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

  • EmmaPeel
    replied
    Originally posted by Meizele_15481 View Post
    Yeah, you gotta cut them off from the top right away because they won't stop. You just have to look at history and see just that. Appeasement, trying to reason, boycotting etc. with these kind of people is NEVER the answer. And it's a mistake the US has been making for years for example with the Muslim Brotherhood, Iran and now ISIS and most certainly a whole lot further back throughout history.
    Yepppppppp. True dat.

    Leave a comment:


  • EmmaPeel
    replied
    Originally posted by JasperST View Post
    Forget Nazi vs. ISIS, our fearless leader has just punted it into the Crusader vs. Islam field. He said Christians need to get off their high horse because they did that kind of stuff during the Crusades. To hear that from some anonymous poster or blogger on the internet is one thing but from the presidential podium? WTF?
    Yep, just when you think he can't get more stupid. It was fun calling him out on twitter yesterday.

    Leave a comment:


  • Meizele_15481
    replied
    Originally posted by EmmaPeel View Post
    Yes, people like you get it real fast, Meizele.
    Yeah, you gotta cut them off from the top right away because they won't stop. Just take a look at history and see just that. Appeasement, trying to reason, boycotting etc. has not worked and it's a mistake the US has been making for years for example with the Muslim Brotherhood, Iran and now ISIS and most certainly throughout history. Actions like that don't stop them - it just gives them time to continue recruiting and get stronger.
    Last edited by Meizele_15481; 02-06-2015, 09:59 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • EmmaPeel
    replied
    Originally posted by Meizele_15481 View Post
    Glad to see you say that. My maternal grandfathers entire family was killed by the Nazis. Yet, ISIS barbarism knows no bounds! Those hounds need to be wiped out and the lack of action from the US is troubling to say the least.
    Yes, people like you get it real fast, Meizele.

    Leave a comment:


  • EmmaPeel
    replied
    Originally posted by Aerohead View Post
    What a cowinkidink. My mother's family did the same. Where is your family from?
    So Aero, are you an Irish Pollack too?????

    Let me get back on the details....

    Well, they originate from Prussia. Don't you see the militaristic resemblance?

    Leave a comment:


  • Meizele_15481
    replied
    Originally posted by EmmaPeel View Post
    I'm not minimizing what the Nazis did. My dad's parents came over on the boat from Poland so I certainly am not doing that.

    But as sick and unforgiveable as what the Nazi's did to Jews, Poles, and others, this is yet a new low.

    You have to understand that to that Jordanian pilot that came from a prominent tribe and from that elite training, honor was even more important than torture and dying. While ISIS stood by in full regalia cheering on the long torture, it was also their intent to humiliate him in front of the world...and attempt to remove all honor. They had probably spent the weeks/days leading up to the burning employing as much psych-ops as possible to try to convince him he was dishonorable. It wasn't just a gruesome death, it was also meant to rip out his soul in front of all he cared about.

    There's a reason the Geneva Convention forbids humiliation (which these animals could care less about) but it's not just about pain and torture.

    I'm not talking about the number of people you employ depraved techniques on, I'm talking about the level of that technique. And if you look at ALL the things ISIS has done in Syria and Iraq to women and children so far, yes......they have outdone eve the sick Nazis.
    Glad to see you say that. My maternal grandfathers entire family was killed by the Nazis. Yet, ISIS barbarism knows no bounds! Those hounds need to be wiped out and the lack of action from the US is troubling to say the least.

    Leave a comment:


  • EmmaPeel
    replied
    Originally posted by bsd13 View Post
    Why would I keep track of something you wrote in June?

    To your question of "why" you shouldn't hold your breath. There's a difference between actually supporting something and simply going through the motions for the sake of appearance. Obama will do it for the sake of apperance not because his administration actually supports waging war. If they did then we would not be at the point we are with ISIS so far out of control.
    Touche'. But why would you challenge someone you know nothing about. It wasn't malicious but you waded right in and challenged me without knowing where I was coming from. That's not a problem, but I've spent a lot of time over the years watching tactical geniuses such as yourself wipe egg from their faces in challenging my predictions, and that includes plenty of military and special operations folks.

    As for your point about Obama, I'm in complete agreement he's a limp d*ck. Where I disagree with you is the momentum is swelling in just the past 48 hours in SPITE of his lack of leadership....and he'll be forced to start doing more than go through the motions.

    Leave a comment:


  • JustAJ
    replied
    Originally posted by Max K View Post
    Apparently, when it comes to warfighting, it's different: the smart people in the Pentagon come up with a plan, and it may even be approved, but then, in the middle of the war, politicians (military and civilian) are allowed to step in and make changes, because they believe in a different school of thought, or in different politics: this waters down, dilutes, weakens, or even nullifies completely, the original strategy, and thus leads to failure. Is that how it works, Emma? Maybe the military should be allowed to do their job like a surgeon. Or is this one of those trade-offs that are necessary, for our system of government?
    You pretty much nailed it. The decision makers in suits sit back in their nice comfy DC offices and assume that because of how "connected" we all are today that they have an accurate picture of how things are like "on the ground". While it is certainly more true today than in wars past, no amount of technology can replace actually being there.

    Leave a comment:


  • Aerohead
    replied
    Originally posted by EmmaPeel View Post
    I'm not minimizing what the Nazis did. My dad's parents came over on the boat from Poland so I certainly am not doing that.
    What a cowinkidink. My mother's family did the same. Where is your family from?

    Leave a comment:


  • bsd13
    replied
    Originally posted by EmmaPeel View Post
    Why?

    Obviously you haven't read the Iraq thread I started in June predicting all that's happened would happen. A number of us did.
    Why would I keep track of something you wrote in June?

    To your question of "why" you shouldn't hold your breath. There's a difference between actually supporting something and simply going through the motions for the sake of appearance. Obama will do it for the sake of apperance not because his administration actually supports waging war. If they did then we would not be at the point we are with ISIS so far out of control.

    Leave a comment:


  • JasperST
    replied
    Forget Nazi vs. ISIS, our fearless leader has just punted it into the Crusader vs. Islam field. He said Christians need to get off their high horse because they did that kind of stuff during the Crusades. To hear that from some anonymous poster or blogger on the internet is one thing but from the presidential podium? WTF?

    Leave a comment:


  • EmmaPeel
    replied
    Originally posted by Max K View Post
    I don't know much about any of this, it sounds like you're right.

    But I don't think that's how it works in the surgical department of a hospital: if there is a difficult heart transplant operation coming up, I believe that one of the surgeons outranks everybody else, so that even if one of the other surgeons believes in a different school of thought (on how best to proceed), he is overruled by the ranking surgeon: the subordinate surgeon is not allowed to do anything that is opposed to what the ranking surgeon has decided (the procedure is to be). The subordinate surgeon is not allowed to "water-down" or otherwise weaken, and thus make ineffective, the plan of the ranking surgeon: the success or failure of the operation is largely the result of the ranking surgeon's plan. At least that's how I think it works. If a lot of patients die on the ranking surgeon's operating table, then maybe there is cause to look at his or her methods. But while the patient is on the operating table, nobody is allowed to interfere with the ranking surgeon's decisions.

    Apparently, when it comes to warfighting, it's different: the smart people in the Pentagon come up with a plan, and it may even be approved, but then, in the middle of the war, politicians (military and civilian) are allowed to step in and make changes, because they believe in a different school of thought, or in different politics: this waters down, dilutes, weakens, or even nullifies completely, the original strategy, and thus leads to failure. Is that how it works, Emma? Maybe the military should be allowed to do their job like a surgeon. Or is this one of those trade-offs that are necessary, for our system of government?
    While biology is not a black and white area, a heart is heart is a heart......but when talking about war, there is so much gray, it's hard to even start out with the same assumptions. There's military, economic, political, diplomatic aspects.....all very gray.

    Leave a comment:


  • EmmaPeel
    replied
    Originally posted by dauntless89 View Post
    I think an important point in the Nazi vs ISIS thing is that the industrialized genocide that took place in WW2 isn't really comparable to burning one person alive in a cage and spreading the video around. They're both reprehensible events, but also kind of apples and oranges. I see two very different types of monstrosity.

    One is orchestrating (somewhat behind the scenes) a government to eradicate an entire race of people, with little publicity until 12,000,000 were dead.

    The other is a relatively small group of psychopaths committing a relatively few and isolated acts of barbarism, with tons of publicity.

    It's all reprehensible. All despicable. But I can't really see how it could be logically argued that one is worse than the other.
    I'm not minimizing what the Nazis did. My dad's parents came over on the boat from Poland so I certainly am not doing that.

    But as sick and unforgiveable as what the Nazi's did to Jews, Poles, and others, this is yet a new low.

    You have to understand that to that Jordanian pilot that came from a prominent tribe and from that elite training, honor was even more important than torture and dying. While ISIS stood by in full regalia cheering on the long torture, it was also their intent to humiliate him in front of the world...and attempt to remove all honor. They had probably spent the weeks/days leading up to the burning employing as much psych-ops as possible to try to convince him he was dishonorable. It wasn't just a gruesome death, it was also meant to rip out his soul in front of all he cared about.

    There's a reason the Geneva Convention forbids humiliation (which these animals could care less about) but it's not just about pain and torture.

    I'm not talking about the number of people you employ depraved techniques on, I'm talking about the level of that technique. And if you look at ALL the things ISIS has done in Syria and Iraq to women and children so far, yes......they have outdone eve the sick Nazis.

    Leave a comment:


  • dauntless89
    replied
    I think an important point in the Nazi vs ISIS thing is that the industrialized genocide that took place in WW2 isn't really comparable to burning one person alive in a cage and spreading the video around. They're both reprehensible events, but also kind of apples and oranges. I see two very different types of monstrosity.

    One is orchestrating (somewhat behind the scenes) a government to eradicate an entire race of people, with little publicity until 12,000,000 were dead.

    The other is a relatively small group of psychopaths committing a relatively few and isolated acts of barbarism, with tons of publicity.

    It's all reprehensible. All despicable. But I can't really see how it could be logically argued that one is worse than the other.

    Leave a comment:


  • Max K
    replied
    Originally posted by EmmaPeel View Post
    Max K, answer to your question about the Pentagon? Yes, there are plenty of smart people there. Same in the intel agencies. But don't forget overseeing the "regular" folks are political appointees. And in the Pentagon, you have some generals that are very political, and some that are are as professional as they can be.

    IOW layered over all the smart people are the political appointees.
    I don't know much about any of this, it sounds like you're right.

    But I don't think that's how it works in the surgical department of a hospital: if there is a difficult heart transplant operation coming up, I believe that one of the surgeons outranks everybody else, so that even if one of the other surgeons believes in a different school of thought (on how best to proceed), he is overruled by the ranking surgeon: the subordinate surgeon is not allowed to do anything that is opposed to what the ranking surgeon has decided (the procedure is to be). The subordinate surgeon is not allowed to "water-down" or otherwise weaken, and thus make ineffective, the plan of the ranking surgeon: the success or failure of the operation is largely the result of the ranking surgeon's plan. At least that's how I think it works. If a lot of patients die on the ranking surgeon's operating table, then maybe there is cause to look at his or her methods. But while the patient is on the operating table, nobody is allowed to interfere with the ranking surgeon's decisions.

    Apparently, when it comes to warfighting, it's different: the smart people in the Pentagon come up with a plan, and it may even be approved, but then, in the middle of the war, politicians (military and civilian) are allowed to step in and make changes, because they believe in a different school of thought, or in different politics: this waters down, dilutes, weakens, or even nullifies completely, the original strategy, and thus leads to failure. Is that how it works, Emma? Maybe the military should be allowed to do their job like a surgeon. Or is this one of those trade-offs that are necessary, for our system of government?
    Last edited by Max K; 02-06-2015, 12:16 AM.

    Leave a comment:

MR300x250 Tablet

Collapse

What's Going On

Collapse

There are currently 5569 users online. 313 members and 5256 guests.

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

Welcome Ad

Collapse
Working...
X