Message from USMC to Isis

[OTHstrong]

It seems like hes an apologist for innocent women and children. I never got the impression that he was an apologist for barbaric jihadists.

Thanks bro, he does not get it, and also less then 1% OF THE CAUSALITIES WOULD BE ACTUAL ENEMY SOLDIERS, very logical stands

[Shockwave]

well no shit sherlock

you guys are a bunch of morons, lmao, I am naive because I don't want to use 50 nukes on a region, seriously dude are you sane. I am against politics to the disgraceful degree they are represented and collateral damage is a fucken must 100 times more then it is now and like WW said in his post rules of engagement need to change, fuck ya they do, let the soldier do their job, so WTF IS THIS NAIVE YOU SPEAK OF? did I miss something here cause I have no fucken clue what you are babbling ABOUT, WHAT  


My only ideology as you put it is to not use weapons that will kill 100 times more civilians then actual soldiers. You try to act like you know war and military and here you are stating it is being naive to oppose killing 100 civilians to 1 soldier cause that is what a nuke would do. Fuck sake if 50 civilians die while killing 100 enemy soldiers, fuck I am game for that all day long. Don't fucken make me out to look like  that,... WTF

Again, never said i support nuking the middle east. What i do support, in times of war, is ending thenconflict as swiftly as possible by inflicting most enemy casualties possible with the least friendly casualties possible.... nukes are off the table for many reasons other than civilians.

What im saying, is tbat you place a very high value on protecting the enemies innocents, at the point where you would let it command your judgement on how youd wage war.

If you nee that you could shell the middle of a city and knock out the entire AQ with minimal casualties, but its newr a functional school or locked in a hospital, im sorry, you shell that fucker and kill them all instead of a bloody incursion into a fortifird position by soldiers, even if it meanss you kill tons of noncoms.... you wanr them first, but you do it to save your guys lives.

You have stated several times in past arguments that you feel its better to send in troops and take casualties than it is to kill innocent women and children, because soldiers v9lunteered to fight and the innocents should be protected. Thats where im saying youre naiive, no commander can wfford to place the lives of innocents higher than his own soldiers. He has to minimize the possible innocent casualties, but if jes got the opportunity to end the conflict with a single blow, but it may require high civilian casualties... pull then trigger, because you dont know how many friendlies will die because you were more concerned about their innocents than you were your own.

Get what im saying? Like i said, i admire your idealogical purity when it comes to protecting innocents, but its not something you can afford to do in wartime.

[SF1900]

Again, never said i support nuking the middle east. What i do support, in times of war, is ending thenconflict as swiftly as possible by inflicting most enemy casualties possible with the least friendly casualties possible.... nukes are off the table for many reasons other than civilians.

What im saying, is tbat you place a very high value on protecting the enemies innocents, at the point where you would let it command your judgement on how youd wage war.

If you nee that you could shell the middle of a city and knock out the entire AQ with minimal casualties, but its newr a functional school or locked in a hospital, im sorry, you shell that fucker and kill them all instead of a bloody incursion into a fortifird position by soldiers, even if it meanss you kill tons of noncoms.... you wanr them first, but you do it to save your guys lives.

You have stated several times in past arguments that you feel its better to send in troops and take casualties than it is to kill innocent women and children, because soldiers v9lunteered to fight and the innocents should be protected. Thats where im saying youre naiive, no commander can wfford to place the lives of innocents higher than his own soldiers. He has to minimize the possible innocent casualties, but if jes got the opportunity to end the conflict with a single blow, but it may require high civilian casualties... pull then trigger, because you dont know how many friendlies will die because you were more concerned about their innocents than you were your own.

Get what im saying? Like i said, i admire your idealogical purity when it comes to protecting innocents, but its not something you can afford to do in wartime.

"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his." Patton

[The Ugly]

Thanks bro, he does not get it, and also less then 1% OF THE CAUSALITIES WOULD BE ACTUAL ENEMY SOLDIERS, very logical stands

Your stands implies that these causalities (fuck, even mocking your illiteracy is painful to type) would be innocent. You take incredible liberties with vocabulary. Most of these civilians are complicit as far as many are concerned. They don't condemn ISIS atrocities; they often raise their children to be martyrs; they shelter and support insurgents; they celebrate terrorism. Fuck them all.

You also don't seem to understand WWII history very well. We bombed the fuck outta Germany indiscriminately. Soldiers, civilians, didn't matter. It was war, we were in the right, and we didn't have a single fuck to give about collateral damage. Mostly because there weren't PC queers like you criticizing the military about rules of engagement back then. War is nasty business, and the nastiest usually prevail.

As an atheist, I have no problem saying Islam, specifically, should be nuked from this earth. Every last Muslim. Dead.

[OTHstrong]

Again, never said i support nuking the middle east. What i do support, in times of war, is ending thenconflict as swiftly as possible by inflicting most enemy casualties possible with the least friendly casualties possible.... nukes are off the table for many reasons other than civilians.

What im saying, is tbat you place a very high value on protecting the enemies innocents, at the point where you would let it command your judgement on how youd wage war.

If you nee that you could shell the middle of a city and knock out the entire AQ with minimal casualties, but its newr a functional school or locked in a hospital, im sorry, you shell that fucker and kill them all instead of a bloody incursion into a fortifird position by soldiers, even if it meanss you kill tons of noncoms.... you wanr them first, but you do it to save your guys lives.

You have stated several times in past arguments that you feel its better to send in troops and take casualties than it is to kill innocent women and children, because soldiers v9lunteered to fight and the innocents should be protected. Thats where im saying youre naiive, no commander can wfford to place the lives of innocents higher than his own soldiers. He has to minimize the possible innocent casualties, but if jes got the opportunity to end the conflict with a single blow, but it may require high civilian casualties... pull then trigger, because you dont know how many friendlies will die because you were more concerned about their innocents than you were your own.

Get what im saying? Like i said, i admire your idealogical purity when it comes to protecting innocents, but its not something you can afford to do in wartime.

when I said that it was referring to the subject at hand and that is nukes, so you are ignorantly painting me with a wrong brush, I am saying here and now, innocent people should die in war, it is the way the world turns, so address the argument properly or zip it.

[The Ugly]

Also, Fat Man and Little Boy. Best thing that ever happened to Japan. Besides all the lives it saved, we nuked 'em right into a democratically civilized superpower. Sony owes a huge debt to the Enola Gay.

[OTHstrong]

Your stands implies that these causalities (fuck, even mocking your illiteracy is painful to type) would be innocent. You take incredible liberties with vocabulary. Most of these civilians are complicit as far as many are concerned. They don't condemn ISIS atrocities; they often raise their children to be martyrs; they shelter and support insurgents; they celebrate terrorism. Fuck them all.

You also don't seem to understand WWII history very well. We bombed the fuck outta Germany indiscriminately. Soldiers, civilians, didn't matter. It was war, we were in the right, and we didn't have a single fuck to give about collateral damage. Mostly because there weren't PC queers like you criticizing the military about rules of engagement back then. War is nasty business, and the nastiest usually prevail.

As an atheist, I have no problem saying Islam, specifically, should be nuked from this earth. Every last Muslim. Dead.

of course it is necessary you big fool, everything that was done to take Hitler down was sound and real good. You are a moron saying every muslim should die though

[The Ugly]

of course it is necessary you big fool, everything that was done to take Hitler down was sound and real good. You are a moron saying every muslim should die though

Nah, you're a moron assuming they offer the world anything but grief.

[The Ugly]

Funny you call American soldiers "pussies," but I'm the "tough guy."

[OTHstrong]

Funny you call American soldiers "pussies," but I'm the "tough guy."

i never ever called American soldiers pussies, I said ''ifs'' they are soldiers, they are brave fucken hereos, not pussies and solute them and respect them

and don't worry about my grammar, I am typing from a phone, I don't give 2 shits

[OTHstrong]

Nah, you're a moron assuming they offer the world anything but grief.

so guys like George Farah, big Ramy and Fouad should just get a bullet in their heads right you fucken tool

[OTHstrong]

oh the irony 

the ugly is reading a Muslim's book as we speak, lmao MIKE TYSON

 

 

[The Ugly]

oh the irony 

the ugly is reading a Muslim's book as we speak, lmao MIKE TYSON

 

 

Fascinating book, my post-researching friend. He's as Muslim as you are literate, by the way.

Sorry, the phone, I meant. Your phone is illiterate.

[OTHstrong]

Fascinating book, my post-researching friend. He's as Muslim as you are literate, by the way.

Sorry, the phone, I meant. Your phone is illiterate.

don't flatter yourself, I have posted in that thread before so it was in my ''show new replies''

[The Ugly]

don't flatter yourself, I have posted in that thread before so it was in my ''show new replies''

Does that somehow make your Muslim apologist self less ignorant?

 Wait, why is your Smart Phone so stupid, bro? It randomly misspells words about which you don't give a fuck? That's crazy.

Also, you got hard one time and decided to memorialize your boner with a username? That, too, is crazy. Lotta crazy with you, pal.

[OTHstrong]

Does that somehow make your Muslim apologist self less ignorant?

 Wait, why is your Smart Phone so stupid, bro? It randomly misspells words about which you don't give a fuck? That's crazy.

Also, you got hard one time and decided to memorialize your boner with a username? That, too, is crazy. Lotta crazy with you, pal.

oh I am so hurt, lol dude cry me a fucken river 

[The Ugly]

oh I am so hurt, lol dude cry me a fucken river 

That's it, bro, all you got? Emoticons are gay, by the way. If your points had substance, you should be able to express yourself without having to clarify using little yellow faces to dramatize your intent.

Anyway, calling our boys "pussies" tells us what we need to know about you. You're on their side. Not one of ours should die because you disagree with U.S. war strategy. You're a disgrace, brother.

[OTHstrong]

That's it, bro, all you got? Emoticons are gay, by the way. If your points had substance, you should be able to express yourself without having to clarify using little yellow faces to dramatize your intent.

Anyway, calling our boys "pussies" tells us what we need to know about you. You're on their side. Not one of ours should die because you disagree with U.S. war strategy. You're a disgrace, brother.

you are so dumb, my dad was a sergeant, American soldiers are heros, they are fucken warriors, stop putting words in my mouth to look good you loser.

BTW my only argument in this thread was not using nukes to blow up the entire middle east, that is it, that is my only debate here, you are blowing everything out of proportion.

[The Ugly]

you are so dumb, my dad was a sergeant, American soldiers are heros, they are fucken warriors, stop putting words in my mouth to look good you loser.

BTW my only argument in this thread was not using nukes to blow up the entire middle east, that is it, that is my only debate here, you are blowing everything out of proportion.

You really shouldn't be calling anyone dumb, for sure. Loser? Probably not, either. OTH, you're in no position to question anyone's intelligence. That's sort of a given, guy.

kill civilians but do not deliberately blow up cities, that is the pussy thing to do. Real men fight with other real men.

 we are too much of pussies to see our soldiers die, we rather nuke cities.

"Real men fight other men," you say. When the other men are decapitating innocent children, you're still concerned with pussy-type fighting? Really? When we localized our enemy in WWII, did we or did we not blow up entire cities? Was that "the pussy thing to do?"

 So why not now?

If we could save soldiers, "because we are too much of pussies," as you say, using nukes to eliminate the threat, would that still be unacceptable? Or do U.S. soldiers have to die, in your eyes, to make it a fair fight? Keep in mind, we're gone, yet they're still killing their own.

Why are you so insistent on Americans dying overseas?

[SuperTed]

Now America have step in to defeat an Islamist group that they helped create and originally aided. It's like the Afghan/Taliban problem all over again.

Oh brother.

[The Ugly]

Now America have step in to defeat an Islamist group that they helped create and originally aided. It's like the Afghan/Taliban problem all over again.

Oh brother.

What's the alternative?

[SuperTed]

What's the alternative?

Well America have to go in now, I agree. Sort out the shit they created.

Only concern is that they will probably find a way to fuck things up worse.

[OTHstrong]

You really shouldn't be calling anyone dumb, for sure. Loser? Probably not, either. OTH, you're in no position to question anyone's intelligence. That's sort of a given, guy.


"Real men fight other men," you say. When the other men are decapitating innocent children, you're still concerned with pussy-type fighting? Really? When we localized our enemy in WWII, did we or did we not blow up entire cities? Was that "the pussy thing to do?"

 So why not now?

If we could save soldiers, "because we are too much of pussies," as you say, using nukes to eliminate the threat, would that still be unacceptable? Or do U.S. soldiers have to die, in your eyes, to make it a fair fight? Keep in mind, we're gone, yet they're still killing their own.

Why are you so insistent on Americans dying overseas?

if we chose to nuke the entire middle east you big ding dong, if, you know IF, HELLO, ONLY IF

[The Ugly]

if we chose to nuke the entire middle east you big ding dong, if, you know IF, HELLO, ONLY IF

Ding dong, brilliant. Grow up, dude.

Forget "entire," how about one in Iraq? Why the fuck not? Think that might smooth shit out pretty quick? Or are the poor civilians gonna pose a problem for you?

[TrueGrit]

so guys like George Farah, big Ramy and Fouad should just get a bullet in their heads right you fucken tool

This would be enough to stop the president from ordering such an annihilation. I can imagine the Chief of Staff screaming " Mr President, what about big Ramy?". Everybody puts their head in their hands, realising they can't authorise it.