𝓐𝓭𝓿𝓮𝓻𝓼𝓪𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓵 𝓐𝓼𝓼𝓮𝓻𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷𝓼

𝕴𝖋 @H00S13RB4574RD 𝖎𝖘 𝖙𝖍𝖊 𝖊𝖌𝖔, 𝕴 𝖆𝖒 𝖙𝖍𝖊 𝖎𝖉 🔗

🚫 🄼 🄳 🄽 🄸 🚫

[𝓐𝓭𝓿𝓮𝓻𝓼𝓪𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓵 𝓐𝓼𝓼𝓮𝓻𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷𝓼 @a2rebooted]

𝕷𝖔𝖈𝖐 𝖎𝖓, 𝖜𝖍𝖎𝖙𝖊 𝖇𝖔𝖞 💪

[Corporate Machiavelli @Mach_Tactics]

The More Intelligent You Are,

The Greater Your Capacity For Suffering.

[SecondAmendment @SecondAmendment]

PSA for new gun owners:

Warning shorts are generally illegal and you are responsible every bullet that leaves your gun. You are at fault if a bystander is hit and you also just told the threat where you are and that you are armed. Bad idea.

This same flawed thinking applies to "I only want to wound them."

Absolutely not.

You only deploy a firearm when you reasonably believe your life (or someone else’s) is in imminent danger. The intent is to stop the threat. Whether the attacker lives or dies is secondary.

Deliberately trying to only wound them is an admission that the threat wasn’t serious enough to justify lethal force in the first place.

Using a gun defensively means you must be ok with ending a life. That decision has to be made BEFORE you get into the situation.

[Sexual Health coach @sxhealth101]

If she pulls away, you’re probably doing this.

You’re giving her more attention than your own life.

Let me tell y’all something.
There are probably hundreds of guys texting her every day, sending hearts, calling her beautiful. And hear me out.Y’all know dudes who don’t even do all that, yet they’ve got the baddest girls.

Why? Because they’re not chasing.
you gotta start acting like the prize.
If you treat her like a celebrity, she’ll treat you like a fan.Stop treating her like the prize when you are the actual prize.

I’m not saying be egotistical, but in a relationship it should be mutual. Not one-sided, where you do everything and spoil her just because she exists.What nonsense is that?

Ain’t no way I’m spoiling a girl just because she thinks she has pretty eyes. I ain’t that drunk.
So fam, listen closely.

Start prioritizing yourself.Start hitting the gym.Start working on that business.Start reading, even if you have to switch off your phone.
You’ll attract her naturally. Not by playing games, not by ghosting, but by building something real.

[U.S Military Clips @usmilihist]

A U.S. MRAP gunner throws a water bottle and then pulls his M9 at an Iraqi driver that is following the American vehicle too closely.

[RÈBELs RÄÎDÈRs @Rebels_Raiders]

What I want from GWOT history now is someone sitting down with the colonels and generals and making them explain specific decisions.

We have an enormous amount of what I’d call working-class and middle-management history: enlisted guys, NCOs, junior officers, company commanders, etc. And that’s valuable.

But then somebody says, “Our colonel wouldn’t let us run more M2s/M203s,” or “He kept sending us on this mission even after guys were getting killed,” or “Higher refused X because they didn’t want the war fought that way.”

Okay. Let’s find the colonel (or whatever). Put him on a microphone.

“Did you make that decision?”
“Why?”
“What information did you have?”
“What constraints were you experiencing?”
“Who above you was involved?”
“What did you think the enemy was doing?”
“What tradeoff did you believe you were making?”

Because right now, a huge amount of GWOT history is basically the people executing decisions explaining what happened while the people who actually MADE the decisions either never speak or give us 90 minutes of polished corporate leadership language.

I want the uncomfortable, specific after-action interview. Not “leadership is about taking care of soldiers” or some derivative crap designed to sell books on Amazon.

I want details, I want the question asked: Why did you do that specific thing?

[Culture Gems @rpmculture]

The North Hollywood shootout (1997)

[Combat Footage @CombatFootages]

One of the largest IEDs you will ever see strikes an American convoy in Iraq, 2007.

The sheer scale of the explosion is terrifying.

[Gen. Braxton Bragg @GenBraxtonBragg]

Me in the holler ignoring yalls bullshit:

[DaVinci @BiancoDavinci]

Octopus earbuds by Genki Hirano

[Institute for Historical Review @HistoryinReview]

German soldiers of the Second World War have often been portrayed as rigid, unimaginative, and brutish. The record of professional military analysts is different.
U.S. Army Colonel Trevor N. Dupuy, after systematic comparison of combat results, concluded that 100 German soldiers were the equivalent of 120 American, British or French soldiers, or 200 Soviet soldiers. “On a man for man basis,” he wrote, “German ground soldiers consistently inflicted casualties at about a 50 percent higher rate than they incurred from the opposing British and American troops under all circumstances.”
This held whether they were attacking or defending, outnumbered or not, with or without air superiority.

[Extrememaster @sadistadammm]

Güzel başlangıç