Gov. Abbott: Texas to Block Syrian Refugee Resettlement

Not GOP

Not GOP

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
"WHITE HOUSE GAVE ISIS 45 MINUTE WARNING BEFORE BOMBING OIL TANKERS"

http://www.infowars.com/white-house-gave-isis-45-minute-warning-before-bombing-oil-tankers/

...

The leaflets story is bullshit, I guarantee you can't produce a credible news source running with that story

We've been bombing ISIS targets in Syria and Iraq, along with a coalition of 10 other countries (Australia, Bahrain, Canada, France, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, UAE & the UK) since Sept. 2014. We've killed an estimated 3,500 members of ISIS and what have the results been?

~1,000 civilians dead and ISIS has increased its territory in Syria since the airstrikes began

So by what measure do you suggest more is all it'll take to secure victory? If we just bomb them more and kill more civilians and more infrastructure, then we'll surely win!
Click to expand...
Do you consider the Pentagon to be a credible source?

“In Al-Bukamal, we destroyed 116 tanker trucks, which we believe will reduce ISIL’s ability to transport its stolen oil products. “This is our first strike against tanker trucks, and to minimize risks to civilians, we conducted a leaflet drop prior to the strike. We did a show of force, by... we had aircraft essentially buzz the trucks at low altitude.” -Colonel Steve Warren

The leaflets said, “Get out of your trucks now and run away from them. Warning. Airstrikes are coming, oil trucks will be destroyed. Get away from your oil trucks immediately. Do not risk your own lives.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Not GOP said:
Do you consider the Pentagon to be a credible source?

“In Al-Bukamal, we destroyed 116 tanker trucks, which we believe will reduce ISIL’s ability to transport its stolen oil products. “This is our first strike against tanker trucks, and to minimize risks to civilians, we conducted a leaflet drop prior to the strike. We did a show of force, by... we had aircraft essentially buzz the trucks at low altitude.” -Colonel Steve Warren

The leaflets said, “Get out of your trucks now and run away from them. Warning. Airstrikes are coming, oil trucks will be destroyed. Get away from your oil trucks immediately. Do not risk your own lives.
Click to expand...
Seems to be a pretty common tactic to prevent civilian casualties;

"Israel Warns Gaza Targets by Phone and Leaflet"

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/09/world/middleeast/by-phone-and-leaflet-israeli-attackers-warn-gazans.html

"Israel drops leaflets warning Gaza residents to evacuate ahead of strikes"

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/13/world/meast/mideast-tensions/

"Leaflets warning Japanese of Atomic Bomb, 1945"

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/primary-resources/truman-leaflets/

"Even though leaflet propaganda has been an effective "weapon", its use has been on a decline. This decline is a result of the advance of satellite, television, and radio technology. Six billion leaflets were dropped in Western Europe and 40 million leaflets dropped by the United States Army Air Forces over Japan in 1945 during World War II. One billion were used during the Korean War while only 31 million have been used in the war against Iraq. Other conflicts where leaflet propaganda has been used are Vietnam, Afghanistan (both during the Soviet and more recent NATO invasions), and the Gulf War. Coalition forces dropped pamphlets encouraging Iraqi troops not to fight during the first Gulf War, which contributed to eighty-seven thousand Iraqi troops surrendering in 1991. Leaflet propaganda was also used in Syria to deter possible ISIS recruits from joining in 2015."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_leaflet_propaganda#After_World_War_II


So since you brought this up as a point of weakness in the Obama administration, do you feel the same way about leaflet propaganda when it contributes to 87,000 soldiers surrendering or when president Bush used it in Iraq before Obama? Is it weakness when Netanyahu uses it in Gaza or when we used it to warn Japanese civilians at the end of WW2?

Do you believe there should be more airstrikes than what we've been doing? Should we ignore collateral damage and just worry about the American and coalition pilots lives? If so, what makes an American life more valuable than an Iraqi or Syrian civilians?
 
NLXSK1

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
The syrian civilians allow muslim terrorists to train and operate within their communities. That makes their lives worth less than American lives.

There are hundreds of french people dead and you are worried about who might be offended if we strike back.
 
Not GOP

Not GOP

Well-Known Member
I support dropping leaflets giving people instructions how to surrender. That makes sense.

An Atomic Bomb would of course claim a lot of civilian casualties. So that makes sense.

I don't see how it relates to what Obama did with ISIS. Saving a handful of ISIS truck driver lives, is not worth risking the lives of our military. (low flying pin pick air strikes)
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
NLXSK1 said:
The syrian civilians allow muslim terrorists to train and operate within their communities. That makes their lives worth less than American lives.
Click to expand...
That's the exact same way terrorists justify killing American civilians

"The American civilians allow Christian crusaders to train and operate within their communities. That makes their lives worth less than Muslim lives."
Not GOP said:
I support dropping leaflets giving people instructions how to surrender. That makes sense.

An Atomic Bomb would of course claim a lot of civilian casualties. So that makes sense.

I don't see how it relates to what Obama did with ISIS. Saving a handful of ISIS truck driver lives, is not worth risking the lives of our military. (low flying pin pick air strikes)
Click to expand...
According to the Pentagon report you cited, they did it "to reduce civilian casualties". So are you now doubting the report you yourself cited in the first place?
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Yeah, according to the report that you cited they dropped the leaflets to help prevent civilian casualties. So obviously they weren't trying to "protect ISIS truck drivers"
 
NLXSK1

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
That's the exact same way terrorists justify killing American civilians

"The American civilians allow Christian crusaders to train and operate within their communities. That makes their lives worth less than Muslim lives."

According to the Pentagon report you cited, they did it "to reduce civilian casualties". So are you now doubting the report you yourself cited in the first place?
Click to expand...

So what? If we kill them then they cannot kill us. Problem solved.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Not GOP

Not GOP

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
"This is our first strike against tanker trucks, and to minimize risks to civilians, we conducted a leaflet drop prior to the strike. We did a show of force, by -- we had aircraft essentially buzz the trucks at low altitude."

http://www.defense.gov/News/News-Transcripts/Transcript-View/Article/630393/department-of-defense-press-briefing-by-col-warren-via-dvids-from-baghdad-iraq
Click to expand...
Come on man... How many people do you see inside oil tanker trucks? 1, maybe 2? If they are working for ISIS, then how are they civilians? This is political correctness gone too far. You seem to care more about ISIS, then you do about the lives of men and women in our military
 
NLXSK1

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
So if you think it's wrong when they do it, it's equally as wrong when we do it
Click to expand...
I reject your premise.

If we want to win we had better be prepared to dish out far more horrors than our opponents. It was our resolve to kill every living thing in Hiroshima and Nagasaki that caused Japan to surrender their war.

You claim we created the problem and I am suggesting a solution.

It is one hell of a lot better than importing Syria into the USA to compensated for some form of guilt.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Not GOP said:
Come on man... How many people do you see inside oil tanker trucks? 1, maybe 2? If they are working for ISIS, then how are they civilians? This is political correctness gone too far. You seem to care more about ISIS, then you do about the lives of men and women in our military
Click to expand...
According to the Pentagon report you cited, they were civilians

Are you suggesting we bomb civilians?
 
Not GOP

Not GOP

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
According to the Pentagon report you cited, they were civilians

Are you suggesting we bomb civilians?
Click to expand...
If they work for ISIS, then yes. I would rather risk their lives than the lives of our pilots flying at low altitudes over hostile enemy territory. If you don't get it by now, then you probably never will. Either way, I'm done trying to explain
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Not GOP said:
If they work for ISIS, then yes. I would rather risk their lives than the lives of our pilots flying at low altitudes over hostile enemy territory. If you don't get it by now, then you probably never will. Either way, I'm done trying to explain
Click to expand...
Obviously they don't work for ISIS, dumbdumb, they were civilians
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Not GOP said:
How the hell can you drive around an oil tanker truck for ISIS, and not work for ISIS? That doesn't make any sense.
Click to expand...
How do you know they were members of ISIS and not civilians working under threat of death?

ISIS is known to employ pretty messed up tactics, did you know?

You assume they are members of ISIS without any proof, and to you, that's enough to warrant a death sentence. I'm not willing to risk the lives of any innocent people based on unverified assumptions.
 
hyroot

hyroot

Well-Known Member
I just read the first post. You do know the governors do not have any power to stop refugees from coming in. What's to stop them from going to another state.

Refugees from any country go through a vetting process going through several law agencies and doctors and it takes 2 years for the process to be completed. They can't enter the country until they have been approved. That's been in effect since the Vietnam War. Recently the Senate passed another bill requiring the director of the FBI to personally sign off on each individual refugee.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/11/20/infographic-screening-process-refugee-entry-united-states


So stop watching fox news.
 
Blunted 4 lyfe

Blunted 4 lyfe

Well-Known Member
Not GOP said:
That is an interesting half truth. Posted like a true Democrat operative..

The plan

Shortly before Obama took office in January 2009, his predecessor, George W. Bush, finalized an important agreement after about a year of negotiations with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

Called the Status of Forces Agreement, it spelled out the withdrawal of all American troops by the end of 2011.

Obama, who won office in 2008 partly for his pledge to end the war in Iraq, announced his own draw-down plans a month after taking office. "Let me say this as plainly as I can: by Aug. 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end,"he said Feb. 27, 2009.

His speech revealed more details: He would keep between 35,000 to 50,000 military personnel there through the end of 2011 to train and advise Iraqi military and for counterterrorism purposes.

What would happen after Jan. 1, 2012, -- a central point in our fact-check -- was not settled until the fall of 2011. Obama and the Iraqi government had been open to leaving more troops behind to help the country remain stable.

But it didn’t happen.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/aug/24/martha-raddatz/obama-wanted-keep-10000-troops-iraq-abcs-raddatz-c/
Click to expand...
No Bush invasion of Iraq, no ISIS.
This is where I drop the mic.

B4L
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top