Wars

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
Seth please. The attack on Pearl Harbor was and act of war. And yes we had every right to defend ourselves. Even going to Japan. No problem there. So tell me Seth, what country was responsible for attacking us on 9/11? What country shall we wage war with? Are you trying to equate our defending ourselves against an entire COUNTRY committing an act of WAR, to a group of individuals committing an act of terrorism? There are no parallels between a war between countries, and a war between a group of individuals and a country. What is the difference between domestic terrorism and Islamic terrorism, legally? Both groups are criminals, and should be treated as criminals. The are NOT soldiers following the orders of a country.
They are soldiers in a terrorist guerilla army. On 9/11 they killed more Americans than the Japanese did in the Pearl Harbor attack.

A country is a legally recognized entity with borders. A guerilla terrorist organization doesn't have that legal recognition, but it can be a dangerous enemy nonetheless.

Seth be reasonable. Is it our goal to kill every last person who belongs to Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Isis, and all other terrorist groups in the world? How many more years, or generations will this war take? How many more body bag will it take, a half million more? What will it take for us to feel safe again? 19 more years?
I don't think killing every last one of them is the goal. I think keeping us safe from terrorism is the goal. You ask how many years or generations this war will take. I don't know, Shell. But is it all on us to decide that? What about them? Does the enemy get a vote?

The rest is the same John Wayne, Chuck Norris, Sgt. York, Team America, might is right, fantasy rhetoric, that I thought you were above parroting. I totally disagree with you. I think after 19 years we have proven that we are not to be messed with. So, why are we still there?
You mean in Afghanistan? I have already addressed that. I think we should leave Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. I would expect the taliban to retake Afghanistan after we leave. I do not see that as a defeat. The "win" is in what you said, and what I said earlier. We have proven to them that we are not to be messed with. If the taliban allowed AQ to base itself there again and plan or execute attacks upon us again, what happened to them could happen again, and we have proven that. Hopefully, they would not repeat those mistakes.

We need to stop this madness. Fighting a war that we can't win. As I've said before, this war will end when people get tired of the mounting body bags. Just like in Viet Nam. The ideology behind a war, is not the same as the reality of war.
I am acutely aware of the reality of war. I nearly lost a son in those wars.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
They are soldiers in a terrorist guerilla army. On 9/11 they killed more Americans than the Japanese did in the Pearl Harbor attack.
No! The are members of a group that share a common ideology
I am acutely aware of the reality of war. I nearly lost a son in those wars.
Why didn't you mention the entire statement? Instead of taking my comment out of context"? I said, "The ideology behind a war, is not the same as the reality of war.". And, this is NOT about you, or your son.

Members of a terrorist group are NOT soldiers representing or working for any government. There is none of the traditional governmental infrastructure supporting a military organization. They are a criminal group of people sharing a common ideology.

I don't think killing every last one of them is the goal. I think keeping us safe from terrorism is the goal. You ask how many years or generations this war will take. I don't know, Shell. But is it all on us to decide that? What about them? Does the enemy get a vote?
Just more double talk. You don't think killing every last terrorist is our goal? But, we have been killing over 500,000 civilians, thousands of terrorists and soldiers, for over 19 years. How many Islamic terrorists attacks happening in the US, are making people still feel unsafe? Other than the media keeping their ratings going, how many terrorist mass deaths are occurring daily, monthly, or yearly in the US? The lives of the people in harms way, deserve more than "I don't know". I DO know! If we want to feel safe, then get out of the Middle East, and take care of our own business. The longer we are there, the more of our troops and people will be at risk. It is a war that no one can win, and everybody will lose. It is a war where no measure of security can be guaranteed, no matter how long this war is fought. It is a war where WE are the aggressors, and people from all over the world, are joining the ranks of ISIS and Al Qaeda to support their cause. They will continue to become stronger, because we do not belong there.

As I have said before, you are a good company man. And, I believe that you will continue to spin, any facts, any truths, in any way, to best-fit the most positive narrative for the government and corporate America. After 19 years of 500,000 civilian deaths, billions in damages, a stronger ISIS and Al Qaeda, and you still have no idea how many more years it will take? So, just how will we even know when we will be safe from terrorists?

What is sad, is that you don't see anything wrong with this line of reasoning. So lets let the body bags continue to grow indefinitely, until we can feel safe again, right? Unfortunately, it will take the harsh reality of body-bags and serious injuries, before some people begin to see the almost childish nature of our actions and our rationale.
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
No! The are members of a group that share a common ideology
Like a ladies Wednesday night Bible study group! Got it!

Why didn't you mention the entire statement? Instead of taking my comment out of context"? I said, "The ideology behind a war, is not the same as the reality of war.". And, this is NOT about you, or your son.
No, but my attitudes about war are colored by my personal experiences.

Members of a terrorist group are NOT soldiers representing or working for any government. There is none of the traditional governmental infrastructure supporting a military organization. They are a criminal group of people sharing a common ideology.
Al Qaeda is an armed paramilitary terrorist organization with a distinct chain of command and command structure. True, it is not an official government organization, but it was supported by governments unofficially. And I think that if you were to tell an Al Qaeda member that they were NOT soldiers, they would not agree with you.

Just more double talk. You don't think killing every last terrorist is our goal? But, we have been killing over 500,000 civilians, thousands of terrorists and soldiers, for over 19 years. How many Islamic terrorists attacks happening in the US, are making people still feel unsafe? Other than the media keeping their ratings going, how many terrorist mass deaths are occurring daily, monthly, or yearly in the US? The lives of the people in harms way, deserve more than "I don't know". I DO know! If we want to feel safe, then get out of the Middle East, and take care of our own business. The longer we are there, the more of our troops and people will be at risk. It is a war that no one can win, and everybody will lose. It is a war where no measure of security can be guaranteed, no matter how long this war is fought. It is a war where WE are the aggressors, and people from all over the world, are joining the ranks of ISIS and Al Qaeda to support their cause. They will continue to become stronger, because we do not belong there.
In our discussions you sometimes point out that I don't answer your questions. I try in most cases. So my question to you is whether AQ gets a vote on the question of war or peace.

My point of view is that if AQ wants to end its armed struggle against the U.S. and our allies and friendly nations, I would be willing to end our war against AQ. I say they get a vote.

As I have said before, you are a good company man. And, I believe that you will continue to spin, any facts, any truths, in any way, to best-fit the most positive narrative for the government and corporate America. After 19 years of 500,000 civilian deaths, billions in damages, a stronger ISIS and Al Qaeda, and you still have no idea how many more years it will take? So, just how will we even know when we will be safe from terrorists?
Reasonable people don't always agree on things. That's just the way it is.

Shell, I don't have the power to see into the future. Sorry.

What is sad, is that you don't see anything wrong with this line of reasoning. So lets let the body bags continue to grow indefinitely, until we can feel safe again, right? Unfortunately, it will take the harsh reality of body-bags and serious injuries, before some people begin to see the almost childish nature of our actions and our rationale.
We have some fundamental differences about national defense. Where we agree is on unnecessary regime change wars that are none of our business. Where we disagree I think is on the question of our response to an attack. I prefer a "hit 'em back, knock 'em down, and keep 'em down" kind of response. I don't think you share that in common with me, and that's the sticking point between our outlooks on this.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
We have some fundamental differences about national defense. Where we agree is on unnecessary regime change wars that are none of our business. Where we disagree I think is on the question of our response to an attack. I prefer a "hit 'em back, knock 'em down, and keep 'em down" kind of response. I don't think you share that in common with me, and that's the sticking point between our outlooks on this.
This is true. I believe in what is right. And, you believe that might is always right.

In our discussions you sometimes point out that I don't answer your questions. I try in most cases. So my question to you is whether AQ gets a vote on the question of war or peace.

My point of view is that if AQ wants to end its armed struggle against the U.S. and our allies and friendly nations, I would be willing to end our war against AQ. I say they get a vote.
No, I don't believe that any criminal group of fanatics, who conduct terrorism to advance their religious or domestic causes, should have any say in peace or war. This would mean that crime becomes a legal bargaining tool. We should use whatever means available to protect and defend OUR COUNTRY!!

Al Qaeda is an armed paramilitary terrorist organization with a distinct chain of command and command structure. True, it is not an official government organization, but it was supported by governments unofficially. And I think that if you were to tell an Al Qaeda member that they were NOT soldiers, they would not agree with you.
What country do these soldiers belong to, control by, or work for? But, to avoid arguing semantics, I agree that ISIS and Al Qaeda are para-military groups.
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
This is true. I believe in what is right. And, you believe that might is always right.
I laughed at that.

Sadly, when all peaceful means fail, you have to slug the bully on the soccer field. Because of the profession I was in, I couldn't even begin to tell you of all the times that I saw justifiable force used to stop wrongful force. I just see that as being realistic. Not nice, just realistic.

No, I don't believe that any criminal group of fanatics, who conduct terrorism to advance their religious or domestic causes, should have any say in peace or war. This would mean that crime becomes a legal bargaining tool. We should use whatever means available to protect and defend OUR COUNTRY!!
Now you're sounding like me, lol.

When I said AQ gets a vote, it was just a figure of speech. What that means is that if we are to end our war with AQ, AQ must also end its war with us and our friends. "They get a vote" is a figure of speech.

What country do these soldiers belong to, control by, or work for? But, to avoid arguing semantics, I agree that ISIS and Al Qaeda are para-military groups.
Well, whadya know? We agree on something again!

Shell, AQ doesn't belong to or work for any country. What I said was that AQ has been supported by a couple of countries.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
Sadly, when all peaceful means fail, you have to slug the bully on the soccer field. Because of the profession I was in, I couldn't even begin to tell you of all the times that I saw justifiable force used to stop wrongful force. I just see that as being realistic. Not nice, just realistic.
Seth, we share a lot in common. We have both been in the same business. We had the same military experience, including the same MOS. And. I agree, that I have certainly committed many wrongful but necessary acts. But, I've never once tried to hide the fact that my acts were wrongful. Nor, have I ever defended my wrongful acts, with spin or platitudes. I take full responsibility for my own wrongful acts, and would never ask anyone to commit MY wrongful acts. Hence why the young always fight old men's wars. But 19 years, 500,000 civilian deaths, and a complete disregard for national sovereignty?? So, if your point is, that committing wrongful acts are sometimes necessary, then I also agree. But not for 19years, or indefinitely.

When I said AQ gets a vote, it was just a figure of speech. What that means is that if we are to end our war with AQ, AQ must also end its war with us and our friends. "They get a vote" is a figure of speech.
I understood what you meant. And, I still think AQ should play no role in any resolutions to end its criminality against the US. Period! What they do on foreign soil is none of our business. The country, or NATO should deal with that problem.
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
There are reports on the internet that the Israeli Mossad commander Fahmi Hinawi has been assassinated in Israel.

None of these reports cite government sources, and none of them are mainstream news sites.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
There are reports on the internet that the Israeli Mossad commander Fahmi Hinawi has been assassinated in Israel.

None of these reports cite government sources, and none of them are mainstream news sites.
As I've said before, this is how it will start. First America wants a war with Iran because Iran wants to Nationalize its oil(like Libya and Venezuela), and NOT trade its oil using US dollars. After a number of unverified and objectively unsupported claims, and with Israel's permission and complicity, the US blatantly assassinated a prominent member of the Iranian military, and then claim self-defense from an imminent/immediate attack. Iran responded with warning Americans about when and where its attacks will come from. Including making special effort NOT to harm anyone.

Since this didn't work, it was Israel's turn for provocation(completely confirmed). Israel DID assassinated Iran's top nuclear scientists. Now, an Israeli's senior Mossad Intelligence Agent has been assassinated. And, since it was an Israeli Mossad Agent that killed the Iranian scientist, it seems more than likely that Iran was responsible for the death of this Israeli senior Mossad agent. Now Israel will openly retaliate, and Iran will respond. Iran had stated earlier, that "It will be Israel that will be responsible for the end of the world.". And, it is beginning to look that way. This conflict will eventually bring the US into the conflict, even though, no formal defense treaty exist between the US and Israel. It is also more than likely that Israel will lose decisively against Iran. America will have to intervene. America would be more than willingly to sacrifice its own troops for Israel. It knows now, that the gullible and the ignorant will believe any narrative they can create. Facts are only relative to its justification.


Once the US intervenes, any number of events will be possible. All bad. But, if Russia, China, or any of Iran's allies in the Arab league(Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, etc.) decide to assist them, then we're done for. There will be no winners. And, I wouldn't count on any of our European allies for much help. They are not going to willingly sacrifice their own people over this nonsense.

But then again, this is all just IMHO.
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
D-Day Hero Sgt Major Robert Blatnik Dead at 100

omaha.png


An Army veteran from Texas who landed on Omaha Beach on D-Day with 900 men under his command has died at the age of 100.

Sgt. Maj. Robert Blatnik died Saturday, according to CBS 11 Dallas.

Blatnik was 93 when he returned in 2013 to Omaha Beach stopping at the exact spot where he landed on June 6, 1944, the station reported.

“Oh dear Father thank you for having saved my life,” he said as he got down on his hands and knees on the hallowed ground.

He offered more prayers for those who lost their lives that day, including more than 500 of his men.

"On the beach, the artillery and smoke were everywhere," Blatnik said in 2009 in a write-up on the U.S. Army website. "It was chaos all around us. I didn't even see any small arms fire from the Germans, just bodies and bombs going off everywhere."

Blatnik, who served under Gen. George S. Patton, in the 1st Infantry Division, nicknamed "Big Red One," said his experience helped keep him alive.

"I knew that the main thing to do was to get off the beach,” he said. “Some of the men wanted to dig in. When you're on a beach the main thing to do is confront the enemy. You can't dig in during something like that; you've go to get the hell off the beach. If you try to dig in you're lost, so I tried to keep my men moving forward."


- Fox News

blatnik.jpg

Rest in Peace, Sgt Major Blatnik.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
D-Day Hero Sgt Major Robert Blatnik Dead at 100

View attachment 534


An Army veteran from Texas who landed on Omaha Beach on D-Day with 900 men under his command has died at the age of 100.

Sgt. Maj. Robert Blatnik died Saturday, according to CBS 11 Dallas.

Blatnik was 93 when he returned in 2013 to Omaha Beach stopping at the exact spot where he landed on June 6, 1944, the station reported.

“Oh dear Father thank you for having saved my life,” he said as he got down on his hands and knees on the hallowed ground.

He offered more prayers for those who lost their lives that day, including more than 500 of his men.

"On the beach, the artillery and smoke were everywhere," Blatnik said in 2009 in a write-up on the U.S. Army website. "It was chaos all around us. I didn't even see any small arms fire from the Germans, just bodies and bombs going off everywhere."

Blatnik, who served under Gen. George S. Patton, in the 1st Infantry Division, nicknamed "Big Red One," said his experience helped keep him alive.

"I knew that the main thing to do was to get off the beach,” he said. “Some of the men wanted to dig in. When you're on a beach the main thing to do is confront the enemy. You can't dig in during something like that; you've go to get the hell off the beach. If you try to dig in you're lost, so I tried to keep my men moving forward."


- Fox News

View attachment 535

Rest in Peace, Sgt Major Blatnik.

Thanks for sharing. I hope I never have to see anymore of these pictures again. But it may be just the nature of the beast.
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
American taxpayers foot the bill for continued fraud, misspending and flagrant waste in Afghanistan

It's time to get out and just let the Taliban have it. You cannot make a sculpture out of sand.

 

DonDeeHippy

Active member
American taxpayers foot the bill for continued fraud, misspending and flagrant waste in Afghanistan

It's time to get out and just let the Taliban have it. You cannot make a sculpture out of sand.

yeah what are you guys thinking, they don't even have any oil... only lots of Heroin
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
Iran Shelters Al Qaeda Leaders

Fairly lengthy but well-researched article about the Al Qaeda leaders being sheltered by the Iranians. A high-ranking Al Qaeda leader was killed in Iran recently by a joint CIA-Mossad operation. This article discusses the other AQ leaders sheltering in Iran.

 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
Biden’s Pentagon ‘Open’ To Increasing Troop Levels In Iraq


The Pentagon is reportedly open to the possibility of sending more American troops to Iraq in an expanded NATO training mission for Iraqi security forces.

Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin discussed the training mission with his NATO colleagues Thursday, according to CNN. Although an increase in troop levels is on the table, there are no imminent plans for it at the moment, Pentagon spokesperson John Kirby clarified Thursday night.

“The US is participating in the force generation process for NATO Mission Iraq and will contribute its fair share to this important expanded mission,” Pentagon spokesperson Jessica L. McNulty said to CNN. The aim of the mission is reportedly to support Iraqi forces in the fight to prevent ISIS from re-emerging as a substantial regional threat.

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said Thursday that NATO’s presence for the mission would jump from about 500 personnel to around 4,000, CNN reported. Austin reportedly “welcomed the expanded role” of NATO in Iraq, and Stoltenberg stressed the importance of keeping ISIS in check. “ISIS is still there. ISIS still operates in Iraq, and we need to make sure that they’re not able to return,” Stoltenberg said.

Stoltenberg also added that the increase in NATO personnel in the country came at the request of the Iraqi government.

An increase in American involvement in Iraq would be a change in direction from policy under former President Donald Trump. Troop levels in the country fell to 2,500 by the end of Trump’s term. Before the transition to the Biden administration, Trump’s acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller said the troop reduction was a sign of success: “The drawdown of US force levels in Iraq is reflective of the increased capabilities of the Iraqi security forces. Our ability to reduce force levels is evidence of real progress.”


Reported by The Daily Caller


My reaction: Strike Fucking One!!

And THIS, folks, is why substance over style fucking matters.
 
Top