Fop 1 Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 Look, I think it's you that is having an issue with the concept of reality versus movies. First of all we're not talking about ,the Robert Ludlum Cold War version of "covert", we're talking about a ranged observation of potential targets in hostile territory. Not an impossibilty, but there is no desire for that type of engagement. How do you do it then? Given all the things already mentioned, how exactly do you do that in this area? If it is so possible then just explain how it is done here and now, easy enough? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 Look, I think it's you that is having an issue with the concept of reality versus movies. First of all we're not talking about ,the Robert Ludlum Cold War version of "covert", we're talking about a ranged observation of potential targets in hostile territory. Not an impossibilty, but there is no desire for that type of engagement. How do you do it then? Given all the things already mentioned, how exactly do you do that in this area? If it is so possible then just explain how it is done here and now, easy enough? Well for sure missile strikes against with high number of civilian deaths ain't the way, unless you want to send a message. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 Look, I think it's you that is having an issue with the concept of reality versus movies. First of all we're not talking about ,the Robert Ludlum Cold War version of "covert", we're talking about a ranged observation of potential targets in hostile territory. Not an impossibilty, but there is no desire for that type of engagement. How do you do it then? Given all the things already mentioned, how exactly do you do that in this area? If it is so possible then just explain how it is done here and now, easy enough? Well for sure missile strikes against with high number of civilian deaths ain't the way, unless you want to send a message. They (drone strikes) certainly aren't the only option regarding what to do with Taliban leaders (as Happy Face says they can just be left alone to get on with organising the resistance in Afghanistan, that is an option), but they are about the only viable way to take them out (if that is the choice made) in the current circumstances (as we're still waiting for Tooner's explanation of "another way"). But then that is the crux of the matter (if you ignore Chris's hypocrisy) you're basically left with bad choice 1 or bad choice 2. In the end all war is is at best legalised murder and at worst legalised genocide, there is no such thing as a "good" or "right" war..... just war. (they certainly aren't nice people though, read that article the fella in question made a 12 year old boy behead [in the loosest terms, more like slowly hack the living head off with a knife] someone on video.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holden McGroin 5047 Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 There is actually no point in even having a discussion with Fop as he never answers any questions. I half think he is a WUM. The other half thinks he isn't intelligent enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tooner 243 Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 (edited) Look, I think it's you that is having an issue with the concept of reality versus movies. First of all we're not talking about ,the Robert Ludlum Cold War version of "covert", we're talking about a ranged observation of potential targets in hostile territory. Not an impossibilty, but there is no desire for that type of engagement. How do you do it then? Given all the things already mentioned, how exactly do you do that in this area? If it is so possible then just explain how it is done here and now, easy enough? Well for sure missile strikes against with high number of civilian deaths ain't the way, unless you want to send a message. They (drone strikes) certainly aren't the only option regarding what to do with Taliban leaders (as Happy Face says they can just be left alone to get on with organising the resistance in Afghanistan, that is an option), but they are about the only viable way to take them out (if that is the choice made) in the current circumstances (as we're still waiting for Tooner's explanation of "another way"). But then that is the crux of the matter (if you ignore Chris's hypocrisy) you're basically left with bad choice 1 or bad choice 2. In the end all war is is at best legalised murder and at worst legalised genocide, there is no such thing as a "good" or "right" war..... just war. (they certainly aren't nice people though, read that article the fella in question made a 12 year old boy behead [in the loosest terms, more like slowly hack the living head off with a knife] someone on video.) Oh, I see you want diagrams and flow charts, I'll get to work immediately.......FFS So am I to believe in the entire modern history of warfare, (and keep in mind I am not in the military, and I'm guessing, niether are you Fop), no one has ever carried out a remote reconaissance of enemy troops/troop movement/targets of interest in hostile territory? Give me a break Fop, you are arguing for the sake of arguing now, but i guess this will fall on deaf ears if I don't come up with actual battle plan for "How to Track a Taliban 101". Edited June 29, 2009 by tooner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cid_MCDP 0 Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 Are you really now trying to say that all anyone should be doing to the Taliban is watch it? And do nothing else? When they're on the steps of parliment with the nuke codes in their back pocket, they can be bombed. So like Fop said a completely ridiculous position is the best you can come up with. (it's no wonder you ran away from this thread ) Holy Fuck you're a boring CU#T!!!!! stop talking about yourself in the third person and dragging this thread on any further. The fact is that if the governments currently carrying out "military operations" in Afghanistan wanted to they could play the covert game and take out which ever target they wanted with little or no colateral damage. However since it's the U.S. (no offence to any yanks reading this) they've read (and probably authored a few chapters) the Al-Qaeda hand-book and are trying to wreak the same sort of terror on the general populous as those they are fighting. Just so I am CRYSTAL clear as to what my position is, I think that the military should be performing operations similar to what Fish mentioned, let the enemy go about their biz as normal and then take them out as opportunity warrents, note the difference Fop between surgical strikes using a .50 cal sniper rifle and "surgical strikes" using a 1000 lb. bomb. Not offended at all, but to be fair, we didn't steal their playbook, they stole ours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 (edited) Look, I think it's you that is having an issue with the concept of reality versus movies. First of all we're not talking about ,the Robert Ludlum Cold War version of "covert", we're talking about a ranged observation of potential targets in hostile territory. Not an impossibilty, but there is no desire for that type of engagement. How do you do it then? Given all the things already mentioned, how exactly do you do that in this area? If it is so possible then just explain how it is done here and now, easy enough? Well for sure missile strikes against with high number of civilian deaths ain't the way, unless you want to send a message. They (drone strikes) certainly aren't the only option regarding what to do with Taliban leaders (as Happy Face says they can just be left alone to get on with organising the resistance in Afghanistan, that is an option), but they are about the only viable way to take them out (if that is the choice made) in the current circumstances (as we're still waiting for Tooner's explanation of "another way"). But then that is the crux of the matter (if you ignore Chris's hypocrisy) you're basically left with bad choice 1 or bad choice 2. In the end all war is is at best legalised murder and at worst legalised genocide, there is no such thing as a "good" or "right" war..... just war. (they certainly aren't nice people though, read that article the fella in question made a 12 year old boy behead [in the loosest terms, more like slowly hack the living head off with a knife] someone on video.) Oh, I see you want diagrams and flow charts, I'll get to work immediately.......FFS Nope, no diagrams and flow charts, just a simple explanation of HOW. Easy enough so hurry up with it. So am I to believe in the entire modern history of warfare, (and keep in mind I am not in the military, and I'm guessing, niether are you Fop), no one has ever carried out a remote reconaissance of enemy troops/troop movement/targets of interest in hostile territory? Give me a break Fop, you are arguing for the sake of arguing now, but i guess this will fall on deaf ears if I don't come up with actual battle plan for "How to Track a Taliban 101". You're not talking about that though (tracking conventional troops in a conventional war), you are talking about the long term constant tracking of a few people (not battalions) that are essentially civilians (not uniformed soldiers) in home territory, that just happens to be about the most difficult and isolated territory on earth, and where anyone you put on the ground will stick out like one of your attempted strawmen. Even in Iraq, in cities, and with 300,000 troops there the USA couldn't track of stop people with similar methods and agendas, and it was much, much easier to do so there (it also completely foxed the USA in Vietnam, Somalia and of course Iraq, as well as the USSR in Afghanistan itself). So again HOW can it be done? Apparently it is easy enough (you say) so then just explain? We're all eagerly waiting. Edited June 30, 2009 by Fop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 9193 Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 Look, I think it's you that is having an issue with the concept of reality versus movies. First of all we're not talking about ,the Robert Ludlum Cold War version of "covert", we're talking about a ranged observation of potential targets in hostile territory. Not an impossibilty, but there is no desire for that type of engagement. How do you do it then? Given all the things already mentioned, how exactly do you do that in this area? If it is so possible then just explain how it is done here and now, easy enough? Well for sure missile strikes against with high number of civilian deaths ain't the way, unless you want to send a message. They (drone strikes) certainly aren't the only option regarding what to do with Taliban leaders (as Happy Face says they can just be left alone to get on with organising the resistance in Afghanistan, that is an option), but they are about the only viable way to take them out (if that is the choice made) in the current circumstances (as we're still waiting for Tooner's explanation of "another way"). But then that is the crux of the matter (if you ignore Chris's hypocrisy) you're basically left with bad choice 1 or bad choice 2. In the end all war is is at best legalised murder and at worst legalised genocide, there is no such thing as a "good" or "right" war..... just war. (they certainly aren't nice people though, read that article the fella in question made a 12 year old boy behead [in the loosest terms, more like slowly hack the living head off with a knife] someone on video.) Oh, I see you want diagrams and flow charts, I'll get to work immediately.......FFS Nope, no diagrams and flow charts, just a simple explanation of HOW. Easy enough so hurry up with it. So am I to believe in the entire modern history of warfare, (and keep in mind I am not in the military, and I'm guessing, niether are you Fop), no one has ever carried out a remote reconaissance of enemy troops/troop movement/targets of interest in hostile territory? Give me a break Fop, you are arguing for the sake of arguing now, but i guess this will fall on deaf ears if I don't come up with actual battle plan for "How to Track a Taliban 101". You're not talking about that though (tracking conventional troops in a conventional war), you are talking about the long term constant tracking of a few people (not battalions) that are essentially civilians (not uniformed soldiers) in home territory, that just happens to be about the most difficult and isolated territory on earth, and where anyone you put on the ground will stick out like one of your attempted strawmen. Even in Iraq, in cities, and with 300,000 troops there the USA couldn't track of stop people with similar methods and agendas, and it was much, much easier to do so there (it also completely foxed the USA in Vietnam, Somalia and of course Iraq, as well as the USSR in Afghanistan itself). So again HOW can it be done? Apparently it is easy enough (you say) so then just explain? We're all eagerly waiting. Put a radio tag on his ear. It works with foxes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 Look, I think it's you that is having an issue with the concept of reality versus movies. First of all we're not talking about ,the Robert Ludlum Cold War version of "covert", we're talking about a ranged observation of potential targets in hostile territory. Not an impossibilty, but there is no desire for that type of engagement. How do you do it then? Given all the things already mentioned, how exactly do you do that in this area? If it is so possible then just explain how it is done here and now, easy enough? Well for sure missile strikes against with high number of civilian deaths ain't the way, unless you want to send a message. They (drone strikes) certainly aren't the only option regarding what to do with Taliban leaders (as Happy Face says they can just be left alone to get on with organising the resistance in Afghanistan, that is an option), but they are about the only viable way to take them out (if that is the choice made) in the current circumstances (as we're still waiting for Tooner's explanation of "another way"). But then that is the crux of the matter (if you ignore Chris's hypocrisy) you're basically left with bad choice 1 or bad choice 2. In the end all war is is at best legalised murder and at worst legalised genocide, there is no such thing as a "good" or "right" war..... just war. (they certainly aren't nice people though, read that article the fella in question made a 12 year old boy behead [in the loosest terms, more like slowly hack the living head off with a knife] someone on video.) Oh, I see you want diagrams and flow charts, I'll get to work immediately.......FFS Nope, no diagrams and flow charts, just a simple explanation of HOW. Easy enough so hurry up with it. So am I to believe in the entire modern history of warfare, (and keep in mind I am not in the military, and I'm guessing, niether are you Fop), no one has ever carried out a remote reconaissance of enemy troops/troop movement/targets of interest in hostile territory? Give me a break Fop, you are arguing for the sake of arguing now, but i guess this will fall on deaf ears if I don't come up with actual battle plan for "How to Track a Taliban 101". You're not talking about that though (tracking conventional troops in a conventional war), you are talking about the long term constant tracking of a few people (not battalions) that are essentially civilians (not uniformed soldiers) in home territory, that just happens to be about the most difficult and isolated territory on earth, and where anyone you put on the ground will stick out like one of your attempted strawmen. Even in Iraq, in cities, and with 300,000 troops there the USA couldn't track of stop people with similar methods and agendas, and it was much, much easier to do so there (it also completely foxed the USA in Vietnam, Somalia and of course Iraq, as well as the USSR in Afghanistan itself). So again HOW can it be done? Apparently it is easy enough (you say) so then just explain? We're all eagerly waiting. Put a radio tag on his ear. It works with foxes Perhaps that is Tooner's seemingly elusive cunning plan to track the Taliban? "it's the last thing they'd expect" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tooner 243 Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 Sorry Fop, your line broke.......I'm not wasting anymore of my time replying to your posts You're the King of the interweb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 Sorry Fop, your line broke.......I'm not wasting anymore of my time replying to your posts You're the King of the interweb. It's ok Fop (and everyone else) knows there is no realistic " ", it's just somewhat amusing that you absolutely won't admit it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 Still droning on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 Still droning on? One of the big advantages, can go one for days without refuelling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holden McGroin 5047 Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 Still droning on? One of the big advantages, can go one for days without refuelling. Or 11,204 posts to be precise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 Still droning on? One of the big advantages, can go one for days without refuelling. Or 11,204 posts to be precise. 11,205. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8129789.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 9193 Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 Go Team! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 Got 2 inv for 4th of July BBQ's. I really wonder if these people know me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted July 2, 2009 Author Share Posted July 2, 2009 Got 2 inv for 4th of July BBQ's. I really wonder if these people know me. Go fancy dressed as Kovic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 9193 Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 Hah, you just reminded me that my Barbecue is on the 4th of July... Maybe I should drape the back yard in Americana? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 Got 2 inv for 4th of July BBQ's. I really wonder if these people know me. Go fancy dressed as Kovic. It's one of those events where I have to behave which means not having the 'tipping point' 5th pint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted July 2, 2009 Author Share Posted July 2, 2009 A US soldier has been captured by militants in eastern Afghanistan, the US military has said. The soldier is believed to be the first seized in either Iraq or Afghanistan for at least two years. News of the capture came as US and Afghan forces began a major operation against Taliban forces in southern Helmand province. The US military says the aim of the offensive is to provide security ahead of presidential elections this August. Helmand has seen the worst violence anywhere in Afghanistan, and military commanders say they need to break what they call the stalemate in the south of the country, says the BBC's Martin Patience in the Afghan capital, Kabul. The captured soldier was not involved in the operation, codenamed Khanjar, or Strike of the Sword. A hardline Taliban faction called Haqqani said it had the soldier, but this has not been confirmed by the main Taliban spokesman. The army was using all its resources to find the missing serviceman, who was taken on Tuesday, spokeswoman Capt Elizabeth Mathias said. AFP news agency said a commander of Haqqani, named only as Bahram, said the soldier was captured along with three Afghans in the Yousuf Khail district of Paktika province. The commander said the soldier had been taken to "a safe place". Another Haqqani commander, Mullah Sangeen, told Reuters the soldier would be held until Taliban fighters detained by the US were released. The BBC's security correspondent Frank Gardner says the circumstances of this capture are strange and potentially very embarrassing for the Pentagon. The Taliban are claiming he was drunk when they caught him, he says. There is no indication he became separated during a firefight - rather that he wandered off out of his base with the three Afghans, our correspondent adds. 'Massive force' The US military says about 4,000 marines as well as 650 Afghan troops - supported by Nato planes - are involved in the Helmand operation. Marines spokesman Brig Gen Larry Nicholson said the operation was different from previous ones because of the "massive size of the force" and its speed. A Taliban spokesman said the group would resist in various ways and that there would be no permanent US victory. It is the first such large-scale operation since US President Barack Obama authorised the deployment of 21,000 extra US troops to Afghanistan, as part of a new strategy for winning the conflict. Many of those troops are being redeployed from operations in Iraq. The operation began when units moved into the Helmand River valley in the early hours of Thursday. Helicopters and heavy transport vehicles carried out the advance, with Nato planes providing air cover. Our correspondent in Kabul says the idea is that they will move into towns and villages which are under Taliban control. With the fresh US deployments, military commanders say they are confident that they will make "significant" gains this summer, even if, as our correspondent says, a decisive victory is unlikely. UK-led forces in Helmand launched their own operation to combat the Taliban insurgency last week, in what the UK's Ministry of Defence described as one of the largest air operations in modern times. Thousands of British forces under Nato command have been fighting the Taliban in Helmand since 2006, but there has been criticism that they have been overstretched and under-resourced. Two British soldiers were killed in an explosion in Helmand province on Wednesday, the Ministry of Defence said. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8130476.stm D'oh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 It's one of those events where I have to behave which means not having the 'tipping point' 5th pint. The Taliban are claiming he was drunk when they caught him, he says. There is no indication he became separated during a firefight - rather that he wandered off out of his base with the three Afghans, our correspondent adds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 9193 Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 The last thing this big offensive needed was the PR nightmare that is a captured soldier in it's infancy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 The last thing this big offensive needed was the PR nightmare that is a captured soldier in it's infancy. Can't imagine the poor bugger has much chance, even if they claim he's alive for months/years after they've actually beheaded him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now