Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
10/20/2017 1:01:18 AM
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 10/3/2005 8:03:34 PM EDT
I didn't want to hijack the thread of another poster who was showing the unfortunate end results of what is an honorable profession, so here is a different one.

First I need to say that I respect the armed forces, and I believe that they perform an invaluable function for our society. My little brother is a Marine and I don't want him killed by some $^#$ from any country.

That said - and I know that I am going to get reamed for this - why is it that so many otherwise intelligent people here view a roadside bomb as a cowardly way of killing people? Now it is not nearly as brave as say, killing a guy with a machine gun with your bare hands, or single handedly going up against a large opposition, but cowardly?

Assuming that bravery is defined on a relative scale, which it is, which is really more cowardly: A roadside bomber that knows he will be killed using whatever he can to defend what he believes is right (whether it is or not is another debate), or a cruise missile launched by someone thousands of miles away who in all honesty has no chance whatsoever of being killed by anyone?

I believe that the US is as almost always doing the right thing, and fighting for the greater good - that is what we are about. But let's not pretend that we are not killing everyone over there that we consider an enemy as efficiently (from far away, cowardly, most likely to succeed, etc) as we possibly can.

I guess my question would be:

Why is it viewed that the US making a tactical air strike on a bunch of camel riders that kills many is "awesome", but said camel riders jury-rigging a bomb to protect their last bit of life that injures one guy considered "cowardly"?
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 8:09:27 PM EDT
Dude.....what...????

We don't target women and children.

What are the intentions of your post?

Tell your little bro thanks, I bet you're an embarrassement to him though.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 8:11:11 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/3/2005 8:11:31 PM EDT by Rickyj]

Originally Posted By Nephilim:
Dude.....what...????

We don't target women and children.

What are the intentions of your post?

Tell your little bro thanks, I bet you're an embarrassement to him though.



LOL

Was that Marine a woman or a child. My monitor is not that big so I couldn't really see.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 8:13:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Nephilim:
Tell your little bro thanks, I bet you're an embarrassement to him though.



Might as well try to keep the personal insults to a minimum, or at least if you are going to call me something call me an idiot and not an ediote.

Link Posted: 10/3/2005 8:19:27 PM EDT
they are the enemy.

is ok to kill the enemy, in any quantitiy, when and where you find them.

as soon as you start seeing the enemy's side of things you're done.

cowardly, brave is all BS and beside the point.

just kill them all and be done with it.

they would do the same for us...
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 8:24:28 PM EDT
I think I understand what you are saying. I guess it depends on the target. Going after legit military targets is one thing but going after civilians in a crowded market or people lined up at a police recruiting station is pure cowardice.

These people have absolutely zero chance to defend themselves and unfortunately some may even be sympathetic. And as we are finding out a lot of these homicide bombers are forced to do the dirty work of the terrorists with threats to their families ect. Sure it takes nuts to blow yourself up. Well nuts or psychosis.

Our policy of limiting loss of life, both civilian and our troops, is what drives our policy of stand-off weapons use. There is always plenty of opportunity in war to prove ones bravery. But killing innocent folk intentionally in not bravery.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 8:25:41 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/3/2005 8:26:26 PM EDT by ShellGhost]
It's cowardly in the same way that they dope up men and women and strap bombs to their chests.

It's cowardly in the same way that they'll happily blow up a busload of children to kill a couple soldiers.

The difference is that we're out in the open shooting at them, while they're hiding in a hole pressing a button.

But mainly it's because they're extreemist fucktards who don't give a damn about any life but their own.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 8:30:33 PM EDT
Who said anything about blowing up women and children??? Those guys are terrorists, their main objective is to create and maintain a general sense of fear. No one but a terrorist supports that. I did not, and do not, mean to support this kind of action.

Link Posted: 10/3/2005 8:32:15 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ShellGhost:
It's cowardly in the same way that they dope up men and women and strap bombs to their chests.

It's cowardly in the same way that they'll happily blow up a busload of children to kill a couple soldiers.

The difference is that we're out in the open shooting at them, while they're hiding in a hole pressing a button.

But mainly it's because they're extreemist fucktards who don't give a damn about any life but their own.



Yes... I am SICK of idiots that want to draw a moral equivalence between terrorist and our soldiers and Marines.

Shit I guess next we will hear flying airplanes in to building, blowing up hotels, hospitals, and schools are also acceptable way of killing people.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 8:33:01 PM EDT
this thread is just ooozing with IBTL
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 8:34:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By st0newall:
they are the enemy.

is ok to kill the enemy, in any quantitiy, when and where you find them.

as soon as you start seeing the enemy's side of things you're done.

cowardly, brave is all BS and beside the point.

just kill them all and be done with it.

they would do the same for us...



I agree with you, and I think the enemy should be killed as quickly and efficiently as possible, with as little of our own financial and life loss as possible.

That said - why is it wrong if they are doing the same thing?
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 8:36:27 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ShellGhost:
It's cowardly in the same way that they dope up men and women and strap bombs to their chests.

It's cowardly in the same way that they'll happily blow up a busload of children to kill a couple soldiers.

The difference is that we're out in the open shooting at them, while they're hiding in a hole pressing a button.

But mainly it's because they're extreemist fucktards who don't give a damn about any life but their own.




Thing is...they don't even care about their own life......they've been indoctrinated and brainwashed that there is no longer a sense of courage. They're expecting some sort of viginal reward when they do this.....that's not bravery....bravery is when you try to do everything within your power to return home to take care of your wife and children.


Most of these "brave soldiers" as the afforementioned poster eluded to had nothing , will never have anything, and they might've been offered a small cash pay-off to their family, and the bomber is getting martyrdom. That's not courage....that's selfishness.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 8:41:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Rickyj:

Originally Posted By st0newall:
they are the enemy.

is ok to kill the enemy, in any quantitiy, when and where you find them.

as soon as you start seeing the enemy's side of things you're done.

cowardly, brave is all BS and beside the point.

just kill them all and be done with it.

they would do the same for us...



I agree with you, and I think the enemy should be killed as quickly and efficiently as possible, with as little of our own financial and life loss as possible.

That said - why is it wrong if they are doing the same thing?



is no wrong. there is no right or wrong. you either kill them or they kill you.

is wrong to let them kill you (or your family or friends or whatever). their reason for doing so is pointless from your perspectrive (unless you just wanna die).

when the grizzly decides to have you for lunch, do you try to see it from his point of view? or you just decide you wanna live a little longer...
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 8:43:45 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/3/2005 8:44:14 PM EDT by Max_Mike]

Originally Posted By Rickyj:

Originally Posted By st0newall:
they are the enemy.

is ok to kill the enemy, in any quantitiy, when and where you find them.

as soon as you start seeing the enemy's side of things you're done.

cowardly, brave is all BS and beside the point.

just kill them all and be done with it.

they would do the same for us...



I agree with you, and I think the enemy should be killed as quickly and efficiently as possible, with as little of our own financial and life loss as possible.

That said - why is it wrong if they are doing the same thing?



That not what they are doing... for every American they kill in Iraq they kill 50-1000 civilians.

Now if you don't know this by now you are either blind, intentionally a <fill in the blank>, or a <fill in the blank>...

Where <fill in the blank> = pejorative
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 8:46:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By st0newall:

is no wrong. there is no right or wrong. you either kill them or they kill you.

is wrong to let them kill you (or your family or friends or whatever). their reason for doing so is pointless from your perspectrive (unless you just wanna die).

when the grizzly decides to have you for lunch, do you try to see it from his point of view? or you just decide you wanna live a little longer...



Well I already said that I agree with you. What would I do? Kill the grizzly bear. Survive.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 8:49:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/3/2005 8:50:49 PM EDT by Spade]

Originally Posted By Rickyj:
stuff




Because their fucking crazy fascist islamic nuts with no regard for human life. People who would gladly blow up 100 kids to get one American, perhaps? Christ.

Link Posted: 10/3/2005 8:50:04 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

That not what they are doing... for every American they kill in Iraq they kill 50-1000 civilians.

Now if you don't know this by now you are either blind, intentionally a <fill in the blank>, or a <fill in the blank>...

Where <fill in the blank> = pejorative



Really. Show me that stats please. As I have understood statistics are very hard to come by. Since I am a "fill in the blank", I assume you have them handy.

As I asked before:

HOW IS AN IED DIRECTED AGAINST US FORCES COWARDLY WHEN A CRUISE MISSILE IS NOT??????
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 8:51:13 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Spade:

Originally Posted By Rickyj:
stuff



img.photobucket.com/albums/v244/BridgerNY/09-27-05%20Spades%20AK/rickyj.gif




LOL

Pretty funny. (Seriously)

I am glad to see that you had something constructive to add.

Link Posted: 10/3/2005 8:54:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Rickyj:

Originally Posted By st0newall:

is no wrong. there is no right or wrong. you either kill them or they kill you.

is wrong to let them kill you (or your family or friends or whatever). their reason for doing so is pointless from your perspectrive (unless you just wanna die).

when the grizzly decides to have you for lunch, do you try to see it from his point of view? or you just decide you wanna live a little longer...



Well I already said that I agree with you. What would I do? Kill the grizzly bear. Survive.




First of all, I have no idea why my font was different in my last response.

Second, Rickyj, I don't mean to attack you on a personal level, but the mentallity exuded in your post is what....in my eyes...is hindering this country's survival.

I know you've got your "freedom of speech" and all but man...there are some times when you just need to pull for the home team.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 8:59:08 PM EDT
Pooh head.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 9:03:10 PM EDT
Cruise missiles are seldom wasted on people. As far as I know, Clinton used them on OBL's base camp once, and GWB went after Saddam, but otherwise, they are used on infrastructure. People are collateral damage in those cases.

Direct fire weapons are as close to face to face as we get anymore. Both sides use the best they have. The insurgents are more than willing to use indirect fire wepons when they can, mortars and artillery. Iraq was using Hind gunships on unarmed Shi'ite muslims before we invaded.

They attack human targets and try to run up the body count, but we aren't above it ourselves.

In any case, tough shit. They welcomed our invasion in their press and we obliged them. Any questions about moral superiority are frivilous and irrevelant. Kill everybody with the stomach to fight us and install a friendly government sounds like a good plan for our security. If it goes to shit, we fix it again. Personally, I'd support converting them all to Christianity at sword point and bulldozing Mecca, but that's just me. I hear they respect that sort of thing.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 9:11:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Nephilim:

First of all, I have no idea why my font was different in my last response.

Second, Rickyj, I don't mean to attack you on a personal level, but the mentallity exuded in your post is what....in my eyes...is hindering this country's survival.

I know you've got your "freedom of speech" and all but man...there are some times when you just need to pull for the home team.



Hindering our survival?!?!?!? LOL We are the only superpower in the world.

I am pulling for the home team. Personally I would support carpet bombing the entire fucking region. Cheaper, no possiblity of US life loss, and gives a good message. Everything over there is their fault, same as it was the Germans responsibility for their country in WWII, not hitler's.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 9:12:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By captainpooby:
Pooh head.



Is this for the lack of something to say?
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 9:22:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Nephilim:

Originally Posted By captainpooby:
Pooh head.



Is this for the lack of something to say?



It's probably because he wanted to say something nastier, or more in depth, then decided this guy is not worth the time. This is the wrong place to peek your head in and essentially say that Marines and terrorists are about the same.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 9:28:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Quien:

Originally Posted By Nephilim:

Originally Posted By captainpooby:
Pooh head.



Is this for the lack of something to say?



It's probably because he wanted to say something nastier, or more in depth, then decided this guy is not worth the time. This is the wrong place to peek your head in and essentially say that Marines and terrorists are about the same.




Good point....my comment regarding his was more of an admiration comment I guess, because you can't talk to these folks....it would just suck-ass to be this guys little brother.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 9:34:02 PM EDT
IEDs(roadside bombs) are not directed at any specific person. If you step on it, you be fucked, whether you are Colonel GI Joe or Colonel Sanders. They are there to kill people, not soldiers, not Marines, just anyone.

These ever so prominent cruise missiles(which we use to kill one person at a time?) are actually targeted. "Laser" is not a large target area. A laser target means it hits the fly on the ass of Mohammed Ackbar as he is taking a shit.

There is a difference. Dumb question.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 9:43:38 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Rickyj:

Originally Posted By Nephilim:

First of all, I have no idea why my font was different in my last response.

Second, Rickyj, I don't mean to attack you on a personal level, but the mentallity exuded in your post is what....in my eyes...is hindering this country's survival.

I know you've got your "freedom of speech" and all but man...there are some times when you just need to pull for the home team.



Hindering our survival?!?!?!? LOL We are the only superpower in the world.

I am pulling for the home team. Personally I would support carpet bombing the entire fucking region. Cheaper, no possiblity of US life loss, and gives a good message. Everything over there is their fault, same as it was the Germans responsibility for their country in WWII, not hitler's.





One quick question Rickyj....If the ragheads had our technology, would they use it to target "only military sensitive targets"? Think about what you're saying man

Now...according to your last post....you want to "carpet bomb" the whole region?

You just condemned the use of cruise missles.....and now you support the use of ......what?
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 9:53:38 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Nephilim:

Good point....my comment regarding his was more of an admiration comment I guess, because you can't talk to these folks....it would just suck-ass to be this guys little brother.







"these folks".......just who exactly do you think I am? Just guessing but my guess is that I own more guns than you, I have more political sway than you, I have done more to promote gun rights than you, etc, etc......

I will ask my little bro if it is "suck-ass" to be my little brother, but I don't think he will say "yes".


Link Posted: 10/3/2005 9:57:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Nephilim:
One quick question Rickyj....If the ragheads had our technology, would they use it to target "only military sensitive targets"? Think about what you're saying man

Now...according to your last post....you want to "carpet bomb" the whole region?

You just condemned the use of cruise missles.....and now you support the use of ......what?



If the ragheads had our technology WE WOULD NOT BE AT WAR WITH THEM. At least not the war we are right now.

Why do you think I "condemn the use of cruise missiles"?

All I am saying is that they are fighting their fight - it may be a misguided, brainwashed fight - but they ARE standing up for what they believe in - I don't see how using the best tools they have makes them cowards?
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 10:10:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/4/2005 8:08:06 PM EDT by Quien]
.

ETA: Deleted cause I don't want to be associated with this abortion anymore

Link Posted: 10/3/2005 10:14:25 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/3/2005 10:15:36 PM EDT by Max_Mike]

Originally Posted By Rickyj:

Originally Posted By Nephilim:
One quick question Rickyj....If the ragheads had our technology, would they use it to target "only military sensitive targets"? Think about what you're saying man

Now...according to your last post....you want to "carpet bomb" the whole region?

You just condemned the use of cruise missles.....and now you support the use of ......what?



If the ragheads had our technology WE WOULD NOT BE AT WAR WITH THEM. At least not the war we are right now.

Why do you think I "condemn the use of cruise missiles"?

All I am saying is that they are fighting their fight - it may be a misguided, brainwashed fight - but they ARE standing up for what they believe in - I don't see how using the best tools they have makes them cowards?



You don't see it because you got pooh head (to borrow a catchy and accurate phrase).

Pooh head
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 10:16:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/3/2005 10:16:56 PM EDT by natedogg42]

Originally Posted By Bad_Aim:
IEDs(roadside bombs) are not directed at any specific person. If you step on it, you be fucked, whether you are Colonel GI Joe or Colonel Sanders. They are there to kill people, not soldiers, not Marines, just anyone.

These ever so prominent cruise missiles(which we use to kill one person at a time?) are actually targeted. "Laser" is not a large target area. A laser target means it hits the fly on the ass of Mohammed Ackbar as he is taking a shit.

There is a difference. Dumb question.



Actually IEDs ARE directed at US military forces most often, also at Iraqi Army and at Iraqi Police, and civilian contractors helping the Americans/Iraqis. They are command detonated and they do not attack random people for the most part.

The videos are all over the internet.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 10:16:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Rickyj:

Originally Posted By Nephilim:
One quick question Rickyj....If the ragheads had our technology, would they use it to target "only military sensitive targets"? Think about what you're saying man

Now...according to your last post....you want to "carpet bomb" the whole region?

You just condemned the use of cruise missles.....and now you support the use of ......what?



If the ragheads had our technology WE WOULD NOT BE AT WAR WITH THEM. At least not the war we are right now.



You make my head hurt. War is an inherent doctrine for them, and one of the best and "most honorable" ways to get to heaven. You are damn secure in knowing that we would be at war with them...

Either that or we would have already nuked their asses.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 10:17:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Rickyj:

Originally Posted By Nephilim:

Good point....my comment regarding his was more of an admiration comment I guess, because you can't talk to these folks....it would just suck-ass to be this guys little brother.







"these folks".......just who exactly do you think I am? Just guessing but my guess is that I own more guns than you, I have more political sway than you, I have done more to promote gun rights than you, etc, etc......

I will ask my little bro if it is "suck-ass" to be my little brother, but I don't think he will say "yes".



So...and your point? Maybe you do have more guns than me......I might only have one or two, but I shoot straight and I'm not clouded by ideology, I will never look at my target and wonder if he's "politically correct" or not....I'll just fucking shoot him.....straight through the head......right between his eyes if I can.


You have more "Political Sway"than I?


Tell us about your...."Political Sway"

I see you're from Colorado...one of my favorite states....so ....thereore........unlesss you're Tancredo...STFU


I still think, like Cindy Sheehans son Casey...you probably humiliate him.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 10:22:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Bad_Aim:

You make my head hurt. War is an inherent doctrine for them, and one of the best and "most honorable" ways to get to heaven. You are damn secure in knowing that we would be at war with them...

Either that or we would have already nuked their asses.



??????

War with who? Iraq? A bunch of terrorists without a nation state?

People with security want to keep that security. Technology is "owned" by the people in power, and their main concern is KEEPING THAT POWER! You really think that if Iraq had nuclear weapons they would have used them against the US? They may have believed they would get away with what they were doing, but they would be damn sure that a nuclear strike would be the end of the world as they knew it. If Iraq had that power they would be much more likely to fight terrorist activity because they don't want it linked to them when the consequences are higher. When the consequences were a stern warning from Clinton they took their chances.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 10:25:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Rickyj:

Originally Posted By Bad_Aim:

You make my head hurt. War is an inherent doctrine for them, and one of the best and "most honorable" ways to get to heaven. You are damn secure in knowing that we would be at war with them...

Either that or we would have already nuked their asses.



??????

War with who? Iraq? A bunch of terrorists without a nation state?

People with security want to keep that security. Technology is "owned" by the people in power, and their main concern is KEEPING THAT POWER! You really think that if Iraq had nuclear weapons they would have used them against the US? They may have believed they would get away with what they were doing, but they would be damn sure that a nuclear strike would be the end of the world as they knew it. If Iraq had that power they would be much more likely to fight terrorist activity because they don't want it linked to them when the consequences are higher. When the consequences were a stern warning from Clinton they took their chances.



Whew... that was really stupid. The pooh head is progressing.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 10:29:06 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Nephilim:
So...and your point? Maybe you do have more guns than me......I might only have one or two, but I shoot straight and I'm not clouded by ideology, I will never look at my target and wonder if he's "politically correct" or not....I'll just fucking shoot him.....straight through the head......right between his eyes if I can.


You have more "Political Sway"than I?


Tell us about your...."Political Sway"

I see you're from Colorado...one of my favorite states....so ....thereore........unlesss you're Tancredo...STFU




My point is that you have no idea who I am. While it is pointless for me to argue, I am bored so I will

"political sway" is kind of a weird thing, but if I can call a politician and that politician will talk to me because he knows me I think that might make my opinion a little louder than the gun nut screaming "kill the fucking ragheads" even if I am a gun nut.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 10:30:22 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Whew... that was really stupid. The pooh head is progressing.



Tell me how it is stupid, or for the consideration of anyone who is scrolling through this at least cut out that huge quote if that is all you have to offer.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 10:33:14 PM EDT
Not cowards.


Enemy.


Any other term is irrelavant.

<­BR>


Although if you want to argue it takes some balls to fight for freedom. So maybe they are cowards. And only the weak minded allow themselves to be brainwashed into a suicide bomb.

Link Posted: 10/3/2005 10:48:15 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Rickyj:

Originally Posted By Nephilim:
So...and your point? Maybe you do have more guns than me......I might only have one or two, but I shoot straight and I'm not clouded by ideology, I will never look at my target and wonder if he's "politically correct" or not....I'll just fucking shoot him.....straight through the head......right between his eyes if I can.


You have more "Political Sway"than I?


Tell us about your...."Political Sway"

I see you're from Colorado...one of my favorite states....so ....thereore........unlesss you're Tancredo...STFU




My point is that you have no idea who I am. While it is pointless for me to argue, I am bored so I will

"political sway" is kind of a weird thing, but if I can call a politician and that politician will talk to me because he knows me I think that might make my opinion a little louder than the gun nut screaming "kill the fucking ragheads" even if I am a gun nut.



Granted...you have no idea who I am as well....and it is pointless for you to argue because I've already seen your yellow stripe.

It's unfortunate that if in fact you do have "political sway" that it's you....or someone like you that has the ear of a lawmaker.



I'd be ashamed if I was your little brother.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 11:27:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Rickyj:

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

That not what they are doing... for every American they kill in Iraq they kill 50-1000 civilians.

Now if you don't know this by now you are either blind, intentionally a <fill in the blank>, or a <fill in the blank>...

Where <fill in the blank> = pejorative



Really. Show me that stats please. As I have understood statistics are very hard to come by. Since I am a "fill in the blank", I assume you have them handy.

As I asked before:

HOW IS AN IED DIRECTED AGAINST US FORCES COWARDLY WHEN A CRUISE MISSILE IS NOT??????



It isn't. I agree with you. Not every IED blows up civilians. Some do. I dont know what percentage do. What percentage of cruise missles blow up civilians by accident I dont know either. Some insurgents in iraq are willing to blow up civilians, some are not. How many people here are willing to blow up civilians to kill terrorists? Not every IED is a suicide bomber either. Some are remote detonated.

Didnt we have a thread here the other day in which people here were calling for us to go out like we did in WW2. Most people here can't look at a subject objectivly and from both sides. People cant look at it objectivly because our guys are the ones getting bombed. So here, let me put it into perspective.

The UN invades America because, well I dont know why but they do. The fuiture president Hillary Clinton has gutted our military so bad that the larger force quickly takes control over out major cities. You can A. go shoot it out with them, but almost every attempt made by others has failed miserably, or B. set up a IED, blow them up as they drive past. Keeping civilian casualties to a minimum is a major concern. I'll take option B. I think smart people will choose option B too.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 11:50:00 PM EDT
Ricky I think you may be slightly off track with trying to
make our military and their "insurgency" a matter of cowardice.
In my opinon it is a matter of righteousness.
For example, hitler invading Poland.
That was not a righteous act.
Ask any Pole.
The US and Britain invading Europe to destroy Germany's
military and to liberate Europe WAS righteous.
So, when a JDAM is dropped onto some insurgent's head,
it is not a cowardly act because that raghead would think
nothing of raping any of your female family members
and then with a sadistic grin, behead them in front of you.
Simply put, he deserves no honor nor respect for cowardice to
be even mentioned on the part of the US.
They don't deserve it even if they think that they are right
because allah said so.
Christ would not command his followers to rape and behead people.

Link Posted: 10/4/2005 3:53:50 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/4/2005 3:56:58 AM EDT by hardcorps1775]
damn, i shoulda kept my yap shut and let this thread die...
Link Posted: 10/4/2005 4:41:37 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/4/2005 4:42:04 AM EDT by SPTiger]
Let's see...they don't give a damn who their bombs kill or maim, they teach their children to hate just for the sake of hatred and would sacrifice them just for the chance to kill an American, they kill their own people and think nothing of it, they kill their fellow countrymen and women who WANT a better place for their families to live, I could go on and on. Yeah, they are a lot like our brave servicemen and women.
Link Posted: 10/4/2005 11:43:43 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Nephilim:

Granted...you have no idea who I am as well....and it is pointless for you to argue because I've already seen your yellow stripe.

It's unfortunate that if in fact you do have "political sway" that it's you....or someone like you that has the ear of a lawmaker.



I'd be ashamed if I was your little brother.



This ultimately is why gun rights will die. You are honestly saying it is unfortunate that I have the ear of any lawmaker. who would you rather have it? Some of you guys are so certain that everyone who is not an absurd radical in thought is an absolute enemy make 99% of the gun owners in the US look bad. YOU are what holds us up and loses us rights.
Link Posted: 10/4/2005 11:45:06 AM EDT

Originally Posted By rasanders22:

It isn't. I agree with you. Not every IED blows up civilians. Some do. I dont know what percentage do. What percentage of cruise missles blow up civilians by accident I dont know either. Some insurgents in iraq are willing to blow up civilians, some are not. How many people here are willing to blow up civilians to kill terrorists? Not every IED is a suicide bomber either. Some are remote detonated.

Didnt we have a thread here the other day in which people here were calling for us to go out like we did in WW2. Most people here can't look at a subject objectivly and from both sides. People cant look at it objectivly because our guys are the ones getting bombed. So here, let me put it into perspective.

The UN invades America because, well I dont know why but they do. The fuiture president Hillary Clinton has gutted our military so bad that the larger force quickly takes control over out major cities. You can A. go shoot it out with them, but almost every attempt made by others has failed miserably, or B. set up a IED, blow them up as they drive past. Keeping civilian casualties to a minimum is a major concern. I'll take option B. I think smart people will choose option B too.



Well at least there is one other person here who can engage in a little abstract and constructive thought.
Link Posted: 10/4/2005 3:35:18 PM EDT
It seems to me that they are taking a very sound military and political strategy given their aims. Why should they pander to our strengths?

I didn't make it easy for them to kill me, why should they make it easy for us? The unfortunate truth is that the best way for them to kill Americans is to use command-detonated roadside bombs. As mentioned before, it's their equivalent to our cruise missile or JDAM. Except cheaper. And probably more effective.

NTM
Link Posted: 10/4/2005 3:47:13 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/4/2005 3:47:47 PM EDT by Jarhead_22]
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 4:14:39 AM EDT
Because in war the point is to kill as many of the enemy as possible. To me the enemy's tactics are in accordance with their views on life, backward and the antithesis of what we in the west believe. But that is the point those who want to draw moral equivalencies cannot see we are fighting a culture that is not our equal. One that is either dominant or subservient. What is ironic though is if it were to dominant, that all those people who draw moral equivalent between ours' and theirs' would probably be the first to be executed.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 5:40:58 AM EDT
Well, at least there are two posters that can see beyond the need to call someone a troll.



natedogg42: "Actually IEDs ARE directed at US military forces most often, also at Iraqi Army and at Iraqi Police, and civilian contractors helping the Americans/Iraqis. They are command detonated and they do not attack random people for the most part."


rasanders22:..."You can A. go shoot it out with them, but almost every attempt made by others has failed miserably, or B. set up a IED, blow them up as they drive past. Keeping civilian casualties to a minimum is a major concern. I'll take option B. I think smart people will choose option B too."


I believe the basic question was the opinion of remote weapons.
Top Top