ISIS and Islamic militants - discussion

ubersonic said:
Because you were using it to back up your assertions? I mean no offence but that, plus it being "all over reddit" are not exactly super iron clad convincing.
Click to expand...

And what were my assertions*? That there is disillusionment amongst US servicemen.

It's like a primary school class in here. Do I need to read you all the definition of disillusionment now?

*to which they hardly were assertions, it was a remark that I wouldn't be surprised at all if there are US servicemen defecting, but hey ho I suppose you guys just felt the need to pick a battle, eh?
 
Last edited:
zoomee said:
America's involvement - hmmmmmm.
This pic been doin the round recently:

10678764_10203695758048611_7159628598961575143_n_zpsebc68cf4.jpg
Click to expand...


this is the original Reuters image from the bbc website so looks like a photoshop job


** No hotlinked images **

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/75503000/jpg/_75503374_isis.jpg
 
Dj_Jestar said:
61 chapters across the US.

And flag burning is the epitome of disillusionment. Especially in this discussion about US soldiers that may have defected to IS.

Are you done side tracking yet?
Click to expand...

I'm not side tracking, I'm just questioning your claim that huge numbers of US servicemen are disillusioned. 61 chapters mean nothing, it could be 1800 chapters, but there are still just 1800 members of the group you linked. It isn't really a huge proportion of all the ex US servicemen now IMO.
 
That's just one organisation. There are many others that don't subscribe to any particular group, as well as other groups.

Anyway... we've established there are unhappy servicemen. Get over it.
 
So because they don't think they should be there and they aren't helped with PTSD they would think joining ISIS would make the matter better by starting another war over there?
 
This thread title looks more and more ridiculous by the day.

ISIS really isn't a threat to us. In fact, getting involved makes us more of a target. We should stay out and spend the money on actually useful things like the NHS, education etc.
 
ubersonic said:
Yeah, it basically means dropping a load of bombs to make sure you cover your target (because you don't have the precision to simply take out your target with a surgical strike), it's mostly used against cities, like it was against Iraq in the examples given.

I think the reason Stolly didn't realise groups of old bombers could do it is because it's a literately new phrase, but a phrase for something that existed before the was a phrase for it.




Yeah I edited the post, I thought the planes being discussed were camels, not that up on the names of older bombers.
Click to expand...

Thanks for assuming i don't know my subject matter, but i can speak for myself thanks.

Again, the types of the time, and some of them have helpfully been mentioned by other posters, were not able to carpet bomb anything.

The term you used evokes images of WWII area bombing by the heavy bombers of the time carrying loads in excess of 4,000lbs and in numbers in the hundreds. You specifically mentioned carpet bombing cities which is again evocative of WWII area bombing. This expressly did not occur in the 1920's in Iraq. Its nonsense to say otherwise.

Oh, and before you trot out something about bombing raids on villages, nice try but still not carpet bombing. 97 tons of bombs in a campaign is not carpet bombing. RAF Bomber command was dropping over 2,000 tons of bombs on German cities in a single night. That is area bombing. Not flimsy WWI era biplanes operating in numbers in the single figures.

Also, carpet bombing literally new phrase ? Its over 70 years old. Pretty sure i can dig out some 1940's primary sources that use the phrase, if i could spare the effort......

Anyway, you go back to arguing on the internet, i'm going for a run :)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom