Isis and Al-Q

[Serenity Now]

I read that one of the reasons ISIS did this in france with at least one refugee is that they're trying to create a fractured environment for the refugees in Europe to further their recruitment efforts in the future. Makes sense. It made me think about how 9/11 was planned to lure the great Satan into the Middle East. Something that skipped my mind was that almost all were Saudi's. Al-Q may have been trying to also impact our relations with the Saudis by using almost exclusively Saudi's.

It is my hope that they pissed off enough people other than the US to get their butts in a sling. Along with their necks.

[champions77]

I read that one of the reasons ISIS did this in france with at least one refugee is that they're trying to create a fractured environment for the refugees in Europe to further their recruitment efforts in the future. Makes sense. It made me think about how 9/11 was planned to lure the great Satan into the Middle East. Something that skipped my mind was that almost all were Saudi's. Al-Q may have been trying to also impact our relations with the Saudis by using almost exclusively Saudi's.

It is my hope that they pissed off enough people other than the US to get their butts in a sling. Along with their necks.

To defeat this enemy it is going to take ALL countries to be involved in some form or fashion in a detailed, highly organized and orchestrated offensive, both overt and covert against these murderous madmen. And, the so called "Moderate" or "Peace Loving" Muslims have to involve themselves instead of sitting on the sidelines. That means reporting any Islamic Terrorist activity no matter if it seems unimportant or inconsequential.
This will probably involve the deaths of a lot of innocent people, like you saw in our Germany bombing and in Japan in WW II, where millions died from "collateral damage". This war with these maniacs is going to be bloody and it is going to be rather ugly, but it will not end until we fight back in a way that will make it very unattractive to them or anyone that aspires to be like them. The faster that everyone realizes this, the faster we can begin the journey to victory.

Ad Hoc, respond after being attacked, piecemeal responses has not worked and will not work.

Lastly, it would be nice if we had a President that we could rally around and could lead the effort. We will not ever get that with BHO. He is not up to the task, plain and simple.

[Tear Down This Wall]

One of the problems, of course, is the tepidness of our military when it is on the ground.

I had a cousin in Iraq, whose convoys repeatedly fell under attack. Here was the problem: when attacked, they couldn't immediately return fire or call in greater fire power (helicopters to basically destroy everything it could with missiles).

They had to take on a certain amount of fire in order to respond so that they wouldn't accidentally kill civilians. So, for example, he said they couldn't automatically respond if they were passing through a neighborhood and took on small arms fire. They couldn't storm the houses in the vicinity of the small arms fire until a certain amount of fire was taken.

I thought it was crazy. So did he. How could anyone not?

He also said that they knew where Al-Qaeda was most of the time, but -again - because they would set up in civilian populations, they were not allowed to go in and take them out due to the fear of killing civilians.

It was as stupid a way to fight a war as we did in Vietnam. I can't for half a second imagine us winning World War II if the same rules that restricted our military in Vietnam and Iraq were in place.

[Soonerjeepman]

One of the problems, of course, is the tepidness of our military when it is on the ground.

I had a cousin in Iraq, whose convoys repeatedly fell under attack. Here was the problem: when attacked, they couldn't immediately return fire or call in greater fire power (helicopters to basically destroy everything it could with missiles).

They had to take on a certain amount of fire in order to respond so that they wouldn't accidentally kill civilians. So, for example, he said they couldn't automatically respond if they were passing through a neighborhood and took on small arms fire. They couldn't storm the houses in the vicinity of the small arms fire until a certain amount of fire was taken.

I thought it was crazy. So did he. How could anyone not?

He also said that they knew where Al-Qaeda was most of the time, but -again - because they would set up in civilian populations, they were not allowed to go in and take them out due to the fear of killing civilians.

It was as stupid a way to fight a war as we did in Vietnam. I can't for half a second imagine us winning World War II if the same rules that restricted our military in Vietnam and Iraq were in place.

why we lost...and will lose this. Total BS. The civilians need to understand..rat out the aholes or die protecting them...
*yes, I understand they may not be INTENTIONALLY protecting them, but at some point they need to decide. Be under their "rule" or take a chance for freedom.

[Tear Down This Wall]

why we lost...and will lose this. Total BS. The civilians need to understand..rat out the aholes or die protecting them...
*yes, I understand they may not be INTENTIONALLY protecting them, but at some point they need to decide. Be under their "rule" or take a chance for freedom.

We didn't "lose" Vietnam. We didn't declare war and fight it the way we had WWII. Had we the same type of leadership in Washington, D.C. during Vietnam that we did during WWII, Vietnam would be as free as South Korea.

If it weren't for Nixon bombing the areas that Johnson and the insipid 60s Congress said not to bomb, it would have been worse than it was.

So, stupid to send kids over to fight wars you have no intention of winning.

[champions77]

We didn't "lose" Vietnam. We didn't declare war and fight it the way we had WWII. Had we the same type of leadership in Washington, D.C. during Vietnam that we did during WWII, Vietnam would be as free as South Korea.

If it weren't for Nixon bombing the areas that Johnson and the insipid 60s Congress said not to bomb, it would have been worse than it was.

So, stupid to send kids over to fight wars you have no intention of winning.

When Nixon bombed the North, and you saw the outrage and the war protests here in the US, they were protesting the very thing that could have won the War. Took awhile for me to understand the left's mentality. They were protesting because a lot of them were sympathetic to the Communists, i.e. Jane Fonda sitting atop the North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun comes to mind quickly.

We should have known then that their loyalties and most Americans loyalties were quite different. Those protests originated out of large State University campuses. Exactly the same place that you see the hard left radicals today.