Tomi's Red, White, Blue & Unfiltered

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by jkcerda, Jul 20, 2015.

  1. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #1

    she really let it out of her chest.
     
  2. VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #2
    What a load of bellicose BS. The pain, anger, frustration and fear arising from killings like this need to be channelled into solutions, not diatribes. I worry that the war on terror will become as successful as the war on drugs... So far the war on terror has gone exactly as Al Qaeda predicted: it has caused the West to abandon its commitment to civil rights, losing moral high ground unnecessarily; and the war looks like it will last a generation. So what does this talking head suggest? '...putting the fear of God in their desert.' As if that is really going to dissuade people who are willing to commit suicide attacks (just like it did in Vietnam, or against the Japanese in WWII :rolleyes:). And, if I recall correctly, Tennessee has no deserts.
     
  3. Happybunny macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    #3
    If the USA really cared about it's service people, scenes like this wouldn't be common.

    [​IMG]
     
  4. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #4
    JK: You need to stop watching crap like this.

    It is simply filling your head with utter nonsense. That little rant was filled with so many outright untruths and distortions its hard to list them all.

    But if you are going to suggest that the President "cares more about Muslim sensibilities" than protecting US service people - where is the evidence? Name one action or statement of the President that would support that assertion. What has the Administration done to "be friendly to jihadis"? (I'm going to count sending drone strikes to kill them as an unfriendly act.)

    You want to know what has killed hundreds more Marines than any combination of jihadis, radicalized Muslims, or whatever "domestic terrorist" name you want to come up with? Suicide. Suicide by handgun.

    JK: You seem like a smart person. But this sort of demagoguery is filling your head with lies.
     
  5. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #5
  6. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #6
    post 167 here .

    http://forums.macrumors.com/threads...stions-of-motive.1901318/page-7#post-21612907
    but

    coupled with.
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...tlefield-deaths-linked-to-new-rules/?page=all
     
  7. vrDrew, Jul 20, 2015
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2015

    vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #7
    I utterly fail to see the connection with the ROE employed by our military in a combat zone in Afghanistan, with what happens in a suburban strip mall in Tennessee.

    Do you think if we'd let our military kill more people in Afghanistan, or given them greater latitude over who they could kill without getting into trouble over, that would have somehow dissuaded this Chattanooga guy?

    Actually: I'd argue exactly the opposite. Stop killing Muslims in Afghanistan and Yemen. Stop holding them in an illegal prison in Guantanamo - and all of a sudden whatever rationale for Muslim extremism in the US or Europe suddenly goes away.

    The US military has Rules of Engagement for a reason. Because why? Because we aren't barbarians, to start with.

    But more importantly, when you are conducting counterinsurgency campaign, like we were in Afghanistan, its sorta important to the success of the mission that you don't piss off the population you are supposed to be protecting by slaughtering them. You can't save a village by destroying it. And the regular Afghan guy who welcomed the Marines who got rid of the Taliban, is more likely to go over to the other side if he sees his kid brother or baby sister blown to smithereens in a "collateral damage" incident.

    Stop watching junk like this video. It is filling your head with nonsense.
     
  8. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #8
    1. what did you ask? oh yeah proof this POTUS cares more about Muslims than our troops. more of our troops are dying thanks to the ROE he enacted.

    2.nice of you to deflect from the obvious, muslim terrorist get Geneva protections while U.S Citizens get indefinite detention w/o a trial.
    here, just in case you missed it .

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/03/ndaa-obama-indefinite-detention_n_2402601.html
     
  9. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #9


    That is utterly ludicrous.

    The Rules of Engagement are formulated by military commanders and lawyers as a means of protecting our troops and nation from attacks in retaliation to killings of innocent civilians.

    But its no use discussing this with you. You see bogeymen under every bed frame and evil in everything. God help you.
     
  10. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #10
    Best audition for Fox News by a blonde in a supporting role.
     
  11. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #11
    i'd prefer if Thor was here.
    anyways , do you read the links posted ? or do you go on the Obama defense immediately w/o reading?


    I see you are still avoiding the Geneva protections for terrorist coupled with the indefinite detention w/o trial of U.S citizens Obama passed.

    may the Flying Spaghetti monster help you.
     
  12. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
  13. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #13
    I wonder if you really remember the recent history of this country.

    Casualties spiked in Afghanistan between 2009 and 2012 for one very specific reason: The so-called "surge" in both troop levels and the tempo of operations designed to drive the Taliban out of large areas of southern Afghanistan. Minor changes to ROE were all but irrelevant.

    There were many at the time, me included, who questioned the wisdom of Obama acceding to his Generals request for additional forces being sent to Afghanistan. And, as history has shown, such doubts were justified.

    But no matter what the ultimate verdict on the success or failure of the "Obama Surge" in Afghanistan, I really find it impossible to conclude that President Obama sending an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan, and allowing the military to conduct more and more powerful operations against the Taliban forces there - as somehow being consistent with the claim that Obama somehow values Muslim terrorists over anything else.

    If Obama had done what many people wanted him to do in 2009: Call an end to the operation in Afghanistan, and bring our troops home immediately - I'm quite sure your bubble-headed bleach blonde would be calling him defeatist and quitter - and still blaming him for every bad thing that ever happens in this country.
     
  14. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
  15. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #15
    still missing from your post is the indefinite detention of U.S citizens vs the Geneva protections for terrorist .
     
  16. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #16
    I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you are arguing about.
     
  17. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #17
    Probably no more than you do. I will say this though, I don't think they're Obama's ROE, they are that of the military leaders.
     
  18. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #18
    TRY #1 from post 8. involving out citizens instead of our military
     
  19. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #19
    is Obama NOT the Commander in Chief?
     
  20. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #20
    Stop playing semantics, jk. Yes, he is the CiC but he no more makes the ROE than Bush did when he started these wars.
     
  21. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #21
    semantics, who approves the ROE? based on the WP article the new ROE came about for a few reasons and there were a few involved.
     
  22. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #22
    You need to step back and take a couple of deep breaths here.

    Who actually formulates military Rules of Engagement? Answer: Its a combination of military commanders (who are familiar with the tactical and strategic conditions on the ground; the threats their troops encounter; and the overall objective of the campaign) - and military lawyers - who help square the proposed rules with the conditions of both International and US law.

    You need to rid yourself of this idea that political pressure from Washington or from feel-good liberal think-tanks is responsible for every US military failure from the Tet Offensive to Anbar Province.

    Its a lie.

    But again, I fail to see any connection whatsoever between the Rules of Engagement in a foreign combat zone and the actions of anybody in a Tennessee strip mall.
     
  23. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #23
    you went into full defense w/o reading the rest of the post :D.
    here.

     
  24. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
  25. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #25
    That's not friendly to the enemy. Obama didn't go out of his way to make things more difficult for our troops because he wants to be kind to the terrorists. What it does is force consideration for the non-combatant civilian population in open fire situations. That's the very first thing it says on your link.

    What I'd call it is good intentions gone sour, since when it comes to Muslim insurgents and terrorists, you can't discern between an enemy combatant and a civilian until they're firing on you. It wasn't meant to be "friendly to the enemy", but it did end up being convenient.
     

Share This Page