On 9/2/14 9:19 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/2/2014 8:34 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 9/2/2014 7:29 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 9/2/2014 4:52 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/2/14 4:38 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/2/2014 4:24 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/2/14 3:53 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 15:26:29 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 14:04:09 -0500, Califbill
wrote:

"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
ISIL has reportedly beheaded another American journalist.

Says they do not care what the world thinks about them.
Makes them
even
scarier to a sane person.

===

Yes but it will also make it easier to marshall world opinion
against
them. No civilized society goeas around beheading
journalists. They
are not exactly an invincible force if everyone stands fast
against
them. Somewhere they have a source of funding and supplies.
Without
that they could not last long. If nothing else it should be
relatively easy to kill their telecom, media and internet.
Where do
they go after that, carrier pigeons?

I like the line from "Alien".

"Nuke them from orbit"


Unfortunately, we didn't learn the lessons of Vietnam and we didn't
learn from the Russian disaster in Afghanistan. These modern-day
terrorists have no real hometown or territory anymore. They
might take a
town for a while, and then they'll give it up for another town.
If you
bomb the town into the stone age (where it probably is already),
you end
up killing lots of non-combatants and you make lots of converts.
The
only real way to fight these guys is to have the folks whose
towns they
take over fight back. But then you don't know what you are
ending up
with.




Unfortunately air strikes alone won't help much other than
providing a
minor moral booster to those locals willing to fight, IMO. It's
going
to require "boots on the ground" at some point.

Many "expert" commentators claim the USA lacks the "stomach" for a
serious, boots on the ground retaliation. I'd suggest they
survey those
who would actually do the fighting ... namely members of the US
armed
forces. I'll bet the answer would be unanimous.

Ideally it should be a multi-national coalition, but the USA
needs to
lead the way.




Boot on the ground was a failed policy in Afghanistan for Russia
and the
United States, and it was a failed policy in Iraq for the United
States.
Toppling Saddam only made Iraq worse than it was.


ISIL is holding an American female captive. Will you feel the same if
they behead her as well?

Yes. We're not going to beat ISIS with American boots on the ground
there
unless we can send Herring, Bertie and FlatulentJim.


Your attempt at humor escapes me tonight.

I think you will soon see a deployment of up to 5,000 troops in Iraq
with
a mission to hunt down and kill any or all ISIS members. Syria is a
different problem and will require some more behind the scenes
negotiations.

Do the ISIS fellas wear special armbands?


Plenty of Iraqi's will be pointing them out.




As we learned during Dubya's wars, Iraqis and Afhanis will point anyone
out and we'lll believe them because we want to believe them.

On 9/2/2014 9:28 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/2/14 9:19 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/2/2014 8:34 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 9/2/2014 7:29 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 9/2/2014 4:52 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/2/14 4:38 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/2/2014 4:24 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/2/14 3:53 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 15:26:29 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 14:04:09 -0500, Califbill
wrote:

"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
ISIL has reportedly beheaded another American journalist.

Says they do not care what the world thinks about them.
Makes them
even
scarier to a sane person.

===

Yes but it will also make it easier to marshall world opinion
against
them. No civilized society goeas around beheading
journalists. They
are not exactly an invincible force if everyone stands fast
against
them. Somewhere they have a source of funding and supplies.
Without
that they could not last long. If nothing else it should be
relatively easy to kill their telecom, media and internet.
Where do
they go after that, carrier pigeons?

I like the line from "Alien".

"Nuke them from orbit"


Unfortunately, we didn't learn the lessons of Vietnam and we
didn't
learn from the Russian disaster in Afghanistan. These modern-day
terrorists have no real hometown or territory anymore. They
might take a
town for a while, and then they'll give it up for another town.
If you
bomb the town into the stone age (where it probably is already),
you end
up killing lots of non-combatants and you make lots of converts.
The
only real way to fight these guys is to have the folks whose
towns they
take over fight back. But then you don't know what you are
ending up
with.




Unfortunately air strikes alone won't help much other than
providing a
minor moral booster to those locals willing to fight, IMO. It's
going
to require "boots on the ground" at some point.

Many "expert" commentators claim the USA lacks the "stomach" for a
serious, boots on the ground retaliation. I'd suggest they
survey those
who would actually do the fighting ... namely members of the US
armed
forces. I'll bet the answer would be unanimous.

Ideally it should be a multi-national coalition, but the USA
needs to
lead the way.




Boot on the ground was a failed policy in Afghanistan for Russia
and the
United States, and it was a failed policy in Iraq for the United
States.
Toppling Saddam only made Iraq worse than it was.


ISIL is holding an American female captive. Will you feel the
same if
they behead her as well?

Yes. We're not going to beat ISIS with American boots on the ground
there
unless we can send Herring, Bertie and FlatulentJim.


Your attempt at humor escapes me tonight.

I think you will soon see a deployment of up to 5,000 troops in Iraq
with
a mission to hunt down and kill any or all ISIS members. Syria is a
different problem and will require some more behind the scenes
negotiations.

Do the ISIS fellas wear special armbands?


Plenty of Iraqi's will be pointing them out.




As we learned during Dubya's wars, Iraqis and Afhanis will point anyone
out and we'lll believe them because we want to believe them.


Too bad. That's the way it goes.

On 9/3/14 3:11 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/2/2014 9:28 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/2/14 9:19 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/2/2014 8:34 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 9/2/2014 7:29 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 9/2/2014 4:52 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/2/14 4:38 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/2/2014 4:24 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/2/14 3:53 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 15:26:29 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 14:04:09 -0500, Califbill
wrote:

"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
ISIL has reportedly beheaded another American journalist.

Says they do not care what the world thinks about them.
Makes them
even
scarier to a sane person.

===

Yes but it will also make it easier to marshall world opinion
against
them. No civilized society goeas around beheading
journalists. They
are not exactly an invincible force if everyone stands fast
against
them. Somewhere they have a source of funding and supplies.
Without
that they could not last long. If nothing else it should be
relatively easy to kill their telecom, media and internet.
Where do
they go after that, carrier pigeons?

I like the line from "Alien".

"Nuke them from orbit"


Unfortunately, we didn't learn the lessons of Vietnam and we
didn't
learn from the Russian disaster in Afghanistan. These modern-day
terrorists have no real hometown or territory anymore. They
might take a
town for a while, and then they'll give it up for another town.
If you
bomb the town into the stone age (where it probably is already),
you end
up killing lots of non-combatants and you make lots of converts.
The
only real way to fight these guys is to have the folks whose
towns they
take over fight back. But then you don't know what you are
ending up
with.




Unfortunately air strikes alone won't help much other than
providing a
minor moral booster to those locals willing to fight, IMO. It's
going
to require "boots on the ground" at some point.

Many "expert" commentators claim the USA lacks the "stomach" for a
serious, boots on the ground retaliation. I'd suggest they
survey those
who would actually do the fighting ... namely members of the US
armed
forces. I'll bet the answer would be unanimous.

Ideally it should be a multi-national coalition, but the USA
needs to
lead the way.




Boot on the ground was a failed policy in Afghanistan for Russia
and the
United States, and it was a failed policy in Iraq for the United
States.
Toppling Saddam only made Iraq worse than it was.


ISIL is holding an American female captive. Will you feel the
same if
they behead her as well?

Yes. We're not going to beat ISIS with American boots on the ground
there
unless we can send Herring, Bertie and FlatulentJim.


Your attempt at humor escapes me tonight.

I think you will soon see a deployment of up to 5,000 troops in Iraq
with
a mission to hunt down and kill any or all ISIS members. Syria is a
different problem and will require some more behind the scenes
negotiations.

Do the ISIS fellas wear special armbands?


Plenty of Iraqi's will be pointing them out.




As we learned during Dubya's wars, Iraqis and Afhanis will point anyone
out and we'lll believe them because we want to believe them.


Too bad. That's the way it goes.



By "anyone," of course, I meant anyone, whether they had anything to do
with terrorism or military action or not. I assume you understood that,
and if your response simply is "that's the way it goes," well, then,
*you* are part of the problem. When we attack or imprison
non-combatants, or blow up weddings, or kill innocent civilians. it just
helps create more terrorists. We shouldn't be surprised by terrorists
acting like terrorists. These terrorists don't have a regular army and
when they are ****ed off, they cannot do what we do, militarily. They do
what they are able to do.

On 9/3/2014 5:34 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/3/14 3:11 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/2/2014 9:28 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/2/14 9:19 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/2/2014 8:34 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 9/2/2014 7:29 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 9/2/2014 4:52 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/2/14 4:38 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/2/2014 4:24 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/2/14 3:53 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 15:26:29 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 14:04:09 -0500, Califbill
wrote:

"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
ISIL has reportedly beheaded another American journalist.

Says they do not care what the world thinks about them.
Makes them
even
scarier to a sane person.

===

Yes but it will also make it easier to marshall world opinion
against
them. No civilized society goeas around beheading
journalists. They
are not exactly an invincible force if everyone stands fast
against
them. Somewhere they have a source of funding and supplies.
Without
that they could not last long. If nothing else it should be
relatively easy to kill their telecom, media and internet.
Where do
they go after that, carrier pigeons?

I like the line from "Alien".

"Nuke them from orbit"


Unfortunately, we didn't learn the lessons of Vietnam and we
didn't
learn from the Russian disaster in Afghanistan. These modern-day
terrorists have no real hometown or territory anymore. They
might take a
town for a while, and then they'll give it up for another town.
If you
bomb the town into the stone age (where it probably is already),
you end
up killing lots of non-combatants and you make lots of converts.
The
only real way to fight these guys is to have the folks whose
towns they
take over fight back. But then you don't know what you are
ending up
with.




Unfortunately air strikes alone won't help much other than
providing a
minor moral booster to those locals willing to fight, IMO. It's
going
to require "boots on the ground" at some point.

Many "expert" commentators claim the USA lacks the "stomach"
for a
serious, boots on the ground retaliation. I'd suggest they
survey those
who would actually do the fighting ... namely members of the US
armed
forces. I'll bet the answer would be unanimous.

Ideally it should be a multi-national coalition, but the USA
needs to
lead the way.




Boot on the ground was a failed policy in Afghanistan for Russia
and the
United States, and it was a failed policy in Iraq for the United
States.
Toppling Saddam only made Iraq worse than it was.


ISIL is holding an American female captive. Will you feel the
same if
they behead her as well?

Yes. We're not going to beat ISIS with American boots on the ground
there
unless we can send Herring, Bertie and FlatulentJim.


Your attempt at humor escapes me tonight.

I think you will soon see a deployment of up to 5,000 troops in Iraq
with
a mission to hunt down and kill any or all ISIS members. Syria is a
different problem and will require some more behind the scenes
negotiations.

Do the ISIS fellas wear special armbands?


Plenty of Iraqi's will be pointing them out.




As we learned during Dubya's wars, Iraqis and Afhanis will point anyone
out and we'lll believe them because we want to believe them.


Too bad. That's the way it goes.



By "anyone," of course, I meant anyone, whether they had anything to do
with terrorism or military action or not. I assume you understood that,
and if your response simply is "that's the way it goes," well, then,
*you* are part of the problem. When we attack or imprison
non-combatants, or blow up weddings, or kill innocent civilians. it just
helps create more terrorists. We shouldn't be surprised by terrorists
acting like terrorists. These terrorists don't have a regular army and
when they are ****ed off, they cannot do what we do, militarily. They do
what they are able to do.


You make me sick.

On 9/3/2014 6:17 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
Not the sort of job for a grunt in a uniform but the sort of work for
personnel who repeatedly make ISIS leadership disappear without fanfare
or announcements or news conferences.

I take it that you disapprove of O'Bama's circus that was the Bin Laden
assassination? And, of course you would be right. Mebbe O'Bama could
hire you to organize his next assasination.

In article ,
says...


I think you will soon see a deployment of up to 5,000 troops in Iraq
with a mission to hunt down and kill any or all ISIS members. Syria is
a different problem and will require some more behind the scenes
negotiations.

Why 5,000? It took 166,000 U.S. troops to quell unrest in '07.
You think the IED'S, snipers, suicide bombers won't kill and maim U.S.
troops in 2014?
Besides, there' over 1200 U.S. troops in Baghdad now, just to protect
the embassy and airport.
Hunting down of ISIS will be done with air strikes or special force
teams. They're just criminals, and will be destroyed.
Their beheading of Americans is simply suicide by another name.
Of course they don't care, being criminals with a death wish.

Evidence points to a rapper doing the actual beheadings.
Figures. Rappers with guns, IED's, and knives for the easy stuff,
The Arabs can kill civilians without our help, and without the sacrifice
of our troops to no good end.
I saw an Iraqi "man on the street" interview recently about this ISIS
"crisis." Neatly dressed man verging on middle-age with a couple kids.
He didn't want U.S. troops there. Hope he gets his wish.
Like the "British rapper" he is an Arab infected with Muslimism.
It's a worse disease than Ebola.
Until they get the disease under control, they need Saddams, Qaddafis
and Assads.

On 9/3/2014 11:18 AM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...


I think you will soon see a deployment of up to 5,000 troops in Iraq
with a mission to hunt down and kill any or all ISIS members. Syria is
a different problem and will require some more behind the scenes
negotiations.

Why 5,000? It took 166,000 U.S. troops to quell unrest in '07.
You think the IED'S, snipers, suicide bombers won't kill and maim U.S.
troops in 2014?
Besides, there' over 1200 U.S. troops in Baghdad now, just to protect
the embassy and airport.
Hunting down of ISIS will be done with air strikes or special force
teams. They're just criminals, and will be destroyed.
Their beheading of Americans is simply suicide by another name.
Of course they don't care, being criminals with a death wish.

Evidence points to a rapper doing the actual beheadings.
Figures. Rappers with guns, IED's, and knives for the easy stuff,
The Arabs can kill civilians without our help, and without the sacrifice
of our troops to no good end.
I saw an Iraqi "man on the street" interview recently about this ISIS
"crisis." Neatly dressed man verging on middle-age with a couple kids.
He didn't want U.S. troops there. Hope he gets his wish.
Like the "British rapper" he is an Arab infected with Muslimism.
It's a worse disease than Ebola.
Until they get the disease under control, they need Saddams, Qaddafis
and Assads.



Any idea how many innocent Iraqis, Syrians and who knows who else have
been slaughtered so far by ISIS? I don't know what the estimated total
is but it's a pretty large number. There are unconfirmed reports of
killing off children simply because they had Christian parents. The
"rapper" isn't doing all the killing by himself.

In article ,
says...


Unfortunately these drone strikes are not nearly as surgical as the
government would have you believe. We are creating far more militants
than we kill.

And far less than troops on the ground. Pick your poison.

wrote:
On Wed, 03 Sep 2014 10:42:30 -0500, Califbill
wrote:


We have seen this scenario before. Took a couple crusades to push back
then. Muslim, called Mohammedan's until about 1950, spread their religion
via war and terror almost to Paris. History repeating?

We don't really want to emulate the crusades too much. In the end the
west lost the crusades and that led to the Ottoman empire that
controlled that whole region for 500 years. If they had not chosen the
wrong side in WWI, they still might.
The British would not have taken over Palestine and Islam would simply
be our gas station.

I am not supporting new crusades. Just pointing out that the Muslim
religion has pretty much used violence to expand. Harry thinks it is all
new. Bad liberal arts education. Dang Yale.

Califbill wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 03 Sep 2014 10:42:30 -0500, Califbill
wrote:


We have seen this scenario before. Took a couple crusades to push back
then. Muslim, called Mohammedan's until about 1950, spread their religion
via war and terror almost to Paris. History repeating?

We don't really want to emulate the crusades too much. In the end the
west lost the crusades and that led to the Ottoman empire that
controlled that whole region for 500 years. If they had not chosen the
wrong side in WWI, they still might.
The British would not have taken over Palestine and Islam would simply
be our gas station.

I am not supporting new crusades. Just pointing out that the Muslim
religion has pretty much used violence to expand. Harry thinks it is all
new. Bad liberal arts education. Dang Yale.

Or was that Kansas that failed him?