you fucking retard, musket powder doesn't smoke machine the battlefield like a KISS concert. -
2019-08-01 at 12:26 AM UTC
Originally posted by Common De-mominator Wearing bright red suits was a decision made because red dye was cheap as fuck. This is an actual historical fact. Not whatever bullshit retardation about gunpowder smoke you are trying to push.
No, wearing red coats wasn't they only way to tell friend from foe you fucking retard, musket powder doesn't smoke machine the battlefield like a KISS concert.
Have you ever seen a firing range full of black powder weapons? -
2019-08-01 at 1:29 AM UTC
-
2019-08-01 at 12 PM UTC
-
2019-08-01 at 12:10 PM UTC
-
2019-08-01 at 12:18 PM UTC
-
2019-08-01 at 12:29 PM UTC
-
2019-08-01 at 12:32 PM UTCHere you go fellas, I'll settle this for you
"Part of the reforms that created the New Model Army was to give all the soldiers the same uniform, rather than every regiment being different.These uniforms were supplied and paid for by Parliament, acquired from several different private contractors. As always, the government bought from the lowest bidder - and it so happened that a dye called 'Venetian red' was the cheapest on the market in those days. So the army of Parliament was dressed in red coats because that was the lowest-cost option."
https://www.quora.com/History-of-Great-Britain-Why-did-the-redcoats-wear-red -
2019-08-01 at 12:33 PM UTC
-
2019-08-01 at 1:45 PM UTC
-
2019-08-01 at 4:38 PM UTC
Originally posted by Jiggaboo_Johnson Here you go fellas, I'll settle this for you
"Part of the reforms that created the New Model Army was to give all the soldiers the same uniform, rather than every regiment being different.These uniforms were supplied and paid for by Parliament, acquired from several different private contractors. As always, the government bought from the lowest bidder - and it so happened that a dye called 'Venetian red' was the cheapest on the market in those days. So the army of Parliament was dressed in red coats because that was the lowest-cost option."
https://www.quora.com/History-of-Great-Britain-Why-did-the-redcoats-wear-red
if it was due to cost wouldnt white coats be cheapest ? -
2019-08-01 at 4:53 PM UTC
Originally posted by Speedy Parker I'm not arguing about red dye.
Originally posted by Common De-mominator That's why the British wore red coats. Not because of gunpowder smoke.
Originally posted by iam_asiam68 deplorable, it's the brits who are disposable
Originally posted by Common De-mominator They literally pioneered warfare where they wore red shirts and lined up to get shot.
Originally posted by Speedy Parker Maurice of Nassau was noted as the first large scale user of linear tactic in Europe, introducing the 'counter-march' to enable his formations of musketeers to maintain a continuous fire. He was Dutch not English.
You stated that the British pioneered line warfare with bright or red uniforms. I showed you that wasn't correct and that by the time the brits did it that was standard to wear bright colors to be able to distinguish friend from foe through the thick haze of black powder smoke on the field. You scoffed at that with ad hominem and then quickly turned to the straw man about red dye. That sums up pretty much all the stupid you spewed ITT. -
2019-08-01 at 5:25 PM UTC
