Motherfuckers

[Michchamp]

Hey, you said it. You think it's time to "rout these motherfuckers".

So get going, grab your boots and helmet and do it.

Or would you just rather others do all the fighting and dying and losing limbs etc. that comes from large scale military incursions and you can just post about it?

you REALLY don't know him.

jdilco was a highly decorated Navy SEAL... Special Ops.

He'll be the first one on the beach. This is him in action in 'Nam:

creeping death

 

[jwlcosu]

Keep your head down, Champ:

http://wgntv.com/2014/08/21/photo-implies-isis-threat-to-chicago/

 

[zyxt9]

Also, this is heartless. There is always the hope/possibility that solutions can come from the local population. Wiping out everyone should be closer to the bottom in the ranking of possible outcomes.

Sorry if the impression was that it was at the top of the list. The absolute bottom was letting them have complete control because we washed our hands and turned our backs like Thumb prefers. The preference just above that last option is turning it to glass. This isn't just my opinion, it is what Israel WILL do before simply turning everything over to the Muslim extremists as the moment they surrender they will be killed anyway, better to take out as many as possible with your last breath.

At the top of my preference list is the Moderate Muslims stepping up and providing a peaceful Middle East that coexists with Israel in a dual state environment. I thought this was clearly expessed in prior posts.

As for Thumbs comment...as he said, consider the source, which is a person who prefers Extremist Muslims being allowed to commit genocide and terroristic attrocities without any repercusion at all. Hell, wouldn't surprise me to learn he helps provide them with money or other things, because he is the type who won't care if the Extremists take over the world even if it meant his own execution on YouTube. In fact, Thumb, you should consider taking your own advice you spouted and go to ISIS and beg them to hold you hostage and demand $100M for your release, let's see how that works out for you. I'm sure those guys wouldn't actually do anything to someone like yourself who is just trying to help them and side with them at every possible moment. If you need the money to fly there, let me know where to send your plane ticket. Oh, and don't worry, you won't need a helmet or a weapon, and probably no clothes other than the ones you are already wearing.

 

[Thumb]

Sorry if the impression was that it was at the top of the list. The absolute bottom was letting them have complete control because we washed our hands and turned our backs like Thumb prefers. The preference just above that last option is turning it to glass. This isn't just my opinion, it is what Israel WILL do before simply turning everything over to the Muslim extremists as the moment they surrender they will be killed anyway, better to take out as many as possible with your last breath.

At the top of my preference list is the Moderate Muslims stepping up and providing a peaceful Middle East that coexists with Israel in a dual state environment. I thought this was clearly expessed in prior posts.

As for Thumbs comment...as he said, consider the source, which is a person who prefers Extremist Muslims being allowed to commit genocide and terroristic attrocities without any repercusion at all. Hell, wouldn't surprise me to learn he helps provide them with money or other things, because he is the type who won't care if the Extremists take over the world even if it meant his own execution on YouTube. In fact, Thumb, you should consider taking your own advice you spouted and go to ISIS and beg them to hold you hostage and demand $100M for your release, let's see how that works out for you. I'm sure those guys wouldn't actually do anything to someone like yourself who is just trying to help them and side with them at every possible moment. If you need the money to fly there, let me know where to send your plane ticket. Oh, and don't worry, you won't need a helmet or a weapon, and probably no clothes other than the ones you are already wearing.

This post is so full of bullshit and incorrect assumptions I don't know where to start.

You are coming close to taking tstupids place as board dumbfuck.

 

[zyxt9]

serious answers only please. wiping out more of them would only lead to more extremism. we can't kill or capture faster than they can be indoctrinated, we need to fight the demand side of terrorism, not the supply side.

as for totalitarian rule, it really isn't a defeatist attitude. we're dealing with tribal issues that go back hundreds of years, we topple their current regime then they'll replace it with something worse or less stable, bloodshed for years. those are our two shitty choices

I was serious, but I don't disagree with the idea that different tactics should not be considered or more strongly worked on. Particularly focusing on the money side. Unfortunately my personal belief is ISIS is being funded by a major player. Perhaps Russia, but they aren't that fond of Muslim Extremists. China? How much would that suck since we basically give them the economic means to then fund terrorists, but not sure they would do that...but that basically leaves Muslims who have gotten their money from the US via oil, so it still sucks we have in all likelihood funded both sides in this fight, but I wouldn't say that is surprising since as a nation we constantly fund the Dems and Reps to wage their own battles in the political theater when neither is truthfully deserving of their pay nor our votes.

None of that means ISIS should not be attacked and neutralized, along with the next group and the next and so on down the line until Moderate Muslims finally step up and defend themselves. If that never happens, then yes, it means we will forever be fighting them...but that sure is better than surrendering to them and having our own beheading ceremony.

 

[zyxt9]

This post is so full of bullshit and incorrect assumptions I don't know where to start.

You are coming close to taking tstupids place as board dumbfuck.

So you don't continually post that we should not fight them? There are three options, fight, don't fight and let them take complete control, and negotiate for peace. I don't doubt that your preference is the last one; however, you assume that I just want to fight and not negotiate for peace when my preference is negotiations. Yet your "consider the source" comment implied just that, so before you start throwing verbal assaults that I'm only a bloodthirsty dumbfuck, recognize that is not true and we can move closer toward a respectable debate.

 

[Thumb]

So you don't continually post that we should not fight them? There are three options, fight, don't fight and let them take complete control, and negotiate for peace. I don't doubt that your preference is the last one; however, you assume that I just want to fight and not negotiate for peace when my preference is negotiations. Yet your "consider the source" comment implied just that, so before you start throwing verbal assaults that I'm only a bloodthirsty dumbfuck, recognize that is not true and we can move closer toward a respectable debate.

My consider the source comment was right on target, or do we need to revisit the whole Molotov cocktail thing again?

Also you say we should fight them. Okay, how? Because we can't do shit to Al Qaeda because they are not a country, they don't wear uniforms, they don't have a capitol or ambassadors, they attack us and plant IED's in plain sight because we don't know they are bag guys until it's too late. So while it's easy for you and jdilco to say yeah, let's go kick their [ISIS/ISIL] asses, you have not put an ounce of reasonable thought into it.

How many dead, wounded, and PTSD'd Soldiers, Airmen, Sailors and Marines came out of the last knee-jerk reaction? You cannot fight a conventional war against these people, and even if we could...it's not our fucking business. We are not the worlds policemen, and it's not our place to go and deal with what is not a direct threat to us. We have enough problems as it is. Besides, Iraq has an army, Jordan has an army, Egypt has an army, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Israel.....let the people in the region deal with the problems in the region.

How many fucking Vietnams do we have to have before idiots will learn that just throwing military force at something is no solution at all?

 

[Mitchrapp]

I'm not sure what I think we should do but sometimes the world needs police states..

One thing I'm curious about, they wanted 132m and the policy has always been "don't negotiate with terrorists". Which I agree with but previously Obama by-passed Congress and negotiated with terrorists by releasing 3 prisoners...so why not now? I'm glad he didn't, finally showed some backbone just curious is all..

 

[Gulo Blue]

At the top of my preference list is the Moderate Muslims stepping up and providing a peaceful Middle East that coexists with Israel in a dual state environment. I thought this was clearly expessed in prior posts.

How are they supposed to do that after you've turned everything to glass?

 

[zyxt9]

My consider the source comment was right on target, or do we need to revisit the whole Molotov cocktail thing again?

Also you say we should fight them. Okay, how? Because we can't do shit to Al Qaeda because they are not a country, they don't wear uniforms, they don't have a capitol or ambassadors, they attack us and plant IED's in plain sight because we don't know they are bag guys until it's too late. So while it's easy for you and jdilco to say yeah, let's go kick their [ISIS/ISIL] asses, you have not put an ounce of reasonable thought into it.

How many dead, wounded, and PTSD'd Soldiers, Airmen, Sailors and Marines came out of the last knee-jerk reaction? You cannot fight a conventional war against these people, and even if we could...it's not our fucking business. We are not the worlds policemen, and it's not our place to go and deal with what is not a direct threat to us. We have enough problems as it is. Besides, Iraq has an army, Jordan has an army, Egypt has an army, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Israel.....let the people in the region deal with the problems in the region.

How many fucking Vietnams do we have to have before idiots will learn that just throwing military force at something is no solution at all?

This is NOT Vietnam. Not even remotely similar.

I have zero issue with having the region take care of its own; however, they continually prove themselves less qualified to do that and thereby allowing this particular group to perform genocidal tactics. Now, contrary to what you perceive, ISIS is actually committing genocidal tactics. Israel, while not being bloodless, is not going in and demanding the Palestinians convert or die. ISIS actually is doing that, and continually extending their areas of influence and control. By not going in, how many innocent people will be executed??? And you are okay with that?????? How many millions will need to be killed before you finally believe it is better to send in the military???????

You call ME out for being bloodthirsty, you condemn Israel for killing less than 2000 Palestinians, yet ISIS has, is, and will kill far more....but let's just continue the status quo and not get involved, right???

 

[zyxt9]

How are they supposed to do that after you've turned everything to glass?

Blue...what you THiNK my hierarchy list looks like, flip it.

There you go. Moderate Muslims having control is at the top now, right? Turning everything to glass is almost at the bottom, with only allowing Extrmist Terrorists having unchecked control below that. There are many things between the top and bottom which have a pretty damn good chance for success too, long before turning everything to glass.

But yes, vaporizing the region is on the list, and don't kid yourself into believing Israel won't do just that with its dying breath should it get to that point...and then the Extremist Terrorists who remain behind can have their unchecked control.

 

[Thumb]

This is NOT Vietnam. Not even remotely similar.

An armed conflict that was both costly (in terms of both money and lives) and in the end futile. That was Vietnam.

That was also Iraq.

And most likely Afghanistan.

Seems pretty damn similar to me.


The biggest problem in Vietnam (there were several) was the Viet Cong, guerrilla soldiers who were no part of a national military and the US military was not equipped to deal with them. Now fast-fowards 40 years and the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan are posing the same problem.

The gulf war was easy, we saw Iraq's army, knew where they were, who they were, and what they were doing. So Schwarzkopf said, go kick their asses back to Iraq, and it was pretty easy. But in Vietnam, soldiers didn't know if that rice farmer was Viet Cong and laying mines for his patrol, the same as the soldiers in the middle east did not know if the guy working the bazaar was setting an IED.

It would (will?) be the same with ISIL. How many times do we have to learn the same lesson?

 

[Michchamp]

the US military has a pretty poor record against fighting insurgents. it's not their fault as much, since no military really has a great record fighting insurgencies. Where they've erred is in pushing to make local rebellions or occupations a military matter. they're bad at picking their battles. and our political leadership is weak... ironically turning over control to the military in matters such as these because of concerns they will be portrayed as "weak" in the US media by showing restraint, no matter how advisable it may be.

 

[zyxt9]

An armed conflict that was both costly (in terms of both money and lives) and in the end futile. That was Vietnam.

That was also Iraq.

And most likely Afghanistan.

Seems pretty damn similar to me.


The biggest problem in Vietnam (there were several) was the Viet Cong, guerrilla soldiers who were no part of a national military and the US military was not equipped to deal with them. Now fast-fowards 40 years and the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan are posing the same problem.

The gulf war was easy, we saw Iraq's army, knew where they were, who they were, and what they were doing. So Schwarzkopf said, go kick their asses back to Iraq, and it was pretty easy. But in Vietnam, soldiers didn't know if that rice farmer was Viet Cong and laying mines for his patrol, the same as the soldiers in the middle east did not know if the guy working the bazaar was setting an IED.

It would (will?) be the same with ISIL. How many times do we have to learn the same lesson?

The VC objective was uniting North and South Vietnam. There was no potential threat of them attacking the US. While the VC did deploy tactics that were against the Geneva Convention, they were not declaring genocide of the South Vietnamese people once conquered.

ISIL has plainly demonstrated their objectives, motives, and tactics. You want to run away, cover your eyes and ears to the FACT that ISIL is a genocidal extremist group who uses brutal tactics to attract impressionable followers and work them into bloodthirsty states of mind. They thrive off publicly demonstrating their willingness to kill infidels in inhumane ways. You would prefer leaving the people in the region with no way to these monstrous terrorists.

The US military does not run from fights because they are tough and the situation is bleak. The members of the military understand going in what they signed up to do as opposed to were drafted to do, including helping people incapable of helping themselves.

No, this is NOT Vietnam and your anti-war rhetoric flat out stinks of being perfectly ok with the genocide of people. Why? Why are you perfectly ok with them slaughtering millions, which they would gladly do if given the chance by not being kept on check? You think this is not our problem? You think ISIL is content with some man-made border acquisition? Go smoke another Peace Pipe and bury your head deeper into the sand.

 

[zyxt9]

the US military has a pretty poor record against fighting insurgents. it's not their fault as much, since no military really has a great record fighting insurgencies. Where they've erred is in pushing to make local rebellions or occupations a military matter. they're bad at picking their battles. and our political leadership is weak... ironically turning over control to the military in matters such as these because of concerns they will be portrayed as "weak" in the US media by showing restraint, no matter how advisable it may be.

They did pretty damn well in Iraq up until they were removed. If they were still there, do you honestly think ISIS/ISIL would have conquered anything?

And I still hold that there is something very fishy about the rapid way ISIS/ISIL was able to expand and their unusual strategic targets. They are being backed by some state funding and leadership. It requires too much money to do what they have done so quickly and their strategies are very "organized military" in nature.

 

[Michchamp]

this guy disagrees.

"I have not seen any evidence of successful U.S. intervention to stop such violence in our modern history. So, while I think it is a noble idea, I don’t think it is practically possible. Prevention of genocide by addressing conditions of political instability and lack of political order is what is needed and what is attainable."

...

 

[Michchamp]

They did pretty damn well in Iraq up until they rremoved....

I do not agree.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Blue...what you THiNK my hierarchy list looks like, flip it.

What am I supposed to think when you put turning it to glass above keeping the US out? That doesn't give any non-US driven solutions a chance.

 

[Thumb]

No, this is NOT Vietnam and your anti-war rhetoric flat out stinks of being perfectly ok with the genocide of people. Why? Why are you perfectly ok with them slaughtering millions, which they would gladly do if given the chance by not being kept on check? You think this is not our problem? You think ISIL is content with some man-made border acquisition? Go smoke another Peace Pipe and bury your head deeper into the sand.

The places where you claim they are going to slaughter millions have military forces already. And you are so up in arms over this, were was the outcry from us not going to Sudan, Rwanda, Myanmar, etc when things like this happened?

And you think that I'm okay with genocide just because I don't want our military involved in another long, costly, deadly, and useless conflict, then you can just keep shoving your head farther and farther up your ass, and while we are at it, we will molotov all the Russians in Ukraine, and nuke the fuck out of the middle east and turn it all to glass and any other brilliant idea you find while spelunking in your rectum with your noggin.

 

[zyxt9]

I do not agree.

That's because you are just anti-war and never grasped the facts that once the military gained the local citizens trust they were able to reduce the number of skirmishes by thousands per day.

If they had stayed long enough to thoroughly get the government established and the military and police properly seasoned while providing backup support as necessay, ISIL would never had gained ground in Iraq. Syria is a different story, one that is incredibly f'd up and will be a problem after regaining control in Iraq.

They needed to retain a presence, and after all this there will likely be a base or two created for long term support until the threats cease, which will be a very long time. However, the US retained bases throughout Europe for decades and people didn't piss and moan, but leaving unstable Iraq was so important. Absolutely stupid political decision dictated by morons who do not understand the longevity required and cry about the cost but care not about the genocidal practices that will result if leaving too soon. The deaths of the innocent civilians already killed is on YOUR hands.