Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

As Predicted, ISIS Takes It To The Next Level

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Aerohead
    replied
    Question: WHY in the hell do we have to be "better" then our enemy when it comes to protecting OUR people and OUR way of life?!?!?

    Leave a comment:


  • Aerohead
    replied
    I've said it before and I'll say it again - if WWII was fought in modern times, there's no way in hell the A-bomb would have even been considered, let alone used twice.

    This country has become a liberal hell version of itself. How in the actual fvck do you use diplomacy against an enemy whose primary objective is to KILL as many people (not just soldiers) as possible. If this country had any balls left, they would send in people to hunt down and capture (if possible) ISIS fighters and torture them until they either talk or die. Then repeat as many times as it takes to break them.

    Leave a comment:


  • slamdunc
    replied
    Originally posted by Miller11x View Post
    Whether this is true or not is up to you. But even if it is fake, you still have to be a true badass leader for people to make this up to the point where it may actually be true.
    It is like the best of two worlds a badass leader who leads from the front. Kind of like Putin with a moral compass.

    Leave a comment:


  • JustAJ
    replied
    Originally posted by that's my hand View Post
    Unfortunately its asymmetrical warfare and we've never been any good at that because our forces have to fight the guerillas and the politicians at home. It's a no win situation.
    I've said it before and I'll say it again. The American politicians and media do not have the stomach to do what needs to be done. They want the war to be pretty and high tech - think drones and smart bombs. But it's not. It's a guy on the ground bringing death to an enemy soldier from distances that sometimes are close enough to smell their dying breath. It's not glamorous, it's not pretty, and it's the only way you win.

    Leave a comment:


  • Miller11x
    replied
    Unconfirmed reports now that King Abdullah of Jordan is GOING TO FLY COMBAT SORTIES.



    Whether this is true or not is up to you. But even if it is fake, you still have to be a true badass leader for people to make this up to the point where it may actually be true.


    Also this...

    Leave a comment:


  • Max K
    replied
    Originally posted by Langford PR View Post
    Conventional response, no matter how extensive, will achieve no more than all of our wasted effort did elsewhere. We have and are continuing to deploy the wrong strategies.
    Originally posted by dauntless89 View Post
    But what we fail to grasp is that you can't fight savages by taking the high road. You have to fight savages with savagery, and we're too good to be savages.
    [Reflecting on Desert Storm, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and Operation Enduring Freedom] Hmm. If these wars were a private sector business, then they would either be successful, or they would go out of business, due to the nature of the profit & loss system. If somebody wants to open up a VHS video rental business, he will soon go out of business (because nobody wants to rent VHS tapes anymore). That is as it should be: his business information is fatally flawed, and the price for that is to go out of business.

    But apparently, you can go to war with the wrong information, or wrong understanding, or wrong theory, or wrong method, or wrong objective, and spend a trillion dollars and break things and kill people, and nobody ever asks: does this business cover the costs?

    Every day I read something about the Taliban savages: we have been at war with them in Afghanistan for 14 years: what do we have to show for it? It seems like they are about as strong as they were before 9/11. Where is the accounting? Doesn't the military have to justify what they do? At what point does the military say: "this is not working, we have to do something differently"?

    Is this like the cancer treatment industry, which is corrupt, because it does not want to cure patients, it wants only to treat them (endlessly if possible)? Is there something like that going on in the Pentagon, where they don't REALLY want to win any war, but do just enough to keep the (jobs) program going?

    Leave a comment:


  • Rettroop
    replied
    Originally posted by EmmaPeel View Post
    As most have probably heard by now, ISIS has released a video of the Jordanian pilot being burned alive in a cage.

    We're not winning this war, folks. They're ALL in; our alliance is doing half-assed measures. More like photo-op measures.


    Wait till they tape whatever it is they plan to do to the American female they've been holding for sometime.


    I'd be happy if this idiot Boy-King could just bring himself to call this Islamic extremism. But no. Tonight he referred to them as "that organization."


    Again....like sitting back and watching Neville Chamberlain let Hitler gobble Europe up in the 1930s. Except I don't remember even the Nazis being this f*cking depraved.

    Yes Emmy I think the Nazis were that f*cking depraved tens of thousands of times over.

    Leave a comment:


  • So Fla Cop
    replied
    I watched the whole video. Jordan outshined the Kenyan. I have zero sympathy for "muslim" converts that get beheaded. They were stupid enough to go "there", but this kid was different. I hope they all get blown to bits with bombs dipped in pig blood. SAVAGES.... On a lighter note, maybe Al Sharpton can go there with Eric Holder and demand "human rights". I would personally pay for their "one way" coward tickets.

    Leave a comment:


  • Langford PR
    replied
    Originally posted by that's my hand View Post
    I've lived my life in defense of this great nation and your myopic view of me or the world is about as relevant as cow **** at a rodeo.
    Ditto back @ ya!

    Leave a comment:


  • dauntless89
    replied
    Here's how I see it: we don't have the political will to win a war anymore.

    To win a war, our country has to not only kill more of the enemy's guys, break more of his stuff, and commit more atrocities than he's willing to endure, but also sufficiently demoralize the civilians of that country to the point where the majority of them do not support the war effort either. You have to be willing to completely destroy the country you're fighting, infrastructure and all.

    This challenge is further compounded in modern warfare by the lack of uniforms and the fact that the people that make up our enemies have been doing just fine in their (what we consider broken) countries for thousands of years. You can't fight third-world enemies by first-world standards. It just doesn't work. They are not upset by changes in government when that government consists of one dictator overthrowing another over and over again. They are not upset by infrastructure collapse when the utilities mostly only exist in urban centers. Most of these countries have vast swaths of land that are completely controlled by tribesmen.

    As a country, we've lost the stomach for waging true warfare. Adding technology to the battlefield serves to insulate us from what we're doing. Not necessarily for the sake of our troops, but so the folks at home can sleep soundly under the misguided impression that we're waging war in the most neat, ethical, and sterile way possible. Well, guess what. War is not neat, it is not ethical, it is not sterile, and it shouldn't be. Again, not for our sake, but for the enemy's. The enemy needs to perceive that we are willing to fight longer, harder, and dirtier than they are. They need to see us as scarier than they are. Only then will we be left alone.

    This is where the problem comes in because the politicians have to (theoretically anyways) answer to someone when they are in the position to command our troops to do what they do. The voting public wants leaders that are experts in diplomacy because we think diplomacy is how civilized nations like ourselves solve our political differences. So long as the enemy is a moral and civilized people, whose value system is close enough to our own, diplomacy can be effective. But what we fail to grasp is that you can't fight savages by taking the high road. You have to fight savages with savagery, and we're too good to be savages.

    Leave a comment:


  • that's my hand
    replied
    Originally posted by Langford PR View Post
    Hmmm.....won't go there with you and am not in awe of the article. Causation and result are NOT conspiracy, nor sinister. Bad choices lead to bad results and the items listed are highly 'plucked' from history, and done without much, if any, context.

    Your post about asymmetric warfare and our failure to align a winning strategy against it was extremely cogent ...... but I guess anyone can get a lucky shot. Does our foreign policy have 'FAIL' written all over it in the ME for over a century......yes, but the Illuminati aren't involved.

    hmmm??....grrr, actually your tinted birther/truther silliness torques me off more than a bit.

    Uhm, okay, a rant won't achieve anything. So, here I go with this....life is a fight that goes through the mud, feces, and blood of dreams and hopes.....every time it goes limp-penis its almost universally done by stupidity fail and NOT sinister genius fail. Oh, btw, the article like all birther/truther BS is based upon a premise that the only people involved are victims on one side and the evil USA screwing feces up on the other.......horse****!

    Go play on copblock or someplace you'll fit in better.
    I've lived my life in defense of this great nation and your myopic view of me or the world is about as relevant as cow **** at a rodeo.

    Leave a comment:


  • Langford PR
    replied
    Originally posted by that's my hand View Post
    I don't enjoy reading about our historical alignment with terrorists ... I think its reprehensible and hard to fathom. Here's another article worth a closer look.

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/09/...aeda-and-isis/

    Hmmm.....won't go there with you and am not in awe of the article. Causation and result are NOT conspiracy, nor sinister. Bad choices lead to bad results and the items listed are highly 'plucked' from history, and done without much, if any, context.

    Your post about asymmetric warfare and our failure to align a winning strategy against it was extremely cogent ...... but I guess anyone can get a lucky shot. Does our foreign policy have 'FAIL' written all over it in the ME for over a century......yes, but the Illuminati aren't involved.

    hmmm??....grrr, actually your tinted birther/truther silliness torques me off more than a bit.

    Uhm, okay, a rant won't achieve anything. So, here I go with this....life is a fight that goes through the mud, feces, and blood of dreams and hopes.....every time it goes limp-penis its almost universally done by stupidity fail and NOT sinister genius fail. Oh, btw, the article like all birther/truther BS is based upon a premise that the only people involved are victims on one side and the evil USA screwing feces up on the other.......horse****!

    Go play on copblock or someplace you'll fit in better.

    Leave a comment:


  • that's my hand
    replied
    Originally posted by Langford PR View Post
    The 'hump' you just described is the one we must overcome before we can even think about winning this......history has proven that it CAN be done but our ENTIRE leadership is still nowhere near that point of understanding.

    Let's all remember that ISIS in nothing more than al Qaeda in Iraq re-built, which is nothing more than an extension of al Qaeda/Taliban (both of which are still existing and growing just fine even after everything we've put into it). Conventional response, no matter how extensive, will achieve no more than all of our wasted effort did elsewhere. We have and are continuing to deploy the wrong strategies.
    I don't enjoy reading about our historical alignment with terrorists ... I think its reprehensible and hard to fathom. Here's another article worth a closer look.

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/09/...aeda-and-isis/

    Leave a comment:


  • that's my hand
    replied
    Originally posted by Langford PR View Post
    ) ...............decoy for what?????
    I don't know the answer to that, but thanks for asking.

    I will offer up these following videos and URL's and you can draw your own conclusion:



    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0N-5uGF9eYs

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqqRcyNUGEs

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HuSyMbbXK4

    And finally, the connection to the State Department. This is from A WEEK AGO!

    http://freebeacon.com/national-secur...te-department/

    Leave a comment:


  • Langford PR
    replied
    Originally posted by that's my hand View Post
    Unfortunately its asymmetrical warfare and we've never been any good at that because our forces have to fight the guerillas and the politicians at home. It's a no win situation.
    Brevity is the soul of wit.....! Brilliant post & a total encapsulation of the entire situation with global terrorism in general and ISIS in micro.

    The 'hump' you just described is the one we must overcome before we can even think about winning this......history has proven that it CAN be done but our ENTIRE leadership is still nowhere near that point of understanding.

    Let's all remember that ISIS in nothing more than al Qaeda in Iraq re-built, which is nothing more than an extension of al Qaeda/Taliban (both of which are still existing and growing just fine even after everything we've put into it). Conventional response, no matter how extensive, will achieve no more than all of our wasted effort did elsewhere. We have and are continuing to deploy the wrong strategies.

    Leave a comment:

MR300x250 Tablet

Collapse

What's Going On

Collapse

There are currently 5642 users online. 322 members and 5320 guests.

Most users ever online was 26,947 at 08:36 PM on 12-29-2019.

Welcome Ad

Collapse
Working...
X