/AKM/ - Guns, weapons and the art of war.

Same reason why it doesn't happen in most countries, the central government is functional enough and thus roving bandits can't gain legitimacy as a political force across the country, it happens in africa because the politician are all obvious western puppet that put money in their pockets and kill their own legitimacy because they expect to just flee if anything happens

>Is it because India is just 10 countries wearing a trench coat?
More or less, over the last 35 years there's been a growing standardization of regional identities. Currently I'd say there are roughly seven prominent cultural regions. the Hindi Heartland, the Punjabi–Himalayan region, Western India, Bengal, the Telugu–Kannada Southeast, the Tamil–Malayalam South and the English-speaking Northeast. This is just ignoring internal divisions like caste and religion.
These regions are culturally distinct enough that they can almost be thought of as separate nations. They have different languages, traditions, and historical experiences, beyond periods when they were incorporated into the same large empires. The idea of India as a single civilization is one of the few narratives that has broad support across much of the political spectrum, with both the left and the right generally embracing it.

>>6249
they didnt have a Mao. they reached the limits of national developmentalism, liberal democracy and third world socialism. the problem was the big landowners had too much power and pull in the government. they were the obstacle to do land reforms which were necessary for big industrialisation like mao started. although the indians did try.

>Glownonymous
>meow
>Only source Indian state narrative (image), reflected on Glowpedia
>Obvious incorrecteness reflected by its complete absence of activity in northeast
Sage

What do you mean? Like beginner stuff on firearms specifically? What country do you live in? America? What state?

fed

>>6259
At the opening stages of Ukraine V Russia, Ukraine tried this. It was mostly wasted effort that did not resolve the issues at hand.

Fedposting bad.

Next off, a revolution would not be led by socialist thought, rather reactionary thought in America.

obligatory

>>5264
>LMAO no.
no what ? do you deny you can shoot down a recon drone with a simple motor airplane ?

>Russia shot down those several times
even if they did, the idea was more using it into your own safe airspace. And using any missile to shoot it down, you're still paying too much.

>Jet fighters are needed, as are slower low-tech aircraft, as are SAMs. This is what combined warfare is
no shit, way to miss the point.

>rather than doing what the Su-34 and Su-25 do.
any jet fighter will be a magnitude more expensive than a regular motor plane

>only low tech aircraft
I didnt advocate for having ONLY them. But do you really need a jet for lobbing FAB-500s ?
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>5270
Your spacing is ass, please don't do this.
>no what ?
You realize that people can scroll up and see exactly what I'm saying "no" to right? The fact is that Ukraine has failed to shoot down drones with its trainers, since it's literally pulling WW-1 shit, with people firing handguns out of open cockpits. There's literally a Russian drone video where they try and fail to shoot it down.
>even if they did, the idea was more using it into your own safe airspace.
*laughs in long range SAM*
You realize that Ukraine has been using very long range stand-off weapons like cruise missiles and are STILL getting shot down, right? Only a few days ago an Su-35 shot down a MiG-29 - which was using a HARM missile in a long-range ground-strike - from over 200km away, with an R-37. Earlier in the war the S-300V4 set a similar record kill from a similar distance of over 200km. An S-400 shot down an Su-27 over Kiev earlier in the war from 150km away. Pantsir, Osa and Tor SPAAG/SAMs have shot down numerous low-flying missiles, drones and other aircraft.
>using any missile to shoot it down, you're still paying too much.
If you're an idiot using patriot anti-ballistic long-range missiles against drones. A single Tor missile costs maybe a couple thousand dollars. A single yak-52 costs 50-100 thousand dollars, so you're dead wrong.
>way to miss the point.
I didn't miss your point. I don't disagree in the necessity of low-tech aircraft, but not like Ukraine is doing, and frankly an attack chopper would do just as well, if not better.
>any jet fighter will be a magnitude more expensive than a regular motor plane
Any jet fighter would also be magnitudes more effective.
>do you really need a jet for lobbing FAB-500s
In an SAM-heavy air-space like Ukraine? YES.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>2642
>The idea of it going to 2025
There is a lesson there. Stop being emotional, stop eating the propaganda slop, study everything and look closely at the serious people involved in war and political theory. Honestly I didn't need to do half of that to be sure that this stupid war would last a while so if you were wrong you really need to revamp your way of thinking

>>4897
>>4877
>>4946
Restoring files

ANARCHO FASCISMO WAVE THE F U T U R E!


ONE FUTURE ORGANIZATION, SCENEMO FASCIST MANIFESTO!

Is this not poetic, ironic, unironic, hateful and beautiful?

I like him do you?

>>6316
See this wouldn't be a bad sentiment if America's "Warriors" weren't acting on imperialist orders and not actually defending America from shit. No shit people want benefits if they're essentially going to be congressionally-sanctioned mercenaries

>>3997
do you even live in America?

>>3972
The rex from Iraq tell us that if you try to ambush soldiers you tend to die and you will suffer 8 losses per soldier you kill, but plant IEDs and you will kill 3 soldiers per insurgent shot.

This information is already public, I can not be held responsible for what someone might do with it.

The US seems to lose to guerillas or revolutionaries more often than it would like to. Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Afghanistan, Cuba, Nicaragua. Which begs the question: what are some countries that the US/West cannot afford to "lose". I am talking about countries that the US would do ANYTHING to prevent from "falling" or "turning sides", like do occupation of Poland or Manchuria levels of violence to maintain influence or whatever.

>>4670
Their immediate neighbour Canada would be the most obvious and easiest answer.

Following close behind would be Japan and South Korea in that order.

Potential countries the US might go crazy for are the UK, France, Germany and Australia.

Not sure where to put Mexico tbh.

>>4670
Israel?

i think they would shoot you

>>5756
How about mancatchers? Keep in mind though that even protest signs are spun as deadly weapons.

You would need to convince and train so many people and smuggle so many weapons in protest you would probably be arrested before even reaching one

yes
I will rule over my country

>>5884
>click to random part of video
<"we've forgotten what made the west great, it's like the roman empire"

dale

>>5631
sooner or later, unironically, the homoamericanus will evolve bullet proof skin. - Darwin

I think if the columbine shooters could see this shit they would be angry beyond imagination. Some retarded whore dressing like them, thinking she's the same.
The only non-posers were columbine and seung hui cho (also anyone before the 2000s)

>>5636
They would be elated that a girl likes them.

>>5587
He's right and I'm tired of pretending he isn't.

>>5586
"Jumping is the opposite of gravity."

Nothing is the opposite of natural selection. It's a natural law that's always in play. It's a flawed social Darwinist idea that there's some intrinsically superior phenotype according to the (non-existent) "laws of evolution" that "deserves" to survive; natural selection just determines who gets to survive in a given situation based on an arbitrary set of traits. It can be pseudo-random or even select for traits that we wouldn't consider superior for various reasons. In a mass shooting situation, maybe people who prefer bright colors get selected against because they're easier to see.

>>6294
been thinking this for quite a while now, always been a fan of m4's but the history of the ak being the peoples rifle is kind of hard to ignore. but yeah in future movements, the ar should most definitely be considered. the ak was good for liberation f the third world (or at least, some of the third world) because it was so durable and mass produced, but recent movements should move to something more refined. more technical, precise, and capable. I really hope to get one when I come of age someday.

You should get the same assault rifle your local army uses actually

>>6299
agreed!