World War On Ragheads

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cnn-flubs-deadly-attack-jerusalem-mosque_819556.html

Now or later?

I suggested we drop small tactical nukes on ISIS camps, bombs powerful enough to kill 10K or so at a whack. Then a military consultant made the same recommendation. A small nuke will poison a square mile of Muslimania for a while but the nonsense will stop immediately.

 

[PayDay]

I'd tell you to make one thread for stuff like this and book reviews, but scouries would just thread jack it again

As far as stopping the nonsense, that may just as well make the problem worse.

If we had truly secure borders here and for our allies, it wouldn't even be an issue short of the occasional wtf moment.

Though I agree if you mean: defense > peace

 

[RobDownSouth]

Is this going to be your daily outrage?

 

[oggbashan]

One small problem:

ISIS doesn't have 'camps'. They live and fight among the general population of the towns they occupy.

That is why the airstrikes aren't as effective as they might be. There are too few ISIS targets that are not surrounded by non-combatant civilians.

They know that if they set up 'camps' they will be bombed. So they merge with the population. If they are bombed there will be civilian casualties as well. ISIS can then claim that the US and its allies are killing 'innocents'.

It is a well-tried tactic from the Palestinians and other insurgents used in Gaza, Iraq, Syria, and in Afghanistan. The 'insurgents' use areas with women, children, schools, hospitals, refugee camps etc as their bases and dare the Israel/US/whoever to bomb them there and be condemned for 'atrocities'.

 

[PayDay]

One small problem:

ISIS doesn't have 'camps'. They live and fight among the general population of the towns they occupy.

That is why the airstrikes aren't as effective as they might be. There are too few ISIS targets that are not surrounded by non-combatant civilians.

They know that if they set up 'camps' they will be bombed. So they merge with the population. If they are bombed there will be civilian casualties as well. ISIS can then claim that the US and its allies are killing 'innocents'.

It is a well-tried tactic from the Palestinians and other insurgents used in Gaza, Iraq, Syria, and in Afghanistan. The 'insurgents' use areas with women, children, schools, hospitals, refugee camps etc as their bases and dare the Israel/US/whoever to bomb them there and be condemned for 'atrocities'.

This---^

 

[Kitty]

Oh, is Ragheads what we call them now.

 

[Kitty]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cnn-flubs-deadly-attack-jerusalem-mosque_819556.html

Now or later?

I suggested we drop small tactical nukes on ISIS camps, bombs powerful enough to kill 10K or so at a whack. Then a military consultant made the same recommendation. A small nuke will poison a square mile of Muslimania for a while but the nonsense will stop immediately.

They're not bothering anyone. They're killing each other up http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/images/smilies/yy.gifand any foreigner dumb enough to venture to that hellhole.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

One small problem:

ISIS doesn't have 'camps'. They live and fight among the general population of the towns they occupy.

That is why the airstrikes aren't as effective as they might be. There are too few ISIS targets that are not surrounded by non-combatant civilians.

They know that if they set up 'camps' they will be bombed. So they merge with the population. If they are bombed there will be civilian casualties as well. ISIS can then claim that the US and its allies are killing 'innocents'.

It is a well-tried tactic from the Palestinians and other insurgents used in Gaza, Iraq, Syria, and in Afghanistan. The 'insurgents' use areas with women, children, schools, hospitals, refugee camps etc as their bases and dare the Israel/US/whoever to bomb them there and be condemned for 'atrocities'.

Your post is absurd for the reason they have command and control centers. They have logistics centers. We aren't destroying ISIS because Europe is caught tween Putin and the Muslims for oil.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Oh, is Ragheads what we call them now.

Since the election 2 weeks ago.

 

[possum123]

How about we just pack up and come home and let them take care of their country?

 

[oggbashan]

Your post is absurd for the reason they have command and control centers. They have logistics centers. We aren't destroying ISIS because Europe is caught tween Putin and the Muslims for oil.

They might have 'centers'. But they are very deliberately sited among the civilian population.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

They might have 'centers'. But they are very deliberately sited among the civilian population.

So? Its odd how we always see them in battalions not singly like spies.

 

[unregistered]

 

[oggbashan]

So? Its odd how we always see them in battalions not singly like spies.

If we did, we could attack them from the air. But we don't. Many airstrikes are aborted because of civilians being too close.

We need to put our military people on the hunt, relentlessly track them, find them, kill them, wherever they are found.

Can the US and its allies afford the price in dead infantry? How can we tell the bad guys from the good guys?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

We need to put our military people on the hunt, relentlessly track them, find them, kill them, wherever they are found.

They do coagulate or they couldn't capture territory.

 

[BotanyBoy]

One small problem:

ISIS doesn't have 'camps'. They live and fight among the general population of the towns they occupy.

That is why the airstrikes aren't as effective as they might be. There are too few ISIS targets that are not surrounded by non-combatant civilians.

They know that if they set up 'camps' they will be bombed. So they merge with the population. If they are bombed there will be civilian casualties as well. ISIS can then claim that the US and its allies are killing 'innocents'.

It is a well-tried tactic from the Palestinians and other insurgents used in Gaza, Iraq, Syria, and in Afghanistan. The 'insurgents' use areas with women, children, schools, hospitals, refugee camps etc as their bases and dare the Israel/US/whoever to bomb them there and be condemned for 'atrocities'.

It's not really a problem for anyone but the do-gooders of the 1st world. Go ruthless enough and they will either give in out of fear, start policing their own and behaving or they will all perish.

Oldest way to win a war...and it works if you see it through.

Oh, is Ragheads what we call them now.

Since at least 01'....aint nothing new kiddo.

They might have 'centers'. But they are very deliberately sited among the civilian population.

Sounds like the civilians need to start policing their own hood.....get the fuck out of the way or enjoy trying to be shields.

We need to put our military people on the hunt, relentlessly track them, find them, kill them, wherever they are found.

Been at it for 13 years to no avail ya fucking retard..... PC warfare = failure warfare, god damn if you aren't the dumbest sum bitch on the board.

If we did, we could attack them from the air. But we don't. Many airstrikes are aborted because of civilians being too close.

Thus the linchpin to all the PC warfare....

Can the US and its allies afford the price in dead infantry? How can we tell the bad guys from the good guys?

The loss's would be minimal and well within the acceptability range.

The problem is you can't tell the bad from the good. That's why the only way you win this? Is you tell the leaders, "1 more dirty fuckin' look, much less a bullet, RPG or IED anywhere near this place and I'll level the whole fucking city.

And then do it...Baghdad? Poof.....Gone...Mosul? out like a flash bang....and on and on and on...

They will either behave and do what we say or they will all die.

We should take their resources regardless....wars are expensive and the loser foots the bill.

If we can't agree on that level of combat? We need to park our ass's and stay the fuck home.

But don't ask a pub that, those fucking pussy welfare queens just want a never ending MIC contract with minimal effort involved. If they really gave a shit this war would have been over in 90 days....it should have been over in 90 days.

 

[RobDownSouth]

The problem is you can't tell the bad from the good. That's why the only way you win this? Is you tell the leaders, "1 more dirty fuckin' look, much less a bullet, RPG or IED anywhere near this place and I'll level the whole fucking city.

And then do it...Baghdad? Poof.....Gone...Mosul? out like a flash bang....and on and on and on...

They will either behave and do what we say or they will all die.

We should take their resources regardless....wars are expensive and the loser foots the bill.

If we can't agree on that level of combat? We need to park our ass's and stay the fuck home.

But don't ask a pub that, those fucking pussy welfare queens just want a never ending MIC contract with minimal effort involved. If they really gave a shit this war would have been over in 90 days....it should have been over in 90 days.

That a recipe for tactical victory and strategic disaster.

The US went this route back in 1953, asserting their dominance in Iran by removing the government and installing the shah. That came back to bite us in the ass in 1979 when the Shah was overthrown and we're still feeling reprecussions to this day.

The Arabs and Persians will accept a temporary defeat, but they'll remember. And we'll be sowing the seeds for the next 9/11 for generations afterward.

 

[oggbashan]

...
If we can't agree on that level of combat? We need to park our ass's and stay the fuck home.

But don't ask a pub that, those fucking pussy welfare queens just want a never ending MIC contract with minimal effort involved. If they really gave a shit this war would have been over in 90 days....it should have been over in 90 days.

You know that the politicians of the US and its allies would NEVER agree to that level of combat.

If they could?

The US would have bombed Hanoi back to the Stone Age.

Almost all modern wars have been fought under very restricted Rules of Engagement.

If we had fought in Iraq and Afghanistan like the US troops did against the Japanese in the Pacific Theater, both countries would be depopulated and radioactive for hundreds of years.

But no modern democracy can accept that.

 

[BotanyBoy]

That a recipe for tactical victory and strategic disaster.

The US went this route back in 1953, asserting their dominance in Iran by removing the government and installing the shah. That came back to bite us in the ass in 1979 when the Shah was overthrown and we're still feeling reprecussions to this day.

The Arabs and Persians will accept a temporary defeat, but they'll remember. And we'll be sowing the seeds for the next 9/11 for generations afterward.

You got the wrong idea bro...I'm not talking about an assassination and an installation of a puppet leader.

I'm talking about "Fuck with this shit and we will either enslave or eradicate your whole fucking civilization. Skin that smoke wagon and see what happens Abdul Fuckhead."

And then doing it...1 god damn pop shot, and the city is gone, everyone dies. Just hand out flyers. "Submit or die but the Iraq, Iran, Syria, Afghanistan and all of the resources within their borders are now property of the US government, now hold uncle Sams pocket bitches or we will freedom the fuckin' shit out of you."

You know that the politicians of the US and its allies would NEVER agree to that level of combat.

And thus their downfall.

They will get down with it one day when shit hits the fan hard enough...or they will all fall to the more ruthless, blood thirsty, fighter. It's a war not a fucking bake sale....

If they could?

The US would have bombed Hanoi back to the Stone Age.

And we would have WON....they would be our bitches and it would have cost a fraction of the human, cash and material resource outlay.

Almost all modern wars have been fought under very restricted Rules of Engagement.

And that's why they have LOST every single one of them

You can't half ass a war to make it politically correct and expect anything but shit results, sorry in the real world that's a formula for getting your ass kicked, getting stuck with a huge bill and gaining little if anything out of it.

If we had fought in Iraq and Afghanistan like the US troops did against the Japanese in the Pacific Theater, both countries would be depopulated and radioactive for hundreds of years.

But no modern democracy can accept that.

You can do a good bit if not most without nukes (only needed for the largest cities)...we want to preserve the natural resources and slaves as much as we can.

If they can't accept that then they can't accept the responsibility of going across the globe and starting a war......and they need to stay the fuck home, be good defenders instead of half ass quasi conquerors.

 

[unregistered]

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Hiroshima and Nagasaki worked wonders. The Muslims need to get right with Jesus.

 

[Sirro]

Hiroshima and Nagasaki worked wonders. The Muslims need to get right with Jesus.

You are a visionary James... I only curse the fact that you spend your time posting of lit and do not have the time to lead the free world to a bright new tomorrow

 

[unregistered]

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

You are a visionary James... I only curse the fact that you spend your time posting of lit and do not have the time to lead the free world to a bright new tomorrow

In every home, good or bad, yuh gotta take out the trash. As it is we're adrift without values.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Hiroshima and Nagasaki worked wonders. The Muslims need to get right with Jesus.

That worked back then because the USA was the only country with nukes.

Now, there are over a dozen countries with nukes.

You haven't thought your cunning plan all the way through. Dumbass.