Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan

#51
Re: Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eleaf</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: smithc6</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You dont think that putting a fear into the enemy that dealt with their sense of inner drive would stop some of them from wanting to fight? You cant honestly believe that. Maybe the use of pork and muslimism isnt the best scenario...but ive got to believe if youre fighting an enemy using mentally degrading tactics, you would get them to think twice.

to an extent I think youre right as it would make some want to fight even harder, thats why they hate us...for our way of life. But I also think that some would be terrified of not having their promised afterlife and would give up completely as their death would be in veign. </div></div>

Nah.

And saying that their motives are simply that "they hate our way of life" is very simplistic. They know nothing of our way of life as surely as I have no clue what it is to live in a shithole house,in a shithole village in the middle of fucking nowhere Afghanistan.

Though the terrorists that have been marketed to us as the instigators of aggression are the delusional nutfucks we think they are (the Bin Laden's of the world), your average Afghan fighter (we'll call him Josef the shit digger) very likely has no meaningful affiliations with that same ideology other than it gives them the opportunity to strike out at an invading force. I can't necessarily say that I hate the Chinese and their way of life, but I can say for certain that I would hate them for sure if they showed up on American shores (and I can guarantee you 100% that I am more informed about China than your average rural Afghan is about America). Though it may seem unthinkable to us, those in the middle east do have valid reasons for grievance. We have been concerned only with draining their natural resources for our own benefit, and interested in giving nothing back for decades. They are impoverished, and we actively exploit that. There is a real reason it's not that hard to recruit youngsters in a mosque, and it's not as simple as "they hate us." That's what we tell ourselves to resolve ourselves of blame.

I'm not trying to justify terrorist actions, but to lop every single fighter in with the Bin Laden's of the war, of which there are many, is greatly oversimplifying a very complex problem with which we are very much intertwined.

And no, I have no doubt that running bullets through pork fat prior to shooting them will do absolutely nothing to halt the enemy's will to fight. They have been in 2 very long engagements with both the USSR and now the Americans, arguably the 2 largest and most powerful militaries in the world (of course when the USSR was the USSR). They are hardened warriors, not your run of the mill muslim extremest we've been led to believe all of the resistance is. </div></div>

Well written, and that does make me think a bit about things. But I still think there is something to mental warfare youre not acknowledging...breaking the mind breaks the will to fight.
 
#52
Re: Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan

Without having read all 50 posts in this thread, forgive me if this has already been posted. I remembered reading about this ammo on 6BR DOT com. Is this what you were talking about sir?

USMC Adopts New Open-tip ‘SOST’ 5.56 Ammo
Filed under: Bullets, Brass, Ammo, New Product, News — Tags: Afghanistan, Ball Ammo, M855, SOCOM, SOST, USMC — Editor @ 10 am

After learning that M855 NATO ammo does not perform well from short-barreled rifles such as the M4 carbine, the U.S. Marine Corps has started issuing a new type of 5.56×45 ammo to its troops in Afghanistan. The new SOST (Special Operations Science and Technology) ammo, officially designated MK 318 MOD 0 “Cartridge, Caliber 5.56mm Ball, Carbine, Barrier”, features a different open-tip 62mm bullet. The new bullet, with a lead core (in the top half) and solid copper bottom half, is similar to hunting bullets such as Federal’s Trophy Bonded Bear Claw. The SOST bullet was designed by Federal/ATK, which will produce the loaded ammunition.

SOST 5.56 ammo

The new SOST ammo was first developed for use by SOCOM (Special Operations) in the SCAR rifle, which has a short, 13.8&#8243; barrel. Even in short-barreled rifles, the SOST provides impressive ballistics — achieving 2925 fps in a 14&#8243; barrel. Compared to M855 ball ammo, SOST rounds are more lethal when shot from short-barreled rifles. According to the Marine Times, SOST ammunition delivers “consistent, rapid fragmentation which shortens the time required to cause incapacitation of enemy combatants”. Using an open-tip design common with some sniper ammunition, SOST rounds are designed to be “barrier blind”, meaning they stay on target better than existing M855 rounds after penetrating windshields, car doors and other objects. This is important to troops in the Middle Eastern theater who must engage insurgents inside vehicles or hiding behind barriers.

In Afghanistan, the USMC will issue SOST ammo for both the short-barreled M4 carbine as well as the original, full-length M16A4. The Corps purchased a “couple million” SOST rounds as part of a joint $6 million, 10.4-million-round buy in September — enough to last the service several months in Afghanistan.

M855 Criticized by Ground Troops and Pentagon Testers
The standard Marine 5.56 round, the M855, was developed in the 1970s and approved as an official NATO round in 1980. In recent years, however, it has been the subject of widespread criticism from troops, who question whether it has enough punch to stop oncoming enemies.

In 2002, shortcomings in the M855’s performance were detailed in a report by Naval Surface Warfare Center Crane, Ind., according to Navy Department documents. Additional testing in 2005 showed shortcomings. The Pentagon issued a request to industry for improved ammunition the following year.

CLICK HERE for Full Report on New SOST MK 318 Ammunition.
 
#53
Re: Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lt. Arclight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Pork filled hollowpoints. </div></div>

Worked for Black Jack Pershing in the Philippines.
 
#54
Re: Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: smithc6</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eleaf</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: smithc6</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You dont think that putting a fear into the enemy that dealt with their sense of inner drive would stop some of them from wanting to fight? You cant honestly believe that. Maybe the use of pork and muslimism isnt the best scenario...but ive got to believe if youre fighting an enemy using mentally degrading tactics, you would get them to think twice.

to an extent I think youre right as it would make some want to fight even harder, thats why they hate us...for our way of life. But I also think that some would be terrified of not having their promised afterlife and would give up completely as their death would be in veign. </div></div>

Nah.

And saying that their motives are simply that "they hate our way of life" is very simplistic. They know nothing of our way of life as surely as I have no clue what it is to live in a shithole house,in a shithole village in the middle of fucking nowhere Afghanistan.

Though the terrorists that have been marketed to us as the instigators of aggression are the delusional nutfucks we think they are (the Bin Laden's of the world), your average Afghan fighter (we'll call him Josef the shit digger) very likely has no meaningful affiliations with that same ideology other than it gives them the opportunity to strike out at an invading force. I can't necessarily say that I hate the Chinese and their way of life, but I can say for certain that I would hate them for sure if they showed up on American shores (and I can guarantee you 100% that I am more informed about China than your average rural Afghan is about America). Though it may seem unthinkable to us, those in the middle east do have valid reasons for grievance. We have been concerned only with draining their natural resources for our own benefit, and interested in giving nothing back for decades. They are impoverished, and we actively exploit that. There is a real reason it's not that hard to recruit youngsters in a mosque, and it's not as simple as "they hate us." That's what we tell ourselves to resolve ourselves of blame.

I'm not trying to justify terrorist actions, but to lop every single fighter in with the Bin Laden's of the war, of which there are many, is greatly oversimplifying a very complex problem with which we are very much intertwined.

And no, I have no doubt that running bullets through pork fat prior to shooting them will do absolutely nothing to halt the enemy's will to fight. They have been in 2 very long engagements with both the USSR and now the Americans, arguably the 2 largest and most powerful militaries in the world (of course when the USSR was the USSR). They are hardened warriors, not your run of the mill muslim extremest we've been led to believe all of the resistance is. </div></div>

Well written, and that does make me think a bit about things. But I still think there is something to mental warfare youre not acknowledging...breaking the mind breaks the will to fight. </div></div>

Based off of my interactions with a longtime friend, and soldier in the Army, they are doing a better job than we are at "breaking the will to fight." Without betraying any confidences, I'll post a snippet of what he wrote to me just yesterday:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: "A Very Good Friend"</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do me a favor, and when you see someone with a yellow ribbon bumper sticker, ask them wtf are they doing to "support the troops", and if they voted on someone who wants to keep shipping them over to fight for... what?</div></div>

I don't doubt that everyone has a breaking point, but I will tell you this: if they can withstand the might of the Soviet military for 10 years, a military which was a lot closer than we are (remember the USSR was adjacent to Afghanistan meaning that their soldiers weren't deployed half way around the globe), beat them back, then withstand the US military and all of our high-tech smart bombs and bunker busters for over 8 years without so much as a flinch, a little pork fat and some JHPs 'aint shit.

Make no mistake. I have no doubt that our fighting force is superior to theirs in every way in both training and technology, but we will not win this war in the way some think we ought (destruction of the Taliban). We might kill 100x more than they kill of us, and it won't matter. Their kids will continue to fight this war, and their kids will fight after that. The major difference is that our soldiers are paid to do a job and get back home as quickly as possible. They are men protecting their homes from an invading force.

You do the math.
 
#55
Re: Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eleaf</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Their kids will continue to fight this war, and their kids will fight after that. The major difference is that our soldiers are paid to do a job and get back home as quickly as possible. They are men protecting their homes from an invading force.

You do the math. </div></div>

Pfft, the math was disregarded long ago but I think you're talking some New Age fuzzy math anyways. Those with Y chromosomes have not traditionally been granted clemency, because only an idiot would leave his future destroyer unsupervised and with no biological allegiance to himself.

Genghis Kahn was the greatest mathematician in this regard. Today his genetic legacy is measurable thousands of miles away.
 
#56
Re: Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan

Just ask the British how new age that math is. A bunch of American country bumpkins beat the most advanced fighting force of its time because they were protecting their homes. Or the Vietnamese, a bunch of jungle dwellers in rice patties who beat back the full force of the US military - and the French immediately before that - (which included campaigns far more "dedicated" and forceful than our current one in Afghanistan - carpet bombing anyone?). Or the Soviets, who were thwarted by these same Afghans not 20 full years ago. Or . . .

Perhaps if we had carte blanche to simply destroy everything and everyone in the region, as Genghis Khan did, we might have a chance. Thankfully, we have better sense than that.

And, as I have asked numerous times, would it be so "New Age" if it were you protecting your home from an invading force? Or would you fight and fight and fight until said invader had gone? I'm not sure whether you overestimate the power of the US military to win wars regardless of the circumstances in front of them (one cannot mistake military might with the capacity to win wars), or whether you underestimate the power of a people protecting their homeland from foreign invaders (again), but the idea that what we're doing is fruitless needs to be entertained as a reality, and not just a philosophical exercise.

I mean no disrespect to our forces and their abilities to win battles, but we cannot win this war. It's not going to happen. We can send in troops until the cows come home, and they will continue to play the waiting game, the pesky attack-then-immediately-retreat-in-to-the-woodwork-and-cracks-of-caves-in-the-vast-mountains-of-their-homeland" game, and we're left standing with our big dick in our hand.
 
#57
Re: Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eleaf</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Just ask the British how new age that math is. A bunch of American country bumpkins beat the most advanced fighting force of its time because they were protecting their homes. Or the Vietnamese, a bunch of jungle dwellers in rice patties who beat back the full force of the US military - and the French immediately before that - (which included campaigns far more "dedicated" and forceful than our current one in Afghanistan - carpet bombing anyone?). Or the Soviets, who were thwarted by these same Afghans not 20 full years ago. Or . . .

Perhaps if we had carte blanche to simply destroy everything and everyone in the region, as Genghis Khan did, we might have a chance. Thankfully, we have better sense than that.

And, as I have asked numerous times, would it be so "New Age" if it were you protecting your home from an invading force? Or would you fight and fight and fight until said invader had gone? I'm not sure whether you overestimate the power of the US military to win wars regardless of the circumstances in front of them (one cannot mistake military might with the capacity to win wars), or whether you underestimate the power of a people protecting their homeland from foreign invaders (again), but the idea that what we're doing is fruitless needs to be entertained as a reality, and not just a philosophical exercise.

I mean no disrespect to our forces and their abilities to win battles, but we cannot win this war. It's not going to happen. We can send in troops until the cows come home, and they will continue to play the waiting game, the pesky attack-then-immediately-retreat-in-to-the-woodwork-and-cracks-of-caves-in-the-vast-mountains-of-their-homeland" game, and we're left standing with our big dick in our hand. </div></div>

Again well written and makes one think, but how can you say these people are ONLY protecting their home and dont have a hatred for our way of life? If that was the case then continued attempts to hit us on our own soil wouldnt happen. It might not be immediattely after we pull out, but I gaurentee that when this war disolves and if the "enemy" hasnt been vanquished, they will attempt to hit us again. If theyre only "protecting" their homes and land, then why once we have left would they attack us?
 
#58
Re: Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan

Question: What was one method used by the Romans to subjugate, or attempt to subjugate the people in the territories they conquered?

Answer: By marrying and intermixing with the women of those territories and by investing themselves in the culture.

BOLTRIPPER since you're 5 times the man any of the rest of us are - your WOMEN are waiting for you.
grin.gif
Sorry I can't help but there ain't no redheads over there.

Seriously though, what are we to do? Withdraw and allow the Taliban and eventually Al Quieda to establish bases? Bomb them? Bomb them back to what? They're already in the Stone Age. We truly are facing the same conundrums the Romans did thousands of years ago. Personally, I think Ralph Peters has it correct in his paper "When Devils Walked the Earth."

I like to think the US is using both finesse and brute strength in Afghanistan. We're smart enough to play the political/PR game when the Taliban deliberately kills civilians (or when we unfortunately and inadvertently kill civilians but step up and apologize) and strong enough to beat the shit out of them when we can get them cornered.
 
#59
Re: Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RedRyder</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Question: What was one method used by the Romans to subjugate, or attempt to subjugate the people in the territories they conquered?

Answer: By marrying and intermixing with the women of those territories and by investing themselves in the culture.

BOLTRIPPER since you're 5 times the man any of the rest of us are - your WOMEN are waiting for you.
grin.gif
Sorry I can't help but there ain't no redheads over there.
</div></div>

That's pretty much what I was driving at. The math of future generations is blood-based. Seeing as our women won't have their men and their ideals, and we rather like our women too, that leaves one option, mass layoffs. We would simply inform their males that their services are no longer needed, direct them to the nearest "exit", and then shave and drop ship the women to the highest bidders.

There are only a few possible endings:
Pave them with glass
Dismantle the culture by force, err intermingle
Stay and eat shit
Leave and eat shit again later

There won't be any nice-nice ending because it essentially is a blood feud. If you must lose none of your own, start paving. Otherwise, dismantle the culture entirely. The termination of lineage and beliefs is a powerful tool to observers.

Training a pig to violate men would also offer a suitable public punishment to any men we recover alive in the interim. If stoning and beating women to death is OK, surely a porking from a porker is too, right? Swath him in sow-in-heat juice and tie him on all fours.
 
#60
Re: Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan

What we're saying is...we need to co-opt their asses. Seduce them with our culture.

But from what I've read, those bas-terds (that's French for bastards) would just as soon do another guy as they would do their wife. So to threaten their men with mass layoffs wouldn't work too well.

While the co-opting theory sounds good, I don't know if it'll work. Consider the Chinese. They've been exposed to US culture for many years now. Indeed, they are becoming westernized. But the Chinese government still has a stranglehold on the citizenry. Their political indoctrination techniques can be equated to the religious indoctrination techniques of the Taliban.

You write "The termination of lineage and beliefs is a powerful tool to observers." Yes, but didn't the Russians already try to "re-educate" Afghans and to no avail?

Perhaps though, co-opting is the best way to defeat an enemy. But to take that course of action, Americans will have to realize and accept the fact that the battle will go on for many many many years.
 
#61
Re: Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: smithc6</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eleaf</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Just ask the British how new age that math is. A bunch of American country bumpkins beat the most advanced fighting force of its time because they were protecting their homes. Or the Vietnamese, a bunch of jungle dwellers in rice patties who beat back the full force of the US military - and the French immediately before that - (which included campaigns far more "dedicated" and forceful than our current one in Afghanistan - carpet bombing anyone?). Or the Soviets, who were thwarted by these same Afghans not 20 full years ago. Or . . .

Perhaps if we had carte blanche to simply destroy everything and everyone in the region, as Genghis Khan did, we might have a chance. Thankfully, we have better sense than that.

And, as I have asked numerous times, would it be so "New Age" if it were you protecting your home from an invading force? Or would you fight and fight and fight until said invader had gone? I'm not sure whether you overestimate the power of the US military to win wars regardless of the circumstances in front of them (one cannot mistake military might with the capacity to win wars), or whether you underestimate the power of a people protecting their homeland from foreign invaders (again), but the idea that what we're doing is fruitless needs to be entertained as a reality, and not just a philosophical exercise.

I mean no disrespect to our forces and their abilities to win battles, but we cannot win this war. It's not going to happen. We can send in troops until the cows come home, and they will continue to play the waiting game, the pesky attack-then-immediately-retreat-in-to-the-woodwork-and-cracks-of-caves-in-the-vast-mountains-of-their-homeland" game, and we're left standing with our big dick in our hand. </div></div>

Again well written and makes one think, but how can you say these people are ONLY protecting their home and dont have a hatred for our way of life? If that was the case then continued attempts to hit us on our own soil wouldnt happen. It might not be immediattely after we pull out, but I gaurentee that when this war disolves and if the "enemy" hasnt been vanquished, they will attempt to hit us again. If theyre only "protecting" their homes and land, then why once we have left would they attack us? </div></div>

Your average guy over there, Josef the shit digger, is not trying to come to our soil and kill us; he's trying to protect his home and his way of life without interference from yet another foreign invader. the guys you're talking about are the fanatics. Not all of Afghanistan is filled with religious fanatics hell bent on destroying America. The idea that everyone fighting us is because they "hate our way of life" is utterly ridiculous. You can't simply go somewhere else with the might of your military and then blame everyone on the ground for hating you.

I'm not denying that there are people who <span style="font-style: italic">are</span> trying to kill us. That's not the point, only that your average Joe in the valleys of Afghanistan has never seen the valley on the other side of the mountain that he grew up on. They are just regular people. Regular people who have had the 2 largest military powers of all time invade their country, if you can call Afghanistan a country, in just 1 full generation. I'd be pretty pissed off too.
 
#62
Re: Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BugSniper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RedRyder</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Question: What was one method used by the Romans to subjugate, or attempt to subjugate the people in the territories they conquered?

Answer: By marrying and intermixing with the women of those territories and by investing themselves in the culture.

BOLTRIPPER since you're 5 times the man any of the rest of us are - your WOMEN are waiting for you.
grin.gif
Sorry I can't help but there ain't no redheads over there.
</div></div>

That's pretty much what I was driving at. The math of future generations is blood-based. Seeing as our women won't have their men and their ideals, and we rather like our women too, that leaves one option, mass layoffs. We would simply inform their males that their services are no longer needed, direct them to the nearest "exit", and then shave and drop ship the women to the highest bidders.

There are only a few possible endings:
Pave them with glass
Dismantle the culture by force, err intermingle
Stay and eat shit
Leave and eat shit again later

There won't be any nice-nice ending because it essentially is a blood feud. If you must lose none of your own, start paving. Otherwise, dismantle the culture entirely. The termination of lineage and beliefs is a powerful tool to observers.

Training a pig to violate men would also offer a suitable public punishment to any men we recover alive in the interim. If stoning and beating women to death is OK, surely a porking from a porker is too, right? Swath him in sow-in-heat juice and tie him on all fours.

</div></div>

One could argue that it is this attitude, that we are simply better than they are culturally, is <span style="font-style: italic">exactly</span> the reason the fanatics hate us.
 
#63
Re: Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RedRyder</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

(or when we unfortunately and inadvertently kill civilians but step up and apologize)</div></div>

And people wonder why we're hated. Apologizing for dead civilians just somehow isn't enough. Would you forgive a foreign invader, and hate them any less, if they said "Sorry about he casualties. We didn't mean to kill x number of your innocent women and children"?
 
#64
Re: Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan

Simple plan to fix this mess. Get all of the troops and supplies out, leave a couple of bombers loaded with nukes and drop them on the way home and end all this bullshit.
 
#65
Re: Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: shooter65</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Simple plan to fix this mess. Get all of the troops and supplies out, leave a couple of bombers loaded with nukes and drop them on the way home and end all this bullshit. </div></div>

That's definitely the answer.

And people wonder why others sometimes hate Americans. Some of us think the answer is nuclear attack.
 
#67
Re: Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eleaf</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
And people wonder why others sometimes hate Americans. Some of us think the answer is nuclear attack.</div></div>

Hey dipshit.

If you're so damned smart about this whole subject, why don't you just sign up and show them how it's done instead of spreading your simple left wing cliche'd garbage on this site? Or better yet, why didn't you in the past? Oh, I'll bet I know, you're one of those that simply thought they were too good or too smart to serve. Or too chicken, would be more like it.
 
#70
Re: Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan

Just think about how at one time someone had a cute little baby boy born and it grew up to be Hitler, Stalin, Hussein, Lenin, Pol Pot , Milosevic,Binny Boy Laden, and the list goes on and on.

People and followers of these people need to be eliminated....



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eleaf</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RedRyder</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

(or when we unfortunately and inadvertently kill civilians but step up and apologize)</div></div>

And people wonder why we're hated. Apologizing for dead civilians just somehow isn't enough. Would you forgive a foreign invader, and hate them any less, if they said "Sorry about he casualties. We didn't mean to kill x number of your innocent women and children"? </div></div>
 
#72
Re: Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: vwhugger</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eleaf</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
And people wonder why others sometimes hate Americans. Some of us think the answer is nuclear attack.</div></div>

Hey dipshit.

If you're so damned smart about this whole subject, why don't you just sign up and show them how it's done instead of spreading your simple left wing cliche'd garbage on this site? Or better yet, why didn't you in the past? Oh, I'll bet I know, you're one of those that simply thought they were too good or too smart to serve. Or too chicken, would be more like it. </div></div>

Hold on a second. I argue that nuclear attack is not the way, and <span style="font-style: italic">I'm</span> talking cliched garbage. The whole "let's just nuke the fuckers" argument is the cliche.

And I fail to see how not advocating nuclear war is somehow "left wing." If you mean that because I dare to suggest that not every Afghan is a terrorist, or that those protecting their homes from a foreign invader won't be stopped from doing so no matter what we do, I hope you remember your own views in the event we have to protect our homes from an invader. That fighting with everything you have for as long as it takes to remove the enemy is just left wing garbage. That way I won't have to see you while I fight.

And let's get this straight, not that it's any of your concern or business. I did want to serve, but couldn't because of my health. Not all of us are blessed with bodies which are best suited to military work. So fuck off.
 
#73
Re: Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan

Shoot, IF a man could find some Islamic Afghan girls to propagate the Islam out and the American in that could be very interesting. HAving seen many Afghan women who refused to wear head scarves or burkhas, well, the term 'hottie' was not enough. Since I am happily married that is one block that will forever remain unchecked.

Old war fighting? Shoot the men, rape the women, adn kill the boys so no one would come after in the next generation. We truly have gotten soft as a species because ruthless behavior is SO politically incorrect
grin.gif
 
#75
Re: Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Switchblade</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We truly have gotten soft as a species because ruthless behavior is SO politically incorrect
grin.gif
</div></div>

If you're being facetious, that is pretty funny.

If not, I would bet that most sane people would argue that the mass murder of innocent people is a bit more serious than not "PC." Or is Hitler bad only because he wasn't PC? Or Saddam Hussein for that matter, who we're so keen to remind everyone at every juncture possible that he killed the Kurds en masse?

Not PC is calling a retard a retard. Killing tens of thousands of innocent people, for whatever reason, is mass murder, and if we do that, the men responsible should suffer the harshest of penalties.
 
#76
Re: Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan

One would call that establishing peace. This middle east BS needs to end once and for all.

How about all the US SOldiers who have lost their lives over the years.Is that mass murder?
 
#77
Re: Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: shooter65</div><div class="ubbcode-body">One would call that establishing peace. This mideel east BS needs to end once and for all.</div></div>

A "Sauron" sort of peace perhaps, but if we can justify complete destruction of an entire region of the world, someone else can just as easily justify complete destruction of us. I thought we were trying to combat that kind of thinking. To show ourselves as a better people, one which doesn't resort to killing innocent people.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How about all the US SOldiers who have lost their lives over the years.Is that mass murder? </div></div>

No.

Remember who went where.

Mass murder is the WTC and such. Those killed should be the enemy, not women and children who happen to live in the same part of the world as those wackjob fuckers. If we can truly justify killing innocent people, we truly are no better than the terrorist fucks we do want to destroy

Why is it that killing innocent people en masse is not a good thing needs to somehow be explained?
 
#78
Re: Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eleaf</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why is it that killing innocent people en masse is not a good thing needs to somehow be explained? </div></div>

Dunno. Ask the fuckers who flew into buildings on 9/11, and the men who paid their expenses, and UBL who masterminded the whole thing. By carrying their jihad to our shores, they upped the stakes considerably, thus we are now in their country killing them.

"If it must be war, let it be war to the knife, and the knife to the hilt." Forget who said that. I've said this before, and I'll probably say it again: We've got the finest fighting forces in the world. Unshackle them from politicians and let them destroy our enemy. Never forget, never forgive, and erase Islam from this earth. Burn their villages, plow salt into their fields, and kill anyone who resists.
We could do it, had we the will. As for the morality, as pointed out above they are not signatories to the Geneva or Hague agreements. The only way to victory in a holy war is utter destruction of the enemy. I'm surprised by people who don't understand this.
Muslims are commanded by the Quran to bring the sword to unbelievers. We can submit and become dhimmi, second-class citizens with few rights; we can submit and convert to Islam, or we can fight to the death. We are dealing with a religious worldview of eventual total domination through conversion, fire, and death. We MUST recognize this and take whatever actions are neccessary to counter it.

I used to think that major sociopolitical changes were coming soon, but probably after my lifetime. I now realize that I am living in the last years of an increasingly weak willed and self destructive country, and had I children I would fear for their future.


1911fan
 
#80
Re: Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan

"It's lack of pu$$y that f***s countries up. Lack of pussy is the root f***ing cause of all global instability. If more hajjis were getting quality pussy, there'd be no reason for us to come over here and f*** them up like this. 'cause a nut-busted hajji is a happy hajji."

I'm enjoying the debates. I believe that Shark0311 found the link, I haven't seen any other round proposed.
 
#81
Re: Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan

So, as a Kentucky boy, I need to agree that killing innocents is something to which we Americans should aspire? That logic makes no fucking sense. I would think that, as an American, you should want us to aspire to try and be better than the rest of the world. To be a beacon. To be a people that others will want to imitate. What you're talking is, plain and simple, fucking nonsense.

I have no issue with no-holds-barred on the enemy, bring to them the full fury of the military, but the vast majority of the people you're talking about are NOT the enemy. Why purposefully confuse all of Islam with the wackjobs responsible for 9/11? Do all Christians agree with the tenets of the KKK, a Christian organization who is interpreted by nearly everyone else as an extremist fringe of American Christianity and all around shitbags? Should all Christians be punished for their beliefs and actions because they share one facet of life?

Why is it any different with Muslims? (News Flash: it isn't).
 
#82
Re: Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1911fan</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eleaf</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why is it that killing innocent people en masse is not a good thing needs to somehow be explained? </div></div>

Dunno. Ask the fuckers who flew into buildings on 9/11, and the men who paid their expenses, and UBL who masterminded the whole thing. </div></div>

So you're saying that we should aspire, as a people, to be absolutely no better than terrorists?

That makes sense.
 
#84
Re: Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan

Apparently you do not need to agree to shit.



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eleaf</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So, as a Kentucky boy, I need to agree that killing innocents is something to which we Americans should aspire? That logic makes no fucking sense. I would think that, as an American, you should want us to aspire to try and be better than the rest of the world. To be a beacon. To be a people that others will want to imitate. What you're talking is, plain and simple, fucking nonsense.

I have no issue with no-holds-barred on the enemy, bring to them the full fury of the military, but the vast majority of the people you're talking about are NOT the enemy. Why purposefully confuse all of Islam with the wackjobs responsible for 9/11? Do all Christians agree with the tenets of the KKK, a Christian organization who is interpreted by nearly everyone else as an extremist fringe of American Christianity and all around shitbags? Should all Christians be punished for their beliefs and actions because they share one facet of life?

Why is it any different with Muslims? (News Flash: it isn't). </div></div>
 
#85
Re: Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: shooter65</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Apparently you do not need to agree to shit.</div></div>

If by "shit" you mean "killing innocent people based off of a fallacy that the extreme right would like for us all to believe (that all 2 billion Muslims worldwide are terrorists hell bent on destroying America), therefore we should completely annihilate that entire part of the world while raping their women and killing their children" you're absolutely correct. I don't need to agree with that kind of bullshit.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eleaf</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So, as a Kentucky boy, I need to agree that killing innocents is something to which we Americans should aspire? That logic makes no fucking sense. I would think that, as an American, you should want us to aspire to try and be better than the rest of the world. To be a beacon. To be a people that others will want to imitate. What you're talking is, plain and simple, fucking nonsense.

I have no issue with no-holds-barred on the enemy, bring to them the full fury of the military, but the vast majority of the people you're talking about are NOT the enemy. Why purposefully confuse all of Islam with the wackjobs responsible for 9/11? Do all Christians agree with the tenets of the KKK, a Christian organization who is interpreted by nearly everyone else as an extremist fringe of American Christianity and all around shitbags? Should all Christians be punished for their beliefs and actions because they share one facet of life?

Why is it any different with Muslims? (News Flash: it isn't). </div></div> [/quote]
 
#87
Re: Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan

eleaf, I don't think you understand what we're up against. My response above ("Ask the fuckers...) was meant to answer your quoted question. And no,we can't all get along. Yes, they all need to die. No, it doesn't make us better. It makes us the winner.

Recommended reading: Guide to Islam

1911fan
 
#89
Re: Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1911fan</div><div class="ubbcode-body">eleaf, I don't think you understand what we're up against. My response above ("Ask the fuckers...) was meant to answer your quoted question. And no,we can't all get along. Yes, they all need to die. No, it doesn't make us better. It makes us the winner.

Recommended reading: Guide to Islam

1911fan </div></div>

So you're suggesting that I take the word of an overtly conservative, anti-muslim activist as to what being a Muslim is?

That makes about as much sense as taking Osama bin Laden's word as to what American life is like.

Clearly we have very different views as to what might make this a better country. If you think nuking any and everyone you deem not worthy is the way so be it. This is America where we are all entitled to our opinions. But I can guarantee you that you are not even close on this one.

If you would actually listen to yourself for just 1/2 a second, you'd realize that you sound no different than Osama bin Laden himself. You're spewing the same hatred that he is, and all of us would be better of without your ilk. Your ideas are no better than his, and that makes both of you pieces of shit.

Since it seems that we cannot agree that the mass murder of an entire part of the world simply because you think "they" deserve it is not a good course of action, we have nothing further to talk about. What you're suggesting, that they are bred to hate us and want us destroyed, sounds awfully familiar to you trying to convince me that that they all deserve to die, and that makes you both one and the same.

Thanks for playing.
 
#90
Re: Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan

Settle down boys and girls.... War happens. Since man was created, we kick thier ass , they kick ours. Evil exist, so does good. While I do agree that we must rise to a higher moral code than our attackers, I can't help but sometimes think that a few well placed nuclear bombs would be easier.....But it isn't. This isn't WW-2. That mentality would not work in this day and age and with this type of fanatisism (Did I spell that right? Ohh well)no matter how much we would like relief from this type of enemy. Facts.....This is all about religion or atleast started with religion. For thousands of years christians and muslims have fought themselves as well as each other...It will continue to happen until the trumpet blows. Get used to it, pick your sides.......Grab a beer, watch the fireworks, get a front row seat if you would like....Hahahahaha...Have a nice day either way
..................SmokeRolls
 
#91
Re: Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan

To me it seems that the only way to make the muslim radical pause and reconsider his cause... would be to make the price of battle with US higher than he is willing to pay.....kind of hard when he is ready, willing, able, and prepared to die for his cause. Japan only surrendered in the face of nuclear anihaliation of their race. Seriously what do you think it will take for these people......If they want to die for Allah, by all means lets not stand in their way send them to the boardroom. If not, in the words of the late Richard Pryor.."tell them to have a Coke, a smile, and shut the fuck up!"

Just my .02
 
#92
Re: Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan

eleaf, I never even brought up nuking. And thanks for the 'piece of shit' comment, you piece of shit.
There, now we're even.

Muslims are commanded by the Quran to convert or kill the unbeliever. That's pretty one-way. The current jihad against western civilisation is designed to bring about the Third Caliphate. A little more research on the subject might be illuminating for you.
"If somebody is trying to kill you, and you have a gun, it would be reasonable to shoot them." The Dalai Lama, years ago. He's about as peaceful as they get. Radical Muslims (the subject of our discussion) are bent on killing us. Preventive action seems approriate.
Out of curiousity, you seem to be quite pro-Muslim. Are you one?

1911fan

PS: I'm going to bed, we can resume name-calling in the morning.
 
#93
Re: Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan

What do you think this world would be like if the United States did not do what they did in WW1 and WW2?

Would you and I be here now?




<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eleaf</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1911fan</div><div class="ubbcode-body">eleaf, I don't think you understand what we're up against. My response above ("Ask the fuckers...) was meant to answer your quoted question. And no,we can't all get along. Yes, they all need to die. No, it doesn't make us better. It makes us the winner.

Recommended reading: Guide to Islam

1911fan </div></div>

So you're suggesting that I take the word of an overtly conservative, anti-muslim activist as to what being a Muslim is?

That makes about as much sense as taking Osama bin Laden's word as to what American life is like.

Clearly we have very different views as to what might make this a better country. If you think nuking any and everyone you deem not worthy is the way so be it. This is America where we are all entitled to our opinions. But I can guarantee you that you are not even close on this one.

If you would actually listen to yourself for just 1/2 a second, you'd realize that you sound no different than Osama bin Laden himself. You're spewing the same hatred that he is, and all of us would be better of without your ilk. Your ideas are no better than his, and that makes both of you pieces of shit.

Since it seems that we cannot agree that the mass murder of an entire part of the world simply because you think "they" deserve it is not a good course of action, we have nothing further to talk about. What you're suggesting, that they are bred to hate us and want us destroyed, sounds awfully familiar to you trying to convince me that that they all deserve to die, and that makes you both one and the same.

Thanks for playing. </div></div>
 
#94
Re: Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eleaf</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If by "shit" you mean "killing innocent people based off of a fallacy that the extreme right would like for us all to believe (that all 2 billion Muslims worldwide are terrorists hell bent on destroying America), therefore we should completely annihilate that entire part of the world while raping their women and killing their children" you're absolutely correct. I don't need to agree with that kind of bullshit.</div></div>

Well, the 1.+ billion Muslims that aren't actively trying to kill us are supporting the ones that are. Where do you think the terrorists get their money? Hint: Muslims tithe. When "Alms for Jihad" was published a couple years ago, detailing how the Muslim community actively funds terrorism through tithing, the Saudi royal family pressured our federal government into suppressing it. Bet you've never even heard of it. All unsold copies were yanked off bookstore shelves and destroyed, though it still shows up online and usually goes for $200.
Where is the outrage from the non-terrorist Muslim community over 9/11 and the earlier WTC bombing and other ongoing terrorist attacks? It's not there because <span style="font-weight: bold">they are actively funding them. </span>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eleaf</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have no issue with no-holds-barred on the enemy, bring to them the full fury of the military, but the vast majority of the people you're talking about are NOT the enemy. Why purposefully confuse all of Islam with the wackjobs responsible for 9/11? Do all Christians agree with the tenets of the KKK, a Christian organization who is interpreted by nearly everyone else as an extremist fringe of American Christianity and all around shitbags? Should all Christians be punished for their beliefs and actions because they share one facet of life?</div></div>

It's amusing to watch you undermine your own argument. (Oh, and as I explained above, the vast majority of Muslims ARE our enemies.) Most Christians agree that the KKK is an extremist fringe and do not actively support or fund them. Perhaps you should try another example? Muslims who die in battle are regarded as martyrs and revered, by all Muslims. Show me an American Christian who reveres any facet of the KKK and is not a member.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eleaf</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why is it any different with Muslims? (News Flash: it isn't).</div></div>

Asked and answered. It is.



1911fan
 
#96
Re: Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan

That about sums it up. Well done.



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1911fan</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eleaf</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If by "shit" you mean "killing innocent people based off of a fallacy that the extreme right would like for us all to believe (that all 2 billion Muslims worldwide are terrorists hell bent on destroying America), therefore we should completely annihilate that entire part of the world while raping their women and killing their children" you're absolutely correct. I don't need to agree with that kind of bullshit.</div></div>

Well, the 1.+ billion Muslims that aren't actively trying to kill us are supporting the ones that are. Where do you think the terrorists get their money? Hint: Muslims tithe. When "Alms for Jihad" was published a couple years ago, detailing how the Muslim community actively funds terrorism through tithing, the Saudi royal family pressured our federal government into suppressing it. Bet you've never even heard of it. All unsold copies were yanked off bookstore shelves and destroyed, though it still shows up online and usually goes for $200.
Where is the outrage from the non-terrorist Muslim community over 9/11 and the earlier WTC bombing and other ongoing terrorist attacks? It's not there because <span style="font-weight: bold">they are actively funding them. </span>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eleaf</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have no issue with no-holds-barred on the enemy, bring to them the full fury of the military, but the vast majority of the people you're talking about are NOT the enemy. Why purposefully confuse all of Islam with the wackjobs responsible for 9/11? Do all Christians agree with the tenets of the KKK, a Christian organization who is interpreted by nearly everyone else as an extremist fringe of American Christianity and all around shitbags? Should all Christians be punished for their beliefs and actions because they share one facet of life?</div></div>

It's amusing to watch you undermine your own argument. (Oh, and as I explained above, the vast majority of Muslims ARE our enemies.) Most Christians agree that the KKK is an extremist fringe and do not actively support or fund them. Perhaps you should try another example? Muslims who die in battle are regarded as martyrs and revered, by all Muslims. Show me an American Christian who reveres any facet of the KKK and is not a member.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eleaf</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why is it any different with Muslims? (News Flash: it isn't).</div></div>

Asked and answered. It is.



1911fan </div></div>
 
#97
Re: Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan

<span style="text-decoration: underline">All of this is moot anyway; they are going to out breed us.</span>

Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult. In its fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life.

Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components. The religious component is a beard for all of the other components.

Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious privileges.

When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious privileges, some of the other components tend to creep in as well.

Here's how it works:

As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:

United States -- Muslim 0.6%
Australia -- Muslim 1.5%
Canada -- Muslim 1.9%
China -- Muslim 1.8%
Italy -- Muslim 1.5%
Norway -- Muslim 1.8%

At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs. This is happening in:

Denmark -- Muslim 2%
Germany -- Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom -- Muslim 2.7%
Spain -- Muslim 4%
Thailand -- Muslim 4.6%

From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in:

France -- Muslim 8%
Philippines -- 5%
Sweden -- Muslim 5%
Switzerland -- Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands -- Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago -- Muslim 5.8%

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris, we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam, with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections in:
Guyana -- Muslim 10%
India -- Muslim 13.4%
Israel -- Muslim 16%
Kenya -- Muslim 10%
Russia -- Muslim 15%

After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in:

Ethiopia -- Muslim 32.8%

At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in:

Bosnia -- Muslim 40%
Chad -- Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon -- Muslim 59.7%

From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:

Albania -- Muslim 70%
Malaysia -- Muslim 60.4%
Qatar -- Muslim 77..5%
Sudan -- Muslim 70%

After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in:

Bangladesh -- Muslim 83%
Egypt -- Muslim 90%
Gaza -- Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia -- Muslim 86.1%
Iran -- Muslim 98%
Iraq -- Muslim 97%
Jordan -- Muslim 92%
Morocco -- Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan -- Muslim 97%
Palestine -- Muslim 99%
Syria -- Muslim 90%
Tajikistan -- Muslim 90%
Turkey -- Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates -- Muslim 96%

100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam' -- the Islamic House of Peace. Here there's supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrasses are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, such as in:

Afghanistan -- Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia -- Muslim 100%
Somalia -- Muslim 100%
Yemen -- Muslim 100%

Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.

'Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; the tribe against the world, and all of us against the infidel. -- Leon Uris, 'The Haj'

It is important to understand that in some countries, with well under 100% Muslim populations, such as France, the minority Muslim populations live in ghettos, within which they are 100% Muslim, and within which they live by Sharia Law. The national police do not even enter these ghettos. There are no national courts, nor schools, nor non-Muslim religious facilities. In such situations, Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. The children attend madrasses. They learn only the Koran. To even associate with an infidel is a crime punishable with death. Therefore, in some areas of certain nations, Muslim Imams and extremists exercise more power than the national average would indicate.
Today's 1.5 billion Muslims make up 22% of the world's population. But their birth rates dwarf the birth rates of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, and all other believers. Muslims will exceed 50% of the world's population by the end of this century.

Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond's book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat.
Well, boys and girls, today we are letting the fox guard the henhouse. The wolves will be herding the sheep!
Obama appoints two devout Muslims to Homeland Security posts. Doesn't this make you feel safer already?
Obama and Janet Napolitano appoint Arif Alikhan, a devout Muslim, as Assistant Secretary for Policy Development.
DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano swore in Kareem Shora, a devout Muslim who was born in Damascus, Syria, as ADC National Executive Director as a member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC).
NOTE: Has anyone ever heard a new government official being identified as a devout Catholic, a devout Jew or a devout Protestant...? Just wondering.
Devout Muslims being appointed to critical Homeland Security positions? Doesn't this make you feel safer already??

Was it not "Devout Muslim men" who flew planes into U.S. buildings 8 years ago?
Was it not a Devout Muslim who killed 13 at Fort Hood?
 
#100
Re: Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1911fan</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Out of curiousity, you seem to be quite pro-Muslim. Are you one?</div></div>

Well? You're certainly quite the apologist, if you're not one of them .



1911fan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

wvfarrier
Departing Afghanistan
Replies
1
Views
546
UKDslayer
U
D
White Hat Mentality
Replies
0
Views
332
DocRDS
D
Rpatton73
Accessories **UPDATED ACCESSORIES FOR SALE 04/24/2025** MAGAZINES, UPPERS, BARRELS, BOLT CARRIERS, TRIGGERS, GRIPS, STOCKS, BI/MONOPODS, HAND GUARDS AND MORE
Replies
3
Views
464
Bcorley50
Bcorley50
Rpatton73
Accessories **UPDATED ACCESSORIES FOR SALE 04/06/2025** MAGAZINES, UPPERS, BARRELS, BOLT CARRIERS, TRIGGERS, GRIPS, STOCKS, BI/MONOPODS, HAND GUARDS AND MORE!
Replies
4
Views
465
iMetalocalypse
iMetalocalypse
Rpatton73
Accessories **UPDATED ACCESSORIES FOR SALE 04/021/2025** MAGAZINES, UPPERS, BARRELS, BOLT CARRIERS, TRIGGERS, GRIPS, STOCKS, BI/MONOPODS, HAND GUARDS AND MORE
Replies
8
Views
460
Rpatton73
Rpatton73
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts