So You Thought The War On Terror Was All But Over With The Killing Of UBL

[mudwhistle]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OSWtWAdZYE]obama bin laden speech compared to bush saddam speech - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Montrovant]

If you feel al Qaeda redeems itself by supporting Green Energy then I guess they aren't all bad, in your eyes.

But I don't believe in looking the other way, while they plan the death of every infidel possible, just because of their politics. It's a ruse. Nothing more. They all use codes.

"Islam is a religion of peace.

The majority of Muslims are moderates.

Most terrorism is not at the hands of radical Muslims."​

In my opinion they have no redeeming qualities. Anyone who does is kidding themselves.


At any rate, my OP has been proven over and over again in this thread. Ignore it all you want. You're the type I'd be inclined to kick out of my foxhole in a battle but I get the feeling you'd have already bugged out by the time I reached that point.


Oh, and congrats on the championship. Let's do it again.

What the hell are you talking about?

All I said is that Al Qaeda is not all terrorism. And it manifestly is not. Terrorism does not mean a single terrorist organization. We could wipe AQ off the face of the earth and there would still be terrorism, and at least some of it would still target the US. Are you trying to say that isn't the case?

My point is that Obama claiming AQ is weakened or near defeat is not the same as Obama saying the poorly-named war on terror is almost over, unless the war on terror really meant the war on AQ.

Where you get some kind of connection to green energy or support of Islam out of that I have no clue. I also think your segue into foxholes was a pretty wild leap.

"Al Qaeda is not all terrorism" could be taken more than one way. It's not my fault you can't express yourself in a more clear manner. I assumed you meant you understood their politics.

I"m scratching my head wondering what the heck you're thinking of because the God Damned point of the OP was that no one organization or one man is terrorism. My fucken point was that the Obama Administration is guilty of this narrow viewpoint and trying to influence the public accordingly.

Your point is horseshit. al Qaeda isn't weakened because in one aspect it's like the Tea Party. It's an organization that doesn't have a leadership but a common ideology. The organization only exists as long as the ideology hasn't been achieved. It makes it easy to demonize but extremely difficult to attack.

Ah, I see what you got from that now. Yeah, that could have been clearer.

On the other hand, when your thread title is 'So you thought the war on terror was all but over'.....

I wasn't putting forth an opinion on whether AQ is weakened or not, just commenting on how Obama's comments relate to the possibility of the war on terror being all but over. I have no idea how weak AQ may be at the moment, and in a number of ways I don't think it matters.

Just some misreading going on here I think.

And I'm ready to get another fantasy championship this year!

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

No, I just don't buy into holier than thou propaganda.



Since when? Germany, Japan, North Vietnam, Iraq. We bomb the fuck out of civilian targets. Get real.

Actually we did not intentionally kill German civilians, unless you have a link you can provide that shows United States sent troops to intentionally murder German civilians or authorized the bombing of non military targets such as a German city?

With regard to Germany, we used B52 bombers, and our ability to hit a refinery target was not at all accurate with the technology at the time. The bombers used a technique called "carpet bombing" to be sure a the German target was hit, this unfortunately caused damage to any building located near the intended target to be destroyed as well. To say the United States military intentionally went out to look for and kill German civilians is to be completely ignorant as to the objectives the military commanders were trying to achieve with respect to Germany. Now the Germans, on the other hand, intentionally launched V2 rockets at London as well as bomb the city to destroy civilian moral in support of the war.


With regard to Japan, President Truman made the executive decision to drop an atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, because he believed the casualties of war would be a lot less than if they conducted a military land invasion of Japan. Japan was ready for an all out ground assault on their country, and was prepared to destroy any invader that would make such an attempt.

With regard to Iraq, can you provide me with some links showing proof that our military men and women had knowingly executed Iraqi civilians that were of absolutely no threat at all to our troops? I know that there were small pockets of resistance in Iraq, and attacks on our troops were made by individuals in hiding rather than openly wearing any military identified insignias. You want to make claims that our military went out and intentionally sought out civilians to kill? I'd expect as much from someone who didn't serve, and has abslutely no respect of our United States military. At least I have RESPECT for the men and women who chose to make the same sacrifice as I, to serve and defend our country to preserve those freedoms you seem so egar to take for granted.

Sure we did.

Dresden Bombing - World War 2 Dresden Bombing

About.com: http://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=55

Not to mention firebombing Japan.

It was a different time. I cannot condemn it either.

The firebombing of Tokyo, also known as the "Doolittle Raid", was in response to Pearl Harbor and an effort to draw Japan's great military fleet back. This was a psychological effort into making the Japanese Empire believe their mainland was, in fact, vulnerable and needed to be protected.

Also, from your article:

Pressed by Prime Minister Winston Churchill, the Chief of the Air Staff, Marshal Sir Charles Portal, agreed that cities should be bombed with the goal of disrupting German communications, transportation, and troop movements, but stipulated that these operations should be secondary to strategic attacks on factories, refineries, and shipyards.


Why Dresden?:

The largest remaining unbombed city in the Third Reich, Dresden was Germany's seventh-largest city and a cultural center known as the "Florence on the Elbe." Though a center for the arts, it was also one of Germany's largest remaining industrial sites and contained over 100 factories of various sizes. Among these were facilities for producing poison gas, artillery, and aircraft components. In addition, it was a key rail hub with lines running north-south to Berlin, Prague, and Vienna as well as east-west Munich and Breslau (Wroclaw) and Leipzig and Hamburg.

It is not uncommon to target bridges, a main supply rail hub, refineries, and factories that are used specifically to produce military supplies. Any building or supply route used for military purposes are legitimate targets. This is different from bombing a city with no military targets or interest, except to influence moral as was the German's main purpose for REPEADLY bombarding London.

You don't believe this to be a viable reason to target a key rail hub in Dresden?

 

[jon_berzerk]

Actually we did not intentionally kill German civilians, unless you have a link you can provide that shows United States sent troops to intentionally murder German civilians or authorized the bombing of non military targets such as a German city?

With regard to Germany, we used B52 bombers, and our ability to hit a refinery target was not at all accurate with the technology at the time. The bombers used a technique called "carpet bombing" to be sure a the German target was hit, this unfortunately caused damage to any building located near the intended target to be destroyed as well. To say the United States military intentionally went out to look for and kill German civilians is to be completely ignorant as to the objectives the military commanders were trying to achieve with respect to Germany. Now the Germans, on the other hand, intentionally launched V2 rockets at London as well as bomb the city to destroy civilian moral in support of the war.


With regard to Japan, President Truman made the executive decision to drop an atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, because he believed the casualties of war would be a lot less than if they conducted a military land invasion of Japan. Japan was ready for an all out ground assault on their country, and was prepared to destroy any invader that would make such an attempt.

With regard to Iraq, can you provide me with some links showing proof that our military men and women had knowingly executed Iraqi civilians that were of absolutely no threat at all to our troops? I know that there were small pockets of resistance in Iraq, and attacks on our troops were made by individuals in hiding rather than openly wearing any military identified insignias. You want to make claims that our military went out and intentionally sought out civilians to kill? I'd expect as much from someone who didn't serve, and has abslutely no respect of our United States military. At least I have RESPECT for the men and women who chose to make the same sacrifice as I, to serve and defend our country to preserve those freedoms you seem so egar to take for granted.

Sure we did.

Dresden Bombing - World War 2 Dresden Bombing

About.com: http://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=55

Not to mention firebombing Japan.

It was a different time. I cannot condemn it either.

The firebombing of Tokyo, also known as the "Doolittle Raid", was in response to Pearl Harbor and an effort to draw Japan's great military fleet back. This was a psychological effort into making the Japanese Empire believe their mainland was, in fact, vulnerable and needed to be protected.

Also, from your article:

Pressed by Prime Minister Winston Churchill, the Chief of the Air Staff, Marshal Sir Charles Portal, agreed that cities should be bombed with the goal of disrupting German communications, transportation, and troop movements, but stipulated that these operations should be secondary to strategic attacks on factories, refineries, and shipyards.


Why Dresden?:

The largest remaining unbombed city in the Third Reich, Dresden was Germany's seventh-largest city and a cultural center known as the "Florence on the Elbe." Though a center for the arts, it was also one of Germany's largest remaining industrial sites and contained over 100 factories of various sizes. Among these were facilities for producing poison gas, artillery, and aircraft components. In addition, it was a key rail hub with lines running north-south to Berlin, Prague, and Vienna as well as east-west Munich and Breslau (Wroclaw) and Leipzig and Hamburg.

It is not uncommon to target bridges, a main supply rail hub, refineries, and factories that are used specifically to produce military supplies. Any building or supply route used for military purposes are legitimate targets. This is different from bombing a city with no military targets or interest, except to influence moral as was the German's main purpose for REPEADLY bombarding London.

You don't believe this to be a viable reason to target a key rail hub in Dresden?

dresden was a major rail transportation and communication center had over a 100

war related factories and thousands of workers for the war effort

yes it needed to be shut down

 

[BlindBoo]

Actually we did not intentionally kill German civilians, unless you have a link you can provide that shows United States sent troops to intentionally murder German civilians or authorized the bombing of non military targets such as a German city?

With regard to Germany, we used B52 bombers, and our ability to hit a refinery target was not at all accurate with the technology at the time. The bombers used a technique called "carpet bombing" to be sure a the German target was hit, this unfortunately caused damage to any building located near the intended target to be destroyed as well. To say the United States military intentionally went out to look for and kill German civilians is to be completely ignorant as to the objectives the military commanders were trying to achieve with respect to Germany. Now the Germans, on the other hand, intentionally launched V2 rockets at London as well as bomb the city to destroy civilian moral in support of the war.


With regard to Japan, President Truman made the executive decision to drop an atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, because he believed the casualties of war would be a lot less than if they conducted a military land invasion of Japan. Japan was ready for an all out ground assault on their country, and was prepared to destroy any invader that would make such an attempt.

With regard to Iraq, can you provide me with some links showing proof that our military men and women had knowingly executed Iraqi civilians that were of absolutely no threat at all to our troops? I know that there were small pockets of resistance in Iraq, and attacks on our troops were made by individuals in hiding rather than openly wearing any military identified insignias. You want to make claims that our military went out and intentionally sought out civilians to kill? I'd expect as much from someone who didn't serve, and has abslutely no respect of our United States military. At least I have RESPECT for the men and women who chose to make the same sacrifice as I, to serve and defend our country to preserve those freedoms you seem so egar to take for granted.

Sure we did.

Dresden Bombing - World War 2 Dresden Bombing

About.com: http://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=55

Not to mention firebombing Japan.

It was a different time. I cannot condemn it either.

The firebombing of Tokyo, also known as the "Doolittle Raid", was in response to Pearl Harbor and an effort to draw Japan's great military fleet back. This was a psychological effort into making the Japanese Empire believe their mainland was, in fact, vulnerable and needed to be protected.

Also, from your article:

Pressed by Prime Minister Winston Churchill, the Chief of the Air Staff, Marshal Sir Charles Portal, agreed that cities should be bombed with the goal of disrupting German communications, transportation, and troop movements, but stipulated that these operations should be secondary to strategic attacks on factories, refineries, and shipyards.


Why Dresden?:

The largest remaining unbombed city in the Third Reich, Dresden was Germany's seventh-largest city and a cultural center known as the "Florence on the Elbe." Though a center for the arts, it was also one of Germany's largest remaining industrial sites and contained over 100 factories of various sizes. Among these were facilities for producing poison gas, artillery, and aircraft components. In addition, it was a key rail hub with lines running north-south to Berlin, Prague, and Vienna as well as east-west Munich and Breslau (Wroclaw) and Leipzig and Hamburg.

It is not uncommon to target bridges, a main supply rail hub, refineries, and factories that are used specifically to produce military supplies. Any building or supply route used for military purposes are legitimate targets. This is different from bombing a city with no military targets or interest, except to influence moral as was the German's main purpose for REPEADLY bombarding London.

You don't believe this to be a viable reason to target a key rail hub in Dresden?

The firebombing of Tokyo was in 1945. Doolittles raid was in 1942.

1945 Tokyo Firebombing Left Legacy of Terror, Pain

I'm not condemning any attack or the tactic. German bombed the hell out of civilians in Londan. The Japanese raping of Nanking as well as their treatment of POWs. Fuckum. War is hell. But you can't claim it wasn't done. It was.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Actually we did not intentionally kill German civilians, unless you have a link you can provide that shows United States sent troops to intentionally murder German civilians or authorized the bombing of non military targets such as a German city?

With regard to Germany, we used B52 bombers, and our ability to hit a refinery target was not at all accurate with the technology at the time. The bombers used a technique called "carpet bombing" to be sure a the German target was hit, this unfortunately caused damage to any building located near the intended target to be destroyed as well. To say the United States military intentionally went out to look for and kill German civilians is to be completely ignorant as to the objectives the military commanders were trying to achieve with respect to Germany. Now the Germans, on the other hand, intentionally launched V2 rockets at London as well as bomb the city to destroy civilian moral in support of the war.

Besides your rather bemusing belief that we had B-52's in WWII (A bit too early) the fact was, we DID target German cities with civilians. YOu should probably look up "Dresden Bombing". No military value, but it terrorized the shit out of the German people, which was the idea.

With regard to Japan, President Truman made the executive decision to drop an atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, because he believed the casualties of war would be a lot less than if they conducted a military land invasion of Japan. Japan was ready for an all out ground assault on their country, and was prepared to destroy any invader that would make such an attempt.

A lot of issues with this idiocy.

First, Japan was already looking to surrender. We didn't need to bomb them. They wanted assurances they could keep the Emperor. We wouldn't give them until AFTER the Soviets entered the Pacific War and threatened to take half the spoils.

Second, we actually bombed the crap out of Japan conventionally. The firebombing of Tokyo killed more people than the atomic bombings combined.

Third and most damning. Our bombing command SPECIFICALLY spared Hiroshima from conventional bombing so that the planners could measure how much damage their new toy actually did. That was pretty freakin' cold blooded.

With regard to Iraq, can you provide me with some links showing proof that our military men and women had knowingly executed Iraqi civilians that were of absolutely no threat at all to our troops? I know that there were small pockets of resistance in Iraq, and attacks on our troops were made by individuals in hiding rather than openly wearing any military identified insignias. You want to make claims that our military went out and intentionally sought out civilians to kill? I'd expect as much from someone who didn't serve, and has abslutely no respect of our United States military. At least I have RESPECT for the men and women who chose to make the same sacrifice as I, to serve and defend our country to preserve those freedoms you seem so egar to take for granted.

First, I served, probably longer than you did, if you did at all. Got out at the rank of Staff Sergeant, MOS76Y30.

Second, we did slaughter civilians in Iraq. Lots of them. In both Gulf wars.

You skipped over my mention of Vietnam (where we were pretty indiscriminate as well), but we also bombed civilians in Serbia.

We might have had the high vantage point dropping bombs, but we didn't have the high ground.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

So You Thought The War On Terror Was All But Over With The Killing Of UBL

Obviously, not.

BUFORD ROGERS!
Come on DOWN!!!!

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Actually we did not intentionally kill German civilians, unless you have a link you can provide that shows United States sent troops to intentionally murder German civilians or authorized the bombing of non military targets such as a German city?

With regard to Germany, we used B52 bombers, and our ability to hit a refinery target was not at all accurate with the technology at the time. The bombers used a technique called "carpet bombing" to be sure a the German target was hit, this unfortunately caused damage to any building located near the intended target to be destroyed as well. To say the United States military intentionally went out to look for and kill German civilians is to be completely ignorant as to the objectives the military commanders were trying to achieve with respect to Germany. Now the Germans, on the other hand, intentionally launched V2 rockets at London as well as bomb the city to destroy civilian moral in support of the war.

Besides your rather bemusing belief that we had B-52's in WWII (A bit too early) the fact was, we DID target German cities with civilians. YOu should probably look up "Dresden Bombing". No military value, but it terrorized the shit out of the German people, which was the idea.

Dresden absolutely DID have significant military value, as I stated earlier.

The largest remaining unbombed city in the Third Reich, Dresden was Germany's seventh-largest city and a cultural center known as the "Florence on the Elbe." Though a center for the arts, it was also one of Germany's largest remaining industrial sites and contained over 100 factories of various sizes. Among these were facilities for producing poison gas, artillery, and aircraft components. In addition, it was a key rail hub with lines running north-south to Berlin, Prague, and Vienna as well as east-west Munich and Breslau (Wroclaw) and Leipzig and Hamburg.

With regard to Japan, President Truman made the executive decision to drop an atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, because he believed the casualties of war would be a lot less than if they conducted a military land invasion of Japan. Japan was ready for an all out ground assault on their country, and was prepared to destroy any invader that would make such an attempt.

A lot of issues with this idiocy.

First, Japan was already looking to surrender. We didn't need to bomb them.

Based on what I found Japan was indeed planning on an American land invasion, as President Truman DID show a concern of casualties when looking into the decision of such a military option. The choice to use the Atomic bomb was a means to end the war quickly over prolonging the war even further, as there is no evidence that suggests military build up on that island wasn't a factor behind making such a decision.

the dispatch of the planning directive to MacArthur and Nimitz on 3 April 1945, intercepted communications already were showing that the Japanese were expecting attempts to invade their homeland. A message sent by the German naval attaché in Japan, for example, described a report by the Japanese concerning their preparations for Allied landings in the homeland. The report said they expected an assault on Okinawa "shortly" and anticipated that the Allies ultimately would mount an attack on the Tokyo Plain.
It quickly became clear that the Japanese had identified Kyushu as a likely invasion site. Messages in early April 1945 dealt with Japanese mining of harbors and coastal areas of Kyushu and the evacuation of civilians from Kyushu's "areas of coastal defense." Other communications dealt with the assignment of suicide aircraft to Kyushu.

In early-to-mid-May, with the completion of the movement of the combat division from Manchuria to Kyushu, the US Military Intelligence Service estimated the number of Japanese troops on the island to be 246,000, including 128,000 in Army ground force units. The Intelligence Service estimated that the four additional divisions expected by 1 November, along with a requisite increase in support units, would add roughly 100,000 more Army ground troops.

The US War Department's Military Intelligence Service in mid-June increased its estimate of Japanese military manpower on Kyushu to 300,000. This estimate was disseminated just two days before President Truman was to meet with his senior military advisers to discuss planning for an invasion of Japan. The force developments it described were still consistent with the projections made a year earlier regarding Japanese forces likely to be defending Kyushu by the time of the planned invasion on 1 November 1945.

A Burst of Discoveries
On 21 July the Military Intelligence Service's daily summary on Japanese forces reported that three entirely new divisions had suddenly been discovered on Kyushu. Another was discovered within the next few days, bringing the confirmed total to ten combat divisions and two depot divisions. Intercepted communications provided tenuous evidence that an eleventh combat division was being moved there from Honshu.


At least six (6) additional major units have been picked up in June/July; it is obvious that they are coming in from adjacent areas over lines of communication that have apparently not been seriously affected by air strikes.

2 AUGUST - Confirmation of all the communications evidence would bring the total number of divisions on Kyushu up to 14, more than twice the original estimate. Nine of these were in or being deployed to the south--three times the number of divisions that US analysts had initially projected for that part of the island, where the US landings were to take place. Allowing for partial deployment of these divisions prompted another hike in the Kyushu manpower estimate, this time to 549,000. Soon the figure was upped again to 600,000.

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-...nning-and-the-a-bomb-decision/csi9810001.html

With regard to Iraq, can you provide me with some links showing proof that our military men and women had knowingly executed Iraqi civilians that were of absolutely no threat at all to our troops? I know that there were small pockets of resistance in Iraq, and attacks on our troops were made by individuals in hiding rather than openly wearing any military identified insignias. You want to make claims that our military went out and intentionally sought out civilians to kill? I'd expect as much from someone who didn't serve, and has abslutely no respect of our United States military. At least I have RESPECT for the men and women who chose to make the same sacrifice as I, to serve and defend our country to preserve those freedoms you seem so egar to take for granted.

First, I served, probably longer than you did, if you did at all. Got out at the rank of Staff Sergeant, MOS76Y30.

Second, we did slaughter civilians in Iraq. Lots of them. In both Gulf wars.

Can you provide some evidence that there had always been a very clear distinction between innocent civilians and those pocket of resistance (terrorists) behind the bombing of US soldiers? Were they always to be found dressed in military attire with Iraq insignias?

Yes, I also did serve in the military. Worked my way up to Staff Sargent in the Air Force during the Clinton administration in fact, assigned to deployment with AC-130 Spectre special ops.

 

[BlindBoo]

Germany was the first to employ area bombing tactics during its assault on Poland in September 1939. In 1940, during the Battle of Britain, the Luftwaffe failed to bring Britain to its knees by targeting London and other heavily populated areas with area bombing attacks. Stung but unbowed, the Royal Air Force (RAF) avenged the bombings of London and Coventry in 1942 when it launched the first of many saturation bombing attacks against Germany. In 1944, Hitler named the world's first long-range offensive missile V-1, after “vergeltung,” the German word for "vengeance" and an expression of his desire to repay Britain for its devastating bombardment of Germany.

The Allies never overtly admitted that they were engaged in saturation bombing; specific military targets were announced in relation to every attack. However, it was but a veneer, and few mourned the destruction of German cities that built the weapons and bred the soldiers that by 1945 had killed more than 10 million Allied soldiers and even more civilians. The firebombing of Dresden would prove the exception to this rule.

Bombing of Dresden: February 1945

Before World War II, Dresden was called "the Florence of the Elbe" and was regarded as one the world's most beautiful cities for its architecture and museums. Although no German city remained isolated from Hitler's war machine, Dresden's contribution to the war effort was minimal compared with other German cities. In February 1945, refugees fleeing the Russian advance in the east took refuge there. As Hitler had thrown much of his surviving forces into a defense of Berlin in the north, city defenses were minimal, and the Russians would have had little trouble capturing Dresden. It seemed an unlikely target for a major Allied air attack.

Bombing of Dresden ? History.com Articles, Video, Pictures and Facts