ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.
- Thread starter RoboCod
- Start date
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,374
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
You're losing it
He is quoting one of my posts saying he isn't manoz.
I never said he was.
He is DJ something, I've never heard of him so don't know what he usually posts like (although manoz peaked my interest with his level of stupidity).
The "tiny time frame" is that of which we officially went to war in Syria following the (as the article puts it) controversial vote, whereby the pro-fighting side argued that our munitions were highly sought after. So sought after, that we (again, as the article puts it..) haven't really used them in the fight.
If they were so sought after, why have they not been used? They made out we would be using them every single day to destroy strongholds, strategic positions, vehicles, everything... 7 deaths is a mighty small number if that were the case.
Spin all you want about "rhetoric" - I don't have one.
You did by quoting me.
You're losing it
He is quoting one of my posts saying he isn't manoz.
I never said he was.
He is DJ something, I've never heard of him so don't know what he usually posts like (although manoz peaked my interest with his level of stupidity).
I quoted your post where you have replied to Dis86 that is quoting/speaking of me, following without a break in the post to say how manoz "peaked" (btw, you mean "piqued") your interest. You blatantly got your wires crossed.
Last edited:
Again, you're using numbers of deaths as a measure. I don't quite understand what you're getting at. I don't think you do either.
"No, I won't post any examples, because I can't find any!"
An indicative measure, yes. If our forces were striking as many targets as was made out that we would be by the pro-fight MPs and camp those numbers would be a lot higher, but they aren't. So why did we get involved, if it wasn't for our munitions? That's all. Shock horror, I just want the truth of it.
e: And why did they choose to lie in the first place? Going to war on dishonest pretenses is.. well, not a nice thing to do, is it?
Last edited:
I knew what I'd posted earlier would just be ignored... and around we go. At least it's not a waste of time, other people read things and ingest information.
So what you're saying is, in a round about way, you're trolling.
No, because i'm not going to use this thread to post examples of you talking crap. Something you'd obviously dispute. People can look at your post history themselves and make their own minds up.
Dimple obviously already has!
No it's not been ignored. There's a difference between being ignored and argued against. If we were to "disrupt, degrade, and destroy" - and YOU need to not ignore this bit - by employing our munitions, because again that is what we were told is the reason why we joined the fight not because of our excellent skills at politically degrading from a distance or having wicked insults to upset them, but because our munitions are better than anyone else's at striking targets, would be put to immediate and constant use to achieve that goal. To have only killed 7 people in that process is a laughably low number which demonstrates we are not doing what we were told we would be. So why have we joined the fight, if not for that reason? And why were we lied to?
"Still can't find any."
No. I am saying you are drawing up straw men now, though.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,374
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
You can quote posters by not looking over to the left side.
I do it for virtually every one of my posts.
I used the word BUT
Originally Posted by SexyGreyFox
I'll be honest, I don't really take much notice of posters names but manoz peaked my interest with his stupidity.
If I was talking about you in the same sentence I would have wrote:
I'll be honest, I don't really take much notice of posters names but he peaked my interest with his stupidity.
I think manoz is Asian and obviously an extremist apologiser, you I have no idea about.
Again, I haven't a clue what you're rambling on about. You don't know what you're talking about, you're making things up, this is evident because you think it's laughable that we only struck 7 people because you believe a number of deaths is a measure. It's already been pointed out to you the context of that report...
..and what do you know of those 7 EF? For all you know, they could have been 7 of the most senior ISIL members available to strike. You just don't know, so stop going on pretending that you do. The matter is, we can strike many ISIL members daily. We see them all the time, on check points, carrying weapons, doing general dogs body work - the grunts if you wish. We could easily make the number of deaths in their hundreds, and then we could attain this magic number that you seem to deem a good measure of our effectiveness (out of interest what is this number? is it 8? is it 80? is it 1000? What's 'not laughable'?). What's the point in trying to wipe every person out though? We didn't defeat Nazi germany by killing every Nazi did we? I've already offered to you what are good measures of our ability to achieve our actual goals (the ones presented to everyone before the campaign begun), and you have chosen to ignore them. So yes, post another link to another meaningless article and please share more of your guff so we can counter those points so those people with open minds can have something to read and consider.
My point: We're not using Brimstones in Syria like we were told we would be by the pro-joining-the-fight campaign, and we've certainly not had as much as an effect as we were promised we would be.
Your point: We're still not using Brimstones in Syria.
What?!
I just want to know what the real reason for us joining the fight is, as it is obviously not what it is we were told it is, and I also want to know why we were lied to.
Now then. You can either address that simple question, or you can waffle on about the (in)significance of numbers some more. I don't even care about the numbers as an absolute measure, I've made no claim that we should have killed X or Y, all I know is that they are an indicative measure when they are so low, when we are supposedly (and were promised to be) striking so many targets and causing so much disruption, that just 7 is far too low for that to be the case.
Your point: We're still not using Brimstones in Syria.
What?!
I just want to know what the real reason for us joining the fight is, as it is obviously not what it is we were told it is, and I also want to know why we were lied to.
Now then. You can either address that simple question, or you can waffle on about the (in)significance of numbers some more. I don't even care about the numbers as an absolute measure, I've made no claim that we should have killed X or Y, all I know is that they are an indicative measure when they are so low, when we are supposedly (and were promised to be) striking so many targets and causing so much disruption, that just 7 is far too low for that to be the case.
Last edited:
You can use the word but all you like. It was still an un-breaking sentence which very clearly looks like you got your wires crossed.
What have we apparently been lied to about?
We were in the fight well before brimstones were.
Your initial post that spurned this discussion was about the numbers, you repeatedly brought up the numbers, you discounted the numbers as laughable, now you don't care about the numbers.... OK.
Again, you seem to feel qualified to deem 7 too low, when you don't know anything about the targets struck.
We were in the fight well before brimstones were.
Your initial post that spurned this discussion was about the numbers, you repeatedly brought up the numbers, you discounted the numbers as laughable, now you don't care about the numbers.... OK.
Again, you seem to feel qualified to deem 7 too low, when you don't know anything about the targets struck.