My question is not meant to be an indictment, but one of consistentcy.

On September 17th, 2008 at 2:04 pm, Flyoverman said:
Elm Creek Smith #61,

And my personal favorite DPICM, Dual Purpose Improved Conventional Munitions, always a good choice…..

Have you seen the results of a small JDAM with a delay fuse? I saw video of a strike where a house just disappeared. The houses on either side remained standing.

DPICM is too much like a shotgun. It is designed for use on massed troops or vehicle concentrations.

JMHO.

ECS
CPT, AR
US Army (Ret.)

http://theturkeyfootbrand.blogspot.com/

This means they had training.

We have all been called legitimate targets by AQ. Hizboalla has murdered more Americans than any other moon god worshiping group.

Arm yourselves, because the State Department allows more of the religion of peace into this country every day.

ROPMA

And my personal favorite DPICM, Dual Purpose Improved Conventional Munitions, always a good choice…..

If I know a family whose adults and children are being killed repeatedly by a serial bomber and I find the bomber at home with the wife and kiddies, will I not strike that target to spare his kids knowing that will allow the bomber to go on killing my friends’ children?

Not a chance. He should have picked another line of work.

On September 17th, 2008 at 12:15 pm, lgm said:
Good, you don’t want to kill people who aren’t terrorists. Question: how do you tell? Do you look `em in the eye (like Bush did to figure out that Putin was a stand up guy)? Do you — heaven forbid — have an investigation? Or do you use the Bush/McCain strategy — drop bombs in Yemen (or Iraq or Pakistan or wherever) and hope that some terrorists get killed along with the civilians?

Nice way to mischaracterize our current strategy, lgm. We use intelligence resources to identify and locate the terrorists. Then, we destroy them. Whether we use dumb bombs, laser-guided bombs, JDAMS, Hellfire missiles, Claymore mines, or bullets, is immaterial to me.

BTW, how are you using the word “civilians?” Do you mean someone who wasn’t involved at all in the attack, or do you mean someone who merely materially supported the attackers?

ECS

http://theturkeyfootbrand.blogspot.com/

This week prominent Muslim clerics have begun openly criticizing these kinds of attacks that do nothing but kill other Muslims.

Mao said insurgents are like fish. The people are the sea. Fish need the sea to be able to live in. Al Quiada in Iraq has found this out the hard way. These losers will find it out as well, when on a tip from some formerly silent Muslim, the Predator drone puts a Maverick missle in the middle of their meeting table.

Sucks to be them. We are winning.

We aren’t talking about killing people; we’re talking about killing terrorists, the terrorists …

Good, you don’t want to kill people who aren’t terrorists. Question: how do you tell? Do you look `em in the eye (like Bush did to figure out that Putin was a stand up guy)? Do you — heaven forbid — have an investigation? Or do you use the Bush/McCain strategy — drop bombs in Yemen (or Iraq or Pakistan or wherever) and hope that some terrorists get killed along with the civilians?

cpodug said (#56):

I’m still waiting for you to answer the question: is there anything you would be willing to fight for?

Arugula!

Remember how twin towers made of concrete, steel and glass reacted when they absorbed the blunt force energy of being slammed against by jetliners flown by scum and filled with highly volatile fuel and U.S. citizens?

They sat down to try to work out their differences with the hijackers, right? Tried to understand their situation and empathize?

Oh wait, I forgot. There wasn’t time because they were already dead.

That’s the strategy the British used in the American colonial rebellion of 1776. It didn’t work out for them either. Remember the Mel Gibson movie, how the colonials reacted with British troops killed people who had not attacked them?

Glorifying the jihad by comparing it to the American Revolutionaries, who fought, bled, and died so you can plop your butt in here and spew your inane drivel? You ass. The jihadis don’t want you to have those freedoms; they’re fighting to take them away from you and, yes, kill you.

Why is it so hard for leftists to get the thought through their head that there are people out there who will hate you and try to kill you no matter how many tea parties you throw for them? They don’t just hate us for our freedoms — they hate us simply for existing. It’s a religious passion of theirs, meaning that no amount of hand wringing, negotiating or sucking up will make them change their minds.

On September 17th, 2008 at 11:23 am, lgm said:

sonofdy said (#32):

The only thing I want to teach them about the the superiority of our fire power.

That’s the strategy the British used in the American colonial rebellion of 1776. It didn’t work out for them either. Remember the Mel Gibson movie, how the colonials reacted with British troops killed people who had not attacked them?

Movies aren’t real life, lgm. We aren’t talking about killing people; we’re talking about killing terrorists, the terrorists who attacked our embassy, the terrorists who planned the attack, the terrorists who supported the attack.

What would you have us do, invite them to discuss it over coffee?

ECS

http://theturkeyfootbrand.blogspot.com/

On September 17th, 2008 at 11:23 am, lgm said:
That’s the strategy the British used in the American colonial rebellion of 1776. It didn’t work out for them either. Remember the Mel Gibson movie, how the colonials reacted with British troops killed people who had not attacked them?

The War for Independence was not a movie. And yes we did win with superior firepower after the French intervention, leading to the battle at Yorktown and a decisive victory.