France taking it to ISIS
- Thread starter red rover 70
- Start date
- Status
unfortunately there are only so many targets to hit that don't involve innocent casualties... Boots on the ground are the best way to root out the bastards.
http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2015/11/14/9735020/army-football-french-flag-paris
Missed this yesterday. Nice job Cadets.
Missed this yesterday. Nice job Cadets.
I know that to be true. It is just good to see a nation stepping up and fighting back with more than words. Men and women will need to be out into harms way to attack this evil. My prayers for them and their families as well as my thanks for the huge debt I owe them for their service.
There are no innocents in Raqqa just Isis and Isis sympathizers. Anyone not associated with Isis has either fled or been murdered long ago.. My sentiments are bombs away like we did in Europe. Muslims have been shown that there is a price for opposing Isis. Perhaps it's time they start to learn there is also a price for supporting them!
As the French were bombing terrorists, Obozo was busy releasing them. Slap in the face to the French.
It was great to see the Cadets with the flags! I just wish someone would have laid a big ass ISIS flag on the ground for those Cadets to run on, followed by ARMY mules laying down huge flops on their f'ing flag.
I congratulate France for dropping 20 bombs on evacuated structures. Hope they killed as many as were around. I was hoping for carpet bombing with a couple dozen "Daisy-Cutters" sprinkled in. A big message needs to be sent.
It was great to see the Cadets with the flags! I just wish someone would have laid a big ass ISIS flag on the ground for those Cadets to run on, followed by ARMY mules laying down huge flops on their f'ing flag.
I congratulate France for dropping 20 bombs on evacuated structures. Hope they killed as many as were around. I was hoping for carpet bombing with a couple dozen "Daisy-Cutters" sprinkled in. A big message needs to be sent.
Last edited:
I think drones, intelligence and special forces are the most effective way if you don't want to get locked up in to troop involvement on a mass scale. Boots on the ground would probably just drive them back in to hiding and they'll just come back out when we leave. The problem is that there isn't a force there unified enough to fight for, take and hold Syria or Iraq. More or less a collection of rag tags unless you mix in the Peshmerga but our support for the Kurds will go no further than maintaining their grounds. Peshmerga are by far the most effective fighting force in both Iraq and Syria who are in with the coalition and they don't even have high end military hardware. We wont support any advance by them and I'm not even sure they would care to save the day because Turkey isn't exactly friendly with the Kurds. It's just a mess over there and I really have no clue as to how it could be fixed with so many groups who hate each other. Sadly the only ones who are ever unified enough to control the lands are the bad guys.
Rules of engagement only lengthen the war and more good guys die. That's why Truman dropped the bomb. It's a war THEY started. As a military vet we had a saying, "kill em all & let God sort em out." Not saying nuke em, I'm saying if 10, 20, or 100 civilians die but you kill ten times that many enemy. .. that's the ugly face of war. If they don't mind killing millions of innocent people we shouldn't mind wiping them off the face of the earth.
There were no ROE in Japan. At the time we were going to invade, we had already firebombed the cities into char.
We nuked Japan, because even after pounding the homeland, we were still set to lose a million men in a no holds barred fight.
Amen...just trying to get men onto that island would have been a trainwreck...
the problem is islam, islam doesn't allow for a secular government or freedom of religion. there is no wheat growing with tares in islam.
in islam, it's either islam or war.
and long run you can't make a stable society with just force.
so even if we put boots on the ground, the second we leave they will just slip back to the same thing.
there is no self government - sanctification in islam
to me the Gospel and just war is the only way, long term to control islam.
well short of providenceCool
in islam, it's either islam or war.
and long run you can't make a stable society with just force.
so even if we put boots on the ground, the second we leave they will just slip back to the same thing.
there is no self government - sanctification in islam
to me the Gospel and just war is the only way, long term to control islam.
well short of providenceCool
You are correct. I was trying to put two thoughts into a reason and for an Army dog face that's too complicated 
I was trying to say when you put stringent ROE it will kill more good guys. I believe Truman wanted to limit the amount of American KIA's. Two thoughts one reason. Too complicated for this grunt.
I was trying to say when you put stringent ROE it will kill more good guys. I believe Truman wanted to limit the amount of American KIA's. Two thoughts one reason. Too complicated for this grunt.
Unfortunately France already knows too well about innocent casualties. Bombs away.
And I've never been to Paris but to Nice, Colmar and Strasbourg in France. I found their people to be very friendly to us. My prayers go out to them.
This is the problem that folks don't understand about the War on Terror. Basically the only time we fought a massed group of terrorists where we could kill them in big clumps was the weeks leading into Tora Bora. Tora Bora was also in the middle of nowhere, so it didn't really matter where we shot.
When US forces go out on patrol, they aren't calling in airstrikes to kill 10 civilians and 100 terrorists. They are generally in situations where they might hit two terrorists and 40 civilians.
Killing the enemy isn't the hard part, finding them generally take 100x longer man hours.
Now that's not to say that ROE haven't hamstrung us, it certainly has at points. But on the whole, its not a situation where, "we could eliminate 30k terrorists if there weren't any ROE".
Why not nuke them back to the stone age, meet violence with violence. That's only thing they understand or know. It would prevent a lot of our ground troops from getting killed. I served during operation restore hope in the aftermath of black hawk down and the general public didn't like they way our troops were paraded around like trophies. I don't want to think what isis would do to our troops or sailors or airmen if captured.
[QUOTE="redwine65, post: 1237268, member: 12730"]the problem is islam, islam doesn't allow for a secular government or freedom of religion. there is no wheat growing with tares in islam./QUOTE]
in islam, it's either islam or war.
and long run you can't make a stable society with just force.
so even if we put boots on the ground, the second we leave they will just slip back to the same thing.
there is no self government - sanctification in islam
to me the Gospel and just war is the only way, long term to control islam.
well short of providenceCool[/QUOTE]
This is where the war was probably lost way back in 2001 and again in 2003.
We are not an empire in the traditional sense. We had no intent to rule Afghanistan or Iraq. The Bush administration, like any other administration would do, chose to give those people free will to set up their government. In short, they gave them tools that they don't want or know how to use, and no amount of time of us standing around there was going to fix that.
The "new" Govt of Iraq in 2003 wasn't a secular govt, Islam was the official religion and the official reason for being. We weren't creating a new US, we were essentially setting up a new Iran, that hopefully liked us more.
in islam, it's either islam or war.
and long run you can't make a stable society with just force.
so even if we put boots on the ground, the second we leave they will just slip back to the same thing.
there is no self government - sanctification in islam
to me the Gospel and just war is the only way, long term to control islam.
well short of providenceCool[/QUOTE]
This is where the war was probably lost way back in 2001 and again in 2003.
We are not an empire in the traditional sense. We had no intent to rule Afghanistan or Iraq. The Bush administration, like any other administration would do, chose to give those people free will to set up their government. In short, they gave them tools that they don't want or know how to use, and no amount of time of us standing around there was going to fix that.
The "new" Govt of Iraq in 2003 wasn't a secular govt, Islam was the official religion and the official reason for being. We weren't creating a new US, we were essentially setting up a new Iran, that hopefully liked us more.
It was noted in the news today, that of the roughly 1800 strikes on ISIS, less than 150 were carried out by non-US nations in the coalition.
I would also note that the coalition nations are reliant upon the US for logistical and intelligence support. Without us, there is no them.
Just a neat little FYI. Anyone who has been around the DoD for any amount of time has probably seen the poster where there's like a quad chart set up, in one corner is like 1000 B-17 outlines and one ball bearing plant, then in Vietnam its like 100 B-52 outlines and a couple of targets, then in the modern age, one B-2 and then 16 targets. Signifying how much military power it took to hit however many targets, and the radical advances we've made.
Most of the reason for carpet bombing Europe had to do with the technology of the time. To hit one rail yard, you'd have to send 1000 bombers and level a mile square to make sure the probability of damaging that rail yard was sufficiently high to justify the risk to the crews and the cost for the USG. If they had B-2's in 1944, Europe would have never been carpet bombed. Edit: Or at least a lot less carpet bombed than it was.
I don't envy the leaders of the world in this situation. A lot of damned if you do, damned if you don't. Cut the head off a snake and see two grow back in its place.
I agree, if i was in charge I'd turn them loose and it would be gloves off. Murder them in the dark of night. And while you're at it, hunt that Boko Haram crew in Africa down and wipe them out.
jflores, I appreciate your unyielding willingness to bring actual facts to these discussions.
My heart goes out to France, and good for them for this response to the attacks. But Good Lord, the idea that France is suddenly doing the heavy lifting while the U.S. stands idly by is absolute nonsense.
Your presumption is that when I said bombs away I meant let's drop hundreds of bombs to hit a few strategic targets in Raqqa. I'm all for wiping Raqqa from the map. And then moving on to the next Isis stronghold. Like I said, there are no innocents in Raqqa, just Isis and Isis sympathizers. In my opinion the only way to win this conflict is to have Isis sympathizers more afraid of us than Isis.
This is where the war was probably lost way back in 2001 and again in 2003.
We are not an empire in the traditional sense. We had no intent to rule Afghanistan or Iraq. The Bush administration, like any other administration would do, chose to give those people free will to set up their government. In short, they gave them tools that they don't want or know how to use, and no amount of time of us standing around there was going to fix that.
The "new" Govt of Iraq in 2003 wasn't a secular govt, Islam was the official religion and the official reason for being. We weren't creating a new US, we were essentially setting up a new Iran, that hopefully liked us more.[/QUOTE]
--------------------------------
exactly, no jihadists is justified which brings sanctification..and that sanctification is why one follows the moral law. so you won't find a jihadist saying to himself
"hmmm should I blow all these people up in this cafe, because it's against the moral law and I'll have to answer for it in front of my maker?"
so their carnal mindset is set on 72 virgins they can plow for eternity..and is 72 enough for eternity anyway??? even if one is totally depraved and consumed with the flesh?
I don't see much self government in isis, and no hope in islam.
or as john adams would put it...
“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other.”
Last edited:
The video in that link was interesting from the aspect that it showed Obama & Putin (with interpreters I'm assuming) huddled together discussing this common enemy. I was actually glad to see that type of engagement from both Presidents to try to work together.
Thanks for posting this Red Rover.
My jaw literally hit the floor when I learned that one of the attackers posed as a refugee from Syria. "NO WAY" I thought to myself. Who would have ever thought that?
WE are actually helping them spread their terror with our open boarders policies..France tried to be nice and let many into the country... Europe is starting to see the error of their ways. .Long term by having the current policies here and abroad in about 50 years there is going to be hell to pay....
You just don't understand lightspeed we have to replace bullets with hugs.
***sarcasm***
No problem. Hopefully the middle eastern countries will join the cause. My girlfriend's step dad is a Saudi and we have talked about these problems. Good Muslims need to stand up against these misguided souls who kill.
All class all the time, aren't you? That statement is as ignorant of the facts as it is obnoxious. Take a read through Jflores' posts below for some ACTUAL information on the U.S. response. While France gets the headlines, the U.S. gets the lion's share of the work. The latter is as per usual.
All class all the time, aren't you? That statement is as ignorant of the facts as it is obnoxious. Take a read through Jflores' posts below for some ACTUAL information on the U.S. response. While France gets the headlines, the U.S. gets the lion's share of the work. The latter is as per usual.
Your eyes don't run as well as your mouth. Never said it wasn't possible. Just said I don't keep a pair of piss-soaked underwear about it like you do.
I've been meaning to ask...you war hawks active duty, or retired? Surely you wouldn't sit around clamoring for a fight you're not willing to take part in...
Haha.. It's not my fault you can't handle facts, and you say things are BS. I'm not piss soaked at all as I am more than armed for if these idiots do try something on our soil. To answer your final question, I have no military background; however, my dad is a former Army Ranger, my cousin is currently in Ranger school, both grandfathers are Marine Corps. I'm very educated on our military and happenings of people who have seen first hand what these people are. Also, as stated in a previous locked thread, I have seen it with my own two eyes. You can call BS all you want but it is fact. Good try though.
Well congratulations on your duty-by-association. If we're playing that game, then pretty much all of us qualify, don't we? Is this the part where I name drop my relatives and their ranks? Which one is USAF, which one is Army, which one is an engineer? Yeah, you're real tough with your arsenal you play pretend with for a day you know deep down is never coming. You've seen WHAT with your own two eyes? Some clay trap? Some pheasants?
While you were pecking that out, you missed on live TV where the POTUS laid out very clearly that he doesn't give a shit who thinks he's tough or wants to scream about what they think America looks like, he has to go look the kids at Walter Reed in the eyes and know he ordered them into battle when they're sitting there with no legs.
What a joke that some of you fancy yourselves the tough guy in the room, you've never been there, it's not your life on the line. But you wanna fan the flames and send somebody else to go do the job and then act like I'm the coward. Shit, better a "libtard" than a chickenhawk.
There are no easy answers. They're an existential threat to our way of life. Completely wiping them off the map with a scorched Earth method isn't really acceptable anymore but we're running out of options. I do know one thing though. Taking the high road and playing by different rules hasn't worked so far.
"This aggression will not stand, man"
"This aggression will not stand, man"
These are radicals within the Islam/Muslim community. Part of the response needs to be applying immense pressure on this community to "fix" their own. This is only a part of the response, however.
- Status
Similar threads
