[Delwin]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Delwin Delwin:

I'm sure that would be very disappointing for you. Keep sowing the seeds of hatred. You'll get there.

Keep being wrong, and spreading the gospel of wrong. It's where you live. It's who you are.

Wrong about what exactly ? Are you disputing that a church was set on fire ?

[Delwin]

bootlegga bootlegga:

andyt andyt:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Willpower mostly - nobody is willing to turn this:



into this:



If the West deployed sufficient forces, something like that could be done fairly easily. The problem is too many leaders are worried about the backlash such a victory might bring.

I don't buy what you say for a minute. If the Western forces were presented such a target with no civilians in sight, they'd be fighting amongst themselves about who got to do the bombing. I think you are making this out as far easier than it is. Always easy sitting in an armchair.

You might want to read what I wrote.

I said IF the West deployed sufficient forces to deal with ISIS.

For Gulf War 1, the USA deployed half a million men, hundreds of aircraft and three or four carrier battlegroups. Obama hasn't even deployed 1/10th of that to deal with ISIS.

Hell, Canada sent three warships, 18 fighter-bombers and another couple hundred to support them.

That's the kind of total war effort that is needed, not these sad sack half measures.

It would be insurgency warfare. There would be no one coming out to meet you on the battlefield. They would sit and pick their moments while occupied at the cost of billions. Then, every now and then they would blow up a market or try to pick off a soldier from a rooftop, all while dressed like a regular citizen.

Remember Iraq?

[andyt]

bootlegga bootlegga:

You might want to read what I wrote.

I said IF the West deployed sufficient forces to deal with ISIS.

For Gulf War 1, the USA deployed half a million men, hundreds of aircraft and three or four carrier battlegroups. Obama hasn't even deployed 1/10th of that to deal with ISIS.

Hell, Canada sent three warships, 18 fighter-bombers and another couple hundred to support them.

That's the kind of total war effort that is needed, not these sad sack half measures.

I did read what you wrote. Here are the salient parts:

bootlegga bootlegga:

One brigade of troops from any NATO country would annihilate the 20000 fighters ISIS has.

But it doesn't have to come to that.

Instead of a single CF-18 dropping a bomb or two on an artillery battery, we need to send a squadron of B-52s to flatten ISIS fighters any time they mass. By starting out with a huge coordinated strike, it would be easy to wipe out most of their combat power in one go.

After we really flattened them and their troops a couple times, they would likely disperse and then we'd have to send in special forces to deal with them in close. That would no doubt cause casualties, but I'll take JTF2 over punk ass jihadists any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Also then posted those pics as targets the West was supposed to go after, as if a convoy of ISIS fighters wouldn't be their no. 1 target, and wouldn't take B52's to bomb either. They need Warthogs. Maybe even Apaches if they can deal with the missiles.

[N_Fiddledog]

Delwin Delwin:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Delwin Delwin:

I'm sure that would be very disappointing for you. Keep sowing the seeds of hatred. You'll get there.

Keep being wrong, and spreading the gospel of wrong. It's where you live. It's who you are.

Wrong about what exactly ? Are you disputing that a church was set on fire ?

You don't know who burned the Mosque in Peterborough. Insinuating you do is a lie. It's a lie from the world of wrong.

And btw if you had the guts to blame out loud who it's obvious from your snotty remark you are blaming you're spreading hate with false innuendo.

[Delwin]

I'll have to accept that, you are certainly the expert.

[N_Fiddledog]

Delwin Delwin:

I'll have to accept that, you are certainly the expert.

On you haters from what even actual Liberals are now calling the regressive left? Hell yeah, I am.

[Delwin]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

And btw if you had the guts to blame out loud who it's obvious from your snotty remark you are blaming you're spreading hate with false innuendo.

You are right, I hate arsonists and I think everyone should. I also think its disgusting that after a disgusting act of terror like that you try to blame the victims because they are Muslims. I doubt you would have responding in the same way if this was an Anglican church. You are a real piece of work.

[andyt]

Delwin Delwin:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

And btw if you had the guts to blame out loud who it's obvious from your snotty remark you are blaming you're spreading hate with false innuendo.

You are right, I hate arsonists and I think everyone should.

Sorry to jump in, but I'm confused. Who are you blaming that you don't have the guts to blame out loud? C'mon Delwin, man up and just blame them out loud already?

[Delwin]

Sure, I fully believe that this was an act committed by people in retaliation for the Paris attacks. Hateful people like FD whom want to blame all Muslims for the actions of a few. I seriously doubt this was committed by Muslims to try to paint themselves as some kind of victims. Unless evidence comes out to the contrary, I will classify this as a cowardly act of terror, and a hate crime.

[andyt]

Oh. I agree. Until the evidence points otherwise, I'll go with this was done by the haters. Funny, FD didn't caution we should wait until the evidence was in in the Paris attacks.

[BRAH]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

BRAH BRAH:

Far-right protests break out across France as tensions reach boiling point

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/619463/Paris-attacks-Anti-Muslim-protests-Islam-France-terrorism
____

Now there's a biased article.

If National Front is the majority in the North of France and last I heard it was, who is "extreme" when calling the majority extreme? The writer did it, so it's her, right.

The NF guys had a banner saying, "“Throw out Islamists”

The antifas (who are known for their commie thuggery at European rallies) called out, "“Get out Fascists", but according to the "extreme leftist" writing this version the NF were the ones looking for conflict.

She tells you nobody is technically allowed to organize rallies in France today, then she claims the "extreme Left" antifa thugs she favors owned the rally as organizers. How is that possible?

I'm beginning to see Jabberwalker's point. The Express can be trash.

BTW JW I opened my browser to all scripts and I see your alien pic on the Express now. It's an advertisement. If you click it, it takes you offsite. But they make it look like an actual article. Even moreso than other sites that do it like the Huffington Post.

It's the begining of the end for the Liberal media in the EU.

[BRAH]

French jets bomb Syria in the ISIS stronghold of Raqqa

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/15/middleeast/france-announces-raqqa-airstrikes-on-isis/index.html?sr=twCNN111515france-announces-raqqa-airstrikes-on-isis/0914PMStoryLink&linkId=18773221
_________________

[Canadian_Mind]

bootlegga bootlegga:

andyt andyt:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Willpower mostly - nobody is willing to turn this:



into this:



If the West deployed sufficient forces, something like that could be done fairly easily. The problem is too many leaders are worried about the backlash such a victory might bring.

I don't buy what you say for a minute. If the Western forces were presented such a target with no civilians in sight, they'd be fighting amongst themselves about who got to do the bombing. I think you are making this out as far easier than it is. Always easy sitting in an armchair.

You might want to read what I wrote.

I said IF the West deployed sufficient forces to deal with ISIS.

For Gulf War 1, the USA deployed half a million men, hundreds of aircraft and three or four carrier battlegroups. Obama hasn't even deployed 1/10th of that to deal with ISIS.

Hell, Canada sent three warships, 18 fighter-bombers and another couple hundred to support them.

That's the kind of total war effort that is needed, not these sad sack half measures.

Just as important as total numbers is duration. Part of the issue we had with the current war on terror was it was 12 years of cyclical stupidity. For us it was effectively 6 months on tour, 6 months off, 6 months training aid, 6 months work up, 6 months on tour, etc. etc. etc. For the Americans it was a yearly thing.

This caused a number of disadvantages for us. First, all the enemy had to do was wait us out. Second, I think that method of waging war wore us troops out more than just staying there would have. Third, due to the constant rotation, there was no real experience retention. Yes those who were over came back to pass the lessons along during work up training, but that only goes so far. I learned more about how to do my job the first month I was overseas than during the entire year I spent preparing for it beforehand.

The war needs to be waged the way we waged the Boer War, the World Wars, and Korea; where the only troop movement from the home country was casualty replacement.

[ShepherdsDog]

if handled like WWII, there'd initially be a take no prisoner approach. The Allies, including Canadian troops didn't always take prisoners, even some that surrendered.

[bootlegga]

Delwin Delwin:

bootlegaa bootlegaa:

You might want to read what I wrote.

I said IF the West deployed sufficient forces to deal with ISIS.

For Gulf War 1, the USA deployed half a million men, hundreds of aircraft and three or four carrier battlegroups. Obama hasn't even deployed 1/10th of that to deal with ISIS.

Hell, Canada sent three warships, 18 fighter-bombers and another couple hundred to support them.

That's the kind of total war effort that is needed, not these sad sack half measures.

It would be insurgency warfare. There would be no one coming out to meet you on the battlefield. They would sit and pick their moments while occupied at the cost of billions. Then, every now and then they would blow up a market or try to pick off a soldier from a rooftop, all while dressed like a regular citizen.

Remember Iraq?

Again, read I wrote.

You start off with a massive strike that wipes out most, if not all of the ISIS' combat power, then send in special forces to deal with the rest. ISIS has the resources it does because: it holds oil wells and other resources which it exports on the black market; and it gets support from Saudi Arabia. Remove those sources of funding and whatever is left of ISIS withers on the vine. But that massive strike needs far more resources than the paltry amount of forces the West has deployed so far.

After ISIS is removed from the map, we can leave and let proxies like the Kurds clean up the leftovers.